Jump to content



Photo

Blunderbuss and special ranged action that have a specific target?


  • Please log in to reply
27 replies to this topic

#21 DurakBlackaxe

DurakBlackaxe

    Member

  • Members
  • 266 posts

Posted 16 July 2013 - 03:29 AM

 

 

Dodge with coordination trained = 2 to soak

Improved Dodge with coordination trained (Has to be to have the card) = 1 to soak

 

So Improved dodge seems to be worse than dodge.

Why would Improved Dodge only add 1 soak? Improved Dodge replaces Dodge.

 

DurakBlackaxe was referring to this bit of text from the blast rule:

Blast: A weapon with the blast quality targets one engagement up to the weapon's range. Everyone in the targeted engagement is subject to the effects of the attack. Blast attacks cannot be parried or blocked, but targets may choose to dodge. Rather than the normal dodge effect, each dice an individual defender would normally contribute to the pool for dodging increases his soak value by 1 against the blast attack.

The rules boost soak per die, with no accounting for whether that die is black or purple. It's a little silly.

 

If you have Coordination trained, Dodge will add +2 soak (from +2 black dice) vs a blast, but Improved Dodge technically only adds +1 soak (from the +1 purple die it provides) vs a blast.

 

Which unfortunately means that Advanced Dodge (from Hero's Call) also only provides +1 soak vs a blast, despite it adding a purple die + a challenge symbol + a bane to normal attacks.

 

I got an answer to my question on the dodges.

 

Improved Dodge should add +2 soak vs. Blast attacks, and Advanced Dodge should add +3 soak vs. Blast attacks. A future errata update will reflect this.

Enjoy the game!

~Dan Clark
Creative Content Developer
Fantasy Flight Games
 



#22 Emirikol

Emirikol

    ~Ĉiam subskribi antaŭ-nup kun Fimir

  • Members
  • 4,789 posts

Posted 16 July 2013 - 08:47 AM

How do I give an astonished emoticon about getting an official response on this?  Good news :)



#23 Ghazi

Ghazi

    Member

  • Members
  • 43 posts

Posted 16 July 2013 - 01:09 PM

I see that, but then again, wouldn't that happen anyway if the whole engagement is targeted?

 

 

Although it's not consistent with the abstract measurement system, I might have a pool of Misfortune dice determined by the number of folks in the engagment, and then divide those dice such that those in the back of a encounter might get 1 or more black dice, while those closest to the muzzle and unshielded by others might get none.  

 

While this might sound complicated, in reality we use minis/standups and it's no harder than GM-preference on ACE distributions.  I'll pilot with my group when we play again Saturday.



#24 Pedro Lunaris

Pedro Lunaris

    Member

  • Members
  • 460 posts

Posted 23 July 2013 - 11:33 PM

I'm amazed by the people thinking about which character is in front and which is in the back of an engagement. One of the aspects I like the most about 3 ed is the abstract measurements. I think of an engagement (of combat, actually) as a constantly changing mess. I would describe someone being on the front of a blast shot by the damage taken, not by a previsouly determined position. But I digress.

 

I was curious about this discussion when I started reading it. I never thought the blunderbuss could be based on a broken system. I don't remember using it, although I think one of the PCs shot the daemon with the coachman blunderbuss during An Eye for an Eye. But as I read through, I got back to Player's Handbook and started thinking about other changes I would made to blackpowder weapons.

 

I'm not really interested in translating physics into RPG, just the small bits that makes the game more fun. So I'm not really focusing in the arguments that says a blunderbuss is more or less effective. I think it should be fun to use, should have some interesting features and other bad things. In short, kinda balanced and lots of fun.

 

I'm alright with the official rules that Daniel stated for this one. As per the example of the dwarf shooting, I don't think the blunderbuss has such an absurd damage. But it sure is effective! I like no defence, just dodge adding soak, and imp dodge and adv dodge adding +2 and +3 respectively. I was worried about Ceodryn's comparison with the Hochland Rifle, which in my head should be a lot deadlier than the blunderbuss, but then I checked the actual numbers: the Hochland has one more point of damage, it's range is obviously long (expandable to extreme), and it has Pierce 1. 2 extra damage against someone with at least 1 soak, and also dodge gives soak against the Blunderbuss. That's sufficient, I guess. This system doesn't have that much variation in weapon damage, so 1 point should be seen as real difference.
 

What I don't like about the blunderbuss is that it has a CR of 2. I think it should be 3. In my head it's shrapnel shouldn't be able to cause a critical more easily than a crossbow bolt. It's already hitting so much easier (as it should), and with the possibility to get 3 enemies together (as it also should).

The other thing is about blackpowder in general. I think I'm going to start house ruling all "regular" blackpowder weapons have a Reload 2 quality (I just made that up): they need 2 Reload manoeuvres, and add 1 challenge per Reload manouevre not made when it shoots. This 2 manouevres doesn't need to be done together, they can actually be splitted between diferent actions if the player so wishes. And that means it's more difficult to reload a blackpowder than a crossbow (yes, even a Hochland Rifle).

As I said, I'm not exactly aiming at physics. I just think (and that's completely personal) that blackpowder weapons are much more fun if they take absurdly longer to reload. I keep thinking about putting powder through the barrel, then thumping it with a long thin stick, then putting the bullet... They would still be great weapons to fire and then put aside. And that's how I imagine a Blunderbuss to be used, one shot and go for your sword. I can still easily imagine a special made Hochland Rifle or Pistol with some form of reloading device that makes it have Reload 1 or even lose the Reload quality at all for a given number of shots (and then it has Reload 2).

About Actions, I didn't check them to see. But I think I would allow any Action with the Blunderbuss if the situation makes it seem plausible, or if the PC can make it seems so with his actions. In other words, maybe I would change the requirements of a given Action to allow it to be used with a blunderbuss. Like the said Far Shot (that's the name?): maybe it would be interesting to ask for a special preparation of the weapon - adding more powder.


Edited by Pedro Lunaris, 23 July 2013 - 11:48 PM.


#25 r_b_bergstrom

r_b_bergstrom

    Member

  • Members
  • 436 posts

Posted 24 July 2013 - 10:24 AM

I'm amazed by the people thinking about which character is in front and which is in the back of an engagement. One of the aspects I like the most about 3 ed is the abstract measurements. I think of an engagement (of combat, actually) as a constantly changing mess. I would describe someone being on the front of a blast shot by the damage taken, not by a previsouly determined position.

 

I agree completely. That was exactly my reaction to this discussion. Doesn't the rulebook compare engagements to rugby scrums?

 

The other thing is about blackpowder in general. I think I'm going to start house ruling all "regular" blackpowder weapons have a Reload 2 quality (I just made that up): they need 2 Reload manoeuvres, and add 1 challenge per Reload manouevre not made when it shoots. This 2 manouevres doesn't need to be done together, they can actually be splitted between diferent actions if the player so wishes. And that means it's more difficult to reload a blackpowder than a crossbow (yes, even a Hochland Rifle).

 

One thing to keep in mind in regards to that is their price. As-is, blackpowder weapons are pretty much not worth it, and your change would make it more so.

 

Handgun vs Crossbow comparison: Both do the same base damage, take 2 hands and a Reload. The handgun has Pierce 1, and a better CR, but it also has less range and the Unreliable trait. That either breaks even or maybe very slightly favors the handgun. But the handgun costs 13 times as much as the crossbow.

 

If you add a second reload on the handgun, it'll never see any use. At least not at that price. So if you're going to bump up the Reload rating, I'd consider either dropping the price or increasing the damage by a point. Something to compensate, or else your attempt to add flavor may effectively remove flavor (by removing all chance of such items getting used by the PCs). Just a thought.



#26 Pedro Lunaris

Pedro Lunaris

    Member

  • Members
  • 460 posts

Posted 24 July 2013 - 03:46 PM

True enough. Thanks for your thoughts. Adding one point of damage could do the trick. Lowering the price a little bit (I wouldn't like blackpowder weapons to be anything but costly) and considering a version of this weapons a little more expensive but without the Reload 2 (that is, only with regular Reload) is another good idea.

 

I like the idea that blackpowder weapons are something of a luxury. That is, they cost more than their added benefit. But yes, you are absolutely right, they should bring something worth having with them. Even if just to shot once and than change weapons - as was the case with the first blackpowder weapons of our history.

It's just that it bothers me a little seeing them being as easily reloadable as a crossbow. Not so much the handgun, but the blunderbuss, yes. I think the added one point of damage is a change in accordance with my personal taste. I even prefer an added normal damage than the CR of 3 in the case of the blunderbuss (the Hochland Rifle should be as deadly as it can).

 

Just thoughts of my part as well.



#27 Ambivalent Badger

Ambivalent Badger

    Member

  • Members
  • 57 posts

Posted 28 July 2013 - 01:08 PM

Another slight tweak that both adds realism and gives blackpowder weapons a bit of an extra edge: Bullets are not easily blocked or dodged, and thus you should have to add one aditional recharge token to any active defenses used when targetted by a boomstick. If we were to make it even more realistic, it should be impossible to dodge bullets at all (cue obligatory Matrix reference), but I think that would make it overpowered.


I have developed a tool for developing character personalities through random table selection. Please check it out

I've also made a similar tool for plot creation and development, which you can find here.


#28 Pedro Lunaris

Pedro Lunaris

    Member

  • Members
  • 460 posts

Posted 28 July 2013 - 03:07 PM

It's impossible to dodge a bullet once it has being fired, but it's possible to dodge the arm of the man using the gun. if this is an action hard to imagine, maybe it's because we conjure the thought of a modern gun being fired. if nowadays to dodge the perception of a man firing a gun, maybe this would be more possible to imagine when fights were dirtier, based mostly on melee weapons, and with blackpowder ones being much slower and bulkier than modern guns.

 

I like the idea about one more recharge to active defences, though. one thing I like about this system is it's easy to create small addendums to it. seeing yet another possibility, even if probably I won't use it, gives me more inspiration to rearrange the mechanics to specific situations that seem to require some adaptation.


Edited by Pedro Lunaris, 28 July 2013 - 03:10 PM.





© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS