Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Carnifex" data-source="post: 180410" data-attributes="member: 227">mmadsen - You are indeed correct, you said hits. My bad. I was indeed thinking of hits but for some bizarre reason typed rounds instead.My points, and argument, are still directed against your claim that people want combats to last three or four hits. Maybe *you* do, but I have seen no evidence in other players (or at least not in a significant number of other players if you consider some of the people agreeing with you in this thread to be agreeing with your claim of '3-4 hits') that this is something that 'people want'. My agrument still holds, because in many cases a 3-4 hit fight is short, anticlimatic, and removes many tactical opportunities and considerations available in longer combats. Consider the fact that high level characters attack multiple times per round, and if people wanted 3-4 hits it'd be brutally short combats.Now, you may say that under your proposed system these battles *would* take longer. However, as has been said many times so far, many find missing lots of times frustrating and not fun, and I think my players would feel that way too - in the past when confronted by high Ac opponents the fighter-types sometimes get irritated when even their best shots barely hit.Also, I know my players *don't* want those 3-4 hits combats. The bariaur fighter/champion of Va'asha loveed being a tank, able to suck up dozens of strikes and tear mooks apart like jelly in a blender without too much fear. it was part of his character visualisation, and made him fun and heroic. In general, fighter players would most likely dislike a system that gives lucky hits dealing greater portions of damage as opposed to lesser strikes but usually fairly steady damage. As it is, a powerful character with a good weapon can, on a crit, inflict near massive damage anyway.</blockquote>

Verification