 |
Great White Games/Pinnacle Entertainment Group
Discussion Forum for PEG/GWG
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
islan
Heroic
Joined: 17 Dec 2008
Posts: 1084
|
 Posted: Thu May 03, 2012 7:09 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| The GIT! wrote: | I have a couple of problems with the grappling rules as written.
1) The successful grapple roll (in this case with a raise) doesn't carry over as a target number for the opponent. The rules state that, on future attempts to damage or escape, opposed rolls are made. |
I have taken to giving a grappler a +2 bonus on subsequent grapple rolls if they got a Raise on the grapple, in order to simulate "having a good hold". |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Zadmar
Heroic
Joined: 10 Nov 2010
Posts: 1377
Location: Munich
|
| Posted: Thu May 03, 2012 8:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| islan wrote: | | By the RAW, you can't go on Hold in the middle of your turn, but I'm not really sure why, so I would at the very least drop that rule for this situation. |
I suspect it's to keep things FFF, so you don't have to keep track of partial actions for various characters. But for a specific manoeuvre like this I think it would be fine, you could even create "hostage counters" to put beside the trifolds/figures if it came up often.
| islan wrote: | | So, if you just want to threaten damage, make attack but Hold on damage. You can "fluff" it up as getting him in a headlock, but none of the actual rules of grappling would apply (the target would not be immobilized, but he would still have to make an Agility roll against the assailant's Hold to break away without getting shot--I would also probably give the assailant a +2 bonus to his Agility roll just cuz he has the gun right to his noggin). |
+2 to the Agility roll seems reasonable. You could also use Clint's house rule for interrupting while on hold:
| Clint wrote: | On a tie, the actions still occur completely simultaneously.
If one side gets a raise, then they resolve all of their actions before the other character.
If one side just gets a success, then they get to resolve only one action first (not counting previously resolved actions if the character interrupted), and then the other character may resolve one action of their own (if they are still able) before the successful character completes the rest of their actions. |
| islan wrote: | | If you want to actually apply the rules of grappling as well as threaten damage, I would consider it a multiple-action to both grab and then attack in the same round. |
I think the most important thing is that you can threaten immediately. If you have to Grapple at the beginning of the first round and go On Hold with your gun the next, then everyone else is going to have the chance to shoot you at least once (possibly twice) before you even have the possibility to shoot the hostage. That's not really a viable tactic.
But if you can move up to the target (so that they act as cover) and make your shooting roll, then go On Hold with the damage roll, you're immediately threatening them. As soon as someone starts shooting at you, you can try to kill the hostage.
If you then allowed the player to perform other actions without losing their On Hold damage (as long as they didn't move their gun), they could then Grapple the next round. That would be a -4 penalty for using one hand, but if the opponent wasn't resisting then I'd let them automatically succeed. For an NPC I might treat it as a Guts or Spirit roll to see if they resisted, while for a PC I'd let them choose. I doubt many normal folk would try to resist if you pressed a gun against their head though.
In fact I'd probably let them upgrade to The Drop as a normal action if the hostage chose to surrender instead of resisting (heck if they're not even resisting then you could even tie them up and perform a Finishing Move!). Of course if a player was faced with this situation they could still choose to struggle and risk the regular damage (which would be no worse than just getting shot in the first place), but it does open up some interesting options from both a tactical and roleplaying perspective.
You'd probably need to use both hands to move, one for the gun and the other for the hostage. But I don't see why you couldn't perform other actions, particularly things like Intimidate ("drop your weapons or the hostage gets it!"). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
islan
Heroic
Joined: 17 Dec 2008
Posts: 1084
|
| Posted: Thu May 03, 2012 10:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Zadmar wrote: | | islan wrote: | | If you want to actually apply the rules of grappling as well as threaten damage, I would consider it a multiple-action to both grab and then attack in the same round. |
I think the most important thing is that you can threaten immediately. If you have to Grapple at the beginning of the first round and go On Hold with your gun the next, then everyone else is going to have the chance to shoot you at least once (possibly twice) before you even have the possibility to shoot the hostage. That's not really a viable tactic.
|
Yeah, I meant [1] grapple at -2, [2] attack at -2, [3] Hold on damage for hostage situation. You would only need to do this if you want to actually apply the rules of Grapple; otherwise, just perform a normal attack and "fluff" it as a grapple.
| Quote: | | You'd probably need to use both hands to move, one for the gun and the other for the hostage. But I don't see why you couldn't perform other actions, particularly things like Intimidate ("drop your weapons or the hostage gets it!"). |
I'd consider that breaking Hold if you were actually trying to apply the Test of Wills rule (+2 to next action, possible Shaken). If it was a PC trying Intimidate NPC's into dropping their weapons though, then I wouldn't consider it breaking Hold. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
