1st House Rule: Multiple Actions
As I already stated in the "Action Allowance" thread, I'm not entirely satisfied with the way coda handles the multiple actions problem. Of course, this is all very theoretical because I haven't had a chance to play with coda much, but it seems to me that it's too easy to declare multiple actions even when they're not necessary, "just to make sure". For instance a player might declare dodge, shoot, shoot: the 3rd action will be at -5, but since the 2 first actions (dodge and shoot) are not affected by that last action, he might as well take it, <I>just to make sure</I> he hits his opponent. Which seem (to me) to be in contradiction with the spirit of the game.
Hence the following house rule proposals:
Considering a character with x allowed actions (often, x=2), use one of the following tables to determine the multiple action penalty:
Option 1 (-1 per additional action, except the last one (std modifier)
-> allowed actions at -(nb of additional actions), then increase penalty by 4 each action)
<B>...................Modifiers
Number.of.actions.....x+0..x+1..x+2..x+3..x+4..x+5
all.allowed.actions</B>...0...-1...-2...-3...-4...-5
<B>1st.additional.action</B>./...-5...-6...-7...-8...-9
<B>2nd....</B>.............../.../....-10..-11..-12..-13
<B>3rd....</B>.............../.../..../....-15..-16..-17
<B>4th....</B>.............../.../..../..../....-20..-21
<B>5th....</B>.............../.../..../..../..../....-25
Option 2 (-1 per additional action, even the last one
-> allowed actions at -(nb of additional), then increase by 5 each action)
<B>...................Modifiers
Number.of.actions.....x+0..x+1..x+2..x+3..x+4..x+5
all.allowed.actions</B>...0...-1...-2...-3...-4...-5
<B>1st.additional.action</B>./...-6...-7...-8...-9...-10
<B>2nd....</B>.............../.../....-12..-13..-14..-15
<B>3rd....</B>.............../.../..../....-18..-19..-20
<B>4th....</B>.............../.../..../..../....-24..-25
<B>5th....</B>.............../.../..../..../..../....-30
Option 3 (-1 per additional action, incremental)
-> allowed actions at -(nb of additional), then increase by (nb of additional) each time)
<B>...................Modifiers
Number.of.actions.....x+0..x+1..x+2..x+3..x+4..x+5
all.allowed.actions</B>...0...-1...-2...-3...-4...-5
<B>1st.additional.action</B>./...-2...-4...-6...-8...-10
<B>2nd....</B>.............../.../....-6...-9...-12..-15
<B>3rd....</B>.............../.../..../....-12..-16..-20
<B>4th....</B>.............../.../..../..../....-20..-25
<B>5th....</B>.............../.../..../..../..../....-30
I think this is the one I like most, so I'll use it as a basis in the following.
Of course, these modifiers become problematic when a player doesn't declare a dodge/parry beforehand.
"Reaction" dodge/parry as a:
- First action (character lost initiative, or decided to delay):
simply counts against the action allowance when the character starts acting.
- Last action(character acted first):
take the next modifier (move diagonally right+down in the table ... for instance if the player was at -6 for his last action, his dodge is at -12), moreover, this counts against the action allowance of the next round as an action (i.e. if the character doesn't want a penalty next round he can only act (x-1) times).
- Between other actions (example: act, delay, oops dodge, act):
move to the next column to the right and apply modifiers (for instance, if the character was at -4 (x+2), his dodge is at -9 and his last action at -12).
Considering this, unless they really want to protect themselves and declare a dodge as their first action, fast characters will often find it advantageous to wait for the opponent to act before declaring a dodge/parry. Thus, I'm considering giving a +1 (or more?) modifier to declared dodges/parries, as opposed to "reaction" dodges/parries.
Admittedly, this <I>is</I> a bit more complicated than what's proposed in the PG, however, I think it is much fairer to player who act sensibly rather than machine-gun wise, and there's much more drama when a character <I>really</I> needs to do a lot of things in the same round. If anyone found a simpler way to deal with it more satisfyingly than in the PG, I'd be happy to hear about it .
So ... what do you think?
Last edited by Calcoran; 05-13-2002 at 05:52 AM.
Every procedure for getting a cat to take a pill works fine -- once.
Like the Borg, they learn...
-- (Terry Pratchett, alt.fan.pratchett)