Rolling Over versus Under

[Tywyll]

Hey,

 

I know I've seen on a website somewhere a set of home rules for doing Hero with a system whereby you roll high (3d6+skill mods) instead of low (3d6 under skill). Is anyone familiar with this? I can't remember where I saw it.

[Edsel]

Re: Rolling Over versus Under

 

Perhaps this thread is what you were looking for?

[Tom Carman]

Re: Rolling Over versus Under

 

Hey,

 

I know I've seen on a website somewhere a set of home rules for doing Hero with a system whereby you roll high (3d6+skill mods) instead of low (3d6 under skill). Is anyone familiar with this? I can't remember where I saw it.

 

I'm pretty sure I saw it on this site somewhere, probably in this very forum. Remember that 11- is equivalent to 10+, and HERO's stat and skill rolls were designed to give an 11- roll for average stats and skills, on an unmodified 3d6 roll. The roll-high approach uses a modified 3d6 roll, adding the stat or skill mods. So I would suggest raising the default target number by the amount of the bonus on average stats, ie. from 10 to 12. Instead of a stat roll being "roll under 9+(stat/5)", it would be "roll 3d6+(stat/5), target normally 12."

[Lord Liaden]

Re: Rolling Over versus Under

 

I don't remember where I saw it either, or who first came up with it, but the formula (21 - [skill Roll #]) gives a target number to be equalled or exceeded on 3d6, with the same probabilities as the roll-low method. Apply normal HERO bonuses and penalties normally to the Skill Roll number.

[Lord Liaden]

Re: Rolling Over versus Under

 

Also, (3D6 + OCV vs. 10 + DCV) will turn the standard HERO attack roll to roll-over, with the same probabilities.

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Rolling Over versus Under

 

Which would be an interesting default campaign rule -- whatever your DCV is, add 10. POOF. I roll 3d6 and add my OCV. Done. Very simple, very elegant. I do wish that for 6th the OPTION were presented. I don't know how much chaos it would cause.

[Tywyll]

Re: Rolling Over versus Under

 

I don't remember where I saw it either' date=' or who first came up with it, but the formula (21 - [skill Roll #']) gives a target number to be equalled or exceeded on 3d6, with the same probabilities as the roll-low method. Apply normal HERO bonuses and penalties normally to the Skill Roll number.

 

Hey,

 

Could you explain that a bit more? I am somewhat confused by the equation.

 

Thanks!

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Rolling Over versus Under

 

Sure. Normally, your skill roll looks like this:

 

11 + Skill # = Target Number-

 

So if I have a skill of 3, then my Target Number is 14- (fourteen or less on 3d6). Liaden is saying this:

 

21 - Skill Roll# (in this case, 14) equals 7 or more on 3d6. 7 or more is the same probability as 14 or less. Voila.

 

I think. I've been wrong before, but I'm pretty sure that's what he meant.

[Tywyll]

Re: Rolling Over versus Under

 

Sure. Normally, your skill roll looks like this:

 

11 + Skill # = Target Number-

 

So if I have a skill of 3, then my Target Number is 14- (fourteen or less on 3d6). Liaden is saying this:

 

21 - Skill Roll# (in this case, 14) equals 7 or more on 3d6. 7 or more is the same probability as 14 or less. Voila.

 

I think. I've been wrong before, but I'm pretty sure that's what he meant.

 

Thanks.

 

That is a start. I'd still rather there be a system of rolling 3d6 + skill versus a Target Number. I feel like I've read someone's rules on that, if only I could remember where...

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Rolling Over versus Under

 

Well, you can copy the d20 system if you really want to do that. In which case, you take the Base target number (say, 11) and then roll 3d6 (average 11) and add the skill modifier to the roll. It's really quite simple.

 

Then you just move the target number; if you want them to have a challenge, you push the skill roll to, say, 14 -- that'll take some skill, or a +3 Skill and a roll of 11 or more.

 

Let me know if that fixes the problem. BE ADVISED: I do not know the math well enough to give you a breakdown of probability, but you can simply import that math directly.

[Warp9]

Re: Rolling Over versus Under

 

Thanks.

 

That is a start. I'd still rather there be a system of rolling 3d6 + skill versus a Target Number. I feel like I've read someone's rules on that, if only I could remember where...

In the past I've done something very similiar to what you are asking about. . . .

 

Combat:

 

As Lord Liaden has already indicated,

 

Roll for Combat is 3d6 + OCV VS a target number of 10+DCV

 

 

Skills:

Roll 3d6 +

 

No bonus (+0) for a Familiarity

 

1 + (Stat / 5) + Any Skill Bonus = Normal (Stat based) Skill

 

3 + Any Skill Bonus = Normal (Non-stat based) Skill

 

 

The target number for the roll would be as follows:

 

The standard Skill Target number = 13

TN 18 for a massive challenge

TN 23 for "impossible odds"

 

 

TN 10 (or maybe even lower than 10) for something easy

[Sean Waters]

Re: Rolling Over versus Under

 

Instead of having a 'compound skill' i.e. 9+CHAR/5 PLUS levels, I'd be inclined to seperate them out a little, and record skills like this (assuming DEX 14, INT 18 and PRE of 12...or whatever):

 

DEX roll: +3

INT roll: +4

PRE roll: +2

 

Acrobatics: +0 (+3)

Knowledge (Bats): +3 (+7)

Oratory: +1 (+3)

 

i.e. you don't record 9+...etc, just the skill bonuses, whether from characteristics or skill levels. So the KS: Bats is +3 skill levels and +4 from intelligence, for a total of +7.

