Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Vrecknidj" data-source="post: 3456367" data-attributes="member: 7301">From the above comments...1) Every spell requires some kind of roll on the part of the caster, or2) Every spell requires some kind of save on the part of the defender, or3) BothBut, 3) seems to violate the &quot;less is more&quot; rule about eliminating added die rolls in the interest of making the game less about dice and more about the story.Maybe something like...1) Caster declares a spell2) Caster rolls a d203) Caster adds some modifier to the roll4) Caster compares it to the defender's appropriate defense5) If the result doesn't beat the defense, nothing happens6) If the result beats the defense by up to 5, XX happens7) If the result beats the defence by between 6 and 10, YY happens8) If the result beats the defence by between 11 and 15, ZZ happens9) The scale continues indefinitely (but is limited by built-in caps)There's a relatively universal mechanic for the spells, such that &quot;I beat it by 6&quot; or &quot;I beat it by 12&quot; always means something similar (with a handful of exceptions, of course).&nbsp; So that once mastered, referencing material is minimized.Instead of Spell Resistance, we have a creature with much higher magical defenses (i.e. substantially increasing the odds that the caster's roll doesn't beat it, resulting in no effect).&nbsp; Instead of Fire Resistance, we have a creature with a +5 or +10 to the appropriate magical defense in the case of a fire spell (substantially increasing the odds that the spell will do nothing, or that the damage will be very low).&nbsp; Etc.Dave</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Vrecknidj, post: 3456367, member: 7301"] From the above comments... 1) Every spell requires some kind of roll on the part of the caster, or 2) Every spell requires some kind of save on the part of the defender, or 3) Both But, 3) seems to violate the "less is more" rule about eliminating added die rolls in the interest of making the game less about dice and more about the story. Maybe something like... 1) Caster declares a spell 2) Caster rolls a d20 3) Caster adds some modifier to the roll 4) Caster compares it to the defender's appropriate defense 5) If the result doesn't beat the defense, nothing happens 6) If the result beats the defense by up to 5, XX happens 7) If the result beats the defence by between 6 and 10, YY happens 8) If the result beats the defence by between 11 and 15, ZZ happens 9) The scale continues indefinitely (but is limited by built-in caps) There's a relatively universal mechanic for the spells, such that "I beat it by 6" or "I beat it by 12" always means something similar (with a handful of exceptions, of course). So that once mastered, referencing material is minimized. Instead of Spell Resistance, we have a creature with much higher magical defenses (i.e. substantially increasing the odds that the caster's roll doesn't beat it, resulting in no effect). Instead of Fire Resistance, we have a creature with a +5 or +10 to the appropriate magical defense in the case of a fire spell (substantially increasing the odds that the spell will do nothing, or that the damage will be very low). Etc. Dave [/QUOTE]

Verification