Zornhau Forums

Main problem with unlimited proficencies is randomness of combat. TROS 2-exchanges system works best within certain range of pools (say 10-17). Above it and below it it simply worked poorly. If you have a CP30 character smashing blows with CP32 character you will sooner or later run into weird rolls. Like one guy gets 14 succeses on his offensive manouver and other just 1 in his defense. Wound levels however stay the same which means one bloke just gets ripped to pieces although he might be swordsmen of equal skill.

One of the best selling point of TROS was it's combat system which allowed tactical choices for players. Worse-stats character could overcome better one with carefull picks of manouvers and equipment. If profficiencies are allowed to grow without end, combat stops being a game of skill and knowledge and goes back to rolling contests.

dra wrote:Main problem with unlimited proficencies is randomness of combat. TROS 2-exchanges system works best within certain range of pools (say 10-17). Above it and below it it simply worked poorly. If you have a CP30 character smashing blows with CP32 character you will sooner or later run into weird rolls. Like one guy gets 14 succeses on his offensive manouver and other just 1 in his defense. Wound levels however stay the same which means one bloke just gets ripped to pieces although he might be swordsmen of equal skill.

One of the best selling point of TROS was it's combat system which allowed tactical choices for players. Worse-stats character could overcome better one with carefull picks of manouvers and equipment. If profficiencies are allowed to grow without end, combat stops being a game of skill and knowledge and goes back to rolling contests.

Proficiencies have a hard end-point in that they can't be bought at a higher rate than you have drives to spend. At the theoretical highest, if you managed to max out every single drive, you could have 25-30 points to spend at once. So. Alright. That creates a maximum cap of buying rank 30 in a proficiency. On the other hand, is that a thing you're likely to ever see?

The cost to raise a proficiency is equal to the new level in drive points. From 4 to 5 is 5 points you need to burn. Let's assume the character in question went with the highest possible rank at character creation. That gives us an 11.
From 11 to 12 is 12.
12 to 13, 13.
+14
+15
+16
+17
+18
+19
+20
+21
+22
+23
+24
+25
+26
+27
+28
+29
+30

Just to get to 20 is 144 points. To get to 30? That's 399 points. If we assume an average of 3-5 points earned per 4-hour session?
At 5 points per session, this person has spent 29 sessions or around ~115 hours to get to rank 20.
At 3 points per session, this person has spent 48 sessions or 192 hours.

To get to prof 30 for 399 points?
At 5 points per session, we're talking about 80 sessions, or around ~320 hours of play.
At 3 points per session? This goes up to a ridiculous 133 sessions, or 532 hours.

If you're lucky enough to be playing on a weekly basis consistently, you're spending half a year to a year to get to prof 20. To get to 30 you're putting a minimum of a year and a half and could wind up at two and a half, all without spending points on anything else.

If we assume that the campaign could keep going that long without having either burnt itself out or without the group reaching a natural end point with the decision to start a new campaign, and we then further assume that this incredibly combat-focused character has made it this long without getting crippled or killed (as tends to happen with characters who solve all their problems with swordplay), then you're still dealing with the issue of horrifically diminishing returns. Even within the range that you brought up (10-17), having +7 dice on someone is close to an auto-win unless you're fighting at a significant disadvantage (e.g. they are in full plate with a bidenhander and you're completely unarmored and unarmed), or you makes some very exploitable mistakes. With "normal" NPCs topping out around prof 11 (the scale works this way on purpose), how many people will consider it worthwhile to expend the incredible amount of resources required to keep advancing their combat pool after they hit 20+ dice? It starts to become a waste unless you're specifically in an arms race with another player character in the group, or they are literally just wanting to be able to take on two and three opponents at a time with no fucks given. And again, keep in mind that this only benefits this character in a single proficiency. The moment they need to use something else, they are going to be boned. In that same amount of time with the same amount of points, you could have done a whole lot more interesting things.

So what we're dealing with is a scenario that's not especially likely to come up in the first place at an extreme where most things will break anyway. At CP30, you're more likely to be spending more dice on bigger activation costs and with chains of stuff (new to come!) than just throwing a 20 die attack at someone. Meanwhile, let's compare with an opposed skill check. Even with the hard cap of 10, if we want to go to the maximum possible die pool the systems can have (which, for 399 points, you could easily contrive), you're 10 base dice +6 from tapping, +5 from your Drives firing, without counting help, tools, or the effects of cascading rolls.

Things are always going to be a little wonky once you get to the extreme. I'm not sure that putting a cap on proficiencies is going to do much one way or another. If you want one though, just throw it on there. Decide whatever the sweet spot is for you and lever in "hard cap of prof 15" or whatever. Simple enough.

CP is not just profficiencies. Attributes, SAs, manouvers, equipment ... it all adds up to it usually. I've noticed you guys prefer high pools to begin with at character creation. I think best warrior in our test campaign had sth around 17-18 at day 1? If he added his SAs into fray... I remember duels with high 20 pools without any long periods of reward heavy sessions.

What smn suggested here and works wonders in TROS combat is masteries at high proff level.

EDIT: I just checked, our warrior was a sissy.
With tier 4 attributes and tier 5 profficiencies you can create a warrior with staggering 21 CP to begin with. Add some experience and few firing SAs...

To compare, AFAIR Tros had a best starting char at 14 (15 with some Edge).

dra wrote:EDIT: I just checked, our warrior was a sissy.
With tier 4 attributes and tier 5 profficiencies you can create a warrior with staggering 21 CP to begin with. Add some experience and few firing SAs...

To compare, AFAIR Tros had a best starting char at 14 (15 with some Edge).

I'll use two examples from the ongoing PBP campaigns here so you understand what I'm talking about.

Atr4 Prof5 will easily net you 21CP. Ruthard from "The Storm" is built exactly like that. When fighting lesser opponents (peasants, etc) he wiped the floor with their faces. Also the same with a bit more strong opponents (guards). The funny part begun on 1v3 situations. No matter how high your CP Initiative can cripple you. It's easy for three opponents, each CP 10-12, to beat that Initiative Positioning. One sinks (almost) full pool and the rest a single die. Then you either have to match his investment and fight at half CP (provided you beat him), or try to defend from 2 strong attacks at the same time. Not to mention Impact from blows. Trust me, I speak from hard earned experience.

On the other hand Ferran from "The Floating City" is Atr4 Prof4 @ 16CP. It required heavy roleplay and SA firing to beat that boss with two blows. Which I can tell you it was no easy feat. The most crucial factor was that Ferran goaded him into discarding his armor, thus making Draw Cuts to vitals viable. The +2DR from Draw Cut roughly equals to 3 dice.

So yes, a high CP is highly desirable if you are geared for combat. But investing heavily in combat while neglecting other factors (like Skills) will get you killed eventually. If your GM is worth his salt that is.

Benedict wrote:

dra wrote:EDIT: I just checked, our warrior was a sissy.
With tier 4 attributes and tier 5 profficiencies you can create a warrior with staggering 21 CP to begin with. Add some experience and few firing SAs...

To compare, AFAIR Tros had a best starting char at 14 (15 with some Edge).

I'll use two examples from the ongoing PBP campaigns here so you understand what I'm talking about.

Frankly those examples do not provide anything relevant to what I wrote. What I wrote is 2 statements:
1. High CPs provide more random results.
2. More random fights thwarts coolness of combat system based on pools, decision making and manouvers.

If you think that one of the above is wrong, please state why.

So yes, a high CP is highly desirable if you are geared for combat. But investing heavily in combat while neglecting other factors (like Skills) will get you killed eventually. If your GM is worth his salt that is.

Having said above I question your judgment regarding GMs. His main task is to provide fun for players.
Player create a character he wants to play. If he picks manipulation and ledgermain, he expects game sessions to involve it. If he picks SA "kill murderer of my family" he expects at some stage to face bloke who commited a crime. IMHO GM and should try to encourage group of players to include as many interesting characters in the party since it will allow more interesting story plots and richer sessions.

The role of GM is not to punish players for picks they did or not did. If player wants to create fighting only character (which is nigh impossible in bob IIRC) duty of a GM is to provide interesting parts for this character within setting and story to have him play important role.

I think you misunderstood what I wrote.

I explained how a high CP character can have his behind handed to him in combat by weaker opponents. And how SAs and good roleplay can give you a better edge than a +5CP from Proficiency bonus does.

dra wrote:High CPs provide more random results.

More dice provide more random results in every aspect of the game, not just fights. I don't see a point to this. Nor do I hear a suggestion.

Also, define "high". Like "21CP at character creation" high? Or beyond this? I believe Agamemnon explained what kind of commitment a CP of 30 requires.

dra wrote:More random fights thwarts coolness of combat system based on pools, decision making and manouvers.

What do you mean "more random fights"? Like, random encounters? Well, one can have fun with that. I don't.

Or you mean "more random results in fights"? No matter how big or small the random factor, its always there. And it will produce funky results eventually.

dra wrote:

Benedict wrote:So yes, a high CP is highly desirable if you are geared for combat. But investing heavily in combat while neglecting other factors (like Skills) will get you killed eventually. If your GM is worth his salt that is.

Having said above I question your judgment regarding GMs. His main task is to provide fun for players.
Player create a character he wants to play. If he picks manipulation and ledgermain, he expects game sessions to involve it. If he picks SA "kill murderer of my family" he expects at some stage to face bloke who commited a crime. IMHO GM and should try to encourage group of players to include as many interesting characters in the party since it will allow more interesting story plots and richer sessions.

The role of GM is not to punish players for picks they did or not did. If player wants to create fighting only character (which is nigh impossible in bob IIRC) duty of a GM is to provide interesting parts for this character within setting and story to have him play important role.

Thanks for the personal assault, I guess I deserve it.

Apart from this, you still misunderstand what I mean "worth his salt".

Every player makes statements with character creation to the GM regarding the game he wants to play. As you correctly said, a Skills heavy manipulating Machiavelli is best suited to a political maneuvering theme. A Prof heavy professional warrior is best suited to combat oriented themes.

So I ask this. I have a character Prof5 Atr4 with 21CPs, good armor, and strong weapons. If my GM keeps constantly throwing weak or mediocre opponents at my character he is not doing it right. I might pull this stuff one or two sessions. My character's exploits begin to get heard, and my character earns a reputation of an "unstoppable killing machine". And starts making enemies in the process. My GM is worth his salt when my character's enemies try to outdo him. Which means they will set ambushes, attack in unison, and try to move the ball in a field their nemesis (namely me) is not so good at. That is my idea of the GM setting up exciting challenges for me to overcome. Not to butcher average Joes time and again across numerous melees.

It's not about punishing anyone. It's cause and effect. Every good story needs cause and effect. Otherwise one could be playing CRPGs.

And a final note. The main task of the GM is not for the players to have fun. That role is shared by everyone, GMs and players alike. Why should the GM bother if he's not having fun? The GM's main role is to keep things consistent. Apart from this he is a player like everyone else.

But please, don't sidetreck the thread anymore. If you want to continue this debate on GMing you can send PMs. Or even better you can create a thread where everyone can pitch in his opinions about good and bad GMing.

Benedict wrote: I explained how a high CP character can have his behind handed to him in combat by weaker opponents. And how SAs and good roleplay can give you a better edge than a +5CP from Proficiency bonus does.

Of course he can. This is combat. 1v3 is not smartest move.

dra wrote:High CPs provide more random results.

More dice provide more random results in every aspect of the game, not just fights. I don't see a point to this. Nor do I hear a suggestion.

Initial suggestion was profficiency cap I believe?
I gave another one straight after? Masteries at high profficiency levels. Automatic succesess.
Another one would be making it very expensive to attain those masteries, more so at higher levels. That would work as a soft cap.
Third suggestion - neither Tros nor Blade used so ATR + ATR + PROF formula for CP. It was always ATR + ATR /2. That would slash overinflated CPs in BoB to around 16 straight away for top early warriors.

Also, define "high". Like "21CP at character creation" high? Or beyond this? I believe Agamemnon explained what kind of commitment a CP of 30 requires.

