| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16396
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
 Posted: Wed Apr 01, 2020 11:46 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Mamatried wrote: | | I have tried out a systems where I use dodge for all non direct parries or blocks. |
I myself have already folded Dodge and Running into a larger Agility skill that covers both normal movement and evading ranged attacks. In practice, Dodge is less about avoiding an attack you can see coming (as would be the case for Brawling and Melee) than it is about moving in such a way as to make one's self a more difficult target. There's sufficient room there for two different skills.
| Quote: | My Jedi is fighting the sith, both with lightsaber.
the sith rolls and hits, the jedi noe either rolls an ATTACK to parry or block and thus negate the damage of the attack, OR he can try to side step or anything NOT directly countering the attack with his own weapon, for this I use dodge.
so a fight will to me be ( and we see this in the movies) attack meets attack=block if they are equal, or the "defender" has highest.
The attack hits if the attacker win the vs roll
in a "passive" defense you are not actively parrying, and IMO is best covered by dodge. |
But rather than swapping back and forth between the two, it's easier to fold both parries and dodges in close combat into a single skill so that you don't have to pick and choose which you are doing.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
jmanski
Arbiter-General (Moderator)
Joined: 06 Mar 2005
Posts: 2065
Location: Kansas
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 01, 2020 2:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I have removed melee parry and brawling parry; blocking is with the same skill, but one may specialize in parry if they wish.
_________________
Blasted rules. Why can't they just be perfect? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14327
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 01, 2020 2:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CRMcNeill wrote: |
I've considered something similar; I remember old-school Warhammer considered Melee to be a catch-all for all close-range combat, with bare hands being considered "improvised" weapons (which makes a certain degree of sense, I suppose). My only reservation is that the justification for combining the two could very easily be applied to all the other Dexterity weapon skills. How much different is Blaster from Firearms, after all? Sure, there are differences in the physics involved, but in the end, the shooter is just pointing and shooting at a target, and the mechanics of aiming a blaster bolt vs. a bolt have far more in common than, say, fighting with a spear as opposed to a whip.
If anything, I'm inclined to think Melee Weapons needs to be split into multiple skills rather than combined with Brawling. |
So like Melee -sharp weapons, melee-blunt weapons, Melee- other?
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Darklighter79
Captain
Joined: 27 May 2018
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 01, 2020 4:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| MrNexx wrote: | | Darklighter79 wrote: | | MrNexx wrote: | | As a note: the new Zorro game does away with rolled defenses entirely; your Parry rating is your Agility times 5, and covers melee; your dodge skill is Perception * 5, and covers ranged. |
And as a static it remains unaffected by MAP replacing the range/base difficulty to hit? |
Yep. |
As an option, I would use it but calculated from a given skill with "Dice simplification" rule rather than attrubute, as attributes are much harder to increase so there would be a gap between attack and defense.
_________________
Don’t Let the Rules Get in the Way of a Good Story. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16396
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 01, 2020 5:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| garhkal wrote: | | So like Melee -sharp weapons, melee-blunt weapons, Melee- other? |
Along those lines, but I haven't settled on a method of categorization that I like.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16396
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 01, 2020 5:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CRMcNeill wrote: | | While I am a fan of the Dueling Blades concept of a single skill roll representing a full round of combat, someone (Bren, IIRC), made a suggestion of applying that rule to both attack and defense, so that a character can concentrate on one or the other, but suffers a -1D MAP if attempting to do both in the same round. |
As an addendum to this, I'm also thinking of mixing in nuclearwookiee's Concurrent Action Penalty concept, such that a character using both Attack and Defense skills as full-round actions (as under the Dueling Blade System) would incur both a -1D MAP for performing two actions in a round, and a -1D CAP for performing both actions at the same time.
And somewhere, I'd like to hammer out an advantage to two-weapon fighting, like maybe having the second weapon cancel out the CAP, but not the MAP.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10511
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 01, 2020 7:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jmanski wrote: | | I have removed melee parry and brawling parry; blocking is with the same skill, but one may specialize in parry if they wish. |
That's a good option.
| Dredwulf60 wrote: | I find the idea that a person could have a high skill in melee or brawling parry while at the same time having a very low or *no* skill in melee or brawl pretty hard to swallow.
