As per one of my player's suggestions, I've decided to try out rolling a "defense roll" instead of a static AC number (1d20+applicable mods instead of 10+applicable mods). I've let him know that I like the system the way it is--and its abstraction--but that we would try it out for a session, to see if it bogs things down too much or creates any other problems we don't like. Have any of you implemented a similar rule before, and--if so--how did it impact your game?
This does not work very well, it slowsvthevgame down. It does work okay at lower levels but causes a lot of problems at higher levels for classes without a full bse attack..
Yeah, that's what I told him (along with examples of similar systems that use this--Palladium, anyone?); I am worried that it'll slow things down. I suppose it won't hurt to try it, but I definitely have my reservations about keeping this around for the whole campaign (we're at 2nd level right now, playing Kingmaker).
Thank you, Mojorat. Any other pointers from the community?
The only way I see this working smoothly, tbh, is have them use the d20 roll for initiative and use that for the round.
You roll a 20 for init? You're golden, you're on your toes, hard to be hit.
You roll a 1? Should've eaten your wheaties...
Letting them roll vs. every attack like in Palladium games (where you get 6-9 actions per round) will not only drag out combat, but also add another layer of randomness that will make it a nightmare for you to plan out encounters.
Just my 2cp.
It will mess up the CR system since you will have low level creatures possibly defeating high level ones that they never had a chance to beat. Imagine a dog killing a T-Rex.
There is the issue with crits too. What happens if the person on defense rolls a nat 1 or 20.
As it has been pointed out once you get 2 or 3 attacks, and are fighting multiple monsters the combat will take twice as long as it already does.
It adds nothing to the game that I can see. What are his reasons for wanting it?
The only way I see this working smoothly, tbh, is have them use the d20 roll for initiative and use that for the round.
You roll a 20 for init? You're golden, you're on your toes, hard to be hit.
You roll a 1? Should've eaten your wheaties...Letting them roll vs. every attack like in Palladium games (where you get 6-9 actions per round) will not only drag out combat, but also add another layer of randomness that will make it a nightmare for you to plan out encounters.
Just my 2cp.
That's a very good point. I was also thinking of having it be a roll at the beginning of combat, along with initiative--it would stay the same the entire encounter. I like this idea quite a bit, and (maybe) my player will go for it. Again, I like things the way they are, but I want to try to be ammenable to player suggestions (I'm not a totally draconian GM!).
It adds nothing to the game that I can see. What are his reasons for wanting it?
His reasoning is that it (defence, or AC) should work like the rest of the skills in the game, and he doesn't like the idea of "waiting around to be hit". I've explained that a character is not just waiting around--they're defending themselves, using their agility and armor and other factors to avoid being hit--but he's not seeing it. I even try to be descriptive in combat, to avoid the whole "you hit, you miss" lameness. I like abstraction; it allows me to be creative with description! :)
I tried it with my group, because I really wanted to use it. I did the math before, and it favors low AC, whereas high AC is at a slight disadvantage.
But it turned out to really, really slow down the game, without giving any significant benefit.
And since we were playing with action points, combat soon became very tiring, so we switched back to the standard system.
Thank you all for your suggestions and observations. I'll take this all into account and let you know how it went. Any other observations?
While it does simulate combat more realistically (in reality, sometimes you dodge or block an attack well, and sometimes you move right into it, unless you are fighting an unarguably inferior opponent), it is certain to bog down combat.
One possible solution if you still want to try it is to have the defender roll simultaneously with the attack roll, might save a bit of time. For that matter, some of my players roll damage dice along with the attack roll, which seems to speed things along (as long as the players are decent at adding up numbers).
It adds nothing to the game that I can see. What are his reasons for wanting it?His reasoning is that it (defence, or AC) should work like the rest of the skills in the game, and he doesn't like the idea of "waiting around to be hit". I've explained that a character is not just waiting around--they're defending themselves, using their agility and armor and other factors to avoid being hit--but he's not seeing it. I even try to be descriptive in combat, to avoid the whole "you hit, you miss" lameness. I like abstraction; it allows me to be creative with description! :)
The whole game is an abstraction. It even says so in the book. You might have to show it to him.
