08-14-2019, 10:55 PM | #231 | |
Join Date: Aug 2018
|
Re: A Challenger Appears! Green versus Red
So where were we...
Quote:
Either way, there's an expense of AP inconsistent with the idea of it costing 0 AP to maintain speed (which never made much sense to begin with) Technical Grappling 21 has an interesting new rule which might hint at solution tool... For a slam that continues through the target, subtract the damage rolled by the target from any remaining Move.I assume "continues through" is an evade (made easier if you can manage to knock them down) but regardless of whether you get through, I think this sets precedent that you get free deceleration based on the damage a slam target does. It wouldn't be going too far off from that to apply ANY crushing-based damage applied directly opposite your movement path as free deceleration in the same way. Of course WHAT is applied in that direction is the question: punches or kicks might be straight forward but they can also be hooks coming in from the side which might not impede forward momentum as much as potentially redirect it. I'm thinking if this kick hits me then I should subtract the damage from the move for free? I'm thinking also that if someone tries to evade, perhaps rather than "get past you" it should be interpreted as "get to the hex behind you"? If it's possible to impede that, I'm thinking perhaps it might imply some form of contact like parrying does? Unless of course you Obstruct via fear and making them come up short, like not wanting to run into the Human Torch to avoid getting burned. |
|
08-20-2019, 09:39 AM | #232 |
Hero of Democracy
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: far from the ocean
|
Re: A Challenger Appears! Green versus Red
An attempt to evade is certainly an attempt to get into the hex behind.
I think slam damage is special for the amount of force it imparts compared to the small amount of damage it does. If the kick connects and does damage you're going to loose AP equal to the damage. If we want to count that as deceleration AP I think that's fine. Evade and slam don't cost AP because they're movement though: they cost AP because they're attacks. slam more obviously so, but evade involves a lot more complex movement than simply going through their square. I'd say that resisting an Evade can result in contact. It often does, and I'd say that if the evader wants contact then a successful resistance will involve it every time. I'm not sure about the other cases. I'm cool with a failed evade attempt resulting in deceleration.
__________________
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! |
08-21-2019, 03:23 PM | #233 | |||
Join Date: Aug 2018
|
Re: A Challenger Appears! Green versus Red
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
To deal with the situation of "I want to avoid touching the guy I'm trying to run past", I think in that situation, if the evader does not want some kind of contact, then perhaps he should be able to roll a dodge against it, to pull back? I have that kind of concern with parries too. You might be in a situation of "I want to punch this guy in the face, but if he puts his electrified-metal arm in the way of his face, I want to pull my punch back and avoid hitting that arm!" Basically recognizing that the one you're trying to outmaneuver has guarded a specific zone and to stop the attack. The best idea I have for that would be to treat it like a no-contact parry, but at -2 to skill (-1 to parry) for "doing two things at once" since you're attacking and then NCPing with the very same limb. A dodge could probably substitute as well. |
|||
08-22-2019, 09:19 AM | #234 | ||
Hero of Democracy
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: far from the ocean
|
Re: A Challenger Appears! Green versus Red
hmm. That's a good point. that might change things. Or it might not. Would it be too fiddly if it only counts if the AP is spent?
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
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! |
||
08-23-2019, 11:38 PM | #235 | ||
Join Date: Aug 2018
|
Re: A Challenger Appears! Green versus Red
Quote:
Instead of the AP loss from HP loss (injury) I think just the "damage is deceleration" from grappling (1:1) except that might be a bit excessive... Another might be simply to calculate knockback and consider each yard of knockback to be 1 y/s deceleration? Quote:
Someone who doesn't sacrifice that Movement Point (and that Action Point) would instead be at some risk of a collision... Basically this is sort of a "running into a door is free" ... to distinguish between "I ran into an invisible door I didn't see, and thus did not choose an attack maneuver for" vs "I saw a door and intentionally shoulder-tackled it". The latter should be more damaging to the door, a reward for an intentional attack, but the former should still be capable of SOME damage. There's little gap (aside from AOA:Strong) I can see between colllision rules and slam rules to account for this though... I'm wondering if maybe we borrow the thrust-based slam rules from Dungeon Fantasy and apply some basic penalty to maie it inferior to defensive attack Slams? |
||
08-26-2019, 07:49 AM | #236 | |||||
Hero of Democracy
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: far from the ocean
|
Re: A Challenger Appears! Green versus Red
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
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! |
|||||
08-29-2019, 12:40 AM | #237 | |||
Join Date: Aug 2018
|
Re: A Challenger Appears! Green versus Red
Quote:
The 'pause' I guess would be if he suffered shock/stun. Quote:
Quote:
Pg 40 of the "exploits" book from http://www.sjgames.com/dungeonfantasy/ changes Slams to both parties suffering thrust-2 crushing with a bonus based on yards moved in relation to the Speed/Range Table. It's now ST-based instead of HP-based. |
|||
09-03-2019, 07:37 AM | #238 | |||||
Hero of Democracy
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: far from the ocean
|
Re: A Challenger Appears! Green versus Red
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
********************************************* So I think we're converging on a solution here.
__________________
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! |
|||||
09-03-2019, 08:08 PM | #239 | |
Join Date: Aug 2018
|
Re: A Challenger Appears! Green versus Red
Quote:
So I guess perhaps giving some kind of 'extra effort' options for evasion, like maybe a +2 like defenses can enjoy. I suppose it would be something like, if someone could use steps to make no-attack slams, they could try that using All-Out-Defense, and then not even bother trying a Defensive Attack at all, unless Defensive Attack slams were somehow better than "step slams". Although I guess if you used Defensive Attack's step to do a short-range slam you could use your other attack some other way (grab/punch) or maybe to do a 2nd slam. 2 slams against the same target in a single turn seems off somehow though. I wouldn't be surprised if it was banned somewhere. Well the idea I had would be to add thrust-based slam damage to attackers (since it is intentional, it uses ST) and then you add the usual HP-based collision damage both ways too. This would also make slams more attractive as an attack because they're sort of biased against low-HP attackers who end up suffering more. |
|
09-05-2019, 10:01 AM | #240 | |||
Hero of Democracy
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: far from the ocean
|
Re: A Challenger Appears! Green versus Red
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
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! |
|||
|
|