Changing the roll low to hit and skill check to a roll high to hit and skill check

[Thanee]

Re: Changing the roll low to hit and skill check to a roll high to hit and skill chec

 

@neaceul: Instead of remaking the table, you could simply have used mine...

 

18- -> 09- ~+~ 03+ -> 12+ => Delta 9

17- -> 08- ~+~ 04+ -> 13+ => Delta 9

16- -> 08- ~+~ 05+ -> 13+ => Delta 8

15- -> 07- ~+~ 06+ -> 14+ => Delta 8

14- -> 07- ~+~ 07+ -> 14+ => Delta 7

13- -> 06- ~+~ 08+ -> 15+ => Delta 7

12- -> 06- ~+~ 09+ -> 15+ => Delta 6

11- -> 05- ~+~ 10+ -> 16+ => Delta 6

10- -> 05- ~+~ 11+ -> 16+ => Delta 5

09- -> 04- ~+~ 12+ -> 17+ => Delta 5

08- -> 04- ~+~ 13+ -> 17+ => Delta 4

07- -> 03- ~+~ 14+ -> 18+ => Delta 4

06- -> 03- ~+~ 15+ -> 18+ => Delta 3

05- -> 03- ~+~ 16+ -> 18+ => **

04- -> 03- ~+~ 17+ -> 18+ => **

03- -> 03- ~+~ 18+ -> 18+ => **

 

A formula to calculate the number by which you need to exceed the result (i.e. if your roll is 10+ that number is 6, since a 16+ would be equivalent to "made by half"):

 

11 - ( 1/2 the number you need at least to succeed normally (rounded up) )

 

Bye

Thanee

[prestidigitator]

Re: Changing the roll low to hit and skill check to a roll high to hit and skill chec

 

I just replace "make by half" with "make by at least 5". Good enough.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Changing the roll low to hit and skill check to a roll high to hit and skill chec

 

I just replace "make by half" with "make by at least 5". Good enough.

 

Whatever works for your group. The examples above bear out that this changes the probabilities, sometimes significantly, but which probabilities are to be preferred is solely a matter of taste.

[Ternaugh]

Re: Changing the roll low to hit and skill check to a roll high to hit and skill chec

 

I've been using a roll-high method for years. Works great. No problem for versatile Hero players to adapt to' date=' and new players have much less trouble with it in my experience.[/quote']

 

Ironically, I'm the one who has the most trouble with the "roll high" mechanic in my group, and I'm usually the GM.

 

Oh, and we only use it for to hit rolls, not for skills.

 

JoeG

[neaceul]

Re: Changing the roll low to hit and skill check to a roll high to hit and skill chec

 

@neaceul: Instead of remaking the table, you could simply have used mine...

 

Originally Posted by Thanee

18- -> 09- ~+~ 03+ -> 12+ => Delta 9

17- -> 08- ~+~ 04+ -> 13+ => Delta 9

16- -> 08- ~+~ 05+ -> 13+ => Delta 8

15- -> 07- ~+~ 06+ -> 14+ => Delta 8

14- -> 07- ~+~ 07+ -> 14+ => Delta 7

13- -> 06- ~+~ 08+ -> 15+ => Delta 7

12- -> 06- ~+~ 09+ -> 15+ => Delta 6

11- -> 05- ~+~ 10+ -> 16+ => Delta 6

10- -> 05- ~+~ 11+ -> 16+ => Delta 5

09- -> 04- ~+~ 12+ -> 17+ => Delta 5

08- -> 04- ~+~ 13+ -> 17+ => Delta 4

07- -> 03- ~+~ 14+ -> 18+ => Delta 4

06- -> 03- ~+~ 15+ -> 18+ => Delta 3

05- -> 03- ~+~ 16+ -> 18+ => **

04- -> 03- ~+~ 17+ -> 18+ => **

03- -> 03- ~+~ 18+ -> 18+ => **

 

A formula to calculate the number by which you need to exceed the result (i.e. if your roll is 10+ that number is 6, since a 16+ would be equivalent to "made by half"):

 

11 - ( 1/2 the number you need at least to succeed normally (rounded up) )

 

 

Bye

Thanee

 

 

The reason I did the remake of the table is to help explain why I started with 12 for skill checks and what the made by half number would be. Your table is great but could be a bit confusing for some people. I needed to explain step-by-step how I came up with the numbers I did. So I had to break down every step of the process down in a different table.

