Mechanical discussion

Ser Walton Dulver wrote:Ser Gareth tried to stand up, but failed under Loreia's strikes. Trying to get some relief, he tried to surprise her with nasty swing, swing which was stopped by her armor.

Ser Gareth Royce round 4:

Maybe I didn't get the memo. If you fail when rolling Agility to stand, for free or for a Lesser action, is that a failure to stand at all? Because that is not how I've been playing it. I can knock off a 3 from my total if he's allowed to stand after failure. That would be a crucial change, which would reduce damage from my attack to an amount completely negated by Gareth's armor. He would not need to take an injury.

The way I have been playing it (for both Baelon and NCs in combats I've run) is that you essentially commit to an action, then if you have to test for it you do, success or failure on the agility test determines whether or not you stand, not how long it takes.

In other words, Gareth failed to stand as a lesser acton; he could:
A) Try again, committing to a second lesser action, making a second test
B) Take a fatigue for an extra lesser action, and then stand as a greater action (guaranteed success)
C) Resign himself to another round on the ground and do something else

Gareth chose (C).

Now, in light armor there would need to put a limit on number of attempts to stand as a free action, To me that makes sense at 1. I dislike arbitrary restrictions, but there is no cost to trying to stand as a free action otherwise, so I think it is necessary.

---

On the other hand, while that is how I have been doing it, I recognize that there are perfectly valid other interpretations.

One is putting an arbitrary limit of one attempt to stand per turn. In my example above, that locks in option C. I dislike this as it seems... well, arbitrary. Other than the light armor free-action case (not the norm in Westeros, to be sure), there is always a cost to standing (or attempting to stand). At minimum that is an opportunity cost - every action spent on standing is an action not spent on defeating your foe. Allowing repeated attempts gives more options, which adds variety and makes the choices more meaningful.

Another is that you decide whether or not you are going to stand, and then roll to see how long it takes. I dislike this because it has some weird inconsistencies... such as if you prioritize your attack, you would do that first, then try to stand... but what if you then fail? You cannot take a greater action at that point (without taking fatigue), does it retroactive force you to take fatigue for the extra action? What if you are already at max fatigue? Too many corner cases for my taste.

Okay. I will keep this in mind. I only recently obtained armor with a rating higher than 5. I have only just recently had to stand up after being knocked down while wearing my plate, before thinking to ask this, and thankfully it was a successful roll.

I don't like C. In heavy armor, one could take Fatigue for the extra action (is there a limit on that?), and it's risking a wasted Fatigue point for the chance to stand up.

As far as I am aware there is no limit on how many actions you can get in one round from fatigue, but keep in mind that it is a limited resource and carries a small but significant penalty. Sure, you could take 4 lesser actions in a round (say, move, knockdown, attack, maneuver; or greater action stand, knockdown, attack) but those penalties start to add up, and that one turn is going to be about half a character's fatigue, which also means less available to ignore AP against attacks.

That's part of the trade off of heavy armor vs. light armor really - when you only have an AP of 1 it's just not an effective use of fatigue. In heavier armor though, getting 3 or 4 to your CD can save your bacon, especially when surrounded by skilled Valyrians.

When knocked down and deciding whether or not to spend fatigue to stand (in heavy armor), I see there being 3 factors:

1) Is it absolutely critical that you succeed at standing and have an additional action? Then take a fatigue, greater action stand, and perform your other action. Maybe to run out of a burning building or something this could be worth it - greater action stand, take two fatigue, greater action sprint. For the most part though standing is beneficial, not critical.

2) How quickly are you likely to get knocked down again? If you are probably going to be knocked down again more or less immediately, you might be better off not trying to stand at all - there may be better options, like returning the favor and knocking down your foe. If the extra die could get you an extra DoS that gets you an extra injury on them, that's probably better than denying them the +1b of an aim because they knock you back down, instead. On the other hand, if they are loaded down with fatigue and injuries already and are unlikely to succeed at knocking you down again, denying them the +1D might be better than possibly inflicting an additional injury.

3) How likely (and how much) will you to be attacked that round? If you have 3 or 4 skilled opponents surrounding you and you know that you are their primary target, it's probably worth taking the fatigue to ignore AP and trying to quick-stand. If you fail, oh well, you'd probably want to take a fatigue to eliminate AP for the round anyway, so only an opportunity cost was lost. If you succeed, great; assuming you can stay standing you deny the +1D bonus to hit you in addition to boosting your CD for the round. Either way, you still have a lesser action left for a defensive attack for even more CD or a regular attack if it will take an opponent down.

Taking a fatigue for a second attempt at quick-standing really only makes sense if you flubbed the first roll through sheer bad luck and being prone is making it easier for your foes to do something like Maneuver you over the edge of a pier.

I also have question related to fatigue point- it lasts until character's next round, right? So, if Ser Gareth uses it to avoid AP when standing up, automatically rises his CD until his next round?

