|
A Catastrophe posted:Having played in a game recently, one thing that I noticed was the damage multiples. That cover system is too fierce, yo, turns everything into rocket tag. The cover system is supposed to be fierce. It's called Take Cover! You know why? Because that's what you need to do! If you don't want to do that, use the basic cover rules instead for a more 4e-like experience. Like Zarick said, using Take Cover! makes it more like XCOM where if you stand out exposed you're probably going to get blown away. With that said, I am changing it so it acts additively with crits instead of multiplicatively (RIP countblanc) and doesn't double bonus damage. The general system is fine, but the top end of the scale was going too high, so these changes will put the lid back on and keep it under better control.
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 03:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 15:21 |
|
|
Sounds good. While it took count down, I got to look awesome in the game because of it, but if that was the measure of good design, every game im in would be a classic 
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 03:51
|
|
|
Reviving this thread to ask about speed. Default speed is 6, but strikers get +4 at level 6 and there's a feat to get +4. I am trying to figure out if this is too much or if it's okay. This should be compared against the Defender's Resist 1. Resist 1 seems to save anywhere from 0 to 3 damage on a given turn and maybe 6ish damage over a combat. The extra speed gives bonus damage because of the Take Cover rules of 2-3 damage depending on if you use an encounter power. It gives 0 damage if you didn't need the extra movement, or if you miss. So this comes to around 6-ish extra damage, I think. But I'm not sure. The problem is that I can't be certain my players are representative. And I haven't had a player try to stack both boosts yet. Can you break the game by having 14 speed? Please try and let me know! Obviously you can kite slower melee-only monsters, but that's not a big worry. That'd happen even if I reduced them both to +3 or even +2. That's part of the perks of being speedy. I'm thinking more in terms of flanking, shooting, then retreating to cover. Reach, range, and speed are really hard to balance without tons of playtesting. If anyone is playing now, try this out and see if you can break it!
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 21:31
|
|
|
Hey, so my layout artist disappeared on me and I waited a while for her to show up again, but it looks like she's just not going to. I guess she's got some personal stuff. Anyway, I was left on the hook for layout myself and I didn't know how to use InDesign. Soooo.... I learned! And I plugged away at it for a while, and it's finally done. So here, the preview is all laid out. Thanks to everyone who helped with comments! If you have any opinions on the layout stuff, let me know. I'm still learning all the ins and outs of InDesign. Here are the links for people too lazy to click back to the OP: Rules Fantasy Scenario Sci-fi Scenario Lovecraftian Scenario Next up: A player reference. A single-page outlining everything you need to know to play the game. Perfect for your pals who don't want to read the rules and just want you to teach them! Jimbozig fucked around with this message at 15:38 on Sep 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 15:26
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:Hey, so my layout artist disappeared on me and I waited a while for her to show up again, but it looks like she's just not going to. I guess she's got some personal stuff. Anyway, I was left on the hook for layout myself and I didn't know how to use InDesign. Soooo.... I learned! And I plugged away at it for a while, and it's finally done. So here, the preview is all laid out. Thanks to everyone who helped with comments! If you have any opinions on the layout stuff, let me know. A few things, now that I've gone through the rules a few times: --The Tied Rolls outcomes (such as "Death") in Team Conflict deserve their own little chart, since all other die rolls get one. --In the Disposition chart, I found it easier to read with the boxes colored, rather than the text. They could be lighter shades of their colors than in the previous preview for greater readability. --I really want the Team Conflict cut-out cards to have lines on them.  --The cover diagram is great and (after reading Take Cover for the third time) I now understand the quarter-plane and half-plane. It is entirely obvious and excitingly simple now that I do understand, but I think that part of the rules could use more clarification. I think a top-down diagram for Intervening Cover (lines drawn, showing how you can't cut the corner or go along the cover) would be valuable. Also because apparently I have a small brain that is all full, a straight up coordinate plane showing a half and a quarter plane would be nice, or at least saying "If you are diagonally adjacent to Low Cover, you have a quarter-plane of coverage beginning at the opposite corner of your cover, as Red does in the illustration." I know you didn't want to write it out, but you probably should; you could put it after the picture if you want people to see it first. You might also want to cover (ha!) at what point, if any, elevation typically eliminates/grants/upgrades/downgrades Cover, even if that's entirely the GM's call.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 16:07
|
|
|
Thanks for all the suggestions. I'll get to work on them probably tomorrow since I'm out of time for today - gotta do my day job.homullus posted:
I laughed at this one because my reaction was "They don't? Oh poo poo! They don't!" Those were just the InDesign guides I was seeing in the program, not actual lines that get put on the PDF. Simple change.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 16:34
|
|
|
So when's someone gonna be all "I'm running a game" so I can join in?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 18:22
|
|
|
The layout looks great! Powers and tables especially are a lot easier to pick out now. I did notice one tiny thing as I was scanning: the line "About an enemy:" in the Asses power is bulleted along with the list that follows it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 23:41
|
|
|
I have been reading the Team Conflict rules again in preparation for trying it out tonight. Some feedback: - We do not find out until quite late how the opponent's side is dealt with. I think it would have helped to know early, even as an aside, that these would usually be static numbers + a die roll, and that Team Conflicts end not by attrition, but by an outcome in a given round. - Are the opponent's Attack and Defense value secret information? - I feel the results of a round should be more explicitly summarized at some point, if only on the player aid, i.e.: quote:*Both sides successfully attack: a Push, each side takes a hit (see "Taking a Hit" below [which doesn't exist as a heading currently]) and the conflict continues I think it's important to define Push and Draw in this summary (even at the expense of repeating the textual definitions) because of their potential interaction with Traits. I also wish the sample adventures had Team Conflict options in them, with the Traits already picked out. Edit: I also just noticed that Push in the Glossary is the D&D4e kind of forced movement rather than the Team Conflict tie. Depending on the organization later -- especially if the Glossary is at the end and includes more than just Tactical Combat terms -- this could be a problem, especially if opponent entries in adventures would ever have Team Conflict Traits and Tactical Combat powers near each other. homullus fucked around with this message at 22:18 on Sep 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 19:25
|
|
|
Thanks again! I'll get to work on that when I'm done this. It's a player reference sheet. Is there anything else that should be there? I'm not done moving things around on it, but I just picked all the things I thought a player is most likely to need to reference during a game. So what did I miss? Is it all understandable? I tried to cut out as many words as I could to fit things in. Edit: Of course the combat stuff is not there. I'll be doing another sheet for that. You could print one on each side. And I'll also be making a DM reference sheet with The Twist List and other things. Jimbozig fucked around with this message at 02:31 on Sep 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 01:40
|
|
|
These pdfs are looking real good. I might have to nag ppl to do another scifi oneshot, and not just because last time my guy kicked rear end due to those cover rules.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 03:11
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:Thanks again! I'll get to work on that when I'm done this. That is a fantastic reference sheet! I will have more feedback tomorrow when I have time to type it up, but the thing I would want is the Winning and Losing with regard to number of Strikes, and a page number reference for each box if somebody wants to read the full version (so it matters less how condensed it is). I think an interesting hidden aspect of the Team Conflict is when to concede, if rolls just aren't going your way, so having the consequences of leaving a conflict with X strikes (vs. losing with more) on the player reference would be valuable. We only got as far as some Skill Rolls and a Team Conflict tonight, but the Team Conflict was definitely a hit for our group on roll20. Didn't get to use the cards since I didn't set them up in advance, but I will probably do that for next time. We could not find what you actually DO with the skill roll when you choose the Improvise action -- like, what does a Success do for you, beyond the +1A and +1D?
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 04:03
|
|
|
A fuller trip report: Contrary to expectations, people actually read the rules pre-preview before we started. I highlighted the parts that were relevant from the characters (I took screenshots of the character sections of the Lovecraftian adventure and just gave them those parts) they chose; we had the Mafia Goon, the Swashbuckling Socialite, and the Demolition Man. We only had two players, playing three PCs. The principal frustration came in discussing Cover (as in Take Cover). Here, moreso than any other place, the players expressed concern that game terms and "rules" are often challenging to find in their sections, because they are delivered in sentence form with all the other text. Whether that means "rules summaries" at the ends of sections, sidebars, bullet points within the text, or references to the reference sheet, I don't know, but it was an obstacle throughout the "explaining" portion and whenever we had to look something up. I think it would also help if your Low Cover diagram was labeled as such. It might feel intuitive, but a top-down graphic for Full Cover would also better highlight the differences. Skill rolls went very well. Since we were playing a one-shot, I even let the Socialite learn all of Arabic by listening in on hired thugs' conversation when the player got the lucky Unskilled w/Disadvantage roll to learn the skill, and pointed it out as an example of what we would not do going forward. The Team Conflict mini-game definitely captured their attention. It was interesting to watch the evolution of their thought in terms of what combinations of actions were considered "good" against a largely static obstacle. I didn't have any traits picked out for their opponents, which probably reduced the fun of their successful attacks. The conflict (sneaking around the ruins and bonking guards on the heads to get to the tomb entrance) ran longer than I expected: despite some good planning (not preparation, though) with Bide Your Time and Observe setting up two-round combos, they were not able to succeed in the second rounds of those combos due to some bad luck on the rolls. We just gave up after seven or eight rounds. The takeaways: * It's not clear how Improvise is supposed to work -- what does the Skill roll do if it is successful? I know how Improvise works in Tactical, but couldn't find Team * Scouting actions (via Observe or preparatory rolls) are very powerful; strong scouted rolls can make it clear that the combat is going to run longer if the opponent happens to get numbers that mean a Push at best no matter what the players do (unless they're willing to risk losing outright). Maybe that's ok. * Preparatory actions are a powerful advantage that the players will essentially always want to do if they can * The stakes of Team Conflict are higher than they look, since it is very easy to accumulate Strikes quickly * Traits are important not just to differentiate opponent teams, but also to give the players a sense of progress * a Trait-less Team Monster probably needs alternate win conditions every time. I would go so far as to say that most Team Monsters need alternate win conditions, because "do I deactivate a Trait or give a Strike" seems like an interesting decision, and that NOT having "may also accumulate X strikes" should be called out the exception rather than the rule. Seven rounds (or whatever it was) was too long for the mini-game. Yes, I could have had Team Monster withdraw, and yes, the players could have conceded, but I think making them more finite no matter what would be good. A default of "three strikes and you're out" for Team Monster seems plausible. Looking forward to trying the Tactical Combat, but not sure when that will be.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 14:25
|
|
|
I've been very casually following this thread and I'm mostly interested in the applications of the tactical combat engine, so I'm looking forward to your writeup.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 14:32
|
|
|
Hey, so I fixed up the reference sheet and added in everyone's suggestions. Here is the near-final version. I say near-final because it could stand to be prettied up a bit, make the spacing more even, whatever. But the overall arrangement of textboxes is basically the best I can do, and I think the text is mostly good now. The dotted line fencing off the Team Conflict stuff from the rest of the stuff: useful or not? For the second half of this post, it's great to finally see some feedback on Team Conflict! homullus posted:...I even let the Socialite learn all of Arabic... quote:* It's not clear how Improvise is supposed to work -- what does the Skill roll do if it is successful? I know how Improvise works in Tactical, but couldn't find Team quote:* Scouting actions ... are very powerful... quote:...Seven rounds (or whatever it was) was too long for the mini-game... The mechanics themselves hold up very well under long multi-round conflicts, but the problem is that the fiction sometimes doesn't. There are only so many times you can bonk the guards on the heads, right? So yeah, I need to either put a round limit/strike limit on it or figure out some other way to gracefully end things. How many Strikes did the enemy team end up with in your conflict? Also, thanks for the comments about Cover. I'll clarify those sections. I also need to clarify the rules about hiding. Nobody has complained, but I expect that's because nobody has tried to use them. They could use some cleaning up, I think.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 03:33
