Touch attacks: is it just me..?

[woodelf]

1) In D&D, strength is muscular coordination and hand-eye IN ADDITION TO raw power
[snip]
Please stop changing the rules in order to make them fit your incorrect flavor text.

Um, you're the one changing the rules. They say no such thing. In fact, they explicitly describe Dex as encompassing hand-eye coordination. Now, your interpretation is reasonable, and fits all the actual mechanics of the game quite well. But it is not what the rules actually say.

 

[Jondor_Battlehammer]

I hadn't thought of dex for spellcasters--IME, spellcasters don't bother with a high Dex because they don't use it. Most spellcasters in my games haven't used many ranged touch attacks, and the difference that Dex makes to AC is still too small to matter.


Attack & damage rolls, on the other hand, usually come in batches, which averages out the effect of the die roll, letting even small modifiers make a difference. If you have poor Dex, buy armor (if you're a warrior), either don't mess with traps or boost your skills (if you're a rogue), or stick to spells that aren't ranged touch attacks (if you're a spellcaster). If you have poor Str, you're screwed--it clobbers your attacks *and* your damage, so you can't really trade off between the two. There's not much else that boosts attack rolls and damage as much as Str does. [i'm obviously not counting magic--because that can boost anything.]



I would have to dissagree due to your own argument. A +1 to STR would help because attacks come in batches, while you view a +1 DEX bonus to AC as to small and static to be usefull. But attacks against YOU come in batches as well, thus a +1 AC will stop at least some of those attacks. Think of it as having a -1 to hit as opposed to a +1 AC. Looking at it in that light shows them to be fairly equal. It would also depend on weather you end up fighting greater, equal, or lesser numbers than your party. If you get lots of 1-2 BBEG climaxes, than the +1 to hit would be more important, as hits against the party will be spread out, or focused on one leaving others to act freely. If you fight greater numbers, than the +1 AC pays for itself. You could have a +1 to hit for up to 4 attacks in one round, or a +1 to AC vs. 4+ attacks against you each round.


I also would not call DEX too good. While it is more imediatly useful to every one, those that have the power to properly use INT, WIS, and CHA would have to think long and hard about not focusing on those scores.

 

[woodelf]

I'll assume you were addressing mmu1, since you quoted him. I was directly answering your statement, as mentioned above. I wasn't calling your credentials into play, nor implying a lack of knowledge or skill...merely that your 3E group's play style is not the norm, based on what you've described.

Yep. And your ability to counter my argument without getting snarky is why i didn't quote and attack your response.

In the 3+ years since the 3e debuted, I've been in three games, two as a DM, one as a player (and some RPGA events). In that time, the main game has reached 21st level, the secondary game has reached 7th level, and the third game has advanced several levels (from 4th to 6th, and then to 10th). And we don't play every week, as I mentioned. I think you'll find that most folks on the board here are 30+ years old, and all have Basic D&D or AD&D experience, at the least.

Atypical? Probably--this is a site devoted to all things D20, and i haven't yet found a D20 System game that i'd be willing to run, and very few i'll play except under protest. Most are just too rulesy for my tastes. It was the claim that, because i haven't spent inordinate amounts of time on one particular RPG, my perspective is narrow or limited in some way that got my hackles up. It seems to that such a claim, if it is valid at all, applies to those who mostly or exclusively play only one system. Greater play of the same game will not, IMHO, broaden your perspective--it will deepen it. You will get a greater and greater understanding, but of a no-broader topic.

The only reason your experience is relevant is that you haven't played above 10th, where the game play is significantly different than prior to 10th. That doesn't make your opinion invalid, but your view is somewhat skewed. If you don't have characters who are getting Initiative scores in the high 30s/low 40s, you aren't as likely to see the relevance.

Fair enough--that's a strong argument, and one that i can't counter or disagree with.

That said, on average, a higher init character will act first. It sounds like he tradtionally rolls well and you traditionally roll poorly...which says more about your dice and the law of averages than the mechanic. On average, I see the high Init characters, such as the DEX28 rogue with Improved Init and the DEX 30 Arcane Archer at the top of the init line. I almost always see the DEX 12 Cleric and DEX 10 Paladin at the bottom. There are rare instances where this isn't the case, but overall, it holds true.

gah! damn, those are some high scores. Or you know something i don't. Other than some fairly powerful magical tomes, how do you get a permanent stat above the low 20s? Or are you talking after buff spells and the like? Anyway, i agree that if the difference between a low and high stat starts to approach or exceed the median value of the randomiser, it'll make a noticable difference. But i'm unaware of how to do that at any but the highest levels (or with magic items--which can be given just as easily to those with low Dex, to onec again narrow the gap).

On dice and averages: I don't know what it is, but i traditionally roll low. Doesn't matter the dice, doesn't matter the game (even games where low is good). And, yes, i've even tracked this at points, so it's not just my selective memory. It's one of the reasons i tend to dislike games where the random element has a significant impact. Combine that with the fact that i get more dis-enjoyment out of a poor roll than i get enjoyment out of a good roll, and i really don't have much fun in a game like D&D3E. I'd gladly give up any chance whatsoever of rolling better than 10 in return for never rolling less than 10, either--it bugs me that much. I want to succeed or fail in an RPG either because i had a cool or stupid idea, or because my character was capable or incapable--the random element should be a distant 3rd in deciding this. Rather than a prominent element as it is in D&d3E (and most D20 System games)

You are entirely correct that after the first round, a high initiative is meaningless. But that first round can be huge. In the most recent combat in my game, the characters faced off against a mixed group of Slaadi, including two White Slaad. The Whites have the ability to cast Finger of Death at will, several Epic spells once per day, and have some horrific attacks. Loss of initiative to them can mean an instant 20d6 area attack against the party, at the very least, or a melee attack at +48 that will do 2d6+18 and then 2d4+18 for 9 more rounds.

Got it. our playstyle is just too different (which probably has a lot to do with why we stopped playing D&d3E)--neither the players nor the GM were frequently that tactically coordinated, 'cause we just aren't interested in that sort of thing. Likewise, we never had stats/boosts like that, 'cause we spent our money on "cool" magic items, rather than powerful ones (like the book that maps out where you've been).

 

[woodelf]

I would have to dissagree due to your own argument. A +1 to STR would help because attacks come in batches, while you view a +1 DEX bonus to AC as to small and static to be usefull. But attacks against YOU come in batches as well, thus a +1 AC will stop at least some of those attacks. Think of it as having a -1 to hit as opposed to a +1 AC. Looking at it in that light shows them to be fairly equal.

Yep: Dex bonus to AC and Str bonus to attack are functionally equivalent. So they cancel out. Leaving the Str bonus to damage. And the Dex bonus to Ref saves. I think the former is generally more significant than the latter; others obviously disagree. Though damage/hitpoints is one of the few things in the game that is generally ablative--saves generally either work or don't, so your bonus only gets applied once. When hurting something, it gets to effectively stack a whole bunch of times, 'cause you're likely to have to hit the opponent multiple times for one defeat. Not to mention the importance of Str vs. anything with DR.

 

[WizarDru]

Correct me if i'm wrong, but can't you get significantly better dodge bonuses from magic and spells than from Dex at high levels, when the ranged-touch attacks become a real problem?

That depends on the character. The aforementioned Dex 30 character is getting a +10 dodge bonus...more than any of the magic items invidually give her. The druid, on the other hand, only has a dex of 12, and a dodge bonus of +1. Since they stack, it makes quite a difference. You can never have too much AC, since it's the not first attack you're really going to be protected from, it's the second, third and fourth.

My point isn't that the Dex modifier to Ref saves doesn't matter at all--oviously it does--but that it is relatively small and can easily get lost in the various other modifiers. Particularly the die roll itself.

But as levels go higher, there are so many effects to stack, that each piece IS important. A cloak of chaos, a ring of resistance, slippery mind, Holy Aura, Haste and a ton of items and other effects may be in force at any given time. The game expects this. At high levels, most saves are polarized into 'you'll need a 20' or 'don't roll a 1'. This is due to just these effects I've mentioned, that most parties have available and active. An 18th level wizard rarely fails his WILL roll, and a against a comparable FORT save, he hopes for the best....unless he's buffed sixteen ways until Sunday, in which case the same applies (at the cost of other party resources).

Oh, and btw, one of my biggest complaints with the feat system is the way it implicitly limits options, and not letting everyone have the equivalent of things like Combat Expertise and maybe Power Attack are exactly the sorts of things i have a problem with. If it were up to me, simple tradeoffs between power and accuracy, or attack and defense, would be stock options (well, the latter even sort of is), just as much so as the choice between attack and full attack currently is. And Spring Attack is another one that shouldn't be necessary, but is just an artifact of the freeze-frame effect of D&D3E combat. Again, if it were up to me, the turn-order system would be such that everyone can do that.

Would balance be altered? Obviously. Would it be broken, or lead to an imbalanced game? IMHO, no, so long as everyone had it, and it wasn't a surprise (so no one was gipped couse they paid for the feat, or somesuch. It'd still be balanced just in a different way--just as allowing charge to bend the general rules for movement and attacks makes the balance of strategies different than if it didn't.

