View source for User talk:MisterSinister/TOToM (3.5e Sourcebook)/SRP1

== Duration & Dissipation ==

Why did you choose a d6 instead of a d20?  A d20 gives a higher range of %s to work with, and is more feat friendly.  Not to mention the overarching system is called 'd20', so having such a roll not be a d20 is a bit weird. --[[User:Havvy|Havvy]] 15:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

:Mostly because adding or subtracting from recovery rolls isn't something I support. Without some seriously hardcore bonus typing (i.e. one bonus type ''ever''), what will happen to recovery rolls is the 4e Orbizard, and I have no desire to support such. Additionally, the system already uses non-d20 rolls for a whole bunch of things (such as damage rolls and durations and so on), so I'm not really sure why this is a problem.

:As far as dissipation rolls go, I think using a d6 gives me enough grain to be happy. These are designed to simulate round/level durations, which I think they do quite well already. Anything which lasts longer than that will either be Slot, [Passive], or have a duration that's so long that there's not much need to track it unless your GM is being difficult.[[User:MisterSinister|MisterSinister]] 19:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

::Aside from the stuff I emailed you, I think these are actually too easy to accurately replicate the round / level duration you intend on replacing. I also dislike these because there's little difference in recovering from a high level caster's spell and a low level caster's spell in that it's equally easy to recover from either of them. Are you opposed to an alternate formulation along the lines of "make a level check = DC 18 (or X for non-standard spells) + caster level of effect, with a +1 bonus for each additional check"? That makes it more difficult to get out of on the first roll, but progressively easier as the effect goes on (maintaining the round / level ness of an effect) while also maintaining higher CL effects being harder than lower CL effects. - [[User:Tarkisflux|Tarkisflux]] 20:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

:::I actually quite like that formulation. It also neatly addressed Havvy's concerns as well, and I'd be happy with it. It's also quite extendable to non-casty things. So yeah, let's do that instead. [[User:MisterSinister|MisterSinister]] 21:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

::::Actual math shows the suggestion I pulled from my ass is likely to mimic durations that actually matter in combat based on level differences instead of absolute level, and do so without invalidating ToP condition fixing / ignoring abilities, so yay for that. It's nice to be able to support my own suggestions. Thanks for pointing this out Havvy. - [[User:Tarkisflux|Tarkisflux]] 23:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Secondary issue with this change. Non-stacking duration rules are now dead, and need to be rethought in new setup. I'd suggest highest CL effect for recovery DC thingy, and each additional failed save resets counter (even if it's from a lower CL caster). Or something. - [[User:Tarkisflux|Tarkisflux]] 01:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

:Sorry if this sounds espically dense, but I'm not sure what you mean by 'non-stacking duration rules'. Could you please elaborate for my benefit? - [[User:MisterSinister|MisterSinister]] 06:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

::Not dense, it's not a rule that comes up all that often. In standard magic rules, if you fail a save against ''glitterdust'' and then a few rounds later you fail another save against ''glitterdust'', the new duration only matters if it's longer than what you have left on the existing duration. If the new one is worse, you get the whole of it, and if it's not worse it doesn't actually do anything to you at all; i.e. the durations don't stack. 

::I'm not at all sure how to deal with multiple instances of the same condition under the recovery setup. We probably want something similar though, because without it you can't extend people's suffering with repeat castings and I always liked that. For reference, the equivalent rule in the current increasing bonus system is "if the new old DC less your current bonus is smaller than the recover DC you just failed against, dump your bonus and use the new DC", and that sucks. If we changed it from an increasing bonus to a decreasing DC setup, you could just be stuck with the highest available DC at any given time, but I'm not sure the decreasing DC setup is a better call for tracking and simplicity reasons (though I could very easily be overthinking this). So it's either not deal with it and ignore the problems, use crappy formulation and hope it doesn't come up much, turn existing setup on head and do subtraction, or something else I haven't thought of. - [[User:Tarkisflux|Tarkisflux]] 07:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

:::As an aside, Dissipation and Recovery could work on the same system, but then Dissipation becomes something you want to roll ''low'' on, while Recovery is the opposite! Are we cool with this? - [[User:MisterSinister|MisterSinister]] 03:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

::::No. d20 is a "roll high" system, and I don't want to move away from that. - [[User:Tarkisflux|Tarkisflux]] 04:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

:::::I was dense when I wrote this apparently, and now actually see what you mean. Yeah, "recovering" from a beneficial status effect is something you probably wouldn't want to do, and so would want to roll low on your checks. I'm not sure if that alone is sufficient justification to introduce another mechanic or not though... simplify mechanics, or simplify results expectation? - [[User:Tarkisflux|Tarkisflux]] 18:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC)