Mechanical discussion

Page 1 of 21 1, 2, 3 ... 11 ... 21  Next

Go down

Mechanical discussion

Post by Baelon Drakeson on Wed Mar 02, 2016 3:32 am

Shield of Reputation and Quit have been used as well. Maybe Fast Talk once.

Influence is the most commonly used intrigue action for the same reason that Attack is the most common attack action - ultimately it's how you win.
The big difference is that all intrigue actions are 'greater', so you can't do both in a single exchange. Of course, the defenses in intrigue are significantly lower than in combat, so there is less need for roll modification like aim/consider, knockdown/read target , or distract/fast talk.
Baelon Drakeson
Baelon Drakeson

Posts : 4306
Join date : 2015-03-15
Location : Westeros

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Mechanical discussion

Post by Theomore Tullison on Wed Mar 02, 2016 1:44 pm

Withdraw can be crazy effective if you build for it AND win initiative, which makes most people who go that route grab eloquent, nobody will like you if you do that though.

Read Target is good in an intrigue where influence dices vs ID are such that it is likely to take 5+ rounds to chip away composure to frustration.

Otherwise, consider and that sort of thing is for when you've already done read target (or have sucky awareness) and have problems to even dent your opponent (and he can't make any headway either, for else he's beating you and you better yield).

Fast Talk and Manipulate can be good alternatives to assist/mollify for an intrigue wingman though. Manipulate can have some hilarious outcomes if used creatively though.
Theomore Tullison
Theomore Tullison

Posts : 3578
Join date : 2015-03-15

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Mechanical discussion

Post by Baelon Drakeson on Wed Mar 02, 2016 2:10 pm

Theomore Tullison wrote:Withdraw can be crazy effective if you build for it AND win initiative, which makes most people who go that route grab eloquent, nobody will like you if you do that though
I think that depends. If you are eloquent with crazy-high withdraws and getting 2-3 DoS on every Influences, then yeah, that's going to be a bit over the top.

Remember though that if you are Withdrawing then you aren't Influencing that exchange. That means (all else being equal)that you need to be doing more than twice your opponent's influence every time you Influence. If you have high DR (ie a low disposition) that should be easy enough, as your opponent will be doing 0 to you. However, that's a scenario that should see a lot of Quit actions - you are too stubborn and won't listen to reason, thus are not worth wasting time with.

I would say that Will 4 is the max for it to be reasonable. Getting IDs in the upper teens to low twenties is strong, but not a guaranteed win... even against opponents with only Persuasion 4.
Baelon Drakeson
Baelon Drakeson

Posts : 4306
Join date : 2015-03-15
Location : Westeros

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Mechanical discussion

Post by Septon Arlyn on Wed Mar 02, 2016 2:43 pm

Reader wrote:As ever, negotiating things OOC first is best! I was always very pro having my PC manipulated, but understandable for others not to be keen on it. OOC negotiations establish boundaries, eg "
happy to be manipulated/intrigued, but only to the extent of risking X, not being talked in to robbing the Iron Bank/challenging Ser Criston/betraying my lover"
.

I feel like this applies here as well

I've considered the withdraw techniques, but I would most likely only use it against NPC'S, or sequences where it was multiple people against myself.

But when dealing with Lord paramount's and such their high ID makes them tough nut's to crack, even with only 4 persuasion

Baelon wrote:. If you have high DR (ie a low disposition) that should be easy enough, as your opponent will be doing 0 to you.

Yeah, that is one of my beefs with authoritative. Why does it only help you if you're being a jerk to someone (lowering penalties from DR) I feel like that should be a flat +2 bonus to persuasion checks. But that's just my two cents.
Septon Arlyn
Septon Arlyn

Posts : 2410
Join date : 2015-05-22
Age : 29
Location : Salem, Oregon, USA

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Mechanical discussion

Post by Theomore Tullison on Wed Mar 02, 2016 3:00 pm

That would sort of turn charismatic into something you'd only take as a prereq to magnetic. That's probably already the case, but it would be made even more glaringly obvious.
Theomore Tullison
Theomore Tullison

Posts : 3578
Join date : 2015-03-15

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Mechanical discussion

Post by Baelon Drakeson on Wed Mar 02, 2016 3:05 pm

Septon Arlyn wrote:
Reader wrote:As ever, negotiating things OOC first is best! I was always very pro having my PC manipulated, but understandable for others not to be keen on it. OOC negotiations establish boundaries, eg "
happy to be manipulated/intrigued, but only to the extent of risking X, not being talked in to robbing the Iron Bank/challenging Ser Criston/betraying my lover"
.

