PDA

View Full Version : Original System How much should spells cost?



Maat Mons
2019-03-10, 07:25 PM
I'm designing an original system. Let me give you a really basic run-down of how it works, for context.



The only major numerical components of character creation are Aptitudes and Proficiencies. The Aptitudes are Strength, Finesse, Wits, and Magic. And they range from 0 to 3. The Proficiencies are Offense, Defense, and Utility. And they range from 1 to 7.

That may seem weird, but the idea is that every roll is based on one Aptitude + one Proficiency. And this ensures that any such sum is in the 1 to 7 range.



The way rolls work, is that every roll has a Skill and a Difficulty. Your Skill is the relevant Aptitude + the relevant Proficiency + any increases for favorable conditions. If you're trying to do something to an enemy, the Difficulty is the relevant enemy Aptitude + the relevant enemy Proficiency + any increases for unfavorable conditions. (If you're not trying to do something to an enemy, the Difficulty is some fixed number + any increases for unfavorable conditions.)

For example, if you roll to hit an enemy, your Skill is Finesse + Offense, and the Difficulty is the enemy's Finesse + Defense. And if you roll for damage, your Skill is Strength + Offense, and the Difficulty is the enemy's Strength + Defense.

If your Skill is equal to the Difficulty, you roll 1d6. 1-3 is failure, and 4-6 is success.

If your Skill exceeds the Difficulty you roll a number of d6s equal to the difference +1. The roll succeeds as long as at least one die shows a success. Getting more than one success is called Extraordinary Success, and has different effect depending on what you're trying to do.

If your Skill is less than the Difficulty, you also roll a number of d6s equal to the difference +1. But in this case the roll is only a success is every die shows a success. Also, you can't get an Extraordinary Success under these circumstances. Getting all successes on this kind of roll gives the same result as getting just one success on a more favorable roll.



Okay, that was a lot of explanation. Now here's what I was thinking of for the cost of Aptitudes and Proficiencies.

Aptitude


Rank
XP Cost
Cumulative Cost


0
free
free


1
3
3


2
6
9


3
9
18



Proficiency


Rank
XP Cost
Cumulative Cost


1
free
free


2
4
4


3
8
12


4
12
24



So given that, how much should spells and special attacks cost?

The basic attack would work like this:

Basic Attack

skill (to hit): finesse + offense
difficulty (to hit): finesse + defense
success: you hit, roll damage
ex success: each success beyond the 1st gives cumulative +1 to damage roll
skill (damage): strength + offense
difficulty (damage): strength + defense
success: deal 1 point of damage
ex success: deal damage equal to number of successes



Special attacks would kind of resemble Tome of Battle strikes in their functionality. Some of the spell effects I'm planning would look something like this:

Lay on Hands

skill: magic + defense
difficulty: 1
success: target heals 1 HP
ex success: target heals # of HP = # of successes


Levitate

skill: utility + magic
difficulty: 1
success: target can fly for 1 round
ex success: target can fly for 1 round/success


Magic Weapon

skill: magic + offense
difficulty: 1
success: target gains offense bonus for 1 round
ex success: target gains offense bonus for 1 round/success


Warding

skill: magic + defense
difficulty: 1
success: target gains defense bonus for 1 round
ex success: target gains defense bonus for 1 round/success


So, any suggestions for pricing?

exelsisxax
2019-03-11, 12:19 PM
You need to fix your resolution mechanic first. Decide if this is a dice pool and stick to the decision. There's too many pointless moving parts between initiating an action and determining the result.

Maat Mons
2019-03-11, 04:18 PM
I don't really understand your complaint.



This is a dice pool system. You roll X dice, based on how talented your character is, and how difficult the task is. You need to roll Y successes. It just so happens that the number of successes needed is always either 1 or equal to the number of dice you roll.

Changing the number of dice rolled and the number of successes needed are both classic, staple aspects of dice pool systems. So is changing the threshold for success on each die, but I decided to leave that out of the system for simplicity.

For that matter, I also simplified the minimum number of successes mechanic. Instead of allowing the minimum number of successes to be any positive number, like many dice pool systems, I allow only two options. The first option is that only one success is needed, which is equivalent to "roll X dice and take the best result." The second is that all dice must succeed, which is equivalent to "roll X dice and take the worst result."



Ultimately, it works the same as the Advantage/Disadvantage system used by D&D 5e, and many other games. Except that there are degrees of advantage and disadvantage.

