Re: Mechanical discussion

[Nathaniel Mason]

Well.. the Advantage says Deception "
in an Intrigue"
which means two people talking to each other.

My point merely extrapolates from that. I actually thought I was supporting your position, but obviously not.

I won't get into 'implications'. It's implied you don't really trust people who are Sinister or Reviled either, but that does not change the text of the Advantage or Flaw.

[Ser Raynald Dulver]

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.

I like your logic, Theo! And I can easily agree with these terms!

[Theomore Tullison]

Well.. the Advantage says Deception "
in an Intrigue"
which means two people talking to each other.

My point merely extrapolates from that. I actually thought I was supporting your position, but obviously not.

I won't get into 'implications'. It's implied you don't really trust people who are Sinister or Reviled either, but that does not change the text of the Advantage or Flaw.

Eh, sinister people just scare you. Reviled people are generally hated, but might be you could still trust them. Treacherous people you shouldn't trust, but you may very well not be aware of that.

[Gwyneth Drakeson]

Hehe, yeah, it would be a little silly if every treacherous person had a name tag that said 'treacherous' on it. That would have the opposite of the intended effect.

Now, once a person's treacherous nature is revealed, then it's another thing entirely...

[Loreia]

Theomore's suggestions as revised by Nathan. I second this.

[Theomore Tullison]

Hmm, actually, at first I sort of read Nathan as:

1. If you lie, treacherous should apply.
2. If you do not lie, it should not.

I totally agree that Treacherous should not apply to disguise and cheat. Since that's another skill. Courteous applies, funnily enough, but maybe impeccable manners helps making people conclude that "
No, it can't be!"


To have the benefit working outside of intrigue would still require house ruling it to be so. From a rule-lawyer perspective, changing it from "
Add cunning to deception rolls during intrigue"
to "
Add cunning to tests involving act and bluff"
would probably be the best way to make it usable outside of intrigue also. Clarifying what counts as intrigue and what doesn't is a less intrusive action than to change the benefit.

A lot of Theomore's MO is to take the parts of the truth that serves his purpose, then packaging it in a manner best suited to bring forth the desired reaction, say befriending a bowman to gain an advantage in his dealings with the Dulvers, or treating Ser Hugo with honor and respect because it suits him to cultivate an image as a chivalrous knight. Or heck, befriending Haig Bracken, making the man believe that Theomore can be bribed to help his cause just because that makes it easier for Theo to achieve his objectives. Theomore did not actually tell any direct lies to anyone in these three examples, but did he build up trust with the expectation (and intention in at least one of these cases) to betray and abuse? Oh, yes. So if treacherous applies outside intrigue, it should apply to that sort of thing as well.

Maybe the intention of your post does not disagree with that, but when I read "
lying"
, I kinda read it as that it sort of does.

[Nathaniel Mason]

Perhaps my initial post did not have the clarity I would have liked.

I look on Treacherous, based on the wording of the advantage, that you are required to be influencing or engaging another person in some way directly.

For example, you wish to kill someone being held in a cell.

First, you disguise yourself as a guard. Deception (Disguise) roll. Treacherous does not apply because you are not directly engaging anyone.

Then you enter the guard barracks. The GM might ask for a Deception (Act) vs. the guards passive awareness just to be sure none of your actions or mannerisms do not give you way. Treacherous still does not apply because you are still not directly engaging anyone.

Finally, you roll a Deception (Bluff) to bluff your way past the cell guard to get into the cell. In this case Treacherous would absolutely apply because you are directly engaging another person. I am not sure it matters whether we call that an simple Intrigue or a conflict test. You are attempting to influence someone to do something. (let you into the cell).

Whether Treacherous would apply or not apply to investigation rolls would depend on how you're using Deception. If you are using Deception to question witnesses, it would absolutely apply IMO. If you are using deception to eavesdrop on conversations and pretend you're not, then it wouldn't apply because your not engaging anyone directly.

Does that make more sense?

[Baelon Drakeson]

I think the simple solution would be for Reader to indicate in events whether or not a particular persuasion/deception test counts as an intrigue.
I would also suggest that a relevant Status be put on every persuasion/deception for the purposes of other benefits/drawbacks, such as Bastard Born and Favored of Nobles/Smallfolk.

[Nathaniel Mason]

I only hesitate to call these simple Intrigues as that would be testing against Intrigue Defense rather than a TN. (Which often would be considerably lower when dealing with the average population.)

[Baelon Drakeson]

Well, that's part of the reason it would be up to Reader to decide, either absolutely or on a case-by-case basis.

[Reader]

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.

I'll note when something is a simple intrigue and treacherous applies and feel free to ask.

[Septon Arlyn]

Further, if you have time on your side, you can take more time to complete your task (see the Taking More Time section on p. 31) to give yourself extra test dice.

Very true I forgot that option.

This was brought up on the SOFI green ronin boards. Would it be possible to sacrifice an entire timeslot to a specific test to gain an extra 1 D towards is? representing our extra time spent investigating into our various clues?

