Magic To Hit- Do we need it?

R

RuneBrighteyes

Artisan
I think we don't need it as part of the game.

When there were far less magic weapons it was cooler to have these monsters. You needed to get the right tool with the right character to do the job right.

When there was a moderate amount of magic weapons there might be a case made for it helping to prevent as much ganging up on NPCs.

Now with so many around I basically think that it widens the gap between the haves and the "sit arounds impotently" more.


Here is my proposal (which does not as far as I know require any actual RULES changes)- remove "Magic to Hit" from the monster database.


What do you all think?
 
Or alter it in a meaningful way.

Give someone +2 damage to their melee swings for 10 minutes.
 
Nice solutions guys. WWMBD? I like +2 Damage for ten minutes. I would also rather see it turn into "Enchant Blade"- and then allow people to spellstore a spell into a weapon. Then again I like to share what I have with others.

Now do you guys think "Magic to Hit" is needed at this point?
 
Sure. There's no reason to take a weapon out of the Plot tool box, unless you don't trust your Plot to use it effectively.

Store some MB in an Enchant rit, and if you know it's coming, your C-casters shouldn't mind setting some slots aside for it.

I don't see anything wrong with it.
 
I have dreamed about running a hard core dark ages campaign for years. Gritty, with fewer rituals, and all the races would have a slightly more savage or primitive leaning. One of the rituals I would exclude is damage aura, and in tandem, I would remove the magic-to-hit from the database. I would probably have more monsters affected by only one element. So there would need to be a lot of different flame, stone, lightning and ice weapons getting tossed around.

Another thing I might also do, to get back to that "oh crap, get the X sword out" thing we used to have is add in some LCO carriers like "bronze", "ash-wood", "trollsbane", etc.

But to more directly answer your question, yes, we could remove magic-to-hit from the game.
 
I'm pretty sure we faced some monsters in Gettysburg that took reduced damage from normal, and full damage from silver. (Or possibly vulnerable to silver, it was well roleplayed by the NPCs that silver hurt them a lot.) That, to me, was a fantastic move. It made having a silver weapon cool, without making not having a silver weapon totally suck.

Replace "Immune to Normal and Silver" with "Takes half damage from Normal and Silver" and magic swords remain cool, without being a barrier to play for people without them.
 
Tyson,

We use that for the most part when we want to set the bar at magic weapon or earth weapon.

Paul
 
As stated previously, one of the reasons I have statted monster with Magic to Hit, or Magic or X Element to Hit, is to reduce the Pillow Party effect. I would be fully in favor of removing Magic to Hit as a thing if we instituted a Sportsmanship style engagement rule in which no more than 4 people may engage any other person at once.
 
Sean,

We occasionally have monsters (Like the Apatow) who when surrounded by a group and boxed too closely will plant feet and start swinging massive or spell-strikes of a certain spell or insert "oh crap" ability. That usually lets people in on the idea that the plot team member is being crowded a bit too much while not having to call a hold. It has worked really well for us so feel free to try it sometime your mileage may vary.

Paul
 
What about to make life easier (on the NPC). Remove "Magic to hit"

Add "x2 damage from magic" on monsters as needed. Then plot teams can use this as much as they like.
 
With Damage Aura able to be Spellcrafted and blade spells having 10 minute duration making things magic to effect is pretty useless. If you want a monster to be challenging you are better off giving it silver only to effect.
So, no we don't need magic to hit anymore.

I like the idea behind 1/2 damage unless its a certain type of damage, but I am against anything that adds more math to the game. Some people have enough trouble adding up damage already.

-Steve
 
Just an FYI, Damage Aura is no longer spell craftable.
 
Just an implementation question. I have a damage aura weapon (+0). The only benefit of that weapon is that it lets me hit certain monsters ("magic to hit" and "immune to normal"). If you removed this rule, this weapon would be worthless (except for being indestructible, which is less valuable by far). Would you leave me high and dry or would you actually recompense me in some way (as a side note, it is a 5 year weapon that I have used once total).

I know I am only a single example, but I consider my situation representative of a broader likelihood, so I think it is a point you should address.

-MS
 
Sure. Why not.

I would presume that if a +0 DA became completely useless, then there would be some sort of conversion.
 
Deadlands said:
Just an FYI, Damage Aura is no longer spell craftable.
Click to expand...

My fault for not being clearer. Magic to hit was made useless when DA was spellcraftable (in the past) and is even more useless with 10 minute long Magic Blade (in the present).

-Steve
 
If you don't like it, don't use it.

Right now, there's no reason that a Plot team can't edit the Monster DB, so if they don't want "Magic to hit" in their chapter, they don't have to use it. If we removed it from the standard DB and a Plot Team did want to use it, they still could.

Seattle hasn't (intentionally) had a "Magic to Hit" creature in about a year and a half. We're not using the standard DB (and the time we accidentally let one in it was because we needed more undead cards quickly so we just pulled them off the other database without checking. Stupid spectrals). We also don't have the Pillow Party problem that much. Our local re-occuring BBG is totally killable, resurrects, and isn't that much more powerful than his minions; they're all just higher powered, work together, and are willing to flee combat. We do still occasionally have that problem when we're using a different BBG, but we've tried to come up with other creative solutions to that. (My favorite thus far was giving one a bunch of Spellstrike Berserk and Spellstrike Repels. In succession, it can wreck those parties.)

"Magic to hit" isn't super important, and most people who have DAs have greater than +0, but really it's a chapter issue.
 
There was actually a discussion in my house not long ago about taking the "Magic Only to Hit" off the higher level pantherghasts and replacing it with a threshold.
 
We roll with minimal or reduced to non magic and then up the body a bit for pantherghasts.
 
Do you need Magic To-Hit?

No, but at that point you better remove all immunities completely, or else someone will simply complain about not having a (insert damage type here) weapon or spell when that monster rolls around with any immunity whatsoever.

Personally, I like seeing it paired with "vulnerable to X". Undead are a classic example- can't hit with lesser weapons, double damage from healing effects. Heck, make it triple instead of the normal double. Any immunity should have a corresponding and more severe weakness that's reasonably generated by the average party of players. Immune to normal? Double damage from silver, for example.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top