Timo Pietilä <timo.pietila@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
> Eddie Grove wrote:
> > Timo Pietilä <timo.pietila@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
> >
> >> hi all.
> >>
> >> I just found Gondricam (wormy drop) and that made me check tables.c
to see how
> >> much more DEX/STR I need for it to be useful (only one blow with it).
> >>
> >> I then again remembered one of my pet peeves. Rogue has worse blows
> >> calculation than Ranger. That just doesn't make any sense to me.
>
> > My opinion is that they should all be the same. Fighters should get 2
bonus
> > blows, 0% fail spellcasters should get 0 bonus blows, and the rest
should get
> > 1 bonus blow. Or perhaps the difference should be that stats should
be really
> > different, and fighters will always have more str and dex to get more
blows.
> > The table would need to be redone, but I would be happy to figure out
> > reasonable values to approximate the current situation if that is
desired.
>
> How about blows based on clvl/race/class -based fighting _skill_ instead
of
> dex and str. More specifically give minimum values based on dex and str,
but
> make it so that limiting factor usually is fighting skill, not stats.
This becomes a very different game. It is mildly akin to increasing stats
with level gains, which was met with with widespread disapproval last time
it
was discussed. My feeling is that the majority do not want to go in this
direction. Perhaps even my suggestion of bonus blows above goes too far
in
this direction.
Let's call the stats 3 to 38 rather than 3 to 18/200. One of the problems
with the current setup is that things are so nonlinear around 19 to 23.
For
example, a char with Str 20 is fully twice as strong for melee purposes as
a
char with Str 18. I would be happier if it was linear in Str stat. Also,
the
"min weapon weight" makes little sense. The point is that you have to
move
your arm, and perhaps your whole body, when you attack with a weapon. It
would make more sense [though not necessarily much sense :)] to have an
encumbrance value for your arm, and divide by weapon weight + arm weight.
current: class_mult * adj_str_blow[Str]/[weapon_lbs * 10]
suggest: 25 * str/[weapon_lbs * 10 + 50]
or something like that, since I did not check specific values, as the str
index into the blows table. I haven't really thought this through. There
may
be a glaring problem I haven't noticed.
I think this maintains breakpoints since the values in the blows table
remain
integers. It just ****fts them around a bit. Or maybe there is something
subtle that would change things so that you would keep changing weapons to
avoid breakpoints. I'm not quite sure.
We will still have the situation where a starting char with high str and
low
dex will prefer two swings with a dagger(1d4) to one swing with a
flail(2d6),
while a char with low str and high dex will prefer the one swing with a
flail
to even two swings [if possible] with a dagger, but that cannot be helped
when
damage bonuses can outweigh base dice. Daggers for Half-Trolls and flails
for
Halflings!, at the start anyway. The main thing the weaker class_mult
values
do is to perpetuate this further into the game, which is why I am opposed
to
them.
Eddie
|