So, your contention then is that if everyone gets a feat for free, it's balanced? That seems more than a little off-base, to me. A wizard isn't going to thank you for getting Spring Attack for free, while a rogue will jump for joy at the prospect. Weapon finesse for a barbarian wielding a greatsword will be of little use, while the bard will be glad of the free ability. The fighter won't much care for the Scribe Scroll feat, either. In fact, no matter what you do, the Fighter will be irritated, as feats are his stock in trade, and you're giving them away like candy. As far as I can tell, you're giving melee based characters some freebies, and possibly giving some classes bonuses for no particular reason.

The system already offers some of the options you desire: Attack Defensively allows you to increase your AC, no feat required. Charge allows you to increase your bonus, again no feat required. Both have positive and negative options to them. I think you're having problems with an esoteric combat system not giving the same level of options to each character, while I see it more as a balancing act of letting characters make their own choices, but rewarding those who specialize more than those who don't....at least in certain situations.

 

[mmu1]

Now, as for your implied attack: so, tell me how i *should* take advantage of initiative for a sub-10th level character? And how these strategies are still of help if i roll a 2 for my initiative? Maybe i'm forgetting something, but is there any way to guarantee even a >10 initiative total? In my (apparently limited) experience, the problem isn't using the high initiative, it's getting it in the first place. As i said before, there was one definite case where we got the drop on someone and used the surprise round to devastating effect (i forget, but i think we also mostly won the initiative for that encounter), cleaning up what should have been a very tough foe in something like 3 rounds--Dispel Magic, lead with heavy ranged attack spells, protected monk zips in and keeps the spellcaster busy, the whole works. Within the limits our characters imposed, i think we did pretty well. But there's nothing you can do to make sure you get the initiative, is there? How does one create/play a "high initiative character"? I know how to play one with a high initiative bonus, but, as i have demonstrated empirically, that doesn't guarantee (or even strongly influence) a high initiative total.

Yeah, ok, you can zip up and put the ruler away, now... I don't know or care how much 2E you've played, just that you - as you admitted yourself - don't have a broad range of 3E experience.

As for the rest of your argument, it amounts to saying that because you have bad luck, Initiative is not important, which makes your position completely irrelevant. You might as well say it doesn't matter whether you have +1 or +7 to hit, because having a +7 doesn't guarantee you won't roll low.

 

[WizarDru]

gah! damn, those are some high scores. Or you know something i don't. Other than some fairly powerful magical tomes, how do you get a permanent stat above the low 20s? Or are you talking after buff spells and the like?

A combination, truthfully. Most characters, at higher levels, have used the power of such books, wishes, buff items that are never taken off, and other circumstances to raise such scores. In my game's situation, individual characters are VERY good at what they do, but poorer outside their field. The rogue can literally seem to cease to exist, though her phsyical punching power is extremely limited. The archer can deal amazing damage in rapid fashion and rarely ever misses...but can be stymied badly by some types of DR.

It's one of the reasons i tend to dislike games where the random element has a significant impact. Combine that with the fact that i get more dis-enjoyment out of a poor roll than i get enjoyment out of a good roll, and i really don't have much fun in a game like D&D3E.

[snip]

Got it. our playstyle is just too different (which probably has a lot to do with why we stopped playing D&d3E)--neither the players nor the GM were frequently that tactically coordinated, 'cause we just aren't interested in that sort of thing. Likewise, we never had stats/boosts like that, 'cause we spent our money on "cool" magic items, rather than powerful ones (like the book that maps out where you've been).

Oh, trust me, my players make plenty of suboptimal choices, too...usually for roleplaying reasons. They are usually rewarded for these efforts in other ways. (You can read my Story Hour, linked below, for examples). My group is more tactical than yours, but arguably much less so than many.

It sounds to me that you might need something like the Action Point system that Spycraft offers, or perhaps a game that uses a different mechanic, such as Castle Falkenstein's card mechanism (which I did not prefer, as it basically turned the GM into a storyteller) or something like Amber, which uses a bidding system, I think.

What I'm arguing is for the system in general, I think, while you're arguing more in terms of verisimilitude. I wouldn't begin to argue that you're wrong on those points from that standpoint. In point of fact, I'd wager that your group is like my group in that they can be trusted to not abuse abusive rules (as the end result tends to cheat everyone). However, I like a ruleset that I don't have to step around, and the abstracts that I have to accept with D&D are, to me, an acceptable cost for a fun game. But I could easily see how you would find it otherwise.

 

[woodelf]

Yeah, ok, you can zip up and put the ruler away, now... I don't know or care how much 2E you've played, just that you - as you admitted yourself - don't have a broad range of 3E experience.

