Linear and Logarithmic damage

[Hicks]

So in a simple system, everything that can be damaged has X Hit points (I'll say 10), and creatures make Attack rolls with a Y sided die (I'll say d20) and have static Defense scores.

A successful attack roll is d20 + attack modifiers > defense + modifiers.

Your positive net attack roll is called Damage, and is subtracted from your target's 10 hp.

Losing 10 HP incapacitates a creature. Losing 20 or more HP kills a creature.

There is also Damage Resistance which reduces damage done to the targeted creature by a stated ammount.

So how does adding a defender soak roll and logarithmic net damage look up table (which is small enough to be memorized), add anthing other than 2 extra steps to resolve combat?

[Bill Bisco: Isometric Imp]

You're correlating attack bonus directly with damage which takes away variety from the game. Now you cannot have accurate but minorly damaging attacks nor can you have inaccurate but highly damaging attacks. A soak roll replaces the standard damage roll from the weapon and adds the standard interesting variety right back in (albeit a different method).

[Previn]

A soak roll, assuming I understand it correctly, adds to survivability in a way that damage rolls or static damage reduction do not. While 1 roll is quicker, I've found that it seems less satisfying to players than 2 rolls, be the second roll a damage or soak roll.

I'm not sure on 'logarithmic net damage look up table' ... like weapon str in w40k?

You can still have accurate but lightly damaging attacks, you just meter out the positive to hit for damage; I.e. a highly accurate weapon deals 1 hp for every 5 net hits or fraction there of, a highly damaging weapon deals 1 hp for ever 2 net hits, or where ever your scale lies.

[Username17]

Add me to the list of people who do not know what you mean by logarithmic damage in this case. Doubling will get you from 1 damage to past 10 damage in 4 steps and past 30 in only 5. Triangular will get you from 1 damage to 10 damage in 3 steps past 20 in 5. Squares will get you from 1 damage to past 10 in 3 steps and to past 20 in only 4.

10 damage points isn't very much to put a progressive damage comparison against. And the difference between one kind of growth and another isn't going to be much. So I do not know what you mean by "logarithmic" in this case.

-Username17

[hyzmarca]

Technically, logarithmic damage scaling would mean that a weapon which is 10 times stronger would only do 1 point more damage.

A weapon with a base damage of 10 would cause 1HP of actual damage. A weapon with a base damage of 100 would take off 2HPs. A weapon with a damage of ten billion would take off 10HP.

That would be an interesting scaling choice, and would greatly favor large numbers of weak weapons over a few strong ones.

[Chamomile]

I've tried to find a way to make combat work on a single roll a lot. It just doesn't work. There's no easy way to differentiate between weak and accurate attacks versus strong but inaccurate ones, at least not without adding even more complexity than a second die roll.

[Seerow]

Technically, logarithmic damage scaling would mean that a weapon which is 10 times stronger would only do 1 point more damage.

A weapon with a base damage of 10 would cause 1HP of actual damage. A weapon with a base damage of 100 would take off 2HPs. A weapon with a damage of ten billion would take off 10HP.

That would be an interesting scaling choice, and would greatly favor large numbers of weak weapons over a few strong ones.

I'd go for a slightly lower curve, but yeah a damage that followed that pattern would be kind of cool.

Try base 2. So

2 = 1
4 = 2
8 = 3
16 = 4
32 = 5
64 = 6
128 = 7
256 = 8
512 = 9
1024 = 10

etc. Basically it would end up so the vast majority of damage would be between 1 and 7, while keeping the numbers at a low enough value to be manageable. (ie to do real damage you don't need attacks that deal thousands or millions of damage)

[Chamomile]

After careful examination of the Marvel RPG's example fights, I think they have a damage scheme similar to this, although I cannot for the life of me find any place where they actually explain how their damage scheme works. The only explanation I could find implied that every point of attack higher than the opponent's defense directly converted into one point of damage.

Their scale was (or appears to have been):

1=1
3=2
6=3
10=4
15=5

And you weren't likely to ever get higher than that no matter what the match up is.

[CatharzGodfoot]

Technically, logarithmic damage scaling would mean that a weapon which is 10 times stronger would only do 1 point more damage.

A weapon with a base damage of 10 would cause 1HP of actual damage. A weapon with a base damage of 100 would take off 2HPs. A weapon with a damage of ten billion would take off 10HP.

That would be an interesting scaling choice, and would greatly favor large numbers of weak weapons over a few strong ones.

I'd go for a slightly lower curve, but yeah a damage that followed that pattern would be kind of cool.

Try base 2. So

2 = 1
4 = 2
8 = 3
16 = 4
32 = 5
64 = 6
128 = 7
256 = 8
512 = 9
1024 = 10

etc. Basically it would end up so the vast majority of damage would be between 1 and 7, while keeping the numbers at a low enough value to be manageable. (ie to do real damage you don't need attacks that deal thousands or millions of damage)

Tighten up the range of damage values instead of adding the 'lookup table' step. If we had d1000s, something like this might actually have a reason for existing.

[Seerow]

Technically, logarithmic damage scaling would mean that a weapon which is 10 times stronger would only do 1 point more damage.

A weapon with a base damage of 10 would cause 1HP of actual damage. A weapon with a base damage of 100 would take off 2HPs. A weapon with a damage of ten billion would take off 10HP.

That would be an interesting scaling choice, and would greatly favor large numbers of weak weapons over a few strong ones.

I'd go for a slightly lower curve, but yeah a damage that followed that pattern would be kind of cool.

Try base 2. So

2 = 1
4 = 2
8 = 3
16 = 4
32 = 5
64 = 6
128 = 7
256 = 8
512 = 9
1024 = 10

etc. Basically it would end up so the vast majority of damage would be between 1 and 7, while keeping the numbers at a low enough value to be manageable. (ie to do real damage you don't need attacks that deal thousands or millions of damage)

Tighten up the range of damage values instead of adding the 'lookup table' step. If we had d1000s, something like this might actually have a reason for existing.

I was under the impression that the point was so that people with ridiculously higher damage values don't actually just destroy everything.

[CatharzGodfoot]

"Ridiculously higher damage" in that system is when somebody has a damage value in the quadrillions. 'Slightly higher damage' is when someone has a damage value in the thousands. All the lookup table does is make the RNG meaningless and the numbers hard to read and write.