Jump to content
D6 Online 3.0
Sign in to follow this  
PeteAtoms

Active Defenses - Reactions or Preemptions?

Recommended Posts

"A character may make an active defense only when his turn comes up in the initiative line, but the total for the roll is effective for all relevant attacks made against the character that occur after the character’s current turn but before his turn in the next round.

Remember: If a character acts later in a round than the character attempting to hit him, he cannot take his turn sooner and use an active defense to replace the passive defense value — his reactions just weren’t fast enough. "

 

"The character may take no additional actions once the multi-action penalty is figured. Any actions calculated into the multi-action penalty but that the character did not use by the end of the round are lost. "

 

What I don't like about this concept, is that characters have to declare dodges/blocks and defenses to attacks that haven't been declared or even happened yet... "I'm going to parry the Black Knights attack, which may or may not be made..."

 

It just seems like a block/parry/dodge could be seen as a reaction to an attack in progress. Maybe that's my problem, I'm looking at the active defenses as reactions, and I'm not quite sure how to put it together with the way it's presented in the rules. I like the idea of block/parry/dodge as a reactionary concept, instead of a preemptive, speculative, anticipation of future events.

 

The Mini-Six static TN's for dodge, parry and block seem more to my liking, but it still doesn't seem clear. The static defenses act as the passive TN that an attacker needs to beat in order to his the target, and the character can still roll his/her skill as an active defense? The static numbers act as the passive defense values and don't replace active defense rolls right?

 

And I recall being told that blocks/parry's were generally used against melee attacks, while dodges are reserved for defense against ranged attacks. So if an active defense roll (block or dodge) is used for all attacks agains the defender until his/her next round, why would you apply a parry defense roll used early in the combat round against a ranged attack that occurs later? Or should the character re-roll? Or fall back to the base TN of 10? Should a penalty be applied?

 

"A character who chooses to do something else in addition to guarding against attacks may take a partial defense. In this case, the active defense roll replaces the base combat difficulty from the time the character takes his turn in one round to his turn in the next round. This total replaces the base combat difficulty even if the result is less than 10.

 

Partial active defense value = any active defense skill roll

 

Since the character is taking multiple actions, the multi-action penalty applies.

 

The gamemaster may call for a partial defense roll (as a free action) if he decides that the character might have a little awareness of an impending attack, yet not enough foresight to prepare for it. "

 

So I guess a GM can allow characters to make active defenses before their turn, as free actions, but how/should this affect reflex penalties (multi-actions)? It seems like a character could potentially be applying a cumulatively increasing penalty as the round goes on...

 

I also don't particularly like how declaring the intended number of actions you plan to make at the beginning of the round limits the fluidity.

 

Sorry for the vague post/thread, these are just a couple concepts I'm grappling w/ at the moment :confused::mad:

 

Are there any house rules out there I might be interested in?

Edited by PeteAtoms

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My understanding of Mini6 is that there is no rolling of your defense (unless you use the optional rule to be more like OpenD6). Your Dodge, Parry, and Block scores are what is needed to hit you... if you perform an action to do a full dodge those numbers increase by 10... no rolling on the defender's part.

 

Completely separate from the static defenses is the traditional path of rolling defenses. The base TN to hit is 10. If the defender chooses to Dodge or Block/Parry they take a 1d penalty for multiple actions and their roll replaces the TN to hit them (even if lower). Full dodge increases the roll by 10.

 

I personally prefer the static defenses as it speeds things up a bunch.

 

All of the rules are summarized on page 7 of the mini6 document (latest version I have).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mini Six: No active defenses unless you opt use "Traditional OpenD6 Combat." (Which doesn't use any of the static scores.)

 

Defensive scores are only used to calculate the static defenses of characters under the "Fast Static Combat" system.

 

Both systems give you close to the same results on average, though defenses are marginally worse under Fast Static Combat, (but you also don't have to deal with the multi-action penalty due to dodging, blocking, or parrying.)

 

(Having two systems available was a compromise we made. Such is the way of collaboration.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm playing around with an idea that's somewhat related to this. Basically, everyone rolls initiative (higher is faster). Then, starting with the slowest result and moving up, each player declares his or her action. Finally, resolve each action starting with the fastest and working to the slowest. In game time, everything more or less happens in the same time.

 

In limited testing, what this does is awards fast characters with not only a chance to act first, but to do so with a better understanding of what everyone else is doing. Slower characters tend to have to choose their actions more carefully, or risk having it invalidated (such as attacking someone that dies to a faster character). The idea has worked best when everyone has the same initiative rating, or close to it.

 

I bring it up because that method, in a lot of ways, has built in mechanics for figuring out how to actively or passively defend. If you're fast on your feet, and see 3 people have already declared attacks on you (described as something like reading their body language moments before they act, like how a goalie knows where the ball should end up), you could assign defensive actions accordingly (or simply declare all out attacks if you think you could kill all 3, since your actions will resolve first).

 

Anyway, it's an idea i've been testing out for a few sessions, and shows a lot of promise so far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm playing around with an idea that's somewhat related to this. Basically, everyone rolls initiative (higher is faster). Then, starting with the slowest result and moving up, each player declares his or her action. Finally, resolve each action starting with the fastest and working to the slowest. In game time, everything more or less happens in the same time.

 

In limited testing, what this does is awards fast characters with not only a chance to act first, but to do so with a better understanding of what everyone else is doing. Slower characters tend to have to choose their actions more carefully, or risk having it invalidated (such as attacking someone that dies to a faster character). The idea has worked best when everyone has the same initiative rating, or close to it.

 

I bring it up because that method, in a lot of ways, has built in mechanics for figuring out how to actively or passively defend. If you're fast on your feet, and see 3 people have already declared attacks on you (described as something like reading their body language moments before they act, like how a goalie knows where the ball should end up), you could assign defensive actions accordingly (or simply declare all out attacks if you think you could kill all 3, since your actions will resolve first).

 

Anyway, it's an idea i've been testing out for a few sessions, and shows a lot of promise so far.

 

I am wondering why players attempting to work together would actively invalidate the planned actions of their group members? There aren't many reasons, except in the case of an accidental grenade or spell drift or explosion of some kind, that the target of a slower initiative character should be taken out by a "faster" character.

 

The way you describe it sounds slightly like the players are in competition with one another and not trying to work together. Perhaps I have misunderstood something about how you are saying your system works, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My first response doesn't seem to have gone through...

 

Short version: it actually encourages teamwork. Sure, everyone can go every-man-for-himself and just attack whatever they want. If the faster characters kill something others are also attacking, then actions are wasted. Thing is, actions are declared publicly, so everyone knows what each PC and NPC is doing that is slower than them. In my testing, I've encouraged players to coordinate their actions with each other to achieve a greater sense of teamwork.

 

As an example, I was testing this with a group which included, among others, a slow-but-powerful fighter and a quick dagger rogue. Events happened like this:

 

Declared actions... (The rogue rolled highest, with the NPC, second, and the warrior third. )

1. The warrior declares an all-out attack on the NPC.

2. The NPC, knowing the massive warrior is about to attack him, splits dice into mostly all defense and declares a shout for help.

3. The rogue, seeing the NPC is about to call out for help, decides to try and get behind the him and grapple into a choke hold.

 

Resolution...

3. The rogue successfully gets behind the NPC, and initiates a choke-hold.

2. The NPC, no longer able to effectively call out due to being choked, is left with his defensive dicepool.

1. The warrior makes his attack on the NCP, who is now distracted, and partially immobile. His chance to hit is increased, which results in a fairly devistating attack.

 

All in all, that one round of combat was very satisfying and dynamic for everyone. It turned what otherwise would have been a standard "we both attack him" into a very suspenseful round of attempting to control the flow of the fight.

Edited by asmkm22

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That would mean you are using the old 1st Ed Star Wars initiative system with a Declaration Phase and a Resolution Phase. That initiative system was then abandoned.

 

Although, I still use it. It's nice in that the more Perceptive characters see the flow of the fight and can react to what other folks are doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For what it's worth, Grimace was kind enough to walk me through a very simple encounter to find out how things work exactly.

(this is an example of how welcoming this community is to newbs :) )

 

And here is the transcript of the conversation that took place in the chatroom:

 

Grimace says:

Okay, I'm gonna run you through a quick round. Character stats don't matter, I'll set up a situation.

