Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2012 19:23:28 GMT -8
So I was apart of Tappy's 4E con game and can say that he had planned much of the game. The main thing I really want is that spreadsheet detailing all of Tappy's math he showed me at the game. It was a massive improvement on the 4E system and some of what he did I will explain so his game may not seem like a complete off the cuff game.
He subtracted 10 from all of the defenses and scrapped the AC defense. Then added 10 to all of the creatures attack and made them a static number. This let the players roll everything. Meaning if we attacked we rolled our to hit bonus and then when the creatures attacked us we rolled to see if we could defend against its static attack number. All basic attacks now did not hit AC but Ref and if an attack did make contact you would get a chance to reduce it with your armor. So basic cloth was a static number of 3 and then all armor above it was then a dice roll (mine being a d10+3). This was great because you really felt in control of the character and the situation and Tappy then got ability of just role playing out all of the events.
Tappy has beautiful crunch for this game.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2012 19:52:12 GMT -8
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2012 20:09:01 GMT -8
|
|
tappy
Journeyman Douchebag
Host
Posts: 192
Preferred Game Systems: Apoc World, Monsterhearts, L5r, Wod
Favorite Species of Monkey: Space Monkey
|
Post by tappy on Apr 8, 2012 22:29:47 GMT -8
It is similar, but the raising the stakes rules add a lot of things that are intrinsically in dnd4e, such as the "death flag" as opposed to failing three death checks. I came up with this system when I was figuring out how to run Traveller online. One of the questions was "how are we going to do dice rolls?". I don't really care for online dice randomizers, so the choices were players roll for themselves, or I roll for everyone. Sean (who has now been a host a couple times) said "we roll dice, because rolling dice is fun!" this quote stuck with me, and so when I decided to revist the 4e rules, the quote was still there. I decided to add it, as a way to make the attrition based combat more fun, as the players were doing more things within that combat. I'm trying to figure out how to post my spreadsheet, but I may just have to send it to people who are interested in it. PM me if you want to take a look.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2012 9:28:35 GMT -8
What would you do in corner-cases where the only difference between one attack type and another is that it would target REF instead of AC?
Specifically, piercing strike (rogue at-will) is a Basic Melee that attacks reflex. By having everything else swing at Ref, you reduce the effectiveness of this at-will. While you could just shrug it off and say ignore it, there are (sadly) other 4e powers that give you the same advantage piercing strike does. So, how do you reconcile that?
Also (and I shouldn't even mention this, but meh), if you add 10 to the stats that would imply you need to roll over the target number instead of equal to or over - so wouldn't adding +11 make more sense so that you can roll equal-to like other target numbers? </splithair>
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2012 10:26:58 GMT -8
Tappy's system should also tweak weapon proficiencies.
The game states weapons get a proficiency bonus to balance out the fact that AC is higher than the NADs (Ref, Will, For). If you only need to hit Ref, weapon users have a huge (+2, +3) advantage over implement users.
I would recommend a straight 2pt reduction in all weapon proficiencies. This would bring most weapons in line but allow a few (eg daggers) a small bonus.
Thoughts?
Sent from my ADR6400L using ProBoards
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2012 11:34:45 GMT -8
If you reduced the proficiency bonus from +2/+3 to +0/+1, there will be less incentive to get training in the weapon. But would that be a bad thing?
If so, then you could generically say that you don't get the benefit of any of the special/key words unless you have training.
Otherwise, that math fix would - well - be a math fix.
BUT, one thing I'm not aware of - do you get your damage soak on every hit, or only the ones that use to hit AC? Or anything that hits Ref? Honestly, damage soak vs. AC where you have a reflex target number might be balance enough w/o having to adjust the weapon proficiency bonus.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2012 18:30:36 GMT -8
You could go old school and give a non-proficiency penalty of -2 if you are not trained.
Implements have a 'cannot use if not trained' rule already.
Sent from my ADR6400L using ProBoards
|
|