An interesting question came up in the SA survey thread regarding whether groups added dice from SAs into each exchange or into the Combat Pool total.

I was astonished by how many groups do it by roll. Doing it by roll seems to me to destroy almost all of the strategy of dice allocation in the system, so I thought I'd start this thread to describe my thoughts and then have other folks chime in on what actually happens in play like this.

A big part of the combat strategy in TROS is about dice allocation. If I have a pool of 13 dice, do I attack with 3, with 6 with 10, etc? That's a pretty huge choice.

So lets say you are in a fight where you are getting 7 dice from SAs.

If you add this to the CP (just like adding stance bonuses) you now have a pool of 20 dice. You still have the same strategic choices as above, only now you have more dice to work with. This might make the choices easier to make if fighting a now inferior opponent, or they may make it possible to employ ones usual strategy against a superior opponent, or even multiple ones...but you still have the essential interplay of -- how many dice do I throw. Its still possible with a 20 die pool to attack with 18 dice and have only 2 dice left to defend.

It seems to me that if you add the SA dice to each roll you lose this. It now becomes largely irrelevant what your dice allocation strategy is, because you're guarenteed a minium of 7 dice a roll anyway. It becomes impossible to have a situation where you threw too many dice into an attack which didn't work, and are now faced with a defense where you don't have enough dice left...because no matter how few dice you have left in your pool, you know you're going to be getting an extra 7 for free.


Further, you essentially double the effectiveness of the SAs. Instead of adding 7 dice to your 13 CP you're adding 14 in this example. In a huge all SAs firing scene where you're getting 15 or 20 SA dice, doubling that is even more amazing. Essentially the power of the SAs are no longer augmenting one's proficiency but overwhelming it. This doesn't seem all that desireable to me. Even in the Princess Bride Inigo couldn't defeat the 6 fingered man on passion alone...he had to study for years to get good enough to hunt him down.


Anyway, that's my rationale for why I think SAs should go in the combat pool, and not be added to each exchange. But since there were so many groups adding them to each exchange out there, I figured maybe I was missing something.

How does it work in your groups? Is it working so far largely because you haven't been engaging with very many SA dice and so the above effects haven't been noticed yet? Is my reasoning above off? Or is it on but you actually find you prefer it that way?

ahhh I mistook the question in the SA Survey.. I thought he meant added to every situation.. Skills, Attributes or CP/MP/SP. We add them to pools, and they refresh as per pools in combat... interestingly having many SAs firing at the beginning of the round makes for some reckless play. If a character now has 24 dice (SAs + CP) to roll, they'll tend to roll them all, thinking that the odds favour them nicely, leaving none for the second exchange. It almost backfired in the biggest way last session with one character using all his dice in the first exchange, and only rolling two successes, luckily the opponent only rolled one success...

There's definitely some merit in what you say.

At the same time, I have to favour the "SAs to every roll, not just pools" approach because it's the only way to give sorcerers the ability to be the terrifying gods-on-earth they're supposed to be without taking years off their life for it.

Do people think it would be fair to say, "You can add SAs only to your overall pool for CP and MP, but you can add them to both casting and anti-aging rolls in sorcery"?

I don't have any problem with that, myself -- sorcery is supposed to be about breaking limits and to have more to do with the power of your spirit than with physical restrictions -- but I can also understand the approach of saying, "No -- pick a rule and stick with it; I don't mind which, but it has to be consistent."

The other end of the spectrum, during my brief time playing, our GM would only allow SAs to add to the combat pool once in a combat - SA's didn't refresh along with the combat pool.

ouch.

Was that just a misinterpretation or did he really intend to hamstring the SAs like that?

I hestitate to say he was playing "wrong", since I guess that could be a house rule for a legitimate reason...did he understand the point of SAs as being an engine of character effectiveness?

Ralph

The guy in question is a hardline illusionist. I don't doubt that he was running the rules how he felt they were written - but he was reading them with a lot of preconceptions in mind.

