Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

From: Tom Pendergrast <pendergr@***.EDU>
Subject: Re: How to handle Stealth
Date: Sat, 25 May 1996 11:55:56 -0700 (PDT)
<snippage>

> Sounds good to me, but you might want to consider doing as Gurth does and
> having both tests made against a base TN of 4, rather than against the
> opposing sides attribute/Rating. The reason I suggest this is to avoid the
> classic "double jeopardy" <hopes he spelled it right this time>
affect. To
> explain, consider this example:

<snip stealth 2 vs. Int-6>

> It is _extremely_ unlikely that the runner would sneak past if there were no
> modifiers. In effect the runner is being punished for having a low skill
> _twice_ - once because he has only 2 dice to roll for his test, and once
> because the TN for his oppoennts test is so low. Similarly, the guard is
> beign rewarded for having a high Intellignce _twice_.
>
> In my view, it is better to have both TN's a set 4, rather than the
> opponents skill/attribute/Rating/etc. This way, people with high numbers
> are not rewarded double, and people with low numbers are not shafted doubly.

That is my biggest bitch about SRII... even a difference between
skills like 3 and 4, or 5 and 6 is monstrous... I mean even a 1 point
diff changes everything... take 3 vs. 4 : the 3 dice are going to average
1.5 successes, whereas the 4 dice are going to get 2.6~ successes... the
3 hardly stands a chance, and the 4 isn't that much bigger... with both
vs TN4, the avg goes to 1.5 and 2... much better I think... I try and
avoid Skill(rating) vs Skill(rating) whenever possible... besides, two
guy that are really good (say 12), have only a 1 in 3 chance (approx) of
getting even one success... (rambling still) I guess that is why magic is
so nasty... you get nuked by th TNs twice... espescially if you don't
have a Bod/Will of 6...


---Tom---

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.