 |
| ||
|
Visitor :  Dice Roller| Game Info| The Cast |
| Ask Your GMs. Posted by Garrion. | Group: 0 |
|---|
| Author | Message | [bottom] |
This message was last edited by the GM at 03:15, Sat 23 Sept 2017. | |||||
This message had punctuation tweaked by the player at 17:17, Tue 26 Sept 2017. | |||||
Shetah is still on the ship and is getting cared for there. This is not a horse friendly adventure! | |||||
1. Defense is assumed to be "always active". The GM will make an attack and the PC will always make a defense roll (parry or dodge) regardless of the outcome and pay the appropriate Doom. This would represent defending without the knowledge of if an attack is going to hit or not (the way the game was designed), but it also ignores the person who may wish to rely on armor alone and forgo defending. 2. The intent to defend against any attack during that round is declared as a "free action" as a player is taking their turn. A player could also specify that they will not defend against a certain group or will only defend against a specific foe. Any incoming attacks that round will be considered as the player declared and the doom will be tallied for each. This is probably the fairest method and follows the intent of the game rules. However, it does require a bit more tracking. 3. Players choose to defend after attacks are made. This is the most reactive, but also gives the players much more power to not "waste" Doom spends to defend on failed attacks. This does not follow the game intent but could be considered. Personally, I think I prefer method #2. It allows for tactical decisions while also maintaining the "risk" that the game intended. As an alternative, I would go for #3. I don't like that it lets players "cherry pick" their defense spends, but it's probably fairer than #1. You could of course declare the attack and hold the roll till the player declares intent to defend, but this would slow the game too much and I would not want to do that. | |||||
| |||||
Defend The character attempts to defend against an attack. This reaction may be used when an enemy attack is attempted and the character has been declared as the target of that attack. This turns the attacker’s skill test into a Struggle. The skill used by the defender is determined by the type of attack, as described in Making an Attack on page 117. 1. The attacker chooses a type of attack to make and nominates a single target within range. 2. If the target is aware of the attack, the target may declare a Defend Reaction. 3. The attacker attempts a skill test determined by the type of attack. This is an Average (D1) skill test, unless the target has declared a Defend Reaction. In this case, the skill test is a Struggle; the target’s skill is determined by the type of attack. If the attacker wins the Struggle, then the target is hit. If the target wins the Struggle, the attack misses. 4. If the attack hits, then the attack inflicts damage as described in Damage and Recovery. If the attack misses, then nothing happens. Also Rules Reference at back of book: MAKING AN ATTACK The process for making an attack is as follows: 1. Declare the attack: a. Choose the type of attack being made: MELEE, RANGED, or THREATEN. b. Choose a TARGET for the attack. The target chosen must be a viable type of target for the type of attack. c. Choose a WEAPON (for Melee and Ranged attack) or a METHOD of scaring the target (for a Threaten attack). d. The target chooses whether or not to make a DEFENSE Reaction. 2. The attacker makes a SKILL TEST to attack. This is an AVERAGE (D1) test, or a STRUGGLE if the target is taking a Defense Reaction. ... This message was last edited by the GM at 14:13, Sat 07 Oct 2017. | |||||
| |||||
Thats fine! I would roll damage in the next GM post next time then. I say that you still cannot defend against attacks that did not hit you in the first place though... Or what is the general opinion on that? This message was last edited by the GM at 11:22, Fri 06 Oct 2017. | |||||
I think that would be a fair way to do it. There is nothing wrong with modifying the tabletop rules for smoother PBP flow, but if the players have the new advtsnge of knowing what to dodge. Then we shouldn’t be able to stockpile momentum by dodging attacks we know have failed. I am not opposed to eliminating the tabletop format in this game as often as people post, Which I’d imagine being GM post 1 “NPCs” attack you X times” player post 1 “I defend Y times with these rolls}” GM post 2 “You suffer from these effects/you avoid all damage” But I totally see a need to condense Which raises 2 questions though. We are going need some back and forth when players attack, right? Cause there are momentum spends to think of. So when we attack won’t there be a small exchange as well Players: We attack with these rolls GM: responds with the defense rolls describing if we hit or not Players: give momentum spends and roll damage GM: here is the results of your damage And most importantly: how many attacks am I dodging? It looks like we’ve agreed on 2 but I just want to be clear | |||||
That would not be fair to many with talents that allow them to benefit from a successful reaction. Things like riposte and others that slip my mind at the moment allow the defender to exploit a successful defense, whether the attack missed or not. However, this is the reason for declaring intent before the dice hit the table. Otherwise there would be a large amount of defends being made every time an attack fails, either to exploit or farm Momentum while also conveniently keeping Doom spends to a minimum. The choice really should be made prior to the outcome for balance reasons. I'm not just saying this as GM, but it also affects me as a player too. I dont think w need to slow the game down by waiting for responses, but declaring intent to defend during your turn takes care of that. Scene: 2 PCs are facing 3 known archers at medium range and two swordsmen at short range. Round 1: PC 1 acts taking minor and standard, declares intent to defend against know archers but relying on companion to stop the melee combatants. PC 2 acts taking minor to engage and standard and declares intent to defend against melee opponents, trusting the archers will not shoot into melee. GM acts for all NPCs. Archers do indeed attack PC1. One melee opponents attacks PC 2 but the other manages to move past and engage with PC 1. GM determines result with dice rolls, resulting in 1 archer hit and 2 misses on PC 1. The melee NPCs both hit their targets. The GM gains 4 Doom for the defenses (no Doom for PC 2 to defend against the second swordsman since he didnt attack him) and rolls on behalf of the PCs as applicable. PC 1 succeeds against his archer attack but also used 2 Doom to defend against the missed shots. Unfortunately, he failed to defend against the melee attack and is hit. Damage is rolled. PC 2 succeeds his defense with Momentum to spare. This will be held in reserve when his next action is taken to see if his reaction allowed any immediate counter-actions. Round 2: PC has riposte so he uses the Momentum generated on the defense to make a counter attack and then proceeds with his turn. Alternatively, and maybe easier on the GM, would be for characters to make a singular defense roll when they declare intent to defend that will apply to all applicable attacks. This could be good if it is a great roll, or bad if it sucks, but it should all average out. Thoughts? | |||||
As far as one roll, I do not think that is a good idea. The die rolls in this game swing big. Once faced with the attacks made during the GMs action the player makes the required defense rolls and then if they have something like riposte they make that attack. I would suggest we that each GM turn and player turn show what round # they are acting in to avoid confusion. For example. Round Three: Reactions Razuli easily dodges the arrows.
Round Three: Actions Razuli moves to close range to and attacks the enemy.
To reduce confusion and speed things up. For instance I am not sure at the moment if it Razuli's turn or not. This message was last edited by the player at 17:10, Fri 06 Oct 2017. | |||||
As Octavian brought up you have to have 2-way interaction throughout the process anyway to account for Momentum spends once the margin is determined. So therefore making defense reactionary after the roll won't really eliminate that pause as the attacker (if they win) then has to add in any Momentum spends to modify the outcome. Razuli does make his argument well that a reactionary roll does eliminate one step of delay as you pause between declaration and action as the game intended. I completely agree with this and we do NOT need any additional pauses. He also mentioned (which has been said also by others I play with outside this camp) that is is foolish to never defend despite adding to doom and it really should be the default action all the time. This brings me to our options again as I try to break them down as much for myself as anyone else: #1 Always On (Interactive PC/NPC Attack): Post #1 - Attacker makes attack roll and preemptively rolls standard damage in the instance that they win. Post #2 - Defender always rolls defense (if the appropriate NPC type) spending Momentum/Doom with no option not to, unless Doom is empty for NPCs and then they have to forgo defense (this could get nasty for NPCs if Doom runs dry). If the Attacker wins, damage is applied and remaining Momentum/Threat is banked or used (leading to post #3). If the Defender wins: A. Nothing happens and we move on. B. He uses a defensive ability to counterattack and deal damage. Starting the process over again. Post #3 (optional) - Attacker uses Momentum/Threat to enhance attack outcome and it is applied behind the scenes. #1 Always On (Alternative NPC Attack): Post #1 - NPC makes attack roll and GM can go ahead and roll defense on behalf of the PC (adding to Doom). If