[Reader]

Further, if you have time on your side, you can take more time to complete your task (see the Taking More Time section on p. 31) to give yourself extra test dice.

Very true I forgot that option.

This was brought up on the SOFI green ronin boards. Would it be possible to sacrifice an entire timeslot to a specific test to gain an extra 1 D towards is? representing our extra time spent investigating into our various clues?

Someone else asked about this and I'm afraid it's a no. Otherwise everyone does it (less roleplay) and I just need to adjust TN difficulty up. Maybe should have allowed two days of investigations slots for +1D with hindsight, but maybe too late now, sorry.

Destiny and discussions with other pcs can help unlock clues!

Rumour slots can clear up motives/rule out suspects too.

[Theomore Tullison]

Well, as seen in the commentary on Lucky in the thread, the ability to roll twice and take the best result is often better than a straight up +1d6. Which means that if one makes it a habit about doing the same investigation more than once that could work, too.

[Samurel Manderly]

in the advanced combat mechanics, if you achieve 2 degrees of success with a knock out, the individual is incapacitated, would it be permissible (barring DP expenditure) to immediately move that knock out into a kill. Mechanically the knock out bit with 2 DoS would make them vulnerable to being killed anyway, narratively it'd make sense to just slit their throat etc.

Thoughts?

[Theomore Tullison]

He still rolls initiative, so in theory, he could beat you at it, make his endurance test, and he isn't incapacitated.

An unconscious fellow presumably has -5 defense and you get +1D for him being prone, so shouldn't be too hard to kill.

[Samurel Manderly]

He still rolls initiative sure, but if you are sneaking and he's unaware it doesn't matter, and it's not an endurance test, it's passive endurance from my reading.

[Theomore Tullison]

It's endurance every round to see if he wakes up.

[Yoren longshore]

He still rolls initiative, so in theory, he could beat you at it, make his endurance test, and he isn't incapacitated.

An unconscious fellow presumably has -5 defense and you get +1D for him being prone, so shouldn't be too hard to kill.

Tell that to a guy with high cd and an AR of 10:p it should be a coup de grace, because even at 4 dos an athletics 3 char with +1 from weapon only deal 6dmg after Ar, so even a secondary character would take 3 rounds to kill. and that is if you deal 15 above their CD, which is improbable for most fighting <
4.

[Theomore Tullison]

Nothing prevents you from using the manipulate action on an unconscious person to remove his helmet and make the argument that his AR shouldn't matter when you stab him in the face after having done so.

I'd propose the following out-of-combat action:
"
If you attack a character unaware of your intentions, and who is not on guard for any sort of danger, you may make a fighting test against his passive endurance+AR, on a success, you inflict a wound. A character may spend a DP to ignore this effect."


For most non-primary characters, that would typically mean buh-bye.

Also, I am wondering a bit on if routing are doing anything to a damaged unit other than putting it one step towards destruction? If it goes into mob formation, with it's associated penalties, then yes. I suppose an attached commander probably would not want his unit to be routed and still on the battlefield, though.

[Samurel Manderly]

why not one wound per DoS?

[Theomore Tullison]

Well, honestly, I expect that any primary character will use his DP on that one. A wound will kill any secondary/tertiary character outright. Though I would be somewhat weary about the chance to insta-kill primaries (including PC's). Though poison can be even worse if coated on a weapon, but that costs money.

[Ereth Redwain]

I have a question, about Warfare. More specifically about Support units.

Support
A labor force is a unit that specifically works to erect fortifications and
construct equipment for the larger force, including arms and armor,
while also providing food, new clothes, and even working as medics.
Labor units are support troops and are exceptionally vulnerable to attack.
In addition to their abilities, support units are trained in caring for
equipment, erecting tents, cooking, cleaning, and more.

Support units
Cost: 2 Power
Discipline: +3
Abilities: Animal Handling, Endurance, Healing

The fluff text make them technically indispensable if you leave your House to campaign elsewhere. Yet I doubt anyone would still take one support unit for their is no mechanical benefit or penalty for not taking one.

Is there a way to fix this unit to have some kind of mechanical benefit/penalty?

[Loreia]

The Attractive benefit allows you to reroll a number of 1s equal to half your rank in Persuasion. If your Persuasion rank is 2, and you roll two 1's in a Persuasion test, you can only reroll one of them. If you have Persuasion 4, and you roll a 1, can you reroll that 1 more than once? Such a tongue twister, I know.

I'm bringing this up because I noticed Marq rerolled one 1 more than once for his Persuasion test in the 'Panic in the Night' thread. My interpretation is that it doesn't work like that, I don't mean to be a killjoy.

[Kevan Lyras]

I agree with you, I have the draw back honor bound, which works similarly (reroll 6s). I woupd have thought I have to reroll all 6s in the original dice pool. If the reroll is a 6, it stays..

[Sponsored content]