Quote:
Originally Posted by Skarg
Hi Zot,
I'm glad to see you taking interest in this variant (which yes, should be in the House Rules sub-forum).
Your first re-mix causes a couple of changes:
1) By making the needed roll greater than or equal to, you're making all to-hit rolls easier by +1.
|
Good point. I haven't actually run the numbers yet :).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skarg
2) By writing down a fixed MOD stat, you are losing precision, and making people need to have their DX go up by 2 to have any effect. In Chris' & my version, there is a comparison of the opposed figures' DX, and the table is offset in one direction versus the other, so every point of DX still matters. If you write down a rounded up MOD stat for each fighter, then you make DX 11 the same as DX 12, DX 13 the same as DX 14, etc.
|
Yeah, that loss of precision is annoying but subtraction and division during combat really bothers me.
The numbers are actually only off when the attacker's DX is even and the defender's DX is odd, so to restore the precision:
attacker gets +1 if their DX is even and the defender's is odd.
It's fiddly but only players with even adjDX need to worry about it.
The only thing players need to worry about now is recomputing their MODs when adjDX changes.
Even/odd comparison and recomputing MOD is still less work than subtract & divide for each hit so I think it's a win.
Also, since the lack of precision only occurs 25% of the time, you could potentially ignore it or make it an optional rule.
By the way, I think it makes sense for players to write both MOD and ATK (MOD + 10) on their sheets.
Here's a table for comparison:
Code:
| Adx | Ddx | ATK | Dmod | ADJ | ceil((Adx-Ddx)/2)+10 | ATK-Dmod+ADJ |
|-----+-----+-----+------+-----+----------------------+--------------|
| 12 | 8 | 11 | -1 | 0 | 12 | 12 |
| 12 | 9 | 11 | 0 | 1 | 12 | 12 |
| 11 | 8 | 11 | -1 | 0 | 12 | 12 |
| 12 | 10 | 11 | 0 | 0 | 11 | 11 |
| 12 | 11 | 11 | 1 | 1 | 11 | 11 |
| 11 | 9 | 11 | 0 | 0 | 11 | 11 |
| 11 | 10 | 11 | 0 | 0 | 11 | 11 |
| 10 | 8 | 10 | -1 | 0 | 11 | 11 |
| 10 | 9 | 10 | 0 | 1 | 11 | 11 |
| 9 | 8 | 10 | -1 | 0 | 11 | 11 |
| 12 | 12 | 11 | 1 | 0 | 10 | 10 |
| 11 | 11 | 11 | 1 | 0 | 10 | 10 |
| 11 | 12 | 11 | 1 | 0 | 10 | 10 |
| 10 | 10 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 10 |
| 10 | 11 | 10 | 1 | 1 | 10 | 10 |
| 9 | 9 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 10 |
| 9 | 10 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 10 |
| 8 | 8 | 9 | -1 | 0 | 10 | 10 |
| 8 | 9 | 9 | 0 | 1 | 10 | 10 |
| 10 | 12 | 10 | 1 | 0 | 9 | 9 |
| 9 | 11 | 10 | 1 | 0 | 9 | 9 |
| 9 | 12 | 10 | 1 | 0 | 9 | 9 |
| 8 | 10 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 9 |
| 8 | 11 | 9 | 1 | 1 | 9 | 9 |
| 8 | 12 | 9 | 1 | 0 | 8 | 8 |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skarg
The second one (which is also in your later simplification of my system) I see as a serious drawback.
Yes, it has about half the effect of Chris/my version.
The part about equal DX opponents having a 50% chance to hit each other, is one of the main features, though.
And as I mentioned before, also has the rounding problem.
You can get the full effect and precision by doing what you say but NOT dividing by 2, but then you get about double the effect that Chris' system has, which makes DX an even more powerful effect - too much, I would say.
|
Right about the rounding effect. I don't like that one too much either -- but it's (simple) way to make the defender's DX matter.