So… the medic have fine pistol but normal armor. In a general scenario, its a level 2 threat ( for the fine pistol) or 1 threat (considering the normal armor)? Thanks in advance.
I think the game makes the assumption that all Specialists are Threat 2.
All Legionnaires are threat 1 by default. Those who equip fine equipment—
usually Specialists—become threat 2. Undead, however, have threat based
on what type of creature they are.
I’m really not sure and I still need to find this in the rulebook but I have read somewhere that:
The severity of harm they recieve is higher. (Standard damage from threat 1 undead, so in a melee with a Gaunt it would be risky with lvl 2 harm consequence. With fine armor it would be controlled)
The amount of effect they have while shooting the fine pistol is greater.
(great effect on tier 1 undead)
But I haven’t read all of the rulebook yet.
You calculate the Effect (which looks at threat of weapon, among other factors) and Position (which looks at threat of armor, among other factors) separately.
Matching threat of creature to threat of armor.
“Rodano will take the harm instead, but the Gut-Sack’s moderate harm for her is only level 2, because her fine armor matches the Gut-Sack’s threat. Rodano can reduce and/or resist this harm, but regardless, she’s saved her fellow squad member.”
Having that comparison determine Position (this here is from the text on Risky Harm.)
“As you’re bolting across the courtyard, a stream of acid boils across your shoulder and down your arm. You’re a Specialist, so you take level 2 harm. Good thing you have fine armor.”
You mean “Having that comparison determines Harm” ?
If you use the “fine” armor to determine you have a better position than with a normal armor, and then use it to calculate the Harm taking into account the Threat difference, then the “fine” quality counts double to reduce the Harm. Which is not what’s intended, I guess.
It doesn’t do double duty in Antifinitys examples from the book.
The right way is having it influence the position of the action. (And the way I was describing it was in error)
I think you were describing it perfectly right.
As I understand it: what would (sometimes, not always) come into account to determine the position is the fact that you have armour or not (armour or heavy armour). Not the quality of the armour (normal or fine).
Then, the “fine” armour counts if and when the GM deals Harm. A normal armour is Threat 1, a fine armour is Threat 2, so with a fine armour you receive one Harm-level less (if armour can be useful against this type of Harm).
In Antifinity’s example from the book, nothing says that the quality of armour has an impact on the position of the action. It will have an impact on the Harm.
If you use “fine” armour to improve position, compared to normal armour, you already say from the beginning : “the Harm you will maybe receive will be less severe”. If you then reduce the received Harm because the armour is fine, then you have reduced Harm twice compared to normal armour. This is not what’s intended.
My best guess Is that this is a miscommunication:
When I determine position, I look at the fictional consequences (Harm, complications, etc) and then match those numbers to the Position. So if an enemy is Threat 2, and the player is Threat 1, and the enemy harming the player is a natural risk for that action. Then that Action is Desperate (level 3 Harm.) If the enemy is Threat 1 and the player has Fine Armor (threat 2) then the Position would be Controlled.
My guess is your method involves determining Position another way. Then you choose the consequences after the roll. If you chose Harm, you calculate the amount of Harm based on Position, then apply modifiers unique to Harm (like the benefit from Fine Armor.)
If my guess is right, then we are agreeing that it should only once and only to harm. We’re just differing on if that modifier is accounted for before or after naming the Position. Which I think is just a factor of GM style.
Right. It was Indeed miscommunication.
I would say the way you do it is perfectly valid, and it could even be seen as more logical.
But I think it’s not the way it was initially intended to be done: see example on page 226:
“A Rookie (threat 1) is facing down a Spitter (threat 2) solo and wants to close with it and run it through—a risky/limited action against its ranged attacks. A consequence here might be getting doused in a deluge of corrosive, corrupting bile. On a risky action, the Rookie could take level 3 harm (the difference in threat increases the usually serious harm).”
Here we see that the position would be risky for any legionnaire, even a specialist, and that armour does not even come into consideration for the position (we don’t even know if the Rookie has normal armour or not at all). The abscence of “fine” armour (which determines the fact that the Rookie is only Threat 1) is counted only after the roll to aggravate the Harm.
But still, I like the way you do it, because it reconciles the Threat mechanic with the original spirit of the Position mechanic.
One problem I see with it, is that this would cause discrepancy in a group action, where several PCs (and the NPC squad) of various Threat are supposed to roll with the same position. But in fact, I wonder if there is anything to prevent participating in a group action with different positions, using your way. It is a bit more cruel to characters without fine armour, because maybe they could not enjoy the “controlled” position that acting as a group could give.
That example clinches it. You are correct that fineness of armor modifies Harm calculation after Position in Band of Blades.
As far as group actions with different positions, that is how I run my Blades in the Dark based game, and it works just fine. Each member of the group might get improved position from Scale, and they all get the improved chance to take no consequences from the larger dice pool. The most important difference is it means if everyone is trying to contribute Normal effect to the Group Action, but one person is at Limited (such as from a Threat 1 weapon when everyone else is Threat 2) they can trade Position for Effect to contribute.
Interesting and worth considering.
Please tell me how you calculate the total effect for a group action when you do it this way (for example: total number of segments on an opponent clock). This is a point where every GM I discuss with does differently.
Calculate each Effect separately, but grant a bonus for Scale, if there are enough participants. Then the lowest Effect is the only Effect that matters.
So if the enemy is Tier 2, and the two players grouping are Tier 1 and Tier 2, the effect would be Limited. 1 tick.
But if the Tier 1 player traded Position for Effect, so they were up to Normal, the group action would be Normal. Scoring 2 ticks on a success.
That’s the canonical way to do it in Deathwish (my hack) but I agree that the Forged in the Dark rules for it are ambiguous. I don’t think someone who played by summing Effect would be reading it wrong. I just think that makes for worse gameplay.
Well! It’s quite harsh, and it’s still another way to do it I hadn’t heard of or seen!
But it stays logical and I think I can see your reasoning behind it: Group Action done this way is how you reduce potential consequences to the group, not the way to increase the group’s impact. If you want to increase the impact, use Setup Action instead.
Haha, yeah. I definitely don’t want players doing it too much, since it rarely leads to consequences (the fun part!) Setup Actions are definitely important, and enough players and cohorts participate, they can benefit from Scale as well.
In Deathwish, players frequently deal with characters that would be Threat 3 or 4 in Band of Blades, so they stack every effect bonus they can get.