Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="WyzardWhately" data-source="post: 3829703" data-attributes="member: 33207">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.</blockquote>

Verification