Is it possible? Anything is possible I suppose...but it's so ridiculous as a concept that the core mechanics of the game shouldn't be set up to support it by default.
It's like having a chewing skill without a swallow skill. Can you have someone who can chew food but not swallow it? Sure, but it would be a pretty special case.
I have Brawl skill count for unarmed attacks of all kinds and defense when unarmed.
Melee is the same but while armed. |
That's exactly how I feel. If something is a rare possibility that can be a special ability.
I'd like to hear cheshire's opinion since he actually does have melee skills. It's probably been talked about here many times before.
| CRMcNeill wrote: | | Defending against attacks isn't just about parrying a sword with another sword; it includes side-stepping or twisting out of the way of an attack. |
I have always saw it this way since my 1e days and never got hung up on the word "parry". But folding the parry skills into the attack skills gets rid of the insufficient word "parry" just as much as combining them into a more generally named defense skill. Just saying.
| CRMcNeill wrote: | | If anything, I'm inclined to think Melee Weapons needs to be split into multiple skills rather than combined with Brawling. |
You could, but that's what specializations are for. There is no harm in a GM saying that specializations are more common than the base skill. Think about Archaic Starships. I can't see anyone having that base skill except for maybe the lifetime owner of a starship museum. Otherwise, characters would at most have a specialization for one type of archaic starship, directly raised from the base skill's base attribute. Unless a character concept includes being proficient in a wide variety of melee weapons, they don't need the base skill. When I stat NPC mooks with a melee weapon, I never give them the base skill - They only get a specialization covering the weapon they have.
| CRMcNeill wrote: | | Mamatried wrote: | | I have tried out a systems where I use dodge for all non direct parries or blocks. |
I myself have already folded Dodge and Running into a larger Agility skill that covers both normal movement and evading ranged attacks. In practice, Dodge is less about avoiding an attack you can see coming (as would be the case for Brawling and Melee) than it is about moving in such a way as to make one's self a more difficult target. There's sufficient room there for two different skills. |
I do see what you mean and I completely agree that dodging ranged attacks is making yourself in general harder to hit, but game mechanically in RAW the other reaction skills work the same way as dodge. A character's first melee parry or brawling parry roll of the round applies to all attacks of the same type for the rest of the round. So with your house rules, are you saying that a Parry/Defense roll has to be made for each individual attack?
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16396
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 01, 2020 8:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Whill wrote: | | Quote: | | Defending against attacks isn't just about parrying a sword with another sword; it includes side-stepping or twisting out of the way of an attack. |
I have always saw it this way since my 1e days and never got hung up on the word "parry". But folding the parry skills into the attack skills gets rid of the insufficient word "parry" just as much as combining them into a more generally named defense skill. Just saying. |
I agree; I just think that Melee Parry and Brawling Parry are more closely related than their Attack counterparts, especially with the precedent in the RAW for allowing both defense skills to defend against unarmed and armed attack, subject to modifiers.
| CRMcNeill wrote: | | You could, but that's what specializations are for. |
True, and I'm not married to the idea. It's just that I can see the argument in favor of it, and if someone were to present a house rule that did so in a manner that made sense to me, I would probably adopt it. But at the moment, I got nothing.
| Quote: | | Think about Archaic Starships. I can't see anyone having that base skill except for maybe the lifetime owner of a starship museum. Otherwise, characters would at most have a specialization for one type of archaic starship, directly raised from the base skill's base attribute. |
I did find a use for this, actually. When I wrote up my Solar Sail Auxiliary Drive, I made it an Archaic Starships skill, so that a PC whose ship was fitted with this drive would need both Space Transports and Archaic Starships in order to make full use of it, depending on which drive the ship was using. But I digress...
| Quote: | | Unless a character concept includes being proficient in a wide variety of melee weapons, they don't need the base skill. When I stat NPC mooks with a melee weapon, I never give them the base skill - They only get a specialization covering the weapon they have. |
This makes a strong argument for getting rid of the Lightsaber skill and making it a specialization of Melee Combat / Melee Parry (or Defense, depending on how one chooses to go about it).
| Quote: | | So with your house rules, are you saying that a Parry/Defense roll has to be made for each individual attack? |
No, but I do think there's a case to be made for Penalties/ Bonuses if the character is trying to Parry/Defend against multiple attacks. I suggested elsewhere that, if a character is being shot at by multiple attackers, they should count as being coordinated, but at 50% of the value if they were actually coordinated. For instance, if a squad of eight stormtroopers were firing at a PC, they would get the full bonus for all eight troopers firing (due to the "Stormtroopers coordinate their fire for free" rule), but eight Imperial Army troopers would only count as four for the purposes of bonus calculation.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mamatried
Commodore
Joined: 16 Dec 2017
Posts: 1902
Location: Norway
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 02, 2020 1:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
I do see what you mean and I completely agree that dodging ranged attacks is making yourself in general harder to hit, but game mechanically in RAW the other reaction skills work the same way as dodge. A character's first melee parry or brawling parry roll of the round applies to all attacks of the same type for the rest of the round. So with your house rules, are you saying that a Parry/Defense roll has to be made for each individual attack?
This si a very good question, and no it is not exactly what I meant.
I meant unless you actively in brawl/melee choose to defend/parry, then you for simplicty use only dex/dodge.
But you can choose to defend, using your parry skill , however only when declaring you are actively parrying, meaning "fighting defensively"
hoever thse "attacks" are considered part of active parrying blocking defending and thus will deal very limited damage.
naturally here if your parry roll beat the attack the attack fails and wise versa.
Also if the attack succeds by 15+ (on the check) against the defense the defense is useless, and the attack deals normal damage.
on 10+ it deals damage (total) minus 5.
If the active parry or block beats the attack by 15+ it deals normal damage
on a 10+ it delas -1D and on a 5+ it deals -2D.
Even being hit by a sword that is used to parry will injure you, but the nature of this parry (which IS an attack against the attacking weapon) makes it less hard of blows and will inflict less injury than a "normal" attack |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10511
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 02, 2020 1:46 am Post subject: Melee + Lightsaber |
|
|
| CRMcNeill wrote: | | Whill wrote: | | Unless a character concept includes being proficient in a wide variety of melee weapons, they don't need the base skill. When I stat NPC mooks with a melee weapon, I never give them the base skill - They only get a specialization covering the weapon they have. |
This makes a strong argument for getting rid of the Lightsaber skill and making it a specialization of Melee Combat. |
I wasn't making an argument for that but that is certainly one way to go about it if a GM wants to go that way. I went in a slightly different direction.
I like the idea that Lightsabers are a very special kind of melee weapon, so I've made Lightsaber an Advanced skill that stacks on Melee (or Dex) when used for melee. You can still use a lightsaber without the advanced skill, but a rule like in RAW of hurting yourself if you roll too low applies. If you have the advanced skill, even at 1D, then you don't have that danger of hurting yourself because you have some specific training in lightsabers. (Kinda like how you can use a bacta tank without the medicine skill, by using first aid at a higher difficulty.) Even without the Lightsaber skill, having a high Dex or general Melee skill can make that danger extremely low. But yes, like I said above, a character can certainly have a specific melee weapon specialization without the melee skill, and Lightsaber can stack on top of the Melee skill or base attribute so works like a skill specialization.
Another purpose for Lightsaber being an advanced skill is it can have multiple attribute and skill prerequisites. A couple of them are Dex 3D and Melee 4D, but a Dex 4D and no Melee skill would cover both of those prerequisites.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mamatried
Commodore
Joined: 16 Dec 2017
Posts: 1902
Location: Norway
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 02, 2020 1:55 am Post subject: Re: Melee + Lightsaber |
|
|
| Whill wrote: | | CRMcNeill wrote: | | Whill wrote: | | Unless a character concept includes being proficient in a wide variety of melee weapons, they don't need the base skill. When I stat NPC mooks with a melee weapon, I never give them the base skill - They only get a specialization covering the weapon they have. |
This makes a strong argument for getting rid of the Lightsaber skill and making it a specialization of Melee Combat. |
I wasn't making an argument for that but that is certainly one way to go about it if a GM wants to go that way. I went in a slightly different direction.
I like the idea that Lightsabers are a very special kind of melee weapon, so I've made Lightsaber an Advanced skill that stacks on Melee (or Dex) when used for melee. You can still use a lightsaber without the advanced skill, but a rule like in RAW of hurting yourself if you roll too low applies. If you have the advanced skill, even at 1D, then you don't have that danger of hurting yourself because you have some specific training in lightsabers. (Kinda like how you can use a bacta tank without the medicine skill, by using first aid at a higher difficulty.) Even without the Lightsaber skill, having a high Dex or general Melee skill can make that danger extremely low. But yes, like I said above, a character can certainly have a specific melee weapon specialization without the melee skill, and Lightsaber can stack on top of the Melee skill or base attribute so works like a skill specialization.
Another purpose for Lightsaber being an advanced skill is it can have multiple attribute and skill prerequisites. A couple of them are Dex 3D and Melee 4D, but a Dex 4D and no Melee skill would cover both of those prerequisites. |
this is great for making a lightsaber user (jedi) to compenzate for the (imo unlogical) ability losses,
with that system a jedi with 3D will be better at lightsaber use having been traind in it, compared to even a 4D "bounty hunter" using one athis default 4D
I would however not make this an advanced skill but apply this as a special ability to jedi characters, since they have been trained from a very young age in the use of the weapon. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10511
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 02, 2020 10:01 pm Post subject: Re: Melee + Lightsaber |
|
|
| Mamatried wrote: | this is great for making a lightsaber user (jedi) to compenzate for the (imo unlogical) ability losses,
with that system a jedi with 3D will be better at lightsaber use having been traind in it, compared to even a 4D "bounty hunter" using one athis default 4D
I would however not make this an advanced skill but apply this as a special ability to jedi characters, since they have been trained from a very young age in the use of the weapon. |
OK, but in the classic era, most "Jedi" characters have not been trained since a young age. In my game, a lot of Jedi characters have not even started with a lightsaber, so had to go on quests to find a lightsaber and an NPC master (that may one). The "master" (usually a padawan who survived the Jedi Purge) inevitably dies after some training (often to save their PC student as their master had saved them).
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16396
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 03, 2020 11:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm okay with the lightsaber being relatively... well, if not mundane, than at least to have most of the focus shifted onto the wielder (and, to a lesser degree, the builder). To my way of thinking, the lightsaber is an exotic and difficult/dangerous-to-operate device that only truly comes into its own in the hands of a trained Force sensitive.
My concept at the moment (which I haven't fully fleshed out, and which will require a re-work of my Lightsaber Combat rules) is to make the various Lightsaber Forms into Advanced Skills, with Melee Combat: Lightsaber and the nascent Defense skill as prerequisites. Non-FS characters can and do learn to wield light-weapons, but the learning process is long and the learning curve is high.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
boccione2k
Cadet
Joined: 27 Feb 2020
Posts: 14
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 03, 2020 1:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Throwing my two cents in, I like the idea of melee skill covering both attack and defense.
Speaking from 21 years of hystorical swordsmanship, I can tell you that you learn both ffense and defense. One can be more expert in attacking or in defending, but the nature of clos combat fighting (both armed and unarmed) training does impart knowledge of attack and defense.
In game terms, having a melee skill and a brawling skill, with specialization in attack and parry could work well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16396
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 03, 2020 2:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| boccione2k wrote: | Throwing my two cents in, I like the idea of melee skill covering both attack and defense.
Speaking from 21 years of historical swordsmanship, I can tell you that you learn both offense and defense. One can be more expert in attacking or in defending, but the nature of close combat fighting (both armed and unarmed) training does impart knowledge of attack and defense.
In game terms, having a melee skill and a brawling skill, with specialization in attack and parry could work well. |
The counterargument there, IMO, is that having separate skills allows the application of MAPs and CP allocation during character advancement, which maintains a degree of granularity without requiring special rules to account for it. That's why I think applying an Advanced Skill that covers both is probably a better fit; it allows the character to improve both Attack and Defense skills simultaneously while retaining the dichotomy of requiring the character in combat to choose between attack and defense, and suffer all appropriate dice penalties for their choice.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
