View Single Post
Old 11-30-2018, 01:32 PM   #38
Plane
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Default Re: A Challenger Appears! Green versus Red

You didn't use your free step on your Evaluate, so if you want to take a retreat against this punch at your arm it won't cost you extra AP.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ericthered View Post
It requires a perk you don't have to avoid nuisance rolls.
The "No Nuisance Rolls" perk is for skills that are 16+ and being used outside combat. This is for 19+ and doesn't mention "perk" so I'm not sure it requires anything.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ericthered View Post
I'm also not actually sure where the +2 is coming from.
It's from:
  • You still get your training bonus if you lose FP while performing a skill you’re really good at, but you don’t get any slack for being scared or in combat

It refers to the Training Bonus Table directly preceding Hitting the Wall. We both have our combat skills at DX+2 (Relative Skill) so we get a TB of +2. If we had it at DX+10 we would only get a +5.

"slack for being scared" is a strange way to refer to the +5 you get in Persistance is Futile, because it sounds like you DON'T get it if you fail a fright check...

I also overlooked something, now that I'm rereading this paragraph...
  • If this bonus is the only reason you make your roll, something uncontrollable and grotesquely biological might occur

12<20 is a win of more than 5, so it isn't the reason I made my 2nd roll... but my first check was 15<16 so it was definitely the reason I made my 1st roll... um.... I'm wondering if there is some kind of "Grotesque Biological Reaction" table I could roll on for this?

"if your maneuver is key to your survival (being in life-or-death combat should almost always qualify!)" does say YOUR, so if you were choosing a maneuver to save someone else you wouldn't get the +5 (unless it was something like you needed them to guarantee your survival, not just if you like them).

It also says ALMOST so there could be exceptions, but I'm not really sure what those exceptions are meant to be, or really how to define when a threat is large enough to qualify as life-or-death.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ericthered View Post
That sounds like a good rule.
I shouldn't have phrased it "immobility" though, since you can still take a Step while doing recovery (Evaluate) or zero-cost (Aim, Concentrate). Attack or All-Out Attack (Determined) for RANGED attacks also cost 0 AP so I guess failing "Resistance is Futile" wouldn't prevent shooting guns, though it would prevent spending AP on a Ready to cock a crossbow or an arrow.

All-Out Defense allows you to go at 1/2 Move. I think you still have to spend AP if you want to go more than your free step.

(I don't like the idea of free steps and free facing changes, Move mentions spending 1 AP to get 10% of your Movement Points, and always pay them and treat the "step" in maneuvers as a cap rather than a freebie. If that slows people down too much, could just double AP to compensate.

This makes Do Nothing's lack of a step less of a handicap, because it allows you to conserve MP. I think it would be okay if you have some unused MP (up to your basic move cap) to allow it to carry over to future turns, but they are still subject to the cap. Just so someone with high move (ie Move 20 = 2 MP per AP) isn't nickled-and-timed for taking a single step forward.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ericthered View Post
DWA does seem like it SHOULD be, even if it isn't.
Possible the "Counterattack" Technique penalties and "Riposte" options too, in the spirit of "penalties my opponent's actions are creating on me" instead of "penalties due to my limb limitations"

Quote:
Originally Posted by ericthered View Post
I wasn't planning on burning my evaluate defending against a single telegraphed punch though.
I'm not sure if negating defense penalties actually burns the evaluate, it sounds like you can actually keep that benefit against all defenses up until you make an attack against the person you're evaluating.

Now I'm wondering how that works against multiple opponents, if you could maintain your evaluation bonus against 1 enemy if you attacked somebody else before attacking the evaluated enemy...

Quote:
Originally Posted by ericthered View Post
Timing is everything. I'd require regular AP to be subtracted before defensive AP. But if the Shock was applied first, and you're at 0AP, you're just at 0AP.
I'm not sure I understand this example, are you saying that that there shouldn't be AP loss to shock or strangulation if an enemy is already at 0 AP?

Pain does mention "the worst that you can suffer is being brought down to 0 AP; you cannot go negative" so I suppose in that context allowing negative AP is more of a house rule...

Strangulation does seem to imply AP loss halts at 0 and is replaced with HT checks to avoid unconsciousness.

It creates a weird situation where if FPbeing burnt to regain 50% HT in AP is voluntary-only, you can conserve FP at risk of going unconscious faster, or choose to burn them and fight off unconsciousness.

All I can figure is the 1/sec AP loss (B371/B486 was originally 1 FP/s, for balance purposes of strangle v other abilities, this could support a 1:1 FP>AP cost ratio?) represents some kind of instinctive resistance and will to breathe which all people must do if they have any AP, so you can't choose (if you have more than 0 AP) to avoid spending that AP to avoid the HT checks to avoid unconsciousness, this is only an option at 0 AP...

The idea of involuntary FP-burning when you've lost of a lot of AP appeals to me...
  • B427 requires Will rolls at 0 HP if you choose to do anything other than nothing. Failure = collapse
If we view "I'm avoiding burning my FP" as an act of self-restraint, then perhaps someone who doesn't want to burn FP when subject to AP demands when they lack AP should require a Will roll, or else they burn an FP? Willingly risking HT checks to remain conscious to conserve FP isn't very instinctive...

and there's no reason you should necessarily be limited to doing that at 0, so for strangulation the default should be "you spend 1 AP fighting for consciousness unless you make a will roll representing willingly not fighting and risking losing consciousness, in which case make a HT check".

Weirdly, the amount of FP (AP, in Last Gasp) lost to strangulation (or the HT check to remain conscious) doesn't seem to take the strength of the strangulation into account. ANY crushing damage that gets past DR to inflict injury to the neck is enough to get it started, so your HT only acts as a barrier in the initial Quick Contest. Once you've done 1 damage, even if you don't inflict further HP on subsequent QC, strangulation is maintained as long as your grapple is maintained! Air deprivation is all-or-nothing, with no "half strangled" or anything.

To house-rule tracking AP into the negative (like we do with HP on B419) you could also replace the "death checks" with HT checks to avoid similarity (in spite of your will) burning AP due to the demands placed on the body, because no matter how strong your will is, eventually the body is going to instinctively start using its energy reserves. "Die immediately" replaced with "spend FP immediately" with no more HT or Will checks allowed to avoid it.

Will rolls to voluntarily spend AP into the negative would make sense because you would instinctively want to avoid reaching the thresholds of possible involuntary FP burning, since FP burning risks injury (hitting the wall). Willingly going negative (and passing the HT checks at the "death" intervals) would become increasingly hard with lost FP due to the IQ/HT penalty of -1 per 20% lost FP. It's an option that would only be easily used when FP was high, as soon as you accrue IQ/HT penalties due to exhaustion, you'd be unable to expend negative AP (failed Will) or forced to burn FP (failed HT).

Quote:
Originally Posted by ericthered View Post
Which is why simple defenses shouldn't be required until you see what your foe is going to do.
It's more like "I can see he's stabbing toward my upper body, but I'm not sure if it's likely to hit me (chest -0) or likely to miss (neck-5) so I'd better start getting out of the way".

Quote:
Originally Posted by ericthered View Post
I mostly object to them when using the last gasp. Skilled opponents should be able to spend less AP than their foes, especially against sloppy attacks.
Critical successes don't cost AP, so if you give significant enough bonuses to defenses based on MoF of attack defenders will spend less AP over time against sloppy attacks that miss by large margins and gift those margins as defense bonuses. This of course works better if using 0.1 increments per MoS instead of needing 10 MoS to achieve reduced AP.
Plane is offline   Reply With Quote