It is currently Wed Jan 16, 2019 11:22 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 61 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Better armour?
PostPosted: Sat Jun 05, 2010 2:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 10:43 pm
Posts: 2112
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Grettir wrote:
I’d agree that it is “realistic” that grazing hits can be achieved, but then I always like to see players get bang for their bucks, that is, real benefits for their successes.


higgins wrote:
Sure, I get that, but since we're aiming for the system to be unified, I think it would not mesh well to allow only very minimal results for 1 success in skills... yet in combat, this MoS 1 would get a boost of two wound levels just because the victim was unarmoured.


As I see it, there is no increase or decrease as such. The wound table changes if the context warrants it. When making a skill check, Skill MoS 1 produces different results based on the context. I see this as doing the same.

higgins wrote:
Also, there HAS to be a possibility of grazing wounds... what Ian is basically suggesting that unarmoured combatant should have an absolute minimum wound level of 2...


This isn't correct. With my suggestion most weapons performing most manoeuvres against most armours would simply use the Core table. Where the context is extreme (a zwiehander swung at an unarmoured opponent) or ahistorical (a sword swung at a plate-armoured opponent) then I think that the wound table should be adjusted to take into account the weapon, the proficiency/manoeuvre, as well as the armour. So what I am suggesting is that when an unarmoured defender is grazed with a zwiehander the result is different than when they are grazed with a dagger.

Ian.Plumb wrote:
From a mathematical perspective I don't like capping because it slews all the results towards one particular result. If we cap at 3 then 3 becomes the most likely result (as the system is designed to produce results from 0 through 5 but we're saying that a 4 and a 5 are now a three -- 0, 1 , 2, 3, 3, 3). For this reason I do not like Naked Dwarf -- results are slewed towards level 1 wounds. This solution preserves the variety of 0 through 5 while catering to specific circumstances that raise or lower the possible damage.


higgins wrote:
I don't think that the desire for more realistic armour should definitely need to mesh with an elegant mathematical spread of all possible results.


Perhaps but I don't think the best solutions produce clear weightings, as capping and Naked Dwarf do.

Ian.Plumb wrote:
If all the players understand that swinging a sword against a plate-armoured opponent is quite futile -- even if their CP is 30 and their opponent's is 10 -- then they will adjust their in-combat tactics appropriately.


higgins wrote:
With the cap removed, this effect (which I think is VERY cool) would basically evaporate. In other words, current "armour penetrating" rules would stay as they are, except with level 5 wounds and the upper end of level 4 wounds being impossible to achieve.


I don't understand this. Whether the player is told that they can only produce a maximum level 3 wound or whether they are told that they now operate on a reduced wound table the player will understand that they need to change their tactics in order to access the normal wound table/uncapped results.

higgins wrote:
I also disagree with your reasoning on the "slewing" of Naked Dwarf. TROS allows for a high TO character literally to shrug off blows with no damage whatsoever. Naked Dwarf only comes to effect when the unarmoured character would be receiving a level 0 wound due his high TO. So, Naked Dwarf is "slewed" towards level 1 wounds precisely as much as TROS is "slewed" towards level 0 wounds.


Absolutely correct. I'm not suggesting that the TO/ST isn't an issue. I'm simply saying that Naked Dwarf is an inelegant solution. The problem arises when there is a significant gap between ST and TO. Halving the effect of ST and TO halves any gap without slewing results. I think that is a better solution. Personally, as I've said elsewhere, I find the use of TO as armour absurd and so would remove TO entirely from the mechanic (replacing it with AV).

Regards,

_________________
Ian Plumb
Illustrations for Gamers
Lyonpaedia
Griffin Grove Gaming
Kraftworks for Kids School Holiday Program


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Better armour?
PostPosted: Sat Jun 05, 2010 8:14 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2008 8:06 am
Posts: 1495
Location: Vienna, Austria, Europe
Ian.Plumb wrote:
From a mathematical perspective I don't like capping because it slews all the results towards one particular result.

That’s also one of the reasons I like a wound divisor. Now if only it was more wieldy in play. :(

Ian.Plumb wrote:
Ideally weapon, manoeuvre, and armour would be part of the context for the wound description.

Ideally, yes; but how to achieve this without drawing up hundreds and hundreds of pages of wound tables? Your solution looks good, but is less than perfect in the practical application. See here:
Ian.Plumb wrote:
Therefore the wound table is set at 1, 2, 3, 6, 7. Non-linear results are possible (which I like).

I’ve never felt the need for non-linear results, but I’m not opposed to them; I don’t care either way.

But what I’m asking is this: What directives would you give the player who isn’t well-informed about ancient arms and armour how to “set” the wound tables for specific arms and armour combinations? With wound caps, that’s straighforward. You give every armour a wound cap against different types of damage, and some weapons modifiers to the wound caps of armour opposing them; all very transparent and easy to handle without any weaponry knowledge of the users required. But how about slewing the wound tables?

Grettir wrote:
I could see Ian’s proposal work beautifully if it is keyed to an attacker of advanced Proficiency and if a wound that would have been minor anyway can still be reduced to wound level 0.
higgins wrote:
Can you bring an example of exactly what you mean?

Erm, no. :oops: I’ve no idea anymore what exactly I meant with that. :lol:

But I at least can say that I would like to see the possibility of keying a minimum damage, despite TO, to a minimum Proficiency on the attacker’s part. Or, probably even better, to a minimum attacking MoS after subtraction of the defence successes. So that, when you have achieved an attacking MoS of 3+ against an unarmoured opponent, TO and negative DR alone cannot reduce the resulting wound below level 1. Bangs for your bucks.

_________________
My real name is Michael; use it, if you like.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Better armour?
PostPosted: Sat Jun 05, 2010 9:19 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 10:05 pm
Posts: 2035
Location: Estonia
Ian.Plumb wrote:
higgins wrote:
Also, there HAS to be a possibility of grazing wounds... what Ian is basically suggesting that unarmoured combatant should have an absolute minimum wound level of 2...
This isn't correct. With my suggestion most weapons performing most manoeuvres against most armours would simply use the Core table.
This is how I got your suggestion (click here for full view):
table






First table is the spread comparison of 5-step and 7-step wounds.
In case of unarmoured opponents, red area is used.
In case of armoured opponents, green area is used.
In case of swung trees, blue area is used regardless of armour.

Wound level 3(in7) is the same as wound level 2(in5), even bordering over to wound level 3(in5). If we'd use the table like that, all unarmoured wounds would start at the upper end of level 2(in5) and the lower end of level 3(in5), which is exactly what I was referring to.

Ian.Plumb wrote:
So what I am suggesting is that when an unarmoured defender is grazed with a zwiehander the result is different than when they are grazed with a dagger.
I would agree if all weapons had the same DR... but daggers and zweihanders DRs are miles apart. Zweihander's DR is huge (ST+4), so, those two hits are likely be VERY different anyway. If the victim somehow manages to to get a graze from the huge zweihander, I say good for him. I see no reason to tilt the scales further.

Ian.Plumb wrote:
(...) I think that the wound table should be adjusted to take into account the weapon, the proficiency/manoeuvre, as well as the armour.
I can't really imagine how to achieve all this and not end up with something HUGELY bulky.

Also, I wouldn't bring the proficiency into that formula. Without PAs, I would understand the reasoning, but since we most definitely intend to use the PAs, they should not be downplayed by any other mechanic. Proficiency brings a variety of maneuvers into the table and I think we should leave it at that. If we put too much importance on the proficiency, we end up with a system where a skilled character has much larger damage potential than a passionate one (PAs firing), and I don't think that would be the spirit of what we're trying to achieve here.

