Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ValhallaGH" data-source="post: 4820890" data-attributes="member: 41187">Not really.I play a lot of Mutants and Masterminds (I'm leaving in 20 minutes to run a session), so I'm used to characters only having one attack per round.&nbsp; I'm also used to bonuses and DCs being such that characters have to roll between 8 and 12 to connect.&nbsp; I'm used to characters having everything riding on one d20 roll (either to hit or to save against attacks), and I know just how much it sucks to be totally neutered by a plastic polyhedron.&nbsp; There are few gaming events worse than having your character rendered totally useless by a roll of the dice.Now, where M&amp;M and D&amp;D differ the most (from a philosophical view, there are a host of mechanical differences) is in where and how you get to control the randomness that the d20 roll represents.&nbsp; D&amp;D makes you control the bonuses, providing scores of bonus types and amounts for&nbsp; you to milk until you have the biggest possible bonus (and thus the least reliance upon the d20); in fact, it's gotten so bad that the rules now assume that you're collecting as many bonuses as you can, to the point that it is necessary, rather than advisable.M&amp;M, on the other hand, gives the player (some) control over the d20 roll itself.&nbsp; Specifically in the form of Hero Points, a limited resource that can, among other things, guarantee a d20 result between 11 and 20.&nbsp; This doesn't guarantee success, but it can let you come through in those &quot;clutch&quot; situations.&nbsp; Yes, M&amp;M has bonuses too, which are largely situational (tactics, teamwork, environmental, etc), and can limit or remove the need to use Hero Points to control the d20; this is generally regarded as your &quot;reward&quot; for good tactics.D&amp;D combat has one more way to give mundane combatants control over the d20 roll.&nbsp; Specifically, by allowing characters to roll multiple d20s each round with a chance to hit on each one.&nbsp; The designers, for whatever reasons, chose to make this &quot;second chance&quot; a constant option rather than one saved to redeem failure.&nbsp; To limit abuse, a price had to be attached; they chose a combination of action requirement and decreasing probability on subsequent attacks.(I realize this view is probably not the intent of iterative attacks.&nbsp; Nevertheless, I see it as the best and primary feature of them, and is the view that seems most relevant to this phase of the discussion.)If you remove iterative attacks completely then you should replace them with some other form of dice control to maintain at least the illusion of parity.Man, I hope that makes sense.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ValhallaGH, post: 4820890, member: 41187"] Not really. I play a lot of Mutants and Masterminds (I'm leaving in 20 minutes to run a session), so I'm used to characters only having one attack per round. I'm also used to bonuses and DCs being such that characters have to roll between 8 and 12 to connect. I'm used to characters having everything riding on one d20 roll (either to hit or to save against attacks), and I know just how much it sucks to be totally neutered by a plastic polyhedron. There are few gaming events worse than having your character rendered totally useless by a roll of the dice. Now, where M&M and D&D differ the most (from a philosophical view, there are a host of mechanical differences) is in where and how you get to control the randomness that the d20 roll represents. D&D makes you control the bonuses, providing scores of bonus types and amounts for you to milk until you have the biggest possible bonus (and thus the least reliance upon the d20); in fact, it's gotten so bad that the rules now [I]assume[/I] that you're collecting as many bonuses as you can, to the point that it is necessary, rather than advisable. M&M, on the other hand, gives the player (some) control over the d20 roll itself. Specifically in the form of Hero Points, a limited resource that can, among other things, guarantee a d20 result between 11 and 20. This doesn't guarantee success, but it can let you come through in those "clutch" situations. Yes, M&M has bonuses too, which are largely situational (tactics, teamwork, environmental, etc), and can limit or remove the need to use Hero Points to control the d20; this is generally regarded as your "reward" for good tactics. D&D combat has one more way to give mundane combatants control over the d20 roll. Specifically, by allowing characters to roll multiple d20s each round with a chance to hit on each one. The designers, for whatever reasons, chose to make this "second chance" a constant option rather than one saved to redeem failure. To limit abuse, a price had to be attached; they chose a combination of action requirement and decreasing probability on subsequent attacks. (I realize this view is probably not the intent of iterative attacks. Nevertheless, I see it as the best and primary feature of them, and is the view that seems most relevant to this phase of the discussion.) If you remove iterative attacks completely then you should replace them with some other form of dice control to maintain at least the illusion of parity. Man, I hope that makes sense. [/QUOTE]

Verification