forums.cubicle7.co.uk
archive

Rich H wrote:... Just remember that enemies effectively have a neutral Stance - ie, they don't select a Stance they simply engage PCs so, personally, I wouldn't limit an adversaries damage in the ways described above.

I was suggesting what Bomilkar says: that the Hero's stance affects the adversary's damage. In other words, your stance not only determines how much damage you can do, it determines how much damage you can receive.

What I like about that is that it (in theory?) rebalances the issue of lost damage output, without needing to resort to other rules. Think of it as something like your damage absorption rules, but baked into the stance rule.

Elfcrusher wrote:I was suggesting what Bomilkar says: that the Hero's stance affects the adversary's damage. In other words, your stance not only determines how much damage you can do, it determines how much damage you can receive.

Collectively I have two 'issues' with it, personally:

1) The adversary isn't fighting in a Defensive Stance, the PC is, so adversary damage (in my opinion) wouldn't be capped as they aren't limiting their attack aggression. The PC selects something like Defensive Stance to make them harder to hit so that is the negative impact on the adversary.

+

2) As have others, I adopted the damage cap rule due to concern that PCs with a weaponskill of 4+ have no real reason to adopt Forward or Open Stances. My game group felt that if we also adopted this cap to adversaries it will still make Defensive the most attractive as those high attribute enemies wouldn't get that advantage and PCs could simply invest in increasing their base weapon damage using Grievous. They can still do the latter of course but I don't employ the damage cap to adversaries.

I'm not saying my way is the best way, it just works for my gaming group, but wanted to point out that other solutions could be used in conjunction and that adopting the rule for both PCs and opponents may not fix the 'problem' of Defensive stance being the option of choice at high ratings.

Rich H wrote: 2) As have others, I adopted the damage cap rule due to concern that PCs with a weaponskill of 4+ have no real reason to adopt Forward or Open Stances. My game group felt that if we also adopted this cap to adversaries it will still make Defensive the most attractive as those high attribute enemies wouldn't get that advantage and PCs could simply invest in increasing their base weapon damage using Grievous. They can still do the latter of course but I don't employ the damage cap to adversaries.

Yeah, that makes some sense. If the point of the rule is to make other stances look more attractive, then buffing Defensive sort of defeats the purpose.

My "logic", if it can be called such, was that if you're focused on defense you will be both harder to hit and you'll take the hits in places that can absorb it better.

But on further reflection I think your point trumps it.

EDIT: Ok, ok....but....what I do like about this is that it still makes Forward the most desirable stance if you're not being attacked, and Defensive the most desirable if you are. As my posts on "taunt" suggest, I would there to be some selectivity in terms of combat role, whereas right now everybody has sort of equal chances of needing defense. I don't want there to be extreme specialization, but as I've said I wish there were options to "nudge" things toward desired roles.

Falenthal wrote:Well, I like the combination. And if it's been playtested, then there's an insurance that it can work.

Forgive me, I wasn't saying don't use it, I was just pointing out other options. And I've only playtested my way for a couple of adventures which only amounts to a few combat encounters. YMMV and all that!

Falenthal wrote:How much is your Damage Reduction, Rich?

Damage Reduction only exists for metal armour, so chain shirt and above.

Mail-shirt: Reduces damage of an attack by 1.
Coat of mail: Reduces damage of an attack by 2.
Mail hauberk: Reduces damage of an attack by 4.

Still monitoring/reviewing these numbers though.

Elfcrusher wrote:Yeah, that makes some sense. If the point of the rule is to make other stances look more attractive, then buffing Defensive sort of defeats the purpose.

My "logic", if it can be called such, was that if you're focused on defense you will be both harder to hit and you'll take the hits in places that can absorb it better.

But on further reflection I think your point trumps it.

As previously mentioned, I'm not 100% on my way either, I just wanted to present an alternative for people to consider.

My Damage Reduction rules are primarily to make the heavier (Protection of 3D+) more attractive and to add something to the game other than just vs Wounds.

I use another alternative system (someone can remember an huge thread about armour...),
but, should I revert to a system more similar to the RAW, I would likely use RichH's system:
it put a limit to Defensive Stance and is a buff to Forward and armour

I understand the objections about Defensive being too attractive under my interpretation of the stance rules variant. Maybe I need to have another hard look at that issue. What I like about limiting opposing successes is that the choice of stance is rather situational: When going against a single opponent with lots of dice (Big Orcs, Mountain Trolls), you want to go defensive to limit potential damage you receive. Against goblins, you would rather go offensive to cut them down as quickly as possible. But maybe, going defensive is already too good.

The problem that remains is: What do we do about those uber-creatures like Mountain Trolls? With 4 dice, an attribute level of 9, and their special abilities they will hit you whatever your stance and they will hit you very hard. I have no problem with the second part (you are basically crushed by living rock), but I would like to have stance have some kind of impact when it comes to survivng such a fight.

Bomilkar wrote:The problem that remains is: What do we do about those uber-creatures like Mountain Trolls? With 4 dice, an attribute level of 9, and their special abilities they will hit you whatever your stance and they will hit you very hard. I have no problem with the second part (you are basically crushed by living rock), but I would like to have stance have some kind of impact when it comes to survivng such a fight.

I think you could tie something like that to a Combat Option rather than baked in to a Stance. For example, I use the following new stance that can only be chosen when in a Defensive Stance:

EVASIVE
By sacrificing their attack for the round, the player-hero makes an Athletics roll. The TN for this roll is 10 plus the highest Attribute level amongst the opponents faced. A successful roll applies a bonus to their parry rating dependent on their quality of success:

• Ordinary success: +2 parry rating

• Great success: +4 parry rating

• Extraordinary success: +6 parry rating

This bonus persists until the start of the player-hero's next turn.

... You could use something like this, or some variant (eg, altering the skill used and/or the bonuses to Parry), to address what you describe.

Rich H wrote:

Bomilkar wrote:The problem that remains is: What do we do about those uber-creatures like Mountain Trolls? With 4 dice, an attribute level of 9, and their special abilities they will hit you whatever your stance and they will hit you very hard. I have no problem with the second part (you are basically crushed by living rock), but I would like to have stance have some kind of impact when it comes to survivng such a fight.

I think you could tie something like that to a Combat Option rather than baked in to a Stance. For example, I use the following new stance that can only be chosen when in a Defensive Stance:

EVASIVE
By sacrificing their attack for the round, the player-hero makes an Athletics roll. The TN for this roll is 10 plus the highest Attribute level amongst the opponents faced. A successful roll applies a bonus to their parry rating dependent on their quality of success:

• Ordinary success: +2 parry rating

• Great success: +4 parry rating

• Extraordinary success: +6 parry rating

This bonus persists until the start of the player-hero's next turn.

... You could use something like this, or some variant (eg, altering the skill used and/or the bonuses to Parry), to address what you describe.

This is similar to what Roc was proposing in the thread on new Combat Tasks, with the addition of a skill test and the chance of having Great/Extraordinary success. I like that.

Instead of a fixed +2, I could see it being multiples of Valour (1 to 6) or Favoured Wits bonus (1 to 3), whichever is higher. In the former case it would be possible with Valour 6 and an Extraordinary Success to get +18 for one round...but I kind of like that somebody that experienced, rolling that well, could do that. That's how you defeat Dragons, I think.

Let's Math this out...
Defensive Stance, Wits 4(7), Shield = default TN to be hit of 18. Make him a Woodman fighting in the woods, so 21.
Valour 6, Extraordinary Success = new TN of 36.

Dragon with Bite 4, Attribute Level of 10. Average roll = 5.5 (Feat) + 4 * 3.5 (Success) + 10 = 29.5. Max roll (ignoring auto-success) = 10 + 4 * 6 + 10 = 44.

So even in the above extreme case, you're by no means preventing such an opponent from hitting you. It's not even that unlikely.

You know what? Your calculations have absolutely convinced me. It's really nice to have combat task that increases with valour, as long as the character remains vulnerable to monsters. The fact the dragon or Mountain Troll won't hit too often is perfectly fine with me - when it hits, it will hit hard enough to count.

Consider your option sold.