Rules to ignore, or replace

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Rules to ignore, or replace

 

True' date=' a great attack roll will hit a DCV you'd otherwise miss. But IMO that doesn't mean it was any better of an attack because it might have just barely succeeded. Does a badly missed attack roll (barring a potential "fumble" of 18) penalize the attacker in any way? Perhaps rolling that 5 threw him off balance or out of position.[/quote']

 

Well, Hero does officially nod to the idea that the to hit dice roll does reflect how well or badly the attack was thrown in that an 18 is a miss and a 3 is a hit. It's not well developed or anything but it does provide some suggestion that the to hit roll is a measure of how well (or lucky) an attack was and its chance to land a blow.

 

 

I disagree with this. Your DCV doesn't change how well an attack is launched -- it changes the chances of *any* attack hitting you. Mr. 23DEX throws the same attack regardless of whether he's attacking Mr. DCV 13 or Mr. DCV 3. His chances of hitting are different' date=' but the attack is the same.[/quote']

 

I would argue that the skill behind the attack is the same. The attacks will vary in competence and execution and the varying results of the dice would reflect that variance of competence and execution. It can also reflect the vagaries of luck on both parties but that in itself is a kick back towards whether an attack hit or did not.

 

It seems counter-intuitive to me that for every +1 DCV (5 pt) CSL that I purchase' date=' it has the side effect of making attacks that would hit me harder to block unless I also buy a +1 OCV (2 pt) CSL with my Block.[/quote']

 

Well, to me it seems to be saying that if someone has to be fantastic, or have a fantastically well delivered (or extremely lucky) blow to hit me that I would have to counter that with something equally fantastic or lucky.

 

Not particularly counter-intuitive.

 

I accept all of the arguments that have been made on the fact that CTaylor's rule makes blocking more difficult and that this might skew the game around the tactics of blocking etc but I would have to say that I prefer thinking that a good attack roll needs an equally good blocking roll to block it.

 

 

Doc

[archermoo]

Re: Rules to ignore, or replace

 

I'm kind of dull here, could you please explain the difference between needing to roll x number to hit a 5 DCV with a -8 subtraction and needing to roll that exact same number to hit a 5 DCV with a +8 DCV adder.

 

Both end up exactly the same: you have to roll this well to hit this target.

 

Since I define block as "trying to stop someone by how well they hit" rather than the present system of "trying to stop someone by their skill" it especially makes more sense to add the modifier to their DCV. The present system to block tries to hit your opponent's OCV. The system I use tries to hit what your opponent hit, that's a totally different story.

 

Perhaps I'm not making myself clear and you're misunderstanding something. What do you think I'm saying?

 

Incidentally part of the reason this comes up is that for to hit rolls we use a simple formula: OCV+11-(3D6 roll). This again is not a change to the rules at all, it's a different way of approaching the same problem. This way you tell the GM what DCV you hit rather than the GM telling you the DCV of the opponent, which I as a GM would rather not let anyone know.

 

Certainly, I'd be happy to explain, both how it impacts the game when the normal blocking rules are being used and how it impacts the game when your house rules are being used.

 

In the normal rules, when blocking you target the OCV of the attacker. If the hit location modifier is applied per the rules, that lowers the attacker's OCV, making it easier for them to be blocked. If your house rule for how to apply the modifier is used the hit location modifier is applied as a bonus to the defender's DCV, which results in no change in the ability to block the shot.

 

With your varient blocking rules it is much the same. If you apply the hit location modifier to the OCV of the attacker, as per the normal rules, then it makes the attack easier to block. If you apply it to the DCV of the defender instead it does not change how easy it is for the attack to be blocked.

 

Was that clear enough? While I realize that whether the hit location modifier is applied to the OCV of the attacker or as a bonus to the DCV of the defender doesn't matter for simply determining if the attack hits, it DOES effect other aspects of the game. I would certainly never tell someone that they cannot use whatever house rules they want. I only objected when you claimed that making your change wasn't a house rule.

 

You feel that your modified blocking rules are better served by changing the OCV minuses associated with targeting specific hit locations into DCV bonuses. Fine and dandy, change away. But it is still a change.