Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > Play By Post

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-27-2018, 09:51 PM   #31
Plane
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Default Re: A Challenger Appears! Green versus Red

Your 2 defenses reduce you from 4/10 to 2/10 AP, roll HT to determine if you recover AP.
Plane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2018, 09:59 PM   #32
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
Your 2 defenses reduce you from 4/10 to 2/10 AP, roll HT to determine if you recover AP.
Yep, down to 2/10, thus my observation that telegraphic attack can be used to attack AP instead of HP.

I don't think I roll to recover AP until after you attack and my turn ends?
__________________
Worlds Beyond Earth -- my blog
ericthered is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-2018, 01:18 PM   #33
Plane
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Default Re: A Challenger Appears! Green versus Red

I went back and dealt with some forgotten rolls (Will check 15>13 for Persistance is Futile, HT check 11<19 for Hitting the Wall, both found on page 5) and passed both for losing my FP so I didn't have to pause or lose HP.

For PIF when inputting to https://dicelog.com/logdice I forgot to include the +2 for training, +5 for life and death, -4 for shock, this adjusts what I had to roll against from 13 to 16 so 15 is a pass) will keep in mind for next FP loss. If either of us does fail, I'd say we should interpret it as "must choose Zero-Cost or Recovery maneuvers for MoF turns or until AP is full, whichever comes first".

I had taken All-Out Defense immediately after anyway, so even if I had failed, it would've been in character for MoF 1. Luckily did not roll an 18 because MoF 2 would've prevented me from making my DWA on you the turn after!)

You don't get the +5 for life and death if you fail a Fright Check,

"High Resolution ST Loss" is very easy to calculate when have the same number of ST and FP as we both do (subtract half lost FP from ST) I would be at 11.5 right now, my damage won't go down unless I'm reduced below 11. "Round to the nearest" isn't a clear guideline with 0.5... We both have to lose greater than 20% of FP to worry about IQ/DX/HT penalties.

I use my free step to enter close combat with you again, I go 3/12 AP to 1/12 AP throwing another DWA (-4) at you (both ends telegraphed ear-claps at +4-3 to hit) and both miss (16>11 and 11>7) so you don't have to worry about spending AP on defenses.

Roll HT to determine AP recovery and choose next maneuver.

BTW, I'll allow "Contest of Wills" on MA130 as an option, if someone takes a Concentrate against a foe (I think "One Foe" as prerequisite for this would make sense) foes who notice them (one using One Foe against someone ELSE might not notice it at all... and you can't "lock eyes" with someone who is behind you) have to pass a Will roll if they wish to avoid taking a Concentrate themselves and entering a Regular contest.

Instead of "cannot be challenged again this combat" on a pass (boring, staring guys can be scary and hypnotic even if you don't immediately pay attention o them) I'm going to house-rule that passing this Will to resist a "contest challenge" simply gives a MoS bonus to your next roll if your enemy tries this Concentrate attack next turn. Our characters have the same IQ/Will (10) so we'd be on equal ground trying this, unless of course one of us is suffering IQ penalties due to shock or FP loss (which I might end up suffering soon, the way things are going...)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ericthered View Post
Yep, down to 2/10, thus my observation that telegraphic attack can be used to attack AP instead of HP.
Only if you choose to defend or end up suffering shock :)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ericthered View Post
I don't think I roll to recover AP until after you attack and my turn ends?
You're right, I overlooked "On your next turn after you chose a recovery event". I guess REs aren't as good as I thought =/

Some brainstorming for future combat (a little complex to include these now...)

re MA108 "your Stop Hit and parry are a single move, not two distinct actions" do you think because of this that the choice to do Wait > Stop Hit should give a free parry if you use the same weapon to parry as that which you attacked with? This is at -3 instead of -1 if you ended up getting hit and didn't have a larger MoS than your opponent, so it could still be worth spending 1 AP to parry with another limb or do a dodge.

In that case though, I would have someone declare their active defense before resolving the strike rolls, so that they don't know whether they have the higher MoS or not before they've committed to a defense. This would also mean potentially wasting AP on a defense that isn't necessary if they miss.

The idea of needing to declare your defense before resolving strike rolls is an idea I like, because I can conceive trying to dodge a punch which was going to miss me anyway. This could work like a bonus (+1?) to any defenses chosen before the attack is rolled, OR a penalty (-1?) to any defense chosen AFTER the attack is rolled. Which do you think would work better?

In the instance of someone who already declared a defense early (spending AP) and then the attack missed so it seems pointless, I was thinking you could apply the Margin of Failure on that attack as a bonus to the defense roll, for the purpose of avoiding critical failures, successfully contacting the incoming limb despite it missing (for Auras, Spines, Aggressive Parry, Grabbing Parry or Escaping Parry) or having a critical success (0 AP cost, turns normal attack failures into critical failures).

An inverse of this would be that if you fail a defense roll against a missed attack, the margin of failure on your active defense is applied as a retroactive bonus to the previously missed attack roll. If your MoF is enough to make that attack hit (equal or higher) then it ends up hitting despite initially missing, because the defense was so horrible that you ended up jumping into the path of the missed hit (dodge) or redirecting the missed hit back toward yourself (parry). But in that case I'd probably roll Random Hit Location instead of original target.

Last edited by Plane; 11-28-2018 at 02:04 PM.
Plane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-2018, 08:19 AM   #34
ericthered
Hero of Democracy
 
ericthered's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: far from the ocean
Default Re: A Challenger Appears! Green versus Red

There is one maneuver that grants AP immediately: all-out-defense. It gives you 2 defensive AP now, and if you don't use them, you have a chance at keeping them.



Life and Death! Are these people trying to kill each other? I thought this was a friendly fist fight! It can go either way, but its worth noting that's how we're going to work this.

.5 classically is considered to round up when rounding to the nearest.

I agree that the parry of a stop-hit could and possibly should be part of the 1 AP attack.

I'd prefer not to require defenses against attacks that are going to miss, and penalizing failed defenses against failed attacks is particularly weird. If they are encouraged, the -1 feels like a better option. I find that high defenses aren't quite as fun.

And I stand by this even for stop hits. Defending does take time, but its also about reacting to your opponent, rather than trying to make it impossible for him to attack in any way.
__________________
Worlds Beyond Earth -- my blog

Last edited by ericthered; 11-29-2018 at 08:26 AM.
ericthered is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-2018, 08:22 AM   #35
ericthered
Hero of Democracy
 
ericthered's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: far from the ocean
Default Re: A Challenger Appears! Green versus Red

Red gains 1 AP (8 vs 10), rising to 4 AP. He has a +1 evaluate bonus. He evaluates again.
__________________
Worlds Beyond Earth -- my blog
ericthered is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-2018, 01:54 PM   #36
Plane
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Default Re: A Challenger Appears! Green versus Red

2/10 AP + 1 would be 3/10 AP, I think, not 4/10...

I'm making another Attack maneuver, reducing me from 1/12 AP to 0/12 AP. But I want more AP to do another Dual Weapon Attack with!

I'm going to burn another 1 FP (11/12 > 10/12) to get back up to 6/12 AP. I still haven't passed 20% so no penalties to IQ/DX/HT yet, but we FP=ST folk lose 1 ST per 2 expended FP, so I'm now at ST 11. This doesn't reduce my thrust damage because we're both at the upper rung of the +1 per 2 ST increments.
  • 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.

Since I've lost FP, I need to roll against Hitting the Wall and Persistance is Futile again.

(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)

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!

I do still need to roll Persistance is Futile though... rolled a 12 which is less than 20. It occurs to me that with modified Will of 18+ that the only way you can fail is a critical failure, which does not generate a MoF, I'm going to rule that a failed PIF roll has a minimum requirement of 1 second of non-aggression.

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.

Since I passed the check, I can spend another 1 AP on my Dual Weapon Attack (if I had failed, I think it would be fair to say that spending AP on attacking is considered aggressive and not allowed, you should only be able to spend AP on stuff like Feverish Defense while under the effect of FUTILITY) reducing me from 6/12 AP to 5/12 AP.

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'm again going to make these telegraphed and random. Boxing 14+4-4 base, skill 14 for right punch, skill 10 for left punch (which is -1 to damage if it hits).

I rolled a 6<14 success for the right punch. Rolling random hit location, I got a 12 indicating your LEFT arm. Rolling on sub-table C I got a 6, I'm aiming at the left shoulder (no special effect for crushing damage)

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?

HOW DO YOU REACT? PARRY? DODGE?

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...

MA111 "Reversed Grip" gives +1 to thrusting damage with a weapon at the expense of -2 to parry. Even though the name doesn't make sense for punching, punches are classified as a reach C melee weapon in the damage charts, so I don't see anything unbalanced about allowing you to do this. I'd allow this with your kicks too (you won't miss the -2 to Leg Parry, I'm guessing) but note RG reduces reach from 1 to C when attacking to front/side so you would only be able to do reach 1 kicks using Back Kick.

MA81 "Two-Handed Punch" doesn't have an equivalent of "Two-Handed Elbow", even though I've seen people reinforce an elbow with the other arm. For that purpose I'd say to use Defensive Grip (MA110 +1 to damage, -2 to hit) for those elbows. This takes more time since you need to set up with a Ready maneuver, something that Two-Handed Punch doesn't require. The -2 skill +1 damage matching between 2HP and DG can't be a coincidence...

I'm going to opt to ignore the "you only get one" for Cross Parry. Instead, it would count as a parry for both arms (both take the -4).

Instead of 2HP being either "knitting the fingers of two hands together to strike" or "striking with two fists held together" it will just be the 2nd one. "Knitting" sounds like it would require more time, so having that represent a "Defensive Grip" punch (needing a Ready maneuver) sounds better.

The difference would be: with 2HP aren't forced to make Cross Parries (your hands aren't intertwined) but with "Defensive Grip Knitting" instead of obligatory Cross Parries, you get the +1 to parry frontal attacks only that requires a Ready to enter and a Ready to exit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ericthered View Post
There is one maneuver that grants AP immediately: all-out-defense. It gives you 2 defensive AP now, and if you don't use them, you have a chance at keeping them.
You're right, I was just thinking of this in terms of "two free defenses" but it can be spent on retreats or resisting quick contests too.

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?)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ericthered View Post
Life and Death! Are these people trying to kill each other? I thought this was a friendly fist fight! It can go either way, but its worth noting that's how we're going to work this.
Combat's dangerous, there's no referee, so I figure sure? I kind of wish there wasn't an absolute "0 or 5" for danger levels though, grading bonuses from 1-5 based on levels of perceived danger would be cooler.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ericthered View Post
.5 classically is considered to round up when rounding to the nearest.
Works for me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ericthered View Post
I agree that the parry of a stop-hit could and possibly should be part of the 1 AP attack.
Perhaps same with Jams / Aggressive Parries / Grabbing Parries despite also involving 2 rolls.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ericthered View Post
I'd prefer not to require defenses against attacks that are going to miss, and penalizing failed defenses against failed attacks is particularly weird. If they are encouraged, the -1 feels like a better option. I find that high defenses aren't quite as fun.

And I stand by this even for stop hits. Defending does take time, but its also about reacting to your opponent, rather than trying to make it impossible for him to attack in any way.
Making it impossible for enemies to attack is the intent of Defensive Feint!

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"

Could also do something like make a perception check and if it passes, you realize it's a miss and can opt to forgo your defense roll and save the AP if you declared before roll.
Plane is offline   Reply With Quote
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.
__________________
Worlds Beyond Earth -- my blog
ericthered is online now   Reply With Quote
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 youíre really good at, but you donít 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
Old 11-30-2018, 01:44 PM   #39
Plane
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Default Re: A Challenger Appears! Green versus Red

Another thing I had overlooked:
  • Unhealed injury or pain always penalizes the Will roll to persist, and the GM might wish to uncap the IQ penalty for this roll.
s

"Uncap" meaning I think if you had done 5 HP to my leg instead of 4, there would be a -5 from Shock instead of the usual -4 maximum.

The 15<16 adjustment took into account the -4 to IQ from the Shock of the 4 lost HP from your punching me in the shin...

"Unhealed injury" sounds like I should still be -4 on all future "Persistance is Futile" rolls. If that is cumulative with the -4 to shock (total -8) then I would've failed at 15>12...

If that doesn't happen in the initial hit (perhaps due to "no double-dipping" rules?) then the 12<20 success on my 2nd roll would be reduced to 12<16, which would mean the +5 was again the reason it succeeded... meaning I guess that means a 2nd chance for SUAGbiologal occurance.

I had also overlooked:
  • Don’t bother rolling if your adjusted Will is 17 or higher unless the consequences of failure are dramatically significant and the GM is fishing for the rare critical failure

On that basis, I shouldn't have made the 2nd roll if it was against 20, but maintaining the -4 due to "unhealed injury .. always penalizes the Will roll to persist" keeping me at 16 means the 2nd roll was needed.

Do you want to use this "don't bother rolling" above 17 guideline, or do you think the GM should always fish for the rare 3d6=18 to pause someone? I'm thinking it wouldn't be a bad idea since in a life or death fight the consequence of failure could be dramatically significant. It's not something you'd bother with if you were just sparring against a punching bag though, because being forced to accrue some PIF points and spend second or two of Do Nothing doesn't have any kind of notable effect unless it was something like you were trying to impress some fan by how many times you could hit the bag without pause.

Barring some kind of "no double dipping" exception, I think I should have counted both the 4 lost HP and the -4 to IQ from Shock (though someone with High Pain Threshold would only have to worry about the former not the latter) so I should have had a margin of failure of 3. Based on my prior proposal this means I accrued 3 "PIF damage" and my untriggered AOD functioned as a recovery maneuver to heal 2 of the damage.

Based on that, I shouldn't have been able to follow up with a DWA. Rather than replay all of that, I think I'll house-rule that you can expend up to 1 AP per second to "heal" PIF damage. After all, if you just burned FP to get AP back, it's weird for futility to overwhelm you when you've got AP in the bank. Particularly in the case of HT1 / AP1 creatures because they get all the way back up to 100% AP by burning FP, meaning they fulfill the "full AP" condition automatically.

Actually maybe there shouldn't be a "or until at full FP" opt-out of Persistance is Futile, instead if you recover AP past the max, the excess should just be automatically expended to heal PIF damage and snap you out faster.

So to negate the remainder, I spent 1 AP to heal the 1 PIFdmg that my recovery didn't remove, I should adjust my AP from 5/12 to 4/12?

A penalty equal to lost HP is strangely punishing for high HP creatures (some creature with 980/1000 HP would be -20 to PERSIST any time they lost FP...) so I think maybe as a house rule it could scale down for those with HP20+.

Or I could be reading this all wrong, what if the intended penalty is just something like taking the DX penalties for Partial Injuries (MA136) and using them as Will penalties? If that's the case, I wouldn't have to deal with any yet since adrenaline is still kicked in. I had 24 seconds from when you punched me, 23 when you threw the missed kick, 21 after your consecutive Evaluates... so I'd have 20 seconds remaining of Adrenaline after you choose your next maneuver.

Even when it does kick in, it's a penalty which normally only applies when kicking... only Torso injuries have a penalty to DX "for all purposes". So would I only suffer the penalty when trying to throw a kick?

Instead of Partial Injuries I'm thinking just "remember how much shock you took (or would have taken, if you didn't due to High Pain Threshold) from lost HP and apply that as a penalty to Persistance Rolls until HP is healed". So if I had 20 HP, 4 damage would have only caused 2 shock, so I would be -4 in first second, -2 thereafter until healed, or always -2 if I had HPT.

I do like the idea of HPT/LPT halving or multiplying the PIF "unhealed injury" penalties by 1.5 like they do with Partial Injuries though.

Last edited by Plane; 11-30-2018 at 02:11 PM.
Plane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2018, 08:31 AM   #40
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
Another thing I had overlooked:
  • Unhealed injury or pain always penalizes the Will roll to persist, and the GM might wish to uncap the IQ penalty for this roll.

"Uncap" meaning I think if you had done 5 HP to my leg instead of 4, there would be a -5 from Shock instead of the usual -4 maximum.

The 15<16 adjustment took into account the -4 to IQ from the Shock of the 4 lost HP from your punching me in the shin...

"Unhealed injury" sounds like I should still be -4 on all future "Persistance is Futile" rolls. If that is cumulative with the -4 to shock (total -8) then I would've failed at 15>12...

If that doesn't happen in the initial hit (perhaps due to "no double-dipping" rules?) then the 12<20 success on my 2nd roll would be reduced to 12<16, which would mean the +5 was again the reason it succeeded... meaning I guess that means a 2nd chance for SUAGbiologal occurance.

Shock should always apply, I agree. Applying the injury taken as a penalty to PIF sounds wrong. What if you're an elephant with 40 HP? Will any injury stop you from spending FP? This makes first blood very powerful. On the other hand, Partial injury doesn't apply any penalty at all to HT rolls, only to FP rolls. And the double dipping feels very wrong.



This is a big enough issue to start a thread on the main forum, I think.




Quote:
I had also overlooked:
  • Don’t bother rolling if your adjusted Will is 17 or higher unless the consequences of failure are dramatically significant and the GM is fishing for the rare critical failure


Do you want to use this "don't bother rolling" above 17 guideline, or do you think the GM should always fish for the rare 3d6=18 to pause someone?
I'd like to use the don't bother rolling roll for PIF at 17+. I don't like crit-fishing, because crits are the part of the curve least like the true bell curve.




Quote:
Based on that, I shouldn't have been able to follow up with a DWA. Rather than replay all of that, I think I'll house-rule that you can expend up to 1 AP per second to "heal" PIF damage. After all, if you just burned FP to get AP back, it's weird for futility to overwhelm you when you've got AP in the bank. Particularly in the case of HT1 / AP1 creatures because they get all the way back up to 100% AP by burning FP, meaning they fulfill the "full AP" condition automatically.
I strenously disagree. I swam the 500 yard freestyle and ran cross country in high-school. Being able to technically move but having a strong urge to do nothing is very very real. The +5 bonus applies, but if you are pushing yourself too hard, you will hit a mental wall long before you hit a physical one.



Quote:

Or I could be reading this all wrong, what if the intended penalty is just something like taking the DX penalties for Partial Injuries (MA136) and using them as Will penalties? If that's the case, I wouldn't have to deal with any yet since adrenaline is still kicked in. I had 24 seconds from when you punched me, 23 when you threw the missed kick, 21 after your consecutive Evaluates... so I'd have 20 seconds remaining of Adrenaline after you choose your next maneuver.
I think we're missing something. I'm combing forums to see what others have seen, and I'll start a thread in GURPS if I don't see anything.

At the end of this fight, we should write it up in a more understandable fashion.
__________________
Worlds Beyond Earth -- my blog
ericthered is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:58 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.