Opposed Resolution [Archive] - Wizards Community

Opposed Resolution [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Werral
06-30-07, 08:24 PM Okay, so this is just an idea, actually it's a spin off from a hoime brew rpg I'm working on, but I thought I'd see how the basic principal might work in D&D.

Some things are similar to the defence bonus threads around here. Some things are not.

Attacker rolls D20 and adds BAB bonus + average damage (so 5 for a longsword)
Defender rolls d20 and adds half BAB+half Reflex Save+Amour bonus
If the attacker wins they add the amount they won by to damage.
If the Defender wins and still has an attack to make they add the amount won by to their damage die.

Crits: If you roll the threat range then roll again and add the die. That's your attack roll.

Other things: Defence bonus should scale like iterative attacks - ie higher against the first attack, but lower vs further attacks (so ganging up works)

Power attack and Combat Expertise need to be rewritten for this system.
Tomkin
06-30-07, 09:11 PM Too much dice-rolling for me, too much math. If you do use it though, I would suggest that if the defender wins, subtract that amount.

You realize that the defender is going to win nearly all the time, though.
Ranger REG
06-30-07, 09:30 PM Because of the opposed roll, it will take more time to resolve combat, even worse when iterative attacks or extra attacks come into play.

The defender's bonus formula you offered? Better to have a Class Defense Bonus stat (similar to d20 Modern and Star Wars, they even offered such mechanics in D&D Unearthed Arcana).

Oh, and you need to subtract 10 from AC, unless you're referring to armor's equipment bonus to AC.
Tomkin
06-30-07, 10:16 PM Even if you subtract 10 from AC, it'll still be too hard to hit. Essentially the attacker has to make an attack roll against the attacker's AC PLUS Reflex PLUS 1/2 BAB... surely you can't expect that to hit.

What is the point of the rule flavor-wise?
Werral
07-01-07, 06:40 AM Yeah this makes no sense in D20. It does make sense in my own system with numbers tailored to it. Also because it replaces damage rolls - you just do damage=to how much you win by. But yes, opposed rolls and damage rolls is too much and the D20 numbers aren't made for it.

Flavourwise the idea is that a skillful attack with a dagger (not just a sneak) can do huge damage.

I've fiddled with it so it makes a little more sense and cuts the separate damage roll.
Rhialto
07-01-07, 09:17 AM It looks to me that, for a sufficiently high level/strength character, there won't be all that much practical difference between a dagger and a two handed battle axe.
Werral
07-01-07, 10:12 AM In fact this is a rather radical change, so you'd have to re-jiggle the numbers quite a bit- I'd probably add the crit multiplier to the damage (so a battle axe will have a damage number of 8).

Basically the logic is this - a dagger in the eye is just as bad as an axe in the skull- so skill is paramount. This is a logical abstraction of any "called shot" mechanics - you roll a higher to hit number, you hit them somewhere more vulnerable and hence do more damage.

Sneak would be a plus to damage rating: +4 per die of sneak.

I'd also combine this with one of teh deadlier Wound systems. The desired flavour change is from the battle of attrition and whittling down of HP, to combats of decisive blows where it's harder to hit but man does it hurt when it happens.

Power attack - you take a penalty on your to hit roll, if you hit you add DOUBLE the penalty to damage.
Tomkin
07-01-07, 11:02 AM If this is supposed to replace standard attack rolls, then there is no point raising your weapon's enhancement bonus over +1, since you could just add the elemental properties (+1d6 energy damage) instead- they increase your average damage by much more.

Basically the system means you hit a lot more often, but do less damage. But you realize that if you make defense bonus iterative, then you increase the power of iterative attacks drastically, since they were not intended to hit that often.
Werral
07-01-07, 12:25 PM Yes, but italso make gangs of weak critters stronger since your defence drops drastically.

Still i'd like to rejig it so that you Hit less often but hit harder.
Ranger REG
07-03-07, 12:09 AM Even if you subtract 10 from AC, it'll still be too hard to hit. Essentially the attacker has to make an attack roll against the attacker's AC PLUS Reflex PLUS 1/2 BAB... surely you can't expect that to hit.
Unless the defender rolls badly, which is the risk he took for not "taking 10" on his defense roll. Also, the attacker only need to meet or beat the defender's roll. So, defender have to beat the attacker.

What is the point of the rule flavor-wise?
Other than oppose the attacker's roll rather than rely on a static value to block incoming attacks? All I know, it will just take combat resolution longer.
Werral
07-03-07, 08:16 PM Not necessarily. You gain a roll but you also cut out the damage roll.

Plus weapons become less predictable, a weak weapon could do a lot of damage in the right place (ie you roll a 20 for attack and they roll a 1 for defence - that's 19hp more damage than the normal average).
Amaril
07-17-07, 06:36 PM There's a variant rule in the DMG where you replace base 10 with a d20 roll, but everything else stays the same. The base 10 is assuming you take 10 for your AC. The roll allows for more variability during combat.

Right now, I'm trying to figure out how natural 1s and 20s for defense rolls are handled.
Werral
07-17-07, 08:04 PM I'd say you either get an AoO or a free 5 foot step (representing that you gain a better position) or make your opponent flat footed.

