Jump to content

ccarlson101

Members
  • Content Count

    390
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About ccarlson101

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday 02/07/1969

Profile Information

  • Location
    Covina, California, United States
  1. Just like Judge Dredd, I do not believe any Boba Fett movie would be better served with him ever taking off his helmet!
  2. For a Vigilance skill check? Sure. You do understand though that this is not an "initiative rule". Are you implying that a character cannot gain a free maneuver if they use Cool for initiative?
  3. A PC rolls rolls 2 successes, 2 advantage and a Triumph on an initiative roll. An NPC rolls 1 success, 1 advantage and a Triumph on an initiative roll. How is that a tie? Is that sarcasm? Seriously, because I can't tell. Your example is not a tie. In your example the PC goes first and should get his resolved Triumph first, then the NPC. I am really not seeing what the confusion is here. A PC rolls rolls 2 successes, 2 advantage and a Triumph on an initiative roll. An NPC rolls 4 success, 3 advantage and a Triumph on an initiative roll. How is that a tie? NPC goes first in the initiative order and should resolve their Triumph first. PC would go next. Perhaps I was misunderstanding the situation, I thought the argument was the characters involved rolled ties on their initiative checks, which included a triumph. In both of your examples the character with the higher initiative should resolve their triumph first. I still fail to see what the problem is. "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." If you are going to pick up someone else's argument, and run with it, you should at least know what you are arguing. Aservan (the one whom you quoted in addition to me as we were discussing who goes first), indicated the PC should always get the benefit (i.e., "tie") and thus the NPC's should be forced to commit their triumph-generated free maneuver first. I tended to agree in theory. Then you ran onto the field, strapped the goalpost to your back, and started running zig-zag all over the place.
  4. That's an interesting theory. How do you support this claim? Given, specifically, that this is a conversation about who goes first when using a triumph to gain a bonus maneuver before combat begins*... (*further compounded by the opinion of some here - myself included - that this bonus maneuver gained and used in such a manner does not impact the character's limit of 2 maneuvers per round, when they choose to eventually take their first action somewhere along the initiative order.)
  5. A PC rolls rolls 2 successes, 2 advantage and a Triumph on an initiative roll. An NPC rolls 1 success, 1 advantage and a Triumph on an initiative roll. How is that a tie? Is that sarcasm? Seriously, because I can't tell. Your example is not a tie. In your example the PC goes first and should get his resolved Triumph first, then the NPC. I am really not seeing what the confusion is here. A PC rolls rolls 2 successes, 2 advantage and a Triumph on an initiative roll. An NPC rolls 4 success, 3 advantage and a Triumph on an initiative roll. How is that a tie?
  6. A PC rolls rolls 2 successes, 2 advantage and a Triumph on an initiative roll. An NPC rolls 1 success, 1 advantage and a Triumph on an initiative roll. How is that a tie?
  7. I think I'm beginning to see a trend. It would appear groups that start combat at long range or greater may have something in common... Wookiee Marauders.
  8. Not sure you can decide what's more interesting (or not) at others' tables, but OK. Tie goes to the PC is a great theory. One that is probably a good go-to house rule for these instances. It's not a houserule though, Initiative ties go to the PCs. That is RAW. RAW? No. No it isn't. Not in this case. You are stretching the rules for initiative (within the framework of slot order placement), into pre-initiative bonus maneuvers gained through a triumph, which happens prior to the start of combat. Is it hard to see the logic of extending the rule out to cover this? No. Of course not. Makes perfect sense in some ways. I said as much already. But please don't toss 'RAW' around so willy-nilly.
  9. Not sure you can decide what's more interesting (or not) at others' tables, but OK. Tie goes to the PC is a great theory. One that is probably a good go-to house rule for these instances. Figuring... Assuming... What's the difference in this case? In the end, you're trying to pigeonhole specific, narrow possible instances into a general idea. Maybe that's the something you're missing? Though I do like that you answer your own questions... Good thing your experience isn't what is being discussed. Otherwise you'd be the only one with something to offer... FWIW, my experience differs from yours apparently. I've had plenty of combats start at short range. Heck, some have even broken out starting at engaged. Go figure.
  10. Not exactly. And not at all my point. Which you either glossed over or ignored. PC A and NPC B start the encounter at short range and both generate a triumph on initiative. If the PC takes his free maneuver first, followed by the NPC, it unfolds as you say. End result, they are still at short range from each other. If the NPC goes first, he may not be inclined to react to the movement and do something other than move away. Thus the PC going after can indeed engage. Or, alternately, the NPC smartly moves away first on its bonus maneuver to medium range. The PC then could choose to forgo making up the distance and instead choose to do something else. So it does matter. Now, whether that's a big deal or not, is beside the point.
  11. Just off the top of my head, the only thing that timing could potentially impact, would be if someone wanted to use their triumph-generated free maneuver to engage another character who didn't want to be. And that other character also got a triumph-generated free maneuver and wanted to use it to step away. Depending on what order it occurs, either the first individual's maneuver goes off first and the second character reacts to negate the benefit, or the second character moves away first thus making the first character's intended move invalid before he even had a chance to use it. But that's a minor (probably rare) issue resolvable in the moment, IMO.
  12. Now, this I don't agree with. I think players can make reasonable assumptions about what they're up against (whether that is correct or not is another story). The wookiee Marauder can decide whether or not trying to lie to a Hutt is IC in character, IC going to be believable, and OOC likely to result in really bad consequences. I don't consider that player's consideration a bad thing. What I consider bad is "can I roll? what's the difficulty? oh, wow, nevermind that seems too hard." Well, that's all I meant. Once the player takes their intended action, despite discovering the dangers of the dice pool, then the character certainly has more information than they had before and the player can act accordingly. Player: "I shoot at the Big Bad, he's at long range." GM: "Okay, he has Adversary 3, so that's...RRR" Player: "Oh, dang, okay...argh! A despair!" ...(next round)... Player: "This guy's too tough, time to beat it!" Maybe the term "roll-play" gets over-used, but it seems applicable to someone who wants to forego a roll based on what they learn mechanically. I'm not using it to mean anything more complicated than that. I suppose could use "metagamey" instead. Exactly. As opposed to: Player: "I shoot at the Big Bad, he's at long range." GM: "Okay, he has Adversary 3, so that's...RRR" Player: "Oh, dang, nevermind! I shoot the minions instead!" Which, to me (and you, obviously), is not okay.
  13. Not at all. S'all good. Best I clarified my point anyway. Going back, I see where my words were poorly chosen.
  14. Most people don't know Lucas was fully involved in every story arc. What's more interesting is that Lucas himself was the one who wanted to bring Maul back, for that exact reason, and some others. There was more to tell about him, and Lucas also wanted to show that even Maul had feelings and compassion, as a way of contrasting Sidious. The team was actually aghast, and dubious when he first presented it. This is exactly what I like about the effect Lucas has had in the past that I am certain will be lost in future: he has this way of springing seemingly random stuff on his team and they panic, and then do their best work. The two-bladed lightsaber? A last minute addition, and suddenly the costume and choreography has to be modified ending up with probably the best live-action lightsaber battle in the franchise. I realized Lucas was an intrinsic part of the TWC story development. Perhaps my choice of wording didn't convey that. But neither did it disallow for it. The fact is, the team did do what they did specifically to correct the mistake Lucas made in Ep 1 wrt Maul. The fact that he was on (dictating to) the team does not detract from that point.
  15. To address the overall issue in a different manner, we've toyed with a houserule to that end. Much like you use the worst of either skill/ability when using two weapons, and just as you use the worst of any/all defenses of multiple targets, likewise you use the worst of any beneficial/detrimental mods to your attack. So in order to benefit from accurate, both weapons would have to be. Same with superior. Same with laser sight. If even one of the pistols has a blaster actuating module, you'd add the requisite setback die to your pool. And so on. Sure its a little harsher, but it keeps the cheese away, I think.
×
×
  • Create New...