>>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?

Back | Go to board

Board:

/tg/

Thread:

Rogues in auto-hit combat?