New Edition: Wiki

[Username17]

Here.

Aycarus set it up. As we hash stuff out here, we can archive it there so we don't keep repeating ourselves.

-Username17

[angelfromanotherpin]

Will the wiki be replacing the placeholder thread you set up here on the board?

[CatharzGodfoot]

I'm thinking of creating a 'talk' page on the wiki, because unfortunately there don't seem to be 'talk' pages for each entry (as in Wikipedia). Would that be alright, or do you want to keep discussion here?

[MagnaSecuris]

Keep discussion here, except for issues of exact wording. (Legalese). It's easier to work here.

Wikis eat up space because they keep track of all edits. Let's try not to have mountains of discussion pages too.

Also, I'm more familiar with bbcode.

[Crissa]

Hafta agree with Magna. Whoever the heck that is.

-Crissa

[Username17]

Wiki talk archives are really annoying, what with everyone editting the entire conversation. I would prefer to keep all rules issues here rather than there.

So Armor Classes. 12 + Level + Stat mod?

-Username17

[Crissa]

Any Constant needs a page explaining why it exists, and should use a key word instead of the number.

It's just good coding practice.

Also, any term used in a calculation needs a glossary/index entry.

-Crissa

[angelfromanotherpin]

So Armor Classes. 12 + Level + Stat mod?

I'm not sure I support the 12. How did you arrive at that number?

[Aycarus]

Let me know of any problems with the wiki as well... I'll try to back it up regularly so that "bad things" don't happen.

In particular, if anybody can suggest a 150 x 150 pixel image to replace the PmWiki logo in the top left, I'd be appreciative.

[JonSetanta]

Keep base AC at 10.
That gives 11 + stat at level 1, which is fine and simple.

[Username17]

The thing is that people are generally going to be attacking with their best stat, and at worst they will be attacking their target's best stat. So if you set the base Armor Class to 10 + Stat Modifier, then your to-hit chance is going to be at worst 55%. If you attack their worst stat, you'll be up by another 20-25%.

Shifting the TN up a bit gives you at least the possibility of hitting less than half the time. At a base AC of 10 that doesn't happen.

-Username17

[Bigode]

While that's valid reasoning, what I support is making any "opposed" roll (i.e., comparing a roll against a modifier + number) be roll against 10 + modifier, defense wins ties. Why? It requires shifting just one number, and trust me, that eases things in certain groups - we don't want a "you must be this 'math-tall' to play", right?

[Username17]

1202223004[/unixtime]]While that's valid reasoning, what I support is making any "opposed" roll (i.e., comparing a roll against a modifier + number) be roll against 10 + modifier, defense wins ties. Why? It requires shifting just one number, and trust me, that eases things in certain groups - we don't want a "you must be this 'math-tall' to play", right?

No we don't. But I also fail to see how setting the default Armor Class to 12 is somehow more math intensive than the D&D approach, which if you'll recall is to give the defender an entire extra set of bonuses to keep track of (Armor or Resistance).

There's no particular reason why the base TN would be 10, it's just as arbitrary a point as any other. Setting a workable base value is much preferable to lining up a series of bonuses and hoping that everyone remembers to catch em all (because let's face it, you gotta).

As is, with a base TN of 12, you hit on a 9+ when you're swinging your +8 against the target's +5. An it can get more one sided than that if you're both specialists. That's a 60% hit rate. Is there some reason that people should hit more frequently than that?

-Username17

[Aycarus]

On a related matter, what's the expected damage per hit and expected # of a hit points for a PC? I ask because in the most basic sense we have

Duration of Combat = # of hit points / (expected damage per round x % chance of hit)

[Bigode]

Comparing it to 3.5 D&D is a cowardly tactic.

I don't have much of a problem with it, just pointing out that shifting just one digit would be (slightly) easier. But, more importantly, do you intend to use different base TNs for different actions? I'd say it should be standardized. Also, may I ask why you're rolling weird damage dice instead of using d20 opposed rolls for that too?

[Username17]

The d20 works better if you want to have multiple conditions affecting outcomes and have that mean something vaguely consistent. So on attack rolls you have shit like positional advantage and surprised people and so on and so forth - and that changes the attack roll in an unpredictable and cumulative fashion. So you want a constant die where it counts calmly and rationally in distinct increments - like a d20.

If you don't have a bunch of potentially stacking modifiers - as indeed damage rolls do not (in this system) - you'd want a bell curve. Especially if the results from one attack to the next are added together in any meaningful fashion.

So we use a d20 for to-hit because we want modifiers to have consistent meaning. We use 3d6 (or whatever) for damage because we want the damage to have consistent results.

---

In other news: I honestly am leaning towards characters not going down when they run out of hit points - only when they run out of wounds. Hit points can just go up and down really fast and I don't even care. Low level characters will have like 2 wounds, and high level characters will have a lot more. You chew through Imps first because you'll probably hit zero hit points at some point in most major battles and as soon as that happens a group of Imps will turn you into tomato puree if they can get up in your grill.

-Username17

[Bigode]

More than fair enough. And on wounds, that was my thought as well. But do you think we could use just one damage die (preferentially the d6, of course) without throwing the math too much (as we know it's impossible not to throw it at all, even with different dice)?

[virgil]

Going by your leanings, does this mean you take a wound if there aren't any hit points to lose? Does this work in conjunction with the rule where you take a wound if the damage from a single hit exceeds your wound threshold, which I'm assuming is currently a fixed value (barring levelling)?

[Username17]

And on wounds, that was my thought as well. But do you think we could use just one damage die (preferentially the d6, of course) without throwing the math too much (as we know it's impossible not to throw it at all, even with different dice)?

One die woul be uncurved, and I'd rather not do it. Even if we want to bring damage to the level of a single d6 I would rather roll 3d6 and hand out 7 points of damage reduction to everyone. Because that way you get nice bell curves. Sexy sexy bell curves.

Going by your leanings, does this mean you take a wound if there aren't any hit points to lose?

Presently, when you run out of hit points your thresholds go to one. At that point anyone who does any damage at all inflicts a wound effect (although they don't really inflict hit points). A possibilty exists to allow people to inflict two wounds if their attack would have been big enough to wound any way. That might be too complicated though, and may need to be an optional rule.

-Username17

[Bigode]

Sorry, I meant "one kind of dice". Yes, bell curves are one of the reasons why I still feel some attachment to GURPS. But moreover, it seems you're going with both secondary and wound being damage-based thresholds - why secondary? The mechanic where a hit imposes a (secondary) save seems more natural than what I'm taking as "vinegar works as well as coral venom as long as it's delivered by a sledgehammer".

[Username17]

Sorry, I meant "one kind of dice".

I would prefer one kind of dice.

But moreover, it seems you're going with both secondary and wound being damage-based thresholds - why secondary? The mechanic where a hit imposes a (secondary) save seems more natural than what I'm taking as "vinegar works as well as coral venom as long as it's delivered by a sledgehammer".

No idea where you're going with that analogy. A weak poison attack would do less damage and be less likely to exceed secondary effect thresholds.

It seems like you want to add a third die roll. What for?

-Username17

[Bigode]

I meant to go with "the strength of a snake's bite varies independently from the poison strength", so the TNs for "not getting chopped" and "not getting poisoned" aren't strongly related. For extra hilarity, the 2 strengths in the actual example are more or less inverse IIRC.

[Username17]

1202241159[/unixtime]]I meant to go with "the strength of a snake's bite varies independently from the poison strength", so the TNs for "not getting chopped" and "not getting poisoned" aren't strongly related. For extra hilarity, the 2 strengths in the actual example are more or less inverse IIRC.

But game mechanically the "more deadly bite" does more damage. It doesn't matter if it's putting in more poison or more deadly poison - you take more damage.

And yes, we aren't keeping track of the difference between the physical tear in your flesh from the teeth and the deadliness of the venom. That's because the bite itself is pretty minor and I honestly don't care. Cobras aren't going to kill you with blood loss.

---

The part that really seems to be phasing you is the part where an attack only goes against a single defense. You don't check whether you dodge an attack and then check to see if you resist getting killed by it. It's just a single roll. I understand that this is somewhat weird. But it's literally twice as easy to use.

-Username17

[Bigode]

Yes, it easier. But: does that mean that both an anaconda and a coral kill stuff in the same rythm (instead of "right now" and "some time after")?

P.S.: since you're the biologist here, I admit it's entirely possible that snake poison kills faster than I'd think, but really, I bet you could insert another example yourself if this one's factually incoherent.

[Username17]

The "3 step" of Cambodia is aptly named. But regardless, there are a lot of snakes that aren't immediately fatal. Probably that would be handled by having different attacks that had different secondary and wound effects.

Paralytic Poison, Cytotoxic Poison, and Hallucinogenic Poison are all definitely different attacks; I see no reason why Slow Poison and Fast Poison couldn't be different attacks as well.

Dealier and Less Deadly Poison doens't really need to be a different attack however - it could seriously just be the same attack backed up different levels or stat lines.

-Username17