I may be retarded, but if evasion does not exist, rogues would have to mitigate damage the same way as a conventional tank would, no? Sure, low damage rolls can simulate glancing blows, but does the system not inherently allow for fewer options to build a character? If a damage roll is all there is to it, how do you account for someone skilled at dodging?I am honestly curious. I haven't followed the project that much other than Matt Colville's project taking notes from Cairn. I feel like it's a little counterproductive to bump up HP because "not doing anything on your turn isn't fun." Then, low damage on a high-hit-point target is essentially the same as not having hit at all. I guess I can see the utility of having only one RNG roll, though. My counter to that would be that the hit check is modified by skill, lessening the randomization to account for aptitude. There is a difference in damage delivery between a character who hits hard when they do land a blow (high strength; weapons multiplying existing damage is good) and a character who may not hit as hard but hits often (high accuracy; small, static additions to damage are powerful).What am I missing?
>>94427943I have no idea what you're talking about but nullifying a hit is also damage reduction, as is not getting hit at all
>>94427943/thread
>>94428572In Matt Colville's proposed system, similarly to Cairn, there is no hit check, only a damage roll. This design choice comes about because they seem to feel like missing is anti-climactic because "you don't do anything on your turn." They plan to compensate for this by adding extra HP. So, for example, if you would miss 1/3 of the time, they will add a third of XP.In such a system, how do you differentiate the bulky knight (armor) from the swift rogue? Evasion does not exist. Different mechanics of damage mitigation. Dex vs. Inherent Armor Class bonus in DnD terms.To Illustrate what I mean, the hero Phantom Assassin in dota 2 has a low HP pool, but she makes up for it through high evasion, making it likely the opponent misses her entirely. In contrast, tide hunter is a huge sea monster whose shell lowers the damage he receives from enemy attacks. Nevertheless, he has a high HP pool because he is built to soak damage.Since a rogue is archetypally distinct from a knight, how do you differentiate between the two in a system where evasion is not a factor? Soaking damage as a rogue feels... Wrong.
>>94427943>>94428673>Soaking damage as a rogue feels... Wrong.Anon discovers why people don't like the D&D binary yes/no of damage in full plate by inverting the situation
>>94428673>Its not fun to miss>Enemy doges out of the way>Did you... miss?>No its the enemy that dogedAutisticAvoiding damage can hardly be balanced with tanking damage because its always better to altogether avoid the damage then to tank it. Rogues are Sneaky. If we take the Threat onion they should dominate the 'Don't be Seen' layer.Also if you do, 1d4 damage for an example, and the target has 1 armour, does that not mean that 25% of your hits will be ineffective aka mechanically equal to a miss?Am not saying all these things to defend DnD, I hate AC as much as the next guy but I see the reasoning behind it. I want to start a discussion.
>>94428673Spend rogue points to not be hitExploit movement and positioning to be out of rangeUse stealth to force the enemy to target someone else on their turnHave circumstantial damage reductionMy system also has you automatically hit. Armour is passive and evasion is active and i still have space for different specialties in accuracy and damage
>>94428767>Also if you do, 1d4 damage for an example, and the target has 1 armour, does that not mean that 25% of your hits will be ineffective aka mechanically equal to a miss?Difference in delivery. A tank consistently lowers incoming damage because they are able to take it. They can survive many attacks. A rogue is done after a couple good hits.If you have a sword that often hits but doesn't do as much damage as a mace that hits less often, going for the mace is better when you need an all or nothing strike to survive. The sword would be better if a single strike, no matter the weapon, would take them out.Sure, avoiding damage is always better, but there should be a difference in how they avoid it. A rogue is an agile fighter who might attack with speedy flurries, for them, getting +2 magic damage on each attack would be worth it because they might attack more than once per turn.In contrast, a slow, bulky, high-damage juggernaut would benefit more from multiplying his already high damage rather than adding static bonuses.Apply this thinking to AC. At least DnD has the Dex-derived AC vs. Armor-derived AC difference. How does an auto-hit system establish a difference between speed and strength?
>>94428818Interesting.How have you balanced Rogue Points? How do they mitigate the damage, and what would that result in per point? Does spending them have an effect on your action economy?What do you mean by 'circumstantial damage reduction'?
>>94427943>I may be retarded, but if evasion does not exist, rogues would have to mitigate damage the same way as a conventional tank would, no?If you kill your opponent before they can get into combat, you never need to tank damage. Ditto for remaining stealthed after you attack. Fighter can't fight what they can't find.
>>94427943just because there's no to-hit roll doesn't mean there aren't ways to avoid or reduce damage. I haven't checked the MCDM play tests in a while (idk why you haven't, if you're the one making the damn thread) but I would virtually guarantee that they're able to spend resources for an evasion effect or similar.>But tanking feels wrong for a rogueI'll remind you that one of the rogue's iconic mechanics even in D&D is literally being able to tank a bunch of damage effects that don't involve a hit roll and always hit for either half or full damage: that's literally what Evasion is. Everyone else either takes full damage on a fail or half on a success, a Rogue takes NO damage on a success and half even on a failure. That's literally facetanking shit as their iconic mechanic, it's just flavored as preternatural reflexes and uncanny luck.
>>94428863Not to shut down the discussion here but I really don't get what your point was>slow, bulky, high-damage juggernaut would benefit more from multiplying his already high damage rather than adding static bonuses.If this juggernaut is hard to kill and multiples his already high damage then why play a rogue lmao (from a strictly DPS and survivability POV)>Apply this thinking to ACYeah you do that and its turns to other shit. Why invest in armour if DEX is just as good, better actually>How does an auto-hit system establish a difference between speed and strength?Thats the question I was expecting you to give your take at. I feel like you don't actually see the problem. Its not about the players, its about the enemies. Players dont like missing. And a highly armoured or fast enemy behave the same. You attack and you miss multiple times before hitting them once. We aren't here to fix dnd
>>94427943The FF14 RPG handles this reasonably:Attacks always deal damage equal to (In D&D terms) your stat modifier, even on a miss.A hit (Called a Direct Hit in game) deals bonus damage based on the weapon and triggers stuff like sneak attack.A critical deals additional damage.You still always take some damage, though in that system healers are more powerful to compensate, but the rogue types can still avoid Direct Hits to avoid taking damage.
>>94429407I was not aware it was open to the public. Thought it was his patrons and discord. If it is available.>>94430876I think you missed the point of damage delivery.For example, if a mace does 1d8*2 damage, a sword which does 2d8 damage is not completely the same. They can be of equivalent strength, roughly speaking, but the sword will have a damage curve leaning towards middling values on a single strike, whereas the mace is random. In this example, the rogue is the sword and the warrior is the mace. The warrior is not calculated in his movements; he bonks his opponent as much as he can until it goes down. The rogue wants to deal consistent damage.If you put 2d8 and 1d8*2 on anydice, you will see that the expected damage is the same on average, but the single die is a random distribution while the dual die is a curve.What difference does distribution make if the end result is the same over time, you may ask? To illustrate, I will once again make the point that--if you are low health and have one last chance to deal damage before you go down--it is better to choose the sword if you need to make sure you do at least middling damage. It would be better to choose the mace if you NEED the high damage, because it gives you better odds at doing so.In the inverse, when dodging, a rogue will function like a mace. Either mitigate a huge chunk of dmg (all) at once, or go down fast. The warrior will mitigate damage more like the sword. Less at once, but consistently so.Equivalent damage, but different damage delivery. That is what I suspect Matt Colville's system will struggle with. I don't want a rogue to feel the same as a warrior.>If this juggernaut is hard to kill and multiples his already high damage then why play a rogue lmaoDual wielding vs. a two-handed weapon:>(1d4+1)+(1d4+1)Can hit multiple opponents or the same one twice. Relies on high likelihood to hit.>1d8+2Single hit, single target. It does less damage than the rogue, but max is more likely.
