Originally Posted by
Targonis
The fundamental issue is that D&D does not really discriminate between to-hit and to do damage, except for the whole DR idea. If you think about it, to-hit should indicate if you got hit, without the need to break through armor, shields, or anything else. You swing a sword and don't make a mistake, the target doesn't get out of the way, and your sword blow hits the target. Higher dexterity would allow someone to dodge the attack, armor itself would hinder the ability of the target to move easily, and a shield and even using your weapon, you can also deflect an attack to prevent it from "landing".
Now, once the attack actually hits, the armor itself, magic defense, etc would kick in to reduce how much actual damage is done, but these things would not affect if the attack hits or not.
So, I like the idea of to hit, and "to do damage". In such a system, the more of a difference there is between the needed to-hit and what you roll is where the damage done should come from. If you need a 15 to hit, and you get 15-17, you should really do MINIMAL damage, you barely hit your target. If you need a 15 and get a 20, then obviously you should do more damage since it was a more solid hit. If you only need a 3 to hit and get a 15, you will do quite a bit more damage.
All of this would solve the problem since a higher AC will ALWAYS play a factor in reducing how much damage is done(because it is the difference between what is needed to hit and what the attacker rolled). A 50 to 55AC then wouldn't be that huge of a difference, but a 30 to a 55 would be. A system like this could also eliminate the whole "20 is an automatic hit" if you need a modified 35 to hit, and critical hits would be a function of a 20+ difference between needed to-hit and what is actually rolled.
Ghallanda - now with fewer alts and more ghostbane
Reply With Quote