I feel like this applies here as well

I've considered the withdraw techniques, but I would most likely only use it against NPC'S, or sequences where it was multiple people against myself.

But when dealing with Lord paramount's and such their high ID makes them tough nut's to crack, even with only 4 persuasion
In my opinion, we shouldn't have an easy time with Lord Paramounts. Even heads of Major Houses should be tough (as Lord Forrest was...)
Our houses, whether or old or new, are all relatively minor. We are distinguishing ourselves and drawing attention (for good and for ill), but we are still merely regional players.

Septon Arlyn wrote:
Baelon wrote:. If you have high DR (ie a low disposition) that should be easy enough, as your opponent will be doing 0 to you.

Yeah, that is one of my beefs with authoritative. Why does it only help you if you're being a jerk to someone (lowering penalties from DR) I feel like that should be a flat +2 bonus to persuasion checks. But that's just my two cents.
Because when people like you they are motivated more by their relationship with you than by your position. Authority, I think, is the power to get someone to act despite their personal feelings towards you - by virtue of one's political or organizational position.
Baelon Drakeson
Baelon Drakeson

Posts : 4306
Join date : 2015-03-15
Location : Westeros

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Mechanical discussion

Post by Septon Arlyn on Wed Mar 02, 2016 3:22 pm

The way I read it is that the -2 comes from your own personal feelings of dislike towards a person. "
It's more difficult to charm, convince, bargin, some one if you don't like them ect. )

I would almost say that authoritative reduces the DR of your opponent by one would be more in line with what your saying. As in wherever your talking to someone they are more likely to accept what you say because of your position of authority. I would then limit it to convince, deception, and intimidate, so that charm and seduce are not affected by that.

But that's just my rules tweaking mind at play lol
Septon Arlyn
Septon Arlyn

Posts : 2410
Join date : 2015-05-22
Age : 29
Location : Salem, Oregon, USA

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Mechanical discussion

Post by Septon Arlyn on Wed Mar 02, 2016 3:38 pm

Loreia wrote:
Nathaniel Mason wrote:(OOC: I was under the impression this was battle scale (1y per square). The Knights could not be moving 3 squares if they are 10yards each.
[The issue is that they shouldn't be. Reader's setup put 60 yards between both parties. We need to account for that in some manner.]


So I've run into this problem with my home game, what I did is everyone that was inside the "
battle map"
area was accounted for at a 1 yard square. Everyone outside of the battle map area was assumed that they would be moving full speed to join the fray. I then took into account everyone's movement (there where 6 people outside of the battle map) and gave them each a number of rounds before they would enter the edge of the battle map. (I think it was something like 3 rounds for the mounted guys, and 6 for the on foot.)

The people with ranged could "
reach out and touch people"
could do so, but accounting for the wooded environment I gave the bad guys cover until they reached the battle mat (-1d to ranged attacks I think)

Something to think about at least
Septon Arlyn
Septon Arlyn

Posts : 2410
Join date : 2015-05-22
Age : 29
Location : Salem, Oregon, USA

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Mechanical discussion

Post by Theomore Tullison on Wed Mar 02, 2016 8:13 pm

Reader wrote:
Theomore Tullison wrote:Okay, so this may be a discussion on a fundamental level that taking it over to GR forums may be for the best.

Without making a final decision one way or the other yet, and as normal being open to debate, it's important to remind people that there's a certain element of "
My house, my rules"
.

I'm hardly a tyrant on rules, but it's important that my Supreme Executive Power isn't undermined. :;
):

No arguments there, though the point I am trying to make is that the book is rather clear on what is what to my eye, and thus you would be introducing a house rule (which probably will mean that I'll be readjusting my XP choices.) And I'd like to offer the opinion that house rules should not have retroactive effect.

In this case, my opinion is that cap on bonus dices=test dices works nicely enough. And the houserules are beginning to become a rather long list.
Theomore Tullison
Theomore Tullison

Posts : 3578
Join date : 2015-03-15

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Mechanical discussion

Post by Loreia on Wed Mar 02, 2016 8:30 pm

Seeing as how combat is stalled because of this confusion(and on my turn, guess this is bound to happen to each of us at some point), I'm going to put my best foot forward. Reader, if you have anything to add or would like to correct/say different, let me know, otherwise give me a thumbs-up.

