(Untitled)

[thesofaofdeath]

Help me align my moral compass, lazywebs

Comments

[phil_richards]

I know to what this refers and have an idea. The whole idea is that for a non-com they are counted at and then drop. Why can't they count back and see who runs out of hits first?

[thesofaofdeath]

Hmm... good idea, actually. It preserves both possible outcomes (i.e target is dropped/caster is dropped) without introducing combat.

[phil_richards]

Yeah - and in fact it would mean that they can wander into an actual encounter and do the same with any fighter.

[dragonmat89]

I see the logic in this, and have thought about this as a solution, but then we'd have complaints from people who are good fighters OC that they could be dropped by a noncom who's just raced up the HP tree, and it could cause even more arguments and resentment.

[safer666]

it is much easier for a noncombatant to escape losing hitpoints than a combatant for safety and logistics reasonsReally? I'm not all that sure that it is. A combatant can use a shield and/or a long weapon to keep opponent at bay and it just as able to run away from opponent should the need arise. When drumrolling hits are uncounted (as I believe they still are) then a combatant can be hit at most once per second - the same as a non-com - but are often hit much much less due to skill, equipment etc. Whole branches of defensive (shield use specifically - the rules as they are give no benefit at all for a non-com using a shield) and offensive (e.g. cleaving blow and it's stagger effect is HIGHLY useful at beating people back) are unavailable to non-combatants. I'm not sure how the current ruling could be said to give them an advantage

[thesofaofdeath]

A combatant can use a shield and/or a long weapon to keep opponent at bay and it just as able to run away from opponent should the need arise. When drumrolling hits are uncounted (as I believe they still are) then a combatant can be hit at most once per second - the same as a non-com - but are often hit much much less due to skill, equipment etc. Whole branches of defensive (shield use specifically - the rules as they are give no benefit at all for a non-com using a shield) and offensive (e.g. cleaving blow and it's stagger effect is HIGHLY useful at beating people back) are unavailable to non-combatants. I'm not sure how the current ruling could be said to give them an advantage...The noncombat rules stipulate that the target has to be at touch range. It is a lot easier for a noncombatant, who cannot be hit with long weapons, to get out of range than a combatant who can still be whacked at for a distance; don't forget that some noncombatants can't have arrows or crossbow bolts fired at them either. And in the end, the safest and

[safer666]

It was my understanding that 'touch range' could count as the range of an extended weapon. A non-combatant may not be able to be hit with a longer weapon, but the added reach is still there. Of course, if the non-com is ducking and diving to avoid touching distance then that's pretty Rule 7, not to mention entirely against the purpose of his/her non-combatant status.

However, I think saying "it isn't the ref's fault that the noncombatant suffers from a dangerous condition" is barking up the wrong tree entirely. It isn't the ref's fault, but it IS the ref's responsibility to make sure things are safe for everyone. Otherwise you could just as easily say, "well, it's not the ref's fault you can't do combat, so either risk getting hit or leave", which is the kind of thing we want to avoid, really!You're right, I phrased that poorly. What I meant was that the ref's first priority is to the safety of the non-combatant and then to the enjoyment of everyone playing the system. He needs to view the decision for an objective perspective, to

[daxx_61]

There was some talk of this at the frothmeet and my opinion of it then was this