"I hate math"

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Again, I've never been bugged by this nor someone fighting defensively. How does this bug you? Is it because you have to ask the player his AC every round? I'm not seeing the headache part of it.

It becomes a problem when the party of six 11th level characters is battling the evil band they have been chasing which is made of of PC classed villians, all 7 or 8 of them. Every round I'm figuring AC and BAB over as active feats are changing round by round, with mods switching values to adjust for the changing combat situation. It's not hard math, whomever said this was like Calculus has never seen a Calc textbook, it's just a lot to keep track of. It's more than "I" like to keep track of. I could just say screw it and ignore the vast options at the disposal of the villians but that bothers me. Maybe if I had some of those nice spreadsheets that some people have I would have felt like I was gaming and not working another shift. But I feel that if I need a laptop full of electronic aids to run a pencil & paper tabletop game effectively I am running the wrong game. That is one reason I dropped 3.xe, there are a couple others that I'm sure I've voiced on this forum in the past. YMMV of course.

Like I said before, hopefully C&C simplifies stuff to a nice degree, I like the base d20 mechanics.

 

[Ourph]

What do you fight above 12th level that doesn't have AT LEAST a 10' reach? Wizards, clerics....and that's about it.

Vampires, Werewolves, Death Knights, A horde of Bugbears.

 

[Ozmar]

A Rogue with bracers of armor +3, Dex 18, ring of protection +1, amulet of natural armor +2, the Dodge and Mobility feats and fighting defensively. The Rogue moves through the threatened squares of a wraith and an invisible fighter wielding a longsword; ends his movement next to a Cleric holding an inflict light wounds spell in his hand and tries to initiate a grapple. The rogue has declared his Dodge vs. the Cleric.

What is his AC vs. each opponent for the AoOs he provokes?

Figuring this sort of thing out on the fly turns the game from "fun" into "work" for me. YMMV.

Hmmm... Rogue's AC is:
10 + 3 (armor) + 4 (Dex) + 1 (deflection) + 2 (natural armor) = 20

AC vs. Wraith: 22 (loses natural armor vs. incorp touch attack, but gains +4 dodge bonus due to Mobility) (keeps armor from bracers since its a force effect)
AC vs. Fighter: 16 (and the fighter gains +2 on his attack: loses Dex and dodge bonuses vs. invisible opponent)
AC vs. Cleric: 16 (loses natural armor and armor vs. touch attack, adds bonus from dodge feat, mobility doesn't apply since the AoO is provoked by a grapple)

Note: I ignored the fighting defensively b/c I can't recall the exact rule for that off hand, and would need to look it up. If it works like I think it does, then it adds a dodge bonus (+2?) to AC, and would thus apply to the Wraith and Cleric, but not the Fighter.

Note: If the rogue is smart, he'll tumble and avoid the first two AoOs. I don't know off hand if he can successfully tumble past an unseen opponent, though, and I'd have to look that up or make a judgement call.

The above's just off the top of my head. What do I win?

Ozmar the Unconcerned with Trivial D&D Math

(Of course, as a math grad student, fun=work=math, so I'm an admitted geek on this stuff.)

 

[Doc_Klueless]

I use DM Genie to track various effects in combat, and love it.

Oh, WOW. W-O-W!!! This program is AWESOME! Thanks for the link...

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

Uncanny dodge only returns your Dex bonus to you, it does not allow you to keep all of your dodge bonuses. The condition that made you lose your dodge bonuses still exists, Uncanny Dodge just allows you to avoid losing ONE of those bonuses.

Hrm. That's not what the Dodge bonus text states, and I quote from my PHB:

Dodge Bonus: A bonus to Armor Class (and sometimes Reflex Saves) resulting from physical skill at avoiding blows and other ill effects. Dodge bonuses are never granted by spells or magic items. Any situation or effect (except wearing armor) that negates a character's Dexterity bonus also negates any Dodge bonuses the character may have (for instance, you lose any dodge bonuses to AC when you're flat-footed). Dodge bonuses stack with all other bonuses to AC, even other dodge bonuses. Dodge bonuses apply to all touch attacks.

