Josh Sawyer on Miss and Hit

[Mr. Magniloquent]

What of

• Concealment
  
• Cover
  
• Blindness
  

and any similar effects where missing is both appropriate and central? Anyone?

[Ieo]

What of

• Concealment
  
• Cover
  
• Blindness
  

and any similar effects where missing is both appropriate and central? Anyone?

 

I commented in a previous post that external/environmental variables should certainly introduce and increase "miss" chance. It just makes sense that way, right? A race without night vision should miss a lot at night. But "miss" in actual combat on equal environmental footing, especially melee (ranged is a bit special, and then we have magic), never made sense to me...

[Helm]

What of

• Concealment
  
• Cover
  
• Blindness
  

and any similar effects where missing is both appropriate and central? Anyone?

Blinded Chars will always be able to hit concealed foes for half damage.

Edited January 5, 2013 by Helm

[Sabotin]

Well considering the currently planned system it would seem appropriate for those statuses to just move the hit/glance/miss ratios upward. Which could be achieved by simply making it add a defense bonus/accuracy penalty. Further defined by the level of concealment. With blindness for example making you do damage only on "a natural 20" so to speak, rest being a few glances and lots of misses.

[Sacred_Path]

What of

• Concealment
  
• Cover
  
• Blindness
  

and any similar effects where missing is both appropriate and central? Anyone?

 

For all 3 of these cases I think it's not inappropriate to say you slash around wildly, therefore not inflicting a full hit (and full damage) but you can graze part of an enemy's body, thereby inflicting a fraction of damage. Same goes for the swift fairy someone mentioned ITT.

[rjshae]

Our goal is to make your choice of tactic ultimately more important than the results of the die roll (though the die rolls still matter).

 

I'm not going to claim I'd have been wholly happy or sad in regard to this. I see the good reasons for why they came up with it, and even agree with them to an extent. However . . . I'd also have missed it a bit for my own reasons - I like characters being punished for overstepping their bounds, not even being able to hit something as a result. I'm okay with this though. I do understand that low level miss miss miss fest concern, so, if they'd gone as described, at least I'd have understood the logic.

As Napoleon said, Chance is the providence of adventurers. Personally, I don't mind it when certain encounters require a high degree of luck; if anything that usually just makes me optimize my odds with better tactics and the heavy use of potions and other expendables. But no matter; I'm sure I can live with whatever combat scheme they come up with. I just hope it doesn't feel too contrived.

[Osvir]

What do you guys think of the idea of making "chance to dodge" independent of "chance to block"?

 

To be honest, I think it's a cool idea but likewise, if text represented in a log, it could be the same thing and having "dodge", "block" and "parry" be random generated in the text log. I don't think there's going to be a "block", "parry" or "dodge" animation.... IF there's a dodge animation they should naturally be independent but if there isn't, then I think having the "Log Text"-Representative is simple and fulfilling enough.

 

Rogue has one "dodge" ability so it might be a little bit "Player skill" tied to dodging. Which sounds great

[SunBroSolaire]

Comment: I'm not recommending that PE adopt something like this on its face, certainly, but pointing out that breaking out combat defense/offense like this has its advantages and can not only make classes more unique in offense/defense play but also give enemies some flavor. Specifically, we can get rid of the weird "miss" concept altogether and shift the RNG from a perceptual "miss" mechanic to something that makes more sense (to me), where the enemy is going to counter. The swishes would go from a bad RNG die roll "miss" to "the enemy dodged your attack." In actual play, I suppose things wouldn't change. But environmental variables should affect these kinds of stats too--if I cast Hold Person on someone, I'd damn well better not miss the bugger. But maybe his armor is so high that I can barely dent him anyway, so he mitigates everything at a high percent.

 

Yeah, I think it feels more natural to think about it that way. That system you described sounds awesome, but I doubt Sawyer & Cain would go that far with it. Some of these principles would be simple additions to Sawyer's recent proposal, though, such as "to dodge" scaling with DEX, and "to glance" scaling with STR, with other factors also exerting influence. I believe Sawyer already mentioned there will be an active ability to parry, so I don't think that should be abstracted in standard melee combat.

 

What do you guys think of the idea of making "chance to dodge" independent of "chance to block"?

 

To be honest, I think it's a cool idea but likewise, if text represented in a log, it could be the same thing and having "dodge", "block" and "parry" be random generated in the text log. I don't think there's going to be a "block", "parry" or "dodge" animation.... IF there's a dodge animation they should naturally be independent but if there isn't, then I think having the "Log Text"-Representative is simple and fulfilling enough.

 

Rogue has one "dodge" ability so it might be a little bit "Player skill" tied to dodging. Which sounds great

 

Well, I meant "dodge" as in a full miss, and "block" as in a glancing blow. I will edit my post to make it more clear [edit: I cannot edit that post anymore, but I meant dodge = miss, block = glance]. Full misses could be dependent on different stats and details than partial damage glancing blows. The point, very generally, would be that a light, rogue-like character could be very good at dodging but not good at actually deflecting blows that DO land, and conversely, a large, heavy character could be very easy to hit, but much more likely to suffer only partial damage. This would add a little bit of nuance to combat, character building, and equipment planning. Additionally it would make light and medium armor viable late game choices. Finally, it would support "high risk, high reward" characters for those who wanted to pursue that route, and add variety to the enemies.

Edited January 5, 2013 by SunBroSolaire

[Ieo]

Comment: I'm not recommending that PE adopt something like this on its face, certainly, but pointing out that breaking out combat defense/offense like this has its advantages and can not only make classes more unique in offense/defense play but also give enemies some flavor. Specifically, we can get rid of the weird "miss" concept altogether and shift the RNG from a perceptual "miss" mechanic to something that makes more sense (to me), where the enemy is going to counter. The swishes would go from a bad RNG die roll "miss" to "the enemy dodged your attack." In actual play, I suppose things wouldn't change. But environmental variables should affect these kinds of stats too--if I cast Hold Person on someone, I'd damn well better not miss the bugger. But maybe his armor is so high that I can barely dent him anyway, so he mitigates everything at a high percent.

 

Yeah, I think it feels more natural to think about it that way. That system you described sounds awesome, but I doubt Sawyer & Cain would go that far with it. Some of these principles would be simple additions to Sawyer's recent proposal, though, such as "to dodge" scaling with DEX, and "to glance" scaling with STR, with other factors also exerting influence. I believe Sawyer already mentioned there will be an active ability to parry, so I don't think that should be abstracted in standard melee combat.

 

Fair enough. Another concept I wanted to explain in comparing that system with this/classical D&D: Without the perceptual "miss" mechanic, the burden of the dice roll is actually always on the defender, not the attacker. Whereas in D&D and related systems, at least that I remember, you roll to see if you hit or miss the enemy and roll again to determine the damage, right? So this would be a big conceptual shift for some, perhaps.

 

Well, in the system I described where the defense stats are broken out (block, parry, evade) and a "miss" mechanic doesn't exist in itself, that means the attacker simply "attacks" and then defender must roll to see if they can avoid being hit or mostly hit.

 

Say I have a character-based 10% chance to dodge a melee attack, 15% chance to parry, 20% to block with a shield. I'd roll to see if can avoid an attack*. If the attack goes around all my defenses, then I as the defender must roll again to determine how much I can mitigate. (Oh, I didn't talk about the resistance stat in my previous post; I think that basically works as "dodge for spells." Anyway.)

 

*I don't think anyone knows the exact math calculations for that game's defense stat application, which means it might work out to rolling a 1d100 and adding my block/parry/evade defenses (45% total) then figuring out how the attack was defended against based on the actual number rolled (e.g. 95/100 means I dodged) or rolling three individual 1d100 per defense stat. I never tried to look into it that much.

 

 

Anyway. Just as I tolerate D&D mechanics in my gameplay (it's not the most important feature to me for the old IE game feel), I'll tolerate what Obsidian comes up with, I suppose.

[VixRaine]

Sawyer from Something Awful:

The most compelling statement I've read against the subject is some flavor of, "I want to make a really dodgy character." I think supporting character types/concepts is important and feel is part of that. I think if we added an outer boundary beyond "graze" that was a "true" miss, but one that was a fixed mathematical distance away from chance to hit, that would probably be fine/good.

 

E.g. using D&D terms, a character needs to roll an 11 or higher to score a "real" hit. The 5 points below (6-10) are considered a graze (i.e. what our current miss effect is, half min damage). If the player rolls 6 points below (1-5), it's a full miss. If the player's hit odds improve to scoring a hit on an 8 or higher, 3-7 become grazes and 1, 2 are misses. If the player needs a 3 or higher, well congrats, the worst you can do is graze on a 1 (effectively the "you can always do badly" result).

 

This can also work the other way, where the critical hit range is some fixed distance away from to-hit score. Maybe it's 8 points (for example). So if you score a hit on 13 or higher, you can't crit. Tough. If you score a hit on a 5 or higher, you'll crit on a 13 or higher. The worst case, as with grazes on 1, would be a hit on 20.

 

If accuracy (i.e. "to-hit") and defenses (i.e. "AC" and "saves") improve with level advancement, it does mean that noobs vs. pros will get destroyed very handily even if everyone is using the exact same gear. Low-level characters will drift away from crits and into grazes and hits. High-level characters will drift away from misses and into hits and crits. Two characters of the same level would, all other things being equal, likely have a solid chance to hit or graze, with a small chance to miss or crit. Most encounters are not toe-to-toe contests of equals. I.e. the PCs usually have the advantage because they are often fighting a series of battles that are wearing them down, and often more enemies than party members. As a result, the math would skew toward the higher level PCs hitting more often, missing less often, grazing being common. The monsters would miss more often and possibly graze more often than hit.

 

Certain character builds might alter the "bands" either offensively or defensively. E.g. a rogue might have an ability that pushes their "miss" boundary for certain defenses two steps up, meaning some attacks against them that would normally be grazes are converted to misses. A fighter might have an ability that makes their melee graze range extend two steps lower, turning more misses into grazes.

 

This iteration of the system definitely sounds like the best I've read about so far.

 

The mathematical goals of the Mitigated-Miss system are ones that I absolutely approve of. Chaotic, Spiky damage makes it much more difficult for developers to reliably tune encounters in terms of both pacing, and difficulty. In addition to that, this is a game that will already have multiple difficulties, with several variations on the 'Please punish me even more' mode. Anything that is going to allow for more consistent, reliable outcomes based on a Party's power level (Level, Gear, Assumed level of tactical competency) is going to make for a much better game overall.

 

That being said, doing /entirely/ away with misses feels somewhat disingenuous when it comes to certain mechanical features of actual combat, Ranged Attacks, Parrying, and Concealment being the most notable.

 

Accounting for Damage Threshold, the tiered system detailed above sounds like it would be fun, provide the full range of options, while still normalizing 'battle flow' calculations acceptably. Add in the existence of defensive mechanics that allow for complete negation, I.e. - Parry, which are separate from the actual 'To Hit' roll (This isn't even really necessary, as Parry could simply make a true miss a couple steps more likely as described above, which would allow for partial Parrying, something rarely seen in games), and you have what might be one of the most fun combat systems I've ever seen in a game starting to be implemented.

Edited January 5, 2013 by VixRaine

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I'm not too sure about the proposed system, but I want to see more information before I condone or condemn it.

[SunBroSolaire]

@Ieo: Could be wrong, but I remember D&D combat being decided by a single attack roll. If you roll over the enemies defense threshold (AC in D&D), you do the # damage that you rolled (x3 for critical hits). In Josh's most recent proposed P:E system, if you miss the defense threshold by more than 50%, you get an outright miss. If you miss by less than 50%, you score a glancing blow (50% minimum weapon damage, so your roll doesn't matter). And anything over defense threshold counts as a hit. Then your total attack score is calculated (based on modifiers, not a seperate roll) and compared to Damage Threshold; if it is lower than DT, it does 20% total attack score in damage (40% for crushing weapons), if it is higher, DT is subtracted from attack score and the result is applied as damage. Critical hits do x1.5 maximum weapon damage. Whew...

 

If you were to differentiate dodging from blocking, you could simply compare the original attack roll to "chance to dodge" first. If the attack is under the dodge threshold, no damage is done. If the attack is higher than dodge threshold, follow the directions above. Same as Josh's system, except with defender's dodge threshold calculated independently instead of being a fixed 0.5*(defense). You could still use only a single attack roll. In this system, it would be possible for dodge threshold to be higher than the "block threshold", but in normal circumstances it would probably work similarly to what Josh outlined in his SA post. For normal characters, dodge threshold would be significantly lower than block threshold. You would have to optimize your character to be "dodgy" in order to bring that number up, and that would come at the cost of lower block threshold, and likely, lower damage threshold.

 

By the way, what game is that? PnP or cRPG? It sounds deep.

Edited January 5, 2013 by SunBroSolaire

[Ieo]

@Ieo: Could be wrong, but I remember D&D combat being decided by a single attack roll.

(snip)

By the way, what game is that? PnP or cRPG? It sounds deep.

 

You're probably right. It's been a while, I don't know 4e rules, and I don't remember 3e very well at all. Either way, the RNG/dice roll burden would be shifted between attacker/defender...

 

The system I described is actually a simplified generalization from the MMORPG Lord of the Rings Online. I didn't mention it by name for the simple reason that I know some people react negatively to the genre at first blush. While some mechanics are certainly more appropriate for one game genre over another (e.g. threat vs. aggro for MMOs, not so much for SP CRPG), I believe this basal level of combat system mechanics is quite neutral.

 

Moreover, it doesn't really matter how complicated a CRPG's combat mechanics are; the computer is doing all the work for you in a split second, so this isn't like trying to translate back into pen-and-paper. It's my opinion that with the exponentially more powerful resources provided by modern computing, more reasonable/realistic/rational and potentially complicated calculations should be within the sphere of design for a CRPG. Whereas the original Infinity Engine games had to translate PnP D&D rules in order to use the entire IP proper, PnP and CRPG frameworks are still quite different; PnP systems could never be very complicated, else the human factor suffers.

 

Regardless, we're down to talking about "feel," for which I'm sure Josh and the others are cognizant. It'll be interesting to beta test, that's for sure.

[anubite]

In a vacuum I think this overall a bad mechanic but it could turn out to be fine for PE.

 

It seems to me that RNG is the problem. And we can't get rid of RNG, not for a game like PE.

 

I've always liked the "luck" stat, though most RPGs don't make use of it. Having luck normalize your rolls and bias RNG sounds like a fun mechanic to me.

 

And although people do complain about RNG and "misses" or "lucky crits" - what most players fail to realize, is that without them, NOT getting them wouldn't be as fun (or possible, rather). Isn't it fun to barely, luckily survive an encounter thanks to a miss or a crit? Maybe this is less of the case, when you're dodging things all the time, but I'm wary Sawyer is making this change seemingly on the idea of players whining about it. Players will always whine about certain aspects of a game, but sometimes they don't understand the consequences of changing that aspect of the game.

Edited January 6, 2013 by anubite

[mstark]

Sawyer from Something Awful:

The most compelling statement I've read against the subject is some flavor of, "I want to make a really dodgy character." I think supporting character types/concepts is important and feel is part of that. I think if we added an outer boundary beyond "graze" that was a "true" miss, but one that was a fixed mathematical distance away from chance to hit, that would probably be fine/good.

 

E.g. using D&D terms, a character needs to roll an 11 or higher to score a "real" hit. The 5 points below (6-10) are considered a graze (i.e. what our current miss effect is, half min damage). If the player rolls 6 points below (1-5), it's a full miss. If the player's hit odds improve to scoring a hit on an 8 or higher, 3-7 become grazes and 1, 2 are misses. If the player needs a 3 or higher, well congrats, the worst you can do is graze on a 1 (effectively the "you can always do badly" result).

 

This can also work the other way, where the critical hit range is some fixed distance away from to-hit score. Maybe it's 8 points (for example). So if you score a hit on 13 or higher, you can't crit. Tough. If you score a hit on a 5 or higher, you'll crit on a 13 or higher. The worst case, as with grazes on 1, would be a hit on 20.

 

If accuracy (i.e. "to-hit") and defenses (i.e. "AC" and "saves") improve with level advancement, it does mean that noobs vs. pros will get destroyed very handily even if everyone is using the exact same gear. Low-level characters will drift away from crits and into grazes and hits. High-level characters will drift away from misses and into hits and crits. Two characters of the same level would, all other things being equal, likely have a solid chance to hit or graze, with a small chance to miss or crit. Most encounters are not toe-to-toe contests of equals. I.e. the PCs usually have the advantage because they are often fighting a series of battles that are wearing them down, and often more enemies than party members. As a result, the math would skew toward the higher level PCs hitting more often, missing less often, grazing being common. The monsters would miss more often and possibly graze more often than hit.

 

Certain character builds might alter the "bands" either offensively or defensively. E.g. a rogue might have an ability that pushes their "miss" boundary for certain defenses two steps up, meaning some attacks against them that would normally be grazes are converted to misses. A fighter might have an ability that makes their melee graze range extend two steps lower, turning more misses into grazes.

Very much in favor of a system like this . Now just add some interesting effects at the very top end, and the very bottom end, that are incredibly rare, but spice up gameplay similarly to how a well designed legendary item can once it shows up.

[ShadowTiger]

Arcanum has missing, interesting criticals, called shots, and a fatigue system that allows you to knock enemies uncontentious if they have too much armor/hp. However, being unconscious is not necessarily a defeat since you can recover and rejoin the battle. You can also get disarms and disarmors on a critical hit/miss. I don't remember it ever being a problem, it makes the combat interesting because of the chaos that occasionally ensues.

 

It worked out well in that game because you got multiple attacks, at least 2 every turn if not more. So while sometimes you would waste your turn missing 3 times in a row, if you put points into your relevant combat skill you would usually hit. In that game hitting is pretty frequent, but damage is usually not too bad unless you are fighting with/against a bruiser. There was also a wealth of healing potions/spells that didn't take up your whole turn, so thats something to consider as well. I just wanted to bring up a game that is relevant to some people's discussions that maybe they have never heard about.

 

I am okay with deterministic combat in a strategy game, but in an RPG I prefer more dice rolling. I think there is too much focus on specific mechanics when really the deciding factor of what is fun and what is not is simply getting the right ratio of ingredients. That requires playtesting and tweaking more than anything else. I think the idea presented so far is fine and should work out great.

Edited January 6, 2013 by ShadowTiger

[Valorian]

Sawyer from Something Awful:

This can also work the other way, where the critical hit range is some fixed distance away from to-hit score. Maybe it's 8 points (for example). So if you score a hit on 13 or higher, you can't crit. Tough. If you score a hit on a 5 or higher, you'll crit on a 13 or higher. The worst case, as with grazes on 1, would be a hit on 20.

 

While I like the rest of the reiterated to-hit mechanics, I'd like to point out a few things about this part.

 

Having crits on a sliding scale tied with to-hit vs defense further increases the gap between characters of different levels. If a character can crit almost every other hit for 150% of his maximum damage.. then yeah, it gets nasty.

I know that +8 is an example, but still, even if it was +10 (which would be better, IMO), there should still be tweaks to the proposed crit system to not make it too powerful.

 

Instead of 150% of maximum damage, I'd suggest to still keep the damage roll. If the damage range is 6-12, instead of always critting for a monotonous 18 damage, you'd crit from 9-18 damage.

Keeping half the minimum damage for grazes is fine though.

[Adhin]

I've never been a fan of the random roll for crit dmg unless its at least an x2 base. 9-18 vs a 6-12 is barely a difference and leaves part of the 'critical hit' with in the normal range of a basic hit making part of your critical hits pointless. Add to that crits can be an extreme rarity having it do normal dmg when it does happen is just a big let down. One reason I was happy to see they chose to go with max dmg *1.5 (base). It just makes more sense as a critical hit that way and stops the awkward parts where your suppose 'critical hit' does the same dmg you normally do. I mean whats the point of having critical hits if they don't do more damage consistently?

[rjshae]

---

Edited January 6, 2013 by rjshae

[Valorian]

Alright, how about 13-18 so that people get the feeling it's a special (critical) hit?

 

So the crit damage range would actually be maximum + 1 to maximum + 50%.

 

I don't want to always crit for the same damage value against an enemy.

[Adhin]

See that's probably where we differ. It's a critical hit, its already random even if the dmg you do is always the same 'when' its a critical hit. Though if they wanted to add a range into it I wouldn't care as long as its always better then a normal hit. DnD only ever has that issue if your playing a char with no STR or bonuses. Once you have +4 or more added to your damage your crits, even on min rolls, are always better then a max normal. So the weakest rogues or a no str mage which... who cares at that point.

 

If you want a random range they could do max roll and then 110-150% dmg which would result in that. Always 150%, range of 110 to whatever, I don't care. I just don't want the possibility of your crits being a normal hit.

[Valorian]

The part you probably didn't consider is DT.

 

Even the toned down critical I proposed would make a huge difference.

 

If a given armor absorbs 10 damage against your specific weapon:

 

Normal 6 - 12 damage would result in 1 (min. 20%) - 2 damage. Which is miserable.

 

Critical 13 - 18 damage would result in 3 - 8 damage. Which is not bad.

 

I don't think it would be a good thing to deal either 1 point of damage or 8 times as much damage...

You see how the 150% of maximum damage is disproportionately more powerful.

 

Of course, passive abilities could improve the crit range and crit damage.

Edited January 6, 2013 by Valorian

[Adhin]

It's not, actually, go back a few pages I did the math using the critical hit chances for average damage. DnD had a higher average (BG and so forth) then PE did but lower hit chances with glances had it winning out slightly. Critical hits are however still worse then DnD's with only 1.5 dmg boost even at max. Jist of it was 21/20 for the 2 first hits, 20/20 for the PE variant. Dropped off for the last 2 hits in a turn on DnD side, kept up for PE due to glancing blows. Avg dmg a turn for DnD over time was about 64, PE was 70-ish (again, due to glancing blows, not critical hits).

 

-edit-

If you want another DnD comparison in dmg directly take a Longsword of that same dmg variable I was using, 17-24. In DnD that's a 10% chance of 34-48 dmg. PE it would always be 36 dmg which is on the lower end of rolls in a base x2. There system ultimately is less dmg on crits, but its more consistent (which is better for balance and battle pacing) and, ultimately, always better then a normal hit (so is DnD though). Like I said they'd have to use an x2 base modifier or higher to ensure a min roll is always higher (for vast majority of dmg spreads anyway). As is, they're crits are less big bursts then DnD but always better regardless of your build.

Edited January 6, 2013 by Adhin

[Ineth]

In desperation, I had Viconia cast Hold Monster at the Demonknight, knowing the spell would almost certainly be resisted.

 

It wasn't. I Held the Demonknight, and promptly pincushioned it to death with arrow and dart attacks. That was amazing, and it was amazing because it was extremely unlikely to work.

 

Having wide ranges of possible outcomes (randomness) allows for high-risk high-reward tactics to succeed, albeit rarely. Normalising the outcomes, thought, eliminates high-risk tactics by causing them always to fail. If my enemy cannot miss, then he cannot miss three times in a row when I only have 1 hp left, but if he can miss then that outcome remains possible, and encounters remain exciting right up until the moment when I succeed or fail.

 

Normalising the outcomes makes combat less exciting.

 

Amen to that.

[Ineth]

RNG is the enemy of good planning and solid tactics because it makes the best plan that should work with no problem at all blow up in your face for no other reason than dumb luck and a bad random number roll.

 

Hear, hear.

 

Well, an adventure is not a game of chess that your characters can win from the safety of their living-room armchair. An adventure entails plunging into the unknown, and taking risks.

 

During a good adventure, even a perfectly designed plan or strategy might potentially fall apart when push comes to shove. And the heroes are forced to come up with a (probably more reckless) "plan B" on the spot. But if they make it through it, success will be that much sweeter.