Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf 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 Nest
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, OSR, & D&D Variants
*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!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
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, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
The revenge of THAC0 - tablewide scaling factors
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="Eric Finley" data-source="post: 4790488" data-attributes="member: 83401"><p>I have a couple of players in my group who are not exactly math geniuses. We've already predone as much of the math as possible for them, and yet still the equation of d20 + 7 (on power card) + 2 (combat advantage) takes them longer than, IMO, it really needs to.</p><p></p><p>So what I'm wondering about is a simple scalar offset. Look at the typical PC attacks and find the rough average. Usually it's within a few points of both the best and the worst to-hit numbers in the group, right?</p><p></p><p>Call that the scalar offset.</p><p></p><p>Now, before play, as the GM, subtract the scalar offset from all power cards' to-hit values, all the monsters' defenses, and anything else which directly interacts with those (skill checks such as Intimidate vs. Will to force surrender, for instance).</p><p></p><p>What this leaves you with is power cards which show, instead of (say) +17 through +22, a scalar offset of +18 and power cards which show -1 through +4. And monster defenses which are back down in the 5-15 range. Both of which make for purely and simply faster mental math.</p><p></p><p>You can do the same for the monsters attacking the PCs. In fact it might be interesting to use the same scalar offset in both cases; this would showcase a little more clearly where the PCs sit compared to monster values.</p><p></p><p>Taking the "average monster defense" of 14+lvl, I suggest a default scalar offset of (3 + party level). This makes that plain average into an 11+ to hit it, with players having typical bonuses around +0.</p><p></p><p>To address the first issue I personally see here... I think that the problem of making players feel like they're not as impressive with their new, shiny numbers can largely be circumvented. Because not everyone is going to level up at the same time (in most games), so you'll see people crowing over going from +2 to +3. And because displaying the scalar offset prominently - "Remember, everything you're rolling is actually 25 points lower than the 'real' values!" - should do a great deal to mitigate this issue as well.</p><p></p><p>Any thoughts about this? Good idea? Bad idea? Why?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Eric Finley, post: 4790488, member: 83401"] I have a couple of players in my group who are not exactly math geniuses. We've already predone as much of the math as possible for them, and yet still the equation of d20 + 7 (on power card) + 2 (combat advantage) takes them longer than, IMO, it really needs to. So what I'm wondering about is a simple scalar offset. Look at the typical PC attacks and find the rough average. Usually it's within a few points of both the best and the worst to-hit numbers in the group, right? Call that the scalar offset. Now, before play, as the GM, subtract the scalar offset from all power cards' to-hit values, all the monsters' defenses, and anything else which directly interacts with those (skill checks such as Intimidate vs. Will to force surrender, for instance). What this leaves you with is power cards which show, instead of (say) +17 through +22, a scalar offset of +18 and power cards which show -1 through +4. And monster defenses which are back down in the 5-15 range. Both of which make for purely and simply faster mental math. You can do the same for the monsters attacking the PCs. In fact it might be interesting to use the same scalar offset in both cases; this would showcase a little more clearly where the PCs sit compared to monster values. Taking the "average monster defense" of 14+lvl, I suggest a default scalar offset of (3 + party level). This makes that plain average into an 11+ to hit it, with players having typical bonuses around +0. To address the first issue I personally see here... I think that the problem of making players feel like they're not as impressive with their new, shiny numbers can largely be circumvented. Because not everyone is going to level up at the same time (in most games), so you'll see people crowing over going from +2 to +3. And because displaying the scalar offset prominently - "Remember, everything you're rolling is actually 25 points lower than the 'real' values!" - should do a great deal to mitigate this issue as well. Any thoughts about this? Good idea? Bad idea? Why? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
The revenge of THAC0 - tablewide scaling factors
Top