My group has hit on the idea of using 4+ watchers to melee more powerful spirits using the friends in melee rules. Using a decent high force spirit, it takes almost forever for them to do any damage (spirits body roll almost always negates the light damage) but with +4/-4 to the target numbers the watchers always win the melee rolls.
Does anyone have suggestions for how to counter this other than responding in kind?
Full Version: Defense vs Astral Weenies
The larger spirit can simply ignore the watchers and do whatever it's supposed to do. Problem solved 
Watcherball: a very restricted target manaball.
if the more powerful spirit is summoned, have it used fast astral travel to go back to its summoner and let it know what's going on. the summoner will likely respond by tossing out a bunch of watchers of its own, and then calling the security desk at whatever facility he works for.
Yes, the wather pack tactic can be extremely effective. Some ways to take-out watcher packs are with area effect spells, the whirling martial arts maneuver, and the confusion spirit power (which works on the astral). Another technique the larger spirit can use is to disengage every second round then charge at a point that is out of range of the other 3 watchers, taking them out 1 by 1. (This is a tactic you'll often see people use in melee-fighting computer games)
I guess in some cases that would work. If the spirits were there to beat up runners, though, they would have to deal with the friends in melee rule regardless.
I understand the rationale behind friends in melee, but think that it might be too powerful. It means that 5 girl scouts (unarmed 1 from their self defense merit badge) could probably kick a melee physad's (unarmed 6) ass.
I understand the rationale behind friends in melee, but think that it might be too powerful. It means that 5 girl scouts (unarmed 1 from their self defense merit badge) could probably kick a melee physad's (unarmed 6) ass.
[ Spoiler ]
LMFAO 
OH I soo want to kick my Adepts ass with Girlscouts!
OH I soo want to kick my Adepts ass with Girlscouts!
That has to be the funniest thing I've seen around this place in the year that I've been here!!
I definitely like the idea of Watcherball, though it could be argued that you would need Slaughter Watcher.
~J
~J
| QUOTE (Kagetenshi) |
| Slaughter Watcher. |
Slaughter spells are merely mana spells with a constant damage level.
Based on this thread, my next character will have an intense phobia of Girlscouts.
In terms of game balance, I don't want a pack of watchers to be both super-cheap and the most awesome Astral fighting machine out there. I also don't want the Girl Scouts of UCAS to order all their scout troops in the Seattle Metroplex to swarm over the Seattle gangs once a year in an effort to clean up Seattle.
So we've added the following house rule: A defender in a melee can choose to ignore selected attackers. Such attackers don't count as Friends for any other attackers, and the defender neither counters nor uses Combat Pool against attacks from those so selected. The Defender only uses Body dice (and Karma Pool) to reduce damage.
So we've added the following house rule: A defender in a melee can choose to ignore selected attackers. Such attackers don't count as Friends for any other attackers, and the defender neither counters nor uses Combat Pool against attacks from those so selected. The Defender only uses Body dice (and Karma Pool) to reduce damage.
| QUOTE (holychampion) |
| LMFAO Oh I soo want to kick my Adepts ass with Girlscouts! |
Also depends on the 'girl scouts' involved.
"Vilderness Girls!"
| QUOTE (OurTeam) |
| In terms of game balance, I don't want a pack of watchers to be both super-cheap and the most awesome Astral fighting machine out there. I also don't want the Girl Scouts of UCAS to order all their scout troops in the Seattle Metroplex to swarm over the Seattle gangs once a year in an effort to clean up Seattle. So we've added the following house rule: A defender in a melee can choose to ignore selected attackers. Such attackers don't count as Friends for any other attackers, and the defender neither counters nor uses Combat Pool against attacks from those so selected. The Defender only uses Body dice (and Karma Pool) to reduce damage. |
Just like play fighting with your 3 nephews ignore 2 of them as they punch and kick you while you tickle the third half to death (Untill the younger one (commonly named sean) sinks his teeth into your back)
The Warcher Attack Pack tactic can be extremely effective against single spirits. The answer is, of course, to counter with your own swarm of watchers.
| QUOTE |
| Just like play fighting with your 3 nephews ignore 2 of them as they punch and kick you while you tickle the third half to death (Untill the younger one (commonly named sean) sinks his teeth into your back) |
That's one reason why I don't like OurTeam's house rule; it doesn't feel right to counter player cleverness with a house rule. The other reason is because a Watcher Attack Pack, by itself, is not an astral powerhouse by any means. It becomes dangerous when combined with one or two larger spirits, plus possibly an astral mage. It's like getting attacked by a swarm of bees; bees themselves don't do much, but if you use them as a smokescreen for a more powerful attack, you'll do much better than before. OurTeam's house rule doesn't seem to reflect this bit-- it's like the spirit isn't even distracted by all the screaming watchers in its face.
