So I've been wondering this. What happens when a character or monster has over 100% in a skill or attack? Should you even attempt a roll at that point or does it basically boil down to maybe getting a critical failure or just seeing if they score a crit? I just don't see the point of rolling once they have a stat that is in the 120% or above range because it's pretty much guaranteed to succeed if I understand the rules unless they have some pretty hefty challenges being stacked against the roll.
Take the Dragon NPC in the rule book. It has a bite attack of 140% with a tremendous amount of damage dice. How can any party go up against that without a turn for turn party wipe with a stat that high and damage to match? That's not counting for good roleplaying and planning, of course, I'm just making an observation.
Does anyone have any House Rules that would make sure a party wipe or player Min-Max doesn't ruin the fun of the game?
BareBones Fantasy RPG is not associated with Skaldcrow Games' Bare Bones Multiverse, despite similar names. Check out Glenn's products by clicking here.
I would think at that point a creature of that power could only be beaten by characters with simalar scores.
Modifiers and boosted abilities. You can use DP to keep boosting your abilities as much as you want between sessions, and situational modifiers can apply.
So let's say, you've boosted your ability to 105 (53 for half ability to skill), while your skill is at level 6 (+60), giving you a success range of 113.
But yes, even a first level character usually has around a 3-8% chance to kill it if the GM allows a crit success to mean instant kill, or a bit less chance if the GM says the crit means only that you damage it.
Well I was thinking of something of a House Rule to even it out using the D&D Next Advantage/Disadvantage for inspiration. That doesn't mean that the regular Disadvantage rules can't be used I'm just trying to even things out a bit. Here's what I got:
I don't know. I'm just seeing that if you roll really well as a starting character (close to 80) for an ability you'll be in the 100's in no time and that can be fun for a while but make things less challenging.
You just demonstrated why I hate d20.
Complications break the feel of BBF.
It's up to the GM to provide challenges.
One of the benefits of a 100+ skill is that it gives you lots of high-chance extra actions. So a character with Warrior 110 can attack three times at better than 50% chances of success: first attack at 110, second attack at 90, and third attack at 70. Or he can get in that awesome first attack at 110 and then have some defensive rolls at 90 and 70 to dodge the dragon's flames and claws.
Minion horde, anyone?
I can see that. That does make a lot more sense. I suppose I'm just worried about more beefed up characters/monsters getting in that "awesome first hit" and it dropping something immediately because bonuses. Like with warriors and having a gigantic Strength that would give a pretty hefty bonus to damage. It's cool, don't get me wrong, I just see something like the mentioned Dragon with a 6D bite that they can do over and over and over again.
Having a score over 100 does not mean automatic success. The opponent still has a resistance check. If it's demigod vs. demigod, they could be fighting for a very long time.
I know it's not automatic success. But it's still a fairly high success on that first hit and like mentioned by Maltese it's a fairly good chance to hit again a second time around as well.
I have a feeling you're viewing things through a d20 lens. (BBF has no similarities with d20 that I've found. Simply dividing by 5 does not relate straight across.) But then, I haven't played BBF heroes of that power range. Have you?
It would seem unwise to make mechanics for a level of play one hasn't played.
The reason I'm asking is because a player of mine is dangerously close to breaching 100% in a skill (Due to really good rolls at Character creation)and since I am new to the system I wasn't sure what to tell him about how that would affect how he rolled for the skill. On top of that a few tougher monsters listed in the NPC section are above 100% in a few things and I'm wanting to use them, but again, wasn't sure how to properly roll that.
So in that respect I thought to ask here. You've helped in clarifying this, and I'm thankful, but please don't make assumptions. Yes, I do come from a D20 background but that hasn't been any trouble (so far) with this game yet. I'm just trying to wrap my head around some of the concepts.
A feeling isn't an assumption. You mentioned D&D. I wasn't trying to be insulting. I find d20 to be a frivolous waste of time with all the numbers crunching, so my statements about it are generally negative, but please don't interpret that as negative toward the player. By my saying I had a feeling you were viewing things through a d20 lens, I felt you might be looking for things to be more complicated than they are, or that they need to be more complicated. That's not a commentary about you, but about the system you may be accustomed to. I view d20, not as a game, but as a never-ending exercise in basic algebra and rules referencing.
It seems to me you are asking questions about two separate issues that you as a GM need to manage during game play: 1) creatures with >100 Stats/abilities; and 2) characters with >100 Stats/abilities.
Starting with the higher power creatures, as others have stated, there is always the chance of an automatic failure on an attack. In addition, while it is difficult, a party making multiple attacks against the dragon, for example, could force it into multiple actions that reduces its abilities through the multi-action penalty (somewhat dependent on initiative order). I think here it becomes about tactics. Besides, you normally wouldn't encounter a dragon without the adventurers having some pretty good attacks themselves (i.e., at higher ranks).
The second issue may actually be more of a concern to a GM: challenging an especially capable character (which sounds like he is a bit beyond his compatriots) without wiping out other characters with too difficult challenges. Hopefully, the strong character has some inherent weaknesses where he can be poked at (e.g., one low Stat that could be attacked through magic, forcing resistance checks). Also, you can craft encounters that are focused at his skills, but throw in some conditions that justify penalties (chewing away his skill) or forcing him into multiple actions. Environmental conditions is an easy one to go to on the fly (i.e., darkness, rain, fog, slick conditions, etc.).
The fact that you thought ahead enough to ask the question tells me you're already catching on to this system. You just have to manage teh game and keep it fun.
Don't forget Status checks-exhaustion, Dazed etc. The strongest Action Hero can be run to ground by enough tireless Zombie Hordes-better find somewhere secure to rest a bit..
+1 to Order99
I'm trying to wrap my head around a character with abilities beyond the 100 point mark. How do you handle rolls for somebody who is over what the dice can count (0-99)?
If a player has 100 doesn't that mean, assuming there aren't any modifiers bringing it below 100, that whatever he attempts with that skill is an automatic success?
What if they roll in the critical failure bracket. Is that fair? Technically a person just has to roll under the target number. Even a 96 is below 100. Or is the critical failure rule designed, in this situation, to represent the fact that even the most capable person can still make mistakes?
I haven't played yet. I am hoping that tonight will be my lucky night with the wife. But she was reading the book and was curious what happened to the game after stats were raised above 100 and how situations were handled were the target number did not dip below 100. I just want to make sure I give her the correct response and not make incorrect assumptions.
I would say that a character rolling against a 100+ ability or skill would not critically fail on a 99--but they would fail. (As they would on a roll of 95, 96, 97, or 98 as well.) Now once they started taking multiple actions, the chance of a fumble would emerge--even an expert can get sloppy if she's multi-tasking too extensively.
I think it makes a good rule of thumb to make it a critical failure only when their base chance of success (e.g., modified skill roll) is <100. Otherwise you are taking away some of the gain from putting DP into getting an ability of skill above 100.
Bingo! Someone with a Warrior skill of 130 could not critically fail on his first action roll nor could he do so on his second action roll at 110--but that third action roll at 90 would result in a failure and a fumble on a 99. A fourth action roll at 70 could be a fumble at 77, 88, or 99. And so on.
That's the big advantage of the 100+ ability: multiple actions at maximum chances.
instead of going by who fails first only, you can do a subtraction method, like attacker is 120 - defender of 60 = 60, the only problem is that when it goes the other way its 60 - 120 = -60 which is pretty much a miss. So the bad guys would be always missing.
Ok that does not work
You can divide the success track in half , meaning that all stats are divided by 2 on the character sheet. its quite bothersome to divide every stat by 2, but the percent chances become better, a 120 becomes a 60 and a 60 becomes a 30 the lowest being a 1 becomes .5 rounded up to 1 and a 2 becomes 1.
By doing the above you bring the game back to normal, the only thing is that all the players and all your creatue stats also have to be halved. By placing that divisor of 2 you also bring your campaign down to a more gritty, hard fantasy level.
Ok, I thought about your problem and I built a real solution, I have built a chart , compare the attack on the top of the chart with the defense on the left colomn. match and you will get a percentage that is much fairer.
matter of fact i can make weapon charts so you can do everything in one roll, but i will build those later
So in this chart if you compare 60 to 120 you need a 67 percent to hit and at 60 to 200 you need a 118, but thats actually fair because a dragon is 150 and a giant is 120 so a 118 at 200 his God like and that dowes make sense, to me anyway. Give the chat a try, it is based on the work done by mayfair, losely based, but because I loved that system i played around a lot with that game designers theory on using log based charts. His theory was how do I build a game where Superman and Batman can exist and seem more equal. his solution was a log, i applied the same concept to this chart so a 60 and a 120 become more midranged. it will make the game a little more challenging and people will tend to hit less, but in the same token stronger creatures become more equal to weaker creatures.
I just bought the game and i love the modularity of it, in fact its more straightforward than many other games. I decided to read the posts and I am glad I saw this problem, when run my game i am going to use a log based chart to avoid the pitfalls, in a later post I will build a chart called situational. So instead of figuring out - and + modifiers for combat I will have 3 charts to keep things simple
chart 1 regular situation
chart 2 attacker has the advantage (flanks, backstabs, or cover)
chart 3 attacker has the disadvantage (mistep, surprised this round, etc)
That way the Dm just makes a situational call and then uses the coresponding chart, no need to bog the game down adding and subtracting modifiers.
With the chart solution you no longer need to keep minusing down on multiple attacks instead of -10 -40 -60 or whatever it is just attack as normal meaning attack at 67 multiple times. what does that mean for when the chart is over 99, at that point you do go down -20 -40, etc, but ounce its below 90 you stop and thats what you hit at, i figure if the character is that good 90 is a good place to stop.
the chart averages out.
I've been running BBF now for over a year. I now have characters at rank 4 and one might be rank 5. Several of them have scores over 100%. This is NO BIG DEAL at all. It simply means they are better at defending themselves when they don't have the initive and sometimes still have the ability to deal out some hurt when they do get their turn. They have also learned to attack a couple of times, when they do get the initiative and then reserver actions for defense. Some of the things they have fought also have some abilities over 100%. No big deal. Remember the auto failure roll of 95-99 and I play it like others list above that as long as your chance to succeed is over 99 then a 99 is not a crit fail.
The game is still surprisingly fast at these ranks. We are having a blast and the rules are working just fine as written.
Jim
How much planning do you do to challenge them where they are above 100%? Both creatures, traps, etc.?
Short answer: no more than if they had scores below 100%.
Long answer:
BBF was designed for this. This is not an oversight. Don't look at 100% meaning they can't fail (because they can, and do). Look at it as meaning they have more actions they can perform before they'll likely screw up.
My adventures have NOTHING to do with the d20 challenge system (of which I am intimately familiar) and EVERYTHING to do with what makes sense for the adventure theme/locale. If the players learn that a certain dungeon has really really dangerous traps then that dungeon will have rank 4-6 deadly traps.
I never use filler encounters. Not a single encounter in my Tamriel game has been there just as a fight challenge. Every encounter must be there to tell a part of the story or help the players learn something about the world. Not a single one did I plop down and say, this will kill some time. Not once. There is no need for that. The players DP will attend to itself. After over a year of playing this system I'm convinced of that. I have a rip roaring session of battles and mayhem and the players earn DP. The local Duke and Duchess hold a party in their honor and the players earn DP. The players plunge the depths of a trap infested Ayleid ruin and they earn DP. It has averaged right around 6-7 DP each game.
The ruins players explore may have 1, 8 or 30 encounters which has nothing to do with an encounter budget and everything to do with what is fun and makes sense.
I could write more on this (about ranks and numbers and such) but I’m not sure if that is what you want.
please do.
I design as I go, doing more of an adventure map ala Technoir style, letting the characters actions and thoughts guide what happens next.
I was just curious how you designed encounters to keep play challenging.
Thanks
Ok, I'm unfamilir with that game but I read up on it and I think you are using a sort of relationship/flowchart map for your adventures. Ok. Cool. I think I understand what you are looking for better.
First rule: Rank is less and less a solid indication of power vs your players with increasing rank. The higher you go the larger the variance in power for both players and creatures.
I have found:
A group of players can handily battle the same number of monsters of the same rank at ranks 3-4 or below. At ranks 3 or below, you can easily double the number of opponents.
Bosses can usually be a rank or two above the players but be very careful with rank 6 bosses. These can easily cause a TPK. Then again, the players may wipe them out in the first couple of actions.
You can mix and match large numbers of minor NPCs. My 1st rank player characters fought 2 batches of over a dozen minor NPCs each on their first adventure. Between each bach there was a recovery period and the players had the drop on their opponents each time.
Recently these same player characters rank 3-5 (seven of them) faced 2 rank 5 opponents one right after the other. They won and suffered very minor injuries but this was only because they fought well and had some runes that activated to heal upon taking damage. This alone saved 3 of them from suffering 35 BP of damage! Enought to lay low two of them. So again, the higher the ranks the higher the stakes.
TRAPS
Traps are generally alright one at a time. They are more to harrass than kill. Also, they don't have to make an attack roll so player character surival comes down to their resistance roll. And don't forget to apply those conditions that may result (such as dazed).
I hope this helps. There isn't any solid formulas. You'll have to know your players and advesaries and use experience to guide you. Crudely you can look at BP and DR and damage dealing ability to get some rough estimatations and this can be very helpful sometimes. Always be familiar with yoru player and opponent abilities. A TPK because you forgot something is a crying shame.
That help?
Another thought:
Take a look at the Creature Tables on page 67. Note the Rank of the creatues and the number of dice rolled. There is some variance there.
Lets look at the first table for Rank 1-2 creatures
1-10 Rank 3 Spiders
1-10 Rank 2 Gnolls
2-20 Rank 1 Zombies
2-20 Rank 1 Dire Rats
2-20 Rank 1 Skeletons
2-20 Rank 1 Goblins
2-20 Rank 1 Kobolds
2-20 Rank 1 Lizardmen
1-10 Rank 2 Bugbears
1-10 Rank 2 Hobgoblins AND 1-10 Goblins
1-10 Rank 2 Ogres
So, some variety, and of course the chart has the first and last entries occuring less often.
And all of this with the caveat listed above the table:
"The number appearing are suggestions only; balance the encounter based on the situation, story, and rank of the characters."
Using the table above for rank 1 characters just starting out I would probably choose half the number of creatures rolled.
For experienced near the top of their rank 2 characters could probably handle a bit more.
Again, totally situationally dependent. A dug in, ranged weapon armed opponent is going to deal out the hurt and may make even Rank 4 characters run away.
Thanks for all above