Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Rumple_Cragstan 04-10-05, 11:18 PM	I've been thinking about the balance of the game, and I've realized something - the idea that a natural 1 always fails and a natural 20 always succeeds is somewhat redundant. If a player can't fail on a natural 1 (without the auto-fail) then its obviously too easy, and if the character can't succeed on a natural 20 (without the auto-succeed) then the challenge is far, far too hard. I propose to abolish the special treatment of Natural 1 and Natural 20. Critical hits are all but unchanged (now even on a natural 20 if you didn't reach thier AC you miss). What does everyone think of this easy to implement rule?
DM Zoc 04-11-05, 02:53 AM	I like it. It makes armor actually useful.
Talon Blackhart 04-11-05, 01:40 PM	I like it. It makes armor actually useful. I kind of agree with this. I means that the character's skill really matters (on being able to hit or not) and the armor matters (on being easy or hard to hit). It also removes the chances of a kobold getting a "lucky strike" in on a 20th level fighter, and removes the chances of a 20th level fighter missing much of anything. However, it also removes the usefulness (or need) for Improved Critical as a feat... It also removes the chances of a fighter (or rogue) who is excellent at hitting where it hurts by improving the crit range.
Eliza_Stormwhisper 04-11-05, 02:24 PM	It's what they did in first edition... minus the critical hits part. 3rd ed. player: "I rolled a 20! That's a critical hit, right?" 1st ed. DM: "Uh... what's a critical hit?"
Arcade 04-12-05, 05:19 PM	In 2e, we came up with a similar system, though we didn't want to make it impossible to hit high AC- kobolds should have a small chance to get through. On a natural 20, you can let the roller roll another d20 and add it. If he can keep rolling natural 20's he can keep adding up the numbers. Similarly, if you roll a 1, you roll again and add your roll to -20. If you keep rolling 1's, you keep rolling subtracting the numbers (though likely 2 1's or 2 20's in a row should do it). This idea isn't new- it's been on the boards before and in other games. Our DM at the time wasn't satisfied that if you roll a natural 20, it still didn't make much difference if you had a 21 AC or a 25 AC since you likely were going to hit by adding the extra 20 anyway. And as a minor point, a 20 always came out to 21 or higher which means that you could never actually roll a "20". The solution was that on a natural 20, you would add a d6-1 to your roll. if you could keep rolling 6's, you could keep adding a d6-1. This allowed weenies to hit but still added a sharp curve to their chances as AC rose. And you can use a similar method for rolling natural 1's as well.
twad 04-12-05, 05:59 PM	the poor, poor commoners and low level monsters... they dont stand the shadow of a chance against anything having X+1 AC (20+smallcommoner attack bonus +1), wich mean any fighting PC, or dragons, or AC monster. The "always hit on a 20 and give a possible critical hit chance" gives them at least the little useless hope of actually hitting the ennemy for a small, negligible amount of damage. It gives them hope to keep on living their little vulnerable lives! Dont take the hopes of those non-existing no-named imaginary beings away! But it doest not matter if those imaginary, non-existing beings wear red. .... Think of the kittens!
Lina_Inverse 04-12-05, 08:32 PM	chuckle. ever seen an AC build?76 AC isnt hard to achieve.
Rumple_Cragstan 04-12-05, 09:01 PM	chuckle. ever seen an AC build?76 AC isnt hard to achieve. Ever seen a DM smack down a Munchkin PC? I don't have a problem with minor Min/Maxxing IMC, but if someone tries to get an AC build like that they'll get smacked down. So I'm not overly worried about that outcome... the DM will always win.
DM Zoc 04-12-05, 11:44 PM	The kind of thing I want to stop is the "can only hit on a 20, so full power attack and combat expertise anyway."
Eliza_Stormwhisper 04-13-05, 01:02 AM	The rule described is how it was in first edition. 20's and 1's weren't anything special at all.
lostone 04-13-05, 11:58 AM	I wouldn't eliminite nat 20 always hitting, that is what makes large numbers dangerous. If a fighter 20 with AC of 40 has nothing to fear against 100000 level 1 orcs, what's to stop him from just wading through the entire army and slaughtering them wholesale? Personally I like the optional rule printed somewhere (I believe in epic level handbook) that someone also mentioned above. On a nat 20 you reroll and add 20 to that roll, if they roll another nat 20 you reroll and add 40, etc. Same thing with nat 1 except you reroll and subtract 20. My group likes critical hits and fumbles, it adds unpredictability to the game. Maybe a stray arrow misses it's target and hits the fighter in the hand, hitting the one weak joint in the +10 full plate gauntlet, and as a result the fighter drops his weapon. He's a veteran though and next turn he pulls the arrow out and picks up his sword, fighting through the pain.
Kintara 04-13-05, 01:09 PM	I think it's fine because it's really only used for attacks and saves. I just don't think that someone should have to never, ever, ever, ever have to worry about someone trying to kill them just because they have a lot of armor on. A dwarf warrior 1 with Dex 12 in non-magical fullplate with a large shield, fighting defensively, is invulnerable to any attacks from another first level warrior, unless they have Strength 14, Weapon Focus, and/or they charge? Add a tower shield, and it's even worse. I mean, there are situations where two characters of equivalent level will have widely varying attack and AC numbers, and saves, for that matter. If you want to make them more special, you can roll 2d10, instead. That reduces the chances of rolling 20s. Auto-failures become 2s. Edit: As the DM, here's another way to think about it: PCs can be unpredictable. Sometimes they will pick fights they have no business picking, or at least you didn't realize that it would make sense for them to want to fight. PCs don't know that someone has 20 more points of AC than they have attack. Sometimes it's not exactly up to the DM what the characters decide to throw themselves at. And it's not very heroic to make the enemy invulnerable.
Rumple_Cragstan 04-13-05, 02:23 PM	I wouldn't eliminite nat 20 always hitting, that is what makes large numbers dangerous. If a fighter 20 with AC of 40 has nothing to fear against 100000 level 1 orcs, what's to stop him from just wading through the entire army and slaughtering them wholesale? Good Point... that alone is almost making me reconsider the idea.
Robbo 04-16-05, 10:45 AM	Perhaps depends upon the nature of the AC - if it is supernatural, then those orcs are just going to have to rely on their own champions - high level fighters and mages, to take the AC40 fighting tank down. If it is some form of natural or extraordinary combination then I think there would at least be the issue of exhaustion - at some point he would have to stop for breath, to eat, sleep etc. Orcs may be pretty stupid, but they would soon realise, or be ordered by their leaders, to get out of his way, so that the lightning bolts, fireballs, etc can be unleashed. After all an army of 10000 orcs should probably contain a fair few mages.
jaerad 04-16-05, 11:40 PM	Perhaps depends upon the nature of the AC - if it is supernatural, then those orcs are just going to have to rely on their own champions - high level fighters and mages, to take the AC40 fighting tank down. If it is some form of natural or extraordinary combination then I think there would at least be the issue of exhaustion - at some point he would have to stop for breath, to eat, sleep etc. Orcs may be pretty stupid, but they would soon realise, or be ordered by their leaders, to get out of his way, so that the lightning bolts, fireballs, etc can be unleashed. After all an army of 10000 orcs should probably contain a fair few mages. Ya, my first thought at that example was exhaustion. I'm pretty sure after 30 or so rds. (if not way sooner) you'd have to start making some fortitude checks to stay upright. On top of that, what about swarming? And unless you're playing with some kinda Hero/Crouching Tiger martial arts there's just no way you can dodge that many attacks. I don't care how low level they are, 10 spears jutting at you from all over are gonna hit something. What about grapple? What about being encumbered by tons of arrows stuck in your shield? etc. That example is just a slippery slope arguement. Dropping auto hit/missing doesn't mean that "OMG now i'm untochable!!!" [sic] I', not sure yet how much I like the idea of dropping auto hit/miss though. Like you said, if you hit on a 1 or miss on a 20 - things aren't powered correctly. Still, I guess I'm just too 2E - natural 20 to me is like, "OMG I did it!!" Plus I like critical misses, though ya gotta do them with a check like critical hits. Threat range style, other wise people like me will chop their own foot off too many times and the healer will refuse service. Hmm though. I dunno if I wanna die from Kobolds at lvl 40 though. But I don't think I should just be invulnerable either. Keep the ideas coming, I gotta think about this more.
HailSpork 04-17-05, 12:51 AM	Well, here's the thing. If you're level 40, you have a lot of HP; more than enough to survive the onslaught of kobolds. Also, medium size creatures can only gang up on you 8 at a time, unless reach/ranged weapons are involved. Also, if you're surrounded by 8 orcs, 7 of them can use the Aid Another action to give the 8th a +14 bonus to hit.
jaerad 04-17-05, 02:50 AM	Well, here's the thing. If you're level 40, you have a lot of HP; more than enough to survive the onslaught of kobolds. Also, medium size creatures can only gang up on you 8 at a time, unless reach/ranged weapons are involved. Also, if you're surrounded by 8 orcs, 7 of them can use the Aid Another action to give the 8th a +14 bonus to hit. So do you think auto hits/misses should be scrapped? I'm still puzzling it. In some ways, I see the advantages. But I have tunnel vision, and people that really know the rules always see stuff I wasn't even aware of.
