Alternative Critical Special Results Procedure

[trechriron]

I think I read something similar to this in an earlier thread here (or somewhere). Just wanted to get opinions on the idea.

Instead of calculating a % of skill or referencing a range, you base results on certain numbers rolled.

So Odds Above, so Odds Below

• Rolling a 01 = Critical Success
• Rolling odd doubles under skill = Critical Success
• Rolling odd doubles over skill = Critical Failure.

I believe this is the same odds as using the critical ranges? Or pretty close...

On the Fives & Tens

• Rolling a 5 or 0 on the ones die under skill = Special Success.  i.e 05, 10, 15, 20, 25, etc.

I also believe this works out to the same odds as 1/5.

Eliminates math and looking up ranges on a table (for those who don't do quick math in their head).

Thoughts?

[g33k]

Doubles, by itself, is exactly 1/10
Doubles on failure is slightly overrepresented, because 99+00 are both fails & thus both fumbles, whereas crit's are a bit under-represented (not until 11).
The "always succeed" range of 1-5 has no crits (but "crit on 01" fixes this); however, the "always fail" range of 96-00 has 2 fumbles!

This can be regularized by rolling a "d99" -- like a d100, but read as 0-99 instead of 1-100.
Here, "00" is "0" -- the lowest/best roll -- and a crit.  99 is the highest/worst roll, always a crit-fail.  The special case of "01" goes away, no longer special.

5's and 0's digits are indeed 2/10 = 1/5 of all rolls.
You'll need to decide what meaning attaches to 55 & 00, then:  these two rolls fulfill both the "5&10" guideline and the "doubles" guideline.

[Kloster]

This works correctly for scores below or equal to 100, but does not scale with scores above 100:

With a skill core of 140%, RAW critical chance is 7% and RAW special chance is 28%, but with your method, you have 6% of critical and 19% of special.

With a skill core of 200%, RAW critical chance is 10% and RAW special chance is 40%, but with your method, you still have 6% of critical and 19% of special.

[radmonger]

I use:

• x1 on a success is a critical.
• x5 on a success is a special
• x0 on a failure is a fumble

This is simple, but does double the odds of a critical. I use it with other tweaks to the per-location 'instagib' rules that make a critical a fight-ending event, not necessarily a life-ending one.

i need to check out the math for adding an extra rule:

• x2 under (skill - 100) is a critical
• x6 under (skill - 100) is a special

and so on.

 

 

Edited November 16, 2023 by radmonger

[g33k]

5 hours ago, Kloster said:

This works correctly for scores below or equal to 100, but does not scale with scores above 100:

With a skill core of 140%, RAW critical chance is 7% and RAW special chance is 28%, but with your method, you have 6% of critical and 19% of special.

With a skill core of 200%, RAW critical chance is 10% and RAW special chance is 40%, but with your method, you still have 6% of critical and 19% of special.

No; with skills above 100 (using the "d99" method) the RAW chance of a critical is 9% (9 of the possible 10 doubles (all but 99)).  If you use the traditional "d100" reading, 99+00 are both fumbles, so crits are only 8%.

Your working numbers are assuming crit-on-best-5%-of-hits; but the "doubles" method is explicitly a 10%-of-hit crit (and fumble).

But you're right -- the "Doubles" method doesn't scale crits with "over 100" skills.
Offhand, it looks to me like the easiest thing to do is just add traditional "low rolls" to the Crit-doubles... 1% per 10% over 100 keeps the 1-in-10 crit, and is easy to figure.
I don't see a similarly-easy way to figure Specials.

[g33k]

11 hours ago, trechriron said:

...

I believe this is the same odds as using the critical ranges? Or pretty close...

...

Doubles is explicitly 10% of hits (and misses).
But trad BRP figures crits & fumbles as 5%'s.

So this has twice as many crits&fumbles.

Personally, I find the at-a-glance simplicity well worth the changed odds!
 

[Kloster]

7 hours ago, g33k said:

No; with skills above 100 (using the "d99" method) the RAW chance of a critical is 9% (9 of the possible 10 doubles (all but 99)).  If you use the traditional "d100" reading, 99+00 are both fumbles, so crits are only 8%.

