Hatsten in Combat

[MongooseMatt]

Here is a thought...

Do we actually need Hasten in combat (page 71)? I mean, can you actually choose to act faster in battle?

 

[Stainless]

I suppose you can leap in relatively unprepared (e.g., not really aiming, just shooting instinctively) which might allow you to act sooner (+2 to Initiative) and will have a lesser chance of success (-1 DM). Perhaps the negative DM should be -2 to match the Initiative gain? If so, you could even make it slightly crunchier by allowing the option of a +1 Initiative with a -1 DM, but then you're arguably getting away from the streamlining intent of the rules revision.

 

[hdan]

Seems to me you only need either Hasten or Reactions.
I like reactions better, since they're not dependent on initiative. (Though of course being surprised ought to deny you a reaction.)

 

[MongooseMatt]

Seems to me you only need either Hasten or Reactions.

That is what I am thinking.

Unless anyone is violently opposed, I am going to delete Hasten in combat (remembering you can still change time frames for tasks, even if you are fighting at the time).

 

[TrippyHippy]

I support this actually, simply because many of my players keep forgetting these extra stipulations in combat. They remember to aim, reload, move and dodge (as a reaction) - and that is about it, usually!

As such, Keep It Simple!

On a side note, does Leadership really need to add to the Initiative effect (of one target) in addition to the Tactics bonus effect? Could there not be an alternative impact of Leadership to Tactics in combat? I mean Initiative is important but, couldn't leadership also, motivate more competency and resolve too?

My idea is to allow someone with Leadership to roll it as a significant action in combat, record the effect, and then spend up to this amount on other allies rolls as boosts until the effect has been spent. This can be all onto one roll or distributed in small increments to multiple targets. It must be spent by the end of a round, or be lost, but can be rolled again as a new significant action in resultant rounds if desired. If the effect is negative it MUST be spent too - meaning bad leadership negatively effects rolls.

For example, a player with Leadership 2 (Soc +1DM), rolls an effect of 3. He can spend these by adding +2 to a combat roll of one ally, and +1 to another. The next round he rolls again, badly, for an effect of -2, which he distributes as a -1DM to each of his allies.

 

[Stainless]

My idea is to allow someone with Leadership to roll it as a significant action in combat, record the effect, and then spend up to this amount on other allies rolls as boosts until the effect has been spent. This can be all onto one roll or distributed in small increments to multiple targets. It must be spent by the end of a round, or be lost, but can be rolled again as a new significant action in resultant rounds if desired. If the effect is negative it MUST be spent too - meaning bad leadership negatively effects rolls.

For example, a player with Leadership 2 (Soc +1DM), rolls an effect of 3. He can spend these by adding +2 to a combat roll of one ally, and +1 to another. The next round he rolls again, badly, for an effect of -2, which he distributes as a -1DM to each of his allies.

I really like that idea. It's kind of like a bennie system. It's more general and allows an Initiative bonus to be simply a subset of the possible outcomes of Leadership. It would also promote roleplaying as the character making the Leadership check will have to narrate how his Leadership is having its effect.

 

[paulsnow]

My idea is to allow someone with Leadership to roll it as a significant action in combat, record the effect, and then spend up to this amount on other allies rolls as boosts until the effect has been spent. This can be all onto one roll or distributed in small increments to multiple targets. It must be spent by the end of a round, or be lost, but can be rolled again as a new significant action in resultant rounds if desired. If the effect is negative it MUST be spent too - meaning bad leadership negatively effects rolls.

For example, a player with Leadership 2 (Soc +1DM), rolls an effect of 3. He can spend these by adding +2 to a combat roll of one ally, and +1 to another. The next round he rolls again, badly, for an effect of -2, which he distributes as a -1DM to each of his allies.

I really like that idea. It's kind of like a bennie system. It's more general and allows an Initiative bonus to be simply a subset of the possible outcomes of Leadership. It would also promote roleplaying as the character making the Leadership check will have to narrate how he's Leadership is having its effect.

That's good.

 

[Melbourne Accords]

I support the removal of 'Hasten' from the rules. The combat system operates very well without it.

 

[Samcollins]

I support getting rid of it

 

[-Daniel-]

Seems to me you only need either Hasten or Reactions.

That is what I am thinking.

Unless anyone is violently opposed, I am going to delete Hasten in combat (remembering you can still change time frames for tasks, even if you are fighting at the time).

Based on the mechanics as I understand them, this feels right. Allow the time frame change to reflect any "hastening" I do.

 

[Nerhesi]

Never used hasten and never saw a need for it - with everyone in my gaming group that is.

Becareful with allowing a supporting action (like leadership) suddenly making something impossible, be trivial.

At best, something like Leadership should be task-chain based. +1 or +2 at best.