Critical range of 12-20 (Was Re: Keen Weapons)
Niilo Paasivirta
Antony_Lee <Admini...@aworklan003182.netvigator.com> wrote:
>Josh Robert <deac...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Actually, check the eratta....the correct Threat Range for the Bladed
>> Gauntlets is now 19-20.
>Damn,
>No more Wolverine Style now.......
New errata also says Keen can now be applied to slashing and piercing
weapons. What if we use it on a rapier, and also have Improved Critical
(rapier)? Normal range is 18-20 (three numbers), and when tripled, it
becomes 12-20 (nine numbers). That means about 45% (or a bit less actually)
chance to score a critical with each hit! Imagine Whirlwind Attack and/or
Great Cleave with that :)
--
Niilo Paasivirta E-mail: n...@co.jyu.fi URL: http://www.co.jyu.fi/%7Enp/
JLaw
guaranteed hit and threat.
- JLaw
"Niilo Paasivirta" <n...@horus.co.jyu.fi> wrote in message
news:slrn9p63...@horus.co.jyu.fi...
Kevin Lowe
(Niilo Paasivirta) wrote:
> New errata also says Keen can now be applied to slashing and piercing
> weapons. What if we use it on a rapier, and also have Improved Critical
> (rapier)? Normal range is 18-20 (three numbers), and when tripled, it
> becomes 12-20 (nine numbers). That means about 45% (or a bit less
> actually) chance to score a critical with each hit! Imagine Whirlwind Attack and/or
> Great Cleave with that :)
If you do the math, a Keen ImpCrit rapier does indeed do more damage
than a Keen ImpCrit bastard sword, but only if you have an insanely high
damage bonus, well into the teens.
It looks good on paper, but in practice the difference between 1d6 and
1d8 almost always swamps the difference between 18-20 x2 and 19-20 x2.
Let alone 1d10 19-20 x2.
Kevin Lowe,
Brisbane, Australia.
Sir Bob
Keen Improved Critical Scythe. 2d4 18-20 x4.
I know it sounds ridiculous, but after reading the fight scene in Mort
(tha's a Discworld novel, for the uninitiated), it somehow seems
appropriate. ;)
- Sir Bob.
P.S. Nih!
SmokeDoctorLove
modifier like darkness or whatnot. Makes Goblins more interresting.
All Hail Goddess Bettie
Jonathan Nusholtz
(SmokeDoctorLove) wrote:
So in your game the most skilled warrior in the world will miss 15% of
the time against an unarmored target standing still. And a 1st-level
wizard dual-wielding battleaxes (penalty of -10/-14) will hit 15% of
the time against anything in the known universe. Interesting.
-----------------
The Turtle Moves!
Matthias
(SmokeDoctorLove) wrote:
>I use 1-3 as always a miss, and 18-20 as always a hit. Unless there is a
>modifier like darkness or whatnot. Makes Goblins more interresting.
Ick.
IMO, there should never be guarantees of anything. I don't care about the
usual argument that says "even a pitiful fighter* will hit once in awhile
and vice versa". If he can hit a difficult target once in awhile, then he's
not so pitiful, is he? A pitiful fighter that hits once in awhile is one
who's fighting a target whose AC is so good, he has to roll a natural 20 to
hit it normally (sans any hit guarantee). THAT's the OOG explanation that
"a lucky hit" should be describing, /not/ a guaranteed hit 5% of the time
in all combats in all situations.
(BTW, by hitting a target I mean a strike that causes damage, rather than a
strike that impacts the target's person but is deflected by the armor for
no damage.)
If a fighter* has a net attack bonus of +5 and he is attacking a target
with a net AC of 26, the target should never take damage, whether because
of the target's ability to dodge the attacks or whether because its armor
is so tough. As long as the circumstances don't shift in favor of the
fighter enough that his upper range of combat ability doesn't let him
penetrate the armor or exploit a hole in the target's defense, he shouldn't
ever get a hit in.
It's silly to expect an infantryman with a low-caliber slugthrower
encountering an armored mecha, for example, to inflict any significant
damage once every twenty rounds, if the best attack he can muster falls
below the mecha's Armor Class. He's going to have to find some way to get
to the pilot that does not involve trying to shoot through the mecha's
armor or trying to find a weak point in the armor that he can damage with
his weapon. There's just no way that the infantryman can confront the mecha
directly and hope to win.
It's sad that WOTC thought this was an irrational rule worth keeping.
* not necessarily a member of the class called Fighter
I distrust generic clerics. They're like walking Ouija boards.
--
Matthias
xeno...@yahoo.com
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Frontier/5946
Brandon Blackmoor
news:3b94121e....@news.memphis.edu...
>
> IMO, there should never be guarantees of anything.
I agree completely. That's why I use a 20 always hits, and a 1 always
misses: on any given roll, there should always be a chance for success or
failure.
bblac...@blackgate.net
2001-09-03
A'koss
news:3b94121e....@news.memphis.edu...
> It's silly to expect an infantryman with a low-caliber slugthrower
> encountering an armored mecha, for example, to inflict any significant
> damage once every twenty rounds, if the best attack he can muster falls
> below the mecha's Armor Class. He's going to have to find some way to get
> to the pilot that does not involve trying to shoot through the mecha's
> armor or trying to find a weak point in the armor that he can damage with
> his weapon. There's just no way that the infantryman can confront the
mecha
> directly and hope to win.
Don't forget *Damage Resistance*. The mecha will have a decent AC, no doubt,
but more importantly it's DR will simply be to high for anything less than
high caliber fire. This is why I really have no problem with the natural 20
rule. Most of the really tough guys have DR that will shrug off the little
attacks. A guy with nothing but a high AC still has a soft body under that
armor, a lucky blow finds the chink in the fortress.
A'koss!
--
The Rings of Concordance.
http://members.home.net/infinity/Main_Page.htm
SmokeDoctorLove
All Hail Goddess Bettie
SmokeDoctorLove
never count on a hit, or the AC they have managed to build up. It works well in
play. May not fit the "real world", but then again how many spell casters have
you met? :)
All Hail Goddess Bettie
Matthias
<bblac...@blackgate.net> wrote:
>"Matthias" <matthi...@hotpantsmail.com> wrote in message
>news:3b94121e....@news.memphis.edu...
>>
>> IMO, there should never be guarantees of anything.
>
>I agree completely. That's why I use a 20 always hits, and a 1 always
>misses: on any given roll, there should always be a chance for success or
>failure.
Yes, I know I should have been more precise. Still, there is no logic in a
guaranteed 5% either way. There's no accounting for skill or anything. It
doesn't belong in 3rd Edition, and only a luddite would suggest otherwise.
Matthias
I dunno. The existence of Damage Resistance seems a poor excuse for hanging
on to the static 5%-to-hit rule. If there's DR, there's DR. Not every
target without DR is a fragile egg that can be broken by any bumpkin that
comes along. So in other words, this process can be summed up as follows,
correct?
1. They see that 20-always-hits was popular for D&D, so they keep it.
2. They notice how deadly the rule is, so they make DR more common.
Basically, they WILLINGLY introduce a rule that is problematic then create
a patch to restore equilibrium. This makes no sense; they should have
chucked the problem rule to begin with and tried to find some other way to
implement a method for PCs to exploit weaknesses in their enemies'
defenses, or recognize that since they had already created one (Weapon
Finesse), that they didn't need the second rule or a replacement at all.
Alternatively, they might recognize the usefulness of Weapon Finesse after
deciding to keep the 20-always-hits rule, and choose instead to pick one or
the other (and they'd be a fool not to keep the Weapon Finesse option, for
reasons I'll detail below).
It stands to reason that if the target has a high-AC armor, but still has a
soft body and a chink "in the fortress" as you say, their AC should be low
enough to reflect that weakness. Not everyone will be able to exploit it,
but if the weakness is great enough for the potential of the hero to
exploit it, then there should be a chance for the hero to be able to make a
normal successful attack without having a natural 20 guarantee anything.
Consider also the existence of the Weapon Finesse feat, that will allow the
hero to rely on his Dexterity rather than his Strength to make a successful
attack. Simply put, exploiting a weakness in armor versus brute force is
translated much better in game terms as wielding a weapon with Weapon
Finesse, matching the target's AC, and making a successful hit because of
high Dexterity, than just rolling a natural 20. This static mechanic is
akin to attempting to roll percentile dice for every attack to see whether
you get a free hit (if you roll 96 to 00) or whether you lose your attack
(if you roll 01 to 05).
Natural-20-always-hits just doesn't make sense with 3E since there's
already a method to represent the same kind of thing this is meant to.
Besides, the method of using Weapon Finesse is under control of the game
system because of the necessity of the feat and its prerequisites,
therefore it's more balanced than this un-3E-like dinosaur of a rule that
for some reason WOTC chose to hang on to, seemingly for old time's sake.
Sorry if I seem like I'm filibustering, but I had gotten the impression
that I didn't explain my position well enough.
Matthias
(SmokeDoctorLove) wrote:
>The rule came about so that no one took any melee for granted.
Which makes more sense to take for granted:
1. that you're bound to hit a target no matter how agile or invulnerable it
is; or
2. there are some targets that are nimble and/or tough enough that your
best shot can't penetrate or subvert their armor.
Myself, I choose #2. Powerful monsters that low-level characters can't
touch is high-fantasy. Plucky peasant boys who are able to slay the
fearsome beast through sheer luck is something one would find in a B-movie
plot.
>characters can
>never count on a hit, or the AC they have managed to build up. It works well in
>play.
That's a crutch for inadequate DM'ing. What should work well is for your
advanced character to be constantly challenged by enemies with high ACs and
high attack bonuses that that dodge or repel some of your character's
attacks and can get past your character's defenses, without having to rely
on the natural-20 rule to make up for mismatch of abilities. There should
be such things as total vulnerability and invincibility in combat without
magic. Whether you're trying to match an AC or DC, some things are just
impossible no matter how hard you try, or unavoidable with the least amount
of effort.
>May not fit the "real world", but then again how many spell casters have
>you met? :)
I know it's a joke, but "don't nitpick, it's fantasy!" is one of the
weakest defenses for defending a rule that doesn't make sense, that I've
ever seen. Speed factors? Racial level limits? Superpowerful demihuman
races that make human PCs pointless? "Don't nitpick, it's fantasy!" ... see
what I mean?
Reginald
Sorry, bro. I like the new rules, as well as the old ones. The Damage
Reduction has little to do with the "natural 20 = automatic hit" rule.
Besides, a fragile egg has no armor bonus (+0), Dexterity score of 1 (-5),
and is a fragile inanimate object (akin to helpless with 1 hp and 0
hardness). You definitely don't need to roll a natural 20 to crack it. ;)
Trust me, the natural 20 helps when you go up against a dragon, or (as a DM)
use a swarm of kobolds (100-to-1 kobolds vs high-level PCs).
If you're the DM, you can disallow the natural 20 rule. Personally, I'd
rather it stay there so I (the DM) can decide if I want to use it, use the
variant rule in the DMG (natural 20 = 30), or disallow it.
A'koss
> On Tue, 04 Sep 2001 00:55:28 GMT, "A'koss" <infi...@home.com> wrote:
> >Don't forget *Damage Resistance*. The mecha will have a decent AC, no
doubt,
> >but more importantly it's DR will simply be to high for anything less
than
> >high caliber fire. This is why I really have no problem with the natural
20
> >rule. Most of the really tough guys have DR that will shrug off the
little
> >attacks. A guy with nothing but a high AC still has a soft body under
that
> >armor, a lucky blow finds the chink in the fortress.
> I dunno. The existence of Damage Resistance seems a poor excuse for
hanging
> on to the static 5%-to-hit rule. If there's DR, there's DR. Not every
> target without DR is a fragile egg that can be broken by any bumpkin that
> comes along. So in other words, this process can be summed up as follows,
> correct?
If you don't have DR, you have fragile internal organs. If you have it, you
either have internal organs like concrete or simply don't have internal
organs at all.
> 1. They see that 20-always-hits was popular for D&D, so they keep it.
> 2. They notice how deadly the rule is, so they make DR more common.
No. During the playtest they had originally dispensed with the 20 always
hits rule but in the end didn't like creating no-win situations. DR wasn't a
tack-on. The only thing that really bugged me was that there are separate DR
and Hardness rules. What's the difference between a stone statue and a stone
golem? As for the N20 rule, there are alternatives in the DMG, the N1 = -10,
N20 = +10 rule for instance. In the end it's all about simplicity and game
balance.
<snip stuff relying on PCs taking feats to solve>
I don't entirely disagree with what you're saying but this opens a much,
much larger can of worms in regards to "what armor really does". Armor
*absorbs* damage. Armor makes you *easier* to hit (but harder to hurt).
Notice how you go up in levels but are no better at defending yourself than
than a 1st level snotnose. Technically, your AC should be improving with
your level (skill-based defense), modified by your Dex. Armor should be
lowering your AC while shaving damage off every hit... Then of course you
have to address the various effectiveness of different weapons against
heavier and heavier armor. Some weapons are design to be used against armor,
some not... Can you make called shots to bypass armor? etc. etc...
Hell, I used to have PO rules that addressed all of that...
Ed Chauvin IV
>On 04 Sep 2001 05:28:22 GMT, smokedo...@aol.comNospam
>(SmokeDoctorLove) wrote:
>
>>The rule came about so that no one took any melee for granted.
>
>Which makes more sense to take for granted:
>
>1. that you're bound to hit a target no matter how agile or invulnerable it
>is; or
>
>2. there are some targets that are nimble and/or tough enough that your
>best shot can't penetrate or subvert their armor.
>
>Myself, I choose #2. Powerful monsters that low-level characters can't
>touch is high-fantasy.
I choose 3. Powerful monsters that might be hit by low-level characters, but
their swords merely glance off them is high fantasy.
>Plucky peasant boys who are able to slay the
>fearsome beast through sheer luck is something one would find in a B-movie
>plot.
Good thing 3e doesn't allow for that. Unless the plucky peasant boy finds some
wondrous magical sword.
Ed Chauvin IV
--
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
It is by the Beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed,
the hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a warning.
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin
SmokeDoctorLove
is one thing. Hurting it is another.
Whats your point on the B-movie thing....I love Them!
As for the rule not making Sense, or my "inadequate DMing" once again it works
well in play, or I wouldn't use it.
I am a very adequate DM I assure you :)
Then again given how well you know me, and the times we have shared Jolt cola
and pizza around a game table over the past 20 years you should know :)
and it was a joke. Lighten up this is all fun. Honest.
Mark
Wait then again, who are you?
All Hail Goddess Bettie
Anonymous Jack
> is; or
fellow in plate armor with my dagger, eventually I will hit an
eyehole, armpit, or other chink in the armor. Whether I will do so
before the fellow in the plate armor kills me is another matter.
> 2. there are some targets that are nimble and/or tough enough that your
> best shot can't penetrate or subvert their armor.
Disagree. Remember, people in armor need to see, breathe, and move.
This guarantees some spots will be open or weaker in the armor. The
"pea-shooter vs mech armor" analogy does not equate to "orc with
longsword vs PC in plate mail, high dex and other AC bonuses".
> Myself, I choose #2. Powerful monsters that low-level characters can't
> touch is high-fantasy. Plucky peasant boys who are able to slay the
> fearsome beast through sheer luck is something one would find in a B-movie
> plot.
Like Star Wars? The Hobbit, and Lord of the Rings? The Riftwar
series? Let's face it, a fantasy novel about an evil thing so
powerful no one could touch it sounds pretty dull. In real life, I
would choose 100 plucky peasant boys with pitchforks over a plate
armored, experienced knight.
> That's a crutch for inadequate DM'ing.
No, IMO an inadequate DM allows a) a PC that is invulnerable
b)monsters that are invulnerable.
>What should work well is for your advanced character to be constantly
>challenged by enemies with high ACs and
> high attack bonuses that that dodge or repel some of your character's
> attacks and can get past your character's defenses, without having to rely
> on the natural-20 rule to make up for mismatch of abilities. There should
> be such things as total vulnerability and invincibility in combat without
> magic. Whether you're trying to match an AC or DC, some things are just
> impossible no matter how hard you try, or unavoidable with the least amount
> of effort.
Yikes! You believe there should be total invulnerability without
magic, in the name of realism? Do you know how many experienced,
real-world warriors, knights, samurai, etc., died from being overrun
by peasants, or random arrows and cross-bow bolts (granted the
peasants suffered heavy casualties)? Do you think in real life, that
plate mail could stop a cross-bow bolt? You're arguing that 50
peasants, firing their crossbows at dexterous plate-armored fellow
aren't going to kill him?
> >May not fit the "real world", but then again how many spell casters have
> >you met? :)
>
> I know it's a joke, but "don't nitpick, it's fantasy!" is one of the
> weakest defenses for defending a rule that doesn't make sense, that I've
> ever seen. Speed factors? Racial level limits? Superpowerful demihuman
> races that make human PCs pointless? "Don't nitpick, it's fantasy!" ... see
> what I mean?
The point is that IS a game. It is impossible to emulate a real life
combat with total realism. Remember, that 5% hit will do damage.
There's even a small chance of a crit - but that hit will likely not
do enough damage to kill. Hit points do not equal bodily injury -
they also reflect skill and the cumulative effects of extended combat
(fatigue). So, in that context IMHO, it does make sense that after
killing 20 orcs you might lose a few HP.
PS, "superpowerful demihuman races that make human PCs pointless" is
IMO inadequate DMing. IMC, humans (PCs and NPCs) dominate. There are
some alleys where being non-human is enough to get you killed.
SmokeDoctorLove
pizza too.
All Hail Goddess Bettie
Jason M. Hamari
> >characters can
> >never count on a hit, or the AC they have managed to build up. It works well in
> >play.
>
> That's a crutch for inadequate DM'ing. What should work well is for your
> advanced character to be constantly challenged by enemies with high ACs and
> high attack bonuses that that dodge or repel some of your character's
> attacks and can get past your character's defenses, without having to rely
> on the natural-20 rule to make up for mismatch of abilities
I don't understand why some people think that the power of all enemies have to
"match" the power of the player characters. Does a certain power-level of evil just
happen to naturally find their counterparts from the good side? I think not. There
are times when the PCs will run up against things that they will need phenomenal
rolls to hit, and the smartest thing to do might just be to flee. And on the other
side of the coin, when a group of goblins rounds a bend and comes face to face with
a group of high-level adventurers, are they supposed to spontaneously be more
powerful somehow? No.
I think always hitting on a natural 20 is a good thing. And the old problem of a
creature who needed a 20 to hit ALWAYS getting a critical hit (because it could only
hit on a 20) is gone now... if you need a 20 to hit, the only time you're going to
get a critical hit is on two 20's in a row.
Wayne Shaw
Most games have an "always hit" range; D&D simply suffers from the
fact the minimum they could make this was 5% because they were using a
D20.
Ed Chauvin IV
Nope. They could've left the 20 always hits rule out and left it as 20 is
always a critical threat. This would've greatly reduced the "always hits"
range, to zero in some cases.
Wayne Shaw
(Matthias) wrote:
>On 04 Sep 2001 05:28:22 GMT, smokedo...@aol.comNospam
>(SmokeDoctorLove) wrote:
>
>>The rule came about so that no one took any melee for granted.
>
>Which makes more sense to take for granted:
>
>1. that you're bound to hit a target no matter how agile or invulnerable it
>is; or
>
>2. there are some targets that are nimble and/or tough enough that your
>best shot can't penetrate or subvert their armor.
>
>Myself, I choose #2. Powerful monsters that low-level characters can't
I don't. Golden BBs happen. The only problem with the 3e rule is the
conflation of armor and avoidance makes it hard to represent properly,
and the fact it's a D20 system exasperates this.
Chad Lubrecht
<edc...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>Wayne Shaw wrote:
>>>It's sad that WOTC thought this was an irrational rule worth keeping.
>>
>>Most games have an "always hit" range; D&D simply suffers from the
>>fact the minimum they could make this was 5% because they were using a
>>D20.
>
>Nope. They could've left the 20 always hits rule out and left it as 20 is
>always a critical threat. This would've greatly reduced the "always hits"
>range, to zero in some cases.
But the fact is they wanted an "always hits" range...
and a 20 is already a critical threat...
I would have gone with the, if you roll a 20, roll again and add it
on. This would provide that a hit was always possible, and allowing
that chance to drop below 5%. Without too much additional trouble.
Ed Chauvin IV
Exploding Icosahedra. I just love the sound of that.
HADSIL
>I don't entirely disagree with what you're saying but this opens a much,
>much larger can of worms in regards to "what armor really does". Armor
>*absorbs* damage. Armor makes you *easier* to hit (but harder to hurt).
>Notice how you go up in levels but are no better at defending yourself than
>than a 1st level snotnose. Technically, your AC should be improving with
>your level (skill-based defense), modified by your Dex. Armor should be
>lowering your AC while shaving damage off every hit... Then of course you
>have to address the various effectiveness of different weapons against
>heavier and heavier armor. Some weapons are design to be used against armor,
>some not... Can you make called shots to bypass armor? etc. etc...
>
>Hell, I used to have PO rules that addressed all of that...
>
>
>A'koss!
I remember. :-)
Or you could just play Rolemaster and deal with lots and lots of charts over
lots and lots of pages through lots and lots of books.
Gerald Katz
It's the players' game too!
HADSIL
My comment on Rolemaster was not a reflection on your armor ablation rules.
Sorry if it seemed that way. I liked the ablation rules.
:-)
Christopher Burke
news:20010905020248...@mb-bg.news.cs.com:
>
> Or you could just play Rolemaster and deal with lots and lots of charts
> over lots and lots of pages through lots and lots of books.
I play 1 on d20 = -10 , 20 on d20 = 30.
--
---
/* Christopher Burke - Spam Mail to cra...@hotmail.com
|*
\* Real mail to cburke(at)craznar(dot)com
Matthias
>If you're the DM, you can disallow the natural 20 rule. Personally, I'd
>rather it stay there so I (the DM) can decide if I want to use it, use the
>variant rule in the DMG (natural 20 = 30), or disallow it.
That variant is interesting. If I absolutely had to have some kind of
special extra result for 20's, I'd probably use a hybrid of the +10/-10 DMG
variant and of the critical threat system.
1. Make your attack roll. If you roll a natural 20, you can reroll the
attack with a +10 bonus (not mandatory if you're satisfied with rolling a
20). Bonuses from consecutive 20's stack.
3. If you beat your target's AC by the lowest number of your weapon's
critical range /minus 10/ (e.g., 20=10, 19-20=9) or more, then you've
scored a critical threat.
4. Make your critical hit check with the same modifiers you had when you
scored the critical threat (Any +10's you gained still apply), where
beating your target's AC again equals a successful critical attack.
5. Rolling a natural 20 when making a critical hit check doesn't give any
additional bonuses.
--
I distrust generic clerics. They're like walking Ouija boards.
Matthias
xeno...@yahoo.com
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Frontier/5946
Matthias
wrote:
>> 1. that you're bound to hit a target no matter how agile or invulnerable it
>> is; or
>IMHO, this makes far more sense. If I get to keep stabbing at a
>fellow in plate armor with my dagger, eventually I will hit an
>eyehole, armpit, or other chink in the armor. Whether I will do so
>before the fellow in the plate armor kills me is another matter.
In such a case, I would have to model this by considering the armored guy's
AC enough so that it's possible for you to inflict damage on him at the
upper limit of your combat ability without the natural-20-always-hits (N20)
rule, so that your rolling a 20 (or perhaps 19 or even 18) will let you
match his AC, giving you a legitimate hit.
I guess what I'm having an issue with is that armor values are too high,
rather than the ability of peasants to make successful hits against
seemingly untouchable knights.
>> 2. there are some targets that are nimble and/or tough enough that your
>> best shot can't penetrate or subvert their armor.
>Disagree. Remember, people in armor need to see, breathe, and move.
>This guarantees some spots will be open or weaker in the armor. The
>"pea-shooter vs mech armor" analogy does not equate to "orc with
>longsword vs PC in plate mail, high dex and other AC bonuses".
Consider that the best nonmagical armor available in 3E is full plate with
a +8 AC and MaxDex of +1.
Sans magic, a warrior in full plate with +1 Dex mod will have an AC of 19.
Even a commoner with a net +0 attack bonus will be able to inflict a
damaging hit if they can roll a 20 for attack (excluding the N20 rule).
On the other hand, if the commoner is attacking a warrior in mundane padded
armor (+1) with a +8 Dex modifier (also AC of 19), the warrior's ability to
avoid damaging blows is due to his agility and not the hardiness of his
armor. Whatever weaknesses there are in the armor, the warrior can make up
for by constantly maneuvering so that the commoner is in a position to
exploit a weakness as seldom as possible.
These situations to me seems quite reasonable. The commoner doesn't need
the N20 rule to have a chance against armored folks.
Hitting or missing anyway due to dumb luck would IMO be better represented
using a game mechanic that didn't assign a static 5% chance, but took skill
and experience and other relevant factors into account. Perhaps a natural
20 lets you reroll to attack with a +10 bonus (cumulative as long as you
roll consecutive 20's)? At least with this method there is a chance,
however remote, that the underdog will make a hit anyway, but depending on
his combat ability and the target's AC, he may have to roll only one 20
followed by a 15 or better (AB +5 versus AC 30) or three 20's in a row and
a 15 or better (AB +0 versus AC 45).
>> Myself, I choose #2. Powerful monsters that low-level characters can't
>> touch is high-fantasy. Plucky peasant boys who are able to slay the
>> fearsome beast through sheer luck is something one would find in a B-movie
>> plot.
>Like Star Wars? The Hobbit, and Lord of the Rings? The Riftwar
>series? Let's face it, a fantasy novel about an evil thing so
>powerful no one could touch it sounds pretty dull. In real life, I
>would choose 100 plucky peasant boys with pitchforks over a plate
>armored, experienced knight.
If you can muster an army like that, you don't need the N20 rule. :) Just
get them to flank and grapple. :)
>> That's a crutch for inadequate DM'ing.
>No, IMO an inadequate DM allows a) a PC that is invulnerable
>b)monsters that are invulnerable.
So all DMs are inadequate? What about high-level PCs that are confronted by
a lone classless goblin? Is it inadequate DMing to do anything more than
say "Ok, you kill the goblin. Now what?"
Invulnerable monsters introduce a sense of awe and humility. There's
nothing like being challenged by an invincible monster for restoring a
sense of fear in a player that's just retired an old 20th-level character.
]B)
>>What should work well is for your advanced character to be constantly
>>challenged by enemies with high ACs and
>> high attack bonuses that that dodge or repel some of your character's
>> attacks and can get past your character's defenses, without having to rely
>> on the natural-20 rule to make up for mismatch of abilities. There should
>> be such things as total vulnerability and invincibility in combat without
>> magic. Whether you're trying to match an AC or DC, some things are just
>> impossible no matter how hard you try, or unavoidable with the least amount
>> of effort.
>Yikes! You believe there should be total invulnerability without
>magic, in the name of realism?
If the target has good enough armor or is agile enough, why not? The game
system shouldn't be trying to encourage such high-fantasy things as the
one-shot-in-a-million; that's the DM's or the dice's job.
> Do you know how many experienced,
>real-world warriors, knights, samurai, etc., died from being overrun
>by peasants, or random arrows and cross-bow bolts (granted the
>peasants suffered heavy casualties)? Do you think in real life, that
>plate mail could stop a cross-bow bolt? You're arguing that 50
>peasants, firing their crossbows at dexterous plate-armored fellow
>aren't going to kill him?
They most certainly will. They'll flank him like crazy and gain AOOs like
nobody's business. If nothing else, they'll grapple him en masse, render
him helpless, then kill him with a coup de grace. No guaranteed-hits
needed.
>> >May not fit the "real world", but then again how many spell casters have
>> >you met? :)
>>
>> I know it's a joke, but "don't nitpick, it's fantasy!" is one of the
>> weakest defenses for defending a rule that doesn't make sense, that I've
>> ever seen. Speed factors? Racial level limits? Superpowerful demihuman
>> races that make human PCs pointless? "Don't nitpick, it's fantasy!" ... see
>> what I mean?
>The point is that IS a game.
Yes it is. That's not an excuse for using rules that don't fit the system
when there already are others that are "controlled" by checks and balances,
though. It is redundant and unrealistic (or less realistic than the
existing rules that cover the same situation).
>It is impossible to emulate a real life
>combat with total realism.
I never said it /was/ possible. However, if there is clearly a superior
alternative to a given rule, it should be used and the redundant inferior
one discarded.
>Remember, that 5% hit will do damage.
>There's even a small chance of a crit - but that hit will likely not
>do enough damage to kill. Hit points do not equal bodily injury -
>they also reflect skill and the cumulative effects of extended combat
>(fatigue). So, in that context IMHO, it does make sense that after
>killing 20 orcs you might lose a few HP.
That's a very weak justification. If they hit you, they hit you; if they
didn't, they didn't. N20 isn't the best way represent even /that/; a
Fortitude check would be more appropriate.
>PS, "superpowerful demihuman races that make human PCs pointless" is
>IMO inadequate DMing. IMC, humans (PCs and NPCs) dominate. There are
>some alleys where being non-human is enough to get you killed.
Heh. Down with demi's!
--
I distrust generic clerics. They're like walking Ouija boards.
Matthias
xeno...@yahoo.com
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Frontier/5946
Matthias
<jas...@dnd.chartermi.net> wrote:
>Matthias wrote:
>
>> >characters can
>> >never count on a hit, or the AC they have managed to build up. It works well in
>> >play.
>>
>> That's a crutch for inadequate DM'ing. What should work well is for your
>> advanced character to be constantly challenged by enemies with high ACs and
>> high attack bonuses that that dodge or repel some of your character's
>> attacks and can get past your character's defenses, without having to rely
>> on the natural-20 rule to make up for mismatch of abilities
>
>I don't understand why some people think that the power of all enemies have to
>"match" the power of the player characters. Does a certain power-level of evil just
>happen to naturally find their counterparts from the good side? I think not. There
>are times when the PCs will run up against things that they will need phenomenal
>rolls to hit, and the smartest thing to do might just be to flee.
That's exactly my point. Sometimes /anything/ but direct combat should be a
option.
>And on the other
>side of the coin, when a group of goblins rounds a bend and comes face to face with
>a group of high-level adventurers, are they supposed to spontaneously be more
>powerful somehow? No.
