|
Post by bizarrojoe on Mar 5, 2013 23:22:48 GMT -5
Zone of Control rules state:
"If an attacker tries to move around or past adjacent defenders without attacking or entering their space, the defenders may counterattack or enter the attacker's space without being hit."
What happens when an attacker wants to retreat? Attacker A is in combat against defender B, and attacker A wants to move backwards away from defender B. Attacker is not moving around or past defender B in this case, so does defender B get to counterattack? In TFT, the engage/disengage rules allowed for a combatant to shift away and then move another hex as a full turn; is this ability possible with the LAW rules?
Secondary question: If an attacker moves within the reach zone of a defender with a polearm (i.e. they come within 2 hexes of the polearm), does the defender get to counterattack?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2013 3:43:15 GMT -5
Zone of Control rules state: "If an attacker tries to move around or past adjacent defenders without attacking or entering their space, the defenders may counterattack or enter the attacker's space without being hit." What happens when an attacker wants to retreat? Attacker A is in combat against defender B, and attacker A wants to move backwards away from defender B. Attacker is not moving around or past defender B in this case, so does defender B get to counterattack? as you said, attacker A is not moving around or past defender B, so defender B does not get a counterattack against A according to rules in LAW...unless you add it yourself. yes. on any character's turn he may move up to his full MA and execute ONE action. there are no engaged/disengaged rules in LAW...unless you add it yourself. rules of LAW make no mention of polearms being able to attack from 2 hexes away. If you have added this ability into your game/house-rules, it would seam very reasonable to extend it to zone of control.
|
|
|
Post by bizarrojoe on Mar 6, 2013 8:02:12 GMT -5
Thanks for the input, ewookie. My friends and I have been working on some house rules, mostly gathered from other ideas here in the forums. But I've been feeling that the rules have started to favor the players too much, and I'm looking to restore balance.
I originally allowed characters & monsters to double-move, as well as attack-then-move, as alternative turn choices. However, I'm starting to rethink that decision.
I added in polearm reach as a means of giving some incentive to using them; otherwise, there's no benefit to them (maces do D6+2 just like spears, and broadswords do 2D6 like halberds but without the 2-handed requirement). An expanded zone of control made sense for polearms, but we originally ruled that if a monster approached a character with a polearm, then as soon as the monster was 2 hexes away the character received a chance to counterattack before the monster closed the gap; the same would apply if a monster retreated. I no longer believe that's fair, especially since we don't implement any charging house rules.
This may not be the right thread to discuss this, but other house rules we've tried include:
Unskilled checks: 4D6 vs attribute. I've been thinking of raising this to 5D6; wizards with high IQs seem to easily handle disarming traps even without the necessary skills on 4D6.
Crits: Rolling 3 is an auto hit with +2D6 to damage; rolling 4 is an auto hit with +1D6 to dmg; rolling 17 is an auto miss with a dropped weapon; rolling 18 breaks the weapon in use.
Sleeping in dungeons: If characters want to rest in a spot that isn't designated as a rest area, then they roll a D6. On a roll of a 6, the characters don't get enough sleep to reset fatigue (staffs still recharge), causing persistent fatigue if 24 hrs have passed without rest.
Creation spells: Wizards can dispell created fires/walls/shadows at will. I may rethink this since the rules don't say that these creations can be removed before the encounter is over.
Multiple Medics: If the party has multiple medics, then the highest skilled medic rolls the check, with a +1 bonus for each other medic on the team (acting as assistants). The overall STR healed is still based on the skill level of the rolling medic.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2013 10:09:42 GMT -5
Thanks for the input, ewookie. My friends and I have been working on some house rules, mostly gathered from other ideas here in the forums. But I've been feeling that the rules have started to favor the players too much, and I'm looking to restore balance. I originally allowed characters & monsters to double-move, as well as attack-then-move, as alternative turn choices. However, I'm starting to rethink that decision. a lot of systems would require (even TFT, sort of, if i recall) that you only move half your MA if you're going to make an attack. this means that (from another perspective) your MA is DX/4 and you are allowed to move twice or move once and attack. this is really funny to me because when i was new here, i proposed making MA = DX/4 and some people thought it was ridiculous. i think you should ditch the double-move. i would also stick to the LAW rules regarding movement then actions and see what effect that has. you mention above you were letting them attack (action) first, then move. that would be a game changer. in theory, it doesn't seem like it would be a game changer because the monsters can do it too. however, as GM, you are trying to playing multiple NPCs intelligently while the players are only having to worry about maximizing the effectiveness of one or two PCs. you have 4 brains or super-chess-computers playing against 1 (the GM). odds are not in your favor, not necessarily because of rules...but because you are only human. "if an attacker tries to move around or past a defender". if the monster is approaching the character with the intention of attacking that character, Zone of Control does not apply. if the monster is trying to move around character A so that he (the monster) can attack character B, then Zone of Control applies and character A can counterattack the monster. however, even if monster is approaching character A and you allow character A to counterattack monster (via Zone of Control), this should still balance out because character A has lost his ONE action for his next turn. also, after the character A makes his counterattack, the monster continues moving toward character A, becomes adjacent and makes his attack on character A. character A has already used his ONE Reaction for the turn, so he can't Dodge. perhaps the GM should make disarming most traps a REQUIRED skill check, instead of an assisted one. those are good Crit/Fumble rules. are you applying them to the monster's rolls as well? i would whip up a random encounter table. on a roll of 5 or 6, there is a random encounter that disturbs their sleep. the enemy has initiative on 5 and surprise on 6. this prevents their rest/healing and will probably cause them to take more damage. if they are resting in a spot that already had monsters in it (before the players cleared it), i would just use those monsters as the random encounter. otherwise, just get creative on their arses! if the area where they are resting was designated as a rest area, fore-go the random encounter check. i would clue the players in by saying something like, "this area seems like a safe place to rest". yes, i would ditch this. at least make the wizard pass a 3/IQ check. requiring a winning 3/IQ check vs. the spellcaster's IQ or the level of the spell would probably be more appropriate. yeah, the way the games are written, if you use this (which is what i proposed in another thread), there's a whole lot of healing going on. if you go by the original intent of the medic skill (the way it is worded in the rules), the balance of healing is restored...but it just seems so foreign and illogical to my mind. i'm leaning toward ditching the Medic skill all together and letting each character recover 1 ST at the end of combat if they pass a 3/ST check. for a dying character (ST < 0), they get a number of 3/ST recovery checks equal to the number of conscious characters in the party, plus their own, single 3/ST check. i think Lord Inar posted something similar to this. I say i'm ditching the Medic skill, but really, in effect, i'm giving everyone the Medic skill. the catch is they can only use it on themselves or dying characters and the check is based on ST instead of IQ. whew. gotta let my fingers catch their breath. sorry if i was too long winded.
|
|
|
Post by bizarrojoe on Mar 6, 2013 10:34:41 GMT -5
Nope, not too long winded at all. I like a spirited rules discussion ;D
Yes. I adapted the rules from Advanced Melee. I'm thinking of adding in a rule I saw in ITL that states that melee fighters that break their weapon can still fight with it, but at half damage. I think that would create some awesome moments if a fighter breaks his sword but still manages to gut an orc with a shattered blade! Sadly, the same cannot be done with a broken bow or snapped wizard's staff.
I like this idea. There are rules in ITL that cover "nuisance encounters" with creatures like slimes and rats. I think that if the party is woken by an encounter, the loss of fatigue would be balanced by an opportunity for extra XP.
Ehh, I'm not sure I want to go down that road. It means keeping track of which skills are required, and which aren't. Plus, I think that anyone that is nimble and smart should have a chance to deduce how to remove a trap. BUT, I've already used a houserule that states that if someone who is not skilled in locks tries to use picks to open a lock, the lockpicks are destroyed whether the check is successful or not. So I think there are still other penalty opportunities if an unskilled character REALLY wants to try and pick alock or disarm a trap.