Rumple_Cragstan 04-17-05, 01:28 PM	Plus I like critical misses, though ya gotta do them with a check like critical hits. Threat range style, other wise people like me will chop their own foot off too many times and the healer will refuse service. I personally find that my style of crit misses work most realistically and simply. If you roll a Nat. 1, you provoke an AoO from everyone that threatens you. You've read it in books, and seen it in movies - sometimes the fighter does something reckless that leaves him open, then his opponents take advantage of it. I never liked the idea of a trained fighter shooting himself in the foot with an arrow, or cutting his foot of with his greatsword. I find that the idea of "oh **** I left myself open!" is way easer to deal with as well. And with this system of no auto-miss, the AoO still makes sense, because even if you hit the guy (on a nat. 1 its unlikely) you're still leaving yourself open and thus still vulnerable for the AoO (though some might houserule that the person you hit can't take the AoO if you actually deal damage). lol and besides, its much more satisfying to have the fighter notice that the cleric let himself open and kill him by cleaving off his arm, rather than the cleric busting his kneecap with his mace and double over in pain. And its less humliating for the 8th level paladin who breaks his elbow swinging his halberd the wrong way (one of my previous DMs tried to pull that on me... omg I was choked at him).
HailSpork 04-17-05, 04:39 PM	Personally, if you're debating this rule, I would suggest using exploding 20's and 1's. If you roll a nat 20, roll 1d20+20 as your roll (if it wasn't a hit already). Btw, if this hits, it is a possible crit. If somebody rolls a 1, roll 1d20-20. I find that this is an unnecessary rule in my campaigns (well, for attack rolls. I use it on opposed skill checks a lot). If something has an AC so high that the players don't hit on a nat 20, if it's a real encounter, I'm doing something wrong. Besides, if it's just an RP encounter that was handled poorly, I'm not worried about 5% of their attacks hitting. Most powerful beings have more defenses than high AC (fast healing, DR, tons of HP, etc) If the players are being attacked by something that needs nat 20's to hit them, then I will generally just metagame the encounter. "You guys sweep through the kobolds." There is the possibility that the encounter is balanced to be on level with the players, but one character has a ridiculously high AC. In that case, about 5% of the enemies' attacks will hit, and .25% will crit. If a character still hits on a nat 1, then this is the time to take advantage of feats like power attack or combat expertise. Besides, later attacks may not necessarily have the same bonus to hit. The only thing I don't like about the nat 1 rules as they are is that it means that if you have more attacks per round, you're more likely to critically miss. I do a critical miss confirm system; roll again, and if you hit, you miss; if you miss, you critically miss.
Ranger REG 04-17-05, 09:51 PM	What does everyone think of this easy to implement rule? Only if "20" equals "30," or the roll is open-ended.
jaerad 04-18-05, 12:36 AM	Only if "20" equals "30," or the roll is open-ended. What's the difference between open-ended and an auto-hit? Seriously, I am a n3wb. Not sure I care for the 20=30 thing either. If you're going to scale things up, why not just go all the way? Hmm. I think I'll stick with auto-hits with 20s. Less hassle than re-rolling, and I like the "villagers' thin ray of hope" arguement. However, nat 1 provoking AoO's - I like that. If you can only miss on a 1 anyways, what does it matter if that hits too (things aren't powered correctly)? Maybe you shouldn't have situations where you can always hit, but the DM can just rule you missed. 50/50 chance (ya, right. DM is god not statistics) But even if you do hit, there's still an element of danger; provoking AoO from all threats sounds a lot more damgerous to me than just missing the kobold's head.
Steely Glint 04-18-05, 01:18 AM	My group has always used nat 20 = 30, nat 1 = -10. And on a side note, large throngs of weak monsters have many alternatives to simply melee attacks. Grappling is one way to deal damage to a heavily armored foe, and adjacent monsters could give the attacking ones up to a +4 bonus on the touch attack with with an aid action. Of course, if the AC comes mostly from dodge type bonuses (Int to AC, Wis to AC, etc.) it's possible that even the touch attack will always fail.