Re: [spoon-discuss] Can you dodge?

[Daniel Lepage <dplepage@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Friday, March 28, 2003, at 05:06  AM, Orc In A Spacesuit wrote:

> Shoulda included this with the last message, but I hadn't thought of 
> it yet:
>
> If you hadn't guessed from the last post, I'm standardizing "attacks" 
> and giving the players, as well as a small number of other things, Hit 
> Points.  A part of this is some familiar things, such as Pinball Guns, 
> will become "weapons", a class of objects that can be used to attack.  
> Right now, I have a simple "X weapon does Y damage, which might be 
> modified by Z player's Amulet of Double Damage or whatever" set up.  
> And as a part of this, if someone attacks a valid target, it 
> automatically hits.  That's the way it is now; shoot someone with a 
> pinball gun, and you have no chance of missing.
>
> The question is, would we want to have there be a chance to miss on 
> things, and if so, how much?  Should hits be automatic in most cases, 
> and only if you have something special, like a good set of armor or 
> good dodging ability, do you have a chance to avoid attack?  Or should 
> it be more random, with a chance to go either way if it's a normal 
> attack and the target has no special defense?
>
> In either case, I think Pinball Guns should keep a good chance to hit. 
>  I mean, all you have to do is make contact, and they're right there 
> next to you.

I have a draft somewhere of a prop I started writing involving adding 
such races as Gremlin and Yeti to the allowable list, with certain 
special methods of becoming them. One of the abilities I gave to 
Gremlins was 'Dodge' - when they get hit, 1dS is rolled, where S is eir 
speed; if the result is higher than, I think it was 9, the hit misses. 
Then I considered generalizing this, to make all races have it; the 
slow ones would just never get above 9.

> I hadn't really thought about this until now, but do we want to go far 
> as to add types of damage?  If we do, I think we should limit it to 
> two; Forceful (bludgeoning or crusing in some games), which armor 
> shouldn't help against, and Mangling, which involves cutting or 
> stabbing, and armor should help with.  I think that might be getting a 
> bit complicated, but if people want to protect against certain things, 
> it'll be easier than listing a bunch of different places damage could 
> come from.

I think it would be better to have elemental types of damage - you can 
get Basic Damage, Fire Damage, Ice Damage, and maybe Whoopass Damage. 
For the most part, these would be indistinguishable, but certain 
armors/races could be immune/weak to specific damage types, like how 
Gremlins don't mind fire, while Blobs are nastily affected by being 
Frozen.

--
Wonko

_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss