Chewing on proficiencies, maneuvers and combat.

[Benedict]

Variance according to CP size.
The first issue to come up was that the higher the CP, the higher the variance. Mathematically, that's going to be true and no one is arguing otherwise.
(...)
Thirtythr33 runs the math, because he's better at that sort of thing than I am, and provides us with useful graphs.
(...)
Even at 30CP v 30CP, neither side is liable to open with more than 20 dice at a time. The difference between 5v5 dice and 20v20 dice is only 1.2MoS different in terms of even swing on average.

I believe no one argues that.

What we have to carefully consider is that dra's observation is based on the fact that 'Bastards uses exploding dice.

Which means that the correct graph is this:


Thirtythr33's graph does not take explosions into account, hence the differences:


Given the fact that exploding dice are open-ended and not capped in any way (for example every die explodes once) you can achieve an infinite MoS with 1d10. Which adds to freak rolls being viable. More on that below.

I am perfectly aware of the chances for a single d10 to produce a MoS30. I'm just stating the fact that exploding can throw probabilities out of the window, no matter how unlikely.

I believe that ditching exploding dice is a good move because it caps MoS at the number of dice thrown. Yes, you can still roll 15 dice and get MoS15 (0.048828125000% for that by the way). But you can't get MoS30 out of 15d like in 'Bastards (0.000000001211%). Or similarly Mos15 with 5 dice (0.000000258499%).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Freakish Roll issue.
The next point raised was something along the lines of "but freakish rolls are possible and get worse as die pool size increases." Again we need to break down what this problem actually means. If the goal is to make it so that freakish rolls simply can't happen, then we can never have a die pool higher than 4, as you can get to DR0 unarmed and MoS5 means I can kill someone in a single blow. If we make it any higher, then we are accepting that the bar isn't "it should be impossible." The bar is "at what point is the likelihood of a freakish roll statistically important enough to worry about?"

Depends what we term a "freak occurrence".

I must again stress that the above statement is directly related to an explosive dice environment, and there was mentioned a specific example that happened in play:

Two characters both at 25CP. CharA Swings for 21D. CharB Parries for 17D. CharA gets a MoS10.

Ofc its viable, after all dice explode. Even if I was told it was a MoS30 I'd still might believe it.

Let's consider how freakish is this result.


The chance for CharA to get exactly a MoS10 is 1.243%. Which translates in rolling a 100 once on a d100 after a hundred rolls a 100 on a d100 on a SINGLE roll. Unlikely? Of course. Freakish? Not so sure.

Let's turn the tables around.

The chance for CharB to score a MoS10 is 0,052%. Which translates to in rolling a 100 once on a d100 after two thousand rolls roll exactly one 100 on a d100 after 975 rolls, but only because it is a 99.95% chance you will get many more. Now this is getting closer to freakish, isn't it?

Now the strategic part and why player's skill is essential no matter the size of the pool. When CharA dedicated 21 dice into one throw he made a huge gamble. Which paid off because CharB assessed the situation badly. I'll explain.

CharA was left at 4CP with a 21d Swing. The optimal tactic for CharB would be to preempt the attack. He had full 25CP for that.
Assuming that both had a Speed of 3: CharA could get it up to 7 with his remaining CP.
The safest bet would be to Preempt with 17 dice (Sp3+14CP=17d; 25-14=11CP) and declare a 9d Precise Thrust to a vulnerable (unarmored) wheel.

Meaning: 91.5% chance to get MoS1 and preempt on Speed Contest.
99.8% to score a MoS1 with attack.
92.3% to score a MoS3 with attack and choose any location he'd liked.

Alternatively, if his weapon had crap thrust to begin with, he had these options, weapon permitting:
1. 10d Wrap: 99,9% to hit; 95,3% MoS3; 69,9% MoS5; Hit inaccessible wheel
2. 10d Power Swing: 99,9% to hit; 95.3% MoS3; 69,9% MoS5; +1DR
3. 9d Grab*: 99,8% MoS1; 92,3% MoS3; 59,3% MoS5; Grab is Restraining; MoS is Impact; Impact carries over Refresh; meaning he'd start with 25v24 at worst next Phrase, 25v20 (or more) at optimal conditions.
* A note on Grab. The above numbers for 2nd Phrase are correct provided both invested equally in Brawl. If they did not they'd default to something closer to 16v16. With Impact it'd go to 16v15/12/11/... .

In any case way better than Parrying with a 4-dice mismatch.

That's why I said earlier "blame the player for not knowing how to use efficiently his big CP, not size of pools, explosions, lack of caps, or anything else rules-related".

Because out of countless options he took the most disadvantageous one. When his opponent presented his neck on a silver platter.


If dice did not explode, like in 'Scoundrels, then:

• CharA could get MoS10 out of 21d with a 0.438% chance.
• CharB could get a MoS10 out of 17d with a 0.005% chance.

I don't know for the rest of you, but I feel that the chances are so low that they are not worth considering.


Even I am getting tiresome to everyone here, I have to state it one more time:

All the above are 'Bastards related and explosive d10s play a big part in this. Especially the "freak roll MoS10" thing.

I am sure that 'Scoundrels won't suffer from the same ailments.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If anyone is interested here are three codes to be used here (http://topps.diku.dk/torbenm/troll.msp). The above tables were created with these codes. I'm also throwing in a 'Scoundrels opposed roll code.

Code: Select all

\ Band of Bastards d10 exploding 10s with optional contested

A:=1;    \ Number of dice in your pool

\ For a contested action set the following variable B.
\ A negative result means your opponent rolled more successes.
B:=0;    \ Number of dice in your opponent's pool

sA:=count 5< A#(accumulate x:=d10 while x=10) ;
sB:=count 5< B#(accumulate x:=d10 while x=10) ;
sA - sB

Code: Select all

\ Band of Bastards Non-Exploding with optional contested

A:=1;    \ Number of dice in your pool

\ For a contested action set the following variable B.
\ A negative result means your opponent rolled more successes.
B:=0;    \ Number of dice in your opponent's pool

sA:=count 5< A#d10 ;
sB:=count 5< B#d10 ;
sA - sB

Code: Select all

\ Scoundrels D6 with optional Contested

A:=1;    \ Number of dice in your pool

\ For a contested action set the following variable B.
\ A negative result means your opponent rolled more successes.
B:=0;    \ Number of dice in your opponent's pool

sA:=count 3< A#d6 ;
sB:=count 3< B#d6 ;
sA - sB

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On Caps
(...)
Which is more obnoxious and seems less natural? A character with Agility 10, Cunning 10, and Longswords 10... Or a character with Agility 6, Cunning 4, and Longsword 15?
I'd rather see more of the latter than the former.

Totally on board with this.

On Challenge

It seems you don't quite get gamistic approach concept so let me help you.
(...)

I don't follow your use of gamist and narrativist here at all. In fact, it seems like you're using them backwards. His version claims that because in the narrative you are the best swordsmen, you are, in fact, the best swordsmen -- that sounds like a narrative approach. On the other hand, you're arguing that your opposition must mechanically scale with you in order to remain a challenge... I don't see how that's not the gamist position here.

This is why people hate GNS, by the way. No one can agree on what those words actually mean in context half the time.

Totally agree on that one too, no reason to say anything on that matter.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And now a bit off-topic.

Instead you argued that it doesn't happen which obviously I defended. The rest is in post and I regret you deleted that part where your ego got better of you

I deleted it by mistake, not by some ego trip. I tried to retrieve it but sadly I cannot. I already informed the team about it.

To make things clear, not only to dra, but to everyone here. I am not an obnoxious kid on an ego trip, suddenly deleting posts I don' like just because I'm a moderator. I was appointed moderator along with thirtythr33 to help Agamemnon and Higgins with the more mundane stuff of forum running, like approving new members/posts and filtering out bots/spammers. Meaning that the team has more time to create the game instead of constantly checking on trivial forum issues.

This is no permanent thing, nor it is my job. If I am asked by the team to step down I will. If I feel I am not needed anymore I'll be the first to say so guys.

At the moment I tried to reply to dra with a quote. By mistake I clicked on edit instead and edited his post. In essence my reply was posted under dra's name when it was too late to remedy. I guess that's what you get when you try to juggle 4 PCs, one laptop, a phone, a broadcasting console, and three persons at the same time. Serves me right.

I tried to revert it back but I don't have the means to do so. That's why I apologized earlier, and that's why I'm explaining now.

When Higgins is back, if he can roll it back, I hope he will.

[thirtythr33]

Since we are getting nitpicky about probability

The chance for CharA to get exactly a MoS10 is 1.243%. Which translates in rolling a 100 once on a d100 after a hundred rolls, give or take. Unlikely. Of course. Freakish? Not so sure.

I believe you meant a 100 on a d100 on a SINGLE roll.
The chance to roll a 100 on a d100 in 100 roll is around 37%

The chance for CharB to score a MoS10 is 0,052%. Which translates in rolling a 100 once on a d100 after two thousand rolls give or take. Now this is getting closer to freakish, isn't it?

This one is a lot trickier.
It actually turns out it is approximately the chance to roll exactly one 100 on a d100 after 975 rolls, but only because it is a 99.95% chance you will get many more.
There is ~1/270000 chance of rolling only one 100 in 2000 rolls.

You might find this interesting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday_problem

At the moment I tried to reply to dra with a quote. By mistake I clicked on edit instead and edited his post. In essence my reply was posted under dra's name when it was too late to remedy.

I've actually made this mistake several times as well. Luckily, I've noticed the missing [/quote] boxes before submitting and butchering peoples posts.

[Benedict]

Since we are getting nitpicky about probability

Correct on all accounts. It's just that my brain hates me now after all these calculations.

Still 21d=17s isn't what I'd call freakish. Lucky? Yes. But not freakish.

You might find this interesting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday_problem

Indeed. Thanks for the heads up.

[Korbel]

Let's tackle this from other side. If we were all convinced that this "swingyness" of bigger CPs is a big issue and wanted to deal with it - what would be your ideas? Putting a cap on? Not sexy. What else could be done? Maybe reverse the system, so that the less dice you have the better you are? That would be bizarre and it actually has caps built-in. You could also roll combats like this: you have a pool of points, and not dice - and then you distribute those points as normal between tempos, and tempos are rolled like 3d6 + [whatever you invested]. Yeah, now randomness is nicely kept constant, but we've a different game almost. So, what could be done?

[thirtythr33]

One crazy (but awesome?) idea is to make the number of tempos per phrase a function of combatant CP. 1 tempo per 10 CP of the highest CP combatant.

CP 1-9 = 1 tempo
CP 10-19 = 2 tempos
CP 20-29 = 3 tempos

If you had say a 9CP v 20CP, both characters would have to go 3 tempos before refresh.

This gives the illusion of very skilled combatants moving faster and encourages the sizes of attacks and defenses to be apportioned into similar sizes because you are saving dice for later tempos.

It would also give a really neat change in the tactical feel of the combats depending on their skill levels. Poor fighters are all about taking slow hay-maker swings at each-other, while skilled combatants need to be reserved and not over-commit lest they go to tempo 3 with no dice left.

[Benedict]

Wow. This puts things under an entirely new perspective. It will be a beast to tackle, make no mistake, but it is really promising.

[Korbel]

1 tempo per 10 CP of the highest CP combatant.

Well OK, but what's stopping you from exploiting a weak attack, then? Let's say you fight with 3 tempos. Attacker invests very lightly (saving dice, as you say, for future tempos), but defender goes for a heavy Deflect & Strike and cuts his head off as a result - so those saved dice won't serve the original attacker in tempos 2 and 3.

[Benedict]

Exactly. That's why I said it needs a lot of tossing around and tinkering to see how it really works.

Another thing I've been busting my head at is a feint within a feint within a feint. Hope I get somewhere with that.

Tbh thirtythr33's multi-tempi/CP might achieve that.

Hence the excitement.

[Benedict]

One crazy (but awesome?) idea is to make the number of tempos per phrase a function of combatant CP. 1 tempo per 10 CP of the highest CP combatant.

CP 1-9 = 1 tempo
CP 10-19 = 2 tempos
CP 20-29 = 3 tempos

If you had say a 9CP v 20CP, both characters would have to go 3 tempos before refresh.

This gives the illusion of very skilled combatants moving faster and encourages the sizes of attacks and defenses to be apportioned into similar sizes because you are saving dice for later tempos.

It would also give a really neat change in the tactical feel of the combats depending on their skill levels. Poor fighters are all about taking slow hay-maker swings at each-other, while skilled combatants need to be reserved and not over-commit lest they go to tempo 3 with no dice left.

Or another, similar, proposition.

Prof 1-7 = 1 Tempo
Prof 8-14 = 2 Tempi
Prof 15+ = 3 Tempi

By making it exclusively Prof dependent you simulate higher skill. As opposed to gifted (high Atr) but relatively unskilled people.

[thirtythr33]

Feinting (almost) works as it is now.

We each have 21 CP
I attack for 7
You deflect and strike for 19 + 2AC
I feint to add 7 more (cost 7)
I get ~7 successes, you get ~10
you win ~MOS3
and follow up with a 3 dice attack
to get 1-2MOS attack

That usually won't result in a TN shift unless they are totally naked.

With a bit of speculation: On the new d6 wound table, it's quite likely you won't get a TN shift until wound level 3. And Agamemnon has hinted there is some new mechanic that makes "all in" defense (like deflect & strike) a bad idea. It is quite likely the problem has already been solved.

I've been trying to think of a reason it wouldn't work... Ranged combat and feinting over small defenses don't seem to be problem. Keep in mind, you can still use up all your dice in tempo 1 or tempo 2 just like you do now if you wanted to. But maybe in tempo 2, instead of using all 10 dice to attack you keep 2 back. That way if they use all their dice on defense, you get to take initiative back and use a cheeky little trip or something.

[Benedict]

We each have 21 CP
I attack for 7
You deflect and strike for 19 + 2AC
I feint to add 7 more (cost 7)
I get ~7 successes, you get ~10
you win ~MOS3
and follow up with a 3 dice attack
to get 1-2MOS attack

Feint cost is 1 + 2/extra die.

Attack with a Swing or Thrust without declaring a Feint. After the opponent’s defense is declared, but before any dice are rolled the attacker shouts “ Feint!”, pays the activation cost, and nominates a new target wheel. They may then increase their allocated pool for the feint attack by one die for every two dice spent (spend 4 dice from your remaining CP, get +2 dice for the attack). They may also change their maneuver to any other basic offensive maneuver, provided they pay any additional AC required.

Which means with both 21CP.
You swing head 7 (14 left)
I deflect & Strike 19+2 (0 left)
You feint 1 (13 left), change maneuver or not, select new wheel, and you can add up to 6 dice (1 left). Since you are left with 1CP you could either change maneuver to Wrap (or whatever) or save for 2nd Tempo.

Still a 19 deflect & strike v 13 wrap (or whatever) scenario doesn't sound that good.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Imagine in a real fight.

You feint a thrust to the face. I take the bait (the feint) and respond with an upward parry. You stop dead in your tracks eluding my parry and slice at my wrist.

RAW this is not viable.

To continue the logic behind feint within a feint within a feint.

You feint a thrust to the face. I respond with an upward parry as you expected. You stop dead in your tracks eluding my parry and slice my wrist. I saw through that feint and my parry was a feint too, so I respond with a backhand. You set me up right from the start in this dance, your slice being a feint too, so you can kick my feet underneath me. And so on. A feint within a feint within a feint.

Or someone might say that this is a two Phrase exchange that we continually score MoS0. In a sense he'd be right. Because in a tie initiative stays with the aggressor. In my example it changes sides constantly.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The main problem with RAW feint is that while you change maneuver/location, my defense is not thrown off in the least. RAW the only viable tactic with feint is when the opponent severely underinvests in a defense you overinvest in return to get in a deciding MoS. Unless I'm missing a point or three.

[Agamemnon]

If you're going to play with an idea that breaks the two-tempo format, you're better off abandoning formal tempos entirely and just going with a more free-form bidding system.

We each have 18CP.

I make an attack for 5 dice. You parry for 7. Win, take initiative. You throw a 6 die thrust, leaving yourself 3 just in case. I take advantage of my current die advantage to spend 2 on AC and get a 7 die counter, leaving myself 2. My ploy fails, you then throw your 3 dice in an attack to my remaining 2...

The problem with this approach is that it becomes a bit.. unpredictable. In one round I might decide to throw a 14 die offensive, leaving myself 4. In the next round, we might decide to piddle around with 2 and 3 die attacks for a long time, feeling each other out. These are both kind of neat and cinematic on their own, but we create a situation where the round only ever "ends" when both sides are out of dice. Most of the time, that's going to wind up with someone getting some free whacks in. If I have the higher CP.. I'm almost incentivized to see how few dice I can get away with spending so the round will end with me getting a free 4 die attack on you, or whatever.

Re: Feint
Much like we addressed the issue of "all-in investor" we addressed the problem with Feint not working like it was meant to. Narratively, a feint is supposed to be me tricking you into defending inappropriately. It's a decision I make from the beginning. Mechanically, the current feint rules don't trick your opponent at all, they just either give you a way to punish your opponent if after you declared your attack you see that they've under-invested in defense.. or a way to try and desperately match an opponent who has radically over-invested. The new feint mechanics will bring the maneuver in line with what it is supposed to be, narratively.

[Benedict]

The problem with this approach is that it becomes a bit.. unpredictable. In one round I might decide to throw a 14 die offensive, leaving myself 4. In the next round, we might decide to piddle around with 2 and 3 die attacks for a long time, feeling each other out. These are both kind of neat and cinematic on their own, but we create a situation where the round only ever "ends" when both sides are out of dice. Most of the time, that's going to wind up with someone getting some free whacks in. If I have the higher CP.. I'm almost incentivized to see how few dice I can get away with spending so the round will end with me getting a free 4 die attack on you, or whatever.

Agreed. The only way to streamline it it would be to limit CP investment per Tempo on attack with a constant factor.

CP is Reflex+Prof. The limit/tempo could be Prof score (excluding AC costs). Leaving you Reflex (more or less) for wiggle space. This should be independent of Preempting tho.

Char A has Ref8+Prof4=12CP. Char B has Ref4+Prof8=12CP.

Char A can devote up to 4CP in an attack.
Max per Tempo
4D Swing/Thrust; 8 dice left
4D Power Swing; 7 dice left
4D Precise Thrust; 6 dice left
4D Parry; 8CP left
4D Counter; 7CP left
4D Bind & Strike; 6CP left

Char B can go up to 8CP per attack.
Max per Tempo
8D Swing/Thrust; 4 dice left
8D Power Swing; 3 dice left
8D Precise Thrust; 2 dice left
and so on...

This approach, in a free-form bidding environment, has the following drawback. Ref has a cap while Proficiencies do not. The most obvious solution is to say

"Each tempo you can invest up to your Proficiency score or 10, whichever is smaller, plus any maneuver activation costs."

and be done with it.

At first glance it has the following advantages:

• Differentiates Attributes from Proficiencies enough in terms of CP contribution to encourage low Ref high Prof builts viable. As it is now you must go Ag+Cu+Prof as high as you can to have a combat-heavy character.
• Creates a theoretical infinite number of Tempi within one Phrase. Making lightning fast exchanges or slow slug-fests viable.

Con

• Needs a lot of testing, as it changes combat fundamentally, hence changing character creation approach, hence changing priority assesment, hence... As I said, a lot of testing.

Re: Feint
Much like we addressed the issue of "all-in investor" we addressed the problem with Feint not working like it was meant to. Narratively, a feint is supposed to be me tricking you into defending inappropriately. It's a decision I make from the beginning. Mechanically, the current feint rules don't trick your opponent at all, they just either give you a way to punish your opponent if after you declared your attack you see that they've under-invested in defense.. or a way to try and desperately match an opponent who has radically over-invested. The new feint mechanics will bring the maneuver in line with what it is supposed to be, narratively.

Exactly. Can't wait to see the new implementation.

As for my faint within a feint querry. You trick me into defending innapropriately. But I trick you in return that I took the bait. But you intended exactly that from the start. And so on. Do you think it's viable? Or too much trouble?

[Agamemnon]

Agreed. The only way to streamline it it would be to limit CP investment per Tempo on attack with a constant factor.

CP is Reflex+Prof. The limit/tempo could be Prof score (excluding AC costs). Leaving you Reflex (more or less) for wiggle space. This should be independent of Preempting tho.

Char A has Ref8+Prof4=12CP. Char B has Ref4+Prof8=12CP.

Char A can devote up to 4CP in an attack.
Max per Tempo
4D Swing/Thrust; 8 dice left
4D Power Swing; 7 dice left
4D Precise Thrust; 6 dice left
4D Parry; 8CP left
4D Counter; 7CP left
4D Bind & Strike; 6CP left

Char B can go up to 8CP per attack.
Max per Tempo
8D Swing/Thrust; 4 dice left
8D Power Swing; 3 dice left
8D Precise Thrust; 2 dice left
and so on...

This approach, in a free-form bidding environment, has the following drawback. Ref has a cap while Proficiencies do not. The most obvious solution is to say

"Each tempo you can invest up to your Proficiency score or 10, whichever is smaller, plus any maneuver activation costs."

and be done with it.

My thoughts, in no particular order:

• How will this impact lower-proficiency characters? If I have a prof 4 -- someone who's a skilled thug more than a swordsman, or a student still learning to handle himself -- but I have good reflexes, I might have 10CP and be okay overall. With this setup, I'm going to be forced to spend my CP in specific ways - either two tempos of 4 and one at 2, or I pick two tempos of 4 spending 2AC along the way. The place this gets weirder is if I'm fighting someone who has my stats in reverse -- 10CP, but with reflex 4, prof 6. If that guy throws 6 dice in the first exchange, I'm prevented from answering it in kind. Is this desireable? Will this cause problems? I'm not sure.
• How does this effect things like counter or other maneuvers that can be used to get you more dice in the process? Does this decrease their value, given that you can only ever use as many dice as your proficiency? Let's assume the same guy is fighting a more skilled opponent for a moment. 10 vs 12, prof 6, ref 6. You make for an even split and attack me with 6 dice. I spend 2 in activation and counter for my maximum of 4. Miraculously, I win, 4 to 3. I now have 7 dice in my pool for this next attack -- but I can still only spend 4. I make a 4 die attack, you throw in 4 for a deflect & strike and pay the AC. You win this one, I eat a sword to the face, and stare sadly at the 2dice I really would have liked to have used.
• Per the above scenario, does this effectively hamstring less skilled fighters from taking on stronger opponents? That same match might take place again with the underdog's SA firing at 5 dice. He now has 15 dice to his opponent's 12. On paper, this should look like his match, but he can only ever throw 4 dice at a time. We could argue that the opponent will run out of dice faster, in theory, but that's only true if said opponent never lands a wounding blow as the impact would could easily clean out the difference in dice.
• In theory, you can have an infinite number of tempi within one phrase, but in practice would anyone play along with that? If you're defending and the attacker declares only a 3 die attack, will you always conservatively match him, or will you assume that must be bait for a feint (under the currently released rules) and invest 6 in something like a bind & strike? I have a suspicion that even without the formal two-tempo structure, most people will wind up investing half of their pool at a time just to be safe. I could be wrong, on this account though.

That's not me shooting down the idea. That's my brain in debug mode.

Differentiates Attributes from Proficiencies enough in terms of CP contribution to encourage low Ref high Prof builts viable. As it is now you must go Ag+Cu+Prof as high as you can to have a combat-heavy character.

At least within the coming build, that's not so much of an issue. Most of the combat characters I've seen will generally wind up with reflex 4-6 but with a high proficiency.

As for my faint within a feint querry. You trick me into defending innapropriately. But I trick you in return that I took the bait. But you intended exactly that from the start. And so on. Do you think it's viable? Or too much trouble?

Funny thing. One proposed version of the revised combat rules effectively had something like that, but it required maneuver cards to make work. Essentially, I'd decide what maneuvers I was using and declare my attack with one card face up, paying activation and declaring dice. You'd do the same, declaring your defense face up, paying activation and declaring dice. Afterward, I could reveal the card under it and pay it's activation (which could be anything from a feint to changing the type of attack, yadda yadda). Then you could do the same if you had another card already selected.

The thing that made this neat would be that you had to select all that stuff before the tempo started to play out. You couldn't see that your opponent did X with his defense and then go "ha ha. Sorry. Just kidding. Feint!" because you screwed up your dice allocation.

I really enjoyed the idea for the head-fakes you could play out with it.. .BUT... it both required cards to make it work properly (as much as I love play-aids, I hate mandatory play aids on principle) and it would slow down combat way too much.

[Benedict]

"Each tempo you can invest up to your Proficiency score or 10, whichever is smaller, plus any maneuver activation costs."

My thoughts, in no particular order:

Rest assured, all of the following bug me as well.

How will this impact lower-proficiency characters? If I have a prof 4 -- someone who's a skilled thug more than a swordsman, or a student still learning to handle himself -- but I have good reflexes, I might have 10CP and be okay overall. With this setup, I'm going to be forced to spend my CP in specific ways - either two tempos of 4 and one at 2, or I pick two tempos of 4 spending 2AC along the way. The place this gets weirder is if I'm fighting someone who has my stats in reverse -- 10CP, but with reflex 4, prof 6. If that guy throws 6 dice in the first exchange, I'm prevented from answering it in kind. Is this desireable? Will this cause problems? I'm not sure.

Same here. That's why I said it fundamentally changes combat and needs thorough testing.

How does this effect things like counter or other maneuvers that can be used to get you more dice in the process? Does this decrease their value, given that you can only ever use as many dice as your proficiency? Let's assume the same guy is fighting a more skilled opponent for a moment. 10 vs 12, prof 6, ref 6. You make for an even split and attack me with 6 dice. I spend 2 in activation and counter for my maximum of 4. Miraculously, I win, 4 to 3. I now have 7 dice in my pool for this next attack -- but I can still only spend 4. I make a 4 die attack, you throw in 4 for a deflect & strike and pay the AC. You win this one, I eat a sword to the face, and stare sadly at the 2dice I really would have liked to have used.

That's maybe easier to tackle. You could say that dice earned by maneuvers are not simply CP. They are Momentum Dice instead. And Momentum can be applied on top of the expenditure cap. Meaning that in the above example the second attack would be at 4CP+3M=7d6. What vexes me is that it might make some maneuvers too powerful, given the expenditure cap.

Per the above scenario, does this effectively hamstring less skilled fighters from taking on stronger opponents? That same match might take place again with the underdog's SA firing at 5 dice. He now has 15 dice to his opponent's 12. On paper, this should look like his match, but he can only ever throw 4 dice at a time. We could argue that the opponent will run out of dice faster, in theory, but that's only true if said opponent never lands a wounding blow as the impact would could easily clean out the difference in dice.

That has occurred to me as well. And my proposition would be the same as Momentum above. Drives can be added on top of the CP max. Still its problematic. Given the above scenario, imagine that 7D swing with a SA5 firing for a total of 12d. That's triple the cap.

Or it could be 10d. More on that later.

In theory, you can have an infinite number of tempi within one phrase, but in practice would anyone play along with that? If you're defending and the attacker declares only a 3 die attack, will you always conservatively match him, or will you assume that must be bait for a feint (under the currently released rules) and invest 6 in something like a bind & strike? I have a suspicion that even without the formal two-tempo structure, most people will wind up investing half of their pool at a time just to be safe. I could be wrong, on this account though.

I'm really unsure about that. An idea might look great on paper. You test it and find the optimal ways to be used. Then you give it to people and they start doing things never intended. The funny part? Sometimes they are right and you never saw that use/exploit/whatever.

Now that we are talking about a shred of an idea? Without testing I can't really say.

That's not me shooting down the idea. That's my brain in debug mode.

A good thing if you ask me. I'm totally aware of the complications something like that would create. Hope more people brainstorm on this. Because it's not a formal suggestion. I'd call it more a "what if" moment from thirtythr33. And me, being the rules-junkie that I am, taking cue to obey my obsessions.

Differentiates Attributes from Proficiencies enough in terms of CP contribution to encourage low Ref high Prof builts viable. As it is now you must go Ag+Cu+Prof as high as you can to have a combat-heavy character.

At least within the coming build, that's not so much of an issue. Most of the combat characters I've seen will generally wind up with reflex 4-6 but with a high proficiency.

That's good. Really can't wait.

As for my faint within a feint querry. You trick me into defending innapropriately. But I trick you in return that I took the bait. But you intended exactly that from the start. And so on. Do you think it's viable? Or too much trouble?

Funny thing. One proposed version of the revised combat rules effectively had something like that, but it required maneuver cards to make work. Essentially, I'd decide what maneuvers I was using and declare my attack with one card face up, paying activation and declaring dice. You'd do the same, declaring your defense face up, paying activation and declaring dice. Afterward, I could reveal the card under it and pay it's activation (which could be anything from a feint to changing the type of attack, yadda yadda). Then you could do the same if you had another card already selected.

The thing that made this neat would be that you had to select all that stuff before the tempo started to play out. You couldn't see that your opponent did X with his defense and then go "ha ha. Sorry. Just kidding. Feint!" because you screwed up your dice allocation.

I really enjoyed the idea for the head-fakes you could play out with it.. .BUT... it both required cards to make it work properly (as much as I love play-aids, I hate mandatory play aids on principle) and it would slow down combat way too much.

Perhaps a source book with alternate combat levers and combat cards is in order after 'Scoundrels makes it "Game of the Year".

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I am not sure if the following should be posted here or if it merits a thread of its own.

It's is about Drives, but it involves Combat Pools too.

Under 'Bastards we have encountered the problem that when big SAs fire we have a proverbial walk in the park. And when no SAs are available to fire up things start getting grim.

Now about Combat Pool. In 'Scoundrels its CP=Ref+Prof, where Ref=(Ag+Cu)/2, correct?

Can someone tap anything into his CP? Like example a high Athletics skill? Or a Lore (specific swordsmanship school)? I believe that no, he can't. The only thing that he can "tap" is his Drive. Not a fraction like regular tapping, but his full Drive score instead. Which means a +1 to +5 bonus to CP.

Now the question.

What if Drives had the regular Trait range of 1-10? And you can tap 1 to 3 dice to your CP with the Drive firing?

This could create some other quirks. For example you could use Drives as a stat.
As for Skill/Drive interaction, the tapping formula could be Skill + Tap1 + Tap2 + (Tap Drive when it fires). Meaning a +9d max instead of +11.

Thoughts?