Re: DM: New rollups From: Ben 'Critical' Hitz Date: Thu, 17 Feb 1994 02:32:00 +0000 In article <2jugtl$6l5@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> wang@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Wei ) writes: >:I am a clueless new manager with five rollups for all of you to >:comment on. I don't really know what's going on but I will give a >:shot at my ideas maybe so you can tell me what I'm doing wrong. >:(all my ideas come from lurking in r.g.pbm). So here they are: Number 1, you have to decide how you want to play. Most of us here play not necessarily to win as many fights as possible, but to advance good warriors to ADM (and Primus). E-mail me if you have alot of questions. >: My guess: >: 14-5-10-10-7-12-12 >: 15-6-10-16-7-13-17 striker? Not bad, but 16 WT is no better than 15. Some people think 15 is no better than 14 or 13! This guy isn't great, but you have the right idea. go either: 17-5-10-13-8-14-17, or 15 WT/ST or 15WT,12SP. Doesn't really matter. The point in WL is certainly optional as well, but don't put in WT, CN, or DF. >: 3-7-18-4-12-14-12 >: 3-7-18-5-17-17-17 no idea This guy is almost cool, but worthless. I might make it an AB, just for laughs, but I would certainly DA him. Terrible. >: 8-12-11-9-8-10-12 >: 11-12-11-15-8-10-17 lunger 8 WL is _not_ enough for a LU. 15 minimum, 17 or 21 usually. Just like the first guy, only slightly worse. 8-12-11-13-13-10-17 Parry-Strike, or ST, maybe PR. Bare minimum rollup, will probably really suck >: 9-13-9-12-9-8-10 >: 9-13-9-17-13-8-15 parry-riposte Hey, the best one yet. The eternal 13/15 WL/DF choice. 13 WL for a PR. PS either way, possibly SL (15 WL). I would probably go PS, PRs are finicky, and this isn't a great one. >: 6-12-16-9-10-12-5 >: 9-12-16-15-15-12-5 ? Yeesh. ST too low for a low DF BA. 7-12-16-13-13-12-11 SL or 7-12-16-15-11-12-11 ST. Ug. Sheer mediocrity here. >: >:My ideas are very vague but run around these lines: >:1) odd numbers are good. Even SP is fine. Even CN is irrelevant. 17-13 is usually better than 15-15. 19s are more or less useless. 11 DF is very important. >:2) you want to add enough strength to use good weapons. ST is not very important. You want at least 7, usually. I almost _never_ Sacrifice WT/WL/DF for ST. >:3) wit is really important. >:4) deftness is important too. You forgot WL, about as important as DF... >:I notice I don't have any little guys and you guys seem >:to talk about little guys a lot? Are they just better or >:more interesting or something? Little guys are 'better' because they have more points on otherthings. SZ is, at best a mystery; at worst a hindernce. Current thinking: 1) High SZ primary determinant of damage-doing 2) SZ also helps hit points 3) High SZ = higher decisiveness, higher init 4) Low SZ = higher defense, higher parry?? >:Also, are wit, will, and deftness the most important attributes? Yes. You should also know what _skills_ are good. 1) Initative is worst. 2) Parry is good, but only for defensive warriors (that's _run_ defensive, usually), and becomes increasingly useless as you progress (to Advanced DM and Primus) 3) Decis is great, for young offensives. Also less useful in Advanced and Primus. Less useful if you run 4-3-3-x-Parry 4) Riposte is good, but only if you have defenses (i.e., parry or dodge) 5) Defense is great, always, but hard to get. 6) Attack is always important. >:Finally, why are strikers and scum so despised? In a few words, Strikers are despised because they have lousy attack ratings, compared to other styles with the same stats. This makes them weaker in high AD and Primus. They are very good in lower ranks, primarily due to superior decis and endurance burn rate (low). Scum are despised because they make for _real_ boring fights. A true scum is a warrior who wears Full Plate, and carries only shields. Sadly, this works, and with a high CN/WL TP you will win bunches. However, It's only for people who _really_ care about winning at all costs. Generally, are useless in ADM and high basic. It is _very_ frustrating to lose to these guys, who basically exist to save RSI paper. Ben -- "With humor Comrade, always with a bit of Humor" From 'The Manchurian Candidate' References DM: New rollupswang@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Wei )Thu, 17 Feb 1994 01:23:01 +0000 Up