Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About ubik2

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Players who want a combat bioroid may want to be able to pass as human (or cyborg). This means extra synth skin and either shades/googles or replacement eyes. They'll also want to avoid the common models, perhaps having a custom face sculpt. For the Adonis/Eve models, the eyes may be the only real giveaway. Similarly, a clone can simply cover their barcode with makeup or clothing. If NAPD notices these characters are non-human, it is going to find these characters very disconcerting even outside a violent crime scene. At a violent crime scene where a bioroid kills a human, you'd have to leverage some hefty favors. Bioroids don't get a bunch of extra XP at creation to offset not being able to participate in combat, so I'd allow any modifications to pass as human to be free at creation if the player wants it to be part of their concept. The Soldier career section indicates there are a significant number of paramilitary bioroids, so it's likely the public is aware that there are killer bioroids, but don't expect to see those deployed in public areas. NPC bioroids are likely to be much more obviously bioroids. They'll typically have different behavior and many obvious metallic features to mark them as non-human.
  2. I like the idea of the Materia being used to unlock spells and upgraded effects. I wasn't sure if you intended to exclude the existing magical implements (which bring the magic damage to a similar level as non-magical damage). If you are supposed to still be casting through your sword, it might be worth having materia bump damage too. There's a minor mistake with the description of Restore referencing Earth. Does the Time Slow effect prevent the target from taking actions? If so, this might be too strong for the given difficulty. None of the careers have Summoning as a class skill, though that may be intended.
  3. The Augment spell in the book can't exactly be used in this way. You can certainly flavor the additional ability die to represent the effect of something like fire or lightning, but it's not providing a new mechanical option. For example, Augment to add Fire to a sword simply manifests as an extra ability die. In some cases, like when attacking an opponent vulnerable to fire, the vulnerability applies to the augmented weapon. If you want a house rule for doing this, adding the ability die is reasonably balanced against effects that cost one difficulty, so you could replace the benefit of the ability die with something like the Fire effect (with the ability to trigger Burn). In this case, I'd rule the Burn potency to be the same as it would be under the Attack spell (based on Knowledge ranks). Edit: I agree with Richardbuxton that if you want to attack yourself with the enchanted weapon (and you're mostly a caster), you should probably just use the Attack option, with the enchantment aspect being flavor. If you're trying to enchant someone else's sword, the Augment option works better.
  4. Minor issue, but it looks like the wording of the Augment spell adds an ability die, but doesn't actually increase the ability, so the base damage doubled would only be 8. The extra die does help deal with the difficulty dice. You also have the option to get another 3 from a wand (or perhaps 4 from a staff, though a wand with close-quarters would be more optimal). Your point is still totally valid.
  5. 1 and 2 have not been asked. 3 and 4 have been answered (no and no). Edit: For those wanting the exact text, it's the first question in the FAQ.
  6. If you mean in regard to the frequency, the developers responded that the strain cost on the spell was meant to be the limiting factor, and players are able to cast Heal as often as they like. If you mean a target restriction, I'm not aware of it being specifically asked or answered.The developers indicated that the Heal spell is intended to be a viable replacement for the Medicine skill, and it probably wouldn't serve that role if it cannot be used to heal yourself (which you can do with the Medicine skill). D&D had a similar issue where people weren't certain if you were in "touch" range of yourself (you are).
  7. I guess there's a question of whether a target is at engaged range to themselves. If they aren't, I'd have a hard time saying what range they would be instead, so I think they are. Based on that, I think it's perfectly acceptable to allow Heal on self. Outside of combat, I think it's reasonable to limit Heal to once per target per encounter (perhaps once per caster per target per encounter). This keeps the session from being too focused on one player making a bunch of rolls while everyone else is inactive. It's true that with magic, severe critical injuries heal faster (for the easy ones, a simple Medicine check is probably better). This may be an advantage, if you want your players to continue the session. It may be a disadvantage if you want your players to really feel the sting by being inactive for some period in the hospital recovering. You're generally putting the story on hold while this happens, though (or just having the bad guys win off screen), so the table time is the same regardless.
  8. Overall, this looks really nice. If you look at the sample settings, each of them either splits Melee or Ranged. Those with Gunnery have 5 combat skills, but otherwise, they're limited to 4 skills. The default fantasy setting doesn't split Ranged, since it's just not dominant enough to justify being two skills. Genesys isn't a simulationist game, so the fact that knowing how to throw a knife is totally different than knowing how to shoot a bow isn't important. I'd also worry about how fragmented the Knowledge skills are. This can serve a role, where you want different party members to each have their own Knowledge skill, but you run the risk of making each of them insufficiently valuable. Instead, you're likely to just have one player with a high Int that makes all the rolls, and doesn't bother investing XP. I think it's hard to justify more than a couple Knowledge skills without it becoming a trap option, but certainly in a game where the characters are all scientists or scholars, it could work. The playtest had more Knowledge skills, but they trimmed it back to one for the book. In D&D, there are 4 knowledge skills, but those aren't competing for the same XP as the skills that are applicable in combat. Casting skills don't run into this issue, since players generally only take one of those. If you allow a character to take two different casting skills, the increase in versatility may justify the additional expense in XP. It does mean that you need to design magic systems and flavors for all of them, though. You may also want to remove Operating, and roll that into Survival (piloting a ship) and Mechanics (operating gnome constructs). I think players are expected to pick a couple skills outside of their career, but your setting does end up with more skills than normal. That shows up as an issue with the 8 career skills not seeming sufficient, but it will also be an issue when spending XP. Players will need to level more skills, which makes advancement slower, and the initial characteristic spread more defining. From a formatting standpoint, it's nice to use the skill's proper name (capitalized) when possible, since it makes it clear that you're calling out a specific game term. I agree that an advantage die on bow attacks is really strong. If this were limited to a variant bow that was lower damage than the normal bow, this would be fine, but I don't think this is the case for Dragonlance. Removing a setback die is better, but that might still be too strong, given that a lot of opponents will have defense, so it's usually applicable. The low light vision description for the Half-Dwarf mentions half-elves instead. Goblins have a similar issue with half-ogres, and Centaur references elves. The Minotaur's Brutish Strength, and high Wound Threshold is probably a little too powerful given the XP cost (I think the D&D Dragonlance setting had a similar issue with Minotaur being overpowered). Bonus damage is pretty strong, and even the Centaur's bonus is probably undercosted.
  9. The tier 3 Animal Companion talent is another approach to having a bound demon. It's also useful for something like a golem.
  10. I think I recall that in SW, the Move power requires your target to start in range, but you can move them out of that initial range. Of course, your homebrew spell could rule differently. In this case, I'd say the effect they're looking for is to cause damage, and those mechanics are covered by the Attack spell. If the result of resolving the Attack spell is 10 damage, then narratively, they got to short range from the ground. If they end up doing 20 damage, they managed to get their target to medium range. I'd also ignore the strain that would be inflicted on the target from falls for this situation. I would also not let the Manipulative effect be used to move the target 1 range band up, if the target would fall.
  11. For convenience: https://www.twitch.tv/videos/209100389
  12. ubik2

    Dice Math

    If it helps, this was also clarified in the FAQ.
  13. ubik2

    Dice Math

    Unless you tweak things to either add the implement damage bonus to Blast, or use double the Knowledge rating, Blast isn't going to be very effective at clearing groups. I'd suggest the former, since it doesn't vary as much as doubled Knowledge. These two suggestions are from the FAQ. In D&D, wizards are control, so they're effective against groups of minions, but your Genesys world doesn't have to have them in the same role. The high end of direct damage for the Attack spell is better than the other options, so it might be better to let the archer take out the minions, with his reliable bow that can eliminate one every shot, while the mage goes against the heavy opponent, missing more often, but landing more devastating hits. The crossbow essentially has a base damage of 9, a halberd/great axe ends up at 11, while the Empowered attack spell from a staff ends up at 14 (though it costs 2 strain). Edit: In any case, I wouldn't tweak the rules unless you're having a problem with them.
  14. If a caster needs to move while sustaining a spell, they may be better off sacrificing their action instead, though if this is frequent, that player will get bored. An example that comes to mind is late game use of the Barrier spell for +5 defense with enough advantage to have it apply to everyone in the party. In that case, I'd probably rather maintain that spell than add attack spells when I need to move. For Augment, the Haste adder mitigates the concentration cost. Druids using this to shift are sacrificing their first action, but that may have been spent closing anyhow. The other option is to build implements like the Druidic Circlet for their spell, and just keep track of whether it's causing balance issues.
  15. I read that text to indicate that a single maneuver is sufficient to sustain all existing spells. However, I assume the intent of the rule is that you need a concentrate maneuver for each spell. Rules Lawyer: Will spell 1 end? No. They performed the concentrate maneuver during the turn. Will spell 2 end? No. They performed the concentrate maneuver during the turn.
  • Create New...