Mob of rock throwers?

UltimaGabe said:
In a group of 20 people, at least one of them is bound to hit. In a group of 400 people, at least one is bound to go critical. And if there's 8,000... well, one of the PCs is going to die. At least.

Basically, the PCs should always fear the commoners. How would they know that the commoners aren't 15th level?

Not true.

Lets assume they need a 20 to hit - that means they have a 95% chance to miss. The chance of at least one hit over 20 throws is the chance that they don't ALL miss.

ie 1 - (0.95^20) or about 64.151%

That said, with a large amount of rolls, average results tend to come out, and one can expect one attack in 20 to hit on average, one in 400 to critical.

Which is probably what you meant, but I like looking at the statistics :)
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I f you don't want to roll dozens and dozens of hit rolls treat the rock throwing mob like a swarm. Have it do a 1d6 nonlethal and 1d4 normal damage evey round unless a reflex save is made (D15) successful save cause folks to only suffer half a die of nonlethal damage. Lots of players are afraid of non lethal damage as losing thier stuff if they should be knocked out is a bigger fear then losing the characters life should they be killed.
 

Dodging dozens of stones launched at the same time is very different than dodging dozens of times one stone.
By avoiding one you risk being hit by another. This is why an aproach based on statistics only considering 1 stone at a time doesn't work very well IMO.

I'd go for the zone effect+ reflex based save.
Let's say 3d6 bludgeoning per round as Targos suggested.
You might want to consider (AC-10) of this damage nonlethal.



Chacal
 

There's already mechanics already in place to represent the 'one attacker distracts you, making it easier for another to hit' situation - flanking, aid another. However these only seem to work in melee (PrCs aside).

I'm not sure if the same could work for ranged attacks. To anyone trying to aim you're still going to be moving around erratically trying to dodge, so it would be far from an easy shot.

YMMV of course. The area damage effect does seem like a fairly elegant solution, particularly with the modifier for AC (I think I might apply it as a bonus to reflex save - perhaps (AC-10)/2?)

Would Evasion be applicable? That would be impressive :)
 


Chacal said:
Dodging dozens of stones launched at the same time is very different than dodging dozens of times one stone.
By avoiding one you risk being hit by another. This is why an aproach based on statistics only considering 1 stone at a time doesn't work very well IMO.

I'd go for the zone effect+ reflex based save.
Let's say 3d6 bludgeoning per round as Targos suggested.
You might want to consider (AC-10) of this damage nonlethal.

Chacal

Going by those rules, armies of low-level soldiers would be better off throwing stones at one another than actually trying to hit each other with weapons.

And what does it matter whether the stone is going to hit you? That's not how (non-touch) AC works in D&D. The issue is whether the stone actually hurts you. If rocks hurled by giants are considered normal attacks, then anything short of being caught in an avalanche ought to take AC into account as well...

All those Reflex save / AOE approaches completely mess with the rules to make the PCs threatened by a mob of low level people, when frankly, the only challenge to 8th level characters in a situation like this (unless they're naked and unprepared) ought to be how to get away from the hostile mob without slaughtering some of the more aggressive ones in the process.
 

2 to 4 th level? average attack of +1 then. assume for each 20 people each # on a d20 is rolled [confirm actual threats]. a mage with ac 15 would be hurt 6 times with one threat rolled, while fighter with 19 ac would be hurt only 3 times. Reduce this amount if you decide no one has proficency with thrown rocks.
 

Remove ads

Top