On advantages, there'd be a middle ground of 'here's a short list and you can also make up your own' too.
A DIY approach could work still, but may suggest you need some sort of generic prohibition on 'stacking' multiple advantages at once (say +2 max, instead of someone being a Lucky Fast Berserk Greatsword-Specialist and getting a +8 to hit stuff).
Resource-based approaches (like FATE uses for Aspects; pay a 'fate point' to add your +2 for an Aspect, IIRC, I'm not a Fate expert) also works balance-wise, and this also somewhat mitigates advantages having various degrees of width/applicability, but are somewhat less 'realistic'.

Extra health points for a health skill could work but +10 per column shift may be a bit much (I'd have thought somewhere between that and the +1 per shift at the moment). With your current system, you could also apply 'soak' just like armour instead of the usual skill roll mechanic (i.e. up to -5 to the damage roll); I think a rolled soak with 3d6 starts making combat too complex, and I don't know how you'd connect that back to your current damage system anyway.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;908826
On advantages, there'd be a middle ground of 'here's a short list and you can also make up your own' too.
A DIY approach could work still, but may suggest you need some sort of generic prohibition on 'stacking' multiple advantages at once (say +2 max, instead of someone being a Lucky Fast Berserk Greatsword-Specialist and getting a +8 to hit stuff).
Resource-based approaches (like FATE uses for Aspects; pay a 'fate point' to add your +2 for an Aspect, IIRC, I'm not a Fate expert) also works balance-wise, and this also somewhat mitigates advantages having various degrees of width/applicability, but are somewhat less 'realistic'.

A small list of examples certainly couldn't hurt but I also think simply saying that no roll can have more than a +2 bonus or a -2 penalty via Adv./Disadv. is simple enough.

QuoteExtra health points for a health skill could work but +10 per column shift may be a bit much (I'd have thought somewhere between that and the +1 per shift at the moment). With your current system, you could also apply 'soak' just like armour instead of the usual skill roll mechanic (i.e. up to -5 to the damage roll); I think a rolled soak with 3d6 starts making combat too complex, and I don't know how you'd connect that back to your current damage system anyway.

So Health gives -1 per level of the skill up to -5 (since the first level gives no bonus)? That gives a person with Heavy armor and max Health a -10 in damage reduction where max base damage is 12 (2d6). That's also not taking into account HP boosts per level, so this character could be very hard to take down.

There needs to be some way to bypass damage reduction and directly affect HP. Critical hits come to mind but how to do that with the table? Only on an "Extra Success"? If the attack roll is 2 better a result than the parry/dodge roll?

I don't know that'd you'd need both soak and increasing HP; lots of games with Soak just have a fixed number of health levels. When I suggested making Health a skill it was so level up would just be 'get +1 to a skill', with that skill being Health if they want to be tougher. (It could be done, though actually I think soak is more often used because it makes it possible to handle wound penalties etc. that'd be messy with variable HPs).

You're right about the numbers though, stacking on armouras well makes it a bit much. -1 per level is as low as you could go though, without making Health work through an extra skill roll. I'd say increasing the damage then seems like the good option (whether for crits or across the board).

The simplest critical system would maybe just be something like 'Extra Success = +d6'. The downside being that this then applies regardless of what the defense roll is (Success or Failure).
You could also have a +2 or +3 per level of difference (say at +2 per level, an Extra Failure vs. an Extra Success would be a bonus of +8 to damage) but its more complicated.


If you were comparing rolls directly, I'd say something like '+1 per point over'? But unlike an additive game, the table approach means success level goes up (from skill) without there being any increase in the roll. Hence, on average more skilled characters will be doing less damage on a hit, as they hit on a lower roll.
You could sort of counter that by applying a separate damage increase for skill level too (and maybe a damage decrease for defender skill) though it starts getting more complicated.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;909066I don't know that'd you'd need both soak and increasing HP; lots of games with Soak just have a fixed number of health levels. When I suggested making Health a skill it was so level up would just be 'get +1 to a skill', with that skill being Health if they want to be tougher. (It could be done, though actually I think soak is more often used because it makes it possible to handle wound penalties etc. that'd be messy with variable HPs).

You're right about the numbers though, stacking on armouras well makes it a bit much. -1 per level is as low as you could go though, without making Health work through an extra skill roll. I'd say increasing the damage then seems like the good option (whether for crits or across the board).

The simplest critical system would maybe just be something like 'Extra Success = +d6'. The downside being that this then applies regardless of what the defense roll is (Success or Failure).
You could also have a +2 or +3 per level of difference (say at +2 per level, an Extra Failure vs. an Extra Success would be a bonus of +8 to damage) but its more complicated.

+1d6 for "Extra Success" is something that's been in my head for a while now and I think that's the direction I want to go, mainly because figuring out how many levels of difference between two rolls feels far too cumbersome. With the Parry/Dodge roll, both getting "Extra Success" goes down to who rolled the higher number with the event of a tie going in the defenders favor.

QuoteIf you were comparing rolls directly, I'd say something like '+1 per point over'? But unlike an additive game, the table approach means success level goes up (from skill) without there being any increase in the roll. Hence, on average more skilled characters will be doing less damage on a hit, as they hit on a lower roll.
You could sort of counter that by applying a separate damage increase for skill level too (and maybe a damage decrease for defender skill) though it starts getting more complicated.

My initial idea is that each rating has a number beside it that's added to rolls for Fighting/Shooting damage (and maybe other things?). So we'd be looking at something like this:

Ideas for "Soaking" damage:

1) Make a HEALTH roll; “Extra Failure” = +1d6 extra damage. A “Failure” = full damage taken. “Success w/Cost” = 1d6 less damage but the character suffers a nagging injury that reduces all physical rolls by -2 until healed. “Success” = 1d6 less damage. “Extra Success” = 2d6 less damage.

2) Make a HEALTH roll with a penalty equal to the damage to be taken; “Extra Failure” = +1d6 extra damage. A “Failure” = full damage taken. “Success w/Cost” = Skill Rating less damage but the character suffers a nagging injury that reduces all physical rolls by -2 until healed. “Success” = Skill Rating less damage. “Extra Success” = Skill Rating x2 less damage.

The +1 per level to damage is OK IMHO.

On the soak, with the extra roll, since there's already a defense roll (so an exchange is attack, damage, defense, soak, with most of those being multiple dice and a table lookup).
With option 1) there, having the amount of the soak be -1d6...that then takes it to 5 rolls per exchange.
Its not too complex but it may be slow. May need playtesting to see how well it runs.

With the Health roll, I think that 'Success with Cost' inflicting a penalty to penalty to physical rolls, probably makes that arguably worse than the 'Failure' result, unless that also happens on a Failure.
You may need to definite if multiple injuries give a cumulative penalty...might be too serious. You could drop to -1 per failure and have it be cumulative, or have penalties apply to particular tasks (running if you've taken a leg wound say, though it'd need some GM arbitration as to hit locations).

On the table itself, current version (as opposed to the one in initial post) IDK if 'Extra Success' results should be slightly more common. You could also maybe have columns that are [13-14, 15-16, 17-18] instead of having '18' be the single-number-row, and the bell curve of the 3d6 still makes the higher columns come up more rarely.  I haven't actually crunched any numbers for this, though.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;909397The +1 per level to damage is OK IMHO.

On the soak, with the extra roll, since there's already a defense roll (so an exchange is attack, damage, defense, soak, with most of those being multiple dice and a table lookup).
With option 1) there, having the amount of the soak be -1d6...that then takes it to 5 rolls per exchange.
Its not too complex but it may be slow. May need playtesting to see how well it runs.

With the Health roll, I think that 'Success with Cost' inflicting a penalty to penalty to physical rolls, probably makes that arguably worse than the 'Failure' result, unless that also happens on a Failure.
You may need to definite if multiple injuries give a cumulative penalty...might be too serious. You could drop to -1 per failure and have it be cumulative, or have penalties apply to particular tasks (running if you've taken a leg wound say, though it'd need some GM arbitration as to hit locations).

Re: Soak: How about: Option 3) Make a HEALTH roll;
"Extra Failure" = full damage and -1 to rolls affecting the targeted area(s) until treated (rolls are cumulative).
"Failure" = full damage taken.
"Success w/Cost" = Skill Rating/2 less damage (rounded up).
"Success" = Skill Rating less damage.
"Extra Success" = Skill Rating x2 less damage.
This way no dice are involved, just some simple maths.

Option 4) Use Option #2 or 3 and remove Parry/Dodge rolls and instead have the defenders Fighting/Athletics skill rating give a penalty to the attackers roll.

Option 5) Health simply gives a flat reduction to incoming damage. This will likely only reduce any bonus damage from the attackers Fighting/Shooting score. Armor then reduces some die damage and whatever is left gets taken normally.

Option 6) Rather than a Parry/Dodge roll, the defenders rating is the attackers penalty AND damage is reduced by the Health rating.

Just spit-balling ideas.