I don't think the text in the book is explicit enough about SAs - a lot of them seem to say 'when the Seneschal deems appropriate' or words to that effect.

Ian

Yeah i think i mistook the question as well
I allow SA's to be used wherever the player feels they play a part.
If that is in combat then they go into the CP or if that is in critical negotiations then they get the dice on their Soc roll.

Hi,

Valamir wrote: An interesting question came up in the SA survey thread regarding whether groups added dice from SAs into each exchange or into the Combat Pool total.

Interesting.

So the phenomenon of the other thread was mostly just mis reading the question? Unless it was me misreading the question...Alan?


But regardless, then it would seem that most folks are adding their SA dice to the Combat Pool at the beginning of each round, and not to each exchange.

Cool, thanks.

Yeah, several people seem to have misread the CP useage question in my survey thread. As a result, I think the data for that answer are crocked.

I think Ralph makes a good case for adding SAs to pools and not individual rolls. I want to suggest an elaboration on that idea, but first here's my recent expereince GMing SAs.

In our recent TROS game, (Fire Upon Fenwyk) we decided that, when active, Spiritual Attributes added to every roll.

This led to few complications. For example, it didn't seem right to add five or six SA dice to a Terrain roll, so I didn't allow that. This wasn't a big issue because the players knew they would be getting the bonus dice on the rest of their pool. I only let players add their highest SA to a skill roll.

Counter to the "combat is too deadly" criticism, SAs do make a huge difference. Every combat we had involved SAs and only one PC ended up dead, or significantly wounded, after 5 sessions (each with at least one combat).

On reflection, I think I would use the following rules:

- Skill rolls: SAs can't raise the dice total beyond double the Trait.

- Combat and Magic: SAs are added to the Pools.

- Multiple Opponents: When a character splits his pool, full SAs are added to each portion of the pool, instead of the original total. (This allows heroic outnumbered fights.

- SAs are never halved or quartered as a result of being prone or other disadvantage.

[Deleted identical post.]

- Multiple Opponents: When a character splits his pool, full SAs are added to each portion of the pool, instead of the original total. (This allows heroic outnumbered fights.

Well, SA's allowed me to completely chop in half a zombie in last night's session.. using the SA's given in the CP method.. along zone 3. (Arguably the easiest method of chopping someone/thing in half if using those overdamage rules..)

The attack had just enough successes for that to be possible.
(I had 10 SA points firing at the time)
But my point is, is that adding SA dice to every roll even in those largely heroic like situations where you're facing down many opponents.. is that doing so detracts from such extraordinary acheivements.. they'd be alot more common than you might think.
Which is perfectly fine if you're into that sort of adventure, where alot of people can chop someone in half on the horizontal axis.. or if someone wants go up against a moderate number of opponents.

But if you add SA's to every roll in combat, the end result is far more advantageous than I think is necessary. It would basically double the amount of SA points that you normally would be getting using the CP method. (5 SA dice net, or 5 SA dice per exchange for example.. or per opponent.)

However, it is a good thing that you guys are differentiating between opponents in the use of SA's.

My conscience kicked in a number of times in last night's session. It applied to hacking up some undead that were attacking a few peasants.
Though whenever I attacked a zombie that wasn't currently going after some of the defenseless cannon fodder.. the conscience didn't apply.

Again, I see no problem with using either method for SA's.. one just wields more potent results.

-Ingenious

Hi there,

I asked this question to Jake very early in my experiences with TROS. I think you can find the threads here if you look carefully.

He said, "per roll." I gaped. Really, Jake? Yeah, he said. If you have 25 dice firing, then you can add them to your (e.g.) spell roll. And then turn right around and add them again to your resistance roll. Note that the spell dice and resistance dice are split from your whole pool.

Uh-huh. That's a big deal.

Best,
Ron

Little lost Ron,

Are you saying you think that's the way it should be played (if so, I'd have to ask why), or are you saying that you think that answer was incorrect and you woudn't play that way?

or what?

Upon reading that Ron, I have the same reaction...
My jaw is on the floor.

For one: why would a passion of 'hatred for X' apply to a situation that involves the resistance of aging(not the casting) of a spell that involved a player's hatred for X? I see no logical reason for those 25 dice to be added to an aging roll. at all. period.

If we added SA's per roll.. and let's use my combat pool over the last session, and my SA's. Normally I would just get the +10 net dice to the total CP. But what you're saying is that it would be +20 net, or +10 per exchange...
That means that instead of 21 dice.. I'd have 31 dice...
Nuts. Absolutely preposterous in my book.

with the +10 net gain to my CP.. that already doubles my CP.. so it would appear to triple it with the per roll method.

I also think this is bad from a fun factor perspective. If I'm going up against a badass NPC, and I'd normally lose hands down without SA's.. and the net gain to CP method is used.. I *might* be on par with my opponent. With the per roll setup, shit dude... Forget about it. I'd probably have to face a dragon or worse in order to get a challenge from that...or even the remote threat of death..

Remember, the fear of your character dying is a big part of the fun.. and using the SA per roll method seems waaaaay too D&Dish for my liking. Waaaaaaay too much.

I'm way too confused to type any more, so perhaps you might explain it and the reasoning(if any logical one(s) pop up..) behind it. Either you or Jake could answer that I suppose..

I guess you might attribute it to the style of game you are running.. if it's the blood opera thing or not. *shrug*
-Ingenious
'Hello, my name is Indigo Montoya.. you killed my father. Prepare to die.'

Ingenious wrote: Upon reading that Ron, I have the same reaction...
My jaw is on the floor.

For one: why would a passion of 'hatred for X' apply to a situation that involves the resistance of aging(not the casting) of a spell that involved a player's hatred for X? I see no logical reason for those 25 dice to be added to an aging roll. at all. period.

Yea, I know that.
What is illogical to me though is not the way SA's work.. but apparently the fact that they're added to every single roll. Not added to the total CP, but to every roll.

I think you might have mis-interpreted my point..
-Ingenious

we still add ours to only the CP or the MP or the SP in any given situation and then the player determines how they are used.

so no in our games they can't be used for every roll but rather the CP.
Obviously they can be added to every skill roll or terrain roll that is performed out of combat but when it comes down to combat they are only available on a round by round basis and not every exchange.

our group loves SA's and think they are great new way of doing things. We have spoken about the per roll v per round issue and as a group come to a decision that using them per round is sufficient enough as even then they still offer that needed kick

Ingenious wrote: Yea, I know that.
What is illogical to me though is not the way SA's work.. but apparently the fact that they're added to every single roll. Not added to the total CP, but to every roll.

Well, because.. uhhhh..
it can already have a major impact on a character's actions if only used in the CP method???
I mean, my CP was doubled last session.
Would you not define that as a "major" impact??
Doubling the SA's by using the per roll method in my mind's eye detracts from the fun. It's soooo one-sided in that regard, that I'd have to be going up against a dragon or two in order to come under the THREAT of death in combat...were my CP to be tripled by granting SA's on every single roll in combat..

Where does it end too? If it is used per roll, you could essentially argue that if I divided my CP into three equal parts to fight three opponents.. would it not therefore be added to each of those rolls?
That would make my CP quadruple if not more so than normal.

-Ingenious

Hi Ingenius,

Well, your argument seems a question of degree rather than logical sequence. Jake has had a lot more playtest than I have, so to date I have trusted his recommendation.

I do admit that I found Ralph's argument persuasive: that SAs can make the tactics of maneuver almost irrelevant. So one reason I see to moderate the use is if I want to emphasize maneuvers.

Ultimately, I don't think I'll be able to reason out which is best. I'd like more time to play test the add to CP option before I decide for myself.

How SAs are applied can be seen as a "dial" that players can choose a setting for. A nice addition to TROS 2nd ed would be a section discussing the play flavor of each setting.

Hello,

Ralph, to clarify: I think Jake's right, I think his advice matches the textual rules, and I think it's a wonderful way to play. I think it's the heart of the whole game.

More generally, I think people are mixing up two things:

1) Whether an SA is applied separately to two rolls, when the two rolls represent the splitting of a dice pool in an exchange (I'm using the term for both combat and sorcery, which I trust isn't confusing).

2) Whether an SA applies to an aging resistance roll, and why.

The first answer is surprising ("yes"), but not a problem in play. It simply doubles the influential power of SAs on play in both combat and sorcery. It is my first point when explaining why the TROS system facilitates Narrativist rather than Simulationist play. And yes, it's in the rules - SAs apply to rolls, not pools.

However, that first answer has nothing to do with the second issue, or by extension, to the general concern that you can apply SAs willy-nilly to anything you feel like.

I think that's an unfounded fear, based on serious GNS issues. And bluntly, TROS has a way of attracting a lot of different Creative Agendas to the table at once, and it's poster child for why this is not a positive phenomenon.

From a Narrativist viewpoint, SAs are applied and withheld insofar as they contribute thematic impact into a situation. That's it. Nothing more, no "why would it ..." or anything else. If the aging-resistance roll is part of a spell that saves the life of your child, and "Driven: my child shall be king!" is your SA, then wham, it applies. (Again, once for casting, once for resisting.)

But if the spell is just about whacking that mercenary captain because some guy paid you to, and no SA seems to apply, then you get neither.

There's a lot of possible diversity in how that "thematic impact" is managed, and by whom. You might get a GM who exercises quite strong control over this feature, and a bunch of players who are happy with that (much like Humanity rolls in Sorcerer). Or you might get a bunch of players who take great delight in withholding as well as using the characters' SAs, with the GM more-or-less observing. But given a Narrativist context, there need be no controversy about this.

But as soon as you get fears of Gamism dice-mongering going, and as soon as you get "dice pools equal in-game energy" Simulationist thinking going, and as soon as you get all manner of other GNS-based misunderstandings and whoa-wait what-if debates ... then you have Incoherent and ultimately dysfunctional play.

Best,
Ron

The first answer is surprising ("yes"), but not a problem in play. It simply doubles the influential power of SAs on play in both combat and sorcery. It is my first point when explaining why the TROS system facilitates Narrativist rather than Simulationist play. And yes, it's in the rules - SAs apply to rolls, not pools.

Ralph,

I've been following this conversation with some interest. I'm wondering if you've taken into account that the opponent may have Spiritual Attributes of his own firing? I don't think SAs are a PC only thing.

So sure, those two or three guards blocking your way to the dungeon where your true love is being kept prisoner are so much mince meat but when her captor, who wants her for his own bride shows up... well now things get interesting.

Jesse

I dunno. Isn't ten to fifteen dice a little rare? Isn't it typically more like 5?

Basically, what this says is that if you're fighting for something that you care about, then you can worry a lot less - you've already made the decision. But if you make a hard decision to get into a fight where you have few SAs, then you'll have many harder tactical decisions to make. The game teaches you to fight for what you care for thereby. Twice as hard with Ron's method.

I personally think it works fine either way.

Mike

Good question.

There will be 4 effects really.

First: If you assume the same number of SA dice being added to both sides, then all you are doing is reducing the standard deviation of the possible results. The total number of successes are more likely to be close to the expected number and less likely to be extremely good or bad.

Second: You alter the balance among the maneuvers. Maneuver costs become much less important, the bonus and penalty to due to stance becomes less important. Counters become even more effective because the cost is less (as a proportion of total CP) and your opponent will always have a fair number of dice to win victories from. Stop Shorts become less effective in some ways because lost dice are less dangerous and more effective in others (because you have more dice to burn on paying for TN). Etc.

Third: Wound effects will be interesting. Because ultimately the wounds are less damageing. Losing 5 dice to shock is not as bad when you have 21 dice as when you only have 14. But then on the other hand, with a lower standard deviation you are less likely to be able to rely on a lucky roll to over come being down dice on you opponent.

Fourth: However the most damaging effect is if the combatants have different TN weapons. Adding the same number of dice to both sides will help the side with the lower TN weapon most. Adding the same number of dice to both sides once (to the CP) is dangerous. Adding the same number of dice twice (to each roll) is potentially overwhelming if the number of dice is large.

Consider: I have 14 dice and a TN of 6 you have 14 dice and a TN of 7. I expect 7 successes, you expect 5.4. Thats 1.6 advantage to me you have to figure out how to overcome tactically. Now add 7 dice to each of us.

I have 21 dice expecting 10.5 successes you have 21 expecting 8.4 successes. I now have a 2.1 advantage. Now add 7 dice to each roll (14 dice total).

I have 28 dice expecting 14 successes, you have 28 dice expecting 11.2. That's now a 2.8 advantage.


So by adding more dice we have 2 reinforcing effects: first the margin of extra successes you'll need against me has increased (meaning you'll need to get luckier in order to win); while simultaneous rolling more dice means reducing the standard deviation meaning less of a chance of being able to get those extra successes through luck.

This really skews the advantage of 6ATN/DTN weapons over the others.


Now, ok, these effects don't seem that bad. Except that to me they're entirely unnecessary. There's nothing to be gained by going this route except allowing really passionate farm boys wipe the floor with trained knights.

The difference between a weak fighter of 6 CP and a strong fighter of 14 CP is only 8 dice. If you're going to start routinely adding 8 dice to the fight (a single SA of 4) or even 20 dice to the fight (2 SAs of 5)...then you've completely erased the difference between a weak fighter and a strong fighter.

Which means you've undermined the whole reason for selecting Proficiencies as a priority...everything. You've rendered BladeSlinging a waste of time as any peon who hates them enough can kick their butt.

You really might as well scrap the entire system and just have an SA roll off at that point (yes again, I'm dropping a little hyperbole...but only a little)

[Edited for typos]

I can see the points made by Ron, but I really think that Ralph has the right of things, at least from my view of the game. SAs are a primary factor in the game, but they shouldn't be allowed to overwhelm every other part of the game when they're firing. Ron's claims has TRoS a narrativist game disguised as a simulationist game, but I'm much more of the opinion that it's a successful blend of both. Allowing either side to become dominant to the point that the other side is irrelevant lessens the overall impact.

1 last thing I forgot to add.

It completely changes the exchange rate on using SAs to buy up proficiencies.

By reducing the importance of CP dice from proficiencies and increasing the importance of CP dice from SAs, you're basically motivating players to horde SAs so they can keep them up at level 4 and 5.

Since changing SAs is a key feature of the game, the requirement to spend them down to 0 means that inorder to do so you have to give up twice as much effectiveness as you would the other way. This basically motivates players to not change SAs because it would be too great of an effectiveness hit.

I really believe this throws a wrench into the whole works.

It appears that at least the three of us are on the same wavelength.
Logically, as is globally agreed I beleive.. SA's are added to any type of roll they apply to..whether that be a skill check, an aging roll, etc..

So, case in point.. those rolls are not affected by the per roll of per CP method. Only the pools are. Every roll other than combat/sorcery using the per roll method stays at the current number of dice applicable from SA's. In the per roll method for combat/sorcery/missile pool however.. every one of those would be doubled using the per roll method. That's where sorcery and combat essentially become one in the same mechanic.. you're splitting your pool anyways...both get their pool dice from derived attributes and in some form.. skill/training. And under the proviso of the per roll method.. both of the above are insignificant. Skill matters not, and neither does natural talent when using the per roll method with either the CP or SP. SA's would seriously dwarf and undermine the whole entire damned concept of manouvers, attributes and proficiencies. Ralph stated that it would undermine the proficiency thing.. it would also undermine anyone who chose attributes as their A proficiency. Why? Because you'd better have attributes at A if your sorceror wants a hefty sorcery pool... but alas, it is all tossed in the shitter when using the per roll method. It's meaningless in that situation to have either prof's or attributes at A. (Also if your character wants a high reflex.)

As SA's apply to the missile pool, I don't see how they really can be since the MP is made from the comination of Aim, and proficiency...and that it can never go higher than the total missile pool. So that point is nixed already..

These things and more make me say this: If we did it with the per roll method that Ron and (apparently sometimes Jake) does.. I would be seriously disinterested in playing TROS.

Regarding the use of SA's by major NPC's... I say that's a good idea and one we have used before. However, SA's for every NPC? Nope. No way Jose.

Saturating someone's dice pool with double the amount of SA's due to the fact that said pool is split in some form or fashion.. seems to me like someone wanting to exploit that very same thing.. and make super-characters out of supposedly average people.. or slightly above average people. Having someone who is a pathetic little peon suddenly get some dice from SA's.. and the unarmored... slightly armed peasant(even with a freaking piece of wood as a weapon mind you)..can punch through knight's armor.. Now Ron and you crazed loons whom like and use the per roll method in combat, does THAT seem logical? Does it even seem within the realm of possibility?

I'd like to see someone attempt to skewer me with a singapore cane.. while I was wearing plate.. and while they were hating my guts.. I had kidnapped their significant other, and any other real-world SA you can think of.. do you even think for one moment that I'd be under ANY risk of danger from anyone at all on this planet in that situation? If you do, seek help.

If TROS is supposedly 'realistic', the per roll method in combat negates that.
-Ingenious

Ingenious wrote: I'd like to see someone attempt to skewer me with a singapore cane.. while I was wearing plate.. and while they were hating my guts.. I had kidnapped their significant other, and any other real-world SA you can think of.. do you even think for one moment that I'd be under ANY risk of danger from anyone at all on this planet in that situation? If you do, seek help.

Dude, once again I get misinterpreted.(Sorry for the length of this rant)
What I mean using that arrogant analogy.. was that even an unskilled peasant wielding a toothpick.. using the per roll method of applying SA's... has the capability of skewering a guy in plate. The number of successes one can obtain over your opponent when throwing 10 more dice than him can make that happen.

That was my point. And in that specific analogy(seeking further clarification).. I was saying that I'd be in plate, and the person attacking me would have a bamboo cane. My opponent would never be able to penetrate that plate in real life. But if the situation was modeled after TROS with the per roll method.. a peasant wielding such a thing would be capable of punching through the armor..with a freakin bamboo cane.

If strength + weapon damage is equal to toughness and armor.. all you need is 5 successes in the margin to kill someone... even less considering what a level 3 and 4 wound can do.

Example, bamboo cane with a weapon damage of strength.. against an opponent with average toughness.. and plate. (for shits and grins let's say.. 6 strength, he's a strong peasant after all of that work in the quarry or the fields). That's 6 vs 10.. without rolling an attack and defense.
Let's say that through the use of the per roll method, the opponent gets 20 dice in SA's(two SA's at 5).. atop of the reflex(say it's average of 4) That CP suddenly becomes 24(compared to JUST 4). Oh, and no training so I'm using the raw reflex score. Let's give this stick of wood an ATN of 7. Let's also use that as my DTN. My CP in plate is 11.

After doing a roll in the IRC chatroom.. here are the results: A full CP attack by my opponent, and an almost full CP defense by me(leaving one die).
-RPGServ:#TROS- <Roll for Ingenious [24[1d10]]: 10 6 4 8 2 10 9 4 9 8 8 5 10 7 4 2 5 1 1 8 6 7 5 1 > 11 successes.
-RPGServ:#TROS- <Roll for Ingenious [10[1d10]]: 1 7 1 6 9 10 2 8 6 6 >
4 successes.
Margin of success = 7.
7 successes +6 damage = 13
TO of 4, and AV of 6 = 10
Level 3 wound. With a fucking piece of wood... vs plate, by an overly amped up peasant on crack.
-RPGServ:#TROS- <Roll for Ingenious [24[1d10]]: 5 7 5 4 1 3 1 8 7 10 5 1 2 9 2 2 7 8 8 1 8 9 8 8 > 12 successes.
-RPGServ:#TROS- <Roll for Ingenious [10[1d10]]: 4 6 8 6 4 3 1 9 9 6 >
4 successes.. and all things in the equation still being equal.. that's a level 4 wound.
Did it twice just for thoroughness.

The defensive move I choose to do is irrelevant because of the gigantic CP differential. If I full evade.. where does that get me? Back to square one. Say I elect to attack instead.. that also is irrelevant. Once I commit ANY amount of dice to an attack the 24 CP peasant is free to buy initiative and skewer my ass. Let's say my perception is 5, and he pays 5 CP in order to pre-empt me. Look at the rolls below.
-RPGServ:#TROS- <Roll for Ingenious [19[1d10]]: 7 9 5 10 6 1 8 9 1 2 8 6 4 10 7 4 6 7 9 9 > 11 succeses.
Let's say I committed half my CP to that attack.. so that's 5 or 6..depending on how you round. I spend the other 5 or 6 trying to re-gain the first strike..since that is my only option...and thus my CP is also expended. Or let's just say that on red/red our reflex rolls tie(since he's using SA's on that also, getting 14 dice instead of 4). WP also ties due to the same reason. Therefore our attacks land at the same time, and my original attack of 5 or 6 dice goes as such:
-RPGServ:#TROS- <Roll for Ingenious [5[1d10]]: 3 4 3 2 1 > Zero successes. Yes, I actually rolled that.

Therefore my opponent whacks me with a bamboo pole at a DR of 17. That is a level 7 wound. Let's look at the damage tables for bludgeoning for a second and see if my character can survive the next attack..(regardless of where I was hit.. let's just look at level 5 wounds)...
Hmm, most of all of them are instant deaths, mortal wounds.. etc. What a surprise.. HAH. If he felt like skewering me(thrusting vs swinging).. I'd still be pretty much SOL.

Where's the fun in the ability of an amped up untrained peasant to mop the floor with a noble in plate? Hmmm?

Now, do you think it would be harder for the peasant to go after that noble with only the CP method? Certainly. And THAT is how I recommend doing it. Otherwise anyone can kick anyone else's ass using any weapon they feel like, manouvers in combat become pointless, attributes or proficiencies at character creation become obsolete.. and social class becomes meaningless since a peasant can just as easily shove a wooden club up your ass than the next guy. And armor? Might as well throw that in the toilet also.

Come on people, don't you see that??!!!
-Ingenious

A couple of comments:

Firstly, I think a bamboo cane damage would be less than STR. Though that's not a big deal.

The big deal is that sure, the SA's break down at those kinds of levels - I mean, of course if you have 20 extra dice at your disposal (whether they're added to the combat pool or one roll makes no difference - you still have them, only in combat pool you can use them for two actions if you want - but the situation you described could still be done.) then that's just a serious Zen mojo you've got going on. As a GM, I'd be tempted to describe that in the style of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon or another such movie - because that's the level of wackiness going on! :D

What I'd do for the sake of simplicity is that the player could add the SA's he wants to the CP for the turn. (Note how the description of Destiny on page 9 describes how it is used; realistically, that means other SA's work differently!)

Ingenious wrote:
Let's say that through the use of the per roll method, the opponent gets 20 dice in SA's(two SA's at 5).. atop of the reflex(say it's average of 4) That CP suddenly becomes 24(compared to JUST 4).

Bah, a mere oversight by my part.
I'm just too damned used to the CP method. Which I advocate whole-heartedly.

As a somewhat experienced TROS player(around 55 hours of gaming)..I shall answer your question.. though I expect others to also. I'm not *that* experienced.

If I received double the amount of SA's, i.e. 20 instead of 10.. it would make selecting a manouver easy for attacks.. and would make dice allocation irrelevant. I have held back spending some SA's in order to use them.. but 2 of the 3 in use at the time were at level 3, and the other was at level 4.
Often-times it is the inverse in my case.. I spend them down to zero in order to advance my character faster.. but then I don't get to use them in the situations I normally would.. but I beleive i'd still get them. Otherwise I'd have to spend each one down to 1 in order to use them all, and get points for using them.. which I think would be a dumb idea and would really screw with the system..

However, back to the point of the per exchange thing.. I could still do a 14 die attack, and still have 10 dice in reserve.
So I'd be doing the equivalent of a full CP attack +3 compared to the other character... in the first exchange alone. It is still the same problem as before. In either exchange there will be an overwhelming differential between the opponents in the per roll method...which makes alot of key parts of the system useless.

-Ingenious
Mmmmm drag-coefficients of the human body... *droools*

Well, I see the potential problem. I'm just curious if it comes up that often in actual play, as SAs may be much lower on average, or for other reasons.

Also, there seems to be one issue where the per-roll method is actually less powerful than adding dice to the pool. And this is selective application of SAs:

E.g., you are fighting two opponents simultaneously, but really hate only one of them. With the per-roll method, the Seneschal may very well decide that you only get bonus dice vs. that one opponent and not vs. the other. Whereas the pool method would allow you to split the bonus any way you like, possibly using less dice than your SA bonus vs. your hated opponent, or more dice than your proficiency vs. the other one.

Or as another example, the Seneschal could decide that SAs help you cast a spell but not resist aging. In this case, both methods grant you the same number of dice to use, but the adding to the pool allows for more flexible die allocation.

nsruf wrote:
Or as another example, the Seneschal could decide that SAs help you cast a spell but not resist aging. In this case, both methods grant you the same number of dice to use, but the adding to the pool allows for more flexible die allocation.

It may be no big deal, but I wanted to give an example where the pool method is actually better than adding dice to individual rolls. Sorry if I didn't make that more clear - in the sorcery example, you have

a) the same total number of dice either way
b) fewer restrictions on allocating them with the pool method

So if I have a Sorcery pool of 8 and may add 10 points from SA to my pool, I could decide to cast with 3 dice and resist aging with 15. Not so if I have to add the 10 bonus dice to casting.

nsruf wrote:
a) the same total number of dice either way
b) fewer restrictions on allocating them with the pool method

So if I have a Sorcery pool of 8 and may add 10 points from SA to my pool, I could decide to cast with 3 dice and resist aging with 15. Not so if I have to add the 10 bonus dice to casting.

Biggest argument I've not seen yet for *not* using the SA's per roll:

There's little penalty for splitting your pool!

Assume I have 10 SA dice firing. So yes, with two exchanges that means a bonus of 20 dice. But wait --- what if I make a maneuver roll to improve my combat situation? With a 10 dice bonus, that's a piece of cake. And then I will split my pool and attack with two weapons. That's 10 more dice per exchange --- looks like I am up to a 50 dice bonus, for each combat round.

What, there's two of them? Forget the terrain roll to avoid, just bring 'em on! I'll do the "split my pool" option and gain even more bonus dice.

Aiyee!

Well, my villain was forced to forgoe a terrain roll in this case because of a surprise attack. However, he used it in the next round.

Actually, I don't think the example stands as an argument for or against SAs on every roll. It might be a litmus test that will tell you how you would prefer to play. However, I think it would be best tested in actual play, not as a thought experiment. I plan to test the SAs added to pools at some point.

I read the "add to every roll" as meaning "besides combat", and adding it to the pool every round (as appropriate) works pretty well. The most you will add is 25 dice to a pool, which is plenty --- but using good tactics is still wise.

I see what you are saying about "as your game style" but adding it to every roll in combat means that no PC will *ever* spend more than one die on a terrain roll --- the rest can come from an SA, and one success should be easy. And instead of a penalty for splitting your pool, there's a bonus, which just doesn't seem right.

Can we get an example of combat with SA's from Jake's home game, so we can see how that works for ourselves? I'm sure that's already slated for TFOB, but...