John 2 wants to create a martial arts maneuver, and his descriptions are not within the categories we use, so it's going to take more discussion to get this to work than I want to have in his game thread. Thus, we're taking it here.
The essence of the skill is that he spins one direction (I think it's counter clockwise) and uses the momentum of that spin to increase the impact of a backhanded strike on his opponent.
He describes the damage thus:
1@10, knock them down, 2@10 break their jaw, 3@10, break their neck. Whatever these are in damage intensities is what it would do on impact. (Just giving an example of how hard it would hit) It's a step backwards, swinging your arm pretty wildly, in a 360 degree arc. A successful attack would hit anything within arm's reach of you in a circle.Now I'm going to poke at this with a rather sharp stick, and hopefully when I'm done we'll all know what we need to figure out to make this into a functional skill, and John can decide what he's actually trying to do.
The notion that there is a direct relationship between SAL and damage is not exactly incorrect, but it is misguided. For example, if our fighter has a 3@10 skill ability level with the skill, and a 2@10 martial strike value, and a 3@1 best relevant attribute with an 8@ bod bias, all of that adds up to 117% chance to hit before defensive mods. If the base damage of the skill is damaging (one increase over annoying), he gets +DC for style, +DC for MSV, and +DC+10 damage points for SAL. If our defender has only his 1@5 target value, the attacker has a 102% chance to hit him, and two of the (three) damage category bonuses raise his damage to lethal, and he's got +20 points, so any roll from 1 to 100 will hit for damage, calculated as any roll from 21 to 121, which for lethal damage means at least six and not more than 25 intensities of damage. That means for this ordinary guy with a 1@5 damage value, he's going to be seriously hurt (over a third of his damage value) on the minimum roll, and dead on any roll of 51 or more, half the possible rolls.
But now, what if the defender is what we call a Narnian Dragon, featured in The Dancing Princess? That dragon has a 2@4 TV, and a -51 cover value from its scales only slightly offset by its +9 size bonus, so instead of -15 on the chance to hit it comes to -66 from that previously calculated 117% chance to it. That means the chance to hit is only 51%, and all rolls above 51 are failed. This particular dragon does not take away any of his damage bonuses, so he's still treated as if he rolled 21 to 71, which is a range of damage from 5 to 15 intensities--but that 3@1 damage value means that the dragon gets to divide all incoming damage by three and discard the fractions. That means that that 5 is only 5/3=1.6 discard fraction is 1 intensity, and the 15 is 15/3=5 intensities--less total damage at maximum than the minimum damage the attack would have done to that ordinary guy, and you've got to do more than twice as much damage to stop the dragon. You would have to hit him at least seven times, all solid shots and most of them maximum damage, to kill him.
I use the dragon because it always comes to mind when I think tough opponents. It was the first creature I designed to be a killing machine after I worked out some of the nuances of the system (e.g., how huge size makes a target frightening but easy to hit). The fact is, the verse is full of such opponents, and some of them are still human.
So we can't really talk about how much damage an attack would do based on descriptions of outcomes, if we are creating a skill that does damage.
We can, however, ignore damage entirely and put this in the category of B7@7 attacks--where we have special damage, incapacitations, and special attacks. We could say that this is an attack which knocks the opponent down on a successful roll up to 50, breaks bones from 51 to 80, and kills above 80. The damage would then be annoying ordinary fall damage (which means no damage) on the knock-down, 10 intensities (minimum for crippling attacks) on the second category, and simply kills but affords the target a stamina check to take no damage on the highest rolls. That is not an attack I would like to use in play, so I am not really keen on designing it thus (and I warn players All. The. Time. that whatever they can do to someone else someone else can do to them, so be careful about pushing the envelope too far too fast).
Either way, we would have to take some sort of detriment. For the single damage category increase to damaging (the skill as described above) you could sacrifice initiative, which means the other guy might hit you first, because he will get to swing while you're not looking at him. If you want dangerous base, you could give the opponent +10 on his attack, which might also give him the initiative (a better chance to hit is a better chance to hit first), or you could say that if you miss you take damaging damage yourself. If you want lethal base (as high as we go), you need to sacrifice more, like both of those things, or sacrifice initiative, take -10 on your attack, and give +10 to your opponent.
But then there's this other suggestion:
A successful attack would hit anything within arm's reach of you in a circle....and suddenly it is not a targeted attack at all. In that case, I would eliminate the strike value and roll a simple skill success roll to determine whether he manages to do the spinning attack at all, and then roll a general effects roll to determine what, if anything, he hit, and how hard he hit it. It is like throwing a grenade, except in this case you are the grenade and the area of effect is much smaller.
As it happens, I don't believe that spinning attacks work that way. I think they have the bonus of their momentum because the attacker is very precise about the point at which that momentum is going to impact its target. Part of the reason the damage is variable is precisely because the target might not be in exactly the right spot for the maximum impact. So my answer on this is no, this is a targeted attack, and it hits or misses the target based on your belief that you know the position of the target. It does not hit "anything within arm's reach" all the way around on the spin unless the attacker takes damage equal to the damage he inflicts (because he cannot brace himself against the damage of an impact that he doesn't know is coming). We're not doing it that way.
O.K., does anyone see anything in this that I missed? And does John have any thoughts on what he hopes will happen here?
--M. J. Young
You have a cable modem, right? Everything you need to know is right here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJjO3MKrzek
Watched the video. It looks like the five lead-in punches are designed to position the target and possibly daze or disorient him to prevent him from changing position and/or striking the martial artist while he's spinning. I think this supports MJ's interpretation of this skill as a targeted maneuver.
I'm in favor of a penalty on the execution of the attack. He seemed to have trouble landing the punch exactly where he wanted it, which makes sense given the design of the maneuver. If an additional penalty is necessary, I would bonus the opponents attack rather than penalize initiative directly. As MJ notes, a bonus for the opponent does influence initiative, and the artist's guard isn't exactly up while he performs the (relatively lengthy) attack.
Alternatively, the secondary penalty (if required) could come in the form of requiring that the attacker burn two attacks to perform the maneuver once. It looks like it takes significantly longer than his usual punches.
Edit: I'm in favor of base Dangerous, or possibly base Damaging. The rest can be taken care of by the game system's damage scaling mechanics. It doesn't look Lethal.
The irony in it is, having watched that video, it seems like it would take less time to hit someone behind you. So, an attack on someone behind you should be bonused. Of course, it's also penalized since they're behind you, so it would probably cancel each other out.
I don't think the attack would be effective against someone behind you, actually. If someone were behind you, you would only "hit" them in the sense that they got in the way of your arm. It would hurt, but not nearly so much as it would have hurt the guy in front of you had you been able to finish executing the maneuver. It might even hurt your arm, because you connected at a time and in a place where you were supposed to be spinning through empty air.
To clarify, the spin is about building momentum, and when the artist's fist is behind him, that momentum has only just begun to build. It'd be like stopping a catapult's arm near the beginning of its arc; the stone wouldn't go very far at all.
The thing with that is that I've seen it used quite effectively against people behind the attacker. It's probably thrown differently from the what the video presents for a behind you target. At any rate, it WOULD connect in any direction, that is indisputable.
At any rate, it WOULD connect in any direction, that is indisputable.
True. I guess I was disputing whether it would connect in a way that was effective.
You have a good point about it being thrown differently if the target were behind the attacker. That's another good reason for the maneuver to be targeted, in our mechanical translation.
I could see it being permitted that you could use the maneuver to attack any particular target in range regardless of his position. You'd need to know where he was (or else take a penalty for guessing), so you could throw the punch properly to deliver maximum force, but where-he-was wouldn't stop you from being able to throw it.
Does that sound fair?
Does that sound fair?
Sounds good to me. You're talking about penalties, watch the video again, and see if you can figure out what bonuses (if any) are applicable. Or is the strength of the attack the bonus? I would expect, if thrown properly, knocking the person down would be an expected result.
I bet MJ can't even watch the video.....
Two Posts
Ya know though, after watching that video again, I now think I understand why dice rolls show relative success. On the last attempt, it looks like he hits the bag with his elbow. That would probably be a low success, whereas hitting it fist first would be a high success.
Yeah, the extra damage the attack does is the bonus. If it's Dangerous, for example, and you've got a 2@ strike value and a 1@ SAL (like your character does and would), you're doing Fatal damage instead of your usual Dangerous. That's five times the damage! Five times. I think that's worth spending an extra attack and maybe having a penalty to hit.
Unless you make knocking the opponent down a specific goal of the maneuver, it's up to the referee whether the guy falls over, and he probably won't be knocked down unless you've reduced him below 1 damage intensity (which might well happen if you're doing Fatal damage).
If you do decided that the attack is specifically designed to knock the opponent down, you can probably have that for the same penalties by reducing the base damage. That is, you could have the attack do base Damaging (Lethal after your bonuses) and if you hit, the guy has to roll an attribute check; if he fails, you knocked him down. (If you rolled 1-50, it's a simple check for him, if you hit with a 51-80 it's a difficult check, and if you managed to hit with above an 80 because you've got some massive magical bonus to your attack success or something, he doesn't get a check at all and falling is automatic.)
Edit: agreed about relative success.
Well, if knocking them down costs power, forget it. I just have this mental picture of how that strike would work, and it always ends in the person hitting the ground.
Fatal damage huh? You could kill someone with a single blow? Wow. Doesn't sound too realistic, but it would be cool.
It's just that Muliverser focuses on the lethal aspects of combat and leaves the nonlethal stuff mostly up to referee discretion. Here's the plus side: even when your character takes a lot of damage at once in combat, that will rarely knock him down unless it also kills him.
Well, since we know that MJ is going to be reading this, I know I said I would throw that punch full force, but I don't want to kill Lauren.
And ya know, I just realized. If someone was stupid enough to throw spinning backhand punches at a frigging dragon.... Yeah, maybe you could kill it, but I think it would have to be on drugs or something to not kill you in the process.
Was that going to engage me if I hadn't versed out of Dancing Princess? That's kind of disappointing. I would have loved to fight that thing. Let's see how it likes 30 caliber bullets.
It's one of many exit scenarios for if the verser gets too settled in. You might have had something else, especially if MJ thought you could beat the dragon. That's where its stats are, though; in the 1st Book of Worlds entry for Dancing Princess.
So it wasn't something that was going to engage me in the cave right after I saved the king? The way MJ was talking, I figured it was a henchman of the demons or something, and was going to attack when we walked out. In that case, I'm not as disappointed.
Yeah, you'd pretty much beaten the scenario. You just missed the reward and the aftermath.
Aftermath??????????????
Well, it's not like the world ends in a giant Game Over screen once you've saved the princesses, right? [Edit: okay, it kind of did your case, but that's an exception.] It's not like there's anything written in stone for what happens afterward (just a few paragraphs of suggestions for the referee), but life goes on. That's all I meant.
Gotcha, that irked me like you wouldn't believe when I versed out. I know my character was furious about that. Keep the gold, I just wanted to palace guards and the Klingon servants to teach me how to use all of their hand-to-hand weapons. THAT would have been my requested reward. I was kind of "planning my retirement" if you know what I mean.
John, is being combat ready REALLY this important to you? You always seem to be preparing for trouble.
The Dragon: John the Blacksmith told you all about tales of dragons to the north when you arrived in town.
John, is being combat ready REALLY this important to you? You always seem to be preparing for trouble.
Better to be ready and not need to be than to not be ready and need to.
To be fair, it paid off in Dancing Princess.
Brock, I'm also trying to put myself in his shoes. How is he feeling? After what happened to him in Pearl Harbor, my character is NEVER going to get arrested again. So, I better be ready to not get arrested. See what I mean?
Isn't there a world called Psi Cop Land? I'm wondering what that's like.....
Yeah, I think that's where Scott is.
Preparedness:I, too, am thinking about what the character would do. I almost never see your character kick back, relax, you know? It's always increasing some kind of skill. I guess that could be kind of fun, but dividing the day into work/skills/sleep seems unrealistic.
Granted, it did work in Dancing Princess, with a dash of holy magic, and the magic cloak-without it, those demons would have fricasseed him. Plus, he used the cloak fairly strategically, so that was a major element. If I remember aright, he still got hit pretty bad at one point.
two posts
of course, I'm a laidback person that dislikes rushing, so maybe it's just a major personality difference.
. If I remember aright, he still got hit pretty bad at one point.
Yeah, but that was by a demon who was wearing the cloak. And I still got him better than he got me. When I was reading the Behind the Screens on that, MJ said "John gets 60 attacks to the demon's 4" (or something, because I was using a gun) I was thinking "This is gonna be a short fight...."
John's character is unusually combat-capable for a beginning verser. Most folks starting out don't have a level 2 strike value (and probably won't for a long time), and while level two weapon skills are more common than that, they're still rare for fresh versers. (Unless your gaming group was assembled in the barracks, of course . . .)
Scott, I have 2@ weapons skill with a 9mm and a shotgun, but not a 2@ hand to hand strike value. I don't think anyway. I've never been much of a fighter. In Pearl Harbor, I decided that, after I got banged up like that, fighting and getting in shape would be something I'd be motivated to do. Remember how I wanted Adam to just skip 3 years in a single shot? My plan was, spend 3 years getting in shape and learning to box, then try to escape from there. Unfortunately, the dice didn't like that plan. Oh well, at least I went down swinging.
I thought your RSV was 2@, at least. Well, that's what happens when I talk about stats without looking at sheets.
Ranged strike value, yes, Martial strike value, no. I started shooting guns when I was 16, and I've since owned over 100 different guns at various points. (Not all at once, of course) I didn't realize you were still talking about gun skills. Yes, a 2@ ranged strike value I believe I would have.
Easiest way to settle it is to look at the sheet. Yes, I have a 2@2 RSV. I got confused, I thought you were talking about martial strike value.
Well, you're right, I was talking about martial strike value too. I was just wrong about that part. I was pretty certain about the RSV, though, because you were using guns in the fight with the demons and I was paying pretty close attention to the numbers around then.
In real life, I believe that we should be prepared for the worst possible outcome. I've got enough canned food and dried beans in my apartment to last me for 2 months easily. Longer if I actually rationed it.... It's not just emergency preparedness either. I live on a fixed income, so it's just practical to make sure that I will be able to eat.
What I'm trying to say is, this is why my character is more combat ready than most. My uncle drilled this line of thinking into my head since I was about 16. Like I said a few posts ago, better to be prepared and not need to be than to not be prepared and need to be.
I do have cable modem, but I do not watch videos. Apart from the fact that my computer does not handle them terribly well, I consider them a waste of my time. Thanks, though; and thanks to those who watched it and commented on it.
Actually, I would think that hitting someone behind you would be a different skill based on the same essential form. It would do less damage because there is less momentum built, but the penalty for chance to hit would probably be the same (it is difficult to target someone behind you, and it is difficult to target someone when by definition you have to stop looking at them for a second to get the momentum).The irony in it is, having watched that video, it seems like it would take less time to hit someone behind you. So, an attack on someone behind you should be bonused. Of course, it's also penalized since they're behind you, so it would probably cancel each other out.
Well, I'm not saying you couldn't do it, but she does have her blow shock-absorbing roll and would almost certainly take away a significant amount of the damage you might do, so I wouldn't worry too much about it.I know I said I would throw that punch full force, but I don't want to kill Lauren.
As far as the hit being boosted to "fatal", that means RS/2, that is, potential damage from 1 to 50 intensities, but capped by your chance to hit.
So we're building the version that attacks someone in front of you, and I'm thinking one of these two designs:
- Spinning Backhand Punch B7@3 intensified damage damaging attacker steps back with one foot, spins [counterclockwise?] and strikes the opponent in front of him with his [left?] hand for base damaging damage, -10SM.
- Spinning Backhand Punch B7@3 intensified damage damaging attacker steps back with one foot, spins [counterclockwise?] and strikes the opponent in front of him with his [left?] hand for base dangerous damage, -10SM, +10 to opponent attack.
Which way do you see it working, John? The harder hit that gives your opponent a bonus on attack, or the less dramatic hit that does not?
--M. J. Young
the less dramatic hit that does not?
Both options have a -10 penalty to hit and do intensified damage.
Option one boosts damage to base Dangerous (potentially Fatal + points), but gives the opponent a +10 bonus to his own attack.
Option two only boosts damage to base Damaging (potentially Lethal + points), but does not give the opponent any bonuses.
The question was just, which do you want?
The one the doesn't give the opponent any bonuses.
Which is higher? Dangerous or Damaging?
The way I've seen this used most frequently, at least in movies, is hitting someone directly behind the attacker. The person hit almost always falls to the ground. Granted, this is Hollywood, and they're stuntmen, but I'm sure you understand what I mean.
In order to knock someone down, would I have to state that as an intention before using it? Would it have any kinds of bonuses/penalties at that time? Just wondering.
(Doing Therapy)
Damage Categories:
- Annoying: (d100/50)-1: 0-1
- Damaging: d100/20: 1-5
- Dangerous: d100/10: 1-10
- Lethal: d100/5: 1-20
- Fatal: d100/2: 1-50
- Annihilating: d100: 1-100
- Obliterative: Destroyed or Missed, damage not calculated.
- Multiple Obliterative: A larger area
--M. J. Young