PDA

View Full Version : [4ed] - Attacker rolls against a static defense



Dizlag
2008-02-28, 05:22 PM
Hey all,

I was going to post this in response in the Live Blog Thread, but I thought it deserved it's own.

From the Quick Start Rules (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4news/20080228a).



3. Attacker rolls against a static defense.
In 4th Edition, you have 4 defense values – Armor Class, Fortitude, Reflex, and Will. The attacker chooses an attack, rolls 1d20, adds the attack bonus, and calls out the result against the appropriate defense. The defenses are all static numbers, just like Armor Class was in 3rd Edition. Attack actions involve a “to hit” roll against any and all targets, so a power that targets all enemies within 1 square requires a separate attack roll against each enemy affected.

TIP: If you make an attack against multiple targets, you don’t roll damage for each target – just roll that once. It’s best when you attack multiple targets to roll damage first, and then roll your attacks.


I like the idea of casters rolling the "attack" dice now against their enemie's Fort, Will, Reflex Defense. But, why did they choose to have you roll an attack for each enemy in an area effect spell? Rolling damage once and applying it to everyone you hit makes perfect sense to me. But, why roll the attack die more than once? Would it be worse or better to roll that attack die once and compare to each defense?

In my opinion, it would be worse. Here's why ... say I'm a DM and I'm tossing a fireball against a group of PCs. The fighter has a Reflex of 12 and the Rogue a Reflex of 15. If I rolled once and got a 13, it would hit the Fighter but not the Rogue. However, if I rolled for each and rolled crappy against the fighter and a nat 20 against the rogue ... it would kind suck seeing the fighter come out unscathed and the rogue blasted to bits. Maybe they're doing this because a natural 20 always crits now. Hmmm. Still, I like the one roll.

What do you all think?

Dizlag

Edit: Added link to Quick Start Rules

Kioran
2008-02-28, 05:27 PM
Seperate attack rolls are there specifically for one main reason: to prevent flukes. One lucky 20 that apllies against all PCs at once, or example, could be a TPK. In a single roll. You don´t want that.
And it´s not like the Fighter couldn´t get lucky or that the Rogue wouldn´t ordinarily be hit less often.......

Artanis
2008-02-28, 05:30 PM
Hey all,

I was going to post this in response in the Live Blog Thread, but I thought it deserved it's own.

From the Quick Start Rules (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4news/20080228a).



I like the idea of casters rolling the "attack" dice now against their enemie's Fort, Will, Reflex Defense. But, why did they choose to have you roll an attack for each enemy in an area effect spell? Rolling damage once and applying it to everyone you hit makes perfect sense to me. But, why roll the attack die more than once? Would it be worse or better to roll that attack die once and compare to each defense?

In my opinion, it would be worse. Here's why ... say I'm a DM and I'm tossing a fireball against a group of PCs. The fighter has a Reflex of 12 and the Rogue a Reflex of 15. If I rolled once and got a 13, it would hit the Fighter but not the Rogue. However, if I rolled for each and rolled crappy against the fighter and a nat 20 against the rogue ... it would kind suck seeing the fighter come out unscathed and the rogue blasted to bits. Maybe they're doing this because a natural 20 always crits now. Hmmm. Still, I like the one roll.

What do you all think?

Dizlag

Edit: Added link to Quick Start Rules
Each way has its merits.

The downside of just using 1 roll is that it's far more inconsistent. If you get a crappy roll, you miss everybody, and if you get a 20, you crit everybody. Your example of hitting one but not the other would be very rare unless there was a DRASTIC difference between two targets' scores (it would require a difference of 7 to be even a 1 in 3 chance)...the specific numbers you used, 12 and 15, would result in hitting one but not the other only 15% of the time, with you either missing both or hitting both the other 85% of the time.

Now, sometimes all-or-nothing is alright, especially if you're dropping a Fireball on a zillion targets. But for me personally, I like the extra assurance of hitting something with what may very well be a limited resource. It would be VERY frustrating to fire off a per-day AoE spell, roll a 1, and get nothing out of it.

AKA_Bait
2008-02-28, 05:34 PM
Personally, I prefer the one roll idea myself. Yes, it might be possible to get a TPK with a lucky roll but the bogging down gameplay cost is going to be higher than is worth it. Every time the Wizard casts a fireball on a horder of orcs that player will have to roll for each and every one? That is going to get tedious fast. I expect that to be one of my first 4e houserules.

Catch
2008-02-28, 05:41 PM
I don't see what the fuss is all about, myself. The only big change I see here is moving the 'save' roll from the defenders' hands to the attacker's. By rolling to 'hit' an enemy's Reflex, you're essentially making a saving throw for them, which is no different than in 3.5, other than a change in nomenclature and the illusion that you have more control over the effects of your spells or abilities.

So, a Fireball will still deal the same amount of damage to all its targets, the only difference is that you roll to 'hit' each of them instead of provoking a save.

Townopolis
2008-02-28, 05:55 PM
Like what Catch said.

under the current system, drop a fireball on an area and everyone makes a save against it. The fighter might get lucky and the rogue might get unlucky rolling saves.

With just one roll for fireballs, you don't roll to see who got hit, you roll to see how many got hit, since the rogue will never get hit until the fighter gets hit. And if the fighter gets hit then it's a foregone conclusion that the wizard got hit.

which seems a bit unrealistic to me.

Titanium Dragon
2008-02-28, 05:56 PM
I don't see what the fuss is all about, myself. The only big change I see here is moving the 'save' roll from the defender's hands to the attackers. By rolling to 'hit' an enemy's Reflex, you're essentially making a saving throw for them, which is no different than in 3.5, other than a change in nomenclature and the illusion that you have more control over the effects of your spells or abilities.

So, a Fireball will still deal the same amount of damage to all its targets, the only difference is that you roll to 'hit' each of them instead of provoking a save.

Quite right. There's absolutely no difference in terms of amount of rolling here.

Also, as someone else pointed out, it really does help prevent TPKs, which is always a good thing. It also helps prevent the wizard from getting lucky and wiping out an entire encounter with a single spell, or unlucky and killing no one. It is still possible, but much less likely.

Kurald Galain
2008-02-28, 06:32 PM
The problem with "doing only one roll" is that the rogue will absolutely never be hit by the fireball unless the fighter is also hit; and that if you target a group of goblins, you will absolutely always either hit every single one of them, or none of them.

horseboy
2008-02-29, 01:21 AM
I'm with bait on this one. Sure it works when my warpfire thrower hits a unit of spearmen and I just pick up a handful of d6. But it works because they're all mooks and I'm using d6's instead of d20's. I can roll more d6's at a time. Having to stop and roll individually for this guy, then roll for this guy and roll for that guy. Did I roll this guy yet? Let me roll just in case. No thanks.

shadowdemon_lord
2008-02-29, 01:55 AM
I like how the 3.5 system worked, and I personally don't see much of a difference between rolling a large amount of D20's for a wizards fireball under 4E and rolling a massive amount of D20s for a high level TWF fighter in 3.5 (or a pouncing wertiger, or a flurrying monk). What's even better about this system is that you don't need to remember that that die has a modifier that is five less then that die, and I 've initiated a grapple by the time that attack comes around so it's 4 less then my original die because it's my hasted attack, which I needed to roll using my tertiary attack bonus. but oh wait I just figured out I killed you on my second attack so the results of the grapple are negated and now I need to roll a cleave. Given my new target I'm actually going to make my 3rd attack a sunder so DM give me an opposed roll as I figure out my sunder bonus and reroll my own attack cause I used that die for something else. and oh that forces me to redo my 4th hasted attack at my full attack bonus, and it'll be a trip attack against mook #3 who's threatening my wizard buddy so now I need to make a touch attack followed by opposed strength checks, oh I won so now I get a free attack against your prone AC.

Assuming the fighter rolled all his attacks in advance, that COULD be what a high level fighter's turn looks like in 3.x. Compared to that (and I realize I'm being extreme, but I think my point is made), rolling 7 or 8 dice for your wizards fireball all at the same bonus seems fairly tame.

Dan_Hemmens
2008-02-29, 04:39 AM
I think I'd rather have seen a "single attack roll" option, but I *can* see why they didn't do it: it's too all-or-nothing.

Rad
2008-02-29, 05:36 AM
I second Candy

But it works because they're all mooks and I'm using d6's instead of d20's. I can roll more d6's at a time. Having to stop and roll individually for this guy, then roll for this guy and roll for that guy. Did I roll this guy yet? Let me roll just in case. No thanks.
Uh? you can roll a handful of d6's but not d20's? :smallconfused:

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-02-29, 05:37 AM
I only have 3 d20s. I have a bunch of d6s.

Project_Mayhem
2008-02-29, 05:57 AM
I only have 3 d20s. I have a bunch of d6s.

I sympathise. We have 2 d20s for our entire gaming group. and many many d6s

Demented
2008-02-29, 06:08 AM
Good news is, now the DM has a decent excuse to make the players do all the rolling.
At least, in this one instance.

Fuzzy_Juan
2008-02-29, 06:19 AM
That is interesting...maybe the quickstart rules will vary from the final rules. In SW Saga ed. they have area attacks that are rolled once and the attack roll or 'use the force' check are applied against the appropriate save/threshold of every target in the area...those that are 'hit' take full damage, those who are 'missed' take half, with evasion it is 1/2 or none. Damage is rolled once for everyone as well and applied as per their save.

It is possible that the quickstart is based off an older rulesset...it is not uncommon for them to be made before some final changes have been put into place. Also, they may have deliberately changed it to avoid having the 'same' effect on everyone...With the penchant of DnD to have several save or suck/lose spells, it might behoove a party to have effects rolled separately for party members so that no single good roll could drop the entire party in a single shot. (sleep, glitterdust, etc...style spells). SW Saga doesn't have that many powers or abilities that hit areas and would really turn a battle as badly as a mass sleep spell rolling well.

JBento
2008-02-29, 06:41 AM
And hopefully, neither will 4E - from what I've heard, save-or-die/suck spells are being turned into save-or-die/suck-over-time spells

Creslin
2008-02-29, 06:43 AM
From my understanding, monsters of a specific type will all go on the same inititive, perhaps they will handle this similarly? I could see rolling once for the group of orcs, and once for the ogre.

Duke of URL
2008-02-29, 10:39 AM
Good news is, now the DM has a decent excuse to make the players do all the rolling.
At least, in this one instance.

I think that is exactly the point. Mechanically, there's no difference between an attack roll vs. a static defense or a save vs. a static DC.

However, in the 4e system, the player does the rolling instead of the DM, which makes the player feel better, regardless of the complete and utter lack of any real distinction otherwise.

Lapak
2008-02-29, 12:17 PM
Just as you can opt to roll only one save (as the DM) for all the orcs hit by a fireball in 3.x - though that's not strictly how the rule is written - you could opt to allow a single attack roll for the group of orcs in 4e. There's no actual difference in how many dice will be rolled, or what options any giving gaming group has in whether or not to roll all of them or just take one result and run with it.

horseboy
2008-02-29, 02:03 PM
I second Candy

Uh? you can roll a handful of d6's but not d20's? :smallconfused:

Yup. This is one of those things that works better in a miniatures based war game than a large skirmish based game. With the d6's all casualties come off the back line of faceless minions rather than "does that fail affect the one about to kill the rogue, or the one the cleric's already knocked under half?" Even with the wizard roll all 20 attacks against those kobolds the rest of the party is going to start kibitzing around the table in a conversation more interesting than watching Moose roll a d20.

ColdBrew
2008-02-29, 02:47 PM
Even with the wizard roll all 20 attacks against those kobolds the rest of the party is going to start kibitzing around the table in a conversation more interesting than watching Moose roll a d20.
They don't do this now when the DM has to roll 20 saves?

Rutee
2008-02-29, 02:51 PM
I don't see what the fuss is all about, myself. The only big change I see here is moving the 'save' roll from the defenders' hands to the attacker's. By rolling to 'hit' an enemy's Reflex, you're essentially making a saving throw for them, which is no different than in 3.5, other than a change in nomenclature and the illusion that you have more control over the effects of your spells or abilities.

So, a Fireball will still deal the same amount of damage to all its targets, the only difference is that you roll to 'hit' each of them instead of provoking a save.

There's one teeny tiny gain; Standardization. That is, all attacks work the same basic way. I couldn't care less which way it is in the end, but it's nice that they're the same.

AKA_Bait
2008-02-29, 02:53 PM
They don't do this now when the DM has to roll 20 saves?

I suppose, but then I generally houserule a mass saving throw in 3.x too.

ColdBrew
2008-02-29, 03:07 PM
I suppose, but then I generally houserule a mass saving throw in 3.x too.
Then houserule a mass attack roll in 4E. Seriously, people, when it comes to the amount of rolling involved nothing has changed.

AKA_Bait
2008-02-29, 03:12 PM
Then houserule a mass attack roll in 4E. Seriously, people, when it comes to the amount of rolling involved nothing has changed.

Um... I pretty much said I was going to in my first post...

Did you even read the OP?


But, why roll the attack die more than once? Would it be worse or better to roll that attack die once and compare to each defense?

He was asking which way we think it would be better. I think it would be better with one roll, for time saving reasons, and I houserule in 3.x and will in 4e that way.

Where did you get the idea this was a '4e sux because of that rules change' thread?

ColdBrew
2008-02-29, 03:17 PM
Um... I pretty much said I was going to in my first post...

Did you even read the OP?
Sorry, that was more for horseboy's benefit.

Tyger
2008-02-29, 03:17 PM
I like it. Big time.

As a DM, it means that the saves are out of my hands. Which is a twofold advantage. 1) I have fewer dice to roll. Sure, I could just do a single roll for all the kobolds in the area, but I like having some go down while others rally and fight back. So its easier on me. 2) It gives the players more of a feeling that they are in control, and takes away the "Yeah, sure the BBEG made its save... whatever!" mentality.

As a player, I like that the magic will actually be under my control. While I know (as a player and a DM) that sometimes the DM does need to fudge a bit, I think it will give more excitement and ownership to players when they see that die bouncing across the table, coming to rest on a 20 - when they were hitting the BBEG with Disintigrate (or its new equivalent). Sure, it may mess with my plot a bit, but I ad hoc most of that anyway, so it won't kill my game.

All in all, same number of dice rolled, (or houseruled in exactly the same manner anyway) and more control to the players. All good.

ColdBrew
2008-02-29, 03:29 PM
2) It gives the players more of a feeling that they are in control, and takes away the "Yeah, sure the BBEG made its save... whatever!" mentality.
To some extent. It just means that you'll have to fudge its defense instead of its save roll, which is more blatant when the players can see the die, especially if they've been keeping track of which rolls were successful. After a few rounds of combat my group tends to nail down an enemy's AC to within a couple points.

Artanis
2008-02-29, 03:35 PM
Yup. This is one of those things that works better in a miniatures based war game than a large skirmish based game. With the d6's all casualties come off the back line of faceless minions rather than "does that fail affect the one about to kill the rogue, or the one the cleric's already knocked under half?" Even with the wizard roll all 20 attacks against those kobolds the rest of the party is going to start kibitzing around the table in a conversation more interesting than watching Moose roll a d20.
Wait wait wait..."20 attacks against those kobolds"? Jesus Christ on a pogo stick, how many monsters does your DM throw at you :smalleek: ? WotC has been talking about encounters being like, four guys, not twenty!

Roderick_BR
2008-02-29, 04:05 PM
Then it's official.
Heh, I can imagine a wizard casting a lightining bolt and you getting out of the way, but when said wizard casts a area-filling fireball...
Rogue: "Not that I mind your plan to kill us all failed.. but how the heck do you a freaking mountain?"
RedMage: "See, Fighter, no matter how skilled you are, there'll always be a 5% chance you'll miss an attack".
The quotes are not accurate :smalltongue:

horseboy
2008-02-29, 04:44 PM
Wait wait wait..."20 attacks against those kobolds"? Jesus Christ on a pogo stick, how many monsters does your DM throw at you :smalleek: ? WotC has been talking about encounters being like, four guys, not twenty!


Sorry, that was more for horseboy's benefit.
3.5 "got rid" of the masses combat, generally focusing on a few powerful targets. "Back in the day" it wasn't that uncommon for players to be up against 200 or so goblinoids at medium levels. With them switching back into "groups" of combatants, odds are good you're going to be seeing more opponents per fight than you did in 3.5. Therefore, instead of having to roll two or three saves in 3.5 you're more likely to see having to make 6-10 "saves" per spell in 4th.
Wasn't the whole point of getting rid of extra attacks to 1) allow more movement and 2) to speed up combat. All they did with this is switch which class is sitting there rolling attack after attack while everyone else is waiting. I don't see it as a consistent concept.

Artanis
2008-02-29, 04:54 PM
Just as a side note, having reread the Ain't it Cool News review, they actually give some numbers for encounter size. If you're facing X number of enemies, you are at least level X if all the enemies are level 1, and you're higher level if any of the enemies are above level 1.

Take that as you will.

Overlord
2008-02-29, 04:54 PM
I agree that the to-hit roll should be made for each affected creature.

Rolling to attack each enemy basically has the same degree of randomness as when each enemy rolls to save against the effect.

Now, I'm not a fan of the fact that Wizards seems to be trying to cull some of the randomness out of D&D. That's why I don't like that fact that crits are going to do maximized damage, rather than double (or whatever).

However, a one-roll-attack system isn't maintaining the same degree of randomness--it's introducing more randomness into the game. In D&D, increasing the degree of randomness always hurts the players slightly more than it helps them.

I'm already planning on house-ruling critical hits back to the way they are in 3.5 (whenever I decide to switch to 4e, that is). I don't really see the need to house-rule this.

TheThan
2008-02-29, 06:55 PM
I think the biggest advantage of the new rules is the standardization. Now a fighter and a wizard both use the same mechanics when smashing a ork’s head in with a hammer, or shooting something with magic missile. It makes it easier for a dm to adjudicate the game.

There is a difference between a save and a defense. With say fireball, you always take damage, even if you make your save (half sure, but still you’re getting hurt), excluding things like evasion. Now with rolling against a defense, if you miss your attack with the fireball, that’s it you missed and your enemy takes no damage from it. So in a way, they’re nerfing spellcasting, particularly those that auto-hit or provide saves. Which may or may not be a good thing.

While we’re still on the topic of defenses, I sort of hate what they did with saving throws. Saves act as a passive defense. Get poisoned and you make a fortitude save. Fall into a pit trap? Make a reflex save and so on.

Yet they felt the need to roll this in with your normal defenses. Ok I sort of understand why they did it. But it doesn’t really change a dang thing. It’s virtually the same mechanic there was no real need to make this change. Even with the revamped rules for spells (like the above) its not necessary to change it. Saves would just take up a slightly less important part of the game.

I dunno about you, but I don’t like changing things that really don’t need changing. You know the old saying “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. besides it seems slightly harder, because there’s always the chance of getting your reflex defense and your normal ac mixed up, particularly with the names being so similar.

Rutee
2008-02-29, 07:00 PM
....How do people do that? They list the reasons for the change, then say there was no reason. Most illogical, captain.

ColdBrew
2008-02-29, 07:34 PM
Therefore, instead of having to roll two or three saves in 3.5 you're more likely to see having to make 6-10 "saves" per spell in 4th.
Seriously? I can't recall the last time we started combat with less than 4 opponents. I guess that's just our style.


There is a difference between a save and a defense. With say fireball, you always take damage, even if you make your save (half sure, but still you’re getting hurt), excluding things like evasion. Now with rolling against a defense, if you miss your attack with the fireball, that’s it you missed and your enemy takes no damage from it.
I've seen no evidence of this. Who says missing your enemy's reflex defense isn't the same as him making his save? Half damage unless he has evasion, just like 3.5.


there’s always the chance of getting your reflex defense and your normal ac mixed up, particularly with the names being so similar.
Gosh, you're right. They're only off by like two letters!

Rutee
2008-02-29, 07:41 PM
I've seen no evidence of this. Who says missing your enemy's reflex defense isn't the same as him making his save? Half damage unless he has evasion, just like 3.5.

If you check the sheets we've seen, while On Miss: Conditions exist, they are fewer in number, and a much greater drop in efficacy then Half Damage.

Matthew
2008-02-29, 07:45 PM
Seriously? I can't recall the last time we started combat with less than 4 opponents. I guess that's just our style.

I wonder how prevailant this is in D20? I very often run combats with a dozen or more opponents.

TheThan
2008-02-29, 07:46 PM
Naturally this is all based off of 3.5 (which is what I know). Until I get my grubby hands on the full rules this is all speculation, but bear with me I’m still trying to make a point.

Rolling saves in with your defense does not accomplish anything. It clogs up the rules for determining armor class, and can be confusing, what with your normal AC, your reflex AC, your fortitude AC, your will AC, your flat footed AC, and your touch AC. That’s a lot to try to recall in the middle of a game. Depending on how the character sheet is set up, it may even be difficult to figure out each one.

That’s a lot to remember sure. By keeping your saves as a separate mechanic it’s easier for people to learn. So instead if having all that above you have your normal AC, your flat footed AC and your touch AC. Then you have fortitude, reflex and will which are treated separately from your armor class. That’s just as much to remember sure, but it’ll be easier to remember, and I think that’s fairly important.

In addition the mechanic is virtually the same. So once again, why fix something that doesn’t need fixing?

Though they could surprise me and make a new system that simple to use, easy to remember, elegant in design and not confusing in the least. We won’t know for sure until we can see the full system.

Care to link me these sheets?

Rachel Lorelei
2008-02-29, 07:50 PM
If you check the sheets we've seen, while On Miss: Conditions exist, they are fewer in number, and a much greater drop in efficacy then Half Damage.

We also haven't seen any even moderate-level wizard powers like, say, Fireball.

If Fireball doesn't do Miss: Half damage, I'll eat my hat*.


*by "my hat", I mean a piece of candy shaped like a hat.

Also, "Touch AC" would *be* "Reflex defense". Do we know if "flat-footed AC" exists or not?

horseboy
2008-02-29, 08:40 PM
I wonder how prevailant this is in D20? I very often run combats with a dozen or more opponents.A lot of it depends on the level. One of the reasons Whirlwind Attack is considered "lame" is that by the time you qualify for it, you don't really have much in the way of "hordes" to blow through with it.

Rutee
2008-02-29, 09:01 PM
We also haven't seen any even moderate-level wizard powers like, say, Fireball.

If Fireball doesn't do Miss: Half damage, I'll eat my hat*.


*by "my hat", I mean a piece of candy shaped like a hat.

Also, "Touch AC" would *be* "Reflex defense". Do we know if "flat-footed AC" exists or not?

True, but they were *Per Day* abilities. Those are the things I imagine get the single most generous On Miss: conditions.


Rolling saves in with your defense does not accomplish anything. It clogs up the rules for determining armor class, and can be confusing, what with your normal AC, your reflex AC, your fortitude AC, your will AC, your flat footed AC, and your touch AC. That’s a lot to try to recall in the middle of a game. Depending on how the character sheet is set up, it may even be difficult to figure out each one.
It standardizes your defenses, which is sensical. It's not a major accomplishment, but it's convenient when explaining things to newbies. And you have Reflex, Fort, Will, and AC, to our knowledge. You're acting like we have more bookwork; We don't. We have the same amount of bookwork, the same amount of rolling, by RAW. Literally, the only difference is that now all attacks work the same.

TheThan
2008-02-29, 09:42 PM
Yeah, but it has the potential to make the book keeping more troublesome than necessary. But like I said we won’t know for sure until we see the whole system.

Rutee
2008-02-29, 09:45 PM
....How? All you've really offered is that it's different and that it didn't need to be done. I don't think people will manage to confuse Armor defense, Reflex Defense, Will defense, and Fortitude defense.

ShadowSiege
2008-02-29, 10:38 PM
I wonder how prevailant this is in D20? I very often run combats with a dozen or more opponents.

Same here. Fewer opponents will get ganged up on and thrashed immediately.

As for making multiple rolls against opponents, I'll just pick up more d20s to speed things up.

ColdBrew
2008-02-29, 11:14 PM
If you check the sheets we've seen, while On Miss: Conditions exist, they are fewer in number, and a much greater drop in efficacy then Half Damage.
I had a chance to glance at one of the character sheets (the cleric's, I believe) and noticed one of his powers specifically said half damage and no special effects on a miss, which is equivalent to current spell mechanics.

TheThan
2008-02-29, 11:15 PM
Its complexity is solely based on how complicated the formula is for determining what that defense bonus is. Now lets look at the two mechanics, we’ll use the star wars saga edition as a proxy for 4E since we don’t have it yet (and its safe to assume that 4E will use the same basic system).

DnD 3.5

Save = base save + ability mod + misc. bonus

Star Wars saga edition.

Reflex defense = 10+ character level or armor bonus + dexterity bonus + class bonus + natural armor bonus + size modifier

The saga edition reflex defense has six things to add up and the saving throw mechanic has three. While they both use simple basic math, the current save has 3 things to add up, which is easier than adding up 6 things. More math = more/harder book keeping. You run that over three different defenses that use different bonuses and you have three times the math to do every time you level or gain new armor or equipment.

Naleh
2008-02-29, 11:34 PM
Touch AC and Flatfooted AC are both gone - things that have to touch you fall under Reflex, and attacking someone first gives you "combat advantage" rather than making them use another AC.

I doubt saves will have that many modifiers, although obviously, I can't prove this point. I just think it would be strange if someone's Reflex could end up higher than their AC, so it'd be easier to hit them with a sword than a ray.

So really, with the elimination of the two lesser sorts of AC, we have less bookwork.

That's my 1/2 a cent.

ColdBrew
2008-03-01, 03:07 AM
3 times "too little math to care" is still "too little math to care". I have a hard time seeing "add these 6 numbers together once, then adjust if any of them change" as a challenging math problem. At least, not for anyone old enough to be drawing an allowance and thus able to buy books.

Farmer42
2008-03-01, 03:42 AM
Its complexity is solely based on how complicated the formula is for determining what that defense bonus is. Now lets look at the two mechanics, we’ll use the star wars saga edition as a proxy for 4E since we don’t have it yet (and its safe to assume that 4E will use the same basic system).

DnD 3.5

Save = base save + ability mod + misc. bonus

Star Wars saga edition.

Reflex defense = 10+ character level or armor bonus + dexterity bonus + class bonus + natural armor bonus + size modifier

The saga edition reflex defense has six things to add up and the saving throw mechanic has three. While they both use simple basic math, the current save has 3 things to add up, which is easier than adding up 6 things. More math = more/harder book keeping. You run that over three different defenses that use different bonuses and you have three times the math to do every time you level or gain new armor or equipment.

Dude, apples can only be compared to apples, here. And while many things will likely be similar, SAGA does not, repeat, does not, have AC. 4E Does. With what we know about how these work, there is absolutely no reason to assume your Armor has anything to do with any of the defenses.

Fax Celestis
2008-03-01, 12:40 PM
What, you guys didn't see this coming? (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/playersRollAllTheDice.htm)