01-23-2016, 11:53 AM | #131 |
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Bristol
|
Re: Rule of 16 - What's the Point?
Is it right to assume that a critical success of 6 or less to be irresistible too?
|
01-23-2016, 01:17 PM | #132 | |
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Australia WA
|
Re: Rule of 16 - What's the Point?
Quote:
In which case I would go with either the default energy cost is 1 minute, a basic starting point, or 3 minutes, since Fixed Duration +0% assumes that the margin of success was 3. |
|
01-23-2016, 03:24 PM | #133 | |
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Indiana
|
Re: Rule of 16 - What's the Point?
Quote:
I've been in a campaign like that myself where the campaign revolved around seeking out a defense for the seemingly unstoppable attack. Whether it was an object or something you had to learn or whatever, there was the sense of accomplishment that you earned the right to resist the supposedly unstoppable power. I was in Gurps Old West game once back in 3e where the GM felt that one particular player (no, it wasn't me although I will not pretend I have never taken ridiculous levels of something) was taking ridiculous levels of pistol skill. the GM's solution was to double the range and fast-draw penalties in the game. In my opinion, horrible solution. In order to penalize this one guy down to a reasonable skill effective level, everyone else was handicapped to the point they would have to critical to hit anything. My point being that I agree with you. Rather than some arbitrary rule, it would be better for a good GM to just say that he wants reasonable skill levels and state what the maximum is. If it's 16, fine. Personally, depending on the game, I might say 20 instead of 16. But whether 20 or 16, I would make it clear that you are just throwing away points by having a roll higher than that. There are some powers that the roll is based on IQ. In those games, I would say the roll maxes out at 20 (because I don't want to arbitrarily say someone cannot be a genius with an IQ that high if the points level allows it). OR I might say that all skills and rolls max out at either 16 or the lowest skill level you can attain by putting one point into it. Spells: IQH spells therefore max out at 21 (assuming the maximum possible IQ and a limit of Magery 3) which isn't that bad if Will 20 or Magic Resistance is allowed. Another possibility would be to just tell people to restrict their stats to a level that a skill or roll isn't going to go over 16 by putting one point into it. So they are not wasting points. The thing is, though, if I did that, it would be across the board. Max skill roll in any skill, max Will, max anything: 16. You bought Will 20? Tough. Knowing people were restricted to a max spell or super power roll of 16, you went and bought Will 20 or a bunch of Magic Resistance or Mind Shield, etc.? You might consider whittling that down to something that effectively amounts to a 16- or 20 depending on where I draw the limit. I just think it's better for a GM to state the limits rather than an arbitrary rule that, one way or the other, isn't fair to somebody. |
|
01-23-2016, 03:46 PM | #134 |
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: GMT-5
|
Re: Rule of 16 - What's the Point?
I ran a psionic campaign once that had higher "Rule of X" rules exemptions that could be bought as an Unusual Background. If I recall, I used the triangular number sequence for the pricing. It worked out fine.
It was a while ago, but I think I had characters specialize their exemptions by power (e.g. Telepathy). To port over to Magic, one could require specialization by college. Or not. In retrospect, I'm not sure how necessary that particular balance decision was. |
07-19-2016, 04:14 PM | #135 |
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ft Collins, CO
|
Re: Rule of 16 - What's the Point?
Okay, bit of thread necro here.
Does/should Rule of 16 apply to mundane skills? I have a giant barbarian with lots of ST, a Perk to base Intimidation off ST, and thus an Intimidation skill of 24. Should he also be limited to Rule of 16? arnej |
07-19-2016, 04:21 PM | #136 |
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: New Zealand.
|
Re: Rule of 16 - What's the Point?
I have had a house rule for a while that a melee critical can be parried/dodged by a defense critical. Slight slow down in play, but adds tension nicely.
__________________
Waiting for inspiration to strike...... And spending too much time thinking about farming for RPGs Contributor to Citadel at Nordvörn |
07-19-2016, 04:49 PM | #137 |
Night Watchman
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Cambridge, UK
|
Re: Rule of 16 - What's the Point?
B.349 confines it to things that are described as a "supernatural attack". I'm happy enough with that.
__________________
The Path of Cunning. Indexes: DFRPG Characters, Advantage of the Week, Disadvantage of the Week, Skill of the Week, Techniques. |
07-19-2016, 06:51 PM | #138 |
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
|
Re: Rule of 16 - What's the Point?
Heh. We just play with our own Rule of 16. As written, except that the attacking power cannot be rolling against a number higher than 3 greater than the resistance roll. At 16 or higher, the Rule of 16 as written prevails.
Mook has Will 10? Your attack power rolls against 13. Gives them a chance. And it cuts both ways. Mook Wizard has spell skill 12? Your Will 17 to resist only counts as a 15. |
07-20-2016, 04:01 AM | #139 |
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Helmouth, The Netherlands
|
Re: Rule of 16 - What's the Point?
In my campaign I have also taken away the rule of 16. Instead, the resistance roll has become a sort of Defense.
The caster can lower his skill by 2 to lower de defense by 1 (with the danger of getting below the 5 skill levels and not getting the extra FP reduction). |
07-20-2016, 04:41 AM | #140 | |
Join Date: Jun 2013
|
Re: Rule of 16 - What's the Point?
Quote:
Yeah, changed my mind while I was typing, seems fine. |
|
Tags |
rule of 16 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|