[Basic] Advantage of the Week: Altered Time Rate

[Otaku]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

I am forking the Wait condition argument to a new thread, I don't think ATR needs to be burdened with it. I will edit in the link here when it is posted.

Seems like a good idea to me; those wishing for more depth and answers can pursue it, but it won't force others to give up on the thread or wade through something they aren't interested in/can't hope to properly follow should the discussion run long. I did that myself in the previous [Basic] Advantage of the Week thread to its detriment, and I had to pretty much bail out on the 5e discussion thread for the same reason.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Mr_Sandman

Here's a new question. Feint is the one maneuver that doesn't work with ATR. You have to take your whole turn to Feint. This is explained in the rules as needing to move at the same time scale as your opponent, so they can respond to the feint. (This is partially undercut by the existence of All Out Attack (Feint), but we'll put that aside for a bit.)

But a Beat doesn't depend on your opponent processing your action and reacting to it like a Feint does. It's pushing their weapon/shield/limb aside with brute force to make an opening. So, should someone using ATR be allowed to make a Beat, because it makes sense based on the description. Or should it not be allowed for game balance reasons?

Personally, I ignore the Feint restriction entirely.
If a character is so fast others don't see her Feint and thus don't divert their defence, then the character is also so fast that others don't see her perform other types of Attacks and thus can't defend.
But characters get a full defence against ATR1+ characters, so it's not too fast for that.

Sorry, one of my houserules here. Rarely if ever relevant, but it's there.

[Mr_Sandman]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Personally, I ignore the Feint restriction entirely.
If a character is so fast others don't see her Feint and thus don't divert their defence, then the character is also so fast that others don't see her perform other types of Attacks and thus can't defend.
But characters get a full defence against ATR1+ characters, so it's not too fast for that.

Sorry, one of my houserules here. Rarely if ever relevant, but it's there.

I kind of agree with your reasoning, and as I said, the reasoning for not being able to feint and attack in one turn is undercut by All Out Attack (Feint). I think allowing Feints to work isn't too unbalanced for ATR 1, but at high levels it has the potential to be really unfair, if the effect of the Feint lasts through your whole turn. Feint is designed to give you a better chance to get past your opponent's defenses for one turn, at the cost of taking one turn to set it up. With ATR, your 'opportunity cost' vs. your potential return is much lower, if it lasts through your whole turn, and I can't think of a good rational other than game balance why it would only last through your next maneuver.

An attacker with high ATR could use a feint as the first maneuver every turn (not a big loss if they have several maneuvers per turn), wait for good rolls, then make multiple Telegraphic All Out (Strong) or All Out (Double) attacks to the skull or vitals, or multiple Telegraphic All Out (Determined) attacks, perhaps using Mighty Blows to the eye. It could get ugly fast.

[Otaku]

Originally Posted by Mr_Sandman

I kind of agree with your reasoning, and as I said, the reasoning for not being able to feint and attack in one turn is undercut by All Out Attack (Feint). I think allowing Feints to work isn't too unbalanced for ATR 1, but at high levels it has the potential to be really unfair, if the effect of the Feint lasts through your whole turn. Feint is designed to give you a better chance to get past your opponent's defenses for one turn, at the cost of taking one turn to set it up. With ATR, your 'opportunity cost' vs. your potential return is much lower, if it lasts through your whole turn, and I can't think of a good rational other than game balance why it would only last through your next maneuver.

An attacker with high ATR could use a feint as the first maneuver every turn (not a big loss if they have several maneuvers per turn), wait for good rolls, then make multiple Telegraphic All Out (Strong) or All Out (Double) attacks to the skull or vitals, or multiple Telegraphic All Out (Determined) attacks, perhaps using Mighty Blows to the eye. It could get ugly fast.

Good points all. Especially in light of my inexperience, I have to ask

1. Does this fit what the Advantage is trying to represent?
2. Does this seem overpowered after factoring in the cost of the Advantage?
3. In real life or the appropriate fiction, is the consequence of falling for a Feint difficulty in defending all subsequent blows for that "turn" or not?

[Mr_Sandman]

Originally Posted by Otaku

Good points all. Especially in light of my inexperience, I have to ask

1. Does this fit what the Advantage is trying to represent?
2. Does this seem overpowered after factoring in the cost of the Advantage?
3. In real life or the appropriate fiction, is the consequence of falling for a Feint difficulty in defending all subsequent blows for that "turn" or not?

I think there are not many good fictional, or 'in world' reasons for limiting the ability to Feint or the effectiveness of a Feint or especially a Beat.

However looked at from a game perspective, you want the relative costs and benefits of Feints and beats not to change, and the benefit potentially skyrockets as levels of ATR increase. From a game perspective, a general rule that you have to spend as much time Feinting as the time you get a benefit from it makes sense. So the rule in the book is take a full turn of Feint, and get the benefits for your next full turn. The explanation of why that is so, really doesn't hold up too well.

Other ways you could do it would be to have Feints only apply to the next maneuver the character with ATR takes, so they have to alternate. Or let the character take as many maneuvers of Feint as desired, then make one roll and it takes effect for the same number of maneuvers. Both of these would be even harder to justify 'in world' though. Beats would cause even more trouble, because they affect the opponent's defenses for attacks from others as well. There's no good way to rule on a character with ATR 4 who gives up one-fourth of their attack potential, using a beat on their last maneuver. How many of his allies get the benefit of that? All of them? Then the Beater gets the benefit on his first maneuver of his next turn too? Seems unfair, not only to the target, but to all the characters who have to give up potential attack maneuvers on a one-to-one basis with Feints and Beats.

[vierasmarius]

Originally Posted by Lameth

So in ready the thread, would you way that styling a character such as in the film Wanted, would have ATR level 1? This would explain the ability to "slow" down time and take your time to hit and aim, or act faster, as seen in the film.

I haven't seen the film, but the ability to aim shots in slow-motion may be best handled by Gunslinger (plus optionally ETS). This likewise applies to robots or cyborgs with built-in targeting computers that let them plot ballistics in an eye-blink. I'd reserve ATR for people who are physically moving faster too.

[Otaku]

Originally Posted by Mr_Sandman

I think there are not many good fictional, or 'in world' reasons for limiting the ability to Feint or the effectiveness of a Feint or especially a Beat.

I actually had edited that post, but the browser froze on me when I tried posting and "ate" it. Why do I mention that? Just so you know that I had considered it and here is what I came up with.

I don't know what a Beat is; I've got Basic Set Characters, Basic Set Campaigns and Powers. Do I want some of the other books? Indeed, but I cannot afford it (no, really - I'm fortunate to have room, board and a computer with internet access right now). If you want to give even a quickie definition, go ahead. If not, no worries, I'll just focus on the Feints and if the difference between the two "breaks" the system, you'll have to let me know and indicate why. ;)

Originally Posted by Mr_Sandman

However looked at from a game perspective, you want the relative costs and benefits of Feints and beats not to change, and the benefit potentially skyrockets as levels of ATR increase.

Explain why this is a significant enough constraint for a 100 point Advantage? Additionally, the more levels of ATR purchased, the more impressive things they could have purchased instead of ATR. In short, it might be imbalance (in the "nerfing" sense) that you are not allowed this trick. ;)

Originally Posted by Mr_Sandman

From a game perspective, a general rule that you have to spend as much time Feinting as the time you get a benefit from it makes sense. So the rule in the book is take a full turn of Feint, and get the benefits for your next full turn. The explanation of why that is so, really doesn't hold up too well.

Other ways you could do it would be to have Feints only apply to the next maneuver the character with ATR takes, so they have to alternate. Or let the character take as many maneuvers of Feint as desired, then make one roll and it takes effect for the same number of maneuvers. Both of these would be even harder to justify 'in world' though. Beats would cause even more trouble, because they affect the opponent's defenses for attacks from others as well. There's no good way to rule on a character with ATR 4 who gives up one-fourth of their attack potential, using a beat on their last maneuver. How many of his allies get the benefit of that? All of them? Then the Beater gets the benefit on his first maneuver of his next turn too? Seems unfair, not only to the target, but to all the characters who have to give up potential attack maneuvers on a one-to-one basis with Feints and Beats.

My solution (that was lost to the browser hiccup) was limiting the bonus from Feints when dealing with slower opponents. Divide the bonus you receive from your Feint bonus/penalty from your Feint maneuver by your levels of ATR if the Feint is made without slowing down. So ATR 1 (which isn't that huge of an increase) makes no different. Two levels provide only half the bonus because your opponent isn't reacting fast enough to functionally be as mislead. You're allowed to Feint if you really want to, but for it to be a powerful maneuver you'd better be really skilled and hitting hard; and if you're paying for a high level of Skill plus multiple levels of ATR, you've earned your "killer combo". After all, think of how many more potent options you have for offense.

[Mr_Sandman]

Originally Posted by Otaku

I don't know what a Beat is; I've got Basic Set Characters, Basic Set Campaigns and Powers. Do I want some of the other books? Indeed, but I cannot afford it (no, really - I'm fortunate to have room, board and a computer with internet access right now). If you want to give even a quickie definition, go ahead. If not, no worries, I'll just focus on the Feints and if the difference between the two "breaks" the system, you'll have to let me know and indicate why. ;)

Beats are from Martial Arts. They are a variation of Feint that use a ST-based skill roll instead of a DX-based roll. They represent knocking the opponent's weapon, shield or limb out of the way to reduce their defense. There are a few differences between how Beats and Feints work, but the only one that I think matters in this context is that Beats reduce the opponent's defenses against everybody until the attacker's next turn. They aren't necessary to consider, but they do present a little more complication to allowing characters with ATR to use them without restriction than Feints do.

Originally Posted by Otaku

Explain why this is a significant enough constraint for a 100 point Advantage? Additionally, the more levels of ATR purchased, the more impressive things they could have purchased instead of ATR. In short, it might be imbalance (in the "nerfing" sense) that you are not allowed this trick. ;)

I think the strongest argument against this is that each 100 points you spend on ATR does not result in the same amount of benefit if Feints are not restricted in some way.

ATR 1 would work more or less just like having no ATR. You give up one attack, and your next attack maneuver gets the benefit. So no benefit to Feinting at 100 points spent. Unless you want the Feint to be effective through the Feinter's current and entire next turn. Then the benefit is tripling the effectiveness of Feints. (But that is contrary to All Out Attack (Feint) where it is only good for the current turn, not the next one.)

ATR 2 for the next 100 points would jump up to two attacks getting the benefit, thereby doubling the effectiveness of Feints. If you get the current and next turn, it goes to 5 attacks that get the effect. So the second hundred points either buys you much more Feint effectiveness relative to the first, or a little less.

Either way it also violates the principle that seems inherent in the RAW that every Feint should give you the benefits for as many attacks as you forfeited to feint.

Originally Posted by Otaku

My solution (that was lost to the browser hiccup) was limiting the bonus from Feints when dealing with slower opponents. Divide the bonus you receive from your Feint bonus/penalty from your Feint maneuver by your levels of ATR if the Feint is made without slowing down. So ATR 1 (which isn't that huge of an increase) makes no different. Two levels provide only half the bonus because your opponent isn't reacting fast enough to functionally be as mislead. You're allowed to Feint if you really want to, but for it to be a powerful maneuver you'd better be really skilled and hitting hard; and if you're paying for a high level of Skill plus multiple levels of ATR, you've earned your "killer combo". After all, think of how many more potent options you have for offense.

This seems like it might be more fair, but it's also hard to justify in 'game-world' terms. If you draw your opponent off line just a little to get an opening, because he can't react fast enough to move more out of line, he also can't react fast enough to get back to guard for your next attack, so it should be just as hard for him to defend against. If I get faked out and my opponent takes advantage of it with blinding speed, it makes me less likely to be able to defend the following attacks, not more.

Just eyeballing it quickly without doing any calculations, it also seems like the benefits of feinting would dilute very quickly as ATR increased, to the point of disappearing at high levels. So you would be getting less value from every 100 points you spend on ATR.

Perhaps something with the effect from the Feint decreasing with each attack after the feint would be more balanced, and could represent the opponent slowly (from the ATR user's perspective) getting back into guard after being Feinted. I'd have to think about how that might work out.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Otaku

I don't know what a Beat is; I've got Basic Set Characters, Basic Set Campaigns and Powers. Do I want some of the other books? Indeed, but I cannot afford it (no, really - I'm fortunate to have room, board and a computer with internet access right now). If you want to give even a quickie definition, go ahead. If not, no worries, I'll just focus on the Feints and if the difference between the two "breaks" the system, you'll have to let me know and indicate why. ;)

It is supposed to model the same thing as a "beat" in the real world. It's a ST-Based Feint. Set-Up Attack may do this better.

[SteampengMK-1]

Originally Posted by Otaku

This week's subject is Altered Time Rate, found on p.B38 and 39, and expanded upon on Powers p.41 and 42. It is a leveled Advantage, costing a hefty 100 points per. A character with Altered Time Rate experiences time more quickly, so that for every level of the Advantage you experience an additional subjective second. For example, with Altered Time Rate Lv4, from your characters perspective five seconds are passing for every one second those without this trait experience.

Mechanically this enables some very nice options. In combat, each level corresponds to an additional maneuver on your turn in combat. This includes Concentrate Maneuvers for tasks like Spells, run faster by taking multiple move maneuvers or of course make multiple attacks. It can allow for more extensive planning, besides your character experiencing additional time, according to the rules on p.B38 you may always attempt a Sense Roll or IQ-based Skill roll to make plans or recall information at no penalty to additional actions. When it comes to interacting with others, where their reactions matter, you have to deliberately slow yourself down; Feinting at high speed may look cool, but if your opponent doesn't have time to react to it, it won't do you any good in combat.

Powers includes a Enhancement that allows you to be even faster outside of combat as well as a Limitation that prevents Altered Time Rate from affecting how many maneuvers you get in combat (see Powers p.42 for details). If you really want a better reaction time, Combat Reflexes or even Enhanced Time Sense are your go to options, whether you have Altered Time Rate or not. If you really want to be able to move faster, buying up your Basic Speed, your Basic Move, and or Enhanced Move exist expressly for that, and can again be combined with Altered Time Rate.

1. Have you used Altered Time Rate for any of your characters before?
2. How well has it worked for you, or those you've gamed with whose characters have possessed Altered Time Rate?
3. Are there any areas of confusion or uncertainty with regards to it?
4. Is there anything you might like to change about it?

With regards to that last one, the previous [Basic] Advantage of the Week proved that an especially crunchy discussion is likely better suited to its own thread (though linking to it for reference seems like a sound idea). My own attempt last week to encourage others to help me find unifying rules for Allies, Contacts and Patrons went most poorly, and as I am the one that pushed for it I am of course to blame for potentially killing off more on topic discussion. >_<

I myself have some questions about Altered Time Rate, but I'll wait until we have some more general discussion out of the way. I actually have misunderstood this Advantage for many years, possibly dating back to 3e (since all the characters I have built with it never ended up seeing any play, I am not sure if I had it wrong the whole time, or it just sort of "happened").

in other words Perfect in a GURPS maxtrix game :D

though On a more serious note, I was think of adding something like this to my game, but Instead of every turn, It only last about only so much "seconds" before having to "Charge up"

What the thoughts of this use?