Haven't cross-referenced with the posts, but everything Arabella said sounds correct. Except Marko's "light trapping" makes his dice d4's (in exchange for AP 4).
So Alex should roll another d6 for his damage.
Oh, I forgot to mention yesterday - Marko didn't ask for a gun, so he doesn't have one. But Arabella was correct in general about Boost Trait turning "no dice in a skill" (d4-2) into a d4 in that skill.
Won't have time to verify *everything* until tomorrow AM.
If anyone has the Enemy or Wanted Hindrance, please describe to me the situation. Some detail, but not a lot, like maybe a paragraph's worth.
I know Arabella's changed her story a couple of times (in character) and that's ok, but I need to know the *real* story (for anyone with these Hindrances).
If your PC has shared this story with the other *PC's* by now, you can post it here.
If you haven't, but you're ok with the other *players* knowing the story, you can post it here.
If you'd rather keep it a secret for whatever reason, PM me (but please post here that you've PM'd me, I don't check it that often).
Thanks!
See Arabella's profile, the background paragraphs at the bottom. The middle paragraph gives a very sketchy version. Let me know if you want me to elaborate.
Before I take Arabella's next action, could you review the rules for shooting at a multi-square enemy who is engaged in melee with a friend. I know that for a standard 1 square enemy, there is a chance of hitting a friend if you shoot into melee, but what if the enemy is much larger than the friend and there is an open area to target. It looks like Arabella will have to do a lot of that kind of shooting and I don't want to wound a friend if I can avoid it.
With us being surrounded by metal, virtually all of WindDancer's powers are disabled. And her physical attacks are minimal at best and put her at high risk. So, desperate need aside, she's going to coast.
Might be ways to taunt. I'm not sure what kinds of options there are to engage that game mechanic, but perhaps flying around as a distraction, or acting like you're going to punch some computer controls, might make the creatures think you know what you're doing and are going to cause some change in the life support system in the room. There are probably lots of other options.
Man, three Aces in a row, that's just nuts!
Not that I'm complaining, mind you. :o)
Thanks for the ideas, Arabella. But when it attacked Connor, "coasting" went out the window. (On top of the personal connection between them, she has the "Loyalty" hindrance...)
It's a wonderful thing to imagine how it would look.
Marko (and ALL for future reference), you can't occupy a square with another character, nor "somewhat nudge" them out of the way.
-If your action came before Connor's you could ask him to move, go on Hold, wait for him to move on his action, then take your action.
-Or you could literally Push him out of his square, using those rules. But that would make your Casting at -2 for multiple actions.
Regardless, any character can move up to their Pace and still take any normal action, so the movement itself isn't the issue. You can move 6 squares and still cast.
Your roll is actually 2 Raises, but SW uses the phrase "on a Raise" a LOT to mean "on one or more Raises". So your panther does gets the Hardy ability.
The Hardy ability is listed at the beginning of the Bestiary, under Monstrous Abilities (try searching the PDF [Edit/Find] for terms you can't find).
When you took over Marko, I pointed out that Marko's original player had agreed to limit Summon Ally to :
1. Only one Summoned Ally active at any time (he liked that so much he said he was going to take it as his own house-rule!)
2. Always the *same* one creature summoned.
So if you like the panther, that's fine, but a panther is the ONLY thing you'll ever be able to summon. If you would prefer another creature, I'll let you retroactively change this summoning to that creature, which you'd use from now on.
Note that regardless of the creature's shape, it will have the stats for the "Bodyguard" version of Summon Ally, and goes "poof" on its first Wound.
WindDancer can : Bite, Sting, Tail Choke, Tail Whip.
And anyone can do a Trick, just describe something reasonable.
I wouldn't call her worthless. :)
Result: Alex hits Connor/Marko and Arabella hits Alex, and they drop like dominoes. LOL
Shortest battle ever. ;)
Game mechanic question that is general rather than focused on the specific situation at hand.
If a creature takes up four squares (for example) and allies are on the south flank of the creature, and if another ally shots at the NW square of the creature from the west, so that the allies are more than a square away from the point being targeted, and if the shooting die result was a 1, would that hit an innocent bystander?
We had two potential instances of this situation, but in each case, alas, the wild die was also a 1, making the result snake-eyes. So I'm not clear if hitting an ally in these cases was from the 1 on the shooting die or from the snake-eyes result.