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:Hey, so I fixed up the reference sheet and added in everyone's suggestions. Here is the near-final version. I say near-final because it could stand to be prettied up a bit, make the spacing more even, whatever. But the overall arrangement of textboxes is basically the best I can do, and I think the text is mostly good now. Yeah this definitely needs some Tuftefying. The tables are way overdecorated. They are the only color outside the logo; you don't need a three-color outline to make them stand out, and those thick black separating lines are pointless and distracting. The tab spacing is obvious, and the vertical separation is too, thanks to the color alternation. (You don't need to alternate every line, either, but that's much less important.) The blue could be lightened a bit; it's much darker than the other two colors and some of the dark text is getting lost in it. Also, right now you change the color of every table in the same bubble except for Prep Actions. Assuming there's no relation between Seize the Advantage and Scout, or Fortify and Stock Up, I'd make one blue and one red. The doubled up rounded rectangles (mostly!) are terrible. They are darker than the main text and thicker than most of the titles. I'd lose them entirely and just use pure whitespace if you can; the titles already group sections of text together, so these are completely extraneous. If you have to, you could use a thin faint line once or twice, but that's a bandaid; almost always better to re-layout instead. You even bend the bullet points and other lines to fit the rounded corners?  Your text is small and cramped inside the rrects, and yet the line spacing seems huge in comparison. Actually I think that's just a side effect of those cramped boxes. Still, it might be nice to space within paragraphs a bit less, and between paragraphs a bit more/the current distance. It's like a column layout but not. Mainly because of the spacing of the Helping bubble—and yet it contains nearly 50% whitespace. So the only real limitation is keeping that last line as short as possible: "Resolve lowest to highest," "Resolve low to highest", or "Resolve low to high." all mean the same thing. Same with the two Conditions boxes: "Winded 3x = Exhausted"; "Can't use related Tricks"; "Gives -1 to all rolls; cumulative with themselves"; "To Minor after few minutes calm"; "Doctor's Care & 1 Full Day Rest", and then they can be reduced to the width of the Ad/Dis and Opposed Rolls boxes. Bolded names: Sometimes are followed by a capital letter. But: sometimes they aren't. "Compare: your A to their D" shouldn't have the colon. Fuschia tude fucked around with this message at 04:39 on Sep 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 04:36
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:Yeah this definitely needs some Tuftefying. Made some of the changes, cleaned it up a bunch. Check it out now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 13:48
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:Made some of the changes, cleaned it up a bunch. Check it out now. Oh, the tables are the opposite of what I meant. I like the colors! Also the tables in each section are currently slightly different widths. Here's a quick edit:  I like the cleanups though, it's much less distracting now. And this is minor, but it'd be nice if the Team Conflict sidebar could be rectangular. I doubt it can be fit inside a vertical rectangle, but what about horizontal? If the bottom of the leftmost column held the Team Conflict and Team Conflict Conditions sections, and the next column had the Actions tables, I think that would work. (The Wealth and Conditions sections would replace them at the top of the rightmost column.) It'd also be nice if all 4 columns were the same width—then this could be printed as a double-side sheet folded in half—or made 3 columns and folded like a brochure. But that might be more trouble than it's worth.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 17:00
|
|
|
This is looking really good, Jumbozig. I may actually take a crack at running this for my group at some point, since we've been talking about trying some stuff out. I'd definitely love an XCOM Long War hack, with all the classes and such from that.Fuschia tude posted:"Compare: your A to their D" shouldn't have the colon. But where else would you put your D? 
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 17:08
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:
quote:This is very interesting. I'd say that usually the Conflict ends pretty quickly unless I give the opposition traits that force the players onto the defensive, or if they come in with Minor Conditions that they need to outlast. But a lot depends on the dice. Now I've never had one go so long that we gave up, but I have had some go pretty long - probably 7 rounds. Usually it's as you say - the players go scout and prepare for next round, only to find that the opposition rolls are too high to try for a win. I think Team Monster had five Strikes (since they had no Traits) after seven rounds. The players had four Strikes and had used Recover once or twice. I think they were just really unlucky -- when the PCs rolled well, the enemies rolled better and managed a Push. I probably should have called the conflict a win and processed it as such, just to show them the consequences, but it was getting late. The other thing I couldn't simulate is whether in an ongoing campaign, players might be more willing to Concede -- concession is actually quite generous and attractive (and perhaps should be on the reference, for when people are comparing their current situation to a win or loss). I will definitely run Team Conflict again, it's a faster and more engaging "skill challenge". We will try the tactical combat as soon as we finish the Edge of the Empire adventure we're on.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 18:05
|
|
|
Homullus, I'm mulling over options for a cutoff on Team Conflict. Opponent takes 3 strikes is simple, but tips the balance in the players' favor quite a lot. Specifically, maxing defense while using penetrating attack becomes probably too strong as a strategy. I am thinking that you could just end the thing after 5 rounds. Ways it could end: A simple roll-off. Leave it up to fate. Team with fewer Strikes wins. This makes putting Strikes on the opposition a lot more important, which is good, since otherwise it's basically always best to disable their traits. (And if the Strikes are tied, it's the same as a tied opposed roll: player uses complication to concede or else nobody gets their way.) homullus posted:So it's "justify the use of a skill roll in order to get +1A +1D"? And if you want to make it a Linked Roll to next round, then if they succeed their neighbours may help fight the fire.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2014 04:23
|
|
|
I have been thinking about this a lot since I wrote that about the Team Conflict, and I am pretty sure that the real answer is that the original rules as you wrote them are fine, with the addition of that "whoever has fewer Strikes after N rounds" being another alternative end condition in the rules, because it leads to some tense situations when the opponents have Traits (deactivate a Trait or take the Strike?). I think I undervalued and under-explained Conceding. I also think you could give a little guidance for examples of when other win conditions are appropriate, like: Supplemental win conditions (X Strikes, or a certain successful Skill roll with Improvise, before standard victory is possible) are appropriate for tough opponents and climactic battles, situations where it makes sense narratively for PCs to need to do more than one distinct activity before winning is even an option. Perhaps they need to divert the battle station's defenses before they can fire a torpedo into the exhaust port, or knock weapons out of three of the Snake God's six arms so it can't block every incoming blow. Alternative win conditions (players can also win by landing X Strikes, or a certain successful Skill roll with Improvise) are appropriate for complex tasks with more than one vulnerability. Perhaps the battle before the city gates can be won by force of numbers or by sending a lone assassin to stab the general in his tent while he's playing his harp; perhaps that risky Hacking attempt is worth trying (the one already mentioned in the rules). Replacement win conditions (a successful attack and defense simply lands a hit rather than ending the conflict, and players must meet some other condition to win) are appropriate for conflicts that must end a certain way, and that way takes a constant time or amount of effort. Winning the Carnage Cup in a Goblinball tournament game might require landing more Strikes than the opponent in five rounds; climbing the cruelest, most lethal mountain on the planet might only be possible by landing seven Strikes -- you make it, you Concede, or the next group passes your unmarked graves on its ascent.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 21:10
|
|
|
Hey everyone, I just posted a thread on RPGnet. If you also post there, I'd really appreciate it if you could go tell them about how cool the game is! More people playing and being interested means more people for you to play with online, means more Kickstarter backers to let me pay Ferrinus for more sweet art, and means that I do more work and make more content for the game. Everybody wins!
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 04:47
|
|
|
Going to run the tactical combat next week, and perhaps another Team Conflict. Pretty excited to give that a try!
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 14:11
|
|
|
Cool! What class/role combinations do you have playing?
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 17:12
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:Cool! What class/role combinations do you have playing? At this point we're just trying out the system, kicking the tires et cetera, rather than trying any sort of cohesive storyline. We ran a half-shot (less than a one-shot) of the Lovecraftian adventure, with the Demolitionist, the Socialite, and the Mafia Goon. I am blanking on which roles they picked; it doesn't matter, since we only did Team Conflict. Next week it's either the Lovecraftian again or the fantasy, do one or two Tactical Combats, and ideally also a Team Conflict, now that I understand them twice as well as I did before I ran one. This time, I'll spend 60 seconds choosing a Trait or two, and think about the win conditions. None of us in the group has played a FATE-like game, so the Action Point economy was subdued. One person (the Mafia Goon) used his Trick (with a roll); nobody invoked their Complications, and nobody granted another player an Action Point. I will definitely go over them again; this time, they have that really valuable player aid you made, listing the uses of their Action Points.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 18:30
|
|
|
Hey, I changed the OP. It's a bit prettier now and a bit better-written, too.homullus posted:None of us in the group has played a FATE-like game, so the Action Point economy was subdued. One person (the Mafia Goon) used his Trick (with a roll); nobody invoked their Complications, and nobody granted another player an Action Point. I will definitely go over them again; this time, they have that really valuable player aid you made, listing the uses of their Action Points.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 03:24
|
|
|
Second test of Strike!, with two players from the last time and two new ones. The players chose: Swashbuckling Socialite-Striker Kung Fu Archaeologist-Striker Mad Mystic-Defender Mafia Goon-Blaster We repeated the Team Conflict from last time (sneaking into the taken-over archaeological site), and the results were wholly different -- they did preparatory scouting and nailed the roll, giving them foreknowledge of both the enemy's rolls in the first round ... narratively, they learned their patrolling patterns and timed a dash to the entrance, winning the conflict with some good rolls in the first round. We then did the fight in the Treasury.  It took, I think, four or five rounds to complete the combat. The Kung Fu guy didn't have as much to decide (changed his stance once, used one encounter power), which was unfortunate, since that is the one guy who thinks D&D 3.5 is a better game system than 4e ("Strike! has the same problem as 4e: everyone's turn takes 45 minutes"). I didn't think anyone would choose the Mystic, so I hadn't looked it over as carefully -- wow, that is a complex dude. I didn't foresee the need for tokens for his summons, which is why, among the pulp-cover images, you find Sean Connery and the cartoon goblin from the WTF D&D?! contest entry that I worked on a while back. The player of the Mystic made his Homunculus the Focus of the Spirit of Vengeance, which was interesting. Feedback and questions so far: - Is the Mystic's Scout conjuration visible? How large is it? He wanted to use it to scout outside of combat. - Is there a maximum range on summons, at-will or encounter? - Can the Spirit of Vengeance shift however far it wants to, to remain adjacent to the Focus? For example, the Mystic could spend Rally to potentially move the Homunculus up to 20 spaces (from 10 spaces due north to 10 spaces due south of the Mystic). - It should probably be spelled out that spending the Rally doesn't give you a new Homunculus, but allows you to re-summon the one you have. It strongly implies that, but may as well say it. - Does a second Mark on a target apply in addition, replace the existing Mark, or fail? - Do Zones go through walls? I can see it going either way - Fast Archer is a Goon-killing power and is really great. - Does "extra damage" of Damage Boost apply when a Striker chooses the E rather than the D of an attack power? Like, can you do "extra damage" when there was no damage to begin with? We will try the Sacrificial Pit next week.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 04:22
|
|
|
homullus posted:- Is the Mystic's Scout conjuration visible? How large is it? He wanted to use it to scout outside of combat. No max range for summons. If a player were to somehow abuse that, like by summoning and then running away, then you could put on a restriction (they have to stay in sight, maybe?). The summons based on a Focus can shift as far as you like as long as they are not immobilized or grabbed or whatever. I'll clarify Rally for Summoners Second mark is in addition to first. This makes playing two defenders a ton of fun as you can give the enemies constant no-win choices. Zones go through obstacles or not depending on how they are flavored and what the obstacle is. Yeah, Fast Archer is sweet. I wish I had class-specific feats that great for every class. Yes, the extra damage applies on any hit. Note that it also applies when they roll a 2 - so they can take out a Stooge on any roll other than a 1. Did you have any tricks to make things go fast online? I've found that playing on Roll20 things can slow down unless everyone is right on the ball. How many Strikes did everyone end up with at the end of the fight?
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 18:07
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:
The party rolled quite well, and only had three Strikes: one from a player being bloodied, one from a roll of 1, and one from the Mystic's Homunculus being taken out by the summoned Jackals. I think it went reasonably quickly, since this time I made Roll20 rollable tables (and then macros that referred to them) for Skilled, Unskilled, Attack, and Initiative. The next level up would be gathering their powers onto a character sheet; looking over the powers in two places was another thing that took time. Either that, or making rollable tables for each power, and spitting out the block for that power with the roll. That would speed up play and make retroactive reference easier.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 20:19
|
|
|
Hey, sorry but I'm real dumb. Is there any chance of an example of play for team conflict?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 06:01
|
|
|
30.5 Days posted:Hey, sorry but I'm real dumb. Is there any chance of an example of play for team conflict? Will try to work on this tomorrow if I get the time. I'll be able to do it by Friday for sure. Just depends on work and stuff.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 18:24
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:Will try to work on this tomorrow if I get the time. I'll be able to do it by Friday for sure. Just depends on work and stuff. That's cool, I'm really excited about this game, and in a lot of ways I think it's what I really wanted out of 4E to begin with.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 20:52
|
|
|
30.5 Days posted:That's cool, I'm really excited about this game, and in a lot of ways I think it's what I really wanted out of 4E to begin with. Overall, I think this is true, because it no longer forces you to worship at the altar of the holy trinity of Single Roll with Binary Result, Skill Challenge, or Full-Blown Planned Grid Combat. Honestly, I think what Strike! most needs is more people playing it, so there can be more balance and guidance in the Traits (for Team Conflict) and Feats and Powers. The one thing it DOESN'T do as well as 4e is let you play a mechanical game divorced from the narrative.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 21:32
|
|
|
homullus posted:Overall, I think this is true, because it no longer forces you to worship at the altar of the holy trinity of Single Roll with Binary Result, Skill Challenge, or Full-Blown Planned Grid Combat. Honestly, I think what Strike! most needs is more people playing it, so there can be more balance and guidance in the Traits (for Team Conflict) and Feats and Powers. The one thing it DOESN'T do as well as 4e is let you play a mechanical game divorced from the narrative. I completely agree. More players would be great! Traits for Team Conflict are not even remotely balanced, nor are they intended to be. Having more feedback on the subsystem as a whole would let me start balancing. I feel like the combat powers are quite well balanced at this point. I'll never call them perfect, but I know that they are hitting the right power range and I've got spreadsheets full of evidence for that. But to get there, I had a lot more feedback on combat, and I started with the experience of years of playing 4e. Team Conflict is a lot more like virgin territory. It would be great to see what more people can do with it. It's one of those things that I'm sure I'll want to make changes to down the line, but I can't make those changes until I know what people are doing with it and where the sticking points are.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 04:04
|
|
|
Ran a second tactical combat tonight. The Psychoanalyst Poisoner (Blaster) used Multitarget Boost with Greater Mind Control and converted a third of Team Monster (all Goons) in a single attack. I am not sure whether it is too powerful; everything in Strike! feels more powerful than its 4e counterpart (healing, marking, moving and attacking). Dominating three enemies in a single encounter power is stronger than Taking Out three enemies in a single encounter power. Also, this may be working as intended, but the Greater Mind Control 4HP zombies are more powerful than the 4HP Goons that were taken out to make them, because they are NOT Goons. Also also, this seemed clear to me, but one player was confused whether the Minor Striker feat (which gives him the Quick Shift role action as an encounter power) resulted in Quick Shift being a "class power or a role power." I told him it didn't matter, since it requires a role action to access the power regardless, but he wanted that clarified. Is there anywhere that it matters whether a power comes from role or class? Like, "you may regain one role power" or something? Oh, and does Reach 2 increase the range for Opportunity?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 02:59
|
|
|
homullus posted:Ran a second tactical combat tonight. The Psychoanalyst Poisoner (Blaster) used Multitarget Boost with Greater Mind Control and converted a third of Team Monster (all Goons) in a single attack. I am not sure whether it is too powerful; everything in Strike! feels more powerful than its 4e counterpart (healing, marking, moving and attacking). Dominating three enemies in a single encounter power is stronger than Taking Out three enemies in a single encounter power. Also, this may be working as intended, but the Greater Mind Control 4HP zombies are more powerful than the 4HP Goons that were taken out to make them, because they are NOT Goons. I'm slightly confused. I think you mean Stooges? (4e-style minions are called Stooges, while "2-hit minions" are called Goons. If the terminology is confusing, I might need to change it. Maybe just calling them "Goons" and "2-hit Goons" would work better?) And yeah, I didn't think about that particular combination, using that power on a bunch of Stooges. I'll have to include a little caveat. They should come back with 4 HP or their max HP, whichever is smaller. 2: The only place off the top of my head where that matters is for Rally. Rally says you regain a power from your class. Powers from feats are not from your class (duh). 3: Reach and Opportunities: Ranged attacks only grant opportunities to adjacent foes, so those are unaffected by Reach. As for movement, generally Reach does apply to Opportunities, with the exception that any squares of movement that take you closer to the enemy do not grant an Opportunity. So having Reach makes it harder for enemies to move around you and harder for them to run away from you, but does not punish them for approaching you. I think this is spelled out in the Reach heading in the Glossary.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 04:12
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:1: Greater Mind Control in this case turned Goons (two hit guys) into regular monsters (potentially more than two-hit guys). The PCs were handing out ongoing damage and little 1- and 2-damage effects, so not being a Goon (even at the same number of HP) was an upgrade.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 00:49
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:Will try to work on this tomorrow if I get the time. I'll be able to do it by Friday for sure. Just depends on work and stuff. Well, I promised it by today, and here I am with less than an hour to spare. Hooray for deadlines! Team Conflict Example I welcome any comments or corrections. It's an unedited first draft so there are probably typos and I know the writing is a bit uneven.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 04:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 15:21 |
|
|
How does advancement work? I like both 4e's access to new and better powers and Mouse Guard/Torchbearer's skill advancements. It it something of a blending of the two?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 04:27
|
|