got no response at enworld, so trying here instead:
this question is meant in the context of 3e/3.5/pf, but could apply to any edition (or any rpg, i suppose).
what would happen if all non-d20 rolls were maximized?
for example, a fighter gets 10 hit points plus bonuses/level, a longsword does 8 points of damage plus bonuses, and a first level cleric's cure light wounds heals 9 points of damage.
got no response at enworld, so trying here instead:
this question is meant in the context of 3e/3.5/pf, but could apply to any edition (or any rpg, i suppose).
what would happen if all non-d20 rolls were maximized?
For example, a fighter gets 10 hit points plus bonuses/level, a longsword does 8 points of damage plus bonuses, and a first level cleric's cure light wounds heals 9 points of damage.
You remove a lot of the randomness and you'll de-emphasize the base bonuses. If a long sword was doing 1d8+3 points of damage, that's an average of 7.5. Now it's doing 11. The actual die type is now worth almost twice as much as it was before.
In general, I think this will boost rogues and spellcasters (which both have abilities that use a lot of dice) and by comparison will hurt the martial classes.
In general, I think this will boost rogues and spellcasters (which both have abilities that use a lot of dice).
considering that rogue and direct-damage spells are generally considered fairly weak, this doesn't seem like a problem.
|
Direct-damage spells are considered weak because most casters that have them also have access to straight-up save or suck effects. With this rule in place, blast spells are now pretty much one-shot kill spells, which means that basically every spellcaster can kill enemies in one shot-- most of them can kill crowds of enemies in one shot.
It also means that 1st-level characters are in far more danger of dying. Sure, the fighter is guaranteed 10+CON hp, but the orc with a greataxe is guaranteed to deal 12+(1.5xSTR) on a hit. I have a hard time seeing ANY characters surviving 1st level under these rules, unless you start all your games at 3rd level or higher, or everybody stacks CON and AC and uses turtle tactics almost exclusively.
Think about it this way: You are giving everyone Maximize Spell for free, a fairly powerful feat that normally increases a spell's level by 3.
ah, but if everyone's hit points are maximized, too, would it balance out?
If you want to do away with rolls, you can go the way of 5th ed and 13th Age and just use the average value (rounding up or down, your choice as long as it's consistant) of the die you're supposed to be rolling.
D4 = 3
d6 = 4
d8 = 5
d10 = 6
d12 = 7
This would reduce rolling without breaking the game mechanics, at least not as badly as max everything will.
This would reduce rolling without breaking the game mechanics, at least not as badly as max everything will.
ah, but if everyone's hit points are maximized, too, would it balance out? ;-)
Damage would double, but HP would only increase by 1/2 to 1/3 on average, as the hit die still matters less as you get your belt of Constitution/con bumps.
Example: Barbarian with 14 con, assuming a bigger belt every few levels...
01d12+02, always 014 or 012+02, always 014
05d12+15, average 053 or 060+15, always 075 +41.5%
10d12+40, average 109 or 120+40, always 160 +46.8%
15d12+75, average 178 or 180+75, always 255 +43.2%
Example: Fighter with 12 con, assuming a bigger belt every few levels...
01d10+01, always 011 or 010+1, always 011
05d10+10, average 042 or 050+10, always 060 +42%
10d10+30, average 089 or 100+30, always 130 +46%
15d10+60, average 147 or 150+60, always 210 +43%
Example: rogue with 12 con, assuming a bigger belt every few levels...
01d8+01, always 009 or 008+01, always 009
05d8+10, average 036 or 040+10, always 050 +38.8%
10d8+30, average 080 or 080+30, always 110 +37.5%
15d8+60, average 131 or 120+60, always 180 +37.4%
Example: Wizard with 10 con, assuming a bigger belt every few levels...
01d6+00, always 009 or 08+00, always 008
05d6+05, average 025 or 30+10, always 040 +60.0%
10d6+20, average 057 or 60+30, always 090 +57.9%
15d6+45, average 100 or 90+60, always 150 +50.0%
Please do check my math. I went far too fast to be certain of all of this.
ah, but if everyone's hit points are maximized, too, would it balance out?
