Here is the scenario: player A attempts to shoot a bounty hunter; he misses but rolls three advantage. How many boost die can player A grant player B? Just one, or three?

I have always been under the impression that the correct answer is "one" - my primary rationale is because the advantage usage to regain strain explicitly states it can be used multiple times, whereas the usage to grant a boost die to an ally does not. …but some recent posts have made me wonder if my interpretation is correct.

I know there are at least a couple of you who would say the right answer is "three" and that you can stack up blue die (and by the same rule, black die as well by spending multiple advantage)… so, which is the right way to interpret these rules, and why?

(also, let's consider that this should consistently apply).

Exalted5 said:

Yep, I agree with both of you. I much prefer the player choosing just one use of spent advantage. I think that will keep things moving.

The groups I've been playing with have been using Choice Three, as it feels appropriately cinematic that while Player A's shot didn't deal any damage, in "avoiding the blast," the bounty hunter left themselves wide-open to be blasted by Player B. But at the same time, we're rarely scoring buckets of Advantages, so the only time I've had this situation came up was during a one-shot game where, oddly enough, the PCs were fighting a bounty hunter, and one player spent 4 Advantage to provide the PC bounty hunter (next PC in line to act) a handful of boost dice, which enabled her to score a fairly messy headshot on the NPC hunter.

I'd also allow the same with inflicting setback dice on an opponent with Advantage. Same with using excess Threat to incur multiple set-back dice on a PC, though I'd probably only do that as a last resort, as there's more interesting things to spend Threat on than just setback dice for the PCs.

Exalted5 said:

I think you're correct interpreting that each line can only be activated once per roll. But that being said, you could spend two advantage to give player B a boost die whenever he acts.

But if Player B were the PC to act immediately following Player A, you could spend a single advantage to give B another boost die by activating a separate line.

So I think the answer is 1 definitely , but possibly 2 conditionally .

As for "Why"? I'd make several points:

1. The "lines may be activated once per roll" seems like a pretty consistent FFG mechanic. It's seen in Warhammer Fantasy RPG (which shares the lead dev with EotE), and I also found it was in Descent, 2nd Ed.
2. Allowing a line to be activated multiple times allows too many boost dice to be added, and leads to "boost spirals" I've mentioned before.
3. At one advantage to add one boost die to the next player's check, the price is way to low to allow multiple activations.
4. Allowing a line to be activated multiple times leads to one of the options become repeatedly favored over the others, which leads to monotonous option selection. Restricting the lines to one activation per roll actually encourages variety in the selection of options used.

I would also point out that the prices for most of the options on the combat list are messed up. There's no way adding a boost die should cost less than upgrading a die, and boost dice at all levels are too cheap to purchase in the current list given the benefit they provide.

I disagree DM's interpretation of the rules. In his explanation never mentions player order, which is critical for his [mis]interpretation of the rules to provide B three boost dice. He also ignores the rules made implicit, as noted by Exalted5, in the lines about strain that a line can only be activated once.

Additionally, he claims:

Donovan Morningfire said:

So I kind of wonder if he's playing the same game, or at least using the same dice. Especially if he's willing to break the RAW to toss around so many boost dice. My players have had so many rolls choked with advantage they parodied a drinking game out of it: If you roll advantage and no successes, take a drink.

We went through a LOT of beer. that night…

-WJL

The way I've run it so far is that the PC rolling can't activate the same option multiple times for the same player, but can for different players. This is probably wrong by a strict reading of the rules (which implies there is only one thing that you can activate multiple times - recovering strain), but was really necessary to keep the game flowing with the number of multiple advantage misses the dice generated.

E.g.: with 3 PCs - A, B and C - PC A attacks and scores 3 adv. He can spend one adv to add [boost] to the next PCs attack (B), and two more adv to add [boost] to any PCs attack (lets say he chooses C).

