How do we use Scouts?

[Yossar]

The description is perfectly fine in my opinion. It could be read to mean something else, but if you know that for most weapons strength is added to damage and that most weapons don't include the strength not added to damage line, it is almost impossible to do so.

[ February 28, 2004, 03:04: Message edited by: Yossar ]

[NTJedi]

Originally posted by Arryn:
A better phrasing would be "Strength does not apply to damage".

I would have to agree with Arryn that the following phrase would have been better:
"Strength does not apply to damage"

[Graeme Dice]

Originally posted by NTJedi:
Damage is : 10
( Strength of wielder not added )
[/QB]

I'm sorry, but there's only one possible way to read that. It tells you that the damage is 10, and that the strength of the wielder is not added. There is no possible way to obtain the information that strength affects damage with the sentence above.

[PhilD]

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:

quote:

---

Originally posted by NTJedi:
Damage is : 10
( Strength of wielder not added )

I'm sorry, but there's only one possible way to read that. It tells you that the damage is 10, and that the strength of the wielder is not added. There is no possible way to obtain the information that strength affects damage with the sentence above. [/QB]

---

I tend to agree, though, since English isn't my native language anymore than it is the devs', I may be biased. But I never had any trouble understanding this mention right.

[Gandalf Parker]

I could see it read both ways. But my jobs have given me alot of experience reading and speaking english as its learned by others rather than how country-American is spoken in Iowa where I grew up. I tend to automatically read Dominions in "international" mode. The english used in Dominions is closest to "LA-California English" which is considered the most neutral in the US.

[alexti]

Originally posted by NTJedi:
Damage is : 10
( Strength of wielder not added )

After careful examination I can see this standing for one of these:

code:

---

Damage: 10

 (Strength of wielder is not included [in 10], but shall be added for combat resolution purposes)

Damage: 10

 (Strength of wielder is not included [in 10] and shall not be added for combat resolution purposes)

---

As yet another non-native english speaker I am not sure if "Strength of wielder not added" is a correct rewording of "Strength of wielder is not included", but it looks clear where the confusion comes from. But if one reads the manual from the beginning I think the original statement can only be interpreted as "... shall not be added".

[johan osterman]

Strength is not added to damage for most bows. And I agree with NTJedi that the phrase "strength of wielder not added" could be read as it refering to the damage before strength is added, but it is not intended to be read that way. I do think that in the context of the game it is obvious what it means though since it is the exceptions from the norm that have the phrase in question attached to them, ie weapons that do not add strength, weapons whose damage resolution deviate from the way most weapon damage is resolved.

[Gandalf Parker]

Another way I see it is

Strength of wielder is not added
Damage is 10

or

Damage is 10
strength of wielder is not added

Having it before or after the statement makes it read alittle bit differently to me. But I do find Arryns suggestion of "Strength does not apply to damage" to be clearer. I guess we can make this suggestion in the typo thread?

Also, since I dont read Docs much it wasnt until I saw that phrase on a bow that I realized that strength apparently applies to everything else if it doesnt say otherwise?

[ February 28, 2004, 14:56: Message edited by: Gandalf Parker ]

With the exception of a few weapons and special effects. Str applies to all damage.

The formula is I believe for damage
wdam+str+2d6(oe) vs prot+2d6(oe) for all weapons.

I would hope that the onus of competency would not be on the phrase but on understanding the game mechanic.

Everything can be interpreted in totally misunderstood ways, especially in a multi-language enviroment. That doesn't mean that this particular phrasing is more or less misleading. Especially if you look at the basic mechanics of strength used in the game. I think the fault comes from making blanket statements of being 'wrong' when in actuallity you have no idea of what you are talking about.

[ February 28, 2004, 16:18: Message edited by: Zen ]