|
|
Post by klingor on May 21, 2012 14:32:53 GMT -5
Hi Guys,
I must admit I prefer what we used to play when I played Melee/Wizard back int the 80s.
Initiative was decided each turn - each side rolled d6, adjusted the score for any initiative modifiers, and the highest score had init. We'd reroll until we had a winner for that turn.
The side with init moved first and the characters on that side declared their actions. The other side then moved and declared their actions.
The actions were then resolved, with each character's action performed in order of adjusted dex (highest to lowest). In the event of actions occurring on the same dex rank, the side with initiative in that round went first. If the outcome of earlier actions within that round meant that an action was no longer available, an alternative action could be substituted if allowable, given the choice exercised in the movement part of the turn.
For example, you move adjacent to an enemy and say you will attack as your action. However, when you Adj Dex turn comes, the character has been killed or has dodged to a space where he is out of your reach, and there is no other enemy to target the attack on. In this case, you can change your action to anything still allowable. No action you take will impact on your next round.
I've used this when playing the DCG modules and it works.
Cheers
Colin
|
|
|
|
Post by mister frau blucher on May 22, 2012 13:56:47 GMT -5
Hey, Colin,
Yeah, the more traditional Melee initiative system definitely works. In fact this is one of the most significant mechanical changes from Melee.
The reason is basically this: momentum. When we watch football (that would be REAL, American football, not the rest-of-the-world kind - heh, heh! ;D) or any team sport, you see where at various points of the game one side will have the ball bouncing its way, the opportunities begin to pile up. The momentum of the action is with them. This can go back and forth, be broken up by a quick score, etc.
The "one side, then the other side," alternating turn-based nature of LAW is an attempt to capture this feel, rather than having guys go in order of DX.
That is the idea, but when you play the game, Colin, it is yours do with as you please!
I remember a few years ago, one of the guys who was involved with DCG early on but split when we it became clear we were not going to do a re-hash of TFT with our favorite house rules, worked up a document trying to show that this method was broken. His point was that by having all of one side move and act first, they would never lose. He worked up a lengthy combat example of four humans against 4 weaker goblins, and the humans went first and beat the goblins.
I countered this by taking his example and putting the goblins first. I kept every dice roll he made and switched them, and for those that needed new dice rolls used an average (ie a 3d6 roll became a 10). The result was that the humans still won. they were bloodier, but not having the first move was not the death sentence pre-supposed.
At any rate, Colin, I don't have a problem if you prefer your own method! I do not see how it would alter the outcome of an adventure at all.
Thanks again for the stimulating thoughts.
Cheers!
Bret
|
|
|
|
Post by klingor on May 22, 2012 14:55:17 GMT -5
Bret,
Thanks for the reply - I can see where you're coming from with the changes from TFT .
My idea was to try and find a way to get round the problem I saw in TFT and still see in LAW, that no matter how powerful your character, you have no way of affecting his hit prob. You also are unable to, even partially, reduce the damage by an attack and still have a (reduced) hit prob yourself.
I had in mind that if you were, say, Sword+5, then in each turn you could say, when you declared your action eg I'll attack using causing 3 extra damage on my adj dex and reduce one other attacker's by 2 on his (or some other combination of increased attacking hit prob/damage and reduced attacked hit prob/damage that totals to 5). This keeps everything on a per-turn basis and allows a more granular approach to how high-level skills can be applied in the rough-and-tumble of a melee.
All the best,
Colin
|
|
|
|
Post by klingor on May 22, 2012 15:10:24 GMT -5
Bret,
Having had another read of your post re American Football, a party cannot suddenly change an offensive to a defensive line-up when they lose initiative - each character still has the same attributes, armour and weapons and there are no substitutes allowed.
