Ok, that makes sense - thanks!
The mystic is the exception to the rule about switching PPE and ISP. Ounce can drawn ISP and use it for PPE, as long as she does it at the time of casting, which is a free action.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since Burgurk's player is moderating a couple of SW games I'm in and just announced the use of newly published 5th printing of SWADE, I have both the 4th and 5th printing. The Protection Power was diminished in 5th edition, removing the modifiers of More Armor and Toughness. This appears to make it so the most armor one can add with a power is 2 points. On a raise this is added to toughness instead of armor.
Please let me know if we are going to continue using rules as written in 4th printing of SWADE or if 5th is going to be the official source, as it is obviously going to make a difference. I left Ounce with relatively low toughness on the assumption I could pump it up with the protection power for combat situations. If I can only boost her armor/toughness level by 2, that will leave her somewhat underarmored for combat, given the MEGA damage many will be using.
I will be affected by that as well. :(
If I may throw in my two dollars' (inflation, you know) worth, since this *is* RIFTS, I'd use the more powerful 4th edition version...
I will look into that further, but for now let's stick with the 4th printing version. As Burgurk said, this is RIFTS and everything should be over the top.
After looking into the Protection thing, I think they changed it to be more in line with the Greater Protection Mega-Power Modifier, which for 3 extra PP, gives you a straight +6 MDC to either Armor or Toughness depending on your roll. Ounce has access to this modifier as a Mystic. 1 PP for +2 Basic Protection and 4 PP for +6 MDC Protection seems a pretty good trade to me. We can still use the 4th edition version, if you like though.
Hey, sorry for the extended absence. I'm going to try and get back into my games and get caught up. Can anyone summarize what I missed? Basically everything after the new party showed up.
I'll take the update version. In 4th ed with a raise on the casting roll gave Ounce +6 toughness for 3 PP, but getting +6 with only a basic success on the casting roll seems better for just an extra PP.
@Ounce- Sounds fair to me. I think that was their intention when they changed it.
@Jingu- Welcome back. Basically the teams joined forces to liberate the slaves and now the Coalition is on their way to pick them up. we have drawn initiative for the first round of a square chase map. I'll let you get caught up and we'll continue from there. Most everyone goes before the CS anyway.
Note that the map can usually only be edited from a PC rather than a device that uses a touch screen.
Yep, my Ipad is finicky that way. Good thing I have a PC at home.
Apologies for the delay, I'll have something up tonight. Variel won't let Barbara be taken out ...
If shot at, or attacked, I will take a reaction to activate my PSI shield, and power it to protect vs MDC.
Just curious, AFAIK a "reaction" isn't a thing in SW. Is it maybe a RIFTS thing?
I will clarify with what it says in the book.
So direct from the book.
PSI-SHIELD
Requirements: Seasoned, Cyber-Knight
Cyber-Knights with this Edge can summon a Psi-Shield, granting +3 Parry and a −4 Cover penalty to ranged strikes against her, see Shields in Savage Worlds.
The Psi-Shield costs no ISP and can be summoned as a free action. While activated, the Psi-Shield can be used to bash for Str+2d4 damage, and
provides the wielder's Spirit in MDC Armor if an enemy attempts to shoot through it.
Free actions that are "reactions" such as resisting opposed rolls or powers, are unlimited and occur each time the situation presents itself.
Putting up a shield is definitely a "Reaction".
My intention, is to bring it up as a method of reducing/redirecting incoming fire. :)
Ok, I understand all that, but "If shot at, or attacked, I will take a reaction to..." just made it sound like you could take that Action on the Turn of the attacker, when by-the-book you couldn't do that until your next Turn.
Technically, a RAW "reaction" is a die roll made by the player in response to any action taken by an attacker that requires an opposed roll, and that action declares the specific Trait roll the player must make. So in that sense, I don't see how Terry's "I will...activate my Psi shield" could be a "reaction".
It might need to be activated during the character's turn, after which it is available whenever attacked. While activation is a free action, it might need to be done on the character's turn rather than as a reaction to an attack.
I can see that by RAW, and I could also argue that free actions can be taken on anyone's turn, but to keep things fair, let's say that at the end of his attack, Terry activated his shield, so it's up if and when he gets attacked.
Works for me.
DMSBM - I was going over old posts, and discovered : Burgurk has a jetpack!
Your specs were : It is essentially a modified Falcon 300. 120MPH max, Handling +0, Range 700 miles. Can be used for three hours straight before needing to be cooled for 1d6 hours. In combat speed is 12” without a maneuvering roll or 24” if you want to get crazy…
If I were to use this in this combat, how many squares could I cover in a Round without a Raise?
You didn't mention that it could hover - can it?
I completely forgot about that too. No worries. The way the rules work is that you can only still make one square without a raise on a square chase, but because of your high speed, you get a +2 to your maneuvering roll every turn for free. If you maneuver as one of your actions, it's +4 total, a guaranteed two squares. This is how the Sky Cycles are able to move two squares every round. As far as hovering goes, yes, jetpacks can certainly hover.
I'm getting over a cold. I'll try to make Gummitch's post soon, but feel free to 'bot him if it's holding things up.
DMSBM - sorry, but I don't see much of Quick Encounters in what we're doing. We have an Initiative order and are rolling actual damage like regular combat. The only difference is the large playing field, and the Athletics rolls we have to make to move between cards is straight out of Chases.
It just seems to me that having to roll to move between cards just slows things down, and can leave a player without anything to do for a round (or more). What's the point in that? This seems neither Fast, Furious, nor Fun (SW's mantra).
If movement were automatic, that could lead to shorter combats and increased player engagement.
Granted, moving between areas (cards) this large in a round is unrealistic, but the combat in a playing field this large is kind of abstract, and we're already moving that much when we get a good roll anyway.
I'm going to stick with my original suggestion : moving to an adjacent square (card) is a Free Action, moving two squares or diagonally is a non-Free Action.
I can see your point, especially with a large number of combatants. Even though I am following the Chase rules as closely as I can, with the timing of PbP, it tends to take a bit from the excitement of it, especially when it takes me a literal hour to write up a combat post when it is the Coalition's turn. On the flip side of that, moving is a Free action, assuming you accept the -2 to your maneuver roll. Getting a raise on the roll allows for two squares of movement. The abstract part comes into play with such large ranges, as it does not take seconds in real life to go as far as one full square. The rules are meant to simulate the constant maneuvering and jockeying for position that usually occurs in real battles.
I am not one, usually, to change the rules in mid combat unless there is a glaring issue. That said, if the others weigh in with similar thoughts about it, I will concede and make it an automatic success if you take the Free Action to move.
I can work either way.
AS for the moving by card, I think that is currently giving us an advantage, cause if we were doing it by range, that APC, and spider walker would chew us a new one.
Since I probably just blew my own head off, I should mention I have like three other character concepts that I could play instead.
So, just for a side-by-side comparison :
<filler>
<filler>
Chase rules...................................................................... .................................My suggestion
-Requires an Athletics roll (in this case)..................................................................No roll
-Movement is a Free Action..................................................................... ................Moving 1 card is a Free Action
-Movement is a regular Action with a +2 bonus, but a MAP on other rolls........Moving 2 cards (or diagonally) is a regular Action, with a MAP on other rolls
------Person moves 1 card on a Success
------Person moves 2 cards (or diagonally) on a Raise
My way removes any randomness, giving the player complete control over their movement.
I understand the Chase rules are designed to simulate the chaotic give-and-take nature of the environment, but they can leave a player stranded on a card with no enemies to fight for one or more Turns, which is very frustrating.
<...time passes...>
I just had a weird thought about applying an extra +2 to the Athletics rolls, giving the regular Action Movement a +4 bonus. This seemed overpowered at first, but consider : a +2 to even a d4 Athletics turns a 62% chance of success into a 96% chance of Success, and *guarantees* Success on a regular Action Movement (but with a MAP to other Actions). It would have basically the same effect as what I've been suggesting, but with a little bit of randomness still thrown in that affects really bad rolls.
Thoughts?
DMSBM - just curious, what tables are you rolling off of for the Critical Failures in your most recent post?
For Barbara’s I used the Technical Difficulties table in the Tomorrow Legion Player’s Guide. If someone gets a Critical Failure using any technical equipment, they roll on that table to see how bad it is. Rolling a six on that table is never good. Another critical failure and the Boom Gun is down until it can be taken to a shop.
For Griffin Squad, it is from the Chase rules in the main book. They are on foot. A critical failure for a maneuver check results in odd: fatigue or even, lose the rest of their turn.
In thinking about what we discussed with speeding up game play, I have been pondering using the Clash rules from the Science Fiction companion. While they are meant specifically for vehicles, they can be adapted for normal use. There is no maneuvering unless you want to get Clash points and range is determined by your place in Initiative. Thoughts?
I'm for whatever speeds things to a conclusion. I look forward to regular encounter rules since I'm more familiar with them.
I'm likely to be busy the next 3 or 4 days with minimal time to post, so feel free to 'bot Ounce/Gummitch if they come up for their turns. For Ounce, she could try to inspire the Griffin squad if possible. Gumitch will continue fighting the coalition folks near him.
For those of us who don't have the SWADE Sci-Fi Companion, I found a video that describes Clashes in great detail HERE. It's 23 minutes long, but only the first 15 describe the system. To summarize :
Clashes have an Objective, like "plow thru the enemy forces to get to the jumpgate before the enemy can close it".
Clashes have Clash Tokens, which is another thing to keep track of. Characters (good guys and bad) get a Clash Token if your Initiative card is a Heart, Diamond, or Joker, *and* you make a successful Maneuvering roll (Athletics for most of us). However, the things you can use Clash Tokens for are generally related to ship-to-ship combat (vehicle Wounds) and Chase-like effects, many of which we haven't been using here.
But technically, you can't reach your Objective without having at least 3 Clash Tokens (and making a Maneuvering roll), so getting Tokens seems integral to the mechanics? That means we're still making multiple Maneuvering rolls at random times in order to succeed.
With multiple groups of bad guys to take care of and multiple groups on our side, what would be our Objective? "Destroy the Coalition forces" would be too simple - given the number of actors in the combat, we'd reach 3 Clash Tokens pretty quickly (or the Coalition would). Or would there be multiple Objectives, one per person/group? That would be a lot to keep track of....
If you get rid of the Objective and Clash Tokens to avoid all of the above, the only thing that seems to be left is :
The range of your attack is Short, Medium, or Long depending on whether you're acting before or after your opponent. So if you act second, your range is Long (-4 to attack). Just another mechanic which is randomly-based and could slow down combat by making us miss a *lot* more often.
But if there's no Chase-like Maneuvers (which does seem to be the case AFAICT[Can Tell]) in Clashes, how would we move between cards? Also, in Clashes it seems like any person/group can shoot at any other person/group. Would switching to Clashes remove our card-based playing field entirely? That seems like too drastic a change to implement at this point...
Granted, I don't have access to the complete set of Clashes rules, so take all of the above with a grain of salt.... And DMSBM, please correct any misinterpretations or misunderstandings I have made. Perhaps if you explain in detail exactly what parts of Clashes you're thinking of using and how, that would help?
But honestly, just letting us pick how many cards we want to move and apply a MAP for [moving two cards/diagonally and attacking] seems the simplest way to speed things up and engage the players.
I dunno... we've already proven most of us can't maneuver at all in this combat. :)
/joking.
A lot of interesting thoughts about Clashes
I would think that the combat objective here would simply be to escape with the slaves, whereas the CS's objective would be to recapture them.
Clashes are meant for big set piece battles and I feel it would be a middle ground between full combat rules and quick combats. You are right in that chases add a bit more to the rules and can sometimes take from the F3 (fast,furious,fun) concept, as do clashes. However, this fight I consider meaningful in the story, else I think a quick combat would have sufficed. Plus, I wanted the new characters to get a chance to flex their muscles as it were and see what they can do. Though Bart is right, the maneuvering hasn't been the easiest.
As for using regular combat rules, keeping track of where everyone is exactly would have been difficult at best, considering the ranges you were all at. Some of you wouldn't have been able to participate in the fight until the ranges were much shorter. Thus, my decision to use square chase rules.
To answer your question, yes, Clash would get rid of the grid entirely, as it is meant to be more abstract and your positioning is left to the luck of the draw. However, maneuvering rolls would have meaning, as they get you something (tokens), whereas in a square chase, they simply move you from place to place. Something else to consider though is that ONLY players can get Clash Tokens in a Clash. They are not available for NPCs, not even bad guy Wild Cards.
I was not planning on switching to clash in the middle of this fight, but it does look like others are on board with the move along rule. Therefore, as I said before, I will concede to ruling that moving a square no longer requires a roll unless you want to move two squares. If you fail the roll, you still get to move one square.
As I said before...
Sorry, but I've searched this page and the current Gameplay page and can't find any previous reference to what follows?
Moving a square no longer requires a roll unless you want to move two squares. If you fail the roll, you still get to move one square.
That's acceptable, but I have follow-up questions. Is the single-card move a Free Action? Does a successful 2-card move invoke a MAP? On a failed 2-card move, what kind of action is the resulting single-card move?
Any chance I could ret-con that rule into my last two attempts to move (note : full disclosure - I haven't checked to verify, but I think that would allow me to take an attack action)?
It was earlier in this thread.
That said, if the others weigh in with similar thoughts about it, I will concede and make it an automatic success if you take the Free Action to move.
Essentially, one square is a free action, no roll. Two squares is an action with a roll, failure means you still get one square free. Critical failure you stay put. Raise I will allow diagonal movement. Sound good?
I will allow you to move into place so we can get to the end. Most combats in Savage Worlds are not meant to exceed ten rounds.
Most combats in Savage Worlds are not meant to exceed ten rounds.
Lol. Most combat in SW Rifts combats are so nasty it's usually over in 3 or 4! :)
DMSBM - regarding the earlier mention - ah, you said so much more the second time that I didn't connect it with your shorter earlier statement.
So just to be sure I understand :
If I attempt a two-square move and fail the roll, I get to move one square, but still as a non-Free Action?
Isn't the "a Raise allows diagonal movement" redundant, since moving over and up is exactly the same as moving diagonally (please don't tell me the default 2-card movement is strictly linear!)? How about on a Raise, it becomes a Free Action (because your path was unimpeded and/or you moved exceptionally quickly, or something similar)?
FWIW, I went back and tallied my actions in this combat :
Round 1 : beefed up my Parry and RATN
Round 2 : Failed a movement roll to get close enough to attack someone
Round 3 : Forced back a card by a failed Complication roll, failed a movement roll
Round 4 : Successful move, Critical Failed his second attack
Round 5 : 2 successful attacks, (no Move)
Round 6 : Two failed Move rolls (one from Round 5) to get close enough to attack someone
So my lackluster results have been due to a combination of many failed movement rolls (4 out of 5!) and a Critical Failure.
I recall seeing some other CritFails by other PCs as well. The dice are just against us, I guess.... That's probably what's dragging out this combat.
We could interpret all as difficulty coordinating given how suddenly we all came together with no real knowledge of what various people can do.
The dice have been harsh to you guys lately (this whole fight really) and, as Ounce put it, it makes sense story wise, as none of you are really familiar with the area, let alone working as a team together. As you know, I'm all about the story.
I like your idea better, Burgurk. If you take the roll to move and get a raise, it becomes a free action. Risk/ Reward, right? To answer your question, by RAW, the grid movement is strictly orthogonal for these kinds of chases.
To summarize: Move 1 square- free, no roll
Move 2 squares- Action, Maneuver roll
Critical Failure- Stay Put
Failure-still get to move 1 square, but it is an action
Success- Two squares as an action
Raise- two squares as a free action.
Sound good everyone?
Fun factoid: Back when Shane Hensley (the designer behind Deadlands and Savage Worlds) used to work at the same company with me, he was notorious for running Deadlands games in which all of your equipment was taken away or destroyed at the start. If you invested a bunch of your points into an heirloom weapon, or a good horse, or having some kind of selection of special gear, it would be gone in the first episode. This was, of course, really bad for anyone who put their points into that instead of into skills or special abilities.
Anyway, everything old is new again! It'll be rough playing Babs as just being a regular infantrywoman in an MDC world.
DMSBM - those rules sound good. Thank you very much for making the changes.
But, "orthogonal" isn't the same as "linear". When you singled out that diagonal movement was only available on a Raise, it seemed to me that meant that diagonal movement wasn't *ordinarily* available as an option, which made it sound like the 2-card movement could only be linear (as in, "move 2 cards to the left"). So by RAW, diagonal movement should be ordinarily available, which it now is, so thanks!
Barbara - you used to work with Shane?!?! Wow, that makes you famous-adjacent, at least to us SW geeks! ;)
Yeah, Shane was a producer at Cryptic Studios for a while. In his Deadlands game in the first session he killed all of the team's horses and took most of their gear. If you wanna play a survival game that's fine, but it would've been nice for him to tell the players "maybe don't spend those points on something that's not going to help you in the game."
Anyway, since the Glitter Boy obviously doesn't work (the boom gun bounces off a tin can and the armor is made of tissue paper), I'll dump Barbara and move to a character that has innate powers instead of using equipment.
Barbara - do what you want, but your Glitter Boy is out of commission due to *one* very good roll (AFAIK, I didn't slog thru all the posts) and *one* very bad roll (your Critical Failure). The future is bound to be brighter...
The GG is not dead, only needs some fixin' up. I have read many times that many players think they are one trick ponies, but I feel like it being damaged does two things: allows you to show your character's other strengths and creates a new dilemma for the group to come up with a solution to.
It is never my intent to purposely hand tie characters with a certain schtick, but I am also one to let the dice where they may, as Burgurk pointed out. The APC hit you pretty hard and you did roll a Critical Failure, which in Rifts is an automatic Technical Difficulties roll. As you may have noticed, much of the team has come to your rescue to try and get you out of the mess. If that's not good story and team work, I don't know what is.