Stats that are both offense/defense
Moderator: Moderators
- Judging__Eagle
- Prince
- Posts: 4671
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
- Location: Lake Ontario is in my backyard; Canada
Mostly because people don't understand the attributes as simply as possible, before trying to define them.
Wisdom = Sense(s) (by comparison, Intelligence = Abstraction)
Charisma = Influence (by contrast, Willpower = Tenacity)
The thing is, there are games that work totally fine with attack/defense stats being the same. After Sundown basically treats Strength as if it was Health (really, one's health pretty much defines their physical strength).
The trick is to make things slightly more nuanced than the initial proposal; the other attributes should interfere with attacks made against an attacked attribute.
I'm also become in favour of "strength" being a no longer used term. "Health" is simply such a better definition of the concepts trying to be defined in terms of the bodies non-nervous organs. While "Nerve" is probably more precise than "Dexterity" has ever been. You don't take 4 steps at a time (up, or down) because you have 'right-handedness' (i.e. "dexterity"), you do it because you have a high performing nervous system and you can control your body to make those actions successful (or pratfalls if not).
Wisdom = Sense(s) (by comparison, Intelligence = Abstraction)
Charisma = Influence (by contrast, Willpower = Tenacity)
The thing is, there are games that work totally fine with attack/defense stats being the same. After Sundown basically treats Strength as if it was Health (really, one's health pretty much defines their physical strength).
The trick is to make things slightly more nuanced than the initial proposal; the other attributes should interfere with attacks made against an attacked attribute.
I'm also become in favour of "strength" being a no longer used term. "Health" is simply such a better definition of the concepts trying to be defined in terms of the bodies non-nervous organs. While "Nerve" is probably more precise than "Dexterity" has ever been. You don't take 4 steps at a time (up, or down) because you have 'right-handedness' (i.e. "dexterity"), you do it because you have a high performing nervous system and you can control your body to make those actions successful (or pratfalls if not).
The Gaming Den; where Mathematics are rigorously applied to Mythology.
While everyone's Philosophy is not in accord, that doesn't mean we're not on board.
While everyone's Philosophy is not in accord, that doesn't mean we're not on board.
-
- Duke
- Posts: 1854
- Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 5:21 am
Can't report on the value of gameplay, but I don't get good feedback from players when using stats that double as offense and defense. I have players that love to be a full glass cannon and players that want to be a tanky tank.
DSMatticus wrote:Again, look at this fucking map you moron. Take your finger and trace each country's coast, then trace its claim line. Even you - and I say that as someone who could not think less of your intelligence - should be able to tell that one of these things is not like the other.
Kaelik wrote:I invented saying mean things about Tussock.
- AndreiChekov
- Knight-Baron
- Posts: 523
- Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 12:54 pm
- Location: an AA meeting. Or Caemlyn.
This....You Lost Me wrote:Can't report on the value of gameplay, but I don't get good feedback from players when using stats that double as offense and defense. I have players that love to be a full glass cannon and players that want to be a tanky tank.
There is a trope in some stories to have a guy that can take any punch ever, but isn't really good at hitting back. How do you show that if strength also determines hp?
Peace favour your sword.
I only play 3.x
I only play 3.x
- angelfromanotherpin
- Overlord
- Posts: 9745
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
The converse is much truer, I'd say. Usually those defenders don't fight back, instead of being unable to fight back well. Even for relatively offensively anemic defensive types in games or stories, it's a dodge/accuracy thing in which they are very good at "taking" blows by not getting hit with them and hit perfectly fine but don't do much damage. Or they are bad at fighting back because they're inaccurate, but if they land one shot the opponent's going down.AndreiChekov wrote:This....You Lost Me wrote:Can't report on the value of gameplay, but I don't get good feedback from players when using stats that double as offense and defense. I have players that love to be a full glass cannon and players that want to be a tanky tank.
There is a trope in some stories to have a guy that can take any punch ever, but isn't really good at hitting back. How do you show that if strength also determines hp?
I'm actually having a hard time thinking of situations in stories where being really tough but bad at fighting back both is and stays a thing, outside of as a quirk of a game system.
FrankTrollman wrote: Halfling women, as I'm sure you are aware, combine all the "fun" parts of pedophilia without any of the disturbing, illegal, or immoral parts.
K wrote:That being said, the usefulness of airships for society is still transporting cargo because it's an option that doesn't require a powerful wizard to show up for work on time instead of blowing the day in his harem of extraplanar sex demons/angels.
Chamomile wrote: See, it's because K's belief in leaving generation of individual monsters to GMs makes him Chaotic, whereas Frank's belief in the easier usability of monsters pre-generated by game designers makes him Lawful, and clearly these philosophies are so irreconcilable as to be best represented as fundamentally opposed metaphysical forces.
