Author Topic: Gradual & Binary Defenses  (Read 14590 times)

Offline SneeR

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1531
  • Sneering
    • View Profile
Gradual & Binary Defenses
« on: November 23, 2011, 03:28:30 AM »
While the point of D&D is to accomplish some goal by performing the right actions, the mechanics of D&D can be seen as a way of acheiving a multitude of states, or conditions.

To exist in certain conditions, particularly the conditions "alive" and "able to take actions freely," there are myriad defenses in place; these include hp, saves, AC, and ability scores.

HP and ability scores are very basic defenses that protect against the dead and disabled conditions, and the helpless condition, respectively. Saves are defenses against a host of conditions, as well as a defense for the other defenses, at times, in the case of ability damage and HP loss for blasting spells. AC is more of a defense against needing to worry about any of the above, and is often skipped by spells; as such, I will not discuss it at length.


What they Are:
Now is where I make my  first point: While conditions are binary in nature, the defenses against them are not necessarily. These non-binary defenses are gradual defenses, as I have come to call them.

Let's start with an example of a binary condition caused by a binary defense, for simplicity's sake. The condition "blind" might be caused by the blindness spell; you are either "blind" or "not blind," that's a binary condition (as all are). You make a Will Save to avoid becoming blind. Now, if you fail your Will Save, you become blind; however, if you succeed, there are no ramifications besides an opponent's lost spell slot. A Will Save is a binary defense.

HP are the classic gradual defense in 3.5. HP defend against the conditions "dead" and "disabled." You are either dead, disabled, or neither, these are binary conditions (as all are). However, HP itself is a gradual defense: If your HP is high enough, an attack will not kill/disable you; however, the next attack is more likely to kill you because your HP are fewer, and your defense is consequently lower.

In short, the difference is this: gradual defenses become weaker as they are assaulted, while binary defenses do not.

While taking ability damage hurts your power, no conditions are truly gained until they reach zero (unless your STR lowers enough to increase the severity of your load). As such, they are gradual defenses.

HP and ability scores are gradual defenses, and Saves and AC are binary defenses.

Why You Care
It is my firm belief that the primary imbalance of D&D comes from a twofold error by the designers based on a single problem: binary defenses inflict status effects immediately, or they don't; as such, attacks on binary defenses are universally more dangerous.

Keep that in mind.
The two errors made by WotC are these: Magic attacks binary defenses more often than gradual defenses, and the only time mundanes attack binary defenses, they have relatively weak conditions to inflict.

This means that magic as a whole has more chances to inflict the conditions of dazed, stunned, paralyzed, confused, dazzled, prone, cursed, charmed, dominated, and even dead, all of this without having to worry about how strong their oponent is. Each spell carries the full chance to inflict one of these conditions, based only on their opponents' saves. As long as they have enough spells to throw, they will eventually get one in.

What do mundanes get? They get to occasionally inflict the conditions of prone, grappled, stunned, and sometimes dead (in the case of coup de grace), if the conditions are right, and if they specialize enough to do so successfully. A lot of those even allow opposed checks! (Why don't casters need to make opposed checks to inflict conditions?) Otherwise, they are forced almost unilaterally to assault only gradual defenses. This means that each of their attacks carries less weight than most non-blasting spells, because the condition of "dead" is harder to reach in principle than any spell-caused condition.

That means that, action-by-action, mundanes are mechanically less effective than casters from the start.

By making casters bypass gradual defenses, WotC made casters pack more punch than mundanes with every attack. The only solutions to this would be either making mundanes attack binary defenses with more potent conditions more often (as Tome of Battle took a step towards doing), or to make casters attack gradual defenses more often (as 4E did).

Either way, you have helped level the playing field. However, since their are literally thousands of spells and only one little book full of maneuvers, neither solution has been fully realized, and we can see the effects of that in play with any fairly optimized game past 10th level--any game past 15th level without maneuvers.

Conclusion
D&D is inherently imbalanced, in my opinion, as expressed above. I welcome your opinions, however, on the issue.

Is D&D balanced to you? Am I giving ToB less credit than it deserves? Am I giving magic too much credit?

What other binary and gradual defenses have you seen, from any game? Do they work well? I am always interested in experiencing new things, new takes on familiar ideas.

Give me your thoughts!
« Last Edit: June 02, 2012, 02:03:04 AM by SneeR »
A smile from ear to ear
3.5 is disappointingly flawed.

Satori

  • Guest
Re: Gradual & Binary Defenses
« Reply #1 on: November 23, 2011, 01:47:21 PM »
You're entirely correct.  On the other hand, we should note in D&D's defense that D&D is hardly the only system to suffer this particular flaw, and D&D isn't totally terrible about it.

What we really need is some mechanical fix for this.  Any suggestions?

Offline veekie

  • Spinner of Fortunes
  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5423
  • Chaos Dice
    • View Profile
Re: Gradual & Binary Defenses
« Reply #2 on: November 23, 2011, 02:44:58 PM »
Mechanically, theres a bunch of options naturally, each with their own flaws:
-Everything gets the option to go after binaries, or hit gradual defenses so hard they turn binary. This is the 'stock' CO option to optimization problems, pretty much every optimized mundane build achieves massive glorious overkill. It leans towards rocket tag.

-Binaries only inflict lesser statuses. The route 4e took. Everyone goes after the same unified gradual defense, with the caveat that said defense needs to be tough, to withstand all the incoming pounding. Its highly consistent, but needs a careful hand on the numbers to avoid rocket tag or sumo.

-Ignore the basic defense and go after the conditions. This is the route that M&M takes. You turn all conditions into gradual conditions, and unify the defense into a triple or quadruple faceted range of potential effects. It varies by the condition type, some conditions make it much harder to resist acquiring other conditions for example.
« Last Edit: November 23, 2011, 02:47:11 PM by veekie »
Everything is edible. Just that there are things only edible once per lifetime.
It's a god-eat-god world.

Procrastination is the thief of time; Year after year it steals, till all are fled,
And to the mercies of a moment leaves; The vast concerns of an eternal scene.

Offline veekie

  • Spinner of Fortunes
  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5423
  • Chaos Dice
    • View Profile
Re: Gradual & Binary Defenses
« Reply #3 on: November 23, 2011, 02:53:24 PM »
Graduals themselves take multiple forms too.
You have 'soft' ablatives, where the defense is a pool of points that suffer attrition from attacks. Number of successful attacks directly increase the rate of attrition and prevention is far more significant to mitigation. This is D&D health.

You have 'hard' ablatives, where the defense itself is compounded with an attack reduction mechanism. Damage is always reduced, so you must meet a certain offense threshold to even penetrate...until the defense has been compromised by powerful attacks. However, a compromised defense would shatter against a powerful attack.
Everything is edible. Just that there are things only edible once per lifetime.
It's a god-eat-god world.

Procrastination is the thief of time; Year after year it steals, till all are fled,
And to the mercies of a moment leaves; The vast concerns of an eternal scene.

Offline SneeR

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1531
  • Sneering
    • View Profile
Re: Gradual & Binary Defenses
« Reply #4 on: November 23, 2011, 05:08:40 PM »
Well, Satori, I believe that more spells should be made to fall under the jurisdiction of gradual defenses. You saw my post on mind-effecting spells, which I shall spoiler here for others:
(click to show/hide)
And you can definitely expect me to at least get a second draft of that done, going over a few of the PHB spells.

Other spells that could be converted into gradually-defended are SoD spells.

Examples:
Gaze attacks would not inflict paralysis after a save.
Instead, after a failed save you would take 3d6 temporary DEX damage (which would recover at an accelerated rate, perhaps all of it after an hour. What is the effect of having 0 DEX? helplessness. Fluff that as being frozen in place as a statue, and viola. When you reach 0, you only get 1 save every day to recover 1 DEX. Remove paralysis removes that condition.

Disintegrate would not kill instantly after a save.
Instead, it would deal 3d6 damage per level on a failed save, half if you make it. If the spell kills you, it would have the added benefit of turning you to dust, making resurrection more difficult.

Sleep does not put you to sleep after a save!
Instead, it deals 1d8 per level (max 5d8) nonlethal damage to all creatures in the area. What happens when a creature takes too much nonlethal damage? It falls unconscious, goes to sleep one could say. Just say that the nonlethal damage from a sleep spell goes away if someone gets woken from the magical sleep.

I am firmly of the opinion that there should be a willpower hp and a health hp gauge. It might be a little more to keep track of, but it would let things like Charms work on a more gradual level, as well as other effects. Willpower points would recover a lot faster than hp, though.

For instance, Bestow Curse would not curse you on a failed save.
Instead, you would take a bunch of willpower point damage on a failed save. When your Willpower points rand dry, you would be cursed as normal.

Confusion would only confuse you after you ran out of willpower points.

That is the only way I could make a lot of spells inflicting mental conditions work on a gradual level.

The only conditions that leave me a bit stumped are the slowed, stunned, nauseated, and dazed conditions. Perhaps base those on ability damage? Not many gradual defenses give similar effects to those conditions when depleted.

Maybe those special conditions would wrack upo their own kinds of points: "daze points," "Nausea points," "slow points." When these points equal your level, then you become dazed, nauseated, or slowed, respectively.
After all, we can't have willpower points be depleted by things having little to do with willpower...

Ideas?
A smile from ear to ear
3.5 is disappointingly flawed.

Offline veekie

  • Spinner of Fortunes
  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5423
  • Chaos Dice
    • View Profile
Re: Gradual & Binary Defenses
« Reply #5 on: November 24, 2011, 12:22:52 PM »
Well, I favor the M&M alternative:
1) Each status effect is graded, from 3 to 4 steps. Fear is a decent showcase for this, you have Shaken(minor statistical effects, remain as is),  Frightened(moderate activity restriction, such as not voluntarily approaching the source of the fear) and Panicked(Flee at all costs), with a bonus of Terrified(flee from the fear and generally act negatively, or collapse) as a 4th grade.
2) Status effects stack with the same type to raise the grade of the highest effect by 1 grade. If you're Frightened and you get Frightened again, you become Panicked. If you're Frightened and get Panicked on top you go Terrified. It may be useful to leave the lowest possible grade as non-stacking(see below).
3) Divide defense grades into 4:
-Great Success(Beat DC by 10+ or success with Evasion-like defense): No effect
-Success(Beat DC): Least effect(Shaken). Least effect is non-stacking.
-Failure(Fail DC): Moderate effect(Frightened).
-Great Failure(Fail DC by 10+ or failure with vulnerability): Severe effect(Panicked)
4) Do not raise grades inflicted by level. Your increase in DC raises the grade by itself vs weaker creatures.
Everything is edible. Just that there are things only edible once per lifetime.
It's a god-eat-god world.

Procrastination is the thief of time; Year after year it steals, till all are fled,
And to the mercies of a moment leaves; The vast concerns of an eternal scene.

Offline Bearchucks

  • Lurker
  • *
  • Posts: 44
  • Wielding nunchucks made of bears
    • View Profile
Re: Gradual & Binary Defenses
« Reply #6 on: November 24, 2011, 07:23:13 PM »
Those willpower points seem an expanded and more complex version of SW SAGA's Condition Track.  I might be a bit partial, but SAGA's deal, with damage over a certain threshold giving you effectively a 'negative level'.  While it's got its exploits (the CT killer build that abuses the system to drop people in one shot) a more rugged system with more than five discrete points might be interesting.

Offline SneeR

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1531
  • Sneering
    • View Profile
Re: Gradual & Binary Defenses
« Reply #7 on: November 24, 2011, 08:15:45 PM »
Those willpower points seem an expanded and more complex version of SW SAGA's Condition Track.  I might be a bit partial, but SAGA's deal, with damage over a certain threshold giving you effectively a 'negative level'.  While it's got its exploits (the CT killer build that abuses the system to drop people in one shot) a more rugged system with more than five discrete points might be interesting.

I'm not sure that I understand. can you elaborate on this system, and what you mean by "more than five discrete points?"
A smile from ear to ear
3.5 is disappointingly flawed.

Offline PlzBreakMyCampaign

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 1951
  • Immune to Critical Hits as a Fairness Elemental
    • View Profile
Re: Gradual & Binary Defenses
« Reply #8 on: November 24, 2011, 11:00:09 PM »
Saves are opposed checks. But still I believe HP death should be the only method. Not because its better (I love stat damage flavor) but because designers fail to understand non-hp inflictions' balance.

Want a quick fix? No death effects. No long-term or permanent disables (helplessness-inducing effects). No coup de grace. Now HP, defense, and all that other stuff still matter despite powerful (but balanced) spells.

Offline SneeR

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1531
  • Sneering
    • View Profile
Re: Gradual & Binary Defenses
« Reply #9 on: November 24, 2011, 11:35:18 PM »
You could retain the effect of coupo de grace but not make it SoD by elmiinating the save versus death and instead making the attack critical, then multiply all the damage by 2. That way it attacks a gradual defense in an effective way, making it preferable over a full attack
A smile from ear to ear
3.5 is disappointingly flawed.

Offline Eldritch_Lord

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 144
  • Master of Magic
    • View Profile
Re: Gradual & Binary Defenses
« Reply #10 on: November 24, 2011, 11:47:03 PM »
Those willpower points seem an expanded and more complex version of SW SAGA's Condition Track.  I might be a bit partial, but SAGA's deal, with damage over a certain threshold giving you effectively a 'negative level'.  While it's got its exploits (the CT killer build that abuses the system to drop people in one shot) a more rugged system with more than five discrete points might be interesting.

I'm not sure that I understand. can you elaborate on this system, and what you mean by "more than five discrete points?"

SAGA has a mechanic called the condition track which replaces all 3e conditions with a set of generic penalties.  With the condition track, you start with no penalties in your normal state, then when you go 1 step down the condition track you take -1 to all d20 rolls and all defenses, then the next step is -2 to everything, then -5, then -10, then you're unconscious.  -0, to -1, to -2, to -5, to -10, to unconscious--5 discrete steps.  Each time you take damage over your damage threshold (a 4e-style Fort defense plus any miscellaneous mods) you go down a step, you can take a Second Wind action to move up a step, and there are various other ways to move you up or down the track.



For my own way of addressing this problem, I've been working on a hybrid of the "willpower points" mentioned above and the condition track.  You have three condition tracks: Stamina, Morale, and Mobility.  Each has a certain number of steps, each of which grants both a numerical penalty to associated stats and an additional status effect of varying intensity (like how fatigue gives you -X to stats and also prevents running and charging).  Stamina inflicts penalties on Str and Con, and its status effects replace fatigue, exhaustion, nausea, etc.  Mobility inflicts penalties on Dex and replaces entangled, immobilized, etc.; I've also re-worked difficult terrain, encumbrance, grappling, and similar effects to use the unified Mobility track.  Morale inflicts penalties on mental stats and replaces just fear and confusion at this point.  Not all conditions are folded into these (blinded and deafened don't quite fit, for instance, and I feel it's worth keeping them separate), but most of them are.

Spells and other abilities can interact with the track by inflicting penalties and removing them as expected, as well as by setting certain thresholds--freedom of movement isn't a Get Out of Grapples Free card anymore, for instance, instead simply preventing your Mobility from falling below a certain threshold, and fatigue-immunity abilities now merely prevent you from dropping down past Stamina -1.  Also, I've been considering including "positive" steps into each track to simplify buffs--for instance, Inspire Courage might give +X Morale, rage might give you +X Stamina and prevent Morale from going below -Y, and so forth.  Certain abilities can trigger based on whether you're at positive, negative, or 0 on a certain track, such as all of the various class features saying "This ability can be used when not wearing armor, not using a shield, not carrying more than..." being simplified to "This ability does not function when below 0 Mobility."

It might be a bit more complex than what some here are looking for, and it obviously requires a lot of tweaks to spells and other mechanics, but I think the idea has merit.

Offline SneeR

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1531
  • Sneering
    • View Profile
Re: Gradual & Binary Defenses
« Reply #11 on: November 25, 2011, 04:38:59 AM »
@Eldritch_Lord

That is a shiny new system you've got brewing under your cap! Unfortunately, even if you had all of D&D work out to look exactly the same on the surface, it would be completely different, working off of an inspired new mechanic.

Could you be bothered to write up a few spells and abilities in terms of your condition tracks? I am intrigued but not fully engaged by the idea... Flesh it out!

So, is the idea to ignore the problem of binary defense-based attacks by making the conditions non-binary? So rather than just being "confused" at -5, you are "kind-of-confused" at -2? Or would it also incorporate gradual defenses?
A smile from ear to ear
3.5 is disappointingly flawed.

Offline Havok4

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 62
  • A Being of Malevolent Sentience
    • View Profile
Re: Gradual & Binary Defenses
« Reply #12 on: November 25, 2011, 06:52:04 PM »
The dresden files RPG uses a similar system to what you are proposing. Inflicting long term consequence like mind control use almost the same mechanics as inflicting injuries. I have yet to play the system but the theory behind it seems sound. Perhaps you could look at it for ideas.

Offline Eldritch_Lord

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 144
  • Master of Magic
    • View Profile
Re: Gradual & Binary Defenses
« Reply #13 on: November 26, 2011, 12:22:20 AM »
@Eldritch_Lord

That is a shiny new system you've got brewing under your cap! Unfortunately, even if you had all of D&D work out to look exactly the same on the surface, it would be completely different, working off of an inspired new mechanic.

I'm not sure why tweaking things under the hood would be an unfortunate game-changer, but I'm glad you think it's "inspired." ;)

Quote
Could you be bothered to write up a few spells and abilities in terms of your condition tracks? I am intrigued but not fully engaged by the idea... Flesh it out!

So, is the idea to ignore the problem of binary defense-based attacks by making the conditions non-binary? So rather than just being "confused" at -5, you are "kind-of-confused" at -2? Or would it also incorporate gradual defenses?

The idea is to group together thematically-similar conditions under a single track, not to just split every condition into multiple degrees.  Morale incorporates fear and confusion effects, but being at Morale -2 doesn't mean you're a little bit scared and a little bit confused--it means your general mental well-being is diminished, and whether that originates from being scared out of your wits, driven insane, or something else, you're impeded in the same general ways.

As an example, here's what the Mobility track might look like (not necessarily what I'm actually working on, since I'm away from my notes at the moment, but the same general idea):

(click to show/hide)

If we're going with the version where there's a positive half of the track for buffs and such, it might look like this instead:

(click to show/hide)

Again, not a final product, just a table I whipped up as an example.  Given this Mobility track, some spells and other effects might be tweaked as follows:
  • Slow inflicts a -2 penalty to Mobility for its duration, while haste grants a +2 bonus to Mobility for its duration. [Note: bonuses and penalties don't stack, as normal; only effects that say "move X steps down" or similar are cumulative]
  • When grappling, all grapplers are immobilized and have their Mobility reset to 0 (some special abilities may modify this).  A grappler may make a grapple check as a standard action to reduce an opponent's Mobility by -1 step or increase his own Mobility by +1 step; if a creature reaches positive Mobility, he may choose to break the grapple and return all grapplers' Mobilities to their previous values.
  • A creature who fails a save against a web spell have their Mobility reduced by -4 steps; a successful save reduces Mobility by -2 steps.  On its turn, each creature in the area may make a Strength or Escape Artist check as a full-round action to increase his Mobility by +1 step, to a maximum of Mobility -1.

And so on.  In general, things that would grapple, entangle, slow, or otherwise physically hinder characters using separate conditions or individual penalties deal with the Mobility track instead.  You'll note that immobilized is still a separate condition, since it's possible to prevent people from moving from their square while leaving them otherwise mobile, and reducing speed to 0 can effectively immobilize creatures as well.  This obviously needs playtesting before using those exact values, and I've found the Stamina and Morale tracks to be harder to create, but I hope that gives you a general idea of where I'm going with this.

Offline SneeR

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1531
  • Sneering
    • View Profile
Re: Gradual & Binary Defenses
« Reply #14 on: November 26, 2011, 03:38:46 AM »
That's beuatifully elegant, Eldritch!

Maybe the Mental Track could have -4 be "can't make decisions on their own (DM-controlled, effectively), and action decided by what lowered mental track to this level." So Dominate makes it so you follow the dominator's command, while confused makes you act randomly as the table denotes.
-5 puts you into a catatonic state, or as -4?

Anyways, getting a better mental state is definitely something harder to quanitfy.
A smile from ear to ear
3.5 is disappointingly flawed.

Offline Eldritch_Lord

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 144
  • Master of Magic
    • View Profile
Re: Gradual & Binary Defenses
« Reply #15 on: November 26, 2011, 01:06:00 PM »
That's beuatifully elegant, Eldritch!

Why thank you.

Quote
Maybe the Mental Track could have -4 be "can't make decisions on their own (DM-controlled, effectively), and action decided by what lowered mental track to this level." So Dominate makes it so you follow the dominator's command, while confused makes you act randomly as the table denotes.
-5 puts you into a catatonic state, or as -4?

I was thinking of something along those lines.  Basically, you have two options for each state from Morale -1 to Morale -4, one for instantaneous effects (i.e. the fear effects, which scare you once and then make you flee or drop items or whatever) and one for ongoing effects (i.e. the action-denial/dazing and confusion/insanity effects, which make you act randomly or unable to attack people or whatever while they last), and then at Morale -5, as you said, you can't act of your own free will and whatever drops you there determines what happens.

Quote
Anyways, getting a better mental state is definitely something harder to quanitfy.

It is, which is why I've been having some trouble coming up with status effects beyond the usual +X to various rolls and stats as from rage and bardic music and/or resistance to fear and mind control (which are already included by default) or the ability to ignore some damage and keep going beyond your normal limits (which would be part of Stamina), so if you have any ideas beyond "At Morale +X, apply these bonuses to attack and damage rolls too" I'd love to hear them.

Offline SneeR

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1531
  • Sneering
    • View Profile
Re: Gradual & Binary Defenses
« Reply #16 on: November 26, 2011, 02:44:47 PM »
For physical and mental, you can mirror Mobility with the Fortitude and Will Save aspects of Mettle, respectively.

Now... would you say this system answers the need for gradual defenses by instead making the effects of binary defenses gradual? Or would you also have physical, mental, and mobility "hp" that would prevent sliding up and down the scale until they are depleted?

I am reading this with the impression that you are still basing these effects off of a failed binary save.
A smile from ear to ear
3.5 is disappointingly flawed.

Offline Eldritch_Lord

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 144
  • Master of Magic
    • View Profile
Re: Gradual & Binary Defenses
« Reply #17 on: November 26, 2011, 08:20:15 PM »
For physical and mental, you can mirror Mobility with the Fortitude and Will Save aspects of Mettle, respectively.

Coming up with one benefit for either of them isn't the hard part; it's coming up with 5 similar, graduated benefits for each that scale relatively well that's difficult.  I will keep Mettle in mind, though.

Quote
Now... would you say this system answers the need for gradual defenses by instead making the effects of binary defenses gradual? Or would you also have physical, mental, and mobility "hp" that would prevent sliding up and down the scale until they are depleted?

I am reading this with the impression that you are still basing these effects off of a failed binary save.

I don't think I'd add extra "morale points," as three condition sliders to keep track of are already complex enough.  If you want to add granularity, you could have some sort of opposed roll using existing stats or resources (e.g. you have to roll [attack roll/CL check/skill check/etc.] vs. a target's [Will mod/Concentration ranks/Wis check/etc.] to drop them X down the Morale track, else they drop fewer steps), or even just straight-up compare one stat to another to determine relative effectiveness (like blasphemy et al. do with CL vs. HD).  What I was thinking of primarily, though, was having a graduated save instead of a binary save--succeed, fail by 1, fail by 5, and so forth might inflict differing penalties, for instance.  The example above of "fail a Ref save and drop -4 steps, pass it and only drop -2" was meant to illustrate how the conditions themselves would map over from entangled (for example) to the Mobility track, not necessarily how the final system would work.  There are other alternatives, of course--some sort of action point analog wherein you could spend points to prevent moving down the track, some system that makes it easy for you to penalize much-lower-HD creatures but makes it harder to penalize even-level opposition, and so on--but I think the simpler staggered-save-threshold approach is best.

Offline SolEiji

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3006
  • I am 120% Eiji.
    • View Profile
    • D&D Wiki.org, not .com
Re: Gradual & Binary Defenses
« Reply #18 on: November 26, 2011, 11:36:24 PM »
Huh, this would actually be perfect for a system I'm working on (unrelated to D&D, mostly).  Mind if I steal this concept?  I've got plans for this.
Mudada.

Offline Eldritch_Lord

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 144
  • Master of Magic
    • View Profile
Re: Gradual & Binary Defenses
« Reply #19 on: November 27, 2011, 12:45:18 AM »
Huh, this would actually be perfect for a system I'm working on (unrelated to D&D, mostly).  Mind if I steal this concept?  I've got plans for this.

Go right ahead.  If you get to the playtest stage with whatever you're working on, let me know how it works out in play.