|
gizmojumpjet posted:I'm basically exactly where you are. I got the books, read over them a few times, and joined a game on Roll20. I'm seven sessions in now, a lot of the players are flaky as gently caress and the DM leaves a lot to be desired but it's still been a blast. My barbarian is riding around on a giant parrot and made friends with a giant gorilla who helped us kill a roc and a bone devil, both of which would have mulched us without Mighty Joe Young's assistance. I think 80% of the GMs and players I've met randomly on Roll20 have been some combination of flakes, people calling in from wind tunnels, and absolute weirdos. 50% of all GMs have elaborate houserules that they only introduce you to two sessions in. There will always be one person doing a Scottish accent. The Crotch fucked around with this message at 22:02 on Sep 6, 2017 |
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 21:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 06:48 |
|
|
The Crotch posted:I think 80% of the GMs and players I've met randomly on Roll20 have been some combination of flakes, people calling in from wind tunnels, and absolute weirdos. 50% of all GMs have elaborate houserules that they only introduce you to two sessions in. There will always be one person doing a Scottish accent.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 22:05
|
|
|
The Crotch posted:I think 80% of the GMs and players I've met randomly on Roll20 have been some combination of flakes, people calling in from wind tunnels, and absolute weirdos. 50% of all GMs have elaborate houserules that they only introduce you to two sessions in. There will always be one person doing a Scottish accent. Thank you for crushing my nascent desire to venture into gaming with Roll20 random.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 22:12
|
|
|
The Crotch posted:50% of all GMs have elaborate houserules that they only introduce you to two sessions in. How elaborate are we talkin' here? My (5e) house rules consist of quote:house rules: you get an additional hit die both on your not-healing-surge meter and on your health (average roll, ie 5 on 1d8) so I'm curious what weirdo stuff people on roll20 come up with.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 23:28
|
|
|
Is milestone advancement a house rule?
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 23:43
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:Is milestone advancement a house rule? It's the default leveling method for Storm King's Thunder.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 23:52
|
|
|
I'm not sure if that's an answer, but I can't find my DMG to learn for myself!
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 23:53
|
|
|
Looking for some interpretations (or if anyone has seen it, a ruling by WotC) on Mystic Arcanum as it applies to the Warlock and using Spell Scrolls. The wording is just vague enough to allow for two interpretations. Say a level 16 warlock, who used mystic arcanum to take "demiplane" as their level 8 arcanum spell, came across a "dominate monster" spell scroll. Could they use that scroll to cast the spell without penalty? According to the PHB (p. 108), mystic arcanum gives warlocks access to higher level spells that they can cast once/day, without expending a spell slot, that they recover after a long rest. According to the DMG (p. 200), a spell scroll can be used if that class has the spell in their class's spell list, and cast spells at that level (otherwise they have to roll a check DC 10 + spell level). So it seems to boil down to if mystic arcanum spells are the same as conventional spells - if yes, the warlock can use the scroll, if not, they can't. The language in the PHB is just vague enough that I'm not sure if the arcanum spells are spells or something more like at-will effects. Either way, it would seem that there is no confusion for spells level 5 or lower - if they are on the warlock's spell list, the warlock can cast it without penalty (if they cast level 5 spells).
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 23:53
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:I'm not sure if that's an answer, but I can't find my DMG to learn for myself! It's also the default leveling system of curse of Strahd. The DMG presents it as a equal alternative to XP leveling.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 23:55
|
|
|
Aagar posted:Looking for some interpretations (or if anyone has seen it, a ruling by WotC) on Mystic Arcanum as it applies to the Warlock and using Spell Scrolls. The wording is just vague enough to allow for two interpretations. I would say yes. It's on the Warlock spell list and the Warlock can cast 8th level spells.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 23:56
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:It's also the default leveling system of curse of Strahd. The DMG presents it as a equal alternative to XP leveling. Great, thanks.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2017 23:59
|
|
|
mango sentinel posted:Thank you for crushing my nascent desire to venture into gaming with Roll20 random. If anecdotes count for anything so far I've played in a handful of roll20 random games, one I left because it was Princes of the Apocalypse and the DM wasn't really doing anything to reign in problematic players, and I found the sandbox nature if it directionless and dull, one I stayed in for a few months and it was pretty solid before it fell apart due to lack of player/DM interest, and one's been going on strong for over a year now, so much so that I've joined another campaign the same DM has been running on off-weeks (with two of the same players). That DM also allows most optional combat options from the DMG like Marking and Climbing onto Larger Creatures which helps martial characters at least feel like they're contributing a little more (and doesn't really help spell casters very much). So, I don't think it's all bad. My recommendation would actually be to try and get in as a replacement for a game that's been running for a little while if you can, since you know they're likely to be somewhat more reliable.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 00:00
|
|
|
roll20 is a fine platform, but I've only ever used in conjunction with finding people to play with through here
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 00:27
|
|
|
dont even fink about it posted:In general it is not that difficult to build a level 1 D&D character and the mechanics are straightforward (hit points, adding numbers and dice together when playing as opposed to less immediately intuitive stuff). How do either of those things mean that D&D asks relatively little of the player compared to other games? "It's not that difficult to build a level 1 character" compared to what? Are you still talking about Dungeon World? Last weekend I got 6 people who'd never touched DW before to make characters. It took them about 15 minutes including everyone getting up to get more beers. gradenko_2000 posted:roll20 is a fine platform, but I've only ever used in conjunction with finding people to play with through here Roll20 has worked fine for me playing with people I know IRL and sometimes with friends of friends I've never met. In my experience, in-person games with randoms have been poo poo 9 times out of 10 and I've been avoiding them for years. I've been imagining that public/random games on the internet add a layer of internet bullshit on top of the usual random group bullshit and make it ever less likely that I'll find a game I actually want to be in. I have yet to see anything that might change my mind on that. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 00:39 on Sep 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 00:35
|
|
|
All my 5e monsters with 4e abilities are getting approved for use in D&D Beyond and I don't know why I find this so hilarious. The biggest problem with this service is that the character creation process kinda sucks (especially when it comes to gear and poo poo) and that their pricing model is super dumb. The greatest irony is I'd probably pay a monthly sub for access to everything I would probably pay for it just for convenience of having an easily searchable database and spell searcher.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 00:41
|
|
|
kingcom posted:All my 5e monsters with 4e abilities are getting approved for use in D&D Beyond and I don't know why I find this so hilarious. The biggest problem with this service is that the character creation process kinda sucks (especially when it comes to gear and poo poo) and that their pricing model is super dumb. The greatest irony is I'd probably pay a monthly sub for access to everything I would probably pay for it just for convenience of having an easily searchable database and spell searcher. I have literally no idea why they didn't mimic the 4E Character Builder/DM Tools/Compendium but for 5E. There has to be a reason, like maybe dumb licensing stuff/contracts/whatever, but.... why?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 00:57
|
|
|
Darwinism posted:I have literally no idea why they didn't mimic the 4E Character Builder/DM Tools/Compendium but for 5E. There has to be a reason, like maybe dumb licensing stuff/contracts/whatever, but.... why? I don't think you'll find a logical reason, but I'd guess it's some combination of "...but piracy" and "...but 4th ed". e: There's also a tradition at WoTC of failing spectacularly at anything related to computer programs. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 01:21 on Sep 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 01:18
