Jump to content
D6 Online 3.0

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Earlier
  2. Sounds good. I know how rough it can be switching even between versions of MS Office. Hang in there!
  3. 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.
  4. Jerry Grayson tweeted a link to a preview of his Terra Oblivion setting, which is launching as a Kickstarter project on Wednesday.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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?
  8. 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.
  9. 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?
  10. 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.
  11. And yes, you would have a new factor to consider when you add ranged weapons and flying creatures. Or area weapons like breathe weapons.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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?
  15. 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
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. 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?
  20. 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
  21. 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.
  22. Hmmm, not to be a bummer but that doesn't help me much. I'm using the d6 fantasy book since that's what I have (and the d6 system book) and it doesn't really say anything about gaining new spells. If you could either suggest a way that would work or point me to a book that spells it out better I'd really appreciate it. Like I said earlier, I'm still a noob to this system so I don't really know what's out there
  23. It depends on which system you are using. If you use a system kind of based on the "Force" from Star Wars, you will be limited based on your Force dice number. If you use other systems, they may have other methods. Sadly many do not easily list (so it can be found) what it takes to gain new spells. Often times it is the die level in the Magic or some such.
  24. Once you get the concept down, and settled on a type of mechanic for the magic system, the next thing you will need to do is determine the "power level" of the magic. Are there "low level" magic and "high level" magic, or is it all really powerful? If it IS really powerful, what is the limiting factor of the magic? Can only one really powerful spell be cast per day or before the caster has used up all of their components? Then you have to start putting Die codes in for the effects of spells. Low power magic is going to be 1D to 3D or so. Mid level power is 4D up to 6D or so. High level power is 7D or greater. Decide whether you want your magic to be something the targets can "resist" against. Basically, does a target get a chance to roll to "not suffer" any damage from the spell? Or does the spell automatically cause damage? Decide whether your magic is an "instant hit", with no die roll needed, or if they need to make a Spellcasting skill check or something in order to successfully hit the target. If you have an auto-hit spell (for example, a "magic missile" that automatically hits the target, but the target roll dice to resist the damage..potentially mitigating the damage a little) you can use the Die ranges I listed above. If you make it so the spell caster must roll to successfully hit with the magic missile, so that the target can be missed completely, and then also has a resistance roll, you may want to adjust the die ranges up 1 or 2D. So low level magic might be 2D to 5D and so on. Once you have the ranges to work within, write up a couple of spells you have in mind for the magic. What effect does the spell have. How much components, if any, does it use? What is its range? Is there a skill level or attribute level requirement in order to cast the spell? Make up a couple of spells. These spells will be your "base line" to build from. If you are wanting the magic to be powerful and strong, these first couple of spells will be a benchmark. If you envision that spell to be a "staple" of the spell caster, then all other spells will be built around it. Future spell Y is supposed to be more potent than the "staple" spell, so you bump up the Die codes a die or two. Future spell X is supposed to be less potent, so it's die codes may be only pips or 1D lower than your "staple" spell. After you get 5 or so spells written up with your mechanics, STOP! Make an NPC who is a spell caster and another NPC who is not a spell caster. Have them go toe-to-toe. Does the spell caster snuff out the regular NPC without any threat? Is that what you wanted? If so, mission accomplished. If not, then you know you set your die codes too high, or your component requirements too low. Did your mock combat take too long to resolve and your were shooting for a fast-moving magic system? Time to revamp! Did the regular NPC take out the spell caster without suffering much in the way of damage? Is that what you wanted for a starting character? If not, you need to rethink some things. Don't just assume you need to bump up the die codes for damage if the regular NPC won the battle. Perhaps you made the requirements for the spell caster too restrictive. Perhaps you found that your component requirement only allowed the spell caster to cast one or two spells, and that didn't take out the regular NPC, then the spell caster was helpless. If that is what you are going for with a starting spell caster, then you are on the right track. If you want your spell caster to need to rely on others some of the time, and not be the all-powerful uber character right off the bat, then perhaps you're going for a spell caster being able to cast only a couple of spells early, and then rely on other characters for protection. You should be able to get a good read on the power levels of the spells and the casting ability of the spell caster for your magic system. If you have success with the first NPC vs. NPC, then make a few more spells and give those a try as well. Then put your NPC spell caster up against a couple 3 or 4 NPCs and see how they fair. YOU should have in mind how you want this magic to work in your setting. These tests should be good at showing any obvious, glaring holes in your system.
  25. Ok this is probably going to sound like a boneheaded question but after play begins how does a magic user gain additional spells? I know that spells are designed but is there any expenditure of character points or something to gain the new spell or is it just the game time required to formulate it? Kind of confusing to me
  1. Load more activity
×
×
  • Create New...