Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Galethorn" data-source="post: 1858935" data-attributes="member: 7888">Ok, after making flowcharts on the bus, I've changed my mind; I'm going to go with UA Injury (save vs. damage) as written, except for the following;I'm going to keep my 'Resilience' stat in favor of using fortitude (and keep it as Constitution Modifier + Armor Bonus + Size Modifier + Miscellaneous Modifiers), my new system for armor (bonus to not getting wounded as opposed to a bonus to not getting hit), and the opposed defense vs. attack rolls. As well, each hit will give a -2 penalty to further Res checks (instead of -1), and will give a -1 penalty to attack/defense rolls.Here's the analysis I came up with after weighing all the factors I could think of...So far, it means I'd be trading two 'things to keep track of' for three (HP/AC vs. Defense, Resilience, and state of injury [but injury is more of something to keep track of under 'GM combat notes' as opposed to something that has to be added up in character creation]). With my changes (opposed rolls, res instead of fort, higher penalties), combat will be much more random, meaning that PCs will be more likely to take serious injury (but seldom die, because of action points), as well as powerful enemies being easier to kill when PCs roll well/use action points.Basically, as attack, damage, and defense go up by level, Resilience won't without feats, stat increases, and/or talents. This would tend to make one-hit kills more likely at higher levels (more damage vs. the same Res score). At level 10, a strong hero with a highish strength (20) and a greatsword of relatively high quality (non-magical +2) might have a total of +18 or more to hit after feats. A level 10 fast hero with 20 dex and some good feat and talent choices would have a base defense of +14 or so, without a shield, and (if they had 16 con and light armor), +4 Res.After running some numbers through a randomizer, out of 10,000 opposed rolls, the guy with the sword wins 70% of the time, and the defender wins about 25% of the time, leaving about 5% of the rolls as ties, meaning a ratio of 70-30 or 75-25, depending on who wins the tie. On average, the sword will do 16 damage (2d6+7+2), which would be a DC of 19 (15 + [16/5=3.2, rounded up to 4]). With that +4 Res, he'll fail on anything below a 15. On average, he'll fail by 5, which would be a hit, but not a disabling hit.So, the prospect of defending against the best attacker at your level, as the best defender without a shield is not so good. On the flipside, the worst attacker (poor BAB, level 10, 10 strength= +5 to hit) will only hit the fast hero ~14% of the time. The worst defender (poor defense, level 10, 10 dex= +7 defense) will be hit be the best attacker ~96% of the time.Ouch. This tells me that 1. Defense should have a different (better) progression, and 2. Resilience should have some base progression as well; Base fort + con + armor + size + misc might work...it would mean ~+17 Resilience for a level 20 strong or tough (+9 fort, +3 con, +4 armor, +1 feat). Hmmm...Well, these concerns are the whole reason I posted a thread, so feel free to actually post here, anybody, if you have suggestions, experiences, or anything like that. I'm not stopping you.</blockquote>

Verification