Contextual Power Rating

Fuchs · Post by **Fuchs** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 5:11 pm

I think it's still more efficient to eyeball encounters and challenges, based upon your experience with the particular party, and maybe modify them on the fly if you goofed up.

Anguirus · Post by **Anguirus** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 9:14 pm

PhoneLobster wrote:You aren't arguing from a sensible position. Either you complain because CPR prevents TPKs or you complain because it fails to do so.

Trying to argue both at once is just stupid.

CPR doesn't do either because it is just a diagnostic tool. My complaint is that under CPR a balanced threat for a party that does low damage is actually less of a threat than a similarly balanced threat (statistically identical except for the size of its hp number) for the same party that does high damage (statistically identical except for the size of their damage numbers) even if the ratios between hp and damage are the same. If I hit you 1/2 of the time and deal 1d10 damage per hit and you have 10hp I can expect to have to attack you 4 times to drop you. If I hit you 1/2 of the time and deal 1d100 damage per hit and you have 100hp I can expect to have to attack you 4 times to drop you. As far as I understand it (and I could be wrong) CPR regards both of these encounters as equally balanced, however, were you to give me the choice (and in a totally transparent system you either are giving me the choice based on my characters abilities or you are sending me unbalanced threats) I would choose the situation where I insta-kill you 1/20th of the time instead 1/200th of the time and where your resources are less likely to be used to their fullest potential.

CPR either favors players that deliberately choose to do damage in small increments or it actively discourages it (depending on who is using the diagnostic tool...I.E. depending on if your DM says "I'm going to send my PC's balanced encounters" or "They chose to do damage in small increments in an attempt to deliberately break the system. They get unbalanced encounters") So yes, if you have a party made of dudes that hit for 1d2 points of damage CPR forces you to choose between TPK or its opposite. This problem would be present using the CR system its just that you as a DM would have room to say "I didn't know that the damage reduction having troll would totally murder the party armed with only blow pipes. Cr said it was balanced." Knowing that the troll (or anything with damage reduction or large amounts of hp) would totally rape them means that they get to fight shit with small amounts of hp or you have knowingly decided to send your PCs unfair challenges. There is, however, a mechanical advantage to fighting stuff with small amounts of hp even if you do a proportionately small amount of damage. It is unbalanced either way. If there were some provision present to account for the minor but important advantage that the low damage low health encounter has then it could realistically predict game balance but right now it ignores it.

Also, the opposite problem of high hp teams being advantaged over low hp teams in excess of the obvious advantage that more hp has.

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Tue Apr 21, 2009 9:34 pm

Fuchs wrote:I think it's still more efficient to eyeball encounters and challenges, based upon your experience with the particular party, and maybe modify them on the fly if you goofed up.

...and CPR can help even with that.

For that think of CPR as a learning tool by using it you should gain a better feel for what is and isn't an appropriate match up.

In effect it's eyeball training.

Oh and RC CPR can be used between games as Draco wants, as long as you know the character builds it will produce useful information.

The CPR ratings may change somewhat beyond that with accounting in game for wounds and item pick ups and stuff, but the majority of the information is just the character match ups.

Doing that first would give you a calculation of reasonable accuracy and useful information and also happen to give you the basics to readily further refine with a thrown in wound or whatever once you get to the game (if you care).

Anguirus, you just keep rewording the measuring stick thing in different ways. It's the same issue. Ie, not an issue.

Anguirus · Post by **Anguirus** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 2:24 am

PhoneLobster wrote: Anguirus, you just keep rewording the measuring stick thing in different ways. It's the same issue. Ie, not an issue.

We need an encounter (piece of wood) of x difficultly (3 meters long) for this group. The CPR system (measuring stick) says that, contextually, encounter A is of difficulty x for group a and that encounter B is of difficulty x for group b. The problem is that x is not constant here (or at least has the potential to not be constant) if the system works how I believe it does and groups a and b are made up of the different styles of characters I brought up earlier. I'm not saying that the system forces every encounter to be of difficulty 'x' I'm saying that as a system of discerning relative difficulty - if x doesn't = x all of the time- it fails utterly.

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 3:33 am

You still aren't clearly defining your argument.

You keep declaring what amounts to the measuring stick argument and complaining about how totally unfair it is for the GM to actually use the measuring stick because... ??? Underpants gnomes???

Now you say you are really concerned with system inaccuracy in regards to attack and defense values. Well this gets back to your FIRST attempt at repeating this odd little mantra. The system I actually gave as an example measures attack and defense, not the sum of both. It isn't doing what you seem to be assuming and simplifying them into one value so that glass cannons are equal to padded sumos.

The system can't be perfect by it's very nature, but the compromise I happened to put together as an example covers that particular criticism, so WTF is you problem?

Anguirus · Post by **Anguirus** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 5:31 am

3) It still only gives average estimates of damage output/character life span in combat
I mean characters can still walk in and roll all 20s or all 1s and characters estimated to last 6 rounds of combat by CPR can go down in round 1. But the idea is that CPR accounts as much as possible and in detail for everything BUT the actual dice rolls.

So CPR can give you a firm idea of the average results of a specific encounter, while the “average encounter” balance point for other challenge rating system can only give the average result for an non specific “average encounter”.

My point is this: balancing based on average results is going to systematically favor small dice over large ones. A d10 is just a d100 where all of your rolls are rounded up. That is an important thing to think about. There are a few scenarios where character choice make for a situation where average dpr vs health ratios are the same but, because you are using different dice bases, actual situational advantages exist. You end up with encounters that your system tells you are identical (because they are if all we care about are averages) but are, in fact, not identical. Another example might be if we use 3d6 vs 1d20. Their averages are similar but their game effects are totally different and, as a result, their realistic outcomes are different.

As an aside, can we try to be less hostile in the future?

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:25 pm

Anguirus wrote:As an aside, can we try to be less hostile in the future?

Hell no I have somewhere just short of zero patience. If I ever feel like you are making me repeat myself more than about twice I start getting pissed.

Also I get well pissed if someone either fails to grasp a very basic point...

ie That's not how averages work. You are getting your knickers in a knot over average vs distribution. Yes a distribution centered more heavily about the mean IS more predictable, but it's still the same damn average.

Or if someone fails to pay attention to the material I have already covered...

ie If you actually have a look I only use ONE dice type in my example system. It's strictly d20 rolls only, ever.

Or if someone argues a point with no defensible alternative...

ie, so if you don't like averages do not specifically describe the extremes of the range of results how the heck does a CPR system not manage to beat the pants off an "average encounter" system. We've removed an entire stage of averaging from the procedure.

Or if someone's alternative fails on first glance...

ie So the maths and rules operations already courting excess complexity in many peoples views should now include an added level of calculation to determine the distribution of possible combat results? We should draw a damn graph? What?

So I've already covered this, back in the main descriptive posts. CPR as I've described in my example, and I think in any sane implementation may be able to remove the rest of the blurry effect of averaging encounters, but when it comes to the rolls, we still have to take a damn average of those there is no real alternative and the prediction is more than sufficiently accurate.

Anguirus · Post by **Anguirus** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 5:46 pm

PhoneLobster wrote: ie That's not how averages work. You are getting your knickers in a knot over average vs distribution. Yes a distribution centered more heavily about the mean IS more predictable, but it's still the same damn average.

Funny, I thought that was my point...

ie If you actually have a look I only use ONE dice type in my example system. It's strictly d20 rolls only, ever.

That sounds terribly bland. I was under the assumption that this was an attempt to make a system that was compatible with 3.x D&D...because it was to replace CRs. I can't even concieve of how you would go about making every roll in that game a d20 unless you did some sort of WoD sillyness where you don't have damage (or soak, same thing) rolls.

ie, so if you don't like averages do not specifically describe the extremes of the range of results how the heck does a CPR system not manage to beat the pants off an "average encounter" system. We've removed an entire stage of averaging from the procedure.

Because you've given a degree of control, on a practical level, to the players. Just because CPR is a diagnostic tool and not a hard and fast rule for game balance does not mean that it isn't going to encourage DMs to send their party challenges that the system deems 'fair'. He doesn't have to but if he doesn't care to then either a.) he's a dick b.) the system's descriptions of 'fair' are inaccurate or c.) both of these. In a funny sort of way having more information, with the right sort of players, is a bad thing. They make a character that is awesome in one situation and one situation only -dice distribution abuse being just one example of this that is easy to overlook- and then either wins all the time or is murdered. When you murder him, he runs the numbers and says "Hey, CPR says you sent me a totally unfair fight. This is bullshit." Under CR you could say "It was level appropriate, you just decided to make yourself useless against a large range of level appropriate threats."

ie So the maths and rules operations already courting excess complexity in many peoples views should now include an added level of calculation to determine the distribution of possible combat results? We should draw a damn graph? What?

We could write a computer program. The future is now.

So I've already covered this, back in the main descriptive posts. CPR as I've described in my example, and I think in any sane implementation may be able to remove the rest of the blurry effect of averaging encounters, but when it comes to the rolls, we still have to take a damn average of those there is no real alternative and the prediction is more than sufficiently accurate.

I feel otherwise. If you are aware that problems of accuracy exist if you ignore distribution and only consider average and you are ok with that then fine, its your system do what ever you like. I was just trying to illustrate that a.) these problems exist and b.) they can be exacerbated by the system's transparency. A workable alternative would be to account for distribution and just write a program that does all of this for you. (You could even have a pen and paper system that doesn't take distribution into account for more rough and dirty calculations.) Then you could do the iterative calculations that some are suggesting you do as well. Because, in truth, if you want for this to be accurate then you need it to be super complicated. It seems to me, however, you could easily write a program that gives you the exact percent chance of party victory and what their degrees of victory should look like (because that is also really fucking important and CPR doesn't seem to care if you win with 1hp left or having taken no damage what so ever) At no point would it assign a number or fairness indicator, you would just look at what their chance of survival and probable conditions -weighed against the extremes and their probability- and come to some decision about fairness.

Lich-Loved · Post by **Lich-Loved** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 5:58 pm

[quote="Anquirus] It seems to me, however, you could easily write a program that gives you the exact percent chance of party victory and what their degrees of victory should look like (because that is also really fucking important and CPR doesn't seem to care if you win with 1hp left or having taken no damage what so ever)[/quote]
Not really, no. The problem is that what you are calling CPR is really just a dynamic recalculation of CR, which is itself a multivariate function for which the inputs are not fully known and the transfer function for those inputs has never even been empirically demonstrated except at select points let alone stated in such a way as to be able to move the function into code.

CPR is a nice idea but it is a wholly impractical one. Attempting to calculate it is a waste of effort better spent in eyeballing the encounters for difficulty and building better and more interesting encounters in the first place.

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 10:39 pm

Anguirus, I think you need to go have a read of my larger posts on this with the giant bold letters in them. They describe the example system in detail and large aspects of your problems seem to be failing to know anything about the example system and the example implementation of CPR.

I can wait...

Anguirus · Post by **Anguirus** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 11:10 pm

Do you mean the part about your homebrew? You're God damn right I didn't read that. You said it was to be a "proof of concept" not the only place that the system is applicable. I don't care, nor could I ever imagine caring, about your homebrew. I do care about making a useful diagnostic tool that is applicable to broader contexts. If CPR is just supposed to be applicable to your homebrew then what are you looking for from people here? It couldn't possibly be meaningful constructive criticism because a.) you haven't engaged well with a single criticism so far and b.) how on earth could you expect a group of people who have never been exposed to the rules of your home brew, the setting, its design goals or any number of meaningful and important pieces of information to offer constructive criticism about how your proposed system interacts with your other proposed system? Did you just want a pat on the back and a gold star? If I say good job can we be done? Then can we do something useful, like make a contextual power rating system for games that people that aren't you play?

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Sun May 03, 2009 12:35 am

OK, so I'm continuing to struggle with how to implement CPR with my other favored mechanics.

And I have finally hit what is a major brick wall.

And it isn't complexity (except to the extent that any real addressing of this problem will involve ridiculous complexity).

It is, to a limited extent a kind of permutation of the diverse party issue (which was my biggest issue with the original system).

CPR and Dynamic Characters
OK so something I really enjoy is the idea of characters that dynamically change their available ability sets in combat for fun and profit.

So for instance being disarmed of your sword and losing your sword abilities is something you might actually opt to do as a means of getting a free block to cancel an injury received or in order to make a nice big attack.

It's fun, it gives a feeling of swashbuckling combat dynamism, and it gives you real mechanical incentive to see exciting combat changing events like weapons going flying and people pulling out their alternate combat styles on a regular basis.

It has worked rather well for me so far, prior to CPR. And as part of writing up new and exciting rules I'd like to support dynamic character stuff like that at least as much or more.

But it has real problems with CPR. Effectively increasing the diverse party problem by making every character individually become something more like several different characters rolled into one package.

And odds are good you will need to account for more than one, if not all of the "characters" in that package.

And it's just too damn hard.

If I were writing CPR up for something a bit more traditional I wouldn't worry about this so much, characters just don't change their available options that much in a standard game. But it's just too big an issue for my goal of having Dynamic Character stuff dominate the rules set.

Plan C
Plan C is a desperate effort to retain some sort of points based system for determining character power and a minor element of CPR benefits.

However in order to do so I have to greatly tone down CPR accuracy to the point that I'm no longer sure it's worth the effort.

So I retain the thing where you calculate an attack and defense rating on the scale of the direct numeric bonuses to those values.

Anything that doesn't apply a direct numeric bonus applies an abstracted rating of it's effectiveness (with some assumptions sadly being made about that) on the same scale.

The assumptions used to determine when an ability applies or not (so the Contextual part of CPR) need to change.

Now instead of calculating best attack and best defense against it you total ALL available attack and defense options (even if they can't be used at once or involve a Dynamic Character type of change) that apply against ANY available opposing options.

Every character gets almost purely abstracted attack and defense ratings that you can compare to get some idea of both the threat posed by opposition (attack rating compared to your defense rating) and the survivability or life span of the opposition (your attack rating against their defense rating). And that could be assisted with a fairly simple two column table.

I mean it is inaccurate as all HELL and it ups the assumptions about combat all over the place. It's barely better than traditional CR (though it does bring in the limited features of simply ignoring obviously contextually useless abilities and separating attack and defense effectiveness) but it's better than nothing and still technically a CPR system with some measure of the related benefits.

So anyway, I think I may have to resort to Plan C here if I want highly dynamic characters, and I do. Having some sort of CR system is better than having none and making it a CPR system to any degree is better than not.

Anyone have any better ideas?

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Sun May 03, 2009 12:41 am

Anguirus wrote:Do you mean the part about your homebrew? You're God damn right I didn't read that.

Somehow I missed this post back last time I was around here.

Good god it's shit.

Look you presented some very specific examples where you felt there were major problems, they required some massive assumptions about mechanics that are A) Not used in the material I was discussing B) Not used in a wide range of game systems out there and C) Not really a good idea anyway.

You repeatedly ignored my responses and material to wank on over the same bullshit repeatedly.

I may be hostile as hell to criticism but when it's criticism of the standard you present it's due to severe impatience with such ignorant inanity.

Murtak · Post by **Murtak** » Mon May 04, 2009 11:19 am

PhoneLobster wrote:So anyway, I think I may have to resort to Plan C here if I want highly dynamic characters, and I do. Having some sort of CR system is better than having none and making it a CPR system to any degree is better than not.

Anyone have any better ideas?

Nope. Our brains are so damn good at doing stuff like eyeballing complex sets of values that I would be very surprised if anyone could actually work out a system like the one you want that worked decently fast even on a computer.

3E style CR works decently because it gives you a range to work with and it is dead simple. You have a level 10 party, you look over the CR 8 to 12 monsters and then you still eyeball them to make sure they will work. That's all CR is useful for, preselecting the monsters for you.

I can see value in attempting attempting to eliminate the eyeballing step, but you are rapidly approaching a point where you are modelling every possible dice roll and then extract a TPK chance. This is theoretically possible of course, but as I said, our brains do this damn well without explicitely crunching numbers.

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Mon May 04, 2009 12:27 pm

Murtak wrote:Nope. Our brains are so damn good at doing stuff like eyeballing complex sets of values that I would be very surprised if anyone could actually work out a system like the one you want that worked decently fast even on a computer.

So let's get this straight.

Your criticism of the simpler system is that it is too complex and inaccurate.

Your alternative is to reach a grand zen state where you hold all the information in the game in your head simultaneously and reach an epiphany of superior accuracy. Because that is actually both more accurate and less complex than what is basically CR with a tiny dash of actual defined standards and some contextual conditions thrown in.