Ian.Plumb wrote:
Ian.Plumb wrote:
If all the players understand that swinging a sword against a plate-armoured opponent is quite futile -- even if their CP is 30 and their opponent's is 10 -- then they will adjust their in-combat tactics appropriately.
higgins wrote:
With the cap removed, this effect (which I think is VERY cool) would basically evaporate. In other words, current "armour penetrating" rules would stay as they are, except with level 5 wounds and the upper end of level 4 wounds being impossible to achieve.
I don't understand this. Whether the player is told that they can only produce a maximum level 3 wound or whether they are told that they now operate on a reduced wound table the player will understand that they need to change their tactics in order to access the normal wound table/uncapped /results.
Problem is, that I want the rules to be straightforward. I can totally see a computer consulting a complicated pattern of possible wound levels when a specific weapon clashes a specific armour during a specific maneuver with a certain proficiency, and it would be very easy for the computer to switch to another pattern in the wound table when the off hand strikes with another weapon to another part of the armour with another maneuver... but since I'm not a computer, I suspect I'd find it hard if not impossible. As a referee, I have tons of tons of other stuff I must devote my attention to. I don't want to stop in the middle of the combat to explain to my players (or indeed, to myself) what pattern of wound levels applies for the current situtation. As a player, I'd be less than disinterested in researching the wound tables to discover the most effective patterns. I want the combat to be fast and moving. Level 2 wounds are the maximum you can deal with that weapon, and they will be blunt damage, go!

_________________
"Brothels are a much sounder investment than ships, I've found. Whores seldom sink, and when they are boarded by pirates, why, the pirates pay good coin like everyone else."
- Lord Petyr Baelish, A Game of Thrones


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Better armour?
PostPosted: Sat Jun 05, 2010 12:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2009 6:54 am
Posts: 191
Location: Perth, Australia
What if for example all edge (or point) strikes against plate count as blunt against plate, (with non TFOB plate rules) with a weapon blunt rating for each weapon? (Unless they reach a penetration threshold maybe?)

_________________
Valthalion
Knight against chaos


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Better armour?
PostPosted: Sat Jun 05, 2010 3:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2008 8:06 am
Posts: 1495
Location: Vienna, Austria, Europe
Valthalion wrote:
What if for example all edge (or point) strikes against plate count as blunt against plate, (with non TFOB plate rules) with a weapon blunt rating for each weapon? (Unless they reach a penetration threshold maybe?)

Another workable solution. And as far as I can see, another one with drawbacks.

I really dig the simplicity and ease of use. The drawback is that, with a sufficiently large dicepool (for instance against a prone opponent), you can “cut” to death somebody in plate armour even with a knife.

Still, I could live with this contingency. So far, I seem to like most proposals. :)

_________________
My real name is Michael; use it, if you like.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Better armour?
PostPosted: Sun Jun 06, 2010 11:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 10:05 pm
Posts: 2035
Location: Estonia
Valthalion wrote:
What if for example all edge (or point) strikes against plate count as blunt against plate, (with non TFOB plate rules) with a weapon blunt rating for each weapon? (Unless they reach a penetration threshold maybe?)
I thought of that too, but then discarded it. While it would make sense at a first glance to add "blunt DRs" to edged weapons, I don't think the added bulk has much benefit. I mean...

Question: When is the edged weapon damage going to be blunt?
Answer: When meeting steel armour.

So, we have two options here. Either we add blunt ratings to the edged weapons, or we add some special effects to weapons that are designed to defeat armour. IMO the latter option is much more elegant. I think we should add special rules to the weapons that have special properties, not add special rules to the weapons that lack the special properties.

_________________
"Brothels are a much sounder investment than ships, I've found. Whores seldom sink, and when they are boarded by pirates, why, the pirates pay good coin like everyone else."
- Lord Petyr Baelish, A Game of Thrones


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Better armour?
PostPosted: Sun Jun 06, 2010 2:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 6:37 pm
Posts: 205
If anyone here has played HarnMaster, might I advise taking a quick look at how that system handles weapons and armour? Obviously the systems are entirely different, but it may provide some food for thought.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Better armour?
PostPosted: Sun Jun 06, 2010 3:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2009 6:54 am
Posts: 191
Location: Perth, Australia
Hector wrote:
If anyone here has played HarnMaster, might I advise taking a quick look at how that system handles weapons and armour? Obviously the systems are entirely different, but it may provide some food for thought.


Actually looking back over the thread I'd say most of us have played Harnmaster...

All weapons have a rating for Blunt Edge and point (well those that have edges and points I suppose)
Armour has a rating for BEP as well.
opposed rolls, margin of success adds dice to damage.
individual wounds..
Extremely difficult to do anything against someone with chain and plate and quilt. (Legs are my favorite)

Grettir wrote:
I really dig the simplicity and ease of use. The drawback is that, with a sufficiently large dicepool (for instance against a prone opponent), you can “cut” to death somebody in plate armour even with a knife.


Maybe he hit really really hard?...............well no. Wound caps seem simple to me, blunt wounds though...

_________________
Valthalion
Knight against chaos


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Better armour?
PostPosted: Fri Jun 18, 2010 5:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 10:05 pm
Posts: 2035
Location: Estonia
Daeruin wrote:
Whoa! Where did this discussion veer off course? Where are my new armor values for different damage types? You leave for a week . . . sheesh. :)
So, back to the original topic. I'm not a historian, armour expert or whatever, but I do believe I grasp the basic principles of the most types of armour listed below. I did this in very broad strokes, but let's see what everybody thinks and what feedback do I get.

1) As my general understanding goes, the least effective attack vs an armour is cutting. So, I took the TFOB ratings to represent cutting AV, and went from there.

2) Padded clothing should offer some protection vs cutting and blunt trauma. I'm not doing any deep deductions here, and I've given both mentioned AVs simply a value of 1 (lowest meaningful value possible).

3) Leather stands up to cutting pretty well, yet not so against the thrust and it doesn't protect against blunt trauma all that much either. Both pierce and blunt AV get a -1.

4) Enter maille -- virtually impossible to cut -- converts all cutting damage to blunt trauma. Offers effective protection vs piercing damage short of high powered crossbows and couched lances. Still, there had to be a reason why double maille was invented, and since its rings are more close together, I suspect the reason must have been the added protection vs piercing damage. Also, I don't see how doubled maille would perform any better vs cutting attacks than the plain one. Sure it's thicker and heavier, but maille is excellent to begin with and it's the padding and muscle mass that absorb the blunt trauma, so, I give both maille and double maille a cutting AV of 4. Maille gets both pierce and blunt AV -1, double maille gets blunt AV -1.

Now we have the issue of cutting... and mass weapons. Both the scimitar and the axe cut, but it's clear that maille is virtually scimitar proof while axe should deliver a crushing blow. I don't want to lower the blunt AV any further, as that would make maille equivalent to cuir bouilli, which sounds rather unfair. So, I actually up the cutting AV of 4 to 5, to be used vs non-mass cutting weapons, while leaving the blunt AV to handle the mass cutting weapons.

5) I completely admit the shortcomings of my knowledge in scale armour. I can't recall that I've see any cutting/etc tests whatsoever, so, I'll leave it "as is" with the both pierce and blunt AV -1 as per regular maille as it seems to be the closest match. To make my shortcomings more pronounced, I wrote the numbers in italics.

6) I'm also at loss with banded mail. Wiki actually says it's historical existence is doubted. Or is plated mail actually meant in TFOB? In any case, if the blow hits the maille part, it's the maille (plain or doubled) that counters it and if it hits the plate, it depends whether the plate is light, moderate or heavy. I'm willing to take suggestions how to handle that mechanically. I've omitted assigning any values at this point.

7) On to plate... Designed to withstand the lances and crossbows that proved to cross the breaking point of maille, barring firearms, these pieces or armour are virtually impossible to penetrate, let alone to cut. Cutting attacks converted to blunt trauma and thus cutting AV +1 (similar effect to maille).

On the straight blunt however... there isn't going to me much impact difference on the body if the plate is a millimetre or two ticker... So, the same way I gave equal cutting AV to the both mailles, I also give equal blunt AVs to all plates. As the armour is rigid, it's better off than maille. AV 4 for all.

My result:
Image

P.S.
I don't see point in moving on to the caps before we think that we've gotten the ratings right...

_________________
"Brothels are a much sounder investment than ships, I've found. Whores seldom sink, and when they are boarded by pirates, why, the pirates pay good coin like everyone else."
- Lord Petyr Baelish, A Game of Thrones


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Better armour?
PostPosted: Fri Jun 18, 2010 10:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 10:43 pm
Posts: 2112
Location: Melbourne, Australia
I advocate rating each weapon for B, C, and P just like armour. If the player wants to use their sword for a blunt attack on plate then they have to declare it. If they don't then the primary method of striking with the weapon for the manoeuvre chosen is used.

I also recommend using the different AVs for armour against B, C, and P instead of caps. If Plate has an AV of 11 against Cutting then is there really a need for a cap?

Regards,

_________________
Ian Plumb
Illustrations for Gamers
Lyonpaedia
Griffin Grove Gaming
Kraftworks for Kids School Holiday Program


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Better armour?
PostPosted: Sat Jun 19, 2010 3:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2008 4:31 am
Posts: 251
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah, US
Ian.Plumb wrote:
I also recommend using the different AVs for armour against B, C, and P instead of caps. If Plate has an AV of 11 against Cutting then is there really a need for a cap?

Maybe. Someone could conceivably be rolling 20 or more dice and still come up with 9 successes against an AV 11.

_________________
Ben
My blog: fantasy fiction, gaming, and progressive metal


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Better armour?
PostPosted: Sat Jun 19, 2010 9:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 10:43 pm
Posts: 2112
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Ian.Plumb wrote:
I also recommend using the different AVs for armour against B, C, and P instead of caps. If Plate has an AV of 11 against Cutting then is there really a need for a cap?


Daeruin wrote:
Maybe. Someone could conceivably be rolling 20 or more dice and still come up with 9 successes against an AV 11.


11 is just a number. What I'm saying is that conceptually it should be possible to control this through the AV and the DR.

Let's say a sword has a DR of 7 for Cut and a DR of 4 for Blunt. Our hero, with all SAs firing, faces an opponent that is wearing plate. Plate has an AV of 11 against Cut but only 4 against Blunt. It makes sense that the player will opt to perform a bashing manoeuvre, even though the sword is better at cutting than at bashing.

Regards,

_________________
Ian Plumb
Illustrations for Gamers
Lyonpaedia
Griffin Grove Gaming
Kraftworks for Kids School Holiday Program


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Better armour?
PostPosted: Sat Jun 19, 2010 2:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 10:05 pm
Posts: 2035
Location: Estonia
So, no feedback for the ratings themselves? :cry:

...

Anyways...
Ian.Plumb wrote:
I advocate rating each weapon for B, C, and P just like armour.
I don't agree. Even if you give quaterstaff a cutting DR or -10, a character with large enough dice pool is still going to able "slice open" someone's belly with that. Or to cut a rope. I'd rather not give quarterstaff a cutting rating at all and not introduce the possibility of that silliness.

Ian.Plumb wrote:
If the player wants to use their sword for a blunt attack on plate then they have to declare it. If they don't then the primary method of striking with the weapon for the manoeuvre chosen is used.
What exactly do you mean by "wants to use their sword for a blunt attack on plate"? Using the flat edge? Or the side?

Ian.Plumb wrote:
Let's say a sword has a DR of 7 for Cut and a DR of 4 for Blunt. Our hero, with all SAs firing, faces an opponent that is wearing plate. Plate has an AV of 11 against Cut but only 4 against Blunt. It makes sense that the player will opt to perform a bashing manoeuvre, even though the sword is better at cutting than at bashing.
Which is exactly why I don't want weapons to have all three ratings. I mean... how does one choose to deal blunt damage with a sword that is potentially more effective than using the edge? That just doesn't make sense...

Ian.Plumb wrote:
I also recommend using the different AVs for armour against B, C, and P instead of caps.
That's exactly what the table is about. Caps will be on top of those. Or these ratings could later be exaggerated to better distinguish the differences of the armour if we happen to decide against caps. Right now I just want to establish different AV ratings that make sense in relation to each other.

Ian.Plumb wrote:
If Plate has an AV of 11 against Cutting then is there really a need for a cap?
To quote yourself:
Ian.Plumb wrote:
If all the players understand that swinging a sword against a plate-armoured opponent is quite futile -- even if their CP is 30 and their opponent's is 10 -- then they will adjust their in-combat tactics appropriately. Which I think is a good thing.
And I couldn't agree more. :)

_________________
"Brothels are a much sounder investment than ships, I've found. Whores seldom sink, and when they are boarded by pirates, why, the pirates pay good coin like everyone else."
- Lord Petyr Baelish, A Game of Thrones


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Better armour?
PostPosted: Sat Jun 19, 2010 10:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 10:43 pm
Posts: 2112
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Ian.Plumb wrote:
I advocate rating each weapon for B, C, and P just like armour.


higgins wrote:
I don't agree. Even if you give quaterstaff a cutting DR or -10, a character with large enough dice pool is still going to able "slice open" someone's belly with that.


Apologies, I assumed that everyone had seen Harnmaster.

What I'm saying here is that a sword doesn't just have a DR. Rather, it has a particular kind of DR -- in the case of a sword, a cutting DR. Some weapons are capable of more than one type of attack. For example, a sword. With a sword you can also strike with the pommel. This is a blunt attack with a bludgeoning DR. The sword might also be capable of a thrust attack, giving it a puncturing DR.

Ian.Plumb wrote:
If the player wants to use their sword for a blunt attack on plate then they have to declare it. If they don't then the primary method of striking with the weapon for the manoeuvre chosen is used.


higgins wrote:
What exactly do you mean by "wants to use their sword for a blunt attack on plate"? Using the flat edge? Or the side?


It doesn't really matter -- if a weapon has a bludgeoning DR then it is capable of a blunt attack.

Ian.Plumb wrote:
If Plate has an AV of 11 against Cutting then is there really a need for a cap?


higgins wrote:
To quote yourself:


Ian.Plumb wrote:
If all the players understand that swinging a sword against a plate-armoured opponent is quite futile -- even if their CP is 30 and their opponent's is 10 -- then they will adjust their in-combat tactics appropriately. Which I think is a good thing.


higgins wrote:
And I couldn't agree more. :)


That doesn't answer the question. If the AV of an armour is so high against a particular type of attack that it makes that type of attack pointless -- what use is served by adding a cap to the wounds?

What I've said above is that having greater tactical choice would be a good thing. Caps are a ham-fisted approach to the problem. The alternative approaches under discussion give far greater tactical opportunity to the player -- and a far more elegant in approach.

Regards,

_________________
Ian Plumb
Illustrations for Gamers
Lyonpaedia
Griffin Grove Gaming
Kraftworks for Kids School Holiday Program


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Better armour?
PostPosted: Sun Jun 20, 2010 3:19 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2008 4:31 am
Posts: 251
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah, US
Higgins, the numbers themselves look good to me, but I don't have the knowledge to give good feedback on that kind of thing. Which is why I've been waiting for someone with more knowledge or more courage than me to come up with something. So all I can offer is that from the standpoint of a common player, they look great.

Ian, I believe the reason we were discussing caps was because in some cases there truly is only so much damage you can do. I think it was Grettir who brought up the point that it's essentially impossible to use a dagger to harm someone in plate. If you do not institute a cap, then you open up situations where the dagger wielder can slice the plate-wearer to ribbons (for instance, if the plate-wearer is prone and the knife-wielder has a high CP). In order to make the AV so high that nobody can possibly do damage, you'd have to set it to 25. That seems silly to me. If the attack is impossible, then make it impossible. Don't just make it tactically unlikely. With that exception, I'm on board with you.

_________________
Ben
My blog: fantasy fiction, gaming, and progressive metal


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 61 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron


Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group              Designed by QuakeZone