Can we please stop claiming that higher skills have a lower chance of getting at least as many DoS? It's just not true.

If the target number is 40, you have a 39% chance of getting 2+ DoS.

If the target number is 41, you STILL have a 39% chance of getting 2+ DoS.

The odds do not get worse. The only change is that you have an additional 1% chance of 1 DoS.

The only "odd" thing about this is that your odds of getting 2+ DoS suddenly jumps by 10% (from 39% to 49%) when your characteristic hits 50. This is nothing new - increasing the characteristic bonus has always been a big deal.

EDIT: Ninja'd!

I'd like to thank all the people contributing to this thread for giving me a new perspective on certain things - namely, how easy it is to mistake "different" for "bad".

Thanks to this thread, I'm back to wanting to give 2e a fair shot. Now, to somehow convince my players...

Morangias,

That's been my feeling the entire time. I dislike the way that FFG has not laid down much justification for rules changes/there being no communication between Devs, but I can assume that they are all made for some reason. I dislike having to search through these justifications myself, though, and I feel like it's kind of hard to do a Beta Test without being given some direction/reasons for rules existing so that people can know what the expected outcome is.

I also know that FFG uses Freelancers to write specific chapters, hence the lack of connections between some mechanics (only mention of the investigation system outside of the GM and Narrative Chapters is the Inquisitor Elite Advance).

This means that some of the rules changes are likely to be unknown for how they interact with each other. The Wounds System/RoF System is an example of this. However, at an individual level, all of these systems were changed or included for a specific reason, and I imagine they at least had to be run by a central developer before being included.

I think it sucks that we're left right now to try and divine out what FFG's reasoning behind changes is, but I think that's worth doing when criticizing the rules.

FFG would really be awesome if they could give some reasonings behind the rule changes to help guide players in their use and testing. Maybe a list could be compiled of all the controversial changes that could then be sent to FFG for clarification?

Edit: Took out unnecessary snarkiness about math.

OK, maths-based egos, and sniffy comments aside, this illustrates the glitch i'm talking about.

However, the actual roll you make includes everything from 1-100, and thus the actual numbers would be:
WS40 (1% chance of 1DoS, 10% of 2 DoS, 10% of 3 DoS, 10% of 4 DoS, 9% of 5 DoS.
WS 41 (2% chance of 1 DoS, 10% of 2 DoS, 10% of 3 DoS, 10% of 4 DoS, 9% of 5 DoS.

You have FAR greater chance of rolling 2+DoS than 1 DoS.

Shouldn't there be a more balanced spread of possible DoS results?

Shouldn't 1 DoS be the most common success result, with multiple DoS results becoming increasingly rare?

Many moons ago i used to love playing Shadowrun. That system had a 'dead 7' target number threshold issue, in that a Target Number 7 was irrelevant (if you roll a 6 on a d6 and get the added d6 roll, you can't fail to get a 7).

This '10 threshold' thing feels like a similar glitch, quirk, or whatever.

Note: I've reserved 1Action Point to Evade the verbal cultery about to be thrown in my direction.

The 'glitch' as I see it, is that the DoS is somewhat unpredictable. I get that the probabilities of success are what they are, but that doesn't change that this system behaves weirdly when you cross the '10 threshold'. Basically, having a target number in the low 40s is better than having a target number in the high 40s. If you roll against 40, rolling a 39 gives you two degrees of success. Against 39, rolling a 30 gives you one degree of success.

That's the kind of inconsistency that makes the mathematician in me want to scream.

I still find the old system both more intuitive, and more mechanically sound. Again, I get what they are trying to do, but this is a really inelegant attempt.

You have FAR greater chance of rolling 2+DoS than 1 DoS.

Shouldn't there be a more balanced spread of possible DoS results?

Shouldn't 1 DoS be the most common success result, with multiple DoS results becoming increasingly rare?

Using the original DoS system with 1 automatic DoS being added just for succeeding (most people accept this as a decent enough change from back in Black Crusade and Only War), you will still almost always be more likely to get 2+DoS than just 1 DoS.

