From: johnjohn@cco.caltech.edu (John White)
Newsgroups: rec.games.pbm
Subject: Re: Duelmasters: Need help with first roll-ups.
Date: 14 Oct 1992 22:33:04 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: krusty.caltech.edu
Originator: johnjohn@krusty

In article <1992Oct13.220117.3429@rdii.com> jas@rdii.com (Jim Smith) writes:
>
>> This didn't work the first time around.  I think.
>
>Wouldn't you know it, I got impatient and sent in my roll-ups on 
>Monday.  I did get some advice via e-mail from another player, but 
>it appears I may have made some nasty mistakes anyway.

I was getting suspicious that no one was responding to my posts....

Damn.  Sorry.

>> > 17-15-5-7-14-6-6

>I was told this guy was pretty much worthless long term and I should 
>just make him anything and DA him.  I made him a 19-17-5-13-17-6-7 BA
>so I could run him a turn or two to get some experience running a BA
>before I DA'd him.  Sounds like I ruined a potentially great TP. :-(

>> Your Rookies Tournament Champion:  18-21-5-7-20-6-7.
>
>OOP, ACK! Now I KNOW I ruined a potentially great TP.  Somebody pass the 
>Kleenex. ;-(

Damn, sorry.

>> > 10-4-9-10-13-15-9
>> > Since the CN was so low, I was thinking a PR with 10-4-9-16-15-15-15,
>> > but I don't think he would last long.
>
>> I'm fighting a lunger right now with the following stats:
>> 11(1)-4-10-15-15-15-15.  He started expert attack, and got expert init in  
two
>> skills (which spells excellent long-term success).

>I ended up going with an 11-4-9-15-17-15-13 SL.  I figured I could
>train up the con a couple and he would do OK.  I have a sneaking
>suspicion the low con will get him dead very quickly however.  Ah,
>well, at least lessons learned the hard way are seldom forgotten. ;-)

This is a bit subtle too, but I'll throw it out, anyway.  When you have a  
warrior, his beginning stats can alter how his ratings fall.  Lungers with  
high will tend to have better ratings than can be attributed to a higher  
will.  With slashers, you see the same effect, but with wit and speed.

So, if you boosted the will a little, I would've gone LU/PL, since those are  
the styles that get the most from will.

This guy will still be a good slasher, though. [right, Dave?]

>> > 5-10-12-5-16-9-13
>> > Great WL but horrible WT.  Maybe a PS at 5-11-12-11-19-9-17?

>> Things you should do with this warrior:
>> 1) Recognize that a warrior starting with 5 will can only get to an 11  
wit,
>> which is something you wouldn't do anyway (see #2 above).
>
>So is it always better to just ignore very poor stats and raise the
>better stats even higher?

Not *always*.  Just recognize that you don't have to compensate for a low  
everything.  If you spend your points doing that, you'll get a warrior with  
a 12 in almost everything.

It's ok to have a 5 con or a 5 speed.  You don't need to add to it.

And if you have a warrior with a 5 wit, you need to realize that you can  
only get to 11, which just isn't worth spending the points on.

The important stats to get high are wit and will.  If you can't get 15's in  
both, that really hurts you.  I would also say you need at least an 11 deft.

Other than that, it's ok to have low stats...

>> 2) Realize that an 11 wit (which is something you wouldn't do... oh, you  
get
>> it) isn't good enough to run as a "long-term" warrior.  This implies that  
>> you'll be running a short-term guy.

Oh, did I already say that?

>Is there any advantage to running short-term other than the thrill of
>watching him hack and slash his way to victory for a few fights?  What
>are the implications of running short term vs. long term characters?

No particular advantage.  It _could_ result in a good record, which can  
translate into a couple free fights... but who cares, if you get a few free  
fights if all you're going to do is DA everyone you have?

What do you mean about implications?  Short term means (hopefully) a few  
quick wins, and maybe even a kill, while long term means (to me) a LOT of  
wins as the years go by (AD, Primus, etc)...

>> 6) You don't add to con, because points used here are much better used 
>> ANYwhere else.  You don't care if he happens to die, because then you 
>> get to bloodfeud.
>
>What is "bloodfeud"?  This is the first time I've seen that term.

Isn't that in the FAQ?  Anyway, if someone kills one of your warriors, you  
can make a bloodfeud challenge against that warrior by writing in the  
warrior in the challenge space in your turnsheet, then CIRCLING it.  You can  
make this challenge from any class to any class (which is why you sometimes  
see a Champion killing an Initiate...).

Clear?

>> So, you end up with something like 10-10-12-5-21-9-17.  Train 1 point of  
ST
>> on his first fight, and you're set!  Could also go 11-10-12-5-21-10-15  
and 
>> train two points of dft.  Nah, I'd do the first.  LUNGER!!!
>
>I sent in a LU at 11-13-12-5-21-9-13 making the CN mistake you spoke of
>above.  Sheesh, did I ever blow this one.  I was figuring on DA'ing this
>guy anyways so no huge loss I guess.

Of course, but he could be good for a 2-1-1 before DA...  I don't know if  
that's important to you or not...

>> > 8-10-7-13-7-15-10
>
>> Someone I knew was doing experiments with low will PL's.  You could try:
>> 11-10-7-17-7-17-15.  I'd make him a short-term striker with those stats,  
>> though.  Could also try 12-10-7-13-7-21-15 striker too.
>> The second guy might be interesting, but I wouldn't keep either for 
>> more than 5 wins, and DA at the first kill, unless no warriors will 
>> be bloodfeuding from higher than the Challenger Inits.
>
>I went with an 11-10-7-17-13-15-11 ST to try and make an attempt at
>a long term character.

Not with a 13 wit.  You'll only be learning about 1 skill a fight.  You need  
about 70 skills to get high enough and do well enough to go to ADM, and at 1  
skill/fight, that's.....

70 fights?  No, probably sooner, but he'll have a HORRIBLE record.  I don't  
make long-term guys with < 15 wit.

>> > 6-10-12-9-12-10-11
>
>> That same lunger idea:
>> 9-10-12-17-10-17
>
>I assume you mean a 9-10-12-9-17-10-17?  Again, it would have made a
>good short term character, but I ended up going for the long term
>again with a 9-10-12-15-17-10-11 LU.

Ok, that's pretty decent.  Yeah, that'll work.

>> Your four additional warriors are all excellent in the short-term sense.
>
>Unfortunately, I tried to turn them into long term characters and will
>probably end up DA'ing most of them as a result.

Those two with 15 wits are ok.  You might be tempted to DA them once you get  
better guys... but these are your original five.

>I don't have so much as a hint about how to fight these guys.  Any
>suggestions will be most appreciated.

Starting lunger strategy that I use:

Minute:
Offensive Effort: 10   10   8   8  6-------->  10
Activity Level:   10   8    6   6  4-------->  10
Kill Desire:      7    6 ------------------->  10
Attack Location:  HE---------------------------->
Protect Location: HE---------------------------->

You can choose weapons from the charts (do you have them?).
I would only go out in ALE-L for armor and cap (Leather armor, Leather cap).

I would actually run the slasher exactly the same way, except use a slashing  
weapon (try the SC, it's a beauty!).

Actually, run all your short-term offensives the same way, except use a  
weapon suited to the style, and don't wear ANY armor.

>Don't worry, I won't hesitate to ask.  I have a lot of learning to do
>so I may ask a few stupid questions, but bear with me and I'll figure
>it out eventually.

I'm good at bearing.

>Sure thing.  Thanks for the input, everyone.  With the mistakes
>I've made already I'm gonna need all the help I can get just to
>salvage something! :-)
>
>By the way, John, I used to drive to Pasadena every Friday night to play
>a D&D variant called Warlock at Cal Tech.  I've got a few friends that
>graduated from there that still go regularly and I go up once or twice a 
>year so next time I'm up that way I'll let you know and maybe we can talk 
>DM for a bit.

Cool.  Can you get me a job, too?

:-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-):-)
--
John White
johnjohn@cco.caltech.edu
|===============================================================|
|                          What the HELL?!                      |
|                   Did I come BACK to Caltech?!                |
|===============================================================|
-- 
John White
johnjohn@cco.caltech.edu
|===============================================================|
|                          What the HELL?!                      |
Xref: sparky rec.games.pbm:2699 rec.games.board:9557