Recently joined a campaign were the GM preferred to use the old 2e D&D rules - having a blast, he's a great story teller. However the reason for this post is I noticed something different about how initiative was handled back in the day.
In 2e they would all declare their actions in general, then roll initiative - each round!
I guess somewhere down the line someone though to save dice rolling by just doing one initiative roll at the start of combat. A style that OVA follows along many other games.
Playing 2e made me realize a roll each round changes dynamics of combat quite a bit. Since you declare actions ahead of time that becomes the important point before rolling and ties happened at the same time. There's the uncertainty if you are fast enough each round before your opponent and going first is a benefit over waiting to see what everyone else does then declaring your action. Also, makes initiative bonuses more valuable since you use them more often.
Your actions were declared before the roll, you could not really get an edge waiting to see what your opponent does first. If you waited you had to give some conditions like 'I'm waiting and will attack the first enemy who opens the door' otherwise you do nothing that round. My thoughts went to OVA, it would affect such things as Countering. Declaring it first then rolling initiative without having the benefit of seeing any attack rolls (because it is a defense) makes it a seem a more balanced move to me.
It is just an interesting observation how I often see the roll once initiative, then just trade off predictable turns, style of play today compared to the roll each round method of past.
Side note:
Refooting in OVA - I can see a slight difference it could make in multiple combatants (though if one refoots and gets a high roll what stops everyone else from wanting to reroll?) In a one on one fight, it might actually encourage re-rolling each turn. If you are last in a round you'd have nothing to lose in not doing it and if you win your opponent would have nothing to lose by not re-rolling. Will this be revised as well?
Evolution of Initiative?
Evolution of Initiative?
-WARNING! Play at own risk.
One of my favorite things about 3E was chucking the old initiative mechanic in favor of the "roll and forget" mentality, and it was something I adopted midway in OVA's design process.
But while the old completely random initiative (which, BTW, my brother and I always played as roll initiative, THEN declare actions) was arbitrary, I also found the new 3E style initiative arbitrary in another way. I mean, roll bad once, and you're stuck with it the entire fight.
So that's where refooting came in. It gave you the best of both. You can keep dice-rolling to a minimum, but if you really wanted a new place in the pecking order, you could reroll. I mean, there's nothing stopping everyone from rerolling every turn if they want to. It's just simpler not to.
I am not a fan of "declare first, see if it works out" mechanics because it introduces a lot of guesswork. What happens if your target is taken out before you get to act? How exactly do you handle two people going at the same time?
That said, the concept of having to declare Counter before seeing the attack roll is a really interesting thought, and goes a long way to accomplishing what I originally intended the mechanic to be: Essentially, the samurai face off, two characters putting all their might into an attack, with the outcome uncertain until seconds after their respective blows have been struck.
The more I think about this, the more I like it. And it certainly does prevent characters from taking advantage of bad attack rolls automatically.
...Does anyone else have a problem with this? Because it's becoming immediate canon otherwise!
But while the old completely random initiative (which, BTW, my brother and I always played as roll initiative, THEN declare actions) was arbitrary, I also found the new 3E style initiative arbitrary in another way. I mean, roll bad once, and you're stuck with it the entire fight.
So that's where refooting came in. It gave you the best of both. You can keep dice-rolling to a minimum, but if you really wanted a new place in the pecking order, you could reroll. I mean, there's nothing stopping everyone from rerolling every turn if they want to. It's just simpler not to.
I am not a fan of "declare first, see if it works out" mechanics because it introduces a lot of guesswork. What happens if your target is taken out before you get to act? How exactly do you handle two people going at the same time?
That said, the concept of having to declare Counter before seeing the attack roll is a really interesting thought, and goes a long way to accomplishing what I originally intended the mechanic to be: Essentially, the samurai face off, two characters putting all their might into an attack, with the outcome uncertain until seconds after their respective blows have been struck.
The more I think about this, the more I like it. And it certainly does prevent characters from taking advantage of bad attack rolls automatically.
...Does anyone else have a problem with this? Because it's becoming immediate canon otherwise!
I've come to a similar crossroad with my own system, and I've discovered that the best solution for myself was to make the ability to counter attack automatically (not declaring it in advance, or spending tokens for the advantage)a special ability. With OVA maybe there could be a skill for it, too. Would allow the highly trained samurai types to pull of the whole "lone swordsmen walks into the midst of a group of attackers and takes them all out."
Speaking of initiative, I was looking at the rules just the other day and wondering why you didn't allow for simultaneous initiative. The dual KO or simultaneous exchange of blows is definitely not unheard of in anime. It would most likely end after a round or two anyway because of the option of refooting.
I'm not sure how I feel about declaring a counter before the rolls since it really seems less strategic and more just a gamble. Seeing that your opponent made a bad attack and then trying to capitalize on it seems more fitting to me.
I have some concerns about how the new Armor ability that reduces DM relates to countering, at higher levels especially it makes being countered not a major concern, and in the case of a blind exchange where counters are declared before the roll it puts countering hugely in the favor of the high Armor characters. This really seems counter intuitive to me in that in Anime countering and avoiding counters seems to be the realm of dexterous quick characters, not tough bruisers who more often than not seem to be the ones falling victim to it.
So I think I prefer countering as a reactive option rather than a gambling option, but I also think the current implementation is too strong. And that a different mechanic altogether might be in order.
One option would be to have Counter as an Ability, then have it work as follows. You choose to roll it after the opponents attack, but use Counter rather than Attack (meaning of course that everyone has a default of two dice) and the opponent treats their attack roll as their defense roll. If the Defender beats the opponents attack roll they deal damage to the opponent based on the difference between their attack roll and the counter roll, if the Defender fails though it means they seriously screwed up (i.e. moved into the punch or the like) and the opponent deals damage as though the defender rolled a defense roll of 0. The only real downside to this I see is proliferation of Abilities, but since everyone has a default of two dice and you choose to use it against particularly bad rolls few to no ranks should be fine.
Another way of doing it would be to allow the Defender to split their Defense Dice Pool. Let's say that the Defender has +3 defense, giving them 5 dice in total. The Opponent rolls low so the Defender tries to counter. They devote 2 dice to defending and 3 dice to countering. If their defence roll beats the attack roll they take no damage, and if the Defender's attack roll beats the Opponents attack roll they deal damage based on the difference. This gives you several possible outcomes. Both take damage, neither take damage, or one or the other takes damage.
In either case I would be tempted to allow countering to bypass Armor because it seems appropriate to anime and the general idea that countering is taking advantage of opening, and exposed vulnerability, left by the opponent.
In sum I prefer if countering is left as meaningful choice by the defender than just tossing the chips in the air, but think the mechanics should be altered to keep it from being a complete no brainer.
I'm not sure how I feel about declaring a counter before the rolls since it really seems less strategic and more just a gamble. Seeing that your opponent made a bad attack and then trying to capitalize on it seems more fitting to me.
I have some concerns about how the new Armor ability that reduces DM relates to countering, at higher levels especially it makes being countered not a major concern, and in the case of a blind exchange where counters are declared before the roll it puts countering hugely in the favor of the high Armor characters. This really seems counter intuitive to me in that in Anime countering and avoiding counters seems to be the realm of dexterous quick characters, not tough bruisers who more often than not seem to be the ones falling victim to it.
So I think I prefer countering as a reactive option rather than a gambling option, but I also think the current implementation is too strong. And that a different mechanic altogether might be in order.
One option would be to have Counter as an Ability, then have it work as follows. You choose to roll it after the opponents attack, but use Counter rather than Attack (meaning of course that everyone has a default of two dice) and the opponent treats their attack roll as their defense roll. If the Defender beats the opponents attack roll they deal damage to the opponent based on the difference between their attack roll and the counter roll, if the Defender fails though it means they seriously screwed up (i.e. moved into the punch or the like) and the opponent deals damage as though the defender rolled a defense roll of 0. The only real downside to this I see is proliferation of Abilities, but since everyone has a default of two dice and you choose to use it against particularly bad rolls few to no ranks should be fine.
Another way of doing it would be to allow the Defender to split their Defense Dice Pool. Let's say that the Defender has +3 defense, giving them 5 dice in total. The Opponent rolls low so the Defender tries to counter. They devote 2 dice to defending and 3 dice to countering. If their defence roll beats the attack roll they take no damage, and if the Defender's attack roll beats the Opponents attack roll they deal damage based on the difference. This gives you several possible outcomes. Both take damage, neither take damage, or one or the other takes damage.
In either case I would be tempted to allow countering to bypass Armor because it seems appropriate to anime and the general idea that countering is taking advantage of opening, and exposed vulnerability, left by the opponent.
In sum I prefer if countering is left as meaningful choice by the defender than just tossing the chips in the air, but think the mechanics should be altered to keep it from being a complete no brainer.
-
Dreamstryder
- Worthy Tortoise
- Posts: 51
- Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2006 4:23 pm
- Location: OR, USA
- Contact:
It is well that refooting is more likely in one-on-ones; it keeps people antsy during the showdown.
While the split-Defense-pool mechanic looks neat, I still think scraping by a big attack with a Counter would be more satisfying and dynamic (befitting an animé) when the victor compares to a defense of zero. Otherwise, you're using Counter all the time, but with insurance: less daring, less result either way.
Think of it this way: one is penalized for fumbling Defense; why not Attack, too? If you roll high on either, you're not damaged; if you roll too low, you are (tho' it's less likely an attacker will be punished because Counter is riskier). That said, in a Dragon Quest OVA game I Countered all the time until I was clothes-lined with a lower roll (by a monstrous 'shroom with a horrible pun for a name).
For a Western/Chanbara duel, you can always copy L5R's concept:
Each turn, either roll against a DN 4 to add a focus die to your Counter roll, or roll the Counter. Your next focus DN this duel will be 6, then 8, etc. If the opponent Counters, however, you must reply in kind. A failure on the focus DN gives your opponent a focus die instead.
While the split-Defense-pool mechanic looks neat, I still think scraping by a big attack with a Counter would be more satisfying and dynamic (befitting an animé) when the victor compares to a defense of zero. Otherwise, you're using Counter all the time, but with insurance: less daring, less result either way.
Think of it this way: one is penalized for fumbling Defense; why not Attack, too? If you roll high on either, you're not damaged; if you roll too low, you are (tho' it's less likely an attacker will be punished because Counter is riskier). That said, in a Dragon Quest OVA game I Countered all the time until I was clothes-lined with a lower roll (by a monstrous 'shroom with a horrible pun for a name).
For a Western/Chanbara duel, you can always copy L5R's concept:
Each turn, either roll against a DN 4 to add a focus die to your Counter roll, or roll the Counter. Your next focus DN this duel will be 6, then 8, etc. If the opponent Counters, however, you must reply in kind. A failure on the focus DN gives your opponent a focus die instead.
Countering is kind of strange in the first place to me. I like the general idea behind, but I feel it needs more work. It is a maneuver that effectively gives the power to the defender to force a contest of attack rolls, attacker gets no say in it. Reading some of this thread I get the impression some might assume that an attacker gives no thought to defense at the moment of attacking either...which is simply not true.Oni wrote:
I'm not sure how I feel about declaring a counter before the rolls since it really seems less strategic and more just a gamble. Seeing that your opponent made a bad attack and then trying to capitalize on it seems more fitting to me.
As for the capitalizing on a bad attack roll...that brings me to a story of a player with a robotic school girl. This character was cute yet clumsy reflected in the appropriate weakness and having a low attack ability. However, her defense ability was very strong. She might not hit much, but she was hard to hit in return.
Now with countering, to put it bluntly, not only have we made her investment in defense abilities worthless... this also sent the message to players you better have a high attack roll or you are countering bait. In fact - it is best to have a high attack skill so you can just spam countering.
In my opinion that just kills certain character concepts and encourages creation of the combat monster. I don't believe a fighting maneuver should totally nullify defense, put all the power into the hands of the defender (making the decision to counter the attacker has no choice), or send a message you better be strong in this or that ability or this maneuver will own you.
Again I get the intention of a final showdown exchange of blows and that is a cool idea - just needs more work. I also get any opinion that may state it is a player/GM problem rather than a rules issue...it is not just a player/GM problem - if the option exists why wouldn't players figure what works and what doesn't in respect to countering?
-WARNING! Play at own risk.
I think this should be made canon. It prevents the players from being cheesy. Are you still going to keep the ruling of forfeiting your attack for the next round if you counterattack? I think the risk behind a failed counterattack equals the payoff as it is.Clay wrote:That said, the concept of having to declare Counter before seeing the attack roll is a really interesting thought, and goes a long way to accomplishing what I originally intended the mechanic to be: Essentially, the samurai face off, two characters putting all their might into an attack, with the outcome uncertain until seconds after their respective blows have been struck.
The more I think about this, the more I like it. And it certainly does prevent characters from taking advantage of bad attack rolls automatically.
...Does anyone else have a problem with this? Because it's becoming immediate canon otherwise!
I generally find simultaneous initiative an exercise in futility and annoyance. The game is already split up into taking turns to the point that one person, or the other, is going to have to declare their action first. It'd be silly for two Players to shout what they're doing at the same time to each other. Likewise, turns have to be taken making rolls, calculating results, and so forth. I just don't see the point.Oni wrote:Speaking of initiative, I was looking at the rules just the other day and wondering why you didn't allow for simultaneous initiative. The dual KO or simultaneous exchange of blows is definitely not unheard of in anime. It would most likely end after a round or two anyway because of the option of refooting.
Even if armor reduces your DM to 1, comparing to 0 is still a fairly devestating attack. Besides, I think you're confusing a TOUGH character and a heavily armored character. I think it is cinematically appropriate to have counters not work well against a well-armored mecha, even though it should work great against a slow but TOUGH bruiser. But that's me.I have some concerns about how the new Armor ability that reduces DM relates to countering, at higher levels especially it makes being countered not a major concern, and in the case of a blind exchange where counters are declared before the roll it puts countering hugely in the favor of the high Armor characters. This really seems counter intuitive to me in that in Anime countering and avoiding counters seems to be the realm of dexterous quick characters, not tough bruisers who more often than not seem to be the ones falling victim to it.
It seems rather overcomplicated to me, and there doesn't seem to be a lot to gain from it. There's not many opponents where such an effort would give you enough damage to make the risk worthwhile. Or so it seems to me.One option would be to have Counter as an Ability, then have it work as follows. You choose to roll it after the opponents attack, but use Counter rather than Attack (meaning of course that everyone has a default of two dice) and the opponent treats their attack roll as their defense roll. If the Defender beats the opponents attack roll they deal damage to the opponent based on the difference between their attack roll and the counter roll, if the Defender fails though it means they seriously screwed up (i.e. moved into the punch or the like) and the opponent deals damage as though the defender rolled a defense roll of 0. The only real downside to this I see is proliferation of Abilities, but since everyone has a default of two dice and you choose to use it against particularly bad rolls few to no ranks should be fine.
I contemplated allowing characters to distribute dice between attack and defense, but it seemed too complicated to me. It's easy to forget how many dice you have where, and all in all goes against the grain of the rest of the system. This isn't exactly the same, but I think it's prone to many of the same issues. It introduces fluctuating numbers into what is otherwise a fairly static game.Another way of doing it would be to allow the Defender to split their Defense Dice Pool. Let's say that the Defender has +3 defense, giving them 5 dice in total. The Opponent rolls low so the Defender tries to counter. They devote 2 dice to defending and 3 dice to countering. If their defence roll beats the attack roll they take no damage, and if the Defender's attack roll beats the Opponents attack roll they deal damage based on the difference. This gives you several possible outcomes. Both take damage, neither take damage, or one or the other takes damage.
Or you could just purchase an armor-piercing attack with the requirement "must be countering." ...In either case I would be tempted to allow countering to bypass Armor because it seems appropriate to anime and the general idea that countering is taking advantage of opening, and exposed vulnerability, left by the opponent.
Yeah, I see why that might be an unfortunate casualty of changing the rule. I'm still thinking on it.In sum I prefer if countering is left as meaningful choice by the defender than just tossing the chips in the air, but think the mechanics should be altered to keep it from being a complete no brainer.
Spamming countering is never a good idea. You're going to roll poorly, eventually. It's a given.Erinak wrote:Countering is kind of strange in the first place to me. I like the general idea behind, but I feel it needs more work. It is a maneuver that effectively gives the power to the defender to force a contest of attack rolls, attacker gets no say in it. Reading some of this thread I get the impression some might assume that an attacker gives no thought to defense at the moment of attacking either...which is simply not true.
As for the capitalizing on a bad attack roll...that brings me to a story of a player with a robotic school girl. This character was cute yet clumsy reflected in the appropriate weakness and having a low attack ability. However, her defense ability was very strong. She might not hit much, but she was hard to hit in return.
Now with countering, to put it bluntly, not only have we made her investment in defense abilities worthless... this also sent the message to players you better have a high attack roll or you are countering bait. In fact - it is best to have a high attack skill so you can just spam countering.
In my opinion that just kills certain character concepts and encourages creation of the combat monster. I don't believe a fighting maneuver should totally nullify defense, put all the power into the hands of the defender (making the decision to counter the attacker has no choice), or send a message you better be strong in this or that ability or this maneuver will own you.
Again I get the intention of a final showdown exchange of blows and that is a cool idea - just needs more work. I also get any opinion that may state it is a player/GM problem rather than a rules issue...it is not just a player/GM problem - if the option exists why wouldn't players figure what works and what doesn't in respect to countering?
In any case, I remember this example from the blog, and I think I addressed it there. But in case I didn't, I think the basic approach here is that a character that is terrible at attacking probably shouldn't be attacking much, and instead should be waiting for a really bad attack roll to counter.
Of course, if I were to change the rule to declaring a counter before you attack, then this kind of strategy is no longer possible.
I'm still thinking here. Thanks for your input everyone.
As stated by Oni, this does remove a bit of strategy from the game, strategy that goes a long way to preventing Erinak's problem with countering to start with. Also, it sort of removes the "point" of countering. It's a straight gamble that requires nothing to think about, save abusing it on mooks, minions, and Erinak's robot girl.bushido11 wrote:I think this should be made canon. It prevents the players from being cheesy. Are you still going to keep the ruling of forfeiting your attack for the next round if you counterattack? I think the risk behind a failed counterattack equals the payoff as it is.
But at the same time, declaring before the roll seems like an elegant solution that prevents painful abuse of people fumbling rolls.
In either case, I would keep the "lose next action." requirement. Unlike knockback, you can "act twice" to act once anyway.
Perhaps countering should cost more in some way. An Endurance expenditure? Penalty to Defense?
Or maybe it should just be left alone. As I've said a few times now, still thinking. I appreciate everyone's input and hope you'll keep contributing to this post.
I think that the premises behind this "countering" issue should be explicitly stated. These are the premises I present when I talk about countering (yours may differ):
-Players will find any way to min-max their character's potential (especially combat ability), sans GM intervention.
-Players aware of and knowledgeable of the rules system will exploit the rules system to the fullest, sans GM intervention.
Having explicitly stated the premises, I now continue with my argument on the matter of countering. If the intent to counter must be stated before the attack roll is made, then the strategy of waiting for a bad attack roll to counter is not available. It makes countering a gamble, with great reward (attacking vs. defense of 0) or great punishment (being attacked vs. defense of 0). Defensive skill is irrelevant in a counter, and having Armor is much more valuable than having lots of health/endurance in the case of countering, since Armor (for the Revised edition) directly reduces the attack's Damage Multiplier (for the Revised edition). For those who do not like to gamble, having high defensive skill is a great boon.
If the intent to counter can be stated after seeing the opponent's attack roll, then the strategy of waiting for a bad attack roll to counter is not only available, but makes for great strategy to defeat your opponent. It makes countering much less of a gamble and more of a strategic choice, with a much greater chance of great reward than great punishment. If you do not have a high attack dice pool, you will be severely punished as you are more of a viable candidate to be countered than not, and your defensive skill will be irrelevant. Having high Armor is made even more valuable so, since you'll be subject to countering more often, due to the fact that the defender can wait until you've made your attack roll to decide to counter. If a particular counter is not advisable (due to the opponent rolling a high attack roll), then having a high defensive skill will help mitigate the amount of damage you take.
I think that rather than becoming a "viable strategy", waiting for the opponent's attack roll to blow will be the ultimate strategy. In fact, I think it robs the game of much of its spontaneity and its risk. If countering must be stated before the attack roll is made, yes, it is a gamble. That's the point of countering. And it also prevents the painful abuse of people fumbling rolls.
As for "losing the next action", if I am interpreting the rules correctly, you can still act after countering on your next turn by taking a multiple action penalty, correct? If not, then losing my next action along with the risk of failing a counter makes countering less and less attractive, more like a last-ditch effort to turn the tables.
If need be, please scroll back up to the beginning of this post to re-read the premises I have stated.
The question is (to Clay): what is your intent on countering? Whatever it is, design your rules around that intent. If the intent is to make it a gamble, then leave it as is. If not, then what is it? When we, the fanbase, know what your intent is to countering, then we can more accurately provide suggestions for you to prune from.
-Players will find any way to min-max their character's potential (especially combat ability), sans GM intervention.
-Players aware of and knowledgeable of the rules system will exploit the rules system to the fullest, sans GM intervention.
Having explicitly stated the premises, I now continue with my argument on the matter of countering. If the intent to counter must be stated before the attack roll is made, then the strategy of waiting for a bad attack roll to counter is not available. It makes countering a gamble, with great reward (attacking vs. defense of 0) or great punishment (being attacked vs. defense of 0). Defensive skill is irrelevant in a counter, and having Armor is much more valuable than having lots of health/endurance in the case of countering, since Armor (for the Revised edition) directly reduces the attack's Damage Multiplier (for the Revised edition). For those who do not like to gamble, having high defensive skill is a great boon.
If the intent to counter can be stated after seeing the opponent's attack roll, then the strategy of waiting for a bad attack roll to counter is not only available, but makes for great strategy to defeat your opponent. It makes countering much less of a gamble and more of a strategic choice, with a much greater chance of great reward than great punishment. If you do not have a high attack dice pool, you will be severely punished as you are more of a viable candidate to be countered than not, and your defensive skill will be irrelevant. Having high Armor is made even more valuable so, since you'll be subject to countering more often, due to the fact that the defender can wait until you've made your attack roll to decide to counter. If a particular counter is not advisable (due to the opponent rolling a high attack roll), then having a high defensive skill will help mitigate the amount of damage you take.
I think that rather than becoming a "viable strategy", waiting for the opponent's attack roll to blow will be the ultimate strategy. In fact, I think it robs the game of much of its spontaneity and its risk. If countering must be stated before the attack roll is made, yes, it is a gamble. That's the point of countering. And it also prevents the painful abuse of people fumbling rolls.
As for "losing the next action", if I am interpreting the rules correctly, you can still act after countering on your next turn by taking a multiple action penalty, correct? If not, then losing my next action along with the risk of failing a counter makes countering less and less attractive, more like a last-ditch effort to turn the tables.
If need be, please scroll back up to the beginning of this post to re-read the premises I have stated.
The question is (to Clay): what is your intent on countering? Whatever it is, design your rules around that intent. If the intent is to make it a gamble, then leave it as is. If not, then what is it? When we, the fanbase, know what your intent is to countering, then we can more accurately provide suggestions for you to prune from.
Counter was, originally, intended to be represent one of three things:
A) a last ditch effort
B) a brash up front gamble
C) a villain smack down on said brash gambler.
To compare to anime, A) would be the final samurai face-off, and B) would be the hotheaded adventurer allowing the enemy to come right at him, and C) would be a incredibly more powerful villain batting the hero aside. In none of these case is a real strategy implied. The samurais are just being cool, the hotheaded adventurer is making a blind gamble, and the villain is powerful (and pompous) enough not to WORRY what the hero could possibly roll.
So yes, I think I'm leaning towards the "declare before rolling" idea again.
A) a last ditch effort
B) a brash up front gamble
C) a villain smack down on said brash gambler.
To compare to anime, A) would be the final samurai face-off, and B) would be the hotheaded adventurer allowing the enemy to come right at him, and C) would be a incredibly more powerful villain batting the hero aside. In none of these case is a real strategy implied. The samurais are just being cool, the hotheaded adventurer is making a blind gamble, and the villain is powerful (and pompous) enough not to WORRY what the hero could possibly roll.
So yes, I think I'm leaning towards the "declare before rolling" idea again.