Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

So got a question about 2e and attack rolls.

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Heavy Arms View Post
    It never says it does. It says that weapon damage is added to successes to calculate damage specifically. It never uses the Extra Successes wording. The phrasing of combat resolution doesn't apply weapon damage until after the attack action is completed. Basically, attack calculations and damage calculations are separate things
    Never? It says it right here:

    Extra Successes: Assuming your roll succeeds, you
    get a number of extra successes added to your total.
    This permutation mostly applies to weapons, which
    add their damage bonus as extra successes on your
    attack roll.
    it also mentions it in other places, for instance on page 205 for hedge spinning:
    The player can only allocate rolled successes to Hedgespinning, not
    successes automatically added by a weapon’s modifier or
    other method
    .
    Extra Successes specifically says it, and other rules also clearly refer to it.

    It is slightly confusingly worded in the weapon section, but:
    Damage: Added to successes rolled on attack to determine total damage inflicted.
    Is merely pointing out that if you forget to add those successes, you won't be getting the right amount of end damage. Else the mention on page 205 would not be needed, and p. 176 would be wrong. But there's no need to claim two mistakes were made in the book, you can read them in perfect alignment. The ultra-abreviated way in which they state many "general" rules this edition does lead to these kind of confusions.

    Here is the full description from Chronicles of Darkness, p. 94:
    Weapons and Armor
    Weapons are one of the fastest ways to turn a fight into
    a murder. Sometimes, that’s what you want; pulling a gun
    shows you’re serious about killing people.
    A weapon’s modifier, or damage rating, adds bonus successes
    to a successful attack roll
    . When a weapon might help out in
    other ways, like using a chain to grapple someone, or a gun to
    intimidate her, add the weapon’s modifier to the attack roll.
    Every weapon deals lethal damage. However, some supernatural
    creatures don’t take lethal damage from weapons.
    The full traits of a range of weapons are presented in the
    Ranged and Melee Weapons Charts.
    There's also no evidence that "rolled successes" and "successes automatically added" are different. It says "add their damage bonus as extra successes on your attack roll." You add it onto the ones from your roll. They become rolled successes. I think the burden of proof would be on you to show that a distinction exists, seeing as I've put down a lot of textual evidence here that clearly shows the progression from rolling to scoring an exceptional success, and where it specifically points out permutations go before counting successes to determine that.
    Last edited by Unahim; 07-14-2019, 04:03 PM.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Unahim View Post
      Else the mention on page 205 would not be needed, and p. 176 would be wrong.
      205 is needed because Hedgespinning needs to define how splitting rolled successes works. As far as I'm concerned, the combat section trumps the general permutations section. They're in conflict, or at least ambiguous. The combat rules phrasing makes sense, the permutations section rules applied to the combat rules doesn't.

      I don't care which is the most pedantic technical reading. I care which reading makes the game fun.

      As far as I'm concerned, at this point? Your posts are about your ego, not about the game, because you want your reading of the rules to be treated as the more correct reading of the rules, and are sacrificing a holistically sensible ruleset for a reading that breaks things to justify banning things in play instead of just doing things the actual smart way.

      But there's no need to claim two mistakes were made in the book, you can read them in perfect alignment.
      205 isn't a mistake and isn't out of line with how I'd interpret the rules. Only p. 176 is. And I'm fine with that because general rules lose to specific rules in interpretation, and I'll use the combat rules over the general rules summary just like I'll use the phrasing in any other specific subsystem over the general rules.

      There's also no evidence that "rolled successes" and "successes automatically added" are different.
      Funny you should bring up hedgespinng...

      Because is explicitly says they're different. If you roll 4 successes in hedgespinning, you can't add 3 successes from Extra Successes to dividing up successes between effects; extra successes can only be applied to the specific part of the effect they make sense for. You can do 7 damage, but you can't put one rolled success to the attack and one extra success for 2 damage, and then have 5 successes on a second effect.

      P. 205 is exactly evidence that rolled successes and successes automatically added are different because that's the whole point of the section.

      They become rolled successes.
      Stated never in the text, because this would be self-contradictory. If they became rolled successes, then you could never roll no successes with a Damage 1+ weapons, you'd always have "rolled" one+ success. You have to have a rolled success - or something that actually says it should be treated as such like Steadfast - for extra successes to count.

      This is also in direct contradiction with the hedgespinning section where additional successes explicitly do not become rolled successes.

      -----------

      And in the end, even if the devs check back in, and say you're right? You're still neglecting Dodging and Armor.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Heavy Arms View Post
        As far as I'm concerned, at this point? Your posts are about your ego, not about the game, because you want your reading of the rules to be treated as the more correct reading of the rules, and are sacrificing a holistically sensible ruleset for a reading that breaks things to justify banning things in play instead of just doing things the actual smart way.
        Why would I need to justify anything to you or anyone here on this forum to ban something in play? I would need to justify it only to my players, and they never bother with forums. A thing which I haven't done anyway, since I use Exceptional Success in combat. This theory is far-fetched and just plucked from the air.

        I've moved beyond our previous disagreement, please do so as well. By simply ignoring me if you have to. I'm not here specifically to argue with you, so if that is what it takes to stop you from throwing personal attacks my way, then by all means. I think if you stop to consider how incredibly thin your basis for this "psychological profile" you've constructed in your head is, you'll realize how ridiculous these allegations are. You likely have real-life friends of several years you couldn't so accurately profile as you pretend to be able to do with me based upon two or so text posts. Especially when you outright disregard any explanations I offer as "revisionism", even if the explanations -could- be true, as if you have a clear picture of the absolute immutable truth in your head already. Please consider what the basis for your absolute certainty is, and how thin a premise it represents.

        You said before: "Or to be blunt, your good intent failed, so it turned into bad intent." Well, that is not possible. Good intentions are good intentions, they cannot become "bad" by a failed execution. Intent and end result are two different things.

        The post you are replying to contains no personal attacks, and does not refer to anything that has come before. Throwing this personal attack out at me simply because you are on the other side of this new topic as a response to a neutrally worded post is just not ok.

        How long are you allowed to crucify me at will for something I already said, in hindsight, was not a very good approach and ultimately a mistake? When it has no bearing on any argument I just made...

        As far as I'm concerned, the combat section trumps the general permutations section. They're in conflict, or at least ambiguous. The combat rules phrasing makes sense, the permutations section rules applied to the combat rules doesn't.
        So you do see there is some conflict, but instead of deciding it is therefore possible that I'm arriving at a conclusion you think is wrong based upon an honest reason, you force a personal attack. Why? "As far as I'm concerned...", "in conflict", "at least ambiguous"... these are not signs that this issue is so clear-cut as to require malicious thought to be interpreted differently than how you do it.

        If they became rolled successes, then you could never roll no successes with a Damage 1+ weapons, you'd always have "rolled" one+ success.
        The reasoning was: No, because Extra Successes only activates if you roll at least one success initially, then you do Permutations, then you check roll results. So it would be possible to roll 0, since they'd only "add to" rolled successes in a later step.

        That's the way I was thinking about it before, and without any other parts of the book (p. 207) clarifying the distinction I'd still think about it like that, but I'm not sure anymore. It still could be like that, but then p. 207 is wrong. But if it isn't like that, p. 178 seems wrong or misleading. Has to be one of the two.

        I admit I'm wrong about there not being a distinction between total successes and initially rolled successes, you've shown that conclusively; however, I am still far from sure that "Extra Successes" are not supposed to be counted when determining an "Exceptional Success". After all, p. 176 still says you do permutations first, then "see how you did", and the table never mentions the "5+ successes" need to be rolled before permutations. Extra successes is placed in the same category as 10-Again, 9-Again, etc... Abbreviated parts of the rules in other places do mention "roll 5 successes", but abbreviations are often not the entire story, they aren't by their definition actually.

        It seems logical that the full-rules page on "Exceptional Success" has the most accurate rules on them, and there the conclusion seems very clearly that Extra Successes do apply. The weapon rules never say anything about exceptional successes at all, so while I'd totally accept that specific trumps general if they did, since they don't I'm falling back on the general exceptional success rules.

        Then again, the main CoFD words it differently still...

        It is, in the end, wildly confusing and not clear to me at all.

        It'd be good to know for sure, since if "Extra Successes" doesn't work, then the "banked successes" from Hedge Spinning can't lead to later Paradigm Shifts either, which would really change how my party works with those, since they've been relying on those to get the higher Paradigm Shift numbers. (What I mean is, you'd still need to roll 5 to get a Paradigm Shift, no matter how many banked successes you add.)

        EDIT: I now think HelmsDerp's reasoning, that Extra Successes is an un-stated exception to the general order in which Permutations are applied, is probably the most sensible.
        Originally posted by HelmsDerp View Post
        Bear in mind that Extra Successes says assuming your roll succeeds, ie you check for success (and exceptional success) before you add those successes. This is a specific permutation overriding the general rule about resolving permutations before determining your result.
        http://forum.theonyxpath.com/forum/m...edition/page18
        Last edited by Unahim; 07-15-2019, 03:12 PM.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Unahim View Post
          Why would I need to justify anything to you or anyone here on this forum to ban something in play?
          Need or not is irrelevant. You're making the case that players shouldn't be allowed to pick Steadfast or Inspired for attacks because exceptional successes are too easy because you're opting to read the rules in a fashion that makes them too easy instead of one that doesn't.

          I've moved beyond our previous disagreement, please do so as well.
          You moving past being called out on a bad post doesn't really mean much to my desire to move on from it coloring my opinions of your posts.

          If someone walks up to someone else and punches them in the face, do they get to say, "Well, I've moved on from that little incident, so nobody should hold it against me," and be taken seriously? I don't think so.

          ...if that is what it takes to stop you from throwing personal attacks my way, then by all means.
          If you think I broke the rules, flag my posts, if not, don't try to use it as some sort of rhetorical bad faith "counter" jab.

          If you want me to stop saying that your posts only communicate a desire to be right on the Internet.... stop posting that way instead of this nonsense.

          You likely have real-life friends of several years you couldn't so accurately profile as you pretend to be able to do with me based upon two or so text posts.
          "Don't attack me, but I'm allow to insult you!" Very convincing reasoning. Definitely. Totally.

          Please consider what the basis for your absolute certainty is, and how thin a premise it represents.
          After careful consideration and review, especially in light of this passage alone, my estimation of possibility of error in my assessments has gone from ~10% to less than 0.1%

          Perhaps you should consider your own posts since my needle is moving the direction you are trying to say you don't want to be going.

          Intent and end result are two different things.
          After enough times, no, they aren't. Doubling down on bad results despite any initial good intent corrupts it to bad intent.

          How long are you allowed to crucify me at will for something I already said, in hindsight, was not a very good approach and ultimately a mistake?
          I'm not. It just colors my reading of your posts. As far as I'm concerned, your primary motivation is to argue the most pedantic and technical reading for the sake of being right. You've demonstrated no desire for actual exchange of ideas or and of the other things you said before are what good discussions are supposed to be about. It's just dig into a position no matter what.

          Why?
          Besides above?

          1) Long history of these things on the Internet and a vast set of experiences of where these threads goo ~99% of the time when it turns into this sort of thing. Especially once one side starts playing the wounded victim.

          2) Repetition of your points as 100% correct even as I point out errors in them (which is then ignored like the Hedgespinning thing until now finally), and things like turning around and using evidence that there's room for multiple interpretations against me, without considering that means your own position is equally shay.

          3) Your own read on me if pretty off, so I don't think you really are putting a lot of energy into reading what I said. Despite whatever you think about me, I do actually think this thread is moving you away from the posts that have me with the impression I do, and somewhere I find more reasonable to deal with.

          The reasoning was: No, because Extra Successes only activates if you roll at least one success initially, then you do Permutations, then you check roll results. So it would be possible to roll 0, since they'd only "add to" rolled successes in a later step.
          Right. Rolled successes and Extra Successes are not equivalent as you claimed.

          But if it isn't like that, p. 178 seems wrong or misleading.
          And since treating this as wrong or misleading leads to the best results? Why not treat it that way instead of arguing otherwise?

          I now think HelmsDerp's reasoning, that Extra Successes is an un-stated exception to the general order in which Permutations are applied, is probably the most sensible.
          Which is different from my position how?

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by lnodiv View Post
            So, something I've noticed personally is that a lot of the people on the various Discords don't always have the best understanding of the rules. Reddit, likewise. As far as actual rules discussions go, I've mostly found these forums to be the most reliable.


            Chronicles of Darkness, Page 75.

            Note that it doesn't necessarily have to be a positive Condition affecting your character, it can also be a negative condition affecting an enemy, or a positive Condition affecting an ally, etc.

            You will note that this doesn't explicitly say 'including attack rolls' (because that's ridiculous). The statement is unqualified, and expecting them to specifically call out every potential qualifer for an unqualified statement would lead to 100 pages of 'and attack rolls, and Discipline rolls, and Empathy Rolls, and Strength rolls, and xyz'

            There is nothing special about attack rolls that disqualifies them from this rule.
            I will unfortunately confirm the comment about discords and knowing rules. Honestly unless it's the official OPP one I'd avoid most of the discords.


            “As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.”

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Heavy Arms View Post
              Need or not is irrelevant. You're making the case that players shouldn't be allowed to pick Steadfast or Inspired for attacks because exceptional successes are too easy because you're opting to read the rules in a fashion that makes them too easy instead of one that doesn't.
              I was "opting" to read them that way out of a sincere belief of that being what they said.

              You moving past being called out on a bad post doesn't really mean much to my desire to move on from it coloring my opinions of your posts.

              If someone walks up to someone else and punches them in the face, do they get to say, "Well, I've moved on from that little incident, so nobody should hold it against me," and be taken seriously? I don't think so.
              Of course it can colour your opinion of my posts, I'm not asking you to manifest some sort of self-mind-bleach power that doesn't exist. :P But when the post you were replying to only contains citing of the rules and a neutral tone, throwing in a personal attack is not ok, regardless of any pre-conceived notions or not. It just never is.

              To use your own example, if you later walk back up to that person while they're just chatting and punch them in the face, it isn't justified. If your opinion of me is such that my comments "cannot be taken seriously", then don't take them seriously and don't invest time in them. Attacking me personally is not the correct way to not take me seriously.

              If you think I broke the rules, flag my posts, if not, don't try to use it as some sort of rhetorical bad faith "counter" jab.
              Alright, I'll flag it, it didn't occur to me before. But the idea that defending myself from your personal attack after a post where I almost did nothing but cite some rules text is a "bad-faith counter jab" seems self-reinforcing. It feels like there's nothing I can do here except for just let the personal attack stand, since even just pointing it out is further "bad faith" on my behalf. xD

              If you want me to stop saying that your posts only communicate a desire to be right on the Internet.... stop posting that way instead of this nonsense.
              And what do your posts communicate? I asked a question in Simple Questions thread, got an answer there, then brought it up here and debated with Satchel a bit where we both assumed damage added to exceptional success based upon that reasoning. That's at least three people who held this idea at one point or the other, and the original assertment that it worked like that wasn't even mine, yet you jumped back in here and got personal after I didn't imemdiately change my view to yours and act as if I'm the only one who has ever thought this way before and have a personal stake in it working like this...

              "Don't attack me, but I'm allow to insult you!" Very convincing reasoning. Definitely. Totally.
              What part of that is an insult? O.o
              Nobody can read people as accurately as 10% error rate after a few text posts. That's not an insult, it applies to everyone including me. xD

              I'm not. It just colors my reading of your posts. As far as I'm concerned, your primary motivation is to argue the most pedantic and technical reading for the sake of being right. You've demonstrated no desire for actual exchange of ideas or and of the other things you said before are what good discussions are supposed to be about. It's just dig into a position no matter what.
              It is so dig in that I changed my mind. :P
              Just because you didn't explain your PoV in a way that I understood, doesn't mean my position is "dig-in". It also doesn't mean your explanation wasn't good, just that it didn't contain the parts I was missing.

              1) Long history of these things on the Internet and a vast set of experiences of where these threads goo ~99% of the time when it turns into this sort of thing. Especially once one side starts playing the wounded victim.
              That seems like a pretty hostile mindset to come into a thread with.

              2) Repetition of your points as 100% correct even as I point out errors in them (which is then ignored like the Hedgespinning thing until now finally), and things like turning around and using evidence that there's room for multiple interpretations against me, without considering that means your own position is equally shay.
              Without considering, even though my posts express doubt. And even though I first asked a question about some rule since I wasn't sure how it worked, and only adopted the PoV I did after being told by others that is how Extra Success is supposed to work.

              3) Your own read on me if pretty off, so I don't think you really are putting a lot of energy into reading what I said. Despite whatever you think about me, I do actually think this thread is moving you away from the posts that have me with the impression I do, and somewhere I find more reasonable to deal with.
              Your first sentence seems pretty "pot, kettle, black"... if I can be wrong about you, consider you could be wrong about me. And you haven't expressed any doubt about the rules (but I think you were right now, so that is understandable xD) nor me (from the start, and that seems like a self-fulfilling prophecy). I think the second sentence is actually positive, but I don't understand what you mean.

              Which is different from my position how?
              It's not! That's just the comment that provided the part of the puzzle that made it "click" for me.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Unahim View Post
                Of course it can colour your opinion of my posts, I'm not asking you to manifest some sort of self-mind-bleach power that doesn't exist.
                You literally said: "I've moved beyond our previous disagreement, please do so as well."

                So which is it? Do you acknowledge that my opinions and posts are colored by things said earlier in the thread (and this is not a long thread, it's not some grudge from 50 pages ago or something), or are you asking me to "move beyond" since you have? Do you see my frustration with all of this? How this comes off as rhetorically manipulative instead of neutral or honest?

                But when the post you were replying to only contains citing of the rules and a neutral tone, throwing in a personal attack is not ok, regardless of any pre-conceived notions or not.
                1) Neutral tone doesn't really exist in text, only perceived tone. I don't perceive a lot of neutrality in a post that cites a passage in a surface enough fashion that it's citing something that literally says the opposite of what's being argued. At best it's a gross mistake that doesn't justify the authoritative stance used; which I responded to unhappily and here we are in all this.

                2) You're also putting a heck of a lot of energy into me saying that I feel like you let ego and pride get the better of you for a few posts. You flagged it, the mods will make their call, but there's a point where "I don't like the way your posting," or, "This is coming off as very bad intentioned," has to be given a bit of charity as being phrased not as a direct personal attack but commentary on the posts in question.

                To use your own example, if you later walk back up to that person while they're just chatting and punch them in the face, it isn't justified.
                Not exactly applicable here.

                If your opinion of me is such that my comments "cannot be taken seriously",...
                OK, this right here? Seriously part of the problem. Cherrying picking a phrase, removing it from context, and blowing it out of proportion is not helping either of us. You've taken "I'm not going to seriously entertain this request," to, "I'm not going to take you seriously over anything." I didn't say that second part, you're just adding it in, and it's cutting out options for how to proceed.

                It feels like there's nothing I can do here except for just let the personal attack stand, since even just pointing it out is further "bad faith" on my behalf.
                Well, you could consider that however much it might not be pleasant, it was an honest communication of my feelings about the back and forth to that point and considering how to address that as more important that tossing barbs around.

                And what do your posts communicate?
                A bunch of things. Frustration and annoyance getting in a bit more than might be necessary is certainly something I'd expect someone to perceive in my posts.

                ...yet you jumped back in here...
                It's a forum, calling continuing to participate in a thread that I had already been in "jumping back in," is a bit absurd. It's not like I left somehow, or said something like I was leaving. I missed the initial back and forth so I'm not allowed to keep posting in the thread on a new tangent? I lose my seat at the table somehow?

                ...and got personal after I didn't imemdiately change my view to yours and act as if I'm the only one who has ever thought this way before and have a personal stake in it working like this...
                To be as clear as possible: the point of frustration for me was not your refusal to adopt my position, but your repeated insistence that there was no other valid way to read the text besides yours despite me making my case. I know you have since admitted to some mistakes there, but you were to me at that time literally telling me that a passage that says rolled successes and additional successes are different was a passage that proved they weren't, and trying to build you case on technical parsing of the rules. That's frustrating as hell to deal with, so I responded to it. Frankly I would have do pretty much the same without the Devil's Advocate thing early too; that just colored me to be blunter sooner.

                What part of that is an insult?
                The part where you start insulting my ability to make assessments about people, especially those in my personal life. You don't feel commenting negatively on someone's perceived posting motivations is justified,this is worse. Though I don't consider it an attack mind you, just a statement made to incite negativity.

                It is so dig in that I changed my mind
                In the post after the one that got me snippy.

                I'm trying to communicate what got me to the point I got to, because you asked. Debating or getting nitpicky it isn't going to help anything. If I'm not getting something through, please, ask for clarity, but these little things do not make it easy to take this as a serious attempt to get back on track. I don't know how you intend them to come off, but it's not positive to me.

                That seems like a pretty hostile mindset to come into a thread with.
                Perhaps, but the Internet has proven to be a fairly unpleasant place in general, so like most people when it comes to social interactions I have a set of heuristics for when to put my defenses up.

                I think the second sentence is actually positive, but I don't understand what you mean.
                To attempt to distill:

                1) I was expressing a softening of my position on you.

                2) It's probably better to get back to talking about the game than each other at this point.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Heavy Arms View Post
                  You literally said: "I've moved beyond our previous disagreement, please do so as well."

                  So which is it? Do you acknowledge that my opinions and posts are colored by things said earlier in the thread (and this is not a long thread, it's not some grudge from 50 pages ago or something), or are you asking me to "move beyond" since you have? Do you see my frustration with all of this? How this comes off as rhetorically manipulative instead of neutral or honest?
                  I can see your frustration. I tried to explain my position better in that bit, but obviously failed. I understand that of course you cannot flip a switch to change your opinion. All I want(ed) was no more personal attacks based upon previous discussions thrown into a completely different discussion that was being conducted civilly up to that point. :P That's all! I can imagine a life on this forum where every time I have an opposing position, a "your ego" post is made. That would get really tiring, I'd rather avoid it. :P
                  If we can do that, I have no beef.

                  OK, this right here? Seriously part of the problem. Cherrying picking a phrase, removing it from context, and blowing it out of proportion is not helping either of us. You've taken "I'm not going to seriously entertain this request," to, "I'm not going to take you seriously over anything." I didn't say that second part, you're just adding it in, and it's cutting out options for how to proceed.

                  Well, you could consider that however much it might not be pleasant, it was an honest communication of my feelings about the back and forth to that point and considering how to address that as more important that tossing barbs around.
                  I've put these two together because I think they fit. I might have read it in a way that wasn't intended by you, but that was directly drawn from my feelings about it. I think we're both essentially at the same point here, and the best thing to do is just get back to the game I guess. :P For what it is worth, I'd probably have read it differently if it said "and have your arguments taken seriously?" rather than "and be taken seriously?" as the latter sounds as being taken serious as a whole, as a person, rather than aimed specifically at a comment. But I accept you didn't mean it like that.

                  I know you have since admitted to some mistakes there, but you were to me at that time literally telling me that a passage that says rolled successes and additional successes are different was a passage that proved they weren't
                  But that was just because I was reading it wrong. :/
                  I can't help being wrong, I'd avoid it 100% of the time if I could. xD Anyway, my bad.

                  The part where you start insulting my ability to make assessments about people, especially those in my personal life. You don't feel commenting negatively on someone's perceived posting motivations is justified,this is worse. Though I don't consider it an attack mind you, just a statement made to incite negativity.
                  I didn't mean it like that! It's a general belief about -everyone-. We all think we can judge people based on a small sample size, -especially- if we've been in an argument. But if we'd sit down and try to guess our real-life friends' motivations for things they say in conversations, we'd be wrong more often than not. I didn't want to imply that you specifically are bad at it, I was trying to say we all in general are pretty bad at it.

                  To attempt to distill:

                  1) I was expressing a softening of my position on you.

                  2) It's probably better to get back to talking about the game than each other at this point.
                  o7

                  On that note, I still think it is more fun for an exceptional success to change the combat scene directly rather than cause a Condition like Inspired. If I encourage my players to use them that way, I'm not actually doing them any harm, right? If the fight is nearly done and changing the conditions around them or inflicting tilts would not be a serious boon to them, I would obviously just tell them to go ahead and take Inspired or whatever they like.

                  But between "I hit the vampire really good! I become Inspired." and "I hit the vampire really good! This makes him stumble, giving me enough time to grab the lantern off the table and smash it at his feet, creating a Fire Environmental Tilt! Small for now, but growing...", I definitely want to encourage the latter.
                  Last edited by Unahim; 07-16-2019, 03:48 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    I think it's certainly good to remind players that a lot of options are available to them... including hitting their friends with Conditions. Changeling is a game where your best combatant in terms of getting big attacks in probably doesn't have the same access to some of the more clever things that might be important to ending a fight; esp. if raw damage isn't enough.

                    I've found that 2e making it more possible to have reasonable "tank" NPCs as enemies than 1e makes it easier to encourage players to start looking at these options (either as exceptional success bonuses or just going for called shots that might cause them, or other factors). When something can take 10L damage in a round and not care at all, you start reaching for other ways to win the fight.

                    That said, things like Inspired or Steadfast can be really important to pulling that off in the first place. Taking a bit penalty to stab someone in the eye can be really hard to pull off... unless you got Steadfast first.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Only dice count toward exceptional successes.

                      Works fine the other way, though, if you feel like throwing more big effects around.

                      TBH, "someone does something awful and it ruins someone else's day because have you ever fucking sat around in the ER for six hours with a soulstealing monster just fucking staring at you across the waiting room" is rarely going to be a bad direction for an nWoD game to go.


                      Cavaliers of Mars Creator

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Heavy Arms View Post
                        I think it's certainly good to remind players that a lot of options are available to them... including hitting their friends with Conditions. Changeling is a game where your best combatant in terms of getting big attacks in probably doesn't have the same access to some of the more clever things that might be important to ending a fight; esp. if raw damage isn't enough.

                        I've found that 2e making it more possible to have reasonable "tank" NPCs as enemies than 1e makes it easier to encourage players to start looking at these options (either as exceptional success bonuses or just going for called shots that might cause them, or other factors). When something can take 10L damage in a round and not care at all, you start reaching for other ways to win the fight.

                        That said, things like Inspired or Steadfast can be really important to pulling that off in the first place. Taking a bit penalty to stab someone in the eye can be really hard to pull off... unless you got Steadfast first.
                        I get what you're saying, but I feel it's more of a mark against Steadfast that it just makes the "eye-stab" possible no matter what else is in play, just because the character is feeling pretty confident about it. :P It is not very tailored to the current scene, it misses a lot of narrative flair to me. I can see a real pattern of "Tough enemy? -> Get Steadfast somehow -> Eye stab" emerging. Can of course ask my players "could you please not, this once?" but I'd rather just be clear upfront.

                        When it comes to dealing with such a threat, I'd rather force them to think on their feet anew every time.

                        Originally posted by Rose Bailey View Post
                        Only dice count toward exceptional successes.

                        Works fine the other way, though, if you feel like throwing more big effects around.

                        TBH, "someone does something awful and it ruins someone else's day because have you ever fucking sat around in the ER for six hours with a soulstealing monster just fucking staring at you across the waiting room" is rarely going to be a bad direction for an nWoD game to go.
                        The emotions in that waiting room should be a good Glamour source while you wait.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Unahim View Post
                          I get what you're saying, but I feel it's more of a mark against Steadfast that it just makes the "eye-stab" possible no matter what else is in play, just because the character is feeling pretty confident about it.
                          Well, no. Getting reduced to a chance-die still means it's not a sure thing (though it is a big jump), and the enemy can still Dodge it. It's going from very unlikely to much more likely, not impossible to guaranteed.

                          It is not very tailored to the current scene, it misses a lot of narrative flair to me.
                          I mean... of course? We're talking about this in an abstract sense with mechanics that used to enhance the narrative flair of the scene as it unfolds; not create it on their own.

                          Alice uses her character's Kith bonus to get an Exceptional Success to on a speech and gives Bob's character the Inspired Condition, who then cashes it in on attacked an enemy also getting an Exceptional Success, passed on to Charlie's character as Steadfast who uses it to take advantage of the enemies weakness.

                          That lacks narrative because... there's no narrative. It's just a mechanical description of what rules were in play.

                          Dylan, at a loss as the motley comes across a privateer camp that was supposed to be unguarded so they could rescue his husband from before being taken without confrontation finds, contemplates what to do about the Hedgebeast standing watch. Torn between the desire to free their distant love, and the motley's reluctance for such risks, he makes an impassioned plea to them to sway them to put aside their fears and attack. Emily, remembering all that's she's lost and would do anything to regain, rises to the call to arms and charges the enemy and smashes into it with a mighty blow that would kill a mortal... but it simply stands back up with a low growl. Jo, who had been the most uneasy about violence due to little skill in direct conflict, at first feels forced by Dylan and Emily's actions, but seeing their earnest emotions fills Jo with resolve to end this before it gets worse. Confident that with one blow from the dagger Jo can do it, Jo lifts the Token weapon and lunges to strike while the Hedgebeast is busy standing and growling at Emily...

                          That is, I hope, a bit of flair. It's how the raw mechanical talk translates in play rather than just us talking about it... and why I think it's not such a bad thing.

                          I can see a real pattern of "Tough enemy? -> Get Steadfast somehow -> Eye stab" emerging. Can of course ask my players "could you please not, this once?" but I'd rather just be clear upfront.
                          At a certain point that's on the ST for not creating other interesting options for a fight to go down. If every enemy is a zombie and a headshot instantly kills them, everyone is going to make called head shots all the time. If every enemy can be taken down with giving someone Steadfast, that's what players will do. It's not a problem with the called shot rules, or the Steadfast rules. If you want a lot of thinking on their feet, it's on you to control information flow on the enemy to keep planning ahead in check, and keeping enemies varied enough that there's no go-to tactic.

                          That said, the "Get Steadfast somehow" part can be a heck of a narrative moment.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Oh yeah, right, I forgot Steadfast has a specific exception for auto-success if the roll was already a chance dice. That makes it a lot less optimal, which hopefully means other approaches just naturally look more enticing. You also have to be able to deal damage with a 1 success hit I guess, since the Blinded Tilt only applies if you managed to do damage. So if you only have a 2l weapon and he has 3 supernatural armour, you're out of luck there.

                            And I do admit that giving someone else Steadfast for your Exceptional Success makes more sense in the narration more often, I hadn't thought about that option.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X