Jump to content

Scalding

Members
  • Content Count

    153
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Scalding

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

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

Profile Information

  • Location
    , Florida, United States
  1. The Force Power for Protect/Unleash, the first Control Upgrade says "Spend Advantage to ..." instead of "Spend Forcepoint to ...". Since the roll to activate the power is an opposed check, this may be intentional. I'm not sure, AFAIK it's a change from the latest Beta information. On the other hand, I don't know of any other Force Powers that spend Advantage, which makes me think it's an error. Thoughts?
  2. I have been exceedingly busy as of late, and not around much on the boards or sending emails. However, this subject is too important to leave unremarked. For all our sakes, I will make this as brief as possible. 1) A player shall, at no time, feel that talent choices have permanently damaged their character. The degree of damage is irrelevant. There should never be a case where the player regrets having bought any talent. A talent may go unused; the penalty is little more than the loss of XP - this is recoverable. However, this talent change causes a character to take conflict each time a game session begins, whether that talent is used or not. This is not recoverable, and a player who later regrets this decision will continue to suffer the penalty. While in some game systems a ***-for-tat approach is common and even essential to gameplay, this is not that game. 2) Actions cause conflict, not attributes. A Zabrak is fearsome; should they gain conflict each session as well? Of course not. The Terrify talent should not cause conflict if it is not used. For a similar effect, the wording might be "The first time this talent is used in a session, the character gains 1 conflict," or alternatively, "The GM is encouraged to award conflict for the use of this talent." 3) Don't go looking for trouble. "[T]his is a concept we want to explore in the future, and we want to start establishing it as a possibility now." You (FFG Devs) appear to know the difference between right and wrong. You know that this is wrong, but you want permission to do it or to do more things like it in the future. In truth, you do not need permission, as you are the developer, but I will not assuage your conscious by passive approval.
  3. I didn't mention it specifically, but at my table I'm not awarding conflict whenever the character is around the Sith instructor, or even just for doing what he's told, unless it would generate conflict through the "normal" means. Although it hadn't occurred to me that he might take 5xp off the cost of a new Force power since he technically has a mentor, I'm not sure whether that would actually cause conflict. I can see the argument both ways: For: The Sith is specifically training him to use anger, fear, and agression. The mentor is very impatient, so taking the "quick and easy way" is an essential part of the training. Ergo, darkside. Against: That's not how the rules actually work, as evileeyore and T3CHN0Shaman point out. Well, the rules are vague, but generally you have to make a choice and do something to generate conflict. The exception is the Darkside Heal resurrection power.
  4. EDIT: Also by removing Defensive Training it reduces the Makashi's ability to stand against multiple foes, making Maneuvering to engage solo's even more attractive. It could work. I'm not thrilled with the idea of training Defensive Training for another rank of the stated version of Duelist's Training, but we've seen worse. Frankly I think we're all getting pretty drained and punchy. I'd like to think that we've made whatever point we might possibly make, and it's up to FFG from here. Hopefully they can extract signal from the noise. On the other hand there's always the chance that tomorrow someone will come up with an awesome solution and we'll all slap our heads and say, "Why didn't we think of that?!" If someone has a chance, it might be helpful to have a post reviewing the best options. There was one a few pages back... I doubt things have changed much since then. I'd also like to thank everyone who's put so much time and effort into this thread. This includes those who think the talent is fine as it is. I know Donovan's put a lot of time and effort into rolling dice for us, for example. Even if we disagree, at least we're thinking about it and trying to improve ourselves and the game. Edit: The summary, by Evileeyore: http://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/120654-lets-fix-duelists-training/page-7#entry1276428 There are probably other entries that got lost along the way. Oh, and you can pretty much forget the one I wrote in my original post, which is pretty silly really.
  5. Simple, brilliant. Simply brilliant. Terrible, simply terrible. Now you're likely trading a black die for a reduction in characteristic. That's even worse! Also, I repeat myself again. Which I seem to have to do.
  6. Obviously it's going to vary from group to group. And if your group is facing multiple opponents on a regular basis, maybe taking a a one on one dueling talent shouldn't be a priority, or even the Makashi Duelist tree. None of your points need to be challenged since you do not have any agreement that the talent is broken in the first place. It's difficult to "fix" something you do not see as broken in the first place, although people have made suggestions. Personally, I think you should just drop the setback die for your game and be done with it. The biggest issue I've seen in this thread is that horrendous setback die. Apparently it severely gimps you if you take this talent and you will never be any good. Drop it and be done with it. Except, you know, if the character is statted for Presence, what other Lightsaber form is he going to do? Also, I need to stress, this is about a change to the Rules, which are currently in Beta for vetting. This is not about house rules. I have made several points, using as precise a language as I can, and these points have not been rebuffed in a convincing way. Counter-arguments to these points have essentially been "nu-uh!" and name-calling. Sometimes I have not been as clear as I need to be, despite my efforts. I will attempt to be more clear.
  7. Yes, I keep having difficulty expressing what I mean here. I mean, that unlike other talents which impose a penalty when the player chooses to do something, this one imposes a penalty when circumstance does something. If a talent generates a penalty, it should be a direct result of the character's choice and action. I choose to activate Auto-Fire, therefore I increase the difficulty. I choose to dodge, therefore I take strain. That sort of thing. This is "irrespective of what you are doing, when multiple enemies engage you, a penalty applies." That's what makes it wrong.
  8. The only "problem" I have with the Morality mechanic is that the amount of conflict a PC might earn over the course of a session is based on: 1) The length of the session, or if the party is split, the amount of time the PC is in play. 2) The types of encounters: There's a lot of difference between a combat encounter and a negotiation, and while you can earn conflict through unscrupulous dealing, it's probably not on the same level as conflict available during combat. The game I play in is about 4 hours, and the one I run is about 8. After the sessions, players in both games add 1d10-conflict to their Morality. I think it's pretty obvious that it's easier to have a high morality in the short game. I might suggest that characters in short games might roll other dice, such as a d6, when rolling for their morality change. It's a difficult call, because there are single actions which can net you a lot of conflict all at once, which would be the same for either short or long sessions. As a result, I think the GM must set the "thresholds" at which he gives conflict based on the group, the style of play, and the expectations of the players. That's all very subjective, of course, but I don't see any way to really pin it down without imposing on someone.
  9. This is a topic that I've been pondering as well. One of my characters has recently been recruited as a Neophyte for a Sith cult, and is being trained. There is no deception here: he knows who they are, and they know he is undertaking the training because he has no real choice in the matter (literally, "Tea and cake or death"). Now, he's one character, so he only gets a portion of the play time, interspersed between activities of the rest of the group, but I try to give him plenty of opportunity to take conflict. And because the player is roleplaying a smuggler who became a Force user, he has little compunction against taking conflict. Despite this, his Morality is steadily increasing. Yes, he's been rolling well on that 1d10, and that can't last forever, but he's in the mid-80's now, with no signs of slowing. Of course, so far he's just being wooed by the Sith cult. They're giving him a place, making him part of their Shockzone team, hooking him up with a pretty girl, giving him servants who call him "My Lord", and generally making his life very luxurious, at least outside of grueling workouts and studies. And when he's grown used to it all is when the demands will begin, and the true tests of character will occur.
  10. See, that's the strange thing about this discussion. The black die does not "occur irregardless of the Character's action." You guys know that when you're engaged with multiple opponents, you don't have to make Melee or Lightsaber checks, right? You can... Use the Force: Bind one of them (choking him is always a plus) Use the Force: Move one of them away, painfully Use the Force: Unleash (channel your anger about having a theoretical setback die that you never actually roll) Make a Brawl check Maneuver to disengage do other awesome things I haven't thought about. None of which will incur a setback die! And even if you absolutely have to lightsaber your opponent and the maximum of one failure from the black die screws you, you still get a good Feint out of it. It is a lightsaber talent, in a lightsaber talent tree. It is counterproductive that it should have a talent that reduces the character's efficacy with a lightsaber and causes them to do something else.
  11. This obviously varies from group to group. In my games the players are often outnumbered, and their need to reduce enemy numbers quickly means that a melee fighter is normally engaged with multiple hostiles. The only time this talent would not be a penalty in one way or another would be when the enemy is down to their last few, and the fight is over already (unless it's a Nemesis, of course). Other than that, I stand by what I said: The talent is broken, and needs to be fixed. That has been my thesis the entire thread and will not change simply because you say, "That's your opinion." I have stated why the talent is broken, and no one has challenged those points in any meaningful way.
  12. No, a talent is broken when it breaks the implied contract between the game and the players, or when it provides an advantage or penalty that is in excess of the design of the game. Normally this occurs by making an ability too powerful, but in this case we have an ability that: 1) Costs XP to gain 2) Provides a passive penalty - unlike any other rule in the game 3) has a minimal affect when the penalty does not apply 4) is equivalent to an action that already exists when the penalty does apply, except that it forces the action or the penalty. I (obviously) feel that this breaks the implied contract between the game and its players, as well as providing an ability that is too weak to be worth any amount of XP. It is broken. This talent does not apply to using the style/form. As written, it applies any time the character makes a Melee or Lightsaber combat check. If it were restricted to the form, ironically, that would likely make it even less desirable; the point of the Lightsaber Technique talents is to use Lightsaber with a higher characteristic, so in that case avoiding the Setback die penalty would likely cost an Ability die - not a reasonable trade. =-=-=-=-=-= And so we're back to discussing the merit of the idea that the talent could use improvement, rather than what those improvements might be like. Since it is self-evident that neither side may possibly convince the other, I suggest that we table that conversation. Please continue discussing alternate possibilities for Duelist's Training. Please bear the fluff of Makashi in mind: 1) It appears that an additional Boost die when facing a single opponent in Engaged range by itself is considered too powerful; otherwise it would already be written this way. 2) A penalty that occurs irregardless of the Character's action is inappropriate for a Talent. No talents do this; I'm of the opinion that none should, because this breaks the implied contract, "When you spend XP, you are enhancing your character." 3) Ideally, the Talent offers a character an option, such as: 3a) "When engaged with a single opponent, you may..." 3b) "When engaged with a single opponent, gain..., but when engaged with multiple opponents, you may instead suffer X penalty for Y benefit." 3c) "When engaged with a single opponent, you may gain..., but if you do, suffer penalty X for time Y"
  13. My wife and I have had 8 years of Ballroom training (twice a week). While it is true that your form may suffer for a brief while when learning a new technique (especially switching between a latin form like Rumba and a ballroom form like the Waltz), with practice both techniques improve. You might temporarily have a setback, but it's only temporary.
  14. There are 293 talents in the game so far. Of these: Crippling Blow: Increase the difficulty of the check by 1: If successful, the target suffers a strain each time they maneuver for the rest of the encounter. More of a new kind of attack (or a modifier to an attack, similar to how Auto-Fire modifies the difficulty) than a penalty to a current attack, and only occurs when the character takes this action. Sniper Shot: Maneuver to increase the range of a non-thrown ranged weapon by up to ranks in Sniper Shot range bands. This increases the difficulty of the attack by the number of range bands increased. Again, it's a rider on an existing ability and only occurs when the character makes the maneuver. I read through them fairly quickly for time and sanity reasons, so I might have missed something, but I think that's all the talents that impose a penalty to a combat check. You'll notice that the penalty in both cases is equivalent to activating Auto-Fire on such weapons, and produces an effect that is beyond the normal capability of the attack. One other thing, for Donovan et al. who have run games with at least one player who has a character with this talent: Can you tell me, honestly, that if Duelist's Training did not have the multiple opponents penalty, it would be overpowered or otherwise unsuitable? If so, please provide a short description of why the talent becomes overpowered, or why it is unsuitable. Alternatively, can you explain why you feel that the talent should remain as written and that no compromise can be made?
  15. That doesn't make up for the fact that it is the only talent to impose a passive penalty.
×
×
  • Create New...