(Having roughhoused with a few kids in my day, I can tell you that if you ignore two to focus on one, at least one of them will dash away and grab a bat. In game terms, it just doesn't seem right that you can ignore the ones that aren't sneaking up on you.)
| QUOTE |
| It doesn't feel right to counter player cleverness with a house rule |
It's not that this is especially clever, this has been a common topic on this forum for the last several years I've been watching the boards.
My concern is that it's not balanced (reference the girl scout post above). I agree that friends in melee has an impact. I just don't think it should trump everything else, because then it's just a question of who brings the bigger gang (not who's got the 'better' gang).
I kind of agree with the logic behind OurTeam's rule, because I think it does add balance. If the opponents are even halfway decent, then ignoring them will get you beaten down very quickly unless you're a munchkin troll with a 15 body. I've talked with my group in the past, and suggested something very similar. They had mixed opinions about it, mainly because they hate house rules on principle.
The reason I created the post was not for advice on a house rule, but to see if any other players or gms had thought of some clever tactics that would counter-balance this trick. It'll get really boring if it's just a question of who shows up with the greatest number of bodies.
The way I've seen it dealt with is a simple reinterprittion of the existing rule. Friends in melee only applies for friends who have already engaged in a round of combat. So, watcher 1 attacks and gets no friends in melee, watcher 2 attacks and gets 1 friend if and only if watcher 1 survived, and so on.
That's the way I've always done it. Doesn't seem to make sense that a guy hasn't even had a chance to move yet is able interfere or help out his buddy.
Then they just hold their actions and attack at the same time. Problem solved, FIM bonuses galore.
~J
~J
Possibly giving the lone person time to either get out or beat a couple of 'em down.
To either get out or beat one of them down.
~J
~J
As far as the "girl scouts vs adept" thing goes, you need to remember the order of engagement. I don't consider the rest of the girl scouts to be in melee unless they've had a chance to act and engage, or are being attacked as part of a "multiple targets" melee attack. If you can go fast enough to get the jump on them, you can probably disable one or two, then disengage to make another pass. With a higher initiative, you stand a better chance of disengaging for a moment, to rejoin the melee in a less disadvantageous position. And if you can't disengage, you've managed to drop one or two opponents before their friends can start making your life difficult.
| QUOTE |
| To either get out or beat one of them down. |
Attacking multiple combatants is a good thing, especially against Girl Scouts.
How's about using Spiritbolt/ball to take out watchers?
Does Spiritbolt/ball affect fleshform insect spirits? I'd say yes.
Does Spiritbolt/ball affect fleshform insect spirits? I'd say yes.
| QUOTE |
| How's about using Spiritbolt/ball to take out watchers? |
You'd also nail the spirit that you want to protect from the watchers.
Use a low-force high-DL ball-spell without many successes. The big spirit shouldn't get badly hurt, the watchers should be pretty damaged.
That's certainly an option.
The rules for friends in melee state that you total-up the number of characters within 1m who are fighting the same fight as the character. First: It is most likely that the more powerful spirit or combatant will win initiative, thus be able to maneuver so as to hit only one of the weenies.
OK. Other tricks are for the big spirit to constantly move around (at a speed of F*4), faster than the weenies can follow without incurring some form of TN penalty. The spirit could also try fighting through a friendly astral barrier or back himself into a hole in the ground where it may be harder for them to gang-up on him from.
One interesting way to go about it would be to say "Ah, Screwit" and find somewhere with horrendus perception TN mods (IE: total darkness). If you can find somewhere with a total of +6 to +8 TN mods (background count, packed biomass/heavy fog). As ties go with the attacker, if neither of you get successes then you still hit them! Keep your pool for damage resistance and attack all of your opponents at once taking the +2s. Your TN is around 22, but who cares if they're probably going to fail too. This tactic only works, however, if the good combatant can do significant damage (~6L to ~4M Power) and soak the damage from the weenies (should be in the realm of 2M or 3L) using pool when they need to. It also might be hard to find an arena with significantly high TN penalties on the astral (extra reach and the confusion spirit power would help alot here).
