Inquisitor Tremayne wrote:Saves might be unnecessary
Inquisitor Tremayne wrote:Saves same name as defenses is a bit cumbersome
Inquisitor Tremayne wrote:Power attack working with melee attacks vs. the melee skill??
Inquisitor Tremayne wrote:Knowledge (technology)??
Inquisitor Tremayne wrote:Starting equipment?? How to determine the actual equipment a character starts with? Or should they just roll for everything they want?
Inquisitor Tremayne wrote:Resources incredibly complex
Inquisitor Tremayne wrote:Layout – difficult to find things in the book
Inquisitor Tremayne wrote:Defense calculations should be in front of the book
Inquisitor Tremayne wrote:Skills: when picking a skill and a specialization do you gain the +2 to the entire skill AND the specialization or just the specialization?
Inquisitor Tremayne wrote:Increase base unarmed damage
Inquisitor Tremayne wrote:Attaking with ranged weapons in melee penalty? mobile cover?
Inquisitor Tremayne wrote:Hit points too high
Inquisitor Tremayne wrote:No armor for dreadnaughts makes them useless?
Inquisitor Tremayne wrote:Melee damage to low
Inquisitor Tremayne wrote:Collision damage too low?
Inquisitor Tremayne wrote:Notes from a player:
Savant Talent Tree
- Customized Modification seems way overpowered, customizing my ranged weapon essentically means that I am getting 2 attack rolls per round if I don't like the first one.
Inquisitor Tremayne wrote:Dual Weapon Stance
- Need to explicitly state that the action must be declared before attempting, otherwise the player will only take the second shot if their first rolls high enough.
Inquisitor Tremayne wrote:Waaay too many hitpoints, there is no sense of danger.
Inquisitor Tremayne wrote:There were 4 PCs, 1 Dreadnaught, 1 Savant, 1 Envoy and 1 Corsair. I threw them in a field with 5 basic zombies, 1 standard zombie, and 1 elite zombie.
Inquisitor Tremayne wrote:Starting with character creation it seemed there was a lot of page flipping trying to find where certain things were listed like the break down of the Defenses.
Inquisitor Tremayne wrote:Secondly Resources was way complicated, there was no way to determine the actual starting gear for a character. So my quick fix was, choose a number of items equal to your Resources, no item may have a Resources check higher than 3x your Resource number. So a character with Resources 5 could choose 5 items that had a Resource Check DC of 15 or lower. This allowed them to pick whatever they wanted to start as starting gear instead of having to roll for pretty much anything and everything on the list.
Inquisitor Tremayne wrote:The other thing we noticed is that the hit points do seem crazy high, at least in this scenario when faced with balanced enemies that deal small amounts of damage. However, I did note that the zombies rarely missed even with their +2-+4 bonuses to hit. I also was not using their core talent, which I think basic characters should be allowed to use at will instead of 1/encounter. Basic attacks from zombies over and over got old fast.
Inquisitor Tremayne wrote:Another player, and I agree with him, said it was probably just this encounter; armed PCs vs. an average zombie encounter. I did remind them they were expected to survive.
Inquisitor Tremayne wrote:The player of the Dreadnaught quit outright, said he just rather play Saga. He was the least pleased yet he did not fully utilize his character anyway. So I wouldn't count that.
Inquisitor Tremayne wrote:After we ended, another player and I were brainstorming the encounter for the next game session and were looking over including a vehicle and got to reading the Collision damage, it seems too low vehicle speed/10 x size modifier of the target, for a huge truck going 30 mph vs. a stationary character on foot, that equates to only 3 points of damage. (30/10) x (1) = 3
Inquisitor Tremayne wrote:Anyway, that is the initial thoughts. Our assumption is that the next encounter vs. armed opponents and set in a more dynamic environment will provide more insight that this encounter. They will be level 2 as well.
Inquisitor Tremayne wrote:Sounds good! Thanks for the response. It is clear that I WAS handling the zombies incorrectly, I had their damage at 1d4 and did not give them power attack. I'm afb atm but I thought they had to have some sort of Martial Arts feat to bump up their unarmed damage, or does being trained in unarmed give them that next die step?
Inquisitor Tremayne wrote:Sounds good. I think I am missing something though, how does a character get "Advanced Weapons (unarmed)" or martial arts for that matter? The only place it is listed is on the equipment table.
So a character would choose the Advanced Weapons feat, select unarmed, then what? Martial Arts and unarmed strike are listed under brawling on the equipment table. Does a character need to be focused in unarmed brawling to select those subcategories?
Inquisitor Tremayne wrote:In addition, here is a standard street thug I am writing up for the next encounter, does it look right?
Inquisitor Tremayne wrote:Standard Street thug
Class: Dreadnought; Level : 1
Speed: 5 squares
Senses: +2 [defaults to Perception (Wis)]
Hitpoints: 62; Reserves: 31; Recover: 1/encounter, +12
Abilities: Str 12, Con 15, Dex 10, Int 9, Wis 11, Cha 10 [Humans get +2 to one ability; since this is a dreadnought, I added it to Constitution; this changes hit points, reserves, Fortitude, MDT, and the attack bonus for both talents (which are Con-based)]
Defenses: Primary 12, Fort 15, Ref 10, Will 12
Saves: Fort +3, Ref +0, Will +2
[One recurring error I see is that you're not adding the skill and ability modifier to damage. Don't miss that; it makes a big difference!]
Unarmed: (standard; at-will) +3 vs. Primary; Hit: 1d4+4 damage
Knife: (standard; at-will) +1 vs. Primary; Hit: 1d4+2 damage; Range 2 [not proficient with Melee]
9mm Pistol: (standard; at-will) +3 vs. Primary; Hit 2d6+3 damage; Range 5
Hold the Line: (standard; at-will) +5 vs. Primary; Hit 2d6+5 damage, and the target is slowed until the start of your next turn; Range 5
Trap Enemy: (standard, 1/encounter) +5 vs. Primary; Hit 2d6+6 damage. If the target moves before the start of your next turn, make a secondary attack as an interruption. Attack: +5 vs. Primary; Hit: 2d6+6 damage, and your target’s movement ends immediately. AP: on hit, target is slowed until the end of its next turn.
[I made a few changes to Skills and Feats; there's no real need to spend a feat on Skill Focus because you are allowed to allocate a second training slot to become focused, so I picked a different feat there and ditched Focus. You had one too many skills overall, so I also dropped Mechanics. Finally, I added specialties in parentheses after each skill.
Skills: +3/+2/+0; Athletics +2, Perception +2, Firearms (handguns, shotguns) +3 [Skill Focus applies to the whole skill, not one specialization], Unarmed (brawling) +2
Feats: Dodge, Relentless [I thought a Dreadnought class feat would be a good choice to go with Hold the Line and Trap Enemy]
Talent: Core: Hold the Line, Major: Trap enemy
Known Stunts: Bull Rush: +4 vs. Fortitude; Hit: target is pushed 1 square away plus 1 square per 5 points over target's Fort. May move with target up to max speed.
Action Points: 0
Possessions: street clothes, knife, 9mm pistol
Inquisitor Tremayne wrote:In addition, a player of mine has a question about skill specialties, whats the purpose? I understand what they are meant to do, show specialization, but to use the example listed in the book, proficient with swords vs. proficient with hafted weapons. So if someone needs to make a hafted weapons skill check and don't have that specialization they are treated as if they are untrained (+0 bonus) even though they may be trained in swords? That kind of doesn't make sense. It would seem someone trained in swords would have at some point trained with hafted weapons and would have some sort of working knowledge about those weapons, not they aren't specialized with them but there is no mechanical benefit to being focused other than being penalized for not specializing... um yeah, I'm confused.
I understand the point of it, someone highly trained with pistols vs. someone that can use all firearms, but the execution of the mechanics doesn't make sense.
I hope we are over looking something. Cause as it stands you can just take Firearms and gain a +2 bonus to handguns, longarms, and shotguns. Right?
Inquisitor Tremayne wrote:I interpret ["automatically"] to mean you do not have to, as in choosing a specialization is optional.
Inquisitor Tremayne wrote:Just make choosing a specialization mandatory.
Inquisitor Tremayne wrote:Session #3
Starting to like the system but still have a few issues and need some clarifications:
When choosing talents you have to have the core talent from that tree before taking a major talent from that tree right?
Inquisitor Tremayne wrote:Aim seems kinda pointless, yeah you can use a combat style but there is very little benefit. i suggest reducing the targets cover by one step or in half.
Inquisitor Tremayne wrote:It seems incredibly difficult for a character to die. You essentially have to burn through all hitpoints AND reserves THEN roll poorly on your saves, or suffer massive damage. Either allowing for a larger increase of hitpoints from recovering or allowing multiple recoveries per round would make more sense.
Inquisitor Tremayne wrote:However, I did lower the MDT for this encounter by 5 for PCs and Elites and gave Basics and Standards no increase. Which made things MUCH more interesting and "realistic", MDT came into play much more often. However, it also added too much tracking to the game. Now you had to track multiple conditions, remember your saving throws. It IS very similar to the CT in Saga but I still think Saga handles it better.
Inquisitor Tremayne wrote:The talent Fleeting Ghost, how is this intended to work? Do you have to have concealment BEFORE activating the talent or does it give you concealment? Because there is no prereq listed.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests