unclevlad

Adding it BEFORE dividing is WORSE, in terms of protectiveness. No one's done it because a cursory analysis of your proposal says it's significantly worse for the defender. 15 EGO --> 3d6, which averages 10...so the defender's immediately 5 points lower to resist the effect on average, than if the baseline number is straight EGO. The higher your EGO, the worse this will be...because it takes 5 EGO to give you another d6, which'll only give you 3.5 defense, doing your opposed rolls. To comment on this quickly...whether it works out or not, it's clunky as heck, and is making for VERY complex rules that don't connect to the rest of the system. Are you intending that attacker's EGO really does become part of the attack power? If so, then what's the general form?

For INT: one thing I noticed is, when a character has a VPP with a skill roll to tweak it in combat, +5 INT is...all but free. Because you get +1 to a skill roll you need, and which will almost always have levels, and +1 to all PER rolls, which is 3 points. And that's even before +1 to any other INT-based skills; most characters can get something out of at least a couple of em. The upper bound for me tends to be 28 INT; that's a 15- PER and all the INT skills, and at that point I'm getting disinclined to improve that generally. Maybe specifically...like Telescopic, especially for the Sight Group. There's times I like higher, but usually that's for characterization purposes. So...yeah, INT is likely too cheap, but I'm not sure I'd go up to 2 CP per +1 INT. +1 to all INT skills is 4; +1 to all standard PER rolls (Danger Sense is an exception) is 3. That's 7 points, and basically covers what +5 INT gives, so I'd lean to 3 points for +2 INT. Even if the costing is at those 2 point increments, like STUN or END...there's no discount for buying less than a full increment. That's only gonna come into play at 13 and 23 INT; at 13, it's probably OK to charge the extra bit. At 23, you already need to invest quite a bit to get to the 22, so it's not that much different. For PRE: +1 to all PRE skills is 4. What's the value of its offensive and defensive aspects? PRE attacks don't scale that well, and even a moderate level of PRE makes it pretty tough to get much effect. Granted, this is seriously situationally dependent. Still: I don't think it's worth an extra 6 points tho, so I'd suggest the cost of PRE is also 3 CP per +2 PRE. Another point would be that I don't think it's a great idea to make a skill-based character too expensive to build. If you want that 18 INT, 18 PRE skillmonger, at 2 CP per, you're adding 16 points. Even my 3 for 2, it's adding 8...just to stay even. This may be a case where...yeah, OK, from a theoretical perspective, INT (at least) is underpriced, but from the perspective of the overall character, it may not be.

So instead of 25 net PRE, I have 5d6, or 17, to resist his 8d6 attack? I'm hosed. Same with the EGO. Instead of 35, I've got 29 average. For PRE, I buy the PRE I want for my social skill roll, probably, then buy Fearless. (Unless you're a big fan of making PRE attacks.) For EGO, I'd only buy it for the breakout roll (like against Mental Illusion) and then just buy Mental Def. The Mental Def is 5 points of DEF for 5 points; buying the EGO gives only 3.5 points, and there aren't that many other situations that call for it. Under RAW, the fact that Mental Def is the same price as EGO, is a bit of a problem; Mental Def is arguably MORE likely to matter, in that it's the defense versus Mental Attack, and AVADs versus MD. I'd tend to think those are more common than lockdown mental illusions or mental entangles; mental entangles are pretty seriously expensive, mental illusions have always looked to be tenuous, given that there's a breakout roll before anything happens, and even if the victim has only a 13 EGO, it's 12-. That's almost 75% to succeed. Oh, DOH. If you're going with a Mentalist, AND you want your initiative based off EGO, you'll value spending on EGO more, but that's a pretty specific build pattern. To a point, the rules already favor doing both of these, but you're making them even more advantageous because you're making the underlying characteristic only 70% effective in its defensive aspect.

Hey, the media fixating on LeBron saying he might retire isn't something you can blame on LeBron. Blame it on the media, and their hyper-idolization. Bringing in Kyrie would be repeating the Westbrook mistake. Kyrie would make the Lakers worse in many areas...bad ball movement, which was a serious problem at times already. Their great strength was in half-court defense...there is no D in Kyrie Irving. Won't help the problem with the Laker transition defense. I put Kyrie as #1 on my Most Hated list, but even that pales in comparison to what I feel about any team/GM who signs him to a really big deal. Kyrie is a team-wrecker. His teams get massively over-hyped, but since Cleveland, they've consistently under-performed...and frequently, I believe, have overall better metrics when he's out. So anyone who signs him, then hypes it to the sky? Is utterly delusional. And completely aligned with the American sports zeitgeist, I'm sorry to say.

The first 7 are copies of items from Panera, Wendy's, Chick Fil-A, Panda Express, TGI Friday's, KFC, and McD's. Calling them "restaurant recipes" is exaggeration ranging from mild to hyperbolic.

+1 per full 5 points over 10 is at least as inobvious, and doesn't allow for low Characteristics...for example, animals. You'd also be modifying the rounding rule, in effect, as a 13 gives a 12-, a +1 skill level. You wouldn't be adding it til the CHAR was 15. There isn't any real different in 9 + CHAR/5 versus CHAR/5 - 2 in terms of ease of understanding, or clunkiness. I'd strongly suggest just forgetting about "standard roll is 11-" and "experienced roll." There's 3 fixed-level rolls (familiar and proficient for any skill, and General for background skills), then there's CHAR-based, which covers the standard skills like Electronics and Acrobatics, and everything related to PER. 11- is the conceptual baseline...the skill roll of a normal person trained in a skill, and perhaps more significantly, the roll to hit when OCV = DCV, and there's no other factors at play. The roll tables for skills and combat then share the same notional basis, which makes learning the game a WHOLE lot simpler.

So...multiple reports have DeSantis announcing his run for the presidency officially tomorrow. On Twitter. With Elon Musk. Understandable. Birds of a feather and all that....

And what kind of opposed roll are you considering? How are you accounting for, say, 10 dice of mind control vs. 15 dice, or on the defensive side 0 Mental Def vs. 20 Mental Def?

His "experienced" suggests he intends to keep the CHAR-based rolls, just didn't express himself very effectively. Mmmm......probably not. PER is IMO the 3rd most important characteristic for skill rolls. It is one you can blow off, to be sure, but Conversation and Persuasion can be useful for intel gathering indirectly, for example. Plus it has a direct form of attack built in. EGO doesn't, especially not in 6E. Also, to extend Hugh's suggestion...if defending against PRE attacks --> EGO, then we can make attacking mental powers --> PRE. --Mental Illusions...target can make a breakout roll...normally based on EGO. Make it based on PRE. --Mental Entangle...you attack it with PRE-based dice, instead of EGO-based. I'm not sure this is necessary, and possibly not all that desirable; it feels like it's not that big an improvement, and feels harder to explain. I'd also want to check throughout to see where else a change like this might be needed...Summon, for example. YMMV here.

McManus was one of the higher-paid kickers, but his stats last year weren't up to the salary. https://fftoday.com/stats/playerstats.php?Season=2022&GameWeek=&PosID=80&LeagueID=&order_by=FGPct&sort_order=DESC That should be coming up by FG%, in descending order. There are 8 with < 20 FGAs. Take those out, for inadequate sample size...but that still puts him 27th. And look at the overall accuracy numbers...which isn't the be-all, end-all, as kickoff effectiveness is also important, but still, it's a big one. He was far below average. 9 kickers with 20+ attempts were over 90%. Another 14 were at 83.3% (5 out of 6) or better, but under 90%. So 24 kickers can hit 5 out of 6? Yeah, pretty much, accurate kickers grow on trees. Some of this may be that distance kicking is going out of style. 4th and 3 at your opp's 40? In most cases, I suspect, teams will go for the first down. McManus' greatest virtue was range. Also note that virtually no kickers were drafted, so you can invite several to mini-camps, tryouts, or even non-roster full training camp. Is some of this related to Wilson's contract? Could well be, but overall value just doesn't look very good.

