Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ilja" data-source="post: 4892454" data-attributes="member: 84300">So, soon our low-magic campaign is going to start up, and we're using the Grim'n'Gritty rules 3.3. It makes combat far deadlier, but also a bit too random. To summarize the system, it does these things (mainly):- Less hit points variations, and less hit points. A first level fighter might have 15 hit points, a fifth level 19 hit points.- Active defense. Instead of attack roll d20+bonus vs. ac of 10+bonus, it's vs. ac of d20+bonus.- Difference adds to damage. If my attack roll is 15 and your defense roll 9, I do 6 extra damage.- Armor as damage reduction.This makes combat far more deadly as even a high level fighter might die of a stab or two, and there's no risk of surviving a dagger in the back when you sleep - even if the stabber is a first level rogue and you're a 10th level fighter. I like this.However, I've added a few simple house rules as well:- Dex determines attack bonus for all attacks, rather than strength for melee. A feat can change this back, like an inverted weapon finesse. This is because it feels more rational to let your chance of hitting be determined by agility and coordination rather than brute strength, for most weapons.- Strength bonus adds double damage to one-handed and thrown weapons, 3 times damage to two-handed weapons, and single damage bonus to off-hand weapons. This is because dexterity would otherwise be the top choice for all fighting characters.- Power attack adds +1 strength bonus per -1 ab (so +2 damage for one-handers). Because otherwise power attack would be useless due to damage bonus.The thing is, the system is a little TOO random, and I'm considering leveling it out a bit by replacing 1d20 as the base dice roll with 2d10 or even 3d6. In that case, I will do it to skill checks and saves as well - because the problem is right there too, with a "very hard check" with DC20 being easily done by a 1-st level commoner, if he can take 20. A DC 15 open locks check can be done in no time by anyone with a single point in the skill. With 2d10 or 3d6, the time it takes will increase severely.The point of the changes is to make the game bloodier, more dirty, and more deadly while still rewarding skill rather than pure luck. I understand that these are big changes, but most of our group will consist of people who are used to far more advanced systems than D&D. The game will be a bit slower, but on the other hand, with nearly no magic at all it won't be stopped by preparation and spell rule searching.Could I get your opinion on this? What is preferable, 3d6 or 2d10? I find 3d6 more esthetically appealing, but it's one more dice to count and it makes the game VERY skill dependent. Combats might become too slow, when everyone gets result about 13 all the time. 2d10 looks uglier, but might be faster to calculate and more random (for good or bad).Also, anything else I should think about?Thanks a lot for response.</blockquote>

Verification