Cinematic Points in combat

That is precisely what I'm saying! Thank you Dan.

cenobyte wrote:In fact, the *only* way you can use a Cinematic Point in combat is to give your Opponent a Potent Hindrance or to attempt a Winnowing attack in the next round. So no, I don't think you can use a CP in combat to alter the contention of the challenge itself. In fact, I know you can't.

I had ignored this thread because other threads had my attention at the time and I never got back to it. Alas, Freed seems to be the stabby sort and so I figured I'd look at this thread and the other combat related threads. I have a few things to bring up.

The part that Jill referenced is indeed in the BRB on page 243. However, I would like to point out a few other noted uses of Cinematic Points that are, to me, clearly combative.

- “Give a speech before another character attacks you.” page 242
- “Taking a hit in combat meant for another character.” page 242
- “Divine: You fight to become the hero that your Conviction aspires to be. If you burn your Cinematic Point before you reach your Mortal wounds, you can fight through the pain, recovering (healing) all your Severe wounds.” Page 243
- “Divine: For a moment you touch Grace. This could manifest in a number of ways: you cannot be harmed while you don’t cause harm; you might get guidance from the Symphony itself as to what to do next when things look darkest.” page 243
- “Infernal: You escape any situation, no matter how dire.” page 243
- “Innocent: The Innocent stand fast as a paragon of what the world should be. For one scene, you are immune to all negative effects; you cannot be harmed (or if you are, you heal almost instantly); you cannot be affected by Techniques; and you may interrupt conflict with a speech (again you have to actually make the speech).” page 243
- “Irredeemable: Your viciousness knows no bounds. You increase your base damage to 2 for a scene.” page 243
- “Death: You survive what should have been your untimely death. You need to come up with an alternate reason of what transpired and perhaps why people thought you were dead.” page 244

And these also seem as though they could be as combat-applicable even though it isn’t expressly stated. I could see using all three of these in combat.

- “Change the Execution of a Technique, to turn a Slow Action into an Action (however, this changes the Manifestation to Conspicuous with no opportunity to alter it).” page 242
- “Using a Technique on a target just after the target failed to use it on you, or just after you resisted its use (not if the target used Renitence).” page 242
- “Nephilim: Out to prove that a ‘half’ creature is stronger than its parent, the Nephilim gains a Transcendent Advantage to all actions for a scene.” page 243

The point that I am trying to make is that this appears to be a glaring contradiction. If all of these things are acceptable uses of Cinematic Points then how can the only uses of Cinematic Points in combat be to give a Potent Hindrance or attempt a Winnowing Strike?

I think that perhaps Wade was on the mark when he suggested,

Bal wrote: I totally understand simplifying the use of Cinematic Points for when you are trying to do Warfare challenges to hurt each other, but it'd be nice if you could still use Cinematic Points for other things like just happen to be occuring[sic] in a combat.

It seems to me that this restriction on Cinematic Points in combat is meant for Warfare challenges and not the environment of combat. It seems clear that there are other permissible uses of Cinematic Points in a combat scenario.

Oh! It would also prevent the use of any Transgressions in combat, even if they were used through a combat Technique, if all you could do was give your opponent a Hindrance or attempt a Winnowing strike.

I'd like to encourage folks to continue talking about this. For now, I'll go by what I said initially, which is the bit that Alan initially quoted. At the top. The bit that says : "In fact, the *only* way you can use a Cinematic Point in combat is to
give your Opponent a Potent Hindrance or to attempt a Winnowing attack in the next round. So no, I don't think you can use a CP in combat to alter the contention of the challenge itself. In fact, I know you can't."

And yes, I agree that this is primarily geared toward Warfare challenges. I think many of the other uses of CPs during a combat/battle sequence are intended as a dramatic usage examples. I'm having trouble expressing why I think these are two different things.

I *do* know that the *intent* of Cinematic Points was to allow players to do dramatic things, **AND** that Trent did not want CPs used to allow non-combat Techniques to be used during combat.

I can understand that.

Just so that I am clear:

The only way to use a CP in combat is for a Potent Hindrance or a Winnowing Strike.
All other suggested combat uses in the BRB (as I quoted above) are currently *not* possible.

cenobyte wrote:I *do* know that the *intent* of Cinematic Points was to allow players to do dramatic things, **AND** that Trent did not want CPs used to allow non-combat Techniques to be used during combat.

I think that perhaps the reason he didn't want to allow non-combat Techniques to be used is important. If it was a matter of keeping combat flowing smoothly and quickly, I can see that.

I don't know that I agree as I can't imagine it occurring so often as to be that slowing or disrupted. Techniques could only be used once per combat (scene) and some, like Harrowing and Beguile, would, in my opinion require exceptional circumstances and role-playing to make work in combat even if there were allowed (such as one-on-one combat with verbal sparring).

I'm not sure what other reasons he might have had to exclude them, but I would be interested in hearing what other objections we can think of.

I would also like to say that we shouldn't be focusing on the technique use of CPs - that is only one of the ways listed. I do think though that whatever rule is decided on should apply to *all* uses equally. If Trent wants to exclude the technique speed up in combat then I would rather see him modify that use to say "not permissible in combat" rather than start to make exceptions.

Even better, in my opinion, would be for him to make it Storyguide optional as to whether or not CPs can speed up techniques in combat, such as he did for partial archetype purchasing with zeal (page 110).

Alan wrote:I would also like to say that we shouldn't be focusing on the technique
use of CPs - that is only one of the ways listed. I do think though
that whatever rule is decided on should apply to *all* uses equally. If
Trent wants to exclude the technique speed up in combat then I would
rather see him modify that use to say "not permissible in combat"
rather than start to make exceptions.

I agree, and have suggested as much. Although, the suggestion of making it up to the Storyguide does have appeal as well.

I think the original conversation with Trent has been lost in the annals of email discussions....but a big part of it is that it could, conceivably, muddle up combat in ways that may not be forseeable. Combat in KC was designed to be quick-and-dirty, and, above all else, to not require a time freeze while challenges are decided, effects are described, etc.. I think that to allow non-combat Techniques to be used in combat *could* undermine this nature of combat.

For instance, if we allow non-combat Techniques to be used (via CP), we have the following to consider:
1) Do we now allow more than 3 people to participate in a single skirmish (currently, the rule is that you can only have up to three attackers on one defender at any one time)?
2) Do people who engage in combat now have to announce that they're engaging in combat so that other people who may want to use non-combat techniques get a chance to use them?
3) When would a non-combat technique come in to play? Would the user have to perform the test/comparison against his/her opponent before or after the Warfare challenge? While it might have an Instantaneous or Action Execution, how does that translate to people actively engaged in combat?
4) If the King is engaged in combat, and someone uses a non-combat Technique on her, when does the Queen get the chance to decide to use her Sovereignty ability? Particularly if the Queen is also actively engaged in combat?

These are just a few off the top of my head. There are already rules like: you can only use a Technique once per scene (whether you're successful or not) on a character, and if you fail a Technique on someone, you cannot attempt to use that Technique again on the same target for a full three scenes (or 30 minutes), etc..

That being said, I think a Princess Bride style combat with verbal sparring in which someone uses Harrowing or Beguile would be pretty interesting to watch.

HOWEVER...I think we'd really have to think through some of the potential Issues like those listed above as well as:

5) How many people could use a non-Combat Technique during combat (this is assuming, of course, that we're talking about someone not involved in combat using a non-combat Technique OR someone involved in combat using a non-combat technique)? Would there be a limit?

6) How many non-combat Techniques could someone involved in combat be affected by at one time? What if they conflict? Normally, conflicting Techniques are decided by who has the highest Rank in the Technique.

7) What would take precedent in the event that a combat Technique and a non-combat Technique are used simultaneously?

It just...it befuzzles my brain and makes me think that it would Complicate Things. But. Please, let's keep discussing it.

So... what happens if you've used a Cinematic Point BEFORE you get into combat? Can an Innocent make himself invincible, just as long as combat hasn't been declared yet, and then be untouchable for the scene? If some Nephilim burns a Cinematic Point, does she have a Transcendent Advantage for ass-whooping if she gets in a fight right afterwards?

I'm fine with you not wanting to open a can of worms with using Techniques in combat, Jill, and I realize that these strange cases all come up from burning Cinematic Points, something that is never going to happen often. I'd just like a ruling on it.

Oh, I don't want to open up a can of worms at all. I'm just sayin' feel free to discuss it amongst yourselves (and I'll watch the discussion). I'm partial to not permitting the use of non-combat Techniques during combat. Really, really fine.

And sure, if some Nephilim gives herselve a Transcendent Advantage for "the upcoming scene", and nothing happens, great. And if a fight breaks out, sure, the Nephilim might get a Transcendent Advantage. But once combat has begun, the only thing CPs can be used for (currently) is the Potent Hindrance and Winnowing Strike thing. This is how things *currently* are run in Providence. I'm not suggesting we change that (yet), but I am encouraging discussion on the matter.

cenobyte wrote:It just...it befuzzles my brain and makes me think that it would Complicate Things. But. Please, let's keep discussing it.

I like discussing, and more than that, I hate to bring something up and not have possible solutions – not that I’m saying mine are the correct solutions, but they are possible answers to the questions.

cenobyte wrote:1) Do we now allow more than 3 people to participate in a single skirmish (currently, the rule is that you can only have up to three attackers on one defender at any one time)?

Page 138 of the BRB suggests that Trent has increased this to 4. I see no need to change this. I would argue that Body techniques require touch and so you have to be in melee; Mind techniques have short range with the target needing to be aware of your presence, so you would have to be in melee; Soul techniques have medium range but you still have to be able to concentrate on your target and I find it reasonable to say that with more than 3 persons in combat you can’t see the target well enough to get off the technique. I don’t know where Trent got the number 4 it seems that other systems have other arbitrary numbers – in fact once it is decided I don’t know that there particularly needs to be a rational. Perhaps the Symphony just prevents Fallen from attacking more than 4 at a time at some unconscious sub-harmonic level. Who knows. :)

cenobyte wrote:2) Do people who engage in combat now have to announce that they're engaging in combat so that other people who may want to use non-combat techniques get a chance to use them?

As things stand people who engage in combat should be announcing it so that others know whether or not to move away or join in the melee. If my character’s friend and someone else were to have a quiet combat two metres away and I, in character, was not informed and I, as a player, had no idea why they were rolling, I’d be super upset. First, given that there would be a lack of role-playing, and second because while role-playing is great, there are some things that do need to be announced so that everyone is aware – like the sound of blades clashing.

cenobyte wrote:3) When would a non-combat technique come in to play? Would the user have to perform the test/comparison against his/her opponent before or after the Warfare challenge? While it might have an Instantaneous or Action Execution, how does that translate to people actively engaged in combat?

I don’t see how it would be different from normal Combat. If it is one-on-one then one person chooses to roll and the die determines whose action was successful, i.e., you sacrifice a physical attack for technique use.

In fact, there seem to be rules for this on page 134. “Your prowess is your Appropriate Dynamic Prowess as determined by your Technique.” “Your opponent tests with whatever Prowess is appropriate for their action (most often this will be Warfare).” “You may not use maneuvers[sic].” “If you succeed in the challenge, your Technique works and the attacker, if there is one, fails to hit.” “If you fail, your Technique fails to go off, the attacker, if there is one, strikes you.”

E.g., If I were to Covet you in combat (assuming it were possible) then I would use my Dynamic Soul. If you were trying to punch me at the same time, you would use your Dynamic Body (Warfare). The roll would be undertaken by the player with the highest stat, as per normal, and the outcome determined in the standard mutually exclusive manner.

In Fray Combat, everyone rolls simultaneously and the effects happen at the end of the rolls. It just means that if you are in short range then you are open to being hit by the person if you fail the roll of your technique.

cenobyte wrote:4) If the King is engaged in combat, and someone uses a non-combat Technique on her, when does the Queen get the chance to decide to use her Sovereignty ability? Particularly if the Queen is also actively engaged in combat?

I would think that Sovereignty is an action. In your example I would think that the Queen would choose to forego an attack to use Sovereignty. The ability would, like all other things in combat take affect after the rolls are finished. If the Queen was physically attacked while using Sovereignty then the aggressor would make the attack against the Queen’s Reactive Body.

cenobyte wrote:5) How many people could use a non-Combat Technique during combat (this is assuming, of course, that we're talking about someone not involved in combat using a non-combat Technique OR someone involved in combat using a non-combat technique)? Would there be a limit?

If you are using a technique of any sort to affect combatants then *you are in combat*. You may be at range or you may be close, but either way you have chosen to get involved and get caught up in the freeze. You can choose to ran away from combat but remember that unless you are looking to leave the combat permanently you must still abide by the freeze if you intend to get involved again. The limits would be determined as per normal by the rules regarding how many aggressors can attack the same target.

cenobyte wrote:6) How many non-combat Techniques could someone involved in combat be affected by at one time? What if they conflict? Normally, conflicting Techniques are decided by who has the highest Rank in the Technique.

How many techniques can someone be affected by outside of combat?

I don’t see any reason to change how to determine the effects of conflicting techniques. The game doesn’t need more rules, just clarification of existing ones.

cenobyte wrote:7) What would take precedent in the event that a combat Technique and a non-combat Technique are used simultaneously?

I don’t understand why one takes precedent over another.

If you are talking about one character with a Non-Combat Technique attacking another with a Combat Technique then one roll is made and the winner’s action succeeds. As per standard combat.

In Fray combat, as I understand it, everyone rolls, results are determined and then the wounds and affects are applied. If the a Non-Combat Technique and a Combat Technique are used simultaneously against the same target then both rolls are made and if both rolls are successful against the target then they are applied at the same time. As per normal Fray Combat.

(the reason there can only be 4 combatants in a fray is because a) it's easier to manage in a LARP setting, and b) IRL, it's very difficult to lay the smack down on someone when there are more than 3 or 4 people participating, until the victim is on the ground and the attackers have bats. I hear.)