Douche
2017-12-19, 09:45 AM
My friend made a system inspired by GURPS but simplified and different. Forget about GURPS though, don't let it taint your perception because I haven't played it and the only reason I'm mentioning it is that it's where he got most of his ideas.
The entire dice system goes as such. There are 4 stats (Strength, Agility, Wisdom, Intelligence). For the purposes of this discussion, we only need to talk about Wisdom & Strength though, because they're the only ones that are relevant to combat (and Agility is somewhat interchangeable). Putting 1 point into your stat allows you to roll an extra dice whenever you are in combat. Ergo, if you have 5 strength & you attack someone, then you roll 5d6
1-3 = 0 successes
4-5 = 1 success
6 = 2 successes
So to summarize, if I roll 5d6 - the result is 2,2,3,5,6,6 - (2) 6's = 4 successes, (1) 5 = 1 success. Total is 5 successes. Opponent rolls 3 successes, end result is 2 damage.
Following so far? It's a simple system which I appreciate, allows the game to go much faster.
Here's the issue: when you compare Spellcasting to Melee fighters, it doesn't seem to make sense to me. Spellcasting allows you to use mana to automatically add extra successes to your roll. Here's how it goes: I cast a damage spell - I roll my Wisdom & choose to consume as much mana as I want to add to my wisdom (up to my wisdom score). Therefore, if I have 5 wisdom & choose to use 5 mana, it is 5d6+5. Using the above example, that would total to 10 successes.
Sounds fair, except that mana is a limited resource (3x your wisdom score). Meanwhile, a brawler character can make 2 melee attacks per turn. The second attack is made with a 2 die penalty though. So with 5 strength, that's 8d6 per turn.
My question is: does that sound balanced to you? I'm not good at dice math. Do those two options average out?
By my understanding, you pretty much have a 4/6 chance to get a success on each dice. Therefore, if we were to scale up to 12 [offensive stat]...
Spellcaster (12d6+12 = 20 successes on average)
Brawler (22d6 = 14 successes on average)
Now that is for one round of combat. If you stretch that out to 5 rounds then the automatic successes are limited to mana, capping it at 36.
As a result it would look something like this
Spellcaster (60d6+36 = 76 successes on average)
Brawler (110d6 = 73 successes on average)
Does that sound right?
For the purposes of this discussion, understand that there isn't really any AoE and the only versatility that spellcasting offers in combat is that they can use their spells to add or subtract from the successes of others. Furthermore, Brawlers also have a mana pool that they can use to buff their attacks (still based on their wisdom) so if they have, say, 3 wisdom - that equates to an extra 9 successes they can choose to apply where they see fit.
Now here is my issue, Strength also scales your HP (10 + 2x strength), allows you to wear heavy armor (which automatically subtracts 3 successes if you get hit), and allows you to parry attacks for free (compared to a spellcaster having to consume mana and therefore subtracting from his damage output). So initially, if you compare the two, Spellcasting seems more glamorous, but the closer you look - the more it appears that a Brawler has the advantage in combat.
I just want to make sure I've got the right perception here, because I'm really considering just scrapping my spellcaster & making a melee fighter character instead. In particular, the guy running the game constantly thinks that magic is OP & wants to nerf it more, despite it being clear that they are effectively equal if you look solely at damage output (and spellcasting being weaker if you consider defensive options)
The entire dice system goes as such. There are 4 stats (Strength, Agility, Wisdom, Intelligence). For the purposes of this discussion, we only need to talk about Wisdom & Strength though, because they're the only ones that are relevant to combat (and Agility is somewhat interchangeable). Putting 1 point into your stat allows you to roll an extra dice whenever you are in combat. Ergo, if you have 5 strength & you attack someone, then you roll 5d6
1-3 = 0 successes
4-5 = 1 success
6 = 2 successes
So to summarize, if I roll 5d6 - the result is 2,2,3,5,6,6 - (2) 6's = 4 successes, (1) 5 = 1 success. Total is 5 successes. Opponent rolls 3 successes, end result is 2 damage.
Following so far? It's a simple system which I appreciate, allows the game to go much faster.
Here's the issue: when you compare Spellcasting to Melee fighters, it doesn't seem to make sense to me. Spellcasting allows you to use mana to automatically add extra successes to your roll. Here's how it goes: I cast a damage spell - I roll my Wisdom & choose to consume as much mana as I want to add to my wisdom (up to my wisdom score). Therefore, if I have 5 wisdom & choose to use 5 mana, it is 5d6+5. Using the above example, that would total to 10 successes.
Sounds fair, except that mana is a limited resource (3x your wisdom score). Meanwhile, a brawler character can make 2 melee attacks per turn. The second attack is made with a 2 die penalty though. So with 5 strength, that's 8d6 per turn.
My question is: does that sound balanced to you? I'm not good at dice math. Do those two options average out?
By my understanding, you pretty much have a 4/6 chance to get a success on each dice. Therefore, if we were to scale up to 12 [offensive stat]...
Spellcaster (12d6+12 = 20 successes on average)
Brawler (22d6 = 14 successes on average)
Now that is for one round of combat. If you stretch that out to 5 rounds then the automatic successes are limited to mana, capping it at 36.
As a result it would look something like this
Spellcaster (60d6+36 = 76 successes on average)
Brawler (110d6 = 73 successes on average)
Does that sound right?
For the purposes of this discussion, understand that there isn't really any AoE and the only versatility that spellcasting offers in combat is that they can use their spells to add or subtract from the successes of others. Furthermore, Brawlers also have a mana pool that they can use to buff their attacks (still based on their wisdom) so if they have, say, 3 wisdom - that equates to an extra 9 successes they can choose to apply where they see fit.
Now here is my issue, Strength also scales your HP (10 + 2x strength), allows you to wear heavy armor (which automatically subtracts 3 successes if you get hit), and allows you to parry attacks for free (compared to a spellcaster having to consume mana and therefore subtracting from his damage output). So initially, if you compare the two, Spellcasting seems more glamorous, but the closer you look - the more it appears that a Brawler has the advantage in combat.
I just want to make sure I've got the right perception here, because I'm really considering just scrapping my spellcaster & making a melee fighter character instead. In particular, the guy running the game constantly thinks that magic is OP & wants to nerf it more, despite it being clear that they are effectively equal if you look solely at damage output (and spellcasting being weaker if you consider defensive options)