Jimbozig posted:

Thanks for making that great OP, Count!


You can choose.


You're right on all those things, although if the AoE scenario were to arise, that might be a good time for a quick sanity check on whether or not what you are doing makes sense in the fiction.

For the immunity thing, the most obvious example (and I probably should have written it in the game) is grappling. You can't grab a mob of 20 peasants at once unless you're some kind of eldritch horror or a giant squid or something. If you don't like the wishy washy nature of the restriction, just say "can't be grabbed" and you've taken care of the largest dissonance. If you're embracing the intentional vagueness, then many other immobilizing and throwing and forced movement effects are ignored. "I know it would be hilarious, Doug. But you can't throw a swarm of bees at the other swarm of bees."

Countblanc posted:

Yeah that sounds good, I don't mind whipping up a template for that. I'd like to get Jim's permission first though - We'd effectively be making everything except Feats and Class Features available which he might not be comfortable with.

ZeeToo posted:

Encounter design question: according to the book, it's one standard monster per character for a fairly easy challenge up to four players, but at five players, I should increase their encounter powers by one and I get one action point. My question is: should I still be adding in a monster for player 5, or no? I'm not sure if that was saying "with that many players, synergy means that the enemies need a bonus to counter that" or "keep enemy numbers lower, with that many PCs it's better to make quality than quantity of enemies".

So: 4 standard + bonuses, or 5 standard + bonuses?

Superstring posted:

Let the splatbook bloatening begin!

Kidding, of course. Looking forward to new classes. I've noticed recently how the current classes are pretty hard defined as melee or ranged. I hope some of the new ones have options for both.

homullus posted:

Every ranged class is melee with the Melee Shooter feat.

Covok posted:

Where are the rules for making monsters? I saw sample monsters, but not rules for building them. Getting deja vu so, if I asked before, my bad.

Countblanc posted:

Strike has finally become true to its namesake and puts the GM in the position of the capital class while the players wage war through walk outs.

drrockso20 posted:

Sorry about that, got you and Count mixed up regarding who was the author


As for the shipping, well it's been a while since I last ordered any physical books off Drivethrustuff so it's possible the rates have changed(last time it was really expensive if you wanted it sent to you in less than 2 weeks), so I guess I should double check that before making you go through a bunch of work setting things up on Lulu(as for Amazon, at those costs probably isn't a good idea), so I'll get back to you about that once I'm back at my computer and not posting from my phone

Arrrthritis posted:

Does this game have a DM's screen or like a page with quick references that I can use in-game?

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?

Tuxedo Catfish posted:

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.

Sir Kodiak posted:

ImpactVector posted:

stuff

ImpactVector posted:

Just wanted to say thanks again Jim, for making such a cool game.

My group tonight thought it was the perfect combination of Fate, Savage Worlds, and *World on the noncombat side and Savage Worlds and D&D on the combat side. I was hoping and expecting they'd like it, but it's gratifying that it went so well. It sounds like this might be their new favorite system.

This is a group that ended up with a strong dislike for 4e after I ran the Slaying Stone (somewhat poorly) and a PF/3e-centric DM took over for the next 4e campaign. So it's awesome that we seem to have found a crunchy/tactical combat game that we can all enjoy.

They created characters using the background questionnaire and letting them fill in the rest, and then they actually surprised me by picking classes, powers, feats and roles all at the table in under an hour and a half and we started playing an intro scenario I'd half fleshed out. I wasn't expecting to do a combat, but they were all for it, and I ended up running a quick combat that I'd prepared just in case while I was puttering around with my encounter builder:

1x Crushinator
2x ShieldBot
4x PewBot



They ended up crushing it with only two strikes (in a group of 5 PCs), but I forgot the defender mechanics on the ShieldBots a few times and let a few things slide as we all learned the rules together.

For next time I'm going to print up power cards for everyone and see if I can print out a few different reskinnable encounters. It was tough trying to teach the rules with one book that the players were using and a tablet I was using to flip between my encounter and the player powers to try to teach the game.

Kaja Rainbow posted:

Okay, so my players managed to recruit an Elite Packmaster to their side. How should I handle this? How should I balance combat around their presence? Balance roughly for an additional player? (So designing combat for six players if I have five players.)

Moriatti posted:

Because I'm bad at typing AND proof-reading.... Time to fix that.

EDIT:

Printer Friendly.