 

 

 

 

Happy Gaming

[prestidigitator]

Re: Changing the roll low to hit and skill check to a roll high to hit and skill chec

 

Whatever works for your group. The examples above bear out that this changes the probabilities' date=' sometimes significantly, but which probabilities are to be preferred is solely a matter of taste.[/quote']

 

True. I just think that it's not only a good average approximation for the usual mid-range set of rolls, but fits in better with other aspects of the Skill system (e.g. where making it by 10 or more is an "Extraordinary" success). It seems to me that if making it by 10 can basically accomplish miracles, than making it by 5 is a decent place to assign some additional benefit. It makes more sense to me from a statistical point of view as well, where shifting factors of the standard deviation is way more significant than halving the distance to some arbitrary number related to where the mean happens to be (in this case halving the distance from zero, which is a distance of 10.5 from the mean).

[Thanee]

Re: Changing the roll low to hit and skill check to a roll high to hit and skill chec

 

The reason I did the remake of the table is to help explain why I started with 12 for skill checks and what the made by half number would be. Your table is great but could be a bit confusing for some people. I needed to explain step-by-step how I came up with the numbers I did. So I had to break down every step of the process down in a different table.

 

I see, I see.

 

Bye

Thanee

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Changing the roll low to hit and skill check to a roll high to hit and skill chec

 

True. I just think that it's not only a good average approximation for the usual mid-range set of rolls' date=' but fits in better with other aspects of the Skill system (e.g. where making it by 10 or more is an "Extraordinary" success). It seems to me that if making it by 10 can basically accomplish miracles, than making it by 5 is a decent place to assign [i']some[/i] additional benefit. It makes more sense to me from a statistical point of view as well, where shifting factors of the standard deviation is way more significant than halving the distance to some arbitrary number related to where the mean happens to be (in this case halving the distance from zero, which is a distance of 10.5 from the mean).

 

We could also classify the "made by half" items as being examples of "impossible" checks. There aren't a ton of these, and removing all damage from a fall seems like a very potent result. If your skill is 22 or better, it's actually easier to make the roll by 10 ("impossible task") than to make it by half. If your skill roll is 12 or better, it's easier to make it by 5 than to make it by half, so I would say your rule makes these results more likely for most characters. With an 11- roll, your odds are the same.

 

A straight modifier makes extraordinary success more predictable, much as the 3d6 bell curve makes success more predictable than a straight d20 roll, so a straight modifier would seem a bit more consistent with system philosophy in general.

[neaceul]

Re: Changing the roll low to hit and skill check to a roll high to hit and skill chec

 

Well I had my first session with my players trying the rolling high method. It turned out better than I thought it would. The players understood the system so much better and there was very little questions asked once I explained it and they changed things on their character sheets (new DCV, new modifier for skill checks, etc).

 

Combat went very smoothly also. The players rolled the dice and added their OCV and told me what DCV they hit. I changed the DCV if modifiers applied so the players wouldn't have to worry about it. In addition, skill checks were easy. I had a number in my head they had to equal or beat with their skill checks. For example, the party was camping in a forest by a path. Some of the party members were sleeping. The ones that were awake had to make a perception check of 12 while those asleep had to make a perception check of 17. The nice thing about this is I can keep the number they need secret or tell them. It was very easy to keep track of.

 

I think that if I introduce anyone new to Hero System I might just start with the roll high method. It seems less confusing to new players. I can then, if I feel they are ready or they would like to, I can introduce the current method of Hero System's combat and skill checks.

 

 

 

 

 

Happy Gaming

[Zane_Marlowe]

Re: Changing the roll low to hit and skill check to a roll high to hit and skill chec

 

Something I saw recently that seemed to take am lit of the calculation out of it was just to have the players have a static nuber to roll under that was based on a hit roll vs 0 dcv. So, characters with ocv 5 have to roll 16 or less to hit. Of course that's before factoring in thatbthe other guy has a defense. So all you do is ask players how much they made it by. If it's equal to or greter than the target dcv, they hit. They don't have to know the target dcv, and everyone can usually tell you how much they beat an easy number by. Easy peasy and you don't have to house rule a new system or analyze new sets of probability.

[neaceul]

Re: Changing the roll low to hit and skill check to a roll high to hit and skill chec

 

Something I saw recently that seemed to take am lit of the calculation out of it was just to have the players have a static nuber to roll under that was based on a hit roll vs 0 dcv. So' date=' characters with ocv 5 have to roll 16 or less to hit. Of course that's before factoring in thatbthe other guy has a defense. So all you do is ask players how much they made it by. If it's equal to or greter than the target dcv, they hit. They don't have to know the target dcv, and everyone can usually tell you how much they beat an easy number by. Easy peasy and you don't have to house rule a new system or analyze new sets of probability.[/quote']

 

Again this is having my player's subtract to find a "DCV" they can hit. They didn't like the subtracting. Therefore, I am trying to get rid of all subtractions I can in calculating to hit, skill checks, etc.

 

 

 

Happy Gaming

[Guest steamteck]

Re: Changing the roll low to hit and skill check to a roll high to hit and skill chec

 

Ironically, I'm the one who has the most trouble with the "roll high" mechanic in my group, and I'm usually the GM.

 

Oh, and we only use it for to hit rolls, not for skills.

 

JoeG

 

 

Different strokes for different folks. I also find the "roll low" so much more elegant and intuitive. to the point I have trouble understanding how anyone could have trouble with it. If I GM, its roll low, period. Fortunately I have a veteran group which either thinks like I do or is easily adaptable. I literally has taken me years to get you can have trouble with low roll and not be an idiot. When the Fantasy Trip came out those many years ago I discovered low roll and have been in absolute love of the mechanic ever since.

[torchwolf]

Re: Changing the roll low to hit and skill check to a roll high to hit and skill chec

 

When the Fantasy Trip came out those many years ago I discovered low roll and have been in absolute love of the mechanic ever since.

Same here, actually. TFT is where I also learned you can put on so much armor you can't be hurt but you can't hit anything either. Made me appreciate the movie "Excalibur" in a very special way...

 

As for the OT, those gamers coming in from only high-roll game systems might expect that same way to roll, but I've never had this issue with fresh gamers - they usually go "OK, low roll for success, high roll for effect, lets play."

[Guest steamteck]

Re: Changing the roll low to hit and skill check to a roll high to hit and skill chec

 

I've never had the issue either but I've never had new players that have only ever played D&D. Obviously the problem exists, no matter how incomprehensible it is to me. I still can't wrap my head around someone being confused about it. A preferance sure I get. Its pretty common however from these threads apparently. More power to whatever works for them.

[Greywind]

Re: Changing the roll low to hit and skill check to a roll high to hit and skill chec

 

Far and away I've had more problems getting newbs to understand the principle for counting BODY damage.

[neaceul]

Re: Changing the roll low to hit and skill check to a roll high to hit and skill chec

 

I understand where my players are coming from. Subtraction is normally more difficult to perform than addition. I teach math and therefore understand why they don't like the subtracting to find DCV hit when an alternative which you add to your dice roll is available. Also, I understand the confusion of roll low to hit and skill checks and roll high for to hit and damage. It reminds of AD&D when you rolled high to hit and damage but rolled low for saving throws. In addition, a lower AC was better than a higher AC. For me a system of mostly adding is easier for most people to understand and quickly resolve dice rolls. Also, a system that is all high is good or all low is good is more intuitive than one where sometimes rolling high is good and sometimes rolling low is good. But these are just my thoughts. I wanted to make the gaqme work for my players so they would enjoy it and want to continue to play Hero System.

 

 

 

 

Happy Gaming

[Ternaugh]

Re: Changing the roll low to hit and skill check to a roll high to hit and skill chec

 

Different strokes for different folks. I also find the "roll low" so much more elegant and intuitive. to the point I have trouble understanding how anyone could have trouble with it. If I GM' date=' its roll low, period. Fortunately I have a veteran group which either thinks like I do or is easily adaptable. I literally has taken me years to get you can have trouble with low roll and not be an idiot. When the Fantasy Trip came out those many years ago I discovered low roll and have been in absolute love of the mechanic ever since.[/quote']

 

I tend to use "roll low" for my NPCs, and let the players use "roll high". I have them tell me how much they make the roll by, and work from there. I don't tend to use any critical hit system anymore (it really penalizes the players in the long run), so I don't really worry about making the roll by half.

 

JoeG

[NuSoardGraphite]

Re: Changing the roll low to hit and skill check to a roll high to hit and skill chec

 

You don't have to subtract DCV at all. All you have to do is add the character's OCV to 11 (record that on the sheet and adjust it as the character uses Skill Levels and Maneuvers etc) The player's roll the dice (roll under method) and tells you how much they made it by. If that number beats the defender's DCV, they are hit. Pretty simple really.

 

I understand about players being more comfortable with the "roll high" situation though. I myself have run into players who just couldn't get some of the way HERO handles mechanics. They prefer simple "roll and add" systems since that is 80% of the RPGs out there.

 

It seems you've found a compromise that works for you and that's the important thing. Happy gaming.

[Christopher]

Re: Changing the roll low to hit and skill check to a roll high to hit and skill chec

 

Just stumbeled upon it:

The APG II has rules to change the Skills System into a "roll high"/Skill Difficulty System. Basically it transforms the Skill Roll into somthing like the Attack Roll.