|
ZearothK posted:I am going to be the voice of dissent here and say that you can totally improvise encounters mid-session for systems with a tactical battle layer. On virtual tabletop I just take ten and tell the players to draw the battle map based on my description while I draft the opposition, before the plague era we did likewise with the battle map, except the players used my random assortment of Lego blocs. I agree with this. Depending on the virtual tabletop you're using (if any), you can always have encounter agnostic monsters created and then just throw some of them on the map following the encounter prep instructions.
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2021 14:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 17:37 |
|
|
ShineDog posted:Something I think is worthwhile is making sure to do a scene where you establish the broad strokes of the players next moves at the end of the previous session. Strike lends itself to big raids and dungeon runs and like, multi part missions pretty well, so you can establish that the players want to raid King Bastards, or burn down the Pie Palace, or sneak aboard the skycarrier, or whatever. The bolded is interesting - it kinda reminds me of Blades in the Dark’s gameplay loop, where you have a Score, some Downtime, then a Prep phase where the group figures out what they want to do next. It sounds like you could do the same for Strike, where you start the session off with combat, then move to an exploration/social/etc. phase, then once it becomes clear what the next combat encounter is the team breaks for the day and the GM builds a combat session and determines the situation after the encounter. Is that a reasonable thing to do, I wonder?
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2021 15:48
|
|
|
That's basically how my current game is going - the players are on a One Piece esque journey that has then sailing to a new island every other session or so, and I generally plant the seeds for 2-3 different choices. Once they pick their next destination I can plan a setpiece or fight more easily.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2021 15:57
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:I wrote up a little bestiary of common monsters for one of my prior strike games a while back for throwing together quick encounters or providing minions for major fights, but these days I mostly do more involved fights with a lot of unique mechanics. Mind sharing your bestiary? I'm thinking of starting back up with a Strike game when I run out of weird DnD one-shot modules.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2021 16:34
|
|
|
bbcisdabomb posted:Mind sharing your bestiary? I'm thinking of starting back up with a Strike game when I run out of weird DnD one-shot modules. Sure, I'll have to clean it up a bit first. It was for a game in which the players were failed pro-parliament activists who had fled to a colony (to incite independence) after their movement was crushed by the monarchy back in the home country, so the bestiary mostly represents the imperial military/colonial militia but could probably be flavored to any sufficiently organized militant group
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2021 18:00
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:Sure, I'll have to clean it up a bit first. It was for a game in which the players were failed pro-parliament activists who had fled to a colony (to incite independence) after their movement was crushed by the monarchy back in the home country, so the bestiary mostly represents the imperial military/colonial militia but could probably be flavored to any sufficiently organized militant group That sounds cool, and a good complement to the pdf of monsters I posted in here a while back, which were all in the sort of fantastic beasts category. Edit: Here's the link so nobody has to go looking for it. If anyone uses the monsters, I'd appreciate it if you'd just drop a quick post about it here. I've used some of them in my own games, but not all. If any of them are particularly fun or particularly unfun, I'd like to know. Jimbozig fucked around with this message at 04:28 on Apr 24, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2021 04:18
|
|
|
Kind of a rhetorical/academic question here, but in the GM chapter, it says this:quote:For planning a given session, it can help to think of three really cool things you want to include. You could pick fights, Team Conflicts, chases, or just plain cool scenes. Doesn't this presuppose that the players are going to make particular choices that lead to said scenes? For example, if you have a motorcycle chase scene prepared and you're aiming to have it tonight, and the party comes together and says "we're being hunted down by a secret government organization, we should lay low and focus on subterfuge/social engineering" and don't hit the road as a result, then the scene goes unused without some prodding by the GM. Would it be acceptable to place obstacles and Twists that point the players towards getting in their vehicles?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2021 17:23
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:Kind of a rhetorical/academic question here, but in the GM chapter, it says this: The Chase rules are quite brief and do not require prep beyond comprehending those rules. Team Conflict is a bit more involved, but the prep mostly consists of picking a couple traits for the other "team," whether it is the Ice Bay Bashers football team or the unfeeling mountain Caradhras. The more Team Conflict you run, the less prep you will need to run a given instance. Tactical combat is extremely easy to reskin once you clear the mental hurdle of reskinning; you can also have players draw the map while you make small adjustments to the encounter -- have them draw it knowing they won't know where you will choose to place them and the enemies. I think the only "prep problem" is when a given unprepped fight is in the grey area between "use the simple skill system for the fight" and "break out the map and tokens."
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2021 18:08
|
|
|
Players and the GM should be on the same page in regards to the genre being played. There are very few genres where 'motorcycle chase' and 'careful social engineering' are both appropriate responses to being hunted down. An action game will usually do the former, a political thriller will usually do the latter. A spy thriller may attempt the latter, and may succeed and changing the context or giving themselves advantage, but at some point the vehicular chase is going to happen.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2021 18:29
|
|
|
Yeah it's that. Session 0 should be establishing that you are playing heroes who leap to save innocent, or that it's a dangerous horror game where you run from horror, or whatever it ends up being. That way when the gm drops the knowledge that the shithead has discovered the gem of unstoppable fuckery and is about to perform the dark ritual, theres an expectation from all sides that it's time to raid a temple. Is it railroading? I guess in a sense, but you're not stopping players from coming up with a weird plan, doing something else to make the raid easier, or anything like that, you're just directing them to the bit you prepped for.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2021 13:44
|
|
|
About to finish a Strike game with my friends that we've been playing pretty consistently for 2 years. And boy howdy let me tell you, as the GM, I hate fighting against Defenders. I can't imagine how painful it is to balance an encounter for a party with more than one of them. You can't hurt them, you can't not hurt them, and they turn everything into a punch out brawl unless I place at least one person who's sole role in the fight is to give him no O/M. That's just a personal gripe though as I picture all the really cool encounters he trivialized. I once gave each player an elite monster and put them up against a team of players played by me. Everyone but the defender magician and the controller warlord folded like a cheap suit (by design, 4 elites vs 4 players), but even they decided to negotiate with the defender because they just couldn't kill her. Easily the best table top gaming experience I've had in a decade and I've already got two players asking me if/when we're breaking out this setting and game again. I love Strike. I just have Defender based trauma. Jade Mage fucked around with this message at 20:42 on Jul 22, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2021 20:35
|
|
|
A lot of my encounters have things like "this monster has an attack that prones and another attack that automatically crits prone characters" or "every attack this monster makes places stacking Vulnerable on the target that can't be removed while within 3 of that monster" and similar mechanics that force other characters to support the defender to keep them alive. Honestly my biggest problem in my approaching endgame campaign is our illusionist, who can very easily spread extremely debilitating status effects across the entire enemy groups.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2021 20:46
|
|
|
Jade Mage posted:I just have Defender based trauma. Hey! I was this Defender, actually. Let me say, it's definitely something to do with the party configuration. Defender is great, but it's unstoppable if you have one or two other PCs consistently doing their best to give you openings and facilitate your powers. You might throw a variety of opponents at us in a given situation, but between a Bard who can give the party spare actions, and a Rogue disabling any given Trait specifically designed to take me out of commission, we got ahead of encounters relatively often. Effective and frequent use of the Assess action helps a lot. Overall, the amount of information that Strike allows the players to collect makes it difficult to pull a fast one on an effective team.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2021 03:43
|
|
|
The disabling trait ability on rogue is the only thing I have felt the need to specifically ban, especially as I've mad more complicated fights were disabling traits lets the player just... not deal with the mechanics I've designed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2021 03:53
|
|
|
Jade Mage posted:About to finish a Strike game with my friends that we've been playing pretty consistently for 2 years. And boy howdy let me tell you, as the GM, I hate fighting against Defenders. I can't imagine how painful it is to balance an encounter for a party with more than one of them. Yeah, as GM, Defenders are frustrating. But at the same time, that's literally their job. If they aren't frustrating me at least a bit, then they're not working as intended. In my playtest stuff for Kazzam (which is also playtesting new Role stuff for a 2nd edition of Strike), I've made some changes to the Defender. One particular change of note is that their Resist has changed. Now they just Resist 1 against enemies they have Marked. That probably helps with the issue you were having if you can get unmarked enemies to help out with attacking the defender or if you can have a way to shed marks. fool of sound posted:A lot of my encounters have things like "this monster has an attack that prones and another attack that automatically crits prone characters" or "every attack this monster makes places stacking Vulnerable on the target that can't be removed while within 3 of that monster" and similar mechanics that force other characters to support the defender to keep them alive. Honestly my biggest problem in my approaching endgame campaign is our illusionist, who can very easily spread extremely debilitating status effects across the entire enemy groups. lovely poker hand posted:Hey! I was this Defender, actually. Let me say, it's definitely something to do with the party configuration. Defender is great, but it's unstoppable if you have one or two other PCs consistently doing their best to give you openings and facilitate your powers. You might throw a variety of opponents at us in a given situation, but between a Bard who can give the party spare actions, and a Rogue disabling any given Trait specifically designed to take me out of commission, we got ahead of encounters relatively often. Effective and frequent use of the Assess action helps a lot. Overall, the amount of information that Strike allows the players to collect makes it difficult to pull a fast one on an effective team. If any or all of you would be able to spare the time to write up your impressions in a kind of playtest report, that would be super-valuable. Knowing more about how high-level illusionists, bards, and rogues play out in practice would be great for making revisions. Specifics are good when you had issues, like, for illusionists, does it seem like the biggest issue is the "easily spread" or the "extremely debilitating"? But also, broader stuff like "What sorts of power choices did the bard make? What got the most use?"
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2021 17:23
|
|
|
I think that's a good change, personally. Making the defender more weak to chaff reinforces and rewards the blaster and/or controller keeping the chaff in line.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2021 19:13
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:Yeah, as GM, Defenders are frustrating. But at the same time, that's literally their job. If they aren't frustrating me at least a bit, then they're not working as intended. Illusionist in our campaign (where I do not play the illusionist... but also in the one where I DO) leans very heavily on the Invisible Assailant/Impenetrable/Contagious combo. Almost exclusively. Invisible Assailant, Lure, and False Enemy are the clear winning picks in every Illusionist role combo. I've tried out a bunch of the other at-wills of the class and settled on either using lure or invisible assailant for all of my at-will attacks: -False enemy is neat and potentially powerful depending on how encounters are designed, but doesn't play well with roles or fit in with the rest of the class very well. It's just a big wildcard and if the opponents have lots of special features their at-wills key off of, it falls flat. It also increases design complexity a lot to have one side be able to at-will use abilities designed for the other team. -Blind spot is too heavily reliant on turn order for its tiny degree of protection, and also assumes that the encounter itself doesn't require moving about to avoid (or enter) particular zones. More importantly the defensive nature is overshadowed by Lure, which also works if situation changes. The 4 square blind zone might not apply, but disadvantage to all attacks unless you move to a spot of caster's choosing pretty much always accomplishes something. Not sure how blind spot interacts with contagious illusions either: do all the victims share the exact same zone or are they chosen as the effect spreads? If one victim is attacked from inside the blind spot, does it break for everyone or just that one victim? -Illusory Attack just doesn't seem to fill a niche. It looks like it's meant as a disengage, slide them a space away to hopefully break melee and distract them to negate their opportunities. This is served just as well, if not better, by Invisible Assailant's Grab condition. Plus spreading it around with contagious illusion is nowhere near as good as spreading around grab. Lure and Invisible Assailant win out pretty heavily. Lure is a useful defensive and positioning tool, forcing an enemy to either step away from you (and ideally into the line of fire) or take disadvantage to hitting everything. Invisible Assailant is great for bogging down big groups if you're playing blaster or use contagious illusions. It also lets you escape potentially sticky situations by stopping your foe and skedaddling. On the other hand if you have any continuous effect zones (like Blaster's "Friend Zone") getting a lucky streak on escape saves against a troublesome foe and locking them in your zone is a BIG offensive tool. Multipurpose! Of the other powers: Class Features Close-Up - I can see what this is for, some of the roles can use this with the defensive at-wills. Something like a defender with close up and lure who forces foes to step away (and eat a thwack) or suffer disadvantage and harried. Not my cup of tea, but sensible. Impenetrable Illusions - If not for Invisible Assailant letting you grab bosses, eh. It doesn't work on your big statuses from encounter powers and the only one really worth writing home about in at-wills is grab? Contagious - .Just a bit of a bookkeeping nightmare, but not sure how to make it simpler without problems. Isolating - I picked this one as a blaster, trying to make big groups of minions crumble as they hit each other. I did occasionally wish it worked the other way around, with the afflicted treating *others* as foes instead of others treating the afflicted as a foe. Level 1 Encounters I tried both Illusory Wall and Illusory Flame. The Wall was the most useful even though with a blaster role I already could summon a mostly superior physical wall. Illusory Flames' bit about causing foes to throw you in is heavily dependent on the monster team combat design, and I never got any use out of the other portions - just never came up, there was always somewhere better to throw them than in the fire. Obscuring vision was almost always useful even with other tools to do so, and it was pretty easy to keep up the entire fight if used well. While I had Illusory Flame on my sheet I think I used it once while Illusory Wall came out every single fight. I never tried out Mirror Images. It had too many caveats and was far too dependent on encounter design: lots of small obstructions in the field constrain your movement if you want to get full effect, too much aoe on the enemy team will quickly clear the Mirror Images, etc. It's neat but the fantasy would be better served by simplifying it back to the source rules: "You have mirror images. When an attack specifically targets you roll a dice with sides equal to your remaining clones. On a 1, you are hit and the clones vanish. At any other number, a clone vanishes." I never got the sense I would get lots of value out of it, certainly not to justify the effort of using it. Level 3 Encounters I don't get what Seed of Control is doing there except saying "Illusionist is Necromancer 2.0". The enemies that won't auto-save off the effect aren't worth spending the slot to Dominate for 1hp, especially with False Enemy sitting right there as an At-Will. Might be neat to have some kind of "implanted illusion" type fantasy here but a different effect, where whatever they're hit with next turn recurs periodically (for example: if they get grabbed, they have to save the grab and then also save the seed of control or at the end of their next turn the grab comes back as the illusion re-asserts itself) Level 7 Encounters Total Visual Subversion is neat but a bit of a headache. When this effect spreads via contagious you can easily end up with a big tangle of who can see whom? I'd just go for "Blind (save ends), once the first Blind has been removed, Blind (Save ends)." or the like. Side note: I found myself using the "If you choose not to make your attack a blast you may..." clause of blaster far more than the blasts themselves. Beam blaster was a huge feat/choice for me, I was much more easily able to hit two targets or more with beams but found it near impossible with blasts. This may just be up to combat design style from the DM(s), but I think it's also a feature of the general tactics. The standard blast might be more area, but enemies don't tend to congregate in blocks but want to conga line out to project threat over an area. It's easier to find squiggly lines of enemies than big clots. I don't really get a mechanical or thematic feel for what Illusionist is meant to be like overall though, in combination with any role. One thing I think would be neat is playing up the little status then BIG STATUS feel that a few of the encounter powers have like Psychedelia. What if more of the attacks had a similar mechanic, where failing a save against the effect results in a temporary stronger effect. For instance, tone down Invisible Assailant to slowed with grab for a turn on save failure. Blind spot could grow or re-establish on every save failure, that kind of thing. This represents getting entangled in the illusion, believing it. Could even provide an option on these to not save (and just suffer a lesser status for a while) or provide some other means of generating a "safe" save that doesn't trigger the failure state. Something like using an action to "disbelieve" the illusion and attempt a save. Could also have one of the class features allow the illusionist to use an action to "enhance" an illusion and actively trigger the fail condition on a target.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2021 09:31
|
|
|
This is the first that I'm hearing that there's a second edition of Strike! in the works and I'm delighted.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2021 16:18
|
|
|
CitizenKeen posted:This is the first that I'm hearing that there's a second edition of Strike! in the works and I'm delighted. Whoa, whoa, whoa! Big news for me as well.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2021 00:55
|
|
|
CaPensiPraxis posted:Tons of useful feedback Hey, thanks! This is fantastic. I'll use this when I do a revision pass on the new classes. I especially like your idea of small effect -> big effect. Sometimes when I create classes I have a strong mechanical theme, but other times I have a story theme like illusionist and just start by writing up cool powers and then try to rationalize, simplify, and work in more mechanical themes on revision. CitizenKeen posted:This is the first that I'm hearing that there's a second edition of Strike! in the works and I'm delighted. Yeah, I've got enough stuff I want to change that the expansion plans have just turned into 2nd edition + expansion plans. I'm working hard on Kazzam/Tailfeathers, and that work is going to feed into Strike proper when I do 2nd edition Strike, which will have all the new classes and stuff as well. I really don't like saying when I think things will be done because I kind of have no idea, but I'm really hoping to get Tailfeathers/Kazzam essentially complete by the end of the year and then can Kickstart it in early 2022. Then I've already got a lot of work done for Strike 2 and could hopefully put that together fairly quickly. I'm still busy with kids and work, but as long as we don't have any more lockdowns I'm able to find the writing time I need to make progress.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2021 17:59
|
|
|
Question, does Reliable Summoner bump 3s on dicerolls to 4s?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2021 02:50
|
|
|
Hey Plutonis, sorry I missed this post. Or rather, I saw the post but wasn't at home and so resolved to answer your question when I got home, and then forgot all about it.Plutonis posted:Question, does Reliable Summoner bump 3s on dicerolls to 4s? It doesn't. Why would it?
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2021 22:57
|
|
|
I already posted about this in the Kickstarter thread, but I'm about to go live on my next Kickstarter, for Ariadne and Bob. It comes with a pair of Strike! classes, too. If you've got the playtest packet from a couple of years back, you've seen The Ogre, but we've been playtesting and revising it and it's going to be cleaned up and we've been smoothing out some of the inherent weirdness of 2 characters occupying 1 unit on the map. It's really good now and we're going to polish it up a bit more to release the official version during the KS. https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1835460386/ariadne-and-bob Ariadne and Bob is a 2+ player roleplaying game about a know-it-all and her trusty sidekick going on adventures and getting in trouble. Ariadne can be condescending at times, but her ego is not entirely undeserved. Bob is Ariadne's long-suffering partner. The Pinky to her Brain, Morty to her Rick, the Sherman to her Peabody, etc. I've hired Vel Mini, Ettin, Austin Ramsay, and Jason Pitre to write some playsets for the game, and I'm talking to a couple more people about maybe joining in. The bulk of the art will be done by Ferrinus. And for fans of Strike!, I am also throwing in The Ogre, a pair of classes by Countblanc, as it's very on-theme for the project. (If you have already seen The Ogre in the old playtest packet, this will be a playtested, revised and improved version of the Ogre.) This game is an absolute blast to play, and it requires no prep at all. My group has been playing it whenever we have an absence from our main game, and it's perfect. We can bust it out on short notice, it works great with low player counts, and it's built for 1-shots so we can get in a complete story in one session. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2021 23:07
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:Hey Plutonis, sorry I missed this post. Or rather, I saw the post but wasn't at home and so resolved to answer your question when I got home, and then forgot all about it. Came up in my game, turns out it was an error with Hyphz' character sheet thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2021 23:44
|
|
|
I've got a three-player campaign coming up and wanted to try some house rules I'm calling "Everyone is a Striker". Basically I don't like that only one role gets to be Big Damage Numbers Guy, so I was thinking of giving all roles part of the Striker's powers. That way everyone gets to do big damage numbers, but they still get something else too. So, the exact rule will be that nobody can take the Striker role, but everyone gets the Striker role's Damage, Improved Damage and Super Damage Boosts, so all non-miss attacks will do between 1 and 6 more damage than usual, depending on level and if you rolled a 6 or not. To keep things balanced, I'm going to treat my three-player party as a four-player party when it comes to monsters - they should be able to take enemies out faster, so I can use more enemies. I could see the damage boost being particularly good combined with the Blaster role, who gets to hit multiple enemies, so I guess for multi-target attacks you'd only get the damage boost on one target. I could also see an issue if there's a role that already gets to be Big Damage Numbers Guy - maybe the Lurker when they're in their attack mode? - because it would defeat the point of trying to make everyone Big Damage Numbers Guy if one person got to be Even Bigger Damage Numbers Guy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2022 21:58
|
|
|
Gort posted:I've got a three-player campaign coming up and wanted to try some house rules I'm calling "Everyone is a Striker". Basically I don't like that only one role gets to be Big Damage Numbers Guy, so I was thinking of giving all roles part of the Striker's powers. That way everyone gets to do big damage numbers, but they still get something else too. Blasters already do more damage than strikers overall (but generally less efficiently by not focusing). Defenders often do similar amounts of damage to strikers through mark enforcement. Lurkers probably do about as much as defenders. So honestly, with 3 players you might do well to just have the players pick between striker, blaster, defender, and lurker.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2022 00:14
|
|
|
My current long running game is Defender/Controller/Leader/Lurker/Evoker and has never had a problem doing plenty of focused damage when they need to, to the point that most boss enemies have to have conditional Resist or some other gimmick to keep them from getting torn apart too quickly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2022 00:29
|
|
|
Ignite Memories posted:Quick question - Stooges have 1 less damage on all their attacks / effect line than regular monsters, but what if the normal attack only deals 1 damage? For instance, a Blaster Stooge attacks with Blast. (1 damage 2 ongoing) Does he What was the answer to this, anyone know?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2022 00:53
|
|
|
Gort posted:What was the answer to this, anyone know? It's the former. You can also just do the latter without an effect.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2022 00:59
|
|
|
What's the deal with monsters gaining a power or trait at level 4, then losing it at level 5? For example the Blaster gets the "Deadly Blaster" trait at level 4 and 8 only, while the Crowd Control gets the "Effect on a Miss" trait at level 4 and up, which seems a more obvious way to do it. I presume there's some interaction with elites and champions or something that I'm missing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2022 17:12
|
|
|
It's related to the allotted 'points' each trait is worth when making monsters from scratch. Once you start designing scaleable monsters you see how it interacts with the things like the universal damage bonus they get at higher levels, etc. I.e, at level N this monsters worth N points, at level X monsters get a bonus to all damage worth 2 points, so a one-point upgrade they had at X-1 gets dropped to fit it in - then, re-added when more points become available at higher level scale.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2022 17:29
|
|
|
But if you compare the level 4 and level 5 Blaster - it gets a power at level 4, loses it at level 5, and is otherwise the exact same monster except for the 2 extra hitpoints all monsters get by going up a level. I don't see what it gains to make up for losing that power at level 5.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2022 18:10
|
|
|
Gort posted:But if you compare the level 4 and level 5 Blaster - it gets a power at level 4, loses it at level 5, and is otherwise the exact same monster except for the 2 extra hitpoints all monsters get by going up a level. I don't see what it gains to make up for losing that power at level 5. I think one thing is that players get a feat at 5, with no clear impact on their damage output. So the monsters became harder to kill WITHOUT a clear concurrent damage increase on the player side.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2022 19:26
|
|
|
Gort posted:But if you compare the level 4 and level 5 Blaster - it gets a power at level 4, loses it at level 5, and is otherwise the exact same monster except for the 2 extra hitpoints all monsters get by going up a level. I don't see what it gains to make up for losing that power at level 5. Oh, the sample monster design is not that granular. First paragraph of the sample monsters section. There are only even level versions. Odd levels just change the HP. So a level 5 should just be a level 4 with more hp, or a level 6 with less hp if you want it a bit tougher. The monster does lose the trait at level 6 then regain it at level 8 for the reasons described above,
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2022 01:24
|
|
|
It was interesting to wonder that myself, and then going through a time when I designed a lot of scaleable monsters for my miniatures and having that wrinkle click into place. The monster scaleability is actually one of the features I appreciate most about Strike, and why it has been my choice for system whilst collecting a lot of fantasy minis.
Ignite Memories fucked around with this message at 04:12 on Jan 8, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2022 04:09
|
|
|
Well this changes everything Say we want a level 1 champion blaster. What we actually do is make a level 2 champion blaster (and since it's a champion it gets the traits of a level 4 monster, EG: Deadly Blaster) and give it the hitpoints of a level 1 champion (IE: 32)? And likewise for a level 3 champion blaster we'd take the level 2 champion blaster and give it the hitpoints of a level 3 champion (IE: 48)? Gort fucked around with this message at 12:08 on Jan 8, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2022 12:03
|
|
|
Gort posted:Well this changes everything If you are using the sample monsters, yes. If you are building from scratch, you can just build to whatever level directly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2022 17:03
|
|
|
Bombardiers just damage one person in their zone, yeah? If they make two zones with Bombing Run do they just pick one enemy between them, or do they make 1 attack roll per zone?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2022 21:52
|
|
|
Yes. One attack, one roll. The special powers just let them drop more zones to spread their effects wider.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2022 00:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 17:37 |
|
|
Updated the OP with a handy new link, a spreadsheet by Gort with all of Strike's default monsters broken down by type (stooge/goon/etc) for easy copy/pasting! https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1pYbn7kC4I8Zhn0xVCW0neYhBaD4ElJHu/edit#gid=442148478
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2022 18:29
|
|