User avatar
Fenhorn
Moderator
Posts: 4429
Joined: Thu 24 Apr 2014, 15:03
Location: Sweden

Re: Please consider making high rolls win opposed rolls

Mon 30 Jan 2023, 22:14

Poison: Your CON-value does not matter, it’s only the poison strength that matters (since poison is active and you are passive if I remeber correctly).
If you are poisoned with a poison with a Potency of 14, then if the poison roll is 1-14, we have an opposed roll, if the poison roll is 15-20, you win (regardless of your CON). It is true that if you have a CON of 15-18, it wouldn't matter in this particular case (but it will matter against poisons with a higher Potency), but if you have a CON below 15 it does matter. If you have a CON of 10 and your roll 11-20, you fail the opposed roll, no matter if the poison roll was 1 or 14.

I could do similar examples with any other active/passive skill.

I do know that there are other methods to do this, it makes less of a difference than people thinks, that's all. If we have 12 vs. 15, and they both roll 1-12 then you just compare rolls, if the passive part (15) rolls 16+, he would loose regardless if the active part rolls 1 or 12. If he rolls 13-15 then he wouldn't have any benefit to have 15, in this particular example. Versus someone that has 15 it would be useful of course. 13-15 is only 20% of his successful rolls.

Some people likes to write example with active 5 and passive 15 or something like that and then of course it doesn't matter of you have 6-15, but on the other hand, the active part fails on 6+.

If FL changes this then they must also think about how some rolls work, otherwise we might end up benefit the one with the higher score so much so the one with the lower score can't even succeed.


My personal opinion in this is to bring back the old classic resistance table. Sure it probably has its flaws, but it is classic, but that would probably means a lot of changes to the rules.
“Thanks for noticin' me.” - Eeyore
 
rennarda
Posts: 94
Joined: Fri 20 Dec 2019, 15:28

Re: Please consider making high rolls win opposed rolls

Mon 06 Feb 2023, 12:01

I agree with the criticism of this rule.

Imagine a low skilled character (3-5, say) - they would not succeed particularly often, but when they did succeed it would make little difference whether their opponent was also unskilled, or highly skilled - as that opponent has now only effectively got the same skill range as the low skilled character if they want to beat their opposed roll.

Intuitively, even if the low skilled character succeeds in their part of the roll, the skill of the target should also be taken into consideration. An unskilled brawler grappling an another unskilled brawler should have more chance of success than if they tackled a highly skilled warrior. Regardless of the skill of the active character, the skilled defender should succeed more often than the unskilled defender, and this just isn't the case in the RAW currently.

The simplest fix is to consider margin of success for opposed rolls. The better fix is to always use the number rolled as the margin of success for all rolls, as long as it is under your skill - the so called 'blackjack' rule. The wrinkle here is that 'dragons' are 1s and are critical successes, so that slightly breaks the logic of rolling as high as possible, but I think I can live with that.
 
Ugglefar
Posts: 117
Joined: Thu 04 Aug 2016, 21:17
Location: Norway

Re: Please consider making high rolls win opposed rolls

Tue 07 Feb 2023, 14:49

I agree with the criticism of this rule.

Imagine a low skilled character (3-5, say) - they would not succeed particularly often, but when they did succeed it would make little difference whether their opponent was also unskilled, or highly skilled - as that opponent has now only effectively got the same skill range as the low skilled character if they want to beat their opposed roll.

Intuitively, even if the low skilled character succeeds in their part of the roll, the skill of the target should also be taken into consideration. An unskilled brawler grappling an another unskilled brawler should have more chance of success than if they tackled a highly skilled warrior. Regardless of the skill of the active character, the skilled defender should succeed more often than the unskilled defender, and this just isn't the case in the RAW currently.

The simplest fix is to consider margin of success for opposed rolls. The better fix is to always use the number rolled as the margin of success for all rolls, as long as it is under your skill - the so called 'blackjack' rule. The wrinkle here is that 'dragons' are 1s and are critical successes, so that slightly breaks the logic of rolling as high as possible, but I think I can live with that.

Yeah I don't understand why they don't use margin of success for opposed rolls. It's such an easy solution that will not slow down the game in any way.
 
User avatar
Gaddeborg
Posts: 256
Joined: Tue 18 Feb 2014, 17:40

Re: Please consider making high rolls win opposed rolls

Wed 08 Feb 2023, 13:41

The better fix is to always use the number rolled as the margin of success for all rolls, as long as it is under your skill - the so called 'blackjack' rule. The wrinkle here is that 'dragons' are 1s and are critical successes, so that slightly breaks the logic of rolling as high as possible, but I think I can live with that.
The blackjack rule is a nightmare if it is combined with boons and banes (I have tried in another game). Imagine that one guy attacks someone with a boon, and the other dodges with a bane. First guy should roll sufficiently low but as high as possible and has to pick the one die that best suits him, and then the dodger should roll and pick the die that suits him the worst... That also has to be compared with the attackers roll... Which is the... lower? higher? (Now at least someone around the table is lost).

Ordinary margin of success is the way to go with boons and banes.
 
simontmn
Posts: 55
Joined: Thu 09 Feb 2023, 00:18

Re: Please consider making high rolls win opposed rolls

Thu 09 Feb 2023, 00:32

The better fix is to always use the number rolled as the margin of success for all rolls, as long as it is under your skill - the so called 'blackjack' rule. The wrinkle here is that 'dragons' are 1s and are critical successes, so that slightly breaks the logic of rolling as high as possible, but I think I can live with that.
The blackjack rule is a nightmare if it is combined with boons and banes (I have tried in another game). Imagine that one guy attacks someone with a boon, and the other dodges with a bane. First guy should roll sufficiently low but as high as possible and has to pick the one die that best suits him, and then the dodger should roll and pick the die that suits him the worst... That also has to be compared with the attackers roll... Which is the... lower? higher? (Now at least someone around the table is lost).

Ordinary margin of success is the way to go with boons and banes.
Yes, I don't think 'higher but not over is better' works with the bane/boon system.

I do think that in some cases if both characters succeed, it should be treated as a tie - eg in an arm wrestle it means the wrestle is still going on. That avoids the swinginess of the low skill character winning on a low roll with the high skill character's skill irrelevant. The latter mechanic is better for swingier, less predictable actions.
 
User avatar
Rathalos32
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed 07 Dec 2022, 20:14

Re: Please consider making high rolls win opposed rolls

Sat 18 Mar 2023, 00:27

In this final version they did not make this different but for some cases, like poison and some spells now you roll against the HP or the WP ignoring the Robust and Focused which, at firsts cleanse I find it satisfactory solution. What you guys think?
 
zcthu3
Posts: 121
Joined: Wed 29 May 2019, 10:34

Re: Please consider making high rolls win opposed rolls

Sat 18 Mar 2023, 03:09

In this final version they did not make this different but for some cases, like poison and some spells now you roll against the HP or the WP ignoring the Robust and Focused which, at firsts cleanse I find it satisfactory solution. What you guys think?
That’s basically rolling at CON or WIL so it’s functionally the same as the old rules. It’s also an unnecessary complexity in the text given the sidebar on page 106 tells you how to back-calculate attributes. To be honest I am still not sure why FL are seemingly so dead against including attributes in the stat-blocks which would (IMO) been a simpler fix then including a sidebar effectively telling GMs how to back-calculate those attributes. It actually makes the game more complex not less as now you need to calculate attributes when needed rather just looking at the stat block. It’s fine as it gives a way to resolve those situations where you need to roll against an attribute, but seems needlessly complex.

EDIT: re-reading that, it seems unduly negative. I am really happy we have a solution to the issue lots of us were raising as it shows FL were listening. It also matches what some of us were doing already. It just seems like a complex way of resolving it.
 
User avatar
Mcgibs
Posts: 29
Joined: Sun 29 Jan 2023, 01:22

Re: Please consider making high rolls win opposed rolls

Sat 18 Mar 2023, 04:21

I don't find the backtracking to be overly tedius as they've set it up to really only be 3 values: 10, 14, and 17. Weak, Average, and Strong.
The damage dice is effectively telling you the stat by itself and another number would be redundant, and health and will it's very easy to see at a glance for the very rare occasions testing against CON or WIL arise.
After a couple sessions, that just seems like it will be second nature, so I get why they didnt want to fuss with additional stats on npc/monster cards. These things aren't that dynamic, so there's not a lot to memorize.
 
zcthu3
Posts: 121
Joined: Wed 29 May 2019, 10:34

Re: Please consider making high rolls win opposed rolls

Sat 18 Mar 2023, 04:52

I don't find the backtracking to be overly tedius as they've set it up to really only be 3 values: 10, 14, and 17. Weak, Average, and Strong.
The damage dice is effectively telling you the stat by itself and another number would be redundant, and health and will it's very easy to see at a glance for the very rare occasions testing against CON or WIL arise.
After a couple sessions, that just seems like it will be second nature, so I get why they didnt want to fuss with additional stats on npc/monster cards. These things aren't that dynamic, so there's not a lot to memorize.
On one hand I agree - it’s pretty much second nature to me now - on the other hand, some people aren’t good at memorising / internalising these sorts of things (I have a friend who’s a university professor and who constantly needs to be reminded of rules that everyone else on our group has internalised) and having the attributes listed would be massively helpful. It’s just an extra step that could have been avoided with what would appear to be some minor changes to the stat blocks. I wonder if it was just difficult to redo the layout of the stat blocks.
 
Von Ether
Posts: 104
Joined: Wed 31 Aug 2022, 16:09

Re: Please consider making high rolls win opposed rolls

Mon 20 Mar 2023, 04:07

I don't find the backtracking to be overly tedius as they've set it up to really only be 3 values: 10, 14, and 17. Weak, Average, and Strong.
The damage dice is effectively telling you the stat by itself and another number would be redundant, and health and will it's very easy to see at a glance for the very rare occasions testing against CON or WIL arise.
After a couple sessions, that just seems like it will be second nature, so I get why they didnt want to fuss with additional stats on npc/monster cards. These things aren't that dynamic, so there's not a lot to memorize.
I can't complain since I was going to go the three values route as a house rule if need be, though I was thinking 10, 13, and 18. But I am coming around to 17 as it makes NPCs more fallible, literally.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest