Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="woodelf" data-source="post: 1195229" data-attributes="member: 10201">Note that you said "one in a million"--not "one in twenty".  The problem is that the system errs, IMHO, too far in the direction of making things common, and thus un-special.  Now, if the die roll was open-ended, that'd be great (roll a 20, roll again and add), 'cause then you could have those 1-in-10000 chances, and the like.  Right now, it's pretty much 5%, or 0--nothing in between.  So if it's possible at all, it's fairly frequent, in the grand scheme of things.  [i suppose you could argue that there is support in the following sense: say a creature has DR20, and the person attacking does d8+5, and needs a 20 to hit.  The odds of actually doing damage would then be ~.09%, which is a reasonably small number.  It'd also be a horrible combat to actually play through, unless the creature also only had 5 or 10 hps.]Now, i accept that such long odds need to be less-long for RPG purposes--you're not gonna make a million attack rolls against Great Wyrm dragons during your entire RPing career, so one-in-a-million odds may as well be zero.  But you still need something a fair bit rarer than 5% for those long-shot odds.  Heck, i probably make 20 rolls in a single session--and i'm sure the group, in aggregate, does--so 5% means it's gonna come up at least every night, on average.  Hardly fits the trope of "one-in-a-million." Yes, and no.  That is, i'm aware that those are two distinct things, but i think they go together, in terms of archetypes.  I'm thinking of the swashbuckler/fencer, martial artist, maybe knife fighter--they use a combination of precision and mobility/speed to get the job done, rather than just raw force.  That said, i see your points--some of what you suggest, i *hadn't* thought of, or didn't think of interpreting it that way.  Other parts i disagree with (on which more below).Sort of.  I want some sort of difference between the guy with high init and the guy with low.  With the cyclic init, the advantage disappears after the first round.  That advantage could be more attacks (it's how i'm currently tackling it in one system).  It could be having a real advantage to going first (such as actions/conditions lasting to the end of the round, or end of the next round, rather than until your initiative count on the next round).  Even having strict declarations would be an improvement and give the high-init guy some advantage (that is, the person with the lowest init declares what she's going to do, then the next-lowest, and so on, up to the highest, so that the fastest person gets to plan based on what everyone else is doing, to simulate faster reaction time).  I'm sure there are others i'm not thinking of right now, or have never thought of.  So, more attacks isn't the only solution, but it is my favorite (reverse-order declarations are a pain in the butt; variable-length conditions gets a bit wonky from both a verissimilitude standpoint and a balance standpoint).um, did i miss something? If you're moving, you don't get multiple attacks either--and that means no point to TWF. Even with Spring Attack, you can't run in, hit with both hands, and then run out.This is the character that, IMHO, is warped by the rules.  Specifically, sneak attack damage is really a mobility thing, mechanically, not a precision thing.  You don't get sneak attack damage for having a good hit, or high BAB, or antyhing like that, you get it for outmaneuvering your opponent, catching her by surprise.  IOW, it conceptually supports the swift fighter you talk about above.  Also, i don't think this is the character concept i've been envisioning--this sounds like an archer, not a swashbuckler. Hmmm...maybe.  Not familiar enough with all the details to really demonstrate this or counter it.  Conceptually, it bugs me, mind you--it's yet another case where the rogue is being used as a "dirty fighter", rather than a deceiver or skillmonkey.  But that's another rant, so never mind.Anyway, back on topic: i'm not a super-expert with D&D3E, but i'm going to toss out an example from soemone who shoul be: Monte Cook seems to think that the system as written doesn't support the light fighter, as evidenced by both his inclusion of the unfettered class in AU, and the ways in which it behaves that no PH class (or multiclass) can mimic.OK, this i can't argue with.  I haven't run into it much, but i see what you're talking about.  In short, good tactics, combined with getting the first strike in, can make a significant difference.  But, wouldn't surprise rounds be just as effective, even if you lose initiative?  As is, because of the highly random nature of init, you can't assure that result, except by getting the advantage of surprise, anyway.  I understand what you're talking about with setting the tone of the battle.  Just that in my D&D3E experience, it wasn't necessarily the side that won initiative that got to set the tone.  Often the deciding factor didn't happen until the 2nd or 3rd round, and it could be either side that does it.  But i can see what you're saying that, often, the mechanics will essentially let the side with initiative do that tone-setting, if they're careful--especially at higher levels. I agree ,conceptually: dash in, attack, dash out.  Problem is, the freezeframe init system means that it doesn't matter how fast you are--no Spring Attack, no dash-in-and-out.  I was particularly frustrated by this because it makes a classic strategy of the cinema impossible: rush in, piss off the [dumb] bad guy, then back pedal, staying just out of reach, in order to taunt/lead her into a trap of some sort.  Because of the timing, my choices are: (1) rush in and bash (on my turn), get bashed (on her turn), bash and retreat (on my turn), or (2) rush in and out (on my turn)--which doesn't provide any incentive for the enemy to follow, 'cause she can already see where i'm going.  In short, the strategic feint is essentially impossible, unless you have Spring Attack (at least lvl6 for the monk).  In short, i agree that that's what the mobile fighter does, but i think you're glossing over the difficulty of actually creating such a character, especially at low levels.  Which just aggravates the problem, IMHO.  Forcing someone to take a bunch of feats to play a swashbuckler is, IMHO, just adding insult to injury.  You don't have to take any feats to play an effective tank (just have a high Str and Con).  This particular trade off--power vs. mobility--should be better handled by the basic combat rules, IMHO.Funny you should mention that.  I just pulled out my copy of GURPS a couple of days ago, specifically to read the advanced combat rules for ideas.  Anyway, GURPS is even more complex, and thus even less desirable to me.  I want *less* number-crunching, and *less* mechanical detail--i was reasonably satisfied with the non-tactical AD&D2 combat rules (while they also didn't support this archetype, at least they were less of a pain in general, and combats required less thought and usually went faster).  Now, long drawn-out fights between master swordsmen, especially fencing-style, are very cool--but only if they have the tactical livelihood of te one duel from The Princess Bride.  IOW, a 30rd fight in which each combatant used 10 or 12 different strategies (each for a couple of blows), would be interesting. I haven't seen a system yet that supports that, however.  Also, at least in GURPS, the fight could easily be over in one blow--30 rds to land a blow is acceptable if, as i said, thefight is interesting as well as suspenseful, and that pretty much decides the fight.  If it were D&D style, where it's gonna take you several blows--possibly dozens--to decide the fight (much less end it), then you want to hit every time, more or less.Oh, and from a cinematic standpoint, favoring the swashbuckler is no better--the complaint would switch to "i want to play Conan--Conan doesn't parry, Conan doesn't work for advantage, he just cleaves right through the guy's defense".</blockquote>

Verification