Re: Mechanical discussion

[Aerion Storm]

I think the bonus carrying over until you act puts it in line with other, similar, options (like the fatigue benefit), which both makes sense and keeps it simple (so that they work similarly, as was likely the writer's intent).

[Baelon Drakeson]

Nearly every combat action that has duration that lasts 'until the start of your next turn'.  So that is clearly what is intended for Cautious Attack.

I agree that is likely what was intended, but the duration of different actions varies... see below.

If we want 'start of your next turn' actions to end on the person's initiative count rather than the start of their actions, we are going to have to House rule that, as it will affect a plethora of combat actions (and perhaps a couple of Advantages).

I think you might be overstating a bit. There aren't that many effects that last until the start of your next turn.
In standard actions, Two-Weapon Fighting, Dodge, and part of Interact.
In advanced actions, only Counterattack (in that it is wasted if not used by then) and Reckless Attack (if taken literally only the +1D persists, the CD penalty does not) have effects that last "until the start of your next turn". Presumably of course, Cautious attack as well.

Actions that have duration other than "until the start of your next turn":
Assist, Charge, Pass, Aim, Distract, Knockout, Maneuver

So, less than half are "the start of your next turn".

Ultimately it is up to the Narrator when we are in the weeds like this.  Baelon would not allow it.  I would.  (As a narrator, I prefer to encourage creative uses of the rules rather than discourage them.)  For this game, Reader will have to decide which way he wants to go.

I too favor creativity, though people seem to get upset if NCs I run act creatively....

I think the bonus carrying over until you act puts it in line with other, similar, options (like the fatigue benefit), which both makes sense and keeps it simple (so that they work similarly, as was likely the writer's intent).

See, this is exactly the issue I have - fatigue is not "until you act", it is "until your turn". the question becomes, are those the same thing?

On one hand, yeah, they should be. It makes things so much more straight-forward.
On the other hand, it makes fatigue benefits outlast DP benefits, and has other consequences, like making a Dodge specialist nigh-unbeatable (like a Withdraw specialist in Intrigue is known to be).

Honestly, those are much more significant to me than Cautious Attack.

[Nathaniel Mason]

I think you might be overstating a bit. There aren't that many effects that last until the start of your next turn.
In standard actions, Two-Weapon Fighting, Dodge, and part of Interact.
In advanced actions, only Counterattack (in that it is wasted if not used by then) and Reckless Attack (if taken literally only the +1D persists, the CD penalty does not) have effects that last "until the start of your next turn". Presumably of course, Cautious attack as well.

Actions that have duration other than "until the start of your next turn":
Assist, Charge, Pass, Aim, Distract, Knockout, Maneuver

So, less than half are "the start of your next turn".

You are missing quite a few:


Pin lasts till your next action where it must be maintained with a greater action. If the action is delayed, so is the need to roll to maintain the Pin.

Delaying your action with an Impale will have similar consequences, as you keep your opponent impaled for longer before the need to pull your weapon free. Nasty if you have friends.

Same goes for Knockdown and Knockout. (It's unlikely someone would delay their action in these cases, but if for some reason they did, the effect would not end until they actually took their action.)

Same goes for Distract, if the subject found it necessary to delay. I know, unlikely, but if 'start of turn' is delayed, 'end of turn' is delayed as well by necessity.

Acrobatic Defense lasts 'until the beginning of your next turn'.

Anointed lasts 'until the beginning of your next turn'.

Bludgeon Fighter 2 sends the opponent reeling 'until the start of YOUR next turn.' (Very nasty if you can extend the duration with a delay.)

Bludgeon Fighter 3 also affects the opponent 'until the start of YOUR next turn.' (Just as nasty if you can extend the duration with a delay.)

Delaying will affect the defense bonus of an off-hand weapon if you used it in the previous attack (not necessarily the result of a two-weapon attack).

We don't use the Fumble table, but I do in my game and there are several consequences on that table that a Delay would affect.

Reckless attack would also be affected by a Delay.


So... no Baelon... I don't think I am overstating things as you suggest.

Now, of course, not all of these examples are beneficial. But all these examples would be affected depending on the rule interpretation that is used. (I don't look at things as either good or bad. I look at how things are affected empirically.)

Every choice comes with a price. As I said. I am fine with Jon delaying and keeping his +3 CD. I hope he is fine with the next guy with BF2 forcing him to take a neg 1-4 penalty and only lesser actions for the next two turns.

Rules apply equally to everyone.

[Baelon Drakeson]

You are missing quite a few:

Ok, now you're stretching. Knockdown, really? That's got nothing to do with turns. Most of the rest you are changing the realm of discourse - you had been talking about actions that have effects that last "until the start of your next turn".

Moot point though, because the larger point is that there are many things that are affected by this.

Every choice comes with a price.  As I said.  I am fine with Jon delaying and keeping his +3 CD.  I hope he is fine with the next guy with BF2 forcing him to take a neg 1-4 penalty and only lesser actions for the next two turns.

Rules apply equally to everyone.

Agreed. I, however do not think that such shenanigans are a good idea.

Consider Dodge. A situational action at best, as it stands, good for lightly armored, and/or high dex characters to buy time against a group of enemies while waiting for reinforcements to arrive... or something like that.

With your proposed ruling, a moderate Dodge specialist (4 Agility, 2 Dodge, Expertise) would be able to have on average a 23 CD - in plate and a large shield.
Win initiative. Round 1, Dodge. Round 2, Delay, then Reckless attack. Rinse and repeat, have continual nigh-invulnerability, and +1D on attacks with effectively no penalty. Who cares if you only attack every other round if you can't be hurt?

[Nathaniel Mason]

Ok, now you're stretching. Knockdown, really? That's got nothing to do with turns. Most of the rest you are changing the realm of discourse - you had been talking about actions that have effects that last "until the start of your next turn".

Moot point though, because the larger point is that there are many things that are affected by this.

I can think of several creative situations where delaying on a Knockdown might be advantageous. Not so much on Knockout. Still, even removing those from consideration, I think we agree, between your list and mine, that the number of effects affected is extensive.

Agreed. I, however do not think that such shenanigans are a good idea.

Consider Dodge. A situational action at best, as it stands, good for lightly armored, and/or high dex characters to buy time against a group of enemies while waiting for reinforcements to arrive... or something like that.

With your proposed ruling, a moderate Dodge specialist (4 Agility, 2 Dodge, Expertise) would be able to have on average a 23 CD - in plate and a large shield.
Win initiative. Round 1, Dodge. Round 2, Delay, then Reckless attack. Rinse and repeat, have continual nigh-invulnerability, and +1D on attacks with effectively no penalty. Who cares if you only attack every other round if you can't be hurt?

I agree. In fact, with Acrobatic defense, I can get much higher than that with only a small degree of effort.

Now, is that desirable? Depends. In this game, I would agree, probably not. In my tabletop game, which has been ongoing for 5 years, where one character is rolling 13d6k8 with bows (13d6k6 with triple shot) and another is rolling 14d6k8 with longsword, a 23 CD is, at best, an inconvenience.

Now, the question becomes, if this is undesirable, how do you fix it? I don't think anyone really has a problem with Jon keeping his +3 to CD a little longer (or even someone with Anointed keeping his +5 a little longer). I think everyone might have a problem with an AD character bouncing around the battlefield with impunity or a BF2 guy stun-locking his victims to infinity.

To me, the answer is simple. 'Start of next turn' effects end on the players rolled initiative count. 'Start of next action' effects end when the character takes an action.

Cautious attack does not stipulate either one, so if you don't mind him keeping his +3 on a delay, call it a 'start of next action' effect. If you do, call it a 'start of next turn' effect. Then you just go through and clarify which maneuver or Advantage is which. Anointed might reasonably be an action effect. Pin is definitely an action effect. AD and BF2/3 are more reasonably a turn effect.

And.. to be clear... I have no skin in this game. Whatever Reader decides is perfectly fine with me.

[Baelon Drakeson]

I agree.  In fact, with Acrobatic defense, I can get much higher than that with only a small degree of effort.

