Which came first: the damage or the protection?

[GMMichael]

Why does the defender choose at all? Plus it sounds like with the extra rolls, and half damage, this is going to slow down combat.

The defender gets to choose because it's a global rule - half-max can always be taken. For this discussion, however, Defender-not-choosing would fit under the "other" option.

One aspect of taking half is actually to speed things up - doesn't skipping rolls sound fast? The decision to skip, however, could slow things down.

3. Give more option than you do. Variable DR. Flat DR is fine but boring. Boost to chance to be missed. Chance to buff your next attack roll or damage roll if missed. Attacker can choose to give himself damage boost, accuracy boost or next turn defensive boost. Might can even do something for extra movement.

On second thought I’d probably drop the flat dr or roll and just do the dr. But the concept of picking a particular way to fight each attack sounds fun.

Interesting options here. By choosing not to defend, the defender keeps an action for something else. So does that something else get a boost since the defender effectively agreed to take damage? Or is the benefit just that the defender still has an action to use, which includes the option to make a counterattack?

Side note: in the full game, keeping the action has additional benefit when used on the character's turn, because it can be combined with one or more actions to produce better results. This is only possible if the defender's turn occurs later in initiative order than the attacker's turn.

 

[Squared]

I don't get why both cannot roll at the same time. Saves time. I don't understand why people need to wait to hear how much damage they take before they roll against it. Same thing with attacks and defense rolls...

^2

 

[dragoner]

One aspect of taking half is actually to speed things up - doesn't skipping rolls sound fast? The decision to skip, however, could slow things down.

Half damage sounds like rolling for damage and then taking half of that. Though as far as slowing down, if combatants are always taking full damage, then they are likely to be taken out, reducing combat time.

 

[GMMichael]

Half damage sounds like rolling for damage and then taking half of that. Though as far as slowing down, if combatants are always taking full damage, then they are likely to be taken out, reducing combat time.

Yeah, sorry about the confusion. It's "take half" as in half of the max roll. If it were taking half of any lesser amount, it would be sort of pointless.

Aside, the random damage aspect dawns on me now (hopefully not the first time): a d4 dagger wielder can defeat a d8 bastard sword wielder with some lucky rolls. That's not really possible with weapons dealing max damage, all else being equal. The take half rule allows the bastard sword wielder to secure his damage advantage, at the cost of buying time for the dagger wielder (i.e. not rolling 5-8) to consider her options or seek an advantage.

 

[MarkB]

Yeah, sorry about the confusion. It's "take half" as in half of the max roll. If it were taking half of any lesser amount, it would be sort of pointless.

Aside, the random damage aspect dawns on me now (hopefully not the first time): a d4 dagger wielder can defeat a d8 bastard sword wielder with some lucky rolls. That's not really possible with weapons dealing max damage, all else being equal. The take half rule allows the bastard sword wielder to secure his damage advantage, at the cost of buying time for the dagger wielder (i.e. not rolling 5-8) to consider her options or seek an advantage.

In circumstances other than the defender being down to their last few hit points such that they need to try and block all the incoming damage or they'll die, is there ever any significant advantage to rolling rather than taking half the max roll?

 

[GMMichael]

In circumstances other than the defender being down to their last few hit points such that they need to try and block all the incoming damage or they'll die, is there ever any significant advantage to rolling rather than taking half the max roll?

On average, rolling is better because taking half is worse than the average roll. E.g. a d6 average result is 3.5, while the take half is 3. But taking half 1) removes some impact of randomness, 2) prevents the dreaded 1 result, and 3) can sometimes secure an advantage when either the weapon or the armor is outclassed (like using plate-and-mail to protect against a dagger).

In the nightmare scenario of your opponent not giving quarter, and fleeing being impractical, the defender's preferred choice for blocking all incoming damage is to use her action to parry (defend). A Pro (success) with this defense action means no damage taken, while a Pro for the attacker means causing at least one point of damage. But yes, rolling protection is important when taking half might not reduce the damage to one. And that decision is much more clear in the case that the attacker declares damage first. I think there's a level of anxiety that comes with the rolling too - whether that's good or bad depends on the player.

 

[dragoner]

Yeah, sorry about the confusion. It's "take half" as in half of the max roll. If it were taking half of any lesser amount, it would be sort of pointless.

Aside, the random damage aspect dawns on me now (hopefully not the first time): a d4 dagger wielder can defeat a d8 bastard sword wielder with some lucky rolls. That's not really possible with weapons dealing max damage, all else being equal. The take half rule allows the bastard sword wielder to secure his damage advantage, at the cost of buying time for the dagger wielder (i.e. not rolling 5-8) to consider her options or seek an advantage.

Personally this sounds more complicated than it needs to be, however if it makes you happy that is cool. I mean I do get where you are coming from in the Bastard Sword vs Dagger in a fight. It seems there are always compromises, such as I had to adjust thrown weapons, and what is the difference between a thrown knife, a javelin, and grenade? What if one adds power armor, or half a g of gravity? I just made a compromise on the table vs adding extra rules, not exactly a perfect solution.

 

[GMMichael]

I don't get why both cannot roll at the same time. Saves time. I don't understand why people need to wait to hear how much damage they take before they roll against it. Same thing with attacks and defense rolls...

My personal preference is to roll attack and damage at the same time, although whenever I roll low damage I kick myself: "oh yeah, should've taken half." The defender might prefer to wait, because a low damage roll can often be minimized by taking half on protection.

But as I said earlier, on average, rolling would be better for the defender than taking half.

Personally this sounds more complicated than it needs to be, however if it makes you happy that is cool. I mean I do get where you are coming from in the Bastard Sword vs Dagger in a fight. . .

It could be simpler. The OP question might compare to a chess question: "Should a pawn capture the forward left/right piece or just the center forward piece?" And the answer might go into speed of play, battlefield control, and/or simplicity of play. The OP issue goes away by removing the take half rule, and we could simplify it further by extracting damage information from the attack roll, but does that have the desired effect on game play and player experience?

 

[dragoner]

It could be simpler. The OP question might compare to a chess question: "Should a pawn capture the forward left/right piece or just the center forward piece?" And the answer might go into speed of play, battlefield control, and/or simplicity of play. The OP issue goes away by removing the take half rule, and we could simplify it further by extracting damage information from the attack roll, but does that have the desired effect on game play and player experience?

If you understand it well, and can describe it simply, it is ok. Such as with chess I always say to control the center four squares is half the battle. With RPG's and damage, there are a lot of ways to do it. The to hit roll, then roll damage is simplest, I think we all know that system well. The desired effect is important, at the same time it is dominated by personal preference.

 

[aramis erak]

While I find my preferred method slower, I find the resulting decision spaces interesting.
To reiterate

1. Attacker to hit
2. Defender decides whether to spend reaction to defend
3. If defender defends roll defense
4. On defense fail or no defense, attacker rolls damage
5. Armor reduces damage

It's that second step that makes it interesting: the decision of whether to spend the portion of your action economy to defend - especially in Free League's games.
I also strongly dislike armor as to-hit-penalty.