New Clone in Town

[Flatus Maximus]

It appears that you based this on the Complete Rules version of S&W (which I have only just recently discovered; as opposed to the White Box rules or the Core Rules versions, with which I am familiar). I posted this over on the S&W forum, but I'll post it here, too, for anyone interested in Tainted.

In the Complete Rules it is stated that a +1 to hit (given when two-weapon fighting) is better than a +1 to damage (given when two-handed weapon fighting). In fact, the two-weapon fighter may only gain the +1 to hit bonus on round in which initiative is won.

On the contrary, a +1 to hit is rarely better than a +1 to damage (c.f. 3ed Power Attack for an extreme counter-example). Here's the math, in case you are interested.

If P = probability to hit and D = expected damage, then a +1 to hit is "better" (more damage on average) than a +1 to damage whenever: (P + 0.05)*D > P*(D + 1). Simplification yields: 0.05*D > P. Plugging in D = 2.5 (d4) or 3.5 (d6) results in 0.125 > P or 0.175 > P, respectively. If these are the odds of the Fighter hitting, it's probably time to run.

For another comparison, let's compare the two-weapon Fighter using two daggers (d4, so D = 2.5) with the two-handed Fighter using a bastard sword (d8, so D=4.5). (Note: I didn't find any mention about how to handle two-weapon fighting if the damage dice are different, so to simplify I'll assume they are the same.) The inequality above becomes: (P + 0.05)*2.5 > P*(4.5 + 1), which yields 0.125/3 > P. Because of the discrete nature of the probabilities generated with a d20 roll, this will only be satisfied if P = 0!

With all that said, there's nothing wrong with the rules as stated, just the given justification for the implementation.

 

[nedjer]

It appears that you based this on the Complete Rules version of S&W (which I have only just recently discovered; as opposed to the White Box rules or the Core Rules versions, with which I am familiar). I posted this over on the S&W forum, but I'll post it here, too, for anyone interested in Tainted.

In the Complete Rules it is stated that a +1 to hit (given when two-weapon fighting) is better than a +1 to damage (given when two-handed weapon fighting). In fact, the two-weapon fighter may only gain the +1 to hit bonus on round in which initiative is won.

On the contrary, a +1 to hit is rarely better than a +1 to damage (c.f. 3ed Power Attack for an extreme counter-example). Here's the math, in case you are interested.

If P = probability to hit and D = expected damage, then a +1 to hit is "better" (more damage on average) than a +1 to damage whenever: (P + 0.05)*D > P*(D + 1). Simplification yields: 0.05*D > P. Plugging in D = 2.5 (d4) or 3.5 (d6) results in 0.125 > P or 0.175 > P, respectively. If these are the odds of the Fighter hitting, it's probably time to run.

For another comparison, let's compare the two-weapon Fighter using two daggers (d4, so D = 2.5) with the two-handed Fighter using a bastard sword (d8, so D=4.5). (Note: I didn't find any mention about how to handle two-weapon fighting if the damage dice are different, so to simplify I'll assume they are the same.) The inequality above becomes: (P + 0.05)*2.5 > P*(4.5 + 1), which yields 0.125/3 > P. Because of the discrete nature of the probabilities generated with a d20 roll, this will only be satisfied if P = 0!

With all that said, there's nothing wrong with the rules as stated, just the given justification for the implementation.

Very interested! In the habit of ironing-out glitches of all kinds. My wife's made me take a couple of days off most everything, but the next page up is a request for corrections. A lot of work went into trying to catch typos and check details properly, but the readers were using tired eyes late at night - so there will be bits and pieces.

Tampered with S&W there as part of giving the standard fighter and clerics a touch more juice - and helping low level parties beat-up on a few goblins before the ogres beat-up on them.

So, all feedback is v welcome. I'll pop back about support later, as there will an update at some stage and those who've downloaded one of the free copies are going to be welcome to a free update

 

[nedjer]

The game formerly known as Tainted, (received at the Old School Gamers Group, at EN and at RPG.Net without any grief), has been re-titled and re-published as Corruption. The playtesters simply preferred Taint or Tainted for being part of the SRDs and for being a bit more subtle than Corruption. However, it waited to be seen whether or not younger players would be able to manage without a giggle.

Got a fail on that at grognard.txt almost immediately; but remained undecided about making a change until running into a recently appeared storytelling game of the same name – with a top level domain registered in advance.

It's long-term search engine death to have a top level domain in the same niche, so Plan B kicked in with a flurry of link, page and content changes over the last few hours. This has gone surprisingly well and those who picked-up a complimentary copy here should already have an email from DriveThruRPG to repeat the download if they like. Any problems please give me a shout.

Having now grabbed an url containing rpg and corruption no further changes are planned and I'll post a thread under the new title shortly.