Skip to Content

Multiple attacks Bonus or Malus?

9 replies [Last post]
larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008

It's for a D20 like video game RPG. The main different is that the character does not gain bonus to their attack rolls when leveling up. So if you are very high level, you will never have an attack that will auto hit.

Now, here is my problem. For characters that has multiple attacks, I am currently applying a penalty between 0 and -2 to the next attack if the first one hit it's marks. Those malus are mululative for successive attacks. If you fail, you will not stack any malus until one of them succeeds.

The logic behind this that manking multiple attacks, it's harder to make efficient attacks than making fewer attacks. It is also interesting because it create a diversity in the weapons. For example a quarter staff has no penalty so it can attack multiple times easily.

But from another point of view, a target that get attacked multiple times, will have more difficulty to parry the attacks. So the attacker should gain a bonus to his attack for each attack he fails. So that eventually, he will hit it's target. This is more interesting from a game design point of view, as failure makes you stronger. You spend attacks to make fewer but stronger attacks.

So do you think a character should get bonus on next attack when failling or a malus on his next attack when succeeding. Or no Bonus/Malus at all because both aspect counter balance each other.

thoughtfulmonkey
thoughtfulmonkey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/04/2014
Awkward answer

It's not the answer that you probably want, but my feeling is that it would depend on the type of weapon. In Melee a penalty after a successful attack would seem natural (for lost momentum / rhythm), but for ranged weapons a bonus after failed hits would seem natural (adjusting aim).

I can't remember many cases of either adjustment though. Only where taking a second single-handed weapon allows an extra attack, but at a penalty.

larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
I can adjust the weapon type

I can adjust the weapon type with that 0 to -2 (or 0 to +2) modifyer according to the weapon. For example battle axe less likely to make multi hitting easy since it's an unbalanced weapon.

As for range weapon, when using modern weapons, I could say yes, but for bows and crossbow, you lose your aim to reload so I don't think you gain any advantage.

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Just as a matter of clarity

I don't know where you found the term "malus"? Sounds like you took "Bon" (Good in French) from "Bon-us" and changed it to "Mal" (Bad in French) for "Mal-us"...

The REAL terms are Bonus and Penalty.

So your idea is to have a Penalty when attacking several times during the same player's turn. It could work like you said some weapons don't have Penalties while other increase each time you attempt another attack...

Just wanted to get the terminology corrected!

RedGoldStag
RedGoldStag's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/14/2014
questccg wrote:I don't know

questccg wrote:
I don't know where you found the term "malus"? Sounds like you took "Bon" (Good in French) from "Bon-us" and changed it to "Mal" (Bad in French) for "Mal-us"...

The REAL terms are Bonus and Penalty.

So your idea is to have a Penalty when attacking several times during the same player's turn. It could work like you said some weapons don't have Penalties while other increase each time you attempt another attack...

Just wanted to get the terminology corrected!

Malus is every bit as "real" a term as bonus; while "penalty" is probably the first word that comes to mind for most people as the opposite of "bonus", bonus and malus are standard antonyms in some contexts (for example, I see them used regularly in economics, specifically applied to insurance and finance).

Off the top of my head, I believe they're Latin (which explains the overlap with the French words that occurred to you), but "malus" is definitely a real word, and completely appropriate (if perhaps less common) in this situation.

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Hmm...

The word exists in Latin however not in every English word dictionary.

I did a search in the Merriam-Webster dictionary and returned NO RESULTS. I did the same search on www.dictionary.com and it returned this:

"Malus":

noun
the return of performance-related compensation upon the discovery of deficient performance.

Examples:
There is a malus clause in his contract.

And in this version the term malus is defined as a "business" term.

Searching wikipedia the term Malus was found - however it is a term by analogy with bonus (“additional compensation”).

So the term might be valid - but I'm not certain the context is correct.

Like you said maybe used in Economics, insurance and finance. From the example where it is a "contractual clause". This is not a term you can use generally. www.thesaurus.com returns NO results either.

It is a "business" term...

As seen on: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/bonus-malus-system.html

Where the term is the opposite of a "bonus" clause in a employment contract...

Moreover if you do a "Google define malus" you get NO RESULTS...

JTAshby
Offline
Joined: 12/07/2014
Hmm...

I think that the malus/penalty thing is neither here nor there, not really contributing to the conversation.

From most other systems, a penalty is applied to additional attacks regardless of whether earlier attacks are successful or not (makes sense from a realistic standpoint - the first attack will be well coordinated, while later attacks will have fatigue and/or readjustments based on the first attack, etc.)

Personally, I don't think that giving a bonus or malus would really make sense - it would be easier to hit someone that's already been hit, so you'd think that a bonus would be applied to later rolls. I think that it should probably cancel out.

Unless...is your "to-hit" opposed by any stat of the other players? One thing might be to have any sort of evasive skill of the defender lose effect over multiple attacks, due to fatigue and being off-balance and the like. Don't know how that would fit in, but it's a thought.

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Throw some dice at it... LOL

Okay my idea - which you may or may not like - is to throw some dice at it. Let me explain.

So basically a Character is given X dice (d6s). To strike his opponent he must roll a total amount of Y (in value). Each time a player attacks his opponent on the same turn, one dice is removed from the pool of dice.

What this does is make more and more difficult to "strike" your opponent.

An example:

Let's say your character has five (5) dice (used to attack). And the opponent after calculating stats requires you to roll a 10 to successfully hit the opponent. So with five (5) dice it is pretty easy. Four (4) is also possible (24 max). Three (3) dice is tougher (18 max). And two (2) dice is nearly impossible (12 max).

By using some kind of stats, you can calculate a SMART roll value (To-Hit).

BTW didn't want to be *pissy* about the "Malus" thing. That's my dice rolling idea!

larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
Quote:I don't know where you

Quote:
I don't know where you found the term "malus"? Sounds like you took "Bon" (Good in French) from "Bon-us" and changed it to "Mal" (Bad in French) for "Mal-us"...

If malus does not exits, then it's probably "Minus".

Anyways, a quick look at the attack roll the way it currently is: Here are the variables, it's similar to the D20 system.

Attacker:
- Combat skill: Between 6-12 + attribute modifier, equipement and active effect bonus
- Multi hit Penalty: between 0-2 (determined by the weapon)

Defender:
Active Defense: Depends monstly on attribute, equipment and active effects.

Roll

Combat skill + 1d20 must be greater than 10 + Active Defense.

If the attack hit, the next attack receives a penalty (multi hit penalty) to it's next roll. You always automatically hit on a roll of 19+.

----------------------------------------------

But this is where it could change, it could be a bonus instead than increase when failing and reset when succeeding. That would create an effect similar to Dungeon Quest determination tokens, where if you fail, you have more chances to succeed next time.

So you would indirectly do less stronger attacks rather than many average attack. It also removes the possibility of never be able to touch your ennemy like it was the case of a monk feat in D&D 3rd edition (Fury of blows I think)

Consider that all attacks are done consecutively on the same target by the same attacker. Multiple attack bonus or minus does not transfer from an attacker to another. So another character attacking the same target will not inherit any bonus/minus.

So "Thematically" a target that get's attacked multiple times could have an harder time dodging all attacks.

larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
OK, I made a distribution

OK, I made a distribution chart. I generated 10000 rolls for each method and noted the results. The method are:

- D&D: 5 attacks at +20/+15+/+10/+5/+0 + 1D20

- myD20 bonus: 12 + 1D20, Give a +2 bonus after each failed roll, reset when hit.

- myD20 minus: 12 + 1D20, Give a -2 minus after each successful roll, not reset

Results must be bigger (no equal) than listed Target Number (TN)

Here is the picture of the results

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/image/2343655/larienna

The goal was to compare if my bonus system was actually another way of getting the same results as the d20 system. But it seems not, myd20 bonus seems to distribute much more the attacks and reduce impossible ranges which raises quickly.

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut