RE: defense

[Greg Mowczko <mooch@ns1.cioe.com>]

> > 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?).
>
> Fair point. Hadn't thought about it in that light. Hrm... the way
> Wright spelled things out has a lot of advantages, but would, I agree,
> be an exception and exceptions should be limited or removed where possible.

As the posts are starting to agree. I am for the idea that the skill carries
through until YOUR next action. This I guess also allows you to win initiative
and become defensive. Your DVs are up now and the opponent goes wins initiative
your still defensive ( since you haven't had a chance to change ) and then
you roll again. ( If your feeling luck about getting the next initiative you
don't roll your defence strike more and then roll defence on your next round
( score for lizrds )).

> > 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)
>
> Another good point. Pros and Cons though. This would be in keeping
> with current weapon defense bonuses. On the other hand if your paying
> attention it really isn't that hard to bat a spear or other thrown
> object out of the air (baseballs move pretty damn fast and people seem
> to be able to hit those). Arrows are trickier but still easily within
> the realm of someone with good reflexes.

Maybe. When you are being defensive you are actively blocking. So blocking
missiles would work. How many movies have you seen where someone blocks
a batch of shuriken with thier bo staff ( or similar pole ).

> I guess I'm saying that an argument can be made that MDV should be
> affected as well and having it _not_ affected is an exception and
> something extra I have to remember. I would also argue for changing
> the normal weapon bonus to include MDV...

Ahh but I think this DV is a passive DV. Your weapon just happens to be
in the way since these attacks ( Combat and Grapple ) tend to have a
larger target area ( less linear ).

> > [NUMBER 3 DELETED BECAUSE I REALLY HAVE NO GOOD FOLLOWUP :)

My arguement about the whole directional DV goes as such. When you are
in a combat you are not just facing one direction. You are pivoting and
turning constantly therefore there is no way to determine what direction
you are facing at any moment. ( plus as Wright says look at a whiteboard
and tell me which way I'm facing ). Also if you know someone is behind
you you can make sure that in your pivoting you keep an eye on him.
When I run around an opponent in combat to his back I don't expect him
to not block my attacks. The reason I went behind him is my buddies are
hogging his frontside.

Plus unlike the Defence skill we are talking about it requires you to
keep track of seperate DVs even if you don't want to. With the defence
skill you have the OPTION of using the defence and complicating your
mind.

> > 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)?

Sure.

> 					-Steve


						Greg