Jump to content

deaddmwalking

Members
  • Content Count

    20
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About deaddmwalking

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday
  1. deaddmwalking

    Roll OVER versus Roll Under

    You appear to misunderstand. You do not add anything to 100. As written, you roll d100 and try to roll under your target number. The target number could be 30, or it could be 70 - it depends on your skill. The proposal is every target number is 100. You add your skill to your roll. If your skill is 30, the check is 1d100+30 against a TN of 100. If your skill is 70, the check is 1d100+70 against a TN of 100. Outside of degrees of success, it doesn't make much difference, but most people are better at addition than subtraction. Since it works out the same mathematically (they're equivalent functions) there are a lot of groups that will grok it more intuitively. It also has the advantage of making 'roll high' universal for best results. Some players (especially new ones) can be confused by trying to roll low for action resolution, but rolling high for action results (ie, damage). Finally, if you need to compare degrees of success to an opponent, this makes it trivial. If I have a 70 in the skill and my opponent has a 30, I roll a 52 and he rolls a 11, who wins? Now look at 70+48=118 versus 30+89=119. I think it's easier to tell who beat their TN by more in the second example - it's fewer operations which means less time thinking about the numbers and more time getting into character.
  2. deaddmwalking

    NPcs spending fatepoints

    For an NPC that needs Fate Points, assume they have as many as they would if they were a PC. If you don't want to roll, give them 2 or 3. As long as you're using them for their abilities and not re-rolls, it'll never be an issue.
  3. Not that it matters but 'fighting tooth and nail' was posting 'bad guys don't normally get Righteous Fury'. It's a play-by-post and I was planning on discussing it with the GM via IM later. When I brought it up I was shut down before I even explained my question. After that, I was upset that I didn't have a chance to even discuss the rule or even find out if the GM was aware that we weren't 'by the book'. Even when I did 'throw a fit' it was mostly around potential concerns with changing enemies mid-fight due to some honest mistakes on calculating Horde Damage. So, in short, I appreciate everyone's feedback on how they use Righteous Fury, but don't worry about tips on dealing with a problem player. The GM (and I) both got frustrated over a lack of communication, but I think we're good on that front going forward.
  4. deaddmwalking

    Did I handle this combat correctly?

    If you're in an explosion, let's say dead center of the blast, it can only 'hit' one location? IE, if you dive on a grenade and it explodes and you roll hit location 'right arm', that's the only thing that takes damage? No chest, no head, no legs...
  5. I'd suggest working out with the player why he didn't start with a Force Sword. Losing a weapon should be such a shameful act that your player might legitimately feel that their character concept is being destroyed - without even giving them a chance to do anything about it! Your player's character might DIE before losing the weapon, and you're just going to say 'sorry dude, thems the breaks'? There are other ways that could spin this in a much more positive light for the character and still accomplish the goal. For example, there was a shortage of force weapons because anyone with even a spark of talent was needed immediately for a daemon invasion - since he was going to the Deathwatch and wasn't going to be directly involved in this campaign he voluntarily forgo his requisition of a force sword to give his brothers a better chance at victory... Or the chapter could be in a dispute with the Deathwatch. The chapter may have felt that the Deathwatch was careless with equipment they provided, and demanded that the Deathwatch use their own armories to outfit Marines from this chapter until 'debts are paid'. The librarian is in bureaucratic limbo while this is resolved - perhaps getting the sword from a Forge Master is the solution to the problem... In any case, the best thing is definitely copping to the mistake and letting the player know that you'd like to make getting the sword significant for the story and get some ideas from them on what happened before the game started. But be careful about simply declaring something that casts the character in a bad light. Players are usually more than happy to put 'bad stuff' in their background, but it's important that it is something that they chose for themselves.
  6. deaddmwalking

    Dodge & Parry

    From the Deathwatch book, it looks like Parry is based entirely on your own skill, not the opponent. If you have a WS of 55, and your opponent has a WS of 55 and rolls a 01 for attack (hit, 5 degrees of success) and you roll a 55 (Challenging +0 WS Test), do you negate the hit? The parry rules (242) appear to support that reading. It would also follow that your chance of successfully parrying an opponent would be the same whether their WS was 5 or 95; it doesn't get any harder to parry an opponent based on their WS since the roll is based only on your Weapon Skill. Is this correct?
  7. deaddmwalking

    Question about Dodge

    So to confirm, if you hit an opponent with a single attack roll, even if it does multiple hits (like semi-auto fire) they are all negated with a successful Dodge check?
  8. deaddmwalking

    Flamer Area of Effect

    GM! What do you think this is, Dungeons & Dragons ? The Emperor will be displeased.
  9. deaddmwalking

    Flamer Area of Effect

    If you've played the tabletop minis game, you've probably seen the flamethrower template. I think that gives me the best sense of what it should look like. I'm sure I could Google image it.
  10. deaddmwalking

    Does the inclusion of Only War rules unbalance DW?

    No..no soldier would tell you that...ever.. I'm not lying. I have been told that on this very board. Maybe he was lying about being a soldier. Who knows? Must have been. Think of it this way - if you aim, you're going to more accurate than if you don't, right? Well, after aiming your shot and firing, every gun will have some amount of recoil. The more powerful the gun, the more powerful the recoil. No matter how well you absorb the recoil, it will knock your aim off in some direction. If you set up a gun for 'remote firing' and didn't adjust the gun between shots, you'd see which way it 'shifts' - just like a car without perfect alignment. Now, if your aim is good you could probably put more shots on a target with a burst in 1 second because ideally they'll cluster; but your aimed shots are going to always be the most accurate (unless you're so bad at shooting that blind luck is better).
  11. deaddmwalking

    Fate Points and Re-Rolls

    We've been using fate points in the standard way, including using it to re-roll an attack. Yesterday, it came up that our Devestator with a Heavy Bolter rolled a jam. I asked if using the re-roll would allow a new attack and (as long as it wasn't similarly high) make it so the jam never happened. Per the rules, would using a Fate Point to allow a re-roll make it so the jam never happened? The GM ruled that we could use a fate point to clear the jam, but that we couldn't make a new attack roll. His feeling was that being able to negate the jam completely with a new re-roll AND get an attack was pretty powerful - and jams would basically never happen. Since they're such an iconic part of the setting, I think the GM is right - we'd basically never see them happen if you re-roll your attack that caused them. Is there an exception that doesn't allow you to use a Fate Point to re-roll an attack if it has some 'bad thing' attached? Do other people allow Fate Point-Rerolls to make a new attack (voiding the jam)?
  12. deaddmwalking

    List of newbie questions

    In your post you alluded to it, but I thought it might be worth pointing it out explicitly. If you place your 16" (16 Meter) template over a horde of enemies, even if you cover all of them with the blast template, the number of 'hits' is defined by the horde rules - so even if there are 40 models representing 40 Magnitude, you aren't going to kill them all with a single missile.
  13. deaddmwalking

    Different chapters same squad modes

    Right, I tried to say as much in the original post. I clearly didn't comunicate well. As I tried to get across in my original post. What I failed to communicate was that on page 219 the rules say "In addition, such is the nature of these abilities that when they are used only members of the same chapter as the chapter abili..." never mind You're not going to find it written in the book, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't the INTENTION to make different chapters with the same squad modes compatible. Bear in mind, none of the chapters included in the Deathwatch core book have the same Chapter Ability. The book mentions that details of other chapters will be covered in a later expansion, but since we have no 'core' examples of chapters having the same Squad Mode, we can't actually tell if they meant this to be a complete prohibition or not. My take is that it isn't. They don't want Space Wolves using the Black Templar's Righteous Fury, because they want differences in chapter to mean something. Having Blood Angels and Angels Encarmine and Blood Drinkers and Knights of Blood in the same Kill Team is POSSIBLE, but why not just have a team of all Blood Angels? If you are having different characters from similar chapters, I'd say that they can share Squad Modes without penalty... If there were major differences between the way they operated in Squad Mode, they'd have a different Squad Mode altogether. So, yeah, my take is that the actual ability is what matters - and if you have several chapters with the same ability, they can use it just as if it was activated by someone in their existing Chapter. But I don't think there will be a clear RAW interpretation until we see some 'official' successor chapters included in later expansions... Edit - Fixed Quotes
  14. deaddmwalking

    Roll OVER versus Roll Under

    I posted this in the PbP forum for my GM to read, and per his request, he wanted to have it posted here where people more familiar with the Deathwatch game could share their thoughts. While I'm new to Deathwatch, I'm familiar with roll under systems, and advocate them for 'roll high'. The post is below: This is kind of a suggestion, and kind of a tirade. One of the big breakthroughs of D&D 3.x was the 'always roll high'. In original D&D, there were some rolls you wanted to roll low since you often had to 'roll under you attribute' but other rolls that you wanted to roll high (like attack rolls). Roll under seems like it should be easy, since you're just comparing two values (which one is higher) and that might be true until you have to consider degrees of success. If you needed a 66 and you rolled a 38, how many degrees of success did you get (without using your fingers)? The thing is, roll under is completely unnecessary. Let me show you a better way. Example 1 - Your skill is 40 You know to succeed you need to roll between 1 and 40 on your d100. Obviously, that is 40 numbers. Now, imagine that instead of saying 'roll under 40' you rolled the d100 and added your skill (1d100+40) with a fixed Target Number of 100. If you're good at math, you already know that you need to roll between a 60-100 in order to get 100 or better. That, my friends, is a range of 40 numbers (just like roll under). The real advantage is that degrees of success becomes SUPER EASY. If you rolled a 95 (+40) you have a 135. Since addition is easier than subtraction, nobody has a problem with that. And subtracting 100 is WAY easier than subtracting 38 from 66. Clearly, if you have a 138 you can drop the 100s digit (leaving 38) and that's how much you beat the target by - giving you 3 degrees of success. Example 2 - You have a 70 in the relevant skill, but you have a -30 for circumstances. You might thing you roll 1d100 +70 against a target of 130, but that gets right back to the original problem. In this case, you add them to your existing modifiers so we're right back at 1d100 + 40 [70 - 30 = 40]. Since we already did the math, we know that d100+40 against a TN of 100 is EXACTLY the same as 1d100 (roll 40 or below). I can understand why you might be reluctant to make the change in the game considering you're pretty new to the system, but I promise you, the math is absolutely solid. If you did decide to make the change, I think you'd find people grasping things much more easily. My big concern is that we've been rolling so AWESOME when we're supposed to roll low that things could get pretty scary if we switch. But I know that people will have an easier time with the system (it's scientifically proven). Just a couple examples with failures because they are just a little trickier than successes (but still easier than the current system). Failure Example 1: You have +40 in your skill. Against a TN of 100, you need to roll a 60 or better for a success. You roll a 32. Result - 72. You can start from 80 (since your degree of failure was not as low as 70) and you know you have 2 degrees of failure. If you had rolled a 22 your result would be a 62 and once again you'd start from the next highest tens to determine your number of degrees of failure... In that case 70 to 100 is 30 - so 3 degrees of failure. I know making a change to a core mechanic can be a little nerve wracking - you'd think there MUST be a reason why they do that - but there isn't a good one. Most game designers aren't strong with math and the roll under mechanic has been around so long that it's just accepted without consideration of alternate methods that produce THE EXACT SAME RESULTS but with less figuring. Please feel free to move this (or create a new thread) if you like. I could also cross-post on the FF forums under house rules, if you like.
×