|
Post by jlv61560 on Apr 23, 2014 13:21:09 GMT -5
Nukesnipe:
First, I've been looking over all my old TFT stuff (by the way, if you want scans of everything, PM me your e-mail address and I'll send 'em your way), including Advanced Wizard, and I think I prefer DCG's increased dice solution vice a lot of DX adds or subtracts. For one thing, it's a lot easier to remember, and for another it seems to fit in better with the way TFT wanted to do things like find doors and disarm traps. As it stands, you almost need a separate cheat-sheet to run TFT, what with all the various and highly variable DX adjustment.
Second, I don't have a problem with having "prerequisite skills," or prerequisites in general for that matter. In fact, in the specific case you mention, it actually makes sense. Seems like you would have to learn how to handle one sword before you can handle two. But at the same time, handling two swords well DOES require some basic DX -- if you're clumsy, what you basically have done is make it twice as likely you'll hurt yourself. So perhaps some combination of prerequisites would be logical in this case (minimum DX of 12, must have a basic weapon skill before you can use two weapons of that type -- only).
Keep on with the review, please -- you have good ideas and thoughts on this!
|
|
|
Post by platimus on Apr 23, 2014 22:47:11 GMT -5
I apologize if this seems passive-aggressive, hostile, or testy. Maybe I'm missing something here. Why would you have a minimum DX requirement for fighting with two weapons? If I saw someone fighting with two weapons in real life or TV, I know I would think, "Wow! They must have a lot of dexterity!" Yet, in terms of game mechanics, it doesn't make sense to me. It rewards power (high DX) with more power - unless there is some sort of penalty with the new power (two weapon fighting). If there is a penalty for the new power (two weapon fighting), the penalty enforces a minimum DX on its own. A clumsy character attempting such attacks won't live long or be very useful.
|
|
|
Post by nukesnipe on Apr 24, 2014 12:27:24 GMT -5
Regarding the Two Weapons skill, the reason I asked the question was due to the fundamental difference between how TFT and LAW handle skills. TFT's weapons skills allow you to use the weapons; LAW's weapons skills allows you to use them better, or more efficiently.
The TFT Two Weapons Skill has both an IQ and a DX requirement: one must have IQ 11 and DX 13 in order to acquire the skill. Additionally, they must have the skills for the two weapons they wish to use. When using the skill, the character may: make two attacks in one turn, one at normal DX, and the second at -4 DX; make one attack at normal DX and parry with the second weapon to stop 2 hits; or, parry with both weapons to stop 4 hits. Additionally, under the right circumstances one can combine Two Weapons with Fencing (IQ 10, adjDX 14 required), which adds a whole new level of mischief to the process.
Due to their nature, LAW skills do not have attribute requirements. That makes direct porting of TFT skill to LAW somewhat problematic. Add to that jlv's observation that the TFT rules are a bit varied on DX and dice adjustments, and one's brain begins to hurt.
Anyway, I've got today off and don't feel like painting, so perhaps I'll get started.
|
|
|
Post by jlv61560 on Apr 24, 2014 15:25:56 GMT -5
Okay, Nuke, I get your point now -- I was more addressing the reality (a clumsy person simply can't do it -- I've studied Chinese martial arts and it takes years to learn how to use two swords in even a very choreographed form without endangering yourself or innocent bystanders -- unless you're naturally ambidextrous, at which point the training burden becomes less, though it still exists), whereas you were focusing on game mechanics more.
In which case, I'd say that anyone can use two weapons, but without the specific skill should be at a 4/DX, 5/DX or 6/DX -- or even worse -- penalty (you could even say, for example, and just picking a DX penalty without any real analysis at this point, 5/DX for primary hand, and 6/DX for off hand if you wanted to be more complex) to do so. And that you must have some other weapon skill to even try it (except maybe with a club?). You could then account for someone being "ambidextrous" by simply saying that both hands are at 5/DX. Doing it this way would be more in keeping with the LAW approach to skills....
Of course this now begs the question of how one determines whether or not a character is ambidextrous....
My point was that trying to use ONE of anything well is hard, especially in combat. Trying to do the same thing with two of anything is MUCH harder.
|
|
|
Post by nukesnipe on Apr 24, 2014 21:29:16 GMT -5
Okay, I'be been playing with Excel. For those number junkies out there, I've crunched probabilities for 1d6 through 5d6 die rolls. I was thinking they might help me in my endeavor. Hopefully, I'll get them to format in a readable fashion here. 1d6 | Possible Outcomes
| Number of Outcomes
| Probability of Outcome
| Probability ≤ Outcome
| | 1
| 1
| 16.6667
| 16.67
| | 2
| 1
| 16.6667
| 33.34
| | 3 | 1 | 16.6667 | 50.00 | | 4 | 1 | 16.6667 | 66.67 | | 5 | 1 | 16.6667 | 83.34 | | 6 | 1 | 16.6667 | 100.00 |
2d6 | Possible Outcomes | Number of Outcomes | Probability of Outcome | Probability ≤ Outcome | | 2 | 1 | 2.7778 | 2.78 | | 3 | 2 | 5.5556 | 8.34 | | 4 | 3 | 8.3333 | 16.67 | | 5 | 4 | 11.1111 | 27.78 | | 6 | 5 | 13.8889 | 41.67 | | 7 | 6 | 16.6667 | 58.34 | | 8 | 5 | 13.8889 | 72.22 | | 9 | 4 | 11.1111 | 83.34 | | 10 | 3 | 8.3333 | 91.67 | | 11 | 2 | 5.5556 | 97.22 | | 12 | 1 | 2.7778 | 100.00 |
3d6 | Possible Outcomes | Number of Outcomes | Probability of Outcome | Probability ≤ Outcome | | 3 | 1 | 0.4630 | 0.46 | | 4 | 3 | 1.3889 | 1.85 | | 5 | 6 | 2.7778 | 4.63 | | 6 | 10 | 4.6296 | 9.26 | | 7 | 15 | 6.9444 | 16.20 | | 8 | 21 | 9.7222 | 25.92 | | 9 | 25 | 11.5741 | 37.50 | | 10 | 27 | 12.5000 | 50.00 | | 11 | 27 | 12.5000 | 62.50 | | 12 | 25 | 11.557 | 74.07 | | 13 | 21 | 9.7222 | 83.79 | | 14 | 15 | 6.9444 | 90.74 | | 15 | 10 | 4.6296 | 95.37 | | 16 | 6 | 2.7778 | 98.15 | | 17 | 3 | 1.3889 | 99.53 | | 18 | 1 | 0.4630 | 100.00 |
4d6 | Possible Outcomes | Number of Outcomes | Probability of Outcome | Probability ≤ Outcome | | 4 | 1 | 0.0772 | 0.08 | | 5 | 4 | 0.3086 | 0.39 | | 6 | 10 | 0.7716 | 1.16 | | 7 | 20 | 1.5432 | 2.70 | | 8 | 35 | 2.7006 | 5.40 | | 9 | 56 | 4.3210 | 9.73 | | 10 | 80 | 6.1728 | 15.90 | | 11 | 104 | 8.0247 | 23.92 | | 12 | 125 | 9.6451 | 33.57 | | 13 | 140 | 10.8025 | 44.37 | | 14 | 146 | 11.2654 | 55.64 | | 15 | 140 | 10.8025 | 66.44 | | 16 | 125 | 9.6451 | 76.08 | | 17 | 104 | 8.0247 | 84.11 | | 18 | 80 | 6.1728 | 90.28 | | 19 | 56 | 4.3210 | 94.60 | | 20 | 35 | 2.7006 | 97.30 | | 21 | 20 | 1.5432 | 98.85 | | 22 | 10 | 0.7716 | 99.62 | | 23 | 4 | 0.3086 | 99.93 | | 24 | 1 | 0.0772 | 100.00 |
5d6 | Possible Outcomes | Number of Outcomes | Probability of Outcome | Probability ≤ Outcome | | 5 | 1 | 0.0129 | 0.01 | | 6 | 5 | 0.0643 | 0.07 | | 7 | 15 | 0.1929 | 0.27 | | 8 | 35 | 0.4501 | 0.72 | | 9 | 70 | 0.9002 | 1.62 | | 10 | 126 | 1.6204 | 3.24 | | 11 | 205 | 2.6363 | 5.87 | | 12 | 305 | 3.9223 | 9.80 | | 13 | 420 | 5.4012 | 15.20 | | 14 | 540 | 6.9444 | 22.14 | | 15 | 651 | 8.3719 | 30.51 | | 16 | 735 | 9.4522 | 39.97 | | 17 | 780 | 10.0309 | 50.00 | | 18 | 780 | 10.0309 | 60.03 | | 19 | 735 | 9.4522 | 69.48 | | 20 | 651 | 8.3719 | 77.85 | | 21 | 540 | 6.9444 | 84.80 | | 22 | 420 | 5.4012 | 90.20 | | 23 | 305 | 3.9223 | 94.12 | | 24 | 205 | 2.6363 | 96.76 | | 25 | 126 | 1.6204 | 98.38 | | 26 | 70 | 0.9002 | 99.28 | | 27 | 35 | 0.4501 | 99.73 | | 28 | 15 | 0.1929 | 99.92 | | 29 | 5 | 0.0643 | 99.98 | | 30 | 1 | 0.0129 | 100.00 |
|
|
|
Post by platimus on Apr 25, 2014 0:46:03 GMT -5
After re-skimming the character creation, advancement, and talent sections of my copy of ITL, I was hit with some new ideas. I came here to post it and it looks like you guys may already be headed in a similar direction. I don't necessarily prefer every one of these ideas. I'm posting them here for inspiration, if any.
Characters start at 1st Level with a total of 32 attribute points and skill/spell points equal to their IQ. 2nd Level costs <some number> EP. 3rd Level costs 2x<some number> EP. 4th costs 3x<some number> EP...10th level (maximum) costs 9x<some number> EP. EP is awarded whenever a character passes a test. The amount of EP equals the number of die used in the test.
When a character 'levels up', increase one attribute (ST, DX, or IQ) by 1 point and increase a Skill if possible.
Skills are increased more like Talents in ITL. A character's total amount of skill/spell points cannot exceed the character's IQ but no ST, DX, or IQ requirements for skills (spells would still have IQ requirements). Let each Skill have a maximum of 3 levels (similar to Legends). Using a skill at 'skill level zero' is a 5-die test against the related attribute. Skill level 1 is a 4-die test. Skill level 2 is a 3-die test. Skill level 3 is a 2-die test. Game situations can modify the number of die used in tests also. The minimum possible result of a die test is always a success (even if it is higher than the tested attribute). The maximum possible result is always a failure. Some Skills would have prerequisite Skills.
I know that's really a basic summary of how ITL worked but there are some differences that I think streamlines it a bit.
|
|
|
Post by jlv61560 on Apr 25, 2014 11:49:06 GMT -5
Nuke, thanks for doing that -- I've been meaning to do that for some time. It really shows how the extra dice lower the overall probability of success, whereas the DX bonus/penalty thing changes them much less. Obviously that's why Steve went that way in TFT, because he clearly wanted to penalize/reward some things (make them harder/easier) to a much greater extent than he did other things.
Now, if I can catch a break with work and the big grocery run to the nearest town (50 miles from here) today, I'll start trying to put together a "master list" of all the DX bonuses/penalties, and the various dice amount changes. Perhaps if we have it all laid out in a table, we can figure out what the general classes of things being affected by the two categories of difficulty were. That, in turn, might lead us to a better understanding of what was going on, and how/when to change it in LAW....
|
|
|
Post by platimus on Apr 25, 2014 14:14:43 GMT -5
If one looks at the probability tables, adding a die to a test or using a -3 penalty have roughly the same probabilities:
3d6 <= 10 = 50% probability of success. If you 'make it harder' by adding a die, 4d6 <= 10 = 15.90% probability. If you impose a -3 penalty instead of an extra die, 3d6 <= (10 - 3) = 16.20% probability. Pretty darn close.
What happens when you want to make it easier to succeed?
2d6 <= 10 = 91.67% probability of success. 3d6 <= (10 + 3) = 83.79% probability of success.
It seems obvious to me that the die-roll modifiers are far superior in terms of scalability. For me, remembering how many die a test uses is no easier than remembering how much modifier a test uses, but YMMV applies.
|
|
|
Post by nukesnipe on Apr 25, 2014 22:58:25 GMT -5
Platimus, After re-skimming the character creation, advancement, and talent sections of my copy of ITL, I was hit with some new ideas. I came here to post it and it looks like you guys may already be headed in a similar direction. I don't necessarily prefer every one of these ideas. I'm posting them here for inspiration, if any. Characters start at 1st Level with a total of 32 attribute points and skill/spell points equal to their IQ. 2nd Level costs <some number> EP. 3rd Level costs 2x<some number> EP. 4th costs 3x<some number> EP...10th level (maximum) costs 9x<some number> EP. EP is awarded whenever a character passes a test. The amount of EP equals the number of die used in the test. When a character 'levels up', increase one attribute (ST, DX, or IQ) by 1 point and increase a Skill if possible. Skills are increased more like Talents in ITL. A character's total amount of skill/spell points cannot exceed the character's IQ but no ST, DX, or IQ requirements for skills (spells would still have IQ requirements). Let each Skill have a maximum of 3 levels (similar to Legends). Using a skill at 'skill level zero' is a 5-die test against the related attribute. Skill level 1 is a 4-die test. Skill level 2 is a 3-die test. Skill level 3 is a 2-die test. Game situations can modify the number of die used in tests also. The minimum possible result of a die test is always a success (even if it is higher than the tested attribute). The maximum possible result is always a failure. Some Skills would have prerequisite Skills. I know that's really a basic summary of how ITL worked but there are some differences that I think streamlines it a bit. It took me a while to realize you were describing a variant of the ITL advancement system. If I correctly understand what you've written, it seems a character would max out at around 42 points (+1 attribute each level; 10 levels; 32 pts + 10 = 42 pts). I'm not sure I can get on board with that one as I enjoy the attribute development aspect of the game and the creation of truly heroic characters. I especially like the "advantages of great strength" from ITL and the "Sweeping Blow" from Advanced Melee. My favorite character from my younger days was a human fighter named Balinor (I know, not very imaginative - most of my characters got their names from books). Anyway, I nurtured him to ST 30. Fine plate armor, magically enhanced Great Sword, and a Tower Shield. No DX penalties. When things got dicey, he'd drop the shield and sweep away his adversaries. I can't remember which adventure it was (Grail Quest?), but he was beset by a band of Hobgoblins armed with rapiers, one of which found its way to Balinor's rear hex, made an aimed shot to Balinor's head and rolled a "3". Balinor dropped like a sack of potatoes and the Hobgoblins slit his throat while he was unconscious. I sat in stunned disbelief for about 20 minutes. I threw those dice away, the traitors. Truthfully, I prefer the LAW mechanic for raising attributes over ITL's. No tables to memorize, no thousands of EP to keep track of; just a very straight forward mechanic. ITL had a de facto leveling system based on total attribute points (AP): 32-36 was level 1 (125 EP/AP); 37-40 was level 2 (250 EP/AP); and then every 5 AP after that, with the required EP increasing pretty steeply. Of course, ITL was pretty generous with EP as they were tied to the DX of your defeated opponents. Of course, there was no "benefit" of leveling in ITL as it was used only to denote how many EP were needed to increase AP. I'm not sure I'm a fan of limiting the number of skills one can have to one's IQ. It seems to me that would get us back to the warriors being smarter than the wizards thing again. As for limiting skills to some maximum level (I was unaware of, and cannot find, a cap on skill levels in the LAW rules), I'm of the opinion that if a player wants to compensate for a relatively lower DX by an increased skill level, let him. A clumsy oaf who suddenly becomes a savant when he picks up a sword could be a fun character to play. Kind of like a stutterer who sings with breathtaking beauty. I do disagree with LAW's starting skills at a +1 add. I think skill "Level 0" should be the entry level prerequisite with additional levels conferring the advantages. Attempting to "use" a skill without possessing it should incur a -4 DX penalty as per ITL. Speaking of prerequisites - I'm thinking out loud here - I've been cogitating on "advanced" skill levels, and it does sort of dove tails with your +3 max. One of the big philosophical discussions of my youth was what to do with a "+3" add for a weapon. If you look at the Advanced Melee weapons table, you won't find a weapon with a +3 die roll modifier, the logic being that +3 is the same as adding 1d6. It isn't, really, but there are advantages to both schools of thought. An ITL small ax is 1d6+2; finely made small ax that gets +1 damage becomes 1d6+3 (1d6+4 if you pay for +2 damage). Depending on the school you subscribe to, the small ax has a damage range of either 4-9, (1d6+3 - average 6.5) or 2-12 (2d6 - average 7). Most would take the lower maximum damage to score the greater minimum damage. What if you did have three "levels" of a weapon skill? Something like Sword, Advanced Sword, Master Sword, with each level starting at +0 and capping out at +2. The progression would go something like Sword (entry level prerequisite with no adds), Sword+1, Sword+2, Advanced Sword (+1d6), Advanced Sword+1, Advanced Sword+2, Master Sword (+2d6), Master Sword+1, Master Sword+2. So for a broadsword, the damage progression would start at 2d6 (Sword), and then proceed 2d6+1, 2d6+2, 3d6 (Advanced Sword), 3d6+1, 3d6+2, 4d6 (Master Sword), 4d6+1, and cap out at 4d6+2. This is pretty close to what LAW does not, but converts +3 adds to extra dice; under the LAW mechanic, starting with Sword+1, I think my Master Sword+2 would become Sword+9, which is pretty close to the 2d6+2 I present here. Of course, my mechanic totally blows the current "DX or damage" mechanism out of the water. I haven't thought that part out. If one looks at the probability tables, adding a die to a test or using a -3 penalty have roughly the same probabilities: 3d6 <= 10 = 50% probability of success. If you 'make it harder' by adding a die, 4d6 <= 10 = 15.90% probability. If you impose a -3 penalty instead of an extra die, 3d6 <= (10 - 3) = 16.20% probability. Pretty darn close. What happens when you want to make it easier to succeed? 2d6 <= 10 = 91.67% probability of success. 3d6 <= (10 + 3) = 83.79% probability of success. It seems obvious to me that the die-roll modifiers are far superior in terms of scalability. For me, remembering how many die a test uses is no easier than remembering how much modifier a test uses, but YMMV applies. As described earlier in this post, a "3" modifier is a special case as you've clearly shown. When you start applying "2" and "4", or even "6"s, it becomes a lot more complicated. Reviewing the ITL and Advanced Melee rules today, I think I'm beginning to better understand why things were done they way they were. It seems fixed tasks - such as disarming traps, etc - are defined by the number of dice rolled, while the +/- die roll modifiers are applied to transient events and were intended to add tactical thinking to the combat mechanic (reference Balinor's fate - the only chance those Hobgoblins had of hurting him (I think they were DX 9 or something) with their rapiers was to get behind him and do exactly what they did). LAW doesn't have the auto/critical hit/failure mechanism, but I play with it anyway to appease the fickle nature of the Dice Gods. Reducing the number of dice throws the probabilities for those events into a tizzy and upsets the Dice Gods, and as related above, angry Dice Gods kill off your favorite characters. Finally, I'm a Luddite; what in the heck does "YMMV" mean?
|
|
|
Post by platimus on Apr 26, 2014 10:58:54 GMT -5
Nukesnipe, I enjoyed reading your post and seeing where your mind is. Quickly, YMMV is 'your mileage may vary'. Your post was a bit long and brought up many topics. I'm in a hurrry this morning can't address all of them individually. I will say this: I agree with you on most points and think you may have misunderstood me on others.
I especially agree with you on why ITL did things they way they did (extra die for something and modifiers for other things). I still maintain that modifiers are superior because you can replace an extra die with a -3 modifier. I think a +3 modifier is better than removing a die because it scales better, IMO (in my opinion). There are times when you may not want to skew the results of a test as drastically or times when you want to skew the results more drastically. Modifiers can do it all. That's what seems superior about modifiers to me - they're very agile.
The first post I made was mainly sharing a way of doing skills I'd never thought of before. Instead of skills granting a modifier bonus, each level changed the die used. Hence, the limitation on skill level. I don't really like that method but I was excited because it was different. The character leveling (minus the maximum limit) is the only thing I really like in that post. That and total skill/spell points being tied to IQ. I really disagree with your arguments against that but I'm going to look more closely at it when I have time to see if I'm missing something.
Cheers!
|
|
|
Post by jlv61560 on Apr 26, 2014 14:19:38 GMT -5
Nuke, I concur. I prefer how LAW does advancement to both ITL and HOW. Rather than denying any ability whatsoever to improve physical characteristics (as does HOW -- and which makes no sense to me -- how does one get to be an olympic class weight lifter if one can't increase one's strength?), LAW lets us improve them if we so desire, but with some difficulty. Rather than relying entirely on physical attributes which limit your ability to memorize data/spells/skills (as does ITL -- which makes no sense to me -- does one really need to be a god-like genius in order to memorize 20 magical spells or eight complex, but inter-related skills?), LAW permits us to increase our knowledge at the "expense" of saving sufficient XP to increase our attributes. Further, the small numbers of XP awarded and expended to do these things avoid having to memorize a million different XP grants for various things. When it's all said and done, LAW provides tremendous flexibility to the players and once again increases the decisions a player must make in terms of "resource management;" all of which makes for a more tailored character and more meaningful player input into the "system." So, no, I think I'll stick with LAW's experience points. If I wanted to get into "levels" and stuff like that, I'd just play 0D&D or AD&D 1 or 2.
Regarding your skills advancement idea, I don't see why it would need to necessarily "blow the DX adjustment choice out of the water" -- if you are simply using "Sword (1D6)" in lieu of "Sword (+3)," which is what you seem to imply you are doing (am I misunderstanding that?), simply make it one for damage and the other for DX adjustment. And really, applying Occam's Razor yet again, you don't need to change the title of the skill either -- instead it merely becomes "Sword +1," "Sword +2," "Sword +1D6," and then moves on to "Sword +1D6+1 and so on, with the "Sword +1D6+1" merely being "Sword +4" for the DX add. Mind you, by the time you get to that point of swordsmanship, you pretty much are a blademaster anyway, and will probably wind up spending your next batch of XP on something else.
(Edited to add: I also strongly concur with the "Skill level 0" idea -- it seems like a simple way to say that anyone can try to climb a cliff, but if you try it without some basic skills, odds are you'll be in a world of hurt.... I'd mentioned something like this before, and I still think it's an excellent idea.)
|
|
|
Post by platimus on Apr 26, 2014 14:31:53 GMT -5
JLV, you seem to have mistaken the bit about leveling. In that post I made, a character's level simply reflects how much XP/EP they have. The only point to leveling there IS to increase attributes. That being said, I too prefer the way LAW does things. So testy aren't you?
|
|
|
Post by jlv61560 on Apr 26, 2014 22:08:51 GMT -5
Annnd, the passive-aggressive behavior continues. Since you directed your comment to me personally, I'll reply to this one by stating that since I'm frankly doing my best to ignore you, if you bother to re-read Nukesnipe's comment (you know, the one to which I was responding?) you will see that he mentions the TFT experience rules as a form of "levels" and I was simply stating that I didn't like the concept, and that if I wanted something like that, I could play the original version of D&D or AD&D versions 1 or 2 -- which is why I prefer LAW's method to TFT's. Or, I suppose, if you think everything said on these boards has something to do with you, you could choose to see it as an "attack" or something. But whatever. Now back to ignoring you.
|
|
|
Post by platimus on Apr 28, 2014 20:19:05 GMT -5
My apologies. After all the baseless accusations you've hurled at me, I think I should be allowed that one misunderstanding.
|
|
|
Post by nukesnipe on Apr 29, 2014 7:32:14 GMT -5
So, I've started mapping out the ITL talents on a poster board. I've also reviewed all of my Interplay magazines to see if there were any new talents of interest in there; nothing much, but there were some interesting "spells" for Priests that I'd forgotten about.
Taking a bit longer than I'd thought - pesky job keeps getting in the way. It'll probaby be this weekend before I can make any substantial progress.
|
|