[RULES] Rule of 16!

[Anaxim]

@LemmingLord: No spell at all. He's thinking far far far ahead.

@David: I tried reasoning that it works for him too. That's when we came to an actually unfair compromise. That if, say, spell at SL22 and resistance at score 16, then lower both by 6, to get 16 to 10, by Extreme Scores rule, and then adjust his score. So he'll always be at 16 vs 10. Not optimal at all.

[jeff_wilson]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

Put him up against an opponent with a Madness spell of 30. Then ask him what he thinks about the rule of 16 now.

Yes, it's important to remind him that bad guys get to exploit the bent rules as well.

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

Put him up against an opponent with a Madness spell of 30. Then ask him what he thinks about the rule of 16 now.

I'm pretty sure "Tickle" made it into 4e. Look at the results of that one...it's like a full minute of incapacitating laughter.

And it's not all cool like Madness. One irresistible spell later, and you're giggling on the floor like an 18 month old.

Mockery would ensue. Totally worth it.

[Anaxim]

These all remain on the strand of thought of "it works for you too" which still didn't buy him.

On a side note - is there an active chat room (ala IRC or some such) available anywhere, for GURPS? These are discussions that could carry well in live chat.

[Kuroshima]

Originally Posted by Anaxim

@LemmingLord: No spell at all. He's thinking far far far ahead.

@David: I tried reasoning that it works for him too. That's when we came to an actually unfair compromise. That if, say, spell at SL22 and resistance at score 16, then lower both by 6, to get 16 to 10, by Extreme Scores rule, and then adjust his score. So he'll always be at 16 vs 10. Not optimal at all.

The way you're doing is, it's the same as removing the rule of 16 altogether. Of course that might not be that bad of a thing, considering that the Rule of 16 was added when nearly all spells could be improved at a rate of +1 per 2 points (MH skill in 3rd ed went ½ 1 2 4 6 8 10 ...) while weapon skills improved at a rate that topped at 8 points per +1, making it vastly cheaper to have a spell in the 30s than it was to have a weapon skill in the 20s (and much much cheaper than upping the resistance, though Strong Will added against all resistances, even those not based on ST)

if you want to use the Extreme Scores rule, I would say that you use the second variant, and bring the lower score to 10, while multiplying the higher score by 10/lower score. In this case, 22 vs 16 becomes 22*10/16=13.75, rounded to 13

I made such a table on google docs for all skill results from 1 to 50 for both attacker and defender skill. It's an interesting house rule

[Anaxim]

That was surprisingly informative and useful. Thank you. Appears I have selectively read the Extreme Scores rule at the time.
The multiply-division bit seems somewhat better suited.

[LemmingLord]

Originally Posted by Anaxim

That was surprisingly informative and useful. Thank you. Appears I have selectively read the Extreme Scores rule at the time.
The multiply-division bit seems somewhat better suited.

Very much so... A 30 daze versus a 16 stat could be turned into a 15 vs 8 - giving a slight chance but not the 50+ chance of the rule o 16.

[Kuroshima]

Originally Posted by Anaxim

That was surprisingly informative and useful. Thank you. Appears I have selectively read the Extreme Scores rule at the time.
The multiply-division bit seems somewhat better suited.

The problem here is that it's almost like using combat matrixes in old editions of D&D. Each player need to have the table, and be familiar with it, or things will become sluggish at the table :(

[Edges]

Originally Posted by Kuroshima

The problem here is that it's almost like using combat matrixes in old editions of D&D. Each player need to have the table, and be familiar with it, or things will become sluggish at the table :(

Like in AD&D, nobody needs the table except the DM/GM.

BTW, thanks for that google doc. I'll play test it. Have you used it? How did it go?

[Kuroshima]

Originally Posted by Edges

Like in AD&D, nobody needs the table except the DM/GM.

BTW, thanks for that google doc. I'll play test it. Have you used it? How did it go?

Well, true...

No, I have not playtested it, since I just wrote it out of inspiration on reading the thread. I have used the rules for extreme scores in the past though, and they work. I plan on trying it in my weekly DF game though.