Quote:
Originally Posted by Edges
The only reason I bring it up is that it seems to happen with unrealistic frequency. I like to imagine a master swordsman defeated by a novice as being a fluke that happens at most a few times in his whole life. But when it happens every few sessions, it starts to get weird.
|
That sounds like a fluke of math or an issue with play style; I cannot guess which. All I know is that I had a long-running fantasy campaign wherein combat occurred regularly and the best PC swordsman – via Extra Attack – made many dice rolls a turn. He was never once defeated by a novice. He occasionally dropped a sword or strained an arm, but that didn't deter him! He was a
master, so he could could flip his blade back into his hand using his toe, or Fast-Draw a replacement . . . or fight with the other hand . . . or bash his enemy into submission with his shield . . . and his Luck foiled the worst screw-ups. In short, he followed
Masters (p. B172), and supplemented his high Shortsword skill with Combat Reflexes, Extra Attack, Luck, Trained by a Master, Off-Hand Weapon Training, Fast-Draw (Sword), Shield, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edges
And it's not unusual for these crits to determine the outcome of the contest. The players are always pleased when they're on the winning end. And boy do they gripe about realism when they're not.
|
Realistically, only a small percentage of would-be masters live for long enough to become actual masters. They do so by beating the odds. It's absolutely realistic to give them Luck to represent this. The meta-game effect is to let them look back on a career of near-spotless success, which is plausible but rare, because statistics suggest that anyone who fights all the time is liable to be maimed or killed. Skill helps hedge the bet, sure, but fighting men have distinguished between skill and luck, favoring luck, for as long as there have been fighting men.