A variant of standard effect damage

[Sean Waters]

Re: A variant of standard effect damage

 

How about using margin of success?

 

Add one or two points of damage per point you made your to hit by...thus that 15- who rolled a 5 does 10 or 20 extra damage, where if he rolled 15 exactly, he just barely hit, thus no bonus damage...

 

Because I like the idea of being able to do more damage if you are lucky AND skillful than if you are just lucky.

[Kari]

Re: A variant of standard effect damage

 

A new crazy idea:

 

How about instead of having 1 level of standard effect you could have 2 levels? For example level 1 is normal standard effect 1bod 3stun per dice, and level two is 1bod 4stun per dice(killing damage would be 3bod*3stun and 4bod*3stun respectively).

This will require use of the critical hit rules from the Combat handbook.

 

So when you roll to hit if you need say 14 to hit and you roll between 14-8 you do level 1 standard effect and when you roll between 7-4 you get level 2 standard effect. When you roll 3 you roll 1d6 and multiply per dice of your attack/effect.

 

This would seem to have a very good range of possible damage without becoming unwieldy and it would seem to mimic the propabilities of the bellcurve of a large effect to some extent.

 

What do you think?

[Kari]

Re: A variant of standard effect damage

 

Just after I posted my last idea I had another idea on that same rule that does not require critical hits.

 

In this you still have level 1 and level 2 of standard effect but regardles of what the number needed to hit is when your attack roll is an uneven number you get level 1 effect and when your attack roll is an even number you get level 2 effect as long as you hit the target. Rolling 3 still gets the 1d6 method.

 

In this way the gm does not need to reveal the opponents dcv and there is an almost even chance of scoring either level of damage/effect.

 

Am I completely nuts or what??

[Sean Waters]

Re: A variant of standard effect damage

 

Just after I posted my last idea I had another idea on that same rule that does not require critical hits.

 

In this you still have level 1 and level 2 of standard effect but regardles of what the number needed to hit is when your attack roll is an uneven number you get level 1 effect and when your attack roll is an even number you get level 2 effect as long as you hit the target. Rolling 3 still gets the 1d6 method.

 

In this way the gm does not need to reveal the opponents dcv and there is an almost even chance of scoring either level of damage/effect.

 

Am I completely nuts or what??

 

 

You see I like this.

 

Roll odd and your standard effect per die is 4, roll even and it is 3. Average damage is 3.5, which is what it should be.

 

Good idea.

[Sean Waters]

Re: A variant of standard effect damage

 

Why standard effect is rubbish unless everyone is using it:

 

The chance rolling more than 36 on 12d6 (i.e. of beating the standard damage) is over 82%. The risk of low rolls is comparatively small: 4 times out of 5 you will do better just rolling the dice.

 

The chance of getting anything less than 36 gets small vey quickly: 35 or less comes up less than 14% of the time, 34 or less is less than 11% and 33 or less is less than 8%.

 

It is true that the odds are closer for smaller numbers of dice, but even on only 3 dice you have a better than 62% chance of exceeding 'standard' damage. Using average damage is sometimes awkward as there are those pesky halves, so the 'two levels of standard damage' works well for me.

[BNakagawa]

Re: A variant of standard effect damage

 

how I would use standard effect (plus a smallish random element) were I to use it:

 

Step 1: Get regular 6 sided dice (the kind where opposite sides add to 7). These are as common as dirt, but occasionally you find exceptions.

 

Step 2: Roll to hit. If you hit, flip your dice over and add them to your damage dice, minus three in body and three times that in stun. In other words, your attack (we're assuming the attack does more than 3d6 normal) does (N-3) x 3 + (a random number between 4 and 18) (it's between 4 and 18 because if you rolled an 18 to hit, you probably missed.

 

What this accomplishes: It makes an attack that just barely hit less dangerous than an attack that hit squarely. It rewards good rolls.

[Robyn]

Re: A variant of standard effect damage

 

If you hit' date=' flip your dice over and add them to your damage dice, minus three in body and three times that in stun.[/quote']

 

Do you subtract the STUN and BODY before or after you flip them? And the STUN is three times what, the three from BODY or some other number?

 

I'm so confused . . .

 

In other words' date=' your attack (we're assuming the attack does more than 3d6 normal)[/quote']

 

Does your method fall apart if it doesn't? Are we going to have to memorize another confusing method?

 

does (N-3) x 3 + (a random number between 4 and 18) (it's between 4 and 18 because if you rolled an 18 to hit' date=' you probably missed.[/quote']

 

I am surprised to say that I understand this even less than HERO's existing rules, and I haven't even read the Combat chapter.

 

What this accomplishes: It makes an attack that just barely hit less dangerous than an attack that hit squarely. It rewards good rolls.

