Semi-radical idea for handling damage

[Stacie_GmrGrl]

I will add that in addition to potentially raising the damage curve too high and too fast the opposite may be just as true. What I mean by that is if you have an opponent with an imposable to hit defense score, would be nearly invincible. Odds are when you finally do get in lucky hits you won't beat his defense by much and that means only dealing minimal damage.

Depending on the genre and game, all you have to do is drop a burning building on his head and he'd go down

Doesn't matter how high their Defense is at that point

[Darthmoe]

I will add that in addition to potentially raising the damage curve too high and too fast the opposite may be just as true. What I mean by that is if you have an opponent with an imposable to hit defense score, would be nearly invincible. Odds are when you finally do get in lucky hits you won't beat his defense by much and that means only dealing minimal damage.

Depending on the genre and game, all you have to do is drop a burning building on his head and he'd go down

Doesn't matter how high their Defense is at that point

An even better solution is if you can just bull rush said Juggernaut off a cliff or into another random death trap (spike pitt, lava stream, acid pool , all work great, but even a raging rivers work well if he is wearing heavy armor).

The problem is that GMs who make wide use of these kinds of opponents on a common basis tend to be jerks anyway. My DM for example had a habit of making us encounter these baddies in wide open fields or even worse in a narrow corridor where we couldn't maneuver around.

[Imagist]

This begs the question, what causes the opponent to have an imposable to hit defense score? Is the unbalanced mechanic in the opponent, his Defenses too high for his level range? Is it with the PCs and their lack of proper equipment, specialization, or class features for their levels? Did the GM go "they always kill the monster, I am going to make them fight something that will give them a run for their money (add +10 to the monster's Defense)" and screw the pooch on that one?

One idea that sounds great to me is building monsters/opponents at a certain level (basically like 4e D&D had preset monsters for a given level/maybe even role). That way you can have an opponent balanced for that level of character that focuses on combat (alright frontliners, get out there and give them a piece of our minds while the squishy ones support you from afar) or social encounters (umm... i think he wasnt to talk to you... squishy... im a gonna stand over here and be intimidating so you get those bonuses). Okay, so those examples sucked, but the point is never should a GM go "this is too easy, I know what will make it more fun... if it can completely negate all of your special abilities you have worked so hard to earn and build!"

In closing... this is a mechanical issue we need to address inhouse, so we can prevent GMs from building "balanced encounters" by adding levels to monsters or opponents that do not reflect their true abilities.

*Edit*

Remember, wizard's first rule.

[Stacie_GmrGrl]

This begs the question, what causes the opponent to have an imposable to hit defense score? Is the unbalanced mechanic in the opponent, his Defenses too high for his level range? Is it with the PCs and their lack of proper equipment, specialization, or class features for their levels? Did the GM go "they always kill the monster, I am going to make them fight something that will give them a run for their money (add +10 to the monster's Defense)" and screw the pooch on that one?

One idea that sounds great to me is building monsters/opponents at a certain level (basically like 4e D&D had preset monsters for a given level/maybe even role). That way you can have an opponent balanced for that level of character that focuses on combat (alright frontliners, get out there and give them a piece of our minds while the squishy ones support you from afar) or social encounters (umm... i think he wasnt to talk to you... squishy... im a gonna stand over here and be intimidating so you get those bonuses). Okay, so those examples sucked, but the point is never should a GM go "this is too easy, I know what will make it more fun... if it can completely negate all of your special abilities you have worked so hard to earn and build!"

In closing... this is a mechanical issue we need to address inhouse, so we can prevent GMs from building "balanced encounters" by adding levels to monsters or opponents that do not reflect their true abilities.

*Edit*

Remember, wizard's first rule.

I am trying to remember Wizards First Rule, but I love the books

Until we see e20Lite its still to early to answer any question we really propose.

[KingOfIllefarn]

My idea resolves all those issues into a single mechanic.