Cheers
R-o-t-w supporter (The contributor formerly known as Colin)
|
|
|
|
Post by mister frau blucher on May 23, 2012 11:36:46 GMT -5
My idea was to try and find a way to get round the problem I saw in TFT and still see in LAW, that no matter how powerful your character, you have no way of affecting his hit prob. Hey, Colin, Actually, you may use your skill level as a bonus to hit, or to damage, not both. So your Sword +5 guy can be +5 to hit, or +5 damage. Now if you meant affecting your opponent's probability to hit, you are correct. Your reccomendation is intriguing... Bret |
|
|
|
Post by mister frau blucher on May 23, 2012 11:42:08 GMT -5
Bret, Having had another read of your post re American Football, a party cannot suddenly change an offensive to a defensive line-up when they lose initiative - each character still has the same attributes, armour and weapons and there are no substitutes allowed. Cheers R-o-t-w supporter (The contributor formerly known as Colin) Football, with action breaks between plays, is not the best sport to illustrate momentum, but it definitely takes over in many games. Hockey might be the best example, given its speed. My Pens opened game 1 of their playoff round with three consecutive goals to end the first period 3-0. The Flyers scored a minute into the second period, and momentum swung; the Flyers won the game and the series in lopsided fashion. r-o-t-w - rise of the workers? ;D Or does that mean "rest of the world?" My non-American football knowledge is spotty, though I do enjoy the World Cup and Olympic games. Cheers, He-who-was-Colin! Bret |
|
|
|
Post by klingor on May 23, 2012 16:51:33 GMT -5
Bret,
Rest-o-t-w He who-was-Colin salutes you.
What I mean is that, using the old-style TFT system where both parties in the same turn in order of Adj Dex, is that a character can split his weapon skill points into 2 parts - offensive (for his own action) and defensive (against opponents actions) in that turn.
In the example I used, your character split his +5 skill into +3 offensive and +2 defensive. This means that on his adj dex, either his hit prob or damage would be increased by 3 (the offense). When he was attacked however, he had -2 points to apply to either one enemy's hit prob or one enemy's damage roll.
If the enemy had a base hit roll of 3d6 vs 13, he would now have to roll 3d6 vs 11 if the defense was applied to attack prob.
If you applied the defense to damage reduction, then if the base damage was 2d6, it would instead become 2d6-2.
The defense is considered a reaction and can be used on any attackers adj dex but if, by the end of the round, he had not applied the defense for some reason, then too bad, it is gone.
Assume, in the example, that the character faces 2 opponents, one armed with a rapier and one with a two-handed sword.
The rapier attacks on adj dex 14. You could react by applying your defensive portion if you chose to, even though the attacker's adj dex is greater than yours.
If, instead, you decide to wait and save the defense for the two-handed sword then you can. However. if the two-handed sword doesn't attack you, then your defense never gets applied.
At the end of the turn, all bets are off and the next turn begins with a clean slate for all characters. There is no book-keeping to keep track of who can do what between turns.
It sounds complicated but is actually very easy to use.
Cheers
He-who-is-once-again Colin.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2012 10:13:46 GMT -5
My idea was to try and find a way to get round the problem I saw in TFT and still see in LAW, that no matter how powerful your character, you have no way of affecting his hit prob. Hey, Colin, Actually, you may use your skill level as a bonus to hit, or to damage, not both. So your Sword +5 guy can be +5 to hit, or +5 damage. Now if you meant affecting your opponent's probability to hit, you are correct. Your reccomendation is intriguing... Bret Maybe I'm misunderstanding the rules. It seems to me that one can use Dodge to affect your opponent's probability to hit you. Let foe roll to-hit. If he hits, attempt Dodge. Keep doing this until he misses. Then attack. |
|
|
|
Post by mister frau blucher on Jun 4, 2012 11:08:56 GMT -5
That is correct, ewookie. As long as you make your 3/DX Dodge check, your opponent misses you, and you forfeit your upcoming turn. When he finally misses, you can attack.
Of course, if you miss your Dodge roll, he hits you, and you still forfeit your upcoming turn. This is the downside of Dodging - if you miss your roll, not only does he hit you, but he will get a chance to strike again before you can take another action (since you forfeit your upcoming turn).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2012 13:24:40 GMT -5
maybe i should walk through an encounter here to make sure i've got this right:
i stumble upon an orc in a cave. he attacks first. he rolls to-hit. succeeds. i attempt dodge. succeed. it's now my turn but i can't do anything because i dodged so nothing happens on my turn. now it's the orc's turn again. he rolls to-hit. succeeds. can i attempt dodge?
|
|
|
|
Post by mister frau blucher on Jun 4, 2012 15:33:56 GMT -5
maybe i should walk through an encounter here to make sure i've got this right: i stumble upon an orc in a cave. he attacks first. he rolls to-hit. succeeds. i attempt dodge. succeed. it's now my turn but i can't do anything because i dodged so nothing happens on my turn. now it's the orc's turn again. he rolls to-hit. succeeds. can i attempt dodge? Yes. In so doing, you again forfeit your upcoming turn, as you do with all Reactions. When Dodging, you are backing away, trying to avoid being hit. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2012 16:05:19 GMT -5
orc got action. i got action (dodge). orc got action. i got action (dodge). the orc isn't getting more action than me. don't get me wrong, i like the way this works out  but it really doesn't feel like i lost my turn. i know, on paper, according to the rules, i lost my turn but, in practice, the way it plays out, the orc used his turn to attack. i used my turn to dodge his attack (instead of attacking). i'm trying to imagine a situation where it would feel like i lost my turn, presumably with multiple combatants, but i can't seem to do it. can you illustrate? edit: in fact, according to the way this works out, i don't see how things would be different if all of the 'reactions' were just turned into normal actions that one could take on one's normal turn. (except dodge, i do see that, as a reaction, i don't get to see how much damage my foe is going to do before i decide to dodge. however, this doesn't really seem like a big deal) i know IRL i have a tendency to come across as argumentative. i guess that is true but i don't do it out of malice or as a sign of disrespect. quite the opposite. i usually just agree with people i consider brain-dead. i'm just trying to learn and make sure i'm not missing something. edit2: ok. i have managed to think of 1 situation where having a counter-attack reaction differs from a regular attack action on one's turn. however, it is a rather grim situation so i am still hoping that someone can chime in with another situation where it would be different than a normal attack action on one's turn. the grim situation i have imagined is: your character is out-numbered and being attacked by 3 orcs. the order of turns is orc1, orc2, orc3, you. by counter-attacking, you have the ability to get some damage in before all 3 orcs finish taking a swing at you and probably kill you. |
|
|
|
Post by mister frau blucher on Jun 5, 2012 11:21:19 GMT -5
Hey, its all cool, ewookie! I don't think you are being argumentative. You understand the way this works. Maybe my use of the phrase "you lose your turn" is causing some hair-splitting. You do lose your upcoming turn, because you have simply taken it early with a Reaction.
By nature, Reactions occur out of turn, so I am not quite following how they would occur on your normal turn. If someone is running by you and you want to Counterattack before they move on, that cannot happen on your own turn; the enemy is already past you. And Dodge - it would be too late to Dodge after you have already been hit and taken damage.
Now if you mean you stand still for a turn and declare you will Dodge or Counterattack, I kinda see what you mean, but then you do lose your turn if noone moves adjacent or attacks you.
Also, one thing to keep in mind is this. Orc 1 attacks you; he misses. You decide to Counterattack now, rather than waiting to attack during your turn. This means he cannot Dodge should you hit - this is his turn, and he has already attacked. You cannot Act and React the same turn. So you forfeit your upcoming turn by Counterattacking now, but he cannot react to that. This is another thing that sets taking an action in your turn apart from Counterattacking, in relation to your point above above about not seeing a difference. It is a tactical aspect to be aware of.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2012 11:34:21 GMT -5
great examples that i couldn't think of...thank you!
|
|
but it really doesn't feel like i lost my turn. i know, on paper, according to the rules, i lost my turn but, in practice, the way it plays out, the orc used his turn to attack. i used my turn to dodge his attack (instead of attacking).