Re: Ranged Combat

From: ryan.caveney_at_...
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 17:06:43 -0000

As do we all! =/

> Okay, letīs say, I shoot at someone, assuming the target is just
> standing there (maybe unaware of the attack or maybe canīt move,
> because he is frightened to death) and gets a normal success. The
> resistance for the target is the plain default of 6 (obviously for
> everybody: humans, trolls, dragons, gods... maybe augmented with a
> little bit of "Large"?). So if the target gets a failure versus my
> success, the result is a minor victory, which means: hurt (-1) ...
> and if I shoot another missile at my poor victim, does that mean he
> will be, with the same result, be at -2???

Yes. On the other hand, according to the rules officially, you can't just try the same thing over and over until you get it right -- the one contest you roll out includes *all* your attempts to do the same thing -- so according to an "orthodox" interpretation of the rules, if you choose to resolve archery by a simple contest, you get exactly one roll, no matter how many shots you take, so your success vs. the target's failure means you shot every arrow you own at him, and still you only scored one tiny Hurt. Doing away with this restriction seems necessary if you want to use simple contests with archery. Using a pure ability test helps a little -- you still need to roll a critical to kill the target, but the target doesn't get to roll at all. Some will say the proper answer is that this is one of those things that "no self-respecting hero would ever fail at", so the narrator should just say, "He's helpless, you kill him." I don't find this a very satisfying answer, personally.

> If I get a critical versus a failure,the result is a major victory,
> meaning: injured (-50% of ability)... The only occasion, I get a
> complete victory (i.e. dying) is: a critical versus a fumble... I
> canīt believe that! It makes lethal attacks quite rare....

Yes, it does. And it makes them impossible with simple contests against people who can't fumble (scores of 20). For ideas on how to change that, see my post (message 11260) on alternate rules for resolving simple contests -- the subject line of which, unfortunately, I forgot to change: the subject has 'Re: wealth' in it, but in fact the text has nothing whatsoever to do with the wealth debate.

> Also what kind of a weapon I use, is totally ignored, whether it is
> a throwing knife, an arrow, a crossbow, a mostali musket or an AK-47
> - same result for every weapon, the same with armour.... I think
> this is just plain stupid....

So do others of us, but not all. One common method for dealing with this in simple contests is to look at the enchancement resistance table, which makes explicit that at some level the game designers regard a +1 bonus as equivalent to a ^2 edge. For example, if you have chain armor ^4 and an iron greatsword ^7, and are fighting hand-to-hand with someone wearing only leather armor ^1 and wielding a shortsword ^2, your resulting ^6 edge and his ^-2 handicap could be converted into a +3 to your Close Combat skill and a -1 to his, for purposes of resolving that combat as a single simple contest.

Another answer is, if weapon and armor ranks matter to you, don't use simple contests at all, just use extended ones, where their effect is official. There are also those who believe that rank edges shouldn't be used at all, but it's clear that wouldn't appeal to you.

> Or am I getting something wrong? Canīt you play such situations
> with rules, do you have to narrate it?

The answer seems to be that in Hero Wars, it is the narrator's job to come up with appropriate improvisation modifiers for everything, so that with sufficient guesswork the rules can be stretched to adapt to most situations. I am one of those who wish we had a bit more guidance in how to choose them.

Ryan Caveney

Powered by hypermail