Killer Shrike Posted March 12, 2019 Report Share Posted March 12, 2019 1 minute ago, dsatow said: Because, if I use it to help newbies acclimate to the system and I change genres or power levels, changing the system to hit would cause more confusion to the newbie. If a mechanic is too unbalanced, then gain a significant edge is too cheap in a point based game. If one CV can cost only 2-3 points (a skill level) or a martial maneuver can give you +2-5 for only 4-5 points, who wouldn't want to escalate this for their character. +5 to DCV for a dodge, to drop someone's chance to hit to way less than 10%? I'd be in. +5 DCV already DOES drop the chance to be hit to less than 10% on average in a neutral match up...to 9.3% in fact. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsatow Posted March 12, 2019 Author Report Share Posted March 12, 2019 2 minutes ago, Killer Shrike said: +5 DCV already DOES drop the chance to be hit to less than 10% on average in a neutral match up...to 9.3% in fact. LOL, it never seems to work for me. Thus came about our house gaming quote "Aborting to dodge is useless." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gnome BODY (important!) Posted March 12, 2019 Report Share Posted March 12, 2019 55 minutes ago, dsatow said: Because, if I use it to help newbies acclimate to the system and I change genres or power levels, changing the system to hit would cause more confusion to the newbie. I'd assume that by that point they wouldn't be newbies anymore, though I don't know how fast the players you interact with learn nor how frequently you switch things up in your games. 56 minutes ago, dsatow said: If a mechanic is too unbalanced, then gain a significant edge is too cheap in a point based game. If one CV can cost only 2-3 points (a skill level) or a martial maneuver can give you +2-5 for only 4-5 points, who wouldn't want to escalate this for their character. +5 to DCV for a dodge, to drop someone's chance to hit to way less than 10%? I'd be in. As opposed to +5 DCV doing basically that already? +5 on a 3d6 is huge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmjalund Posted March 13, 2019 Report Share Posted March 13, 2019 How would someone with 0 OCV fare in this system? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gnome BODY (important!) Posted March 13, 2019 Report Share Posted March 13, 2019 2 minutes ago, dmjalund said: How would someone with 0 OCV fare in this system? Poorly. They'd have to hope their target rolled straight 1s. That said, someone with 0 OCV is already thoroughly screwed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Killer Shrike Posted March 13, 2019 Report Share Posted March 13, 2019 3 minutes ago, dmjalund said: How would someone with 0 OCV fare in this system? Well, presumably a 0 OCV would be incapable of making an attack. So an inanimate object or a quadriplegic or someone reduced to helplessness / paralysis? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmjalund Posted March 13, 2019 Report Share Posted March 13, 2019 Just that presently 0 OCV just means you are very bad at hitting things Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Killer Shrike Posted March 13, 2019 Report Share Posted March 13, 2019 If the OP were to switch out the to-hit method for their campaigns, other secondary consequences / implications would be expected. Keep in mind that I'm not personally interested in switching out the to-hit method for my own games, I was just trying to help the OP work out their mechanical challenge. I'm not advocating for a change. I personally like the existing to-hit model. However, in the interests of exactitude, in 6e a normal character can't normally have a base OCV of less than 1. Presumably if GM's permission were attained to sell back base OCV to 0 it would be with the understanding that the character cannot make OCV based attacks. Calculated OCV on the other hand can be reduced to 0 and below 0; negative OCV turns into +DCV for the defender. Ultimately, in the worst case scenario a "3" will still hit, which is only a .5% chance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsatow Posted March 14, 2019 Author Report Share Posted March 14, 2019 Having slept on the topic and rethinking what I was last arguing I think I agree with Killer Shrike comment, that ultimately its a challenge mechanic rather than what type of dice are rolled. I still think NDB doesn't vary enough but the main crux of the thread is whether a dice pool challenge mechanic would work. At some point, I think I''ll just have to run an experiment and see how the results would turn out. Killer Shrike 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Killer Shrike Posted March 14, 2019 Report Share Posted March 14, 2019 You can just grab a few character write ups and pit them against each other. I frequently do little simulations like that when rules tinkering in various systems. Average vs Expected ("normal") vs Extreme (high and low). Change one thing test one thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.