So the consensus so far is "use the table" - whether that be for ease,
or to favour the player.  (And the GM too of course!)

The next question :
- What about the 10% / 20% (for ranged / aimed weapons I think, as
someone mentioned)  They aren't on the table so would have to be
calculated by hand, but as Bernard said, perhaps they should be added.
- what about very large base chances that are greater than the table
limit?   Should they go more than this, ro assume a 130% base chance
is the limit of double/triple effects.

Regards,
Neil.


On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 5:49 PM, Clare Baldock <clare@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>
> On 13/11/2008, at 15:46 , Neil Davies wrote:
>
>> 1  Use the SC table for both SC and Magic, and change the table to
>> reflect this and reference it in the rules.
>
> This is how I have always used these rules.
>
> Clare
>
>
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>


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

I already use 'a' table, just not neccessarily 'the' table. I have extrapolated the table up to 250 for doubles/triples, presuming it to be a guide that was not extended past a certain level, not 'thou shalt not consider numbers beyond this point'. 

Not allowing extrapolation penalises those who do manage to get beyond the norm, and further emphasises the impact of die modifications such as Death Aspect. I would plump for an extrapolated table based on our understanding of the rules.

Dean


--- On Thu, 11/13/08, Neil Davies <nsdavies@gmail.com> wrote:

> From: Neil Davies <nsdavies@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [dq] Doubles and Triples... a definative answer?
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Date: Thursday, November 13, 2008, 7:56 PM
> So the consensus so far is "use the table" -
> whether that be for ease,
> or to favour the player.  (And the GM too of course!)
> 
> The next question :
> - What about the 10% / 20% (for ranged / aimed weapons I
> think, as
> someone mentioned)  They aren't on the table so would
> have to be
> calculated by hand, but as Bernard said, perhaps they
> should be added.
> - what about very large base chances that are greater than
> the table
> limit?   Should they go more than this, ro assume a 130%
> base chance
> is the limit of double/triple effects.
> 
> Regards,
> Neil.
> 
> 
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 5:49 PM, Clare Baldock
> <clare@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
> >
> > On 13/11/2008, at 15:46 , Neil Davies wrote:
> >
> >> 1  Use the SC table for both SC and Magic, and
> change the table to
> >> reflect this and reference it in the rules.
> >
> > This is how I have always used these rules.
> >
> > Clare
> >
> >
> > -- to unsubscribe notify
> mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
> >
> 
> 
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --


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

Dean
I think that the current table is probably goes far enough to calculate the
results for the Modified Strike Chance of 98% of PCs.
Which is what that table is for...
We just note that it also works for magic and calculating doubles and
triples.

If one is lucky enough to have a spell with a Cast Chance that can exceed
the table it is most likely not a combat spell, and you can  take the time
to calculate for doubles & triples or make your own extrapolated table as
you have if you want.
Do we really want yet another table or to extend a table whose purpose is
 not really for that use.

 Helen


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

I don't think Dean is saying that we have to change the rulebook to
have a longer table, but just noting that the 5%/15% effect continues
past the table.

Cheers,
Neil.

On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 1:03 PM, Helen Saggers <Helen@darksoft.co.nz> wrote:
> Dean
> I think that the current table is probably goes far enough to calculate the
> results for the Modified Strike Chance of 98% of PCs.
> Which is what that table is for...
> We just note that it also works for magic and calculating doubles and
> triples.
>
> If one is lucky enough to have a spell with a Cast Chance that can exceed
> the table it is most likely not a combat spell, and you can  take the time
> to calculate for doubles & triples or make your own extrapolated table as
> you have if you want.
> Do we really want yet another table or to extend a table whose purpose is
> not really for that use.
>
> Helen
>
>
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>


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

I disagree with the claim 98% of PCs never have strike chances exceeding the
table. A modified Strike Chance of over 136 is easy (if not common) for
low-level characters.

MD 16, Rank 4 sabre or axe, no warrior, no greater, no magic, no
weaponsmithing, from behind on stunned opponent who is standing and still
has FT = 137%.

Using 15% of modified SC, the player should Endurance on a roll of 21, the
table only goes to 20.

If the enemy is in close, prone or out of FT, or the PC has a greater, a
magic spell/ weapon/ amulet, warrior skill, more MD or weaponsmithed weapon,
strike chances can be much higher. And don't get me started on PS
differentials when 3 PCs pile into close with a goblin (which usually
happens on low adventures).


Regards

Andrew

-----Original Message-----
From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz] On Behalf Of
Helen Saggers
Sent: Friday, 14 November 2008 1:03 p.m.
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: [dq] Doubles and Triples... a definative answer?

Dean
I think that the current table is probably goes far enough to calculate the
results for the Modified Strike Chance of 98% of PCs.
Which is what that table is for...
We just note that it also works for magic and calculating doubles and
triples.

If one is lucky enough to have a spell with a Cast Chance that can exceed
the table it is most likely not a combat spell, and you can  take the time
to calculate for doubles & triples or make your own extrapolated table as
you have if you want.
Do we really want yet another table or to extend a table whose purpose is
 not really for that use.

 Helen


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