A rant against so-called heroes

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Sat Feb 21, 2009 1:41 am

Great.

However, the players need to know it's a good decision or bad decision. And a good decision is to take the less risky path.

-Crissa

zeruslord · Post by **zeruslord** » Sat Feb 21, 2009 1:44 am

Is there a defense roll? How likely is it that my defense failed?

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Sat Feb 21, 2009 1:53 am

And if you do, and there's no reason why taking the risky path is important - fine. Pacos Bill carving out the Rio Grande is quite possibly the most unawesome thing I have seen in a movie, following closely behind Anakin Skywanker being a whiny prick.

Zerus: Depends on the system - personally, I'm thinking over an idea on the whole subject that minimizes the number of rolls for that but covers the same stuff.

Will comment on it in my Arturius thread if I feel its going anywhere but a sign I'm bored.

Heath Robinson · Post by **Heath Robinson** » Sat Feb 21, 2009 1:54 am

Elennsar,

What you want are a tactical manual and a group that is willing to have character death. That is all. Seriously. The tactical options in the D20 system at least partially support the play style you want. They may require a little coaxing to fully achieve the game you want, but it's easier to do that than produce and balance an entire game. Just play against higher CR challenges than is normally considered level appopriate and with a GM that is tactically ept.

It's really a gaming culture issue rather than a system issue, so stop looking for a system solution. It doesn't exist.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Sat Feb 21, 2009 1:59 am

That is all. Seriously. The tactical options in the D20 system at least partially support the play style you want.

Not really, no.

It's really a gaming culture issue rather than a system issue, so stop looking for a system solution. It doesn't exist.

There are game systems that handle what I want to have handled - where you CAN face one on many but they CAN kill you - and nothing involving a d20 looks like it gets it.

Draco_Argentum · Post by **Draco_Argentum** » Sat Feb 21, 2009 2:19 am

Psychic Robot wrote:Why don't you eat shit? 'Cause I'm pretty sure that this type of deadlock that happens in 99% of Elennsar threads. Is it his fault? Probably, since this sort of crap doesn't (usually) happen to other members. (See the recent PL vs. Frank's "pro-floating island, anti-hollow world" thread for an exception.) However, when I read the threads, I see people making intelligent points on both sides, and then it devolves into fail and AIDS.

Others have already objected to the second paragraph so I'll take the first. This deadlock happens so frequently in Elennsar dominated threads because of him. No other option makes any sense, he is the constant factor.

What we don't need is you egging the situation on by posting strawman defenses of Elennsar. You've seriously attempted to claim that TGD as a whole hates deadly combat and therefore hates Elennsar. This claim is obviously ridiculous since multiple people here like Shadowrun. Frank even likes it enough to write houserules that go on for thousands of words.

In short, your repeated defense of Elennsar has no basis in reality and merely adds more stupid to already stupid threads.

JonSetanta · Post by **JonSetanta** » Sat Feb 21, 2009 5:54 am

Draco_Argentum wrote: Others have already objected to the second paragraph so I'll take the first. This deadlock happens so frequently in Elennsar dominated threads because of him. No other option makes any sense, he is the constant factor.

You're missing the other half to this sensible statement.

RandomCasualty2 · Post by **RandomCasualty2** » Sat Feb 21, 2009 7:43 am

Elennsar wrote: No, what I want is a game where the difference between a good decision and a bad decision actually effects the outcome.

I think we all want a game like that.

If you're supposed to regard an orc as capable of killing you, then he should be capable of generating that result - your task is to prevent him from doing so, but having the GM make it so he can't actually do so is boring.

So let's say it went like this:

Orc swings.
Orc makes his TN to hit.
You use an action to defend. You manage to defend.

The problem is that this isn't much of a decision. It's a random roll, and whether you're rolling or the orc is rolling, there's not much in the way of tactics.

DM: "The orc swings at your head, do you want to try to block it?"
PC: "Um.... yes?"

D&D assumes with AC and HP that you're trying your best to avoid taking damage, and all in all, that's pretty reasonable.

Is it really different that you change an attack roll into an opposed attack versus defense roll? Not remarkably so. They're separate mechanics but the end result is the same.

The warrior swings and misses. Whether that miss was due to him slipping on the wet cave floor or due to his attack being blocked is something we just leave to DM description, but the end result is the same. The action is wasted and the target is undamaged.

But you did manage to defend. Your defence actually mattered. Huzzah.

On a D&D attack roll, your AC actually matters, because it's the DC that you're attacking.

The only reason you'd want a defense roll is if you wanted to have some kind of diminishing effect to trying to block multiple attacks in a combat round. And plenty of games do that, and there's nothing wrong with it. But from a storytelling standpoint it doesn't make your defense matter anymore than a game with a static attack roll DC like D&D.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Sat Feb 21, 2009 7:57 am

I think we all want a game like that.

Then lessening the amount that PCs are invulnerable would help.

The warrior swings and misses. Whether that miss was due to him slipping on the wet cave floor or due to his attack being blocked is something we just leave to DM description, but the end result is the same. The action is wasted and the target is undamaged.

Well, since there was a 0% chance of hurting you if he didn't use the action, "wasted" is a bit strong.

On a D&D attack roll, your AC actually matters, because it's the DC that you're attacking.

Other than the "small" problem that a 2d4+3 attack at 10th level is...really not a big deal. At all.

But from a storytelling standpoint it doesn't make your defense matter anymore than a game with a static attack roll DC like D&D.

What does makes it not matter is that you can have an AC of 10 or 30 and the orc is still not threatening after a few levels because the amount of damage he can do is so minimal.

Whether you have an attack vs. a static number, a defence vs. a static number, or whatever - if "taking damage" doesn't mean very much, then its not particularly important whether or not you successfully defended or not.

Having lots of hit points and a high AC translates into "guys not at your level might as well slit their throats." rather nicely - but it doesn't translate into going to any real length to defend yourself.

You don't have to be cautious, you don't have to worry about the tradeoff of Combat Expertise or using a shield, you just rely on the fact that orcs are not a challenge any more and even when they are a "challenge" they are very unlikely to kill you.

I don't mind having the odds of dying to a rank and file opponent being very low - but I do want them to be capable of inflicting nasty crap on you if you don't actually take it seriously - and if the fluff is that the characters are - the mechanics should show that.

"You easily hit the bull's eye." is not a good description of managing to just hit the AC for hitting the target.

It really isn't.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Sat Feb 21, 2009 9:15 am

RC wrote:The only reason you'd want a defense roll is if you wanted to have some kind of diminishing effect to trying to block multiple attacks in a combat round.

Well no. Defense Rolls add an extra layer of randomness to the equation, meaning that your choices matter less. If your defenses are static, then whatever "choices" you make to defend yourself (Dodge, Expertise, etc.) always work. If you have a defense roll, then your defense values are random and you can end up undefended even if you made the choice to attempt to defend yourself.

Everything you turn over to a roll is an introduced random element. The more random elements you have, the more the dice and not player choice affect things. If you really wanted a system where only Choice mattered, you'd just play Queen's Blade (which has no die rolls at all). And if you wanted to give bonuses for multiple attackers you would be perfectly capable of doing so without allowing a defense roll of any kind (nWoD does that, for example).

-Username17

RandomCasualty2 · Post by **RandomCasualty2** » Sat Feb 21, 2009 9:51 am

FrankTrollman wrote: Well no. Defense Rolls add an extra layer of randomness to the equation, meaning that your choices matter less. If your defenses are static, then whatever "choices" you make to defend yourself (Dodge, Expertise, etc.) always work. If you have a defense roll, then your defense values are random and you can end up undefended even if you made the choice to attempt to defend yourself.

Well, yeah, if you go to an existing system like D&D and add a defense roll, then you do increase the amount of randomness. Though for a custom system, I can expect that whatever fluctuations in probability may occur have already been accounted for, since the math going in is probably going to be set. Even in a d20 like setup, a way to get a more normalized two roll setup would be to use a d10 instead of a d20 for each roll. And effectively one roll is negative and the other is positive, so your range of rolls is going to be -9 to +9.

So really, you can get whatever probability you want in a one or two roll system.

And if you wanted to give bonuses for multiple attackers you would be perfectly capable of doing so without allowing a defense roll of any kind (nWoD does that, for example).

Totally true, but it's often cleaner to apply a multiple defense penalty if you're making defense rolls. It'd be hard to keep track of in D&D for instance.

RandomCasualty2 · Post by **RandomCasualty2** » Sat Feb 21, 2009 10:01 am

Elennsar wrote: Then lessening the amount that PCs are invulnerable would help.

Not really. It has nothing to do with bad tactics if an orc happens to roll a critical on you and drop you, or that you happened to fail a save.

The point of fantasy RPGs is that you're going to go in there swinging and get into melee combats. That's sword and sorcery for you. And the rules should make you feel comfortable doing that.

Other than the "small" problem that a 2d4+3 attack at 10th level is...really not a big deal. At all.

Hit points are just another manner of defense. Instead of making a roll to nullify an attack, you pay points to "block" a lethal hit. It's just another defense mechanic, only it works on a resource depletion system instead of a random chance.

What does makes it not matter is that you can have an AC of 10 or 30 and the orc is still not threatening after a few levels because the amount of damage he can do is so minimal.

Well, sure, at level 8 or something, you're going to be able to soak a lot of hits if you're a warrior. But at that point, a lone basic orc shouldn't be a problem. It should take a warband of orcs to challenge you.

Like I said before, if you want a lone orc to always be a challenge, then Riddle of Steel is probably the system for you. That one ensures that every fight is pretty dangerous. It's hard to feel comfortable in that system.

Having lots of hit points and a high AC translates into "guys not at your level might as well slit their throats." rather nicely - but it doesn't translate into going to any real length to defend yourself.

Sure it does. Because your defenses are automatic. If someone swung a sword at you, wouldn't you want to try to block it? D&D already assumes that you're trying to defend yourself at the best of your ability. Granted if most of your AC comes from heavy armor you might be assumed to be a walking tank, but if your AC is dex based, then you are doing lots of crazy Jackie Chan shit. And even your HP reflects your defensive capabilities.

I don't mind having the odds of dying to a rank and file opponent being very low - but I do want them to be capable of inflicting nasty crap on you if you don't actually take it seriously - and if the fluff is that the characters are - the mechanics should show that.

What kind of mechanics do you even want to represent "taking it seriously against a minor foe"?

Again, this seems to be a storytelling problem with you, not an actual rules issue, because for whatever reason you imagine a high level hero not doing crazy Jackie Chan shit, but rather walking in there like Superman.

Look at Legolas in LotR, he does all kinds of crazy crap and nobody touches him. That's pretty much what a high level D&D character is going to look like. When they're moving that fast and with that much precision, they can make short work of large numbers of orcs.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Sat Feb 21, 2009 10:16 am

Not really. It has nothing to do with bad tactics if an orc happens to roll a critical on you and drop you, or that you happened to fail a save.

The point of fantasy RPGs is that you're going to go in there swinging and get into melee combats. That's sword and sorcery for you. And the rules should make you feel comfortable doing that.

People have felt comfortable doing that in our world without the rules being set up to make it damn hard to actually die - now, a fair number of those people were insane, but I'm not sure that the average adventurer can safely be assumed to be completely practical.

I'm not saying that we can or should perfectly model real life - but people have done far riskier things than "we might take damage we care about if he gets two natural 20s in a row." with great confidence - and knowing they're riskier, too.

Hit points are just another manner of defense. Instead of making a roll to nullify an attack, you pay points to "block" a lethal hit. It's just another defense mechanic, only it works on a resource depletion system instead of a random chance.

And having both means that the odds of "hurt enough that you care about" are minimal.

Like I said before, if you want a lone orc to always be a challenge, then Riddle of Steel is probably the system for you. That one ensures that every fight is pretty dangerous. It's hard to feel comfortable in that system.

I don't want him to always be dangerous, but I don't want it to be possible to compose love poetry while he flails away at you, either.

Sure it does. Because your defenses are automatic. If someone swung a sword at you, wouldn't you want to try to block it? D&D already assumes that you're trying to defend yourself at the best of your ability. Granted if most of your AC comes from heavy armor you might be assumed to be a walking tank, but if your AC is dex based, then you are doing lots of crazy Jackie Chan shit. And even your HP reflects your defensive capabilities.

No, it doesn't. It translates into your standard posure being more than good enough.

What kind of mechanics do you even want to represent "taking it seriously against a minor foe"?

Mechanics where saying "Screw the orc, I aim at the oliphant." is a bad idea would be a great start. Assuming I'm supposed to believe a high level D&D character is modeling Legolas, that is important.

Again, this seems to be a storytelling problem with you, not an actual rules issue, because for whatever reason you imagine a high level hero not doing crazy Jackie Chan shit, but rather walking in there like Superman.

If the character is doing crazy Jackie Chan shit, as you put it, it should require that sort of ability - which means that on the off chance you get "hit", it actually is a problem because it did beat your crazy acrobatic dodge rolling about and didn't get rolled with.

Fluff should be reflected by crunch, not used to compensate for shitty crunch, which you're arguing can be done to salvage terrible mechanics.

The reason I dislike it?

Okay. Someone throws a grenade at me and Bob.

I have a Reflex save of +6. I have 50 hit points.

Bob has a Reflex save of +10 and 30 hit points.

If I fail my Reflex save, my hit points will protect me from that. That doesn't feel right - if I'm supposed to be worried about the grenade to begin with (seperate question - personally, I'm fine with "Grenades are overrated vs. experienced people."), I should be dependent avoiding it, not soaking it up. And basing hit points on Constitution implies that in some way my fortitude, stamina, endurance, toughness, or something is being involved. Not luck, skill, last minute dodging, or any of the other BS (official and unofficial) explainations.

JonSetanta · Post by **JonSetanta** » Sat Feb 21, 2009 10:16 am

RandomCasualty2 wrote: Hit points are just another manner of defense. Instead of making a roll to nullify an attack, you pay points to "block" a lethal hit. It's just another defense mechanic, only it works on a resource depletion system instead of a random chance.

Don't know about you, but I'm attempting something very similar to this with Fate vs. Luck.
Frank's counterpart might be Winds of Fate, if I understood it correctly.

The most difficult part IMO is deciding how many "blocks" a character will get and how often said resource will refresh.
I'm considering a modest pool of about 5-7 that refreshes at a rate of 1 per round of rest (no actions) which means that anyone can hide in the middle of battle to recover their "blocks", "evades", "rerolls", or what have you.

And important difference between these addendums to the concept of character defense is that while a 'defense roll' implies variable AC, these limited points are spent to guarantee a defense.
No roll. No number.
The attack, of whichever allowed type to be "blocked", simply does not work.

FrankTrollman wrote:Queen's Blade

I... can't believe you just referenced an animu hentai game.

Echidna is love, or some reasonable facsimile on my part.

MartinHarper · Post by **MartinHarper** » Sat Feb 21, 2009 10:50 am

I was amused by Iain M Banks's argument in Matter: we are not in the Matrix, because there is great suffering, and sentient beings would not create a simulation where the inhabitants suffered so much. He also made the point that, if we can conceive of an infinite series of Matrixes, the "no special observer" meta-theory claims that it is unlikely we are at the top of the pile.

Fallen Hero wrote:I was taught that the world being real was more plausible because it answered more questions while relying on less assumptions.

Nah, you were taught that the world being real was more plausible because the opposite belief is not in the best interests of the teacher or society.

RandomCasualty2 · Post by **RandomCasualty2** » Sat Feb 21, 2009 6:24 pm

Elennsar wrote: People have felt comfortable doing that in our world without the rules being set up to make it damn hard to actually die - now, a fair number of those people were insane, but I'm not sure that the average adventurer can safely be assumed to be completely practical.

I'd say all of them were basically insane or suicidal if they felt comfortable going into combat. Seriously, combat is fucking scary as hell. If you were running into a place where bullets and swords were flying, you're going to be scared.

I'm not saying that we can or should perfectly model real life - but people have done far riskier things than "we might take damage we care about if he gets two natural 20s in a row." with great confidence - and knowing they're riskier, too.

Yeah, and real life doesn't have many recurring combat heroes either. Even the supposed great combat legends like the Red Baron were eventually taken out.

I don't want him to always be dangerous, but I don't want it to be possible to compose love poetry while he flails away at you, either.

This is again, your problem with storytelling, not with D&D. D&D assumes that you're defending. If your character decides not to defend, then treat it as a CdG, which is damn well good enough for any orc to probably kill anybody.

No, it doesn't. It translates into your standard posure being more than good enough.

OK, here's the question. Why would an adventurer's "base posture", ever not be them defending themselves? I mean why in a combat would the DM ask, "Do you want to try to defend yourself?" And the PC would say no. D&D assumes you aren't playing some suicidal maniac and that if someone swings a sword at you, you're going to raise your shield. It's only common sense.

Mechanics where saying "Screw the orc, I aim at the oliphant." is a bad idea would be a great start. Assuming I'm supposed to believe a high level D&D character is modeling Legolas, that is important.

Well, all games have a problem with focus fire. Even in deadly games like Shadowrun, you're still going to aim at the biggest threat. Because even if the orc is threatening, the oliphant is still more threatening.

If the character is doing crazy Jackie Chan shit, as you put it, it should require that sort of ability

How about a high dexterity score and the dodge feat?

You seem to be falling into the trap of believing that if you don't roll for something, it doesn't exist. Whether you set something to a rolled quantity or a static quantity, it really does'nt matter.

When you make your attack roll, you are not just testing your own effectiveness, but rather also representing the potential effectiveness of the defender. A low roll could mean that your attack was blocked by a good parry.

D&D is a system that is more interested in generating quick results than necessarily trying to explain how those results came to pass. A missed roll could be a wild swing or it could be a deadly attack to the head that bounced off a timely shield placement. D&D's defenses are entirely abstract, so a high AC could come from heavy armor or it could come from a high dexterity. Similarly, high HP could represent that you're a vicious beast like the Tarrasque that just soaks damage, or it could be that you're a cinematic hero who rolls out of the way just at the right time. How you choose to describe it is up to you and seriously if you need a defense roll for storytelling purposes, then you've got an imagination deficiency.

It's one thing to say that you want a defense roll because you want it to be difficult to hold off multiple attackers and you want the roll to diminish, or because you want to add more randomness to the equation as Frank said, but to do so solely because you're unable to add flavor to the difference between a wild swing and a parried or dodged attack is a bit much.

But seriously if you want to get technical, there's GURPS and Riddle of Steel.

Seriously, have you tried Riddle of Steel? It sounds like the game you want. It has defense rolls, deadly combats and every foe is a serious threat.

If I fail my Reflex save, my hit points will protect me from that. That doesn't feel right - if I'm supposed to be worried about the grenade to begin with (seperate question - personally, I'm fine with "Grenades are overrated vs. experienced people."), I should be dependent avoiding it, not soaking it up.

This is again a problem with you translating what hit points are representing. Hit Points aren't necessarily you being superman and taking a grenade to the chest.

They represent your ability to turn a deadly wound into a minor one. And there's plenty of cinematic examples of the mechanic at work. The predator shoots that one guy with the shoulder cannon and blows his arm off. But he shoots Arnold and just grazes him. That's certainly "a hit", but Arnold's HP prevent the hit from being fatal.

Remember HP are just another form of defense, like a saving throw, only they work off of a resource mechanic instead of a random die roll mechanic.

And basing hit points on Constitution implies that in some way my fortitude, stamina, endurance, toughness, or something is being involved. Not luck, skill, last minute dodging, or any of the other BS (official and unofficial) explainations.

This is just a case of ability score balance.

D&D's mechanical wording could use some work. For instance, referring to attacks as "Damage" when indeed most of the time they're not really even inflicting wounds you care about.

MartinHarper · Post by **MartinHarper** » Sat Feb 21, 2009 7:39 pm

Well, if you're a bard, you may well be composing love poetry while under attack, and it's only a Concentration DC 10 check to keep doing so. D&d could certainly be changed to reduce the options available when threatened and/or increase the damage from attacks of opportunity. Combat casting could be cut, for example.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Sat Feb 21, 2009 11:24 pm

I'd say all of them were basically insane or suicidal if they felt comfortable going into combat. Seriously, combat is fucking scary as hell. If you were running into a place where bullets and swords were flying, you're going to be scared.

Scared, yes. Brave enough to overcome that? Maybe. Quite a few people who (in general) appear to be sane and nonsuicidal could answer "Yes."

Yeah, and real life doesn't have many recurring combat heroes either. Even the supposed great combat legends like the Red Baron were eventually taken out.

And then there are the ones who survived. I'd give about...well, some amount of my time at least, to finding out how many died in combat. Let's stick with WWI aces for now, that's pretty measurable.

This is again, your problem with storytelling, not with D&D. D&D assumes that you're defending. If your character decides not to defend, then treat it as a CdG, which is damn well good enough for any orc to probably kill anybody.

No, this is a problem with the mechanics assuming that my "standard actions" include being more than defensive enough to take care of the pesky orc.

OK, here's the question. Why would an adventurer's "base posture", ever not be them defending themselves? I mean why in a combat would the DM ask, "Do you want to try to defend yourself?" And the PC would say no. D&D assumes you aren't playing some suicidal maniac and that if someone swings a sword at you, you're going to raise your shield. It's only common sense.

I'm assuming this is a serious question, because this is a serious answer: http://www.gamesdiner.com/decide

Well, all games have a problem with focus fire. Even in deadly games like Shadowrun, you're still going to aim at the biggest threat. Because even if the orc is threatening, the oliphant is still more threatening.

Focus fire is not the problem. The fact you can ignore the orc because only the oliphant is threatening at all is.

How you choose to describe it is up to you and seriously if you need a defense roll for storytelling purposes, then you've got an imagination deficiency.

No, what I need is the mechanics to actually represent the fluff. And hit points based on Constitution do not represent "a cinematic hero who rolls out of the way just at the right time".

Seriously, have you tried Riddle of Steel? It sounds like the game you want. It has defense rolls, deadly combats and every foe is a serious threat.

It sounds like you're incapable of telling the difference between wanting people to be at risk and people to be dying right and left and backward.

Remember HP are just another form of defense, like a saving throw, only they work off of a resource mechanic instead of a random die roll mechanic.

Remember, they fail utterly to represent "I avoided the blow at the last possible second." which is DEXTERITY, not Constitution. They fail to represent being able to survive a deadly wound because they mean no wound IS deadly until the last hit or two.

This is again a problem with you translating what hit points are representing. Hit Points aren't necessarily you being superman and taking a grenade to the chest.

No, they're just a badly written mechanic that means there's no difference within the system between the guys who -should- be able to do that and the guys who are actually dependent on avoiding being hit in the chest with a grenade.

This is just a case of ability score balance.

D&D's mechanical wording could use some work. For instance, referring to attacks as "Damage" when indeed most of the time they're not really even inflicting wounds you care about.

Yeah, because actually having Constitution be important for any of the other things that sort of quality does would mean the game would have to care about those other things...which is a seperate rant.

Its mechanical wording and its mechanical representation of the fluff.

f you want a depleted pool for defence, awesome. If you want a static number, awesome. If you want "and somehow, even though it was a 'successful' attack, the character thought it was a miss.", then I'm going to continue to gripe about badly written rules.

Parthenon · Post by **Parthenon** » Sun Feb 22, 2009 1:00 am

Elennsar wrote:
OK, here's the question. Why would an adventurer's "base posture", ever not be them defending themselves? I mean why in a combat would the DM ask, "Do you want to try to defend yourself?" And the PC would say no. D&D assumes you aren't playing some suicidal maniac and that if someone swings a sword at you, you're going to raise your shield. It's only common sense.
I'm assuming this is a serious question, because this is a serious answer: http://www.gamesdiner.com/decide

That article is utterly retarded for this situation. Wait, maybe I'm being a bit harsh, I don't know GURPS well enough, I skimmed through the source book reading interesting parts once. But, from the article it says that there is a penalty to other actions if you defend.

Unless there is a cost to defence, then the character will defend each and every time. If you know that someone could hit you and, y'know, hurt you, even if its 'just' pain, then you're going to try and stop that. This works in GURPS, where characters will willingly take a hit to deal out a much harder one than they would if they dodged it, but in D&D defending others attacks has no cost. (I'm not counting fighting defensively or expertise since they have no real similarities to this). The other situation is making defence basically waste your next turn which makes noone defend, just as stupid.

If you don't bother defending yourself in D&D, then thats modeled as a flat-footed AC, or a coup-de-grace if the DM is bastardy and you are deliberately exposing yourself. And having a flatfooted AC unless you decide for each and every attack to defend is stupid. After about 2 rounds everyone will tell the DM to assume that they are always defending. And if your replacing the +10 with 1d20 then you are just increasing the RNG from 1-20 to 2-40, not making defending important.

The only way I can think of doing this offhand is to remove the base +10 to AC, have like +5 instead, and have an active defence of +1d10 as an AoO against a single attack, but causing a cumulative -1 to all rolls in the next round. This would make active defences worthwhile without standard defences being worthless, while keeping to a similar RNG. This would also give a large advantage to those with high initiatives and those with many attacks since they would be more likely to hit and probabilistically less likely to be hit.

Or, have 1 defence per BAB point. So a level 10 fighter has 10 active defences a round and a level 10 wizard has 5.

Hmmmm... I can see how that would be compelling, but I don't really have any idea how it would affect things. The first would be that two weapon fighting gets a lot better since the base AC would tend to be lower and there would be more attacks than active defences, and ganging up on enemies gets a lot better.

Elennsar wrote:
How you choose to describe it is up to you and seriously if you need a defense roll for storytelling purposes, then you've got an imagination deficiency.
No, what I need is the mechanics to actually represent the fluff. And hit points based on Constitution do not represent "a cinematic hero who rolls out of the way just at the right time".
Remember HP are just another form of defense, like a saving throw, only they work off of a resource mechanic instead of a random die roll mechanic.
Remember, they fail utterly to represent "I avoided the blow at the last possible second." which is DEXTERITY, not Constitution. They fail to represent being able to survive a deadly wound because they mean no wound IS deadly until the last hit or two.
This is again a problem with you translating what hit points are representing. Hit Points aren't necessarily you being superman and taking a grenade to the chest.
No, they're just a badly written mechanic that means there's no difference within the system between the guys who -should- be able to do that and the guys who are actually dependent on avoiding being hit in the chest with a grenade.

This sounds like you want toughness and agility to be roughly equal in usefulness for defence and to be able to use either by choice. That sound about right?

One way to do that would be to have static HP and either adding a dodge bonus or adding damage reduction against each attack. So, if you're being attacked then you would have a basic AC to stop the attacker automatically hitting, then a tough character would harden the fuck up and add DR based on his Con and abilities, and an agile character would add a large dodge bonus based on Dex and abilities.

Elennsar wrote: If you want a depleted pool for defence, awesome. If you want a static number, awesome. If you want "and somehow, even though it was a 'successful' attack, the character thought it was a miss.", then I'm going to continue to gripe about badly written rules.

Wait, I don't get this. Under what circumstances would this be the case?

On a similar but unrelated note, you've gone on about PCs ignoring enemies attacks because they can't hurt the PCs, but thats only really possible if the PCs have DR higher than the enemy can deal or fast healing of more than they can deal.

After all, even level 20 adventurers will still be hurt from a knife wound. The mechanics mean that if you can defend yourself then you would need to be attacked a lot or by a very skilled knife fighter to be killed, which equates to losing a lot of HP.

I see what you mean by one hit not being scary, but all that means is that by that time they have enough experience and skill to evade attacks almost automatically. If they didn't bother evading at all it would be a coup-de-grace which they have to make a save or die. And since they are so tough they can probably make the save.

See? Right there you have reasoning for high level adventurers and mechanically not worrying too much about commoners, but still having to be wary of them- basically that they can easily evade the blows if they try (AC) but that if taken unawares then they can still die from a single blow (coup-de-grace).

Possibly insulting to Elennsar.

So far this thread you've had a very limited view of heroism with a foolhardy leaning.
You've insisted that its completely reasonable and not at all masochistic to run in and let yourself be hurt instead of dealing with problems in a way that you can't be hurt.
You've extrapolated huge probabilities and infinite problems to inevitability, and since they aren't inevitable you have assumed that the huge probabilities are wrong.
You've shown no imagination in dealing with the situations in the RPG and an inability to roleplay.
You've ignored and refused to answer basic questions asked repeatedly.
You haven't given any reasonable solutions to the problems you've stated. (the only one I can really think of is the DECIDE one which can't be applied to most games without interpretation and addition to rules, neither of which you've given)

Have you done anything useful?

If one is thinking in a certain direction then some of what you've said in this thread has been reasonable issues. However, could you be more constructive in future and give more possible solutions to the problems you state.

The holistic model of healthcare itself is awesome, but unless you have procedures, rules and treatments based on it then it is functionally useless. Just like your complaints can be entertaining, but unless you have methods to solve the problems, problem areas to look out for or even hypothetical situations and what you think should be done to solve the problems within them then you are being functionally useless.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Sun Feb 22, 2009 1:11 am

Unless there is a cost to defence, then the character will defend each and every time. If you know that someone could hit you and, y'know, hurt you, even if its 'just' pain, then you're going to try and stop that. This works in GURPS, where characters will willingly take a hit to deal out a much harder one than they would if they dodged it, but in D&D defending others attacks has no cost. (I'm not counting fighting defensively or expertise since they have no real similarities to this). The other situation is making defence basically waste your next turn which makes noone defend, just as stupid.