Sigh... I calculate a hit based on X and am told that because it's a short-range Ranged attack it should be Y. So then I use Y for the same thing and am told that because it's "adjacent and Shooting" it should be X.
[sarcasm]Yeah, I'm loving Savage Worlds. It's not a game of exceptions like Pathfinder at all.[/sarcasm] :op
Once I stopped laughing at TWO snake-eyes shots...
Considering your Paizo avatar...
Alex's second shot just makes the Velantian Shaken. This would NOT inflict a Wound, as the second Shaken has to come from a lethal, physical attack.
Please cite where that is in the manual. Here's what I found:
Nonlethal damage causes wounds as usual, but if a character is rendered Incapacitated he’s knocked out for 1d6 hours instead. Nonlethal wounds are otherwise treated exactly as lethal wounds.
... and...
If he was already Shaken, he suffers a wound and remains Shaken. To cause a wound, the latter Shaken result must come from a physical attack of some kind—not a Test of Wills or other maneuver.
Bolt is a "physical attack" (especially considering their counter-example) and I didn't see anything that required "lethal."
I pointed out that ranged shots use the TN of 4 rather than parry. But I did not note that Connor was adjacent to the beastie. The point of using parry when you are adjacent did come up before.
The stuff about whether a single wound causes shaken or a wound when the person is already shaken has been discussed before, which I still don't properly understand. I have to agree that so far, the rules don't strike me as simpler than Pathfinder, but my claim that the Pathfinder rules were straightforward and understandable was always dismissed as the result of having played it for so long. My advice then was to persevere with the rules as written instead of trying to simplify them. Perhaps the same advice should be followed here.
If a creature takes up four squares (for example) and allies are on the south flank of the creature, and if another ally shots at the NW square of the creature from the west, so that the allies are more than a square away from the point being targeted, and if the shooting die result was a 1, would that hit an innocent bystander?
The general consensus from the SW community is that if your comrade is in sight, then just declare that you're doing an "Called Shot", trying to hit the portion of the Large creature that is open. Then a 1 on the Shooting die (by itself) means nothing special.
And if your comrade is not visible (is "behind" the Large creature), then you just shoot as normal.
Connor -
1. Regarding the TN for Shooting, don't hate the system because you forgot the rule. :)
The rationale is that if you're adjacent, your opponent is "actively fighting back", so "it’s harder to hit someone who’s wrestling with your character" (from the book).
Don't take "wrestling" too literally, but they *are* thrusting their sword, tentacle, etc. at you, so it's harder for you to aim to hit them.
2. Regarding a non-lethal Shaken...<long time passes>...I guess you're correct. I based my decision on an official ruling (not in the manual) that when using the Stun Power, its Shaken could not cause a Wound. And I was thinking "non-lethal sounds like Stun, I'll go with that".
But having looked things over, Stun ONLY causes Shaken, which is obviously different than a non-lethal attack. I can ask for an official ruling, but I know I won't get an answer until Monday at the earliest.
Since SW's rules are *very* literal, I'll go with "nonlethal wounds are otherwise treated as lethal wounds".
ALL - as I've mentioned before, the reason a second Shaken (usually) causes a Wound is so that when you're faced with a tough opponent that you can just barely Shaken, you will eventually start applying Wounds, and the battle won't last forever. That's straight from one of the developers.
While the second Shaken has to come from a weapon or damage-dealing Power, the first one can come from other Powers, Tricks, Taunts, Intimidates, etc. thus bypassing high Parry/Toughness and hopefully being easier to get.
(Arabella, K'Don, Connor and I once play-tested Mutants and Masterminds, and without bothering to look up their system and terms again, what I remember about the end of the battle was : attack #1 makes him Shaken, attack #2 makes him Shaken (so no change), he recovers; attack #1 makes him Shaken, attack #2 makes him Shaken (so no change), he recovers; attack #1 makes him Shaken, attack #2 makes him Shaken (so no change), he recovers...and I lost interest in the game.)
For future reference :
A Large creature that occupies 2x2 squares is at +2 to your attack.
Making a Called Shot to avoid a comrade in front of them is -1 to your attack.
So, +1 to your attack to avoid a comrade, +2 if no one's in the way.
