HinterWelt Fora

Let's try this again. A different take.

If you have not already, review Iridium Lite.

I like a lot of the elements that Iridium Lite has but some concerns are.

1. The skills are somewhat capped in a meaningful way. The total in a skill is capped at 5. Overall, you can have a total of a 21 out of d20 (meaning you can roll a 20 max and thus never roll over your skill) making it necessary to have it be open ended but not very intuitive.

2. Karma has left a bad taste in some play testers mouths. It is a bit rough for some people to get behind a metagame rule. We might not carry this to IS2.

3. The range seems a bit compressed. Currently, stats go from 1-10 and the overall probabilities for skills go from 1 - 21. Should we go percentile?

3a. Stat checks can be a but rough to give modifiers to due to this compression.

4. I like the compact and lite feel to the rules. The idea of the whole system in six or so pages is appealing.

So, in general the above points. Specifically, what are your thoughts on where Iridium should go?

Keep in mind"
1. Backwards compatibility. We do not want to come up with the "All new system" but something we can have an upgrade path from IS to IS2.

2. I like Iridium. I think it can be better. That said, I do not think going to something utterly different is the answer. I want to here new ideas but not a new system.

I think that is it for now but I will chime in as ideas come to me.

Thanks,
Bill

_________________
HinterWelt Enterprises
Bill Corrie
815-557-7365

First of all : Hi! I've been reading this forum and the Iridium System for some months now and I think it's great! So, congrats to you and everyone involved in this.

Now for the Iridium V2. So, basically, your concerns about Iridium Lite are precisely what makes IL unique : Stats, Skills and Karma. Otherwise, it's almost the same as Iridium Core, with a little less fluff.

Personally, I like Iridium Lite. Of course, Stats are a little "cramped" and Skills tend to cap rapidly. But it's a LITE system, so I think it's OK. If I want something more epic in which characters have more room for expansion, I use Core.

Am I correct to think you want Iridium V2 to take the path of Iridium Lite? Yet, you seem to have issues with everything that makes Lite what it is. The way I see it, Iridium (Core and Lite) is composed of a variety of sub-systems. We resolve Stat checks this way, Skill checks that way, Combat in another way and so on. It's what makes it kinda "old school" and gives it part of it's charm. For me, that is.

In fact, Lite have a more "modern" feel to it than Core. Stats and Skills add "as is" and do not carry arbitrary bonuses cross-referenced in a table, like Core. Big step to add simplicity and intelligibility to the game. But this method brings a plague : scale. Stats need to be smaller to add correctly to Skills. And the way the system works, it's relatively easy to concentrate efforts (read Skill points and Aptitudes) to cap a Skill right at character creation. This IS an issue, I totally agree with you.

You could push up the Stats to 20 and resolve them same as the Skills. That way, you could rule that they add to Skills only at half or quarter value (I'd go for ¼). So, a character with a Stat of 20, an Aptitude of 6 and a Skill of 5 would roll against 16, which is way more dramatic than 21. Using this system, a character with a Stat of 10 (Skill mod. of 3), an Aptitude of 2 and a Skill of 5 would roll against 10. This may seem a little harsh. I agree. So Skill Ranks could cap at 10, but NOT during creation, in which they cap at 5. So our Joe Average could push his Skill roll up to 15, which is good considering he is an AVERAGE guy. Or you could use half the Stat to modify the skill. It depends on your preference between innate talent and learned skill.

Of course, these guidelines add to the complexity of the game for the players must remember to add only a fraction of the Stat. But it's still fairly simple. I hope it addresses your concerns in a good way and gives you ideas to build Iridium v2, which I eagerly awaits!

Now for my concerns. Fortitude, hit location and armor. First, I like lethal systems. Keeps the players on edge, never knowing the the coming blow will be their final. Nice. My issues are with the distribution of Fortitude points in the locations. You use a counter-intuitive method by giving more points to arms and legs than chest and stomach. I understand that arms a bullet in the arm is less lethal than in the chest, hence the higher Fortitude, but I think you should go along with the industry standard and re-think the distribution in a more intuitive manner. I know you've toyed with a single pool of Fortitude points before and I think it could be a solution. Hit location would still be use, but just on determine how much of the actual damage is substracted from the pool. This way, a hit to the arm could yield a ½ damage modifier and the head could be x2 or something.

