Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

[SWADE] Foot Chases, Hold Steady and Wild Attacks

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • [SWADE] Foot Chases, Hold Steady and Wild Attacks

    If I got this correctly, when you attack in Foot Chases, you suffer the Running penalty of -2 on all actions because you're obviously running (unless you're somehow doing a chase of Stoners against Zombies or so).
    Also, you "may make ranged and melee attacks normally [...] as long as the GM agrees they make sense in the particular situation".
    How does Running, Hold Steady and Wild Attacks work together best in rules and fiction?
    As written (assuming I read it right), you could combine Hold Steady and Wild Attack, so enemies gain a +2 to attack you. you ignore the Running penalty (Hold Steady) and get an additional +2 on Fighting and damage (Wild Attack). Since you're already Vulnerable by Holding Steady, you don't suffer any additional significant penalties (as p. 109 / Wild Attack) because you're already Vulnerable.
    Does it make sense to hold steady and attack wildly in fiction, or do you think that's mutually exclusive? If it is, it doesn't make sense to hold steady for melee attacks (with Fighting) instead of attacking wildly, but possibly for other "melee" actions (Grapple, Force), right?
    Last edited by Vasant; 01-19-2019, 04:06 PM. Reason: Clarified the difference between Vulnerable and +2 to attacks against you. Thanks, Erolat!

  • #2
    Originally posted by Vasant View Post
    Does it make sense to hold steady and attack wildly in fiction, or do you think that's mutually exclusive?
    It does make sense. I'll cite the lunge technique, my long standing example of a wild attack with a finesse blade.
    Sudden movement meant to penetrate the foe's defense? Explains the +2 attack.
    More body weight than usual behind the thrust, allowing deeper penetration and higher chances of damaging something important? Explains the +2 damage.
    Committing to a full body extension that puts you into a known position with a predictable recovery? Explains the Vulnerable.
    Hold Steady is simplifying your movements to focus on what's next, in a sacrifice of defense. I can easily envision a fighter giving chase and taking a moment to stop dodging in preparation for a lunge.

    They're not mutually exclusive, in the world fiction. If you decide to treat them as mutually exclusive then let the players decide which options to use. Hold Steady really shines when doing multiple non-fighting actions, while Wild Attack only affects Fighting attacks, but there are situational reasons to use the normally sub-optimal choice.
    I hope you find the above post useful. And not insulting, because I was trying to be helpful, not insulting; being a pedantic jerk, that isn't always clear.

    Comment


    • #3
      I think the point Vasant was making is that there's no reason, ever, to not do both (instead of only one) if you're doing a melee attack in a chase. You can't be double Vulnerable, so there's only upside to doing both.

      Personally I'd fix it by changing Hold Steady to only give +2 to hit the character with attack rolls (instead of Vulnerable) because I don't see why someone holding steady in a chase should be easier to Taunt, etc.

      Comment


      • ValhallaGH
        ValhallaGH commented
        Editing a comment
        Possibly because they're walking like a chump? Or they get accused of "power walking"? Or "oh god! You've slowed down enough that I can actually see your shirt! Why would you be so cruel!?"

    • #4
      The difference is Hold Steady only makes you +2 to hit with attacks where Wild Attack Makes you Vulnerable which is +2 everything against you. Hold steady will negate the -2 from running and if your target, or any other enemy, wants to fight back he gets a +2. Wild Attack focuses all your attention on a beat down makes you easier to distract and other non-combat things.

      Hold steady only: No modifier to hit but are +2 to hit you with attacks.
      Wild Attack only: Modifiers to hit cancel out, +2 damage, Vulnerable.
      Both: +2 to hit, +2 damage, Vulnerable.
      Last edited by Erolat; 01-19-2019, 03:55 PM. Reason: Logic
      I have way too much time but do not always edit myself properly. Please do not take offense.

      Comment


      • Vasant
        Vasant commented
        Editing a comment
        True, but the difference of "oh no, I'm easier to hit" and "oh no, I'm easier to hit and distract" seems irrelevant to me in most action-fueled chase situations.
        Giving everyone else a +2 to hit you is a noticeable risk – giving everyone a +2 to distract you on top on that isn't, really. At least not enough to let me think twice about combining them.
        I'll also edit my opening post since I stated that wrong.