... don't hate the system...
Never said I "hated" the system. I merely continue to maintain it's a game of exceptions, as is Pathfinder. SW was presented to me as "fast, furious, fun" and easy to learn with minimal, straightforward rules and a principle of "X is always 1."
While I agree it's somewhat streamlined compared to Pathfinder, I don't really see all the advantages that were touted.
... because you forgot the rule. :)
You can't forget a rule you haven't yet memorized. Ref: "Easy to learn with minimal, straightforward rules," above. ;o)
Additionally, SW is characterized as a game "made to be houseruled." Which means houserules. Which means it's potentially a different SW with every GM under which one plays. More exceptions to remember GM-to-GM, and more exceptions to remember houserules-to-manual.
I based my decision on an official ruling (not in the manual)... I can ask for an official ruling...
I believe, "So, game designer folks, when you said this, what did you really mean?" validates my viewpoint.
(Let me acknowledge that probably any reasonably complex system will require clarifications and official rulings. I'm not citing this as a point against SW, but as another similarity to Pathfinder.)
... the reason a second Shaken (usually) causes a Wound is so that when you're faced with a tough opponent that you can just barely Shaken, you will eventually start applying Wounds, and the battle won't last forever.
"Eventually" being the key word. See next comment.
... Mutants and Masterminds... attack #1 makes him Shaken, attack #2 makes him Shaken (so no change), he recovers... and I lost interest in the game.
M&M (or at least the test melee we tried) was a bit painful. That said, you really don't see it, do you? :o)
Attack #1 makes the Velentian Shaken, attack #2 {would have Wounded him but he spends a Benny so it} makes the Velentian Shaken (so no change)...
"DM has 8 Bennies"
I'm not going to call déjà vu, but... :o)
Look, let me reiterate: I don't "hate" Savage Worlds -- it's a capable system and it gets the job done. Nor is this a grouse. But I honestly don't see significant advantages over Pathfinder. Yes, Pathfinder is complex as heck... but it's also wide and deep, with a rich ecosystem. I think that's a reasonable bargain.
I suspect that in a more "cinematic" scenario where it's Rule of Cool über alles, SW would really shine. But in a fine-grained "this line on page X overrides that line on page Y and I gotta get a ruling from the devs but don't forget the applicable houserule" environment, I'm not seeing much advantage to SW.
Disclaimer: I am strange. :oD
Just one little counter-point : there was *no way* to get out of the M&M loop! In SW the GM can run out of Bennies (altho the players shouldn't be *trying* to make that happen), or decide after the battle has gone on long enough, or a PC makes a spectacular hit, that it's time for the foe to die. All I have to do is stop spending Bennies, and it's game over - not so in M&M.
And for me personally (and I am strange too), it's not a question of complexity between SW and PF, but that there are (in my opinion) so many things that are *broken* in PF, and I find far, far fewer things broken about SW. Not to mention that I hate class-based PC's, AND the Vancian magic system, just on general principle... :)
I like the option to do a called shot to avoid innocent bystander outcomes. It's simple and reasonable. Thanks.
I think some confusion in combat situations comes from posting actions out of sequence from the initiative order. In some games, like Pathfinder, this usually does not create problems that the GM can't sort out, in SW it seems to be more disruptive.
Example: When Connor fired his first shot during round 1, he was later in initiative order than the Valentian (Snake). At the point he posted, the target was several squares away, but by the time it did take its action, it moved so Connor's actual shot was fired from adjacent, changing the TN to Parry and affecting whether it hit or not.
Another example would be the effect of a wound or some other action causing an enemy to become shaken. If character A is prior to character B in initiative, but Character B posts first, he might find that the action of character A (posted later) causes the target to become shaken. Whether that status remains further depends on whether the GM spends a Bennie to remove it prior to the targets turn in initiative. All this could significantly change the outcome of Character B's posted actions. Of course Character A might take out the target completely, making Character B's posted actions moot.
All this can make it very hard to untangle and retroactively describe what happens and have it all make sense.
I guess it's a trade off. If we posted in strictly initiative order, it would take longer to get through combat, but the status of each character would be more clearly known when each PC has to decide his/her action. Posting out of order runs the risk of confused status of targets, but speeds the game up.
