SkinnyOrc wrote: ↑
Sat Sep 07, 2019 11:38 am
Nuvole! wrote: ↑
Fri Sep 06, 2019 1:53 pm
Rolling opposed rolls when using ranged weapons is quite counterintuitive as an arrow doesn't help you to both attack and defend yourself from an arrow in the same way that a sword helps you both attacking and defending from a sword. New players usually understand better rolling vs. a specific target (for example 15 plus or minus bonuses/penalties).
There's a genuine issue here in that this confuses new players, but making AFF more like the game they're used to isn't the answer in my opinion. The misunderstanding comes from being used to rolling to hit. With melee they can think of it as both sides rolling to hit, but when attacked with a missile they think "I'm not attacking, why am I rolling?".
The crucial point is it's not
a to-hit roll, it's a combat roll and it's for attack and
defense (instead of rapidly increasing Hp). Even if you're not attacking you're still defending so you still roll. The new rules should just explain it in a way that keeps in mind what most players are used to these days from D&D based RPGs. The same goes for the simultaneous round with no initiative roll.
Completely agree - this is exactly how I explain AFF combat. I also wouldn't want to see AFF combat become more like D&D combat. Issues with balance that we're still working out notwithstanding, I think the concept
behind AFF combat is superior to D&D, because it acknowledges that in any particular round, not only will the effectiveness of your attack vary, but how well you defend yourself will also change.
Using the same opposed roll mechanic for ranged combat is still appropriate, I feel. The combat roll doesn't just represent how on-target your shot is, but how well you are able to position yourself so as to be safe from the enemy's shot. It can also be thought of as representing other factors, such as who is able to get their shot in first, thereby hindering the other combatant from making an effective shot of their own. It still allows for the possibility of both combatants hitting each other in the same round (if both score a critical hit), but rightly makes the probability of that occurring significantly small.
Stick with the same combat system, just explain the rationale behind it a little more clearly.
SkinnyOrc wrote: ↑
Sat Sep 07, 2019 11:38 am
HedgeWizard wrote: ↑
Fri Sep 06, 2019 2:15 pm
How about formalising the convention that special skills can only be half of Skill?
Sorry to disagree mate, but I really hope a better solution than this makes it in. For these reasons:
1. It was an idea for limiting AS bonus a PC can get from a Weapon Special Skill. But it only makes it take longer to get a high AS, it doesn't change how high it can go. The game works fine at low PC XP anyway, the issue is at mid to high XP their AS gets too high compared to the monsters in the Pitt books. This doesn't address that, it just delays it. In practice it means the PCs can't go past SKILL 10, WSS 5 without becoming god-like, and the options for opponents become too limited well before that.
2. A side effect is non-weapon special skills are also limited to half SKILL. This means NPCs can't have a high special skill without having high SKILL, but SKILL is general adventuring/combat experience and NPCs may have very little of that. So a rich merchant might have SKILL 5, but great Bargain, Con and Evaluate. You don't want to lose being able to have an NPC like that for a fix that doesn't really fix the problem (although you could say it only applies to WSS).
An effective AS fix would need to not only slow how quickly it increases with XP, but also lower maximum AS from the current 18 to 15 or less. If it meant the maximum starting AS went down from the current 9 by a point or two that wouldn't be a bad thing but isn't essential. Something to rebalance AS levels is the one significant tweak I would like to see, mostly it's just explaining the current rules better and corrections.
My one thought on this is that I've never really like the idea of imposed limits on character improvement. I understand the necessity sometimes from a game balance perspective, but it just doesn't sit right with me that there is a specified maximum ability that all characters can reach, and then improvement just stops. This is especially problematic for me if it means that all 'high-level' characters will be at exactly the same ability level: SKILL 12 + Special Skill 6.
My preferred idea - and the house rule I use in my games - is that even after SKILL 12, Special Skill 6, improvement is still possible, but it becomes exponentially
In terms of maintaining game balance, there are various solutions. Most obviously, NPC/monster stats (such as those given in the Pit books) can be adjusted so that they can keep up with the Heroes. However, there is only so much that can be done with this option without turning the game into something like Dragonball Z, where it's just a constant escalation of power on both sides. There is also the problem that the higher SKILL and Special Skills go, the less significant in determining the combat total the 2d6 roll will become.
More preferable is an increasing use of tactics by enemies, whether it's simply attacking the Heroes in greater numbers, using ambushes or guerilla strategies in place of face-to-face fighting, or otherwise working to skew the odds in their favour. Of course, this approach doesn't apply with all enemies - zombies, for example, are unlikely to use intelligent strategies. But it gives another option for keeping the Heroes cautious, even when they are starting to outclass most of the opponents they encounter. Even an experienced character can be taken down by a well-placed volley of arrows to the back. A despicable approach, to be sure; but these are the bad guys we're talking about.