Now, is that desirable?  Depends.  In this game, I would agree, probably not.  In my tabletop game, which has been ongoing for 5 years, where one character is rolling 13d6k8 with bows (13d6k6 with triple shot) and another is rolling 14d6k8 with longsword, a 23 CD is, at best, an inconvenience.

Well, I was talking about Dodge (the Greater Action), not Acrobatic Dodge. The big difference? AD can't be done in plate. Dodge can. That 23 was in plate. Most characters (of our power level) would need to get 3 DoS (33) to do damage, some like Ser Warrick could edge over it with a 28... and as you mentioned, that's just a small degree of optimization. A real specialist (at our power level) would average around a 30 Combat Defense, in plate. With 5 Agility it's unlikely that you would lose initiative, too.

Now, the question becomes, if this is undesirable, how do you fix it?  I don't think anyone really has a problem with Jon keeping his +3 to CD a little longer (or even someone with Anointed keeping his +5 a little longer).  I think everyone might have a problem with an AD character bouncing around the battlefield with impunity or a BF2 guy stun-locking his victims to infinity.

To me, the answer is simple.  'Start of next turn' effects end on the players rolled initiative count.  'Start of next action' effects end when the character takes an action.

Cautious attack does not stipulate either one, so if you don't mind him keeping his +3 on a delay, call it a 'start of next action' effect.  If you do, call it a 'start of next turn' effect.  Then you just go through and clarify which maneuver or Advantage is which.  Anointed might reasonably be an action effect.  Pin is definitely an action effect.  AD and BF2/3 are more reasonably a turn effect.

Anointed clearly states "the beginning of your next turn". BF 2 and 3 have similar language.

Even Pin, if you read it closely, doesn't say that at all. It ALSO specifies start of your turn.
"If you are grabbing an opponent at the start of your turn". This brings even Pin in line with everything else.

So we either have start of turn effects happen at the rolled initiative, or we have them happen at the time of the first action, or we go through and house rule each and every one.

Something tells me that last is going to be off the table... of the remaining two I think it's clear which I would prefer.

[Nathaniel Mason]

Anointed clearly states "the beginning of your next turn". BF 2 and 3 have similar language.

Um... yeah... I know.. since I pointed that out in a previous post. I was only offering it as a potential candidate and example of what might fall in one category or another.

Even Pin, if you read it closely, doesn't say that at all. It ALSO specifies start of your turn.
"If you are grabbing an opponent at the start of your turn". This brings even Pin in line with everything else.

So... your initiative comes up and if you decide delay the Pin automatically breaks? There is certainly nothing in RAW that would even imply that.

So we either have start of turn effects happen at the rolled initiative, or we have them happen at the time of the first action, or we go through and house rule each and every one.

Something tells me that last is going to be off the table... of the remaining two I think it's clear which I would prefer.

All or nothing because it's the most convenient? <shrug> Not my call, and not unexpected.

[Baelon Drakeson]

So... your initiative comes up and if you decide delay the Pin automatically breaks?  There is certainly nothing in RAW that would even imply that.

Well, see, that's exactly the issue. RAW is wholly inadequate on this. Personally, I have no problem with someone not having the option to delay and still maintain a pin.

Really, what does it mean, on an IC level, to delay? It's not just a mechanical option, it's a character choice. The character is choosing to act later than they could. Now, characters are not aware of "initiative", "rounds", and "turns"; those are mechanical abstractions that don't exist IC. Delaying is, it seems to me, a "wait and see" approach. Wait until the opponent has does something, then react appropriately. It's passive, not active.

If you are actively defending (Defensive, Dodge, etc.) you are not being passive. If you are actively pinning an opponent, you are not being passive.

[Valar Dohaeris]

A question has come up regarding cohorts and their involvement in events and tracks.

For narrative reasons, I think cohorts should be able to be in separate tracks than the PC. The issue then is under what circumstances a cohort can participate in events, earn points for their house, etc.; I do not want to have 'points' justification for deciding to split character and cohort or keep them together, and as has been noted elsewhere, cohorts are already a very powerful benefit.

My tentative solution:

At the start of each phase the player must choose either their PC or their cohort. For that phase, only that character may earn P&Q or house/personal objective VP, glory, or other rewards. This choice would have to be made at the same time that the the choice between concurrent events would be made, which as with Phase 1 means exact mechanics will not be known.

The other character may IC be involved in events anyway deemed fit (subject to narrator approval of course), but mechanically would be limited to assisting another character on rolls, serve as a hero or subcommander, assist in a combat scene, etc.; as already noted they would not get any (mechanical) rewards for doing so.

Note that this limitation is only in regard to official events - this is intended to keep things fair, not limit creativity or player-driven occurrences.

Feedback/ideas/suggestions welcome, whether or not your PC has a cohort.

[Theomore Tullison]

As a general rule, I'd say cohorts shouldn't be allowed to mechanically interact with events, I'd leave it up to narrator discretion as to when exceptions can be allowed. Would depend a lot on what sort of prizes is on offer and whether or not PC and cohort is doubling up, if it makes a lot of IC sense for the PC to sit out on of an event while it would be straight up the cohort's alley, then that's a good case for it. If an event holds only minor prizes, such as a few coins or some disposition changes or something like that, then it could be fine.

Outside of events and that sort of stuff, I don't see why a cohort couldn't do stuff to advance the agenda of PC and House, which might contribute to personal and house goals and stuff. Still requires the player to figure out how to make it happen and write the IC, whether it's PC or cohort doing the job.

Assisting in combat/battle, that's somewhat tricky. If it's an event style combat, then I'd say no unless it adds greater difficulty. If it's an event style battle, then I'd say it depends on whether or not it might be possible to supplement with NPC's.

Another aspect could be how many (active) PC's that can be found in the player house compared to others. If there's four PC's in one house, and two in another, then a cohort in the latter picking up glory (say if everyone getting X DoS receives a point) would be fine in my book, while the other way around, not so much.

[Valar Dohaeris]

Cohorts were able to interact with Story events in Story 1 both directly and indirectly. In Story 2, Ser Walton's cohort was a battle commander. More recently, Ser Jorah's cohort Trelaine was present with him in the Valaryon Arrest fight. That cohorts can be involved is not really at issue; that has been true all along.

In Story 2, cohort and NC involvement was modified for reasons specific to Story 2. Reader indicated to me in a prior conversation that those restrictions were not intended to be a general change.

The idea here is to let cohorts add flexibility to the player's involvement in ways that make sense in IC terms but without adding the point-earning potential equivalent to another player. I certainly don't want to get in the way of creative uses of cohorts, but I also can't just handle every situation on a case-by-case basis.

I hope that clarifies my intent.

[Theomore Tullison]

Raff didn't get any glory from events in chapter 1, though he was allowed to aid Theo on occasion, sometimes directly through assist, other time he managed to prevent injury to Theo (as any PC rolling high enough also could have done) in one of them. And grabbed some disposition effects and some coin here and there. Reader and I discussed him taking part in the blowing up of the inn event, but that got cut short by Raff making himself scarce for the rest of the chapter.

This downtime, he did the part of Jorah's ascension that made IC sense for him to do (Theo being absent), and he made one of the four downtime objective rolls (assist wasn't allowed). He'd definitely do carnival rolls if that's okay (presumably not being allowed to do politicking if so, since Theo did that), presently I'm mostly assuming that he was there without mechanical funstuff.

If you don't want to make a case by case judgement and want them to be allowed to take part in events, I'd say:
1. Cannot gain significant or limited rewards (glory, G/B points and similar, or anything that is handed out to highest results, possible exception if no other PC manages to claim it otherwise) UNLESS the PC is not taking part AND is in the same track.
2. Should not be allowed to offer assist bonuses or roll instead of the PC on some tests in an event (all or nothing), with possible exception for particularly creative pitches, or added risk.
3. Cannot participate in event style combat that player actively chooses to take part in.
4. Can serve as sub-commander/champion in battle, if having decent enough martial stats for that to make sense.

Outside scheduled events and the like, I'd advocate more or less anything goes as has been custom so far.

[Valar Dohaeris]

I think we are closer to being on the same page than it might seem.

1. This is pretty close to what I am suggesting, except that I do not want to put pressure on players to chose tracks based on their cohort mechanic. Therefore, instead of requiring the PC to be in the same track but not participating, the PC can be in either track but not a primary participant in any event [exception made for mandatory events, but those hit cohorts anyway]. It means the PC/cohort player has the same point earning potential of any other player, but still gets a benefit for having a cohort.

For instance, let's a assume that Ellie does not go to war with Ben. In a given phase, there are only so many commander positions available, so player-Ben could decide that for, say, Phase 3 to choose Ellie to earn points; character-Ben would be able to be a sub-commander or hero, but not commander and would not earn points. Ellie however could participate in KL events as if she were a PC, earning points, event rewards, etc.

2 & 3 would be a departure from game precedent and I see no reason to change them. Cohorts are not just random NCs brought in for added bonuses; they are a benefit. If a character can make use of Expertise or Lucky, they should be able to make use of a cohort, within reason. Events that prohibit assisting in general would of course prohibit the use of a cohort to assist.

4 is standing game precedent and I see no reason to change it.

All of this is only in regard to official events, outside official events there would be no change.

[Luecian LongBow]

Just to clarify, I was under the impression #2 was the current precedent. We are confirming now that it only applied during Story2 rather than a rule being introduced during story 2?

[Valar Dohaeris]

Just to clarify, I was under the impression #2 was the current precedent. We are confirming now that it only applied during Story2 rather than a rule being introduced during story 2?

It is my understanding that was Reader's intent, but let me explain my reasoning; someone may have stronger evidence to the contrary.
Here is the the relevant passage:

From Day 2 onwards:

- PC or cohort participates in investigations/event, with the other unable to assist. Cohort is bonkers enough already.
- PC or Cohort makes all the rolls, you can't mix and match.
- All houses have the option or bringing along trackers from their own lands to provide 3D survival in investigations (only, not other events). This costs 1 Wealth Point for provisions, wages and sundry other expenses.
- All houses may nominate one NPC to assist them, allowing you to make use of the NPCs you've invested wealth in. [House Bartheld has two NPCs assisting, but one is due to a story 1 intrigue and was therefore earned in-game]. I've got stats for an awful lot of NPCs in my spreadsheet, so don't hesitate to ask.

I hope this strikes a good balance between keeping the focus on PCs and letting you all enjoy the benefits of your rank and the NPCs you've invested in.

Note that it was posted in a Story 2 thread, not the House Rules thread: DwD II: The King's Justice - starts 16th of October

Additionally, here is a piece of a private thread conversation I had with Reader regarding NCs from House holdings:

...is the limit of 1 NC per house still going to be in effect?

No - limit was mainly in place to stop you lot swamping Battle Valley with helpers and leaving your castles empty in what was largely a "mystery/intrigue" scenario. I want people to use the NCs they've invested in.

Now, do keep in mind that many events themselves prohibit assistance, so this is not carte blanche on cohorts/NCs assisting.

[Luecian LongBow]

For what it's worth, I'm in opposition of being able to mix and match rolls in an event between both the character and its cohort. At that point, it starts to feel more like a super PC is being played rather than a PC + Cohort. Unless it's a bonus roll of some sort in an event, I think a single character should make the rolls and the cohort can add assists(if it makes the roll) or vice versa. To me the game is less fun and interesting if characters are good at almost everything and can bypass any weaknesses with the investment of a single DP.

[Valar Dohaeris]

Oh, I completely agree. Either the PC or the Cohort would be 'primary' in events, with the other character restricted to assists/secondary participation (hero/subcommander). That would be true whether they were in the same track or separate tracks.

The way things have been set up that decision would even have to be made prior to full event mechanics being revealed, so the player can never be sure they are making the 'optimal' choice. Really I would hope the choice would be made for narrative rather than mechanical reasons, but that's up to each player to decide for themselves.

The only exception would possibly be special mandatory events, in which both the PC and the Cohort would go through the event, but then they would each be making all the rolls, not mixing and matching.

