AlabasterKnight wrote on Jun 30^th, 2015 at 8:59pm:


I was building off of the comment you made about the payload being extra ammo that doesn't inherit the actual characteristics of the combatant.  So I was curious if the payload to hit roll benefited from accuracy.  It's moot if you don't require a second to hit roll.

I agree with Majestic about the two rolls to hit, and his example is perfect. 

The way we do the entire carrier/payload thing is an attack roll for the carrier, and one for the payload.  Both benefit from the accuracy modifier.  The damage from the carrier and from the payload are added together and the damage modifier is added to that number, treating the carrier damage and payload damage as one 'attack'.  So we only apply the damage modifier once for the entire attack.

I was just curious about everyone else's take on it - I enjoy  discussing rules because often I have learned of rules I've been ignoring (like the bonus to healing if in a doctor's care) or doing 'wrong'.

Just about everyone agrees that putting the damage modifier on both the carrier and payload damage is 'double dipping'; but isn't it interesting that no one balks at giving both carrier and payload the benefit of the accuracy modifier?

Phrennzy wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2015 at 1:05pm:


The reason I don't require players to make the second roll to hit is because the intention of accuracy is also on the carrier alone. The payload can't deliver without it, that is the very definition of why a "carrier" attack is needed in the first place. The possible consideration of that second roll is usually if a player argues they have a defense that requires it and I make the NPC roll the payload if applicable.

A gun is a carrier attack for special bullets. Do you need to roll twice?

It's my opinion (and only that) two hit rolls is a silly rule and makes no sense - one of those technical rolls that slows things down and gives too much crunch to the rules unnecessarily.

<topic drift>
Interesting point, AlabasterKnight. Does a special bullet have to roll to hit twice?

It's possible, I guess to interpret the rules so that two rolls are required in order to accurately approximate comic-book physics.

First the gun us aimed at the target and fired. The bullet then has a chance to hit the intended target doing damage as a bullet. The bullet then delivers it's special payload. Since it is non-sentient it attacks as level 4, and a roll to attack each character in the blast radius (or cloud radius, or whatever radius) is made. If the bullet has a stun attack (paralysis round), it may lose the ability to inflict impact damage in favor of delivering the p-ray attack.

So, depending upon the circumstances, the answer to your question could be "yes" or "no". I'm sure others have different interpretations of the details, but I think a few will agree that "it depends".

Fun thought experiment. Thanks for posting that one AK.
</topic drift>

re·tard
verb
past tense: retarded; past participle: retarded
/riˈtärd/
delay or hold back in terms of progress, development, or accomplishment.

Used above to reflect a stunted idea.

Majestic wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2015 at 5:17pm:


By the way, what part of the power concept of Adaptation (since we're all talking about the game making sense) applies to mitigating accuracy???

AlabasterKnight wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2015 at 1:45am:

I'm not sure most people think of that clean definition when they see or hear "That's retarded" in a sentence, but I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, although I would have chosen a different word like "Underdeveloped" (although that is not my feeling on the rule).


AlabasterKnight wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2015 at 1:50am:

Why would you want to kill Captain America? He's a really nice guy.

More seriously, as a GM, in those two instances I would roll 1d20 to see if the carrier was a dud (the rules state that there is a 5% chance that an explosive might be a dud) - or to see if the bullet exited the character before the payload went off. What if the Spear penetrated Cap's chest and blood spurted out and extinguish the fuse? Or the force of the impact tore the tape, or broke the spear?

Again, AK, you make a very interesting point.

Edited:



AlabasterKnight wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2015 at 1:54am:


Per the combat table, Ice Attacks have a base to-hit value of zero when used against a character using Adaptation as a defense. So the chances of hitting come down to Level-versus-level + zero or less on 1d20 (the attack goes from a base 70% chance to hit to 5%). That would seem to have a marked effect upon accuracy.

Edited:

AlabasterKnight wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2015 at 1:56am:

Of course GM judgement trumps written rules, and we are in the House Rules section. But I believe that Phrennzy asked the original question to see if he needed a house rule or just a better understanding on the written rule was in order.

As always, AlabasterKnight, you bring up many excellent and thought provoking points in your posts.

AlabasterKnight wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2015 at 11:56am:

That sounds like it will be an enjoyable and lively discussion. I look forward to it. I also agree that it is a subject for another time.

AlabasterKnight wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2015 at 11:56am:

Well, okay. Again you make an excellent point, and I think we have all stated how we interpret the rules in question. We've basically said "Here is my house rule". And during that discussion we also looked over the rules as they are to help us develop and refine our house rules. I don't think anyone said "You're wrong", anywhere. As Majestic and I stated, we're really just sitting at the virtual game table doing gamer talk.

AlabasterKnight wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2015 at 11:56am:

I agree completely. this is the House Rules portion of the forum. Perhaps what is needed is a subsection where we can discuss Rules as Written to help clarify some of the less intuitive rules of the game.

And thank-you again for your post. As always you bring a lot of expertise and food for thought to the thread.

In my world, when you try to do a carrier attack it works like this:

Hit with the initial attack? Great. Proceed to the carrier/payload/secondary attack. Hit with that too? Great. Roll damage for both. I give an accuracy bonus for both attacks, and a damage adjustment for damage rolls.

That's it. I only give one damage adjustment per attack, but with carrier attacks that one attack that's a bridge to a second attack.

Don't like my ruling? Don't play in my games. It's fair because it applies to everyone.

Nuff said.

RAMBLE

Majestic wrote on Jul 4^th, 2015 at 7:00am:


Sigh.

This is not directed at Majestic.

I've received barbed messages about this particular topic, and I'm already bored with it. Give a damage bonus once, give it twice, or give one tenth the square root and flush it down the damn crapper if you want. It's the GM's call, and that's all that matters, regardless of anything written in any edition.

So, please tell me that someone on this forum can call a rule "retarded" without backlash. Please tell me that we are strong enough to withstand the stress of people expressing themselves about 33 year old rules, even when we don't agree with them.

RAMBLE

Majestic wrote on Jul 4^th, 2015 at 7:00am:


I'm sorry there are those who are "offput" by my use of the word 'retarded'. I won't deflect people's assumptions to apology and foster a stigma of trying to perpetuate what I said as a negative.
It's a good word that has been a part of the English language for a very long time and expresses how I feel about a less than progressive, overcomplicated approach to a problem.

If somehow I offended someone or implied my opinion of the way they interpret the words as used somehow labels them as stupid, there are two ends to the train -

Either there's some insecurity there causing doubt in your mind that raises pride of defense giving power to your perception that you heard the word in an ugly tone. That isn't my responsibility to live with and I don't harbor any guilt that needs to be paid in apologies, or -

You're so enamored of your viewpoint that you can't consider someone else's might hold your interpretations of rules and application at a lesser value to the benefit of their experience in their own game lifetime.

I'd like to think that someone just assumed something and in a anger-twisted moment tried to cast light on what I said and frame it for what its not.
So language gets PC'd to death literally that people forget the meanings of words in favor of the ugly things society foists into our tongue.

My wife is a top officer in the state division here that serves the developmentally disabled population and I am a veteran of social services too. I don't use the word retarded in that context ever or at all.

On topic - you roll tomatoes, I roll tomatoes.

@AlabasterKnight, I've attempted to keep this polite and out of the public eye, and in the PM's expressed only my concerns about a well known, respected, and intelligent writer and illustrator who has contributed so much to this game stating in an open forum that some rule in the V&V system is essentially pointless, and that it is holding the game back. I must admit to being somewhat taken aback by that statement, but sometimes, you just have to call it like you see it, and I respect that kind of honesty.

Yeah, I would have used a different word. As you taught me, we lose about 90% of our meaning when we post in forums. Because of that loss of communication some people may only see a word they find offensive, and entirely miss my meaning of the message. Which is rather unfortunate since you make a solid point with what you said; People see the rules differently, and that the rules are not set in stone, that's wonderful and I agree with you completely. It just seems unfortunate that the message may have been lost on a few. I find the rules as written to be pretty slick and they allow me to do some pretty crazy stuff. You don't see them in the same light all the time, and have shown fantastic imagination in creating House Rules and Variant rules. I don't think we in the community can really properly thank you for that effort.

As I said, this has been a very interesting conversation, and I have learned much from it. And as always, AlabasterKnight, you have taught me a valuable lesson; I must be more clear when I post here on the forum. I thank you again for your leadership by example.