Josh Sawyer on Miss and Hit

[Undecaf]

Personally I've never seen the point of critical misses. What are they supposed to simulate?

 

Think about chopping firewood, and accidentally missing a swing and hitting your leg with the axe (not an uncommon occurence, and a pretty serious one too).

 

Obviously some sense should be held onto when simulating accidents, but it's not really impossible for one to harm himself due to a clumsy attempt at whatever.

[TRX850]

What if the outcome of a critical miss was a range of effects, rather than just damage?

• Self-knockdown
  
• Self-disarm
  
• Self-stun
  
• Self-wounding (i.e. damage over multiple rounds)
  

I'd hope that these will almost never happen to a competent warrior. Having a critical miss on one in twenty swings just seems way too high: the fighter's skill should play a big part in the outcome.

 

I agree. Perhaps the warrior (or any class for that matter) might get a save attempt, using their appropriate skills, like the way Discipline works in NWN. That would seem more reasonable.

 

EDIT:

 

Expanding on this point. It does seem ludicrous that a level 1 fighter would have the same 1-in-20 chance of slipping and stabbing himself in the eye as a level 20 fighter.

 

Combat is the purview of warriors. And in game mechanics, any class can perform a melee attack, but not all classes can cast spells or backstab for example. So I think warriors in particular should be allowed common sense saves against the one thing they spend their entire career focused on.

Edited January 4, 2013 by TRX850

[Tamerlane]

Personally I've never seen the point of critical misses. What are they supposed to simulate?

 

Think about chopping firewood, and accidentally missing a swing and hitting your leg with the axe (not an uncommon occurence, and a pretty serious one too).

 

Obviously some sense should be held onto when simulating accidents, but it's not really impossible for one to harm himself due to a clumsy attempt at whatever.

Not... not really? I mean, as far as accidents go, yeah, it happens. But of the tens of thousands of times (bull**** estimate) I've swung an axe at a block of wood, I have had zero accidents. If I "critically missed" a block of wood as often as some of the RPG characters I've played, I would have had no legs before I left elementary school.

 

Of course, logs don't fight back, which is a contributing factor to the whole "critical miss" thing. Even then, their rate of occurrence in games in which they're implemented is... kinda silly. And even if they do have a good rate of occurrence and good effects and all that... well, like I said, I really prefer them in turn-based games where I can properly appreciate them occurring.

[TRX850]

What if a critical miss simply counted as an auto-hit by your own weapon?

 

So your flaming longsword dealt 1d6 fire damage for example.

 

This could work with any or all perks your current weapon had:

• Elemental damage
  
• Spell effects (Dispel magic, Slow, Bane etc)
  
• Poison
  

I still think the character should be allowed a save attempt, possibly with a penalty applied.

 

Also, I'd like to add to my earlier post: (temporary effects)

• Deafened
  
• Silenced
  
• Blinded
  
• Slowed
  
• Weakened (Enfeebled)
  
• Dazed/Confused
  

I can see some of those being frustrating for the player, but then, if it's a combination of a 1-in-20 die roll, offset by a saving throw, and possibly class/racial/magic resistances, then it should be a rare thing indeed, and quite spectacular when it does happen.

 

Maybe there's a 50/50 chance of striking an adjacent party member?

Edited January 5, 2013 by TRX850

[Undecaf]

Not... not really? I mean, as far as accidents go, yeah, it happens. But of the tens of thousands of times (bull**** estimate) I've swung an axe at a block of wood, I have had zero accidents. If I "critically missed" a block of wood as often as some of the RPG characters I've played, I would have had no legs before I left elementary school.

 

Of course, logs don't fight back, which is a contributing factor to the whole "critical miss" thing. Even then, their rate of occurrence in games in which they're implemented is... kinda silly. And even if they do have a good rate of occurrence and good effects and all that... well, like I said, I really prefer them in turn-based games where I can properly appreciate them occurring.

 

Don't relate these mechanisms to realism too much, they are meant to give the gameplay some flavor, not simulate absolute realism. It was just a demonstrative example.

Edited January 5, 2013 by Undecaf

[BobbinThreadbare]

Personally I've never seen the point of critical misses. What are they supposed to simulate?

 

Think about chopping firewood, and accidentally missing a swing and hitting your leg with the axe (not an uncommon occurence, and a pretty serious one too).

