Jump to content

Luctius

Members
  • Content Count

    18
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Luctius

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    LutiusAIM
  • MSN
    -
  • Website URL
    -
  • ICQ
    153193953
  • Yahoo
    -
  • Skype
    -

Profile Information

  • Location
    Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Luctius

    Dark Sun

    Sorry, for the quiet time, working on different things for now. The whole repository can be found here: https://github.com/luctius/genesys_dark_sun/
  2. Luctius

    Dark Sun

    I would suggest that in that case there is no option to defile, so only white pips work.
  3. Luctius

    Dark Sun

    @kaosoe : While it is more in line with Genesys and I like the simplicity, to me it lacks the enticement of the other proposals.
  4. Luctius

    Dark Sun

    @Terefang, After a discussion on reddit I have changed the spellcasting mechanic, which I will discuss below. That said, I like your proposal. I would do away with the forced choices of having to accept all black pips. I like it more if there are no definite preservers or defilers, but with each spell they cast there is the temptation of defiling. Thus, when using the Aracana skill for a magic action, the caster adds a number of force die equal to the final difficulty of the spell. Using a Magic Casting action generates a number of strain equal to the difficulty of the spell. However any caster can choose to use either white pips or dark pips rolled with the force dice, but they can never mix dark and white pips. And then use your system for pip usage. The system discussed with cyvaris on reddit is as follows: The proposed system goes back to the normal Genesys casting rules, with 1 magic skill check and 2 Strain cost. However, there are no implements for arcane casters, and thus they are at a disadvantage. This will be offset by adding force die equal to their Arcana rating to a magic check. Every pip thrown can be used as a success or advantage to the roll. However using a white pip costs 1 extra strain, and using a dark pip represents Defiling. White and dark pips can be used freely. That said, the more I think about it, the more I like your proposal. It is easier to balance, and I think the higher default Strain creates a nice pressure to slip to Defiling. @crazytuco, With the new mechanics being discussed, I am thinking about creating an table like the threat and despair usage tables to give guidelines, but I would focus mostly on the narrative. I do think that could include doing damage to creatures in a certain area. However I do think that the GM is in a better position to create the appropriate penalty for Defiling, even if that means one a only later down the road.
  5. Luctius

    Dark Sun

    Good to hear :). If you have any comments, feel free. It isn't complete by far but it is a starting point.
  6. Luctius

    Dark Sun

    Reasonable big update: Added multiple new specialisations (though some still miss flavour text) Talent trees look a lot better Added a character sheet at the end Added print-friendly pdf for races and specialisations Added Wild Psionic talents Added Multiple Adveraries Lots rebalancing and various other improvements Links added to OP.
  7. Luctius

    Dark Sun

    Thanks! 1) It's not in edit mode, this is the default way Latex shows links and should disappear when printing. I've made a lot of links in an effort to easier time using the pdf as a reference. However I do agree that it is kind of in your face, so I'll play with the options to see if I can make then a bit more subtle. 2) This is because the layout system of latex, but I agree. I'll have a look if I can force the layout system to combine the racial picture and the heading, forcing it to start a new page if there is not enough room for both. Edit: suggestions incorporated.
  8. Luctius

    Dark Sun

    I've been working on a Dark Sun Conversion for a while now. Although it is neither finished nor tested, I submit the first preview here for you guys. I'm looking for feedback (so don't hold your arrows), some brainstorming and some expertise if possible. Do note, I see Genesys not as a generic role-playing system, but as a toolbox. Therefore I have no problem using systems which depart from rules suggested by the Genesys book. That said, if possible and (almost) equally elegant, I would favour a solution in the spirit of how Genesys handles things. Because it is a rather large document, here are the most important changes from normal Genesys, with my rationale. Careers: I personally find the careers system of Genesys is rather bland. I've opted for a system closer to the FFG Star Wars System, namely Talent Trees. In this case, each talent tree is 3x5, but you get to choose 2, which combined are your career. These will also determine your Career Skills. In this way you have a fairly good amount of customization but still have the flavour of a career system. For example, eventually you would be able to combine the Thief with Arcana careers to create a Spellblade, or create a Dark Sun bard by combining Performer with Poisoner. A D&D wizard could be approximated with combining Arcana with Scholar for example. That said, the talent trees do look kind of ugly, so anyone with latex/tikz skills is welcome to improve that. This is my first Latex project (Thanks for the template c-bec-k), but that shows ?. Magic: Dark Sun has a couple important changes to normal D&D regarding magic. The first is that of Psionics, for which we have to create a system. The second is of Defiling and Preserving. And finally while there is some sort of druidic system, the editions are rather different on how to handle divine magic, at first Templars were granted divine spells by the Sorcerer-Kings, later they got into a Pact. For now I have done nothing for templars, reasoning that for the most part they are NPC's anyway. This will probably change later on. Right now Primal (aka druidic) magic uses the same system as Arcana, it only provides for different spells. Thus a druid can also preserve or defile. This is probably also subject to change, but ideas are welcome on this matter. Psionics is using the exact same system as the Force did in Star Wars, with the black pips signifying more effort on behalve of the user, thus costing strain. There is no role-play penalty of using black pips at all. The same Force Powers are used, although renamed to Psionics Powers. I liked the fact that with Psionics you are more focussed on a specific power, but having more expertise, rather than having broad spells. I am wondering how the balance is between them though. Finally Arcana magic. I've 'simplified' spellcasting by creating two actions, Cast Spell (Defiling) and Cast Spell (Preserving). Every Arcane (and Primal) user can use both actions. Preserving is close to the default in Genesys, except that instead of a static 2 strain cost, casting a spell cost strain equal to the final difficulty of the spell. Defiling costs no strain, but the generated threats and despair should be used to show the damage done to the environment. This also means that defiling is more likely to be noticed. This means that defiling has mostly a narrative drawback, but in this system I see that as an advantage, not a disadvantage. The idea behind this approach was that in the books, the half-elf mage is scolded at when she tells that she had cast a couple of spells close together, implying that that almost certainly caused damage to the environment. Thus while Preserving can draw a part of the amount of energy from the plants, the user has to supply a part of it herself, thus causing strain. I've noticed the irony that while Psionics uses the force dice, that system would be almost perfect for using arcane magic. As in, using black pips from a force die could mean that is the amount of energy you are 'overdrawing' from the environment. However I could not think of a good system to use the force dice with the spell tables, more input is welcome here. For now, my priority is more specialisations and more adversaries, which I will be working on the next couple of weeks. Also, in that time-frame I expect our current numenera campaign to end, so then we will put this to the test. Finally, if people are willing, I would like some help with balancing the races and balancing/creating the adversaries. Any input on that front, as well as general input and suggestions, is very welcome. Main pdf can be found Here (Here for a pdf with SWG Dice Symbols) Print friendly Races and Specialisations Simple Character Sheet
  9. I am not sure if that was in DH but we never played it like that. In RT you can opt to forgo the bonus with semi automatic fire and walk your agility bonus in meters instead.
  10. Gregorius21778 said: Found the rules in the book (big dark box), but one thing seems "buggy" to me. In boarding combat, the ship with the highest "crew value" gets a bonus. While this sound quiet fine at first, the crew value still is a PERCENTAGE of the aprox. total crew. This would mean a Cruiser with heavy crew loses (down to 75% of his crew) would be at a high disadvantage in boarding combat against a raider at full crew (100%). Whatsoever, in "men" the raider will have about 24.000 crew total while the Cruiser would still have about 70.000 crew men total. If one is to assume that both have the same "percentage" of "fighters" in the crew, the advantage should be with the Cruiser. Or wouldn´t it? I think it's more of men per meter of the ship. Thus if you have a cruiser with only 70% of the crew left, in absolute terms you would have more men but they'd be spread all over the ship, while an frigate with 100% crew would have every parrt of the ship covered.
  11. Varnias Tybalt said: <snip> If the situation was real, then both ships would have moved in real time, but since it would be kind of chaotic to keep track of that both games have to divide the action into turns. One could say that the system which Rogue Trader use is more close to Real Time than the system that BFG use. And the reason why torpedoes always move in both players Ordnance phases is implemented in order for all Ordnance to be able to keep up with the game flow (and possibly to insure that players don't forget to move pieces of Ordnance already released on the table top). To prove my point, imagine if BFG was converted to a system more akin to Rogue Trader. Meaning that ships of different fleets acted in order according to each ships initiative rather than acting at the same time during each players turn. If the game turn still went on as normal it would mean that each additional ship on the board would provide the game flow with additional Ordnance phases. Meaning that the more ships there are on the board, the faster each piece of Ordnance would be. And that wouldn't really make a lot of sense, would it? I mean, why on earth would torpedoes suddenly be able to reach light speed just because there are hundreds of ships locked in combat when they would have moved a lot slower if there were fewer ships close by? An simple counterpoint would be (assuming the speed of the torpedoes would be the same as the frigate): A frigate travels in direction X and fires it torpedoes. In BFG the torpedoes would double their distance relative to the frigate, thus they are, indeed, twice as fast. In your example the torpedoes would stay at the same distance relative to the frigate, thus they have the same speed. This is entirely not the same situation. If I understand correctly, your problem is as follows. In BFG there were to sides, thus two ordnance phases. Now there are sides equal to the number of ships involved, thus one cannot simple move the ordnance in each ships turn because its speed would be variable according to the number of ships involved. In BFG the torpedoes speed is 60 divided by the number of ordnance phases. Thus in theory in Rogue Trader (if you allow to move ordnance in each ships turn) the torpedoes speed would be 60 divided by the number of ships involved. In both systems the Torpedoes speed per turn would be 60. I would not recommend this system though, because it's not easy to play with. My point is though, the torpedoes speed is not 30 but 60 per turn . One advantage of the system in BFG is though, that the to-hit is check multiple times a turn. If you don't do something like this the torpedoes would be able to fly 'through' a ship which is at the same point in time at the same place as the torpedoes, but it isn't there yet because of the turn bases system. This is the problem that the bfg designers had simply and easily avoided by allowing to move ordnance in both players' turns. Varnias Tybalt said: So to summarize: I don't think interprating the speed of objects in BFG should be based too much on the game flow of BFG, but rather trying to convert different stats used in BFG to Rogue Trader. Rogue Trader's system for starship combat might be an extrapolation on the rules used in BFG (since some game mechanics are quite effective and also helps provide the correct sense of scale), but the gameflow in BFG is drastically different from the game flow of starship combat as it is described in Rogue Trader. Don't you agree? This I completly agree with. I (still...) don't have the book, however I am thinking about an abstract system which does not track the torpedoes itself, but tracks the manouvering the target does relative to the torpedoes. This means that there is no need for multiple to-hit checks. Disadvantage is though that if the torpedoes miss, there s no easy way to track if they would hit another ship. Luctius
  12. Varnias Tybalt said: Luctius said: Remember though that while in BFG torpedoes had an speed about the same as a frigate, they could move twice in a whole turn Could you give me a page number from the BFG rulebook confirming that? I just checked the rules for torpedoes in BFG and it didn't say anything about moving twice. Only that they move their full speed in a straight line in every ordnance phase. Correct, but during a turn there are two ordnance phases. One for you and one for the opposition. During each of those all ordnance moves, while a normal ship only moves during the movement phase of your own turn. Edit: At page 27 of the Basic rules pdf (I'm at work so don't have the original copy with me). I agree that it doesn't state it very clear(on this page atleast I will check later If I can find a more clear reference). It does however hint at it when it says that both players can move their ordnance during the same ordnance phase.
  13. Remember though that while in BFG torpedoes had an speed about the same as a frigate, they could move twice in a whole turn
  14. horizon said: No need for complicatios. Hellebore did a good basic already. Torpedoes are used in 2 ways in Battlefleet Gothic: 1) area denial. Clearly, in a small setting like this an unneeded option. With massive fleets it is another story. I disagree. I would like to use torpedoes to let the enemy have a choice; Come closer and suck it up, or stay at (increase) your distance. A single torpedo or a small spread would be enough to make the enemy do evasive actions. Now I don't have the book yet, however I think it doesn't need to be complicated. An evasive action does means that the enemy should turn away from the current course or, in some situations, increase or decrease its speed. This means that there is no need to keep track of the topredoes itself, just of the actions made by the target. That said, this is no by no means an implementation and I will need to see how valid this idea is when I finally receive my book.
  15. Although I largly agree with the "don't moan" sentiment, the shipping date (though not release date) is stated as "late september" www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_minisite_sec.asp . But then, that is still a valid possibility. Greetings, Luctius
×
×
  • Create New...