More damage for rolling well

[Doc Democracy]

I know this has been talked about many times but I wanted to explore an option that is new to me.  I have been talking about it over on the Fantasy HERO forums but this is much more about system generically. (post with calculations here)

 

The idea is that when you hit by more than you need (and you are not using hit locations - the built in option for giving more damage to more accurate fighters) then you generate a dice pool.  If you normally do 12D6 damage then you add one dice for every one you roll better than you need.  You roll the pool and count up the best 12 dice, so damage is capped to the maximum you have bought.

 

I kind of like it in principle, it does shift the balance.  With 12 dice, even CVs and defences of 25 the average damage through defences is (I think) increased from 17 through defences to 22 through defences.  Shifting the balance is not necessarily a bad thing (as long as you are not doing it in the middle of a campaign) just something you have to bear in mind as a GM when eyeballing characters.  

 

It may also require a bit of thinking about the price of CV and skill levels.  A +1 skill level bumps average damage more than +1D6.  That IS significant.  I might (in initial testing not allow skill levels to add to the damage pool - though I have no good reason beyond cost balance for doing so).

 

It should however allow a fast, low damage class martial artist to fight a brick without skewing the build to ensure the martial artist can do enough damage to get through defences.

 

Thoughts??

 

Doc

[eepjr24]

I didn't jump in on the other thread, but my major problem is that it goes counter to the Hero System concept of "Every offense should have a defense that costs significantly less". For a 5 two point CSL's I have increased the average on almost half my dice significantly. To counter it I will have to buy DCV levels, which cost at least 3 points but generally cost more than that to be effective in defense. Modifying that is going to take some fairly major alterations to the cost of a lot of different things. How does this interact with AOE's? What about the Accurate advantage?

 

- E

[Hugh Neilson]

Why do we start with the premise that the baseline is normal damage, and every point you hit by enhances it? The dice pool could start at, say, 1/3 more dice than the actual damage, so your 12d6 example requires rolling 16d6, and removing the highest four. Hitting by 4 means you get the base 12d6 damage, no pool. Hit by 8 (the equivalent of a head shot penalty) and you have 1/3 more dice to increase the average in your pool.

 

Maybe the 1/3 level needs some fine tuning - a bigger portion would be more meaningful over smaller spreads of rolls to hit. If you had to roll twice your normal dice when you just barely hit, and you get to roll twice as many and take the highest if you hit by 8, the impact of the to hit roll would be much greater.

 

I remain leery to making OCV and DCV even more potent than they are now, though. It should be about as expensive to buy more DC's than to boost average damage by CV levels limited to only impact the dice pool. Similarly, defenses and more DCV just to harm the dice pool should be about equal in cost.

[eepjr24]

I remain leery to making OCV and DCV even more potent than they are now, though. It should be about as expensive to buy more DC's than to boost average damage by CV levels limited to only impact the dice pool. Similarly, defenses and more DCV just to harm the dice pool should be about equal in cost.

THIS^^^

 

If you look specifically at cost to up the DC by one die via CSL, the minimum currently is 6 RP (2x 3 point CSL). That is a decision made before you roll the dice, so you pay for the flexibility by some percentage increase in your chance of missing. So if you go by that logic (current existing mechanism), the ability to use a CSL for both OCV AND DC should take more CSL if it is not going to cost you any chance of missing at a minimum. 

 

The other thing that this whole argument misses is that it assumes your to hit roll is the sum whole of accuracy. Nothing in the game says that explicitly. The damage roll could be just as much a part of accuracy as the to hit roll itself. A high roll on the damage dice could be part accuracy, part pure strength, part modelling target reaction to the hit, part modelling chaos theory (randomness), etc. This is somewhat backed up by various constructs like Combat Luck which are mechanically deducting from the dice roll but special effect is that the attack "missed" or was not as accurate as it could have been.

 

Hero is flexible, so if you want to go this route with a house rule, I encourage you try it out and let the community know how it works out. But for me I would need a lot of convincing that there is something about the to-hit / damage mechanism that needs fixing and is not already covered by alternate rules like hit locations, etc.

 

- E

[Ninja-Bear]

In Rules of Engagement supplement for Star Wars D6, they had an pptional rule that for each point over the target number you can add that to your damage roll. The author also said that if that was too powerful, you can use any proportion such as for every 5 points over or 10 points over.

[Beast]

what about for every point you hit by you may mod 1 damage die 1 pip

 

so a 1 becomes a 2 or a 5 becomes a 6

[Christopher R Taylor]

Or every point you hit by you can raise the minimum by one; so instead of a 1 its a 2, but it doesn't increase the maximum damage.

 

Still I share eepjr24's concern, however that's pronounced.  Its giving high OCV more damage without any kind of defensive offset other than buying up DCV.

 

There is precedent for rolling well meaning a better hit in Hero, but its not very pronounced, and while conceptually this appeals to me, its not something I'd want to actually put in a game.

[Ninja-Bear]

I suggested once of buying extra dice only to beat the bell curve. I.e. if you had a 10d6 blast, you could buy +2d6 but you could not exceed 60 Stun or 20 body, the max on 10D6

[Christopher R Taylor]

I think an advantage that adds +1 to the minimum you roll on each die would be a useful addition: your d6 becomes 2-6 rather than 1-6 (2, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) for +1/4.  Each +1/4 increases that one (3, 3, 3, 4, 5, 6).  The average doesn't change much, but you won't get low rolls.

[Tholomyes]

I suggested once of buying extra dice only to beat the bell curve. I.e. if you had a 10d6 blast, you could buy +2d6 but you could not exceed 60 Stun or 20 body, the max on 10D6

 

This would be identical to just having 12d6 in 99.95% of cases (and that number only goes up as the base damage value increases, to the point that with 12d6, it's identical in 99.995% of cases). The average damage differs by only .001 point of STUN and .0000078 point of BODY . At best it would be a -0 limitation, and even then I probably wouldn't allow it unless the 12d6 (or whatever number of base dice+Extra dice) fit within campaign limits.

 

I think an advantage that adds +1 to the minimum you roll on each die would be a useful addition: your d6 becomes 2-6 rather than 1-6 (2, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) for +1/4.  Each +1/4 increases that one (3, 3, 3, 4, 5, 6).  The average doesn't change much, but you won't get low rolls.

 

It's too bad +1/8 advantages don't exist, because mathematically. that would be almost perfect for this type of advantage.

[Tasha]

Considering that the rules already allow you to turn 2 OCV skill levels into one DC. Making the added die ratio 1:1 is excessive and makes raw OCV way more powerful than the rules already allow. IF you were going to do this I would go with a 2:1 ratio for every 2 the roll is made by add one die to the damage pool. Though again that would interact wierdly with the established Skill level to DC rules. I am not really sure that awarding High DCV characters more than they are is a good thing

[womble]

I think that it needs to be an even lesser ratio than 2:1, because assigning OCV levels to DC is a choice that reduces your chance to hit in exchange for more damage (as is calling a shot to a high damage, hard-to-hit location), whereas "over-hitting" is a "free bonus" from getting lucky with the dice. I'd make it at least 3:1, maybe even 4:1.

[Hugh Neilson]

I think an advantage that adds +1 to the minimum you roll on each die would be a useful addition: your d6 becomes 2-6 rather than 1-6 (2, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) for +1/4.  Each +1/4 increases that one (3, 3, 3, 4, 5, 6).  The average doesn't change much, but you won't get low rolls.

So for +1 1/4, I get all 6's. That makes a 12d6 normal attack cost 135, so the 72 STUN is well under the 94.5 average of a 27d6 attack. Why not a 24d6 attack with Standard Effect? 3 STUN and 1 BOD per die = the same 72 STUN and 24 BOD, and that costs 120, so +1 for "maximum damage every time". We're in the ballpark, anyway.

 

Of course, Standard Effect itself is overpriced as it reduces average damage. 20d6 averages 70 STUN and 20 BOD and has a shot of doing more, and it's cheaper.

 

So would anyone buy it? Well, if we assume 12DC's, I can have:

 

12d6, average 42 and 12

9 1/2d6, no 1's, average 34.83 and 11.5

8d6, no 1s or 2's, average 32 and 9.33

call it 7d6, minimum 4, average 31.5 and 8.17

6d6, minimum 5, average 31 and 7

Say 5d6+1, all 6's, does 31 and 10

 

I'll stick to the risk of low rolls, thanks!

 

Considering that the rules already allow you to turn 2 OCV skill levels into one DC. Making the added die ratio 1:1 is excessive and makes raw OCV way more powerful than the rules already allow. IF you were going to do this I would go with a 2:1 ratio for every 2 the roll is made by add one die to the damage pool. Though again that would interact wierdly with the established Skill level to DC rules. I am not really sure that awarding High DCV characters more than they are is a good thing

As womble notes, allowing a damage bump automatically at 2:1 is a freebie - the same roll will just barely hit. The value of rolling another die without changing the maximum depends a lot on how many dice are being rolled. In a Supers game, 13d6 capped at the 12d6 maximum might as well just be 13d6. In a Fantasy game, how does this work? Hit by 3 and get +1d6 KA, or hit by 1 and add 1d6 KA? That 1d6 goes from 3.5 average to almost 4.5 average, the equivalent of almost 1 added DC as well (ie a +1). Looks like 2d6 goes up to about 8.5 (a bit less) so about a 2 DC increase.

 

If we assume hitting by 3 adds 1d6, this is +1 DC for every 3 the character hits by. The higher the base dice, the lower that ratio will fall.

[Ninja-Bear]

Has anyone looked at partial set effect where in my above example the 2d6 would be set ay 3 stun abd 1 bidy each for a total of 6 stun and 2 body and roll the rest of the 10D6 as normal. Again you cannot roll over the max of 10D6

[Doc Democracy]

Has anyone looked at partial set effect where in my above example the 2d6 would be set ay 3 stun abd 1 bidy each for a total of 6 stun and 2 body and roll the rest of the 10D6 as normal. Again you cannot roll over the max of 10D6

 

Hmm.  why would you set the dice?  If you were buying additional dice to make your attack a pool then you are going to increase the average attack.  You do not however guarantee an increase as if buying two straight dice.  Setting the dice makes the additional dice about 40% less useful than freely rolled ones.  The big question is what size of limitation are the dice worth??

 

My stats on the original thread in Fantasy HERO gives you a clue about the added value of each dice in the pool.  Maybe come to a decision based on that??

 

Doc

 

PS: will come to the rest of the comments soon.  At work.  

[Tholomyes]

Has anyone looked at partial set effect where in my above example the 2d6 would be set ay 3 stun abd 1 bidy each for a total of 6 stun and 2 body and roll the rest of the 10D6 as normal. Again you cannot roll over the max of 10D6

 

It doesn't change much. For the stun, as you might expect it reduces the damage by about 1 (so it's 1.000072 STUN lower and .0000007 BODY lower than 12d6, on average, but that's still about 6 STUN and 2 BODY higher than 10d6), which means it would still only be acceptable to me, and I suspect most GMs, if the campaign limits were set such that 12d6 were acceptable. Capping maximum damage just doesn't work in HERO, due to the approximately normal distribution of dice rolls. Even with 3d6, you can note that the tail ends of the bell curve are very small probabilities: 0.46% for 3 and 18, 1.4% for 4 and 17, 2.8% for 5 and 16, and these tail-end probabilities only get smaller as you add more dice. Thus the chance that you roll near enough to the cap that the extra dice would matter is very small. Even using the 3d6 example, the average roll on 5d6 capped at 18 (16.21) is far closer to the average of 5d6 (17.5) than the average of 3d6 (10.5). And this impact is only further heightened when you consider defenses (in that the extra dice of damage may only be 20% more damage, assuming the 10d6 baseline, but after, say, 20 points of defenses, the difference in actual damage taken is about 46% extra)

[Christopher R Taylor]

So for +1 1/4, I get all 6's. That makes a 12d6 normal attack cost 135, so the 72 STUN is well under the 94.5 average of a 27d6 attack. Why not a 24d6 attack with Standard Effect?

 

 

Its less useful in personal builds (although there are people who hate rolling low so badly that its worth the points to avoid it), but very useful for stuff like magic items.  That sword that never rolls low is really nice, that energy blast for PowerBlastDude, less so.

 

Other genres: learn to love them too

[Ninja-Bear]

Hmm. why would you set the dice? If you were buying additional dice to make your attack a pool then you are going to increase the average attack. You do not however guarantee an increase as if buying two straight dice. Setting the dice makes the additional dice about 40% less useful than freely rolled ones. The big question is what size of limitation are the dice worth??

 

My stats on the original thread in Fantasy HERO gives you a clue about the added value of each dice in the pool. Maybe come to a decision based on that??

 

Doc

 

PS: will come to the rest of the comments soon. At work.

With a set it means that your lowest roll is still better than an unmodified roll.

[Ninja-Bear]

Tholomyes I keep reading your posts and not getting your point. You keep comparing my example of 10d6 with extra dice and compare that to 12d6. The point of buying extra dice is so your average roll would be higher than unmodified so you really should compare it to regular 10D6.

 

And its common for games to have dice caps. And in the games I play, we do use it.

[Doc Democracy]

Considering that the rules already allow you to turn 2 OCV skill levels into one DC. Making the added die ratio 1:1 is excessive and makes raw OCV way more powerful than the rules already allow. IF you were going to do this I would go with a 2:1 ratio for every 2 the roll is made by add one die to the damage pool. Though again that would interact wierdly with the established Skill level to DC rules. I am not really sure that awarding High DCV characters more than they are is a good thing

 

So 2 OCV give you one DC (3.5 STUN and 1 BODY)

 

In my proposal for a 12D6 attack (where 1 dice for each one the score was made by was an off the top of the head simple application rather than the result of careful balance analysis) the first two dice provide 3 STUN, the next two also provide 3 STUN.  That is not too far off but obviously my proposal has the advantage of not reducing the actual chance to hit. So it does indeed provide a damage bonus for higher OCV.

 

I think it would have to be used with a very carefully balanced Rule of X system that balanced increased OCV against DCV, defences and STUN.

 

Doc

[Doc Democracy]

what about for every point you hit by you may mod 1 damage die 1 pip

 

so a 1 becomes a 2 or a 5 becomes a 6

 

This is another easy solution that gives the players a little bonus when they roll well.

[Doc Democracy]

With a set it means that your lowest roll is still better than an unmodified roll.

 

I get it.  You are not building a dice pool and choosing the best ten dice, just adding damage to 10D6 with a cap of 60 STUN and 20 BODY.  Got it.  :-)

[Doc Democracy]

I didn't jump in on the other thread, but my major problem is that it goes counter to the Hero System concept of "Every offense should have a defense that costs significantly less". For a 5 two point CSL's I have increased the average on almost half my dice significantly. To counter it I will have to buy DCV levels, which cost at least 3 points but generally cost more than that to be effective in defense. Modifying that is going to take some fairly major alterations to the cost of a lot of different things. How does this interact with AOE's? What about the Accurate advantage?

 

- E

 

Well, as GM I would not apply the accuracy pool to an AoE unless there was a requirement to target individuals within the area, nor would I use it with the accurate advantage, indeed, I might not allow it in the same campaign.

 

I am not too worried here, I think the balance can be achieved through a Rule of X

[eepjr24]

Well, as GM I would not apply the accuracy pool to an AoE unless there was a requirement to target individuals within the area, nor would I use it with the accurate advantage, indeed, I might not allow it in the same campaign.

 

I am not too worried here, I think the balance can be achieved through a Rule of X

About anything can, I suspect. I just don't see a pressing flaw that needs fixing, especially not enough to work out new campaign balance and guidelines.

 

- E

[Tholomyes]

Tholomyes I keep reading your posts and not getting your point. You keep comparing my example of 10d6 with extra dice and compare that to 12d6. The point of buying extra dice is so your average roll would be higher than unmodified so you really should compare it to regular 10D6.

 

And its common for games to have dice caps. And in the games I play, we do use it.

 

I'm comparing it to 12d6, because my point is, if a 12d6 attack isn't allowed in the game, a 10d6 attack, with 2d6 extra (capped at 60 STUN and 20 BODY) shouldn't be either, as they're nearly identical (they differ by a fraction of a percent). In either event, the "limitation" that caps max damage at 60 STUN and 20 BODY should be worth no points, due to the "If a limitation doesn't really limit anything, it's not worth any points".

 

Furthermore, I don't know if our definitions of average are getting misunderstood: In referring to average damage, I'm referring to the mean, which is probably the most important for balance (at least, when adjusted for post-defense damage). Based on what I'm reading from your post, it seems you want to avoid lower rolls as often, which implies you're likely more concerned with the median or possibly mode. Thus a skewed distribution where the mean damage (again, after subtracting average defenses) is approximately the same as standard damage's mean, but where the median damage will be higher might suit your tastes. I don't know how to get such a distribution, but I can most assuredly say that 12d6, capped, is not it.