 

Then you could roll 3d6 and add the skill + char bonus, and anything beating a 10 succeeds for an average task.

 

Familiarities are skills you can use at a penalty of -1.

 

This is the same thing as Warp9 is suggesting in effect, although the 'target number' would always be 10 to a standard challenge.

[Sir Ofeelya]

Re: Rolling Over versus Under

 

Which would be an interesting default campaign rule -- whatever your DCV is' date=' add 10. POOF. I roll 3d6 and add my OCV. Done. Very simple, very elegant. I do wish that for 6th the OPTION were presented. I don't know how much chaos it would cause.[/quote']

 

This is exactly what I do in my campaigns. Also, if someone rolls a hit (for example, needs to beat DCV 5 (+10) = 15, and rolls an 18 (OCV+dice roll), then any block roll must equal or beat the 18. Makes it harder to block a good hit.

[MorpheousXO]

Re: Rolling Over versus Under

 

This is the way I ran the two games of DnD HERO that actually happened. It worked really well since I didn't have to bother explaining the default system for combat rolls to new players, which isn't the easiest thing to grasp right off the bat.

 

I was actually pondering modifying the bonuses from stats a bit, making a stat of 10 = +0, and every +5 to a stat is +1 to the roll, and every -5 is -1 to the roll. That way the target number for skill rolls is 10, a much more round number, and it still keeps the same variables as the standard system. Also, since CV's are still determined by DEX/3, it doesn't mess with combat in any way.

 

The only thing is that you need to figure you target numbers for things, but of course that's already been talked about here.

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Rolling Over versus Under

 

Sounds like circling the mountains of madness to me, but you know, hey. Whatever puts gravy on your biscuit.

[Tywyll]

Re: Rolling Over versus Under

 

Instead of having a 'compound skill' i.e. 9+CHAR/5 PLUS levels, I'd be inclined to seperate them out a little, and record skills like this (assuming DEX 14, INT 18 and PRE of 12...or whatever):

 

DEX roll: +3

INT roll: +4

PRE roll: +2

 

Acrobatics: +0 (+3)

Knowledge (Bats): +3 (+7)

Oratory: +1 (+3)

 

i.e. you don't record 9+...etc, just the skill bonuses, whether from characteristics or skill levels. So the KS: Bats is +3 skill levels and +4 from intelligence, for a total of +7.

 

Then you could roll 3d6 and add the skill + char bonus, and anything beating a 10 succeeds for an average task.

 

Familiarities are skills you can use at a penalty of -1.

 

This is the same thing as Warp9 is suggesting in effect, although the 'target number' would always be 10 to a standard challenge.

 

If you made the standard difficulty 10, wouldn't that mess up the math for skills? I mean, a Familiarity becomes a 10- in this system (I think, unless I've missed something) and a base skill (11-, or +3) becomes a 13-.

[KarinsDad]

Re: Rolling Over versus Under

 

I think one reason some people prefer a roll over method is due to the fact that Hero combat has a subtraction in it. Many people are good at math, but at 2 AM, even the brains of very intelligent people sometime shut down due to fatigue.

 

Addition is typically easier than subtraction and a single addition is easier than an addition and a subtraction.

 

In the earlier proposed roll over solution, DCV 8 should not be written on the character sheet. DCV 18 should be written on the character sheet.

 

So, 3D6 + OCV is merely compared to the 18. One addition. One comparison. Fast and easy.

 

 

However, there are ways to look at the current system without changing the mathematics of how it works. The attack roll equation is:

 

11 + OCV - DCV

 

So for most characters, 11 - DCV can be written on the character sheet instead of DCV. Most of the time, this would be a positive number. Let's call 11 - DCV = Armor Class (for lack of a better term ).

 

So, roll 3D6. Is it less than or equal to OCV + AC? If so, it's a hit.

 

For example:

 

OCV 10, DCV 8, AC 3 (11-8)

 

We all know that 11 + 10 - 8 is 13-.

 

But, it only takes a single addition 10+3 (OCV+AC) to determine the 13-.

 

Not an addition (11 + OCV) plus a subtraction - DCV.

 

The downside of this method is that bonuses are subtracted from the "AC" and penalties are added to it. That might take some people a while to get used to (i.e. they want their "AC" to be as low as possible). And of course, a better acronym than AC should be used.

 

 

Alternatively, the 11 + OCV can be written on the characters sheet. In this example, 21.

