10-29-2016, 12:58 PM | #11 | |
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada
|
Re: [Basic Set] Question about turn sequence
Quote:
|
|
10-29-2016, 01:03 PM | #12 | |
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France
|
Re: [Basic Set] Question about turn sequence
Quote:
As a karateka, I can say that thinks are absolutely not so obvious during combats (except for experienced fighters who can "read" your body). But, for game balance, I perfectly do agree. |
|
10-29-2016, 01:20 PM | #13 | |
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
|
Re: [Basic Set] Question about turn sequence
Quote:
Although a safer option is the Telegraphic Attack in Martial Arts which gives you a nice +4 to hit and you don't have to worry about the trade off benefit to you opponents defences (because they won't have one). Of course you can go for the spectacular finisher of a Telegraphic AoA! (but make you hit because it's extra embarrassing to leave them in a position to come back at you after that!) |
|
10-29-2016, 11:14 PM | #14 |
Join Date: Jun 2013
|
Re: [Basic Set] Question about turn sequence
I'd be amenable to a rule that you have to succeed on a Tactics roll (or a roll against the same combat skill your foe is using) to know what maneuver they've employed. It's similar to some of the stuff in Tactical Shooting that limits the PCs' advantages of having perfect situational awareness and impressive cool under fire by default. Only appropriate for a campaign that's interested in that level of combat detail, buy hey, some of them are.
|
10-29-2016, 11:37 PM | #15 | |
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: USA, Arizona, Mesa
|
Re: [Basic Set] Question about turn sequence
Quote:
|
|
10-30-2016, 01:10 AM | #16 | |
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France
|
Re: [Basic Set] Question about turn sequence
Quote:
Edit_____ * Most beginners do telegraphic attacks rather than all-out ones. They don't necessarily drop their guard. But they prepare their punch or kick so much before attacking that it becomes very obvious. Last edited by Gollum; 10-30-2016 at 01:29 AM. |
|
10-30-2016, 01:19 AM | #17 | |
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
|
Re: [Basic Set] Question about turn sequence
Quote:
But yes on a second by second time frame in an actual combat situation when your also doing your own thing, and there are so many variables in involved. There's just no way you'll automatically be able to tell the difference between such wide variety of "he's attacking me with his sword" If nothing else if I can tell automatically tell the difference in such precise detail, how does feint work? But as has been said the RAW rule is a game balance thing, and as you said the option to not do it is really a matter of campaign switches *and if someone was adding a telegraphic attack option I'd let their opponent know what else was happening. |
|
10-30-2016, 01:36 AM | #18 | |||
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France
|
Re: [Basic Set] Question about turn sequence
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The telegraphic rule contains its own answer: it directly gives a bonus to the defense roll. So, it is necessarily obvious. No roll required to take benefit from this bonus. Last edited by Gollum; 10-30-2016 at 01:43 AM. |
|||
10-30-2016, 02:00 AM | #19 | |
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Los Angeles
|
Re: [Basic Set] Question about turn sequence
Quote:
|
|
10-30-2016, 02:01 AM | #20 | ||
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
|
Re: [Basic Set] Question about turn sequence
Quote:
I know, my question is why is it an exception? Other then for the reason it can't exist unless you make it an exception to the system premise that everyone knows what their opponents are doing in system terms. The entire premise of a feint is that you don't automatically know what your opponent is doing. Moreover a feint works because you don't know when they are they are feinting and when they are not* Which implies that you don't automatically know what they are doing. Now all this is fine because all the this is a question of game balance not reality, and that's fine (it's extra work to add this stuff in, and even ignoring that it only going to be appropriate for some games styles anyway). As I said above I see this as a game switch only, not something the system has got wrong *if you did then any instance of suddenly not being able to recognise what they doing would mean they where feinting, you would know that and thus the feint would be foiled anyway Quote:
Yep, alternatively you could add the same bonus to the perception roll. And expanding that thought, I'd possibly give a penailty to the perception roll for assessing a deceptive attack equal to the defence penalty it gives |
||
Tags |
active defense, basic set, turn sequence |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|