Its an ambush vs. perception skill check which includes a heavy level vs. level modifier. I believe the level penalties kick in at like level with 1x training and 5 levels above with 2x training but that might be a misplaced assumption that it works like TWC.

UAC is a whole different game. Pushdown probably works much the same on UDF and it does on DS, but crit calculation is a different method (and not well understood by players even in the absence of weighting, let alone from ambush).

>The first attack usually sees them with a UDF that is significantly better than my UAF, with decent improvement on the second ambush

Warriors start in defensive but will normally stance themselves on their first action. I've only hunted them from the open (I went through those levels in Kenstroms temporary areas with my UAC rogue) and my normal tactic was to give them an action to get them to stance themselves. If a critter has stanced itself in between your two attacks, you'll see a higher UDF the first time as a result of imperfect pushdown, but pushdown will be irrelevant to the second because its already in offensive. There's also going to be a bias because of not needing a second attack when the first one is good enough so the times you make two attacks will be preferentially with poorer rolls on the initial attack. I see both these effects when hunting crawlers (103 base level) at cap.

If you want it in formula form, it looks something like this

ambush - perception + bonus +d100 = endroll

pushdown = endroll-100 capped at 0 and defender's stance

You have what you need to make an informed decision: "train in these skills/have high bonus in these stats." If you fail to do either of those, you can expect to do poorly.

What you do not currently have is every tiny exact detail required to determine the absolute best min/max training regimen to all levels of the game, to squeeze every last scintilla of benefit from training points, rounding, et cetera.

Generally speaking--since "the mechanics of the game" is pretty much how the company's livelihood is made--I think that we are damn lucky to get anything out of them beyond what I said above: "This is what affects it." I am quite pleased when they break it down further (X contributes more than Y affects it more than Z), and pretty much any time they give an exact formula then it's Miller Time.

But if they choose to keep some things secret, that's their prerogative.

>>You have what you need to make an informed decision: "train in these skills/have high bonus in these stats." If you fail to do either of those, you can expect to do poorly.

Saying "train X skill, have Y stats" is not information without knowing the degree it affects the outcome. Thinking that's an informed decision is, at best, deliberate ignorance.

Do I train from 10 to 20 ranks?
Do I train from 20 to 30 ranks?
Do I train from 30 to 40 ranks?
Do I train from X to Y ranks?
Do I stop at 40 ranks? Is it skill based?
Are the stats included at a 1:1 ratio as ranks? Or is it skills?
Is the bonus linear? logarithmic? step-wise?
How does skill or ranks affect Crit Weighting?
How does the level disparity of attacker to defender affect Crit Weighting?
How does skill or ranks affect Stance Reduction?
How does the level disparity of attacker to defender affect Stance Reduction?
How do I evaluate all the above in accordance with skill costs?
What is the likelihood my character can hide effectively?
How do I weight the frequency chance of hiding with ambush skills costs?
Will this be an effective hunting method?
Will I have fun with this hunting method?
And on, and On, and on.

Does training in Ambush increase Stance Reduction? Yes.
Does training in Ambush increase Critical Weighting? Yes.

What if the degree to both is so small that it is effectively zero? True statements yielding nothing. Actually, worse than nothing because the Player would be wasting Training Points.

Is this example a Straw Man? Yes.

What if the degree to both is slight to moderate, but the level disparity reduces the yield to nothing?
What if the degree to both means the likelihood of Stance Reduction is very low? This would require an entirely different set of combat tatics as the Character would then need to ensure the target was in offensive before Hiding and Ambushing.

Again, these are questions the Player should be able to evaluate.

This is why it drives me insane when people say, "statistical significance" as if it's meaningful. People immediately think there's something there, that it's noteworthy. But you can manufacture statistical significance easily, the more important question generally is, what was the effect size? Or more plainly to what degree was the relationship?

Characters have a finite number of Training Points per level. We absolutely should be able to evaluate the effects of those training points.

>>What you do not currently have is every tiny exact detail required to determine the absolute best min/max training regimen to all levels of the game, to squeeze every last scintilla of benefit from training points, rounding, et cetera.

True.

Although, you make it sound like evaluating data is a bad thing. Care to elaborate as to why you think the Player should not be making informed decisions, be it to min/max or simply to choose an effective hunting method? I would love to hear your thoughts on the matter. Honestly.

>>Generally speaking--since "the mechanics of the game" is pretty much how the company's livelihood is made--...

No. Not even close. What in the hell?

The livelihood resides in the framework that executes all the patchwork pieces of code. The expression of such into natural language for players is in no way damaging their IP. If you honestly thought that, then no RPG, Tabletop, Boardgame, etc. would publish the mechanics for fear of losing their livelihood. Can you imagine trying to play DnD, Deadlands, GURPS, Palladium, etc. and not knowing how to improve your combat skills other than, "more is better" but the degree to which you'll never know! This expression of mechanics is exactly what allows players to evaluate the game mechanics, and the game overall.

