Armoks said:
It doesn't, since rank 1 characters are able to use only one excess success, 2 rank - 2 and 3 rank - 3. I think that chance of rolling one/two/three additional success for a rank 1/2/3 Character is the same on both stances.
We're using this Optional Rule and it's working nice, so far.
Cheers
Thanks
I just wanted to throw in a 'thank you' to all the people giving such interesting and well thought out comments on this post. I'm working my way through the rule books a bit at a time, putting together a campaign, and I admit that the mechanics of combat are what I was most worried about (as I run my first campaign in fifteen years).
Based on the comments, I expect I'll go with rules as writtennow that I have a better sense of what those rules actually mean.
Naythun said:
Skill beats strength. Almost always. In real-life I mean. It's just a shame that a character must be strong and armored to be a good combatant (consistently I mean <yes I know there are skill cards like nimble strike etc for the agility freaks>). One could argue that the ability to connect with a strike is based solely on one's skill and agility, and one's damage is based solely on one's skill and strength. Just food for thought.
OH, and LOVED the suggestion to see some official material published (online one would assume) giving further clarification and examples to fights involving different complexities and situations etc. GREAT idea. The issue being NOT the ability of the GM to create a good experience for his players, or the ability of the GM to dummy up whatever by playing with blacks and whites, but rather the desire of the GM to provide the BEST experience.
In REAL life we don`t have characteristics like Strenght, Agility or skills. We have body, muscle mass, bone structure, tendons, genetical advantages, or disadvantages. Saying that muscle mass don't matter is with all respect nonsense.
if muscles (read strenght) do superseeds skill (training), we wouldn`t have seen segregation between the genders when it comes to sport, like the olympics. Because according to your logic (very flawed, if I must say) if the women trained as hard as the men they would be able to compete with each other. but men have more muscle mass than women, this is a wellknown fact in science and biology, so therefore it would be unfair for women to compete against men, since they are at disadvantage by a genetic point of view. and female athletes train excessively to be best at what they are, and are in no way inferior when it comes to sport, but to be honest it would be unfair to let them compete with male athletes.
I think you have failed your reality check
Me being a *****! (failing my social grace check)
Strenght does matter more skill. final!
Please ignore my ramblings and very insensitive post
I am very tired and had only read the first page of this rather interesting thread. yet I came out to attack he who made this excellent thread. I am bit ashamed really.
I quess I was very tired over the whole small lithe thief vs strong brute debate. But that is no excuse
Naythun I am sorry, now I will go and sleep, and tomorrow I hope I will not be an ass.