And your reasoning behind "Gigantic all seeing eyeball method!" is...

That players are simultaneously so incredible at rules resolution as to be able to perform gigantic eyeball method, but also somehow frankly incapable of even something as simple as CR++?

Heck you even argue against the very concept of a challenge rating system at all, and then argue in favor of CR...

Your comment is neither helpful nor particularly swimming in internal consistence and integrity. Indeed it is swimming in something and I strongly suspect it is some sort of left over Star Craft bile. Do try to keep things in their own thread.

Murtak · Post by **Murtak** » Mon May 04, 2009 1:34 pm

Will you keep your fucking Starcraft out of this shit? Why the fuck do I even argue in good faith with you? For the record, in simple steps:

1) Humans are damn good at fuzzy judgement (aka eyeballing).
2) Humans are bad at exact calculations.
3) A precise CR involves many calculations.
4) In my opinion 3) is an inherent quality of DnD and similar systems, even moreso with the houserules you described.

If thr above are true your choices are either
- Moving the calculations to a computer.
- Trashing the idea, not because it is a bad idea but because it is infeasible.

P.S.: Yes I am telling you that from what I have seen of your idea so far that I consider eyeballing both to be faster and better than your CR++, as long as we are talking about experienced players here. Have you ever tried to calculate catching a ball, or even just to calculate a billard ball collision? The amount of work to get it even passably correct is staggering, yet experienced players do it all the time.

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Tue May 05, 2009 2:08 am

Murtak wrote: Have you ever tried to calculate catching a ball, or even just to calculate a billard ball collision? The amount of work to get it even passably correct is staggering, yet experienced players do it all the time.

Oh I see, the ability to calculate incredibly complex probabilistic outcomes of abstract rules sets with no grounding in reality is a subconsciously handled routine of the human brain as accurate and astounding as our ability to perform basic hand eye co-ordination after a life time of direct interaction with real world physics!

No. Wrong. Stupid.

An RPG system of any kind of desirable complexity benefits from some form of formal precalculated challenge rating structure precisely because it doesn't work like the real world. Even if you believe that players will learn the system SO well over such a long period of time without incorporating inaccuracies and non statistical assumptions that still takes significant amounts of not just knowledge, but experience of the system. Even then you still need a damn challenge rating system of some form because they don't start out using the system with that sort of knowledge and you don't want hours, maybe dozens of hours, of game play to go past sucking until they begin to get a feel for encounter balance.

CR, power by level, points based character building and CPR are all formalized encounter challenge rating balance tools. NONE are accurate, ALL involve additional calculations and comparisons you just wouldn't have if you didn't add them to the system, but ALL are important and beneficial additions.

Because giant eyeball method is less accurate, and even if used becomes more accurate when used with the support of a formal challenge rating tool. Even if the only damn thing you use the tool for is as a learning aid to improve giant eyeball and decrease the learning curve for which it becomes a viable strategy for players to actually use.

So I'll say it again. RPG players can't do complex probability calculations "on instinct" the way they can catch a ball. And considering half of us "throw like girls" (if they were one eyed girls with epilepsy and polio) I would be just as worried if that were the case.

Anguirus · Post by **Anguirus** » Tue May 05, 2009 4:08 am

PhoneLobster wrote:
Anguirus wrote:Do you mean the part about your homebrew? You're God damn right I didn't read that.
Somehow I missed this post back last time I was around here.

Good god it's shit.

Look you presented some very specific examples where you felt there were major problems, they required some massive assumptions about mechanics that are A) Not used in the material I was discussing B) Not used in a wide range of game systems out there and C) Not really a good idea anyway.

You repeatedly ignored my responses and material to wank on over the same bullshit repeatedly.

I may be hostile as hell to criticism but when it's criticism of the standard you present it's due to severe impatience with such ignorant inanity.

I'm just going to put you down for 'gold star' then. Great job Phone Lobster. This CPR thing is like -the- coolest thing I've ever read. Ever. You are special and your thoughts are important. Are we done yet?

Murtak · Post by **Murtak** » Tue May 05, 2009 7:41 am

PhoneLobster wrote:Stuff.

No. Wrong. Stupid.

Newbies don't need another dozen calculations per battle, especially if those calculations determine a CR whcih assumes they are decent players. Or does your CR++ account for newbie mistakes? Veteran players don't need your CR++ because it doesn't work better than their own judgement.

I can see a case for using the system if you have players comfortable with crunching yet more numbers in the middle of a battle and said players are too dumb to eyeball the encounter on their own. My gut tells me it is not worth the effort. However, feel free to prove me wrong. How about an example calculation?

Sample scenario
Two characters, a stereotype barbarian with a big axe and a rogue archer, who is initially using daggers for this encounter sneak up on an orc with his two pet wolves, trying to get in the first shots. The orc and wolves are distracted but the barbarian is not very sneaky, so odds of getting noticed beforehand are about even.

Now please walk us through the calculations.

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Tue May 05, 2009 8:43 am

Murtak wrote:Now please walk us through the calculations.

First, fuck off you are just being an asshole.

Second.

As of Plan C.

Since you have totals of CPR attack and defense values for each character anyway (because it's doubling as your points based character build system) you simply zip down your ability list and strike of the CPR modifiers for things that don't apply.

So Barbarian adds up basically everything, makes sure to include his "Wolf Slayer" ability he rarely adds to CPR.

Rogue zips through his CPR list, adds basically everything but doesn't include the value of his "Anti Elf Arrows" he was using last combat.

Orc and Wolves should have been pre-totaled for their values against the party. But lets say that the usual Lightning Witch didn't make it tonight, so they get a quick run through and the orc loses out on his "Electricity only makes me angry" bonus and the wolves get to remove their "Fur vulnerable to lightning" penalty.

Anyway. You end up with the situationally appropriate attack and defense rating for each character. you compare opposing character's attack and defense to get the difference between them, and a simple damn two column table somewhere tells you if that is an appropriate margin and what it implies for success and survival.

Stealth is just you trying to be a dick and sabotage the system, because you are effectively presenting a potential start of combat altering condition you refuse to give the actual outcome of. Basically you are saying "here are several separate encounters, but you don't know what they are yet!, Calculate them all then I'll call it several times to complex for only one encounter!"

But really it is no massive problem, just like CR taking an opponent by surprise is a CPR modifier. IF the barbarian and rogue succeed then you just chuck on the predefined "Surprise attack" bonus onto their attack ratings before comparison.

If they don't successfully sneak, you don't add to their attack ratings. If as a GM you suspect they will try but don't know the outcome and want to know how it will go either way in advance it's basically one extra addition and one extra look up on the table to know BOTH potential ratings.

Plan C is just CR with a conditional run through to formalize the "pull bullshit situational CR modifiers out of your ass" that d20 uses. Adding up Conditional bonuses ARE NOT A FUCKING PROBLEM. If they are, you fail at RPG play in general, because that's what you do every damn round of combat.

But hey, feel free to continue to vomit up the contents of your Care Bear gut all over my thread.

Murtak · Post by **Murtak** » Tue May 05, 2009 9:22 am

PhoneLobster wrote:Since you have totals of CPR attack and defense values for each character anyway (because it's doubling as your points based character build system) you simply zip down your ability list and strike of the CPR modifiers for things that don't apply.

Numbers please. I don't care if they are made up numbers and don't fit, but I seriously have no clue how many abilities and what kind of numbers you are talking about here. Two? Ten? Fifty? If it helps, assume D&D level 5 or the likes.

PhoneLobster wrote:Stealth is just you trying to be a dick and sabotage the system, because you are effectively presenting a potential start of combat altering condition you refuse to give the actual outcome of. Basically you are saying "here are several separate encounters, but you don't know what they are yet!, Calculate them all then I'll call it several times to complex for only one encounter!"

Stealth is actually me throwing a single complication into the equation. I don't fucking know how you'd handle this, so I ask.

PhoneLobster wrote:If they don't successfully sneak, you don't add to their attack ratings. If as a GM you suspect they will try but don't know the outcome and want to know how it will go either way in advance it's basically one extra addition and one extra look up on the table to know BOTH potential ratings.

That sounds like "sneak attack!!" is just a constant you add to the totals. Is that correct?

PhoneLobster wrote:But hey, feel free to continue to vomit up the contents of your Care Bear gut all over my thread.

I am actually trying to be helpful despite you trying your very best to alienate anyone and everyone who dares to voice concerns. But thanks for trying.