Your working numbers are assuming crit-on-best-5%-of-hits; but the "doubles" method is explicitly a 10%-of-hit crit (and fumble).

You're right.

I have answered to the OP's question, but with your method (D99), you are right.

7 hours ago, g33k said:

But you're right -- the "Doubles" method doesn't scale crits with "over 100" skills.
Offhand, it looks to me like the easiest thing to do is just add traditional "low rolls" to the Crit-doubles... 1% per 10% over 100 keeps the 1-in-10 crit, and is easy to figure.
I don't see a similarly-easy way to figure Specials.

I've not cheked the figures. You'll have a later answer once I've my eyes in front of their socket.

[Atgxtg]

19 hours ago, trechriron said:

I think I read something similar to this in an earlier thread here (or somewhere). Just wanted to get opinions on the idea.

Instead of calculating a % of skill or referencing a range, you base results on certain numbers rolled.

So Odds Above, so Odds Below

• Rolling a 01 = Critical Success
• Rolling odd doubles under skill = Critical Success
• Rolling odd doubles over skill = Critical Failure.

I believe this is the same odds as using the critical ranges? Or pretty close...

On the Fives & Tens

• Rolling a 5 or 0 on the ones die under skill = Special Success.  i.e 05, 10, 15, 20, 25, etc.

I also believe this works out to the same odds as 1/5.

Eliminates math and looking up ranges on a table (for those who don't do quick math in their head).

Thoughts?

First off it's been mentioned before. The Fives and 10s rule is used in HARN. Not to say that either of these ideas are bad per say.

So Odds Above, so Odds Below

I believe this  alters the critical/fumble chances slightly in some cases, and the specials chances significantly

• . Example #1: Someone with a 33% skill would have a 2% chance (01,02) of a critical by RAW, but a 3% chance by the doubles method (01,11,33).
•  Examples #2: Someone with a 5% skill would have a 0% chance of a special by RAW, as their only possible special roll,  01, is not only a special success but also a  critical success. Buy using the alternate method the character could get a critical with a 01, AND a special with a 05. At 50% by RAW it would be Critical: 3% (01-03), Special: 7%(04-10) but with the alternate method it would be Critical: 3% (01,11,33), Special: 10% (05,10,15,20,25,30,35,40,45,50).

Mechanically, the biggest issue I see with this rule would be with impales and similar effects. By RAW any critical is also a special success and thus an impale, but with the alternate method criticals and specials are independent of each other (except for when you roll a 55). This will reduce the effect of critical its with impaling weapons but is somewhat offset by the increased chance of a  special success. 

BTW, If you don't like the new percentage then you can get something closer to RAW by replacing doubles with even results than end in 5. That way the crits and specials will overlap again.

 

 

 

 

[Mugen]

That's the reason why I prefer to consider rolls under skill/10 as "Crits" and rolls under skill/2 as "Specials". The maths are easier, and it scales perfectly with skills over 100%.

Of course, the frequency of those results is very different, but I'm fine with it. 🙂

However, my favorite method to figure quality of success is by using the 10s of the die, with 0 being read as 10 in case of a roll < Skill/10. I then add the 10s of the skill above 100 to the Quality.

[Kloster]

19 hours ago, g33k said:

Offhand, it looks to me like the easiest thing to do is just add traditional "low rolls" to the Crit-doubles... 1% per 10% over 100 keeps the 1-in-10 crit, and is easy to figure.

Except that crits are 1/20, not 1/10, so you should add 1% per 20% over 100, but in that case, you loose the simplicity, and I think simpler to keep RAW.

19 hours ago, g33k said:

I don't see a similarly-easy way to figure Specials.

Same for me.

[radmonger]

10 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Mechanically, the biggest issue I see with this rule would be with impales and similar effects. By RAW any critical is also a special success and thus an impale, but with the alternate method criticals and specials are independent of each other (except for when you roll a 55)

I've always assumed that a critical was inherently a special, not that you apply both sets of rules independently due to the way the numbers work. But even if not so,  if you are changing the rules, there is no reason not to change that too. 

One option is to replace the combat maneuver rules, which generally involve halving your skill to get some special effect. Instead, you can choose to half your skill to get a double chance of criticals and specials. So criticals on x1 or x2, specials on x5 or x6. 

Having a skill over 100% just makes that more practical. 

 

Edited November 17, 2023 by radmonger

[Gray Raven]

One of my own house rules was 'the rule of the extra-ordinary' as a way to represent increases in a character's skill over time.  Any time a player was tolled to roll their  2D10.  If they got either a 01 or any double (00, 11, 22, 33, 44, etc.) besides being played out according to the rules of critical success or critical failure or success or failure - the player gets to increase their skill that was the reason for the die being rolled by 1 point due to the extra ordinary situation that just occurred. 

Succeeding in a scenario increases the character's sanity by some amount of points.

[Atgxtg]

6 hours ago, radmonger said:

I've always assumed that a critical was inherently a special, not that you apply both sets of rules independently due to the way the numbers work.

The problem is that by the new method the numbers do not overlap but increase independently of each other, leading to  a lot more specials, making implaing weapons more powerful.

For example, someone at 90% would then have a 5% (01,11,33,55,77) of a crtical, plus a 18% (05,10,15,20,25,30,35,40,45,50,55,60,65,70,75,80,80,90) chance of a special, which is a 5% higher special chance than normal.

6 hours ago, radmonger said:

 

But even if not so,  if you are changing the rules, there is no reason not to change that too. 

Except it might alter the game in other ways that you didn't intend or desire, such as increasing the effectiveness of impaling weapons. 

6 hours ago, radmonger said:

One option is to replace the combat maneuver rules, which generally involve halving your skill to get some special effect. Instead, you can choose to half your skill to get a double chance of criticals and specials. So criticals on x1 or x2, specials on x5 or x6. 

Do the math, it's not worth it. If someone had a 100% skill and halved thier skill to double thier crit and special chance they would pretty much be right back where they started, but with a lower success chance.  For example: 

100% skill RAW, Crit: 5%, Special: 20% (with 01-05 being crticals)                                Alternate, Crit: 6%(01,11,33,55,77,99), Special: 20%

Halved 50% RAW, Crit: 03% doubled to 6%, Special: 10% doubled to 20%                    Altenrnate: Crit 3%(01,11,33) doubled to 6%, Special: 10% doubled to 20%

So basically a zero sum game.

6 hours ago, radmonger said:

Having a skill over 100% just makes that more practical. 

No it doesn't. Since crit and special chances are a pecenratage of the success chance that any change to the success chance will affect them proportionally.

 

It's like it I gave you a choice between having 50% of $20 or 100% of $10.

[g33k]

7 hours ago, Kloster said:

Except that crits are 1/20, not 1/10, so you should add 1% per 20% over 100, but in that case, you loose the simplicity, and I think simpler to keep RAW.

...

But the proposed "crit on doubles" rule already moved us to 1/10, so my adding 1% low-roll per 10% over-100 just maintains that new (non-RAW) ratio.
 

[Atgxtg]

Just now, g33k said:

But the proposed "crit on doubles" rule already moved us to 1/10, so my adding 1% low-roll per 10% over-100 just maintains that new (non-RAW) ratio.
 

The OP was crtits on odd doubles, 

[radmonger]

1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

For example, someone at 90% would then have a 5% (01,11,33,55,77) of a crtical, plus a 18% (05,10,15,20,25,30,35,40,45,50,55,60,65,70,75,80,80,90) chance of a special, which is a 5% higher special chance than normal.

 

The context might be a bit confusing; i was talking about my proposal, which is criticals (or critical specials, to be unambiguous) on x1 and regular specials on x5.

So of successes, 10% are criticals, 10% are specials and 80% are regular hits.

With a skill below 100, choosing to halve your skill to make that be 20/20/60 is a strictly bad idea. But with a skill of  say 150%, you now get;

- 25% chance of failure

- 45% chance of regular success  (.75 x .60)

- 15% chance of special (.75 x .20)

- 15% chance of critical (same math)

This seems playable, and avoid the '95% chance of nothing happening' stalemate that can affect a pair of heavily-armored opponents with 100%-plus skills.

Of course, the other, and perhaps cleaner, way to do it is just roll another d20, alongside the hit location dice. 1 = critical, 2-4 = special. 

 

 

[Atgxtg]

3 hours ago, radmonger said:

The context might be a bit confusing; i was talking about my proposal, which is criticals (or critical specials, to be unambiguous)

Oh, sorry. I was referring to the OP's proposal and disputing the claims that the chances of crits and specials were the same as in the RAW, and what the possible permutations of that rule would be in play.

I'll have to go read your earlier post to see how your idea works mechanically. 

[SDLeary]

Use Masteries, allowing the "skill" to reset. No need to fiddle with Specials and Criticals. Masteries would allow the user to bump the level of success up or down a level.

SDLeary

[trechriron]

On 11/16/2023 at 6:20 AM, g33k said:

Doubles is explicitly 10% of hits (and misses).

 

Not strictly doubles. Only ODD doubles...

[trechriron]

After reading these responses, I'm not convinced this is useful.

I imagine just having the table for easy reference on a "player's tables" sheet would be just as easy to lookup momentarily.

I would not be so concerned about skills over 100. First, high skills can counter high penalties, and the special success / critical ranges are based on final Skill Rank not original. Second, high combat skills will likely be split for multiple attacks, again negating the high skill calculations.

At your tables, does having a quick reference of skill calculations make things faster? Or are your players mathing in their heads? 🙂

[g33k]

16 minutes ago, trechriron said:

...
At your tables, does having a quick reference of skill calculations make things faster? Or are your players mathing in their heads? 🙂

It really depends on the players.

I know players who will not play if they have to be "mathing in their heads;" and others if they have to consult lookup tables.
In many cases, I have seen such players accept the help of other players (who math and/or lookup on the unwilling players' behalves)... but not always. 

Edited November 19, 2023 by g33k

[Atgxtg]

3 hours ago, g33k said:

It really depends on the players.

Yeah, in our RQ/Stormbringer, etc. groups we always had two or three players who could do the math in their heads so it wasn't a big deal. Especially since most (75%) of the time you could just roll the dice and not worry about success level unless you rolled under 21% or over 95%.

3 hours ago, g33k said:

I know players who will not play if they have to be "mathing in their heads;" and others if they have to consult lookup tables.
In many cases, I have seen such players accept the help of other players (who math and/or lookup on the unwilling players' behalves)... but not always. 

Pretty much the same experience. It often comes down to how much trouble or time it takes to look something up or how much it slows play. If the group can do it quickly then it's normally not a problem at all. If they have to constantly pull open the rulebook, flip through  the book to find the success table and read across for the result, then people get bored and annoyed.

But, I find that most groups that do have a slowdown usually are looking up lots of rolls that they don't have to. In general you should only need to check the success level on one roll out of four.

 

 

Shortcut for those who don't want to do use a table or do (much) math:

• Unless someone has a skill over 100% any roll from 21-95 will be a simple success (or failure).
• Critical: 01 is always a crtical. If skill is 30+ then 02 is a critical, if 50+ then 03, if 70+ then 04, and 90+ then 05.
• Special: Most of us could do divide by 5 in our heads, but a faster method was to divide by 10 and then double it. Thus 47% skill would be 4.7x2= 9.4 or 9%
• Fumble: 00 is always a fumble. If skill is 51+ then 99 is a critical, if 31+ then 98, if 11+ then 97, and 90+ then 96.

[Zit]

Well, if you want to simplify the maths and stick close to the RAW, just look at the tens of you score. If you roll under half of it, it is a crit. If under twice of it, it is a special.

It only marginaly change the odds, and dividing or multiplying by 2 a one-digit number is not that difficult.

[Kloster]

38 minutes ago, Zit said:

Well, if you want to simplify the maths and stick close to the RAW, just look at the tens of you score. If you roll under half of it, it is a crit. If under twice of it, it is a special.

It only marginaly change the odds, and dividing or multiplying by 2 a one-digit number is not that difficult.

Correct. If you want to be closer to RAW, you just have to check when the result of the die is precisely the target number ... but this still fail with scores above 100%.

[Zit]

nor really. With a score of 123%, the tens are 12, which is 6- crit and 24- special.