Re-opening this old can of worms...

I think that Over-Strength Damage should stack with Skill Damage.

But each additional Strength damage increases your fumble chance by 1%.

I.e. Hand & a Half at Rk 4 with 23 PS, I get to add 1 damage from skill and 1 from PS but I fumble
on 99 or 100.


Reasons and rationalisations...

Once you have enough PS to use your preferred weapons the biggest benefit of higher PS is to get
into a better encumbrance bracket and gets some AG back.
A high PS fighter should be as fearsome (in their own way) as a high AG fighter.

But there should also be some reason (apart from cost and availability) why not every fighter is
rattling with Strength Potions.
Without adding magic most characters would be getting +1 or 2 on their weapon damage from high PS,
this puts the fumble range out to 98 or 99.  Not too big a deal.
But adding 4 or 5 damage from a potion moves the fumble chance out to 5 to 10%.  If you do it on a
regular basis you are going to fumble as often as you Spec Grev.


Thoughts and opinions?

Cheers, Stephen.


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

Interesting,

I threw the weapons table onto excel and found a general trend of increasing
DM with ST
DM = 0.3948 ST - 2.2312
Which means that for every 5 extra strength the typical DM for the
appropriate weapon goes up by 2.

Given that DQ weapons have been likened to "Sticks with damage", more
strength seems to indicate more damage.

There does not appear to be a similar trend between ST and Base Chance nor
between MD and Base Chance (not counting the formula to calculate Strike
Chance). 
So more ST means does not mean lower Base Chance, in fact there does not
appear to be any other trend on the table. Even Max Rank does not appear to
have a trend with another parameter.
Errol can do spreadsheeting better than I can... so perhaps someone can
check I have not stuffed it up.
The only place may be in the EP costs, which I have not looked at.

I have not looked at what happens if Stephen's suggestion goes through. My
first thought is not favourable.
If someone with Strength 21+ wields a Rapier then the DM goes up by two to
+5, which is the same as Estoc, Pike, Hand 1/2, Glaive.
So why would anyone rank Estoc? Or DM+4 weapons like Tulwar, Broadsword etc.
Hand and a half maybe for Class of weapon, glaive as a pole-weapon.
Now that is counter-intuitive as the trend I noted earlier suggests it is
always better to rank a weapons whose ST requirement is as close to the
wielder as possible.

So if we are just after sticks with damage then there is no problem with the
suggestion. If we are after greater range of weapons used then there may be
an issue with game experience.
This is not a negative - Stephen's suggestion has merit - just something to
watch or allow for.

Given the trend, I would vote yes.

Ian


-----Original Message-----
From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz] On Behalf Of
Stephen Martin
Sent: 26 August 2009 13:18
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: [dq] Overstrength Damage with Weapons

Re-opening this old can of worms...

I think that Over-Strength Damage should stack with Skill Damage.

But each additional Strength damage increases your fumble chance by 1%.

I.e. Hand & a Half at Rk 4 with 23 PS, I get to add 1 damage from skill and
1 from PS but I fumble
on 99 or 100.


Reasons and rationalisations...

Once you have enough PS to use your preferred weapons the biggest benefit of
higher PS is to get
into a better encumbrance bracket and gets some AG back.
A high PS fighter should be as fearsome (in their own way) as a high AG
fighter.

But there should also be some reason (apart from cost and availability) why
not every fighter is
rattling with Strength Potions.
Without adding magic most characters would be getting +1 or 2 on their
weapon damage from high PS,
this puts the fumble range out to 98 or 99.  Not too big a deal.
But adding 4 or 5 damage from a potion moves the fumble chance out to 5 to
10%.  If you do it on a
regular basis you are going to fumble as often as you Spec Grev.


Thoughts and opinions?

Cheers, Stephen.


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

This appears to be an interesting suggestion for over-strengthing. One
feature of the environment that you appear to have disregarded is that High+
characters, who are those likely to be trucking around with 40-80 PS, are
also likely to have high IV. This matters, because IV is what makes fumbles
irrelevant.

Imagine a character over-strengthing by 45 (e.g. H&a1/2, PS 61) for an extra
+9 damage. Under the proposal, they then fumble 10% of the time. However, if
they have IV 50, an actual fumble occurs 5% of the time; with IV 90, an
actual fumble occurs 1% of the time; with IV 99+, an actual fumble occurs
0.1% of the time.

Also, some fumble results break weapons. Magic weapons don't break (or GMs
are very loathe to have them break), so those fumbles will often/usually be
ignored as well.

Due to the two reasons above that reduce fumbles at high levels, I suggest
that if we tweak over-strengthing, upping fumble chances may not be enough.
One option is to make a 'fumble' an automatic miss; but missing 10% of the
time, when you are likely to be missing (against reasonably tough opponents)
anyway, is little penalty. Another option is to have the 'fumble' penalty a
*modifier* to the dice roll. This will make a difference at any level, and
gives the PC options - they can brutally batter through an enemy's armour
(default option for high PS), or use more finesse and hope to do (less) EN
by stabbing through the gaps. It also works for muscled Assassins - do they
slit the throat, or ram the dagger right through the chest?


I am can see reasons why over-strengthing is not quite right at the moment,
but believe just increasing the fumble chance won't do anything - when did
your fighter character last actually fumble (rhetorical Q - please don't
post examples)?

I'm not at all convinced by my die mod suggestion, but it does seem to be of
about the right order of effect, as well as giving PCs another simple
tactical option in combat, without having to worry how it combines with
other rules, etc.


Andrew

-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Martin

Re-opening this old can of worms...

I think that Over-Strength Damage should stack with Skill Damage.

But each additional Strength damage increases your fumble chance by 1%.

I.e. Hand & a Half at Rk 4 with 23 PS, I get to add 1 damage from skill and
1 from PS but I fumble
on 99 or 100.


Reasons and rationalisations...

Once you have enough PS to use your preferred weapons the biggest benefit of
higher PS is to get
into a better encumbrance bracket and gets some AG back.
A high PS fighter should be as fearsome (in their own way) as a high AG
fighter.

But there should also be some reason (apart from cost and availability) why
not every fighter is
rattling with Strength Potions.
Without adding magic most characters would be getting +1 or 2 on their
weapon damage from high PS,
this puts the fumble range out to 98 or 99.  Not too big a deal.
But adding 4 or 5 damage from a potion moves the fumble chance out to 5 to
10%.  If you do it on a
regular basis you are going to fumble as often as you Spec Grev.


Thoughts and opinions?

Cheers, Stephen.


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

There should be more fumbles.  When the original table was constructed
it was based on bunny- to medium-level characters with little or
moderate magic and ignoring the effect of other skills (especially
Warrior).  I still believe that there should be *comparatively* few
weapon breakages - but there should be more fumbles.  Not necessarily
dangerous or fatal, but the odd extra fatigue loss from overexertion or
loss of Initiative on next swing, etc, 

Yes, high-level character should have fewer total fumbles than bunnies
... but not "virtually none" which Andrew points out.  How can High
level characters  be pushing themselves up to an extreme level of
initiative and strike chance without still risking the occasional
"overreach" or misjudgement.

Michael Parkinson (Ph 3737 599 ext 85858)
Mathematics & Statistics Subject Librarian
=========================
-----Original Message-----
From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz] On Behalf Of
Andrew Withy
Sent: Wednesday, 26 August 2009 5:45 p.m.
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] Overstrength Damage with Weapons

This appears to be an interesting suggestion for over-strengthing. One
feature of the environment that you appear to have disregarded is that
High+
characters, who are those likely to be trucking around with 40-80 PS,
are
also likely to have high IV. This matters, because IV is what makes
fumbles
irrelevant.

Imagine a character over-strengthing by 45 (e.g. H&a1/2, PS 61) for an
extra
+9 damage. Under the proposal, they then fumble 10% of the time.
However, if
they have IV 50, an actual fumble occurs 5% of the time; with IV 90, an
actual fumble occurs 1% of the time; with IV 99+, an actual fumble
occurs
0.1% of the time.

Also, some fumble results break weapons. Magic weapons don't break (or
GMs
are very loathe to have them break), so those fumbles will often/usually
be
ignored as well.

Due to the two reasons above that reduce fumbles at high levels, I
suggest
that if we tweak over-strengthing, upping fumble chances may not be
enough.
One option is to make a 'fumble' an automatic miss; but missing 10% of
the
time, when you are likely to be missing (against reasonably tough
opponents)
anyway, is little penalty. Another option is to have the 'fumble'
penalty a
*modifier* to the dice roll. This will make a difference at any level,
and
gives the PC options - they can brutally batter through an enemy's
armour
(default option for high PS), or use more finesse and hope to do (less)
EN
by stabbing through the gaps. It also works for muscled Assassins - do
they
slit the throat, or ram the dagger right through the chest?


I am can see reasons why over-strengthing is not quite right at the
moment,
but believe just increasing the fumble chance won't do anything - when
did
your fighter character last actually fumble (rhetorical Q - please don't
post examples)?

I'm not at all convinced by my die mod suggestion, but it does seem to
be of
about the right order of effect, as well as giving PCs another simple
tactical option in combat, without having to worry how it combines with
other rules, etc.


Andrew

-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Martin

Re-opening this old can of worms...

I think that Over-Strength Damage should stack with Skill Damage.

But each additional Strength damage increases your fumble chance by 1%.

I.e. Hand & a Half at Rk 4 with 23 PS, I get to add 1 damage from skill
and
1 from PS but I fumble
on 99 or 100.


Reasons and rationalisations...

Once you have enough PS to use your preferred weapons the biggest
benefit of
higher PS is to get
into a better encumbrance bracket and gets some AG back.
A high PS fighter should be as fearsome (in their own way) as a high AG
fighter.

But there should also be some reason (apart from cost and availability)
why
not every fighter is
rattling with Strength Potions.
Without adding magic most characters would be getting +1 or 2 on their
weapon damage from high PS,
this puts the fumble range out to 98 or 99.  Not too big a deal.
But adding 4 or 5 damage from a potion moves the fumble chance out to 5
to
10%.  If you do it on a
regular basis you are going to fumble as often as you Spec Grev.


Thoughts and opinions?

Cheers, Stephen.


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

I assumed but didn't state that a fumble result was a miss.  But as you say a roll of 90+ will
usually miss against equivalent opponents.

I did consider that the more extreme characters with 20-30+ more IV than it is possible to get
using standard rules will almost never fumble so the PS damage is 'free' for them.
But those extreme characters are in the heroic to demi-god level of the game and even if they did
fumble would probably just roll back time so nobody would ever know.
The balancing factor is aimed at the other 99.99% of the world.

And even for the other 99%, it's still a fairly minor downside.  Most adventurers will over
strength where they can and we'll see a few more fumbles in the game.

I thought about the +1 on dice per extra damage but dismissed it as being too much of a penalty.
It might work, but I'm unsure about it.

Cheers, Stephen.

Andrew Withy wrote:
> This appears to be an interesting suggestion for over-strengthing. One
> feature of the environment that you appear to have disregarded is that High+
> characters, who are those likely to be trucking around with 40-80 PS, are
> also likely to have high IV. This matters, because IV is what makes fumbles
> irrelevant.
>
> Imagine a character over-strengthing by 45 (e.g. H&a1/2, PS 61) for an extra
> +9 damage. Under the proposal, they then fumble 10% of the time. However, if
> they have IV 50, an actual fumble occurs 5% of the time; with IV 90, an
> actual fumble occurs 1% of the time; with IV 99+, an actual fumble occurs
> 0.1% of the time.
>
> Also, some fumble results break weapons. Magic weapons don't break (or GMs
> are very loathe to have them break), so those fumbles will often/usually be
> ignored as well.
>
> Due to the two reasons above that reduce fumbles at high levels, I suggest
> that if we tweak over-strengthing, upping fumble chances may not be enough.
> One option is to make a 'fumble' an automatic miss; but missing 10% of the
> time, when you are likely to be missing (against reasonably tough opponents)
> anyway, is little penalty. Another option is to have the 'fumble' penalty a
> *modifier* to the dice roll. This will make a difference at any level, and
> gives the PC options - they can brutally batter through an enemy's armour
> (default option for high PS), or use more finesse and hope to do (less) EN
> by stabbing through the gaps. It also works for muscled Assassins - do they
> slit the throat, or ram the dagger right through the chest?
>
>
> I am can see reasons why over-strengthing is not quite right at the moment,
> but believe just increasing the fumble chance won't do anything - when did
> your fighter character last actually fumble (rhetorical Q - please don't
> post examples)?
>
> I'm not at all convinced by my die mod suggestion, but it does seem to be of
> about the right order of effect, as well as giving PCs another simple
> tactical option in combat, without having to worry how it combines with
> other rules, etc.
>
>
> Andrew
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Martin
>
> Re-opening this old can of worms...
>
> I think that Over-Strength Damage should stack with Skill Damage.
>
> But each additional Strength damage increases your fumble chance by 1%.
>
> I.e. Hand & a Half at Rk 4 with 23 PS, I get to add 1 damage from skill and
> 1 from PS but I fumble
> on 99 or 100.
>
>
> Reasons and rationalisations...
>
> Once you have enough PS to use your preferred weapons the biggest benefit of
> higher PS is to get
> into a better encumbrance bracket and gets some AG back.
> A high PS fighter should be as fearsome (in their own way) as a high AG
> fighter.
>
> But there should also be some reason (apart from cost and availability) why
> not every fighter is
> rattling with Strength Potions.
> Without adding magic most characters would be getting +1 or 2 on their
> weapon damage from high PS,
> this puts the fumble range out to 98 or 99.  Not too big a deal.
> But adding 4 or 5 damage from a potion moves the fumble chance out to 5 to
> 10%.  If you do it on a
> regular basis you are going to fumble as often as you Spec Grev.
>
>
> Thoughts and opinions?
>
> Cheers, Stephen.
>
>
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>


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

The current fumble table and rules were re-done about 10 years ago to better fit our campaign.
The net result is that fumbles changed from rarely happening to almost never happening.

Part of the problem is that the chance of 'saving' the fumble by rolling under IV is too high.

One option is to remove the 'save', if you roll a fumble you get a fumble.  But skill/ability lets
you ameliorate the result.
I.e. A fumble table from -50 (trivial) to 100 (breakage and self injury).  Roll your dice, apply
your lesser, death aspect, etc.  And also reduce the dice roll by Rank + MD (or something like
that) and then wear whatever the result is on the Fumble Table.

Cheers, Stephen.

Michael Parkinson wrote:
> There should be more fumbles.  When the original table was constructed
> it was based on bunny- to medium-level characters with little or
> moderate magic and ignoring the effect of other skills (especially
> Warrior).  I still believe that there should be *comparatively* few
> weapon breakages - but there should be more fumbles.  Not necessarily
> dangerous or fatal, but the odd extra fatigue loss from overexertion or
> loss of Initiative on next swing, etc,
>
> Yes, high-level character should have fewer total fumbles than bunnies
> ... but not "virtually none" which Andrew points out.  How can High
> level characters  be pushing themselves up to an extreme level of
> initiative and strike chance without still risking the occasional
> "overreach" or misjudgement.
>
> Michael Parkinson (Ph 3737 599 ext 85858)
> Mathematics & Statistics Subject Librarian
> ========================

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

I agree with removing the 'save from fumble' part of Stephen's post.
I agree that having a way of reducing the impact of the fumble is good.
I would however beg the reduction not require a further equation. Simply
using the IV or Rank or any existing number (that is on the character sheet
already) to reduce the impact would be better to me.

Having small-effect fumbles happening several times in a combat seems better
to me than rarely having a large-effect fumble. (I have the same thoughts
about backfires.)

Ian

-----Original Message-----
From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz] On Behalf Of
Stephen Martin
Sent: 26 August 2009 20:13
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] DQ: Fumbling weapons

The current fumble table and rules were re-done about 10 years ago to better
fit our campaign.
The net result is that fumbles changed from rarely happening to almost never
happening.

Part of the problem is that the chance of 'saving' the fumble by rolling
under IV is too high.

One option is to remove the 'save', if you roll a fumble you get a fumble.
But skill/ability lets
you ameliorate the result.
I.e. A fumble table from -50 (trivial) to 100 (breakage and self injury).
Roll your dice, apply
your lesser, death aspect, etc.  And also reduce the dice roll by Rank + MD
(or something like
that) and then wear whatever the result is on the Fumble Table.

Cheers, Stephen.

Michael Parkinson wrote:
> There should be more fumbles.  When the original table was constructed
> it was based on bunny- to medium-level characters with little or
> moderate magic and ignoring the effect of other skills (especially
> Warrior).  I still believe that there should be *comparatively* few
> weapon breakages - but there should be more fumbles.  Not necessarily
> dangerous or fatal, but the odd extra fatigue loss from overexertion or
> loss of Initiative on next swing, etc,
>
> Yes, high-level character should have fewer total fumbles than bunnies
> ... but not "virtually none" which Andrew points out.  How can High
> level characters  be pushing themselves up to an extreme level of
> initiative and strike chance without still risking the occasional
> "overreach" or misjudgement.
>
> Michael Parkinson (Ph 3737 599 ext 85858)
> Mathematics & Statistics Subject Librarian
> ========


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

Ian Wood wrote:
> I agree with removing the 'save from fumble' part of Stephen's post.
> I agree that having a way of reducing the impact of the fumble is good.
> I would however beg the reduction not require a further equation. Simply
> using the IV or Rank or any existing number (that is on the character sheet
> already) to reduce the impact would be better to me.
>
> Having small-effect fumbles happening several times in a combat seems better
> to me than rarely having a large-effect fumble. (I have the same thoughts
> about backfires.)
>   
*nods*
It's fun when somebody slips and flicks gore all over their opponent - 
it's not fun when magical swords that somebody has had for years get broke.

Yet, broke should happen - rarely, and not necessarily permanently - 
broken might be as simple as the pommel knob comes off so that the tang 
slides out of the handle. I tend to think that a Master Weaponsmith Mage 
ought to be able to fix most any broken weapon, given time and 
appropriate stuff. After all... the Sword that was Broken was re-forged, 
and there is no indication that it was any less magical afterwards. Yes, 
I know perfectly well that's Middle Earth and not DQ, but those books 
are somewhat fundamental to the whole genre.

Likewise Master Armourer Mages should get to fix magical armour.

Jacqui


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