Sorry, got a bit carried away, and was up past my bedtime. However, the point of my contention is that "broad range of 3E experience" is a contradiction in terms--just as "broad range of V:tM experience" or "broad range of Earthdawn experience" would be. IMHO, one game is, by definition, not a broad range. I could buy the claim of a broad range of D20 System experience--there might be enough variety in D20 System games to give a range of experiences. It was your (probably inadvertant, the first time) claim that my experience was somehow "narrow" because i'm not hyper-familiar with D&D3E, when it's precisely because i spend my time with lots of other games, broadening my experience, that i wouldn't have the time to get any more familiar with D&D3E if i wanted to, that hit my hot button. I stand by my statements, but not the way in which i made them. Sorry.

As for the rest of your argument, it amounts to saying that because you have bad luck, Initiative is not important, which makes your position completely irrelevant. You might as well say it doesn't matter whether you have +1 or +7 to hit, because having a +7 doesn't guarantee you won't roll low.

Not quite. What i'm trying to say is that a difference in bonus of 6 when you're rolling a flat-distribution randomizer with a range of 20 is too easily lost in the noise. With a flat distribution, you need a difference in bonuses/scores that exceeds the median result of the randomizer, IMHO, before it is meaningful.

 

[woodelf]

So, your contention then is that if everyone gets a feat for free, it's balanced?

Not quite. I'm claiming that (1) a single feat will cause smaller imbalances than are already there--the system isn't perfectly balanced to begin with, so it is not necessarily true that any changes must of necessity be away from an optimal state. And (2) this particular option should be available to everyone, even if it requires some minor tweaks elsewhere to compensate.

The system already offers some of the options you desire: Attack Defensively allows you to increase your AC, no feat required. Charge allows you to increase your bonus, again no feat required. Both have positive and negative options to them. I think you're having problems with an esoteric combat system not giving the same level of options to each character, while I see it more as a balancing act of letting characters make their own choices, but rewarding those who specialize more than those who don't....at least in certain situations.

That'd probably be fair--or, in short, i don't like many of the choices made when designing the D&D3E combat rules. Some of them i think are actually poor design choices (initiative/speed having so little impact--i think the faster character should get more attacks, instead of the more powerful character getting more attacks) because they limit options or channel everyone towards an optimal strategy that is clearly not the optimal strategy in real life, and/or in fantasy fiction. Others i recognize as purely a matter of taste (AoO vs. fending/pressing/closing/retreat mechanics).

edit: oh, and i was thinking of precisely the Attack Defensively and Charge options when i commented that the mechanics have already acknowledged that those abilities aren't automatically game-breakers, so i'm not convinced that, frex, changing it from 2-for-1 to 1-for-1 would cross the line.

 

[woodelf]

It sounds to me that you might need something like the Action Point system that Spycraft offers, or perhaps a game that uses a different mechanic, such as Castle Falkenstein's card mechanism (which I did not prefer, as it basically turned the GM into a storyteller) or something like Amber, which uses a bidding system, I think.

Yep. As a player, i want a system where the players have a lot of control. As a GM, i want a system where the players have a lot of control. IMHO, the players should not be held hostage by the mechanics, and especially not by the randomizer. I liken a good session of GMing Four Colors al Fresco to being at the reins of a runaway stagecoach--with 4 horses that are trying to get away from each other. If i, as GM, have essentially no control over how the game is going (plot or mechanics), i think it's going well.

I'm surprised to hear you say that about Castle Falkenstein--it's basically the same system as D&d3E (GM sets difficulty; player uses character stat + randomizer to try and exceed difficulty), except that the player gets to decide when to fail and when to succeed (loosely speaking). Unlike many other card-based RPGs (such as Everway), the GM really doesn't have any more input than in most diced games.

Oh, and i think Action Dice in Spycraft are one of the best things added to D20 System in the last 3 years. My own twist on them is instead of going with the semi-adversarial model given in the rulebook, put it all in the hands of the players: a player may choose to earn an action die by turning any error into a fumble, just as they may choose to spend one to turn a threat into a crit. And vice versa for NPC crits/fumbles. (Frex, if i roll a 20 for the villain's attack roll, i let the target PC know, and she can choose to let it be a crit, in return for gaining an action die.) Used it at GenCon, and the players seemed to love it.

But, yeah, in general i shy away from heavily-random RPGs. And i'm happier for it. Even as simple a thing as halving the die range (while keeping the stat range about the same), such as Ars Magica, makes a world of difference to me.

Oh, just noticed your comment: Amber DRP uses bidding for chargen. Task resolution is deterministic, using just the stats and situational modifiers.