PDA

View Full Version : Making Hits Default



Actana
2013-07-24, 06:00 AM
After my previous 4e session yesterday, of which the first, supposedly "tough" encounter was entirely ruined because out of the five enemies, only one or two attacks hit during the entire combat, I was wondering about some sort of alternative hit system, where instead of rolling to hit, you'd rather roll to see if you miss. Hits would be the default order of things, and miss chance would be imposed by attack penalties, marking, etc, but they would be more significant than the -5% for a -1 penalty.

Instead of ever-increasing defenses, they'd remain mostly static. Level bonuses to defenses and attack would be eliminated. Class bonuses would remain, but instead of giving a bonus they'd give an appropriate miss chance to attacks against that defense. It might be prudent to give every class only a single bonus to a defense. Maybe give defenders a +1 to AC in addition to what they have, as boosting defenses doesn't work as well anymore.

Armor would be replaced with a level-scaling DR. Shields would likely still give a bonus to defenses. A light shield grants to AC, and a heavy to both AC and Reflex. Higher tiers or armor would grant bonuses to the defense they normally do. Heavy armor grants bonuses to AC, lighter armor to their respective defenses. Not sure if the bonuses should be limited, or keep the bonuses as is.

With armor granting level scaling DR, the level difference becomes a smaller issue. Lower level enemies are still a small nuisance, but they deal far less damage than a level appropriate enemy. Alternatively, for every two levels of difference, the attacker would take a -1 penalty to attack.

Feat bonuses from feat taxes (Improved Defenses and the like) would mostly be eliminated, though Armor Specialization would still exist (to keep defenders functional), as well as other kinds of situational defense boosts, like White Lotus Defense and the like.

Similarly, attack bonuses would be reduced. All proficiency bonuses with weapons would be reduced by 2, giving only the "accurate" weapons a bonus to attack. Or, if a +1 to too much of a boost, proficiency bonus could be removed altogether (though there'd need to be something to make up for it). Expertise feats don't give attack bonuses anymore, and only situational modifiers would give bonuses to attack, and in most cases the bonuses would be reduced to only +1.

In combat, penalties to attack and defenses would be reduced by half, with a minimum of 1. Marks, however, would be kept the same, making them highly important in keeping people alive. Stacking penalties might need some restriction, especially when it comes to solos, who should have a fair bonus to attack and defense to compensate (inherent +2 perhaps?).

Similar changes to all of the categories. It would likely require a large overhaul of going through feats and powers, seeing what works and what doesn't, but the general idea is to reduce attack and defense bonuses to not scale per level.


So how to make the bonuses more noteworthy? Instead of rolling a d20 to see if an attack hits, the attacker would roll a d10 to see if the attack misses (depending on the preference and general tweaking, could even be a d8 or d12). A 1 is always a miss, and every other roll is a hit. Each modifier would increase or decrease that hit margin by its amount. A -1 to attack would increase the margin of a miss to 2, and a larger penalty would increase the margin further. A +1 to defense would likewise increase the margin by 1, and penalties to defenses/bonuses to attack would decrease the margin. Hits would be more common, which would then make tactics a bit more relevant, since you can't just assume that "oh, they're not going to hit me anyway", unless you've both pumped up your defenses and lowered the enemy's attack.


Of course, there are a lot of things that need to be taken into account for this kind of change. Status effects are now far more common, and some classes that rely on rerolling attacks aren't as effective anymore. This is just idle theorizing for the most part, something to make my brain work in between other projects. I came up with this idea very quickly, and haven't given it too much thought or refinement.

Any thoughts on the system? Could it be make work with a bit more refinement?

Kurald Galain
2013-07-24, 06:08 AM
After my previous 4e session yesterday, of which the first, supposedly "tough" encounter was entirely ruined because out of the five enemies, only one or two attacks hit during the entire combat,

My easier suggestion would be to (1) don't make sweeping changes on the basis of one outlier event; (2) if your PCs have good defenses, up the challenge rating and use higher level encounters; (3) use enemies with aura abilities, miss effects, and/or rerolls.

Actana
2013-07-24, 06:11 AM
My easier suggestion would be to (1) don't make sweeping changes on the basis of one outlier event; (2) if your PCs have good defenses, up the challenge rating and use higher level encounters; (3) use enemies with aura abilities, miss effects, and/or rerolls.

Yeah, that is definitely what I'm going to be doing in the future, this was just an outlier case. The previous combat they were in wrecked almost half their party, making me very happy.

I wasn't really thinking of using this as a fix for my current game, just as an idea to toss out.

Edit: Also, the failure of the combat I was talking about was mostly due to my inability to roll anything above a 7 that day.

Kish
2013-07-24, 06:15 AM
I would venture that if every enemy hit on a 7, that would be a sign you needed to make some adjustments.

(Consistently not rolling above a seven may be a sign that you need a new die.)

Actana
2013-07-24, 06:22 AM
To be entirely honest here, I'm not looking for advice on monsters. I know full well what went wrong with the encounter, and am going to be improving upon it in the future of the campaign. :smallsmile:

In a broader level, I have also witnessed multiple times encounters that were stretched out into boredom by nobody ever hitting anyone. I'm generally not too much a fan of the d20, as it's a bit too random for my tastes. Sure, I could replace it with 3d6 or something, but I was just idling on alternative methods which could be interesting given some more thought.

Fecar
2013-07-24, 07:30 AM
I think this is more of a homebrew thing than a 4E topic and you will probably get more feedback over there instead of here.

The changes you are suggesting are massive and without a lot of playtesting, there is no way of knowing how well they will work. You are also adding a lot of additional math with changing damage reduction and new bonuses and penalties to be figured out each attack which will likely slow play.


In a broader level, I have also witnessed multiple times encounters that were stretched out into boredom by nobody ever hitting anyone.
For the early published materials, the monsters tended to be a slog with high defenses, high HP, low +hit and low damage. If you have not already, keep to monsters from MM3 and MV.
In fights where the party has clearly won, I try to find a way to end the encounter asap. Some examples of fights I have ended quickly:

Fighting the head goblin with his minons and they kill the leader and some minons, making the rest of the fight trivial and time wasting- minons run away.
Fighting a beholder and a twisted, corrupted by the far realm elf worshiping it and they kill the beholder with the elf down to 1/2 hp - have the elf run into a fire screaming its love for the beholder.
Fighting a patrol of orcs and its looking like its going to be a slog - have the orcs "rage" decreasing their defenses and increase their damage and bonus to hit making them more threatening.



Story wise, just because a monster or PC did not do damage, it doesnt mean that the attack didnt connect. A miss could mean the arrow bounced off the paladin's plate or is lodged in the fighters shield. The rogue could have parried the orcs blade with her daggers.

Likewise, damage does not have to mean that the character is injured. HP is very abstract and I try to keep all damage as pain/exhaustion until the PC's fall into negative hitpoints which is still only being knocked unconscious. This helps my group's suspension of disbelief when it comes to warlords and bards: they are not shouting away a stab wound, they are motivating you through the pain of having a longsword hit but not penetrate your armour.

Actana
2013-07-24, 08:16 AM
I think this is more of a homebrew thing than a 4E topic and you will probably get more feedback over there instead of here.

This is probably true, though I dislike making a homebrew post without something concrete to show. This is more of just an idle idea to toss out. Though if I ever do get down to putting stuff down for this (which is getting more and more likely the more I think about it), I will very likely make a post there.


The changes you are suggesting are massive and without a lot of playtesting, there is no way of knowing how well they will work. You are also adding a lot of additional math with changing damage reduction and new bonuses and penalties to be figured out each attack which will likely slow play.

The damage reduction would be static, so there's not much calculating there, and there wouldn't be many new bonuses or penalties, especially temporary ones. There's new math that would be required to be calculated when creating a character, but otherwise it's just a simple calculation of the defender's bonus vs the attacker's bonus. If a monster has an attack bonus of +3, and the PC has a defense bonus of +4, it'd be a -1 to attack, meaning that a miss would be on a 1 or 2. Eliminating modifier stacking would also work for simplifying combat, as you don't need to remember all the modifiers, only taking the highest. Some specific modifiers, like Combat Advantage and Marks would stack with other penalties, but they'd be exceptions rather than the rule.

I'm not saying it wouldn't require a lot of playtesting and refining, but I don't see it as an impossible endeavour. Just need to consider all the alternatives. Light armor defenders vs heavy armor defenders, for example, is a curious case. Light armor would grant less DR but make you harder to hit, while heavy armor would grant more DR but no dodge bonus to AC.

Critical hits are something I'd need to consider a bit more too. Crit threats would likely need to be reinvented, since a natural 10 on a d10 has a higher chance than a 20 on a d20, and in some other way other than hitting the target again. Maybe a saving throw to prevent the crit. Having roughly a 50% chance of succeeding on a 10% roll is almost the same as 5% on a d20. Given, it also depends on who makes the saving throw: if it's the monsters, elites and solos would be harder to crit.


For the early published materials, the monsters tended to be a slog with high defenses, high HP, low +hit and low damage. If you have not already, keep to monsters from MM3 and MV.
In fights where the party has clearly won, I try to find a way to end the encounter asap. Some examples of fights I have ended quickly:

Fighting the head goblin with his minons and they kill the leader and some minons, making the rest of the fight trivial and time wasting- minons run away.
Fighting a beholder and a twisted, corrupted by the far realm elf worshiping it and they kill the beholder with the elf down to 1/2 hp - have the elf run into a fire screaming its love for the beholder.
Fighting a patrol of orcs and its looking like its going to be a slog - have the orcs "rage" decreasing their defenses and increase their damage and bonus to hit making them more threatening.


Story wise, just because a monster or PC did not do damage, it doesnt mean that the attack didnt connect. A miss could mean the arrow bounced off the paladin's plate or is lodged in the fighters shield. The rogue could have parried the orcs blade with her daggers.

Likewise, damage does not have to mean that the character is injured. HP is very abstract and I try to keep all damage as pain/exhaustion until the PC's fall into negative hitpoints which is still only being knocked unconscious. This helps my group's suspension of disbelief when it comes to warlords and bards: they are not shouting away a stab wound, they are motivating you through the pain of having a longsword hit but not penetrate your armour.
Generally speaking, I do this all already if it makes sense for the situation. Sometimes it doesn't, though it's easy to improvise some way to end a one-sided fight. However, there are other games where I'm not GMing in which this happens, and I try to mind my own business when it comes to other GMs, especially when I'm not a player. I do give out constructive criticism and advice when asked or when I feel it's prudent, though.

And sometimes, it's just ridiculously bad luck right from the beginning of the encounter and there's very little to do then. I use MapTool to play online, and it rolls the dice for me automatically (and everyone uses the same roller), so I can't exactly change dice either.

Yakk
2013-07-25, 07:42 AM
You could make a 4e like game with a default accuracy around a 5+, which would be similar to what you are wanting. You could also reduce the amount of accuracy/defence scaling with level: note however that more than half of the 4e power growth comes from increased accuracy and defences!

If you want to emulate the 4e power curve with flatter accuracy/defences, you'll need exponential HP and damage (and I mean that literally). The exponential rate doesn't have to be all that rapid to start with, but over 30 levels it will build up.

I'm tempted by that, because I find the play at low levels of 4e to be the most solid (least likely to reduce to a slugfest).

At level 1, monsters have ~32 HP, and by level 5 they have ~64 HP, or doubling of HP every 4 levels, which is roughly the same as x10 HP every ~15 levels.

At-will baseline average damage is ~10 at level 1. Encounter baseline damage is ~15. If we value the first round's damage 50% more than the next round, and same for the second, we can account for the ability to alpha-strike and eliminate foes. (rate of decay is arbitrary)

Then your weighted DPR at level 1 would be about 1/3 of an enemy monster's HP.

By level 15, you'll have 3 encounter powers, each dealing ~+50% damage over an at-will (arbitrary design decision, matching level 1). Monster HP should be around 280 (!), so your target weighted DPR is ~93.

That gives us an at-will damage per hit of about 70, and an encounter damage per hit of around 100.

By levle 30, monster HP is up to 2800 (!), at-will damage per hit up to 700, and encounter damage per hit up to 1000.

Those numbers look overly large. Hurm.

erikun
2013-07-25, 08:07 AM
I am afraid I'm not quite sure what the difference is between never hitting a PC due to high AC, and never injuring a PC due to high DR. And I'm fairly certain that you'll run into the one about as frequently as you'd run into the other.