04-14-2022, 11:59 AM | #41 | |
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: New England
|
Re: Weapon Expertise: +1 per die of damage
Quote:
|
|
04-14-2022, 12:17 PM | #42 |
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Boston area
|
Re: Weapon Expertise: +1 per die of damage
Here's the situation as I see it. There are two easy cases.
Now the interesting case is this: X's action comes before A's (whether due to adjDX or holding an action) and A has not declared a Defend action previously. What happens then? There are a few possibilities I can think of offhand.
(1) limits the ability of A to react to actions by choosing to Defend. It's pretty drastic. (2) can force A to choose to Defend even though he's not Attacked because X chose a different action. (3) gives A the ability to Defend if X attacks and Attack if X doesn't, which puts X in a hard place if A has an ally with him. If X attacks, his target will defend while the other guy attacks. (4) has the same effect. I don't want (3) and (4), because a one-on-two battle is already hard enough. With those two options, X will have to roll 4 (or more) dice to hit one guy while the other guy rolls 3 to hit him. One-on-two should be deadly, but that's just not even fair. I have my own half-thought solution, but I don't like it much, so I'd like to hear how others play it. Last edited by phiwum; 04-14-2022 at 12:27 PM. |
04-14-2022, 12:22 PM | #43 | |
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Boston area
|
Re: Weapon Expertise: +1 per die of damage
Quote:
(Skarg's players rarely defend, but I do think that having one guy defend while the other attacks seems like a winning strategy to me in most situations, just so long as their opponent is wasting his attack on the defending fella.) |
|
04-14-2022, 01:45 PM | #44 | |
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: New England
|
Re: Weapon Expertise: +1 per die of damage
Quote:
|
|
04-14-2022, 05:08 PM | #45 | |
Join Date: May 2015
|
Re: Weapon Expertise: +1 per die of damage
Quote:
* It's the fastest and easiest. * It doesn't require pre-declaring (which never happens in the examples, slows play, and requires remembering what everyone's declared option was. * No one ends up wasting their turn because they pre-declared an action that ends up being meaningless or inappropriate when their turn to act comes up. * It lets characters who find themselves confronted by something extra-deadly, try to do something to avoid getting killed. * It makes Dodge and Defend slightly more useful, and more likely a fighter will actually choose to use it sometimes for tactical reasons, instead of just always choosing Attack. |
|
04-14-2022, 05:18 PM | #46 | ||
Join Date: May 2015
|
Re: Weapon Expertise: +1 per die of damage
Quote:
Quote:
A "2 vs 1" is almost never a case of two foes staying in one's Front hexes for a series of turns - there's almost always more to it, such as an ally who can come help, and possibility of getting away and fleeing. So again, having one of the two foes not attack, tends to be a good outcome. Also, very frequently, the two figures will move to opposite sides of their single foe. At this point, the single figure can only face one of their foes, and that foe can choose to Defend if they want to, while the other foe attacks the single figure at +2 DX or +4 DX on 3 dice. |
||
04-15-2022, 07:50 AM | #47 | |
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Boston area
|
Re: Weapon Expertise: +1 per die of damage
Quote:
Besides, even if I decide that NPCs choose suboptimal tactics, I can't insist my players do the same. |
|
04-15-2022, 07:52 AM | #48 | |
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Boston area
|
Re: Weapon Expertise: +1 per die of damage
Quote:
|
|
04-15-2022, 10:26 AM | #49 | |
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: New England
|
Re: Weapon Expertise: +1 per die of damage
Quote:
|
|
04-15-2022, 02:15 PM | #50 |
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Boston area
|
Re: Weapon Expertise: +1 per die of damage
The main thing that bothers me with options (3) and (4) is that the person considering a Defend action has more information available than one considering an Attack action. If A can choose Defend in reaction to X's choice to Attack, then his decision is better informed than X's. X doesn't know what A is doing when X chooses Attack. A knows what X is doing when he chooses Defend (or he can change his order later).
Skarg's right that a two-on-one with both figures in the front hexes of the lone guy isn't usually a stable arrangement. It's usually only one turn. But for that one turn, I see the following possibilities: (1) X Attacks A. Then A Defends and B Attacks X. (2) X Defends. Then both A and B change their options to Attack X. My current houserule is not ideal, but works to undo some of the advantage that A and B have. If A reacts to X's declaration of an Attack by Defending, then X can change his order. This can only happen once per turn, so if B declares that he is also Defending, X can't change to attacking C or back to A. Similar concerns apply to missile weapons. If A and B are fighting X, all with missile weapons and none moving more than one hex, then either X wastes a shot on a dodging figure while the other figure shoots at X or X dodges while both figures shoot at him (assuming that the figures are keen on dodging, of course). The two-on-one advantage is made worse because those who choose a defensive order do so knowing that the opponent will be attacking them. A Dodge/Defend is thus never wasted, but an Attack order may often be against a suboptimal target. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|