FrankTrollman at [unixtime wrote:1105750572[/unixtime]]
You might not actually let anyone have the perfectly average attack when you publish the game - but for game balance purposes you are assuming that it's there. When people are playtesting new stuff, that's the attack form that all the placeholder entities in combat are using. And everything else that anyone ever gets is relative to that attack.
Well if nobody has it, then it's equivalently not there. More or less any attack should be a viable starting point. That is, if you subtract from one entry you should be able to add something to another. Now you may make exceptions, namely for stuff like "weak damage to fine creatures" or something that you expect won't ever be a big deal. But basically you should be able to transform the attack table for "Strong Swing" into the attack table for "wide slash" using these rules of give and take.
And when you have that, it seriously doesn't matter where you start or if you even have some theoretical "Average" attack or not.
Basically I want to get people away from thinking about averages and more into thinking of personal situations. Nobody has the hypothetical be-all-end-all of attacks, if they did, they wouldn't need anymore attacks and thus wouldn't need anymore levels. So you're going to have to look at what you've got every combat, and how effective your character is going to be this combat. And it may come out that you happen to suck this combat, so you've got some attacks that do stuff other than damage, perhaps healing your companions or what not. But these should be largely personal choices, not "I'm going into combat using this one standard attack unless I've got a better specialized attack".
You don't take standard attack at level 1, then take giantslayer at level 2, dragonslayer at level 3 and so on.
That's the favored enemy BS I'm trying to avoid.
All your attack forms are going to have weaknesses, and later on when you start mxiing in special defenses, which allow you to take on your type, or another type, whcihever is better, you're going to have to have quite varied attack forms to compensate.
So it differes from a modifier-based system in that there ar really a lot of small modifiers to keep track of? That's not any different at all! It's just complicated.
In any tabular system like the one you've described, it will be easier to describe things as modifiers. Any system at all. Why? Because as modifiers, you can leave something unsaid. Not everything. Not even most things perhaps, but something. Consider the following table:
Well but that's the point. Nothing is going to be left unsaid. It's why a table is simply easier here. The point of the system isn't to have a few set cases where your attack is better or worse, it's going to have a case for each and everything you run into.
And basically the thing with modifiers is that you end up with having to do math. It's simply easier to just look up the base number you want to use and that's it.
Base + modifier only really matters when you plan on using the base unmodified at least a moderate amount of the time. If your base is just as rare as all of your modifiers, then you might as well not have a base at all, because instead of looking up 14+, I now have to look up base 11 then add a +3 modifier. And the way I envision it, a table is going to end up being 2 dimensional with a list of creature types or sizes or whatever on each row and a list of attack modes for each collumn. And everything is going to have an intersection. Whether you write +0 in that box or 11+ is really just a matter of taste, personally I think there's less math to just write out the number you actually need to roll, instead of some hypothetical base that people rarely use.
Remember this isn't going to be a list of random shit. It's a list of things that everyone has ,like a creature type or a size. So your table is going to be finite, unless you plan on adding creature types alot.
Also, I take issue with keeping all those stupid types. They were an interesting idea, but they failed in D&D, and I have no confidence that anyone can make them work.
Well, I don't suggest all of them be kept. Giant for instance better just be humanoids and let the size determine if you call it a giant, a halfling or a human. And honestly the types don't even matter. I mean we could assign simple letters to them, and have them be a separate stat if we wanted.
It could say "Armor type: A" or something and then you compare your damage mode versus the entry for his armor type, and you get an amount of damage.
All that's really important is that everyone has an armor type so they can fit into the table. I really could care less how you get that armor type. it could be arbitrary or it could be based on how big the creature is or if it's an outsider, humanoid, beast or whatever. I really don't even care about that at this point.
Right now I'm just considering if a system build this way could actually work.
You might as well think in the category of average damage, because in the long run there is little difference between an attack that does 2d6 damage on a 10+ and an attack that does d20+d8+d4 on a 15+. They both add up to something around 4-5 damage per attack. Just something that came to my mind right now.
You may get some things that are equivalent as far as average damage goes, but really DR is going to be a determining factor too.
Another point you didn´t adress is defenses. Are they going to be static, as in factored into the attack ?
Or are there going to be ways to boost your defense, apart form being a seldom targeted type.
There won't be any numeric bonuses to attack or defense no, except for level. So if you're a higher level you'll get your +1 or +2 bonus per level, but that's it. Besides that you have to use more strategy for your defenses, like being able to be an outsider or a dragon, whichever is better, and stuff like that. This in turn forces the attack to try to find the right attack to efficiently breach your defense and so on. It really is designed to play more like a wargame.
Basically I think you should try to look at this as a formula, of which you kno the solution and are making things comlplicated for everyone playing the game. The balance you´re looking foor is the point where everyone actually thinks they have a choice, but it does not matter in the long run which attack type they chose, because neither is superior to the other. So tghe worst that can happen is that people actually figure out that magic formula and realize they can play anything they want without being penalized by the rules for it.
Well, it does matter, because you're increasing or decreasing your attack rolls and damage. Now you may get a couple attack forms which are roughly about as good as the other. For instance, twice the chance to hit for half the damage is equivalent.
But to get an advantageous attack form you've got to try to get your attack as efficient as possible against what you're fighting. And certainly I think the system can be set up such that everyone will have weakenesses.
And I'm really not sure if this can all work, but if we want a system that doesn't rely on bonuses, this or something similar has to be made to work.
Either every ability has to be separate or all abilities must synergize with every other ability. The latter is pretty much impossible. The former may not be, and is what I'm examining here.
The problem is however that for this to work abilities you get each level have to be worth something.
I'm trying to produce a game that works off of a counter system and not off of a combo system. That is you have to have a big box of attacks to look for the right one rather than powering up your charge attack wtih all your feats and spells such that it's totally unstoppable by anything.