If he does not believe it show him the first page of the equipement section. There is a giant, and a human in the bottom left corner of the page. How is that guy really going to block the giant's weapon with that shield? If he stood there, and tried to block it his arm would be missing and the shield would probably be broken. If his character were just standing there then precise shot would not be needed for an archer, but because they are constantly moving it is hard to make sure you don't fire into melee and hit your buddy.If he still does not come around I would just say no, since his character is not just standing because the miniature can't move.
Another possibility, or comprimise, is to use standard AC rules, but for an active defense, allow martial characters to use parry from the duelist class. If they have iteritive attacks, they can sacrifice one in an attempt to parry, using a contested attack roll. If the fighter wins the parry, it misses, if it doesn't it hits (if it beats his AC).
later on you can grant ripostes too, where the sucessful parry immediate elicits an AoO on the person he sucessfully parried.
Just some other ideas...
I've been using Defense Roll for 2 years now, at first it was a bit slow, but as soon as the players picked it up, it goes just as quickly as any other method, I got the idea from Game of Thrones D20, it also has quite a few other nifty bits regarding this mechanic, as far as Rolling a natural 1 or 20, my players know that 2 20s cancel each other out and the attack and defense is then rerolled, as for a nat 1 or nat 20 is auto parry and riposte, and it works well.
I've been using Defense Roll for 2 years now, at first it was a bit slow, but as soon as the players picked it up, it goes just as quickly as any other method, I got the idea from Game of Thrones D20, it also has quite a few other nifty bits regarding this mechanic, as far as Rolling a natural 1 or 20, my players know that 2 20s cancel each other out and the attack and defense is then rerolled, as for a nat 1 or nat 20 is auto parry and riposte, and it works well.
Yeah, I've been thinking about the whole natural 20 thing--I thought, to stay within the spirit of the rules somewhat--that I'd make a natural 20 roll to attack automatically hit, regardless of defenders' rolls. This simulates high ACs (if you catch my very un-thought-out response).
One possible solution if you still want to try it is to have the defender roll simultaneously with the attack roll, might save a bit of time. For that matter, some of my players roll damage dice along with the attack roll, which seems to speed things along (as long as the players are decent at adding up numbers).
This was also my friend's assertion. I can see it working, but only if everyone is constantly ready to throw dice (you know what I mean?). I still think that, dice simultaneously thrown or no, it will ultimately bog down play.
Works horribly at high levels. Imagine 10 enemies and 5 players all with 3 or more attacks, rolling dice non stop. That's what happened in the GOT D20 game. I like rolling dice, just not that many dice. Also you need to consider removing armor from the AC and making it DR, to simulate the effect properly. Also you need to consider AOOs and how multiple defense rolls apply (since multiple attacks receive a penalty, shouldn't multiple defenses?). Also Hit Points become a factor since you'll in theory avoid more attacks, you'll need to reduce the amount of HP a character gets a level, since HP represents the knocks and bruises that will now be avoided with a D20 roll. There are more factors than just an AC roll at play here.
If there's a single player that wants to try it, develop a feat that allows them to roll a d20 (replacing the base 10) 3/day or some such thing. That would allow you to test it without getting bogged down with the overall game experience.
My system based on mix of homebrew + Game of Thrones D20 + Conan 2nd Ed. :
Combat
A normal Combat, not a Critical or Critical confirmation proceeds as follows:
•Attacker rolls a 1d20 then add his attack modifiers (Base Attack + Stat Mod + Feats + Buffs + Enchantment of Weapon + Terrain Mod + size mod)
•Defender then rolls a 1d20 then add his/her appropriate Dodge modifiers (Dex Mod + Defense Mod + Shield Mod + Armour enchantment + Class Abilities + Size Mod + Feats + Any Magical Items/Spells + Terrain Mod.
•If Defender rolls a 1, then the Attacker does max damage for this attack.
•If Defender rolls a 20, then the attack is a fail, and the Defender may make an automatic Riposte attack.
•Two 20s negate each other in regards to a Critical Attack vs. Critical Dodge and must reroll to Attack and Dodge.
A Critical Attack and Confirmation
When a Critical Attack is made, the Attacker must then make a 2nd roll, a Confirmation Check, the CC equals the Defenders AC Roll.
If the Confirmation Check is a success, then you may roll your critical damage.
If the Confirmation is a fail, then you still hit the defender for normal damage roll +5 damage.
an example of armour as AR (armour reduction) not DR.
Leather, Studded AR = +3 Max Dex +7 ACP-1
Chain mail1 AR= +6 Max Dex +4 ACP-5
Shields provide Minor AC bonuses + stackable AR and ACP
Small Wood Shield AR +6 AC +2 ACP-1
Tower (Steel) AR +10 AC +6 ACP-6
and last but not least weapons have an AP (Armour Piercing Value), based on the weapon historically speaking/fantasy speaking of its utility vs. Armours in general :
Dagger 1D4 + 1 AP. 19-20/ x2
Heavy Mace 1D10 + 4 AP, 20/ x2
Poleaxe 2D6 + 8 AP, 20/ x3
Heavy Crossbow 2D6 +4 AP, 20/x2
Composite Long bow 1D12 +5 AP, 19-20/x2
Just to give you an example. =)
|
If you are going to do this, then I recommend that you instead run the game where the players make all the rolls vs static attack DCs for monsters.
This does two things
1) Keeps the amount of rolls the same.
2) Get's PCs engaged even when it's not their turn.
The concept is simple, player character's AC reads
1d20 + Armour + Shield + Dex + Dodge + Natural + Misc
vs Monster attack DC (10 + Attack Bonus).
It's pretty simple to make the calculations.
If I were in your game, I would argue vehemently against this plan. I actually think the game would be greatly improved by moving saving throws to the caster as spell to-hit roles.
If I were to implement a rule like this I would have the players do all the work i.e. players roll their AC versus a fixed monster attack bonus when they are being attacked, but when players attack they roll attack rolls versus a fixed monster AC. I would probably not have an attack roll versus an AC roll as that might slow the game down a bit too much depending on the number of players and their maths skills.
Personally, I never seen the point in more than one roll for a single event with a random factor. The average stays around the same even if you reduce it to a single suitable roll. Ofcourse there is some propability sifts in different parts of the difficulty spectrum.
The system proposed would have the same results if you raise every AC by 10 and then just use 2d20 for attack. So it just promotes variance.
On the other hand if players like to roll dice, why not? If you as GM don't want to roll those, just have NPCs 'take 10' on all defence rolls or have players roll 2 different color dice when they attack.
One thing I guess would be a bad idea is to use a single defense roll for several attacks (for a round or turn for example). That could end up in some pretty ugly deaths when a big baddie with multiple attacks opens up on a char who hapens to roll a 1 for the turns defence. Or a swarm of foot-soldiers for that matter.
I guess I'm the only one on here that is actually in defense of a Defense Roll, or AC (Avoidance Check), all Im saying is there is nothing wrong with it, and it really is a to each their own ordeal, in fact for those of you who have played 3.5 check the rules under attack and AC, and it actually mentions that you may use a static 10 +AC mods, or D20 + AC mods.
I just went back and checked and couldn't tell if Paizo kept that optional rule.
My one suggestion, would be however for the individual AC roll each round each attack or at least per each individual attacking.
Combat is supposed to be chaotic !!!
As per one of my player's suggestions, I've decided to try out rolling a "defense roll" instead of a static AC number (1d20+applicable mods instead of 10+applicable mods).
I've tried that, before.
Players had the option of rolling defense or taking 10. Eventually, everyone wanted to take 10 (which is the equivalent of the standard system).
If I ever decided to do it again, I'd only have the players roll for attacks or defense. Monsters would have an attack score (equal to 11 plus attack modifiers) that the players had to beat with their defense roll. As GM, I'd never roll for a monster to hit or to defend. (Same for Saving Throws, too.)
In fact, I think I'll check with my players and see if they want to start using this, next session.