The Pros and Cons of flat attack progression

[Andor]

I have to admit, I find comments like "But 100 archers might be able to harm a giant!" more than a little odd. Shouldn't they be?

Now if you want something like Smaug where it doesn't matter how many lvl 1 archers you have becuase they bounce off his armour we already have the tool for that, it's called DR.

If your high level dragon or arrow-proof giant has DR 8, then no number of archers doing 1d8 will be a threat.

However high level adventurers swinging for higher numbers can save the day even if Smaugs AC is only 6. (Hey, he's big and he glows, how hard can he be to hit.)

 

[StarFyre]

We use the pathfinder optional rule of armour acting like DR to provide actual physical defense.
On top of that, we added a slight modification for slashing vs plate armours and similar surfaces, bludgeoning and piercing also have their own benefit/drawback.

It actually gets rid of some of the scaling issues with the logic issue that it's not that hard to HIT something vs killing it.

Since armour/natural armour no longer go into the AC value, ACs drop drastically in many cases.

It's now much easier to hit (ie. make contact).

BUT, if something is tough (ie. try destroying a tank by hitting the front armour with a dagger), you may make contact, but your arrows, etc will never actually pierce through the skin/armour.

Sanjay

 

[pauljathome]

I have to admit I laughed when I read some of these comments. Somebody predicted that flatter math would lead to a world where Men at Arms in large enough numbers would be a challenge for Giants, and how odd in terms of world makeup that would be.

Hey, I explicitly stated that opinions would vary whether or not this was a good thing. But it does mean a major change from 3rd and 4th edition

Of course 1e was entirely this way. It was fun.

For awhile it was. But it is no longer to my tastes. I abandoned 1ed D&D for other games over 20 years ago.

And at the moment it seems likely that DndNext will also not be to my tastes. For many of the reasons that 1ed isn't.

Please don't interpret "Not to my tastes" as "Its bad" or "Only idiots would like it" or "the sky is falling" or any other edition war crap.

 

[Zaran]

It would have potential. But if I were playing the grizzled veteran, I wouldn't want to have to spend it just to be better than the greenhorn.

The way I see it. that grizzled Veteran only has to hit the orc once. while the greenhorn will have to hit several times. Seems the vet will be better despite having the same percent chance to hit.