Jump to content

Doughnut

Members
  • Content Count

    124
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Doughnut

  1. Yup! I gave up trying to run Genesys because it's too much work to convert entire settings, and when I presented the idea to my players after a mock battle to show how the dice system worked they complained that it took too long to tabulate the dice, I suggested a roller app, but they didn't want to burn their phone battery at the table. As a GM there's just not enough material available without building most of it from the ground up to really dive head first into a setting as deep as Star Trek. Instead I ran my Star Trek campaign in Fate Accelerated/Core, and we had an amazing time! We're currently on an end of Season break from Star Trek, scheduled to resume for Season 2 in the spring.
  2. Trying out my first game, turn 2 I chose House Logos. I played Library Access first card of the turn: "Play: For the remainder of the turn, each time you play another card, draw a card." Then played Wild Wormhole "Play: Play the top card of your deck." What is the proper order these effects resolve? I assume that when you play a card its effects resolve completely before other effects take place, even previous standing effects. Thanks!
  3. The Star Wars supplement "Stay on Target" has a lot of beast themed Talents that can (and have) be converted to Genesys. Also you could give them the tier 3 "Animal Companion" talent for Beast Tamer to represent a beast they've already tamed.
  4. You might look at heroic abilities from Terrinoth. You definitely could reflavor them, and write new ones into fighting styles. Heroic abilities grow with characters for every 50 xp gained without investing xp.
  5. Yeah, that's right in line of what it probably should be. In the Core Book, there is Defensive Stance tier 2 talent, that does the exact same thing for melee attacks. I'd definitely allow the exact same talent except for magical checks, within medium range range. The talent probably could be called "Improved Counterspell". You could keep the "targeting your character thing", but if you drop it, I'd trade it for something like instead of medium range, change it to short range. Improved Counterspell Tier: 2 Activation: Active (Maneuver) Ranked: Yes Once per round, your character may suffer a number of strain no greater than their ranks in Improved Counterspell to use this talent. Then, until the end of your character’s next turn, upgrade the difficulty of all magic skill checks within medium range targeting your character a number of times equal to the strain suffered.
  6. I was just re-reading the vehicle rules for an upcoming campaign. Let me see if I can help out with some of these questions, though by no means am I an expert in the vehicle rules of Genesys. Q1. If a vehicle has non-zero speed, it is moving its forced movement. And reposition is the only maneuver/action that grants range band movement. So the answer would be yes. Q2. I don't think so. There is no maneuver to "move" per se, other than reposition. A vehicle's movement is the forced movement based on their speed which happens either at the beginning or end of their turn. You totally can fly to one range band away: say a vehicle is flying at 1 speed that's 2 range bands of forced movement. If the pilot is at short range, and attempting to move to medium range, then they can move from short to medium back to short, then reposition to medium. Effectively spending one maneuver to move one range band. Q3. No. I see no problem with it being 1+ speed. Q4. No. I mean you could, or you can just use reposition for essentially the same thing. I was thinking of Star Wars stuff, I was like "Why would you be engaged in melee with vehicles?" Then I thought about mecha settings where that totally would happen. I'd just use reposition for essentially the same maneuver as moving into and out of engaged. Q5. But that's not true. Vehicles move because they have a non-zero speed. Reposition essentially 'corrects' overshooting your desired destination by one range band. Personally I really like Genesys's vehicle movement rules a ton more than the Star Wars games. It keeps in mind that vehicles that have greater than zero speed are constantly moving and flying around. Where as at personal scale a human can be standing around in combat, or at least taking very few steps that wouldn't constitute a full maneuver, like footwork in fighting. You're not moving trying to gain distance, rather you're simply stepping around to shift your weight. A vehicle doesn't have that kind of stationary position, unless it's actually stopped relative to the other things around it. Honestly, if you were so inclined, I doubt it would be a huge deal to change the reposition maneuver from "1+ speed" to "any speed". I can and have totally seen Star Trek ships blast a thruster to move over a little bit but otherwise start and end at zero speed. Which would be difficult to show off in the Genesys system as it sits. Also it would make sense for like a mecha settings where two mechas are sword fighting in space engaged, which should probably be at zero speed, but as long as they were going the same speed it wouldn't matter, then one wants to disengage. But also in the same scenario the mecha could just do an accelerate maneuver and move two range bands for essentially the same effect, except they'd be two range bands apart.
  7. Thanks! Looks good. Tactical combat is not a hexcrawl, not even close. Thanks for trying though.
  8. Hello community, I am curious if there are any Genesys rules and/or mechanics that support or would enhance a medium fantasy hexcrawl exploration campaign?
  9. I am setting up a Star Trek Genesys game also. I am basing a lot of the gear choices off of Star Trek Adventures, because I want to run a Star Trek Adventures game, but I hate the Modiphius' 2d20 system. I am basing the weapons off of various gear from the Genesys sample settings. Like a Phaser type-1 is simply a laser pistol from the Science Fiction setting example, and I added a Stun setting Gear in Star Trek probably should be downplayed especially as rewards since in modern Trek nearly everything can be replicated, so all common gear should be 100% available as long as the characters have access to a replicator. Restricted gear like Romulan Ale or a Dominion plasma rifle could be used as motivators for gear. Combat probably should be downplayed a lot too since Star Trek combat (remakes, and Discovery notwithstanding) in most Star Trek battles even when the enemies start shooting at the officers, they stop and try to talk instead of shooting until the enemies are all dead. My campaign is also post-Voyager so I am adding in the option for players to play freed borg drones (based off of biodroids in the cyberpunk example), and toying with the idea of adding holographic crew members with mobile emitters (basically robots from sci-fi but without wounds, only strain). Otherwise most of the rules can be lifted from the existing sci-fi setting example, space opera setting example, and ship rules.
  10. How do you plan on handling this? I think that this may come up in many magical games, as well as scifi/space opera games where there are holographic projections. Currently I'm working on a post-Voyager Star Trek campaign, so holographic crew with mobile emitters are definitely possible. But also for the illusion magic when things try to attack a mage's mirror image type spell, or attack an illusion of a dragon or something. Should they just be immune to damage, or some other narrative effect? Or take strain to represent dwindling energy of the illusion/hologram? What are the community's thoughts?
  11. Used in combat, and for combat are two very different things. Once per encounter, for 1 round. That's what I was trying to do without pigeonholing it. Thanks everyone I've nailed down the talent I want to use!
  12. Nah, I just don't want Vulcan Nerve Pinch to be primarily a combat talent. It's more of a narrative story beat done outside of combat. Since in most Star Trek, combat is done with phasers or ships' phasers at range. Making a talent where brawl does stun damage during combat is exactly what I don't want. I don't want Vulcan Nerve Pinch to be a combat talent. That's why it's Brawl vs. Resilience check instead of a Brawl attack check. I know what stun damage is and what it does. The point is that this talent isn't meant for combat. A Vulcan rushing forward into a firefight trying to Nerve Pinch a dude who is shooting at them is idiotic. Most of the time we see a Vulcan Nerve Pinch in the Star Trek shows it's in some tense scene where the situation might explode into combat, and the Vulcan Nerve Pinches the adversary, then they drag the enemy to the brig. What's what I envision this talent to be used for, not used for combat. I apologize that I didn't explain this earlier. The responses makes sense that because I didn't explain it well enough that you all didn't understand.
  13. Thank you for all the responses. All good notes, however the spirit of the Vulcan Nerve Pinch is not an attack that does stun damage. Spock grabs an adversary's shoulder and puts them down for a little bit. So the Pressure Point talent, while a good recommendation is not something I am going to use. I agree Concussive 3 is too much for 5xp. However I do want to point out that under my system of "Background talents", that 5xp must come from the character's starting XP, and it costs more later. I could see it being a Tier 3 talent later though. How about changing it to Concussive 1, making the talent Once per Encounter, and it deals zero damage? Vulcan Nerve Pinch Tier: Background (Tier 1) or Tier 3 Activation: Action Requirements: Vulcan, or Brawn 4 You have learned numerous techniques for the stimulation and control of nerve impulses collectively called neuropressure. Some applications of neuropresure can be used to swiftly and nonlethally incapacitate assailants. Once per encounter you may make a Brawl versus Resilience check against an engaged target to afflict the staggered condition (treat Vulcan Nerve Pinch as having the Concussive 1 quality) . This Brawl check is unable to inflict strain damage.
  14. Hello community! I am working on my Star Trek Genesys campaign and coming up with some species background talents. I am sort of stuck on the Vulcan Nerve Pinch. Here's what I have so far: Vulcan Nerve Pinch Tier: Background (Tier 1) or Tier 2 Activation: Action Requirements: Vulcan, or Brawn 4 You have learned numerous techniques for the stimulation and control of nerve impulses collectively called neuropressure. Some applications of neuropresure can be used to swiftly and nonlethally incapacitate assailants. Once per round you may make a Brawl versus Resilience check against an engaged target to afflict the staggered condition (treat Vulcan Nerve Pinch as having the Concussive 3 quality) . Is it too powerful? Not useful? I made it Tier 1 with the idea that this easily could be a talent that a Vulcan can start with during character creation. I am also working with the idea of Background Talents: Talents that can be taken during character creation as a Tier 1 talent by spending starting XP, but if a character doesn't take it as a background talent during character creation, then it changes to a different Tier. Also, I made the requirement Vulcan or Brawn 4 because we've seen other characters in Star Trek do a Vulcan Nerve Pinch who were not Vulcans (namely Data from TNG). So either a character who is Vulcan or sufficiently strong character can learn to perform a Vulcan Nerve Pinch. This is the part I am least attached to. I wouldn't mind if it was a Vulcan only talent. I'd love some feedback, thanks!
  15. While it's not grouped up under knowledges, isn't Streetwise already its own kind of special knowledge skill? I have added an arcane knowledge skill to represent knowledge of magics and other mystical things, using the modern definition of 'arcane'. I like Lore and Education as subdivisions of knowledge. I consider wilderness information and training under the survival skill. Just my 2 cp.
  16. Oh I like these, not as replacements, but as additional alternatives. Just some ideas: For comparison in a traditional class based game D&D-like schema, I could definitely see a wizard casting opposed, but a warlock using spell points, and a sorcerer using RAW. A wizard/alchemist type, is a learned caster and they aren't really using their own power to cast spells, they are simply tapping into the secret language of the universe to restructure power that's already around them to cast spells, that's why they have to go through all the rigamarole of learning formulas and rituals to cast spells. This could also apply to bard, priest/witch doctor, or druid types who use nature's ambient energy to cast spells in similar ways. But a warlock, or cleric who use an external power source might be granted a number of spell points they are able to cast magic with. A warlock might be granted spell points by a powerful entity like a demon lord, or siphoning from an unknowable elder god, and a cleric's patron deity may grant them their power. And finally a sorcerer, shaman, or psion could use RAW to show how they are using magic with their own internal power and life force. It would take some more work to balance these against each other, if you care about such things in your personal campaign. Balance might even be more narrative in nature. Using the RAW approach might require specific races/species that grant the use of magic through internal power: * If you don't start the game as a Kalashtar or a Tiefling, you wouldn't be able to use psionics or cast magic spells using Strain. * A learned caster is something just about anyone can do just by investing skill points into it maybe narratively having access to such material like a wizard's grimoire, or a library with magic information, or even a master that teaches you, but it's the weakest of the bunch in that everything is an opposed roll, so while it's the easiest to acquire, it's also the easiest to defend against. * The middle road of spell points option may narratively require making a 'deal with the devil' as it were, whether that devil is an actual devil, or a deity and thus directly affected by the god's religious dogma, or a powerful patron entity that would grant you such spell points for the price of being their agent or slave.
  17. My group and I have been running through various sessions of different genres, testing out mechanics and seeing what we like and how we might tweak them for actual plays. As far as concentration is working RAW, it's fine, but I see why people would want to change it. Our last long play campaign was in D&D 5e, and the concentration rules in D&D as well as Genesys feel very similar. The concentration tends to de-incentivize casters from using any spell other than Attack, especially at lower levels. At higher levels when casters are able to hit Additional Targets +difficulties regularly, then concentration becomes much more worth it, but concentration just to maintain a single spell on a single target is pretty meh. Conjure is pretty useful to spend your concentration on if you can get a friendly creature that can help out during combat. Summon Ally becomes more problematic because it's a concentration spell, *and* it takes another maneuver to direct the turns of the summoned creatures/allies. One of my group members who is our other main GM is talking about running a medium fantasy game and we've been talking about making a talent or two to enhance concentration. Note these are all still in the high planning stages, not ready for implementation, just ideas. First we've been considering a roughly tier 3 talent that allows certain casters types to maintain a concentration with either a maneuver or 1 Strain. We've been talking about limiting this talent to one spell, so when you take the talent you have to choose which spell to apply this talent. For example, the taking this talent means you could choose to concentrate on the Barrier spell with a maneuver or 1 strain, but wouldn't work for another spell like Augment. And a top tier talent that allows you to spend a story point to to extend the duration of a spell to the end of the scene without concentration, again with the limitation that it works on a single spell that you choose when you take the talent.
  18. Transhumanism is an interesting setting idea because it divorces people from things like bodies and asks "what makes us human?" I would use archetypes to determine the base character of a person, and use sleeves as 'vehicles'. Vehicles would match the mechanics, imo to sleeving a bit better. I'd probably make a Tone rule saying that characters only have a strain threshold, no wound threshold. Then I'd toy with dropping the system strain from vehicles, and use the character's strain in place. Sleeves would be vehicles, so use hull trama for wound threshold instead of a character's.
  19. I like the idea of splitting spell power ranks, from spell knowledge. This fits with a lot of other rpgs in their spellcasting, like World of Darkness, or Shadowrun. I probably won't use a subsystem of spell ranks equalling difficulty determining which spells someone can and can't cast based on their magic casting ability. Although I can envision settings that would benefit from such a system. Reminds me of a magic mod posted recently:
  20. Then why were there two Attack based spell and a Barrier spell, with Additional Effects tables provided? Why not just add one attack spell with the additional effects table? You must not be very familiar with many systems then. Especially more free form or universal systems: Fate, Savage Worlds, GURPS, BRP, Cortex, and just about every Supers game I've ever played all had free-form magic systems. My group is coming primarily from Fate Core. Where we're used to simply rolling a magic skill and defining what narrating what happens based on the roll, without any further structure. Limitations are a flavor of life that many people enjoy. If you've ever played on God mode in a video game you'd know the feeling of being able to do anything at all times. It gets boring. And I know my players, if there are no limitations the whole campaign just becomes about "I cast the attack spell, I'll add blast" then next round "I cast the attack spell, I'll add range" then next round "I cast the attack spell, I'll add impact". Because that's the sort of gamers my friends are. So if I adjudicate the magic system to be something a little more limited, something more in line with the Genesys Gencon mage character spells (seriously, that character has two magic attack spells clearly defined based on the magic attack action with additional effects table available), then my players will use it to narrate what their doing instead of just repeating that they are using the attack spell every round with various modifiers. Or my friends will argue "I narrated that my magic attack spell is a fire spell, it should catch things on fire." even if they didn't add the fire descriptor to the spell, and narratively it should catch things on fire even without the extra difficulty, because we are more used to full narrative systems like Fate Core where if you say a magic attack is fire based then it catches something on fire. Yes, I suggested that in the original post. See the life drain spell example. Yes, I suggested that in the original post. See the New Spell Talent example. Yes, I suggested that in the original post. See the Life Drain spell example again. I very clearly explained why. Yes, this is what I clearly explained the purpose of my entire post was. The only abuse I am trying to "deal" with is my players using magic to solve every problem, because even if they have more dice to roll for a higher difficulty. I guarantee that my friends will definitely try to take the shorter even if it's more difficult path by using magic to solve literally everything. You're the only one here talking about Vancian magic systems. I didn't suggest that. I used D&D as an example of the type and scope of spells I'm going to make for my campaign. I never said anything about Vancian magic systems, and at this point I'm not even sure you read my post fully, or understand exactly the details of a Vancian magic system. I never said anything about magic not requiring a roll in Genesys. I enjoy skill roll magic systems. I've used them a lot, like for years and years. I don't think you understood what I was saying, instead decided to come at me like some white knight in defense of the all mighty Genesys magic system, which for a toolkit is very poorly explained (as in they don't bother explaining that you still need to use advantage to trigger additional effects even if you buy them with increased difficulty, but I digress), because 'Vancian magic bad!' And half of your "advice" are things I already suggested in the original post, which you obviously didn't read and/or understand. Thanks for your input.
  21. Spells cost 2 strain to cast, successful or not. Although the probabilities to generate enough advantage to recover that strain from the spell roll itself have pretty good odds. Even a starting character with say 3 Intellect and 1 Arcana has a 24% chance to generate at least 2 Advantage while casting the Attack spell with one modification. Of course the spell caster needs to choose whether or not to activate their Additional Effects with those advantage or recover the strain they spent on the spell, a risk reward scenario to be sure. But with a 65% chance for the spell to be successful I guess it depends on whether or not you succeed casting the attack spell to determine whether or not you wish to activate the additional effects. It's already been confirmed to players that Additional Effects on magic like Blast, works just like the item quality of the same name, so you'd need 2 advantage to activate it. The Anydice program with Genesys dice programmed in. Shout outs to CitizenKeen In my case it's my wish to align the PC's expectations more to the style of game where magic isn't the end all be all of all skill checks, because I can definitely see my group all doubling down on magic, then the whole campaign just becomes about "I cast the attack spell, I'll add blast" then next round "I cast the attack spell, I'll add range" then next round "I cast the attack spell, I'll add impact". Because that's the sort of gamers my friends are. So if I adjudicate the magic system to be something a little more limited, something more in line with the Genesys Gencon mage character spells (seriously, that character has two magic attack spells clearly defined based on the magic attack action), then my players will use it to narrate what their doing instead of just repeating that they are using the attack spell every round with various modifiers. Or my friends will argue "I narrated that my magic attack spell is a fire spell, it should catch things on fire." even if they didn't add the fire descriptor to the spell, and narratively it should catch things on fire even without the extra difficulty, because we are more used to full narrative systems where if you say a magic attack is fire based then it catches something on fire. Not to mention I enjoy writing spells and powers then trying to figure out how to build them in the confines of a rule system or toolkit.
  22. As the GM of my group I think wall of fire should be as at will as fireball. Personally, I'd adjudicate that you can combine spell actions, maybe with an upgraded difficulty. Transforming a difficulty to a challenge die seems appropriate to be able to combine the attack and barrier magic actions. That way the barrier can do damage to anyone touching it. Not simply cause a burn, but actually be a persistent, concentrated wall of fire that if people move within short range of it take fire damage. Of course wall of fire is just an example, it could be a wall of thorns, for primal casters, or a wall of holy light for divine casters, but it could all be the same process. At least that's along the lines I am thinking of running it. Since I know it's going to come up in my game.
  23. If that's how you want to run it. I wasn't trying to say you couldn't modify the spell further, such as from Magic Attack Additional Effects table mid combat, but the base spell would have imposed limitations based on how you built the spell. There's nothing stopping your Pyromancer from adding the Ice effect that way their fireballs can ensnare the targets, but now you have a fireball made of ice. What? However if you prebuild spells you might have base spell called "Fire Arrow" which is just an Attack spell with the fire effect built in. Then during play the pyromancer can choose to imbue the fire arrow with more power giving it the blast effect, now it's a fireball, add close combat to the fire arrow spell and now it's a burning hands spell, you want your make a flameburst spell by adding the impact effect. That's all just narration, and adding those effects. I am by no means saying take away the ability to add effects ad hoc during play. And as of right now there is no way in the rules to make a fire wall that is a barrier and does damage. Attack isn't a concentration spell, so you don't have a fire wall that lasts longer than a single attack. And barrier doesn't do damage, but is concentration. This magic system is just a very loose collection of toolkit rules meant to be adjudicated by the GM for their setting. The last paragraph of 'Magic Actions and Maneuvers' on CRB page 214 tells me it's completely up the GM and players to actually use the rules, rather than defining what they should be for other people.
  24. I posted this thread just a little bit ago about this topic, actually. Perhaps you'll find some insight there? I agree with the other replies on this thread. Genesys is a toolkit, not a roleplaying game. You are meant to use the toolkit to make a roleplaying game. A lot, if not most, universal systems are like that. To summarize my post, it is my observation based on the Genesys Gencon mage character that the magic rules in the toolkit are the basic actions of magic. Just like Brawl, Melee, and Ranged attacks are the basic actions of combat, but that's not all you can do in combat, and even when you're attacking you have a lot more flavor you pour into your brawl/weapon attacks than just using those skills as they sit. Basically, it is my opinion, that you are not just supposed to take the magic skills and use "attack" spell as it sits. You're meant to actually build your own spells with differentiation between them. Even in the CRB on page 212 Under the Attack section the first sentence is: "Attack spells include any combat check..." then in sentence two it talks about different attack spells like "fireball, shooting lightning, smiting a foe with magical force, or knocking a foe around the battlefield with invisible blows." Notice the words "Attack spells" plural. In the toolkit there is only one attack spell, but the description of the Attack spell it talks about attack spells plural. The book doesn't state it directly, but it is my inference from the Gencon materials and the wording described that the GM and players are meant to invent their own spells using the spell definitions within. At least that's what FFG did with the Genesys Gencon mage character, that character has two different spells derived from the attack spell, and a specific barrier spell which he can target himself with.
  25. I've been thinking about magic in Genesys a lot lately. Noodling beyond al dente on the subject. I think I've finally resolved how I am going to run magic, and I feel like the intent of the system proposes magic, and I gain that insight from the Gencon Genesys characters. Shoutout to Silverfox for the thread: I look at Leoric and look at his spells. He has actual spells like you'd expect to see in D&D. He doesn't just use Magic type: Attack he has "Arcane Spear" which is based on the Attack magic type of course. But he also has "Imbued Strike" a completely different spell, but still based on the Magic Type: Attack. The posts I've seen around about how to make magic feel more like other RPGs, I feel, is to follow this path. My proposal: make individual spells, with their own flavor and trappings, stealing trappings from Savage Worlds, of course. With this kind of customization you can determine, on a spell by spell basis what spells are available to which skills, not only that but you can restrict which additional effects may be available to specific spells, don't think a "Fireball" should be able to add the Ice Effect? No problem! Maybe Fireball doesn't get additional effects, it's just an attack with blast and deadly. Adding limitations like this could be a good reason to reduce the difficulty of the action by 1 difficulty, without changing the strain cost. Another complaint I've seen around is that it doesn't make 100% sense that heal is only a divine or primal magic type. What about a spell like 'Life Drain' that is traditionally an arcane spell that damages a target, but also heals the caster? It might look something like: Also, imposing a limit to how many spells a character can learn, may also help those who feel like the magic system is far too broad and open, like myself. Perhaps a limit like 'Spellcasters learn spells equal their Magic Skill rank.' That way they learn new spells when they gain a Skill Rank. Or 'Spellcasters learn spells equal to their Characteristic linked to their magic skill' so they'll probably learn more spells sooner, but then only gain more spells when their characteristic goes up. I'll also probably make a Talent like: Learn Spell. And even with the talent a caster at most will only learn 10 spells total, making casters pick and choose the spells they really want. This can help differentiate between spells, that way Telekinesis, Transmutation, and Detect Magic aren't all a single Utility spell roll, and feel like distinct spells. Overall I am pretty confident about this sort of limited spell based magic system from a roleplaying point of view as well as the intention of the Genesys magic design. But what do you think?
×
×
  • Create New...