B then goes next, rolling one additional [boost] and getting a total of 5 adv. He then spends 1 adv to give the next PC © a [boost] on his next attack, 2 adv to give player A a [boost] on his next attack and the last 2 adv to give himself a [boost] on his next attack. Note - the way we play it - he wouldn't be able to spend 4 adv to give player A (or himself) 2 [boost].

C goes last, and now adds a total of 2 [boost] to his next attack - one from player A and one from player B.

BTW: the number of adv generated in these examples isn't an exaggeration - it is typical of what we have seen in play for far…

This is something that really needs to be clarified in the final rulebook - either remove the bit about recovering strain (which implies that you can't activate the other options multiple times) and leave it entirely up to GM ruling, or make it explicit for each option how many times it can be activated.

Thanks to all for the input.

Although the rules imply you can only select each option once, it isn't explicit - so it is interesting to see the different interpretations. I'd definitely agree that the final rules need to have some explicit statements about the "baseline" uses of advantage and threat.

Gribble: you sort of nailed it when you brought up the notiom of keeping the game moving. This is, in fact, exactly the reason behind why I posted my initial question… and so, if DM's interpretation is/was correct, it'd make the game go a hell of a lot quicker. Player that are bad at thinking on their feet - or just don't see a creative way to spend their advantage - can easily just dump dice to the next player…

That said, my next gripe is over some of the "recommended" despair/advantage usages: falling prone, disarming a target… These things seem really silly to me when (a) most of the time falling prone is a good thing and (b) "accidentally" disarming a target with advantage is easier than intentionally trying for it. I know I'm like a zealot when it comes to revising the dice mechanics, but geeez it's so close to awesome but currently so frustrating.

LethalDose said:

I'm playing the same game, I just have no problem with bending the rules if it makes for a more satisfying game, as was the case with the bounty hunter (but also because they were having a rough time of hitting the bounty hunter due to the multiple setback dice they had from being him being prone and behind cover; the dice results provided me the means to give them a break, and I let them take full advantage of it. So sue me for doing my primary job as a GM and ensure the players had fun). If you'd bother to actually read my post, you'd note I never once said the buying multiple boost dice was RAW, but simply how I chose to run things.

Maybe you don't remember saying it, but in the Dice Mechanics thread you openly admitted that not everyone has the same results due to actual dice luck not following statistical probabilities. In the games I've played and run with several different groups, our success ratio is apparently much, much higher than what your group has experienced. Also it's apparent we're more concerned with the cinematic feel and what sounds cool for that scene rather than strict adherence to the rules. And aren't you the same bloke that keeps insisting that boost die are of limited value since all they tend to do is provide more "useless" advantages? Amazingly, it didn't shatter our games to pieces to allow multiple boost dice to be spent. And guess what else? It cuts down quite a bit on players trying to decide how to spend their Advantages when either they don't have enough to trigger a critical or didn't do enough damage to get past the target's soak value; after all, not every player goes for the biggest, most damaging weapon they can find, and even then sometimes it's better to give the person that did choose the big, high-damage weapon some boost dice some boost dice rather than plink away at the target for a point or two of damage, in the hopes the Big Gun either gets a lot of extra successes or enough Advantage to trigger a Critical Hit multiple times.

I actually submitted the suggestion of updating the chart to allow multiple Advantages and Threat to be spent on Boost and Setback dice respectively to FFG quite some time ago via direct e-mail, but I'm guessing that particular suggestion has gone the same route as your near-constant cries for changing the dice math.

Exalted5 said:

I figured it was a given, but my interpretation wasn't RAW, but rather how I chose to run things.

That said, it does speed up game play for those instances when players to roll huge piles of Advantages but no successes, and can help encourage more of a group mindset in one or more PCs using their Advantage to let another PC do something really cool, like a million-to-one head shot against a sniper that's nearly impossible to hit otherwise, or being able to shoot a tiny (2 meter wide) thermal exhaust port that's just above the main port without a targeting computer.

The one concern I have with the Disarm option is more that, as you said, it's pretty much automatic, and disarming isn't something we see a lot of in the films or the EU, unless there's a limb being lost along with the weapon. It's not quite as bad as OCR/RCR and a lot easier to pull off than it was in Saga Edition, but I think there needs to be some kind of counter to instantly being deprived of your weapon on a lucky roll. I don't want to add an opposed roll, but maybe require the attacker to spend 2 Advantage + 1 additional Advantage for each rank in either Brawn or Agility (target's pick) that the target has, reflecting the strength the target's grip on their weapon. This puts the cost at 4 Advantage against most foes, 5 for more combat-savvy enemies.

The book admits that the table is really more of a guideline, so feel free to tweak what's listed to better suit the scene. So perhaps instead of falling prone (which strikes me as something that should befall a character attacking in melee), a character using a blaster fumbles their grip and drops their weapon.

I don't think a huge comprehensive chart for what to spend Advantages, Triumphs, Threats, and Despair in combat is really needed, as the GM should be open to suggestions from their players, and perhaps even ask the players for suggestions on how to spend any accrued Threat, especially when it impacts the bad guys. There are more of them than there are of you as the GM, so don't hesitate to take advantage of their collective imaginations.

A Trivial Boon or Hindrance = 1 Advantage or Threat
A Minor Boon or Hindrance = 2 Advantage or Threat
A Significant Boon or Hindrance = 3+ Advantage or Threat
A Huge Boon or Hindrance = Triumph or Despair

Also, I might suggest checking out the Threat Detected and Real Gamers podcasts for some tips, tricks, hints, and suggestions to spice up your game, as the hosts Garrett aka barefoottourguide (Threat Detected) and Brev (Real Gamers) are both heavy-duty cinema buffs with a much deeper study and appreciation of cinema than your average individual. Garrett wants his players to have as cinematic an experience as possible, and has gone to great lengths to tweak the Dawn of Defiance campaign to accomplish that goal, and Brev is devilishly adept at playing fast and loose with the rules when it would make for a great story. There are lessons to be learned for most any GM regardless of their degree of experience in running games.

Exalted5 said:

I agree with the general gist of the comment - some of the adv costs of these things are pretty out of whack and need to be revised by FFG. Not only the "easier to disarm by accident" you mentioned, but also the upgrading/downgrading vs boost/setback dice mentioned by LethalDose. At one point I had to tell a player in the last session that it wasn't a good idea to waste a triumph to downgrade an enemies next roll, but instead to spend adv to add a setback die, which is kind of sad.

Not to mention that a lot of the higher cost things (fall prone, disarm, etc) - while very good examples - are in essence just a case of "opponent must spend a maneuver next turn to negate", which shouldn't be as expensive as some of the options are… which in turn runs contrary to "shouldn't be easier to do by accident" in the case of disarm…

But I disagree about prone specifically. Remember - you don't *have* to take these options, and sure, you're never going to make an opponet fall prone right before the autofire monster opens up with his heavy blaster rifle, but you might want to just before the vibro-axe wielding wookie is about to apply his axe to the enemies face…

Donovan Morningfire said:

You also never said "this is not the RAW", which is something you would be obliged to do in responding to someone's question about rules interpretation.

Essentially, you're saying you were intentionally posting misleading information since the OP was asking for the correct interpretation of the rules, and you intentionally provided an interpretation that you knew was wrong in the RAW.

Thanks for keeping things clear.

-WJL

LethalDose said:

Or maybe I just give posters here more credit and thus the abiltiy to suss out on their own that I wasn't speaking in terms of RAW, where you pretty obvioulsy consider everyone else to be a mentally sub-normal and are constantly condescending towards the other forumites. You'd probably fit in perfectly with the average poster on the WotC forums in terms of attitude.

Since you're obviously still carrying a chip on your shoulder, how about you do something novel and just not bother reading my posts anymore? If you're so eager to pick a fight, go chose someone else to badger.

Now, now gents. You're both great contributors to this beta-testing community, so no need to get on each other. You guys always have great input so keep it coming.

I agree with the notion of flexible gameplay and interpretation. I also think (as Gribble articulated) that the guidelines for advantage/threat usage need to be cleaned up a bit before release. While some of us are veteran gamers from multiple systems and can make the leap, a lot of newbies will really struggle with the inconsistencies. Just my opinion. I'd say FFG could even err on the side of being more vague…

… and to be honest, I like the idea of being able to "stack" buying blue dice for the next PC. It's an easy out, and really helps to soften the frustration of those "5 advantage, no success" rolls; it makes them really mean something just as powerful as a critical hit. Otherwise, the player just feels like he didn't contribute on his/her turn - which reminds me of the old "swing and a miss" of D&D.

Donovan Morningfire said:

I'm going to make this [relatively] short as to not derail Exalted5's thread, which posed a legitimate question.

Don't tell people not to read or respond to what you post on a public forum. That's just ****** stupid. I don't care if you think that's condescending; It's true. If you don't want to hear my opinion, or anyone else's opinion, on what you post, then you're the one who needs to change your behavior and not post.

The frustrating thing is I agree with about 90% of what you, Donovan Morningfire, post in this forum, and I've voiced that agreement many times. You never seem to complain about it or remember it when accusing me of having a chip on my shoulder. But in any democratic forum, the participants are expected question the veracity of anything that is said. And if it looks like ******, then they should call ******. What you posted above, was, in the context of the OP, *****.

Simply, because I feel strongly about making EotE the best game it can be out of the box, I'm going to participate in this forum. That means I will read and respond to whatever I feel I need to in pursuit of that goal, and I don't give a ***** if you like how I participate, what I have to say, or how I say it. I'm going to participate in the forums until the moderators tell me I can't, regardless of your repeated complaints.

I'm not going claim to know what you're thinking or put words in your mouth as you've done to me. I'll just say that I don't "obvioulsy consider everyone else to be a mentally sub-normal". I do consider it important for any poster to be clear, support statements with facts, admit when you're wrong or make a mistake, and call ****** when you smell *******, regardless of the source. I hold myself to all that, I'd challenge anyone reading this do so as well.

Anyway, back on topic

Exalted5 said:

In the RAW, you can still stack the boost dice. In fact, you can do so in a way that encourages teamwork, as a group of PCs can work together to take down a big bad, while still taking their own actions.

The weird inconsistency that I think someone else has recently noted in separate thread is that it seems easier to help each other or achieve special effects (e.g. disarm, knock prone) when you're not trying to accomplish those effects. I think this also needs works in the final product, and ties into what we've discussed here.

Finally, I think you're right about FFGs published rules on the expenditure of excess successes/advantages. It needs to be more consistent. But it's only after they've fixed the consistency issues that they can be more vague. I think you implied this, but I want to be clear that "err[ing] on the side of being more vague" without first improving the initial consistency issues will likely only make the matter worse.

-WJL

[ADMIN: Edited for language.]

Hey gents,

I have the utmost respect for your contributions to the beta, but you would please consider taking your disagreement to PMs form this point forward?

Thank you much.

If we cannot have a civil discussion on this thread, I will lock it without any additional warnings.

It's not something that explicitly came up in our games thus far, but I did consider the idea as we were playing out our combat once or twice.

At low skill levels, it seems like an awesome way to pay it forward with your teammates, making even failed rolls meaningful.

Problem i see immediately is higher level play. once dice pools start consisting of 4-5 positive dice you'll likely have plenty of advantage to throw around. of course by then you might have more valuable things to spend it on, but it is still something of a concern for how the mechanic adds to higher level play. expecially since a boost die comes close to statistically adding an average advantage onto a roll.

I think I would make the two advantage option unlimited, while the one advantage boost multiplier would be limited to once per roll.

If I could vote for a change to RAW, that would be my vote.

IMO