From: Graeme A Lindsell (gal502@cscgpo.anu.edu.au)
Date: Sat 19 Jun 1993 - 18:53:22 EEST
Graeme responding...
>
> First Graeme complains that the fatigue rules that just subtract 20xN%
> from physical skills aren't tough enough on weapons masters with skills
> over 100%, and then later in the post complains that the difference
> between 140% and 100% skill isn't as important as the difference between
> 100% and 60%, despite the extreme difficulty of attaining skills over
> 100%.
>
> Which side of the fence are you on?
>
Actually, what I was trying to say in the first part was what boris has
said better: every other skill is as trashed as that of the novice. You
now have a rune lord that can do one act superbly, but not anything else.
Is this the way it works in reality? (An actual question: I don't fight,
so I don't know)
> Personally I think that the fatigue advantage would be an excellent way
> to differentiate between weapons masters and mere mortals. Otherwise the
> only difference is an improved special and critical chance.
>
Personally I would prefer this to be somewhere in the skill resolution
system because a) Some GM's prefer to ignore fatigue and b) Skills that
don't cause fatigue aren't helped by this system. Better handling of 100%+
skills is needed in general, not just in the combat system.
> > I may have misunderstood Loren of
> > course: did you propose a limiting integer, say con/2, before
> > collapse? Also, did fatigue accrue automatically at the end of every
> > rounds, or was the Con*X rule of the draft still in effect?
>
> I'd leave the CONx5 rule in, and didn't want a limiting integer. I would
> prefer the rules to give an advantage to people with high skill levels,
> an advantage that the current rules don't offer. I'd want to playtest
But people will eventually collapse from fatigue no matter how skilled
they are, won't they?
> Loren Miller internet: MILLERL@wharton.upenn.edu
Graeme.
0,,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat 05 Jul 2003 - 20:27:58 EEST