Zombie Killing

[Benjaboonchar]

Originally Posted by TheOneRonin

I'm 100% willing to fiddle with the rules. One thing I plan on doing is having a discussion with the group about zombie killing and how they feel about it. If they really want to mimic The Walking Dead, complete with paper-skulls, then I'll make some tweaks to go with that. If they are fine with super-difficult head blows which will end up forcing them to innovate rather than just bash, then I'm fine with that too.

My original approach was to make it easy enough so that it's in the realm of possibility, but still risky, for an un-trained character, but relatively easy for a skilled/trained character. The rules as is don't support that without some changes/GM fiat.

Huh so, bringing a tiny bit of the apocolypse world ruleset into this might solve your problem? Something like this: add all modifiers apart from the malus for being untrained to get the effective skill. Every roll under the affective skill is a hit. If the skill is untrained then consequence free hits only occur if you roll under affective skill modifed by malus for lacking the skill. If your roll is between the two you hit the zombie but the zombie (or all zombies in reach) gets a free attack agaisnt you that resolves before you deal damage.

It's a pretty sloppy hack but it does what it says on the tin, killing a zombie as someone who can't use melee weapons carries a significant risk as well as a significant chance of success. The same could be applied to ranged weapons by causing them to malfunction. In all it's a dirty hack that's only supposed to stand up for as long as it takes players to find a weapon they like and put a CP in it.

[TheOneRonin]

Originally Posted by Anders

From "Ishtar's descent into the underworld":

<snip>
And the dead will outnumber the living.

Always remember that last line. Always.

Originally Posted by DanHoward

If you are outnumbered then the safest tactic is to ensure that you aren't the slowest runner. Actually, any ability that would help you run faster or further would be at least as desirable as weapon skills.

"When we are out there, sooner or later, we always run."
--Daryl Dixon (S04E03)

For clarity, there will always be more zombies than characters. Even in the "encounters" I plan, the zombies will likely outnumber the PCs over all.

However, just because there are more zombie than PCs doesn't mean all of the zombies are close enough to attack at the same time. With Slow Zombies, the PCs should be able to play it smart enough so that when running is not an option for whatever reason, they can isolate and take down the zombies one or two at a time.

Running is always ideal...even Move 4 characters will be able to outrun zombies. But sooner or later, they are going to need to get supplies, find shelter, acquire weapons, and rescue other survivors. And generally, running away doesn't facilitate any of those things.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Actually, you can start evaluating as you approach. It's a reasonably normal feat who someone who prides themselves on being a stealthy character (Stealth 12-15 against a Per-10 target).

Evaluate while sneaking? I rule you couldn't do both at once.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Actually, I suspect the combo will only ever be used in such a situation. Evaluate is very very meh in most situations, AoA is rather meh if you seriously expect getting hit etc. OTOH, if sneaks are allowed to combine Evaluate and Telegraphic, they will, each and every time, because they lose nothing.

I don't see why combining evaluate and telegraphic would only be used while sneaking, and even if it we're true it's not much of an argument for the overpowering combination of evaluate and Telegraphic?

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Well, I kinda implied the modifiers aside from range/size/speed and Acc/aiming/bracing (e.g. in a case when those two groups even out).

Still rather different things, and not an appropriate comparison.

Hitting a chair with a melee weapon outside of combat is as close to an automatic success as you can get, other factors like skill, lighting, weapon quality etc really have no bearing unless truly low. Unless you shooting at a range of a couple of yards the same is not true of even non combat range shooting.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

'+10 is an automatic hit' seems needlessly vague to me. 'Final modified skill of 20' seems more proper, as an example, but normally automatic successes are not allowed for combat stuff (e.g. No Nuisance Rolls perks are strictly non-combat).

That's why I said a normal person (i.e Stat 10), doing a normal thing (i.e 0 mod). But as pointed we have people defaulting of DX-5 attempting Skull hits -7 which is neither.

Which was my point earlier are we talking about just positive mods being capped at +10 or all mods being capped at +10 (or modified skill 20 if you prefer). These are two very different things, and will be based on very different rationales.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Mostly because it stacks with either, and so will mean that sneaks get a whole +12 to +14 if all the other things are cumulative.

That's true of almost all sources of positive mods, I'm still not seeing why A can't stack with B, because there might also be C, D, E, F & G as well. At least not why that's an argument specifically relevant to A stacking with B and not the rest of the alphabet?

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

There's no reason to want a deceptive telegraphic attack, as they make each other meaningless. I guess the closest exception-analogue would be a hypothetical 'semi-Telegraphic' attack for +2 to hit and +1 to defend.

I was referring more to the fact that telegraphic and deceptive are fundamentally mutually exclusive ideas.

By which I mean they are diametrically opposed and cancel each other out when in equal quantities

That's not true for evaluate and telegraphic.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

They have different tradeoffs (ways of achieving the end effect), but they all seem to be about lining up the attack more carefully - by sacrificing one of speed, defence, or unpredictability. Hmm. Maybe complete compatibility, but with diminishing returns, would be appropriate (as a house/alternate rule, of course).

OK two points:


1). They achieve the same effect in that they increase accuracy of attack, but that's an end that all positive bonuses give. There are lot's of such sources of this effect with lost of different trade offs so again that in itself is not an argument for mutual exclusivity in this combination.

2). I'd argue that Evaluate is taking the time read the target and prepare your attack. Telegraphic is increasing accuracy at the expense of obviousness. They are different which is why your argument for equivalence doesn't apply elsewhere.
For example If can't make deceptive telegraphic attack (for reasons of mutual exclusivity), then why can I make a deceptive attack after evaluating (surely if evaluate and telegraphic are equivalent then Telegraphic/deceptive and evaluate/deceptive should be equivalently incompatible)?

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

Evaluate while sneaking? I rule you couldn't do both at once.

I thought so too, then Kromm explained that it's OK. It seems consistent with what the skill covers, actually: Stealth accepts rolling at -5 for moving faster than Move 1, and that implies that it can combine even with manoeuvres like Move, or even Move and Attack and All-Out Attack (for those cases where the fast movement ends in a backstab).

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

I don't see why combining evaluate and telegraphic would only be used while sneaking, and even if it we're true it's not much of an argument for the overpowering combination of evaluate and Telegraphic?

I find it extremely unlikely that anyone will ever try to combine Evaluate and Telegraphic under normal combat conditions. The numbers tend to be in favour of doing several attacks without Evaluate; Telegraphy is mostly reserved to cases where enemy defence is penalised, unavailable, and/or holds great risks for the defender.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

Still rather different things, and not an appropriate comparison.

Hitting a chair with a melee weapon outside of combat is as close to an automatic success as you can get, other factors like skill, lighting, weapon quality etc really have no bearing unless truly low. Unless you shooting at a range of a couple of yards the same is not true of even non combat range shooting.



That's why I said a normal person (i.e Stat 10), doing a normal thing (i.e 0 mod). But as pointed we have people defaulting of DX-5 attempting Skull hits -7 which is neither.

Which was my point earlier are we talking about just positive mods being capped at +10 or all mods being capped at +10 (or modified skill 20 if you prefer). These are two very different things, and will be based on very different rationales.

Why is shooting at a range at which your Acc and similar bonuses precisely nullify range penalty not considered equivalent to shooting at 2 yards with no Acc bonuses and/or to hitting a target with a mêlée attack at a net +0? After all, a weapon having Acc 6 means precisely that you'll have the same chance of hitting a target at 20 yards after 1 Aim as when shooting at 2 yards without Aiming.

A bit of a confusion-avoider: yes, I'm advocating capping the bonus from all 'not in combat or I risk using things that I would normally use out of combat' modifiers at +10. Which is not the same as e.g. Acc, the Balanced modifier, above-skill Techniques etc.
I probably said something confusing about skill 20:
My intent was the idea of requiring a final modified skill of 20 before even discussing auto-successes for mêlée/shooting skills, and even so, not in a real combat. I did not want anyone to cap total bonus'd skill at 20.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

That's true of almost all sources of positive mods, I'm still not seeing why A can't stack with B, because there might also be C, D, E, F & G as well. At least not why that's an argument specifically relevant to A stacking with B and not the rest of the alphabet?

Mostly because if A & B don't stack, then the total sum of {A...G} produces numbers compatible to the 'every single bonus you get outside combat' number, but if they stack, the maximum possible combat sum suddenly exceeds it.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

I was referring more to the fact that telegraphic and deceptive are fundamentally mutually exclusive ideas.

By which I mean they are diametrically opposed and cancel each other out when in equal quantities

That's not true for evaluate and telegraphic.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

OK two points:

1). They achieve the same effect in that they increase accuracy of attack, but that's an end that all positive bonuses give. There are lot's of such sources of this effect with lost of different trade offs so again that in itself is not an argument for mutual exclusivity in this combination.

2). I'd argue that Evaluate is taking the time read the target and prepare your attack. Telegraphic is increasing accuracy at the expense of obviousness. They are different which is why your argument for equivalence doesn't apply elsewhere.
For example If can't make deceptive telegraphic attack (for reasons of mutual exclusivity), then why can I make a deceptive attack after evaluating (surely if evaluate and telegraphic are equivalent then Telegraphic/deceptive and evaluate/deceptive should be equivalently incompatible)?

I'd actually be in favour of some sort of unified mechanic (hypothetical 5e talk) for Telegraphy and Evaluation (and maybe AoA too).
There's actually some merit in making Evaluated attacks somewhat more predictable, logic-wise, but Evaluate is a very poor choice in combat, balance-wise, already. IIRC Kromm also said that it's meant more for pre-combat situations . . . which brings us back to the sneak who comes up from behind!

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

I thought so too, then Kromm explained that it's OK. It seems consistent with what the skill covers, actually: Stealth accepts rolling at -5 for moving faster than Move 1, and that implies that it can combine even with manoeuvres like Move, or even Move and Attack and All-Out Attack (for those cases where the fast movement ends in a backstab).

Only why does the fact that you can sneak at greater than move 1 imply you can evaluate and sneak at the same time?

Can I automatically evaluate and do other things at greater than move 1 at the same time?

I mean if someone really wanted to I'd let them evaluate and sneak at the same time but I'd penalise both for doing two things at once. Since I can't penalise evaluate in the normal way I have to get creative with that. (maybe extra sneak penalty, maybe halve the rate evaluate bonuses accumulate)

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

I find it extremely unlikely that anyone will ever try to combine Evaluate and Telegraphic under normal combat conditions. The numbers tend to be in favour of doing several attacks without Evaluate; Telegraphy is mostly reserved to cases where enemy defence is penalised, unavailable, and/or holds great risks for the defender.

Of the unskilled fighting zombies and needing skull hits as per this thread. TBH if it not going to come up apart from a select few situations where it makes sense, that to my mind is even more reason not to disallow it for some pretty arbitrary reasons

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Why is shooting at a range at which your Acc and similar bonuses precisely nullify range penalty not considered equivalent to shooting at 2 yards with no Acc bonuses and/or to hitting a target with a mêlée attack at a net +0? After all, a weapon having Acc 6 means precisely that you'll have the same chance of hitting a target at 20 yards after 1 Aim as when shooting at 2 yards without Aiming.

because that's not the comparison you're making. Shooting at net 0 is not the same as hitting a chair.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

My intent was the idea of requiring a final modified skill of 20 before even discussing auto-successes for mêlée/shooting skills, and even so, not in a real combat. I did not want anyone to cap total bonus'd skill at 20.

I also probably never do auto successes in combat, but that's not what I was talking about.

However if it's getting to 20 that the threshold that concerns you (and it what I'd be going with), that would indicate that the earlier example of 3xE (+3), AoA:d (+4), Telgraphic (+4), Skull (-7), Default (-5) net -1 will be well below that threshold for the average person.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Mostly because if A & B don't stack, then the total sum of {A...G} produces numbers compatible to the 'every single bonus you get outside combat' number, but if they stack, the maximum possible combat sum suddenly exceeds it.

No it doesn't, for that to be true than sum of {C.....G} would have to always be less than B? B in this instance is +3 (evaluate)

Once again if the only issue getting close to the +10 threshold why is AoA:D stackable with TA (total +8) and not evaluate and TA (total +7) and yet I could stack AoA:D with Evaluate for the same total +7?


Basically unless you going to forbid any combination of bonuses that go above a certain amount the maths argument isn't relevant.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

I'd actually be in favour of some sort of unified mechanic (hypothetical 5e talk) for Telegraphy and Evaluation (and maybe AoA too).
There's actually some merit in making Evaluated attacks somewhat more predictable, logic-wise, but Evaluate is a very poor choice in combat, balance-wise, already. IIRC Kromm also said that it's meant more for pre-combat situations . . . which brings us back to the sneak who comes up from behind!

I have no strong opinion either way about a unified mechanic here, other than to point out that allowing them to stack just like other bonuses is more consistent.

[Culture20]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

I find it extremely unlikely that anyone will ever try to combine Evaluate and Telegraphic under normal combat conditions.