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:How do either of those things mean that D&D asks relatively little of the player compared to other games? The entire point I'm making is that the super simple experience with DW is practically the only thing it has going for it (other than fail forward), and you can teach the kind of D&D it's emulating to a 10-year old. And pretty much all versions of D&D can sustain themselves for longer than it takes you and your friends to finish their beers. "Time spent on character creation is lost time" is also a fallacy, by the way.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 01:51
|
|
|
I only mentioned DW in the context of someone else saying that the players couldn't even remember what to add to their d20s to attack, which is like a single-digit number for maybe half the game. I don't disagree that DW is flawed, and I don't disagree that D&D isn't particularly mentally taxing, and I guess someone being that disengaged from the game probably isn't going to be solved by switching to DW, but I made in the remark with regards a very specific situation.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 01:55
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:I only mentioned DW in the context of someone else saying that the players couldn't even remember what to add to their d20s to attack, which is like a single-digit number for maybe half the game. It's all good, I ain't trying to fight, but I did raise my hand to protest the subforum constantly bringing up a 400-page "rules light" game as the gold standard for every difficult D&D group.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 01:57
|
|
|
Apparently orc pub cut a deal with wotc to sell their stuff through their DM guild. So now wotc gets a cut and orc pub 2 is continuing to be a thing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 02:50
|
|
|
dont even fink about it posted:The entire point I'm making is that the super simple experience with DW is practically the only thing it has going for it (other than fail forward), and you can teach the kind of D&D it's emulating to a 10-year old. And pretty much all versions of D&D can sustain themselves for longer than it takes you and your friends to finish their beers. Ok, Dungeon World Is Bad, but can you talk about why you think D&D asks less of players than other games, and what you're comparing it to when you say that?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 02:54
|
|
|
Of course playing with friends/people you know is ideal, but I think occasionally one does run into situations where it's either no game or playing with randoms.kingcom posted:Apparently orc pub cut a deal with wotc to sell their stuff through their DM guild. So now wotc gets a cut and orc pub 2 is continuing to be a thing. Speaking of DM's Guild, I did cleaned up, edited, and added to that homebrew I posted earlier and put it on the DM's Guild.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 03:42
|
|
|
Darwinism posted:I have literally no idea why they didn't mimic the 4E Character Builder/DM Tools/Compendium but for 5E. There has to be a reason, like maybe dumb licensing stuff/contracts/whatever, but.... why? I wish. Eventually I reached the point in my 4E game where I very rarely used monsters I didn't make myself using Adventure Tools (with MM3 Math on a Business Card as guidelines) and when I tried to DM 5E it was really rough to do anything remotely similar.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 03:59
|
|
|
Dungeon World has no dedicated stealth rules, which means its stealth rules are better then 5e's. I guarantee the same can be said about a lot of dumb rules.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 04:25
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:Ok, Dungeon World Is Bad, but can you talk about why you think D&D asks less of players than other games, and what you're comparing it to when you say that? I'm not really sure how you can credibly argue D&D is relatively inaccessible (or whatever you're driving at) when even Dungeon World is a roundabout attempt to capture its spirit. The concept of hit points, straight numerical attack modifiers, and AC alone are miles ahead of the many games that tend to make them more abstract, convoluted, and unintuitive. While nothing's perfect there, I would generally take it over Shadowrun's splatterdice, FFG Star Wars' reading of chicken guts, the One Ring's wishy-washy swinginess, FFG 40K's horrendously overwrought d100s that soon amount to "If you encounter god, god will be cut," and so on, just to name a few popular RPGs and start like four other debates at once. And I have a hard time letting go of the level as an advancement concept, while none of the games I just mentioned can be bothered with such a straightforward concept. Could be personal bias but in some of these efforts I see designers making things with the idea of being different first and functional fourth or fifth. For what it's worth I wish the concept of advantage had been done in a better game than 5E.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 07:09
|
|
|
