Level of success

[Sean Waters]

Re: Level of success

 

..........................

This to me, smells more like a house rule to give a particular flavour than a rules change that many people would use.

 

Cheers, Mark

 

 

Blimey I am becoming transparent

 

It is a system variation to add flavour, disguised as a critical system to make it socially acceptable. Oh well.

 

Mind you, I have, since pondering all this, been thinking of using the double/triple system, with a slight tweak.

 

Hit with a single (no duplicated dice) and do DCx3 damage. Hit with a double and do 4xDC. Hit with a triple and do 5xDC. Hit with a 3 and do 6xDC.

 

Removes the single longest bit of Hero combat (finding that one damage die that shot off the table and went under the sofa) and relates hit roll to damage without making the connection too automatic. Hmm. Might give it a try.

 

It'll be chaos, but I might give it a try...

[Markdoc]

Re: Level of success

 

Blimey I am becoming transparent

 

It is a system variation to add flavour, disguised as a critical system to make it socially acceptable. Oh well.

 

Mind you, I have, since pondering all this, been thinking of using the double/triple system, with a slight tweak.

 

Hit with a single (no duplicated dice) and do DCx3 damage. Hit with a double and do 4xDC. Hit with a triple and do 5xDC. Hit with a 3 and do 6xDC.

 

Removes the single longest bit of Hero combat (finding that one damage die that shot off the table and went under the sofa) and relates hit roll to damage without making the connection too automatic. Hmm. Might give it a try.

 

It'll be chaos, but I might give it a try...

 

This is an interesting idea - it'd randomise damage a bit more, which depending on your gaming style might be exactly what you want. It also has the potential to speed combat up if you have attacks that use a lot of dice - they'd always do a fixed damage multiple.

 

It doesn't specifically interest me, but it looks perfectly usable.

 

cheers, Mark

[Crypt]

Re: Level of success

 

Made hit by 0, damage = DCx3

Made hit by 1, damage = DCx3.5

Made hit by 2, damage = DCx4

Made hit by 3, damage = DCx4.5

Made hit by 4, damage = DCx5

Made hit by 5, damage = DCx5.5

 

 

Damages in HERO are already modified by success margin.

Ok, this is very indirect, not automatic nor smooth but it's still true =>

 

Let's say you have 4 CSLs:

At the extreme ranges you could use this CSL for +4 OCV or +2 DC (or any combinaison but let's keep this simple. I do not speak about DCV increase, this is another story.)

Let's say that using all your CSL in OCV is the default action.

 

If you use this CSL for +2 DC instead and hit => this means you've succeed even without using your CSL in OCV increase. You could have do that but you did not. So this is the same as saying : "because you've hit this is a 4 pt margin success and get a +2 DC increase." This 4 pt margin is purely potential. You've decided to take some risk by not using your full OCV potential.

 

If you've chosen to use all your CSL in OCV and hit ==> there is not success margin. You've chosen to limit the risks.

 

You see what i mean ?

(for me it's a bit hard to explain in english.)

 

Obviously it does not work as the Rolemaster's very smooth and automatic success margin task resolution...

 

 

Because of this (less OCV = maybe more DC) and because of hit locations rules (less OCV = to hit a more "fragile" location = more damage) we cannot apply any more success margin damage rule nor "1/2 roll = max damage" rule... *

The "easy rule" where you start at average damage and increase by 10% per 1 pt success margin is bad too.

 

 

* because it would be more OCV= more damage AND less OCV = more damage at the same time.

 

 

So i think the only way to link roll and damage would be to use the pure 3D6 roll without any modifier.

For instance:

3 : max damage

4-7: 75 % damage

8-13: 50% damage

14-17: 25% damage

or something like that.

 

for instance =>

But this would mean that you cannot do little damage to a very hard to hit target. If you hit him, you do a big % of damage.

You can do a little % of damage only to easy to hit targets.

===> for instance you make your attack, roll 3D6 and, without any modifier, get a 5 : if this is enough to hit (after applying normal modifiers, OCV, DCV, etc) you will do 83% of the maximum damage you can do (whatever your margin is !). (so you do not have to roll damage die. If your weapon does 2D normal damage thus it will do 10 stun and 3 body. )

 

----------------------------

EDIT:

of for something more regular:

17-16 (4.17% chance) = 25% dmg (4/18 + 5/18)/2 = 0.25

15-14 (11.57% chance) = 36% dmg (6/18 + 7/18)/2 = 0.36

13-12 (21.3% chance) = 47% dmg (8/18 + 9/18)/2 = 0.47

11-10 (25% chance) = 58% dmg (10/18 + 11/18)/2 = 0.58

9-8 (21.3% chance) = 69% dmg (12/18 + 13/18)/2 = 0.69

7-6 (11.57% chance) = 80% dmg (14/18 + 15/18)/2 = 0.80

5-4 (4.17% chance) = 91% dmg (16/18 + 17/18)/2 = 0.91

3 (0.46% chance)= 100 % dmg 18/18 = 1.00

That's probably the one i would use.

[Crypt]

Re: Level of success

 

EDIT:

of for something more regular:

17-16 (4.17% chance) = 25% dmg (4/18 + 5/18)/2 = 0.25

15-14 (11.57% chance) = 36% dmg (6/18 + 7/18)/2 = 0.36

13-12 (21.3% chance) = 47% dmg (8/18 + 9/18)/2 = 0.47

11-10 (25% chance) = 58% dmg (10/18 + 11/18)/2 = 0.58

9-8 (21.3% chance) = 69% dmg (12/18 + 13/18)/2 = 0.69

7-6 (11.57% chance) = 80% dmg (14/18 + 15/18)/2 = 0.80

5-4 (4.17% chance) = 91% dmg (16/18 + 17/18)/2 = 0.91

3 (0.46% chance)= 100 % dmg 18/18 = 1.00

That's probably the one i would use.

 

 

Here is the resulting chart:

I've add a 18 column because this chart may also be used for any effect roll. (so the same probability repartition could be used whatever the number of dies of the effect roll. For instance you have to roll a 9d6 drain : you may roll 3d6 instead and check the chart => for instance you roll 7, the result is 43)

[Sean Waters]

Re: Level of success

 

..............................But this would mean that you cannot do little damage to a very hard to hit target. If you hit him, you do a big % of damage.

..................

 

I think the idea of using the actual roll rather than the amount you succeed by is a sound one, but the bit I've quoted above is the reason 'low is good for damage' doesn't make sense to me: surely if an opponent is really hard to hit the chances aer that, if yuo do hit, it will be a glancing blow?

[Crypt]

Re: Level of success

 

I think the idea of using the actual roll rather than the amount you succeed by is a sound one' date=' but the bit I've quoted above is the reason 'low is good for damage' doesn't make sense to me: surely if an opponent is really hard to hit the chances aer that, if yuo do hit, it will be a glancing blow?[/quote']

 

 

I'm not sure what your question is.

 

Let's say you have OCV 5 / Dmg 4D and your target has DCV 3.

(using this chart: http://cryptmaster.free.fr/HERO/MODS/chart.jpg )

 

You roll 3D6 => 8 ===> 17(6) dmg

11+5-3=13- ===> 8<13 ==> success

 

Let's say your target has DCV 9.

You roll 3D6 => 8 ===> 17(6) dmg

11+5-9=7- ===> 8>7 ==> miss

You have to roll at least 7 or less to hit.

====> This also means that, if you hit (rolling 7 or less) you do more damage ( 19(6) or more) because hit roll and damage roll are combined in a single roll here.

 

It may sounds like an issue. I don't know...it doesn't shock me. What is your opinion ?

 

 

 

Now, maybe your question was about a previous post where i said:

* because it would be more OCV= more damage AND less OCV = more damage at the same time.

 

more OCV= more damage ==> by using damage increase with success margin.

 

less OCV = more damage ==> by using CSL in DC instead of OCV or by choosing an OCV penalty in order to hit a fragile location.

 

Those ways of increasing damage are not compatible because the second one automatically reduces the potential success margin.

[archermoo]

Re: Level of success

 

I think the idea of using the actual roll rather than the amount you succeed by is a sound one' date=' but the bit I've quoted above is the reason 'low is good for damage' doesn't make sense to me: surely if an opponent is really hard to hit the chances aer that, if yuo do hit, it will be a glancing blow?[/quote']

 

Which is why I've always thought that if you are going to have the to hit roll impact the damage done it should be based on by how much you succeed. Barely tag them, do little damage. Hit them solidly, do more damage. Seems to make sense.

 

Which is why your proposed system doesn't make much sense to me. Basically it says that the closer you came to missing, the more damage you should do.

[Crypt]

Re: Level of success

 

Which is why your proposed system doesn't make much sense to me. Basically it says that the closer you came to missing, the more damage you should do.

 

 

which one ?

 

(mine says that the harder to hit the target the more damage you should do to hit = the better you should roll.

It's not worse than making a very good roll and being unlucky by doing a very poor damage roll....

)

[archermoo]

Re: Level of success

 

which one ?

 

(mine says that the harder to hit the target the more damage you should do to hit = the better you should roll.

It's not worse than making a very good roll and being unlucky by doing a very poor damage roll....

)

 

Um, the one proposed by the person I was replying to. If I was refering to someone else's system I wouldn't have used "your". I'd've used "Crypt's" or something like that.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Level of success

 

Which is why I've always thought that if you are going to have the to hit roll impact the damage done it should be based on by how much you succeed. Barely tag them, do little damage. Hit them solidly, do more damage. Seems to make sense.

 

Which is why your proposed system doesn't make much sense to me. Basically it says that the closer you came to missing, the more damage you should do.

 

That's right: if you hit with a roll of 12, it means that you must, logically, have a better OCV than your opponent's DCV, thus you CAN do more damage, so to that extent it IS a 'how much can you succeed by' system, it is just that it is less intuitive that that is what is happening. If it helps, think of it this way: Low roll is good to succeed, but high roll is generally good for damage.

 

The advantage of the system I presented (to my mind, at least) over a straight 'level of success' system is that it is less linear: damage will tend to the average even if you have a significant OCV advantage (because of the bell curve) but you have the potential for doing significantly more (or less) damage than average.

 

To take an example:

 

DexMaster has a CV of 12, DamageSoaker has a CV of 6. On a straight level of success system, DM could expect to regularly get +6 or +7 levels of success, just with an average roll. Link that to damage and virtually every hit will be doing better than average damage by a long way. OCV becomes too important as it determines both the chance to hit and the damage.

 

With my variation, any roll form 6 to 15 can do average damage, but a roll as low as 10 can do better than average damage and a roll as high as 11 can do less than average damage.

[archermoo]

Re: Level of success

 

That's right: if you hit with a roll of 12, it means that you must, logically, have a better OCV than your opponent's DCV, thus you CAN do more damage, so to that extent it IS a 'how much can you succeed by' system, it is just that it is less intuitive that that is what is happening. If it helps, think of it this way: Low roll is good to succeed, but high roll is generally good for damage.

 

The advantage of the system I presented (to my mind, at least) over a straight 'level of success' system is that it is less linear: damage will tend to the average even if you have a significant OCV advantage (because of the bell curve) but you have the potential for doing significantly more (or less) damage than average.

 

To take an example:

 

DexMaster has a CV of 12, DamageSoaker has a CV of 6. On a straight level of success system, DM could expect to regularly get +6 or +7 levels of success, just with an average roll. Link that to damage and virtually every hit will be doing better than average damage by a long way. OCV becomes too important as it determines both the chance to hit and the damage.

 

With my variation, any roll form 6 to 15 can do average damage, but a roll as low as 10 can do better than average damage and a roll as high as 11 can do less than average damage.

 

Oh I understand the system. I just don't like it.

[Crypt]

Re: Level of success

 

Originally Posted by Sean Waters

I think the idea of using the actual roll rather than the amount you succeed by is a sound one, but the bit I've quoted above is the reason 'low is good for damage' doesn't make sense to me: surely if an opponent is really hard to hit the chances aer that, if yuo do hit, it will be a glancing blow?

 

 

'low is good for damage' => could you explain what is it about ?

 

did my post (Mar 4th, '08 01:09 AM) bring an answer ?

[Sean Waters]

Re: Level of success

 

Oh I understand the system. I just don't like it.

 

Sorry, I misunderstood your earlier post then

 

How would you do it?

[Sean Waters]

Re: Level of success

 

'low is good for damage' => could you explain what is it about ?

 

did my post (Mar 4th, '08 01:09 AM) bring an answer ?

 

 

Sorry, should have read 'high is good for damage, low is good to hit'*. A low roll will almost always hit, but it is just a 'tag' - low damage. A high roll will do more damage...if it hits.

 

 

 

*Actually it read: Low roll is good to succeed, but high roll is generally good for damage.

[Crypt]

Re: Level of success

 

Sorry, should have read 'high is good for damage, low is good to hit'*. A low roll will almost always hit, but it is just a 'tag' - low damage. A high roll will do more damage...if it hits.

 

 

 

*Actually it read: Low roll is good to succeed, but high roll is generally good for damage.

 

 

ok, i don't know if we talk of the same thing but in this chart:

http://cryptmaster.free.fr/HERO/MODS/chart.jpg

low roll is good for both hit and damage.

 

 

Now i must confess something => i convert every roll 3D6 under X- to 3D6 + (X-11) vs 10. So my own version of the chart is reverse (high is good for EVERYTHING. No, i don't like D&D3, don't bother me with that )

I hope it add even more confusion

[archermoo]

Re: Level of success

 

Sorry, I misunderstood your earlier post then

 

How would you do it?

 

I wouldn't. I like the current system just fine. Roll once to see if you hit, roll again for damage.

 

The previous post was just commenting that I didn't like the idea of just barely hitting meaning you did the most damage. I understand your reasons for it, I just disagree with them.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Level of success

 

I wouldn't. I like the current system just fine. Roll once to see if you hit, roll again for damage.

 

The previous post was just commenting that I didn't like the idea of just barely hitting meaning you did the most damage. I understand your reasons for it, I just disagree with them.

 

Thing is there are some people who like the idea of a system where there is some relationship between success and result (above 'you get to do damge'), and I was aiming this more at that sector of the market. I'm not that bothered about a 'critical system' myself as I think it is generally not helpful to the PCs but some people like that sort of thing, hence the discussion.

[archermoo]

Re: Level of success

 

Thing is there are some people who like the idea of a system where there is some relationship between success and result (above 'you get to do damge')' date=' and I was aiming this more at that sector of the market. I'm not that bothered about a 'critical system' myself as I think it is generally not helpful to the PCs but some people like that sort of thing, hence the discussion.[/quote']

 

Sure, which is why I threw in the comment that I wouldn't be interested in a system that had attacks that barely hit doing the most damage, when attacks that hit solidly did the least. The only way I've ever done criticals in HERO have been either on a roll of 3 or on a roll 10 better than was needed to hit. I know that people have expressed the fear that basing such things how much you hit by emphasizes CV too much, but I've never seen it be a problem. I'm much less worried about theoretical problems than actual ones, particularly when talking about house rules.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Level of success

 

Sure' date=' which is why I threw in the comment that I wouldn't be interested in a system that had attacks that barely hit doing the most damage, when attacks that hit solidly did the least. The only way I've ever done criticals in HERO have been either on a roll of 3 or on a roll 10 better than was needed to hit. I know that people have expressed the fear that basing such things how much you hit by emphasizes CV too much, but I've never seen it be a problem. I'm much less worried about theoretical problems than actual ones, particularly when talking about house rules. [/quote']

 

I can understand how it would seem nonsenical if you look at it like that.

