Jump to content
Gallows

Defence?

Recommended Posts

You Can add 1 to the TN through stances, but your opponent Can just exploit all successes, without calling a raise before rolling.

There May be defence hidden in techniques, but I see this as a return to the warhammer issue where new characters and weak NPCs would miss a lot and seasoned fights will be the opposite. Defence is important to fighting and should be in the hands of the one being attacked.

straight up opposed tests would solve that where two equal fighters of any level would have the same kind of balance.

Defence should be a universal thing for warriors.

Edited by Gallows

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Opposed checks in WFRP and SW both had the effect of making combat extremely tedious and drawn out. I can understand why they have gone this particular path.

Perhaps introducing duelling rules for a more Honourable challenge between two characters is an option. Most of the time combat is a set difficulty but for the appropriate times you make it opposed.

Edited by Richardbuxton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to me that they are leaving this up to the GM/Players to allow for GM bonus for good ideas, player:"I roll out of the way using athletics" / GM: "That increases the TN of his next hit by 1-2".

just a thought have not gotten that far in the rules yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me it looks like seasoned samurai become sacks of static potatoes with more damage but also more potatoes in the sack.

the problem is that with a Low TN as 2 for base, balancing the scaling of defence will be a Nightmare. 

The only idea I have for House rules would be competitive checks where you split your dice pool between attack and defence. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Gallows said:

To me it looks like seasoned samurai become sacks of static potatoes with more damage but also more potatoes in the sack.

the problem is that with a Low TN as 2 for base, balancing the scaling of defence will be a Nightmare. 

The only idea I have for House rules would be competitive checks where you split your dice pool between attack and defence. 

Did you miss that you can turn any strike in a Skirmish into a Critical Strike for 2 Opportunity?

High rank combat looks to be a bit rocket taggy to me.

Edited by Ultimatecalibur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Ultimatecalibur said:

Did you miss that you can turn any strike in a Skirmish into a Critical Strike for 2 Opportunity?

High rank combat looks to be a bit rocket taggy to me.

Yes, but that is unrelated to the flat scaling for defence and parry. It is still very much static combat that feels like the defender stands still, takes the punishment and waits for his turn. I like combat to be more interactive, where you need to manage your resources, take risks if you do all out attacks etc. This feels like an incredibly old school approach, and not in a good way, with some new dice added on top.

Edited by Gallows

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Gallows said:

Yes, but that is unrelated to the flat scaling for defence and parry. It is still very much static combat that feels like the defender stands still, takes the punishment and waits for his turn. I like combat to be more interactive, where you need to manage your resources, take risks if you do all out attacks etc. This feels like an incredibly old school approach, and not in a good way, with some new dice added on top.

That is what the Technique systems are for.

Striking as Air lets you boost your TN versus the next attack when you make an attack while in Air stance.

Striking as Earth lets you boost your resistance when making an attack while in Earth stance.

Striking as Fire lets you boost the next critical strike an opponent takes when you make an attack while in Fire stance.

Striking as Water lets you reduce an opponents physical resist for a turn when you make an attack while in Water stance.

Crescent Moon Style lets you counter attack when Centered or Guarding.

Iron Forest Style lets you make attacks to Pin a target with spears, naginata and other polearms.

The other Kata are also combat options.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Richardbuxton said:

Opposed checks in WFRP and SW both had the effect of making combat extremely tedious and drawn out. I can understand why they have gone this particular path.

Perhaps introducing duelling rules for a more Honourable challenge between two characters is an option. Most of the time combat is a set difficulty but for the appropriate times you make it opposed.

Indeed. I don't mind having a fixed target number - this works okay in Force & Destiny.

However, one thing that does make Force And Destiny much less rocket-taggy than it might be when one combines lightsabers and fixed to-hit numbers are parry/reflex talents and defensive stances. Now a Setback die is not the same as increasing the difficulty per se - it's not as big a deal as a difficulty die, and the two L5R dice don't allow that level of granularity.

But fixed to-hit numbers with a means of adding difficulty via tactics isn't too bad.

 

Opposed checks in what are clearly combatitive situations are in the system:

Quote

For instance, if one character succeeded at a check to hurl an opponent off a parapet, the target would get a chance to resist with a skill check using an elemental approach based on their chosen method of resistance.

 

@Ultimatecalibur - ninja-ed! (shinobi-ed?)  

I was just typing a similar list. Essentially; compare F&D - you can make yourself harder to hit, but not with stats and skills; stats and skill generally make you succeed on your own checks, talents (read; Kata and Kiho) make other people fail on theirs. Force & Destiny lightsaber fights are less rocket-taggy than their stats suggest precisely because of talents like parry, allowing you to take a small amount of strain instead of a lot of wounds. 

Also, don't forget disdvantages, anxieties and whatever else they're called. Any NPC worth having a nametag should have them, and if you can discern them, dragging them into the scope of a check is not unreasonable.

 

 

 

Certainly, in a duel, you can Centre yourself as an action:

Quote

Effects: If you succeed, increase the TN of the next Attack check targeting you by 2 plus your bonus successes. This effect persists until the beginning of your next turn.

That hands you bonus difficulty to be hit, but the number of bonus successes will be dependent on your awesomeness as a swordsman. 

Jimbob the inebriated ashigaru will increase the check by 2, whilst Sensei Kakita Hideyama might pass the check by 4 or more successes, making your next attack TN+6 or more, plus a further 1 for being in air stance, so all you're getting out of attacking him is a bunch of strife. 

 

 

Edited by Magnus Grendel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any PC or Adversary can get to TN to Hit 4 in a skirmish easily by adopting the Air Stance and taking the Guard action. Or easily to TN 5 in a Duel taking the Center action with the Air stance. Upping the TN to be hit isn't an issue, so much as the opportunity cost of taking more defensive actions over aggressive actions. Being in a duel, skirmish or battle should never be safe. A TN 2 to be hit isn't sitting still and taking it in my opinion either. It just represents the danger and chaos of life or death struggles. The big defensive fail safe for characters is spending Void and sacrificing weapons or limbs to reduce critical strikes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think what can seem bothersome for some is not that base TN is 2, but that anyone's base TN is 2. No such things like reflexes impacting your TN to be hit. Indeed at 2 you aren't a sitting duck, it simulates basic difficulty to hit someone. But a weak courtier is at 2, same way a trained bushi is at 2. Of course the courtier might not have the techniques or abilities to raise his TN like a bushi would. No more "efficient" passive defense, if you want to avoid getting it, work for it. No more defense buff stuff preventing attack either.

I'm still torn on it, but its probably my Rokugani conservative side talking. Because in the end, it's more what the philosophy of Budo is. Positioning and stances. These changes are insidiously seeping trough my conservative armor like taint. Slowly growing.

wonder what Mizu-Do will look like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In an equal fight the actual base TN is irrelevant, so long as they are the same. Too high and the encounter will last too long, too low and it becomes brutal.

In an unbalanced fight though having an equal base TN is very helpful. The skilled combatant has more flexibility since they know their opponent has a lower Potential Number. They can choose Defensive options to play with the opponent, wearing them down while taking no damage themselves. Or they can go offensive to end the opponent very quickly, perhaps with a powerful Critical Strike or simply with massive damage.

Tge weak opponent though is in a predicament. Do they go Defensive? Trying to survive longer but with less chance of actually hitting. Or do they go offensive to ensure they hit, but completely opening themselves up to attack in the process.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...