TheRPGSite

Well, and other things too but let's stick with Iridium for now.

So, over in the Iridium V2 thread we have a pretty viable Alpha using Iridium Lite as a template. So, now I want to see if we can take Iridium Standard forward.

Purpose:
1. To evaluate Iridium Standard as an candidate for V2.
2. To evaluate percentile base for V2.
3. To preserve more of the feel and goals of Iridium Standard in V2.

Points to improve:
1. Convert to one dice mechanic. So, I am looking at going to all percentiles rather than all d20s since it gives the granularity I am looking for and is an easier conversion.

2. Standardize combat and skills to one mechanic (roll over or roll under). They are currently split.

3. Evaluate the role of classes and levels int he system. I currently see thwem as highly disposable but they serve the purpose of a metric for advancement. Since we have the EXP spend mechanism in there, I am not sure they are needed but the question is, do they add something?

4. Revisit Armor and how it works. Currently, it is all or nothing, ablative armor. So, you have 30 points in your chain armor and it goes down until it is 0. Then it protects for nothing. Should we have a armor piercing mechanism? Should armor be converted to DR? A monumental task at best requiring all armor values to change and weapon damages to reflect it.

5. Separate weapon damage types. We have visited this before but had it be bog ass slow in execution. It slows combat to a crawl and jacks up book keeping very high. I am currently opposed to this but I am open to some trickery I do not see; ie. highly abstracted concepts like having Piercing type weapons do no damage to armor but have a better chance of piercing armor.

That is the summary. Let's kick it off with what I consider core, the skills and combat roll over/under issue.

Currently, we have skills advancing like so.
Rank 1 40% (chance of success)
Rank 2 60% (chance of success)
Rank 3 70% (chance of success)
Rank 4 75% (chance of success)
Rank 5 80% (chance of success)
Rank 6 82% (chance of success)
Rank 7 84% (chance of success)
.
.
Rank 10 90% (chance of success)
Rank 11 91% (chance of success)
etc.

Skill checks are simply roll % and add or subtract mods from GM or stats.

Combat uses STR+CON+AGL/3 for a Defense. This becomes the target that any attacker must roll at or above on a d20 with mods from GM, Stats, Magic or Weapons proficiency.

So, I am thinking it would be easier to try and port the combat to %. This would basically be just multiplying everything by 5...but we want a unified mechanic as well. So...

If we go with roll under...

Defense becomes a negative modifying to the attacker's roll. The Attacker rolls his ranks of Weapons Use + any Specialization mods. So, If you have a Defense of 75% (15) the attacker has 4 ranks of Weapon Use (Sword) 75% plus 15% in + to hit from his specialization in short sword, he needs to roll a 15 or less on %.

Note: this method means you could have negative target numbers. Iridium is open ended so you would need roll a 5% or less followed by a number on the % equal to or greater than the target Defense. In the above example if the Defense had been 100 then the target would have been -10 meaning a roll of 05 followed by 10.

Ouch that seems needlessly complex.

So, roll over...

We could convert to roll over on the skills easily by basically reversing the skill ranks. 1 rank gets you 60% you need to roll over, 2 ranks gets you 40% and so on.

Defense stays the Target you need to roll over and combat mostly stays the same.

I feel like I am missing something....

Thoughts?

Bill

Quote from: HinterWeltWell, and other things too but let's stick with Iridium for now.

So, over in the Iridium V2 thread we have a pretty viable Alpha using Iridium Lite as a template. So, now I want to see if we can take Iridium Standard forward.

Purpose:
1. To evaluate Iridium Standard as an candidate for V2.
2. To evaluate percentile base for V2.
3. To preserve more of the feel and goals of Iridium Standard in V2.

Points to improve:
1. Convert to one dice mechanic. So, I am looking at going to all percentiles rather than all d20s since it gives the granularity I am looking for and is an easier conversion.

