You know I thought 3.0 did a good job of making evrything pretty much one simple mechanic ( the d20 system) And my concern about 4th edition is that although they say they are streamlining the rules; there has to be a point where that means " dumbing it down". I have a bad feeling ATTACKS OF OPPORTUNITY will be out - and it was one of the things i thought was coolest and most original about the game - an attempt to make combat continuous and flowing by recognizing and trying to represent thatpeople dont stop fighting when its not their "turn". One thing that puzzled and slightly disappointed me - although i can't say i'm surprised - is that with the introduction of CONTESTED SKILL ROLLS to D&D (and about time ) that COMBAT wasn't a contested skill roll. As it stands; the old D&d abstraction that a 10th level fighter; without his crazy equipment; is nearly as easy ( i saw nearly as im expecting he has feats) - maybe AS EASY TO HIT AS THE BAR-MAID next to him ( one of the old D&d abstractions is that hit points represent avoiding this - so we always asked why i have to heal you if you avoided most of the damage. Anyway; I'm not saying it can be instituted or even should; but "wouldn't it be neat" if combat was skill versus skill* in order to hit (in warhammer tabletop - at least when i played; this was actually the case within its simplicity constraints) I've tried something similar using bab to defense class - and dropping hit poinst altogther - and it worked well for US - but i was curious if anyone else here; as most who play ToEE are probably older gamers; had done anything similar. * keep in mind that comparatively; the +4 skill you get at 1st level is comparative to the effective +4 a proficient weapon wielder gets to a non-proficient ( this was in some design notes i read somewhere re: 3rd edition.. but for warrior classes its really +5 not +4 so you could question that )
An usual issue between my noobs players, is "what dice i throw for defending?" And i have to explain everything...i use the normal amount of AC characters have, but, in specific (usually individual) combats, i let them throw the 20 dice...ok, it's not much of skill, and more of luck...but they have the chance (and the impression ) of having some chance of avoid some attacks... The armor is pretty low, even at 20 level, without equipment...the HP are supposed the stamina you have, the more you loss the more you get tired (subdual damage). The system for the "Star wars" D20 pnp is much better in some aspects: -Each class have a bonus to AC depending on their type (warrior, diplomatics, etc) that grows as the character grows in levels (like the monk bonus). Ibelieve they do this because the lack of armors in SW, but you can use also a rmor, that instead of avoid the attack, reduce the damage taken in more or less amount depending the type of armor; the Stormtroopers armor reduce 2 (also add 2 to AC, is considered light), while Jango Fett's armor reduce 6 (add 5 to AC, considered heavy)...a much more logic and realistic approach of how armor works. -HP are treated different: you have two scores, one given by a dice roll (like D&D) and another that it's your constitution score (not the bonus, the full score, so if you have 14, then you have those points); you can be out of the first and still going but are considered exausted, but if you don't have the second, you are dead. The normal damage go to the first, while the damage from a critical strike go straight to the second...another realistic way, you can be a 20 level warrior and take many many crits and still going...with SW system, a critical hit is a really bad blow (head bashed, a lung perfored, etc, since those points are almost the same no matter what level) Also you have some defending options (block, avoid, etc9 thath are "oposed skill checks"...
Dude! are you my twinkie?eace: First: let me remind; TECHNICALLY in 3.0 the 10 in AC was an assumed roll and they offered you the option of ROLLING your defense as opposed checks - (roll and add d20 result rather than 10.. although i would argue then that the ac base should be 11; since the average roll is 10.5 - thus equal odds is 50/50%)... Anyways! In response to your response; thats funny we did essentially the same thing - i guess i wanted to accomplish the same thing the SW modificatiosn needed to do - We added your base attack bonus to defense ( I later redid armor but thats a whole 'nother story) - so long as you could defend yourself; and we did your constition as straight hit points ( then later added the bAB too - pain threshold & toughness you know) as to the StarWars part; that to me just sounds like they are spelling out what hit points were always EXPLAINED to be abstracting in the players handbook and DMG. I remember a really old game Villains and Vigilantes that did the same thing - seperate your subdual/endurance/non-lethal damage into a seperate category - "power" - which you could use like AD&D hit points to avoid "real" damage.