Thankfully, the discussion revolves around attacking slow zombies that don't defend, so not exactly "normal" combat conditions if you're fighting mano-a-zombo. There should be plenty of time to evaluate then make a telegraphic strike to be sure of a death blow. Actually, I just realized I do this in real life when "fighting" spiders. *shiver*

I'd actually be in favour of some sort of unified mechanic (hypothetical 5e talk) for Telegraphy and Evaluation (and maybe AoA too).
There's actually some merit in making Evaluated attacks somewhat more predictable, logic-wise, but Evaluate is a very poor choice in combat, balance-wise, already. IIRC Kromm also said that it's meant more for pre-combat situations . . . which brings us back to the sneak who comes up from behind!

Pre-combat or "combat" where one opponent can easily outrun the other then make a lot of wait maneuvers waiting for the defender to close the distance.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by Culture20

Thankfully, the discussion revolves around attacking slow zombies that don't defend, so not exactly "normal" combat conditions if you're fighting mano-a-zombo. There should be plenty of time to evaluate then make a telegraphic strike to be sure of a death blow. Actually, I just realized I do this in real life when "fighting" spiders. *shiver*

Yes quite there are lots of different types of combats which is pretty much why a inexperienced fencer trying to default off DX and attempting to wait for 3 rounds than AoA:D and Telegraphic attack has lots of down sides in a fencing duel, but a office worker swinging a bat for the first time against a shambling zombie it might be winner.

I actually like your spider analogy, fighting zombies is actually an odd mix of vermin/animal control and combat.

[fifiste]

One mechanic that makes the head-hits available to unskilled survivors would be the buying successes campaign switch. And allowing to set aside a few CP at character creation for such purposes. Most of the time the unskilled cahracter will run and hide etc. when no other opportunity s/he can dispatch a zombie with a nice smash to the head for 1 CP held in reserve. By the next session s/he will have put a CP to buy first level in the appropriate melee weapon skill explained as gaining both confidence and experience through such decisive combat action the previous session.

(That's a really simple way to do it with available rules no tweaking needed - I still find the odds of hitting someone slow and non-defending on a head with a stick ridiculously low by the rules as they are.
Actually i do find the melee defaults at all cripplingly low - the way that my hitting probability falls down when I grab a pool noodle compared to just slapping someone is just too damn unbelievable )

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

Only why does the fact that you can sneak at greater than move 1 imply you can evaluate and sneak at the same time?

Can I automatically evaluate and do other things at greater than move 1 at the same time?

You can attack out of stealth, you can run in stealth (although it causes a penalty to Stealth). I see no reason why Evaluate should be any worse than attacks and running. Anyway, here's a quote:

Originally Posted by Kromm

As long as you're moving just a step per second, it doesn't matter what maneuver you're taking while you use Stealth. Of course if it's something that makes noise, it won't be smart . . . but Evaluate is silent. Since we're quoting me, you'll note that many times I've said that Evaluate is normally what you do while using Stealth to sneak up on an opponent. The Stealth skill even lets you move faster than Move 1, but then you're at -5. However, if you only use Move 1, you're not at -5 . . . and since you can step while you Evaluate, you can claim you're using Stealth without the -5 . . . and since Evaluate works on anyone within potential Move and Attack range, you can use it on somebody up to your full Move away. So somebody with Move 5 could Evaluate for five seconds as he makes a Stealth roll to sneak up.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

Of the unskilled fighting zombies and needing skull hits as per this thread. TBH if it not going to come up apart from a select few situations where it makes sense, that to my mind is even more reason not to disallow it for some pretty arbitrary reasons

because that's not the comparison you're making. Shooting at net 0 is not the same as hitting a chair.

Okay, I'll try to break it down more precisely, since 'net 0' is different than 'range+acc=0, other stuff non-0'.

• Hitting a chair with a Broadsword/Punch/etc. With the bunch of bonuses that are claimable thanks to it being a non-combat.
• Hitting a chair with a rifle at a distance at which all aiming aids (Acc, scope, bracing etc.) compensate the range modifiers. Plus the bunch of bonuses that are claimable thanks to it being a non-combat.
• Hitting a chair with a Flamethrower/Breathe Radiation/Light Jet/Acid Spit. Plus the bunch of bonuses that are claimable thanks to it being a non-combat.

It seems wrong to single out the second bullet-point for having those bunchabonuses significantly lower than in the cases of the other two bullet points.[/list]

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

I also probably never do auto successes in combat, but that's not what I was talking about.

However if it's getting to 20 that the threshold that concerns you (and it what I'd be going with), that would indicate that the earlier example of 3xE (+3), AoA:d (+4), Telgraphic (+4), Skull (-7), Default (-5) net -1 will be well below that threshold for the average person.

For someone holding a rapier for the first time, hitting such a small target 1/3 of the time seems generous, actually. (It's also a 1/10 chance of hitting an eye chink, even without going into a Defensive Grip.)

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

No it doesn't, for that to be true than sum of {C.....G} would have to always be less than B? B in this instance is +3 (evaluate)

Once again if the only issue getting close to the +10 threshold why is AoA:D stackable with TA (total +8) and not evaluate and TA (total +7) and yet I could stack AoA:D with Evaluate for the same total +7?

Explicit caps seem to be rare (TSh's MoA is a notable exception), but the intent does seem to be that the sum stay at +7 or +8 at most.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

Basically unless you going to forbid any combination of bonuses that go above a certain amount the maths argument isn't relevant.

The point of stackability rules seems to be that not all sums and caps are made equal.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

You can attack out of stealth, you can run in stealth (although it causes a penalty to Stealth). I see no reason why Evaluate should be any worse than attacks and running. Anyway, here's a quote:

Well it seems like a freebie to me, and seems to fly in the face of the usual doing two things at once penality simply because both can be done with a step. (I'd argue concentrating on being quiet and concentrating on where you're going to stick your target is concentrating on two separate thing). But it makes those sentry removal issues that bit easier. I guess.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Okay, I'll try to break it down more precisely, since 'net 0' is different than 'range+acc=0, other stuff non-0'.

• Hitting a chair with a Broadsword/Punch/etc. With the bunch of bonuses that are claimable thanks to it being a non-combat.
• Hitting a chair with a rifle at a distance at which all aiming aids (Acc, scope, bracing etc.) compensate the range modifiers. Plus the bunch of bonuses that are claimable thanks to it being a non-combat.
• Hitting a chair with a Flamethrower/Breathe Radiation/Light Jet/Acid Spit. Plus the bunch of bonuses that are claimable thanks to it being a non-combat.

It seems wrong to single out the second bullet-point for having those bunchabonuses significantly lower than in the cases of the other two bullet points.[/list]

You've just changed the comparisons, now its not just net 0 with the shot but net 0 with bunch of other bonuses on top. Which is a bit different.

Which rather goes back to my point it's the total overall situation that matters not just the a certain selection of bonuses in isolation that matter here.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

For someone holding a rapier for the first time, hitting such a small target 1/3 of the time seems generous, actually. (It's also a 1/10 chance of hitting an eye chink, even without going into a Defensive Grip.)

Well its after taking 3 seconds to line it up, concentrating solely on doing it and doing it an incredible obvious fashion. Remove any one of those mitigating factors and the chances drop drastically, remove any two and it you need a 3.

And that ignoring the fact that if your doing it against some one who can actually defend and the chances will drop again (especially with the telegraphic attack, in some instances the +2 to defend will actually largely negate the +4 to hit in terms of overall success rate).

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Explicit caps seem to be rare (TSh's MoA is a notable exception), but the intent does seem to be that the sum stay at +7 or +8 at most.

It's not a cap it's a mutually exclusivity of two different bonuses, (i'm free to add all those other bonuses after all). The MOA is a true cap (of positive bonuses only) but since its (acc x2)+22 it's not really relevant to this conversation.

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

The point of stackability rules seems to be that not all sums and caps are made equal.

Right but since not all sums and caps are made equal you can't use maths to support this. It comes down to justifying the mutual exclusivity (again not a sum or cap) due to how the bonus is derived.

So since it not anything to do with the total bonus, or anything to do with the total situation, why are Telegraphic attack and evaluate not inherently not stackable.

Look at the other cases of mutual exclusivity (deceptive and telegraphic, defensive and committed, etc) there's not many of them but they are clearly incompatible with each other a point underlined by the fact that the game effect largely cancel each other out. In fact IIRC the other instances of mutual exclusivity aren't even in areas of stacking the same bonus.


The only cap of just positive mods I'm aware of is the MOA and not relevant here (referring to to mechanical hard limit on projectile accuracy). I'd argue the +10/-10 on task difficulty is one, but that's for the overall situation.

And even then I bust them in some rare case where critical failures are natural progression of ordinary failure. Bleeding being the example that comes to mind.