Players have been asking for years what checks are, and how exactly we resolve attacks and other uncertain situations in the game. Many have written long forum posts with theories about how the numbers are crunched in Conclave, making their best guess at how useful a +5 attack bonus is, how painful a -2 penalty to Strength must be, and what your chances of success, great success, and epic success are at any given time. So far, every guess has landed far from the mark – and that’s not something to be proud of. We want Conclave’s resolution system to be easy for players to understand and apply, even while making sure it supports all the concepts in the game and offers a variety of possible results to many actions. Right now, the system does the latter, but not the former: it’s too much of a black box.
Conclave’s resolution system can be broken down into two pieces: finding score differentials, and using them to find a success range. Any time we need to see if an entity succeeds or fails at something, we calculate a score differential, derive the success range, roll some virtual dice, and get a result. This whole process is called a check.
A score differential is a comparison of some aspect of an entity that’s attempting some action – attacking a foe, sneaking past a guard, wielding the Earth Rune – against some aspect of the thing it’s trying to affect with that action. For example, a hob thug trying to hit a character compares its Attack score versus the character’s Melee Dodge. The result is a positive or negative number, which is the score differential. If that thug has an Attack of 12, and the character has a Melee Dodge of 7, the score differential is a 5.
We then use a set of equations to map the score differential to a range of probabilities for achieving different levels of success or failure, all on a percentile scale. That’s the success range. I won’t get into the details of the equations for deriving success ranges here, in part because they may well change in the coming months; the important thing to understand is that, given a score differential, they tell you the % chance that you’ll fail, succeed, succeed well, or succeed awesomely.
The big problem with score differentials right now is that some of our scores are on an entirely different scale than others. Specifically, traits and level are on one scale – a scale where numbers are generally between 1 and 10 – and skills are on a scale between 1 and 100. This means that every time you want to make a comparison between, say, my Tactics skill and your Insight trait, we are comparing apples to oranges, and have to do a conversion.
This might not sound so bad, and indeed it’s no big deal for the computers running Conclave. But the need for conversion makes it harder for players to understand what’s going on with any given check. I may personally know that a +5 to attack (your attack being based on your weapon skill) is roughly equivalent to a +1 to your Strength, but how is a player supposed to realize that? Even if we educate players as to how the calculation works, they are stuck constantly having to make a division-based conversion each time they want to weigh the odds and figure out how much a given bonus or penalty might affect them.
It gets worse, though. The conversion of skill scores to the same scale used by traits and level is not strictly divisory. (If you want to skip this part, don’t worry: the whole point is that the math is unnecessarily complicated and confusing, and there’s no need to go through the confusing complication in order to get it!) See, the problem is that skill scores go up at different rates right now, depending on whether you are good at the skill or only okay. Every archetype has a skill in which they are primary (e.g., Beacons are primary at Persuasion) and another that’s secondary (e.g., Beacons are secondary at Polearm). Each level, you get 7 skill points towards your primary skill, and 3 towards your secondary. This means that, as you reach higher and higher levels, the disparity between primary and secondary skills grows greater and greater. Left unchecked, this would mean that a level 10 Beacon is vastly better at Persuasion than at Polearm, even though the difference is fairly minor at level 1. This forces us to include a “normalization factor”, where your skill total is divided by your level when we calculate your final score for a score differential.
All of this works – and even works well – from the perspective of coming up with good probabilities of success under the wide variety of situations where we want to use checks. But it’s an absolute beast to try to understand and apply, as you can see from the above explanation. Heck, it can be challenging for us to intuit, and we designed the system!
So it’s time for an overhaul to the calculation of the scores we use in determining score differentials. Here’s the big change: skill scores are going away entirely. If you have a skill, you have it; if you don’t, you don’t, and that’s all there is to know. Some checks are skill checks: for those, you’ll get a bonus if you have the skill. You’ll still have a chance of success if you lack the skill; it just won’t be as high. Specifically, we’ll take your level, add the trait that’s related to the skill in question, and add a skill bonus to that if you have the skill.
This allows us to calculate all scores for score differentials using a single equation based purely on addition. We don’t have to divide skill scores by some factor to get them on the same scale as traits and level, nor divide them further by level to keep primary and secondary skills from growing widely variant as characters grow more powerful.
How will this affect you as a player? First, your character sheet is going to look a bit different. You’ll just see skills, not skills plus skill scores. Your attack and dodge scores will be lower, because those were based on skills scores. Attack, dodge, skill and check bonuses granted by equipment or abilities will be lower too. However, this is all just a change in scale, and it means that if you get a +1 bonus, whether it’s to Strength, Bludgeon skill, or directly to attack, it always has the same effect on your chance to hit with your maul.
All of this is subject to change by the time the final version of Conclave rolls out. We might put these changes into testing and find that players hate them. But we feel pretty confident that the basic theory here is correct, and that we’re taking a good step towards making Conclave a game that models all sorts of situations well, but is still easy to understand.
I’m all for understandability and the avoidance of over-complication!
That said, I wonder if this approach is an over-simplification, or if you have an approach for someone who wants to, say, add additional emphasis to a skill – as, for example, a Rogue who wants to specialize in stealth at the expense of weapons skills (or the reverse, for that matter).
Could this be done by, say, stacking skills?
I can see this as a way to differentiate characters over time in a way that matches playing styles (I may want my beacon to be more of an inspiring leader sort, or may want them to be more along the lines of a master spearman.
Other possibilities exist, but you get my meaning.
Any hints?
🙂
@Crazypoet: Don’t worry! One of the nice things about the above change is that it’s not at all hard to re-introduce multiple skill levels – translating to different amounts of skill bonus during skill checks – if we find doing so is a good thing to do.
What we’re hoping and expecting, however, is that your Beacon will be able to express a specialty in terms of the abilities you select for her. If she’s more about inspirational leadership, perhaps she’ll choose abilities like Embolden or Oration; if she wants to be a master of the polearm, she’ll select Whirling Strike and Hooking Blow. As Conclave focuses so much on abilities, we think you’ll get a complete sense of characterization and customization by offering a lot of customization in that realm (and, secondarily, through how you assign your trait points).
Thanks! That gives me more clarity, and a better understanding of what you have in mind.
Oh man, reading through all that math was like… Mind = Blown. I guess that if you have visual representations and someone explaining it to you in person, it’s easier to understand but… XD Walls of text! Avert your eyes! Skip, paraphrase, move on 😛
Glad that you guys put so much thought into this. The system above is really detailed and worked from a mathematical stand point, but I agree with your reasoning for changing it; now my party won’t have such a debate over what to do when we’re debuffed 😀
All for the skill customization. Can’t wait for what’s in the next update!
I really like this change; one of my frustrations on a Beacon was having the weapon skill be a secondary skill, so once I had used my limited heals, if there weren’t any fear based enemies I felt like I whiffed a lot while the other characters got to hit every time, and the extra reach of the pole arm only modestly made up for it when I could have brought in a Runecaster instead and been effective every round (especially since Runecasters clear bleeds and not burns… my party with the Beacon and no Runecaster suffered a lot from bleeds.) I did use Lead by Example all the time, and when I could afford the +attack pole arm, I shifted to it and that really improved matters — but I felt that any other weapon choice would be subpar because of the very high cost of whiffing, and I could see skipping all of the 1500 weapons later on down the line if none of them offered a +attack option. Tying group buffs to hitting with a weapon only exacerbated this issue, and I could see it getting worse as it scaled up.
Customization via abilities will work very well for me. If you want the system to become even more flexible, another choice you could offer is the option to do an ability in either the major or the minor, instead of tying it to one (and maybe add another use of the ability if that option is taken?) — so then I could have a Beacon that could move next to the melee who charged off and got feared, and clear their fear with the Rally power that I bought an upgrade on to be able to use as a major as well.
I was getting the feeling that bigger skill differentials made a definite difference, though I hadn’t crunched the numbers. Does a bigger skill differential also mean more crits? I played a Trow true bow and felt like I got more crits and bleeds if I used the Trow +5 check racial before a volley, but that could easily have been confirmation bias.
zxsacg
t8zciz
x4xq3w
zst1lf
h5zd5e
clof7x
l983ja
9am6p1
loqwqd
yfgx8u
4crhuy
qjtg4x
a8lfvt