To simplify this discussion i'm pointing out flaws in the way the penalties are implemented, not that I think there should not be any penalties.
Some are posting to tell me that I should have penalties while I do not disagree.
A good implementation would be:
Specialized in Witchraft can blind for 3 turns at 15m range
Hybrid with witchcraft can blind for 2 turns at 10m range
As it is now it's based much more on luck than on skill or tactics. Some luck is good for gameplay because it adds unexpected events, but too much of it sucks, really.
Hybrids having 30% high chance to reduce their versatility to nothing.
This.
This is a good example of a better way to implement of "Intelligence/Strength/Dexterity too low" penalties than blanket flat succeed/failure checks.
The skills work, but because your stats are lower than a hybrid, you are less effective at them in a clear and understandable way.
Succeed/failure checks can still be appropriate for some skills, but there is more room for nuance than just leaving it like that.
Sorry but you don't use arguments, you just say it is balanced because you can get over the penalties ...
Sorry but you don't use arguments, you just say it is unbalanced because you can't play it right.
Regards,
Thorsten
Gordyne is correct.
Saying "I like the current system, so everyone else should stop complaining" is NOT a valid argument - it's just white noise.
A valid argument would be "I like the current system for the following reason(s): ______________ " wherein you explain the reasons why you like the system.
