it is much easier for a noncombatant to escape losing hitpoints than a combatant for safety and logistics reasons
Really? I'm not all that sure that it is. A combatant can use a shield and/or a long weapon to keep opponent at bay and it just as able to run away from opponent should the need arise. When drumrolling hits are uncounted (as I believe they still are) then a combatant can be hit at most once per second - the same as a non-com - but are often hit much much less due to skill, equipment etc. Whole branches of defensive (shield use specifically - the rules as they are give no benefit at all for a non-com using a shield) and offensive (e.g. cleaving blow and it's stagger effect is HIGHLY useful at beating people back) are unavailable to non-combatants. I'm not sure how the current ruling could be said to give them an advantage...
That said, no, non-combatant's should not be immune to the call. It's essentially a death(count) sentence against them, yes, but to make an exception for them would be discriminating against the other players. Poor OOC fighters have to take the call, characters who are IC non-combatants have to take the call (Errin went down to it at least once)... it wouldn't be fair to make an exception for one individual. Otherwise, where do we draw the line? If the non-com can't be affected by Righteousness, what about Hatred? Do we disallow that too? The Suggestion spell? Backstab?
It's not a great situation for the non-combatant, but at the end of the day it isn't the ref's fault that he/she suffers from a potentially dangerous condition. Non-combatant rules are put in place to allow people to play where it would otherwise be unsafe for them, to allow them to experience as much of the system as possible safely. To make an exception for them won't help further that, it's giving them an advantage over every other player in the system, something that should be ideally avoided. I'm not suggesting spam-targetting the spell at a non-com, but if he has done something to make himself a target of the ability, then he should be expected to suffer the effects. So long as people aren't deliberately singling him/her out as an easy target because of his/her disability.
I think Phil's suggestion is best, to allow the targetted non-com to count back. Obviously it's not perfect - it makes no allowances for shields and such - but it's a solid, easily workable compromise.
Of course, when all's said and done, the Ref get's the final call on the matter: it's his system, his rules and his word is final. Obviously, if we can find a solution that benefits all parties that's great, but railing against the ref's verdict benefits no-one.
A combatant can use a shield and/or a long weapon to keep opponent at bay and it just as able to run away from opponent should the need arise. When drumrolling hits are uncounted (as I believe they still are) then a combatant can be hit at most once per second - the same as a non-com - but are often hit much much less due to skill, equipment etc. Whole branches of defensive (shield use specifically - the rules as they are give no benefit at all for a non-com using a shield) and offensive (e.g. cleaving blow and it's stagger effect is HIGHLY useful at beating people back) are unavailable to non-combatants. I'm not sure how the current ruling could be said to give them an advantage...
The noncombat rules stipulate that the target has to be at touch range. It is a lot easier for a noncombatant, who cannot be hit with long weapons, to get out of range than a combatant who can still be whacked at for a distance; don't forget that some noncombatants can't have arrows or crossbow bolts fired at them either. And in the end, the safest and wisest thing for a noncombatant to do is to stand behind the lines--which is incidentally the safest thing for a blood mage or combat-light person to do as well.
I agree with not making the noncombatant immune. I think it gives an advantage above and beyond what is fair to anyone, the noncombatant included (the alternative is frankly a bit patronising). However, I think saying "it isn't the ref's fault that the noncombatant suffers from a dangerous condition" is barking up the wrong tree entirely. It isn't the ref's fault, but it IS the ref's responsibility to make sure things are safe for everyone. Otherwise you could just as easily say, "well, it's not the ref's fault you can't do combat, so either risk getting hit or leave", which is the kind of thing we want to avoid, really!
It was my understanding that 'touch range' could count as the range of an extended weapon. A non-combatant may not be able to be hit with a longer weapon, but the added reach is still there. Of course, if the non-com is ducking and diving to avoid touching distance then that's pretty Rule 7, not to mention entirely against the purpose of his/her non-combatant status.
However, I think saying "it isn't the ref's fault that the noncombatant suffers from a dangerous condition" is barking up the wrong tree entirely. It isn't the ref's fault, but it IS the ref's responsibility to make sure things are safe for everyone. Otherwise you could just as easily say, "well, it's not the ref's fault you can't do combat, so either risk getting hit or leave", which is the kind of thing we want to avoid, really!
You're right, I phrased that poorly. What I meant was that the ref's first priority is to the safety of the non-combatant and then to the enjoyment of everyone playing the system. He needs to view the decision for an objective perspective, to maintain fairness for the majority of the player base.
Really? I'm not all that sure that it is. A combatant can use a shield and/or a long weapon to keep opponent at bay and it just as able to run away from opponent should the need arise. When drumrolling hits are uncounted (as I believe they still are) then a combatant can be hit at most once per second - the same as a non-com - but are often hit much much less due to skill, equipment etc. Whole branches of defensive (shield use specifically - the rules as they are give no benefit at all for a non-com using a shield) and offensive (e.g. cleaving blow and it's stagger effect is HIGHLY useful at beating people back) are unavailable to non-combatants. I'm not sure how the current ruling could be said to give them an advantage...
That said, no, non-combatant's should not be immune to the call. It's essentially a death(count) sentence against them, yes, but to make an exception for them would be discriminating against the other players. Poor OOC fighters have to take the call, characters who are IC non-combatants have to take the call (Errin went down to it at least once)... it wouldn't be fair to make an exception for one individual. Otherwise, where do we draw the line? If the non-com can't be affected by Righteousness, what about Hatred? Do we disallow that too? The Suggestion spell? Backstab?
It's not a great situation for the non-combatant, but at the end of the day it isn't the ref's fault that he/she suffers from a potentially dangerous condition. Non-combatant rules are put in place to allow people to play where it would otherwise be unsafe for them, to allow them to experience as much of the system as possible safely. To make an exception for them won't help further that, it's giving them an advantage over every other player in the system, something that should be ideally avoided. I'm not suggesting spam-targetting the spell at a non-com, but if he has done something to make himself a target of the ability, then he should be expected to suffer the effects. So long as people aren't deliberately singling him/her out as an easy target because of his/her disability.
I think Phil's suggestion is best, to allow the targetted non-com to count back. Obviously it's not perfect - it makes no allowances for shields and such - but it's a solid, easily workable compromise.
Of course, when all's said and done, the Ref get's the final call on the matter: it's his system, his rules and his word is final. Obviously, if we can find a solution that benefits all parties that's great, but railing against the ref's verdict benefits no-one.
Reply
The noncombat rules stipulate that the target has to be at touch range. It is a lot easier for a noncombatant, who cannot be hit with long weapons, to get out of range than a combatant who can still be whacked at for a distance; don't forget that some noncombatants can't have arrows or crossbow bolts fired at them either. And in the end, the safest and wisest thing for a noncombatant to do is to stand behind the lines--which is incidentally the safest thing for a blood mage or combat-light person to do as well.
I agree with not making the noncombatant immune. I think it gives an advantage above and beyond what is fair to anyone, the noncombatant included (the alternative is frankly a bit patronising). However, I think saying "it isn't the ref's fault that the noncombatant suffers from a dangerous condition" is barking up the wrong tree entirely. It isn't the ref's fault, but it IS the ref's responsibility to make sure things are safe for everyone. Otherwise you could just as easily say, "well, it's not the ref's fault you can't do combat, so either risk getting hit or leave", which is the kind of thing we want to avoid, really!
Reply
However, I think saying "it isn't the ref's fault that the noncombatant suffers from a dangerous condition" is barking up the wrong tree entirely. It isn't the ref's fault, but it IS the ref's responsibility to make sure things are safe for everyone. Otherwise you could just as easily say, "well, it's not the ref's fault you can't do combat, so either risk getting hit or leave", which is the kind of thing we want to avoid, really!
You're right, I phrased that poorly. What I meant was that the ref's first priority is to the safety of the non-combatant and then to the enjoyment of everyone playing the system. He needs to view the decision for an objective perspective, to maintain fairness for the majority of the player base.
Reply
Leave a comment