[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Rick's comments on the Defend Option
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: Rick's comments on the Defend Option
- From: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 07:55:54 -0600
- Authentication-results: mail.brainiac.com; dkim=policy reason="signing key too small" (768-bit key) header.d=raito.com email@example.com header.b="oGEle/Ge"
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=raito.com; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:MIME-Version:Reply-To:To :From:Subject:Date:References:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:Sender:Cc:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=/1D6hlZT2u72pvSFNfYt18K615idXssCAnFyXLpd3bc=; b=oGEle/Ge92mPq0Cst2VNn7wpRS xbQtRS7ftNtFWtPBw3NGp8P2fgPoY5SDip7YSieXWNGu0tN0TGgx0dB+tfSyfDGmBNvMqceK1P27y DTkEP1AlsaUB3swOotyw2xQGr;
- Importance: Normal
- In-reply-to: <2D78EEDE-2664-44AA-9F49-AA50FB9B04F0@lightspeed.ca>
- References: <CADjB0wOEATNCRP8fNx7ZfAsH5zwCEeOgenb9xCOWSZcp8zq1pg@mail.gmail.com> <D1AEFDA8-09E8-4E0A-8976-F43941C5DE17@lightspeed.ca> <CADjB0wPw=5MWGt2voJBNNNAk4kCRF2PpNXp1iEOiUDhi_nd6qA@mail.gmail.com> <3D24FE8B-AEE6-4D9B-B462-7D370D0EB5E7@lightspeed.ca> <CADhZyyiADfYoQXcu88vdKXsyySEJKz_Nyc4LtRmRj50zNdtGoQ@mail.gmail.com> <1828C9DD-271A-4ADD-A21C-5AED784BA87B@lightspeed.ca> <2653D821-26A0-4BB3-B753-455903F01C6A@lightspeed.ca> <226wadaiq2832S05.firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <CAAmmZuzX7wC12CbKYzM2nKou0Ly9mG9hdOy8Qe_PcYMR+gwZfirstname.lastname@example.org> <2D78EEDE-2664-44AA-9F49-AA50FB9B04F0@lightspeed.ca>
- User-agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.23 [SVN]
Rock's original message, as well as some of the replies, are messages that
I did not receive from the list. (Joe wanted to know.)
As for Defend, a couple comments:
1. An adjDX over 15 is not useful in 3-die situations. It's always good to
have some headroom. If nothing else, it put you first in line for actions.
2. Where the standard Defend option breaks down is high-DX vs. high-DX.
You both have equal but high DX and have a 97% chance to hit each other?
Not worried about high-DX vs. low-DX. In my (real-world) experience, I
(with decades of experience) can pretty much strike at will any new guy
(with far less), even when he's fully defensive. In some ways, it's
easier, because I know I don't have to worry about him striking back.
3. I've tried various ways to compensate for what happens when both DX are
high, but equal. Nothing worked very well. It's just one of the TFT
>> ------ Original Message ------
>> Received: 02:01 PM PST, 01/29/2018
>> From: Rick Smith <email@example.com>
>> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
>> Cc: Matt Fraser <email@example.com>, CJ <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
>> Alec Morrison <email@example.com>, dan nicholson
>> <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Jayson Webster
>> <email@example.com>, "firstname.lastname@example.org>"
>> <email@example.com>, Steve Reinhardt <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>> Subject: Rick's comments on the Defend Option
>> Hi everyone.
>> I have argued before against any sort of parry as a free action. But
>> what about the Defend option? I feel it is not powerful enough.
>> Against characters with low to moderate attributes it is fine. But when
>> you are fighting against experienced figures it is a waste of time.
>> Some people argue that DX above 16 to 18 are useless. However, in my
>> campaign, people are often fighting at DX negatives, so higher DX is
>> useful. (You are hitting someone with a height advantage and they have a
>> Haze ring for a total of -4 adj DX on your roll. If you change facing
>> you are at an extra -2 DX for rough ground, etc.)