[REGISTER] or [LOGIN] to browse without adverts

17 posts / 0 new
Last post
Mars University
Mars University's picture
Taking Another Hero's Wounds
wounds

Sorry if this has already been answered on here, but the wording for Taking Another Hero's Wounds (page 181 of the Core Rulebook) is a little confusing to me.

As worded, it looks a player must spend Raises to cancel another Hero's Wounds (as they would their own Hero's). However, I could also see the first line of this section being read as, "Before another character takes Wounds, you can use one of your own Raises to take the Wounds instead." (The italics are my addition to the rules as written.) This would make more sense to me, spending a Raise to get in the way of danger (since its an Action) and spending further Raises (if possible/desired) to reduce or cancel the Wounds.

I know its Rulings, not Rules for this edition, but I'm wondering how anyone else would play it, or if they had any insights from on high regarding this bit?

1 vote
+
Vote up!
-
Vote down!
LibrariaNPC
LibrariaNPC's picture

I read it the way you did: one raise to get in the way, and further raises to reduce the wounds taken, so you aren't the only one seeing it that way.

"Smilies exist because no one's bothered to create a sarcasm font." --Lost_Heretic

Harliquinn Whit...
Harliquinn Whiteshadow's picture

I always interpreted it as the wounds (Consequence) wasn't negated by the character taking the wounds but another hero could use thei raises one for one if there was a narrative way to do it. I didn't expect an additional raise to take the wounds since you're doing something to help another character and that always seems to be cheaper (e.g. Hero points to assist)

Cthulhu Netobvious
Cthulhu Netobvious's picture
John Wick wrote the system to encourage cooperative play, so Hero Points offer better value helping others rather than boosting your own character. However, narrative-wise, I would rule taking wounds for someone else, after the facts of a scene were already established, is a narrative interrupt, so should cost 1-Raise, then another 1-Raise to counteract Wounds.

TAJ-07: Technopriest And Justicar Of 7thSea2e

Salamanca
Salamanca's picture
I would do it for a single raise. They are taking damage as the extra cost.
Cthulhu Netobvious
Cthulhu Netobvious's picture
@Salamanca, is that 1-Raise to hump into the path of damage without any Raises to cancel out the Wounds during such an interjection? I offered 2-Raises, one to interject a new hero into the path of fire to take the Wounds but if the interjecting hero has another Raise, he can spend that second Raise to cancel the Consequence of Wounds.

TAJ-07: Technopriest And Justicar Of 7thSea2e

Salamanca
Salamanca's picture
Just one raise total. Once you jump in the path of a sword, punch or bullet odds are good it is not going to swerve around you.
Mars University
Mars University's picture

Sounds like the general interpretation is to spend a Raise to take the hit for another Hero (or NPC) and you can spend Raises to cancel out Wounds as normal (if you want).

Reading further into the rules, in a similar way, the special ability for Brute Squads of Guards is to take on a Villain's Wounds by spending a Danger Point, and this also reduces the total Wounds by one. If you wanted to, you could proabably also rule that Heroes could do the same with Hero Points if that appealed to you more.

I think I prefer spending a Raise to act and "jump in front of" the danger, as Raises are the "do something" currency in Action Sequences, then dealing with Wounds as normal. I expect most players would try to keep some/all of their remaining Raises, if they could afford it, in that situation.

Salamanca
Salamanca's picture
The spending per wound taken is a bit weird. I think the player who is interposing takes them all when they interject themselves. Otherwise, spending your last raise to protect your friend is a moot point. (You get in the way and they get hurt anyhow? How does that make for a good hero story?)
Cthulhu Netobvious
Cthulhu Netobvious's picture

SIMPLE AND EASY SAVIOR-HERO
@Salamanca you method is much easier if Wounds are always guaranteed on the interjecting savior-hero who jumps into the path of fire.


MORE COMPLEX SAVIOR-HERO

What I was suggesting, if the circumstance allow (for example if the savior-hero has Eisen armor or is a Duelist), the savior hero first spends the mandatory 1-Raise to jump into the line of fire and take all the wounds. However, as a bonus, such a savior-hero may spend another extra Raise to reduce Wounds coming from the "in-the-line-of-fire-attack". 
Kind of like saying savior-hero jumped in front of his weaker friend but his Eisen armor protected them both from damage.

TAJ-07: Technopriest And Justicar Of 7thSea2e

Doctor
Doctor's picture

Side Issue

How are people treating the issue of taking another heros wounds then negating them, as with Parry? On the one hand, it's kind of a classic "tank" action from more traditional RPGs, on the other hand it makes the Duelist even more powerful than they already are. If nothing else it encourages the entire combat to run through the Duelist: her decisions determine the flow of damage.

“Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats.”
- H.L. Mencken

Salamanca
Salamanca's picture
I am fine with applying damage reduction based on the character taking the hit. I am even ok with that player spending available actions to buy down damage. As to the issue of the Duelist controlling the combat, they probably should BUT the GM must keep it within the boundaries of logic. Once the heroes get into a fight, people spread out and you cannot physically keep one person in the way of attacks on three targets. I doubt it needs to be a hard and fast " once per round" or " "protect one person per round" rule but there would need to be plausible reason to complete the action.
Harliquinn Whit...
Harliquinn Whiteshadow's picture

So now I'm confused...does "Taking another character's Wounds" also allow the interposing character to 'negate those Wounds?" (Allowing the character to move in front of a sword swing meant for someone and bring up their own weapon to parry) or is it that the interposing character is forced to take the Wounds and cannot negate/prevent them in any way (Reflecting diving in front of the sword swing at one's own peril?)

I see two scenarios:

Scenario A: The interposing character takes the Wounds meant for the other character and cannot negate / prevent them in any way

     Cost: 1 Raise to interpose (Interposing character takes all the Wounds, Defended character takes 0 Wounds)

Scenario B: The interposing character takes the Wounds but may spend Hero Points or other abilities to negate/prevent the Wounds

     Cost: 1 Raise to interprose (Interposing character potentially takes all the Wounds, Defended character takes 0 Wounds)

     Cost: X Raises to prevent / negate Wounds using 1 Raise / Wound or some Duelist maneuver (Scenario B.2: Do not allow any Dueling Style maneuvers but only the 1 Raise / Wound to negate)

They both appear cinematic to me, but Scenario B could overpower Duelists by letting them negate Wounds for the entire party for minor costs (2 Raises on average)

John

Salamanca
Salamanca's picture
The issue is the Duelist being able to get to each target. I have no problem with a player buying down the damage once they have taken it on. If the Duelist is not able to plausibly explain blocking villain one then running around the brute squad to block villain 2, it's not going to happen. If both attacks happen on the "4 raises remaining" phase, he will get to one but not both.
Doctor
Doctor's picture

"The issue is the Duelist being able to get to each target."

The problem here is that space is really abstract in this rule set and unless you have a battle map or something, the players are going to get frustrated if your plan to fix this bug is to just tell them they can’t get there. They’ll get wise to that pretty quick. Add to that the fact that most 7th Sea combats are group vs group in a single space, with limited barriers between them: I have run a fight on, say, two ships where you have to move from one deck to the other but that’s about as complicated as it can get with a group over 4 or 5.

“Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats.”
- H.L. Mencken

BluSponge
BluSponge's picture

Eh. I think most players will be fine with the abstraction so long as getting to the villain only costs a raise. As a GM, I can imagine scenarios when that wouldn't be the case, but those would be handled as easily as reloading a pistol. "Ok, you are X raises away from the villain. If you have more raises than that, you can attack normally.  However, there are some obstacles you should consider..."

Salamanca
Salamanca's picture
It's an abstract answer to an abstract question. If a player thinks they can run around a combat scene at full speed intervening with every single attack, it's foolish. Any attack a player wants to interpose should start with the question " am I close enough to take the hit for that player". The GM and players should have enough idea of what is going on to answer that. If there has been a narrative action that puts the hero out of position, the answer is "no". If there is narrative reason to say yes ( such as the two players actively working side by side or back to back) that should be an obvious "yes". If the answer is murky based on narrative, I would allow it until it gets ridiculous or tedious. But one player looking to take all the hits for the party pushes past plausibility and a GM should at some point say, "no, you are too far away".
share buttons