Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="steenan" data-source="post: 5752371" data-attributes="member: 23240">That's why I suggested, in an earlier post, that HP-equivalent shouldn't be passively lost to attacks - spending them to negate an attack should be defender's choice. In this case, it is possible for the defender to spend HPs and block everything you try to do, but he'll use them up very quickly. And if your slowing attack has higher "damage" than your lethal attack, or affects several enemies at the same time, or something like that, many opponents will rather accept a minor condition than spend points and leave themselves defenseless against a next attack that may be lethal.With such system, you need high-effect attacks (killing, dominating, turning to stone etc.) to win a fight. But if it's balanced, these high-effect attacks will also be moderate or low on "damage". Low-effect attacks (slowing, tripping etc.) have higher "damage"; they won't win the fight by themselves, but they will force your opponent into a hard choice between spending a lot of HPs and accepting a debuff.But the real value of this kind of mechanics is that it works well with PCs on the receiving end, especially against social and mental influence. You keep the danger of long-term domination or similar effects while giving players an option of using an absolute (but costly) defense. A choice like this is both less frustrating and more dramatically appropriate than letting a single roll decide in a matter that, for many characters, is more important than life and death.</blockquote>

Verification