Whipstitch wrote:You're on a mad quest, dude. I'd sooner bet on Zeus getting bored and letting Sisyphus put down the fucking rock.
- OgreBattle
- King
- Posts: 6820
- Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 9:33 am
The Simpsons, Homer's boxing. That's a joke though.I'm actually having a hard time thinking of situations in stories where being really tough but bad at fighting back both is and stays a thing, outside of as a quirk of a game system.
If you broaden it to "High defense with powerful counterattack" you have Wobbufet and other counter punchers.
In fighting games the high defense guys have a tendency to be slower attackers that hit hard.
- Judging__Eagle
- Prince
- Posts: 4671
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
- Location: Lake Ontario is in my backyard; Canada
Except that a tanky tank is still a tank. With a cannon. Thus just as dangerous as the "glass" cannon....You Lost Me wrote:Can't report on the value of gameplay, but I don't get good feedback from players when using stats that double as offense and defense. I have players that love to be a full glass cannon and players that want to be a tanky tank.
While I understand the idea, the idea is also flawed. Stronger people (not water-filled steroided up bodybuilders) are... faster, tougher, and hit harder; than weaker people. There is no reality to the "lean but fast" person, because people who are all lean muscles have slow twitch muscles; that aren't fast.
The Gaming Den; where Mathematics are rigorously applied to Mythology.
While everyone's Philosophy is not in accord, that doesn't mean we're not on board.
While everyone's Philosophy is not in accord, that doesn't mean we're not on board.
Most birds are faster than humies, yet humies can easily overpower them.Judging__Eagle wrote:Except that a tanky tank is still a tank. With a cannon. Thus just as dangerous as the "glass" cannon....You Lost Me wrote:Can't report on the value of gameplay, but I don't get good feedback from players when using stats that double as offense and defense. I have players that love to be a full glass cannon and players that want to be a tanky tank.
While I understand the idea, the idea is also flawed. Stronger people (not water-filled steroided up bodybuilders) are... faster, tougher, and hit harder; than weaker people. There is no reality to the "lean but fast" person, because people who are all lean muscles have slow twitch muscles; that aren't fast.
Also an awful lot of professional atlethes die young, showing they weren't that tough after all. Having bigger stronger muscles doesn't make you more resistant to diseases and toxins. Heck, excessive training may just make you burn out faster, although you'll die with a great looking body I guess.
Meanwhile women are still statistically living longer than men worldwide despite statistically having worst muscles (and often less rights as well meaning they're abused more often, yet endure longer).
FrankTrollman wrote: Actually, our blood banking system is set up exactly the way you'd want it to be if you were a secret vampire conspiracy.
1) Regarding professional athletes, Chronic drug abusers have a lower life expectancy than non-abusers. Who knew? And yeah, excessive training is probably bad. Repeat concussions definitely are, and feature in some sports more than others.maglag wrote:Also an awful lot of professional atlethes die young, showing they weren't that tough after all. Having bigger stronger muscles doesn't make you more resistant to diseases and toxins. Heck, excessive training may just make you burn out faster, although you'll die with a great looking body I guess.
Meanwhile women are still statistically living longer than men worldwide despite statistically having worst muscles (and often less rights as well meaning they're abused more often, yet endure longer).
2) Men tend to take more risks and abuse drugs more. [1], [2], [3] (see pg. 8), [4]
Last edited by brized on Sun Nov 06, 2016 6:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Tumbling Down wrote:An admirable sentiment but someone beat you to it.deaddmwalking wrote:I'm really tempted to stat up a 'Shadzar' for my game, now.
- Whipstitch
- Prince
- Posts: 3660
- Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 10:23 pm
That's taking things rather far. Typically "fast and lean" is just a product of people speaking colloquially about overall mass rather than advocating for specific muscle fibers. The image isn't that inaccurate in the big picture--yes, Usain Bolt is jacked but he's also super lean compared to your average cheeto dusted American.Judging__Eagle wrote: There is no reality to the "lean but fast" person, because people who are all lean muscles have slow twitch muscles; that aren't fast.
Last edited by Whipstitch on Sun Nov 06, 2016 8:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
bears fall, everyone dies
- AndreiChekov
- Knight-Baron
- Posts: 523
- Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 12:54 pm
- Location: an AA meeting. Or Caemlyn.
You don't count as "a bunch of people", but this realism argument does have nothing to do with the mechanics of things.AndreiChekov wrote:Again, someone else said it for me. In this case whipstitch.
But, srsly, tanky but not hard hitting is a thing that a lot of players want. Doing away with it for the sake of realism is stupid. The people that complain about realism like fighters.
Still, please to be addressing my previous point in which, outside of D&D mechanical fuckery, where is the Tank type bad at fighting, instead of merely inaccurate/less DPS focused.
FrankTrollman wrote: Halfling women, as I'm sure you are aware, combine all the "fun" parts of pedophilia without any of the disturbing, illegal, or immoral parts.
