Re: DM: New Roll-up

From: Ben 'Critical' Hitz

Date: Mon, 21 Feb 1994 16:31:18 +0000

In article <CLI28C.5o8@ucdavis.edu> ez007195@dale.ucdavis.edu (Yeon Choi)
writes:
>:In article <2k5s6c$pfn@apakabar.cc.columbia.edu>
hitz@cumbna.bioc.columbia.edu writes:
>:>In article <2k5pmgINN8ut@uwm.edu> dray@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Daniel Ray
Giese)
>:How about a 13-6-16-17-10-5-17 AB.  ST 13/SZ 16 gives you a pretty good
>:shot at great damage, with an outside chance at tremendous.  Aimers
>:preserve endurance so well that even poor endurance ones can go 8
minutes
>:at 10-10-x (of course, they don't do much for minutes 3-8 except sit
>:back and wait for their opponent to bleed into submission).

I disagree.  Although they don't need WL for endurance, they certainly
don't need ST to do damage.  If any style doesn't need ST, it's an AB.
The WL gives you attack, plus a bit of defense, decis, and parry.  _plus_
you may actually be able to get a few stat trains, once you max out.  My
current theory (* WARNING * Subjective Opinion -- Stated without proof, or
hardly even evidence ) is that Aimed Blows should have _either_ WL or SP,
even though 'conventional wisdom' holds that they need niether.  I think
it gives them decis that they badly need.

>:For the AB style, I had one ST 21 WT 15 DF 21 Aimed Blow who got a bonus
>:that was approximately twice the recorded mean bonus (something like
>:a mean of +15, and an actual bonus of +30) which seemed to indicate to
>:me that something strange was going on.

AB seem to get _way_ more than advertised, but _only_ with a 21 DF.  I
havn't seen much data for other skills, but for attack the difference is
pretty dramatic, 2-3 skills _at least_ on average.  There aren't a whole
lot of data points, however.

--
"With humor Comrade, always with a bit of Humor"
         From 'The Manchurian Candidate'

References

Re: DM: New Roll-up
ez007195@dale.ucdavis.edu (Yeon Choi)
Sun, 20 Feb 1994 01:45:48 +0000