Re: defense

[Wright Frazier <khelek@ns1.cioe.com>]

> I want to show my support for the defense skill as a sub-skill
> of the weapon skill (I just wish the AQ system was stabilized
> and that the environment had been conducive to this idea
> about 8 years ago when I first proposed the idea to Dan).  ;-)
> 
> I do, however, have a couple personal opinions on the topic.
> 
> 1)  I agree with the below statement that the defense provided
> by a successful skill roll would only carry into the immediately
> following sub-round (be it the bottom of the current round if the
> party went first, or the top of the next round provided that the
> opposition wins initiative).  Wright's proposal that continue until
> combat ends or you re-roll your weapon skill was, I think, not
> very well thought out (Wright, you must not have had your
> morning requirement of caffeine yet    ;-)    ).  If we allowed that,
> then we would be completely redefining the use of the weapons
> skills and I don't think we are out to do that (after all, I made my
> multi-attack, why can't I keep swinging my sword around and cut
> up my enemies at 5 swings per round?  I mean, hey, if I had
> made my defense with 4 dice, that would continue, right?).

No, It is far easier to allow it to continue over and get no arguements or
questions of when your skill gets used again.  Since rounds are 'simultaneous'
*snort* does your skill run out on lizard init? or does it run out on
your init?  Its easier to have it last until your weapon skill is used
again.

And of course its a redefining of the way weapon skill works.  You have to
do ALLOW for a defensive skill that lasts more than the single phase of
your part of the round.  In for a dime, in for a dollar.  I'll take the
dollar with the simplicity. 


> 
> 2)  Since we are talking about using the weapon for defensive
> purposes, we should only be adding that +2 per die rolled to
> the CDV and the GDV as those are only ones affected by
> weapons to begin with.  (so, no, this wouldn't apply to helping
> against getting shot in the back by a party member on your
> own round, but it might apply to you blocking a critical miss
> by your comrade on the baddie that you are both hacking to
> pieces)

I agree it should apply towards GDV.

> 
> 3)  And speaking of getting shot in the back, the defense sub-
> skill should not apply to combat or grapple attacks from behind
> anyway.  Nor should most of the other DV's.  Greg very loudly
> pointed out that I seem to be the only GM who uses the optional
> directional attack rules on DV's (both when moderating and when
> playing); why doesn't everyone else?  I mean, hey, we're striving
> for more realism here, right?  Actually, I'm not the only one; I know
> that I've seen Dan do it as well, but how many others use these
> rules?  We all should be doing so (after all, they aren't that tough
> to use).  The only reason I can see against using them is that they
> are an optional rule that can hurt you as opposed to making you
> better/more powerful.  In other words, I don't see a good reason
> here.
> 

AQ does not allow for facing, you are writing on a dry erase board and
its easy to forget who was facing what direction.  The only time I'd
give you no added DVs for weapon/defense/shield is when they a)
sneak up on you. b) you are held. c) injured in some fashion d) extraneous
circumstance I haven't thought of. 

re: Horse stuff...sure.

Wright


> Okay, enough said on that for now.  Is the group interested in me
> writing up the addendum to horseback rules I posted (pertaining
> to dealing with being de-horsed)?
> 
> Lyle
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Steve Ames [SMTP:steve@ns1.cioe.com]
> Sent:	Thursday, October 01, 1998 4:39 PM
> To:	belgarat@expert.cc.purdue.edu; GMlist@cioe.com
> Subject:	Re: defense
> 
> >
> > What ever happened to the defense skill?
> >
> 
> It didn't really make a lot of sense to have it without the
> split dice option... in other words we got sidetracked.
> 
> With split dice it works like this:
> 
> When you roll your dice you specify that X dice will be used
> for "defense" during the following round. You can use whatever
> other dice you rolled for combat this round (split target, multi,
> lethal, etc...).
> 
> If you get a flip-flop on initiative then you oopsed and your
> defensive dice were wasted. Bad you.
> 
> If its a fresh combat and the opponent gets to move first you
> don't get a defensive option.
> 
> That said:
> 
> The defensive subskill allows you to use your weapon in a defensive
> manner. For every die you successfully roll against your weapon skill
> you may add 2 to your DVs during your opponents round. In the event
> that you have two rounds sequentially any defense used in the first
> round is lost and should be re-rolled in the 2nd.
> 
> I suppose a case could be made that the defense works even on a flip 
> flop for things such as your own party shooting you in the back, a 
> T'orite with a rebound, etc... I'd agree with that.
> 
> It should either be a weapon subskill (as outlined above) or a REALLY
> high base cost skill... otherwise it becomes another skill that people
> will roll dice for every round. Blech. I'd vote weapon subskill...
> everything in one tidy die roll and another thing that will cut into
> multi-attacks dominence of the game.
> 
> I think the defensive skill is alive and well and biding its time :)
> 
> 						-Steve
> ~
> 
>