GM rolls his AC.

[Laniius]

I mean that his NPC's, instead of having an AC of 10 + armor + whatever, it is [roll] + armor + whatever.

I am very bothered by this. Am I being a drama queen? Has anyone else dealt with this?

Edit: When I initially posted, I was overreacting. I'm still not sure what I think about it, but I will explain what is happening.

If a given monster's AC is 10 + dex, it will instead be [d20] + dex. This roll will be made every time a PC attacks.

The players have the option of rolling their AC or taking 10 on the roll.

[Herabec]

That... that's somewhat concerning.

You can have low level enemies with very, very high armor classes that way. :smalleek:

Have you asked him why he doesn't use the normal AC calculations players have to follow?

[Laniius]

His justification is that it is more "dynamic". He rolls every turn, every time someone makes an attack.

Everyone else in my group has no problems with this.

I seem to be the only one who is bothered.

I honestly don't know what to do. I've been playing with this group for years, and almost feel... betrayed? I don't know.

[SaintRidley]

Do you roll your AC before each turn?

If so, I don't have much of an issue with it beyond it being unnecessarily time consuming and happening every turn - if you're going to roll AC, do it before combat and have it apply for the combat.

If not, that could be a problem.

[Laniius]

No, he rolls it like he's rolling a save.

[Roncorps]

That's very dynamic and kind of wrong, because it's like having 2 attack rolls. The first (your) could be OK, but the second (GM NPC) could be better and so, miss. You hit but miss ...

If I was the DM and wanted to do that (but it's too much time consuming), I would roll the DEX or something else modifier, like a d4 to represent "maybe when you attacked he didn't dodge as fast as the last time/he dodged faster than the last time".

[Doxkid]

Seems odd to me.

I only have one creature that would need such a mechanic...common enemies get a randomly assigned armor en-mass before combat and I stick with it.

It's odd...but I could see it working for more chaotic campaigns where things shift like that.

[Jeff the Green]

That's bizarre and probably a very bad idea. In essence what he's doing is rolling each turn to give you a +10 to -10 on your attack roll. That means that glass cannon enemies are much more likely to go down very quickly, while tanky enemies are likely to die off. This is bad because you will die much more often than you should and are likely to have anticlimactic battles when you don't. It also screws over characters who have to roll an attack roll every round (like fighters, paladins, and barbarians) while leaving casters that throw around SoDs alone.

If I were you, I'd have a talk with him about this. And if that failed, roll up a Dragonfire Adept.

[Arbane]

Statistically, he should get a 10 or lower exactly half the time, so it shouldn't be that big a deal, but I can understand why it won't feel that way when a kobold gets three natural 20s in a row on its AC. :smallannoyed:

[SiuiS]

That... that's somewhat concerning.

You can have low level enemies with very, very high armor classes that way. :smalleek:

Have you asked him why he doesn't use the normal AC calculations players have to follow?


That's very dynamic and kind of wrong, because it's like having 2 attack rolls. The first (your) could be OK, but the second (GM NPC) could be better and so, miss. You hit but miss ...

If I was the DM and wanted to do that (but it's too much time consuming), I would roll the DEX or something else modifier, like a d4 to represent "maybe when you attacked he didn't dodge as fast as the last time/he dodged faster than the last time".

You guys know this is a well known, suggested house rule from the books, right? Your DM didn't make this up himself, it's actually written down. It's of that he can and you can't, but he's not cheating, and he's not leveraging the odds in his favor either.

If its a problem, and by that I mean if the issue causes you problems even after you try and relax about it, talk to him. Have an open dialogue. He may come around, he may bring you around, you may agree to disagree, but this is mostly a misunderstanding with a side of distrust and some hurt feelings sprinkled on top. I'm sure it will calm down before anything bad comes of it :smallsmile:

[Whammydill]

Except in the book I'm pretty sure it says to replace the 10 with a d20 roll for the base AC. The base 10 is like taking 10 on your defense I guess.

Instead this DM seems to be doing 10 + d20 + mods, when it should be d20 + mods.

[SaintRidley]

Except in the book I'm pretty sure it says to replace the 10 with a d20 roll for the base AC. The base 10 is like taking 10 on your defense I guess.

Instead this DM seems to be doing 10 + d20 + mods, when it should be d20 + mods.

That, and if I gather correctly, the same rule is not being applied to PC armor class. Which is a huge mistake when implementing this rule.

[Kudaku]

Except in the book I'm pretty sure it says to replace the 10 with a d20 roll for the base AC. The base 10 is like taking 10 on your defense I guess.

Instead this DM seems to be doing 10 + d20 + mods, when it should be d20 + mods.

The OP specifically says that the DM replaces the base 10 with the roll - he doesn't add to it.

[Drelua]

You guys know this is a well known, suggested house rule from the books, right? Your DM didn't make this up himself, it's actually written down. It's of that he can and you can't, but he's not cheating, and he's not leveraging the odds in his favor either.

The way I understand it, OP is saying that the DM doubles the number of rolls involved; one to determine AC, and one for you to-hit. The only rule similar to that I can think of is adding 10 to your enemies' attack bonuses and rolling your armour class, which IIRC was suggested as a way to let players do more of the rolling without changing the balance of thing at all.. Unless there is an optional rule exactly like OP described that I just haven't heard of, in which case you can just forget I said anything about that. :smallsmile:

If I understand correctly, this sounds like a terrible rule regardless of whether or not it was published. It means a character could hit on a 4 one round, and miss on an 18 the next. That ogre could be an unstoppable tank one round, and a glass cannon the next. This only serves to take the excitement out of lucky rolls and, make combat far more dangerous, and just nerf melee in general. Who's going to charge into a swarm of enemies when they could roll a 2 for AC next round and get slaughtered?

This seems like an incredibly... ill-conceived house-rule that I can't think of a single advantage that it gives.. If you can't convince your DM to cut it out, I'd make a character dependent on miss chances instead of AC, and completely avoid all melee combat. That is, on the off-chance I decided to stick around.

[Andvare]

I mean that his NPC's, instead of having an AC of 10 + armor + whatever, it is [roll] + armor + whatever.

I am very bothered by this. Am I being a drama queen? Has anyone else dealt with this?


Except in the book I'm pretty sure it says to replace the 10 with a d20 roll for the base AC. The base 10 is like taking 10 on your defense I guess.

Instead this DM seems to be doing 10 + d20 + mods, when it should be d20 + mods.

Not according to the OP.

Statistically, it is a small boost, but only a very small one. The average roll of d20 is 10.5 (the average of any one die is dietypenumber/2+0.5, here 20/2+0.5).
So unless he fudges with his dice, the outcome should on average be the same.
I can't see the point, it just takes up time, but that is my opinion.

The only thing you can do, besides arguing that it is a (small) boost for the bad guy, is to talk with your group about it, voice your discomfort.

[candycorn]

Opposed Rolls with armor class benefits characters with lower AC more than it benefits characters with higher AC. As such, it benefits PC's more than monsters, generally. The exception is that it tends to be a nerf to touch attacks.

This is because the difference between an AC of 3 and 13 isn't incredibly big when you have a ranged touch modifier of +7 (lowering the roll from 10 to 1 only removes 4 rolls which would have missed), but a difference between 13 and 23 is huge (adds 10 miss chances). Thus, while the average distribution is the same, the impact of that distribution is not. As such, you can expect to miss attacks that are against a low base target number more often than with the 10+modifiers rule.

That said, if your target has an AC of 33 base, and you have an attack roll of +12, this variant is very attractive for you. This is because a roll of 1 would yield a 24 AC (gives 8 more chances to hit, increasing your hit chance from 5% to 45% (900% increase), whereas a roll of 20 would give an AC of 43, with no change in your accuracy.

So generally, this variant benefits less accurate creatures and less armored creatures, and hinders high accuracy and high AC creatures. This is demonstration that increased randomness benefits the underdog.

[demigodus]

All this does is increase your accuracy if you have less then even odds of hitting, and decrease your odds of hitting if you have better then even odds of hitting.

So it just optimization focused on very high hit-rate, or very low being-hit-rate less effective. If you have a tanking build that revolves around having massive hp, rather then avoiding being hit, this would actually help you.

Considering I never really felt much excitement in very good rolls, I wouldn't mind such a rule. Only issue would be slowing down the game. That and sometimes people get long streaks of luck/bad luck, which this enhances seriously.Yes, I know that according to statistical theory lucky streaks are just an illusion. Still happen frequently enough for me to act like they exist.

[TuggyNE]

Statistically, it is a small boost, but only a very small one. The average roll of d20 is 10.5 (the average of any one die is dietypenumber/2+0.5, here 20/2+0.5).
So unless he fudges with his dice, the outcome should on average be the same.

The increased arithmetic mean is not really the main problem with this; as you say, it's hardly any higher. However, it introduces a great deal more variability, and d20 has a key principle: variability is bad for PCs. This is fundamentally because PCs will, on average, win fights — they are after all stronger than their foes in most cases. Any non-average case can be either for or against the PCs. If unusually for them, nothing much happens; a foe dies a round earlier, a PC takes 20 points less damage, whatever. If unusually against, however, a PC could die from an otherwise ordinary fight, which is a pretty unpleasant consequence. In summary, increasing randomness increases PC risk, even if it doesn't change the theoretical average outcome of a fight.

Now, to be clear, a certain amount of risk is necessary for the game to mean much. However, increasing that risk significantly beyond the norm should be done carefully and generally with consultation and group agreement, in my opinion.


Opposed Rolls with armor class benefits characters with lower AC more than it benefits characters with higher AC. As such, it benefits PC's more than monsters, generally.

This would be true if the PCs benefited from this same modification, although the increased randomness in general would still be something to watch for. However, the DM appears to be applying it only to monsters.


This is demonstration that increased randomness benefits the underdog.

Indeed.

[Andvare]

[Snipped for space]
Indeed.

Point taken.

Edit: And it mostly hurts the fighting classes, not the stronger spellcasting classes.

[Laniius]

Except in the book I'm pretty sure it says to replace the 10 with a d20 roll for the base AC. The base 10 is like taking 10 on your defense I guess.

Instead this DM seems to be doing 10 + d20 + mods, when it should be d20 + mods.

No, what the DM is doing is rolling a d20 instead of the base 10.

I'm still not sure what I think about it, but when I made the initial post I was overreacting.

[HunterOfJello]

No, what the DM is doing is rolling a d20 instead of the base 10.

I'm still not sure what I think about it, but when I made the initial post I was overreacting.

Not necessarily. I think that any changes to the core rules can be fine in a game as long as everyone is comfortable with it. This is definitely a change to one of the most core rules in the entire game.

If you're uncomfortable with the extra randomness and chaos in the game, then you can tell the DM and see what happens.

Overall, rolling for AC is going to disadvantage the PCs over time, as the others have mentioned. It's also unnecessary randomness in a game that is already random enough. Opposed rolls are a pain and having them constantly is obviously against the intentions of the creators. Otherwise, DCs would be rolled as well as saves. That would apply even more ridiculous to the game.

Since an AC of 10 is being replaced by a d20, your characters are already disadvantaged because the average roll is a 10.5. There is also a larger chance of the roll resulting in a higher number than the core rules would have, then there is a chance of the roll resulting in a lower number.

~~~

It could be good to find out if your DM is just roll-happy or enjoys constantly controlling and modifying which attacks hit and which don't all the time. He/she could just be a super control freak or have a dice rolling fetish for all we know.

[Ketiara]

Debuff the baddie with unluck and go to town!!!

[molten_dragon]

I mean that his NPC's, instead of having an AC of 10 + armor + whatever, it is [roll] + armor + whatever.

I am very bothered by this. Am I being a drama queen? Has anyone else dealt with this?

Edit: When I initially posted, I was overreacting. I'm still not sure what I think about it, but I will explain what is happening.

If a given monster's AC is 10 + dex, it will instead be [d20] + dex. This roll will be made every time a PC attacks.

The players have the option of rolling their AC or taking 10 on the roll.

It's a suggested variant in Unearthed Arcana. It leads to very slightly higher AC across the board (10.5 average instead of 10), but as long as he's letting players do it as well, it's no big deal. It just give you an excuse to roll more dice.

[Deophaun]

Such a rule would grind games to a halt in my group. Knowing that, say, a 15 or above hits, and everything below misses, gives a massive and much needed speed boost to the game. So, I'd say the DM is making the combats less dynamic, not more, as you have to waste more time on figuring out attack rolls.

Irrespective of all the other balance issues with it, I would get rid of it on that term alone.

[candycorn]

This would be true if the PCs benefited from this same modification, although the increased randomness in general would still be something to watch for. However, the DM appears to be applying it only to monsters.

Wrong.

Monsters typically have Higher AC and attack bonuses than a traditionally stock PC. AC for monsters scales better, as does attack bonuses.

Since this method enhances accuracy of characters attacking high AC targets, the PC's will have an edge vs most monsters.

Since this method enhances the accuracy of characters with lower attack bonuses, most PC's will get an edge vs most monsters (exception perhaps being the barbarian and a ranged touch caster). Your 3/4 BAB classes will benefit the most from this.

Of course, if a DM uses low AC enemies in large numbers, this can get flipped on its head. But generally, it is true (though less amplified), even if done only for one side.

On a side note, it tends to make accuracy more bell-curve than linear.

[Jeff the Green]

Stuff.

*Sigh* Why is it that whenever I say something first, someone ends up saying it better?



It's a suggested variant in Unearthed Arcana. It leads to very slightly higher AC across the board (10.5 average instead of 10), but as long as he's letting players do it as well, it's no big deal. It just give you an excuse to roll more dice.

No. The alternative rule is "players roll all the dice. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/playersRollAllTheDice.htm)" (Incidentally, not a bad alternative, but it gets to be complicated when everything is written to not use it.) Effectively players have variable AC but enemies have fixed attack "rolls" while enemies have fixed save "rolls" and players have variable DCs. It's mathematically identical, while Laniius's DM's houserule results in much greater variability.

Edit:

On a side note, it tends to make accuracy more bell-curve than linear.
I don't think that's all that useful of a way to conceive of it. Accuracy is pretty binary: either you hit or you don't. What this does is bring the probability of hitting closer to some fixed value that I'm too lazy to calculate at the moment (increasing the likelihood of hitting high AC targets/decreasing the likelihood of hitting low AC targets). If you were doing something like this to damage, like rolling DR (DR 1 = DR d2, DR 5 = DR d10), then it would be making damage more normally distributed.

Edit 2:
Okay, so according to my math, against the average (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19869122/Optimization_By_The_Numbers) monster of CR = ECL for levels 1, 3, 5, 10, and 15, the player comes out worse by a few percentage points under this house rule. Full BAB types suffer more than 3/4 BAB to the tune of ~1%. In order for the player to benefit, they have to be fighting something with an AC > 14 above their attack bonus (= 14 they come out even, <14 they do worse). This doesn't seem to happen all that often, in my experience.

Let's look at an example. According to this (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19869122/Optimization_By_The_Numbers), the CR 10 monster with the highest AC has an AC of 33. A fighter at this point should have BAB 10, Strength 20 (at least), and a +2 sword. That's an attack bonus of 17, only 16 less than the monster's AC. Add on a bard inspiring courage (+2) and a cleric casting, say, prayer and you're already to the point where you're better off with the standard way of doing things. Even more so if you're flanking, denying them their Dexterity bonus, tripping, or buffing further.

[The Dark Fiddler]

One thing I didn't notice, reading through the spell, is why this bothers you, OP. I don't see a problem with the houserules, honestly, but I'm not in your shoes; I'm just judging it on the rule itself, while it may be something in the execution that irks you.

[Jack_Simth]

I mean that his NPC's, instead of having an AC of 10 + armor + whatever, it is [roll] + armor + whatever.

I am very bothered by this. Am I being a drama queen? Has anyone else dealt with this?

Edit: When I initially posted, I was overreacting. I'm still not sure what I think about it, but I will explain what is happening.

If a given monster's AC is 10 + dex, it will instead be [d20] + dex. This roll will be made every time a PC attacks.

The players have the option of rolling their AC or taking 10 on the roll.
If his dice are fair, it is mildly detrimental for your character's power, as on average a d20 averages gives 10.5, vs. the 10 of a the normal method. Mathmatically, he's pretty much raised the average AC by about a point or so.

Suppose you would have an attack modifier of 10, and under normal rules, he would have had an AC of 15 (+5 AC modifier); you used to need a 5 to hit a particular target under the "normal" rules (80% chance); now you just need your attack to exceed his defense (1d20+10 vs. 1d20+5). Assuming he's going with the standard "Ties go to highest modifier", and discounting natural 1's and natural 20's, then out of 400 attempts, you get 295 hits (as opposed to 320 in that circumstance) (if we do not discount nat-1's, that's 288 hits out of 400, as opposed to 320 out of 400 with that example).

[ThiagoMartell]

That's a variant suggested in the DMG. I don't have any problem with it.

[Ashtagon]

The only problem I have with it is that it will slow the game down by doubling the number of rolls required for conventional attacks.

[Laniius]

One thing I didn't notice, reading through the spell, is why this bothers you, OP. I don't see a problem with the houserules, honestly, but I'm not in your shoes; I'm just judging it on the rule itself, while it may be something in the execution that irks you.

It bothered me due to variability and uncertainty, as expressed in tuggyne's post above.

However, the biggest reason it bothered me is that while our current DM was experimenting with it, it turned out that our usual DM was already doing this. He had always been doing this, and had not informed the players.

Using houserules without informing the players was what bothered me, and then equating it to just fudging the rolls occasionally and therefore saying that it wasn't anything to worry about.

[Slipperychicken]

Here's what I see coming out of it:

1. Much harder to guess/metagame enemy AC, and therefore much more difficult to use Power Attack reliably.

2. DM has opportunity to fudge AC. Only a problem if he's a ****, in which case rules won't help anyway.

3. Combat further slowed by additional rolls. Bad.

4. Attack results further randomized. Works against PCs in the long run. Good if you want a harsher game.

5. It feels more like creatures are dodging, rather than standing still. (Some people feel like you have to throw dice for every damn thing or else you're not playing a game. I am not one of these people)


On houseruling
If you use a houserule unfairly in your favor, and you don't tell anyone about it, that's called "cheating", or "I can't be bothered to use the rules because I'm lazy and/or an idiot, but still want to tell people I'm playing 'dnd 3.5' rather than 'Dungeon Master: The Fiat'".

[Templarkommando]

I was thinking that was a rule variant for 3.5.... in the DMG maybe... if not, it might have been in an earlier edition. Ah there it is, P. 25 of the DMG - toward the bottom of the page. It is entitled Variant: Defense Roll.

If this really bothers you, you might try to convince your DM to stop using the variant, other than that I don't see any other major options.

[worldeater47]

Personally I am fine with this rule and we are actually using it in one of our campaigns. In my opinion it adds a little more "realism" to the game since people will be moving around and can dodge the wrong way trip up, or you know get the perfect shield spot to to deflect the blow. The way that we are using it is that a natural 20 on attacks also negates the need for a defense roll, and a natural 20 on defense beats any other attack roll.

[Hiro Protagonest]

That's a variant suggested in the DMG. I don't have any problem with it.

But only the DM is rolling AC. The players have static values.

[Gnomish Wanderer]

But only the DM is rolling AC. The players have static values.

OP stated his GM said the players could roll too or just take 10.

I like the rule. My first reaction was to go 'Oh gods, why?' because it seems a little crazy, but looking at it closer it makes sense and could add a layer of fun. It wouldn't slow down the game too much for my monsters if I were using it, but I tend to keep all my numbers hidden from the players anyway.

Also if the GM was just doing this himself, it's not cheating, it's Rule 0, which trumps everything else.

[Hyde]

It makes buffing your attack modifier less relevant- by increasing the possible range of AC, your modifier is less of a proportion of the attack roll.

Also, since the average roll of a d20 is 10.5, it is somewhat in the monster's favor (yes, the PCs have the same option, but it's more or less the same principle as compounding crits and fumble rolls, etc. Anything that increases the chaos shafts the PCs, at least a little).

I would find it more annoying than anything. It doesn't seem like there's much point. It doesn't really add anything to the game.

[limejuicepowder]

Even if I would probably never play with it in my own games just because of time restraints, I actually like the basic concept. As someone already said, it makes it impossible to metagame monster's armor, which is actually kind of a thing in my games (and yes, I'm one of the culprits). This would help to keep game immersion from turning in to number-crunching slot machine.

At the same time though, I don't like the breadth of the randomness. For starters, I feel the chaos of combat is already modeled in the d20 attack roll; adding an additional roll for the defense might be overkill. Also, I don't particularly like the idea of a character/monster AC going from 6 in one round to 26 in the next; that's just a little too much. d20's giving too much width for results is actually one of my complaints of the d20 system, but that's a slightly different issue.

Perhaps a compromise? AC = 1d10+5+(all of the normal AC boosts). It would give the same average result as the d20, but AC wouldn't swing quite as wildly. Probably still not worth using though.

[ericgrau]

For so-so attack rolls and AC it makes no difference, however it changes things otherwise. It favors those with poor attack bonus and AC. Great way to shaft those who rely on weapons and armor.

EDIT, solved it in Excel for reference:
{table] Original Chance of Hitting | New Chance of Hitting
1 / 20 | 3.1 / 20
2 / 20 | 3.6 / 20
3 / 20 | 4.1 / 20
4 / 20 | 4.7 / 20
5 / 20 | 5.3 / 20
6 / 20 | 6.0 / 20
7 / 20 | 6.7 / 20
8 / 20 | 7.5 / 20
9 / 20 | 8.3 / 20
10 / 20 | 9.1 / 20
11 / 20 | 10.0 / 20
12 / 20 | 11.0 / 20
13 / 20 | 11.9 / 20
14 / 20 | 12.7 / 20
15 / 20 | 13.5 / 20
16 / 20 | 14.3 / 20
17 / 20 | 15.0 / 20
18 / 20 | 15.7 / 20
19 / 20 | 16.3 / 20
[/table]

Hmmm, in fairness it's a -1.5 to hit at 15/20 and doesn't get worse until the extremes. You might give anyone with full BAB and good AC a +1 to AB and AC and call it a day if you were really bent on keeping this time wasting system. Though even then swarms of mooks are going to be way more threatening to those with good AC since they'll be closer to the extremes in chance to hit / be hit.

[lsfreak]

For so-so attack rolls and AC it makes no difference, however it changes things otherwise. It favors those with poor attack bonus and AC. Great way to shaft the melee.

And the PC's in general. The PC's getting lucky with rolls generally just speeds up the inevitable. But anything else getting lucky with rolls is likely to ruin the PC's days... and maybe end the campaign. And the PC's are subject to far more rolls than any other character/monster.

[Deophaun]

1. Much harder to guess/metagame enemy AC, and therefore much more difficult to use Power Attack reliably.
How is this metagaming? If my character is in combat for several rounds with an enemy, would he not know how easy/hard it is to hit said enemy, and how much precision he could trade for maximum effect?

[Slipperychicken]

How is this metagaming? If my character is in combat for several rounds with an enemy, would he not know how easy/hard it is to hit said enemy, and how much precision he could trade for maximum effect?

If you see it as the PC sizing the enemy up to hit him harder/better, it makes perfect sense in character.

[ThiagoMartell]

If you see it as the PC sizing the enemy up to hit him harder/better, it makes perfect sense in character.

It doesn't work as justification when someone builds his character to have exactly +66 attack bonus because nothing in the Monster Manual has AC below 48 so he can always Power Attack for full and be guaranteed to hit.
Btw, I'm not claiming people actually do this and don't even think it's a good idea.

[Slipperychicken]

Btw, I'm not claiming people actually do this, and I don't even think it's a good idea.

Is this what you meant to say? The way you wrote it is.. confusing.

Reading literally, it sounds like you're saying that you're not claiming... that people pump attack bonus up to +66 while they themselves think it's not a good idea.


I agree with your point, it's just that sentence makes my head hurt.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Here's a thought: What if we put the monsters' AC roll on the 3d6 bell curve instead of a linear d20 roll?

[Allanimal]

Here's a thought: What if we put the monsters' AC roll on the 3d6 bell curve instead of a linear d20 roll?

Then the players would think they were entitled to 4d6 drop lowest, reroll 1s. :smallbiggrin:

[The Dark Fiddler]

Reading literally, it sounds like you're saying that you're not claiming... that people pump attack bonus up to +66 while they themselves think it's not a good idea.

He's saying people don't build for a +66 bonus specifically and then stop because nothing in the MM has an AC high enough for them to miss at that point.

[Acanous]

it doesn't really screw over PCs, either.
If you're above lv 10, most PCs will only miss a monster on a 1 with their first tierative anyhow.

At my table's level of charop, adding/subtracting 10 from the monster's Ac would only benefit/hinder Rogues and Clerics seriously, while adding some variability to the melee's second attack, and making the third more likely to hit.

Power Attack all the time, and swing for the bleachers, I say.

[Alienist]

Seems fine to me. Prevents meta-gaming the numbers as a side benefit. Has a small cost of slowing the game down a fraction.

Disclaimer: in my last 3.5 game the DM kept fudging the ACs anyway, I was (secretly) keeping track of it, and being a woman was worth (approximately) an extra +4 to hit.

(He was married to one of the girls, so go figure... maybe he just didn't like sleeping on the couch. Maybe he was compensating for the ladies making absolutely crap builds, whereas most of the blokes in the group were total munchkins)

[Anxe]

The game Hackmaster runs exactly like that. It's not that big a deal. It means that on average everyone will have an AC that is .5 higher. It does introduce a lot of extra rolling though. It's up to your group to decide if you want to deal with that or not.

[Terazul]

I dunno, having a monster's touch AC (which includes the normal base 10) fluctuate from +0 to +20 seems goofy as all get out to me. And would get kind of annoying to pull off your sweet Emerald Razor/Deep Impact + Power Attack/Smite/Whatever combo and have it lost because you're effectively having to check to-hit twice against an AC-type that shouldn't have that much variance.

Besides slowing down combat by adding extra steps plus not knowing what your actual to-hit is, and generally fudging over the martial characters even more, I don't really see what this adds to the game.

[ahenobarbi]

Meh. I wouldn't like - it slows down the fights (which are already too slow for my taste). Mechanically it seems not a big change. maybe slightly changes balance (in favor of making many attacks over making reliable attacks).

[BobVosh]

As everyone said, slows the game down hard. That said I could see it being really fun for a quirky miniboss squad or a big boss. Possibly a minion of a Chaos god or similar.

Would it upset me if my DM did it: not especially, unless I'm using telekinesis thrust or any other spammed attack.

In which case a suggestion of roll it once per player per round, rather than each attack. Or even just roll it each round. Obviously this has to be a secret roll to prevent metagaming.

The more I think of it, the more I dislike it for the one nice thing melee gets: power attack. It slightly weakens what is typically the weakest party members.

[Sturmcrow]

As several posters pointed out, it is a suggested variant in the book, if you have that much of a problem with it talk to the GM without other people around and just point out that

A) it skews the numbers slightly which will give the NPCs and advantage in the long run since they will roll more than players and thus more rolls to lessen the impact of bad ones (because most fights include more monsters than PCs and more rolls will be on the opposing side)

B) having an extra roll to see if you hit can really slow down games.

[Kavurcen]

I don't see how this would slow down a game.

With the variant:


Player: I attack the kobold.
DM: OK, roll to hit.
DM and Player both roll a d20 at the same time, for AC and hit respectively, both adding or subtracting any applicable modifiers and totalling the results.
Player: That's a 16.
The DM mentally compares the 15 he rolled to the 16 the player rolled.
DM: You hit.


Without the variant:


Player: I attack the kobold.
DM: OK, roll to hit.
The player rolls a d20 to hit while the DM double checks the kobold's stats for his AC, both adding or subtracting any applicable modifiers and totalling the results