dont even fink about it posted:just to name a few popular RPGs and start like four other debates at once. Thats a bold move cotton, lets see if it pays off. dont even fink about it posted:And I have a hard time letting go of the level as an advancement concept, while none of the games I just mentioned can be bothered with such a straightforward concept. Could be personal bias but in some of these efforts I see designers making things with the idea of being different first and functional fourth or fifth. For what it's worth I wish the concept of advantage had been done in a better game than 5E. I don't want to argue with you (though you just listed a bunch of RPGs I love flaws and all), I would point out that theres a lot of stuff in 5e that is hugely confusing and completely inaccessible for a lot of simple things (natural language is hugely confusing and the godawful decision to name something a bonus action which is neither an action nor a bonus or the overly complex to name some of the threads favourites). The great irony of what you said is that a lot of those games actually went for functional far before being different while D&D 5e is unfortunately couched in a lot of tradition that doesn't really make much sense or reason without having someone delving into the history of the game (the most iconic of these is the 6 stats that ultimately dont really do anything). FFG for example, and their unique dice is actually something that is entirely making the game as easy and intuitive as possible to access a somewhat distinct and complex process (that you want to encompass a multi-axis result in a single dice roll while also keeping the numbers involved very low) without needing to think much about multipliers and modifiers as things you see on your character sheet but rather a physical thing you can see and touch on your table. You have a bonus of a blue dice and you know it because the guy next to you just slide one across the table when he said hes giving you a buff. After a session or so I've had people who far more easily understand this than after years of playing various D&D editions. The 1d100 system in say dark heresy was designed entirely around making sure a player knows exactly what their chances of succeeding or failing are while also having a scaling success and fail system. The common 'challenging' check is a +0 modifier, so look at your stat + skill and whatever number end up with is literally the chance you have to pull something off. Whether any of that succeeds or fails at it's intent is up for debate (and what works for some isnt going to work for others) but I think its a fair bit of personal bias to think that those games are not trying to be functional as a very high priority. Though I got nothing for shadowrun, I feel like that game is made for people who want to dig deep and have just wholeheartedly embraced that in the core game. EDIT: Both the FFG games have a levelling structure, just not on a fixed and hard system like D&D but they got for the tree system that many games and video games uses and are about as much if not more prevalent that fixed number to number levels. I should say, obviously for whatever reason D&D 5e clicked very easily for you. Theres nothing wrong with that and it has definitely made some smart moves to incorporate mechanics from other games to try and make itself a little more easy to get into but to ignore some of the pretty grotesque aspect in terms of accessibility is maybe a little bit naive on your part? EDIT2: spelling and grammar is hard kingcom fucked around with this message at 07:59 on Sep 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 07:53
|
|
|
kingcom posted:The 1d100 system in say dark heresy was designed entirely around making sure a player knows exactly what their chances of succeeding or failing are while also having a scaling success and fail system. The common 'challenging' check is a +0 modifier, so look at your stat + skill and whatever number end up with is literally the chance you have to pull something off. I wrote about migrating OD&D to a percentile system for exactly this reason.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 08:00
|
|
|
dont even fink about it posted:I'm not really sure how you can credibly argue D&D is relatively inaccessible (or whatever you're driving at) when even Dungeon World is a roundabout attempt to capture its spirit. "I'm used to this" is not the same as "this is concrete, simple and intuitive". Take a step back from the accumulated knowledge of however many years you've played D&D for. I'm guessing that's a while since I'm pretty sure you mentioned 2nd ed. For me, it's been nearly 30 years, and I didn't realise exactly how loving hard this was to do until 5 or 6 years ago: Try to think of what D&D looks like to someone who's never played it before (hard mode: to someone who's never played an RPG before). Attack modifiers are the only thing you've mentioned that's actually straightforward and intuitive. I've never met anyone who misunderstood "bonus to your attack roll". They're still a bitch to track for some people, although 5th has alleviated that by making them less common. Nowhere near as simple to keep track of as literally having another player pass you the bonus dice though, and "I cast a spell to give James one blue dice to attack" is just as straightforward as "I cast a spell that gives James +2 to hit". Armor class is a simple, concrete, intuitive thing? Bullshit. It's an abstract representation of how hard you are to hit, and what armor you're wearing is only a small part of what makes your number what it is. It doesn't even prevent damage, except as a side effect of not getting hit. Levels are straightforward? I'm level 5, how many level 5 spells can I cast? What is a hit point a concrete representation of? e: I'm gonna start passing people an extra d20 when I do something that gives them advantage. That might help everyone remember they've got it. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 08:56 on Sep 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 08:29
|
|
|
