Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 9731829" data-attributes="member: 18">Yeah I think that actually was kind of true of lot of 1980s and 1990s, if you really looked at the math, many choices in combat were just either:A) Objectively a bad idea - i.e. simply does less damage than normal or is an obviously bad trade-off mechanically (like a big penalty to hit in a game where hitting is hard, for a small damage bonus).orB) Very nearly meaningless in practice (usually trade-offs that sounded like a big deal but almost no difference).or the particularly hilariousC) Obviously the best option, no comparison, and in certain combat situations people will just take it repeatedly, over and overI remember C-type situations coming up in Rifts a lot. Indeed one should-have-been-titanic duel in Rifts rapidly became very boring because the player realized if he just picked "simultaneous strike" (or something like that), because their PC had slightly more MD than than the antagonist (or regened it or something, I forget), they'd mathematically definitely win, there was basically no way for them not to apart from really bad damage rolls (which was incredibly unlikely, and indeed, didn't happen). So we had like to sit there whilst essentially just rolled the same attack over and over. The DM initially tried some stuff, then realized his best chance was also spamming the same attack and just hoping he got slightly better damage rolls! (He didn't succeed).</blockquote>

Verification