Chris Rice's suggestion for to-hit rolls

[GlennDoren]

Ignoring the skill/DX of the defender (relative to the attacker) is probably my biggest issue with TFT (and I still love the game). Frankly, I would LOVE to have an official solution like this to fix this hole (in my opinion, of course) in the system.

And the additional math is negligible--it really is not that much, and would become second nature quickly.

[larsdangly]

There are variants of these ideas that I suspect would work well in play, but let's not forget the all important element of play testing: most of the ideas that come up in 'white room' discussions are not good at the table. I've made enough house rules and fantasy heart breakers to know this from experience!

[Jim Kane]

Originally Posted by larsdangly

There are variants of these ideas that I suspect would work well in play, but let's not forget the all important element of play testing: most of the ideas that come up in 'white room' discussions are not good at the table. I've made enough house rules and fantasy heart breakers to know this from experience!

Well said! And, let us also never forget:

What may work in the confines and isolation during testing on the Melee Arena map, may not translate down In The Labyrinth, where it really matters over the long-term.

JK

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by RobW

I tried a simple simulation comparing unarmoured 32pt fighters in round robin using the original TFT and this modified rule. The effect of the change, as expected, was to favour DX over ST, but the effects seem fairly small unless you are at extreme values.

https://imgur.com/C3WxP8K

To read the table, rows show how the named fighter's win percentage changes against the fighter in the columns, with the adoption of the proposed rule. For example, the chance a ST15 DX09 fighter defeats a ST09 DX15 drops 25% when we use the "opposed" system compared to regular TFT.

Values on either side of the diagonal should be the same but vary a little due to being simulated separately.

Thanks for running these, Rob!

The results are as I would expect. Mostly the 32-point matchups are the same or slightly adjusted.

The extreme cases (DX 14-15 vs DX 9-10) tend to favor the higher-DX 32-pointer because they reduce the already-low DX or the slower person, reducing the chance of a (usually-fight-winning) hit on a weak unarmored person by a big two-handed weapon. The biggest effect is with ST 9 DX 15 against ST 14 DX 10, which makes sense because DX 10 isn't that bad and one 3d-1 hit usually kills ST 9. Chris' system gives DX 10 a to-hit of 8 versus DX 15 (6 if suffering from a -5 hit, 5 if wounded down to 3 ST), which makes him much more likely to get taken out before he can hit. I rather like that adjustment, because it makes sense to me and in ordinary TFT, the ST 14 DX 10 tends to beat the ST 9 DX 15, and it makes sense to me the DX 15 would use some of his agility (his to-hit drops to 13) to avoid getting killed by the giant weapon.

Originally Posted by RobW

I like the fear that a ST15 DX09 battleaxe user provokes in the usual rules. So I can't see myself changing. But as I say, what surprised me was the relatively small effect of the proposed changes. Assuming I've done the sims right!

It seems to me that ST 15 DX 9 actually does quite well with this to-hit system. His to-hit remains 9 even against enemy adjDX 11 or 12, 8 up to enemy adjDX 13 to 14, and his to-hit increases to 10 against adjDX 9 or 10. Also, if you use the part I've been doing where you can choose to attack aggressively for +1 or +2 all-around, that makes the ST 15 DX 9 rather more scary - then he can get a to-hit of 10 against adjDX 14, at the cost of raising adjDX 14's to-hit from 12 back to 14, which is clearly an advantage... though it can also be countered if adjDX goes defensive.

[zot]

I have a change to Skarg's work that has the same probabilities but eliminates math, so combat should be smoother. But people here may view this as heretical and even more "not-TFT" than Chris' and Skarg's posts. It's still just one DX roll to attack though, so it's very much in line with original TFT in terms of speed and simplicity.

Switch to roll-high.

Using Skarg's numbers, here's how it would work:

Each player puts a DEF (defense) number on their character sheet. This is what attackers have to equal or exceed for a hit.

DEF = 10 + DX MOD

Put a modifier next to each attribute:

MOD = (attribute - 10) / 2, rounding up

Rounding up is a matter of taste but I based it on Skarg's chart where defensive advantage starts at a 1-point difference and goes by 2.

When you roll,

ATTACK ROLL = dice roll + DX MOD

If the attack roll equals or exceeds the target's DEF, you hit.

Modifiers are applied to your result rather than your attribute so +2 DX for attacking from the side adds 2 to your result rather than your DX (or you can think of it as changing your DX MOD, either way).

This can be used for any attribute roll, of course -- you can put a DEF number by each attribute for that.

Opposed rolls require less math than the current Legacy rules and they don't need any subtraction:

OPPOSED ROLLS: compare dice roll + MOD, highest result wins

Criticals are the reverse of the current ones:

Triple damage: 18
Double damage: 17
Automatic hit: 16
Automatic miss: 5
Dropped weapon: 4
Broken weapon: 3

I came up with this the other day and I had forgotten about this thread. I decided to search the forums to see if anyone had tried a roll-high mechanic and found Skarg's work and testing with his similar roll-low approach. That convinced me to use 1/2-point modifiers instead of full-point ones.

Thanks Skarg!

[edit] Also, things like weapon expertise that give your opponents -2 DX can just add to the DEF on your sheet -- less fiddly math during combat.

[TippetsTX]

Sooo... you realize you have essentially re-created D&D's 3.0/3.5 combat resolution model here, right (just using 3d6 instead of a d20)?

[zot]

Originally Posted by TippetsTX

Sooo... you realize you have essentially re-created D&D's 3.0/3.5 combat resolution model here, right (just using 3d6 instead of a d20)?

[major edits here after rethinking this a bit]

Of course Skarg's post #1 essentially recreates Champions v1 :).

But yes, the roll-high transformation is very close to D&D 3.X. TFT and D&D have always been very close, though -- they both use 3d6-based attributes. They also both use separate attack and damage rolls, with attack rolls close to attribute range. Not every system uses separate attack and damage rolls: Fudge and Fate, for instance, use an average attribute/skill of 0 with opposed for attacks and no separate damage roll (Tunnels & Trolls also uses opposed rolls with no separate damage roll). One fundamental difference between TFT and D&D 3.X is whether the defender's DX affects attack rolls, which is what both Chris and Skarg are experimenting with. That's really what narrows the gap between TFT and D&D. So maybe Skarg is the one who essentially recreated 3.X, just in a more roundabout way, by using both the attacker's and defender's DX in the attack roll and scaling by 1/2? (it's not me, it's him!) :)

Here's a simplification of Skarg's system (which stays with roll-low):

MOD = (DX - 10) / 2
ATK = 10 + MOD
DEF = MOD

Attack: roll equal or under your ATK - defender's DEF

DEF is separate because talents can modify it, like shield/weapon expertise and UC.

OK, here's a slightly different approach...

What about just subtracting the defender's defense from your DX?

DEF = (DX - 10) / 2 (rounded up)

It doesn't make equal DX opponents have a 50% chance to hit but it does help scaling.

[Axly Suregrip]

why isn't this in House Rules section?

[Chris Rice]

Originally Posted by Axly Suregrip

why isn't this in House Rules section?

The thread probably predates the house rules section.

[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.

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.

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

Originally Posted by zot

What about just subtracting the defender's defense from your DX?

DEF = (DX - 10) / 2 (rounded up)

It doesn't make equal DX opponents have a 50% chance to hit but it does help scaling.

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.