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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MoutonRustique" data-source="post: 6937167" data-attributes="member: 22362">I NEVER MISS! ...BUT IF I DO, I DO IT WITH STYLE![sblock=super secret section that shouldn't be read by anyone that dislikes DoaM]With all the discussions on DoaM, what [hp] mean, how the narrative relates to hits, misses, damage, poison application, escaping from a fireball centered on your head while naked in an empty room, etc, etc, and the lack (or the very weak) differentiation of intensity of effect from success with regards to skill rolls as opposed to attack rolls, I had an idea.This idea is neither new, nor revolutionary, but I had it on my own - before I learned that a lot of people had had the same one... BUT I've not seen the following proposition applied to 4e before - as such, this is now MY idea. (I think I discovered it, I can find proof I did not after the fact, it's a-ok, I'll just discredit the proof and keep on saying it's my idea. After all, this is a proven method of land attribution - and so, of course, it works for ideas as well. It's the same thing really.)I hid DoaM by flipping it! haha![/sblock]Here's a ~recent thought that percolated to my fingers: A character's attack always succeeds.What I mean: you don't roll to hit - you just hit.Why I like this: in D&D, casters are awesome because even if they miss with their lightning bolt, they just threw a frigging' lightning bolt! Martials (fighters in particular) are supposed to be mighty warriors of incredible skill - when they swing, they should always have succeeded at something.How this would work: pretty much the same way it works now actually...  [Huh? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f635.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt="o.O" title="Er... what?    o.O"  data-smilie="12"data-shortname="o.O" />]The d20 would be rolled as another aspect of the [intensity of effect]. Depending upon class or power, there could be rider effects. Base reason would be: roll to see if you crit.Now, this opens up a good deal of opportunity to bring in a slew of new things (mostly by taking 13th Age's kidneys and jamming them in here), but there is a (I think) way to bring this about in 4e with fairly minimal work:Every power deals half the damage rolled. If you hit, you get to double that (i.e. just take the regular damage you rolled) and do what you'd normally do on a "hit".Every power that has DoaM is either removed (made obsolete) or simply suffers a small comparative nerf. I'm pretty confident that 4e has enough powers so that removing a couple in this way won't impact choice possibilities too much. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />The above isn't what I'd like to do with the idea though. What I'd like to do would be to remove the attack and defense bonuses. I have a few "not quite ideas yet" floating around, but nothing hard enough to be able to "verbalize" them. I'd very much like to keep the "high level isn't really affected by lower level" thing of 4e - I like the idea of bounded accuracy, I don't like how 5e's going about it.1st not quite and idea: damage reduction (leaves the rider imposition problem wide open...)2nd: opponent-based roll penalties (good with math-heads, very bad with others)3rd: ability/power based negations (this would work very well with 5e's iterative attack approach!)4th: straight-up level comparative bonus/penalty (kinda like the 2nd, but, at the table, it feels awkward...)I could just keep the att and defense value progression also... yep... let's do that.Now what I really want to implement would be something like:- you have a base effect - you choose a basic addition (from class list)- you roll die- die configuration implies degree of successEx: if all attacks dealt 2d10 dmg- As a fighter, you succeed on imposing a mark if you have one+ even die- Succeeding on a trip attempt requires at least a 8+- Succeeding on a push attempt requires at least a 6+- On a pair, you can target another foeThere would still be a couple of "powers" known - they would have automatic effects, or vastly improved odds on a few special maneuvers. These powers would be a key structure in differentiating class purpose and playstyle.In my mind, this would have had the effect of greatly improving speed of play - seeing it written down... not so sure anymore...As always, let's see if this sticks or stinks - or both!</blockquote>

Verification