PDA

View Full Version : Original System 2d8 RPG Game (Basic Ideas WIP) (PEACH)



Ralcos
2015-02-03, 03:12 PM
Long story short, I have loads of ideas that I make my own games with, and I have loved the idea that's stated in the title of this thread.

I was just wondering: How viable is a system that only uses 2d8 to determine the success/failure of a task?
Also, I just wanted to share the very basic ideas of this "universal" system.

Base Rule:
2d8 + Attribute Modifier + Skill Ranks + Misc. Modifiers VS. DC/Opposed Roll

Damage in Combat:
Total Attack Roll - Total Defense Roll

e.g. Attacker rolls a 16 Total Attack Roll, as opposed to his Opponent's 6 Total Defense Roll, dealing 10 damage.
(16 - 6 = 10 damage)

I was thinking of a class-less system where you choose your Race (and subrace, if applicable) at character creation, and can buy skills and abilities with earned Experience Points (in a similar vein to Savage Worlds).

So, what do you guys think? Does this sound cool? Does this sound stupid?

DedWards
2015-02-03, 04:14 PM
The basic idea is, imo, good. I've been tinkering with a similar one, but using 2d6 instead of 2d8 as d6's are easier to aquire. The important, imo, part comes with making the rest of the system balance with your dice type(s). I can't remember how many times I've reworked entire sections just because of one small change in a different section

Ralcos
2015-02-03, 04:18 PM
The basic idea is, imo, good. I've been tinkering with a similar one, but using 2d6 instead of 2d8 as d6's are easier to aquire. The important, imo, part comes with making the rest of the system balance with your dice type(s). I can't remember how many times I've reworked entire sections just because of one small change in a different section

Indeed. lol
I'm working on the system now (on Google Drive), and I was told that d8s were a bit "less random" in determining a result.

Also, I LOVE the way that damage is dealt in the system. IMHO, simple enough for new players to understand, and makes it easier to get through a session.

steelsmiter
2015-02-03, 11:07 PM
Less random? There's a 1:6 chance of getting the average roll on 2d6 (7) vs. a 1/8 chance of getting an average roll on 2d8 (9). Personally, I always thought the less random one was the one that had higher odds of getting an average result.

DedWards
2015-02-04, 06:05 AM
I was told that d8s were a bit "less random" in determining a result.

I've checked the numbers myself. 2d8 gives you possible numbers of 2 to 16 with 8, 9, and 10 being the most common results on the dice alone. 1 in 64 chance of a specific double, and 1 in 8 chance for any double.

2d6 has a range of 2 to 12 with 6, 7, and 8 being most common. 1 in 36 chance for a specific double, and 1 in 6 chance of any double.

So I'd say that the lower number dice is less random.


Also, I LOVE the way that damage is dealt in the system. IMHO, simple enough for new players to understand, and makes it easier to get through a session.

It is nice and simple, the best systems have easy to understand mechanics, especially if conflicts are resolved in a quick(ish) way.

jqavins
2015-02-04, 12:46 PM
Long story short, I have loads of ideas that I make my own games with, and I have loved the idea that's stated in the title of this thread.

I was just wondering: How viable is a system that only uses 2d8 to determine the success/failure of a task?
Also, I just wanted to share the very basic ideas of this "universal" system.

Base Rule:
2d8 + Attribute Modifier + Skill Ranks + Misc. Modifiers VS. DC/Opposed Roll

Damage in Combat:
Total Attack Roll - Total Defense Roll

e.g. Attacker rolls a 16 Total Attack Roll, as opposed to his Opponent's 6 Total Defense Roll, dealing 10 damage.
(16 - 6 = 10 damage)

I was thinking of a class-less system where you choose your Race (and subrace, if applicable) at character creation, and can buy skills and abilities with earned Experience Points (in a similar vein to Savage Worlds).

So, what do you guys think? Does this sound cool? Does this sound stupid?
The first and most important question is: Why? That's not rhetorical or dismissive, it's an honest question. Why make a system based on 2d8 rather than use a very similar existing system that relies on 1d20? What are you trying to achieve that d20 doesn't? (I can imagine a pretty good answer, but I want to know yours.) For successes, the change of dice seems to be the only difference, though you'll need slightly lower DCs for similar tasks if you want the same chance of success.

It looks like you're using a defense roll in place of AC for attack success, which is interesting. Is armor counted among the modifiers, or does it have some other effect? And the damage is interesting. But the same questions apply: Why?


I've checked the numbers myself. 2d8 gives you possible numbers of 2 to 16 with 8, 9, and 10 being the most common results on the dice alone. 1 in 64 chance of a specific double, and 1 in 8 chance for any double.

2d6 has a range of 2 to 12 with 6, 7, and 8 being most common. 1 in 36 chance for a specific double, and 1 in 6 chance of any double.

So I'd say that the lower number dice is less random.
One can't really say "This is more random than that" without spelling out what you mean by how random a thing is; there's no official or standard or "correct" definition of that. 2d6 has, as stated, a greater chance of coming out dead-on average (1 in 6 vs. 1 in 8.) But it also has a higher chance of coming out at the extremes. Take the top two possible rolls, for example; the chance of getting 11 or 12 on 2d6 is 1 in 12 (8.33%) where the chance of getting 15 or 16 on 2d8 is 3 in 64 (4.69%). When the unnamed someone said 2d8 is less random, he or she likely meant that the extreme events are less common.

Ralcos
2015-02-04, 01:11 PM
The first and most important question is: Why? That's not rhetorical or dismissive, it's an honest question. Why make a system based on 2d8 rather than use a very similar existing system that relies on 1d20? What are you trying to achieve that d20 doesn't? (I can imagine a pretty good answer, but I want to know yours.) For successes, the change of dice seems to be the only difference, though you'll need slightly lower DCs for similar tasks if you want the same chance of success.

It looks like you're using a defense roll in place of AC for attack success, which is interesting. Is armor counted among the modifiers, or does it have some other effect? And the damage is interesting. But the same questions apply: Why?


One can't really say "This is more random than that" without spelling out what you mean by how random a thing is; there's no official or standard or "correct" definition of that. 2d6 has, as stated, a greater chance of coming out dead-on average (1 in 6 vs. 1 in 8.) But it also has a higher chance of coming out at the extremes. Take the top two possible rolls, for example; the chance of getting 11 or 12 on 2d6 is 1 in 12 (8.33%) where the chance of getting 15 or 16 on 2d8 is 3 in 64 (4.69%). When the unnamed someone said 2d8 is less random, he or she likely meant that the extreme events are less common.

An answer as to why I'm designing this system:
I call myself a "game designer" because I do this as a bit of a hobby. Also, I am designing this system because I feel that there should be games out there that people can learn, but is complex enough for customizability and effective mechanics. I realize that d20 can complete this goal, but I've had friends and family tell me that d20 (and several other systems) were confusing. There would also be the reason that I've been mixing/matching mechanics of games I have played, or games that I have designed.


As for Armor as part of the damage equation:
Armor is Damage Reduction (in this case, called Armor Rating, or AR) and Shields grant a bonus to Defense Rolls when blocking.

e.g.
A bandit is attacking a knight with his scemitar, the knight wearing a set of plate-mail armor and holding a large shield.
Both sides makes their respective rolls.
The Bandit rolls a 12 Total Attack Roll.
The Knight rolls a 7 Total Defense Roll (being granted a +2 bonus, because of his shield).
The Bandit hits cleanly, but deals less damage due to his blade deflecting from the Armor.
Normally, the knight would have taken 5 damage, but his plate-mail gives him a DR of 4 (due to it being Heavy Armor); effectively reducing damage taken to 1.

Light Armor = AR 1
Medium Armor = AR 2
Heavy Armor = AR 4

To clarify, the Defense Roll represents your ability to Block/Parry/Dodge attacks from any source.

Ralcos
2015-02-04, 02:36 PM
On another note, I'm working on the 1st version of this system's core rulebook.
It won't have much, besides the rules for everything you need to play.
My current "codename" for the game is MULTIVERSE (due to me trying to design it as a generic system that can be used for any setting).

jqavins
2015-02-05, 12:31 PM
An answer as to why I'm designing this system:
I call myself a "game designer" because I do this as a bit of a hobby. Also, I am designing this system because I feel that there should be games out there that people can learn, but is complex enough for customizability and effective mechanics. I realize that d20 can complete this goal, but I've had friends and family tell me that d20 (and several other systems) were confusing. There would also be the reason that I've been mixing/matching mechanics of games I have played, or games that I have designed.


As for Armor as part of the damage equation:
Armor is Damage Reduction (in this case, called Armor Rating, or AR) and Shields grant a bonus to Defense Rolls when blocking.

Let me start by saying that some of what follows will seem critical, but I don't mean any offense and I don't mean to be discouraging or disparaging. I'm trying to give constructive feedback; if it doesn't look like that then please assume it is due only to my failure to express my point clearly.

First of all, doing this because you like to is the best possible reason and it doesn't matter a whit what I or anyone else has to say. That said...

If part of the goal is to be easier to learn or simpler to use than d20, I don't think it succeeds. For skill checks, replacing 1d20 with 2d8 doesn't change anything on the simple/easy front. In combat you've changed two rolls (attack and damage) into a different two rolls (attack and defense) and the math involved, while minor, is more than with d20.

On the other hand, for how combat and skill checks compare to what is or seems "realistic," I do like what you've got, with reservations. Using two dice centralizes the results, so when you're attempting something you usually get what is for you a fair to middlin' result, with extra good and extra bad results being rare. How good your fair to middlin' is when compared to someone elses is what the skill ranks or BAB and abilitity modifiers are all about, and DC plays the same roll it always did.

My reservations on this score are two. First, 2d8 gives a range of 2 to 16, so the top end is 14 greater than the low. Compare this to 1d20, in which the top end is 19 greater than the low. Because 2d8 has a smaller range, each plus or minus in the modifiers has a greater effect, one fourteenth of the full range as opposed to one nineteenth. You could fix this by using 2d10 for a range of 18 from min to max, close enough to 19.

Second, the "bell curve" of chance for a given result is really not a bell with two dice (of any size) but rather a triangle. In my opinion, it's too sharp that way. If you want it, you can flatten the top by using two different size dice added. Change 2d8 to 1d6 + 1d10, or change 2d10 to 1d8 + 1d12. The effect of that is to give the curve a flat top, changing it from a triangle to a trapazoid. That way, the odds are still in favor of a middlin' roll, but there's a range of middlin' rolls that are all equally likely.

On combat, I have more doubts. While I like - ne, love giving the defender a roll, I keep going back and forth how damage works. Should damage depend only on the attack roll vs. defense roll contest result, or should it be random? Or a combination? A combination seems best in my mind, but then that's making matters more complex. Every attempt I've ever seen to make AC, damage, and hit points more "realistic" has ended up overly complicated, just as unrealistic as the starting system (but for different reasons) or both. Shields help AC and armor gives DR is a good notion, yet the more I think about it the more I waffle and question and doubt. I guess this is more my problem than yours or any system's.

What about crits? Is it sufficient to replace crits with the occasional really big difference between attack and defense rolls? Am I too stuck on comparing this to d20?

The next time I run a d20 game, I think I'll try at least some of this and see how it goes (and report back.) But don't hold you breath; I don't get to play nearly as often as I like so it may be quite a while.

GGambrel
2015-02-05, 01:11 PM
As for Armor as part of the damage equation:
Armor is Damage Reduction (in this case, called Armor Rating, or AR) and Shields grant a bonus to Defense Rolls when blocking.

e.g.
A bandit is attacking a knight with his scemitar, the knight wearing a set of plate-mail armor and holding a large shield.
Both sides makes their respective rolls.
The Bandit rolls a 12 Total Attack Roll.
The Knight rolls a 7 Total Defense Roll (being granted a +2 bonus, because of his shield).
The Bandit hits cleanly, but deals less damage due to his blade deflecting from the Armor.
Normally, the knight would have taken 5 damage, but his plate-mail gives him a DR of 4 (due to it being Heavy Armor); effectively reducing damage taken to 1.

Light Armor = AR 1
Medium Armor = AR 2
Heavy Armor = AR 4

To clarify, the Defense Roll represents your ability to Block/Parry/Dodge attacks from any source.

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but doesn't this work out the same as if you added the AR to the Defense Roll? :smallconfused:
I guess if some types of attacks ignored armor it might, but for this example it seems equivalent.

Ralcos
2015-02-05, 01:13 PM
Let me start by saying that some of what follows will seem critical, but I don't mean any offense and I don't mean to be discouraging or disparaging. I'm trying to give constructive feedback; if it doesn't look like that then please assume it is due only to my failure to express my point clearly.

First of all, doing this because you like to is the best possible reason and it doesn't matter a whit what I or anyone else has to say. That said...

If part of the goal is to be easier to learn or simpler to use than d20, I don't think it succeeds. For skill checks, replacing 1d20 with 2d8 doesn't change anything on the simple/easy front. In combat you've changed two rolls (attack and damage) into a different two rolls (attack and defense) and the math involved, while minor, is more than with d20.

On the other hand, for how combat and skill checks compare to what is or seems "realistic," I do like what you've got, with reservations. Using two dice centralizes the results, so when you're attempting something you usually get what is for you a fair to middlin' result, with extra good and extra bad results being rare. How good your fair to middlin' is when compared to someone elses is what the skill ranks or BAB and abilitity modifiers are all about, and DC plays the same roll it always did.

My reservations on this score are two. First, 2d8 gives a range of 2 to 16, so the top end is 14 greater than the low. Compare this to 1d20, in which the top end is 19 greater than the low. Because 2d8 has a smaller range, each plus or minus in the modifiers has a greater effect, one fourteenth of the full range as opposed to one nineteenth. You could fix this by using 2d10 for a range of 18 from min to max, close enough to 19.

Second, the "bell curve" of chance for a given result is really not a bell with two dice (of any size) but rather a triangle. In my opinion, it's too sharp that way. If you want it, you can flatten the top by using two different size dice added. Change 2d8 to 1d6 + 1d10, or change 2d10 to 1d8 + 1d12. The effect of that is to give the curve a flat top, changing it from a triangle to a trapazoid. That way, the odds are still in favor of a middlin' roll, but there's a range of middlin' rolls that are all equally likely.

On combat, I have more doubts. While I like - ne, love giving the defender a roll, I keep going back and forth how damage works. Should damage depend only on the attack roll vs. defense roll contest result, or should it be random? Or a combination? A combination seems best in my mind, but then that's making matters more complex. Every attempt I've ever seen to make AC, damage, and hit points more "realistic" has ended up overly complicated, just as unrealistic as the starting system (but for different reasons) or both. Shields help AC and armor gives DR is a good notion, yet the more I think about it the more I waffle and question and doubt. I guess this is more my problem than yours or any system's.

What about crits? Is it sufficient to replace crits with the occasional really big difference between attack and defense rolls? Am I too stuck on comparing this to d20?

The next time I run a d20 game, I think I'll try at least some of this and see how it goes (and report back.) But don't hold you breath; I don't get to play nearly as often as I like so it may be quite a while.

I'm not necessarily trying to emulate d20, but I know why you're worried on my views for this game.
1st of all: I see this system as more "simplistic", due to the fact that all you need to play is 2d8. Nothing more, and nothing less. Reason being, I've had at-table experiences where new players are overwhelmed by the amount of dice that they needed to roll, or were alienated by the rules for said rolls.
Like I've said before, I'm trying to make a system that's easy to learn (not to mention easy to get into), as well as "complex" enough for veterans to play with what they want.
2nd of all: I DO have a basic idea for "criticals", but it needs a bit of work...

NOTE: I have basic rules for weapons, which is as follows:
Weapons fit into the following categories, each granting a bonus to your Total Attack Roll for the purposes of determining damage.


Light Weapons = Deal +1 Damage on a Hit. One-Handed Only

Concealed Weapons = Deal +0 Damage on a Hit, but grants a +1 bonus to conceal weapon. One-Handed Only
Medium Weapons = Deal +2 Damage on a Hit. One-Handed OR Two-Handed
Heavy Weapons = Deal +3 Damage on a Hit. Two-Handed Only
Ranged Weapons = Deal +2 Damage on a Hit. (Maybe more rules to apply here?)



If you roll the maximum that can be rolled on an attack roll, and still hit the attack's target, you have performed a critical hit. Bonuses from critical hits depend on the weapon being wielded.

Long Blades / Short Blades: Deals +1 damage for the size category of weapon (+1 Light, +2 Medium, +3 Heavy).
Blunt Weapons: Ignores AR based on the weapon size (1 AR Light, 2 AR Medium, 3 AR Heavy)
Axes: Deals 2 damage to Armor/Apparel based on weapon size (2 Light, 4 Medium, 6 Heavy).
Polearms: Applies Bleed 1 for 2 rounds to Target based on weapon size (Bleed 1 Light, Bleed 2 Medium, Bleed 3 Heavy)
Unarmed: Stuns target for 2 rounds.

Magic does not give extra effects on critical hits. (Most likely, I will have to change this...)

Ralcos
2015-02-05, 01:30 PM
Correct me if I'm mistaken, but doesn't this work out the same as if you added the AR to the Defense Roll? :smallconfused:
I guess if some types of attacks ignored armor it might, but for this example it seems equivalent.

In terms of numbers, yes. You definitely correct in that regard.
In practice, AR can be ignored by certain effects (such as most magic attacks, weapons with the Piercing quality, as well as others).

stormywaters
2015-02-05, 04:54 PM
If part of the goal is to be easier to learn or simpler to use than d20, I don't think it succeeds. For skill checks, replacing 1d20 with 2d8 doesn't change anything on the simple/easy front. In combat you've changed two rolls (attack and damage) into a different two rolls (attack and defense) and the math involved, while minor, is more than with d20.

Let me stop you there. Attack and damage is two rolls for one person. Attack and defense is two rolls, but split between the two parties. This is rather different. The attacker makes one roll.


How good your fair to middlin' is when compared to someone elses is what the skill ranks or BAB and abilitity modifiers are all about, and DC plays the same roll it always did.

Yes, you're swapping a pile of modifiers for a centrally-focused roll system. In d20, you've got the exact same chance to roll a middle-range result as you do to fumble or critical. To me, that seems highly unrealistic. A centralized roll with lower modifiers seems far more accurate to how combat would normally go.


My reservations on this score are two. First, 2d8 gives a range of 2 to 16, so the top end is 14 greater than the low. Compare this to 1d20, in which the top end is 19 greater than the low. Because 2d8 has a smaller range, each plus or minus in the modifiers has a greater effect, one fourteenth of the full range as opposed to one nineteenth. You could fix this by using 2d10 for a range of 18 from min to max, close enough to 19.

This logic isn't quite right. The dice are likely to roll 7-9 most of the time, 6-10 nearly all the time. It's not linear, so you can't compare them directly to a single d20.


Second, the "bell curve" of chance for a given result is really not a bell with two dice (of any size) but rather a triangle. In my opinion, it's too sharp that way. If you want it, you can flatten the top by using two different size dice added. Change 2d8 to 1d6 + 1d10, or change 2d10 to 1d8 + 1d12. The effect of that is to give the curve a flat top, changing it from a triangle to a trapazoid. That way, the odds are still in favor of a middlin' roll, but there's a range of middlin' rolls that are all equally likely.

It's too sharp with two identical dice, but a straight line is better? You could refine the curve with three identical dice as well. In any case, multiple dice is better than a single die roll.

The damage system is one used in other games, too. There doesn't have to be crits. The damage is already randomized as it is in D&D, so you don't need to roll separate damage dice.

jqavins
2015-02-05, 08:24 PM
Let me stop you there. Attack and damage is two rolls for one person. Attack and defense is two rolls, but split between the two parties. This is rather different. The attacker makes one roll.
Quite correct, but beside the point. At least beside my point. The number of things that has to be done to resolve a combat action is two rolls and a little math; it really doesn't matter who's doing the rolling. (And the Multiverse system has a little more math than d20. Very little, but more.) All of which is beside Ralcos's point; by "simpler" I thought he meant less complicated mechanics, but he actualy meant fewer dice at the table. In that, he was undeniably on the dot.


Yes, you're swapping a pile of modifiers for a centrally-focused roll system. In d20, you've got the exact same chance to roll a middle-range result as you do to fumble or critical. To me, that seems highly unrealistic. A centralized roll with lower modifiers seems far more accurate to how combat would normally go.
As I wrote, changing to a center-loaded roll is what I like. I didn't see where the pile of modifiers was changed.


This logic isn't quite right. The dice are likely to roll 7-9 most of the time, 6-10 nearly all the time. It's not linear, so you can't compare them directly to a single d20.
The logic is right. The effect is not so easy to quantify, for just the reason you state. (Except that the center roll is 9, not 8, so you want to cite how the dice concentrate on 8-10 or 7-11.) Over time, the average rate of success depends on the difference, positive or negative, between the average roll+modifiers result and the target number. Assuming a minimum roll succeeds on only the easiest checks and the maximum roll on all but the hardest (based on both the total modifiers and the range of target numbers typically assigned) how great the effect of a modifier is depends directly on its fraction of the span of possible rolls. It depends linearly for a single die and not linearly for more dice, but still directly. So a smaller range still makes a given modifier more important than the same modifier would be with a larger range despite the fact that having miltiple dice makes it harader to quantify.


It's too sharp with two identical dice, but a straight line is better? You could refine the curve with three identical dice as well. In any case, multiple dice is better than a single die roll.
Not flat; flat topped. Center-loaded with sloped sides, but flattened in the middle. 2d8 gives 53.125% of rolls in the 7-11 range, and d6+d10 gives 50%. The only significant difference is in that 7-11 range, where d6+d10 is flat. It is, overall, just slightly less center-loaded than 2d8. 3d6 would be considerably more center-loaded.



Result
Chance to get on
2d8 (%)
Chance to get on
d6 + d10 (%)


2
1.56
1.67


3
3.13
3.33


4
4.69
5.00


5
6.25
6.67


6
7.81
8.33


7
9.34
10.00


8
10.94
10.00


9
12.50
10.00


10
10.94
10.00


11
9.38
10.00


12
7.81
8.33


13
6.25
6.67


14
4.69
5.00


15
3.13
3.33


16
1.56
1.67





Range
Chance to be in on
2d8 (%)
Chance to be in on
d6 + d10 (%)


9
12.5
10.00


8-10
34.38
30.00


7-11
53.13
50.00


6-12
68.75
66.67


5-13
81.25
80.00


4-14
90.63
90.00


3-15
96.88
96.67


2-16
100.00
100.00



Of course, d6+d10 is totally counter to Ralcos's purpose of having ony one kind of die, so this suggestion was completely off the mark from the outset.

johnbragg
2015-02-05, 08:40 PM
There's also the old-school option of using 3d6. GURPS and old school Star Wars RPG ran off of piles of d6's.

Rolling 3d6 creates a very center-loaded roll. It means more dice on the table, but it's the friendly number cube that non-gamers are more familiar with anyway.

Ralcos
2015-02-06, 12:36 PM
Quite correct, but beside the point. At least beside my point. The number of things that has to be done to resolve a combat action is two rolls and a little math; it really doesn't matter who's doing the rolling. (And the Multiverse system has a little more math than d20. Very little, but more.) All of which is beside Ralcos's point; by "simpler" I thought he meant less complicated mechanics, but he actualy meant fewer dice at the table. In that, he was undeniably on the dot.



Result
Chance to get on
2d8 (%)
Chance to get on
d6 + d10 (%)


2
1.56
1.67


3
3.13
3.33


4
4.69
5.00


5
6.25
6.67


6
7.81
8.33


7
9.34
10.00


8
10.94
10.00


9
12.50
10.00


10
10.94
10.00


11
9.38
10.00


12
7.81
8.33


13
6.25
6.67


14
4.69
5.00


15
3.13
3.33


16
1.56
1.67





Range
Chance to be in on
2d8 (%)
Chance to be in on
d6 + d10 (%)


9
12.5
10.00


8-10
34.38
30.00


7-11
53.13
50.00


6-12
68.75
66.67


5-13
81.25
80.00


4-14
90.63
90.00


3-15
96.88
96.67


2-16
100.00
100.00



Of course, d6+d10 is totally counter to Ralcos's purpose of having ony one kind of die, so this suggestion was completely off the mark from the outset.

Well, these tables will help me quite a bit (in terms of building DC numbers, anyhow)!

Let's see if I can build this right (with a +2 modifier to DC, due to elements of the game so far)
DC 25 -------- Nigh-Impossible
DC 23
DC 21 -------- Challenging
DC 19
DC 17 -------- Difficult
DC 15
DC 13 -------- Hard
DC 11 -------- Average
DC 9 -------- Easy
DC 7
DC 5 -------- Simple
DC 3
DC 1 -------- Nigh-Instinctual
(I will work on this in the future......)

Anyhow, I just wanted to say that I've been working hard on this, and you'll see what I have in the core rulebook by the weekend of the 14th.
For clarification on my reasonings, I meant both simpler mechanics AND less dice on the table.