It's "Pays your money and takes your choice," I suppose. I might prefer letting things unfold closer to initiative order even if it takes a little longer. My enjoyment resides largely in my being able to visualize the combat. If I'm trying to visualize but later find that I have to re-imagine things, it's like watching a movie with all the outtakes still in the movie. It's hard to keep track of continuity.
I also like to know the strategic situation clearly when deciding my character's actions. So it makes a difference to me whether the target I'm trying to affect is shaken or not, upright or prone, wounded or not. So I usually don't post early unless I have limited options and will likely do the same thing regardless. But I'd suggest players not post out of sequence when the status of their target could be affected by earlier initiative order, the GM spending Bennies, etc. I realize some people work and can only post at certain times, but I'm okay with waiting. That's part of the PBP system. But that's just me.
I want to be clear, the called shot to avoid innocent bystander problems is only workable for a Large creature, because there's a part of him that is clear. If two or more same-sized (usually Normal-sized) creatures are mixing it up in melee combat, you don't have the option to do a called shot - you "pays your money and takes your chances", and hope you don't roll a 1 on the Shooting die and a 3 or less on the Wild die. Realistically, shooting into a crowd is crazy stupid, and I like that the RAW reflect that.
It *would* be better if people posted *somewhat* in initiative order, maybe "around" the bad guys. So if bad guy A goes fourth, anyone who acts before him can post, but those who come after him should wait. Those who come last in the order should wait until "most" everyone else has posted, so they have some idea of what state all the other characters (PC's and bad guys) are in, so they can decide what to do.
It *would* be better if people posted *somewhat* in initiative order, maybe "around" the bad guys. So if bad guy A goes fourth, anyone who acts before him can post, but those who come after him should wait.
You're basically describing "block initiative." It's what a lot of GMs seem to use for PbP. Essentially everything's combined into (usually) three groups: the PCs who have a better initiative than the bad guy(s), the bad guy(s), and all PCs with worse initiatives. The GM calls for everyone in the early group to go first, and in some games their actions are deemed to have happened in the order they were posted, not sorted back into initiative order for the recap.
Then the bad guy(s) go, then lather-rinse-repeat with the slow PCs.
Here is an example where the GM rolls all initiatives, defines the three groups, and then calls for the first group to go ahead. Note there are multiple enemies but he only rolled once for the lot of them. In a case where we had a "boss" and "minions" he probably would've made two rolls (in which case you could have up to five "groups").
This is a discussion that includes pros and cons for variations of block initiative -- see here in particular.
Thanks for the info - since SW usually groups all its Extra's bad-guys (the vast majority of battles) into one initiative, that might work quite well.
Applying results in order of post is way easier, but unfair to the PC who got a high init but whose player couldn't get to the keyboard for a while. But I suspect that's one of the pros-and-cons...
Don't have time today to look more at it, have to do some work-stuff at home (ugh!).
Hardy
Very tough and resilient creatures do not fall from lesser
wounds, no matter how many they suffer. A decisive blow is
needed to put one of these tenacious creatures down.
If the beast is Shaken, further Shaken results have no further
effect—they do not cause a wound.
Bodyguard
Attributes: Agility d6, Smarts d6, Spirit d6, Strength d8,
Vigor d8
Skills: Fighting d6, Notice d6
Pace: 6; Parry: 5; Toughness: 10 (4)
Special Abilities:
• Armor +4: Stone skin.
• Construct: +2 to recover from being Shaken; no
additional damage from called shots; constructs do not
suffer from poison or disease.
• Fearless: Bodyguards are immune to fear and
Intimidation.
(Took out the humanoid-specific parts. Dunno if the Construct stuff would apply; I'd think not.)
I hope that helps...
Someone on the SW forums has pointed out that since you get a +2 to hit a Large target, the chances of the Innocent Bystander rule kicking in are reduced to rolling a 1 on the Shooting die and a 1 on the Wild die (since even a 2 would hit), which is snake-eyes anyway.
This would be more consistent than having one rule for equal-sized targets, and another rule for Large targets.
Sorry for the flip-flopping, but this *is* the first time I've run into such a situation, and I couldn't find any previous discussion of it in the SW forums, I had to ask.
Shall we just stick with the RAW?
Hey guys, just throwing this out there: It looks we lost the character of Poog in a We Be Goblins series that's being run. The GM can bot the character, but I thought I'd ask in a few places if anyone would be interested in taking up the reins.
In case you don't know, these are relatively short scenarios in which the tables are turned and you get to be an evil goblin. Poog of Zarongel is a Cleric.
There will be three scenarios in the arc, and we're part way into the first one. These are mostly about having fun. If you ever wanted to play one of the "bad guys" or just cut loose and do foolish things (we were going to sneak past a rabid horse but our Rogue decided to shoot it instead... doing ONE point of damage and getting its attention; our Alchemist threw a club at a giant spider instead of lobbing a firebomb as he should have)... well, this might be worth considering.
Take a look at the Pathfinder module and shoot me a PM (or, with the grace of our GM, post back here) if you're interested.
Thanks!
K'Don - back when we talked about the Shaken change, and then also when everyone got an advancement, I mentioned that you'd have to lose Combat Reflexes and pick another Novice Edge of your choice.
However, your Spirit roll Wild die (5) is enough to allow you to recover from Shaken and act even without the +2. (I'm just curious, why didn't you pick the 5 in the first place and add 2 to it?)
But you have been Grappled. Please read up on those rules, page 73 in my edition (or search for "grappling"), they are thankfully very short. The Strength or Agility roll is the beginning of an opposed roll (page 63 in my edition). So your Agility roll has set the TN for the creature to beat at 5.
Sorry that must have been some time ago. Did I pick another novice edge? I don't remember. Writing in down now.
AFAIK, you never mentioned a second Edge, please let me know what you pick.
OK I'm a little confused. Originally, K'Don had combat reflexes as his one edge. When he went up, he chose trademark weapon. So the combat relex went away, was I supposed to choose a replacement? If so, I never did choose one or if I did I forgot to write it down. So now K'Don has the trademark weapon. I think you saying choose another novice edge? So I'm gonna pick one. OK
I'm open to suggestions from anyone. Otherwise I think I'll take Berserker, it sound like a fun one to play
I'm open to suggestions from anyone. Otherwise I think I'll take Berserker, it sound like a fun one to play.
A couple of things to note about Berserker :
"Anytime his Fighting die is a 1 (regardless of his Wild Die), he hits a random adjacent target (not the original target). The attack may hit friend as well as foe."
"The Berserker may end his rage by doing nothing (not even moving) for one full action and making a Smarts roll at –2". So it will take you a LONG time to "calm down".
I would add that you can't do anything but straight attacks - no Called Shots, Wild Attacks, etc. And with only one weapon, you can't take two attacks.
The thing that concerns me is, that one Edge gives you a combat improvement equal to any other TWO edges. But I suppose the tradeoff is that you have a good chance of hitting a comrade.
Other options : Extraction, First Strike, Nerves of Steel.
Just wanted to say that I'll be attending a wedding on Saturday, so I won't be able to post while I'm gone.
Yes I raised an attribute forgot which one. So am I up to speed now? Or do I still need another Edge or something.
Is Marko up to speed on advancements?
Eep! Sorry gang, I unintentionally disabled notifications for this game and only just realized play's been moving forward. I'll get caught up ASAP.
Given the dangers involved, you don't want to be late. As in the late WindDancer. It's sort of a threat, you see. HHGTG Ep. 3
K'Don/Marko - please list your advancements at the very bottom of your player sheet (at home and on-line - click on Alex's name to see his character sheet, and how his advancements are listed at the bottom [but they don't have to be in Spoiler boxes]).
AFAIK, K'Don still needs to replace Combat Reflexes, since you haven't yet said for sure that you're taking Berserker. Another thing to notice about Berserker, you can't "turn it on" when *you* want to, you have to fail a Smarts roll when you take a Wound. And with your helm-to-toe plate mail, that's much less likely to happen. So it's conceivable you'd never go Berserk during a battle. Not to mention that when you do, you could end up attacking comrades.
Something like First Strike, you'd use multiple times per battle, always. And Nerves of Steel allow you to ignore one Wound when making rolls, which would also be used multiple times per battle.
Please search for Marko's advancements yourself, there should be 3. If you go to the top of this page, at the top right there's a box that says "Search this thread". Type in
marko advancement
and look thru the results to see what you find. Please post the results here when you can, thanks!
Marko and Connor - as I mentioned in passing in Gameplay, PC's with a Parry and/or Toughness of 4 are seriously disadvantaged in a "melee" fight.
I even asked Marko's original player about his Parry of 4 (just checked, it's listed as 5 but I can see no reason for that), he said he was just going to try to stay out of melees. But as y'all can see, that doesn't always work like that.
If you really want to take the time to re-work the PC "from scratch", keeping *most* of the Abilities and Edges intact but tweaking a few things to increase Parry and/or Toughness, that would be fine with me.
I doubt the original players will be coming back at this point.
Otherwise, I'd suggest that your next advancement be put towards Fighting or the Dodge Edge (increases Parry by 1), or Vigor or the Brawny Edge (increases Toughness by 1).
I also left Arabella's fighting die low because she was just not a fighter. I wouldn't have even given her a die except for the advice that that would be a serious drawback.
I didn't realize then that we'd have half the players with a similar build philosophy. In future advancements, I can try to deal with that with some kind of power or edge to boost Arabella's parry.
Well, for a non-fighting type PC, I just consider the Fighting skill as "the thing that improves my Parry" - and then don't use a weapon.
I've seen GM's who've house-ruled a whole new skill that Parry is derived from, but I don't see much point in it, it would functionally act the same - I'd use it to increase my Parry, and I wouldn't use it to fight.
BTW, when it comes down to it, increasing Parry improves your chances of survivability 2-to-1 over increasing your Toughness (for future reference).
Sorry, I've been under the weather myself recently. Lots going on. If I could lets not rework the Marko, but tell me what I can trade to get the increased Parry.
K'Don will go with 1st strike.
Finally got rid of Torch
While looking up something about the guns, I noticed something it seems we've all forgotten:
They give each of you something that looks like a large bracelet for your wrist (made of the same odd material), and say that when you touch the button on it, a small shield will appear that can help deflect attacks. +1 to Parry and Toughness. If you try it out beforehand, you discover that the shield is mostly *transparent*, with just a little bit of red color to it so that you can see it. Tapping on it, it feels quite solid but gives no sound when you hit it - very odd!
Since we had time to prepare before the doors were opened by the Centipedes, I would assume that anyone who planned to use his/her shield would have deployed it before the fight began. Arabella would have. I think K'Don is using a 2-handed weapon (or was initially) so he probably does not have it activated. Probably wouldn't have prevented the hits on Connor and Marko, but it might be worth checking to see if it might have reduced any of the wound numbers by preventing a raise on the damage.
Drat my memory! I'll start using them from now on, but going over everything so far in detail and retconning anything would be too difficult. Thanks for the reminder!
K'Don - please update your character page to reflect your Toughness if/when you're wearing your plate :
Toughness (+1 Brawny)
6, 7 with leather, 9 with full plate
A partial list of your advancements at the bottom would be :
Trademark Weapon (Bat'leth)
? and free skill bonus
Brawny and Combat Reflexes changed to First Strike
You need to find the second advancement and what skill bonus you took.
Click on your PC name, and in the upper right corner click on "Edit my profile", and add the above where appropriate. Thanks!
I thought I got brawny to be able to weild the 2 handed sword without penalty. So I think my current sheet is correct minus the advancement in a skill?
So just to clearify, we have had 3 advancements? K'Don added First Strike, just this time, Trademark weapon, exchanged brawny for combat reflexis and a skill I have yet to find.
Also, did you add the +1 to the parry already to get 9 or do I still need to add it?
Can't we say we all turned on our shield before entering the room? Ergo, K'Don now gets the extra +1.
"K'Don added 1)First Strike, just this time, 2)Trademark weapon, [exchanged brawny for combat reflexes] and [a skill I have yet to find]."
Ignoring the order things happened in, the items in [] were changes, not advancements. You still have one advancement unaccounted for. I'm pretty sure you increased an Ability by a die value.
If you go to the top of this page, at the top right there's a box that says "Search this thread". Type in
marko advancement
and look thru the results to see what you find. Please post the results here when you can, thanks!
Do that and you'll get a list of posts, showing the first few sentences. You should be able to check the list pretty quickly, and find where you declared what your advancements were. Or replace marko with k'don.