tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5193077301811512734.post5981976121587946765..comments2023-10-02T10:12:03.825-03:00Comments on Orbs and Balrogs: Proposal for a new melee combat option: Evaluate ( combat opening )bongotastichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06403616300118528548noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5193077301811512734.post-85400611224456688482013-05-21T23:14:13.474-03:002013-05-21T23:14:13.474-03:00Thanks Peter,
A normal evaluate gives up to +3 in...Thanks Peter,<br /><br />A normal evaluate gives up to +3 in 3 turns. This evaluates gives about 3 points worth of modifier, but not all turns. Sometime, when the opponent is better at keeping his side tight that you are at spotting openings, the second just goes by. In the end, the average benefit per unit's time is the same. <br /><br />It abstracts minute movements: the defender tries its best to keep everything protected, but its going to be as good as its weapon skill. We can't simulate every single body motion: the process returns something out of sort when it is spotted.<br /><br />That it is tied to an app, I can see you point. Making a table to capture everything would be incredibly tedious and I wouldn't use it. Hitting a screen once and get something seems more usable. We can always detail more clearly what it does, but we're not sure whether things will remain as they are for now... <br /><br />Oddness in results can be sorted out initially by asking for a reroll (the right button). We are shutting down clunky combinations as we find them. However, in the case that you mention, I'd claim that the defensive position depend on the relative position of both foes and their gears: you move ou of the way and lose this opportunity. <br /><br />Testing will tell. if the idea is good, it'll stick.<br /><br />Cheers,bongotastichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06403616300118528548noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5193077301811512734.post-74091146983507793372013-05-21T23:05:14.753-03:002013-05-21T23:05:14.753-03:00It makes it harder to see opening. But yea, it wou...It makes it harder to see opening. But yea, it wouldn't make a difference in keeping opening closed for you.bongotastichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06403616300118528548noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5193077301811512734.post-36588277610041057002013-05-21T22:31:09.638-03:002013-05-21T22:31:09.638-03:00How would a full face helm hurt you? It might make...How would a full face helm hurt you? It might make it hard for you to make a Per roll, but it won't make your DX-based roll not to have an opening any lower.Peter Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14246000382321978462noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5193077301811512734.post-67799912926253098202013-05-21T22:30:09.736-03:002013-05-21T22:30:09.736-03:00I'm a little unsure how this is generated. It ...I'm a little unsure how this is generated. It seems like, lacking the app, I can't use this rule. It's app or nothing, which isn't something I'm pre-disposed to like in a rule.<br /><br /><br />The weird thing is, and one I know my players would moan about, is that the opening isn't really "there" unless you've got the Per to spot it. And nothing they do with their character allows them to, say, especially shield their weapon, counter observation, not expose what the app says you've exposed, etc. <br /><br />Plus, there are some odd results:<br /><br /><br />"Nothing's open!<br /><br />No Opportunity observed, Do Nothing for this turn"<br /><br />Okay, so I get this result - I can't convert to an immediate attack. I just "Do Nothing." Even the tiniest chance of that means my players won't try this, because almost anything is better than Do Nothing.<br /><br />Or "You spotted a vulnerability on yourself, you may close it and apply your bonus to the next active defense in this turn if you end your turn within your opponent's main weapon reach<br /><br />Bonus to You: 1"<br /><br />What if I back out of his reach, I lose my bonus? That seems . . . odd.<br /><br />I think this is going to take a little testing. ;)<br />Peter Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14246000382321978462noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5193077301811512734.post-78856740075851857702013-05-21T20:57:00.314-03:002013-05-21T20:57:00.314-03:00What is good for goose is good for gander. Putting...What is good for goose is good for gander. Putting on a full face helmet comes at a cost that I doubt is worth the DR. bongotastichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06403616300118528548noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5193077301811512734.post-84214113997006717172013-05-21T20:26:02.512-03:002013-05-21T20:26:02.512-03:00Would a GM ever consider using Evaluate against th...Would a GM ever consider using Evaluate against the PCs?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17020754147282357948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5193077301811512734.post-13589751635983451032013-05-21T16:36:41.285-03:002013-05-21T16:36:41.285-03:00Tahnks Douglas,
1) Not sure about the best mecha...Tahnks Douglas, <br /><br />1) Not sure about the best mechanic, this can be tried many different ways. Trying out will tell.<br /><br />2) Closures could be implemented without too much trouble. Making pairs of openings/closures that make sense together would be a bit more work, but doable.<br /><br />3) I've already changed the modifier code to favor the penalty to defense instead of bonus to Hit. I think that the opening should be more slanted to a defense penalties, after all. bongotastichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06403616300118528548noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5193077301811512734.post-37549008401748808202013-05-21T15:32:35.090-03:002013-05-21T15:32:35.090-03:00Really neat. A few comments:
* I might look at a ...Really neat. A few comments:<br /><br />* I might look at a slightly different mechanic. Maybe declare an Evaluate, and on your NEXT turn, you can roll the contest as you describe. Then you can act using the opening, act some other way, or not.<br /><br />* If you want to do Evaluate and Attack in one turn, roll at -6, just like a Rapid Strike.<br /><br />* I think it would be really cool if along with an opening, there's a corresponding "closure." So your foe is open to a low-line grapple (-2 to defend), but all high-line strikes might be at +2 to defend. High line grapples and low-line strikes are unchanged.<br /><br />* Very particular note about one grappling result I saw, with a +1 to your ability to grapple. That won't help on a grapple based on an attack/defense, in my experience. You want to penalize your foe's ability to actively defend if you want this opening to be exploited. That's the rate-limiting step to convert to success here.Douglas Colehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04292678529266123501noreply@blogger.com