OK. Other tricks are for the big spirit to constantly move around (at a speed of F*4), faster than the weenies can follow without incurring some form of TN penalty. The spirit could also try fighting through a friendly astral barrier or back himself into a hole in the ground where it may be harder for them to gang-up on him from.
One interesting way to go about it would be to say "Ah, Screwit" and find somewhere with horrendus perception TN mods (IE: total darkness). If you can find somewhere with a total of +6 to +8 TN mods (background count, packed biomass/heavy fog). As ties go with the attacker, if neither of you get successes then you still hit them! Keep your pool for damage resistance and attack all of your opponents at once taking the +2s. Your TN is around 22, but who cares if they're probably going to fail too. This tactic only works, however, if the good combatant can do significant damage (~6L to ~4M Power) and soak the damage from the weenies (should be in the realm of 2M or 3L) using pool when they need to. It also might be hard to find an arena with significantly high TN penalties on the astral (extra reach and the confusion spirit power would help alot here).
| QUOTE (cykotek) |
| With a higher initiative, you stand a better chance of disengaging for a moment, to rejoin the melee in a less disadvantageous position. |
The character with high initiative moves as often as characters with low initiative (Movement, sr3.108). Anytime he moves past a cluster of girl scouts (Interception, same page) he can be attacked by all those on his side of the cluster, and I'd give them the friends in melee bonus, based on how many can reach him at that point in his movement. If any of their attacks do damage, his movement ends there.
| QUOTE (Lilt) |
| As ties go with the attacker, if neither of you get successes then you still hit them! |
What an absurd interpretation of the rules. If you don't roll a success then you don't succeed at all. Sheesh.
| QUOTE (OurTeam @ Mar 21 2004, 07:04 PM) | ||
What an absurd interpretation of the rules. If you don't roll a success then you don't succeed at all. Sheesh. |
It may be absurd, but it's exactly what the rules say to do.
[edit] and if we want absurd, why don't we bring-up the fact that this is trying to get around the fact that 5-6 girlscouts cat take-out a competent fighter. "2 Absurds make a Sensible!" That's what I say
[/edit]
No it isn't. The rules say to compare successes. If you both fail, then you both fail; no one gets hit, because there was no success, not even a tied one. The rules for melee combat do not spontaneously supercede the core rules.
| QUOTE (A Clockwork Lime) |
| No it isn't. The rules say to compare successes. If you both fail, then you both fail; no one gets hit, because there was no success, not even a tied one. The rules for melee combat do not spontaneously supercede the core rules. |
Can you give a quote to that effect? There's nothing I can see in the core rules that says if someone scores no successes then nothing happens (checked much of the start of the book on that point actually, P38/P39 seems to be where it would be if it existed but it's not there).
In a 2-sided game, where people score 0-0, it's still a tie and the rules about ties are explicit in the melee combat rules: Ties go with the attacker.
Common sense is the fundamental rule -- two failures doesn't translate into a success by any definition that I'm aware of. But apparently we're tossing that one to the side.
SR3 p. 39 gives the fundamental rules for tests and successes. Under "Success Test" it states that you need at least one success to accomplish a test. "Success Contest" pits those successes against one another, but in no way does it negate the fact that you still have to make at least one success in order to succeed -- and thus have a chance to tie -- at the action.
The rules don't come out and tell you that no successes equal a failure because it's common sense. Not even the rules for "Making Dice Rules" on page 38 mention failure because, again, it's common sense.
SR3 p. 39 gives the fundamental rules for tests and successes. Under "Success Test" it states that you need at least one success to accomplish a test. "Success Contest" pits those successes against one another, but in no way does it negate the fact that you still have to make at least one success in order to succeed -- and thus have a chance to tie -- at the action.
The rules don't come out and tell you that no successes equal a failure because it's common sense. Not even the rules for "Making Dice Rules" on page 38 mention failure because, again, it's common sense.
And it's common sense to have 5 girlscouts to beat-up an expert, even world-class, melee fighter how exactly? Common sense dosen't figure in rules all that much if you hadn't guessed...
The girlscouts kicking the fighter's ass is a quirk of the rules. Your non-existant loophole is a bastardization of the rules. Big difference there.
| QUOTE |
| Can you give a quote to that effect? |
So your contention is that failing to achieve any successes in a Success Test means that the person has still succeeded unless noted otherwise?
I have to agree that the idea that all failures on a success test is a failure. it's common sense, and unless the GM is a very odd individual, common sense plays a lot in any roleplaying gathering. GM's make final ruling, and I'd love to meet a GM that allows a complete fail for both sides in a opposed test = success, because all the players would do nothing but melee and bring smoke and flash grenades and make sure there is no chance the enemy could hit them, and no way that I could hit them, and I'd surely win! I can't believe this absurd idea was even discussed. granted it's absurd that a group of girlscouts could take a samurai, but making the melee rules more broken is not the answer, any more than saying a person could use thier highest unrelated skill for combat tests would be.
player: I'll hit them with my dagger.
GM: okay roll your edged weapons.
player: I don't have it.
GM: Okay then roll your Native American Pottery Knowledge Skill instead
Player: I am teh win!
player: I'll hit them with my dagger.
GM: okay roll your edged weapons.
player: I don't have it.
GM: Okay then roll your Native American Pottery Knowledge Skill instead
Player: I am teh win!
Accoding to the skill web, edged weapons to pottery is only...+14.
and using that +14 with the rule that no successes = success, I'd never fail!
The problem with the example is that it describes a skilled, but not necessarily expert, fighter; who is charging unarmed into the strongest concentration of prepared enemies, and only using a basic set of attacks. Allowing the house rule that OurTeam describes seems to be harming player cleverness to offset a lack of GM creativity.
If you're smart about it, you'll use your superior movement to "attack at the corners"-- maneuver yourself into a place where only one opponent can attack you. Use of maneuvers is quite helpful as well-- multi-strike and whirling even the odds very quickly, and herding and zoning work nicely to give you a better position.
I also agree that you should restrict the Friends in Melee bonus to those who have already engaged in combat. That fixes the problem for when you attack weenies, while still showing that you are vulnerable to ambush.
Let's run the previous example, but this time, the Evil Physad has a brain, and attacks intelligently. We'll leave out maneuvers for right now; if Whirling were allowed, the physad would win almost immediately.
If you're smart about it, you'll use your superior movement to "attack at the corners"-- maneuver yourself into a place where only one opponent can attack you. Use of maneuvers is quite helpful as well-- multi-strike and whirling even the odds very quickly, and herding and zoning work nicely to give you a better position.
I also agree that you should restrict the Friends in Melee bonus to those who have already engaged in combat. That fixes the problem for when you attack weenies, while still showing that you are vulnerable to ambush.
Let's run the previous example, but this time, the Evil Physad has a brain, and attacks intelligently. We'll leave out maneuvers for right now; if Whirling were allowed, the physad would win almost immediately.
[ Spoiler ]
Actually, in the multiple strike on Pass 2, the EP has a TN of 4 for the first GS, and 6 for the second. It's performed as two separate attacks with increasing TN's for each successive target, not one big attack with all the modifiers lumped in. So, he'd get 3 and 1 successes, respectively.
Oops. Still, EP probably has at least 3 Combat Pool left, so he could toss it into the second attack. 9 dice vs tn 6 = 1.5 successes; if we round that to two, both girls would be taking Serious stun, knocking them both out.
Which only furthers my point-- if the GM running the Evil Physad were to be intelligent about how he attacks, he'll win, even with the basic rules. There's no need to invent a house rule, when GM cleverness can do just as well.
Common sense dictates that if a skilled fighter stupidly attacks anyone when badly outnumbered, he deserves to get his butt kicked. The friends in melee rules are a reflection of this. A clever fighter can use other things to his advantage-- ducking around the sides, attacking from ambush, and so on. But simply wading into a mess of people, and allowing them to swarm you, is a bad move.
But to go back to the original topic-- if a large spirit is ambushed by a watcher attack pack, IMO the spirit should be toast. Getting ambushed and swarmed means you've lost your advantage, even if you're bigger and tougher. And if a larger spirit charges headlong into a watcher attack pack, I'm going to call on Darwinian rules and say the spirit deserves to be toast. But if the spirit is cautious, and uses clever tactics, then he should have the advantage. (And given the intelligence of watchers, it shouldn't take much to outthink a force-2 watcher attack pack.)
Which only furthers my point-- if the GM running the Evil Physad were to be intelligent about how he attacks, he'll win, even with the basic rules. There's no need to invent a house rule, when GM cleverness can do just as well.
Common sense dictates that if a skilled fighter stupidly attacks anyone when badly outnumbered, he deserves to get his butt kicked. The friends in melee rules are a reflection of this. A clever fighter can use other things to his advantage-- ducking around the sides, attacking from ambush, and so on. But simply wading into a mess of people, and allowing them to swarm you, is a bad move.
But to go back to the original topic-- if a large spirit is ambushed by a watcher attack pack, IMO the spirit should be toast. Getting ambushed and swarmed means you've lost your advantage, even if you're bigger and tougher. And if a larger spirit charges headlong into a watcher attack pack, I'm going to call on Darwinian rules and say the spirit deserves to be toast. But if the spirit is cautious, and uses clever tactics, then he should have the advantage. (And given the intelligence of watchers, it shouldn't take much to outthink a force-2 watcher attack pack.)
Personally, I might add an additional TN modifer(+1 or 2) to the TNs of the GSes if they never trained together. Fighting with friends in melee is good but often people unfamiliar with each other's technique or personal fighting style will inevitably step on each other's toes.
With respect to a low force watcher pack, I think the modifier for being in each other's way should apply. I would apply this to any swarm situation in fact (imagine all those devil rats climbing over each other to get to you, some of them aren't going to be able to do anything anyway).
With respect to a low force watcher pack, I think the modifier for being in each other's way should apply. I would apply this to any swarm situation in fact (imagine all those devil rats climbing over each other to get to you, some of them aren't going to be able to do anything anyway).
| QUOTE (Lilt) |
| In a 2-sided game, where people score 0-0, it's still a tie and the rules about ties are explicit in the melee combat rules: Ties go with the attacker. |
You know, that's pretty goddamn clever. I'd probably give you a karma point for coming up with that before I slapped you.
Again, I just checked through much of the book. Most of the tests either apply defined functions to the number of successes (Where 0 successes will have no effect usually), explicitly state what happens with 0 successes, or state that a single success means that a character has achieved something. The one exception I can find is in the charisma linked skills section, which it leaves to GM's discretion.
In the case of the melee combat rules, it applies a function to the number of successes scored. In the extreme and rare case that both sides score 0 successes, this is still a tie and it's explicitly stated that ties go with the attacker (although he will have no net successes to help stage-up damage or cancel his opponent's successes on their body roll). This is not some bastardisation or loophole in the rules. It is an extreme case which it might be possible to take advantage of once in a blue moon. It certanly isn't as easy to take advantage of as something like casting force 1 improved invisibility so well that virtually nobody can fully resist it.
In the case of the melee combat rules, it applies a function to the number of successes scored. In the extreme and rare case that both sides score 0 successes, this is still a tie and it's explicitly stated that ties go with the attacker (although he will have no net successes to help stage-up damage or cancel his opponent's successes on their body roll). This is not some bastardisation or loophole in the rules. It is an extreme case which it might be possible to take advantage of once in a blue moon. It certanly isn't as easy to take advantage of as something like casting force 1 improved invisibility so well that virtually nobody can fully resist it.
| QUOTE (A Clockwork Lime) |
| The girlscouts kicking the fighter's ass is a quirk of the rules. Your non-existant loophole is a bastardization of the rules. Big difference there. |
The 0vs0 successes thing is just another quirk of the rules. There is no difference there.
| QUOTE |
| In the extreme and rare case that both sides score 0 successes, this is still a tie and it's explicitly stated that ties go with the attacker (although he will have no net successes to help stage-up damage or cancel his opponent's successes on their body roll) |
I don't have my manuals with me so I might be mis-stating this, but isn't there a rule regarding monowhips that failing to roll any successes means you have to roll for the possibility that you hit yourself with the whip?
In this case, would the '0 successes=tie=attacker wins' interpretation mean that the whip wieder both hit the attacker successfully AND somehow managed to smack himself simultaneously?
You both have reasonable arguments, and it's not my place to tell either of you which interpretation of the 0 successes scenario is correct. For my games, however, my interpretation is that no successes all around means that both combatants are swinging wildly with their eyes closed and not hitting anything.
That rule (0 successes = hit yourself) might be from another edition. In SR3 you can only hit yourself if your opponent has dodged using combat pool in full defense. This requires them to have scored more successes than you meaning that you will not hit anyway.
| QUOTE (Lilt @ Mar 22 2004, 09:40 AM) |
| The 0vs0 successes thing is just another quirk of the rules. |
No it's not. You're just being a dumbass.
| QUOTE (A Clockwork Lime) | ||
No it's not. You're just being a dumbass. |
I love you.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.