Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 3141422" data-attributes="member: 1465">Explain to me in a reasonable amount of detail how is it a &quot;different kind&quot; from a general (non-related) point of view.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> Intuitively, at a description/explanation level if you wish, there is no difference between ST and SR, they are both just a chance of avoiding magic!First, I don't see a fundamental need to &quot;model SR&quot; with ST. We could introduce a third kind of resistance to magic with its own ruleset, so that it cannot be modeled with the current rules of ST and SR: would that become necessary just because of that? I don't think so...Don't think about what you actually have in the current rules. In another ruleset without SR in the first place, there could be an Evasion equivalent for other saves, or Slay Living could have a ST (and by the way, I always thought it ought to!)....and why is that a good thing?&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue&nbsp; &nbsp; :p"&nbsp; data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" /> First, it's a consequence of SR and not a reason for the need of SR in the game, and second if lots of gamers actually &quot;forget about it&quot; maybe it's because it is a not-so-nice consequence.Mah, it doesn't convince me at all. It might be nice to the game to have spells that have 3 possible outcomes such as (a) full effect, (b) partial effect, (c) no effect. Then why can't you simply make it part of the ST result? Could be in the BB spell description: fail by 5 or less and get partial damage, fail by more and take full damage: here's the same result with one roll less.And the &quot;two chances instead of one&quot; idea... does it really hold? What matters is the % total chance, it doesn't matter if you have to roll 1 die or 10 dice to know the result.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Li Shenron, post: 3141422, member: 1465"] Explain to me in a reasonable amount of detail how is it a "different kind" from a general (non-related) point of view. ;) Intuitively, at a description/explanation level if you wish, there is no difference between ST and SR, they are both just a chance of avoiding magic! First, I don't see a fundamental need to "model SR" with ST. We could introduce a third kind of resistance to magic with its own ruleset, so that it cannot be modeled with the current rules of ST and SR: would that become necessary just because of that? I don't think so... Don't think about what you actually have in the current rules. In another ruleset without SR in the first place, there could be an Evasion equivalent for other saves, or Slay Living could have a ST (and by the way, I always thought it ought to!). ...and why is that a good thing? :p First, it's a consequence of SR and not a reason for the need of SR in the game, and second if lots of gamers actually "forget about it" maybe it's because it is a not-so-nice consequence. Mah, it doesn't convince me at all. It might be nice to the game to have spells that have 3 possible outcomes such as (a) full effect, (b) partial effect, (c) no effect. Then why can't you simply make it part of the ST result? Could be in the BB spell description: fail by 5 or less and get partial damage, fail by more and take full damage: here's the same result with one roll less. And the "two chances instead of one" idea... does it really hold? What matters is the % total chance, it doesn't matter if you have to roll 1 die or 10 dice to know the result. [/QUOTE]

Verification