Simon Smith wrote:
> DougL wrote:
>> What's wrong with the method used by the original d6 Starwars
>> implementation. Armor adds to Strength for purposes of damage
>> absorption.
>
> If you use it, and add armour to strength, a smuggler with 3D6 strength
> and 1D6 of armour and a tough native with 4D6 strength are both equally
> likely to take the same result from incoming damage - stun, wound,
> whatever.
>
> If you subtract armour first, you find the smuggler takes a greater
> pro****tion of 'no-effect' results from low damage, while the native
> takes more stuns. I particularly like that, partly as a flavour effect,
> and also because stuns have a slight attrition effect under my rules (a
> pip of wound for each die of Stun, ignored until it adds up to a whole
> 1D.)
Also more wounds. Say with 2d attacks on 1d armour and 3d Strength,
it's 1d vs 3d rather than 2d vs 4d, and you're much more likely to pick
up a wound with the armour subtracting, nearly six times more likely off
the top of my head.
> For higher damage codes, it doesn't matter which way you do it, of
> course.
Sure it does. Less dice in each group with the same differnce between
them is going to throw up more large difference results, enough to be
noticable over time at those low numbers. While you make armour perfect
against trivial attacks, it's also gives more outliers on any other
attack.
> As armour's mostly pretty useless anyway, so I'd like it to have /some/
> area where it makes a perceptible difference. The same mechanism does
> also make heavy armour more useful. And as I would like cover to work
> the same way ('You're have the cover of a nice thick wall; you have 5D
> of armour; their 4D-rated blasters can't hurt you'), treating protective
> layers individually is attractive. But cover's a separate matter with
> its own balancing issues.
If there's one thing in star wars that should work that way, it's the
****elds. They're very much perfectly reliable in genre (right up until
they fail). Walls and armour however have stonger and weaker points, so
rolling the dice makes more sense.
> And for consistency, it's nice to be able to say, 'armour subtracts its
> rating from incoming damage, anmd the same amount from all your
> dexterity skills', rather than 'armour adds to this code, for damage
> purposes only, but subtracts from these'.
Hobgoblins, dude.
> All minor issues I agree, but then hey, it's only Star Wars. It doesn't
> pay to take it too seriously, but there a some things I'd like to
> improve.
Of your first two options, lowering the attack strength is the
better, rolling the armour die seperately is just wrong.
--
tussock
Zzzzzzzzzz... uh, wha? What the hell? I was sleeping, bugger off.
|
