Jump to content
D6 Online 3.0

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Last week
  2. I noticed a while ago that there weren't any rules for poison or disease in open d6. I only ask now because it actually came up with a player wanting to play an assassin poison user. Is there a section on it in a book I missed or did it just not get covered? If so could someone point me to a solution? Thanks
  3. I've thought about doing that in the past too, because I do not fear the "bucket of dice." But a player could leave their PC's Alter skill low and let those powers that include Alter just ride on the other skills being high, which would be the player making difficult Alter rolls with the other skills. So if you are going to make individual Force skills less important anyway, it would be easier to just go with Grimace's suggestion to reduce rolls.
  4. Earlier
  5. That's kind of difficult to ascertain. You would definitely be increasing the number of dice that need to be rolled, and your difficulties would be increasing possibly above 31, which kind of smells a bit of "inflated munchkinism". Honestly, if you're going to work with the concept of just one roll for activating Force powers, it would probably be better to just use the one primary Force power and then subtract a couple dice for each added Force activation that would normally be needed. So if it's a Two Force Power activation ability, you just figure out which is the best Force power, subtract a die or two from it, and roll vs. the regular difficulty. Success means the ability is active, and it's done in one roll. Failure means they couldn't concentrate enough to activate that Force ability.
  6. This is an old question I've always wondered about for force skills in first edition star wars. Would it break anything if instead of making multiple rolls against separate difficulties if by combing the dice pools and making a single roll against the combined difficulty would work? I'm not good with the math of it but I thought it would streamline the process a lot and keep the game moving as intended
  7. Sounds good. I know how rough it can be switching even between versions of MS Office. Hang in there!
  8. May be something of a delay on this, present pc's all use libreoffice rather than whatever version of word my old computer had, so present focus is on redoing/cleaning up house rules documents and handouts as established up to this point; none of my old existing files open correctly in libreoffice, things are moved around, spacing is wrong, font size wierd in places, pics inserted as fill for objects (charts tables etc) are gone or incorrectly displayed. Thank god i had uploaded screenies here and had printed out copies in my binder or all would be lost. Once thats all done I'll try to proceed with a rough draft for this mass combat project. If you guys run with whats there so far and develop it further i'll be happy to steal all your good ideas and bundle them into a document with all of this stuff when time permits.
  9. Jerry Grayson tweeted a link to a preview of his Terra Oblivion setting, which is launching as a Kickstarter project on Wednesday.
  10. Perhaps the best thing to do with regards to toughness is to break down the units into purchase parts. You purchase: Armor, Weapons, Skill/Toughness This way when your PCs build their units, you have a rough cost for how much the squad costs to field. Also, it makes for infinite combinations.
  11. I'm not sure if adding a Wild Die roll for attrition would be a good thing. Like you said, might be too "swingy". And the only thing I could suggest when you write this up is to give some "examples", but with the stated exception that the stats are all "best guesses" and can fluctuate based on the setting.
  12. Sorry guys was busy with stupid stuff, maintenence and such. Going to have to take a break and play some skyrim but i might yet summon the gumption to get this better sorted and in a player handout type format maybe with a scrap of artwork or two to make it look purdy. GM judgement will be needed as far as assigning toughness scores to units, i think it would be a mistake to lock units by toughness down into a chart unless it is understood that such is just a recommendation; for example, in one campaign peasants in leather with spears might be toughness 1 but in another a more exotic troop type that might be toughness 2 in the first campaign could be more common or inexpensive and might rightly rest at toughness 1 rather 2. Wolf mounted goblin archers might be rare and expensive and skilled in one campaign but in another be cannon fodder tier common with lousy sickly wolves and sub-par bows. One possible revision that occured to me was making attrition a single wild die plus toughness, how does that rub you guys? Too random? or perhaps that very mechanical change could be the special ability of some rare or magical unit, perhaps a solid representation of a fear effect that a dragon or some undead might have?
  13. I'm thinking yes. A win by melee is them getting their shields up in time, keeping in formation or whatever, but since ranged units are out of range for them to attack. Then, even if they win, the archers get to slap them with attrition.
  14. EDIT Okay might be too favorable of quality, maybe add toughness to attrition rather than multiply it. eta 2 thoughts on ranged; treat as normal, opposed roll, but no attrition against ranged units that are not engaged in direct melee with target units?
  15. I'm going to think on it a bit and maybe try to type it out in a more coherent bullet point order with adjustments and see if we can get it to work better, I think we should retain the core concept of base 10 for organization and maybe deepen the impact of the units "toughness" concept. Optional thoughts towards this end: >maybe make it so that a units toughness score divided into base 10 dictates how many of them it takes to contribute a single whole dice to the attack roll, so perhaps ten toughness 1 creatures make a die, 5 toughness 2 creatures make a die, and so on, using rounding as needed. >multiply attrition by toughness. So trying this formula; 50 spearmen at toughness 1 versus 30 footmen at toughness 2: 5D attack for spears (10 divided by toughness 1 is 10 spearmen per 1D); 6D attack for footmen ( 10 divided by toughness 2 is 5 footmen per 1D); (using this dice roller: http://rpetras.com/d6_data/dice_roller_graphical.html ) 16 for spear, 19 for foot, difference of 3, so 3 casualties for the spearmen with a toughness of 1 spearmens attrition count (1 per die rolled times their toughness score) of 5 divided by foots toughness of 2 gives us foot casualty of 2. Spearmen count is now 47; footmen count is now 28. Lets be generous, spear attack is now at 4D+2; foot attack is now at 5D+2. Rolling: 18 for spear, oof, 11 for foot. difference of 7 7 divide by foots toughness of 2 is 3 casualties inflicted on footmen. Footmen attrition is 1 per die they rolled (5 in this case) multiplied by toughness of 2, so 10 casualties inflicted on spearmen. spearmen count is now 37, footmen count is now 25. Maybe this is better? waiting to hear your thoughts, hope this doesn't favor quality TOO much.
  16. And yes, you would have a new factor to consider when you add ranged weapons and flying creatures. Or area weapons like breathe weapons.
  17. So if you do attrition only against the victor of the round, we could have something like this: 50 Spearmen (1) vs. 30 Heavy Foot (2) 5D vs. 3D. 11 vs 11 (yes, I am rolling the dice) No skill difference, so then it would go to attrition? Spearmen lose 3, Heavy Foot lose 2 (5/2= 2.5, round to 2) 47 Spearmen vs. 28 Heavy Foot 4D+2 vs. 2D +2 24 vs 11. Spearmen win, inflicting 13 difference divided by 2, or 6 losses against Heavy Foot. Heavy Foot get attrition hits of 2, killing 2 Spearmen. 45 Spearmen vs. 22 Heavy Foot 4D+2 vs. 2D+1 14 vs 6. Difference of 8 means 4 more Heavy Foot are killed. The Heavy Foot inflict 2 hits on the Spearmen 43 Spearmen vs. 18 Heavy Foot 4D+1 vs. 1D+2 10 vs 4. Difference of 6 means 3 more Heavy Foot are killed. They kill only 1 Spearmen in response. 42 Spearmen vs. 15 Heavy Foot. I think the concept of inflicting damage upon the victor seems like it might work, trying to keep a runaway from happening. At the same time, once it has happened 3 rolls in a row, it still pretty much turns into a runaway battle. Even if I end up taking into account the "offset" due to Heavy Foot vs. Spearmen, that would be another 5 losses to the Spearmen, but they would still have enough to effectively wipe out the heavy foot and likely lose less than half of their starting numbers.
  18. EDIT derp, another option occured to me, we remove the attrition phase entirely, and have attrition count be inflcted by the loser of the roll, winners roll determines the winners casualties inflicted while the loser inflicts only the attrition calculation on the roll winner maybe... god i hate math.
  19. My impulse is to say yes adjust it. I mentioned it earlier as it occured to me but perhaps the toughness score should be added to or used as a multiplier for the pre-roll attrition. Or maybe it will multiply for the attrition portion but then add to the roll (or vice versa?). Let's try that now, as part of another scenario where one side doesn't have the minimum 10 guys. Let's try 50 spearmen Toughness 1, vs 5 giants at toughness 5. In D6 you almost never "don't roll", you get a wild die at least, so the giants will be rolling 1D and the spearmen 5D. 5 attrition for 50 spearmen kills one giant. Attrition for the giants is either (1 for the single die plus their toughness of 5, thus 6 total) or (1 for the die times 5 giants thus 5). Lets go with the first option, addition instead. So net result before roll is 1 giant down and 6 spearmen down. Lets say the roll is 18 for the spearmen and 5 for the giants, difference of 13. That would kill two more giants, leaving two, each with possibly minor wounds (not relevant for any but descriptive purpose since we like whole numbers). Next round would be 44 spearmen vs 2 giants. Spear attrition inflicted =4, giants down another 6 spearmen. So, not equaling 5, and whole numbers being preferred due to mathematical laziness, this round of spear attrition has no effect. Then the roll of 4D (maybe 4D+1 if feeling generous) vs the giants wild die. Lets say 13 again for the spearmen vs the giants 4. Net result is now 38 spearmen vs 1 giant. And under current formula they simply cannot kill it with attrition, only their roll. While that is better, still It seems that as it stands troop quality is not factoring in well enough. Top o' the head options: 1) Toughness is added to both the roll and the attrition. 2) Toughness multiplies the attrition inflicted but adds to the roll. 3) Command rolls or character point / fate point usage to boost or diminish attrition. 4) New formula for attack dice based on toughness rating; treating toughness number as pips of attack dice, thus 30 goblins at toughness 1 equals 1D attack. Other concerns, how to handle those units that can attack from range until closed with, how to deal with flying or teleporting units, how to represent special powers of some units like spell casting, breath weapons, flying, drain life etc. And how far can we break it down via casualties before it ceases to be mass combat and becomes normal combat. Worth also considering is mathematical operations for units of 100 or 1000 instead of tens, simply plug in zeroes?
  20. Thanks for the positive reinforcement. Yea, that's the bare bones of the magic system I wanted to use. I'll tweak it a bit to hammer out any potential problems or contradictions. But in a nutshell this is my first creation for d6. Your approval must mean I'm not a boneheaded as I thought
  21. Yeah, that would work fine. If this is for the design of your own magic system, just use what works for THAT magic. Don't rely on something else that may not fit what you have in mind for the magic. If it's not for the magic system, you'll have to forgive me as I don't have any of my books around me that I can reference to give that info to you.
  22. Interesting. Yeah, I think something would have to be taken into consideration about troop quality. A rabble of goblins isn't likely to be as effective as a trained unit of dwarves, even though the goblins may have more bodies than the dwarves. Basically, a goblin at 3D combat vs. a Dwarf at 6D combat is about twice as good as the goblin. Goblins use numbers in an attempt to overwhelm a "better enemy". (consider it akin to the 1980's logic that said "Quantity is a quality all its own"). So 50 Goblins against 30 Dwarves gives the Goblins 5D and the Dwarves 3D. Yes, the Dwarves would probably be a 2 hit whereas the Goblins are a 1 hit. But just cracking the numbers for the attrition, the Goblins lose 3 and the Dwarves lose 2 and one more is wounded. Then the roll. Goblins get 21. Dwarves get 5. Difference is 16. Dwarves would lose 8 more! So the Goblins are down to 47, and the Dwarves are down to 20...with one of them wounded. Do you then adjust the values? So is it 4D+2 for the Goblins and 2D for the Dwarves? Or does it stay at the higher 5D and 3D? As you can see, the better trained, and likely better armored Dwarves are going to get butchered. So there should be something to better reflect skill level and perhaps armor difference of foes. After a second round, if I adjust the numbers, The Goblins lose 2 for attrition, the Dwarves lose 1. Then the roll. Dwarves get 11. Goblins get 20. Difference of 9. That's 4 more losses and another wound (or you could say the one wounded dwarf dies, so it would be 5 losses) So the Dwarves lose 6 more, and the Goblins only lose 2. Remaining force is Goblins 45, Dwarves 14. If that adjusts again, the Goblins are at 4D+1(?) and the Dwarves at 1D+1. Goblins lose 1. Dwarves lose 2. Roll Dwarves 6, Goblins 15. Difference of 9, so 4 more Dwarves lost and one wounded. Total losses is Dwarves 6 and Goblins 1. Remaining forces is Goblins 44 and Dwarves 8. It'll just get worse from there. So I like the IDEA, but there needs to be something to better reflect the training of the groups, and possibly any armor differences in the groups.
  23. yes. before the opposed roll there is automatic attrition of 1 wound level per die rolled, or per 10 spearmen in this case. since the footmen are worth 2 wounds per dude, 10 divide by 2 equals 5 attrition casualities (out of the fight or dead) before the opposed roll. Both sides suffer this calculation, then the roll is made, and the result total is inflicted on the loser, divided by their toughness or wounds per guy, which we said in this example was 2 for the heavy footmen. both side suffers wounds attrition prior to the roll, which is equal to the number of dice the oppenent roll, which is then divided by their wounds per guy or toughness rating (1 for the spearmen, 2 for the heavy footman). In the example initial attrition of 10 divide by 2 for the footman is 5 guys down, then the spearmen beat the footmens roll by 10, which again divided by the footmans toughness is 5 more for a total of ten, 75 becomes 65. at this point i guess it would be some abstract notion of their equipment and training. But it occured to me that maybe that toughness rating should be added to that initial pre-roll attrition or multiply it if we want to really make a distinction in troop quality. I would group them as largely as i could around the 10 spot. I would do 8 groups of ten for the orcs each adding 1D for a total attack of 8D. Same with hybsil (dunno what a hybsil is) and I'd make the centaurs 4 groups of 10 and one group of 8 and let them roll 4D+2 or round up to 5D. Yeah some winging it would be required, ideally have it reflect their cost to recruit and maintain, their rarity. I would something like giants at 4-5 toughness and even a single dragon at 6-10 maybe. This is still all theory btw.
  24. I "kind of" think I get what you are going for, but I'm still fuzzy on the math. So you're taking 100 spearmen and grouping them into 10 groups of 10 men. Each group generates 1D in attack? But you said that spearmen inflict 10 wounds. How? Just by having 10D in attack? Do they roll and compare to the attack of the heavy foot? And you said it went to 65 heavy foot and 93 spearmen. But if the heavy foot only suffered 5 losses, wouldn't they be at 70 heavy foot? What constitutes more or less durable units? I've give you an example of a mass combat grouping I had in a fantasy campaign I ran back in the early 2000s. I had 30 Hybsil, 48 Centaurs, and a group of player characters. They were going up against 80 Orcs. Now I could group the 80 Orcs into 10 groups of 8, or 8 groups of 10. The Hybsils I could do 3 groups of 10. But the Centaurs...what? 4 Groups of 10 and a Group of 8? 4 Groups of 12? 6 groups of 8 to reflect they are more robust for less bodies? And how would I determine the hits they could take? Do I just "wing it" to decide the Hybsils take 1 wound, the Orcs 2, and the Centaurs 3? Or is there some other way of determining the wounds a group could take?
  25. Ok, just had a thought that maybe the answer I'm looking for. Just wanted to get feedback on it before rolling with it. Basically I'm thinking 2 ways to add spell knowledge after character creation. 1, equipment advantage for a wizard (ect) to gain new spells for say 3-5 character points since the formula is already done. The pc can add the spell to their character between adventures. 2, they can work them out themselves through trial and error but it takes longer and costs more character points. Maybe 10+. And 3, combine the two. They can find grimoires or whatever or buy scrolls and make out their own spells on their own. Would you think that would work since you've got almost my whole lifespan in experience with the rules
  26. Mass combat... For tactical level I'm thinking something similar to this: https://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=1566 Group units by tens hundreds or thousands as befits the size of the engagement, making opposed rolls at 1D per relevant group factor (100 spearmen grouped by ten would be 10D), deduct attrition from both sides engaged in melee against a wound level factor appropriate to their toughness or prowess (say 1 for simplest infantry, 2 for heavier infantry or 3 for gargoyles or whatever) and then apply the result point total to the loser via this same attrition lense. So lets say 100 spearmen (10D attack, 1 wound point per) vs 75 heavy footmen (7D+2 attack, 2 wound points per) engage in melee. The spearmen inflict via attrition 10 wounds (1 per die rolled) and the footmen inflict 7 (1 per die rolled). The 10 wounds on the footmen (wound points 2 per) translate thus into 5 men killed or disabled, and the spearmen lose 7 (7d+2 is 7 losses at 1 wound/attrition per), then the loser (lets say the footmen) of the roll suffers further attrition equal to the result point total, lets say that total is 10, at wounds 2 per they lose 5 more. so now its 65 heavy footmen vs 93 spearmen. I suppose with this experiment archers would have to generate an attack roll good enough to hit at that range and the result point attrition above range would only work one way until they can be engaged in melee. maybe let defenders use turtle/shield tactic to increase their wounds per by 1, maybe have heavy armor do the same. For strategic scale, a system much more akin to axis and allies would work I think, given that at that scale you are essentially playing fantasy axis and allies.
  1. Load more activity
×
×
  • Create New...