|
Moriatti posted:There's a second link a page back and I mirrored it recently. With Jim's permission I'll link it here. Sure, go for it.
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2018 15:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 22:20 |
|
|
I just used the Chase rules for the first time, it worked out a lot better than it looked on paper. Really added texture to the scene.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2018 05:45
|
|
|
Hey, I wanted to take a look at that "two players play 1 dude" class, is there a place I can see it? Edit: Never mind, found it. Gharbad the Weak fucked around with this message at 04:16 on Mar 11, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2018 04:11
|
|
|
The gambler at-will that's "Do two damage, ignore the next source of damage" (shield trap) seems to suck the tension out of fights for the gambler. We had a fight where three standard enemies (two defenders and a grappler) went against three players, and the gambler just chose the same at-will over and over and was able to fight his guy with no chance of being hurt at all. Was that the intention with that power?
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2018 12:28
|
|
|
Tbf once I've got more damaging powers I don't intend to use it exclusively but I'm surprised ised it's not a reduce damage power
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2018 12:53
|
|
|
Gort posted:The gambler at-will that's "Do two damage, ignore the next source of damage" (shield trap) seems to suck the tension out of fights for the gambler. We had a fight where three standard enemies (two defenders and a grappler) went against three players, and the gambler just chose the same at-will over and over and was able to fight his guy with no chance of being hurt at all. The tension would come from not knowing whether the next source of damage was "the big one." If the GM is only ever giving the gambler one opponent, there's no gamble, no odds.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2018 14:07
|
|
|
homullus posted:The tension would come from not knowing whether the next source of damage was "the big one." If the GM is only ever giving the gambler one opponent, there's no gamble, no odds. Or just don't attack him. Attack someone else and his "ignore damage" is wasted. Unless he's a defender, you can just ignore him when he turtles and do your damage to others. On a defender who can punish you for that, it may be too strong. I'll think about it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2018 00:32
|
|
|
It looks like one of my friends is interested in playing a Bombardier Defender. Am I correct in assuming that the healing from Defense Boost would only proc once per attack? Or is it intended for them to be able to regain more than 1 hit point for hitting multiple targets?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2018 16:49
|
|
|
Their attacks only have 1 attack roll so it would only happen once.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2018 16:57
|
|
|
Oh wow, somehow I'd never parsed that - so since the zone is the effect, that means that it wouldnt even happen on a 1-2. Somewhere between the ammo type/shaped blasts I misconceived that your attacks counted as a Burst, like with the Blaster. Not so! This helps me understand the difference between the class and the role much better. Thanks, Jimbo. Thimbo Ignite Memories fucked around with this message at 17:29 on Apr 7, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2018 17:25
|
|
|
Oh - I could use one more clarification, while it's on my mind... Blasters can shift their melee burst attacks by 1 square for every square of reach they have. Since the default reach is 1, that means you can shift the burst one square without having any reach-granting modifiers - Is this correct?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2018 18:10
|
|
|
So I've been trying to make up a couple monsters for a level 1 adventure for 5 players, is this about right? I presume the reason for the rule about "use 1 monster/player up to 4, then modify them" is because 5 monsters dealing 2 damage each could focus down a PC in a single round. But does the adding 1 point to encounter powers stack with everything else? code:
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2018 18:51
|
|
|
Ignite Memories posted:Oh - I could use one more clarification, while it's on my mind... Correct! hyphz posted:So I've been trying to make up a couple monsters for a level 1 adventure for 5 players, is this about right? These enemies look fine. The champion's encounter power is very scary if it rolls a Crit or two - it could put a player down to 2HP with ongoing 2 damage in one shot. But it's okay because it is supposed to be the scariest one. If they lose a fight, the game can handle that no problem - the thing you want to surely avoid is having one player go down in round 1 and have to sit out the entirety of a long fight. So make sure your players know that keeping stocked up on action points will save their bacon in a pinch when they need to rally.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2018 19:51
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:The main reason for increasing enemy damage instead of number of enemies once you get past 4 players is speed. Every extra player you add makes combats take longer, and every extra point of enemy HP you put into the fight makes combats take longer. So we cap the amount of monster HP in the fight to try to cap how long the fight could drag out. I'll admit I tend to ignore this rule in my own games as it made stuff feel too swingy with monster crits, especially at high levels, to both my players and I? The fights taking a bit longer was decided to be the lesser of two evils compared to crits knocking people out at relatively high HP. That, and I could never remember the GM action points or find a way to use them that didn't feel like just ganging up on one poor person.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2018 20:12
|
|
|
Hi, sorry to keep bugging you for rules questions - I'm making a bunch of monsters, and I want to make sure I'm valuing the attack effects correctly. '1 Ongoing Damage' is a tier one effect. Changing an effect from one round to (save ends) increases its tier by one. That means '1 Ongoing Damage (save ends)' is tier 2, right? Or does '1 Ongoing Damage' already imply (save ends) because that's part of what ongoing damage is? Does the tier 1 Ongoing damage effect only last until the end of the target's next turn?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2018 05:12
|
|
|
Ignite Memories posted:Hi, sorry to keep bugging you for rules questions - I'm making a bunch of monsters, and I want to make sure I'm valuing the attack effects correctly. The save ends is assumed. It's still tier 1.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2018 05:53
|
|
|
I'm prepping a big batch of monsters for the campaign I'm starting in a week or two, I'd love it if anyone would like to take a look and give me some feedback. I'm making these to match some miniatures I've painted up, so I tried to design them to be scalable to level - I'd like to get as much use out of each mini as I can. Ignite Memories fucked around with this message at 21:42 on Apr 11, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2018 21:32
|
|
|
Ignite Memories posted:I'm prepping a big batch of monsters for the campaign I'm starting in a week or two, I'd love it if anyone would like to take a look and give me some feedback. My goodness, those are fun. Should Goblin be immune to its own Weighted Net, and Phoenix to its own Fireball? I ask because you called it out on Scovillain. For Mimic, I don't love creating "a few squares of difficult terrain." How about "2 damage and 2 squares of difficult terrain, with the option to reduce damage and increase squares of difficult terrain 1:1"
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2018 03:13
|
|
|
Phoenixes probably shouldn't be able to fireball themselves to death, but a goblin should absolutely be able to trap himself under his own net.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2018 10:14
|
|
|
Good catch! Scovillain is the only one that's an unmodified template from the book, because all the powers already matched up to my fire imp miniature pretty well. I'll copy that verbage into the phoenix's fireball. I absolutely do like goblin not being exempt from his own net though. What do people think of Solar Flare? I liked the idea of having some big telegraphed attacks mixed in to the elites and champions, but I don't want to go overboard. The phoenix would probably be the centerpiece of any combat that included it (and i have a fun adventure idea for a Phoenix Pot Pie order that would become a huge hassle as it emerges fully formed several times during the cooking process) Ignite Memories fucked around with this message at 15:17 on Apr 13, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2018 15:12
|
|
|
Ignite Memories posted:What do people think of Solar Flare? I liked the idea of having some big telegraphed attacks mixed in to the elites and champions, but I don't want to go overboard. The phoenix would probably be the centerpiece of any combat that included it (and i have a fun adventure idea for a Phoenix Pot Pie order that would become a huge hassle as it emerges fully formed several times during the cooking process) I think it's neat as long as there's fun cover.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2018 18:26
|
|
|
I realize that the vast majority of this thread's recent posts have been by me, but my new strike game started a couple days ago and I can effort-writeup a summary of the setting/first session if people are interested in such a thing. It is a homebrew setting loosely based on the show Chowder with a smack of post-fantasypocalypse snes charm e: right then 
Ignite Memories fucked around with this message at 01:11 on Apr 26, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2018 17:30
|
|
|
Chin up, good buddy.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2018 14:51
|
|
|
Ignite Memories posted:I realize that the vast majority of this thread's recent posts have been by me, but my new strike game started a couple days ago and I can effort-writeup a summary of the setting/first session if people are interested in such a thing. I'm interested in more Strike stories, since I'm currently playing DND4 with the group I played Strike with.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2018 16:53
|
|
|
I've posted a writeup of the first session over in the cat-piss thread for interested parties. Game description starts here.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2018 15:37
|
|
|
I'm thinking of running a game of Strike! based on the web serial A Practical Guide to Evil and have been musing over some things. Basically the world in Prac Guide is a divine pissing match between the Gods Above and Gods Below. In the world there are Named who are essentially characters with a title that have super powers related to it ex: Black Knight, Ranger, Lone Swordsman, Adjucant... The Named are heavily influenced by the narrative of situations and the tropes you'd see relating to their Name or in similar stories. There are two sides, Good (backed by the Gods Above) with common themes of over the top heroics, speeches, divine light magic, and a tendency to come out on top in the face of insurmountable odds, and Evil (repping the Gods Below) making pacts with devils, legions of terror, armies of sentient tigers, pits full of man-eating tapirs, stealing the weather... The story can be gritty or over the top depending on the situation and Named involved, but playing heavily with the tropes. The main issue I'm running into is the Named over time develop 3 Aspects, similar to tricks, that can each be used once before being expended for the dramatic scene. They're each a single word always bolded, like Take, Rise, Analyse or Slice. And I can't figure out a way to use them without running into issues with the structure of Strike!. If I use tactical combat, what happens when someone uses Crush on either another named or a platoon of mooks? Or outside of combat how to I manage Aspects compared to tricks (that I might do by having tricks be incredibly narrow comparatively, but there's only so many ways an Aspect can spin a certain word)
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2018 03:22
|
|
|
In combat: Used once and expended is just an encounter power. Have players reskin their encounter powers to match a word. Generally, at Level 3, you have 3 encounter powers (2 from class, 1 from role). Out of combat: I'm not clear on whether you want to adapt tricks for this, or to have Aspects be a system you use parallel to Tricks. If you want to use Tricks, I'll be posting something soon that shows my current take on tricks, which is a little bit different than base Strike! rules. An example of one that goes beyond what Tricks did in the base game is: "Tough It Out: Spend an Action Point to ignore one Injured Condition for the duration of one subsystem or one scene if not using a subsystem." Another: "Bluffcatching: spend an Action Point to ask the player of any character (PC or NPC) if their character is bluffing. The player must answer honestly: if they say they aren't bluffing and you call them on it, they must follow through." If you want to have it be a separate system, what is it that makes it different from Tricks? Are they broader than Tricks? What do you think the effect of Aspect use would be, compared to regular Skill use by Named? Do they ever fail or get countered?
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2018 03:59
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:Out of combat: An issue I see with the tricks system is Aspects can each be used exactly once in an appropriate narrative length (because the world is heavily driven by narrative tropes). So later on if you have 3 Aspects you could fire all three off in a row (instead of needing three action points) or if you had already used 3 no matter how many AP you had you couldn't use them on that. But my main concern was what if one person's title is for example the Great Beast with Rampage, Destroy, Terrorize. And the other say the Scion with Influence, Bargain, Analyse. One leans heavily into the combat Aspects and the other into a more social/mental field. Would that work itself out?
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2018 04:14
|
|
|
I think I may just be over thinking this actually. Just have Aspect tricks be more versatile and not take an action point, instead having a narrative cooldown of a scene, with your combat tricks being refluffed encounter powers with out of combat applications.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2018 04:23
|
|
|
Yeah, that seems like it could work fine. I'm curious about pacing. If I have these 3 things that I can use once per scene and they always succeed, it seems like I won't need to bother with my Skills very often. In the source material, is aspect use always successful or can it be countered? Have you considered making Aspects into Skills that use the "Heroic" table on p 71? Or some variation of that?
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2018 04:54
|
|
|
I’m not familiar with the Source material, so I don’t know how appropriate this would be; but another option is to make them be things that could be done once a session. They’re less generally useful but potentially more powerful or dramatic when they are used.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2018 05:18
|
|
|
Thanks for the help guys, I got my ideas in order.
Jade Mage fucked around with this message at 13:24 on Jun 15, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2018 07:03
|
|
|
I am looking to make an interesting encounter around a solo boss for my players. Basically it is supposed to be a prescient/clairvoyant lich spellcaster and I was wondering if anyone had any cool ideas for how he might play; both in terms of tactics and powers without being too frustrating. Also my group has two scholars and they do a lot of knowledge type checks. Most of the time I just give them the answers if it is related to their skills, but sometimes it is more obscure lore. So I am wondering how do you resolve skill checks for whether a character knows something or not? I know one suggestion is giving flawed information on a twist, but what other things might you do? And more importantly what costs go well with those kinds of checks?
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2018 14:38
|
|
|
ObMeiste posted:I am looking to make an interesting encounter around a solo boss for my players. Knowledge checks don't really work in my opinion, unless it represents something like active research where a twist could be getting wrong or misleading information. If it's straight up does a character know this decide whether the characters have that information based on their background and either give it to them or don't. I wouldn't make them roll for it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2018 15:43
|
|
|
garthoneeye posted:Knowledge checks don't really work in my opinion, unless it represents something like active research where a twist could be getting wrong or misleading information. Maybe the item they seek is guarded by magical beasts, or to get where they're going they need to go through the haunted caves, or to get the schematic of the building they're going to need some outside hacking help. I hate giving out wrong info on knowledge checks in general though. The players know they failed, so they know the info they got is suspect. It always leads to metagaming and a puts a wedge between the player and their character. The skill system in Strike! is descended largely from *World games, and nowhere in the GM moves lists in either game does it ever say "Lie to the players". Reveal unwelcome truths erry day.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2018 16:27
|
|
|
For knowledge checks you can also give out incomplete information or use the Twist in their exploitation of the knowledge. So, they know that you can kill a lich by destroying its phylactery, but not that if you do so without specific precautions its soul will bind to you as a curse. Or a Twist can be further steps that have to be taken to actually get an answer. You know that tattoo means something, it's not just a personal mark, but you'll need to check your library (inconvenient, but not impossible to get to) to be sure. The potion smells familiar, but you'll need your alchemical lab to identify, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2018 16:39
|
|
|
Honestly I think “you just don’t know (this thing that would be useful to know at the moment)” is a fine twist.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2018 16:52
|
|
|
Yeah, sometimes that's the answer. But nice having other options if you want the players to have the information to move things forward.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2018 17:01
|
|
|
ObMeiste posted:I am looking to make an interesting encounter around a solo boss for my players. I think what I'd do is design a sort of "puzzle boss," where he can only be hurt if you can temporarily block his prescience. Maybe have some item the player characters can get access to, or some artifact in the battle arena, that they have to do something to activate to temporarily make him vulnerable. After he takes a certain amount of damage, it wears off and they have to do it again, but it's a little more complex maybe. Sort of like a Zelda boss. I did something like that with a monster made out of shadow who was immaterial unless in direct sunlight. The players had a scrying mirror that was able to scry on the sun itself, but could only be used for a short period of time before breaking because of the heat, so they used it to blast the monster with sunlight to make it temporarily vulnerable a couple of times. Something like that, some sort of key to blocking his ability to see the PCs' attacks coming, could work. ImpactVector posted:Knowledge checks work great IMO. On a twist you just tell them something they didn't want to hear. I know some tabletop players/GMs are uncomfortable with the idea that the fictional reality can change based on something unrelated--like, "Wait, I failed my knowledge check and that somehow makes <bad thing> true?" But personally, I love that method--I'd rather think of rolls as more than just player character actions, but also determine circumstances, luck, and just general narrative flow.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2018 18:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 22:20 |
|
|
Thinking about it more, my actual problem with knowledge checks is how they're presented in most games I've seen that used them. I usually see knowledge used as an active check initiated by the player used to show passive information the character has. I have a lot less issues when the check is automatic whenever a player encounters something for which the relevant knowledge skill would apply.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2018 18:56
|
|