Re: Mechanical discussion

[Jon Cobb]

Reader has established the following rules for defeat in the melee:

Quick note on melee rules - you can take injuries but a wound, yielding, or running out of Health knock you out.

[url=Link to his post][/url].

[Lady Corrine Marsten]

In the corebook, it says that people who take injuries or wounds in the grand melee lose. What exactly does that entail in the context of the fight? Do we just keep on fighting until we knock each other out and let the spectators place us according to who took an injury from first to last, or are we expected to bow out when we've been hurt? I managed to land an injury on Hardyng, who decided to attack me again. Is this fine, or should we handwave it as an NPC's willful choice to be unsporting?

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I was not aware of that. If it is a lose condition, then I will remove Hardyng's attack, as my intent was not to be unsporting.

[Baelon Drakeson]

In the corebook, it says that people who take injuries or wounds in the grand melee lose. What exactly does that entail in the context of the fight? Do we just keep on fighting until we knock each other out and let the spectators place us according to who took an injury from first to last, or are we expected to bow out when we've been hurt? I managed to land an injury on Hardyng, who decided to attack me again. Is this fine, or should we handwave it as an NPC's willful choice to be unsporting?

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I was not aware of that. If it is a lose condition, then I will remove Hardyng's attack, as my intent was not to be unsporting.

It is not unsporting. Reader has overruled the default. Continuing to fight after an injury is normal and acceptable in this competition.

[Lady Corrine Marsten]

In the corebook, it says that people who take injuries or wounds in the grand melee lose. What exactly does that entail in the context of the fight? Do we just keep on fighting until we knock each other out and let the spectators place us according to who took an injury from first to last, or are we expected to bow out when we've been hurt? I managed to land an injury on Hardyng, who decided to attack me again. Is this fine, or should we handwave it as an NPC's willful choice to be unsporting?

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I was not aware of that. If it is a lose condition, then I will remove Hardyng's attack, as my intent was not to be unsporting.

It is not unsporting. Reader has overruled the default. Continuing to fight after an injury is normal and acceptable in this competition.

I saw just after I'd posted. Thank you.

[Baelon Drakeson]

Bringing this here rather than further cluttering the original thread.

[url=Subject: Melee group 1][/url]

OOC: Discussion with Reader via PM has led me to interpret the house rule about not using fatigue or DP for extra attacks as forbidding us from ever spending them on attack actions, i.e. the extra Lesser Action gained can never be an attack action.

I've PM:ed Dyana about this to discuss options for handling our duel, which may include retconning one or both our actions. Since this fight is now strictly one-on-one, such a discussion should have no effect on any other participants.

[OOC: In this case it is not an issue. Dyana can spend the fatigue first;
that gives her 3 lesser actions. Combine two (the fatigue-granted one and one of the normal ones) into a greater action. Ta-da, one greater action and one attack, without using fatigue for the attack. Page 162 states: "
You have two Lesser Actions, or you may combine them for one Greater Action."
Thus the lesser action from the fatigue does not need to be used specifically for the attack. Where it would matter more is when multiple rolls are being made in the round, say move, knockdown, and attack. Then the fatigue would end up applying to the knockdown and the attack rather than just the attack. In this case though it works out exactly the same, so no retcon is necessary.]

OOC: IMO, you're reading way too much into a single line that is repeated nowhere else, and even by itself doesn't imply that what you're suggesting is possible. There is no "
combining"
Lesser Actions actually going on in combat - you just choose to take a Greater Action or two Lesser Actions on your turn.

Also, since this entire discussion stems from a house rule, using an excessively legalistic reading of the standard rules is no basis for determining how the house rule works. If we were using the standard rules, there would be no question that Dyana's action is in accordance with the rules, and there would be no need to even try and read the standard rules in the way you just did (i.e. a seriously overcomplicated one).

That's all from me. I'll await Dyana's response.

1. From the house rules thread: "
We're using the fatigue rules (but you can't use fatigue or destiny to generate extra attacks)"
emphasis added. No extra attack is in play here, just the normal allotment of one per turn. Perhaps something in a PM stated otherwise, but unless it was stated explicitly I would not assume that to be the case.

2. I brought up the line on page 162 because it is a core (if oft overlooked) detail of the combat system. If there was no combining of lesser actions then greater actions are not possible. So whether we declare it or not, or even think of it or not, if a greater action is being used then there is combining going on, for that is the only way to get a greater action. You do not 'just choose' by the rules, even if under normal circumstances there is no difference between the two. Indeed, this is an important detail (and why it came up in BitW) even without the attack house-rule, because someone could take two fatigue and take two greater actions. Ignoring that rule would prohibit that for no real reason.

