WoD rules question

[SolkaTruesilver]

I was wondering.. Why is the armor rating substracted from the attack dice pool? I mean.. The point of armor (compared to a shield/dodge manoeuver) is not to make yourself harder to hit, but make successful hits less effective.

Also, what do you think of the rule shift about the changing of 7+ and 1s negative toward a simpl(ier?) 8+ success?

If you have other questions/ comments, don't hesitate.

[lesser_minion]

The attack roll and the damage roll are the same thing in NWoD - you just work out how much damage you could do, and then roll to see if you deal it.

In reality, armour actually makes you harder to strike meaningfully as well as reducing the impact of blows - someone wearing armour has at least a few more options for defending herself than someone who isn't.

[erikun]

The point of armor is to make your internal squishy bits harder to hit. This is why armor will sometimes subtract from your Defense, while still provide an Armor Rating.

Note that the Defense and Armor Rating end up being the same thing in melee - both are subtracted from the Attack dice pool. Remember that you don't apply Defense to getting shot with a gun, though - it's only the Armor Rating that keeps your squishy bits from being hit.

Also, as Lesser Minion points out, the Attack roll determines the damage deals. Having the Armor Rating reduce the Attack dice pool protects your organs from being hit.

--

Do you mean the transition from old World of Darkness (with variable target numbers) to new World of Darkness (with all rolls being 8+)?

I think that it keeps things simpler on both sides. A player with 6 dice will recognize what chances he has to succeed, and the Storyteller can get a rough idea of what adding/subtracting 2 dice does. Different target numbers throw estimates off, so it's tricky to determine if, say, a dice pool of 8 at difficulty 9 is worth the risk.

Given that the dice pool is supposed to represent the risks involved, being unable to (easily) calculate those risks makes it difficult to visualize what you're getting yourself into.

On the other hand, varying the difficulty allows the Storyteller to make it quite clear what is an easy task, what is a good idea, and what is a bad idea. Difficulty 4 is something most people with a moderate amount of skill can accomplish, while Difficulty 10 is basically pure luck regardless of dice pool.

I'd prefer the new World of Darkess rolls as a Storyteller, primarily because I'm still new and would prefer to keep things simple. I don't mind the old WoD difficulty, and would use it if my players insisted, but I'd worry about unintentionally making things too easy/hard without knowing it.

[Weimann]

I was wondering.. Why is the armor rating substracted from the attack dice pool? I mean.. The point of armor (compared to a shield/dodge manoeuver) is not to make yourself harder to hit, but make successful hits less effective.nWoD is going for a simple syle of resolving mechanical situations. Instead of two stats (defense and "soak", to borrow from Exalted), they use only defense.

You can look at it this way. If your defense+armour is high enough to make the attack miss, you have dodged or parried the attack, or it failed to pierce your armour. In any case, it didn't do damage. If the attack hits, then at least your attempts at avoidance and your worn armour eases the damage of impact, making your opponent strike less vital areas or blocking the force of the blow.

In the end, it's a matter on how much detail the system warrants. nWoD is not supposed to be a battle-heavy system, and therefore it resolves battle in a way that is expedient and simple. A game where battles are brought to the fore more readily will have a more complex battle system, simply because it's the point of the game.
Also, what do you think of the rule shift about the changing of 7+ and 1s negative toward a simpl(ier?) 8+ success?I think anything that makes rolls needlessly complicated is a bad thing. With 8+ as target numbers, you have a 30% chance of getting a sucess on a die roll. That's easy and straightforward. With 7+ and negative 1, you get 40% chance of success, but also 10% risk of making your roll WORSE. This can make the option of adding a die (for example through environmental bonuses) not unambiguously good, because an added die might end up worsening the roll. Which is silly. A clear line fo sight doens't make it harder to hit something with a gunshot.

[SolkaTruesilver]

With 8+ as target numbers, you have a 30% chance of getting a sucess on a die roll. That's easy and straightforward. With 7+ and negative 1, you get 40% chance of success, but also 10% risk of making your roll WORSE. This can make the option of adding a die (for example through environmental bonuses) not unambiguously good, because an added die might end up worsening the roll. Which is silly. A clear line fo sight doens't make it harder to hit something with a gunshot.

Actually, with 8+ 10++ (roll again), you have exactly 1/3 chance of success/dice.

P [X] = 7/10 * 0 success + 2/10 * 1 success + 1/10 * (1 success + P [X])
9/10 * P[X] = 3/10 Success
P[X] = 1/3 success

(don't judge me, I started playing WoD while studying probabilistic math)

Anyway.. Do you think it would unbalance the game unfairly for [???] if we changed the armor substraction to the number of success for attack rolls (= damage), as opposed to the number of attack rolls?

[lesser_minion]

Actually, with 8+ 10++ (roll again), you have exactly 1/3 chance of success/dice.

P [X] = 7/10 * 0 success + 2/10 * 1 success + 1/10 * (1 success + P [X])
9/10 * P[X] = 3/10 Success
P[X] = 1/3 success

(don't judge me, I started playing WoD while studying probabilistic math)

Anyway.. Do you think it would unbalance the game unfairly for [???] if we changed the armor substraction to the number of success for attack rolls (= damage), as opposed to the number of attack rolls?

I don't think it's a good move, and you'd have to cut armour values massively. I quite like the idea of armour reducing someone's potential to hurt you, because that's what it does.

[SolkaTruesilver]

I don't think it's a good move, and you'd have to cut armour values massively. I quite like the idea of armour reducing someone's potential to hurt you, because that's what it does.

That's what I mean.

Don't change anything else. Just change the mecanics. It soak successes. It improves armor a lot in the game.

How bad/good would it affect the game?

[Attilargh]

A skilled attacker with all the aces in his hands would probably have a dice pool around fifteen or so, which means he'd get around five or six successes per attack. I can't recall the armour values in the book offhand, but I recall a bulletproof vest is around two and they go up from there.

So, basically, it would make attacking an armoured target an excercise in futility.

[illyrus]

I'm in agreement with Attilargh. Especially if you add in non-mundane means of armor like magic. You can feasibly have a target with ~ 10 armor against melee or ranged attacks. It kinda removes the fear of firearms and makes things like magic that can happily ignore armor much deadlier in comparison.

What situation are you worried might arise from the Rules As Written?

[SolkaTruesilver]

It's just that my current (lone) player might not be able to compete much as a simple human if it's attack-reducing and less of damage-soaking.

Oh well, maybe I'll have to give him some technological boost. I think maybe make him an unwilling Technocracy/Virtual Adept/Vampire/Inquisition agent, and having them send a few goodies to help him*.

*Such things might or might not devour his soul on the short/long run, making you "black out" and awaken with blood on your hands and records of you killing an entire fast-food of innocent people. Self-destructive device mandatory, may come with or without remote activation.

[Fenix_of_Doom]

Actually, with 8+ 10++ (roll again), you have exactly 1/3 chance of success/dice.

P [X] = 7/10 * 0 success + 2/10 * 1 success + 1/10 * (1 success + P [X])
9/10 * P[X] = 3/10 Success
P[X] = 1/3 success

(don't judge me, I started playing WoD while studying probabilistic math)
?

You are ignoring the botch rules, you see the 1 is a -1 success isn't just there for the heck of it, if you roll a 1 and no successes you botch the roll and something bad(TM) happens.

I also have the feeling something in you math is wrong, I'll edit my post if I find it.

Edit:
I agree on:
P[X] = 7/10 * 0 success + 2/10 * 1 success + 1/10 * (1 success + P [X])
P[X] = 1/3 success
I have no Idea why you're multiplying P[X] by 9/10 in between.

[SolkaTruesilver]

You are ignoring the botch rules, you see the 1 is a -1 success isn't just there for the heck of it, if you roll a 1 and no successes you botch the roll and some bad(TM) happens.

I also have the feeling something in you math is wrong, I'll edit my post if I find it.

That was in OWoD..

in NWoD, the 1 is a botched roll only on a chance roll. (chance roll = dice pool of 0 or less, success only on 10, critical failure on a 1)

[Fenix_of_Doom]

That was in OWoD..

in NWoD, the 1 is a botched roll only on a chance roll. (chance roll = dice pool of 0 or less, success only on 10, critical failure on a 1)

Then allow me to rephrase, the 1 is -1 didn't used to be there for the heck of it, but now it is and can, statistically speaking, be safely removed from the system

[erikun]

Anyway.. Do you think it would unbalance the game unfairly for [???] if we changed the armor substraction to the number of success for attack rolls (= damage), as opposed to the number of attack rolls?
Yes, it would radically change the balance of armor in the game.

Consider an attacker with 9 dice in the pool (after defense) and your character wearing something with an Armor Rating of 3. As you said before, each dice has a 33.3% chance of success.

Under the normal system, the Armor Rating 3 would subtract from the attacker's pool, reducing it to 6 dice and thus, most likely, 2 successes.

Under your suggested system, the attacker's pool of 9 dice will likely net 3 successed. The Armor Rating 3 would then reduce this to 0 successes, thus no injury.

What it does is considerably strengthen armor, requiring you to either divine all Armor Ratings by 3 (thus rendering most armor useless) or turning anyone with any sort of armor - including your enemies - invincible.


It's just that my current (lone) player might not be able to compete much as a simple human if it's attack-reducing and less of damage-soaking.
That... is kind of the point. Getting shot with a gun is dangerous. Fighting several dozen armed combatants is dangerous. Unless you have some serious protective armor, you shouldn't even consider wandering through a hailstorm of bullets.

It sounds like you want some kind of power that adds to your "Soak", effectively giving you a natural Armor Rating which will stack with whatever you are wearing. Wits/Dexterity + "Soak" + Armor Rating should keep you reasonably safe, at least from weaker attacks.

[illyrus]

It's just that my current (lone) player might not be able to compete much as a simple human if it's attack-reducing and less of damage-soaking.


Reducing the NPC's die pools work just as well in that case and will keep the fights from getting drawn out if an NPC also happens to wear armor. Also encouraging tactics involving stealth and good use of cover will help as well. Remember that only the average damage is reduced by your method, not the the maximum damage (discounting rerolls as that goes to infinity). The bad guy could roll 10 dice that all come up as 8s and 9s and subtracting dice before or after the fact would give you the same result. Reducing the NPC die pools would reduce the average and the maximum damage.

[erikun]

Remember that only the average damage is reduced by your method, not the the maximum damage (discounting rerolls as that goes to infinity).
Well, if we ignore rerolls, then his method will effectively reduce the maximum damage, as well. To use my 9 dice pool/3 armor example, the usual method results in a 6 dice pool, for a potential maximum of 6 successes.

Under his system, there would be a potential maximum of 9 successes, with 3 of those successes "soaked"... for a total maximum of 6 successes. Mind you, 9 successes is a lot rarer than 6 successes, although 6 successes on 9 dice is more common than 6 successes on 6 dice.

[illyrus]

Well, if we ignore rerolls, then his method will effectively reduce the maximum damage, as well. To use my 9 dice pool/3 armor example, the usual method results in a 6 dice pool, for a potential maximum of 6 successes.

Under his system, there would be a potential maximum of 9 successes, with 3 of those successes "soaked"... for a total maximum of 6 successes. Mind you, 9 successes is a lot rarer than 6 successes, although 6 successes on 9 dice is more common than 6 successes on 6 dice.

I'm confused, you just came up to 6 successes on both so their max damage is the same as I stated.

[Attilargh]

Numbers and stuff. (http://wiki.white-wolf.com/worldofdarkness/index.php?title=Probability_Math) As you can see, rolling nine successes on nine dice is a lot rarer than rolling six successes on six dice. So while max damage is technically the same, the odds of rolling max damage aren't.

[grautry]

There are some methods in the game to soak successes(like a mage's Forge Godsend) but they're broken, broken, broken.

It's really not a good idea to include those effects unless your players are regularly dealing with enemies that have tremendously huge attack pools.

[Sophismata]

Also, humans can get surprisingly large attack pools - don't underestimate them. Guns are powerful.

[Weimann]

Actually, with 8+ 10++ (roll again), you have exactly 1/3 chance of success/dice.

P [X] = 7/10 * 0 success + 2/10 * 1 success + 1/10 * (1 success + P [X])
9/10 * P[X] = 3/10 Success
P[X] = 1/3 success

(don't judge me, I started playing WoD while studying probabilistic math)

Oh, yesh, I forgot about rerolls. MY bad entirely :)

[SolkaTruesilver]

Also, humans can get surprisingly large attack pools - don't underestimate them. Guns are powerful.

Nah. He wanted to play a street kid who used to be champion of taekwon-do. Since he had an interesting concept, I accepted. So no guns for him.

I'll have to think of something else.

[illyrus]

Numbers and stuff. (http://wiki.white-wolf.com/worldofdarkness/index.php?title=Probability_Math) As you can see, rolling nine successes on nine dice is a lot rarer than rolling six successes on six dice. So while max damage is technically the same, the odds of rolling max damage aren't.

Right, I never argued that, I even said and he quoted about it successfully reducing the average damage. I never mentioned the chance of rolling max damage, rather simply that the max damage was the same.

The thing is, sometimes that chance, however small, comes up (an NPC effectively wins the lotto). And in WoD with some of the die pools that means that the PC winds up dead from a single shot. As that's what he's trying to avoid, reducing the die pools on the bad guys would be a better way to reduce the potential damage (again disregarding 10 again) and keep armor from being game breaking where you have two guys struggling to do even a point of damage to one another.

Also subtracting successes after the fact can actually a bit less limiting than you think. If your NPC is using a magical ability that lets them use firearms as a rote action (reroll failures once, and there are ways to get this in Mage at least) then the difference suddenly becomes less severe at the bulletproof vest/flak jacket range of armor.

It just seems easier to me in the end to stat up NPCs that are not all gun-fu or sword-fu or werewolf claw claw bite-fu experts.