Difference between revisions of "Rules talk:Focused Defense"

Latest revision as of 17:22, 5 September 2008

Diskushonz!

Does activating Focused Defense cost the user any stamina? The rules page does not specify, and it has been played as costing zero stamina so far, as many characters use the Focused D to improve blocking ability, which defers damage to stamina instead of durability.

And second, though this has already been ruled on by Marcus, can a person under the effects of Focused D dodge? The answer was no, but in my personal opinion, I think that's kind of dumb. A sidestep or lunge out of the way of an attack should be permissible, but it's completely up to staff.

I always thought FD consumed natural charge in stamina, as is normal for non-damage/non-direct-strength effects. I also feel that movement such as a sidestep should be allowed (mainly for fluff reasons for posters), but actual real moving around should not be. Tiryst 02:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

As a clarification, when I say a sidestep should be allowed, I personally would take either half damage or act as if I had blocked the attack were I to describe the defensive action as a sidestep, unless, as Marcus mentioned below, the attack was something really small that could be weaved around entirely (in which case, why are you using Focused Defense?). This is what I meant by "for fluff reason"--just another option for description. Tiryst 18:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The standard rule in Alt has always been that in cases where an activated technique lacks a direct number to draw on for stamina costs (whether it be damage dealt or a specific number in the technique description), it always costs natural charge to activate. That would apply to Focused Defense.

As for movement, given that it is one of the specific limitations specified in the tech's logistics, I can't see all-out movement being permitted. Otherwise the technique becomes Zanzouken-and-take-less-damage. What I could see happening is allowing gross bodily movement while remaining more or less in place. Thus, shifting the torso or ducking would be permissible, allowing the evasion of smaller attacks, but if someone unleashes a massive beam of destruction, you just have to fix yourself in place and suck it up, princess.

Honestly, this CT is one of the more 'DBZish' techs we have. DBZ characters just don't dodge. (Generally, anyway.) Thus ends my opinion! And remember to sign your comments, people! Hroefn ^T 03:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I have always been under the impression that FD didn't consume stamina. Not that it's totally a big deal generally that was just my thought on it. Also because I didn't think F/O took stamina because of its increased stamina usage already. Also there have been instances where I've been told and seen many other people told from other staffers that you can not dodge attacks with F/D. If that is the case then I think techniques like Zanzouken and Shunpo probably should be repriced for less then they are. Because in that instance they become not as good as F/D is. Either that or Focused Defense needs to become more then a simple 30 TD technique. Although it's fine how it is, you take less damage or you block. It's the cheapest form of DR you can get. As long as you can see the attack you can reduce it by 1/2? That's not even based off of your power level directly. For 30TD's I think this ability is fine how it is. NicholasDeLeone 05:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

"It's the cheapest form of DR you can get" - It should be the ONLY form of DR you can get. DR is a terrible idea. Tiryst 08:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with you Kyle. I have a character with DR and I still believe it's a bad idea. But that DR cost alot more then FD did and can't stop somthing hitting that character for more then 100% of her powerlevel. Which this ability doesn't have that cap so it is much better. Although on a similar note this is alt. I've gotten things approved that in retrospect probably should never have been approved. ((Draken's Battlefield and Elayna's Staff of Two Paths.)) I've also seen things that I think probably should have never been approved. But all in all thats just how alt works. NicholasDeLeone 12:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

As I interpret this technique: drains natural charge in stamina. Character cannot move except to block an incoming attack, in which case he has doubled sensing abilities and melee speed to do so. That which he/she cannot block is halved (only damage is halved, nothing else). While this may seem better than damage reduction (in some ways it is), it never does reduce any damage to 0, which damage reduction techs can do. On top of that this is an activated spur of the moment tech, while most DR techs can last an entire battle with just one tech action and base charge in stamina. And lastly, Focused Defense has a maximum use of 3 times a day.

