Exploring the Savage World of Keltica

Game Master ZenFox42

A Savage Worlds campaign in a fantasy setting (Elves, Dwarves, magic, etc.) with pre-Civil War technology (steam engines, locomotives, but only single-shot guns and no electricity).

CURRENT MAP


601 to 650 of 1,204 << first < prev | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | next > last >>

PP 15/15 | Bennies 3/3 | Venom Strike 1/1

(Some great time- and effort-savers there, Arabella.)


Female Human Card: Bennies: 1 Parry: 5 [2 + 6(fighting)/2] Toughness: 5 [2 + 6(vigor)/2] (2) Armored Duster RATN: 4 Pace: 5 Notice: d6

Looked at another way, what if you took a -2 penalty to the agility roll made when drawing two weapons at once?

Then what if you fail the roll because of the -2 penalty.

Because you failed the agility roll, you are not allowed to attack.

Hence you did not take two actions in the round, hence you should not have to take the -2 penalty for taking two actions in the round.

But then you wouldn't have failed the agility roll, so you would be allowed to make the attack, but then ....

Stuck in a time paradox loop. :)


Which is resolved by SW's requirement that you state all your *intended* actions in advance...


Found this from one of the system developers (his is the "official word" of SW) :

The penalties for all attempted actions apply.

Even if the actions are dependent, attempting them all in one round requires dividing concentration among some simultaneous aspects of them.

So a character who intends to draw and fire in one round (and is drawing from some inconvenient situation that requires an Agility roll) is not performing purely sequential actions. He's trying to draw the gun faster in order to allow him to fire while simultaneously keeping an eye on his target. So if he fails the roll to draw the weapon due to the penalty for attempting to fire in the same action, he was attempting to draw too quickly and was focussed more on the target than the weapon.


Female Human Card: Bennies: 1 Parry: 5 [2 + 6(fighting)/2] Toughness: 5 [2 + 6(vigor)/2] (2) Armored Duster RATN: 4 Pace: 5 Notice: d6

Yes, but my point is you should not have a -2 penalty for something that may not happen if you don't make the roll.

Part of the reason in this specific case is that you are not doing each action in sequence. Draw knife, then draw gun, then attack.

If you make the agility roll, you draw the knife and the gun at the same time, which makes it equivalent of drawing a single weapon for the purposes of downstream effects. If you don't make the roll, then you were not coordinated enough to get both weapons out in the same time as needed for a single draw, so your intended action gets canceled as you focus on getting both weapons readied.

It seems that if they intended the -2 penalty to apply to the agility roll they would have indicated it in the text dealing with the agility roll. In support of this assumption, I found another instance where they specifically point out the MAP penalty when describing the rule. See page 49 of SWD: "If the character tries to run and load, he must make an Agility roll (at the usual –2 penalty for running). Failure simply means no progress toward reloading was made that action.

It's kind of like the soak roll: there is no wound penalty applied to the soak roll (from the wound levels you are trying to reduce) since if you make the roll, the wound level changes.

It's not a huge deal to my character as I don't anticipate being in this position much, but it just seems more logical to interpret the rules this way.

As a final factor, consider which would be more fun for the players? I think heroic stuff you see characters doing in movies and such should be encouraged, not made more difficult. And enemies can also be more flashy and fun.

Not trying to be difficult, just trying to makes sense of the rules. I won't argue this point further if you disagree.

P.S. I was trying to locate the rule you (ZenFox42) have invoked about making an agility roll when something that is usually a free action is done as part of a multi-action sequence. I couldn't find anything about that in the rules. Is that a house rule? For example, they mention that running (moving beyond one's normal free movement of one's pace) is an action and so if one shoots on the run, the shot is at a -2 penalty, but I didn't see anything that said you'd also need to make an agility roll to make the run action.


Female Human Card: Bennies: 1 Parry: 5 [2 + 6(fighting)/2] Toughness: 5 [2 + 6(vigor)/2] (2) Armored Duster RATN: 4 Pace: 5 Notice: d6
ZenFox42 wrote:

Arabella - you might also want to consider the "Full Defense" action :

You make a Fighting roll at +2 and use the result as your Parry until your next action. But you cannot move.

