Jump to content

Doctor Xerox

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Doctor Xerox

  1. I like these a lot. My one thought is that the potent potions might be a little too strong. You could make them all unranked and leave them at their current tier or increase the tier of the base and enhanced by 1 to keep them ranked. Stacking setback and upgrades seems very strong.
  2. I've also had a GM rule, at times, that you could disengage and engage a different enemy in a single maneuver. This usually only happened when A) the two enemies were very close together or B) the enemy you wanted to disengage from was obviously not paying as much attention to you do to attacking a different entity engaged with it or something similar. It usually required both. Pure houserule, but I think its something for GMs to consider, especially in a game with lots of melee fighting.
  3. The wording is a little wonky, so I can understand the confusion, but the cheat sheet is correct here. Pg 104 in the chart, "Perform an immediate free maneuver that does not exceed the limit of two maneuvers per turn." Works the same way in Star Wars.
  4. My opinion is that if your biggest reason for choosing your hobby is to make money, you're looking for disappointment. Financial success can come from a hobby, but its a very rare and unpredictable thing. You should create and play because you find it fun to create and play. If money is your goal you should work on making your own product.
  5. I think that looks very good. It gets rid of another cheesy tactic you can do in star wars: grabbing one enemy and throwing it into another to damage both with no difficulty increase. As for the manipulative attack effect, I'd personally houserule it can't move people anywhere vertically. Especially if using this power you've just made.
  6. I probably would never allow this talent to work on a monster of silhouette 3 or higher, and would think hard before I allowed it on a silhouette 2. Of course, once you get to silhouette 3 or more, you could often say the monster could reach into short range with its melee attacks. And remember that the Ensnare quality usually lasts for multiple turns and requires an action to remove early, so this talent doesn't make the advantage pointless. This system was highly lethal in star wars (In terms of wound threshold, that is. The crits are generally as lethal as the gm chooses.), and I don't imagine it has changed much from reading the talents. Giving up most, if not all, of your damage for the turn is a steep price for this action. If a player is somehow abusing it, its trivial to start giving most of your melee threats a back-up ranged weapon.
  7. Immobilize is not that strong. Especially not in a game with lots of ranged weapons like in your example. If you're at range to shoot someone, they're at range to shoot you. And you say the poorer shots in the group will abuse this, but you still need to hit for it to work, so you don't want to be that poor of a shot. So you're trading damage for a situationally-useful condition. Good encounter design makes this weaker as well. The PCs should usually be outnumbered, which makes sacrificing damage to inconvenience one enemy a poor decision. Encounters should include minion groups, against which you should pretty much always choose damage over this. The targets you'd want to use this on are rivals and nemeses, which will often (or always at higher xp levels) have adversary ranks, so the poor shots will have trouble hitting them. I don't see many situations where this talent is good, frankly. It's more useful in a fantasy setting where ranged is less common than melee. I'm having trouble imagining a time to use it besides when a dangerous beast or a rampaging orc with a battleaxe can be kept out of the battle temporarily.
  8. The simple way would be to just use the attack spell. The rules call out that any spell that's intent is to damage the enemy is an attack. Any custom spell that does this should be balanced against the damage potential of the attack spell, though could be made slightly easier as it can't be used indoors. Also remember we also don't have the morality system that star wars has in genesys, and any good star wars GM would be handing out conflict like candy for this very grim method of execution. Plus, move in star wars was notoriously the cheese-damage ability and this tactic made it even more cheesy. Its pure munchkin rules manipulation rather than roleplay, so I'd be inclined to veto any attempts to recreate the power from star wars and tell them their attack damage from the normal attack action is how much damage they can do by throwing someone upward.
  9. A few quality-of-life suggestions on the materials: Adamant: Division is rarely found in this system, so rather than 50% encumbrance, I'd suggest -1 or 2 encumbrance to a minimum of 1. If you want to leave it at 50%, make a note of which way you should round a half. I also wonder if this can be used with any armor or it needs to be metal Bloodsteel: Is this supposed to work with any type of weapon? If so, getting straight to Crit rating 1 on a bludgeoning weapon is absurd. I suggest either specifying it can only be used to create bladed weapons or changing the Crit part to Crit rating of -2 to a minimum of 1. Starmetal: Similar question to bloodsteel, is this intended on all types of weapons or no? And does anything happen to a weapon's pierce quality when it gets this or does it get to keep pierce? (Not that ignoring 10 soak is all that different than ignoring 11+ on personal weapons, but a weapon having both sounds a little messy.)
  10. Not sure exactly which point they're arguing about. If its Magic shouldn't have the extra cost of activation: The charts all say "the attack gains the _______ quality" making no mention of running it any differently from a normal weapon quality anywhere in the text. The rules for weapon qualities are on 86-89. Tell them to feel free to peruse . If its "Burn/Blast/Ensnare/etc don't say it costs advantage to activate: 4th paragraph on page 86
  11. Well, if you had a setting with Cybernetics and Magic you could combine them to get 7 in a characteristic. Maybe up to 8 with overcharge.
  12. There's a tier 5 talent in star wars that does exactly that: Coordination Dodge: Spend a [Story] Point when targetted by a combat check to add failure equal to ranks in Coordination to the results.
  13. You might tone down the warhammer and greathammer, slightly. Note that pierce 3 or less is almost always the same as that much damage, unless cortosis (or whatever you want to call the armor quality that ignores pierce) is common in your game. Maybe drop their pierce ratings by 1 and give them disorient 2 for the head-ringer/appendage-numbing potential?
  14. I think you mis-remembered it then. I double-checked and the Gencon sheets say you may spend 2 strain instead of 2 advantage to activate the second strike.
  15. Yeah, I was struggling to get the numbers to even match up with each other when I tried more complicated. I eventually noticed something odd, and to test it, told it to tell me the odds of getting 1 or more successes AND 0 successes on the same roll. It claimed there was an 8% chance of that happening
  16. I'm only gonna comment on the talents as I think other posters are bringing up most of my thoughts on the first options. Most of these are quite good and I'd be surprised if they need much more tweaking than +/- a tier here or there and a few of the wordings could use some help. I do see one or two talents that need a bigger adjustment. Feint: This is way, way less powerful than you're thinking it is. I played a character with this talent in star wars for a while and it was generally awful. The big thing is this talent does absolutely nothing unless you fail an attack roll. Even if you made this a tier 2 and I bought 4 ranks of this talent, I would still wish I never had the opportunity to use it. Plus, getting 1 rank in this talent is worth almost nothing, as you can already spend 1 triumph to upgrade the opponent's next attack, and when you do it that way he can't run off to attack someone else and just ignore the penalty. I'd recommend making it a tier 2 talent, even if the idea of 4 upgrades on a combat check sounds crazy. An opinion on Dual Strike: This ability (very similar to the 25 xp Spitfire talent in star wars) would be far more useful in ranged than melee (although it might be easier in a fantasy setting), but it is very powerful when it works. This is because you can attack the weak minion group in range, then give the secondary hit to the nemesis with adversary 3. I've always found it to be a cheesy, metagaming talent because of this. You could get rid of this rule by specifying you have roll against the highest difficulty target, but that makes for annoying conversations at the table as you have to decide if you're using dual strike beforehand and find out exactly what defenses each enemy has. To me, its not worth it and I'd cut the talent. If you want to keep it, I'd recommend separating melee and ranged attacks into separate talents, dropping the strain cost, and making it a tier 4/5. (The wording could also use tidying up. Here's Spitfire's simplified wording, for reference, though it could probably have been worded better as well: After a successful combine check with two Ranged (Light) weapons, additional hits can be allocated to other targets within range of the weapon.)
  17. I get it now. I don't think all speedsters think at a higher rate, though it is common. Additionally, Cunning is the characteristic for quick-thinking and has more skills that make sense with a boost for faster thought-process imo. There are also flying heroes who are physically weak blaster-types. I'm wondering if flight itself shouldn't just be a separate, purchasable ability, since it doesn't say much about the character's other characteristics and I can think of all types of heroes that fly.
  18. What is your thought-process behind Intellect 3 and Cunning 1 on Speedsters? I don't really understand that choice. I have trouble seeing any characteristic at 1 for speedsters, honestly. In my opinion, Fliers are more the type for 1 Brawn, 3 Agility.
  19. Its a balance issue. Spending 2 advantage to give someone a setback die is very different from spending 2 advantage to activate the burn quality, which in effect means they get hit again for free every turn until they spend their action to attempt to get rid of it.
  20. You still do. You can still get upgrades, and crits, and pass boost dice, and add cool narrative effects. If you want the more powerful options, you have to pay for the opportunity. Higher risk with higher reward.
  21. Played with the code with the same pool for 23.39% when based on activating 2 effects and counting Triumphs (might have been a more simple way to calculate the results, but I've never used this site before) EDIT: Read the site's documentation and fixed it. I got a different number (25.54%) , but haven't figured out why yet.
  22. That sounds very different from the stats I expected coming from Star Wars
  23. I don't have the book yet either, but its been mentioned other people. From what I've heard its mostly "You get upgrade X without increasing the difficulty."
  24. Well I doubt there's going to be many new arguments showing up here, but I'm fine with beating the horse if you are. It might not be dead yet. I just want to point out that there are literally tools already in the book for making it easier to activate qualities. Give your player that wants better odds of spending lots of advantage on a success and implement that reduces the difficulty by 1. If they hit a ceiling a little too low for you, upgrade their implement. I see no reason to changing some of the most fundamental and prevalent mechanics in the system to work in different ways for different skills. Not when you already have RAW tools to accomplish the same thing more easily.
  25. Eh, rather than making it more complicated with mass rules, just say the GM should add boost or setback dice to the pool if the object is exceptionally light or heavy for its silhouette.
  • Create New...