Your using a Heavy Blade, lets say its base damage is 7. You make your roll. Depending on how well you succeed, you can maybe have the following Success Results -
Fumble - drop weapon
Fail - miss
Average Result - basic hit: do basic damage
Good Result - good hit: do basic damage and target takes -1 penalty to action rolls till end of next turn.
Excellent Result - excellent hit: do basic damage x2 and target takes -2 penalty to action rolls till end of next turn.
Superb Result - superior hit: do basic damage x3 and target takes -4 penalty to action rolls till end of next turn.

Having a built in system of Success Results is something this game needs. This is way better than how its been for the last decade.

The reason you're getting so much resistance to this "degrees of success" idea is simple -- charts are not fun. The overwhelming trend of d20-based games is to eliminate as much cross-referencing as possible, and let the number on the die and the sum of your bonuses speak for themselves. It was bad enough when problem was found mainly in limited-situation abilities like Turn Undead in 3.5 -- forcing players to consult a chart on every action will be intolerable.

There have already been multiple suggestions for allowing for extra effects if the attack beats the relevant Defense by 5 or more. I would prefer that this be a benefit of higher-level talents, rewarding a character for specialization in a particular ability. This would still make high, non-20 rolls meaningful, but it is free of the most critical drawback of your proposal -- it won't slow down the game. This should be the most important factor to consider when evaluating new ideas: Will this facilitate the resolution of actions, or hinder it? If a mechanic hinders resolution unnecessarily, then it needs to be left on the cutting room floor.

Simply put, this proposal to apply a "result table" to all actions does not streamline anything, and in fact makes every aspect of the game more cumbersome. It is not better than previous editions of the game, and is most certainly not needed.

How does it not streamline the system? Wouldn't having a Single Table that everybody would have on their character sheets for access be Easier than having multiple DC charts for mulitple skills for the players to look up when they use a skill? Wouldn't it be Easier for the GM to have a single Chart for reference to help determine what modifier to use if somebody is doing something Hard, or challenging, rather than having to defer to All those MANY charts In the book and take away game time to look up said chart, IN the book, to look up what the DC is for the action?

And how is it different than using extra effects based on beating the relevant Defense by 5, or by 10, or by 15? That's the same as my idea, only my idea makes it easier. Instead of having to constantly look at Statblocks to check the Defense of the target, and then mentally calculate and figure out if he beat the Defense by 5, or 10, or 15... and then tell the player the effect, with my idea, he can just let the player make the roll, he sees he got a Excellent result, and the Excellent effect of the action take effect.

And who says you can't have talents that add an effect like, beat the target DC by 10 and you gain (insert advantage here) and with my system it would be easier... you pick a Skill Focus feat, you pick a skill with the focus, now if you get a Excellent or Superb result you gain (insert Advantage here). Simple.

It stops people from pausing the game to look up how the DC charts for different skills, or how to do a damn grapple in 3.5, or a trip, because everytime somebody tries to do that (well, those I game with) we have to look up the rules, and these rules suck. With my idea, if you make a Grapple action, make the Action Roll, get results, look on chart ON character sheet (no book lookup), apply effect. That would take, what, a couple seconds. Next action please.

And the chart is so simple that after one hour of play anybody can remember it.
0-2 Fumble
3-9 Failure
10-14 Average
15-18 Good
19-22 Excellent
23+ Superior

A single chart for everything. So tell me how this doesn't streamline the game across the board.

I gave up following this thread at this point, its just too long and people are too entrenched in their positions to be fun. But, for what it's worth Stacie, I totally get what you're after. All the dreaded, horrifying, "looking up a chart every" is done (like everything that already exists in d20) before the game, when creating or advancing your character. The chart on your sheet tells you what column of damage/charm/etc. to apply. A degree of success system would be a very good addition, but alas, it seems doomed. Cheers for the idea and the perseverance.

[Stacie_GmrGrl]

Well Thank you King very nice of you to say...if this project gets full funding I'll do my best with helping out, but I've come to terms that the majority of the people on here are not ready for a real evolution to the d20 system. I mean no insult to anybody but most people are just so stuck in how it's been that they are either scared to really think outside the box and try something new or are just so stuck with tradition that any real advancement to the system that would make it easier and streamlined, despite being somewhat radically different, is just an automatic no to them...even if it would be an improvement.

I think I'm one of three people on here who would really like to take the d20 system and really put it through a grinder, toss out the crap, keep the good, and then add to the good to let it truly show off its honest to god true potential and possibilities...but that won't really happen here. Too many Sacred Cows that people want to hold onto.

I mean, we're making a genre-less, universal game with a predetermined, MODERN genre as the main genre of play.....something about this just doesn't make sense to me

[bone_naga]

Well its great that you're so enthusiastic towards improving the system, but just keep in mind that in most cases what is "better" is largely subjective. You and I might have completely different opinions of what will make the game better, and those ideas might be largely incompatible. So it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with people being afraid of change or worshipping sacred cows.

[fodigg]

Well, I've come to realize that most of the "evolution" is from 3.5 - e20. Not SWSE - e20. As I've already played SWSE extensively, I'm kind of expecting that with a few small tweaks.

[j0lt]

Well Thank you King very nice of you to say...if this project gets full funding I'll do my best with helping out, but I've come to terms that the majority of the people on here are not ready for a real evolution to the d20 system. I mean no insult to anybody but most people are just so stuck in how it's been that they are either scared to really think outside the box and try something new or are just so stuck with tradition that any real advancement to the system that would make it easier and streamlined, despite being somewhat radically different, is just an automatic no to them...even if it would be an improvement.

I think I'm one of three people on here who would really like to take the d20 system and really put it through a grinder, toss out the crap, keep the good, and then add to the good to let it truly show off its honest to god true potential and possibilities...but that won't really happen here. Too many Sacred Cows that people want to hold onto.

Well its great that you're so enthusiastic towards improving the system, but just keep in mind that in most cases what is "better" is largely subjective. You and I might have completely different opinions of what will make the game better, and those ideas might be largely incompatible. So it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with people being afraid of change or worshipping sacred cows.

I agree with bone_naga. It's not that we don't want to change the system, it's that we still want it to be a d20-based system when we're done with it. I disagree with a lot of your ideas not because I think they're bad, which they aren't, but because they don't seem to mesh with the basics of the d20 system or with the idea of streamlining the gameplay. Tacked on subsystems may seem like a great idea, but they usually end up detracting from the quality of the product as a whole regardless of how well-designed they are.

We're trying to evolve the d20 system, but an evolution should stay true to its roots.

Well, I've come to realize that most of the "evolution" is from 3.5 - e20. Not SWSE - e20. As I've already played SWSE extensively, I'm kind of expecting that with a few small tweaks.

That's pretty much what I was expecting as well. Something along the lines of "Universal d20 Modern Saga Edition".

[ronin]

We're trying to evolve the d20 system, but an evolution should stay true to its roots.

Well, I've come to realize that most of the "evolution" is from 3.5 - e20. Not SWSE - e20. As I've already played SWSE extensively, I'm kind of expecting that with a few small tweaks.

That's pretty much what I was expecting as well. Something along the lines of "Universal d20 Modern Saga Edition".

That's why I signed up for the project- it is basically exactly what I am looking for in a game system.

[KingOfIllefarn]

I agree with bone_naga. It's not that we don't want to change the system, it's that we still want it to be a d20-based system when we're done with it. I disagree with a lot of your ideas not because I think they're bad, which they aren't, but because they don't seem to mesh with the basics of the d20 system or with the idea of streamlining the gameplay. Tacked on subsystems may seem like a great idea, but they usually end up detracting from the quality of the product as a whole regardless of how well-designed they are.

We're trying to evolve the d20 system, but an evolution should stay true to its roots.

Well, I've come to realize that most of the "evolution" is from 3.5 - e20. Not SWSE - e20. As I've already played SWSE extensively, I'm kind of expecting that with a few small tweaks.

That's pretty much what I was expecting as well. Something along the lines of "Universal d20 Modern Saga Edition".

Again, Stacie isn't talking about "tacked on subsystems", but rather a further unification or elimination of the subsystems that already exist.

There are many versions of d20, including optional rules in the DMG, that speak to "levels of success" when rolling a d20 in the "basic mechanic". The problem with really using these is that it is more math; the numbers are too linear and big(ish). Reading a d20 + mods and then thinking "okay how much is that over my target", or worse, "how many 5's is that over my target" is a pain in the brain (at least when multiplied by a night of gaming). Thus it is generally folly to try to introduce useful levels of success into normal d20.

What Stacie (and I) are getting at is ONE simple chart that everyone has and NO ONE has to "look up". Rolling d20 + mods and totaling is what we already do. Now just find that total on the chart and you get a level of success. This would then determine how much damage to apply (listed under the weapon prefigured), how deeply your magical charm affected your target (listed under the power), etc.

See? Anyone? Streamlining

[Michael Silverbane]

I think that the problem with that is where the chart (representing a set of static DCs) butts up against things like character's defenses (which vary by level) or even more so, opposed checks, where the variance can be quite large from one instance to the next.

So... such a chart for multiple levels of success could be useful for checks against a static DC, but less so for dynamic DCs...

[KingOfIllefarn]

I think that the problem with that is where the chart (representing a set of static DCs) butts up against things like character's defenses (which vary by level) or even more so, opposed checks, where the variance can be quite large from one instance to the next.

So... such a chart for multiple levels of success could be useful for checks against a static DC, but less so for dynamic DCs...

Well since you are always comparing how much the dice exceeds the target, it doesn't really change at all. I admit that's a very linear result in what "should be" a non-linear concept, but it is no more linear than the current yes/no.

[j0lt]

What Stacie (and I) are getting at is ONE simple chart that everyone has and NO ONE has to "look up". Rolling d20 + mods and totaling is what we already do. Now just find that total on the chart and you get a level of success. This would then determine how much damage to apply (listed under the weapon prefigured), how deeply your magical charm affected your target (listed under the power), etc.

See? Anyone? Streamlining

What we're getting at is that that cannot function on a single chart, and will ALWAYS have to be looked up. If the effect of whatever level of success is left up to the GM, why bother codifying levels of success? Furthermore, "how much damage to apply as listed under the weapon entry"? That means ANOTHER chart for EVERY weapon and EVERY spell in the game! Your one chart has now multiplied itself into the low hundreds, and will most definitely have to be looked up every time. If I'm wrong, build it and show me with an in-play example.

To me, this is just another case of something that sounds good on paper, but in practice will never work.

[KingOfIllefarn]

What Stacie (and I) are getting at is ONE simple chart that everyone has and NO ONE has to "look up". Rolling d20 + mods and totaling is what we already do. Now just find that total on the chart and you get a level of success. This would then determine how much damage to apply (listed under the weapon prefigured), how deeply your magical charm affected your target (listed under the power), etc.

See? Anyone? Streamlining

What we're getting at is that that cannot function on a single chart, and will ALWAYS have to be looked up. If the effect of whatever level of success is left up to the GM, why bother codifying levels of success? Furthermore, "how much damage to apply as listed under the weapon entry"? That means ANOTHER chart for EVERY weapon and EVERY spell in the game! Your one chart has now multiplied itself into the low hundreds, and will most definitely have to be looked up every time. If I'm wrong, build it and show me with an in-play example.

To me, this is just another case of something that sounds good on paper, but in practice will never work.

Are you purposely being dense? I can't imagine how it isn't clear, except that people just don't want to listen.....

Every weapon in the game already has a damn chart!!! We're talking about referencing the same info we already do when creating or leveling your character to find the values or effects that your powers or attacks deal. You put them on your character sheet. You roll your dice. You look at THE chart. You apply the effect. What is so difficult to comprehend?

And before anyone gets their spurs polished and mounts up that high horse--as far as I'm concerned, after the sum total of my comments on this, he just called me an idiot and a fool...

/end rant

[j0lt]

What we're getting at is that that cannot function on a single chart, and will ALWAYS have to be looked up. If the effect of whatever level of success is left up to the GM, why bother codifying levels of success? Furthermore, "how much damage to apply as listed under the weapon entry"? That means ANOTHER chart for EVERY weapon and EVERY spell in the game! Your one chart has now multiplied itself into the low hundreds, and will most definitely have to be looked up every time. If I'm wrong, build it and show me with an in-play example.

To me, this is just another case of something that sounds good on paper, but in practice will never work.

Are you purposely being dense? I can't imagine how it isn't clear, except that people just don't want to listen.....

Every weapon in the game already has a damn chart!!! We're talking about referencing the same info we already do when creating or leveling your character to find the values or effects that your powers or attacks deal. You put them on your character sheet. You roll your dice. You look at THE chart. You apply the effect. What is so difficult to comprehend?

And before anyone gets their spurs polished and mounts up that high horse--as far as I'm concerned, after the sum total of my comments on this, he just called me an idiot and a fool...

/end rant

Don't put words in my mouth. Where did I call you an idiot and a fool? I can spot exactly where in your post you said I'm BEING dense (which I know is different from having you call me dense), but nowhere did I say anything about you. I disagreed with you very directly because I think your points are incorrect.

Every weapon in the game doesn't have a chart. Every weapon is on a single chart which has a single damage value which is recorded in a box on the sheet and is so simple that it's instantly memorized. Having a chart with various damage levels, even on your sheet is an extra thing to look up every time you roll an attack. Writing several different numbers for a single action is not more streamlined than a single number, but since neither of us can seem to agree with each other on this, I'll ask you again: Show me. Write up an in-play example.

[GMSarli]

Let's all cool off a bit -- I don't think anyone is trying to call anyone an idiot or fool; it's just an honest disagreement about how much specificity is optimal.

It's OK to disagree! That's part of what gives the e20 System project the energy that will make us develop a better game. But please, please don't start taking things personally or, worse, decide that those who disagree with you aren't working toward the same goal.

Moving on ...


Yes, it's true that each weapon already has its own unique characteristics, but those characteristics are currently summarized in one line on a chart (damage, range, etc.). If each weapon had its own chart, or even if you just added extra columns to the existing weapon chart, you are adding detail. It's certainly arguable that this detail is a good thing, but it's just as arguable that it's not.

That said, there is certainly room for these sorts of degrees of success, but I'd prefer that they be done in a way that makes it simple to remember rather than being distinct for each weapon. One way to do that is by having a set of weapon properties, and those properties have some unique effects (possibly enough that they might earn a separate chart). For example, an "entangling" weapon might have a special effect that grapples a target with a greater success. This way, instead of having to make a unique chart for each weapon, you could make whips, chains, bolas, and nets all have the "entangling" property.

The advantage of doing it this way is that you only have to memorize one entangling table (or put it on the GM screen) rather than having multiple charts that are largely redundant. Sure, you lose a bit of detail and distinctiveness for individual weapons, but I think you gain a lot in speed and ease of play because it's that many fewer things that have to be looked up.

[KingOfIllefarn]

What we're getting at is that that cannot function on a single chart, and will ALWAYS have to be looked up. If the effect of whatever level of success is left up to the GM, why bother codifying levels of success? Furthermore, "how much damage to apply as listed under the weapon entry"? That means ANOTHER chart for EVERY weapon and EVERY spell in the game! Your one chart has now multiplied itself into the low hundreds, and will most definitely have to be looked up every time. If I'm wrong, build it and show me with an in-play example.

To me, this is just another case of something that sounds good on paper, but in practice will never work.

Are you purposely being dense? I can't imagine how it isn't clear, except that people just don't want to listen.....

Every weapon in the game already has a damn chart!!! We're talking about referencing the same info we already do when creating or leveling your character to find the values or effects that your powers or attacks deal. You put them on your character sheet. You roll your dice. You look at THE chart. You apply the effect. What is so difficult to comprehend?

And before anyone gets their spurs polished and mounts up that high horse--as far as I'm concerned, after the sum total of my comments on this, he just called me an idiot and a fool...

/end rant

Don't put words in my mouth. Where did I call you an idiot and a fool? I can spot exactly where in your post you said I'm BEING dense (which I know is different from having you call me dense), but nowhere did I say anything about you. I disagreed with you very directly because I think your points are incorrect.

Every weapon in the game doesn't have a chart. Every weapon is on a single chart which has a single damage value which is recorded in a box on the sheet and is so simple that it's instantly memorized. Having a chart with various damage levels, even on your sheet is an extra thing to look up every time you roll an attack. Writing several different numbers for a single action is not more streamlined than a single number, but since neither of us can seem to agree with each other on this, I'll ask you again: Show me. Write up an in-play example.

I apologize.

[KingOfIllefarn]

Let's all cool off a bit -- I don't think anyone is trying to call anyone an idiot or fool; it's just an honest disagreement about how much specificity is optimal.

It's OK to disagree! That's part of what gives the e20 System project the energy that will make us develop a better game. But please, please don't start taking things personally or, worse, decide that those who disagree with you aren't working toward the same goal.

Moving on ...


Yes, it's true that each weapon already has its own unique characteristics, but those characteristics are currently summarized in one line on a chart (damage, range, etc.). If each weapon had its own chart, or even if you just added extra columns to the existing weapon chart, you are adding detail. It's certainly arguable that this detail is a good thing, but it's just as arguable that it's not.

That said, there is certainly room for these sorts of degrees of success, but I'd prefer that they be done in a way that makes it simple to remember rather than being distinct for each weapon. One way to do that is by having a set of weapon properties, and those properties have some unique effects (possibly enough that they might earn a separate chart). For example, an "entangling" weapon might have a special effect that grapples a target with a greater success. This way, instead of having to make a unique chart for each weapon, you could make whips, chains, bolas, and nets all have the "entangling" property.

The advantage of doing it this way is that you only have to memorize one entangling table (or put it on the GM screen) rather than having multiple charts that are largely redundant. Sure, you lose a bit of detail and distinctiveness for individual weapons, but I think you gain a lot in speed and ease of play because it's that many fewer things that have to be looked up.

Again.....no more charts. And certainly not a Rolemaster chart for every weapon. In fact, the weapon chart could potentially stay the same. The degree of success could be expressed (as first alluded to by Stacie) as simply a multiple of damage, as an alternate way of determining when to multiply for a crit. Skills could easily have listed special effects based on degree of success. Finally, powers could have effects listed based on degree of success. They already do, its just one degree most of the time. But there are "partial saves" and so many "see text" references that it will make you dizzy. Imagine clear language that states how a magical power affects someone based on the degree of success.

[Darthmoe]

I got another idea similar in the same vain as Sim_Girls idea about increasing the damage die codes as your skill with a weapon increased. I liked where she was going with her idea but I kept thinking what about weapons that already have multiple damage dice to begin with. For example a 1911 .45 ACP that deals 2d6 damage. It gets kind of complicated when those dice start getting converted to higher dice. I was also thinking about weapons with low damage values to begin with such a knives and daggers that only deal a d4 damage.

Then I came up with the idea of static bonus damage dice. This is a mechanic that we are already familiar with for example a flaming burst weapon adds 1d6 damage. Anyway not being sure how the skill progression will go I am basing my idea off a six step progression just because I can.

Untrained = + 0 damage
Trained = + 1d3 damage
Emphasis = + 1d4 damage
Specialist = + 1d6 damage
Mastery = + 1d8 damage
Grand Mastery = 1d10 damage

So basically if you are a specialist in a weapon you get +1d6 damage with the weapon no matter if you are using a pocket knife, or a .50 caliber sniper rifle.

Pros
- No charts required it's simple and easy to remember
- A user's skill in a weapon gives them at least a reasonably good increase
- The damage bonuses a significant enough to be appealing, but are not so radical because they are more less in line with what we are already in seeing in 4.0

Cons
- There is not a whole lot of difference between training and emphasis but I think that is understandable.
- In small less powerful weapons like the knife a users skill becomes comparatively than if someone were to be using a Barret .50, but I to feel that is an understandable change.

Notes
I went with a middle of the row damage we have multiple adjusting if it the damage system is broken. For example we can start the bonus die at a d2 for trained instead of a d3 and go up from there. Another option is we don't have to give a damage bonus for trained only, and finally we could implement both options. Conversely if the damage bonus is too small we can start the bonus damage progression at a d4 and work our way up to a d12 (it would be kind of fun to pull out the old d12 for a change).

As an after thought regarding the merger of damage and attacks I have a few more things to say about it.

1. I honestly don't feel it would save me any time at all because in my table top games we followed a common sense suggestion as presented in the 3.0 players guide and rolled our damage and attack rolls together. If anything this would add time to my games because now we would have to calculate bonus damage where as before we rolling our attack and damage dice together.

2. Generally speaking the rest of the hexagonal dice are always included in a d20 set and I would feel pretty ripped off if I didn't get to use them. Especially if I bought them specifically to play e20. In RPG book stores you can buy them individually sure, but a lot of people buy their dice in boxed sets at your regular plane old Jane book store.

3. I play a lot of forum games and for that demographic of gamers this idea couldn't make the least of difference too. I have all day to make my rolls anyway so what difference does it make if damage?

[Imagist]

Weapon tricks?

Each weapon group could have unique or similar weapon tricks that would have a base DC for success, but still rely on a successful check against the target's Defense. Trip, Disarm, Sunder, Feint could all fall into this category with weapons that are easier to perform certain special actions with having lower DCs (thinking minimal DC for success like Force powers from SWSE) while weapon types that would be more difficult to perform a certain weapon trick would have a higher DC or no DC if it was impossible. Other weapon tricks could include Nonlethal, Called Shot, or Extra Damage (might be easier to get some extra damage out of two-handed weapons or finesseable weapons, but next impossible to do the same for firearms).

On the plus side with keeping weapon tricks in each combat skill entry, it give us something to flavor each weapon skill and reason for the players to think about which weapon type they wish to use. Also means they have to be trained in a weapon skill to be able to use a certain action with that weapon type, instead of learning a certain action that can be learned with any weapon type (rewarding them more for training in the weapon rather then training in one maneuver they may or may not be able to use). On the down side, adding mechanical descriptions and flavor for each usable weapon trick for each weapon skill will take up more space then having one chart in the combat section covering Trip, Disarm, ect... and varying DCs for each weapon skill means players have to look up or somehow chart the minimum DC for the maneuvers of their weapons.

Just a thought.

[Darthmoe]

I don't mean to keep poopooing on this idea but another thought had occurred to me. If we stick with the classic damage system it makes the game more customizable. For example if you want to use a hybrid HP & Condition Track system like in SAGA go ahead and sneak it in, or if you want to use vitality well that's an easy change as well. But going with such a radical design change actually makes it significantly more difficult to use options like these in the game.

[Stacie_GmrGrl]

I don't mean to keep poopooing on this idea but another thought had occurred to me. If we stick with the classic damage system it makes the game more customizable. For example if you want to use a hybrid HP & Condition Track system like in SAGA go ahead and sneak it in, or if you want to use vitality well that's an easy change as well. But going with such a radical design change actually makes it significantly more difficult to use options like these in the game.

I don't see how it makes it more customizable to stick with the classic damage system compared to some slightly alternate method of figuring damage.

[Imagist]

I don't mean to keep poopooing on this idea but another thought had occurred to me. If we stick with the classic damage system it makes the game more customizable. For example if you want to use a hybrid HP & Condition Track system like in SAGA go ahead and sneak it in, or if you want to use vitality well that's an easy change as well. But going with such a radical design change actually makes it significantly more difficult to use options like these in the game.

Hybrid HP & Condition Track with Vitality (call your Hit Points Stamina) and screw the wounds? Basically make Stamina as quickly regenerative as Vitality (recovering a number of points equal to your character level every hour) and then making Critical Hits bypass your Stamina all together to move you down the condition track an automatic point (or maybe a number of points based on the critical multiplier). Other attacks could move you down the Condition Track the same, but maybe the Critical Hit points are persistent until you recieve medical attention or some other form of care? We could still use the Massive Damage Threshold for attacks that target Stamina normally but have bonus effects if they take away too much Stamina at once, but instead of Massive Damage it would be more of a mechanic for when you become overwhelmed through lose of Stamina.

Just a random suggestion.

[Darthmoe]

Well now that the money has been raised this is issue #1 the game can go not farther until this mechanic is settled,

[JaredGaume]

I advocate a brief, simple, and effective combat/damage system.

d20 + modifiers vs. target defense; roll damage dice; and subtract result from target hit points.
Anything extra needs to be quick and easy to understand and implement.

[Darthmoe]

I advocate a brief, simple, and effective combat/damage system.

d20 + modifiers vs. target defense; roll damage dice; and subtract result from target hit points.
Anything extra needs to be quick and easy to understand and implement.

I agree. Damage dice are simple and easy, and since the main issue seems to be adding based on your skill with said weapon we have lots of other options to do that. Just to name a few there is +1 damage for every 5 points you beat his defense by, scaling damage dice based on your skill level, and bonus damage based on the amount of skill you have with a given weapon.

The simple reality of what we have here are two camps completely at war over this one issue and nothing else is going to happen with this game until we reach some sort of compromise.

Here's another idea for the burner to get shot down and torn to pieces but out of an act of desperation I will submit i anyway though though I may soon parish for doing so (actually not really it's still pretty civil here).

What about random damage dice combined with weapons with some kind of damage dice for beating your opponents defense by x number. Example a longsword dealing 1d8 damage +1 for every 3 points you beat your enemies defense. An axe maybe has 2d6 damage but only deals damage equal to +1 for every 5 points you beat your enemies defense by.

Also it's time we figured out what exactly the consequences would be if a GM wanted to say "screw static damage we're rolling damage separately". It's been theorized that would not be possible, but is that really the case

Also I'm going to just come out and say this Nobody can have their way for us to move on from this issue. A good compromise is when all parties leave the table just a bit dissatisfied. Some who are even more cynical than would say it's not what you get, it's what the other guy doesn't get.

[GMSarli]

After careful consideration, I've decided that we will be using a traditional attack roll / damage roll mechanic -- the idea I proposed was just a trial balloon I wanted to float to see what people thought. With a change this huge, it was going to need to be a clear favorite among all patrons (and me!) for it to be the standard; clearly, that's not the case, so we're keeping the original in this particular case.

For what it's worth, things like critical hits are still a little more up in the air because there's a lot of room for tinkering there without radically changing so many other mechanics.

Also, there will indeed be special effects that come into play with good attack rolls, but rather than that being a universal mechanic that happens everywhere, it will be something that particular talents, enhancements, and the like bring into play. Even though it won't be universal, the structure will be, so whenever it comes into play, it will be easy to remember when special effects come into play. (In other words, it will be fairly similar to several different Saga talents/Force powers/etc. that have higher damage or whatever kick in for every 5 points your roll is higher, or whatever.)


Given all this, I think this topic has served its purpose and run its course, so I'll be closing it. Expect to see some different (and more focused) topics eventually on some of the things I mentioned above, probably once we're past the deadline and the patron-only forums are rolling.