Yes, it is kind of weird that a character with a characteristic of 39 is more likely to see only 1 DoS on a successful roll than a character with a characteristic of 30. However, this is still only when taking into account the successful roll. The 39 characteristic PC is still more likely to succeed at all. I do agree that the idea of a weaker character being more likely to succeed well than succeed poorly does seem kind of weird. However, in exchange for that you get (arguably) easier math, and an increased focus on the Characteristic bonus (10s digit) for all characteristics. Maybe it helps to think of every increase in the 10s digit essentially adding a DoS to the character's base success. It's got way more value to add to that than to just add to the 1s digit. That in and of itself seems like a good change to me.

OK, maths-based egos, and sniffy comments aside, this illustrates the glitch i'm talking about.

Duly noted, and corrected with my apologies for snarkiness. You did originally state that your chance of 2+ DoS goes down, though, which is incorrect. Hence my frustration.

Basically, having a target number in the low 40s is better than having a target number in the high 40s. If you roll against 40, rolling a 39 gives you two degrees of success. Against 39, rolling a 30 gives you one degree of success.

Wait, that test is inconsistent. You said that having a low 40s is better than high 40s, but then in your example you use a low 40s target (40), and a high 30s target (39). If you use a high 40 as the target(49), and roll a 39, you get 2 DoS, same as if the target number was low 40s.

If you're saying that you think it's weird that rolling 9 below a 39 gives less DoS than rolling 1 below a 40, I would like to reiterate the point that this new system is taking the emphasis off the 1s digit and putting it on the 10s digit (which also is used for characteristic bonus). You don't get another DoS until you increase the 10s digit. A characteristic in the 30s always has less potential DoS than a characteristic in the 40s, which has less than one in the 50s, etc. This represents a focus shift.

Yes, it is kind of weird that a character with a characteristic of 39 is more likely to see only 1 DoS on a successful roll than a character with a characteristic of 30.

Which brings me to the point about random vs points buy character generation.

Why randomise it when with points buy you can optimise your stat DoS probabilities?

And also, doesn't that mean you're better off hoarding xp until you have enough to move a 40 stat to 50, rather that dropping your DoS probability curve with an interim jump to 45?

I don't know...but this DoS wording seems to introduce more issues than it fixes. No?

Um...and...another thing about points buy - just thinking out loud here...

Doesn't it short-circuit the whole d100 mechanic as players stick to whole numbers? Compound this with the 5pt-block increases, the 0-100 spread is then into a 20-increment spread. And that brings up intriguing core system change issues, like the temptation to switch d100 to d20, NOT i hasten to add, like the woeful TSR/WotC/Hasbro d20 system, but the exceptionally good Greg Stafford d20 version of BRP as seen in the Pendragon RPG.

Yes, it is kind of weird that a character with a characteristic of 39 is more likely to see only 1 DoS on a successful roll than a character with a characteristic of 30.

Which brings me to the point about random vs points buy character generation.

Why randomise it when with points buy you can optimise your stat DoS probabilities?

And also, doesn't that mean you're better off hoarding xp until you have enough to move a 40 stat to 50, rather that dropping your DoS probability curve with an interim jump to 45?

I don't know...but this DoS wording seems to introduce more issues than it fixes. No?

Um...and...another thing about points buy - just thinking out loud here...

Doesn't it short-circuit the whole d100 mechanic as players stick to whole numbers? Compound this with the 5pt-block increases, the 0-100 spread is then into a 20-increment spread. And that brings up intriguing core system change issues, like the temptation to switch d100 to d20, NOT i hasten to add, like the woeful TSR/WotC/Hasbro d20 system, but the exceptionally good Greg Stafford d20 version of BRP as seen in the Pendragon RPG.

I'm sorry if I come off as sniffy, it's not intentional - but there's a point here that needs to be hammered home, and doubly so when you take Nimsim's quote out of context:

No, it does not mean that you're better off hoarding xp until you have enough to increase your bonus. You are never reducing your odds of getting at least as many Degrees of Success as before when you increase a characteristic, no matter by how much or to what value (so long as it's an increase, obviously).

