|
Post by platimus on Sept 7, 2015 22:32:24 GMT -5
Hi guys. I have refined my approach to handling winning checks. Each side rolls 2d6 (instead of 3d6) then adds the tested stat. Ties go to the defender. This small modification reduces the math a tad and ties still go to the defender. This is easier for me to resolve accurately and quickly. I also like how it favors the opponent with the higher stat. Both sides never fail. There is always a victor! Should snake eyes always loose and boxcars always win?
Ed
Should? That seems a matter of taste, as so much of these things do. My own preference is no.
|
|
|
Post by platimus on Sept 7, 2015 22:36:27 GMT -5
A simple one-roll solution that takes into account both stats is to modify the acting character's attribute by the difference between the attacker's and defender's relevant attribute, if the defender's attribute is higher. Case 1 - Active player has a DX of 12 and the Defending player has a DX of 10. The active player needs a roll of 12 or less. case 2 - Active player has a DX of 12 and the Defending player has a DX of 14. The active player needs to roll a 10 or less. Mathematically, this translates to using the lesser of (2X Active stat - Defending stat) and (Active stat) Lord, if that works for you, that's great. I see no problem with it at a glance but I too reserve the right to be wrong as granted by the Declaration of Constitution. My way is simpler for me. Less conditional logic = less chance for human error or misinterpretation.
|
|
|
Post by platimus on Sept 7, 2015 22:40:36 GMT -5
I'm liking platimus' revised test scheme there. While the original one works, it always takes so darn long to explain and invariably invokes a "whaaaat?" response the first few times you use it. Seems to me that 2d6 plus tested stat (as modified by relevant skills), high roller wins, ties go to the defender is a definite improvement.... Edited to add: I guess the only real question is, has it been playtested against very high stat/skill levels (in other words, does it hold up in long-term play with lots of character advancement)? Intuitively, it seems like it would, but some odd things tend to happen at the extreme bleeding edge of games sometimes.... If you are trying to win a check against a foe with a stat/skill combo 10 greater than your own, you will only win on a tie. I like this. Editing to clarify... STAT/SKILL 10 vs STAT/SKILL 20 Ten must roll a 12 and Twenty must roll a 2. Incredible odds just to tie. If Ten was attacking, he lost. If Ten was defending, he won.
|
|
|
Post by platimus on Sept 9, 2015 19:57:19 GMT -5
Some of you may be thinking, "Dude. That's brutal. Especially when an ST11 PC is grappled by an ST20 Gargoyle." You'd be thinking right. It is brutal. At this point, if you are nodding your head at me with approval and respect, I must ask you to stop. I don't deserve it! I allow Grappled Escape and Grappled Attack success to be determined by winning ST or DX - escapee's or attacker's choice.
|
|
|
Post by platimus on Sept 10, 2015 23:19:12 GMT -5
Should snake eyes always loose and boxcars always win?
Ed
Should? That seems a matter of taste, as so much of these things do. My own preference is no. Now, I think that might have sounded harsher than I meant. While my preference is no special treatment for snake-eyes and boxcars, it could be fun. I will have to try it. Just saying 'snake-eyes' and 'boxcars' is kinda fun Btw, I was sitting on this method of 'winning' for a while. I decided to share it after reading about your treatment of Lycanthrope. I was hoping you would like it and that it might simplify your process. While the official 'right' way to handle a 'winning check' sounds strange at first, it really isn't that complicated and it works. What really motivated me to find another way was trying to 'fairly' decide on the number of die an NPC, spell, or disease would use. This way, I don't have to decide.
|
|