| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
DougRed4
Rear Admiral
Joined: 18 Jan 2013
Posts: 2259
Location: Seattle, WA
|
 Posted: Mon Jul 08, 2013 4:05 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Naaman wrote: | A new rule just came to mind for aiming. I always hated the idea that "aiming" takes a whole round or more, and that the longer you stare at your target, the bigger your bonus. In reality, you either have good aim or you do not. It doesn't take 3 rounds/15 seconds (!) to line up your sights on a stationary target. And if the target moves, you just wasted the last 14 seconds.
Anyway, here's my new take. I'll. add it to the first post after some feedback.
Aiming allows you to take a moment to ensure that your sights are lined up on target at the expense of slowing down your shot. You may choose to take a penalty to your initiative of up to -5 in order to gain an inverse bonus on your attack roll (up to +5). Note that actions other than aiming/shooting are resolved normally (even un-aimed shots).
Shoot from the hip: this is the oposite of aiming. Bonus to initiative and penalty to attack roll. However, the penalty to attack is doubled. So going for a +5 on your initiative would result in a -10 on your attack roll.
Called shots: This new interpretation would affect called shots, as well. In effect, aiming would offset the penalty for called shots. However, due to this change (and for the sake of suspension of disbelief) called shots can only be declared within short or point blank range UNLESS the shooter has an optic (or Force power or super alien sight, etc.) that allows him to call shots at greater distances. |
Me and my group really liked this idea. When writing it up today, I was at first going to just not allow this with called shots. But upon further reflection, I think it makes sense to use the old rules (1 round for +1D) for called shots (only), and then the rest of this would apply to all other uses of aiming.
Keep in mind that a round in SW is 5 seconds, not 15 (as referenced above).
Aiming
A character may aim (for all attacks except called shots), taking a penalty of up to -5 to their initiative in order to gain an inverse bonus (of up to +5) to their attack roll. When shooting from the hip, the opposite is true (so a bonus of up to +5 to initiative to gain an inverse penalty of up to -5 for the attack roll). The +1D for taking a round to aim is only used for called shots, and called shots may not gain any other bonus from aiming.
_________________
Currently Running: Villains & Vigilantes (a 32-year-old campaign with multiple groups) and D6 Star Wars; mostly on hiatus are Adventures in Middle-earth and Delta Green |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3191
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 08, 2013 5:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Glad it works out for you guys. 
IMHO, aiming is the basis for a called shot, so I would encourage the two to work together. Of course, depending on how you handle called shots, you may want to make them more difficult, given the option to boost the attack roll.
Also, trivial as this is, I've seen some rules suggesting that a character can aim for up to X number of rounds, gaining a cumulative bonus. That is where the reference to 15 seconds came from (three rounds of aiming for a bonus equal to 3x) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DougRed4
Rear Admiral
Joined: 18 Jan 2013
Posts: 2259
Location: Seattle, WA
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 08, 2013 6:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ah, gotcha. I was just a bit concerned about allowing a big bonus to a called shot, but I suppose it's not that huge of an offsetting number.
We'll have to see how it goes in play.
_________________
Currently Running: Villains & Vigilantes (a 32-year-old campaign with multiple groups) and D6 Star Wars; mostly on hiatus are Adventures in Middle-earth and Delta Green |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3191
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Keep in mind that by giving up initiative, you may get shot before you pull the trigger, which is where the tradeoff is. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DougRed4
Rear Admiral
Joined: 18 Jan 2013
Posts: 2259
Location: Seattle, WA
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 08, 2013 9:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yep, it's a good balance, I think.
Being as I haven't even had any players using called shots, yet alone abusing it*, I think I'm dropping all of the "called shot" language.
It's now much simpler and straight-forward:
Aiming
A character may aim, taking a penalty of up to -5 to their initiative in order to gain an inverse bonus (of up to +5) to their attack roll. When shooting from the hip, the opposite is true (so a bonus of up to +5 to initiative to gain an inverse penalty of up to -5 for the attack roll).
[* In an old Lord of the Rings game I ran, I had a player - my son, using a marksman Hobbit with a bow - who went around taking out powerful enemies by called shots to the eye!]
_________________
Currently Running: Villains & Vigilantes (a 32-year-old campaign with multiple groups) and D6 Star Wars; mostly on hiatus are Adventures in Middle-earth and Delta Green |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallon Kell
Commodore
Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 1846
Location: Tacoma, WA
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 09, 2013 12:21 am Post subject: Re: Tactical Combat |
|
|
| Naaman wrote: | | Fallon Kell wrote: | | Naaman wrote: |
-Controlled Pair or "double tap"... can only be employed with semi-automatic weapons [not weapons set to burst or full auto] |
Why not? It's possible to squeeze off only one round from a full auto. |
In heated battle, it's not so easy to let off only 1 or 2 rounds. Also, if you're trying to fire exactly two rounds with exactly two pulls of the trigger, in less than 1 second, good luck on that. |
I'd say the same thing about shooting a sarlaac tentacle that has ahold of your friend while blind and inverted, or moving spacecraft with your mind. | Naaman wrote: |
Also, the rules for full auto cover the bonus that would be gained from multiple hits on target. It is smaller per round fired, but this is because where the subsequent rounds hit is less controllable than with a well-placed double tap, which essentially causes "overlapping" damage to the target. While full-autos MAY hit close enough together to have this effect, the distance to the target and the strength of the recoil have a significant effect on this (not to mention the shooter's skill, but that is a given in any situation).
|
I was more referring to allowing players to do as they wish. Maybe a character only has 5 rounds left, and needs to take a target down NOW, but doesn't want to take the action to switch off full auto... | Naaman wrote: |
Can you explain your interpretation of the full auto as I've written it? I'm thinking I may have botched the write up.  |
I think I understood.
_________________
Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier
Complete Starship Construction System |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tupteq
Commander
Joined: 11 Apr 2007
Posts: 285
Location: Rzeszów, Poland
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 09, 2013 10:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Naaman wrote: | | In reality, you either have good aim or you do not. |
This sentence inspired me to rethink all aiming rules once again. I remember my experience with ASG and I totally agree. The more time you spend aiming the more chance you have to get a good aim.
So, here's my proposition of alternative aiming rules.
Character may decide to aim in his action. He receives -10 penalty to initiative (-5 seems to be too small for me) and when his time comes he rolls his aim bonus depending on stability of his weapon (see below). Depending of rolled bonus he may decide to shoot - he rolls normally and adds bonus value. Alternatively he may continue aiming, his action is postponed to next initiative pass (again with penalty to initiative) so bonus roll may be repeated later. Additional aim actions don't need to be declared in advance and MAP doesn't apply for as long as character doesn't do anything else. Number of aiming actions per round is limited to 3 (or it may be derived from DEX/PER) minus number of other actions.
Weapon stabilization
Reading other posts I came up with following levels of weapon stabilization (which helps aiming):
- Just aim, no stabilization. Bonus: roll 2D, keep lower (no Wild Die).
- Monopod or improvised support (sandbags, window frame, prone position). Bonus: roll 1D (no Wild Die).
- bipod, good stabilization in left-right axis. Bonus: roll 2D, keep higher (no Wild Die).
- tripod or hard mount, stabilization in all axes. Bonus: roll 2D, keep both (no Wild Die).
I'm not sure if my explanation was clear, so I'll give some examples:
Example: Johnny has blaster skill 4D, and rifle with bipod. His initiative was 19 and de decides to aim. At initiative 9 he rolls his bonus (2D, keep higher, for bipod) 2 and 1, not good enough, he decides to wait. In the second initiative pass (at initiative 9) he rolls again: 1 and 5, better, shooting: rolls full blaster 4D: 13 + 5 (bonus), total 18.
Example: Johnny has blaster skill 4D, and rifle with bipod. His initiative was 19 and de decides to aim, but his opponent has initiative of 11 and shoots at him. Johnny decides to dodge (with -1D penalty for second action in the round). At initiative 9 he rolls his bonus (2D, keep higher, for bipod) 3 and 2, not good enough. He is waiting. In next initiative pass he rolls bonus again: 1 and 2, even worse, but he doesn't have more time to aim in that round (two aim actions and dodge, total 3 actions), so he decides to shoot.
Example: Johnny has blaster skill 4D, and rifle. His initiative was 15 and de decides to take two action, first action is aim. At initiative 5 he rolls his bonus (2D, keep lower, no stabilization) 6 and 2 (keep 2), not good enough. He is waiting. In next initiative pass (at 5) he rolls bonus again: 6 and 5 (keep 5), he is shooting: bam! In third initiative pass (at 15) he finds an improvised support for his rifle and decides to aim again. At initiative 5 he rolls aim bonus (1D, improvised stabilization): 5 and shoots again: 3D (MAP): 11+5 (bonus), total 16. One stormtrooper decided to wait until end of the round and act last, now he shoots at Johnny who put his all attention in aiming and shooting. If Johnny tried to dodge, he would be at -3D MAP (3 aiming actions, dodge is fourth).
Currently it's only an idea, not playtested. What you think? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3191
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 09, 2013 2:03 pm Post subject: Re: Tactical Combat |
|
|
| Fallon Kell wrote: | | I'd say the same thing about shooting a sarlaac tentacle that has ahold of your friend while blind and inverted, or moving spacecraft with your mind. |
Well... seeing as how everything the heroes did in that scene was an accident...  I really hate that scene in RotJ, because everything that happens is like a "lucky failure." The heroes look like total newbs.
| Fallon Kell wrote: | | I was more referring to allowing players to do as they wish. Maybe a character only has 5 rounds left, and needs to take a target down NOW, but doesn't want to take the action to switch off full auto...I think I understood. |
Oh, I see what you're saying. Normally, I'd agree with you. However...
To me, all blasters being that flexible is a problem, and this problem is exactly what the house rule is supposed to address. In all the campaigns I've played, it scarcely (if ever) matters whether someone has a blaster pistol, a light repeating blaster or something in between. Ammo is so abundant and "range" comes into play so infrequently that I wanted to create differences between character concepts by making the equipment they use actually function very differently from the equipment that others choose. For example, if one player wanted to play a machine gunner, he'd choose automatic weapons as his primary equipment, and even specialize in them. Whereas a rifleman or blaster slinger would choose a battle rifle or pistol respectively. Now, what they can do with their chosen equipment helps to differentiate them from each other in how their actions are handled mechanically.
And I realize that you were just listing a single example, here, but these rules that I've written even allow for the sort of thing you're suggesting. Here's how it would play out:
Repeater (5D damage) is slung, so shooter lets it go (free actinon), makes a blaster roll (difficulty of 16-ish, with tactical speed holster), to quick draw (free action) his side arm (heavy blaster pistol, 5D). Double tap (-2 on attack roll, 6D damage).
Alternatively, he could just pump all 5 rounds into the target for 5D+5 damage, which is better than 6D damage.
Anyway, automatic weapons go through ammo very, very quickly (often, unnecessarily quickly, which is what inspired the advent of the burst function).
And for what it's worth, I'd rule that selective fire is a free action. The way that military personnel are trained in real life is to keep the weapon on safe until they are on target (or during the draw, if transitioning to pistol). Meaning that the selector switch must be operated in the same action as acquiring the target and pulling the trigger. It's the same amount of effort and "complexity" (or, more appropriately, "simplicity") to switch from semi to auto or burst, so IMHO, free action.
EDIT-------------------------------------------
OTOH, some firearms in real life are not designed to be "tactical" and may not have been built with considerations such as "life and death of the shooter." In these cases (or in areas that are the Star Wars equivalent to California), the weapons may require more than a flick of the thumb to select the rate of fire.
In these cases, I rule that the weapon's own rules would need to specify that switching a selector lever counts as an action (or that it can be done in conjunction with another action, but imposes a MAP nonetheless).
Last edited by Naaman on Wed Jul 10, 2013 6:18 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DougRed4
Rear Admiral
Joined: 18 Jan 2013
Posts: 2259
Location: Seattle, WA
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 09, 2013 2:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Personally I think taking a hit to your initiative when you still take multiple actions is something that could potentially be overly powerful.
Somone with a fairly high Perception could take a penalty to their initiative, but could still take multiple actions and move fairly quickly each time they act, popping off a number of shots.
That's one positive thing to the aiming rule as per the RAW; the character is forced to do nothing else but prepare (aim) for the whole round, or the +1D bonus is offset by a MAP and is irrelevant.
_________________
Currently Running: Villains & Vigilantes (a 32-year-old campaign with multiple groups) and D6 Star Wars; mostly on hiatus are Adventures in Middle-earth and Delta Green |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3191
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 09, 2013 2:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Tupteq wrote: | | Naaman wrote: | | In reality, you either have good aim or you do not. |
This sentence inspired me to rethink all aiming rules once again. I remember my experience with ASG and I totally agree. The more time you spend aiming the more chance you have to get a good aim.
So, here's my proposition of alternative aiming rules.
Character may decide to aim in his action. He receives -10 penalty to initiative (-5 seems to be too small for me) and when his time comes he rolls his aim bonus depending on stability of his weapon (see below). Depending of rolled bonus he may decide to shoot - he rolls normally and adds bonus value. Alternatively he may continue aiming, his action is postponed to next initiative pass (again with penalty to initiative) so bonus roll may be repeated later. Additional aim actions don't need to be declared in advance and MAP doesn't apply for as long as character doesn't do anything else. Number of aiming actions per round is limited to 3 (or it may be derived from DEX/PER) minus number of other actions.
Weapon stabilization
Reading other posts I came up with following levels of weapon stabilization (which helps aiming):
- Just aim, no stabilization. Bonus: roll 2D, keep lower (no Wild Die).
- Monopod or improvised support (sandbags, window frame, prone position). Bonus: roll 1D (no Wild Die).
- bipod, good stabilization in left-right axis. Bonus: roll 2D, keep higher (no Wild Die).
- tripod or hard mount, stabilization in all axes. Bonus: roll 2D, keep both (no Wild Die).
I'm not sure if my explanation was clear, so I'll give some examples:
Example: Johnny has blaster skill 4D, and rifle with bipod. His initiative was 19 and de decides to aim. At initiative 9 he rolls his bonus (2D, keep higher, for bipod) 2 and 1, not good enough, he decides to wait. In the second initiative pass (at initiative 9) he rolls again: 1 and 5, better, shooting: rolls full blaster 4D: 13 + 5 (bonus), total 18.
Example: Johnny has blaster skill 4D, and rifle with bipod. His initiative was 19 and de decides to aim, but his opponent has initiative of 11 and shoots at him. Johnny decides to dodge (with -1D penalty for second action in the round). At initiative 9 he rolls his bonus (2D, keep higher, for bipod) 3 and 2, not good enough. He is waiting. In next initiative pass he rolls bonus again: 1 and 2, even worse, but he doesn't have more time to aim in that round (two aim actions and dodge, total 3 actions), so he decides to shoot.
Example: Johnny has blaster skill 4D, and rifle. His initiative was 15 and de decides to take two action, first action is aim. At initiative 5 he rolls his bonus (2D, keep lower, no stabilization) 6 and 2 (keep 2), not good enough. He is waiting. In next initiative pass (at 5) he rolls bonus again: 6 and 5 (keep 5), he is shooting: bam! In third initiative pass (at 15) he finds an improvised support for his rifle and decides to aim again. At initiative 5 he rolls aim bonus (1D, improvised stabilization): 5 and shoots again: 3D (MAP): 11+5 (bonus), total 16. One stormtrooper decided to wait until end of the round and act last, now he shoots at Johnny who put his all attention in aiming and shooting. If Johnny tried to dodge, he would be at -3D MAP (3 aiming actions, dodge is fourth).
Currently it's only an idea, not playtested. What you think? |
I think its brilliant! I was thinking about increasint the iinitiative penalty to double the bonus, like you did, although, in my rule, the shooter can choose how much initiative he wants to give up in order to mentally check his fundamentals befor the shot. Though a penalty of 10 seems a little steep, I'm allowing a spectrum, rather than just a static modifier.
I quite like how you handled the stabilization, too. Very straight forward, with advantages being clear and concise. Nicely done, sir.
Now you made me realize that I need to wright up different firing positions/stances... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3191
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 09, 2013 3:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DougRed4 wrote: | Personally I think taking a hit to your initiative when you still take multiple actions is something that could potentially be overly powerful.
Somone with a fairly high Perception could take a penalty to their initiative, but could still take multiple actions and move fairly quickly each time they act, popping off a number of shots.
That's one positive thing to the aiming rule as per the RAW; the character is forced to do nothing else but prepare (aim) for the whole round, or the +1D bonus is offset by a MAP and is irrelevant. |
Good point. I just find that in real shooting under stress with speed being a factor, a trained individual can hit a man-sized target all day long, no problem, provided he targets center mass. But taking just a half second to confirm sight alignment (other fundamentals should already be in place) will put all the shots right through a very small hole.
Combat marksmanship (as opposed to hunting or "old fashioned" side stance marksmanship) is very fast and quite effective. Here's an example: I was able to draw my pistol and land six kill shots on six targets with a reload after shot three in 6.31 seconds during a training drill at work. And I was not even the fastest shooter.
______________________________________________
After some though on this, I'm going to go ahead and make the bonus equal to half the penalty in both the cases of aiming and shooting from the hip. Also, I'm going to reduce the max possible bonus to +3. So, it should read like this, now:
Aiming
A character may spend an extra moment to gain a bonus on his attack roll at the expense of speed. The character may choose to gain a bonus on his attack of up to +3 by taking a penalty to his initiative equal to twice the bonus (up to -6).
Shooting From the Hip
A character may choose to hastily squeeze off a shot at the expense of accuracy in hopes of landing a hit before his opponent does. The character may choose to gain a bonus on his initiative (for that shot only) of up to +3 by taking a penalty to his attack roll equal to twice the bonus (up to -6).
This causes the character to gain a maximum benefit of ~1D, and a corresponding penalty of ~2D. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DougRed4
Rear Admiral
Joined: 18 Jan 2013
Posts: 2259
Location: Seattle, WA
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 10, 2013 12:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Nicely done (though I like the even symmetry of the original better, personally).
From my own training, I know you can squeeze a LOT of shots off, even somewhat accurately, if hip shooting, as long as the target is very close. I'm pretty sure we would do 5-6 shots in 3 seconds, and it was pretty easy to hit center mass on a close target.
_________________
Currently Running: Villains & Vigilantes (a 32-year-old campaign with multiple groups) and D6 Star Wars; mostly on hiatus are Adventures in Middle-earth and Delta Green |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3191
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 30, 2013 9:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So, in training at work today, we did some individual and team tactics drills, and I got to thinking that the Tactics skill has so much un-explored depth and potential to bring battles to new levels, and can really give a GM some tools to challenge the PCs with what appear to be ordinary storm troopers or other para-military groups.
One of the things that tactics should cover is the use of cover and concealment.
As of the moment, I'm thinking that a successful tactics roll will result in an improvement to the bonus provided by cover and concealment. As is painfully obvious when watching various teams do the courses of fire, some people use tactical movement and others are completely oblivious to the "proper" or optimal way to use cover.
Knowing when to stand off vs when to hug against the cover, knowing how to minimize your profile and exposure when using cover or moving from cover to cover, etc.
For now, I'm thinking that the tactics roll can be done with the initiative roll and the character can improve the effectiveness of his cover/concealment by +1 with a moderate skill check, and a further +1 for every 5 or maybe 10 points over.
More potential uses for tactics shall be forthcoming. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tupteq
Commander
Joined: 11 Apr 2007
Posts: 285
Location: Rzeszów, Poland
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 31, 2013 3:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Naaman wrote: | | For now, I'm thinking that the tactics roll can be done with the initiative roll and the character can improve the effectiveness of his cover/concealment by +1 with a moderate skill check, and a further +1 for every 5 or maybe 10 points over. |
I'd agree with cover, but not with concealment. IMO concealment is covered by sneak skill and tactics shouldn't be a catch-all skill. A soldier during training learns both tactics and sneak. In other words, my opinion is that what you mean by tactical concealment in SWD6 is rather a sneak skill, even if in real world it's part of typical tactical training.
Also, personally I'd avoid repeating tactics rolls in every round as a free action (my guess is you made it a free action). Instead tactics action could be rolled to gain advantage in certain battle area (constant bonus until tactical situation changes). When situation changes (combat moved to different area, new combatants arrived etc.) tactics bonus could be invalidated and additional action and roll had to be made to gain bonus. Difficulty could depend on situation (Easy in forest with plenty of potential cover, Difficult in almost empty dock, Heroic on flat desert with only few small rocks). Also, fumble and very bad analysis (roll at least 10 below difficulty) should be penalized by negative modifier.
This approach keeps the game balance - there's no bonus for free, just for having high skill, you must decide if you stand for a moment and analyse tactical situation (spend action to make a roll and eventually get bonus) or you don't think much and act spontaneously (no action loss, but also no bonus). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3191
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 31, 2013 5:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Tupteq wrote: |
I'd agree with cover, but not with concealment. IMO concealment is covered by sneak skill and tactics shouldn't be a catch-all skill. A soldier during training learns both tactics and sneak. In other words, my opinion is that what you mean by tactical concealment in SWD6 is rather a sneak skill, even if in real world it's part of typical tactical training. |
I see your point with the sneak thing, but I would have to disagree. What I'm talking about has nothing to do with stealthily moving through a danger area or trying to avoid detection even when your general location is being directly observed.
What I'm talking about is using cover and concealment to establish a "safe" place to fight from while either assaulting or defending an objective. If I'm shooting from behind cover (which also provides concealment), then I'm not trying to avoid detection. I'm simply trying to use my environment to my advantage to not get shot. My weapon will report my location as soon as I pull the trigger, so my presence and location becomes immediately obvious. I'm talking about simply denying the enemy an easy target, while maximizing my ability to engage.
| Tupteq wrote: |
Also, personally I'd avoid repeating tactics rolls in every round as a free action (my guess is you made it a free action). Instead tactics action could be rolled to gain advantage in certain battle area (constant bonus until tactical situation changes). When situation changes (combat moved to different area, new combatants arrived etc.) tactics bonus could be invalidated and additional action and roll had to be made to gain bonus. Difficulty could depend on situation (Easy in forest with plenty of potential cover, Difficult in almost empty dock, Heroic on flat desert with only few small rocks). Also, fumble and very bad analysis (roll at least 10 below difficulty) should be penalized by negative modifier. |
Those areas which are bold are really what I had in mind, but didn't have time to really go into detail. Anyway, given that tactics is a knowledge skill (as I believe it should be), it is always "on." Speak to anyone with tactical savvy: combat vets, SWAT officers, etc. When they walk into a room, they immediately make themselves aware of points of entry and egress, dominant positions in the room, potential hiding places, etc... Just go to a restaurant with any soldier or Marine who's seen combat and ask them why they chose to sit where they did. Tactics is a mindset hooked up to a hot wire, not an off/on switch. This is not to be confused with paranoia, by the way.
| Tupteq wrote: |
This approach keeps the game balance - there's no bonus for free, just for having high skill, you must decide if you stand for a moment and analyse tactical situation (spend action to make a roll and eventually get bonus) or you don't think much and act spontaneously (no action loss, but also no bonus). |
I do agree that there needs to be balance. However, I believe that the investment of character points in the skill is balance enough. Those CPs could just as easily have been spent on dodge to gain a similar net effect (harder to hit).
I have played this game for some 17 years now, and not once has the tactics skill ever come up in any game I've played. And, the RAW version is, in my view, totally useless anyway. A player can make reasonable tactical decisions simply by asking the GM "what does my character see?" Any chump off the street can identify an unfortified flank or and exposed supply route. It's knowing how to approach and assault objectives as well as how to protect assets that makes a strategy effective. There is absolutely technique involved with tactical maneuvering, and that is what I want to capture with this variation. Of course, the RAW skill still applies, as well, should it ever actually be required.
All that being said, I like your take on the situation, and I think we generally agree more than not. What I posted originally was basically the first, undeveloped ideas of a brain storm. Refinement is imminent... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
