Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Head_PC 1 05-22-05, 07:06 PM	So, it seems the perfect thread to post this on, here goes: Dnd's combat system needs a complete overhaul. The attack bonuses, ACs, and attack amounts are all wrong. Why should someone get a better attack bonus because theyre strong? Why is a halfling hard to hit because it is short? Doesnt that make every hit a head shot? The combat system is slapped together, stuck in unrealism and designed by people who have no concept of realistic fighting. I tis there so meatbags can hit other meatbags, while wizards do the actual damage. Attack amount: Why does the bonus go down with every swing? Does anyone believe that the first swing is most likely to hit an opponent? Of course not! If anything, the attack bonus should go up! AC: It is ridiculous to assume that someone is harder to hit because he is wearing a suit of crablike armor. It is also grotesque to imagine that a giant is easy to approach and damage because he is huge. Would you readily approach one? A fighter attempting t use Dexterity for Ac will summarily get his ass beaten by a fighter who uses a tank of armor and a Huge hammer. Damage: Is underdone, no real harm is inflicted by a fighter after level 10, thats the wizards job. Any thoughts? You know you agree....
PrinceAzar 05-22-05, 07:13 PM	So, it seems the perfect thread to post this on, here goes: Dnd's combat system needs a complete overhaul. The attack bonuses, ACs, and attack amounts are all wrong. Why should someone get a better attack bonus because theyre strong? Why is a halfling hard to hit because it is short? Doesnt that make every hit a head shot? The combat system is slapped together, stuck in unrealism and designed by people who have no concept of realistic fighting. I tis there so meatbags can hit other meatbags, while wizards do the actual damage. Attack amount: Why does the bonus go down with every swing? Does anyone believe that the first swing is most likely to hit an opponent? Of course not! If anything, the attack bonus should go up! AC: It is ridiculous to assume that someone is harder to hit because he is wearing a suit of crablike armor. It is also grotesque to imagine that a giant is easy to approach and damage because he is huge. Would you readily approach one? A fighter attempting t use Dexterity for Ac will summarily get his ass beaten by a fighter who uses a tank of armor and a Huge hammer. Damage: Is underdone, no real harm is inflicted by a fighter after level 10, thats the wizards job. Any thoughts? You know you agree.... You know I disagree ;) I'm sure someone else is going to further acknowledge these flaws, but so far in my experience of playing D&D, with a fair balance of combat and exploration, the rules served me well and my gaming groups these past years. As for the hits progressively getting worse, for a fighter, picture taking a sucession of swings at something, past the first swing, not as much power goes into the second and so forth, also it gives a chance for the monster/character being attacked to move/shield block/further defend. Thats my take on it. Things like AC and BAB bring a nice unique feel to the game, something others I know recognize. :)
LordHell 05-22-05, 07:15 PM	So, it seems the perfect thread to post this on, here goes: Dnd's combat system needs a complete overhaul. The attack bonuses, ACs, and attack amounts are all wrong. Why should someone get a better attack bonus because theyre strong? Why is a halfling hard to hit because it is short? Doesnt that make every hit a head shot? The combat system is slapped together, stuck in unrealism and designed by people who have no concept of realistic fighting. I tis there so meatbags can hit other meatbags, while wizards do the actual damage. Attack amount: Why does the bonus go down with every swing? Does anyone believe that the first swing is most likely to hit an opponent? Of course not! If anything, the attack bonus should go up! AC: It is ridiculous to assume that someone is harder to hit because he is wearing a suit of crablike armor. It is also grotesque to imagine that a giant is easy to approach and damage because he is huge. Would you readily approach one? A fighter attempting t use Dexterity for Ac will summarily get his ass beaten by a fighter who uses a tank of armor and a Huge hammer. Damage: Is underdone, no real harm is inflicted by a fighter after level 10, thats the wizards job. Any thoughts? You know you agree.... First of all you need to understand some of the basic concepts of D&D before wanting to change them. When you roll your D20 to see if you overcome your opponents AC, you're not actually rolling to hit, but rather you're rolling to damage then. Any roll that beats 10 + their dex mod + their size mod (etc) can be considered a hit that was parried/deflected by the opponents armour. At level 10, a Fighter can do significantly more harm than a Wizard - maybe not in one round, but over the course of combat they certainly can. Maybe you're thinking of level 20. Armour Class and Size Increases. By your logic, a fly is as easy to hit with a bow as a barn. Hmm. Attacks: Each roll of the dice does not represent one swing, it represents your attemps to land damaging blows on your opponent over the course of 6 seconds. Two commoners fighting might swing at each other 3 or 4 times in that round, but they only get a chance to damage each other once. The scaling down of attack bonuses for multiple attacts represents the fact it's very difficult to land 5 damaging blows on someone in that six seconds. It doesn't mean each swing is 'worse'.
The Listener 05-22-05, 07:19 PM	One thing I sort of figured regarding armor is that a High AC that is armor based doesn't mean that he is hard to hit, it just means that you aren't hitting in the right places. As for hight factors that play into AC, it can be quite aquard for a person to hit a small dodging thing rather than a large hitting thing. Multiple attacks per round going down in Attack Bonus actually makes sence to me, since the more you attack that round, the more you exert out of yourself, and your attacking gets sloppier. As for how I view combat, I think it makes much more sence to think of it as more of the sum of combat instead of individual swings. If you just fall under an AC, you may have hit him, but it did no damage, or that he just blocked your blows. Unfortunatly, I am not experienced enough to know how Wizards fare against Fighters in high level combat, so I can't comment about that.
Inigo Carmine 05-22-05, 07:32 PM	So, it seems the perfect thread to post this on, here goes: Dnd's combat system needs a complete overhaul. The attack bonuses, ACs, and attack amounts are all wrong. Why should someone get a better attack bonus because theyre strong? Why is a halfling hard to hit because it is short? Doesnt that make every hit a head shot? The combat system is slapped together, stuck in unrealism and designed by people who have no concept of realistic fighting. I tis there so meatbags can hit other meatbags, while wizards do the actual damage. Attack amount: Why does the bonus go down with every swing? Does anyone believe that the first swing is most likely to hit an opponent? Of course not! If anything, the attack bonus should go up! AC: It is ridiculous to assume that someone is harder to hit because he is wearing a suit of crablike armor. It is also grotesque to imagine that a giant is easy to approach and damage because he is huge. Would you readily approach one? A fighter attempting t use Dexterity for Ac will summarily get his ass beaten by a fighter who uses a tank of armor and a Huge hammer. While the D&D combat system has a few problems with being inconsistant with reality, the points you bring up are actually some of the most realistic parts about it. Why should someone get a better attack bonus for being strong? Because being strong makes you swing faster and harder. It's harder to dodge an an attack that is coming in faster, and it's harder to deflect a blow that has more force behind it. It also makes it more likely that your attack will be a true one instead of just superficial damage. Being smaller does make you harder to hit. Go out into your backyard and pick up a rock. tape a penny to something, stand 50 ft away and try to hit it with the rock. Now do the same thing, except try and hit something big, like your house. Which do you think will be easier to hit? The same thing also applies to melee. Is it easier to swat a fly out of the air, or is it easier to give your friend a high-five? When there's less of something to hit, it's harder to hit. This is why when someone is shooting at you, it's best to take cover, and not stand out in the open. you present less of your body to hit, and therefore are a more difficult target. As for attack bonuses decreasing with successive attacks, thats completely abstract. They could have done it either way, but going from highest to lowest actually works to your advantage as you can prioritze your targets easier. It's also necessary for being able to wait until after your first attack before deciding whether to do a full attack or do a move action after the attack. And armor is supposed to make your harder to hit; that's its purpose. Just because you didn't make a succesful attack roll against someone doesn't mean you whiffed, it means you didn't land a blow that was worth anything. your incoming angle wasn't good enough, and therefore was glanced to the side by the armor, etc. you need to have a more precise attack to get past armor. Yes, the fighter relying solely on his nimbleness (assuming both combatants have equally good stats) should get creamed by the armored fighter. There's a reason why armor was invented. Being armored has its disadvantages, but not when it comes to the down and dirty melee. Yes, a giant is easier to hit beause he's big. Once again, it's just like the halfling penny/house issue from before. THe house is going to be easier to hit with that rock instead of the penny. However, that giant is going to require a lot more damage to take down than the halfling (assuming they're of equal power of course). Damage: Is underdone, no real harm is inflicted by a fighter after level 10, thats the wizards job. You're kind of right here. It's not that the fighter can't deal a lot of damage. it's just that it takes him an entire round to get into position, and another to unleash hell. in between that time, the target can move away and delay the beatdown. Wizards have the ability to use numerous DC 30ish save or you completely lose type effects. That and they can do it with a standard action and from a distance. The damage isn't the worst part of it.
Head_PC 1 05-22-05, 07:43 PM	While the D&D combat system has a few problems with being inconsistant with reality, the points you bring up are actually some of the most realistic parts about it. Why should someone get a better attack bonus for being strong? Because being strong makes you swing faster and harder. It's harder to dodge an an attack that is coming in faster, and it's harder to deflect a blow that has more force behind it. It also makes it more likely that your attack will be a true one instead of just superficial damage. Being smaller does make you harder to hit. Go out into your backyard and pick up a rock. tape a penny to something, stand 50 ft away and try to hit it with the rock. Now do the same thing, except try and hit something big, like your house. Which do you think will be easier to hit? The same thing also applies to melee. Is it easier to swat a fly out of the air, or is it easier to give your friend a high-five? When there's less of something to hit, it's harder to hit. This is why when someone is shooting at you, it's best to take cover, and not stand out in the open. you present less of your body to hit, and therefore are a more difficult target. As for attack bonuses decreasing with successive attacks, thats completely abstract. They could have done it either way, but going from highest to lowest actually works to your advantage as you can prioritze your targets easier. It's also necessary for being able to wait until after your first attack before deciding whether to do a full attack or do a move action after the attack. And armor is supposed to make your harder to hit; that's its purpose. Just because you didn't make a succesful attack roll against someone doesn't mean you whiffed, it means you didn't land a blow that was worth anything. your incoming angle wasn't good enough, and therefore was glanced to the side by the armor, etc. you need to have a more precise attack to get past armor. Yes, the fighter relying solely on his nimbleness (assuming both combatants have equally good stats) should get creamed by the armored fighter. There's a reason why armor was invented. Being armored has its disadvantages, but not when it comes to the down and dirty melee. Yes, a giant is easier to hit beause he's big. Once again, it's just like the halfling penny/house issue from before. THe house is going to be easier to hit with that rock instead of the penny. However, that giant is going to require a lot more damage to take down than the halfling (assuming they're of equal power of course). I dont know whats sadder, what you are saying or that i think you really believe it.
PrinceAzar 05-22-05, 07:46 PM	Not to sound demeaning, but it seems rather than try to defend or give true merit to your points, you are stating an idea and either disregarding or not respecting what others have typed. I considered what you wrote, fine, i can see some of your points and how i'd consider them that way, but ultimately i find most of them to work well for me and my group.
Earthcrosser599 05-22-05, 08:52 PM	Why is a halfling hard to hit because it is short? Doesnt that make every hit a head shot? lmao...are you serious? This isn't Oddjob in Goldeneye. Attack amount: Why does the bonus go down with every swing? Does anyone believe that the first swing is most likely to hit an opponent? Of course not! If anything, the attack bonus should go up! Maybe if you're swinging at someone that wants you to hit them or at an inanimate object. AC: It is ridiculous to assume that someone is harder to hit because he is wearing a suit of crablike armor. It is also grotesque to imagine that a giant is easy to approach and damage because he is huge. Would you readily approach one? A fighter attempting t use Dexterity for Ac will summarily get his ass beaten by a fighter who uses a tank of armor and a Huge hammer. What exactly do you think armor does? I'm asking a sincere question here. I think someone else summed up the size thing fairly well. It's the difference between skeet shooting with nickels and shooting CDs. It has nothing to do with how "approachable" something is. Obviously the first guy's dex isn't as impressive as the other's armor. Would you rather have a bulletproof vest or rely on your reflexes to avoid gunfire? Damage: Is underdone, no real harm is inflicted by a fighter after level 10, thats the wizards job. The fighter keeps the wizard alive until level 10, then the wizard returns the favor lol
Armoured Priest 05-22-05, 08:56 PM	This post reminds me of a project I had about 9 years ago...I tried to make an RPG system. It tooks some concepts from other RPGs plus a few original ideas I had and worked them together. Examples: (The concept of an "Internal", and "External" set of Hit Points like Palladium's system, and what d20 Star Wars uses now), (The idea that just because you hit, you don't neccessarily do damage...in hind sight a form of DR, though my "DR" worked nothing like d20 DR. I'm not laying claim to having thought it up first :wink: ), (A spell points system that has more in common with J-RPG video games, then anything D&D does) I tried to make combat as realistic as I could taking these, (and other things) into account. You know what happened when we play tested it? While the skills system worked OK, the combat was virtually unplayable. The equivalent of 3 level 1 characters against 2 appropriatly matched monsters for their level...the fights ended up taling about 4-6 hours of real time for what amounted to 30 sec-2 minutes of game time. There were so many factors to consider with armor, distance, type of attack, and coupled with the randomnness of dice (it was a d6 base system), that it bogged itself down. A measure of abstraction is vital to make virtually any game based on a conceptual reality, actually playable. As for the points that the original poster brought up, I mostly agree with Inigo Carmine. Those things that Head_PC 1 mentions are actually among the more realistic things that D&D does. I only disagree with the sentiment that Agile fighters should usually lose to armored tank fighters. Reasons being attributed to the afore mentioned abstractions. If an agile fighter fighter is standing there tradining blows, then yes he would lose, but realistically, both fighters aren't just going to stand there. When one fights its generaly a good idea to keep moving. The agile fighter has a greater range of motion and so has an easier time dodging (even though he is in his "5-foot" square). Compare to the the armored fighter who doesn't have the same range of motion (being hindered by 30-80 pounds of armor depending on the type). can't dodge as easily, but doesn't generally need to as much, either. They are kept balanced for enjoyment of game. In real life, the agile fighter wouldn't bother with fighting the armored warrior, he'd shoot him with a pistol. In RL, plate armor became obsolete for a reason. My ultimate point here is that while its not completely air-tight reasoning, a case can be made why an agile fighter (Dex & light armor based), can effectivly melee with an armored tank (heavy armor based). One needs only look at history for instances where this takes place. For example, roman gladiators were matched into light- and heavy-armored classes. As an example, the retiarius (“net man”), clad in just a short tunic, attempted to entangle his fully armed opponent(using a large shield, armored greave on his forward leg, visored helmet, and armed with a sword), the secutor (“pursuer”), with a net and then to kill him with a trident. In a more general sense, a large army can be worn out by hit and run tactics. In a fight, one needs to maximize strengths, and minimize weaknesses. If agility is your strength, thats what you go with.
Rurik "The Silent" 05-22-05, 10:50 PM	while i do not think that DnD needs a completely new overhaul i tihnk there coudl be somethings changed. First of all i shoudl say ive been doign martial arts for about 10 years; and have fought with weapons from both asian culture and medival culture and have studied these time peroids. I have a problem with the bonuses armor give to AC. An arrow fired from a medival longbow or crossbow will EASILY penitrate; any type of light, medium, and some of the heavy armors listed in the PHB. The medival longbow has a pull of about 150 lbs. And they could shoot volleys up to 300 yards. Some have been recorded up to 500 yards. So maybe the range and damage of a bow should be looked into again. Now i understand that DnD is not supposed to be a realistic game. It is supposed to represent a realistic fantasy situation. On to shields; i think it is insane that if you are wielding two weapons and a buckler you do not get that bonus to AC. Even if your not trying to defend with it. It will protect your arm more than if you arn't wearing one. Ac is basically a percent chance someone will miss hurting you. So why shouldn't the buckler be included if you're wearing one. Also, if im recalling corectly you need a feat to hit people with your shield. How is weilding a shield in one hand and a sword in the other different than fighting with two weapons. Realistically if the chance presents itself why wouldn't you bash a person with your shield? I think that shields should deal 1d6 and 1d8 damage for medium and heavy shields respectively. As for the halfling being harder to hit and a giant being easier to hit. That is realistic, have you ever heard the phrase Aim small, miss small. if you aim for a certain point you are more likely to hit close to that point. On a giant there is much more surface area close to the point you are aiming at. While simply on a halfling there is not. Also, it is reasonable to assume that a halfling is quicker that the average giant. Becasue it has a lower center of gravity and can move it self and stabilive its self more easily with less effort.
Johannixx 05-22-05, 10:57 PM	While I agree there could be some changes made to better replicate actual fighting, I don't think D&D is quite as bad as you're making it out to be. Strength is used for attack rolls for two purposes: first, it makes it more likely that you will be able to punch through armor and shields. Secondly, it makes it more likely that you will be able to power through an opponent's parry. Personally, I think armor should be treated as DR. In a perfect system (ha!) I would use the average of a user's Dex and Str modifiers as a to-hit modifier, with Strength modifier for damage. This is why I love Mongoose's "Conan the Roleplaying Game." It makes most of these changes, and turns out a better d20 combat system. It's far from perfect, but I like it better than vanilla D&D. I'd also like to see penalties to skills, attacks, saves, etc as hit points decrease. While HP aren't supposed to represent actual debilitating wounds, they do represent nicks, scrapes, bruises, and exhaustion. Finally, I'd like to go back to the old 2e system of modifying armor's protective value based on the weapon used against it. Maille is much more effective against a slashing weapon like a scimitar than against a heavy bludgeoning weapon like a mace, or a piercing weapon like a spear. Mongoose does something similar to this, by giving each weapon an armor piercing value that can affect its performance against armor.
Earthcrosser599 05-22-05, 11:32 PM	There's a variant rule in Unearthed Arcana that makes armor function as damage reduction more than an AC bonus.
LordHell 05-22-05, 11:38 PM	I have a problem with the bonuses armor give to AC. An arrow fired from a medival longbow or crossbow will EASILY penitrate; any type of light, medium, and some of the heavy armors listed in the PHB. The medival longbow has a pull of about 150 lbs. And they could shoot volleys up to 300 yards. Some have been recorded up to 500 yards. So maybe the range and damage of a bow should be looked into again. This is the only issue I have with the AC system as well. Armour Peircing weapons however DO get a +2 bonus, which really isn't enough. Armour Piercing weapons need either a higher (+4, +6,+8) bonus or ignore armour bonuses completely. Magical Armour may still grant their normal bonus however. Apart from that however, the AC system makes sense to me. Someone wearing full plate is going to be significantly harder to damage by normal non-AP means.
Ranger REG 05-23-05, 05:34 AM	So, it seems the perfect thread to post this on, here goes: Dnd's combat system needs a complete overhaul. The attack bonuses, ACs, and attack amounts are all wrong. Why should someone get a better attack bonus because theyre strong? Strength comes from your muscles, which is responsible for your mobility and movement. Why is a halfling hard to hit because it is short? It's difficult to hit someone that is not at eye level with you, unless you wish to sacrifice your mobility by kneeling. Be thankful, should a storm giant want to hit you (it suffer from size penalty, making them difficult to hit smaller target and offer themselves up as a bigger target for smaller folks). Doesnt that make every hit a head shot? Only if you're the worse boxer in the world. In a fight, we protect our head instinctively. Hey, if you don't believe, challenge your bully to a fight, then tell me where your arms go to protect yourself. The combat system is slapped together, stuck in unrealism and designed by people who have no concept of realistic fighting. I tis there so meatbags can hit other meatbags, while wizards do the actual damage. Nah. The combat system have evolved over time, from a couple pages of combat matrices to a obsolete THAC0 formula (back in the days when the better your AC, the more negative its value) up to its simplified version, a concept which is used by other game systems. Attack amount: Why does the bonus go down with every swing? Does anyone believe that the first swing is most likely to hit an opponent? Of course not! If anything, the attack bonus should go up! Because after the first hit, your opponent will know better. They're not going to stand still for any follow-up attacks. AC: It is ridiculous to assume that someone is harder to hit because he is wearing a suit of crablike armor. It is also grotesque to imagine that a giant is easy to approach and damage because he is huge. Would you readily approach one? A fighter attempting t use Dexterity for Ac will summarily get his ass beaten by a fighter who uses a tank of armor and a Huge hammer. He's harder to hit because your attack (or the impact) didn't penetrate deep enough to cause any trauma to your opponent's body. While a giant is easy to hit, they tend to have more hit points on average, so they can survive any blows from human-sized folks, even stay in battle longer than we humans. Damage: Is underdone, no real harm is inflicted by a fighter after level 10, thats the wizards job. Meh. Fighters are always on the lookout for magical weapons. Just like with any profession, the better your equipment, the easier your job will be.
digoraccoon 05-23-05, 08:48 AM	I think the combat system for D&D is pretty good. It's been one of the easiest systems for me to learn and it's pretty well balanced. :)
Inigo Carmine 05-23-05, 09:16 AM	I dont know whats sadder, what you are saying or that i think you really believe it. Exactly where am I wrong at? I'm not infallible, but you're gonna have to point out my mistakes before I take your word on it.
Glenn4Moose 05-23-05, 11:20 AM	I don't need to comment on the majority of this but on the wizard/fighter thing its not true at all. I just ran a party in an amazingly high loot and high magic campaign all the way to level 17/18. To make an example of the situation, the two wizards who had +6 int headbands, were given int bonuses as part of the story, and had high int to begin with were sitting at dc 25ish for a level 9 spell. Thats relatively high but nothing that can't be undone. For damage, evasion and improved evasion are the most horrid things for a dm to deal with. In the last battle, after fighting the lvl 19 wizard for a while he timestopped and four delayed blast fireballs were cast. The monk, rogue and soulknife(with a ring of evasion) were not harmed one bit. The cleric/mages/bard were dead. Its all about what you are fighting. Things with SR or evasion or decently high saves(like monsters and fort) will save all the time against spells thrown at them. Against hordes of creatures with pitiful reflex saves they'll all die. As for a fighter, all you need to do is get him focused on a scythe and imp crit and you'll never ever complain about the fighter being underpowered. I dropped a PC with a con of 20 at 17 from 170hps to 3 in three hits in one round. Needless to say, its all based on the situation you are in. Each class shines in its own way.
mr.unknown 05-23-05, 11:26 AM	"Damage: Is underdone, no real harm is inflicted by a fighter after level 10, thats the wizards job." lol... wiz can be good at mass damage & hitting many opponents at once. but usually they're not nearly as great as you think. just about every harmful spell allows a saving throw to limit or completely negate the effect. furthermore, when engaged in combat, a wizard's area effect spells will have to be positioned very carefully so it doesn't affect allies as well. not only that, wizards' can only cast a limited times per day & are pretty much useless beyond "aid another" actions after that. but with the right feat combos, a fighter can chop away all day as long as he's alive. I dont know whats sadder, what you are saying or that i think you really believe it. are you actually going to debate the issue & logically tell us why you're right? the way you're talking you obviously think you have a "superior intellect" than everyone else here (not to mention all the game designers of WotC). :rolleyes: DnD combat system labeled as "Disgusting" by Public. who's "the public"? where is your source that the combat system is labeled as "disgusting"? what does that even mean?
chocobochicken 05-23-05, 12:03 PM	Just out of morbid curiosity, isn't this original poster the guy who made his first post debut by starting a "Katanas are Great" thread a month or so ago just so he could bait others into an ugly discussion for the sensation of stirring things up? I suspect the same is happening here. Baiting is specifically against the forum's CoC. If you have a problem or question about the system, you're free to post it. But posting hot topics just for the thrill of it, insulting other posters' opinions, and baiting them with lines such as "You know you agree...." is not allowed. If you truly wish to pose sincere questions about the system, I suggest you modify your tone.
Sinon 05-23-05, 12:13 PM	who's "the public"? where is your source that the combat system is labeled as "disgusting"? what does that even mean? I second this question. Your thread is poorly titled, or you're obscenely arrogant.
tarkin 05-23-05, 12:26 PM	As others have stated, most of us disagree. Not only do I find DnD combat system to be realistic, but your objections are lame. 1) Better attack because they are so strong has several reasons. A) Attacking is hard work, the weak get tired, B) Strength let syou push past their parries, C) Strength lets you break through their armor. 2) Halflings are harder to hit because they are SMALL. Ever play baseball? It is harder to get in their strike zone, similarly trying to hit someone with a WEAPON is easier if they are a big target. NO it does not make every shot a head shot - and in real life, aiming for the head is a BAD idea - it is a smaller target, easier to defend. The only reasons anyone goes for it is that damage there is more debilitating. 3) The combat system is carefully crapted, VERY realistic (as long as your read it and understand it - 0 hitpoints is not "death", nor is it disabled from massive wounds - it is the first real wound) And from your descriptions, the people that built know FAR more about combat than you I mean really - you thought small was easier to hit. :) 4) Yes, the first hit is the best one. Again you demonstrate a lack of knowledge about real combat. First hit is the most likely to kill - it is the one most aimed, and generally the one where you waited for the best opening. More importantly, this demonstrates your ignorance of the d20 system No where does it say that the best BAB must be taken first The attacker doing a Full Round action is free to roll their worst attack first. Learn how to play the game before you start complaining about it. 5) Have you read ANY history???? Do you think the Mediveal knights were morons???? It is a known historical fact that once the "crablike" armor you decry was invented, everyone who had enough money went out and bought it. They bought it because it WORKED. Massive armor was BETTER than dexterity. This is a historical fact, not some dream made up by a young man who never was in a real sword fight in his life. 6) Damage is not underdone - you have no idea what the damage is supposed to be. You sit there thinking that a sword does x amount of hitpoints damage and that Y represents cutting someone's arm/head off. WRONG. Everything until you hit 1 hitpoint is just a flesh wound. That is everything - magic/blows/criticals, whatever 0 hitpoints represents the first REAL blow - the first time they were hit hard enough to cause some nerd to actually say HELP, GET ME TO A HOSPITAL. Even then, they are not yet bleeding. -1 means they actually hit you hard enough to cause bleeding. -10 means death. Combat, at high levels is staggering how powerfull it is. A fighter properly done, can kill a monster in 2 rounds, with a bit of luck, and they can do this REPEATEDLY. A mage can do it in one round, but quickly runs out of juice.
PrinceAzar 05-23-05, 12:38 PM	tarkowned :D
Draco Strang 05-23-05, 01:15 PM	I don't even know where to begin, Head_PC 1. Really, I don't. Everything I could possibly think of to say has already been said twice by everyone else. If you're going to make such blanket statements, and then refute them with "um.....no" then why even bother? I for one find the system does a pretty good job representing combat in an abstract yet semi-realistic manner. Size, speed, and ability/training are all accounted for.
Nadaka 05-23-05, 01:35 PM	Just because you find the combat system "disgusting" does not mean that the general public does. Most people find the system at least "ok". Yes it has its flaws, but these flaws are not the ones you claim.
Head_PC 1 05-23-05, 04:48 PM	I must rise to arms. Luckily, from most responses, I know im better at fighting. I have to bolster what I have said apparently, so I will. Lets start with the armor. You have rebuked my claims that a person in armor is slow, whereas a person using skill and speed can dance circles around him. Armor was designed in Europe to combat large, heavy weapons swung by brute force alone. All knights fought that way, it was how they developed. But had a knight ever fought, say, a KATANA wielding samurai, who was unarmored, he would be eviscerated. He would take a sweeping, off balanceing swing, that would crush through armor, yes... but a skillful, unarmored foe could easily step out of the swing's range... and dart in before the knight could gain control over his heavy blade,knock over the unbalanced, armored fellow, and slash right through an unarmored area, say, the neck, or a joint. The knight would be helpless. Dexterity, when used skillfully, would always outdo a tank of armor. Moreover, I am shocked that anyone could claim I have demonstrated lack of combative knowledge. The people who claim this also believe you must crouch to hit a halfling and use pennys and rocks as examples, when I am talking about swords. It might be hard to hit an ant, yes... but will there ever be a need to fight one? I find the AC bonus ridiculous for things in the small-tiny range, not the diminutive. Plus, Im not talking about throwing rocks, people. A trained fighter should have no trouble hitting something three feet tall. A baseball player has no problems hitting a ball thrown underhand, and I doubt a halfling moves faster. It is not harder to swing at something not eye level. the word "Diagonal" comes to mind, or "Downward" . The only defenses that have been put up are "its harder to hit a fly than a barn" and thats hardly the point. Tarkin- I do think medievil knights were technological morons, as far as melee went. They got owned by the Muslims, who wore little armor and used finesse-like Falchions and scimitars. My objections are not lame, I know much about history, and I, not you, am correct. Tarkowned. Sinon- My thread easily grabbed your attention with its title, didnt it? And I am not arrogant, Im just always right. Hehe. Lastly, the first hit of a chain of attacks is not the most likely to hit, unless you are a crabshelled knight, and your opponent is the same, and you smash into each others crabshells at the same time. The first attack shouldnt even be meant to kill, the last swing is. the first few are meant to work the opponents defenses until it is impossible for him to block the last swing from where his blade is positioned. That is, if both combatants are skilled. In the Dnd rulesets, the fighters are anything but. That is all, please keep debating, I enjoy it, especially when the best ones show up. Hey Draco Strang.