Dodge could increase your critical defence threat to 19-20(so it actually might become a useful feat).

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Werral 06-30-07, 08:24 PM	Okay, so this is just an idea, actually it's a spin off from a hoime brew rpg I'm working on, but I thought I'd see how the basic principal might work in D&D. Some things are similar to the defence bonus threads around here. Some things are not. Attacker rolls D20 and adds BAB bonus + average damage (so 5 for a longsword) Defender rolls d20 and adds half BAB+half Reflex Save+Amour bonus If the attacker wins they add the amount they won by to damage. If the Defender wins and still has an attack to make they add the amount won by to their damage die. Crits: If you roll the threat range then roll again and add the die. That's your attack roll. Other things: Defence bonus should scale like iterative attacks - ie higher against the first attack, but lower vs further attacks (so ganging up works) Power attack and Combat Expertise need to be rewritten for this system.
Tomkin 06-30-07, 09:11 PM	Too much dice-rolling for me, too much math. If you do use it though, I would suggest that if the defender wins, subtract that amount. You realize that the defender is going to win nearly all the time, though.
Ranger REG 06-30-07, 09:30 PM	Because of the opposed roll, it will take more time to resolve combat, even worse when iterative attacks or extra attacks come into play. The defender's bonus formula you offered? Better to have a Class Defense Bonus stat (similar to d20 Modern and Star Wars, they even offered such mechanics in D&D Unearthed Arcana). Oh, and you need to subtract 10 from AC, unless you're referring to armor's equipment bonus to AC.
Tomkin 06-30-07, 10:16 PM	Even if you subtract 10 from AC, it'll still be too hard to hit. Essentially the attacker has to make an attack roll against the attacker's AC PLUS Reflex PLUS 1/2 BAB... surely you can't expect that to hit. What is the point of the rule flavor-wise?
Werral 07-01-07, 06:40 AM	Yeah this makes no sense in D20. It does make sense in my own system with numbers tailored to it. Also because it replaces damage rolls - you just do damage=to how much you win by. But yes, opposed rolls and damage rolls is too much and the D20 numbers aren't made for it. Flavourwise the idea is that a skillful attack with a dagger (not just a sneak) can do huge damage. I've fiddled with it so it makes a little more sense and cuts the separate damage roll.
Rhialto 07-01-07, 09:17 AM	It looks to me that, for a sufficiently high level/strength character, there won't be all that much practical difference between a dagger and a two handed battle axe.
Werral 07-01-07, 10:12 AM	In fact this is a rather radical change, so you'd have to re-jiggle the numbers quite a bit- I'd probably add the crit multiplier to the damage (so a battle axe will have a damage number of 8). Basically the logic is this - a dagger in the eye is just as bad as an axe in the skull- so skill is paramount. This is a logical abstraction of any "called shot" mechanics - you roll a higher to hit number, you hit them somewhere more vulnerable and hence do more damage. Sneak would be a plus to damage rating: +4 per die of sneak. I'd also combine this with one of teh deadlier Wound systems. The desired flavour change is from the battle of attrition and whittling down of HP, to combats of decisive blows where it's harder to hit but man does it hurt when it happens. Power attack - you take a penalty on your to hit roll, if you hit you add DOUBLE the penalty to damage.
Tomkin 07-01-07, 11:02 AM	If this is supposed to replace standard attack rolls, then there is no point raising your weapon's enhancement bonus over +1, since you could just add the elemental properties (+1d6 energy damage) instead- they increase your average damage by much more. Basically the system means you hit a lot more often, but do less damage. But you realize that if you make defense bonus iterative, then you increase the power of iterative attacks drastically, since they were not intended to hit that often.
Werral 07-01-07, 12:25 PM	Yes, but italso make gangs of weak critters stronger since your defence drops drastically. Still i'd like to rejig it so that you Hit less often but hit harder.
Ranger REG 07-03-07, 12:09 AM	Even if you subtract 10 from AC, it'll still be too hard to hit. Essentially the attacker has to make an attack roll against the attacker's AC PLUS Reflex PLUS 1/2 BAB... surely you can't expect that to hit. Unless the defender rolls badly, which is the risk he took for not "taking 10" on his defense roll. Also, the attacker only need to meet or beat the defender's roll. So, defender have to beat the attacker. What is the point of the rule flavor-wise? Other than oppose the attacker's roll rather than rely on a static value to block incoming attacks? All I know, it will just take combat resolution longer.
Werral 07-03-07, 08:16 PM	Not necessarily. You gain a roll but you also cut out the damage roll. Plus weapons become less predictable, a weak weapon could do a lot of damage in the right place (ie you roll a 20 for attack and they roll a 1 for defence - that's 19hp more damage than the normal average).
Amaril 07-17-07, 06:36 PM	There's a variant rule in the DMG where you replace base 10 with a d20 roll, but everything else stays the same. The base 10 is assuming you take 10 for your AC. The roll allows for more variability during combat. Right now, I'm trying to figure out how natural 1s and 20s for defense rolls are handled.
Werral 07-17-07, 08:04 PM	I'd say you either get an AoO or a free 5 foot step (representing that you gain a better position) or make your opponent flat footed. Dodge could increase your critical defence threat to 19-20(so it actually might become a useful feat).