2. Standardize combat and skills to one mechanic (roll over or roll under). They are currently split.

3. Evaluate the role of classes and levels int he system. I currently see thwem as highly disposable but they serve the purpose of a metric for advancement. Since we have the EXP spend mechanism in there, I am not sure they are needed but the question is, do they add something?

4. Revisit Armor and how it works. Currently, it is all or nothing, ablative armor. So, you have 30 points in your chain armor and it goes down until it is 0. Then it protects for nothing. Should we have a armor piercing mechanism? Should armor be converted to DR? A monumental task at best requiring all armor values to change and weapon damages to reflect it.

5. Separate weapon damage types. We have visited this before but had it be bog ass slow in execution. It slows combat to a crawl and jacks up book keeping very high. I am currently opposed to this but I am open to some trickery I do not see; ie. highly abstracted concepts like having Piercing type weapons do no damage to armor but have a better chance of piercing armor.

That is the summary. Let's kick it off with what I consider core, the skills and combat roll over/under issue.

Currently, we have skills advancing like so.
Rank 1 40% (chance of success)
Rank 2 60% (chance of success)
Rank 3 70% (chance of success)
Rank 4 75% (chance of success)
Rank 5 80% (chance of success)
Rank 6 82% (chance of success)
Rank 7 84% (chance of success)
.
.
Rank 10 90% (chance of success)
Rank 11 91% (chance of success)
etc.

Skill checks are simply roll % and add or subtract mods from GM or stats.

Combat uses STR+CON+AGL/3 for a Defense. This becomes the target that any attacker must roll at or above on a d20 with mods from GM, Stats, Magic or Weapons proficiency.

So, I am thinking it would be easier to try and port the combat to %. This would basically be just multiplying everything by 5...but we want a unified mechanic as well. So...

If we go with roll under...

Defense becomes a negative modifying to the attacker's roll. The Attacker rolls his ranks of Weapons Use + any Specialization mods. So, If you have a Defense of 75% (15) the attacker has 4 ranks of Weapon Use (Sword) 75% plus 15% in + to hit from his specialization in short sword, he needs to roll a 15 or less on %.

Note: this method means you could have negative target numbers. Iridium is open ended so you would need roll a 5% or less followed by a number on the % equal to or greater than the target Defense. In the above example if the Defense had been 100 then the target would have been -10 meaning a roll of 05 followed by 10.

Ouch that seems needlessly complex.

So, roll over...

We could convert to roll over on the skills easily by basically reversing the skill ranks. 1 rank gets you 60% you need to roll over, 2 ranks gets you 40% and so on.

Defense stays the Target you need to roll over and combat mostly stays the same.

I feel like I am missing something....

Thoughts?

Bill

Bill - do you want fast combat or slow? Looks to me like what you have here is that the defense is set so high that hitting the target is very difficult, over which is layered the protection of armor. This means that there's a high whiff factor - i.e. most combat is an exchange of many blows, most of which miss, with gradual erosion of the armor, and a sudden penetration when armor is ablated.

I think your defense is set too high. Try going at it the other way. The sweet spot I have found is for starting skill characters to hit half the time. Figure your chance of hitting a non-dodging object is 100%. Then normal dodging defense shouldn't be more than about 50% for equivalent characters. Work it backwards from there.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceBill - do you want fast combat or slow? Looks to me like what you have here is that the defense is set so high that hitting the target is very difficult, over which is layered the protection of armor. This means that there's a high whiff factor - i.e. most combat is an exchange of many blows, most of which miss, with gradual erosion of the armor, and a sudden penetration when armor is ablated.

I think your defense is set too high. Try going at it the other way. The sweet spot I have found is for starting skill characters to hit half the time. Figure your chance of hitting a non-dodging object is 100%. Then normal dodging defense shouldn't be more than about 50% for equivalent characters. Work it backwards from there.

-clash

See, I think I see a point I need to clarify.

Defense is currently based on stats so it can range from 1 to 20. However, in practice, people place their big scores in the defense stats (STR, AGL, and CON). So, although it is possible to have a 1 defense, most have a 15 or greater.

Originally, since Defense was very difficult to change over the run of a Character, I made it easy to get a high one and keep it.

So, let's rethink along your lines. Using the Roll over since it comes easiest to me.

Say, we have a skill : Dodge. Let's mix stats and use the formula (STR+AGL+CON+Dodge Skill)/4. So,
(75+75+75+40)/4=66.

hmm, a bit high yet. Maybe weight the skill more? ((STR+CON+AGL)/3 + Dodge)/2?....Ahhh! Algebra flashback!!!
O.k. this yields 58.

Mrr, I need coffee cause that seems painful.

Basically, I want stats plus a skill, I think that would work best but it just is not coming.

Bill

Quote from: HinterWeltSee, I think I see a point I need to clarify.

Defense is currently based on stats so it can range from 1 to 20. However, in practice, people place their big scores in the defense stats (STR, AGL, and CON). So, although it is possible to have a 1 defense, most have a 15 or greater.

Originally, since Defense was very difficult to change over the run of a Character, I made it easy to get a high one and keep it.

So, let's rethink along your lines. Using the Roll over since it comes easiest to me.

Say, we have a skill : Dodge. Let's mix stats and use the formula (STR+AGL+CON+Dodge Skill)/4. So,
(75+75+75+40)/4=66.

hmm, a bit high yet. Maybe weight the skill more? ((STR+CON+AGL)/3 + Dodge)/2?....Ahhh! Algebra flashback!!!
O.k. this yields 58.

Mrr, I need coffee cause that seems painful.

Basically, I want stats plus a skill, I think that would work best but it just is not coming.

Bill

How about dropping STR from the calculation? (AGL+CON+DODGE)/4 = (75+75+40)/4 = 190/4 = 47.5

I'm sure they'll be pumping STR for other reasons anyway. :D

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceI think your defense is set too high. Try going at it the other way. The sweet spot I have found is for starting skill characters to hit half the time. Figure your chance of hitting a non-dodging object is 100%. Then normal dodging defense shouldn't be more than about 50% for equivalent characters. Work it backwards from there.

Ironically, this is somewhat like d20 AC. There's a side bar in one of the books (I forget at the moment, think it's the DMG) that talks about the fact that AC, which is 10 plus a bunch of modifiers, is really based on the Take 10 rule.  In essence, the defender doesn't roll defense, but "takes a 10 roll" - which is, as clash points out, the 50% mark for a d20*.




* Yeah, I know, in reality, since you can get a 10 and still succeed, it's the 55% success mark...sue me...

Quote from: flyingmiceHow about dropping STR from the calculation? (AGL+CON+DODGE)/4 = (75+75+40)/4 = 190/4 = 47.5

I'm sure they'll be pumping STR for other reasons anyway. :D

-clash

And really, how does STR stop you from getting hit? That's not a snarky question - I'm serious...

Will there be other skills that could be added in? As we discussed over on d20 Haven, what about Parry? I mean, in essence, that's stopping you from getting hit, no?

Quote from: James J SkachAnd really, how does STR stop you from getting hit? That's not a snarky question - I'm serious...

Will there be other skills that could be added in? As we discussed over on d20 Haven, what about Parry? I mean, in essence, that's stopping you from getting hit, no?

I have had people argue CON more often. In fact, guys who play elves in Tales of Gaea used to make the argument for AGL only defense. Oi!  

That said, yeah, it would be easier to pull STR out. Hmm, I just do not know about Dodge though. Skills can be bought pretty cheap during char creation and you would end up with people have 80 in Dodge. So, let's try that.

(75 +75+80)/4 = 58. Hrm...not much improvement. If we keep levels, you end up with 10th level fighter having a +30 making Dodge 110.
(75+75 +110)/4 = 65.

Let's try averages with the above.
(75+75 +40)/3 = 63
(75 +75+80)/3 = 76
(75+75 +110)/3 = 87

hmm, sweet. I suppose you guys don't like it? It has always been my experience that those higher numbers aren't that hard to hit.

Let's look at the extreme.
(100+100+110)/3 = 103

Not impossible but pretty tough.

Worthy of some thought. It would make defense yet another thing to improve and it is skill based which I like.

Thanks,
Bill

Oops, sorry James, missed your question. STR represents the character's ability to have the STR to move out of the way. AGL is the coordination to do so. CON is the endurance to keep doing it. In a perfect world you would have CON going down as combat wore on. I originally had a fatigue mechanism that dropped Defense 1 point for every three round of combat. Eventually, you would be too tired to defend yourself. It was a bit of a pain. ;)

So, let's stick with Defense as (CON+AGL+Dodge)/3 for now given the ranges.

If we have roll under skills as we do now, how do we get combat in line?

Some ideas.

If we use a standard Weapon Use skill check as a base. Man, I want to but I am having the hardest time making that work...

Well, how about we try and explain it in the context of the skills. So,
1. Roll %.
2. Roll under Weapon Use skill.
3. Defender rolls under Defense.
4. Compare the amount each roll is made by.
Man, that sucks.

O.k. What elements are we looking at.
Defense: between 60-105
Weapon Use Skill : 40-80 initially.
Mods from Dex : up to 20 but can be adjusted.
Mods from Weapon Proficiency : +5 to 25 usually but could go higher.

Mechanic: We have a roll under option and a roll over option. Let's look at both.

Roll over: We could have a base of 50 + Defense giving a range of something like 110-155. Roll % add Weapon Skill and Pluses. The low end, you need a 70 to hit, high end, a 10 or less.

Roll under: We need a target. Weapon Use makes sense. hmm, Can we use Defense some how. Make a roll under from defense.Well, we could flip it. Not very intuitive.

I have tried this before an I usually get complaint about combat where lower numbers are "wrong" or "bad".

Hmm, maybe I will go talk it over with Linda. She will just raise an eyebrow and give me a dirty look saying "Why are we changing it again?". :o

Thanks,
Bill

Another roll under solution.

1. Roll Weapon Use.
2. Defender rolls Defense. If he makes it then you miss.

Meh, thought I would mention it but not very sexy.

Bill

Edit: Slightly more sexy would be subtracting the amount the attacker made his Weapon Use by from the defender's Defense. Oh, I could catch it for that...evil math.

An idea from Iridium Lite V2 we could use is the Skill + Roll >= Difficulty. So, and I mention this up stream, we could have Difficulty start at 50, go up by 25 (with option for smaller increments) so a Simple Difficulty would be 50, Normal would be 75, Difficult would be 100 and so on.

For combat, this would mean:

Difficulty to hit would be Defense + 50. So, with above examples, a 75 Defense would yield a 125 Difficulty.

Weapon Use + from Stat + from specialization would be something like
40 + 20 =60 requiring a roll of 65 at the lower end.
80 +20 + 20 = 120 or a roll of 05.

We could adjust it up with making the base for combat 75.

I still like the idea of Dodge factoring in but I might just decide on an average.

I think we might be on to something here...

Thanks,
Bill

Quote from: HinterWeltAn idea from Iridium Lite V2 we could use is the Skill + Roll >= Difficulty. So, and I mention this up stream, we could have Difficulty start at 50, go up by 25 (with option for smaller increments) so a Simple Difficulty would be 50, Normal would be 75, Difficult would be 100 and so on.

For combat, this would mean:

Difficulty to hit would be Defense + 50. So, with above examples, a 75 Defense would yield a 125 Difficulty.

Weapon Use + from Stat + from specialization would be something like
40 + 20 =60 requiring a roll of 65 at the lower end.
80 +20 + 20 = 120 or a roll of 05.

