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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Skywalker" data-source="post: 2982435" data-attributes="member: 1538">Good point. Personally, I find the split confusing (much as you would find WP/VP confusing). However, my main issue would be that this seems to be a compromise and that it sort of muddles mechanics. I like True 20 approach where Attack is directly opposed by Defence (both determines by skill) and Damage is opposed by Toughness (both determined by Weapons and Armour). The result is a transparent system with rules effects that are easily narrated. In True 20 you can compare a Weapon to a piece of Armour directly, as well as the skill of two opponents. Having the effect of Armour split has all kinds of interesting side effects elsewhere. First you need to have Defence progressions run behind Attack, destroying direct comparisons. Next you have to have increasing HP which results in the well known oddities of that system. I don't think I have personally seen a split Armour system in which the designers have really taken the full consequences of the decision through the whole system.  True. The four mechanics of Attack, Defence, Damage and Toughness/HP are all interlinked. If you increase Defence then the need for escalating HP decreases. On saying that a Defence progression that matches Attack, something only done so far in True 20, still sees comparably skilled characters hit each other 55% of the time which is high. It can mean that mooks have little show, but this is consistent with adventurous style play like that of Star Wars or Lord of the Rings.I absolutely agree. The D20 system is incredibly flexible. I have found that it tends to marred with tinkering where there is a lack of understanding of the entire system. However, you can make a variety of satisfactory systems as the industry has shown.</blockquote>

Verification