Focused Offense doesn't explicitly say that it drains natural charge in stamina, because the power you put into your attack will invariably exceed that of natural charge. So, the power put into your attack is what's drained from your stamina. As with any tech in Alt, that which drains the most stamina is what supersedes the other; With Focused Defense, if you happen to block more damage than your natural charge (whether through some technique like melee proficiency or whatev), I've always assumed that that's what's drained from your stamina.

I could agree with a character using FD to be able to avoid an incoming attack if it is small enough by weaving his torso to move an appendage or his head out of the way, but if he's being targeted at center mass it'd be pretty difficult. Techs like Zanzouken have the advantage of being able to completely move out of the way with doubled speed or whatever it is that Zanzouken does, in which case they can avoid damaging AND secondary effects. Keeping in mind that FD only reduces damage and nothing else, I think that the prices are more or less correct the way they are. -- Marcus

My opinion is as follows: FD stamina drain = the greater of natural charge or strength output. FD wording, regardless of decision, needs to be changed to clarify. Melee defense = blocking, taking hits, AND weaving/sidestepping/etc. but certainly not extended movements. My reasoning is that if you can move your body and limbs enough to block (especially at greater ability than you are usually capable) then in-place movement of the body makes sense as well.

Suggested reword for the first paragraph: While using this tech, the user's Melee Speed and all sensory Detection rates are multiplied by 2. All damage suffered by the user's Ki durability is halved. However, user may not attack, willingly move away from his or her current location, or perform any non-melee action.

On a final note, though I know this hasn't been brought up before, I'm curious. Should Focused Defense have any effect on concussive force? Since it's not literally damage, the current translation would render no change to its effects. However, it might stand to reason that focusing on defense could diminish its effects. It won't hurt my feelings whichever way you guys decide to go on this, I just thought I would bring it up. --Ice 21:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a huge problem with this tech deminishing concussive force. I can see it either way. Though on that note if attacks can be dodged as long as you stay in the same spot, and/or if it can deminish concussive force then this tech needs repriced.NicholasDeLeone 13:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with Focused Defense diminishing concussive force. Marcus

(Belatedly) I cast my vote in the opposite direction, mostly because concussive force and damage are treated completely separately. You can brace yourself against an attack, but if you're being hit with something that's specifically meant to displace you, reducing the associated damage (if there is any) doesn't seem like justification for nullifying concussive force. If a KAE went off two feet in front of character A, whether or not he or she reduces any damage (say from slamming into something), that concussive force is going to unseat him/her and rattle her/his brains accordingly. --Snackycakes 00:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, mostly. It doesn't make sense for Focused Defense to help you against a huge burst of concussive force. But then at the same time, if that concussive force is someone grabbing you and trying to throw you, FD working against it makes perfect sense. So I guess all I'm doing is muddying the issue, but FD should really only work against concussive force in specific situations where it makes sense. --Ff0ecaf 02:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

My thinking is along the lines of Rick's and Dev's. If we want to make it absolute I'd rather see FD have no effect on concussive force overall. I'd expect a grab and throw like in Rick's example could be defended against with FD by blocking the initial attempt at grabbing or something though. Tiryst 08:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• laughs* That's fine with me. I would prefer if it didn't reduce concussive force since that's what it did in the first place, but if everyone voted for the other way, I wouldn't have minded. Glad to see I wasn't the only one. Zo, have we resolved ze izzue? -- Marcus

Yeah, it makes sense not to specifically diminish concussive force in this particular situation, especially with how little the technique costs. What Rick brought up gives an interesting idea, though; what if there could be made available an upgrade to FD such that strength applied defensively was also doubled/tripled? With that, blocks would become more effective, and concussive force would become less of a bother. However, it would require that extra research to justify it. It would make sense in that it's one thing to just focus on defending yourself, and another entirely to make yourself a pillar of defensive power. Perhaps the extra strength upgrade, when researched, would become another option for the technique, which, when chosen, would eliminate the bonus to speed FD usually grants. Like FO, the extra strength would still drain additional stamina. Just a thought. --Ice 11:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I think those should just be handled in a case by case basis. If enough people upgrade for the same thing, then we could devise a common technique for it. But that's my opinion on this detail. -- Marcus