The TEAMWORK skill -- more than just DEX-based?

[Mister E]

Teamwork is a weird Skill.

 

As I understand it is, for example, absolutely useless unless at least one OTHER person also has the Skill. Except for Languages, I can't think of any other Skill off hand like that. It's like it has an inherent "Requires Multiple Users" Limitation. Without getting the cost break.

 

It takes two to PS: Tango (PRE-based).

[Mister E]

I agree with Tasha. However, I think the real issue is not one of mechanics but instead one of poor naming. There absolutely needs to be a DEX based Skill to coordinate attacks with the goal of combining damage past defenses for the purpose of Stunning a target. Teamwork just may not be the best name for that Skill. I have no idea what a better name might be (Combat Coordination?) but once that is figured out then a INT based Skill with other effects like Tasha's suggestion for Surprise could be assigned to the now available 'Teamwork' name.

 

HM

Strategy

 

 

There are two types of strategic speech acts:

 

1) commands

2) alarms

 

Both require prior communicative speech acts in order to be established.

 

A communicative speech act is a complete notion & has the power to convey information:

 

"When I say jump I want you to duck."

Strategic speech acts do not:

 

"Bark bark bark!"

A siren is noise. A raised fist is a picture. Silence is all permissive. A kiss is just a kiss...

 

That is not to say that information cannot be gleaned from strategic speech acts (e.g. that there is a vocal dog interested in something out the window) only that w/o prior communication to establed meaning there is not much.

 

[[edit]]

 

Sounds like a PRE-based Interactive Skill to me.

 

A good replacement for Leardership that all the characters on the team can use together.

 

Timing is everything & Presence is the very quality of time itself.

 

"Razzle dazzle!"

[[edit]]

 

Contrast w/ both Tactics & Conversation.

[Mister E]

Merengue Dancing Golden Retriever:

 

[dmjalund]

A kiss is just a kiss...

 

a sai is just a sai

[Surrealone]

Out of curiosity and in order to test consistency on this matter in a Devil's Advocate type of capacity, if TEAMWORK is purely a DEX-based thing because it represents timing for coordination as the SETAC folks here seem to insist (despite the 'training together' element and any internal counting or external signaling elements -- which clearly aren't DEX-based), then what's with the prohibition of physical attacks being coordinated with mental ones? 

 

I'm asking because timing is timing ... and a mentalist can absolutely elect to act at his/her slowest compatriot's DEX rather than at his own EGO on a given Phase ... to attack with a mental power.  (In case there's doubt, this is clearly evidenced by a mentalist being able to half-move before attacking mentally -- which requires that the movement happen at his/her DEX -- followed by the attack.) For simplicity's sake, let's assume all members on the team happen to have Mental Awareness -- just to rule out any responses like 'others can't see what the mentalist is up to so they can't coordinate with him/her' excuses -- nevermind that visibility of what the mentalist is doing is not a pre-requisite for a purely DEX-based skill that's strictly a timing thing for coordination -- per folks insisting the skill should be DEX-only and that perception of things and/or signaling is, at most, complimentary.

 

Timing is timing, right?  And as previously stated by many in this thread, a DEX-based approach best represents timing for coordination, right?   Regardless of the kind of ability one is trying to time, right?  So what's the explanation for people using mental powers being unable to coordinate with those using non-mental powers using Teamwork ... despite timing being timing ... and DEX best representing timing?

[Sean Waters]

OK:

 

1. Teamwork is not a particularly objectionable name, but if we are going to change it for the mythical 7e, let's call it the Coordination Skill.  It is defined as being able to time your blows to hit either simultaneously or in a sequence, the effect of which is to allow you to use the Coordinated Attack combat maneuver.  I mean it could get confused with PS: Fashion, but let's hope we've all grown up enough not to.  To be clear it is all about the agility, physical or mental.  Whilst DEX is a physical characteristic it also implies a degree of mental coordination, but see below.

 

2. INT is already taken into consideration in the Coordinated Attack as you either need to be able to clearly perceive the signals being given by the other coordinators, or you need to make a PER roll.

 

3. You might see EGO as mental agility, but to me that is INT - EGO is mental Strength or resilience, so you would not use EGO to coordinate an attack, ever: I would certainly allow an INT roll (rather than a DEX roll) to coordinate mental attacks, although that would depend on SFX.  I would also allow the coordination of any and all attacks that are capable of coordination, although I might well apply some penalties to the roll for participants who can not perceive their teammate's attack.  I might also apply a penalty for coordinating dissimilar attacks, so ranged and melee, physical and mental.  That sort of thing.

 

4. I'd definitely be applying penalties for multiple coordinators: it is far more difficult to get 5 people to hit at the same time than 2.  OK, the simple random roll  does that to an extent, but it is more than that - I think that trying to get 5 to hit at the same time might put everyone's timing off.

 

5. It can not be 'Strategy' as that is an overall battle plan.  'Tactics' is closer, but I'd still go with Coordination Skill or, you know, Teamwork.  There is no 'I' in 'team', but you can make 'eat' and 'me'.

