Quote:
Originally Posted by TippetsTX
That is my goal, yes.
|
In that case, I agree it should be more. My suggestion of = (hits stopped +1) was in response to Lars' comment about the impact on original TFT balance. It's for if someone didn't want to skew that so much.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TippetsTX
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Skarg
The thing that bugs me about the DX penalty, is that it has more of an effect against low-DX attacks than against high-DX attacks, to the point that against a very high-DX attack, it can have little chance of stopping a blow (due to the bell curve).
|
Well, yes, but how is that different than any of the other negative DX combat modifiers (i.e. concealment, aimed shots, the evade ability from UC talents, etc.)? |
It's not different. And since I am also a GURPS player who appreciates the value of independent attack/defense chances (and misses them in TFT), that's the problem. A DX modifier makes sense for something that just increases the difficulty of the attack (like cover) but doesn't work as well at high attacker DX levels for things like evading or blocking. Of course, one way to mitigate that without adding another roll is to limit how high attacking DX values get, one way or another (e.g. just having down-to-earth characters, or capping or curving it somehow).