Now, armor. This is purely personal, but I hate ablative armor. It's too "all-or-nothing" to my taste. I would normally use a armor value subtracted from total damage, but the incredible difference in damage dealt by different weapons prohibits this method. But I thought of something, along the lines of Traveller d20. The armor value could be reduce the number of dice rolled, than the die type, down to a minimum of d4. Exemple : An armor value of 5 against an attack dealing 4d10 would use 3 points to reduce the damage to 1d10 and then the 2 remaining points to bring the damage down to 1d6. This system may require that the damage of some weapon to be modified, but not that much. I think it would be great.

Well, that's it. For now. Maybe some of my suggestions are not as backward compatible with the old system as you'd like, but that's all I could come up with. I must also confess that none of these alternatives have been playtested. What do you think? Some of it any good for you?

Thanks again for Iridium and those wonderful settings (hoping to get Roma for Christmas ).

Sorry Skynet, some how I missed this post when it first came up. So, here we go.


Well, I made the Lite version to be quicker and more easily handled. My concerns are mostly for the application to Iridium V2, not so much as Iridium Lite. It does Iridium Lite much as I hoped but what I am looking for is leesons to take from Iridium Lite into Iridium V2.

As above, I want to take from Iridium Lite. I do not know that we want all the settings to be powered by a Lite system.

As to the sub-systems, well, yes. This is a conscious design decision. To me, combat is not and should not be treated as, just another skill. There are a number of other factors that play into it. It would be more a contested skill check than anything. In Lite, Skill and Stat checks are handled the same just on a different scale.

Now, if we want to start talking unified mechanic, well, I am not opposed. The current philosophy breaks the different systems into two camps, testing your skill against an opponents (roll over their Defense) and testing against your own skill (roll under your stat or skill). Again, this was a conscious decision. I am not opposed to aligning it to a unified mechanic but I think that origin should be kept in mind when doing so.

I like where you are going with this. So, to break down:
Stats: 1-20
Skills: 1-10 with no initial skill over 5
Aptitudes: 1-6

How about we change it to Aptitudes going from 1-5 initially instead?

Also, you seem to be getting a bit convoluted with the 1/4 stat...not sur how to resolve that. Maybe we should have stats go from 1-5. When doing a stat check you merely have a standard number, say 10, and the higher over it you roll plus the applicable stat the better you save. So, if you have a 3 STR and roll a 9 and add your 3 for a total of 12, you succeed by two....hmm, not perfect but I will noodle on it some more.



See, I am not so sure. The issue here is modeling a system where getting hit in the head is more damaging than in the arm. Yeah, arteries and such compared to the skull can make an argument for the arms and legs actually having less FP. Still, I think it is a viable method of modeling vital areas while keeping a level of simplicity.

Now, a brief history. We once had one pool of FP. We once had one level of FP to all areas (so, say 20 FP in the head, 20 FP in the arm, etc). So, we played it a number of ways. I REALLY think doing damage multipliers is a bad idea. It would slow combat down and introduce the potential for a lot of errors. That said, I would consider going back to one FP level for all areas. To be honest, I am not too hot on that idea.



I kind of like where this is going. Not 100% but it is somethign to work with. I use ablative armor because I always hated the DND immortal armor that never go damaged and protected for the same amount. So, perhaps the idea that there is a certain number of dice it can absorb, both over its life and at one time, could work. So, for example:
Leather: 1d6, 10 points
Chain: 3d10, 20 points
Plate: 5d12, 30 points

Meaning, Leather would be able to absorb up to 1d6 per attack, each die absorbed would be 1 point so it could do it 10 times. Plate would be able to absorb up to 5d12 per attack at 1 point per die so absorbing 5d12 would cost 5 points. When the armor reaches 0 points, it no longer protects.

Alternatively, put a straight damage reduction on the armor. Say...
Leather: 10 points
Chain: 20 Points
Plate: 30 points

With a 2-hander at max 60 + STR + Prof + Magic, say 90 or so and you would still do 60 through plate at max, 15 at median and 30 on average. Still, it would mean smaller weapons like short sword would be useless against heavier armor.

Something to think about though.



Well, thanks for posting and your input. Keep it coming. I will keep thinking on it.

Bill

_________________
HinterWelt Enterprises
Bill Corrie
815-557-7365

Hi Bill! Thanks for your answer.



Yep, that's it!



Sounds great!



I was thinking of a roll UNDER mechanic. It would work like this :

Skill total to roll under =
+ Stat mod (which would be ¼ total Stat)
+ Skill
+ Aptitude

Example :
Stat 12 > Stat mod 3
Skill 5
Aptitude 3
>>> 3+5+3=11=Final roll under number.

If you were to roll under a Stat alone, you would have to roll 12 or less. So the ¼ is only important when calculating Skill total. But if you want to go the "roll OVER" way, I'm totally OK with that.



I understand. This was just a personal concern.



I think this system is better than a pool simply depleting itself. But I don't fully understand it. How does it work? Let's that the Chainmail. It can stop 3d10 per attack with a grand total of 20 dice before it's rendered useless. But how does it stop dice? Do you roll the dice and subtract the total from the damage? Or does it mean the corresponding number of dice are subtracted from the damage dice the attacker rolls? If it's the second, what happens when a chainmail is hit by an attack dealing 4d12? Can it stop d12 or just d10? Enlighten me on that one. But it looks good.

My problem with the ablative armor is that it's really an all or nothing method. You are TOTALLY protected until your armor is "lost". I'm with you on the DnD thing though. Armor should not make you harder to hit, but easier. I think it should just absorb part of the damage, reduce it in some way. A hit that deals an "acceptable" number of damage points should be allowed to damage the person under the armor, not just the armor. The biggest problem with Iridium is the difference between the damage of the weapons, like 1d8 for a dagger and 5d10 for a 2-handed sword. There is an insane gap between those two weapons. I've never seen something like this before. So it is hard to deal with armor because of this. This is why I came up with the dice reducing method with the d4 as a minimum damage. But we could always use the armor protection to reduce damage on a one-to-one basis beyond the d4 initial limit.

Example : You are hit by a dagger. Your opponent deals you 2d8+3 (because of his Strength bonus and great proficiency). Your armor has a value of 5. Here's how it works :
1. Decrease the number of dice rolled to 1 for 1 point (4 left).
2. Decrease the die value to 4 for 2 points (2 left).
3. Decrease the damage rolled by 2, using its last 2 points.
>>> If your opponent rolls 2 and adds its damage bonus of 3, he deals (2+3)-2 = 3.

Example 2 : You are hit by a 2-handed sword that deals 5d10+3. Same armor.
1. Decrease the number of dice rolled to 1 for 4 points (1 left).
2. Decrease the die value to 8 with the last point.
>>> Your opponent now rolls 1d8+3.

If you have more armor points left after than the damage rolled, the armor absorbs everything. Also, you could rule that the armor value is depleted by one for each it. This way, the armor gradually withdraws its protection has it is damaged.

Note : With this method, buying damaged bonuses gives the character an edge over armor compared to buying an additional die of damage. So the cost should be higher than 1 for each +1.

Anyway, something to think about.

I might be going for something less drastic in V2. So, check out the attachment for how stats will be used. Essentially, we will be going to all percentiles and standard modifiers for all stats.

Essentially, we need to rethink how we look at combat. So, instead of one system for skills and another for combat, what we have is a contested skill check for Combat. So, for example, if someone has a 70 for Defense, you are rolling against that with weapon mods. So, you might have a +20 to hit, roll a 60 and end up with a total of 80, defeating their set skill. Contested skills will work similarly. If you are doing a Remove Traps, you would do a check against what the opponent set the trap at. So, if they used Set Trap (or Remove Trap to set the trap) and made it by 50, you need to make your skill check by more than 50 to disarm it.I think it will fit better than it used to once I get it all worked out.


So, If you were wearing Chain, got hit by an arrow 2d10, it would absorb all the damage and have a total of 19 points left. Then, you get hit by a monster that does 3d12 and you take all the damage, still have 19 points left on the armor.

I am not sure I am as thrilled as I once was with this approach.


The problem is, you are not taking the whole picture. The 5d10 gets two attacks and the 1d8 gets 4. You have constants on top of this of STR and weapon proficiency damage bonus. Because of your additional attacks, you are more likely to hit with the dagger. Yes, average damage is 25 with the two hander and 4 with the dagger.

I have been toying with a reworking of the Armor to DR and a tightening of the weapon's damage range but you need to factor in the attacks per round also. Just something to consider.

See, I like where you are going with this but with the current personal FP system, both your exaples could result in dead characters, armor or no. I also think you would end up with a lot of book keeping. Yeah, I said it.

Still, I like the idea. I just need to noodle on it.

Sorry for taking so long to respond. I just blanked on it.

Bill

_________________
HinterWelt Enterprises
Bill Corrie
815-557-7365

An idea for Weapon Specialization.

How abotu we make all weapons do d10s. So, something like:

Daggers, Short Sword : 1d10

Hammers, Long Sword: 2d10

Axe, Broad Sword: 3d10

Zwei-hander, Great Hammer, Great Axe : 4d10

Attacks:
Dagger 4
Short Sword 3
Long Sword 2
Broad Sword 2
Zwei-hander 1

Maybe differentiate with bonuses like
Zwei-hander: +1 to init
Axe: +5 to damage against Metal Armor

I am not thrilled witht he last as it introduces some confusion.

Then, armor:

Leather: 5
Chain: 10
Banded: 15
Plate: 20

Armor does simple Damage Reduction, so You just aint going to do damage to someone in plate with a dagger. However, EVERY hit reduces armor by 1 point EXCEPT piercing. So, 20 hits from a dagger will reduce Plate to 0. 20 hits from arrows will do nothing.

Remember areas also so this is per area.

Hmm, potential.

Thanks,
Bill

_________________
HinterWelt Enterprises
Bill Corrie
815-557-7365

The is good. But one thing that troubles me with Iridium is the number of attack. I thing it should be determined by the skill of the attacker. On the other hand, it is true that certain weapons are faster and more efficient. Consider this :

Each weapon has a kind of "speed factor" build into it. The speed factor would allow more skilled combatants to land more attacks. This could be a penalty associated with a weapon, like -2. So a dagger could land 4 attacks, but the second would be at -2, the third at -4 and the fourth at -6. A sword could be -3, etc. This would have to be balanced since it's an idea I just had and wanted to share...



Not so sure. That way, it would be VERY hard to hit someone wearing even a chainmail with a dagger. It would be incredibly frustrating. Somehow, I really like my idea about the armor reducing the number, than the type of dice. But you are right about the lethality, though. Even with armor, the character COULD end up dead. But I think it says something about the balance of Iridium. Like Rifts, if you don't have armor, you have nothing. Although, in Rifts, it's because of the mega-damage, not normal damage like Iridium. Now this could be the way to go for some gamers, but I like my character to be able to take a few it even without armor. Not like D&D, but still. Don't get me wrong, I like lethality in a game, but not that much. This way, armor becomes your new hit points.

What I would like to see, is a less steep damage progression between weapons and a better armor system where damage reduction does not imply invulnerability. There could be a rule that would enable attackers who hit by a certain margin to bypass the armor, in part or completely. That way, a really good hit by a dagger could damage an opponent in plates... Anyway, I getting lost in my thoughts here, daydreaming like that . Let's just think about it for now...

See, I worry about complexity with your system. Yeah, I will admit it models weapon damage vs armor protection in a more realistic way but it is also a far more complex system. Let;s try this. Let;s break down both systems by complexity.

Old System:
1. You hit.
2. Roll damage
3. Add dice.
4. Determine location.
5. Apply damage to armor total.
5a. Any amount that is left over after armor total is reduced to 0, apply to juicy parts.

Your system:
1. You hit.
1a. Opponent applies armor mods to decrease number of dice.
1b. Opponent applies armor points to decrease type of die.
2. Roll damage
3. Add dice.
4. Determine location.
5. Apply damage to body.

I guess there is only one additional step. I am not ruling it out but something does not sit right with me. It seems like it would take longer since you are waiting on the opponent for part of the equation. With the current system, all the GM needs to communicate is:
1. Defense
2. Any parrying.

At that, I have folks complaining combat is too long. It just seems to be heading toward bloating combat and not streamlining it.


O.k. There is. The critical system will allow you to bypass armor on a nat 20 followed by a check on your class chance for critical. I think this system could be streamlined a but but it does work. At first level it is less than 1% and maxes out at around 3% but it is there. Like I said though, we might want to look into streamlining it a bit.

As to damage progression, well, the point is to make a difference in using a two hander as opposed to a dagger. Start narrowing the damage range and you begin to blur the weapons. Attacks can help but it can;t do it all. Now, I have wondered if we should take the high end weapons and give them a single attack instead of 2. That would help.

As to speed factor, I hear what you are saying but that is built into the weapon attacks already. Adding a to hit mod on top of it only complicates the issue and I think the pay off decreases. Essentially, yet again, you need to be remembering that my first attack is 0, second -x, third -y...It might work as an optional rule if someone wants to attack beyond the alloted number of attacks for a weapon. I like that idea.

Bill

_________________
HinterWelt Enterprises
Bill Corrie
815-557-7365

Idea I got over on EnWorld. What if we introduce an "Armor Piercing" factor for weapons. So, something like a dagger might have a 3 but a big zwei hander would only have 1. This would be the amount your hit would need to be over to pierce the armor deliver a portion of damage to the meaty parts.

Example: A dagger, being short and strong and made for piercing, has a 3. If your target has a 15 Defense and you roll a 19, 4 above the 15 needed, you would pierce the armor. This does not destroy the armor but it does do a 5 of damage to the body FP of the area. So, say, 50% (1/2 is easy) and the dagger does something like 6 points, thus dealing 3 to the area in this case.

Just a thought, but it bears writing down.

Bill

_________________
HinterWelt Enterprises
Bill Corrie
815-557-7365

Bloating? Iridium already has a bloated combat system. Simple, but bloated. You have to roll a handful of d20 to attack, then a handful of d% for targeting or d10 for location, then a bucket of dice, depending on the weapon used. You want a streamlined combat procedure, just make one attack, get rid of targeting and roll less dice for damage. Streamlining is easy. But what you want is multi-attacks, multi-locations and deadly combat. That's Iridium.

Also, if some people complain that combat takes too long, it could be because they have to hack the way through the armor before doing actual damage. With my armor system, they would always to some damage ( or have a chance to... ). With Iridium as it is now, this is impossible. It's all or nothing, until you finally destroy the armor (it magically falls off... ) And that's also additional bookkeeping (keeping track of armor points, having to worry about replacing or repairing it all the time...).



Blur the weapons? As they are now, weapons in Iridium are so clear they hurt my eyes! You have to admit that 10d10 (2-handed) vs 4d8 (dagger) is a lot. Or course, it depends on your philosophy with weapons, but I think they should not be so far apart. Less dice would also streamlined the combat system. In the present incarnation of Iridium, punches by someone skilled enough will inflict about the same amount of damage as the dagger. For me, that's very hard to imagine.

Oh, and I like your first draft of an armor piercing system. That would definitely help the combat issue.

As a side note, if you could give clear goals or directions you want this V2 revision to take, I would be able to give you something you could actually use. Now, I'm brainstorming pretty wide...

Yes, bloating. Whether the system is currently bloated or not, I do not want to take it further into bloat-land. So, I would like to avoid adding steps to combat unless really needed.

Here, I will try to be clearer.

Your system is good. However, it is a fundamental departure from the roots of Iridium without being a fundamental departure. What I mean is that you have defined a system that has all the overhead of Iridium but adds more to it.

In contrast, the system for armor piercing i suugested does not add any additional steps. In fact, you could replace looking up criticals on their respective tables with this procedure decreasing the amount of reference to the book required (however infrequent) during combat.

So, hopefully, that helps with what I am shooting for with Iridium V2.


And with your system combat would be considerably changed. Also, as Iridium is now, it is possible. Critical hit followed by a critical check, reference the critical chart for the weapon. Not graceful and one of those things we need to fix for V2.

And you need to track all of what you just described for the old system with your new system AND you will make combat longer.

Look, this is a good conversation to have. I like your idea but I am not sure the implementation is will work well with the rest of the system. I would rather tweak existing concepts so moving from Iridium V1 to V2 is easy. You realize that what you suggest would dump the way armor works as surely as if we switched back to Armor Class.

Now, Damage Reduction, I like. I have tried a LOT of ways to handle stuff like this. Some with more success than others.

One I like is a damage reduction that decreases one for every hit. So, plate might start with 40 points and over time come down to a point where it just does nto protect anymore. Or we might want to start out smaller but allow much easier field repair. I think that falls much more in line with the system as it stands.

Finally, I want to say you r idea is not bad, I just don;t now that it fits. So, not repulsed, quite the opposite I think it would be neat to build a system on that idea. Make it the corner stone of a combat system that we can expand and make yet another variant of Iridium or something entirely new.

What we are tlaking about is 100 FP potential damage vs. 32 FP...but not really. Because you need to consider the probablility of hitting. Your 100 FP is really 50 on average dice and more like 10 points if you consider probability of hitting on two attacks. Compared to the Dagger, which is actually pretty close to the same damage (sould be around 8 points).

As to punches vs dagger damage...erm? A skilled person can easily kill a man with one punch. A fairly unskilled person can kill someone with a dagger. Honestly, a punch can go through cement while a dagger is deflected or even destroyed. So, I think the current setup there is spot on. As you say though, it depends on your philosophy on weapons. I am not here to make a hyper accurate weapon system. I want to balance simplicity with realism.


Well, hopefully the above helps. In terms of combat, I want to slim it a bit. Look at Iridium Lite. It does not go far enough but it simplifies things nicely. Having options is important. I don't want to change things just to change them.

In general, I want to update the system with new ideas that make it better. Yeah, real vague. I want to allow for a upgrade path. I want to have a combat system with hit locations. In general, streamlining things to run faster, be easier to understand and make the game easy to teach. I am sure there are more but that is a good start.

Thanks,
Bill

Bill

_________________
HinterWelt Enterprises
Bill Corrie
815-557-7365