Re: Mechanical discussion

[Nathaniel Mason]

Yes, that's what I understand as the rule, but this session of Mollify clearly states otherwise, as it says "
YOUR test is modified by THE TARGET'S disposition, as normal"
, but I believe it was a misspell or something like that, because I don't see how what this box propose could be workable.

Especially when you may not know what the target's disposition toward you may be.

The book is riddled with errors like this. Many transferred verbatim from Edition 1.

[Baelon Drakeson]

Indeed. I feel my skills at deciphering complex and abstract philosophical texts have contributed greatly to my being able to interpret this rulebook...

For intimidate, I think it would be appropriate to reverse the modifiers - it's harder to intimidate someone you like and easier to intimidate someone you are malicious towards.
That makes intimidate VERY powerful, but of course comes with some severe drawbacks in terms of people attacking you, poisoning you, burning down your house, etc.

[Ser Raynald Dulver]

Well, if you use Deception to Intimidate you can make use os those bonuses related to a negative disposition, but the logic is very weird indeed.

[Reader]

Indeed. I feel my skills at deciphering complex and abstract philosophical texts have contributed greatly to my being able to interpret this rulebook...

For intimidate, I think it would be appropriate to reverse the modifiers - it's harder to intimidate someone you like and easier to intimidate someone you are malicious towards.
That makes intimidate VERY powerful, but of course comes with some severe drawbacks in terms of people attacking you, poisoning you, burning down your house, etc.

I quite like this, may well implement it for story 2. Maybe I could tweak the bonuses to intimidate down a little.

[Benedict Marsten]

Disposition bonus/penalties are based on your disposition towards your opponent.

If YOU are affectionate toward your target, you get a +5 to Persuasion (or -2 to Deception) (regardless of how they may feel towards you.)

If YOU are Unfriendly toward your target, you get a -4 to Persuasion (or +2 to Deception.)

Mollify simply applies that bonus/penalty to your roll. So if you were Malicious to the person you were trying to Mollify, you would take a -6 penalty to this roll (your hatred of them would make it more difficult for you to reassure them.)

That is my understanding, in any case.

Yes, that's what I understand as the rule, but this session of Mollify clearly states otherwise, as it says "
YOUR test is modified by THE TARGET'S disposition, as normal"
, but I believe it was a misspell or something like that, because I don't see how what this box propose could be workable.

Anyway, thank you for helping me!

The thing with mollify is it is generally the opposite of normal intrigue actions as you are helping that person remain calm. Hence why you get there disposition bonus. If they hate you they don't want your help if they love you it is easier to calm them. Just my two cents.


Now on to my question for mollify does it only effect the incoming influence on that round or replenish composure in general?

[Baelon Drakeson]

Now on to my question for mollify does it only effect the incoming influence on that round or replenish composure in general?

It "
restores"
, so the latter.

[Loreia]

Hi! So, in my latest post in my personal combat thread for Peacemakers, I attempted to disarm my opponent. I passed my enemy's passive Fighting, but I failed to get 2 degrees of success as the rulebook says I must in order to knock the weapon from his hands.
[url=http://dragonsdance.forumatic.com/viewtopic.php?f=191&
t=1969&
start=10#p55511][/url]

I find this troubling. Should I not get something for my success? One degree of success is, by the rulebook's own definition, a success, and it is a Greater action, mind. I'm devoting my whole turn to this, I want something to show for it.

[Theomore Tullison]

That is what the rulebook says. I find it somewhat peculiar that it's often easier to smash your opponent's sword than to slam it out of his hand, but may be that smashing the sword is too easy to begin with.

[Loreia]

That does seem strange. Wouldn't it be more difficult to break a weapon your opponent was using, rather than if it were lying on the ground or on a table?

Perhaps with one degree, Raho simply doesn't get to use his dagger or apply any of its qualities on his next turn?

[Septon Arlyn]

I think a better house rule would be one degree disarms the target, the second degree allows you to catch the weapon if you have a free hand. To me it makes more thematic success to have you disarm the person and if you disarm with flourish you can catch it."

[Baelon Drakeson]

Hi! So, in my latest post in my personal combat thread for Peacemakers, I attempted to disarm my opponent. I passed my enemy's passive Fighting, but I failed to get 2 degrees of success as the rulebook says I must in order to knock the weapon from his hands.
[url=http://dragonsdance.forumatic.com/viewtopic.php?f=191&
t=1969&
start=10#p55511][/url]

I find this troubling. Should I not get something for my success? One degree of success is, by the rulebook's own definition, a success, and it is a Greater action, mind. I'm devoting my whole turn to this, I want something to show for it.

I believe the reason it is set up that way is because of the critical fail condition. By having the success be at 2 DoS, it gives much more room for failing without losing your own weapon. In this case (4 fighting):
<
= 11: Loreia loses her sword.
12-20: No effect.
>
= 21: Raho loses his sword.

If the rulebook listed the TN as passive fighting +5 it would be:
<
= 16: Loreia loses her sword.
17-20: No effect.
>
= 21: Raho loses his sword.

The second option is MUCH more dangerous.

On the other hand, if the TN is JUST passive fighting:
<
= 11: Loreia loses her sword.
11-15: No effect.
>
= 16: Raho loses his sword.

This seems too easy. Why wouldn't everyone just open with a disarm? A reasonably skilled fighter would have very little difficulty disarming an opponent of similar skill level (the effect of bonus dice is higher on active tests than it is on passive tests), and the critical fail condition would be negligible (less than a 1% chance in the current fight.)

Consider too, the effect - disarming your opponent, especially with the disengage/free attack rules, is VERY powerful. That should be difficult.

That is what the rulebook says. I find it somewhat peculiar that it's often easier to smash your opponent's sword than to slam it out of his hand, but may be that smashing the sword is too easy to begin with.

part of what makes it easy to smash a weapon is that the damage is multiplied per DoS as usual.

It seems to me that Disarming a is a high-skill maneuver. Smashing requires less skill, but brute force [damage] comes into play. Perhaps the TN should be the targets passive fighting, and the TN listed should just be the weapon's "
health"
. That might make it too hard though. Both actions need to be weighed against the opportunity cost of just attacking (or some other action).

[Loreia]

You make good points. I hear you loud and clear, but I don't find it fair that I get nothing. As it is, I'd have to be overpowered compared to my opponent or very lucky.

[Baelon Drakeson]

Oh, I agree that disarm is perhaps too difficult to be worth it - you may notice that Baelon doesn't use them.

Then again, having had some weapons training, disarming your opponent is very difficult, particularly when they have been trained against it. Proper grip on weapon is the first thing I was taught, both in fencing and in kung fu. (The videos floating around about how the ways to disarm a gunman are a little misleading in that respect)

[Dunstan Tullison]

It is too easy to smash a weapon, and I agree just passive fighting would be too hard.

maybe we could do a TN + opponents fighting skill, maybe even with specialty dice applied if he is using the weapon he has a specialty for

. so smash Dunstan's mace - if it was TN12 it would now be 18 (4t2b). 16 if he wore a sword, for example. With "
hp"
being original TNs.

[Athelstan]

It is easier to smash a weapon, but I think you could just have something like weapon/shield Health according to material and some AR.

[Ser Raynald Dulver]

My only problem to break and smash sre the dificulties, theyre too low. The book says that a stone wall from a castle would have dif. 18 to break. Now unless there is some rule saying that only siege weapons may damage buildinfs, this means any decent knight would be able to pass throuh walls with relative ease.

[Athelstan]

I think it was meant for Siege weapons TN,

[Ser Raynald Dulver]

But I am perfectly fjne with disarm. Passive fighting skill plus 5 its not incredible high to the point of being impossible and is hih enough to make a line between decent and elite fighters.

[Yoren longshore]

Just in case anyone wonders OOC the green flames is an old party trick: Although my memory is flawed I think that it's a certain coppersalt that makes the reaction.

[Yoren longshore]

Copper sulfate it was! As a kid I used to coax my father into doing it at all possible times

http://chemistry.about.com/od/coloredfi ... Flames.htm

[Reader]

Just in case anyone wonders OOC the green flames is an old party trick: Although my memory is flawed I think that it's a certain coppersalt that makes the reaction.

Do you lot believe this rubbish? It's wildfire, get him!

[Yoren longshore]

Just in case anyone wonders OOC the green flames is an old party trick: Although my memory is flawed I think that it's a certain coppersalt that makes the reaction.

Do you lot believe this rubbish? It's wildfire, get him!

Yes, I just needed to make an OOC statement that it was not simply juju, IC we'll plrobably see sone reactions.

[Theomore Tullison]

So subject reader wanted asked about here:

Interpretation of Treacherous and use in events, Reynald assumed it counted as simple intrigue and thus applied, I didn't think so, but from chapter 1, I applied it for multiple events before I realized that the quality doesn't work for everything I thought it did and swapped it out with courteous, because courteous applies to everything, with nobody taking note of it. Which kinda sets a precedence for Reynald's assumption holding true.

And famous and expertise are still better as far as dice results goes and as long as events reads persuasion/deception (any).

This got buried.

Anyway, my suggestion for solution:

In an event that takes a deception roll and compares it to some number (a TN and/or the rolls of other characters) to determine some sort of result counts as a simple intrigue, and thus treacherous may be added. But not if you additionally test some other ability (unless it is persuasion) as part of the same comparison.

To explain how this interpretation would work by using examples:

Calling first upon X:
Here you can test deception, but since you also test status and the results are determined by the total across both rolls, this is not a simple intrigue and treacherous does not apply.

Peacemakers:
The thievery and persuasion/deception options are stand alone tests that puts you up against a TN (and the results of others), and are thus simple intrigues and treacherous applies. Any other test you would make is not part of the comparison for the results of that test.

From chapter 1:
Gift giving: viewtopic.php?f=65&
t=371
One of the results is keyed to the persuasion/deception roll and nothing else, and thus it is simple intrigue and treacherous applies.
A heated debate: viewtopic.php?f=65&
t=833
All of this is persuasion/deception, hence it's a series of simple intrigues and treacherous applies.

This would also happen to make all the deception rolls in events thus far in chapter 2 observe the correct usage of treacherous. I'd halfway argue that this by extension should apply to investigations also, by the same logic.

[Nathaniel Mason]

I think, in all cases where you are directly lying to people (either inside an Intrigue or outside an Intrigue) Treacherous should apply.

However, if you are merely deceiving people (which is subtly different from lying) such as cheating at cards or wearing a disguise, Treacherous should not apply.

If you are questioning witnesses, and lying through your teeth as you do, I think it's perfectly reasonable to allow Treacherous.

Direct communication is the deciding factor here, I think. Whether we call it a simple intrigue or a something else, you are lying to people in order to influence them to give you want you want. Well within Treacherous territory IMO.

[Theomore Tullison]

That's a lot harder to codify, and would need a rewrite of how the benefit works.

Though when stating that Theomore is Treacherous, the implication is that you should not trust him, which may mean any number of things, not necessarily that he will lie to you. So I would be inclined to disagree on that account.

[Sponsored content]