Size and Speed/Range Table

[Warden]

Is there a problem with the Size and Speed/Range Table chart on Campaigns page 550?

Sorry this post is a bit vague; I don’t know the details but I'm sure I remember a few people voicing concerns over it in the past.

[ericthered]

Originally Posted by Warden

Is there a problem with the Size and Speed/Range Table chart on Campaigns page 550?

Sorry this post is a bit vague; I don’t know the details but I'm sure I remember a few people voicing concerns over it in the past.

The table is fine. What people object to is the table being used in cases where they don't think it should be. Mostly when its used to price a power or spell. There are others who think its just fine though.

[Warden]

Thanks Eric

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by ericthered

The table is fine. What people object to is the table being used in cases where they don't think it should be. Mostly when its used to price a power or spell. There are others who think its just fine though.

Eh, not entirely. The table itself can be induced to break credibility even when performing its' primary function.

For example, the torso of a man standing immobile at a distance of 101 yards is -11 to hit. The torso of a man also 101 yards away who is riding a motorcycle at 98 mph (49 yards per second) is also -11 to hit. I know comparisons like this do not come up very often in games but I believe it illustrates a fundamental, conceptual issue with the Speed/Range Table. If it's breaking in this case it's breaking more often but we just don't examine and/or compare the numbers in those cases.

Were I to design a new edition I would disentangle speed and range.

[zoncxs]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

Eh, not entirely. The table itself can be induced to break credibility even when performing its' primary function.

For example, the torso of a man standing immobile at a distance of 101 yards is -11 to hit. The torso of a man also 101 yards away who is riding a motorcycle at 98 mph (49 yards per second) is also -11 to hit. I know comparisons like this do not come up very often in games but I believe it illustrates a fundamental, conceptual issue with the Speed/Range Table. If it's breaking in this case it's breaking more often but we just don't examine and/or compare the numbers in those cases.

Were I to design a new edition I would disentangle speed and range.

which way is the man on the motorcycle riding?

if it towards or away from the shooter than it is -11

if it is across (like circling around the shooter) then you have to also take into account the speed. the rules are there for hitting a moving target but IDHMBWM.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

Eh, not entirely. The table itself can be induced to break credibility even when performing its' primary function.

It's not the table as much as the way the table is used. Adding speed and range is a fairly odd rule.

[PK]

Originally Posted by zoncxs

which way is the man on the motorcycle riding?

if it towards or away from the shooter than it is -11

if it is across (like circling around the shooter) then you have to also take into account the speed. the rules are there for hitting a moving target but IDHMBWM.

Fred is taking the speed into account. His point is that, if the motorcycle is driving across, you add the range (101 yards) to the speed (49 yards/second) and use that total (150 yards) to find the penalty (-11).

That said, he intentionally chose a very extreme example, though I certainly see his point.

[Peter Knutsen]

Would it reduce the problem if you take the full value of the largest of speed penalty and range penalty, and half value of the other smaller penalty?

So that e.g. if the speed penalty is -11 and the range penalty is also -11, then you take -11+(-11/2)=-17?

[zoncxs]

Originally Posted by PK

Fred is taking the speed into account. His point is that, if the motorcycle is driving across, you add the range (101 yards) to the speed (49 yards/second) and use that total (150 yards) to find the penalty (-11).

That said, he intentionally chose a very extreme example, though I certainly see his point.

Ah, well as I said IDHMBWM

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

Eh, not entirely. The table itself can be induced to break credibility even when performing its' primary function.

For example, the torso of a man standing immobile at a distance of 101 yards is -11 to hit. The torso of a man also 101 yards away who is riding a motorcycle at 98 mph (49 yards per second) is also -11 to hit. I know comparisons like this do not come up very often in games but I believe it illustrates a fundamental, conceptual issue with the Speed/Range Table. If it's breaking in this case it's breaking more often but we just don't examine and/or compare the numbers in those cases.

Were I to design a new edition I would disentangle speed and range.

Would you say it were easier for you to hit the motorcyclist if the target zoomed past you at a range of 2 yards at 98mph? (I.e. to shoot and hit while at the 2 yard mark?)
I suspect at that speed the target difficulty would be almost as hard.