The Rancor Pit Forum Index
Welcome to The Rancor Pit forums!

The Rancor Pit Forum Index
FAQ   ::   Search   ::   Memberlist   ::   Usergroups   ::   Register   ::   Profile   ::   Log in to check your private messages   ::   Log in

Difficulty of Parrying a Blaster Bolt
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> House Rules -> Difficulty of Parrying a Blaster Bolt Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 16, 17, 18, 19  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16163
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Wed Jun 05, 2019 9:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think you're reading too much into it. The likelihood of damaging is what we have Damage dice for, which can then be augmented by an accurate shot (ala the RoE Rules).

In the case of a Jedi with a lightsaber, however, the Difficulty is rooted in the Jedi's ability to immerse themselves in the Force and allow it to guide their saber beam to the appropriate point where a parry occurs. That's why I wrote up these rules, to represent how massed fire attacks increase the Difficulty of the lightsaber parry attempt by forcing the saber to try and be in too many places at once.
_________________
"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
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral


Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3191

PostPosted: Wed Jun 05, 2019 9:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yeah, to be honest, I was kinda just "putting it out there."

I played a game once where we used sense by itself to deflect, and even when my character had only 3D in sense, I don't think I failed against any battle droids shooting at my character.

The game felt right... just like the movies, and I didn't need a boatload of dice to parry a bunch of uncoordinated shots by "mooks."

The reason I mentioned damage was because, if we want the cinematic scenes where a padawan fends of a bunch of droids while master is busy cutting up a blast door (or, is able to fend off destroyer droids other than that they have shield generators), it just makes sense to keep the difficulties generated by non-essential NPCs low enough that a heroic character (even a padawan) should only "get hit" on a spectacular failure. But, if getting hit has a high potential (say, 15-20%) of completely incapacitating the character, then I think "not getting hit" should be easier, since the first hit is likely to (almost irreversibly) tilt the scales in favor of uncoordinated mooks (or, has a reasonable likelihood of ending the fight all together).

On the other hand, if taking damage in D6 didn't necessarily mean that the character was fighting at reduced capacity (such as in D&D where hit points are used), then hits should happen more often.

That's how I feel about it from a game design standpoint. I'll go back and re-read the original post now. Embarassed


Last edited by Naaman on Wed Jun 05, 2019 10:19 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral


Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3191

PostPosted: Wed Jun 05, 2019 10:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

CRMcNeill wrote:
So, after some reflection, I'm dropping the no-full-parry idea I suggested previously. Here's what I'm thinking...

1). Jedi can still full parry, but at higher difficulty than just parrying a single shot, and that difficulty goes up even higher when attempting to parry attacks from multiple arcs.

2). Again, based on my belief that a blaster bolt is simply a blaster bolt, regardless of the skill of the person firing it, the parry difficulty will be a flat difficulty, not an opposed roll against the shooter's skill roll.

3). However, the shooter's skill roll will still contribute to the damage of any shot that actually hits (RoE optional damage rule).

4). Any coordination bonus for multiple attackers stacks with the base difficulty to represent the difficulty of parrying multiple attacks from multiple sources.

We see in both the films and TCW that the more lethal and capable non-FS opponents use a tactic of bombarding the Jedi with multiple shots, forcing them on the defensive, then using augmented mobility systems (jet packs and such) to keep the range open. Even with a flat difficulty, firing enough shots will still force a Jedi to go full parry and stand his ground to keep from getting hit.


One of the issues I have with making special rules for Jedi that don't impact other characters using, say, dodge, is that it creates the problem of taking a clearly superior method of blaster defense (the lightsaber) and makes it exploitable to the point that the Jedi might as well just dodge instead.

This is why I believe that the lightsber defense concept INCLUDES dodging the fire that the lightsaber is not available to parry (that is, the skill is just not high enough to deflect it ALL--and thus grant an opportunity to redirect it, but the precognition still allows for a sense of how to avoid being hit).

How would you deal with a repeater saturating an area against people dodging? Your blaster house rules work well for this, by adding to the attack roll, but this benefit would also be applied against lightsabers, so it's already "harder" to deflect a full auto than a semi-auto. Why add more penalties for parrying?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16163
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Wed Jun 05, 2019 11:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Naaman wrote:
One of the issues I have with making special rules for Jedi that don't impact other characters using, say, dodge, is that it creates the problem of taking a clearly superior method of blaster defense (the lightsaber) and makes it exploitable to the point that the Jedi might as well just dodge instead.

Why are you assuming that the issues won't affect Dodge? A lot of these modifiers could just as easily be applied to Dodge as well as Lightsaber Combat. For instance, a character caught in a cross-fire (attackers in two adjoining arcs) would likely face similar penalties.

I'm dealing strictly with lightsaber combat here. If you want to apply some of these same modifiers to Difficulty to Dodge, I'm all for it.
_________________
"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
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral


Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3191

PostPosted: Thu Jun 06, 2019 9:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

So, this is more a question of how to better represent combined fire, then?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16163
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Thu Jun 06, 2019 10:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Naaman wrote:
So, this is more a question of how to better represent combined fire, then?

More that the factors that affect both overlap to some degree.
_________________
"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
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral


Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3191

PostPosted: Thu Jun 06, 2019 10:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, I'd suggest the following in that case:

Combined actions in combat can be performed as long as the participants' tactics skill is high enough (actual skill level requirement determined by complexity of maneuver).

Anyone who does not meet the tactics requirement can still shoot, but they don't contribute to the combined action (their action is separate) unless another character wants to take a MAP to command them into the group.

The character with the highest skill (or, the character with the best line of sight... GM's call) rolls the primary attack roll. Each participant contributes a bonus. The bonus is equal to +1 for each D the character has in tactics (this represents the character's ability maximize the situational value of his firepower).

And now I'm going to start a new thread and cover more aspects of combined fire over there.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16163
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Thu Jun 06, 2019 11:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The other option would be to count uncoordinated massed fire as half the value it would have if it were coordinated. For example, if eight thugs are firing at a Jedi, but haven't been successfully Coordinated by a Command roll, they only count as four shooters for the purposes of calculating the Coordination bonus. I'm in favor of this simply for the ease of calculation in combat.
_________________
"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
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral


Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3191

PostPosted: Thu Jun 06, 2019 12:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You have a lower threshold for what should increase the difficulty than I do, it seems.

To me, the ONLY way to benefit from multiple shooters should be to have some kind of coordinated (on purpose) attack.

To me, uncoordinated attacks do not take advantage of timing, angles or other factors that would actually need to be accounted for in order to make the extra numbers mean something. In the flow of combat, characters are dodging, maneuvering, reloading, and whatever else in order to ensure their own safety. Unless there is some kind of conscientious effort made to organize each shooter's actions, then, IMHO, no bonus.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16163
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Thu Jun 06, 2019 12:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

But they do increase the amount of bullets / blaster bolts flying through the air in the general vicinity of the target. Assuming all the shooters are aiming at the same target, that should count for something.
_________________
"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
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral


Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3191

PostPosted: Thu Jun 06, 2019 4:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I understand why you think so, but I just disagree.

Taking cover, for example, protects you from everything being shot at you. It's only when the shooters decide to start working around your cover, or trying to shoot through it on purpose (by saturating a small square area with lots of hits to the point of failure) that the multitude of shooters begins to matter. In other words, they have to decide to work together before they can get a benefit from having greater numbers.

Dodging one shot that is aimed at you literally relocates you to a place that is outside the point of aim of all the other shooters. Unless the shooters are taking specific, deliberate measures to use their numbers to saturate your general area with bullets (instead of shooting directly at you), then if you dodge one, you've dodged them all. That is, the benefit of multiple shooters choosing to shoot as individuals is that any hits each get a chance to deal damage, whereas in a group, you're exchanging the difficulty of landing individual hits (and the opportunity to roll a lot of individual damage rolls) for the ability to increase the likelihood of a hit, but with only one damage roll at base damage. (The shots being fired are meant to overcome the target's defensive measures, effectively setting him up to shot by one guy because he's busy trying to defend himself from the other guys. Kinda like when one soldier says to the other: "I'll flush them out, and you finish them off." The soldier doing the flushing must still shoot, but the intent is to force the target to abandon his superior position to make him vulnerable to the other shooter).


Of course I acknowledge that shooters shooting on different initiative would be shooting into a different place than shooters who shot at a higher initiative as long as we interpret the initiative counts representing sufficiently large segments of time as to allow the physical process of dodge to start and finish before the next initiative count starts. But I don't interpret the rules that way. A round is all happening at the same time with very, very small increments representing the time between initiative counts. Characters accepting MAPs are doing so because they are performing their actions in an overlapping sequence, according to my interpretation.

In the example you cite, some of the shooters would purposely have to aim near the target, rather than at the target... so they are guaranteed to miss unless the target dodges into their shots. That means that some of the bullets are fired purposely to miss: either because the target dodged to avoid the shots fired at him, or he didn't in order to not get hit by the ones zipping by. Does that make sense?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16163
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Sat Jun 08, 2019 12:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Naaman wrote:
I understand why you think so, but I just disagree.

I get the feeling from your description that you are picturing combat in the field where engagement ranges run in the hundreds of meters or more. On that level, your points are certainly well taken. However, not all combat in the SWU occurs at such distances; there are just as many, if not more that occur in confined spaces like the corridors on starships and space stations, cantinas, docking bays, etc, where the ranges are much closer. In that sort of environment, a handful of shooters wouldn't have to be working all that hard to get all of their shots in the same general vicinity as their target, even if they aren't coordinated.

Quote:
Taking cover, for example, protects you from everything being shot at you.

Of course, this brings up how Cover and Fire Arcs interact.

Quote:
In the example you cite, some of the shooters would purposely have to aim near the target, rather than at the target...

Why is that? Aiming is no guarantee of hitting, although this is mitigated as skill level increases. The whole point of the skill roll in the game represents a shooter aiming their weapon at a target with the intent to hit it, with their skill level compared to the Difficulty representing the likelihood of it actually happening.

And really, if it's possible to compress the attack rolls of four separate attackers into a single modified roll, isn't that a good thing from a combat round pacing standpoint?
_________________
"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
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral


Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3191

PostPosted: Sat Jun 08, 2019 5:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Not at all. If I'm basing my understanding on experience, then I'm much more inclined to base it on MOUT and CQB.

The closer together shooters are, the MORE important it is that they be highly coordinated in order to take advantage of their numbers. It is signifcantly more likely that they will hit each other in the "chaos" of combat. It's only when a group is able to organize that chaos that you get something like an effective group of shooters.

Again, timing and angles, ammo consumption and return fire are all factors in "overwheling" an opponent.

Understand this, though:

What I'm saying effectively amounts to all shooters with the same goal are automatically able to combine fire but if they don't, then their numbers do not provide a situational advantage other than perhaps physically blockling enemy routes of travel.

So, if three shooters are targeting a Jedi (or anyone, for that matter), they have the option of making one boosted attack roll and one base damage roll, or, they can roll individually at base skill and each hit gets a damage roll at normal damage.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16163
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Sat Jun 08, 2019 6:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, that's kind of my point. Per the RAW, shooters only get a coordination bonus on a successful Command roll. What I'm proposing is giving them a partial bonus in the absence of said Command roll.
_________________
"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
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral


Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3191

PostPosted: Sun Jun 09, 2019 1:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sure.

The point I'm making is merely that as a game mechanic, it shouldn't be having the cake and eating it too. Increasing difficulty for multiple shooters give all shooters a bonus and gives each a damage roll on a successful hit.

It's my opinon that in order to capitalize on superior numbers, some shooters have to give up their chance to hit individually in order to contribute to the bigger plan.

The group should be required to choose between increasing the difficulty or getting multiple chances to cause damage. They shouldn't ALL get a bonus (or benefit from the target's penaty) as individuals.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> House Rules All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 16, 17, 18, 19  Next
Page 17 of 19

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group


v2.0