Static Defenses: Implications

WyzardWhately

First Post
A few things have occurred to me, as I've contemplated static defenses. 1. It makes success/failure more obviously dependent on skill. Say the fighter and the rogue are standing next to each other. I presume the rogue will have a better reflex defence. You could fireball them a hundred times, and one thing will never happen - the fighter will never succeed when the rogue failed. Different from 3E.

Also, many things don't make as much intuitive sense for the DM to roll agains the PC. Traps, for example. A spray of poisoned darts makes perfect sense as an attack against either AC or Reflex. However, a concealed pit trap rolling against your defense just feels kind of strange, even if the probability is identical. For this reason, I suspect the skill system will include more specific and active uses of physical skills/attribute rolls, and maybe even SWSE-style Endurance. Because having these skills allows the player to make the determinative roll when it makes sense to do so. Also, it allows action points to influence the result, if that's something you can do with action points.

I just keep reading about these 'combat hazard' style traps and terrain, and thinking they're a great way to make physical skills more necessary and useful. And it would also be a great reason to give you a 1/2 your level bonus to untrained skills, like SWSE. Because every Pc would need, at some point, at least the basic functions of climb, balance, jump, swim, etc.

Just a thought.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


There's still a lot left in the dark as far as pc abilities.

Technically your right, the fighter would never pass a reflex save the rogue fails, UNLESS he uses an action point, OR he uses some special once per encounter maneuver, or he was able to take cover and get a circumstance bonus that puts him above the rogue.

The question is, how much of the overall picture is the static save? Is it near 90% of how a player defends against an attack, or a mere 50%?
 

WyzardWhately said:
A few things have occurred to me, as I've contemplated static defenses. 1. It makes success/failure more obviously dependent on skill. Say the fighter and the rogue are standing next to each other. I presume the rogue will have a better reflex defence. You could fireball them a hundred times, and one thing will never happen - the fighter will never succeed when the rogue failed. Different from 3E.

Only if the attacker makes one roll for both targets. This is a possibility, certainly, but it's not solid information yet.
 

They mentioned pit traps... You're no longer making a reflex save for them. You'll be making a jump check. (I'm gessing tumble or acrobatics would work too.)

Which I think it cool... Makes skills more useful.
 

WyzardWhately said:
You could fireball them a hundred times, and one thing will never happen - the fighter will never succeed when the rogue failed.

I doubt it will work that way. The caster will probably roll against both. Just like in 3/3.5E, where there isn't one group save that each person's modifiers are then applied to.
 

Ogrork the Mighty said:
I doubt it will work that way. The caster will probably roll against both. Just like in 3/3.5E, where there isn't one group save that each person's modifiers are then applied to.
That would hardly speed up play, though.

It's far simpler to make one roll against all Defenses. Thus, I suspect that's what they'll do.

Cheers, -- N
 

Yeah, one roll against everyone is how SAGA does it, and so long as there's a way to mitigate crits (they might have said action points do this?) it really speeds things up and gets the game firing on all cylinders.
 



Remove ads

Top