Duration of Distraction?

[hollow49]

Reading the text for Mindblast Tier I, the distraction effect takes a move action to accomplish. How long does the effect last? Since the Tier II ability takes a move action to accomplish, but specifically states that it lasts only 1 round, does that mean that Tier I lasts more than 1 round? This would seem to be bourne out by the statement that Tier I can be applied to a new opponent at the start of each new round of combat. So when does it wear off? 1 minute, 5 minutes, rounds=class level, one combat (however long that may be) or what?

If it does last for a whole combat, then Mindblast will definitely be my 1st discipline when I build my Kai Lord. I can use Tiers I and II to counter the penalties of Tier III when fighting a single opponent - plus psychic combat.

 

[mthomason]

Hmmmm....

The way I read it, it does last the entire combat, or until you switch to a new opponent.

That may not be what was intended, of course, but it's how it reads to me.

 

[SableWyvern]

I interpreted it as meaning that the +1 applies only on the round in which the ability is activated. Hence, it requires a move action each round to maintain. For a low level character staying within melee range of an opponent at all times, this is almost as effective as as an extended duration.

 

[mthomason]

I interpreted it as meaning that the +1 applies only on the round in which the ability is activated. Hence, it requires a move action each round to maintain. For a low level character staying within melee range of an opponent at all times, this is almost as effective as as an extended duration.

I thought that too at first, but then I re-read the last line "A new enemy may be designated at the start of every round of combat". That line seems redundant if the power only lasts a single round, as you'd have to re-activate the power anyway.

 

[simjimm]

I figured it just worked like the Dodge feat from D+D, in that you could just designate an opponent each round and get bonuses against it...

 

[Anonymous]

That would be correct simjimm. The bonus lasts for the duration of combat, on one foe only, unless and until you switch foes, turn the power off completely for some reason, or combat ends.

 

[SableWyvern]

Hmm ...

Anyone like to have a go at defining the length of a combat?

If that interpretation is correct, either the move-equivalent requirement needs to be dropped, or it needs to be given a less abstract duration.

 

[simjimm]

Well, I wouldn't fret too much about a move action- its hardy restrictive- you can still do one, move 10 Ft AND perform a Standard action (like attack) without penalty.

The purpose of it being a move action is, I assume, so that you can't designate more than one enemy (such as with a Full round attack) This was always assumed with a feat like Dodge, but I suppose some munchkin players chose to keep changing opponents and getting more bonuses, and the wording 'move action' was introduced to stop this and clarify the definition of the power.

The length of a combat = however long you are fighting. This is not really a strenous power- you are simply keeping your attention focused on one baddie.

 

[SableWyvern]

I think you misunderstood me.

I realise it's easy enough as a GM to just make a decision as to when a battle is considered "finished". However, leaving the ability open-ended like that (if that is what was intended) is sloppy game design. There is virtually no hard-and-fast rule a GM could come up with regarding when a battle is official finished that won't break down at some point. This opens up the opportunity for rules-lawyering from players, or perceived imbalance from the GM.

If a battle is considered finished at a certain point in one instance, but at a different point in another instance, then the GM can appear inconsistent. Like I said, it's not a huge issue -- in fact, in the grand scheme of things, it's very minor, and with my particular playing group I would not expect to see a problem -- but the opportunities for problems are there, nonetheless.

In a tough fight, after a string of encounters, an early move action could have a dramatic affect on the battle overall. And it's in this sort of situation, where one battle follows another closely, that the vagaries of interpretation will come to the fore.

I suggest removing the move-equivalent requirement simply because it then removes the need to decide when a battle is over. In this circumstance, the ability is going to be "always on".

An alternative, and what I'll probably use, is that, once activated, the ability remains active until the character does not engage in melee (as attacker or defendcer) for a full round.

As a side note, I would guess that this was an oversight, and the abstract duration we see in the rule book was not what was intended.

As a further note, I should point out that the excessive length of this post is probably in stark contrast to the likely actual importance of this perceived flaw. 8)

 

[Mongoose Doghouse]

The purpose of it being a move action is, I assume, so that you can't designate more than one enemy (such as with a Full round attack) This was always assumed with a feat like Dodge, but I suppose some munchkin players chose to keep changing opponents and getting more bonuses, and the wording 'move action' was introduced to stop this and clarify the definition of the power.

The length of a combat = however long you are fighting. This is not really a strenous power- you are simply keeping your attention focused on one baddie.

Simjimm is entirely correct. Saved me the job of posting the answer, so bonus 50XP for him

 

[SableWyvern]

Here's an example to make my point a little clearer. In the naval battle at the end of Fire on the Water, the following occured:

PCs fall through deck into hold, where they fight zombies. Shortly after defeating the zombies, a Helghast enters the hold. These were two very closely linked ecounters, which could be considered one or two fights. Very quickly the group decided to escape, and were climbing fallen rigging back to the main deck. The Helghast did not pursue, but began hurling hel-fire at the characters. Some PCs were fully disengaged, others were still climbing or down in the hold. Eventually, IIRC, it was decided to return to the hold and face the Helghast in melee. Again, this could have been considered the beginning of a new fight, especially for those characters who had been fully disengaged at one point.

 

[mthomason]

Once activated, the ability remains active until the character does not engage in melee (as attacker or defender) for a full round.

Thats what I'll be using too

 

[SableWyvern]

The purpose of it being a move action is, I assume, so that you can't designate more than one enemy (such as with a Full round attack). This was always assumed with a feat like Dodge, but I suppose some munchkin players chose to keep changing opponents and getting more bonuses, and the wording 'move action' was introduced to stop this and clarify the definition of the power.

Looking more closely, I'm not sure exactly what you're getting at here. How does the move-action stipulation prevent the designation of more than one opponent or the lack of a move-action allow it? And how does changing opponents (which you can still do) cause the accumlation of bonuses?

This is simply an honest question, btw, not an argument.

 

[robertib]

The way I am using this in my game is that it takes your move action every round to keep the distraction up - it means that the ability is less useful at the higher levels, but with the other psi powers being able to be used with a full attack, that won't really matter to the PC's.

 

[simjimm]

Simjimm is entirely correct. Saved me the job of posting the answer, so bonus 50XP for him

W00t! I levelled up! Lookie, lookie I can Cleave and stuff! :twisted:

Looking more closely, I'm not sure exactly what you're getting at here. How does the move-action stipulation prevent the designation of more than one opponent or the lack of a move-action allow it? And how does changing opponents (which you can still do) cause the accumlation of bonuses?

Well, it doesn't strictly prevent the designation of more opponents, but the idea is that it uses a move action each time you designate- and you can only use so many, unlike a free action. Using more than one is thus pointless, since using more than 1 move action would negate your standard action for the turn (so you can't actually use the bonus in an attack, which is the whole point anyway)

The bonus could 'accumilate' because the player could use it in conjuction with a full round attack action (since free actions are free). They could thus use their distraction bonus against all opponents they attacked this turn

And a solid rule for when the battle is over is when the Initiative order no longer matters. In your case, if the players downed the zombies before the Helghast entered then it would be seperate battle, even if only a single round (6 seconds) seperated them. Similarily; just because its a battle doesn't mean the only actions involve fighting. The players on the rigging would still act in initiative order even if retreating and not actually fighting- because there is a threat present that is attacking them; which calls for intiative. The battle would only be over if all PC's were in safety, and initiative no longer mattered.

 

[SableWyvern]

Hmmm ... ok. Now I'm really clear on why I didn't understand you. As best as I can tell, that interpretation has some serious problems - enabling exactly what you're purporting to be limiting.

Since the ability continues to function throughout the battle, it can be used in a full melee attack - simply not on the round in which it is activated. Further, if the limit on number of opponents that can be affected is only limited by the number of times it is "activated", rather than just being a flat "one target per round", then over consecutive rounds, it can become relatively easy to nominate multiple opponents. Consider a fight with three big bads and a horde of mooks. While the group is dealing with the mooks, the Kai will quite possibly have time to take three move-equivs and be ready to nominate all three big bads, well before he can actually engage any of them.

I would be interested in hearing from August as to what his precise intent actually was. Seems to me the problems that have been mentioned are best and most simply solved by stating explicitly that only one opponent can be affected in any given round, and providing a similarly explicit duration (whether when initiative is no longer in use, a set number of rounds, whatever).


As to your definition of battle - while that works within the letter of the rules, I'm not a fan for two reasons:

First, it's a little too metagamey for my liking. Not a huge issue, as there's plenty of metagame in d20 that is simply unavoidable -- one more item not really a big deal.

Secondly, and more importantly, in a situation like the one I described I would quite possibly slip in and out of initiative use without specifically requiring new rolls. Thus it is in interpretation that doesn't mesh well with my own particular style of GMing. This, obviously, is a very personal issue, and doesn't really illuminate any general merit or flaws in your ruling.

End result is that we yet again prove that Mileage Does Vary.

 

[August]

Okay, this is really very simple.

Each round, as a move action, the Kai Lord can choose an opponent as the focus of the Distraction discipline. Until he takes another move action to change it, that bonus only applies to that opponent. If the Kai lord wants to change it, the bonus stops applying to the old target and starts applying to the new one.

As for the "duration" of a combat, that's whatever the Games Master says it is. Pure and simple.

Oh, and as a general rule, if a given interpretation of a rule in Lone Wolf seems really, really broken (such as being able to stack the bonus of this bonus over and over again) , please assume that is NOT what I meant.

-A

 

[simjimm]

Thankyou August; thus it works exactly like dodge like anticipated...enough pointless debate, methinks...

Since the ability continues to function throughout the battle, it can be used in a full melee attack - simply not on the round in which it is activated.

Actually, I think you're confusing yourself here, as the original ruling points out it takes a move action and lasts just for the round its used. You've decided here to apply it to function throughout the entire battle... :shock:

As for the whole Initiative thing seeming too Meta-gaming-ey you are quite right, but in battles it is important to know exactly what each character is doing in each round.

If it makes you feel better, think of it as if time is slowed down so that all the dangerous events pecieved could be interpreted and described properly. Ironically, this often happens to people in dangerous situations anyway- the rush of Adrenaline slows perception right down.

 

[SableWyvern]

Well, the debate certainly wasn't pointless, as it has shown me the one big error in my position: I didn't realise a move action was required to change opponents. That certainly does alter things significantly.

Re initiative: I wasn't positing so much that initiative is metagamey (while it is, there isn't anything to be done about it without playing an entirely different system), but it's use to define battle. Anyway, that's neither here nor there.

Oh, and as a general rule, if a given interpretation of a rule in Lone Wolf seems really, really broken (such as being able to stack the bonus of this bonus over and over again) , please assume that is NOT what I meant.

Actually, you'll note that I did give you the benefit of the doubt originally, but then became truly concerned when you seemed (due to my mistake above) to be saying some seriously bizarre things. In future, I will take such a circumstance to indicate grievous error on my part. 8) :wink:

 

[SableWyvern]

As for the "duration" of a combat, that's whatever the Games Master says it is. Pure and simple.
-A

I still think this is a little too vague for a system as crunchy as d20, especially in the midst of an ability description that obviously has a few other less than precise phrases.

Overall, however, I'm now pretty much sold on the rule as intended. In fact, I can say that the duration I mentioned I was planning on using earlier in the thread equals my definition of battle and, ergo, claim I am using the rule as literally written.