Splitting Actions

[Sethron]

Splitting Actions:

Revised, in adversity to each of other systems (2nd edition and v20 both) allows you to split actions by giving up dice equal to the actions you are splitting, and then one die thereafter. V20 and 2nd edition both split actions by actually dividing the dice pool you are using between that many actions evenly. We are proposing switching to V20 edition's ruling.

Before: Billy Brujah splits actions 5 times; he has Dex 5, Brawl 5, and Cel 5. He starts with 10 dice on his first punch, then 9, 8, 7, and finally, 6 dice.

After: Billy Brujah splits actions 5 times; he has Dex 5, Brawl 5, and Cel 5. He attacks with 3 dice each hit, 5 times.

This vote will be announced at game 6/22 and voted on 6/29


This vote passed

[Kevin K]

Does this apply to defensive actions too, or does that continue to be a special case? (it's a hybrid in 2nd ed, and I don't have my V20 handy)

[Jeff]

The full defensive action in v20 still is the full dice, -1, -2, etc.

But, I can see that this now is what would spur people to spend blood on celerity for the extra actions. In my opinion, this change greatly favors the defender. If celerity were still only the 1 blood, I might be ok with this, but this turns into now a super massive blood drain for extra actions. This also means you have to declare every single one of your actions that you are taking with your multiple actions all at once, so that the smallest die-pool can be determined to figure out the split.

Yeah, I don't like this. Personally will be voting against it.

[David Price]

For clarity: V20 actually claims that you split the _lowest_ of dice pools if you're taking multiple actions with multiple dice pools.

[Ascanio Giovanni]

Jun 21, 2013 18:36:38 GMT -8 Jeff said:

The full defensive action in v20 still is the full dice, -1, -2, etc.

But, I can see that this now is what would spur people to spend blood on celerity for the extra actions. In my opinion, this change greatly favors the defender. If celerity were still only the 1 blood, I might be ok with this, but this turns into now a super massive blood drain for extra actions. This also means you have to declare every single one of your actions that you are taking with your multiple actions all at once, so that the smallest die-pool can be determined to figure out the split.

Yeah, I don't like this. Personally will be voting against it.

That is already the case. When you split actions, you declare the split during the declaration and all the actions. These actions however are then actions that can be aborted to defense like your standard action, albeit at the reduced dice pool.

[Jeff]

Huh, I've never seen them fully declared, normally they are resolved end of round, in standard initiative order of declaration/resolve, as most people respond to things like "hey, he got staked, so I attack the other guy instead."

Now, I can actually see this going either way on how split actions are declared. Though, in all situations I've been in recently, the only thing that has been declared is "I split for 3 actions", then the actions are declared later.

[Shah-Khohr of Ventrue]

I've almost always seen celerity and split actions declared as new turns, almost, with actions going off in order and they aren't originally assessed for.

[Ascanio Giovanni]

It's something that isn't well described at all. Now that I think about it though, I've been applying a double standard, requiring split actions declared at the beginning but not requiring Celerity actions to be declared until the "new turn" provided by them. Consistency should be reached here. Thanks for bringing this issue up.

[Shah-Khohr of Ventrue]

Werewolf did a multi-action clarification years ago, so that might also be where my information was coming from. Each 'tick' in combat was treated as a new round without declaration, but multiple actions and rage(celerity) actions were treated the same, put into the same sorta que.

[Just Evan]

(Continuing the thread jacking here)

My read of the core book (V20 or Revised) is that all split actions happen on your everyman initiative at the same time (and are all declared when you declare your split at the top of the round in reverse initiative order). When all the regular initiative actions are done, celerity 1 actions are declared in reverse initiative order and then executed in initiative order, then Cel 2, etc etc.

Of course, you can burn Celerity actions for free defense in the everyman turn (or in lesser celerity actions) as is written now since you don't declare celerity actions til after regular ones are done.

[Shah-Khohr of Ventrue]

Yeah, that everyman thing is nonsense and really needs to go away. It's pretty easy to punk people and doesn't make any logical sense to the rest of the game system. I'd advise going with the werewolf interpretation if you're making logical and balanced changes.

[Ascanio Giovanni]

Split actions do not happen on your everyman action. Split actions and Celerity actions function exactly the same way as far as the combat system other than the amount of dice you have to roll.

This proposal however is just to change the dice pools to stop split actions being the clear way to victory, particularly with Celerity now adding Dexterity dice. Just a reminder as this thread seems to be getting off topic.

[Shah-Khohr of Ventrue]

Hey now, you guys are the ones that started splicing in single applications of V20 rulings rather then just taking the whole system. A move which has necessitated a variety more house rules and new systems to compensate, and which I did say was silly at the time.



That being said, of COURSE you should take the rest of the multi-action rules from V20 rather then just that single one application of it.

[Kevin K]

I'm not following. Can you ELI5? With an example?

[Ascanio Giovanni]

Jun 27, 2013 17:59:37 GMT -8 Kevin K said:

I'm not following. Can you ELI5? With an example?

ELI5? I have no idea what that means. But I can give an example of how the system would change if that is what you are looking for.


Currently: Billy Brujah wants to punch someone three times without using his Celerity for extra actions. He has Dexterity 4, Brawl 3 and Celerity 2. This gives him a dice pool of 9. As he is taking 3 actions he reduces the dice pool for the first action by 3 for a dice pool of 6. Then he reduces his dice pool by an additional 1 for each subsequent action taking his second attack with a dice pool of 5, and his third with a dice pool of 4.

Proposed: Billy Brujah wants to punch someone three times without using his Celerity for extra actions> He has Dexterity 4, Brawl 3, and Celerity 2. This gives him a dice pool of 9. As he is taking 3 actions, he divides this dice pool by 3 and takes each attack with a dice pool of 3.

Does that clear it up for you?

[Kevin K]

ELI5 = Explain it Like I'm 5

And I meant the difference about the everyman action vs celerity or ticks/bumps that Rob, et. al. were talking about. The original example made total sense, but they've got some angle that I don't understand on timing of the actions.

[Ascanio Giovanni]

This thread got rather off topic. The change we are proposing would not affect the timing of split actions in any way, only the way the dice pools are reduced.

[Shah-Khohr of Ventrue]

And it (I guess) certainly needs to be addressed. The idea of splitting my action 5 times and them all resolving before you get a single action is both stupid and horrendously powerful.

[Ascanio Giovanni]

You are correct, this does deserve to be addressed. I have just created a new thread for the discussion of exactly that. Please move discussion of timing of split actions there, as that discussion has nothing to do with the item up for vote.

[Webmonkey]

Please let me know the final text for this rule staff and I'll get 'er up on the site.