We could adjust it up with making the base for combat 75.

I still like the idea of Dodge factoring in but I might just decide on an average.

I think we might be on to something here...

Thanks,
Bill

My concerns with this method.

1. Percentiles. When we used to have % in Iridium the most common issue in AP was "Wah!!! I rolled a 53 and need to add 25 in mods!!! AAAAHHHHH I SUMMON THE GOD CALCULATOR!" This could be worse since potentially you might need to add three numbers or more. We could mitigate that by having a pre-calculated combat total than all you do is add your roll but... So, thoughts?

2. It is a significant departure from the original skills and combat methods. Is that bad? I am not sure. All the elements are still there. Stats influence skills, Defense and attacks. We even extend skill to cover ability. Still, this one is hard for any of you to say but opinions are always welcome.

3. Linda has voiced the concern that back in the day, we made the specific design decision to go with Stats as Defense because we did not like the way levels would advance and make you harder to hit. However, I like the idea of it being tied to a skill since that is one of the tenets of Iridium, what you do is important and skills and training a how you do what you do (even that voodoo that you do). Sol, I still think Dodge is good.

Thanks,
Bill

Quote from: HinterWeltMy concerns with this method.

1. Percentiles. When we used to have % in Iridium the most common issue in AP was "Wah!!! I rolled a 53 and need to add 25 in mods!!! AAAAHHHHH I SUMMON THE GOD CALCULATOR!" This could be worse since potentially you might need to add three numbers or more. We could mitigate that by having a pre-calculated combat total than all you do is add your roll but... So, thoughts?

2. It is a significant departure from the original skills and combat methods. Is that bad? I am not sure. All the elements are still there. Stats influence skills, Defense and attacks. We even extend skill to cover ability. Still, this one is hard for any of you to say but opinions are always welcome.

3. Linda has voiced the concern that back in the day, we made the specific design decision to go with Stats as Defense because we did not like the way levels would advance and make you harder to hit. However, I like the idea of it being tied to a skill since that is one of the tenets of Iridium, what you do is important and skills and training a how you do what you do (even that voodoo that you do). Sol, I still think Dodge is good.

Thanks,
Bill

Then bring the stat numbers down. Divide them by five before you add them. Then Skills influence combat more than Stats, but stats still matter. Plus it's easier to add. :D

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceThen bring the stat numbers down. Divide them by five before you add them. Then Skills influence combat more than Stats, but stats still matter. Plus it's easier to add. :D

-clash

You're messing with me right? ;) We are returning to the same path I was on some 20 years ago with ending up with stats going from 1-20...

Then again, I seem to have goine into responding to myself....and Clash...so, I am Clash?  I need more coffee...

Bill

I have friends who vastly prefer small numbers for adding during gaming (so they don't have to drop out of "Game" mode to "math" mode--their words not mine.)

To me its all the same thing as long as its simple mathematics (and not algebra :D)

Quote from: SilverlionI have friends who vastly prefer small numbers for adding during gaming (so they don't have to drop out of "Game" mode to "math" mode--their words not mine.)

To me its all the same thing as long as its simple mathematics (and not algebra :D)

Definitely. I also want to be clear, I am doing this as a method of evaluating the V2IS vs V2IL which seems really to be coming down to % vs d20. D20 is easier to add. So, some questions:

1. Do you think it is just too close to the d20 system? I mean, there is derivative then their is OMG!

2. Anyone have experience with roll under combat systems? Man, I am finding I have none. They must exist but I am getting old and don't remember.

3. If we go with a roll over for % combat (how it works now sort of), any ideas on how to do a roll over skill system? Just throwing it open for discussion. I could see a simple reverse of the current roll under progression (60, 40, 30, 25, ... instead of 40, 60, 70, 75...) but I was not sur eif that would work well and it still means combat is this separate roll off by itself, not very unified but close.

Thanks,
Bill

Quote from: HinterWeltDefinitely. I also want to be clear, I am doing this as a method of evaluating the V2IS vs V2IL which seems really to be coming down to % vs d20. D20 is easier to add. So, some questions:

1. Do you think it is just too close to the d20 system? I mean, there is derivative then their is OMG!

2. Anyone have experience with roll under combat systems? Man, I am finding I have none. They must exist but I am getting old and don't remember.

3. If we go with a roll over for % combat (how it works now sort of), any ideas on how to do a roll over skill system? Just throwing it open for discussion. I could see a simple reverse of the current roll under progression (60, 40, 30, 25, ... instead of 40, 60, 70, 75...) but I was not sur eif that would work well and it still means combat is this separate roll off by itself, not very unified but close.

Thanks,
Bill

I've got quite a bit of Roll Under design experience, Bill. :D

Standard StarCluster uses d% roll under, with a skill ranking of 1 giving a base 45% roll under, and each 2 points of attribute above seven - i.e. 9, 11, 13, 15 - giving a bonus of 5%. Attributes range from 1-15. A typical adventurer stat of 9 gives a 50% chance.  

The big problem with roll under is "what do you do when skills hit over 100%?" Since you can trade points with SC between init, chance, and quality, that's no problem - extra points just get put into quality (damage in combat) or more rarely init. a roll of 100 is always a failure in SC.

The resons I went with a lower range of Attributes:

1: It gives the player a range of unskiled rolls depending on difficulty by multiplying the Attribute by 1-5. So, a difficult unskilled roll would be roll under Attribute on percentile, and an easy one would be roll under Attribute X 5 on percentile.

2: It makes it easy to slot in other TR systems - for example StarPool is roll Skill+1 d20 under attribute, count successes - and you can shift to d20 easily by using a rank of 1 = 9, +1 per rank, +1 per 2 points of Attribute over 7. I've got roll over and diceless variants, and even a risk die variant

3: You can preload all these things on the character sheet, so you don't have to do the math each time.

I think the numbers you are using are too large, even for percentile. They are awkward to handle. I would recommend working with raw percent only on the to hit roll, and making other numbers much smaller. Defense should be in the range 1-25, and Attribute bonuses should be in the range of 1-25. That keeps the numbers you are working with sane. That means pre-loading derivative numbers for defense and attributes.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceI've got quite a bit of Roll Under design experience, Bill. :D

Standard StarCluster uses d% roll under, with a skill ranking of 1 giving a base 45% roll under, and each 2 points of attribute above seven - i.e. 9, 11, 13, 15 - giving a bonus of 5%. Attributes range from 1-15. A typical adventurer stat of 9 gives a 50% chance.  

The big problem with roll under is "what do you do when skills hit over 100%?" Since you can trade points with SC between init, chance, and quality, that's no problem - extra points just get put into quality (damage in combat) or more rarely init. a roll of 100 is always a failure in SC.

The resons I went with a lower range of Attributes:

1: It gives the player a range of unskiled rolls depending on difficulty by multiplying the Attribute by 1-5. So, a difficult unskilled roll would be roll under Attribute on percentile, and an easy one would be roll under Attribute X 5 on percentile.

2: It makes it easy to slot in other TR systems - for example StarPool is roll Skill+1 d20 under attribute, count successes - and you can shift to d20 easily by using a rank of 1 = 9, +1 per rank, +1 per 2 points of Attribute over 7. I've got roll over and diceless variants, and even a risk die variant

3: You can preload all these things on the character sheet, so you don't have to do the math each time.

I think the numbers you are using are too large, even for percentile. They are awkward to handle. I would recommend working with raw percent only on the to hit roll, and making other numbers much smaller. Defense should be in the range 1-25, and Attribute bonuses should be in the range of 1-25. That keeps the numbers you are working with sane. That means pre-loading derivative numbers for defense and attributes.

