Diceless damage

[Sean Waters]

OK, an idea that has been kicked about before but...well, maybe a slightly different slant.

 

First, have a look at the spreadsheet attached. You type in the DC of the (normal) attack at the top and then it creates a range of damages based on what you ACTUALLY roll to hit: not what the difference in your CVs is, what you ACTUALLY roll to hit.

 

So, rolling HIGH is good, so long as you don't roll so high you miss.

 

Part of the problem with systems for diceless damage I have seen before is that it makes high damage far less useful than high CV. That is STILL the case here but it is less obvious, more mitigated. Even if you hit on 17- you are still most likely to roll reasonably average on the dice, so you have the capability for more extreme damage, you just don't do it all the time.

 

The other thing I like about this is that it finally answers the question why bricks hit each other with massive objects rather than just punches, even though they are rarely missing anyway: if you hit Grond with a mail truck, you get an OCV bonus, and that WILL increase your damage potential.

 

OK it is a bit more admin in that you need to have a table of DC against rolls handy, but it will save time in rolling and adding up damage totals.

[archermoo]

Re: Diceless damage

 

Don't really have a whole lot of use for it, as I like the current system just fine. However, were I to do something that either based damage entirely on the to-hit roll, or modified damage based on the to-hit roll, I would be much more interested in basing it on how much they hit by, rather than just the straight roll. If you hit on a 16-, and roll a 16, in my book that's a "just barely", not "maximum damage" kind of thing. YMMV.

[Jaxom]

Re: Diceless damage

 

Interesting concept and since you are using the actual dice-roll instead of the final difference between CVs it encourages tactics and choices that give you a higher OCV. There are some things that I don't like about it because of flavor and house rules from our campaign...

 

This makes the "3 always succeeds/18 always fails" go away. Can't do it with this format. Because of the way you have shaped the distribution you are also eliminating one "successful" result (in this case, 3 which is only 1 in 216 of the possible results, but all the same).

 

I'd have to play with it a bit to get a solid feel for the flavor it brings before I could say whether or not I'd be in favor of using it in a campaign. It *does* mean a serious change in average PC interaction which means that skill values would change... All of a sudden OCV and DCV become more valuable (ick) because they enter more directly into the average damage and damage per turn figures.

 

One thing I think you could do would be to turn the distribution around. If my OCV matches my target's DCV (so I'm hitting on 11-) then set 0/0 at a roll of 12 and start increasing damage as the roll gets lower. Use the same distribution and simply cut it off at 3 or make 3 a couple of additional shifts up the distribution (equating to a critical hit). This would still give the reward for tactics that give better OCV but would mean not changing the "3 always hits/18 always fails" situation.

 

Are you aiming for rewarding tactics which raise OCV or is there some other intent here?

[Sean Waters]

Re: Diceless damage

 

This does turn round low is good. I mean, a low roll will HIT, which is good, but it means that you are not going to do a lot of damage. The reason for doing it this way round is I have tried diceless damage before based on the difference between your OCv and the target's DCV. I think there is an article on diceless damage in Digital Hero somewhere. In fact I think it may go further and do diceless combat. Tried it, wasn't keen. Nice idea, didn't feel right.

 

This is a compromise. First off it means that MOST damage will be average still (on a 3d6 bell curve average, anyway), and extreme damage rare even if you are capable of it. Other systems I've seen base the damage you do on how much you succeed by, which means high CV characters ALWAYS do above average damage even on average rolls, which I find unbalancing.

 

The purpose of the idea is twofold. First it speeds up combat. Desireable IMO. A lookup of 12DC damage is quicker than rolling and counting 12d6.

 

Second it still makes the dice roll important. Because of the distribution on 3d6 the biggest change in damage per point of difference comes in the middle of the curve. This is leaving the curve where it is, not moving it to one or the other character's capability.

 

High OCV is good as it gives you the POTENTIAL to do more damage. If you hit on 14- you COULD do more than if you hit on 11-, but you won't if you roll 11: only if you roll 12, 12 or 14.

 

Thus tactics are important in this variant but simply getting +1 to OCV is not going to guarantee that your damage is higher

[prestidigitator]

Re: Diceless damage

 

Interesting. Using the probability distribution to directly determine the damage relative to maximum. I'd give rep, but it seems you've been too deserving lately.

 

I don't know if I'd use it in practice, as I hate doing table lookups (especially every Phase!), but this is actually almost identical to an idea I had a while back: if you have Nd6 of effect, rather than actually rolling that many dice, roll a fixed number, assign them an order (use dice of different sizes or colors), and recount the dice on a rotating schedule (and/or average). If we choose three dice as the fixed number, we can make the attack roll the same as the damage/effect roll.

 

Example

Say we choose 3 dice for our fixed-die roll and get:

2, 5, 4

If we need to roll 5 dice for the effect, we just treat this as the literal roll:

2, 5, 4, 2, 5

(note: the first two dice were repeated). If the effect roll were 13d6, we would treat it as:

2, 5, 4, 2, 5, 4, 2, 5, 4, 2, 5, 4, 2

 

Of course, if we used a fixed number of dice (either way: your method or mine), the effect distributions are going to be a lot different than they are with the current methods of rolling. For example, there will be a much greater chance of rolling close to minimum or maximum damage than if you were to roll normally for a 10d6 Normal Attack. I don't know if this is good or bad in general, but I personally don't really like the insanely narrow distributions of large Effect Rolls. Should the distributions be made identical for all power levels? Beats me.

 

I started a thread discussing this method quite a while back. Maybe I'll try to dig up a reference.

 

EDIT - Here we go: "Set Distribution by Rolling 3d6 (or 1d6, 2d6, 4d6, etc.) for All Damage/Effect Rolls"

[Sean Waters]

Re: Diceless damage

 

Interesting. Using the probability distribution to directly determine the damage relative to maximum. I'd give rep, but it seems you've been too deserving lately.

 

I don't know if I'd use it in practice, as I hate doing table lookups (especially every Phase!), but this is actually almost identical to an idea I had a while back: if you have Nd6 of effect, rather than actually rolling that many dice, roll a fixed number, assign them an order (use dice of different sizes or colors), and recount the dice on a rotating schedule (and/or average). If we choose three dice as the fixed number, we can make the attack roll the same as the damage/effect roll.

 

Example

Say we choose 3 dice for our fixed-die roll and get:

2, 5, 4

If we need to roll 5 dice for the effect, we just treat this as the literal roll:

2, 5, 4, 2, 5

(note: the first two dice were repeated). If the effect roll were 13d6, we would treat it as:

2, 5, 4, 2, 5, 4, 2, 5, 4, 2, 5, 4, 2

 

Of course, if we used a fixed number of dice (either way: your method or mine), the effect distributions are going to be a lot different than they are with the current methods of rolling. For example, there will be a much greater chance of rolling close to minimum or maximum damage than if you were to roll normally for a 10d6 Normal Attack. I don't know if this is good or bad in general, but I personally don't really like the insanely narrow distributions of large Effect Rolls. Should the distributions be made identical for all power levels? Beats me.

 

I started a thread discussing this method quite a while back. Maybe I'll try to dig up a reference.

 

EDIT - Here we go: "Set Distribution by Rolling 3d6 (or 1d6, 2d6, 4d6, etc.) for All Damage/Effect Rolls"

 

 

Oh I do like that: it works in a similar way to my idea without the lookup: a high OCV gives you the potential for high damage but most damage results will still be average. Low (relative) OCV caps your damage. Stunning.

 

 

....and in a fit of mutual back-slapping, you'll have to wait for your rep too

[archermoo]

Re: Diceless damage

 

Interesting concept and since you are using the actual dice-roll instead of the final difference between CVs it encourages tactics and choices that give you a higher OCV. There are some things that I don't like about it because of flavor and house rules from our campaign...

 

Maybe I'm not understanding things then. How does a "roll as high as you can and still hit" system encourage high OCV any better than a "the more you hit by the more damage you do" system would? Seems to me that both ways would do exactly that. Am I just missing something?

[Jaxom]

Re: Diceless damage

 

This is a compromise. First off it means that MOST damage will be average still (on a 3d6 bell curve average' date=' anyway), and extreme damage rare even if you are capable of it. Other systems I've seen base the damage you do on how much you succeed by, which means high CV characters ALWAYS do above average damage even on average rolls, which I find unbalancing.[/quote']

 

This is actually an incorrect assumption. It will slightly increase your expected damage (in comparison to my inverted suggestion above which is statistically equivalent to the "how much did you hit by" system) because you are weighting the higher damage to the more likely results in the bell curve (on the hit roll) but it will still mean a firm cap on your potential damage which is much lower than 6*DC. If your CV is 2 points above mine (after modifiers) I will never be able to do what is considered average damage for my DC. You've simply managed to reach the point where you trade "high CV characters ALWAYS do above average damage" for the statement "high CV characters will ALWAYS take below average damage". Now, if that's your goal, then fine, but this just lowers the overall damage output in your universe and still favors the high CV.

 

The issue with *any* form of diceless damage is going to be that it *will* change the expected damage value (convolution of the distribution functions if I remember my stats right) and you need to make some decision before you go this route about whether or not you are going to like that result. It's going to make CV (and hence SLs) more valuable in your campaign.

 

Second it still makes the dice roll important. Because of the distribution on 3d6 the biggest change in damage per point of difference comes in the middle of the curve. This is leaving the curve where it is' date=' not moving it to one or the other character's capability.[/quote']

 

Again, this is not true because you impose a hard limit on the distribution. You hit on 11- which means that max damage (for your DC) is not possible. If your CV is lower than mine (after mods) you won't even be able to do average damage to me. Maybe you call that not moving the curve, but you've sure mangled the shape.

 

High OCV is good as it gives you the POTENTIAL to do more damage. If you hit on 14- you COULD do more than if you hit on 11-, but you won't if you roll 11: only if you roll 12, 12 or 14.

 

Thus tactics are important in this variant but simply getting +1 to OCV is not going to guarantee that your damage is higher

 

Higher DCV GUARANTEES you take less damage because it eliminates the high end of your damage curve irrecoverably. Guess where I am putting my SLs every fricking round. By the way, I am going High SPD and I am going to be in permanent Martial Dodge. It'll be cheaper than Armor + BODY + CON + defenses.

 

 

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that this is inherently bad. It's just going to seriously reward the defensively minded in your campaign and if that is what you want, then fine. Just be aware of it before you pursue this.

[Jaxom]

Re: Diceless damage

 

Oh I do like that: it works in a similar way to my idea without the lookup: a high OCV gives you the potential for high damage but most damage results will still be average. Low (relative) OCV caps your damage. Stunning.

 

I don't see how prestidigitator's proposal rewards OCV at all, actually. Based on my reading it simply flattens the damage distribution creating more results in the high and low damage extremes. (The number of dice he rolls doesn't depend in any way on the hit roll or the OCV/DCV, it is just arbitrarily chosen. The odds of rolling 3 6s, and hence max damage, on 3 dice is 1 in 6^3 = 1 in 216. The odds of rolling max damage on a 10d6 is 1 in 6^10 = 1 in over 60 million. Same odds for minimum damage, all 1s.)

[prestidigitator]

Re: Diceless damage

 

Maybe I'm not understanding things then. How does a "roll as high as you can and still hit" system encourage high OCV any better than a "the more you hit by the more damage you do" system would? Seems to me that both ways would do exactly that. Am I just missing something?

Let's say you have an OCV equal to your opponent's DCV, so you need an 11- to hit. If the damage you do is strongly correlated with the amount by which you hit, you are going to do very little damage most of the time you hit (because most hits are going to occur within the 8-11 range). If the damage you do is strongly correlated with the result of the dice, you will do, "average," damage (that is, the average you would get if you rolled the dice according to the standard system) most of the time. Both ways the maximum damage is going to have a cap based upon the OCV-DCV difference, but there is still a dramatic difference in terms of average.

 

A smaller difference is that you will have to do some extra subtraction if the damage is based upon the amount by which you hit (though if you are already doing a table lookup, maybe this isn't all that significant).

[Jaxom]

Re: Diceless damage

 

Maybe I'm not understanding things then. How does a "roll as high as you can and still hit" system encourage high OCV any better than a "the more you hit by the more damage you do" system would? Seems to me that both ways would do exactly that. Am I just missing something?

 

The only difference in the two is which results are more likely. If you use Sean's suggestion, then when you hit on less than 11- (i.e. you have lower modified CV than your target) then your most likely result is the highest possible hit roll and hence your highest possible damage. If you actually reward based on the difference in CVs (i.e. your max damage is by rolling as low as possible and creating the largest possible difference) then your most likely result is your minimum damage (because you just barely hit).

 

The difference is the shape of the distribution curve. That's also the thing I am warning against because it will distinctly alter the damage output in the universe and you need to understand how before you chase it.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Diceless damage

 

I don't see how prestidigitator's proposal rewards OCV at all' date=' actually. Based on my reading it simply flattens the damage distribution creating more results in the high and low damage extremes. (The number of dice he rolls doesn't depend in any way on the hit roll or the OCV/DCV, it is just arbitrarily chosen. The odds of rolling 3 6s, and hence max damage, on 3 dice is 1 in 6^3 = 1 in 216. The odds of rolling max damage on a 10d6 is 1 in 6^10 = 1 in over 60 million. Same odds for minimum damage, all 1s.)[/quote']

Well, it comes from the additional scheme of rolling once for both hit and damage. It then becomes very nearly identical to Sean's method (counting Body could be quite different, though ).

[prestidigitator]

Re: Diceless damage

 

The difference is the shape of the distribution curve. That's also the thing I am warning against because it will distinctly alter the damage output in the universe and you need to understand how before you chase it.

Oh yes. I agree. You should think about it a lot, and/or do some real playtesting (with disclaimers). I haven't actually used the method I described in my thread (well, not on more than a couple of occaisions).

[archermoo]

Re: Diceless damage

 

But the stated effect that I was asking about was making higher OCVs more desirable. I wasn't asking what the pros and cons of the systems were, just where people seemed to get the impression that Sean's system made high OCVs more desirable than basing damage off of how much you hit by.

If anything, basing damage off of the amount you hit by makes a high OCV MORE desirable.

 

Personally, I'll stick with rolling my damage. I don't find any compelling reason not to do it. If I want to reward people in combat based on how they roll, I've already got ways of doing that. And I don't see that it would have much if any effect on speeding up combat. It doesn't take more than a few seconds to count up damage to begin with, so even if it somehow cut out ALL of the time spent figuring out damage it still wouldn't really save an appreciable amount of time.

[Jaxom]

Re: Diceless damage

 

Well' date=' it comes from the additional scheme of rolling once for both hit and damage. It then becomes very nearly identical to Sean's method (counting Body could be quite different, though ).[/quote']

 

Ah, so you weight the damage roll by making it use the same dice as the roll that was used to hit. Got it. The distribution would be a smidge different (some variance in the damage instead of a fixed value for each hit number for DCs which are not evenly divisible by 3), but it would have the same effect. High DCV still becomes the safe corner and damage expectation would be lowered. This would also favor a slightly higher BODY value than Sean's method I think but that's inherent to the fact that BODY is so heavily skewed to 1 per die.

[radioKAOS]

Re: Diceless damage

 

Sorry guys, as much as I usually like and agree with both Sean and Presti, I have to disagree with this one.

 

I have no problem counting dice really quickly, and I enjoy rolling those huge amounts of dice, I think it adds to the atmosphere of "My character has gained SUPER POWERS, and now it's time to use them!!"

[prestidigitator]

Re: Diceless damage

 

But the stated effect that I was asking about was making higher OCVs more desirable. I wasn't asking what the pros and cons of the systems were' date=' just where people seemed to get the impression that Sean's system made high OCVs more desirable than basing damage off of how much you hit by.[/quote']

Oh! From what I can tell it doesn't make high OCV more desirable than basing damage off of the amount by which you hit; it is the same. It certainly makes high OCV more desirable than the standard system does (ignoring things like Sweeps, etc., for the moment).

 

EDIT: At least overall. There would be differences between die result and amount hit for specific circumstances. For example, if OCV-DCV is such that you can hit on an effective 20- there would be some definite differences. Sean's method would keep the damage to a standard distribution, with (roughly) the same average as your normal roll. The, "by how much you hit," method would start increasing the average damage done significantly, until you are always doing max damage at some point.

[archermoo]

Re: Diceless damage

 

Oh! From what I can tell it doesn't make high OCV more desirable than basing damage off of the amount by which you hit; it is the same. It certainly makes high OCV more desirable than the standard system does (ignoring things like Sweeps, etc., for the moment).

 

EDIT: At least overall. There would be differences between die result and amount hit for specific circumstances. For example, if OCV-DCV is such that you can hit on an effective 20- there would be some definite differences. Sean's method would keep the damage to a standard distribution, with (roughly) the same average as your normal roll. The, "by how much you hit," method would start increasing the average damage done significantly, until you are always doing max damage at some point.

 

Ah, then possibly I was misunderstanding other people's posts. It seemed to me that some posts were indicating that stressing high OCV was an advantage Sean's system had over a "damage based on how much you hit by" system, but possibly they were refering to it's advantage over the standard system.

 

Me? I'm with radioKAOS: I'll stick with rolling my damage as per the normal system.

[Jaxom]

Re: Diceless damage

 

Actually, Sean's system rewards higher OCV in any system where OCV and DCV are comparable after modifiers. The reason is subtle but different shapes of the damage distribution.

 

If you use the difference then you are always going to be 1 in 216 of getting your best result. Only a 3 gives you maximum damage.

 

If you use Sean's distribution then your odds of max damage are significantly higher almost all the time. If you are going to hit on an 11- then you are something like 27 in 216 to get max damage and only 1 in 216 to get minimum damage. Only when you get into the realm of 18- or better to hit will you see this change.

 

And as a target I will be doing everything I can to max out my DCV. I will be at the campaign CV max, I will be in a martial dodge and I will be prone or have cover if they provide me an advantage because that will be more cost-effective than bothering to buy armor, STUN and BODY.

 

****************************

 

Here's an example of what I mean.

 

on 3 dice:

1 in 216 of getting a 3

3 in 216 of getting a 4

6 in 216 of getting a 5

10 in 216 of getting a 6

16 in 216 of getting a 7

21 in 216 of getting a 8

25 in 216 of getting a 9

27 in 216 of getting a 10

 

The upper end is a mirror of the lower.

 

If you are a 4- to hit, then

In Sean's System you are 1 in 216 of minimum damage and 3 in 216 of slightly higher damage..

In a difference system those numbers are reversed.

 

If you get a +1 to OCV from there

In Sean' system you are gaining 6 in 216 of doing even more damage (other numbers unchanged)

In a difference system you are gaining 3 chances at minimum damage, 2 at slightly higher damage and 1 at even more damage.

 

If you were 9- to hit and gained a +1 OCV the difference is

Sean's System -> 27 in 216 of finally doing average damage for your DC

Difference System -> 27 in 216 of doing minimum damage and 1 in 216 of finally doing average damage.

[archermoo]

Re: Diceless damage

 

Actually, Sean's system rewards higher OCV in any system where OCV and DCV are comparable after modifiers. The reason is subtle but different shapes of the damage distribution.

 

If you use the difference then you are always going to be 1 in 216 of getting your best result. Only a 3 gives you maximum damage.

 

If you use Sean's distribution then your odds of max damage are significantly higher almost all the time. If you are going to hit on an 11- then you are something like 27 in 216 to get max damage and only 1 in 216 to get minimum damage. Only when you get into the realm of 18- or better to hit will you see this change.

 

And as a target I will be doing everything I can to max out my DCV. I will be at the campaign CV max, I will be in a martial dodge and I will be prone or have cover if they provide me an advantage because that will be more cost-effective than bothering to buy armor, STUN and BODY.

 

Well, if you use Sean's system and assume comparable OCV and DCV, then you're are guaranteed of not doing maximum damage, as you can only do the maximum damage by rolling an 18 on his chart, and an 18 doesn't hit unless your OCV is 7 more than your opponent's DCV. Unless you are defining "maximum" as "the most you can do with the difference in CV during that attack". Which seems a bit silly to me, unless you're comparing it to another system that will also "max out" at the same value.

 

Assuming your OCV is the same as your opponent's DCV. The most damage a 10d6 attack with Sean's system can do is 38/13. Slightly above the average STUN you could do with the normal system, and 3 more Body than average. You have a 62% chance of hitting. 20% of the time that you hit, you'll do the maximum damage available. 20% of the time you'll do 30/10, so less STUN than the standard system averages, with the same Body. So you've got an 80% chance of doing less STUN than the average attack than the normal system on a hit, and 60% chance of doing less Body on average.

 

Though I'm not really sure what you mean by "Actually, Sean's system rewards higher OCV in any system where OCV and DCV are comparable after modifiers". Your actual OCV doesn't matter in Sean's system any more than it does in the normal system, just what you need to roll to hit. I'll do the same damage with the same roll if my OCV is 12 and my opponents is 12 as I would do if both mine and my opponents was 5. So if they are comparable, they are comparable. How high the OCV is doesn't matter, since by definition of your example the DCV will be in the same range.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Diceless damage

 

Actually, this is one thing I have realized about this kind of system: it doesn't necessarily detract from the need for high damage, because both significant damage and OCV are necessary for an effective attack, but it does detract from the need for high defenses, because a high DCV effectively does the same thing.

 

In the standard system, you might rely on a high DCV, but know that when you are actually hit on that rare occasion, it is likely to hurt. In a system where the damage is limited by how much you hit in any way (either Sean's method or the, "difference from required hit roll," method), a high DCV and relatively low defenses are going to be every bit as effective as high defenses (probably more so); there is no real tradeoff any more.

[archermoo]

Re: Diceless damage

 

Actually' date=' this is one thing I have realized about this kind of system: it doesn't necessarily detract from the need for high [i']damage[/i], because both significant damage and OCV are necessary for an effective attack, but it does detract from the need for high defenses, because a high DCV effectively does the same thing.

 

In the standard system, you might rely on a high DCV, but know that when you are actually hit on that rare occasion, it is likely to hurt. In a system where the damage is limited by how much you hit in any way (either Sean's method or the, "difference from required hit roll," method), a high DCV and relatively low defenses are going to be every bit as effective as high defenses (probably more so); there is no real tradeoff any more.

 

Well, there is still a tradeoff, just a different one. Now a high damage, low OCV type is considerably less useful. Even if they manage to hit, it is guaranteed to not be for much damage. Unless of course they're going after a 3DCV by attacking the hex...

[Jaxom]

Re: Diceless damage

 

Unless you are defining "maximum" as "the most you can do with the difference in CV during that attack". Which seems a bit silly to me' date=' unless you're comparing it to another system that will also "max out" at the same value.[/quote']

 

That is exactly what I am doing because it is the only mathematical way to discuss the effects of changing the OCV for any fixed damage distribution. There is, in my posts, also an inherent assumption that the damage distributions under both systems is the same but even that is not required because the value of the +1 to OCV is independent of the shape of the damage distribution as long as it is monotonic.

 

This is simply because the nature of the three die six sum with a X- target number is not a linear distribution. Strictly speaking if you created a truly wonky damage distribution (something non-gaussian) then you could change the expected result but since your expected damage is just a product of the hit distribution with the expected damage the only thing that matters is whether you are adding most of your hit probability at a low-damage portion of the curve (like CV difference does) or at a high-damage portion (like Sean's proposal).

 

You can, of course, check this yourself pretty simply. Assume a 7- to hit someone and use Sean's table for 10d6. Then use any difference method you like for the same DC. 20 attacks should be enough to make it visible but 100 (if you're bored) would be better. Make your attacks at (adjusted) 7- to hit. Now make the same number of attacks at 8- to hit. Compare the amount of damage done.

 

If you roll any dice for damage (a la the suggestion by prestidigitator) then you'll need a lot more trials to make the results clear (because of the damage distribution the dice will create) but as long as you are dealing with any kind of fixed damage distribution it will be visible.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Diceless damage

 

Well' date=' there is still a tradeoff, just a different one. Now a high damage, low OCV type is considerably less useful. Even if they manage to hit, it is guaranteed to not be for much damage. Unless of course they're going after a 3DCV by attacking the hex...[/quote']

I meant a tradeoff between high DCV and high defenses. Everyone will become, "light fighters." There is an inherent drawback the approach gives to heavily armored fighters that is not present in the normal system...especially if encumberance is used, but even in a superhero game it will be evident.

[austenandrews]

Re: Diceless damage

 

OK it is a bit more admin in that you need to have a table of DC against rolls handy' date=' but it will save time in rolling and adding up damage totals.[/quote']

Statistically and whatnot it seems like a cool system, but the above would be my problem with it, because (a) for me flipping among a stack of charts wouldn't be faster than adding damage dice, and ( part of the joy of Champions is rolling obscene gobs of dice.