Dodge Skill vs Parry Skill

[SDLeary]

Originally Posted by frogspawner

Hmm, that seems sort of familiar from some other system... despite that, I like it too. But would there be a problem far up the STR/SIZ scale, with +50 bonuses (or whatever)?

It would be way up the scale. A combined Strength and Size of 71-75 yields a DB of +10.

The formula is ((STR + SIZ) / 5), round up, then subtract 5.

SDLeary

PS... what other system were you thinking of? <dense right now>

[drohem]

Originally Posted by SDLeary

It would be way up the scale. A combined Strength and Size of 71-75 yields a DB of +10.

The formula is ((STR + SIZ) / 5), round up, then subtract 5.

SDLeary

PS... what other system were you thinking of? <dense right now>

I like that formula

[RMS]

Originally Posted by frogspawner

Hmm, that seems sort of familiar from some other system... despite that, I like it too. But would there be a problem far up the STR/SIZ scale, with +50 bonuses (or whatever)?

With the current system once you get to 5 or 6 d6's, the variance is so low as to make anything far away from the average extremely rare, so this really isn't much different in practice. A +49 bonus is the average from rolling 14d6. Just what STR/SIZ combo does that need!

[Atgxtg]

Originally Posted by RMS

With the current system once you get to 5 or 6 d6's, the variance is so low as to make anything far away from the average extremely rare, so this really isn't much different in practice. A +49 bonus is the average from rolling 14d6. Just what STR/SIZ combo does that need!

12x16+56=248 or so.

[Atgxtg]

Originally Posted by drohem

I like that formula

Steve Perrin used that in SPQR. Originally he changed the damage bonus to a flat number too. Then, after prompting by as yet unrevealed source (), he offered the option of switch the +1 to a +1D2, the +2 to a +1D4 and so on like I had posted on the previous page.

[frogspawner]

Originally Posted by SDLeary

PS... what other system were you thinking of? <dense right now>

I think it was called "D and <something>". Can't quite remember the other letter...
And yes - nice formula (good pedigree). Something about the "Dice + Adds" method appeals, too: clean and neat (my T&T background showing?). I just wondered if having big flat bonuses like "+50" (or even +20, or whatever...) would offend too many people around here. It seems not...

[NickMiddleton]

Originally Posted by frogspawner

I think it was called "D and <something>". Can't quite remember the other letter...
And yes - nice formula (good pedigree). Something about the "Dice + Adds" method appeals, too: clean and neat (my T&T background showing?). I just wondered if having big flat bonuses like "+50" (or even +20, or whatever...) would offend too many people around here. It seems not...

They don't "offend" me, but I'd never use a flat db, and that's why I like the Elric! die step table, as it keeps the db as a single dice (and thus a linear addition to base damage) for as long as possible and also mitigates the "centre loading effect" of simply adding additional dice of the same size.

In my pedantic moments I favour taking the RQIV:AiG approach and adjusting ALL weapons to a single (or if absolutely necessary two) Dice, and db to something like the the Elric die step table (but including d12's ) so for the majority of vaguely human scale entities damage is a single die from a weapon and another single die from their db, thus preserving the variability of damage#.

Then I come to my senses and remember that it's all a bit fiddly and that since I've been happily using the standard BRP damage table for a quarter of a century I'm obviously really not that bothered...



Nick Middleton



#which to me is an important element that represents the quirks and fickle moments of fate in combat where a beatifully timed blow you don't see just happens to coincide with a stumble that swings you back such that it only catches you a glancing blow on the thigh, rather than a solid blow to the gut...

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

We never did that. But then we usually had much better parry scores.

Most characters did; as noted, it was hard to have a good Dodge score. But that didn't mean we thought the few people who depended on them should be idiots, and the old rule pretty much made them such, since they were almost certainly doomed the first time a crit came in.

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by drohem

Yes, in RQ3 none of my characters used the Dodge skill; the penalties were too steep, success was a toss up, and starting percentage too low for my tastes. They all developed a parry skill of some sort; usually the Shield skill.

The usual cases we saw were sorcerers (who already had to keep their encumberance really low anyway) and a few light-fighter florentine fighting types who needed _something_ to do about ranged attackers.

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

Steve Perrin used that in SPQR. Originally he changed the damage bonus to a flat number too. Then, after prompting by as yet unrevealed source (), he offered the option of switch the +1 to a +1D2, the +2 to a +1D4 and so on like I had posted on the previous page.

At least one of the RQ4 drafts was simillar; my only complaing was they used some adders in some cases that made wierd bumps in the progression, but as long as you didn't mind a damage bonus being different size dice (1D6+1D8 for example) it was fairly easy to iron that out.