# DoS / DoF

## Recommended Posts

Hey Guys,

I just recently realized that the DoS / DoF definition has changed in the Beta2 !

Now, you dont count 1DoS/DoF per 10 deviation from the roll, but you count the characteristic bonus difference ???

What nonsense is that ?

That makes the second number of your char values even more unimportant, as someone with 39 who roles 25 has 2 DoS (1 for succeeding in general, 1 for the deviation between the char bonus and the rolls first digit), but someone with 31 has the same 2 DoS.

This was different in OW IIRC.

This needs to be changed back !

##### Share on other sites

We've had at least two threads discussing this at length. I'd recommend giving them a look.

I personally prefer this system because the effect on the math is minuscule, but the effect on ease of calculation is excellent.

##### Share on other sites

Didnt see the other threads...

The effect on calculation is huge enough - it can make a difference of 9%.

And even worse, it makes the second digit much less usefull.

So, looking at PCs and NPCs, we now mainly differ between a value of 3 and 4. Great game, really.

##### Share on other sites

I realize we've had this discussion before, but I still don't see anything I would consider "math".

There's a limit to what I'd want to see cut only for "ease of calculation"; if it's manageable at a glance, it's manageable at a glance - how much easier does it have to get?

I really like that a simple success is now a DoS (because it avoids the initial confusion as to how Degrees of Success work; "So, I succeed.. no degrees of success..?". But I greatly prefer the previous systems, where it was a simple Success # - Target #.

At present, they are devaluing Characteristics, making the Characteristics Bonus overly powerful to the point where small increases hardly even matter, and all that matters are increments of 5 to 10. In a system where you would like to limit the relative scales (or at least, if you've got any sense, you should want to), making Characteristics an arms race to the next major increase is a terrible idea.

Half the reason the system gets eventual scaling problems is because people don't use modifiers correctly, but the other half is because of things like this, which will inevitably skew the system towards higher numbers (who cares about that +3 modifier from that advance; it won't even take you 1/3 of the way to a meaningful increase!), which means that to measure relative powers in a relevant fashion, you'll have to scale things artificially to compensate (i.e. in order for advances, alternate careers, "specialist archetypes" or whatever have to give out larger bonuses in order to stay relevant and stay in line with the fluffing).

##### Share on other sites

And you can bet that everyone who takes the point allocation system at character creation, will get values of exact 30, 35 or 40 at EVERY characteristic (you can look at the created characters for the PbP as good example).

It is a horrible idea, that shifts the balance and simplifies the calculation in a way thats just not right and not good at all.

This change is more an impact on compatibility between OW and DH2 than e.g. the introduction of the beta1 fatigue system ever would be.

##### Share on other sites

And you can bet that everyone who takes the point allocation system at character creation, will get values of exact 30, 35 or 40 at EVERY characteristic (you can look at the created characters for the PbP as good example)..

This has been happening since Rogue Trader, though. Characteristic bonuses are always going to be appealing to raise, and 5s are easy to work with mathematically. I wouldn't read into it too deeply, honestly.

##### Share on other sites

I would read into it really deep.

It makes the whold d% useless if such steps are taken.

The char bonus uses already have a tendency that you mention, but this new DoS-calculation makes it worse.

And with what benefit ? Simplification of some math thats easy anyway ?

##### Share on other sites

And you can bet that everyone who takes the point allocation system at character creation, will get values of exact 30, 35 or 40 at EVERY characteristic (you can look at the created characters for the PbP as good example)..

This has been happening since Rogue Trader, though. Characteristic bonuses are always going to be appealing to raise, and 5s are easy to work with mathematically. I wouldn't read into it too deeply, honestly.

And it was bad back then, too - it's just a lot worse now. What I want is a gradual improvement, not gradual degeneration.

Bonuses to Characteristics should be a lot smaller, with "big hits" being +3 at most, not an assumed increment of 5 for the purpose of reaching the next big '10'. In Only War, for example, I liked that they went back to the basic 2d10+20 for Characteristics generation, but I dropped my jaw at a flat +5 just for taking a specialization - and then they launched a system of Advanced Specialization that further exacerbated the issue.

It's the completely wrong direction to take things if you want to avoid unchecked power-creep and wildly inconsistent portrayals of characters.

At some point, why even roll a 1d100, when a 1d10 is just as likely to do? For Tests alone it'll have a margin of error at 10%, and if you're intent on making it matter little for anything else, why bother?

Edited by Fgdsfg

##### Share on other sites

As they talk about 5 times +5 currently (max. +25), I'd rather like to see 8 times +3 (max. +24).

If you bring back a rank table with 8 ranks like in DH1, you could even tie it to 1 increase per rank, each increase granting +3 on the characteristic.

##### Share on other sites

As they talk about 5 times +5 currently (max. +25), I'd rather like to see 8 times +3 (max. +24).

If you bring back a rank table with 8 ranks like in DH1, you could even tie it to 1 increase per rank, each increase granting +3 on the characteristic.

Going by OW as a base, I would like to, instead of having 4 increments of +5 as Characteristics Advancement, have 5 increments of +3 - and then perhaps limit that to one Characteristics Advance per 500 to 1000xp spent, to partly act as an experience sink, and partly to act as a limiter on rampant characteristics growth early in character careers.

This would keep the characteristics growth gradual, while also keeping it tight and manageable, putting an emphasis on character skill characterization rather than wide-scale growth of Skills as something underneath the umbrellas that are individual characteristics - and also serve to prevent the long-term power-creep that inevitably happens in order to keep new material interesting and feel relevant.

But now I think we're slightly veering off the topic.

##### Share on other sites

As they talk about 5 times +5 currently (max. +25), I'd rather like to see 8 times +3 (max. +24).

If you bring back a rank table with 8 ranks like in DH1, you could even tie it to 1 increase per rank, each increase granting +3 on the characteristic.

Going by OW as a base, I would like to, instead of having 4 increments of +5 as Characteristics Advancement, have 5 increments of +3 - and then perhaps limit that to one Characteristics Advance per 500 to 1000xp spent, to partly act as an experience sink, and partly to act as a limiter on rampant characteristics growth early in character careers.

This would keep the characteristics growth gradual, while also keeping it tight and manageable, putting an emphasis on character skill characterization rather than wide-scale growth of Skills as something underneath the umbrellas that are individual characteristics - and also serve to prevent the long-term power-creep that inevitably happens in order to keep new material interesting and feel relevant.

But now I think we're slightly veering off the topic.

In general ok, but I wouldnt want char values to be capped so low.

I like it to be possible to reach 65-70 if you max something out.

That would make it possible to rise up to become a true legend, like an Inquisitor, a magos or similar iconic persona.

##### Share on other sites

Inquisitors are generally defined more by their contacts, resources, training and equipment than by raw natural ability. Magi get most of their imposing power from augmentations, which stretch beyond natural limitations.

I'm happy with a cap around the 60 mark.

Edited by Tom Cruise

##### Share on other sites

I dont see it like that.

Inquisitors, Magi and alike are experience, old and extremely well trained in what they usually do well.

They are elite individuals who protect mankind. And shouldnt be capped at lousy 60 ;D

Keep in mind that with 4*5 increases you just may reach 60 currently (at +20 start), if you start at the possible MAXIMUM at character creation at that given characteristic (which is almost impossible at rolled chars)

##### Share on other sites

I dont see it like that.

Inquisitors, Magi and alike are experience, old and extremely well trained in what they usually do well.

They are elite individuals who protect mankind. And shouldnt be capped at lousy 60 ;D

Keep in mind that with 4*5 increases you just may reach 60 currently (at +20 start), if you start at the possible MAXIMUM at character creation at that given characteristic (which is almost impossible at rolled chars)

Not true. The highest possible starting characteristics (dealing with absoluts here) is 45 (2d10+25), making the maximum 65.

I wish it was 2d10+20, but it isn't.

I like the way the Homeworlds don't assign flat values, though - but I'm not sure I'll keep it, because it restricts freedom in some regards when it comes to Homeworld design (such as making up for certain abilities not comparing with other abilities by having someone actually get that +5 instead of a +3, or maybe a -5 instead of a -3 because they get a really kickass ability somewhere else.. things like that).

And 60-65 is beastly, really.

Edited by Fgdsfg

##### Share on other sites

In my own homebrew, I have it at 25+3d5, with +/- characteristics providing hard modifiers of +5 or -5. In terms of advancement, players can get three +5 advances (easily changed to five +3s though, which I may well do).

That means that if you're minmaxing to the extreme, you can push for 60 in your + characteristics. 55 being the hard maximum for most, and 50 for the - characteristics.

I think it's a good level to set things, it means things like Space Marines can still exist on the 1-100 scale (depending on how you interpret their power levels anyway).

##### Share on other sites

Its more prevalent now. My player group have been doing this with STR and T since whfrp, because the bonus was the most important thing.

I have no problem with it working in increments of five in theory, so long as the advancement system isn't at odds with it.Something that immediately springs to mind is if they want the game to work like this they need to change the bonuses in divinations to reflect that style of game, because at the moment they're meaningless.

##### Share on other sites

YOu couold combine the increases with the +20 / +25 char gen options

If you start +20, there are 5 increases possible.

If you start +25, there are 4 increases possible (the 1st increase is given for free)

##### Share on other sites

To be fair, a +3 or a +2 have ALWAYS been pretty miniscule bonuses with little meaning. Characters doing a point buy have ALWAYS tended toward the simplest progression toward increasing the 10s digit. There's a reason why literally every roll modifier in the game adds by 10s (okay, two reasons, one of which is simpler math). The new DoS further codifies the importance of the 10s digit as essentially acting as the gatekeeper to how many DoS you can get. All of the modifiers in the game are based around increasing that 10s digit. There are no +5s other than for psykers. The whole system is designed around the 10s digit. I don't really see how the new DoS invalidates the current system that much.

##### Share on other sites

So, let's change to rolling a d10 then. Why waste attention?

##### Share on other sites

Because that'd require FFG to actually change things?

##### Share on other sites

I'd be perfectly happy if they made it into 3d something to get a bell curve. The only issue is that d100 does allow DoS to be used as a second resolution mechanic beyond binary pass/fail and is pretty much the only nice quality of the system beyond being transparent in probabilities. But no, feel free to get hyperbolic about how the emphasis on the 10s digit destroys the system without considering how the system, you know, works.

##### Share on other sites

I do have to wonder how much you'd really lose from the system if you stripped it down to d20. I mean, that still allows for all the 5 values you'd get in the current d100 system, so characteristic advances can be slightly less earth shattering.

I haven't given this any serious thought though, I'd rather replace the current mechanic entirely than try to downscale it.

Edited by Tom Cruise

##### Share on other sites

I'd be perfectly happy if they made it into 3d something to get a bell curve. The only issue is that d100 does allow DoS to be used as a second resolution mechanic beyond binary pass/fail and is pretty much the only nice quality of the system beyond being transparent in probabilities. But no, feel free to get hyperbolic about how the emphasis on the 10s digit destroys the system without considering how the system, you know, works.

I do tend to favour bell curve systems.

##### Share on other sites

I ranted extensively against the math change in one of those other threads Tom mentioned, but in the interest of completeness I'll repeat my position: the new system is like fingernails on a chalkboard to my O.C.D.

Counting is the first mathematical procedure most of us learn, and (unless you don't use currency) it's the one we use most often in our daily lives, so I have no problem simply counting increments of 10 to determine accurate DoS. I don't consider a potential 9% error to be insignificant, and I don't find the unintuitive 'Drop the 1s digit, subtract the 10s digit, then add 1 back' formula to be as silky-smooth as others seem to. Plus it's irritating to roll two dice just to treat the result as a single-digit number...

Yep.

## Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

## Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account