I would like to go with Arlyn's suggestion from the mechanics thread, and take 1 turn to sprint on my horse to reach i22, where hedge knight #4 will reach me(i21) and follow through with the Charge that Kevan just rolled for, on this turn.
Loreia
Loreia

Posts : 2556
Join date : 2015-03-23
Location : US

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Mechanical discussion

Post by Reader on Wed Mar 02, 2016 9:22 pm

Loreia wrote:Seeing as how combat is stalled because of this confusion(and on my turn, guess this is bound to happen to each of us at some point), I'm going to put my best foot forward. Reader, if you have anything to add or would like to correct/say different, let me know, otherwise give me a thumbs-up.

I would like to go with Arlyn's suggestion from the mechanics thread, and take 1 turn to sprint on my horse to reach i22, where hedge knight #4 will reach me(i21) and follow through with the Charge that Kevan just rolled for, on this turn.

[OOC: happy with this suggestion Loreia - I'd intended 60 yards but this was perhaps too far. That sounds like a good solution to keep things moving.]

_________________
Narrator * Most frequent posting times GMT morning/evening (UK based)
NPC pictures: http://dragonsdance.forumotion.co.uk/t2217-npc-picturebook
Reader
Reader
Site Admin

Posts : 7671
Join date : 2014-01-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Mechanical discussion

Post by Theomore Tullison on Mon Mar 07, 2016 9:32 pm

So we're going to need a clarification on how siege weapons works.

What the book says:
-They can fire once every two rounds.
-An engineer unit can control up to four siege weapons.
-A commander can use an order to fire a number of siege weapons up to his warfare rank, the engineer unit controlling each rolls warfare to see how it goes.
-Siege Weapons has Health, AR and movement (sometimes no movement).

What it doesn't say:
-What is the combat defense? 0 for not having the relevant abilities?
-How does the engineering unit control siege engines? Can an engineering unit switch what siege weapon to control? Does it need to be adjacent?
-What sort of space does a siege weapon take? Does it move around with individual orders?

Me, I'd go with something like this:
1. In order to control a siege weapon, an engineer unit must share space with it.
2. When an engineer unit is ordered to move, it must either relinquish control of any siege weapons or bring them along (thus being restricted by the movement of the siege weapons).
3. If an engineer unit ends a move action in a space with a siege weapon, it may take control of it.
4. A routed engineer unit leaves any siege weapons behind when it flees.
5. Siege Weapons has a combat defense of 0.

Plus the parts the book says, of course.
Theomore Tullison
Theomore Tullison

Posts : 3578
Join date : 2015-03-15

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Mechanical discussion

Post by Davain Bartheld on Mon Mar 07, 2016 10:02 pm

I agree with the CR being 0. Any trained or untrained person should be able to hit an inanimate object, but we need to give it an approiate AR or health. Engineering units should have to remain attached to a siege unit in order to reload it aka the turn it is not firing it is being reloaded. Reloading requires a greater action, firing is a lesser action, and attaching to a siege unit is a free action. So in theory an engineering unit can fire Siege A and then move and fire siege B and so on, or they can fire, reload fire.
Davain Bartheld
Davain Bartheld

Posts : 288
Join date : 2015-12-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Mechanical discussion

Post by Theomore Tullison on Mon Mar 07, 2016 10:09 pm

AR and Health is given in the book. And I imagine that the reload thing is covered in that "
can only fire every other round"
restriction.
Theomore Tullison
Theomore Tullison

Posts : 3578
Join date : 2015-03-15

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Mechanical discussion

Post by Baelon Drakeson on Mon Mar 07, 2016 10:11 pm

Theomore Tullison wrote:So we're going to need a clarification on how siege weapons works.

What the book says:
-They can fire once every two rounds.
-An engineer unit can control up to four siege weapons.
-A commander can use an order to fire a number of siege weapons up to his warfare rank, the engineer unit controlling each rolls warfare to see how it goes.
-Siege Weapons has Health, AR and movement (sometimes no movement).

What it doesn't say:
-What is the combat defense? 0 for not having the relevant abilities?
-How does the engineering unit control siege engines? Can an engineering unit switch what siege weapon to control? Does it need to be adjacent?
-What sort of space does a siege weapon take? Does it move around with individual orders?

Me, I'd go with something like this:
1. In order to control a siege weapon, an engineer unit must share space with it.
2. When an engineer unit is ordered to move, it must either relinquish control of any siege weapons or bring them along (thus being restricted by the movement of the siege weapons).
3. If an engineer unit ends a move action in a space with a siege weapon, it may take control of it.
4. A routed engineer unit leaves any siege weapons behind when it flees.
5. Siege Weapons has a combat defense of 0.

