Strike! The game of Tactical Combat and Heedless Adventure

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Traditional Games > Strike! The game of Tactical Combat and Heedless Adventure

«‹›55 »

Countblanc: Apr 20, 2005; _{Help a hero out!}

It's because Champions get 3 turns per 1 player turn, so something that Blinded (or Proned, Immobilized, etc) until the end of your next turn would basically completely shut down a Champion.

# ? Sep 18, 2016 20:16

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 24, 2024 11:38

Tuxedo Catfish: Mar 17, 2007; You've got guts! Come to my village, I'll buy you lunch.

Countblanc posted:

It's because Champions get 3 turns per 1 player turn, so something that Blinded (or Proned, Immobilized, etc) until the end of your next turn would basically completely shut down a Champion.

I thought of that, but I thought Champions had various ways of minimizing status effects already.

I dunno. If I ever run the game I'll probably houserule a Hold Action option, unless that turns out to break something else too badly.

# ? Sep 18, 2016 20:23

homullus: Mar 27, 2009

Tuxedo Catfish posted:

I dunno. If I ever run the game I'll probably houserule a Hold Action option, unless that turns out to break something else too badly.

Delaying is on page 94.

# ? Sep 18, 2016 20:29

Tuxedo Catfish: Mar 17, 2007; You've got guts! Come to my village, I'll buy you lunch.

homullus posted:

Delaying is on page 94.

Oh, hey, it's even got separate rules for triggered attack actions and for whole-round delaying, that's perfect. I was just searching for the wrong words. Thank you!

# ? Sep 18, 2016 20:36

eth0.n: Jun 1, 2012

Got a few questions:

1. Is Minor Blaster meant to imply that melee bursts can be recentered within reach, as the role feature itself can do? It also doesn't say the ranged version provokes an opportunity. The latter seems like it should obviously apply, but then I see no reason not to include the former. As written, it seems to, in comparison to the role feature, buff the ranged version and nerf the melee version, which doesn't make sense.

2. For Terrifying Visage, I believe the following are true; am I correct?

To avoid damage, the target must move its entire Speed, increasing distance from the caster with every square. If this is physically impossible, the extra damage is unavoidable.
Passing through difficult terrain is OK (it just uses up the Speed faster), however if the target has only one movement point remaining, and has no option other than moving into difficult terrain, then the damage is not avoided; it has not used its entire Speed.
Being Slowed is OK (even kind of advantageous), since it changes the target's Speed.
A Prone target must stand up first, then move, to avoid the damage. Crawling does not qualify for avoiding the damage, as it is not a "move", and doesn't let you "move your speed".
An enemy whose speed has been reduced to zero (there are a few ways) must simply expend their move action (as a no-op) to avoid damage. This can save an Immobilized enemy (which normally has a non-zero Speed, but can't use it), but not a Stunned or Prone one (without standing first).
Shifting does not count, even if it's a "shift your speed" ability.
Teleportation cannot be used to avoid the damage (it counts as a Shift)
With the level 5 upgrade, the entire movement must occur before any other action, to avoid the damage. Merely moving one square away, acting, then moving the rest of the way doesn't count.

3. A Blaster-fied Life Drain can trigger the effect multiple times, healing 3 each time, right? It seems so, but want to make sure I'm not missing something. The rules for multi-target attacks aren't well localized; e.g., you have to read a note under the Blaster role to know that Strikes and miss triggers only apply to the first roll. I assume that's a general rule, but it isn't mentioned in the general combat rules as far as I have found.

4. When a Necromancer's undead minion rolls a 1, does the Necromancer take a Strike? I assume, unlike Buddies, these undead have their own full set of actions?

# ? Sep 22, 2016 15:48

ImpactVector: Feb 24, 2007; HAHAHAHA FOOLS!!
I AM SO SMART!

Uh oh. What did he do now?; Nap Ghost

Also, does the blaster caveat in the bombardier section apply to all classes?

For instance, say I'm a martial artist/blaster with tempest style and I explode punch 3 guys next to me who are all adjacent to each other (so, one south of me, one east, one southeast) with the Greater style, do they all take the effect twice? Or just the once?

# ? Sep 22, 2016 16:25

Jimbozig: Sep 30, 2003; I like sharing and ice cream and animals.

eth0.n posted:

Got a few questions:

1. Is Minor Blaster meant to imply that melee bursts can be recentered within reach, as the role feature itself can do? It also doesn't say the ranged version provokes an opportunity. The latter seems like it should obviously apply, but then I see no reason not to include the former. As written, it seems to, in comparison to the role feature, buff the ranged version and nerf the melee version, which doesn't make sense.

2. For Terrifying Visage, I believe the following are true; am I correct?

To avoid damage, the target must move its entire Speed, increasing distance from the caster with every square. If this is physically impossible, the extra damage is unavoidable.

Passing through difficult terrain is OK (it just uses up the Speed faster), however if the target has only one movement point remaining, and has no option other than moving into difficult terrain, then the damage is not avoided; it has not used its entire Speed.

Being Slowed is OK (even kind of advantageous), since it changes the target's Speed.

A Prone target must stand up first, then move, to avoid the damage. Crawling does not qualify for avoiding the damage, as it is not a "move", and doesn't let you "move your speed".

An enemy whose speed has been reduced to zero (there are a few ways) must simply expend their move action (as a no-op) to avoid damage. This can save an Immobilized enemy (which normally has a non-zero Speed, but can't use it), but not a Stunned or Prone one (without standing first).

Shifting does not count, even if it's a "shift your speed" ability.

Teleportation cannot be used to avoid the damage (it counts as a Shift)

With the level 5 upgrade, the entire movement must occur before any other action, to avoid the damage. Merely moving one square away, acting, then moving the rest of the way doesn't count.

3. A Blaster-fied Life Drain can trigger the effect multiple times, healing 3 each time, right? It seems so, but want to make sure I'm not missing something. The rules for multi-target attacks aren't well localized; e.g., you have to read a note under the Blaster role to know that Strikes and miss triggers only apply to the first roll. I assume that's a general rule, but it isn't mentioned in the general combat rules as far as I have found.

4. When a Necromancer's undead minion rolls a 1, does the Necromancer take a Strike? I assume, unlike Buddies, these undead have their own full set of actions?

1. You're right, it should still grant Opportunities. As for the reach thing, the way it's written it clearly doesn't allow that, but it makes sense that it should. I'll errata it.

2. I play it way simpler than that - they must move their speed (including crawling), doing their best to increase distance, but being allowed to go around obstacles if increasing distance with each step is not possible. If they can't move that final space because of DT, that's okay. Shifting one's speed or teleporting one's speed would count, I guess, though the vast majority monsters don't have that ability. The Level 5 change is being errata'd away along with a number of other level 5 effect changes across the classes anyway, so it doesn't matter.

To avoid this confusion, maybe a simpler way of writing it would be best, and I could errata it if I do it now. How does this sound? "On the target's next turn, they must spend a Move Action to move as far away from you as possible with that one action, or else take 3 damage."

3. Yes, you can life-drain and regain a HP multiple times.

4. Undead have their own actions and the Necromancer doesn't take a Strike.

ImpactVector posted:

Also, does the blaster caveat in the bombardier section apply to all classes?

For instance, say I'm a martial artist/blaster with tempest style and I explode punch 3 guys next to me who are all adjacent to each other (so, one south of me, one east, one southeast) with the Greater style, do they all take the effect twice? Or just the once?

From the Blaster's page: "when a creature is included in the same effect multiple times from the same power, it only suffers once."

# ? Sep 22, 2016 18:04

Jimbozig: Sep 30, 2003; I like sharing and ice cream and animals.

Hey everyone, I�ve had some good comments on the FAQ and it�s coming along well. I need to collect opinions on whether you all think it�s worth changing the book to let every character have 3 At-Wills. Many of the expansion classes will have 3. In the corebook, the Martial Artist has 3 and the Archer has 4. For most classes, this would be as simple as letting them pick a third. The Necromancer only has 3 to choose from, though, so for them I�d add a fourth power and make it a �You get this power, plus choose two more� situation. I�ve written up a fun little power that is a bit situational, but very thematic for the Necromancer (and still thematic for a psychic or for a hacker, which are the main suggested reskinnings of Necromancers). Here is the full text of the possible changes:

The Errata Document posted:

The Archer and Martial Artist see no changes - they already have enough At-Will powers.

