Friday, May 15, 2020

Casting the Dice -- Part 3: The Slings and Arrows of Outrageous Fortune

To d6, or not 2d6? That is the question...

Way back in old-timey days, I wrote a post outlining how I wanted "support mechanics" to function. Essentially, these are "roll and compare" mechanics (class dice used in conjunction with d20 rolls) providing a framework for bonuses that were bigger than Mastery/Expertise, but smaller than Advantage. Part of that process involved coming up with a measurement by which to create bonuses of comparable value, and I settled on [hit chance + (crit chance * 3)] for giving each mechanic a "score."

Now, I wish I could say that I've settled on all of these mechanics, but as you might have guessed from the opening line, the d6 class die is giving me problems. Specifically, when I recently decided to take another try at finalizing these mechanics, I also looked at what the "miss chance" was for each -- and decided that, as best as possible, that those needed to be kept within a relatively small range. However, one of the mechanics I had picked for d6 (essentially, 2d6, and working fairly similarly to 1d12) resulted in a miss chance of just below 10% -- far less than what any of the other dice were doing. So I decided to revise that, and I'm currently still working on it.

What I have settled on, is basically the textual format that I want to have these mechanics laid out in. The idea is that there will be an expression which lays out a mechanic that the minor and major bonuses (for a given die) will both use; then, the minor bonus will add one clause, and the major bonus will add one different clause (not using the clause from the minor bonus, mind you.) I also tried to narrow down the types of clauses used, so that there aren't any more fiddly mechanics than there absolutely needs to be.


Here's what this looks like so far:

d4
always: add the d4 to a miss
minor bonus: treat as a crit if the d4 matches/ties the d20 roll
major bonus: add the d4 roll to a hit [potentially boosting it to a crit]

d8
always: add the d8 to a miss
minor bonus: treat as a hit if the d8 matches/ties the d20 roll
major bonus: treat as a crit if the d8 matches/ties the d20 roll

d10
always: if the d10 rolls its maximum value [i.e. 10] add it to the d20 roll
minor bonus: treat as a crit if the d10 matches/ties the d20 roll
major bonus: add the d10 to a miss

d12
always: you can use the d12 roll [i.e. if it's a roll of 10+] or the d20 roll to determine if you hit
minor bonus: treat as a crit if the d12 matches/ties the d20 roll
major bonus: treat as a crit if both the d12 roll and the d20 roll would hit


A Sea of Troubles
Now, coming back to the d6, I'll just talk about what I'm playing with.
One thing I had considered was rolling 2d6 and allowing the roll to be treated as a crit if the two d6 rolled a tie/match; the math on this was usable, but I don't like that it doesn't fall in line with the existing "match" mechanic, and thought it might cause confusion.

I also looked at fixing the old mechanic by rolling 2d6 but only allowing one to be added to a miss. I found this to be clunky, and more or less decided I don't want to have functions that involved applying 2d6 to one function and also 1d6 to a different function. The idea of rolling 2d6 and adding one (either the lower or higher) on either a hit or a miss seemed intriguing, but the math never quite worked; "add low to miss, add to hit if max" was something mathematically workable, but completely impractical and messy. Howver, that started to point me in a new direction, at least.

What I realized then, was that if I were to use the "add to miss" mechanic on d6, then its other mechanics would have to be completely different than what the d4 and d8 were doing -- otherwise the math would end up slanted, with d6 always being flatout better than d4 and worse than d8. Since I had settled on "add if max" as a mechanic for the d10, I decided I should see if I could make it work for the d6 as well (rather than having it as an outlier.) It also seemed like a sensible idea, in the context of d6 and d10 potentially sharing a "dice role."


This lead me to a few possible setups, each with their own drawbacks:

Option 1:
always: if the d6 rolls its maximum value [i.e. 6] add it to the d20 roll
minor bonus: add the d6 to a miss
minor bonus: treat as a hit if the d6 matches/ties the d20 roll
major bonus: roll 2d6 (instead of 1d6) when determining if the d6 rolls its maximum value

A couple problems with this:
1) The minor bonus actually produces the same math as "add to miss, crit on tie" ...but those are the exact same functions used for the d4 minor bonus, so it ends up just being flatout better -- and to top it off, it's a little bit above the cap for minor bonuses.
2) Trying to bash together a 1d6 and a 2d6, while keeping them separate (because one is a minor bonus and one is a major bonus) is ...mushy.
3) Just too many functions going on, causing confusion; I ran this by some people, and they weren't clear as to whether the "add to miss" or "match" mechanics of the minor bonus only triggered on a "max value" roll.
4) The major bonus happens to also be a little bit above the cap, for major bonuses.


Option 2:
always: if the d6 rolls its maximum value [i.e. 6] add it to the d20 roll
always: add the d6 to a miss
minor bonus: [no other modifiers]
major bonus: treat as a crit if the d6 matches/ties the d20 roll

So, on the plus side, the minor bonus produces the exact same math as the d4 minor bonus -- nice! And both bonuses use only 1d6. The problems are mostly esthetic; having two "always" clauses but no "minor" clause is weird, and it means the major bonus ends up having three clauses. Plus, the major bonus math is still a little bit high (it's more of a hit bonus, whereas the major bonus in Option 1 is built on more of a crit bonus -- but both are around a score of 105.)


Option 3:
[using the minor bonus from Option 2, with the major bonus from Option 1]
always: if the d6 rolls its maximum value [i.e. 6] add it to the d20 roll
minor bonus: add the d6 to a miss
major: roll 2d6 (instead of 1d6) when determining if the d6 rolls its maximum value

This seems to (at least math-wise) be the best compromise. And it's probably the 'cleanest' option so far -- although I still don't love mixing 1d6 and 2d6 mechanics together, so the alternative would be:


Option 4:
always: roll 2d6
minor bonus: you can use the 2d6 roll [i.e. if it's a roll of 10+] or the d20 roll to determine if you hit
minor bonus: treat as a crit if both the 2d6 roll and the d20 roll would hit
major bonus: if (either) d6 rolls its maximum value [i.e. 6] add it to the d20 roll

What we've done here is essentially taken the d12 major bonus, and used it as our 2d6 minor bonus -- which works out in terms of math. And then we've effectively recycled the major bonus from Option 1, for this setup. The downside is, there's a lot of functions flying around, and the only unifying mechanic is the 2d6 -- it's a bit of a high price to pay, for the mess it creates.


Conclusions
I should end by mentioning that the math regarding 2d6 that I used in figuring out these numbers, is actually based on the "double-roll and stack" rule's math, rather than just straight 2d6 math.

With that out of the way, I think that Option 3 probably fits the format best, and is (hopefully?) a little less confusing that the others. Option 1 can likely be ruled out just on its math, but also because of the other problems I mentioned. Option 2 cleans up all of the messiness of Option 1, but isn't the best fit for the format. Option 4 ...works, but is just sort of all-around messy (breaks the format, too many computations, etc.)

So, if I had to start implementing math into a new draft of the rules today, I would probably have to go with Option 3. But let me know what your thoughts are on the matter, and I'll continue working in the background to see if there's a better option still out there.


I should also mention one of the lessons learned from previous playtesting: these mechanics are much stronger when applied to defensive rolls. The simple reason for that, is because a given character can only make so many attack rolls on their turn (and generally only one Basic Attack); in a round, however, they may have to make as many defensive rolls as there are enemies to defend against. That all being taken into account, I think the place within the designs for these mechanics is in the Archetypes and Domains, where mechanical bonuses will need to work similarly, across the various class dice; class-specific mechanics can (and probably will, by necessity) deviate from the math presented here.


...


Next post should be up on May 26th, so check back then.

No comments:

Post a Comment