And I feel I make up for the added complexity of rolling a variable number of dice by eliminating the complexity of calculating which die values are high enough to succeed. D&D 5e requires you to calculate a success threshold on each d20 roll based on your Modifier and the DC. "Okay, my modifier is + 6, and the DC is 12, so I need to roll a 6 or better to succeed."

I completely eliminate that success threshold calculation. Odds of success are determined purely by degrees of Advantage and Disadvantage. Compared to D&D 5e, I've gone from two mechanisms for altering probability of success to just one. I don't see how having fewer moving parts than one of the most popular systems is "too many moving parts."



As far as steps between initiating an action and determining the result, at most any action involves two rolls. A "to hit" roll (or equivalent), and a "damage" roll (or equivalent). That seems pretty standard.



If it's the number of stats, I don't think seven is that many. Not to harp on D&D 5e, but it also uses seven stats to define a character. Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, Charisma, and Proficiency Bonus.

Though I was more so inspired by old World of Darkness games. In those every roll was based on one Attribute, plus one Ability. But instead of the having 9 Attributes and 30 Abilities, like those games, I have 4 of one and 3 of the other (and they're not called Attributes and Abilities). Once again, I'm basically just using a very popular system, but with a lot of needless complexity trimmed out.

And, as of 5e, D&D has also been doing the same thing. Every roll adds together one number each from two groups of stats. The first group is your ability scores (Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma). The second group is Nonproficient, Proficient, and Expertise (0x, 1x, or 2x your Proficiency bonus).




Visiting back on World of Darkness a bit. You can see more of the inspiration I drew. In WoD games, you roll your Attribute + your Ability and total the number of successes. Then your enemy rolls his Attribute + his Ability. Then you subtract his successes from yours. And if you're left with one or more successes, you succeed.

Essentially, I've moved the subtraction one step earlier. Instead of subtracting your enemies successes from your successes, you subtract his dice pool from yours. Since the odds of each die being a success are always the same, it averages out the same. I've gone from always having two people rolling to just having one person rolling.



Of course, subtracting dice pools has a few kinks in practice. Firstly, it means that whoever has the larger dice pool winds up being the one who rolls. But I think who rolls should always be consistent. So, basically, if you're trying to do something, but your enemy's dice pool is larger, you're rolling his dice for him, for consistency.

If he were rolling his own dice, he'd need just one success to succeed. But it's counter-intuitive for the guy rolling the dice to be hoping against successes. So I made success and failure on each die equally likely, so I could flip success with failure, and the odds wouldn't change.

Additionally, if you really were subtracting dice polls, tied pool sizes would result in zero dice being rolled. This would then necessitate the rolling of a 50/50 "tie breaker" die. For simplicity’s sake, I just always include that extra die. So the number of dice rolled is ABS ( your dice pool - enemy dice pool ) + 1. And of course, whoever had the larger dice pool gets the "you only need one" advantage. With the "one" that you need changing between "success" and "failure" as needed to ensure that whoever's rolling the dice always wants successes, to keep things intuitive.



So really, I'm taking commonly-used, well-liked mechanics generalizing just a smidge, and cutting out a lot of needless extra steps and stats. It really confuses me to be told that I'm adding complexity.

exelsisxax
2019-03-11, 06:45 PM
From WoD perspective: you added steps, and removed stats.

It is in fact complicating your resolution system to add in extra steps where you take your X+Y dice pool, but instead of rolling and resolving immediately, you instead find your 'real' dice pool by subtraction of another variable number. Then, depending on the sign of the result, the dice pool functions in one of two completely different ways that are interpreted differently.

On top of that, it seems like you eliminated every benefit of actually using a dice pool by limiting your outcomes to fail, pass, and extraordinary. Not counting your dice for effect is doing a dice pool wrong.

Maat Mons
2019-03-11, 07:27 PM
World of Darkness already has a subtraction step. WoD does it after rolling dice, I do it before.

Further, WoD also already interprets results differently depending on the sign of the subtraction. If your successes minus the enemy's successes is a positive number, you have an effect proportional to the result. If that result is zero or negative, nothing happens (nothing is proportional to how negative the total went).



Literally everything I posted counts successes. Some of them deal/heal damage equal to the number of successes. Some of them last a number of rounds equal to the number of successes.

The only circumstance in which you don't total successes is if penalties would reduce your dice pool below one die. Under these circumstances, WoD allows a Chance Roll to try anyway. The Chance Roll can only every produce one success, and it has a lower chance of success than rolling a dice pool of 1.

Under my system, the opposed roll is replaced with a dice pool penalty. Any dice pool of size 1 or more works exactly as it does in WoD. And Chance Rolls are replaced with a "roll X dice, discard all but the worst result" mechanic, where X is based on just how negative your pool went. It's still a slim chance of achieving what equates to a single success on a normal roll.



One of the major benefits of a dice pool system is that it never goes "off the RNG." In traditional dice pool systems, you can always improve your odds of success, because you can always roll more dice. And you never reach a 100% chance of success, because it's always possible for all dice to come up failures.

Some dice pool systems flip things around. You count failures, and subtract from some "failure tolerance" mechanic. These ones always allow your chances of success to go down, again because you can always roll more dice (and more dice is bad in these systems). But your chances of success can never reach 0%, because no matter how many dice you're forced to roll, there's still a chance that you could roll fewer failures than your tolerance.

My proposed dice mechanic, so far as I know, is the only one yet proposed that can't go off the RNG in either direction. World of Darkness can go off if your dice pool goes to zero or less. I'm adding a true progression below the standard minimum. There is literally no combination of skill levels, difficulties, bonuses, and penalties that could possibly make the odds of failure or success in this system "cap out."

GaelofDarkness
2019-03-14, 07:26 PM
Hmmm, well it certainly depends. What exactly is the "offense bonus" and "defense bonus" specified by Magic Weapon and Warding - a +1? How much would the ability to fly impact the kind of game you'd run? Would a player just be able to use these skills indefinitely? For Magic Weapon and Warding that's not so much a big deal but for Levitate and ESPECIALLY for Lay on Hands that would drastically change the power-level.

If Lay on Hands is unlimited, then it's a more powerful heal than a basic attack is an attack, so I'd price it HIGH, but if it's single use and can be purchased multiple times for multiple charges then maybe more like 2 points per charge? If using magic uses up a mana pool so you have a limited number of spells then I'd put it probably higher than 2 but how high depends on how much mana I'd expect a character to have. A limited Levitate would be like a 1 point cost for me because I prefer high fantasy where limited flight isn't too rare, but an unlimited Levitate (with the caveat that every time you re-use it, it COULD fail and plunge you to your doom/severe damage if you're flying too high) would be higher, more like a 5.

How quickly do you envision a character gaining XP by the way? Like, if they build a character does a player start with Y and then gain Z every level and if so how much would Y and Z be around?

Maat Mons
2019-03-16, 04:38 PM
What exactly is the "offense bonus" and "defense bonus" specified by Magic Weapon and Warding - a +1?

Either +1 or +2, I'm not sure. Maybe a "greater" and "lesser" version of each.




Would a player just be able to use these skills indefinitely?

I mostly want magic to be at-will. Kind of like Warlock in 3.5. But I'd consider adding special limitations to certain spells.




If Lay on Hands is unlimited, then it's a more powerful heal than a basic attack is an attack, so I'd price it HIGH

Now that you mention it, it really does heal a lot compared to the damage output of other things. Would it be better if it were more like Lesser Vigor? One hit point per round for a number of rounds equal to the number of successes?

That would ensure that everyone starts every battle at full health. But it wouldn't guarantee that healing always outpaces damage.

Would healing in battle still be a viable option?




How quickly do you envision a character gaining XP by the way?

Tentatively, I was thinking 60 points at character creation (split however the player wishes between stats and abilities).

I'm thinking probably between 1 and 5 xp gained per session, depending on how much was accomplished.

I could be persuaded to change these values.

GaelofDarkness
2019-03-19, 01:08 PM
Either +1 or +2, I'm not sure. Maybe a "greater" and "lesser" version of each.
Well, if it's a +1 or +2 at will, then you should be pricing it somewhere in the range of what it would theoretically cost to go from a proficiency of 4 to 5 or 6. Like around 16XP IMO. There are things that could offset that and let you create enhanced versions more easily. If Magic Weapon takes a round to use and then can't be applied until the next round, that's a pretty significant weakness of Magic Weapon compared to an improvement in one's proficiency. You could also have Magic Weapon require one to expend a weapon to make it magic, or sacrifice a point of health to satiate the magic of the blade - whatever suits the tone of your game - to create a drawback to Magic Weapon that'd bring the price down. Of course, if you want Magic Weapon to be a very powerful, character-defining ability, then it's not a huge problem if it's expensive.





