Attributes to use in a homebrew system?

[Nice_Hat]

I'm creating a homebrew RPG system because D&D would require so much tweaking to fit my planned setting that making one optimised for said setting wouldn't be far more difficult but give better results.

The setting in question is dark fantasy, based on the awesome Fall from Heaven Civ4 mod.

As you might know, D&D uses a few basic attributes but some results of this are quite strange and other attributes I consider critical are missing. The goal of this thread is to create an attribute system which would be more verisimilitudous [or how is it spelled, if it even exists?] and include the mechanisms of the setting. One preferable result of this would be that many in-game factors would affect one's actual attributes instead of adding modifiers (such as a big helmet restricting one's vision and hearing, resulting in a lower Alertness/Perception/? score)

The attributes I've been considering are:

Strength
Same as in D&D

Dexterity
Same as in D&D. Wearing heavy equipment will affect one's dexterity directly and some of the bulkiest armour will force the dex value to a fixed limit or lower.

Constitution/Toughness
Same as in D&D

Charisma
-modified, charisma would be only what it is in "real life" and have little to no effect on one's magic, Mana would take most of those functions.

Intelligence
-modified, intelligence would not affect one's magic outside the ability to learn and reason. Mana would take some of those functions.

Alertness/Perception/Better name if someone can come up with one
-NEW, this determines how keen one's senses are, not wisdom. Also helps with stealth as one can notice potential risks of being noticed. Certain stuff, especially heavy helmets and such, will affect this score directly.

Mana
-NEW, mana determines one's connection to the magical forces of the universe, and one's ability to channel them. Vital for mages, characters with high mana will often display latent magical power even if not trained in any way.


Now the problem is: What to do with wisdom?

I want to include Willpower, which determines one's determination and ability to continue past their physical limits. Also a factor in one's clerical ability, as one with high willpower can hold stronger faith. And will saves obviously.

With willpower taking most functions of wisdom and alertness and mana dealing the last blow wisdom is in -8 HP but stable, as it has one thing none of these can account for: wisdom.

Leaving one's common sense and such to experience alone would imply that young and unexperienced characters can't be wise, which, although having a correlation, is not completely so in Real Life.

Intelligence cannot take those parts of wisdom as the setting partially relies on geniuses with no common sense whatsoever.

Neither can willpower, as sheer dumb determination is often exactly the opposite of wise actions.

On the other hand, is such a stripped down wisdom alone enough to justify adding a ninth attribute, and if not, what could be reasonably added to the domain of wisdom without breaking the balance above?


And also, do the other stats look good or in the need of tweaking?

[Ichneumon]

I would devide Wisdom in Perception and Will (Willpower, resisting persuasion etc)

[Knaight]

I would drop all mental attributes, keeping perception. I would also break up the way attributes and skills work so a skill and an attribute can directly compete, so you don't need any skills along the lines of listen or spot.

[mikeejimbo]

I haven't played base Civ4 since downloading that mod. It's addictive, though slightly buggy.

Still, are you sure you want to homebrew your own system? Have you looked into others? I'm certain we could supply a number of suggestions about what other systems you could use. For example, anything I find that I want to do that D&D can't do, I think about GURPS next. (Actually this isn't true - I think about GURPS first either way.)

[Ichneumon]

Homebrewing your own simple system can be a lot of fun though, I've done it several times, although we mainly has a "d20 extremely light" approach to most of them, like roll d20+ add some kind of number and compare it to another d20 number

[Vadin]

NiceHat: What are the other mechanics in the system? Like, are you still using the d20 system (albeit with some different attributes), or is there a different core mechanic? Perhaps you could give us a little more detail into the workings of the system.

[Nice_Hat]

I haven't played base Civ4 since downloading that mod. It's addictive, though slightly buggy.

Still, are you sure you want to homebrew your own system? Have you looked into others? I'm certain we could supply a number of suggestions about what other systems you could use. For example, anything I find that I want to do that D&D can't do, I think about GURPS next. (Actually this isn't true - I think about GURPS first either way.)

GURPS Lite is actually quite close to what I've been thinking of but it'd still need tweaking. Also, there is something both don't have: damage reduction from partial misses. I'll explain the details later but the idea is that hitting, but only *just* results in far less damage than a good direct hit, aka the small cuts swashbucklers get in movies. Done well, one might do away with damage rolls completely (but will be difficult, needs thinking of)

And as Ichneumon said, I love homebrewing.

@Vadin: I'm thinking of either d20 or d6, with 2d6 (or 3d6 as in GURPS) being currently one of the top picks on the list. It allows more accurate extremes of probability (<3% vs. 5% in d20) by sacrificing a little accuracy in the middle (not 3d6), which I consider acceptable as in d20 the difference between 10 and 11 is far less significant than that between 1 and 2 or 19 and 20 when it comes to the relative probabilities of success and failure. A problem might arise from a difference of just 1 being near-critical in some situations, which might result in less accuracy in some cases.

The core mechanic would be roughly the same as in most systems, that is, roll the dice, add modifiers and see if you succeed, but some things changed from the usual (one of them being the traditional HP system, replaced by injuries of severity grades, or then not. needs work.)

[Ichneumon]

In a Disco setting I once played in we had an atribute called "Innuedo", which we used all the time.

[Knaight]

GURPS Lite is actually quite close to what I've been thinking of but it'd still need tweaking. Also, there is something both don't have: damage reduction from partial misses. I'll explain the details later but the idea is that hitting, but only *just* results in far less damage than a good direct hit, aka the small cuts swashbucklers get in movies. Done well, one might do away with damage rolls completely (but will be difficult, needs thinking of)

And as Ichneumon said, I love homebrewing.

@Vadin: I'm thinking of either d20 or d6, with 2d6 (or 3d6 as in GURPS) being currently one of the top picks on the list. It allows more accurate extremes of probability (<3% vs. 5% in d20) by sacrificing a little accuracy in the middle (not 3d6), which I consider acceptable as in d20 the difference between 10 and 11 is far less significant than that between 1 and 2 or 19 and 20 when it comes to the relative probabilities of success and failure. A problem might arise from a difference of just 1 being near-critical in some situations, which might result in less accuracy in some cases.

The core mechanic would be roughly the same as in most systems, that is, roll the dice, add modifiers and see if you succeed, but some things changed from the usual (one of them being the traditional HP system, replaced by injuries of severity grades, or then not. needs work.)

Look up Fudge. The way damage is handled works similar to how you want it to be, there is no damage roll, instead the amount the attack gets through the defense is added to a set number. This number then translates into a type of wound, which if you use the nonlinear wound system is exactly what you want. It removes damage rolls by tying them to the attack roll.

For mechanics you should take a note out of Qin's book and use 1d6-1d6 or something (Qin itself is 1d10-1d10). Zero centered mechanics allow one to compare skills/attributes/whatever against other skills/attributes/whatever directly. If you want a bell curve, keep 1d6-1d6, but instead roll 2 positive and 2 negative dice and keep either the higher or lower of both(it doesn't matter). This centralizes things hugely and allows for precision in applying bonuses, as you influence how often they come up.

For instance, lets say we are using 1d8-1d8, 2 dice each, keep highest. If we are using a bonus system we can then apply the bonuses to the lower of the positive dice. An example of how this would work, only looking at positive dice.

Bonus: +4
Roll: 7,8. First 2 points bring the 7 to a 9, next point brings 8 to 9 to even them up, last 9-10. Comes to a +3 bonus this time, and on a good roll.

Roll: 3, 6. First 3 points bring the 3 to a 6, last a 6 to 7. Comes to a +1 bonus, which is still significant.

Roll: 2, 7. Comes to 6, 7. No change.

In combat particularly this allows for differentiation of weapons both in damage, and in likeliness to hit, without making some far likelier to hit than others. So a sword could be 4 damage base, +2 bonus. A spear could be 3 damage base, +4 bonus. An axe could be 5 damage base, no bonus. It allows for an easy abstraction of stuff like reach, speed, and just how much can be done with a weapon.

[Eerie]

How about getting rid of attributes entirely?

[Nice_Hat]

Look up Fudge. The way damage is handled works similar to how you want it to be, there is no damage roll, instead the amount the attack gets through the defense is added to a set number. This number then translates into a type of wound, which if you use the nonlinear wound system is exactly what you want. It removes damage rolls by tying them to the attack roll.

For mechanics you should take a note out of Qin's book and use 1d6-1d6 or something (Qin itself is 1d10-1d10). Zero centered mechanics allow one to compare skills/attributes/whatever against other skills/attributes/whatever directly. If you want a bell curve, keep 1d6-1d6, but instead roll 2 positive and 2 negative dice and keep either the higher or lower of both(it doesn't matter). This centralizes things hugely and allows for precision in applying bonuses, as you influence how often they come up.

For instance, lets say we are using 1d8-1d8, 2 dice each, keep highest. If we are using a bonus system we can then apply the bonuses to the lower of the positive dice. An example of how this would work, only looking at positive dice.

Bonus: +4
Roll: 7,8. First 2 points bring the 7 to a 9, next point brings 8 to 9 to even them up, last 9-10. Comes to a +3 bonus this time, and on a good roll.

Roll: 3, 6. First 3 points bring the 3 to a 6, last a 6 to 7. Comes to a +1 bonus, which is still significant.

Roll: 2, 7. Comes to 6, 7. No change.

In combat particularly this allows for differentiation of weapons both in damage, and in likeliness to hit, without making some far likelier to hit than others. So a sword could be 4 damage base, +2 bonus. A spear could be 3 damage base, +4 bonus. An axe could be 5 damage base, no bonus. It allows for an easy abstraction of stuff like reach, speed, and just how much can be done with a weapon.

I looked up Fudge and have to say, the game is made of awesome. The only problem in the engine is that it's very DM heavy. I'll try to make something similar to that with (1-1)d6 (= -5...+5 with pyramid-shaped distribution, realistic enough, perhaps with an added roll for criticals (+/-5) which will spread the edges and allow even higher/lower results with very small probability) this will require more difficulty/skill/attribute levels but is actually just better as bonuses can be applied with simple mathematics instead of DM decree, reducing the load and enforcing more objectivity.


How about getting rid of attributes entirely?

I'm interested to hear how would you make that work, as the setting would be somewhere between realistic and heroic, with "hard" stats (attributes) which define one's base abilities and are very difficult to improve, and "soft" stats (skills) which tell how well one is able to perform within their limits and bypass them, and are (relatively) easy to train in. Preferably such a system would allow PCs becoming powerful, even fighter-types without making them physically ridiculous.

If nobody comes up with better alternatives, I think I'll stick with Str, Dex, Con, Per, Int, Will, Cha and Mana.




As we got into the topic of the system itself, I think we can carry on the conversation on that topic. Attributes would be between 5 and 15 for humans, with 5 being extremely low (the lowest you've ever seen anyone be) and 15 being the extreme high (the same applies) (when rolling attributes this can be easily achieved with 2d6+3) and other races (really races, as they all are humans changed by divine presence) will have bonuses or penalties, typically 1 or 2 up or down.

Skills will have a base level of 0 and increased from there, and the respective attributes' modifiers (score-10) are added to the skill and difficulty scores when determining success modifiers. The player will roll one "pro" roll (trying to get it as high as possible) and the DM will roll an "anti" roll which will be reduced from the player's roll and the result is added to the success modifier to determine the result. In case of a +-5, the player will roll again and a 5 or 6 will add one to the success/failure, representing criticals. The same can be achieved with 2d6-7, and may or may not be easier and simpler.

[Knaight]

Alright, if you want to see a game that works without attributes, take a look at Fate 2.0 or Fate 3.0, they are both free games, and the .0 is an oddity of naming, as there are no .5s (D&D, take note.). Its based on Fudge, but heavily retooled in many places. Its a good system, although I feel its not quite as good as the one it was based on.

On criticals. I personally think the relative degree system takes care of that on its own, in simultaneous combat you can beat another person's roll by 8. That's enough to knock someone out instantly in unarmed combat when you are as skilled as they are, and as strong as they are tough. Using 1d6-1d6 for both people you can beat another person's roll by 10. They are now lying dying on the floor from unarmed combat. And this is if you are as good as them, if your better you get even more deadly.

This is very rare, and almost never happens, but criticals should be special, and these are. However if you want to make them common, you can keep the added roll for criticals, its been discussed heavily by the fudge community, and is well liked if you want really deadly criticals.

I can PM you links that work with Fudge, its really easy to translate out to anything else. After all, the game is made of awesome. So if you want the links, just PM me to ask, or request them here.

[Nice_Hat]

Alright, if you want to see a game that works without attributes, take a look at Fate 2.0 or Fate 3.0, they are both free games, and the .0 is an oddity of naming, as there are no .5s (D&D, take note.). Its based on Fudge, but heavily retooled in many places. Its a good system, although I feel its not quite as good as the one it was based on.

On criticals. I personally think the relative degree system takes care of that on its own, in simultaneous combat you can beat another person's roll by 8. That's enough to knock someone out instantly in unarmed combat when you are as skilled as they are, and as strong as they are tough. Using 1d6-1d6 for both people you can beat another person's roll by 10. They are now lying dying on the floor from unarmed combat. And this is if you are as good as them, if your better you get even more deadly.

This is very rare, and almost never happens, but criticals should be special, and these are. However if you want to make them common, you can keep the added roll for criticals, its been discussed heavily by the fudge community, and is well liked if you want really deadly criticals.

I can PM you links that work with Fudge, its really easy to translate out to anything else. After all, the game is made of awesome. So if you want the links, just PM me to ask, or request them here.

Fate has some intersting aspects in it but I think I'll stick with the attribute-skill system.

I meant mostly unopposed criticals, as in cases of someone having the truest form of dumb luck as in "wow, that was like, a million to one chance" because the 1d6-1d6 forces there to be more difficulty levels to avoid an average guy doing a legendary deed about once a month.

I'd really like those links, although I've already got some idea of what the system might come out as.


The levels the game would use could be arranged like this:

(20 Unimaginable
19 Ultimate
18 Divine)
17 Legendary
16 Epic
15 Superb
14 Great
13 Very Good
12 Good
11 Fair
10 Average
9 Mediocre
8 Poor
7 Bad
6 Pathetic
5 Pitiful
(4 Horrible
3 Terrifying
2 Abysmal
1 Unimaginable)

So with a critical roll, an average person could succeed epically or fail horribly. This has about 1% chance, which might be quite reasonable for games where the amount of rolls would be quite low.

Skills are pretty straightforward but combat is a bit different.

The following is one method I've been considering but it looks too complicated:

The following assumes toHit and toDef modifiers are equal and therefore 0 for the purposes of calculating possible results.

Attack: (1-1)d6+toHit
-5...+5
if <0, miss, if =>0, roll defense (or should negative values result in a defense roll as well, as the defender can fail as well and jump into the way of the weapon?)

Defend: (1-1)d6+toDef
-5...+5
reduce from attack, result:
-5...+10
if <=0, blocked/parried/dodged, if >0, hit

The hit result will be multiplied by the weapon's damage factor (where is strength added?) , protection value reduced and the result divided by Con (or compared to?) to determine wound grade (resulting in possibly ridiculously high values, but the average hitting result would be somewhere around 2, so a weapon with 3 damage factor would cause 6 damage, which is 60% of average Con value.