the NPC (Attacker) wins, damage is rolled and applied, and Threat can be used to immediately enhance the outcome. If the PC (Defender) wins: A. Nothing happens and we move on. B. He uses a defensive ability to counterattack and deal damage. Starting the process over again using the primary "Always On" method. (This option is very speedy, especially for NPC attacks if the players are willing to concede to GM rolling defense. The only snag could be players wanting to add dice to their defense, which the GM could simply verify via PM before he posts and forgo a complete player post. This allows the resolution in a single post.) #2 Preemptive PC Declaration: (PC intent to defend has been previously established in their action post, therefore this only applies to NPC attacks. Otherwise PC/NPCs use options #1 or #3 for their attacks/defenses. The ONLY difference here is that PCs have the option to forego defending.) Post #1 - NPC makes attack roll and GM can go ahead and roll defense on behalf of the PC (adding to Doom), ONLY IF THEY DECLARED INTENT when they took their action. Otherwise they will forego defending. If the NPC (Attacker) wins, damage is rolled and applied, and Threat can be used to immediately enhance the outcome. If the PC (Defender) wins: A. Nothing happens and we move on. B. He uses a defensive ability to counterattack and deal damage. Starting the process over again using the primary "Always On" method. (This option is very speedy, for NPC attacks if the players are willing to concede to GM rolling defense. The only snag could be players wanting to add dice to their defense, which the GM could simply verify via PM before he posts and forgo a complete player post. This allows the resolution in a single post.) #3 Choose After (Interactive PC/NPC Attack): Post #1 - Attacker makes attack roll and preemptively rolls standard damage in the instance that they win. Post #2 - Defender chooses to defend or not and makes roll, spending Momentum/Doom based on choice. If the Attacker wins or Defender chooses not to defend, damage is applied and remaining Momentum/Threat is banked or used (leading to post #3). If the Defender wins: A. Nothing happens and we move on. B. He uses a defensive ability to counterattack and deal damage. Starting the process over again. Post #3 (optional) - Attacker uses Momentum/Threat to enhance attack outcome and it is applied behind the scenes. (This option really only varies from #1 in the fact that defense is an option and decided after the roll. This actually slows things down if the NPC is attacking as the GM then has to wait on the PC to declare and roll up a post, eliminating the option for him to move forward. This forces the 2-3 post requirement every turn opposed to the 1 post option for NPC turns. As discussed previously it also minimally affects the Momentum/Doom economy by cherry-picking your defense reactions.) If players are unwilling to concede to the GM rolling their defenses for them then everything is a wash and there is no difference at all in the posting requirements. As detailed above the most economic options are #1 and #2 IF the players are willing to allow proxy GM defense rolls. Just for grins and giggles let's look at the RAW tabletop method. RAW Method (Interactive PC/NPC Attack): Post #1 - Attacker declares attack dice and target. Post #2 - Defender chooses to defend or not and amount of dice, spending Momentum/Doom based on choice. Post #3a - Defender Chose not to defend so Attacker wins and rolls damage. Banking or spending Momentum/Doom as desired to enhance. Turn is done IF no defense. Post #3b and #4 - Attack/Defense rolls are made. Post #5 - If the Attacker wins, damage is applied and remaining Momentum/Threat is banked or used to enhance. If the Defender wins: A. Nothing happens and we move on. B. He uses a defensive ability to counterattack and deal damage. Starting the process over again. (As you can see the RAW method is much more intrusive to the posting economy by requiring 3 posts minimum if no defense up to 5 if there is. None of the options provided above are this costly. The main gameplay balance difference is that by RAW you know the dice # but not the result when declaring defense. Via PbP you will get the results of the roll before committing your dice which gives some insight. IMO this is minimal though because you never know what the dice may do and it flips both ways for PCs or NPCs.) If I had to choose now that I have broken it down, I would go for option #2 or #1 with the allowance for the GM to roll proxy defenses after verifying bonus dice. This will knock most turns down to 1-2 posts. | |||||
Easiest and any advantage it offers gets offset. | |||||
That one is the one that requires the most posting. You were saying you wanted the least posting possible. Unless what you are trying to say is that you don't want the GM making your defense rolls for you. In which case that is understandable. I'm just confused on the reason for your choice. If #3 is chosen then I suggest a missed attack gets no Reaction. If the attacker misses, you simply move on and the turn ends. This will speed up posts and minimize blatant exploitation of what you know is guaranteed reaction bonuses or Momentum/Threat. The attacker simply missed to the point where the defender was unable to even do anything suficient with it to capitalize on the moment. In conclusion #3 grants:
I think these thing balance each other fairly well and they will apply to both PCs and NPCs. Unless there are any further objections/suggestions I say we run with it and move on with the story. I also agree with Razuli's comment earlier about posting scenes/rounds. I did this in the Star Trek game to keep track of the event cycle (as most of you know since you are in it). This message was last edited by the GM at 22:27, Sat 07 Oct 2017. | |||||
| |||||
I am cool with the “final” version of 3 So we are ready to dive into a long distance exchange Where we are out “gunned” and out manned. Most excellent | |||||
I disagree, in this system missed attacks are an opportunity. You still pay doom and still risk complications. the change I am suggesting is pretty minor. that is a big change. | |||||
And not to continue this conversation too far. But would Number 2 be a way to mitigate this “over defending to mine momentum” concern which i share but since I’m always a player I should just keep my mouth shut and take every advantage I’m given. (My concern is we spend 1 threat but are going to gain more in momentum minus a terrible roll...which just feels off) But overall I am cool with method 2,3, or 3 modified | |||||
If they didn't then I want to use Momentum to add Pierce to my shots and ignore cover. This should give 5 damage and an Injury to the chief's son. | |||||
Maybe I am misunderstanding the rules but if I dont get a reaction that means I cannot defend against an attack, no? | |||||
Correct, it depends on the NPC type. I just didn't know if the "leader" was above the mooks and got reactions. | |||||
From the rules it seems he loses this ability if he leads a squad. | |||||
You seem to be correct, but... "In the case of a Squad, the Leader will always be the last to suffer damage under normal circumstances, with the Minions in the Squad being taken out of action first. Attackers may spend two Momentum on an attack in order to pick the Leader out from within a Squad — this is a called shot, no different to picking a specific hit location. A Squad whose Leader has been slain immediately becomes a Mob. Being composed of Minions, Mobs cannot attempt Reactions. Even though Squads are led by Toughened creatures, a Squad cannot attempt a Reaction either." So based on that they do not get a defense, but since I did not spend 2 Momentum on a called shot to hit the leader then I will hit a minion instead. That can be narrated that even though I was targeting the leader a minion stepped in the way and took the shot. I could use my 2 Momentum to hit him but it would only deal 2 damage. I think I'd rather spend the Momentum to avoid the cover and that 5 damage will take out one of the minions in the squad (also removing one of the shots against me, the last one being the 9). Also, what is our current Momentum/Doom count? It helps a lot when it is posted on each GM turn. | |||||
Ok, makes sense. I will update my post with the current Momentum (5) and Doom (20!) | |||||
And so to help work through my sling attack. I rolled 3 successes but does that over come the range (slings are medium range) or cover ? Any excess momentum I can spend? | |||||
| |||||
I will spend momentum to do so. Should I post that choice in the IC thread or do you want to just post the results? | |||||
I will add it to my last post. With your bonus damage its just enough to take out one angry warrior. Could you please add the sling and your Talents to your character sheet? Its pretty helpful for me so I can bcheck what you guys are capable of. :) | |||||
Yeah. Sorry I thought I had “finished” the sheet but I apparently deities the abilities and skills and saved the rest for later. Oops. The weapons are there and the talents are listed, I didn’t have time this morning to format them, I’ll do that soon. | |||||
Its still a long way down requiring 3 successful climb checks (or two more difficult acrobatics checks and a climb check) as long as you get fired upon. Otherwise one check will be enough. | |||||
PS. I see Jolly is back to posting Conan game stuff again. | |||||
I think its a good idea if someone else starts another tale independent of this one and I will come back for this one once my second job stops eating all my free time. | |||||
1. I'll set up a Discord channel as you know I'm fond of. (https://discord.gg/8QRPH8n) 2. I'll select the adventure I want to run. 3. I'll get the roll20 site set up for our more intricate battle scenes. (https://app.roll20.net/join/2595196/ptjXqw) |
| [top] |