House Rules

User avatar
Kuildeous
Posts: 1425
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2016 1:41 pm

Re: House Rules

Postby Kuildeous » Tue Oct 24, 2017 10:46 am

ShirtlessOBrien wrote:Everything you do to soften the restriction on firing into melee benefits ranged attackers on both sides compared to melee combatants on both sides.


I disagree. I think this benefits melee fighters far more than ranged fighters.

Let's take a simplified example. Anton is fighting a technodemon in melee. Aiden is across a chasm and chooses to fire at the technodemon. For the purposes of this example, nobody misses their attacks.

Status Quo: Aiden fires every round and has an equal chance of hitting Anton and the technodemon on an odd die roll. Statistically, Aiden hits the technodemon every 3 in every 4 rounds. The remaining rounds are spent injuring Anton, who curses and spends Possibilities to soak.
Proposed House Rule: Aiden aims first and then fires. He hits the technodemon 1 in every 2 rounds, which is 33% drop in efficiency. Anton, meanwhile, gets to dedicate all his Possibilities to staying alive and pummeling the technodemon.

It also makes more narrative sense. Consider another scenario:
Status Quo: Aiden aims and fires every other round. He has a 25% chance of hitting Anton. Because Aiden was aiming for the technodemon, whenever he hits Anton, he almost assuredly rolls an extra bonus die to damage from the +4 to hit. On top of that, Aiden would hit the technodemon 3 out of every 8 rounds. Less damage to the technodemon and more damage to Anton make the aim action less useful here. Granted, this stems from another pain point of being more skilled means you better hurt your teammates, but that's a different house rule to consider.
Last edited by Kuildeous on Tue Oct 24, 2017 11:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
The Boneyard – Friends and foes within Tharkold's Blasted Land

Infiniverse Exchange Word template – Infiniverse Exchange template for MS Word users

User avatar
MalicWanderer
Posts: 97
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2017 9:29 pm

Re: House Rules

Postby MalicWanderer » Tue Oct 24, 2017 11:12 am

Kuildeous wrote:
ShirtlessOBrien wrote:Everything you do to soften the restriction on firing into melee benefits ranged attackers on both sides compared to melee combatants on both sides.


I disagree. I think this benefits melee fighters far more than ranged fighters.

Let's take a simplified example. Anton is fighting a technodemon in melee. Aiden is across a chasm and chooses to fire at the technodemon. For the purposes of this example, nobody misses their attacks.

Status Quo: Aiden fires every round and has an equal chance of hitting Anton and the technodemon. Statistically, Aiden hits the technodemon every other round. ...

This is incorrect I believe. Each round you have a 50% chance at hitting a random combatant instead of your target, but the original target is still a valid option for random selection. That means firing into a duel you'll have a 75% chance at hitting the one you wanted. That's ignoring one SK vs many mooks or the elsewhere proposed rule of counting large and very large creatures as more than one combatant for random selection purposes.

Also, you're scenario assumes the ranged character always shoots into the melee regardless of risk of hitting their ally. Meanwhile OBrien's point (as I understand it) seems to hinge on ranged attackers erring away from that risk. Thus both sides of the melee are protected because no one's getting shot.

Realistically I'm sure which pov is more accurate will vary from group to group and situation to situation, both for players and pcs and villains.

User avatar
Kuildeous
Posts: 1425
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2016 1:41 pm

Re: House Rules

Postby Kuildeous » Tue Oct 24, 2017 12:01 pm

MalicWanderer wrote:This is incorrect I believe. Each round you have a 50% chance at hitting a random combatant instead of your target, but the original target is still a valid option for random selection. That means firing into a duel you'll have a 75% chance at hitting the one you wanted.


You are so correct, and I feel silly for such a simple mistake. I've corrected my original statement.

Interesting note: The Torg die does not have a 50% chance of coming up odd. I haven't worked out the exact numbers, but my simulation comes up with 50.6% chance of coming up odd. This is because you don't end on 10s or 20s, so those even numbers aren't considered. Barring unskilled usage anyway, but seriously, don't fire a gun without training.
Edit: Another error! My simulation marked Mishaps as Even because I assigned a value of 0 to it. The actual percentage is 53.2% according to my simulation.

Ironically, the unrolled 20 for being unskilled actually makes it slightly easier for you to hit your target when firing into melee.
The Boneyard – Friends and foes within Tharkold's Blasted Land

Infiniverse Exchange Word template – Infiniverse Exchange template for MS Word users

User avatar
MalicWanderer
Posts: 97
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2017 9:29 pm

Re: House Rules

Postby MalicWanderer » Tue Oct 24, 2017 12:49 pm

Kuildeous wrote:
MalicWanderer wrote:Edit: Another error! My simulation marked Mishaps as Even because I assigned a value of 0 to it. The actual percentage is 53.2% according to my simulation.

You probably should count mishaps as even, since they're never going to cause you to hit your ally. On account of you're going to miss no matter what you end up shooting at.

User avatar
Kuildeous
Posts: 1425
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2016 1:41 pm

Re: House Rules

Postby Kuildeous » Tue Oct 24, 2017 1:27 pm

MalicWanderer wrote:
Kuildeous wrote:
MalicWanderer wrote:Edit: Another error! My simulation marked Mishaps as Even because I assigned a value of 0 to it. The actual percentage is 53.2% according to my simulation.

You probably should count mishaps as even, since they're never going to cause you to hit your ally. On account of you're going to miss no matter what you end up shooting at.


I see your point. I was actually approaching this from the realm of all viable attack rolls. In that scope, tossing out 1s is viable. I simply counted up evens and odds separately and divided by the count of evens and odds. So, it's a conditional of: Assuming no mayhap and all dice hitting, 53.2% of attacks have a chance of hitting an ally.

But if you are just wondering what's your chance of hitting an ally, it'd be about 50.6% multiplied by the percentage based on the fight (frex, I would say a T-rex would be at least 80-90% likely to be hit vs. the human). That is probably a more likely question people will be asking.
The Boneyard – Friends and foes within Tharkold's Blasted Land

Infiniverse Exchange Word template – Infiniverse Exchange template for MS Word users

User avatar
Rabbitball
Posts: 750
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2016 7:41 pm

Re: House Rules

Postby Rabbitball » Tue Oct 24, 2017 2:38 pm

Kuildeous wrote:But if you are just wondering what's your chance of hitting an ally, it'd be about 50.6% multiplied by the percentage based on the fight (frex, I would say a T-rex would be at least 80-90% likely to be hit vs. the human). That is probably a more likely question people will be asking.


I would say that if you want to accommodate for size, you can consider a Large character to count as 2 characters, and a Very Large would count as 4. Or you can get really fancy, count a Small/Tiny creature as 1, a Medium as 2, Large as 4 (2+2) and Very Large as 6. But that's getting a bit wonky...
Dominick Riesland, aka Rabbitball
Co-author, Aysle Sourcebook for Torg Eternity
Creator of the Cosmversal Grimoire
"Those who will not follow are doomed to lead"—Anarchist, Magic: the Gathering

RamblingScribe
Posts: 208
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 3:15 pm

Re: House Rules

Postby RamblingScribe » Tue Oct 24, 2017 2:59 pm

ShirtlessOBrien wrote:
RamblingScribe wrote:I would rather have a "friendly fire" card of some sort that players can play as a dramatic event. "Ranged attack hits ally instead of intended target. If played on another hero, each storm knight gains one possibility."


*Puts away .50 calibre rifle, pulls out slingshot*

"Oh no I hit my friend!"


Totally valid criticism of the card as presented. I think that's a solvable problem.

My point is, I feel like friendly fire scenarios in a cinematic game should happen as a dramatic narrative choice. While the existing rules is effective at creating a sense of risk for the players, I find it kind of awkward and corner-casey. The cosm cards and destiny cards have a lot of elegant ways of handling things like this, and I would prefer if friendly fire worked that way.

I also am realizing that the wording I suggested would work for my group, because I have a few players who delight in throwing a spanner into each other's works if it remotely justifiable. To the tune of reminding me that the villains get a bonus that I forgot to apply, so the big bad should hit not miss, and then asking if they get a possibility for pointing it out.

User avatar
Gargoyle
Posts: 1733
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2016 8:20 pm

Re: House Rules

Postby Gargoyle » Tue Oct 24, 2017 5:29 pm

Kuildeous wrote:
I disagree. I think this benefits melee fighters far more than ranged fighters.


Not really commenting on the rest of this post, or disagreeing, but this statement got me thinking. Not really a tangent either, just something more basic to the discussion.

I believe the RAI for firing into melee is not a balancing rule to make both playstyles (melee and ranged) viable, but rather it is to encourage people to do both. In other words, The Storm Knights see a group of gospog approaching and most attack with ranged weapons...lasers, slayer's guns, AK-47's, shuriken, bows, etc. The gospog are too much and close in on one of the Knights armed with a rifle. The Knight clubs the gospog with the rifle, and rather than opening up on the others, the other Knights put away their ranged weapons and draw swords, power daggers, etc, or charge in with a flying kick. Everyone gets in on the melee. Sure the one sniper guy might hang back and aim to pick off gospog every other round, but most of the time, SK's draw weapons and get into the battle close up.

Now I'm not saying they have to, or even should, but I think it's more interesting and I like rules that encourage diversity in a single character. I regret continuing to have Dr. Larkin Merritt continue using his slayer's gun last adventure; in hindsight he should have drawn his saber and holy cross and charged in shouting 1st Regiment songs. If I had the option to aim I may have considered that though, but I think the intention was for the character to go into melee mode most of the time. I feel this adds some more dimensions to the characters. If they always use the same weapon, it's a bit more dull.

I still like the house rule of aiming to avoid the chance of hitting a friend. It's still a significant penalty to lose a round despite the bonus, and I would like to see people aim more often..it's an interesting tactical option. The only thing I don't like about aiming is that it feels like you're losing a turn. It's fine in a flurry round, but otherwise it feels like you're taking someone out of the game for a bit. The good thing is that it is another decision for the player to make, I just wish there was a roll to it to make it feel more like they aren't losing a turn. Like maybe they do a fire combat roll when aiming and if they get a Good or Outstanding result then the bonus is even better on their following turn. Just don't want to make it too good.
"That old chestnut?"

Gargoyle

Savioronedge
Posts: 462
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 11:55 pm

Re: House Rules

Postby Savioronedge » Tue Oct 24, 2017 6:45 pm

Gargoyle wrote: I just wish there was a roll to it to make it feel more like they aren't losing a turn. Like maybe they do a fire combat roll when aiming and if they get a Good or Outstanding result then the bonus is even better on their following turn. Just don't want to make it too good.


Maybe a Mind roll, or a new perk "Eagle Eye: when you choose the Aim option make a Mind role (10), Standard ignore up to -2 in situational penalties...cover, range, called shot, etc. Good: ignore up to -2 from up to 2 different categories of conditional penalties. Outstanding: ignore up to -2 from up to 3 categories or up to -4 from 1 category."

User avatar
Gargoyle
Posts: 1733
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2016 8:20 pm

Re: House Rules

Postby Gargoyle » Tue Oct 24, 2017 7:06 pm

Savioronedge wrote:
Gargoyle wrote: I just wish there was a roll to it to make it feel more like they aren't losing a turn. Like maybe they do a fire combat roll when aiming and if they get a Good or Outstanding result then the bonus is even better on their following turn. Just don't want to make it too good.


Maybe a Mind roll, or a new perk "Eagle Eye: when you choose the Aim option make a Mind role (10), Standard ignore up to -2 in situational penalties...cover, range, called shot, etc. Good: ignore up to -2 from up to 2 different categories of conditional penalties. Outstanding: ignore up to -2 from up to 3 categories or up to -4 from 1 category."


Not a fan of lots of new perks. I'd rather just make it an option anyone could use. My thinking is that a big list of perks limits what people can do without them, so if it's a task that any hero could conceivably attempt, I'd like it not to be a perk, unless it's just so iconic that it begs to be a Prowess perk like Sniper. Characters don't really get a lot of perks, and so I like for the list to be smaller and only composed of things that fulfill some iconic tropes, and I don't really want "chains" of perks. The worst perk is the one you carefully design and test, and then no one ever takes. I know this not because of TorgE, but because it's so analogous to D&D feats in 3rd edition.

I'll put some thought into it, a Mind based Fire Combat skill check sounds like a good idea. Your proposed bonuses are ok, but perhaps on a Standard result you can fire into melee without risk of hitting an ally on your next turn, on a Good result you also halve the bonus to Armor given by Cover, and on an Outstanding result you can halve the penalty on a called shot.
"That old chestnut?"

Gargoyle


Return to “Tangents and Miscellany (TORG)”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Brandon_C and 7 guests