 

Grimace says:

You're at a bar, sitting at a table, minding your own business and sipping on a drink. Into the bar walks a pair of men...dirty, rough, and looking to stir up some trouble. They move in, the various patrons scurrying away from them. They see you alone at the table and move over to you, figuring you as an easy target. "Hey..maggot! You're at our table!"

 

Grimace says:

What do you do?

 

PeteAtoms says:

I stand my ground, "I don't see you're name on it."

 

PeteAtoms says:

I continue to sip my drink and stare into their eyes, unblinking.

 

Grimace says:

The men look at each other and grin. One moves over to your left, standing about two feet away. The other moves in to your right, leaning in so his face is about a foot away from yours. His breath is foul. "It's on the underside. Better get on yer knees and pray."

 

Grimace says:

What do you do?

 

PeteAtoms says:

I remove the drink from my lips, "Is that so..." I grip the drink hard and slam it against the foul smelling face and erupt from my seated position.

 

Grimace says:

Okay. So at this time you would roll Initiative. I would roll for the thugs. Your actions would be "slam drink against face" and stand up. I'd rule that you're probably standing up to be in a combat position, right?

 

PeteAtoms says:

correct

 

Grimace says:

Okay. So making an attack and readying position I would put at 2 actions. That gives you -1D to each. So you'd make your attack roll -1D.

 

Grimace says:

Then, whether you hit or not, your next action would be to stand up. No roll needed for that.

 

PeteAtoms says:

i follow so far :)

 

PeteAtoms says:

the initiative is unaffected by multi-action-penalites right?

 

Grimace says:

Okay. Let's say you hit. But you only stagger the guy. Next round occurs now. And yes, initiative is unaffected by the other actions.

 

PeteAtoms says:

i probably had "surprise" tho

 

PeteAtoms says:

so which order is initiative?

 

Grimace says:

So you are now facing one guy on the left and one guy on the right. Depending on GM you could make roll for initiative again, but beyond that, we'll say you go first and then thug 2 and then thug 1.

 

Grimace says:

What is your next rounds action?

 

PeteAtoms says:

I'm going to try and kick the staggered thug off balance.

 

Grimace says:

that's it?

 

Grimace says:

Okay, so 1 action...an kick attack. The thugs announce their actions. Thug one is going to defend and then swing. Thug 2 is just going to try to kick your legs out from under you.

 

Grimace says:

If you hit, you roll damage. If you miss, no effect.

 

Grimace says:

Thug 2 rolls his kick attack. Now since you didn't defend, you could get a reactive chance to parry if you want. Some GMs might say that since you didn't call it you don't get it. But I'll let you call a parry if you want. But you'll be an auto -1D to it.

 

Grimace says:

So you could roll your Parry -1D against Thug 2's attack at full dice.

 

PeteAtoms says:

but I couldn't decide to parry both thugs' attacks at -2D? or would that roll apply to thug 1's attack also?

 

Grimace says:

since it's brawling for both, the parry roll would apply for both.

 

Grimace says:

But since Thug 2 attacks before Thug 1 does, you'd roll first at the -1D for the attack from Thug 2.

 

Grimace says:

Now if Thug 2 hits, we roll damage.

 

PeteAtoms says:

say a 3rd thug lurking in the shadows throws a drink at me, would that parry also apply or would i need to roll dodge?

 

Grimace says:

If damage is enough, you're knocked off your feet.

 

Grimace says:

If Thug 3, hiding in the dark, decides to throw something at you, there'd be a couple things to work out. Did you see the attack? So I might make you roll your Perception to notice it, and give you -2D to notice it.

 

Grimace says:

Then, if you noticed it in time, you could get another reactive action of a dodge to avoid the thrown "weapon". But you'd be at -3D for the Dodge.

 

Grimace says:

And what you rolled for that Parry against Thug 2 would apply for the attack that Thug 1 is going to do on you as well (assuming you didn't kick him off balance)

 

Grimace says:

Thug 1 announced defend then attack. So he suffers a -1D to both actions, but he's got that parry built in right away. You declare yours later, after someone takes a swing at you, or after someone throws something at you.

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.

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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...