Mechanical discussion

Baelon wrote:[
Keep in mind though, that text is itself part of the Ride or Drive action, which is either lesser or greater, depending on the mount. As I said, it's rather unclear. Do you spend an action to give your mount extra actions? Can a mount not take actions without the rider spending actions? The former means a mounted horse can move faster than an unmounted horse, which makes no sense... the latter means a mounted warrior can't charge, jsut order the mount to move, then attack. Neither option is particularly satisfactory, which is why we just kind of gloss over it.

I'm sorry. I am just not seeing the ambiguity here.

-You want your mount to do something in combat, either move or attack, you need to spend an action.

-If your mount is war trained, it's a lesser action, if it's not, a greater action.
-If you don't spend the action, it does nothing by default
-If you spend the required action, it can either move or attack. Basically, you are handing your lesser action to the mount. You guys spend actions to move your horses all the time. I don't see how spending an action for the mount to attack is any different... and it's very clear to me that you can, because the rules say you can.
-If your mount is war trained, spend two lesser actions and Charge away (probably with a very big lance.)
-If the mount becomes frightened or injured, it's a Greater action to calm it. If you succeed, return to normal, if you don't it bolts.

I am not seeing any problems. For my game, I am completely satisfied. My question was answered, and I thank you for that. If Reader wants to change things from what you have been doing, leave them the same, or whatever, that's his call. I doubt there are many people who are looking to stamp peasants into the ground (but there might be ). Either way, my character does not, and probably never will, engage in mounted combat other than trying to ride away as quickly as possible.

Nathaniel Mason wrote:I am not seeing any problems. For my game, I am completely satisfied. My question was answered, and I thank you for that.

Fair enough, and you're welcome.

Nathan wrote:I am going to disagree with you, at least in the case of Animal Cohorts. There is every reason to believe an Animal Cohort is a cut above normal animals. If you say an Animal Cohort cannot operate independently, then it follows a regular Cohort cannot operate independently, and most people use Cohorts as full blown independent secondary characters (in addition to the respectable bonus of +2 to ID and CD). Most Animal Cohorts have full (and some quite formidable) stats. Most are not mountable. All can attack when threatened.

"
Full stats"
? Aside from being able to take Injuries and Wounds(which is crazy on its own, considering my dog spends less time in combat than I do), what do you mean? If my pet is currently under-stat, tell me how, so that I can go fix that.

Nathan wrote: I doubt there are many people who are looking to stamp peasants into the ground (but there might be )

Theo has already beat this discussion on that, having trampled one knight to death already in our Arrests combat thread.

Reader wrote:Roderick Dustin is coming down from the north on one or a dire wolf. Player vote to decide which.

Direwolf pros: house sigil, just barely meets the time requirement (as Theon Greyjoy could have been rounding up when he said '200 years'), and rule of cool.

Polar bear pros: if he somehow gets separated from it, Luecian might have a chance to hunt it, calling back to when I first told him I'd seen one north of the Wall.

I'd go with direwolf, but, if Luecian is actively posting at that point, I'd be okay with it being a polar bear.

Darron wrote:I know for Darron I would like to up his marksman ability to throw axes at a opponent possibley weakening them before entering to engaged and attacking the turn after.

There has to be a finger dance before the campaign is over! I definitely want to see that. Hope you have good reflexes...

So something crossing my mind with tourneys:

1. Variety of NPC's and their gear.

As it is now, there's KoQ with good stuff and AK/HK with cheap stuff. Not accounting for all those noblemen who aren't remarkable in skill, but with wealth to spare.

Suggestion here is to bring in two new jousting types:
1: Noble Knight, Fighting 4, Spears 1, Animal Handling 3, Ride 1, Endurance 3. Courser, half plate.
2: Wealthy Knight, Fighting 4, Spears 1, Animal Handling 3, Ride 1, Endurance 3. Destrier, full plate.

2. Horses.

So currently, there is no incentive to enter with more than a rounsey, since that reduces ransom.

Suggestion: Add a value to type of horse:
Rounsey=0, Courser=1, Destrier=2, Superior +1 (cumulative, also adds +1b to stay in saddle tests).

Add value as bonus to passive AH and Fighting tests same as tourney knight benefit (only matters if one opponent has a better horse than the other).

Theomore Tullison wrote:So something crossing my mind with tourneys:

1. Variety of NPC's and their gear.

As it is now, there's KoQ with good stuff and AK/HK with cheap stuff. Not accounting for all those noblemen who aren't remarkable in skill, but with wealth to spare.

Suggestion here is to bring in two new jousting types:
1: Noble Knight, Fighting 4, Spears 1, Animal Handling 3, Ride 1, Endurance 3. Courser, half plate.
2: Wealthy Knight, Fighting 4, Spears 1, Animal Handling 3, Ride 1, Endurance 3. Destrier, full plate.

I like the concept, but maybe a little more variety in skill level would be good too, something in between the "
weak"
tiers of knight and hedge knight and the "
strong"
tier Knight of Quality.

Actually, what I would say is to have skill level and gear quality be two different factors. A successful hedge knight may acquire full plate and such before they find a lord they wish to swear to (or that will take them, if they have an unlovely rep). Further, a highly skilled knight might fall on hard times and not have the best gear.

Perhaps have 2 or 3 equipment packages (poor, average, wealthy) which can be tacked onto the various skill levels? That would give a wide variation in opponents (12, if we add a 4th difficulty tier), some added verisimilitude, and given that it can be randomized, not add an excessive amount of complexity.

Theomore Tullison wrote:2. Horses.

So currently, there is no incentive to enter with more than a rounsey, since that reduces ransom.

Suggestion: Add a value to type of horse:
Rounsey=0, Courser=1, Destrier=2, Superior +1 (cumulative, also adds +1b to stay in saddle tests).

Add value as bonus to passive AH and Fighting tests same as tourney knight benefit (only matters if one opponent has a better horse than the other).

I like the idea, and as the owner of a Superior Destrier would benefit greatly...

To be honest though, I think that the upper tier of Passive Ride is already too high. Already you can get to a 26 PR by going defensive. With this change, you could get up to PR 29 and be completely un-hittable to anyone without Fighting 6, Tourney Knight, or a Destrier/Superior Courser. Even with one of those, the odds are rather low. I use you as an example because you are the extreme;
I am not far behind (well, 4 bonus dice and a benefit, so actually yeah, pretty far - I cap out at 22 PR).

The high PR values already make jousts fairly predictable.

Theomore Tullison wrote:So something crossing my mind with tourneys:

1. Variety of NPC's and their gear.

As it is now, there's KoQ with good stuff and AK/HK with cheap stuff. Not accounting for all those noblemen who aren't remarkable in skill, but with wealth to spare.

Suggestion here is to bring in two new jousting types:
1: Noble Knight, Fighting 4, Spears 1, Animal Handling 3, Ride 1, Endurance 3. Courser, half plate.
2: Wealthy Knight, Fighting 4, Spears 1, Animal Handling 3, Ride 1, Endurance 3. Destrier, full plate.

2. Horses.

So currently, there is no incentive to enter with more than a rounsey, since that reduces ransom.

Suggestion: Add a value to type of horse:
Rounsey=0, Courser=1, Destrier=2, Superior +1 (cumulative, also adds +1b to stay in saddle tests).

Add value as bonus to passive AH and Fighting tests same as tourney knight benefit (only matters if one opponent has a better horse than the other).

I'm open to 1 but not to 2, sorry.

1) is easy and I mix things up a little with NPCs and can come up with more narrator blessed profiles for future tournaments.

2) complicates things for little incremental gain. Pumps passive ride too, which is an issue. Anyone who cares about min-maxing their risk-adjusted $ gains from jousting more than style should be devoting their energies to my day job (investment analysis) rather than taking part in my hobby (ASOIAF play by post). PCs are generally all pretty flush, ASOIAF RPG isn't really about $ (or when it is, it's at a house scale and wealth points, not a joust scale). If you've got the $, you should ride a courser or people will mock you.

Eh, I can get to 22 PR by doing defensive, it's brokenly good Derrock than could do 26. Since the other half of the suggestion is that fighting test is increased by same amount, thus having no effect on the outcome if both people have same horse.

Also, I can run the cost/benefit scenario in my head faster than it takes to write out the conclusion, so dunno, does that mean I should come work with you guys, reader?

In short, it will always be worth going for destrier if you can afford it, while superior horse probably only when there's more than just a ransom at stake.

Theomore Tullison wrote:Eh, I can get to 22 PR by doing defensive.

