Star Wars D20?
Eric Brennan
"Jason Mulligan" <sul...@test.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.148735144...@news.dingoblue.net.au...
> So, anyone picked up the new Star Wars game yet?
I got it today. I've thoroughly read the first half and skimmed the second.
The 34.95 price tag may be prohibitive to some, but as far as I'm concerned,
every penny is worth it. It's very thorough, and surprisingly standalone.
I could easily run an entire Star Wars campaign an never look at another
book.
I had planned to only buy the core rules, but if they're indicative of
what's to come, I'll probably be buying more things as they come out. I
really wanted to find something to be critical of in this product, but I
couldn't find much.
For what it's worth, I like the new take on hit-points (essentially,
dividing them into Vitality and Wound points), and Defense, and the starship
combat system is pretty innovative (_I_ haven't seen anything like it.) The
only thing I don't altogether like is the fuzzy distinction between Force
Feats and Force Skills, and even that's a minor complaint.
...And _no_ midichlorians!
--Eric
Jason Mulligan
Stephen Gilman
Mulligan <sul...@test.com> wrote:
> So, anyone picked up the new Star Wars game yet?
It's way too expensive, and I already have over two dozen West End Games
Star Wars books. I ain't forking out for a new game.
If anybody starts running a D20 Star Wars campaign I'll just download the
open-source D20 rules and muddle along.
--
Name: Stephen R. Gilman "We're not making fun of HER! We're just |
E-Mail: medi...@ncf.ca making fun of something she cares about! |
Website: www.StupidiTV.com - The Weekenders |
####################################################################
Greg Dudzic
I too have a nearly complete WEG collection of Star Wars RPG material,
but I decided to buy at least the core rules. I am not dissapointed.
Basically it is the same material built upon a new mechanical system that
works very well and includes a well written conversion system so that
existing material, with a little effort, can be ported into the game.
I agree that the force skills/Feats are a little less well defined than can
be, but I agree that I am happy they did not incorporate the midiclorian
issue. At least not in the corebook.
Also one can set the period in pre Star Wars: A New Hope, Classic Trilogy
Era or the New Jedi Order Era. Which can allow many diverse campains without
getting tright and boring.
If you can get the chance stop at a bookstore/game shop and read Micheal
Stackpole's forward it is very complimentary about the WEG system.
Personally it is a worthwhile buy in my opinion,
Greg
Stephen Gilman wrote:
> In article <MPG.148735144...@news.dingoblue.net.au>, Jason
> Mulligan <sul...@test.com> wrote:
>
> > So, anyone picked up the new Star Wars game yet?
>
Håvard Rønne Faanes
>Greetings,
>
> I too have a nearly complete WEG collection of Star Wars RPG material,
>but I decided to buy at least the core rules. I am not dissapointed.
>Basically it is the same material built upon a new mechanical system that
>works very well and includes a well written conversion system so that
>existing material, with a little effort, can be ported into the game.
How would the conversion system work if you wanted to convert material
from D20 to D6?
Håvard
--
Haavard R. Faanes (h...@nvg.ntnu.no)
http://www.nvg.ntnu.no/~hoc
"God created man in his image, and then man returned the
favour." -Voltaire
Richard D. Bergstresser Jr.
>
> So, anyone picked up the new Star Wars game yet?
Yes.
Looks good.
Minor quibbles over things they left out, and some overdone layout work.
But looks mostly solid.
Longer review when I find time.
George W. Harris
wrote:
:How would the conversion system work if you wanted to convert material
:from D20 to D6?
Just divide everything by 3 1/3.
:Håvard
--
I'm not an actor, but I play one on TV!
George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'.
Jeremy Reaban
Håvard Rønne Faanes wrote in message ...
<snip>
>How would the conversion system work if you wanted to convert
material
>from D20 to D6?
>
They posted the conversion system (at least an early version of it, I
don't have the new rulebook) on their website, in the star wars
section.
It shouldn't be too hard. I used to convert 1st/2nd edition stuff to
D6/Star Wars using my own system, which isn't too different from
WOTCs.
Eventually, my d20 character creator program will convert to d6...it's
not hard. I wrote a crappy D&D (rule cyclopedia) character generator
that did it.
WOTC's system is to subtract 5 from the d20 stat, then divide by 3 to
get the pips.
So someone with a strength of 23, would have a strength of 6D (23-5 =
18, then 18/3 = 6D). Or someone with a strength of 18 would haev a
strength of 4D+1 (18-5 = 13, then 13/3 = 4, remainder 1)
My own method wasn't linear. I equated 4D to 18, and 1D to 3 (with 2D
= 9,10,11, since that is average)
D. Michael Basinger
sul...@test.com says...
> So, anyone picked up the new Star Wars game yet?
>
section on the force is well written and wookies just rock.
I started to convert some monsters from the 3e Monster Manual to Star
Wars. A purple Worm could easly be a space monster also:).
Mike
--
D. Michael Basinger
dbas...@cviog.uga.edu - http://www.cviog.uga.edu/~dbasinge
woodelf
<lesinv...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
> and the starship
> combat system is pretty innovative (_I_ haven't seen anything like it.)
care to summarize?
--
woodelf <*>
woo...@rpg.net
http://members.home.net/woodelph/
I did not realize that similarity was required for the exercise of
compassion. --Delenn
Eric Brennan
"woodelf" <woo...@rpg.net> wrote in message
news:woodelf-2511...@10.0.0.100...
> In article <8vi4mo$67l$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>, "Eric Brennan"
> <lesinv...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > and the starship
> > combat system is pretty innovative (_I_ haven't seen anything like it.)
>
> care to summarize?
Sure. A PCs ship lies at the center of a circle separated into four
quadrants (forward, left, right, back) and various ranges. There's a ship
sheet in the book to handle this, two come in the Character Sheet pack, and
you can easily fudge your own. Rather than use a hex map or the like to
establish position, which would be hell with things like speed and size in
Star Wars, each PC ship basically uses one of those ship sheets to determine
things like range and the like.
All maneuvers are summarized by how they affect the ships on your sheet.
You turn left, they all move right one position; if you close with a ship it
moves one range closer.
Now, I've heard complaints that this doesn't take into account things
like ship size, but the very essence of the sheets are to keep things
cinematic, which it does. I'll be playtesting it on Thursday to let you
know for sure. Plus, it really does spare you hassles with hexmaps and the
like. (I mean, what do you do when two PCs are in different fighters and
head off opposite ends of the hexmap? The conventional hexmap" method gets
complicated quick.) I also have heard complaints that PC vs. PC ship combat
will be impossible, but I don't see the reasons for it. You just keep track
of two sheets.
Additionally, the rules give you a way to keep track of large groups of
fighters by keeping them in "wings." It also allows PCs to do something
similar. (Remember how TIE fighters used to travel in threes?)
This simplifies multiple combatants in a skirmish immensely.
Hope that helps, and more when I actually get to play it--
--Eric
martin
--
"Just look at it this way...river of space...a ripple of time...like a
burial"
-Martin
Jeremy Reaban
Eric Brennan wrote in message <8vphgi$iqo$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>...
<snip>
>Sure. A PCs ship lies at the center of a circle separated into four
>quadrants (forward, left, right, back) and various ranges. There's a
ship
>sheet in the book to handle this, two come in the Character Sheet
pack, and
>you can easily fudge your own. Rather than use a hex map or the like
to
>establish position, which would be hell with things like speed and
size in
>Star Wars, each PC ship basically uses one of those ship sheets to
determine
>things like range and the like.
> All maneuvers are summarized by how they affect the ships on your
sheet.
Actually, I don't think that's need. I used to have a Starfighter game
like that. Only it game with some ships on a little wheel. And you'd
turn them for the facing...
Last Starfighter, I think it was...
Bryan J. Maloney
<578r1tg5g1edkst2a...@4ax.com>:
>On 23 Nov 2000 16:25:06 GMT, h...@nvg.ntnu.no (Håvard Rønne Faanes)
>wrote:
>
>:How would the conversion system work if you wanted to convert material
>:from D20 to D6?
>
> Just divide everything by 3 1/3.
You're mighty proud of your ignorance, aren't you?
Bryan J. Maloney
<MPG.148735144...@news.dingoblue.net.au>:
>So, anyone picked up the new Star Wars game yet?
If you think D&D is the end-all and be-all of gaming, upon which no
improvement is possible, leap from your chair directly and hie ye hence to
get a copy immediately. Do not even finish reading this message.
If you are not overly annoyed with D&D as a rule system, consider getting
it for your collection, but don't make it a high priority, unless you have
got to run a Star Wars game RIGHT NOW and don't have the WEG version
already on hand.
If you have serious dislike for any aspect of D&D, nothing in Star Wars is
sufficiently different to make it worth your while.
The only innovation worth nothing is how it handles hit points. Everything
else is fairly --eh--. Nothing either grossly miserable nor grandly
wonderful.
Avram Grumer
J. Maloney) wrote:
> The only innovation worth nothing is how it handles hit points.
^^^^^^^
I'm assuming that's a typo for "noting." Anyway, as someone who hasn't
even done any more than casually browse through _D&D3_, and hasn't even
seen the d20 _Star Wars_, but is always ready to hear about an interesting
mechanic, is said innovation something you can describe briefly?
--
Avram Grumer | av...@grumer.org | http://www.PigsAndFishes.org
"If the news media owned airlines, there would be a lot less concern about
how many planes crashed, and a lot more concern about whose plane hit the
ground first." -- Dave Barry, 9 Nov 2000
Aaron Day
>
> In article <905mst$r1t$4...@news01.cit.cornell.edu>, bj...@cornell.edu (Bryan
> J. Maloney) wrote:
>
> > The only innovation worth nothing is how it handles hit points.
> ^^^^^^^
> I'm assuming that's a typo for "noting." Anyway, as someone who hasn't
> even done any more than casually browse through _D&D3_, and hasn't even
> seen the d20 _Star Wars_, but is always ready to hear about an interesting
> mechanic, is said innovation something you can describe briefly?
Characters have hit points [called Vitality in SW] in a manner equal to D&D. In addition they have a number of Wound points equal to CON. Damage comes off Vitality first, which regenerates quickly like stun damage. Once all Vitality points are gone, damage goes to Wounds points until death. In addition, once all your Vitality is gone, you are "tired" so you can't run or charge. Finally, critical hits don't do more damage, instead they damage Wounds directly.
Aaron
Angela
> Characters have hit points [called Vitality in SW] in a manner equal to
D&D. In addition they have a number of Wound points equal to CON. Damage
comes off Vitality first, which regenerates quickly like stun damage. Once
all Vitality points are gone, damage goes to Wounds points until death. In
addition, once all your Vitality is gone, you are "tired" so you can't run
or charge. Finally, critical hits don't do more damage, instead they damage
Wounds directly.
>
>
> Aaron
Some innovation! Anyone ever own Villains and Vigilantes? Same method,
pretty much, though they went one better; damage went directly to Hit Points
(equivalent to Wound points here) unless you were aware of the attack and
actively defending yourself, in which case a good bit of it went to Power
(equivalent to Vitality, here). Power is also what you used as Endurance,
basically. WOC plagarism dept. strikes again. Sigh.
Bring back FGU ("F***ing Game's Unplayable"!)
Angela
No .sig
No .shame
Avram Grumer
<546A7A10B3BE7D7F.69502F5D...@lp.airnews.net>,
aa...@cambertx.com wrote:
> Avram Grumer wrote:
> >
> > In article <905mst$r1t$4...@news01.cit.cornell.edu>, bj...@cornell.edu
> > (Bryan J. Maloney) wrote:
> >
> > > The only innovation worth nothing is how it handles hit points.
> > ^^^^^^^
> > I'm assuming that's a typo for "noting." Anyway, as someone who hasn't
> > even done any more than casually browse through _D&D3_, and hasn't even
> > seen the d20 _Star Wars_, but is always ready to hear about an
> > interesting mechanic, is said innovation something you can describe
> > briefly?
>
> Characters have hit points [called Vitality in SW] in a manner equal to
> D&D. In addition they have a number of Wound points equal to CON. Damage
> comes off Vitality first, which regenerates quickly like stun damage.
> Once all Vitality points are gone, damage goes to Wounds points until
> death. In addition, once all your Vitality is gone, you are "tired" so
> you can't run or charge. Finally, critical hits don't do more damage,
> instead they damage Wounds directly.
OK. That's not so much a new idea as a particular implementation of an
old idea, but I guess it may be an innovation within the context of the
d20 system.
Actually, now that I think on it a bit, it's a major change in the context
of d20, at least if hit points are still generated the way they were back
in the mid-'80s (when I last played _D&D_). It makes the Points That
Determine Whether You Die constant (for a given CON), and the stuff that
goes up with levels becomes a bit more ephemeral, more like something I
can believe is trainable. It sounds like a good tweak of the old system,
though not anything Radically New and Different in the wider context of
RPGs.
Richard D. Bergstresser Jr.
>
> sul...@test.com (Jason Mulligan) wrote in
> <MPG.148735144...@news.dingoblue.net.au>:
>
>
> improvement is possible, leap from your chair directly and hie ye hence to
> get a copy immediately. Do not even finish reading this message.
Caveat being that the D20/3e system has some nice improvements over
previous
editions.
But if you hate classes, levels, AC, HP, and large XP numbers, yeah,
stay away.
Classes with the new multiclassing are much less annoying than they use
to
be though, and if SW Hit Points, called Vitality Points work much more
logically than the D+D version...
> If you are not overly annoyed with D&D as a rule system, consider getting
> it for your collection, but don't make it a high priority, unless you have
> got to run a Star Wars game RIGHT NOW and don't have the WEG version
> already on hand.
Or if you hated the WEG version...
(This take isn't as clunky IMO...)
Or if you just really like having more source material on the movies...
(There's a handful of things here I hadn't seen before, and the ones I
have are occasionally presented in a new light...)
> If you have serious dislike for any aspect of D&D, nothing in Star Wars is
> sufficiently different to make it worth your while.
Prolly true, with the exception of multiclassing...
> The only innovation worth nothing is how it handles hit points. Everything
> else is fairly --eh--. Nothing either grossly miserable nor grandly
> wonderful.
Eh, massive amounts of incremental changes make D20 vastly superior to
anything previously called D+D.
(All stats now have meaning, skills have ranks,etc...)
It's worth looking at.
Maybe not buying or running for some of us, but...
(My campaign starts tommorrow...)
Richard D. Bergstresser Jr.
>
> Some innovation! Anyone ever own Villains and Vigilantes? Same method,
> pretty much, though they went one better; damage went directly to Hit Points
> (equivalent to Wound points here) unless you were aware of the attack and
> actively defending yourself, in which case a good bit of it went to Power
> (equivalent to Vitality, here). Power is also what you used as Endurance,
> basically. WOC plagarism dept. strikes again. Sigh.
FeE.
D20 from WOC, inheriter (or usurper, YMMV) to TSR, plagarizing V+V?
ROTFL....
(Hm, 6 characteristics on 3d6, d20 to hit, levels, XP, hit points....
Hm, f'ing original that V+V....)
lizard
>
> In article <905mst$r1t$4...@news01.cit.cornell.edu>, bj...@cornell.edu (Bryan
> J. Maloney) wrote:
>
> I'm assuming that's a typo for "noting." Anyway, as someone who hasn't
> even done any more than casually browse through _D&D3_, and hasn't even
> seen the d20 _Star Wars_, but is always ready to hear about an interesting
> mechanic, is said innovation something you can describe briefly?
>
(vitality points) as you go up in level, but you have a small (=CON)
number of 'Wound Points' which remain relatively constant -- You can
increase one stat by one point per 4 levels, but you'll probably want to
choose something other than Con most of the time. Thus, anyone, no
matter how high level, can be killed with a single attack with a bit of
bad luck -- but you can still mow down armies of mooks. (I am not 100%
positive, but I think mooks in D20 SW can't score criticals. Thus, a
very high level Jedi can make stormtrooper sushi with relative
confidence (though enough of them will wear down his VP), but any
non-mooks on the battlefield (anyone with a 'hero' class, such as an
imperial officer) represents a much more serious threat.)
Frankly, I find this totally in-genre for SW. Vader can kill Luke, or
Luke can kill Vader, but neither is REALLY going to die from Faceless
Minion #59812 rolling a natural 20.
Robert Scott Clark
As proud as you must be of your lack of a sense of humor.
Michael T. Richter
news:3A26E8...@cavtel.net...
It was an original mechanism when it was introduced in C&S in 1977,
however....
George W. Harris
wrote:
:gha...@mundsprung.com (George W. Harris) wrote in
:<578r1tg5g1edkst2a...@4ax.com>:
:
:>On 23 Nov 2000 16:25:06 GMT, h...@nvg.ntnu.no (Håvard Rønne Faanes)
:>wrote:
:>
:>:How would the conversion system work if you wanted to convert material
:>:from D20 to D6?
:>
:> Just divide everything by 3 1/3.
:
:You're mighty proud of your ignorance, aren't you?
You're mighty proud of your cluelessness. Why
don't you hang out in your personal newsgroup? Oh, I
forgot, it's a desert.
--
They say there's air in your lungs that's been there for years.
Richard D. Bergstresser Jr.
Which part? <g>
Don't recall enough C+S to argue this point.
Any help out there?
Bryan J. Maloney
>On 30 Nov 2000 14:02:41 GMT, bj...@cornell.edu (Bryan J. Maloney)
>wrote:
>
>:gha...@mundsprung.com (George W. Harris) wrote in
>:<578r1tg5g1edkst2a...@4ax.com>:
>:
>:>On 23 Nov 2000 16:25:06 GMT, h...@nvg.ntnu.no (Håvard Rønne Faanes)
>:>wrote:
>:>
>:>:How would the conversion system work if you wanted to convert material
>:>:from D20 to D6?
>:>
>:> Just divide everything by 3 1/3.
>:
>:You're mighty proud of your ignorance, aren't you?
>
> You're mighty proud of your cluelessness. Why
>don't you hang out in your personal newsgroup? Oh, I
>forgot, it's a desert.
Cover me with roses.
Bryan J. Maloney
<51EE0FB4F0DD5955.2F1E96AC...@lp.airnews.net>:
And my doggies howl for me right on cue.
woodelf
J. Maloney) wrote:
> The only innovation worth nothing is how it handles hit points. Everything
> else is fairly --eh--. Nothing either grossly miserable nor grandly
> wonderful.
yeah, pretty much my take on it. it's not really broken, that i can see
(though i've heard rumors from actual owners of the game that the Force
rules need some tweaking), but neither did anything make me go "oooooo!
cool!" --which, by comparison, the presentation and several of the
mechanical bits of WEG Star Wars did; as well as just about everything
about LUG DS9 and Fading Suns, just to name a few of its competitors in
the genre. like Episode I, i just don't see anybody getting excited over
this, though it seems like a servicable product (but then, i see people in
Episode I t-shirts to this day, so i clearly am no judge of popular
taste).
fried
like it for the genere, but it's really flawed. The Hit Point system is
terrible in *my opinion*, and the concept that you get better at everything
just because you're more experienced is laughable (a warrior gets to 20th
level, has never used a sword in his life, and suddenly when he picks one up
he's better with it then the 15th level warrior who's used a sword all his
life?). Given this, can I still enjoy Star Wars D20?
Does it use D&D 3d's attack system? Does one get better at all weapons
based upon level rather then training/practice? For that matter are there
still character levels [which I think fits fine in AD&D but prefer WEGs for
space fantasy settings]?
What's the system like? I won't judge it till I try it, but seeing it went
away from WEGs truly uniform mechnaic kinda has me worried.
Adrian
"Jason Mulligan" <sul...@test.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.148735144...@news.dingoblue.net.au...
Shawn Wilson
"fried" <ort...@recorder.ca> wrote in message
news:ldsX5.52148$2A2.2...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> I have the new Star Wars core rulebook on order. I really hate AD&D. Or
I
> like it for the genere, but it's really flawed. The Hit Point system is
> terrible in *my opinion*, and the concept that you get better at
everything
> just because you're more experienced is laughable (a warrior gets to 20th
> level, has never used a sword in his life, and suddenly when he picks one
up
> he's better with it then the 15th level warrior who's used a sword all his
> life?). Given this, can I still enjoy Star Wars D20?
Well, 20th level anythings are better with weapons than fifth level
anythings under all circumstances. There's no real way to focus on
improving weapon ability at the expense of other skills since it's a
function of level, though there are some weapon related feats.
> Does it use D&D 3d's attack system?
Exactly.
Does one get better at all weapons
> based upon level rather then training/practice?
Yes.
For that matter are there
> still character levels [which I think fits fine in AD&D but prefer WEGs
for
> space fantasy settings]?
Yes. Levels *and* classes- Jedi Guardian (Vader, Luke, Ben), Jedi Counselor
(Yoda, Emperor), Force Adept (none in the movies), Fringer (Luke), Noble
(Leia), Scoundrel (Han, Lando), Scout (Chewbacca), Soldier (Admiral Ackbar),
There are also prestige classes- Bounty Hunter (Boba Fett), Crimelord (Jabba
the Hutt), Elite Trooper, Starfighter Ace, Officer.
> What's the system like?
It's like DnD3. There is a bifurcation between the small pool of hit points
you have that are fixed, and the additional hit points your get with each
level, which would be a fantastic thing to use with DnD, but otherwise it's
straight DnD.
Oh, and the 'magic' system is different, which could also be used with
straight DnD.
I won't judge it till I try it, but seeing it went
> away from WEGs truly uniform mechnaic kinda has me worried.
Me too, especially the weapon skill thing. There is no reason weapon
ability can't just be another skill instead of tying it to level.
fried
British superbike champion. He's done that, lived longer than I, and
learned more then I. But I bet you $20 I'm a better Unix system admin then
he.
Perhaps my example was too generic. Let's say a pacifist cleric reaches
20th level. He has never picked up a weapon in his life. Yet he's still
better with any weapon he ever would pick up then the 19th level cleric
who's trained with a mace for the last 40 years.
The class base system generalises. It assumes in X many years/levels
characters will gain this knowledge. That is a nice fast rule, it also
pigeon holes all characters something fierce. It assumes all warriors are
"identical", that they are as diverse as gum in a pack of chewing gum.
> Well, 20th level anythings are better with weapons than fifth level
> anythings under all circumstances.
That's why the WEG system is awesome. You only get good at those skills you
actively use or train in. It's a very realistic way of doing things, I
believe. The D&D system is nice for the genere, I don't know how it's going
to fit into a space opera scenario though.
> There's no real way to focus on
> improving weapon ability at the expense of other skills since it's a
> function of level, though there are some weapon related feats.
Oh please tell me Jedi don't have to memorize powers before they can use
them. That would be SO stupid!
> Oh, and the 'magic' system is different, which could also be used with
> straight DnD.
Adrian
Bokman7757
pigeon holes all characters something fierce. It assumes all warriors are
"identical", that they are as diverse as gum in a pack of chewing gum. >>
Assuming, of course, that the only defining characteristic a warrior can have
is his weapon skill....
lizard
And even if it is...a warrior who takes power blow, cleave, and great
cleave is going to fight differently than someone with weapon finesse
(bow), increased critical(bow), and rapid shot. One is a muscleman who
hacks madly, turning foes into sashimi; the other an agile, bow-armed
sniper who can turn a target into a pincushion from across the field.
Even if the only concern is game mechanics, and then only COMBAt
mechanics, the feats/skills aspects of D20 make two fighters very
different. Only those who have looked no deeper at the rules than
"There's classes. Ugh. Me hate classes. Classes sign of simple mind.
Ugh." can say otherwise.
Shawn Wilson
> Oh please tell me Jedi don't have to memorize powers before they can use
> them. That would be SO stupid!
They don't. Jedi powers are regulated through the need to expend vitality
points to use them.
Richard D. Bergstresser Jr.
>
> I have the new Star Wars core rulebook on order. I really hate AD&D. Or I
> like it for the genere, but it's really flawed. The Hit Point system is
> terrible in *my opinion*, and the concept that you get better at everything
> just because you're more experienced is laughable (a warrior gets to 20th
> level, has never used a sword in his life, and suddenly when he picks one up
> he's better with it then the 15th level warrior who's used a sword all his
> life?). Given this, can I still enjoy Star Wars D20?
Maybe.
(The "like it for its genre" line is the tip off...)
Hit Points (split into Vitality and Wounds in SWd20) work pretty well
at simulating the "main character" factor, so that mirrors the movies
well.
This new take though allows mere thugs to have high attacks and saves
without high HP, so you can still drop 'em fast.
>
> Does it use D&D 3d's attack system?
Yes.
With minor changes.
> Does one get better at all weapons
> based upon level rather then training/practice?
Yes.
(Meta-thinking says that you ARE training and practising as
you go up levels though.)
> For that matter are there
> still character levels [which I think fits fine in AD&D but prefer WEGs for
> space fantasy settings]?
Yes.
As a _fantasy_ system, levels don't seem too out of place here.
Just look at it as a different way of spending XP.
> What's the system like?
D+D. ;)
Modified slightly to accomidate a different style of story.
> I won't judge it till I try it, but seeing it went
> away from WEGs truly uniform mechnaic kinda has me worried.
I found WEG's version clunky.
This one is overly restrictive, but its more intuitive.
YMMV.
Richard D. Bergstresser Jr.
>
> That's why the WEG system is awesome. You only get good at those skills you
> actively use or train in. It's a very realistic way of doing things, I
> believe. The D&D system is nice for the genere, I don't know how it's going
> to fit into a space opera scenario though.
It fits it as well as D+D fits a fantasy one.
Star Wars (and Star Trek for that matter) are full of characters who
keep getting better all around and can do most anything at least
competently.
Adrian Parker
> (Meta-thinking says that you ARE training and practising as
> you go up levels though.)
It's a generalization for speed and simplicity. It's easy to name several
reasons why it's not realistic though. I like it in AD&D [to a point] for
that reason. I see AD&D as a light-hearted, fun way to pass time. Our
characters treat it in a realistic manner, but still... Anyway, in my
opinion it may be damaging in things like Star Wars. I have my book on
order though so we'll see.
I mean wouldn't it be horrible if my Jedi, who's trained with his lightsaber
every day for years, is less efficient with his own weapon then say Boba
Fett [who because of level is better with all weapons, including lightsaber,
even though he may have never used one]. Just the thought of Fett holding
his own with a saber seems silly to picture.
Adrian
Adrian Parker
> (This take isn't as clunky IMO...)
Why do people call D6 clunky? It's very uniform. I like that. Whether
it's shooting a blaster or throwing the skull at the pretty little button as
to drop the gate on the rancor's head, it's all the same. Roll your dice
and meet or beat the difficulty [which is the same difficulty rating used
for all skills]. Meet it, you pass, beat it you fail. Want to and partial
successes? Just say within X many points he succeeds with a partial pass
and decide what that means on the fly.
I always found it very clean, and fast. Others may disagree, that is fine.
Everyone is allowed their opinion. Myself, I like the system.
Adrian
Richard D. Bergstresser Jr.
>
> > Or if you hated the WEG version...
> > (This take isn't as clunky IMO...)
>
> Why do people call D6 clunky?
Difficulty setting versing various die totals.
Among other things.
Lizard
<adrian...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>I mean wouldn't it be horrible if my Jedi, who's trained with his lightsaber
>every day for years, is less efficient with his own weapon then say Boba
>Fett [who because of level is better with all weapons, including lightsaber,
>even though he may have never used one]. Just the thought of Fett holding
>his own with a saber seems silly to picture.
IIRC, Lightsabre is an 'exotic weapon', requiring a conscious choice
of proficiency as one of your Feats. Thus, Boba would only know how to
use a lightsabre if he specifically trained with it, and the GM would
have to consciously allow this. Further, Jedi get special bonuses with
a lightsabre as they go up in level.
The class/level system of D20 is somewhat different than that of AD&D
1st and 2nd edition. It's a lot closer to a skill system than you
might think. A character who chooses feats with a specific weapon and
thus builds a specific combat style around that weapon will trounce
someone of an equivalent level who didn't.
*----------------------------------------------------*
Evolution doesn't take prisoners:Lizard
"I've heard of this thing men call 'empathy', but I've never
once been afflicted with it, thanks the Gods." Bruno The Bandit
http://www.mrlizard.com
Richard D. Bergstresser Jr.
>
> > Yes.
> > (Meta-thinking says that you ARE training and practising as
> > you go up levels though.)
>
> It's a generalization for speed and simplicity. It's easy to name several
> reasons why it's not realistic though. I like it in AD&D [to a point] for
> that reason. I see AD&D as a light-hearted, fun way to pass time. Our
> characters treat it in a realistic manner, but still... Anyway, in my
> opinion it may be damaging in things like Star Wars. I have my book on
> order though so we'll see.
You don't see Star Wars as a light-hearted, fun way to pass time?
> I mean wouldn't it be horrible if my Jedi, who's trained with his lightsaber
> every day for years, is less efficient with his own weapon then say Boba
> Fett [who because of level is better with all weapons, including lightsaber,
> even though he may have never used one]. Just the thought of Fett holding
> his own with a saber seems silly to picture.
Read the rules. ;)
Fett wouldn't take Proficiency: Light Saber, and the Jedi often get
extra
defense and damage while using them.
Yeah, a soldier who concentrates on Lightsaber will probably show up a
Jedi
who doesn't, but that's as should be.
A Jedi who concentrates on lightsaber (ie, takes appropriate feats) will
best a soldier who didn't if they are both so armed.
OTOH, a Jedi won't be as good a blaster shot all else being equal.
(Unless he uses the Force to "help".)
Works for me...
Oh, yes, and Fett, because of his level, (all around combat experience)
IS likely better with a light saber than some wet-nosed 2nd level
Padowan...
I'd have trouble with a system where the grizzled combat vet can't
trash the whiney the farmboy...
Plus; level represents, to some extent, "importance".
I wouldn't expect a competetant 5th level walk on Dark Jedi to take down
our
star 15th level Alliance Fighter Pilot.
(I do have problems with the world's best NASCAR driver being a
damn good shot just by osmosis though...)
Adrian Parker
Person rolls dice, you add dice, you compare to number. I thought the
system was quite fast and simple.
Adrian
"Richard D. Bergstresser Jr." <sorNE...@cavtel.net> wrote in message
news:3A326F...@cavtel.net...
Richard D. Bergstresser Jr.
>
> > You don't see Star Wars as a light-hearted, fun way to pass time?
>
No reason why D+D has to be viewed as a joke is there?
> Or perhaps realistic is a better word.
Nah.
Absolutely not. :)
Maybe "believable"?
> Treating it, and having characters
> act in realistic ways given circumstances.
Which IMO, is mostly not system dependent...
> > Read the rules. ;)
> >
> > Fett wouldn't take Proficiency: Light Saber, and the Jedi often get
> > extra
> > defense and damage while using them.
>
> I'd have to actually have the book to do that right?
Hence the ";)".
It was the concept
> that I didn't like, not the specific example. I could have as easily said
> bowcaster, vibroaxe, archaic gun, etc
You don't picture Fett being good with those?
At least better than say a Gamorrean guard grunt who's only
really practiced vibroaxe work in drills?
>
> > Yeah, a soldier who concentrates on Lightsaber will probably show up a
> > Jedi
> > who doesn't, but that's as should be.
>
> For the life of me I don't know why you'd assume a trained soldier who's
> primary weapon is a blaster would be better with a lightsaber,
A) Did I say this hypothetical soldier used a blaster primarily?
B) I'd assume a well trained marine or SEAL (primary weapon: firearm)
could take the average SCA member if they were both using cutlasses...
Despite the SCA member probably putting in much more time with
WP: Bladed Weapons...
> quite a
> foreign weapon, then the lad who even less experienced generally has huge
> amounts of times with such a blade in hand.
He's a lad.
He hasn't had huge amounts of time with anything.
Especially actual combat.
>
> > I'd have trouble with a system where the grizzled combat vet can't
> > trash the whiney the farmboy...
>
> You would assume all Padawan's are farmboys and whiney?
Did I say that?
OTOH, you implied that the whiney Farmboy who's being trained hour after
hour after hour with his glo-rod is defacto better with it than the
feared
Bounty Hunter who's trained with everything he can get his hands on and
taken down some of the worst scum of the galaxy...
>
> > (I do have problems with the world's best NASCAR driver being a
> > damn good shot just by osmosis though...)
>
> I can go one further. I have trouble with Isle of Man's best driver
> (Dunlop, no doubt about it) being considered the best all round motorcyle
> rider [has he ever sat on a top-fuel drag bike?].
Granted.
Of course most systems seem to use general skills or at least series of
defaults.
If he can "pilot" a car, most sytems give a higher skill with motorbikes
to him.
For playability I'd excuse that.
I have no trouble translating skill with _combat_ to skill with
unfamiliar
weapons, but translating skill with computer hacking to improved
resistance
to poison bothers me. :(
Richard D. Bergstresser Jr.
>
> I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean, "versing various"?
Beats me what those words meant.
Must have been tired. :(
But what they were supposed to mean:
You have multiple die curves (3d6, 5d6, 2d6+2),
Then the GM is asked to set a difficulty number that is appropriate
to all of them.
For a feel of how difficult a given action will be for a given character
you need to keep multiple probability curves in mind.
It's not very intuitive.
Where as a set curve (d100, 3d6, whatever) can be rapidly assimilated
and eyeballed.
IOW, "25 difficulty" tells me little when I don't know what sort of
roll the character will be making from moment to moment.
(This problem is actually more blatant in systems like
Deadlands and WoD, but...)
Adrian Parker
> you need to keep multiple probability curves in mind.
Difficulty is relative only in that it's easier for some people then others.
The task is easier or difficult due to a person's skill, not because the
task is sentient and wants to be harder for a given person.
IE: In game jumping from point A to point B should be a set difficulty. If
my characters jump skill is higher then yours, I would find it easier. Why
base the difficulty on the character's current skill?
Adrian
Adrian Parker
We choose to take it light hearted, or rather to not get too serious with
it. Such is my group's decision.
> You don't picture Fett being good with those?
I tend to pigeonhole things. I think if he were good with them, it would
hurt my image of Fett.
> > For the life of me I don't know why you'd assume a trained soldier who's
> > primary weapon is a blaster would be better with a lightsaber,
>
> A) Did I say this hypothetical soldier used a blaster primarily?
> B) I'd assume a well trained marine or SEAL (primary weapon: firearm)
> could take the average SCA member if they were both using cutlasses...
> Despite the SCA member probably putting in much more time with
> WP: Bladed Weapons...
The example was Fett. And we know his primary weapon IS a blaster, and we
know his secondary weapon is NOT a lightsaber.
As for SEALs, I doubt they train with edged weapons. In fact I'd say anyone
in my Ninjutsu class with even as little as Green 5th would be a better
swordsman. Not to say a SEAL's strength or what have you wouldn't be a
bigger factor, but you get the idea the same.
> > quite a
> > foreign weapon, then the lad who even less experienced generally has
huge
> > amounts of times with such a blade in hand.
>
> He's a lad.
> He hasn't had huge amounts of time with anything.
> Especially actual combat.
Training in a given weapon is far more practical then combat experience with
a truly foreign weapon.
> > > I'd have trouble with a system where the grizzled combat vet can't
> > > trash the whiney the farmboy...
> >
> > You would assume all Padawan's are farmboys and whiney?
>
> Did I say that?
You strongly implied it given the converstaion.
> OTOH, you implied that the whiney Farmboy who's being trained hour after
> hour after hour with his glo-rod is defacto better with it than the
> feared
> Bounty Hunter who's trained with everything he can get his hands on and
> taken down some of the worst scum of the galaxy...
a) The bounty hunter doesn't necessarily train with every weapon
b) The subjet was Padawan's who *do* rigorously train with lightsabers.
>but translating skill with computer hacking to improved
> resistance to poison bothers me. :(
Agreed.
Adrian
Richard D. Bergstresser Jr.
>
> > No reason why D+D has to be viewed as a joke is there?
>
> We choose to take it light hearted, or rather to not get too serious with
> it. Such is my group's decision.
OK, but your original contention implied that somehow SW is by
definition
more serious than D+D is capable of being.
>
> > You don't picture Fett being good with those?
>
> I tend to pigeonhole things. I think if he were good with them, it would
> hurt my image of Fett.
Your image of Fett involves him being less then good with improvised
weaponry?
>
> > > For the life of me I don't know why you'd assume a trained soldier who's
> > > primary weapon is a blaster would be better with a lightsaber,
> >
> > A) Did I say this hypothetical soldier used a blaster primarily?
> > B) I'd assume a well trained marine or SEAL (primary weapon: firearm)
> > could take the average SCA member if they were both using cutlasses...
> > Despite the SCA member probably putting in much more time with
> > WP: Bladed Weapons...
>
> The example was Fett.
No, that was AN example. :P
> And we know his primary weapon IS a blaster,
Whip, graple, flamethrower, missle launcher, wrist knife....
I don't think he has a _primary_ weapon...
> and we
> know his secondary weapon is NOT a lightsaber.
>
> As for SEALs, I doubt they train with edged weapons. In fact I'd say anyone
> in my Ninjutsu class with even as little as Green 5th would be a better
> swordsman.
Right.
So would you volunteer to take on a SEAL while each of you is carrying
only a ninjato?
> Not to say a SEAL's strength or what have you wouldn't be a
> bigger factor, but you get the idea the same.
No, I don't.
Factors like strength and experience are figured into competance
with unfamiliar weaponry.
>
> > > quite a
> > > foreign weapon, then the lad who even less experienced generally has
> huge
> > > amounts of times with such a blade in hand.
> >
> > He's a lad.
> > He hasn't had huge amounts of time with anything.
> > Especially actual combat.
>
> Training in a given weapon is far more practical then combat experience with
> a truly foreign weapon.
Until a real fight starts.
I've seen medalist fencers beaten senseless by street toughs.
Well rounded with lots of options beats obsessive concentration from my
experience.
>
> > > > I'd have trouble with a system where the grizzled combat vet can't
> > > > trash the whiney the farmboy...
> > >
> > > You would assume all Padawan's are farmboys and whiney?
> >
> > Did I say that?
>
> You strongly implied it given the converstaion.
Naw, you inferred it.
I implied Luke at the end of ep IV isn't Fett's equal.
Nothing more.
> > OTOH, you implied that the whiney Farmboy who's being trained hour after
> > hour after hour with his glo-rod is defacto better with it than the
> > feared
> > Bounty Hunter who's trained with everything he can get his hands on and
> > taken down some of the worst scum of the galaxy...
>
> a) The bounty hunter doesn't necessarily train with every weapon
No one trains with every weapon.
> b) The subjet was Padawan's who *do* rigorously train with lightsabers.
Like Luke.
Or an olympic fencer.
Richard D. Bergstresser Jr.
>
> > For a feel of how difficult a given action will be for a given character
> > you need to keep multiple probability curves in mind.
>
> Difficulty is relative only in that it's easier for some people then others.
> The task is easier or difficult due to a person's skill, not because the
> task is sentient and wants to be harder for a given person.
Not the point.
How likely is a character to succeed?
How many curves must you map to know?
>
> IE: In game jumping from point A to point B should be a set difficulty. If
> my characters jump skill is higher then yours, I would find it easier. Why
> base the difficulty on the character's current skill?
Quickly, how many dice does it take to make that jump on average?
How many to make it 25% of the time?
How many for a jump of half as far?
Adrian Parker
> How many curves must you map to know?
In my games I hardly find either relevant. I give a certain task a single
difficulty. If characters find it easy, so be it, if they find it hard,
that's ok too.
Generally assume the characters will score 3 on all die as an average. If
you are setting difficulty for my char assume I'll roll 1 or 2 on all die.
> Quickly, how many dice does it take to make that jump on average?
Difficulty / 3
> How many to make it 25% of the time?
You're making adventures wondering, "what difficulty do I use so they'll
succeed 25% of the time?" You're doing it the hard way.
25% of the time? You mean in terms of probability or definitive? The
second is impossible unless the difficulty is impossible to fail at.
> How many for a jump of half as far?
I'm guessing half as many dice?
Adrian
Adrian Parker
> definition
> more serious than D+D is capable of being.
In regars to realism. In SW you gain experience in skills by training and
using said skills. In AD&D you become better at pretty much everything just
because you're experienced at one thing.
> Your image of Fett involves him being less then good with improvised
> weaponry?
You're twisting my words. I said I imagine Fett as worse with a foreign
weapon then a person with at least repetitive training in said weapon.
> Whip, graple, flamethrower, missle launcher, wrist knife....
His *primary* weapon is a blaster. It's his highest skill according to RPG
stats, and his most used throughout the movies and novels.
> Right.
> So would you volunteer to take on a SEAL while each of you is carrying
> only a ninjato?
The example is flawed. First of all I'm non-violent. Attacking things for
the sake of proving one-self has been adopted into American society.
Secondly just because he would beat me to a pulp using other means doesn't
mean I'm not better with a given weapon. His skill in, for example,
brawling would just be better then mine in the given weapon.
> No, I don't.
> Factors like strength and experience are figured into competance
> with unfamiliar weaponry.
Not at all. Not in terms of strength.
Strength doesn't make you use the weapon better, it just makes you more
efficient. Skill is a matter of how efficiently you use a given weapon (in
this case), relative to your own strength and physical condition. That
doesn't mean one of lesser skill can't beat you through other means.
> > Training in a given weapon is far more practical then combat experience
with
> > a truly foreign weapon.
>
> Until a real fight starts.
I don't agree.
> I've seen medalist fencers beaten senseless by street toughs.
You give one example and stereotype it?
I'll match you then. I've seen top Nascar and Indy drivers go to things
like F1 and LeMans. They get blown away almost every time (Example: Mario
Andretti going into LeMans again with the stupid looking Panos).
> > You strongly implied it given the converstaion.
>
> Naw, you inferred it.
Without citing examples I said a padawan trained in practice with saber
would be better then fet. Your next response assumed that padawan was some
whiney farmboy or what have you. How did you not imply it?
Adrian
Richard D. Bergstresser Jr.
>
> > How likely is a character to succeed?
> > How many curves must you map to know?
>
> In my games I hardly find either relevant. I give a certain task a single
> difficulty. If characters find it easy, so be it, if they find it hard,
> that's ok too.
I like having a handle on how good the characters are at various tasks
so I can challenge them appropriately.
Too much frustation comes from accepting the books values carte
blanche...
I also like knowing how good my PC is, so I can have him take
appropriate
risks.
I don't like having to recalculate these factors for multiple die pool
variations.
It's clunky.
It's to my POV the opposite of a unified system.
Experts use a different "system" than amateurs.
Adrian Parker
> > > How many curves must you map to know?
> >
> > In my games I hardly find either relevant. I give a certain task a
single
> > difficulty. If characters find it easy, so be it, if they find it hard,
> > that's ok too.
>
> I like having a handle on how good the characters are at various tasks
> so I can challenge them appropriately.
>
> Too much frustation comes from accepting the books values carte
> blanche...
>
> I also like knowing how good my PC is, so I can have him take
> appropriate
> risks.
>
> I don't like having to recalculate these factors for multiple die pool
> variations.
> It's clunky.
I see. It's a matter of how one plays and creates adventures. My way
varies, but I can understand what you are saying.
Adrian
Richard D. Bergstresser Jr.
>
> > OK, but your original contention implied that somehow SW is by
> > definition
> > more serious than D+D is capable of being.
>
> In regars to realism. In SW you gain experience in skills by training and
> using said skills. In AD&D you become better at pretty much everything just
> because you're experienced at one thing.
My recollection of both games is that your skills go up as you
spend your points.
In fact I just asked about d6 SW the other day, with regard to Dark
Side characters, and was told that they use a different experience point
system, implying that characters improve by earning experience, not by
making die roles ala Chaosium...
That being the case, d20 skills go up much like D6.
Whether you are "training" and "using" a skill is completely subjective
and decided between the GM and player.
Admittedly D20 doesn't look to encourage "straightjacketing", ie
"you didn't use your lightsaber this game, so you can't spend points
on it"...
I'm comfortable with "if you improve a skill, you were obviously
training
with it".
Much more detail than that often bogs down story and game flow.
>
> > Your image of Fett involves him being less then good with improvised
> > weaponry?
>
> You're twisting my words. I said I imagine Fett as worse with a foreign
> weapon then a person with at least repetitive training in said weapon.
No matter how much Fett has trained with similar weapons or how little
the other person has seen of practical rather than theoretical use?
>
> > Whip, graple, flamethrower, missle launcher, wrist knife....
>
> His *primary* weapon is a blaster. It's his highest skill according to RPG
> stats, and his most used throughout the movies and novels.
Movies?
Nah.
Novels?
Can't say.
The RPG?
Yeah, it's his highest!
Does that mean he should be inept with all else?
>
> > Right.
> > So would you volunteer to take on a SEAL while each of you is carrying
> > only a ninjato?
>
> The example is flawed. First of all I'm non-violent.
Irrelevant.
I'm talking to skill.
> Attacking things for
> the sake of proving one-self has been adopted into American society.
> Secondly just because he would beat me to a pulp using other means doesn't
> mean I'm not better with a given weapon.
Rephrase:
"using only a ninjato".
No using "other methods".
> His skill in, for example,
> brawling would just be better then mine in the given weapon.
I'm didn't intend the example to allow a second weapon (ie fist).
>
> > No, I don't.
> > Factors like strength and experience are figured into competance
> > with unfamiliar weaponry.
>
> Not at all. Not in terms of strength.
>
> Strength doesn't make you use the weapon better, it just makes you more
> efficient.
Hitting harder isn't better?
Let's take a sprite and a giant and give them both daggers (same size
daggers).
Let's make the sprite a knife expert and the giant someone who has never
seen a knife.
The giant likely only needs to hit once.
> Skill is a matter of how efficiently you use a given weapon (in
> this case), relative to your own strength and physical condition. That
> doesn't mean one of lesser skill can't beat you through other means.
So what's the problem? ;)
> > I've seen medalist fencers beaten senseless by street toughs.
>
> You give one example and stereotype it?
So did you. :P
>
> I'll match you then. I've seen top Nascar and Indy drivers go to things
> like F1 and LeMans. They get blown away almost every time (Example: Mario
> Andretti going into LeMans again with the stupid looking Panos).
Of course.
My street toughs wouldn't stand a prayer of medalling in the olympics...
Now let's put a Nascar driver who's been training at nothing else for
a year, and his Indy car, up against a LeMans driver who's trained on
everything from Porsche's to dune buggies but specifically NOT Indy
cars for about ten years, also in an Indy car, on a Pennsylvania coal
road.
Place your bets.
In _competetion_ with idea conditions your newby Jedi will trounce Fett.
In a real fight, Fett doesn't have to stick to the known techniques
of the Padawan, but the Padawan will likely be doing so instinctively.
>
> > > You strongly implied it given the converstaion.
> >
> > Naw, you inferred it.
>
> Without citing examples I said a padawan trained in practice with saber
Ie, Luke.
> would be better then fet. Your next response assumed that padawan was some
> whiney farmboy or what have you. How did you not imply it?
I chose a specific Padawan based on the era of your example.
Adrian Parker
and
> > using said skills. In AD&D you become better at pretty much everything
just
> > because you're experienced at one thing.
>
> My recollection of both games is that your skills go up as you
> spend your points.
In SW you spend points to increase skill. There is no training time if the
skill was used in adventure, or time if not.
In AD&D things like THAC0 and points for raising skills are directly tied to
level (whether you have bothered to use the skills in the last 100 years or
not).
> No matter how much Fett has trained with similar weapons or how little
> the other person has seen of practical rather than theoretical use?
The example was lightsaber. Fett carries no similar weapon. The example
was a Padawan who according to all sources uses a lightsaber as part of
training [ie: daily].
> Movies?
> Nah.
He uses his blaster four times, and with one exception it's the only weapon
he uses. How's that not primary?
> Does that mean he should be inept with all else?
Why do you insist on twisting my words?
> > > Right.
> > > So would you volunteer to take on a SEAL while each of you is carrying
> > > only a ninjato?
> >
> > The example is flawed. First of all I'm non-violent.
>
> Irrelevant.
> I'm talking to skill.
Fine, but I propose a better example. SEALs use throwing knives right?
They are well trained with melee weapons? Thrown knives are like darts, or
rather they are projectiles which places them in a similar category. I'll
go the average SEAL any day at a game of darts. 501, straight in, double
out. He has advanage. I wear glasses, he won't, and he likely has better
reactions and coordination. That gives him advantage. Care to place bets?
> Rephrase:
> "using only a ninjato".
> No using "other methods".
Stregnth affects the outcome without affecting his skill level. After all
just because he's stronger doesn't mean he wields the weapon more
efficiently or in a manner which creates less openings.
> Hitting harder isn't better?
It's better in that it'll make you win easier, it doesn't improve your
finesse in the slightest.
> Let's take a sprite and a giant and give them both daggers (same size
> daggers).
> Let's make the sprite a knife expert and the giant someone who has never
> seen a knife.
> The giant likely only needs to hit once.
That doesn't mean his dagger control (finesse, skill) is any better.
> > Skill is a matter of how efficiently you use a given weapon (in
> > this case), relative to your own strength and physical condition. That
> > doesn't mean one of lesser skill can't beat you through other means.
>
> So what's the problem? ;)
>
> > > I've seen medalist fencers beaten senseless by street toughs.
> >
> > You give one example and stereotype it?
> > I'll match you then.
>
> So did you. :P
And I blatantly said so. And eye for an eye.
> Now let's put a Nascar driver who's been training at nothing else for
> a year, and his Indy car, up against a LeMans driver who's trained on
> everything from Porsche's to dune buggies but specifically NOT Indy
> cars for about ten years, also in an Indy car, on a Pennsylvania coal
> road.
>
> Place your bets.
That's the example I gave in reverse. You are merely supporting the fact
that familiarity in a given circle is better then a generalised skill.
> > would be better then fet. Your next response assumed that padawan was
some
> > whiney farmboy or what have you. How did you not imply it?
>
> I chose a specific Padawan based on the era of your example.
No, the example you referred to was "Padawan", Luke's name was mentioned in
your post following the whiney farmboy comment.
Adrian
Richard D. Bergstresser Jr.
>
> > > In regars to realism. In SW you gain experience in skills by training
> and
> > > using said skills. In AD&D you become better at pretty much everything
> just
> > > because you're experienced at one thing.
> >
> > My recollection of both games is that your skills go up as you
> > spend your points.
>
> In SW you spend points to increase skill. There is no training time if the
> skill was used in adventure, or time if not.
_NO_ training time just because you used it?
Allocated training time because you didn't?
Why not leave these as roleplaying factors and let the GM and player
decide if the increase or new skill is justified.
>
> In AD&D things like THAC0 and points for raising skills are directly tied to
> level (whether you have bothered to use the skills in the last 100 years or
> not).
And earning skills in d6, from your description is directly tied to
running
around adventuring no matter how much you practice in between.
I look at D+D as, say, 10 skill points every few thousand XP, rather
than,
say, D6's a skill point every few XP.
As long as rate of advance is similar it's not really that different.
>
> > No matter how much Fett has trained with similar weapons or how little
> > the other person has seen of practical rather than theoretical use?
>
> The example was lightsaber. Fett carries no similar weapon.
He has a knife.
>
> > Movies?
> > Nah.
>
> He uses his blaster four times, and with one exception it's the only weapon
> he uses. How's that not primary?
One exception?
I counted four.
> Fine, but I propose a better example. SEALs use throwing knives right?
> They are well trained with melee weapons? Thrown knives are like darts, or
> rather they are projectiles which places them in a similar category. I'll
> go the average SEAL any day at a game of darts. 501, straight in, double
> out. He has advanage. I wear glasses, he won't, and he likely has better
> reactions and coordination. That gives him advantage. Care to place bets?
Again you arranged idea circumstances.
This isn't what will happen in an actual fight.
For one thing, dart boards don't dodge.
>
> > Rephrase:
> > "using only a ninjato".
> > No using "other methods".
>
> Stregnth affects the outcome without affecting his skill level.
OK, you're missing it.
Some skill systems take into account _outcome_ not just competition
skill and technique.
D+D has always been such a system.
It simplifies many factors by doing so.
>
> > Hitting harder isn't better?
>
> It's better in that it'll make you win easier, it doesn't improve your
> finesse in the slightest.
Finesse isn't what I'm discussing.
I'm addressing outcome, not flashiness and minutia.
>
> > Let's take a sprite and a giant and give them both daggers (same size
> > daggers).
> > Let's make the sprite a knife expert and the giant someone who has never
> > seen a knife.
> > The giant likely only needs to hit once.
>
> That doesn't mean his dagger control (finesse, skill) is any better.
Didn't say it did.
Why do you insist on twisting my words?
> > Now let's put a Nascar driver who's been training at nothing else for
> > a year, and his Indy car, up against a LeMans driver who's trained on
> > everything from Porsche's to dune buggies but specifically NOT Indy
> > cars for about ten years, also in an Indy car, on a Pennsylvania coal
> > road.
> >
> > Place your bets.
>
> That's the example I gave in reverse. You are merely supporting the fact
> that familiarity in a given circle is better then a generalised skill.
No, I'm supporting that familiarity with MANY circles is better than
obsessive concentration for unpredictable circumstances.
>
> > > would be better then fet. Your next response assumed that padawan was
> some
> > > whiney farmboy or what have you. How did you not imply it?
> >
> > I chose a specific Padawan based on the era of your example.
>
> No, the example you referred to was "Padawan", Luke's name was mentioned in
> your post following the whiney farmboy comment.
Luke isn't a Padawan?
Luke wasn't a whiney farmboy?
Adrian Parker
>
> Allocated training time because you didn't?
>
> Why not leave these as roleplaying factors and let the GM and player
> decide if the increase or new skill is justified.
I'm merely quoting you the rules. If you wish to complain, please contact
West End Games.
> > In AD&D things like THAC0 and points for raising skills are directly
tied to
> > level (whether you have bothered to use the skills in the last 100 years
or
> > not).
>
> And earning skills in d6, from your description is directly tied to
> running
> around adventuring no matter how much you practice in between.
But you either have to train or use the skill to raise it. In AD&D your
thac0 lowers dramatically by 20th level even if you're a pacifist [which is
listed in the priest handguide].
> > The example was lightsaber. Fett carries no similar weapon.
>
> He has a knife.
You've never trained with weapons of varying weights have you? The knife
can't harm ones', not unless one turns it about of course. The lightsaber
is longer, weighs practically nothing (hande weight), and cuts without any
pressure. Those are major differences. Ask anyone trained in martial arts
who frequently use weapons.
> Again you arranged idea circumstances.
So did you.
> For one thing, dart boards don't dodge.
Both the SEAL and I will throw at the same board. Are you suggesting SEALS
can only hit moving targets? I'll remember that if I'm ever a terrorist or
what have you. If they come, I'll just stand still and I'll be safe
<grins>
> Some skill systems take into account _outcome_ not just competition
> skill and technique.
Skill by definition IS technique.
> Finesse isn't what I'm discussing.
> I'm addressing outcome, not flashiness and minutia.
No, you were explicitly addressing skill level.
> > No, the example you referred to was "Padawan", Luke's name was mentioned
in
> > your post following the whiney farmboy comment.
You named Luke, or rather your whiney farmboy ideal was obviosuly him.
Adrian
Bokman7757
weapon
> he uses. How's that not primary?
One exception?
I counted four. >>
And I only saw him use the blaster once- he fires, then Luke cuts off the
barrel with his lightsaber.
Richard D. Bergstresser Jr.
>
> > _NO_ training time just because you used it?
> >
> > Allocated training time because you didn't?
> >
> > Why not leave these as roleplaying factors and let the GM and player
> > decide if the increase or new skill is justified.
>
> I'm merely quoting you the rules. If you wish to complain, please contact
> West End Games.
You implied that such rules are a benefit.
And that lack of them causes an unrealistic game.
I wasn't interested in their opinion, but yours.
>
> > > The example was lightsaber. Fett carries no similar weapon.
> >
> > He has a knife.
>
> You've never trained with weapons of varying weights have you?
Sure have.
The similarities are greater than the differences.
> The knife
> can't harm ones', not unless one turns it about of course.
Neither can a lightsaber.
(Semantics...)
You can stab yourself in a knife fight.
Without even trying to.
> The lightsaber
> is longer, weighs practically nothing (hande weight), and cuts without any
> pressure. Those are major differences. Ask anyone trained in martial arts
> who frequently use weapons.
There is no such weapon in martial arts.
>
> > Again you arranged idea circumstances.
>
> So did you.
I arranged circumstance that are analogs for combat,
not ones that analogs for ballet.
>
> > For one thing, dart boards don't dodge.
>
> Both the SEAL and I will throw at the same board. Are you suggesting SEALS
> can only hit moving targets?
I'm suggesting that your stationary dart skill isn't terribly
relevant to whether Fett can beat Luke at his own game in a real
fight.
> > Some skill systems take into account _outcome_ not just competition
> > skill and technique.
>
> Skill by definition IS technique.
But skill systems are not.
>
> > Finesse isn't what I'm discussing.
> > I'm addressing outcome, not flashiness and minutia.
>
> No, you were explicitly addressing skill level.
No I wasn't.
Ever.
>
> > > No, the example you referred to was "Padawan", Luke's name was mentioned
> in
> > > your post following the whiney farmboy comment.
>
> You named Luke, or rather your whiney farmboy ideal was obviosuly him.
Yet you claimed I was calling all Padawan's whiney farmboys?
Odd...
Adrian Parker
> And that lack of them causes an unrealistic game.
> I wasn't interested in their opinion, but yours.
I don't believe that generalisation is good for all genres. Can't explain,
just don't like it.
> There is no such weapon in martial arts.
I meant how weapon weight and length changes it's behaviour and useage by
major degrees.
> But skill systems are not.
Then they need to be changed don't they?
> Yet you claimed I was calling all Padawan's whiney farmboys?
> Odd...
The term Padawan was given in relation to training with sabers. You replied
by saying "some whiney farmboy". Why would you assume Luke is the typical
Padawan?
...my questions stands.
Adrian
Adrian Parker
Technically he doesn't without any success use any of his skills aside from
his <forgets name> grappling hook from his left arm.
Just the same there are clear examples in the novels [which are sanctioned].
Adrian
"Bokman7757" <bokma...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20001211153115...@ng-fz1.aol.com...
Richard D. Bergstresser Jr.
>
> > But skill systems are not.
>
> Then they need to be changed don't they?
No.
Renamed maybe. ;)
>
> > Yet you claimed I was calling all Padawan's whiney farmboys?
> > Odd...
>
> The term Padawan was given in relation to training with sabers. You replied
> by saying "some whiney farmboy". Why would you assume Luke is the typical
> Padawan?
I'm implying that as a Padawan he trains frequently with his saber.
Luke is the clearest example we are given of saber training.
>
> ...my questions stands.
Which one?
Adrian Parker
> Luke is the clearest example we are given of saber training.
Not really. I mean he uses his sabour, but not all that rigorously I'd say.
> > ...my questions stands.
>
> Which one?
Read back.
Adrian
Adrian Parker
Now I'm just letting myself get carried away with my UK (CA actually)
english
sabEr.
Adrian
Bokman7757
Just thought of this. Might not be a feat in SW, but definitely in the D&D PHB
and easily converted-
Weapon Focus [General]
Choose one type of weapon, such as greataxe. You are especially good at using
this weapon.
<snip misc. rules info>
Benefit: You add +1 to all attack rolls you make with this weapon.
Voila. Boba Fett is now better with his blaster than with his other weapons.
(There's also Weapon Specialization, which does more damage with a certain
weapon.)
Richard D. Bergstresser Jr.
>
> << It's drawn more then any other weapon. >>
>
> Just thought of this. Might not be a feat in SW, but definitely in the D&D PHB
> and easily converted-
>
> Weapon Focus [General]
>
> Choose one type of weapon, such as greataxe. You are especially good at using
> this weapon.
>
> <snip misc. rules info>
>
> Benefit: You add +1 to all attack rolls you make with this weapon.
Or going the other way, as already mentioned, Boba has a -4 with any
weapons
he doesn't have a proficiency with.
Meaning he's only as good as a character at least 4 levels lower who HAS
the proficiency with such...
Don't have my book in front of me but for example:
Soldier A has Exotic Weapon Proficiency (lightsaber) and Weapon Focus
(lightsaber).
He'll have a total +2 to hit.
(Not counting Str or Finesse...)
Without those two feats Soldier 2 would need to 6th level to be as good
with
that weapon.
I personally have little trouble believing a character with that much
experience would be as good as the new guy, even though he'd never
picked
up that exact weapon type before.
IMO, it would have to be a really bizarre weapon to merit greater
penalties.
And a light saber as used in the movies looks pretty much like any other
sword.
(Exceptions being that it will not be blocked by most solid objects, and
its
weight will be quite low compared to size.
These oddities would be precisely WHY it's an Exotic Weapon with the
penalties that entails.)
> Voila. Boba Fett is now better with his blaster than with his other weapons.
> (There's also Weapon Specialization, which does more damage with a certain
> weapon.)
Unfortunately SW forget to include this feat.
But it's trivial to add...
Adrian Parker
> weapons
> he doesn't have a proficiency with.
In 2ed warriors were proficient in all weapons. Even those of a style or
type that had never seen, touched, or used.
> I personally have little trouble believing a character with that much
> experience would be as good as the new guy, even though he'd never
> picked
> up that exact weapon type before.