You keep saying that, but it really doesn't. Hit points are a pool that gets whittled away with every attack. Unless your limiting successful hits to your characters to 1 die of damage per die of hit dice, there are going to be a lot more maximized dice of damage taking away from that HP pool.
Let's just use a fairly standard 1st level example: The party encounters 3 orcs.
Party: (using 16, 15, 14, 12, 10, 8 stats)
- human fighter (18 str, 14 dex, 15 con, 10 int, 12 wis, 8 cha)
(longsword, heavy shield and scale armor)HP 12, AC 20
Feats: Weapon Focus (longsword), Dodge
- dwarf cleric (14 str, 12 dex, 17 con, 10 int, 18 wis, 8 cha)
(warhammer, heavy shield and scale armor) HP 11, AC 19
Feat: Dodge
- halfling rogue (6 str, 18 dex, 12 con, 14 int, 10 wis, 17 cha)
(short bow, dagger, leather armor) HP 7, AC 17
Feat: Point blank shot
-Elf wizard (8 str, 16 dex, 10 con, 18 int, 15 wis, 12 cha)
(quarterstaff, mage armor) HP 6, AC 17
Feat: Spell focus (evocation)
Let's assume an average initiative score of 11, making the order:
Rogue, Wizard, fighter, cleric, orcs
The rogue moves up to within 30 feet of the orcs, and takes a shot with her bow (17+5 = 22, hit for (1d4+1d6+1) 11 damage) Orc 1 is at 0 HP and staggered.
The wizard casts magic missile at orc 2, dealing 5 damage.
The fighter moves up and engages orc 3, attacking it with her longsword (11+6 = 17, hit for (1d8+4) 12 damage) orc 3 is bleeding out and staggered.
The cleric moves up and engages orc 2, attacking with his warhammer (6+2=8, miss)
Orc 1 moves to engage the rogue
orc 2 attacks the cleric with its falchion (17+5 = 22, hit for (2d4+4) 12 damage) and leaves the cleric bleeding on the floor.
Orc 3 attacks the fighter with its falchion (3+5 = 8, miss). Takes 1 hp from bleed (con check 8+1 = 9, bleeding continues)
ROUND 2
rogue takes a 5 foot step and attacks orc 1 again with her short bow (8+5 = 13, miss)
Wizard moves and is able to target orcs 1 & 3 with burning hands (4 damage, orc 1 rolls a 14 to save, orc 3 rolls a 4 so both take full damage)
Fighter attacks orc 3 with her longsword (5+6=11, miss)
cleric rolls a 4 (d20 = 1, +3 con) to stabilize. Takes 1 damage
Orc 1 takes a 5 foot step and attacks the rogue with its falchion(16+5=21, hit for (2d4+4) 12 damage). Rogue falls bleeding to the floor. loses 1 hp due to dying.
Orc 2 moves to engage the fighter and attacks with its falchion. (14+5=19, miss)
orc 3 attacks the fighter with its falchion (16+5=21, hit for (2d4+4) 12 damage) fighter is at 0 hp and staggered. Orc takes 1 point of damage due to dying
Rogue rolls a 10 (9+1) to save versus dying, fails and takes 1 point of bleed.
Wizard uses ray of frost on orc 1 (6+3 = 9, miss)
Fighter attempts a move action to get away from orcs 2 & 3, provoking attacks of opportunity. Orc 2 (19+5 (critical threat missed with a 13), hit for 12 damage) orc 3 (14+5 = miss). Fighter falls to the ground, bleeding.
Cleric stabilizes with a con check of 13.
orc 1 moves towards the wizard. takes 1 point of bleed
orc 2 moves to the wizard, and attacks with its falchion (16+5=21, hit for 12). Wizard falls to the ground, bleeding to death.
With one orc still above 0 hp, I think it's fair to say that the party is looted and eaten, possibly with the other 2 orcs if they can't stop their bleeding.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ironically, this would also somewhat nerf Dragons, whose breath weapons have a cooldown of 1d4 rounds.
would it make more sense to maximize hit points but use the equivalent of measured response for everything else (taking the average of any dice rolls)?
This would reduce rolling without breaking the game mechanics, at least not as badly as max everything will.ah, but if everyone's hit points are maximized, too, would it balance out? ;-)
Yes it would, most damage monsters rely on static bonuses to make damage great, just like hit points. But sneek attack and damage spells would get a little boost.
But why would you?
ah, but if everyone's hit points are maximized, too, would it balance out?You keep saying that, but it really doesn't. Hit points are a pool that gets whittled away with every attack. Unless your limiting successful hits to your characters to 1 die of damage per die of hit dice, there are going to be a lot more maximized dice of damage taking away from that HP pool.
Let's just use a fairly standard 1st level example: The party encounters 3 orcs.
Party: (using 16, 15, 14, 12, 10, 8 stats)
- human fighter (18 str, 14 dex, 15 con, 10 int, 12 wis, 8 cha)
(longsword, heavy shield and scale armor)HP 12, AC 20
Feats: Weapon Focus (longsword), Dodge
- dwarf cleric (14 str, 12 dex, 17 con, 10 int, 18 wis, 8 cha)
(warhammer, heavy shield and scale armor) HP 11, AC 19
Feat: Dodge
- halfling rogue (6 str, 18 dex, 12 con, 14 int, 10 wis, 17 cha)
(short bow, dagger, leather armor) HP 7, AC 17
Feat: Point blank shot
-Elf wizard (8 str, 16 dex, 10 con, 18 int, 15 wis, 12 cha)
(quarterstaff, mage armor) HP 6, AC 17
Feat: Spell focus (evocation)Let's assume an average initiative score of 11, making the order:
Rogue, Wizard, fighter, cleric, orcsThe rogue moves up to within 30 feet of the orcs, and takes a shot with her bow (17+5 = 22, hit for (1d4+1d6+1) 11 damage) Orc 1 is at 0 HP and staggered.
The wizard casts magic missile at orc 2, dealing 5 damage.
The fighter moves up and engages orc 3, attacking it with her longsword (11+6 = 17, hit for (1d8+4) 12 damage) orc 3 is bleeding out and staggered.
The cleric moves up and engages orc 2, attacking with his warhammer (6+2=8, miss)
Orc 1 moves to engage the rogue
orc 2 attacks the cleric with its falchion (17+5 = 22, hit for (2d4+4) 12 damage) and leaves the cleric bleeding on the floor.
Orc 3 attacks the fighter with its falchion (3+5 = 8, miss). Takes 1 hp from bleed (con check 8+1 = 9, bleeding continues)ROUND 2
rogue takes a 5 foot step and attacks orc 1 again with...
what Does this long winded battle report show? Other than the players are not really trying and orcs extra 12 virtual hit points being good?
Long winded, yes, but I felt it was the only way to truely demonstrate that maximized damage dice is not balanced out by maximized hit dice.
For instance, the odds of the orcs one-shotting the cleric, as happened in my example, go from 19% (3/16 possible outcomes on 2d4+4) on a non critical hit to 100%. Even more glaring, the odds of dropping the fighter in one successful non-critical hit go from 6% to 100%.
Long winded, yes, but I felt it was the only way to truely demonstrate that maximized damage dice is not balanced out by maximized hit dice.
For instance, the odds of the orcs one-shotting the cleric, as happened in my example, go from 19% (3/16 possible outcomes on 2d4+4) on a non critical hit to 100%. Even more glaring, the odds of dropping the fighter in one successful non-critical hit go from 6% to 100%.
This part would have been a lot stronger alone. And it is a good point that on low levels where more of the damage comes form dice and where PCs already have maximised hit points at level one. Here the always maximised dice Rolls would change stuff quite a bit.
And even more with orcs since they have the virtual hit points.
DR will also get messed. DR5 and your weapon is say 1d8+2. If you roll you will have attack that do damage while others don't. If you maximize, you always damaging the oponent.
On the other hand if you average, you may have situation where you dont bypass DR because of the average result lower than your normal maximum potential. Ex. DR10 your sword is 1d10+4, on a 10 you still make 4 pts damages, with average, nothing.
I think randomness still have a purpose with the ruleset as it is. Changing it will require you to check the impact on a lot of other rules