You have exactly the same chance of getting at least as many DoS as before. What's "decreasing" (and I really think we should stop this branch of though, because it only leads to confusion) is the relative chance of getting 1 DoS to the chance of getting 2 DoS. And this is only because your chance of getting 1 DoS increases - the chance for 2 stays the same.

It's like saying you're going to have fewer oranges when someone gives you an apple. You had 2 oranges and 1 apple to begin with. Now someone gives you an apple - you still have 2 oranges.

Again, I mean absolutely no offence - I just don't want to focus criticism on a misunderstanding, when there's a lot of more important things that could be worked on.

As an aside: Yes, you're absolutely better off with buying characteristics, rather than rolling them. This is exactly as it's always been (since the introduction of manual distribution), though, because the Characteristic Bonus has always been a big deal.

I'm sorry if I come off as sniffy, it's not intentional - but there's a point here that needs to be hammered home, and doubly so when you take Nimsim's quote out of context:

No, it does not mean that you're better off hoarding xp until you have enough to increase your bonus. You are never reducing your odds of getting at least as many Degrees of Success as before when you increase a characteristic, no matter by how much or to what value (so long as it's an increase, obviously).

OK, i'll just point out that all quotes are taken out of context.

Onto you answer, excellent.

Hopefully you'll note that mostly what i'm doing is asking questions rather than making criticisms. Questions about the rules so we can debate them.

There appear to be a large number of people on these boards who've forgotten that this is a beta test and that we should be nit-picking, drawing out possible issues and debating them. That's what FFG presumably wants from a beta test, no?

I and my group are learning the rules at the moment and should be 'going live' in a couple of weeks. We'll be doing everything we can to stress test and break these rules, and hopefully feed back our findings here.

On a general point i've read a lot of threads with increasing amazement and dismay at the rage-hate, and '1st ed is king and it shall never change', etc.

Weird.

Personally i'm generally really liking the 2nd ed and the direction its taking. 1st ed never floated my proverbial boat, but there seems to be something, and i'm not sure what, that these 2nd ed rules have that's keeping me interested (so far). The character gen is SO much better in my opinion, and (aside from the tweaks) only really needs to be expanded in terms of options (civilised worlders?, Trader role?, Imperial Navy? etc.). I'm sure there will be a bloated slew of supplekments to fill in these blanks though.

On this topic i simplky thought...ooh...hang on. 'Isn't there a weird bit of rules jiggerypokery going on around the tens threshold there'?

Amongst the 'huh, know your maths you peasant' sort of comments i think there's been a really productive debate around whether or not my observation is correct.

Nice one.

I'm glad we're getting to the same page - I agree with you on the general reception of the rules, too: I generally like them, and don't feel the hate is warranted, but there's definitely stuff to fix.

You're right that we should definitely be poking around and trying to see what might be wrong. It just seemed important to distinguish the two very different observations that (a) Degrees now work differently (definitely warranting discussion) and (b) buying stat increases effectively makes you worse (which would be tremendously important, but just isn't right).

None of this was intended as a personal "learn your math!" attack, but an attempt to clear up a misunderstanding before it caught on.

In short: Awesome. Carry on.

First, you and a few people posting here in agreement with you don't actually make "an opinion of most gamers", so I'd ask you to either back your claim up with some solid statistical evidence or rescind that argument.

Second, even if you have hard statistical evidence, it's still an argumentum ad populum, and thus irrelevant to the discussion of whether the rule is good or not.

Third, the rule in question isn't objectively wrong. It's just different and not mathematically intuitive, but "lower roll is better" is in no way an objective fact when discussing percentile roll-under mechanics. You may not like it, but it's as good a method for measuring the totally abstract thing like quality of your imagined success as any other you may devise.

Fourth, even if you were right on any one point you've made, it wouldn't make your tone any less awful.

1) The evidence that most gamers don't consider anything less than 10% to be irrelevant is based on the lack of complaints about the old system.

2) The rules exist for the pleasure of the consumers, so the fact that the target audience doesn't seem to like it is a component of 'whether the rule is good or not'.

3) Yes, 2 DoS from passing by 1% but only 1 DoS from passing by 9% is 'objectively wrong'.

4) Okay, I'll apologize for my tone. I've been posting on my breaks at work, and I've been pressed for time, so I probably haven't worded my responses as thoughtfully as I should have.

Still, I haven't heard anything here to convince me that the Playtesters defending the new system aren't just trying to avoid admitting that they recommended a bad rule to 'solve' a non-existent problem.

My problem with the DoS changes are that they are not intuitive. Before you just compared numbers and that's how many DoS you got. It was simple. I've never really been a fan of the initial successful roll counting as a degree of success in itself, and I think that change was made back in BC? But I understand the purpose for it.

It's the "changing 10's place" issue (the aforementioned 39 on a target number of 41 being 2 degrees) that makes things confusing, and will have people struggling with DoS math. And yes, I do believe people will struggle with it. I've seen people struggle with the original DH math, and that was just target # -10!

First, you and a few people posting here in agreement with you don't actually make "an opinion of most gamers", so I'd ask you to either back your claim up with some solid statistical evidence or rescind that argument.

Second, even if you have hard statistical evidence, it's still an argumentum ad populum, and thus irrelevant to the discussion of whether the rule is good or not.

Third, the rule in question isn't objectively wrong. It's just different and not mathematically intuitive, but "lower roll is better" is in no way an objective fact when discussing percentile roll-under mechanics. You may not like it, but it's as good a method for measuring the totally abstract thing like quality of your imagined success as any other you may devise.

Fourth, even if you were right on any one point you've made, it wouldn't make your tone any less awful.

1) The evidence that most gamers don't consider anything less than 10% to be irrelevant is based on the lack of complaints about the old system.

2) The rules exist for the pleasure of the consumers, so the fact that the target audience doesn't seem to like it is a component of 'whether the rule is good or not'.

3) Yes, 2 DoS from passing by 1% but only 1 DoS from passing by 9% is 'objectively wrong'.

4) Okay, I'll apologize for my tone. I've been posting on my breaks at work, and I've been pressed for time, so I probably haven't worded my responses as thoughtfully as I should have.

Still, I haven't heard anything here to convince me that the Playtesters defending the new system aren't just trying to avoid admitting that they recommended a bad rule to 'solve' a non-existent problem.

1. Not sure how that matters with regards to an opinion that +/- 10% in an RPG is "trivial." I was stating that with regards to the oh so often occuring effect known as "the forgotten bonus." That, so often, players and GMs outright forget some 10% modifier and it slips through. In a d20 system this is the same as forgetting some +2 modifier. Second, there was a reason I added that 10% reference at the end of my post, with the qualifier "personally" in front of it. It was an attempt to allay what I felt was little more than fear of change. Not a statement that because I feel X, Y should be the case.

2. To an extent, but for the most part, the only reason they're not liking it yet is because of a reactionary response.

3. Not really. You should look at the probability distribution as a whole, not what any single die facing is.

So I decided to be lazy and while not applying actual math, used excel to brute force all the potential DoSs/DoFs for tests ranging in target numbers from 1-100, and die results ranging from 1-100.

EDIT: Blah, can't paste the tables in here.

Anyway, it turns out the only real difference is a reduced chance is that of getting 1 DoS/1 DoF by about 4%, with about a .45% increase in getting anything else. Also its now possible to get 11 DoSs/DoFs on a test (of course, thats in extreme cases with a target number of 1 or 100).

I'm going to recalculate this looking at values within the total set (e.g. check the distribution in the 25-75 range).

1) The evidence that most gamers don't consider anything less than 10% to be irrelevant is based on the lack of complaints about the old system.

Even if that were true (and the interest in the "Easy DoS" house rule proves that at the very least it's not universally true), lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.

2) The rules exist for the pleasure of the consumers, so the fact that the target audience doesn't seem to like it is a component of 'whether the rule is good or not'.

Disregarding for the moment that you haven't yet proven that the target audience doesn't like it, it may be grounds for pulling the rule, yes, but it doesn't prove it wrong.

3) Yes, 2 DoS from passing by 1% but only 1 DoS from passing by 9% is 'objectively wrong'.

This is the part where you whip up the great book of universe's objective truths and find me a quote on how DoS are objectively supposed to be calculated in a percentile roll-under mechanics. I'll wait.

Or we can agree that there's nothing inherently objective about percentile roll-under mechanics at all and thus there's nothing objectively wrong about prioritizing characteristic bonus above overall characteristic value when calculating DoS.

One thing that I find quite interesting, is that in both my 1-100 comparison of DoSs/Fs in both systems, as well as my 25-75 check, both systems have the same amount of "net DoSs" (where I treat 1 DoS as a positive 1, and 1 DoF as -1).

Its 100 net DoSs in both systems in 1-100, and 51 net DoSs in both systems with 25-75. In other words, its roughly in favor of the player the same way, just the probabilities with how you get them are slightly tweaked.

My problem with the DoS changes are that they are not intuitive. Before you just compared numbers and that's how many DoS you got. It was simple. I've never really been a fan of the initial successful roll counting as a degree of success in itself, and I think that change was made back in BC? But I understand the purpose for it.

Well, it wasn't really a change, except for the fact that it confused the heck out of someone who was used to old system. They tried to re-write everything so that 1 DoS was the same as "passing without any DoS" in the earlier games. It was just an attempt to make things a bit clearer to understand, which was good, but it confused those used to the old system (remembering playing a game of Deathwatch with the Black Crusade changes and the GM going "How Many DoS", and the reply being "Old DoS or new DoS?").

Wait, that test is inconsistent. You said that having a low 40s is better than high 40s, but then in your example you use a low 40s target (40), and a high 30s target (39). If you use a high 40 as the target(49), and roll a 39, you get 2 DoS, same as if the target number was low 40s.

Nah, the test just wasn't showing what you thought it did.

But this was kinda my point. If the roll is successful (say, the 39 above) whether your target number (let's say BS) is 40 or 49 is irrelevant. In the old system, a 49 is always better than a 40.

What the test was trying to illustrate, was how If your target is in the low 40s, your chance of a successful roll being of a lower ten is higher than if your target is in the high 40s. And rolling a lower ten than the target number is all that matters.

Eg. if you roll a 37 against a target of 40, you have 2 DoS. If you roll a 46 against a 49, you have one DoS. In both cases, you beat the target number by three, but you don't get the same DoS.

That's the inconsistency. A higher target is, of course, better in the sense that there's a better chance of beating it, but I think the problem with this system is that it's really unintuitive what's good and what's bad. In the old system, "higher stat is better" was the simple truth. That's not the full story in this system.

Eg. if you roll a 37 against a target of 40, you have 2 DoS. If you roll a 46 against a 49, you have one DoS. In both cases, you beat the target number by three, but you don't get the same DoS.

Hence...the glitch.

Wait, that test is inconsistent. You said that having a low 40s is better than high 40s, but then in your example you use a low 40s target (40), and a high 30s target (39). If you use a high 40 as the target(49), and roll a 39, you get 2 DoS, same as if the target number was low 40s.

Nah, the test just wasn't showing what you thought it did.

But this was kinda my point. If the roll is successful (say, the 39 above) whether your target number (let's say BS) is 40 or 49 is irrelevant. In the old system, a 49 is always better than a 40.

What the test was trying to illustrate, was how If your target is in the low 40s, your chance of a successful roll being of a lower ten is higher than if your target is in the high 40s. And rolling a lower ten than the target number is all that matters.

Eg. if you roll a 37 against a target of 40, you have 2 DoS. If you roll a 46 against a 49, you have one DoS. In both cases, you beat the target number by three, but you don't get the same DoS.

That's the inconsistency. A higher target is, of course, better in the sense that there's a better chance of beating it, but I think the problem with this system is that it's really unintuitive what's good and what's bad. In the old system, "higher stat is better" was the simple truth. That's not the full story in this system.

That's only an inconsistency when you assume there's some inherent meaning in beating the target number by the same percentage. There isn't, it just seems to you that way because the old system worked like that.

And again, this "glitch" is the fact that the ones digit of a stat no longer matters for anything other than increasing chance of success. Your chance of success NEVER goes down if your stat increases. Your chance of multiple degrees of success NEVER goes down if your stat increases. The only way to increase the chance of DoS is to increase the tens digit/characteristic bonus. Does this mean that characters bought with points will only want 5s and 0s for the ones digit? Yes, but that was already the case in DH1 for any stats where the characteristic bonus actually mattered (toughness, agility, willpower, strength). This new system equalizes the value of the 10s digit for ALL the characteristics.

Yes, it's a different way of thinking to no longer have the difference in 1s digit matter, and it seems unfair when compared to DH1. But, this change is just different, has a positive effect (equalizing the value of characteristic bonuses/making them all at least be valuable), and just represents a change in priority of ones digit.

The modern human brain is pretty much 'wired' to perceive regular increments as 'right' and irregular increments as 'wrong'; add to that the fact that the increments in 2E are being rendered uneven in violation of the core principle of the percentile Test mechanic (the lower under the target you roll, the better), and I think it's obvious why so many people are irritated with the new system. It's not that 'new=scary', as some people are claiming. The Action Point system is an even greater break from the previous edition, but there have been very few complaints about that , even though it contains some obvious glitches of its own (certain iconic weapons- Eviserators, Sniper Rifles- are rendered nearly useless under the new Action Point rules), but most of us 'old timers' are giving it a chance , because it seems to contain some real potential, and we are hopeful that the bugs will be corrected before 2E goes 'live'.

But I'm just not seeing any benefit to the new Degrees of Success calculation- certainly not enough to counter the drawbacks. The unintuitive equation of "drop the 1s digit, subtract the 10s, then add 1 back" is clunkier and more time-consuming than simply counting increments of 10 (something most of us have had drilled into our heads since grade school), in my opinion.

If the defenders of the new system are truly convinced that it is better, how about a compromise: include both systems in the new Rulebook- the old way for people who value strict linear progression of DoS, and the new system as an alternative, with the clearly stated caveat that it doesn't always give linear results...?

The modern human brain is pretty much 'wired' to perceive regular increments as 'right' and irregular increments as 'wrong';

The increments are regular, they just aren't the increments you keep thinking about.

add to that the fact that the increments in 2E are being rendered uneven in violation of the core principle of the percentile Test mechanic (the lower under the target you roll, the better)

Again, I'm going to have to ask you to provide a quote on that. Nothing in the book says it's a core principle as far as I know.

But I'm just not seeing any benefit to the new Degrees of Success calculation- certainly not enough to counter the drawbacks. The unintuitive equation of "drop the 1s digit, subtract the 10s, then add 1 back" is clunkier and more time-consuming than simply counting increments of 10 (something most of us have had drilled into our heads since grade school), in my opinion.

Are you seriously claiming that 5-3+1 is faster than [(53-34)/10]+1 ?

For the record, I played a test battle with myself yesterday.

I've played 40k RPGs for a couple of years now. I'm always assisting my players, who seem to be struggling with the DoS math, so I've got it down pretty well. I'm not a math wizard, but I do alright.

When I was playing the test battle, I immediately fell into old habits. I did DoS the old way for the first three rounds. Then I remembered the new way to do it, and I'll be damned - it took a fraction of the time.

I don't know if this is a "you have to actually try it" thing, or if it's just individual, but for me at least, the new system is VASTLY superior in regards to time spent calculating.

but for me at least, the new system is VASTLY superior in regards to time spent calculating.

No doubt, but it does introduce a 'tens threshold' glitch.

It's not a glitch if it's by design, and it almost certainly is by design, considering how obvious it is.

If not, then let's start talking about the "glitch" that going from 39 to 40 strength is a much greater change than going from 38 to 39 strength is. It's exactly the same problem - the only reason you aren't worrying about that is because you're used to it.