This gets a Wild Die and everything can explode as usual, so you *could* end up with a MUCH higher Parry. And you could spend a Benny to re-roll. And, if the final result is less than your regular Parry, you keep your regular Parry.

Doing some simulations, this gives you (specifically) an 83% chance of improving your Parry, and a 50% chance of making it *better than* 6. That's without spending a Benny.

If you want to change, go ahead and roll it.

I was considering that, and I may do that (in the next few minutes after making this post), but I'm confused by the fact that you are spending more effort on defense and giving up any movement, and yet it is still possible to end up with a worse parry than taking the normal defend option, which gives you a straight +2 on your parry.

It seems that you should not end up doing worse than the defend option. What's the logic for the case where you end up with your normal parry despite all the extra effort and focus?

My analysis says that for Arabella, rolling a d4 +2 for the fighting roll (and yes, I'm including the wild die), has about a 50% chance of an improved Parry (compared to the normal Defend action, 6 in her case), about a 10% chance of the same outcome, but a whopping 40% chance of having a worse parry.

I'll send you my spreadsheet showing how I got this, since one of our analyses is wrong.

I'll give it a go, since Arabella is a gambler, but I'd consider house ruling this to take away the chance of doing worse than the normal Defend action.


Arabella wrote:
Yes, but my point is you should not have a -2 penalty for something that may not happen if you don't make the roll.
System developer (emphasis mine) wrote:
The penalties for all attempted actions apply. Even if the actions are dependent, attempting them all in one round requires dividing concentration among some simultaneous aspects of them.

I'm sticking with this. And you can always re-roll the first roll with a Benny, that's what they're there for...

Arabella wrote:
I was trying to locate the rule you (ZenFox42) have invoked about making an agility roll when something that is usually a free action is done as part of a multi-action sequence.

This is not a house-rule, it is a situation I've seen over and over in the official on-line detailed explanations of the written rules that I've been reading for months. I can't quote any examples.


Just so everyone understands the ramifications of "declaring everything first", if for example you wanted to move away from someone and avoid the free attack by trying to make them Shaken first (by any number of possible actions), you would try to make them Shaken, but then you'd have to move away regardless of the results!

...it is called *Savage* Worlds, after all... :)

In addition, remember that *every single* issue that's been raised recently applies to the bad guys as well! So they may try to draw two weapons and fail because of the MAP, or try Full Defense and end up with a worse Parry than if they'd used Defend, or try to make you Shaken and fail and still have to withdraw. What's bad for the goose is bad for the gander! :)


Arabella wrote:
but a whopping 40% chance of having a worse parry

If by that you mean worse than the 6 from taking Defend, that matches my simulation. I said "a 50% chance of *better than* 6", but when I calculate the odds of *less than* 6, I get 38%. But only a 17% chance of ending up with your base Parry of 4.

Arabella wrote:
I'd consider house ruling this to take away the chance of doing worse than the normal Defend action.

Well, you stand a chance of getting a GREAT Parry, so maybe the game developers thought the chance of *no better* Parry (or worse than using Defend) balances that out?

And, with your Fighting of d4, and your base Parry of 4, the odds may be stacked against you. Full Defense would probably be a much better deal for someone with a Fighting of d8, for example. I'd want to run more simulations in other circumstances before house-ruling something.


Female Human Card: Bennies: 1 Parry: 5 [2 + 6(fighting)/2] Toughness: 5 [2 + 6(vigor)/2] (2) Armored Duster RATN: 4 Pace: 5 Notice: d6

This is in anticipation of possibly using Arabella's boost power to lower the orcs' fighting skill.

SWD, p. 159 wrote:

The power can also be used to lower an opponent’s Trait.

This is an opposed roll against the victim’s Spirit.

Regarding opposed rolls, the rules state:

SWD, p. 63 wrote:

Sometimes rolls are “opposed” by an opponent. If two characters are wrestling for control of an ancient artifact, for example, they both make Strength rolls and compare results.

