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 11-22-2019, 02:08 PM   #271
Plane
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Default Re: A Challenger Appears! Green versus Red

Quote:
Originally Posted by ericthered View Post
I think green has either needs to spend AP to stop or make an attack. Or we can have him make that really penalized attack at -4 and defensive attack damage.
Slamming you does seem like the most obvious solution, but it's not my specialty... if you dodge then I think it's implied that I evade automatically for free.

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?
Plane is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2019, 10:49 AM   #272
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
if you dodge then I think it's implied that I evade automatically for free.
I agree.
Quote:
Not sure about missing.. undodged missed slams getting automatic evasion sounds off.
I'd think that I could either impede your progress by spending an AP to resist without taking slam damage or let you through.

Quote:
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) ?
By RAW, red would stop green without either taking damage... and green would have to be a lot bigger than red to invoke the weight rules successfully.

Quote:
Then if I somehow hit without a defense working: Grappling does have an automatic move-reduction mechanic for that...
oh cool.
Quote:
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.
that could work...

Quote:
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.
I agree that the parry rules are odd with regards to weight, especially for natural weapons. I'm not excited to break out technical grappling for it. I've been thinking about the parry weights rule for a while now and I've been thinking that the best way to model it might be penalties for large relative strengths (or actually basic lifts), modified by the "weight" of your weapon... but that's a different kettle of fish.

Quote:
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.
I don't think a punch should effect green's speed. I could see the AP from the attack providing half of the benefit of spending a full AP for move, rounded down.

Quote:
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...
I think I'd fall back on our discussion of what happens if green just runs into red's hex. I don't think adding a punch changes anything meaningfully.


Quote:
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.
Who would roll dodge? both of them? And resisting an (implied) evade attempt feels like the opposite of dodge.


Quote:
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?
Dodging while running does feel natural. Counting dodge AP towards deceleration... isn't a bad idea. I'd prefer it apply between 1 y/s and Move/2 yard per second at the dodger's option. It is an after-the fact hack though, and I'd prefer to make it apply from after this situation onward, because other-wise you're adjusting rules to assist yourself on the fly.


[/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
__________________
Worlds Beyond Earth -- my blog
ericthered is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2019, 01:58 PM   #273
Plane
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Default 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:
Originally Posted by ericthered View Post
By RAW, red would stop green without either taking damage... and green would have to be a lot bigger than red to invoke the weight rules successfully.
What weight rules? Do you mean like which allows someone to move despite being grappled?

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".

Quote:
Originally Posted by ericthered View Post
oh cool.

that could work...
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:
Originally Posted by ericthered View Post
I agree that the parry rules are odd with regards to weight, especially for natural weapons. I'm not excited to break out technical grappling for it.
TG doesn't have new rules for parrying that I remember. I think there was a reworked formula in Pyramid somewhere but it's still a yes/no rather than a continuum.

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:
Originally Posted by ericthered View Post
I've been thinking about the parry weights rule for a while now and I've been thinking that the best way to model it might be penalties for large relative strengths (or actually basic lifts), modified by the "weight" of your weapon... but that's a different kettle of fish.
Yeah, sounds like floating TG's table over.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ericthered View Post
I don't think a punch should effect green's speed.
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:
Originally Posted by ericthered View Post
I could see the AP from the attack providing half of the benefit of spending a full AP for move, rounded down.
Er, you mean like 2 AP for AOA/Committed = 1 AP worth of deceleration while normal/defensive attacks give 0.5 AP worth of deceleration? Rounded down to 0 unless using a partial AP system, or maybe just eyeballing that as 20% or 25% of move instead of 50%

Quote:
Originally Posted by ericthered View Post
I think I'd fall back on our discussion of what happens if green just runs into red's hex. I don't think adding a punch changes anything meaningfully.
Well, the issue is when I run THROUGH to the rear hex without trying to get around you.

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:
Originally Posted by ericthered View Post
Who would roll dodge? both of them? And resisting an (implied) evade attempt feels like the opposite of dodge.
Evade sort of implies underneath/around/overtop, if the "I need to get behind you" guy doesn't care about that...

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:
Originally Posted by ericthered View Post
Dodging while running does feel natural. Counting dodge AP towards deceleration... isn't a bad idea. I'd prefer it apply between 1 y/s and Move/2 yard per second at the dodger's option.
That sounds fine. Or maybe make it dodger's option on a successful dodge, attacker's option on a failed dodge?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ericthered View Post
I'd prefer to make it apply from after this situation onward, because other-wise you're adjusting rules to assist yourself on the fly.
Well the flip side is that with defending being forced-deceleration, it would make it all the harder for a slow guy to catch up with a faster guy while defending themselves. That would work against me if you were taking Wait maneuvers, although since Wait can't transition into Move, probably not as huge an advantage for you... though Wait transitioned into Committed Attack would also be pretty decent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ericthered View Post
1 AP would allow the full 3 yards to be decelerated, as its move/2
I don't have my Basic Move of 6 due to the leg injury though, wouldn't AP cost for deceleration be based on my reduced move?

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...
Plane is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2019, 10:44 AM   #274
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
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.
I'd think that the slammer would be slowed down but not stopped by a successful parry. They've made contact and imparted force, but didn't deliver a solid hit. They continue past, but not as quickly. maybe half speed?


Quote:
What weight rules? Do you mean like which allows someone to move despite being grappled?

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".
No, the parried weight rules. You can parry a weapon that weighs up to your basic lift. The weight of a slam is the slammer's strength score. If you're parrying a ST 12 slam with a weapon 4 lbs or lighter the weapon has a chance to break, but that doesn't apply to unarmed attacks, so unarmed parrying of a slam is one of the better options. See "Parrying Heavy Weapons" on basic page 376.

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:
Yeah, sounds like floating TG's table over.
Which table specifically? I've been rooting around for a good parrying tweak and I don't know TG well at all.

Quote:
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.
I'd argue that's covered by no sprinting in move and attack.

Quote:
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.
I don't think a punch does transfer enough momentum to slow down. Slams are special because of their immense weight and ability to transfer force. They get special parrying and momentum rules, even in the basic set, that blows do not. And the ground is very different than the frictionless vacuums and spherical cows of physics. I'd certainly allow it in a 0-G struggle, but it feels like massively overstating the effects here.

Quote:
Er, you mean like 2 AP for AOA/Committed = 1 AP worth of deceleration while normal/defensive attacks give 0.5 AP worth of deceleration? Rounded down to 0 unless using a partial AP system, or maybe just eyeballing that as 20% or 25% of move instead of 50%
I hadn't thought of the AOA analogy, but yeah. I'd call it 25% of move rather than using fractional AP. but as I think about it, that would let almost everyone get an extra yard of movement with an attack, which feels wrong, step already does that. And that was a "possibly when being generous" comment.

Quote:
Well, the issue is when I run THROUGH to the rear hex without trying to get around you.

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.
not really. some evasion contests probably look like that, but many rely on forcing your way past one side.

Quote:
I don't have my Basic Move of 6 due to the leg injury though, wouldn't AP cost for deceleration be based on my reduced move?

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...
Good catch, thank you.
__________________
Worlds Beyond Earth -- my blog
ericthered is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2019, 10:54 AM   #275
ericthered
Hero of Democracy
 
ericthered's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: far from the ocean
Default 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 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.
I think you really feel that Green should be able to make Red spend AP to get out of his way or try and stop him without spending AP himself.

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?
__________________
Worlds Beyond Earth -- my blog
ericthered is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2019, 05:34 PM   #276
Plane
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Default Re: A Challenger Appears! Green versus Red

Quote:
Originally Posted by ericthered View Post
I think you really feel that Green should be able to make Red spend AP to get out of his way or try and stop him without spending AP himself.
Only if Red wants to, there would be no AP loss for staying in the way. Plus there's no contest rolled if someone opts to let someone evade, in which case I guess neither spend it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ericthered View Post
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.
Should effective skill be capped at 9?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ericthered View Post
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.
Stop how, like a parry?
Plane is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2019, 08:22 AM   #277
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
Only if Red wants to, there would be no AP loss for staying in the way. Plus there's no contest rolled if someone opts to let someone evade, in which case I guess neither spend it?
Yeah, if green ends up not on course to slam (one way or another), and red does not spend AP to stop his progress, no AP is spent at all


Quote:
Should effective skill be capped at 9?
I don't think so. It's a slam.


Quote:
Stop how, like a parry?
By resisting the evade.
__________________
Worlds Beyond Earth -- my blog
ericthered is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2019, 02:09 PM   #278
Plane
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Default Re: A Challenger Appears! Green versus Red

Quote:
Originally Posted by ericthered View Post
I don't think so. It's a slam.
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.
Plane is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2019, 11:25 PM   #279
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
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.
I'm fine with that, as long as a miss can still be treated as a heavily penalized evade.

Quote:
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.
That's fine...

Quote:
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.
As a GM, I'd look really hard at anything that goes beyond telegraphic attack's +2 to defenses. It'd have to be something with an absolutely ridiculous windup, or taking more than one second to telegraph exactly what's going to happen.
__________________
Worlds Beyond Earth -- my blog
ericthered is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2019, 07:08 PM   #280
Plane
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Default 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...
Plane 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 10:31 AM.


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