House Skills 3.0

[SigmaCaine]

>>Hide in Shadows IS covered under this rule because it states that it can be used at ANY time, "as long as he is not the direct or indirect target of any tangible game effect."  It also goes on to say that "area effects and other indirect effects which affect him will prevent its use as well."  In other words, if someone says "Hey, he's hiding!" they can, indeed, target him to prevent it.  Straight out of the rulebook.

Small note: you cannot interrupt the use of Hide in Shadows simply by suddenly declaring a combat and targetting the Lightfoot. It's not fast enough. In fact, the only things listed in the rulebook that *can* interrupt Hide in Shadows are Detect Invisibility and Infrared Vision.

Andy, with your interpretation of the rules, the NDF would never have a problem imprisoning an Avatar. "I declare this conversation a combat. You can't leave. I'm hostile to you and you're not allowed to move out of short range with a hostile combatant..."

[Dragontologist]

NDF comment: Not true.  The wording is "Melee combat" not "short range hostile combatant" - you actually have to have performed a melee attack on that person in the last round.

Hide in Shadows can be used as a reaction, in which case it is fast enough (not possible to react to a reaction).  However, if it is performed as an action, as in, not reacting to something, then it CAN be reacted to.

[SigmaCaine]

>>The wording is "Melee combat" not "short range hostile combatant" - you actually have to have performed a melee attack on that person in the last round.

I was given the ruling that it doesn't matter if the person *has* attacked you (or you them), or even has an action with which to do so in that round - you can't move because they're all up in your grill, so to speak.

[wcshoe]

Certainly you can declare it a combat, even if it's a non-combat action.  Under non-combat actions: "An “Action” is assumed to be anything which an Avatar does to affect another Avatar or the Nexus itself."  And under the attributes section: "Anytime an Action is taken, it has the potential of sparking a Combat."

Page 12: Column 1:
"An 'Action' is considered to be anything which an Avatar does to affect another Avatar or the Nexus itself. Many Actions can be performed outside of a Combat, and will not provoke a Combat."
 
Page  10: Column 1:
"Anytime an Action is taken, it has the potential for sparking a Combat."
 
You should have continued to read, it explained the difference between combat, non-combat, and surprise actions...

In other words, anything you do CAN spark a combat, if ANYONE decides it should.  If someone wants to declare a combat in the middle of a room, make everyone in the room draw for init, even if no one performs any actions that round, and it is a peaceful discussion, it is still a combat.  It'd be annoying and rules-lawyering, but you could sit there and demand everyone follow their initiative orders for no good reason.

Page 12: Column 2:
"The following Rules govern ALL Combat:
A Combat begins with a simple declaration of intent to use an Action. Once this happens, the intended target(s) must oblige the declaring Avatar with a game response..."
 
You can't just declare a Combat - you must declare an ACTION. You certainly can't declare an Action for another person, thus you can't say that somebody else is starting the Combat.

The resurrection is certainly a valid point (even Bill's point contradicts that - it has a calculation), but there are other skills and powers that do NOT have calculations that CAN be taken as an aggressive action.

Resurrection does not have an OFFENSIVE calculation. And 'aggressive actions' (like charging at a small MUD critter, shouting 'YOU,' and reaching out to grab him by the scruff) are not COMBAT ACTIONS.

More references from Helvetian house skills:  From Restore Sense: Although this Skill can be used as often as necessary, it requires an Action, and may NOT be performed as a Surprise Action, so the attempt MAY force Combat (and its subsequent Initiative draw) from an interested third party.

It may force combat, as the result of the interested third party declaring a COMBAT ACTION (thus the mentioned 'subsequent Initiative draw').

Anything that requires an Action to perform, can be acted on as if it were a combat.

No, only declared Combat Actions can be acted on as though they were a combat.

Hide in Shadows IS covered under this rule because it states that it can be used at ANY time, "as long as he is not the direct or indirect target of any tangible game effect."  It also goes on to say that "area effects and other indirect effects which affect him will prevent its use as well."  In other words, if someone says "Hey, he's hiding!" they can, indeed, target him to prevent it.  Straight out of the rulebook.

They can target the Lightfoot with a TANGIBLE GAME EFFECT. That is, a COMBAT ACTION (Attack, etc.) or a NON-COMBAT ACTION (Heal, Detect Invisibility, etc.). They can't just declare the Lightfoot to be targeted without initiating an effect of some type (if Hide in Shadows is used out of combat). If used out of combat, you cannot just declare this to be a combat action and use any Reaction to stop it.

Even in combat, it comes to initiative. I am not the 'direct or indirect target of any tangible game effect' until your first INIT happens and you actually do something to me. Simply being in combat is not even close to being the same as being targeted by a TANGIBLE GAME EFFECT.

In a new post:

Hide in Shadows can be used as a reaction, in which case it is fast enough (not possible to react to a reaction). However, if it is performed as an action, as in, not reacting to something, then it CAN be reacted to.

Read the description on Hide in Shadows. It quite clearly states that it cannot be used as a Reaction.

It can be used in or out of Combat. If used out of combat, you cannot use Voice of Reason to counter it, although some other reactions might be used.



In summation Andy, I think you need to sit down and read ALL the rules, not just the ones you like.

[Fox McCloud]

In summation Andy, I think you need to sit down and read ALL the rules, not just the ones you like.

 

[Dragontologist]

Bill, you have to dial it back, right now.  Insulting people is not the way to solve rules discussions - and that's what this is, a discussion. 

Now, first of all, Vinny has indeed stated that ANY action can be interpreted as starting a combat.  "The mechanics of combat do not exclude negotiation. When all Avatars in a combat declare that the combat is ended, it is ended."  "If I had a bomb that I was threatening to set off and I stopped to negotiate even though I had the opportunity to move faster than anyone could have stopped me, then my "action" was already the act of threatening with it." 

Hell, that post contains YOU responding to an argument of "Pointing a gun at someone doesn't initiate a combat."  with "Go ahead. Point a gun at Cutthroat. See if it doesn't initiate a combat..."

Yes, in the current rules, any action can start a combat if someone wants it to.  Your action may only be a threat, but it's still an action.  Even if no actions are taken in the round, as it stands, combat still continues.


Regarding resurrection, there are specific rules regarding that: "if the Avatar died during a combat, the four minutes begins immediately after the combat ends; this period of time is called the “grace period”. No COMBAT Action may be taken by or against any Avatar who was involved in the combat in which the Avatar died."  No one can affect anyone who was just in the combat.  However, you CAN interrupt someone who was NOT in the combat, who is attempting to resurrect a body.  There are no rules regarding that.


Regarding hide in shadows: Sorry, I think I was reading "Hide in Daylight" for the reaction part.  Because it does NOT count as an action (in either shadows or daylight), it can't be reacted to, by declaring combat or otherwise.  So I AM wrong on this particular point, since it says specifically that it is not an action.

However, I am rather insulted by your comments - I am reading the rules, and trying to argue them the best I can.  If you believe I'm wrong, bring it to Vinny, or we can take it off-list.

[Yuri_Prime]

Hell, that post contains YOU responding to an argument of "Pointing a gun at someone doesn't initiate a combat."  with "Go ahead. Point a gun at Cutthroat. See if it doesn't initiate a combat..."

I point a gun at Cutthroat... non-combative action. Cutthroat blasts me into atoms... combat action.

The act of me pointing the gun at cutthroat can, yes, initiate combat. However, it's not going to be my pointing a gun at him that initiates the combat. if I don't shoot him, he's going to shoot me. Cutthroat may feel threatened, but how he feels is irrelevant. I do nothing but act, he initiates combat. I wouldn't see it as me initiating combat by pointing the gun at Cutthroat, but rather Cutthroat's reaction.

See, if I don't have marksmanship, I can't use a gun, therefore I cannot initiate combat with a gun. I can wave it all around, but I can't use it. Hell, I can't even throw it without Thrown Weapon. So I can point a gun at Cutthroat all day and since I don't have the necessary skill to actually initiate combat, Cutthroat technically has nothing to fear from me pointing a six pound piece of steel at him.

He may, though, decide to take it upon himself to initiate combat and atomize me. That would be him initiating combat. He has the proper skills and abilities to initiate combat with his chosen weapon.

I do believe, though, that in Bill's actual example, it was more him being smarmy then him actually invoking rules and law. It's the whole, "Go ahead, do that. See if I don't kill you." reaction. You know.... sarcasm.

However, I am rather insulted by your comments - I am reading the rules, and trying to argue them the best I can.  If you believe I'm wrong, bring it to Vinny, or we can take it off-list.

Sorry to say it like this, dude, but that's the reason this forum exists: To discuss discrepancies in the rules and make sure we're all essentially on the same page. Now, Bill's tone may have been a bit harsh, though to his credit you were working off of a very personal working of the rules, and while that's easily corrected here on the forum, it would be a little more disastrous to have this massive discussion live. So while Bill may need to dial down, perhaps you have too much personal interest vested in the outcome of this discussion to think objectively. It's your character, after all, that benefits or fails to benefit from this outcome.

Ultimately, I feel this is something that should absolutely not be decided off-list if possible. This is a major discussion that involves a very tricky House Skill, and in order to ensure that all the staff and all the players really have a grasp of what exactly they can do, or what they're up against, this should be dealt with here.

The Root of the problem (sorry for the pun, Andy) I believe can be summed up as such: We need to determine what exactly constitutes a Combat Action. Are there certain skills that must be involved? Does it need to invoke a skill?

According to the actual text, many Actions can be taken without needing to check for combat, which means that there are some skills and powers that do not prompt the combat response, and that Combat, as defined:

"A Combat begins with a simple declaration of intent to use an Action." (For the rest, consult the rules or see bill's post a few notches up)

Therefore, by reading that definition, I would need to actually invoke an Action. If we define "use an Action" as "use a Skill / Power" then it comes down to "anytime I do something that relies upon a skill or power, such as hypnosis or possession or elemental blast or what have you, then combat must be checked".

If we define an Action as "Anytime I do anything", then that means that everytime Yuri shakes someone's hand, I'm initiating a grapple, and everytime Alex Rovias gives someone a high five, then it's an OR contest to hit a small moving target that isn't resisting. Good thing he's not a Citadel anymore.

I'm sure one of these is correct. Please advise, and in the spirit of cooperation and understanding, if something I'm saying *sounds* like sarcasm, then perhaps it is. I may have a BS in BS, but I'm not out to trample feelings.

[Dragontologist]

The problem that you're missing, Buddha, is that "Action" is NOT defined as "Use of a skill or power" but instead as "Anything that has an effect on the Avatar or the Nexus."  Page 12, under "Non Combat Actions."  There is no such thing as an action that CAN NOT initiate combat, only actions that DON'T because the recipient does not take it as such. 

Once again, quoting from Restore Sense: "the attempt MAY force Combat (and its subsequent Initiative draw) from an interested third party."

Quoting from Non-Combat Actions: "...you generally have to alert the player and use Initiative. This reflects the natural alertness of all Avatars, who would, for example, see another Avatar with a concealed weapon come towards them and probably react in natural paranoia."  The action of coming towards the avatar in this situation (concealed weapon means nothing was drawn, and no shot was fired!) initiated combat and initiative. 

Other non-combat actions ALSO initiate combat.  Pickpocket, for example, is a common one.  You pick my pocket, i notice, and shoot you in the face.  Additionally, the pickpocket is unsuccessful if I notice and react, because I am reacting and pre-empting  to the non-combat action.

Regarding me taking the rules "personally" - The only effect this has on me is the destruction of an item.  No death, no major punishment, and RP continues on that list regardless.  I'm frustrated because I know Vinny has agreed with this particular decision in the past ("any action can count as a combat"), and I'm a bit frustrated to see a handful of Assistant GM's disagreeing with it.  However, the actual RP behind it has nothing to do with the actual discussion at hand.

[`_100003005030 (Zero)]

Not a rules lawyer.  No desire to be one.  But the one statement in this thread that gave me the willies was Andy's casual:

As long as ANYONE calls it a combat, it is one. 

OK, can we use our imaginations, boys &  ... boys?  I can name a handful of Avatars this second who would take this interpretation to its logical conclusion, and stroll down any given hallway, going "THAT's a combat.  THAT's a combat.  Ooh, that too.  Yup. combat over there ..."  

I don't claim to know the intent, the literal meaning, or the logical combination of every rule in the Nexus, but if *I*, who can't cheese-weasel her way out of anything if her (real) life depended on it, can see the potential for abuse ...

Now, common-sense wise, what Buddha says sounds reasonable.  Yuri (or Zero) waving a gun at somebody doesn't initiate a darn thing.  Cutthroat expressing intent to shoot DOES.  Even Zero, seeing Yuri's Walther PPK of mass destruction, deciding to go Defensive (whatever the heck the term for that is), might make it a combat.  But somebody has to DO (or announce the intention to do) something.  Socket, or Vlad, or Whoever, doesn't get to walk by Yuri waving a gun at Zero, and Zero looking down the barrel to see how it works, and call it a combat.  SoVoW announcing the intent to blow us all to Nexus Come, OTOH -- OK, I'm willing to accept that as "in combat."

So yeah, some clarification very much needed here, IMO.

Linda

[wcshoe]

In your first post from yesterday:

Bill, you have to dial it back, right now.  Insulting people is not the way to solve rules discussions - and that's what this is, a discussion.

And you don't 'solve' a discussion, either. Sorry you feel insulted, though.

Now, first of all, Vinny has indeed stated that ANY action can be interpreted as starting a combat.  "The mechanics of combat do not exclude negotiation. When all Avatars in a combat declare that the combat is ended, it is ended."  "If I had a bomb that I was threatening to set off and I stopped to negotiate even though I had the opportunity to move faster than anyone could have stopped me, then my "action" was already the act of threatening with it."

Neither of the two quoted statements has anything to do with starting a combat. A threat does not invoke any Game Mechanic. How can that be considered an Action?

Hell, that post contains YOU responding to an argument of "Pointing a gun at someone doesn't initiate a combat."  with "Go ahead. Point a gun at Cutthroat. See if it doesn't initiate a combat..."

Sarcasm. See Yuri's explanation - I am not going to rehash it.

Yes, in the current rules, any action can start a combat if someone wants it to.  Your action may only be a threat, but it's still an action.  Even if no actions are taken in the round, as it stands, combat still continues.

What Declared Action does my threat have? What Game Effect is invoked? If there is none, then it is not an Action. And how does any Combat continue, if nobody is declaring a Combat Action?

Regarding resurrection, there are specific rules regarding that: "if the Avatar died during a combat, the four minutes begins immediately after the combat ends; this period of time is called the “grace period”. No COMBAT Action may be taken by or against any Avatar who was involved in the combat in which the Avatar died."  No one can affect anyone who was just in the combat.  However, you CAN interrupt someone who was NOT in the combat, who is attempting to resurrect a body.  There are no rules regarding that.

Did you know that you can actually Resurrect somebody during a combat? Did you know that you don't need to wait until it is over? It's in the rules that you read. Of course, everybody usually waits until it is over, because they will be in a Combat with 1 point of LIFE, but it is still allowable. As such, it is subject to the same rules as any other Action.

Regarding hide in shadows: Sorry, I think I was reading "Hide in Daylight" for the reaction part.  Because it does NOT count as an action (in either shadows or daylight), it can't be reacted to, by declaring combat or otherwise.  So I AM wrong on this particular point, since it says specifically that it is not an action.

Okay.

However, I am rather insulted by your comments - I am reading the rules, and trying to argue them the best I can.  If you believe I'm wrong, bring it to Vinny, or we can take it off-list.

I believe you are wrong, in publicly made statements. To allow others to think I was endorsing them by remaining publicly silent would be just as wrong. Thus, I will continue to argue your points here.

In your second post from yesterday:
I will be responding to other points you make in the post in which i respond to Buddha's. However, I need to point out on Pickpocket, you are dead wrong.

Other non-combat actions ALSO initiate combat. Pickpocket, for example, is a common one. You pick my pocket, i notice, and shoot you in the face. Additionally, the pickpocket is unsuccessful if I notice and react, because I am reacting and pre-empting to the non-combat action.

You don't "notice and react," and you certainly don't "react and pre-empt."
 
The thing about pickpocket is, you CAN'T notice unless I fail. And I don't fail unless a certain set of events happen. (It's in the rules that you read.)
 
I fail only if:
1.) I get a lower pickpocket calculation than your defense calculation.
2.) I choose to steal an Unstealable or Special item.
 
If none of those events happen, then I stole the item from you, and you didn't notice. Period. Not only that, but you won't even know it is gone until I am out of sight. Then, even if you do find out, you can't retaliate for 1 hour.
 
Think it isn't possible?
Watch a good pickpocket in real life. He can tell his victim that he is a pickpocket, and still steal the victim's wallet, watch, pen, and money while the victim is carefully watching him.

[wcshoe]

The Root of the problem (sorry for the pun, Andy) I believe can be summed up as such: We need to determine what exactly constitutes a Combat Action. Are there certain skills that must be involved? Does it need to invoke a skill?

I think the biggest problem is certain words being used interchangeably, both here, in previous posts, and in the official rules. What we need are standard definitions, and a distinction between different uses of the same words.
 
Here are some definitions. If we can agree on them as being usable, then read Part 2 of my post, otherwise, ignore it and debate the definitions in Part 1 ONLY.
 
action: [lowercase a] something you do that doesn't Affect another Avatar or the Nexus itself. (Roleplay falls in this category.)
reaction: [lowercase r] something done in response to an action. (Roleplay falls in this category.)
Action: [uppercase A] anything which an Avatar does to Affect another Avatar or the Nexus itself. (From the rule book.)
Reaction: [uppercase R] certain Effects that can be used in response to certain Actions in Combat. (Y Attribute - condensed from the rule book.)
 
Affect: [verb] to cause an Effect
Effect: [noun] a Game Mechanic
Game Mechanic: a direct result of a skill, power, item, GM ruling, or Avatar System Rule.
 
Combat Action: An Effect that may be used to harm another Avatar, or prevent that harm. (Marksmanship, healing, force fields, etc)
Non-Combat Action: An Effect that may not be used to harm another Avatar. (Item creation, Research. etc.)
Surprise Action: An Effect that may be used against another Avatar, without their knowledge. Some Surprise Actions are usable in Combat (Hypnosis) or out of Combat (Pickpocket).
 
Combat:  a sequence of events which is begun by a declared Combat Action, and ended when all participants no longer wish to continue with Combat Actions.
 
Examples:
1. Cutthroat Pickpockets Felegro: Action, Surprise Action
2. Cutthroat casually pointing FAITH in the exact direction of Felegro: action
3. Cutthroat challenging to duel Felegro: action
4. Cutthroat telling Felegro that he is going to destroy him in an act of complete violence: action
5. Cutthroat declares a long range attack on Felegro: Action, Combat Action
 
Any and all of the above can result in a Combat.

Example #1 (IF Cutthroat fails, otherwise it won't be noticed)
He may take an action. (Firmly scold and berate Cutthroat.)
He may take an Action. (Declare a Combat Action.)
He may have a reaction. (Justified outrage comes to mind.)
He may not have a  Reaction. (The Action he would be "responding to" is resolved with a failure. Reactions must be declared before resolution.)
Now, if he chooses to take a Combat Action, than Cutthroat's Non-Combat Action has resulted in a Combat. However, the Combat was started by Felegro, not Cutthroat. Up until the exact moment that Felegro called a Combat Action, there was no Combat.
 
Example #2
He may take an action. (Warn Cutthroat that no good will come of the otter's actions.)
He may take an Action. (Declare a Combat Action.)
He may have a reaction. (Flexes his branches in a display of his own power)
He may not have a Reaction. (There is no Action to respond to.)
Again, if he chooses to take a Combat Action, than Cutthroat's action has resulted in a Combat. However, the Combat was started by Felegro, not Cutthroat. Up until the exact moment that Felegro called a Combat Action, there was no Combat.
 
Example #3 (Assume that this is a unique situation, and that 20 other Avatars don't immediately get involved.)
He may take an action. (Decline the duel, accept the duel, offer a weapon, tell Cutthroat to meet him tomorrow, etc.)
He may take an Action. (Declare a Combat Action.)
He may have a reaction. (dismayed resignation, benign amusement)
He may not have a  Reaction. (There is no Action to respond to.)
Once they both agree, the duel has begin. However, the actual Combat does not begin until one of them declares a Combat Action. Thus, if Cutthroat waits for Felegro to go, and Felegro waits for Cutthroat to go, there is no Combat, even though they are 'dueling.' This won't result in a Combat unless one of them declares a Combat Action. Up until that time, there is no Combat, and thus, no Reactions.
 
4.
He may take an action. (Mock the otter, confident in the knowledge that his armor and LIFE can save him.)
He may take an Action. (Declare a Combat Action.)
He may have a reaction. (fear, bemused condescension)
He may not have a Reaction. (There is no Action to respond to.)
Again, if he chooses to take a Combat Action, then Cutthroat's action has resulted in a Combat. However, the Combat was started by Felegro, not Cutthroat. Up until the exact moment that Felegro called a Combat Action, there was no Combat.
 
5.
He may take an action. (Sigh in exasperation.)
He may take an Action. (Declare a Combat Action.)
He may have a reaction. (nervousnessly wring his branches)
He may have a Reaction. (Suggestion, Voice of the Multiverse, etc.)
Cutthroat's Action has started a Combat. The Combat was started by Cutthroat because he declared a Combat Action, regardless of who wins initiative and goes first. As soon as the Combat Action was declared, the Combat has started, even before it can be established how many other people are going to be involved.

[LucasJamison]

My reading of the rules is the same as Bill's.

[Yuri_Prime]

Bill, I agree 100% with your terms and definitions, and I can see no fault in your examples once applying said definitions to them in regards to comparing them to the rule book.

Yes, in the current rules, any action can start a combat if someone wants it to.  Your action may only be a threat, but it's still an action.  Even if no actions are taken in the round, as it stands, combat still continues.

It was my understanding that once an entire round goes with no one taking an action that the combat ends at Initiative 0, effectively the end of the turn.

I'm frustrated because I know Vinny has agreed with this particular decision in the past ("any action can count as a combat"), and I'm a bit frustrated to see a handful of Assistant GM's disagreeing with it.  However, the actual RP behind it has nothing to do with the actual discussion at hand.

Was Vinny using the Capital "A" Action or the lowercase "a" action? Was Vinny insinuating that Alex handing out high fives is a combat machine gun and the foundation of "Broken Arm City"? Was Vinny saying that anytime Yuri meets eyes with someone that it's time to carve those eyes out?

I feel that Vinny may have actually meant the Big "A" Action. Mind you, Felegro may take offense at Yuri shaking hands with someone and choose to obliterate him for his sins against palm trees, but that's not because I pulled cards to initiate a hand grapple, but because Felegro decided to sow the seeds, if you would.

Now, if Yuri hypnotised someone to shake his hand in public view.... now that's something different, cause I took an "A"ction.

Now, as far as you getting frustrated because a few of us dare to disagree... well, we're all entitled to our opinions on the matter until it either gets resolved or until we are all informed of exactly what was meant. Until such time, the debates will continue until a mutually agreeable solution is reached.

[Dragontologist]

Basicly, my argument comes down to "There is no such thing as a lower-case "a" action.  Only Actions.  Everything you do, no matter how small, affects another Avatar or the Nexus.  Even handshakes."

[Socket]

Anything that is not a skill/power (ie, doesn't require a card draw) like talking or shaking hands is an action.  I will accept your argument when it is written in the rules that I have to draw cards every time I take a step to get somewhere.  Otherwise you are flat out wrong.