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

Fighting in the Dark - discussion v2.0

Expand Messages
  • he.blackarm
    There was a discussion on this group re fighting in the dark which I included in the wiki: http://dragonwarriors.wetpaint.com/page/Fighting+in+the+dark Yet
    Message 1 of 5 , Feb 2, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      There was a discussion on this group re fighting in the dark which I
      included in the wiki:
      http://dragonwarriors.wetpaint.com/page/Fighting+in+the+dark

      Yet here is a further question: how do you combine the effect of
      Fighting in the Dark, and Going Berserk? This has come up in one of
      my PBEMs.

      A Barbarian, first rank say, ATT 14, DEF 6, in the Dark should be ATT
      10 DEF 0. Yet Going Berserk, on one interpretation, would allow him
      to be ATT 16 DEF 0, but the alternate interpretation is that being
      dark he had no Defence to distribute, so he's ATT 14.

      Yet then there is the question of the risk he poses to others (and
      its a confined space) being Berserk against any comers in the dark.

      Anyone got some ideas?

      Also I might add as an aside that I think the Fighting in the Dark
      rules could apply such that in near-dark it would be ATT -2 DEF -4
      etc. Somewhat like playing in the final overs of a cricket test
      match day before being offered the light...
    • rumtap@aol.com
      If you have no defence to spend because of a penalty, be it dark or anything else, then you can not gain a benefit. ... From: he.blackarm
      Message 2 of 5 , Feb 2, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        If you have no defence to "spend" because of a penalty, be it dark or anything else, then you can not gain a benefit.


        -----Original Message-----
        From: he.blackarm <he.blackarm@...>
        To: dragwars@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 3:46 pm
        Subject: [dragwars] Fighting in the Dark - discussion v2.0


        There was a discussion on this group re fighting in the dark which I
        included in the wiki:
        http://dragonwarrio rs.wetpaint. com/page/ Fighting+ in+the+dark

        Yet here is a further question: how do you combine the effect of
        Fighting in the Dark, and Going Berserk? This has come up in one of
        my PBEMs.

        A Barbarian, first rank say, ATT 14, DEF 6, in the Dark should be ATT
        10 DEF 0. Yet Going Berserk, on one interpretation, would allow him
        to be ATT 16 DEF 0, but the alternate interpretation is that being
        dark he had no Defence to distribute, so he's ATT 14.

        Yet then there is the question of the risk he poses to others (and
        its a confined space) being Berserk against any comers in the dark.

        Anyone got some ideas?

        Also I might add as an aside that I think the Fighting in the Dark
        rules could apply such that in near-dark it would be ATT -2 DEF -4
        etc. Somewhat like playing in the final overs of a cricket test
        match day before being offered the light...

      • Oliver Whawell
        I think that the roleplay element of going berserk (as opposed to the game mechanic)should still be available. I can t imagine a barbarian getting steamed up
        Message 3 of 5 , Feb 2, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          I think that the roleplay element of going berserk (as
          opposed to the game mechanic)should still be
          available. I can't imagine a barbarian getting steamed
          up and then thinking better of it because it's dark.

          Perhaps the negative Defence created could be
          interpreted as a risk to injuring himself/anyone else
          near him.

          In the example below the Barbarian ends up with Def
          -6. Each turn the GM could make a D20 roll and on a
          roll of 6 or a successful Attack is made on a random
          party member, who has no Def againsts it as it is a
          Surprise attack. If the GM rolls a 1 then the damage
          is Critical and if the GM rolls a 20 then the damage
          actually reaches the barbarian's intended target.

          This leads on to the idea of a Barbarian, in normal
          situations, being able to reach this negative Def
          situation. Let's think of the Hulk for example. Each
          turn he get's angrier and there is a conscious
          decision made to get "quite" Berserk and then be
          satisfied that he is Berserk enough. Each turn he
          should get more Berserk until all his enemies are
          dead. If he ends up with negative Def in the process
          the roleplay elements should be encouraged.


          --- "he.blackarm" <he.blackarm@...> wrote:

          >
          > There was a discussion on this group re fighting in
          > the dark which I
          > included in the wiki:
          >
          http://dragonwarriors.wetpaint.com/page/Fighting+in+the+dark
          >
          > Yet here is a further question: how do you combine
          > the effect of
          > Fighting in the Dark, and Going Berserk? This has
          > come up in one of
          > my PBEMs.
          >
          > A Barbarian, first rank say, ATT 14, DEF 6, in the
          > Dark should be ATT
          > 10 DEF 0. Yet Going Berserk, on one interpretation,
          > would allow him
          > to be ATT 16 DEF 0, but the alternate interpretation
          > is that being
          > dark he had no Defence to distribute, so he's ATT
          > 14.
          >
          > Yet then there is the question of the risk he poses
          > to others (and
          > its a confined space) being Berserk against any
          > comers in the dark.
          >
          > Anyone got some ideas?
          >
          > Also I might add as an aside that I think the
          > Fighting in the Dark
          > rules could apply such that in near-dark it would be
          > ATT -2 DEF -4
          > etc. Somewhat like playing in the final overs of a
          > cricket test
          > match day before being offered the light...
          >
          >
        • Christopher Loh
          My personal opinion is that the barbarian will grant a bonus to the attackers For example, if the defence becomes - 6 , a bonus of +6 would be given to the
          Message 4 of 5 , Feb 3, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            My personal opinion is that the barbarian will grant a bonus to the attackers
             
            For example, if the defence becomes - 6 , a bonus of +6 would be given to the attackers.
             
            There is 2 ways to apply this penalty.
             
            A) The total bonus would be equal to the penalty. Example if there are 2 guys attacking the barbarian, then they would be either given
            - +3, +3
            - +2. +4
            - +1, +5
            - +0, +6
             
            Advantages of this system is that it is "true" to the idea of dragonwarrior combat system of attack versus defence. Technically, the numbers should still tally up.
             
             
            B) Each attacker would be grant the same level of bonus.  In the above example, both attackers would get a +6 to hit the barbarian.
             
            Personally I am more in favour of B. The reason is because I feel that having a negative score in Defence should be reflected as doing something really dangerous, heroic and/or stupid at the same time. In any of the three case, a severe penalty should be applied.
             
             
            Even though I feel that negative defence should be allowed to reflect situation like berserk in darkness... however I feel that there should be a cap on negative defence. Otherwise it is another potential loophole that can be exploited.
             
            E.g. My barbarian is going to reduce his defence by 100 so that his attack increase by 50 :D
             
            Chris
            ----- Original Message -----
            Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 2:56 PM
            Subject: Re: [dragwars] Fighting in the Dark - discussion v2.0

            I think that the roleplay element of going berserk (as
            opposed to the game mechanic)should still be
            available. I can't imagine a barbarian getting steamed
            up and then thinking better of it because it's dark.

            Perhaps the negative Defence created could be
            interpreted as a risk to injuring himself/anyone else
            near him.

            In the example below the Barbarian ends up with Def
            -6. Each turn the GM could make a D20 roll and on a
            roll of 6 or a successful Attack is made on a random
            party member, who has no Def againsts it as it is a
            Surprise attack. If the GM rolls a 1 then the damage
            is Critical and if the GM rolls a 20 then the damage
            actually reaches the barbarian's intended target.

            This leads on to the idea of a Barbarian, in normal
            situations, being able to reach this negative Def
            situation. Let's think of the Hulk for example. Each
            turn he get's angrier and there is a conscious
            decision made to get "quite" Berserk and then be
            satisfied that he is Berserk enough. Each turn he
            should get more Berserk until all his enemies are
            dead. If he ends up with negative Def in the process
            the roleplay elements should be encouraged.

            --- "he.blackarm" <he.blackarm@ yahoo.com> wrote:

            >
            > There was a discussion on this group re fighting in
            > the dark which I
            > included in the wiki:
            >
            http://dragonwarrio rs.wetpaint. com/page/ Fighting+ in+the+dark
            >
            > Yet here is a further question: how do you combine
            > the effect of
            > Fighting in the Dark, and Going Berserk? This has
            > come up in one of
            > my PBEMs.
            >
            > A Barbarian, first rank say, ATT 14, DEF 6, in the
            > Dark should be ATT
            > 10 DEF 0. Yet Going Berserk, on one interpretation,
            > would allow him
            > to be ATT 16 DEF 0, but the alternate interpretation
            > is that being
            > dark he had no Defence to distribute, so he's ATT
            > 14.
            >
            > Yet then there is the question of the risk he poses
            > to others (and
            > its a confined space) being Berserk against any
            > comers in the dark.
            >
            > Anyone got some ideas?
            >
            > Also I might add as an aside that I think the
            > Fighting in the Dark
            > rules could apply such that in near-dark it would be
            > ATT -2 DEF -4
            > etc. Somewhat like playing in the final overs of a
            > cricket test
            > match day before being offered the light...
            >
            >

          • Wayne Imlach
            The defence penalty for fighting in the dark is due to the difficulty of defending yourself against unseen attacks. A barbarian going berserk actually doesn t
            Message 5 of 5 , Feb 3, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              The defence penalty for fighting in the dark is due to the difficulty of defending yourself against unseen attacks.
               
              A barbarian going berserk actually doesn't care about defending himself, regardless of whether he can see his opponents or not - as such the 'penalty' is pretty much irrelevant. He is already consciously making himself blind to incoming attacks.
               
              Therefore, I would allow a barbarian to allocate defence to attack before any penalties for fighting in darkness are applied.
               
               
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.