Skip to Content

Dodge vs Block mechanics for turn based combat system

46 replies [Last post]
X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Absolutely true that the

Absolutely true that the attacker has notching to do with the current suggestion.

In addition:
The accuracy of a swordsman can be treated seperately. Called accuracy? You could give it any name. Where another roll is needed for hitting for sure.

The 2 aren't really intertwened with this approach.
And with treating the 2 seperate, we get a factoral effect. (accuracy 1 = 1/6th chance, and agility 6 = 1/6th chance, a total of 1/36th chance, which can be rather low)

However, I understand if you rather have the 2 intertwened and just one die roll. In addition, you want the effects some sort of lineair? Also when agility and "accuracy" are equal, the chance is 50%? In that case, I need to brain storm myself.

Further more, you want to apply bonusses to the stats. These need to be taken in account as well.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
How'boutthis?

Yet another suggestion, although I do not know the chances yet of success rates. (If I have time tomorrow, I will try to calculate. But I think a simulation program would do better)

How about simply use the amount of dice equal to the attackers agility.
Then an amount of dice equal to the defenders agility.
Each 6 rolled counts as an success.

The number of successes are counted, the highest amount of successes wins.
In case of equal successes, all the 5 are taken into account. Then the 4 etc.
If even the last one is equal, the attacker places a hit with success.

This means that even if the attacker has only 1 agility (=1 die) and the defender has 6 agility (= 6 dice). The attacker has still a chance on hitting.

Of course if the defender rolls even one 6, while the attacker has rolled one 6. The defender automatically wins.

Example 1:
Attackers agility = 4
Defenders agility = 4
Attacker rolls 6522
Defender rolls 6554

Both have one 6. Thus we go to the next number, 5. The defender has two fives while the attacker has only 1. The defender successfully dodged.

Example 2:
Attackers agility = 2
Defenders agility = 6
Attacker rolls 61
Defender rolls 543221

Clearly the attacker has one more 6 than the defender. The attacker places a hit with success.

Example 3:
Attackers agility = 5
Defenders agility = 3
Attacker rolls 54311
Defender rolls 543

The attacker and defender have rolled the same numbers for the first 3 dice. The defender has no more dice, thus fails in dodging.

I hope I explained this one well.

Experimental Designs
Experimental Designs's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/20/2013
devaloki wrote: Remember, the

devaloki wrote:

Remember, the scale I'm going for in the game is similar to how it is with fights in the game "castle ravenloft" if you've ever played that one.

I was kinda thinking in the same way as far as scale is concerned but I never had the chance to play it often as I wanted to.

X3M wrote:

I am not that kind of a meister you know. I love math, but even I must bow down to the simulators and one other person on this forum.

I dunno you can pull out some really wicked math scenarios that makes my head spin at times and I'm supposedly a minor in engineering.

Call it lazy but I'm used to a computer running the simulation and crunching the numbers. My poor ol' brain can't handle it. This reminds me of a scene from Mass Effect 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUX4cL1AP28

Anyway back to the topic at hand.

A dice pool you can go either way with a threshold dynamic like I suggested or something similar in the form of a success pool as X3M has put forth. Now to run a simulator on critical effects then we can see what fun things can be done for a character. A barbarian style character could have perks such as critical decapitation if you ever roll four sixes or something.

Critical wounds of the sort or critical defense if you so many of the same number in defense you could counter-attack or even stun the attacker.

So many things can be done with a dice pool.

devaloki
devaloki's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/15/2014
Alright you all, I'm back,

Alright you all, I'm back, I'll respond to what you all wrote and also I have some new ideas and such of my own to put forward to. So let's start...

"Could you please tell me what your definition of a dice pool is?"

It's where you roll a bunch of d6s and you look at each dice individually INSTEAD of adding them together. So a 2 d6 dice pool is where you roll 2 dice and look at what each individual dice shows, whereas a 2d6 nondice pool system is where you would roll 2 dice and add together the pips to get a result between 2-12. When I talk about dice pools on here I’ll go go by things like “2 d6” rather than “2d6” so we know that it’s a dice pool I’m referring to.
The two main dice pool systems I'm considering working around are:
1. Roll d6s, there's a target number you are aiming for on each individual dice. Each dice that makes that result gives you +1 success. Opponent does the same and you compare the number of successes to one another to see who won the conflict. Versus certain events you would simply roll the dice and see if you got a success (or certain # of successes; rolling 6s in that case "explode" and grant you a success plus you get an extra dice to roll).
or
2. Each side rolls d6s, find the highest individual die rolled on each side. Whoever rolled highest wins. In case of a tie, compare the next pair and so on and so forth.

I'm leaning toward the second one I mentioned above in regard to combat, whilst using the first one for dealing with events. Since this thread is about combat though, let's continue to focus on just that aspect of my game.
I’m trying to figure out a way for how dodge and block works using the second system as said.

"And my game that I am designing also has all the stats of 1-6. The only difference is that you are going above 6."

The above 6 thing isn't set in stone. If it is possible to above 6, then the system will be based upon a comparison of stats to determine base dice pools . For example, without a comparison based system, a person with 3 accuracy versus a defender with 4 agility/defense would simply be 3 d6 vs 4 d6. If it's comparison based, then it would be a matter of comparing accuracy to agility/defense...if accuracy is equal both sides would roll 2 d6. If it's lower by one attacker would roll 2 d6, opponent 3 d6. If it's lower by 2, 2 d6 vs 3 d6 and at max if stat difference is 3+ then one side would 2 d6 and the other 4 d6. Then you'd factor in other +d6 bonuses such as weapon speed bonus, reach bonus, spell buffs, etc... to ultimately make each side's d6 pool in total.

"Perhaps it is better to have 6 as a maximum? And give the creature something extra instead? Like a secondary chance of hitting twice for example?"

If I do have it as a maximum then yes, I'd definitely do your idea here. It'd be based upon whatever gear they are using. Skills are printed on the gear themselves. For example, a weapon may have a basic attack, but if you have , say for example, 3+ agility then you could do a special attack. Perhaps higher level weapons could have special attacks that are unlockable if you have 7+ of certain stats. In that case, 6 would simply be the maximum you get for the base bonus of the stat itself.

**An important note I forgot to mention about stats as well: The amount of d6s you get based upon your stats will either be one of three possible options I'm considering:
1. The simplest way would be that you get d6s equal to the stat itself. In which case I may have the stats range from 2-7 instead of 1-6, since I'd like the player to get a base minimum of 2 d6s for any combat roll to hit pool (this way, defenders spells/abilities could reduce the minimum to the absolute lowest of 1 d6).
or
2. Stats only give you a +1 d6 equal to the stat value divided in half, rounded down. This would be known as the "stat bonus." You always start with 1 d6 for dice pool then add +d6s = to stat bonus + other bonuses. So a stat of 1 would give +0, 2-3=+1, 4-5=+2, 6=+3 and so on.
or
3. It would be based upon a comparison, as noted in the section where I talked about it in this post. I'm leaning towards that being how it is utilized, because the other ones may make it so the player has to roll a ton of dice every time they do combat checks once you get to higher levels of stats and enemies etc.

So as said, option 3 is what I'm leaning toward.
When I first started working on system, I thought I'd have it 2d6 based. If you look at my earlier threads you can see that, with the table I posted. I'd still like to do similar with a table that compares stats and shows what you roll, but instead of 2d6 it'd be a d6 pool system.

"For example, 2 successes while you need 3, you place 2 counters on the targeted creature for a next round. But then we fall back into the tracking of health.t"

I dont' like that idea.

"Another approach is having more successes than your opponent. And simply making sure any one can roll 0 successes. Thus 1D6 can beat 6D6, even though the chance is very slim.
For this, simply consider each die roll 0-5, not 1-6."

That's what I'm leaning toward. The thing you mentioned about 0-5 instead of 1-6 is a notable idea, but I don't think I'd apply it that way, since d6s in my game will be standard dice not custom ones.

"For example, having a chance of 20 out of 36. We need to roll one 4 or higher, and one 5 or higher. To differentiate here, red is the 4 or higher roll and blue is the 5 or higher roll."

That is really cool idea but I'm not sure how I'd implement that. Also, during the roll to hit I plan on having 3 colours for the dice. One colour is to show its the attacker's pool. The 2nd colour is for the defender's pool. A third colour will be for the attacker's weapon's possible special affect. For example, a poison dagger could read "effect die: poisons enemy on roll of 6."
Having said that though, it will be that way if the roll to hit is an OPPOSED test (meaning, you compare your roll against opponent's rather than rolling to reach a target number or number of successes). It is possible I may change the system to an unopposed test.

devaloki
devaloki's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/15/2014
" Also when agility and

" Also when agility and "accuracy" are equal, the chance is 50%?"
Yes, that'll be true no matter what system I use.

Another aspect of combat though is regarding:
weapon reach

Combat range will be either fully abstract or using a simple range bands system (e.g. close and long range zones; or close, medium, and long).

Weapon reach will be ranked according to number, 1 shortest, 6 longest. I'm thinking of having it so that the weapon with longer reach gets to hit first and gets +1 d6 to their pool, but for subsequent rounds the shorter reach weapon gets the +1 d6 bonus to their pool.

*But to keep on track with this thread, what I'm really trying to figure out here is what differentiates block and dodge from each other in the system.
From what I've been thinking of after working on this thread, is that dodge will simply be based on agility stat , agility will be limited by type of armour worn, and that it's always an active thing used when an enemy tries to hit you.
Block on the other hand needs a shield to use, and you must spend an AP to use it (and/or alternatively, shields can get one free block a round, you tap the card sideways to show that it's been used that round). You roll a d6 and it could give you extra Damage Reduction possibly. So shields can give you possibly more armour basically.
Or instead of working that way, they could give you a saving throw, a target number you must reach on 2d6. If you reach it, you reduce the damage you take from a hit, depending on the size of the shield vs size of the weapon. It'll either be no reduction, half reduction, or all reduction.

And shields could have special effects too. Small shields, though they don't block as good, could parry a to hit dice, making opponent reroll a die in the to hit roll pool. Large shields could provide automatic DR versus ranged weapons.

devaloki
devaloki's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/15/2014
X3M, yeah definitely, that's

X3M, yeah definitely, that's the type of system I'd like to use, because it gives a CHANCE for success even if you are very outmatched by an opponent.
The "count the successes" type of system you mentioned is cool. The other style I'm leaning toward more though is similar, but not quite the same:

Instead of counting successes, each side looks for their highest single rolled dice. Whoever has highest wins. If there's a tie , compare next highest.

Perhaps you could let me know how the math and chances of successes compare between these two systems?

Let's say that the accuracy of the attacker is 3 d6 and the agility/defense of defender is 5 d6.
Using system 1 (5+s count as successes, count number of successes. alternatively, only 6s count) vs system 2 (roll pools, choose highest single rolled dice of the bunch between the two pools; if tied, compare next highest), how does it compare?

"How about simply use the amount of dice equal to the attackers agility.
Then an amount of dice equal to the defenders agility.
Each 6 rolled counts as an success."

I think I may change the name of that stat to something else than "Agility" if the stat represents both your capability of dodging as well as your accuracy with weapons in melee. And it does make sense to have them as one stat (though, I was conflicted in my past threads as to whether or not to have them as one or two separate stats), because people would want to upgrade that stat, even if they don't intend to play as a nimble rogue for example.
Perhaps "Dexterity" could be name for the stat? I'll have to think about it

X3M wrote:
Yet another suggestion, although I do not know the chances yet of success rates. (If I have time tomorrow, I will try to calculate. But I think a simulation program would do better)

How about simply use the amount of dice equal to the attackers agility.
Then an amount of dice equal to the defenders agility.
Each 6 rolled counts as an success.

The number of successes are counted, the highest amount of successes wins.
In case of equal successes, all the 5 are taken into account. Then the 4 etc.
If even the last one is equal, the attacker places a hit with success.

This means that even if the attacker has only 1 agility (=1 die) and the defender has 6 agility (= 6 dice). The attacker has still a chance on hitting.

Of course if the defender rolls even one 6, while the attacker has rolled one 6. The defender automatically wins.

Example 1:
Attackers agility = 4
Defenders agility = 4
Attacker rolls 6522
Defender rolls 6554

Both have one 6. Thus we go to the next number, 5. The defender has two fives while the attacker has only 1. The defender successfully dodged.

Example 2:
Attackers agility = 2
Defenders agility = 6
Attacker rolls 61
Defender rolls 543221

Clearly the attacker has one more 6 than the defender. The attacker places a hit with success.

Example 3:
Attackers agility = 5
Defenders agility = 3
Attacker rolls 54311
Defender rolls 543

The attacker and defender have rolled the same numbers for the first 3 dice. The defender has no more dice, thus fails in dodging.

I hope I explained this one well.

devaloki
devaloki's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/15/2014
"So many things can be done

"So many things can be done with a dice pool."
It definitely can, that's what I'm liking about it with experimenting around with it for ideas.
It's a rather vague question, but do you have any other ideas/tips on threshold type mechanics for things?

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
devaloki wrote:"Another

devaloki wrote:

"Another approach is having more successes than your opponent. And simply making sure any one can roll 0 successes. Thus 1D6 can beat 6D6, even though the chance is very slim.
For this, simply consider each die roll 0-5, not 1-6."

That's what I'm leaning toward. The thing you mentioned about 0-5 instead of 1-6 is a notable idea, but I don't think I'd apply it that way, since d6s in my game will be standard dice not custom ones.


Well, of course the dice stay the same.
Here is another approach in this while not using 0-5 directly, but indirectly:
Simply add up the numbers. Then subtract the number of dice that are used.
When a player uses 6 dice and rolls 123456 = 21
6 is subtracted, giving 15.
When that same player rolls 111111 = 6, the end result is 0.
This means that no matter how many dice you roll, the minimum is always 0. And 0 means, there is always a chance for your opponent.
Perhaps if you look at it this way, you might use it as a valid option. Even though it requires adding up the score.

devaloki wrote:

"For example, having a chance of 20 out of 36. We need to roll one 4 or higher, and one 5 or higher. To differentiate here, red is the 4 or higher roll and blue is the 5 or higher roll."

That is really cool idea but I'm not sure how I'd implement that. Also, during the roll to hit I plan on having 3 colours for the dice.


It is a tricky one. You could have 2 stats for an attacker? Dexterity and Focus? Whereas the 2 combined are the chance for an hit. If dexterity is high, then it would be wise to use a bonus on focus, since that would dramatically increase the chance.

The good part is, you use 2D6 all the time. The bad part is, you are limited to 6 for each statistic. If you have a bonus of +3 in total in mind, one 4 and one 5 is the maximum to give to any unit.

And to top it of, I didn't think here about the defender. Is the defender going to do the same?
And you are already using different colours of dice. Thus it would become more complex.

This mechanic needs more thoughts if it is to be reconsidered.

devaloki wrote:

" Also when agility and "accuracy" are equal, the chance is 50%?"
Yes, that'll be true no matter what system I use.

A lot of people hate the fact that an infinite try of rolls is possible. So there for, always give one of the 2 parties the last call?
In Risk, it is the defender when there is an equal roll.

devaloki wrote:

Combat range will be either fully abstract or using a simple range bands system (e.g. close and long range zones; or close, medium, and long).

Having only close and long range should mean that you are going to make use of the meat/support tactic. Where the front-line is able to take the hits. Or else that system has no use.
With close, medium and long range. You also can add some sort of RPS bonus. The most used one is close < medium < long < close.
I don't think you can have a natural RPS though. Is it possible to create an natural RPS in your game regarding range?
Because, if so, go for it. Players love it.

devaloki wrote:

Weapon reach will be ranked according to number, 1 shortest, 6 longest. I'm thinking of having it so that the weapon with longer reach gets to hit first and gets +1 d6 to their pool, but for subsequent rounds the shorter reach weapon gets the +1 d6 bonus to their pool.

That is a good approach.
I got something similar (Risk like) since my soldiers actually need time to get closer on the board. :)

devaloki wrote:

Instead of counting successes, each side looks for their highest single rolled dice. Whoever has highest wins. If there's a tie , compare next highest.

That is one way to approach. And I believe there was a test thread on that one somewhere on this forum?

The one I proposed is the number of highest dice. Thus how many 6 do we have? The outcomes, I suspect, will be completely different.

devaloki wrote:

Perhaps you could let me know how the math and chances of successes compare between these two systems?

I am sorry, even though you think I am good in math. I am indeed smart enough to say: "I clearly don't know how to write simulator programs." Which are needed for comparing the 2. I always get stuck when dice are reordered. Only a program can do that.
Perhaps you could open a separate thread for those two to be calculated?

devaloki wrote:

Perhaps "Dexterity" could be name for the stat? I'll have to think about it

When you use it for your attack AND defence. I think Dexterity is the only word out there that perfectly matches.

devaloki
devaloki's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/15/2014
Will respond more in depth

Will respond more in depth when I can but wanted to comment/clarify on this:

"And you are already using different colours of dice. Thus it would become more complex.

This mechanic needs more thoughts if it is to be reconsidered."

The different coloured dice are only there to differentiate between which dice are the attacker's and which are the defender's (and one, and only one, separate d6 from the attacker's pool will be a separate colour from both pools; that die is the status effect die used to see if a weapon/spell etc. causes a status effect or not). This is so it cuts down on the number of rolls. You could play the system without having different coloured dice, but you'd have to
1. roll attacker's pool
then
2. roll attacker's status effect dice
then
3. roll defender's pool

If you use three separate coloured dice then one would only have to physically roll one pool of dice for the entire thing.

Experimental Designs
Experimental Designs's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/20/2013
devaloki wrote:"So many

devaloki wrote:
"So many things can be done with a dice pool."
It definitely can, that's what I'm liking about it with experimenting around with it for ideas.
It's a rather vague question, but do you have any other ideas/tips on threshold type mechanics for things?

I call it a threshold mechanic because you're basically trying to hit a sweet spot in what you need to do to get the desired effect. It is very much like the reloading slider on Gears of War if you hit the reload tap at the right moment you reload faster and if your timing was good enough you get a reload bonus to get additional damage. That's about the best way to translate it from my perspective anyway.

It was in response towards most games that you can roll so well for to-hit rolls and yet you end up rolling crap on to-damage rolls. So if you roll well on to-hit roll it could off-set a little if you roll poorly on the to-damage portion with a location bonus. That way it can differentiates between if you hit a person in a most commonly hit (and also the most protected) center-mass versus hitting them in some place more vital and less protected part of the anatomy such as a limb or the head. This doubles in taking away a locality roll found in some games depending how simple or complex you want it.

My approach to the threshold style mechanic is mainly for 2D6 and D20 dice ranges but it can work just as well with a dice pool.

I don't know what kind of ideas you're looking for other than what few random ideas I've put forth previously.

There a few options to consider with the threshold style mechanic is you can either make your game into a "fast-kill" skirmish or a "slow-kill" RPG. What I think would be fun for the threshold style using a dice pool dynamic is the critical effects for characters. At least with dice pools you could theoretically roll an infinite amount of combos, doubles, triples or whatever you want as a critical effect.

My advice is the easier and more common type combo/critical effect requirements should not be as powerful as a more difficult and least common combo/critical happen such as if you roll four 6s in a dice pool you'll get a uber-critical effect or something. It's difficult to do but I've seen it done. I've rolled five 6s out of six dice before.

Critical effects could occur in either to-hit rolls or to-damage rolls depending on what you want.

Also don't forget a nifty mechanic in a dice pool called the exploding dice rule. Exploding dice means anytime you roll a 6 on D6 you get to roll another D6. Look up Dystopian Wars or Firestorm Armada from Spartan Games to get some insight.

