In reply to GM (msg # 699):

Do the scarecrows seem to be working at... scaring the crows?

In reply to Titus Blackwell (msg # 700):

Nope.  They have crows on them too.

In reply to GM (msg # 701):

But are there crows BEYOND them?

In reply to Brennan Otthild (msg # 702):

Not on the ground.  The scarecrows are only a few feet from the cottage walls.  There are no crows between them and the cottage, but there ARE crows on the roof of the cottage.

In reply to GM (msg # 703):

Would I have a problem throwing through the wind?

In reply to Titus Blackwell (msg # 704):

Yes.

In reply to GM (msg # 705):

Uh oh.

Guess it's time for an un-bear-able pun...

In reply to Brennan Otthild (msg # 706):

After this combat I might take a look at how defensive rolls work.  ORE wasn't really built for heavy melee.

In reply to GM (msg # 707):

Right? Because I'm confused. I actually burned an action to defend, did so successfully, and still get punched in the face. I'm fine with him having a better set or beating me, but from a player standpoint, it's frustrating. You've made clear this is a system where we don't want to be fighting, and I/we are trying to listen.

With such a limited die pool, the slow pace of healing, and the difficulty of performing multi actions (unless you have an Enrei sized die pool), something has to give.

In reply to Uldaf Asbjorn (msg # 708):

It's also a system where being ganged up on is particularly unforgiving, and I can't think of a way to actively participate in the fight without dropping the wind shield.

You might need to burn them all to death after all.

In reply to Uldaf Asbjorn (msg # 708):

The mechanics seem tomake it more accurate to say that you don't want to fight in the system, but once you are fighting, you want to murder the other guy(s) as quickly and brutally as possible.  Fighting defensively just seems to encourage chip damage.


I would like to point out that if these are just animated scarecrows, and not tiny ents or something that has a concept of pain and mortality, they might become briefly even more horrifying as they are on fire, still whole enough to move, and still want to kill us.  just food for thought.
This message was last edited by the player at 14:26, Wed 15 Apr 2015.

Exactly, "Defending" is still "fighting".

@ Uldaf: yes, you defended successfully, he just attacked "better".

Here's what I'm likely going to do:

If your defense is faster (by initiative) than the attack, you remove dice from his set as normal (core rules).

If your defense is the same speed as the attack, you will reduce the height of his attack.

If your defense is slower, or fails, you get nothing.

In reply to GM (msg # 711):

Isn't that what the rules were before?  I don't see the difference.

In reply to Titus Blackwell (msg # 712):

Nope it's different.  Here's what it is currently:

Defensive rolls (dodge, block, etc.) succeed if they tie (or beat) the attack in initiative and also beat the opposing attack in height.  A success at such a defensive roll will "gobble" or remove dice from incoming attacks equal to its width.
This message was last edited by the GM at 16:39, Wed 15 Apr 2015.

In reply to GM (msg # 711):

by reduce height do you mean if i roll 2x3 to block and he rolls 2x7 to attack he has an effective 2x4?

In reply to Enrei Omal'i (msg # 714):

I haven't decided yet by how much the height would be reduced, but yes that's the idea.

Basically, I'm adding the possibility of a "partial" block and also adding emphasis on higher initiatives.

THEN I get to throw enemies at you who have supernatural initiative...

In reply to GM (msg # 715):

you're a bad man

In reply to Enrei Omal'i (msg # 716):

Would it be a bad idea for us to just say screw the scarecrows and go into the house?

In reply to Titus Blackwell (msg # 717):

What would be the penalty for attacking with a knife in each hand?

If my math is correct its -3 (dual action, left hand) and match 2 pair... is that right?

In reply to Titus Blackwell (msg # 718):

Correct.

In reply to Titus Blackwell (msg # 718):

I attempted to knock on the door and the battle started before I reached it. I don't think we can just ignore the scarecrows without taking attack opps or whatever passes for that here.

In terms of penalizing initiative, I recommend not skewing it TOO much in favor of fast folks.

For no particular reason.

In reply to Brennan Otthild (msg # 720):

I feel confident in Enrei's ability to remove the door as a barrier to entry if he can be convinced that is the best course of action.

In reply to Enrei Omal'i (msg # 721):

Jon,

Did you already put 4 shock on my right arm, or is that residual and I know have Johnny deadarm?

In reply to Uldaf Asbjorn (msg # 722):

I stopped adding damage to your sheets a while ago, so it's up to you to add/remove as it comes up.

Thus if there's already damage there, you might be in trouble!

In reply to GM (msg # 723):

Hey Brendan,

If you did a called shot why did you throw away those sets and use martial aim to shift it?