Optional Rules for Companion

Discussion on the Earthdawn game line, errata, and feedback not related to playing or GMing.
Post Reply
User avatar
The Undying
Posts:696
Joined:Sun Nov 27, 2016 11:25 pm
Re: Optional Rules for Companion

Post by The Undying » Fri Jan 20, 2017 11:48 pm

Telarus wrote:This is interesting, because RAW, most of that it _is_ already there. If you get a higher initiative than you opponents (various talents), you can take a Reserved Action, trigger it on some-one approaching your zone of movement, run up and take one of the various actions to attempt a Knockdown (Waterfall Slam, Combat Option, etc).
The zone of control stuff is specific to an old discussion where people really wanted an ability to just make passage hard, often as part of a defensive line. This type of zone of control would be things like body guards, mooks protecting their fleeing leader, a creature defending its nest or young, etc. There really isn't any RAW that really fits this because the inherent intent isn't suspension of action, it's hindering movement - my particular example was just a way to limit the actual zone of hindrance while also allowing people to cancel their control similar to a reserved action.

User avatar
RazanMG
Posts:143
Joined:Mon Nov 28, 2016 2:30 am

Re: Optional Rules for Companion

Post by RazanMG » Fri Jan 20, 2017 11:51 pm

When you use Reserved Action:

1. You move and attack someone approaching = sticky combat is On, and he cannot move further.

2. When anyone is Knocked Down, he cannot move in the same round, no matter what he uses, Jump Up or Standard Action, and Jump Up he can only declare before Initiative is rolled, also he would have to be Knocked Down first to declare it.

As I said all you need is already in Reserved Actions. :P
Last edited by RazanMG on Fri Jan 20, 2017 11:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
The Undying
Posts:696
Joined:Sun Nov 27, 2016 11:25 pm

Re: Optional Rules for Companion

Post by The Undying » Fri Jan 20, 2017 11:51 pm

Kosmit wrote:Don't forget about rules on creating pre-Scourge magicians (before matrices ;))
Personally, at this is just my opinion, this doesn't need to be in the Companion. For one, it's super niche and not applicable to the vast majority of groups. Two, it's likely that Adepts originally without matrices would develop something comparable as they get wanged over and over again. Finally, anyone that DOES want to explore this, I'd just say "pick up a copy of Ardanyan's Revenge, no changes are required for ED4."

User avatar
The Undying
Posts:696
Joined:Sun Nov 27, 2016 11:25 pm

Re: Optional Rules for Companion

Post by The Undying » Fri Jan 20, 2017 11:58 pm

RazanMG wrote:When you use Reserved Action:

1. You move and attack someone approaching = sticky combat is On, and he cannot move further.

2. When anyone is Knocked Down, he cannot move in the same round.

All you need is already in Reserved Actions.
I can't really tell what you're directing this at. If you're talking about zone of control stuff, no, you need more than Reserved Actions.

1. "Sticky combat" isn't a thing RAW, so you minimally need something other than Reserved Actions.

2. "Jump up" says "he may not perform any other movement that round" but says that they still receive their Standard Action. I would interpret the "no movement" meaning they forfeit the movement they usually get as part of a turn. Since they have a Standard Action, seems like they could still use a Talent or Skill that allows movement, AS LONG AS it does not take the place of their usual turn movement.

BONUS. Zone of control is meant to hinder MULTIPLE creatures. Reserve Action basically only allows you to target one at some point, and it still only hinders movement if additional rules (Sticky Combat) are also uses.

Slimcreeper
Posts:1061
Joined:Mon Nov 28, 2016 11:44 pm

Re: Optional Rules for Companion

Post by Slimcreeper » Sat Jan 21, 2017 12:48 am

Yeah, I think Undying and I are both looking for a way to deny movement. You try to run down the passage, and a bodyguard leaps in front of you, blades flashing. If he hits you, bonus for him, but mostly you can't just run past him without impaling yourself on his sword. I imagine as something for flunkies to do, not PCs, but maybe that's misguided.

User avatar
The Undying
Posts:696
Joined:Sun Nov 27, 2016 11:25 pm

Re: Optional Rules for Companion

Post by The Undying » Sat Jan 21, 2017 12:55 am

Right, Slim.

Let's put this in perspective with an example. For me, the example of zone of control I am really in love with is the idea of a creature protecting its nest/young. They are REALLY more focused on denying access, not repelled attacks, which I think makes them a more interesting/attractive example.

At the start of the round, this creature is basically just acting intimidating, hissing, gesticulating, trying to ward the other creatures (which I'll call enemies for simplicity) away. As enemies approach, it kind of mock-lunges forward, darts back and forth, trying to put itself in the path. It's doing two things here: it's both actively impeding progress through the area, but it's also continually providing warning and erratic behavior, meaning enemies that try to approach have to take a bit more time and care when figuring out how to do so. Eventually, though, if an enemy keeps advancing, the creature has to decide to either commit to that one creature, or decide to keep warding off the others. From a predatory standpoint, one enemy may only eat one young and then leave, but letting in seven enemies results in seven young being eaten. Once the create decides to engage one enemy, though, it can no longer perform all those impeding actions, meaning it is no longer performing zone control, meaning other enemies can pass by/through without ill effects.

Make sense?

MetalBoar
Posts:43
Joined:Tue Dec 06, 2016 9:32 am

Re: Optional Rules for Companion

Post by MetalBoar » Sat Jan 21, 2017 1:16 am

Yeah, I think Undying and I are both looking for a way to deny movement. You try to run down the passage, and a bodyguard leaps in front of you, blades flashing. If he hits you, bonus for him, but mostly you can't just run past him without impaling yourself on his sword. I imagine as something for flunkies to do, not PCs, but maybe that's misguided.
I would agree with this, or at least that you shouldn't be able to just run by without some added risk of being impaled on his sword or forced to slow down substantially or use some talent such as Great Leap that might allow effectively passing out of reach. I do see this as something that the PC's might do as well. For one thing my players have been bodyguards once or twice, but beyond that, delaying attacks on the spell caster while they're trying to get off a multi thread spell or a host of other similar situations where a PC has to accomplish something that would be disrupted by being attacked seem relevant.

MetalBoar
Posts:43
Joined:Tue Dec 06, 2016 9:32 am

Re: Optional Rules for Companion

Post by MetalBoar » Sat Jan 21, 2017 1:31 am

Once the create decides to engage one enemy, though, it can no longer perform all those impeding actions, meaning it is no longer performing zone control, meaning other enemies can pass by/through without ill effects.
I would agree with this too, once engaged with an opponent you aren't likely to be a significant threat to others trying to bypass you.

On a related note, I know that there used to be an optional rule (that no longer exists in 4th?) and there has been some discussion in this thread (I think?) about disengaging from an opponent. I think this is something that should be addressed at the same time as the rest of sticky combat/zone control.

User avatar
Mataxes
Posts:745
Joined:Sat Nov 26, 2016 10:39 pm
Location:The Great Library
Contact:

Re: Optional Rules for Companion

Post by Mataxes » Sat Jan 21, 2017 1:41 am

This is where we start to get into rather different philosophies and approaches to combat in play.

I take a much more... narrative (for lack of a better term) approach to combat in my games. Not that I don't use the rules, or anything like that, but rather I don't need to have rules to enforce something that makes sense within the narrative of a combat encounter.

That is, I've not ever really (at least that I can recall) used a high degree of minis-and-grids-and-tactics approach. I'm a pretty strong "theater of the mind" GM, though I have no problem sketching out the initial positions on a piece of paper, or whiteboard, or something like that in order to set the scene, and even update things as needed.

If the Swordmaster and Warrior move forward to engage, wth the Wizard and Archer staying back, the opponents will need to deal with the melee folks, or find some way to move around/flank them. I don't need a rule (or multiple rules) to enforce the idea that you don't move past a guy wielding a weapon without dealing with them. There is no (in my mind) discrete "you act on your turn, I act on mine" in the narrative, only within the (by necessity) abstract nature of resolving combat in an RPG.

To reference something earlier in the thread, the idea of "two duelists circling around to always get blindside bonuses" is... antithetical to my play style. Unless there are extenuating circumstances, nothing prevents person A from keeping 'face toward' person B as they move about. Even if it isn't A's turn at the time B moves. Because... that's not how combat works, and gaming the abstract system to produce something that (again, barring special or extenuating circumstances) doesn't happen in real life strikes me as "wrong."

So discussions about 'sticky' combat, and zones of control, and stuff like that... is coming from a position that I recognize from an intellectual standpoint, but is at the same time kind of foreign. I get that some people like it, but I can't really get myself worked up to having an opinion, because it's not something I think I would ever use.

Look, I recognize that some people like that approach, and I know my role as a developer is to sometimes provide rules that serve other styles of play. By the same token, when it comes to the point of choosing between two things... I'm more likely to keep the thing that interests and excites me, and cut the thing that doesn't.

I am following the thread. While I can't promise anything discussed here will necessarily make it into the Companion, there might ideas that surface if they fit nicely with a later project.
Josh Harrison - josh@fasagames.com
Earthdawn Developer, Forum Admin

Personal Website: www.loremerchant.com

User avatar
The Undying
Posts:696
Joined:Sun Nov 27, 2016 11:25 pm

Re: Optional Rules for Companion

Post by The Undying » Sat Jan 21, 2017 1:59 am

Yeah, I think it's a table thing. My current table uses Roll20, sometimes with dynamic lighting effects, and it makes battles feel more tactical, with terrain/cover/obstructions coming into play more. The downside is that there's less opportunity for random modifications For Great Fun.

When I run with my future table, with far more people, I expect to go much more with theater of the mind. Slower creatures/Name-givers have more likelihood of not reaching their objective in one turn, shorter range spells effects will have more change to not be in range while longer ones generally get a pass, no more ruler-like precision "I move 10 yards away because that it my range," etc.

I also think that people tend to focus WAAAAY too much on combat. People know combat, they have a physical model for it, so people tend to try to strive to make games more "realistic" to fit that model. They want mechanics to fit their model that "makes sense," whereas things without models (like magic) languish or aren't adequately considered as impact points. In general, I'd say to the detriment of the system, but that's just me.

The downside is, for tables that want mechanics, they need mechanics, either their own or provided. It's nice when that stuff is published, or when a consensus solution has been clearly provided. However, even if one does exist in such a forum, tables that want more granularity with rules like this are more likely to abandon or modify these rules to fit their vision. It makes thrashing to come up with published or consensus approaches less valuable as a result.

For my part, while we do tend to diverge onto technical discussion on mechanics, I do see all of this as "suggestions" for the Companion, as you opened the thread with. It may appear, it may not; if it appears, it may be something vastly different that what any one person or the community wants; if it doesn't appear, it may not appear for any number of reasons, including an unspoken design decision that this isn't in keeping with Rules As Written. Anyways, hopefully, we're being more helpful than either random noise or just "this is all stuff that will never go anywhere for published material."

Honestly, and maybe this is just me, I'd rather clear guidance/input from you guys with a "feel free to discuss, go forth and make your own ED the best it can be, but we disagree" - time available, of course. So, posts like this where we get a bit more insight into your vision of ED always helps. Thanks for the entry.

Post Reply