TNE: Combat Advantage Number

[zeruslord]

That one article needs to be locked. can we password individual articles without needing a wiki login?
if so, use the main forum password (th1sis7heDen)

[Username17]

I'm sure there's good game theory for why damage scales and hitting doesn't

Consider the alternative approach: where to-hit scales and damage doesn't. Like 4e. Your actual sample 12th level Paladin swings her sword for d8+7. She will quite likely have to hit a first level Kobold Slinger three times before it drops. Now, she'll hit every time (more or less), but she'll have to grind on it for several rounds before it drops.

By having to-hits be constant you can keep people dropping Mental attacks on the stupid and explosions on the small at all levels; and by having damage scale you can clear out bullshit monsters in one round without having to grind away for round after round.

-Username17

[virgil]

Well, there's also The Green Knight, and of course Bishma who dies only after he is impaled by so many arrows that he is no longer able to touch the ground. It's a fairly common Bronze Age trope actually. Since that's a period when armor reigned over weaponry, it's hardly surprising to get a lot of stories of people wounded like a million times before falling.

I have no idea why I forgot about those, brain fart or something, since it was so late at the time I guess. But the mockery of the idea will remain (as weapons reign over armor right now), as will the fact that few will appreciate being forced to have every potential character be a damage sponge.

[angelfromanotherpin]

I'm sure there's good game theory for why damage scales and hitting doesn't

Consider the alternative approach: where to-hit scales and damage doesn't. Like 4e. Your actual sample 12th level Paladin swings her sword for d8+7. She will quite likely have to hit a first level Kobold Slinger three times before it drops. Now, she'll hit every time (more or less), but she'll have to grind on it for several rounds before it drops.

By having to-hits be constant you can keep people dropping Mental attacks on the stupid and explosions on the small at all levels; and by having damage scale you can clear out bullshit monsters in one round without having to grind away for round after round.

-Username17

Got it. A few more rolls now is better than a ridiculous number of rolls later.

[CatharzGodfoot]

Level-based attack rolls and level-independent damage wouldn't be a problem either, so long as you have attacks that do different average amounts of damage. That way, you can pull out the sledgehammer when you have to deal with a zombie horde.

It wouldn't have to be a 4e-type thing where defenses scale at offense does not.

[Username17]

Level-based attack rolls and level-independent damage wouldn't be a problem either, so long as you have attacks that do different average amounts of damage. That way, you can pull out the sledgehammer when you have to deal with a zombie horde.

It wouldn't have to be a 4e-type thing where defenses scale at offense does not.

That way lies Runequest. The halfling slinger has only a 1% chance to one-shot you between the eyes!

-Username17

[NoDot]

Additionally, what sort of scale of numbers are we talking about with Hit Points and Wounds vs. the amount of damage done by a weapon or spell?

Didn't we go through this recently? Let me spell it out for you. There. Are. No. Hit. Points. You keep pounding on the enemy until someone gets a Tier 4.

[CatharzGodfoot]

Level-based attack rolls and level-independent damage wouldn't be a problem either, so long as you have attacks that do different average amounts of damage. That way, you can pull out the sledgehammer when you have to deal with a zombie horde.

It wouldn't have to be a 4e-type thing where defenses scale at offense does not.

That way lies Runequest. The halfling slinger has only a 1% chance to one-shot you between the eyes!

-Username17

If your point is that low-level creatures could have a chance to instagib higher-level ones, I disagree. Just make sure they're off your RNG when they're using their most damaging attacks.

[baduin]

A simple question: Can somebody tell me again why we have a separate to-hit and damage roll? We roll to see how well we hit, and then we roll to see what.. how well we hit?

My suggestion would be: I roll to hit (probably 3d6), add my to-hit bonuses, including level bonus and situational bonuses and compare it with the enemy's defence (including level bonus ). If I roll at least equal to his defence, I hit.

Then I add my Damage and CAN bonuses to my previous total. The enemy adds his armour and general toughness bonus to his defence (he can have this precalculated).

I subtract his total from my total. The difference gives the amount of damage he suffered, as per usual.

As for the unaimed damage (explosives, acid, falling) - it depends on the level of superheroics you want. If you want to have superheroes D&D style, it can use the same mechanics, but without the to-hit check. (Simply roll damage against the defence+constitution+armor). For less superheroic style, you simply roll damage against constitution+armor.

[NoDot]

A simple question: Can somebody tell me again why we have a separate to-hit and damage roll?

Frank said that combining them is possible, but he'd rather not. I'd have to go looking for the thread to find his exact reasoning.

[zeruslord]

Combining to-hit and damage rolls removes a large portion of flavor and character customizability. Power attack and similar options are not available if the only offensive stat tracked is DPS. At this point, called shots, power attacks, weak but guaranteed attacks, and any other attack that doesn't inflict a status condition or carry some other cost become either identical or plainly, obviously imbalanced.

[virgil]

There's a question; are we making combat abstract enough so that we aren't actually ending up with people who basically never get any more accurate or evasive? Or are we having the game be a bunch of bronze age heroes duking it out in a lake of their own blood? Or are we going to have a reasonable source of penalties that will slowly be phased out along with other non-bonus enhancements to represent dodgers and snipers?

[Amra]

Additionally, what sort of scale of numbers are we talking about with Hit Points and Wounds vs. the amount of damage done by a weapon or spell?

Didn't we go through this recently? Let me spell it out for you. There. Are. No. Hit. Points. You keep pounding on the enemy until someone gets a Tier 4.

O RLY?

The inclusion of the CAN allows us to go to fixed Hit Points without serious difficulty I think. Numerical tweaking is still required, but the core concepts seem to work.

So here's how it's currently working out:

• You have a fixed number of hit points.
• Having a specific number of Wound boxes may not be required even. Wounds can just count up and provide a bonus to what enemies CAN do to you.
• Hit Points rise and fall a lot during combat, and when they fall to specific immutable points, your thresholds drop (allowing further attacks to accomplish more).
• Eliminating enemies is done by attacking them when you have sufficient CAN to do so. Getting people smacked with Wound effects or disadvantageous conditions raises others CAN against you.

Let me spell it out for you: Patronising. People. Is. Not. Helpful. And. Doesn't. Make. You. Look. Clever.

I'm trying to catch up by reading the different threads on the subject. If ruling Hit Points out has happened, I've missed it; Tiers of damage are by no means conceptually incompatible with HP/Wounds. People are still discussing how - or whether - damage done per attack should scale with level, so it appears that it's being kept track of in SOME fashion that isn't just "Tier 1 to 4".

So, my question stands. Or you could, you know, actually fucking explain how combat is going to pan out with a worked example, given that you're apparently happy to "spell it out for me".

[Username17]

That was later in the discussion where we shrugged and eliminated hit points.

The concept is that Tier 1 - Tier 3 conditions accumulate and make it so that subsequent attacks dish out higher tier effects. So the number of "hit points" that you have is proportional to how scary an opponent actually is. 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.

This way very powerful people can one-shot low level people and low level people can slowly pick away at high level dudes without introducing exploding numbers of hit points reminiscent of Dragon Quest or D&D 4e.

-Username17

[Amra]

Thanks Frank - I appreciate the explanation and I'm sorry I missed the hit-point exclusion decision.

Right... So someone with a superior Combat Advantage Number dishes out more conditions/higher-tier conditions. CAN is adjusted not only by your relative levels, weapon/other attack modifiers but also by the number of conditions you're already under.

How does the layering of conditions within a particular damage tier work? If you're already staggered, for instance, and the enemy's damage test results in another staggered condition being applied, how are you further affected? I'ld quite like to build a model and see how things play out if you've already got example numbers to plug in.

[baduin]

Combining to-hit and damage rolls removes a large portion of flavor and character customizability. Power attack and similar options are not available if the only offensive stat tracked is DPS. At this point, called shots, power attacks, weak but guaranteed attacks, and any other attack that doesn't inflict a status condition or carry some other cost become either identical or plainly, obviously imbalanced.

Actually, in my system you can have power attack and weak, but accurate attack. You have one roll, but it is resolved in two stages:

1) First you compare die roll+attack bonus to defence. If the attack is lower, you miss and do no damage.
2) If you do not miss, you add damage bonus to previous total (=die roll+attack bonus ) and compare it to defence+armor

So you can have power attack which gives -2 penalty to attack and +4 bonus to damage. You have lower probability to hit, but if you do hit, you do more damage. Obviously it can increase or lower the average DPS, depending on the relation of attack bonus to defence, and of damage to armor.

You can also have a weak but accurate attack which gives +2 bonus to attack and -4 penalty to damage.

I will give a numerical example. The numbers are make up on the spot and serve only to illustrate the point. To keep things simple, I will use d20 as the attack roll, although 3d6 would probably be better.

Let's assume that in melee attacks to hit bonus equals 1/2 level+Dexterity, and Damage=Strength+Weapon. Dodge Defence (which opposes melee attack) equals 10+1/2 level+Dexterity. Damage Reduction equals Constitution+Armor.

The damage results would be, for example:

0-2 : No effect
3-6: Tier 1 effect
7-10: Tier 1 and Tier 2 effect.
11-14: Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3 effect.
15+: Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3, and Tier 4 effect

with results as defined here:
http://www.eternalspires.net/wiki/pmwik ... Thresholds
http://www.eternalspires.net/wiki/pmwik ... Conditions

Let's assume two equal level opponents.

Enro the Red has Dex 5, Dodge Defence 15, Strength 2+Weapon 3 (Damage 5) Const 2+Armor 3 (Damage Reduction 5).

Gosseyn has Dex 2, Dodge Defence 12, Strength 4+Weapon 4 (Damage 8), Const 4+Armor 3 (Damage Reduction 7).

Enro attacks: Dexterity 5 against Dodge Defence 12. He must roll at least 7 to hit. (65% probability to hit). Let's say he rolls 7+Dex 5. He adds his damage 5 for a total of 17.

Gosseyn adds his Damage Reduction 7 to his dodge defence 12, for a total of 19. He is not wounded. Enro would have to roll at least 12 to wound him. Alternatively, he could wound Gosseyn by rolling 7 only if Gosseys suffered at least 5 wound effects.

Assuming an unwounded Gosseyn, Enro has a 40% chance to inflict tier 1 effect on him, 20% chance to inflict tier 1 and tier 2 effects (he needs to roll at least 16) and 5% chance to inflict tier 1,2, and 3 effects (he needs to roll 20).

If Gosseyn has 5 wounds, Enro has 65% chance to inflict tier 1 effect on him (he needs to roll at least 7), 45% chance to inflict tier 1 and tier 2 effects (he needs to roll at least 11), 25% chance to inflict tier 1,2, and 3 effects (he needs to roll 15), and 10% chance to kill him (he needs to roll 19).

Gosseyn attacks: Dexterity 2 against Dodge Defence 15. He must roll at least 13 to hit (35% probability to hit). Let's say he rolls 13+Dex 2. He adds his damage 8 for a total of 23.

Enro adds his Damage Reduction 5 to his dodge defence 15, for a total of 20. He suffers a tier 1 effect.

Assuming an unwounded Enro, Gosseyn has a 35% chance to inflict tier 1 effect on him, 15% chance to inflict tier 1 and tier 2 effects (he needs to roll at least 17) and no chance to inflict tier 3 effects.

If Enro has 5 wounds, Gosseyn has 35% chance to inflict tier 1 and 2 effect on him (he still needs to roll at least 13 to hit, so he will never inflict only tier 1 effec), 20% chance to inflict tier 1,2, and 3 effects (he needs to roll 16), and 5% chance to kill him (he needs to roll 20).

[Username17]

Baduin, you could achieve the same gross effect by having people roll the to-hit die and the damage dice simultaneously. Probably be easier to do it that way because what you'd be comparing on one hand (the "make or break" check) would be a different sized die to the other thing you were comparing (the "damage tier" check).

Certainly one of the advantages of doing to-hits on a d20 and damage on 3d6 is that you can roll them simultaneously without that being confusing or requiring dice color declarations.

-Username17

[Amra]

If Enro has 5 wounds, Gosseyn has 35% chance to inflict tier 1 and 2 effect on him (he still needs to roll at least 13 to hit, so he will never inflict only tier 1 effec), 20% chance to inflict tier 1,2, and 3 effects (he needs to roll 16), and 5% chance to kill him (he needs to roll 20).

It doesn't seem to work that way around; it looks to me as though it means that if you need a really high roll just in order to affect someone in the first place, you're more likely to kill them when you do finally hit them... doesn't it?

Should it not be more like this?

*****

Enro the Red

AttackStat: 5
DefenceStat: 15
Damage: +5
Damage Reduction: 5

*****

Gosseyn the Pleasing Shade of Turquoise

AttackStat: 2
DefenceStat: 12
Damage: +8
Damage Reduction: 7

******

Round 1:

Enro vs. Gosseyn

Attack roll (d20+AttackStat) = 13 + 5 = 18 vs. DefenceStat 12 = HIT!
DamageTest (3d6 + Damage - Opponent DR) = 11 + 5 - 7 = 9

[Gosseyn suffers a Tier 1 effect, reducing his DR by 1]

***

Gosseyn vs. Enro

Attack roll (d20+AttackStat = 15 + 2 = 11 vs. DefenceStat 15 = HIT!
DamageTest (3d6 + Damage - Opponent DR) = 12 + 8 - 5 = 15

[Enro suffers Tier 1 and Tier 2 effects, reducing his DR by a total of 2; one point of which he will be unable to shake off in combat]

******

Does this work? I went for generic attack and defence stats on the grounds that I assume this is as likely to apply to spell damage as a sword blow, and in fact it doesn't really matter how we arrived at those numbers provided they're level-appropriate.

If DR can actually go into negative numbers you'd be guaranteed to sooner-or-later get hit by higher-tier effects, although of course that could just as easily be achieved in other ways.

Edit: I meant to point out that I knew I hadn't included CAN in all of this, but I was only reworking baduin's example really. I assume that CAN would take the place of having to have a negative DR in order to assure a situation where the low-level guys can take out the high-level one if there are enough of them.

[CatharzGodfoot]

How does the layering of conditions within a particular damage tier work? If you're already staggered, for instance, and the enemy's damage test results in another staggered condition being applied, how are you further affected? I'ld quite like to build a model and see how things play out if you've already got example numbers to plug in.

Being staggered twice does nothing more, but being staggered once increases the 'damage' of the next attack. If the first attack staggers you, and you get hit again with the same damage roll, you might get hit by the effect of the next tier up.

[Amra]

Being staggered twice does nothing more, but being staggered once increases the 'damage' of the next attack. If the first attack staggers you, and you get hit again with the same damage roll, you might get hit by the effect of the next tier up.

Would you mind illustrating how that would work in example numbers, please?

The point as I understand it is that a bunch of low-level mooks should be able to *eventually* grind the high-level guy down. Let's say you're fighting a bunch of opponents who can only hurt you with their maximum effect roll. Eventually, that happens and you're hit with a Tier 1 effect. Now they can afford roll 1 less than previously in order to hit you with a Tier 1 effect but don't have the margin for a Tier 2 effect... In the absence of any layering of Tier 1 effects - if repeated staggered conditions you haven't yet removed don't stack - how will they ever get to a point where they can drop you?

[NoDot]

That depends mostly on how you define "mook." The lowest class of monster you're expected to face, according to the Monster Role thread, is an Imp-a -5/-15 creature! (-5/-15 means that the Imp has about a 5 CAN PENALTY to their effects against you, and you have about a 15 CAN BONUS to effects against them.)

Anything which is seriously only just getting a Tier 1 Effect on 18 (a 10 CAN penalty) is way out of its league.

p[edit] According to the thread, the only creature with a 10 CAN penalty to attack is the Speed Bump. I don't think that those are actually supposed to seriously hurt you.

[virgil]

If we use the CAN as it's currently understood, and having minions reach their status by the fact of level difference; would this not mean that imps are just glass cannons with a level difference? I feel bad for the defensive brutes gone minion, as they'll still go down by the second attack or so, and probably *can't* damage our heroes unless they're bleeding out to begin with (and they're all kinds of screwed if an imp remains standing).

[Manxome]

Being staggered twice does nothing more, but being staggered once increases the 'damage' of the next attack. If the first attack staggers you, and you get hit again with the same damage roll, you might get hit by the effect of the next tier up.

The concept is that Tier 1 - Tier 3 conditions accumulate and make it so that subsequent attacks dish out higher tier effects. So the number of "hit points" that you have is proportional to how scary an opponent actually is. 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.

Maybe I'm missing something, but it doesn't sound like you two are on the same page here.

In any event, I'm not sure how big a CAN you're supposed to be able to get from tactical stuff like flanking and high ground, but based on the table on this wiki page, you can't actually incapacitate someone without getting a 20 on your effect test, and the largest possible natural roll is an 18. If conditions at a particular tier do NOT stack, that would seem to mean that even after hitting a target with a tier 1, tier 2, and tier 3 condition, you've got about a 2% chance of getting a tier 4 if you've got no other CAN bonuses or penalties, and a +2 CAN to the defender would reduce that chance to zero. I really doubt that's the desired result.

Additionally, if the goal is to have a bunch of different attacks that apply different penalties at different tiers (slows, blinds, etc.), you probably want to avoid a situation where different tier 1 effects stack but the same effect does not, because that will mean that the maximum inconvenience you can inflict on an opponent will be based directly on the number of different effects you can wip out, and that seems pretty silly. Therefore, it seems like you either want all effects to stack (even with exact copies of themselves), or you want to put a hard limit on the number of effects you can suffer concurrently at each tier (e.g. 1), and the latter brings in a whole host of new design questions.

On a side note, if the "default" conditions at each tier inflict the minimum measurable penalty to CAN and no other ill effects, that suggests that any other conditions you can inflict must have no penalty to CAN at all in order to be balanced--is that really desirable?

[CatharzGodfoot]

Two different conditions on the same track stack, but all conditions on a damage track are always handed out in order. IIRC, this is so that worse conditions can be persistent.

A really nasty sword cut will bruise you, stagger you, wound you, and maim you. You can recover from the bruise almost immediately, and the staggering goes away after an hour or so. The wound requires maybe a week to heal, and the maiming will stick with you until you get some serious healing mojo to bear on it. All subject to the skill of your doctor, of course.

So at first your enemies get a huge bonus towards killing you. All those levels of wounding stack up to generate a massive damage/CAN bonus against you. Once you've partially recovered, the effects of the smaller wounds are gone. You're still not healthy, but you're not at death's door either.

However, if you are bruised twice, you're still just bruised. The CAN/damage bonus others get against you remains the same, and you'll still recover almost immediately.

[Manxome]

It sounds like you are re-stating your earlier position, but not actually attempting to explain or resolve the apparent discrepancies with Frank's comments or the game math that I raised.

I fully understand that effects in different tiers stack and that different tiers have different guidelines for how easily they're removed.

BUT, it sounds like Frank is saying you're expected to have multiple conditions within a single tier at one time. And, at first blush, the math on the wiki looks pretty ridiculous if that's not the case (even with +3 CAN from the first 3 tiers of conditions on an equal-level opponent, you'd still need to roll a 17+ on 3d6 to kill them, which would mean you only drop them like 2% of the time and produce zero effect on the other 98% of hits if same-tier effects don't stack).

Have I missed something?