Topic: some combat questions

[Crypt]

1. What about a stunned and dodging character ?
As it's written i think the -50 stunned maneuver penalty would apply to the 2xAg / Acrobatic roll of the dodge maneuver only, it would not affect the +50/+25 base bonus.

But i wonder if this is correct because it means that a stunned character/creature would still have an automatic +50 DB if dodging all the time.

2. I apply this home rule :
Dodge or Sudden Dodge apply against any number of attacks from any number of known source but its effectiveness decreases with each attack
first attack => full bonus
second attack =>1/2 bonus
third attack => 1/3 bonus etc....
Even the base +50/+25 bonuses are affected.
Thus a character with a 10+50 =+60DB from a dodge maneuver would only have a +20DB against the third attack.
Any objection ?


3- Disengage from melee :
Would you allow using dodge instead of parry during the first round ?

Would you allow a stunned character to disengage from melee ?
What would be his parrying capacity ? 1/4 OB ?


4-Martial Law : Shield Parry
I don't understand why an untrained guy can not hide behind his shield. I remember of the DragonSlayer movie untrained hero hiding behind his shield to avoid the dragon breath...
Any objection to allow such a guy to double his untrained shield DB bonus ?



5- Martial Law : any objection to ignore the damage adjustments by armor p63 and still using the ML combat tables ?

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

1. What about a stunned and dodging character ?
As it's written i think the -50 stunned maneuver penalty would apply to the 2xAg / Acrobatic roll of the dodge maneuver only, it would not affect the +50/+25 base bonus.

But i wonder if this is correct because it means that a stunned character/creature would still have an automatic +50 DB if dodging all the time.

Just remember that they can still get a negative adjustment from the Dodge/Sudden Dodge (i.e. you zigged when you should have zagged). That negative adjustment just cannot take the total mod to DB from the maneuver below zero (i.e. you can get 50 plus a -50 from the roll to give a net roll of 0, but nothing lower than that).

Also, remember that stun never affects one's DB from their stats either. And the Dodge/Sudden Dodge is basically a maneuver that is meant to prevent you from being hit by "getting out of the way". Regardless of whether or not your stunned, getting out of the way is still getting out of the way. 

2. I apply this home rule :
Dodge or Sudden Dodge apply against any number of attacks from any number of known source but its effectiveness decreases with each attack
first attack => full bonus
second attack =>1/2 bonus
third attack => 1/3 bonus etc....
Even the base +50/+25 bonuses are affected.
Thus a character with a 10+50 =+60DB from a dodge maneuver would only have a +20DB against the third attack.
Any objection ?

Talk it over with your players first. House rules are always okay, but always make sure that your players know about them beforehand.

Dodge and Sudden Dodge only work against a single attacker normally. However, in retrospect, I think that Dodge should apply 1/2 its bonus against all attacks, except the one specifically being dodged (that one gets full bonus), and Sudden Dodge should likely get full mod to DB against all attacks (cause it was sudden), but that is just me musing...   

3- Disengage from melee :
Would you allow using dodge instead of parry during the first round ?

Would you allow a stunned character to disengage from melee ?
What would be his parrying capacity ? 1/4 OB ?

The Disengage from Melee that is described in the book is only one way of disengaging. It is not the only possible way. So, I don't see a problem with disengaging through a dodge, but it should only work if the dodge prevents all damage (and like with 50 point buffer as well, so that you know it was a clean miss across the board....)

4-Martial Law : Shield Parry
I don't understand why an untrained guy can not hide behind his shield. I remember of the DragonSlayer movie untrained hero hiding behind his shield to avoid the dragon breath...
Any objection to allow such a guy to double his untrained shield DB bonus ?

Frankly speaking, hiding behind his shield is what an untrained character is doing to begin with.

5- Martial Law : any objection to ignore the damage adjustments by armor p63 and still using the ML combat tables ?

Shouldn't be much of a problem... It just gives a slightly different dynamic to the crits.

[Crypt]

That negative adjustment just cannot take the total mod to DB from the maneuver below zero (i.e. you can get 50 plus a -50 from the roll to give a net roll of 0, but nothing lower than that).

lol, i've always thought that the bonus from the maneuver roll could not be lower than 0, thus preventing a reduction of the initial +50/+25 bonus.
(page 92 :"ignore any negative results on the Maneuver table" => so that's not my fault  )

Now that makes more sense for me, thanks (and now it's more like the RMC AL version of Dodging.)

The Disengage from Melee that is described in the book is only one way of disengaging. It is not the only possible way. So, I don't see a problem with disengaging through a dodge, but it should only work if the dodge prevents all damage (and like with 50 point buffer as well, so that you know it was a clean miss across the board....)

ok but would it be a normal dodge or a reduced one ?
The parrying version is like a stunned one, 1/2 OB so i think the dodging version would be like a stunned dodge, with a -50 maneuver penalty, wouldn't it ?
A non-reduced dodging could mean that disengage by dodging is easier than disengage by parrying (and i would agree with that...)


(and Would you say a stunned character attempting a disengage from melee whould only have 1/4 OB for his parry ?)

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

No, not a penalty to the dodge roll.

By "50 point buffer", I meant that the attacker's roll for the round needs to miss by more than 50 points. That after your DB is applied to the attack roll, the result was -50 or less.

The idea being that you Dodged so well, that there was no chance that the foe hit you, and that you were able to maneuver well enough during that dodge to put yourself into a position so that you can high tail it out of there the following round....

A dodge that succeeds by a slim margin won't do that.

[Crypt]

ok.

and what about the stunned disengaging character wich use parry during the first round ?
1/4 OB to DB ?

[WoeRie]

That negative adjustment just cannot take the total mod to DB from the maneuver below zero (i.e. you can get 50 plus a -50 from the roll to give a net roll of 0, but nothing lower than that).

lol, i've always thought that the bonus from the maneuver roll could not be lower than 0, thus preventing a reduction of the initial +50/+25 bonus.
(page 92 :"ignore any negative results on the Maneuver table" => so that's not my fault  )

I interpreted the rule just as crypt did. I was absolute sure that a dodge would result in at least a DB mod of 50 (or 25 for Sudden), regardless of the roll.
This makes Sudden Dodge only useful if you have a (very) high bonus, e.g. a normal Monster has a Dodge bonus of +10 (2x AG) then it needs to roll a 51 to get a +5 to DB for Sudden Dodge.
To loose a complete round to get an average of less than +5 to DB for sudden and less than +25 to DB for normal dodge really totally change the usefulness of this action for "standard" characters and monsters.

[Crypt]

creatures are fighters so i think we could say they have some ranks in Acrobatics. (Monsters gives some skills but seems to forget this one.)

(3 x Lvl ranks)+3 ? or less depending on the "class orientation" of the creature.


Every skills are concerned, something like a thumb skill category ranks / level depending on the class orientation of creatures could be usefull.
eg:
(3 x Lvl ranks)+3 for favored skills
(2 x Lvl ranks)+2 for less favored skills
(1 x Lvl ranks)+1 for minor ones
+ stats bonus

==>

Creature Level	(3 x Lvl ranks)+3	(2 x Lvl ranks)+2	(1 x Lvl ranks)+1	0,5 X Lvl ranks (down)
1	30(6)	20(4)	10(2)	0(0)
2	45(9)	30(6)	15(3)	5(1)
3	54(12)	40(8 )	20(4)	5(1)
4	60(15)	50(10)	25(5)	10(2)
5	66(18)	54(12)	30(6)	10(2)
6	71(21)	58(14)	35(7)	15(3)
7	74(24)	62(16)	40(8 )	15(3)
...	...	...	...	...
10	83(33)	72(22)	52(11)	25(5)
...	...	...	...	...
15	98(48)	82(32)	62(16)	35(7)
...	...	...	...	...
20	113(63)	92(42)	71(21)	50(10)
...	...	...	...	...
25	128(78)	102(52)	76(26)	54(12)
...	...	...	...	...
30	143(93)	112(62)	81(31)	60(15)

   + stats bonus      


The 3xlvl+3 column seems to be the ones used in Monsters.   



PS: completing the NPC examples of ML (some base professions are missing) and/or adding a NPC table like the Character Law one would be nice too....

[Right Wing Wacko]

There is so much variability in ICE characters that making a Master Table would, at best, be a general guideline.

I hear you though.. a guideline is better than nothing!

[Crypt]

I hear you though.. a guideline is better than nothing!

yes !

I'd enjoy an archetypal (no multi profession) NPC table as the RM's one.
Variability is nice but everything which improve speed of play is even nicer.

[WoeRie]

creatures are fighters so i think we could say they have some ranks in Acrobatics. (Monsters gives some skills but seems to forget this one.)

(3 x Lvl ranks)+3 ? or less depending on the "class orientation" of the creature.

I think (1 x Lvl ranks)+1 is enough, I think Rasyr wrote somewhere how the ranks are set in MAFG. As far as I remeber are the Restistances set to +1 rank/level, so I wouldn't give Acrobatics a higher values (with exceptions of course, like e.g. a Monkey has a high value and an elephant a very low one).

PS: completing the NPC examples of ML (some base professions are missing) and/or adding a NPC table like the Character Law one would be nice too....

Defendi started that in the Harpers Bazaars 9 and 10. The goal was to flesh out one missing class in each Bazaar and after all are finished to create a Master Chart like in Character Law.

[Crypt]

Another question.

Official version =
Casting spells in combat:
if the character is hit and takes damage his spell his cancelled (unless it's completed in the same round.)


What about this home rule version ? =
If the pc takes damage while casting a spell or maintaining concentration on a spell he makes this roll:
1d100 + 2x SD bonus
- 2x hits taken
+ Mental Focus Bonus Result* (thus a MF rolls is needed too if he has ranks in this skill)
VS 101

During concentration = the -50 does no apply to this roll but if several spells are maintained several rolls are needed (eg 2 spells = 2 rolls.)

Any objection ?



* or Resistance Will Bonus Result ? What do you think ?

[Fidoric]

I like this idea, but why not make a MF roll against the severity of the wound. Modifiers could be light wound= medium maneuver, medium wound= hard maneuver, severe wound= very hard maneuver.
Or to keep MF as a support skill, make a roll on the bonus column and then apply the result and the modifier above directy to the spellcasting maneuver.

[Crypt]

Or to keep MF as a support skill, make a roll on the bonus column and then apply the result and the modifier above directy to the spellcasting maneuver.

Interesting idea but how would you handle concentration rolls (to maintain C spells.) ?

Modifiers could be light wound= medium maneuver, medium wound= hard maneuver, severe wound= very hard maneuver.

Yes. (but i think that using straight hit X2 as modifier is faster. A matter of taste.)

but why not make a MF roll against the severity of the wound.

in order to use MF as usual : as a complementary bonus result.


In fact i wonder if it wouldn't be better to simply use something like the Stamina RR vs Stun =>
For instance simply by making a Will RR vs (150+2) per hit or something like that.


There are several ways, it's hard to make a choice

[Fidoric]

Using a roll similar to resist stun will make casting spells difficult in combat. Though not necessarily a big issue for a wizard, it makes being a warrior-mage very difficult.
I believe that there's a difference in the basic rules between resist stuns and spellcasting while being hit.
The Stamina RR is rolled to have a chance not being stunned. The chance is actually low. So the basic result is when you get stunned, you are stunned except if you are lucky or a dwarf tank.
OTOH, the rules make casting while being hit a relatively easy thing, even automatic if you cast 1 round spells. Your suggestion will change that, and spell casting will become very difficult at best, even nearly impossible if you don't have a very high Will.
Though not irrealistic (after all, resolving equations while bowing is a difficult propsition), it's a change in game balance, especially for 'contact' mage.

Another question, as spell casting is a conventional maneuver, why couldn't it be affected by difficulties. For example, casting in a stessful environment could be a hard maneuver, casting while fighting a very hard ?

[choc]

Hum ..

Concentration based spells - how long am i able to concentrate?
2x SD in rnds? in minutes?
WW will maneuver to maintain?
mental focus maneuver to maintain?

Question over question. There are some spells which need long concentration (ie traceless passing - concentration means only 50% BMR (1/2 pace)? - how can i scale it up to BMRx4 if i have to concentrate?) some other will be very powerful if you can concentrate as long as you wish (confusion).

A menal focus maneuver will hurt very hard every mage/wizard/sorcerer/witch/trickster 'cause it's for all spellcasting classes a non-favorite skill.

[Crypt]

OTOH, the rules make casting while being hit a relatively easy thing, even automatic if you cast 1 round spells. Your suggestion will change that, and spell casting will become very difficult at best, even nearly impossible if you don't have a very high Will.
Though not irrealistic (after all, resolving equations while bowing is a difficult propsition), it's a change in game balance, especially for 'contact' mage.

1 round spells could still be "protected."
The concentration roll failure would only affect spells not completed on the current round and maintened ones.

Another question, as spell casting is a conventional maneuver, why couldn't it be affected by difficulties. For example, casting in a stessful environment could be a hard maneuver, casting while fighting a very hard ?

yes, maybe that simple formulae:
Spell casting roll - hit taken while casting (i would double this malus)

I wouldn't bother with other modifiers than damage.
(Combat is its own automatic modifier because you have to be very quick. In non combat situation you can take your time, easily boosting you casting roll.)

[Crypt]

yes, maybe that simple formulae:
Spell casting roll - hit taken while casting (i would double this malus)

Actually not a good idea because the spell casting roll is already affected by stun.

I think that the hit should not affect the casting roll, it should be an opportunity of breaking the casting process. This is not the same thing.

So i think i will do that =

- if the spell is not completed during the current round and the caster is hit and wounded he must make a Mental Focus or Will roll VS 150+hits. This roll is modified by the concentration malus (-50 per spell) if one or more spells are maintained during casting. (this modifier also affect the casting roll in the normal rules.)
Failure = casting process is broken. No FP are lost.

- if the caster is hit and wounded while maintaining one or more spells (C spells) he must make a Mental Focus or Will roll VS 150+hits for each spells maintained. This roll is NOT affected by the concentration malus (-50 per spell.)
Failure = concentration is broken.



Thus if a caster casts a spell while maintaining 2 others spells and is hit by, let's say 20 hits =>
1. a Mental Focus or Will roll -100 VS 170 in order to keep casting the spell. Yes this IS hard.  (this is equivalent to a Mental Focus or Will roll VS 270. The -100 comes from the 2 maintained C spells while casting another one.)

2. a Mental Focus or Will roll VS 170 in order to keep maintaining the first C spell.

3. a Mental Focus or Will roll VS 170 in order to keep maintaining the second C spell.

Obviously this is a extreme instance.

[Fidoric]

a Mental Focus or Will roll -100 VS 170 in order to keep casting the spell. Yes this IS hard.  (this is equivalent to a Mental Focus or Will roll VS 270. The -100 comes from the 2 maintained C spells while casting another one.)

Is it not the same as saying you cannot ?

[Crypt]

a Mental Focus or Will roll -100 VS 170 in order to keep casting the spell. Yes this IS hard.  (this is equivalent to a Mental Focus or Will roll VS 270. The -100 comes from the 2 maintained C spells while casting another one.)

Is it not the same as saying you cannot ?

1. as i said this is an extreme example because the caster maintains 2 C spells while casting another and taking 20 hits. Here only very powerfull and lucky characters could succeed.

2. but with open-ended nothing is impossible.


The more usual example (casting 1 spell OR maintaining 1 spell while maintaining nothing else and taking damage) is not beyond range. (this is at the same range as resisting Stun.)

[Fidoric]

Perfectly clear. It's just what I was saying. You make casting spells while hit as hard as resisting stuns, and that is hard. The basic rules make spellcasting an easy thing. I can't say I disagree with you, I just point out that it changes game balance.
That goes well with me as I play definitively more on the grip side of the sword than of the tip side... too bad for spellcasters