Plus the parts the book says, of course.
Hmm. Good questions. I'm not sure about your suggestions though.

1,3: An engineer unit can control up to 4 siege weapons. If they have to share the space with the siege weapons, the siege weapons would have to be... small. That doesn't really fit.
I would say that perhaps a unit has to be adjacent, or perhaps within a fixed distance (no more than 2 squares away?), and a siege weapon takes up a space itself.

2,4: Taking a precedent from the siege tower description, siege engines with a movement speed have their own means of movement (horses, etc) and are ordered like units. Only a move action is possible (no sprint, etc.). Siege is either intact or destroyed (at 0 HP) - it doesn't demoralize, rout, cannot be rallied, etc - but also doesn't roll for survival. It either survives (and gets repaired) or is destroyed in the battle.

5: This seems low. Add in the caveat that siege are treated as units and it gets better.... but it still seems like whichever side goes first will easily wipe out the opponent's siege, then have a massive advantage.

EDIT: fixed a crucial typo... does vs. doesn't.
Baelon Drakeson
Baelon Drakeson

Posts : 4306
Join date : 2015-03-15
Location : Westeros

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Mechanical discussion

Post by Davain Bartheld on Mon Mar 07, 2016 10:30 pm

Could we have a range vs siege cr seperate from a melee CR? The better trained the unit is the lower the CR. For example, a green engineering unit would go against a CR of 4. The CR would decrease by 1 with each increase in training, so an elite unit would be going against a CR of 0. Obviously these number should be tweeked, just giving a basic example.

While the reload is obviously implied in the "
can only shoot every other turn"
, what happens if my engineering unit fires 1 group of siege units and then next turn moves and fires a different group of siege units? Can that same unit then go back to the first group and have it already reloaded even though no one was there to reload it?
Davain Bartheld
Davain Bartheld

Posts : 288
Join date : 2015-12-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Mechanical discussion

Post by Baelon Drakeson on Tue Mar 08, 2016 12:14 am

Davain Bartheld wrote:Could we have a range vs siege cr seperate from a melee CR? The better trained the unit is the lower the CR. For example, a green engineering unit would go against a CR of 4. The CR would decrease by 1 with each increase in training, so an elite unit would be going against a CR of 0. Obviously these number should be tweeked, just giving a basic example.
This seems a bit overcomplicated for what is a fairly abstract system. I think a fixed value would be better.

Davain Bartheld wrote:While the reload is obviously implied in the "
can only shoot every other turn"
, what happens if my engineering unit fires 1 group of siege units and then next turn moves and fires a different group of siege units? Can that same unit then go back to the first group and have it already reloaded even though no one was there to reload it?
Hmm. As written, yes. Of course, given that you only have a finite number of orders using two a round on your engineers is kind of costly... and will likely lead to the engineers being targeted.

Actually, from that perspective maybe 0 CD isn't so bad. Do you use several orders to destroy a few siege, or to destroy the engineers operating them?
Baelon Drakeson
Baelon Drakeson

Posts : 4306
Join date : 2015-03-15
Location : Westeros

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Mechanical discussion

Post by Loreia on Wed Mar 09, 2016 4:41 am

viewtopic.php?f=213&
t=2635&
start=100#p82523


I am unsure of the validity of Knockdown vs a mounted opponent. Could it render that person(me) prone while they are still on their horse? A Fighting test with a Grab weapon or polearm is needed to pull a rider off their mount with a Greater action, landing them prone on the ground when successful.
Loreia
Loreia

Posts : 2556
Join date : 2015-03-23
Location : US

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Mechanical discussion

Post by Baelon Drakeson on Wed Mar 09, 2016 11:23 am

It was stated (or at least implied) in the Marei's Seven fight that knockdown is inapplicable to mounted characters.
There is instead the "
Pulling a Rider from a Mount"
Greater action on pg. 164.

EDIT: The Hedge can hold his Greatsword in one hand and try to pull you down with the other, so he wouldn't have to drop the sword... but he couldn't then attack before you have the opportunity to stand up.
Baelon Drakeson
Baelon Drakeson

Posts : 4306
Join date : 2015-03-15
Location : Westeros

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Mechanical discussion

Post by Loreia on Wed Mar 09, 2016 11:46 am

Okay. How about Maneuver? It's the only offensive Lesser action that has a chance to turn the failure into success. Would need to roll another test die because it's a Fighting test, vs my passive Fighting. It would have the same effect as Knockdown, but only for one round, and I'd rule that the forced 1 yard movement wouldn't be applicable against a rider.
Loreia
Loreia

Posts : 2556
Join date : 2015-03-23
Location : US

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Mechanical discussion

Post by Baelon Drakeson on Wed Mar 09, 2016 11:55 am

The flavor text of Maneuver (and the use of Fighting rather than Athletics) implies that the attacker is using attacks to drive the opponent back, not brute force.
In other words, the defender reflexively or voluntarily moves to avoid the hits- it would still work on a mounted opponent as writen.

Arguably, if you just wanted distance (like to make a retreat without provoking) you could do it to the horse, instead - probably a much easier target. However, the horse and not the attacker would get the -1D penalty.

Note though that it is NOT the same effect as Knockdown. It applies a penalty to your opponent's actions, not a bonus to your own.
Baelon Drakeson
Baelon Drakeson

Posts : 4306
Join date : 2015-03-15
Location : Westeros

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Mechanical discussion

Post by Ser Jorah Holt on Wed Mar 09, 2016 12:10 pm

in this instance, it makes no difference in damage to ser jorah since they only hit 1DOS even with the bonus

Ser Jorah Holt

Posts : 2012
Join date : 2015-03-15

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Mechanical discussion

Post by Kevan Lyras on Mon Mar 14, 2016 10:35 pm

To avoid spamming the actual IC thread, I move the discussion to here:

Baelon wrote:I have no problem with 'passing' an order - in this case it's actually exactly the same as if you repeat the 'ready' command - if it fails, the 'standing orders' of the ready kick in... which is to ready again.
True in this case, but with units of higher discipline scores, an additional order can make things more complicated later on. Good to have this established now, when it does not matter directly.


[OOC]
Order Unit 2 (Trained Cavalry) - Ready: When Unit 1 initiates an attack or charge, charge the same target
4d6k3 vs. TN 3 cannot fail.

I just wanted to clarify the current rules for charging before giving my next (hopefully two) orders as this could make a major impact on this clusterfuck of a battle :-)
My understanding was, that after the clan battles in offseason 1 we moved to the rule that one can only charge straight meaning up a column or row or diagonally? - Your set up, Baelon, tells me that you have a different understanding?

Kevan Lyras

Posts : 1838
Join date : 2015-04-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Mechanical discussion

Post by Baelon Drakeson on Mon Mar 14, 2016 10:48 pm

Kevan Lyras wrote:To avoid spamming the actual IC thread, I move the discussion to here:

Baelon wrote:I have no problem with 'passing' an order - in this case it's actually exactly the same as if you repeat the 'ready' command - if it fails, the 'standing orders' of the ready kick in... which is to ready again.
True in this case, but with units of higher discipline scores, an additional order can make things more complicated later on. Good to have this established now, when it does not matter directly.
A very good point.

Kevan Lyras wrote:I just wanted to clarify the current rules for charging before giving my next (hopefully two) orders as this could make a major impact on this clusterfuck of a battle :-)
My understanding was, that after the clan battles in offseason 1 we moved to the rule that one can only charge straight meaning up a column or row or diagonally? - Your set up, Baelon, tells me that you have a different understanding?
That would make a very big difference. My understanding was that as long as there was a clear line between starting position and target a charge was possible- just no turns. I admit I did not check the old battles for verification, though.
Baelon Drakeson
Baelon Drakeson

Posts : 4306
Join date : 2015-03-15
Location : Westeros

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Mechanical discussion

Post by Kevan Lyras on Mon Mar 14, 2016 11:11 pm

My understanding was that as long as there was a clear line between starting position and target a charge was possible- just no turns
Well, with a map units move along the "
cell"
of the grid, which is why my understanding was straigt along a column/row or diagonally as this are the only straight lines, where a unit moves along the grid from one "
cell"
to the next.
If the rule where any straight line no matter the actual movement along the grid, we run into all sort of problems an actual tabletop game can have:
Does the straight line have to go from the midpoint of the starting cell to the midpoint of the ending cell?
From a corner?
Which cells count as moved through? (This is necessary to check whether a movement is blocked by another unit or a readied melee attack triggers

Maybe someone can confirm which definition actually holds. (Reader?)
If it is yours, we are good to go anyway, otherwise, I would just suggest you adjust the placement of your units accordingly so your devious double-attack plan is still doable and we can continue as well.

Kevan Lyras

Posts : 1838
Join date : 2015-04-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Mechanical discussion

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 21 1, 2, 3 ... 11 ... 21  Next

Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum