|
I like Team Conflict a lot. I think it is more or less the opposite of 4e skill challenges: not having the skill does not mean you can't participate, and there is no pass/fail resolution. My concerns are: 1. Preparatory Scout rolls and the Observe action are incredibly powerful. Two people can do the same action, so two people can Observe every time unless the narrative says no. 2. Preparatory Actions in general are very powerful and players always always ask if they can do them. 3. Thus, the main strategy is to stack D, scout rolls, and take Hits, until such time as you can guarantee a win, every time. The solution space seems limited currently. There are the Traits that increase A and D from round to round, and the ones that make it hard for the players on Pushes and Draws (a common outcome with the strategy in #3), but I don't want to do every Team Conflict with those Traits. I'm still exploring the space a bit -- I haven't changed the win conditions yet on them -- but those are the pinch points for me.
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 14:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 04:41 |
|
|
ShineDog posted:As for damage no one else came close. By the end I had bonuses to my short ranged dice roll result, bonuses to my damage, and bonuses including permanent advantage on targets of my choice, which meant when I focused on a boss I was massively critting more often than not. Permanent advantage from what source? As for your other comments, I'd need to know the context from Gort to comment on the balance - whether the fights were baseline or what, and how they were adjusted for 3 players. It's true that poo poo gets more dangerous at higher levels in general though. For example, I just got owned by my own monster design in a level 5 playtest last night - I designed a monster that you should get out of its way when it charges, and then I decided to get in its way. So it pasted me, taking me out very quickly, and I felt like a dummy because I should have known better.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 15:57
|
|
|
it's like persistent weakness or something like that, can't remember offhand.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 16:34
|
|
|
homullus posted:I like Team Conflict a lot. I think it is more or less the opposite of 4e skill challenges: not having the skill does not mean you can't participate, and there is no pass/fail resolution. My concerns are: As someone who doesn't like artificial skill challenge systems, this is precisely the sort of analysis that drives me away from them. Because note that the best way to approach things is determined independent of any narrative concerns.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 18:52
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:As someone who doesn't like artificial skill challenge systems, this is precisely the sort of analysis that drives me away from them. Because note that the best way to approach things is determined independent of any narrative concerns. Yeah. It can be pretty unlike 4e's skill challenges and still be pretty unlike what you'd want.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 18:56
|
|
|
I'd like to add an addendum to my earlier comment. I've played a number of RPGs over a number of years. A number of those gamess were meant for long form campaign play, and of those I've finished a grand total of 2, a 4th ed campaign and this Strike campaign. That puts Strike on a pretty high pedestal in my eyes, and the things I raise are pretty minor and brought up over a long campaign, so good job and thank you for the good times.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 19:18
|
|
|
I was the defender/martial artist in the 1-10 game. I took tempest, weeping willow and stonewall. I enjoyed the skills - I'm not sure we got the proper hang of 'get behind me', despite the cover. We didn't have a lot of games with that power, and I don't think it was that attractive an option for the rest of the (admittedly squishy) team. Taking one stance at basic level was a fun addition on the face of it, but since I was already nagging Gort with 1dmg/other effects per turn I'm not sure the extra complication enhanced the gameplay for us. Some feelings throughout the game - I don't think I ever managed 2 rallys in an encounter, just lacked the action points. It was better to spend on missing an attack. Group as a whole reluctant to take that fail to gain an action point, we never embraced it and then dropped it altogether. I missed the 4e action point/super uber/power turn, but I had a striker who had a lot of effects going on an action point so that could be nostalgia. Dropping stances felt fun. The skills gave our characters fun flavour and I really enjoyed our wizard trying to work 'diving out of the way of cannonballs' into other checks or the elf shotgunner who was unable to learn perception throughout the game. We had a whole bunch of fun, so thank you!
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 19:27
|
|
|
I'll throw in my two cents about team conflict. I've had a lot of fun with the tactical combat rules and the basic skill rules, but I've run two team conflicts so far, and neither one ended up being very satisfying, for different reasons each time. The first one was sneaking around a mansion looking for an artifact. It went 6 or more rounds of mostly pushes, with a few draws mixed in. In the end, I had the opposition concede, because I had run out of ways to describe "you've searched some rooms, didn't find it, and (for the strike from a push) left some evidence of your presence behind" a few rounds ago and it was just dragging on with nothing mechanical changing to make it any more likely to end next time. While I get that concession is a valid thing to do, it really didn't feel like it fit the story, in the sense that if I could have been sure that the conflict would end one way or another the next round, I wouldn't have done it. There's probably a fairly straightforward mechanical fix to this. The tricky part I guess is that it would feel best if it made the conflict more likely to end, but without skewing it toward either side. Allowing the players to give the enemy a permanent -1A or -1D on a hit if there's no traits left gets rid of the frustration that nothing is changing, but skews long challenges toward the players. Maybe after two or three rounds both sides start rolling a third die that they add to both of their scores? That would add in some correlation between A and D that would help things end faster, but a whole d6 might be too much to add at once. The second was a fantasy science fair. After my previous experience, I put a 5 round limit on the conflict, with each round representing the time the judges spent looking at one of the booths. At the end, the team with fewer strikes wins. This one again went the full duration, although in this case they did spend an action point to not lose once, and with the round limit, that wasn't too bad. The frustration we had this time was mostly around the fact that you're limited to the basic actions if you don't have a relevant skill. My players would describe what they wanted to do, e.g. "I want to try to sabotage the next booth while everyone's paying attention to this one". Which maps pretty clearly to Prepare, but if they don't have a skill for it, my options are to tell them they can't try that, or to say that we'll say that's what you're doing, but we'll call it Defend or something, which just seems arbitrary. Also, with the round limit, Targeted Effort and Recover became very powerful, and the players were frustrated when a lack of relevant skills kept them from using them (and this was an unusual situation for the characters, so they didn't have many relevant skills between them). I think team conflicts end up feeling a lot like combat in the sense that the players feel like they're supposed to be playing tactically and doing their best to win, and that they're letting each other down if they do sub-optimal things just because they seem interesting or in character. But unlike combat, conflicts don't seem to be designed with that dissonance as much in mind. Combat is very clearly structured so that everyone is competent and able to contribute. Nobody is making unskilled attack rolls. There's even the improvised attack to reward people thinking creatively and using the environment to their advantage. Someone who comes into a team conflict without any relevant skills is stuck being less effective for the (possibly unlimited) duration, and if they try to keep things congruent with the basic actions they're choosing from, their opportunity to be creative is limited as well.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 23:57
|
|
|
I have mixed feelings on team conflict. I feel like as a sub-system it works pretty well, and with a little more familiarity it can really sing. I think some more examples of how to run it would be very helpful, since its a little tricky to make it feel like progress is happening during it, and how to handle failures/setbacks. But at the same time, it feels pretty remote from my character. Which options I pick are entirely dependent on what's optimal in the conflict, and nothing to do with the character I created. It's enjoyable as a player, but I'm interacting with it entirely on the level of a player, not as a character. Team conflict seems like it should leverage the non-tactical part of a character (by the way, it would be great to have a specific, official name for this portion) the way combat leverages the Tactical side. But in practice there's a complete disconnect. I'm loathe to argue for increased complexity, but it might need to be rebuilt so characters have specific abilities related to team contests in order to make it fit together better. -------------- On a different note, what Martial Artist stances do people suggest for a Defender? Are any of them particularly better with that pairing, or worse?
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 00:55
|
|
|
I've run two TCs in my game. They both ran pretty smoothly and felt natural to me (and I think to the group)? Having the cards printed out really helps. The players also readily use Take One for The Team because personal concessions are fun.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 04:33
|
|
|
quote:On a different note, what Martial Artist stances do people suggest for a Defender? Are any of them particularly better with that pairing, or worse? Pumpkin Pirate posted:The frustration we had this time was mostly around the fact that you're limited to the basic actions if you don't have a relevant skill. My players would describe what they wanted to do, e.g. "I want to try to sabotage the next booth while everyone's paying attention to this one". Which maps pretty clearly to Prepare, but if they don't have a skill for it, my options are to tell them they can't try that, or to say that we'll say that's what you're doing, but we'll call it Defend or something, which just seems arbitrary. Also, with the round limit, Targeted Effort and Recover became very powerful, and the players were frustrated when a lack of relevant skills kept them from using them (and this was an unusual situation for the characters, so they didn't have many relevant skills between them). Oh drat, I need to write that better. No, you definitely ARE preparing, but because you're unskilled, you're not as good at it as someone skilled, so you use the less-powerful Defend action. That doesn't mean you're not preparing, just that you are acting in a defensive capacity unskilled. But I think this gets at the heart of one of the problems people have with Team Conflict. See this next post... Comrade Gorbash posted:I have mixed feelings on team conflict. I feel like as a sub-system it works pretty well, and with a little more familiarity it can really sing. I think some more examples of how to run it would be very helpful, since its a little tricky to make it feel like progress is happening during it, and how to handle failures/setbacks. There are two competing interests: First, the notion that you should be using elements of your character more so that it feels like you're doing what makes sense for your character instead of just what's optimal right now. This would argue for tying Skills and stuff more strongly to the power of your actions to incentivize the use of your character's Skills and disincentivize actions that aren't associated with your character's abilities. Second, the fact that having a good idea for a thing to do that makes sense in the situation, but for which you lack a skill can feel like you're underperforming. This would argue for reducing the difference between Skilled and Unskilled actions. I'm not sure if there is a way to square things away to solve both problems at once. In combat, everyone has a niche and your character will use the same powers over and over, but the complex situations and tactical distinctions make them feel different. Giving players a niche like that in TC would suck because using the same action or two each time would be boring. Making the whole thing more complicated with each character having special TC-specific powers could solve it, but that's a very large design task and I'm not sure where to start with that. What I think WOULD help is making it less general. In Mouse Guard and Torchbearer you can fight, flee, or do one or two other things, and each of those only has specific skills you can use. That works well because everyone has some of those skills, and if you're not great at travel conflicts you'll at least be good at fighting. If I adapted Team Conflict to specific types of conflicts and made sure that every character was good at some of them, that would probably work pretty well to address both issues. homullus posted:I like Team Conflict a lot. I think it is more or less the opposite of 4e skill challenges: not having the skill does not mean you can't participate, and there is no pass/fail resolution. My concerns are: With that said, this has come up often enough that I wonder what I can do to address it. I even nerfed Observe and Prepare and people still pick them! (Observe used to be +2D, making it easier to force Draws while you waited for the opponents to roll bad, and Prepare didn't have the -1A). Two ideas: How would the strategy be affected if the 5-round limit was not optional? The low-variance strategy wouldn't be able to slowly chip away at Traits because they would risk running out of time and losing on Strikes, right? That should work, but... on the other hand, would they be able to force the clock to run out and get themselves a win on Strikes? With judicious use of Targeted Effort and Recover, I think they might, so long as the opposition didn't have traits to punish stalling. Perhaps an additional limit on Observe is appropriate. Limit one Observe action per team per round? A hard cap on the number of rolls your team can scout in a TC? A hard cap on the number of rolls you as a character can scout in a TC?
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 04:52
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:This is interesting. You're describing a low-variance strategy that will make you quite likely to win, but almost certainly not get a complete victory, and likely come away with some Conditions. I was the one who gave them the burning building to get out of. The alternative to getting out at all costs is . . . dying in a fire? Going on the assumption that players will generally prefer completing their goals at a cost to not completing them with no cost, the low variance strategy is the way to move the plot forward. I think most of my Team Conflicts have been done within three rounds, and only one time did the players spend an Action Point to not lose. I am not sure whether limiting scouting will fix all the issues, but it would introduce some additional uncertainty. I still like Team Conflict, though. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 05:19
|
|
|
homullus posted:I was the one who gave them the burning building to get out of. The alternative to getting out at all costs is . . . dying in a fire? Going on the assumption that players will generally prefer completing their goals at a cost to not completing them with no cost, the low variance strategy is the way to move the plot forward. I think most of my Team Conflicts have been done within three rounds, and only one time did the players spend an Action Point to not lose. I am not sure whether limiting scouting will fix all the issues, but it would introduce some additional uncertainty. Having just done some quick testing, I found two things. First, that the scout-heavy strategy doesn't lead to as many strikes as I thought, since you'll still usually finish fairly fast. A 5-round timer is no big deal most of the time. Second, that the Crafty and Penetrating traits are SO BAD and I don't know how I missed that when I wrote them. They are strictly worse than Aggressive and Defensive, and those ones are intentionally a bit weak. I'm errata-ing them to -2D each.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 05:46
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:Two ideas: But one Observe is all you really need. If you can lock in one of the dice (ideally the attack) you know what you need to get to beat it and can dump the rest of the points in the other. It's not necessarily 100% depending on what the Observed die ends up being, but at the very least you'll guarantee a Draw. And it's generally not too hard to justify at least one Total Defense to bring that +1A from Observe back in line. I think in our last one we had a minor concession because of a hit from a Trait that punished Draw-ing, but we won on round 2 with something like 2/3 odds on the unknown die. Granted, I think we were in for a hit or two from Calculated Risks if we did end up with a Draw again. I've been toying with adding some kind of guessing game to TCs too. In these simple subsystems that seems like one of the easier things to work with to keep things interesting. Maybe this would be too random, but what if the GM had 6 cards: +1A, +1D, -1A, -1D, and two blanks. Also, you have a grid laid out with all the actions on it that you could put the cards face down on. Then if the players choose those actions, they add in whatever's on the card in addition to the normal amount. I think it'd need extra rules to keep the GM from just dropping -1D on Observe every round. Maybe they can't repeat in each conflict? That'd still allow them to drop minuses on Observe for the first two rounds always. Maybe the cards are completely random? It'd be nice for the GM to have choices to make during a TC. Or a random shuffle, but the GM chooses where to place them? Just spit-balling here.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 05:47
|
|
|
ImpactVector posted:A round limit wouldn't affect it too much. We've won all our TCs on round 2-3ish IIRC. (I'm a Summoner/Leader in homullus' game.) Just using the "intelligent opposition" rules introduces about the same amount of uncertainty as your idea (not to say your idea isn't good - it has some potential). Using intelligent opposition rules also helps with what Homullus was talking about a couple of pages back with the GM not having any decisions to make in Team Conflict. There's no reason you can't use them all the time, even for a burning building, so long as you reskin a bit. E.g. Targeted Effort is the fire burning hotter and faster, making you pay if you delay your escape. Edit: For details about the simulations I just ran, I tried 10 attempts against 2 different builds, and assumed that players would always AP out of losses. They got 2 losses and 2 double-ties out of those 10 attempts using the scout-heavy strategy. One loss was round 1 bad luck, the other was when they rolled snake-eyes on what should have been a safe roll. Edit 2: And I just spent a minute running 10 quick simulations of a super-simple strategy of "Always use 2 Blocks and 2 Calculated Risks" against the Draw-punishing opponent's build, and got 3 double-ties and 1 loss, with about 20% more strikes than the scout-heavy sims I ran before, but without all the personal concessions they had to give up for sometimes using Take One for the Team. Jimbozig fucked around with this message at 07:03 on Jul 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 05:55
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:Just using the "intelligent opposition" rules introduces about the same amount of uncertainty as your idea (not to say your idea isn't good - it has some potential). Using intelligent opposition rules also helps with what Homullus was talking about a couple of pages back with the GM not having any decisions to make in Team Conflict. There's no reason you can't use them all the time, even for a burning building, so long as you reskin a bit. E.g. Targeted Effort is the fire burning hotter and faster, making you pay if you delay your escape. A Targeted Effort vs the Draw strategy would be pretty mean. But then it might just end up being better opening by going all in on attack plus a Recover and Observe instead. On the other hand, it looks like there are a bunch of Traits that punish taking hits pretty harshly, but it seems like it'd be pretty tough to avoid getting hit entirely with intelligent opposition.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 06:15
|
|
|
I've been working on Feats for the upcoming thing this week, does anyone have any particular gaps in the current feat lineup that you think needs addressed? I don't need specifics, just general things like "there's not enough feats that modify ranged attacks" or "maybe something that encourages improvised attacks/movement".
