<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Feedback &amp; d20 Dice Pools</title>
	<atom:link href="http://spesmagna.com/archives/212/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://spesmagna.com/archives/212</link>
	<description>Grab those dice! Gird your loins! Tonight, evil loses!</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 30 Oct 2011 20:14:57 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Alzrius</title>
		<link>http://spesmagna.com/archives/212/comment-page-1#comment-19</link>
		<dc:creator>Alzrius</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Jan 2010 21:13:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://spesmagna.com/?p=212#comment-19</guid>
		<description>Wow, thanks for the props! It&#039;s great to be able to participate in what Spes Magna is doing, so I&#039;m happy that my comments were helpful to you. Speaking of which, there were some other things I wanted to bring up.

1) I wonder if it&#039;d be worthwhile to remove the fighting defensively and total defense rules in a game using F&amp;F. Given what can be accomplished with shiftable BAB, the latter two rules seem superfluous now.

2) In regards to gaining a dodge bonus to AC equal to BAB, it occurred to me that this may not serve the idea of nimble swashbucklers quite as much as it seems - this is because, as written, there&#039;s no reason for a character not to also wear the heaviest armor they&#039;re comfortable with in addition to the dodge bonus. That is, a wizard still won&#039;t care for armor very much due to arcane spell failure chances, but a fighter will still be aiming for a suit of plate mail, since he can have that and his dodge bonus to AC.

I wonder if perhaps the dodge bonus should be limited via a suit of armor&#039;s max Dex bonus value also (e.g. you couldn&#039;t gain your BAB-based dodge bonus in a suit of splint mail (max Dex bonus +0), but could gain up to +8 of your BAB-based dodge bonus in a suit of padded mail (max Dex bonus +8)). The end result of this would be that characters would armor up heavily at earlier levels, and then gradually shed their armor at later levels). I&#039;m not sure about this idea, though.

3) I&#039;d definitely limit the amount of shiftable BAB by +5/-5, since that stops PCs from moving truly staggering amounts around at higher levels, which&#039;d be prone to abuse (e.g. the fighter has the cleric cast a battery of defensive spells on him, then puts everything into damage rolls, with the offsetting AC penalty now somewhat mitigated).

4) The idea of a &quot;martial pool&quot; of multiple d20&#039;s was laid down in Ire Games&#039;s book Codex Martialis (they gave it that name). In that book, you gain one d20 per point of BAB, to a maximum of four. You&#039;re then able to distribute those d20&#039;s however you want to among your d20-based dice rolls each and every combat round. For example, if you only have one attack (from having, say, BAB +4), you can put all four d20&#039;s into that attack roll, and use the best result. But then you have none left for saving throws, defense rolls, etc.

Something like that could be done with F&amp;F, particularly since the PCs roll for everything, having active attacks (both physical and magical), and defenses (from both physical and magical attacks). It&#039;s not a bad idea, but it&#039;d have to be balanced carefully with the expanded uses of BAB already laid down in the book.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wow, thanks for the props! It&#8217;s great to be able to participate in what Spes Magna is doing, so I&#8217;m happy that my comments were helpful to you. Speaking of which, there were some other things I wanted to bring up.</p>
<p>1) I wonder if it&#8217;d be worthwhile to remove the fighting defensively and total defense rules in a game using F&amp;F. Given what can be accomplished with shiftable BAB, the latter two rules seem superfluous now.</p>
<p>2) In regards to gaining a dodge bonus to AC equal to BAB, it occurred to me that this may not serve the idea of nimble swashbucklers quite as much as it seems &#8211; this is because, as written, there&#8217;s no reason for a character not to also wear the heaviest armor they&#8217;re comfortable with in addition to the dodge bonus. That is, a wizard still won&#8217;t care for armor very much due to arcane spell failure chances, but a fighter will still be aiming for a suit of plate mail, since he can have that and his dodge bonus to AC.</p>
<p>I wonder if perhaps the dodge bonus should be limited via a suit of armor&#8217;s max Dex bonus value also (e.g. you couldn&#8217;t gain your BAB-based dodge bonus in a suit of splint mail (max Dex bonus +0), but could gain up to +8 of your BAB-based dodge bonus in a suit of padded mail (max Dex bonus +8)). The end result of this would be that characters would armor up heavily at earlier levels, and then gradually shed their armor at later levels). I&#8217;m not sure about this idea, though.</p>
<p>3) I&#8217;d definitely limit the amount of shiftable BAB by +5/-5, since that stops PCs from moving truly staggering amounts around at higher levels, which&#8217;d be prone to abuse (e.g. the fighter has the cleric cast a battery of defensive spells on him, then puts everything into damage rolls, with the offsetting AC penalty now somewhat mitigated).</p>
<p>4) The idea of a &#8220;martial pool&#8221; of multiple d20&#8217;s was laid down in Ire Games&#8217;s book Codex Martialis (they gave it that name). In that book, you gain one d20 per point of BAB, to a maximum of four. You&#8217;re then able to distribute those d20&#8217;s however you want to among your d20-based dice rolls each and every combat round. For example, if you only have one attack (from having, say, BAB +4), you can put all four d20&#8217;s into that attack roll, and use the best result. But then you have none left for saving throws, defense rolls, etc.</p>
<p>Something like that could be done with F&amp;F, particularly since the PCs roll for everything, having active attacks (both physical and magical), and defenses (from both physical and magical attacks). It&#8217;s not a bad idea, but it&#8217;d have to be balanced carefully with the expanded uses of BAB already laid down in the book.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