Of course not. However, N20 /does/ narrow the gap between them by
introducing an unavoidable weakness in all participants and a secret
incounterable power (as they can all hit and be hit with a natural 20). In
any case, it shortens the duration of combat encounters.
Assume for the moment that we were able to use an infinitely-sided die for
attack rolls, so that the odds of any event could be accurately represented
in the game. What odds would you assign to the event of any one goblins'
being able to land at least a single damaging blow on one of the high-level
adventurers? Is such a probability large enough that it's appropriate to
give it a 5% chance of doing so? Or is it so remote as to be negligible in
the great scheme of things?
There is a good reason why we don't use a d100 for making attacks and
checks ... some factors (1% here, 1% there) just aren't significant enough
to be taken into account. That a goblin could land a hit on one of them
isn't significant enough to be allowed for except by DM fiat.
Personally, I wouldn't even classify this as a real combat encounter, since
the adventurers would have theoretically complete control of the situation.
>I think always hitting on a natural 20 is a good thing.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
>And the old problem of a
>creature who needed a 20 to hit ALWAYS getting a critical hit (because it could only
>hit on a 20) is gone now... if you need a 20 to hit, the only time you're going to
>get a critical hit is on two 20's in a row.
Yes, that was indeed a problem that needed fixing.
--
I distrust generic clerics. They're like walking Ouija boards.
Matthias
xeno...@yahoo.com
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Frontier/5946
Matthias
I'm surprised they didn't take the open-ended, modifiable approach like
they did with the rest of the system. Instead, it's like 2E in that it's
"hard-coded" using the numbers on the die itself rather than allowing for
the odds of a lucky hit being somewhere between 0% and 100% depending on
the circumstances. If the underdog's player has to roll two 20's then an 11
or better before he has a chance of making a successful attack, that's a 1
in 800 chance. More than 0% and less than 5%, theoretically possible but
unlikely without using the static method of "roll X on a d20".
If as a DM you want your PCs to fight a monster or monsters with which they
have about a 5% chance of scoring a hit, then why not weaken the monsters
enough that they do so naturally, without guaranteed hits. Have a Natural
20 grant a reroll with a bonus so that there's a possibility to hit usually
unhittable targets, just not always a static, unchangeable, rigid 5%. The
element of luck remains, but it's variable, like it should be.
SmokeDoctorLove
be a
reality simulation of melee combat. Even the hit-point system it self is as
abstract as my “18-20 always hits” or the “20 always hits” rule.
The problem my rule was created to correct was the “oh dear just Goblins”
factor that even some players of first level characters display in some
campaigns. I feel that any combat situation shouldn’t be taken lightly.
I believe the “20 always hits” rule was made for the same reason.
I believe it does fit the spirit of the system, and I have yet to have seen why
you would
think otherwise. Except of course all the references to bad DMing, and rules
you feel would work better.
I think you have a problem with an abstract rule in an abstract system. That is
kind of
silly if you think about it. If it is balanced, and helps play it fits the
system. Here it is
below, maybe a second look will help.
18-20 always hits (House Rule)
18-20 is a hit unless a situation modifier dictates otherwise (Cover,
blindness, darkness, etc.). A hit using this rule is never considered a threat.
Note that 1-3 is always a miss unless there is a situation modifier (prone,
flanked,
surprised, etc.).
If you don’t think luck is a factor in combat, and shouldn’t be represented
in the rules
perhaps you should ask some people that survived combat if luck was a factor.
It not only has it's place in the rules, but a very important one. I do play
"High Fantasy" by the way, and love it when the little guy wins. Does this make
me a bad person? heh
All Hail Goddess Bettie
Anonymous Jack
have to
"match" the power of the player characters. Does a certain
power-level of evil just happen to naturally find their counterparts
from the good side? I think not. There are times when the PCs will
run up against things that they will need phenomenal rolls to hit, and
the smartest thing to do might just be to flee.
I should have been more clear: I meant merely that there should be at
least a chance to hit. I don't believe (without magical protections)
that a fighter (or monster) with a high AC, due to armor and dodge
bonuses, should be immune to hits from weaker creatures. By this, I
mean a huge swarm of kobolds should be able to take down a fighter
with an AC of 21, by hitting him with the occassional natural 20.
Some previous discussion indicates a preference for having the fighter
be immune to taking any damage from the kobolds.
Rob Douglas
> On Tue, 04 Sep 2001 10:02:09 -0700, Wayne Shaw <sh...@caprica.com> wrote:
>
> >>It's sad that WOTC thought this was an irrational rule worth keeping.
> >
> >Most games have an "always hit" range; D&D simply suffers from the
> >fact the minimum they could make this was 5% because they were using a
> >D20.
>
> I'm surprised they didn't take the open-ended, modifiable approach like
> they did with the rest of the system. Instead, it's like 2E in that it's
> "hard-coded" using the numbers on the die itself rather than allowing for
> the odds of a lucky hit being somewhere between 0% and 100% depending on
> the circumstances. If the underdog's player has to roll two 20's then an
11
> or better before he has a chance of making a successful attack, that's a 1
> in 800 chance. More than 0% and less than 5%, theoretically possible but
> unlikely without using the static method of "roll X on a d20".
>
> If as a DM you want your PCs to fight a monster or monsters with which
they
> have about a 5% chance of scoring a hit, then why not weaken the monsters
> enough that they do so naturally, without guaranteed hits. Have a Natural
> 20 grant a reroll with a bonus so that there's a possibility to hit
usually
> unhittable targets, just not always a static, unchangeable, rigid 5%. The
> element of luck remains, but it's variable, like it should be.
THey did offer this as an optional rule. Why the "20 always hits rule?"
Because they support the idea that given enough luck even a goblin could
take out a dragon AND 20 always hits is LTOS faster than reroll with +10.
To each his own. I just don't understand why this is so upsetting to some
people. It's just a rule.
ANother optional rule is to roll for armor class! Normally you get a base
10 and add bonuses to that. Roll for armor class means you roll and add
your bonuses to that. Can reduce AC by 9, or increase it by 10. Its all in
the DMG.
ROB
Anonymous Jack
> have about a 5% chance of scoring a hit, then why not weaken the monsters
> enough that they do so naturally, without guaranteed hits.
number is rolled, it's a "guaranteed hit", regardless if it is a
natural 20 on a twenty sided dice, or 100 on percentile dice. I can't
see a 5% chance as much of a guarantee... remember, AC is only a small
part of the foe's toughness. Don't forget HP and the ability to deal
out damage. Monsters don't need to be weakened, they're balanced for
their fighting ability with the natural 20 rules taken into account.
Sure, a low-level fighter might get extremely lucky (1:8,000), roll 3
20's in a row and do a triple damage crit on the high level fighter,
but the high level fighter has lots'o'hit points and will quickly
mince the low level fighter. When was the last time you saw a party
of 20 low level PCs seeking out dragons, because they figure with 20
characters, one of them is bound to hit every round?
The great thing about D&D in its various forms: House Rules! Of
course, any DM can do as he/she pleases. Personally, I liked the
rules that increased a person's chances of being hit when they were
totally surrounded - more realism.
C. Baize
> On 03 Sep 2001 19:07:45 GMT, smokedo...@aol.comNospam
> (SmokeDoctorLove) wrote:
>
> >I use 1-3 as always a miss, and 18-20 as always a hit. Unless there is a
> >modifier like darkness or whatnot. Makes Goblins more interresting.
>
> Ick.
>
> IMO, there should never be guarantees of anything. I don't care about the
> usual argument that says "even a pitiful fighter* will hit once in awhile
> and vice versa". If he can hit a difficult target once in awhile, then he's
> not so pitiful, is he? A pitiful fighter that hits once in awhile is one
> who's fighting a target whose AC is so good, he has to roll a natural 20 to
> hit it normally (sans any hit guarantee). THAT's the OOG explanation that
> "a lucky hit" should be describing, /not/ a guaranteed hit 5% of the time
> in all combats in all situations.
>
> (BTW, by hitting a target I mean a strike that causes damage, rather than a
> strike that impacts the target's person but is deflected by the armor for
> no damage.)
>
> If a fighter* has a net attack bonus of +5 and he is attacking a target
> with a net AC of 26, the target should never take damage, whether because
> of the target's ability to dodge the attacks or whether because its armor
> is so tough. As long as the circumstances don't shift in favor of the
> fighter enough that his upper range of combat ability doesn't let him
> penetrate the armor or exploit a hole in the target's defense, he shouldn't
> ever get a hit in.
>
> It's silly to expect an infantryman with a low-caliber slugthrower
> encountering an armored mecha, for example, to inflict any significant
> damage once every twenty rounds, if the best attack he can muster falls
> below the mecha's Armor Class. He's going to have to find some way to get
> to the pilot that does not involve trying to shoot through the mecha's
> armor or trying to find a weak point in the armor that he can damage with
> his weapon. There's just no way that the infantryman can confront the mecha
> directly and hope to win.
>
>
>
>
>
> I distrust generic clerics. They're like walking Ouija boards.
So, then... my 9th Level Half Silver Dragon / Minotaur with +2
Breastplate, and a +3 Ring of Deflection (total AC 31, including
natural and dex bonuses), should never be hit by a character or
creature with a +10 or less total hit bonus?
Now a normal munchkin (who else would play such a character, right?),
would say, "Cool, what a great idea!"
Me, I say, "No. No, no, no. There should ALWAYS be a chance for the
'Lucky shot'."
PeeWee Herman MIGHT actually smack Mike Tyson in his head. It would be
one hell of a lucky shot, but it could, conceivably happen. Granted,
PeeWee would be toast at that point, but still...
C. Baize
Tony Evans
>On Mon, 3 Sep 2001 19:59:42 -0400, "Brandon Blackmoor"
><bblac...@blackgate.net> wrote:
>
>>"Matthias" <matthi...@hotpantsmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:3b94121e....@news.memphis.edu...
>>>
>>> IMO, there should never be guarantees of anything.
>>
>>I agree completely. That's why I use a 20 always hits, and a 1 always
>>misses: on any given roll, there should always be a chance for success or
>>failure.
>
>Yes, I know I should have been more precise. Still, there is no logic in a
>guaranteed 5% either way. There's no accounting for skill or anything. It
>doesn't belong in 3rd Edition, and only a luddite would suggest otherwise.
Logic? This is a fantasy setting.
I want to be the David that kills Goliath. How can I be that if I
can't even hit him?
It's about having _fun_.
--
Tony Evans (ICQ : 170850)
Recommended Author : Stan Nicholls [http://www.herebedragons.co.uk/nicholls]
I pretend to work. They pretend to pay me.
Homepage : http://www.darkstorm.org
Blackstar Deittrich
As someone must've brought up in here somewhere, wearing more armor just
makes you easier to hit, but harder to damage.
In D&D (all editions, not just 3E) the whole did I hit/did I actually do any
damage is totally factored into one roll, rather than one roll to hit,
followed by a determination of whether or not the armor (natural or
otherwise) was penetrated...
Sure, a mob of peasants can fling stones from their slings at the dragon all
day (if the dragon bothers passing low enough for them to lob at it), but
they ain't penetrating them scales without some serious help, either in the
form of magical wepaons (with bonuses) or with a few of them be "high level"
with "high combat bonuses", The high combat bonuses being based on their
training and knowing "how and where to place blows".
Matthias
wrote:
>I don't understand why some people think that the power of all enemies
Even though none of them would be able to stand toe-to-toe with him one on
one, they could take him down by massive flanking, grappling, etc.
--
I distrust generic clerics. They're like walking Ouija boards.
Matthias
xeno...@yahoo.com
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Frontier/5946
Matthias
wrote:
>In rec.games.frp.dnd, matthi...@hotpantsmail.com (Matthias) wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 3 Sep 2001 19:59:42 -0400, "Brandon Blackmoor"
>><bblac...@blackgate.net> wrote:
>>
>>>"Matthias" <matthi...@hotpantsmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:3b94121e....@news.memphis.edu...
>>>>
>>>> IMO, there should never be guarantees of anything.
>>>
>>>I agree completely. That's why I use a 20 always hits, and a 1 always
>>>misses: on any given roll, there should always be a chance for success or
>>>failure.
>>
>>Yes, I know I should have been more precise. Still, there is no logic in a
>>guaranteed 5% either way. There's no accounting for skill or anything. It
>>doesn't belong in 3rd Edition, and only a luddite would suggest otherwise.
>
>Logic? This is a fantasy setting.
>
>I want to be the David that kills Goliath. How can I be that if I
>can't even hit him?
FWIW, David's killing of Goliath wasn't luck, it was skill. Most underdogs
already _have_ the ability to excel and overcome great challenges, they
just don't realize their full potential. If you can't do something, you
can't do it. If you are able to accomplish something seemingly impossible,
then obviously it wasn't impossible for you. :) We don't need an arbitrary
rule to make up for the DM's mistake of inserting monsters that are, by the
book, too beefy for the player characters to do anything about. The better
(but harder) solution is for the DM to actually TONE DOWN the monster,
instead of using the N20 rule as a crutch to give the PCs a chance in hades
of fighting a big nasty thing they shouldn't have been fighting in the
first place. Instead, we have a problem (too big monsters) solved by a
band-aid (N20) ... why have both when we can have neither?
>It's about having _fun_.
"It's fun" can justify anything, whether munchkiny or Lovecraftian (heads
Cthulhu wins, tails you lose), and is entirely subjective, and quite
useless for judging whether a certain rule is reasonable or not.
I don't find N20 fun, because I enjoy logical things. Don't tell me that
what I find "fun" and "not fun" isn't valid, because I find just the
opposite is fun. If the game is about "having fun", then N20 should go
away, right?
Matthias
Sorry, that just stretches my suspension of disbelief. DM fiat it if you
like, but some things ought to be impossible. Should a hawk be able to
inflict damage on a great wyrm red dragon, at all, ever? N20 says "yes, and
about 5% of the time". The wyrm's reserves of HP are irrelevant IMO; that
they can be depleted /at all/ should not be a possibility. By the rules,
the hawk could get lucky enough and kill the dragon in about 330 rounds. If
it is fine to accept extremely remote odds such as this as virtually
impossible, why not accept that it's "virtually impossible" for some
defenders to be completely immune to attackers that are pitifully weak
compared to them?
>PeeWee Herman MIGHT actually smack Mike Tyson in his head. It would be
>one hell of a lucky shot, but it could, conceivably happen. Granted,
>PeeWee would be toast at that point, but still...
Herman might be able to successfully make an attack on Tyson's AC, but
would it ever be a good enough strike that it would amount to as much as
one point of subdual damage? I doubt it. Herman hits, total damage is less
than Tyson's DR, Tyson notices the hit, and bites Herman's head off ...
--
I distrust generic clerics. They're like walking Ouija boards.
Matthias
xeno...@yahoo.com
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Frontier/5946
Ed Chauvin IV
>
>Sorry, that just stretches my suspension of disbelief. DM fiat it if you
>like, but some things ought to be impossible. Should a hawk be able to
>inflict damage on a great wyrm red dragon, at all, ever? N20 says "yes, and
>about 5% of the time".
No, actually it says exactly the opposite. A hawk does 1d4-2 with it's claws
and a great wyrm red dragon has DR 20/+2. This means a hawk will NEVER have a
chance of inflicting ANY damage on a great wyrm red dragon.
>The wyrm's reserves of HP are irrelevant IMO; that
>they can be depleted /at all/ should not be a possibility. By the rules,
>the hawk could get lucky enough and kill the dragon in about 330 rounds.
By the rules, the hawk is doomed to die a miserable death in under 10 seconds.
>If
>it is fine to accept extremely remote odds such as this as virtually
>impossible, why not accept that it's "virtually impossible" for some
>defenders to be completely immune to attackers that are pitifully weak
>compared to them?
If you're going to complain about the rules, at least have a go at reading them
first.
Riboflavin
> like, but some things ought to be impossible. Should a hawk be able to
> inflict damage on a great wyrm red dragon, at all, ever? N20 says "yes,
and
> about 5% of the time". The wyrm's reserves of HP are irrelevant IMO; that
> they can be depleted /at all/ should not be a possibility. By the rules,
> the hawk could get lucky enough and kill the dragon in about 330 rounds.
Please explain how the rules contained in the 3 core rulebooks allow the
hawk to get lucky enough to kill the dragon in 330 rounds. Hell, explain to
me how a hawk can do ONE SINGLE HIT POINT of damage to the great Red Wrym
even if you have automatic 20s for all of your attack rolls and max damage
for all attack rolls. I'm especially interested in how a hawk, which deals
out d4-2 damage and lacks damage reduction can overcome the DR20/+2 of the
dragon when it maxes out at 4hp on a critical hit and lacks damage reduction
of its own to negate the dragon's DR.
--
Kevin Allegood ribotr...@mindspring.pants.com
Remove the pants from my email address to reply
"I mean, can you imagine a meeting with John Galt sitting at the
table? Better not drink any coffee beforehand. Take a book. Or a noose."
- James Nicoll
Justin Bacon
>Herman might be able to successfully make an attack on Tyson's AC, but
>would it ever be a good enough strike that it would amount to as much as
>one point of subdual damage? I doubt it. Herman hits, total damage is less
>than Tyson's DR, Tyson notices the hit, and bites Herman's head off ...
I don't think Tyson has DR. And I'll note how Houdini died.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Karl Knechtel
> No, actually it says exactly the opposite. A hawk does 1d4-2 with it's claws
> and a great wyrm red dragon has DR 20/+2. This means a hawk will NEVER have a
> chance of inflicting ANY damage on a great wyrm red dragon.
>
Unless it somehow gains +38 to STR, or enough levels in Monk that its claws
count as +2 weapons ;)
Karl Knechtel {:>
da728 at torfree dot net
Karl Knechtel
Yeah, but the attack on Houdini was practically a coup de grace, from the
accounts I've heard.
Brandon Blackmoor
>
>Yes, I know I should have been more precise. Still, there is no logic in a
>guaranteed 5% either way. There's no accounting for skill or anything.
That's accounted for in the intervening 18 numbers between 1 and 20.
> It doesn't belong in 3rd Edition, and only a luddite would suggest
otherwise.
People who object to industrialization because it weakens the traditional
family unit are also fond of having a chance of success or failure when
playing role-playing games? What have *you* been smoking?
bblac...@blackgate.net
2001-09-09
Gordon
news:Pine.SGI.3.96.10109092...@skule.ecf...
Something along the lines of a critical, rolled while H was flat-footed &
unarmored.
-------
Gordon
"I have as much authority as the Pope.
I just don't have as many people who believe it."
C. Baize
> like, but some things ought to be impossible. Should a hawk be able to
> inflict damage on a great wyrm red dragon, at all, ever? N20 says "yes, and
> about 5% of the time". The wyrm's reserves of HP are irrelevant IMO; that
> they can be depleted /at all/ should not be a possibility. By the rules,
> the hawk could get lucky enough and kill the dragon in about 330 rounds. If
> it is fine to accept extremely remote odds such as this as virtually
> impossible, why not accept that it's "virtually impossible" for some
> defenders to be completely immune to attackers that are pitifully weak
> compared to them?
>
>
> >PeeWee Herman MIGHT actually smack Mike Tyson in his head. It would be
> >one hell of a lucky shot, but it could, conceivably happen. Granted,
> >PeeWee would be toast at that point, but still...
>
> Herman might be able to successfully make an attack on Tyson's AC, but
> would it ever be a good enough strike that it would amount to as much as
> one point of subdual damage? I doubt it. Herman hits, total damage is less
> than Tyson's DR, Tyson notices the hit, and bites Herman's head off ...
>
> --
>
> I distrust generic clerics. They're like walking Ouija boards.
>
>
> Matthias
>
> xeno...@yahoo.com
> http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Frontier/5946
You also have to figure on the placement of the "Lucky Shot" (the
whole point of it), a thumb to Tyson's eye (or teeth to his ear) will
cause damage. Not enough to keep PeeWee from shuffling off his mortal
shell, to be sure, but still.
And damage reduction does account for a great deal of it. A hawk is
never going to be able to damage a Great Wyrm Red Dragon. Period. It
could fly around and peck and scratch at the Dragon all it wants, and
when the Dragon finally gets around to noticing, it'll roast it, or
simply eat it.
