|
|
Post by Wolfgar on Jul 26, 2012 9:04:58 GMT -5
We currently allow a percentile roll for each new level. This has the effect of having characters with lots of high stats. Almost all fighter have 18/00 strength. An alternative would be to institute a graduated scale for applying increases. For example, in the DMG on page 11, above a 16, a wish only increases a stat by 1/10. Below 16 a wish increases by a full point. You could apply the same logic to stat increases. If the stat is above 16, then divide the percentile roll by 10. I think this might be a little harsh. Here is an attempt at a more graduated approach. The higher up you go the harder it is to reach the next level. | Current | Multiplier | Effective Points | | < 15 | 2 | 50 | | 15 - 16 | 1.333333333 | 75 | | 16 - 17 | 1 | 100 | | 17 - 18 | 0.666666667 | 150 | | 18 - 18/01 | 0.5 | 200 | | 18/01 - 18/50 | 0.5 | 200 | | 18/51 - 18/75 | 0.4 | 250 | | 18/76 - 18/90 | 0.333333333 | 300 | | 18/91 - 18/99 | 0.25 | 400 |
So each level you still get to roll a percentile dice and choose a stat to increase. But now you multiply the percentile by a certain number before applying it to the stat. For example, if you have a 13 INT and roll a 67, then you would multiply 67 by 2 and end up with a 14/34 INT. If you have a 17 STR and roll a 72, then you would multiply 72 by 2/3 and end up with a 17/48 STR. Note I also make a distinction between the percentile strength and the percentile increases. You now have to think of each category of exceptional strength as just a label. You could just call them 18A - 18E. There would be no more jumping from 18/01 to 18/00 in one level. This is certainly more complicated in terms of bookkeeping and you can argue about what the various multipliers should be. But I think it (or something like it) is at least worth considering. |
|
|
|
Post by Ginger on Jul 26, 2012 10:25:36 GMT -5
I really like the incentives to increase dump stats. It would be cool if more of us had better perceptions or Charisma.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bolo on Jul 26, 2012 16:45:31 GMT -5
I like the concept of slowing down the increases in stats that are already high. Here is another method for doing that:
In football, a penalty can never be more than half the distance to the goal line. Treat the percentile roll the same way, with 18/00 as the goal line. So if your current stat is anything up to 17, it increases by whatever you roll. But if you're at 18, your max increase is 50 points -- half of the 100 points you are away from 18/00. Your max increase starting at 18/50 is 25 points. Your max increase starting from 18/80 is 10 points. Etc.
I think this reduces the bookkeeping complexity.
It also prevents a perverse behavior in the "table of multipliers" approach when the starting stat is near the top or bottom of a table row. Here's an example of what I mean. Suppose you are starting at 14/99 and you roll 00. The multiplier is 2, and you end up at 16/99. Now suppose you are starting a little higher, at 15/01, and you roll the same 00. Now the multiplier is 1.33, and you end up at 16/34. If you start lower, you end higher, and vice versa. You can tweak the table to minimize this, but you can't get rid of it, and the tweaking would likely make the bookkeeping complexity even worse.
|
|
|
|
Post by venger on Jul 27, 2012 10:40:11 GMT -5
My suggestions as follows, just tossing them out there:
-Applying the 1d100 increase (or a fraction thereof) randomly (d6 roll) to a statistic upon gaining a level. If its to be a portion, the remainder is assigned by the player.
-Similar to above, but the player chooses one of two categories of statistics, mental (wisdom, charisma, intelligence) or physical (strength, dexterity, constitution) and the 1d100 is applied randomly (1d3 roll) to the chosen field.
-Dropping stat increase upon level gain entirely.
-1d100 is rolled upon level incease, divided by 6, and applied to all statistics.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ginger on Jul 27, 2012 13:28:03 GMT -5
I'm curious as to how much of the problem would be fixed if we just didn't reroll for level draining or dual-classing?
|
|
|
|
Post by Wolfgar on Jul 27, 2012 14:14:44 GMT -5
I think the advancement through the levels of exceptional strength is broken. It is currently 10 times easier to go from 18/90 to 18/00 than it is to go from 17 to 18.
But I agree getting rid of it for level draining and dual-classing is a good idea.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ginger on Jul 27, 2012 14:28:50 GMT -5
Maybe we could just let people make one roll at 18 to get their percentile and then freeze it there?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dead Greyhawk on Jul 27, 2012 19:49:27 GMT -5
I must admit, I made this house rule up for two reasons.
1. To make a 1E game more appealing to 3.5E players who have an inflated vision of HP and damage numbers.
2. To give classes that get very little at each level, like straight fighters, something to look forward to.
The rest just flowed from there.
You could take the cavalier approach and roll 2d10 rather than percentile. You'd get an increase, but it would be smaller. The smaller increases remove your 18 strength issue problem.
If I DM again, I'll likely split character creation into two camps: 3d6 in order as rolled and 4d6 arrange as you like, pick your class. The first camp will get d100 increases, the latter camp won't. I'll also adhere more closely to the dual-classing rules.
Finally, w/r/t rolling again after level draining, I think the broken part of that mechanic is that we don't roll percentile dice and subtract it from your highest stat when you lose a level. It would be entirely analogous to the lost hit points, and immediately would solve the rolling after level draining phenomenon.
|
|
|
|
Post by venger on Jul 27, 2012 21:19:55 GMT -5
It's interesting trying to balance the challenge level of encounters considering the party's huge damage output but low hit point totals.
The only creature I can think of that's ever lasted more than 3 rounds of melee combat with the party was the ultrodaemon.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bolo on Jul 28, 2012 17:49:04 GMT -5
we don't roll percentile dice and subtract it from your highest stat when you lose a level I agree that it would make sense to do this. Although I would suggest subtracting from a randomly selected stat, rather than the highest. And if anyone is thinking that losing a fraction of a point in a non-primary stat is no big deal, imagine a druid whose charisma drops to from 15 to 14/99 and therefore no longer qualifies to be a druid. I like having the percentile increases at each level, because it's a way to choose how your character evolves over time. It's like the house rule for allocating increases in thief skills, which is great. You'd lose the fun of choosing if the percentile increase went to a randomly chosen stat, or to all stats equally, or if it just went away. I don't think the allocation to a particular stat is the part that's broken. It is currently 10 times easier to go from 18/90 to 18/00 than it is to go from 17 to 18. Yes, this is the part that's broken. Either "table of multipliers" or "halfway to the goal line" would fix it. Here's a third possibility, inspired by the thief skills rule: Allow allocation of the percentile roll across multiple stats, but the amount allocated to strength can never skip over a strength category. For example, if your strength is 18/01 (the bottom of the 18/01-18/50 category), then if you roll a 99, you can boost your strength to 18/75 (the top of the 18/51-18/75 category) but the remaining 25 points must go on a different stat. The next time you level up, your strength will be limited to 18/90 (the top of the 18/76-18/90 category). And the next time, 18/99. |
|
|
|
Post by venger on Jul 28, 2012 17:54:12 GMT -5
Ok, so slower progression through exceptional strength levels and no rolling % increase for dual-classing or regaining a level lost to energy drain.
Those both work for me.
I'll have to think about starting die rolls. 4d6 and dropping 1s is pretty mighty.
|
|
|
|
Post by Friedrich on Jul 28, 2012 19:03:10 GMT -5
I think there are lots of good ideas posted here.
How about this for exceptional strength...
Once you are at 18 you divide your roll by a certain number depending on what bracket you are in.
18 -18.50= /2
18.51-.75= /4
18.76-.90= /6
18.91-99= /10
at 18.99 a character just gets to 18.00 regardless of what they roll.
The one problem I see with "half the distance to the goal line" is that in theory you will never reach 18.00 if you can only get half way there no matter where you start and what you roll!!
For example an 18.27 character that rolls a 62 would add 31 points to his total and finish with 18.58. It's still a nice bump but it will stop characters from moving up multiple slots on the strength chart in one roll, because the table of multipliers in this instance is set to whatever portion of d100 any given strength increment occupies. --- I know that last part wasn't very well written but I also know I have a bunch of physicists and chemists reading this so you guys should be able to follow it. ;D The dividend in this case make it cost 100 "real" % points to move up each increment on the strength chart.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bolo on Jul 28, 2012 22:30:23 GMT -5
no rolling % increase for ... regaining a level lost to energy drain. I still think it would be better to keep the percentile increase for regained levels, but offset it by rolling percentile decreases for lost levels. I'll have to think about starting die rolls. 4d6 and dropping 1s is pretty mighty. Straight 3d6 is the basic bell curve of the general population. Adventurers are not the general population. But 4d6, reroll 1s, drop lowest, is indeed mighty, especially at the top end. This contributes to the "nearly everyone is maxed out in their primary stat" problem, which I hereby christen NEMOPS. Here is a suggestion: Make one of the d6's a d4. In other words, 3d6 plus 1d4, reroll 1s, drop lowest. Like the current method, this would eliminate the very lowest stats, because of rerolling all 1s. I believe this is necessary because people with stats that crappy are never going to set out to be adventurers. Also like the current method, it would increase the average stat relative to the general 3d6 population, even after dropping the very lowest stats, because of the extra d4. I believe this is right because among people who do set out to be adventurers, those with higher stats are more likely to pass their apprenticeship, or basic training, or whatever it is that they need to do to get to 1st level. But relative to what we are doing now, it would result in fewer maxed-out scores at the top end, because the d4 never produces any 5s or 6s. This helps with NEMOPS. Here's a table comparing the probabilities of each roll from 3 to 18 in (a) straight 3d6, (b) our current method, and (c) the 3d6 plus d4, reroll 1s, drop lowest, method: | 3d6 | 4d6 rr1 | 3d6,d4 rr1 | | 3 | 0.5% | 0.0% | 0.0% | | 4 | 1.4% | 0.0% | 0.0% | | 5 | 2.8% | 0.0% | 0.0% | | 6 | 4.6% | 0.2% | 0.3% | | 7 | 6.9% | 0.6% | 1.1% | | 8 | 9.7% | 1.6% | 2.7% | | 9 | 11.6% | 3.4% | 5.3% | | 10 | 12.5% | 6.1% | 9.1% | | 11 | 12.5% | 9.3% | 12.8% | | 12 | 11.6% | 12.6% | 16.0% | | 13 | 9.7% | 15.0% | 16.8% | | 14 | 6.9% | 16.0% | 15.2% | | 15 | 4.6% | 14.6% | 11.2% | | 16 | 2.8% | 11.2% | 6.4% | | 17 | 1.4% | 6.7% | 2.4% | | 18 | 0.5% | 2.7% | 0.8% |
|
|
|
|
Post by Bolo on Jul 28, 2012 22:54:47 GMT -5
Once you are at 18 you divide your roll by a certain number depending on what bracket you are in. I believe this is mathematically the same as the "table of multipliers" approach, just expressed as a table of divisors rather than a table of multipliers. In particular, it still has the weird behavior just above and below a category boundary. For example, using your divisors, if you are at 18/50 and you roll 00, you divide by 2 and leap to 18/00. Whereas if you are a little higher, at 18/51, and you roll 00, you divide by 4 and only end up at 18/76. Lower, higher. Higher, lower. The one problem I see with "half the distance to the goal line" is that in theory you will never reach 18.00 Assuming that you round up when calculating the halfway point, you can get to 18/00 from 18/99. But yes, I agree that getting all the way to 18/00 becomes much more difficult. Is that a bug or a feature? :-) If you start at 18/01 and never screw up a roll, you will get to 18/00 at 8th level: 18/01 => 18/51 => 18/76 => 18/88 => 18/94 => 18/97 => 18/99 => 18/00 And the last few rolls are pretty hard to screw up. |
|
|
|
Post by Ginger on Jul 29, 2012 8:27:52 GMT -5
When it comes to the table of multipliers and the weird behavior above or below a category boundary, you could fix that if you treated the multipliers categories like tax brackets. You'd have one multiplier until 18/50 and then the rest of your remaining points would be subject to a lower multiplier. It's a tad more complex, but not really.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dead Greyhawk on Jul 29, 2012 9:45:53 GMT -5
Just as an aside, I am in two play by post games. In one I play a character with a Wisdom of 4. In the other i play a character with an Int of 4. Both are 3d6 roll character creation. Both characters are quite playable as adventurers.
|
|
|
|
Post by venger on Jul 29, 2012 10:54:09 GMT -5
Similar to the initial post, I like something like this: Any % rolls added to a stat over 16 are divided by 2. Any % rolls added to a stat over 18 are divided by 4. It needs to be simple if it's going to be implemented. Rolling stats with anything but d6s is heresy! Just as an aside, I am in two play by post games. In one I play a character with a Wisdom of 4. In the other i play a character with an Int of 4. Both are 3d6 roll character creation. Both characters are quite playable as adventurers. Anything other than strength/dexterity is a dump stat :) |
|
|
|
Post by Dead Greyhawk on Jul 29, 2012 12:22:39 GMT -5
Rolling stats with anything but d6s is heresy! This is unfortunately true. Giving this a moment more thought, it seems that it is not the absence of low scores that makes an adventurer, but the presence of high scores. We have plenty of tropes of the weak mage, the dumb fighter, and so on. I imagine that 3d7 or 3d8 with die rolls higher than 6 treated as a 6 would yield a higher average, higher likelihood of scores with bonuses to rolls, but maintain the ability to get a score less than 6. Just as an aside, I am in two play by post games. In one I play a character with a Wisdom of 4. In the other i play a character with an Int of 4. Both are 3d6 roll character creation. Both characters are quite playable as adventurers. Anything other than strength/dexterity is a dump stat :) I also have a hireling/henchman with a DEX of 6. He always goes last in the round and I play him as a bumbler. |
|
|
|
Post by Bolo on Jul 29, 2012 14:09:43 GMT -5
Just as an aside, I am in two play by post games. In one I play a character with a Wisdom of 4. In the other i play a character with an Int of 4. Both are 3d6 roll character creation. Both characters are quite playable as adventurers. OK, yes, this could be fun. Maybe my next character will be Dumbo, a halfling thief with a wisdom of 4, who often makes really bad choices. Dumbo: I zap the enemy with my lightning wand. Another Party Member: But I'm in the same line of sight! Dumbo: Whoops, sorry man, my bad. Dumbo: Excuse me, Mr. Policeman, can you please direct me to the Thieves Guild? I have some stolen goods I need to fence. Genie: I will grant the party one wish. Rest of Party: OK, let's think carefully about this. Dumbo: Yeah. This is a tough one. Boy, I could sure use a drink to help me think. I wish I had a nice cold beer. |
|
|
|
Post by Bolo on Jul 29, 2012 14:47:09 GMT -5
Rolling stats with anything but d6s is heresy! If you want to keep the whole 3-18 range, you could try d8+d6+d4, or d10+2d4. Hey, this is fun. Wait! No! Don't tie me to that stake! Don't light that kindling! Aaaaagghh! 3d8 with die rolls higher than 6 treated as a 6 For the record, this is a weird distribution, bimodal with peaks at 13 and 18. Here's a comparison of 3d6, 4d6 (reroll 1s, drop lowest), and 3d8 (treat 7s and 8s as 6s): | N | P(3d6) | P(4d6) | P(3d8) | | 3 | 0.5% | 0.0% | 1.6% | | 4 | 1.4% | 0.0% | 1.6% | | 5 | 2.8% | 0.0% | 3.1% | | 6 | 4.6% | 0.2% | 3.1% | | 7 | 6.9% | 0.6% | 4.7% | | 8 | 9.7% | 1.6% | 6.3% | | 9 | 11.6% | 3.4% | 6.3% | | 10 | 12.5% | 6.1% | 6.3% | | 11 | 12.5% | 9.3% | 6.3% | | 12 | 11.6% | 12.6% | 6.3% | | 13 | 9.7% | 15.0% | 10.7% | | 14 | 6.9% | 16.0% | 9.4% | | 15 | 4.6% | 14.6% | 7.8% | | 16 | 2.8% | 11.2% | 7.8% | | 17 | 1.4% | 6.7% | 6.3% | | 18 | 0.5% | 2.7% | 12.7% |
|
|
|
|
Post by Bolo on Jul 31, 2012 22:11:41 GMT -5
My apologies. Spreadsheet bug. That last table should be as follows: | N | P(3d6) | 4d6rr1 | 3d8rr78 | | 3 | 0.5% | 0.0% | 0.2% | | 4 | 1.4% | 0.0% | 0.6% | | 5 | 2.8% | 0.0% | 1.2% | | 6 | 4.6% | 0.2% | 2.0% | | 7 | 6.9% | 0.6% | 2.9% | | 8 | 9.7% | 1.6% | 5.3% | | 9 | 11.6% | 3.4% | 7.2% | | 10 | 12.5% | 6.1% | 8.8% | | 11 | 12.5% | 9.3% | 10.0% | | 12 | 11.6% | 12.6% | 10.7% | | 13 | 9.7% | 15.0% | 13.5% | | 14 | 6.9% | 16.0% | 11.1% | | 15 | 4.6% | 14.6% | 9.0% | | 16 | 2.8% | 11.2% | 7.0% | | 17 | 1.4% | 6.7% | 5.3% | | 18 | 0.5% | 2.7% | 5.3% |
Not bimodal, and not particularly weird, though still sort of interesting. |
|
