[REGISTER] or [LOGIN] to browse without adverts
7 posts / 0 new
Last post
Patrick McCoy
Patrick McCoy's picture

Since brutes aways go last does that technical mean that heroes get hit by brutes automatically? There doesn't seem to be a good system for dodging attacks for brutes? Can they preplan the attack and say if the brutes try to attack me, I'll spend a raise to parry their attacks or run away so I'm not in range of them?

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

Brutes are an odd duck in this version. Yes, they automatically hit because they count as a consequence. Raises that you spend are technically reducing the wounds recieved (like you would with any consequence), but in more of a permanent fashion (as you are literally removing the cause). Also remember that Brutes do work in groups, and each group will probably be targeting a single hero (like having four of the cardinal's men attacking Portos and four others attacking Aramis while Athos squares off against a villain; it's better than 8 vs 1, after all).

To place it in a different perspective: fighting a group of Brutes is like fighting a fire while you are in the building (something my party will be facing soon enough). Each raise you spend will reduce the fire, but at the end of the round, you're going to be taking some form of damage from that fire (smoke, burns, falling beam, etc).

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

BluSponge blusp...
BluSponge blusponge@verizon.net's picture

Sure, I see no reason you couldn't spend raises to negate wounds from brutes.  But you would still have X brutes on you the following round.  I think its more worthwhile to take the brutes out than just avoid the inevitable.  But that's entirely dependent the situation.  I can see a circumstance where it would be in the hero's interest to simply avoid wounds rather than (violently) remove the threat.

Also remember that other companions can spend their raises against your brute squad (like shared consequences) and can even intercede and suffer wounds in your stead.

Harliquinn Whit...
Harliquinn Whiteshadow's picture

We actually played a game a week ago where one of the heroes used a Raise to prevent some damage from a Brute Squad but didn't take out one of the members. The reason for this was that I had given the Brutes a temporary boost from a Villain that made them tougher (Requiring 2 Raises to remove a member instead of 1). So the hero had 1 Raise left and used it to negate the damage this round but not take out the Brute. Other than that, I don't know why a Hero would not just take out a Brute. It doesn't mean they have to kill the Brute, they could use Intimidate to scare him, Tempt to bribe him, or just knock him out.

Patrick McCoy
Patrick McCoy's picture

The scenario I just ran into running my game on roll20 was the following:

I have a hero who has a duelist with Eisenfaust (or a version of it, he wanted a buckler) during the end of the second round of combat he uses Iron Reply because he was wounded from the Brute Squad A in the first round. He uses Iron Reply and asked...since I am using this...will I basically avoid the wounds done to me since it's the last hero action right before brutes attack. My answer at the time was yes; since it makes logical sense but that begs to question.

If I was player....why can't I simply tell the GM. I have 6 raises. I'm going to use devote 2 raises to simply reduce wounds through fancy footwork or by using my shield to parry the brutes blows as they hit.

It seems to me. The weakness of this system is that brutes are a static consequence. The heroes go, they whittle them down and then they hit the next round continues. If you look at the base rules, it makes no bloody sense why a hero can't parry/block/dodge/duck/weave and dodge. Not every hero resolves conflict with attacks....many seek a more dramatic approach such as using the scene to remove brutes or simply dancing around them just because you have the extra raises, why not?

Maybe I played too much first edition but I much prefer the ability to have brutes be a bit more alive than a mechanic the heroes just have to do that reminds me too much of D&D.

Harliquinn Whit...
Harliquinn Whiteshadow's picture

Heros aren't limited to 'attack' options for avoiding the Wound consequences of a Brute Squad. The Heroes who just want to avoid Wounds can use anything they want on a 1 Raise / 1 Wound trade to avoid the Brute's Wound consequence. This can include Hiding, Running Away, Parrying, Ducking, etc. What this means is if that if the Brutes target that Hero, they do less Wounds. However, if they target another Hero they do their full Strength in Wounds.

In order to remove the Brutes' Strength from doing their full damage on their Action, the Brutes need to be removed in some way. That could be through Attacking, Intimidating, Bribing, Luring some away, or any other creative Approach. 

Salamanca's picture
If a player asks, I say ,"Yes.". The next step to this is again in the player's hands. Does their description and plan logically just avoid damage to them, avoid letting the brute deal damage, or still in some way remove the brute from the fight? A footwork or parry avoids damage, tripping or rolling a barrel in their path may prevent them dealing anyone damage for that sequence. Disarming them may take them out of the fight completely without doing harm. And if the players want to waste raises avoiding damage instead of a longtime solution, it helps the bad guy so I would allow it.
share buttons