Jump to content

Rat Catcher

Members
  • Content Count

    110
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Rat Catcher

  1. Herr Arnulfe said: Ludlov Thadwin of Sevenpiecks said: I've never been that interested in extended character progression, anyway. I prefer a moderate amount progression and then on to a new story, a new character, perhaps a whole new game for a while and then coming back to this one. But that's just me, of course:) I tend to agree that characters don't necessarily become more interesting or textured with extended play, although certain stories can only be played out over many sessions (e.g. LotR-like Heroic Journeys). Yes, and there's a few who think why should characters advance at all? That the character only grows through its direct experience of life in the fantasy setting. Not sure if I like this though, there has to be some kind of advancement, nobody never learns in some small way despite themselves. And 3ed obviously delivers to that extent.
  2. Sideways advancement, no long haul on the horizon, set damage values, and yes, there seems to be a 'lot' of houseruling going on - much more than I would want to. Guys you just saved me a lot of money. I've decided not to get the game until FFG sort these quirks out. Maybe a 4th editon. Still, happy gaming for those who are enjoying, I'm going back to 2ed.
  3. Zagor said: They suggest in the GM book the few moments in between encountering 'the evil wizard' and battle ensuing is a good dramatic pause for a rally step. I don't think there necessarily needs to be time to bandage wounds etc (although this would certainly apply to a rally step back further in the dungeon after clearing out a room of goons) but the momentary pause is enough to get your breath back and steel yourself for the fight (regain stress or fatigue, change weapons etc). The natural breaks caused by compartmentalisation of a dungeon certainly do not prohibit rally steps as they are defined and suggested, and there are specific examples where a rally step could be as little as a few seconds in game time - i would prohibit certain rally step actions at these points but allow others. Good points!
  4. Zagor said: There is no reason not to use your imagination and a rough map for a dungeon crawl. The fact it's in different rooms makes the Rally mechanic easy and you can zoom in to abstractly focus on combat within a room - using the longer ranges to represent baddies that have heard the commotion and are coming to investigate. There are many dungeons and ruins in the old world, so its not unfeasible that your journey would go there. Just because the game is not represented in little squares , it gives you leeway for more description and rough mapping as a guide - the focus is not on number crunching and book-keeping its on narrative and adventure! I come from a Swords and Wizardry background so squares aren't an issue. But the rally phase seems to be a rule geared toward outdoor environments and not indoor ones. Mainly because you rarely get the opportunity to sit back and take a nap in a dungeon.
  5. monkeylite said: The Rally step is a pause in the action, that allows you to gather your thoughts and pull yourself together a bit. In a simple one Act sort of encounter, it doesn't come into play, because as soon as you get pause, the encounter is over. In a more complex encounter, they're good for punctuating the events and giving respite, by say, gettting back some Fatigue, or re-rolling an initiative. They're not vital to the fatigue/stress/damage system by any means, but they're a good way to signal small achievements and changes of state during a long action scene. As such, I would say, they are very useful for a dungeon crawl type game. The GM can give them out, playing by ear, when it feels right, and that would work. But also, when planning the dungeon, I think it would work well to lay out positions and goals that the PCs might reach which will offer either Rally Steps or complete encounter refreshes. This would make fatigue-stress budgeting a very tactical element of the game, if that's the sort of thing you like. When you put it like that it looks like it will add another interesting element to dungeon crawling. I'm reminded of the days when I'd create a boring old empty room for just this situation. Wherein the characters can recuperate by barricade themselves in using their trusty hammer and iron spikes
  6. Please, anyone like to comment? Could the rally rule be implemented in a dungeon crawl?
  7. macd21 said: dvang said: I think what came out of it is this: Opponents in the beastiary, alone, are not designed as a challenge for tooled-up combat PCs, but instead as a challenge for average well-rounded PCs and groups. To make them a challenge for PCs, especially combat oriented ones, the GM will generally need to add to the encounter to make it more challenging. Options such as additional opponents, tweaking of stats, adding dice pool dice, or adding action cards are all valid and easy methods to do this tweaking. Besides, such alteration makes every opponent unique and 'special'. Actually we've only really looked at Trolls - in particular, 1 Troll vs a Trollslayer. We should really see how other opponents fare. True, but the solution, tweaking of stats etc should hold true for any and all creatures.
  8. Herr Arnulfe said: Rat Catcher said: And you come across as quite opinionated and a touch arrogant. Mea culpa, that's probably how I'd describe myself as well. No you're right, and I'm sorry. I've had a 'long' and cranky day today, no excuse, but an explanation.
  9. Herr Arnulfe said: Rat Catcher said: I'm not the one being sensitive pal. And I interpretated it in the exact way it was meant, namely off handish and very dissmissive, also puts a major block on any discussions about house rules. Now that's my interpretation of it, and you can do with it whatever you like. See? There's a difference between what he's given you to do with what you like, and what you're giving me. Specifically, he's provided a great deal of actual play information, and you've just given me some attitude. So I'd be more likely to take offense to your comment than his, but even that would be a stretch (unless I was over-sensitive, which I'm not). And you come across as quite opinionated and a touch arrogant. So what? I said I read it wrong, and apologised. Let's move on. EDIT: When people feel the need to interfere in my business I do get attitude yes. Hey, I could have said a lot worse too.
  10. Armoks said: Rat Catcher said: Rat Catcher said: All right mate, calm down, I'm just asking that's all Sheesh. Sorry if it seemed that I became indignant at your reply, I didn't mean to. Thanks, Herr Arnulfe, you wrote what I mean. Maybe Rat Catcher didn't understand me well because English is not my native language, so it's easy for me to make a mistake. Anyway Cheers No that's ok Armok, I said something may have been lost in translation, sorry I misunderstood.
  11. Herr Arnulfe said: Rat Catcher said: As for your houseruling statement, I do beg your forgiveness for being so presumptious as to think I could offer perhaps a little help on the matter. Must be something in the air today Don't be so sensitive. Armoks already stated earlier in the thread that he understands houseruling is an option, but that's not his point here. This is what I meant earlier by "circular arguments". He politely informed you that he's not interested in a discussion on houserules - the "up yours" bit was your own interpretation. I'm not the one being sensitive. I interpretated it how I saw it, namely off handish and very dissmissive, also puts a major block on any discussions about house rules. Now that's my interpretation of it, and you can do with it whatever you like. It does sound negative doesn't it. Anyway it's resolved now.
  12. GravitysAngel said: You'd just have to figure out how much exploration counts as an Act, if you use the Encounter/Act/Rally Step formula. I'd forgotten about this to be fair. What is the point of this E/A/R step formula anyway? Is it a rule incorporated to aid roleplay enjoyment or a rule implemented to make all the other recharge rules feasible? I really hope you can create underground (I.e. sewers, crypts, mausoleums, dungeons, etc) scenarios.
  13. Herr Arnulfe said: Rat Catcher said: All right mate, calm down, I'm just asking that's all Sheesh. I think Armoks has remained quite calm. He's backed up his original claim with hard data, and he's not interested in hearing about houserule solutions because as far as he's concerned that's a separate issue. How Armoks has conducted himself up to the point of his reply to my post is irrelevant - but for the record I also think he's been very polte about it and as I said, and I repeat again here; 'raised some very good points'. I was just bringing attention to his overly defensive reply to my reply. In particular his phrase 'I presented my opinion to you, and now you can do with it whatever you want' sounds a little like 'I've said my peace, and you can stick it up your bum for all I care' (though I admit something might have gotten lost in the translation). But either way, I thought was a bit overly aggressive in its nuance. As for your houseruling statement, I do beg your forgiveness for being so presumptious as to think I could offer perhaps a little help on the matter. Must be something in the air today
  14. Armoks said: Rat Catcher said: Armoks said: Of course, I can change every single rule, I can make lots of house rules, but... I presented my opinion to you, and now you can do with it whatever you want. All right mate, calm down, I'm just asking that's all Sheesh.
  15. Armoks said: And that's the point. Some cards are more or less broken, some unbalanced. Nevertheless, it should be spotted by beta testers and fixed. I will not believe that nobody realized that a 1 as a basic dificulty for Double Strike is not enough. Moreover, I can't understand why they created such a powerful card like a Rapid Shot, even posibility of gaining fatigue points is not enough, IMO. This is a real cause for concern for me. I've actually postponed buying the game until I know more about the game's possible brokeness. I don't mind houseruling a few rules but if I have to redesign most of the core rules then for me the game is broken too much. Some monsters seem to be broken as well. When Players can smash Troll's face within 1-3 rounds, it must be something wrong in the rules, IMO. I can't even show my Players Trolls' sheer stupidity, becouse I simply don't have a time to do it. I think this topic has been thoroughly dealt with and for me isn't a problem. I don't agree with some things about Trolls: 1) Regeneration: Why only 1 normal wound at the end of each round? Compared with Troll's regeneration in 2 edition, it's rather poor result. 2) Trolls have got only 19 wounds, they should have more. Simply change te numbers around. This isn't major redesigning. 3) River Trolls wield tree trunks as clubs. OK, that's nice, but why this weapon deals only 5 damage? I'm aware of that Trolls also fight using theirs claws as a weapon, but still 5 damage is not enough. Can't you just increase the damage rating? 4) Stone Trolls' skin: "Weapons have been known to break upon striking the granite-hard surface of a stone troll's skin." And again, look at the stone troll's soak - only 3, it's less than the Plate armor. Somebody can tell that Trolls have high TO. That's right, but Players are also able to increase theirs TO to 6. So when a Dwarf has 6 To should I say that weapons can break upon his skin? I think this is just poetic licence and isn't meant to simulate the rules. Yes, I know, I'm complaining about nothing, becouse I can house rule everything. However, I would be very pleased if FFG wrote in ToA a sentence or two, about how monster's stats can change. I think you raise some valid points. Points I need to research, personally. Cheers
  16. If you can draw a map you can dungeon delve, no reason at all you can't. And no reason at all IMO to think the game caters for one location/setting more than another
  17. I thought this would be handy. A one stop post which quickly summarises (is that redundant phrase?) what's exciting in an adventure, and what isn't. What should you have, and what should you avoid? The Good Exploration - making every crest of a hill a new adventure Social interaction - Charming, intimidating, cajoling, seducing, bluffing, persuading etc Mystery - puzzles, dilemmas, working things out with brain power Tough Decisions - most choices characters make should be difficult ones. Yes you can burn down the barn to destroy the orcs, but what about the dozen villagers trapped in the loft? The Bad Too much combat The Ugly Railroading - wherein players don't really have any meaningful choices to make, the GM merely prods them from one encounter to another, regardless.
  18. Page 3 FAQ: "Since there are only six Open Career Advance lines on the General Career Advances portion of the advancement worksheet, a primary characteristic cannot be increased above 6."
  19. dvang said: It's a matter of perspective and degrees. Armwrestling could certainly be a simple single opposed check. One roll and boom you're done. However, the dramatic feel, and the tension of a significant arm-wrestling match can be better displayed as a competitive match. You can see the ebb and flow of it before someone wins. You get the feeling and story of the back and forth process of the armwrestling match from treating it as competitive. Compared to that, an opposed check would be rather flat. Point made, and taken Thanks
  20. So sneaking passed a guard is opposed but an arm wrestle is competitive? Why? What's the criteria?You can't get more opposed than arm wrestling.
  21. Come on, give the man a break. He's offering a service which someone will always find useful, and it ain't like it's costing you anything.
  22. LeBlanc13 said: Rat Catcher said: Could you name me one rpg you've had where you've never had to tweak the rules in some way? I see it as the same difference myself. D&D 4e and 3.5.... There were enough rules in those games that I never wanted to add another or modify them. Frankly, there was no need. This is not a good thing
  23. LeBlanc13 said: Gallows said: That is the reason this bestiary is better than some 400 pages tome. If makes GMs think creatively Very glass is half-full of you Gallows. I see it as a poor quality piece of work that requires me to shore up the games shortcomings. As you can see, I'm not glass is half-full. Could you name me one rpg you've had where you've never had to tweak the rules in some way? I see it as the same difference myself.
  24. Shadowspawn said: I think it is very obvious that a GM can change the monsters in the Bestiary to suit their need, but the monsters listed in Bestiary as supposed to be a baseline for all monsters that the PCs are to face. The original point was that a strong party could kill a troll (as listed) in a very short time and that the average troll should be more of a challenge to a PC group. Now I'm not sure if that is even true as I've not tested it, but it was the original point. I totally agree that a 'strong' party could kill a troll in a vry short time. I see no problems with this. The average troll will be more of a challenge. There's no issues here either. The issue I think, is that FFG's idea of 'more of a challenge', isn't the same as another player's idea of 'more of a challenge'. If I see my players making easy work over a particular combatant, I see that as my problem - not a problem of the game per se. Granted there could be a better way of determining what is a real threat and what isn't, but I personally don't see this as anything major. I'd probably learn my expereince. And anyway, if I noticed they were having an easy time of it during the combat, I could always make an adjust mid flow.
  25. Again see, ok fair enough, the 'Trolls R' Us' outfitters are scarce to be sure, but for me I'd just 'up' the TOU, or whatever. And grin doing so
×
×
  • Create New...