Gaming Discussion

nolifeonline · 9:07am

Above is the original post, which is a different topic that is no longer being actively discussed in this thread.

Jump ahead to the current topic: Static Damage vs. Rolling Damage

Witchslasher · 3:46am

How'd you come up with DC 12 + Enemy's attack bonus?

In my opinion, rolling more is not more fun.. Player or GM.. As a player, I'd definitely rather not do more math.. I also can't see how this makes it easier to keep track of reaction powers.. Whether the DM tells you what the monster got to hit you or you tell the DM you defended the monster attacks seems to be about the same.

In terms of DM workload, I don't think rolling has ever been the big thing that's heavy on DM workload.. It's world building, encounter building, tracking enemy HP/conditions, etc.. The bookkeeping is the hard part, not the part where you roll the di, add a number, and ask the player if that hits a defense.

I guess I can't really think of many downsides, but don't really see the upsides. Essentially instead of you rolling a di and saying, did an 18 hit your Will.. You'll now tell the player "Roll your will defense, DC is 18".. All seems about the same imo.

nolifeonline · 12:52am

Thanks for your response.

DC 12 + enemy's attack bonus keeps the hit/miss ratio the same as if the attack was rolled by the DM.

It seems like you have pointed out a player specific downside. The defense check system would not be enjoyed by players who do not want to do more math.

Greyfeld · Mar 14 '12, 7:47am

Which, I think, is probably most players >.>

I don't know of any people who roleplay because they crave more math in their daily regimen.

The problem, as I see it, is that it seems unnecessarily complicated. It almost reminds me of THAC0, honestly. The rules are already in the handbook of how to roll to hit, I don't see a reason to come up with an entirely new, and more complicated, system for what is essentially the same exact thing.

TanaNari · Mar 14 '12, 3:46pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greyfeld

I don't know of any people who roleplay because they crave more math in their daily regimen.

I can think of a few. They only play rolemaster. To the point of 'porting over other settings to that ruleset.

Greyfeld · Mar 14 '12, 7:29pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by TanaNari

I can think of a few. They only play rolemaster. To the point of 'porting over other settings to that ruleset.

There's no accounting for weird people :P

TanaNari · Mar 14 '12, 7:43pm

My theory is that it makes them feel superior to others who don't like math. Or something.

Personally, I don't feel that waiting 20 minutes for someone to look through 6 charts in 4 books just to cover a single combat round... qualifies as enjoyable on any level... but that's probably why I refuse to ever play that system again in this lifetime.

DrMorganes · Mar 14 '12, 9:09pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greyfeld

It almost reminds me of THAC0, honestly. The rules are already in the handbook of how to roll to hit, I don't see a reason to come up with an entirely new, and more complicated, system for what is essentially the same exact thing.

[Tangent]

THAC0 was an improvement over comparing "to hit" rolls against the AC tables in the DMG. In fact, it used exactly the same progression as those tables. The difference was a bit of integer math: subtract target's AC from your THAC0, and there's your "to hit" number.

[/tangent]

Returning to topic: as others have said, it's just one. more. thing. to slow combat. Between tracking HP for multiple monsters, initiative, status conditions, and position, everyone has enough to think about. Adding a layer of complexity without a very good reason is bound for trouble.

Now, if your group is amiable to the idea, go for it. If they like it, keep it.

But I'd probably throw my d100 at you for even suggesting it.

Yes, I have a hundred-sided die. It's useless for rolling unless you use a box to keep it from zipping off the table.

But it's amazing to throw at people.

nolifeonline · Mar 14 '12, 11:31pm

@DrMorganes: Thanks for bringing it back on topic.

Also, for suggesting another downside: it can slow down combat.

What if there was no need to roll damage? Do you think this would help balance out the slowing effect and math crunch? There would be less dice rolling and math if damage dice rolls were eliminated. Players would only need to roll for attacks, defense, saves, and skills (all d20).

Witchslasher · 12:32am

What would you do instead of rolling damage? Static damage?

Gaming Discussion

DnD4e: Players Roll Defense Check vs. DM Roll Enemy Attacks