Eon Discussion on Eon's combat Advantage system vs Magic system

[Yahuna]

I would like to hear your opinion on the following topic. The topic appeared yesterday at my gaming table after a game session.

In the combat system you compare your attack roll with the defense roll and then decide on what to spend your generated Advantages (Övertag).

The magic system on the other hand, has two ways.
One, is like the combat system, you compare your Aspect roll with the spell's difficulty and then decide on what to spend your generated Advantages.
But you can also go on the opposite direction, you can Improvise a spell and first decide how potent your spell is going to be by "adding" Magnitude gains (Magnitudförstärkningar) which will increase the spell's difficulty, and then roll your Aspect test.

So, could this second path be transferable to combat? Would it be a feasible house rule to allow characters to increase the defensive difficulty by choosing Combat benefits (Anfallarens fördelar) before rolling the attack test? and if so, would the same Advantage to difficulty conversion used for spells be fine for combat benefits?

Cheers

 

[Zeedox]

Sounds very much like the ”raises” from 7th Sea, where you could raise your DC beforehand to gain more effects.

 

[Swedish Chef]

The problem as always is that fast attacks becomes the norm sin e you get +1T6, thats the only problem I can think of.

But try it at your table it could work out fine

 

[Yahuna]

The problem as always is that fast attacks becomes the norm sin e you get +1T6, thats the only problem I can think of.

But try it at your table it could work out fine

I assume from your comment that at your table you see a predominance of the use of the fast attack? At my table normal, fast and group attacks are chosen quite evenly, powerful attack a bit less, but it is also used, specially by the big two handed weapon guy.

As for the impact of fast attack on these house rules, you gain +1d6 to attack but you lose -1d7 to damage, which to compensate will cost you two advantages or +4 to the attack difficulty, which cancels the +1d6 attack bonus so to speak.

I will see if we try it. I am worried that combat will become slower as players will have more options to choose from.

 

[Swedish Chef]

The problem with the fast attacks is the weapons with the fast property. You get +1T6 to and no disadvantage (which is why that property is cahnged in E5)

The thing is that it is so superior to hit even with the damage disadvantage that fast attacks is the best strategy, especially if your opponent has heavy armor, since advantage gives a chance to ignore armor.

 

[Yahuna]

I’ll check the fast property in Eon V. Thanks for pointing this out

I guess the reason in my table we see more variation is because my PCs find themselves very often in numerical disadvantge.

 

[Meladon]

But isn't this basically the role "anfallstaktik" already plays? I get that it's slightly different mechanically, and you could even combine your house rule with "anfallstaktik".

So how would this play out?
Let's assume the conversion rate of difficulty is the same as with magic, where 2 units of difficulty pre-cast corresponds to 5 units of difficulty post-cast.
So if I then want to choose "precision" before I even do my attack role, which normally costs 2 Advantage, do I then add a flat -4 to my rolled outcome? (or +4 to the defender's roll, same thing).
Is that how you imagine it?

I don't see any problem with this working in principle, I just question the need to implement this in the first place. Are you actually adding value by implementing it? The second part to consider is that with magic, you are offsetting the risk of dissipation by waiting to see if you succeed before you spend your Advantage. The only consequence with this proposed houserule is that you are less likely to succeed, and you lose initiative.

I think if you implement this, the negative consequences for failing should be greater. Perhaps giving the opponent +2 to their attack next round per Advantage point moved from post-attack to pre-atatck. So a failed "precision" would give +1T6, or a failed "finna blotta" would give +2T6.
Or, alternatively, you could cause a random negative consequence to the PC, like "tappar", "faller", etc which have similar impact.

 

[Yahuna]

So how would this play out?
Let's assume the conversion rate of difficulty is the same as with magic, where 2 units of difficulty pre-cast corresponds to 5 units of difficulty post-cast.
So if I then want to choose "precision" before I even do my attack role, which normally costs 2 Advantage, do I then add a flat -4 to my rolled outcome? (or +4 to the defender's roll, same thing).
Is that how you imagine it?

Yes, this is how I imagine it.

Are you actually adding value by implementing it?

Some of my players would like to be able to decide before hand what their characters try to achieve with their attack before the roll, and not afterwards. For example, situations that have come at my table "I try to hit him in the leg to trip him", I try to attack him through the gaps in the armor", "I try to disarm him" etc. All these situations are covered by Eon's mechanics, but only after the attack is resolved can the player narrate his PC actions as a function of the outcome, not before the attack is done. It is totally fine by me, but some of my players would like be able to have more control on their PC during combat.

The second part to consider is that with magic, you are offsetting the risk of dissipation by waiting to see if you succeed before you spend your Advantage. The only consequence with this proposed houserule is that you are less likely to succeed, and you lose initiative.

This is something we have discussed at our table. My personal opinion is that (unfortunately) dissipations are rare and when they happen are typically of minor impact. It can be that we are playing something wrong or it is just that the two mages in the group have very high skills, Aspekt skills at 5d6+ and Harmonisera at 5d6+, and we are typically at dissipation intensities that are around 20 - 30.

On the contrary, we have found that missing your attack and becoming the defender (losing the initiative) can be fatal as melee is often very deadly.

But I am open to study a possibilities to add some extra penalty as you suggest.

As a note, I am working on some house rules to make dissipations happen more often (using the concept of chaos dice) and make them a bit more impactful. This is not because I don't like how Eon handles this, but because we use Eon to play in the Warhammer Fantasy world where miscasts are historically more frequent in the rpgs and the consequences a bit more dire than in Eon.