Jump to content

Ionman

Members
  • Content Count

    39
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Ionman

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

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

Profile Information

  • Location
    Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
  1. I agree that the rifle in the arm is a bit of a stretch, size, weight, the fact that it take two hands to wield. We use all the encumbrance rules, and he has 3 brawn, so no worries on the cumbersome rating. If anything the built in weaponry is an RP device. He still uses both hands to shoot, and I believe the scope is built into his face. Like I said, its an RP thing.
  2. He is a droid, and it is built into his arm. It makes role playing situations like that fairly difficult to say the least. I can even disarm him without doing real damage to his limbs... So yeah... This is definitely a lesson learned about letting your PC's run loose with upgrades. It starts off as a neat idea for a character, and then slips down the slope into muchkinism. Heed my warning!
  3. I don't have it right in front of me but... 5 Agility, 4 training, Double aim for 2 boost dice, a scope for one more, Superior weapon quality for automatic + 1 ADV, and Jury Rigged for Auto fire activation on 1 ADV. From what I can remember... Vs. 2 difficulty dice at long range (scope) and other applicable setback dice from ranged defence.
  4. This is the route that I have proposed. It is difficult to have him declare every target before the roll, as he doesn't know how many shots he will activate until after the roll. Asking a player to assign ADV before the dice pool resolves is unfair. Although asking him to declare his intentions before the roll isn't, I suppose if he knew ahead of time that he was intending on shooting two dudes to the left, one to the right on the gantry way, and then flipping around to fire two shots into the dude behind him I would upgrade the checks to account for the difficulty of the shot. To address the use of destiny points, I dislike the idea of picking on certain players with this mechanic, but I agree that throwing a chance for despair is fair in this case, as it is a very complicated and dangerous maneuver. My worry is that I feel like I'm punishing a PC for what is (sadly) a legitimate character build that functions within the RAW. Then again, bad things happen to bad people. The force seeks balance.
  5. To MessytheKoala, These weren't minions they were individually targeted Rivals. Which, unless Iv'e missed something major in the RAW, can all be selected as targets when Autofiring. He popped off 7 shots at 18 damage (it was a good roll, but his dice pool is stacked - read scope issues), And proceeded to take out each rival, one by one. I wouldn't have been so concerned if this was a room full of minions. I agree, that's what minions are for.
  6. Oh, I didn't mean I was going to shove some rules in his face and stick out my tongue at the game table next time he tried to autofire... What I should have said was, This gives me a great place to start the conversation about how to handle this situation. This PC only listens to hard rules. If I have a few examples, such as the spend one advantage to see if the target is dead, which I can begin to implement in our sessions, then he doesn't get bent out of shape for having his GM pulling fiat over the RAW. I've been playing with this group of fellas for nearly 15 years now. I know what will work at my table. This player isn't the "for the good of the group" type guy, but he will listen to reason, if it's in the book. This gives me some RAW tools to begin curbing his blaster spray.
  7. RAW does state that the shooter should declare his intended targets first, so I'd let him have his 180 degree fire arc with the caveat that any friendlies or non-combatants in the arc add upgrades to his roll (as if they were engaged with the targets). This at least adds some risk to those room-clearing scenarios. For the status check between each auto-fire trigger, I'd have him spend 1 Advantage to find out each time. The Advantage table states that it costs 1 Adv to "Notice a single important point in the ongoing conflict". Then he has the option of using "controlled auto-fire" to optimize his damage among fewer shots, or "spray and pray" which gives him more shots but might result in overkill. This is exactly what I was looking for, Spjork for the win. The only way to beat an optimizing rules layer is at his own game. Thanks for the tip off!
  8. He has done that. And yes, squeezing off 7 or 8 shots at 18 damage is sad. It's like having a starship gun, capable of targeting multiple opponents in the party. My other PC's don't even bother drawing their guns any more. When I talk about balancing combat encounters, I don't mean for difficulty, I mean balanced for all my PC's to equally contribute. It's getting hard.
  9. Thanks for the reply awayputurwpn, I agree that the single shot per turn is a bad narrative concept, I should clarify to say that my personal views of how a scope should function aren't a single shot, but rather a single target, especially when the PC is befitting from aim manurers and talents. Also, I agree with the point you make about it being a jerk move to essentially pull the rug from under my player by saying that his spent advantages could potentially do nothing, but only in cases when there is a clear tangible result that takes place in a logical order. The example of disarming a dude is a good one, You want to disarm him, ok spend you advantages, he is disarmed vs. Sorry pal, he can't be disarmed, spend them on something else. I agree that would be a jerk move. Firing off seven or Eight shots in a matter of seconds at multiple opponents, some falling behind cover, some soaking shots, some deflecting off armour, it would be hard to micro manage those shots so efficiently to say that my shooter could determine shot by shot if the targets were going out of the fight. For me asking the PC for targets ahead of time is a risk reward situation where he decides who the threats are and how long he pauses to spray them with laser before he twitches to the next target. I don't think this is unreasonable. PS, I always appreciate your comments. A little devil's advocate helps bring clarity to these types of discussions. Thanks for chiming in!
  10. RAW also doesn't say that he can't teleport himself to the center of the nearest star, but I doubt that would happen in this game either. Without a bunch of strange and unique technology. Stick to your guns on the scope. Narrative games must use logic and common sense when played or else it will come tumbling down. Haha! Yes, thank you. Unfortunately my PC doesn't react well to hyperbole, in fact I said almost this exactly last night in defence of my ruling, except it was more along the lines of "Well, the rules don't say that there isn't a ship in orbit that is about to start bombarding the facility with a heavy turbo laser battery. Would that be fun?" I was trying to make the point that as the GM I'm trying to strike a balance, not kill them. I'm not the bad guy, I just control them. If I think that something is unbalanced, Its my job to say so. Unfortunately my PC thinks that if the RAW is on his side, then he can do what ever he wants. I find myself arguing in defence of maintaining the fun by keeping things fair and interesting for everyone, when they think I'm just out to gimp their character and take away their toys.
  11. I had arguments at the table both pro and con for the scope. Pro - In COD you can put scopes on automatic heavy guns and they help. To which I replied, were they telescopic, or just improved iron sights / laser dot? At which time I asked the PC to describe his weapon mod. That opened a can of worms. Con - A telescopic sight narrows your field of vision to one target, making it nearly impossible to track other targets while using the scope, thus, useless for anything but single target shots.
  12. I have been just removing the last initiative slot upon an NPC being taken down. Keeps things simple. The only time that I don't remove the last slot, is if an NPC has consistently been taking the last slot in order, say for narrative reasons ie. they are a lumbering loader droid, or a calculating leader type in the back rows. Then I keep them at the lower initiative slot, and remove one from the top to keep things consistent with PC's expectations of the flow of combat. Ultimately I think its best left malleable, that way you get to make that call.
  13. So, I'm lucky enough to for one of my PC's to have built a character solely around the use of his auto fire heavy blaster rifle. At one point last night he actually sprayed down a room full of rival Slavers for over 100 damage. My first knee jerk reaction to this as a GM was "All right, lets see that rifle, talk to me about this dice pool." I noticed that he was using a scope to reduce the difficulty of his shot at long range. Right away I said, "Wait, you can't use a scope while spraying down a whole room, that's for single shots, at long range." to which he replied, "Well, the RAW doesn't say I can't..." Any one else run into this problem? Also while on the topic of OP Auto Fire rules... When hosing down a warehouse full of bad guys, are there rules for firing arc? Or, as my gun enthusiast PC insisted last night, all he had to do was pick the hardest shot, and upon succeeding, could then target anyone else he could see with his additional shots, regardless of whether or not they were 180 degrees apart, or even behind him. ALSO, how do you resolve targets for the auto shots, ie - Can the PC basically say "Ok, I get 4 shots. The first goes to bad guy X, it does 18 damage. Is he dead? No? Ok, he gets one more. Is he dead? Yes? Ok, I now send shot three to Bad guy Y. He takes 18 damage, is he Dead? Yes? Ok, Last one goes to Bad guy Z." I argued that he had to declare each individual shot before we resolved the damage, simply as a measure of control over his damage, which he took offence to, because this is pretty much all his character does. In the end the big bad Gm was ruining his fun. Ultimately I just sent in reinforcements and let him get his jollies, nearly killing him in the process. Am I wrong to think that this is a little OP? I know there have been theory threads about this in the past, but I'm curious if anyone has actually had to deal with it at their table, and how they went about balancing combat, post 100 damage room clearing auto fire shots? Thanks!
  14. My PCs recently added a short range Heavy Laser Cannon to thier arsenal. Sadly, the first thought that crossed my mind was - in a fight where the enemy has only close range weapons, and isn't capable of speed 5, my players will be able to stay at short range indeffinately and remove any challenge at all. This is because the rules for "moving" through space are static and rigid. In fact the "piloting" of the ship doesn't even require a "piloting" check Now, it's easy to say "your pcs are bad people for gaming the movement system and they should be punnished with the GM hammer of righteousness" except that, they are playing by the rules. They aren't even bending them. They move, the enemy moves. The enemy can never close to close range if the pc use two fly maneuvers. They sit back and pew pew at short range and that's it. They win. This house rule add varriance into an other wise static, predictable, and thus easily broken movement system (one which, mechanically, treats speed 2 ships the same as speed 4 ... dont get me started). It brings story telling back to space flight. Suddenly its not about clunkily rubberbanding around absract range bands in 3D space, with a roll of the dice you are back telling a story about high speed ships whizzing about, doing barrel rolls, juking back and forth trying to open a gap or close on an enemy.
  15. I agree with the substitution of handling instead of a speed differential. Speed should be used to determine how much distance you can close or gain on a winning roll. Effectively, this house rule breaks starship combat up into a movement phase and then an ordered action phase. I like it. It actually lets the GM keep a cinematic feel for the discription of abstract movements, while retaining a concrete system of rules for the more gamer centric PCs. Also, more piloting = more fun for your dedicated pilot, who right now is relegated to a handful of maneuvers that are usually pre decided by the entire party.
×
×
  • Create New...