Reaction Rolls - Modifiers and "Stacking"

This looks real good Alex.

Looks great! This title is probably the book I am most looking forward to.

SooOOOoooo…is it done yet?
ducks and runs for cover

Lairs & Encounters sounds great! Will it include mechanisms for clearing a hex?

It has rules for stocking a hex with an appropriate number of lairs, and then it has rules for searching for the lairs in a hex.

These additional rules look helpful. Although I’m not sure if I understand the new limitations on Seduction and Intimidate. Why change them to only work when you already have an advantage?

Also what is your definition of parley for diplomacy? Its various definitions include: conversation generally, more formal diplomat level interactions, public debates, the discussion of peace terms, and a thin flat type of gingerbread (seriously!).

This looks super nifty, but I can’t imagine using this at a game table, except maybe in the most complex of negotiations. Even then, tracking the histories with modifiers for each PC and NPC they deal with… oh my…

I wouldn’t mind seeing a more streamlined version of these rules that takes into account NPC starting disposition. But, consulting this chart just makes my eyes glaze over. :slight_smile:

wmarshal, yeah, I was thinking allow full CHA mod, but +1 for one of the three proficiencies (diplomacy, seduction, intimidation, depending on circumstances) and then allow mystic aura to charm on a 12+.

Therefore, a character with +3 Cha and +1 to a proficiency means a +4 maximum reaction roll. They still need a better than average roll if they have MA.

Thinking more on this. What I think I’d like to see instead of more modifiers is custom reaction tables similar to how the Loyalty for henchmen works.

Perhaps a table for Diplomacy, Seduction and Intimidation that ranges from 2-12 but gives varying results based on roll. For example:

Intimidation involves the violence or threat of violence to coax answers and intel out of creatures. Like normal reaction rolls, roll 2d6 and add Charisma modifier, apply Intimidation proficiency bonus and add any other modifiers based around circumstances. The Judge should make the roll secretly and then roleplay the result.

2- The PC can get no further information, even if they harm or threaten the victim further (no further reaction rolls to intimidate).
3-5 The PC gets nothing, but may get another reaction roll if actual physical or psychological harm is done (make another reaction roll in this case).
6-8 The PC gets nothing, but the mere threat of violence grants another reaction roll.
9-11 The PC gets answers to 1d4 specific questions, though this information could be false, truth or a good mix of both. A follow-up intimidation roll can be used to press an answer.
12+ The PC gets the victim to spill their guts. They tell them everything. However, it is only truthful if the victim has not been harmed thus far.

I think your proposed rules may be too involved for many to commonly use at the table. I try to run my games at a fairly fast pace, and I can’t see myself using these. From a tinkerer’s perspective I do admire the breadth of situations they’re trying to cover, but they aren’t very practical for me. Other’s mileage may vary.

I’ve expanded on this idea a bit. Input welcome.

Hah, it’s definitely eye-glaze-inducing. Here’s my thought process on such tables.

  1. As Judge, you will inevitably be called on to make assessments of reaction rolls in intricate or complex situations.
  2. In such situations you can either
    a) make it up out of thin air
    b) estimate it based on guidelines
    c) strictly follow a table
  3. If you want to strictly follow a table we’ve provided a table.
  4. If you want to estimate it based on guidelines, you can read the table a few times and then use it as an implicit benchmark for your own estimates.

Put another way, one could think of the table as a series of “case studies” of situations and how the Judge evaluated it, and get the same outcome.

Sure. See above!

Randomly related:

In a reboot of the game I run for my children and a friend of mine’s children, I reworked Beyond The Wall’s Playbooks into something more ACKS-compatible.

I’d sent him the documents today to look over. They got excited and went ahead and rolled characters.

His youngest boy picked the “Local Performer” archetype; a Bard, essentially.

I forgot to mention some of the rules, thinking it was just for review, and didn’t mention that BtW puts a cap of 19 on any statistic.

His boy rolled a Charisma of 23.

So, he’s 7, and the dice have told their tale, so I’m gonna have to let it stand. Needless to say, no matter how I decide to handle this, these expanded tables will be quite helpful.