    • #5
      All I would do is either say that Hold Steady and Wild Attack can't be used together, or that Hold Steady can't be used on foot at all.
      Join the Unofficial Savage Worlds Discord!

      My thoughts, musings, and general character adaptations on Savage Everything.

      Comment


      • #6
        Yeah I’d just rule that in a foot chase you can’t Hold Steady unless that means for this turn you choose not to make any forward movement along the cards.
        Maybe you could take the action to fall back a card if you wanted and in the fiction that’s just everyone else catching up to you while you wait to throw a haymaker at someone a card behind yourself.

        Hopefully that makes sense.

        A bigger gripe I’ve had with Wild Attack is that now it makes you Vulnerable. If you’re Vulnerable from another source why would you ever choose not to Wild Attack?
        I'm tempted to houserule it that if you Wild Attack then all Fighting rolls are at +2 against you until the end of your next turn.
        Basically the old Wild Attack just the negative aspect applied differently.

        Comment


        • DoctorBoson
          DoctorBoson commented
          Editing a comment
          Because if you're Vulnerable from other sources it will only last until the end of your current turn. Wild Attacking while Vulnerable means you'll stay Vulnerable until the end of the next turn—a whole 'nother round.

      • #7
        DoctorBoson Apologies, I apparently can’t quote nor reply directly to your comment. Maybe I don’t have enough posts for those functions?

        Ah ok I think I missed that bit. Hm that makes it a tougher choice yeah but I’m still not satisfied with it.

        So if I throw a wild punch at a dude I’m now easier to hit even with guns and slings and arrows and stones and to be intimidated or taunted or ... whatever. Everything is slightly more effective? Until the end of my next Init Card?
        Feels wrong to me.

        I could see the argument of you’re behind cover and your wild attack exposed you to the archers on the hill! Oh no!

        Or You missed with your wild right hook and now you’re feeling less sure of yourself and someone, somewhere says “Ha Ha You suck!”, taunting you with greater effectiveness as your self esteem plummets!

        That feels like stretching, like I’m making an excuse for the Vulnerable condition. I would have no problem applying Vulnerable in that manner on a Wild Attack Crit Fail. But as it’s a Melee type maneuver I think that it should just make melee attacks easier to land. Perhaps Fighting and Grappling are at +2 against you until the end of your next turn.
        Like I said that’s probably how I’m going to run it and I don’t see my players taking issue with it.

        Now related but off topic slightly, do you think the change to Wild Attack was done so that it was used less? Do you think it was felt to maybe be used too often in combats? I feel as written it might now be too punishing.
        Last edited by Rowenn255; 01-20-2019, 11:03 AM.

        Comment


        • Vasant
          Vasant commented
          Editing a comment
          That's not connected to Chases, though. I do think it's manageable to include in descriptions, e.g. you attack someone without caution and don't even react to the guy with a gun (e.g. *not* giving him the perfect shot angle). For taunts and intimidations, it might be a bit harder to include, sure.
          I thought it might've been changed so not only melee fighters gain an advantage. If you fight with a knife against four people with rifles, your Parry -2 did nothing before.

      • #8
        Adventure Edition, page 109, "but he is Vulnerable until the end of his next turn (not this one)."
        Vulnerable is a standard condition where "Actions and attacks against the target are made at +2 until the end of his next turn." page 100.
        Because of how Vulnerable works, the extra language in Wild Attack is redundant. But I can see why it was included.

        Originally posted by Rowenn255 View Post
        Now related but off topic slightly, do you think the change to Wild Attack was done so that it was used less? Do you think it was felt to maybe be used too often in combats? I feel as written it might now be too punishing.
        Formerly, Wild Attack was super-great. To the point that if you weren't outnumbered 4 : 1 or more then you should use Wild Attack. It was over powered.
        With Vulnerable, it's still good but no longer automatic. For a fantasy brawl, it doesn't change much, but for "kung fu versus guns" it changes Wild Attack to actually be a liability sometimes instead of all benefit with no drawbacks.

        I doubt it was changed to make Wild Attack used less. I think it was changed to make Wild Attack riskier, to increase the risk associated with that substantial reward.
        I hope you find the above post useful. And not insulting, because I was trying to be helpful, not insulting; being a pedantic jerk, that isn't always clear.

        Comment

        Working...
        X