TNE: Combat Advantage Number

[CatharzGodfoot]

What I thought he means is that having a tier 1 condition, a tier 2 condition, and a tier 3 condition, or multiple different conditions of the same tier result in a greater probability of doom.

I could be wrong.

[virgil]

I was under the impression that a damaging attack both inflicts its Tier X condition, of which you can a limited number on you; on top of an overall influence on CAN, which does stack. While you're likely limited in that the conditions from a Tier effect won't influence CAN, that's only for damage. We still have the options for penalties to attack, move, perceive, etc.

[virgil]

I wouldn't be surprised if the major difference between power in attacks is that the more powerful attacks actually have conditions associated with Tier X, rather than pure damage that just performs attrition on CAN.

That opens up variation in attacks a bit. We can have melee, range, single-target, multi-target, various AoE shapes, auras, & gazes that can vary in which defense they target. Then, to top it all off, we have various conditions associated with each Tier inflicted that we can toggle on and off. From the sounds of it, the conditions will be grouped in chains of supercession (blind overrides dazzled), and not every attack will have access to the full range of this chain (slow is part of the petrification chain, and only some attacks actually have petrification available on their Tier 4 effect, others only having slow at Tier 2).

[Manxome]

I was under the impression that a damaging attack both inflicts its Tier X condition, of which you can a limited number on you; on top of an overall influence on CAN, which does stack.

OK. Where is this "overall influence on CAN" described? (or, alternately, how does it work?)

[virgil]

Page 2, I posted a summary of what it seems to be working with. The terminology seems to have changed to Tier 1 = scuffed, Tier 2 = bruised, Tier 3 = wounded.

Part of the reason I'm under the impression that the CAN modifier is seperate from the Tier X condition is because the example of a -5/-15 imp makes it such that an infinite number of imp attacks can't even bring the wounded condition to a player.

[Manxome]

That post on page 2 looks a lot like the wiki page on thresholds, and doesn't say anything about an orthogonal damage metric that I can see.

So...you actually have no source or description for your idea of attacks doing these tiered status effect plus some additional kind of damage, you've just assumed that that must be the case because the numbers are obviously fvcked unless you have some kind of cumulative effect. Is that correct?

Because, see, based on that information, I would have concluded that the conditions must stack, not that they can't possibly stack and that therefore there must be some additional stacking mechanic that isn't even mentioned. Imps at a -5 CAN are perfectly capable of dropping PCs with enough attacks and no other damage mechanics if conditions actually do stack. Frank's also made a number of comments describing different combat scenarios that all imply that conditions stack...

You can take several Tier 1 conditions and still be in relatively little danger from a weak enemy's next attack, but the same set of conditions is quite threatening if your opponent is powerful.

No specific number of Tier 3 conditions will ever drop you, but it is statistically probably that you will be dropped with a Tier 4 if you get hit by an attack that is at all meaningful if you are carrying a large number of Tier 3s around already.

Then, when you face lesser enemies like hobgoblin soldiers, you start with a +5 CAN on them. That means that initially you're going to be dropping them on a 15 (almost 10% of the time), and you'll be progressing on every hit (literally a 3+ to cause the least of the damage effects). Chances are you'll drop the target in 3-4 hits.

(Emphasis added in all quotes)

Unless he says otherwise, I'm going to have to believe that Frank's proposal for this system involves stacking conditions.

I see no reason you couldn't make an alternate proposal that doesn't, but I think the burden would be on you to actually specify how those alternate mechanics would work.

[virgil]

I'll grant you that, but it raises further questions. What are these sample conditions that are stacking? Being slowed/blinded doesn't sound like something that can stack, unless it creates an ablative layer against healing.

Also, seperating Tiered conditions from CAN damage opens up a vast number of different attacks, as you can have varying mixes; and can even allow attacks that don't actually cause damage, such as a blindness spell (doesn't modify CAN, but blinds on a Tier 2+).

Though that can easily just be me latching onto a mistake and envisioning ways to make the mistake not bad.

Here's to hoping that Frank can illuminate this subject.

[Manxome]

I'll grant you that, but it raises further questions. What are these sample conditions that are stacking? Being slowed/blinded doesn't sound like something that can stack, unless it creates an ablative layer against healing.

It sounds to me like the typical scenario when you get hit by two attacks that each roll 8-11 on their effect test, you get staggered twice, which means attacks against you now have +2 CAN. Thus, the imps can eventually build up enough effects on you to give themselves a large enough bonus to KO you. I'm not entirely clear whether those are "shaken off" simultaneously or in series, but I imagine there'd be room for both restorative abilities that remove conditions one-at-a-time and other abilities that can negate an entire tier at once.

It's not clear to me why you think that "slowed" and "blinded" shouldn't be able to stack. Could you elaborate on what you mean there?

Also, seperating Tiered conditions from CAN damage opens up a vast number of different attacks, as you can have varying mixes; and can even allow attacks that don't actually cause damage, such as a blindness spell (doesn't modify CAN, but blinds on a Tier 2+).

Well, multiplying the number of mechanics you're using generally does open up new design options, but I don't see any reason the particular abilites you're describing can't be created under the simpler system in this case.

The "default" tier 1 condition is "staggered," which applies a +1 CAN bonus to attackers. The obvious intent is that there will be some abilities whose tier 1 condition is something else, and "something else" doesn't need to include any sort of CAN effect (in fact, if it's supposed to be equivalent in power to the staggered condition, it probably won't--a potential design problem that may warrant some number-juggling so that conditions with +1 CAN plus something interesting are the norm).

So hitting someone with a sword inflicts staggered / bruised / wounded / dying based on the effect test, and maybe hitting someone with a petrification spell inflicts stiffened / slowed / immobilized / petrified based on effect tests.

And I see no particular reason you couldn't create inherently nonlethal attacks if you wanted, such as a blind spell that inflicts dazzled / blinded / (none) / (none). Meeting the threshold for a certain tier automatically means you also inflict all lower-tiered conditions from your ability, so inserting "none" as the tier 4 effect just means that rolling 20+ is the same as rolling 16-19.

[angelfromanotherpin]

The "default" tier 1 condition is "staggered," which applies a +1 CAN bonus to attackers. The obvious intent is that there will be some abilities whose tier 1 condition is something else, and "something else" doesn't need to include any sort of CAN effect (in fact, if it's supposed to be equivalent in power to the staggered condition, it probably won't--a potential design problem that may warrant some number-juggling so that conditions with +1 CAN plus something interesting are the norm).

Well, CAN is supposed to be affected by positional and other advantages, so an effect which drops Bleary/Blinded/whatever would have the conditional CAN modifier of 'can't see attacker,' as well as the other effects of being blinded. And so on.

[Manxome]

Well, CAN is supposed to be affected by positional and other advantages, so an effect which drops Bleary/Blinded/whatever would have the conditional CAN modifier of 'can't see attacker,' as well as the other effects of being blinded. And so on.

I fail to see how that affects the underlying problem that you're (presumably) expected to balance all of your conditions against a condition that makes the smallest measurable change in CAN and has no other effects; anything that's balanced against that needs to affect CAN by less than +1 or have no meaningful effect other than the CAN bonus.

The fact that you think blindness ought to affect CAN as a secondary benefit just emphasizes how much a problem that constraint is likely to be.

Though I suppose you could potentially make the attacks balanced without making the conditions balanced; attacks that inflict better-than-default conditions could come with an inherent penalty to accuracy or CAN, a usage limit (recharge time, mana cost, etc.), or some other disadvantage.

[NoDot]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is at least one of you suggesting that staggered should stack with itself? i honestly haven't gotten that idea from Frank's comments.

[angelfromanotherpin]

I fail to see how that affects the underlying problem that you're (presumably) expected to balance all of your conditions against a condition that makes the smallest measurable change in CAN and has no other effects; anything that's balanced against that needs to affect CAN by less than +1 or have no meaningful effect other than the CAN bonus.

The fact that you think blindness ought to affect CAN as a secondary benefit just emphasizes how much a problem that constraint is likely to be.

No, no. I was mostly agreeing with you. I was presenting blindness as an example of the CAN bonus+other condition you proposed. I actually think the basic 'I hit you' effects should inflict their CAN effect and a 1-round 'shock' penalty to actions or something similar.

Of course, the various CAN bonuses from the 'visual acuity impaired' track are conditional, probably mitigatable with Listen checks or something, and as such not 100% as good as a straight-up all-the-time bonus from Staggered or its kin.

[Manxome]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is at least one of you suggesting that staggered should stack with itself? i honestly haven't gotten that idea from Frank's comments.

Yes, that is precisely what I'm suggesting. It is precisely the impression I got from Frank's comments, and I think it makes eminently good sense.

But then, I've always thought that stacking restrictions were overapplied in many games.

[NoDot]

Yes, that is precisely what I'm suggesting. It is precisely the impression I got from Frank's comments, and I think it makes eminently good sense.

I'm afraid that I don't see that in his comments. My impression was that different Tier 1 Effects would stack with each other, but you can't be staggered twice and have it stack with itself. (If we assume that to be true, then tell me, when I spend a round catching my breath, do I remove all of them, or just one of them.)

[Manxome]

Yes, that is precisely what I'm suggesting. It is precisely the impression I got from Frank's comments, and I think it makes eminently good sense.

I'm afraid that I don't see that in his comments. My impression was that different Tier 1 Effects would stack with each other, but you can't be staggered twice and have it stack with itself. (If we assume that to be true, then tell me, when I spend a round catching my breath, do I remove all of them, or just one of them.)

I don't know which Frank had in mind, but how is that question any easier to answer if the two tier 1 effects are different, rather than the same? It doesn't make much sense to have an ability that says "you can recover from all tier 1 conditions, except duplicates" or one that says "you can recover from an unlimited number of copies of one condition, but not from two different conditions." The recovery action will remove either one condition or all conditions of a tier (probably actions will exist for both), and why do we care whether the conditions are identical or different?


If you can suffer multiple different tier 1 conditions, but can't be staggered twice, that means that the amount of hurt you can lay on a single opponent is going to be limited by the number of kinds of attacks that you're capable of performing, which is really weird. A dozen imps with a dozen different kinds of attacks would be a serious threat; a dozen imps all spamming the same attack would be literally incapable of dropping you in any number of attacks. Is that desirable?

It also means that getting hurt by an attack automatically makes you resistant to that type of attack--until you heal the damage. Which, again, is bizarre. That suggests there may be situations in which healing yourself is actually worse than doing nothing, or at least no better.

It's probably possible to make a game that uses those principles, but they'd make balance significantly harder and less intuitive, and they don't make any sense. They'll certainly make similar characters highly anti-synergistic and destroy any sort of consistent power scaling based on team size (though in some contexts I suppose that could be a good thing).


In general, if a game allows similar conditions to stack, but not multiple copies of the same condition, that implies that your power is restricted primarily based on the number of tools in your kit, rather than the number of actions you can take or how strong the individual actions are. That's doable, but atypical, and has profound implications for the rest of the game design.

[Username17]

Conditions that affect attack rolls should not stack, and conditions that affect damage rolls should. This is because going off the RNG on attacks is really boring, but going off the RNG on damage is how the battle actually ends.

-Username17

[Manxome]

Conditions that affect attack rolls should not stack, and conditions that affect damage rolls should. This is because going off the RNG on attacks is really boring, but going off the RNG on damage is how the battle actually ends.

-Username17

I'm not certain that going off the attack RNG is that terrible. Does the game involve auto-hit attacks or action denial? If so, wouldn't those be mechanically equivalent to going off the attack RNG?

Regardless, as long as everyone has at least one self-stacking attack, that resolves the primary issue I was concerned about.

I see no inherent problem with saying that some types of conditions stack and others don't as long as getting yourself a similar ability with a different name doesn't allow you to bypass the stacking restrictions. The cap inserts a breakpoint into the math, but the nature of our RNG makes that impossible to avoid.

Though it might be worth considering whether applying a limit on the total combined effect (e.g. your total attack bonus/penalty can never exceed +/-5) might work better than a limit on the number of concurrent effects. That way a bunch of minor threats can still accumulate into a serious threat, and you can potentially have both sides pile on a bunch of effects in a struggle to pull a given variable in their favor.

[zeruslord]

I think conditions that affect attack rolls should stack, but should always be conditional based on things that are not constant. Bonuses for positioning, special attacks, and similar things should stack. The real problem comes from universal, always active bonuses that push people towards the end of the RNG, like magic weapons and weapon focus.

I'm not certain that going off the attack RNG is that terrible. Does the game involve auto-hit attacks or action denial? If so, wouldn't those be mechanically equivalent to going off the attack RNG?

I don't believe the game includes auto hit attacks right now. Action denial is the result of you spending actions to deny the opponent one, and is not equivalent to flat bonuses that break the math of combat.

[Manxome]

I don't believe the game includes auto hit attacks right now. Action denial is the result of you spending actions to deny the opponent one, and is not equivalent to flat bonuses that break the math of combat.

I was imagining someone spending an action to inflict some condition on an opponent that lowers their attack roll enough to guarantee they can't hit with their next attack, not someone getting a permanent (or "always on") bonus/penalty the embeds them firmly off the RNG.

If you hit on an 11+, and I spend an action to blind you and give you a -5 to your attack roll for two rounds, that's (probably) balanced vs. one-for-one action denial, because I've spent an action to reduce the average effectiveness of your actions by 50% for two rounds, which on average is equivalent to denying you one action.

If I blind you continuously, every round, and the blind stacks with itself, you're at -10 to hit and you auto-miss. But I'm using up my attack action every round to keep you blinded, so we're still trading actions one-for one, even though I've pushed you off the RNG. One can argue that this is "boring," but I'm not sure how other forms of action-denial are necessarily better.

Now, the first blind reduced your average hits by 50%, and the second reduced your remaining average hits by 100%, so that's potentially a problem, depending on the shape of the curve along which the game is balanced. But if the game already has to cope with outright action denial, then it's probably not an issue.

[zeruslord]

Of course, action denial can lead to tekken juggling. which isn't fun either. I guess this is mostly going to be a problem with bosses and other solo monsters. Minions and such could still keep fights functional.

[Cielingcat]

Didn't Frank say he wanted to get rid of the whole concept of boss fights?

[virgil]

I know he wants to get rid of the concept of boss fights as they are in 4E (two minute, in-game, attrition fights), but I don't think he was against boss fights in all forms.

[Manxome]

The monsters on the wiki include a "master" monster that, by himself, qualifies as a standard encounter for 4 players or a climactic encounter for 2. Of course, I'm not sure who wrote that or how up-to-date it is.

There was some recent discussion about boss fights over in this thread, but I don't think Frank weighed in on the matter.

It is worth noting that if action denial is implemented as stacking penalties (like my blind example), then you can make someone "resistant" to action denial by giving them better stats; e.g. if someone normally hits on 6+ rather than 11+, then you need 3 blinds to disable them instead of 2.

A more plausible example in this system might be if you apply conditions that penalize damage tests the target makes. If a blind gives the target, say, -2 CAN on its attacks, then the number of blinds you need to stack on in order to render a boss harmless will be much higher than the number of blinds you need to stack on an imp, because the boss has an inherently higher CAN. Of course, CAN is essentially this system's damage, so if we start penalizing CAN like that, we need to make sure the battle's still going to end...

There's also the mesmerize / "behind a wall" paradigm of action denial, which is less effective against a single foe because you can't attack the target until it ends, but that's still quite powerful if the boss has minions or other support.

[zeruslord]

Of course, CAN is essentially this system's damage, so if we start penalizing CAN like that, we need to make sure the battle's still going to end...

but...

CAN (Combat Advantage Number) goes up if:

* You are higher level than your target.
* You have positional advantage over a target.
* Your target has a debilitating condition.
* Your target is wounded.

It sounds like most stacking conditions only penalize defensive CAN, so fights still end. This is also how I think it should work thematically; Boromir can keep killing orcs with twenty arrows in him, and only slows down towards the very end.

[CatharzGodfoot]

How big of a bonus (aside from level) will characters get to the damage roll? If the net bonus is around zero, a character has around a 2% chance to incapacitate a crippled foe, which seems a bit low. If it's around 4, there's a about a 16% chance that a crippled mirror gets killed (if hit), but there's about a 2% chance of killing the mirror outright on the first round.

This seems like a problem to me, but nothing that can't be fixed by tweaking the numbers.