 

Obviously some sense should be held onto when simulating accidents, but it's not really impossible for one to harm himself due to a clumsy attempt at whatever.

Not... not really? I mean, as far as accidents go, yeah, it happens. But of the tens of thousands of times (bull**** estimate) I've swung an axe at a block of wood, I have had zero accidents. If I "critically missed" a block of wood as often as some of the RPG characters I've played, I would have had no legs before I left elementary school.

 

Of course, logs don't fight back, which is a contributing factor to the whole "critical miss" thing. Even then, their rate of occurrence in games in which they're implemented is... kinda silly. And even if they do have a good rate of occurrence and good effects and all that... well, like I said, I really prefer them in turn-based games where I can properly appreciate them occurring.

Funny you should bring this up.

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/wire?section=nfl&id=1851496

[Karkarov]

Why not simply have all those glancing blows converted fully to stamina damage?

That's just the thing. They have said there is only mitigating attacks, not out right negating them. Stamina loss is still considered damage and we know you always take more stamina than actual health loss. So who is to say this isn't exactly what they have done? Which by the way, is exactly how they should do it.

 

Good post.

[Lephys]

Don't relate these mechanisms to realism too much, they are meant to give the gameplay some flavor, not simulate absolute realism. It was just a demonstrative example.

 

It's difficult not to evaluate missing mechanics based on realism, since missing is something that actually exists in reality. The main reason we don't ever 100% accurately represent missing in an RPG is because it would be far too complex and resource-consuming to do so. Not because we're not supposed to be very worried about realism.

 

Funny you should bring this up.

 

http://sports.espn.g...=nfl&id=1851496

 

Some people stab themselves with box cutters, too. Doesn't mean it can't be avoided by expressing some caution and doing things properly. Stuff learned in boyscouts. "Don't cut toward yourself, always cut away." It's pretty tough to hit yourself in the leg with an axe when you're not even fighting a moving, thinking opponent, unless you're being reckless.

Edited January 5, 2013 by Lephys

[Kaz]

Why not simply have all those glancing blows converted fully to stamina damage?

That's just the thing. They have said there is only mitigating attacks, not out right negating them. Stamina loss is still considered damage and we know you always take more stamina than actual health loss. So who is to say this isn't exactly what they have done? Which by the way, is exactly how they should do it.

 

Good post.

 

Health is a strategic resource while stamina is a per encounter/tactical one right? So unless we face the same foe over multiple encounters, which is unlikely unless they're a boss of some kind, it doesn't make much sense to mirror the health/stamina model on common enemies. Perhaps once enemy stamina hit 0 they are considered dead unless there are shaman/clerics among them who can bring them back, in which case a health stat would be meaningful.

E: My point is though, for single encounters situations the impact of dealing full stamina damage would tactically mean the same thing as a full blow to their health. It all depends on how they handle the enemy health system. So far it sounds like enemy stats in general will be closely mirror the structure of player characters. It will be interesting to see whether that includes the health system as well.

Edited January 5, 2013 by Kaz

[Racker]

So, am I right in thinking that the removal of 'missing' is mainly to alleviate the 'swish' fests that early levels in many IE games were like? I mean, obviously it's difficult to critique any new system since we haven't seen it in action, but...it seems like kind of a drastic change. Wouldn't it be easier and less controversial to just adjust the hit/miss ratios at early levels and with magic systems?

[Alexjh]

I like Josh's revised version of the mechanic which includes a miss possibility as it allays my major problem with the idea (lack of support for dodge themed characters) while retaining the merits of the system he initially proposed.

 

I actually kind of see this sort of mechanic as an extension of the armour type composition that day&do already had, but perhaps you could apply different properties to where in the ac your role landed you. If we just take dodge, shield/parry and armour as the three parts of ac for now (you have to work out how magic and misc even work before we open that can of worms) and they have precedence in that order. So a guy with 30 armour composed of ten points of each when he gets attacked by a roll of 5 that is considered tobevs his dodge, a rlll of 10 considered to be against his shield and a roll of 25 against his armour, each hvqing different properties.

 

So, essentially a dodge would utterly negate health damage but have a higher stamina damage while a hit tor armour risks the highest chip damage with minimal stamina damage with shield/parry falling inbetween. You'd have to balance this properly of course but in this you then have a system where choosing between which forms of defense to focus in has specific implications.

