Back to Crafty Games Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 24, 2014, 03:04:38 PM
Home Help Search Login Register
News: Welcome to the Crafty Games Forums!

Note to New Members: To combat spam, we have instituted new rules: you must post 5 replies to existing threads before you can create new threads.

+  Crafty Games Forum
|-+  Products
| |-+  Spycraft Third Edition
| | |-+  Combat wishlist
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] Go Down Print
Author Topic: Combat wishlist  (Read 1166 times)
MikeS
Operative
****
Posts: 258




View Profile
« Reply #15 on: August 06, 2012, 09:02:12 PM »

With regards to Martial Arts in SC2.0, your base untrained unarmed damage is 1D3, if trained 1D4, with the Martial Arts Feat it goes to 1D6+the stat bonus, and if Master's Art then you are at 2D6+the stat bonus. With Master's Art, you do have a threat range of 18-20. It is not overpowering considering what you are spending to get it.

I agree that you should get something awesome when you sink that many feats into one thing. I disagree that better threat and more damage is awesome from anything but a "winning the combat minigame" perspective.

Quote
As for the Disarm vs attacking choice, I chose to attack because I was betting that I had a better chance to crit with a 18-20 threat range than the skill check threat of 20. Plus I could deliver 2D6+3 in damage and if it was crit then I could do 15 Wounds, not counting any additional AD to damage, which would drop my opponent. It had nothing to do with the Disarm action being less effective because of the action itself.

I still feel like you're making my argument for me. I argued that all of the special maneuvers aren't as good because they don't tick down the vitality clock, and you confirm that a 15% probability crit and damage are the better option.

I realize I may be asking too much here, since this is after all a hit point derived game. But maybe there are alternatives.

How about this one: any combat action against a mook should have a chance to take out the mook.
Disarm? He suffers stress and/or surrenders (incidentally happens also in movies). Grappling? Maybe fatigue and knockout? (Hardly unbalanced, because you can only get one guy this turn, instead of two (or more with Cleave).)

When fighting special characters, maybe all attacks should cause some form of damage (vitality, stress, or fatigue), in addition to whatever special effects they produce. That way, you always tick down the clock, and don't feel like your attempts aren't leading anywhere.
Logged
Bill Whitmore
Mastermind
Control
*****
Posts: 2359


Woot, I got a new hat! :P


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: August 06, 2012, 09:22:32 PM »

When fighting special characters, maybe all attacks should cause some form of damage (vitality, stress, or fatigue), in addition to whatever special effects they produce. That way, you always tick down the clock, and don't feel like your attempts aren't leading anywhere.

That's an interesting idea.  So every attack is tied to some maneuver so if you hit, you deal damage plus whatever maneuver, trip/knock back/feint/whatever, on the target.
Logged

Don't follow your passion.  Take it with you.

ALL HAIL THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER!   Ramen.
Sletchman
Control
******
Posts: 4108


Gentleman Scholar.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #17 on: August 06, 2012, 09:31:39 PM »

How about this one: any combat action against a mook should have a chance to take out the mook.
Disarm? He suffers stress and/or surrenders (incidentally happens also in movies). Grappling? Maybe fatigue and knockout? (Hardly unbalanced, because you can only get one guy this turn, instead of two (or more with Cleave).)

The thing that frustrates me about this scene is: I can almost bet that, if attempted by one of my players, it would end with a regular hit, and the fight would continue like nothing happened, instead of being a cool finisher. The crit is too necessary to make the scene work, and there is no way you can get one if you don't roll it.

That is easily accomplished as it stands - there is absolutely nothing stopping you from having an NPC surrender after he is disarmed.  If your players keep attacking after the NPC has surrendered then it's hardly the game's fault - your players are either looking for a different (more violent) game, or simply need to have their bloodthirst checked through use of the reputation and crime rules (both of which are core to the system).  It's also a question of playstyle, and as such something I don't think is necessarily appropriate for a core rule - while it's very suitable for some games, in others it makes no sense.
Logged
Desertpuma
Control
******
Posts: 4319


Highest Level LSpy Agent 16th, almost 17th


View Profile WWW
« Reply #18 on: August 06, 2012, 09:52:04 PM »

Actually, Mike, you are missing my point. My character was built to be able to deliver the hits using his Martial Arts (he was Dex based) so it was easier and more likely that he would have succeeded than attempting the Disarm action. It was just the way my character was built and I've seen characters that are built to be Disarm guys.

I think your ideas are easily Campaign Quality material but I don't think they are needed as part of the baseline.
Logged



Living Spycraft Masterm
MikeS
Operative
****
Posts: 258




View Profile
« Reply #19 on: August 06, 2012, 10:28:15 PM »

You are correct, I did miss your point. Mostly.

I assume you made the built because you wanted a character who kicks a$$ in combat, and doing a lot of damage with a good crit chance does that. A character who goes the disarm route does so mostly for role-playing reasons, and will likely be less efficient with the same amount of investment.

I think having a Campaign Quality that gives the results I want is perfectly acceptable. I don't want to force my way to play down everybody else's throat, I'd just prefer having the option in the book rather than having to make it up and test it myself, because I'd like to spend the little hobby time I have these days playing.

I do think discussing it here might have some productive results, because I think I'm not the only one who would like to see some improvements/changes.

« Last Edit: August 06, 2012, 10:38:35 PM by MikeS » Logged
MikeS
Operative
****
Posts: 258




View Profile
« Reply #20 on: August 06, 2012, 10:34:37 PM »

That is easily accomplished as it stands - there is absolutely nothing stopping you from having an NPC surrender after he is disarmed.  If your players keep attacking after the NPC has surrendered then it's hardly the game's fault - your players are either looking for a different (more violent) game, or simply need to have their bloodthirst checked through use of the reputation and crime rules (both of which are core to the system).  It's also a question of playstyle, and as such something I don't think is necessarily appropriate for a core rule - while it's very suitable for some games, in others it makes no sense.

Sure, I can have them surrender as soon as they are disarmed, or grappled. But how is that balanced against other options, where the NPC has to fail a save (in case of mook) first? Now disarm is the most efficient combat option. I can always be arbitrary, but then I don't need rules.

I would rather have players continue attacking an NPC who has surrendered than not even attempting the disarm because it doesn't look like an efficient maneuver, compared to a regular attack.
« Last Edit: August 06, 2012, 10:40:23 PM by MikeS » Logged
Sletchman
Control
******
Posts: 4108


Gentleman Scholar.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #21 on: August 06, 2012, 10:41:28 PM »

That is easily accomplished as it stands - there is absolutely nothing stopping you from having an NPC surrender after he is disarmed.  If your players keep attacking after the NPC has surrendered then it's hardly the game's fault - your players are either looking for a different (more violent) game, or simply need to have their bloodthirst checked through use of the reputation and crime rules (both of which are core to the system).  It's also a question of playstyle, and as such something I don't think is necessarily appropriate for a core rule - while it's very suitable for some games, in others it makes no sense.

Sure, I can have them surrender as soon as they are disarmed, or grappled. But how is that balanced against other options, where the NPC has to fail a save (in case of mook) first? I can always be arbitrary, but then I don't need rules.

I would rather have players continue attacking an NPC who has surrendered than not even attempting the disarm because it doesn't look like an efficient maneuver, compared to a regular attack.

A single successful attack against a non-tough Mook kills them outright anyway, so having a single successful opposed attack check (disarm) remove them from the fight is pretty equivalent.
Logged
MikeS
Operative
****
Posts: 258




View Profile
« Reply #22 on: August 06, 2012, 11:18:15 PM »

That is easily accomplished as it stands - there is absolutely nothing stopping you from having an NPC surrender after he is disarmed.  If your players keep attacking after the NPC has surrendered then it's hardly the game's fault - your players are either looking for a different (more violent) game, or simply need to have their bloodthirst checked through use of the reputation and crime rules (both of which are core to the system).  It's also a question of playstyle, and as such something I don't think is necessarily appropriate for a core rule - while it's very suitable for some games, in others it makes no sense.

Sure, I can have them surrender as soon as they are disarmed, or grappled. But how is that balanced against other options, where the NPC has to fail a save (in case of mook) first? I can always be arbitrary, but then I don't need rules.

I would rather have players continue attacking an NPC who has surrendered than not even attempting the disarm because it doesn't look like an efficient maneuver, compared to a regular attack.

A single successful attack against a non-tough Mook kills them outright anyway, so having a single successful opposed attack check (disarm) remove them from the fight is pretty equivalent.

They get a save, no? And what about specials?

I think I should maybe post some example tricks or campaign qualities that sort of do what I have in mind.
Logged
Sletchman
Control
******
Posts: 4108


Gentleman Scholar.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #23 on: August 07, 2012, 02:16:25 AM »

They get a save, no? And what about specials?

Fantasy Craft (second printing) Page 234: Mook (4 XP): The NPC must have a Heath of I and may not have the tough quality. If hes standard, he automatically fails Damage saves. If hes special, he has no vitality.

For what it's worth, I (and a lot of others here) ignore the "may not have the tough quality" bit - we use Mook + Tough as a hit timer.  Mook + Tough 2 = 3 Injuries (damage greater then DR) to kill.

Quote
I think I should maybe post some example tricks or campaign qualities that sort of do what I have in mind.

Go for it man.  I always love reading what people post in License to Improvise (just maybe keep it on that subsection, keep this more wishlist-ey.  Plus there is plenty of stuff in your wish list that I think would make fantastic campaign qualities.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.13 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!