Jump to content
D6 Online 3.0

slipshot762

Members
  • Content Count

    32
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

slipshot762 last won the day on January 19

slipshot762 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2 Neutral

About slipshot762

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. 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.
  2. 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?
  3. 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?
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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?
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. It does indeed! Thank you! I checked out a word doc version of the buffy the vampire slayer D6 iteration to see how undead were handled there, too. I'm beginning to shy away from a uniform "monster manual" approach as taken in d&d, where a monster of a given type is the same in general with known pre-packaged abilities and weaknesses, and leaning toward making it vary by creature and adventure, otherwise the flexibility of D6 is lost; or at least not utilized to its fullest potential. it's funny how once players get a good grip on D6 simply nothing else will do, anything else is too limiting. amazing in truth. so long as everyone knows that: 1) to be touched by undead will have extranormal negative results such as fatigue or drain 2) silver, magic, religous items/influence or spending fate point per attack is required in the short term 3) negative effects may require intervention of priests/temples or quests to mitigate or remove 4) many such creatures can be defeated short term with above methods, but long term defeat may require methods to break the curse that created them. This would prevent players from memorizing a laundry list of "right moves" vs assorted undead, instead, they'd have a short list of things generally known to be useful against most "spirits" or "devils of the flesh", reviving the fear horror and mystery such creatures used to evoke before everyone read the monster manual and became cold blooded professionals. It would keep them on their toes and "honest", as it were. Thanks again, your input has helped greatly with the creative block i've had with this matter, and i've also recently surpassed another with regard to a possible conversion of the fuedal lord simulator that was the birthright setting; where counties/territories had a stat for material/magic capacity listed like (6/2); in D6 i'd simply convert those to dice and treat it the way the "funds" attribute was treated. Thus a player with lands would allocate these material or magic "funds" dice in a month to different projects to achieve their fuedal desires; raising troops or increasing trade or filling the forest with gargoyles or whatever. Think of the Stronghold series of video games were you have to assign workers to a wide range of projects to make the food and supplies needed to build walls and raise armies and such. Still going to nail down something similar for mass combat too, both tactical where units of 50-100 troops of similar kit become single entities and manuever and opposed roll (draw heavily from D6 star wars capitol ship combat for this I think) and strategic level, though I think at the strategic level opposed command rolls would give me the gist of an invasions outcome. So maybe an invasion would begin with opposed command rolls for a general outcome, a tactical level battle using groups of archer/infantry/cavalry similar to a SW-D6 capship battle, and a small adventure for players within that tactical setting similar to the scene/encounter/round break down in star wars where they have at least some influence on the large scale outcome. While sorting these things out i'm also trying to decide the type of campaign setting i want and that i think my players will like, which is hard in terms of balancing everyones expectations with my own, but I think I'm nearly there. I'd love to share my thoughts on that but this IS a creature conversion thread and I do not want to derail it too badly, I'll try to limit further contribution here to statting critters and maybe make a different thread or add to an existing one whose subject is world building or similar, I believe theres one of yours, Grimace, discussing your years of homebrew for D6 from before the release of D6 Fantasy, I may dump my jumbled thoughts there when next I get time. As of now, though, I'm thinking creature conversions are best done on an individual adventure basis, the zombies of the black temple may be very different from the cannibal corpses of dark-light tower for example. Thanks again gentlefolk!
  10. maybe i'm once again over thinking it. someone irl just pointed out that i'm stuck in the d&d mindset regarding incorporeal undead and that such creatures in different videogames perhaps offer a solution; for example incorporeal undead appear in skyrim and can be hurt with normal weapons w/o too much breaking of immersion (they are less "not physically there" and more physically made of cold generating soul sucking ectoplasm) - or in the guantlet remake, incorporeal undead appear, swirl around making straffing runs where they try to dive through you and "poof out" if struck only to return over and over every 15-30 seconds until the pile of bones from which they spawn is destroyed. Perhaps such creatures are the one case where using hit points/body points rather than wound levels are would be preferred. But setting that problem aside, what about undead that "drain" in some fashion? how would we best translate that into d6 fantasy? a vampire that grapples you drains what exactly and how much? 1D pips? a whole die? same question for wraiths or specters or what have you...do they drain anything or just try to strangle you, or claw with necrosis inducing results? are almost all answers here valid? and might it be that no two such critters would be alike mechanically? incorporeal undead could just do normal damage alone leaving frostbite type wounds or necrotic type wounds, or they could drain attributes, and if they drain, does the loss return over time via normal healing or does it require a priest or a quest or the final true destruction of the monster or...is it irreversible? a lot of ways one could go and it may be that my first impulse to nail it all down in a uniform universal van ritchens / van helsing type guide of repeatable consistency is a mistake? i'm dying (losing attribute dice in fact) to hear the input of others on the matter.
  11. Phoneposting so it'll be short, but undead in most source material have immunities to most physical damage unless it's energy like fire or electric, with magic or silver weapons bypassing said immunities. I can see a zombie accumulating wound levels for example, upto it being dismembered enough to be incap functionally, though I lean toward it not suffering dice penalties from such....then things like wraiths or banshees I get sort of stuck on , I can't imagine them being anything other than either fine or vanquished, making them extremely deadly in D6.
  12. For many items, say climbing gear, my first impulse is to say that they make the task easier, from very difficult to difficult for example, or possibly decrease the time required to complete, like using a drill vs a screwdriver. I say this because my players first response is to expect a bonus or modifier for using equipment, and they display hostility to the notion that equipment is a requirement to perform task at all.
  13. Still at it tho my main comp died, presently puzzling out how to give undead, especially the incorporeal kind, a fair shake stat/mechanic wise. Thinking deeply on magic items as well, hope the new year is being good to everyone so far.
  14. Well it was all well taken, players are humbly aware that D6 can do d&d just fine now. No problems cropped up in either normal play or dorking around with combat scenarios. It did finally have the effect of making players take more keen interest in D6 as written at least. I've repackaged everything so far minus spells to be more easily usable by anyone adhering closely to D6 fantasy core rules, i'll be doing the same with spells and critters when i get back to work on it. Once you consider that it works just fine in D6 to give a monster new/different attributes/skills/abilities since it typically only matters for a brief encounter anyway, conversion from other material, not just D&D, works much easier than at first conceived. So long as the attributes have a healthy skill count it hardly matters what they are called, and skill count seems to be the reason coordination was split from agility rather than splitting physique into str/con. https://ibb.co/sKQVJ5X https://ibb.co/kBDkH3g https://ibb.co/0q9gprF https://ibb.co/RbXjXtr https://ibb.co/YBhX4Bc https://ibb.co/q1Z9jS2 https://ibb.co/DtrWqLq https://ibb.co/YT0qKhb
  15. did not playtest, initial number was high because of d&d related folly i overlooked. rogue for example got a whole bunch of skill points in 3e, but in D6 we do not have the max skill ranks limitation, and having spent nothing in a skill is not as painful in D6 as it is in D&D, so I figured they could make do with 7D instead of 9D. also, as above with revising magic thats going on but i'm also converting spells from phb in order, i've made it to bigbys hands spells i'll try to grab you a screenie, it seems to my eye they convert far easier than i at first thought they would given that there is so much miniature combat related stuff thats better cut out in D6, i mean you could emulate it fine sure but i think it would just slow you down for no real gain. https://ibb.co/ScG0LhF https://ibb.co/1MPPJvz https://ibb.co/4TmNMnw https://ibb.co/gPzW30P https://ibb.co/230n4Lr https://ibb.co/YZ1mB0d https://ibb.co/nBJxsRt https://ibb.co/RYbsr5Q
×
×
  • Create New...