[Tamerlane]

Not... not really? I mean, as far as accidents go, yeah, it happens. But of the tens of thousands of times (bull**** estimate) I've swung an axe at a block of wood, I have had zero accidents. If I "critically missed" a block of wood as often as some of the RPG characters I've played, I would have had no legs before I left elementary school.

 

Of course, logs don't fight back, which is a contributing factor to the whole "critical miss" thing. Even then, their rate of occurrence in games in which they're implemented is... kinda silly. And even if they do have a good rate of occurrence and good effects and all that... well, like I said, I really prefer them in turn-based games where I can properly appreciate them occurring.

 

Don't relate these mechanisms to realism too much, they are meant to give the gameplay some flavor, not simulate absolute realism. It was just a demonstrative example.

Hey, that's totally fair. But if you're going to talk about "hey, it happens in real life", so is my response. Critical misses can be a goofy fun thing (10 Luck and Jinxed LET'S GO!) or a way to add some "realistic chaos" to otherwise boring crit:hit:miss rolls, but I'm guessing that the former doesn't really fit the tone of the game and the latter... well, honestly, that usually just turns in to the goofy fun thing anyway. If they can do it well, then hey, more power to 'em. I wouldn't be sad to see 'em go, though.

Funny you should bring this up.

 

http://sports.espn.g...=nfl&id=1851496

Hrmph. Y'all would have a lot fewer accidents if you didn't spell the word "axe" like a bunch of heathen savages.

That's just the thing. They have said there is only mitigating attacks, not out right negating them. Stamina loss is still considered damage and we know you always take more stamina than actual health loss. So who is to say this isn't exactly what they have done? Which by the way, is exactly how they should do it.

Well...

Many misses would likely be reduced to fractional Stamina damage and, by association, even smaller Health damage (we do track the fractions). Currently, our DT system has the same minimum 20% system as F:NV (excepting Crushing weapons, which currently do minimum 40%). Decent armor would turn that 3 Damage into 0.6 Stamina damage and 0.15 Health damage. Ten "missed" blows would result in 6 points of Stamina damage and 1.5 points of Health damage.

Personally, I'd like to see a range of miss-minor stamina damage-minor stamina and health damage-regular damage-critical hit. But... eh. I'll live with whatever.

[Ieo]

That's just the thing. They have said there is only mitigating attacks, not out right negating them. Stamina loss is still considered damage and we know you always take more stamina than actual health loss. So who is to say this isn't exactly what they have done? Which by the way, is exactly how they should do it.

Well...

Many misses would likely be reduced to fractional Stamina damage and, by association, even smaller Health damage (we do track the fractions). Currently, our DT system has the same minimum 20% system as F:NV (excepting Crushing weapons, which currently do minimum 40%). Decent armor would turn that 3 Damage into 0.6 Stamina damage and 0.15 Health damage. Ten "missed" blows would result in 6 points of Stamina damage and 1.5 points of Health damage.

Personally, I'd like to see a range of miss-minor stamina damage-minor stamina and health damage-regular damage-critical hit. But... eh. I'll live with whatever.

 

Eh. Yeah, I'm sure I'll adapt to whatever Obsidian eventually hammers down this year, but I still agree (with whomever, previously) that splitting the stamina/health application with miss/hit seems like a tidy way to approach this. (I mean, a "miss".... really a "whish miss"... should not logically knock off the health resource for which you must rest to "heal" back.) Miss/avoidance and glancing/mitigation, not conceptually the same, but the math is all back-end anyway so I'm sure I won't think about overmuch during actual gameplay.

 

Anyway, back to my BG:EE 90% miss rates... !&@#%*

 

Also--

Hrmph. Y'all would have a lot fewer accidents if you didn't spell the word "axe" like a bunch of heathen savages.

LOL

[Acre]

The original proposal by Sawyer was interesting, I think, but this never iteration seems good too.

It'd be nice if Obsidian could make missing something else than a boring non-event - I mean, I've never actually played an RPG where missing led me to change my tactics. No, rather, I would just have to sit there and wait for the optimal outcome to succeed. I'm reminded of swashbuckling-movies where every miss is a thrilling moment but that may be outside the scope of a computer game to emulate.

I also think weapon jamming in Fallout 3 was so much more fun than any critical miss in F1 & 2. I never upped my gun skills just so I could get those "oh crap" moments.

[WorstUsernameEver]

The original proposal by Sawyer was interesting, I think, but this never iteration seems good too.

It'd be nice if Obsidian could make missing something else than a boring non-event - I mean, I've never actually played an RPG where missing led me to change my tactics. No, rather, I would just have to sit there and wait for the optimal outcome to succeed. I'm reminded of swashbuckling-movies where every miss is a thrilling moment but that may be outside the scope of a computer game to emulate.

I also think weapon jamming in Fallout 3 was so much more fun than any critical miss in F1 & 2. I never upped my gun skills just so I could get those "oh crap" moments.

 

Weapon jamming depended from the state of repair of your weapons.

[Helm]

The original proposal by Sawyer was interesting, I think, but this never iteration seems good too.

It'd be nice if Obsidian could make missing something else than a boring non-event - I mean, I've never actually played an RPG where missing led me to change my tactics.

I have, all the time actually. You might want to focus a certain enemy more than another, so you split up your team and have the characters with the better THAC0 focus an enemy (e.g. super nasty mage), that must come down much quicker than another enemy (e.g. nasty mage).

 

And strategically I would always try to improve my THAC0 as much as possible. That was a lot of fun, especially when you found some super awesome item. I always loved rewards like that.

Edited January 5, 2013 by Helm

[SunBroSolaire]

What do you guys think of the idea of making "chance to dodge" independent of "chance to block"? What I mean is, instead of having "miss" be part of the miss/glance/hit/critical range, miss threshholds could scale seperately from glance thresholds. This could be based on stats, equiped weight, racial traits, and active abilities. The lower your equip burden, the easier it is to dodge attacks completely. Maybe the small Orlans would get a slight bonus to dodging but have poorer overall defence, while the Aumua are easy targets but are more able to deflect attacks. I see a few potential benifits to this idea:

 

1. Provides a permanent tactical incentive to use light armor. In the armor update, Josh talked about the importance of making character concepts viable through end game. Builds like the loinclothed barbarian, or the leather-armored fencer were typically not viable using older armor class systems. If lightly armored characters have better chances to evade attacks completely, those builds will still be viable (and even optimized), even though their overall defences are lower than a heavily armored tank.

 

2. It makes "sense". One of the major complaints about the binary hit-miss system seems to be that in low level IE encounters, characters would swing away on eachother for minutes hitting nothing but air. I agree that that felt bad. It doesn't make sense that you can only land one out of every five hits on an orc grunt. It does make sense that you have a hard time hitting an Orlan assassin, though. I think it would be intuitive enough that players would not be confused by the extra math, and maybe it would even feel more intuitive than a static range of miss/glance/hit/crit.

 

3. It adds an element of tactical consideration to combat. You probably don't want to use your powerful magic nuke on the Orlan assassin, because there's a higher chance it will do nothing, compared to using it on an Ogre, where it is practically guaranteed to do at least some damage.

 

I don't know, what do you guys think?

Edited January 5, 2013 by SunBroSolaire

[TRX850]

Has anyone dared to consider that the d20 system, beloved as it is, might be part of the problem here? Maybe a d50 or d100 system would solve some of these issues?

 

Ok, I haven't thought this through yet, but it seems like folks have a big big problem with outcomes being decided in 5% intervals, when here we are in 2013 where the level of creativity and inventiveness from you all, and the number of perceived RPG choices seems to overwhelm the humble tried and tested d20 system.

 

Maybe instead of black and white outcomes, we need more grey? Maths and grey areas are what we're trying to eliminate though, aren't we? Or maybe we just need to overcome our fear of grey?

 

Maybe grey is the new black?

 

This doesn't really help, I know...

[Undecaf]

Hey, that's totally fair. But if you're going to talk about "hey, it happens in real life", so is my response.

 

Sure, by all means. But what I was trying to say was that don't take it too far. I was merely trying to give an example of the mishap itself that would be easy to relate to (as opposed making up something like a wizard, in the heat of the action, stumbling to the hem of his robe and accidentally casting a fireball to his own feet and burning himself).

[Osvir]

What if the outcome of a critical miss was a range of effects, rather than just damage?

• Self-knockdown
  
• Self-disarm
  
• Self-stun
  
• Self-wounding (i.e. damage over multiple rounds)
  

If you rolled a critical miss with a ranged weapon, maybe this represents the arrow/bolt "sticking" and shattering (with a hilarious "sproi-oi-oi-oing" sound effect) causing temporary blindness etc.

 

It makes more sense to introduce variety into a miss, instead of just impaling yourself every time.

 

EDIT:

 

Apologies if this has been suggested before. I do try to read through these forums, but on hot topics like this, it's sometimes difficult to be aware of previous suggestions.

 

A critical miss could allow the enemy to easier land a critical hit which can cause one of those? So in a sense, it's a "critical miss" but it would rely on the enemy to land the special effect? (Stun, disarm, knockdown etc. etc.)

[TRX850]

A critical miss could allow the enemy to easier land a critical hit which can cause one of those? So in a sense, it's a "critical miss" but it would rely on the enemy to land the special effect? (Stun, disarm, knockdown etc. etc.)

 

I could see that happening. So a critical miss gives your opponent a bonus on their roll to confirm a critical hit in the following round. Sort of a temporary "Power Critical" feat from NWN2.

 

http://nwn2.wikia.com/wiki/Power_Critical

[Infinitron]

If we design a system that rewards resting every 5', the gamer isn't at fault for using it.

But he also has no right to complain about it. If he doesn't like it, he could not use it.

 

Yes, it's not his fault the feature is available, but the availability of a feature doesn't make its use mandatory.

If we design a system that rewards savescumming, we (the designers) are the ones to blame.

There's no need to assign blame for that. Personally, I like having that option available.

 

Sylvius, this may come as a shock to you, but you need to realize: Game designers are in no way obligated to give players the ropes with which they can hang themselves.

[Adhin]

@TRX850: Don't think anyone has any issue with it being 5% intervals and, ultimately, they're not using a d20 system anyways. It's just what people are using as 'example'. d20 is like English. It can confuse people, some folks have a hard time learning it... but its the trade language, the world often defaults to it as a means of middle ground. In the end numbers are numbers, they can use any variation on math to come to general time line for a fight to take using any number of whatevers.... but we all, more or less, understand the d20 stuff so it's a good thing to use as examples.

 

PE will ultimately be using decimals for just about everything, I wouldn't be surprised to see a 80.45% chance to hit thrown around. Hell even on a glance, as they said, it'll keep track of fractional damage. So that 3 damage may get cut down to .6 dmg but it'll keep track of that, and 2 glances will end up being 1.2 stamina damage. Rack up 4 of those and you got 1 actual health damage (if they go that route).

 

And yeah, greys are generally a better area to deal with things, more variation in general. If you look at d20, majority of 'armor class' is actually based off you getting hit but it not causing any damage. Natural Armor, Deflection, and Enhancement are all 'you got hit, but it was blocked or deflected due to a hard shell, plate or thick hair'. Think about that, only dodge and the base 10 armor is 'actually' them missing (or a natural 1 critical miss). They just combine it all into 1 big number for the sake of maknig it easier to deal with. Everyone would rather do there BAB against a single flat number then do all kinds of awkward calculations.

 

In the end, there glancing blow idea is just a more normalizing version of what d20 already does. If they go with an at least 50% less then = a full miss, you basically got an, in my opinion anyway, more interesting system then d20. As a side note, NWN actually used (to some extent) the AC variations for animations to play out. If you had a shield on, and they needed say an 18 to hit you and they rolled with in the Shields AC's (1 to 3+5) limitation on the top end, say a 15, it would play a 'shield block' animation. Below that was 'armor' which was usually a weapon block animation, when it got into the lower bits with dodge and the base 10 you'd get an actual dodge animation to play out. High dex, low deflect, no shield, you spent the fast majority of the animations dodging, with the rare weapon block.

 

One of those d20 flavor things a lot of folks don't seem to pay attention to.

Edited January 5, 2013 by Adhin

[Umberlin]

to mind control spells

 

 

Anyways . . .

 

Our goal is to make your choice of tactic ultimately more important than the results of the die roll (though the die rolls still matter).

 

I'm not going to claim I'd have been wholly happy or sad in regard to this. I see the good reasons for why they came up with it, and even agree with them to an extent. However . . . I'd also have missed it a bit for my own reasons - I like characters being punished for overstepping their bounds, not even being able to hit something as a result. I'm okay with this though. I do understand that low level miss miss miss fest concern, so, if they'd gone as described, at least I'd have understood the logic.

 

I think you're overestimating the fun of dodging and missing.

 

I sort of agreed that some players do actually like making that very mobile character capable of avoiding most attacks, or deflecting them somehow, but I also understand Obsidian can't cater specifically to the min maxers, and the late game. I've seen glance systems used well. I was willing to give them the benefit of the doubt on this one . . . but I don't have to it seems, with some of a further things said on the subject.

 

The note about 'health clipping' in regard to the DA2 Dragon battles is wholly valid though. Those were mind numbing and tedious affairs that were boring within seconds of starting them, and they lasted well beyond that, even with a very well equipped/powerful party. That is not something I want to see in "any" game, be it this game or otherwise - regardless of system.

 

-

 

Overall? Color me intrigued with the extra information provided beyond the initial questions, and in this thread. Glad Sawyer decided to talk with us, too bad I missed it, still wrapped up in the holiday stuff even up to the third.

 

Guess we'll see how it all pans out.

 

-

 

A critical miss resulting in something like your character fumbling or falling or even dropping their weapon, as mentioned above, does sound interesting. I'm not sure I'd actually enjoy it, or find it feasible . . . but it is interesting to think about.

Edited January 5, 2013 by Umberlin

[Ieo]

What do you guys think of the idea of making "chance to dodge" independent of "chance to block"?

 

To be honest, I'm very used to having defense stats independently wrought out from character sources (race, granular equipment bonuses, level, raw stat). So I'll generally describe the system currently used by another game I play:

 

Originally, there was always a base miss chance for same-level PC and enemy. However, that base miss chance could be reduced using the DEX raw stat, which placed several classes at a notable disadvantage because that stat wasn't their primary class stat; it made little sense to me that a high-level, expert fighter-type class in melee would "miss" more than a ranged class with super high DEX. But the base miss chance for same-level combat was been removed, which I think is a good thing; there's still a miss chance for enemies higher level compared to you. Edit: I don't think spells could "miss" at all, but I'm not sure since I don't play a spell-casting class much--I believe spells would primarily be mitigated (see below) or resisted (which I don't describe).

 

Then, the following defense stats exist independently of each other: block, parry, evade

These defense stats increase depending on class->primary stat synergy (e.g. the fighter-type classes that rely on STR will increase block/parry with STR, while the thief-type class will increase parry/evade with their DEX stat--no block since they don't use shields). So in any given encounter, it's possible for a squishy medium-wearing class to avoid attacks while the heavy-armor class can block much of it. This type of defense, like I described in my previous post, makes much more realistic sense to me than a mere "miss" chance, because you're not actually missing: The other individual blocked, parried, evaded, or mitigated. Mitigations later.

 

But the enemies can also block, parry, evade.

So combat number crunching thus involves level-vs-level calculations between you and the enemy depending on level and class. It's possible for the enemy to end up B/P/E-ing away your attacks in succession and you likewise.

 

There is another stat to counter the enemy's B/P/E called finesse. It's basically a stat that when increased, increases your character's overall combat skill in countering the enemy's B/P/E. Of course, the enemy also makes use of this stat. I don't think this level of detail is necessary in a game like PE, though (there'd be stat bloat and too much reliance on equipment).

 

As for actual hits, there are partial blocks and partial parries. This halves the damage. There are also mitigations as character stats: physical mitigation reduces damage for all physical attacks like your typical melee/ranged arrows; tactical mitigation reduces damage for magical and elemental attacks. Your physical mitigation stat is affected by armor class, so a heavy-wearer will mitigate more than someone in a robe. As for tactical mitigation, this is increased primarily by the CON stat, which is generally recommended for all classes, and specific gear bonuses. Probably something else I'm forgetting. As usual, enemies can also take advantage of these numbers. Personally, as stated by others previously, I think aligning PE's stamina/health damage to mitigation/avoidance, where stam is lost but not health, would be perfect. Oh well.

 

 

Comment: I'm not recommending that PE adopt something like this on its face, certainly, but pointing out that breaking out combat defense/offense like this has its advantages and can not only make classes more unique in offense/defense play but also give enemies some flavor. Specifically, we can get rid of the weird "miss" concept altogether and shift the RNG from a perceptual "miss" mechanic to something that makes more sense (to me), where the enemy is going to counter. The swishes would go from a bad RNG die roll "miss" to "the enemy dodged your attack." In actual play, I suppose things wouldn't change. But environmental variables should affect these kinds of stats too--if I cast Hold Person on someone, I'd damn well better not miss the bugger. But maybe his armor is so high that I can barely dent him anyway, so he mitigates everything at a high percent.

Edited January 5, 2013 by Ieo