[Home Rules] When an error makes the game better

[Woodclaw]

Hello to everyone.
I know this is my first post in this forum and posting a HR might be a little arrogant, but I really wanted to share the result of an error I did as GM that actually improved the game.

Rule as Written a character only obtain Stunt Points if he roll a double and thee action is succcessful. While I was GMing a demo game, I completly forgot the second part of the rule and awarded Stunt Point every time a character rolled a double. The result was actually quite interesting.
Clearly certain stunts were not avaible (like extra damage on a failed attack), but other times the character pulled out some really interesting scenes.

Some examples:

• A warrior that failed several attacks, but used the Stunts Point from the failures to push his opponent against a wall
• A Mage that failed to cast and used the Stunts Points to give himself a +2 defense
• A Rogue missing an attack and running away, leaping into the nearby river

While this rule makes the Stunt Points a little less precious, it makes the combats a lot more dynamics and fun to narrate. So I'm thinking to keep this rule for my future games.

What do you think about it?
Is it balanced or not?

[Saisei]

Interesting. I don't think it's particularly game breaking because all of the major stunts (such as lethal blow) would require an actual hit.

I quite like it. Plus everyone knows how infuriating it is to get stunt points and not be able to use them.

... You've got my brain working now. An entire set of stunts specifically for when you miss! Yes... yes.... Hmm...

*off to the lab*

EDIT: Oh, also, welcome to the boards!

[Koeran]

To be honest. I never really liked the idea of Stunts ever since I started playing DA. But, in the last few weeks, as I've thought more about the abstraction of combat, and changed the semantics in my head (I refer to "stunts" as "exploits", and now they make sense to me), they're growing on me.

I REALLY like this idea. It fits perfectly for the abstract nature of combat. Just because you failed to hurt your opponent, doesn't mean you couldn't have an opportunity to reposition yourself, or them, or even trip them over, or disarm them or whatever (Although some of those stunts may specifically mention a hit in their description).

[ColdSteel1]

Very nice. I wonder if this can be applied to npcs as well.

[Elfie]

Very nice. I wonder if this can be applied to npcs as well.

It should be, otherwise it would introduce a clear imbalance.

[Loswaith]

It doesn't seem unbalanced because the stunts points generated on failures are likely to be low in number as well, given that even on low doubles and a high dragon die are likely to gain a reasonably skilled character a success.

It may become a little unbalanced though when stunt reductions come into play, specifically in the case of lightning attack (though nothing that cant be tweaked out with some alteration of stunt descriptions).

[Woodclaw]

Very nice. I wonder if this can be applied to npcs as well.

It should be, otherwise it would introduce a clear imbalance.

Obviously yes, just like the normal Stunts applies to everyone, so does theis HR.

It doesn't seem unbalanced because the stunts points generated on failures are likely to be low in number as well, given that even on low doubles and a high dragon die are likely to gain a reasonably skilled character a success.

It may become a little unbalanced though when stunt reductions come into play, specifically in the case of lightning attack (though nothing that cant be tweaked out with some alteration of stunt descriptions).

Actually I had a couple of occasions were a 1-1-6 roll generated 6 stunt points, but it wasn't so terrible.
So far I tested this HR only twice and lighting attack (or is magica equivalent) is the only Stunt that give me some problems. It's not imbalaced on his own, but it feels a little wrong having an attack re-roll "for free".

[Loswaith]

Though for the most part the 1-1-6 roll for any character with a bonus to it of say 6 or 7 (giving a 14-15 result) it will still often succeed, so definatly a less frequent occurance.

Though lightning attack is the only one I can think of that may skew the balance a little, and you could always make that "You gain a second attack (after a successful first one) ..." to move it back into line if it is (or becomes) an issue (or simply disallow it on failed roles).

I can only realy see it being an issue if players tend to use it as the default stunt on failures, though enemies are more likely to fail and have the higher stunt points (due to lower bonuses to the rolls) so may not be an issue if enemies are getting the secondary attack too afterall they tend to make more rolls on the whole.

[La Cipolla]

I like it in general... but not having to succeed on the roll means you have a 4/9-something-chance to push ANY enemy away (or run away, or whatever). Doesn't it take out a bit of tension if your players understand how it works?

[Woodclaw]

I like it in general... but not having to succeed on the roll means you have a 4/9-something-chance to push ANY enemy away (or run away, or whatever). Doesn't it take out a bit of tension if your players understand how it works?

I don't know, since there's no particular restriction on moving after attacking, a character can simply strike and then move away even without using stunts.

[La Cipolla]

It was less about moving specifically (sorry for being unclear) but more about the point that with a bit of luck (and it's reall only a bit!) you can do stuff with your enemy WITHOUT his skills, level and so on having any effect at all.

[Woodclaw]

It was less about moving specifically (sorry for being unclear) but more about the point that with a bit of luck (and it's reall only a bit!) you can do stuff with your enemy WITHOUT his skills, level and so on having any effect at all.

Good point, but isn't this the general idea of a stunt?

[La Cipolla]

Hm. I don't know. Generally, the enemy can only be influenced when you crack his defense.
But then you could use this rule only for stunts which do not influence the enemy.

[RestlessEntity]

How about restricting the skirmish-stunt to moving one-self when the enemy is missed?

when you're not able to crack the enemy's defense, you're still able to back up a few steps. (maybe the moving-distance could be reduced to 1 yard per stuntpoint instead of 2.)

[Woodclaw]

How about restricting the skirmish-stunt to moving one-self when the enemy is missed?

when you're not able to crack the enemy's defense, you're still able to back up a few steps. (maybe the moving-distance could be reduced to 1 yard per stuntpoint instead of 2.)

Both options are reasonable, but I prefer the second one. Even if the attack fails to break through the opponent defenses it might still send him back or perhaps he dodged by moving backwards.