+100% skill

atgxtg said:
Gnash,
I agree with your reason, and with your points. Especially how it does't translate to skill comparisons. I don't quite agree with your math though.

Basically the attributes in RQ are built on a non-linear scale. A +8 instnt a 40% increase in ability but a 100% increase. This means that when a guy with a 10 STR has a 1% chance to lift a SIZ 59 rock, he isn't moving something that is just shy of six times a SIZ 10/60 kg object, but instead is moving something around 70 times his STR (over 4 tons). THat is much,much better than the character has any right to expect. And a lot more more generous than a 50% vs 295% skill comparison.

Doing the same sort of relationship is possible with skills but calaculation things like the 5% cutoff at 2.39 times skill and tythe 0% cutoff at 77+times skill, is a bit much.

Sure. But if you follow just the rules in RQ2, you *always* have a 5% chance of success no matter how much str you have and how big the object is. If you follow the RQ3 rules, you always have a 1% chance. My house rule adds the "there's a point at which you can't succeed" into a game that inately doesn't have such a thing.

If someone wants to toss a lower limit in there, they can. I used 50 points in my RQ3 game because it matched the progression of 10, 30, <...>. It's mathmatically easy (in game terms). Who cares how accurate it is? Any bounding is an improvement over the existing rules. About the only time this ever comes up is in power contests, and +50 power actually tends to work about right.
 
Gnarsh said:
Sure. But if you follow just the rules in RQ2, you *always* have a 5% chance of success no matter how much str you have and how big the object is. If you follow the RQ3 rules, you always have a 1% chance. My house rule adds the "there's a point at which you can't succeed" into a game that inately doesn't have such a thing.

If someone wants to toss a lower limit in there, they can. I used 50 points in my RQ3 game because it matched the progression of 10, 30, <...>. It's mathmatically easy (in game terms). Who cares how accurate it is? Any bounding is an improvement over the existing rules. About the only time this ever comes up is in power contests, and +50 power actually tends to work about right.

I see it as more useful for liting than for POW contests. Generally if you are up against someone with a 50 POW edge over you, making one resistance roll isn't gonna matter. Just gives you more time to wet yourself.

I only had a situation like that happen once. A shaman didn't get his fetch and had to face the Bad Man. I think the player actually managed to knock the Bad Man down a POW point or two before the inevitable.

The player felt a little better knowling that at least the Bad Man was "winded" for a couple of minutes.

Blowing the fech roll in RQ3= toss away your character. :shock:
 
atgxtg said:
I see it as more useful for liting than for POW contests. Generally if you are up against someone with a 50 POW edge over you, making one resistance roll isn't gonna matter. Just gives you more time to wet yourself.

Yeah. But then the GM can kinda arbitrarily just state "That's waaaay too big for you to lift", and be done with it. I've never once in my game calculated the actual mass of an object, then converted it to SIZ points to see if someone could lift/move it. If the object was immovable, it was immovable. If it was movable, I simply wrote down a "SIZ" value that a character (or characters) STR had to overcome.

Whereas honestly, it *is* possible with the RQ3 sorcery rules to have to deal with resistance rolls with largish ranges. Most sorcery spells resolve their effects by comparing intensity versus mp. Depending on how you worked those rules into your game, it's quite possible to have castable intensities in the 30+ range. In fact, some aspects of game balance and the way sorcery spells work almost require that this be possible in your game or the spell interations don't work.

And yeah. Big spirits are problems as well. And need to be dealt with. In a game where a single point of Spirit Block adds 10 points, you can quite possibly toss very high power spirits at a group of characters and expect them to survive (assuming the spirit is bound to an area, or only there for a period of time so they just have to survive long enough for example).

I only had a situation like that happen once. A shaman didn't get his fetch and had to face the Bad Man. I think the player actually managed to knock the Bad Man down a POW point or two before the inevitable.

The player felt a little better knowling that at least the Bad Man was "winded" for a couple of minutes.

Blowing the fech roll in RQ3= toss away your character. :shock:

Hah. We had a character do that as well. Although she didn't fail her fetch rolll (wasn't sure it was possible for that to happen. Could have sworn if you failed that roll, you just failed and had to try again the next year. You only face the bad man if you succeed in awakening your fetch. But I could very well be wrong). In any case, she just had a really bad set of rolls. Rolled maximum on the number of rounds, and got nailed hard too many rounds in a row. Bad juju...
 
Gnarsh said:
Yeah. But then the GM can kinda arbitrarily just state "That's waaaay too big for you to lift", and be done with it. I've never once in my game calculated the actual mass of an object, then converted it to SIZ points to see if someone could lift/move it. If the object was immovable, it was immovable. If it was movable, I simply wrote down a "SIZ" value that a character (or characters) STR had to overcome.

I've calculated a mass for an object a few times. Typically two types of situations:

1) Moving an known object: THe players decide to moce something that I didn't expect, like a 55 gal drum. So I had to figure out what the blasted thing had for a SIZ. SO I worked up the 55 gal x8 =440 pounds, plus the container, so around 450 pounds, okay that's SIZ 24. I usually had to do stuff like this for ENC. Some players will carry the kitchen sink until you give it a ENC.

2)Figuring out the value of smothing realling good, usually gold: I've had a loota fun with gold. It is so darn heavy, and so valauble. Players rarely understand what that means. I typically run a historical economy with a gold piece worth 240 pennies. With something like 100 coins to an ENC point, it adds up.
In one adventure I put a lifesized stature, made of solid gold (enchanted for Strengtgh to hold it together). I needed to figure out just how much gold was in a 6' tall lifesize statue. Something like 2 tons of gold! It was worth about 49 million pennies. Watching the group trying to manuever a SIZ 50 object carefully (they didn't want to damage it, it was both magical and an object d'art) while adventuring for the next few weeks of game time was priceless entertainment.





Gnarsh said:
Hah. We had a character do that as well. Although she didn't fail her fetch rolll (wasn't sure it was possible for that to happen. Could have sworn if you failed that roll, you just failed and had to try again the next year. You only face the bad man if you succeed in awakening your fetch. But I could very well be wrong). In any case, she just had a really bad set of rolls. Rolled maximum on the number of rounds, and got nailed hard too many rounds in a row. Bad juju...


The situation was the same here. The player had a good chance, but just rolled bad. Unfortnately, the way it works is that if you awaken the fetch the Bad Man beats on you for 2d6 rounds. Otherwise he beats on you until he is destroyed (fat chance) or until the living person is posessed. A POW 35 Bad Man in possession of a character is not a good thing. It got a lot worse before it got better.
 
With the rulebook system (fail/fail-low wins, success/success-high wins)

25 vs. 5 - Lower wins 46.6%
80 vs. 60 - Lower wins 35.6%

Thats why i'll be using high wins for both.
 
Don Allen said:
Example... 150 vs. 75. The 75 would have to subract 50 from his percent chance giving him 25. You now roll 100% vs. 25%.

I know the idea probably sucks but...oh well.

That works fine.
 
Dort Onion said:
Thats why i'll be using high wins for both.

Ouch! Yes, that sucks. I think you're right.

I was thinking about combat, where you don't compare rolls on a tie but just apply the result from the table.

Simon Hibbs
 
Gaheir said:
The RQII system, I believe :o .

(For combat skills above 100% subtract the amount over 100% from opponents parry and defense skills.)

Ooohhh! I am so going to use that.
 
Jason said:
Gaheir said:
The RQII system, I believe :o .

(For combat skills above 100% subtract the amount over 100% from opponents parry and defense skills.)

Ooohhh! I am so going to use that.

A method that I suggested mimics this (sort of) but requires no subtraction: If your skill is over 100 and your % roll is under your (skill - 100*), then you treat your roll as if it were 100 higher, then compare with your opponent, highest roll wins.
When I earlier suggested this, I also wanted to keep crits at 1/10 skill, which would produce some weird plateaus in skill improvement from about 96% where you hit the auto fail threshhold until 112% where you hit the first roll that would be affected by this system, a roll of 12, since rolls of 01 to 11 would be crits, but a roll of 12 would count as 112, beating all regular successes that are lower than 112. Without crits, I'm pretty sure this mimics the subtraction/RQII method, since it removes (your skill-100) chances from your opponents possible successes. Am I missing something in the maths or is this just too clunky for anyone to want to use?

*I'm not counting this as subtraction by the same logic that we don't count determining the crit range as multiplication/division since you're just ignoring one of the digits of your skill %.
 
algauble said:
Jason said:
Gaheir said:
The RQII system, I believe :o .

(For combat skills above 100% subtract the amount over 100% from opponents parry and defense skills.)

Ooohhh! I am so going to use that.

A method that I suggested mimics this (sort of) but requires no subtraction: If your skill is over 100 and your % roll is under your (skill - 100*), then you treat your roll as if it were 100 higher, then compare with your opponent, highest roll wins.
When I earlier suggested this, I also wanted to keep crits at 1/10 skill, which would produce some weird plateaus in skill improvement from about 96% where you hit the auto fail threshhold until 112% where you hit the first roll that would be affected by this system, a roll of 12, since rolls of 01 to 11 would be crits, but a roll of 12 would count as 112, beating all regular successes that are lower than 112. Without crits, I'm pretty sure this mimics the subtraction/RQII method, since it removes (your skill-100) chances from your opponents possible successes. Am I missing something in the maths or is this just too clunky for anyone to want to use?

*I'm not counting this as subtraction by the same logic that we don't count determining the crit range as multiplication/division since you're just ignoring one of the digits of your skill %.

Not bad, but the flat-spots are weird.
 
AKAramis said:
Not bad, but the flat-spots are weird.

True, but they're fairly short and you still get the benefit of a higher skill when your chance is reduced through penalties, so I don't think it's a big deal.

Simon Hibbs
 
algauble said:
A method that I suggested mimics this (sort of) but requires no subtraction: If your skill is over 100 and your % roll is under your (skill - 100*), then you treat your roll as if it were 100 higher, then compare with your opponent, highest roll wins.
When I earlier suggested this, I also wanted to keep crits at 1/10 skill, which would produce some weird plateaus in skill improvement from about 96% where you hit the auto fail threshhold until 112% where you hit the first roll that would be affected by this system, a roll of 12, since rolls of 01 to 11 would be crits, but a roll of 12 would count as 112, beating all regular successes that are lower than 112. Without crits, I'm pretty sure this mimics the subtraction/RQII method, since it removes (your skill-100) chances from your opponents possible successes. Am I missing something in the maths or is this just too clunky for anyone to want to use?

Well. First off, people are talking about the "subtract skill over 100% from both sides" in the context of combat skills. Your system would apply more to the opposed skill rolls. In combat, you are only rolling your own skill and determining your level of success. Then both compare their levels of success on the table to see what happened. It doesn't really make sense to use your process in combat because there really isn't the concept of "see which one wins". It's quite possible for the attacker to succeed at hitting, and the defender to succeed at parrying, with the damage applied to the shield prior to going on to the armor.

As for opposed rolls, I haven't sat down and done the math, but I think your system still introduces similar problems to the "divide in half" process in MRQ. And it's theoretically a lot more confusing. So. If I'm at 110% and my opponent is at 80%, If I roll a 01-10, I automatically win since I'm adding 100 to my roll and highest succeeds (and he can't roll higher then 80). But what if I roll an 11? Do I now call that a regular success and win because I've got the lower roll? Or not? What if I have a 150% skill, but I roll a 51 and my 80% skilled opponent rolls a 50? He wins? We both succeeded normally, but he rolled lower, right?

I think the problem with your system is that you're double counting the range of rolls where the higher guy is likely to win anyway (low rolls under his skill). The problem with the halving process isn't in the low roll area, it's in the high roll. Halving correctly retains the ratio of odds to roll under one's skill, and retains the relative range for both parties. What it fails miserably at is retaining that relative range ratio for the rolls *over* one's skill. In that range, the high roll wins, which gives the lower skilled character an advantage as the higher skilled character advances over 100%. I don't see how your system addresses this high-roll problem at all. What's going to happen in your system is that by maintaining the full skill, all rolls (except 96-00) will be "success", so essentially, you're just rolling to see if the other guy can roll under your roll. Sure. If you also roll under your skill over 100%, you auto-win, but you'd likely have won if you'd rolled that low anyway, right?

Also, your system doesn't scale past 200%. That may or may not be an issue.

Honestly, for opposed skills, since the only real result you need is overcoming the opponent, I still maintain that subtracting the actual roll from your skill and then applying that as a subtraction to your opponents chance to succeed is the simpliest and most accurate method. Sure. It involves a couple of subtractions. But it's consistent with other mechanisms already in place. The GM will already apply subtractions to your skill based on environmental conditions (hurrying, difficult task, etc). This makes an opponents skill simply another modifier to your own skill. So if you take a -30% to your stealth because your trying to cross a well lit area, you might take an additional -28% if your opponent made his perception by 28%. You could even rule in some cases that if an opponent misses his opposed roll by a percentage that you get to *add* that number to your own. So a particularly unobservant watchman would make it easier for you to sneak past.

That's just how I've managed opposed type skill contests for a long time in RQ3. It works very well. The players get used to it pretty quickly. After a short time, they just automatically tell you how much they made or missed their skill by when rolling. You as the GM get to then determine the result based on your own roll (and hey! It allows you to fudge things if needed as well). It's not really any more math intensive then any other viable alternative I've seen presented, and it's a whole lot more conducive to making every skill point actually count.
 
Gnarsh said:
algauble said:
A method that I suggested mimics this (sort of) but requires no subtraction: If your skill is over 100 and your % roll is under your (skill - 100*), then you treat your roll as if it were 100 higher, then compare with your opponent, highest roll wins.
When I earlier suggested this, I also wanted to keep crits at 1/10 skill, which would produce some weird plateaus in skill improvement from about 96% where you hit the auto fail threshhold until 112% where you hit the first roll that would be affected by this system, a roll of 12, since rolls of 01 to 11 would be crits, but a roll of 12 would count as 112, beating all regular successes that are lower than 112. Without crits, I'm pretty sure this mimics the subtraction/RQII method, since it removes (your skill-100) chances from your opponents possible successes. Am I missing something in the maths or is this just too clunky for anyone to want to use?
I think I may not have explained this very well, since you aren't interpreting your specific examples the way that I intended. Let me try to explain/elaborate...
Well. First off, people are talking about the "subtract skill over 100% from both sides" in the context of combat skills. Your system would apply more to the opposed skill rolls. In combat, you are only rolling your own skill and determining your level of success. Then both compare their levels of success on the table to see what happened. It doesn't really make sense to use your process in combat because there really isn't the concept of "see which one wins". It's quite possible for the attacker to succeed at hitting, and the defender to succeed at parrying, with the damage applied to the shield prior to going on to the armor.
I was definitely intending for this to be a unified system for both skills and combat, though I didn't say anything to indicate this. I think that "see which one wins" can and should be introduced into combat. But it doesn't necessarily matter. Let's just address non-combat skills for the sake of discussion.
As for opposed rolls, I haven't sat down and done the math, but I think your system still introduces similar problems to the "divide in half" process in MRQ. And it's theoretically a lot more confusing. So. If I'm at 110% and my opponent is at 80%, If I roll a 01-10, I automatically win since I'm adding 100 to my roll and highest succeeds (and he can't roll higher then 80).
No. You automatically win because you rolled under 1/10 your skill - or a critical (unless your opponent also rolled a crit). The rules as written don't have crits on Opposed Tests, but I feel that they are indispensible (personal preference, I admit)
But what if I roll an 11? Do I now call that a regular success and win because I've got the lower roll? Or not?
a rolled 11 would count as 11 since it's over your skill of 110% - 100%, or 10%. That would be a weak regular success, and your opponent would win if he rolled a crit or any success of 11 to 80 (assuming ties go to your opponent). You'd still win if he rolled a 09 or a 10 ( a lower regular success - we're using blackjack style highest roll wins)
What if I have a 150% skill, but I roll a 51 and my 80% skilled opponent rolls a 50? He wins? We both succeeded normally, but he rolled lower, right?
Here too since we're using blackjack, your higher roll would win. If you had rolled a 49, under 150%-100% or 50%, you'd add 100 for 149. Since 149 is higher than 50, you'd win even though you rolled lower.
I think the problem with your system is that you're double counting the range of rolls where the higher guy is likely to win anyway (low rolls under his skill). The problem with the halving process isn't in the low roll area, it's in the high roll. Halving correctly retains the ratio of odds to roll under one's skill, and retains the relative range for both parties. What it fails miserably at is retaining that relative range ratio for the rolls *over* one's skill. In that range, the high roll wins, which gives the lower skilled character an advantage as the higher skilled character advances over 100%. I don't see how your system addresses this high-roll problem at all. What's going to happen in your system is that by maintaining the full skill, all rolls (except 96-00) will be "success", so essentially, you're just rolling to see if the other guy can roll under your roll. Sure. If you also roll under your skill over 100%, you auto-win, but you'd likely have won if you'd rolled that low anyway, right?
I haven't really addressed rolls over skill, but I'd go with the higher rolled failure wins if both parties fail their rolls.
Also, your system doesn't scale past 200%. That may or may not be an issue.
I'd extrapolate it out past 200% as well... In the above example, where you rolled a 149, let's say your opponent had a 280% instead of an 80%... we just add 200 to his roll of 50, and compare his 250 to your 149. If he had rolled an 81, we'd only add 100 for 181, so he'd still beat your 149. In fact you'd only beat him if you rolled a crit (1-15 in this case).
Honestly, for opposed skills, since the only real result you need is overcoming the opponent, I still maintain that subtracting the actual roll from your skill and then applying that as a subtraction to your opponents chance to succeed is the simpliest and most accurate method. Sure. It involves a couple of subtractions. But it's consistent with other mechanisms already in place. The GM will already apply subtractions to your skill based on environmental conditions (hurrying, difficult task, etc). This makes an opponents skill simply another modifier to your own skill. So if you take a -30% to your stealth because your trying to cross a well lit area, you might take an additional -28% if your opponent made his perception by 28%. You could even rule in some cases that if an opponent misses his opposed roll by a percentage that you get to *add* that number to your own. So a particularly unobservant watchman would make it easier for you to sneak past.

That's just how I've managed opposed type skill contests for a long time in RQ3. It works very well. The players get used to it pretty quickly. After a short time, they just automatically tell you how much they made or missed their skill by when rolling. You as the GM get to then determine the result based on your own roll (and hey! It allows you to fudge things if needed as well). It's not really any more math intensive then any other viable alternative I've seen presented, and it's a whole lot more conducive to making every skill point actually count.

I hope I've explained this a little better this time. Perhaps it's too clunky and wonky to work in play, but it my head it seems pretty straighforward. I'll readily admit that there are some problems with it, however, I'm just not sure they're the ones that you mentioned.
As for you method, I think it's flawless mathematically. I just thought that we were trying to avoid the two-to-three digit subtraction (ie roll 77, skill is 112%, that means I made the roll by 112-77 , or 35. Opposing skill level is 73%, 73%-35 is.... etc)

Thanks for your feedback!
-al
 
Back
Top