I think next time we play, I'm going to try 5D6 unskilled checks and see how it goes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2013 10:46:19 GMT -5
Ehh, I'm not sure I want to go down that road. It means keeping track of which skills are required, and which aren't. Plus, I think that anyone that is nimble and smart should have a chance to deduce how to remove a trap. BUT, I've already used a houserule that states that if someone who is not skilled in locks tries to use picks to open a lock, the lockpicks are destroyed whether the check is successful or not. So I think there are still other penalty opportunities if an unskilled character REALLY wants to try and pick alock or disarm a trap. I think next time we play, I'm going to try 5D6 unskilled checks and see how it goes. regarding the bolded statement, why is this so? all skills are potentially required or potentially assisted. it's up to the GM/author to decide which check fits the current situation. generally, a required skill check is meant to make it harder. if a particular trap _requires_ the traps skill (due to difficulty) but no one has the trap skill, you have 2 options: 1- let someone trigger the trap intentionally. preferably someone with other characteristics that would allow them to minimize the damage they will receive from the trap. 2- let someone without the skill attempt to remove trap but put a penalty or modifier on their dice roll. this should keep the party mage from being the 'goto' guy for IQ-based skill checks...if you make some of the situations (not skills) call for a Required Skill check. make sure you understand that assisted vs. required does not apply to skills...it applies to situations. i made this mistake when i was new. EDIT: there is a 3rd option for the required TRAP test when no one has the skill. let a player without the skill try but he will only be successfull on a roll of 3 or 4 (dumb luck). they will most likely fail. follow the rules in the adventure text for failure of the skill check. P.S. everything i'm saying in this thread is aimed at solving your 'too easy' remark.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2013 11:04:53 GMT -5
i've searched but cannot find the 'dying recovery checks' that i ascribed to Lord Inar. i know someone posted something along the lines below but cannot find it. if dying, make a 3/ST check. if it passes, you recovered some ST and check 3/ST again. this keeps going until you have recovered to ST 1 or you fail one of the checks. failure = death unless another character can convince you to avoid the bright light at the end of the tunnel with a healing potion or spell or something of that sort.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2013 13:01:08 GMT -5
to be honest, i'm not crazy about the polearm reach in TFT or here. here, we are occupying 5ft hex spaces. assuming 2 combatants are standing in the center of their spaces and their spaces are adjacent, there is roughly 5ft of distance between the two combatants. the halberd was typically 5-6ft long according to wikipedia. so, if there is an empty space between the combatants, there is roughly 10ft of distance between them. spears can be reliably thrown but a mace cannot. broadsword vs. halberd? yeah, they are equal. i like this. why would someone use a halberd instead of broadsword? because they have invested in the polearms skill. why would someone want to invest in the polearms skill instead of the sword skill? i think a player's weapon of choice should largely be one of 'style' or setting considerations. there are a range of weapons within each skill category. the higher the weapon's damage within a category, the higher the ST requirement. however, the range and rate of change of these variables differ within the categories. i have actually determined that there is a slightly better pay-off on skill investment if you invest in axe/clubs (not the assumed swords). anyways, i'm more inclined to say that Charging and Counterattacking a Charge are better 'advantages' for polearms. although i don't think polearm charging should be as effective as most people, defending a charge with a polearm in man-to-man combat _should_ be as effective as most seem to let it be. if you're in a situation where the polearm wielder is on foot his opponent is mounted, the polearm should have some decided advantages there, especially the halberd. if further advantage for polearms is desired, i'm thinking about letting 2-H weapons have a +1 DX when Parrying. it's really more of a block in the case of 2-H weapons but trying to keep it as simple as possible. i think parry is actually defined in the dictionary as deflecting or blocking anyway. so my Block rule is really a Shield Block rule. again, just trying to keep it simple.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2013 15:01:31 GMT -5
bizzarojoe (or anyone else), this discussion has led me to update my rules thread. i took the polearm advantage of a counterattack against a charge out of the charging rule and put it in the CounterAttack rule. so, rain, sleet, snow, or shine, a polearm ALWAYS gets a +2 DX to hit and +2 to damage when used for a counterattack. do you think that is a sufficient enough advantage to dispense with the polearm/reach rules (for simplicity purposes)? (note that polearms still get +1 damage when used for a charge)
(i decided against letting 2-H weapons get a bonus on Parry for simplicity and for this logic: yeah, 2-Hs are bigger but waving them around is slower; size vs speed benefit/disadvantage cancels out)
|
|
|
Post by bizarrojoe on Mar 6, 2013 15:31:05 GMT -5
Where do the LAW rules state that hex spaces are 5ft? If I recall, ITL rules stated that melee tunnel hexes on a map were 1m (3.3ft) across. So, if we assume a polearm that is roughly 8ft long (6-7' pole and 18" pointy blade attachment), then reaching 2 hexes away to jab is completely plausible.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2013 15:49:31 GMT -5
in TFT (one of the many documents) it says that hex-spaces are 1 and 1/3 meters. that equals 4.36 ft, which is roughly 5ft. i guess it isn't specifically mentioned in the LAW rules but here in the forums, the spaces are generally regarded as 5ft spaces. the 1m (3.3ft) tunnels you are referring to are narrow passages. the TFT book that gave me the hex-space measurement above also mentioned tunnels as narrow passages that were smaller than an entire space (because the edges of the space are lopped off). i will try to give you an exact document and page number when i get home tonight. there are plenty of examples of spears longer than 8ft in history...but the majority of spears were in the 5ft to 8ft range (total length). i take it you have decided you want to keep the polearm/reach rule in your game?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2013 16:05:54 GMT -5
i actually had the TFT books on my jump-drive. here are the references in ITL: p.18, first column, second paragraph beginning with MAPPING (defines 1 hex = 1 and 1/3 meters) p. 21, second column, second paragraph/map symbol labeled NARROW TUNNEL defines the width of tunnel as about 1 meter i think the references i was remembering are clearer and from AdvancedMelee but that is the one document i don't have on my jump-drive we probably tend to regard the spaces as 5ft around here because most people in the forum are in US, i think...and you know, we haven't quite gotten around to the metric system yet may not be relevant to you, but HOW (Heroes and Other Worlds) explicitly defines the hexes as 5ft spaces. in most RPGs (such as D&D), even though they use squares instead of hexes, they are 5ft spaces.
|
|
|
Post by bizarrojoe on Mar 6, 2013 16:44:04 GMT -5
So.... If the hex size isn't necessarily locked down, then I can (for example) assume that hexes are 4' instead of 5', and then polearms can reach! Hooray! ;D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2013 16:49:41 GMT -5
So.... If the hex size isn't necessarily locked down, then I can (for example) assume that hexes are 4' instead of 5', and then polearms can reach! Hooray! ;D no sir. you can't do that. i found the section of LAW rules that states that hexes are 5ft. it is the same paragraph that states that polearms can attack a target 2 hexes away. EDIT: want to make sure you know i'm kidding. my point is real but i'm mostly just messing with you. i prefer to drop the reach thing and gain the +2/+2 on all counterattacks. you should do what you like and works for you. your original post gave me the impression that you were thinking about dropping the reach stuff to regain 'balance in the force'.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2013 21:02:03 GMT -5
related to the assisted vs. required skill checks: i was just looking through ROC and there are quite a few required skill checks. all of the traps i saw are required skill checks. if you see 3/IQ against traps, that is a required skill check. if you see 3/IQ+Charisma, that is an assisted skill check. nothing to keep track of. it's there in the adventure text.
|
|