[Luecian LongBow]

Sounds good to me and makes sense on the special mandatory events(ie Green Door Inn Attack etc). Between a combination of posts I thought the 'primary' roller aspect was possibly being removed, glad to see that is not the case.

[Reader]

Oh, I completely agree. Either the PC or the Cohort would be 'primary' in events, with the other character restricted to assists/secondary participation (hero/subcommander). That would be true whether they were in the same track or separate tracks.

The way things have been set up that decision would even have to be made prior to full event mechanics being revealed, so the player can never be sure they are making the 'optimal' choice. Really I would hope the choice would be made for narrative rather than mechanical reasons, but that's up to each player to decide for themselves.

The only exception would possibly be special mandatory events, in which both the PC and the Cohort would go through the event, but then they would each be making all the rolls, not mixing and matching.

We're of one mind on this issue, and sounds like our archer is part of the hive mind too.

Good to see these issues debated in good spirits and openly! Sorry I'm not around as much as in the past.

[Loreia]

Looks good to me!

[Valar Dohaeris]

Having Reader's endorsement, let's go forward with it on a provisional basis.

In other news, Reader and I have worked out Baelon's "absence" for the remainder of the Story, so that and some off-season wrap-up stuff should be coming out soon. I apologize for the slow pace of this transition; I have Reader's notes but not the contents of his brain so there have been some gaps to fill. Between my hand (almost all better now) and his schedule, that has worked out to be harder than expected.

[Reader]

My fault largely, busy with new thing, work etc....

[Valar Dohaeris]

A private forum discussion recently brought up a mechanical issue that I've been thinking about for a while.

Events often call for Simple Intrigues to represent what would in other contexts be handled with full intrigue. This advantages those who have high persuasion deception over those that might otherwise be better at full intrigues. The missing components, it seems to me, are disposition and influence.

This becomes particularly an issue with benefits and drawbacks that directly affect disposition or influence, like Compelling or Haughty.

It seems easy enough to give an Intrigue defense and default disposition, and have success be measured in terms of influence done rather than raw persuasion/deception result, but the issue becomes how do you define success and DoS? Table 2-1 tells us that a TN 9 is 'challenging' and Chapter 11 (pg 206) tells us "When in doubt it's Challenging", but 9 influence in one Influence action is a lot harder to achieve (at least on indifferent or worse disposition). It's simply a different scale.

Any thoughts? Is this a worthwhile idea to pursue or too deep a rabbit hole to go down? Any ideas on what that right "default" amount would be, or the right scaling for DoS?

Note, this could be applied to to cases where Fighting(any) is substituted for a combat, but that's a far rarer occurrence and combats are much more common than full intrigues, so I think it's less of an issue. Also, with the larger range of combat defense and armor rating compared to intrigue defense and disposition rating, it's unlikely that a single scale would work for both, so we'd have two messes instead of one. If this is worth pursuing at all, I think it's better to focus on intrigue first and leave fighting/combat alone for now.

[Loreia]

To me, TN seems to not take into account Influence and Intrigue Defense and Disposition. It's whatever seems reasonable to the DM.

I guess if we wanted to do this, I might make a rule depending on what technique is used. The basic rule is, deal enough influence equal to half of someone's Composure or more, for the purposes of simple intrigue, you win. You have effectively 1 DoS. However, if you beat the minimum by 2 DoS, it causes an additional effect related to the circumstances that can be advantageous and can be stronger depending on how many degrees by which one succeeds at the test (3-4).

But this is from the DM side. Ultimately, it's for the DM to decide what difficulty reasonable. How often do you want to implement the house rule? Would tertiary/secondary NC status apply? Can your sanity handle it? Is it going to hamper everyone else's sanity in addition to yours? Whatever you decide, the rule should be just as "Simple Intrigue" implies: simple, easy to use.

[Valar Dohaeris]

Yeah, this might be one of those cases where we accept a less-than-ideal but simple rule rather than try make something robust but unwieldy.

I was hoping there might be a simple answer that I had just not thought of.

[Sponsored content]