My mistake. I thought somewhere I saw you keeping 5 for a ride test, but that was incorrect.

viewtopic.php?p=91902#p91902

Septon Arlyn wrote:(so you know the Septon is lying)

Well, only if her passive awareness is 12+ (but I believe it is), since an ordinary failure doesn't trigger an "
The septon is trying to deceive me!"
-realization, the septon just fails at fooling Corrine into whatever it was he wanted to fool her into without her catching on to him trying to trick her.

Yeah, But she can use that to ask follow up questions of the Septon if she wants.

Her passive Empathy is 12, and I think you add +1 for every 1B a player has in Empathy, so 13.

Theomore Tullison wrote:Well, only if her passive awareness is 12+ (but I believe it is), since an ordinary failure doesn't trigger an "
The septon is trying to deceive me!"
-realization, the septon just fails at fooling Corrine into whatever it was he wanted to fool her into without her catching on to him trying to trick her.

Out of curiosity, where does it say that only critical failures are detected?

Baelon wrote:

Theomore Tullison wrote:Well, only if her passive awareness is 12+ (but I believe it is), since an ordinary failure doesn't trigger an "
The septon is trying to deceive me!"
-realization, the septon just fails at fooling Corrine into whatever it was he wanted to fool her into without her catching on to him trying to trick her.

Out of curiosity, where does it say that only critical failures are detected?

I would be interested to see more discussion on lying in the Mechanics Thread. This is something that my group has struggled with for many years now, especially in an Intrigue where someone's passive Awareness my be considerably higher than their ID.

There is also the point that, not believing someone, and knowing they are lying, are two different things.

Baelon wrote:

Theomore Tullison wrote:Well, only if her passive awareness is 12+ (but I believe it is), since an ordinary failure doesn't trigger an "
The septon is trying to deceive me!"
-realization, the septon just fails at fooling Corrine into whatever it was he wanted to fool her into without her catching on to him trying to trick her.

Out of curiosity, where does it say that only critical failures are detected?

Not directly, no. Though inducted from this and general precedence and discussions with reader (I've had a few of those regarding shenanigans):

Normally, failing to achieve the needed test result simply means an attempted action fails to achieve the desired result.

The desired result being here to make Corrine believe falsehoods or whatever. So to me, a simple failure means Corrine doesn't take the septon's word for it, but it does not automatically follow that she can tell that he is actively attempting to deceive, that's where critical failure on the part of the septon comes in to expose him.

A critical failure, so definitely seen through by Corrine here. I'll have a think on a ruling for other cases. Placeholder solution is Nathaniel's - failure makes them think you're lying/hiding something/untrustworthy, critical failure means they see right through you, potentially catching you directly in a lie.

Another matter that may be relevant pretty soon:

How does this passive attack thing work with reach weapons? Seeing that it's taken from the advanced reach rules, should it then follow that the passive attack kicks in when attempting to move out or through a "
square"
3 yards away from the guy with Reach Weapon? Seems reasonable to me on account of the guy with the reach weapon taking -1D if he doesn't move away a bit, and eating a passive attack if he do.

I think that makes reach weapons too powerful.

The problem is that passive attacks by most combat characters (even NCs) are around 21 or a little higher - Fighting 5 and 1+ bonus dice. Most characters combat defense is in the range of 8-12, so that's a 2-3 DoS hit. Reach weapons also tend to have high damage - Longaxe and Pole-axe are both Athletics+3.

Imagine a Hedge Knight NC and a Guard NC, as written in the book. The hedge knight has a longsword and a large shield, the guard has a pole-axe. Only fighting 4, so not as extreme as it could be.
The knight wins intiative and moves to close the distance, generating a passive attack. That's 16 against the hedge knight's 8 CD, for 2 DoS, 14-5AR = 9 damage. Defeated Hedge Knight.
Ok, the HK is a little smarter and defensively stabs at the air (Defensive Attack with no target). CD 11.... still 2 DoS and defeated Hedge Knight.
Take fatigue? Still Defeated.
Take Fatigue AND defensively stab the air? 1 DoS, for 2 Damage. Oh, but the Hedge Knight is out of actions.

These are just wimpy NCs, though. What about Knights of Quality?
Imagine one armed with a greatsword an one with a longaxe.
Greatsword charges in... and takes a 4 DoS hit (21 vs CD 5). 24-10AR = Dead Knight of Quality.

True, but the guy with a reach weapon still has same problem in reverse, since he's getting -1D in close quarters but must eat a passive attack to get into his optimum reach, and with things like longaxes being two-handed weapons, they don't have much CD against that passive greatsword either.

Though that's the heart of why the advanced reach rules are a load of garbage in the first place.

Except that the longaxe wielder has the choice. They can accept the -1D, or drop their longaxe and draw a battleaxe, or attempt to Maneuver their foe into a better distance...
the non-reach combatant does NOT have a choice under your proposed solution. They either take the passive attack or sit there doing nothing while the long-axe wielder pummels them to death.

Reader wrote:A critical failure, so definitely seen through by Corrine here. I'll have a think on a ruling for other cases. Placeholder solution is Nathaniel's - failure makes them think you're lying/hiding something/untrustworthy, critical failure means they see right through you, potentially catching you directly in a lie.

This is what we finally decided outside an Intrigue. It works well.

Not so much inside and Intrigue. Inside an Intrigue, the benchmark is Intrigue Defense. There lying goes off the rails. Basically, if the Deception beats the ID, it is believed. This is not very realistic if with a 2 Cunning, 2 Status and 6 Awareness you have an ID of 10 but a passive Awareness of 24. We have yet to think of a satisfactory solution that doesn't either break the Deception ability or break Intrigues. Perhaps sharper minds than ours can think of a solution.

The ways the rules are written, it's kinda like this: Deception is used instead of persuasion when you are not entirely sincere. It is also a general "
ability to conceal your motivations"
skill, which need not be very nefarious at all. Whether this is lying/misleading/omitting/whatever is not all that relevant. Persuasion is the skill of putting forward your honest arguments in the most compelling way, deception is the same, only that you are dishonest in some fashion, whether it is about your apparent motives, facts or intentions to honor your words or any number of other things.

Nothing stops you from doing a read target, someone acting as if they are your friend, yet registers as being unfriendly towards you should raise flags. Technically, the rules doesn't disallow you from simply testing awareness(empathy) outside the intrigue structure, and I'd say it's fair for that to yield some narrative clues, but I'd be careful with it given the existence of read target, but that action has some very specific outcomes, so using it to get other types of results shouldn't be too much of an issue in a pinch.

I've been thinking about that for a while. It seems weird that a character should be far more persuasive when lying than when telling the truth;
yet a Persuasion 2/Deception 5 character would be exactly like that. Similarly it seems odd that a character who hates you is less likely to see through your lies, yet that's what the positive deception modifier does.

I would have all influence actions use Persuasion, but if it involves a lie, then a bluff test vs. passive awareness would also be rolled. Failing the bluff test negates reduces the influence done to 0, and a critical failure lowers disposition by 1 step. Perhaps a success should increase the effectiveness of the Persuasion? I'm not sure by how much. +1 Influence per Bluff DoS (not multiplied by Persuasion DoS)?
A successful Read Target also gives a +4 to Passive Awareness(Empathy) (equivalent of +1D).

Something I think is significant is that people lie for two reasons: to make their argument more convincing ("
My product is the better than theirs"
) or to hide a damaging truth ("
I didn't kill that person"
). The former seems like an increase to Persuasion result or Influence done, the latter seems different... not quite sure what to do with that, though. Maybe just hand-wave it away.

I'd also have all techniques do influence based on Cunning, but that's not really related to lying - just an overhaul of intrigue mechanics.

These changes aren't really implementable mid-game though, and there would be all sorts of trickle-down effects that would need to be fixed (like benefits &
disadvantages).

Theomore Tullison wrote:
Also, I can run the cost/benefit scenario in my head faster than it takes to write out the conclusion, so dunno, does that mean I should come work with you guys, reader?

The maths required for equity investing isn't exactly stretching! Anyone who enjoys statistics and maths is better off in bonds/derivatives. :;
):

I'm not so sure. You might have all the charisma of a pig in a wig, but that's for the purpose of charming. To be a good liar, you don't need your target to like you, you just need them to believe you. Looks or the way you talk may be part of that, as in increase or decrease DR. Deception is the implied power of being able to present your lie or underhanded strategy as a convincingly as possible, hiding your intentions while getting your target to fall for you. Someone very used to tricking and manipulating others may be completely out of their element in some manner or another when they're actually trying to be honest, and it's even worse if people are aware that he likes to lie.

I could see bluff/act going under persuasion, disguise under stealth and cheat under cunning. I could also see Persuasion getting split up into more than one ability. Sometimes, you just need to set limits to stuff for everyone's sanity.