Quote from: RNGm on September 17, 2024, 08:54:27 AMYeah, that's what I was referring to in addition to the exploding hits.   It just wasn't for me personally and when I asked about it on SWADE specific forums the result was entirely enthusiastic about it (which is understandable).  The funny thing is that I might actually like the system with a setting rule about only exploding once but that would likely turn off people who wanted to play SWADE in the first place.  I kind of felt like someone who wanted an orange complaining that the apple I have doesn't taste like one; it's simply a core feature of the system and people that choose to play it are entirely valid in doing so for that reason.  It's like someone choosing to play a YZE game or Shadowrun and complaining about dice pools... it just doesn't make sense to continue in that case (as was the case for me with SWADE).

Well, the exploding Dice "to hit" shouldn't be that much of an issue. It's no different than rolling a "20" except it's less of a singularity. "20" *always* hits. Whereas landing exploding dice sufficient to do *anything* special isn't a guarantee of anything.


This is because it's tied directly to the how "to hit" works. In D&D your armor class is a bizarre abstraction that Armor makes you harder to hit. Your HP is a weirder abstraction that assumes there is a skill to avoiding lethal damage, which has no mechanical effect on your character until you run out of HP at which point you drop.

Yeah of course this is all stuff from the Wargaming day we all just got used to, and HP as a concept metastasized into a other cultural memes like videogames where it's a healthbar. etc.

In SWADE the abstraction is more clear: you have a Parry rating. Parry is based on your Fighting skill assuming that anything you're aware of in melee you don't want touching you is the number that must be overcome. That's a pretty direct mechanic. The ability for someone to Hit you requires your skill check to overcome that number. The Exploding dice is simply the set of probabilities that might allow you to not just overcome that number, but also, if you're really lucky land a shot that *might* be life-threatening.

The probability curve is really quite nice, once you get into it. For example - in D&D if you're a very agile Thief with leather armor you might have a 13 or 14 AC. It would be tactical suicide at low levels to wade through a pack of six goblins in combat. But the "narrative abstraction" of being higher level and having your HP whittled down would make it less of a tactical blunder, even if he went in and fought smart with his back to a wall or something.

By comparison - in SWADE your "low level" (Novice) Thief might be a much better hand-to-hand combatant than his D&D counterpart, because you decided he's a dedicated badass. His Fighting might be d8 or higher (which is easily doable for a starting character). He could feasibly kill multiple goblins per round since Goblins have fairly low Parry ratings. Six goblins would be a challenge, for sure, but at low level you absolutely have a fighting chance, whereas in D&D you wouldn't. The difference is the thrill of the exploding dice.

GM's should be narrating those failed attack rolls because it's directly due to your PC's skill they're missing. Not some weird abstraction about the armor you're wearing. Speaking of which, *IF* they do hit, they still have to muster enough strength to get through your Thief's Toughness rating, which is suitably modified by his Armor.

Again, Goblins are not particularly strong, but again it depends on how you built your Thief. If he's the knife-fighting badass that enjoys this kind of challenge, you might have loaded him up with a decent Vigor (Constitution) and his Toughness score might be slightly out of reach for a Goblin with a dagger or shortsword. Either way - the exploding dice are usually the *only* thing that might actually cause a Wound(s).

But the GM's job is to dress up the narrative expression of combat for what it actually is and it does feel good. Because *most* attacks in this comparative scenario would have very different outcomes based solely on those differences of abstraction.

In D&D it would for the low-level Thief be a likely fast loss of life due to the easy AC which while some might argue is "realistic" is not necessarily the intention of the GM or the Player (or maybe it is?), whereas in SWADE it's supposed to be "Pulp Heroics" where there is a significant chance EITHER WAY. Plus you get way more combat options depending on how you build your character whereas in D&D it's much more static and predictable.

The exploding dice *can* cause some surprising results. But in my experience it's not too different than rolling natural 20's or unfortunate natural 1's. ODDLY, at my table I average at least ONE critical failure (snake eyes) per night, which in SWADE is always worse than any form of exploding dice or even a natural 1 in D&D. It's overtly supposed to be something *bad* has happened.

Critical failures are one of those "funny once" jokes. It seems like a good idea to have something bad happen the first time someone rolls a natural 1, or snake eyes in contrast to a natural 20 or some other critical success mechanism. Then after a while you start to notice that natural 1s aren't special and will happen on a regular basis.

It isn't odd that your table has a critical failure every night. If you roll enough dice, it's inevitable that critical failures will occur.

The fact that you can't reroll a critical failure is, in most cases, sufficiently "bad" by itself. Especially considering the reroll mechanics are a core element of the system. People will spend bennies and use free rerolls to fish for raises, because you use the most favorable of your rolls unless you roll a critical failure. This creates the possibility that a success will turn into a failure.

You're definitely right.

I think the real surprise comes from the fact that SW PC's push the envelope with lots of successes (or close enough to success) that when the chips are down, if necessary, they're literally down - they toss out a Benny. So when those Critical Failures land, it's *devastating*. Because you can't use a Benny to get out of it. You gotta take it on the chin-equivalent.

It adds flavor to the game which at my table runs at a higher-octane mechanically than d20, even though I try to ratchet things down in order to keep things from getting too silly.

But that's a strength of the system not a weakness. You can (and *should*) tweak the rules to your desires. It's meant to be played that way. And hey, if you like it RAW then that's fine too.

I'm going to put up my "draft" of my next rules primer up here when I get it finished. I'm going for a more 1e feel than Basic D&D.

Please do.
In the meantime, I think you have solved my issue with the wizard edge (not even required in PFSW) making Trappings change too easy - making creature resistances moot - vs. spending half of an edge on a new Trapping being too harsh. Think I'm just going to say Trappings change gives backlash on any failure!

Spending +1 power point to change trappings is pretty reasonable. Particularly considering that damaging powers are generally weaker than hitting something with a sword.

Quote from: tenbones on September 17, 2024, 12:16:43 PMI'm going to put up my "draft" of my next rules primer up here when I get it finished. I'm going for a more 1e feel than Basic D&D.

Yes, please do.  I tried Gold and Glory and while fun, I could not get my group to buy into it. They needed a bit more crunch and Savage Pathfinder had just come out.  It is a mess in my opinion and I wish I had just waited for the Fantasy Companion. 

Quote from: Corolinth on September 19, 2024, 10:56:26 AMSpending +1 power point to change trappings is pretty reasonable. Particularly considering that damaging powers are generally weaker than hitting something with a sword.

But it makes monster resistances etc. more or less worthless. Sure, there's a cost in PP, but the whole emphasis on trappings seems redundant (espcially so when trappings in SWADE don't carry mechanics).

Quote from: Matrix Sorcica on September 20, 2024, 10:56:12 AM

Quote from: Corolinth on September 19, 2024, 10:56:26 AMSpending +1 power point to change trappings is pretty reasonable. Particularly considering that damaging powers are generally weaker than hitting something with a sword.

But it makes monster resistances etc. more or less worthless. Sure, there's a cost in PP, but the whole emphasis on trappings seems redundant (espcially so when trappings in SWADE don't carry mechanics).

What do you think resistance is for? If you think the purpose of resistance is so that the GM can say, "Haha! You can't hurt the monster!" then you're going to be disappointed, because Savage Worlds wasn't designed to be that kind of game.

Making the Bolt power cost double is far from worthless. That's actually pretty significant, and probably makes the spellcaster use entirely different spells.

This is also a different game. In B/X, the fighter is swinging around a magic long sword for 1d8+3 damage once you factor in his strength, while the magic-user has a 7d6 fireball. Forcing the magic-user to use his 7d6 lightning bolt instead against a red dragon doesn't really mean much, but also, that fire immunity did nothing to the fighter.

In Savage Worlds, the fighter is swinging around a magic long sword for 2d8+1 damage and has 1 armor piercing, while the wizard is throwing a 2d6 bolt of fire. The wizard also doesn't have a lightning bolt to switch to. The wizard already deals less damage than the fighter. Why do we need to further penalize his ability to damage the monster? The only reason we have resistance is because of stuff like red dragons being immune to fire. Is that supposed to make the wizard useless? Because that fire resistance did jack shit to inconvenience the fighter, who is also hitting harder to begin with.

Trappings are for flavor. Resistances are for flavor. Neither of them is for balance. If you insist on penalizing the wizard with monster resistances when he already does less damage than the fighter, every wizard is just going to take magic missile and ignore resistances entirely. The way it works now, the wizard is going to pay extra and throw a giant icicle at that red dragon because red dragons are vulnerable to ice. Isn't that what the wizard is supposed to do? Isn't the whole point of the wizard to do some magic bullshit and have the right spell for the job?