Chris Rice's suggestion for to-hit rolls

[Chris Rice]

I'd like to thank Skarg for giving some serious attention to the method. I've used it for quite some time and have never noticed any problems with it, but then I'm only playing with a small group of players who're not really rules focussed, so I may be unaware of some obvious flaw.

One thing that's been mentioned is that this method is "not TFT", I'm not sure why anyone would think this. TFT requires a single roll against DX to achieve a hit in combat (for example). This method does exactly the same, but also takes into account the opponents DX using a very simple mathematical model. It's still a single roll against DX.

I don't think it would be necessary for Melee (which I see as a basic introduction to TFT; though it is a game in its own right. But I've found it very useful for the expanded game, especially as an RPG and helps considerably once characters have higher attributes.

I've also used it for Spells. The Wizard in my games compares his IQ to the spell Level IQ. This gives him a modifier to his casting DX. I like this as it seems obvious to me that lower level spells should be easier to cast.

Thanks again Skarg.

[Rick_Smith]

Originally Posted by Chris Rice

...
One thing that's been mentioned is that this method is "not TFT", I'm not sure why anyone would think this. TFT requires a single roll against DX to achieve a hit in combat (for example). This method does exactly the same, but also takes into account the opponents DX using a very simple mathematical model. It's still a single roll against DX.
...

Hi Chris,
I try not to post unless I think I am adding something useful to the thread, so I don't make a lot of, "I agree", type posts.

However, I would like to say I do agree with you. Sure this is a TFT variant. We have suggested LOTS of variants, in the forum. And this fixes a key problem in old TFT, so even if someone does not want to use it, I think it is worthy of serious consideration.

Warm regards, Rick.

[JLV]

Originally Posted by Chris Rice

...snip...

I've also used it for Spells. The Wizard in my games compares his IQ to the spell Level IQ. This gives him a modifier to his casting DX. I like this as it seems obvious to me that lower level spells should be easier to cast.

Now that's an intriguing idea! I'm going to have to play around with this some!

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by zot

Yes, mechanically, it functions like combining both sides of an opposed roll into one dice roll. it's trades one side's roll for extra math. Personally I like having two players roll and avoiding the subtraction and division but I'm not sure how universal that is.

I actually like that too. In fact, I like the GURPS system of active defenses, with added house rules... but this one-roll system is fascinating me at the moment because it's very smooth/simple (if the math is easy enough for the person doing it), and it opens up and extends the range of significant values indefinitely (and if the ability difference is more than 10, the outcome is almost certain anyway).

One disadvantage that can only be eliminated by the GM, however, is that you have to reveal the opponent's adjDX... that I don't like.

[JLV]

Actually, Skarg, I think that's a brilliant idea. I don't think it will be adopted for TFT, because TFT would have to be extensively re-written to accommodate it, but it's still absolutely brilliant. And while it requires some math up front, I suspect that after using it for a few fights, it would become very much easier -- sort of like how we all memorized the various DX adjustments in the original game...

[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.

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!

[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.