I believe I did. I stated that tros based combat works best within range of 10-17 CPs. So yeah, 21 starting CP is a bit too high for my liking. You can provide a challange for such character as a GM. You could provide challange for CP 300 character if you wanted to, that's not the issue. Issue is fights CP 300 vs CP 300 would be silly. Unless you changed other mechanics.

Agamemnon explained mainly what kind of commitment profficiency 30 requires. Unless sth changed recently, not only profficiencies go into combat pool.

More random fights thwarts coolness of combat system based on pools, decision making and manouvers.

What do you mean "more random fights"? Like, random encounters? Well, one can have fun with that. I don't.

What I mean by more random is unpredictability of dices. If you have 30 of them at TN 6 it means that technically it should add up to 15 succeses. Of course dice roll is not statistics, you can as well get 0 success as 30. Same goes for your opponent. Therefore, sooner or later you would run into weird results. Two equal warriors, one instakills another with 14 MoS first shot. There went our epic fight built up by 300 hours campaign to avange-your-family-save-the-kingdom-and-free-new-love-at-the-sime-time.

If you can modify wound levels to scale for better warriors somehow, yeah, it would not be a problem. Because it's set in stone, randomness at CP 30 v 30 is worse than at CP 15 v 15.

Or you mean "more random results in fights"? No matter how big or small the random factor, its always there. And it will produce funky results eventually.

And...
The more freak results you have with fights, less it depends on player skill and decisions and more on dice throwing.
Which is bad thing I believe.

dra wrote: Thanks for the personal assault,

?

So I ask this. I have a character Prof5 Atr4 with 21CPs, good armor, and strong weapons. If my GM keeps constantly throwing weak or mediocre opponents at my character he is not doing it right.

To remind you , I wrote initially about cp 30 vs cp 32 chars slamming each other.

dra wrote:Initial suggestion was profficiency cap I believe?
I gave another one straight after? Masteries at high profficiency levels. Automatic succesess.
Another one would be making it very expensive to attain those masteries, more so at higher levels. That would work as a soft cap.
Third suggestion - neither Tros nor Blade used so ATR + ATR + PROF formula for CP. It was always ATR + ATR /2. That would slash overinflated CPs in BoB to around 16 straight away for top early warriors.

That was not a suggestion, it was a thought. A suggestion would be "Cap proficiency at 10 like other stats do", or whatever.

Masteries. Explain what you mean. Otherwise its just words.

Comparing a similar system to what there is (or more correctly will be) here can go so far. Why do you use TROS (and TROS-clones) and not other d10 games for your comparisons, I really wonder.

Neither TROS nor Blade used Atr+Atr+Prof, these used Atr + Atr /2, you are correct. Well. its not BoB anymore, its Sword & Scoundrel. And the formula is (AG+CU)/2 + PROF. Just saying.

dra wrote:If you can modify wound levels to scale for better warriors somehow, yeah, it would not be a problem. Because it's set in stone, randomness at CP 30 v 30 is worse than at CP 15 v 15.

Why? Don't see a need to. Even if...

dra wrote:Two equal warriors, one instakills another with 14 MoS first shot. There went our epic fight built up by 300 hours campaign to avange-your-family-save-the-kingdom-and-free-new-love-at-the-sime-time.

Spend 3 SA points for "Not Quite Dead Yet". I believe the 300-hour campaign epic built can afford 3 SA points.

But overlooking this, I have no problem with an insta-kill. Everyone involved knew the risk. That's half the fun of combat tbh.

And a note on scaling wounds for more experienced humans. A more experienced human has more CP. Meaning more dice to throw into that Parry or Dodge. Meaning smaller MoS, meaning less damage. Why on earth should a veteran with Brawn5 Resolve5 shrug off blows better than a rookie with Brawn5 Resolve5 when both are tied to a chair (meaning they both scored 0 successes) ?

dra wrote:To remind you , I wrote initially about cp 30 vs cp 32 chars slamming each other.

Well, until the rules do come out I'm skeptical about it. I dunno if there will be adversaries with 30+CP dice in there, unless we are talking about demons or dragons. And I doubt anyone would raise his CP to 30+ anyway.

dra wrote:Randomness at CP 30 v 30 is worse than at CP 15 v 15.

This is true, but probably far less so than you might think.



Going from 15v15 to 30v30 CP, the chance to hit is negligibly changed. The expected wound level only increases by 0.4. This gap gets even smaller when you consider that MOS6-8 isn't really a higher MOS, it is just a more likely MOS5.
(but I left MOS6-8 separate anyway to account for situations the defender has higher armor than the attackers DR)

So for exactly equally matched combatants, there doesn't seem to me to be much issue. Next, let's look at slightly miss matched combatants.



I'll be the first to admit these results really surprised me. Again, the difference between 15v17 and 30v32 is really quite small. only 5% chance to hit difference and 0.8 MOS. 32v30 is not much "swingier" than 17v15.

The really surprising thing to me is just how huge a difference 2CP makes at any pool size. In the 15CP range it's worth around 27% to hit. I had kind of assumed that activation costs and armor penalties would become negligible once you had huge CPs in the 30s, but even in that case 2CP makes a difference of 19% to hit.

dra wrote:The more freak results you have with fights, less it depends on player skill and decisions and more on dice throwing.

Going by these charts, the 30v30 case looks to be about as lethal to each party as a 22v20 fight would be to the underdog. Considering power swing can cost you 2CP (20% to hit) and modify MOS by 2 alone, the maneuver you select is a much more significant factor. Reach control, Armor or other effects like trip or restraining will similarly play a much larger role than the increased randomness from both characters having huge pools.

TLDR: What maneuver you select matters more to combat swingyness than any mutual increase in size of Combat Pools.

Benedict wrote:And a note on scaling wounds for more experienced humans. A more experienced human has more CP. Meaning more dice to throw into that Parry or Dodge. Meaning smaller MoS, meaning less damage. Why on earth should a veteran with Brawn5 Resolve5 shrug off blows better than a rookie with Brawn5 Resolve5 when both are tied to a chair (meaning they both scored 0 successes) ?

Apart from the irrationality of the thought there is also a serious rules problem with this.

Everyone has 5 Wound Levels, can wear armor to increase his resistance, and the bigger his CP the better he defends.

Wound scaling (via a wound resist bonus or extra Wound Levels) would alter the rules significantly.

Meaning that veterans would commit less CP in defenses since they can resist fairly well by default. Hence more attack dice. Leading to biggers MoS, which in turn leads to higher damage.

I thought the idea was to cap pools to avoid insane damage and funky results in 20+ v 20+ situations.

Seems we get back at square one, with the added effect that balance is tipped even further, favoring veterans even more over starting characters.

Kinda reminds me the situation where the 20th level Fighter fights a horde of two hundred 1-HD orcs by himself without breaking a sweat.

Benedict wrote: That was not a suggestion, it was a thought. A suggestion would be "Cap proficiency at 10 like other stats do", or whatever.

Well, than...I gave my thoughts. ;o

Masteries. Explain what you mean. Otherwise its just words.

Say we have profficiencies in scale of 1-10. Afterwards, you got profficiency 11 which does not give you an extra dice, rather extra automatic success. At 12 you have two automatic succeses and so on...

Comparing a similar system to what there is (or more correctly will be) here can go so far. Why do you use TROS (and TROS-clones) and not other d10 games for your comparisons, I really wonder.

Yea...It's really shocking to compare tros-combat based system to tros rather than say... d20 or wfrp

And the formula is (AG+CU)/2 + PROF. Just saying.

Well, an improvement

Why? Don't see a need to. Even if...

Because, as you wrote yourself...more dice = more randomness...
And system is about to promote player skill and risk taking.

To make it simple...When you defend against cut of 6 you might wonder whether to use say... counter and use enemy's succeses. Will it yield better result to pay an activation cost of manouver? You make a decision based on risk assessment. In case of rolls of 20 dice in one attack....it kinda stops being a tradeoff. Manouvers become silly cheap. Player skill becomes less important.

Spend 3 SA points for "Not Quite Dead Yet". I believe the 300-hour campaign epic built can afford 3 SA points.

You did not solve anything. Player merely survives the scene. Duel is lost, kingdom conquered, princess raped and slained ...

But overlooking this, I have no problem with an insta-kill. Everyone involved knew the risk. That's half the fun of combat tbh.

Well, I'd say you might find much more satisfaction in simple combat or systems not so rules heavy and with more rolls dependant combat.

And a note on scaling wounds for more experienced humans. A more experienced human has more CP. Meaning more dice to throw into that Parry or Dodge. Meaning smaller MoS, meaning less damage. Why on earth should a veteran with Brawn5 Resolve5 shrug off blows better than a rookie with Brawn5 Resolve5 when both are tied to a chair (meaning they both scored 0 successes) ?

For no reason, I specifically mentioned, it is NOT scalable therefore bloated or miniscule CP work like crap in TROS.

Well, until the rules do come out I'm skeptical about it. I dunno if there will be adversaries with 30+CP dice in there, unless we are talking about demons or dragons. And I doubt anyone would raise his CP to 30+ anyway.

I'd ask from other perspective. If there is no cap, who would forbid it?




@ thirthy

This is exactly what I wrote about. On paper it looks like exactly the same combat scenario. Two evenly matched opponents. However dice rolls do not listen to laws of statistics. It is about this particular one roll that can happen and happens from time to time. It can happen with 15v16 CPs as well however I think it is obvious that it happens in rarer instances than with 32 vs 30.

It doesn't matter that mos14 is same mechanically that mos6 (armor aside). Wound levels only go up to 6. Manouvers have AC cost that justifies them as long as you stick to certain extend of CPs. Well below this sweet spot the whole system is broken. You do not use really wound levels that much, you do not think about wheter it is better to duck and weave or counter or rather use shield and block to open. You just roll.

dra wrote:To make it simple...When you defend against cut of 6 you might wonder whether to use say... counter and use enemy's succeses. Will it yield better result to pay an activation cost of manouver? You make a decision based on risk assessment. In case of rolls of 20 dice in one attack....it kinda stops being a tradeoff. Manouvers become silly cheap. Player skill becomes less important.

This is just not true. Please read my last post and think about the implications. Maneuver selection plays a much larger role than the increase in variance due to having a dice pool in the 30s. Compare the difference between the 30v32 and 32v30 cases and the difference between the 15v15 and 30v30 cases. Then consider the power swing maneuver which will lower your chance to hit by 25% and increase MOS by 2. Considering other maneuvers beyond that only makes maneuver selection even more important.

Well my experience say otherwise.

Cost of manouver of 2 is silly if you roll 15 for defense.
Same cost requires some risk assesment if you roll with 6.

Amount of succeses you can win is way different.

dra wrote:Well my experience say otherwise.

You will of course forgive me for not being convinced by anecdote.

Cost of manouver of 2 is silly if you roll 15 for defense.
Same cost requires some risk assesment if you roll with 6.

Amount of succeses you can win is way different.

No. The cost of a maneuver of 2 dice is approximately 1 success whether or not you are rolling 5 or 500 dice.

thirtythr33 wrote:

dra wrote:Well my experience say otherwise.

You will of course forgive me for not being convinced by anecdote.

Let me rephrase with an example.

Fighter A 30 CP Fighter B 30 CP
Fighter B swings for 15 cp. Let's say he rolls 8 succeses.
Fighter A counters (+ac 2) for 15. Let's say he rolls 9 succeses. He know has 13 + enemy's succeses 8 = 21. For this his opponent has just 15.
Fighter A swing for 21 and B defends for 15. Fighter A gets quite a good roll with 17 succeses. Fighter B gets avarage 7. MoS 10. Instakill.

Let's look at the same story with CP 14 and same success ratios.
Figher B swingd for 7 succeses. Gets 3
Fighter A counters (+ac2) for 7. Gets 4. He know has 7 + enemy's succeses 3 = 10. For this his opponent has just 7.
Fighter A swing fo 10 and B defends for 7. Fighter A gets quite a good roll with 7. Fighter B gets avarage 4. MoS 3. Fighter B is wounded, face uphill battle but all of sudden we use mechanics that would be redundant if both had 2 times CP.

No. The cost of a maneuver of 2 dice is approximately 1 success whether or not you are rolling 5 or 500 dice.

Yet what you can win with it is completly different.