 

6. As I said above, I think the effect is too powerful but also not useful enough - I would change it to simply reduce the effective CON of the attacker by 5 for each successful coordinator.  This would have a couple of effects - it would prevent two attacks going from 20 for stunning to 40 for stunning AND it would allow attacks that would not even get damage through defences to contribute - it is not simply about taking multiple hits but also the difficulty in defending yourself from them and the errors that might force.

 

7. I'd definitely apply a penalty for failing the roll to discourage teams from constantly spamming it, say a reduction in your chance to hit or your defences, or even losing your attack if you fail by enough.  I might make it take an extra segment, or require everyone to have a delayed phase.

 

8. Finally I would create some sort of defence against Coordination: something to reduce the chance of coordination working against you, or reduce the effect of it if it does.  Possibly a Talent that applies penalties to coordination attempts and/or reduces teh effect of a successful attempt.   I might do this through Defence Manoeuvre, which already works against Multiple Attacker Bonus, but is a bit all or nothing.

[Sean Waters]

So, should Occam have a beard?

[Hugh Neilson]

Out of curiosity and in order to test consistency on this matter in a Devil's Advocate type of capacity, if TEAMWORK is purely a DEX-based thing because it represents timing for coordination as the SETAC folks here seem to insist (despite the 'training together' element and any internal counting or external signaling elements -- which clearly aren't DEX-based), then what's with the prohibition of physical attacks being coordinated with mental ones?

 

 

First off, you are not summarizing any position made by anyone else on this thread. You are creating a straw man so you can attack it. No one said "purely DEX-based". Several examples have been given of other skills which could benefit from statistics other than that used to set the skill roll. The stat selected for any given skill reflects that skill being primarily, not purely, based on that stat. Just like perception and knowledge could enhance pretty much any skill.

 

Lots have been tossed out already. Animal handler? Perceiving the animal's mood is pretty important, as is knowledge of training techniques. If you buy up the skill, I suggest you are buying up your knowledge and intuitive understanding of the use of that specific skill, in isolation of any other stat-based aspect.

 

And, like acrobatics, I concur that DEX is the best choice. Not INT (although it could have an influence in some cases for the reasons you suggest). Not PRE (although PRE drives leadership, which could be useful in coordinating a group). DEX has the greatest impact - not the only impact, but the greatest impact - so the skill is DEX based.

 

We have also suggested a change to the linkage between stats and skills could be worth considering, but that would not just be for Teamwork, and is not the present state of the rules.

 

Second, why ask a question requesting experiences and views of others if you expect everyone to agree with your views? Were you hoping for a three page thread praising your brilliant insight, and suggesting DoJ engage you to completely rewrite the system for 7th Edition based on suggesting one skill be based on the average of two stats because you perceive that skill being so vastly different from every other skill? As inveterate tinkerers, most of us prefer to stress test the idea, and also to assess the merits of the original rule, the proposed rule and other possible alternative rules.

 

To the question of mental attacks, I don't see anyone leaping to the defense of that issue. There are a lot of bugs in the mental powers rules, and the question "why can't a mental blast be coordinated with a physical attack?" becomes even more odd when one considers the potential to build an AVAD Mental Defense, AVACV MOCV vs MDCV, IPE, Range LoS Blast to have the exact same mechanics (at a much higher cost) that can coordinate since it is not a "mental attack".

 

So allow it. Problem solved, with a lot less issues than "hey, this one skill is so vastly different that it needs two stats, instead of one" or changing Teamwork to something other than DEX so we can have pages of discussion on why an ability primarily reliant on timing and coordination is not based on the stat associated with timing and coordination.

 

EGO is the driver of pretty much everything related to mental attacks, so that would suggest EGO, not INT, be used for mental-based teamwork. I guess now we need the average of three stats - after all, it's willpower that enables that high DEX speedster to delay his attack until Pokey the Brick's DEX, right? So we need to factor EGO in every time, right?

 

If I want to justify it, the nonperceptibility of the mental attack precludes timing them together. So everyone has Mental Awareness? That means you can perceive the attack when it is made. But then it has been made, so it is too late to time your attack to be simultaneous. But I prefer to just ignore the orphan mechanic of "mental attacks can't coordinate". I definitely prefer it to "make one skill its own unique rule because I see situations where more than one stat could be relevant".

 

STR can be relevant to climbing, so we use a STR roll as a complementary "skill roll" on those occasions where it would help. If perception would be important in a certain case, why not leverage that precedent and use a PER roll (hearing or sight, depending on which perception is important in this specific situation) as a complementary skill, rather than try to incorporate every stat that's relevant.

 

I'm thinking that, accurate though it may be, basing the skill on 9+ [(40% of DEX) + (30% of INT) + (15% of EGO) + (10% of Leader's PRE) + (5% of Leader's INT)] will not improve the game by a quantum order of magnitude.

[Hyper-Man]

I believe that one of the levels of Defense Maneuver already provides a defense vs. coordinated attacks.

 

HM

[Sean Waters]

It certainly does v multiple attackers, i.e it allows you to ignore the multiple attacker bonus but my reading of it is that it has no effect on teh stun adding effect of a coordinated attack.

