Re: Smashes (was: Another combat factor)
hal@ll.mit.edu
Wed, 21 Sep 94 14:46:10 0400
>> Now that I understand what Carl is saying, I like the idea. Since
>> there seems to be some confusion, let me restate what I think Carl
>> is saying (Carl, please confirm/deny that this is what you really mean!)
>
>I was confused by this rule at first also. The floatingpoint
>explanations didn't help. :) So I asked Carl to describe the smasher
>change in terms of the existing rules, and this is what he provided:
>
>
>3. The chance that the attacker will score any hit against the target is:
>
> A = attacker's attack rating
> B = target's defense rating
>
> A / (A + B)
>
> The chance that the attacker will score a critical hit against the target
>is:
>
> A / (A + 10 * B)
>
> For example:
>
> A (attack=90) vs. B (defense=45) A has a 2/3 chance of hitting B
> at all and a 1/6 chance of
> critically hitting B
>
> A (attack=90) vs. B (defense=90) A has a 1/2 chance of hitting B
> at all and a 1/11 chance of
> critically hitting B
>
>Also append to rule 4:
>
>"A critical hit has the same effect on the defender as any other hit, but it
>allows the attacker to attack again immediately."
Smashes sound like a really good idea. It would definitely strength the
high combat factor monsters in a very reasonable way.
Having a smash factor of 10 as in the examples above should be
considered a minimum so that one doesn't overemphasize the high attack
values. I think that it should be exceedingly rare for equal strength
characters to be able to "smash" each other. I would consider smash factors
up to and including 50 to 100.
 Harold
PS. Provides for some fine heroics as the lone peasants smash a group of 3
dragons with a "single" blow.
Main Index

Olympia

Arena

PBM FAQ

Links