2) Not true. Common sense and logic dicate if a defense works or not.

@Skallagrim and @Rilla I'm sorry to barge in on this thread, but I was wondering if one of you might be willing, or able, to write up a document on T1? I can't seem to find a clear definition of what it actually is and entails. Though, I may not be looking in the right places. I also think that it'd be a good idea to have an article just on the Guild that anyone interested would have access to.

If you have an epic attack, and it requires only one turn to use, you might need to reevaluate that character, or place him on a higher tier. While, yes, everything is equal per charge, you do need to use logic with it. Trusting people is almost impossible, because almost everyone tries to slip shit under the radar. Common sense and logiv should always be present, but no one has built a replacement to T1, which seems to work almost everywhere else, including the former big arena tournament.

Also, we are currently going over T1, as it seems to have fallen out of favor, new person.

Kind of interesting how both of you have had trouble with it, and I never once have. I've GMed plenty of successful RPs, and been in plenty as well, many of which did have a combat focus that required one to keep a tight reign on abilities.

While what is OP is somewhat subjective (depending on the tier and the context), there are certain things that are objectively pretty unreasonable or nigh impossible to counter. Perhaps the problem is that the tiers are so loosely defined that it's very difficult to ordain where one stops and the next begins, making it difficult to create even match-ups.

Since at the moment what I am noticing is an isolated set of individuals having similar issues happen continually over a period of time; Perhaps, since I've seen the same system work and I know others who have as well, it is not the system of grading, but instead the difficulty of there being no really set/strict system.

I know you don't like strict Tiers, Skallagrim, and I know we had the system before which had numbered tiers which were "more specific," but really that was fairly lacking as well. My reasoning for it being lacking is based on the fact that various characters from other verses were used as parallels, but they were poor parallels either because their powers were loosely defined or because their powers were far more grand and vast if you looked them up. Meaning that the tiers more or less lost their meaning altogether and instead ended up just as vague as the current system, though that may have been the intention to begin with.

Unless of course you're talking about these GMs ALSO having to make decisions regarding the fairness of a given match. That is not what I'm talking about. However, since we DO have a match grading system in place, which does use numbers, you could honestly have all three GMs grade it and then average the grades out to get the final one. You'd end up with less biased grading to boot. Nonetheless, I am just one voice in a sea of voices and I have virtually no real social pull in the arena because my presence here has been somewhat spotty over the years I've been participating. While I am changing that currently, it won't likely matter for a good while.

So yeah, while my opinions and ideas MIGHT gain traction if other more socially respected individuals come along, I doubt anything I say is truly going to make waves. That just seems to be how things work around here.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not questioning anyone's character despite whatever impressions anyone may think I am attempting to give off, just stating how things appear to work from someone on the outside coming in. I'm sure many, if not most of you, are very reasonable and pleasant people. Aside from a few fairly isolated incidents that has more or less been my experience.

Well, it was also stuff like, "two concentrated attacks on the weapon will break it" which doesn't allow for common sense from my opinion. Too many situations like that.

There was actually an MV where two people were doing the character accepting, after disliking my methods. At one point, a fire manipulator couldn't do more than set a leaf on fire while others were well ahead of that. Three opinions can get hectic. Yes, there are things that are purely restricted, but those also come down to subjectivity.

I disagree with 'two concentrated attacks' on a weapon, because I feel that could be more, but you have to realixe that is referring to an attack specifically on that weapon, not aimed at the arm, and happens to just hit the weapon. Sort of like specifically trying to break an arm.

The thing about having an epic attack matched by the weaker defense with equal charge, it's not op for the attacker to have a more epic attack then the defender has defense if he would specialize in attack, so of course he's not going to be blocked by an average joe defender who puts 1 charge into defense against the 1 charge specialized attacker. The 1 charge versus 1 charge makes sense if the attacker's attack is around equal to the defender's defense and that it. Otherwise the common sense begins to break down.

The two concentrated attacks point, which you agree with, is the same concept. What if my character has a super durable weapon as his main point, balanced out with his other stats? Nope, his main advantage still breaks as if a bamboo sword a character could be using. I realize that it's a target of the weapon, but I can target a steel sword repeatedly and might not be able to break it unless I had a good weapon or something in return. There's no way I could be certain to break his sword in two hits or any predetermined hit count we give to everything.

The grapple thing is yet another concept going along with this.

IN, you do realize that those attacks a) have to hit and b) make sense in context of the weapons. Your example doesn't make sense. I promise you I can break you wrist in less than second in real life. Giving two posts to grapple is more than fair.

@Celaira I think Rilla or I can manage to get it posted somewhere for reference.

You are assuming the defense would be weaker, T1 balances it out to keep people from just saying 'I stronger, your defense can do nothing', in my view. They also refer more so to magic, which, again, is often balanced out during the selection process before the fight. Your points are valid, but would be best served for a discussion where their is a big difference in character level.

Also, back to what Skallagrim said - common sense and logic. If you have a diamond sword, and he has a bamboo stick, there is no way your sword is gonna break just because he aims at it with bamboo. That also assumes all things are balanced out prior to actual combat.

IN, you do realize that those attacks a) have to hit and b) make sense in context of the weapons. Your example doesn't make sense. I promise you I can break you wrist in less than second in real life. Giving two posts to grapple is more than fair.

And we're similar tier levels; normal humans. Why could you grapple someone made of steel or something and break his wrist in two turns? The T1 rules makes sense for similarly balanced opponents. I can't see how that working would make sense in all contexts, which is what rules should apply to. Yes, I realize I would need to, and I certainly could hit and grapple such an opponent, but I'm not going to break him in two turns given my hits.

Hence common sense and logic. Are you feasibly strong enough to do it? Yes/No;

Yes, based off power, strength, etc.

No, then it won't happen.

You are assuming the defense would be weaker, T1 balances it out to keep people from just saying 'I stronger, your defense can do nothing', in my view.

Some characters do have a lot more defense or attack in exchange for something else. All stats don't have to be balanced between them and their opponent.

Hence common sense and logic. Are you feasibly strong enough to do it? Yes/No;

Yes, based off power, strength, etc.

No, then it won't happen.

If you are allowed to break T1 rules when common sense applies then I'm okay with that.

Logic dicates, if you cannot logically do something you cannot do it. If you are trying to grapple a robot who is stronger, no matter how eloqently you write, you are not winning that particular part of the conflict.

It really is not as difficult as you are making it.

You do understand T1 is build on common sense so you aren't breaking any "rules"

They don't, but you're assuming their defense isn't as strong as your attack. You use an average Joe as an example against someone with an epic attack, a scenario tht will almost never happen in a combat scenario. Common sense and logic come into play. If you're fighting a novice in magic with a grand wizard, an equal prep won't much help, but again, difference in power.

You will NEVER account for everything. The rules are meant for two equal level people, common sense should tell you things are slightly different based on the power difference.

It really is not as difficult as you are making it.

Taking the rules literally doesn't mean I'm making it too difficult because it should be assumed you take rules literally unless otherwise stated. It should say, "this is just a suggestion and common sense can allow changes to these rules when necessary" or something like that. If it already does say that then I missed it and am at fault.

They don't, but you're assuming their defense isn't as strong as your attack. You use an average Joe as an example against someone with an epic attack, a scenario tht will almost never happen in a combat scenario.

They wouldn't likely be average joe in all stats, but they may suck as badly as an average joe when it comes to defense, in which case their 1 charge would be pathetic to a 1 charge attack of someone who's good at it, is what I was getting at. Even if they are around equal power overall that sort of match-up could reasonably happen.

The rules literally say "common sense" in them.

Basically, it comes down to logic, common sense, and the rules.

The rules say, two concentrated attacks can break a weapon.

What's the weapon?

Bamboo on bamboo? Yes, you can break it. That's the rule.

Bamboo on diamond sword? No, you cannot. That's logic and common sense.

You just have to take each situation as it comes. If there is an issue, talk it out.

<Snipped quote by Skallagrim>

Taking the rules literally doesn't mean I'm making it too difficult because it should be assumed you take rules literally unless otherwise stated. It should say, "this is just a suggestion and common sense can allow changes to these rules when necessary" or something like that. If it already does say that then I missed it and am at fault.

<Snipped quote by Rilla>

They wouldn't likely be average joe in all stats, but they may suck as badly as an average joe when it comes to defense, in which case their 1 charge would be pathetic to a 1 charge attack of someone who's good at it, is what I was getting at. Even if they are around equal power overall that sort of match-up could reasonably happen.

Hence common sense and the like. You suck at defense. Your prep needs more pee are eee pee.

The rules literally say "common sense" in them.

Well that would have been a nice opening argument.

Didn't know common sense already could override other rules. T1 doesn't really have many problems then.

2) Not true. Common sense and logic dicate if a defense works or not.

I started with that. Lol

On a side note, I will grab a comprehensive T1 rule set and post them.