View Single Post
Old 11-30-2018, 07:50 AM   #37
ericthered
Hero of Democracy
 
ericthered's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: far from the ocean
Default Re: A Challenger Appears! Green versus Red

Quote:
Originally Posted by Plane View Post
2/10 AP + 1 would be 3/10 AP, I think, not 4/10...

Yes, that's correct. my bad


Quote:
Note for future fights: since "Hitting Bottom" mentions burning FP in the context of reaching 0 AP, I think it would make sense to disallow (or at least make it harder) burning FP if one has positive AP. If it had to be done mechanically, maybe burning FP could require a Will+10 roll with a penalty equal to AP remaining? If below 0, then AVOIDING burning FP could be the inverse, a Will roll with a penalty equal to however many AP you are below zero.

I'd prefer either disallowing FP burn until you reach 0 AP or allowing it freely. I think you should be free to burn FP whenever it feels appropriate, but I can see where you are coming from with the "Only at 0" thing. As a note, you should be able to burn it instantly the moment you need it, for furious defense or DWA.



Quote:
(note that despite FIP coming before HTW, I believe it would make more sense to roll HTW first, because since FP loss can result in HP loss, and HP loss can result in Shock, and Shock can penalize IQ/Will rolls, that you should first roll HTW to see whether or not the will roll for PIF would be penalized)

I can see that working. That's a good interaction to take away from this exercise.


Quote:
That said, I just noticed on page 6 that "treating this as a nuisance roll should be reserved for if your adjusted HT score is 19 or higher" which is the case for me (12+5+2, not for you at 10+5+2 though) so I probably shouldn't have rolled it before, and won't roll it this time. If I burn another (reducing HT from 12 to 11) my modified HT would be 18 and I would need to roll!
It requires a perk you don't have to avoid nuisance rolls. I'm also not actually sure where the +2 is coming from.


Quote:
I was actually thinking based on this rule we could do "PIF damage" where you pool "damage" (MoF or 1, whichever is greater) from failed PIF checks, and do it like taking a recovery action heals 2 damage while taking a 0-cost action heals 1 damage. This way multiple failed PIF checks (since you roll once per FP lost) could add up to longer-term immobility.

That sounds like a good rule.


Quote:
Since your Evaluate bonus is building up, I'll note that you can use your bonus to cancel out penalties for Deceptive Attack or Feint per MA100 if you want, but it doesn't mention canceling out the penalty for DWA, cumulative defenses or off-hand defenses.
I agree that cumulative defenses and off-hand defenses shouldn't be covered. DWA does seem like it SHOULD be, even if it isn't. I wasn't planning on burning my evaluate defending against a single telegraphed punch though.


Quote:
The 2nd half of my DWA missed (11>10) but B417 says " If you aim both attacks at a single opponent, he defends at -1 against them" so there doesn't seem to be a requirement that the 2nd attack actually hits... although B549 says "-1 if both attacks strike the same target" so I'm not sure. Thoughts?

I'm ambivalent as well. I think the -1 for both being aimed is probably fair, particularly in a game where it costs 2 AP to perform.


Quote:
BTW since you have a better Parry score than me but do less damage, I thought of an interesting option to let you use as an equalizer...

Reversed grip is cool and makes sense, thanks.


Quote:
How do you think these 2 AP would interact with stuff like being at 0 AP and suffering AP loss due to shock/strangulation? Would you allow that to be taken off the free AP first, or ignore them and take it off the base (reducing below 0 presumably forcing FP burn, unless of course AP loss due to shock/strangulation doesn't do anything once you're at 0?)

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. Taking all out defense gives you those two AP. Your foe should have been quicker about following up.



Quote:
Perhaps same with Jams / Aggressive Parries / Grabbing Parries despite also involving 2 rolls.
Ok.


Quote:
Making it impossible for enemies to attack is the intent of Defensive Feint!
Which is why simple defenses shouldn't be required until you see what your foe is going to do.



Quote:

Defenses against failed attacks would be unlikely to fail if you gave them a bonus equal to the attack's MoF (it's very easy to defend against attacks which already aren't going to hit you). Perhaps to make it even less likely the defense bonus could be 2xMoF or 3xMoF? Just to get a slim chance of "I dodged into the missed punch" or "I redirected the punch that would've zinged past my ear into my nose"

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.



Defense and maneuver will come later.
__________________
Be helpful, not pedantic

Worlds Beyond Earth -- my blog

Check out the PbP forum! If you don't see a game you'd like, ask me about making one!
ericthered is offline   Reply With Quote