"Flipping" saves to attacks

[F4NBOY]

... then we're not "equal" opponents, are we?

That does not invalidate my point at all, since my point is that no matter how equal or how different characters are in SAGA, they are gonna crit each other 5% of the time.
You can only say the same for D&D when characters are equal, same attack bonus, same AC, feats, weapon... a situation that rarely occurs in D&D.

Are these changes really adding all that much at the table?

Yes! Tactical choices! Maybe I have more healing potions than you do, so I want to make sure you won't crit 4% of the time, only 3% and the combat is granted.

Yep - apart from higher-level abilities which modify that, or talents which let me reroll attacks, or the fact that I'm using Rapid Shot and adding additional dice to even my normal attacks, etc

Yes, there are abilities like that, as I said. They change the 5%, to 10% or more, but it's still pure luck. And since they are high level abilites and also very exclusive abilites, they don't add to much to the overall tactical aspect of the game.

 

[Zurai]

They are trying to expand beyond the math nerd as their gamer and get the regular folk who lke fantasy but are intimidated by the math that hampers the game now.

No, you're talking about two different things.

Wulf is talking about the math behind the design of the game. You cannot design a game of any real magnitude without doing a lot of math behind the scenes -- stuff like what Wulf was talking about. It simply is not possible in the most literal of meanings.

You, on the other hand, are referring to math in the actual playing of the game. The two topics are only loosely related. Yes, WotC wants to reduce the amount of math that players have to deal with on their end. They still have to deal with graphs and sums on their own end, however.

Fireball with a 1d6 based on an attack roll is just fine and they've already incorporated it in a product. The difference you're lookinat in damage is miniiscule and their target base could care less.

That isn't even what Wulf was saying. He wasn't talking about damaging spells other than Fireball - he was talking about the effectiveness of Fireball vs the effectiveness of Deep Slumber vs the effectiveness of Stinking Cloud. Only one of those spells deals damage, and coincidentally only the spell that deals damage works reasonably well with an "all the mooks save on a single roll" save system.

 

[Ashrem Bayle]

So has this been confirmed? Do we know for a fact that they are using Saga style "Save" Defenses? I saw mention of "AC" by one of the devs, but I figure that could easily have been a slip.

 

[DonTadow]

One concept I really dislike in a D&D context is that of opponents being divided into "mooks" and non-mooks. I much prefer 3.xe's approach of all PCs, NPCs and monsters being built on essentially the same ruleset and being subject to the same rules. I very much hope that 4e does not introduce the concept of 'mooks' as a formal classification with game-mechanical implications.

One option for variable results from single-attack area effects would be to give each such effect an 'epicentre' of half the spell's total area radius. Against creatures within that epicentre, your spell gains, say, a +5 bonus to its attack roll. That would allow for variable spell effects across a group of identical creatures - but on the other hand, applying two area templates whenever you cast an area-effect spell would add more book-keeping back into the game.

As a DM, I'm a realist, and realisticallythere are mooks, and nonmooks. 9 times out of tien your pcs won't give a rat's backside about the cool backstory, interesting skills and cool weapon you gave goblin #4.

Right now the last sunday of the month is very relaxing for me because this is the day I run Mutants and masterminds. What makes it relaxing, not having to worried about a multitude of mook npcs.

Anyone check out Wicked Adventures by Goodman Game. They introduced a mook like rule and my pcs had a ball with it. One hit pretty much took out any mook and the sheer number was what was dangerious

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

So has this been confirmed? Do we know for a fact that they are using Saga style "Save" Defenses? I saw mention of "AC" by one of the devs, but I figure that could easily have been a slip.

There's this:

Before we begin play, another player is giving Rich grief about one of Rich’s character’s abilities that grants the rest of us a blanket +2 to saves; it just ain’t sexy. Rich says something like, “I don’t know, I doubt I’ll use it that much, but who knows, maybe everyone in the party will get entangled.”

Sure enough, not 10 minutes later this fire-crazed flame priest has entangled half the party with fire snakes! Rich throws up his +2 to saves and, voila, at least two of us get free immediately. I guess that power isn’t so corner case after all.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drpr/20070816a

It's difficult to infer much from this snippet about the save mechanics, unfortunately.

My own crazy inference? How about this:

An entangle spell of fire snakes? Could it be the spells will define the mechanics and allow the caster to specify the visual effects fluff?

I do hope that personal saving throws stick around, though. There's just too much fun (dread?) in letting the players roll their own saving throws. I can't imagine it's gone.

I can't imagine a game where I, as the DM, cannot jinx my players with the infamous, "Just don't roll a 1..."

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Yes! Tactical choices! Maybe I have more healing potions than you do, so I want to make sure you won't crit 4% of the time, only 3% and the combat is granted.

A decision between 3% critical hits and 4% critical hits is a valid tactical choice to you?

A difference you will never, ever see at the table?

Honestly, the mind boggles.

Yes, there are abilities like that, as I said. They change the 5%, to 10% or more, but it's still pure luck.

If I'm using my abilities to affect critical hit chances, then how can that possibly be just "pure luck"?

After all, according to you, using a character ability to change from 4% of swings are critical hits to 3% of swings are critical hits is somehow meaningful.

 

[F4NBOY]

A decision between 3% critical hits and 4% critical hits is a valid tactical choice to you?

A difference you will never, ever see at the table?

Honestly, the mind boggles.



If I'm using my abilities to affect critical hit chances, then how can that possibly be just "pure luck"?

After all, according to you, using a character ability to change from 4% of swings are critical hits to 3% of swings are critical hits is somehow meaningful.

LOL. I guess you are completelly right. SAGA and D&D critical hit rules are just the same thing. There is no pratical difference between both mechanics at all.
Those 3E designers... made us roll all those extra confirmation rolls for the past 7 years for absolutely nothing. And I thought it was making the game more tactically interesting and balanced, duh...

Let's go back to AD&D 2nd Edition!

 

[DonTadow]

LOL. I guess you are completelly right. SAGA and D&D critical hit rules are just the same thing. There is no pratical difference between both mechanics at all.
Those 3E designers... made us roll all those extra confirmation rolls for the past 7 years for absolutely nothing. And I thought it was making the game more tactically interesting and balanced, duh...

Let's go back to AD&D 2nd Edition!

Yeah basically. Read The Advanced Game book. ONly 1 out of every 10 times does a critical confirmation roll need to take place in a typical adventure. Most of the time its either a fore gone conclusion that it won't or will make it.

In the end its about damage and the fewer rolls to achieve the most adamage the more we can play instead of get played.

 

[MarkB]

Yeah basically. Read The Advanced Game book. ONly 1 out of every 10 times does a critical confirmation roll need to take place in a typical adventure. Most of the time its either a fore gone conclusion that it won't or will make it.

<Scratches head>

So nine out of ten critical threats are scored against monsters that either can't be hit on lower than a 20 or that can't be missed on higher than a 1? Explain.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Let's go back to AD&D 2nd Edition!

Look, all I'm saying is that there isn't quite the hugenormous gap you seem to think there is between the two systems, and that the extra complexity and time required of additional die rolls (including the possibility to roll a critical and then "lose" it) may not be worth the trade-off in streamlining the system.