11-22-2019, 01:08 PM | #271 | |
Join Date: Aug 2018
|
Re: A Challenger Appears! Green versus Red
Quote:
Not sure about missing.. undodged missed slams getting automatic evasion sounds off. If you parry though, I dunno maybe if a parry is successful it should be the defender's option whether they stop the guy face-on (take semi-slam -2 defensiveish damage) or deflect him (give slammer a free evade and they go stumbling past as if it was a dodge) ? Then if I somehow hit without a defense working: Grappling does have an automatic move-reduction mechanic for that... Actually that might be one way to reduce the damage: you roll your damage against me FIRST, then I subtract move resulting from that, and THEN roll damage against you by my now-reduced velocity. We could still add the defensive attack penalty, but this serves my desire of wanting something LESS damaging than a defensive attack. - - I just thought of another way to think of parries as well, compare to basic set's weird hard cap "you can only parry attacks weighing X, and punches weigh ST/10" ... What if a parry is conceived like an impermanent grapple in that you roll thrust to determine control points, and then you apply those control points to JUST the attack you intercepted? That way it reduces the DX (which you can apply to see if that would've caused it to miss) and even if you don't cause it to miss, it also reduces the ST, so you would reduce the damage the attack does. I'd have parries use twice ST for calculating thrust (like a shove) with a +1 for 2-armed parries (like shoves) to make it super good at depleting ST/DX of attacks though, since they don't have time to build up CP like grapples do. If using a "grapples are twice as good" rule system then it could use 4x ST. - - Now... if I don't slam you and instead try to punch you... would hitting you help slow me down? You dodging the punch wouldn't cause me to run past you like with a dodged slam, nor should being parries, but I'm thinking that it should count like a random attack in that case. If I roll 9 or less, I'm going to accidentally collide with you (you can dodge at +2) If I roll 10 or more, I'm going to miss you... in which case I think it's like a free evade without needing to spend an Action Point... BUT: in that case, I should only be able to evade to your left hex or right hex (veering to one side or the other) and definitely not directly behind you, since this is accidental evasion not intentional evasion. As to which... one way might be to base this on which side the punch was being aimed at? Like if I'm punching left arm, then I would veer to your left (my right) and if I'm punching your right arm, then I would veer to your right (my left). Another possibility: which limb you use to parry might determine it. If I was accidental-slamming your torso then perhaps if you parry right-handed I should veer off to your left side, and if you parry left-handed I should veer off to your right side? That's assuming that parries involve the use of the stronger chest muscles to push someone inward/across to the opposite side... there are also outward parries though, but I think those use weaker muscles and are more for deflecting light objects, not entire bodies... - - That's one interesting way the "roll Control Points" idea could work... you could treat inward parries as ST*2 thrust and outward parries as ST*1 thrust. So basically it should be the parrier's option if they deflect the attacker to one side or the other. If they deflect neither left or right, then they probably shifted the punch up or down, so it still misses, but you're still looking at an accidental collision. As there's no actually intentional use of the Evade technique, instead of a Quick Contest, I think maybe we'd just roll a dodge, which I think is what you would do if someone had shoved your enemy into you. That's basically what's happening here, except that it was their own momentum shoving them. Dodging the momentum-carried accidental slam is also something that could come up if we determined some kind of minimum requirement of actually making a guy veer left/right, like maybe related to knockback rules or depleting the ST of the incoming attack to 0. That sort of resembles the 'graze' idea in period, but more incremental than just a 1/2 damage on a by-1 failure... I'm trying to remember the positioning here... July 23 you were 5 yards off, my 3y/s momentum narrowed it to 2 you chose AOD and didn't mention stepping backward... Aug 1 you were 2 yards off, my 3/s brought my into your hex and I leg-punched That could've already created the "deceleration dilemma" since I should've had the momentum to travel 1 extra yard but you were in the way... but Aug 5th since you retreated you were 1 yard off, so my remaining 1 yard of momentum brought me into your hex again (as mentioned Aug 6) You know the weird thing is that I could so easily dodge while carrying a 3y/s momentun like that... B366 doesn't list any penalties to dodging AT ALL, except for an inability to retreat. You just can't parry... Martial Arts amended that to be that you can't parry if you attacked with your arms, otherwise you can't dodge if you did any other attack. Either way, Move and Attack leaves one form of completely unimpeded (except for non-retreat) defense, which is really strange! One thing that comes to mind... if you dodge during a Move or a Move and Attack, perhaps the AP spent on dodging should be forced as counting towards deceleration? After all, there's just no feasible way you could be focusing on keeping absolute speed while twisting out of the way of an attack... conceptually that's just off. You're altering your form in some kind of inefficient way. So even though I don't WANT to slow down (I like the idea of my higher HP injuring your char with the momentum) I think I should be forced to... but rather than voluntarily spending AP with the intent of slowing down by itself (which the char wouldn't do, they don't care about accidentally ramming) the AP voluntarily spent on dodging (because Green WOULD want to avoid Red's kick, a lot more likely to injure him than an ccidental bump) also counts as AP spent towards deceleration... because active defenses are inherently decelerative and compromising to maintaining optimal running speeds. So based on that... how much should I reduce my 3y/s velocity as if I spent 1 AP to do so? |
|
11-25-2019, 09:49 AM | #272 | ||||||||||
Hero of Democracy
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: far from the ocean
|
Re: A Challenger Appears! Green versus Red
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
[/quote]So based on that... how much should I reduce my 3y/s velocity as if I spent 1 AP to do so?[/QUOTE] 1 AP would allow the full 3 yards to be decelerated, as its move/2
__________________
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! |
||||||||||
11-25-2019, 12:58 PM | #273 | |||||||||
Join Date: Aug 2018
|
Re: A Challenger Appears! Green versus Red
One thing I wonder is that if slamming someone slows you down (the damage they do subtracts yards from speed) that maybe if someone parries your slam that should slow you down too. Like maybe parrying a slam should also inflict damage to the slammer (in addition to a possible Aggressive Parry) as if they had collided with something. But not do damage to the parrier. Then that damage would be decelerative too.
Like maybe a parrier could have the option of a fast-parrying a slam (like a punch) or slow-parrying a slam (like a shove) depending on if they wanted to injure or avoid injuring a slammer/runner or not. Quote:
To actually stop someone, you're either making contact with them or forcing them to stop and think "I'd better not continue forward or I'll make contact with them". Okay, so we'll use that if a collision does happen. I think a similar approach would also make sense for when accidental collisions happen as a result of knockback, to keep accidental collisions less injurious to the collidee than if the collider were intentionally defensive-attack-slamming them. Quote:
TG however DOES have the gradual penalties based on weight which I think can be floated over to parrying somehow. Though that's still in the sense of applying it to the parry skill and is still all-or-nothing damagewise, which is where I think Power Parry precedent in Powers could help. That or a recent idea I had of treating "Parry Damage" as inflicting Control Points that immediately expire after they retroactively affect the attack's accuracy (DX) and damage (ST). Quote:
Well there's one respect 1) you probably can't run as fast when you're throwing punches/kicks than when you're focusing 100% on running That might be covered on only allowing a "Move" to be "Sprinting" and to not allow Sprinting during a Move and Attack, though. Second respect: 2) if a punch launches kinetic energy forward to knock its target backward, that is wasted energy not being spent to propel the runner forward. IE basically if my punch misses, then I don't transfer any of my momentum to you, and maintain that forward momentum. If a punch hits, it necessarily must transfer some amount of kinetic momentum to the target. The question is whether or not the transfer of momentum is enough to actually slow down. TG basically decelerates a slammer by 1 y/s per each point of damage they took from the thing they collided with, so 1 damage = 1 yard seems like the go-to formula. That said, I'm more of the mind it should scale with HP like shock does. IE it should be 2 damage = 1 yard if the slammer/runner has 20 HP, because they have more inertia and it would take more force to slow them down. Quote:
Quote:
Normal evasion basically assumes "if my obstructor gets in my way, I'll back off and reduce my forward momentum to avoid bumping into them or tripping over them" which is a weird assumption. Let's think of how B388 "Attacking Through an Occupied Hex" would work if I was trying to Slam someone behind you. This rule mentions needing reach 2, but I think that assumes you aren't sharing the hex with your opponent, because you would only need reach 1 to reach someone in a hex behind an opponent if they were in the same hex as you. This is -4 to hit and it doesn't say B389 "Hitting the Wrong Target" would apply on a miss, but that seems like a reasonable thing to houserule. So the "flat 9 or worse" rule for random chance pops up here. Say it did hit though, this would mean if you managed to slam someone with reach 2 (which I think requires combining "Flying Tackle" or "Pounce" with AOA Long, unless you were high SM) behind the occupied hex... you've managed to get some part of your body that you slam with (the shoulder?) through that hex! Now... since kicks have reach 1 and AOA (Long) gives +1 to reach, it would be possible to use ATAOH to kick past someone without actually evading them... and then you have at least your foot (if not your body) behind them. I sort of lost track of what I was getting at... I guess maybe that there can be ways other than Evade to move through an occupied hex, albeit probably just specific parts and not your entire body. Quote:
They won't adjust their aim like they would a slam against the target or their cadence/angle to inflict max damage (that's an attack) but it's an "accidental thing you must dodge" similar to how you'd need to dodge a gorilla if I shoved/threw a gorilla at you. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Move 3 is basically my maximum right now, so it seems like if I got 1 free AP worth of deceleration from an active defense that this would only reduce me by 1/2 my move rounded down, so 1.5 would round down to just reducing by 1y/s and still leave me at 2/ys forward momentum... |
|||||||||
11-26-2019, 09:44 AM | #274 | ||||||||
Hero of Democracy
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: far from the ocean
|
Re: A Challenger Appears! Green versus Red
Quote:
Quote:
I don't disagree that parrying a slam and stopping your foe feels kind of weird, but that's what the RAW rules say, which was why I qualified that statement as the RAW result. Quote:
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! |
||||||||
11-26-2019, 09:54 AM | #275 | |
Hero of Democracy
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: far from the ocean
|
Re: A Challenger Appears! Green versus Red
Lets get down to the meat of this. I think we've talked long enough to propose full solutions.
Quote:
I propose we treat this as a slam attack with a -4 to hit, -2 damage/-1 per die. You are allowed to telegraph. If the slam hits, Red may spend AP to dodge or block, and I think the situation is well-behaved from there. If the slam misses, Red may choose to let it go, or to treat it as an evade. If Red treats it as an evade, Green will roll evade at a -4 penalty (but spend no AP), or choose to intentionally fail the roll, and Red will spend AP to try and stop his foe. Is that good, or do we need tweaks?
__________________
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! |
|
11-30-2019, 04:34 PM | #276 | ||
Join Date: Aug 2018
|
Re: A Challenger Appears! Green versus Red
Quote:
Quote:
Stop how, like a parry? |
||
12-02-2019, 07:22 AM | #277 | |||
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! |
|||
12-03-2019, 01:09 PM | #278 |
Join Date: Aug 2018
|
Re: A Challenger Appears! Green versus Red
B366 is over-rode by B371:
the -4 to hit and effective skill cap of 9 for a Move and Attack do not apply to slams but I'm referencing B392 roll randomly to see who you “attack” first. Your attack roll is a flat 9 from "Striking into a Close Combat" (which I think still applies to Slams) The idea being that since this is like a "free attack" (I'm not actually spending an "Attack" on you, I'm not actually trying to hit you at all, just move to the hex behind you without trying to avoid you) that it's kind of similar to the free attack you get against a foe by missing another foe. SIACC normally applies if you made an attack against SOMETHING though (it just missed or was dodged) in which case the original target (and presumably any secondary accidental targets) might get a +2 to dodge if it was a telegraphic attack... So in this circumstance it makes sense to give you at least +2 to defences too, if not more. It's actually possible for some techniques to be even easier to defend against... MA91: "Opponent’s Defenses: +2 to default per +1 to all of the opponent’s defenses against the attack" This doesn't have any upper limit... which makes it a fabulous point crock if you're building a technique to to attack foes who can't defend, like a surprise attack or when fighting berserkers who can only AOA. If a GM were to put a cap on how many levels of O'sDs you could put on a tech, then the bonus to avoid accidental slams should probably be equal to or worse than that. |
12-03-2019, 10:25 PM | #279 | |||
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! |
|||
12-07-2019, 06:08 PM | #280 |
Join Date: Aug 2018
|
Re: A Challenger Appears! Green versus Red
I was wrong about there being no upper limit for those defense bonuses, turns out that's +2 normally, +4 cinematic. Maybe 4/6 if you can stack a telegraphic attack atop such a technique.
That leads me to think that +3 or +5 to dodge such a non-attacking accidental collision might be appropriate: 1 step worse than normal max, 1 step better than cinematic max. Weirdly, the "taking more than once second to telegraph" sounds a LOT like Springing Attack in MA, yet I don't think there's a bonus to defend against that... I guess maybe crouched legs tells you an attack is coming, but not necessarily from which limb or at which target like a wound-up fist does. I guess when thinking of that... merely stepping forward would not be that telegraphed at all... knowing someone is moving forward doesn't mean you know they just plan to barrel through you rather than attack you or try to evade you... |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|