PS; Okay, I'm wondering what kind of casting system is more simplistic. Should I go with a psionics-style Power Point system, or should I go with a Spell Slots per Day system?

jqavins
2015-02-06, 03:05 PM
Well, these tables will help me quite a bit (in terms of building DC numbers, anyhow)!
Then this one will likely help even more:


Die Roll Needed (on 2d8)

Chance of Success (%)



2

100



3

98.44



4

95.31



5

90.63



6

84.38



7

76.56



8

67.19



9

56.25



10

43.75



11

32.81



12

23.44



13

15.63



14

9.38



15

4.69



16

1.56



Those numbers come easily enough from the first table, but anything I can do to help. That means DC 11 gives about a 50/50 chance of success if the total modifier is +1 or +2, and only a 1.56% chance of success even with a total modifier of +9 (and it's totally impossible with anything less.)


PS; Okay, I'm wondering what kind of casting system is more simplistic. Should I go with a psionics-style Power Point system, or should I go with a Spell Slots per Day system?
Tough one. With your goals I'd lean toward a point system because of the long times my friends and I have spent around tables waiting for all the spell casters to choose their spells (and time they've spent waiting for me to pick mine.) But, no doubt you've considered the advantage of slots that it allocates high and low power spells, where a pure point system allows the caster to throw a million low point cost spells or throw one or two high point cost spells that ought to be out of his league. The 3.x sorcerer is a decent if imperfect compromise. I came up with another compromise (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?377021-The-Magic-User-(Another)-Sorcerer-Wizard-Rework) recently that I haven't had the chance to try yet; feel free to adopt it if you like it. The spoiler has an extended example of changing spells in slots that is not in the thread.

For example, if Minerva is a seventh level mage, she has prepared 7 zero level spells, 4 first level, 2 second level, and 2 third level. She has mastered many more than this, but can only cast from among those prepared. Her third level spells prepared are Fireball and Hold Person. She is about to set out on a mission to aid a lost dwarf tribe in their fight against a dragon that is invading their cave system. She realizes that both of her prepared third level spells are less than optimal (to say the least) as Hold Person will not work against the dragon and Fireballs in caves are unwise. But she can only change one of them per day, so she changes out Fireball in favor of Lightning Bolt; Hold Person and her 13 prepared spells of lower level all remain unchanged. The next day, while recovering from her wounds in the dwarves’ home cavern, she changes out Hold Person in favor or Tongues in order to express her gratitude to the dwarves (who do not speak modern Dwarvish) for their hospitality and healing spells.

Ralcos
2015-02-06, 05:30 PM
Those numbers come easily enough from the first table, but anything I can do to help. That means DC 11 gives about a 50/50 chance of success if the total modifier is +1 or +2, and only a 1.56% chance of success even with a total modifier of +9 (and it's totally impossible with anything less.)


Oh, so I'll have a 50% chance to get an 11 or higher on a roll of 2d8 +1 OR 2d8 +2?
Also, Why would it be close to impossible to make the DC 11 check with 2d8+9?

jqavins
2015-02-06, 06:32 PM
Oh, so I'll have a 50% chance to get an 11 or higher on a roll of 2d8 +1 OR 2d8 +2?
Also, Why would it be close to impossible to make the DC 11 check with 2d8+9?
I said about 50/50; you'd have a 43.75% chance to make 11 or better with 2d8+1, amd a 56.25% chance with 2d8+2. One's as close to 50/50 as the other.

As for what's close to impossible, I had a brain fart and left out several key words; like, half a sentence worth. What I meant to say is that trying to make 25 with 2d8+9 is nearly impossible, and altogether impossible with anything less. (11 is nearly impossible to fail with such a large bonus.) I was trying to say that what you called nigh impossible is, indeed, just so.

My intent was to show that the table fits nicely your list of DCs; I didn't say so explicitly becaus I thought the numbers spoke for themselves. Which they might have if I'd proof read more carefully.

Ralcos
2015-02-06, 06:44 PM
I said about 50/50; you'd have a 43.75% chance to make 11 or better with 2d8+1, amd a 56.25% chance with 2d8+2. One's as close to 50/50 as the other.

As for what's close to impossible, I had a brain fart and left out several key words; like, half a sentence worth. What I meant to say is that trying to make 25 with 2d8+9 is nearly impossible, and altogether impossible with anything less. (11 is nearly impossible to fail with such a large bonus.) I was trying to say that what you called nigh impossible is, indeed, just so.

My intent was to show that the table fits nicely your list of DCs; I didn't say so explicitly becaus I thought the numbers spoke for themselves. Which they might have if I'd proof read more carefully.

Ah. Okay, cool.
Thanks, again, for the help. You guys WILL see what I have for my "handbook" later. :smallbiggrin: