DDO Progressive Attack Bonus: An analysis

[RavenStormclaw]

I have seen numerous comments and threads about the fact that the DDO system uses a progressive attack bonus during a given attack sequence and that this in opposite of PnP. That this system is the root of all evil over Ac being useless etc. I present below an analysis of why, in fact, the progressive system is correct and PnP is actually wrong. (blasphemous I know)

Sword fighting is not just hack and slash. Anyone who have ever watch fencing at the Olympics can appreciate that two equally skilled swordsmen can create a ballet of thrusts and parry's. Feints and dodges. Truly skilled swordsmen think several moves into the future to plan attack routines and anticipate possible counters. The deeper into a routine the swordsman gets the more likely he is to score a hit. The reason for this is simple a truly gifted swordsmen doesn't go for the hit with the first thrust rather works his opponet into a vulnerable state for the sure hit that leaves the opponet wide open but himself supremely guarded. This is why swordplay in an art.

The DDO system relfects this accurately. Let us take a simple 3 attack routine. Represented by two side thrusts and then one straight forward thrust. For the sake of simpicity we will say the progressive attack bonus is 5/7/9. Let us breakdown thru example how this actually makes sense.

Swordsman 1 attacks: Comes in wide and swordsmen 2 throws his shield out wide to block (this represent both of their first attacks) (swordsmen 2 did get an attack but missed since he was also trying to block 1's attack)

Swordsman 1 having one the intiative and throwing the first swing has not planned to come in from the other side. Swordsman 2 realizes he can't get his shield around so he launches a parry out wide to block swordsmen 1 . Now both got a slightly increased chance of success since they both anticipated the next move and were prepared. (this represents the second attack sequence)

Now the third attack comes. swordsman 1 having planned the whole thing has worked his opponets hands out wide leaving his opponets chest exposed and very vulnerable so he launches a thrid attack straight ahead with the highest attack bonus since his opponet is very exposed. Now three things can happen at this point. Swordsman 1 scores a critical hit essentially thrusting his sword into his opponets chest. Swordsmen 1 scores a hit but #2 had enough training to turn his body so that the hit is minor or he has the presence of mind to realize he is exposed and find a counter to it. For the sake of this lets say he drops straigth to the ground. Swordsmen 1 now misses completley and is leaning forward and off balance. Now swordsman 2 realizes his opponet is above and off balnce and his guts are nicely exposed so he launches an attack with the hightes attack bonus because by luck his opponet is now terribly exposed. He can sink his blade into his opponets gut ( a crit), his opponet can realize he is exposed and jump back and only take a minor hit, or #1 can realize he is exposed and find the only counter to his situation which is banging his opponet over the head with his shield. Now both of them have missed on all three attacks since one banged two over the head and both break away to try again. This begins round 2.

As you can see from the example a skillfull swordsman plans out attack sequences so that attacks later in the sequenc have a better chance of succeeding. This represents DDO's progressive attack bonus.

[branmakmuffin]

I present below an analysis of why, in fact, the progressive system is correct and PnP is actually wrong.
How can an arbitrary rule set for a game be "wrong?" That's like saying "'2 kings beats 2 queens' is wrong."

[RavenStormclaw]

How can an arbitrary rule set for a game be "wrong?" That's like saying "'2 kings beats 2 queens' is wrong."


Easy, while it is an arbitray rule set it has no logical basis. Games are allowed to not make sense. However, if you are debating the merits of DDO's progressive attack bonus then the logic of the progressive bonus beats out the arbitrary version of PnP. Besides you are picking at words instead of the overall analysis. Either critique as a whole or bug off but don't pick at one small part that has no relevance on the overall discussion.

[QuantumFX]

Sword fighting is not just hack and slash. Anyone who have ever watch fencing at the Olympics can appreciate that two equally skilled swordsmen can create a ballet of thrusts and parry's. Feints and dodges. Truly skilled swordsmen think several moves into the future to plan attack routines and anticipate possible counters. The deeper into a routine the swordsman gets the more likely he is to score a hit. The reason for this is simple a truly gifted swordsmen doesn't go for the hit with the first thrust rather works his opponet into a vulnerable state for the sure hit that leaves the opponet wide open but himself supremely guarded. This is why swordplay in an art.


As you can see from the example a skillfull swordsman plans out attack sequences so that attacks later in the sequenc have a better chance of succeeding. This represents DDO's progressive attack bonus.

You're also forgetting that P&P is a cinematic fighting system. It never assumes you're level 1 fighter is sitting around making one swing every 6 seconds. (If it did then we wouldn't have attacks of opportunity nor would the grappling checks work.) Like your description above the P&P rules are saying a higher level character makes more opportunities for himself. All the other non-roll swings have lead up to the attack you're rolling on. The 3rd edition PHB did a better job explaining this than the 3.5 edition.

[hydra_ex]

nor would the grappling checks work.


grappling checks work?

[Turial]

I have seen numerous comments and threads about the fact that the DDO system uses a progressive attack bonus during a given attack sequence and that this in opposite of PnP. That this system is the root of all evil over Ac being useless etc. I present below an analysis of why, in fact, the progressive system is correct and PnP is actually wrong. (blasphemous I know).

Actually its more of Mobs having a static to-hit rather then a progressive (as players get) or pnp based system for why AC can be considered less useful. Either system (DDO or PNP) has its pros and cons but they both have parts in the attack sequence where lower AC characters can be missed that is currently not in the system mobs use in ddo. So long as all people, players and mobs, follow the same system there really shouldn't be to many arguments except for the ever present pnp one.

[Issip]

Yeah, fencing works great like that in the olympics, but in reality your opponent won't be nearly as effective after the first time your greataxe gouges a trench across what used to be his face.

PnP, DDO, etc. aren't a reality based representation of the art of fencing or the gore of fighting, they are games. Claiming it is "wrong" for whatever reason is an argument wholly without merit.

[branmakmuffin]

Easy, while it is an arbitray rule set it has no logical basis.
It is logical within the framework it sets for itself.


However, if you are debating the merits of DDO's progressive attack bonus then the logic of the progressive bonus beats out the arbitrary version of PnP.
It does? Both are arbitrary. Neither is more logical than the other. You simply have a preference for one over the other.

Either critique as a whole or bug off but don't pick at one small part that has no relevance on the overall discussion.
The whole point is that comparing the two has nothing to do with logic, it has to do with personal taste. You seemed to by implying that DDO's way is "better" than the PnP D&D way, not that you were simply saying "I like it better."

Now watch while I prove that "sprinkler" is a better word than "dovetail."