NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="payn" data-source="post: 9701765" data-attributes="member: 90374">In my mind it goes on to ask,  "why isnt the character's chance to roll out of the way reflected in the to hit chance of the Giant's club calculation?" Problem I have with realism and simulation is you have to abstract at some point, so I feel the real question isnt how to make it "realistic", but how to make it feel satisfying in play. In the case of single roll, while in that moment its true, defender cant do anything but watch, the decisions happen before the roll. Leading up to it the player chooses armor, abilities/feats, movement placement, etc.. So, it's entirely true you have no chance to react to the immediate situation, you just made a lot of upfront choices that led to this situation. I think for the sake of simplification and expediency a lot of folks have learned to live with this situation. Folks who favor it likely do so for said expediency.In the case of reactive actions, the choices become more of the moment and less dependent on up front choices. Systems often use a do it now and it will cost you on the back end later in the round or encounter. This can go from a few simple die roll recalculations, all the way up to a series of stances, maneuvers, abilities, etc... Even though this can complicate and slow down game time, folks tend to like it as its interactive instead of passive. For these folks, the added game mechanics add to the experience so its worth the extra investment. I've done both and see their pros and cons. I don't think either is more or less "realistic".</blockquote>

Verification