 

The attacks that do the most damage, the solid hits, are not the low rolls. Any monkey can roll a 3 and hit, only the seriously talented (or those at a massive advantage) can roll a 17 and hit: THAT is the solid hit (because it gets a high Body total).

 

I can't see the point in a critical system that only kicks in every couple of hundred rolls personally - it doesn't seem worth the bother, and if there is any kind of market for a critical system it has to be something that you can get your head around easily.

 

I appreciate that a number of seasoned Heroites find the concept of a roll that only just hits difficult to intuit, but it isn't something that a newcomer would have any problem with, especially as the suggested system actually relies on the Body count of hit roll to determine damage rather than the actual roll to hit, and high rolls are always good for damage.

[archermoo]

Re: Level of success

 

I can understand how it would seem nonsenical if you look at it like that.

 

The attacks that do the most damage, the solid hits, are not the low rolls. Any monkey can roll a 3 and hit, only the seriously talented (or those at a massive advantage) can roll a 17 and hit: THAT is the solid hit (because it gets a high Body total).

 

I understand that is your point of view. I just disagree with it. I look at it as 3 being the most solid hit you can get. For someone that needs a 3 to hit at all, that isn't necessarily a very solid hit. For someone that only needed a 17 to hit, that 3 is a pretty solid shot.

 

Different POVs. So while I am one of those that likes critical hit systems (one of the things I love most about Rolemaster), I'm not interested in yours because it is counter my POV on what the rolls mean. I'd potentially be interested in a similar but reversed system though.

 

I can't see the point in a critical system that only kicks in every couple of hundred rolls personally - it doesn't seem worth the bother, and if there is any kind of market for a critical system it has to be something that you can get your head around easily.

 

I appreciate that a number of seasoned Heroites find the concept of a roll that only just hits difficult to intuit, but it isn't something that a newcomer would have any problem with, especially as the suggested system actually relies on the Body count of hit roll to determine damage rather than the actual roll to hit, and high rolls are always good for damage.

 

I submit that MOST people would find it difficult to intuit a system where the lower you roll the more likely you are to hit while at the same time the lowest rolls provide the worst damage.

[Ganesh]

Re: Level of success

 

I ran in a system for a while that involved wanting to roll below certain numbers, but so long as both were a success, the high roll won the tie. Less subtraction, same statistical result, and if the concept of "margin of success" wasn't already blindingly intuitive to you, worked just as well.

 

One of my players described it as a "The Price is Right" system -- you want to be as close as you can, without going over.

 

Probably not surprising, but I like sean's system -- it uses the distinctive Hero "counting body" system to good effect. It might be more intuitive when used with a "roll over" skill system rather than a "roll under" skill system. That might also involve a POV change: are high rolls misses, or hits? Depends on what the system says...

 

The ultimate extension, however, would result in difficulties as static numbers that you're trying to beat on a variable pool of dice that goes up with skill level, probably translating +1 skill to +1 on the roll, +2 skill to +1/2d6, +3 to +d6...and then skill rolls and damage rolls would look just the same, which is a great or terrible thing depending on who you ask.

[Tonio]

Re: Level of success

 

Sean, I understand your rationale completely. One thing that irks me about that system, though, is how it works counter to the general die-rolling feel. Rolling a "3" in the current system gives you a "YEAH!" feel, while rolling higher, closer to your exact-roll-to-hit, might even prompt you to re-calculate to see if you actually DID hit. So while it makes sense, mathematically, it doesn't "feel" right. If I roll a "14", and it turns out I hit, I feel like "phew, almost didn't hit". Yes, if I manage to hit on a "14", I'm probably better enough than my target to warrant big hits, but I don't think those big hits should come when I roll "14".