<blockquote><div><cite>Anime_Chaos wrote:</cite>Feels like things have come from rules light/simple and narrative driven to having brief but hard crunch with the latest update. <br/><br/>The combat section has fallen back into being extremely hard to follow. Enough that it feels like a black box again. Modifying numbers I'd assume to be single digit by things like 30% or 70% seems like a strange choice.<br/><br/>Vore section makes it feel like it's actual use is going to be limited to enemies that either have a numbers advantage to prevent any chance of intervention for several turns or single targets so powerful any contest is formality. In theory one player could help another out. But in practice turning from whatever you're fighting to do so will just get the would be savior taken out in the process. <br/><br/>Which makes me have another thought. It seems like any conflict (outside of special cases like the single powerful being above) is going to be quickly decided by whichever side has more bodies. With every body on the field at or near the same 'power' whoever can start ganging up on targets first will win out via snowball effect.</div></blockquote><br/>Okay, I don't mean to call you out, but let me go back to some of your earlier comments (w/o citation if you don't mind).<br/><br/>I distinctly remember you saying that "narrative advantage" was too vague and unreliable. Then you said there were too many rolls. Now redundancies being removed and the<span style="text-decoration: underline">exact same</span>numbers being moved into a single roll is somehow making it more complicated? How? Because I honestly do not understand. All that really changes is flat bonuses from skills were made to work in conjunction with the weapon, partly to avoid having Agility become an uber-stat, as Jermayan pointed out. And if you're going to say it confuses you, at least tell me which part so I can try to explain.<br/><br/>You took issue with the fight taking too long. However, the main reason that happened was because almost everyone took<span style="text-decoration: underline">exactly one</span>action per turn, when I was honestly expecting upward of two. I even made a note asking people to not go over three, just in case. That didn't work as expected. Easiest solution is to go back to my original plan of actually using AP.<br/><br/>I tried to take the "high lethality" thing (which is nonsense if you ask me) into account with this, hence why defense may seem to be prioritized over offense. Encumbrance and fatigue are another part of that, as high-damage weapons now carry appropriate drawbacks. And it's a minimal change from the previous set-up.<br/><br/>Flat bonuses and penalties would not work considering weapons can have a very large range of damage (like from 1d4 to 2d6). Percentage will not be a problem as it will all be rounded, but it will prevent a disparity in the damage output on modified attacks. I also recall you having a problem with armor being too effective (and admittedly it was), so there is no longer flat damage reduction in the basic rules.<br/><br/>I don't even have a clue what your point regarding the vore mechanics is. I read what you wrote, and I understand the words, but I can't find the point you're trying to make. I keep trying to address your concerns, but you just keep pointing out new problems which are, in all honesty, mostly subjective. You're seriously throwing me for a loop here.