So I took a look at this request and it got me to thinking: What are the comparative points of having an effect trigger with a DC as opposed to a flat per centage chance with no save?

Consider the 1:1 example- a DC 14 on an on-hit is functionally a 5% success chance- you're one-fishing. A saveless 5% chance is in effect identical to any opponent with a 13 or higher save. Functionally, we can start with a baseline norm for both with an identical function. It's when we start cranking those numbers up that things get wonky.

DCs on spells can get up in the 40s, and in the 50s for abilities (even higher for knockdown). At the same time there's consistent counters- increasing saving throws or a relevant counterskill. But against someone with mediocre saves, these effects can and do spell doom with a fairly high chance of success- I think a 42 DC on a Wail is probably enough to kill most people half the time or more.

A flat per centage, on the other hand, reacts differently- it'll trigger a certain amount of time no matter what. This can be reflected in DC language- 10% chance is equivalent to a failure on a 2, 15% is failure on a 1-3, so on. If attached to an effect, the effect gets progressively more and more powerful on a flat-line increase, regardless of other players' defenses. This is in direct contract to the effectiveness of a DC on an effect- at some point (30 or so) you start seeing the curve rise from zero and then rocket up somewhere above 40.

Here's a visual comparison of how effective each system is- the DC one is a guess based on my knowledge, but I doubt it's far off. The graph is the number of people killed out of 20 based on DC (let's call it Wail) and based on a 5% increment as to the per centage system.


Now, the first thing that jumps out is "Damn, that flat per centage system gets really powerful really fast". That's a misinterpretation of the graph that I need to correct- it could really start at any point where the DC system will only kill one person and still be representative, like so:


Why can I move the per centage line like that? Well, because it's not bound to any particular DC number- in fact, the only comparison point is the number of people each system kills. Thus, you can move the per centage line up the DC line so long as the number of people they kill starts out the same. Any more than that and you get a dishonest graph.

Now, as you can see, the start and end points aren't really too far off- however, the per centage system is definitively more powerful in the comparison by providing higher kill numbers across the chart, though they're not too egregiously off.

When is DC more powerful? Well, as you can see DC does spike in its power level as the DCs get higher. A very high DC will almost certainly kill/maim/etc your opponent. A very high per centage will do that as well, but in all fairness no dev would ever approve an extremely high per centage- I think that even if we were generous we should cut off that per centage line at 50%- 10/20 success rate and surpassed by DC once you pass 40.

What's the big advantage to per centages, then? Well, per centages shift control of combat to the attacker and not the defender. This is what I call WoW-style mechanics, where you build a strategy for offence but defence tends to get neglected or isn't truly critical. In NWN it's the other way around- defence can win the day and often does. A player can focus the hell out of his saves and end up with something that's almost impossible to kill by DC spells alone. This goes out the window when per centages come into play because they ignore saves entirely. At a low per centage- 5% or so, DC and per centage are indistinguishable. Go above that and you start to cut through defences like they're not there- because to you they aren't. Now, I'm not saying there isn't a place for per centage based mechanics- in fact, some exist (improved invisibility being an example). However, they tend not to be attached to effects that are lethal on their own.

So what am I saying? Well, really, it's asking: How do you feel a per centage based effect could be used? How powerful could it be? What differences do you see between the systems that I've missed?

To answer those myself as well:

How do you feel a per centage based effect could be used?
I think a per centage based effect is potentially fine on anything that won't unilaterally decide combat. Death effects, long-term paralysis/fear/etc, those can't be per centage based or you invite rage when someone's spam monk takes advantage of it.

How powerful could it be?
Well, anything up to and including displacement, as that's a 50% miss chance. Effects that slow combat down, by extension, I think are alright- one to two-round paralysis, fear, etc, so long as the per centage is low (10-15% on weapons, 50% on single-shot spells).

Please, discuss at length.

_________________
~Diana de Priondragas - Enigmatic druid, Arbiter, Counselor, Bear.
~Corinn Aldaine - Just a girl with a big heart... who can turn you into a newt.
~Vigdis Haldorsdottr - Walk softly and carry a big axe.

Reading over this, I feel like making effects flat % based invalidates basically every form of counterplay available to combat said effect. Which outside of specific counter effects.. is going to be High Saves. It would be universally powerful no matter what the opposing player has done / built and I feel that the invalidation of basically every form of possible defense.. is a tad iffy. So basically I'd say that with % Based effects, you either would either need to make them universally low, or risk them simply being way too powerful as there is no real way to 'build' against it.

This is my perspective as someone who plays a basically a 40 DC Wizard.

(Mini TL:DR Im of the opinion that for true balance, you need counterplay.. and this basically invalidates that by bypassing what is generally going to be said counterplay to said effect.. Saves.)

_________________
Magister Aurelius Constance

tldr version?

That kinda is the short version.


I did make a point of noting that flat per centages are already ingame. They don't unbalance things if used judiciously in my opinion based on actual ingame experience.

_________________
~Diana de Priondragas - Enigmatic druid, Arbiter, Counselor, Bear.
~Corinn Aldaine - Just a girl with a big heart... who can turn you into a newt.
~Vigdis Haldorsdottr - Walk softly and carry a big axe.

Right but heres the thing.. IMO you either make the percentages ridiculously low to keep them balanced, or they wont be.. So whats the real point? If im going to be rolling 5% because of a Fort of 40 anyway... its basically the same thing no?

Except in the % based situation, what is the real possible counterplay on the opposite end, the truth is.. there really is none.. You cant build saves to up the % in your favor.. like you can with DC rolls..

_________________
Magister Aurelius Constance

That's the point of the discussion. What per centage is too high, and why? I can envision some effects without a save, others obviously not. The question isn't whether it's overpowered as a whole, but rather where the median is where it's not broken but not useless.

_________________
~Diana de Priondragas - Enigmatic druid, Arbiter, Counselor, Bear.
~Corinn Aldaine - Just a girl with a big heart... who can turn you into a newt.
~Vigdis Haldorsdottr - Walk softly and carry a big axe.

And thats kind of the point of my imput..

I feel that the percentages would need to be low simply due to the fact that there is no real counterplay available to them.. and therefore, most likely, wont be worth the trouble.

_________________
Magister Aurelius Constance

If they're not worth the trouble then they're by definition useless. I'm not asking for where they'd be useless. Your argument seems to suppose that they are either useless or overpowered with no middle ground in between.

_________________
~Diana de Priondragas - Enigmatic druid, Arbiter, Counselor, Bear.
~Corinn Aldaine - Just a girl with a big heart... who can turn you into a newt.
~Vigdis Haldorsdottr - Walk softly and carry a big axe.

Heres the thing again though.. On any Effect based spell.

Why would I ever try to get it % based when I know its going to -HAVE- to be a completely tiny % to keep it balanced, when I can just have a DC based spell thats success will fluxuate based on what the opposing party has incorporated into their build/gear. Which also takes into account my biggest issue with this... Available counterplay.

There is no middle ground because there is no real available counterplay.

Hell we can take it a step further and talk about PvM.. if my spells are % based.. those 70+ Saves of epic monsters go straight into the trash as I laugh and am successful far more often than with my DC 40.. unless my % is simply a 5.

_________________
Magister Aurelius Constance

Aren't spellcasters more than powerful enough already?

_________________
Acarian Eldane
Johnathan Sableford

Why do you assume I'm asking about spellcasters? The example thread I gave was for a melee weapon. Please don't turn this into a "Spellcasters are OP" thread.


Suggest one? Like "All percentage based spells should have an express counter- death immunity, stun immunity, etc". Just pooh-poohing an idea repeatedly with no suggestions isn't terribly productive.


Also solvable by the above. Incidentally I can think of at least one ingame ability with a per centage that will hose epic monsters already, so it can happen.

_________________
~Diana de Priondragas - Enigmatic druid, Arbiter, Counselor, Bear.
~Corinn Aldaine - Just a girl with a big heart... who can turn you into a newt.
~Vigdis Haldorsdottr - Walk softly and carry a big axe.

These counterplay options are already in effect on anything DC based, so its kind of a moot point.

Combine this with the fact that you would need to limit these effects to spells/etc that already have some form of counter effect available.. (Deathward/etc) and it honestly seems like a lot of headache and limitation for something that isnt really an issue in the first place. On top of the fact that they would still need to be tiny %s...

