Comic Posted May 21, 2007 Report Share Posted May 21, 2007 Re: KA Vs Energy Blast The important thing is, once a gaming group gets together for the game, to put away the debate and the tinkering and get down to playing. Of course, the playing inevitably involved debate and tinkering, so, uh.. well, I'm sure there's something important somewhere. And what's with the mad-on for chess? It's clearly inferior to Snakes-and-Ladders or Tic-Tac-Toe. Everyone knows that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucius Posted May 25, 2007 Report Share Posted May 25, 2007 Re: KA Vs Energy Blast I started a thread to discuss Amadan Na Briona's excellent idea. Maybe I should say Steven Long's excellent idea, as he seems to have thought of it first but for some reason didn't apply it across the board. This is crossposted from the thread I began. After years of being troubled by it, I feel closer than ever to a real solution to the "Killing Attack Vs. Normal Attack" dilemma. And I have Amadan Na Briona to thank for it. He made the brilliantly simple suggestion that instead of either "nerfing" the Killing Attack or increasing its cost, Killing Attacks and Normal Attacks could be balanced against each other by reducing the cost of Normal Attacks - as is already done with Hand to Hand Normal Attacks, differentiated from Hand to Hand Killing Attacks by their "Mandatory Limitation." Instead of solutions that lead to various "ripple effects" that must be accounted for, this solution seems to fit well into the game - given that it's basically a solution the Rules as Written have already partially adopted. Also, it helps to address the frequently made observation that STR is too cheap for the effect; it may not be a total fix for that problem (it won't change the fact that 10 pts of STR gets you 11 pts worth of figured characteristics) but it will at least make it less eggregious. However, a Killing Attack is distinguished from a Normal Attack in two distinct ways: 1. The Attack Vs Limited Defense aspect, because it goes against a defense that is 50% more expensive than Normal defenses, and 2. The more favorable damage rolling mechanic. So I think there needs to be two seperate limitations required to create a Normal Attack. The only questions remaining are - what should the values of those limitations be? And, what should the limitations be called? I may decide to put a poll in, but I definitely want to start a discussion on it. I would say the minimum must be - 1/4 for each, thus -1/2 for both, given that this is what is currently official for Hand to Hand Normal Attacks. I propose a maximum of -1 for both together, on the grounds that the Martial Arts rules (by counting added damage classes at half-value for Killing Attacks) imply that a Normal Attack is worth about half what a Killing Attack is. If anyone wants to argue for a higher value than that I may be prepared to entertain it, but I would be skeptical. As for what to call them, I really have no idea at this point. Maybe "Attack Vs. Common Defenses" or even "Attack Vs Universal Defenses" for the limitation to "normalize" how damage applies, and "Roll for STUN" for the limitation to "normalize" how damage is rolled. Lucius Alexander Trying to normalize a palindromedary..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.