Dragon Warriors

A discussion forum for the Dragon Warriors RPG and related works
It is currently Mon Oct 22, 2018 3:48 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Jul 19, 2018 5:51 am 
Offline
10th Rank
10th Rank
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2015 12:17 pm
Posts: 1230
Profession: Barbarian
One thing that comes to mind is how during combat certain characters like Assassins might just disappear into some cover. I think its realistic to think that this is possible and in the same way other characters might simply duck behind cover and their movements would not be seen. That inspired me to think whether we should expand upon the range of actions that was covered in old book 1 about what a character can do in a combat round.

Would it be possible to include a list of 'free' moves like charging into combat, dropping items, battlecries, threats? Would you allow someone in combat to also automatically evade multiple javelins hurled in their direction?

Also to follow from that, how about a knight who demands someone to yield, and can decide in the same combat round whether or not to strike or stay his hand? Whilst combat is happening around them?


Just thinking of a slight revision or clarification of the combat round mechanic. Thoughts?

_________________
Speech!





And so the show begins!!!
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/dwp ... ssages/640


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 19, 2018 6:41 am 
Offline
5th Rank
5th Rank

Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2018 5:46 pm
Posts: 158
Location: Albion
Profession: Sorcerer
When I've run games, and in my current game, speaking has always been a 'free action', as you can speak while doing something else.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 19, 2018 6:47 am 
Offline
10th Rank
10th Rank
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2015 12:17 pm
Posts: 1230
Profession: Barbarian
revisiting that threat scenario, a guy with low reflexes who doesn't take his action has to go last in the following round. Since dropping a weapon is a free action, one who yields and drops his sword should be able to make gestures, raise his hand in the air, like a 'surrender' action.

with the game mechanics it would be awkward for say fat boris (reflexes 3) to make such a threat, cause fast talking harry (reflexes 12) might whack him next round and then decide whether or not to surrender. Should we create some sort of 'surrender' mechanics?

And what about a command to cease hostilities in the middle of a fight? Might work if someone from a position of authority can make himself understood.


What about parrying attacks on behalf of another? Like at the end of Episode 6 star wars?

_________________
Speech!





And so the show begins!!!
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/dwp ... ssages/640


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 02, 2018 7:35 pm 
Offline
Admin/Moderator
Admin/Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2015 4:38 pm
Posts: 597
Location: Birmingham, UK
Profession: Sorcerer
Kharille wrote:
Revisiting that threat scenario, a guy with low reflexes who doesn't take his action has to go last in the following round. Since dropping a weapon is a free action, one who yields and drops his sword should be able to make gestures, raise his hand in the air, like a 'surrender' action.

With the game mechanics, it would be awkward for, say, fat Boris (reflexes 3) to make such a threat, cause fast-talking Harry (reflexes 12) might whack him next round and then decide whether or not to surrender. Should we create some sort of 'surrender' mechanics?

Surrendering is a full-round action and occurs as the first action in a combat round, regardless of the combatants' relative Reflexes scores. The character surrendering may take no further action this combat round and is, for the purposes of any incoming attack, considered to have a Defence and Evasion score of zero.

Kharille wrote:
And what about a command to cease hostilities in the middle of a fight? Might work if someone from a position of authority can make himself understood.

Anyone may shout anything during their action, including an order to cease further hostilities. Whether anyone listens depends on his authority and should be role-played accordingly by both the players and the GM. Such a command would have much more credence if the combatant bellowing it also foregoes any further action that round.

Kharille wrote:
What about parrying attacks on behalf of another?

If the character is adjacent to an ally during combat, he may allocate some or all of his Defence score to his ally at a 2:1 ratio. For example, if a knight had a Defence score of 8 and allocated 4 points to his ally, the knight would have a Defence score of 4 against opponents attacking him but his ally would benefit from +2 Defence this round. I can imagine a Skills of the Mighty whereby this ratio is improved to 1:1.

Thoughts?

_________________
Cobwebbed Dragon (Lee)
https://www.cobwebbedforest.co.uk/
https://www.dragonwarriors.uk/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 02, 2018 9:36 pm 
Offline
6th Rank
6th Rank
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2018 10:01 am
Posts: 244
Location: Albion
Profession: Priest
Quote:
If the character is adjacent to an ally during combat, he may allocate some or all of his Defence score to his ally at a 2:1 ratio. For example, if a knight had a Defence score of 8 and allocated 4 points to his ally, the knight would have a Defence score of 4 against opponents attacking him but his ally would benefit from +2 Defence this round. I can imagine a Skills of the Mighty whereby this ratio is improved to 1:1.

I like this idea.

Historically, especially in Antiquity, such things happened. Lightly armoured troops bearing shields would protect someone of importance (a commander, for example).

I think I may add it to my 'house rules'... ;)

I would, however, be tempted to suggest that this can only be done if the character has a protective weapon in his off-hand - e.g. a shield, or a staff - with which to keep his ally's foes at bay. (This tactic would also be different to fighting in a shield wall, which is a very close formation.)

Quote:
Surrendering is a full-round action and occurs as the first action in a combat round, regardless of the combatants' relative Reflexes scores. The character surrendering may take no further action this combat round and is, for the purposes of any incoming attack, considered to have a Defence and Evasion score of zero.

Fine, up to the point about the loss of Defence and Evasion. It all depends if the surrendering character, dropping his weapon, has still maintained something to defend with (e.g. a shield). In that case, the surrendering character would still be able to defend (but not attack). I would argue they would also be able to evade as they see they're still being assailed despite their attempt to surrender. (After all, you can evade an unexpected trap, so why can you not still evade having made an attempt to surrender?)

Attack, on the other hand, should be reduced to zero.
(Unless the character was only pretending to surrender?)

Quote:
Anyone may shout anything during their action, including an order to cease further hostilities. Whether anyone listens depends on his authority and should be role-played accordingly by both the players and the GM. Such a command would have much more credence if the combatant bellowing it also foregoes any further action that round.

Quite so.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 03, 2018 7:57 am 
Offline
Admin/Moderator
Admin/Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2015 4:38 pm
Posts: 597
Location: Birmingham, UK
Profession: Sorcerer
Starkad wrote:
Quote:
If the character is adjacent to an ally during combat, he may allocate some or all of his Defence score to his ally at a 2:1 ratio. For example, if a knight had a Defence score of 8 and allocated 4 points to his ally, the knight would have a Defence score of 4 against opponents attacking him but his ally would benefit from +2 Defence this round. I can imagine a Skills of the Mighty whereby this ratio is improved to 1:1.

I like this idea.

Historically, especially in Antiquity, such things happened. Lightly armoured troops bearing shields would protect someone of importance (a commander, for example).

I think I may add it to my 'house rules'... ;)

I would, however, be tempted to suggest that this can only be done if the character has a protective weapon in his off-hand - e.g. a shield, or a staff - with which to keep his ally's foes at bay. (This tactic would also be different to fighting in a shield wall, which is a very close formation.)

Depends on which side the character is on, I guess. A sword could parry an incoming blow if it's on the correct side. And DW combat is already pretty abstract so i'd allow the character to defend another regardless of the side on which he was standing. We could add an extra provision that the attack against which the character chooses to defend must come from the front so, for example, an attack from the far side of an adjacent character could not be defended. As with all rules, there needs to be a narrative interpretation that makes sense.

Starkad wrote:
Quote:
Surrendering is a full-round action and occurs as the first action in a combat round, regardless of the combatants' relative Reflexes scores. The character surrendering may take no further action this combat round and is, for the purposes of any incoming attack, considered to have a Defence and Evasion score of zero.

Fine, up to the point about the loss of Defence and Evasion. It all depends if the surrendering character, dropping his weapon, has still maintained something to defend with (e.g. a shield). In that case, the surrendering character would still be able to defend (but not attack). I would argue they would also be able to evade as they see they're still being assailed despite their attempt to surrender. (After all, you can evade an unexpected trap, so why can you not still evade having made an attempt to surrender?)

I agree - as I wrote it, I questioned internally whether it made sense, although I did want there to be a cost - the fact that surrendering is a full round action, which precludes any spellcasting or attacking that round is probably enough. But just to say you're surrendering but keep your weapon and your guard up, doesn't seem to be committing to the whole surrendering thing. So perhaps I'd still insist that Defence be zero (indicting throwing down your weapon and raising your hands, perhaps dropping to your knees, etc.), but Evasion remains unchanged. If the character keeps hold of their shield, though, I'd still give them the 1-in-6 chance to block an incoming attack with it.

_________________
Cobwebbed Dragon (Lee)
https://www.cobwebbedforest.co.uk/
https://www.dragonwarriors.uk/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 03, 2018 4:07 pm 
Offline
6th Rank
6th Rank
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2018 10:01 am
Posts: 244
Location: Albion
Profession: Priest
Quote:
Depends on which side the character is on, I guess. A sword could parry an incoming blow if it's on the correct side. And DW combat is already pretty abstract so i'd allow the character to defend another regardless of the side on which he was standing. We could add an extra provision that the attack against which the character chooses to defend must come from the front so, for example, an attack from the far side of an adjacent character could not be defended. As with all rules, there needs to be a narrative interpretation that makes sense.

I agree this rule would only be effective against attacks from the front. This is logical, as no Defence can be applied against attacks from the rear in DW in any event (q.v. Book 1, page 192). It also makes sense, as you say, that the defending character must be able to intercept the incoming attack (so cannot block attacks coming from the far side of their comrade).

I suggest the character also has a reasonable parrying option - not due to which side they are on - but so that it makes reasonable sense. It's difficult enough to parry with a greatsword or a battleaxe - trying to protect someone else when wielding one of those is next to impossible.

Quote:
But just to say you're surrendering but keep your weapon and your guard up, doesn't seem to be committing to the whole surrendering thing. So perhaps I'd still insist that Defence be zero (indicting throwing down your weapon and raising your hands, perhaps dropping to your knees, etc.), but Evasion remains unchanged. If the character keeps hold of their shield, though, I'd still give them the 1-in-6 chance to block an incoming attack with it.

It seems that what it boils down to is how the character is surrendering and how likely they are to be believed.

If a character throws down their weapon and opens themselves up - entirely at the mercy of their adversary - then what you say above holds true (i.e. zero Defence). If, on the other hand, they throw down their offensive weapon but retain their shield, stay ready to defend while shouting that they wish to surrender - then they would retain their full Defence. Then it would be upto the GamesMaster to decide how the NPC reacts (assuming it's a PC that's surrendering to an NPC)...

In other words, it's really down to the narrative and how it's role-played.
(Let's face it, anyone can shout their intent to surrender while still fighting - hoping for an 'honourable' end to the melee.)


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group