Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by pxgamist

  1. Do you think you can put a PDF table of contents/bookmarks into the next release? It's been very helpful at the table with the last release.
  2. It looks great in color, but I would kill to have a printer friendly version. I’ve got like three or four copies printed to use at the table because I don’t let my players have devices, and that’s a lot of color to print.
  3. The Melee Weapon Attachment weapon attachment may want to get lowered since melee weapons are lowered in cost. I really have no idea what appropriate pricing for it is — 100 thrones, maybe? That’s roughly in line with the decreases in cost across the board.
  4. Awesome! I hope you take my comments as enthusiasm about the project. It’s really great and we’ve been having a lot of fun with it at the table the last month or so — we are four sessions in.
  5. Yeah, I’m really just trying to get spears down priced below swords. That’s my goal.
  6. That chart is looking great! A couple of small thoughts: Maybe switch 'warhammer' and 'maul' -- mauls are typically two-handed weapons, and while historically a warhammer could be either one or two handed most commonly in RPG usage a warhammer is a one-handed weapon. I think spears are too expensive, which is really a question of them being too good. Maybe make them Crit 4, Defensive 1, Pierce 1? They then become Damage 7 (250) + Crit 4 (50) + Defensive 1 (50) x .5 x .3, for a total cost of 55 Thrones. That means a spear is cheaper than a sword, which feels about right. (Separately, I believe we are supposed to be counting Pierce as part of damage in cost calculation up to Pierce 5, based on GCB p. 200.)
  7. I think .3 x Genesys price (which is really .15 x Genesys price, accounting for the 50% reduction) works out about just right. If you want to further differentiate, you could make “simple manufacture” low tech weapons .1 (knives, spears, truncheons). Now that I see your formula, you might consider raising chain weapons to a flat .5 or keeping them at .7. Chain weapons are pretty deadly.
  8. When reviewing the Armoury section, it seems like melee weapon prices are too high. First, some weapons -- like knives -- don't seem to match the Item Creation guidelines in Genesys Core on p. 199. - A knife is Crit 3 (150) and Damage 4 (100), and melee (50%) but it costs 150, not 125. - A spear is Crit 3 (150, Damage 6 (250), Defensive 1 (50, Pierce 2 (200) and melee (50%), but it costs 390, not 325. Second, the Genesys core rules Item Creation guidelines generate melee weapons much more expensive than the examples Genesys gives in their own books. - Genesys core prices an ordinary knife at 25, despite the calculation coming out to 125 (Damage 4 - 100, Crit 3 - 150, Melee 50%). (Genesys core, p. 125.) - Shadow of the Beanstalk prices Brass Knuckles at 40, but the calculation for brass knuckles is 150. (Damage 4 - 100, Disorient 3 - 150, Crit 4 - 50, Brawl 50%). The Armoury chapter prices them at 180. Realms of Terrinoth -- despite being a setting where melee weapons are the state of the art -- also has cheaper melee weapons. SWRPG also has cheaper low-tech melee weapons, listing a combat knife at a cost of 25 and a truncheon at a cost of 15. Most importantly, the 'smell test' on weapons just doesn't seem to add up. At 390 -- or 325! -- a spear, one of the simplest weapons known to man, is more expensive than an Autopistol, which is essentially an Uzi or Mac 10. At 150, a knife costs the same amount as a light crossbow. Here is what I would propose: Reduce costs for Low-Tech Melee Weapons to roughly 1/5 to 1/4 of their current costs on worlds that have access to high technology. This brings them roughly in line with the weapons listed in other Genesys books. I would propose the following costs: Axe 50 Brass Knuckles 25 Greataxe 75 Greatsword 75 Knife 25 Maul 40 Shield 40 Spear 40 Staff 25 Sword 50 Truncheon 15 Warhammer 100 Whip 100 I didn't touch the Brazier or the Hunting Lance, because they are not actually low-tech weapons. To be honest, these prices are a sort of smell test -- they're not perfect, but they "feel" much closer.
  9. Some thoughts on the Narrative Tools chapter, which I think is generally great: 1.) Influence Increases, Generally I'm not excited by the phrase 'debts and favors', because I think it implies that the Acolytes owe the debt, rather than being owed a debt. Maybe calling that 'Favors Earned' or 'Favors Owned' or something like that would be better? Similarly, I might call 'Connections' something like 'Connections Made' or 'Connections Formed'. In general, the line between a Connection and a Debt & Favor is a little thin, also -- when you do a favor for someone, haven't you made them a connection? Maybe the three categories really should be 'Individuals', 'Organizations', and 'Inquisition' -- so we are really always talking about some sort of deed, the question is just who it benefits. Making a connection with a town Ministorum preacher is 5 Influence, as is helping the local Munitorum, as is solving a small problem that barely rates Inquisition attention. Or something. If you like, I can take a stab at a similar but differently organized chart. 2.) Influence Increase Table. Aiding in the successful offensive of an Imperial Guard platoon does not seem to be worth 75 Influence. A platoon is like 40 Guardsmen -- if this is something that is 'Planetary Governor' scale, we are talking more like 'Aiding the successful offensive of an Imperial Guard army'. 3.) Requisitioning Support & Strategic Assets I think the Requisitioning Support and Strategic Assets sections need a little clarification, since many of the things granted by Requisition Support might be given to Acolytes in the ordinary course of a mission. I might rephrase the first two paragraphs to say something like: "While Renown provides a steady supply of rewards and recognition to Acolytes, sometimes it becomes necessary to demand support, exploiting Inquisitorial authority and reputation to secure goods and services needed to thwart heresy or pursue their personal agenda." "Influence can be used as a currency, “spending” it to access equipment, services and support above and beyond that given to them by their Inquisitor. This represents Acolytes accessing Inquisitorial coffers, pulling political strings and cashing in favours and debts." "Acolytes do not need to spend Influence to requisition support when they are given resources by the Inquisition, but they do need to requisition support when they want more resources than they have been assigned. For example, if their Inquisitor assigns the Acolytes to accompany a squad of Arbitrators into the Underhive, the Acolytes do not need to requisition the Arbitrators' support. If, however, the Acolytes decide they would also like an Inquisitorial Stormtrooper kill team for backup, Influence needs to be spent." Something like that I think emphasizes that spending Influence to requisition support is not required for their baseline goals, just for "extra" support or in pursuit of their personal agendas. Similar language probably should be added to the 'Strategic Assets' renown boon, maybe a final sentence like: "Strategic assets represent boons directed by the party; while they may have access to similar assets when their mission demands, the Strategic Asset boon allows a party to acquire or access an asset beyond those granted temporarily to them in the course of their duties." ---- Anyways, I really am digging this and I can't wait for the release!
  10. Yeah, I wrote and deleted the multiple downtime action point a couple times before I hit send. It may be that it is unnecessary extra work — in a longer period, Extended Downtime does just fine, and in a high-pressure situation it may be that the GM should be using something other than the Downtime rules.
  11. Those downtime rules are great! Having played with similar downtime rules in other games, there are two things I might consider: 1.) Some mechanism for handling 'long downtimes' more easily. Often you might want to say 'several months have passed', and tracking three or four months week by week can end up being tedious and a little time consuming. A thought might be a sidebar like "Extended Downtime Encounters" When the Acolytes will be idle for a month or more, the GM can decide an Extended Downtime Encounter has occurred. Treat Extended Downtime Encounters like regular Downtime Encounters, except that an Acolyte can attempt two different Downtime Actions during the encounter. For every month of downtime the Acolytes have, they upgrade any check made as part of their Downtime Action once. For example, a character using the 'Gaining Influence' action during a two month period of Downtime upgrades their skill check twice when rolling to gain Influence. I don't know if that math works right, but it's at least a stab. 2.) Multiple downtime actions at a cost In shorter periods of downtime, you may want characters to be able to push themselves to do multiple things. One option might be to allow Acolytes to attempt a second action during a Downtime Encounter at the cost of starting the next session at 1/2 strain. (Or something; there are some potential pacing issues to strain penalties like that.)
  12. All of those design notes are very helpful! I might make the Painkillers one directly apparent in 2nd Edition, because the Genesys core says that Painkillers are available in every setting and are necessary for game balance. We are several sessions into the double wounds rule. Because damage is high, it doesn’t seem to slow combat particularly — mostly, it makes it less bouncy. It’s hard to die in Genesys and so without it, people end up unconscious a lot but not with that many critical injuries. I wouldn’t make it a default rule, but it does seem to play nicely. Some of that may be because I’ve been using Painkillers as written, so Wounds are a lot more transient. I don’t know what the effect of eliminating Painkillers will be.
  13. The other house rule I use -- and that you might consider including as an optional rule in the main document -- is about lethality, since vanilla Genesys has very different 'feel' in terms of lethality than Dark Heresy does. Here's what I do: Bloodied But Unbroken PCs and Nemesis do not fall unconscious until they have taken twice their Wound Threshold in Wounds. As a practical question, this increases the lethality of the game -- acolytes are still fighting after they hit their Wound Threshold, which means they are taking a lot more Critical Injuries than they otherwise might.
  14. I made a couple changes or clarifications to Psychic Powers in the game I am running, some of which you may want to borrow. First, I said that unless you have at least one Psychic Skill as a class skill, you aren't a psyker. You can have more than one (and I would let people add a single psychic skill as a class skill for a Level 2 Talent), but you need a psychic skill as a class skill to be a psyker. Second, I said that for each rank you have in a psychic skill, you unlock one broad category of powers associated with that skill, as described in the attached PDF. At Rank 5, you have access to every conceivable power. It hasn't come up in play, but I might let you use powers you don't know at an increased difficulty. I did this mostly to preserve some of the classic 40k power names as a thing that matters in play, and also so that there is a little more scale to the scope of powers psykers have. This is really a sketched out version of a house rule, but it's at least grist for thought. GDH - Psychic Powers.pdf
  15. I’m trying to make sense of conversions between the Dark Heresy Throne economy and the Genesys Throne economy. It seems as if most weapons are 3-5x as expensive, give or take, though things like Stimms are the same price. (On a related note, are Stimms supposed to replace Painkillers from Genesys core or supplement them?) What ought incomes look like for Dark Heresy Genesys PCs? I just finished my first adventure and my PCs are asking what sort of money they are making.
  • Create New...