/tg/ - Traditional Games

>>220092

Isn't there already a D20 Diablo ruleset?

>>220099

http://www.amazon.com/Diablo-Tabletop-RPG-Dungeons-Dragons/dp/078691548X

Yep!

>>220099

>D20

I… really don't feel like a linear d20 roll-to-hit critfail/crit system really gets the feel of hack and slash Diablo.

>>220122

Sure it does. It's called 4e.

OP, I have never played Diablo 1 (yes, I'm a terrible person, I know), but if it is at least a little similar to D2 in mechanics…

No rolls to hit. You just fucking hit, and that's it. You roll to damage and compare to enemy AC or whatever and that's it.

Same for enemies - they just hit you, and that's it. Your armor and class may help, but they just fucking hit.

Effects only are applied (frost, poison…) if actual damage is dealt.

Shields may be rolled to block on random chance - like, for example, an early shield is roll 1d6 and it blocks damage on 6. No matter how high or low the damage, always that chance.

Skill Trees! Lots of them.

Random loot and enemy tables, lots of them. Weapons with prefixes and sufixes, enemies that may be normal or champions or whatever.

And characters having different specialties (more armor/HP vs utility spells vs ranged attacks vs whatever) to encourage group dynamic play and changing playstyles.

Same with enemies.

Same with weapons and their characteristics.

>>220125

>No rolls to hit. You just fucking hit, and that's it. You roll to damage and compare to enemy AC or whatever and that's it.

Except D1 and D2 both have a chance to hit mechanic. In D1 they call it the To-hit rating, in D2 it's the attack rating. Your attack rating is one of several things that adds to your overall chance to hit something.

>Same for enemies - they just hit you, and that's it. Your armor and class may help, but they just fucking hit.

That sounds pretty unsurvivable, in practice.

>Effects only are applied (frost, poison…) if actual damage is dealt.

>Skill Trees! Lots of them.

I was planning on setting it up with class specific talent trees (because that's basically what they were in D2), and general trees anyone could invest in.

>>220122

Meh, like I said, I really feel that the mechanics of the game are integral to its feel and style, and taking it away hinders the experience. But, Diablo does actually work on a Chance-to-hit system, so that sort of mechanic is certainly viable.

>>220143

>Except D1 and D2 both have a chance to hit mechanic.

Well, yes. It's just that - at least for my experience with D2 - the hacking is so fast-paced that in an attempt to extract the feel of it (rather than straight up the mechanics) I'd just go straight to damage. After all, tabletop is slower.

And just rolling damage and calling a "didn't hit" if damage < AC seemed streamlined enough.

Basically, my point is that doing 2 rolls is not fast enough. And for it to feel like Diablo, I feel it should feel fast and meaty.

>That sounds pretty unsurvivable, in practice.

For lightly armored, frail characters? Yes.

For armored tanks? No.

Now, that's just my take on it, by no means perfect. And it has been years since I've played Diablo.

>>220145

>Well, yes. It's just that - at least for my experience with D2 - the hacking is so fast-paced that in an attempt to extract the feel of it (rather than straight up the mechanics) I'd just go straight to damage. After all, tabletop is slower.

This is true. But a Base To-Hit - enemy AC = to target number to roll under doesn't seem too complex either, and it does fall in line with D1 mechanics- though it does take a little bit of the fast and meaty out of it.

>For lightly armored, frail characters? Yes.

>For armored tanks? No.

And there's the clincher. It means everyone has to be an armored tank, or they're fucked if they get into a fight, which isn't in the spirit of how Diablo 1 or 2 plays. Even a Sorcerer has a chance if his enemies close in, if only because of how he can shoot off spells.

And if you're playing a Rogue (who's strength caps at like, 55, so they can't wear some of the more protective higher level armors), that means you're screwed if it comes to melee.

Not saying you're wrong by any means. It's just not necessarily how I'd do it. But, it's definitely making me thing, and that's good.

>But a Base To-Hit - enemy AC = to target number to roll under doesn't seem too complex either

Well, maybe…

What if the opposite of what I was suggesting - you roll to-hit, and the damage given, if hit, is exactly, for example, Strenght + Weapon damage?

So no damage variation, but fast and simple, to-hit rolls.

And then armors do simple damage reduction?

>>220174

That's a possibility. It feels a bit like reinventing the wheel, but by the same token, I've seen similar systems elsewhere. I'm not crazy about flat damage, but it's viable.

I'd try to do it as a card game. Here's why: Diablo 2 had a spiritual successor of sorts called Guild Wars, made by many of the same developers and featuring a lot of similar classes and powers. You had your Necromancer with big minion armies, debuffs, and corpse exploiting stuff, you had your warrior/barbarian type with adrenal buildup, axes/swords/hammers, whirlwind attack, etc, your elementalist with fire/frost/shock stuff (with fire being general damage, frost causing slowdown, and shock being more single target high damage), etc. Guild Wars was less over the top (and far more complex, and more heavily party-oriented), to be sure, but you could basically see it was a successor to Diablo 2.

Now, Guild Wars also happened to be designed to function kind of like a collectible card game; if you've played Guild Wars and played CCGs, especially MtG, you can see the similarities; Guild Wars was essentially the video game version of a CCG.

So, if Guild Wars is designed to be like a CCG as vidya, and Diablo 2 is the spiritual precursor of Guild Wars, it would seem to me somewhat reasonable that you could probably jury-rig Diablo 2 into a CCG.

I don't know if it actually would work, but it seems at least worth considering.

>>220221

I…can't see it for the life of me, but I don't play CCGs, so it might be personal bias.

>>220174

>>220195

Well, it's certainly viable, since the SOIAF game does much the same. Although I personally think damage reduction should be a specifically magical quality, since there's an entire family of magic suffixes associated with damage reduction.

>>220221

>Guild Wars was essentially the video game version of a CCG.

Preaching to the choir here. My brother and I were HUGE into GW1 and most of it stemmed from our mutual love of MtG.

>>221093

>Now, with some things (films, books and so on), mechanics are less important when translating them into a tabletop game medium. But, I'm sort of of the opinion that in the case of vidya RPGs like Diablo, Dark Souls, and Fallout, the mechanics of the game are somewhat integral to the feel of them, more so than other settings.

See this section of the OP again, friendo.

Furthermore…no, not really. If this was the Dark Souls tabletop thread I've been stewing on? Yes, sure, I could see it. But Diablo has never been known for it's excessive difficulty.

I don't mind using d20s, furthermore. You have me confused with the anon that was (presumably) the same one suggesting no to-hit rolls.

On the topic of having one roll for attacking to speed up combat, Maybe have you roll damage dice and a roll of 1 just doesn't hit in general.

Heavier armored targets increase that base number, stronger weapons ignore this armor penalty or roll a larger die type to extend the range of numbers that offer success.

A similar system could be ported to magic, fire magic would have to roll above a certain number if shooting a target with fire resistance.

>>221171

That is also a possibility.

>>220122

>>220143

This is a surprisingly good idea. Its unconventional, but every second saved is a second saved. Focusing on a different defenses (damage reduction, thorns, etc) which you can acquire by managing your magical inventory seems very diablo like and the op said

>> I don't really like the linear d20 roll to hit system.

So do something different. Not to mention that straight up d20 diablo has been done.

>>224675

Nope, not me, that was a different anon. I actually like the linear d20 roll-to-hit system.

Honestly, I think this could work pretty well as a D&D 5e ruleset - I mean, if there's a Dark Souls based on the same, how much better suited for it is 5e? We'd just need to figure out how to design it and go for it from there… which is, admittedly, knowing that crunch is the hardest part, but still.