RE: defense

[Lyle H Janney <lhjanney@adpc.purdue.edu>]

Okay, Steve, you have to admit that you pretty much
asked for this response.  Don't worry, I'll be gentle.  ;-)

-----Original Message-----
From:	Steve Ames [SMTP:steve@ns1.cioe.com]

> Ah but it isn't any type of guarentee that your skill will be effective.
> You have a minimum of +4 to your MDV which probaly puts your MDV to a
> 16 which any bowman with a Missile Mod of 6 gets a 50/50 chance of
> hitting you still.

Yep. In the really real world we can say that someone can practice to
a point where they can always avoid an arrow (or a baseball *grin*).
In AQ even the "impossible" 7d6 check will give you a +14 pushing your
MDV up to around 26. That means a mid-rate archer has a 50/50 without
resorting to a precise attack which would give him a hit on anything
other than a 1.

Mid-rate archer:	MM of 16 (Max it out)
			Bow skill of 16 (Max it out)

A 5d6 check would mean they would hit on anything except a 1.

[ Here we go... ]
Assuming the appropriate stats are, in fact, at 16 (nice die rolling
to begin with, here), our 'mid-rate' archer would need to be rate
21, have only 8 or so DP and nothing else (he's a real socialite).
Okay, I'll accept that as 'mid-rate', but if he were fleshed out as
a real character that could survive more than one hit, I'd have to
place him a bit above the 'mid-rate' level.

Really kids... since the argument can be made that its possible
and it really doesn't hurt game play much... why not let it ride?
Not that I care. Missiles are such a small part of the game since
combats generally happen indoor or close quarters. *shrug*

Well, Pop, that's a fine way to prove your point.  Just because
the argument can be made is no reason to just simply 'let it ride'.
I could make all sorts of arguments for and against the existence
of various features within AQ; that doesn't mean that they should
all of a sudden appear or disappear.  And besides, if missiles are
such a small portion of the game, why argue _for_ being able to
defend against them with a melee weapon?  And finally, if you
don't really care, why waste anyone's time arguing about it?

Actually, why _are_ we wasting anyone's time arguing about it?
It is clear that we are more or less in agreement with regard to
the existence of the defense sub-skill itself.  Why don't we just
make the whole question of whether it should apply to MDV a
part of the write-up we vote on?  Here, I'll help out whoever is
going to actually be writing this up (this is worded as if the split
dice proposal were, in fact, voted in):

[blah blah blah about 'Defense' as a sub skill of melee weapons
skill, adding +2 per die allocated to both CDV and GDV]

Voting:

Defense should be added as a sub-skill (circle one)   YES   NO

Addenda: (check one option only)

____  Defense should not apply to MDV (as written above)
____  Defense should also add +1 per die allocated to MDV
____  Defense should also add +2 per die allocated to MDV

There, how does that sound?  Can we quit with the bickering now?

Lyle