Full Version: Defense vs Astral Weenies
| QUOTE (Lilt) | ||||
I love you. |
You're cheating on me? *Cries*
~J
Well, sorry Kage, but I feel I should explain the discussion so-far to our (good) friend Mr A Clockwork Lime (and anyone else who might be watching).
I suggested that something was possible. OurTeam and A Clockwork Lime both state that at-least one success must be scored by the attacking party, otherwise the melee attack fails to do anything (claiming what I'm suggesting is against the "core rules"). I dispute this point, challenging them to tell me exactly where in the core rules it says I am wrong.
ACL talks about Common sense and transforms a "1+ success -> accomplishment" statement into a "accomplishment <> 1+ success" statement which, if people who know their logic can back me up on, is not valid (IE: it's a fallacy). Countering his Common sense point, I remind him that common sense does not always figure highly in the shadowrun rules system. He then defends one situation that goes against common sense, labeling another to be a non-existant loophole and a bastardisation (without any further evidence). Thus: I feel that if we don't need any evidence, I can simply state that state that the 0vs0 successes situation is another quirk without giving any evidence (for which he labels me a dumbass).
I am prepared to continue the discussion, I love to discuss, but please leave any form of personal insults out.
I suggested that something was possible. OurTeam and A Clockwork Lime both state that at-least one success must be scored by the attacking party, otherwise the melee attack fails to do anything (claiming what I'm suggesting is against the "core rules"). I dispute this point, challenging them to tell me exactly where in the core rules it says I am wrong.
ACL talks about Common sense and transforms a "1+ success -> accomplishment" statement into a "accomplishment <> 1+ success" statement which, if people who know their logic can back me up on, is not valid (IE: it's a fallacy). Countering his Common sense point, I remind him that common sense does not always figure highly in the shadowrun rules system. He then defends one situation that goes against common sense, labeling another to be a non-existant loophole and a bastardisation (without any further evidence). Thus: I feel that if we don't need any evidence, I can simply state that state that the 0vs0 successes situation is another quirk without giving any evidence (for which he labels me a dumbass).
I am prepared to continue the discussion, I love to discuss, but please leave any form of personal insults out.
The monowhip self-injury is only as a result of the opponent using full defense and dodging the whip.
To clarify: Attack with whip vs full defense. Full defense does not avoid the attack, so dodge. Dodge fully avoids the attack, now the attacker is about to get hit with a whip,
To clarify: Attack with whip vs full defense. Full defense does not avoid the attack, so dodge. Dodge fully avoids the attack, now the attacker is about to get hit with a whip,
Well Lilt...
It's hard to 'discuss' something with someone who's argument consisists of "The book doesn't say I can't do it". It is an 'exploit'. The girl scout thing is also clearly an exploit.
And house rules on the friends in combat should be pretty common. It's very much a personal preference as to how well Bruce Lee does when faced with multiple opponents. I've seen ardent defenders of Bruce Lee vs 100 and equally passionate arguments for "He couldn't beat 2 guys". It's very much a 'feel' thing, GM discretion.
Let's take the girl scout thing a step farther. How bout I carry four rat terriers with me into combat. They all drop out of their dog house on my back when I give the whistle...and engage in combat whomever I'm attacking. Okay, so they each way a pound and can't bite above the combat boot...but they ARE friends in combat. You going to give me that bonus for me being clever or are you going to stare at me like I'm an idiot?
I think that house rule sounds pretty good at first glance. If the things you ignore are a true threat, then you'll pay dearly for ignoring them.
It's hard to 'discuss' something with someone who's argument consisists of "The book doesn't say I can't do it". It is an 'exploit'. The girl scout thing is also clearly an exploit.
And house rules on the friends in combat should be pretty common. It's very much a personal preference as to how well Bruce Lee does when faced with multiple opponents. I've seen ardent defenders of Bruce Lee vs 100 and equally passionate arguments for "He couldn't beat 2 guys". It's very much a 'feel' thing, GM discretion.
Let's take the girl scout thing a step farther. How bout I carry four rat terriers with me into combat. They all drop out of their dog house on my back when I give the whistle...and engage in combat whomever I'm attacking. Okay, so they each way a pound and can't bite above the combat boot...but they ARE friends in combat. You going to give me that bonus for me being clever or are you going to stare at me like I'm an idiot?
I think that house rule sounds pretty good at first glance. If the things you ignore are a true threat, then you'll pay dearly for ignoring them.
No no, the true exploit is carrying a beehive on your back.
I disagree that the houserule sounds good. Friends in Melee works perfectly well as long as you keep a touch of GM sense, while the houserule makes it too easy to take down multiple opponents, and makes no sense besides.
~J
I disagree that the houserule sounds good. Friends in Melee works perfectly well as long as you keep a touch of GM sense, while the houserule makes it too easy to take down multiple opponents, and makes no sense besides.
~J
| QUOTE (Lilt) |
| I suggested that something was possible. OurTeam and A Clockwork Lime both state that at-least one success must be scored by the attacking party, otherwise the melee attack fails to do anything (claiming what I'm suggesting is against the "core rules"). |
Hmmm. You must be reading something in my reply that wasn't there. No where did I say your interpretation was against the "core rules", because I knew already that it strictly followed those rules. Here's my comment again:
| QUOTE (OurTeam) |
| What an absurd interpretation of the rules. If you don't roll a success then you don't succeed at all. Sheesh. |
I'm not trying to impinge on your intelligence, and I'm sorry if it seems that way.
If you want to follow the "core rules" exactly, check out the Power Focus on p. 190. If you take physical damage from spellcasting drain or sorcery drain, then you take both physical and stun damage. Nice canon, eh?
If you want to follow the "core rules" exactly, check out the Power Focus on p. 190. If you take physical damage from spellcasting drain or sorcery drain, then you take both physical and stun damage. Nice canon, eh?
I think the house rule sounds great. The only time it helps is when fighting opponents that can hardly hurt you at all.
I also think the ignoring would be pretty obvious, so after a round of being ignored the combatant can go full offense or charge or shoot a gun without a +2 modifier or call a shot and probably succeed, etc.
I also think the ignoring would be pretty obvious, so after a round of being ignored the combatant can go full offense or charge or shoot a gun without a +2 modifier or call a shot and probably succeed, etc.
Yup, Zazen, but then they aren't a combatant that should be ignored, and you ignore it only at your own risk.
Hmmmm. Girl scout troops with Uzi IIIs.
Hmmmm. Girl scout troops with Uzi IIIs.
| QUOTE (Cain) |
| That's one reason why I don't like OurTeam's house rule; it doesn't feel right to counter player cleverness with a house rule. |
Let me give you a little background on how we came to the house rule. We had the player cleverness, and it ran for a while, with its benefits to the team. Then Lone Star mages learned to do it and it became Standard-Operating-Procedure. Then Knight Errant mages started doing it. Then all the other Shadowrunner teams joined in. After a while every magician would summon <Charisma> watchers before going into Astral Space. Soon every magician was surrounded by a pack of watchers, and all Elves had a target number in combat that was 2 lower than a human's. Soon Astral scouting, which was already considered lost playing time by the mundane players became even longer, with every scouting event starting with one minute of rolling dice. Astral combat became a nightmare as 10 to 15 things with Astral initiative started jockying for position in three dimensions while we tried to play it out on a 2D gaming mat. Everyone in our group wanted something simpler. We came up with the house rule, and it's been holding things in check for a while. However, once we can summon force 4, 5, and 6 watchers it'll go back to being miserable. After a while, we'll probably house rule that Watchers don't fight unless attacked.
Let's look at the core rules for the moment. The core rules of any system reflect the spirit of the system. As far as I am aware there has been no rule system in the history of Roleplaying that has survived while having a rule that states getting no successes is a success.
One thing you will notice, is that nowhere in the area of page 38 - 39 of the core book does it state that falling short of the TN is a failure, it only references in the rule of one segment that a 1 is an automatic failure.
The reason for the failure to mention that falling short of a target = fail is because it is common sense for anyone who has played enough roleplaying games. It probably would have been more implicit had Wizards of the Coast written the book(as they do tailor to those who lack reasoning skills and make sure all rules are crystal with no assumptions)
now either one or the other observations can be made:
1. that you do not need to meet a target number to equal success, and as such, all the rules following this section are null and void.
2. that failing to meet a target number is implied to be a failure, and as such, when performing a comparison of successes, failing to meet any successes by both parties is failures by both parties.
I feel that assumption number 2 is the better assumption as is keeps the rules consistent, and keeps with the faith that roleplaying game dice rules are based on success, and failing to meet the demands of a test is a failure.
however since there is this lack of clarity as to whether not meeting a target number is a failure, means that if you want to play SR where not meeting a tn = success, you can, and do as you will. I will still be playing SR the way I always have. failure to meet TN = failure.
One thing you will notice, is that nowhere in the area of page 38 - 39 of the core book does it state that falling short of the TN is a failure, it only references in the rule of one segment that a 1 is an automatic failure.
The reason for the failure to mention that falling short of a target = fail is because it is common sense for anyone who has played enough roleplaying games. It probably would have been more implicit had Wizards of the Coast written the book(as they do tailor to those who lack reasoning skills and make sure all rules are crystal with no assumptions)
now either one or the other observations can be made:
1. that you do not need to meet a target number to equal success, and as such, all the rules following this section are null and void.
2. that failing to meet a target number is implied to be a failure, and as such, when performing a comparison of successes, failing to meet any successes by both parties is failures by both parties.
I feel that assumption number 2 is the better assumption as is keeps the rules consistent, and keeps with the faith that roleplaying game dice rules are based on success, and failing to meet the demands of a test is a failure.
however since there is this lack of clarity as to whether not meeting a target number is a failure, means that if you want to play SR where not meeting a tn = success, you can, and do as you will. I will still be playing SR the way I always have. failure to meet TN = failure.
| QUOTE (OurTeam) |
| Yup, Zazen, but then they aren't a combatant that should be ignored, and you ignore it only at your own risk. |
Well, even a girl scout can do a called shot to the 'nads.
| QUOTE (OurTeam) | ||
Hmmm. You must be reading something in my reply that wasn't there. No where did I say your interpretation was against the "core rules", because I knew already that it strictly followed those rules. |
Sorry, I was referring to A Clockwork Lime's comment about core rules, I should have excluded you from that statement.
| QUOTE (OurTeam) | ||
Here's my comment again:
I'm not trying to impinge on your intelligence, and I'm sorry if it seems that way. |
Not at all.
I suppose the other aspect of my argument is that there isn't a hardwired concept of seceded and failed rolls in the rules. Many of them are Record numbers, Apply function, Resulting number alters the game world in some way. Others simply tell you to compare the number of successes to a table where 0 successes is a listed result.
Another way to look at is that the melee combat roll is a roll for trying to hit *well*. The situation also gives a slight advantage to melee fighters with higher reflexes which I think is OK (indeed, I think initiative should play a larger part in melee combat).
I suppose the other aspect of my argument is that there isn't a hardwired concept of seceded and failed rolls in the rules. Many of them are Record numbers, Apply function, Resulting number alters the game world in some way. Others simply tell you to compare the number of successes to a table where 0 successes is a listed result.
Another way to look at is that the melee combat roll is a roll for trying to hit *well*. The situation also gives a slight advantage to melee fighters with higher reflexes which I think is OK (indeed, I think initiative should play a larger part in melee combat).
| QUOTE (OurTeam) |
| If you want to follow the "core rules" exactly, check out the Power Focus on p. 190. If you take physical damage from spellcasting drain or sorcery drain, then you take both physical and stun damage. Nice canon, eh? |
Yes, I too noticed that little artifact and thought it to be correct for a while. I think I brought it up in the shapeshifter/regeneration debaits but I have no idea what the final conclusion was... I'll check through the past posts at some point...
ShadowPhoenix: I would suggest that you offer a false dichotomy by stating that the rules in the section are null and void. As I have said before almost every rule in the book states explicitly what happens if 0 successes are scored. If someone attempts to run fast using Athletics and scores no successes, then does that mean they fail to run? Well: Maybe if they score all 1s, but that's another matter entierly. I too would agree that if both parties in melee rolled all 1s then neither of them would hit eachother. I might even have them make friends
ShadowPhoenix: I would suggest that you offer a false dichotomy by stating that the rules in the section are null and void. As I have said before almost every rule in the book states explicitly what happens if 0 successes are scored. If someone attempts to run fast using Athletics and scores no successes, then does that mean they fail to run? Well: Maybe if they score all 1s, but that's another matter entierly. I too would agree that if both parties in melee rolled all 1s then neither of them would hit eachother. I might even have them make friends
| QUOTE |
| If someone attempts to run fast using Athletics and scores no successes, then does that mean they fail to run? |
It means that they fail to run fast.
They don't need to roll anything in order to run, they're only rolling to increase their speed beyond what an untrained runner could do.
In the same way, failing to score any successes in a melee contest doesn't mean that they stopped fighting, it just means [IMO] that they're fighting ineffectively
| QUOTE (Jaded) |
| Well Lilt... It's hard to 'discuss' something with someone who's argument consisists of "The book doesn't say I can't do it". It is an 'exploit'. The girl scout thing is also clearly an exploit. |
Not quite. I say that it is possible because there are rules in the book that allow it (noting the number of successes for both parties, the attacker wins in the case of a tie) and there is nothing in the book that disallows it.
I have to say that Lilt is correct to state that my null and void statement was false, there are instances that are crystal in the book regarding target numbers, it is not clearly consistant in the using skills section however it is very crystal in the ranged combat section.
However I would like to assert that the idea that sucesses = <1 doing anything but being ineffective is lunacy, and the fact that this loophole does indeed exist in the rules shows that more errata should be documented by Fanpro, unless it is already there. I think I'll check it out, and if it's not there, then I'll submit it.
Lilt, your argument is strong, but I think the logic that 2 non-succeeding individuals are a success tie and deserve the attacker to still hit is false, and they should do nothing but look like a jackie chan fight, lots of fists flying, a lot of dodging and weaving and blocking, but neither is doing anything but getting tired.
but I still think for this instance you are correct, and until fanpro otherwise says so, it's CANON
However I would like to assert that the idea that sucesses = <1 doing anything but being ineffective is lunacy, and the fact that this loophole does indeed exist in the rules shows that more errata should be documented by Fanpro, unless it is already there. I think I'll check it out, and if it's not there, then I'll submit it.
Lilt, your argument is strong, but I think the logic that 2 non-succeeding individuals are a success tie and deserve the attacker to still hit is false, and they should do nothing but look like a jackie chan fight, lots of fists flying, a lot of dodging and weaving and blocking, but neither is doing anything but getting tired.
but I still think for this instance you are correct, and until fanpro otherwise says so, it's CANON
My players will be very excited to realize that failing to make the TN is no longer a failure -- it's just an ambiguous state of unknown level of success by canon. Since we don't really know what happens when we don't make the TN, maybe we should just roll again until we get to a more defined scenario. I think everyone would feel good about that. Then we could hug.
--K
I think everyone would feel good about that. Then we could hug.--K
I just pinged Fanpro for some answers on this, when I get them I'll post em 
One more instance where the ignoring attackers might come up.
Lets say I cast an illusion of 4 trolls about to attack you in addition to my physad friend.
now, if you believe those 4 trolls, then fine, you are diverting your attention amongst several people, i.e. friends in melee.
but lets say you have some cause to know they're not real, your mage told you over radio, or you saw one do something impossible (step through a parking meter or something) then you know to ignore them as they're just illusions.
should you be able to ignore them then? or would the physad still get FIM mods?
Lets say I cast an illusion of 4 trolls about to attack you in addition to my physad friend.
now, if you believe those 4 trolls, then fine, you are diverting your attention amongst several people, i.e. friends in melee.
but lets say you have some cause to know they're not real, your mage told you over radio, or you saw one do something impossible (step through a parking meter or something) then you know to ignore them as they're just illusions.
should you be able to ignore them then? or would the physad still get FIM mods?
Sheesh. No need to ping FanPro. Isn't it clear that rolling zero successes means the character failed to accomplish whatever they set out to do? That's what the writer's intended when they called it a "Success Test". It is implicit in the name that the other outcome is failure. Besides the normal failure, we also have a special "rule-of-one" disaster.
I claim that the writers' intent is that the outcome of a regular test is one of the following: success, simple failure, and rule-of-one disaster. Do not the following three passages lead you to belive this was in the mind of the writers:
I claim that the writers' intent is that the outcome of a regular test is one of the following: success, simple failure, and rule-of-one disaster. Do not the following three passages lead you to belive this was in the mind of the writers:
| QUOTE (Rule of One p. 38) |
| Any time a die roll result comes up 1 in a test, that die is an automatic failure, no matter what the target number. But the test can still succeed as long as other dice succeed. |
and
| QUOTE (Success Tests p. 39) |
| A single success indicates that the character has accomplished the task, but the more successes rolled, the better. |
and
| QUOTE (Avoiding an Oops p. 246) |
| Karma [pool] can help characters avoid the worst consequences of the Rule of One. ... Paying 1 point of Karma [pool] does not allow a re-roll but does turn the disaster into a simple failure... |
Hence my "you're just being a dumbass" comment above. Which I still stand firmly behind, as it's well deserved for anyone who even thinks about accepting that it's a valid reading of the rules.
I just got my reply back from Rob Boyle over at Fanpro,
| QUOTE (Rob Boyle) |
No, if the attacker fails to get any successes, then he's missed, regardless of how many successes the defender gets. |
end of discussion.
@OurTeam: I don't believe you are the judge of what the writers intended. Unless you are one oof the writers of that section; I could just as easily say that their intention was to call it a success test as it tests the number of successes you score (and 0 is a number).
If the writer really did want to classify tests into explicit categories for all cases then it probably would have been stated explicitly somewhere rather than vaguely implied through 3 quotes each from different headings, even chapters, of the book. Also: If it really was the way the writers were thinking about it then why is it defined that no successes are a miss under the ranged combat section (amongst many others) but the under the melee combat section the mechanics given allow a 0-success attacker to hit his opponent?
Even if it was the writer's intent for 0 successes to be a complete failure, I doubt it was the writer's intent to allow a bunch of girlscouts to beat-up a melee master, even though it's possible within the system. If you take into account writer's oppinion for the 0vs0 successes then how-come it's still canon that a group of pointlessly weak fighters can still beat-up a big fish?
The "0vs0=attacker wins" reading even makes some sense when compared to RL. Consider that you can normally hit someone without much troubble. Indeed I hit people back when I was untrained and my strength would only have been around 1-2. I still managed to hit people within a period of 3 seconds without much troubble.
[edit] Well rob has spoken, as I juspected he might. Does anyone know his oppinion on the girlscouts vs adept question (or astral weenie) question is? [/edit]
If the writer really did want to classify tests into explicit categories for all cases then it probably would have been stated explicitly somewhere rather than vaguely implied through 3 quotes each from different headings, even chapters, of the book. Also: If it really was the way the writers were thinking about it then why is it defined that no successes are a miss under the ranged combat section (amongst many others) but the under the melee combat section the mechanics given allow a 0-success attacker to hit his opponent?
Even if it was the writer's intent for 0 successes to be a complete failure, I doubt it was the writer's intent to allow a bunch of girlscouts to beat-up a melee master, even though it's possible within the system. If you take into account writer's oppinion for the 0vs0 successes then how-come it's still canon that a group of pointlessly weak fighters can still beat-up a big fish?
The "0vs0=attacker wins" reading even makes some sense when compared to RL. Consider that you can normally hit someone without much troubble. Indeed I hit people back when I was untrained and my strength would only have been around 1-2. I still managed to hit people within a period of 3 seconds without much troubble.
[edit] Well rob has spoken, as I juspected he might. Does anyone know his oppinion on the girlscouts vs adept question (or astral weenie) question is? [/edit]
| QUOTE (ShadowPhoenix) |
| I just pinged Fanpro for some answers on this, when I get them I'll post em |
Heh, if anything don't ping fanpro, do a tracert on them, then you can at least see what the status is and where the message went
| QUOTE (Lilt @ Mar 22 2004, 03:56 PM) |
| @OurTeam: I don't believe you are the judge of what the writers intended. |
It is the job of every reader to try to understand the intent of the writer. You should do it, everyone should do it. It is my job, as a reader, to attempt to determine what the writers were trying to say. This forum provides a great place for us to discuss the different understanding we, as different people, come to in reading the books, and the ways these canon rules work for us in our different campaigns. I have every right to judge the writers' intentions, and to share and discuss my interpretations with others.
Point taken about my wording, though my point still stood. You can's simply say that the writer intended something, but your oppinion is fine.
About the 5 skill 1 girl scouts vs. a skill 6 fighter... I don't think that's so unrealistic for the little people to win. I mean, the real-life issue with girl scouts isn't their low skill or their low strength, but their low professional rating (they tend to run home and cry if they get a Light wound). But if those 5 girl scouts were willing to fight like their life depended on it, I'm sure they could mob someone (assuming the fighter didn't use any tactics or maneuvers).
You can laugh at it because you assume you can soak the damage ("How hard can a little girl hit, anyway?") Give the 5 girl scouts sharp knives, even while their skill and strength remains at 1, and I think any fighter or martial artist would agree that he's going to get badly cut (if only from the waist down) if he gets surrounded.
--K
You can laugh at it because you assume you can soak the damage ("How hard can a little girl hit, anyway?") Give the 5 girl scouts sharp knives, even while their skill and strength remains at 1, and I think any fighter or martial artist would agree that he's going to get badly cut (if only from the waist down) if he gets surrounded.
--K
Ourteam: I also encountered a similar problem to what you describe. I got around it a different way, however. First of all, I allow a mage to summon force 2, 1 hour watchers automatically, no roll required or drain imposed. Second, I restricted Friends in Melee to those already engaged. If the watchers jumped the spirit individually, they'd get popped individually, and friends in melee would never be brought into play.
I also started bringing in opposition mages with Spiritball, and I started enforcing the astral barrier rules. A Force 2 Watcher attack pack isn't going to make it through an astral barrier of any size, and once the mage got through, unless he was extremely careful, he wouldn't have the time to summon watchers.
Additionally, I required watchers to be commanded to fight; and I emphasized the fact that they fight stupidly. The enemy's spirit squad would typically lead with another watcher, which all the PC's watchers would attack, completely ignoring the big spirit coming up.
Finally, when I ran into a big mess like the ones you describe, I simply went for the quick-and-dirty-rules, where force negates force. If one side has 10 force-2 watchers, and the other side has 9, the first side will end up with just one watcher; no rolls required. (This is an actual rule in MITS, only slightly adapted.)
Tactics and compromise are the best way of dealing with this sort of situations.
I also started bringing in opposition mages with Spiritball, and I started enforcing the astral barrier rules. A Force 2 Watcher attack pack isn't going to make it through an astral barrier of any size, and once the mage got through, unless he was extremely careful, he wouldn't have the time to summon watchers.
Additionally, I required watchers to be commanded to fight; and I emphasized the fact that they fight stupidly. The enemy's spirit squad would typically lead with another watcher, which all the PC's watchers would attack, completely ignoring the big spirit coming up.
Finally, when I ran into a big mess like the ones you describe, I simply went for the quick-and-dirty-rules, where force negates force. If one side has 10 force-2 watchers, and the other side has 9, the first side will end up with just one watcher; no rolls required. (This is an actual rule in MITS, only slightly adapted.)
Tactics and compromise are the best way of dealing with this sort of situations.
| QUOTE (Lilt) |
| @OurTeam: I don't believe you are the judge of what the writers intended. Unless you are one oof the writers of that section; I could just as easily say that their intention was to call it a success test as it tests the number of successes you score (and 0 is a number). |
Considering how often we depart from the writers intent around here, I don't think it matters at all that the writers almost certainly didn't intend this. Conjurers who learn sorcery is just about as dumb as this is, but people still do it.
I'm still impressed with your interpretation and amazed that noone can come up with anything concrete to invalidate it.
Thankyou. Although I'm pretty sure there is nothing to invalidate it, I'll accept Rob's reading (and, for that matter, what appears to be public oppinion on this matter) differs from my own.
I'm not sure what I'd do if this came-up in play. If the attacker was a character/spirit going against many weenies then I think I would allow it. I have no idea how else it could regularly happen, as most people who go into melee roll full skill + combat pool (+ adept improved ability + karma rerolls if they must) making 0 successes on both sides very, very, unlikely until you hit insane TNs.
I'm not sure what I'd do if this came-up in play. If the attacker was a character/spirit going against many weenies then I think I would allow it. I have no idea how else it could regularly happen, as most people who go into melee roll full skill + combat pool (+ adept improved ability + karma rerolls if they must) making 0 successes on both sides very, very, unlikely until you hit insane TNs.
| QUOTE (Apathy) |
| Does anyone have suggestions for how to counter this other than responding in kind? |
It's already been countered.
By boredom.
I know I'M not doing it again, even if it did work really well.
| QUOTE |
| It's already been countered. By boredom. I know I'M not doing it again, even if it did work really well. |
Maybe going forward, I'll just abstract it out: Sum up all the spirit force from each side, and the higher number wins.
>>>>>>>>Force 5 spirit fights 3 force 2 spirits ---> 6-5 = 1
>>>>>>>>Result: the force 5 is popped, along with 2 of the three force 2s. Last weenie is half gone (5 boxes damage).
Then we can have it out of the way in no time flat, and move on to more significant things.
What do you think TB?
I think that my character can easily summon 22-24 force of spirits (6 force three watchers plus one force four to six nature spirit) without breaking a sweat.
We can work out something, though, I am sure.
We can work out something, though, I am sure.
| QUOTE |
| I think that my character can easily summon 22-24 force of spirits |
A lot more than that if you put em on remote service...
*Sky Domain* Summon F4 Wind Spirit "Go attack those bad guys"
*Switch to City Domain* Summon F4 City Spirit, etc.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.