The Warlord, Magician, Duelist, Buddies, and Summoner each pick one extra At-Will.

The Bombardier chooses a third At-Will Ammunition.

The Shapechanger gets to use Blurred Form and Primal Compulsion in either form.

The Necromancer gets a new At-Will power, Speak With Dead, in addition to their current choice of two out of the other three At-Wills.

Speak With Dead posted:
At-Will; Melee or Range 5; 2 Damage
Effect: If the target is Taken Out before the start of your next turn, you gain Advantage on your first attack on your next turn and may ask the target one simple question and they must give an honest answer.

So what do you think? Is having only 2 at-wills to choose from on your turn actually a big deal? Is it worth just making 3 the standard and then all the expansion classes will follow suit?

# ? Sep 22, 2016 18:10

ImpactVector: Feb 24, 2007; HAHAHAHA FOOLS!!
I AM SO SMART!

Uh oh. What did he do now?; Nap Ghost

Jimbozig posted:

From the Blaster's page: "when a creature is included in the same effect multiple times from the same power, it only suffers once."

I thought that was in there somewhere, just didn't see it on my most recent read through, thanks.

# ? Sep 22, 2016 18:10

Tuxedo Catfish: Mar 17, 2007; You've got guts! Come to my village, I'll buy you lunch.

That ability in particular is kind of squirrely, not a big fan of unenforceable rules with no enforceable / concrete alternative, or of getting non-combat advantages before combat is resolved.

Three at wills as the standard sounds cool, though, gives you a few more choices without being overwhelming.

# ? Sep 22, 2016 18:14

ImpactVector: Feb 24, 2007; HAHAHAHA FOOLS!!
I AM SO SMART!

Uh oh. What did he do now?; Nap Ghost

Jimbozig posted:

So what do you think? Is having only 2 at-wills to choose from on your turn actually a big deal? Is it worth just making 3 the standard and then all the expansion classes will follow suit?

As a Summoner in my most recent game, I was definitely feeling the lack of at-wills when my summon was dead or not out yet. Maybe that would have been alleviated once I got a second one. We just hit level 3 at the end of our last session before a break.

Also, not sure what can be done for this, but I was really feeling like the summons with save-or attacks were pretty useless any time there was an elite or better on the field. You really want to drop that summon ASAP to give yourself some more options and the zone effect. Specifically the water one has come out maybe once vs the fire one upwards of about a dozen times.

Was it ever in the design to give save-or attacks a lesser effect on a successful save? At least with save-ends you get a single turn of it.

# ? Sep 22, 2016 18:30

eth0.n: Jun 1, 2012

Jimbozig posted:

1. You're right, it should still grant Opportunities. As for the reach thing, the way it's written it clearly doesn't allow that, but it makes sense that it should. I'll errata it.

I'd suggest just writing these as general rules for Bursts, where Ranged Bursts grant Opportunities (as Ranged attacks), and Melee Bursts can originate anywhere in Reach. Non-rolled-attack Bursts would work as they do now. It makes sense that both would work that way by default, and would make it easier to add player Burst abilities in the future, and make it clear what monsters with Burst powers can do. I'd suggest also putting the "only first roll strikes/miss triggers" and "multi-attacks apply effects only once per affected enemy" rules in the general combat rules as well.

quote:

To avoid this confusion, maybe a simpler way of writing it would be best, and I could errata it if I do it now. How does this sound? "On the target's next turn, they must spend a Move Action to move as far away from you as possible with that one action, or else take 3 damage."

I might interpret that as: I can choose to spend my Move Action on a Shift, and move as far as possible with that one action (usually 1 square). I assume that's not the intent. Also, I'd wonder if, for example, a Defender halting my movement prematurely would force me to take the damage. Perhaps instead:

"On target's next turn, unless they spend a Move Action to gain movement of at least their Speed, and do their best to use that movement to travel as far from you as possible, they take 3 damage."

Which is getting kind of wordy, but I think it expresses your intent.

Also, If you're errataing away the level 5 bonus, would you consider instead increasing the damage to 4 at level 5 instead? Otherwise it would lose ground significantly vs Deadly Poison.

Tuxedo Catfish posted:

That ability in particular is kind of squirrely, not a big fan of unenforceable rules with no enforceable / concrete alternative, or of getting non-combat advantages before combat is resolved.

I agree. Keep non-combat benefits out of combat abilities. It's also thematically weird that "Speak with Dead" targets something that isn't dead...

How about a power that interacts with Mark of Death? It's kind of odd that none of them do currently. Something like:

Marked for Death, Attack Action, Melee or Ranged 5, 2 damage
Effect: If target already had a Mark of Death from you prior to this attack, deal 2 damage (3 at level 5).

# ? Sep 22, 2016 21:30

gourdcaptain: Nov 16, 2012

I'm in favor of the at-will number changes, but not for Speak With Dead blurring combat and noncombat abilities. Maybe get a free Assess out of it, but that might be a bit too abstract.

EDIT: Saying The Buddies "pick" another at-will is a bit misleading given that would give them all their at-will choices.

gourdcaptain fucked around with this message at 21:44 on Sep 22, 2016

# ? Sep 22, 2016 21:40

Sir Kodiak: May 14, 2007

eth0.n posted:

I might interpret that as: I can choose to spend my Move Action on a Shift, and move as far as possible with that one action (usually 1 square). I assume that's not the intent. Also, I'd wonder if, for example, a Defender halting my movement prematurely would force me to take the damage. Perhaps instead:

"On target's next turn, unless they spend a Move Action to gain movement of at least their Speed, and do their best to use that movement to travel as far from you as possible, they take 3 damage."

Which is getting kind of wordy, but I think it expresses your intent.

My interpretation would be that if you spend a move action to shift, when you could have moved farther with a different kind of move action, then you haven't moved as far away as possible with that move action. This seems most true to the intent to me. That sort of language is something I'd be comfortable with as a GM and just enforcing it based on reasonable obedience to the character being forced into the goal of fleeing.

gourdcaptain posted:

I'm in favor of the at-will number changes, but not for Speak With Dead blurring combat and noncombat abilities. Maybe get a free Assess out of it, but that might be a bit too abstract.

Agreed. It breaks one of the fundamental things I like about Strike!

# ? Sep 22, 2016 22:26

bbcisdabomb: Jan 15, 2008; SHEESH

Jimbozig posted:

To avoid this confusion, maybe a simpler way of writing it would be best, and I could errata it if I do it now. How does this sound? "On the target's next turn, they must spend a Move Action to move as far away from you as possible with that one action, or else take 3 damage."

eth0.n posted:

"On target's next turn, unless they spend a Move Action to gain movement of at least their Speed, and do their best to use that movement to travel as far from you as possible, they take 3 damage."

Which is getting kind of wordy, but I think it expresses your intent.

Perhaps something like:

"On the target's next turn, they must spend a Move Action to make their best effort to move as far away from you as possible with that one action, or else take 3 damage."

You keep the fear effect, and it adds the option for terrified people to do hazardous things to get away from you - think trying to jump chasms or hop into a moving minecart even if it is not as many squares away from you.

# ? Sep 22, 2016 22:27

homullus: Mar 27, 2009

I am not on the "keep them separate" train since that train doesn't exist. If your combat power is fire, you can already use it to start fires outside of combat. Lather, rinse, repeat with every existing combat power in the book.

# ? Sep 23, 2016 01:56

Ferrinus: Jun 19, 2003; i'm finding this quite easy, i guess in part because i'm a fast type but also because i have a coherent mental model of the world

Yeah, I don't see any problem with the power having an explicit out of combat effect, since it clearly ALSO has a balanced in-combat effect. If anything, I'd like to see more license for stuff like that to get added on, or even for players to do it themselves ("If I hit someone with X in a fight it means I've got a drop of their blood for sympathetic magic later!")

# ? Sep 23, 2016 02:04

gourdcaptain: Nov 16, 2012

Ferrinus posted:

Yeah, I don't see any problem with the power having an explicit out of combat effect, since it clearly ALSO has a balanced in-combat effect. If anything, I'd like to see more license for stuff like that to get added on, or even for players to do it themselves ("If I hit someone with X in a fight it means I've got a drop of their blood for sympathetic magic later!")

The problem is it doesn't quite fit refluffing, among other things. For instance, we had a necromancer in a campaign I was in who was someone bonded to alien tech letting them build up a charge over a fight from their movements. Wouldn't make sense for them to compel answers.

# ? Sep 23, 2016 02:11

fool of sound: Oct 10, 2012

The Speak with Dead combat effect could easily be reflavoured as just draining energy from a defeated foe.

# ? Sep 23, 2016 02:16

gourdcaptain: Nov 16, 2012

fool_of_sound posted:

The Speak with Dead combat effect could easily be reflavoured as just draining energy from a defeated foe.

Yeah, but it still breaks the seperation of in-combat and out-of-combat narrative features in Strike making refluffing more difficult. Same reason I ban the Danger Sense kit advance in Strike from my game for giving combat benefits (free move/role action at beginning of fight, although that's also bad for incentivizing people to spend out of combat benefit slots on an in-combat benefit).

# ? Sep 23, 2016 02:23

Tuxedo Catfish: Mar 17, 2007; You've got guts! Come to my village, I'll buy you lunch.

gourdcaptain posted:

The problem is it doesn't quite fit refluffing, among other things. For instance, we had a necromancer in a campaign I was in who was someone bonded to alien tech letting them build up a charge over a fight from their movements. Wouldn't make sense for them to compel answers.

I hadn't even thought of that. I dislike it because

a) "An honest answer" is completely impossible to adjudicate, and I like that the game can be played in an adversarial mindset where you do everything you can to win and stick to the letter of the rules. An effect like that requires you to police yourself while incentivizing you not to, and creating perverse incentives sucks.

b) The completely separate, modular nature of each sub-system in the game is a big part of its appeal. Tactical combat is a black box where players and enemies go in at the beginning and goals achieved / narrative results come out at the end. Letting the players circumvent this without actually winning cheapens victory and dilutes defeat.

# ? Sep 23, 2016 02:27

Sir Kodiak: May 14, 2007

Oh, my bad. I thought Speak With Dead would be a new power that was similar to the D&D version where you get to ask some questions. If it's about draining energy to fuel combat that fits just fine with the Necromancer.

edit: Based on the above two posts that were written while I was composing I now have no idea what it does.

Sir Kodiak fucked around with this message at 02:30 on Sep 23, 2016

# ? Sep 23, 2016 02:28

Tuxedo Catfish: Mar 17, 2007; You've got guts! Come to my village, I'll buy you lunch.

Speak With Dead posted:

At-Will; Melee or Range 5; 2 Damage
Effect: If the target is Taken Out before the start of your next turn, you gain Advantage on your first attack on your next turn and may ask the target one simple question and they must give an honest answer.

The only other condition that requires you to act (with discretion) against your own interests in combat is the Dominated status effect, which comes with an alternative "less fuzzy" version. (And personally I'd never use the default version.)

Tuxedo Catfish fucked around with this message at 02:40 on Sep 23, 2016

# ? Sep 23, 2016 02:38

Sir Kodiak: May 14, 2007

In fairness, "gently caress you for killing me"
is an honest answer so long as the character believes it

But, yeah, breaking the silos like that sucks.

# ? Sep 23, 2016 02:45

Lurks With Wolves: Jan 14, 2013; At least I don't dance with them, right?

Personally, my main worry is that this version of Speak With Dead will slow things down in combat. I know stuff like discussing tactics and general RP will slow things down anyway, but the actual mechanics of tactical combat always seemed snappy. You roll some dice, you do Specific Effect X, you move on. With Speak With Dead, the GM now needs to figure out how to answer a question from the perspective of this specific now-dead character, and that feels like a really good way to make the GM lock up because they need to figure out what to say.

(Also, Speak With Dead doesn't feel like an attack name or does much of anything to help you figure out what you're actually doing as your attack, which is important when you're trying to figure out how to refluff your powers for how you're theming your character, but that may just be me.)

# ? Sep 23, 2016 03:00

Kai Tave: Jul 2, 2012; Fallen Rib

How about something like "If the target is Taken Out before the start of your next turn, you gain Advantage on your first attack on your next turn and may immediately Assess without spending your role action."

# ? Sep 23, 2016 03:06

eth0.n: Jun 1, 2012

bbcisdabomb posted:

"On the target's next turn, they must spend a Move Action to make their best effort to move as far away from you as possible with that one action, or else take 3 damage."

Yeah, that's good. Makes it clear there's a "good faith" element to it, but still fairly objective to adjudicate.

homullus posted:

I am not on the "keep them separate" train since that train doesn't exist. If your combat power is fire, you can already use it to start fires outside of combat. Lather, rinse, repeat with every existing combat power in the book.

There's a big difference between appealing to the fluff of your combat abilities to justify an out-of-combat improvisation, especially one as mundane as that, and a concrete, explicit mechanic baked into the power's text, especially one as fantastic as this. A more salient comparison would be the Flyer and Superhuman feats, but those could still be mitigated quite a bit (rule they only work for the short time a combat takes, then require recuperation time), and they're still less campaign-changing than a mind-reading power.

One issue I have with it is, can it be used outside of tactical combat initiative? If not, why not? Or if it can be, isn't it basically a rather powerful Trick with no AP cost? It's something you can do with virtually no chance of failure (if the creature is at your mercy), that gives a highly significant non-combat benefit.

Kai Tave posted:

How about something like "If the target is Taken Out before the start of your next turn, you gain Advantage on your first attack on your next turn and may immediately Assess without spending your role action."

This sounds fine. Not a huge fan of mechanics dependent on the timing of kills like this. Feels like a really awkward way to express this thematic concept, but it's better than the original.

# ? Sep 23, 2016 03:13

Sir Kodiak: May 14, 2007

eth0.n posted:

One issue I have with it is, can it be used outside of tactical combat initiative? If not, why not? Or if it can be, isn't it basically a rather powerful Trick with no AP cost? It's something you can do with virtually no chance of failure (if the creature is at your mercy), that gives a highly significant non-combat benefit.

Yeah, the ability to resolve a mystery plot as a side effect to an at-will combat power seems a bit much. It's fine to have something like that as a trick, because it's straight-forward to discuss with the player whether a stand-alone element like that belongs in the game, setting, etc. as you both understand it. It's a much bigger deal to have to consider dropping a combat class because it doesn't just allow for a powerful out--of-combat ability that can completely derail a story, it mandates that everyone who takes the class has the ability.

I'm honestly surprised that it's even being considered for a game that's as otherwise as thoughtfully designed as Strike! is.

# ? Sep 23, 2016 03:50

homullus: Mar 27, 2009

I really find this opposition mystifying, since it looks like it's based on nothing to me. Narrative and the tactical combat are intertwined -- you can't use powers for which the narrative doesn't make sense. Your "sweep the leg" power doesn't work on the flying harpy. The Assess action allows people to ask "who's really in charge here?" and ask about anything strange or unique, separately called out from the mechanics-oriented power/ability summaries. Kits give feats and abilities. You are projecting silos onto the game that are not in the game.

# ? Sep 23, 2016 03:54

eth0.n: Jun 1, 2012

homullus posted:

I really find this opposition mystifying, since it looks like it's based on nothing to me. Narrative and the tactical combat are intertwined -- you can't use powers for which the narrative doesn't make sense. Your "sweep the leg" power doesn't work on the flying harpy. The Assess action allows people to ask "who's really in charge here?" and ask about anything strange or unique, separately called out from the mechanics-oriented power/ability summaries. Kits give feats and abilities. You are projecting silos onto the game that are not in the game.

Narrative and tactical combat are intertwined mechanically primarily through the Goals and Concessions system. Part of the problem here is bypassing that system.

My assumption is the answers to Assess are meant to be about the immediate tactical combat; information relevant to the fight, intended to reveal mechanically relevant facts that players don't know by default (such as enemy powers and traits). If not, well, I think that's a mistake too. Broad plot-oriented investigations should be happening through the Skill/Trick/Kit systems, not a Role Action in combat. This isn't Dungeon World; even if some of the Assess options are the same words as it uses, the context here is very different.

For "sweep the leg", the example of that given in the rules even say you can just reskin on the spot to work around fictional issues and make your combat mechanics work as written. It's not really a significant issue, mechanically, unless the player chooses it to be, or is lacking in imagination. And again, "that power as you normally describe it doesn't make sense in this situation" is a whole lot different than a powerful non-combat mechanic explicitly written into an at-will combat power.

The silos are very much there, and they're my number one favorite feature of this game. First off, siloing is about written mechanics and character build options; using one silo to justify GM-fiat improvisation in another silo isn't breaking silos. Beyond that, yes, the mechanical separation isn't absolutely perfect; some concepts just inherently imply combat and non-combat features. But the mixing should be minimal and only as necessary. There's nothing "necessary" about Speak with Dead. There are loads of powers that could be written with non-combat abilities integrated with them, but aren't.

# ? Sep 23, 2016 04:26

Sir Kodiak: May 14, 2007

homullus posted:

I really find this opposition mystifying, since it looks like it's based on nothing to me. Narrative and the tactical combat are intertwined -- you can't use powers for which the narrative doesn't make sense. Your "sweep the leg" power doesn't work on the flying harpy. The Assess action allows people to ask "who's really in charge here?" and ask about anything strange or unique, separately called out from the mechanics-oriented power/ability summaries. Kits give feats and abilities. You are projecting silos onto the game that are not in the game.

It's implicit in multiple places, as while the rules don't use the word "silo," they do describe tactical combat as being a separate "side" of your character. If it lets you achieve powerful out-of-combat effects, it's not a side, it's just another set of options. The combat section says that the goals of a tactical combat "should be simple and obviously achievable by defeating your enemies." Magically compelling someone to honestly reveal information is, of course, neither of these. Similarly, your class is described as defining "the main way you interact in combat and most of your powers." Nothing about it being another broad set of powers that may be useful in and out of combat. And it's sprinkled as an implication throughout other portions of the text. For instance, the Spellbreaker kit implies the existence of a separation when it says that "All the benefits in this Mini-kit are valid only outside of Tactical Combat. See the suggested Feats below if you want to carry these benefits into Tactical Combat."

It is, of course, not an absolute division, because all parts of the game are part of a unified story. But nothing in the game that I can see bridges the separation as much as this power would. If there's something that you think does, I'd honestly be curious to hear what it is.

edit: This got posted between my review of my post and actually posting:

eth0.n posted:

But the mixing should be minimal and only as necessary. There's nothing "necessary" about Speak with Dead. There are loads of powers that could be written with non-combat abilities integrated with them, but aren't.

Exactly. Theming your combat powers as being fire related makes combat more colorful and evocative, and that's worth getting the relatively minor ability to magically light fires out of combat if it improves narrative cohesion. Speak With Dead is just a powerful spell leveraged into a side-effect of a combat power. It's baffling.

Sir Kodiak fucked around with this message at 04:32 on Sep 23, 2016

# ? Sep 23, 2016 04:26

Ferrinus: Jun 19, 2003; i'm finding this quite easy, i guess in part because i'm a fast type but also because i have a coherent mental model of the world

"You get Advantage and a free Assess action as if taken by the victim" would probably be a more clearly combat-limited way to do it, certainly.

# ? Sep 23, 2016 04:33

Serf: May 5, 2011

Last night I finished off a seven month Strike campaign. Had a ton of fun running it. I cooked up a few systems to handle stuff like mass combat and streamlined fights that I'm thinking about refining and posting for people to use. I really love this system, as it captures my favorite part of tabletop gaming, tactical combat, in such a way that it is quick and easy to run but also has plenty of depth. And the out of combat sections have good systems that work together really well but are actually lightweight enough that they never feel like a burden. Strike rules.

Looking forward to starting up another game soon.

# ? Sep 23, 2016 11:04

fool of sound: Oct 10, 2012

Ferrinus posted:

"You get Advantage and a free Assess action as if taken by the victim" would probably be a more clearly combat-limited way to do it, certainly.

Or, 'You get advantage and may ask one question from the Assess pool." which I think is clearer

# ? Sep 23, 2016 14:17

Jimbozig: Sep 30, 2003; I like sharing and ice cream and animals.

Well, I'm finding this debate very interesting. There are a couple of other links between combat powers and non-combat in the game, though they are admittedly weaker than my proposed Speak With Dead. Seems like this one might be a bridge too far for some people.

fool_of_sound posted:

Or, 'You get advantage and may ask one question from the Assess pool." which I think is clearer

I like this a lot better than giving a full Assess, since a full Assess actually takes a while to resolve. This might be what I end up going with.

This whole thing gives me an idea for writing up a little section on making links like these between combat and non-combat for every class. So the Necromancer's power would strictly reference combat, but the "Links" section (in the expansion books, or as a mini-expansion) would allow them to use it to get one honest answer, while the Warlord would get some other useful ability, etc.

# ? Sep 23, 2016 14:35

Scyther: Dec 29, 2010

If any of my players want to do things that match their combat abilities out of combat, they need to pick an appropriate skill during character creation, or be prepared to make unskilled rolls for something they're ostensibly supposed to be good at.

Classes and Roles apply to combat situations only. It's cleaner that way. :colbert:

# ? Sep 23, 2016 15:05

A Strange Aeon: Mar 26, 2010; You are now a slimy little toad; The Great Twist

Scyther posted:

If any of my players want to do things that match their combat abilities out of combat, they need to pick an appropriate skill during character creation, or be prepared to make unskilled rolls for something they're ostensibly supposed to be good at.

Classes and Roles apply to combat situations only. It's cleaner that way.

That would cause a lot of narrative dissonance for me personally.

If you can throw fireballs in combat, why can't you use a fireball to bust down a door outside of combat? Or are you saying you can as long as you picked a fireball skill or rolled untrained?

What would rolling untrained represent there? Or what's to stop anybody from rolling the fireball skill untrained beyond demanding nonsense? To me, it would be nonsense for a wizard to roll untrained.

I haven't actually played yet, so it's possible I'm missing something fundamental here.

# ? Sep 23, 2016 16:21

Generic Octopus: Mar 27, 2010

A Strange Aeon posted:

To me, it would be nonsense for a wizard to roll untrained.

Not every wizard is a master of evocation.

# ? Sep 23, 2016 16:39

Serf: May 5, 2011

A Strange Aeon posted:

That would cause a lot of narrative dissonance for me personally.

If you can throw fireballs in combat, why can't you use a fireball to bust down a door outside of combat? Or are you saying you can as long as you picked a fireball skill or rolled untrained?

What would rolling untrained represent there? Or what's to stop anybody from rolling the fireball skill untrained beyond demanding nonsense? To me, it would be nonsense for a wizard to roll untrained.

I haven't actually played yet, so it's possible I'm missing something fundamental here.

It seems like a trivial matter to have the player select "Magic" or "Sorcery" as their big, "you do this every session at least" skill.

# ? Sep 23, 2016 16:47

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 24, 2024 11:38

Lurks With Wolves: Jan 14, 2013; At least I don't dance with them, right?

A Strange Aeon posted:

That would cause a lot of narrative dissonance for me personally.

If you can throw fireballs in combat, why can't you use a fireball to bust down a door outside of combat? Or are you saying you can as long as you picked a fireball skill or rolled untrained?

What would rolling untrained represent there? Or what's to stop anybody from rolling the fireball skill untrained beyond demanding nonsense? To me, it would be nonsense for a wizard to roll untrained.

I haven't actually played yet, so it's possible I'm missing something fundamental here.

Counterpoint: If fireballs are that big a part of your combat sheet, why wouldn't you also have some kind of flame conjuration skill on your main sheet? I know there can be a bit of a gap between the regular sheet and the detailed combat sheet since they have different mechanics with different scopes and all that, but they're still fundamentally representing the same character with roughly the same capabilities.

Things being untrained could represent: You're relatively inexperienced with fireballs, but you're good enough to get things done in a fight. Your fireballs cause a lot of collateral damage and you're not good at reining it in yet. You keep tripping over your words when the imminent threat of being stabbed isn't hanging over your head. Any number of other reasons.

Also, the thing stopping anyone from rolling the fireball skill untrained is fictional justification. If you're in a setting where it takes years of training to learn basic magic, then your fighter can't just say they're casting magic any more than they can say they just have laser eyes. Strike's skill system being incredibly open doesn't mean it doesn't need to still make sense.

# ? Sep 23, 2016 17:02

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Traditional Games > Strike! The game of Tactical Combat and Heedless Adventure

«‹›55 »