By my reading of that, that means that, in this situation, if the rogue has sufficient levels to have regular Uncanny Dodge, the Dodge bonus to AC is not lost; after all, his Dex bonus isn't negated by the invisibility, so the dodge bonuses will still count. Were the wraith and fighter flanking, then yes, he would be denied his Dex bonus (assuming he didn't have Improved Uncanny Dodge), but that wasn't specified.

BTW - The fact that we're debating this, TOTALLY proves my point.

That trying to use rules you're not familiar with will lead to errors? I certainly think so; like I mentioned earlier, I've used Mobility very few times. As I think back, my DM and I totally misapplied it when I did use it. (But, I don't think my character died as a result, and, if it did, well, that's what the Raise Deads and True Reses were for!)

I believe that at least some, if not most of the AC issues people have, especially spellcasters, is that the user isn't quite as familiar with the ability/feat/spell/item in question as they could be. I'll admit that my knowledge of D&D magic is mostly limited to buffing, booming, and band-aids, and I don't have the inclination or temperment to play a wizard to figure out all the other neat things you could do.

Brad

 

[Coredump]

The two (flexibility and simplicity) are not mutually exclusive, and can even be synnergistic if you approach game design with the goal of keeping options simple.

I disagree. They *have* to be mutually exclusive to an extant.

Look at the example of Combat Expertise from above.
Right now it is very flexible. Every round you can choose to use it, or not. And every round, you can change whether to use +/-1,2,3,4, or 5. It can lead to a lot of calculating. But it is very flexible.

We can simplify it. And say it can be used or not, but is always a +/-3. There, we have added simplicity, taken away a lot of addition, and at the same time removed some of the flexibility.

Now, if you can provide an example for me of keeping the flexibility of having/using Combat Expertise, yet simplifying it.... then I am all ears.

.

 

[Ourph]

Hrm. That's not what the Dodge bonus text states, and I quote from my PHB:

I disagree, but debating it here would hijack the thread. Enkhidu was kind enough to start another thread on this subject on the Rules forum here where I explain my interpretation of that particular issue.

Whether or not my interpretation of the Dodge bonus rules is correct or not (and BTW it doesn't have anything to do with being unfamiliar with the rules, it's just my particular take based on running the game in the way that makes the most sense to me) the fact remains that 3 people gave me 3 completely different answers to my question, and all of you had time to think about it while you were typing at the computer. So I think my point that the system can fairly easily become so complex that the numerous conditional modifiers and situational exceptions to standard rules start to interfere with the flow of the game has been proven quite nicely.

At least to my satisfaction.

 

[Ourph]

I disagree. They *have* to be mutually exclusive to an extant.

Look at the example of Combat Expertise from above.

I'm sorry, I can't help you there, because I find the mechanic for Combat Expertise to be simple. It's a straight one for one trade-off between to-hit and AC.

It's when you start adding in a bunch of other conditional modifiers or exceptions to a general rule that things get complicated. For example, I think the mechanics for Combat Expertise and Power Attack are great. One represents you being "extra defensive" and one represents you being "extra offensive". But when you have a system that accomodates Combat Expertise, Dodge, Fighting Defensively, Full Defensive, Off-hand Parry, etc. you go from elegantly simple options to unnecessarily complex and confusing options. All of those abilities represent ONE THING (giving up attack advantage for defense advantage). There's no need to have 10 "options" for doing the same thing.

Another example is the VAST number of AC bonus types and their various situational exceptions.

-Armor bonuses don't count against incorporeal attacks or touch attacks, except that force armor counts against incorporeal touch attacks, but it still doesn't count against regular touch attacks.
-Dodge bonuses count against all attacks, except you lose them under certain conditions, except you can keep them if you have certain abilities.
-Natural armor bonuses don't stack, except that if you have "natural" natural armor and an item or spell that grants natural armor, those stack.

