| Welcome to Pokemon Tabletop. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Revamping the Accuracy System; How set in Stone are the Accuracy Mechanics? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jul 17 2015, 11:59 AM (1,334 Views) | |
| Giant2005 | Jul 17 2015, 11:59 AM Post #1 |
|
Pokémon Trainer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I'm not entirely happy with the Accuracy Mechanics of PTU and I wanted to know two things: Firstly, if anyone else is experiencing these same issues with them, and secondly if the developers are willing to do anything about it (Assuming this isn't something entirely unique to me). Basically, I played a game once on Roll20 where the GM didn't have a lot of spare time, so he didn't go to the effort of statting up character sheets for his Pokemon nor any serious macros to go with them. I can understand the issue as it does take quite a lot of prep time to set these things up but what I learned during that game was that that prep time is incredibly important but the Accuracy mechanics was the only real reason as to why it was so important. He was essentially manually rolling both his d20 for accuracy checks and whatever his damage was and that slowed things down to a nightmarish crawl - the prime reason for the delay was that us players had to constantly look up the moves he was using to see what their accuracy checks were, in order to figure out if they hit us or not. It made me realize that PTU essentially has two variables associated with the Accuracy roll: the variable result of the d20 itself and the variable to-hit check which is the move's to-hit check + the target's Evasion. Sure the latter isn't truly variable in that the same move will always have the same check but the variation between moves is a problem. The solution is something that could easily be taken from other systems like DnD. Instead of having a variable to-hit check, have a standardized AC of 2 + the Pokemon's Evasion. The variation in each move's accuracy could be done with accuracy penalties being given to those that are supposed to hit less (A move with a To-Hit of 7 would have a -5 Accuracy penalty). This would mean that the DM could simply roll his 1d20-5 instead of a straight 1d20 and the Ac check would be standardized to the point where both the player and DM would immediately know whether or not it hit without having to go through the effort of calculating/remembering the Pokemon's Evasion score and checking what the accuracy target of the move used was. This would result in a much more streamlined game that wouldn't require so much prep time and really could be done on the fly without slowing the game to a crawl, like the GM I mentioned tried to do. It also wouldn't change the mechanics of the game at all, it would merely change the way they are written in order to make their results far more visible to everyone involved. Opinions? |
![]() |
|
| Bowyer | Jul 17 2015, 12:35 PM Post #2 |
![]()
Pokémon Trainer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
This new system doesn't change anything. You still have to look up what the "to hit" value for a move is. It has the same issues just in a different location. If I know the ac of a move is 7 it is apparent if I roll above it. If my to hit has a -5, it is apparent if I roll less than 2. If you use an ac method you search before or after the roll while in the to hit method it is exclusively before the roll. Either way takes time but the ac method has an advantage, on obviously high or low rolls one doesn't need to search for the ac. Examples being 1 and 18 |
![]() |
|
| FanaticRat | Jul 17 2015, 12:59 PM Post #3 |
|
Pokémon Trainer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
While there is something to be said for the amount of prep work that needs to go into a session, this seems like it is a problem of the gm being unprepared than anything. Of course the game will slow to a crawl if he has to look up each move when he rolls it. In my experience, the quickest way to do this is to simply state the ac of the move when you roll it, which makes it much faster to determine if it hits. |
![]() |
|
| ClockworkBen | Jul 17 2015, 03:58 PM Post #4 |
|
Walking Bulbapedia
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The way my playgroup handles it around the table is where whenever we're using an attack, we state what essentially amounts to "I use [an AC 2] Ember on X. I rolled 5 above [the AC]." (After all modifiers are applied.) It's quick, and requires minimal effort, since you only need to glance at your Evasion to know if the attack is a hit or miss, since the AC of any move is Move AC + Enemy Evasion. |
![]() |
|
| SinGin | Jul 17 2015, 04:45 PM Post #5 |
|
Eisgekühlter Bommerlunder
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Bad prep work is not a problem the devs need to concern themselves with. Nor is your fix a fix but a simple substitution to a system you are more familiar with. That's fine, but neither relevant nor difficult to implement in your own playgroup. Now I have to admit I make very little prep work, but for that is not an issue if you know your tools. There is a pokemon auto stat tool linked on the blog. It does random everything with move pool and move description straight from the book, and through Roll20 you don't even have to tell your players what you are using. There is also PanoramicPanda's online tool that can even spit out whole encounters randomly by habitat, also linked on the blog. So just suggest the proper tools and I am sure the next session will go smoother. P.S. Every game slows down to a slog if people have to flip through the book to see what they need to hit stuff. Edited by SinGin, Jul 17 2015, 04:46 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Giant2005 | Jul 17 2015, 08:46 PM Post #6 |
|
Pokémon Trainer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I agree the issue I faced was more of a GM issue than anything - he could have known the accuracy of the move as easily as he did the damage. I'm not really sure why we had to look it up each time instead of him simply telling us. Having said that, I do disagree with a couple of the points raised in this thread. Firstly I do think the developers should be very interested in taking any measures necessary to cut down on the amount of prep work. Having less prep work requires increases the potential playerbase - I am pretty confident that the GM I mentioned is never going to play PTU again and there are probably others that have found the system to require far more time than they are willing/able to put in. Reducing the prep time makes the game far more player friendly and the game's popularity can only rise by doing so. Secondly, I know it probably doesn't make a lot of sense for my proposal to cut down on anything considering the math is exactly the same, but it really does. A variable accuracy roll vs a variable accuracy target is far more problematic than a variable accuracy roll vs a static accuracy target, even if they are mathematically identical. If you play in person with actual dice, it probably doesn't make a difference but it absolutely does over a virtual tabletop. |
![]() |
|
| Major | Jul 18 2015, 02:12 AM Post #7 |
|
Pokémon Trainer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
perhaps I'm not understanding something, but if I understand correctly then you are saying in the example of a move with an AC of 5 it should be AC 2 with an effect that says - 3 to your accuracy roll? Edit: Because if so that saves zero time. A GM would have to look up what the roll penalty is each time. Plus it'd make the move description basically the same. There would be a combat rule that says all moves are AC 2+evasion and then instead of the line "AC: X" it would say "to hit: -X" both require a look up. Plus majority of moves are AC 2 so most would be -0 pointlessly. Now the only "advantage" is you can roll 1d20-5 and if player is evasion 6 then you know it's always 8. So you type roll for 1d20-5 and know when you roll 7 instantly. However...does anyone really take that long to do math that is usually less than 10? Can anyone not count that fast? 1d20, I rolled a 12! Ok it's AC 5 and I'm evasion 6, that's 11 it hits! 5+6 shouldn't take that much time. And math is the only time saver. Because you still have to know your moves to hit penalty so "look-up" time is same. Plus very few people like rolling smaller numbers. Knowing a strong move is 1d20-5 sucks. Not to mention crits mixed with accuracy bonuses. Say I used hone claws or an order or spent AC. So I roll 1d20...then subtract 5...then add one. End result is 14. Is it a crit? That actually slows you down because unlike 5+6 it's multiple stage and reverse engineering. Ok...15...but I subtracted 5 so add 5 that's 20! Wait...I added one so I subtract one so 19! Not a crit. Edited by Major, Jul 18 2015, 02:30 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Giant2005 | Jul 18 2015, 02:28 AM Post #8 |
|
Pokémon Trainer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Yes that is basically what I mean. Although the move itself wouldn't have an Ac of 2, whatever you are trying to hit would have an AC of 2+Evasion and you would need to meet or exceed that number with a 1d20-3. |
![]() |
|
| Major | Jul 18 2015, 02:29 AM Post #9 |
|
Pokémon Trainer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Sorry edited a point in. didn't expect anyway awake. |
![]() |
|
| Giant2005 | Jul 18 2015, 02:54 AM Post #10 |
|
Pokémon Trainer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
That is true in theory but if the GM hasn't prepared anything, him typing in 1d20-5 gives an actual result which the player could then compare to his own evasion. With the normal rules, he would just type in 1d20 and unless the GM had already sorted out a full macro (With would say ≥ 7 + Target Evasion after it), the player would be sitting there clueless as to whether or not th move actually hit him. 1D20-5 provides all of the relevant info, 1D20 doesn't.
That right there is a fairly good point. Although Roll20 (And an actual die) have mechanics that already consider that. With a die you know that you have crit because you are staring at the natural 20 you just rolled. In Roll20 the box of the result will be green if you Rolled a natural 20. However with an expanded crit range it does get a bit messier, you do have to mouse over the result to see what you actually rolled to figure out whether or not it is within your crit range and considering the random junk that shows up in those rolls, it can be difficult trying to figure out which part was actually the die roll. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Pokemon: Tabletop United · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
12:07 PM Jul 11
|
Pokéball created by Sarah & Delirium of the ZNR





![]](http://z4.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)




12:07 PM Jul 11