Topic: Negatives affect Defensive Bonus (DB)

[Grafton]

While GMingthe "Echoes of Heaven" campaign on play-by-post, I noticed that I have been playing a house rule for about 20 years. When playing negatives received in combat and elsewhere, I've always applied them for everything including Defensive Bonus (DB). I never understood how something such as a negative can't affect DB - the pain, the loss of mobility, broken bones, etc. How does a wound affect only offensive capability and not defense? I've never played any other way. Here's the low-down:

Book Rule - RM2/RM2

Negatives received in combat that are not specific to a certain skill or skills affect all skills, but do not affect Defensive Bonus (except Adrenal Defense).

In my opinion, this will make combat longer because negatives only apply to offense which will make it harder for that person to hit his opponent, but the opponent will not have an easier time hitting him.

House Rule

Negatives received in combat that are not specific to a certain skill or skills affect all skills, including Defensive Bonus. DB cannot be reduced below zero, but other skills can become negative overall.

In my opinion, this makes more sense and is more realistic because it affects both the offense and defense of the victim. In general, it should make combat go faster overall.


I've been playing with this house rule for 20+ years and think its a good option. It makes criticals with negatives important, the book rule cheapens it.

[yammahoper]

Well, that earned a laugh point from me.

DB is effected.  Penalties reduce available OB, meaning there is less to potentially parry with.

OTOH, if it works for you, rock on.

lynn

[Arioch]

I don't think that the book cheapen the critical with negatives modifier... Unless you use magical healing they are going to stay for a long time (and there is also the possibility of permanent penalties!) and since they are applied to almost any roll you make I think that they are already quite deadly.

[lev_lafayette]

Although on a related topic, Quickness bonuses could not reduce DB below 0 (2.4 Character Law); now whilst it didn't happen often, I did apply low Qu to give negative DB, on the grounds that the character was so slow that they were easier to hit.

But given a relative scale from normal human movement being +0, what to do about stationary objects? What's the Qu bonus of a tree, for example? For this I simply accorded -50 (i.e., a +50 chance to hit) - that is, a little more than a standard rear attack with surprise.

[yammahoper]

Against stationary objects I allow max attacks, rolls are just for fumble and break checks.

Against a defensless foe, max attack, pick your crit, roll is just to check for fumble and breakage.

lynn

[Dark Schneider]

I always apply the negative effect to combat, if critical says 'combat with -50', then you combat with -50 in any case. If not, imagine a character with +30 OB, and receive a critical that combat with -50, has him less DB if parry than not?, has it any sense?.

I use that data in the simple way, if a character have a combat penalty, I add that bonus to attacker roll, it is easier.

[yammahoper]

Well, the guy with a 30 OB would have a -20 OB, not 0.  So yeah, it is equal.  Not only has he lost ALL ability to parry, but future attacks are at -20, not +30 or 0.

lynn

[vroomfogle]

If you consider OB+DB to be a good measure of overall combat effectiveness, then if you apply penalties to DB then you are effectively doubling the penalties given in the critical.   Penalties are already very heavy in the crits and have a huge impact on a battle. I certainly don't think they need to be increased.

[Ecthelion]

To avoid doubling the penalties they could be applied to OB and DB each in half, so that a -50 penalty would result in -25 to OB and -25 to DB. Never tried this and don't know whether it's a good idea. We'll keep applying the penalties to OB and maneuvers as indicated in the rules.

[Dark Schneider]

I think is easier modify the roll, not the skills. So you modify your attacks and maneuvers by penalty, or inthe other side you add the penalty to attacker roll if defender has the penalty.

For example, in a combat, foe 1 has -20 penalty and foe 2 has -50 penalty, if foe 1 attacks foe 2, then we simply: result = (roll + OB1 - DB2) - 20 + 50.
And if foe 2 attacks foe 1: result = (roll + OB2 - DB1) -50 + 20.

So you make the sequence normally, and then you add the modifiers to roll. It is not easier by this way?.

[Arioch]

It's easier but it's not really the same thing: if you apply the penalties this way combatants can still parry with full OB, ignoring modifiers because parry doesn't require a roll...

[Dark Schneider]

It is the same, to parry there must be an attack, so if you add the penalty to attack roll the penalty is applied.

I can't think in any case where we can not use this, and if there is a case, anyways we can save work (harder computations) in the 99'99% cases.

[Arioch]

Difference is subtle but still exist.
For example, let say that you are Gaara, the mighty ninja master. You have an OB of 100 with you katana, but a wound to your forearm gives you a negative modifier of -20.

If you apply the modifier to the roll Gaara can decide parry with all his OB, gaining a bonus of +100 to DB, and then make a +0 attack (which became a -20 attack for the penalty).

If you apply it directly to the OB, then if Gaara decide to parry with his OB he only gain a +80 to his DB, because his skill is actually reduced by 20 points, but then he will be able to attack with a +0 OB (as the -20 has already been applied).

In addition, if you apply the modifiers only to rolls, does it means that skills like AD (which doesn't need a roll) don't get an penalty from the wound?

[PiXeL01]

We have been playing the same way for much the same length of time and as long as it counts on both sides of the GM screen then where is the worry. The logic behind it is the same for me as well, the more hurt and damaged your body is, the less mobile you are and the more potential pounding you will receive, unless you are saved by a friend of course. This also makes Undead a bit more damage since alof the of the crit modifiers doesnt affect them, though the gms in my group apply some of them anyway where it seems fair (arm chopped off, you fight worse)

[Joshua24601]

There's definitely a 'game enjoyment' argument to forcing a lowering of DB (perhaps 1/2 the modifier as suggested)  I've been in some pretty long battles because characters were banged up early, getting negative modifiers, but they kept their DB the same by pumping more and more OB into parry... making it so they needed higher and higher (eventually open ended) to hit and do any damage.

Going 4 or 5 rounds where injured PC's and NPC's swing at nothing but air gets boring and frustrating.

And if you think about Boxers... as they get tired and banged up they slower and start hitting slower and weaker, but still connecting often.  It seems like contact happens almost as often, it just becomes less effective, and if a fresh boxer were to walk in the ring, the banged up tired boxer wouldn't be dodging his blows.  Subtracting both OB and DB would seem to have this effect.

[markc]

There's definitely a 'game enjoyment' argument to forcing a lowering of DB (perhaps 1/2 the modifier as suggested)  I've been in some pretty long battles because characters were banged up early, getting negative modifiers, but they kept their DB the same by pumping more and more OB into parry... making it so they needed higher and higher (eventually open ended) to hit and do any damage.

Going 4 or 5 rounds where injured PC's and NPC's swing at nothing but air gets boring and frustrating.

And if you think about Boxers... as they get tired and banged up they slower and start hitting slower and weaker, but still connecting often.  It seems like contact happens almost as often, it just becomes less effective, and if a fresh boxer were to walk in the ring, the banged up tired boxer wouldn't be dodging his blows.  Subtracting both OB and DB would seem to have this effect.

 The boxing idea was one thing endurance was trying to model. But quite a few people do not use it as it is extra book keeping. Another option is to have set number based on their Co, ST and weapon to give you a number. When the round reaches that number they recieve a penalty A, at x2 the # they recieve penalty B. Etc.
 That is an easier way to deal with endurance and will speed up the fight as players will know they are going to get tired and not defend as well. In fact they might even run away if injured at first and have the chance.

MDC

[Marc R]

I agree that "double penalty" is a problem, so I'm not to keen on applying the penalty mod to both OB and DB, but there are issues with the way it works now.

There is the curious fact that if I'm not mistaken penalties affect "all skill rolls or checks", not "all skills". . .your weapon Bonus is the same, and the penalty applies AFTER you declare your parry split, and only to the OB portion.

So if you have a 30 OB, 0 DB you may shift your 30 OB back and forth via parry. . .

You take a crit giving you -50 penalty.

You now can at one extreme put 30 OB into OB and attack at 30-50=-20. . .or you can put 30 OB into full parry and get 0-50 = -50 attack and +30 DB parry. . . .

That does seem a trifle hokey. . . .you're so enfeebled that your best possible attack is a -20, but you can parry as if unfazed? Parry is an action, but due to the way split logic is applied, it's treated not like an action. . . .

OTOH if you go all out defensive and Dodge. . .you eat the penalty.

[vroomfogle]

Hmm LM, that's not how I ever read the rules.  It's one of those things that probably isn't too clear however.  We've always played that any penalties are applied first, you can then use what is remaining for parrying/attack.

[Marc R]

That's my house rule too, and I don't get any complaints.

But the rules seem to indicate the penalty apples to the "action" (i.e. the attack roll)

[Fornitus]

 Isint parrying an "action"?