The Worship Points System

[poilbrun]

I personally think that the main problem is that this rule is great for the WPS, which is designed for high-level play, but not so great for low-level play...

At 11th level (since that's the example you chose), the highest DEX score is 22 (18 to begin with, +2 for race, 2*+1 at level 4 & 8), so the maximum modifier if 6. If you decide to reduce the dex modifier instead of limiting it for armor, that would undoubtedly unbalance things. However, at very high levels, were monsters can have very high ability scores, things become stupid : let's take two characters : the first one has a dex score of 12, the other has 75. They both wear full plate. According to the rules as they are now, they both have a modifier to dex of +1. According to UK's rule, the first one would have a modifier of +0 (since armor cannot lower dex below 10) , the second would have 24 (mod : +32, -8 for full plate)... It unbalances things compared to the rules from the core rulebooks, but it is also a bit more logical : why should players who have such different dex scores act as clumsily in armor?

I agree with you UK's rule isn't perfect, but it is better suited for high-level play.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Greetings!

Hi -Eä- mate!

I don't know if this has interest to any of you, but here is the formula I came to. To me it's simpler to use, I simply plot in the numbers, and the CR comes forth.

The scale is clearly logerithmic, so this is my reasoning:

1.1) c*ln(a)-b=z
2.1) c*ln(a/2)-b=z-10

1.2) c=(b+z)/ln(a)
2.2) c=(-10+b+z)/ln(a)

3.1) (b+z)/ln(a)=(-10+b+z)/ln(a)
3.2) b=-z+ln(a)/ln(2)

We then substitute 1.2 and in the equation c*ln(x)-b=CR:

((b+z)/ln(a))*ln(x)-b=CR

Then 3.2 into this:

(((-z+ln(a)/ln(2))+z)/ln(a))*ln(x)-(-z+ln(a)/ln(2))=CR
(z*ln(2)-10ln(a)+10ln(x))/ln(2)=CR

The symbols are:
z and a: z is the CR a creature with level a should have
x: this is the actual level.

Then we substitute for z and a: z=100, a=5120
Then we get:

(100*ln(2)-10ln(5120)+10ln(x))/ln(2)=CR
That is:
10ln(x/5)/ln(2)=CR

This gives a continous scale that scales infinitelly (and as it isn't easy for people not used to calculus to find this formula,

I can't fathom how that is simpler to you mate!

I am in the same boat as Anubis, I only have a 150 IQ and I can't understand the above equation (although I remember I got it the last time when you added the example)

...then again I never studied calculus at university level like a certain person I could mention *cough* -Eä-

Due to a dinner party I had to attend today, I have not created the other formula (which is needed for fractioned CRs, but I will do it as soon as I have the time)

Dinner Party! That all sounds a bit 'hoity toity'!

...perhaps your the real upper crust!?

 

[Upper_Krust]

Re: Re: Re: And now for something completely different!

Hi Impeesa mate!

I hope you mean the specifics of the numbers and not Mr. Oldfield in general. Heck, you could probably catch a ferry across and *walk* to Hergest Ridge. I'd have to fly...

I am indirectly familiar with his work (tubular bells et al), but wouldn't go as far as to call myself a fan.

As I type this I have the 97' Pete Tong Essential Collection banging through my headphones. *picture Krusty bouncing along to it*

That said my musical tastes are eclectic, though I am perhaps a clubber at heart.

I think his total sales to date is more like 40 million, but that still leaves him in the same category. Hm... Interesting to think how many modern celebrities and world leaders have enough people who worship them to elevate them to deityhood. What about Elvis? I think I asked this before, but does his being dead get in the way?

I think Elvis has sold about a billion albums. I remember working out before that he would be a Demigod so perhaps my previous appraisal of Mr Oldfield is incorrect...?

Although I came up with the square root of the albums thing ad hoc

...oh and Elvis being dead won't get in the way! So all you Elvis fans; hes not really dead as long as you keep believing!

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Anubis mate!

Now, back to UK. There's obviously no way for me to make further argument about supernatural armor until your system is made public, so I'll stop now and await your work so that I can check it out more fully. I do wanna discuss the penalties to dexterity, however.

Hey! Don't be shy! Were all friends here, if theres something you don't agree with TELL ME! I appreciate all constructive criticism mate!

However, I must say that if I haven't convinced anyone by this stage then I must be explaining it wrong somehow!?

Remember also (and I imagine I can't state this often enough) its just an optional rule.

First off, by your proposed system, heavy armor becomes COMPLETELY useless, and AC is balanced against PCs.

No. No. No.

Full Platemail won't provide a bonus to AC but it will reduce the damage of every attack by 8.

I find this to be totally unbalancing and un fair. A Party of 11th level characters will usually have close to 30 AC,

Actually the average AC for 11th-level characters is 19 (using the 11 examples in the DMG).

The only characters wearing armour are the Barbarian (breastplate), Cleric (full plate), Druid (Hide Armour), Fighter (Full Plate), Paladin (Full Plate), Ranger (Studded Leather)

Lets examine the 11th-level Fighter:

AC 25, BAB 19/14/9, Dmg 1d10+8 (+2 full plate, +1 large shield, Dex 13, ring of protection +1)

Instead of AC25 I propose:

AC 14, Resilience(Armour) 10.

Therefore two equal fighters attacking each other would deliver only 1d10-2 on a hit! (Average 3.5) Rolling a '1' or '2' on damage would result in no damage!

and their enemies have attacks at +10 to +20 while having AC that is relatively easy to hit. With your proposed changes, the AC of PCs will drop by an average of 5, making defending attacks impossible for PCs!

A character in Full Plate will likely get hit (by their peers) but will take much less damage - thats what armour does!

With those changes, all current CRs would have to go up by at least 2 to make up the difference!

Not at all. If you apply the rule across the board then all characters and monsters will be affected equally - so there will be no need for such changes.

Most enemies have low AC to begin with, and most of them don't wear regular armor. Still, lowering effective dexterity makes no sense unless you put the minimum of 10 in place. Otherwise, lighter armor is ALWAYS better!

The minimum of 10 is always in place for (literal) natural armour. Only manufactured armour can impose a penalty below 10 Dex. Even then I have already said I would consider either a Feat ('Sleeps in Armour') or Magic Armour to remove any potential negative Dexterity penalties for wearing it!

Here's an example . . . First off, with the new system, ALL PCs will put their best roll in Dexterity or die in the first battle. Let's assume now that all PCs have a 15 Dex to begin with. Under the core rules, your fighter with full plate would have AC 19, your rogue with leather would have AC 14, your cleric with breastplate would have AC 17, and your wizard with nothing would have AC 12.

Okay, with you so far...

Under your changes, the fighter would now have AC 16, the rogue would have AC 11, your cleric would have AC 15, and your wizard would have AC 11.

No. No. No. (I see I still haven't explained this sufficiently )

Under Option #3 Armour reduces damage - it does not add to AC!

The Fighter would have AC 8 (Dex effectively 7), Resilience 8 (Full Plate)
The Rogue would have AC 11 (Dex effectively 13), Resilience 2 (Leather)
The Cleric would have AC 10 (Dex effectively 10), Resilience 5 (Breastplate)

Yes,

The Wizard has AC 12 (Dex 15, not reduced by armour), Resilience 0

Yes, it IS more realistic, but it is GROSSLY unbalancing. Not to mention you'd have to change EVERYTHING.

(With Option #3) You only have to change one thing: (literal) natural armour no longer adds to AC but reduces damage.

Any monsters (except Outsiders) simple have their Natural Armour changed from AC to Resilience. That takes all of 10 seconds to determine.

I have already shown how to determine Outsider AC less than a minute. All you need to know is: skin type; size and HD (HD equals Supernatural Deflection)

I don't see how it can be simpler!?

(What would you do about mithril armor

Simple. It reduces Dex by one for every 2 points of armour (instead of 1/1).

eg. Mithril Full Plate reduces Dex by 4 instead of by 8.

and amulet's of natural armor?)

Simple again. It provides a deflection bonus (so it stays the same). Since a magic/supernatural ability that reduced damage would be determined as Damage Reduction - any magical or supernatural ability/item that (currently) gives a NA bonus must therefore be a deflection bonus.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hello again mate!

I want to go over this point again. It occured to me you probably weren't addressing Option #3 at all!?

So lets take another look:

I do wanna discuss the penalties to dexterity, however.

Here's an example . . . First off, with the new system, ALL PCs will put their best roll in Dexterity or die in the first battle. Let's assume now that all PCs have a 15 Dex to begin with.

Under the core rules, your fighter with full plate would have AC 19, your rogue with leather would have AC 14, your cleric with breastplate would have AC 17, and your wizard with nothing would have AC 12.

Under your changes, the fighter would now have AC 16, the rogue would have AC 11, your cleric would have AC 15, and your wizard would have AC 11.

Using the above examples under my rule advocation (Options #1 and #2) that Armour reduce Dex (as well as adding to NA) instead of setting a fixed maximum rate:

Fighter AC 16 (Dex Reduced by 8, which is a penalty of -4, Full Plate adds +8)
Rogue AC 13 (Dex Reduced by 2, which is a penalty of -1, Leather Armour adds +2)
Cleric AC 15 (Dex Reduced by 5, which is a penalty of -2, Breastplate adds +5)
Wizard AC 12 - unchanged

Therefore Bracers of Armour +8 (64,000gp) would be superior (since they wouldn't reduce Dex) to Full Platemail (1500gp) - however, remember of course bracers do not function within Anti-Magic!

Add shields to the mix, and the ACs change to Fighter 17 and Cleric 16. Do you see the problem yet? This change would favor the wizard class GREATLY while impeding the fighter classes. No feat should have to be used to counter this.

No I don't see a problem!?

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey poil brun mate!

I personally think that the main problem is that this rule is great for the WPS, which is designed for high-level play, but not so great for low-level play...

Lets examine your argument before jumping to any quick conclusions!

At 11th level (since that's the example you chose), the highest DEX score is 22 (18 to begin with, +2 for race, 2*+1 at level 4 & 8), so the maximum modifier is +6.

Okay so far...

If you decide to reduce the dex modifier instead of limiting it for armor, that would undoubtedly unbalance things.

I advocate Armour reduces Dexterity NOT Dexterity Modifiers.

...which I have just noted is the mistake you have made in the next example.

My apologies if I hadn't previously explained that sufficiently!?

However, at very high levels, were monsters can have very high ability scores, things become stupid : let's take two characters : the first one has a dex score of 12, the other has 75. They both wear full plate. According to the rules as they are now, they both have a modifier to dex of +1. According to UK's rule, the first one would have a modifier of +0 (since armor cannot lower dex below 10) , the second would have 24 (mod : +32, -8 for full plate)...

Actually:

Character #1 (Dex 12) in Full Plate would have Dex 4 (-3 penalty) for AC 15 (10 -3 +8)

Remember only a creatures (literal) natural armour cannot go below Dex 10. Manufactured Armour CAN take Dexterity below 10 UNLESS it is magical.

Character #2 (Dex 75) in Full Plate would have Dex 67 (+28) for AC 46. (10 +28 +8)

It unbalances things compared to the rules from the core rulebooks, but it is also a bit more logical : why should players who have such different dex scores act as clumsily in armor?

I don't believe it does unbalance things. As for it being 'more logical' isn't logic pretty much black and white!?

I agree with you UK's rule isn't perfect, but it is better suited for high-level play.

...obviously UK hasn't explained things as well as he thought.

 

[-Eä-]

NA again

Just some thoughts here:

So: Do shields give deflection bonuses or NA? I think deflection suits better for shields.

The damage reduction (the NA) of a barbarian should not decrease Dex, in my opinion. Or else the NA should be uppered.

 

[S'mon]

IQ & formula

If you guys have IQ 150 I must have IQ 170 or so, and I _still_ couldn't be bothered to make sense of Ea's formnula...
If you're not mathetmatically trained it really looks far too intimidating to be usable.

 

[S'mon]

Re: NA again

Just some thoughts here:

So: Do shields give deflection bonuses or NA? I think deflection suits better for shields.

The damage reduction (the NA) of a barbarian should not decrease Dex, in my opinion. Or else the NA should be uppered.

Shields should increase AC not reduce damage, yup. Some weapons should ignore shields though - eg incorporeal attacks & armour-piercing bullets.

The barbarian damage-reduction power doesn't really make much sense except as a supernatural 'gimme', I'd say it should not reduce DEX but shouldn't really work in an anti-magic field. The ability to 'roll with the blow' is usually factored into hp not damage reduction. But maybe it's a kind-of 'meta-hit points' - an ability to ignore minor cuts and scratches? It makes no sense as literal 'leathery skin' hardness, anyway.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Re: NA again

Hey -Eä- mate!

Just some thoughts here:

So: Do shields give deflection bonuses or NA? I think deflection suits better for shields.

I agree.

Remember, there are 3 methods for not taking damage:

#1 AVOIDANCE eg. Dexterity, Skill (Dodge)

#2 DEFLECTION eg. Shield, Skill (Parrying)

#3 ABSORPTION eg. Armour, (literal) Natural Armour/Resilience, Hardness

Each method also has possible supernatural/magical options that cease to function within Anti-Magic.

#1b eg. Cats Grace, Gloves of Dexterity

#2b eg. Shield Enhancement, Ring of Protection, Mage Armor, Amulet of Natural Armour, Supernatural Deflection.

Incidently I am changing Supernatural Armour to SUPERNATURAL DEFLECTION to avoid confusion

#3b eg. Armour Enhancement, Damage Reduction, Stoneskin.

The damage reduction (the NA) of a barbarian should not decrease Dex, in my opinion. Or else the NA should be uppered.

Would the grizzled leathery skin barbarian veteran be as lithe as he once was!? Personally I don't think so! The barbarian could always train to stay lithe (put bonus ability scores gained every 4 levels into Dexterity), but generally I think toughening the skin WILL impose a dexterity penalty - although obviously not a negative Dex penalty since it would be (literal) natural armour.

The concept of stoically resisting damage like this implies the being is not as concerned with getting hit as it previously was.

For Epic level Barbarians you could still extrapolate this (literal) natural armour bonus.

eg. A 29th-level Barbarian would have (literal) NA +7 (Dexterity -7)

Actually this would be better served as a supernatural ability, meaning no Dexterity reduction!

See the next post!

However, one point that was previously raised by Anubis; the concept of 'mystical' armour I think needs to be addressed. Anyone familiar with Kung Fu movies* might be aware of the "Iron Skin" technique (or similarly named styles).

*Check out: Once Upon a Time in China; One Armed Boxer II.

Essentially its the same process as poeple who walk on hot coals or lie on boards of nails.

Examining the ability would seem to be a mixture of: treating the skin to hardship (as with the barbarian ability); skill and (supposedly) 'ki'.

Reading through both the Monk class description and Red Avenger Prestige Class it is clear that 'ki' is considered a supernatural ability.

So if you were to consider such an ability it would either be:

- a natural process of treating the skin to hardship; becoming (literal) natural armour and imposing a subsequent effective loss of dexterity; the loss of Dexterity could be offset by Skill (read Feats)

OR

- the ability would become 'ki' based and therefore supernatural.