| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16232
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
 Posted: Mon Jul 11, 2011 4:45 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Seems fair.
_________________
"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: 16232
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 11, 2011 5:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Interesting thought...
How would you handle Dueling Blades type rules when fighting more than one opponent (ala the fight scene in TPM)?
_________________
"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 |
|
|
Fallon Kell
Commodore
Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 1846
Location: Tacoma, WA
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 11, 2011 10:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If by some freak chance, any two of my characters are ever trying to hit eachother with lighsabers, I will use this system.
_________________
Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier
Complete Starship Construction System |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16232
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 11, 2011 11:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Just out of curiosity, Bren, where would some of the non-lethal "trick" maneuvers from the original Dueling Blades fit on your damage scale? It might be a good place to insert some of the special martial arts moves from RoE...
_________________
"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: 16232
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2011 12:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
Here's another thought. The Dueling Blades rules cover lightsabers and other sword-type weapons relatively well, but what about other categories of weapons, such as force pikes and other spear weapons? What about weapons with unique abilities, like how a whip can entangle an opponent?
For both of those types, I was thinking that a good way to deal with their reach would be to give them a bonus initially, but on a mishap or low roll, the bonus becomes a penalty because the opponent has exploited a weakness to get in close where the weapon is not as effective.
But that certainly doesn't cover every melee weapon type in existence...
_________________
"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 |
|
|
Anakin
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 27 Feb 2011
Posts: 129
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2011 4:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
I've always used the "hit yourself-rule" for characters missing difficulty by 10 or more. I'll stick to that, but I also like the "loose your grip-concept", so I'm gonna go for a combination...
_________________
If you fall seven times, get up eight times. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2011 10:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
Good comments all.
Glad you liked it dadofett and Fallon Kell - and you never know what PCs will do.  Anakin - the idea for the dropped saber was atgxtg's and I really liked it. We see lots of lightsabers dropped or knocked away. It occurs at least once in almost every LS vs LS duel. We never see anyone cut off their own limb by mistake, hence the change. | crmcneill wrote: | | How would you handle Dueling Blades type rules when fighting more than one opponent (ala the fight scene in TPM)? |
For my system, I think it should work as is. More than one opponent just means multiple attacks and reaction parries with associated MAPs. I haven't ever used the original dueling blades, but I'd hope it would work as is. You frequently see Douglas Fairbanks, Errol Flynn, Cyrano or the Musketeers fighting two or even three opponenets so anything designed to emulate that style should be able to handle multiples.
| crmcneill wrote: | | Just out of curiosity, Bren, where would some of the non-lethal "trick" maneuvers from the original Dueling Blades fit on your damage scale? It might be a good place to insert some of the special martial arts moves from RoE... |
I intentionally left out the trick maneuvers, but if you included them I would say somewhere in the range where damage can occur (say 9+). If you want lots of tricks use 9+; if you want few tricks 16+. Personally I'd probably allow substitution of any solid or better blow i.e. any roll of 13+.
| crmcneill wrote: | | Here's another thought. The Dueling Blades rules cover lightsabers and other sword-type weapons relatively well, but what about other categories of weapons, such as force pikes and other spear weapons? What about weapons with unique abilities, like how a whip can entangle an opponent? |
I'm not trying to make force pikes and spears act any differently than swords. For whips, there was a nice article in the D6 magazine that covered specializations and trick maneuvers that would work nicely. Since we don't have any whip or flail using PCs I don't need anything special for now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2011 12:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Here is a revised version with a few tweaks. As before, these ideas were inspired by posts by ZzaphodD and atgxtg and to Dueling Blades by Peter Schweighofer. I have extensively borrowed from their ideas so if you like it, they get credit. I have changed and mixed their ideas so if you don't like it, it might just be my fault.
One goal was to somewhat simplify or take out the some of the subjectivity of the tricks in Dueling Blades, while retaining separate attack and parry rolls.
Lightsaber Dueling Variant
Limited Damage
Lightsaber combat in Star Wars D6 can be extremely deadly, especially as Jedi increase in ability. One result is that combat may resolve too quickly for an exciting build up or a series of interactions or blows. The first Jedi to strike successfully generally ends the fight. This system is designed to mitigate that to allow fights to take long enough for drama to occur.
Take attack roll minus target’s parry or defense roll including any modifiers for advantage to compute an Attack Result (AR) where AR = Attack Roll – Defense Roll + Modifiers.
Attack Result.......Effect
0.......................Bind. Both opponents forfeit any further attacks this round, instead making opposed lifting rolls. Loser is forced back as below. If lifting rolls are tied, continue bind next round.
1-5....................Forced back. Defender must retreat or attacker gains +1D6 bonus to his next attack.
6-10...................Off balance. Attacker gains +1D6 bonus to his next attack or if he has unused declared actions he may use an action to immediately perform a brawling attack. The defender can't use the lightsaber skill to defend but may make a normal reaction brawling parry with standard MAP.
11-15.................Glancing blow. Roll damage normally with a maximum result of wounded.
16-20.................Solid blow. Roll damage normally with a maximum result of incapacitated.
21+....................Serious blow. Roll damage normally with any wound result possible. Losing Your Lightsaber
In the movies we frequently see the Jedi and the Sith dropping or having their lightsaber knocked away. On the other hand, we never see them amputate their own limbs. To make combat more cinematic, add the following two rule modifications.
(A) An attacker that rolls below difficult (16-20) with his lightsaber attack or parry is considered to have lost his grip on his lightsaber rather than hitting himself with his own weapon.
(B) A defender who rolls a 1 on the wild die with his lightsaber parry and gets a complication is considered to have lost his grip on their lightsaber. Like all complications this is at the GM’s discretion or the GM may chose to roll or have the player roll a second D6. A second 1 on the die indicates a lost lightsaber.
(C) A character who fails to parry an attack can choose to avoid taking damage by instead opting to lose his lightsaber.
When a lightsaber is lost, it ends up 1D6 meters away. Roll on the Grenade Deviation Diagram for direction. Align the diagram so that arrow #4 is pointing towards the opponent. This will generally cause the lost lightsaber to end up behind the Jedi who lost it.
How does this compare to the previous action table? Better, worse, more or less interesting? Thoughts? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16232
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2011 1:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bren wrote: | | For my system, I think it should work as is. More than one opponent just means multiple attacks and reaction parries with associated MAPs. |
I wonder if full MAPs would be appropriate. When one duelist is facing multiple opponents, he is at a disadvantage because he has to fend off two blades at once. However, his opponents are also at a disadvantage because they have to work around each other, and their tactical choices are limited by the presence of another body in close proximity. Perhaps a good rule would be that, for every additional opponent (above the normal two duelists), a -1D penalty is applied to all the fighters, not just the one on his own.
| Bren wrote: | | I intentionally left out the trick maneuvers, but if you included them I would say somewhere in the range where damage can occur (say 9+). If you want lots of tricks use 9+; if you want few tricks 16+. Personally I'd probably allow substitution of any solid or better blow i.e. any roll of 13+. |
I was thinking of pulling some of the rules from the RoE Martials Arts and using them as tricks. One aspect that appeared in the movies that got left out was a Knockdown attack, where one duelists puts his opponent on the ground (damage optional). Maybe the tricks would have varying degrees of effectiveness based on the roll, so that light damage would be just knocking your opponent off his feet, but inflicting serious damage would knock him to the ground so hard that he is stunned.
| crmcneill wrote: | | I'm not trying to make force pikes and spears act any differently than swords. For whips, there was a nice article in the D6 magazine that covered specializations and trick maneuvers that would work nicely. Since we don't have any whip or flail using PCs I don't need anything special for now. |
I saw that, and liked it very much. I still think there should be some sort of rules for weapons with reach or weapons that entangle; just not quite sure what yet.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2011 1:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'd suggest toneing down the voluntary disarm a bit. Instead of automatically stopping any hit, how about it shifts the result up one or two rungs on the ladder?
And maybe you should add a couple more rungs so that there is still some chance for a potentially lethal hit? For instance, sperating between mortal wound and instant kill.
Thirdly, it miight be nice if there were a couple of alternative results. Like maybe doing sort sort of trick instead of something. Like maybe voluntarily doing a lesser strike but adding in a brawling attack or a disarm. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2011 5:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Responding atgxtg not in order for what I hope should be an obvious reason.
| atgxtg wrote: | | And maybe you should add a couple more rungs so that there is still some chance for a potentially lethal hit? For instance, sperating between mortal wound and instant kill. |
I was concerned that this would be making it too difficult to actually kill one's opponent. But maybe that is not a bad thing if these are really special and climactic duels or combats where dramatically it makes sense for neither side to quickly or easily win with an outright kill. Like the first meeting of Obi and Ani with Dooku.
In that case I would suggest making the table continue to parallel the difficulty levels. (Which if it was not obvious, was one of the intents of the change from the original Lightsaber Attack Table 1 to the modified Table 2.) So here is the re-revised Lightsaber Attack Table 3:
Attack Result.......Effect
0.......................Bind. Both opponents forfeit any further attacks this round, instead making opposed lifting rolls. Loser is forced back as below. If lifting rolls are tied, continue bind next round.
1-5....................Forced Back. Defender must retreat or attacker gains +1D6 bonus to his next attack.
6-10...................Off Balance. Attacker gains +1D6 bonus to his next attack or if he has unused declared actions he may use an action to immediately perform a brawling attack. The defender can't use the lightsaber skill to defend but may make a normal reaction brawling parry with standard MAP.
11-15.................Glancing blow. Roll damage normally with a maximum result of wounded.
16-20.................Solid Blow. Roll damage normally with a maximum result of incapacitated.
21-30..................Serious Blow. Roll damage normally with a maximum result of mortally wounded.
31+....................Deadly Blow. Roll damage normally with any wound result possible. | atgxtg wrote: | I'd suggest toneing down the voluntary disarm a bit.
Instead of automatically stopping any hit, how about it shifts the result up one or two rungs on the ladder? |
I suppose that might actually be better. So it is a shift on the Variant Lightsaber Table which may, or may not effect the actual damage inflicted. I think maybe a two row shift might makes sense. So in effect.
Glancing Blow (Possibly wounded) --> Forced Back
Solid Blow (Possibly incapped) --> Off Balance
Serious Blow (Possibly mortally wounded) --> Glancing Blow
Deadly Blow (Possibly dead) --> Solid Blow (Possibly incapped)
If one wanted to, I suppose one could continue with every 10+ adding a new upper level, but that seems like too much book keeping to little point. If the opponent can roll an attack that is 41+ higher than his opponent, the his damage is also likely to be high enough to ensure an incap result. So here is the revised disarm option (C):
(C) A character who fails to parry an attack can choose to lessen the possible damage by instead opting to lose his lightsaber and shifting the result up two rows on the Lightsaber Attack Table. | atgxtg wrote: | | Thirdly, it miight be nice if there were a couple of alternative results. Like maybe doing sort sort of trick instead of something. Like maybe voluntarily doing a lesser strike but adding in a brawling attack or a disarm. |
Yeah, crmcneil is looking for that too. I'm just not entirely comfortable with tricks and disarms at the attacker's option. Tricks seem too open ended and seem to reward clever players rather than skilled characters too much for my liking and comfort. And for now, I think I prefer disarms as a result of (A) really bad roll by character, (B) wild die complication - though I am not averse to the player suggesting this as a result for the wild die if he happens to know his opponent rolled a 1, and (C) player volunteering to have his lightsaber knocked away to avoid or lessen damage on a failed parry.
If one wants to include tricks, I would suggest allowing the attacker to state he wants to perform a trick. If he succeeds in a getting a Solid Blow or Better the trick succeeds. If he rolls lower than a Solid Blow the trick fails and his attack is a no effect. If you want to make it a bit easier or more likely to succeed at a trick, than only require a Glancing Blow result for success. Obviously a Disarm result would be a trick. So it covers both your requests in one. Woo hoo. 
Clearly if you are into simulating Forms, Form II: Makshi is supposed to be particularly effective at avoiding disarms. So one could increase the difficulty one or two levels for opponents trying a disarm trick vs. a Makshi user. In fact tricks might be a nice way to include some type of Form differentiation.
| crmcneil wrote: | | I wonder if full MAPs would be appropriate. When one duelist is facing multiple opponents, he is at a disadvantage because he has to fend off two blades at once. However, his opponents are also at a disadvantage because they have to work around each other, and their tactical choices are limited by the presence of another body in close proximity. Perhaps a good rule would be that, for every additional opponent (above the normal two duelists), a -1D penalty is applied to all the fighters, not just the one on his own. |
(i) The only time we see a duel like this in the films is Sidious against Mace Windu et al. So this really seems like a special case of a special case.
(ii) There isn't actually a penalty per attacker, it is a MAP per action. Not exactly the same thing. If some of the attackers are afraid of the one big tough guy they may full parry and hence their effect on the tough guy is nil. It is only if he has to reaction parry against each of his opponents that his MAPs start to add up.
(iii) I'm not convinced that force users with Danger Sense, Lightsaber Combat, and Jedi senses are that handicapped by having multiple opponents.
On the other hand - this assumes I am a Morseerian , what you suggest will make a one vs. many duel play out like the stereotypical Bruce Lee vs 10 Mooks from the rival dojo combat. With the Mooks either taking turns attacking to avoid the hideous penalty that neuters their low D skills or all attacking at once and failing all their attacks and parries due to the penalty. 8) I don't have any particular problem with that as an optional rule. I would just want to think closely about which side of that duel the PCs are going to be on. In other words are they Bruce Lee or are they the now neutered mooks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16232
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2011 6:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hmm. So, say we were using my version of the seven lightsaber forms, then an appropriate reflection would be something like allowing the bonuses to also be used against special moves on the results table, such as allowing a Form II adept to use his bonus to counter a disarm result, or a Form V adept to use his bonus to counter a Bind or Force Back result?
_________________
"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 |
|
|
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 13, 2011 11:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well, real world fighting, cleverness can and does offset skill somewhat.
But, the tricks don't have to "tricks". They could bethings like a "free" brawling attack, or a free half move. Or even just an increased bonus next turn, above +1D.
You could do something like having opponent's wear each other down, and instead of gaining +1D, they could "burn off" 1D of an opponent's skill dice for the rest of the duel.. So as the fight goes on, the combatant's would get tired and slow down.
More severe hits could be traded away for greater skill losses. The idea being that a Jedi might want to capture an opponent alive rather than kill them.
Say, if we combined this idea with that disarm instead of striking self option, this would explain the fights we see in the films.
This would also tend to encourage the "live to fight another day" approach from a foe who is losing. A short rest (and a Stamina roll) could refresh some of the lost skill dice. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 13, 2011 1:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| atgxtg wrote: | | Well, real world fighting, cleverness can and does offset skill somewhat. |
Sure, though to some extent, feints and the like, combat cleverness is subsumed under combat skill. But really it should be the character's cleverness not the players. But I am of the you should be trying to play your character school of thought.
| atgxtg wrote: | You could do something like having opponent's wear each other down, and instead of gaining +1D, they could "burn off" 1D of an opponent's skill dice for the rest of the duel.. So as the fight goes on, the combatant's would get tired and slow down.
More severe hits could be traded away for greater skill losses. The idea being that a Jedi might want to capture an opponent alive rather than kill them. |
Interesting. How would you suggest this would work?
| Quote: | | ...This would also tend to encourage the "live to fight another day" approach from a foe who is losing. A short rest (and a Stamina roll) could refresh some of the lost skill dice. |
I like this idea, though it can be quite difficult to get some players to run away. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 13, 2011 2:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneil wrote: | | Hmm. So, say we were using my version of the seven lightsaber forms, then an appropriate reflection would be something like allowing the bonuses to also be used against special moves on the results table, such as allowing a Form II adept to use his bonus to counter a disarm result, or a Form V adept to use his bonus to counter a Bind or Force Back result? |
That sounds right. I'm just not sure how well it would work with the large dice adds your forms provide. Those big dice adds may quickly move you to the top of the range. If you look at the most recent table, which is keyed to the WEG difficulty levels, I have added the dice advantage needed to, on average, achieve the bottom/top number of a given range result.
Lightsaber Attack Table 3A:
Effect...................... Low / High Dice Advantage ........Avg Dice
Bind................................ 0 / 0 .......................................... 0
Forced Back.................. 1 / 1D+1 .................................... 1D
Off Balance.............. 1D+2 / 3D ..................................... 2D-3D
Glancing blow............. 3D / 4D+1 .................................... 4D
Solid Blow............... 4D+2 / 5D+2 .................................... 5D
Serious Blow.............. 6D / 8D+2 ................................... 6D-8D
Deadly Blow..................9D+ ........................................... 9D For those curious about probability, the original Attack Table 1 tht I designed had net dice advantages that started at 1D and increased by +1D per level of effect up to 5D. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