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 08:39
|
|
|
Countblanc posted:I've been working on Feats for the upcoming thing this week, does anyone have any particular gaps in the current feat lineup that you think needs addressed? I don't need specifics, just general things like "there's not enough feats that modify ranged attacks" or "maybe something that encourages improvised attacks/movement". My favorite feat bar none is Superhuman. I like it because it breaks a lot of the bad habits that 3.X and 4E feats fell into, it gives you several cool abilities that are simultaneously flavorful (I can teleport, I have Wizard Sight) but also applicable in tactical combat situations, and also aren't bogged down in paragraphs of minutiae about phasing through various thicknesses of materials and the list of things infravision can and can't sense. You just get to do cool, useful things, no checks required or hoops to jump through. I don't know if this is really helpful because Superhuman in and of itself is already a pretty broad feat that can be reskinned/repurposed in a number of ways, so it's questionable whether another feat like it is needed to cover any sort of gap but it's absolutely the one feat out of all the ones in the game that I would pretty much always consider taking regardless of what my character is, so if you have any ideas for more Superhuman-esque feats then please include them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 09:04
|
|
|
The wizard in my game took superhuman with the option of swapping places with people. On one occasion she jumped off a building and swapped with an enemy on the way down, killing them, and another time she jumped between two ships that were about to collide then swapped with an enemy, killing them. We allowed it because it was cool and she wasn't doing it all the time, but it might be worth writing something in to codify it - as it is the swapped enemy doesn't even get a saving throw and the swapper doesn't need an attack roll.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 09:33
|
|
|
Even if you tie tram conflict in heavily to players it's still going to have an issue similar to what I dislike about fate, where your narrative strengths get used in a very mechanical way with the advantage stacking to set up the final success.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 09:48
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:So what would have happened if they lose that Team Conflict in the burning building? I would have had the floor collapse, trapping them in the basement, but they didn't know that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 15:48
|
|
|
So as I've been transcribing powers/feats they've given me a few questions: - Is the "knock down an enemy" power given by Long Reach a Reaction or a free action? - If you take the Flying feat, and become Flying by some means other than that feat (such as shapeshifting), do you still crash to the ground when you become Bloodied?
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 16:07
|
|
|
ShineDog posted:Even if you tie tram conflict in heavily to players it's still going to have an issue similar to what I dislike about fate, where your narrative strengths get used in a very mechanical way with the advantage stacking to set up the final success.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 16:27
|
|
|
Gort posted:The wizard in my game took superhuman with the option of swapping places with people. On one occasion she jumped off a building and swapped with an enemy on the way down, killing them, and another time she jumped between two ships that were about to collide then swapped with an enemy, killing them. In fairness, I got thrown off that building the first time, thus making it much cooler, thank you. But yeah, I coulda cheesed that power quite a lot if I wanted to be a jerk.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 16:29
|
|
|
My fault for burying it at the end of my last post, so I'll ask again Are there any Martial Artist stances that are particularly good for Defenders?
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 17:03
|
|
|
Comrade Gorbash posted:My fault for burying it at the end of my last post, so I'll ask again Jimbozig posted:Tempest for little extra damage since you'll spend a lot of time in melee with as many monsters as you can. Scorpion for buffing your Opportunities further. Stone Wall for screwing over marked enemies at range.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 17:13
|
|
|
Don't know how I missed that, thanks!
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 17:31
|
|
|
The one that lets you grab enemies is great for defenders too since the passive redirects attacks to your Grabbed target, my MA/defenders always take it (I play a lot of MA/defenders) Mandala gives your party a lot of mobility but requires you to have a melee heavy group to get the most out of it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 17:41
|
|
|
Should I steer my first time players into picking a balanced/diverse group? If they all pick Duelist/Strikers will they have a hard time? I'm thinking they will be smart about it but you never know.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 18:01
|
|
|
Generator should now have all the Classes and almost all the Feats, except the Shapechanger ones.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 18:46
|
|
|
Rurea posted:Should I steer my first time players into picking a balanced/diverse group? If they all pick Duelist/Strikers will they have a hard time? I'm thinking they will be smart about it but you never know. I'd say you should try to have at least a Defender or a Leader, and then at least one Striker. Controller's Sap Strength does a lot to mitigate damage so they're pseudo-leaders (particularly at low levels where you're going to be Sapping practically every turn). Defender also does high damage, are durable, and they stack effectively - Since you can stack marks on a target unlike in 4e it's trivial to proc those beefy Opportunities. I did a 6-person game last summer with something like Defender, Defender, Controller, Striker, Striker, Blaster. And while it wasn't the most min-max combo possible we killed poo poo quickly and had plenty of survivability between the first three roles.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 19:18
|
|
|
Rurea posted:Should I steer my first time players into picking a balanced/diverse group? If they all pick Duelist/Strikers will they have a hard time? I'm thinking they will be smart about it but you never know. If nobody picks leader and nobody has any healing powers, then get someone to take the minor leader feat, just so if someone goes down and has no rally you can bring them back up.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 21:30
|
|
|
Countblanc posted:I've been working on Feats for the upcoming thing this week, does anyone have any particular gaps in the current feat lineup that you think needs addressed? I don't need specifics, just general things like "there's not enough feats that modify ranged attacks" or "maybe something that encourages improvised attacks/movement". Have you considered having Minor Class feats, just as there are Minor Role ones? For instance, Minor Bombardier might be "You can use Grenade once per encounter" or something.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 03:04
|
|
|
megane posted:Have you considered having Minor Class feats, just as there are Minor Role ones? For instance, Minor Bombardier might be "You can use Grenade once per encounter" or something. I actually have a "Dilettante" feat I'm tossing around which is just straight up "choose an at-will from another class not granted by a class feature and take that," though obviously the wording will need refined for cases like Buddies and Bombardier. The big worry right now is that it will muddy class distinction but I mean I doubt it will upset balance too much since you're losing a feat for it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 05:08
|
|
|
Countblanc posted:I actually have a "Dilettante" feat I'm tossing around which is just straight up "choose an at-will from another class not granted by a class feature and take that," though obviously the wording will need refined for cases like Buddies and Bombardier. The big worry right now is that it will muddy class distinction but I mean I doubt it will upset balance too much since you're losing a feat for it. I considered a feat like that, but when you think about it it's not practical. I could go into how Class Powers are designed to work with Class Features and how some classes have powers that would be more or less powerful when combined with another class' features, but the primary problem is this: it breaks the essential compartmentalization of classes, doesn't really serve much purpose as far as fulfilling a character concept, and will pretty much only be used for weird charop poo poo. It also has the problem that a feat like that needs to be kept in mind every time anyone tries to design another class - every class at-will we ever try to design will need to play nicely with every other class feature and vice versa. Things will get even further muddied with some of the weirdo classes we're working on now like the Bard.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 06:02
|
|
|
So after implementing Multi-Role Shapechanger (MRS) I ended up with a bunch of questions: * Can an MRS take Minor feats for Roles they have in order to use them when they aren't in the form for that role? * Can an MRS take the same Role twice in two different forms and make different choices each time? * Can an MRS take role-specific feats and if they do, do they apply to just one form where they have that Role selected, or all of them?
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 21:55
|
|
|
hyphz posted:So after implementing Multi-Role Shapechanger (MRS) I ended up with a bunch of questions:
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 22:12
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:Yes, yes, all. Ok, great, that was actually what I assumed. But can you also stack the effects of Encounter powers in normally impossible combinations? For example, say you go Tortoise-Striker and Hawk-Defender. You turn into a Tortoise and use Wind Up Strike to deal 4 extra damage on your next attack. Then you turn into a Hawk, which is not an attack, so Wind Up Attack is still buffered. But because your Hawk is not a Striker you can now invoke Minor Striker and your next attack does 6 extra damage. While I acknowledge this is probably too slow to be notable CharOp it seems a bit weird.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 22:20
|
|
|
Is the current print version of Strike! stable?
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 23:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 04:41 |
|
|
Bongo Bill posted:Is the current print version of Strike! stable? Do you mean "are the rules finalized"? There's probably a few minor erratas that will be coming out soon (I imagine with the next document, possibly sooner, I'd have to ask Jim how long his FAQ list is these days), but the overwhelming amount of rules are staying precisely how they're written. I don't think there's anything changing with combat, for instance.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2016 23:40
|
|