An idea came to me the other day as my mind was in "Random thought" mode . . . and while part of me says "That's a stupid idea" another part says "That's fantastic!"
Now, while usually in situations like this any idea's I come up with are stupid . . I wanted to pose the question here.
For D&D 3.5 (and keep in mind I'm not posting this in the PRPG Alpha Test forums cause I don't think it belongs there), if we were to have the defender of an attack roll a d10 instead of having the base ten to their Armor Class . . . but then also, the attacker rolls a d10 as well, instead of the d20 . . . .
Would that remain balanced?
This isn't a new idea: The Attacking and Defending section of the Players Roll All the Dice variant in the SRD. (I believe it was first published in Unearthed Arcana)
But in that both attacker and defender roll d20s.
I don't think it is a bad idea, but it adds more dice rolls. That is something some people don't want.
An idea came to me the other day as my mind was in "Random thought" mode . . . and while part of me says "That's a stupid idea" another part says "That's fantastic!"
Now, while usually in situations like this any idea's I come up with are stupid . . I wanted to pose the question here.
For D&D 3.5 (and keep in mind I'm not posting this in the PRPG Alpha Test forums cause I don't think it belongs there), if we were to have the defender of an attack roll a d10 instead of having the base ten to their Armor Class . . . but then also, the attacker rolls a d10 as well, instead of the d20 . . . .
Would that remain balanced?
Roughly it should but I think it'd become more trouble then its worth fairly quickly. For a short while it'd be kind of cool seeing if you can get your defence up but it turn to tedium after the 100th time I suspect.
Well, to be honest . . . the idea partial was stimulated by the desire to remove the d20 and replace it with a deck of cards. Yes, I know that would be the equivalent of a d13 and not a d10 . . . but I think that I would leave roll results as just the numeric cards, and if a face card come up have a special rule for them (just not certain what that special rule is).
By changing it to cards, things move slightly quicker I would think.
Well, to be honest . . . the idea partial was stimulated by the desire to remove the d20 and replace it with a deck of cards. Yes, I know that would be the equivalent of a d13 and not a d10 . . . but I think that I would leave roll results as just the numeric cards, and if a face card come up have a special rule for them.
By changing it to cards, things move slightly quicker I would think.
I would think that the need to shuffle the card between rolls (which accumulate quickly at higher levels) would negate the speed advantage and then cost you time. But hey, I've seen the strange dice-rolling rituals and conventions others use, so YMMV.
one of the idea's I had was that each round the player would draw a new hand of cards, and they could choose which card from their hand they want to use. Then, once their hand is exhausted, a new round would begin, shuffling and re-drawing for the next round.
It's still extremely early in the game design process.
I would think that the need to shuffle the card between rolls (which accumulate quickly at higher levels) would negate the speed advantage and then cost you time. But hey, I've seen the strange dice-rolling rituals and conventions others use, so YMMV.Well, to be honest . . . the idea partial was stimulated by the desire to remove the d20 and replace it with a deck of cards. Yes, I know that would be the equivalent of a d13 and not a d10 . . . but I think that I would leave roll results as just the numeric cards, and if a face card come up have a special rule for them.
By changing it to cards, things move slightly quicker I would think.
I'd think nearly anything involving the cards would take longer then rolling the dice except when dealing with the most extreme of dice rolling issues. It just does not take that long to roll dice and you can roll whole handfuls pretty easily.
That static "10" for AC basically translates to you PC "taking 10."
If I recall, there is a variant somewhere that allows the players to simply roll 1d20 and then add their AC mods. I personally, like the idea, but my group's general reaction was "meh."
-Kurocyn
I know I sound like a Talisman Studios pimp to any that follow my posts...just happens that I'm reading a lot of their material right now...I swear I don't work for them! ;^)
The Suzerain RPG (by Talisman, of course) actually uses a deck of cards in place of all dice. They use Ace to 10, plus one King (the "Boom" card) and one Queen (the "Doom") card, for a total of 42 cards. It's a slick system if you're looking for something card-based and the PDF is only $7.50. I'd readily recommend it either as a new system or as brain-fodder for your own d20 tinkering.
I use the d20 for defense roll variant with True20, since there are no multiple attacks in that game and it doesn't slow it down as it would with 3.5. It works well in that it keeps the players interested and actively involved throughout any combat.
|
Okay, my two cents on this.
If you want to both remove the static base 10 to AC and use cards instead of dice, I personally think you're going to need to do one of two things.
First, and simplest, make the A(as a 1) to 9 the only cards that can possibly apply(since 10 J Q & K would not fit this) to the AC and attack "rolls", and consider each one to be double its numeric value(so playing a 5 equals the average). Granting a base AC range of 2-18.
Second, change the entire system to work on the equivilent on a d10 system with the JQK and Jokers being special(Jokers would be best as an equivilent to a fumble).
There are other options, and I'll give my insight with whatever you go with, but to me, those two are the most likely to be the least clumsy to work with.