Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 3143137" data-attributes="member: 1465">Think about SKILLS. Many of them give you different levels of success/failure with a single roll.Why couldn't that be done with ST?There could be a general rule saying for instance that when a spell has a partial effect in case of success, the effect is ignore if you beat the DC by 10 or more. (10 is just a made up example) That would be a simple enough way to cover all spells. If we are afraid that it becomes too general, we could &quot;move&quot; this rule to specific spells only, those which have a partial effect I mean.Why do you think the game would be more complicated?It's one roll less when casting a spell, it's one parameter less to keep track of in the spell's description, it's one less area that the player needs to keep his character proficient with*.The existing SR could be translated in ST bonuses vs. magic, which is one more parameter in the monster description, and that general rule about ignoring partial effects.It's not more complicated than before...*I know this may sound bad, since we do like to have more options for our characters. But with SR the player of a caster needs to boost both his save DCs and his caster level vs SR to obtain the same conceptual objective: make her spells work. I am not saying this is bad, I use it all the time, I'm only saying it's redundant. It would be like having two separate mechanics for attacks, the first being a roll by the attacked to aim the target and the second a roll by the defender to parry the blow. It wouldn't be terrible (many DM use parrying rolls) but because it isn't in the PHB most players don't see the necessity of it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Li Shenron, post: 3143137, member: 1465"] Think about SKILLS. Many of them give you different levels of success/failure with a single roll. Why couldn't that be done with ST? There could be a general rule saying for instance that when a spell has a partial effect in case of success, the effect is ignore if you beat the DC by 10 or more. (10 is just a made up example) That would be a simple enough way to cover all spells. If we are afraid that it becomes too general, we could "move" this rule to specific spells only, those which have a partial effect I mean. Why do you think the game would be more complicated? It's one roll less when casting a spell, it's one parameter less to keep track of in the spell's description, it's one less area that the player needs to keep his character proficient with*. The existing SR could be translated in ST bonuses vs. magic, which is one more parameter in the monster description, and that general rule about ignoring partial effects. It's not more complicated than before... *I know this may sound bad, since we do like to have more options for our characters. But with SR the player of a caster needs to boost both his save DCs and his caster level vs SR to obtain the same conceptual objective: make her spells work. I am not saying this is bad, I use it all the time, I'm only saying it's redundant. It would be like having two separate mechanics for attacks, the first being a roll by the attacked to aim the target and the second a roll by the defender to parry the blow. It wouldn't be terrible (many DM use parrying rolls) but because it isn't in the PHB most players don't see the necessity of it. [/QUOTE]

Verification