-clash

See, Linda and I were driving around today looking for houses and I think we came up with a way to handle much of this.

Skills
Roll under, progress 40,60,70,75,80... Modified by derivations from stats (1-30). +2 % per level for out of class skill, +3% for in class skill. 05 or lower on a skill check will always make a skill check/ hit.

Combat
Roll on Weapon Use Skill - target's Defense. Defense now equals (AGL+CON+DODGE)/6. This should give us a range from 1 to 50 roughly. Multiple attacks based on weapons. Parry can still be used.

Example
Player A : 2-hander (2 ATT, 5d10), Defense 37, Weapon Use (Sword) 70, Targeting (2-hander) 50%
Foe : Short Sword (3 ATT, 2d10), Defense 32, Weapon Use (Short Sword) 90%, Targeting (Short Sword) 80%

Player A wins init. First Init he swings his 2-hander sword. Rolls his Weapon Use (Sword) at 70-32 = 38. He rolls a 62 and misses.

Foe Goes. Rolls WU(Sword) 90-37=53, rolls a 55 and hits. Compares 55 to Targeting and he Targets! Rolls 2d10 and gets 18 to the 1 or head.

Player A Swings. Needs a 38 and rolls a 35 hits and makes targeting for 42 to the 4 or chest.

etc...

Now, I appreciate that Defense might still be jacking with the %. We could divide by 10 which would be fine. But is this more in line. It nicely makes Stats, Skills and Combat all % and all roll under. It really does not alter the base system. It is an EASY convert to d20's for a nifty light version...

We may have a winner here.

Thanks,
Bill

Stupid double post.

Quote from: HinterWeltSee, Linda and I were driving around today looking for houses and I think we came up with a way to handle much of this.

Skills
Roll under, progress 40,60,70,75,80... Modified by derivations from stats (1-30). +2 % per level for out of class skill, +3% for in class skill. 05 or lower on a skill check will always make a skill check/ hit.

Combat
Roll on Weapon Use Skill - target's Defense. Defense now equals (AGL+CON+DODGE)/6. This should give us a range from 1 to 50 roughly. Multiple attacks based on weapons. Parry can still be used.

Example
Player A : 2-hander (2 ATT, 5d10), Defense 37, Weapon Use (Sword) 70, Targeting (2-hander) 50%
Foe : Short Sword (3 ATT, 2d10), Defense 32, Weapon Use (Short Sword) 90%, Targeting (Short Sword) 80%

Player A wins init. First Init he swings his 2-hander sword. Rolls his Weapon Use (Sword) at 70-32 = 38. He rolls a 62 and misses.

Foe Goes. Rolls WU(Sword) 90-37=53, rolls a 55 and hits. Compares 55 to Targeting and he Targets! Rolls 2d10 and gets 18 to the 1 or head.

Player A Swings. Needs a 38 and rolls a 35 hits and makes targeting for 42 to the 4 or chest.

etc...

Now, I appreciate that Defense might still be jacking with the %. We could divide by 10 which would be fine. But is this more in line. It nicely makes Stats, Skills and Combat all % and all roll under. It really does not alter the base system. It is an EASY convert to d20's for a nifty light version...

We may have a winner here.

Thanks,
Bill

This is very much in line with my suggestions. I like it! :D

-clash

O.k. So, revisiting initiative and OoC.

Edit: Good points by Skynet over on HinterForums (http://www.hinterwelt.com/HWEForum/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=327&p=1278#p1278)

This is what I currently have down. It is serviceable but not very sexy. I am worried that I am trying to hard to be sexy, and will just end up complex and a pain in the toot.

Explanation of Segmented Init
Now, the alternative would be a Segmented combat. I have been thinking on this and what we could have is a combo of Clash's system and the Segmented one. Essentially, every round is capped at 20 segments. So, roll a d20 and add your d20 AGL bonus (0-6) and if it goes over, track it but your actions start on 20. You might have a lot of actions at 20 but it should shake out.

So, you can then spend your "extra" (any init over 20) and your 20 segments on pluses to hit or skill check. Alternatively, is you go slow, you can take minuses to up to a higher init. Initially, I was thinking a different cost to raise vs to lower. So, something like gain 1 init for a -5 or drop for +3.

If I do not have the segments, I cannot do the action. We would have weapon/action speeds so:
Large Weapon Att: 10 Segments
Medium : 6
Small : 4
Movement would be MR/20 with a min of 3 (Start, move and stop). So, a MR of 14 would mean 140 feet in one round or 7 feet per segment. Alternatively, just to simplify it I would offer something like 1/2 movement in 10 segs.
Simple actions : Ruled so by the GM would take an amount less than the full Round (Quick patch, Casting Effects, Activating magic/tech).
Complex would take the round (First Aid, Translations, Research)

If the GM rules that the action is Complex and would last into the next round (you have 10 Segs left but the action runs 15 Segs) then you loose all of next round completing the action.

Example: I roll a 23 init. I start on 20 and can purchase a + 9 to my Weapon Use/Skill check round. I could then Attack with my Short Sword twice (8 Segments) move 14 feet (2 segments) and render First Aid to a comrade (a variable time but probably the remainder of the round if not more).

PDF of Segment Char Sheet with Seg Tracker. (http://www.hinterwelt.com/ISCR/CharSheetV2CS.pdf)

Example of Staggered Initiative
Player A: Rolls a 4 with an AGL d20 Binus of 6 for a 10.

Player B: Rolls a 20, rolls again and gets a 9 for a total of 29. He then adds his AGL d20 Bonus of 5 for a Total Initiative of 34.

Player C: Rolls a 1 with a 3 AGL d20 Bonus  for a total of 4.

Foe: Rolls a 12 with an AGL d20 Bonus of 4 for total of 16.
*****
Player B wins with a 34 and decides to move a short distance, then engage the Foe. He then uses a short sword for one out of his three attacks. .

The Foe goes next with a 16. He uses his Bite to strike Player B (initiative 16).

Player A may now start after the Foe has gone since the Foe had the Initiative (a 16 as opposed to Player A’s 14). He opts to move out of Combat. The GM asks if he will use his full movement and Player A says yes. This uses his action for this round. (initiative 10).

Player C holds his initiative to wait and see if anyone is hurt and needs First Aid.

One Cycle ends and combat rolls back to the highest initiative again, Player B with 34.

Player B swings his short sword on the Foe, striking and wounding him. (initiative 34)

Foe attacks with his Claw again (initiative 16) on Player B disabling him. Foe is done.

Player A fires his Bow (initiative 10).

Player C holds action again. (initiative 4)

Cycle restarts with Player B.

Player B swings his short sword on the Foe, striking and wounding him. (initiative 34) Player B is done.

Foe claws again on Player B. (initiative 16)

Player A fires his Bow (initiative 10). Player A is done.

On initiative of 4, Player C uses his First Aid, a Complex Action, to stabilize Player B. The GM rules that it takes two rounds.

Cycle Restarts with the Foe who is the only one with actions left.

Foe charges and Player A.

End of Round.
Round 2, reroll initiative.

Thanks,
Bill

Initiative still makes my head hurt. I really like the armour/damage idea on the Hinterwelt forum though.

Quote from: SeanInitiative still makes my head hurt. I really like the armour/damage idea on the Hinterwelt forum though.

Yeah, see I am trying to make it less so but I think i may be getting carried away with creating options in combat that do not need to be there...

Just for reference, the way it works in V1 is :
1. Roll d6, add AGL bonus for a range of 1 to 12.
2. Highest goes first.
3. All attacks (even if you have 5) or actions go on you init.

Repeat.

Thanks,
Bill