Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ddougan" data-source="post: 1497302" data-attributes="member: 11480">Thanks  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />As interesting idea, but I'm not sure this really resolves it to my likeing.TW2K's task difficult levels are definetly not a linear approach - its astepped approach.For a Formidable (x1/2) task, the steps are 2:1 ratio (asset increase:chance of success increase), ieTotal Asset Level: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Chance of Success: 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4etc(Note the effect of the "1 is always a success" rule - a character witha total asset of 0 has the same chance of success as one with a totalasset of 3). If as you suggest, we round up, then we'd get:Total Asset Level: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Chance of Success: 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5This doesn't really do much other than shift the start of the "ladder"(to keep with the step terminology!). In other words, instead of acharacter with asset total 3 losing out over a character with assettotal 2, we have a character with asset total 4 losing out over acharacter with asset total 3.The problem is more apparent in Impossible tasks (x1/4), where the ratiobecomes 4:1.Using a linear approach (eeek, and I've just realised, I've gone back tohow 2300AD does it!), every increase in asset total gives an increase inchance of performing the task, regardless of how hard the task is. So we could say (as an example):Task Level  DC----------  --Easy        5Average       10Difficult       15Formidable  20Impossible  25(Off Hand, IIRC, 2300AD used Task levels of: 4, 9, 14, 19, 24 - but usedD10 rather than D20. So my perfect TW2K task system would probably optfor more granularity in the task levels - perhaps increase the number oftask levels to 7, and reduce the increase in DC between task levels)Sure - though I'm not sure if you mean the 2300AD damage model, or my house rule on Spycraft, so here's a summary of both <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />For 2300AD, you start by rolling Hit Location (D10).Each Hit Location has a Severity Modifier (Head Shot is more likely toresult in a kill than a Lower Leg Shot)Roll Potential Severity (D10), modified by above Severity Modifier. Thiswill result in a Potential Kill, Potential Serious Wound, PotentialLight Wound.Roll Actual Severity (D10). This roll is made against the damage of theweapon - a weapon doing 0.7 points of damage has a 70% chance ofinflicting the potential severity. If the roll is equal to or under thedamage value, then the potential severity is inflicted. If the roll isgreater than the damage value, then the potential severity is decreasedby 1 (ie Potential Kill becomes Actual Serious, Potential Seriousbecomes Actual Light, Potential Light becomes No Effect). Any weapondoing 1.0 or more damage points automatically inflicts the potentialdamage.As 2300AD a house rule, we deemed that an additional -1 to the Severity(an increase on the potential seriousness of the wound) would be appliedfor every 2.0 points of damage - which meant getting hit by heavyweapons was a rather nasty experience <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />There's therefore no need for a quick kill rule in this situation,because effectively every round that penetrates has the potential to bea quick kill (ie roll for a potential kill, and roll for actual kill <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />)For Spycraft, I have Vitality Points on each hit location, and a commonpool of Wounds. Whenever any hit location exceeds its Vitality Points,additional damage is applied to the Wounds. Critical hits do doubledamage, and the Wounds Capacity is double the norm (ie 2 X CON).Each hit location starts off at the maximum for the character at level 1(ie CON + either 8, 10 or 12 based on whether or not they have a D8, D10or D12 hit die).At each additional level, characters get extra VP per hit location,based on their hit die:D8 == 1 hit point per hit location per levelD10 == 1 hit point per hit location per odd level (1,3,5 etc), and 2 pereven level (2,4,6 etc)D12 == 2 hit point per hit location per levelHead and Heart shots do not require an action die to convert to acritical hit (in Spycraft, a potential threat is not confirmed by asecond die roll, but by spending an action die).Vitality Points recovers on a per-hit-location-per-hour basis.The resulting gameplay experience is very satisfying - characters canstill play the hero, and recover quickly between fights (unless they arephysically wounded), but are now worried about facing a number of guards- because even high level characters cant afford to take a couple ofhits on the same hit location without becoming wounded (ie no more"there's 3 guards with weapons - even if they all hit me, and rollmaximum damage, I will still have enough hit points to stay standing"). I don't see a problem with the level/feat/class/skill approach D20takes, if its applied correctly. (Have you seen any of the special forces prestiege classes from Blood and Guts by RPGObjects? Damn good...)If you think about it, weapon specialisation in TW2K v2.2 is pretty muchfeats (3 levels of weapon specialisation - reducing the auto-miss roll,adding to Strength for recoil determination etc). There's no reason thiscouldn't be expanded to allow greater degrees of weapon specialisation,or extended to allow specialisation in other skills. That sounds likefeats and/or class abilities to me <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />I certainly think the default range of D20 skills needs to be expandedthough to account for the fact TW2K is a skills-driven game system.Also, if you think about NPC levels - Green, Regular, Veteran etc,aren't these really Levels? (Green: lvl 1-3, Regular, 4-5, Veteran 6-9,Crack 10-12, Elite 13-15 as an example).I actually think "Infantryman 3/ Ranger3" isnt a bad description for acharacter in TW2K. How far off is it from "3 terms as Ground Infantry, 3terms as Ranger"? If you view it as a Traveller career description, then 3 terms of a Range and only being Level 3 is rather poor - so having Ranger 3 with only a single term is like "hey, this guy really had some field time in that term".I would like to see the Base Attack Bonus drop off a bit in importancethough. Given the number of weapon based skills, plus the limit on SkillLevel vs Class, I think BAB increases could be lowered to highlight the combat skills more. If we describeBAB advancement as Good, Average and Poor (reflecting DnD Fighter,Cleric and Wizard rates of advancement), then we might have:Good: +1 every 2 levels (0, 1, 1, 2 etc) == +10 at Level 20Average: +2 every 5 levels (0, 1, 1, 1, 2) == +8 at Level 20Poor: +2 every 7 levels (0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2) == +5 at Level 20This would mean non-military characters could still have good weaponskills if thats how they chose to spend their skill points, whilstmilitary based characters get an inherent class bonus to all forms ofattack - whilst still requiring them to spend skills in whatever form ofweapons they want to use (small arms pistol, rifle, machinegun, grenadelauncher etc) regularly. So "worthless" military/civilian ranks could easily be modelled byhaving the likes of 3 or 5 level classes - which would have Poor BABbonus, and class skill lists limited to what you describe as "worthless"(which may be a good description - I doubt there's much room for MSProject or Excel goons in the aftermath of a nuclear war <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> )</blockquote>

Verification