Clare Baldock wrote:

>
> Well actually - the words were already there, he just made them bold 
> for emphasis. 

Correct, though if William recieved the message in plain text (rather 
than html) the bolding would have disappeared.

Cheers,
Martin


-- 

 _/_/  Peace Software International     Email: martin.dickson@peace.com
_/     Martin Dickson                   Phone: +64-9-373-0400
       Senior Analyst                   Fax  : +64-9-373-0401


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

I also use the D+n approach. The only things that use (D-x)+y are spells. I
think that the base (D-4) kicks people's brains into thinking spells, while
rock, cestus, etc at D-1, D-2 don't trigger this reaction.

The rules say :
"The damage modifier is -4 (+ 1 for every 3 full points of Physical Strength
over 15)."

Thus, the strength clearly changes the damage modifier. There could be some
argument about skill and/or warrior, but k.i.s.s. - unarmed damage should
work like every other physical weapon damage.

In short, I agree with William, though don't tell him.

Andrew
-----Original Message-----

> A related problem:  Negative dice modifiers.   Does hypothetical
> Bob (PS 18, and Rk 8 Unarmed) do [D-4]+3 damage, or does he do
> [D-1] ? or is that even [D-3] +2 ?   Many years ago, when I first
> started playing Haagen, I was told by a GM that the first option
> applies (can't remember who, doesn't matter, but it was someone
> whom I obviously trusted so implicity that I've never thought
> otherwise).
> [D-4]+3 has a nice feel since half the blows (dice roll 1 through
> 5) are automatically minimum damage.
> [D-1] is easier to calculate.

I use the [D-1] option, although it's more likely to be D+6 :.-) It's easier
on the brain when GMing. There's enough wierdo modifiers flying around as it
is. Anyways, rock (a D-1 weapon) scales up to D and D+n on most character
sheets I see.

William


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Michael Parkinson wrote:

>A related problem:  Negative dice modifiers.   Does hypothetical
>Bob (PS 18, and Rk 8 Unarmed) do [D-4]+3 damage, or does he do
>[D-1] ? or is that even [D-3] +2 ?   Many years ago, when I first
>started playing Haagen, I was told by a GM that the first option
>applies (can't remember who, doesn't matter, but it was someone
>whom I obviously trusted so implicity that I've never thought
>otherwise).
>[D-4]+3 has a nice feel since half the blows (dice roll 1 through
>5) are automatically minimum damage.
>[D-1] is easier to calculate.
>
Hi Michael,

Once upon a time [D-4] +3  was correct, but the reason for this appears 
to have been missed/removed from the current rules.  I suspect that the 
reason you were told to calculate [D-4] +3 is that the minimum on the 
die roll was taken to be 1, and _then_ then modifier applied.  The 
current edition states under 3.11 Damage that a modifer is applied to a 
D10 roll to calculate damage and the _total_ minimum is 1.

The actualy difference is pretty trivial, though calculable.

(Under the old method, the [D-4] gives a minimum of 1, then +3 for a 
minimum of 4 -- a 4-9 damage range with a mean of 5.5, and a median of 
4.5, whereas the [D-1] option gives a range of 1-9 damage, with a mean 
of 4.6, and a median of 4.5).

As you said, it does make some difference when (typically) the 
defender's armour is very low.  If Abe, whom Bob was trying to hit was 
wearing basic soft 3 point leather, then the damage Abe took under the 
old rules would have been at least 1 point a hit, with an average of 2.5 
points, under the new system Abe takes no damage 40% of the time, and 
the average is 2.1 points.

So... give the current rules, I think [D -4 +3] => [D-1] is correct, 
although whether or not the change was intentional I cannot tell.

Cheers,
Martin

-- 

 _/_/  Peace Software International     Email: martin.dickson@peace.com
_/     Martin Dickson                   Phone: +64-9-373-0400
       Senior Analyst                   Fax  : +64-9-373-0401


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Yes, it was intentional. There was discussion on it at the time, and some
people (from both camps) weren't aware people played it the other way, so a
decision was made and it was clarified/changed to be clearly like all other
weapons.

The change was made between pre-releases 0.3c & 0.3d between Jan and April
1998. All 0.3d changes were "user-driven".

Andrew
-----Original Message-----
So... given the current rules, I think [D -4 +3] => [D-1] is correct, 
although whether or not the change was intentional I cannot tell.

Cheers,
Martin


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --