Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Herremann the Wise" data-source="post: 4546817" data-attributes="member: 11300">True, which is why I envisage spending combat points to either nullify a critical, or reduce the chance of it becoming a critical (see my above response to the good Mustrum Ridcully).At lower levels, for most weapons (crossbows being a very specific and deadly counterpoint), an NPC/Monster can only get a critical threat on a 20 which still needs to be confirmed. At higher levels, the chance of getting a critical is increased (in terms of the threat range) but at the same time character's have access to more abilities that counteract or nullify criticals. The aim here is to provide a balance where if character's do things willy nilly, their chance of getting hurt increases, where if they are played sensibly (but still selectively heroically), then their chances of survival increases. A tricky balance. Fair point. I started a thread a while ago looking at how difficult a character should be to hit given a variety of circumstances. What was confirmed was three states of defense:• Base Defense: Unaware of any threat• Mobile Defense: Aware of threat and actively avoiding• Melee Defense: Aware of threat, actively avoiding and actively threatening in return.Sort of like 3E's flat-footed, touch and regular ACs - with slightly different things taken into account. With reactive combat-point-spending abilities on top for extra protection, I'm hoping for added flexibility without undue complication (just excitement).The more I've played and tested this, the more I've come to think that it's a solid, fun and tactical mechanic. When to spend and when to conserve a character's effort seems a system where the flavour and mechanic are in a very neat sybiosis. Well, I'm excited by it anyway. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /> Thank you very much for responding, very much appreciated.<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> This is something I whole-heartedly agree with. The necessity to max out a stat should never be overt or extreme. For me, I can divorce strength from the "to hit" modifier replacing it with a skill/proficiency modifier instead (but still have a minimum strength requirement for a weapon), but I can't divorce it from damage. If you hit with greater strength, you deal more damage. If you hit with greater accuracy (dexterity), you deal more damage.  I like the idea of this too - damn we think alike. For me, extra skill equates to extra damage. If you are not familiar with a weapon or do not have the strength (or dexterity) to wield it properly, then it just gets treated as an improvised weapon. You may as well be attacking with a big chair as much as a two-handed war axe if you are not proficient with it (or have the strength to wield it correctly). In turn, you can't threaten an opponent with it as effectively so your Melee Defense effectively becomes your Mobile Defense. For me, if criticals target hit points (or for you wound points), then it needs to be tightly controlled otherwise you're right, the game becomes too deadly. The rolling 20 thing seems a solid mechanic.Best RegardsHerremann the Wise</blockquote>

Verification