[steriaca]

Prehaps the new name for DEX based Teamwork could be called Physical Cordanation, and we can create for mentlist an INT based Mental Cordanation?

[Surrealone]

 

 

 

 
First off, you are not summarizing any position made by anyone else on this thread. ...  No one said "purely DEX-based". Several examples have been given of other skills which could benefit from statistics other than that used to set the skill roll. The stat selected for any given skill reflects that skill being primarily, not purely, based on that stat. Just like perception and knowledge could enhance pretty much any skill.

Individuals in this thread (you, Tasha, HM, others) have stated they feel the skill should be based solely on DEX  I summarized that stance using the words 'purely a DEX-based thing' because if something is based solely on DEX --- and no other characteristics -- then it can very fairly and accurately be termed 'purely a DEX-based thing'.  If you read anything else into that, then it's something you added to the verbiage, not me -- as I made no implications whatsoever.
 

 

You are creating a straw man so you can attack it.

 

Actually, I wasn't.  What I did was took RAW -- which also happens to be the stance you, Tasha, HM, and others put forth -- which is Teamwork being purely a DEX-based thing (i.e. based solely on DEX) ... and tried to figure out how you, Tasha, HM, and anyone else (who feels Teamwork should be DEX-based to represent timing) would address the inability for mentalists and non-mentalists to time things.  RAW on this matter makes even less sense to me than Teamwork being purely a DEX-based thing.  I can absolutely roll with the idea of using only DEX for Teamwork ... but when I do, the next hurdle which must be overcome within Teamwork's RAW is the inability for mentalists to internally count, follow signals, etc. alongside non-mentalists ... and vice versa.
 

 

Lots have been tossed out already. Animal handler? Perceiving the animal's mood is pretty important, as is knowledge of training techniques. If you buy up the skill, I suggest you are buying up your knowledge and intuitive understanding of the use of that specific skill, in isolation of any other stat-based aspect.

And, like acrobatics, I concur that DEX is the best choice. Not INT (although it could have an influence in some cases for the reasons you suggest). Not PRE (although PRE drives leadership, which could be useful in coordinating a group). DEX has the greatest impact - not the only impact, but the greatest impact - so the skill is DEX based.

We have also suggested a change to the linkage between stats and skills could be worth considering, but that would not just be for Teamwork, and is not the present state of the rules.

As usual, you digress.  All of that which I just quoted has nothing to do with the follow-up question about mental attacks and physical attacks not being able to be coordinated via Teamwork.  (I am beginning to see where the term 'gadfly' came from, I think?)

 

 

Second, why ask a question requesting experiences and views of others if you expect everyone to agree with your views? Were you hoping for a three page thread praising your brilliant insight, and suggesting DoJ engage you to completely rewrite the system for 7th Edition based on suggesting one skill be based on the average of two stats because you perceive that skill being so vastly different from every other skill? As inveterate tinkerers, most of us prefer to stress test the idea, and also to assess the merits of the original rule, the proposed rule and other possible alternative rules.

You know what they say about 'assuming' ... so you probably shouldn't have assumed I expected everyone to agree -- because I did NOT -- and have made no statement suggesting such.  With that in mind, I'd like to politely request that (as you remove your proverbial  foot from your proverbial mouth) you also put that accusatory attitude back in your pocket; you know the one I mean, the section about three pages and praising and such in the quoted text immediately above -- because I wasn't hoping for that, at all.

 

I wanted to see what others thought ... and how anyone else who had house-ruled the Teamwork skill had done so.  The only goal was to take that info and bring it back to our group for consideration.  Our next meeting is late in Dec, so there's lots of time still, for that.  Thus, I've just been watching this topic, mostly.  Thankfully,  a few people actually posted about their thinking and their house rules (if they had them) ... since the digression on 7e and re-writing things and such was completely immaterial to what I was actually hoping for (as opposed to what you assumed/accused me of hoping for).

 

I appreciate the insights offered by those who actually stuck to the topic.  I also appreciate seeing what appears to be a consensus that Teamwork should remain purely a DEX-based thing (per RAW) ... and the rationale for it.  Such things are good food for thought for our group.

 

Regarding Teamwork being "being so vastly different from every other skill" (to use your words):
One person (I forget who) did, by the way, point out in this very thread how different Teamwork is from every other skill.  Specifically, in order for it to be useful, at all, at least two characters must have it.  Can you name another skill that costs 3 CP minimum by default that is defined by RAW (i.e. not a KS, Science, Language, or some other consumer-defined skill ... but, rather, an actual pre-defined skill such as Computer Programming, Concealment, Acrobatics) about which you can say the same?  I can't think of one... 

​If you feel the need to treat Teamwork as if it's just like every other skills, by all means, do.  However, I think the evidence put forth (2 people, minimum needing to have it for it to be usable, at all) shows that it's not like other skills.  Frankly, unless I've forgotten some other RAW-defined, 3CP base cost skill that's got the same requirement, this very facet makes Teamwork unique among skills ... aka an orphaned skill.  And, well, if it's already orphaned/unique, what's the issue with making its computation more accurately reflect its RAW description?  Are you afraid you'll make it 'more unique'  (an oxymoron, since uniqueness is a binary thing by definition -- something either is or isn't 'unique')???

I believe the fact that two people must have Teamwork for it to have the potential to be used, at all ... also happens to show us that it's an expensive skill for what it does (despite some saying it's too cheap).  My thinking is that when considering Teamwork's cost you need to aggregate the costs paid by both (all?) who have it ... in order to get an accurate idea of what was paid out for the potential value derived from it.

 

 

To the question of mental attacks, I don't see anyone leaping to the defense of that issue. There are a lot of bugs in the mental powers rules, and the question "why can't a mental blast be coordinated with a physical attack?" becomes even more odd when one considers the potential to build an AVAD Mental Defense, AVACV MOCV vs MDCV, IPE, Range LoS Blast to have the exact same mechanics (at a much higher cost) that can coordinate since it is not a "mental attack".

Ahh, but it's not a mental power rule that has a potential bug, here, is it?  In this case, the potential defect is in a skill's verbiage ... not a power's verbiage ... so it's the skill with the bug, not mental powers.

I wanted to test consistency on the matter of Teamwork being purely a DEX-based thing (i.e. based solely on DEX) among those whose positions it was that Teamwork should be/remain based solely on DEX because doing so represented timing.  I performed that test by asking a follow-up question centered around the RAW Teamwork skill's strange stance regarding mental powers ... because RAW suggests that mental powers can't be timed with non-mental ones ... which seems absurd and ad-hoc.  (i.e. Mentalists can't do internal counts like non-mentalists or something?  Mentalists can't act when signaled alongside non-mentalists?  Nuts!)

​Reading the rest of your response, it sounds like you tend to agree there's a problem regarding the inability for mental and physical attacks to be coordinated using Teamwork?  Is that a fair summary?  I'm asking because I don't want to assume anything, here ... so I'm trying to confirm what I think I've read.

​And on that note, I am still interested in what others who feel Teamwork should be purely a DEX-based thing (i.e. based solely on DEX .. to represent timing) have to say about the inability for mentalists and non-mentalists to be able to time things together using Teamwork -- because your opinion alone on that topic, while it may jive with mine -- is still just one other person's opinion and I'd like to see if the 'Teamwork should be DEX-based' people also feel, as a group, that mentalists and non-mentalists should be able to coordinate attacks using it regardless of whether powers are (non)mental.  (Put another way, I'm curious if there's a consensus trend on this, as well... from the same people who think DEX is the way to go.)



​On my end, how I feel about mental and non-mental attacks being coordinated using Teamwork:
Since there's typically only one strong mentalist in a given group (a generalization, of course, but a reasonably fair one, I think), I consider it a pretty significant problem that, per RAW, mentalists can't coordinate their mental attacks with those of non-mentalists -- especially if the rationale for Teamwork being purely a DEX-based thing is ... timing.  Personally, I tend to think that the only offensive powers that shouldn't be able to be coordinated using Teamwork are those that have a limitation taken on them that prevents coordinating using Teamwork (which I peg as a -1/4 limitation ... assuming the character has the Teamwork skill ... else it's worth nothing except maybe if the GM permits Everyman Teamwork (8-) and is willing to give a limitation to someone without the skill who relies on tie Everyman version.)  IMHO, such a limitation approach would more accurately reflect a mentalist who couldn't coordinate a Mental Blast with his/her teammates; i.e. s/he took the Mental Blast with a limitation that precludes it ... and got something for it, which is his/her due for a limitation that actually limits him/her.

[Hugh Neilson]

Individuals in this thread (you, Tasha, HM, others) have stated they feel the skill should be based solely on DEX I summarized that stance using the words 'purely a DEX-based thing' because if something is based solely on DEX --- and no other characteristics -- then it can very fairly and accurately be termed 'purely a DEX-based thing'. If you read anything else into that, then it's something you added to the verbiage, not me -- as I made no implications whatsoever.

The only thing in the RAW which I would classify as “purely based on DEX” is a DEX roll. Teamwork is based on the raw aptitude provided by DEX and the honing of that aptitude into a useful skill through the investment of 3 points to acquire the skill, plus 2 points to enhance it by +1.

 

Based on your interpretation, every skill is based “purely on” a single characteristic. That is a compromise accepted for every other skill. If it is a problem for teamwork, it is equally a problem for every other skill Hence, I discuss other skills by way of comparison.

 

As usual, you digress. All of that which I just quoted has nothing to do with the follow-up question about mental attacks and physical attacks not being able to be coordinated via Teamwork. (I am beginning to see where the term 'gadfly' came from, I think?)

You consider it a digression. I consider it a comparison of teamwork to other skills. All are based exclusively on a single characteristic. Most, if not all, could be made easier to accomplish by at least one other characteristic. You present teamwork as being unique in the system in that more than one characteristic could logically enhance it, but only one does. That is in no way unique – it is common to most skills.

 

You know what they say about 'assuming' ... so you probably shouldn't have assumed I expected everyone to agree -- because I did NOT -- and have made no statement suggesting such. With that in mind, I'd like to politely request that (as you remove your proverbial foot from your proverbial mouth) you also put that accusatory attitude back in your pocket; you know the one I mean, the section about three pages and praising and such in the quoted text immediately above -- because I wasn't hoping for that, at all.

Assume. Surmise. I interpret from your defensiveness that you were expecting wide scale agreement with your premise. My interpretation could be accurate, or it could be your tone does not accurately convey your expectations, and my interpretation is flawed. Note that I did not state what you expect, but questioned what you expected.

 

I appreciate the insights offered by those who actually stuck to the topic. I also appreciate seeing what appears to be a consensus that Teamwork should remain purely a DEX-based thing (per RAW) ... and the rationale for it. Such things are good food for thought for our group.

Did we achieve that consensus? I think we have a consensus that, if skills are to be based on a single characteristic (neither based on multiple characteristics nor de-linked entirely from characteristics), then DEX is the best choice on which to base Teamwork.

 

However, I also think your analysis stimulated some consideration of whether the baseline assumption that skills should be based on characteristics at all, and if so that they should be based off of a single fixed characteristic, rather than a combination of multiple characteristics and/or characteristics that vary with the skill use and/or SFX.

 

Regarding Teamwork being "being so vastly different from every other skill" (to use your words):

 

One person (I forget who) did, by the way, point out in this very thread how different Teamwork is from every other skill. Specifically, in order for it to be useful, at all, at least two characters must have it. Can you name another skill that costs 3 CP minimum by default that is defined by RAW (i.e. not a KS, Science, Language, or some other consumer-defined skill ... but, rather, an actual pre-defined skill such as Computer Programming, Concealment, Acrobatics) about which you can say the same? I can't think of one...

Any skill which is not different from other skills is not useful – it can be subsumed into those other skills. Needing two characters with the skill is, to my mind, a minute difference between it and other skills.

 

Every interaction skill needs at least one other character to be useful, an animal In the case of animal handler. Riding needs an animal as well. Combat piloting and combat driving need a vehicle. Bugging needs bugs and computer programming needs a computer. Concealment is useless with nothing to conceal. Lots of skills require something a character would often pay points for to be useful.

 

Unless another character has spent points on a language, what use are cryptography and forgery?

 

The fact that the specific prerequisite to Teamwork is another character having teamwork? I would classify that as minutia. Most or all skills require presence of something to be useful - in this case, it is another character with the ability to coordinate. At the most minute level, if you have Duplication, you can coordinate with yourself, so no one else needed to purchase the skill.

[Greywind]

Forgery doesn't need comprehension. It is more of an Art-based skill, being able to accurately copy what you see, whether or not it is a painting, handwriting, whatever.

[whitekeys]

Out of curiosity and in order to test consistency on this matter in a Devil's Advocate type of capacity, if TEAMWORK is purely a DEX-based thing because it represents timing for coordination as the SETAC folks here seem to insist (despite the 'training together' element and any internal counting or external signaling elements -- which clearly aren't DEX-based), then what's with the prohibition of physical attacks being coordinated with mental ones? 

After having read the entries for Teamwork (6e1 91), Coordinating Attack (6e2 44), Complementary Mental Powers (6e1 152), and some of the Mental Powers, I have come to some possible conclusions:

 

1. Teamwork - "... it simulates a character's general ability work as a "team" with any other character in combat". The use of this skill is not exclusive to Coordinating attacks.

 

2. Coordinating Attacks - "if the combat is particularly confusing or noisy, the GM might require the characters to make a PER Roll to notice the cue to attack;" and "When characters try to Coordinate, they must make an appropriate Skill or Characteristic Roll to see if they succeed. Typically they use... Teamwork... However... at the GM's option, a character who doesn't know Teamwork can make a DEX Roll or Tactics Roll (INT)..." To Coordinate, it is not absolutely necessary to use Teamwork. We have been discussing Coordinating Attacks but referring only to the Teamwork skill as if they were exclusive to one another this whole time. =P

 

3. a]] "It's up to the GM to decide if attacks can be coordinated" (6e2 45 under Effects of Coordinating). 

     b]] "Because the point of Coordinating is to improve the chances of Stunning a target, characters cannot Coordinate attacks that don't do STUN damage" (6e2 45).

     c]] "...each must make an EGO Roll (to simulate their ability to "coordinate" their attacks) ... The mentalists do not need to Coordinate or act on the same EGO or Phase..." (6e1 152 under Complementary Mental Powers)

 

Which tells me that Steve Long had a particular idea in mind when he wrote this rule and the rule that Physical attacks cannot be Coordinated with mental attacks. Notice the different between the lower-case, quoted "coordinate" and the capitalized unquoted Coordinate. Coordinating attacks is specifically for adding STUN totals to Stun a target. But it doesn't preclude the opportunity to "coordinate" other attacks in other ways that provide other bonuses, if approved by the GM.

 

4. I suspect that because Physical and Mental attacks take place in different dimensions of combat or reality, Steve Long thought that their effects shouldn't be combined to increase the chances of Stunning a target, or some such reason. I don't believe his purpose was to say that they couldn't happen at the same time to a potential other effect. Which means, in my opinion, any discussion of whether it's a timing issue, or a perception issue, or any issue related to the skills of different characters, is irrelevant to the rule about combining STUN totals to increase the chances of Stunning a target.

 

5. To go back to your original post, Surrealone, the best I can come up with is to buy two separate skills, or alter the governing Characteristic in each circumstance while retaining any Skill increases, or buy them as Skill Levels, and determine which of the Characteristics is most appropriate given the application of the Teamwork skill. If you're trying to Coordinate attacks, use the standard rules for Coordinating attacks, and the GM can determine what he thinks is most appropriate to determine success. The rules state clearly it doesn't have to be Teamwork.

 

EXAMPLE:

 

DEX: 10, 0 pts

INT: 13, 3 pts

+2 Teamwork, 4 pts

Enhanced Perception, +1 to PER Rolls, 1 pt?

 

1. Attempting to quietly jump off a balcony and land simultaneously on an unsuspecting Orge: DEX-based Teamwork - 9+(DEX/5)+2 = 13-

2. Attempting to swing swords down upon an opponents shield in unison rhythm with your teammate, in a foggy, dimly lit cave: PER-based Teamwork - 9+(INT/5)+2+1 = 16-

3. Attempting some kind of group intimidation tactic to scare off a threat that you know you can't take on by yourselves (which obviously involves song and dance, like a haka): INT-based Teamwork - 9+(INT/5)+2 = 15-

[dmjalund]

+SPD only if following commands - UBO (nearby, group) only with teamates

[Sean Waters]

Quick thought: Charles X wants to coordinate a mental attack with Psylocke.

 

Psyclocke has a high DEX, Charles does not.  Both have a decent INT though.  They both have mental powers and the ability to sense mental powers.

 

Should it be difficult for the world's premier telepath to coordinate an attack with another telepath?

 

Let us assume that he has not bought Teamwork and nine skill levels in it, shall we?

 

Would it be OK to use INT rather than DEX for the Teamwork roll?

 

OK, now Charles wants to coordinate with Wolverine.  W does not have mental powers or the ability to sense them and has a very high DEX.

 

This is going to work against them.  Wolvie can not sense when the mental attack is going to land, so has to go ahead and attack and hope that Charles manages to get in at the right time.  The fact that Wolvie is so quick might make it more difficult to coordinate: it would probably be easier to coordinate with Colossus as he is slower and hits more predictably.

 

How would you deal with that?  Simply not allow it?  Have just Charles make a teamwork roll, albeit at a penalty?  Have them both make a roll (with a penalty)?  How would you decide the penalties?

[Surrealone]

Charles wants to coordinate with Wolverine.  W does not have mental powers or the ability to sense them and has a very high DEX.

 

This is going to work against them.  Wolvie can not sense when the mental attack is going to land, so has to go ahead and attack and hope that Charles manages to get in at the right time.  The fact that Wolvie is so quick might make it more difficult to coordinate: it would probably be easier to coordinate with Colossus as he is slower and hits more predictably.

 

How would you deal with that?  Simply not allow it?  Have just Charles make a teamwork roll, albeit at a penalty?  Have them both make a roll (with a penalty)?  How would you decide the penalties?

I think this depends on how the team functions in a given situation.

 

Example 1:

Wolverine doesn't have to know or care what Charles is doing for Charles to land his STUN-only Mental Blast at the same time Wolverine digs in his claws.  In this case, it's all on Charles to time his Mental Blast properly based on what he sees Wolverine doing ... using a held action so that he can take it when he feels the timing is right.  Such a task would appear to involve perception (of Wolverine) and timing (to match Wolverine) on Charles' part ... so I see this as DEX and INT-based ... in complimentary fashion. (i.e. PER roll by Charles whose outcome influences a Teamwork roll made by Charles, alone ... at a rate of +- 1 to the Teamwork roll for every 3 pts the PER roll was made by.)  I also feel the PER roll would be modified based on how clearly Charles could see Wolverine's claws and the target, range, and the like.

 

Example 2:

​Wolverine and Charles agree in advance to coordinate "on three" and each begin an internal count from one to three, with Wolverine holding actions as required in order to match his slower compatriot, Charles.  Such a task appears to involve only timing on the part of both Wolverine and Charles -- matching their actions to the count -- so this would be a purely DEX-based thing using the Teamwork skill -- where both have to succeed with the roll else their timing is just a little off and the STUN done by each doesn't stack for stunning purposes.

 

I think you get the idea. 

 

Thoughts?

[whitekeys]

Quick thought: Charles X wants to coordinate a mental attack with Psylocke.

 

Psyclocke has a high DEX, Charles does not.  Both have a decent INT though.  They both have mental powers and the ability to sense mental powers.

 

Should it be difficult for the world's premier telepath to coordinate an attack with another telepath?

 

Let us assume that he has not bought Teamwork and nine skill levels in it, shall we?

 

Would it be OK to use INT rather than DEX for the Teamwork roll?

 

OK, now Charles wants to coordinate with Wolverine.  W does not have mental powers or the ability to sense them and has a very high DEX.

