Jump to content

Species max for Pow Gain roll


Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Stephen L said:

Then the chance of increase (for Pow gain rolls and research):

  • % = 50 + ( species average - current ) x 5

I was going to say that I'm not too keen on this because it breaks down for higher stat ranges, which of course you and others have already mentioned.

However, now that I think a little more, maybe what I don't like is the fact that higher stat ranges can have a higher variation.

If we're going with a resistance table which means that a 10 point difference is always going to be an overwhelming advantage, at any numerical range, then maybe all stat ranges should be the same as the human range but with an offset. So rather than having more D6es, just have a bigger bonus to shift the range. 2, 3, maybe 4, dice should be all you ever roll for a characteristic (except maybe weird chaos things). That way, this resist-against-the-average would work great at all levels.

Edited by PhilHibbs
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 63
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I don't think anybody does think it's a good idea. It's just happened, that's all. It's a mistake that the right people don't have the time to look at due to other priorities.

The thread on Baboons as adventurers has reminded me of something I’m not so keen on.  P 417 of the rules suggests a species maximum is pretty much unchanged from RQii/iii (the max rolled + numbe

I am afraid I will have to draw you up on this point. Everyone knows that the reference species is the Duck. Whilst we have to, grudgingly, acknowledge that some might want to to play, for e

1 hour ago, PhilHibbs said:

I'm not too keen on this because it breaks down for higher stat ranges

All systems that are based on 5% steps (which is every variant discussed so far, and indeed the rules for RQii/iii/RQinG) break down if you have a wider distribution.

However, I don't think the complexity of having smaller steps than 5% is worth it, for what is a very small edge case.

Technically I don't like 2D6 + mod, because it doesn't give a bell curve.  And I don't understand why 3D6 range is believable for STR for humans, but not SIZ or INT.

But its only a slight not like, and not worth the radical change to how characteristics work. 

And I have to say, an increase probability based on failing a resistance roll against the average characteristic, is so analogous to how skill increases work for experience that I find it compelling.

Edited by Stephen L
Link to post
Share on other sites

It might be worth considering resistance rolls for more mechanics, actually, such as the "INT x 5" idea roll. Quite often I see a GM bump this down to INT x 4 or x 3 if they want it to be harder, and I suspect that this is actually because characters have such good characteristics (or at least, someone in the group is bound to have a good characteristic) that a x5 is basically giving it away too easily.

Maybe better to do a resistance roll against a difficulty, so if you want a challenging INT roll, then roll resistance against 13, 15, 18 etc.

This would again be particularly useful when dealing with very high characteristics, as reducing the multiplication scale gets janky at x1 or x½.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

a resistance roll against a difficulty

The calculation is *exactly* that, it is using a resistance roll against the species average:

The chance of characteristic increase:

  • Compare the current characteristic to the Species Average on the resistance table.  Rolling *above* the value given results in an increase, with 96-100 always resulting in a successful increase.

where the Species Average for a characteristic:

  • Species Average = (Max rollable + Min rollable) / 2, rounding *up* where necessary

That gives a probability of increase as: 50 + (species average - current) x 5 % (but I think using the resistance table better) 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

a resistance roll against a difficulty

12 minutes ago, Stephen L said:

The calculation is *exactly* that, it is using a resistance roll against the species average:

Yes, I know, I'm suggesting using the same mechanic as a replacement for POW×5, INT×4, etc. I appreciate that it is off topic for this thread though.

 

Edited by PhilHibbs
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

Yes, I know, I'm suggesting using the same mechanic as a replacement for POW×5, INT×5, etc. I appreciate that it is off topic for this thread though.

Apologies, could you tell, I hadn't read your e-mail properly.

That's a really good idea. 

I too use Characteristic x n as standard.

Now you mention, deciding a difficulty level (5 easy, 10 average, 15 hard, 20 heroic), and then using the resistance table seems as if it gives much better results.

Characteristic x n gives some arbitrary results.  If you have a low characteristic, then x 5 to x 3 doesn't make as much change as if you have a high characteristic.  The extreme case, for 18 you go from 90% to 54%, where as at 3 you go from 15% to 9%.  And requiring a STRx3 to lift a heavy weight means the 18 STR hero lifts 50/50, whilst the STR 3 weed lifts 1 in 10.  1 in 20 times the weed lifts and the hero fails! 

You've converted me.

Edited by Stephen L
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Stephen L said:

Now you mention, deciding a difficulty level (5 easy, 10 average, 15 hard, 20 heroic), and then using the resistance table seems as if it gives much better results.

Of course POW vs 15 is mechanically the same as POW×5 - 25%.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Stephen L said:

Now you mention, deciding a difficulty level (5 easy, 10 average, 15 hard, 20 heroic), and then using the resistance table seems as if it gives much better results.

For ease of resolution, you could write down an average roll for each characteristics (13 vs 10 on the Resistance Table is 65% on the sheet. From there, every steps easier or harder is +/- 25%.

From there, you are only one step away from Cthulhu 7. 

STR 13 (65%) could also easily be used as normal test 65%, hard test 33% (65/2), an extreme test, roll characteristics (13%) on d100.

By the way, I like the way CoC is doing it but except that I am still not used at seing the % value first. I simply don't like it for big monsters (I don't like seeing STR 660). But I am diverging.

Edited by DreadDomain
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

Maybe better to do a resistance roll against a difficulty, so if you want a challenging INT roll, then roll resistance against 13, 15, 18 etc.

Seems to me a good idea. I need to test.

5 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

Yes, I know, I'm suggesting using the same mechanic as a replacement for POW×5, INT×4, etc. I appreciate that it is off topic for this thread though.

Off topic, perhaps, but very good proposal nonetheless.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shiningbrow said:

That would suggest being able to go above Species Max

Not by the species max rule.

P417 Rules:

Quote

No characteristic may be increased for any reason (except
through magic) beyond the maximum amount rollable on
the characteristic dice (in most cases, 18 for humans) plus
the number of dice rolled (2D6+6 counts as 3 dice for SIZ
and INT, and 3 dice for the rest). Thus, humans may not
normally have any characteristic higher than 21.  

And I'm not suggesting a change to the species max rule.

Already, if I've a pow of 20 (and I'm human) and I succeed in my POW gain roll (5%), I could roll 2 for the gain.  The extra point is wasted. (So you would be mad to roll, rather than take the 1)

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Stephen L said:

Not by the species max rule.

P417 Rules:

And I'm not suggesting a change to the species max rule.

Already, if I've a pow of 20 (and I'm human) and I succeed in my POW gain roll (5%), I could roll 2 for the gain.  The extra point is wasted. (So you would be mad to roll, rather than take the 1)

But if you're going strictly by the RAW of a resistance table, then POW 21 still has a 5% chance to increase...

Of course, if doing that, the obvious thing would be to off-load the point into RPs (presuming you have them).

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:
On 1/18/2021 at 3:19 PM, Stephen L said:

Rolling *above* the value given results in an increase, with 96-100 always resulting in a successful increase.

That would suggest being able to go above Species Max...

In out RQ2 campaign we played that if a POW increase went above species maximum you could use the extra to sacrifice for Rune Magic, in RQG you would add it to a Rune Pool. That way you did not go over Species maximum but also did not waste the extra POW.

Link to post
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...