I hope that helps.

devaloki
devaloki's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/15/2014
X3M, "When that same player

X3M,
"When that same player rolls 111111 = 6, the end result is 0.
This means that no matter how many dice you roll, the minimum is always 0. And 0 means, there is always a chance for your opponent.
Perhaps if you look at it this way, you might use it as a valid option. Even though it requires adding up the score."
It's an interesting idea but a bit too complex imo.

"
It is a tricky one. You could have 2 stats for an attacker? Dexterity and Focus? Whereas the 2 combined are the chance for an hit. If dexterity is high, then it would be wise to use a bonus on focus, since that would dramatically increase the chance."

Yeah, but what would that mean for each stat separately? So your chance to hit is based on two your stats (dex+focus) compared against the defender's defense. But what would Dex and Focus do by themselves?

"A lot of people hate the fact that an infinite try of rolls is possible. So there for, always give one of the 2 parties the last call?
In Risk, it is the defender when there is an equal roll."
Yeah definitely, since you can't have a test that determines if someone is hit or not be "a draw." Ties in that case would go to defender. That's if I have it so that it's an opposed test (i.e. attacker and defender both roll dice) compared to an unopposed test (i.e. only attacker physically rolls dice).

"Having only close and long range should mean that you are going to make use of the meat/support tactic. Where the front-line is able to take the hits. Or else that system has no use."
Yeah, true, and that's what I'm trying to get around though since the scale of combat in my game is one hero (occasionally a few allies and/or other heroes) vs a few enemies. In other words, there aren't very many units in battle at all. So if it's just one hero vs say 2 enemies then I'd have to think of a different way to implement range rather than simply close and long range.

"I don't think you can have a natural RPS though. Is it possible to create an natural RPS in your game regarding range?"
By RPS do you mean rock, paper, scissors?

"That is a good approach.
I got something similar (Risk like) since my soldiers actually need time to get closer on the board. :)"
Thanks :] . Keep in mind, combat in my game isn't handled on the main board. The main board ("Overworld") is a map showing locations in the world that you travel to and move around on. When combat occurs it will either occur on a separate miniboard or it will be abstract with regard to range.
If it's a miniboard, it'll be so there is no terrain, just simple zones you move through, similar to how it is in the game "Mage Wars." If it's that way, what I'd like to avoid is the problem of where a unit can keep moving backwards out of range of melee opponents.
If it's abstract, it'd use the reach idea I had. Combat would work something like this from what I've come up with so far(I understand this is a separate topic from the thread title, sorry to veer of course too much):

1. Ranged attacks phase get first hit.
2. Melee round "A", strike in order of highest reach to lowest reach, ties in reach are broken by agility, if still tied hero gets to strike first. When attacking opponent, get +1 to hit if you've higher reach than opponent you try to hit.
3. Melee round B, strike in order of lowest reach to highest reach, ties broken in same way as round A. Get +1 to hit if you've lower reach than opponent you try to hit.
4. From then on combat would go in terms of rounds, strike order based upon agility stat (or alternatively, speed of weapon, if speed ends up being a stat for weapons), including for ranged attacks, no reach bonuses. Each combatant gets a certain number of AP (action points) each round, when it's your turn you take an action, then it goes to next combatant, if you're out of AP then it keeps going till everyone is out of AP and then a round starts. Steps 1-3 would be for initial start of combat.

Maybe this is needlessly complex though. The type of system I'm trying to go for is:

- One where range is handled either fully abstractly or through simple range zones. There should be no things such as "they are 10 spaces away" or "they are 6 yards away." Just simple close, medium, and long range zones; or a few square zones you move through (like in Mage Wars); or fully abstract where you go through steps in combat (Range phase, Highest Reach, Lowest Reach, regular thereafter).

and

- Combat takes a few rounds to complete. The feel should be similar to a more complex version of gamebooks/choose-your-own-adventure style combat in games like Fabled Lands, Lone Wolf, Destiny Quest etc...Players have HP.

"The one I proposed is the number of highest dice. Thus how many 6 do we have? The outcomes, I suspect, will be completely different."

If the target number is 6 then I suppose it would be for the most part similar.
Although...
Let's say I roll 3 dice and you roll 5 dice.
Roll 1: I roll 6, 6, 5. You roll 6, 6, 4, 3, 2. If we use the mechanic of counting 6s as successes, it'd be a tie. But if we use the mechanic I mentioned of choosing highest numbers, I'd win, since even though we both roll 2 6s , the next highest die for me was 5 while for you it was 4. I'll test them out, they're both viable for what I'm aiming to do with my game. I'll see which one works better in the end.

"
When you use it for your attack AND defence. I think Dexterity is the only word out there that perfectly matches."
Well, that part is settled then :] .

Also, I've been thinking about my original question with dodge vs block differentiation in a system that uses dice pools for the to-hit roll and damage reduction for armour. Block I think I'll have it so that it function as a variable damage reduction number, unique for each shield. I will also try out a threshold mechanic though and see how it goes alternatively.
Dodge though I'm still contemplating about. I'm going to reread through everything on the thread and test things out.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Quote: It's an interesting

Quote:

It's an interesting idea but a bit too complex imo.

Not complex. Only a lot of work when having 2 times 12 dice ;)
But I am sure people can add the numbers of the dice up.
If not;
As a helping technique. They still can snatch away equal dice.
As long as the number of dice that are still on the table are subtracted from the total score.

Example:
Player A may use 9 dice, player B may use 11 dice.
Player A rolls 263446641
Player B rolls 31463145625
A = 123444666 (=36, -9=27)
B = 11233445566 (=40, -11=29, 2 higher than A)
We can remove for each player, a 1, a 2, a 3, 2x 4's, and 2x 6's
What remains for the player is:
A = 46
B = 1355
Then we add them up:
A has a total of 10, minus 2 dice = 8
B has a total of 14, minus 4 dice = 10
B wins that one, with 2 more score than A.

I don't know of any simpler technique that gives both players a chance. And allows a range of 1 - 12 dice for each.

If the example isn't clear, I give more. The key in that one is that the difference in score is always the same. No matter if you add the dice score up, or you remove equal dice first than add them up.
The most important thing with that mechanic is the subtraction of the dice that are still on the table.

***

With RPS, I indeed mention Rock/Paper/Scissor.

***

I hope you have written each method down and you take note of the results. I am curious what you are going to choose.
The one with comparing the highest number gives lower chances for the losing player than the one where you compare the number of highest.

Quote:

If the target number is 6 then I suppose it would be for the most part similar.
Although...
Let's say I roll 3 dice and you roll 5 dice.
Roll 1: I roll 6, 6, 5. You roll 6, 6, 4, 3, 2. If we use the mechanic of counting 6s as successes, it'd be a tie. But if we use the mechanic I mentioned of choosing highest numbers, I'd win, since even though we both roll 2 6s , the next highest die for me was 5 while for you it was 4.

Wait, didn't I propose that one as well? :)

devaloki
devaloki's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/15/2014
"I hope you have written each

"I hope you have written each method down and you take note of the results. I am curious what you are going to choose."
This is what I'm doing now, I'm going to work on things a lot and let you know what I come up with.

I have something else that's been on my mind though perhaps you could help with:

Concerning blocking in the game, it will function as a variable Damage Reduction mechanic. So, shields have a chance to soak up some damage a bit for you. Whereas dodging (or rather, the passive agility stat that determines how hard you are to hit) determines whether you are simply hit or not at all.

To give an example:

You may have a chain mail armour set. It could give you 5 Damage Reduction points base. Then you could use a shield. Shields give a shield saving throw, you roll a single d6 during the damage step to see how much Damage Reduction they add in addition to your armour.
A buckler could read like:
d6 result 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6=
+0, +1, +1, +1, +1, +2
Kite shield could give:
+0, +0, +0, +1, +2, +3
Tower shield could give:
+0, +0, +1, +2, +2, +3, +1 versus ranged attacks bonus.

So a player should choose wisely whether to block or dodge based upon what gear they have, what enemy they are facing, and what action the enemy is taking.

But if agility functions as a passive number (and is limited by the equipment, particularly the armour, you wear. e.g. heavy armour lowers your agility making you easier to hit) that you don't spend an AP (action point) on in combat, then where does the choice come in during the ebb and flow of combat? I'd like the players to have to make choices during the fights themselves during each round of combat. So I'm wondering about how to integrate dodge into that type of system.

The way I see it, in combat you get 2 AP as a base amount to spend each round.
Earlier in this thread it was mentioned that it is unnecessary to have dodge as an option to spend AP to do since/if there is a "to hit" roll to begin with anyway.

Say you are being attacked by a nimble thief. His attacks may be quick and hard to dodge, but deal less damage and are more easy to block with a shield and counter with heavy armour.
But on the other extreme, if you are attacked a massive demon, its attacks may be slow and ponderous, making it so you can, if you are unhindered by armour and have a high agility stat, dodge them. You can block them too, but only the heavier shields and armour stand a chance. You're beter off in general trying to avoid the attacks completely.
And even with other enemies, they could have attacks that are quick and light but other times they will aim a hard and slow strike at you. So you have to decide on how to react. Do you try to avoid it completely? Or do you rely on the possible added damage reduction of the shield to protect you against damage? So dodging allows to avoid all, but if you get hit then you take more.

Having stated those examples, do yall think it'd be more wise to have it so that dodging you have to spend 1 AP to make opponent have to roll to hit (or alternatively mechanically it could be that you get a saving throw you roll, the target number is based on the speed of their weapon hit) and that if you attempt to dodge you can't use your shield? Or should it be that there always is a roll to hit but it is the shield that costs 1 AP to use? Another way I was thinking of for shields to work is that you can "tap" them sideways once a round to get a free block with them, any more after that per round costs 1 AP to use.
Any ideas or insight on that basic issue would be appreciated.

Next time I reply on this thread in regard to the other topics we discussed will be a lot more thorough and I will post my summary of the mechanics discussed and I'll also share my thoughts and insights on playtesting the different mechanics and ideas discussed.
Thanks all

devaloki
devaloki's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/15/2014
One other thing too: Perhaps

One other thing too:

Perhaps a simple solution could be this:
Dodge is automatic, since the attacker must roll to hit. The defender has option though of spending AP or using a skill card to add to their dodge roll.

Also another thing I'm considering with my game is expanding the ranges of player's stats in the game from 1-6 to 2-12. The amount of dice you get to roll would be equal to half of the stat, rounded down.

devaloki
devaloki's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/15/2014
One other thing too: Perhaps

One other thing too:

Perhaps a simple solution could be this:
Dodge is automatic, since the attacker must roll to hit. The defender has option though of spending AP or using a skill card to add to their dodge roll.

Also another thing I'm considering with my game is expanding the ranges of player's stats in the game from 1-6 to 2-12. The amount of dice you get to roll would be equal to half of the stat, rounded down.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
I don't have much time to

I don't have much time to reply or read your 3 posts. But in a short reaction:

- Rounding down or up creates unwanted/unnoticable imbalances.

- Using dodge and blocking at the "same" time in a game can be done. But they need to be intertwened. Meaning that you have them both at the same time, don't let player choose one. If dodging fails, there should be a chance for blocking. Or blocking as an additional choice on top of the dodging atempt.

If you let the player choose just 1 of them, they will calculate what is the best chance in the situation. And then you a predetermed game regarding dodging/blocking. You don't want that.

So if players can choose it as an extra option, while it costs an AP. Then it means they can choose which unit is going to block. Of course you could say that they will choose the unit with the best blocking ability. But perhaps another unit needs to be safed for an action later on. (That is how my game works; players have a choice in their goal for later in the game, and act accordingly on that choice. It can not be predicted by other players)

devaloki wrote:

Perhaps a simple solution could be this:
Dodge is automatic, since the attacker must roll to hit. The defender has option though of spending AP or using a skill card to add to their dodge roll.

Ah right, should read more. This is what I meant. :)

I'll look into it next week for more accurate numbers if you need them (sorry, busy life). Since dodging is a factor while blocking is substraction. There is a difference in balancing for the 2.

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut