Jump to content

nd6 vs Resistance Table


Mikus

Recommended Posts

I like the resistance table ok but it doesn't seem to scale well.  Two beings, one with a 3 STR and the other with a 6 STR are separated by 15%.  Two other beings, one with a 15 STR and the other with a 18 STR are separated by 15%.  Yet 3 is 1/2 of 6 and 15 is 5/6 of 18.  I was thinking perhaps each being rolls nd6.  Whoever rolls under their characteristic and has the lowest roll wins.   The number of dice rolled being determined by the highest characteristic in the struggle.  Such as 18< = 3d6, 19-24 = 4d6, 25-30 = 5d6, etc.

This way a hobbit arm wrestling a giant is never likely to end well for the hobbit.  The bell curve of 3d6 makes 3 vs 6 heavily in favor of the 6 while 15 vs 18 is not nearly as bad.

Am I breaking the system or making it worse?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Lloyd Dupont said:

STR and SIZ are supposed to be exponential, i.e. every +8SIZ is supposed to be x in weight.. kinda, doesn't quite work with low value (i.e. below 16)

I was about to say just that. Someone with STR 18 is twice as strong as someone with STR 10. They succeed 90% of the time. Someone with STR 88 is twice as strong as someone with STR 80. They succeed 90% of the time.

The same logic is applied to all the characteristics.

By the way, the SIZ chart flattens after SIZ 90. I always thought it was a design flaw that becomes obvious with the resistance table. In my BRP, weight keeps doubling each +8 SIZ forever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DreadDomain said:

I was about to say just that. Someone with STR 18 is twice as strong as someone with STR 10. They succeed 90% of the time. Someone with STR 88 is twice as strong as someone with STR 80. They succeed 90% of the time.

The same logic is applied to all the characteristics.

By the way, the SIZ chart flattens after SIZ 90. I always thought it was a design flaw that becomes obvious with the resistance table. In my BRP, weight keeps doubling each +8 SIZ forever.

Are you sure?  By this logic a character with 88 STR should get twice the STR attack bonus and damage that an 80 STR character has. Hit points figured by SIZ + CON should also be doubled by each increase of 8 points each.  If not, then a single point of STR, SIZ, CON do not exponentially increase in value EXCEPT on the resistance table?    By this I mean on the resistance table each 8 point increase equals all the previous points. 9 is worth double 1, 68 is worth double 60, 88 is worth double 80 and 1008 is worth double 1000.  On the resistance table.  But in all other ways.. hit point calculation, endurance, damage adjustment, skill % modifier this is not true.  In all cases except the RT 2 is double 1, 68 is double 34, 88 is double 44 and 1008 is double 504. Each point is worth only 1 point in relation to any other 1 point regardless of what it is added or subtracted from.   That seems odd but perhaps I am missing something. 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well all the number are not entirely logical or consistent....

But from a comment from Atgxtg in one of my thread, that was the intention for weight/SIZ and, therefore, STR. And some conversion table from weight to SIZ for some supplement follow this doubling of weight with each +8 in SIZ. Work well with Resistance table as someone pointed out.

As for HP and Damage... (and POW) it is, indeed inconsistent since one could imagine that with 16 more SIZ (and CON) one should have 4 times (i.e. 4x) the HP, but it is not the case, one get +16 HP instead.... And same for POW... 

Personally I am not sleepless about it.. but if you want to nitpick, be my guest! ^_^

 

Thinking of which.. about HP (not damage) I got a personal (untested) home rule of mine (inspired by RevolutionD100, but with a twist) I added a Toughness attribute to the game. Toughness = CON/4.
It reduce incoming physical damage (ie. blow, but not poison)a bit like armour, but down to 1 instead of 0, it does not negate damage, just reduced it.

I think it can be added just as is, but might need to adjust the AP of large creature or creature with high CON/high AP (like Angel, they are not large, but with their high CON and natural radiant AP, it's a bit much)

Edited by Lloyd Dupont
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Mikus said:

Are you sure?

Yes.  This is precisely what the Size table tells us.

Quote

By this logic a character with 88 STR should get twice the STR attack bonus and damage that an 80 STR character has. Hit points figured by SIZ + CON should also be doubled by each increase of 8 points each.

Not necessarily. Damage, HP, AP are not the expression of a model of physics. They are an expression of an in-game mechanical model. 

Quote

If not, then a single point of STR, SIZ, CON do not exponentially increase in value EXCEPT on the resistance table?   

I would say it's the other way around. Values for STR, SIZ, damage, HP, AP all follow an "exponential" (term used loosely here) progression, not a linear one. Mechanically, the same logic is applied. 

Quote

By this I mean on the resistance table each 8 point increase equals all the previous points. 9 is worth double 1, 68 is worth double 60, 88 is worth double 80 and 1008 is worth double 1000.  On the resistance table.  But in all other ways.. hit point calculation, endurance, damage adjustment, skill % modifier this is not true.  In all cases except the RT 2 is double 1, 68 is double 34, 88 is double 44 and 1008 is double 504. Each point is worth only 1 point in relation to any other 1 point regardless of what it is added or subtracted from.   That seems odd but perhaps I am missing something.

SIZ and STR measure a real life quantity, kg. As the in-game value increases linearly the real world equivalent increases "exponentially". All the other values (HP, damage, AP) are abstract. What does 1 HP mean in real life? What does 1 point of damage measure in real life? Does 10 damage requires twice the energy to inflict compared to 5 damage? It does not really say. What is important is their in-game effect. Take HERO as an example, you can convert damage classes into energy (kilojoule). One damage class (1d6 or normal damage) equals N kJ, two damage class (2d6N) equals 2xN kJ, three damage class (3d6N) equals 4xN kJ and each extra +1 damage class doubles the real world equivalent of kJ but only adds +1d6N. Also, in HERO, +5 STR doubles how much you lift and +2 BODY represents something twice as tough.

BRP does not spell it out as neatly as HERO does but it uses a similar concept. Look at the Radiation effect table (BRP p.231) or the Fire and Heat descriptions (BRP p.223), the in-game numbers (Potency, damage) are increasing quite linearly but the description of what they represent and their effect increases dramatically at each step. Now to counteract my own argument and to demonstrate BRP is not as neat as HERO in this regard, other things seems to follow a linear progression (falling damage as an example) so there it goes.

In the end, some STR 30, SIZ 30 is twice as strong and twice as big as another of STR 22, SIZ 22, which the game translates as +1d6 damage modifier and +4 HP (with the same Constitution) and gives the former a 90% chance of winning a pure strength contest. It may not be perfect or always consistent but in game, it works ok. 

 

Edited by DreadDomain
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I can accept that it just seems odd that everything else would be, percentage wise, diminishing returns or linear except for direct STR vs STR comparison using the RT.  Like in arm wrestling.

By your statement an 88 STR means that 8 points of STR is worth 80 additional strength when compared to a character with 80 STR when they arm wrestle.  Yet only has the effect of 8 STR in terms of lifting.  Or am I wrong here?  Does a character with 88 STR have the ability to carry 2x the weight of a character with 80 STR?  Using the Swim skill as an example you can carry anything non-boyant up to your STR in pounds indefinitely.  So 15s 15p, 80s 80p, 88s 88p.   More weight than this and you make a STR vs SIZ roll.  To me this just doesn't scale well at all but math is not my strong suit.  Is there a STR table which shows this exponential increase like the Comparative Size Chart?  I do not see it but I could be missing it.

Now, I do see in the BGB the Comparative SIZ Cart and the doubling effect.  If STR vs SIZ is used in this way I could better see the logic.  But then the Swim example above still seems broken to me.  88 STR should be able to carry x2 of what the 80 STR can carry before using STR vs SIZ on the RT.

In the end its a game and no big deal I was simply exploring alternate methods.  Stats use xd6 and skills use percentage.  So nd6 for stat resolution and %d for skills seems fairly logical.  BRP already uses the nd6 for resolution of stats and damage, (or other dice combos), so using it for task resolution is not introducing anything new and matches bell curve of stats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Mikus said:

By your statement an 88 STR means that 8 points of STR is worth 80 additional strength when compared to a character with 80 STR when they arm wrestle.  Yet only has the effect of 8 STR in terms of lifting.  Or am I wrong here?  Does a character with 88 STR have the ability to carry 2x the weight of a character with 80 STR? 

Yes, STR 88 can lift twice as much as STR 80 as per the Comparative Size Chart.

4 hours ago, Mikus said:

Is there a STR table which shows this exponential increase like the Comparative Size Chart?  I do not see it but I could be missing it.

Yes, it uses the same chart.

4 hours ago, Mikus said:

Now, I do see in the BGB the Comparative SIZ Cart and the doubling effect.  If STR vs SIZ is used in this way I could better see the logic.  But then the Swim example above still seems broken to me.  88 STR should be able to carry x2 of what the 80 STR can carry before using STR vs SIZ on the RT.

You are absolutely correct. Like I said, BRP is not as neat as HERO or GURPS when it comes to these things and sometimes will use a short cut that works at human level but that does not scale up. I suspect this is the case here.

If you look at the SIZ chart, a STR 8 can carry 8 pounds while swimming (according to the Swim rule). STR 8 in the SIZ Chart is 115 pounds, so while swimming a STR 8 can carry about 7% (8 pounds out of 115) of their capacity. If we use the swimming rule, a STR 20 (the top of the range for the human range), they could swim carrying 20 pounds. Now applying the same logic while using the SIZ chart, STR 20 could carry 7% of their capacity (325 lbs) which gives us 22.7 pounds. As we can see, this short cut as a good approximation at human level. I have no clue if these numbers are realistic but at a game level, it works.

