| Author |
Message |
Mestari |
|
Post subject:
 Posted: Dec 09, 2003 - 09:13 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 11, 2003
Posts: 407
Status: Offline
|
|
Well, naturally I prefer less dice too - as long as the effect remains the same. And to be honest, I don't like the probabilities of either of ians suggestions (first one makes it worse for ST3 and the second equates ST difference of 1 and 2).
How about
Dauntless is succesfull on 3+ roll of d6
If ST difference is 1, add 1 to the roll.
This would equate all ST differences of 2 or more, but those are quite unlikely, so I see this less of a problem than if ST differences of 1 and 2 were equal. |
_________________
Teemu Tokola aka Mestari
Member #52
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Dec 09, 2003 - 12:34 PM
|
|
Joined: Oct 24, 2003
Posts: 1671
|
|
Don't like it. First, they're not unlikely at all. Dauntless is my first choice on doubles for human catchers, wood elf catchers, or anyone else with ST2 and no access to mutations. Then once they have it, it makes sense to use them against big guys once in a while.
Also, it's still more complicated and far less intuitive than Ian's version, which is the beauty of it. |
_________________
They will slowly add bits of the vault in on each RR leading up to 2007, starting with LRB 4.0, so it will be a slow and agonising death for BB.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Mestari |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Dec 09, 2003 - 11:12 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 11, 2003
Posts: 407
Status: Offline
|
|
Still, it is far less likely than the instances where you use it against ST3 or ST4 players.
Anyhow, I suppose there's no use trying to convince you that it's better to have the statistical probabilities correct than to have a slightly less complicated rule. That's my standpoint, anyhow, and it's hard to see the advantage of ians rule over my initial suggestion, as the probabilities shown clearly indicate which one is better. |
_________________
Teemu Tokola aka Mestari
Member #52
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Dec 10, 2003 - 12:04 AM
|
|
Joined: Oct 24, 2003
Posts: 1671
|
|
Mestari wrote: as the probabilities shown clearly indicate which one is better.
How? You're assuming that the current probabilities for dauntless are the best that could ever be achieved and should be maintained at all cost. Who's to say that Ian's probabilities aren't better for the game? I can't say they are, but you can't say they aren't either.
Just because the rule is one way now, doesn't mean that's the best way it could ever be! |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Doubleskulls |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Dec 10, 2003 - 03:01 AM
|
|
Ex-Rulz Committee
Joined: Mar 05, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 2627
Location: Kent, UK
Status: Offline
|
|
Mestari wrote: Anyhow, I suppose there's no use trying to convince you that it's better to have the statistical probabilities correct than to have a slightly less complicated rule.
I'll agree with Zombie here.
I'd rather have a simpler mechanism that produced similar results and factors in the player's strength, keeping close to the current probabilities is not the be all and end all of the system. |
_________________
Ian 'Double Skulls' Williams
SLOBB
NAF Racial Results
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Tutenkharnage |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Dec 11, 2003 - 03:06 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 11, 2003
Posts: 620
Status: Offline
|
|
Leaving aside the probabilities, the ST of the attacker is already a factor in Dauntless. Unfortunately for the attacker, he notices this only when he fails the roll. In other words, it's one thing for the ST 2 player to Dauntless the Ogre...but if he fails, it's a 3-die block against.
Just a sidebar no one seemed to notice.
-Chet |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Mestari |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Dec 12, 2003 - 12:01 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 11, 2003
Posts: 407
Status: Offline
|
|
But not a factor in how often the dauntless roll is succesfull. Mind you, to me dauntless can be just as it is, I'm pushing my idea simply because I consider it the best alternative of the suggested house rules. Unfortunately, it seems, I've received little support for my ideas so far   |
_________________
Teemu Tokola aka Mestari
Member #52
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Redfang |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Dec 12, 2003 - 06:35 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 12, 2003
Posts: 195
Status: Offline
|
|
Apedog wrote: I'm too tired to run the numbers but what happens to the odds if you use Ian's version but make it ST + 1D6 must equal or beat the opponents ST?
I wanted to suggest this as well, good I read the thread before I posted... |
_________________
Redfang  is sponsored by:
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Doubleskulls |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Dec 12, 2003 - 07:49 AM
|
|
Ex-Rulz Committee
Joined: Mar 05, 2003
Undisclosed
Posts: 2627
Location: Kent, UK
Status: Offline
|
|
Tutenkharnage wrote: Leaving aside the probabilities, the ST of the attacker is already a factor in Dauntless. Unfortunately for the attacker, he notices this only when he fails the roll. In other words, it's one thing for the ST 2 player to Dauntless the Ogre...but if he fails, it's a 3-die block against.
Just a sidebar no one seemed to notice.
-Chet
As for the 1/3 dice - probably not as ought to have an assist.
My original point was to try to curb the common S2 players with Dauntless development path (particularly Gutter Runners with horns  ) and make Dauntless more of a line man skill again. |
_________________
Ian 'Double Skulls' Williams
SLOBB
NAF Racial Results
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
