|
Also, you can use the basic Skill rolls for fights you don't want to give the full treatment, but that you still want to have potential consequences. One of the bigger seams in D&D 4e is that splitting the party and/or picking fights the DM didn't plan for is a headache, but the generic constraints of many settings would expect you to split the party.
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2016 15:58
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 16:04 |
|
|
Countblanc posted:I actually just got my hardcover copy today as well. It's sorta weird actually holding it since I've been following the project for so long, haha. It really does look good, and the paper is much higher quality than I was assuming it'd be. Not claiming to know more about it than you, but my opinion is that it should be single-digit dollars. Do not release it for free. Personally, it would require some pretty good word-of-mouth for me to justify $7 for a single class, but I'd pick it up at $3 with no word-of-mouth at all.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2016 15:52
|
|
|
fool_of_sound posted:I'm considering letting my players dual-class (but single role) in my upcoming games, since I plan to run a lot of difficult and gimmicky fights and I want everyone to have plenty of options to engage them, but I'm not sure exactly how I want to do that. My thoughts at present are: I think you're inviting trouble for no good reason by letting them multiclass, and would be far better off letting them choose their class by day or by combat. But hey, good luck.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2016 19:28
|
|
|
The two big reasons to have a class-based system are 1) niche protection, and 2) game balance. Short example of #1: I was in an Inverse World game recently with three other players. Two were WIS primary, one CHA, one INT. The INT player saw that WIS people got to roll to notice things about the world, and so decided that he would increase his WIS so he could do that too. As one of the WIS players, I was already "competing" with another player for time in the spotlight on the WIS front, and now had to deal with somebody else forcing himself in. If everyone has access to everything, you run the risk of players having less to individualize themselves and stake their own claims to the spotlight by virtue of their character choices. Everyone could very quickly have all the same skills, so class is the best differentiation the game has. I don't have the book in front of me, so I can't speak to game balance issues -- you already noted the passives. Maybe there are more, maybe there aren't. Again, it's your game, good luck, I would absolutely not do it if I were you (which I mean literally, rather than as code for "don't do it").
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2016 19:48
|
|
|
TheLovablePlutonis posted:I was thinking of making a dancer/bard class that spent combat applying buffs and debuffs that while weak at first, have a range to all enemies (if hit) and allies in the field and got progressively better on "stanzas" or "steps" as combat went on but I can't see to properly balancing it in my mind. You could tie the dances to patterns of squares the character would have to move, and if they're able to do the correct sequence of them, the moves upgrade. The player would ideally be forced to choose between completing a pattern for an upgrade and staying in a more advantageous or safe position on the field.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2016 20:25
|
|
|
Countblanc posted:
You can do far worse than a Yacht-style roll some/keep some, e.g.: Three of a kind: D or E Most other valid Yacht combos: D and E Large Straight: Critical 5 of a kind: Critical + something (varying by class power or character level, or supplying a game currency)
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2016 00:29
|
|
|
Gambler: what if his die roll relates in some way to what people rolled on THEIR turns? Maybe at the top of the initiative round, he names a number of other players, and must use their die rolls in his roll/some keep some total. They would know this also, which might interact with rerolls and Advantage/Disadvantage. This way he is rolling fewer dice and perhaps taking less time on his turn, choosing a higher number of fixed rolls from other players increases the effect of his power a little.Tsilkani posted:Maybe just a simple Push Your Luck mechanic, where the base damage of the attack is lower than normal, but on a hit they can chose to either stand and keep the damage, or roll to hit and apply damage again, as many times as they want. Missing even once cancels out the whole attack, though, you there's a definite risk/reward. This is definitely the simplest and uses no really new mechanics, but potentially takes the longest.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
Hey, I'll try it, if you still have space! I have a fair amount of Roll20 experience and even ran Strike! on it once. I am probably still bad at the game though.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2016 07:52
|
|
|
Maleketh posted:Summary: homullus fucked around with this message at 19:52 on Jan 28, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2016 18:25
|
|
|
Countblanc posted:Well, I did it. I finished The Psion. Crimeny! It looks like it'll be a couple days before it appears on DriveThruRPG (I hope I did everything right, I've never done it before), but here's the free trial version I have available for anyone interested in getting a peek. So the Psion automatically does 2 damage/round if it Psychs Up, unless it tries to do something better?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2016 15:24
|
|
|
Countblanc posted:Yes, like the Magician but without their role boost. It's basically there because I found people inexperienced with the class were holding onto their Focus, waiting for the prefect moment that never came, and getting two damage softened the learning curve. I'm on board with it -- just wanted to make sure I understood. I don't have the book with me at work. Does that make the Psion more or less dangerous than other classes when Dominated?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2016 20:21
|
|
|
I like it. Can you see a way to make a "Minor Psion" feat?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2016 20:45
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:Playtest 2 is in the bag. Rogue is looking good, and I have a few tweaks to make from the feedback. I am up for it!
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2016 16:03
|
|
|
Countblanc posted:Hey all, The Psion just went live. And now begins the terrifying waiting period where I get blown the gently caress up for forgetting a rule interaction. I hope you enjoy it! "if they end this move adjacent to an object" means . . . wall or other thing that blocks movement?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2016 21:42
|
|
|
Countblanc posted:Correct. Benches, walls, pottery, tables, etc. I should have been clearer -- something that blocks movement, as opposed to something that creates difficult terrain? Or in addition to, as long as it's an object? Like, if the picnic table is difficult terrain, does that count for damage?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2016 21:49
|
|
|
Countblanc posted:Ultimately it's Fiction Comes First®, but during playtesting it was anything that obstructed movement completely, but I also didn't consider things like picnic tables as difficult terrain I suppose. I don't think the power would become broken if you managed to convince your GM that the car your character has to vault over counts as an object even if it's just difficult terrain mechanically though. Also, I should have said that those powers are hilariously mean in the Strike! tradition of being hilariously mean to Team Monster. Well done.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2016 22:24
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:Doing layout stuff for the nearly-finished Rogue now. Had a couple of options for the little subtitle that goes under the class name: If you had one about mobility/agility, I think that would be better than either, since honestly Rogues are not in fact speedier without the feats that everyone has access to. My contribution is Churchill's "Won by Slaughter and Maneuver."
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2016 17:48
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:Hey, I'm brainstorming for a mini-expansion based on survival stories: human against nature. Stories I love like: For outer space, maybe Gravity? Also it's not exactly against nature, but Runaway Train (escaped convicts on a runaway train through the Alaskan wilderness) is absolutely a survival thriller and might give you stuff to go on.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2016 16:47
|
|
|
megane posted:I'd be quite interested to hear about the playtester characters -- like what their builds & backstories were. An entire party of one class sounds kinda cool. I was Flint, a Poisoner Blaster water elemental with no interest in stealth whatsoever. I took the feat that let me move through walls and enemies, to better position myself for poisonous Michigan water blasting and took BAMF to be able to get better positioning more easily. I didn't roll very well and got taken out about half the time. We did uncover that a power with stacking Ongoing Damage with no save forever is really mean to members of Team Monster that get several turns per round (since they take that stacked Ongoing at the beginning of every turn).
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2016 16:57
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:So I'm working on the next expansion. It'll be all about items. Lots of items for various genres. Optional expanded item-crafting rules. Maybe you could add some words about how Item Crafting could also be used for Base Building -- giving Bases characteristics or even Traits for Team Conflict.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2016 16:59
|
|
|
ObMeiste posted:So I've just started getting into running Strike! after playing a ton of D&D4e for a while now and I'm interested in converting a lot of material I've been using into 4e for strike. Overall I think straight conversion is required less often than you'd think, since the math is so flat in Strike!. Really, look at what the monsters do (forced movement, mobility, et cetera) and find something similar. The main thing I'd say you need to be careful with is monsters that get more than one turn in Strike!, when converting 4e effects that happen when the monster takes a turn. It could be accidentally overbrutal for Team Monster or the players.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2016 15:50
|
|
|
Ratpick posted:Cool analysis Don't forget that the Poisoner Rogue's ongoing damage does stack with itself. Anecdotally I would be surprised if it topped the Backstabber, but it's a thing.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2016 21:06
|
|
|
Man Dancer posted:In general: Are monsters (Champions to Stooges) always Taken Out when they hit 0 HP? In general, yes. What the Taken Out status means will vary with the GM and narrative, but it is a Not In The Fight Anymore status.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2016 23:48
|
|
|
Countblanc posted:Those all look great! When I made my MA ones I truncated the language a bit so I could fit the various level up effects on a single card, but otherwise that's basically exactly what I would do. I'd rather have more cards and then only have cards for my actual current level. Strike! has a fair amount of "at level 3, A becomes B; at level 4, it's B+1; at level 6, it's 2A-1," most notably in the provided monsters. I am sure it is because I have a small brain and it is all full.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2016 01:26
|
|
|
ImpactVector posted:For most things I agree with you, but the way the Martial Artist works you actually end up temporarily upgrading your stances with Focused Attack. So you end up needing at least two ranks' worth of cards at all times even from level 1. And for levels 3 and 4 you potentially end up needing all 3 ranks of each stance if you end up taking a second FA instead of the other two 3rd level Encounters. That's true -- totally forgot about that. Not enough time spent with the Martial Artist. 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2016 01:54
|
|
|
Serf posted:Reviving enemies What I get more tired of is "the fight's boss is the off switch for <frustrating fight condition>," and even then it's still great as a Sometimes Food. It's tougher in a cover-oriented game (even without Take Cover) to get at a boss in general, and in a scenario where the infinitely-reviving monsters are numerous and also HEAL the boss when they do damage, it's even tougher and more frustrating. Like, no individual element of that fight was Not Good. The resurrecting enemies would still be cool in an encounter with non-combat objectives, for example, and especially without the boss-healing.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2016 16:31
|
|
|
The real answer is that it depends on the players, their characters, and how strong the monsters themselves are. It probably won't make much difference either way.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2016 18:28
|
|
|
Hey, does a One-Form Shifter with the Resilient feat add two traits to its transformed Form, if it regains and re-uses its Transformation Power once from each Rally? Can this Shapechanger, or any other One-Form Shifter, add additional traits on top of the one from Rally by sacrificing Encounter powers, or is it only instead? Edit: Another question I didn't have before. Sorry! Shapechanger with Form of the Bull: at level 1, it says that "All of these powers except Nimble Charge may be used in place of a Melee Basic." It's only the Level 1 powers, right? Because otherwise I could Move with my Move Action, Charge with Shove and Follow in place of the MBA, knock the target back and Prone, then Charge it again. Or maybe that's ok. Edit 2: Is the Red Cap's Marked for Death damage increase cumulative, or does the increase only last one turn? homullus fucked around with this message at 00:32 on Apr 18, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2016 18:52
|
|
|
So I have been thinking about adapting one of my favorite game mechanical "bits" to Strike!: the WFRP3E party sheet. For those unfamiliar, it looks like this: There are different ones for different kinds of parties. The benefits and penalties vary by that kind. They allow certain abilities to be shared among the entire party ("wait, we're a merchant's caravan, and none of us knows anything about selling??") and provide a bonus ability accessible to all members. The sheets also track a penalty: inter-party stress and conflict. The triangles on top measure this party stress: the GM increments that when the PCs are under time pressure in-narrative or when the players are wasting too much time discussing/arguing. Players can also increment it to represent their character's disagreement with the current course of action. About halfway in, the first penalty kicks in, and when the gauge reaches the end (8-10 slots, in WFRP3E), a second penalty is imposed and the gauge re-sets. The penalties are significant but not crushing -- similar to Strikes and Conditions in Strike!. As I envision it now, the track would have 10 slots. At 5, all party members get Disadvantage on their next roll and gain a Complication (something like "Frustrated"). At 10, all party members get -1 on their next roll, lose the Complication, and the gauge resets. Some examples: Zealous Rebels : Once per session, one member of the Zealous Rebels may spend two Action points to reduce their own or another Zealous Rebel's Major Condition to a Minor one. Skill examples (choose one, or decide on one more appropriate for the group): Sabotage (of a specific kind, i.e. mechanical, computer, et cetera), Stealth, Disguise, Guerilla Combat Strike Force : Once per session, one member of the Strike Force may spend an Action Point to give each party member a 1-round bonus to damage equal to that party member’s current number of Strikes. Each party member takes an additional Strike at the end of that round; these cannot be reduced or removed. Skill examples (choose one, or decide on one more appropriate for the group): Coordinated Action, Camouflage, Silent Running Fire Team : Members of the Fire Team may spend personal Action Points on other Fire Team members who are out of Action points Skill examples (choose one, or decide on one more appropriate for the group): Hand Signals, Field Medicine, Military Protocol Lost Lambs: Whenever all of the Lost Lambs are out of Action Points, one is randomly assigned to a Lost Lamb. Skill examples (choose one, or decide on one more appropriate for the group): Harmless Appearance, Cultural Expertise, Plausible Deniability Other party-wide abilities I have come up with: --Once per session, each player may make a Comeback Roll with Advantage --When a party member spends an Action Point to gain Advantage on a Skill Roll, that party member gains 2 Buffer Points if the roll is successful. --May spend an Action Point after a roll to ignore a Cost The balance can be adjusted a bit in the lengths of the stress tracks -- parties with more powerful abilities might have to endure the negative "half" of the track for longer. Edit: I should have specified that I am looking for feedback -- are these too powerful, not powerful enough? Interesting to explore, unneeded complexity? Are there kinds of parties you'd like to see represented? homullus fucked around with this message at 17:36 on May 5, 2016 |
|
#
¿
May 5, 2016 17:26
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:The one really bad power there is the one that gives everyone on the team an extra strike in combat - that will cause about half of them to get a worse Condition than they would have, and will worsen the team's concession by one level. I would not use that even if I didn't have to pay an Action Point for it - the extra damage is unlikely to make up for all that it costs. Maybe if it worsened the team's strike count without actually worsening personal strikes, that might be worth using. The idea was to do that, ultimately -- in a fight against the Hated Nemesis, it allows them to take a bigger hit to make sure that guy, at least, doesn't get away. The problem with worsening team Strikes is that it makes the Pyrrhic Victory more likely. I'll give it some more thought.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2016 13:31
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:Oh, did you intend for the strikes to only count as personal and not for the team? That could work, too, I think. I just feel like both is too much. Individual strikes would be better, yeah. It was too expensive before for too little benefit. Ultimately, the goal was to have that be the party sheet for military/commando/assassin parties where the campaign revolved around taking out certain targets. The goal in general is to have a party sheet for each of the most common kinds of campaigns, which are so often actually about different kinds of parties: heroes, mercenaries, bounty hunters, soldiers, touring band, commoners in over their heads, law enforcement, missionaries, castaways, et cetera. If the party changes its goals mid-campaign, it might move to a different sheet.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2016 18:02
|
|
|
Carrasco posted:Two questions: I think 1) enemies create safe blocks when forced-moved over blank, 2) some enemies can create more complex terrain as move actions, 3) players can take Strikes to add hindering (as opposed to difficult) terrain, maybe getting some items later that allow them to add a space or two of hindering terrain per session.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2016 13:46
|
|
|
Every ranged class is melee with the Melee Shooter feat.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2016 19:42
|
|
|
hyphz posted:I'm very happy to say that jimbozig has given me permission to begin an open source character generator for Strike!. It would be nice if At-Wills and Basic Attacks leveled up when and how they're supposed to. It would be nice if the character sheet accounted for the leveling system being used in a campaign (i.e. put check boxes next to Tricks for natural and hybrid leveling). It would be nice if the character sheet had a place to put in one's choice of image.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2016 22:11
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:Treasure yes, I'm on it. Traps are resolvable by Skill Rolls, Team Conflict, and even Tactical Combat. Skill Rolls are single-actor and best suited for single narrative obstacles. Tactical Combat only makes sense where the trap elements can be damaged. Team Conflict is pretty great and captures the rest adequately, but is still expansive narratively and maybe a little too abstract for some traps. For the middle ground (if you want to go there) I would most welcome a minigame midway between Chase and Team Conflict. With Chase, as GM, I get to play too, which I love, but only one net player choice happens there. With Team Conflict, I don't play after I have chosen the Traits, but all the PCs get to do things for several rounds. Can you come up with something where the GM gets to make one decision per round, and all the players get to play? Maybe it also uses space (i.e. a 2x2 or 3x3 grid), to give the skill-less some options or to differentiate it further from the game's other subsystems? That's a tall order, but on top of traps it could be used for other group-oriented dangerous things that don't merit a battle map, such as working out how to pilot the flying saucer or fighting off various attacks on their raft as it floats down the river, and where the players' individual choices affect their individual fates a little more. Edit: another option is that the GM programs the trap's actions in advance, and in essence the players have some choices and/or deductions to make about them. It's not the same as a round-by-round choice, but the GM has some up-front input into its narrative. homullus fucked around with this message at 21:01 on Jun 27, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2016 20:55
|
|
|
Countblanc posted:Whoever mentioned the idea of making like, a 5x5 grid that becomes some sort of group mini-game to represent puzzles/traps had a super cool idea but I'm absolutely not the person who should tackle such a concept because my ideal adventure is just constant fighting and maybe smashing a trap by punching it really hard. I also suggested it on this page. I was imagining a small (e.g. maybe 5x5) grid, and the players position themselves. The "trap" (which might be an ambush, or a bar fight, or anything else where something is potentially coming at the party in a small space from multiple directions) either has a limited number of different options (e.g. it either needs to be X or T pattern), or it has a wider range of options, but they need to follow logically from each other (e.g. an I pattern can only become L or T). What happens if the players get hit in the pattern? It should vary according to the narrative and what, exactly, the GM chose in advance (a la Team Conflict). It might mean they can't move, or get force-moved on the board, or take Hits/Strikes. How do they solve it? Perhaps half the PCs need to be on the right squares and make a roll? I dunno, I didn't get that far.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2016 14:45
|
|
|
Countblanc posted:Jim and I have been talking about at-wills. You could add an at-will to the kits, maybe. They're already an optional subsystem, so Analysis Paralysis is only there if you let it be. It also spreads the powers out even more so that two players with the same class and role could play pretty differently.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2016 20:56
|
|
|
Lurks With Wolves posted:But then you'd get that problem where your noncombat options have a major effect on your combat options. Could you make it work? Maybe, but you'll probably end up with a situation where you never see Scholars as melee classes because their at-will's bad at that range, and that's a problem. I don't understand what you are saying here. If the Scholar's at-will is not melee range and it's a melee character, doesn't that give a melee character something better to do than the RBA?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2016 21:05
|
|
|
The Gate posted:I think this is a bad idea in general, it's going to play havoc with the Summoner and Martial Artist balance in particular I imagine. MA taking a melee at-will, that would then also benefit from stances, would basically be mandatory. The combat and non combat sides of characters are currently almost two separate characters, which is really cool and one of the big points of the system I think. I am not going to spend any more e-ink on the suggestion than this post -- I don't love it that much -- but if there are imbalances that arise with the Martial Artist because the At-Will would benefit unduly from stances, the obvious way to address that is to say "it doesn't benefit from the Martial Artist's stances." Roles already give additional powers and flavor to classes without imbalancing them. The Boss kit has a feat that gives him an in-combat aura already. There is ample precedent for introducing new powers to existing characters without mass hysteria.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2016 21:20
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 16:04 |
|
|
Kai Tave posted:edit; also here's a thought, handle hacking using the chase rules. I didn't do this because when I did a Shadowrunny thing, we didn't have any deckers, but my idea was to use role actions for in-combat hacking, to model the decker desperately trying to turn off the turrets or whatever in a firefight (since they'd have to choose between using their role actions in meatspace or hacking). Could probably also work for astral plane hijinx in combat as well.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2016 14:27
|
|