Or how about the way armor affects your Dex modifier.
-Certain armors decrease the amount of your Dex modifier you can apply to your AC.
-The same armors impose a penalty to certain Dex-based skills, but the armor check penalty number isn't related to the maximum Dex bonus number in any way and you get to apply your FULL Dex bonus to skills even though it's limited in terms of what you apply to AC.
-The same armor that decreases the Dex bonus you can apply to your AC and messes up some of your Dex based skills doesn't impose any penalty on your Dex bonus to Reflex saves.



All of the stuff I mention above could easily be coalesced under a single unified mechanic that does all of the same stuff and offers just as many options, but in a very consistent way that's applicable across the board and simple to both understand and implement during the game.

 

[ashockney]

So I think my point that the system can fairly easily become so complex that the numerous conditional modifiers and situational exceptions to standard rules start to interfere with the flow of the game has been proven quite nicely.

I very much agree. So how do we make it simpler and yet still tactically challenging and engaging?

 

[ashockney]

For example, I think the mechanics for Combat Expertise and Power Attack are great. One represents you being "extra defensive" and one represents you being "extra offensive". But when you have a system that accomodates Combat Expertise, Dodge, Fighting Defensively, Full Defensive, Off-hand Parry, etc. you go from elegantly simple options to unnecessarily complex and confusing options. All of those abilities represent ONE THING (giving up attack advantage for defense advantage). There's no need to have 10 "options" for doing the same thing..

Yes, yes, yes! This is outstanding! Exactly the kind of ideas I'm looking for. How many ways can you sacrifice "attack" to add to "defense"? How many ways can you sacrifice "defense" to add to "damage"? Let's simplify it! First, by narrowing down the "tactical/feat/class ability options" and second, by using the great "miniatures marker" trick. So, what if there were three levels of "defense for attack" and "defense for damage" and "attack for defense" and "attack for damage" and "damage for attack" and "damage for defense". Low, Medium, High for each. Come up with a name for each "tactic". The bonus exchanges would be set (ie, -3 to hit, +3 to damage for Power Attack; +6 to hit, +6 to damage for Greater Power Attack). Then you could use a standard set of "miniature markers" to identify when these abilities were activated. I believe you could plug this into who would be eligible to "access" all these tactical abilities (ie, the high end sac attack for defense may only be available to higher level monk characters - the equivalent of fighting defensively with 12+ ranks in tumble and combat expertise).

This is a great example!

Another example is the VAST number of AC bonus types and their various situational exceptions.

-Armor bonuses don't count against incorporeal attacks or touch attacks, except that force armor counts against incorporeal touch attacks, but it still doesn't count against regular touch attacks.
-Dodge bonuses count against all attacks, except you lose them under certain conditions, except you can keep them if you have certain abilities.
-Natural armor bonuses don't stack, except that if you have "natural" natural armor and an item or spell that grants natural armor, those stack.
.

Another great example. How would you fix it?

Or how about the way armor affects your Dex modifier.
-Certain armors decrease the amount of your Dex modifier you can apply to your AC.
-The same armors impose a penalty to certain Dex-based skills, but the armor check penalty number isn't related to the maximum Dex bonus number in any way and you get to apply your FULL Dex bonus to skills even though it's limited in terms of what you apply to AC.
-The same armor that decreases the Dex bonus you can apply to your AC and messes up some of your Dex based skills doesn't impose any penalty on your Dex bonus to Reflex saves.

Another great one! Your recommended fix? (And I want to spend less time on the fixes, and more time on identifying the pitfalls...)

Any other pitfalls that you've noticed? What grows "too complex" or "mathmatically cumbersome" by the time you reach high levels, that seems to work fine up until about 10th - 12th level?