Now that you mention it, it really does heal a lot compared to the damage output of other things. Would it be better if it were more like Lesser Vigor? One hit point per round for a number of rounds equal to the number of successes?

That would ensure that everyone starts every battle at full health. But it wouldn't guarantee that healing always outpaces damage.

Would healing in battle still be a viable option?
That could work. Maybe as another option - bear with me here - Lay On Hands doesn't target a character's overall health, just the last wound they took, at least while in combat. So instead of difficulty 1, it's difficulty scales off the wound. A success means the wound heals and extraordinary successes have some other benefit to the character targeted but don't heal health beyond that point - or maybe they do in the fashion of Lesser Vigor? I'm not sure. Healing in battle is usually a resource limited thing just because of how it changes the dynamics of what's going on, but at-will battle healing isn't impossible.





Tentatively, I was thinking 60 points at character creation (split however the player wishes between stats and abilities).

I'm thinking probably between 1 and 5 xp gained per session, depending on how much was accomplished.

I could be persuaded to change these values.

I wouldn't distribute 1XP in a session because it's kind of a bummer, but other than that sounds fine to me.

Maat Mons
2019-03-19, 05:26 PM
Maybe as another option - bear with me here - Lay On Hands doesn't target a character's overall health, just the last wound they took, at least while in combat. So instead of difficulty 1, it's difficulty scales off the wound.

As a semi-related thought, what if the difficult scales with how much health the target currently has left?

I was thinking that all characters would probably have 6 health. Or maybe I should go with 7, to match capped out stats. In any case, max health will be a fixed value. Characters would only grow tougher by improving Defense or Strength. Nothing would alter max health.

So, on a character who's only lightly-wounded, healing would almost always be successful, and would frequently heal multiple points of damage. On a severely-wounded character, healing even one point of damage might be difficult.




I wouldn't distribute 1XP in a session because it's kind of a bummer, but other than that sounds fine to me.

How about a base of 1 xp per session, plus an extra 1 xp per major accomplishment of the session? Then players would only get the minimum of 1 xp if they accomplished nothing that session.

"Major accomplishment," by the way, would probably be victory one level-appropriate battle, or success in a role-playing encounter or of similar importance.

In this scenario, 5 wouldn't be a hard cap, but more than 4 significant encounters per session might be unusual.




Well, if it's a +1 or +2 at will, then you should be pricing it somewhere in the range of what it would theoretically cost to go from a proficiency of 4 to 5 or 6. Like around 16XP IMO. There are things that could offset that and let you create enhanced versions more easily.

That's a fair point. Some thoughts on how I might like to bring the cost down.

What if magic buffs still can't raise a skill above 7? Circumstance bonuses could still bring things above 7, but magic is only useful to characters who aren't already capped out on their progression.

Should I consider something along the lines of 5e's concentration mechanic, where a character can only have one powerful ongoing effect active at a time?

I could possibly make buff spells more specific. "Magic weapon," for example, probably shouldn't boost spell damage or initiative. I could even be more specific, and have it just boost the to-hit roll, or just the damage roll.

Maat Mons
2019-03-21, 10:19 PM
Let's say I'm pretty keen on the rolling mechanic. (I am.) But let's say I'm up in the air about how the rules are expressed to players. What's the simplest way I could describe things?

My current train of thought is along these lines:


Rolling

Whenever an outcome is uncertain, the rules will instruct you to roll dice to determine the result. By default, you roll one die, and the roll is successful if the die comes up as a 4, 5, or 6, and a failure if the die comes up a 1, 2, or 3.

Example: Abby makes a roll with no bonuses or penalties, so she rolls one die. The die comes up a 4, meaning she succeeds.



Bonus Dice

High skill or favorable circumstances will grant bonus dice. If you roll with bonus dice, the roll is considered a success if at least one die comes up as a 4, 5, or 6. The roll is only considered a failure if each and every die comes up as a 1, 2, or 3.

Example: Bryan makes a roll with 2 bonus dice, so he rolls 3 dice in total (the die to which he is always entitled, plus the two bonus dice.) The dice come up 4, 6, and 1, so he succeeds (at least one die was 4, 5, or 6.)



Penalty Dice

Difficult tasks or unfavorable circumstances will impose penalty dice. If you roll with penalty dice, the roll is considered a success only if each and every die comes up a 4, 5, or 6. The roll is considered a failure if even one die comes up a 1, 2, or 3.

Example: Chloe makes a roll with 1 penalty die, so she rolls 2 dice in total (the die she must always roll, plus the penalty die). The dice come up 2 and 6, so she fails (at least one die was 1, 2, or 3).



Mixing Dice Types

Many rolls will merit both bonus dice and penalty dice. In this case, bonus dice and penalty dice cancel each other out before the roll is made. So the actual rolling of the dice never includes both.

Example 1: Daniel is assigned 4 bonus dice and 3 penalty dice for a roll, so he actually makes the roll with 1 bonus die (and no penalty dice).

Example 2: Emma is assigned 2 bonus dice and 2 penalty dice for a roll, so she actually makes the roll with no bonus dice or penalty dice.



Degree of Success

Sometimes the rules want to know the degree of success for a roll. If the roll was made with bonus dice, the degree of success is equal to the number of dice that came up 4, 5, or 6. For successful rolls without bonus dice (including those with penalty dice), the degree of success is always 1.

Example 1: Fin makes a roll with 1 bonus die. The dice come up 5 and 4, so the degree of success is 2 (two dice came up 4, 5, or 6).

Example 2: Grace makes a roll with 1 penalty die. The dice come up 4 and 6; the degree of success is 1 (since the roll was not made with bonus dice).

Is that a good way to put it?

GaelofDarkness
2019-03-22, 10:04 PM
As a semi-related thought, what if the difficult scales with how much health the target currently has left?

I was thinking that all characters would probably have 6 health. Or maybe I should go with 7, to match capped out stats. In any case, max health will be a fixed value. Characters would only grow tougher by improving Defense or Strength. Nothing would alter max health.

So, on a character who's only lightly-wounded, healing would almost always be successful, and would frequently heal multiple points of damage. On a severely-wounded character, healing even one point of damage might be difficult.


That could work. One thing to bear in mind is how it changes the incentives for the healer in the group. If a character is near death and in danger - what's the point in trying to heal them when the odds are stacked against you? And even if you did succeed the chance to heal them enough to make them likely to survive is even lower. That's also an issue with my own suggestion - just to be clear. I kind of like the idea of basic healing being about trying to keep your party topped up, with superior versions making it easier to heal more serious wounds (reducing the difficulty by one and increasing the base healing by one for example). But that's not everyone's style - and your style is what matters here.



How about a base of 1 xp per session, plus an extra 1 xp per major accomplishment of the session? Then players would only get the minimum of 1 xp if they accomplished nothing that session.

"Major accomplishment," by the way, would probably be victory one level-appropriate battle, or success in a role-playing encounter or of similar importance.

In this scenario, 5 wouldn't be a hard cap, but more than 4 significant encounters per session might be unusual.


Oh, that's completely fine. At my table, I'd be inclined to divvy out no XP for a do-nothing session, just because when we do nothing it's because we just wanted to goof off and there's no real interest in the XP or anything so I ignore it and keep the mood loose and light. It's 100% a preference thing though.



What if magic buffs still can't raise a skill above 7? Circumstance bonuses could still bring things above 7, but magic is only useful to characters who aren't already capped out on their progression.

Should I consider something along the lines of 5e's concentration mechanic, where a character can only have one powerful ongoing effect active at a time?

I could possibly make buff spells more specific. "Magic weapon," for example, probably shouldn't boost spell damage or initiative. I could even be more specific, and have it just boost the to-hit roll, or just the damage roll.


I like these ideas. Especially a 5e-style concentration mechanic, it makes a lot of sense as a limit for at-will magic that keeps things from getting too hectic at the table. I think having Magic Weapon function as a boost to to-hit and damage rolls for your weapon but nothing else makes the most intuitive sense. That makes it significantly less powerful than a full boost to a proficiency too.



Let's say I'm pretty keen on the rolling mechanic. (I am.) But let's say I'm up in the air about how the rules are expressed to players. What's the simplest way I could describe things?


The simplest way to state the rule might be something like:

You roll a number of dice one greater than the difference between the relevant Skill and Difficulty. A 1, 2 or 3 is a Failure. A 4, 5 or 6 is a Success. If the Difficulty is greater than the Skill, then to overcome it every die you roll must be a Success. Otherwise, you will need roll only one Success no matter how many dice you roll and should you prevail, the number of Successes you roll above 1 (if any) is your Margin of Success.

Though there's room for clarification, examples, etc.