Complex, convoluted, potentially limited...yeah. SOME of those rules are clearly tied to the interests of Fox and CBS that want to keep most of those marquee games; they're the ones who support the league the most, with showing 13 games most weeks between them. I saw those rules, but they made my brain hurt. I'd strongly advise only trying to read them with a double shot of your favorite libation on hand...but I can't do that just yet. Need to take the after-dinner blood sugar here in a bit; booze can mess around with the numbers. AFTER that? Well...who knows. It could happen................

I get the flip from roll low to roll high, that's trivial. You CAN'T use a reference to the old sheet because that information doesn't exist...you're doing a new sheet. So give the method. A standard roll's base value is 9 + (CHAR/5). It's not 11, it's not 13, it's none of those. So for your system, it's (CHAR/5) - 2. For the starting value of 10, CHAR/5 == 2. -2, means you're at 0. 11- roll low, 10+ in roll high. Also: don't conflate the bonus from an elevated characteristic, with anything like a level (+PER from enhanced perception, and some similar instances, is a form of level.) They're separate. I should make the process clearer: Skill roll mechanics 3d6 + Skill/PER baseline + skill/PER levels/bonus + situational mods >= Task Difficulty As I noted, this just lets you precompute all your baselines, so you don't have to do that at the table, then just incorporate the (usually) simple numbers for levels/bonus and situational mods.

AWFUL last few possessions for the Lakers. About a minute left, they're standing around, have to try a bail-out shot as the clock expires. 40 or so seconds left, LeBron holds the ball up top, 30-odd feet out, waiting...waiting...til a pass to the corner gets knocked OB by the Nuggets with 3.6 left on the shot clock. Another HARD, desperation shot...resulting in a shot clock violation. Nuggets can run down the clock well inside 10, Murray misses a runner. Lakers win the scramble for the rebound...but have only 4 seconds left after calling TO. LeBron gets it but the defense expects it, and he's got to try a tough drive. It's short...and the clock expires. Nuggets 113, Lakers 111. 1-2-3 CANCUN!!!!!!! LeBron has a brilliant first half, but plays the entire half. 30 in the first...10 in the second. How much gas was left? God, I love it. The Lakers went a LONG way to fixing their gross lineup problems at midseason, and perhaps, had they had more time, some of their flow issues could've been better worked out. But...that's also been a LeBron trademark. And also an Anthony Davis trademark...for not pushing hard enough. LeBron's teams in the last several years, *strongly* remind me of Kobe's teams...in what I call the Bad Kobe years, where everyone sat back in crunch time to Let Kobe Do It, deferring TOO much, and making everyone else tentative.

Well, the NFL owners have shown yet again that their home town fans mean nothing to them. TNF games in weeks 13-17 can now be flexed. The flex has to be announced 4 weeks in advance...but it's still quite disruptive to the fans of the 4 teams involved. By definition, too, they want to avoid the dog games like Rams-Raiders last year (week 14). BUT, that means they'll be putting in a playoff-significant game, late in the season, into the crapshoot that is TNF. That might've happened just based on the schedule, but now..... Ugh.

If you MUST have crits, which I loathe...whatever you do, KEEP IT SIMPLE.

As an alternative to a flat...if you roll well enough to move it into the harder category, then perhaps there's minor advantages. If time matters, maybe you execute it faster than normal. So if you have a task rated Average, and the player rolls enough to get an Extreme-level success, it's done quicker, or with flair. Also, if you don't want to make it automatic, then the player can "shoot for the moon" and elect to roll for a higher level...like Telepathy, where shooting for deep memories is harder than surface thoughts. Yeah, this is basically swapping "roll high" for "roll low." I remember we had a pretty long discussion on this a few years ago. There might've been little wrinkles, but I don't remember any huge problems. What you're introducing, really, is the task level, which can be a useful guideline for GMs. Mmm...one note. What is an "Experienced" skill roll? That's not a term in 6E1 or 6E2, APG I or APG 2, checking the indices. And standard doesn't have a fixed roll, it's tied to the underlying stat. Also remember that --standard skills have Familiarity (8-) where Everyman is used simply to say it's free, Proficiency (10-), then standard (9 + CHAR/5). --background skills have Famil, Prof, AND General...a flat 11-, not tied to a characteristic, then standard. So an approach can be: 3d6 + SkillFactor + SituationalMods >= Task Difficulty Rating. SkillFactor: the base is --Famil: -3 --Prof: -1 --General: 0 --standard (based on a characteristic: CHAR/5 (using standard Hero round) - 2 (because the baseline is 9, not 11). then add in levels that apply. Not the prettiest to say it's CHAR/5 - 2, but perhaps no better or worse than saying 9 + CHAR/5. And the situational mods are as you've noted. But you can't ignore the impact of a high DEX or INT, and your notation seems to confuse the CHAR-based roll from the skill-based. How do we get that our thief, in your lockpicking example, is "+2"? You can't refer to a line on the old character sheet; it has to be self-contained. EDIT: I thought about tweaking the base target number for a skill roll, to eliminate that -2 and have it be a flat CHAR/5. (You'd also have to tweak the familiarity and proficiency and general levels to reflect a diffferent baseline.) Simpler there...but now you've got a different baseline for skill rolls (12) versus combat rolls (10). I'd rather keep the -2 tweak on characteristic skills mods...which are something you can precompute trivially and put onto a character sheet, or incorporate into a spreadsheet. It leaves the mechanics consistent at the table, and that's to be preferred.

Mmm...somehow that link got trashed. CBS Sports links can be odd, they can post to an article stream, and the particular one can get buried. https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/2023/05/22/hinchliffe-stadium-negro-league-baseball-reopens/70232554007/ But scrolling down...hadn't seen this... Glen Kuiper, A's broadcaster for the last 17 years, was talking in, probably, pre-game. He'd visited the Negro Leagues museum...but the word that came out...wasn't quite "negro". Yeah...that one. Pretty darn clear-cut. Suspended by the broadcast company. Internal revue over the last couple weeks. Fired today. Team broadcasters don't get replaced all that often; it's a rather good gig. Unless you mess up badly.

The mechanical problem? If all you're doing is going from 3d6 to 3d30, from +1 per level to +5 per level, then how has the granularity really changed? The other mechanical problem is the mechanics of the character sheet. If nothing else, it LOOKS much uglier, and you haven't yet convinced me about shifting balances between different parts of the system. What's the cost for 1d6 of damage? If that doesn't change, then the cost of a skill level relative to an attack power, changes dramatically.

Yeah, pretty much a 15 minutes moment for Michael Block, the club pro. He's 46. Going by his career stats from the PGA tour website, this is the first time he's made a cut in 9 years...he made 2 cuts in 6 events in '14. Only played a handful of Tour events since then. Now he gets into the PGA, makes the cut, and pulls off a top-15...which means a) $288,333 won. For a club pro. b) automatic entry into next year's PGA. No need to qualify. Doesn't guarantee anything in the end...unless the PGA starts giving out small-ish shares to players that don't make the cut. c) Sponsors' exemptions into at least 2 events so far. d) I've heard he may get some endorsement/sponsorship deals out of this too. Never hurts. He may just fall right back into obscurity, but hey, he'll remember this forever.

I wasn't that big on S'Mores as a kid. Just plain sweet, rarely did it for me. (OK...Butterfingers. MAJOR vice as a kid.) Adding that much fat doesn't help...not there. Fat's helpful for some things...my Adult Hot Chocolate is nowhere near right without it, the texture's totally off. But here, I'd expect the oil soaking into the bread crumbs will just make it heavy.

NYT is usually paywalled but there's usually an allowance of a few articles a month, so I'm gonna post this and suggest it's worth making one of those: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/21/opinion/wyoming-republicans-christian-nationalism.html

I'll stick my neck out and say the Heat are gonna go ahead and win this one. OK, so I've got a +6 adamantine gorget on, since it's now a 27 point lead midway through the 3rd, and the Celtics have completely fallen apart. (To the point where even the sideline reporter pointed out they'd basically given up.) Anyway, there's a really good chance that a REALLY annoying situation is gonna happen. By Tuesday possibly, Wednesday probably...both series will be over. Lakers may win at home tomorrow, but figure the Nuggets will likely win back in Denver on Wednesday, and I can't give the Celtics much chance in game 4 on Tuesday. BUT EVEN THEN...game one of the finals isn't until June 1st. Probably 8 or 9 days. UGH. Yeah, it's all about TV, and all about selling ads for known, fixed dates, but I hate it. It's rarely this extreme, I'll grant; it's fairly rare that the conference finals (or league championships in MLB, which also has the same fixed-date policy for the WS). Another fairly annoying aspect: the finals is running on a REALLY stretched timeline. Games scheduled: 1st, 4th, 7th, 9th, 12th, 15th, 18th. 2 off days between most games? REALLY? Lame.... Was it planned this way to make sure LeBron would get time to recover, should the Lakers make it that far? And it's not like the days make that much sense. Th, Su, We, Fr, Mo, Th, Su. They're all night games...all 8:30 ET non-Sundays, 8 ET Sundays. The ad buyers have to be crying, too. The conference finals made a potential Laker-Celtic final a real possibility, and it would've drawn MASSIVE ratings. Nuggets-Heat are gonna have HORRIBLE ratings, for an NBA Finals. Not disrespecting either team, it's about markets and drawing power. EDIT: garbage time for the *entire* 4th quarter. That is almost unheard-of, barring something like the 2nd game of back-to-back that's a blowout, during the regular season. Might well be a first in the conference finals.

Just pointed out as the 2nd Sunday game wraps up... Red Sox outhit Padres 7-6.....but lose 7-0. Bottom first for the Padres...walk, error, walk, infield fly rule (1 out), another walk (first run), strikeout...then a 3 run double. 4 runs, 1 hit. In the AL right now: division leaders are TB, Texas, Minnesota. The WC teams are Baltimore, NY, and Houston, in that order...so 3 of the 5 are AL East. The crazy part? The next 2 are...Boston and Toronto. Even the Jays are only 2.5 back of the Astros. The AL East has 5 of the top 8 records in the league. The NL...you have the Dodgers, the Braves, and I'll include the D'Backs, surprisingly...they're 7 over. Then there's a bunch of mediocre teams very near to .500. But it's 2 teams from each division so far, that'd make the playoffs...altho the Pirates, who are one of them, have faded. They were 20-9 on May Day...4-13 since.

Had a C64...then an Amiga, then a IIc. Never had an Atari. D, huh? Doom. I've never done any of the FPS's, for that matter. CRPGs...many, but not shooters. Also dominoes. I'm pretty sure we never had a set when I was a kid...way before the computer stuff came out. But we had very, very few games around at all. The family dynamic was.......not the best.

No, it's not logical to put NO limits on what a 2 point power grants. Safe Environment NOT talking about effects intense enough to do immediate damage. V2 100 discusses it to dismiss it...and to cover some other technical areas like Heroic weapons where you only get to apply the excess STR, over the weapon min. The STR to use the min, is in use. 6E2 74, the Nighthawk example? He's making a MULTIPLE attack. 2 separate attack rolls. 2 separate damage packets. STR is used *once* for each. So, sure, you can Multiple Attack with your HKA + STR, then punch with just your STR. If you're talking about the Combined Attack, the STR is committed for the HKA. You can't use the same points twice. Maybe they don't explicitly say that, but my gosh, I would never have thought they should HAVE to. I've never heard anyone else even offer this as possible. IT MAKES ZERO SENSE within the structure of the rules.