--001a11c1311c1dcd6805060fe24e
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
All IMHO natch...
Interesting proposal; on the whole I'm in favour of the direction - I'm a
bit of a fan of opposed roll systems, RQ being a perennial fav. :)
The devil is however, as they say, in the details. The intent here appears
to be replacing the existing DQ system - with over 30 years of associated
cruft - with a new system, without really altering the percentages or
myriad wacky abilities of the warped and twisted Guild beasts that prowl
Alusia. All of that cruft has built up around and because of the existing
system -- SC are sky high to combat huge Def, damages have increased
because you may only get in one blow, and then armour has ballooned in
response, so re-purposing these values without really altering them is a
bit fraught... and a pretty ambitious goal. :)
I'd suggest that a mandatory "business requirement" of such a
change-over is an at least rough equivalence in grunt -- if you're a
whirling circle of death beforehand, you need to be at least a spinning
circle of GBH afterwards.So, I'll echo various concerns already raised
around agility builds and pressure towards even more armour (and especially
more EN armour).
Stephen's numbers are useful and interesting, but don't quite illustrate
how big a change will occur in some ranges; to pull one example +26 is a
lot, (SC 100%, Def 125%), but I feel it still doesn't quite get across that
the chance of a successful hit will move from 1 in 100, to over 1 in 4.
This, to me, doesn't meet rough equivalence.
Couple of questions for those more familiar with the proposal:
1) Will the 10%, 20% qualities apply throughout the system, or only in
combat? Or, to flip it around are we expecting to have to use two different
quality percentage calculations?
2) How disruptive would it be to add Greater to defence? The usual rule /
way it's played is that Greater adds to "my" percentile rolls (in the areas
covered). Having it apply to SC but not Def isn't a huge deal but it's
another (and potentially unnecessary) inconsistency - especially when the
proposal is equating physical Def with magic resistance.
--001a11c1311c1dcd6805060fe24e
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><p>All IMHO natch...<br></p><p dir=3D"ltr"></p><p dir=3D"l=
tr">Interesting proposal; on the whole I'm in favour of the direction -=
I'm a bit of a fan of opposed roll systems, RQ being a perennial fav.=
=C2=A0 :)</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">The devil is however, as they say, in the details. The inten=
t here appears to be replacing the existing DQ system - with over 30 years =
of associated cruft - with a new system, without really altering the percen=
tages or myriad wacky abilities of the warped and twisted Guild beasts that=
prowl Alusia. All of that cruft has built up around and because of the exi=
sting system
-- SC are sky high to combat huge Def, damages have increased because=20
you may only get in one blow, and then armour has ballooned in response,
so re-purposing these values without really altering them is a bit fraught=
... and a pretty ambitious goal. :)<br></p><p dir=3D"ltr">I'd suggest t=
hat a mandatory "business requirement" of such a change-over=C2=
=A0is an at least rough equivalence in grunt -- if you're a whirling ci=
rcle of death beforehand, you need to be at least a spinning circle of GBH =
afterwards.So, I'll echo various concerns already raised around agility=
builds and pressure towards even more armour (and especially more EN armou=
r).<br></p><p dir=3D"ltr">Stephen's numbers are useful and interesting,=
but don't quite illustrate how big a change will occur in some ranges;=
to pull one example +26 is a lot, (SC 100%, Def 125%), but I feel it still=
doesn't quite get across that the chance of a successful hit will move=
from 1 in 100, to over 1 in 4.=C2=A0 This, to me, doesn't meet rough e=
quivalence.<br></p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">Couple of questions for those more familiar with the proposa=
l:</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">1) Will the 10%, 20% qualities apply throughout the system, =
or only in combat? Or, to flip it around are we expecting to have to use tw=
o different quality percentage calculations? </p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">2) How disruptive would it be to add Greater to defence? The=
usual rule / way it's played is that Greater adds to "my" pe=
rcentile rolls (in the areas covered). Having it apply to SC but not Def is=
n't a huge deal but it's another (and potentially unnecessary) inco=
nsistency - especially when the proposal is equating physical Def with magi=
c resistance. </p>
</div>
--001a11c1311c1dcd6805060fe24e--
-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
|