Re: Mechanical discussion

[Darron Greyjoy]

What's the benefit of a Superior shield?  I'm seeing that several of our opponents in the melee have 'em, but -- assuming you're not shield bashing with them -- what's the upside to the additional expense?

Harder to break when choosing to attack it.

[Baelon Drakeson]

Not much. They are harder to destroy (by attacking, no additional protection from Shattering). If you ever attack with your shield, it would get the same +1 of any superior weapon, but that would only be useful if you were disarmed, which is a not something that happens often at all. Most don't bother, it's not worth the expense. I'm not sure why Theo decided they would all have superior shields.

EDIT: missed Darron's post... darn page breaks.

[Aerion Storm]

Got'cha. So yeah, not something Aerion would be interested/willing to invest in, at this point.

[Septon Arlyn]

What's the benefit of a Superior shield?  I'm seeing that several of our opponents in the melee have 'em, but -- assuming you're not shield bashing with them -- what's the upside to the additional expense?

you get to have a shinier shield then the other guys

[Theomore Tullison]

Shield=Weapon, so superior weapons=superior shields.

Doubt anyone would bother with any sundering, though, but there for completeness.

[Baelon Drakeson]

Baelon has superior or better everything... except a shield and barding. If someone wants to attack his shield, that's fine - that's more time to put the hurt on them while they aren't hurting him... and superior plate barding is incredibly expensive, almost 286gd.

[Theomore Tullison]

I've looked at it with 50% armorsmith discount....still, it's not very tempting.

[Gwyneth Drakeson]

Maybe they're just harder to break?

[Baelon Drakeson]

Shield=Weapon, so superior weapons=superior shields.

Doubt anyone would bother with any sundering, though, but there for completeness.

Generally NCs have only had one superior weapon, but especially for the really high status ones there's no reason for that limitation to be there, I suppose.

[Ser Walton Dulver]

Darron over here made me wonder: what if fighter in heat of combat, will step out of fighting ground during melee? In Lord Forrest's rolling Awareness against TN6, even with -1D penalty from Maneuver seems not hard to beat, anyway.

https://dragonsdance.rpg-board.net/t3221-melee-group-1#97009

And do we count specialties to Passive Fighting? Passive Fighting for Lord Frey is 20, but Passive Fighting for Long Blades for him is 22, what makes the difference in Darron's Maneuver DoS.

[Darron Greyjoy]

My idea behind it was if even if he does make it which I imagine he will he still has to move to a square which will give me a free attack. At least I think that was the house rule.

[Baelon Drakeson]

I would imagine that the area has been set off with fences, likely the same ones that will be used to divide the joust lanes. Like a boxing ring, you can get someone on the ropes, but you can't really force them out.

However, Reader has ruled that Maneuver doesn't use bonus dice, on offense or defense - pure fighting vs. passive fighting (though things that add directly to fighting like Knockdown or Talented(Fighting still apply to Maneuver tests). That also means the +1 from your superior axe doesn't add either... removing 4 random dice from your attack is likely to make it a failure, but given that you didn't know how the mechanics work I for one think that retconning the action to something else would be fair... though I'm not running that battle, so it's not my call.

Also, Maneuver doesn't trigger the free attack - getting an attack along with a Maneuver is what Long Blade Fighter II does, not that many have it. Precedent (from Baelon getting Maneuvered in the Velaryon fight) is that only voluntary movement generates the passive attacks - getting Maneuvered away from somebody else won't trigger it, either.

[Loreia]

Is movement through the space occupied by the acting character a possibility with more than one degree of success with Maneuver?

We do not count specialties for the Advanced Actions unless specified in the source material. We had a discussion about this regarding Knockdown vs a character's passive Agility. I would say bonus dice from Dodge could apply to passive Agility, but most fighters in the 7 Kingdoms are not likely to have it. Or rather, most of us don't.

[Ser Walton Dulver]

Feel free to edit Your round, Darron. Let me know when You are done, and I will start with round 2.

[Darron Greyjoy]

Edited

[Baelon Drakeson]

Responding here so as not to clutter an IC thread.

(ooc: Here I will add that yield being a greater action seems ridiculous. Dropping a weapon:free action. Speak: free action. Those would be my follow up free actions, but following the rules... bring on the hurt.)

I think the intent of "yield" being a greater action is to prevent making one last desperate attack to see how it goes, then yielding. Especially in a group combat like this, it could be tempting to try to weaken your foe to help others, then yielding. If yielding were simply a free action, Ben could make a reckless attack against the Prince or Ser Willis to help out Aerion and then yield to avoid the consequences (another wound or defeat). I'm not saying Ben would do that, but mechanically he could and not all combatants are as honorable as Ben.

[I'd say that taking the greater action "yield" let's you dictate how you take the loss, it's a melee, they'll accept your surrender, so narratively speaking it's perfectly fine if Ben gets to his feet like a man first. I'll say that simply shouting yield as a free action suffices, given the circumstances.]

I think this is an elegant solution - for PCs at least. It gives us a little more narrative control to present how our characters admit defeat, whether that be defiantly (like Ben), or any other way. For NCs... eh, I don't really care either way, but some might want their opponents forced to grovel at their feet.

On the other hand, trying to act tough and failing is as valid a story option as any, so (for instance) Ben taking his last fatigue to try and stand as a lesser action and then succeeding or failing as Orokos decrees can be interesting, too.

Speaking of failing to stand as a lesser action... Aerion, I'm sorry to say it looks as though you neglected to take the penalty for your third fatigue on that stand-up test.... the penalties for fatigue apply immediately so if that was your third fatigue you should have had a -3 penalty to the roll. Unless that was just your second, or you are getting a +1 from somewhere (though I doubt you have Talented(Agility) )

[Theomore Tullison]

Attacking and then yielding would probably result in them attacking back and then accepting your surrender

[Baelon Drakeson]

Which would be dishonorable... attacking then yielding is a much fuzzier situation, as at the time of the attack no one has yielded.

[Benedict Marsten]

Responding here so as not to clutter an IC thread.

(ooc: Here I will add that yield being a greater action seems ridiculous. Dropping a weapon:free action. Speak: free action. Those would be my follow up free actions, but following the rules... bring on the hurt.)

I think the intent of "yield" being a greater action is to prevent making one last desperate attack to see how it goes, then yielding. Especially in a group combat like this, it could be tempting to try to weaken your foe to help others, then yielding. If yielding were simply a free action, Ben could make a reckless attack against the Prince or Ser Willis to help out Aerion and then yield to avoid the consequences (another wound or defeat). I'm not saying Ben would do that, but mechanically he could and not all combatants are as honorable as Ben.

[I'd say that taking the greater action "yield" let's you dictate how you take the loss, it's a melee, they'll accept your surrender, so narratively speaking it's perfectly fine if Ben gets to his feet like a man first. I'll say that simply shouting yield as a free action suffices, given the circumstances.]

I think this is an elegant solution - for PCs at least. It gives us a little more narrative control to present how our characters admit defeat, whether that be defiantly (like Ben), or any other way. For NCs... eh, I don't really care either way, but some might want their opponents forced to grovel at their feet.

I can agree to this, but I am not sure just how much Aemond dislikes Ben.

On the other hand, trying to act tough and failing is as valid a story option as any, so (for instance) Ben taking his last fatigue to try and stand as a lesser action and then succeeding or failing as Orokos decrees can be interesting, too.

Ben is out of fatigue. Lost 1 in the initial melee roll and only had 3 to start.

Speaking of failing to stand as a lesser action... Aerion, I'm sorry to say it looks as though you neglected to take the penalty for your third fatigue on that stand-up test.... the penalties for fatigue apply immediately so if that was your third fatigue you should have had a -3 penalty to the roll. Unless that was just your second, or you are getting a +1 from somewhere (though I doubt you have Talented(Agility)   )

[Theomore Tullison]

Take defeat by 0 health and you'll find out

[Lady Corrine Marsten]

Ben, darling, do please try not to get yourself killed or dismembered.

[Aerion Storm]

Yeah, mea culpa on that Agility test. Every time I string together two or three good actions and think I'm getting the hang of things, I mess up with a dumb mistake (like that). My fault! I'll edit the post when I can.

[Baelon Drakeson]

No worries! It's a complicated mess of a system, so it's easy to make mistakes - we all do, from time to time. I do quite a bit, but have gotten better at catching them and adjusting before posting - like leaving off -3 in fatigue/injury penalties on Ser Warrick's attack in group 6... or forgetting his training die penalty the round before... maybe I'll get it right in round 3, if he makes it that far.

[Jon Templeton]

Warrick just needs to survive a little longer....

[Baelon Drakeson]

Two-handed swing, LBFI, extra d6 is BoA: 6d6-2 23 1d6 1
[What I believe: base damage is 7 with versatile, etc.  So LBFI makes a base hit 14, DoS's make this 28, correct?  18 after armor?

er, right result, wrong reasoning, I think? LBF1 makes your 3 DoS hit (23 against CD 13) a 4 DoS hit, 7*4= 28 and the rest is the same.

Willis moves to B4 then attacks Aerion: 6d6 26, which I believe is 4 DoS for 8*4-10=22 damage and 6 point reduction in AR.

Not that it really matters much in this case with all that damage (ouch!) but Ser Willis only has Shattering 2, so a 2 point reduction in AR, not 6.

Well, the good news (for everyone else) is that Ser Willis and Prince Aemond can't *both* enter the final... and I don't think Aemond will be happy if Ser Willis yields without a fight, so whichever one makes it, the other will be at least a bit messed up (like everyone else).

I anticipate a short final round...

[Sponsored content]