QuoteOn the table itself, current version (as opposed to the one in initial post) IDK if 'Extra Success' results should be slightly more common. You could also maybe have columns that are [13-14, 15-16, 17-18] instead of having '18' be the single-number-row, and the bell curve of the 3d6 still makes the higher columns come up more rarely.  I haven't actually crunched any numbers for this, though.

Here's what moving the numbers around looks like. I also changed an "Extra Failure" to a "Failure" so now there are an equal number of "Extra Failures" and "Extra Successes". I think the table is as far as it's going to get without a play-test to see how things shake out.



Here's an idea regarding Magic that I also need an opinion on whether it's too complex or not. I feel it is but being Magic/Psionics/Powers I think that a level of additional complexity isn't a deal killer. My ultimate hope is to avoid a 200+ page spell list but still have something flexible and able to be used in a fairly quick manner. Characters get a number of Power Points based off of something, probably their Power rating x level or something, for example. Casting a spell requires crafting it on the fly using a table with multiple attributes, each of which costs the Power Level in the aforementioned Power Points to choose. Here's an idea of what I'm thinking:

Lookin' good.

I quite like both 3) and 4), or both together.
#3 since yes that sorts out all the stuff above

#4 I generally like, since having Fighting/Athletics give a penalty factors in skill probably better than an opposed contest (i.e. would affect chance of an Extra Success), and cuts down on rolling.
How to implement though ? Say -1 to the roll per opponent skill rank (the first thing I could think of) would make Extra Successes vs. Incredible skill impossible (18 goes to 13).
I guess you could make it -1 per 2 column shifts, so up to -2 or -3 depending on rounding.

You could also keep the fixed penalty for normal defense, and then add in the opposed roll as a 'full defense' option (where you do nothing but defend).

#5, #6  are OK

Table's good.

Magic:
Including level in the calculation of PPs may be unbalancing since its basically free power, whereas fighting, stealth etc. don't seem improve with level. (The exception being that you may want damage increase from level to keep up with HP increase in the monsters, so that spells aren't just getting less effective).
The table looks fairly linear in cost, going with that casters probably need some ability cap on what they can cast, separate to what PPs they have available, or something more nonlinear, so casters cast a few spells a day rather than putting it all in one spell. You might want to have [Destroy: Universe] spells need some sort of mitigating factor to reduce cost (rituals or weird components or somesuch).
Probably most spells would have one main effect (Healing, Damage, etc.) - some like damage probably should have a base area of 'target' rather than caster. You could probably fit most spells in a dozenish 'mode' or 'seed' effects, then apply the range and/or duration modifiers.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;909542Lookin' good.

I quite like both 3) and 4), or both together.
#3 since yes that sorts out all the stuff above

#4 I generally like, since having Fighting/Athletics give a penalty factors in skill probably better than an opposed contest (i.e. would affect chance of an Extra Success), and cuts down on rolling.
How to implement though ? Say -1 to the roll per opponent skill rank (the first thing I could think of) would make Extra Successes vs. Incredible skill impossible (18 goes to 13).
I guess you could make it -1 per 2 column shifts, so up to -2 or -3 depending on rounding.[/QUOTE

You could also keep the fixed penalty for normal defense, and then add in the opposed roll as a 'full defense' option (where you do nothing but defend).

#5, #6  are OK

Table's good.

I would just use the same modifiers for damage, i.e. a Good Fighting rating gives -3 to attackers' rolls. I think there may also need to be a rule where a natural 18 is always an "Extra Successes" result while a natural 3 would always be "Extra Failure", since at "Incredible" levels a -5 pushes everyone out of "Extra Success" territory. Just a thought.

QuoteMagic:
Including level in the calculation of PPs may be unbalancing since its basically free power, whereas fighting, stealth etc. don't seem improve with level. (The exception being that you may want damage increase from level to keep up with HP increase in the monsters, so that spells aren't just getting less effective).
The table looks fairly linear in cost, going with that casters probably need some ability cap on what they can cast, separate to what PPs they have available, or something more nonlinear, so casters cast a few spells a day rather than putting it all in one spell. You might want to have [Destroy: Universe] spells need some sort of mitigating factor to reduce cost (rituals or weird components or somesuch).
Probably most spells would have one main effect (Healing, Damage, etc.) - some like damage probably should have a base area of 'target' rather than caster. You could probably fit most spells in a dozenish 'mode' or 'seed' effects, then apply the range and/or duration modifiers.

I need to think on this more...

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;909542Including level in the calculation of PPs may be unbalancing since its basically free power, whereas fighting, stealth etc. don't seem improve with level. (The exception being that you may want damage increase from level to keep up with HP increase in the monsters, so that spells aren't just getting less effective).

How about Rating x 10 then? That caps PP at 50 with an Incredible rating. Assuming PP recharges after a night of rest, it puts a hard cap on how much can be done per day.

QuoteThe table looks fairly linear in cost, going with that casters probably need some ability cap on what they can cast, separate to what PPs they have available, or something more nonlinear, so casters cast a few spells a day rather than putting it all in one spell. You might want to have [Destroy: Universe] spells need some sort of mitigating factor to reduce cost (rituals or weird components or somesuch).

What if the maximum PP that can be spent on a single spell is, say, Rating x2 which gives a hard max of 10. Level x2 means the max of 10 by Level 5...that seems rough but the potential max is higher. With Rating+5 that just gives another hard max of 10. Level+5 gives level 1 characters more points to work with and a higher possible cap.

I also really like the idea of lowering spell costs by doing things like increasing the casting time, requiring somatic, vocal and/or material components, etc.

QuoteProbably most spells would have one main effect (Healing, Damage, etc.) - some like damage probably should have a base area of 'target' rather than caster. You could probably fit most spells in a dozenish 'mode' or 'seed' effects, then apply the range and/or duration modifiers.

So each effect has it's base function and cost? Maybe each has a few set of attributes that can added on/increased with extra PP invested? So for example:

Enhance/Degrade
Cost: 2PP/level
Each level purchased gives a +/-1 bonus or penalty (max of +/-5) to a touched targets next roll (user's choice) until the users next turn.
Extras:
Potency: Choose another roll type that is also affected. +1PP/level per type of roll affected.
Area: This power affects all creatures in the area of the user but halves the overall bonus/penalty (round down). +1PP/level or +2PP/level to ignore the halving penalty.
Range: The power affects any one target within sight. +1PP/level.
Duration: Extends the power for an additional round. +1PP/level per round.
Split Effect: If multiple levels of bonuses/penalties are purchased, they can be split among multiple roll types (and targets if Area is also purchased) instead of one. +1PP/level.
Penalties:
Time: Using the power takes an additional round to go into effect. -1PP/level per additional round spent (max of -5).
Somatic: Use of the power requires some kind of hand/arm movements and can't be used if the user is physically impeded. -1PP/level.
Verbal: The power requires a spoken word element and can't be used if if the user is silenced in any way. -1PP/level.
Component: This power requires the use of an expensive component. -1PP/level per 10gp cost of the item (max of -5).

Would flat values be better than increasing the base cost? I feel like the way I currently have it would be quicker and easier. Otherwise a -2 plus "Area" would cost 2PP/level +3 or some such?

I think all the ideas there work...(Rating x 10) PPs, and maximum of (ratingx2) seems reasonable.
 

Some of the 'extras' may work for many effects, and you could standardize them, but that might something to consider after the base effects are designed. There's probably a tradeoff there between complexity and how balanced and whatnot you end up with.

If magic is a skill would you require a skill roll to cast a spell? [All the time, or in combat/stress situations, like for targeting lightning bolts etc.]
(I suppose you don't necessarily need to, if the magic skill has other effects like determining power points - if you do roll, then some effects also need guidelines for Success w/ Cost, Extra Successes, etc.)
If you're rolling you could also have 'Extras' that apply a bonus/penalty to the magic roll too, instead of a cost calculation, if cost calculations start getting complex.  

Quote from: Megamanfan;909733Would flat values be better than increasing the base cost? I feel like the way I currently have it would be quicker and easier. Otherwise a -2 plus "Area" would cost 2PP/level +3 or some such?

Not sure I completely understand what you mean, but I think multiplying base cost for positive extras is probably better for costing appropriate to the effect you're getting? (The same applies to mitigating factors, except that flat cost make them maybe less abuseable).
IDK that area needs a 'ignore halving penalty' Extra when a character can get the effect anyway, by spending twice as many PPs.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;909739I think all the ideas there work...(Rating x 10) PPs, and maximum of (ratingx2) seems reasonable.
 
Some of the 'extras' may work for many effects, and you could standardize them, but that might something to consider after the base effects are designed. There's probably a tradeoff there between complexity and how balanced and whatnot you end up with.

Current list of Base Effects: Heal, Hurt, Enhance, Degrade, Manipulate, Create, Summon, Move. That's just off the top of my head but what about using the D&D schools of magic as a template for each Base Effect?

QuoteIf magic is a skill would you require a skill roll to cast a spell? [All the time, or in combat/stress situations, like for targeting lightning bolts etc.]
(I suppose you don't necessarily need to, if the magic skill has other effects like determining power points - if you do roll, then some effects also need guidelines for Success w/ Cost, Extra Successes, etc.)
If you're rolling you could also have 'Extras' that apply a bonus/penalty to the magic roll too, instead of a cost calculation, if cost calculations start getting complex.

I think that a roll while in combat or stressful times would be called. "Extra Fail" can results in some kind of random result (might need to make a table) and "Extra Success" can either tack on a free extra or double the base effect. Shooting covers whether or not a fireball or lightning bolt hits or not.

Quote from: Megamanfan;909822Current list of Base Effects: Heal, Hurt, Enhance, Degrade, Manipulate, Create, Summon, Move. That's just off the top of my head but what about using the D&D schools of magic as a template for each Base Effect?

Either sounds good as a starting point. D&D would give you then:

Illusion
Enchantment
Evocation
Conjuration
Transmutation
Necromancy
Divination
Abjuration

Transmutation I guess would break down to about three of the other effects you listed ? (Enhance, Degrade, Manipulate). Move and Heal don't fit exactly into the D&D list but could probably go on there too.
Another question would be whether casters should be limited to a specific number of effects, or just able to use any?

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;909841Either sounds good as a starting point. D&D would give you then:

Illusion
Enchantment
Evocation
Conjuration
Transmutation
Necromancy
Divination
Abjuration

Transmutation I guess would break down to about three of the other effects you listed ? (Enhance, Degrade, Manipulate). Move and Heal don't fit exactly into the D&D list but could probably go on there too.

I don't want to literally use the D&D schools since I don't want to go OGL/OSR. A few word tweaks should help:

QuoteAnother question would be whether casters should be limited to a specific number of effects, or just able to use any?

As long as it's equal to or under the Power rating x2 then it can have all the Effects and Extras that can fit because less focused "spells" will have an overall diluted effect.

Current write-up:

POWERS
Every Power costs a number of Power Points based off the base effect and any extras added on, with each level purchased increasing it's strength. A character has POWER rating x10 in max Power Points that refreshes every day after a night of rest. No more than POWER rating x 2 can be spent on a single instance. Each Base Effect starts at 1PP cost per level. Each Extra add +1 per level or subtracts -1 per level to the cost. A POWER check is required to see how well or poorly the spell was cast. If the spell involves a ranged attack, roll a SHOOTING check to see how successful you are. An “Extra Failure” results in some random negative effect (see table below) while an “Extra Success” results in the doubling of the Base Effect.


BASE EFFECTS
ILLUSION – Creation of false images, shapes or entire scenes.
ENCHANT – Magically enchant an item or person.
CREATE – Fabricate mundane items out of thin air.
SUMMON – Bring a creature from one place or plane to your location.
TRANSFORM – Turn one thing into another.
DEATH – Manipulate the forces of life and death.
SENSE – Enhance the senses of one's body.
PROTECT – Shield others from harm and heal them as needed.

EXTRAS
Area: The power affects all targets in the area of the user but halves the overall effect (rounded down). +1PP/level.
Component: This power requires the use of an expensive component. -1PP/level and 10gp cost of the item per rank.
Degrade: Touched target gets -1 to any one type of roll. +1PP/level.
Duration: Extends a power for an additional round. +1PP/level per round.
Enhance: Touched target gets +1 to any one type of roll. +1PP/level.
Harm: Touched target takes 1d6 damage per rank bought. +1PP/level.
Heal: Touched target heals 1d6 damage per rank bought. +1PP/level.
Otherworldly: Allows a power to affect beings from other planes, ghosts and other supernatural beings. +1PP/level.
Permanency: Makes the effects of a power last for as long as the user wishes. +1PP/level.
Potency: Choose another roll type or target that is also affected. +1PP/level per type of roll affected.
Raise: Bring one person back to life as a zombie you control per rank bought. +1PP/level.
Range: The power affects any one target within sight. +1PP/level.
Smell: Adds an olfactory element to the power. +1PP/level.
Somatic: Use of the power requires some kind of hand/arm movements and can't be used if the user is physically impeded. -1PP/level.
Sound: Adds an audible element to the power. +1PP/level.
Split Effect: Multiple bonuses/penalties that are purchased can be split among multiple roll types and/or targets. +1PP/level.
Time: Using the power takes an additional round to go into effect per rank purchased. -1PP/level.
Touch: Adds an tactile element to the power. +1PP/level.
Verbal: The power requires a spoken word element and can't be used if if the user is silenced in any way. -1PP/level.