Chris Rice's suggestion for to-hit rolls

[zot]

Originally Posted by Skarg

Hi Zot,

I'm glad to see you taking interest in this variant (which yes, should be in the House Rules sub-forum).


Your first re-mix causes a couple of changes:

1) By making the needed roll greater than or equal to, you're making all to-hit rolls easier by +1.

Good point. I haven't actually run the numbers yet :).

Originally Posted by Skarg

2) By writing down a fixed MOD stat, you are losing precision, and making people need to have their DX go up by 2 to have any effect. In Chris' & my version, there is a comparison of the opposed figures' DX, and the table is offset in one direction versus the other, so every point of DX still matters. If you write down a rounded up MOD stat for each fighter, then you make DX 11 the same as DX 12, DX 13 the same as DX 14, etc.

Yeah, that loss of precision is annoying but subtraction and division during combat really bothers me.

The numbers are actually only off when the attacker's DX is even and the defender's DX is odd, so to restore the precision:

attacker gets +1 if their DX is even and the defender's is odd.

It's fiddly but only players with even adjDX need to worry about it.

The only thing players need to worry about now is recomputing their MODs when adjDX changes.

Even/odd comparison and recomputing MOD is still less work than subtract & divide for each hit so I think it's a win.

Also, since the lack of precision only occurs 25% of the time, you could potentially ignore it or make it an optional rule.

By the way, I think it makes sense for players to write both MOD and ATK (MOD + 10) on their sheets.

Here's a table for comparison:

| Adx | Ddx | ATK | Dmod | ADJ | ceil((Adx-Ddx)/2)+10 | ATK-Dmod+ADJ |
|-----+-----+-----+------+-----+----------------------+--------------|
|  12 |   8 |  11 |   -1 |   0 |                   12 |           12 |
|  12 |   9 |  11 |    0 |   1 |                   12 |           12 |
|  11 |   8 |  11 |   -1 |   0 |                   12 |           12 |
|  12 |  10 |  11 |    0 |   0 |                   11 |           11 |
|  12 |  11 |  11 |    1 |   1 |                   11 |           11 |
|  11 |   9 |  11 |    0 |   0 |                   11 |           11 |
|  11 |  10 |  11 |    0 |   0 |                   11 |           11 |
|  10 |   8 |  10 |   -1 |   0 |                   11 |           11 |
|  10 |   9 |  10 |    0 |   1 |                   11 |           11 |
|   9 |   8 |  10 |   -1 |   0 |                   11 |           11 |
|  12 |  12 |  11 |    1 |   0 |                   10 |           10 |
|  11 |  11 |  11 |    1 |   0 |                   10 |           10 |
|  11 |  12 |  11 |    1 |   0 |                   10 |           10 |
|  10 |  10 |  10 |    0 |   0 |                   10 |           10 |
|  10 |  11 |  10 |    1 |   1 |                   10 |           10 |
|   9 |   9 |  10 |    0 |   0 |                   10 |           10 |
|   9 |  10 |  10 |    0 |   0 |                   10 |           10 |
|   8 |   8 |   9 |   -1 |   0 |                   10 |           10 |
|   8 |   9 |   9 |    0 |   1 |                   10 |           10 |
|  10 |  12 |  10 |    1 |   0 |                    9 |            9 |
|   9 |  11 |  10 |    1 |   0 |                    9 |            9 |
|   9 |  12 |  10 |    1 |   0 |                    9 |            9 |
|   8 |  10 |   9 |    0 |   0 |                    9 |            9 |
|   8 |  11 |   9 |    1 |   1 |                    9 |            9 |
|   8 |  12 |   9 |    1 |   0 |                    8 |            8 |

Originally Posted by Skarg

The second one (which is also in your later simplification of my system) I see as a serious drawback.

Yes, it has about half the effect of Chris/my version.

The part about equal DX opponents having a 50% chance to hit each other, is one of the main features, though.

And as I mentioned before, also has the rounding problem.

You can get the full effect and precision by doing what you say but NOT dividing by 2, but then you get about double the effect that Chris' system has, which makes DX an even more powerful effect - too much, I would say.

Right about the rounding effect. I don't like that one too much either -- but it's (simple) way to make the defender's DX matter.

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by zot

Yeah, that loss of precision is annoying but subtraction and division during combat really bothers me.

One of these days I will see if I can find an elegant simplification without side effects.

Originally Posted by zot

Even/odd comparison and recomputing MOD is still less work than subtract & divide for each hit so I think it's a win.

Chris' is just DX A minus DX D, and an easily learned pattern or memorized table. You can think of it as division but it's just halving.


With a recorded MOD that is half DX -10 (and not using that optional rule where you have to think about whether each DX is odd or even), it means that half the adjDX values seem rather inefficient because you get a -1 to be hit with every other DX increase.

[zot]

Originally Posted by Skarg

One of these days I will see if I can find an elegant simplification without side effects.

Chris' is just DX A minus DX D, and an easily learned pattern or memorized table.

I started this attempt (before looking for old posts) thinking of just subtracting DX but that seemed too extreme.

Originally Posted by Skarg

You can think of it as division but it's just halving.

Right -- calling it "division" makes it sound much worse than it really is. Still, the subtraction plus halving seems to me like it'd bog things down. I've been working on my own system for years and years -- it's not much like TFT at all but I do use TFT as a benchmark for combat speed. Not too many systems are faster in my experience.

Originally Posted by Skarg

With a recorded MOD that is half DX -10 (and not using that optional rule where you have to think about whether each DX is odd or even), it means that half the adjDX values seem rather inefficient because you get a -1 to be hit with every other DX increase.

With or without the recorded MOD, modifiers are still getting cut in half. It's maybe just not as obvious to the players without a recorded MOD. For tracking even DX, I think players who are looking for that extra +1 might be motivated to look out for it. You could even use a token on the table for that :).

---

Situational advantages like attacking from behind, stunning, weapon expertise, etc. seem like they should affect the target number rather than get halved.

The Clumsiness spell also seems like it should affect the target number -- I think it's been tested and balanced for 1 ST to shift the roll by 2.

I'm not sure whether armor should affect DX before halving or affect the target number.

I'm hoping to play test this during this week or next, btw (fingers crossed).

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by zot

I started this attempt (before looking for old posts) thinking of just subtracting DX but that seemed too extreme.

Yeah, that is too extreme. You'd need to make DX cost twice as much as ST to balance it.

Originally Posted by zot

... Still, the subtraction plus halving seems to me like it'd bog things down. ... I do use TFT as a benchmark for combat speed. Not too many systems are faster in my experience.

System speed is different for different GMs and practice levels. When I've prepared, I can run GURPS combat almost as fast as TFT, and a little math doesn't slow me down much. I require players to tell me what they do when it's their turn to act. A GM who slows down for math, looks up rules during play, struggles with DX order, or lets players waffle during their turn, look up stats or rules, slowly count dice pips, etc, can take massively longer to get through a turn.

So I realize a rule that I can run easily may totally stop other players from using it. Still, I like to develop rules that work the way I want to, and later consider what might be an easy rule for others (unless/until one comes to mind).

Originally Posted by zot

With or without the recorded MOD, modifiers are still getting cut in half.

But the rounding effects are different if you subtract 10, halve and round first, as opposed to comparing DX and then halving and rounding that.

With Chris' compare-later system:

DX 10 attacks DX 10 at 10, and vice versa, of course.
DX 11 attacks DX 10 at 11, and DX 10 attacks DX 11 at 10.
DX 12 attacks DX 10 at 11, and DX 10 attacks DX 12 at 9.
DX 13 attacks DX 10 at 12, and DX 10 attacks DX 13 at 9.

Notice that each increase in DX results in either a +1 to hit or a -1 to opponent's attack. That more or less retains the same sort of balance for DX that the original game has.

With pre-calculated DEF = (DX - 10) / 2 (round up):

DX 10 attacks DX 10 at 10, and vice versa, of course.
DX 11 attacks DX 10 at 11, and DX 10 attacks DX 11 at 9.
DX 12 attacks DX 10 at 12, and DX 10 attacks DX 11 at 9.
DX 13 attacks DX 10 at 13, and DX 10 attacks DX 13 at 8.

Notice that each increase in DX gives you a +1 to hit, but every SECOND increase in DX ALSO gives you a -1 to be hit. So not only is the difference in DX 50% greater than in Chris' system, it's also uneven: increasing adjDX to an odd number is twice as impactful as increasing adjDX to an even number. And so in choosing armor or shield, you'd want to consider that it's better to reduce your adjDX to an odd number than to an even number.

[larsdangly]

I am not eager to re-engineer the attack roll in TFT because almost anything you do will twist the balance of values of ST, DX and IQ scores, and as it stands that balance is pretty close to perfect. 'Balance with diversity' is pretty hard to engineer in a game, and once you tilt the balance the diversity tends to go out the window as well (because everyone understands there is a preferred 'build' to be had).

Nevertheless...

If I did go down this road, I would not do it by introducing a DX modifier you have to calculate all the time. Rather, I would simply use the contested roll mechanics that are already in the book (i.e., an attack is a contest of DX). If you enforced this across the board for all attacks you would increase the value of DX so much that you'd probably never see another PC again with DX below 14. But you just might be able to pull it off if you had a limited menu of options:
1. All out attack: you roll 2d instead of 3d for your attack, but don't get to contest any attack rolled vs. you.
2. Normal: you roll 3d for your attack and to contest other people's attacks.
3. Defend (a revision of the existing Defend rules): you don't get to attack, but
you roll 2d vs. DX when you are contesting other people's attacks against you.

I haven't gamed it out, but I suspect there would still be some sort of role for a strong brute under these sorts of rules.

[Steve Plambeck]

Originally Posted by larsdangly

I am not eager to re-engineer the attack roll in TFT [snip] Nevertheless... If I did go down this road <snip>...you just might be able to pull it off if you had a limited menu of options:
1. All out attack: you roll 2d instead of 3d for your attack, but don't get to contest any attack rolled vs. you.
2. Normal: you roll 3d for your attack and to contest other people's attacks.
3. Defend (a revision of the existing Defend rules): you don't get to attack, but you roll 2d vs. DX when you are contesting other people's attacks against you.

I haven't gamed it out...

That very much parallels my old group's house rules, and we actually played that way a long time and found it a good way to go. We varied the DX adjustments rather than the # of dice rolled, but to similar effect.

[zot]

Originally Posted by Skarg

But the rounding effects are different if you subtract 10, halve and round first, as opposed to comparing DX and then halving and rounding that.

With Chris' compare-later system:

DX 10 attacks DX 10 at 10, and vice versa, of course.
DX 11 attacks DX 10 at 11, and DX 10 attacks DX 11 at 10.
DX 12 attacks DX 10 at 11, and DX 10 attacks DX 12 at 9.
DX 13 attacks DX 10 at 12, and DX 10 attacks DX 13 at 9.

Notice that each increase in DX results in either a +1 to hit or a -1 to opponent's attack. That more or less retains the same sort of balance for DX that the original game has.

With pre-calculated DEF = (DX - 10) / 2 (round up):

DX 10 attacks DX 10 at 10, and vice versa, of course.
DX 11 attacks DX 10 at 11, and DX 10 attacks DX 11 at 9.
DX 12 attacks DX 10 at 12, and DX 10 attacks DX 11 at 9.
DX 13 attacks DX 10 at 13, and DX 10 attacks DX 13 at 8.

Notice that each increase in DX gives you a +1 to hit, but every SECOND increase in DX ALSO gives you a -1 to be hit. So not only is the difference in DX 50% greater than in Chris' system, it's also uneven: increasing adjDX to an odd number is twice as impactful as increasing adjDX to an even number. And so in choosing armor or shield, you'd want to consider that it's better to reduce your adjDX to an odd number than to an even number.

The attack number for 12 is 11 and the attack number for 13 is 12.

Also, I think you forgot the +1 even/odd adjustment for 10 attacks 11 and 10 attacks 13. Since this only affects 25% of attacks, I'm still not sure whether it's worth tracking.

So I think my numbers actually end up the same as the ones you listed for Chris'.

Whatever system requires the least amount of consideration is good for me. As GM, I'll help the players if they need it but in general I want them to do the dice rolls on their own.

[zot]

Originally Posted by larsdangly

I am not eager to re-engineer the attack roll in TFT because almost anything you do will twist the balance of values of ST, DX and IQ scores, and as it stands that balance is pretty close to perfect. 'Balance with diversity' is pretty hard to engineer in a game, and once you tilt the balance the diversity tends to go out the window as well (because everyone understands there is a preferred 'build' to be had).

Nevertheless...

If I did go down this road, I would not do it by introducing a DX modifier you have to calculate all the time. Rather, I would simply use the contested roll mechanics that are already in the book (i.e., an attack is a contest of DX). If you enforced this across the board for all attacks you would increase the value of DX so much that you'd probably never see another PC again with DX below 14. But you just might be able to pull it off if you had a limited menu of options:
1. All out attack: you roll 2d instead of 3d for your attack, but don't get to contest any attack rolled vs. you.
2. Normal: you roll 3d for your attack and to contest other people's attacks.
3. Defend (a revision of the existing Defend rules): you don't get to attack, but
you roll 2d vs. DX when you are contesting other people's attacks against you.

I haven't gamed it out, but I suspect there would still be some sort of role for a strong brute under these sorts of rules.

That sounds like it could work.

I don't like the subtractions for "margin of success" but maybe it's really not such a big deal -- I haven't actually played it out. Maybe I just have a mental block about it because in roll-high systems you just compare the numbers and that seems so much less of a hassle to me.

You do get WAY chunkier critical behavior on 2 dice though, <= 5 on 3 dice is about 4.5% but <= 3 on 2 dice is 8.3% and 2 on 2 dice is about 2.75%. Maybe if you get a 2 or 3 on 2 dice you make a second roll to "confirm the crit". 2-3 triple, 4-5 double, 6-7 automatic seems like it roughly corresponds to the percentages.

[zot]

So my friend suggested rounding up for the attack number and down for the defense number. This had the effect of changing the adjustment: when both the attacker and defender's DX is odd, the attacker gets a -1 to their attack number.

I like this better because you don't have to remember whether it's the attacker or defender that needs to be even for the adjustment to apply.

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by zot

So my friend suggested rounding up for the attack number and down for the defense number. This had the effect of changing the adjustment: when both the attacker and defender's DX is odd, the attacker gets a -1 to their attack number.

I like this better because you don't have to remember whether it's the attacker or defender that needs to be even for the adjustment to apply.

I haven't really followed here, but if you simply took the delta of each from 10, halved it, and don't round on the charsheet ( So DX 15/+2.5) and just carried that modifier, you could decide to either round fractions up or drop fractions, but if you're doing 2.5 - 1.5, that's 1.0 and it takes care of itself. Yeah, you have the 1/2 number on the charsheet, but you only have a subtraction to do, and then you can decide round up or drop fractions. Round up favors the attacker (which is more true to the proper TFT rules which favor attacking) drop fractions favors the defender. Both simple.