K wrote:That being said, the usefulness of airships for society is still transporting cargo because it's an option that doesn't require a powerful wizard to show up for work on time instead of blowing the day in his harem of extraplanar sex demons/angels.
Chamomile wrote: See, it's because K's belief in leaving generation of individual monsters to GMs makes him Chaotic, whereas Frank's belief in the easier usability of monsters pre-generated by game designers makes him Lawful, and clearly these philosophies are so irreconcilable as to be best represented as fundamentally opposed metaphysical forces.
Whipstitch wrote:You're on a mad quest, dude. I'd sooner bet on Zeus getting bored and letting Sisyphus put down the fucking rock.
-
- Duke
- Posts: 1854
- Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 5:21 am
Me and Andrei and the players in my group. Considering the sample size, that's not something you can handwave. Where that sentiment came from, or how common it is on TV, is not a reason for dismissing it.Mask_De_H wrote:You don't count as "a bunch of people", but this realism argument does have nothing to do with the mechanics of things.AndreiChekov wrote:Again, someone else said it for me. In this case whipstitch.
But, srsly, tanky but not hard hitting is a thing that a lot of players want. Doing away with it for the sake of realism is stupid. The people that complain about realism like fighters.
Still, please to be addressing my previous point in which, outside of D&D mechanical fuckery, where is the Tank type bad at fighting, instead of merely inaccurate/less DPS focused.
DSMatticus wrote:Again, look at this fucking map you moron. Take your finger and trace each country's coast, then trace its claim line. Even you - and I say that as someone who could not think less of your intelligence - should be able to tell that one of these things is not like the other.
Kaelik wrote:I invented saying mean things about Tussock.
- Whipstitch
- Prince
- Posts: 3660
- Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 10:23 pm
Shelled animals and undead creatures. I'm not even being facetious here, because if you're creating a supers/high magic game with arbitrary power sets or want to have a fuck off huge monstrous manual then you might want your system to handle lumbering mummies, Shuckle and Combat Wombat as NPCs even if their weirdly skewed builds would be abject failures as player characters. However, you could still potentially use unified offense-defense attributes in such a setup as long as characters can still pull bonuses from other sources. E.G., it's not hard to imagine a system where Ben Grimm has a much higher Might score than Sue Storm but the latter still super hard to kill because she is so good at breaking line-of-sight and line-of-effect. In such a situation I'd argue that unifying Power & Toughness is less about streamlining things and more about making sure the Thing isn't getting overcharged for a mediocre power set.Mask_De_H wrote: Still, please to be addressing my previous point in which, outside of D&D mechanical fuckery, where is the Tank type bad at fighting, instead of merely inaccurate/less DPS focused.
bears fall, everyone dies
Re: Stats that are both offense/defense
Either get rid of one star or add a fifth. A setup like this is basically Rock, Paper. Scissors. It's balanced by the fact that the one stat you pick beats half of the other moves, and is beaten by the other half. But this only works if you have an odd number of stats. An even number of choices means that they're lop sided. There will be two stats that are simply better than the other two.spongeknight wrote:It's been spitballed a few times here that base stats should really only affect defenses so that people aren't trapped into making certain kinds of characters. If strength determines your bonuses to hit and damage, justifying putting any points into intelligence instead of strength for a warrior is punishing your effectiveness for flavor. That's not really ideal. However, the idea that your basic characteristics don't actually give you positive bonuses is pretty silly- the super strong guy really only punches as hard as the frail old guy?
So what if each stat was both an offense and a defense? Say a stat spread like this:
Might- Is physical damage and damage reduction
Agility- To hit and AC
Intelligence- Save DC and save bonus (magic)
Charisma- Save DC and save bonus (social)
Would anything of value be lost switching to a stat system like this? Would anything be gained?
And if every stat only defends against itself, then your stat choice doesn't matter at all and you should pump everything into initiative instead.
How do you keep track of a group large enough to be statistically significant? :V...You Lost Me wrote:Me and Andrei and the players in my group. Considering the sample size, that's not something you can handwave. Where that sentiment came from, or how common it is on TV, is not a reason for dismissing it.Mask_De_H wrote:You don't count as "a bunch of people", but this realism argument does have nothing to do with the mechanics of things.AndreiChekov wrote:Again, someone else said it for me. In this case whipstitch.
But, srsly, tanky but not hard hitting is a thing that a lot of players want. Doing away with it for the sake of realism is stupid. The people that complain about realism like fighters.
Still, please to be addressing my previous point in which, outside of D&D mechanical fuckery, where is the Tank type bad at fighting, instead of merely inaccurate/less DPS focused.
But it is totally possible to handwave a single game group; all sorts of singular game groups do and think and want all sorts of weird shit that is summarily ignored. I also did say "outside of D&D fuckery" and AndreiCheckov has "I only play D&D 3.5" in his sig, so you're already included.