GURPS has a finite number of defence rolls (block or parry - dodge, which is also harder, is not so limited) you get per round, so you probably don't want to use a defence roll on an attack you don't think will hit.

This sounds like you want toughness and agility to be roughly equal in usefulness for defence and to be able to use either by choice. That sound about right?

Not 'xactly what I had in mind, actually, but you bring up an interesting thought, nonetheless.

Wait, I don't get this. Under what circumstances would this be the case?

#3 is a D&D attack roll. If it hits, it probably didn't actually hit the character, or if it did, it didn't matter.

See? Right there you have reasoning for high level adventurers and mechanically not worrying too much about commoners, but still having to be wary of them- basically that they can easily evade the blows if they try (AC) but that if taken unawares then they can still die from a single blow (coup-de-grace).

The problem is, that doesn't cover the fact that you can totally ignore the commoner flailing away at you, unless you break out the coup de grace rules - which are a bit extreme for just "Look, he can hurt you."

If one is thinking in a certain direction then some of what you've said in this thread has been reasonable issues. However, could you be more constructive in future and give more possible solutions to the problems you state.

What part of ranting implies an obligation to immediately produce solutions?

And what part of wanting to design a system for Arturius that presumably deals with the issues I'm annoyed with has flown out of sight?

If this forum is supposed to contain rants, then deal with the rants. If not, change the description so that ranting is not permited.

I'm not going to even bother to address the spoiler - "possibly insulting and probably untrue".

SunTzuWarmaster · Post by **SunTzuWarmaster** » Sun Feb 22, 2009 1:42 am

Look, okay, at some level you just DON'T CARE about the opposition.

I remember when I was 11. Man those other 11 year olds could totally wail on me. We'll call that a 50/50 combat. Probably a bit in the other's favor because I was pretty skinny.

Okay, let's skip a few years. My strength has increased more than 100%. I have grown 50% taller. I weigh over 100% more. I can compose poetry while fighting an 11 year old. Even 2 or 3. At some level you start pushing it back to 50/50.

The point is that the individual orc will stop to matter as you gain levels. Yea, that orc was threatening at level 1. The threat decreased significantly at level 3 when you got 20% better at hitting, 50% better at dealing damage, 50% harder to hit, and 300% better at taking blows.

How many 5 year olds can YOU take in a fight?
http://www.oneplusyou.com/bb/fight5

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Sun Feb 22, 2009 1:54 am

The point is that the individual orc will stop to matter as you gain levels. Yea, that orc was threatening at level 1. The threat decreased significantly at level 3 when you got 20% better at hitting, 50% better at dealing damage, 50% harder to hit, and 300% better at taking blows.

Which is not a good thing when you're supposed to regard him as capable of doing something threatening.

Being incapable of breaking through a determined defence on your part is one thing - being not worth noticing is not.

How many 5 year olds can YOU take in a fight?
http://www.oneplusyou.com/bb/fight5

The answer is not "Infinite." (It is 16.)

Legolas takes out an orc, then shoots at the oliphant. In D&D, assuming he's 10th level, he could get away with ignoring the orc and taking the AOO.

shau · Post by **shau** » Sun Feb 22, 2009 1:58 am

The most hilarious thing about that site is that after I finished the quiz it took me to an advertisement for a dating site. Now I can finally meet people who share my fascination with beating children.

Elennsar · Post by **Elennsar** » Sun Feb 22, 2009 1:59 am

Shiritai · Post by **Shiritai** » Sun Feb 22, 2009 3:37 am

Elennsar, you've said that you wanted fairly realistic combat, but now you want every opponent to be a threat? It seems you want characters to be wary even around 5 year olds, but really, where will it all end? Is a human infant a threat? A bunny? A fly?

Elennsar wrote:Legolas takes out an orc, then shoots at the oliphant. In D&D, assuming he's 10th level, he could get away with ignoring the orc and taking the AOO.

And seriously, people just went over this with you. In D&D, Legolas doesn't "ignore" the orc, he chooses to defend against the orc instead of taking it out first. Combat isn't a frickin passive activity in D&D, the system just assumes that your character isn't being a complete idiot.