2d10 for Fighting and Shooting

[Darkson71]

On p.1 of this thread, in reply to me.

[mcfonz]

But a split stat is listed as actual stat and effective stat, and as those terms aren't used elsewhere (that I can see), it doesn't make sense (rules-wise) that combat uses the effective while shooting uses the actual as both use the same terms in their examples ("adds his Fight stat").
If your reasoning is correct then there's no point in using a +1 Shoot bow.

Now, I can see the reasoning behind not allowing magic weapons to work vs shooting (I'd probably prefer it tbh) but RAW that isn't what the rules say.

If the intention was that in h-t-h and shooting you use your effective stat, whilst while being shot at you use your actual stat then that needs to be added to the FAQ (I might suggest that as a house-rule to our club).

Yup - I agree, it isn't clear. But if you read the combat section and the shooting section the examples given are very different when they could be the same. The shooting section simply refers to the modifier table and gives an example where no weapon bonuses are added. In the combat section it says the same but then also says to add weapon modifiers and gives an example where it includes the characters weapon modifiers.

Personally, I think that's how it should be - it may not be what was intended, I don't know. But the way I read it, that's what it suggests.

[Mr Vampire]

I'm ok with the D20 but I do agree it can be a bit extreme.
An alternative for 2D10 can be D12+D8 which gives a flatter bell curve which gives 9,10,11,12&13 an equal probability.  The advantage of this is it can be seen to take the middle ground, a lower chance of an extreme score with a nice range of equal probability in the middle quarter.

Just a random suggestion.
Enjoy.

[BoP]

I'm not too concerned with the D20. Because it is a single opposed roll, the results (i.e. resulting damage on one target) are actually not all equal, but it is more likely to do a lot of damage than it is to do just a little bit of damage. This is because a low "damage" roll is more likely to be beaten by the opponent. So I tend to think of it as 'dead' being the default result when being hit by a sword, and a light wound being the outlier result, not the other way round.

I also don't think of thugs as being mere civilians just fond of straying around the most dangerous place they could find. They might not have the same training and equipment as a soldier, but may well have seen their fair share of tavern or backyard fights. So I'm absolutely okay with them having a decent chance of striking down a soldier.

[kimryoung]

I posted this in another forum several weeks ago comparing the D20 to using a D6.

The problem is not that you are using a D20, rather it is the minimal difference in the character ratings relative to the D20 scale. For example, if you were using a D6, a +1 advantage would gain you better than 2-1 odds of winning a combat. A +2 is better than a 4-1 odds, and a +3 advantage is around 10-1 odds of winning!

Using a D20, +1 advantage is a very slight 6-5 odds of winning a combat. +2 around 3-2 odds, and +3 only 9-5 odds. So a Thug fighting a Knight has a decent 40% chance of winning on a D20 scale.

A +4 advantage using a D20 is about the same advantage as a +1 on a D6 scale. To get a better representation of a good character vs a weaker one you are going to have to give them a larger fighting rating.

If you think a Knight should have around 6-1 odds of beating a Thug, then a difference of +9 would be required. A difference of +7 will give 4-1 odds (about the same as +2 on the D 6scale).

As you can see, relative to the D20 being used, if you want less luck and greater odds for the better characters you can vary their ratings relative to each other. Even a +14 using D20 (25-1 odds) is not as good as a +4 using a D6 (33-1 odds!).

Before switching dice, try to vary the combat ratings more to the level you think better represents any type of character over another. Intervals of 3 to 4 between any characters rather the only 1 will probably work best. (i.e. a Thug at +4 and a Knight at +11 for example gives the Knight 4-1 odds of winning instead of only 3-2 odds currently).

Bottom line is simply that using a D20 is not the issue, its the relative ratings of each character.

Kim

[jon_1066]

I posted this in another forum several weeks ago comparing the D20 to using a D6.

The problem is not that you are using a D20, rather it is the minimal difference in the character ratings relative to the D20 scale. For example, if you were using a D6, a +1 advantage would gain you better than 2-1 odds of winning a combat. A +2 is better than a 4-1 odds, and a +3 advantage is around 10-1 odds of winning!

Using a D20, +1 advantage is a very slight 6-5 odds of winning a combat. +2 around 3-2 odds, and +3 only 9-5 odds. So a Thug fighting a Knight has a decent 40% chance of winning on a D20 scale.

A +4 advantage using a D20 is about the same advantage as a +1 on a D6 scale. To get a better representation of a good character vs a weaker one you are going to have to give them a larger fighting rating.

If you think a Knight should have around 6-1 odds of beating a Thug, then a difference of +9 would be required. A difference of +7 will give 4-1 odds (about the same as +2 on the D 6scale).

As you can see, relative to the D20 being used, if you want less luck and greater odds for the better characters you can vary their ratings relative to each other. Even a +14 using D20 (25-1 odds) is not as good as a +4 using a D6 (33-1 odds!).

Before switching dice, try to vary the combat ratings more to the level you think better represents any type of character over another. Intervals of 3 to 4 between any characters rather the only 1 will probably work best. (i.e. a Thug at +4 and a Knight at +11 for example gives the Knight 4-1 odds of winning instead of only 3-2 odds currently).

Bottom line is simply that using a D20 is not the issue, its the relative ratings of each character.

Kim

It's almost as if the designer of the game intended it to be this way.

[joe5mc]

Kim,

Everyone is going to have a different opinion on what chance a knight should have to beat a thug, and yours might not agree with mine.

That said - I think it is important to look beyond the Fight stat when comparing the two combatants. Yes, a thug has about a 40% chance of beating the knight in a round of combat, but a much lower chance of actually defeating him in a fight to the death. This is because armour and health also play a big roll in determining the outcome of a fight.

Just as a quick example, assuming the knight wins the combat he has a 25% chance of killing the thug on a single roll. The thug on the other hand has a 0% chance of killing the knight in a single round of combat (or a 5% if you using critical hits).

If you worked out the percentage chances for each to win a fight to the death then I think you would find the knight looks a lot better than you originally thought.