Jump to content

Reno Shiv

Members
  • Content Count

    40
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. Let's check, roll = 4 hits and 4 advantages against a minion group using a HBR (Stormtroopers) Soak is 5 and WT is 5 first hit = 10+4 successes for 14 damage. 14-5 for soak = 9 second hit = 10+3 successes for 13 damage. 13-5 for soak = 8 third hit = 10+2 successes for 12 damage. 12-5 for soak = 7 fourth hit = 10+1 success for 11 damage. 11-5 for soak = 6 your net damage from those 4 hits = 30 damage that is more than enough to take down a minion group of STs. In that scenario a player would have eliminated a 5 minion group of STs. When you factor mod attachments,aiming and other talents you can enter the realm of WTF, and that goes both ways because what is good for the PCs is also good for the NPCs. A good roll whether using this tweak or not will still have amazing results. Lets not forget too that the player with AF/JR is not likely to be playing by himself, other players might like to get a chance to see some smoke coming out of their barrels every now and then. It's not fun watching your teammate kill everything while you stand by and just watch all the time. I can see how a character that is new might have trouble taking down a minion group like above but then again he's new and that's why you have partners, to give you a helping hand. However after 6 sessions or so even a PC without JR will still be able to attain multiple hits using Aim, Attachments, and Talents.
  2. I toyed with that idea and alot of people have argued well in favor for things along those lines, but in my opinion I feel others in the group that don't want that in their build end up getting punished because of 1 PC that does.
  3. If a player were to have a 1/1000 chance roll like you suggested the tweak I made wouldn't in my opinion limit the joy from getting a great roll. It simply would limit the extent to how great the result is. Getting 4 extra hits in my book is still pretty awesome. This way if a player were to net just 1 success (which means you narrowly hit the target) he wouldn't be rewarded with an insane number of extra hits rewarded from AF/JR. It also makes the extra advantage gained useful in some other manner.
  4. Even though I don't post in these forums I read them often, mainly to assist me on ideas and for rule clarifications. I am starting a new campaign and in that group I know I'm getting a PC that will be using autofire and jury-rigged. I haven't had to GM yet for a player using autofire nor have I used an NPC that did as well, however I have read these forums enough to know that many people here view autofire as maybe being broken. That being said I am trying to avoid a situation where a player creates a character using autofire and jury-rigged then becomes upset because I alter the rules concerning its use after the campaign has started. That being said I have thought long and hard on how or even if I should house rule this. I have read just about every post concerning this subject and to many posters credit a lot of fair arguments and suggestions have been made. I'm making this post to share my idea on how to handle it, I haven't seen any house rulings resembling this and if there are and I missed it I apologize. My solution: Allow jury-rigged to work as intended, 1 advantage would activate the autofire weapon quality. However, everytime the PC or NPC activates the autofire weapon quality it cancels a success that was rolled. Thus reducing the subsequent hits damage and total number of times it could be activated. Example: PC shoots NPC using autofire and jury-rigged, his roll nets a result that equals 1 success and 4 advantage. Under this ruling he would only be able to activate autofire once even though he has more than enough advantage to do so multiple times. In the same scenario if the PC had net 4 successes and 4 advantage he could have activated autofire 4 times but even then the damage between the first hit and the subsequent hits would be diminished. I think this solution does a few things. First it better reflects how hard it should be to repeatedly hit a target. Second it tones down how out of hand the autofire quality can get and third even if you do manage to get a lot of hits those subsequent hits will have their damage reduced even if it is minor.
  5. @Whitewing LOL....seriously? Your example using gravity is a joke and you really need to quit trying so hard to one up me. Gravity is a theory you are correct, but I think you need to brush up on what you think the definition of theory is before applying it to a sentence much like your misunderstanding of validity. At the risk of sounding pompous a lot of people such as yourself fail to realize that "Theory" has more than one meaning and because of my passion in evolutionary science I've had to defend what the word theory actually means. A scientific theory (such as gravity or evolution) summarizes a hypothesis which has been supported by repeated testing by the scientific community. If after repeated testing enough evidence is gathered to support that hypothesis it becomes known as a "THEORY" and thus becomes accepted as a valid explanation. This doesn't mean it's the end result, theories can become improved or even rejected if after time science can prove that theory wrong. There are even times when a theory can become a scientific law, which takes on a whole new embodiment. FYI gravity encompasses both. When "theory" is used in a nonscientific context the word theory implies that something is unproven or speculative. Your above statement is implying that "gravity" is unproven and to that you are wrong. Careful and rational scientific examination of the facts has indeed determined otherwise. Your debate on this matter is pure speculation and the fact that you just drew a comparison to gravity being a theory is extremely laughable. Maybe the word I used "irrefutable" was misplaced and shouldn't have been used but everything you have used in your argument regarding the original topic has been nothing but conjecture. Thus is the reason why I said your opinion is no more valid than mine, because you have offered no evidence that can support it. You say it's impossible to prove that negative statement I'd argue otherwise. Math could easily support both sides of this debate but it would take a ton of number crunching and statistical data that I'm sure nobody here is willing to endure. Until you produce something more than a biased opinion of what in your mind is right this debate will continue to be akin to two people arguing who has the better sports team. You don't like my opinion on it? Oh well I don't like yours neither. If this sounds nasty sorry, but you are dangerously flirting in the realm of being insulting and I take offense to that. Your constant and often wrong dissection of vocabulary and my need to explain things to you that are off topic is both irksome and tiresome. I forget sometimes this a forum and that people don't usually have decorum.
  6. @ Whitewing In regards to making a argument more valid,it does if those people are making logical arguments either in favor for or against what it is being argued/debated about. Just someone saying "I agree" or "disagree" doesn't make it more valid, but when other people weigh in and express their own logical argument that coincides or even adds to what you have already said, it does. I would say that some of the arguments others have shared in this thread vocalizing their concern that the TH is indeed unbalanced or overpowered fits that criteria and it goes for those that share your opinion as well. I can't speak for the posters on this thread that share the same consensus that I do on this topic, but I haven't been won over by the arguments on this thread. Just as you and I'm sure others like you haven't been either. You can disagree all you want but in this instance you are no more right on the subject than I am. The only way for that to happen is to show some irrefutable evidence and I haven't seen anything in this thread but conjecture.
  7. @Letanir Yeah I would never force the players to pick randomly. For starters you want the players to be engaged and have fun and I could not think of anything less fun than being forced to play a class or hero you have no interest in. Second I would definitely say that by doing so it gives the OL a unfair advantage. Simply because the group could easily lack any synergy or cohesion by doing it. If the players opt for a lack of cohesion fine, that's on them. Forcing a lack of it is another matter.
  8. Well....got a lot of nice feedback which I think has changed my original plans a lil going to go.... Grisban (Knight) Corbin (Champion) Augur (Apothecary) Leoric (Runemaster) Lack of mobility is certainly going to hinder my efforts however there is a lot of vitality to this group so I'm going to see if I can plow thru my obstacles and make it to the finish line. I do feel that I might have a slight edge in the sense I shouldn't be reviving a lot which frees them to take other actions. I've seen very mobile parties plagued by that very thing. Thanks all for the input.....this should be fun
  9. Yeah...agree with you about Leoric......the -1 on all attack rolls definitely compliments the party better. So as it looks the group composition looks like.... Grisban (Knight) Corbin (Champion) Augur (Apothecary) Leoric (Runemaster) Lol....so what are my chances against a competent OL with this group do you think?
  10. I know ideally these are not the heroes you would want grouped....but l'd like to try something different and my fondness for dwarves is urging me to go dwarf heavy. So Grisban as the Knight and Corbin as the Berserker then? Originally I was thinking go with Corbin as the Knight because of his hero ability to take more damage which allows the Knight skill "Defend" to be used to it's full potential since he could use it without the need for healing as much compared to Grisban.
  11. Ok getting some good feedback on this and now I'm wondering what you said Whitewing in regards to switching the Champion out for Beastmaster. I just got done OL'ing for a group that used Beastmaster and even though I didn't use it I'm still burnt out from watching him played so I'm trying to avoid that class. What if instead of making Grisban a Champion he was used as a Berserker, which could help with his lack of mobility much like Corbin would get by using the Knight. Corbin (Knight) Grisban (Berserker) Augur (Apothecary) Leoric (Runemaster) or Jain (Wildlander) both have their merits but I was leaning towards Jain for when I need someone that has to have mobility for that certain moment when it becomes imperative. Also I don't have access to the Skirmisher class, just in case somebody makes that suggestion.
  12. After further thought I'd have to change my mind on this. Originally I allowed the worms to burrow under closed doors however burrow reads exactly like Tomble's heroic feat and I wouldn't let a player place Tomble on the other side of a closed door.
  13. Yeah...you are right about Grisban, I forgot all about By the Book and the other ability (forget what it's called) for Marshal requiring a good knowledge stat. The mobility issue I understood when putting this group together, however I was hoping that even though it would be a shortcoming (no pun intended) that it wouldn't be a terrible hindrance that would cost me the campaign. I'd like to keep as many Dwarves as possible. So.... Corbin (Knight) Augur (Apothecary) Grisban (Champion) Leoric (Runemaster) or Jain (Wildlander)
×
×
  • Create New...