Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Pilsnerquest" data-source="post: 3297687" data-attributes="member: 48328">Okay, I'll play devil's advocate for the last two posts.Now, I personally don't give a rat's arse about how much party resources should be used in one encounter but 42% compared to the recommended 25% is most definitely a point. Again, that's only if you feel the percentile in a certain $29.95 (U.S.) book is a logical figure. (An ogre though, may be a tad rough for an example with their large strength bonus compared to their CR or EL)The ogre had initiative and did not win the fight, but, the first thing done was to use the alternate initiative method? Should we be using the &quot;attack in to-hit bonus order&quot; for combat as opposed to the old method to prevent one-sided fights?I think the main concern, at least originally, wasn't quite epic combat but epic level combat. With attack bonuses and the number of attacks out-stripping defense things look pretty bad for the loser of initiative or for combat lasting more than 1 round. That dwarf in the previous pages example with the whopping 8 attacks is pretty scary, then the elf with 7 attacks himself. (Offense out-stripping defense is relatively true for D&amp;D D20 too, though a 20th level fighter in D&amp;D has 4 attacks) How does the monsters HD=attack bonus play into it all? Do monsters stack up the way PC's do? If so maybe a staggered level attack bonus gain, similar to the ones found in the PHB pg. 22. This would lower the attack bonuses a tad and lower the number of multiple attacks. Possibly have monsters rated by this same table in the PHB for attack bonus and their CR/EL setting?&nbsp; Pilsnerquest</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Pilsnerquest, post: 3297687, member: 48328"] Okay, I'll play devil's advocate for the last two posts. Now, I personally don't give a rat's arse about how much party resources should be used in one encounter but 42% compared to the recommended 25% is most definitely a point. Again, that's only if you feel the percentile in a certain $29.95 (U.S.) book is a logical figure. (An ogre though, may be a tad rough for an example with their large strength bonus compared to their CR or EL) The ogre had initiative and did not win the fight, but, the first thing done was to use the alternate initiative method? Should we be using the "attack in to-hit bonus order" for combat as opposed to the old method to prevent one-sided fights? I think the main concern, at least originally, wasn't quite epic combat but epic level combat. With attack bonuses and the number of attacks out-stripping defense things look pretty bad for the loser of initiative or for combat lasting more than 1 round. That dwarf in the previous pages example with the whopping 8 attacks is pretty scary, then the elf with 7 attacks himself. (Offense out-stripping defense is relatively true for D&D D20 too, though a 20th level fighter in D&D has 4 attacks) How does the monsters HD=attack bonus play into it all? Do monsters stack up the way PC's do? If so maybe a staggered level attack bonus gain, similar to the ones found in the PHB pg. 22. This would lower the attack bonuses a tad and lower the number of multiple attacks. Possibly have monsters rated by this same table in the PHB for attack bonus and their CR/EL setting? Pilsnerquest [/QUOTE]

Verification