Quote from: StormBringer;559026You really can't even do that.  It is a false design goal that will always make your game worse; viz anything from the Forge, or 4e.  Some would say I repeat myself.

You do repeat yourself, but you also happen to be right.

Quote from: Benoist;559027You do repeat yourself, but you also happen to be right.

:hatsoff:

MGuy,

Leaving aside the fact that the existence of the Champion class was problematic on an entirely personal level (something I am SURE I mentioned in my initial comment), based entirely on the fact that I hate being told that fighters and soldier and warriors ever went into combat being told 'Okay Bob, when we get in there you take that orcs ax to the face as long as you can. We'll try to kill it before your face gives out.', and think its fail on almost every level...

... and, trying to further justify its existance by using bodyguards... seriously: Do you think Bodyguards actually like getting shot at? Have you ever worked personal security? If you're client gets anywhere NEAR a known fight situation you fail at life.

At least mechanically we've moved away from Schrodinger Damage, which is a good thing.

Your initial explanation was that the Champion Takes Damage from another Character (I could quote you, but why?).

Damage is a fairly specific "Game Term". It has meaning, and D&D that meaning is 'HP'.

Your more detailed explanation directly contradicts that... what you MEAN is 'The Champion takes the ATTACK* for another character', which makes him less of a masochist and more 'just a moron', which is an improvement.

But who knows: The WoW set will probably love it.

And, of course, if you don't think your bonus scheme is too fiddly, well, its your game. At least you've moved to armor as DR, though it does sound like guys who take axes to the face (Professionally) are crappier dodgers than people who don't, which seems... backwards... but in a minor way.






* This is not merely semantics.  The order of operations in combat, especially D&D combat is relatively well set and the use of terminology implies when, in that order of operations your action kicks in.

1- critter declares it is attacking
1a- possible interrupt based on champion's schtick (and actual based on explanation).
2- monster rolls attack and hits.
2a- possible interrupt (Schrodinger's damage, worst possible champion ability)
3-monster rolls damage
3a- possible 'interrupt' as the Champion takes the rolled damage on himself (What you actually described in your blurb).

1a and 3a are both mechanically workable without too much difficulty/confusion. 1a is potentially slower and more fiddly, but I think in a trivial fashion if explained clearly. 3a is fast and easy but immersion breakingly stupid for all the reasons I mocked you for earlier. 2a is mechanically possible but the most fiddly and prone to breakage, along with just god damn hard to imagine.  Also: I mocked the mere possibility of this one, and will remember to call any other such mechanics that anyone describes Schrodinger's Damage for as long as I can remember it. So... until lunch probably.

Quote from: MGuy;558684I know that bonus accruing can get a little hectic which is why I limited them but it has been my experience that not many groups seek a lot of ways to slam penalties on someone. Most people go bonus hunting or go directly for damaging or combatant removal abilities. Even if they do (go penalty hunting), it'll eat of actions to do so without making things hopeless. If that's the case then I'm not losing anything in round length or strategic depth of the game.

Whether people go penalty-hunting is more a matter of the available penalties and the procedures for applying them. My game puts conditions on wounds, so people can hurt each other short-term without losing the opportunity to damage foes.

Like I say, it's those details that end up mattering.

What do you think of just reducing the number of bonus types though? It would accomplish more or less the same thing without introducing a second rule.

Quote from: beejazz;559040Whether people go penalty-hunting is more a matter of the available penalties and the procedures for applying them. My game puts conditions on wounds, so people can hurt each other short-term without losing the opportunity to damage foes.

Like I say, it's those details that end up mattering.

What do you think of just reducing the number of bonus types though? It would accomplish more or less the same thing without introducing a second rule.

I intend to do just that. As I mentioned before situation specific bonuses (like flanking and having higher ground) are all the same type of bonus so you only use the highest one of those and add that in. There'll be a morale bonus, a magic bonus (from magic), and a mundane (from mundane things like having superior equipment) bonus. I can't really think of any other bonus types that I've made outside those four that aren't the generic Attribute, Skill, and Equipment. I make the rule that there can only be 5 that apply just in case, as I develop the game, I end up deciding that there are more.

Ok I'm not going to even respond to you any more if you can't stop making mistakes like this. Responses like these:

Quote from: StormBringer;559025It's really not that difficult.  Turn a flashlight on.  Drop it in a box and close the lid.  Does the flashlight go off?

QuoteUnless the bonus is only temporarily negated but not 'shut off'.

Make me think that you are being stupid on purpose.

The first one introduces a situation that does not match up with the one I'm talking about. The situation would actually be "You get a certain number of light sources to use. You have a flashlight. That flash light is then taken from you and put into a box. How many light sources are you using?" And before you get the answer wrong the answer is NONE because your light source is in a fucking box and you're no longer benefiting/using it.

Second, even if you were dense enough to not get it the first time I explicitly said:

QuoteIf the bonus isn't being given it does not "count" as a bonus. The system is set up such that you can receive 5 bonuses. If something occurs that takes one of the bonuses away then that opens up the slot that bonus was in.

So if it is "temporarily negated" it isn't being given even if its only being taken away temporarily. So of course the slot is then "temporarily" open.

Third, No one said anything about you being forced to use one bonus or another. Not once have I described a "locking in" mechanism.

Quote from: StormBringer;559026You really can't even do that.  It is a false design goal that will always make your game worse; viz anything from the Forge, or 4e.  Some would say I repeat myself.

Holy shit! Are you suggesting that controlling bonuses such that things don't fly wildly off the RNG is a false design goal? Ok, now I know you're trolling me. I had hoped that away from the banter in the other thread you'd at least try to take this seriously.

Quote from: MGuy;559460Second, even if you were dense enough to not get it the first time I explicitly said:  So if it is "temporarily negated" it isn't being given even if its only being taken away temporarily. So of course the slot is then "temporarily" open.

The creature with the 'unholy aura' is killed while bless is still in effect, and now the character has six bonuses.

You can't possibly be that bad at math and still be functional on a daily basis.

Quote from: MGuy;559461Holy shit! Are you suggesting that controlling bonuses such that things don't fly wildly off the RNG is a false design goal?

Yes, and if you had the merest inkling of game design, this wouldn't even be a question.

Also, using 'RNG' means you automatically fail.

Quote from: Spike;559030Leaving aside the fact that the existence of the Champion class was problematic on an entirely personal level (something I am SURE I mentioned in my initial comment), based entirely on the fact that I hate being told that fighters and soldier and warriors ever went into combat being told 'Okay Bob, when we get in there you take that orcs ax to the face as long as you can. We'll try to kill it before your face gives out.', and think its fail on almost every level...

Let's leave that aside even though that's what happens even if people don't say it out loud.

Quote... and, trying to further justify its existance by using bodyguards... seriously: Do you think Bodyguards actually like getting shot at? Have you ever worked personal security? If you're client gets anywhere NEAR a known fight situation you fail at life.

Don't remember anything about me saying that the Champion "likes" anything.

QuoteAt least mechanically we've moved away from Schrodinger Damage, which is a good thing.

I'm happy to get away from the thing you made up.

QuoteYour initial explanation was that the Champion Takes Damage from another Character (I could quote you, but why?).

I could also quote myself on a few things on this very point but whatever, moving on.

QuoteDamage is a fairly specific "Game Term". It has meaning, and D&D that meaning is 'HP'.

I'm assuming you're trying to say that the characters don't know about HP but I would disagree. They may not call it
HP and may have a less accurate fashion in which they guess how much hp they have left (I only hurt a bit, I can take plenty more!) but I'm pretty sure they have some reckoning about how much "damage" they can take before hitting critical existence failure.

QuoteYour more detailed explanation directly contradicts that... what you MEAN is 'The Champion takes the ATTACK* for another character', which makes him less of a masochist and more 'just a moron', which is an improvement.

I wonder how long you're going to spend telling me that you didn't know what you were talking about and actually get to something that involves giving advice.

QuoteAnd, of course, if you don't think your bonus scheme is too fiddly, well, its your game. At least you've moved to armor as DR, though it does sound like guys who take axes to the face (Professionally) are crappier dodgers than people who don't, which seems... backwards... but in a minor way.

Actually if you look over the numbers, the Champion's Dodge bonus is higher than the mage's. And yes, wearing heavier armor makes it harder to actually make an attack completely miss.

So. You spent most of that post telling me you didn't know what the fuck you were talking about and that limiting bonuses makes them more fiddly. Fantastic.

Quote from: StormBringer;559462The creature with the 'unholy aura' is killed while bless is still in effect, and now the character has six bonuses.

You can't possibly be that bad at math and still be functional on a daily basis.

No... The bonus doesn't "pop" back into place. The player must now choose, between the five bonuses they have available, which one they are going to benefit from. Logic dictates they are going to go for the biggest ones. I mean if you were thinking about this logically then you would've realized that.

Quote from: StormBringer;559463Yes, and if you had the merest inkling of game design, this wouldn't even be a question.

Also, using 'RNG' means you automatically fail.

So yes, you ARE trolling me. Great, I'll go back to not reading your posts.

Quote from: MGuy;559470No... The bonus doesn't "pop" back into place. The player must now choose, between the five bonuses they have available, which one they are going to benefit from. Logic dictates they are going to go for the biggest ones. I mean if you were thinking about this logically then you would've realized that.

Oh, now I get it.  You are actually creating a board game.

Quote from: MGuy;559471So yes, you ARE trolling me. Great, I'll go back to not reading your posts.

You weren't reading them to begin with.

Quote from: MGuy;559467I'm assuming you're trying to say that the characters don't know about HP but I would disagree. They may not call it
HP and may have a less accurate fashion in which they guess how much hp they have left (I only hurt a bit, I can take plenty more!) but I'm pretty sure they have some reckoning about how much "damage" they can take before hitting critical existence failure.

Reading comprehension fail.  Attack, hit, and damage are all game terms, well understood by Players.

If you tell a player that his character can take "damage" for another PC it means something very specific, and very different from taking an "Attack".

That you can't grasp this is very sad.  I'm not telling you how to make the Champion work, because I don't actually care for the class at all. I AM telling you that you need to describe it accurately so people actually understand how the class works.

Easy analogy that you'll misunderstand: Does a fireball do 5d6 attack?  No, and if you tell people it does they're gonna be confused.

 

QuoteI wonder how long you're going to spend telling me that you didn't know what you were talking about and actually get to something that involves giving advice.

Actually, Jackass, I was trying to explain a: How you failed to properly describe the class in teh first place and b: what the potential ramifications of your design options are based on the mutually incompatable descriptions you provided.  For a bonus I went ahead and covered the third possibility as well.

In short, I was explaining a design problem to you.  You know, sort of like you asked for by making this thread?

QuoteActually if you look over the numbers, the Champion's Dodge bonus is higher than the mage's. And yes, wearing heavier armor makes it harder to actually make an attack completely miss.

Since you haven't posted the Champion's write up, or your wizard write up, I can't look over the numbers. In your example the wizard's dodge is better.

QuoteSo. You spent most of that post telling me you didn't know what the fuck you were talking about and that limiting bonuses makes them more fiddly. Fantastic.

An artificial cap on the number of different sources of bonuses... greater than the number of potential bonus sources IS fiddly. You have added a mechanism on top of the existing bonus/penalty mechanism, which catagorically and objectively makes the system more complex.