 

This is going to work against them.  Wolvie can not sense when the mental attack is going to land, so has to go ahead and attack and hope that Charles manages to get in at the right time.  The fact that Wolvie is so quick might make it more difficult to coordinate: it would probably be easier to coordinate with Colossus as he is slower and hits more predictably.

 

How would you deal with that?  Simply not allow it?  Have just Charles make a teamwork roll, albeit at a penalty?  Have them both make a roll (with a penalty)?  How would you decide the penalties?

In my last post, it became clear the the typical effects of capital "C" Coordinate are to combine STUN totals to increase the chances of Stunning a target. This cannot be done, therefore, with attacks that don't do STUN Damage. The regular kind of coordinating, merely "happening at the same time", can be done whenever and with whatever. So, you would need to stipulate exactly what effect you were going for in each example. Anyone wouldn't have a problem with attacks happening at the same time, but the effects are a different story.

 

1. Furthermore, Teamwork is a skill typically used to capital "C" Coordinate, but is not absolutely necessary. You pose the question as if INT can substitute, but no substitution is necessary. The GM determines what characters need to do in order to coordinate. Otherwise, 6e2 152 suggests that mentalists should use EGO to simulate their ability to coordinate with each other. Probably a better option, anyway, since it will likely be higher than INT for a mentalist character, but INT should be acceptable, too. 

 

2. Again, to what effect are they coordinating? The GM determines what they need to do in order to Coordinate: Teamwork is not absolutely necessary. I like Surrealone's suggestion of Charles using a Held Action, but it could happen like this: Charles yells "Now!" and Wolverine must make a DEX roll to react sufficiently and with accuracy given the surprised nature. The book rules that Physical attacks cannot be capital "C" Coordinated with Mental attacks for the purposes of increased STUN totals, for a reason that I suspect has something to do with each attack happening in a different realm of reality. But they can still happen at the same time. 

 

Common sense, dramatic sense, game balance, GM permissions, etc. But I don't see any need for penalty. They're still acting in a normal fashion, and each should be able to do what they need to do, whatever that winds up being.

[Sean Waters]

Killing attacks and Mental blast both do STUN - I was not suggesting coordinating a damaging attack with Telepathy, although I can see where that might have arisen - but I was just noting that they were both (small t) telepaths.  The rules say that mental attacks that do damage can not generally be coordinated.  That makes no sense to me as the target is still feeling stun damage.  Let us ignore that proviso for this discussion.

 

Coordinating an attack is, I think, a massive advantage as it makes a STUNNED result very likely.  It should not therefore be trivial and, from a gameplay POV should not be something that teams routinely spam: if a tactic is so effective that it is used all the time then the balance is wrong.

 

Funnily enough it is hardly ever used in our games, but that is because of an unspoken agreement that if the PCs don't abuse it, the GM won't either.

 

So, yes, in example one, Charles would have to delay his action as Wolvie can not know when he is going to act unless he is cued.

 

So, looking at Surrealone's examples, in the first instance, Charles (who has high INT, presumably) is making a PER roll complimentary to a Teamwork roll.

 

Bear in mind there is no 'downside' to making a complementary skill check: if you fail, no penalty.  So what we have is Charles making a single Teamwork roll, possibly at a bonus.  That gives a better chance of success than if both Charles and Wolverine had to make a Teamwork roll to succeed.

 

The second example is 'going on a cue'.  Here PER is not used, so it comes down to a simple Teamwork roll by each.  I would certainly apply penalties as C&W are using different types of attack and I would apply additional (and substantial) penalties because Wolvie can not perceive Charles' attack at all.

 

The problem with going on a cue is that the opponent might well perceive the cue too and so I might allow them a PER roll with margin of success acting as a penalty to the Teamwork roll.

 

Of course Charles could send the cue telepathically...

 

That does highlight a problem though - there is no obvious way to counter a Coordination attempt.  Well, maybe Dodge.  Given its usefulness, there should certainly be some sort of defence or counter to it.

[Surrealone]

That does highlight a problem though - there is no obvious way to counter a Coordination attempt.  Well, maybe Dodge.  Given its usefulness, there should certainly be some sort of defence or counter to it.

 

There is a defense to Coordinated Attacks: lots of CON.

 

But if you wanted to make it more interesting, well, since  Defense Maneuver is all about handling multiple attackers, I would argue that some level of Defense Maneuver might be used to provide a defense to Coordinated attacks.  Looking at Defense Maneuver III (half phase and eliminates multiple attacker bonuses for all attackers - perceived or not) and Defense Maneuver IV (takes no time to use and makes DCV CS levels persistent) ... I think that if a defense were to be created using Defense Maneuver -- it should be sandwiched between these two levels (III and IV).

 

Here's my stab at it:

Defense Maneuver III.V (i.e. 3.5) - takes no time and allows a DEX roll to avoid the effects of a Coordinated Attack where the DEX roll is made in a Skill Vs. Skill roll against the average result of the Teamwork rolls of the parties conducting the Coordinated Attack.

 

 

I chose the average result of the Teamwork rolls since there are multiple Teamwork rolls involved ... by multiple parties ... and the average of them would reasonably represent one number to use in a Skill vs. Skill contest by the person using the Defense.  Since Teamwork is purely a DEX-based thing, it made sense to make the Defense Maneuver roll used as a defense ... a DEX roll.

 

Frankly, if I were house-ruling this, I'd turn Defense Maneuver IV into Defense Maneuver V ... and make the above stab a replacement for the original Defense Maneuver IV ... just to avoid the oddball 3.5 in Roman numerals.

[Sean Waters]

I don't like the 'lots of CON' approach because it means you are building heroes and Villains (or Opponents) in very different ways just because the system requires it rather than for a good reason.

 

I would PREFER a defence to Coordinated attacks that was scaleable.  Say 1 character point of Coordination Defence  = -1 on all coordination attack attempts against you.  Mainly because you don;t have to work out averages mid-combat that way.  Or make extra rolls.

 

Mind you. I'd probably re-do Defence Manoeuvre too, along those lines: 1 character point negates 1 point of DCV penalty/OCV bonus for multiple attackers.

 

Actually, there is a lot I'd re-do if I thought about it for long.  Best I don't, eh?

[Surrealone]

I would PREFER a defence to Coordinated attacks that was scaleable.  Say 1 character point of Coordination Defence  = -1 on all coordination attack attempts against you.  Mainly because you don;t have to work out averages mid-combat that way.  Or make extra rolls.

Fair, but if you're going to make a defense to a Coordinated Attack scalable ... then you should also make the Coordination of the attack scalable.  To clarify what I mean by this, there should be degrees of Coordination, not just a binary outcome entailing either successful or unsuccessful Coordination.

 

Example:

Wolverine and Charles both roll the dice for required Teamwork rolls .... and Wolverine makes it on the head while Charles misses his by 1.  Per RAW, they fail to Coordinate their attacks, but if you're scaling things, then the degree of failure is only minor, meaning there should likely be -some- amount of Coordinated STUN damage that is done ... simply less of it than if they'd both made their rolls on the head.

 

Similarly, if they both make their rolls by 3, then they should likely do more Coordinated STUN damage than if they'd both made their rolls on the head.

[Sean Waters]

Fair, but if you're going to make a defense to a Coordinated Attack scalable ... then you should also make the Coordination of the attack scalable.  To clarify what I mean by this, there should be degrees of Coordination, not just a binary outcome entailing either successful or unsuccessful Coordination.

 

Example:

Wolverine and Charles both roll the dice for required Teamwork rolls .... and Wolverine makes it on the head while Charles misses his by 1.  Per RAW, they fail to Coordinate their attacks, but if you're scaling things, then the degree of failure is only minor, meaning there should likely be -some- amount of Coordinated STUN damage that is done ... simply less of it than if they'd both made their rolls on the head.

 

Similarly, if they both make their rolls by 3, then they should likely do more Coordinated STUN damage than if they'd both made their rolls on the head.

 

 

Apparently I can not like this post because I have reached my quote of positive votes for the day.  Who knew?

 

Why not, right, make all the rolls and allow 5 points of extra Stun through for stunning purposes per participant per point the worst roll is made by, with a cap of how much damage you got through defences.

 

That sounds more complicated than it is.  First, pick a character to coordinate the attacks.  This is the character whose base damage you use.

 

1. If anyone fails the roll, no coordination.

2. If everyone makes their roll, one of them only just, then you get 5 points of extra damage for Stunning (DFS*) per extra participant (up to a maximum of how much each extra participant gets damage through defences (DTD)).

3. Each +1 the WORST roll is made by allows an extra 5 points of DFS per participant to a maximum of each individual's DTD.

 

Example: TARGET has 30 relevant defence.  He has 30 CON.  He is hard to Stun.

 

Attacker 1,2,3 and 4 coordinate.  Attacker 1 is the base coordinator.

 

Attacker 3 fails his coordination roll, so no DFS bonus

 

They try again, and all make their rolls.  This time Attacker 3 makes his roll by +1 (he needed 11, he got 10): he is the worst result.  Everyone can now chip in 10 points of Stun to the DFS pool, OR however much they got damage through defences, whichever is most.

 

A1 does 39 STUN (9 DTD)

A2 does 45 STUN (15 DTD)

A3 does 28 STUN (-2 DTD)

A4 does 37 STUN (7 DTD)

 

SO: we start with the base coordinator (A1) and have 9 DFS.  Then we add 10 points for A2 as he can chip in up to 15 but is capped by the margin of success of the roll, no points for A3 as he got no damage through defences and another 7 from A4.  Total is 9+10+7 = 26,  TARGET is not stunned.

 

If A3 had rolled a 9 (succeeded by 2) then A1, A3 and A4 would not have increased their contribution as they were already maxed out, but A2 would have been able to chip in the full 15 points and to DFS would have been 31.  Woot!  Target is stunned!

 

A better coordination roll than that would have yielded no additional advantage.

 

Too complicated?

[Surrealone]

It's probably too complicated to become a standard part of RAW, but I could see an optional rule for Coordination being like this -- and I like it.