Here I've made a pyramid of 36 classes all steaming from Thief on the bottom left, Mage on the bottom right...

I'm asking how the difficulty scaling would work. You have it all set up if the reference point is at one tip of the triangle; what happens when the "ideal" ratio is somewhere else on the triangle? How many dice do you roll, etc.

And what happens when it is the appropriate mix of tasks, but the function is entirely incompatible? ie. you need hexing spells(magic+thief), but you're a magic archer.

The difference between this and OP is the difference between a "roll for gf" and a "build your gf cyoa" one has much more depth, and comparing them shows you mean nothing.

So its classless with three stats that are Fighter, Thief and Mage? Or you're going to have various classes that are located at various points on the diagram?

Why increase the number of dice and change the target number?

Doesn't look like anything I'd touch with a 10ft pole. You're adding too much shit that doesn't add anything to gameplay except further calculations.

I never said it was original. In fact, it's based on that pyramid and then adding mechanics to it. Though I saw little need for 99 classes. You just sound jaded.

You should be able to rotate the triangle so that thief or mage is on the top and then use the same calculations. If you need me to explain it any more just let me know. I'm bored as fuck here waiting.

Hexing would be magic. You would rotate the triangle to where mage is at the top, find your class, and thenot see where you fall for magecraft. Magical archer is difficult to decide where it would be. I would say it's a mix of them all somehow.

There will be a class per each white triangle within the pyramid. All together that's 36 classes with the Jack of all Trades style classes being in the middle.

It looks like I need to be more specific with my examples. Note that I wasn't asking you to debate with me whether hexing was thief+mage or not. The point was that you can have 2 thief+mage applications that are very incompatible.

Let me try one more time: Spellwinder. Making a casted spell move along a complicated and unpredictable path to the target, as if there was a maze. Assuming this would be best done by a Thief+Mage class, and for god sakes, don't argue me on this point, how many dice would a pure Thief roll? A pure Mage? What about a Thief+Mage who specializes in blink and touch spells/poison attacks, and so is Thief+Mage but has no knowledge of spell trajectories?

>get bored at work
>crunch out a page of calculations on making the perfectly balanced system™

Veeky Forums everyone

what's your job title?

Are you trying to balance the mage and thief to the fighter by how hard it is for the mage to stab something? This only works if all the mage does is try to stab things, or if the only thing your mage does is cast damage spells. It seems like you're going for mathematical equivalency as balance with the rotating pyramid, but at that point the only differences between the ends is what colour hat they wear.

Web Developer

Driving right now. I'll answer this when I stop for lunch here in a minute.

then I'll be back when I wake up

>1 dice, 2
>On the left I have the amount of d6 rolled for the check and the number next to it the target number they must get under to succeed.

So in order to roll under 2 you have to roll a 1, doesn't that put the chances of succeeding at 1/6th or 16.67%?

1d6, under a 2 for a success , user

You say under you mean larger then 2 or smaller then 2?

Less than or equal to 2. Not specifically under. I thought that was evident by calling it "target number"

I hadn't thought of that yet. I suppose the easiest would be to divide it into two rolls no? Do you have a suggestion? I can think on it more when I'm off work.

No I'm not trying to do that at all. The only way to do that is to balance the magic itself, not the skillset.

I think it would be best to make them roll the lowest of the two. That way it makes jack of all Trades classes more widely used and reliable.

Thank you user. You are a kind man.

would work for a video game but nobody wants to roll 8d6 every time they make an attack. still kinda neat

You would only roll 8d6 if you weren't likely to succeed

Yeah nobody EVER wants to roll 8d6 unless it's for damage or something. Keep it simple, stupid. Like I said though, if it were automated like in a video game or you could find a way to simplify it, it is an interesting concept that you actually bothered to write out.

>Yeah nobody EVER wants to roll 8d6 unless it's for damage or something
You've never played 40k have you?

We're talking about RPGs aren't we?

We may be but when people play war games they usually throw loads of dice. It feels good to throw a lot of dice at once. That gives you something to feel good about while you're not likely to succeed

You can keep bargaining with me if you want, that's just my critique though. Rolling a fuckton of dice for something that could be expressed through the rolling of 1 or 2 dice is just not that interesting. Maybe instead of just rolling for a target number and using the sum of the rolls, you can try a success/failure system like if a d6 comes up 4 or 5 it succeeds, if not it fails. Then modifying your pyramid for something like that.

>Magical archer is difficult to decide where it would be. I would say it's a mix of them all somehow.

Unless you have a very limited definition of "fighting martially", I assume it would just be fighter + mage. Fighter for the archery side, mage for the magic.

Archery has always been attributed to the graceful and dexterous though so it fits with thief too.

Play Shadowrun sometime.

RIGHT? Or WoD. Either works. This guy doesn't like dice pools or something.

The defining feature of the fighter has always been mastery of weapons and armor. Conceptually there isn't much distinction between a warrior who uses a bow and one who uses a sword. That's why you traditionally have STR fighters and DEX fighters, different approaches to the same thing - martial combat. In gameplay terms, you're going to end up with a really limited fighter class if you start outsourcing some of their weapons to other classes, because "the fighting guy" is already a narrow role even before you give away their method of fighting at range.

I'm not saying thieves don't use bows any more than a fighter can't sneak, but it's a fighting skill, just like sneaking is a thief skill. A "magical ranger" could be a mix of all three categories, a "magical archer" just sounds like a fighter mixed with a mage, same as a magical swordsman. Or at least, that's how I see it.

You might be rite. But I might just put spells word and magic archer in the same triangle as well.

I'm not familiar with shadowrun but WoD is not "add the result of each die together to beat [large target number]" it uses a number that becomes a success/failure for each die to be counted as a 1 or 0. Which is exactly what I recommended. OP is saying something completely different.

Sounds like you just don't like math man.

I don't mind it but for the fairly simple concept of "Warrior, Wizard, Thief" and the idea of rolling a bunch of dice on a sperg triangle doesn't seem to mesh. I also just think that with games, if you can easily simplify a process, you probably should.

Hm, yeah. Making 5 or 6 the normal TN and reversing the dice progression (so that a fighter would trhow many d6) my be better.
Every dice that beats the TN is a success and you adjust the difficulty of a task mostly by the number of Successes needed.
Or at least something along this line

and what about my last question?

A thief+mage who has a different specialization would fall somewhere else on the chart, so their stats would be inherently different most likely. That falls into the category of modifiers for base classes though. I haven't made any.

>k the fighter rolling 1d6 the lowest he can roll is a 6
If you're going by lower=better roll then the worst he can do is a 6, which is still better than a mage's best. If difficulty starts high and gets lower the more difficult it is this makes sense. A Mage already has a harder time getting a lower number the more and more Martial the technique. Same I assume applies for Stealth and Arcane techniques. The more difficult a spell/maneuver/attack, the harder it is for all with the advantage being in the native class' favor. Makes sense to me.

I'm glad you rike it, but is there anything that you don't like about the math?

>Steaming

Never a misspelling has been more appropriate, because this is shit.

You're funny m8