The Gaming Den

Wouldn't it be faster if AoO just do some (fixed number) auto dmg? Like say just regular damage - weapon dmg dice or something?

ishy wrote:Wouldn't it be faster if AoO just do some (fixed number) auto dmg? Like say just regular damage - weapon dmg dice or something?

In what universe would it be faster to have to remember separate damage systems for your standard attack and for your bonus attacks?

Every piece of extra book keeping, and I do mean every single one, has a time cost. Every way in which an Attack of Opportunity is different from the attack you did last round is a way in which it takes longer to explain the character to a new player and a way you will find things you will forget and have to look up in the middle of someone else's fucking turn while the action hangs on you.

-Username17

In the universe where rolling dice takes more time than just stating your dmg bonus that you have for regular attacks.

yeah, the DM can just write down your AoO damage, and say "Enemy moves past, you get an AoO, and do X damage"

I said this before and I guess no one liked it, but I'm gonna give it another shot. AoOs should just be Strength vs Reflex (or whatever), Hit: Target's turn ends. Fluff it as body-checking the target rather than hitting with your sword.

That's one roll, and it makes combat resolution shorter overall (you trade the time spent resolving your AoO for the time gained not resolving your opponent's entire turn). It also guarantees that AoOs do what they were designed to do (give melee a chance to stop runners / spellcasters) rather than being a source of free damage and hoping that maybe the target will decide it can't afford to take the hit.

Oh, and it also resolves that thing where you supposedly get AoOs because the target "lets its guard down" but you can't AoO paralyzed dudes.

I could get behind that. It gives Fighter-types more battlefield control, something they desperately need. Class features could extend the area they threaten for a certain duration a certain number of times per day or encounter.

ModelCitizen wrote:AoOs should just be Strength vs Reflex (or whatever), Hit: Target's turn ends. Fluff it as body-checking the target rather than hitting with your sword.

I could get behind that if size modifiers or something factored in mayhaps like other combat tactic options. Granted that is a mighty FU to small characters who already have a harder time executing AoOs, but it seems a bit kooky that it is easier to check an ogre than a housecat when you whack it with a bat.

Also since I used the word "check" I think that condition may be even better than "turn ends". I'd love to use "checked" more often.

[edit:] Maybe AoO=checked and flat-footed if save of (Strength +Size Mod) vs. (Reflex + Size Mod) fails?

ModelCitizen wrote:I said this before and I guess no one liked it, but I'm gonna give it another shot. AoOs should just be Strength vs Reflex (or whatever), Hit: Target's turn ends. Fluff it as body-checking the target rather than hitting with your sword.

why not add damage to that too?

OgreBattle wrote:

ModelCitizen wrote:I said this before and I guess no one liked it, but I'm gonna give it another shot. AoOs should just be Strength vs Reflex (or whatever), Hit: Target's turn ends. Fluff it as body-checking the target rather than hitting with your sword.

why not add damage to that too?

Why would you? The whole reason we're talking about this is because people (including me) think out-of-turn weapon attacks take too long. If you put the damage back you haven't made AoOs faster or simpler, just stronger.

I could see something like that where you made your attack against their best defense. Because Liches want to be able to concentrate so hard that they can cast spells while being harassed by goblins, Ogres want to be able to lumber through skeletons, and sprites want to be able to dodge and weave through occupied spaces.

-Username17

FrankTrollman wrote:I could see something like that where you made your attack against their best defense. Because Liches want to be able to concentrate so hard that they can cast spells while being harassed by goblins, Ogres want to be able to lumber through skeletons, and sprites want to be able to dodge and weave through occupied spaces.

-Username17

Yeah, this. A throw away attack that doesn't even cost your enemies an action shouldn't take away your entire turn unless it is targetted against your best defense.

FrankTrollman wrote:I could see something like that where you made your attack against their best defense. Because Liches want to be able to concentrate so hard that they can cast spells while being harassed by goblins, Ogres want to be able to lumber through skeletons, and sprites want to be able to dodge and weave through occupied spaces.

-Username17

I like that, or at least higher of Fort or Reflex. That's kind of what I was thinking about Erik's thing:

erik wrote: I could get behind that if size modifiers or something factored in mayhaps like other combat tactic options. Granted that is a mighty FU to small characters who already have a harder time executing AoOs, but it seems a bit kooky that it is easier to check an ogre than a housecat when you whack it with a bat.

It should be hard to stop big creatures, but I don't think I'd want it to be easy to stop small creatures. I'm a lot bigger than my friend's cat but I still can't stop it from running past me out the door. I also don't want to fuck over hobbit archers and gnome illusionists. That works out if ogre gets to use Fort (or Str+Size or whatever the local equivalent is) and the cat / hobbit / gnome gets to use Reflex.

ModelCitizen wrote:
It should be hard to stop big creatures, but I don't think I'd want it to be easy to stop small creatures. I'm a lot bigger than my friend's cat but I still can't stop it from running past me out the door.

I reckon that's a difference of one being easy to hit vs. one being hard to hit.

If you do connect with that cat, it's not getting past.

You can't kick a running cat in the head? You need more practice.

Oh, for goodness sake. Just let the active player make a saving throw, skill check, or whatever else the system of choice supports most easily. This thing where other people have to do stuff on your turn isn't exactly fast either.

If you're already making a check like an attack roll, just penalise it. More rolls does not a better simulation make.

tussock wrote:They probably do need some "no defence", "no offence", "stay put", and "-2" terms of art, keywords. But they can still use them like regular words in proper sentences.

26 conditions like 3e is bullshit anyway. 3 or 4, tops. Write out the rest in full as they're needed. The arguments happen either way, does free action protect you from paralytic poisons if they're cast as a spell? The answer is no one cares. Flip a coin.

That's idiotic reasoning. "It's dumb to arbitrarily define condition X and write it down in the rulebook, but it's smart to arbitrarily define condition X and write it down in your house rules."

tussock wrote:If you're already making a check like an attack roll, just penalise it. More rolls does not a better simulation make.

The problem is that then you have to have two AoO mechanics: one for ranged weapons and attack spells, and another for movement and no-roll spells. Trying to figure out which to use will eat at least as much time in the long run as just rolling the damn d20.

And yes, sometimes that is going to be confusing or ambiguous. Say you cast Call Lightning. In one action you give yourself the ability to make lightning bolt attacks for the next several rounds, and also roll your first attack. Is that a no-roll spell to put up a buff, or an attack spell, or both?

The shoe should really be on the other foot with this kind of thing. Triggering an AoO should be a thing that happens on the incurrer's turn, and they should roll to resolve it (the way Tumble works in 3.5). If they make their roll, they avoid the incurred AoO-like action - otherwise, they take fixed damage and/or lose their turn.

echo

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx ... l/20120521

Mearls on hit points. In which hit points to physical damage is specifically laid out, and a bizarre system of natural healing is introduced.

CapnTthePirateG wrote:http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx ... l/20120521

Mearls on hit points. In which hit points to physical damage is specifically laid out, and a bizarre system of natural healing is introduced.

The bizarre system is just "reserve hit points" like from Unearthed Arcana. I have no idea why he is calling the reserve hit points "hit dice", because that is extremely confusing for everyone who has ever read or played any edition of D&D.

The article is just really badly written in general. The thing where he talks about zero hit points as "a direct hit" rather than simply "severe damage" is extremely weird considering that there are fucking golems and shit (who have been taking "direct hits" all fight). The description of hit dice is almost wholly incoherent, and if you approach it assuming that the word hit dice actually means "hit dice" and not "new word Mike just made up", it's actually impossible to parse. But here is what it actually means:

• The Bloodied and Staggered conditions are visually obvious. If someone is bloodied, everyone can tell just by looking at them without needing Deathwatch or Status or some shit.
• People have reserve hit points which allow them to spontaneously heal themselves between fights. These reserve hits are handled in the form of a certain number of dice of varying size that the player can heal themselves with each day. Essentially everyone has a wand of cure light wounds that they can only use on themselves with a number of charges per day equal to their level.

Now the first part is not particularly revolutionary. It's poorly described, but I think generally people can agree that if Bloodied is to be an important benchmark, that players should be able to see when monsters are bloodied. The second point is just a very poor version of reserve hits. I mean, I like the reserve hit system well enough because it threads the needle of players still having costs from battles without making them completely fucked in the next battle. I don't like it because it makes it very difficult to have meaningful costs between adventuring days (but with healing magic on the table, we're pretty much there anyway). This presented system has all of those benefits and drawbacks. But it also involves rolling d8s one at a time between battles until you are fully healed, which is probably the most annoying part of 3e. And of course it uses the word "hit dice" to mean "healing reserve", which is just fucking bizarre.

-Username17

http://www.enworld.org/forum/news/32344 ... -next.html

He also has an Enworld interview

’d like interrupts to serve either two purposes. First, I think quick, simple interrupts that boost a defense are OK. For instance, an interrupt that boosts your AC or reduces damage you take. You resolve it quickly and it doesn’t slow the pace too much.

For more complex interrupts, like those that require die rolls or decisions, I’d prefer the interrupt to take away part of your next turn. That way, the total time it takes to go around the table remains relatively constant. In essence, you’re taking your action ahead of time rather than getting two actions during a round.

I like this idea.

Mearls wrote:First, I think quick, simple interrupts that boost a defense are OK.

WTF?

OK, let's run this down: someone declares an attack, and then you have to decide whether you're going to use your defense boost before they roll, and then if you do, you recalculate math in the middle of their turn. That is the slowest, most cumbersome possible interrupt there is. It combines the dreaded "Mother May I?" aspect where the game is held up for a decision of another player before an attack roll is even made with the dreaded recalculation of numbers in the middle of someone else's turn.


Seriously, that's the worst possible kind of interrupt. The fact that the bonus it provides is fairly bullshit and thus there isn't even any particular coolness factor is just piss icing on the shit cake.

-Username17

I don't really care much about interrupts holding up play. We use the ToB classes, and having people react to enemy attacks with interrupts makes the game better in my opinion. I'd rather have 2 rounds filled with interrupts and special attacks than 4 rounds of "I hit him with my axe" "He hits you with his saber".

FrankTrollman wrote:The article is just really badly written in general.

it is written by Mearls, and you are surprised about this?

what i dont like is the flavor. look already the cost of repair to armor or clothes because you got hit. this is directing the narrative with the rules, where it should not. are the mechanics going to include this fluff? is there going to be an economy article explaining this somewhere? this doesnt allow for people to play their own way, but is forcing a playstyle not unlike 4th did, and even 3rd to some degree in regards to WBL. there is a cost to repair damaged armor right, and this is figured into treasure and such? sure sounds like WBL to me. and its funny that the bit about "doesn't look like they have been in a fight" exists right after saying armor, shields and clothes have been damaged.

shitty writing and very piss poor description.

half hit points shows signs of "HEAL ME" to the party healer. why does this seem like video game graphics?

trying to add the bloodied condition where it isnt needed for some graphic reference to what HP always were is not needed for D&D, and never was. the images should be played out in ones own mind.

Hit Dice...yeah they were a Monsters Level compared to a PC level effectively. what 3rd i think called ECL and CR. all monsters had d8 HP per level. it isnt something to introduce for PCs, because PCs already have PC levels.

healing rate should not really be tied to HP. obviously any second grader knows that if you have lost 2 of something it will take twice as long to recover than 1 of something, if time is a factor at a standard rate. so DUH it takes longer to recover more... healing rate should be tied to races, as it, if non-magical, is a feature of biology. non-magical healing makes no sense any other way than that.

POV question on the survey which i answered 1 (L&L is not representative at all of AD&D), included this note.

the playstyle inherent in the newer editions it too prominent via the mechanics employed in the topics. there is too much about playing with the math behind the game, rather than focusing on the game during play when the rules arent needed to be looked up. too much having to check math as well as missed concepts or misunderstand of the concepts related to pre-WotC editions. it feels as if nobody writing the articles have ever played those editions to understand what people want from them, or only played with people that have very little experience with those editions so dont fully understand them enough to represent them.

shadzar wrote: half hit points shows signs of "HEAL ME" to the party healer. why does this seem like video game graphics?

I honestly don't know why this feels like that to you, because it shouldn't. I've seen fighters take 2/3rds of their hitpoints in damage in one round because they're doing their job right, and then die because the healer isn't. Maybe they're low level, still. Maybe they are fighting the end boss, or maybe the bad guys got a string of lucky criticals. Whatever. At 50% hit points, the fighter should be saying to the party healer "I'm getting pretty rough, could you throw me some healing?". The last thing you need to hear at that point is some mealy mouthed bullshit about how "hitpoints are abstract, man, and I don't know if you've got 1 hitpoint or a hundred left." Why don't you take the reasonable assumption that the fighter has one or two obviously serious wounds and get in there and do your goddamned job. Your soliloquy about the evils of monster hunting in a world where even 1 in a million orcs can choose to not be evil can wait until after the fight is over.