There will be an EGM to finalise the ref-team, it will probably be the first of many until there is a finalised ref team. There will be other motions.
Motion: Decide what f********* breaks halt. Submitted.
Proposed by: Drac
Seconded by: Andy
In an attempt to make this as EGM easy as possible:
Original text: If struck by any damage call apart from NOTHING, this effect is broken.
New Text:
If struck by any effect call or any damage call that is not [DAMAGE TYPE] NOTHING, this effect is broken, unless the [DAMAGE TYPE] causes you to take damage (for example, you are vulnerable to that damage type).
Examples
- NOTHING : will not break halt
- MASS NOTHING : will not break halt (damage call is still precisely NOTHING)
- SUBDUE NOTHING : will not break halt (no damage caused)
- MASS RED NOTHING : will not break halt unless you are vulnerable to RED. (Damage is half if you are red vulnerable, otherwise NOTHING)
- MASS RED HALF : will break halt, even on those resistant to RED. (damage call is RED HALF)
- TOUCH : will break halt (damage call is not nothing)
- STRIKEDOWN 10 : will break halt (but you are now under the effects of STRIKEDOWN)
- HALT 5 : will break halt (though you are now under the new halt effect for 5 seconds)
- DETECT HUMAN : will not break halt (not a damage call or effect call)
- REC MAGIC : will not break halt (not a damage call or effect call)
- INFLICT N : will break HALT if it is put on you whilst under the halts duration. It will not break halt if you are already under the inflict as you have not been struck by it (Thus INFLICTs or a pre-existing long running effect call do not provide halt immunity).
- CURE N : will break halt (effect call)
- An effect that would cause you to respond NEGATE or TAKEN will break halt. (as those are effect calls)
Older options.
Here is an attempt to get an easy to understand, unambigious wording. Please give comments, suggestions, clarifications before the EGM.
I have diliberately not worded b & c as "effect that causes you to take damage" as that means that a pyrokin taking RED HALF will not have their HALT broken, which is not in the spirit of the HALT effect as I understand it, if people think differently feel free to make option d.
Original text: If struck by any damage call apart from NOTHING, this effect is broken.
Option a. Anything that is not NOTHING
If struck by any any status effect or any damage call that is not precisely NOTHING, this effect is broken.
Examples
- NOTHING : will not break halt
- MASS NOTHING : will not break halt (damage call is still precisely NOTHING)
- SUBDUE NOTHING : will break halt (damage call is SUBDUE NOTHING)
- MASS RED NOTHING : will break halt (damage call is RED NOTHING)
- MASS RED HALF : will break halt (damage call is RED HALF)
- TOUCH : will break halt (damage call is not nothing)
- STRIKEDOWN 10 : will break halt (but you are now under the effects of STRIKEDOWN)
- HALT 5 : will break halt (though you are now under the new halt effect for 5 seconds)
- DETECT HUMAN : will not break halt (not a damage call)
- REC MAGIC : will not break halt (not a damage call)
Option b. Anything that inflicts damage but not status effects
If struck by any damage call that is not [DAMAGE TYPE] NOTHING, this effect is broken, unless the [DAMAGE TYPE] causes you to take damage (for example, you are vulnerable to that damage type).
Examples
- NOTHING : will not break halt
- MASS NOTHING : will not break halt (damage call is still precisely NOTHING)
- SUBDUE NOTHING : will not break halt (no damage caused)
- MASS RED NOTHING : will not break halt unless you are vulnerable to RED. (Damage is half if you are red vulnerable, otherwise NOTHING)
- MASS RED HALF : will break halt even if you are resistant to RED. (damage call is RED HALF)
- TOUCH : will break halt (damage call is not nothing)
- STRIKEDOWN 10 : will not break halt (but you are now under the efects of STRIKEDOWN, have fun with that)
- HALT 5 : will not break halt (2 overlapping halts, enjoy)
- DETECT HUMAN : will not break halt (not a damage call)
- REC MAGIC : will not break halt (not a damage call)
- If we go with this, I think we should suggest counting durations down instead of up- it's a minor thing, but something you might not think of, and if you're 27 seconds into HALT 60 and then take HALT 30, it's much easier to go "30's bigger than 27, so down from there" than "I'm on 27, so keep counting to 60 or start again and go to 30?" --MorkaisChosen
- So if I take HALT 60 and then HALT 30, do I need to have my halts broken twice to be able to move again? --Tea
- aaaagh! no! no! If only for not going mad --Pufferfish
Option c. Anything that inflicts damage and status effects
If struck by any status effect or any damage call that is not [DAMAGE TYPE] NOTHING, this effect is broken, unless the [DAMAGE TYPE] causes you to take damage (for example, you are vulnerable to that damage type).