_________________
Magister Aurelius Constance

Its my turn to ask you to be productive.. Using the extreme of Death Spells as there is a counter immunity to them..

Is it really fair that the 40 Fort that your character has built to counter every single death effect in the game means absoutly nothing to me once I've stripped your immunity away simply because my spell is a flat % based chance?

_________________
Magister Aurelius Constance

Moot point? Not really. I'm asking about a different way of calculating success rate of effects (which already have ingame representatives) and am asking about the potential of expanding the function and what limitations, if any, should be placed on it to balance it properly. Necessary safeguards in the form of counters are not moot, they are a relevant part of a discussion that seeks to explore an option.

You provide nothing additional for your surmise that the per centages would need to be tiny- the only backing you have put forth so far is that there's no counter. Yet when I introduce the possibility of a counter you dismiss it as moot and stick to your guns. Sorry, but your argument falls apart completely at this point under the weight of wilful ignorance.


You also focus on death spells when I've specifically line-itemed death spells out in the first post. Don't introduce a straw man just to knock it down.

_________________
~Diana de Priondragas - Enigmatic druid, Arbiter, Counselor, Bear.
~Corinn Aldaine - Just a girl with a big heart... who can turn you into a newt.
~Vigdis Haldorsdottr - Walk softly and carry a big axe.

The death example can just as easily be applied to fear, or any other single effect in the game that would be a canidate for % based because it has an available counter immunity to it.

Is it fair the the 40 will means nothing as well once Ive very easily 30 Wizard Mord stripped the immunity away?

_________________
Magister Aurelius Constance

Let's try 10%. Failure on a 1 or 2 would be the DC equivalent. For a 1-2 round effect, I really don't think it's going to break the game, especially considering we have had monks running around with DC 51 stunning fist and barbarians who can force a save vs fear that even save-based paladins have no hope whatsoever of reaching. If you want to take on the really egregious abilities you have to go to melee classes. And an immunity must still be stripped- a 10% chance of the effect going off after that will be fairly small, even if it's on a melee ability. What I'd like to see this on isn't spells, but rather abilities to diversify options for our melee classes. A 20% chance of a two-round slow on hit? That's a pretty cool weapon that makes people adjust their strategy. A DC 14 slow, which is what I usually see? Not really. A 10% chance of death is right out because it's death. But hindrances- slow, paralysis, stun, so on- I don't think these are gamebreaking if there's an easily accessible counter and the per centages aren't something loopy. It forces a small strategy change, but isn't so big a gamebreaker that it redefines how the game is played.

Note: Please don't cite a 10-attack per round monk and say that's 100%, per centages don't work that way.

_________________
~Diana de Priondragas - Enigmatic druid, Arbiter, Counselor, Bear.
~Corinn Aldaine - Just a girl with a big heart... who can turn you into a newt.
~Vigdis Haldorsdottr - Walk softly and carry a big axe.

I suppose the real issue of this is Im looking at it from a completely spell based perspective.. and the ridiculousness of its either imbalance or uselessness.

I would still say.. Looking at it from a melee standpoint, that the fact that your 40 Will means absoutly nothing against my 10% fear (on 4-5 Attacks a round) when the games fear mechanic was balanced around the fact that high will countered it, is fairly iffy.

_________________
Magister Aurelius Constance

Exactly- I'm less about this for spells since casters are pretty damn good as it is, more for the melee guys whose request options are "more stabby, please". A fun effect would be way, way more interesting, and even as a mage I wouldn't mind a flat per centage chance of someone's weapon imposing a silence effect. I think that'd actually be really challenging to deal with and make me work to counter it.

Once you start talking about mass AoE percentage based stuns though, you're jumping right off the deep end into unbalanced.

_________________
~Diana de Priondragas - Enigmatic druid, Arbiter, Counselor, Bear.
~Corinn Aldaine - Just a girl with a big heart... who can turn you into a newt.
~Vigdis Haldorsdottr - Walk softly and carry a big axe.

Little follow up to my last post..