 

The attacker would then roll 3D6 and subtract it from his 21. If he rolled a 14, 21 - 14 = 7. He missed a DCV of 8. One subtraction. One comparison.

 

This has the advantage of using bonuses and penalties as written for both OCV and DCV. However, it has the disadvantage of doing a subtraction instead of an addition.

 

 

And of course, many GMs merely subtract the DCV from the OCV in their head, modify the 11 with it, and determine if the roll hits. This works, it's just more brain intensive over the long run.

[KarinsDad]

Re: Rolling Over versus Under

 

I just thought of a faster way to handle this using the current rules.

 

Add 11 to OCV on characters sheets. Instead of an OCV of 8, a character has an OCV of 19.

 

Add 3D6 attack roll to the DCV of the defender. If 3D6 + DCV > modified OCV, then it misses. If 3D6 + DCV <= modified OCV, than it hits.

 

For example, OCV 8, DCV 10. OCV is written as 19.

 

Roll 3D6 and add DCV of 10. If you roll a 9-, that is <= to 19 and hits. If you roll a 10+, that is > 19 and misses.

 

This has the advantage of using one addition, one comparison, and both OCV and DCV are modified as normal.

 

It does the exact same thing as Rolling Over, but it adds the DCV to the dice roll, not the OCV. Fast and easy.

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Rolling Over versus Under

 

If it's fast & easy, why is my head spinning? Mayhaps the Lord Captain needs food. Here's what we do:

 

YOU: 11+OCV, subtract 3d6.

ME: Compare result to DCV of target.

 

Done. I think your point was that it's easier to add than subtract, which I agree with. But we effectively make it a "skill roll." Although mayhaps not quite as eloquently as the system dictates, that's the foundation.

[KarinsDad]

Re: Rolling Over versus Under

 

If it's fast & easy' date=' why is my head spinning?[/quote']

 

I don't know. Why is DCV + 3D6 hard?

[archermoo]

Re: Rolling Over versus Under

 

I don't know. Why is DCV + 3D6 hard?

 

Do you mean other than not necessarily knowing my opponent's DCV?

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Rolling Over versus Under

 

I don't know. Why is DCV + 3D6 hard?

 

First, what Archer said. Second, because I still don't get that out of the post. You're adding 11 and all other kinds of crazy. Which is fine! Crazy works for some people, but not for me. HERO is built on simplicity, and this (and the math taken to get there) doesn't seem simple to me.

 

Simple is: 11+OCV = "Skill Roll." Roll 3d6, subtract. It's simple because everyone has the right number on their sheet, everyone can do basic subtraction, and I know (and keep hidden) the DCV of my mooks.

 

So I just don't see this as being nearly as simple as you've advertised it. Again, maybe I'm just being thick, but this seems to me to be another case of something simple being turned into something unsimple.

 

Yes. Unsimple is a word.

[KarinsDad]

Re: Rolling Over versus Under

 

Do you mean other than not necessarily knowing my opponent's DCV?

 

The GM knows the opponents DCV. Who said the player has to figure it out?

 

 

If one calculates 11 + OCV - 3D6, yes a player can tell the GM:

 

"I hit a DCV of 8."

 

It matters not too much if the GM then tells them the opponent's DCV or not. He at least tells the player if his PC hits or not. After a few attacks, the player will start to get an idea of what the opponent's DCV is sooner or later anyway.

 

So yes, if the GM requires that each player tell him what DCV the player hits each time, the player would have to subtract in order to figure that out. In our games, we don't bother with keeping DCVs hidden since it doesn't really matter much in the long run anyway.

 

The player with the method above can say: My OCV is 19, I rolled a 9. The GM can add 9 to the DCV to figure out if it is greater than 19 and a miss.

 

GMs in most games I have played also tend to watch over what is rolled and what is the expected outcome anyway. The advantage of this is that the GM might notice a mistake that the player might not (GMs tend to be rules savvy, some players are, some players are not).

 

I guess it depends on the GM. Some GMs might want to merely know DCV and want the player to figure out what DCV he hits for the GM.

[KarinsDad]

Re: Rolling Over versus Under

 

First' date=' what Archer said. Second, because I still don't get that out of the post. You're adding 11 and all other kinds of crazy. Which is fine! Crazy works for some people, but not for me. [/quote']

 

3D6 = 11 + OCV - DCV is the to hit equation in the book:

 

That's the same equation as:

 

3D6 + DCV = 11 + OCV

 

No crazy involved. No subtraction involved either.

 

Same equation.

 

 

I suspect some GMs have the players tell them what DCV they hit:

 

DCV = 11 + OCV - 3D6

 

Same equation.

 

 

I suspect some GMs have the players tell them what their OCV is:

 

roll needed = 11 + OCV - DCV

 

followed by asking them (or looking at) what their roll is:

 

3D6

 

Still same equation.

 

 

There's more than one way to skin a cat. The way I proposed just has the advantage of no subtractions.

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Rolling Over versus Under

 

Eh. Maybe I'm just thick. Still doesn't make sense to me.