In my campaign, there is an extra combat roll, for placement of the
strike. So... IF the hawk gets a 20 for the hit, and then IF it hits
the eye, YES, the Dragon will take notice... sort of like when you're
driving down the road, and a gnat gets flung into your eye...
C. Baize
C. Baize
It was an example...
And I wouldn't put it past Tyson to have DR....
Hmmm....
Maybe a new feat is in order....
Damage Reduction Minor
Damage Reduction Major....
C. Baize
Mark Jones
submarine on Mon, 10 Sep 2001 03:22:36 GMT, but the the following
SOS was heard:
According to The Straight Dope (all hail Cecil!) the belief that the
beating Houdini suffered caused his death is, uh, wrong. There's no
support for the notion that the beating could have caused his
appendix to rupture. It's much more likely that Houdini ignored the
initial pain of an appendicitis attack because he believed (wrongly)
that the pain was connected with the beating, and thus didn't seek
medical attention until too late. (So the beating may, in fact,
have contributed to his death--but only indirectly by masking the
initial symptoms.)
Kaos
(Matthias) wrote:
>Herman might be able to successfully make an attack on Tyson's AC, but
>would it ever be a good enough strike that it would amount to as much as
>one point of subdual damage? I doubt it. Herman hits, total damage is less
>than Tyson's DR, Tyson notices the hit, and bites Herman's head off ...
DR is completely different from AC.
--
Can't tell one side from the other...
they're all jerks.
Ed Chauvin IV
Already covered by the y in "DR x/y"
Malachias Invictus
"Anonymous Jack" <alordo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cf889346.01090...@posting.google.com...
> > 1. that you're bound to hit a target no matter how agile or invulnerable
it
> > is; or
> IMHO, this makes far more sense. If I get to keep stabbing at a
> fellow in plate armor with my dagger, eventually I will hit an
> eyehole, armpit, or other chink in the armor. Whether I will do so
> before the fellow in the plate armor kills me is another matter.
With a dagger, this is plausible. Try changing the weapon to a stick, sap,
or fist, and you will see that this explanation makes little sense. D&D
rules are not particularly based on realism. The 20 = automatic hit rule is
simply there for game balance/enjoyability; the arguments for or against
should mainly be based on that (although "feels realistic enough to suspend
disbelief" is certainly a part of this).
--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^
It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.
from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 90,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Matthias
<bblac...@blackgate.net> wrote:
>In rec.games.frp.dnd, matthi...@hotpantsmail.com (Matthias) wrote:
>>
>>Yes, I know I should have been more precise. Still, there is no logic in a
>>guaranteed 5% either way. There's no accounting for skill or anything.
>
>That's accounted for in the intervening 18 numbers between 1 and 20.
No, it isn't. You can't use both "raw" dice rolls (roll a 20, roll a 10,
etc.) and have anything that represents skill (i.e., modifiers). Since the
character can do *nothing* to modify the range or odds of rolling an
automatic hit, then skill does not enter into the equation at all.
>> It doesn't belong in 3rd Edition, and only a luddite would suggest
>otherwise.
>
>People who object to industrialization because it weakens the traditional
>family unit are also fond of having a chance of success or failure when
>playing role-playing games?
Where in the world did you get *that* from? Industrialization? The family
unit?
>What have *you* been smoking?
I should be asking you that question!
Jerry Stratton
matthi...@hotpantsmail.com (Matthias) wrote:
>On Sun, 9 Sep 2001 23:54:13 -0400, "Brandon Blackmoor"
><bblac...@blackgate.net> wrote:
>>In rec.games.frp.dnd, matthi...@hotpantsmail.com (Matthias) wrote:
>>> It doesn't belong in 3rd Edition, and only a luddite would suggest
>>otherwise.
>>
>>People who object to industrialization because it weakens the traditional
>>family unit are also fond of having a chance of success or failure when
>>playing role-playing games?
>
>Where in the world did you get *that* from? Industrialization? The family
>unit?
"Luddite".
"I don't think that word means what you think it means."
Matthias
Oh. I have always seen it used in the sense of "people who are irrationally
resistant to change", not the original, perhaps archaic definition you have
shown me. Such is the nature of a living language.
Anyway, back to the original topic ... ?
Jerry Stratton
matthi...@hotpantsmail.com (Matthias) wrote:
>On Thu, 20 Sep 2001 06:40:14 GMT, Jerry Stratton <ne...@hoboes.com> wrote:
>>In article <3ba834e9....@news.memphis.edu>,
>> matthi...@hotpantsmail.com (Matthias) wrote:
>>>On Sun, 9 Sep 2001 23:54:13 -0400, "Brandon Blackmoor"
>>><bblac...@blackgate.net> wrote:
>>>>In rec.games.frp.dnd, matthi...@hotpantsmail.com (Matthias) wrote:
>>>>> It doesn't belong in 3rd Edition, and only a luddite would suggest
>>>>otherwise.
>>>>
>>>>People who object to industrialization because it weakens the traditional
>>>>family unit are also fond of having a chance of success or failure when
>>>>playing role-playing games?
>>>
>>>Where in the world did you get *that* from? Industrialization? The family
>>>unit?
>>
>>"Luddite".
>>
>>"I don't think that word means what you think it means."
>
>Oh. I have always seen it used in the sense of "people who are irrationally
>resistant to change", not the original, perhaps archaic definition you have
>shown me. Such is the nature of a living language.
Archaic? Perhaps you have a reference for that? Currently, the word
"luddite", whenever I hear it used, always involves a *technological*
change; my Webster's agrees with my sense of the word.
I would also point out that you imply here that you were aware of what
you call the "archaic" meaning, making your "where in the world did you
get *that* from" a senseless question. True, our language is a
constantly evolving language, and if you wish to make up your own
meaning and hope that it takes root, you are welcome to do so. But you
have to be aware, then, that your use of the language will often make no
sense to your listeners. I stand by my movie reference that the word
does not mean what you thought it meant.
>Anyway, back to the original topic ... ?
Why? You brought this topic up by pretending not to know what "Luddite"
means, and it's a more interesting topic than 20-always-hits. Language
fascinates me, and if "Luddite" has truly moved from a person who fears
or opposes technological change to meaning a person who fears or opposes
any change, I want to know about it. I could not care less about d20.
If you don't want to discuss a topic, don't bring it up :*)
Robert Scott Clark
>On Thu, 20 Sep 2001 06:40:14 GMT, Jerry Stratton <ne...@hoboes.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <3ba834e9....@news.memphis.edu>,
>> matthi...@hotpantsmail.com (Matthias) wrote:
>>>On Sun, 9 Sep 2001 23:54:13 -0400, "Brandon Blackmoor"
>>><bblac...@blackgate.net> wrote:
>>>>In rec.games.frp.dnd, matthi...@hotpantsmail.com (Matthias) wrote:
>>>>> It doesn't belong in 3rd Edition, and only a luddite would suggest
>>>>otherwise.
>>>>
>>>>People who object to industrialization because it weakens the traditional
>>>>family unit are also fond of having a chance of success or failure when
>>>>playing role-playing games?
>>>
>>>Where in the world did you get *that* from? Industrialization? The family
>>>unit?
>>
>>"Luddite".
>>
>>"I don't think that word means what you think it means."
>
>Oh. I have always seen it used in the sense of "people who are irrationally
>resistant to change", not the original, perhaps archaic definition you have
>shown me. Such is the nature of a living language.
Such is the nature of you having no clue what a word means.
Lud·dite (ldt)
n.
1.Any of a group of British workers who between 1811 and 1816 rioted
and destroyed laborsaving textile machinery in the belief that such
machinery would diminish employment.
2.One who opposes technical or technological change.
>
>Anyway, back to the original topic ... ?
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
Check out our new Unlimited Server. No Download or Time Limits!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! ==-----
ES
'how hard something is to kill'. IF you use "amount of physical
damage a creature can take before being killed" or "amount of life
force" (the least appealing option), then it doesn't work. No matter
how skilled the combattants are, there are too many factors for
anything to be 100% assured. The reason you must use that definition
is that protection might make physical damage impossible, then there
would/should be no 5% change, but since HP also take into account
tiredness and fatigue, and psychological drain of fighting for your
life, a blow that physically did not damage, still can take away
HP from your opponent. If I swing at you all say and miss, sooner
or later you will run out of HP, soonce or later you will fall over
and no longer be able to duck and dodge, whether I periced your
skin in the process or not. Hand a guy on the street a fencing foil
and pit him against an olypic fencer, and given enough matches, the
guy on the street will get lucky sooner or later, granted, I agree
it will likely be MUCH later, far less than 5%, more like .001% IMO,
but since the game only gets as granular as a d20 for combat, you
have no choice but to dismiss the chance, or round to the nearest
5%. It would be more accurate IMO, if you used d100 and made a 100
an always hit, and 01 and always miss but for most, it's not worth
the trouble for most people.
Macbeth243
>
>No, it isn't. You can't use both "raw" dice rolls (roll a 20, roll a 10,
>etc.) and have anything that represents skill (i.e., modifiers). Since the
>character can do *nothing* to modify the range or odds of rolling an
>automatic hit, then skill does not enter into the equation at all.
>
>
increase in his skill of fighting. What i would like to know is if you are
stating that there is no such thing as a lucky shot? If this is the case than
you are just a moron and there is no need to continue. Furthermore, not even
the best fighters in the world are accident proof. In fact, Jackie Chan on
average, messes up his stunts several times before he gets it right. The
20-auto-hit and 1-auto-miss acounts for this. It simply levels the playing
field back to reality. And as much as this is a fantasy world, a little bit of
reality is what makes it fun.
Kevin
Brandon Blackmoor
>
>>> There's no accounting for skill or anything.
>>
>>That's accounted for in the intervening 18 numbers between 1 and 20.
>
> No, it isn't.
d20 is not a game where you always have to roll a specific "target number",
regardless of your skill or the difficulty of the task. In d20, the number
you have to roll is generally based on the difficulty of the task, and your
skill (or the quality of your tools) may help that roll go even higher.
So, yes, the "accounting for skill or anything" is done within the 90% of
rolls that fall within 2 and 19 (inclusive). That's how d20 works. You don't
have to like it, of course, but your criticism would be more valuable if it
bore some vague similarity to reality.
bblac...@blackgate.net
2001-09-20
Chad Lubrecht
>20 always hits is perfectly rational as long as you define HP as
>'how hard something is to kill'. IF you use "amount of physical
>damage a creature can take before being killed" or "amount of life
>force" (the least appealing option), then it doesn't work. No matter
>how skilled the combattants are, there are too many factors for
>anything to be 100% assured.
Right, so you need the 20 alwasy hits rule, or one compbatant may be
100% assured that the little goblin cannot hurt him.
Mad Hamish
(Matthias) wrote:
>On 03 Sep 2001 19:07:45 GMT, smokedo...@aol.comNospam
>(SmokeDoctorLove) wrote:
>
>>I use 1-3 as always a miss, and 18-20 as always a hit. Unless there is a
>>modifier like darkness or whatnot. Makes Goblins more interresting.
>
>Ick.
>
>IMO, there should never be guarantees of anything. I don't care about the
>usual argument that says "even a pitiful fighter* will hit once in awhile
>and vice versa". If he can hit a difficult target once in awhile, then he's
>not so pitiful, is he? A pitiful fighter that hits once in awhile is one
>who's fighting a target whose AC is so good, he has to roll a natural 20 to
>hit it normally (sans any hit guarantee). THAT's the OOG explanation that
>"a lucky hit" should be describing, /not/ a guaranteed hit 5% of the time
>in all combats in all situations.
IMO you're ignoring some of the underlying ideas of D&D.
>
>(BTW, by hitting a target I mean a strike that causes damage, rather than a
>strike that impacts the target's person but is deflected by the armor for
>no damage.)
Here I believe that you're missing part of what hit points represent.
The combination of hit points and AC represents how hard it is to
genuinely hurt a character.
>
>If a fighter* has a net attack bonus of +5 and he is attacking a target
>with a net AC of 26, the target should never take damage, whether because
>of the target's ability to dodge the attacks or whether because its armor
>is so tough. As long as the circumstances don't shift in favor of the
>fighter enough that his upper range of combat ability doesn't let him
>penetrate the armor or exploit a hole in the target's defense, he shouldn't
>ever get a hit in.
Because a character could never slip, get careless, distracted,
misjudge....
Remember that hit point loss is _not_ equivalent to take a physical
wound...
>
>It's silly to expect an infantryman with a low-caliber slugthrower
>encountering an armored mecha, for example, to inflict any significant
>damage once every twenty rounds, if the best attack he can muster falls
>below the mecha's Armor Class. He's going to have to find some way to get
>to the pilot that does not involve trying to shoot through the mecha's
>armor or trying to find a weak point in the armor that he can damage with
>his weapon. There's just no way that the infantryman can confront the mecha
>directly and hope to win.
and that has relevance how?
If you can find anytjing in the D&D rules that is as big a mismatch as
that I'd like to know where.
The general D&D methods of representing something that is
impossible/extremely hard to damage in particular ways would be
- state it's invulnerable to x
- give it Damage Reduction to something.
- immunity to weapons below a certain level of enchantment.
The ability for something to be damned hard to hit and damage is
represented by the combination of AC & hp.
Mad Hamish
(Matthias) wrote:
>On Thu, 06 Sep 2001 21:42:05 +0100, Tony Evans <postmaster@[127.0.0.1]>
>wrote:
>
>>In rec.games.frp.dnd, matthi...@hotpantsmail.com (Matthias) wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 3 Sep 2001 19:59:42 -0400, "Brandon Blackmoor"
>>><bblac...@blackgate.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Matthias" <matthi...@hotpantsmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:3b94121e....@news.memphis.edu...
>>>>>
>>>>> IMO, there should never be guarantees of anything.
>>>>
>>>>I agree completely. That's why I use a 20 always hits, and a 1 always
>>>>misses: on any given roll, there should always be a chance for success or
>>>>failure.
>>>
>>>Yes, I know I should have been more precise. Still, there is no logic in a
>>>guaranteed 5% either way. There's no accounting for skill or anything. It
>>>doesn't belong in 3rd Edition, and only a luddite would suggest otherwise.
>>
>>Logic? This is a fantasy setting.
>>
>>I want to be the David that kills Goliath. How can I be that if I
>>can't even hit him?
>
>FWIW, David's killing of Goliath wasn't luck, it was skill. Most underdogs
>already _have_ the ability to excel and overcome great challenges, they
>just don't realize their full potential. If you can't do something, you
>can't do it.
Yes, and hitting something with a sword is rarely impossible because
of a difference in skill.
> If you are able to accomplish something seemingly impossible,
>then obviously it wasn't impossible for you. :) We don't need an arbitrary
>rule to make up for the DM's mistake of inserting monsters that are, by the
>book, too beefy for the player characters to do anything about.
If you think that having a 5% chance to hit anything gives the players
a chance against a monster then you're mad.
If you need a 20 to hit then the odds are so far against you that
you're most likely to be wiped out before you ever get a hit in.
If something has an AC that far ahead of your combat skills then their
base attack and damage will pobably wipe you out in short order.
What I see the natural 20 always hits as being there for is to stop
high level characters being able to charge massed kobolds, archers
pikemen with absolutely no risk.
Based on your model a fighter could charge 400 1st level archers
without any risk at all if he had an AC of, say, 25.
Which is what the NPC progression in the DMG gives an 11th level
figher.
Now maybe it's just me but I don't want to see an 11th level character
being immune to massed archers...
> The better
>(but harder) solution is for the DM to actually TONE DOWN the monster,
>instead of using the N20 rule as a crutch to give the PCs a chance in hades
>of fighting a big nasty thing they shouldn't have been fighting in the
>first place. Instead, we have a problem (too big monsters) solved by a
>band-aid (N20) ... why have both when we can have neither?
>
You're wrong.
What we have is a problem with high powered characters being
impossible to confront with large numbers of low powered creatures.
The big nasty creature facing a group of 8 PCs will probably still
roll straight through them, taking scratches at most.. There just
aren't enough people there for it to give them any hope (unless it's
the ultimate eggshell, really high AC but 1 hp - in which case Magic
Missile would take it down)
Matthias
>20 always hits is perfectly rational as long as you define HP as
>'how hard something is to kill'. IF you use "amount of physical
>damage a creature can take before being killed" or "amount of life
>force" (the least appealing option), then it doesn't work. No matter
>how skilled the combattants are, there are too many factors for
>anything to be 100% assured. The reason you must use that definition
>is that protection might make physical damage impossible, then there
>would/should be no 5% change, but since HP also take into account
>tiredness and fatigue, and psychological drain of fighting for your
>life, a blow that physically did not damage, still can take away
>HP from your opponent.
If the fight has been going on long enough for fatigue to takes its toll,
then rules for checking for fatigue to avoid attack and AC penalties is in
order. Characters who exert themselves too long should make Fortitude saves
to avoid become Fatigued, then Exhausted, and so on. I don't see any
variant rules about handling this, but it seems much a better approach than
the simplistic, un-d20 rule of N20AH.
>If I swing at you all say and miss, sooner
>or later you will run out of HP, soonce or later you will fall over
>and no longer be able to duck and dodge, whether I periced your
>skin in the process or not. Hand a guy on the street a fencing foil
>and pit him against an olypic fencer, and given enough matches, the
>guy on the street will get lucky sooner or later, granted, I agree
>it will likely be MUCH later, far less than 5%, more like .001% IMO,
>but since the game only gets as granular as a d20 for combat, you
>have no choice but to dismiss the chance, or round to the nearest
>5%.
Therein lies the rub. On the other hand, if the amateur is able to avoid
the olympic fencer's attacks long enough for the fencer to get tired enough
to not protect himself as well (by failing one or more Fortitude checks),
the olympian's AC may drop low enough for the amateur to breach it
naturally, with no "welfare successes" necessary.
>It would be more accurate IMO, if you used d100 and made a 100
>an always hit, and 01 and always miss but for most, it's not worth
>the trouble for most people.
The approach is still flawed, IMO.
Matthias
A hero may get the occasional "lucky shot", but in game terms, that would
be merely represented by his player rolling a 19 or 20 on the die roll when
attacking a fierce (but vulnerable) villain and being able to breach the
target's defenses (but just barely). A hero with +5 AB and no other bonuses
is fighting a villain with a 26 AC. Absent of N20AH, there's very little
chance he will score a hit, but he still may do it. If he can do it, and
slay the villain, he will think it was luck or divine favor but his skill
made all the difference in the world. Luck is an illusion. Either you can
do something or you can't. There is no 'try'. :)
There is no need for an N20 rule for that kind of thing, because it already
exists in the game. Most characters don't know what they're capable of
until they try. As their skills improve (read: skill ranks and BAB), they
are able to do what they were capable of all along but in a more controlled
and deliberate fashion. "In my experience, there's no such thing as luck."
Maybe my gaming philosophy is more fatalistic than yours, but that doesn't
make me a moron! I simply choose to accept that, like skill checks, some
things simply impossible (or unavoidable) even in combat as well as out of
it.
That leaves just the "fun" element of getting in an automatic hit once in
awhile. If that's what makes the game more fun for you and your players,
that's great. I see it as being neither necessary nor helpful for the game
as I enjoy it, and that's why I posted my dissension. If disagreement over
style makes me a moron, then I hope you'll never engage in a discussion
with anyone else on this NG, or else you'll run out of people worth talking
to.
Matthias
<bblac...@blackgate.net> wrote:
>"Matthias" <matthi...@hotpantsmail.com> wrote in message
>news:3ba834e9....@news.memphis.edu...
>>
>>>> There's no accounting for skill or anything.
>>>
>>>That's accounted for in the intervening 18 numbers between 1 and 20.
>>
>> No, it isn't.
>
>d20 is not a game where you always have to roll a specific "target number",
>regardless of your skill or the difficulty of the task. In d20, the number
>you have to roll is generally based on the difficulty of the task, and your
>skill (or the quality of your tools) may help that roll go even higher.
Umm, the target number IS the difficulty of task?
My beef with N20AH is that the DC of getting an automatic hit is ALWAYS 20,
and no modifiers to this roll are allowed. It would be different if
automatic hits were incurred when attack rolls plus all modifiers were 20
or more, regardless of the natural die roll, but it's not, and that's why
it is a bad rule and doesn't belong in the world of d20.
>So, yes, the "accounting for skill or anything" is done within the 90% of
>rolls that fall within 2 and 19 (inclusive). That's how d20 works. You don't
>have to like it, of course, but your criticism would be more valuable if it
>bore some vague similarity to reality.
You have utterly and completely failed to understand.
If there's to be a chance of hitting the target, then THAT TARGET'S AC
SHOULD OBVIOUSLY AND INEVITABLY BE LOW ENOUGH THAT THE ATTACKER COULD HIT
IT BY ROLLING HIGH ENOUGH! Sorry to shout, but you're trying to make the
world dictate the game mechanics, when it should be the game mechanics that
dictate what happens in the world. You trying to interpret the world to
affect game mechanics when it should be the other way round.
It's for the same reason that hit location tables are irrelevant and
stupid. You don't need a chart to tell you if someone's head got bashed in
or whether they just got a scratch on their arm. If you were hit for 1
point of damage, you got a scratch. If you were critically hit for more
damage than your maximum HP, then you got your head bashed in. Interpret
what the game-mechanical result to see what happened in-game.
If a hero is able to get in a lucky rare shot on a villain, then they beat
their AC by rolling high enough. You don't need an additional game mechanic
to represent "luck" when it already exists. There's no way an untrained Dex
6, Str 6 villain should be able to make a successful unarmed strike on a
hero who's a high-level high-statted monk as long as the he is aware of and
hostile toward the villain without having enough bonus to his attack roll
to match or exceed the hero's AC normally. N20AH DISTORTS the
representation of reality, instead of aiding it.
* I'm talking the usual "he-man" method, not incrementally.
Matthias
I accept that. But I have to admit, this sense of the word did not
originate with me. Personally, I think it is a natural extension of the
word's meaning. Someone who is afraid of technological change, or just
change in general. Some words get generalized, others get specialized. I
can't think of the last time I've heard the word "impeach" used outside of
the context of a government official. Other words that began life as brand
names or proper nouns have become common nouns, like "coke" or "Orwellian".
>>Anyway, back to the original topic ... ?
>
>Why? You brought this topic up by pretending not to know what "Luddite"
>means, and it's a more interesting topic than 20-always-hits. Language
>fascinates me, and if "Luddite" has truly moved from a person who fears
>or opposes technological change to meaning a person who fears or opposes
>any change, I want to know about it. I could not care less about d20.
>
>If you don't want to discuss a topic, don't bring it up :*)
I asked a question, and I got my answer. Thank you for your help.
Matthias
Clark) wrote:
>Such is the nature of you having no clue what a word means.
>
>Lud·dite (ldt)
>n.
>1.Any of a group of British workers who between 1811 and 1816 rioted
>and destroyed laborsaving textile machinery in the belief that such
>machinery would diminish employment.
>2.One who opposes technical or technological change.
What? "One who opposes change" isn't a valid definition?
If you like, I'll rephrase my original statement with the (IMO) specialized
and slowly-being-outdated definition.
[Natural-20-Always-Hits] doesn't belong in 3rd Edition, and only someone
who oppose technical change, who resists improvement that seems to threaten
their security, etc., would suggest otherwise.
Happy?
Jason H.
> If the fight has been going on long enough for fatigue to takes its toll,
> then rules for checking for fatigue to avoid attack and AC penalties is in
> order. Characters who exert themselves too long should make Fortitude saves
> to avoid become Fatigued, then Exhausted, and so on. I don't see any
> variant rules about handling this, but it seems much a better approach than
> the simplistic, un-d20 rule of N20AH.
If you look hard enough, you'll see that, rather than being an "un-d20" rule,
the 20 always hits is actually a rule in the d20 system of D&D these days. I
wasn't sure if you are aware of that.
Buzz
> If a hero is able to get in a lucky rare shot on a villain, then they beat
> their AC by rolling high enough. You don't need an additional game mechanic
> to represent "luck" when it already exists. There's no way an untrained Dex
> 6, Str 6 villain should be able to make a successful unarmed strike on a
> hero who's a high-level high-statted monk as long as the he is aware of and
> hostile toward the villain without having enough bonus to his attack roll
> to match or exceed the hero's AC normally. N20AH DISTORTS the
> representation of reality, instead of aiding it.
Aren't you kind of confusing here what it means to "score a hit"?
Even if the untrained, Dex 6, Str 6 villain hits, he'll be lucky to do
more than 1 point of damage. The hero sloughs it off, and then proceeds to
pound the villain into dust.
I mean, you see this effect in movies all the time. Little weasely guy
gets mad and takes a swing at huge Schwartzeneggerian hero. He manages to
hit, at most knocking the hero's sunglasses askew. Hero straightens
glasses, says "You really shouldn't have done that," and then proceeds to
pound the villain into dust.
Heck, even Bruce Lee takes a few blows from the hordes of evil henchmen in
his movies. Doesn't mean he doesn't paste them all in the end.
The silliness of this argument is when you forget the level of abstraction
in D&D and take "to hit" too literally. In all the examples in this thread
about how "unrealistic" it is for dinky wimp creatures to "hit" big
Elminster-level dudes, it is continually ignored that such "lucky" shots
will have virtually no effect. The 'minsters are still tougher than the
wimps. N20AH simply adds the cinematic longshot factor into the game.
And it's easily dropped, if so desired (see DMG).
---
"We are on the verge of unzipping the secrets of creation and peering into
the pants of God Himself."
buzz[at]enteract[dot]com
->http://www.bhtch.com
-->http://www.secular-johnson.org
Justin Bacon
>A hero with +5 AB and no other bonuses
>is fighting a villain with a 26 AC. Absent of N20AH, there's very little
>chance he will score a hit, but he still may do it.
Try again. 20+5 = 25. That's not 26. He can never hit unless a roll of 20
automatically hits.
>Maybe my gaming philosophy is more fatalistic than yours, but that doesn't
>make me a moron!
Yeah, actually, it does. Ignoring the realities of chaos theory and the
inability for any amount of skill to make you completely impervious to attack
is pretty stupid.
There is, in fact, a mechanic for handling defenses which are physically
impossible to penetrate by certain means: Damage Reduction/Resistance.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Brandon Blackmoor
news:3p4lqtkokjfh09j4o...@4ax.com...
>
> Right, so you need the 20 alwasy hits rule, or one compbatant
> may be 100% assured that the little goblin cannot hurt him.
Exactly so. Does it reflect reality with perfect accuracy? No, of course
not, but it isn't supposed to, nor can it (nor can any other game, for that
matter).
bblac...@blackgate.net
2001-09-22
Brandon Blackmoor
>
> [Natural-20-Always-Hits] doesn't belong in 3rd Edition, and only someone
> who oppose technical change, who resists improvement that seems to
> threaten their security, etc., would suggest otherwise.
Natural-20-Always-Hits is a simple, reasonable, eminently playable game
mechanic that fits well with the rest of 3rd edition D&D, and only someone
who doesn't have a good grasp of game design would suggest otherwise.
That doesn't mean you have to like it, of course. Tastes vary.
bblac...@blackgate.net
2001-09-22
Kaos
(Matthias) wrote:
>made all the difference in the world. Luck is an illusion. Either you can
>do something or you can't. There is no 'try'. :)
"Luck" is everything that you have no control over. The winning lotto
numbers, the hand your dealt in a card game, or the rock your
opponent's foot slipped on (upsetting his positioning, and creating an
opening beyond what your skill could do.)
>Maybe my gaming philosophy is more fatalistic than yours, but that doesn't
>make me a moron! I simply choose to accept that, like skill checks, some
>things simply impossible (or unavoidable) even in combat as well as out of
>it.
Extreme extention of your philosophy would suggest doing away with the
dice entirely. Which is not an unworkable system; it's just not D20
system.
Anivair
>100% assured that the little goblin cannot hurt him.
I find that people who criticize this rule have never been in an actual fiht.
If they had, they would be well aware of how easy it is to get a lucky hit (or
take one).
Proof? I was at a stick training seminar with being taught by a grandmaster.
he was demonstrating with a white belt. She took a swing and took his left eye
out. It happnes, and it happens even more often when fighting for your life
(and yes, even a fight with a goblin is a fight for your life and anyone who
says otherwise is likely roleplaying poorly).
--
later,
~Anivair
Ani...@aol.com
ES
> SHOULD OBVIOUSLY AND INEVITABLY BE LOW ENOUGH THAT THE ATTACKER COULD HIT
> IT BY ROLLING HIGH ENOUGH! Sorry to shout, but you're trying to make the
> world dictate the game mechanics, when it should be the game mechanics that
> dictate what happens in the world. You trying to interpret the world to
> affect game mechanics when it should be the other way round.
I disagree. When you assign an AC to a target, it represents an APPROXIMATE
difficulty to hit. That is, an AC equals "the average difficulty for the
task of doing meaningful (>=1HP) damage to the target". AC does not, and
cannot take into account the defender slipping on a rock or similar acts
of luck. In olympic fencing, and other events, there are no dungeon floors,
there are no rocks, there are no blood puddles from other fallen
foes/comarades etc...this is no accident, sporting competitions are
intentionally designed to remove all these elements of LUCK, so that only
skill is left as the determineing factor, or at least as close as is
possible. So to be more accurate in my previous example, in the case of
a highly skilled olympic fencer, and an unskilled person off the street,
I would say the odds of the unskilled person scoring a hit under standard
olympic fencing conditions are about nil, maybe 1 in a million swings
(which would take several lifetimes of attempts). BUT, put the olympic
fencer and novice in a dimly lit room, with loose rocks and muddy spots
on the floor, and the smell of burnt flesh from dead foes, and the noise
of spell casting, and other sword battles all around you, an the odds of
the unskilled person scoring a hit would be significantly better than 1
in a million, perhaps not as high as 1 in 20 (5%), but since the game is
based off a d20, you either throw out that chance completly, or you are
generous and assign it the smallest odds your d20 will allow. All that
being said, ignoring the change of a hit (whatever it is) is your choice,
claiming it doesn't exist, while your choice, seems silly. You do not
assign a lower number within the attackers skill level to hit because the
ONLY way he will hit is some bizzare/lucky/extreme circumstance, which
is not predictable. IF HE COULD HIT UNDER NORMAL circumstance, if no
chance of chance comeing into play, then sure the AC would have to be
lower logically speaking. I like the 20AH rule, I think it more closely
reflect reality than not having it.
Egoslayer1