View source for Post:Defenses 3.0 - 3/19/2011 - 7:08:10

{{Post
|a=DR-DARTENIAN
|t=Re: Defenses 3.0
|d=3/19/2011 7:08:10 AM
|n=18472
|f=Combat - Weapons and Armor (11) \ General Discussions (3)
|c=m
|p=''> Is there any chance we can be told what those attack types might be? Or is this going to be a [[PAFO]] thing?''

I am planning at least some information being available, but not full details. In reality, most of this will not be new -- try a [[lunge]] and then see how well your defenses hold up, or for that matter how well the enemy defends compared to how they defended against a [[jab]]. This is one example of the type of thing I'm talking about when I say that not all defenses are equal for all attack types or situations. Another example everyone already knows about is {{PRel|balance}} -- although I am not sure everyone realizes balance impacts all three defenses (as well as offenses) to different degrees. In other words, some defenses work better with great balance, and some are more heavily trashed when you lose balance. Some defenses are more heavily penalized by {{PRel|Multi Opponent skill|MO}} or enemy position (front, flank, rear) than others. None of this is anything new; it's all in there now, along with many others along the same lines. {{PRel|Hindrance}} and {{PRel|burden}} have different impacts on different skills. I could go on forever. But this is why I said that if any of this remains (and it will), there will be differences between a 60/60/60 stance and a 100/80/0 stance even with equal skills and all of them being used fully. There are simply far too many variables involved.

- GM [[Dartenian]]{{PRel|Combat| }}
}}