3. My reading of the line on page 162, whether 'excessively legalistic' or not, has nothing to do with the house rule. They are two separate issues. It just so happens that one can mitigate an odd consequence of the other. Also, since when do rules have to be repeated to count? I also don't see what is so complicated about reading a sentence and taking it at face-value. It's not the hardest rule in the book to understand, it doesn't even require flipping back and forth between chapters the way, for instance, mounted combat does. How is it 'seriously overcomplicated'?

4. Let's take a step back from the rules for a moment and think about verisimilitude: why should someone be able to sprint then knockdown but not sprint then attack? Or attack then move twice but not attack then sprint? Or move then charge but not sprint then attack. That doesn't seem to make sense at all.

[Nathaniel Mason]

You have two Lesser Actions, or you may combine them for one Greater Action.

Baelon is correct. This rule is very specific and unlike many other rules in the core books, not open to interpretation. Jon's assertion that there is no combining of actions happening in combat is wrong on it's face since the rule specifically states that two lesser actions are being combined into one Greater action. One gets two free lesser actions, and may gain an additional lesser action by spending a fatigue or a DP. Any two of those can be combined to make a Greater action if the player wishes.

The fact that the rule is only stated once is irrelevant. Many of the rules are only stated once. A rule does not need to be repeated to make it valid.

Baelon is also not being 'excessively legalistic'. The rule says what is says, clear in it's statement, and not contradicted or affected by any other text in the core book. The House Rule also has no effect on this rule, as the House Rule simply states that extra lesser actions generated in a combat round cannot be used to 'attack' and 'attack' is also clearly defined under the rules.

If someone were to spend both a DP and a Fatigue for lesser actions in a combat round, they could use four lesser actions, two lesser actions and a greater, or two greater actions. So long as only one of those actions (lesser or greater) is used for an attack, both the Core rule and House rule are satisfied.

[Theomore Tullison]

I have a much more simple take on it. You have one attack per round. The houserule clarifies that fatigue and destiny points cannot give you more than that. Dyana attacked once.

And I'm pretty sure that a fair amount of others has attacked on their third lesser action already, with no reactions from anyone.

[Jon Cobb]

I have a much more simple take on it. You have one attack per round. The houserule clarifies that fatigue and destiny points cannot give you more than that. Dyana attacked once.

That was my interpretation as well, until I asked Reader to clarify his intent because I wanted to be sure I was reading the house rule correctly before taking on Melee Group 3. It's Reader's answers to me via PM that have changed my understanding of the house rule.

[Yoren longshore]

Isn't it easier to simply PM reader, or is he still busy IRL?

[Jon Cobb]

Isn't it easier to simply PM reader, or is he still busy IRL?

Absolutely - this whole public inquiry thing is rather pointless, since it's not about what the majority thinks is right, only what Reader actually says he means.

However, the origin of the dispute is that I did PM Reader for clarification, and that Reader's answer convinced me that things were not as straightforward as they seemed. I'm confident that I've interpreted Reader's response to my questions correctly, and played it that way in melee group 3, but if someone who doesn't buy my stance wants to ask Reader directly, they're welcome to. I'll be happy if it turns out I'm wrong, and if I am, all I ask is that I be extended the same courtesy as I extended to Dyana in allowing her to retcon her actions when she made faulty assumptions on how the game works.

[Theomore Tullison]

Honestly, I would find it rather unreasonable that reader's intent, if indeed that is to disallow any attacks on the third lesser action, is to set a precedence when nothing whatsoever in the houserule does that. The houserule would need to explicitly state that you can't do that, because frankly, supplementing the book and the the contents of the house rule thread with bits and pieces from pm's and various other threads is a very good way to promote chaos where you don't want it.

The issue of extra attacks is actually a suggestion from GR that destiny should allow for that, while fatigue does not, strict interpretation of the book would in fact lead to the conclusion that neither destiny or fatigue does that, but it's one of the things with the book that the narrator ought to clarify.

[Loreia]

Before you get around to posting your round 3 summary, I would like to mention that my 7AR wasn't a mistake. I have Improved Armor Mastery.

Given this though, I think you might be shorting yourself. A Breastplate is 5 AR, 2 AP, 3 Bulk. With both Armor Mastery and Improved Armor Mastery, you should be at 7 AR, 1 AP, 2 Bulk.

I didn't realize armor mastery lowered armor penalty. the description only says the first rank lowers bulk and adds 1 AR, and the second rank lowers adds another AR 1. I thought Armor penalty was separate and unique to the armor in question being worn. Is it because the first rank lowers bulk?

[Baelon Drakeson]

Before you get around to posting your round 3 summary, I would like to mention that my 7AR wasn't a mistake. I have Improved Armor Mastery.

Given this though, I think you might be shorting yourself. A Breastplate is 5 AR, 2 AP, 3 Bulk. With both Armor Mastery and Improved Armor Mastery, you should be at 7 AR, 1 AP, 2 Bulk.

I didn't realize armor mastery lowered armor penalty. the description only says the first rank lowers bulk and adds 1 AR, and the second rank lowers adds another AR 1. I thought Armor penalty was separate and unique to the armor in question being worn. Is it because the first rank lowers bulk?

Per the updated Chapter 5 pdf and the errata (bottom two links [url=in this post by Reader][/url]) Improved Armor Mastery confers +1 AR and reduces penalty to combat defense.

Double checking, I see that it is just the penalty to combat defense and not AP as a whole that is reduced, though... so initiative and quick-stand rolls still suffer the full penalty. Interesting.

[Dyana Marsten]

I'd like to know about the mandatory events...

The Grand Melee is on day 8 too, right? But Earlier? So far I got an injury and 1 fatigue at the Melee, and I don't know in what shape I will be until night. How can I roll in the mandatory events if playing the earlier fight can negate my posts? Should I just assume a value?

[Daveth Coldbrook]

I'd like to know about the mandatory events...

The Grand Melee is on day 8 too, right? But Earlier? So far I got an injury and 1 fatigue at the Melee, and I don't know in what shape I will be until night. How can I roll in the mandatory events if playing the earlier fight can negate my posts? Should I just assume a value?

From the Out of Character thread (if you haven't seen it by now):

Good points. In the name of justice (and letting everyone participate now) this event will ignore fatigue/injury penalties, except those inflicted by the event itself (Greens &
blacks) and The River Ghost.

River ghost - same applies.

Hand wave/milk of the poppy justification.

[Dyana Marsten]

Thanks Davy, hadn't seen that post! :3

[Septon Arlyn]

So when the reader says - Fighting (Brawling) TN9 [optional] - Success - highest result earns +1 glory, 1B brawling and adds 1 to the Green/Black score, but every DoS increases this event's "
War"
score by 1. Critical failure = 1 injury

In the green and black event, what I am taking that to mean is that if you succeeded you get a permanent 1b brawling to your character fighting skill. Is that correct?

[Yoren longshore]

If you get the highest score, you get 1 glory and 1 brawling, unfortunately neither me nor you have much chance at that...

[Reader]

It's a temptation - brawl for potential glory and 1b brawling if you roll highest, but makes the conflict worse.

Thanks to Yoren for prompt, correct clarification.

[Kevan Lyras]

I got to say I really like the "
+1B"
bonus for not that often used abilities as a reward for official events. Obviously, it cannot happen that often to not skew the power balance, but it allows for very nice character building for the succesful PCs

[Reader]

I got to say I really like the "
+1B"
bonus for not that often used abilities as a reward for official events. Obviously, it cannot happen that often to not skew the power balance, but it allows for very nice character building for the succesful PCs

Cheers - you're right that this is deliberately targeted at unusual specialities to create some fun character development without (hopefully) sacrificing balance.

[Yoren longshore]

Also septon, remember that you have a +2 due to 2 dos on the knowledge test

[Loreia]

And just so we're clear, +1 to Greens or Blacks is only permitted to the highest scoring participant(in the brawling test)?

[Reader]

And just so we're clear, +1 to Greens or Blacks is only permitted to the highest scoring participant(in the brawling test)?

Yes, highest scorer only, otherwise it outweighs all the other events. Also reminds me to +1 to the Greens for Ser Derrock's victory in the joust.

[Reader]

And just so we're clear, +1 to Greens or Blacks is only permitted to the highest scoring participant(in the brawling test)?

Yes, highest scorer only, otherwise it outweighs all the other events. Also reminds me to +1 to the Greens for Ser Derrock's victory in the joust.

[Sponsored content]