Annoying Game Questions You Want Answered

[Korwin]

There where an Thread here on the Den, from Frank about alternate rules for SR: War!
Someone has an Link? Not finding it.
I remember Frank saying something about bringing the damage track back and want to read that...

[Eikre]

your oversight was the product of a ruleset that, while actually very good and complete, could still do with another editorial once-over.

It was a product of the layout on the SRD, if that table was two pages up right next to the other one, or in the other section, the one labeled "special attacks", then no one would miss it.

This is what I'm saying, though. You shouldn't need to exhaustively review the entire combat chapter and notice that one single footnote to brook the position that when you get an "attack of opportunity," itself described as a free melee attack, that you might be allowed to use it to perform a maneuver from the list of "special attacks" that functions "as an unarmed melee attack". Wherever it can, the PHB should be written using vocabulary and pedagogical techniques that make it difficult not to know the rule.

For example, the Combat chapter uses the term "attack" ambiguously as a name for both "simple attempt to hit and deal damage" as well as "a class of various offensive techniques," the first, of course, being a subset of the second. On page 139, in the sub-section which is actually named "Attack," the only possibilities presented are all varieties of hit-and-deal-damage. On the other hand, on page 154, when a charge is described as an action where you "move and attack," they're referring to attacks in the general case, including disarms... Even though disarms are listed immediately after charges, in the same section, with the same sized heading, as though disarming was a self-sufficient action, and not, in fact, a technique that you might have an opportunity to perform as the result of any number different actions, or even none at all.

So my counter-proposal, in this case, would be to make new vocabulary for the "hit-and-deal-damage" mode of attack. Calling it a "strike" would be non-ambiguous and works as both a verb and noun, just as the word "attack" does, so it's a super easy substitution. Furthermore, you could rearrange the structure of the chapter so that a new player would be set up to learn a fuller scope of the rules while they were still picking up the basics. In this case, I would end up collapsing that entry on page 139 to just say "You can use a standard action to make a single attack. See page XXX for a list of attacks." Note the logical syntax: When I was composing this paragraph, I initially typed "you can make an attack as a standard action," but I don't want to imply that attacks need a discrete action to perform. The page reference would point to a full section, directly after the one on "actions in combat," which would be called "Attacks," and that's where you'd list strikes in the very same breath as disarms, trips, and grapple maneuvers, so that they're clearly interchangeable, even if you don't notice the rule in the opening paragraph that makes this explicitly clear. Then you'd take the other techniques in "special attacks" and put them in other appropriate sections; bull rush and charge in the "actions in combat" section, turn/rebuke undead in the Cleric class description, two-weapon fighting in the same place you describe iteratives and secondary natural weapons.

A player picking up the system for the first time, I am convinced, wouldn't have any more difficulty following along when they learn how to make a simple strike for the first time, but they would inevitably have a much more solid understanding of how all the pieces fit together, and there would basically be no possibly of someone like yourself ever needing a referral, fifteen years into the life of the edition, to learn that they can make trip attacks and damage attacks interchangeably.

It's also more extensible going forward. Look at the Charnel Touch feature of the Dread Necromancer. It's a negative energy melee touch attack that she can deliver "at will, but no more than once per round" So... Does that mean it's a free action? If not, can I use it at the end of a charge, like I can with disarm? I don't have a footnote telling me that I can. But I shouldn't need one!

Your position is basically nonsense from step one because you believe that the rules that explicitly stated you can fucking grapple as AoO really meant to only let you grapple with all those grappling weapons.

Dedicated grapples all have improved unarmed strike, so yeah, as a matter of fact, they do have a fucking grappling weapon.

Guess what, the special actions in the Tomes have the exact same fucking language, but they have it written in the actual header for the actions, instead of in a table, no one would miss it, and it is on the same page with the special actions.

Can you elaborate one what you were getting at, here? I don't understand what you mean. Is there, like, a standalone version of the Tomes with revised bits of the SRD all plugged in? If that's true, then it sounds neat, but I don't know what point you'd be invoking that fact in support of.

[Korwin]

fix your tags, please

Edit: Strange, now it Looks ok for me too...

[Eikre]

?

They seem fine to me.

[Kaelik]

This is what I'm saying, though. You shouldn't need to exhaustively review the entire combat chapter and notice that one single footnote to brook the position that when you get an "attack of opportunity," itself described as a free melee attack, that you might be allowed to use it to perform a maneuver from the list of "special attacks" that functions "as an unarmed melee attack". Wherever it can, the PHB should be written using vocabulary and pedagogical techniques that make it difficult not to know the rule.

This is what I am saying, there is an entire page heading section called "Special Attacks" If that table was in the special attack section, then no one would need to review the entire combat chapter. If that one footnote was written in the attack of oppurtunity chapter or the special attacks section, then in either case no one could possibly miss it.

It therefore follows that the rules aren't poorly written, it is a layout issue.

The rules racial ability adjustments in the PHB are clear as day, but if Orc Strength bonus was for some reason in the equipment chapter, it would not follow that the rules for ability adjustments are poorly written, it would follow that someone wrote the rule in the wrong place.

So my counter-proposal, in this case, would be to make new vocabulary for the "hit-and-deal-damage" mode of attack. Calling it a "strike" would be non-ambiguous and works as both a verb and noun, just as the word "attack" does, so it's a super easy substitution.

They already have a specific subset for hit and deal damage, it is an attack that is not a special attack. I suspect that it would take literally two gaming sessions before someone has an issue in which they can't figure out whether the word "attack" should be left as attack or changed to strike under your arbitrary renaming convention, and then all the perceived benefits of renaming instantly evaporate.

It's also more extensible going forward. Look at the Charnel Touch feature of the Dread Necromancer. It's a negative energy melee touch attack that she can deliver "at will, but no more than once per round" So... Does that mean it's a free action? If not, can I use it at the end of a charge, like I can with disarm? I don't have a footnote telling me that I can. But I shouldn't need one!

Congratulations, You discovered that the Dread Necromancer was poorly written. Spoiler alert, your change doesn't help at all. Because nothing about adding a new subset of attack that isn't special changes anything about the confusion of the Dread Necromancer.

Can you elaborate one what you were getting at, here? I don't understand what you mean. Is there, like, a standalone version of the Tomes with revised bits of the SRD all plugged in? If that's true, then it sounds neat, but I don't know what point you'd be invoking that fact in support of.

How about you just read Races of War, and I'll just go kill myself for wasting my time talking with you.

[hyzmarca]

Are there any RPGs where the players are terrorists seeking to strike at the great satan through bombings and flying planes into buildings?

[Korwin]

Are there any RPGs where the players are terrorists seeking to strike at the great satan through bombings and flying planes into buildings?

Don't know of one explicitly, but Shadowrun is really not far from it. And would only Need a little background change.

[angelfromanotherpin]

I remember there was one, made quasi-palatable because the 'Great Satan' were the secret vampires secretly running western society. I think it was made by Wick or Lumpley.

[RelentlessImp]

It's also more extensible going forward. Look at the Charnel Touch feature of the Dread Necromancer. It's a negative energy melee touch attack that she can deliver "at will, but no more than once per round" So... Does that mean it's a free action? If not, can I use it at the end of a charge, like I can with disarm? I don't have a footnote telling me that I can. But I shouldn't need one!

This is the dumbest shit. Charnel Touch is a (Su), so the answer to your question is under the Supernatural Abilities section.

Supernatural abilities are magical and go away in an antimagic field but are not subject to spell resistance, counterspells, or to being dispelled by dispel magic. Using a supernatural ability is a standard action unless noted otherwise. Supernatural abilities may have a use limit or be usable at will, just like spell-like abilities. However, supernatural abilities do not provoke attacks of opportunity and never require Concentration checks. Unless otherwise noted, a supernatural ability has an effective caster level equal to the creature’s Hit Dice. The saving throw (if any) against a supernatural ability is:

10 + ½ the creature’s HD + the creature’s ability modifier (usually Charisma).

[Prak]

Are there any RPGs where the players are terrorists seeking to strike at the great satan through bombings and flying planes into buildings?

There is, or something like it, but I can't remember the name. I asked the BG's on twitter, we'll see if they remember the game since they found it at a con.

Edit: It's called "Burning Sands: not the L5R oneJihad". There is a pdf hosted on the company site, so I can link it here. It's a Burning Wheel game that's apparently supposed to be an homage to Dune. So have fun with that.

[Eikre]

It therefore follows that the rules aren't poorly written, it is a layout issue.

How is "layout" not part of the assessment about whether something is poorly written or not? I've said the word "composition" like a half-dozen times in this debate. In case that's not clear, this is a word that means "placement and arrangement."

Up in that multi-paragraph proposal I made, I talk about rearranging passages out of the Combat chapter so that similar concepts are organized into groups and written alongside relevant mechanics. You're telling me, "no, that's dumb, just organize similar mechanics into groups and make sure the relevant mechanics are written nearby"?

How about you just read Races of War, and I'll just go kill myself for wasting my time talking with you.

Alright, I'll elaborate:

There are four actions described in the PHB, plus two more used in manuals postdating the XPH. None of them are an "attack action." That's an inventive term made up for the Tomes, to achieve the same distinction that I'm making: To separate "attack," in the presumptively damaging sense, from "the categorical list of stuff you can do when you're granted an unspecified attack." I gave a special name to the first definition, and the Tomes attribute a special term to the second.

The Tomes also put their attack actions in a distinct, exclusive section. The nature of their relationship isn't muddled by being listed under the same heading as things that aren't attack actions. The PHB doesn't care to make that organizational distinction; its "Special Attacks" section includes aid another, charge, mounted combat, overrun, throw splash weapon, turn undead, and two-weapon fighting. That's a baffling list of miscellany. Respectively, those belong under the sections on standard actions, full-round actions (with a special mention in the standard actions section), the description of the ride skill, the "moving through a square" section of 'movement, position, and distance', the weapons and equipment chapter, the cleric class description, and a new section where you talk about all the full-attack methods in one place (because the rules for full attacks that include natural weapons should be in the PHB).

The Tomes also make the design decision to turn feinting and bull-rushing into attack actions instead of a standard action and a weird variable even-more-different-than-disarm attack substitute. It's my opinion that these are good decisions, and that the organized thought which lead to making "attack actions" their own definitive thing was a contributing factor.

When I say I don't understand why you would invoke the Tomes in support of your point, it is because the Tomes develop in the very same direction that I'm going on about. Since your position is that I'm an idiot and should shut up, it doesn't really follow to correlate me with a respected work.

I suspect that it would take literally two gaming sessions before someone has an issue in which they can't figure out whether the word "attack" should be left as attack or changed to strike under your arbitrary renaming convention, and then all the perceived benefits of renaming instantly evaporate.

This is the kind of choice in lexicon that the developers and their editors need to make. The point is not to leave it for a bunch of new players to grind to a halt on. Nobody would be making these substitutions in the middle of the game session, unless it was a playtesting session, in which case... Good! Now the guys who are writing the game are talking about and eliminating their ambiguities instead of leaving it in for every individual table to argue about.

This is the dumbest shit. Charnel Touch is a (Su), so the answer to your question is under the Supernatural Abilities section.

The thing is, the ability says "no more than once per round." That's an awfully strange stipulation to make, unless the author just really really didn't want people with two standard actions to blow them both on inflict minor wounds. A lot of people read between the lines, here, and suppose that the ability is supposed to be a round-limited attack action. It's not idiotic. Frank and K are on the record making this assertion.

If "attack" has an indisputable definition as an action component, then its connotation in the description of charnel touch is also indisputable. And if there were an elementary term like "attack action" since day 1, then I'm certain the developer who wrote Dread Necromancer would have been likely to use that term and achieve the rule they were half-assing, instead of fucking it up with a connotation that the class feature be used in a particular way, without actually going far enough to override the defaults on the (Su) tag which you cited.

[Username17]

Supernatural Abilities very frequently are continuous or used as part of attacks or moves or whatever the fuck without actually saying so anywhere. The rules text that says that supernatural abilities default to standard actions is pretty much meaningless, because consistent nomenclature for timing is not used.

Whether Charnel Touch is usable as an attack action or requires a standard action that includes an attack is an important distinction, but the rules do not say and are of absolutely no help.

-Username17.

[RelentlessImp]

What kind of fucking mental gymnastics are you two performing to go from "standard action unless otherwise stated" to "this ability doesn't list an action type so the default rule which calls out THIS SPECIFIC SITUATION does not apply"?

[Eikre]

Ki Strike is a (su) monk feature, action unspecified. It allows her to treat her unarmed strikes as magic weapons. I have never, ever seen someone take this to mean anything other than a passive, continually active effect, but the default rule would indicate that it should only be usable when she devotes a standard action to making just a single Ki Strike.

The Diamond Body ability is also an apparently-continuous ability, like Ki Strike. It's not explicit that it doesn't require an action, but it's an immunity; how on earth do you apply that as a standard action?

Quivering Palm is a (su) ability that applies to an attack. Like Charnel Touch, your interpretation would be that you can only use it as a standard action, not as an attack action... But it says "she must announce her intent before making her attack roll." That's something you have to do before making a roll for anything. Why would they double-down on that stipulation here unless this was a rider effect that you were dropping on another action, instead of preforming as its own discrete standard?

Smite Evil is a (su) ability that you exercise as a melee attack, much like Charnel Touch is. Are you telling me that it's an obligate standard action, and that the fucking paladin can't use their iconic class feature on a charge?

I can go on at length like this. In the end, it's not about whether or not I personally know how the ability ends up resolving. The issue is in the apparent disparity between how it factually resolves, and how it appears to be meant to resolve, as intended by the guy writing the class feature. When the developer clearly means one thing, but doesn't manage to articulate it, we end up with a RAI vs RAW debate at my table, and I don't need that shit. They can just write what they mean, if they observe proper rigors. And the system can be authored in such a way that subsequent developers, even mediocre ones, don't fuck up and fail to express themselves quite so often.

[hyzmarca]

Are there any RPGs where the players are terrorists seeking to strike at the great satan through bombings and flying planes into buildings?

There is, or something like it, but I can't remember the name. I asked the BG's on twitter, we'll see if they remember the game since they found it at a con.

Edit: It's called "Burning Sands: not the L5R oneJihad". There is a pdf hosted on the company site, so I can link it here. It's a Burning Wheel game that's apparently supposed to be an homage to Dune. So have fun with that.

I was looking less for Dune and more for Al-Qaeda: The RPG.

[Prak]

It's an homage to Dune, but what I've heard makes it sound pretty Al-Qaeda.

[Username17]

What kind of fucking mental gymnastics are you two performing to go from "standard action unless otherwise stated" to "this ability doesn't list an action type so the default rule which calls out THIS SPECIFIC SITUATION does not apply"?

To expand on the examples that Eikre made, it's not even the case of the PHB being sloppy about timing explanations and the rest of the game getting its shit together. There's no action type listed on a Spectre's Unnatural Aura orCreate Spawn ability, but those appear to be passive. No action is specified on either end of a Couatl's two-way Telepathy communication, but I assume it's supposed to be free actions for both speakers. No action is specified on the Balor's "Vorpal Sword" ability, but presumably it is drawn as a move action and swung as an attack action in keeping with the example full attack in the stat block.

There has literally never been a coherent set of timing nomenclature for supernatural abilities. We can assume that it's a standard action to breathe fire or summon darkness or whatever the fuck, but all the supernatural abilities that modify attacks or equipment or provide passive bonuses or whatever don't seem to be called upon to use actions at all and it doesn't say anything about that anywhere.

The key issue is whether you feel that Charnel Touch is kind of like a Smite or a Ki Strike that modifies your attack, in which case it's used as part of an attack action and you can make attacks of opportunity with it. Or whether you feel that it's kind of like a breath weapon or a stunning screech that causes it to be used as a standard action in lieu of a spell. Either reading is completely defensible and the rules are of absolutely no help in distinguishing those two cases.

-Username17

[OgreBattle]

Shadowrun 4e lists lightning bolt/ball as dealing physical damage. But under 'elemental effects' it says electric damage is stun damage, vehicles don't take stun damage but can get disabled.

So what does lightning bolt do if I shoot it at a wooden door, a tree, a bicycle, or a car?

[erik]

So what does lightning bolt do if I shoot it at a wooden door, a tree, a bicycle, or a car?

The same thing that happens to everything else.

[Prak]

So, I know we have the Dice Mechanics thread, but is there anything that just lists the pros and cons of die mechanics without PL arguing with everyone else over how to analyze 3 die systems and being PL?

[TiaC]

So, I know we have the Dice Mechanics thread, but is there anything that just lists the pros and cons of die mechanics without PL arguing with everyone else over how to analyze 3 die systems and being PL?

Yeah, it's the Dice Mechanics thread with PL on ignore.

[Koumei]

Okay there are at least four game systems out there. Maybe five or six. Possibly even more than that. Rather than make my own for an idea that's buzzing around, I am going to describe some of the salient points of it. Then if anybody happens to know a good matching system, please mention it here.

A mostly post-apocalyptic setting, of the "shit went weird" variety, so rather than burnt-out warehouses and brown sandy plains, half the world is covered in jungle. That wants to eat you. Also some places might be radioactive/diseased/magically charged to just give you cancer and kill you. Most post-apocalyptic settings have some kind of area that equates to this.

The players are a bunch of robots/cyborgs/synthetic lifeforms, so they don't get diseases and that crap, and thus can wander about exploring the area and unearthing relics of the past (ie "next Tuesday"). But they still generally look human and have abilities in line with fairly strong, resilient, skilled humans with decent reflexes. With the option to augment to the higher extremes, but still be on a "humanoid" scale. So, like Shadowrun or World of Darkness I guess.

Mostly their weaponry will be close combat weapons (vibro-blades, combat chainsaws, plasma torches, maybe beam weapons and monowire) and relatively short-ranged firearms (pistols, flamethrowers, guided returning vibro-chakram, shotguns), and most of that is probably provided at the base, with some amount of looting of ancient (modern) treasures for the occasional sniper rifle or auto-cannon or bazooka. Having this equipment mostly be "It's part of your character, it's given to you for your job" means it can seriously be part of the character creation process. Let them have better stuff at better rank (when they're doing bigger things with bigger costs of failure, and when command feels it wouldn't be a waste to give the fancy stuff to them), it can basically be built into the advancement system. So sort of like White Wolf stuff and BESM to start with, then turning out the way Dungeon Crusade does, where "at level 3 you get an assault cannon".

Advancement will be in the sense of getting better at doing skills (ie a bigger bonus/dice pool), and some form of stunts related to stuff they were already doing (ie Exalted Charms, and fuck I hate having to say that). They won't learn outright magic powers, but "I used to be able to use my dataspike to shut electronics down, now I can deliver neuro-shocks to people and directly hack electronics" and "cool kug fu" stuff are in. If they're robots, the absolute limit would be stuff like turning into swarms of smaller robots or plugging into mecha suits. Saying "A limited, 'keep it in the pants' version of Exalted's Charm system" almost seems like what I want, but saying that leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Combat is largely against mutated humans and wildlife, so we're mostly talking about targets ranging between "dog" and "rhinoceros" in size, often in the "human" to "big human" range. Very rarely there might be a fungus the size of a whale. A set number of HP with scaling based on damage/soak rolls is probably the better thing here (ie Shadowrun).

Already I've mentioned a few things there, but mostly they seem to "sort of cover the ground", and could be used as starting points for modding. If someone flat-out knows of a better game for it, though, I'd love to take a look.

[Prak]

It sounds like Rifts, honestly, with a lot of crazy knocked off and a good system.

[Prak]

So, I know we have the Dice Mechanics thread, but is there anything that just lists the pros and cons of die mechanics without PL arguing with everyone else over how to analyze 3 die systems and being PL?

Yeah, it's the Dice Mechanics thread with PL on ignore.

While this has certainly helped, there's still a ton of back and forth about math shit that's either beyond what I took in high school, or just didn't pay attention to in high school, and I'd really like to just be able to read a sort of encyclopedic listing of dice systems and what's advantageous and disadvantageous about them.

[Omegonthesane]

So, I know we have the Dice Mechanics thread, but is there anything that just lists the pros and cons of die mechanics without PL arguing with everyone else over how to analyze 3 die systems and being PL?

Yeah, it's the Dice Mechanics thread with PL on ignore.

While this has certainly helped, there's still a ton of back and forth about math shit that's either beyond what I took in high school, or just didn't pay attention to in high school, and I'd really like to just be able to read a sort of encyclopedic listing of dice systems and what's advantageous and disadvantageous about them.

Offhand there are three systems that work.

"Roll one die and add modifiers"
+: All the probabilities can be done with GCSE maths. Which possibly translates to high school math; I don't know how bad the education system is the other side of the pond.
~: If bonuses are larger than the die pool size then you will run into tasks that one person cannot fail at and another cannot succeed at.

"Roll a bunch of dice, add them all together, and add modifiers"
+: Same probability plusses as the one above.
~: The more dice there are, the greater the range but the lower the variance - in layman's terms, the more rolls will cluster around the average. This isn't really an objective benefit or drawback before you decide on system goals.
~: Same "on the RNG" point as above.
-: Same bonuses point as above.
-: More adding compared to above.

"Roll a bunch of dice, your result is the number of dice that rolled N or higher"
+: Easy to work out expected hits for a given dice pool.
~: No amount of bonus dice can put you truly beyond the ability to fail
-: Probability of passing a specific test is a horrible clusterfuck to calculate.