Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Marshal port (+warlord)
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7367900" data-attributes="member: 996"><p>Remember that D&D combat does not resolve individual swings, but rounds of combat, so 1/round is 'occasionally,' in a realism sense.</p><p> It's been a perfectly good design for systems that go that way, they just simplify for playability in other areas. For instance, if a game has no mechanism that would force you to frequently re-calculate you attack chance, then the burden of factoring multiple stats in is relatively light.</p><p> There's no realistic way to fight effectively with just the abilities represented by a single stat. Picking one is accepting reduced realism for other design benefits.</p><p></p><p>STR as the governing stat for combat - and armor as the primary defense - was reasonable when D&D started out modeling medieval combat, and the only classes were fighter, cleric & magic-user. Then they added the Thief and the game struggled (not very hard) for decades to model combat styles that depended more on DEX. 3.0 did that first, 4e did it for every stat, but 5e has done it best, imho, by simply basing it on weapon choice (it's seamless that way - unrealistic, but seamless). </p><p></p><p>What's being proposed here is just an extension of that. If you can picture a stat as the determining factor in resolving a round of combat, then sacrificing realism to simplify it down to being /the/ attack stat for a PC that emphasized that sort of combat is reasonable. </p><p></p><p>You can see a 'feint' relying on CHA (deceit) to resolve a round in favor of one combatant (hit), but you don't have to assume a feint /every/ round. Just some of the rounds that that combatant hits. Most rounds that he misses, he didn't feint, at all (there was no opportunity). Some rounds he hits, he hits without needing to pull any tricks like that. You can even create a rule of thumb for yourself to determine what's going on, consistently. For instance: if you've got a character that use CHA for attack, and his CHA is 18, while the higher of his DEX or STR is 12, that's a +3 difference he's getting for using CHA. If he hits exactly or with one or two to spare, it was a feint or similar CHA-based combat trick that was critical in making that happen. Otherwise, it was a more mundane hit. He only actually feints occasionally. You could take it further: compare his CHA to the target's WIS. If CHA is higher, expand the range of hits that indicates a successful feint, if WIS is higher consider a miss by that difference an unsuccessful feint. You can go into more and more detail that way, until you have a deterministic system to model exactly what is realistically going, on instead of using any imagination, at all.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7367900, member: 996"] Remember that D&D combat does not resolve individual swings, but rounds of combat, so 1/round is 'occasionally,' in a realism sense. It's been a perfectly good design for systems that go that way, they just simplify for playability in other areas. For instance, if a game has no mechanism that would force you to frequently re-calculate you attack chance, then the burden of factoring multiple stats in is relatively light. There's no realistic way to fight effectively with just the abilities represented by a single stat. Picking one is accepting reduced realism for other design benefits. STR as the governing stat for combat - and armor as the primary defense - was reasonable when D&D started out modeling medieval combat, and the only classes were fighter, cleric & magic-user. Then they added the Thief and the game struggled (not very hard) for decades to model combat styles that depended more on DEX. 3.0 did that first, 4e did it for every stat, but 5e has done it best, imho, by simply basing it on weapon choice (it's seamless that way - unrealistic, but seamless). What's being proposed here is just an extension of that. If you can picture a stat as the determining factor in resolving a round of combat, then sacrificing realism to simplify it down to being /the/ attack stat for a PC that emphasized that sort of combat is reasonable. You can see a 'feint' relying on CHA (deceit) to resolve a round in favor of one combatant (hit), but you don't have to assume a feint /every/ round. Just some of the rounds that that combatant hits. Most rounds that he misses, he didn't feint, at all (there was no opportunity). Some rounds he hits, he hits without needing to pull any tricks like that. You can even create a rule of thumb for yourself to determine what's going on, consistently. For instance: if you've got a character that use CHA for attack, and his CHA is 18, while the higher of his DEX or STR is 12, that's a +3 difference he's getting for using CHA. If he hits exactly or with one or two to spare, it was a feint or similar CHA-based combat trick that was critical in making that happen. Otherwise, it was a more mundane hit. He only actually feints occasionally. You could take it further: compare his CHA to the target's WIS. If CHA is higher, expand the range of hits that indicates a successful feint, if WIS is higher consider a miss by that difference an unsuccessful feint. You can go into more and more detail that way, until you have a deterministic system to model exactly what is realistically going, on instead of using any imagination, at all. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Marshal port (+warlord)
Top