A Complete Dexterity Rework (in General)

Inspired by Sutekh in the EC v AMF thread, here's an idea to toally change the way DEX works.

There is no longer a DEX based 'chance to hit', instead, DEX is converted into pth, like the weapon stat. Each point of pth gives a cumulative 1% chance to landing an attack on your target. This chance is capped at 90% (or +90 pth) for each attack, with left over pth forming a chance to land another attack. (I’ve used a cap of 90%, but all figures are mutable!)

At base (20 DEX), DEX provides +90 pth, giving a 90% chance to land a single hit.

Each additional 'x' amount of DEX grants another 1 pth.

You opponents DEX give – pth, but at a lower rate. At base (20 DEX), Defensive DEX provides -40 pth (Giving starting characters a 50% chance to land a single blow on each other, before taking weapons into account).

Each additional 'y' amount of DEX grants another -1 pth.

-pth is taken from the overall total pth of the attacker, before calculating the number of attacks an attacker can make.

Weapons modify your final pth. 1 Handed weapons increase this by 25% (or * 1.25), 2 Handed reduce this by 25% (or * 0.75).

Shields also reduce pth, though DEX penalties, or their standard (Which I've forgotten!) penalty (It’s possible to use a Shiled with a 2 Handed weapon – it usually involves Straps, or planting the Shield in the ground – which is refelcted by the Shield penalty in addition to the 2 Handed weapon penalty). DEX penalties from Shields don’t effect defensive DEX scores, only penalising the attacker.

DB and Evasion are unchanged. DB still provide -pth based on thier enchantement level and Evasion still provides -pth and Defensive DEX which adds to any natural DEX before calculating defensive DEX -pth.

:) Just a start here, please disect!

that would make evasion better than DB? and how would this effect the PTH added by the ToA? i own both of these items and am just curious as how you change would nerf/buff them.

PTH from ToA would be unchanged. It would add with pth from weapon and DEX.

:)

As for Evasion being 'better' than DBs, that depends on the amount of DEX required to get a single pth point. I feel Evasion should be somewhat better, being a trained skill, than an item. But in the very least, it would allow Evasion and DB to stack, allowing a counter to ToA pth. ;)

I was just asking because i was under the impression that evasion granted defensive DX as well as lowering weapon PTH.

You're under the correct impression! =D

Ok, I'm confused. Some questions:

Are you proposing this in addition to weapon PTH or instead of? If the first, how will they stack, given that you're proposing a cap of 90%?

If the second what would you propose for weapons? Simply damage? Or changing the enchantment to an extra percentage increase to PTH per point, in a similar way bonus armours work?

Also if you are capping the PTH per attack, should you not be introducing a cap on DB's and evasion, or at least make their working more random?

(Not flaming, just working my brain around this. It's interesting but I'm not sure I've quite grasped what you're proposing...)

I agree with Johnny's 3rd (third)(#3) question - wouldn't there have to be a randomness factor, at least?

And Johnny, the way I was understanding it, Weapon PTH would add with DX PTH for a final PTH, and for every 100 PTH there was a 100% chance to hit one blow. (so for quads, 500 PTH, etc). With 1 and 2 handed weapons modifying that final number.

Yeah! :D

Dex turns into pth (Modified by Armour +/- and Shields), which adds to weapon based pth and ToA pth. This final figure is modifed by 1/2 Handed wepaon choice (Probably leave UC as is...).

From this total, -pth is subtracted (From opponents DB, Defensive dex -pth)

The remianing total pth is then used to determin how many times you attack.

Without a cap (leaving it as 100 pth = 100%) a final pth of 350% would give you 3 attacks at 100% and a fouth at 50% to land.

I only propsed the 90% cap to give a small chance of attacks missing, as I like the randomness. This wouldn't have too much effect, as you don't lose the 10%. If capped at 90% per attack, 350 pth would then give 3 attacks at 90% each and a forth at 80%.

:)

Minus pth doesn't need to be capped, as it doesn't effect each individual attack, only the total score.

My original idea (I don't do numbers) was simple:

Turn everything into pth before the battle (or, more correctly, round by round). Then run the battle (round) as normal.

Dexterity penalties all stay exactly the same. No need to rework those. The remaining dexterity (after penalties/EC/axbox reduces it) is converted to pth and added to the weapon pth, ammo pth, ToA pth -- however it is already working on the pth side (I honestly have no idea, I find tanks to be exceedingly droll).

But everything is pth, and dexterity no longer has a defensive aspect in this new scheme (I see these as Good Things). This is what I want. I don't want dexterity to be such a massively important stat that both attacks more AND dodges, based simply on having just a little more dexterity than your opponent. I want it to be like everything else. This also has the effect of making EC on a mage useful again. If I can reduce the opposing pth in any way, that will benefit my mage. As it is now, even if I reduce a tank to 100 dex, he still hits me once or twice based on dexterity, plus all the pth-based hits. Under some sort of conversion system, a 100 dexterity differential would not be all that helpful.

I am not going to state numbers on what dexterity would convert to on the pth side. Only Jonathan could know how to really balance that out (and he isn't going to do this anyway, he likes the dexterity "game" as far as I can tell). And, as I said, I see no need to rework the existing dexterity penalties. Apply everything as it currently is (penalties, EC, axbow...), and then convert remaining dexterith to pth. Lather. Rinse. Repeat each round.

So EC would basically take away PTH? and of course ST still but...

Ah! So instead of Tanks facing Tanks landing one blow on each other per round (ignoring weapons), they'll land 2 or three 3, as the defensive dex side won't be counted.

In essence, equalling out the damage tanks deal to minions.

:D

I like it!

If tank dmaage was equal across the board, it would make balancing it eaiser.

You can reduce tank damage atm to make it better for mages/enchanters, as that would lead to reducd damage versus other tanks.

But if everyone is getting hit the same amount of times, it would be easier to balance that for everyone!

I like!

And it gives a reason to train Evasion over BL for tanks! :D

And easier for everyone in light of ALL the tank changes in past year: ToA pth, 1-hand, 2-hand, shields... It would all reduce to one number, a number that can be reduced by the target's Evasion and DBs. Also, no more need to have DBs eat at pth and THEN start eating into dexterity (by the way, right there is your dexterity to pth factor -- Jonathan must already have some such factor in place if the + on DBs can eat into dexterity when it exceeds the tank's pth).

If Jonathan wanted, he could even show the final net pth figure each round for tanks/targets in parens or somesuch. Great data to dissect and see where it is all coming from, and helpful for determining how bad penalties are, the effect of DBs, ammo, etc.

Seems to me like if this is implemented, you can look at numbers of two tanks (two strategyes) and instantly know is going to win. Lack of NW will be an even bigger penalty. I not against it really, just saying that it going to make all tank fight real black and white.

"From this total, -pth is subtracted (From opponents DB, Defensive dex -pth)"

So evasion would lower pth by its level and then again by its defensive dx? i see that as being *gasp* "overpowered"

Just change it back, i'm tired of having 60k dex and my opponent having 10k dex and him landing every blow

I did not say anything about defensive dexterity. My original idea had no concept of "defense" on dexterity, only pth (which is offensive). From there, only the pth reducers would reduce the pth: DBs and Evasion. Opposing tanks would have their own pth (if Jonathan wanted to make those two linear things cancel, fine with me), but it wouldn't be this all-or-nothing thing. Dexterity would be about offense, about increasing the number of hits via pth, and every little bit of dexterity (and reduction) would matter (to tanks and mages alike).

As it stands now, it is actually EASIER to tell which tank is going to win. The one with more dexterity automatically gets that 1-2 swing advantage (or maybe even 2-3 with the dodges!), and from there you compare weapon pth. How is that any different than the new scheme? The new scheme all translates to offense, that's all.

The bottom line here (in my eyes) is that you either like the dexterity "game" or you don't. If you like the dexterity game and want to play "who has 20 more dex!" all day, then my idea is absolute rubbish. I completely accept that. However, I personally never liked that part of the dexterity game on CB1. Made me feel cheap when I was winning against Spid and made me feel cheated when I was losing. But I am all ears to the tank teams out there: do you like the dexterity game as it currently stands?

If you don't, then I am not sure what holes one could find with this dexterity-into-pth idea. It's straightforward and balanced, and facilities already reside in the game to map dexterity to pth.

Weigh in!

The DX game is part of why I'm going to be going UC. See, once I break about (100) effect on UC and have +100 PTH, I'm going to stop training Dexterity altogether. Why? Because Defensively, having a huge UC gives me its level in Evasion during ranged (with my Gi) and 2/3 its level during melee....meaning my Defensive DX is just going to be bigger, no questions asked. It'll also add PTH and X, so there's barely any reason to add STR and the offensive power will be in the PTH.

*BBQ sees UC as the way around the Dexterity game for tanks.

BBQ...exactly... You are already doing what this new dex-to-pth idea would foist upon everyone -- getting around the uselessness of trained dexterity. I am saying let's embrace that and make it the case across the board.

This may reduce your "advantage", but that is how most ideas end up -- taking away some loophole someone was using to get around a game element that's not working as well as it could.