Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Combat - Static over Dynamic

Expand Messages
  • dukereg11
    ... rolling in combat is not to hit or to cast successfully . It is to determine who gained/lost advantage and made progress towards their goal. ... Yeah,
    Message 1 of 15 , Feb 28, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In FateRPG@yahoogroups.com, <aecooper@...> wrote:

      > Does this help? The key thing to wrap your head around is that
      rolling in combat is not "to hit" or "to cast successfully". It is to
      determine who gained/lost advantage and made progress towards their goal.
      >

      Yeah, its a good reminder for someone coming from a D&D background. :-)

      Some thoughts:
      If I have a roll for Simon in my example, what is it based on? Alvin
      rolls with his
      Bastard Sword xxx
      skill, say. So he starts at Good and his roll modifies this up and down.

      By way of explanation of the magic system, Simon has cast a spell
      based on a series of skills, such that each must be high enough to
      cast the desired spell, but its not appropriate to roll against any
      single one. I want the consequences of spells with more skill level
      requirements to have greater consequences, no matter how I describe it.
      (People familiar with Mage: The Awakening may find this familiar.)
      So e.g. a fire spell that requires only
      Fire xxxxx
      should have a more advanced outcome on wound track than one requiring
      Fire x
      BUT
      A spell might require
      Earth xxxx
      Fire xx
      Air xxx
      Water x
      and another
      Fire xx
      Air xx
      Water x
      Earth xx
      so it doesnt seem right to roll a particular element's skill to
      determine the starting point for Simon's roll vs Alvin in combat.

      It just occurred to me as I wrote above to either roll against the
      magical aspect or require a seperate Concentration skill, depending on
      how highly powered the character should be. But then how do I give
      spells with greater requirements a higher starting point to roll from?

      I don't expect you to solve all of my problems of course, but I just
      thought I'd explain the problem a bit more... any further input from
      anyone appreciated.
    • howard_m_thompson
      My answer to the question ... might be overly simplistic. Why not roll against the highest/most restrictive requirement?
      Message 2 of 15 , Mar 1, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        My answer to the question

        >But then how do I give spells with greater requirements a higher starting point to roll
        > from?

        might be overly simplistic. Why not roll against the highest/most restrictive requirement?
      • Renato Ramonda
        ... Or, keep the Elemental skills, and add a Battle Casting skill (or maybe simply the Concentration ). This way you can have different blends of
        Message 3 of 15 , Mar 1, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          On 3/1/06, howard_m_thompson <hmthomps@...> wrote:
          > My answer to the question
          >
          > >But then how do I give spells with greater requirements a higher starting point to roll
          > > from?
          >
          > might be overly simplistic. Why not roll against the highest/most restrictive requirement?

          Or, keep the "Elemental" skills, and add a "Battle Casting" skill (or
          maybe simply the "Concentration"). This way you can have different
          blends of characters:

          Archetype1: the young and brave battle wizard, with maybe 3 levels max
          in the elemental spheres, but also 3 levels in "Battle Casting"; can
          keep cool even when some big warrior si shouting at him and waving a
          big mean battleaxe.

          Archetype2: the bookworm laboratory wizard. Has maybe even 4-5 levels
          in the Elemental aspects, but only 1 level in "Battle Casting". This
          character will be able to perform mighty ritual magic when out of the
          action, but will have a hard time on the battlefield.

          Makes sense?

          --
          Renato Ramonda
        • dukereg11
          ... starting point to roll ... restrictive requirement? ... Simply because: Steam spell (made up on the spot, not actually balanced) Fire xxxxx Water xx and
          Message 4 of 15 , Mar 1, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In FateRPG@yahoogroups.com, "howard_m_thompson" <hmthomps@...> wrote:
            >
            > My answer to the question
            >
            > >But then how do I give spells with greater requirements a higher
            starting point to roll
            > > from?
            >
            > might be overly simplistic. Why not roll against the highest/most
            restrictive requirement?
            >

            Simply because:

            "Steam" spell (made up on the spot, not actually balanced)
            Fire xxxxx
            Water xx
            and "Flying ball of flaming mud" spell
            Fire xxxxx
            Water xx
            Air xxxx
            Earth xxx
            have the same most restrictive requirement, but the second takes twice
            as many elemental magic skill levels, and should have a higher roll
            starting point as a result.

            Thanks for the suggestion though... I'm considering remaking the magic
            system so that any spell falls into only one domain. I'd probably not
            use elements, because of the whole "Summon scalidng water" thing.
          • dukereg11
            ... starting point to roll ... restrictive requirement? ... It does make sense, but unfortunately it still doesnt allow a battle-mage s Scalding spell Fire
            Message 5 of 15 , Mar 1, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In FateRPG@yahoogroups.com, "Renato Ramonda" <renato.ramonda@...>
              wrote:
              >
              > On 3/1/06, howard_m_thompson <hmthomps@...> wrote:
              > > My answer to the question
              > >
              > > >But then how do I give spells with greater requirements a higher
              starting point to roll
              > > > from?
              > >
              > > might be overly simplistic. Why not roll against the highest/most
              restrictive requirement?
              >
              > Or, keep the "Elemental" skills, and add a "Battle Casting" skill (or
              > maybe simply the "Concentration"). This way you can have different
              > blends of characters:
              >
              > Archetype1: the young and brave battle wizard, with maybe 3 levels max
              > in the elemental spheres, but also 3 levels in "Battle Casting"; can
              > keep cool even when some big warrior si shouting at him and waving a
              > big mean battleaxe.
              >
              > Archetype2: the bookworm laboratory wizard. Has maybe even 4-5 levels
              > in the Elemental aspects, but only 1 level in "Battle Casting". This
              > character will be able to perform mighty ritual magic when out of the
              > action, but will have a hard time on the battlefield.
              >
              > Makes sense?
              >
              > --
              > Renato Ramonda
              >

              It does make sense, but unfortunately it still doesnt allow a
              battle-mage's
              "Scalding" spell
              Fire xxx
              Water xxx
              to be more likely to harm the opponent than the "Steam" spell
              Fire x
              Water x
              of another battle-mage with the same amount of ranks in Battle Casting.

              I see the merit of your idea, but I'd need some kind of derived skill.

              I think I've overcomplicated things with the magic system I've chosen,
              to be honest. I'm going to have a good think about how to make one
              that fits better.
            • Kurt Rauscher
              If you want to keep the elemental skills, what about this idea? It encourages people using more elements to be more balanced, but still benefits the To cast a
              Message 6 of 15 , Mar 1, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                If you want to keep the elemental skills, what about this idea? It
                encourages people using more elements to be more balanced, but still
                benefits the

                To cast a spell, you must roll your LOWEST rated skill of the required
                skills and achieve a success level of at least the highest requirement
                for the spell effect actually occur?

                Example: Mage has 5 ranks in fire, 3 ranks in water, 5 ranks in air,
                3 ranks in earth.
                Casting a spell that requires 5 fire, 2 water, they'd roll their water skill.
                Casting a spell that requires 5 fire, 2 water, 4 air, 3 earth, they'd
                roll their earth or water skill.

                Are you planning on having a list of spells for this or coming up with
                magic on the fly?

                Why would spells have different requirements? I'd suggest using the
                total number of required levels as some sort of effect gauge to
                determine what the spell can do, with at least one rank spent per
                element. The skill roll would only be to cast the spell, not
                determine it's effects? (this is getting way off base here).

                So, to create a small flame would be 1 fire, to create a flame
                underwater might be 1 fire, 1 water, 1 air... a "fireball" might be
                4 fire, 2 air.. broken down as the effect of 4 damage (Great or
                Superb? vs the opponent's result ), range/area affected/targets of 2
                (from the air) or something... i dunno, i'm crunching too many numbers
                here and not making sense to myself anymore. :)

                --
                Kurt Rauscher -:- krauscher@...
                "Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil, but write it all down!"
              • Kurt Rauscher
                ... More babble following on to my previous message: The 3 fire, 3 water spell might end up as damage/result 5 (superb/epic, depending on if you start counting
                Message 7 of 15 , Mar 1, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  On 3/1/06, dukereg11 <dukereg11@...> wrote:

                  > It does make sense, but unfortunately it still doesnt allow a
                  > battle-mage's
                  > "Scalding" spell
                  > Fire xxx
                  > Water xxx
                  > to be more likely to harm the opponent than the "Steam" spell
                  > Fire x
                  > Water x
                  > of another battle-mage with the same amount of ranks in Battle Casting.
                  >

                  More babble following on to my previous message:
                  The 3 fire, 3 water spell might end up as damage/result 5
                  (superb/epic, depending on if you start counting at average or not),
                  with "douses open flames" from the remaining 1 water effect. But, the
                  1 fire, 1 water might be damage/result 2 (fair/good), or effect "warms
                  and steams clean fabrics" or effect "boils water"


                  --
                  Kurt Rauscher -:- krauscher@...
                  "Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil, but write it all down!"
                • dukereg11
                  ... On the fly (with a few premade examples as guidelines). ... This is similar my original idea, which led to the problem. :-D My problem as originally stated
                  Message 8 of 15 , Mar 1, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In FateRPG@yahoogroups.com, "Kurt Rauscher" <krauscher@...> wrote:

                    >
                    > Are you planning on having a list of spells for this or coming up with
                    > magic on the fly?
                    >
                    On the fly (with a few premade examples as guidelines).

                    > Why would spells have different requirements? I'd suggest using the
                    > total number of required levels as some sort of effect gauge to
                    > determine what the spell can do, with at least one rank spent per
                    > element. The skill roll would only be to cast the spell, not
                    > determine it's effects? (this is getting way off base here).

                    This is similar my original idea, which led to the problem. :-D
                    My problem as originally stated was that in a dynamic challenge, using
                    the example of combat, if the spell just takes effect for whatever
                    reason, there is no roll to make up the player's half of each dynamic
                    test. This is why it seemed odd initially (this was answered well by
                    someone else) not to just use static tests.

                    The problem then is that because the dynamic challenge mechanic in
                    this system is so general*, there has to be some roll, even if the two
                    characters are aiming at completely different things. This is one of
                    the main strengths of the system as I see it, so I dont want to change
                    it to fit my magic system, but rather change my magic system to fit it.

                    *I cant think of a better word, I hope it becomes clear with context.

                    Thanks for your input!
                  • David Quick
                    ... rolling in combat is not to hit or to cast successfully . It is to determine who gained/lost advantage and made progress towards their goal. So how do
                    Message 9 of 15 , Mar 2, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In FateRPG@yahoogroups.com, <aecooper@...> wrote:

                      > Does this help? The key thing to wrap your head around is that
                      rolling in combat is not "to hit" or "to cast successfully". It is to
                      determine who gained/lost advantage and made progress towards their goal.


                      So how do you handle multiple opponents versus one target? For
                      example, let's say that two PCs attack a villain, Dr. Reallybad. One
                      PC is attacking with magical lightning, and the other PC is attacking
                      with a sword. Dr. Reallybad is in turn attacking back with his
                      flamethrower.

                      PC #1 gets a 'Superb' result, Dr. Reallybad gets a 'Good' result, and
                      PC #2 gets a 'Poor' result. So how is this adjudicated?

                      Thanks for enlightening me...
                      - David
                    • Judd Goswick
                      ... This breaks out as follows: PC 1 - Has a MOS advantage on Dr R of 2. He has a MOS advantage of 6 on PC2. PC2 is his pal, so he will forgo using his
                      Message 10 of 15 , Mar 2, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment
                        On 3/2/06, David Quick <village6@...> wrote:
                        One PC is attacking with magical lightning, and the other PC is attacking with a sword.  Dr. Reallybad is in turn attacking back with his flamethrower.

                        PC #1 gets a 'Superb' result, Dr. Reallybad gets a 'Good' result, and PC #2 gets a 'Poor' result.  So how is this adjudicated?

                        This breaks out as follows:
                         
                        PC 1 - Has a MOS advantage on Dr R of 2. He has a MOS advantage of 6 on PC2.  PC2 is his pal, so he will forgo using his advantage to damage him for an Injured box and instead damage Dr R for a Hurt box.
                         
                        PC 2 - Has no advantage on either person in combat - stinks to be him, this round.
                         
                        Dr R - Has a disadvantage on PC1, so he will get some damage this round, but he has a MOS 5 advantage over PC2, and is very inclined to take it.  So he does, giving PC2 an injured box.
                         
                        So how is this described?  Dr R's flamethrower belches it flames at our heroes.  PC1 rears back from the flames and casts a lightening bolt wildly into the mass of flames - a bolt that finds it mark on the evil doctor!  Pc1 watches in horror as PC2, trying to close with his sword and cut the hose on the flamethrower is simply too slow to reach it before the Doctor grins and presses the firing stud.  As the flames dies, PC1 sees that both men have suffered serious wounds.  His choice now - does he get PC2 to safety or does he finish this with Doc R while he is still in shock (no pun intended) from his electrical attack?  (Keep in mind, PC2 and Dr R at both at a -1 penalty now, but PC2 either rolled crap, or was out of FP, or is just that bad at combat.  That can add a metagame 'color' to the choice of pressing the advantage or exposing your pal to another, possibly severe, round of damage!) 
                         
                        The idea is this - when you fight multiple opponents, you can only exercise advantage over one of them - usually the enemy you can do the most damage to, but sometimes a clipped to the heavy hitter makes more tactical sense than taking out a mook.  That means that if PC1 was a traitor who saw his chance to strike, PC2 would get two injured boxes - a serious disadvantage for the rest of the fight (-2 to all rolls).  Being outnumbered is a bad thing, even if they are people who will not match your skill, because it will take time to take them all down - time for Cardinal Richelieu to make his escape!
                         
                        --
                        Judd M. Goswick
                      • David Quick
                        ... exercise ... damage ... sense ... saw his ... disadvantage ... to make ... Hmmm, ok, that is very helpful. I have some further questions about how FATE
                        Message 11 of 15 , Mar 2, 2006
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In FateRPG@yahoogroups.com, "Judd Goswick" <steelhand@...> wrote:
                          > The idea is this - when you fight multiple opponents, you can only
                          exercise
                          > advantage over one of them - usually the enemy you can do the most
                          damage
                          > to, but sometimes a clipped to the heavy hitter makes more tactical
                          sense
                          > than taking out a mook. That means that if PC1 was a traitor who
                          saw his
                          > chance to strike, PC2 would get two injured boxes - a serious
                          disadvantage
                          > for the rest of the fight (-2 to all rolls). Being outnumbered is a bad
                          > thing, even if they are people who will not match your skill, because it
                          > will take time to take them all down - time for Cardinal Richelieu
                          to make
                          > his escape!

                          Hmmm, ok, that is very helpful. I have some further questions about
                          how FATE handles things that are 'crunch' in other games.

                          Specifically, how would FATE model rapid fire weapons (machine guns)
                          or large area of effect weapons (hand grenades)? In each of these
                          cases, real life tells us that the weapon can affect more than one
                          person...
                        • Judd Goswick
                          ... Gotcha. I should have mentioned that previously. In the prior example, the flamethrower was assumed to be a danger to all of the enemies, but one that
                          Message 12 of 15 , Mar 2, 2006
                          • 0 Attachment
                            On 3/2/06, David Quick <village6@...> wrote:
                            Specifically, how would FATE model rapid fire weapons (machine guns) or large area of effect weapons (hand grenades)?  In each of these cases, real life tells us that the weapon can affect more than one person...


                            Gotcha.  I should have mentioned that previously.  In the prior example, the flamethrower was assumed to be a danger to all of the enemies, but one that PC1 was able to escape, by getting back from the flaming arc.

                            For a flamethrower, a chain lightning, a suppression fire, etc. the GM is perfectly within rights to declare that the weapon has an area effect and can do damage (based on relative MOS) to anyone in the "area".  I say area in quotes because it could be a voodoo curse on a whole family - who are all over the world, but within the "area" of the spell's effects.
                             
                            Common sense will dictate if this is fair.  Basically, if the weapon can damage more than one person in a successful use, it qualifies for this treatment.  Swords, not as such.  While a duel with several of the Cardinal's men may have you slashing at several of them, only one of them shall fall to your blade...
                             
                            ...with one possible exception.  What if the Cardinal's mean are such Mooks that the whole lot of them are counted as a single "character" for purposes of the fight?  You vs the Cardinal's Men (2 of 3) and your pal vs Cardinal's Men (1of 3) and (3 of 3)?
                             
                            It can get a bit more brisk than the original example, based on the genre and the weapons/tactics used.  All this, tempered with some common sense, consistency, and a flair for the power level you are operating at.
                            --
                            Judd M. Goswick
                          • David Quick
                            Ok, last question, I believe. If Mongo the heavily muscled thug is getting ready to beat the tar out of Stanley the scientist, is it possible in FATE for Mongo
                            Message 13 of 15 , Mar 12, 2006
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Ok, last question, I believe.

                              If Mongo the heavily muscled thug is getting ready to beat the tar out
                              of Stanley the scientist, is it possible in FATE for Mongo to declare
                              that he is 'going to pummel the pencil neck geek', and for Stanley to
                              declare that he is going to 'talk some sense into that buffoon'? I.e.
                              when conflict occurs, is it possible for a suave diplomatic character
                              to actually put their social and debate skills up against a violent
                              attacker's melee skills?

                              It seems that way to me, but I want to be sure that I'm not missing
                              something obvious...

                              Thanks,
                              - David Quick
                            • Darren Hill
                              On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 01:26:46 -0000, David Quick ... This sort of thing is open to interpretation. For me, I d be visualising Mongo
                              Message 14 of 15 , Mar 12, 2006
                              • 0 Attachment
                                On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 01:26:46 -0000, David Quick <village6@...>
                                wrote:

                                > Ok, last question, I believe.
                                >
                                > If Mongo the heavily muscled thug is getting ready to beat the tar out
                                > of Stanley the scientist, is it possible in FATE for Mongo to declare
                                > that he is 'going to pummel the pencil neck geek', and for Stanley to
                                > declare that he is going to 'talk some sense into that buffoon'? I.e.
                                > when conflict occurs, is it possible for a suave diplomatic character
                                > to actually put their social and debate skills up against a violent
                                > attacker's melee skills?
                                >
                                > It seems that way to me, but I want to be sure that I'm not missing
                                > something obvious...

                                This sort of thing is open to interpretation. For me, I'd be visualising
                                Mongo leaping at Stanley and trying to pummel him, while Stanley would be
                                dodging around frantically trying to say something. Since that seems to
                                make Stanley's goal harder, I'd give him a penalty for the first exchange
                                at least. If Stanley gets a success, then I'd shift the balance in his
                                favour - somehow his words have got Mongo thinking, and that painful
                                experience is giving him some pause, so Stanley suffers no penalty - at
                                least until Mongo gets a success and shifts things back in favour of
                                combat. (Also, if Stanley's first action was to use some evasion type
                                skill to get in a position to speak next exchange, I'd give no penalty.)
                                But it also depends on what the conflict is for, and what the context is.
                                If it's a noble dance, Mongo can't pummel the lady into accepting his
                                favours. (Well, he can, but it's likely to provoke some sort of local
                                response.)

                                Some pros and cons either way:
                                if you can always usewhichever skill you want without penalty, there might
                                seem to be a temptation for players to always use their best skill
                                regardless. But as with that noble dance example, this is subject to
                                circumstance. (Though Mongo could try to provoke a fight with a noble, and
                                win the lady's favour by showing how good a warrior is...) In any case,
                                this approach does reward imagination, and if players have high skills,
                                they should be able to get some mileage out of them.
                                If you give combat an advantage (as my approach does in the first example
                                above at least), then you encourage players to solve problems with
                                violence. Nothing good comes of this! :)

                                Darren
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.