The Core Mechanic: New Design and Development

[Oldtimer]

This is one of my biggest problems with static defenses, area effect spells are given a greater chance to end an encounter. This might be good when the PC's use it against NPC's but it's a whole different story when they get caught by a spell effect that exceeds the highest Will save or whatever, because this means everyone was affected.

I can't see how this comes from using static defences. If you are OK with rolling ten saving throws for ten orcs caught in a fireball, you should be OK with rolling ten attack rolls against the same orcs. Static defences - in themselves - don't demand that you consolidate all attacks into one single roll.

I agree that the rules of 4e probably will tell you to roll a single attack roll for your area attack (since SWSE does that), but I you think that's bad, it's so easy to go back to the same number of rolls as before. But static defences can still stay.

 

[Imaro]

I can't see how this comes from using static defences. If you are OK with rolling ten saving throws for ten orcs caught in a fireball, you should be OK with rolling ten attack rolls against the same orcs. Static defences - in themselves - don't demand that you consolidate all attacks into one single roll.

I agree that the rules of 4e probably will tell you to roll a single attack roll for your area attack (since SWSE does that), but I you think that's bad, it's so easy to go back to the same number of rolls as before. But static defences can still stay.

Do you think this will have an effect on the level of the monster? It seems making numerous rolls would make a monster less difficult to beat, because there is now a greater chance that one or more PC's will avoid the spell. It's no longer a straight percentage chance to affect every PC.

Edit: My biggest gripe isn't monsters having this...it's PC's having this.

 

[Aluvial]

So, does this mean that saving throws are gone?

That's one of the big elements of the game. I really don't want my players determining success or failure of a particular save they initiated, I want that freedom as the DM. If I fudge, and I do fudge, I usually fudge in favor of the players; but if I want some creature to save vs. that fireball to prolong an encounter, the creature saves. That's it. The die is rolled but rarely do I even bother to look at the number...

If the system is changed, it changes something fundemental about who is making the rolls, and therefore changing the game.

I believed in changing THAC0, and the new system is easier; but, the players still make the attack rolls.

They changed saves too, and I think for the better. But the players still rolled their own saves. If I roll against their save defense, they don't have an opportunity for luck to intervene or crush them. The saving throw is a big hold your breath moment. Now it looks like that aspect is gone.

I don't like it.

Aluvial

 

[Remathilis]

That's one of the big elements of the game. I really don't want my players determining success or failure of a particular save they initiated, I want that freedom as the DM. If I fudge, and I do fudge, I usually fudge in favor of the players; but if I want some creature to save vs. that fireball to prolong an encounter, the creature saves. That's it. The die is rolled but rarely do I even bother to look at the number...
Aluvial

So your advocating that the new system doesn't let you cheat on the fly? You're not trying hard enough.

Do the PCs KNOW that creatures REF Defense score? Do they KNOW a 15 hits? If it does hit, do they KNOW how many hp the creature has left?

In short, if you can't cheat, you're not trying hard enough...

 

[Aluvial]

So your advocating that the new system doesn't let you cheat on the fly? You're not trying hard enough.

Do the PCs KNOW that creatures REF Defense score? Do they KNOW a 15 hits? If it does hit, do they KNOW how many hp the creature has left?

In short, if you can't cheat, you're not trying hard enough...

Oh, I cheat. I cheat a LOT. I'll figure out a way to cheat.... every time if it makes for more compelling gaming.

But that really wasn't the point. The point was is that saving throws are part of the DnD game. If you take them away, you are taking away a big portion of what is DnD.

Sure it might make the game better. My vote is still out. But taking away Saving Throws? You might as well get rid of AC or HP.

Aluvial

 

[Wolfspider]

So your advocating that the new system doesn't let you cheat on the fly? You're not trying hard enough.

I think that you should look at the rest of what he posted because I think his point has some merit:

If the system is changed, it changes something fundemental about who is making the rolls, and therefore changing the game.

I believed in changing THAC0, and the new system is easier; but, the players still make the attack rolls.

They changed saves too, and I think for the better. But the players still rolled their own saves. If I roll against their save defense, they don't have an opportunity for luck to intervene or crush them. The saving throw is a big hold your breath moment. Now it looks like that aspect is gone.

 

[The Little Raven]

Oh, I cheat. I cheat a LOT. I'll figure out a way to cheat.... every time if it makes for more compelling gaming.

I don't see how saying "His AC/Reflex/Fortitude/Will Defense is higher than that, you fail." makes cheating more difficult than saying "His spell DC is higher than that, you fail."

The point was is that saving throws are part of the DnD game. If you take them away, you are taking away a big portion of what is DnD.

That's what people said about Thac0 and racial class/level limits.

Inverting defenses so that the system has consistency (all attacks are active, therefore they are rolled; all defenses are passive, therefore they are static DC numbers) is a good thing.

Sure it might make the game better. My vote is still out. But taking away Saving Throws? You might as well get rid of AC or HP.

And there are people that claim that they aren't real saving throws unless you're saving against petrification and breath weapons.

It doesn't make them right, it just makes them fixated on an older version of the game.

 

[fuindordm]

But if everyone is equally affected by armour, you loose the incentive of a low Dex fighter to go the "canned food" route. With the "Max Dex Bonus" rule, you might as well armour up if you have a Dex of 10. If plate armour always gives you a penalty, that incentive vanishes.

For me it's more realistic that the low Dex guys go the armour route and the high Dex guys take the loincloth route. Good mechanics should encourage such tactics.

On the contrary, I think 3e removed one of the fighter's interesting choices by this rule. Now everyone is capped at an AC of 19 starting out, no matter what their dex. The fast ones wear light armor, the slow ones wear heavy armor, and that's it. It annoys me greatly in 3E that heavy armor types, who sacrifice tactical speed for (supposedly) better defenses, can so easily be matched by dextrous characters in the AC game. (At least at low levels)

In 1st edition, on the other had, A fighter with two high scores had an important decision. Do you want to have a high AC, avoiding more blows, or high HP so that you're more likely to survive spells and devastating attacks from big monsters?

EGG didn't ignore the reduced flexibility of armor; IIRC, he just pointed out that it would hinder everyone to the same degree--which is why the difference between chain mail and plate mail was not as large as you might think.

(Don't ask me for a citation, I'm pulling that out of the cluttered attic of D&D trivia in my skull)

 

[Aluvial]

That's what people said about Thac0 and racial class/level limits.

Inverting defenses so that the system has consistency (all attacks are active, therefore they are rolled; all defenses are passive, therefore they are static DC numbers) is a good thing.

And there are people that claim that they aren't real saving throws unless you're saving against petrification and breath weapons.

It doesn't make them right, it just makes them fixated on an older version of the game.

I did address this though. THAC0 was miserable from its inception and the change in how AC works and class bonuses were given made sense. The thing that did not change however is that the player still rolled a die to make an attack.

When they streamlined saving throws, I think they did a good thing. I didn't gripe. The thing that did not change however is that the player still rolled a die to make a save.

I see that this new system (4 defenses) is going to streamline things further but it does change a fundamentally fun part of the game. Rolling a die to see if you survived the save.

Changing the aspect of "rolling the die to determine your own fate" is a big change in the game and it disturbs some of the "feel" of the game. The effect happens to a character. The saving throw roll puts the fate of the character in the owner's hands.

To reverse this, whether the mechanic is adding up the same way or not, takes the aspect of luck of what is about to happen to your character out of your hands. This change, regardless of how much easier, or faster, is taking away the self-determined feeling of putting the result into the die-roller's hands.

I'm not saying it won't work. I'm not saying it is horrible. It's just not the way it has been for 30+ years. There is something elementally fun about rolling your own die to determine your own results for success or failure. The luck, the fate of your character is in the die roll that you make.

Aluvial

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Hrm... FTA: "In 4th Edition, when a creature only needs to touch you to deliver an attack, it targets your Reflex. *snip* but if a crossbow trap fires an arrow at you, it the bolt attacks your AC."

I haven't played Saga-style so maybe my questions answered there. What if one has no armor? Does the crossbow trap target Reflex or AC? Heck, for that matter, what about just a straight attack against an unarmored foe: Reflex or AC?

joe b.

It might turn out to be "roll against the better defense", or some version of that. If you don't have armour, an armour class doesn't make sense. But you're still good at dodging. Of course, there's the details that in 3E come across in the form of Max Dex bonus, i.e. the interaction between passive and active defense, but if they can work out a system to deal with that in an intuitive fashion, I can see there being a real choice between being a dodge character who relies on Reflex, or a tank character who relies on AC. In 3e, that's not often a viable choice, since AC is such a critical stat, and there's not too many ways of going completely unarmoured and still carrying a decent AC.

I was expecting this.

Now, if Reflex = Base Reflex + Dex - Armor Penalty and AC = Base Reflex + Dex + Armor Bonus, we may finally see real trade-offs between light and heavy armor.

Yeah, what he said.