TheRPGSite

I picked up Palladium Fantasy 1e (Revised) a while back, am just starting to read it.

BTW, I'm not really very plugged-in to the whole KS drama, and perhaps I'd prefer not to know more than I do. I'll say this for the guy: he's a good illustrator. I love the character line-up on p. 4, especially the human and the goblin.

So, a really basic, wonkish question...

The rules say that if you generate a stat with 3d6, and you roll a 17 or 18, you add another d6 to the stat.

See the problem yet?

There's no way for a human to have a stat of 17. (If you get a natural 17, you'll end up with a final score of 18-23.) The chance of having a stat of 18 is less than the chance of having a stat of 19, 20, 21, 22, or 23. (You can only have an 18 by rolling a 17 followed by a 1. But you get a 19 by rolling a 17 and 2, or 18 and 1.) Only a 24 is less likely than 18.

This kind of mathematical discontinuity frightens and confuses me. Has it gotten any discussion? Are there standard fixes? Was it revised in PFRPG 2e?

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;397322See the problem yet?

There's no way for a human to have a stat of 17.

No.  I never saw the problem.  In the grand scheme of Palladium rules fucktardeness, this wasn't even a blip on the radar.

You roll 3d6.  On a 16,17,or 18, you roll an additional die and add it to the total.  Therefore, it is perfectly possible to have a 17 if you roll a 16 and a 1.

But wait!  The current books say that the way it has always been (rules changes to Palladium are never changes.  they've just always been that way) is that a roll of a 6 on the bonus die entitles you to roll another d6 and add it to the total.  So, a character could have a maximum rolled stat of 30.

You may think you can't have a 16, but that isn't true.  Physical skills are only added in after bonus dice have already been totalled.  So, you might have rolled a 14 PS and picked Boxing which adds +2 for a total of...  16!

GASP!  The Horror (Factor TM)!

Now, what makes this confusing is when non-human stats are rolled.  When you roll 4d6+3 do you still get a bonus die for a 16, 17, or 18?  Many rules in Palladium say one thing and mean something entirely different.  Do you get a bonus attribute die whenever the attribute is a 16 or above?

When rolling 2d6 for an attribute, you get the bonus die on a 11 or 12.  Do you get the same benefit on a 1d6+5?

17 or 18? Unless this was changed it used to be 16-18 that triggered rollup.
The first edition didn't have physical skills, so the only way to get a 16 was by playing a 2d6 stat race and rolling up on the 11-12.

Building on this, TMNT had this weird shared bonus thing going where if you played "Team Characters", any bonus dice you got on an attribute applied to the group. If Mutant Animal #1 rolled a 16 for Strength, the whole team got an extra die for Strength.

There's also a jump in the strength table somewhere, where you suddenly go from x10 Strength weight lifted to x20 weight lifted, I think. A friend of mine who used to work out alot (and hated Palladium) used to complain that he couldn't exist under Palladium rules.

For the curious, here are the probability distributions for the two methods (a bonus die for 3d6 > 15, and adding a second bonus die if the first was a 6).

http://imgur.com/QrzGA

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;397322This kind of mathematical discontinuity frightens and confuses me. Has it gotten any discussion? Are there standard fixes? Was it revised in PFRPG 2e?

I think PF2e has the rule that only 3D6 scores can gain the 16+ bonus die.  I know that some people houserule that only humans get the bonus die.

The key to enjoying PB games is to pick one of the following:
a) going along with the crazy rules,
b) houseruling until you are happy,
c) converting the concepts to a system you like.

Depending on my mood, I flip between B and C.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;39732917 or 18? Unless this was changed it used to be 16-18 that triggered rollup.

Yes, I looked at it very carefully and it says a 16 gets you onto the bonus chart, but only 17-18 get you another d6. It applies to any 3d6 ability regardless of race, but humans are clearly the baseline. 2d6 rolls get the extra die on 12 only. In neither case do you get another extra die under any condition.

In short: PF1e is different from other versions of Palladium system (including 2e) and that's cool.

Minor mathematical hiccups are okay, I can smooth them out if they matter (and this one doesn't much). What generally infuriates me in a set of rules is contradictions and omissions.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;397362Yes, I looked at it very carefully and it says a 16 gets you onto the bonus chart, but only 17-18 get you another d6.

Interesting...thanks for that. Its been so long since I've played it that I couldn't tell you if I used to play 1e or 1e Revised; we may have done it wrong at the time, by coming from Rifts/TMNT and using that rule (16+ rollup) out of ignorance.

It definitely wasn't 2e though: I remember seeing a later version of PFRPG come out and being unimpressed since they seemed to actually have screwed it up - making it compatible with their other games by adding SDC (drastically overinflating character "hit points"), and higher stats (via physical skills).

This is from TMNT:

"Three six-sided dice are rolled to determine each attribute. The higher the number, the greater the ability. If the attribute is "exceptional", 16, 17 or 18, then an additional six-sided die is rolled and added to the total for that attribute."

Really, why does it matter? Does 16 or 17 or 18 need to be more represented for some reason?

You know what you call it when you're more likely to have a 21 than a 17? Awesome.

RPGPundit

Well, I love Palladium in spite of its freakish mathematical deformities (maybe even sometimes because of them). I guess most systems have something weird hidden away somewhere.

As far as Awesome goes, the the upshot of the rolling up thing is that most people are Meh (no bonus table for you!) or Super Awesome (16 is both enough to get you a bonus and to give you +d6).

Whether you have a problem with that is personal preference, really (should everyone be slightly awesome? Or is it that "and when everyone is special, no one will be?").

Quote from: RPGPundit;397454Really, why does it matter? Does 16 or 17 or 18 need to be more represented for some reason?

You know what you call it when you're more likely to have a 21 than a 17? Awesome.

RPGPundit

Preach on.

Yeh, I'm with Pundit on this one.

While I find the Palladium rules are a hot mess, the books are just dripping with flavor such that I find myself willing to work with the rules. That said, I'm currently grappling with how best to fix the Armor Rating system so that armor actually matters at mid to high levels. =/

Quote from: Carranthir;397595Yeh, I'm with Pundit on this one.

While I find the Palladium rules are a hot mess, the books are just dripping with flavor such that I find myself willing to work with the rules. That said, I'm currently grappling with how best to fix the Armor Rating system so that armor actually matters at mid to high levels. =/

OK...(sorry I may be moving off topic with this) but I guess the problem is that as strike bonuses/parry bonuses go up, the totals start moving up past the AR numbers?
A couple of patch ideas:

*giving characters the option of making a "Roll with Punch" roll to take a hit on armour, instead of taking half damage (probably as an action)

*add some sort of "armour optimization" skill that gives you a bonus to AR with level (i.e. the character moves so that they make best use of their armour)?

*more drastically, run a "parry" as subtracting from the attacker's roll, instead of as a separate roll?

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;397644OK...(sorry I may be moving off topic with this) but I guess the problem is that as strike bonuses/parry bonuses go up, the totals start moving up past the AR numbers?
A couple of patch ideas:

How about just an "Armor Saving Throw."

When a character is hit and takes damage, roll 1d20.  If it's equal to or less than the AR, then the armor takes damage.

You could also say the roll is modified by however much the attacker beat the defense roll.  So, rolling 7 higher than the parry defense would mean adding 7 to the AST.  

In true Palladium fashion you could also have Armor Proficiencies which give modifiers to your AST by way of a chart.

Quote from: Gabriel2;397645How about just an "Armor Saving Throw."

When a character is hit and takes damage, roll 1d20.  If it's equal to or less than the AR, then the armor takes damage.

You could also say the roll is modified by however much the attacker beat the defense roll.  So, rolling 7 higher than the parry defense would mean adding 7 to the AST.  

In true Palladium fashion you could also have Armor Proficiencies which give modifiers to your AST by way of a chart.

Potentially you could do that. I quite like a separate roll for armour bypass in other games (e.g. Dragon Warriors) since it also makes it possibly to differentiate easily between weapons that do lots of damage, and weapons that are less damaging but have better odds of getting through armour - sword vs. mace say. I guess the downside is that you're adding an extra die roll and so slowing down combat slightly.

Quote from: Carranthir;397595While I find the Palladium rules are a hot mess, the books are just dripping with flavor such that I find myself willing to work with the rules. That said, I'm currently grappling with how best to fix the Armor Rating system so that armor actually matters at mid to high levels. =/

Armor will always matter against lesser skilled foes.  Even if my foe is +6 to strike, my AR 14 is still useful 40% of the time.  And if I am facing a +12 foe, then I better have my Parry and/or Dodge high enough to be able to deal with them.

At high levels, it's all about Parry...and those who fail get their heads sliced off.  High skilled foes don't waste time with body hits like they did at early levels.  Now, they can strike with vorpal viciousness.

My thought was to integrate some simple damage reduction into armor, so whenever you took physical damage some would be mitigated by the armor. For example:

Discard cloth armor. The lowest armor type is now Padded (AR 8). Damage reduction is determined by subtracting 7 from the armor rating, which gives a range of Damage Reduction from 1 (Padded) to 10 (Full Plate). This is the number that is deducted whenever a character's armor is breached (someone rolls over the AR AND of course beats parry/dodge).

Under these proposed rules Armor SDC is still damaged, but only by rolls that exceed the AR and at a rate 1/10 of that as per the rules (rounded up). (a foe's roll exceeds your AR and the damage rolled is 6 - your armor takes 2 damage.) This should lengthen the time between the characters' armor falling to pieces.

Criticals under this system would ignore DR, allowing for a dagger (d6) to actually damage someone in full plate (DR 10).

I think to balance the light and heavy armors further I'd have to come up with a Physical Prowess penalty for heavy armor, as well as enforce any encumbrance and movement rules.

That's the best I could come up with on one cup of coffee. Thoughts?

Apparently my earlier post didn't go through. Let's try this again!

My thought was to integrate some simple damage reduction into armor, so whenever you took physical damage some would be mitigated by the armor. For example:

Discard cloth armor. The lowest armor type is now Padded (AR 8). Damage reduction is determined by subtracting 7 from the armor rating, which gives a range of Damage Reduction from 1 (Padded) to 10 (Full Plate). This is the number that is deducted whenever a character's armor is breached (someone rolls over the AR AND of course beats parry/dodge).

Under these proposed rules Armor SDC is still damaged, but only by rolls that exceed the AR and at a rate 1/10 of that as per the rules (rounded up). (frex a foe's roll exceeds your AR and the damage rolled is 6 - your armor takes 2 damage.) This should lengthen the time between the characters' armor falling to pieces.

Criticals under this system would ignore DR, allowing for a dagger (d6) to actually damage someone in full plate (DR 10).

I think to balance the light and heavy armors further I'd have to come up with a Physical Prowess penalty for heavy armor, as well as enforce any encumbrance and movement rules.

If that makes armor too good, perhaps a a simple assignment of a DR rating say from 1-5 to various armors would suffice.

Thoughts?

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;397644OK...(sorry I may be moving off topic with this) but I guess the problem is that as strike bonuses/parry bonuses go up, the totals start moving up past the AR numbers?
A couple of patch ideas:

*giving characters the option of making a "Roll with Punch" roll to take a hit on armour, instead of taking half damage (probably as an action)

*add some sort of "armour optimization" skill that gives you a bonus to AR with level (i.e. the character moves so that they make best use of their armour)?

*more drastically, run a "parry" as subtracting from the attacker's roll, instead of as a separate roll?

Ah, ok, so this is a problem to you specifically in the context of Palladium FANTASY, not the system as a whole (since most other games don't use A.R.)?

In Palladium I tend to trust the rules as written, so I don't know...

RPGPundit

I'm just guessing at what Carranthir's problem is...mostly from theory. I'm guessing for Palladium Fantasy since you're right, none of the mega-damage games would have any issues with this since AR doesn't apply.

...
And thinking about it some more, I could be completely wrong. I can't remember if characters can get magical armour with better AR in Palladium - if they do their AR might effectively be increasing with level anyway.

Pretty clearly, BSJ and Spinachcat nailed it. Armor rating matters vs. people with small bonuses, not so much (or not at all) against people with high bonuses. This isn't realistic IMHO, and that's probably what Carranthir doesn't like.

However, it's a nice feature from another perspective, since (theoretically) it looks like it basically makes Errol-Flynn-style action feasible...that is, lightly-armored dude with a light sword takes on three halberd-wielding guards wearing cuirasses, and somehow slices them up. Potentially, it's a lot neater than other games with armor-absorbs, where the high-skill character can only get through by rolling a critical.

(Would have to review Dragon Warriors to compare.)

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;397979Pretty clearly, BSJ and Spinachcat nailed it. Armor rating matters vs. people with small bonuses, not so much (or not at all) against people with high bonuses. This isn't realistic IMHO, and that's probably what Carranthir doesn't like.

However, it's a nice feature from another perspective, since (theoretically) it looks like it basically makes Errol-Flynn-style action feasible...that is, lightly-armored dude with a light sword takes on three halberd-wielding guards wearing cuirasses, and somehow slices them up. Potentially, it's a lot neater than other games with armor-absorbs, where the high-skill character can only get through by rolling a critical.

(Would have to review Dragon Warriors to compare.)

Dragon Warriors works like this: you roll a d20 under your Attack score to hit an opponent. They can spend Defence points to subtract from your attack score (these refresh each round). If you do hit, you roll an Armour Bypass roll; armour has an "armour factor" of between 1 and 5 (full plate),
and you have to roll over to deal damage (i.e. get a "6" for full plate).
Weapons roll anything from d3 (cudgel) to d10 (two-handed sword) on the bypass roll; Strength (rolled on 3d6) adds +1 to bypass at 16-18 or +2 for 19+. If you hit, weapons do a fixed base damage. A critical hit (roll of "1") makes the armour bypass roll unnecessary.

By RAW in DW the sword is pretty much the best weapon (d8 bypass, 4 damage); I think mace by comparison is d6 bypass,3 damage, but I like it that the basic mechanic is there to play with.

The last game I played of it we houseruled the weapon statistics, and the GM built on the mechanics and created a bunch of weapons that had multiple bypass rolls (e.g. the triple flail- one hit roll, each successful bypass roll does a certain amount of damage). It also makes it easier to do stuff like shock weapons - if you hit but fail bypass against metal armour, you still do your electricity damage...and it makes it easier to adjudicate things like "tripping" someone, as compared to say 3.5's fooling around with 'touch ACs'.

DW is absolutely not swashbuckly though. Knight is the most commonly encountered Profession - 'can wear any armour' is virtually their major class feature (they start out with plate). One downside of the bypass system as written (IMHO) in that it is very deterministic, in that peasants with cudgels or wolves can't hurt a knight at all, barring critical hits; likewise level doesn't help odds of getting through armour at all, except indirectly via a couple of Profession special abilities.

Drifting a bit, but...does DW provide a grapple option vs. the knight? As that would probably be the way to do it if you've got a crowd; surround the guy, knock him down, and then swarm.

Not that I see anything better, necessarily, in Palladium.

Nothing's really defined as far as grappling rules go. That'd probably be a workable option, but you'd have to houserule in how to work it... often with DW you end up searching through monsters to find precedents.

Also sorry about double-derailing your thread by page 3, I'd just assumed that there only so much conversation possible about the exceptional stat roll.

No problem at all; you're right, the original topic is done. The derails have been useful in seeing how the rules are supposed to work.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;398075No problem at all; you're right, the original topic is done. The derails have been useful in seeing how the rules are supposed to work.

:cool:

Rather than rip on Palladium some more, just to balance the equation...
I remembered reading some interesting points on why Palladium is better than D&D (AD&D particularly, though most of the points apply equally to all editions).
http://kuoi.com/~kamikaze/RPG/wrong_adnd.php (http://kuoi.com/~kamikaze/RPG/wrong_adnd.php)

Most of this is buried in a fairly heated rant against D&D in general, but see particularly the "Why Palladium" section, and the rants on abstract HPs (a problem Palladium at least doesn't have).

Thanks. I enjoy Mark Damon Hughes' stuff. I'll give it a look.