dont even fink about it posted:I'm not really sure how you can credibly argue D&D is relatively inaccessible (or whatever you're driving at) when even Dungeon World is a roundabout attempt to capture its spirit. Splicer fucked around with this message at 09:06 on Sep 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 09:01
|
|
|
kingcom posted:Thats a bold move cotton, lets see if it pays off. Setting aside everything else (for now), I despise 5E, don't get me wrong, but the main reason I hate it is that it's boring almost as a rule and almost totally unambitious, like a dry run of 3.5 with 5-10 pages of house rules and a lot of stuff just cut out. I don't go around boosting for it and the disagreements are strong enough in my group that we don't play it. FWIW all those other games I enjoy, except perhaps for DH. quote:The 1d100 system in say dark heresy was designed entirely around making sure a player knows exactly what their chances of succeeding or failing are while also having a scaling success and fail system. The common 'challenging' check is a +0 modifier, so look at your stat + skill and whatever number end up with is literally the chance you have to pull something off. This is what it says "on the cover," so to speak; if you look at the mods available to you in their formula it's a loving nightmare. If we're going to judge every RPG by its clumsiest, worst rules, DH et al are not winning that one. Black Crusade has incorrect page references, clouds everything behind overwritten prose, and starting class kits are full of errors, off the top of my head. It ultimately made me beware anything written by FFG. Dungeon World gets credit in that it's a simple realization that most groups wing it; they ignore the sections of the book they can't work their heads around or don't care about, so DW just tries to be that ur-D&D that existed when you were 13 and your brother wants to be an elven wizard because of course he does.  DW is also not trying to be 5E, it's running on much older conceits of D&D. quote:What is a hit point a concrete representation of? How much trouble you're in; if we're trying to describe the VERISIMILITUDE, it is luckmeat. quote:Armor class is a simple, concrete, intuitive thing? Bullshit. It's an abstract representation of how hard you are to hit, and what armor you're wearing is only a small part of what makes your number what it is. It doesn't even prevent damage, except as a side effect of not getting hit. As much as people complain about AC being an up or down thing, it's extremely clear what the number actually is. In early editions it doesn't change much. quote:What's your AC? It's this number plus your dex modifier. No that's not the same as your dex, it's your dex minus ten, divided by two, rounded down. Oh wait you're wearing medium armour, so that's capped at +2. You're what? Proficient? No you don't get your proficiency bonus, why would you think that. OK so this next guy's attacking you with a spell so... You're proficient in dex saves yeah? Hey man don't be confusing the scar tissue mess that is modern D&D with the original fundamentals of the core concept: A number you have to match or exceed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 09:27
|
|
|
dont even fink about it posted:How much trouble you're in; if we're trying to describe the VERISIMILITUDE, it is luckmeat. A representation of how much of the specific kind of trouble you're in from taking damage. "Damage" in this case meaning not the plain English "physical harm", but the game-specific meaning of "something that reduces your hitpoints". Yes, definitely neither abstract nor unintuitive. dont even fink about it posted:Hey man don't be confusing the scar tissue mess that is modern D&D with the original fundamentals of the core concept: A number you have to match or exceed. So it's simple if you ignore all the complicated stuff that you need to understand to actually use it for anything? No poo poo...
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 09:42
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:A representation of how much of the specific kind of trouble you're in from taking damage. "Damage" in this case meaning not the plain English "physical harm", but the game-specific meaning of "something that reduces your hitpoints". Find a health system less abstract, I'll wait. Physically socking the player in the head every time his character takes a hit might work, maybe you could try it on me. Wound systems, games with multiple health tracks, games where a hit just means you start checking for wounds, games where taking wounds just increases the chance you die but don't automatically signify anything else, everything in between, all are more abstract in both relevant meanings of the term. Meanwhile, if you actually think hit points are unintuitive, you're beyond reasoning with.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 10:24
|
|
|
Thing is, the parts of D&D that are most familiar and easily understood are the parts that a lot of video games already use - a singular number representing your life, numerical modifiers added to your total, basic scores for "how good are you at thing?," etc. To be frank, this is where you find the game mechanics that are the most abstracted. But then you got poo poo D&D clings to desperately that everywhere else in video games realized was bullshit. The poo poo that's only found in D&D, D&D knock offs, or "inspired by (something that's D&D but we pretend it isn't)." Be it Vancian spellcasting, or long weapon lists being statted out and being almost identical but not quite, or neverending spell lists. This is, unsurprisingly, where you find the far LESS abstracted mechanics, which is also usually why they're poo poo. It's not that D&D is just inherently easy to understand or fuckin' whatever, it's that D&D is old as dirt and a lot of poo poo already copied it. There's nothing inherent about "if you have high dexterity, you want to use light armor" that's immediately understandable. In fact, go back to the 80's and play some AD&D and suggest that, and they'll just stare at you funny, because that's completely wrong! But it IS something that appears nonstop in video games, so of course people will know to gravitate to "dex fighter = light armor." But the second it's something they don't have experience with, suddenly things get way, WAY more muddled. Attributes are easy to understand. Attribute modifiers more or less make no loving sense at all and exist for entirely cargo cult reasons. And to be frank, that first list? Is the kinda stuff long term D&D players are if anything more like to hate and NOT understand, BECAUSE it's so widely used and abstracted. Like loving HP! This is, incidentally, why there's still no warlord. This isn't even touching poo poo that D&D always had and loved, until it appeared in a video game, and then suddenly it was the worst thing ever. People called fighters "tanks" in AD&D long before they did in WoW, but "for some reason," it wasn't until they did it in WoW that it became a dirty word.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 10:41
|
|
|
dont even fink about it posted:Find a health system less abstract, I'll wait. Physically socking the player in the head every time his character takes a hit might work, maybe you could try it on me. Wound systems, games with multiple health tracks, games where a hit just means you start checking for wounds, games where taking wounds just increases the chance you die but don't automatically signify anything else, everything in between, all are more abstract in both relevant meanings of the term. How is a system that goes "If you get hit, check to see if there was a wound and then check to see what it was" more abstract than "you have this many hitpoints and they go up and down with damage and healing, neither of which necessarily reflects the infliction or repair of physical harm". How does "taking wounds increases the chances that you will die but doesn't automatically signifiy anything else" differ at all from "remove some hitpoints which increases the chances that you will die but doesn't automatically signify anything else"? Try thinking about D&D hit points beyond "Number go down = bad", and I'm sure you'll see what I mean when I say that it's not an intuitive concept. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 10:49 on Sep 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 10:42
|
|
|
dont even fink about it posted:Hey man don't be confusing the scar tissue mess that is modern D&D with the original fundamentals of the core concept: A number you have to match or exceed. 3.x: see 4e without the half level but including flat footed vs touch ac and stacking modifiers. Pre-3.x: AC is the only score where smaller is better, is derived from a table and makes no loving sense at first through fifteenth glance. Unless by D&D you mean the entire concept of rollover binary pass fail, in which case pre-3.x doesn't apply and 3.x plus is all "scar tissue". Familiar is not the same as intuitive.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 11:19
|
|
|
Splicer posted:4E: see the above but with varying dex caps and + half level bonus + a billion feats and situational modifiers THAC0 also gets smaller as it gets better. It's not really a score though, it's a math shortcut, and the only reason it's backwards is that it's derived from AC which is also backwards. This means that when something says it gives you +1 to hit, it lowers your THAC0 by 1. Or it adds 1 to the d20 roll, which gives the same result. Anyway, it's easy to intuit that because AC increases as it goes down, so does your to-hit number, so a +1 bonus means -1 unless you apply it to a die result instead of your static to-hit number. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 12:25 on Sep 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 12:17
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:THAC0 also gets smaller as it gets better. It's not really a score though, it's a math shortcut, and the only reason it's backwards is that it's derived from AC which is also backwards. This means that when something says it gives you +1 to hit, it lowers your THAC0 by 1. Or it adds 1 to the d20 roll, which gives the same result. Anyway, it's easy to intuit that because AC increases as it goes down, so does your to-hit number, so a +1 bonus means -1 unless you apply it to a die result instead of your static to-hit number.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 12:29
|
|
|
I was really just being silly. Of course you wouldn't use a +1 bonus to hit by subtracting 1 from your Thac0. You'd add 1 to the die roll like a normal person. Just like you would with a saving throw instead of reducing the pass number by 1. Even though you have three kinds of numbers that improve by decreasing, a +1 bonus reducing a number by 1 is only for one of them. Intuitively, that's AC. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 12:51 on Sep 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 12:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 06:48 |
|
|
OK, I'll: (1) Quit while I'm behind (2) Admit I'm wrong, at the very least about AC (3) Commit to not Posting While Unable to Sleep
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 17:16
|
|