>>...I think that we are damn lucky to get anything out of them beyond what I said above: "This is what affects it." I am quite pleased when they break it down further (X contributes more than Y affects it more than Z), and pretty much any time they give an exact formula then it's Miller Time.

This is deeply troubling. To even think we would be lucky to have baseline documentation of mechanics is problematic.

>>But if they choose to keep some things secret, that's their prerogative.

It sure is!

Just think how super fun it would be to play a current generation MOBA if all the stat ratios were removed from all the champion abilities. Then go further and remove the degree to which each item improves each stat, only leaving that the item is an AP, AD, etc. item. How lucky we are to know that an AD item affects the my abilities by an unknown amount! What a time to be alive!

Keeping combat mechanics secret is their decision, but revealing that information hurts no one and certainly not Simutronics.

>> attempting to Straw Man.<

Time to Die, Straw Man! ::sets Scarecrow on fire::

>>your phenomenological experience should in no way restrict Players from being presented with information.<

Never said it did, and I am aware that a number of players get off on deriving formulas. Different strokes and all that. That doesn't mean Simu has an obligation to provide such data, however. There are a number of MMORPGs around; can't think of any that provide precise formulas. (Never played WoW, however; does that provide such information? Can't recall ever hearing whether it did or not).

What about regular computer games? Very few of those provide exact formulas either.


"So, what does that green line on the graph represent?"
"Oh, that's the projection of a hypothetical offspring from a union between Sauron and Cruella de Ville; we use that as a baseline for determining character alignment."

>>Never said it did, and I am aware that a number of players get off on deriving formulas. Different strokes and all that.

Right, right. I'm fully aware people play the game for different reasons and derive enjoyment differently from different aspects of the game. As you can probably infer from my posts, I'm a mechanics nut through, and through. I simply generally stopped RPing around '98 when most of my good friends stopped playing and stopped entirely around 2003 when nearly all left. Quite frankly, the only reason I hung around or came back was because of the community provided by PsiNet then Lich.

>>That doesn't mean Simu has an obligation to provide such data, however.

I never said they had an obligation to provide the data. I'm saying it's objectively bad policy not to provide the data.

I take my cues from I/O Psych research. There's quite a bit of it demonstrating the negative effects caused by the parent organization restricting information whether it be from its clients (i.e., player base) or own employees. It's a breeding ground for frustration, hostility, negative attitudes, etc. It's certainly not entirely applicable to this situation, but generally the restriction of information almost always leads to a bad outcome.

Empowering the player base to make data driven decisions is a near universal positive and simply does not hurt the brand. Obvious exceptions exist: the Coca-Cola Formula!

>>There are a number of MMORPGs around; can't think of any that provide precise formulas. (Never played WoW, however; does that provide such information? Can't recall ever hearing whether it did or not)

>>What about regular computer games? Very few of those provide exact formulas either.

It's less and less the case these days. It comes down to the labor cost of organizing, documenting, deploying, maintenance, support, etc. I really do feel for the employees of Simu. Most work for a fraction of what they would earn elsewhere for their time and do so with near constant pestering from players, myself included.

I'm not sure what you mean by "regular computer games" but most games these days do the calculation in-game and provide data "on hover" over an ability. For me, I'd say the most complex calculating from a game I've played is Diablo III with the crazy number of multipliers to your damage you can achieve. Again, most of that is all pre-computed for the player so the player can quickly answer the general question of is this better or worse? Obvious exceptions exist. The enjoyment derived from those types of games is typically one of discovery and the discovery does not have an opportunity cost but instead provides a means of progression.

I am similarly torn. At heart I am absolutely a numbers guy when it comes to making my characters. I actually saved and have reread "a statistical sorcerer's guide" long after all of the systems were changed and the numbers were useless, only because I enjoy the number crunching. On the other hand, being given the "hidden" rolls sort of robs a little bit of the magic. No real conclusion on if it is better or worse, just thoughts.

AIM: GS4Menos

>Like men we'll face the murderous, cowardly pack,
>Pressed to the wall, dying, but fighting back!

>I am similarly torn. At heart I am absolutely a numbers guy when it comes to making my characters.

I don't have the numbers to allow me to buy a character up at level 75 and train it to ambush efficiently. I do have the mechanics information to play a character from level 0-74 and have it efficiently trained at level 75. I prefer that SIMU leaves it the way it is and that those who have actually played from level 0-74 have an advantage from their accumulated experience that isn't available to someone that buys a level 75 character with no prior experience of the style.

I read it slightly differently.

The present mechanisms favor experience over knowledge. The example used was the purchasing a character that one didn't have experience with. But I took that only to be an example. Others may apply, as well.

Changing it would put knowledge on a more even footing - making it easier for those without direct experience to be on par with those who worked to get there.

At least, that's how I took it.

Doug

>>If it were me formulating such a response to such a request - I'd find a way to provide 'cheater codes' of some type that would preserve these two different types of players' enjoyment. After all, that's what it's all about. --Doug

No one is forcing you to read, understand, apply, or evaluate the data. You are at no risk or having the mystery spoiled. Can we as a community agree on this truth? There is no argument here. That's how information works? If you don't want it, don't consume it. You lose nothing, but those desiring it gain understanding. It also makes the game more accessible to new players.

>>However, I will also point out (as only The Devil's Advocate can) that there are quite a few data points demonstrating the negative effects caused by a parent organization who too transparently and openly shares information whether it be from its clients (i.e., player base) or own employees. This creates a breeding ground for disdain, aloofness, hostility, negative attitudes, etc. While not entirely applicable in this situation, and happily somewhat offset by the teased solution, one might - should one be so disposed - aphoristically declare that generally total transparency and open sharing of all information almost always leads to a bad outcome. --Doug

That's a fun twist of words!

The implicit assumption is that near universal positive would preclude illegal activity. So, I'll assume you were making a joke. However, if you weren't then, the literature overwhelmingly disagrees with you so much so that suggesting otherwise would be simply ignorant of Industrial and Organizational Psychology; the Devil should seek new counsel it would seem. For goodness sake, advanced degrees in I/O Psych almost always (I simply don't know all the degree offerings hence the qualification) require coursework which includes Accountability and Transparency (usually lumped together) as required coursework.

>>My biggest worry is that you will see even more cookie cutter characters as more and more min/max. --DMWCINCY

Thank you!

If everyone chooses a singular path for a profession, then the profession, itself, lacks diversity. This type of evaluation and consequentially exposing a flaw of the game design is exactly what cannot be done if the players are not given the requisite information.

>>You dont need a perfectly built character to be effective. --DMWCINCY

True. Although, I'm not at all sure what argument you're addressing; it absolutely isn't the one being discussed. Red Herring.

>>I don't have the numbers to allow me to buy a character up at level 75 and train it to ambush efficiently. I do have the mechanics information to play a character from level 0-74 and have it efficiently trained at level 75. I prefer that SIMU leaves it the way it is and that those who have actually played from level 0-74 have an advantage from their accumulated experience that isn't available to someone that buys a level 75 character with no prior experience of the style. --Ratherboner

This is such an incredibly bad argument. Well, it is not even an argument. You haven't actually stated why experience should be more highly prized than knowledge. This is an ego-driven statement that smacks of petty selfishness. It also has the byproduct of unnecessarily punishing new players. I'd also like to take the time to ask you directly as it relates to Ambushing, what exactly has your experience provided you that hasn't already been stated publicly before and captured by the wiki. Furthermore, how have you quantified said knowledge? If you're unable to share, then I guess we can see how this line of reasoning plays itself out, and if you're unwilling to share, then quite frankly, good day sir.

>>However, if you weren't then, the literature overwhelmingly disagrees with you so much so that suggesting otherwise would be simply ignorant of Industrial and Organizational Psychology; the Devil should seek new counsel it would seem.

An interesting rejoinder. Sadly, and this has held true for all my time here and beyond - academic research pales in the face of practical experiential reality. It is interesting to me, as I'm usually the one advocating for a broader circle and greater transparency driving greater accountability. To extremes, to hear my peers describe my general position.

And yet, even I know that transparency is only a facet - one small part - of any organization's health and vitality. Even, regrettably, a far distant 3rd place (or worse). So, come out of the classroom and join me a moment. . .

You state that it would be a good thing to 'prove' through research (players over periods of time selecting a course of action leading to a demonstration of lack of diversity in a profession). The very proposition does not account for the fundamental facet of role-playing. The player selects a profession that is governed by a list of rules for the profession - in our case here, things easily achieved, things difficult to achieve and things that could only be accomplished by the very luck of the gods (love open ended rolls, don't you?) And most importantly, please note this carefully, it is a closed list of rules, finite in expression, and not intended to be subject to swift tailoring and change to increase inclusion or benefit of those fundamental 'difficult' and 'nearly impossible' paths. These define, by their very nature, the profession.

Now, keep in mind, this is purely The Devil's Advocate position - however, fundamentally I return to the key portion of my position. . .

Find a creative and useful way to fulfill both desires.

Sadly, just 'ignoring' won't work. I suppose the next question to be 'why?' The answer is as simple as the practical application of one of the stated 'desires' behind the request. The information will become 'normative', meaning that if a player chooses not to 'know', it will take on the flavor of 'you chose to remain ignorant, so don't expect any benefits'.

As to which position should win? As the consumer, of course I want my perspective to prevail. As a good community member, I can hope (and see every day) some information is released, selectively, to solve for the deeper concerns while maintaining the mystery. After all, if all we want to do is figure the best of all options to a particular path, I would submit comparative analytics coursework would be more personally fulfilling and ultimately more rewarding - at least in the marketplace.

It's just not something I wish here. I enjoy the game, not the analysis. I respect your right to enjoy the analysis first. Don't ask me to abrogate my perspective, though.

Doug

>>And yet, even I know that transparency is only a facet - one small part - of any organization's health and vitality. Even, regrettably, a far distant 3rd place (or worse).

The hierarchical priority of organizational traits isn't being argued. Red Herring.

>>So, come out of the classroom and join me a moment. . .

All of I/O Pysch comes directly from evaluating reality. You don't have theoretical organizations. It really took off in the 80s when American car manufacturers were wondering how and why the Japanese were kicking ass in the marketplace. That's why most I/O psych programs require extensive internships and employ case studies as the primary mode of understanding. To Study I/O Psych is to be outside the classroom, thinking otherwise is simply wrong.

>>You state that it would be a good thing to 'prove' through research (players over periods of time selecting a course of action leading to a demonstration of lack of diversity in a profession). The very proposition does not account for the fundamental facet of role-playing. The player selects a profession that is governed by a list of rules for the profession - in our case here, things easily achieved, things difficult to achieve and things that could only be accomplished by the very luck of the gods (love open ended rolls, don't you?) And most importantly, please note this carefully, it is a closed list of rules, finite in expression, and not intended to be subject to swift tailoring and change to increase inclusion or benefit of those fundamental 'difficult' and 'nearly impossible' paths. These define, by their very nature, the profession.

You've manufactured a False Dilemma; intra-profession diversity is not odds with role-playing as defined by your description of easy to impossible to achieve things. Intra-profession diversity can be achieved while still honoring archetypes, or build paths if you will, without allowing each profession to bleed over into another such that the archetype loses its distinct flavor. Let's take an example of a class that has at least some build diversity: Bards. You can build a magical bard or physical bard. Within the physical bard domain, the most common build paths include Polearms, Archery, or OHE. Going further, a Bard might attempt to train 1x in Ambushing, using Tonis, move a room away, hide, sneak into room, and Ambush the creature. Would they have the same effectiveness as Rogues? No. Would it be a possible build path? Yes. But let the player base at least evaluate the build path. This is absolutely inline with your definition of role-play as governed by the profession. Additionally, the only truly profession-defining abilities are professional spell circles (which can be circumvented!), exclusive CMans, and a smattering of other abilities (e.g., Sacrifice).

Nearly all of the 'rules' that you advocate for are governed by skill costs which are static. I never once advocated for adjusting skill costs. I asked for the Ambushing formula to evaluate whether I should continue training in Ambushing. I currently have 20 ranks of Ambushing, I want to know if I should train up to 1x (78 ranks) or stop at 40. The argument of easy to impossible to achieve things has no bearing on giving the player base information about formulas because, again, skill costs are static. If all players of a profession all choose a singular build, then it could be said that the profession lacks diversity. However, this could be the cause of mere popularity as opposed to a fundamentally well researched answer. Paladins and Monks suffer greatly by a lack of build diversity; there is room to expand the build diversity while keeping the archetype.

>>Sadly, just 'ignoring' won't work. I suppose the next question to be 'why?' The answer is as simple as the practical application of one of the stated 'desires' behind the request. The information will become 'normative', meaning that if a player chooses not to 'know', it will take on the flavor of 'you chose to remain ignorant, so don't expect any benefits'.

This is another False Dilemma. Surely you see that! Also, why would the mere opinion of others influence the decision? That, there, is some weak conviction, Pardner. If the Player is worried about the label, then that's another issue altogether. But more to the point, regardless of ignorance or the opinion of another Player, the Character will still see the benefits of training. Indeed, we're actually in this state right now. A person might not want to read the review of a movie because they want to experience it without it being spoiled. Some would say that's foolish, but, hey, that's just like, your opinion, man.

>>As to which position should win? As the consumer, of course I want my perspective to prevail. As a good community member, I can hope (and see every day) some information is released, selectively, to solve for the deeper concerns while maintaining the mystery. After all, if all we want to do is figure the best of all options to a particular path, I would submit comparative analytics coursework would be more personally fulfilling and ultimately more rewarding - at least in the marketplace.

As we've already demonstrated above, we can and should have the information. You can still choose to ignore it; your answer to why you cannot is an external ego-driven non sequitur; you'll still see the benefit regardless. It just simply is not applicable. Who cares if you want to remain ignorant? That's your right.

>>It's just not something I wish here. I enjoy the game, not the analysis. I respect your right to enjoy the analysis first. Don't ask me to abrogate my perspective, though.

No one is disregarding your perspective. What has been demonstrated is that you haven't actually argued successfully to defend your perspective. I can have the information and you can have the mystery.

>>I'm not sure we're communicating on the same level if you're only defending by labels of 'red herring', 'false dilemma' and 'derring-do'. I fully appreciate the correction of taking non-class-room perspectives (like case studies!) to the field.

I provided explanation before or after the identification of your logical fallacies. If you want me to explain them to you in greater detail, that's perfectly acceptable.

>>I want to set aside all obfuscating discussion points for the nonce.

Then please stop introducing them.

>>What I do not support or condone is a blanket 'all formulae should be known by the player base to evaluate every nuance'. That position is what drove my response in this thread. That's the tone I took away in the way the request was positioned, and while I admit I may have misplaced that tone initially, I'm fairly sure I'm justified in perceiving that tone from these explanations. Still, it isn't possible to see the smile you've put on my face as we bounce this around. . . nor for me to see your non-verbal queues, so I'm not in a position to be 100% sure.

You're 100% right to interpret my argumentation that way because the player base should know all the particulars.

You may not "support or condone" such a statement, and that's fine. However, the support you've put forth for your position was unsuccessful. You can continue to hold your position, but know that you haven't successfully argued for the position. Going back many posts now, my position is that not releasing information to the player base of all the particulars is objectively bad policy. For each attempted attack of my position, I successfully defended. And, quite frankly, I'm surprised no one has pointed out what I think is the obvious weakness to the next step of my argument. That is to say, conceding to my position, would presenting all the particulars require too much human capital to properly implement? That's really the crux of the argument. Not the failed attacks: (1) spoiled mystery [not true], (2) experience > knowledge [undeveloped], (3) fear of labels [appeal to emotion], (4) opacity > transparency [not true], (5) financial damage to Simutronics [not true], or (6) limited information == informed decision [not true by definition]. The last point probably requires a little unpacking, but it is a product of language. That is to say, an informed decision requires all not some of the data otherwise you would have a qualified informed decision (e.g., "reasonably" informed decision, "poorly" informed decision).

Let me reiterate: Simutronics should release the all the particulars, which is my position. The more important question is could Simutronics release all the information by diverting limited human capital to deploy and maintain all the particulars?

At this point in the argument though, I hope it is clear to all the dear readers that Simutronics should release the information for all the particulars.

>>Why? What's in it for them?

I've already addressed this question in detail. Please read prior posts.

>>We know that arms are easier to hit than hands,

[Citation Needed]

That's the prevailing notion, but do we know unequivocally?

>>that heads are easier to hit than eyes or necks,

[Citation Needed]

That's the prevailing notion, but do we know unequivocally?

Are necks harder to hit than heads?

>>that the nervous system is impossible to target directly.

True.

>>We know that these stats and these skills make success more likely,

Do we know this unequivocally? Is there a cap? Location difficulty cannot be trained away thus implying the potential for overtraining. Does the stance reduction or critical weighting suffer similarly?

>>and we know that the size of the weapon affects it negatively.

[Citation Needed]

Do we know unequivocally?

How is size determined? By weight? By Base RT? On an individual weapon basis? In fact, the last piece of information says it is on an individual weapon basis and doesn't mention size explicitly, although implied: https://gswiki.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Ambush_saved_post

>>At 20th level, you probably saw identical results with someone 1xing.

How do we know Ambushing isn't implemented like Necromancy Lore rank for 711. Again, do we know this unequivocally?

.

You don't know these statements to be true, you believe these statements to be true. It's an important distinction.

>>Given that for the last half of the existence of the game we can now untrain skill ranks, those training points are never lost. Want to see if more ranks makes a difference? Get 10 more. Notice no change? Drop 'em again.

The training points aren't lost, but time is, and of course the skills you would have if not train in Ambushing. There's still an opportunity cost. Not only that, the Player has to then do hours and hours of rigorous research to actually prove benefit in this particular case. We all know how absolutely downright terrible people are at feeling there is a benefit when none exists. Even in your quotes above, you feel it is true but you don't know it is true. Additionally, what if there are confounding variables, what if status effects cause creatures to be more susceptible to Ambushing? What if there is a professional bonus like hiding? Now we're multiplying the number of hours needed to complete the research to rule out the possibility of professional bonuses.

>>Harking back to my own tabletop days of DMing, I have to be honest, my response would be, "That's good enough. Suck it up."

Then the rules lawyer of the group would take you to task over it since that type of information has always be available to the Player. You would lose that battle, friend. Combat mechanics have always been transparent to the player because they're always listed in the Player's Handbook or whatever the analog is for the system. The Player may not know the traits of creatures or the AC or whatever the Defense analog is for non-DnD games, but you bloody well know how your attacks work.

Also, please note that saying "Suck it up" is not support for an argument. BTW, I rolled a natural 20 on all my attacks and skill checks you'll just have to trust me on that, "Suck it up."

.

I'm also still waiting on an explanation why you think evaluating data is bad.

<please cite> -- Gargadon

Yes. Unequivocally.

GameMaster.2 (that's GM Cyper) told you specifically, back when the capability was first added.

See also: https://gswiki.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Ambush_saved_post

.

"I've already addressed this question in detail. Please read prior posts." -- ibid

Oh, I read 'em at the time. And I'm seeing all that you think you will get out of it.

I'm just curious how it helps the company, or the staff.

Hell, I'm even willing to agree that being able to plug every single node into a spreadsheet formula would be some degree of useful.

I just question the need of it.

>>Yes. Unequivocally.

Dude. Robert. Are you deliberately trolling me?

Unequivocally means: clear and unambiguous. I want that to sink in and really resonate with you.

One change, one addition:

Change: The way the Damage Severity Weighting is calculated has been changed. Previous system ranged from 0 to DW (Damage Weighting) dependent on the weapon's DF. Now it ranges from half DW to DW dependant on the weapon's DF. This will raise the adder for attacks from hiding or while invisible (assuming ambush training) and for damage weighted weapons.

==Addition: AMBUSH verb that permit aimed attacks.==

Adds 3 seconds to Round Time Calculations, prior to Truncation. Note, since RT's are truncated at 5 seconds on the low end for attack and ambush, aiming at a target may not always add 3 seconds to the Round Time the AMBUSH user sees.

Aim at any body part that can be injured, eyes, legs, hands, et cetera. Different areas have different difficulty modifiers when aimed at.

Each weapon type has an aiming modifier associated with it. The highest bonus is for daggers, the greatest penalty is for the lance.

Some size restrictions play a role, no halflings aiming shots at a golem's neck unless the golem is not standing.

Works exactly like ATTACK if no area on the target is specified for an aimed attack. This includes final Round Time evaluation.

Skill for melee aiming is one quarter ambush plus one quarter combat maneuvers.

Skill for aimed attack from hiding or invisiblity is half ambush skill.

Failed skill checks may result in no attack or an attack to a random area on the target. The 3 seconds is still added in the latter case and a 5 second Round Time is accessed for failed checks that result in no attack.

Currently Parry does not play a role in th[e] ability to target an area.

Damage weighted weapons are harder to aim with than non-damage weighted varities of the same weapon type.

Cyper

I already linked directly to that post because IT IS NOT CLEAR the degree to which the factors affect the outcomes whether they be aiming, stance reduction, or critical weighting. You're employing the logical fallacy of equivocation. Literally everything you said was unequivocally is, and let me reiterate, ABSOLUTELY NOT UNEQUIVOCALLY KNOWN. I want you to quote the precise line that says:

"We know that arms are easier to hit than hands, "
"that heads are easier to hit than eyes or necks,"
"and we know that the size of the weapon affects it negatively."

YOU. CAN. NOT.

It's not weapon size explicitly, it's weapon type explicitly. That means it would have to imply weapon size. If an implication is necessary, then statement is by definition NOT UNEQUIVOCALLY KNOWN.

>>Oh, I read 'em at the time. And I'm seeing all that you think you will get out of it.

Stop being deliberately obtuse. Among the many benefits I specifically spoke on: reducing confusion, making the game more accessible to new players, opening up build paths, and transitioning from all-to-often wrong conventional wisdom to fact (Droit's post reinforces this notion).

>>Actually... no. I categorically deny that the knowledge of how your attacks work has always been the province of the players.

P. 131-133 of PH Sorry for formatting :(

Surprise is determined by a die

roll and is normally checked at the

beginning of an encounter. Surprise is

very unpredictable, so there are very few

modifiers to the roll.

THAC0 is an acronym for "To

Hit Armor Class 0." This is the number a

character, NPC, or monster needs to

attack an Armor Class 0 target

successfully. THAC0 depends on a

character's group and level (see Table

53). The THAC0 number can be used to

calculate the number needed to hit any

Armor Class. THAC0 is refigured each

time a character increases in level. Using

THAC0 speeds the play of combat

greatly.

The Attack Roll

At the heart of the combat system

is the attack roll. This is the die roll that

determines whether an attack succeeds

or fails. The number a player needs in

order to make a successful attack roll is

also called the "to-hit" number.

Attack rolls are used for attacks

with swords, bows, rocks, and other

weapons, as well as blows from fists,

tackling, and other hand-to-hand attacks.

Attack rolls are also used to resolve a

variety of potentially injury-causing

actions that require accuracy (for

example, throwing a rock at a small

target or tossing a sword to a party

member in the middle of a fight).

Figuring the To-Hit

Number

The first step in making an attack

roll is to find the number needed to hit

the target. Subtract the Armor Class of

the target from the attacker's THAC0.

(Remember that if the Armor Class is a

negative number, you add it to the

attacker's THAC0.) The character has to

roll the resulting number, or higher, on

1d20 to hit the target.

Rath has reached 7th level as a

fighter. His THAC0 is 14 (found on

Table 53), meaning he needs to roll a 14

or better to hit a character or creature of

Armor Class 0. In combat, Rath,

attacking an orc wearing chainmail

armor (AC 6), needs to roll an 8 (14-

6=8) to hit the orc. An 8 or higher on

1d20 will hit the orc. If Rath hits, he

rolls the appropriate dice (see Table 44)

to determine how much damage he

inflicts.

The example above is quite

simple--in a typical AD&D game combat

situation, THAC0 is modified by weapon

bonuses, Strength bonuses, and the like

(the next section "Modifiers to the

Attack Roll," lists the specifics of these

modifiers). Figure Strength and weapon

modifiers, subtract the total from the

base THAC0, and record this modified

THAC0 with each weapon on the

character sheet. Subtract the target's

Armor Class from this modified THAC0

when determining the to-hit number.

Rath is still a 7th-level fighter.

He has a Strength of 18/80 (which gives

him a +2 bonus to his attack roll). He

fights with a long sword +1. His THAC0

is 14, modified to 12 by his Strength and

to 11 by his weapon. If attacking the orc

from the earlier example, Rath would

have to roll a 5 or higher on 1d20 in

order to hit (11-6=5). Again, table 44

would tell him how much damage he

inflicts with his weapon (this

information should also be written on

his character sheet).

The DM may also throw in

situational modifiers, (for example, a

bonus if the target is struck from behind,

or a penalty if the target is crouching

behind a boulder). If the final, modified

die roll on 1d20 is equal to or greater

than the number needed to hit the target,

the attack succeeds. If the roll is lower

than that needed, the attack fails.

Modifiers to the Attack

Roll

In combat, many factors can

modify the number a character needs for

a successful hit. These variables are

reflected in modifiers to the to-hit

number or to the attack roll.

Strength Modifiers: A

character's Strength can modify the die

roll, altering both the chance to hit and

the damage caused. This modifier is

always applied to melees and attacks

with hurled missile weapons (a spear or

an axe).

A positive Strength modifier can

be applied to bows if the character has a

special bow made for him, designed to

take advantage of his high Strength.

Characters with Strength penalties

always suffer them when using a bow

weapon. They simply are not able to

draw back the bowstring far enough.

Characters never have Strength

modifiers when using crossbows--the

power of the shot is imparted by a

machine, not the player character.

Magical items: The magical

properties of a weapon can also modify

combat. Items that impart a bonus to the

attack roll or Armor Class are identified

by a plus sign. For example, a sword +1

improves a character's chance to hit by

one. A suit of chain mail +1 improves

the Armor Class of the character by one

(which means you subtract one from the

character's AC, changing an AC of 5 to

an AC of 4, for example). Cursed items

have a negative modifier (a penalty),

resulting in a subtraction from the attack

roll or an addition to Armor Class.

There is no limit to the number of

modifiers that can be applied to a single

die roll. Nor is there a limit to the

positive or negative number (the total of

all modifiers) that can be applied to a die

roll.

Table 51 lists some standard

combat modifiers. Positive numbers are

bonuses for the attacker; negative

numbers are penalties.

131

Chapter 9: Combat

Table 51:

Combat Modifiers

Attack

Roll

Situation Modifier

Attacker on higher ground +1

Defender invisible -4

Defender off-balance +2

Defender sleeping or held Automatic*

Defender stunned or prone +4

Defender surprised +1

Missile fire, long range -5

Missile fire, medium range -2

Rear attack +2

*If the defender is attacked during the

course of a normal melee, the attack

automatically hits and causes normal

damage. If no other fighting is going on

(i.e., all others have been slain or driven

off), the defender can be slain

automatically.

Weapon Type vs. Armor

Modifiers

(Optional Rule)

Not all weapons perform the

same. If they did, there would be no

need for the wide variety of weapons

that exists. Only one form of each

weapon type, the most useful one, would

be used throughout the world. This is

obviously not the case.

Aside from the differences in

size, weight, length, and shape, certain

types of weapons are more useful against

some types of armor than others. Indeed,

the different armors and weapons of the

world are the result of an ancient arms

race. Every new weapon led to the

development of a new type of armor

designed to counter it. This led to new

weapons, which led to new armor, and so

on.

In the AD&D game, weapons fall

into several categories, based on how

they are used. The basic categories are

slashing, piercing, and bludgeoning.

Slashing weapons include

swords, axes, and knives. Damage is

caused by the combination of weight,

muscle, and a good sharp edge.

Piercing weapons (some swords,

spears, pikes, arrows, javelins, etc.) rely

on the penetrating power of a single

sharp point and much less on the weight

of the weapon.

Bludgeoning weapons (maces,

hammers, and flails) depend almost

entirely on the impact caused by weight

and muscle.

A few weapons, particularly

some of the more exotic polearms, fall

into more than one of these categories. A

halberd can be used as a pole-axe (a

slashing weapon) or as a short pike (a

piercing weapon). The versatility of

these weapons provides the user with a

combat advantage, in that the mode most

favorable to the attacker can be used,

depending upon the situation.

Natural weapons can also be

classified according to their attack type.

Claws are slashing weapons; a bite

pierces; a tail attack bludgeons. The DM

must decide which is most appropriate to

the creature and method of attack.

Armor types, in turn, have

different qualities. Field plate is more

effective, overall, than other armors by

virtue of the amount and thickness of the

metal, but it still has specific weaknesses

against certain classes of weapons.

Table 52 lists the weapon vs.

armor modifiers applied to the attacker's

THAC0, if this optional system is used.

To use this table, the actual armor type

of the target must be known in addition

to the target's Armor Class. The bonuses

of magical armor do not change the type

of armor, only the final Armor Class.

This system is used only when

attacking creatures in armor. The

modifiers are not used when attacking

creatures with a natural Armor Class.

Table 52:

Weapon Type vs. Armor

Modifiers

Armor Type Slash Pierce Bludgeon

Banded mail +2 0 +1

Brigandine +1 +1 0

Chain mail* +2 0 -2

Field Plate +3 +1 0

Full Plate +4 +3 0

Leather armor** 0 -2 0

Plate mail +3 0 0

Ring mail +1 +1 0

Scale mail 0 +1 0

Splint mail 0 +1 +2

Studded leather +2 +1 0

* Includes bronze plate mail

** Includes padded armor and hides

Impossible To-Hit

Numbers

Sometimes the attacker's to-hit

number seems impossible to roll. An

attack may be so difficult it requires a

roll greater than 20 (on a 20-sided die!),

or so ridiculously easy it can be made on

a roll less than 1. In both cases, an attack

roll is still required!

The reason is simple: With

positive die roll modifiers (for magic,

Strength, situation, or whatever), a

number greater than 20 can be rolled.

Likewise, die roll penalties can push the

attack roll below 0.

No matter what number a

character needs to hit, a roll of 20 is

always considered a hit and a roll of 1 is

always a miss, unless the DM rules

otherwise. Under most circumstances, a

natural 20 hits and a natural 1 misses,

regardless of any modifiers

applied to the die roll.

Thus, even if a character's chance

to hit a monster is 23 and the character

has a -3 penalty applied to the die roll,

he might be able to score a hit--but only

if the die roll is a 20 before any

modifiers are applied. Likewise, a

character able to hit a monster on a 3 or

132

Chapter 9: Combat

Table 53:

CALCULATED THAC0S

Level

Group 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Priest 20 20 20 18 18 18 16 16 16 14 14 14 12 12 12 10 10 10 8 8

Rogue 20 20 19 19 18 18 17 17 16 16 15 15 14 14 13 13 12 12 11 11

Warrior 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Wizard 20 20 20 19 19 19 18 18 18 17 17 17 16 16 16 15 15 15 14 14

Honestly, I'm not. I'm just not as heated up about getting the answer.

And I could have sworn that I had a GM post about body parts, but besides Cyper's mention in his announcement post, I absolutely cannot find one.
(So, my bad, there.)

>>We went from 15 years of "stop training PF at 24 ranks," to "every character should 1x+ PF for life" overnight. No one had a clue that PF was involved.

I may be a bit mistaken here, Droit - but I seem to remember a few other influencing factors involved than just a passage of time and a misbegotten perspective. If I'm not mistaken, that belief was rooted in fact for some time - until certain additions and modifications occurred.

And I'd also submit that although we know PF is critical now, we still don't know the entirety of the formula involved - do we?

Correcting an incorrect assumption of the general player base - especially when the assumption was previously justified if that part of my memory is still intact - isn't quite the same thing as just flat specifying every nuance of every calculation made, at least in my view.

Doug

I would only chime in, with quick skimming, to say that I like both getting exact formulations (or lots of nice hints) as well as some parts of the game we don't get told everything about.

Even as a proponent and user of almost as much free software as I can ("open source" software is mostly "free software" but misses some of the point), I don't mind the aspect of gaming which can be proprietary. In fact, I'm almost certain even Richard Stallman allows vaguely for this possible exception in one of his books, but I should dig out the quote at some point (re-reading all the books isn't a bad idea, anyway). But there's something fun about some mystery in the game, or some room for players to try to determine things on their own.

Do I have a strong opinion on how this applies to the case of ambushing? No, not really, because I haven't had a character that does ambushing for about 18 years, and that character only got to level 15.

---

Check out who's dying any time! https://twitter.com/GSIVDeathLog

>Daid: Pretty sure you have a whole big bucket as your penny jar. You never have only two cents. :p