Jump to content

Roll High


sentry0

Recommended Posts

Nope. 

 

I haven't done it, either. 

 

Roll low for success; roll high for damage.   It's pretty clean as-is; never saw any significant value in changing that to "Roll low for success and high for damage except in combat where low is bad and you roll high for success and high for damage because while it's similar to a skill check it's not _exactly_ the same so we do it this way and then you can tell me what DCV you hit because while I can keep track of his skill level allocations and maneuvers, that one last tiny bit of math is totally beyond me. "

 

:lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, sentry0 said:

Has anyone ever bit the bullet and run an entire game using a "Roll High" approach for action resolution?

 

Asking for a friend.

 

The last campaign I ran (the only 6th Edition campaign I've ever run) was roll high for everything.

 

It worked fine. Better than roll under in my opinion (because I don't like roll under systems in general).

 

When I switched the TFT characters over to HERO this time around I hemmed and hawwed about rolling high because that is my preference, but in the end stuck with roll under because that is how TFT also worked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did it in a game I ran for D20 lovers.  I customised a character sheet and told them that the test for success was to beat 10 on a modified roll.  So roll + levels and bonuses - difficulty and penalties. 

 

In combat, OCV is a bonus as are skill levels and sundry situational modifiers; DCV is the difficulty with range etc providing penalties. 

 

With skills, the difficulty was 10.  I treated every improvement to base skill as a plus on the sheet, so Stealth 11 or less was listed as Stealth on the character sheet; Stealth 13 or less was listed as Stealth +2.

 

Worked a treat, everything was about beating 10, rolling high was always good.

 

However, to show the fickleness of gamers, not one of them complained about Runequest when looking to roll under a percentage to hit and roll high for damage....

 

Doc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's interesting... yes, gamers are fickle :)

 

I was thinking of going with the old OCV+roll vs DCV+10 for combat.  That's pretty much a well established alternate way of rolling to hit.

 

For characteristics and skills I was going to go with 21-roll which gives the same probability of success as it does RAW.  This would mean a 13- roll would become 8+ on a character sheet.

 

I think it will be fun as an experiment to see what my players think... at the very least I'll float the idea out there about having a single session run "Roll High".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Doc Democracy said:

With skills, the difficulty was 10.  I treated every improvement to base skill as a plus on the sheet, so Stealth 11 or less was listed as Stealth on the character sheet; Stealth 13 or less was listed as Stealth +2.

 

This is a nice way to do it too, I need to think on which way I like better :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I liked keeping the target number constant, it meant the calculations were all focussed on the same thing, was the result greater than 10.  (I had made a deliberate decision to go greater than 10, reducing the chances of success from 62.5% to 50% on an unmodified roll).  If I wanted to keep the same result profile as in RAW then the result would need to be at least 10.  There is merit in everything remaining constant - there is never a question of "What do I need to roll?" it is always the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Doc Democracy said:

There is merit in everything remaining constant - there is never a question of "What do I need to roll?" it is always the same.

 

That's the feedback I got from my table of new HERO players.  They have D&D 5e under their belt, OpenD6, and a couple of boardgames like Gloomhaven as well.

 

It was interesting to me to hear that tbh.  I personally don't care, I'm fine with the RAW.  Maybe that's just because I'm used to the divide and it takes fresh eyes to point it out to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Doc Democracy said:

I did it in a game I ran for D20 lovers.  I customised a character sheet and told them that the test for success was to beat 10 on a modified roll.  So roll + levels and bonuses - difficulty and penalties. 

 

In combat, OCV is a bonus as are skill levels and sundry situational modifiers; DCV is the difficulty with range etc providing penalties. 

 

With skills, the difficulty was 10.  I treated every improvement to base skill as a plus on the sheet, so Stealth 11 or less was listed as Stealth on the character sheet; Stealth 13 or less was listed as Stealth +2.

 

Worked a treat, everything was about beating 10, rolling high was always good.

 

However, to show the fickleness of gamers, not one of them complained about Runequest when looking to roll under a percentage to hit and roll high for damage....

