Jump to content

Pratutagus

Members
  • Content Count

    8
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Pratutagus

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. There are a couple of different ways that you could rule when the ring allows its reductions, but what you have said here is how I and all of my players interpret it. It might be reasonable to allow a Curse spell to add the Additional Target Effect for +1 Difficulty instead of +2 as if it were partially covered by the ring, but this is admittedly not supported well by the wording of the implements, just figured that I'd mention it as an option. As far as the crafting check goes, there are also a couple choices. If I understand you correctly (I apologize if I do not), you seem to be treating the creation of the Magic Ring as a mundane item, which works perfectly well as the simple option, but I would treat it as a Magic Item and use the rules in the GM Guidance: Crafting Magic Items sidebar on pg. 112 of Realms of Terrinoth. So a character would need to first either craft or purchase a mundane ring with the Superior Item Quality (although, going off of the magic items described in that book, the normal benefit of Superior is probably lost when the item becomes magical) and perform a second crafting check with an appropriate magical skill instead of Mechanics to enchant the ring with a difficulty between Hard and Formidable (Daunting sounds right to me for a Magic Ring and, as you suggest, falls in line with the rarity of that item anyway). This way, you can handle the magical side of the creation as its own step, difficult in its own right. The problem with this second method is determining the price and rarity of a mundane ring, because I am not aware if those exist in the rules, but you could always base it off of D&D or something. It is sensible to upgrade the difficulty of the crafting check to represent the qualities of the ring, but I would only do it if I went with the mundane crafting option, unless I spent a GM Story Point to do so. Also, just as a suggestion, don't forget to consider the Implement Materials section on pg. 99 of ROT while the character is gathering components if some extra oomf is desired (Willow is a favorite).
  2. A runemaster starts with a lesser rune (sidebar on pg 71). As far as i can tell, that is the only career that can start, by default, with a rune. [This original statement is wrong: I think that the rune skill actually is different from arcana in that it requires implements, specifically a rune.] A caster with the runes skill has access to specific magic actions as listed on pg 115 when he or she uses a rune to cast a spell. Without a rune, a character with only runes as a casting skill can't cast magic, if I've understood that correctly. So they don't need to get another skill to use runes as implements. On the contrary, other casters would need the runes skill in order to do so. Edits in italics.
  3. There is a good number of new weapons, 16 (if I counted correctly), though some odd omissions, like a short sword. I really like what I see with the new weapons, though they seem to lack proper love for the sling, but they do better than most with it, I think. Only two new armor sets, but I imagine that it would be difficult to come up with too many more that are different enough. There's also a decent list of gear, perhaps a bit small, but it seems appropriate enough. There is a good number of potions that can be built upon for other ideas. There is a small but quite sufficient list of services, including some that I at least don't recall seeing very much, like for hiring a torchbearer. Finally, in case you want to know but didn't ask, there is a good list of magical items and item attachments, with room to expand in later books (I hope).
  4. So on pg. 105, right after explaining the important difference between "grants" and "increases" defense, the book states (bold emphasis mine) "If multiple sources that increase defense would increase a character's defense higher than 4, the rating remains at 4." My main question is whether this rule applies to sources that grant defense. An example of this is the Additional Effect "Add Defense", which grants defense to the target of the spell equal to the caster's ranks in Knowledge. So, if a caster has 5 ranks in knowledge, would the granted defense remain 5? The wording of this rule makes me think that it would. Another related question focuses more on the "multiple sources" bit. Read super literally, this seems to indicate that a granted defense with one source that increases defense beyond 4 is fine, because only one source increases the defense above 4, rather than "multiple". When I first read it, I thought that this went against the spirit of the rule and intended to reduce such cases to 4. Yet, thinking about it more, especially if sources that grant defense above 4 are ok, made it seem like the rule is intended to be more of a soft cap than a hard cap. You're not likely to find sources, it seems, that increase defense by more than a point or two, so the numbers would still remain pretty close to 4. For example, if the caster of the previously mentioned spell has 5 ranks in Knowledge and casts the spell on a character who has a Talent or something that increases their defense by 1, that character would have 6 defense and likely wouldn't ever get much higher because the caster can't gain any more ranks in Knowledge than 5. That doesn't seem too unreasonable to me and would explain a little bit as to why they didn't simply say "A character's defense may never exceed 4" or something like that. Thanks in advance. Hopefully there's just some section of the rules that I glossed over a bit too quickly that could clear this all up.
  5. I'm curious, what makes the system not lethal enough? In my experience, its been the most lethal system that I've played in a very long time. There is ample opportunity for players to be one shot, with all the high vicious and low crit weapon options lying around. I would love an adversary creator as well. They've provided a good list of adversaries for star wars, but when departing from that list, it was sometimes difficult to figure out just what a given type of enemy should have. Especially with a generic system, though, it would be a tremendous help.
  6. I'm not so sure about a separation of characteristic increases from the rest of char gen, like through some kind of characteristic point pool. It seems to me that we would just be trading a soft wall in for a hard one with regard to player choice. Players that would want to spend more points on talents than what they are given wouldn't be able, without house rules, to take points from the characteristic pool in order to do so. Sure, it wouldn't be the optimal thing to do, but a lot of players don't always care about that, myself included. Player's have plenty of opportunity in the current system to start with a bunch of bells and whistles that make them feel different, though it comes at an efficiency cost. I don't really see much benefit to be gained from segmenting char gen points like this because it only limits player choice and would likely force characters to start out within a certain characteristic range of each other. We would simply have the division of our starting points between characteristics and talents predetermined for us. Then there's the potential problem of overflow. FFG seems to think that higher characteristics should continually get more expensive in the interest of balance. This makes sense to me, characteristics in EotE seem to have much more impact than attributes in something like D&D. This would make it seem unlikely that improved characteristics would always cost 1 point from the characteristic pool. The only way that I could see a 1 to 1 system implemented is if they give very few points in the pool to keep people from raising a couple characteristics too high at char gen, but i feel like this would lead to characteristics between characters being fairly similar, itself creating a problem with character individuality. It would probably be something like it is now, but scaled down to single digits. Any system, however, that calls for increasing costs could lead to a problem. This creates risk that players will find themselves in situations where they can't spend remaining points to increase anything, because everything is too expensive. What, then, happens to that remainder? If it can't be spent anywhere else, then it goes to waste and is pretty annoying. This would also lead to a similar non-choice situation where players use points in a way to best avoid remainder, causing characters to start with more similar characteristics. If there is some conversion for overflow so that it can be used elsewhere, then we are essentially back where we started, except that there is a hard wall placed in the rules between characteristics and the rest of char gen that doesn't really mean anything. Of course, the best thing would be for them to provide guidelines for both options, so that people that want generalized points for everything don't have to come up with their own conversion rate (although we know what that would be for SW, numbers like that may be tweaked for this new book) and players that want some kind of separation in order to encourage more individualistic purchases aren't left to determine what would be a fair distribution. Who knows, maybe they'll come up with some other option that deals with most of the problems on each side.
×
×
  • Create New...