Player: That's a 16.
The DM mentally compares the 15 the kobold has to the 16 the player rolled.
DM: You hit.


Assuming the DM is capable of doing math at a reasonable speed, it isn't any slower, it's just more work on his end.

[The Dark Fiddler]

The game Hackmaster runs exactly like that. It's not that big a deal. It means that on average everyone will have an AC that is .5 higher. It does introduce a lot of extra rolling though. It's up to your group to decide if you want to deal with that or not.

Dark Heresy (and I assume the other Warhammer roleplaying systems) runs similarly as well; your roll determines whether you hit, and your target gets a separate roll to determine whether they succeed at dodging/parrying (though they only get one defensive action per round).

[Karoht]

The players have the option of rolling their AC or taking 10 on the roll.Sounds pretty even then. He has the option of gambling (which brings the same chance of failure as it does success), as do you.

Someone else commented:
"But only the DM is rolling AC. The players have static values."
No, the players have the option of static values or rolling. See above.



Using houserules without informing the players was what bothered me, and then equating it to just fudging the rolls occasionally and therefore saying that it wasn't anything to worry about. Ah, yes, that is bothersome. There really was no point in the DM not telling anyone, and all this variant does it put more work into the hit/miss calculation entirely on the DM's side, unless the players chose to play with that rule as well instead of taking 10.

[Trebloc]

Assuming the DM is capable of doing math at a reasonable speed, it isn't any slower, it's just more work on his end.

Since when is doing more work not going to make things go more slowly? No matter how good you are at math, each and every time it'll slow things down. Especially since it has to be done for every combantant every round of combat? This could easily add up to hundreds of times during a game session. Combat is slow enough. After the PCs take a few swings at the bad guys, I purpously tell them the AC to help speed up combat, no big deal if it helps them metagame a few power attacks they would have likely figured out on their own anyway.

OP, is there any reasoning to use this method? Does the DM feel that the melee is that overpowered that AC needs to be this way? This just seems to really favor casters chucking SoDs, and they really don't need any help to begin with.

[Dazdya]

Since when is doing more work not going to make things go more slowly? No matter how good you are at math, each and every time it'll slow things down. Especially since it has to be done for every combantant every round of combat? This could easily add up to hundreds of times during a game session. Combat is slow enough. After the PCs take a few swings at the bad guys, I purpously tell them the AC to help speed up combat, no big deal if it helps them metagame a few power attacks they would have likely figured out on their own anyway.

OP, is there any reasoning to use this method? Does the DM feel that the melee is that overpowered that AC needs to be this way? This just seems to really favor casters chucking SoDs, and they really don't need any help to begin with.

I must disagree. No matter what people seem to think, the biggest factor in slowing down combat is not rolling dice, it is (and should be) the description. Yes, sometimes you just give out some numbers, but any DM worth his salt will take time to point out what is actually happening, and make the combat into a story. And that is good.

On the core subject, I am intrigued by this rule. It could give the combat more of a chaotic feel. Personally, I like to describe combat as a moving thing, something which is at odds with characters in little squares. A rule like this would help to evoke such an atmosphere. However, as someone above has posted, it might work better with a smaller die to supply the randomness.

[Oscredwin]

I must disagree. No matter what people seem to think, the biggest factor in slowing down combat is not rolling dice, it is (and should be) the description. Yes, sometimes you just give out some numbers, but any DM worth his salt will take time to point out what is actually happening, and make the combat into a story. And that is good.

If you're spending 90% of the time in combat listening to the results of attacks and describing your own attacks then combat isn't being slowed down, it's happening. Saying combat is slowed down by descriptions is like saying dessert has ice cream as filler. Descriptions and ice cream are the point.

You get slowed down by things you don't want to do, like roll more than X dice to do something, check a ruling in a book, or refiguring your modifiers.

[Fitz10019]

I used this rule one session specifically during a jousting contest. I wanted the event to feel special. I figured the two participants are attacking and defending at the same moment (using lances of the same length), so the PC and the NPC each rolled 2 d20's at each pass, one for their attack and one for their active defense. We used different colored d20's so they could be all rolled at the same time and each roll was still clear. I didn't throw the NPC's dice until the player had thrown hers, so it would have the feeling of that moment of clashing jousters. The group enjoyed it, if I recall correctly, but no one suggested that we should use it more often than that.

[Slipperychicken]

I used this rule one session specifically during a jousting contest. I wanted the event to feel special. I figured the two participants are attacking and defending at the same moment (using lances of the same length), so the PC and the NPC each rolled 2 d20's at each pass, one for their attack and one for their active defense. We used different colored d20's so they could be all rolled at the same time and each roll was still clear. I didn't throw the NPC's dice until the player had thrown hers, so it would have the feeling of that moment of clashing jousters. The group enjoyed it, if I recall correctly, but no one suggested that we should use it more often than that.

Wouldn't a joust be more logically resolved with opposed Bull Rush attempts? Just because you hit the guy, doesn't mean you threw him off his horse.

[Augmental]

A) it skews the numbers slightly which will give the NPCs and advantage in the long run since they will roll more than players and thus more rolls to lessen the impact of bad ones (because most fights include more monsters than PCs and more rolls will be on the opposing side).

Actually, it's sort of the other way around - non-major NPCs are generally only going to be in one combat, and it doesn't matter much if they get a low roll - it means the battle's over quicker, that's (usually) it. PCs, on the other hand, are going to partake in dozens of battles, which means the law of averages is going to bite them sooner or later.

[ThiagoMartell]

Wouldn't a joust be more logically resolved with opposed Bull Rush attempts? Just because you hit the guy, doesn't mean you threw him off his horse.

I'm pretyt sure Complete Warrior has rules for jousting.

[Fitz10019]

Wouldn't a joust be more logically resolved with opposed Bull Rush attempts? Just because you hit the guy, doesn't mean you threw him off his horse.

BR normally includes entering the other person's space, and incurs an AoO, so I wouldn't do it that way.

My comment wasn't meant to be a new topic for debate. It's just an example of how and why a defensive roll was used.

[Sitzkrieg]

As others have posted about it already, I won't go into the math too much, but one effect of this rule is that low attack bonuses are now more effective in combat, and high attack bonuses are less effective in combat. I don't like that too much.

A second thing that could use more emphasis is that more variability is always dangerous for the players. It doesn't matter how much it actually helps them or hurts them on an average roll, the variability is going to screw one of them over eventually. Even a houserule that drastically boosts the average combat performance of the PCs, but includes some small risk of performing worse than usual, is a raw deal for the PCs. The DM will soon increase the strength of the enemies to compensate, and the PCs end up no better off than before, except that more variability and harder monsters means lady luck is going to turn on them eventually. You'll end up with a lot more plot-irrelevant deaths this way. Depends on your playstyle, but I wouldn't appreciate this.

[candycorn]

Edit:

I don't think that's all that useful of a way to conceive of it. Accuracy is pretty binary: either you hit or you don't. What this does is bring the probability of hitting closer to some fixed value that I'm too lazy to calculate at the moment (increasing the likelihood of hitting high AC targets/decreasing the likelihood of hitting low AC targets). If you were doing something like this to damage, like rolling DR (DR 1 = DR d2, DR 5 = DR d10), then it would be making damage more normally distributed.Accuracy is not binary. A single attack is binary. However, when you look at multiple attacks, over a large spread, then you'll see that creatures with lower AC's get a boost to evasion, creatures with Higher AC's get a penalty, but the variable nature of the system means that they are not linear. Every round, your odds of hitting change.

While each individual hit is binary, that does not hold true for every attack in an encounter, or every attack in a day. It especially doesn't hold true for every attack in a campaign. And plotting out those for any given difference between attack bonus and base AC, will result in a bell curve, exactly as I said.


Edit 2:
Okay, so according to my math, against the average (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19869122/Optimization_By_The_Numbers) monster of CR = ECL for levels 1, 3, 5, 10, and 15, the player comes out worse by a few percentage points under this house rule. Full BAB types suffer more than 3/4 BAB to the tune of ~1%. In order for the player to benefit, they have to be fighting something with an AC > 14 above their attack bonus (= 14 they come out even, <14 they do worse). This doesn't seem to happen all that often, in my experience.

Let's look at an example. According to this (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19869122/Optimization_By_The_Numbers), the CR 10 monster with the highest AC has an AC of 33. A fighter at this point should have BAB 10, Strength 20 (at least), and a +2 sword. That's an attack bonus of 17, only 16 less than the monster's AC. Add on a bard inspiring courage (+2) and a cleric casting, say, prayer and you're already to the point where you're better off with the standard way of doing things. Even more so if you're flanking, denying them their Dexterity bonus, tripping, or buffing further.

At CR 10, odds of tripping are less than optimal. That said, I stated that the Full BAB would likely suffer a bit, as would low end ranged touch casters.

Compare vs the rogue/etc? BAB 7, +5 dex, +2 weapon, bard +2, and +1 for prayer. AC = AB +16. Better for this system.

This also assumes that the Fighter is receiving nothing but buff support from 2 members of his party. Why wouldn't the bard be using CC, or the cleric for that matter? Helping the guy with the pointy stick hit is one of the worst things a caster can generally do.


As others have posted about it already, I won't go into the math too much, but one effect of this rule is that low attack bonuses are now more effective in combat, and high attack bonuses are less effective in combat. I don't like that too much.

A second thing that could use more emphasis is that more variability is always dangerous for the players. It doesn't matter how much it actually helps them or hurts them on an average roll, the variability is going to screw one of them over eventually. Even a houserule that drastically boosts the average combat performance of the PCs, but includes some small risk of performing worse than usual, is a raw deal for the PCs. The DM will soon increase the strength of the enemies to compensate, and the PCs end up no better off than before, except that more variability and harder monsters means lady luck is going to turn on them eventually. You'll end up with a lot more plot-irrelevant deaths this way. Depends on your playstyle, but I wouldn't appreciate this.
I don't know of a player alive that wouldn't take a 50% chance for double damage, in exchange for a 50% chance for half damage.

Odds favor the player (benefit is double the penalty), and it further aids in penetrating DR and such.

Also, miss chances become more prevalent in higher levels. Both monsters and PC's get them. Yet, the balance of power shifts in favor of the PC.

Further, I have a fundamental difference in ideology than you.

All death is plot-relevant. The death, by its very nature, is a significant part of the plot. Saying "plot irrelevant death" is like saying "plot irrelevant victory over the BBEG" or "plot irrelevant saving of the kingdom".