Examples
- NOTHING : will not break halt
- MASS NOTHING : will not break halt (damage call is still precisely NOTHING)
- SUBDUE NOTHING : will not break halt (no damage caused)
- MASS RED NOTHING : will not break halt unless you are vulnerable to RED. (Damage is half if you are red vulnerable, otherwise NOTHING)
- MASS RED HALF : will break halt. (damage call is RED HALF)
- TOUCH : will break halt (damage call is not nothing)
- STRIKEDOWN 10 : will break halt (but you are now under the effects of STRIKEDOWN)
- HALT 5 : will break halt (though you are now under the new halt effect for 5 seconds)
- DETECT HUMAN : will not break halt (not a damage call)
- REC MAGIC : will not break halt (not a damage call)
- I like this option. Although does 'status effect' need defining? Is disarm a status effect ext...? --Malselene
- We have Effect Calls defined on the site, a definition that includes Disarm- and not Recognise, Detect or Purge (those are non-combat calls).I suggest changing this to be worded as "Taking any effect call or damage call other than [DAMAGE TYPE] NOTHING, unless the [DAMAGE TYPE] causes you to take damage. Non-combat calls do not break Halt." The only slight weirdness there is that specific PURGE and INFLICT calls don't break it- may be worth addign a clause in about that, though I note that the Cursing miracle tree makes you call Touch at some point anyway, due to the Lay On Hands procedure. --MorkaisChosen
Option D
If you or your armour take damage or a status effect, you use a point of DAC, or you actively parry, you are interrupted. This will interrupt casting and break halts.
This is possibly equivalent to one of the previous three, but I'm not sure offhand. It means that RED NOTHING will break halt on a hydrokin, RED HALF will not on a pyrokin, and SUBDUE NOTHING will never break halt. WIDE or MASS affect the previous parts in the obvious ways. This does mean it becomes possible to break halt for some people but not others.
I note idly that a 'damage call' is defined on the System Calls page, and is specifically only the damage grade, not any flavour attached to it.
--Tea
- What happens if you use a potion effect or blessing or spell effect or flange-item to negate an incoming damage call or status effect? Are you interrupted then? --ChessyPig
- For the sake of simplicity and less arguments at the EGM, can we do the breaking casting separately, it is not fitting as cleanly into the new definitions as it did previously. And frankly just getting a HALT wording people agree on is enough of a struggle. --Drac
- If it is a point of DAC, yes. If not, no. --Tea
- If it's an issue, why not do something like "Anything that breaks Halt breaks spellcasting- also, you cannot parry or use DAC during your vocal without losing the spell" as wording for spell disruption? --MorkaisChosen
Unify Breaking Halt and Interrupting Casting
Proposed by: Drac
Seconded by:
This was passed at AGM without the HALT text being defined, so I feel its only proper to put a working of it up here to see how it would work. --Drac
Original text: If a weapon or effect, or any call strikes you while you are casting, then your casting is interrupted and you must start the vocal over, but do not lose any magic or spirit. The only exception to this is if the call is, precisely, "NOTHING". This is very strict, so a RED NOTHING will interrupt anyone, even a pyrokin, as it is not a "NOTHING" - the reason being that even that effect is distracting enough to break your concentration. This means you are interrupted in all other situations, for example if you DAC a blow, or you have magical armour. You are not mechanically interrupted when someone distracts you, say, by throwing a bucket of water over you, however you should feel free to roleplay losing the spell or miracle and starting over. You can't parry when casting, it's as good as an interruption. You can hold your weapon out in front of you in a vaguely threatening manner, but you can't move it around to parry, or push against an incoming blow, without losing your spell.
Change to:
{Halt rule with this effect is broken changed to your casting is interupted} as per the halt rules. In addition if you parry or block with a weapon, use DAC or otherwise NEGATE the call, it also interrupts your casting. You must start the vocal over but do not lose any magic or spirit. You are not mechanically interrupted when someone distracts you, say, by throwing a bucket of water over you, but you should feel free to roleplay accordingly.
- "as per the halt rules" is in explicitly mostly as a reminder to future ref teams/AGMs? that it is this way and if they change 1 they should change the other / explicitly make them different. --Drac
- I'm not sure on 'or otherwise negate'—that seems to me something we should think about. --Tea
Replace Brawling (General Skill) with the following:
Brawling (1XP)
Proposal: Andy
Seconded: Tea
Your character has knowledge of one or more forms of IC brawling, be it fisticuffs, wrestling or another appropriate technique. You may brawl with somebody by challenging them in an obvious (eg: You Sir have insulted my honour, prepare for a thrashing!) and refusable (eg: "In this society, Sir, we fight with WIT/SWORDS/ARMIES") manner. At this point you must agree on how you will be physrepping the fight in a manner both parties are happy with (You could choose to mime punches & telegraph massively with the only way to dodge being to lean backwards to a ridiculous angle, first to N hits, first to [bodyhits] in hits etc). You may not involve anyone in your fight unless they openly join (eg: "Break this fight up at once!") and you agree with them joining (implicitly: eg socking them one or explicitly eg: "I'll fight the both of ye!").
Any "damage" done by brawling is non-mechanical, if your character loses and is "knocked out" or such they can be revived trivially and have not taken any mechanical damage by default, they may decide on their that they took damage in which case it is subdual, or may RP that they have a split lip etc.
- Can you clarify what precisely this motion is? I'm assuming it's a replacement of the current brawling skill with the above but it isn't exactly obvious. --Malselene
Submitted
Proposal: Change the amount of armour that can be worn by any character (without the armour or light armour skill) to 4 points.
Reasoning: This makes the numerics of the armour skill simpler. It also slightly increases the amount of armour available to people without levels in warrior which is no bad thing as armour is amazing.
- Proposed: Rowena Paren
- Seconded: Dave Proctor
The Pros and Cons of frailty and non-combatant (as it was requested on IRC that the arguments for and against be put on the wiki)
Presented here to hopefully aid in decision making ahead of the EGM, and hopefully keep the meeting short.
Reasons to like Frailty
- It provides an easy package to hang a character concept around
- It provides additional roleplay
- It gives far fewer xp than it is 'worth'.
Reasons to dislike Frailty
- It is easily overcome at crucial moments (though alchemicals) and hence at those moments it is just free xp.
- Xp is not handed out for other viable disadvantages, like having a maimed arm or leg, being blind or other
- It makes it easier to pope build
- It makes a character non-linearable, and this has led to it being circumvented enough to make the limit seem less limiting.
- It gives far fewer xp than it is 'worth'.
- It often entails "trading off" XP gain for screentime gain.
Reasons to like Non-Combatant
- It provides a mechanical disadvantage to caster types which limits tactical options, but leaves them linearable.
Reasons to dislike Non-Combatant
- In comparison to frailty it actually gives a lot more xp relative to its disadvantage.
- It is easily overcome at crucial moments (though alchemicals) and hence at those moments it is just free xp.
- Xp is not handed out for other viable disadvantages, like having a maimed arm or leg, being blind or other
- It makes it easier to pope build
- It breaks newtons second law and hence makes no sense (Hey I can’t swing a sword hard enough to hurt someone but I am capable of swinging hard enough to block the person who was just trying to swing at me that hard).
Personal testemonial and anecdotal data regarding either
- Frailty is really not worth the xp that it gives. However the question is probably why does it give xp when so many other things don't? --Malselene
- I have yet to see non-combatant provide roleplay (I did want to play a character who had sworn an oath to do no harm once but taking the skill would have been inappropriate as then I’d have had difficulty breaking it) --Malselene
- My next PC is probably going to be NC with an eye to getting roleplay out of it (physically normal druidy type green mage with Issues around spilling blood in ritual/non-ritual contexts). However, I could do this fine without the skill. --Jacob
- But that's the thing. Dropping the ability to spill blood at all means you can't do the happy fun drama of having some situation where it looks like you need to do it for some reason. --MorkaisChosen
- What you could do is simply reduce the xp gain from frailty and noncom. I would like to see both remain as a mechanical thing though (mechanical restrictions on characters are fun :D) -Porange
- I note that the proposal is to remove the XP gain, and explicitly mentions that agreeing on mechanical restrictions with your friendly refteam is big and clever. --Tea
/BuffArchery