Re: Mechanical discussion

[Athelstan]

"
Well posted, done with the fight, just gave up on even trying it, let us continue and that way I don't hold you hostage until Reader comes, whatever, I'll be the shittiest thrower and bowman there is.

[Theomore Tullison]

Assuming base damage 5, fighting 4 and 2b. Expertise makes you do 2.15 more damage than LBF 1 on average and 5.15 more than AXF 1. LBF 1 makes you do 1.7 more damage on average compared to not using it, while AXF 1 is 1.3 less.

The advantage of the latter is that it ignores AR, which against a full-plated opponent does not require you to get in 3 DoS, but the vastly superior dice pool will in most cases make you get 3 DoS often enough that AXF 1 is only a better option to have against a full-plated opponent that also have a rather hefty combat defense to go with it. But the scary part is that if you only do 2 damage per round....you better be able to withstand *his* attacks.

In the current fight, Axe Fighter is a trap.

[Athelstan]

I could soak up to 11 dmg/round using fatigue, but it doesn't matter anymore just wish I would have known that before round 1, thing would be different.

Don't matter now anyway.

[Jon Cobb]

I could soak up to 11 dmg/round using fatigue, but it doesn't matter anymore just wish I would have known that before round 1, thing would be different.

Don't matter now anyway.

It matters a great deal! I saw immediately what you were going for with your build, and I would be furious to have my build invalidated in my very first fight by 2 last-minute rulings from the narrator. It's just not cricket.

The discussion of mechanical benefits aside, this sort of late stage interference also makes for a terrible story. This fight should have been a defining moment in the game, but now one of the participants is hamstrung by rulings he couldn't possibly have foreseen ahead of time. I'm sorry Reader, but these rulings are ill-timed, poorly thought out and are exactly the sort of thing that a player must know before entering a PC into the game. You should withdraw them both at once.

---

As for the mechanical benefits of Axe Fighter I, turning it from working on a hit to a hit causing damage is a significant weakening of the benefit. It's clear to me that the purpose of the benefit is to make axes deadly against users of heavy armor, and IMO that is how it should be. It is mostly useful with lower damage axes such as battle axes and hand axes, and largely redundant with weapons like the long axe.

In comparison, LBF I is a great choice for causing consistent damage against more lightly armored but high CD opponents. In BITW, for instance, Willain Marks could comfortably sit back in his heavy armor throughout the final and just attack using LBF I. It guaranteed him 2 DoS on any attack, which was enough for him to consistently outdamage either Symon or Reynard, while his armor let him easily soak return damage.

Comparing the two benefits in isolation and strictly in terms of damage is therefore a pointless exercise, since their actual usefulness is situational in both cases.

[Reader]

Can review all this today on benefits and go back if people fancy.

[Reader]

FYI, I'm willing to revise the disengagement attack stuff (at least temporarily) but not the axe fighter stuff as that's just how the rules work.

I'll do my best to sort everything in an equitable manner today.

[Jon Cobb]

FYI, I'm willing to revise the disengagement attack stuff (at least temporarily) but not the axe fighter stuff as that's just how the rules work.

I'll do my best to sort everything in an equitable manner today.

Could you please check when your print copy of the rules was last revised? My pdf of the GOT rulebook was last revised November 13 2013, and it says that a hit is sufficient to activate Axe Fighter I (i.e. the same language as in the Chapter 5 pdf you've posted).

I also can't find anything in the errata file from GR that suggests that damage must be caused (i.e. AR beaten) to activate any Axe Fighter benefit. Could you provide a page reference for that?

[Reader]

Suggested resolution:

- Start the fight again
- Without applying the disengagement attack rules (these will be present for subsequent fights)
- Axe Fighter I ruling still stands (it's just how the rules are written, not a ruling on my part. The full rulebook errata file: http://freeronin.com/gr_files/GRR2707e_ ... Errata.pdf makes this very clear. When this was published, it was stated it included all the mechanical changes to chapter 5. Sorry if this is a disappointment to anyone!).
- If Athelstan wants to adjust his benefits after the fight, he can (if he's unhappy with fast or Axe fighter I long term. Letting people switch benefits before a fight feels unfair however).

That way we preserve my desired rulings and Athelstan can still use his envisioned tactic for this fight, while tweaking

How does that sounds to everyone?

[Reader]

Jon - p77. Green Ronin's old forum (now offline) noted the errata file in the above pdf had all the mechanical changes to chapter 5. Some qualities had the text changed seemingly "
by accident"
to old/subtly different versions of the text, with unintended mechanical changes.

[Jon Cobb]

Jon - p77. Green Ronin's old forum (now offline) noted the errata file in the above pdf had all the mechanical changes to chapter 5. Some qualities had the text changed seemingly "
by accident"
to old/subtly different versions of the text, with unintended mechanical changes.

The errata for p.77 doesn't seem to mention anything about damage though:

p.77: axe fighter ii
Add this to the end of the effect description: You must choose which Axe Fighter benefit (if any) applies when you attack with axes.
p.77: axe fighter iii
Add this to the end of the effect description: You must choose which Axe Fighter benefit (if any) applies when you attack with axes.

If there's a discrepancy between the errata file and the rules published in both the Chapter 5 document (which the GR forum post apparently claims its replicating, not replacing) and the latest pdf of the rules, I would certainly assume that it's the chapter pdf/rulebook that takes precedence. But then again, I still can't see the damage requirement mentioned in the errata file (a search of the document only turns up the word damage for pages 52, 78, 87, 163 and 178)...

[Theomore Tullison]

Well, my general position here is that when you post the link to the updated chapter 5, then one must assume that what is to be found in it is what we'll be using. And introducing a house rule on day 4 is kinda late IMO unless play has shown that there's a glaring need for it.

[Reader]

It's not that simple theo, as someone could just as easily interpret we were using the page by page errata, which is also linked to.

Jon - y
I didn't explain well. That errata applies to printed version, which has a damage requirement.

[Ser Fendrel Bartheld]

But where is this change to the Axe Fighter I benefit? I've got the latest version of the book which - just to be entirely sure - I've just downloaded it again since it is said to contain all the changes ([url="
This is the core rulebook, with all of the errata from the documents below updated. If you purchased the early PDF without the errata, you should be able to re-download this PDF for free."
][/url])looked at the [url=page by page errata][/url] and the [url=errated/updated Chapter 5][/url] - which is identical to my version of the book. Both say "
on a hit with the attack"
. The page by page errata doesn't change anything to the Axe Fighter I benefit, only Axe Fighter II and Axe Fighter III. What am I missing?

[Baelon Drakeson]

I have to say that I think it is far more likely that intentional changes were made to the benefits that were then left out of the errata document than that there were so many "
non-mechanical"
changes that happened to actually change a lot of mechanics...

If nothing else, we are going to have to go through and do a benefit-by-benefit comparison;
I know I would also need to make a change.
As Theo pointed out earlier, Blood of Valyria, of which I have made significant use, is also the beneficiary of a change not in the errata document;
from
I suppose I could drop it for Charismatic[Charm] and everything would have worked out the same... I think the only non-charm persuade roll I've made was the Bold Arrival taunt and losing the +2 there would not have made a difference.

[Athelstan]

It all good, let's just carry on, the fight is over YAY! Continue RP I have no interest in a do over of something that has already considerably demotivated to a certain point, lets salvage, lesson learned and carry on.

[Reader]

I've deleted all the bailing out, why not carry on for a round or two? No need to be demotivated.

Are people worried about being injured pre joust?

[Athelstan]

NO, when you kind of unintentionally ruin a pivotal moment for a character in a story with a late change of mechanic and the way it was handled, I'm sorry but no there is not the same build up we had to that moment, there is no more alright a crucial fight win or lost this is a moment of the story to remember, now, it became nothing to e, no motivation, no excitement.

Oh hey I see what you did there, let me ruined for you and saddle you with 2 qualities that are obsolete for the combat style you were striving for, and not only that, when I do the change I don't even let you redo the round it's just, oh sorry you used the mechanic but no longer valid. I think if I knew it wasn't on hit my first round would have been rather different.

Now we can re-piss me off quit the game and carry on, or we can just continue your choice.

[Reader]

We've restored the fight so you get full benefits, I'm happy to admit where I've made a mistake.

I'm very sorry.

[Athelstan]

I said before, no motivation, no interest to do it, I yielded DONE thank you.

[Lady Corrine Marsten]

How does one find one's Cunning if it does not appear to be on their list?

[Athelstan]

Cunning is 2 unless you invest in it, or reduced to 1 at the start.

So any ability not on your sheet would have a value of 2.

[Lady Corrine Marsten]

Ta muchly!

[Baelon Drakeson]

[url=http:
//dragonsdance.
forumatic.
com/viewtopic.
php?p=18109#p18109:3me72s0u]Subject: [Day 5 Round 3]Baelon v Lord Manfryd Mooton[/url:3me72s0u]

[OOC: one lesser action's worth, although neither of you have drawn your sword yet]

Drawing a weapon is a free action per p153, but a lesser action per p164... so which is it?

[Reader]

For BITW, didn't we go with p164, to make the quickdraw quality (one of the short blade ones?) more useful?

"
You can draw a weapon while moving, but you take –1D on all attacks until your next turn."


So you can draw and attack at a penalty/catch your breath and wait for him to come to you/use fatigue and do something creative.

[Baelon Drakeson]

That's right. Alright, action post incoming shortly.

[Sponsored content]