|
I just ordered the hardcover + PDF based on how impressed I was by the ruleset I saw in the OP. Gonna try to run this with a few friends next time I have the chance. That said, I'm interested in the support for DM vs. players adversarial play. I love the idea of asymmetric semi-competitive gameplay like that, and it plays to my strengths as I'm a passable storyteller at best but pretty good at tactics and encounter design. Can you talk a bit about how the game enables that stuff?
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2016 23:35
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 11:59 |
|
|
Kai Tave posted:As someone who enjoys both Torbjorn and Winston I'm not sure how I should feel about that gif. Someone's either doing something really right or really wrong. It's mostly the latter, that Torbjorn is unbelievably incompetent and Winston has help -- he gets Zarya shielded about halfway through, and I think maybe some healing in there as well.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2016 01:21
|
|
|
e: wrong thread
Tuxedo Catfish fucked around with this message at 23:35 on Aug 1, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2016 23:03
|
|
|
I realize this is probably impossible to answer, but do you anticipate updating the physical books again? If so, is there any ETA for a "final" version?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2016 20:21
|
|
|
The Magician power "Radiant Motes of the Overworld" says the target is blinded until the end of its next turn. This seems really clunky -- it could be really powerful if the creature came right before you in the initiative order, or it could be completely useless and do nothing if the creature comes right after you. Is this intentional, or should it be "until the end of your next turn? e: It also does nothing in a 1-player, 1-GM game, although I realize the rules may simply not be set up to support such a game. Also, does Strike! have a "hold action" equivalent? I don't see anything about it on page 88 with the basic initiative rules, but I might have missed something. e2: it looks like this is part of a larger effort to have status upkeep checks occur exclusively on the target's turn, which I guess makes sense, but I can't help but feel tracking on the caster/source's turn would cause fewer weird initiative hiccups, especially if the game doesn't have hold actions Tuxedo Catfish fucked around with this message at 20:05 on Sep 18, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2016 19:53
|
|
|
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 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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Speak With Dead posted:At-Will; Melee or Range 5; 2 Damage 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
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:Full Auto Mayhem isn't really more flavorful than Assault Rifle, just more specific (and goofier - frankly, I'd rather see Assault Rifle on my friend's character sheet). Although, on the subject, it's probably a weakness of the game that once you have Guns there's no reason to get Rifles. I think I saw some kind of "more specific skill wins ties" rule in Chuubo's or something but I don't think it works for Strike since it's not like skill vs. skill rolloffs are common. It does have that rule, though -- see "specialists vs. generalists" on page 10.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2016 05:20
|
|
|
I can think of ways for the player to specialize even when they already have the generalist skill, especially if the DM's aware of the dilemma that exists otherwise and plays along. Like quick-drawing your pistol vs. long range sharpshooting with a rifle to further differentiate a generic "Guns" skill. You can even fluff it as pushing yourself out of your comfort zone / focusing on one narrow aspect of your expertise in order to improve, which is basically how learning works in real life anyways. (e: that is to say, if you want the chance to learn a new skill, you're gonna be rolling unskilled to do it -- it's a neat little trade-off for a very small but non-zero benefit) Tuxedo Catfish fucked around with this message at 05:51 on Sep 24, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2016 05:47
|
|
|
How does diagonal movement work in Strike! or is it GM discretion? I was going to assume 4E style "first diagonal costs 1, second 2, third 1, etc." but some of this stuff seems like it might make more sense if it always only costs 1.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2016 19:37
|
|
|
I finally got to run this today! I screwed up all kinds of stuff in the name of expediency, but I was able to find answers to most of it afterwards so I'll get it right next time. However, there was one thing I wasn't sure about -- the text mentions on page 93 that allies provide Intervening Cover against enemy attacks, and that you typically cannot take cover against other creatures. Does it follow then that other enemies don't provide Intervening Cover against enemy attacks?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2016 03:09
|
|
|
5) Do #1 except instead of doing it while the other players watch resolve it between sessions. 6) Do #1 except duel to first blood. I don't really have a horse in this race I'm just spitballing how I might resolve the situation.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2016 18:35
|
|
|
this kind of got lost in the skill-combat shuffle:Tuxedo Catfish posted:However, there was one thing I wasn't sure about -- the text mentions on page 93 that allies provide Intervening Cover against enemy attacks, and that you typically cannot take cover against other creatures. Does it follow then that other enemies don't provide Intervening Cover against enemy attacks? Can anyone help me out?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2016 02:28
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:You have it right. You make it harder for enemies to hit your friends, but don't make it harder for your friends to hit your enemies. Thank you!
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2016 03:30
|
|
|
My Lovely Horse posted:Anyway, my first question: my group is used to 4E, has anyone made a list of stuff that tends to trip up 4E players that I could give them? Things like "you can split your movement" or "opportunities are automatic damage" and such. gently caress I didn't think I'd played enough 4E to be in too deep with the assumptions but apparently I was mistaken.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2016 18:25
|
|
|
ImpactVector posted:Stupid questions return! Related question: Can you deal "extra damage" if for whatever reason you don't deal the original damage? (i.e. on a roll of 3)
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2016 15:57
|
|
|
Ran my second session of Strike! today. My players are a Martial Artist Striker, a Warlord Controller, an Archer Blaster, and a Necromancer Defender. The Martial Artist is the best roleplayer of the group, he's always looking for something that'll move the game forward or entertain the rest of the party, and he's a dependable source of damage in tactical combat. The Necromancer is a good team player (she joined a little after the others and was pretty set on Necromancer but made her role choice based on what the party needed / was missing after the first session). The Warlord's a lot like me, incredibly focused on the mechanical side of the game and combat especially. This is actually really helpful because it means I can ramp up the difficulty of encounters and she'll dependably break them apart. That said, Controllers seem incredibly powerful even allowing for her being the best tactician -- my last encounter was built around an Elite Horror (from the sample monsters), but Sap Strength made it hit like a pillow and it only lasted for about one turn after it was bloodied and got the double turn on initiative. I realized later that she wasn't even using Control Boost (which itself seems nuts -- forced movement every time you hit?!), and she still was the dominant force in the encounter. (There also a bunch of Sniper stooges to take advantage of the Horror's forced movement and an undead standard enemy who the Necromancer promptly dominated turn 1.) On the other hand, the Archer Blaster is a complete rookie and I'm kind of kicking myself for not realizing how new he was before he picked a Blaster. He makes a lot of pretty poor choices in terms of order-of-operations stuff both with respect to his own actions and in terms of cooperating with other party members (hard to use beams when everyone gets stuck in with the enemy right away, although I'm going to see if I can set things up to give him more of a chance to shine in future encounters), and I haven't spent as much time as I should have making sure I understood all the players' abilities, which led to me being confused for a moment about exactly what Blitzer allows you to do. So my main concerns at the moment are: are Controllers disproportionately strong as a role, or is it just my star player doing her thing / bad encounter design on my part? And what can I do (besides putting a crowd of weak minions off on one side of the map) to help the Blaster get on their feet?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2016 05:33
|
|
|
why would you use Strike! for a game with no tactical combat e: I missed the bit at the very end, is it just for familiarization purposes?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2016 18:55
|
|
|
Kits are cool but they're the one thing in the game I would never, ever use without writing my own or at least curating the hell out of them.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2016 00:49
|
|
|
If an ability triggers on certain rolls (like 3-6 for Control Boost, or 2-5 / 6 for Damage Boost) do they still trigger when you roll below the minimum but boost it up with a miss token? Or does it only count on a natural roll?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2016 22:49
|
|
|
Few more questions: Does the Grappler sample monster's "Abductor" ability override the normal grappling rules for dragging someone along with you? (i.e. for the monster it happens automatically instead of requiring opposing rolls?) If a monster is affected by Terrifying Visage, chooses to move away at full speed, and a Controller uses "Freeze!" on it, does it take the proximity damage, or is it considered to have moved as far as it can?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2016 00:02
|
|
|
alternatively have them play a duelist and make "let's take this outside" into straight-up Tron mode
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2016 06:26
|
|
|
So I'm preparing for a session very last-minute and I just realized I have no idea how to model cavalry in Strike! I'm just going to make something up for now, but out of curiosity, is this something covered by the vehicles expansion? If not, or for those without it, has anyone come up with a good homebrew solution?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2016 19:45
|
|
|
If you were going to boil down Strike! to just tactical combat (or use Strike!'s tactical combat in conjunction with some other non-combat task resolution system) how would you budget action point for combat abilities? How many are players expected to use in a particular combat? Are they meant to be a significant limitation, or is it just an incentive to use your Complications often?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2017 19:34
|
|
|
Ignite Memories posted:Do any of y'all run PbP strike, or other forms of online play? I read through the free version of the rules and it really sounds like something I'd enjoy. I think this might be a better system for running shadowrun than the shadowrun system. I ran it on Roll20, it worked pretty well except for a few problems that weren't the system's fault. (Two of our players didn't have mics, and the constant switching between communicating in text and speaking was really disruptive. If I run another online game I'm making mics mandatory.)
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2017 20:26
|
|
|
Moriatti posted:please no tell me your Duelist / Controller stories, i want to know what prompted this reaction
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2017 06:00
|
|
|
"narrative first" just sounds like a storygamer version of "natural language"
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2017 00:01
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:How so? In the sense that they're both offered as ways to consistently resolve ambiguities, but don't actually provide consistency at all. The flip side of course is that a) technical writing is hard, especially if you don't want it to be MTG Comprehensive Rules-sized, and b) at some point you're probably going to have to leave some things up to DM judgment, it's just a question of when.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2017 00:07
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:Narrative first means that a particular rule might or might not be applicable depending on non-rule (i.e., narrative) concerns. It introduces inconsistency and ambiguity. It's not a way to resolve it. "It's fire, therefore it works like this, instead of that" is a way of resolving an ambiguity in the rules as rules. You wouldn't let a player rewrite the unambiguous rules text of an ability just because they reskinned it, so there isn't actually any new ambiguity introduced. (I mean, maybe you would, but eww.)
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2017 00:16
|
|
|
If the ability text says "deal 3 damage," then however you reskin it doesn't matter. It does 3 damage. There's no reason to refer to the narrative in the first place unless it's not clear what the ability does. Improvised attacks are a separate issue from "how do I interpret the rules text" which is what "narrative first" is doing if you use it to determine that waving someone through a fire does or does not deal extra damage (and the rules aren't already clear.) Tuxedo Catfish fucked around with this message at 00:34 on Jun 1, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2017 00:31
|
|
|
More significantly, it's kind of a bad way to resolve the actual issue, which is that getting tons of free damage off a combination of forced movement and fields is game-warpingly powerful and should be handled as a balance problem. Even if I find some way to narratively justify a power that's more dangerous on intermittent exposure vs. constant exposure, that's still the case.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2017 00:37
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:Well then it's fortunate that my interpretation of the rules was based entirely on the text of the rules. Sir Kodiak posted:Further, if we want to consider the intent of the rule, Strike is narrative first, and it's not any more damaging to stand adjacent to a fire just because you're hyperactive and do a lot of stuff each round. Tuxedo Catfish fucked around with this message at 01:58 on Jun 1, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2017 01:54
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:My second quote was from the "Fiction Takes Precedence" section, which is about all powers, not just improved attacks. Monsters can do all of these things, but that's not's what happening when you refer to "narrative first" to resolve an ambiguity in field / forced movement interaction.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2017 01:57
|
|
|
Even if this specific case isn't resolved that way, I'm still taking issue with your theoretical. v v
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2017 02:11
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:I think balance was a concern but not at the expense of other concerns. For example, take how some kits offer concrete combat benefits (e.g., The Seer giving "In Combat: you may use an extra Move Action or Role Action at the start of each combat before Initiative is rolled.") and others don't. Pretty much, yeah. I basically leave kits out of the game unless I want to go to effort of making custom ones for the campaign setting.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2017 03:45
|
|
|
ShineDog posted:I'm thinking of those Titanfall 2 time levels where you can flip between two timelines. That was a really cool gimmick and honestly I would rather play the game that Titanfall 2 turned into for those 5-10 minutes than the one about big clunky robots that it actually was.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2017 03:01
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 11:59 |
|
|
I'm a bigger fan of games that ask you to master something and then keep it and continue adding more stuff on top.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2017 19:01
|
|