Re: Mechanical discussion

[Athelstan]

Or you could grab him instead of all that

[Reader]

Or you could grab him instead of all that

Considered, but hard to punch through that armour and drags things out. This tactic trades health for fatigue on opponent.

[Loreia]

I don't really see one attack being indicative of just one strike that connects. In the span of three seconds, you may be able to hit your opponent more than once. Higher degrees of success can call for a Wound, but if you decide to take injuries instead, you can roleplay your reasoning. I defy houseruling injuries to one per attack.

[Reader]

I don't really see one attack being indicative of just one strike that connects. In the span of three seconds, you may be able to hit your opponent more than once. Higher degrees of success can call for a Wound, but if you decide to take injuries instead, you can roleplay your reasoning. I defy houseruling injuries to one per attack.

Injuries can be taken multiple times per attack, example in rule oil makes this clear.

[Baelon Drakeson]

Only question here: Is recovering a weapon a free action?

It would be a lesser action (Interact), just like drawing a weapon.

In regard to Loreia's fight:
The way I read two-weapon attacks, the bonus die in fencing would never actually get used - the off hand only adds to damage.
Or are you saying that you would get bonus dice from both specialties? Would they get added together (if he actually had bonus dice in long blades)? Or does the higher one get used?
In this case either interpretation is the same, but that could make a difference in the future.

[Reader]

Be onus dice here is mainly for benefit/I case he's disarmed. I'd consider applying the penalty to main hand attacks however, as with shields.

[Baelon Drakeson]

Be onus dice here is mainly for benefit/I case he's disarmed. I'd consider applying the penalty to main hand attacks however, as with shields.

Ah, ok. The way I read your post in the other thread I thought you were saying it would apply to two-weapon attacks, which was not how I was reading two-weapon attacks.
As for the off-hand penalty - yeah, if it applies for shields it should apply for other off-hand weapons as well. That's just being consistent.

[Nathaniel Mason]

It would be a lesser action (Interact), just like drawing a weapon.

Drawing a weapon is a Free Action. Says so in a couple places in the book, including the section under 'Free Action.'

[Reader]

It would be a lesser action (Interact), just like drawing a weapon.

Drawing a weapon is a Free Action. Says so in a couple places in the book, including the section under 'Free Action.'

Thought we ruled this to lesser, as free draw is part of a benefit and draw weapon also shows up as a lesser action. Agree on inconsistency.

[Nathaniel Mason]

Thought we ruled this to lesser, as free draw is part of a benefit and draw weapon also shows up as a lesser action. Agree on inconsistency.

I'd add it to the House Rule thread then. So everyone is on the same page.

Inconsistency is an understatement. Perhaps it was intentional to give the rules lawyers something to argue about.

[Baelon Drakeson]

Unlikely - more likely a matter of different people writing different chapters and then insufficient reconciliation between them.

Here's another question that came up in my personal combat - can someone who has been knocked down move at all, or do they have to stand up before moving?
I had always interpreted it as they have to stand first, but as written there is no movement restriction for being down - you can sprint full speed if you want.
Clearly that latter should not be an option, but what should be?

None?
1 yard as a lesser/greater action?
A full move as a greater action?
A static penalty to movement?
Some kind of test to move?

So many options, but definitely houserule territory.

[Reader]

Thought we ruled this to lesser, as free draw is part of a benefit and draw weapon also shows up as a lesser action. Agree on inconsistency.

I'd add it to the House Rule thread then. So everyone is on the same page.

Inconsistency is an understatement. Perhaps it was intentional to give the rules lawyers something to argue about.

Good idea. Home soon and will do so.

Knockdown - I've let people move so far. Maybe just prevent sprint? Knockdown is already strong. Picture it as people srabbling about rather than flat on their back. Combat scenes are fluid, even if the rules are "
I go, you go"
.

[Nathaniel Mason]

I would argue move but not sprint.

Movement need not be crawling. It could be rolling away.

Prone has a wide interpretation too. Anything from forced to one knee to flat on ones back.

Simplest fix is to just disallow Sprint when Prone.

Edit: Or Charge, for that matter.

[Nathaniel Mason]

Indeed, and I feel that is appropriate. However, maneuver is described as 'pressing the attack' but does not include weapon specialization. The point being that description is not the ultimate arbiter of when specializations get to be used. :;
):

But perhaps this would be better in the Mechanics thread?

Probably

I would argue that, since you can 'press the attack' with any kind of weapon, defining a specific weapon skill would be inappropriate. That's why I don't think it's a precedent for what we are talking about.

Specifying Strength or Notice is appropriate for the roll being made. Specifying Longblade (to the exclusion of other weapons) is not. IMO.

As to your argument about game balance. Most of those who use Knockdown have sufficient stats to ensure they are successful most of the time already. Allowing Strength would largely just help the NPCs they are fighting to successfully perform the maneuver on them.

[Yoren longshore]

[OOC: Apologies, missed the earlier yield offer;
on the other hand yielding can only be done on your turn (though it is not an action) so this was the first opportunity anyway - works out.

"
[Yield]Athelstan offers information on the wild fire, and what he knows of the Iron Mines, and if need be more information regarding other areas of investigation."

Yield offer rejected. Counteroffer:

1. Athelstan truthfully shares everything he knows about all acts of planting, altering, or removing evidence from all investigation sites, by himself or by others.[/*eybptskh]
2. Athelstan truthfully shares everything he knows about the wildfire, including it's origin, original location, current location, who (if anyone) helped him move it, who else knows of it's existence and/or location, and what he knows of his own or other people's plans for it.[/*eybptskh]
3. Athelstan truthfully shares all of his motivations for returning to the mines with Corrine.[/*eybptskh]

How does this work IC? Renember that the PC never knows if he's been lied to...

[Theomore Tullison]

Basically, it means that Athelstan is sufficiently scared not to lie.

[Yoren longshore]

But IC there is no way to tell if he's not just a good liar, so how much OOC knowledge would be passed IC, do they get to know or will they just guess that he told the truth?

[Gwyneth Drakeson]

The intrigue system transcends IC things a bit, which is a source of some of it's controversy. If a character is forced to give a truthful answer in an intrigue, either by yielding or by being defeated, then the PLAYER is making a promise to give that information truthfully...the events in the game adjust to suit that result.

Technically speaking, the characters don't super-duper totally-wotally know it's truthful, but I think it's generally played as if they do, just for the sake of the narrative.

Otherwise things just get messy, and not in a good way.

[Lady Corrine Marsten]

But IC there is no way to tell if he's not just a good liar, so how much OOC knowledge would be passed IC, do they get to know or will they just guess that he told the truth?

Awareness can give an IC inkling that something is amiss, and it's ok to act on that IC, even if it is not actually correct.

[Reader]

But IC there is no way to tell if he's not just a good liar, so how much OOC knowledge would be passed IC, do they get to know or will they just guess that he told the truth?

A bunch of people have decent awareness rolls or having put things together logically from evidence/investigations.

[Yoren longshore]

But IC theres no way to tell if he's not just a good liar, so how much OOC knowledge would be passed IC, do they get to know or will they just guess that he told the truth?

A bunch of people have decent awareness rolls or having put things together logically from evidence/investigations.

But I'm talking about the issue on general ground, not this specific scenario.
People lie the most when pressed

I did not sleep with that woman, Monica Lewinsky.

So what would happen mechanically if someone simply lies in that situation?

[Lady Corrine Marsten]

If someone lies in such a situation, others present can roll Empathy to detect the lie, the TN being set by the liar's Deception.

[Gwyneth Drakeson]

Mechanically, if I understand right, they're not allowed to lie. If they lose the intrigue, under those conditions, they lose the 'will' to lie. Either they were charmed into telling the truth, or intimidated into it, or convinced to do it. The decision to lie or tell the truth has already been made by the end of the intrigue. The intrigue rules just give a mechanical framework for one character to influence another one in the making of that decision.

So if Athelsten yields now, he's consenting to tell the truth, for whatever reason.

If he does not intend to tell the truth, he's still in the intrigue.

And if he resolves to lie regardless of any other input, then he's quitting the intrigue. With possible consequences to follow.

[Samurel Manderly]

Question, would the person's Deception be Augmented by anything that augments deception in the case of "
reading intentions"
with regards to intrigue?

[Athelstan]

Yes, if he would have caused the damage in the intrigue to do so, which he has not.

So I can quit and just see what happens or he can accept what I offer.

With the consequences already that his House is not in the power to do what he wants.

[Sponsored content]