First,...let me address the initiative thing...

Going first has at least a few advantages,..one being that it essentially has the potential to put your foe on the defensive..

Remember,..attacking a foe with a multi-maneuver (costing several Actions) causes your foe to have to defend themselves with an equal number of Actions (reactions). Getting the drop on them can lead them to use up several of their Actions as defensive rolls before they even get a chance to act, causing them to have to re-think their attack tactics, and possibly causing them to decide to forego a more effective attack they were hoping to use because they are concerned that you are forcing them to use up too many of their Actions for defence...

Secondly,..going first gives you more of a freedom to enact things like preparatory stance maneuvers, acrobatics, and other such "preparation" actions that won't necessarily incur a reaction from an opponent, and will be something that you will feel more comfortable doing as long as you have the drop on your foe. Doing such things won't seem as wise if you've already had to fend off someone else's attack(s) and are feeling the stress of having too few actions.

And finally,..many of Dardunah's martial styles have maneuvers that can cause enough damage at once that getting the "attack drop" on someone through initiative might mean the difference between killing them instantly (or wounding them bad enough that they are at a large disadvantage), or suddenly finding yourself on the receiving end of an ass beating because you chose to let them attack first and then rolled poorly on defence.


As far as Dark Ambush goes:

You're right, you did mix it up a bit with the first description... To make it simple...:

In Dark Ambush (whose basic concept initially is an ambush hidden FROM a dark place, against those who ARE NOT hidden by a dark place, but who cannot see their attackers. The penalties for those being attacked (unless they have special senses that allow them to potentially perceive their attackers) is that they only get to roll HALF their defences rounded up. The Attackers hidden in the darkness, who can see their victims, get to roll DOUBLE their defenses, if their victims attempt to attack them.


At your game,..you flapped your bat wings and extinguished the candles in the room as well as smashed the juganu worm cage, enveloping the room in darkness for all, essentially creating the Dark Ambush-like environment. You guys seemed to like the bonuses and penalties concerning the defence rolls,..but also felt that those who couldn't see should have a penalty to attack rolls as well...

The question is,..what type of penalties could be set against blind attackers in such circumstances...

Perhaps we could refer back to existing rules, and simply say that blinded opponents suffer the same panalty that comes from the Blind Drawback (-6)... Or,..perhaps we just say that their attack dice are also halved....

Does this about sum it up?

Scottie

Originally posted by betafu
I still humbly disagree with the initiative rules though - it's not a 1 for 1 resource loss. For example:

1. Tinahn'badal attacks Phamo. Tinahn'badal uses a martial arts maneuver from Eye of the Blessed that takes up 3 actions. Phamo simply rolls his defense dice and only uses up 1 action.

If that's how you guys were doing it the other night,..I didn't realize it,..but,...that's not the correct way to do it...

ANY attack that requires multiple Actions to perform ALSO requires multiple Actions (the same number) to be used up when rolling to defend against it.. It IS intended to be a 1 for 1 resource loss. A maneuver costing three Actions to use as an attack, requires 3 actions to be expended by the opponent to try to defend against it,..even if you are using a defensive maneuver that normally costs only one or two Actions.. Using flashy martial maneuvers that cost several Actions to perform are a way of whittling down your enemy's Actions (defenses). Even if you fail in your attack,..they STILL will have been rolling to defend against the attack, meaning they will have used up the SAME number of Actions in the attempt.

If you guys weren't doing it that way,..then that was an oversight... Perhaps THAT'S why you guys took so long from round to round,...and I just didn't realize it.... Sorry about that...

Scottie

Cool....that must be rectified during later combats...

Now,..back to the Dark Ambush stuff....

My initial goal was to indicate that it was harder for someone affected by Dark Ambush to hit an opponent by giving that opponent (the one initiating the "ambush" and hidden by the darkness) a bonus of twice their normal dice for rolling any defenses.... This was meant to be INSTEAD of having any penalties applied to the affected's attack dice pool.. (i.e. it doesn't affect the skill of the affected attacker,..it helps the defense of the hidden opponent) Likewise (and appropriately) the affected person has a harder time (half their dice) while trying to defend themselves from an attacker they cannot see (since they can't really tell where the attack is coming from)..

As it stands now,...both parties may still try to attack and defend, but with their defenses either doubled or halved.

Now,...if I were to implement the changes I was indicating above (a -6 due to blindness),..first I would think that this would be INSTEAD of the current bonus of double defense dice being rolled for those who have the upper hand in cases of Dark Ambush,..since having that, in addition to a -6 applied to their enemies' attacks is simply too much of an advantage for them.

The only problem I see with this, however,..is that a straight -6 applied at lower levels of play would absolutely make it impossible for low to average characters or NPCs to attack at all if they found themselves in this situation (on the receiving end of the ass-beatery). You see,..even in the case where there's just one defense bonus (double defense dice) added to those with the advantage in those circumstances, and one attack penalty (either a -6 penalty to the attack dice pool OR a half dice pool penalty) applied to those adversely affected by the Dark Ambush,...it's still a case of "double jeopardy" because any added bonus to the defender's defense ADDS to the evil of any penalty placed on the attacker's attack to make it DOUBLE-NASTY concerning the attempted attack (essentially spelling doom for pretty much any attack attempt for the poor sucker being adversely affected)..

I'm afraid that this seems way too unbalanced,..and wouldn't be fair for the players if the roles were reversed, putting THEM on the receiving end of unfortunate and nearly unavoidable ass-whupery....

Upon looking back at the reason I chose to do it the way I did,...it was to maintain a balance where, though both were affected, one adversely, and one beneficially, it didn't create a "double-jeopardy" situation... Do you see my logic in this concern?

The only way I could see changing the rules to keep it "fair and balanced" in this way,..would be to say that instead of affecting the defense rolls of both parties,..it affects the attack rolls of both parties, in the same way...(doubling the attack dice for those beneficially affected because they can still perceive their opponent's location,..and negating half the attack dice of those adversely affected,.because they can't...)... This change, however, seems like six of one, half-dozen the other,...and ultimately achieves the same in-game effect... Is it worth it to change in this way? Would it make more sense? Would it matter either way?

What say you about these thoughts?

Scottie

Originally posted by Scott Jones
The only way I could see changing the rules to keep it "fair and balanced" in this way,..would be to say that instead of affecting the defense rolls of both parties,..it affects the attack rolls of both parties, in the same way...(doubling the attack dice for those beneficially affected because they can still perceive their opponent's location,..and negating half the attack dice of those adversely affected,.because they can't...)...

Hey guys!!

Just to sum this up and close off this thread,..I WILL be changing the rules concerning Dark Ambush in the way described above. This takes into account the concerns of Betafu and the group he plays with, and still maintains the level of balance necessary for this particular effect....

This decision is based on further "off-forum" discussion had with that group and mine after my earlier posting just before this one.

Here's what the changed text looks like...

Dark Ambushes
Players and NPC’s may attempt to ambush characters from and in environments of near total darkness. If there are coverings that do not allow ambient light from above, or from a powerful enough source, to illuminate a scene, then those that can sense a target’s specific location (through whatever means, including scent as long as it is not masked in some way, a light source carried by the target, or even night vision of some kind) can attack that target at a great advantage. Such situations can also include the target being thoroughly blinded in some way, such as having their senses disabled through use of poisons, caustic powders, attacks on the eyes, or even a simple bag forced over their head. In such situations of imposed darkness, those who can see their opponents by whatever means may roll double their normal dice pool used for attacks, while those who cannot see their opponents may roll only ½ their dice pool when making attack attempts. Again,… this works both ways.

Thanks for the input gracious playtesters!!

Scottie