D&D General Heroes of Myth and Legend

[Garthanos]

Yeah, some games have used that, but I always thought it was not all that informative of what is actually going on.

I remember one that did something like it... was the Dying Earth RPG and not quite a 5 point roshambo
(persuade is social attack and rebuff is defend)

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Analytical is overcoming a feint by recognizing it is a feint .. direct is just ignoring the fient.

There are generally only subtle differences between Responsive and Analytical (responsive is more immediate) or between Chaotic and Deceptive. Their might be differences in degree of domination.

Technically you can go with just 3, Direct, Responsive and Deceptive. (just as one can play 3 or 5 or more point roshambo)

A wild flurry of attacks might be characteristically Chaotic and if you respond you generally only stop one of them well but if you attack direct you interrupt them all. A wild flurry of attacks is not readable by Analysis and wont likely figure it out.

A given combatant only technically needs to use 2 of them to be roughly effective and characterize their fighting style. For instance. The Incredible hulk would almost always use Direct or Chaotic, but would you call anything he did deceptive?

Analytical might even be seen as using what you did a moment ago to predict what you are doing now.

I guess, its just not so easy to see it as mapping to the specific action in the game world. I am OK with that, OTOH if we are using feats (powers) then that sort of tells you how you act. Granted, 'Basic Attack' is not very descriptive, but in HoML at least it is something like "You make a basic attack with your rapier. This is a DEX weapon, so the check is rapier proficiency and DEX, and most likely the attack is against REF. Likewise you defend "I parry with my rapier using Vicious Riposte. OK, that's rapier and DEX again, and since it is a FEAT you might get better than baseline results (but getting enhanced results would cost a power point).

So CURRENTLY you would always like to use a FEAT as a defense, but it might sometimes make more sense to use a knack, like "I dodge it!" would presumably be a straight up Acrobatic situation.

 

[Garthanos]

 

[Garthanos]

I guess, its just not so easy to see it as mapping to the specific action in the game world.

Technically the player could describe how they do it and say how what they feel they are emphasizing at the moment or the dm could analyse the description or just let the player select one (like I attack and do it this way)

Combat rounds of 1 attack sequence as defined in fencing I seem to recall are only about 2 seconds. A normal fencing speed then is like 3 attacks in 4e the ranger quickly pipes in with "twin strike and a minor attack" LOL

 

[Garthanos]

Another component is basically how much you are risking... on your gambit.
The Dying Earth system merged that in...

I differentiate it somewhat, as can be direct but cautious or bold but responsive. (even though the most common combos might be opposite of that).

 

[Garthanos]

If one wanted to detail heavily one could allow an attack to be a mixture.... and include a tactic on ones movement as a separate thing. I am swinging my weapon direct but moving deceptively. Or allow a mixture of more than one my weapon attack is a feint but I analysed where he considers his vulnerable spot last round.

 

[Garthanos]

it!" would presumably be a straight up Acrobatic situation.

In Runequest a parry vs dodge choice was a distinction of parry can only affect one attack (one might define a subtle dodge that act the same) where as the normal dodge would affect multiple attacks and it sacrifices your attack (all out defense in 4e?).

Setting oneself up for next exchange might be a default goal for a defense too and spending extra effort might allow you to resolve that benefit immediately. In 4e when opponent misses you you may do this thing.

One might be able to get clues from weapon types... opponent is using an axe they probably cannot do more subtle deceptive attack sequence as well based on it ... but what if they diverted their attack to another opponent entirely?

 

[Garthanos]

If you need to map to specific actions? maybe flurry, strike, parry, feint, scan for openings (* might combine with drawing back).

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

In Runequest a parry vs dodge choice was a distinction of parry can only affect one attack (one might define a subtle dodge that act the same) where as the normal dodge would affect multiple attacks and it sacrifices your attack (all out defense in 4e?).

Setting oneself up for next exchange might be a default goal for a defense too and spending extra effort might allow you to resolve that benefit immediately. In 4e when opponent misses you you may do this thing.

One might be able to get clues from weapon types... opponent is using an axe they probably cannot do more subtle deceptive attack sequence as well based on it ... but what if they diverted their attack to another opponent entirely?

Yeah, well, if I chop you with an axe you probably aren't parrying with your rapier either, lol. I mean, my thinking is sort of a bit like DW, you describe your defensive measures, either in terms of using a feat, or simply a more basic action like dodging or parrying, and the GM is going to decide exactly what sort of check is required in order to avoid damage. I think we have to establish some conventions that we can codify a little better, but mostly so things don't just devolve down to making your 'best move' every time...

 

[Garthanos]

Yeah, well, if I chop you with an axe you probably aren't parrying with your rapier either, lol.

hey these are superheroes and most levels with magic weapons they might exactly do that or they might subtly side deflect the down swing attack and pull up into high stance that makes it miss or smash it into the dirt or push it over my head (down swings and side swings low or high in old lost worlds terms are adjusted for with a responsive) .... or smack aside the axe users hand or disrupt their stance with that rapier. And the axe user might do some insane swing around where he is expecting to miss and catch you on the back stroke. Axes basically imply Wild/Direct are the most likely focus meaning you might get most advantage hitting with a direct attack and interrupting their attack, or responsively defending including a duck/jump/sidestep/parry. The axeman might be attempting to trip up the enemy by grabbing the enemies leg with a low thrust and pull. An attack that sets up the enemy for their next attack.

I mean, my thinking is sort of a bit like DW, you describe your defensive measures, either in terms of using a feat, or simply a more basic action like dodging or parrying, and the GM is going to decide exactly what sort of check is required in order to avoid damage. I think we have to establish some conventions that we can codify a little better, but mostly so things don't just devolve down to making your 'best move' every time...

The advantage of a system like I mentioned there is 5 general types of attack if you always pick rock well... someone is going to figure that out... and you have very good chance of failing most of the time unless someone always chooses scissors.

*repetitive, I hit it with my sword is not just boring its intrinsically a bad idea or atleast a worse one. and you might get things like. I aim for the best opening (a responsive attack), I feint where he was hurt last attack (a deceptive maneuver with context).

Does your action, deliver the goods now, set up for the next action or some combination?