My reasoning behind this is two fold.. (The iffyness of it from my perspective)

The first I already mentioned.. it invalidates the Will save which is what the effect is generally balanced around.. and second.. as a Epic Necromancy focused Wizard, I have a 34 DC fear which basically equates to a 5%.. My entire build is focused around spellcasting and necromancy, and you're going to have a VASTLY higher success rate at fear than I will with basically nothing more than this weapon.

_________________
Magister Aurelius Constance

I have an epic necro wizard as well, a DC build entirely built on the concept of beating other players' saves. This is part of the reason I'm specifically distancing this concept from spells- 42 DC on a Wail tends to kill anything short of a save build, mages don't need this kind of help.

And what's to say RP can't bring about something more powerful than your fear spell? As to invalidating the save, this was acknowledged early on. I consider it a conceded point, bringing it up again won't do a lot to help.

The "simply a weapon" attitude is something I see among players who favour mages- sort of a "Melee is a meatshield for me" response. I've heard from more than a few melee-oriented people that this makes them somewhat bitter- and you only have to look at the Requests forum to see the disparity. Go compare the number of interesting and original spells to the number of interesting and original weapon effects and you'll get a graph that looks like a flat square next to a skyscraper. DC 14 effects on a weapon may as well replace the weapon effect with "does not work reliably enough to dispel the opponent's protection against it".

Think about that last sentence- why would I ever, as a melee player, take the time to strip someone of their protections for a crap DC that will more than likely not go off anyway? That's a false option and directly screws those players as a result, limiting them to the more reliable options. If they had even an additional 5% chance of success, some people might opt for the disabling ability rather than raw damage. I'd be thrilled if it opened up a wave of new and diversified melee tactics, myself- even though I'd probably suffer the brunt of it as a mage!

I'll go ahead and post a potential weapon idea I tossed to a friend to demonstrate just how per centage chances can open up fun options:


I don't really think that's broken, and the per centage is pretty critical in getting the damage curve to smooth out in a way where it doesn't actually outdamage flat 1d6 or the like damage effects. This is the sort of fun stuff I'm talking about, not "on hit I win".

Note: Please don't evaluate the effect posted on its mechanics, I haven't taken the time to tweak it so it may or may not be overpowered as it is. If you have any mechanical comments on it leave them out, this isn't the place for them.

_________________
~Diana de Priondragas - Enigmatic druid, Arbiter, Counselor, Bear.
~Corinn Aldaine - Just a girl with a big heart... who can turn you into a newt.
~Vigdis Haldorsdottr - Walk softly and carry a big axe.

What I meant by this was.. You would have a vastly superior fear chance by doing nothing more than placing this item in your weapon slot, while having everything else associated with your weapon/build as you normally would. And this would ring true of most effects that are only possible through spellcasting or huge build investments. I suppose.. that is still true of the current DC effects.. however they are more balanced in the fact that their DCs are low.. I'd wager.

_________________
Magister Aurelius Constance

I don't see why that couldn't be implemented into the DC system Amia is currently based on. A round of stun, blind, whatever, is insanely powerful on Amia. That is exactly the reason why there is an easy counter to it available from nearly any shop on the isle - mindblank. In order not to impair the effect of mind-affecting spells completely, there is dispel to counter mindblank, but that costs a spell and another round of time to cast. Then there is Freedom.

Mind that there is a percentage chance for the on-hit weapons already in effect. A DC 20 stun on-hit may have the trigger chance of 50%, so the effective 5% chance to stun the opponent is halved. This can be used to balance the strength of the effect. Then again there are effects to which there are no counters, which are significantly less impactful.

I am not sure if I understood you correctly, but I think I see your point, and I don't see why this sort of a flat percentage system couldn't be implemented somehow delicately, creatively and appropriately to fit the current balance of the game. The feasibility of your idea in terms of game mechanics and resources such as time and the Dev team's enthusiasm is a whole another matter, of course. The most important question is whether this could potentially improve our gaming experience to which I haven't got an opinion, but I suppose a creative enough approach can always bear fruit.

_________________

UCE THIS, YOU COW.

I concur as well.

As to creative, I actually did think of a spell that would use a per centage system within it and be potentially interesting. Just as an idea, of course:



Naturally I'm keeping things confined to damage effects at the moment since they're the easiest to quantify and keep in check. But this is only the tip of the iceberg of ideas that can really benefit from something like this to shake up the variables. Again, the spell is for demonstration purposes only, I am aware it's probably not balanced at this very moment. If you have a mechanics comment that relates to the topic at hand and the spell, have a blast. If it's just about the spell's mechanics, please leave it out.

_________________
~Diana de Priondragas - Enigmatic druid, Arbiter, Counselor, Bear.
~Corinn Aldaine - Just a girl with a big heart... who can turn you into a newt.
~Vigdis Haldorsdottr - Walk softly and carry a big axe.

I find it a little unfortunate about the game design that the "counterplay" to everything is stacking universal saves. Or simply drinking dirt cheap potions that grant complete immunity to many effects. That's why I'm rather positive about alternatives.

_________________

It's more like calculating empty sockets in your gearset and making three different pieces for different uses. It's in no way realistic to squeeze all you need into a single gearset. That is where you have to use your judgment and choose the saves that matter the most. (Which is boring because you really only have to care about Fort if you don't have Evasion. Will is too difficult to max to the point where it really becomes useful without items that would allow it.) I have only ever had one character who could get his Fort, Reflex and Will to 40 each. I also had elemental resistances and a mediocre Spot with that. The build itself didn't benefit from AC at all, which sucked in most cases, but opened up many alternatives to gearing and gameplay in general.

_________________

UCE THIS, YOU COW.

Offensive spells should not have randomized properties, they should do what it says every time and have a static DC. Spells aren't weapons and you can't get a lucky shot with them.

Every single character on the server has the possibility to get 37 fortitude (11 base +20 items +6 con), if you added base con modifiers and fort save classes it can be raised into the high forties. This isn't bad in theory, but the module doesn't allow any counter play for it. My suggestion to fix that would be a set of Necromancy spells that are equivalent to the spell breaches in application but reduce fortitude instead of spell resistance. Something like this:


Necro Breach 1/2/3
Spell level: sorcerer/wizard 4/6/8
Innate level: 4/6/8
School: necromancy
Descriptor: negative
Components: verbal, somatic
Range: medium (20 meters)
Area of effect: single
Duration: instant
Save: none
Spell resistance: no
Additional counterspells: shadow shield

Description: This spell strips an enemy of Bull's strength, Cat's grace, and Endurance. This spell will also lower the target creature's fortitude save by 3/5/10 for ten rounds.


Put's the fight back into rock/paper/scissors mode and gives the caster a chance to use his fortitude DCs. I don't know how hard custom spells are to make available to the entire server though.

_________________

THREE

I thoroughly disagree with that assessment on both a lore and mechanical standpoint. Offensive spells are by their ethos weapons. A "lucky shot" with a Fireball is having most of the rolls come back high (50-60 damage). Maximize and Empower are basically arcane versions of Ki Damage and Increased Multiplier, respectively. Besides, there are plenty of offensive spells in PnP that have randomized effects. We only have like one of them though, which is Prismatic Spray.

Spells are only static in as much as the DC remains constant. But they are as much a randomized weapon effect as anything else. Heck, in PnP you can take Weapon Focus: Ray and Ranged Touch.

_________________

I apologize for sidetracking my own thread, but I want Weapon Focus: Ray now.



To be fair, the last one's more of a Dev Crit: Ray.

_________________
~Diana de Priondragas - Enigmatic druid, Arbiter, Counselor, Bear.
~Corinn Aldaine - Just a girl with a big heart... who can turn you into a newt.
~Vigdis Haldorsdottr - Walk softly and carry a big axe.

I thought it was clear I was talking about the dc. By "lucky shot" I meant a critical, which they don't have either. Thank you for picking at my word choice.

_________________

THREE

The wording was really rather ambiguous, to be fair- a lucky shot could very well be an Empowered Flame Arrow hitting for a stupid amount of damage, or beating a monk's SR. And even then, on the other end the shot is 'lucky' if your target rolls a crappy save. There's randomness on every side of it- and who needs a crit when you flat die from some spells?

_________________
~Diana de Priondragas - Enigmatic druid, Arbiter, Counselor, Bear.
~Corinn Aldaine - Just a girl with a big heart... who can turn you into a newt.
~Vigdis Haldorsdottr - Walk softly and carry a big axe.