Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
EN Publishing
Brainstorming DEFENSE
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Morrus" data-source="post: 6491409" data-attributes="member: 1"><p>This is just a general discussion thread, not an announcement or anything.</p><p></p><p> @<em><strong><u><a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=6762606" target="_blank">LucasC</a></u></strong></em> expressed doubts about the latest DEFENSE formulation, so I'm opening this up to ideas - just in case someone sees something I don't. Things we need to be aware of:</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">1) I don't want everybody to be averaged so much that all the characters are the same as each other</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">2) There are concerns that wide ranging DEFENSE scores makes it hard to find appropriate challenges</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">3) I want some critters to be basically too tough for beginning characters to handle, and their DEFENSE to reflect that</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">4) I want SOAK to be a viable alternative choice to DEFENSE; some folks get hit more, but they can take more</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">5) It's important not to make a single attribute King Attribute; AGI is already important</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p><p></p><p>That said, here are factor which do, or have, played into DEFENSE:</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px"><strong>SIZE</strong> - big things are easy to hit, small things are hard to hit; conversely big things have more SOAK</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><strong>AGILITY</strong> - agile things can dodge well, clumsy things cannot</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><strong>PROTECTION</strong> - shields, deflection abilities, plus some spells make it harder to hit somebody</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p><p></p><p>DEFENSE in that list is very much a "to hit" as opposed to a "to damage"; and SOAK reflects how hard it is to damage someone once they're hit.</p><p></p><p>Using just AGI historically weighted that attribute far too highly, making it the only one anybody ever stacked. That's why additional attributes were brought into it. That's why attacks aren't opposed attacks vs AGI (or a flat expression of AGI).</p><p></p><p>So, currently, it's (AGI dice + END dice) x 3; you can add a skill dice to that (e.g. acrobatics). It's a bit messy and slightly unclear. If it were simply a directly opposed check (vs AGI to hit) then you could express it as AGI dice + SKILL dice + Equipment dice as normal. For example, 3d6 AGI + 1d6 <em>acrobatics</em> + 1d6 shield = 5d6 (or a flat average of x4, to make 20). That makes AGI the king of all attributes, though.</p><p></p><p>An alternative method might be to base it initially on size. How hard something is to hit is simply an expression of how big it is. Its agility would then be a modifier to that. For example, start with a base of 10 for medium and +/4 per size:</p><p></p><table style='width: 100%'><tr><td>Tiny</td><td>18</td></tr><tr><td>Small</td><td>14</td></tr><tr><td>Medium</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td>Large</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>Enormous</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Gigantic+</td><td>0?</td></tr></table><p> You run out of space at the bottom quickly like that. To that we could add AGI (and so an inanimate object would simply use those values). I guess skill ranks would be added directly in that scale. So a human with 6 AGI and 2 acrobatics would have a DEFENSE of 18. That gives Batman (say, 12 AGI, 5 ranks acrobatics?) a DEFENSE of 27, and t-rex a DEFENSE of 4.</p><p></p><p>Anything larger than medium, realistically, is going to be hit every time in that model, unless it bizarrely has a really high AGI. Then again, wouldn't you expect it to be?</p><p></p><p>I used 4 instead of 3.5 throughout this post. That gives the defender a tiny edge.</p><p></p><p>That's all just random thoughts, though. Mainly typing as I think. Maybe MENTAL DEFENSE would be related to sentience in the same way that DEFENSE is related to size, and then modified by WIL. Sentient is the most vulnerable with a base of 10, super-sentient and semi-sentient have a base of 14 and non-sentient is immune. </p><p></p><p><strong>Some maths:</strong></p><p></p><p>Suppose we want Mr. Average to have a 50% chance of hitting himself. He has AGI 4, is size Medium, STR 4, and let's give him one useful skill rank in acrobatics and one in swords.</p><p></p><p>Offensively he's attacking with STR 4, swords 1 = 3d6. Average roll is 3 x 3.5 = 10.5.</p><p></p><p>So we want his own DEFENSE to be 10.5. That gives him a 50% chance of hitting himself. Let's call it 11. Using AGI 4, size M, 1 skill rank, how do we get to 11? We could say:</p><p></p><p>1) AGI 4, being average, is no modifier; SIZE M = 10; +1 skill = 11.</p><p></p><p>or we could say:</p><p></p><p>2 ) AGI 4 is worth 2d6, and his 1 skill rank is worth 1d6, and size M is no modifier. That makes 3d6. Same as his attack roll, same average result.</p><p></p><p>In this we're only using AGI, of course. We're basically using AGI as an opposed check vs. an attack. It feels nice and symmetrical, granted, but the goal of the game isn't pleasing aesthetic symmetry, it's playability. And that's making AGI the super-attribute again.</p><p></p><p>We could offset that a little by building some natural SOAK into END. Kinda like WFRP's toughness, I guess. That makes END important, too. And we can make ranged attacks always INT, not AGI. Physical attacks can be STR or AGI.</p><p></p><p><strong>So where does that leave us?</strong></p><p></p><p>One proposal that logically comes from all that (and I'm not saying it's a good one, just that it's what I arrived at while typing this) is as follows:</p><p></p><p>- All attacks are opposed rolls against a <em>single</em> attribute (usually AGI or WIL, but could be END for poison, etc.)</p><p>- One skill dice pool can be added to a defending attribute just like one can be added to an attacking dice pool</p><p>- Both are limited to career grade total as size of dice pool</p><p>- The defending values are precalculated as averages rather than rolled live for speed of play</p><p>- Size is a +/4 per category above or below Medium</p><p>- Your END is your natural SOAK (too much? instead of size? size correlates to END a lot anyway)</p><p>- Ranged attacks are always INT</p><p>- Melee attacks are STR or AGI</p><p>- Magic/psionic attacks are MAG or PSI</p><p></p><p>I haven't thought through all the ramifications of this. It's likely it's extremely broken! But any suggestion is welcome. This is just a random brainstorming session!</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Morrus, post: 6491409, member: 1"] This is just a general discussion thread, not an announcement or anything. @[I][B][U][URL="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=6762606"]LucasC[/URL][/U][/B][/I] expressed doubts about the latest DEFENSE formulation, so I'm opening this up to ideas - just in case someone sees something I don't. Things we need to be aware of: [INDENT]1) I don't want everybody to be averaged so much that all the characters are the same as each other 2) There are concerns that wide ranging DEFENSE scores makes it hard to find appropriate challenges 3) I want some critters to be basically too tough for beginning characters to handle, and their DEFENSE to reflect that 4) I want SOAK to be a viable alternative choice to DEFENSE; some folks get hit more, but they can take more 5) It's important not to make a single attribute King Attribute; AGI is already important [/INDENT] That said, here are factor which do, or have, played into DEFENSE: [INDENT][B]SIZE[/B] - big things are easy to hit, small things are hard to hit; conversely big things have more SOAK [B]AGILITY[/B] - agile things can dodge well, clumsy things cannot [B]PROTECTION[/B] - shields, deflection abilities, plus some spells make it harder to hit somebody [/INDENT] DEFENSE in that list is very much a "to hit" as opposed to a "to damage"; and SOAK reflects how hard it is to damage someone once they're hit. Using just AGI historically weighted that attribute far too highly, making it the only one anybody ever stacked. That's why additional attributes were brought into it. That's why attacks aren't opposed attacks vs AGI (or a flat expression of AGI). So, currently, it's (AGI dice + END dice) x 3; you can add a skill dice to that (e.g. acrobatics). It's a bit messy and slightly unclear. If it were simply a directly opposed check (vs AGI to hit) then you could express it as AGI dice + SKILL dice + Equipment dice as normal. For example, 3d6 AGI + 1d6 [I]acrobatics[/I] + 1d6 shield = 5d6 (or a flat average of x4, to make 20). That makes AGI the king of all attributes, though. An alternative method might be to base it initially on size. How hard something is to hit is simply an expression of how big it is. Its agility would then be a modifier to that. For example, start with a base of 10 for medium and +/4 per size: [TABLE="class: outer_border, width: 200"] [TR] [TD="align: center"]Tiny[/TD] [TD="align: center"]18[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD="align: center"]Small[/TD] [TD="align: center"]14[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD="align: center"]Medium[/TD] [TD="align: center"]10[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD="align: center"]Large[/TD] [TD="align: center"]6[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD="align: center"]Enormous[/TD] [TD="align: center"]2[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD="align: center"]Gigantic+[/TD] [TD="align: center"]0?[/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] You run out of space at the bottom quickly like that. To that we could add AGI (and so an inanimate object would simply use those values). I guess skill ranks would be added directly in that scale. So a human with 6 AGI and 2 acrobatics would have a DEFENSE of 18. That gives Batman (say, 12 AGI, 5 ranks acrobatics?) a DEFENSE of 27, and t-rex a DEFENSE of 4. Anything larger than medium, realistically, is going to be hit every time in that model, unless it bizarrely has a really high AGI. Then again, wouldn't you expect it to be? I used 4 instead of 3.5 throughout this post. That gives the defender a tiny edge. That's all just random thoughts, though. Mainly typing as I think. Maybe MENTAL DEFENSE would be related to sentience in the same way that DEFENSE is related to size, and then modified by WIL. Sentient is the most vulnerable with a base of 10, super-sentient and semi-sentient have a base of 14 and non-sentient is immune. [B]Some maths:[/B] Suppose we want Mr. Average to have a 50% chance of hitting himself. He has AGI 4, is size Medium, STR 4, and let's give him one useful skill rank in acrobatics and one in swords. Offensively he's attacking with STR 4, swords 1 = 3d6. Average roll is 3 x 3.5 = 10.5. So we want his own DEFENSE to be 10.5. That gives him a 50% chance of hitting himself. Let's call it 11. Using AGI 4, size M, 1 skill rank, how do we get to 11? We could say: 1) AGI 4, being average, is no modifier; SIZE M = 10; +1 skill = 11. or we could say: 2 ) AGI 4 is worth 2d6, and his 1 skill rank is worth 1d6, and size M is no modifier. That makes 3d6. Same as his attack roll, same average result. In this we're only using AGI, of course. We're basically using AGI as an opposed check vs. an attack. It feels nice and symmetrical, granted, but the goal of the game isn't pleasing aesthetic symmetry, it's playability. And that's making AGI the super-attribute again. We could offset that a little by building some natural SOAK into END. Kinda like WFRP's toughness, I guess. That makes END important, too. And we can make ranged attacks always INT, not AGI. Physical attacks can be STR or AGI. [B]So where does that leave us?[/B] One proposal that logically comes from all that (and I'm not saying it's a good one, just that it's what I arrived at while typing this) is as follows: - All attacks are opposed rolls against a [I]single[/I] attribute (usually AGI or WIL, but could be END for poison, etc.) - One skill dice pool can be added to a defending attribute just like one can be added to an attacking dice pool - Both are limited to career grade total as size of dice pool - The defending values are precalculated as averages rather than rolled live for speed of play - Size is a +/4 per category above or below Medium - Your END is your natural SOAK (too much? instead of size? size correlates to END a lot anyway) - Ranged attacks are always INT - Melee attacks are STR or AGI - Magic/psionic attacks are MAG or PSI I haven't thought through all the ramifications of this. It's likely it's extremely broken! But any suggestion is welcome. This is just a random brainstorming session! [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
EN Publishing
Brainstorming DEFENSE
Top