ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: Shaft on June 21, 2016, 05:58:41 PM
-
I was thinking of adding a Full Offense option into my current Dresden game. The game already allows Full Defense (which lets a character gain +2 to their defense roll at the cost of their other actions including attacks). The Full Offense would let a character add 2 to their damage but would impose a -3 to their defense value.
The Full Offense can be used to represent Haymakers, Wild Swings, Aggressive Cleaves etc... in HtH combat and Double Taps (for semi-auto) or longer bursts (when combined with Spray attacks for full auto). It could also represent setting and bracing to make a called shot.
Any thoughts from the forum on this?
-
Our World page 144 on Fix's character sheet:
Swing for the Fences (Weapons): +2 to an attack made with the Weapons skill, but all his Defense or Block actions made with Weapons, Fists, or Athletics suffer a –2 penalty until his next turn.
-
Swing for the Fences (Weapons): +2 to an attack made with the Weapons skill, but all his Defense or Block actions made with Weapons, Fists, or Athletics suffer a –2 penalty until his next turn.
That would be a Stunt. The maneuver I propose doesn't raise the attack, and more importantly, it doesn't negate a target's Full Defense.
-
And that's what happens when you paste and just hit send...
Anyhow. It's a cool idea, but I feel like it should be a stunt in most cases. Unless it's a stunt that each of your players takes, in that case you could just add it as a rule for all. The stunt basically gives you an opportunity to codify when a specific character might use it. I kind of like that, since you are forced to take it for a specific thing, and the gun nut won't be able to do this with swords and vice versa.
That would be a Stunt. The maneuver I propose doesn't raise the attack, and more importantly, it doesn't negate a target's Full Defense.
Still, the idea is quite similar and could easily be adjusted to do extra damage instead of granting a bonus.
-
I think the thing is, for that kind of bonus to attack, it has to be a stunt, or a maneuver, or something along those lines. It's a much more active thing than full defense, since full defense is, basically, a compensation for skipping your turn.
See also the Berserker stunt (+1 to attack roll and to damage, -1 to defense and you can't do anything but attack til your target's dead). I also came up with a gun-centric stunt along similar lines (Shooting Position: When in such a position like kneeling or prone, +2 to Guns attack rolls, but -2 to all defense rolls).
-
Full defense doesn't allow any actions including supplemental moves (unless you have a speed power) so I wouldn't allow a Full Defense in the same exchange as a Full Offense. It makes no sense.
Since it's supposed to represent running out and going full out why not make it work well:
+1 (or 2) to hit, +2 damage, you defend at mediocre for 1 exchange.
It shouldn't get abused too often because the drawback is severe.
Or, +bonus to hit and or damage(not sure what's appropriate ) - 2 dodge and you may not tag any aspects that revolve around cover.
-
I think the thing is, for that kind of bonus to attack, it has to be a stunt, or a maneuver, or something along those lines.
There is no bonus to Attack (specifically, to hit). Only to damage.
-
Full defense doesn't allow any actions including supplemental moves (unless you have a speed power) so I wouldn't allow a Full Defense in the same exchange as a Full Offense. It makes no sense.
Agreed.
At no point did I suggest that both could be done by one character. My reference to the Full Defense in the original post was made to show that a defensive action existed which gave a +2 defense bonus for the cost of an offensive action. The offensive action that I propose awards a +2 damage bonus and imposes a high cost (-3 to the defense value).
+1 (or 2) to hit, +2 damage, you defend at mediocre for 1 exchange.
This favors someone with a low defense over someone with a high defense. Someone with 0 Athletics or Fists can always do Full Offense attacks with no penalty. Someone with Average is getting more bonuses than penalties. Someone with Superb is docked higher. A numerical penalty is fairer, IMHO.
[/quote]
-
Agreed.
At no point did I suggest that both could be done by one character. My reference to the Full Defense in the original post was made to show that a defensive action existed which gave a +2 defense bonus for the cost of an offensive action. The offensive action that I propose awards a +2 damage bonus and imposes a high cost (-3 to the defense value).
I was referring to when you wrote this:
That would be a Stunt. The maneuver I propose doesn't raise the attack, and more importantly, it doesn't negate a target's Full Defense.
Which implies that you thought you could attack in the same round as a full defence action. Obviously, I misunderstood.
This favors someone with a low defense over someone with a high defense. Someone with 0 Athletics or Fists can always do Full Offense attacks with no penalty. Someone with Average is getting more bonuses than penalties. Someone with Superb is docked higher. A numerical penalty is fairer, IMHO.
Good point. Just say -2 dodge, +2 damage. I would stipulate that you can't use aspects that revolve around cover to boost your dodge. Going full offence feels, to me, like you are taking risks to attack so aspects that revolve around using cover or being extra careful should be disallowed at GMs discretion.
Edit: you should make sure this can't be abused by players who dodge with endurance. With the justification that they are being hit so they don't need to get the penalty. There's a stunt that let's you dodge at mediocre but lets you roll endurance to soak damage as armour. Just make sure it's balanced.
Also, people with ridiculously high dodge will be more likely to use this. Even more so will physically immune and tough characters.
-
Double post:
Food for thought:
Full Defense is a trapping of athletics. Therefore, you can't go Full Defense with weapons.
With that said, you should decide what skills should have Full Offense.
-Can you do it with mental attacks such as Incite Emotion?
-What about social attacks? Rapport has a Full Defense option, so maybe it should have a Full Offense?
-Missle/Guns is more powerful than melee: If a heavy Gunner/marksman is two or three zones away from a bunch of melee folks, there's no disadvantage to going Full Offense since the opposition can't attack back. If you allow Guns this trapping, perhaps you should limit it to enemies in the same zone. In fact, a Gun wielder with a speed power would use this constantly against melee opposition because they can always withdraw for free.
-
you should make sure this can't be abused by players who dodge with endurance. With the justification that they are being hit so they don't need to get the penalty.
My ruling would be that I don't care what skill you are using, you'd still have the same penalty. I'm lucky in that my players generally aren't rules lawyers, but I can see why for other groups that could be an issue.
Also, people with ridiculously high dodge will be more likely to use this. Even more so will physically immune and tough characters.
Not a problem. If they pay skill points or Refresh to be better in combat, it should be balanced.
-Can you do it with mental attacks such as Incite Emotion?
I wouldn't allow it.
-What about social attacks? Rapport has a Full Defense option, so maybe it should have a Full Offense?
It depends on the circumstances.
-Missle/Guns is more powerful than melee: If a heavy Gunner/marksman is two or three zones away from a bunch of melee folks, there's no disadvantage to going Full Offense since the opposition can't attack back. If you allow Guns this trapping, perhaps you should limit it to enemies in the same zone. In fact, a Gun wielder with a speed power would use this constantly against melee opposition because they can always withdraw for free.
It depends on the style of game you want to run. If you want a gritty, less cinematic game where bringing a knife to a gun fight is a bad plan, this could be a great way to capture that. I've run great sessions in other systems where a lone sniper was able to pin down a group of pistol wielding opponents and use his weapons added range as a tactical advantage.
Also, I would counter that if the targets who can't hit the attacker can just do a Full Defense with no consequence as well, since they wouldn't have been able to attack.
-
I wouldn't allow it.
It depends on the circumstances.
It depends on the style of game you want to run. If you want a gritty, less cinematic game where bringing a knife to a gun fight is a bad plan, this could be a great way to capture that. I've run great sessions in other systems where a lone sniper was able to pin down a group of pistol wielding opponents and use his weapons added range as a tactical advantage.
As I said, it's just food for thought. As long as you've considered all these factors before putting it in to your game.
Also, I would counter that if the targets who can't hit the attacker can just do a Full Defense with no consequence as well, since they wouldn't have been able to attack.
this is not a very good counter since the gunner effectively pins everyone down, forcing them not to act while the gunner's allies rack up maneuvers and attacks on the opponents.
You see, the disadvantage to Full Defense is lack of action. Sure, you might not get hit but you don't actually do anything at all. This is why a Full Offense is more powerful.
I'd recommend having it only work against opponents in the same zone or disallow it for Gun attacks completely.
-
We may disagree on a few points, but your feedback is great, Taran (and Haru). I hadn't thought of social and mental attacks, and that would have thrown me for a loop had a player tried to run it past me at the table during a session.
I think my players would go for the rule as I have written it, but I can see why it's not ideal for other groups' styles. Our group did a lot of HERO system in a past life, so we like crunchy combat modifiers.
-
No problem. It seemed like a brainstorming exercise. Just making sure you've thought of all the potential pit-falls and kinks. Good luck!
-
I'm kind of with Taran on this one point. Full offense implies putting yourself in danger in order to deal more damage. If you aren't putting yourself in danger then you aren't going full offense, you are just on regular offense. In that sense, if your opponent can't hit you making that modifier mean something, then the full offense modifier probably shouldn't apply.
-
I'm kind of with Taran on this one point. Full offense implies putting yourself in danger in order to deal more damage. If you aren't putting yourself in danger then you aren't going full offense, you are just on regular offense. In that sense, if your opponent can't hit you making that modifier mean something, then the full offense modifier probably shouldn't apply.
Yeah, I have to agree with this. Full Offense (though I maintain we're in stunt territory) represents diving in, heedless of your own safety.
If there's no risk, no downside, that's way overpowered for an inherent ability.
-
I'm kind of with Taran on this one point. Full offense implies putting yourself in danger in order to deal more damage. If you aren't putting yourself in danger then you aren't going full offense, you are just on regular offense. In that sense, if your opponent can't hit you making that modifier mean something, then the full offense modifier probably shouldn't apply.
Your assuming that the attacker with a range advantage can only be attacked by his target. If an ally to the target manages to close and get in range, the tables can turn.
-
Your assuming that the attacker with a range advantage can only be attacked by his target. If an ally to the target manages to close and get in range, the tables can turn.
If they can manage.
I feel like you have come up with some good ideas to prevent people from abusing the House Rule. But, I think, what people are trying to point out, is it can be abused - fairly easily.
If you make it a bit more restrictive (the same way Full Defense is restrictive), it is less likely to be abused.
Let's say a character with
Guns 5 (weapon 4 assault rifle); Athletics 5
Supernatural Speed
Dodge stunt
wings
4 refresh and they are dodging at +8 and can fly. For free they can move 2 zones as a supplemental. Given enough zones to maneuver, they can rarely be engaged. They still dodge at +5 or 6 and fire a weapon 6 assault rifle from 3 zones away.
If the enemy chooses to go full defense, the gun-wielder moves 2 zones away and does a navel gazing maneuver.
Not that every scenario would end up like this...but when it does, using regular attacks is sub-optimal. Just make sure that many scenarios has ranged enemies, or close quarters.
***
Or
Supernatural Toughness
Supernatural recovery
Catch +3
Good Athletics (or Footwork)
Great sword: weapon 3 or higher, if it's an IoP or something.
This guy is more expensive, refresh-wise(-6), but doesn't really care if he gets hit for a couple extra stress.
These are two characters where it makes no sense NOT to use full Offense. There are probably other situations/builds where this is true.
It's very rare to build a character where it makes no sense not to use Full Defense. Reflect Attack custom power would be the only thing I can think of. And that's a very expensive build to make it worth while...like, 10+ refresh.
-
Yeah, I have to agree with this. Full Offense (though I maintain we're in stunt territory) represents diving in, heedless of your own safety.
If there's no risk, no downside, that's way overpowered for an inherent ability.
In the end, it's an attunement, not necessarily overpowered. If everyone can do it, the sword cuts both ways. Keep in mind that the example stunt still provides a downside as well.
Now the difference between a stunt and an attunement would be that a stunt drives a character towards a particular style of play, an attunement drives all characters towards that kind of play.
So if you implement a rule like this, your game will be (slightly) more offensive. That's not a bad thing, but that's probable consequence, the more powerful you make this rule, the more it will happen.
That will probably also mean that your players will go with characters that run more along those lines. Again, not a bad thing, but something to keep in mind.
As an example, just look at the difference between how DFRPG and Fate Core does movement. In DFRPG, movement is a supplemental action that gives you -1 to your other action. In Core, you can move 1 zone for free with every action. As a result, there is a lot more movement in Core games than there is in DFRPG, for better or worse.
-
Your assuming that the attacker with a range advantage can only be attacked by his target. If an ally to the target manages to close and get in range, the tables can turn.
Naw. I am making the assumption that the rule is abused whenever someone uses it when they cannot be attacked. If they can be attacked, by their target or otherwise, then it's fine, but if they cannot, then it is not fine.
Example:
Your target in on the street below the building you are shooting from. There are no enemies anywhere near you or even in the building. Your allies are engaged with your enemies on the ground. Does going full-offense make sense here. Well mechanically, yes. I'll take that bonus please. Narratively, it does not though.
Alternatively, if you really do not want to limit its use, so that it can always be used, then try attaching it to a free compel rather than a mechanical disadvantage. In the example above, I ask the GM to go full offense. The GM says okay, but compels Full Offense to say that I am more careless with my shots and the nearest of my allies to my target will have to defend with athletics to dodge the shot too.
-
Alternatively, if you really do not want to limit its use, so that it can always be used, then try attaching it to a free compel rather than a mechanical disadvantage.
The "Listening" Stunt for investigation does something very similar to that:
Listening: You can tune out your other senses and simply focus on your hearing, making you
able to pick up faint sounds with astonishing clarity. Gain a +4 on your Investigation roll
when Listening; however, your Alertness drops to Terrible while doing so, due to the exclusion
of your other senses. If a conflict begins while you are Listening, it will take a full exchange
for your Alertness to return to normal once you stop.
-
In the end, it's an attunement, not necessarily overpowered. If everyone can do it, the sword cuts both ways. Keep in mind that the example stunt still provides a downside as well.
Now the difference between a stunt and an attunement would be that a stunt drives a character towards a particular style of play, an attunement drives all characters towards that kind of play.
So if you implement a rule like this, your game will be (slightly) more offensive. That's not a bad thing, but that's probable consequence, the more powerful you make this rule, the more it will happen.
That will probably also mean that your players will go with characters that run more along those lines. Again, not a bad thing, but something to keep in mind.
As an example, just look at the difference between how DFRPG and Fate Core does movement. In DFRPG, movement is a supplemental action that gives you -1 to your other action. In Core, you can move 1 zone for free with every action. As a result, there is a lot more movement in Core games than there is in DFRPG, for better or worse.
Good point
-
Lots of good feedback here.
I was thinking about it, and I think maybe I'll suggest that for my group, semiauto weapons and HtH melee fighting with Fists and Weapons should only do +1 damage (with -2 defense), while full auto weapons would do +2 for the same penalty. Full auto can be combined with spray.