CYBERDAGGER'S PROFILE

I think it's obvious by now that I am not too fond of subtractive defense calculations, except in a small sample of cases. I also would like to get rid of the necessity of having level influence the damage calculation, as, again, it makes it so the same attack stat can have a different damage range. And I plan on having low damage variance, no higher than 10%.

author=Crystalgate
That is harder than you think.
...

Yeah. Though, it's not far from those games that have the defense stats work by simply nullifying a percentage of the damage. Those games, much like this idea, can't afford to have defense values scale up a lot. I think the numbers would end up pretty similar to those of a formula that scales up with level, exept instead of scaling the attack further, I'm nerfing the defense scaling to a point where it's nearly nonexistant.

Would having the attack scale in a quadratic function be a good alternative solution?

Speaking of enemies with limit breaks... I've been playing Fate/EXTRA, as it piqued my interest as an RPG that has a rock-paper-scissors element as a core mechanic. As it turns out, the bosses in that game do have limit breaks. (Given the setting, all bosses have a similar skillset to the player, actually.)

It does add a bunch of tension to the fight when you know it's coming. Being on the receiving end of an incoming limit break is an interesting experience. Even if you had momentum before, the tables have been momentarily turned. You have to focus on surviving that one turn. I have to admit that most of my deaths against the first boss had her limit break as a cause.

And being able to do something about that limit break is also a pretty nice thing. Against the second boss, I managed to manipulate him into not using his limit break even though he had it ready for some turns.


Edit: And the discussion shifted by a lot once I posted. Lemme catch up to the new points...

Getting back from that tangent, I now realized why so many divisive damage formulas use the attacker's level as a variable. Looking back now, it's kinda obvious. And I was so adamant that one character shouldn't deal more damage than another with the same attack stat just because his level was higher...

A very basic divisive damage formula goes: P*A/D
Where P = power, depends on command used and is relative to the average HP total. If the average HP is higher, the average power will be higher as well.
A = attack stat of attacker
D = defense stat of defender

As attack and defense increase proportionately, the total damage will remain similar, while the HP totals increase. As levels go up, damage relative to total HP will decrease.

This is easily fixed by multiplying the attack component of the damage calculation by a number proportional to the level, relative to the proportional to the average increase in HP per level up.

Of course, these calculations are assuming everything levels up, but in most RPGs the enemies' stats are static. This can be problematic, as grinding becomes too effective as a way to increase attack. In games where enemies level up with the party, the defense gained from levelling up offsets this, of course.

I think I could take advantage of the fact that the enemies' stats are invisible to the player. I could give the illusion that the enemies' defensive stats are increasing, but I would keep them about the same. The enemies' average defenses would be the same, regardless of whether they are meant to be fought at level 5 or 30. The higher HP would act as the damage sponge, giving players the illusion that their higher attack is letting them overcome higher defenses, when in reality they are simply overpowering the same defense levels they fought before.

author=Trihan
If you feel it'd be more convenient that way, then make a proposal to change it. ;D

It's a convenience issue, it doesn't change the mechanics one bit. There's no need to waste a rule proposal on this.

Riposte: The implementation of something purely mathematical like a damage formula will have the same result regardless of engine, not taking into account things like rounding, which make so small a difference that they are irrelevant.