Again what of the pacifist who has never used any weapon, but is still as
good as lower level people who use it all the time?
For example:
My father is much older and more experienced then I. In RPG terms he'd
likely be a much higher level. Yet I'm still far better at HTML 4/CSS1
scripting, and *nix administration then he will ever be...
Adrian
Richard D. Bergstresser Jr.
>
> > Or going the other way, as already mentioned, Boba has a -4 with any
> > weapons
> > he doesn't have a proficiency with.
>
> In 2ed warriors were proficient in all weapons. Even those of a style or
> type that had never seen, touched, or used.
Hm, they weren't in 1st Edition.
I skipped 2nd.
I wonder why they cahnged it. :(
OTOH, I did play 2e under the Player's Option books.
I think Weapon Proficiency was in there so my impression
was it was in 2e from the start.
>
> > I personally have little trouble believing a character with that much
> > experience would be as good as the new guy, even though he'd never
> > picked
> > up that exact weapon type before.
>
> Again what of the pacifist who has never used any weapon, but is still as
> good as lower level people who use it all the time?
Why is he using it now?
And has he been in combat?
>
> For example:
>
> My father is much older and more experienced then I. In RPG terms he'd
> likely be a much higher level.
Experienced at what?
In most RPG's experience at combat, adventure, stressful or life
threatening situations, important decisions, etc. count more than
just years accumulated.
Side note:
Most (all?) editions of AD+D give stat bonuses to Int for aging.
The current one gives skil poinb bonuses for Int.
Without ever adventuring the older character is likely to be
better rounded...
(Exceptions exist, but on average...)
> Yet I'm still far better at HTML 4/CSS1
> scripting, and *nix administration then he will ever be...
You spent more points there than he did.
Robert Scott Clark
>
>My father is much older and more experienced then I. In RPG terms he'd
>likely be a much higher level. Yet I'm still far better at HTML 4/CSS1
>scripting, and *nix administration then he will ever be...
>
Congradulations, you have just discovered the fundamental flaw of
Class/Level systems. Now, either accept this as a necessary
abstraction, or find a skill-based game.
Dr Nuncheon
Robert Scott Clark <cla...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>My father is much older and more experienced then I. In RPG terms he'd
>>likely be a much higher level. Yet I'm still far better at HTML 4/CSS1
>>scripting, and *nix administration then he will ever be...
>>
>
>Congradulations, you have just discovered the fundamental flaw of
>Class/Level systems
when you try to simulate the real world with them. In simulating fiction,
more experienced characters frequently *are* "better at everything".
>. Now, either accept this as a necessary
>abstraction, or find a skill-based game.
J
--
INTERNET SEEMS TO BE FULL OF MILLIONS OF | Jeff Johnston
IDIOTS & LUNATICS ! ! - c2 (ts...@my-deja.com) | jeffj @ io . com
Adrian Parker
>
> And has he been in combat?
Who cares. It's not impossible for a pacifist to become non. The trouble
is why is his skill better then that of someone levels lower who's trained
with weapons for years?
> > My father is much older and more experienced then I. In RPG terms he'd
> > likely be a much higher level.
>
> Experienced at what?>
Exactly! What does level 10 mean? Certainly they are not good at
EVERYTHING, yet the current system in terms of weapons, defence, etc, claims
they are.
> > Yet I'm still far better at HTML 4/CSS1
> > scripting, and *nix administration then he will ever be...
>
> You spent more points there than he did.
True. And perhaps the non-specialised 15th warrior spent more time with
swords then the 20th level one, but the 20th level one is still better...
Adrian
Adrian Parker
> Class/Level systems. Now, either accept this as a necessary
> abstraction, or find a skill-based game.
I play Asheron's Call [online] and WEG's Star Wars.
My problem is with peopel who can't see that class-based system generalise.
How can they not see it? It's obvious to us.
Adrian
Adrian Parker
> I think Weapon Proficiency was in there so my impression
> was it was in 2e from the start.
Yes they are in there in 2ed and player's options. In both warriors are
proficient with all styles, and even off-use penalty is -2 (which really
means little to nothing in the grand scheme of things).
Adrian
Richard D. Bergstresser Jr.
I'm not sure we're on the same page here.
The Weapon Proficiency system I recall required characters to pick
specific weapons and suffer a penalty with all others.
Also a -2 can take your chance of hitting from a from 18 or
better to 20 or better.
Cutting your odds to a third of what they'd be if you knew what
you were doing.
That's not the most common situation but it and similar circumstances
are common enough to be noticable.
Off-hand and two weapon penalties have increased in 3e though.
I'm not sure that non-proficient penalty increased from 2e.
(I believe it was -3 in 1e.)
But it sounds like it must have.
What was the offhand penalty in d6?
And how did defaults work?
Richard D. Bergstresser Jr.
>
> > Why is he using it now?
> >
> > And has he been in combat?
>
> Who cares. It's not impossible for a pacifist to become non. The trouble
> is why is his skill better then that of someone levels lower who's trained
> with weapons for years?
Unfortunately, the system assumes you have been training, at least by
ossmosis.
(Or "will of the gods". <g>)
If you show me a character who has ZERO combat experience then he
probably
doesn't have much RPG style XP in most games.
>
> > > My father is much older and more experienced then I. In RPG terms he'd
> > > likely be a much higher level.
> >
> > Experienced at what?
>
> Exactly! What does level 10 mean?
What does 5d6 mean?
> Certainly they are not good at
> EVERYTHING, yet the current system in terms of weapons, defence, etc, claims
> they are.
No, it doesn't.
It claims they are experienced at combat and survival.
(That may be a bad assumption if your campaign or character
is far from the norm.)
They then gain bonuses with weapons they know well, penalties with
unusual ones that they don't, and bonuses with those skills they chose.
>
> > > Yet I'm still far better at HTML 4/CSS1
> > > scripting, and *nix administration then he will ever be...
> >
> > You spent more points there than he did.
>
> True. And perhaps the non-specialised 15th warrior spent more time with
> swords then the 20th level one, but the 20th level one is still better...
There's a level of abstraction here.
Levels rank COMBAT skill.
Not specialization within it.
Look at it as (IIRC) a D6 skill where you can take further adds with
your specialties.
Richard D. Bergstresser Jr.
We can see it.
It's an accepted "feature".
It adds simplicity rather than long nitpicky listing.
You do realize that ALL systems generalize don't you?
The question is at what point on the continumn you are comfortable.
Some may prefer OTE and TWERPS, some may prefer Hero or Aftermath...
For fantasy and space opera I'm finding that d20's level of
generalization
only rarely interferes so more complexity isn't really needed.
Richard D. Bergstresser Jr.
>
> >Congradulations, you have just discovered the fundamental flaw of
> >Class/Level systems
>
> when you try to simulate the real world with them. In simulating fiction,
> more experienced characters frequently *are* "better at everything".
Which was my contention of why d20 is great for SW or would be great
for Star Trek.
For simulating some fantasy worlds it would also work well
(specific D+D classes aside), for playing a new world it works fine...
It does break down a lot more the more "realistic" the setting though...
Adrian Parker
> probably
> doesn't have much RPG style XP in most games.
The Priest's handguide did introduce pacifists... <smiles>
Would be boring, and slow to level (in AD&D, not so in other systems). I
wouldnt' play them.
> > > Experienced at what?
> >
> > Exactly! What does level 10 mean?
>
> What does 5d6 mean?
But that is explicit to one skill which is directly comparable to another
person's of the same level. It assumes explicit training in a given field.
Adrian
Adrian Parker
> The Weapon Proficiency system I recall required characters to pick
> specific weapons and suffer a penalty with all others.
The off weapon penalty is only -2 for warrior class. Player's options you
mentioned also lists proficiencies for styles (one handed, two handed,
shield, etc), but warriors started with all those free anyway.
> Off-hand and two weapon penalties have increased in 3e though.
> I'm not sure that non-proficient penalty increased from 2e.
> (I believe it was -3 in 1e.)
> But it sounds like it must have.
I wouldn't know, haven't had time enough to read my books [D&D] through yet.
Ordered Star Wars but it's *still* on back order.
> What was the offhand penalty in d6?
> And how did defaults work?
In D6 you use the weapon skill if you have it (broken down to types of
weapon in Star Wars). If no skill was available you'd use the base
attribute that governs the skill.
[In WEG D6 anyway]
Adrian
SD Anderson
> Who cares. It's not impossible for a pacifist to become non.
> The trouble is why is his skill better then that of someone
> levels lower who's trained with weapons for years?
This is an inherent flaw in the Class/level systems various D&D
forms use. Hit points, THACO, and their D20 equivalents all
measure a base fighting capacity inherent to the class and level
of the character. The built in pressumption here is that there is
some absolute minimum of combat experience in the character's
background, and no game mechanical method to excise this from any
character where background disagrees with this presumption.
The Wraith
<adrian...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> If you show me a character who has ZERO combat experience then he
>> probably
>> doesn't have much RPG style XP in most games.
>
>The Priest's handguide did introduce pacifists... <smiles>
>
>Would be boring, and slow to level (in AD&D, not so in other systems). I
>wouldnt' play them.
Not necessarily. I once played a character in an (A)D&D campaign that
lasted a fair while who never made a combat attack against an enemy,
never cast a physically offensive spell, was only ever physically
attacked once (said attack failed) and only ever suffered 2 hp damage.
The damage was sustained when he walked into a pit trap that he
already knew was there.
And no, the game wasn't all talking and politics. There was a fair
amount of combat. My character just had better ways to overcome
enemies than violence. When someone offered to teach this character
the phantasmal killer spell, his response was, a spell that just kills
someone? What's the use of that? Bodies aren't any good to me.
--
Now, by popular demand, a new .sig!
I still can't think of anything witty to say, though.
The Wraith
Carl Perkins
}> Or going the other way, as already mentioned, Boba has a -4 with any
}> weapons
}> he doesn't have a proficiency with.
}
}In 2ed warriors were proficient in all weapons. Even those of a style or
}type that had never seen, touched, or used.
So what? Is Star Wars based on 2nd edition? Nope. Get with the program.
Stop living in the past. 2nd edition is irrelevant to Star Wars.
--- Carl
Adrian Parker
> }> weapons
> }> he doesn't have a proficiency with.
> }
> }In 2ed warriors were proficient in all weapons. Even those of a style or
> }type that had never seen, touched, or used.
> }Adrian
>
> So what? Is Star Wars based on 2nd edition? Nope. Get with the program.
> Stop living in the past. 2nd edition is irrelevant to Star Wars.
It was mentioned by another. I responded accordingly. Please do not reply
in ignorance.
Adrian
Carl Perkins
As long as you are speaking of ignorance, perhaps you should note that
even in 2nd edition warriors are not proficient with all weapons. They
get a lot of weapon proficiencies but certainly not "all" and they have
a penalty to use any that they have not gained proficiency in.
It is you, as seen up above, that was bringing up 2nd edition here. What
was done elsewhere is irrelevant. The quote begins with someone saying
what the rules are, and you bringing in a completely irrelevant and
factually incorrect reference to 2nd edition. Why did you bring it up?
What was your point? The game is not based on 2nd edition, so how are
2nd edition's rules (which you got wrong) relevant?
--- Carl
Adrian Parker
> }> }> weapons
> }> }> he doesn't have a proficiency with.
> }> }
> }> }In 2ed warriors were proficient in all weapons. Even those of a style
or
> }> }type that had never seen, touched, or used.
> }> }Adrian
> }>
> }> So what? Is Star Wars based on 2nd edition? Nope. Get with the program.
> }> Stop living in the past. 2nd edition is irrelevant to Star Wars.
> }
> }It was mentioned by another. I responded accordingly. Please do not
reply
> }in ignorance.
> }
> }Adrian
>
> As long as you are speaking of ignorance, perhaps you should note that
> even in 2nd edition warriors are not proficient with all weapons.
The mistake was spotted elsewhere, and I realised it. The penalty is
what, -2? That's hardly a penalty for total unfamiliarity.
Adrian: "The off weapon penalty is only -2 for warrior class. Player's
options you
mentioned also lists proficiencies for styles (one handed, two handed,
shield, etc), but warriors started with all those free anyway."
> It is you, as seen up above, that was bringing up 2nd edition here.
Richard R. Bergstresser Jr.: "OTOH, I did play 2e under the Player's Option
books. I think Weapon Proficiency was in there so my impression was it was
in 2e from the start."
And there are earlier quotes still, and still not by me.
> Why did you bring it up?
You may want to read back further in the thread.
Sincerely,
Adrian
Justin Bacon
<adrian...@sympatico.ca> writes:
>Yes they are in there in 2ed and player's options. In both warriors are
>proficient with all styles, and even off-use penalty is -2 (which really
>means little to nothing in the grand scheme of things).
In d20-based system that's a 10% penalty. For a first level fighter (with,
IIRC, a THAC0 of 18) that penalty effectively makes it impossible for them to
successfully use a weapon except in the most extreme cases of luck.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Adrian Parker
"Justin Bacon" <tria...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20001223170527...@nso-bg.aol.com...
So he picks up a weapon he's never used before, and now instead of hitting
10 out of 10 times [like he would with his familiar weapon type] he *only*
hits 9 out of 10 times.
I don't see that as being much of a disadvantage.
Adrian
Bokman7757
10 out of 10 times [like he would with his familiar weapon type] he *only*
hits 9 out of 10 times. >>
Okay, what character normally hits 10 out of 10 times with his familiar weapon?
I'm drawing a blank here.
The Wraith
This claim does not stand up to the test of mathematical analysis. The
truth is, the chance of a character with a THAC0 of 18 (reasonable for
a 1st level fighter *after bonuses* - base THAC0 is 20 in 2nd Edition)
hitting varies (considerably) with the defenses of the enemy he
attacks. When attacking a typical unarmoured human, he will hit on an
8 or better on d20, or a 10 or better with the -2 penalty. After the
penalty, this is a 0.55 chance of hitting, and that is hardly extreme
luck. Against AC5, probably fairly typical at that level, it is a 13
or better without the penalty, or 15 or better with it. (0.3 chance of
hitting, again hardly extreme.)
It is only against an enemy with very good defenses (for the opponents
a character of that level with generally face) that "extreme luck" is
required - as when hitting AC0 or better.
To put this all in perspective, I have routinely had low-level AD&D
warrior characters choose to accept that -2 penalty just so that they
were using the "right tool for the job".
Justin Bacon
<adrian...@sympatico.ca> writes:
>So he picks up a weapon he's never used before, and now instead of hitting
>10 out of 10 times [like he would with his familiar weapon type] he *only*
>hits 9 out of 10 times.
Hitting someone 1 time out of 20 is not hitting them 9 times out of 10. It's
not even close.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Adrian Parker
"Bokman7757" <bokma...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20001224012820...@ng-fv1.aol.com...
Ok, I'll change my example.
He normally hits 19 out of 20 times. Now *only* hits 17 out of 20 times.
That doesn't sound like a huge difference to say he's never touched the
weaon.
Adrian
Adrian Parker
"The Wraith" <wra...@powerup.com.au> wrote in message
news:3a459f9f....@news.ozemail.com.au...
What I'm saying is that if someone picks up a totally unfamiliar weapon, he
may only be haf as good as it (not merely 10% worse).
Adrian
Bokman7757
That doesn't sound like a huge difference to say he's never touched the
weaon. >>
That's still pretty freakin' powerful- and at such a level, familiarity would
seem, dramatically at least, to be less of an issue.
Phil Keast
What if you rephrase it as normally he misses only once
every 20 attempts, but with an unfamiliar weapon he misses 3
times as often (despite having practiced all aspects of
physical combat for an extensive period in order to achieve
the level of skill to miss only 3 times out of 20). The
whole point of class-based systems is that it is assumed
that the character is practicing and perfecting a wide range
of related skills and abilities, leading to an overall
improvement in performance.
Phil K.
--------------------
"It is not enough to have a good mind. The main thing is to use it well" - Rene Descartes
--------------------
Adrian Parker
"Phil Keast" <aqu...@unite.com.au> wrote in message
news:3a4819e...@newsserver.cc.monash.edu.au...
> On Tue, 26 Dec 2000 03:44:10 GMT, "Adrian Parker"
> <adrian...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Bokman7757" <bokma...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >news:20001224012820...@ng-fv1.aol.com...
> What if you rephrase it as normally he misses only once
> every 20 attempts, but with an unfamiliar weapon he misses 3
> times as often (despite having practiced all aspects of
> physical combat for an extensive period in order to achieve
> the level of skill to miss only 3 times out of 20). The
> whole point of class-based systems is that it is assumed
> that the character is practicing and perfecting a wide range
> of related skills and abilities, leading to an overall
> improvement in performance.
I can understand the example, and I'm not saying that it's totally off-base,
may I provide an example though?
I used to play darts. Another lad in my league was *very* good. This guy
would pound me merclessly. I mean in 100 games I *might* win 5. One day
though he was forced to play with another's darts. Same "weapon", just a
slightly different weight and length. Playing him than I was able to take
just a little under half the games we played.
Adrian
The Wraith
<adrian...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
[snip lots of stuff, mostly my own maths]
>
>What I'm saying is that if someone picks up a totally unfamiliar weapon, he
>may only be haf as good as it (not merely 10% worse).
Well, yes, depending on the situation. That's what my analysis shows -
sometimes the -2 will be a huge problem, but often it won't be as
extreme a problem as Justin made out.
Adrian Parker
> On Tue, 26 Dec 2000 03:45:29 GMT, "Adrian Parker"
> <adrian...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> [snip lots of stuff, mostly my own maths]
> >
> >What I'm saying is that if someone picks up a totally unfamiliar weapon,
he
> >may only be haf as good as it (not merely 10% worse).
>
> Well, yes, depending on the situation. That's what my analysis shows -
> sometimes the -2 will be a huge problem, but often it won't be as
> extreme a problem as Justin made out.
I understand what you're saying.
D20 is a generalization system. It makes assumptions to make game play
smooth. I actually really like it for the D&D genre. Maybe I played WEG
too many times for SW. I do have the D20 Star Wars on order, it's STILL
back ordered. I may like it. I'll give it a shot anyway. If I don't, no
harm done.
Adrian
Scott Baxter
> Ok, I'll change my example.
>
> He normally hits 19 out of 20 times. Now *only* hits 17 out of 20 times.
> That doesn't sound like a huge difference to say he's never touched the
> weaon.
It's set up as a heroic game - i.e., where the person is more important
than the equipment. From the movies, it doesn't look like Han Solo has
"Exotic Weapon Proficiency - Bowcaster", but if he had to pick up
Chewie's weapon and use it to save Leia's life by gunning down some
Stormtroopers, I think he'd probably be up to the task. The character is
more important than the equipment in Star Wars, and the rules do a
decent job of reflecting that.
Should a character have a penalty to hit with non-proficient weapons?
Sure, that helps define the character. Should it be a crippling penalty?
Probably not, because that would drastically reduce gameplay
possibilities - you couldn't strand players without their usual weapons
and equipment for a scenario without putting the PCs at a huge
disadvantage.
--
Scott Baxter
"Those are my principles. If you don't like them, I have others."
- Julius Henry ("Groucho") Marx
Don Perrin
aqu...@unite.com.au (Phil Keast) wrote:
> What if you rephrase it as normally he misses only once
> every 20 attempts, but with an unfamiliar weapon he misses 3
> times as often (despite having practiced all aspects of
> physical combat for an extensive period in order to achieve
> the level of skill to miss only 3 times out of 20). The
> whole point of class-based systems is that it is assumed
> that the character is practicing and perfecting a wide range
> of related skills and abilities, leading to an overall
> improvement in performance.
That's one of the reasons we went to the opposed die-roll system for
Sovereign Stone. Instead of numbers in your stats and skills, we use
die-sizes. Thus, you may have a d8 in Strength, and a d10 in long sword.
In an attack, you roll a d8 and a d10, and compare totals with your
opponent. If you go up in a stat or skill, you go up in die size. No
matter how huge you become, you still have the possibility of rolling a
"1". We find it far more satisfying. If you'd like to try it out, we have
a free download of our Quickstart Rules at http://www.sovstone.com.
Cheers!
Don
Sovereign Press
--
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si
marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
Shop online at our new eGameGuild.Com site! http://www.eGameGuild.Com
Justin Bacon
<adrian...@sympatico.ca> writes:
>What I'm saying is that if someone picks up a totally unfamiliar weapon, he
>may only be haf as good as it (not merely 10% worse).
So we're talking about a difference of opinion of 40%. And since we're talking
about a fantasy game which is designed to model Conan, Fafhrd, and Elric, I'm
less than concerned.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com