|
mathematically it's certainly a powerful racial ability, I'd hardly call it master race however, especially since Next throws attribute points around pretty freely as part of class progression. Fighters get what? 14 ability points by lvl 18 in a game where +2 weapons are enough to essentially guarantee hits far more often than not? True you can't exceed 20 in a stat using this method, assuming you start with a primary stat at 16 or 18 you've got 12-10 additional points to distribute among 5 other attributes. You're not running around with 28 strength. +1 to all suddenly looks pretty measly at it just means you cap out at 20 a bit sooner and can drop 1 or 2 points into secondary or tertiary stats. In the end I'd rather have advantage on my int/wis/cha saving throws vs all magical effects treeboy fucked around with this message at 23:22 on Jan 17, 2014 |
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 23:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 10:54 |
|
|
This seems sort of typical of humans across editions; they get a head start on progression (good for low level campaigns that don't get into higher levels) that doesn't scale worth a poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 23:25
|
|
|
Ability score increases come pretty slowly for non fighters. Fighters get 7 ASIs, everyone else gets 4 or 5. One asi is a +2, two +1s or a single feat. Starts at level four.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 23:40
|
|
|
ritorix posted:Ability score increases come pretty slowly for non fighters. Fighters get 7 ASIs, everyone else gets 4 or 5. right but this is an odd situation where you could argue the value per-racial attribute is greater for certain classes than others. Druids I think get the fewest attribute points of any class (though their forms modify their base stats iirc) so in their case +1's have a greater impact overall since they are few and far between. Fighters have a greater freedom to forego attribute points for feats since their primary stats are, comparably, quite easy to max out at 20. Basically if you get few attribute points to allocate, choose human, if you're a fighter pick whatever you want that is at least reasonably min-maxable.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 23:56
|
|
|
Are there any goons actually playing Next? Either online or home games. I assume if they are, they're following this thread. I'm kind interested in some of the character concepts people have executed within the system. PYF PC?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 00:20
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:Are there any goons actually playing Next? Either online or home games. I made Krag Hack the heroes of might and magic barbarian. Then I realised that a barbarian would be very boring to play and turned him into a cleric instead.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 01:00
|
|
|
Well I am not playing nearly enough because no one else seems to be running it, and I really want to try some of the higher level stuff. Instead I ran an adventure, and once it finished I started a recruit on the forums for another longer adventure. Krag Hack was in the first, and after death and raise dead is probably going to be in this second one, though at a lower level.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 01:16
|
|
|
It's amazing how much the DOAM bullshit has made me really appreciate the argument that armour and shields really, really ought to provide DR rather than AC. It makes a lot more sense than having both your ability to avoid blows and your ability to take them on the chin be modelled by the same stat.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 01:24
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:It's amazing how much the DOAM bullshit has made me really appreciate the argument that armour and shields really, really ought to provide DR rather than AC. It makes a lot more sense than having both your ability to avoid blows and your ability to take them on the chin be modelled by the same stat. Changing things so armor is just DR and "dodge" or whatever does what AC used to do makes about as much sense as changing HP to being wounds and adding a "luck / divine favor" number.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 03:20
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:It's amazing how much the DOAM bullshit has made me really appreciate the argument that armour and shields really, really ought to provide DR rather than AC. It makes a lot more sense than having both your ability to avoid blows and your ability to take them on the chin be modelled by the same stat. Actually I'd say that for shields and heavy armour, AC is a better model than DR. If I'm holding my shield properly in a defensive posture* I don't care within reason how hard you hit it (unless you're using a cannon ball) - the worst it's going to do is make my arm ring. You aren't going to cut straight through a decent shield and hit the person behind it. Likewise white or gothic plate. If you're of normal human strength and not carrying something like a Bec de Corbin or Lucerne Hammer (I would add a warhammer to the list - but far too many people picture something like the Marvel version of Mjolnir) your best way in to the enemy's plate armour is through the joints, the visor, or anywhere else weakly defended. Armour was bullet proof (which is why you find breastplates with dents in them; that's the evidence that someone's proof tested them by shooting them). * If Hammaborg is right (and I believe they were) about the use of Viking shields, you attacked the enemy with the edge of your shield when duelling with round shields. And they defended you by being cover rather than taking blows. (Shield close to the body, braced for impact was definitely used in jousting).
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 03:35
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:It's amazing how much the DOAM bullshit has made me really appreciate the argument that armour and shields really, really ought to provide DR rather than AC. It makes a lot more sense than having both your ability to avoid blows and your ability to take them on the chin be modelled by the same stat. Honestly, the more I play games the more I appreciate AC as a rather clever method for introducing percentile damage reduction* into the game without causing anyone at the table to divide or multiply fractions. Percentile damage reduction scales so much more cleanly than integer damage reduction, and is a better match for ablative hit point pools, but it can't be done at the table without using a calculator. Real percentile damage reduction, like most video games use, would be better, but AC is a clever workaround that humans can do in their head. *As in, each point of AC reduces the number of hits you take by X%, which, on a long enough timeline, is the same as reducing damage taken by X%.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 03:45
|
|
|
neonchameleon posted:Actually I'd say that for shields and heavy armour, AC is a better model than DR. If I'm holding my shield properly in a defensive posture* I don't care within reason how hard you hit it (unless you're using a cannon ball) - the worst it's going to do is make my arm ring. You aren't going to cut straight through a decent shield and hit the person behind it. Likewise white or gothic plate. If you're of normal human strength and not carrying something like a Bec de Corbin or Lucerne Hammer (I would add a warhammer to the list - but far too many people picture something like the Marvel version of Mjolnir) your best way in to the enemy's plate armour is through the joints, the visor, or anywhere else weakly defended. Armour was bullet proof (which is why you find breastplates with dents in them; that's the evidence that someone's proof tested them by shooting them). I was going to type something like that (again) but decided against it because the realism argument is always kind of silly when it happens over a game that includes wizards and dragons. A more realistic combat system could be really cool, attached to an RPG that was about swordfights instead of about elves and wizards saving the world from demons, dragons, and ambulatory trees. e: I'd be 100% fine with D&D having light, medium, and heavy armor and weapons and leaving it at that. The detail could be provided by powers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 03:59
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:I was going to type something like that (again) but decided against it because the realism argument is always kind of silly when it happens over a game that includes wizards and dragons. Point. I'm not saying that any game with Hit Points needs a realistic armour system. Just that if you're going for realism it doesn't work as people think. (GURPS and Rolemaster tried for realism. I'm also reminded of one game that went for realistic gunplay that my current group tried before my time. They spent twenty minutes working out what happened to the first bullet in the gunfight then gave up entirely).
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 04:28
|
|
|
neonchameleon posted:if you're going for realism it doesn't work as people think ...and if you want realistic swordfighting, D&D isn't the right system, fantasy isn't the right genre, and RPGs are probably the wrong type of game entirely. http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/audatia-the-medieval-swordfighting-card-game e: You could abstract melee combat out more "realistically" than D&D does, but the way AC works isn't even close to the first thing I'd change. e2: "AC" is a dumb way to put it anyway. If you call it Physical Defense all the realism "problems" with it disappear. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 04:42 on Jan 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 04:33
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:Changing things so armor is just DR and "dodge" or whatever does what AC used to do makes about as much sense as changing HP to being wounds and adding a "luck / divine favor" number. I'm working on a system where armor is DR and you avoid getting hit by stuff by either dodging, parrying, or shield-blocking. It definitely lends itself to much lower-magic than D&D but also I think you could file off serial numbers and play modern settings or sci-fi. AlphaDog posted:e: I'd be 100% fine with D&D having light, medium, and heavy armor and weapons and leaving it at that. The detail could be provided by powers. This is what I'm doing, but I'll bet my imagining/maths doesn't line up with the realism you're expecting.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 07:23
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:This is what I'm doing, but I'll bet my imagining/maths doesn't line up with the realism you're expecting. I mean, hell, that's pretty much how Basic works already. Weapons are poo poo (d4 damage, weapons magic-users can use), Light (d6, weapons clerics and halflings can use), Medium (d8, weapons a fighter/elf/thief can use), and Heavy (d10, like medium but comes with an initiative penalty). Armors are poo poo (Wizard Robes), Light (Leather, for Thieves), Medium (Chain, for nobody), and Heavy (Plate, for everyone else). I actually just abstract it over and tie damage to class, not weapons when I run it, and say that d8 damage classes can choose to one-hand for d8 or two-hand for d10 damage (which is why I might not be BTB right on what the mechanics are for d10 weapons). It makes letting them choose what weapons to buy a lot easier, too, since it's more or less cosmetic.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 08:10
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:A more realistic combat system could be really cool A more realistic combat system would be Riddle of Steel, and let me give you a heads up - it isn't "really cool"
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 08:23
|
|
|
OtspIII posted:I mean, hell, that's pretty much how Basic works already. No one likes d4s so what I came up with was: Light one-hand weapons are d6, light two-hand weapons and heavy one-hand weapons are d10, and heavy two-hand weapons are 2d6. The dice are your damage expression as well as a bonus to your parry. Light weapons also add to dodge. Light armor users get light weapons (with a small bonus), medium armor users get light weapons and heavy two-handers, and heavy armor users can use any melee weapons.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 09:13
|
|
|
I'm not sure if realism is even desirable in a fantasy combat game. You kinda want Aragorn to have a level of plot armour (HP) instead of happening to roll badly and taking an arrow in the eye in round 1 of the Helm's Deep battle.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 10:22
|
|
|
Hackmaster 5th Edition gives you a nice bonus to your defense roll for using a shield, but the trade off is if your roll is higher than the attackers roll but within ten of it, the attacker hits your shield and deals shield damage to it. Mainly this does nothing to you if you have any form of DR past the shield, but bigger foes like Ogres and up can destroy the shield and still do considerable damage to you. Armor and shields make you easier to hit but the DR they provide make you a juggernaut. It's a neat mechanic but can really, really slog the game down. Of course Hackmaster with all of the rules play is a nightmare and you would be better off just outright IRL fighting one another.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 13:55
|
|
|
In WFRP3 soak is the primary attack mitigation method, with some armours also adding penalty dice to your opponent's roll. Since reducing accuracy can also reduces damage (tiered success system) this also acts as a soft damage reductions. Dodge, Block, and Parry are three reaction cards you get for free if you meet the requirements (minimum stat levels, +shield/sword for block/parry) that add penalty dice to your opponent's roll. They have cooldowns so you have to choose what to use them against, and you can buy upgraded versions later. Really the best thing about AC and HP is the cognitive dissonance it inspires among decriers of 4E's "disassociated mechanics". Gort posted:I'm not sure if realism is even desirable in a fantasy combat game. You kinda want Aragorn to have a level of plot armour (HP) instead of happening to roll badly and taking an arrow in the eye in round 1 of the Helm's Deep battle.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 14:05
|
|
|
fatherdog posted:A more realistic combat system would be Riddle of Steel, and let me give you a heads up - it isn't "really cool" That's what I was actually thinking of when I said "if you want realistic swordfighting... RPGs are probably the wrong type of game entirely". Riddle of Steel is the closest thing I've seen to an attempt at it by someone who vaguely knows what they're talking about, but it's not fun. I'm pretty fine with AC/HP in D&D. I'd like it much more if the system had tiered successes, but there are bigger problems with Next.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 14:34
|
|
|
The weirdest thing, to me is the following. Armor and just dodging ( Dex rating AC ) both rate into AC, AC compares to attack rolls and if you don't roll high enough you Miss. Sure its a bit weird that Armor and being really agile both roll into one stat but its not a big deal, a useful abstraction to keep the rules a little simpler. But when someone creates a mechanic that does damage on a miss everyone suddenly forgets that misses can also just be blows that were purely negated by armor. Then suddenly every miss is actually a swing off target instead of a possible hit absorbed. Now its suddenly immersion breaking that damage is done without hitting.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 14:47
|
|
|
That's the same line of thinking that leads to most sorts of hitpoints stupidity too so it's not terribly surprising...hitpoints are treated as a kind of goofy, abstract mechanic right up until someone publishes a way to restore them that doesn't involve a guy in a robe and chainmail giving you a magic band-aid and then people proceed to freak the gently caress out and insist that hitpoints are nothing less than a representation of your bodily integrity.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 15:05
|
|
|
I've explained to new players that it helps to think of AC as armor training. Knowing how and where to absorb blows with your armor so that you don't get your poop knocked out, and it makes some kind of abstract sense for the fighter to have more training with it than a wizard. I think adding more stats (DR) is a neat idea in theory, but isn't the best solution to a problem that doesn't really exist. Damage on a miss, though, implies that AC is damage reduction, and it would be interesting to see it applied not just to PCs, but also monsters. Though that's probably best left to house ruling, as a "degrees of success" resolution system would have to be implemented for combat.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 15:42
|
|
|
All damage on a miss means in the context of "AC is how well you can catch attacks on your armor and render blows ineffectual" is that your attack is so potent that even if someone catches it on the armor it still brings them closer to being taken out. Getting hit, even if you're wearing armor, can still suck pretty bad. D&D abstracts that away for the most part, all "damage on a miss" does is say "yeah, but when this guy hits you through your armor you loving feel it."
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 15:47
|
|
|
This is a fundamental design problem when working with the core D&D system. There's a whole lot of abstraction going on, and trying to bolt anything else onto the system runs into a problem where it's trying to bring definition to something that isn't equipped to handle it. Let's state a simple version of the core mechanic: Attack Roll (Heavily Abstracted) + Character Bonuses (Less Abstracted - you can differentiate character skill, weapons etc) VS Static Defense of Armor Class (Heavily Abstracted - amalgamates armor, dodging, an arbitrarily decided "base"): If success, deal damage in Hit Points (a heavily abstracted measurement of the punishment a character can take). Any design work you do is going to try to add to this, and in each case it falls a bit flat because it's trying to be less abstract in some areas and more abstract in others. An "Attack Roll" has mutated from being a minute-long sequence exchange of parries and thrusts into representing just one single swing of a weapon over the years precisely to help accommodate more additions to the system - it's become less abstract as a design convenience. Let's say I'm a third party designer and want to bolt a hit location subsystem onto this. What am I doing, and what are the problems with trying? For starters, I'm dealing with the fact that hit locations touch on all three of the abstractions: Attack rolls are already abstracting attacking specific locations away, armor is a generalized all-body all-or-nothing protection and abstracted bonus to "defense" despite theoretically covering parts of the body, and hit points don't give a poo poo about where you got hit so long as you got hit. What I'm trying to do is to remove the abstraction from these mechanics and move it to a new subsystem. This runs into the obvious problem of "what do I take away from making an attack roll that the attack roll doesn't already have?" So the traditional D&D answer is "just bolt a new mechanic on top, it'll be fine". Let's say I do a really bad hit location mechanic and make people roll a separate die after "hitting" to determine location (with an optional "called shot" deal too why not) and then have locational damage effects bolted onto the hit points system, and then create a big old chart for what armor protects which hit locations. I've sure created something that feels less abstract, but I didn't do it by actually dealing with the abstraction itself - I just bolted more poo poo on top and made it more cumbersome. And I did it because there's not enough play inside "roll d20 VS DC yes/no (maybe damage)". That's why D&D mechanics aren't built to handle this stuff, and why designers often say they'd have to tear it down and start over after a certain point (I know I always say that about 3.x). There's some rather clever things you COULD do for hit locations within the existing mechanic (such as adding together the numbers on your attack roll and using those to determine location - voila, you didn't add even more rolling) but for the most part it's a struggle with trying to add "realism" to something that's already sacrificed all of the realism for simplicity and speed. And if you start from a base of "the core attack mechanic is realistic", God help you because I certainly can't. There are examples of core rolling systems which DO include all of the above right there in your roll, like ORE/REIGN. To get that level of realism, you better be prepared to work it in from the ground up and not be afraid to start off with a resolution mechanic more complex than D&D's.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 16:01
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:That's what I was actually thinking of when I said "if you want realistic swordfighting... RPGs are probably the wrong type of game entirely". Riddle of Steel is the closest thing I've seen to an attempt at it by someone who vaguely knows what they're talking about, but it's not fun. That always struck me as a weird paradox with RoS- its innovative combat system was a big selling point, but in an actual game you want to avoid combat as much as you can because it's loving lethal. (That wasn't all it had going for it, there were also some nice narrative mechanics thankfully.) Honestly, if they keep DoaM as is in Next I may be tempted to buy it just because. Of course I then look at everything else they've got going on and think "Naaaah", so I dunno. It's like, I do think that there should be different options for Great Weapon Fighting in specific, and DoaM may be better served as a feature you can apply to different fighting styles- whether you're a fencer flailing rapidly so that the entire space in front of you is occupied by sword, or whether you're a sword-and-board fighter overpowering your opponent, or Clubber Lang, the idea is wearing the opponent down over time. But of course the opposition comes down to "realism dictates that fighters cannot have nice things."
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 19:09
|
|
|
What if i want armor to be something other than AC because if you have Fortitude Reflex and Will defense you don't need a 4th one? Honestly instead of Damage reduction I would make Armor provide Temporary Hp or something.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 21:00
|
|
|
Elfgames posted:What if i want armor to be something other than AC because if you have Fortitude Reflex and Will defense you don't need a 4th one? Honestly instead of Damage reduction I would make Armor provide Temporary Hp or something. You probably wouldn't go wrong if you combined AC and Fortitude. Or combined AC, Fortitude and Reflex into "physical defense" and left Will as "mental defense". Armour as temporary HP is a cool idea though, I could get on board with that one.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 23:05
|
|
|
In 4ed, armor as damage reduction could work if you also changed weapon proficiency bonuses to provide damage instead of to-hit bonus, and used reflex for any vs. AC attacks. That way you can keep a sort of parity between powers that (used to) target AC and usually benefited from the weapon proficiency bonus, and the rest. I think. It will probably break in some horrible way down the road but I can't think of anything right now. e: Probably also change something on how magic weapon/armor bonuses work too. e2: and heavy armor will probably be too strong if you keep your int/dex bonus to the reflex save. But that will make you too susceptible to riders even if your armor soaks up most of the damage. e3: and also powers that deal just +mod damage will get gimped unless that kind of damage bypasses DR... You know, gently caress that, maybe AC in 4ed shouldn't be touched. Rexides fucked around with this message at 23:45 on Jan 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 23:27
|
|
|
A bunch of stuff has always bugged me about the interpretation of AC/HP that gets people mad about damage on a miss. Here's a clip of Luke vs. Vader in Return of the Jedi. Around 1:40 Luke just hammers into Vader and beats him into submission. He swings on Vader roughly once a second and while only the final blow "breaks Vader's AC" and deals a decisive blow Vader is obviously worn down by each attack before it. If you look at any well crafted fight scene or hell, a combat sport like MMA you'll see people get worn down by "misses" all the time. Which means that you can either take AC/HP as: A "hit" isn't always connecting to the other guy's vitals with your weapon. I can hit for 12 damage but have really only worn someone's shield arm out or fenced around them in a way that they become fatigued. When I've dealt enough "damage" I can hit them with a knockout punch. A "miss" is still a valid part of combat as my arrow still staggers a guy if it doesn't pierce his armor. And my club didn't really break anything but my opponent can't just stand there taking hits like that all day. You also have to realize that tabletop is an abstraction and CRPGs had to catch up to what they were trying to showcase. People in an actual fight don't politely wait for their turn, swing a sword once, and then wait for an all seeing god to tell them that they're next in the initiative order.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 23:50
|
|
|
Mike Mearls already wrote a D&D where armor gave DR with Iron Heroes. I wish we had that Mearls designing 5e. The game had some issues but it was also interesting.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2014 00:44
|
|
|
Exalted looks like it's going to have a system in which most attacks are designed to wear down your opponent's defenses and place yourself into an advantageous position, thereby improving the odds that your actual wounding/killing blows will connect.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2014 00:58
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:That's what I was actually thinking of when I said "if you want realistic swordfighting... RPGs are probably the wrong type of game entirely". Riddle of Steel is the closest thing I've seen to an attempt at it by someone who vaguely knows what they're talking about, but it's not fun. I haven't actually played it, but it seemed like it would be fun if you just played out the combat bits with your buddies and drank beer. No characters or plots, just playing it like it's a board game. Thoughts?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2014 01:03
|
|
|
Mikan posted:Mike Mearls already wrote a D&D where armor gave DR with Iron Heroes. I wish we had that Mearls designing 5e. The game had some issues but it was also interesting. EDIT: In a not-this thread, if that's better.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2014 01:46
|
|
|
Lord Frisk posted:I've explained to new players that it helps to think of AC as armor training. Knowing how and where to absorb blows with your armor so that you don't get your poop knocked out, and it makes some kind of abstract sense for the fighter to have more training with it than a wizard. If you made armour DR rather than AC, and left AC to be dodge (i.e. chance of the thing completely missing), then DOAM for weapons could become DR piercing - i.e. doing damage despite the armour taking the blow.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2014 01:46
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:If you made armour DR rather than AC, and left AC to be dodge (i.e. chance of the thing completely missing), then DOAM for weapons could become DR piercing - i.e. doing damage despite the armour taking the blow.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2014 01:49
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:That's the same line of thinking that leads to most sorts of hitpoints stupidity too so it's not terribly surprising...hitpoints are treated as a kind of goofy, abstract mechanic right up until someone publishes a way to restore them that doesn't involve a guy in a robe and chainmail giving you a magic band-aid and then people proceed to freak the gently caress out and insist that hitpoints are nothing less than a representation of your bodily integrity. Hitpoints are nothing less than a representation of your bodily integrity: it's based off of Constitution (gently caress constitution, it's stupid).
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2014 09:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 10:54 |
|
|
P.d0t posted:Hitpoints are nothing less than a representation of your bodily integrity: it's based off of Constitution (gently caress constitution, it's stupid). It's actually mostly based on your level. It's easy to forget that, but Constitution plays a relatively small part compared to levels in classes for hit points. So what do levels realistically represent? Who knows. No one should really care.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2014 09:23
|
|