But Whipstitch did it for you: I'd argue that Shuckle/Metapod are only acceptable as things you fight in a standard TTRPG because they fucking suck as solo PCs, but I can't argue they aren't Tank type PCs. So thanks Whip.
Last edited by Mask_De_H on Tue Nov 08, 2016 4:33 am, edited 2 times in total.
FrankTrollman wrote: Halfling women, as I'm sure you are aware, combine all the "fun" parts of pedophilia without any of the disturbing, illegal, or immoral parts.
K wrote:That being said, the usefulness of airships for society is still transporting cargo because it's an option that doesn't require a powerful wizard to show up for work on time instead of blowing the day in his harem of extraplanar sex demons/angels.
Chamomile wrote: See, it's because K's belief in leaving generation of individual monsters to GMs makes him Chaotic, whereas Frank's belief in the easier usability of monsters pre-generated by game designers makes him Lawful, and clearly these philosophies are so irreconcilable as to be best represented as fundamentally opposed metaphysical forces.
Whipstitch wrote:You're on a mad quest, dude. I'd sooner bet on Zeus getting bored and letting Sisyphus put down the fucking rock.
-
- Duke
- Posts: 1854
- Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 5:21 am
Here is the conversation.How do you keep track of a group large enough to be statistically significant? :V
But it is totally possible to handwave a single game group; all sorts of singular game groups do and think and want all sorts of weird shit that is summarily ignored. I also did say "outside of D&D fuckery" and AndreiCheckov has "I only play D&D 3.5" in his sig, so you're already included.
MASK: Giving people dedicated stats doesn't happen in media, so it shouldn't happen in games.
PEOPLE: Sure whatever. We enjoy that aspect and we're 30% of the audience in this conversation.
MASK: Information I disagree with must be scientifically rigorous, and info I agree with can be justifications from my own head. Since you disagree, your data is not rigorous enough. Also you play D&D so it doesn't count. (?????) Also your way of playing is dumb.
Do you see now why your argument is not a good justification for ignoring the ability to have tank characters?
Last edited by ...You Lost Me on Tue Nov 08, 2016 1:25 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Can you not fucking read or is being an ignorant asshole infectious in your group?
In that very same post you quoted I said I had been given sufficient examples of the archetype by Whipstitch. In the original post, I said that the soak/defense Tank type in media was not bad at fighting, but bad at hitting compared to the average. I also said there was a parallel concept of the Dodge Tank, who is bad at doing damage, but hits well and is good at not being hit. The thing I was saying is there weren't media examples of playable character types that were overall bad at offense (both accuracy and damage) but great at overall defense (soak and evasion). I have been proven wrong. I admitted that, in the very post you selectively quoted.
The barrel of cocks will be at your door within three to five business days.
In that very same post you quoted I said I had been given sufficient examples of the archetype by Whipstitch. In the original post, I said that the soak/defense Tank type in media was not bad at fighting, but bad at hitting compared to the average. I also said there was a parallel concept of the Dodge Tank, who is bad at doing damage, but hits well and is good at not being hit. The thing I was saying is there weren't media examples of playable character types that were overall bad at offense (both accuracy and damage) but great at overall defense (soak and evasion). I have been proven wrong. I admitted that, in the very post you selectively quoted.
The barrel of cocks will be at your door within three to five business days.
Last edited by Mask_De_H on Tue Nov 08, 2016 3:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
FrankTrollman wrote: Halfling women, as I'm sure you are aware, combine all the "fun" parts of pedophilia without any of the disturbing, illegal, or immoral parts.
K wrote:That being said, the usefulness of airships for society is still transporting cargo because it's an option that doesn't require a powerful wizard to show up for work on time instead of blowing the day in his harem of extraplanar sex demons/angels.
Chamomile wrote: See, it's because K's belief in leaving generation of individual monsters to GMs makes him Chaotic, whereas Frank's belief in the easier usability of monsters pre-generated by game designers makes him Lawful, and clearly these philosophies are so irreconcilable as to be best represented as fundamentally opposed metaphysical forces.
Whipstitch wrote:You're on a mad quest, dude. I'd sooner bet on Zeus getting bored and letting Sisyphus put down the fucking rock.
- RobbyPants
- King
- Posts: 5201
- Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2008 6:11 pm
AndreiChekov wrote:This....You Lost Me wrote:Can't report on the value of gameplay, but I don't get good feedback from players when using stats that double as offense and defense. I have players that love to be a full glass cannon and players that want to be a tanky tank.
There is a trope in some stories to have a guy that can take any punch ever, but isn't really good at hitting back. How do you show that if strength also determines hp?
You could do it with feats or some other customization option. Your stat would set a baseline, and you could take a Tough feat or Bruiser feat if you wanted to differentiate a bit.