|
How dear is "The d20 Resolution Axiom" to the redesign of the game?
Or, the idea that, outside of rolling for damage (d4s, d6s, d8s, d10s, d12s), the sole conflict resolution mechanic seems to involve rolling a d20 against a DC.
Compare the old Concealment rules, which involved rolling a parallel d% (d100) to determine "hit" or "miss," with the newly introduced Flat Check, which accomplishes analogous probability schemes by rolling physically different dice, where for example a "20% chance" is the same as a Flat Check DC 5.
Is this something that is also being uniformly streamlined? Or is this "on the table" for potential change at the outset of the playtest?
Mostly just curious, but could also make suggestions where going against this axiom as an exception might help the search for elegant yet simple and/or not altogether unfamiliar potential solutions to (game/maths) problems.
Well for example the old d% stuff only ever went up or down in minimal increments of 5%, so actually using the d% wasn't needed. It makes no sense to use it because not only is it another form of dice players have to worry about but it is the only type of dice that you need to be taught how to use.
Exceptions do not help elegant yet simple and should only exist if there are clear mechanical benefits to doing so.
In PF1, there was a reason for using percentile dice. They prevented the use of the many d20 roll manipulation mechanics. A Witch cackling Fortune didn’t also help the party negate miss chance, significantly improve divination reliability, and so on. PF2’s flat checks probably also ignore roll manipulation that doesn’t call that particular flat check out.
To be fair stuff like Fortune seems like an oversight. I don't see why an improvement of luck shouldn't help you strike an enemy concealed by fog. In fact that is precisely a situation where could luck should factor in more than the other things it listed.In PF1, there was a reason for using percentile dice. They prevented the use of the many d20 roll manipulation mechanics. A Witch cackling Fortune didn’t also help the party negate miss chance, significantly improve divination reliability, and so on. PF2’s flat checks probably also ignore roll manipulation that doesn’t call that particular flat check out.Well for example the old d% stuff only ever went up or down in minimal increments of 5%, so actually using the d% wasn't needed. It makes no sense to use it because not only is it another form of dice players have to worry about but it is the only type of dice that you need to be taught how to use.
Exceptions do not help elegant yet simple and should only exist if there are clear mechanical benefits to doing so.
Sure, it makes sense, but it's not balanced if Fortune not only improves accuracy, but also lets your side mostly ignore miss chances. Having Misfortune make take "act normally" as a 25% chance on Confusion to 6.25% (on top of making the save harder) would be an even bigger problem.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like being able to have more than 20 things on a random table is pretty handy. So if we're going to use D% for stuff like that, then I don't see the problem with using it for other things.
I find 3d6 was a cool alternative to a flat d20.
I really prefer multiple dice for advantage style mechanics. I hate advantage mechanics for a single die, but like them for multiple dice (where you swap one die not all of them).
In fact, in my own d20 variant, I've replaced the d20 entirely with 3 dice based on character stats.