P.S. okay I see Baelon confirmed that in previous post above- just needed free moment to read it :-)

Baelon Drakeson wrote:As far as I am aware there is no limit on how many actions you can get in one round from fatigue, but keep in mind that it is a limited resource and carries a small but significant penalty. Sure, you could take 4 lesser actions in a round (say, move, knockdown, attack, maneuver; or greater action stand, knockdown, attack) but those penalties start to add up, and that one turn is going to be about half a character's fatigue, which also means less available to ignore AP against attacks.

Going way, way back, in the original Green Ronin FAQ, the devs put a restriction of 1 lesser action per Fatigue and one lesser action per DP in a combat round, but this was to limit the number of potential attacks in a combat round to three (barring qualities that give extra attacks).  Since we do not allow extra attacks in a combat round through the use of Fatigue or DP, the restriction is probably moot.

As I recall, you only get one attack per round by RAW, but GR people said it would be reasonable to allow the power of a DP to get an extra attack with your action, but not for fatigue.

You make me go digging.  

RJS wrote:Q) Do the limits on attacks apply when you spend a destiny point? What about fatigue?

A) Destiny Points are designed to give players a bit of narrative control so clearly, a character who spends a destiny point gets to bend or even break the rules. Spending a destiny point should allow you to make an additional attack on your turn even if you already attacked.

As for fatigue, I would rule yes here too. However, the action gained from acquiring the fatigue can only be taken during the character’s turn.

http://roninarmy.com/gr-forum-archive/viewtopic.php?f=29&t=7470&sid=0025239abe89678d3a687f55b70b4518

Just to be clear (I know you two already know) this is of course a purely academic discussion, as Reader has ruled that neither Destiny nor Fatigue can grant additional attacks.

That quote from Nathan does make me realize that DP can be used off-turn for other actions, though, which could be quite powerful even if not used for attacks - like to move out of the way if someone nasty charges at you, or to knockdown a foe that just stood so that allies can get the bonus. It's an expensive option, but when more than tourney prizes and bragging rights are at stake, it could be worth it.

Baelon Drakeson wrote:Just to be clear (I know you two already know) this is of course a purely academic discussion, as Reader has ruled that neither Destiny nor Fatigue can grant additional attacks.

That quote from Nathan does make me realize that DP can be used off-turn for other actions, though, which could be quite powerful even if not used for attacks - like to move out of the way if someone nasty charges at you, or to knockdown a foe that just stood so that allies can get the bonus. It's an expensive option, but when more than tourney prizes and bragging rights are at stake, it could be worth it.

Yeah. I've always considered the spending of DP to be interruptive, so doing a maneuver in the middle of someone's charge attack can be a bit 'egg-facey'. The extra -1D from the maneuver on top of the -1D from the charge usually means the attacker looks like a complete prat. (Assuming he is still in range to attack you.)

Well, I'd say that if you pull a maneuver as interrupt to a charge, opponent still gets his attack in (though with -1D) before getting slammed back.

Well, I was saying move out of the way, meaning no engagement at all. To interrupt an opponent... well, DP are supposed to be powerful, so maybe. I could see an argument either way. Of course, they can always spend a DP to cancel yours, too, so it is not all powerful.

In a combat is a simple intrigue a lesser or free action?

Darron Greyjoy wrote:In a combat is a simple intrigue a lesser or free action?

My view is that you can't even do an Intrigue in combat. Switching to Combat ends an Intrigue.

Now, if you wanted to make an Intimidation test, that should be fine, but your at the mercy of the Narrator as to it's effect. I would call that a free action for an ability use.

Remember, for a Simple Intrigue to succeed, the goal must be something the target will willingly do. Otherwise the attempt fails outright. If your target is trying to hit you with a sword, he might not be in the mood for conversation.

Well it was to do with the group one melee I originally had rolled to do a taunt to have Ser Myles a nemises of Darron to charge him then I reread the intrigue stuff and thought wait I cant do this in combat so I didn't bother with it which led me on to just charging him after he decided not to attack me.

The closest thing is the "use ability" action, which is listed as "varies" in type. I treat it as a lesser action, akin to a simple intrigue.

However, as it is in combat, the target will have their mind on the combat, so getting them to do something foolish or dangerous (like break combat with someone else, thus receiving a passive attack from them) is unlikely to happen.

Things like prioritizing target selection, yielding earlier than is necessary, choice of weapon or tactics, etc. are feasible, but it's really up to Narrator discretion whether or not it works. The more likely the target is to do it anyway, the higher the odds of success.

Jon Templeton wrote:[ooc]If I pass does my +3 CD carry over until I act? I wanted to get some rules clarification before I posted.[/ooc]

Baelon Drakeson wrote:[OOC: While the book doesn't explicitly say one way or the other, I'm going to say no - the CD bonus lasts until the start of your next turn, the same as fatigue effects.]

Anyone have any thoughts on this?

It seems to me that if it lasted until the next attack, we could all start the morning with a defensive strike against a pell for added protection in case of a sneak attack or poor initiative roll...

I have a +3 CD until my next action in the following combat round. If I pass and wait to go after other people have acted do I keep my +3 until I act. So if I pass would my CD bonus apply until either A) I acted or B) the combat round ended (i.e. my action for the round was to take no action so the +3 goes away).

Clear as mud I know.

Pass is a greater action, not a non-action.

Ambiguous what happens to Defensive or Fatigue effects if you defer. I'd be tempted to put a hard cap of 1 round on those effects, as that is the duration of a DP effect, and DP effects are intended to be more powerful.

Sorry I meant Delay not Pass. Would help if I used the right terminology.

I can't see RAW giving a definite answer, though I'd lean towards the interpretation of turn "as a chance to do something" means the earliest opportunity in the initiative order you get to act.

However, the effect from cautious attack is trickier, since it doesn't specify for how long the +3 CD lasts, so I'd be half inclined to have this apply until you make another attack action. Interestingly, it says -1D, which I'd actually read as -1D to everything, which could matter for getting maneuvered off a cliff for example.

Delaying can be very effective.

For example, in the Daleford Girl combat, I was stealthed and delayed until all the opponents had gone.  Then I performed a Reckless attack +1D -5CD.  When I resumed my normal initiative, the -5CD popped off before anyone had a chance to take advantage of the penalty.  (Reader, at least, thought it was clever and made a point of pointing it out.)

I see no reason the same would not hold true for Cautious Attack.  Make a Cautious Attack, then delay your attack in the next round and retain the +3 until after your opponents have gone.  This does, however, give up the advantage of attack.  If you had the ability to take your opponent out, then removing the threat before he can harm you would be preferable over a +3 to CD.

Theomore Tullison wrote: Interestingly, it says -1D, which I'd actually read as -1D to everything, which could matter for getting maneuvered off a cliff for example.

It's extremely badly worded.  There is nothing that says Cautious attack is even an attack.  It just says 'When Fighting', which could mean practically anything you want it to mean.  My interpretation is that it's intended to confer a -1D to a melee attack in exchange for a +3 to CD till the beginning of the player's next turn.

I don't think that is an unreasonable interpretation, or an uncommon one.

Delaying can be very effective, even for non-mechanical reasons - in this same melee, Ser Warrick delayed his attack because at the moment he was not being targeted, but suspected that would change after his attack.

By Rules As Written, cautious attack penalty and bonus do not expire, ever. That is patently ridiculous, and thus RAW cannot give us a satisfactory answer.

For the -1D, precedent is that it only applies to that attack. There are many examples of a cautious attack being followed with another lesser action that did not receive the -1D penalty.

For the CD, there are two similar effects we can compare it to:
1) Taking a fatigue to ignore AP
2) Spending a DP to ignore AP

All three have roughly the same mechanical effect (increase combat defense by 4 or less, depending on AP).
Fatigue lasts "until the start of your next turn"
DP effect lasts "for one round" (initiative count to initiative count).

The extended duration of a DP has been noted as a strength of using a DP over a fatigue, but if we can delay the start of our turn, that makes Cautious Attack and Fatigue potentially last longer than a DP, which was clearly not intended.

Clever use of delay is very powerful for making certain (negative) effects shorter - letting it make Cautious Attack and Fatigue more powerful than a DP is unnecessary, and I think clearly against the design principles of the game.

Delaying is a risk/reward. You risk not going first. You risk the consequences of NCs going before you. You risk that the +3 will carry you through the round.

The reward is you can potentially have back to back actions similar to the Nathan example.

Cautious attack is poorly worded and that is why I am asking for thoughts.

Baelon Drakeson wrote:
Clever use of delay is very powerful for making certain (negative) effects shorter - letting it make Cautious Attack and Fatigue more powerful than a DP is unnecessary, and I think clearly against the design principles of the game.

I am going to disagree with Baelon here (shocking, I know ).

Nearly every combat action that has duration that lasts 'until the start of your next turn'. So that is clearly what is intended for Cautious Attack.

So the question becomes delay.

The rules for delaying are:

The Agility test result describes the earliest a character may act in the
round. You may always wait until later in the round to act, but you cannot
interrupt another character’s turn. You may only take your action
after another character has completely finished his turn.

So, this clearly says that the 'start of your next turn' is whenever you want it to start, so long as it is not before your Initiative based on your Agility test and you do not interrupt another character's action.

If we want 'start of your next turn' actions to end on the person's initiative count rather than the start of their actions, we are going to have to House rule that, as it will affect a plethora of combat actions (and perhaps a couple of Advantages).

Ultimately it is up to the Narrator when we are in the weeds like this. Baelon would not allow it. I would. (As a narrator, I prefer to encourage creative uses of the rules rather than discourage them.) For this game, Reader will have to decide which way he wants to go.