Any other, simpler ways of resolving combat damage? (the way of getting hits or misses seems good enough)

[Knaight]

1) You only roll in highly stressful situations. If your baking a pie for your family, you just don't roll. If your baking a pie for a mafia boss who kills people for bad cooking, the dice come out. If your baking a pie for the president, the dice come out.

2) 1d6-1d6, where each die is counted as highest requires a positive die on 6 and two negative dice on 1 to get top result, lowest is 2 on 6 and one on 5. That is a 1/108 chance. Significantly less probable than rolling a 20. Less probable than rolling a 20, then a 17+, assuming 20 sided dice. I would say that seemingly incredible luck comes nearly this often.

3) For tasks that take place over an extended period of time you can use the mid-min-max method. Which means that you take the median of 3 rolls and use it. Getting a max roll with this is extremely unlikely. The pie situations both fall into this category

An extended ladder works in Spirit of the Century, but I recommend against one that huge. On combat damage. Swipe the relative degree system from fudge. If your using hit points, and a lot of them, maybe multiply your strength+weapon damage with the relative degree. For the most case weapons and strength stay within 1-4 and -1 to 2 respectively, giving a total range of 0 to 6. In true D&D fashion, 0 counts as 1/2.

I'll PM you the links ASAP.

[erikun]

Strength, Dexterity, Constitution
Pretty standard physical attributes for a system. Some systems include Reflex/Agility, for how quickly you can get out of the way. Your Perception attribute may make this rather moot, though.

Charisma
Point? What would you make a Charisma roll for? Not rolling isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it's the reason Charisma was a dump stat for most of D&D's life.

WoD breaks social attributes into three categories: Presence for immediate noticability, Manipulation for getting others to do what you want them to do, and Composure for how well you handle yourself in stressful situations. Other system remove it entirely, using a Glory/Renown attribute which characters "earn" over their career to determine how well they interact with others.

Intelligence
Again, point? I could see higher intelligence allowing learning new skills, or learning more varied magic, or even limiting the strength of magic that can be learned. (You can't delve into the most powerful secrets of arcane lore unless you can fathom the material.) Like Charisma, unless Intelligence actually gives you something significant, I'm wondering why you'd include it at all.

Perception
talked about above

Mana
Magical aptitude, alright. Not much to say about that.

Willpower
Several systems have use of a "use character resources for better rolls when needed" like Action Points, Fate, and Willpower. This sounds like what you're talking about, and could have a similar mechanical benefit in your system.

I'm not sure if you need an attribute for "experiences gained throughout this character's lifetime." If anything, that can be expressed by level, although not all people of the same level will have the same experiences.

[Nice_Hat]

1) You only roll in highly stressful situations. If your baking a pie for your family, you just don't roll. If your baking a pie for a mafia boss who kills people for bad cooking, the dice come out. If your baking a pie for the president, the dice come out.

2) 1d6-1d6, where each die is counted as highest requires a positive die on 6 and two negative dice on 1 to get top result, lowest is 2 on 6 and one on 5. That is a 1/108 chance. Significantly less probable than rolling a 20. Less probable than rolling a 20, then a 17+, assuming 20 sided dice. I would say that seemingly incredible luck comes nearly this often.

3) For tasks that take place over an extended period of time you can use the mid-min-max method. Which means that you take the median of 3 rolls and use it. Getting a max roll with this is extremely unlikely. The pie situations both fall into this category

An extended ladder works in Spirit of the Century, but I recommend against one that huge. On combat damage. Swipe the relative degree system from fudge. If your using hit points, and a lot of them, maybe multiply your strength+weapon damage with the relative degree. For the most case weapons and strength stay within 1-4 and -1 to 2 respectively, giving a total range of 0 to 6. In true D&D fashion, 0 counts as 1/2.

I'll PM you the links ASAP.

1) How about "Robin Hood Archery", when the arrow hits another one, and similarly extremely-unlikely-yet-possible situations? Also, see the next part:

4a) The most extreme parts of the ladder are hardly needed except for extremely mighty characters, but considering that with 1d6-1d6 the range of results is +-5 with ~3% probability for the extremes (or +-6 with ~1%) instead of +-4 with ~1%, which requires a more extended ladder.

2) I can't quite get it how those results are formed. Care to elaborate?

3) Obviously.

4b) I thought a bit and got another idea: the Con value determines the number of wounds and the damage required for them in a quite simple manner:

For number of wounds, in this order: scratch, light wound (-1 next turn), serious wound (-1), critical wound (-2)

First, add 1 box to each:
1 2 3 4 (no need for numbering but the next phase will use it)

Then, begin adding boxes in diagonal lines, starting from the lower left and ending on the upper right, until there are as many boxes as the constitution score is:

1st line
2nd line
3rd line
4th line

Con 7:
1 2 3 4
5 7
6

3 scratches, 2 light wounds, 1 serious, 1 critical

Con 12:
1 2 3 4
5 7 10
6 9
8 12
11

5 scratches, 4 light wounds, 2 serious, 1 critical


And for how much damage each wound level is, invert the pattern and add numbers from 1 up:

Con 7:
s l sw c
1 2 3 5
- - 4 6
- - - 7

Con 12:
s l sw c
1 2 4 8
- 3 5 9
- - 6 10
- - 7 11
- - - 12

To determine wound degree, look at the table for the location of the damage number. Any damage above the Con score will be an instant incapaciting hit. For example a 3 damage hit will be serious for someone with 7 Con but only light for someone with 12. What will instantly ko a character with 7 will be only a critical hit against one with 12.

On the other hand, if this results in too long combat, one wound box could be removed from each category, unless it's the only one. This would change the boxes to:

1 2
5 7 3 4
6

and

1 2 3
5 7 10 4
6 9
8 12
11


And how to determine the damage? I ran some test battles between warriors of equal scores and one strong brute and one agile guy and found the basic system good enough: add Str bonus (Str-10) and weapon modifier to the result from hit roll (Dex bonus is added to the defender's roll, but results above -x will be considered hits, if the attack roll result [1d6-1d6+hit bonus] is above 0), then subtract the protection value of the body part hit and determine wound type.

Only the value of x needs some work now, as the basic weapon modifiers fit this system quite well. The large differences of damage and endurance between characters of vastly different scores will make combat really dangerous which will just encourage other ways of solving one's problems.

For the purpose of determining which part of the body is hit, would 1d6 with each number representing one part of the body (head, upper body, r arm, l arm, lower body, legs) be reasonably plausible? What to do when the attacker wants to aim a specific part?

@erikun:

Charisma and intelligence are there for a reason: the game system should ideally allow two ways of problem solving: martial and manipulative. Martial means violence and manipulative means any other way. Charisma and intelligence are key manipulative attributes, like strength and constitution are martial. Martial would be simple but ultimately limited in its power, while manipulative is more subtle and complicated but also potentially much more powerful. Think of a warrior hero and a diplomat hero: the warrior may slay a band of enemies but the diplomat may raise an army and crush the whole enemy kingdom. Magic will be similar: Fireball may seem like way more powerful than Trust (which will increase another character's impression of the PC's trustworthiness) until the latter is used to help convince a really powerful NPC (a king or such) that military intervention is necessary.

[Knaight]

1) How about "Robin Hood Archery", when the arrow hits another one, and similarly extremely-unlikely-yet-possible situations? Also, see the next part:

4a) The most extreme parts of the ladder are hardly needed except for extremely mighty characters, but considering that with 1d6-1d6 the range of results is +-5 with ~3% probability for the extremes (or +-6 with ~1%) instead of +-4 with ~1%, which requires a more extended ladder.

2) I can't quite get it how those results are formed. Care to elaborate?

3) Obviously.

4b) I thought a bit and got another idea: the Con value determines the number of wounds and the damage required for them in a quite simple manner:

For number of wounds, in this order: scratch, light wound (-1 next turn), serious wound (-1), critical wound (-2)

First, add 1 box to each:
1 2 3 4 (no need for numbering but the next phase will use it)

Then, begin adding boxes in diagonal lines, starting from the lower left and ending on the upper right, until there are as many boxes as the constitution score is:

1st line
2nd line
3rd line
4th line

Con 7:
1 2 3 4
5 7
6

3 scratches, 2 light wounds, 1 serious, 1 critical

Con 12:
1 2 3 4
5 7 10
6 9
8 12
11

5 scratches, 4 light wounds, 2 serious, 1 critical


And for how much damage each wound level is, invert the pattern and add numbers from 1 up:

Con 7:
s l sw c
1 2 3 5
- - 4 6
- - - 7

Con 12:
s l sw c
1 2 4 8
- 3 5 9
- - 6 10
- - 7 11
- - - 12

To determine wound degree, look at the table for the location of the damage number. Any damage above the Con score will be an instant incapaciting hit. For example a 3 damage hit will be serious for someone with 7 Con but only light for someone with 12. What will instantly ko a character with 7 will be only a critical hit against one with 12.

On the other hand, if this results in too long combat, one wound box could be removed from each category, unless it's the only one. This would change the boxes to:

1 2
5 7 3 4
6

and

1 2 3
5 7 10 4
6 9
8 12
11


And how to determine the damage? I ran some test battles between warriors of equal scores and one strong brute and one agile guy and found the basic system good enough: add Str bonus (Str-10) and weapon modifier to the result from hit roll (Dex bonus is added to the defender's roll, but results above -x will be considered hits, if the attack roll result [1d6-1d6+hit bonus] is above 0), then subtract the protection value of the body part hit and determine wound type.

Only the value of x needs some work now, as the basic weapon modifiers fit this system quite well. The large differences of damage and endurance between characters of vastly different scores will make combat really dangerous which will just encourage other ways of solving one's problems.

For the purpose of determining which part of the body is hit, would 1d6 with each number representing one part of the body (head, upper body, r arm, l arm, lower body, legs) be reasonably plausible? What to do when the attacker wants to aim a specific part?

@erikun:

Charisma and intelligence are there for a reason: the game system should ideally allow two ways of problem solving: martial and manipulative. Martial means violence and manipulative means any other way. Charisma and intelligence are key manipulative attributes, like strength and constitution are martial. Martial would be simple but ultimately limited in its power, while manipulative is more subtle and complicated but also potentially much more powerful. Think of a warrior hero and a diplomat hero: the warrior may slay a band of enemies but the diplomat may raise an army and crush the whole enemy kingdom. Magic will be similar: Fireball may seem like way more powerful than Trust (which will increase another character's impression of the PC's trustworthiness) until the latter is used to help convince a really powerful NPC (a king or such) that military intervention is necessary.
1) That would be a legendary or superb result (I know people who can pull it off routinely at a pretty good range, but they are really good), and assumed to happen occasionally once you get enough archers. Although Robin Hoods shooting was high tension.

4a) Its 3% for the extremes unless you double the dice and count the highest of both of them, in which case is only a 1% chance and you get a bell curve.

2) You roll 2 positive dice and 2 negative dice, and count the higher of each. For example:
Positive: 2, 5
Negative: 3, 4
Total: +1

Of course, if you use my penalty/bonus system I've explained above it will be really easy to take penalties at this point.

3) No Comment

4b) Or you can swipe this. (http://www.fudgefactor.org/2004/05/non-linear-wounding-system.html) You can accumulate infinite wounds, but the more injured you are the more trouble you will have in fighting and in resisting further injuries. You can attain an infinite number of minor wounds, but you will start taking penalties to your defense, and taking major wounds can kill you quickly.

[Nice_Hat]

1) That would be a legendary or superb result (I know people who can pull it off routinely at a pretty good range, but they are really good), and assumed to happen occasionally once you get enough archers. Although Robin Hoods shooting was high tension.

4a) Its 3% for the extremes unless you double the dice and count the highest of both of them, in which case is only a 1% chance and you get a bell curve.

2) You roll 2 positive dice and 2 negative dice, and count the higher of each. For example:
Positive: 2, 5
Negative: 3, 4
Total: +1

Of course, if you use my penalty/bonus system I've explained above it will be really easy to take penalties at this point.

3) No Comment

4b) Or you can swipe this. (http://www.fudgefactor.org/2004/05/non-linear-wounding-system.html) You can accumulate infinite wounds, but the more injured you are the more trouble you will have in fighting and in resisting further injuries. You can attain an infinite number of minor wounds, but you will start taking penalties to your defense, and taking major wounds can kill you quickly.

2), 4a) I calculated some result tables with that system and found bonuses to add a growing 0.x to the mean result, which certainly adds precision but with the 1.5x ladder (to compensate for 1.5x roll range) already reducing their effect I think the ratio of increase of awesome vs. complex would be a bit too low.

4b) That would actually be even better. How about determining damage capacity for those, would the previous system or spreading [Con] evenly, seriousness as priority order, be better:

s l sw c (Con 9)
1 3 5 7
2 4 6 8
- - - 9

s l sw c (Con 14)
1 4 7 11
2 5 8 12
3 6 9 13
- - 10 14

For combat, simultaneous combat (where one rolls an attack roll and a defense roll and those are compared to others' rolls) would be cool but how could unconventional ways of fighting be resolved? Turn-based combat with longer turns might be an easier option. In that case the initiative winner decides what s/he will do (and which skill it uses, or s/he can also wait for the other's decision and react to that) and the initiative loser chooses an appropriate reaction (or action)

Attributes would be used to give bonuses to skills, either full ones or half ones. Most skills are quite easy to determine but basic combat is a bit difficult.

Should the basic combat skill (e.g combat: swords) use full dexterity, half dexterity, some combination of Dex and Str or how? (missile weapons would probably use Per, pehaps ½Per+½Dex) D&D solves this with using Str but as the AC IIRC represents both dodging and protection it doesn't cause problems.

Using full Dex would make it way more useful than Str for warriors, because it would not only increase damage when hitting, but also the probability to hit in the first place, unlike Str which'd only increase damage. Also considering that defensive skills use Dex (or actually they could use Str as well, with block/parry, but that would only bring Str to par with Dex)

It would be logical that dodging attacks would use Dex + bonus from skills (Acrobatics?) requiring attacks to use full attribute bonuses as well, but the notion of one being really strong and therefore able to hit even the fastest and most agile opponent is pretty ridiculous. Skill could compensate for the lack of agility but the opponent also has a defensive skill. Using half Dex for attack bonus and allowing =>-2 hits as long as attack roll is positive seems to be the best option.

Any thoughts?

[Nice_Hat]

When entering combat, the parties involved usually roll for initiative, using Perception as the skill. NPCs might use only their perception score as their initiative. Highest initiative goes first (or waits). When surprise is an element, the surprised (ambushed, backstabbed etc.) party is automatically at the bottom of the initiative ladder and others' actions might go completely unopposed.

For example, Galdor the dwarf is exploring a dungeon alone. He hears some noises, prepares his crossbow and waits behind a corner. He knows that there are orcs in the dungeon, so he decides to shooot anyone coming.

In this situation, Galdor is considered having an ambush prepared so he'll have the initiative on his side.

Soon enough, someone runs from behind the corner in front of him. Galdor only has to pull the trigger and watch the orc fall down, his face pierced by the bolt. However, not long afterwards, the dwarf hears sounds of battle and someone other than an orc shouting. He decides to be more careful next time, looking who is coming before shooting.

Now Galdor is a lot less confident of his actions, and when the next orc comes, initiative is rolled. The orc wins, and leaps to the side, and the dwarf has to aim again.

In actual combat with many players and enemies, characters get to act again after their previous action is done, reacting to what everyone else did in the meantime.