Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About eriktheguy

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • AIM
  • MSN
  • Website URL
  • ICQ
  • Yahoo
  • Skype

Profile Information

  • Location
    , Ontario, Canada
  1. Interesting stuff KBlumhardt Did you notice if there were gates for dreamlands locations? If so, that would make Akachi and Luke far better at moving between the two boards (which makes a lot of sense).
  2. You only gain 1 talent per turn this way, you wouldn't double it. Also, she starts with only one talent, so until she gains another the engine can't be started. I would still say that other investigators like Daisy start with significantly more powerful turn 1 engines.
  3. ****, and we were all having so much fun too. I'll be sure to tell them not to enjoy it as much next time.
  4. All right, I'll put this one down under 'not for everyone'.
  5. The rule isn't too complex to understand, it's just a pain in the ass to have to look up aptitudes for everything and compare them to your sheet.
  6. Oh dear, I'll have to keep my poor, ignorant players from reading this thread
  7. Actually, I one-shot humans with my sniper rifle all the time. Between 3d10+ and some degrees of success shoring up the lowest die for insurance, it's usually pretty easy for a sniper to down a lightly armored humanoid target that doesn't see him (and it should be).
  8. Hm, that is weird. It does work if you have players who leave sniper weapons for snipers and aren't trying to break the game. Would one solution be to require a proficiency trait and automatically grant it to classes that get the weapon? Another might be to hand-waive it as rarity, but then I think sniper rifles are quite common.
  9. One board that sort of makes sense would be the dreamlands, because it exists parallel to the Earth. that would technically also open up the moon, which is lush with forests in the dreamlands.
  10. We cost everything as though they had 2 aptitudes. Because the main issue is simplification. Most of the players at my table couldn't tell you what aptitudes they need to make a sniper or a melee warrior, and unlike dropping aptitudes this actually adds a bit of legwork. I'd add that, given this system, all you really need to build a character is to know what tier a talent you want is. Everything uses a very simple formula for costs and flows from there, and you can often level without needing a book. Out of curiosity, how would you go about breaking this, for say, my Ratling sniper. I just see many of the options I don't have the aptitudes for as being a bad match for my role.
  11. My sniper needs his +2d10 to do anything. A sniper rifle should kill a civilian human in one hit (one of my most common targets) and adding pen and felling doesn't help much with that. I don't see much trouble in terms of power imbalance. Our heavy gunner always outdamages the rest of the party anyways, it's more about filling your role than being as powerful as everyone else in a firefight.
  12. Yup, players being able to always take the 'best' traits regardless of their class is the obvious drawback, and I suspect it could enhance/diminish/not-affect game-play depending on your group and playstyle. I find that most players take options that fit their class, rather than 'always best' options. I'm not really aware of what these 'always best' options are, maybe because I don't understand the system completely (we've been playing under a year, and prefer common sense instead of looking-it-up when we don't know how to resolve something). Maybe if you go by all the rules-as-written then being fearless is really important. But yeah, my main issue is that you get a character build in mind and try to do it, but none of the classes really have the right aptitude mix. The hammer of the emperor relieved a lot of issues by letting you switch up your class and aptitudes occasionally, but that's when I thought 'why not discard aptitudes entirely'.
  13. Aptitudes in Only War basically emphasize your class by applying restrictions to how you spend EXP. Has anyone tried removing them completely? Our group has been doing this for an ancient-Rome style game we've been playing with the Only War system. There are two main effects. 1. You can updgrade whatever you want (obvious) 2. Vastly easier to understand the game system. We've cut book-referencing down by about 1/2 and it's much easier for less system savvy players to build characters.
  14. This is the right way to build a random encounter table. You build it like each one is an adventure seed, rather than a list of monsters to kill. That's how it's done.
  15. This is a really good thread, should be stickied or something. Lot's of great information in here. My take is that the distinction between PDF and IG is different from world to world and campaign to campaign, but it gives me some cool ideas for how a session could be run.
  • Create New...