 

I'll have to take your word on it

[Kari]

Re: A variant of standard effect damage

 

You see I like this.

 

Roll odd and your standard effect per die is 4, roll even and it is 3. Average damage is 3.5, which is what it should be.

 

Good idea.

 

Thanks, so what do think about the random multiplier at attack roll 3?

[Kari]

Re: A variant of standard effect damage

 

Why standard effect is rubbish unless everyone is using it:

 

The chance rolling more than 36 on 12d6 (i.e. of beating the standard damage) is over 82%. The risk of low rolls is comparatively small: 4 times out of 5 you will do better just rolling the dice.

 

The chance of getting anything less than 36 gets small vey quickly: 35 or less comes up less than 14% of the time, 34 or less is less than 11% and 33 or less is less than 8%.

 

It is true that the odds are closer for smaller numbers of dice, but even on only 3 dice you have a better than 62% chance of exceeding 'standard' damage. Using average damage is sometimes awkward as there are those pesky halves, so the 'two levels of standard damage' works well for me.

 

You see this is partly why I insist on including some variance in the damage even though using standard effect.

 

My last suggestion ie two levels of standard effect and a "joker" multiplier at attack roll 3 is meant to be used in a high power confrontation whith lots of dc:s (15+) flying around. Basically it would be a 3-way battle between Destroyer, Menton and Arvad the betrayer instigated by the pc. Lowest normal effect there would be 16dc and highest around 25dc.

 

So I want a fastrolling method of dealing whith this amount of power flying around and this would seem to allow that aswell as the possibility of the full range of effects by everyone.

 

Now I wonder if this method would be acceptable whether everyone uses it or not? I played around whith the dice propability sheet in free stuff and it seemed to be very close allthough one does lose some granularity versus the basic method.

[Frenchman]

Re: A variant of standard effect damage

 

Added in to the debate is that an average dice rolls 3.5 on average, so it can argued that standard effect shortchanges the result, a little.

 

MLG

Have to agree with Shaft here...I always thought that taking standard effect was a sure way to get, well, shafted. The rare times we have used standard effect in our games, it has always been 3.5xdie.

If you commonly have a calculator at your table, you could make standard effect be 3.2+(1d6x0.1) - this gives some variation without taking damage very far from the middle...but I'd rather just roll my sackful of dice.

[Sean Waters]

Re: A variant of standard effect damage

 

Thanks' date=' so what do think about the random multiplier at attack roll 3?[/quote']

 

I'm not keen on 'critical' and 'fumble' rules as they tend to prejudice the players: the opponent's roll a lot more attacks, usually, so will get a lot more criticals, and whilst it is true they will also get a lot more fumbles, fumbles tend to be quite critical in themselves and the players only need to blow it once to lose badly. Mind you that particular implementation is so rare and not a 'max damage' rule (necessarily) so I would be happy with it, but would not feel a need for it (the vast majority of damage rolls fall between 3x and 4x DC anyway)

[Sean Waters]

Re: A variant of standard effect damage

 

You see this is partly why I insist on including some variance in the damage even though using standard effect.

 

My last suggestion ie two levels of standard effect and a "joker" multiplier at attack roll 3 is meant to be used in a high power confrontation whith lots of dc:s (15+) flying around. Basically it would be a 3-way battle between Destroyer, Menton and Arvad the betrayer instigated by the pc. Lowest normal effect there would be 16dc and highest around 25dc.

 

So I want a fastrolling method of dealing whith this amount of power flying around and this would seem to allow that aswell as the possibility of the full range of effects by everyone.

 

Now I wonder if this method would be acceptable whether everyone uses it or not? I played around whith the dice propability sheet in free stuff and it seemed to be very close allthough one does lose some granularity versus the basic method.

 

 

I would say the method would be acceptable across the board whether everyone used it or not, as the average damage does not change (although killing attacks may be a little more problematic). I would, however, require each character to decide which method they use and not swap back and forth, although that is purely a personal preference.

[BNakagawa]

Re: A variant of standard effect damage

 

A clarification and example of the method described above:

 

If your attack is 12d6, you roll 3d6 and see if you hit. If you hit and you rolled a 13, flip the dice and now you have 3d6 showing 8.

 

(this assumes your dice have opposite sides that add to 7. If you rolled a 3 and two 5s to hit, then after you flip your dice you have a 4 and two 2s)

 

Add that to your initial attack -3 using the standard effect, in this case (12-3) x 1 for body and x3 for stun. (9 body and 27 stun)

 

Your damage total is 9+3 body = 12 body and 27 + 8 stun = 35 stun.

 

If you had rolled much better, say you rolled a 1, 2, 3 to hit, then after flipping the dice, you get 6,5,4 and your total damage is 13 body and 42 stun.