Call it a genre cliché, inspired by fiction. Anyway even my real life experience says that sometimes people want to settle their differences in a (more) civilized way, mano a mano, not in "I'll just come with my friends and we will beat crap out of my opponent". Of course such approach would be inappropriate if your characters are criminals without even criminal code of honour, or other persons who don't give a damn and are never in situation when beating someone three to one would cause reputation loss.. but I find this approach even narrower than mine, as even in quite grimdark settings duels are present.TheTeaMustFlow escribió: ↑08 Jun 2018 03:00Why on Earth should that be an assumption? Duelling would only be the norm in a relatively few social settings. Sure, if you're all playing martial artists at a dojo or aristocrats in a highly martial country, it'll be common, but what if you're criminals, or detectives, or fugitives, etc? Even in a social game, it is perfectly reasonable in numerous settings to assume that group fights would be the norm - firstly because engaging in lethal combat without backup is a bad idea and rational people will try to avoid it wherever possible, and secondly because a group game tends to result in group participation.
I'm sorry if you took it this way, but no offence was meant. It is just a most common playstyle, employed by many people, including me from times to times. Well at least I don't take it as insulting, unlike definitions like "murder-hobo", which assumes that group consists of inadequate persons, who kill people for lulz.In retrospect, it perhaps should not be particularly surprising that you found it necessary to insult people who play differently from you, but it is nonetheless disappointing.
Actually you are saying now that we have to throw off this discussion in windows as we will be never able to consider all the variables. I have to disagree with you. In my mind, if we want to compare something, we take to identical things and compare them among themselves or against the challenge we expect them to have. It is perfectly legal for me to compare, for example, dagger and two-handed sword by making equal characters and making them "math fight" each other or some other threat. Yes, you may be will never meet your evil clone armed with other weapon, nor that generic-AT8-DR-Creature against which you tested DPR, but still you have numbers, which tells you what to expect. Which is way better than "nah, GM may throw anything at you".Precisely. In actual gameplay, variables are in play and combats are rarely if ever symmetrical - even if one fights a duel, it will in all likely not be against someone with perfectly equal stats. Thus, practical optimisation and the discussion thereof should not focus on such examples.
Thing is, unless your group have rather drastic initiative difference, initiative can go quite wild. And in average run, unless your slow-heavy-hitting character is heavily armoured (which is rare in my practice, I explained part of reasons in the same thread), he can be a fire magnet for opponent. Especially if he fails his roll so bad that he is surprised (well, which is not common but if heavy armour + heavy weapon are utilised). And a bit of math, let's assume we had three group members. Two of which used single precise attacks (however I would like to point, that with ambidex that would be up to four attacks, but closer to three in average, which would add MPD), so opponent have -50 penalty, partially offset by his superior skill of 30 above (total -20).More or less correct, for what it's worth, but again reliant on a number of assumptions, the most significant of which is that you appear to have everyone using the same approach. In such a situation it would be better to have the higher initiative characters be more conservative, going for single accurate attacks, then have lower initiative characters go for multiple hits to exploit the vulnerability this has built up. Better yet, of course, is to avoid the proverbial arse-kicking contest with a porcupine by attempting to disrupt the enemy or hit them with attacks they can't effectively counter (e.g. ranged attacks against a melee guy).
Character 1 is a heavy weapon dude (or girl), character 2 is ambidex, and they are in the same "I strike third" situation. They both have Aura Extension, but not Increased Damage Dominion abilities, Str 8, and no Attribute Imbalance or other things like this. Heavy weapon choice would be a great sword (damage 90 base +10 AE +20 Str, total 120), ambidex would use double longswords or katanas (damage 50 base, +10 AE +10 Str, total 70), no cheese like double Leo.
Character 1, 2 attacks: Each attack comes at -40 penalty (heavy weapon, multiple attacks rule): First attack most likely misses or inflicts marginal 10% damage on a good roll, second attack (that's why we overstacked penalties) goes against -70 penalty.. which is roughly equal our skill difference + split attack difference. Well, at least if opponent rolls 30 and we roll 70 it would be a 24 damage.
Character 2, 2 attacks + offhand, each attack comes with -30 penalty (medium weapon, multiple attacks rule), and offhand comes with an extra -10. First attack, as opponent have used his counters on our teammates we'll go with offhand, same -40 total, same "most likely misses or inflicts marginal 10% damage on a good roll", second attack goes with minus 30, and it have higher chance of inflicting damage already, on the 30-70 roll assumed above it would be 21 damage. However we have third attack against -90 penalty, assuming good roll there that would be 35 damage.
Heavy weapon shines on Open rolls or against DR (especially on open rolls against DR), in other situations having extra attack is more beneficial mathwise. I hope this math above would help to understand my point.
However you receive less grievous counters and have better chance of getting second attack to slice extra defence.Secondly, in such a situation, it must be noted that using two-weapon fighting against a superior target is also a bad idea for all the same reasons making multiple attacks is, just somewhat less so - you're still attacking at a numerical disadvantage.
I math for two handed sword was provided above, can be used for shields as well. Shields are good, but as I said before, it is quite strange.Not for free - you've missed out the biggest cost, which is that it takes up a hand. A hand which could be holding a shield, or the haft of a two-handed sword.
You can check any weapon, it would be 15 or 20 bonus at top tier. I find it quite unreasonable, that earthshaking artifacts have the same impact on defence as simple wooden board (well, except that wooden board helps better against thrown and shot attacks), and the only thing that surpasses wooden board is an artifact level wooden board.I don't know what that is (never GM'd, never looked past intermediate artifacts without express permission), so I'm not going to address that beyond asking (without spoilers, if you please) whether said defensive bonus is its primary purpose. Because otherwise (say, if it's a weapon but is mostly notable for more esoteric abilities), that's not a particularly useful comparison.
You see, rulebooks allow many things. However, if we are talking about "what is normal" I expect to see it in some way in examples. Given the range of options, player (or GM) can create something vastly over average power level (some nova builds, one trick mentalist ponies, etc), or vastly below (like character, who have only half of allowed attack and defence). And it is quite okay as long as everyone at the table agree and game is comfortable for every participant. But if you (me, everyone, else) are ok with something it doesn't mean it is the one and true way to play and everyone who deviates is cancerous munchkin if he is above the power level, or crookyhanded noob if he is below. So to determine the estimated power level I prefer to consult the rulebooks as they might give some hint on author's vision.That's a completely unfair comparison. One requires the GM to actively intervene to make the PCs more powerful and to ignore the recommendations given, the other simply requires the GM to not actively intervene to prevent players from using the options presented to them by their own abilities in just the way they were intended to be used.
And in fact GM allowing novice character to invent superior techniques is no different than GM handing PL 4 artifacts, because this GM either plays at dungeoncrawl adventuring style (which is quite following the "if it is in the rulebbooks then it is allowed, no questions asked how the hell character figured that out"), or makes his intervention not through handing artifacts or like but by allowing players to bend game world logic. Mileage may vary, of course.
Sorry for wall of text, I believe I should stop as I provided the math and not a big fan of writing texts (really. Just was bored at work).