Re: we need to argue more...

[Wright Frazier <khelek@ns1.cioe.com>]

> I had Rob's warrior in my game last week. No single attack did more
> than 40 points. Maybe he was rolling poorly. Admittedly that electric
> shock thing does give you an advantage.

I guess he got rid of the flame sword.  *shrug* my bad. =)

> 
> > 	With a 2 marines I whipped Elsinor, Mogradin, and severa other
> > 	folks in a game.  Neither of those two have the magical boosting
> > 	that claude does.
> 
> With 3 rate 20 priests (of Ra) I put down two adventurers in one round
> last week. Roll 4d6-vs-WIL twice please. Anyone can take anyone given
> the right circumstances. *shrug* Marines, being more versatile, can
> handle more "circumstances".

*nod* very very true.

> 
> I generally picture warriors as falling into one of two categories:
> 
> God of War as layed out in the Piers Anothony novels (knowledgeable
> in all forms of combats and all weapons. Brilliant tactician and
> master strategist. Its a realy unfortunate that some military skills
> got move to "Auger" (military construction jumps to mind, though a
> case could be made for that not being a real warrior skill, I'd still
> leave it under warrior).

*nod* Again, I agree. and I prefer this view as well.


re: following stuff.  Exactly.

> Marines are also classic killers. Pirates, brawlers and other scum.
> I would expect them to be almost as good with a sword and probably
> a little handier with their fists (than warriors). Perhaps better
> with a sword if you count those lightweight girly type swords.
>
> As it stands, marines don't really have anything special to differentiate
> them from warriors with wierd tastes in fighting. For instance:

I'd love to see something to differentiate them more, but with the
present troika, that is gonna be fairly difficult to do without some
pretty hefty shifts in what currently is.

I agree, Augers were a bad idea.  The general skill pool was much better.
That way you could explain peasents who just have a few skills, instead
of making them be the incredibly deep thinkers that Augers are supposed
to be(but aren't), or killers(warriors or marines).

> Now its my personal belief that Augers were a bad idea. The thief/spy
> background was vastly superior and left a general pool of skills that
> anyone could get at the same base cost (made since for my non-backgrounded
> NPCs), but we have Augers so lets deal with it. Augers have lots of skills.
> 
> Of course if we are using the Troika, marines wouldn't really need their
> own weapons or stuff they would just pay double for weapon skills (realm
> of the warrior) and any other non-magical skill (realm of Augers). This
> would give them the extra versatility that they would need to balance
> them out. They aren't as good at any type of fighting as warriors, but
> they do have a lot of other skills that make them useful. A compromise
> niche which is what everything is that falls between points.

*nod* I agree and like this much better as well.

re: getting noone to agree.  *nod* Status Quo here we go.

Wright




> 
There... thats my contribution to the spew. Your up against some 
> fundamental system changes that no one is likely to approve and you
> probably won't even be able to get enough GMs together to decide to
> try it out to see if it _SHOULD_ be approved. 
> 
> 						-Steve
> 
>