 

Doc

 

That's how I wrote up a Roll High Hero document I was going to use but never got around to it. As for rolling low, it isn't a problem and I always equated it with percentile systems. The statistical breakdown of each #- as it relates to percentage helps a lot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've always preferred a roll-high system. The "Stealth +2" notation that Doc Democracy mentions works very well and is more intuitive, IMO.  I understand the idea of the roll-low system, because when you express the roll as "X or less", the higher the X is, the better.  But that's the same as "+X to the roll, trying to hit a target number of 10 (or higher)" - again, the higher the X, the better.  For a combat to hit roll, you just have to roll at least the target's DCV+10 on your 3d6+OCV.  "+10" is pretty easy to calculate - easier than working out "I rolled an 8, and my OCV is 9, so I hit a DCV of (9+11-8=) 12 or lower."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/21/2019 at 7:03 PM, PhilFleischmann said:

I've always preferred a roll-high system. The "Stealth +2" notation that Doc Democracy mentions works very well and is more intuitive, IMO.  I understand the idea of the roll-low system, because when you express the roll as "X or less", the higher the X is, the better.  But that's the same as "+X to the roll, trying to hit a target number of 10 (or higher)" - again, the higher the X, the better.  For a combat to hit roll, you just have to roll at least the target's DCV+10 on your 3d6+OCV.  "+10" is pretty easy to calculate - easier than working out "I rolled an 8, and my OCV is 9, so I hit a DCV of (9+11-8=) 12 or lower."

 

One concern I have with a Roll High system is calculating crits.

 

If a critical hit on a Roll Low system is rolling under 1/2 of the needed roll (11 or less to hit becomes 11/2 = 5.5 so 5 or less to crit) then what is the crit range for a Roll High setup?

 

Also, all of the Hexman dice have the Hexman on the 1.  A natural 3 is a triple Hexman!  Rolling three 6s won't have the same pop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's an easy enough calculation.  5- is equivalent to 16+.  With the roll high system, instead of looking at the roll and halving it, you can look at the DCV you could have hit with half your OCV.  If your OCV is 10 and your 3d6 roll is 11, then your "roll total" is 10 + 11 = 21.  That hits a DCV of 21-10 = 11 or less.  If you could have hit the target with a roll total of only 10+(11/2) = 15.5, rounding down to 15, then it's a critical hit.

 

I generally don't use the "Half or less" system for critical hits.  I usually use "Natural 3" for criticals, which would be Natural 18 in a roll-high system.

 

I don't use (or have) any of those Hexman dice (as nice as they might be).  Do you use them for damage dice as well?  Because in that case, rolling a lot of Hexmen is not a good thing, despite the "pop".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, PhilFleischmann said:

If you could have hit the target with a roll total of only 10+(11/2) = 15.5, rounding down to 15, then it's a critical hit.

 

Roll Low Method:

OCV 11 / DCV 07 = Hit: 15 / Crit: 07

OCV 09 / DCV 07 = Hit: 13 / Crit: 06

OCV 07 / DCV 07 = Hit: 11 / Crit: 05

 

Roll High Method:

OCV 11 / DCV 07 = Hit: 06 / Crit: 12 ?? ( 11/2 = 5  - 10 = -5 + 12 = 7 = hit?)  Seems like a MUCH higher crit range.  I'm probably borking the math.

OCV 09 / DCV 07 = Hit: 08 / Crit: 13 ??

OCV 07 / DCV 07 = Hit: 10 / Crit: 14 ??

 

I can't make the math work.  Just inverting the model the crit ranges should have been 14, 15, 16.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't halve the OCV, you halve the dice roll.  Like I said, I don't use this system, so it's also possible that I got the math wrong.  Let's see now.

 

OCV 7 vs DCV 7 means 11- to hit, 5- to crit.  With roll-high, it should come out to 10+ to hit and 16+ to crit.

 

I roll a 16, plus my OCV of 7 gives me 23, so I hit a DCV of 13 or lower.  If my roll had only been 8, 8+7=15, so I would have hit a DCV of 5.  Well, that didn't work, so I obviously did something wrong.  My first thought is that since 3d6 only goes down to 3, not to 1, you might have to add another 2 to compensate.  That would work for this case, getting a crit on a DCV of 7.  Let's see if that works in the other cases:

 

OCV 9 vs DCV 7 means 13- to hit, 6- to crit.  Roll-high means it should be 8+ to hit and 15+ to crit.

 

I roll 15, plius OCV 9 = 24 so I hit a DCV of 14 or lower.  If my roll was only 7 (7.5 rounded down), 7+9+2 = 18, so I would have hit a DCV of 8 or lower, which means I crit the DCV 7 target with my roll of 15.  But I would have gotten that same crit if I had rolled only 14, which also halves to 7, so I'm still off.  I'll have to work this out.  This calls for a little bit of algebra.  I'll get back to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, here's the mathematically equivalent formula to the "Make it by half" crit system, for roll high:

 

For a normal to-hit, you need to roll at least 10 + target's DCV - your OCV.

For a critical hit, you need to roll at least half of this number, plus 10.5, or equivalently, you need to roll *higher* than half that number plus 10.

 

So, OCV 7 vs DCV 7 means 11- to hit, 5- to crit.  With roll-high, it should come out to 10+ to hit and 16+ to crit.

 

Half of 10 is 5, plus 10.5 = 15.5, so 16+ is a critical hit.

Or half of 10 is 5, plus 10 = 15, so you need to roll *higher* than 15 to crit.  Checks out so far.

 

OCV 9 vs DCV 7 means 13- to hit, 6- to crit.  Roll-high means it should be 8+ to hit and 15+ to crit.

 

Half of 8 is 4, plus 10.5 is 14.5, so you need at least 15+ to crit.

(Or you could just add 10 and say it has to be *greater* than 14, rather than *at least* 15.)  Still works!

 

OCV 11 vs DCV 7 means 15- to hit, 7- to crit.  Roll-high means it should be 6+ to hit and 14+ to crit.

 

Half of 6 is 3, plus 10.5 = 13.5, so 14+ is a critical hit.  It works!

 

The usual way of thinking about the roll-high to-hit is your OCV + 3d6 is at least 10 + target's DCV.  So another way of determining the critical hit is by adding the 3d6 value again to the (OCV + 3d6).  If that's still at at least 21 plus (10 + DCV), then it's a critical hit.

 

-----

 

Another possibility is to use some different critical hit system for the roll-high method.  If you extend the formula out, you could have the case where a 22+ to hit results in a 22+ to crit as well.  This isn't really a problem because you can't roll 22 on 3d6.  And it's the equivalent of the roll-low system, where if you need 0- to hit, then you also need 0- to crit.  Which also isn't a problem for the same reason - you can't roll 0 on 3d6.

 

A very simple crit method would be just "Make is by 5".  So, either roll-high or roll-low, if you make your to-hit roll by at least 5, it's a critical.  Or you could make it 4, or 6,or whatever seems appropriate.

 

Another simple system, which could be used for either roll-high or roll-low, is to make an extra roll, after the hit, to determine if it's a crit.  It could be something as simple as 1d6, on a 1 (or a 6), it's a crit.  Or if 1-in-6 is too common, you could make it 2 (or 12) on 2d6, or 2-3 (or 11-12) on 2d6.  Or something similar to that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Chaps.

 

I've tried roll high and it works fine.  Rather than have a target number, I just (in combat) add 10 to DCV and record that on the character sheet.  Then it is just OCV+3d6 to equal or beat the DCV 'difficulty' and you have hit.

 

Similarly with skills, record them just as CHAR/5 (plus skill levels), and 3d6+skill to beat the assigned difficulty (10 for a 'standard' difficulty task).

 

I do not use criticals but the easy way to do it would be to just rule that if you exceed the total needed by X then you critical, as mentioned above.  This works well enough with the bell curve - if you have a high chance to hit you also have a high chance to critical.  You can set the level where you want it.  I'd suggest +5.  Again, as mentioned above.

 

If you want to mirror the existing system,  you have to exceed your chance to hit by 16-(OCV-DCV)/2, rounded as we usually do in Hero - down.

CritiCalc.xlsx

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/20/2019 at 2:29 PM, Doc Democracy said:

I liked keeping the target number constant, it meant the calculations were all focussed on the same thing, was the result greater than 10.  (I had made a deliberate decision to go greater than 10, reducing the chances of success from 62.5% to 50% on an unmodified roll).  If I wanted to keep the same result profile as in RAW then the result would need to be at least 10.  There is merit in everything remaining constant - there is never a question of "What do I need to roll?" it is always the same.

 

People understand percentages differently: you know if you have a 45% chance then 1-45 is good, anything over that is bad.

 

The problem with Hero 3d6 rolls is not, to my mind, that it is a low roll system per se - people rarely fuss about getting less that 14 if they know they have to roll that, the problem is that in combat you have to add 11 to your OCV then SUBTRACT the 3d6 roll.  I know, I know, 11+OCV-DCV as a target number to roll under, but that is not how it is written in the rules.

 

It is all about presentation though.

 

"Roll."

 

"I got an 18!"

 

"Oh bad luck..."

 

Is much worse perceptually than:

 

"Roll under 14."

 

"I got an 18."

 

"Oh bad luck..."

 

The problem with the shortcut is it tells the player information they (maybe) shouldn't have.  Roll high, it is easy.  OCV+3d6-10 gives you the DCV you can hit and you can shout that out and the GM can say whether you hit.

 

Roll low, the calculation is OCV+11-3d6.  Same result - you shout out the DCV you can hit but it just does not look or feel as good or as straightforward.  You are adding eleven rather than taking 10 and subtracting 3d6 rather than adding it.  For most people addition is less daunting than subtraction unless, you know, 10.

 

In fact you can shortcut it further.  If you record your DCV as DCV+10 then the calculation is just OCV+3d6.  Sure you can 'just' record OCV as OCV+11 but then subtraction again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/20/2019 at 12:52 PM, sentry0 said:

That's interesting... yes, gamers are fickle :)

 

I was thinking of going with the old OCV+roll vs DCV+10 for combat.  That's pretty much a well established alternate way of rolling to hit.

 

For characteristics and skills I was going to go with 21-roll which gives the same probability of success as it does RAW.  This would mean a 13- roll would become 8+ on a character sheet.

 

I think it will be fun as an experiment to see what my players think... at the very least I'll float the idea out there about having a single session run "Roll High".

 

That's how I did it (21 being the target number).

 

Worked great!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I personally use roll high for combat, because combat rolls are always calculated and the arithmetic is slightly easier... but roll low for skills, because the target number is nearly always static and its easy enough just to roll against it.

 

I tell players to roll however they are comfortable. Just tell me the DCV you hit and we're good. I haven't had a new Hero player in ages so teaching is kind of a moot point for me.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have 2 cents for this thread, as I also have a new game group (old friends, new to hero system) which i'm starting a Star Hero campaign with.  They naturally asked about the roll low thing, but I cleared them up and made them pretty happy in maybe 5 minutes by explaining: 

A:  Think Golf.  This isn't some alien concept, par is like your success goal, which means LOW.  Just this one point got me 90% there with my group.

B:  GM applied modifiers are a big part of hero system, and if you want them to be intuitive, one simply must use a roll low mechanic. 

    B.1:  It's quite elegant for me to tell a player they have an advantage for some reason so "+1 to your roll".  Plus one is good right??  Yes it is! 

    B.2:  Or the inverse, they are trying to do something really difficult, so i say "Go for it at -3".  They know minus is bad and might have second thoughts.

     -->  Inverting the test roll mechanic borks this up.  

C:  Final point i teach on this topic:  3d6 tests are all about finding a statistical probability range for the player that fits a situation in a fair way, roll under golf rules apply so that bonuses and penalties make sense.  Doing damage, well that depends on the attack you hit with.  Grab as many dice as your attack allows and go for it, may you always roll high!  Unless you're pulling a punch or holding back strength.  (laugh)

 

So the whole group quickly got it, was on board, and they today think it's a really elegant system, which it is.  Hero system needs some expert hand holding to get past the learning curve, but i'm pretty confident i could get anyone to fall in love with the roll-under system if i sat down and talked it through with them.  Biggest risk is they might go play other systems and start to realize how dumb those non-hero game mechanics are.  (LOL)  I know i find it painful to play other systems, though i do regularly as a player...  (I don't have the intestinal fortitude to GM other systems...)

 

One of my players said it best.  "Wow, Hero System is like the GM on the Critical Roll videos saying 'How do you want to do this', but all the time!!  I don't have to wait until I roll a 20!"  Couldn't have said it better.  :) 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bezzeb said:

B:  GM applied modifiers are a big part of hero system, and if you want them to be intuitive, one simply must use a roll low mechanic. 

Not even close.  Numbers behave themselves.   A +1 to a target number that you want to roll that or less, is no different that +1 added to the roll that you want to roll a target number or higher.

 

"I need an 11 or less."

"But because of circumstance X, you get +1."

"So I need a 12 or less."

 

"I need to roll 10 or higher."

"But because of circumstance X, you get +1."

"So I add 1 to my roll."

 

The latter is no less intuitive, and for many people, it's more intuitive.

 

With roll-high, you set a single difficulty level, and each character's own modifiers, skill level, and other circumstances are applied to the roll.  With roll-low, each character has his own target number, and then more modifiers may be piled on top of that.

 

The GM decides that every member of the party needs to make a Climbing roll.  With the roll-low system,

Mountaineer Mike has a 14- roll,

Climby McClimberson has a 15- roll, but he's injured so he takes a -3,

Joe Genero has an 11- roll.

Feeble Felix has an 8- roll, but gets a +2 because Mike and Joe are helping him.

And everyone takes an additional -1 because of the strong winds blowing.

 

With a roll-high system, the GM sets the target number at 11, due to the strong wind blowing, so everyone needs an 11 or higher.

Mountaineer Mike has Climbing +3.

Climby McClimberson has Climbing +4, but takes -3 due to injury.

Joe Genero makes an unmodified roll.

Feeble Felix is at -3, but +2 for being assisted = -1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Bezzeb said:

Think Golf.  This isn't some alien concept, par is like your success goal, which means LOW.  Just this one point got me 90% there with my group.

 

I never thought of using that example.  Cool idea, I'll use it the next time I have to teach someone the system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...