Hi everyone! Hi Bill!
It's been some time since I wrote something significant on this forum but I've been reading new posts ever since. Recently, I've toyed with V2 and I just started a small SF game with a modified version of it. (No, it's not Neb, sorry...) I could (and probably will) give you details about my version of V2 in another post, but I wanted to discuss the official view a something I found... problematic in this new incarnation of Iridium.
The new system being % roll-under only, it uses defense as a penalty to the weapon use skill roll. It came to my attention that, this way, someone with no weapon use skill whatsoever could not hit an opponent without a critical hit. Since unskilled % chance is 20 and an average person's defense should be about 20... zip! Of course, I'm aware that bonuses from attritutes could alter these chances, but I'm trying to figure out a really basic, average people fight.
The old system was really more permissive in this instance. Unskilled average vs. Unskilled average would have a 50% chance hiting his target, since the average def is 10.
So.. To sum up :
- V1 : 50% chance to hit when two Joe Average fight in a bar.
- V2 : 05% in the same situation.
That's quite a leap. Granted, the problem only arises when the situation is exactly as I describe it, because with skilled fighters, it works great. But this issue is bugging me nonetheless.
Any thoughts? Suggestions?
First off, glad to see a post from you again skynet!! Feedback is always welcome.
Second, this is a point some play testers have mentioned and work around. So, some of their ideas.Unarmed Combat is different
Everyone receives one unarmed combat. Why? Because fighting is an instinct. This raises the unarmed combat to 40. It still only offers a 20% base but you get an additional attack.
My view. This has merit. In V1 it has precedent as Unarmed worked a bit different there as well. Normally, you receive a -8 for being unskilled in a weapon but with unarmed there was no mod since you did not use a weapon. So, in this way, we represent and even model the idea that a race or culture may receive free weapon skills. It is not outside reason to say humans receive one unarmed (or anyone) as a starting skill.Defense does not apply
In unarmed combat, since it is close quarters and involves a lot of grappling, Defense does not apply. Blocking/parrying would and this would be the active defense.
My view. I am of mixed opinion on this. It is a logical answer but could unbalance combat. Why wouldn't you always take massive unarmed combat? I could see altering the UA tables so that UA does less damage. Possibly say UA does not affect armor but then you get into exception and I would prefer to avoid that. Still, I do think the idea has merit.UA is a fixed chance
The skill gives you bonuses (ex. +5% per rank) to a base chance, say 40%. Defense is not factored in. More skills do not contribute as much to hit as they increase damage and number of att and maneuvers.
My view. I don't know about this. It combines 1 and 2 somewhat but I am not thrilled about the exception. I open to being convinced.
This great and the type of thing I would love to here more on.
Some other points related to defense from play testers expressed that it may be too tightly bound. That is to say, there is not enough range tot he Defense value. They found a lot of characters end up in the 40-45% range. Thoughts?