CYMRO'S System Proposal

[CYMRO]

How about ability modifier = current ability score, and reduce all the base numbers which get an ability modifier by 5. That way, numbers stay pretty much as is and you don't need the table.

I like tables.  
Tables are popular, whether "needed" or not.  They are a reassuring visual aid in any set of rules or instructions.  Get over the table.

Why not roll two d6's as percentile dice, but keep the result as a base-10 number? Adding 1 to 15 makes 16. Adding 1 to 16 makes 17, which cannot be achieved with an unmodified roll. The math for that is fairly easy, and DC's that end in 7, 8, or 9 make the benefits of even small bonuses fairly real and obvious.

Why not just use d%?  Why all the mental gymnastics?  This is the beauty of d%.  Simple, common math with a simple two dice roll.  
And if you have no d%: chits.  Hell, I remember when rpgs came with sheets of chits for random number generation.

What about teh base change of success? 35% is low. People don't like failing.

The combats we have playtested has been nice and brutal.  Combat is longer, but not excessively slow.

[Thanuir]

I don't like tables, especially when they are unnecessary. Your mileage clearly varies. I don't think we can make any progress there, at least unless you tell why it is useful to simply not have the modifier equal the attribute.

My comment about rolling two d6s and multiplying was a response another convoluted die mechanic, not an option for d100 (for that I prefer rolling below with d20; functionally the same granularity, smaller numbers).

How often do PCs hit/get hit in combats? What about outside them?


Disclaimer: I'm not pestering you just to annoy or to make you change your rules. My intent is to make you think about them and hopefully learn a bit in the process.

[CYMRO]

I don't like tables, especially when they are unnecessary.

The table is not useless.  No more useless than any other table.  Yes, the text will have a description of what the table shows, but having the table there makes for ease of use.  It is not unnecessary, it makes it easy for people to find the info they are looking for.  That is the purpose of a table.  
If you don't like tables, then I suggest you try converting d20 tables to descriptive text, then try playing the game that way, especially with some new players.  Try it and you will appreciate tables.

not an option for d100 (for that I prefer rolling below with d20; functionally the same granularity, smaller numbers).

d20=5% increments.
d100=1% increments.
Not the same granularity.

How often do PCs hit/get hit in combats?

Hits seem to fall fairly close to average indicated by proficiencies, though using armor only as DR renders some hits ineffective(a bit over 10%).

What about outside them?

Outside what?

[Thanuir]

[blockquote=CYMRO]The table is not useless. No more useless than any other table. Yes, the text will have a description of what the table shows, but having the table there makes for ease of use. It is not unnecessary, it makes it easy for people to find the info they are looking for. That is the purpose of a table.
If you don't like tables, then I suggest you try converting d20 tables to descriptive text, then try playing the game that way, especially with some new players. Try it and you will appreciate tables.[/blockquote]Let me rephase that: I don't like tables that could be made unnecessary with few minor rules tweaks. I still see no indication that your table is not part of this category.

d20=5% increments.
d100=1% increments.
Not the same granularity.

Functionally the same granularity. That is, modifiers that are lesser than 5% are effectively nothing (some even argue that modifiers less than 10% are useless). +2 or -2 is statistically insignificant. +3 or -3 might as well be +5 or -5. Do you have a lot of modifiers that are not in 5% increments? Currently I only see the attributes. Or do you do something interesting with the d100, like changing the ones die and the tens die, if that would improve the odds, when fighting particularly hated opponents?

Hits seem to fall fairly close to average indicated by proficiencies, though using armor only as DR renders some hits ineffective(a bit over 10%).

So, once every three attacks, roughly?

Outside what?

I had a brainfart, sorry. My question was supposed to be: How often do PCs succeed at stuff out of combat?

[CYMRO]

Let me rephase that: I don't like tables that could be made unnecessary with few minor rules tweaks. I still see no indication that your table is not part of this category.

Tweak the rules to avoid a table that would take up less than half of a column on a two column page?  A table that provides a quick fast reference, so one does not half to search through the text?

Or do you do something interesting with the d100, like changing the ones die and the tens die, if that would improve the odds, when fighting particularly hated opponents?

Never even considered such zaniness.
I like the wider range that the d% offers.  That some bonuses are tiny has aesthetic as well as dramatic value.  

So, once every three attacks, roughly?

Or more.  It is possible have a starting character with higher than 55% to hit in a weapon group.

I had a brainfart, sorry. My question was supposed to be: How often do PCs succeed at stuff out of combat?

Varies, a lot.  I have not been using any ability mods for any skills, so skill ranks are a bit more important.

[Thanuir]

[blockquote=CYMRO]Tweak the rules to avoid a table that would take up less than half of a column on a two column page? A table that provides a quick fast reference, so one does not half to search through the text?[/blockquote]Yes.
Before the change: There two valuesrelated to attributes; the attribute and the attribute modifier. These are connected by the table or by simple calculation (linear function). The attributes range from 1 to arbitrarily high values. The attribute modifiers range from -6 to arbitrarily high.
Chance of success equals [combat skill] + attribute modifier, where [combat skill] is taken from another table.

After the proposed change: There is one value, the attribute. It has exactly the same values as before.
Chance of success equals [combat skill] + attribute, where [combat skill] is taken from new table, where the chances of success equal those of the previous table -5.

That is,
There is non-proficient. 5% chance to hit, plus Accuracy.
THere is proficient. 30% chance to hit, plus Accuracy.
There is Focus. 40% chance to hit, plus Accuracy.
THere is Specialization. 50% chance to hit, plus Accuracy.
There is Finesse. 60% chance to hit, plus Accuracy.
There is Mastery. 70% chance to hit, plus Accuracy.

The overall effects: Attributes are slightly simpler (no need for the very easy calculation or table look-up) and a lot more elegant (one value instead of two). Overall chance of hitting is improved by 2 percentage units (e.g. from 32 to 34 or 95 to 97), but not above 99.

I see no negative effects and some positive ones.

That some bonuses are tiny has aesthetic as well as dramatic value.

Can't argue with preferences.

Or more. It is possible have a starting character with higher than 55% to hit in a weapon group.

This is why I am interested in the actual scores that were used when playing. Hitting more than once evert two hits is decent; once every three is poor.

I have not been using any ability mods for any skills, so skill ranks are a bit more important.

Do they use the same table as combat stuff does? Proficient characters with 35% chance of success means that rolls must be very rare or the characters will look very incompetent.

[CYMRO]

I see no negative effects and some positive ones.

Having a score and a mod allows for multiple uses on different scales.
For strength, there is encumbrance.  The Toughness score is applied to WP, though the mods for Toughness and Reflex are key to VP.  Healing is based on the Accuracy score, not the mod(note: healing is still being hammered out, and almost all playtesting has been without any available).
And so on.

Single value attributes are too limiting when you need different scales.  I chose the double values to cover as many bets as possible and still keep things simple.  It is working quite well.

Can't argue with preferences.

True.  And those tiny mods can add up, and when your target number is 58, and you roll 56, then a 57, you get some good drama at the table.

Do they use the same table as combat stuff does? Proficient characters with 35% chance of success means that rolls must be very rare or the characters will look very incompetent.

No, I am using skill checks modified to suit d%(and rolling low), so a d20 DC 5 skill check becomes a DC 75, skill ranks and other misc. mods upping it.  So, if Bob has 10 ranks in Skill X,and the tasl in front of him is that DC 75, then his target number to roll under is 85.
A d20 DC of 20 would become a DC 0, impossible without a rank or two in the appropriate skill, so with Bob's 10 ranks he has a 10%(10 ranks plus 0% chance of success) to succeed.
No rank limits, by the way, which is, in my opinion, a good balance for no ability mods for skills.
Truly impossible, nigh on legendary, DCs are represented by negative DCs.

[Thanuir]

I understand your reasons, now. They were not visible from the material posted, or I simply missed them.

Good luck, I don't have anything constructive to say right now.