Now using that short cut for STR 80 would give a silly result.  That character would have 50% chance to lift 30 tons but could only swim with 80 pounds... hmmm, no. If that situation would ever come up, I woud use 7% of 30 tons (2 tons). If this would come up often in my games (say, for a game set in Atlantis), I would use 10% of their STR capacity on the SIZ chart. It's easy to calculate on the fly.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You gave me some food for thought and a different looking at things.  I'll look at the BGB some more.  Mostly I use RQ3 and I don't think it has the same chart but I could be wrong. 

30 minutes ago, DreadDomain said:

You are absolutely correct. Like I said, BRP is not as neat as HERO or GURPS when it comes to these things and sometimes will use a short cut that works at human level but that does not scale up. I suspect this is the case here.

And that was my reason looking into this in the first place.  Once you scale up above human norms things get a bit wonky.  But honestly its just an exercise really, as in game any human making a STR test with a giant is simply gonna loose.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, DreadDomain said:

Now using that short cut for STR 80 would give a silly result.  That character would have 50% chance to lift 30 tons but could only swim with 80 pounds... hmmm, no. If that situation would ever come up, I woud use 7% of 30 tons (2 tons). If this would come up often in my games (say, for a game set in Atlantis), I would use 10% of their STR capacity on the SIZ chart. It's easy to calculate on the fly.

this particular segment is not silly at all. However strong you are, you buoyancy remains the same, i.e. the weight of water that your body displace minus your own weight! ;) 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ENC still muddies the waters however.  Looking at ENC I see 1 ENC = 1/6 of a SIZ point, or 2 lbs.  Encumbering weight is ENC = STR x 6, so 80 STR = 480 ENC and 88 is 528 ENC, or 960 lbs and 1056 lbs respectively.  The scaling is just way off between the ENC and RT systems and in no way does the ENC reflect +8 points = x2 previous value.    I'll have to check BGB to see if this was fixed but swim is still kaput.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Lloyd Dupont said:

this particular segment is not silly at all. However strong you are, you buoyancy remains the same, i.e. the weight of water that your body displace minus your own weight! ;) 

Well the swim STR relates to your towing STR if I remember correctly.  It uses SIZ for what you can support. Which is itself wonky because a dirigible would be easier to support than a tiger tank based on buoyancy yet has a far greater SIZ I would think.  In some ways linking SIZ to weight can create unusual problems. I wonder what the SIZ of a 1" cube of collapsed star would be?   One SIZ for weight and another for targeting purposes, unless it drew objects to it due to its own gravitational force. 😲

SIZ should have been left for fleshy critters and weight for weight I'm thinking.

Edited by Mikus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well... sometimes you have to make you peace with all those systems (by that I mean the BRP ruleset) being a simplified model to resolve common conflict situation with good enough believability, flexibility, impartiality and expediency...

It's not very good at outlier... Now if your setting is full of outliers you might need to com up with your own extensions, or home rules...

Edited by Lloyd Dupont
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Lloyd Dupont said:

Well... sometimes you have to make you peace with all those systems (by that I mean the BRP ruleset) being a simplified model to resolve common conflict situation with good enough believability, flexibility, impartiality and expediency...

It's not very good at outlier... Now if your setting is full of outliers you might need to com up with your own extensions, or home rules...

True.  I love the system more than any other but still ponder if there are better ways without increasing complexity or ruining the feel.  Heck, RQ/SB/MW/CoC/BRP are all in the umpteenth edition each with minor tweaks including dropping the RT completely in some editions.  Bug fixing and contemplation is just part of GMing I think.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Mikus said:

You gave me some food for thought and a different looking at things.  I'll look at the BGB some more.  Mostly I use RQ3 and I don't think it has the same chart but I could be wrong. 

Yes, it is in the Player Book right below Encumbrance (p.46 in the RQ 3 Deluxe Edition softcover) and the Gamemaster Book (p.161 in the RQ 3 Deluxe Edition softcover).

5 hours ago, Mikus said:

ENC still muddies the waters however.  Looking at ENC I see 1 ENC = 1/6 of a SIZ point, or 2 lbs.  Encumbering weight is ENC = STR x 6, so 80 STR = 480 ENC and 88 is 528 ENC, or 960 lbs and 1056 lbs respectively.  The scaling is just way off between the ENC and RT systems and in no way does the ENC reflect +8 points = x2 previous value.    I'll have to check BGB to see if this was fixed but swim is still kaput.

Same logic applies. Every time BRP states a linear progression of weight, you can bet it's a simplification that works in the human range (even more so when they mention SIZ). If you look up ENC 12 (SIZ 2) on the chart (referenced above), it shows up to 25 lbs. ENC 12 times 2 pounds is close enough. Let's look at ENC 24 (SIZ 4). The chart gives us between 38 and 51 pounds, the calculation gives us 48 pounds. Still quite good. Ity only starts going off slightly at ENC 36/SIZ 6. Now if it is ever important for a super strong creature, use 6 ENC = 1 SIZ on the chart and it should work fine (ENC 240 = SIZ 40 = up to  1919 lbs).

Note that saying that 6 ENC = 1 SIZ and then ENC = STR x 6 (in the encumbrance section) is the same thing as saying "a  person cannot carry SIZ = STR for very long and still be able to fight, climb or jump".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/4/2021 at 1:02 AM, Mikus said:

I like the resistance table ok but it doesn't seem to scale well.  Two beings, one with a 3 STR and the other with a 6 STR are separated by 15%.  Two other beings, one with a 15 STR and the other with a 18 STR are separated by 15%.  Yet 3 is 1/2 of 6 and 15 is 5/6 of 18.  I was thinking perhaps each being rolls nd6.  Whoever rolls under their characteristic and has the lowest roll wins.   The number of dice rolled being determined by the highest characteristic in the struggle.  Such as 18< = 3d6, 19-24 = 4d6, 25-30 = 5d6, etc.

This way a hobbit arm wrestling a giant is never likely to end well for the hobbit.  The bell curve of 3d6 makes 3 vs 6 heavily in favor of the 6 while 15 vs 18 is not nearly as bad.

Am I breaking the system or making it worse?

My problem with your proposal is how different this is from everything else in the system, which uses percentages to determine chances of success.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Mugen said:

My problem with your proposal is how different this is from everything else in the system, which uses percentages to determine chances of success.

I certainly can't argue with you here in your probably right.  The issue all came up when I was messing with converting the giants adventure from D&D tO RQ and funky things started to happen.

Have to fudge enough that it highlights certain underlying problems. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mikus said:

I certainly can't argue with you here in your probably right.  The issue all came up when I was messing with converting the giants adventure from D&D tO RQ and funky things started to happen.

Have to fudge enough that it highlights certain underlying problems. 

 

On which basis did you do your conversion, and which STR value did you give your giants (if I understand correctly, the problem was with their strength, ) ?

The BRP Big Gold Book lists a STR 132 value for a 16 meter Giant. It's way past the points where even a human has even 1% chance of success arm-wrestling a Giant.

Was it an AD&D module ? If so, the 3-25 scale does not really scale well with BRP.

I checked D&D 5e SRD, and STR values for Giants are between 21 and 29. Considering a PC can have up to 20 Str, no matter what his species is, those are very low values...

3.5 giants have better stats, between 25 and 35.

Edited by Mugen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Mugen said:

On which basis did you do your conversion, and which STR value did you give your giants (if I understand correctly, the problem was with their strength, ) ?

The BRP Big Gold Book lists a STR 132 value for a 16 meter Giant. It's way past the points where even a human has even 1% chance of success arm-wrestling a Giant.

Was it an AD&D module ? If so, the 3-25 scale does not really scale well with BRP.

I checked D&D 5e SRD, and STR values for Giants are between 21 and 29. Considering a PC can have up to 20 Str, no matter what his species is, those are very low values...

3.5 giants have better stats, between 25 and 35.

Actually it was while looking at STR values, ENC and the resistance table where things seemed a bit wonky. ENC and what it indicates about lifting does not scale well with the RT. As in 132 vs 120 in ENC weight capacity in lbs opposed to 132 vs 120 on the RT.  Using the RT 132 vs 120 is the same as 32 vs 20 or 22 vs 10 or 13 vs 1.  Yet 13 vs 1 is 13x where 132 vs 120 is rounded to 1x.  All 12 apart and generating the same % chance of success/failure if I am correct.

Exponential gains in STR makes sense of this BUT ...ENC uses linear calculation.  If you do the ENC math it makes no sense.  The systems don't jive.   I just noticed discrepancy because it's the first time I dug into giants more that a passing encounter. 

I was using ENC weight as the gold standard so the RT in comparison is broken. Using RT and STR with exponential gains makes sense but trashes the ENC weight system. 

It was AD&D Against the Giants.

Now, use the RT with POW and it's the same thing. 132 vs 120 POW would create very similar spell fueling ability but 13 vs 1 POW is vastly different.  13x as much!

As long as 120 fights 132 with sorcery other than a POW vs POW battle his odds are about equal. If he enters POW vs POW he's is toast. 

Once again, the sub systems SEEM at odds at high levels. 

Rarely, if ever,  would I get anywhere near these levels but they become noticable soon after human norms.

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
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.

×
×
  • Create New...