Re: Mechanical discussion

[Reader]

Sadly, no.

Because reader is mean.

I'm mean but not that mean - you get access after this story, just to create an even playing field for the first story.

You've all earned tons of gold (bravo!) now spend it!

[Septon Arlyn]

So I do have a question about the off season. How long is the off season going to be? will there be 3 months before the next chronicle? 6? a year? How frequently do lords get to attempt to make house management rolls? every month? two months? three months?

[Baelon Drakeson]

My understanding is that it will be at least 9 months, maybe an entire year. There may be 'mini-events' that occur, but nothing on the scale of this tourney.

House management rolls can be made as often as monthly, and if memory serves, no less than every third month. That's up to the lord in question to decide.

[Lady Corrine Marsten]

The last time I discussed it with Reader, they said about 10 months.

[Baelon Drakeson]

Do strength bonus dice apply to knockdowns? It fits the flavor text of the action, but the bonus dice aren't explicitly included (and the flavor text was clearly written by someone with no combat training... brute force is the least effective way to knock an opponent down, and non-brute force knockdown techniques can be found in period swordsmanship writings).

Even without bonus dice anyone with at least one more die of athletics than their opponent has agilty has a decent chance of success. The ratio favors the defender (3.5 avg on the roll, fixed 4 on the passive) so the higher the numbers the lower the chance... but 6 athletics vs. 5 agility is still about a 65% success rate, 5 vs 4 is ~70%, 4 vs 3 is ~75%, etc.

[Jon Cobb]

I'm of the opinion that specialty dice apply whenever appropriate for what you're attempting. I base this mostly on the general description of specialties on p. 54:

Rank in a specialty confers an equal number of bonus dice. Whenever you test an ability, and it’s a situation where your specialty applies, roll a number of test dice equal to your ability rank and bonus dice equal to your specialty rank.

I find further corroboration for this stance in the next section, Specialties &
Passive Tests:

Whenever an opponent rolls a test against your passive test result, you may add the number of bonus dice from a specialty that most closely applies to your passive test result.

I see instances where specific specialties are called out as applying to specific actions as examples and reminders of this general rule, rather than indication that specific written permission is needed to allow their use.

So, in the case of Knockdown, it's described as being based on brute strength, so I would absolutely expect Strength bonus dice to apply, just as I would expect Balance dice to be added to the opponent's passive Agility.

[Jon Cobb]

In my fight [url=here][/url], I knocked down my opponent Dyana, attacked her, and then spent fatigue to move away. I chose to knock her down for two reasons:

1. I wanted the +1D for my attack.
2. Having knocked her prone, I felt it was entirely reasonable to assume that Dyana would not get the free attack which Reader has enforced in other circumstances of characters leaving combat. In all other cases where these free attacks have been granted, the attacker has in no way been hindered from carrying out the attack. Also, Reader noted in his house rules thread that he was introducing free attacks because:

moving in, attacking and moving out again is silly and I'm probably going to make it provoke passive attacks

This was not what happened in my fight, so that's another reason I felt it was reasonable to assume no free attack should occur.

As a further point, since I am running the NCs for Melee Group 3, I can say that I had no intention of enforcing the free attack house rule as long as PCs or NCs made a reasonable effort to prevent them. Successful Knockdown and Maneuver actions would certainly be enough for that in my book.

Baelon has noted via PM that he disagrees with me and stated that he wants me to bring it here for discussion and a ruling from Reader.

[Baelon Drakeson]

To clarify my position:
A maneuver action that successfully moved your opponent into a position that they could not attack from would definitely prevent the free attack.
In this system, knockdowns do not hinder attacks at all, so I do not see why it would hinder the free attack.

Above all, I do not think we should assume such significant deviations from established (if vague) rules. That is why this thread exists.

[Nathaniel Mason]

I admit that these free attacks have confused me a little, but as I am not playing a combat oriented character at the moment, I have not paid as much attention to the discussion as I might have.

Are these particular free attacks being generated by the 'Weapon Reach' rules? In our campaign, we do not use the optional Weapon Reach rules, as we found them cumbersome. In our campaign, usually the only way to generate a 'free' attack is by having a specific benefit like 'Berzerker' or Braavosi F3. If there is an ongoing issue with these Free attacks, I would suggest they be eliminated. They are optional.

[Baelon Drakeson]

[url=Reader introduced a free attack rule, triggered by moving away from an adjacent opponent][/url]:

Further - moving in, attacking and moving out again is silly and I'm probably going to make it provoke passive attacks (so you can do this if you've got a high defence or strong armour, otherwise it'll let your opponents get lots of free hits).

It is quite similar to the Free Attack section on pg. 175 (which is stated to work best with the optional reach rules, but does not require them).

One significant difference is that what Reader posted does not have any clearly stated exceptions. There has been some suggestion (including from myself) that the restriction on the printed rule allowing 1 yard of movement without triggering the free attack should be incorporated. This would represent cautiously withdrawing. A second lesser action movement could then be taken to move further without risk.

[Theomore Tullison]

My pair of coppers:

House Rules says: "
I will probably"
, which if one is to be strict about it means that this is not currently enforced.

And my opinion on the matter is that it's a horrible idea to begin with. It's what makes advanced reach the worst thing GR ever has done with this system.

[Nathaniel Mason]

Well, I have no stake in this really, or axe to grind, so I will give my opinion for what it's worth.

I am not sure why movement, in and of itself, would provoke free attacks. To me, combat is all about movement. Any sword fighting I have seen (either movies or re-enactments) usually involve a lot of moment. Both parties trying to find an opening in their opponent's defense while trying not to give an opening of their own. To me, two people simply bashing at each other statically sounds a lot more unrealistic to me.

Also, since Agility and Athletics are incorporated into CD, that would seem to imply that a least a certain degree of movement happens naturally when two people are squaring off.

In order to move into melee range, attack and move out of melee range in the same round would also cost a DP or a fatigue for that extra lesser action, so there would be a cost associated with that. I don't see much of a point for that, other than to force your opponent to close with you again, and forcing them to use a lesser action to do so that they might have otherwise used for something else. Obviously, due to the DP or FP cost, they couldn't do that for any lengthy period of time (and I honestly think there is much better uses for DP or FP).

In a one-on-one fight, I am not convinced how simply moving causes you to let down your guard and open you up to a 'free attack'. In a fight where you are facing two or more opponents, there might be more of an argument there, but honestly I think that is turning the system into something more tactical than it needs to be. There are plenty of good tactical systems our there that require grids, miniatures and measuring sticks. I don't think this system was meant to be one of them.

[Jon Cobb]

Are these particular free attacks being generated by the 'Weapon Reach' rules? In our campaign, we do not use the optional Weapon Reach rules, as we found them cumbersome. In our campaign, usually the only way to generate a 'free' attack is by having a specific benefit like 'Berzerker' or Braavosi F3. If there is an ongoing issue with these Free attacks, I would suggest they be eliminated. They are optional.

The major problem is that all the circumstances in which they occur are not known, nor is it clear if it's possible to avoid them. I made my play based on what I assumed was common sense - people who are knocked prone cannot be expected to auto-hit an opponent moving away.

I don't much like the rule either, and would prefer that it be withdrawn or only used in very specific circumstances. Rules which make leaving combat instant death tend to result in every fight being a fight to the death, because retreat is not a reasonable option. That's not the sort of game I want to play.

[Baelon Drakeson]

House Rules says: "
I will probably"
, which if one is to be strict about it means that this is not currently enforced.

Well, it has been enforced on the few times it has come up - when opponents fled from us during the Marei's Seven fight.

And my opinion on the matter is that it's a horrible idea to begin with. It's what makes advanced reach the worst thing GR ever has done with this system.

I agree that the advanced reach rules are one of the worst things in this system - I won't say the worst because there are so may problem things to choose from... overall I love the system but there are so many problem areas...

Either way, I don't think that it is the free attacks rule that makes the advanced reach so terrible - I think it is terrible even without the free attacks rule. Too complex, penalties are too large, penalties apply in nonsensical situations (-1D any time you use two weapons with mismatched reach? So much for some of the classic and historically accurate weapon pairings - longsword and dirk, longsword and buckler, rapier and dagger, etc.)... yeah, I think the free attacks rule is the BEST part of the advanced reach rules... not that that is saying much.

In fact, the only problem I have with the free attacks rule is that passive attacks are much too high for typical CDs. That could be rectified in various ways, if desired. Honestly, I don't really care what the rule is (or even if we have one at all)... just that we know what it is specifically and that it applies to everyone equally. Rule application and interpretation is NOT something players should be (or allowed to be) creative with. If that were the case, why have rules at all? Back to little kids cops and robbers: "
bang, you're dead!"
"
nuh uh, you missed"
"
no I didn't!"
"
yes you did!"
etc. ad nauseum.

I am not sure why movement, in and of itself, would provoke free attacks.

It doesn't. Nothing in this prevents or discourages movement altogether... just movement away from your enemy. Even then I feel that Reader's vaguely worded house rule is problematic on this front, but the Free Attacks rule on page 175 is not. With that rule, you can move up to a yard without triggering a free attack. That represents the kind of cautious withdrawal you are thinking of. You move slower as you are focused on defense. Moving at full speed (with the book rule in place) implies that you are turning your back to your enemy in reach of their weapon... not a smart thing to do. On the other hand, if you need to disengage and cover some distance, you have to take two actions to do it. Limited-action games like this are all about selecting the appropriate action as the tactical situation demands - and that means not always getting to do everything (like attacking then running away in the same round)

In order to move into melee range, attack and move out of melee range in the same round would also cost a DP or a fatigue for that extra lesser action, so there would be a cost associated with that.

Neither version of this rule was intended to apply only to moving in/moving out in the same round. From p24 of this thread:

Further - moving in, attacking and moving out again is silly and I'm probably going to make it provoke passive attacks (so you can do this if you've got a high defence or strong armour, otherwise it'll let your opponents get lots of free hits).

How would this even be done, other than with a DP for extra actions?

Fatigue or over multiple rounds.

Indeed, the only time it has actually come into play (the M7 fight) did not involve moving in &
out in the same round.

In a one-on-one fight, I am not convinced how simply moving causes you to let down your guard and open you up to a 'free attack'. In a fight where you are facing two or more opponents, there might be more of an argument there, but honestly I think that is turning the system into something more tactical than it needs to be. There are plenty of good tactical systems our there that require grids, miniatures and measuring sticks. I don't think this system was meant to be one of them.

In general I agree. However, I do not think this rule makes the game any more tactical than having options like charge, reckless attack, and cautious attack instead of just the default attack action. The advanced reach rules definitely do that, and that is part of why I do not like them.

The major problem is that all the circumstances in which they occur are not known, nor is it clear if it's possible to avoid them.

I completely agree that this is the biggest problem, and why I thought you should bring your argument here rather than just assuming it to be correct.

Rules which make leaving combat instant death tend to result in every fight being a fight to the death, because retreat is not a reasonable option. That's not the sort of game I want to play.

I wouldn't want to play that game either! Thankfully this rule does not do this. NOTHING in this game is guaranteed death other than a burnt destiny point. Even if you have to take a hit retreat is a viable option. Even against a legendary foe with 10 fighting and 10 athletics, the worst they can do to you in one hit is a single wound. That's hardly instant death.

[Theomore Tullison]

If anything, the rule makes it a lot less tactical. If you have better movement than your opponent, then most advantages of this is eliminated. If you are using a reach weapon, then it doubly sucks if opponent closes the distance. In addition to this, a houserule that favors investment into primary offense (fighting) is a bad idea to begin with.

[Baelon Drakeson]

If anything, the rule makes it a lot less tactical. If you have better movement than your opponent, then most advantages of this is eliminated. If you are using a reach weapon, then it doubly sucks if opponent closes the distance. In addition to this, a houserule that favors investment into primary offense (fighting) is a bad idea to begin with.

If anything it would encourage investing in higher defenses so that you can take the hit better... there's no advantage to investing more in fighting than there already was.

Honestly though, in an action-economy game like this unless you are trying to run away completely there just isn't much reason to back out of combat. You use your limited actions to move and then your opponent uses their movement to follow/charge, or use Catch Your Breath, or prepare to counterattack, or pass for +2b the next round.... and what have you gained? The need to use more actions moving back in the next round. Sure, you could use fatigue/DP every round to move/attack/move, but you aren't going to be able to keep that up for long and those fatigue penalties are really going to start to add up.... and your opponent can just charge you unless you have a ridiculous amount more move than them (more than twice their movement).

[Jon Cobb]

I wouldn't want to play that game either! Thankfully this rule does not do this. NOTHING in this game is guaranteed death other than a burnt destiny point. Even if you have to take a hit retreat is a viable option. Even against a legendary foe with 10 fighting and 10 athletics, the worst they can do to you in one hit is a single wound. That's hardly instant death.

You may safely assume that my statement in that form was hyperbole.

How about this for an attempt at clarity:
Rules which make leaving combat just as bad, or even worse, than staying in it, are not conducive to making characters retreat when they're in danger of losing a fight.

Case in point:
1. Dyana wins initiative and smacks me for 4 DoS, which I narrowly avert by spending fatigue to stay at 1(!) Health.
2. I can hit back and damage her, but as you so cleverly noticed, that will not knock her out of the fight. Knocking her down also does nothing to prevent her from hitting me just as hard next round.
3. With the free attacks house rule, I will be subject to another 4 DoS attack that will end the fight for me if I try to retreat. Leaving is therefore not a reasonable use of my actions.
4. With no free attacks rule, I can safely disengage and, having knocked her down, be reasonably hopeful that she won't be able to attack me next round without making an extraordinary effort.
5. If she doesn't make this extraordinary effort (or fails at it, which is also possible), I have now regained my freedom of choice. I can catch my breath, I can set up for counterattack, or I can just move far enough away that I will no longer be a priority target. I can even go somewhere else and attack a less threatening opponent.

Naturally, if this weren't a melee with no wounds allowed, then yes, eating a free attack doesn't need to mean that the fight is over. But it would definitely mean that my combat effectiveness will be seriously degraded through injuries or wounds, to the point that my opponent will have gained a large advantage over me, making a comeback far less likely.

So, I stand by statement that rules like this do nothing but discourage retreat from serious danger, and instead force all but the most extremely defensively oriented characters to stay in a combat they are pretty much doomed to lose.

[Theomore Tullison]

If someone has better movement than you, and you are adjacent at the start of his turn, he can attack you with a lesser action, than move away with the other. You would then need to charge him, and since move+attack often is more dangerous, that might be just the edge he needs to tip the scales. If he gets in a free attack every time you do, then that might shut your strategy down.

Someone with a reach weapon would likely move away to avoid the penalty, which is a disadvantage to begin with, now doubly so.

You shut down tactical options and favor character builds that are suited to just stand there and take it. Perhaps more egregious, you favor the strongest fighter builds even more than before.

[Baelon Drakeson]

....

Yes, what you did was a decent option if it eliminates the free attack... a dangerous assumption to make.

Alternately, you could have:
1) Used the Maneuver action then moved.
2) Increased your defense with a Cautious Attack and a fatigue point to eliminate AP, then moved.
3) Disarmed her then moved.
4) Been creative with the Use Ability action (though this too should be run by a narrator) and then moved.
Lack of options is clearly not a problem. I didn't even include options that necessitated taking fatigue for extra actions, or those that become feasible if the book rule is used instead.

If someone has better movement than you, and you are adjacent at the start of his turn, he can attack you with a lesser action, than move away with the other. You would then need to charge him, and since move+attack often is more dangerous, that might be just the edge he needs to tip the scales. If he gets in a free attack every time you do, then that might shut your strategy down.

If my opponent has better movement than me and moving and charging is not in my best interest (which means I'm already in trouble), then instead of following I just wait until they come back. In the meantime I recover with Catch Your Breath, or if I expect a charge I set for a charge and get all the advantages of charging without downsides (AND before their hit, so any fatigue or injuries, or wounds they take make their charge less dangerous) or I move to a more advantageous position, or I pass to get 2b on my next round, etc. Generally speaking though, I would rather just charge them. The penalty die is annoying, but the extra damage per DoS is usually worth it. If not, I have lots of other actions that then make my opponent just waste actions coming back to me. Heck, a simple counterattack means that all their movement did was waste time.

Someone with a reach weapon would likely move away to avoid the penalty, which is a disadvantage to begin with, now doubly so.

Yes, well, making a terrible option worse isn't really that big of a deal, is it? In this system reach weapons are always problematic (unless your opponent is also using a reach weapon, at which point Reach is pointless). Having to choose between -1D or sacrificing a lesser action is always going to be bad, so why bother in the first place?

You shut down tactical options and favor character builds that are suited to just stand there and take it. Perhaps more egregious, you favor the strongest fighter builds even more than before.

What tactical options? Other than just plain old running away (sometimes a very important option) my opponent retreating is in my favor... regardless of my build. They can spend fatigue/DP to make it actually matter.... and I can spend fatigue/DP to make it still not matter.

[Theomore Tullison]

Well, consider the scenario of a guy with a reach weapon and movement 3, that build is a good counter against someone with movement 2, and quite viable against someone with movement 3..at least if you have good enough agility to not worry overly much about knockdowns, because if you want to do a reach weapon strategy, then knockdowns will shut it down.

He'll use a lesser action to move, true enough, but so will his opponent, so this equals out. However, against the bulked down character, those 3 yards requires charging, and he has the options of charging you, sprint away from you, perform some non-attack action that allows you to hit him again next round, or start using destiny/fatigue just to be allowed to use any of the other options. Against the not-so-bulked guy? Both will do move and attack each round, which places them on equal footing in that regard.

My experience is that a charge attack tends to be slightly less dangerous than a standard attack, so without this house rule, characters using reach weapons are viable. With it though, they're useless.

In a one vs one, someone employing this strategy of inviting opponent to charge after him may lead to the Symon/Reynard sillyness of BITW, but in the melee, it may well be exactly what brings you away from the more dangerous opponents and make them attack each other rather than you.

[Jon Cobb]

Yes, what you did was a decent option if it eliminates the free attack... a dangerous assumption to make.

Alternately, you could have:
1) Used the Maneuver action then moved.
2) Increased your defense with a Cautious Attack and a fatigue point to eliminate AP, then moved.
3) Disarmed her then moved.
4) Been creative with the Use Ability action (though this too should be run by a narrator) and then moved.
Lack of options is clearly not a problem. I didn't even include options that necessitated taking fatigue for extra actions, or those that become feasible if the book rule is used instead.

1) Much less chance of success, therefore far less desirable.
2) CD 15 vs. 23 is still 2 DoS, putting me at negative health and forcing me to take an injury in addition to having forced me to take fatigue.
3) Beat Difficulty 23 with 2 DoS? Huge chance of success there.
4) Oh, and a mystery option to be adjudicated by the narrator. Splendid.

And this coming from the man who only the other day was telling me how he always prefers to stack the deck in his favor as much as possible. If a 50/50 chance wasn't enough for you to count it as an agreeable option, why should I accept having only options with a slim chance of success as my only options?

Again, not much point in continuing this discussion. I'll bow out and await Reader's response.

[Baelon Drakeson]

1) Much less chance of success, therefore far less desirable.
2) CD 15 vs. 23 is still 2 DoS, putting me at negative health and forcing me to take an injury in addition to having forced me to take fatigue.
3) Beat Difficulty 23 with 2 DoS? Huge chance of success there.
4) Oh, and a mystery option to be adjudicated by the narrator. Splendid.

I was speaking of options, not whether or not they were ideal. Of course they are not;
if they were we wouldn't be having this conversation.
I mainly listed these because of the discussion about a lack of tactical options. As I said lack of options was not the problem... not that they would be easy.
Besides, wouldn't the game be boring if everything was easy?

And this coming from the man who only the other day was telling me how he always prefers to stack the deck in his favor as much as possible. If a 50/50 chance wasn't enough for you to count it as an agreeable option, why should I accept having only options with a slim chance of success as my only options?

Yes, I was saying that I prefer not to plan a high-risk/high reward strategy with only a coin toss odds of success when I have other options. That would be foolishness. However, making plans like that is a luxury of ideal situations. You were not in an ideal situation. Typically one must make the best of bad options. No one should expect to have great options in every situation. That's just not realistic.
Really, though, what's that got to do with the movement/free attack rule? Not much, really...

Again, not much point in continuing this discussion. I'll bow out and await Reader's response.

Agreed. I'm sick of playing devil's advocate for a rule I don't really care one way or another about. The only reason I put this much effort into it is that I feel rule decisions should be made rationally. I'm teaching critical thinking skills this summer, and it's hard to shut that off.

[Reader]

Free attacks still trigger even if people are knocked down. Think of them as knocked to one knee but still able to strike or tackle people etc.

[Jon Cobb]

Free attacks still trigger even if people are knocked down. Think of them as knocked to one knee but still able to strike or tackle people etc.

Oh dear. That's most definitely not the response I was hoping for.

I see the situation like this - I knocked Dyana prone, I hit her hard enough to inflict an injury, and then stepped back directly away from her to avoid an attack. I didn't try to go over her or round her, just directly away from her in the direction where she would be hardest put to do anything at all. This would certainly no have been Jon turning around and running away, but a controlled retreat from a downed foe.

To put it simply, this leaves no realistic options open to Jon to actually leave combat without being instantly defeated - the fight will have been decided the moment Dyana won initiative and managed a slightly above average roll on her first attack. Is that really the sort of combat you want to encourage?

Is the option to move 1 yard to avoid a free attack at least in play (per p. 175)? That might salvage matters for me.

[Lady Corrine Marsten]

I'll bow out and await Reader's response.

What's the point in awaiting Reader's response if you are going to reject his adjudication when it's not what you wanted?

[Sponsored content]