When this happens, the acting character gets his Trait total first. If he wants to spend Bennies (see the next section), he does so now. When he’s satisfied with his total, his opponent gets to roll. The highest total wins. In a tie, the two foes continue to struggle with no clear victor.

The winner of an opposed roll considers his opponent’s total as his TN for purposes of determining any raises.

So if Arabella rolls her Weird Science and gets a result of 6, for example. If an orc gets a result of 6 or more on the spirit roll to oppose the action, that means the effect failed on that orc.

If the orc got a result of 2, that means the difference between the rolls is 4 so that's a success but no raise.

If Arabella had rolled a 7 instead of a six, then compared to the 2, she gets a success and a raise.

Is that how it works?

If I try the effect on multiple targets, does each target get its own spirit roll or would you roll one roll for all the orcs?


So I'm confused, why did you suggest I make a defensive roll?


Female Human Card: Bennies: 1 Parry: 5 [2 + 6(fighting)/2] Toughness: 5 [2 + 6(vigor)/2] (2) Armored Duster RATN: 4 Pace: 5 Notice: d6

He was referring to Arabella's situation. She's was going to take one defensive option, but he was suggesting a different one. See p. Savage World Deluxe p. 72, Defense, and p. 73 full defense. The latter requires a roll.


Arabella, yes that's how opposed rolls work. You can spend a Bennie to try and get a better value. Each target would get its own roll against your *single* roll.


Sorry for not being around much. With my life in the state that it's in, I'm having a very hard time keeping up with most of the games I'm in, and being the one moving the fastest, this one is suffering the most. I'm really trying, but it's not fair to you guys to be only around some of the time, so if I can't catch up and remain that way soon, Connor may not make it.


Female Human Card: Bennies: 1 Parry: 5 [2 + 6(fighting)/2] Toughness: 5 [2 + 6(vigor)/2] (2) Armored Duster RATN: 4 Pace: 5 Notice: d6

I came across the following link with advice on how to deal with certain sticky combat situations. Short and sweet and easy to follow. One page.

Combat Survival Guide pdf


Connor, right now your PC doesn't *need* to contribute much - he's underage so he doesn't get a say in discussions, and his powers are new and uncontrolled.

I'd be happy to keep him in the game as a "presence", and when your life settles down he'll still be here for you.

I don't think any of us want you to leave the game permanently...


The problem with the "withdraw AoO" is that it makes battles very "sticky", so that adjacent combatants tend to stay where they are. Sure you can move away but knowing that attack is there waiting for you will prevent you from doing so unless the need is *really* great.

(But BTW don't forget you can move *around* opponents with no trouble. So Arabella could move 1 or even 2 squares to the left right now without problems.)

There's an Edge called Extraction which allows the character to make an Agility roll, and on a Success *one* adjacent opponent can't attack you when you withdraw.

So what about this : everyone can try Extraction as an Action, but if you don't have the Edge you're at -2 to the roll.

Also, if you have the Edge the Agility roll does not count as an Action, but if you don't have the Edge it would.

If you're going to move *anyway*, at least it gives you a better chance, and it might also open up the battlefield to more dynamic movement in general.

Any thoughts?


Female Human Card: Bennies: 1 Parry: 5 [2 + 6(fighting)/2] Toughness: 5 [2 + 6(vigor)/2] (2) Armored Duster RATN: 4 Pace: 5 Notice: d6

What you suggest would be an improvement on the RAW, but I'd like to suggest something less complicated and more consistent with other aspects of the rules:

Instead of the opponent getting a free attack, require that the attack be made at -2. This is consistent with the fact that doing multiple actions in a turn invokes such a penalty and with the fact that the attack has to be made quickly to take advantage of the opportunity.

Or just eliminate the AOO. Some in this group have complained fairly bitterly about how complicated AOOs are in Pathfinder and have lobbied for eliminating them, so why not eliminiate this instance?

I don't think it makes sense to say that characters could run in circles around an opponent with no AOO, but the moment they step away from the opponent, they are somehow vulnerable.


Female Human Card: Bennies: 1 Parry: 5 [2 + 6(fighting)/2] Toughness: 5 [2 + 6(vigor)/2] (2) Armored Duster RATN: 4 Pace: 5 Notice: d6

In the first round, the orcs were rolling wild dice. In the second round, they were not. Did they get downgraded to extras?


I think because I started them with a Wild die for breaking down the make-shift barricade (as per the rules), that carried over into their attacks for a while. But funny you should bring that up... (foreshadowing...cue spooky music)

Very short day today (PbP-wise), more tomorrow.


Female Human Card: Bennies: 1 Parry: 5 [2 + 6(fighting)/2] Toughness: 5 [2 + 6(vigor)/2] (2) Armored Duster RATN: 4 Pace: 5 Notice: d6

I mention it because the one who wounded Arabella got a 2 on the attack die, which gets just a single success against her parry of 2. The wild die exploded and resulted in the success and raise. I think without the wild die, she would have taken less damage, 11 vs. 6 for a success and 1 raise, shaken and one wound. So she would have soaked the wound with her vigor roll.


Ok, drop the wound and take a Benny back for dropping the Shaken, since if you Soak all Wounds you lose Shaken as well.


Withdraw AoO's

Well, I think only one person "complained fairly bitterly" about d20/PF AoO's, and that was me - I'll own that, and proudly. :)

And the only AoO I removed from PF was the "movement past another character" part, which SW has already done for me.

(ALL - note that in SW you can move *right past* an enemy, and if you *don't exchange blows*, then when you leave him he does NOT get a free attack.)

Actually, I don't have a problem with one character running in circles around another while fighting - just think of a boxing match : they're always facing each other, and moving side-to-side a lot, or literally circling around each other.
PC's can use this to move to a tactically better place (like next to a "cleric" who needs to touch you to heal you), *without* incurring a "movement AoO" (like from PF).

I found from a post on the SW home site that the reason SW has the withdraw AoO is for two very specific reasons, to prevent "kiting" and "stinging" :

1. "Say you have a ranged combatant with a really good pace/movement. The ranged character can then keep on backing up and shooting; this is kiting. The [AoO] lock-down mechanism serves as a potential avoidance to that exploitation, once the ranged combatant gets into melee."
2. "Stinging is a melee combatant jumping into melee, attacking, and then withdrawing before the other side has a chance to reciprocate."

So I can see the need for this feature, but it also unfortunately "locks down" *everyone* in melee very tightly.

And in its defense, someone noted "It's very simple but also has built-in checks & balances: you can use the Defend action to mitigate your opponent's attack or take an Edge to improve your ability. You or an ally could also try a Trick [or Attack, Intimidate, Taunt] against the attacker to cause them to be Shaken so you can withdraw without being attacked". So if Arabella's in trouble, she or Alex (or WindDancer even) could try some things that might let her withdraw without taking an attack.

I originally liked Arabella's idea of -2 to the withdraw AoO attack, but by giving the "retreater" a chance to roll Agility :
1. They have 2 chances to get away without being hit (their Agility roll and the opponent's AoO attack roll)
2. To avoid further penalties they will probably give up an action (Attack, cast a spell, etc.), which seems like a good trade-off for getting away without being hit
3. There are already existing Edges that fit perfectly with this approach that will make you even better at getting away

Or, hey - I'd be willing to drop the withdraw AoO rule completely if y'all will agree not to abuse its absence by kiting and stinging (not "never use them", just "not use them all the time")!
Just keep in mind I'd also be free to use them every once in a while, too...
Be aware : without any withdraw AoO's, having Ranged attacks becomes *much* more important to your survival!
And anyone with a Ranged attack (like bad guys) becomes much more dangerous - they can take one step back and now their TN drops from (your Parry) to 4! Then again, so can you (if you *have* a Ranged attack...).

So :
1. Keep things as they are, which locks down melee tightly.
2. Try the Agility-2 action as a way to withdraw. (I *think* I would like to try this unless I hear otherwise, but am not committed at this point.)
3. Drop withdraw AoO's completely.

Any other thoughts/opinions/preferences?

P.S. - and in the same thread I found the above explanations, I also found this :
"When I ran d20, I totally ditched attacks of opportunity. I hated seeing my players standing in one spot through the entire encounter, too terrified to move, or spending several minutes sorting out multiple different movement/action possibilities and calculating the risk of each one like they were playing chess. I like a dynamic playing field with lots of change and the freedom to move about."


I don't mind keeping the AOO rule. I find the rules plenty confusing without houseruling them all. ;) That said, option 2 sounds pretty good to me.


Female Human Card: Bennies: 1 Parry: 5 [2 + 6(fighting)/2] Toughness: 5 [2 + 6(vigor)/2] (2) Armored Duster RATN: 4 Pace: 5 Notice: d6

I found a post that recommended new GMs use the rules as written for a while before introducing house rules. Seems like good advice. I don't like rules that seem arbitrary just for the sake of balance, but I can deal with that for the sake of helping the GM and everybody learn the rules.

My sense is that you could cure kiting and stinging in other ways, like requiring that if you do move away from melee, it is no longer a free action but an action (even if you only move one square or less than your pace). So if all you do is move away, you can avoid the AOO, just by picking your moment and moving when the person is out of position to make a quick attack. But then if you wanted to kite and shot, it would be at -2. Likewise if you wanted to move, attack, and move away, the attack would be at -2.

But I'm okay with keeping with the rules as written until we've been through enough battles to judge better what works and what frustrates good role playing.


Female Human Card: Bennies: 1 Parry: 5 [2 + 6(fighting)/2] Toughness: 5 [2 + 6(vigor)/2] (2) Armored Duster RATN: 4 Pace: 5 Notice: d6

Here is the link to the article I mentioned above:

Top 3 Mistakes Made by Savage World GMs


I've seen that advice and that article before. It's also true that SW is *meant* to be house-ruled. Believe me, the changes I've made have been minimal (compared to some I've read), and only when many long-time SW players agreed that the particular thing needs to be tweaked, and many of my changes are what these other more experienced GM's have done themselves. Or, like Bolt, when it became obvious from our experience that it was unbalanced for *this* setting.

I only mentioned withdraw AoO's specifically because Arabella was in a very tight spot, and I was trying to give her a break - if you're fine with her potentially being stuck in front of a melee opponent (or two) that can easily kill her just for trying to get away, while she can do no significant damage to them as they wail on her, I have no problems not changing the rule - that's just more fun for me (bwahahahaha...). >:)


Human Male Novice XP 10 | Agl d4 Sma d10 Spi d8 Str d4 Vig d6 | Pace 6 Parry 5* Tough 5 Cha 0 | Notice d6 | Rapier d4 (Str+d4), +1 to *Parry | Spellcasting 1d10 | 298sp | Bennies 3 | PP 15/15 | Status None

Are we on the new round yet. I don't remember you rolling for initiative.

-Posted with Wayfinder


Marko, check again - my last post is a summary of the previous round and the new initiatives, and was posted 7 minutes before your post - are you not seeing it?


Drat that hour editing limit! :)

And FWIW, there have been *many* extended discussions on the SW home forums over the *years*, debating whether the withdraw attack should be used or dropped or modified,
and I'd read them all before I suggested it here, so it wasn't just an idle whim...

Arabella, should you find yourself in a similar situation in the future and *have* to move away, if I were you I'd try a Smarts-based Trick to Shaken your opponent (if there's only one), OR use the Defend option, before moving away.


Female Human Card: Bennies: 1 Parry: 5 [2 + 6(fighting)/2] Toughness: 5 [2 + 6(vigor)/2] (2) Armored Duster RATN: 4 Pace: 5 Notice: d6

@ZenFox42: We've had this come up before (in other games) and you know me. I don't want the GM to pull punches to help keep my character alive in the middle of a battle. Being in a tight spot is part of the fun for me, so it just motivates me to do what I can to keep my character out of those spots or to improvise and rely on teammates or dumb luck otherwise.

My main interest is using rules which are consistent and reasonable as well as balanced. I'm thinking about whether or not I would eventually want to GM a Savage Worlds PBP game, so I am happy to play with RAW initially to get a taste of how the rules play. What little I've read of forums suggests that SW is volatile. One could play the same scenario twice with the same characters and one time the PCs clean-up the enemy and another have TPK (Total Party Kill).

But ultimately, it is your game and I'll learn something whichever way the rules are set.

So getting back to this case, my concern about the RAW is that it's inconsistent to just give characters a free attack without penalty when normally doing an extra attack penalizes all actions that turn.

My suggestion made earlier still seems the best middle ground, which is to make any movement (even less than normal pace) into an action whenever that movement involves moving away from an armed opponent. If that's all you do (move) then no rolls are needed (like the Withdraw action in Pathfinder RAW). If you want to take some other action, then the MAP kicks in and so on. You could add that if you withdraw from two opponents, it's like two actions, etc.


Human Male Novice XP 10 | Agl d4 Sma d10 Spi d8 Str d4 Vig d6 | Pace 6 Parry 5* Tough 5 Cha 0 | Notice d6 | Rapier d4 (Str+d4), +1 to *Parry | Spellcasting 1d10 | 298sp | Bennies 3 | PP 15/15 | Status None

Okay, Orc H is one seriously lucky guy.

-Posted with Wayfinder


There are a class of Actions in SW that I call "reactions" (my term, not theirs) that you can take that all occur during someone else's action : Diving for Cover, "saving throws" (like to avoid the effects of a Power, or an area effect such as a grenade), and three outright attacks - a First Strike attack, a Counterattack attack, and of course, a Withdraw attack. So there's actually other attacks you can take that also impose no MAP!

As Actions that you take during someone else's Action, these are classified as *Free* Actions for you, and as such incur no MAP. That's the consistency, and I'd be loathe to change anything about something as integral to the system as this entire class of Actions.


Creating a "withdraw movement" Action not only *guarantees* you get away without an attack (as opposed to making an Agility roll, which may or may not succeed), it also has the same effect as getting rid of withdraw AoO's entirely (everyone can just declare they're using it, and it always works), which opens up a whole other can of worms as described above.

Let's just keep the withdraw attack as per the rules, even tho I think it will make the battles less dynamic, which is a shame.


Female Human Card: Bennies: 1 Parry: 5 [2 + 6(fighting)/2] Toughness: 5 [2 + 6(vigor)/2] (2) Armored Duster RATN: 4 Pace: 5 Notice: d6

I don't think it means that players will never withdraw from combat. Arabella is likely to avoid it because she is particularly vulnerable with a relatively low parry and toughness. But I would not think a fighter type character, such as K'Don, would have the same reservations about exposing himself to a free attack or two, particularly if fighting extras.

And this strikes me as realistic. Aragorn can afford to step away from one opponent without risking very much, while Merry might not be able to do it without getting cut down.

The same thing comes up in Pathfinder. In Pathfinder, players can, in some circumstances, withdraw without suffering AOOs, but in order to do that, they can only move. So they give up the option to move 10 feet and fire a ranged weapon or cast a spell, which would otherwise be possible. But sometimes, a player may risk the AOO if he thinks it has a low chance of success. I think it's nice to have tradeoffs and options; it's what makes melee interesting.

So I don't think the RAW in SW will result in no movement away from melee. It just means there is a risk. I'd personally like to see a withdraw option the eliminates the risk at a cost of giving up some other actions, but I'm also interested in seeing how the RAW play out in a sufficient variety of melees to judge the overall effects.


PP 15/15 | Bennies 3/3 | Venom Strike 1/1
Arabella Stormworth-Darling wrote:
Arabella is interested in getting up on a house...

Is that possible? The roofs were described as thatch. WD's getting away with it because she's light; would thatch support a person or would you be restricted to basically walking the rafters/beams/etc.?


Female Human Card: Bennies: 1 Parry: 5 [2 + 6(fighting)/2] Toughness: 5 [2 + 6(vigor)/2] (2) Armored Duster RATN: 4 Pace: 5 Notice: d6

It's a moot point if there is no ladder, but from what I know of thatch it's as sturdy as any other material and has to have a solid enough support structure to withstand heavy snowfall, so I don't think a person would fall through. It depends on the pitch of the roof, of course, whether one could be anywhere except the very top ridge, but that would be okay if she could get there.

Did a little reading on it and in case the orcs try to set the houses on fire, the following is worth noting:

Thatch is not as flammable as many people believe. It burns slowly, "like a closed book," thatchers say. (From Wikipedia).


PP 15/15 | Bennies 3/3 | Venom Strike 1/1

Interesting (on both counts). Always happy to learn something new. Thanks, Arabella!


And it's been raining, so the Orcs didn't even bother to bring torches. ;)


Regarding Adelmar stepping back :

SW leaves the definition of "engaged" up to the DM, but the Orc was clearly coming up to specifically attack Adelmar, so even tho no blows had been exchanged yet, the Orc would be prepared to attack, and would have gotten in a "withdraw attack"...

...except that the Orc is Shaken, and Shaken characters cannot take ANY of those Free "reaction" attacks.


For Orcs, the first guys were wimps. I know now what to fix about their Traits to make them better fighters, but instead I want to try something else.

These are the "elite" troops, what I call "Wild Extras" (like you guys are "Wild Cards"). They have exactly the same Traits as the first ones, and still drop on 1 Wound, but get a Wild Die on all their rolls. They also bring 1/2 a Benny to my pool of bad-guy Bennies.

Enjoy! :)

Hope everyone (on this side of the pond) has a safe and happy Thanksgiving!


If intimidate causes a minus 2 It isn't really helpful. Could someone please tell me how to use this skill properly?


OH and an example would be very helpful


Human Male Novice XP 10 | Agl d4 Sma d10 Spi d8 Str d4 Vig d6 | Pace 6 Parry 5* Tough 5 Cha 0 | Notice d6 | Rapier d4 (Str+d4), +1 to *Parry | Spellcasting 1d10 | 298sp | Bennies 3 | PP 15/15 | Status None

Generally speaking, all multiple actions are risky. If you're going to try to intimidate in combat at all, then yeah it's probably best to try it before you attack, since you got a shot at getting the enemy shaken before you hit them. But you're a big bad, bruising berserker of a half-orc, so it's probably not necessary.

-Posted with Wayfinder


Female Human Card: Bennies: 1 Parry: 5 [2 + 6(fighting)/2] Toughness: 5 [2 + 6(vigor)/2] (2) Armored Duster RATN: 4 Pace: 5 Notice: d6

The rules are a bit vague in the skill description but here is what the SW Deluxe says:

SWD, p. 25 wrote:
Intimidation is the art of frightening an opponent with sheer force of will, veiled or overt threats, or sometimes just really big guns. This is an opposed roll between the hero’s Intimidation and his opponent’s Spirit. See Tests of Will on page 75 for game effects.

Turning to page 75, it says:

SWD, p. 75 wrote:

Tests of Will Intimidation and Taunt allow a character to make a “Test of Wills” attack against an opponent. In combat situations or during competitive miniature battles, Tests of Will have objective effects, as seen below. More subjective effects are determined by the Game Master in roleplaying situations.

To make a Test of Wills, the character makes an opposed roll against his chosen target. The defender uses Smarts to resist Taunt, and Spirit to resist Intimidation. The Game Master should modify both character’s rolls depending on the situation. Waving a gun in someone’s face isn’t polite, but it’s definitely worth a +2 bonus to Intimidation, for example (unless the target has an even bigger gun!).

A success means the attacker gets a +2 bonus to his next action against the defender during this combat. A raise on the roll gives the attacker the bonus and makes the defender Shaken as well. This can be a great setup for an attack, a trick, or even a second Test of Wills if the first one didn’t get a Shaken result.

Example: Buck Savage tries to Taunt a crocodile cultist by flipping his machete and grinning like a hyena. He rolls his Taunt and beats the warrior’s Smarts with a raise. The cultist is Shaken and Buck adds +2 to his next action against the spearman.

So in this situation, the orcs will act first so they'll be swarming in. On your action, you could move closer to one and instead of attacking make your intimidation display.

The rolls might go something like this:

K'Don
Intimidation: 1d6 ⇒ 4
wild: 1d6 ⇒ 5
Result = 5
ZenFox42 said these orcs get a wild die also. Best case scenario, the orc has a d4 spirit attribute:

Orc
Spirit: 1d4 ⇒ 2
Wild: 1d6 ⇒ 2
Result = 2

5 - 2 = 3, so no success. The orc is not intimidated.

Your odds of getting the orc frightened are probably not optimal unless the GM can give you a bonus for something, I wouldn't think it worth the effort, particularly since it generally replaces an attack.

Consider that if you attack, you are rolling a d8 + d6 and trying to beat a fixed target (the parry value). Success translates into the same result (shaken) that you'd get with a success + raise on the intimidate check. So in terms of probability, you're better off just attacking.

The only way it's likely to pay off is if your intimidation (or taunt) skill is higher than your fighting skill and if the opponent is an extra (so he doesn't get the wild die). Even then, if you just want to take him out, attacking is probably better.


The one place it would work really well is when your opponents are far enough away that they can't get to you on this round, AND you act first, so you might as well try to Intimidate, which you can do at a distance. Then wait for them to come to you.

Or, if the only opponent left is an archer and you don't have a Ranged weapon, you could try to Intimidate him to help your archer friends take him down. But note that a threat you can't carry out (because you can't reach him) will give the target a bonus.

Don't forget, you can only ever Intimidate one target at a time, tho.

(Gee, that would make a great Veteran Edge : "Mass Intimidate"...)


Wow in that case I's like to trade that skill in for one I can acutally USE. ;-)


If you really want to pick a different skill and transer the d6 from your Intimidation to it, I have no problems with that, we're all basically learning the system for the first time.

But before you do, consider these things :

Intimidation can be used in interrogating prisoners.

At the very least, a Success gives you a +2 (which is a BIG deal in SW!) to your next action against that foe, including your next Intimidate! So if you're a long way away, you can Intimidate as you approach, and by the time you get there you not only probably have a +2 to your attack, they may be Shaken.

If you can get any opponent Shaken (requires a Raise), they cannot attack you or your comrades (good against archers).

One of the system designers said : "use Intimidate every time you don't have a foe you can attack in melee". It can only help!

If you want to Intimidate AND attack in the same round, taking the Wild Attack maneuver cancels the -2 *and* gives you a +2 to damage, but your Parry is at -3 until your next action.

And if you're up against an opponent with a high Toughness, if you Intimidate before an attack, it can help get the Raise which would add the d6 to your damage.

Intimidating before an attack can also turn a Shaken attack result into a Wound.

It's up to you, just let me know what you want to do.


I'm celebrating 3 birthdays this weekend, so I may not get a chance to post. Have a good weekend, everyone!


Female Human Card: Bennies: 1 Parry: 5 [2 + 6(fighting)/2] Toughness: 5 [2 + 6(vigor)/2] (2) Armored Duster RATN: 4 Pace: 5 Notice: d6

It's moments like this where the turn-based system can make things weird. In the game, each player has to decide what to do before knowing what anyone after him in the initiative is doing. But in the game reality, everything is happening at once. I would assume that somewhere during the turn where the orcs enter the compound and split into two groups, someone in a position to see this (Marko, Adelmar, and K'Don) would yell a warning to others behind them.

But since everything happens in turn order, Adelmar acts before the orcs, so he can't warn anyone. Marko and K'Don act after Alexander, so he has to make a decision without the benefit of any battlefield warnings, even though Marko and K'Don are not really waiting until the last moment of the melee to take their actions.

So technically, I'm not sure Alexander would really do either of the things listed. He would need to move east to see where the orcs are, unless he could be expected to make an educated guess that the orcs would likely spread out once in the compound.

So the GM will need to weigh in and indicate what Alexander knows and when he knows it about the movement of the orcs.

These issues are further complicated by PBP where people don't always announce their actions in the initiative order.

To be more realistic, everyone should secretly tell the GM what he will try to do before knowing what anyone is actually going to do, based only on what has gone before. Then the GM would describe the actions and require rolls based on the combination of actions intended. But that's impractical.

601 to 650 of 1,204 << first < prev | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Online Campaigns / Play-by-Post Discussion / Exploring the Savage World of Keltica All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.