Rifts-Tomorrow Squadron

Game Master tumbler

Combat Stats

Tactical Map


51 to 100 of 120 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

T 17 (5) | Parry: 7 (-2 to be hit if aware of attack) | Notice D6

Heh. Cleared cookies, wiped all history, even selected all my Paizo links and told Firefox to 'forget' them. Still no luck. Meh, guess i'll just be using Chrome for my Paizo stuff for a while..

Liberty's Edge

Init:+1 Perc: +4{Passive: 19}{P. Invest: 22} | Insp = Yes!| +7/d8+4 x2| FS: 1 C: 1| Artificer 5| AC:19 | HP: 43/43{5} | 1st: 4/4 2nd: 2/2|

So, my mech is a two-seater. After some research I found out that a crew of just '2' means that there's one pilot that controls the limb-mounted guns, and a gunner position that controls everything else.

Would anyone have any interest in sitting in as a gunner for this fight?

Sun Li, I'm specifically thinking of you, here, because you could ride in comfort, and just concentrate on offensive powers, shooting only when you thought it best, or when you needed to conserve Power.

Also, Gauis is predisposed to think highly of you, as your name is close to one of the most successful leaders of the Cppellan Confederation (which is one of the Five Great Houses of the Inner Sphere.)


For me, on Chrome, clearing history and cookies for the site worked for getting me back in. Like a lot of people, I've been locked unable to access the site for two days.

Sorry for the delay.

I'll look into Roll20 this weekend if that is of interest to folks.

Gauis, I was wondering the same thing. Probably you should put a Mech there for when you are in the robot. We can put a token for Gauis off to the side for when that comes up.

FYI everyone, I know jack-all about Robotech or Battletech. I probably knew something about them in the 90s, but all of that knowledge is lost.

Liberty's Edge

Init:+1 Perc: +4{Passive: 19}{P. Invest: 22} | Insp = Yes!| +7/d8+4 x2| FS: 1 C: 1| Artificer 5| AC:19 | HP: 43/43{5} | 1st: 4/4 2nd: 2/2|
GM SuperTumbler wrote:
FYI everyone, I know jack-all about Robotech or Battletech. I probably knew something about them in the 90s, but all of that knowledge is lost.

Hee. Ya, I learned a bit ago that not everyone has the BattleTech Wiki as a hot button on their bookmarks bar. Go figure!

So that's why I'll try and put in as many hyperlinks to the wiki as I can when I'm talking about something from there.

Actually....I made a brief recap of the whole of BT history this one time. Now seems like a good time to re-post it. (It's okay if you hit that Favorite button so you can refer back to it. =)

Know all the things!:

Again, I keep forgetting that not everyone on the planet grew up reading BattleTech lore (even if they SHOULD have!) so you might not know some cardinal points....

The Inner Sphere (again, the inhabited region of space that mankind has colonized) was once united under a single flag of the Star League. Peace and prosperity flourished and technology advanced.

Alas, then came the Armanis Civil War. Stefan Armanis, The Ursurper, lead a (spoiler) civil war that broke asunder the Star League and caused the savior of mankind, General Aleksandr Kerensky, to take anything worth having and leave the Inner Sphere.

This left a massive power vacuum, into which came the five Great Houses: House Davion, that rules the Federated Suns (the area of space that your training Academy inhabits); their erstwhile allies, House Steiner, that rules the Lyran Commonwealth; their primary enemy, House Kurita, that rules the Draconis Combine, and their "allies", House Marik that rules the Free Worlds League, and House Liao that rules the Capellan Confederation.

Each of the leaders of the Great Houses declared themselves First Lord of the Star League and, during your characters' time, there have been three massive "Succession wars" that, through the shear scale of violence, have decimated many of the advances in technology that mankind had enjoyed, and made what once was commonplace, now rare and wondrous.


I had a very close friend in high school who was heavily into both Battletech and Robotech, so I have a fair amount of second hand exposure. But it isn't top of mind for me.

Liberty's Edge

Init:+1 Perc: +4{Passive: 19}{P. Invest: 22} | Insp = Yes!| +7/d8+4 x2| FS: 1 C: 1| Artificer 5| AC:19 | HP: 43/43{5} | 1st: 4/4 2nd: 2/2|

Random factoids:

The mech which is the picture of the robot I'm in is a called a Warhammer. I think that particular pic was actually the cover of the first board game that started the whole thing....

Speaking of BattleTech and Robotech crossover stuff:

As long as I'm talking about it, the Warhammer is part of the group of mechs called The Unseen. Back in the 80's both FASA (the company that ran Battletech) and Harmony Gold(HG) (the stupid company that mis-runs Robotech in the US and everyone hates. Yes, everyone, even Tibetan monks) both bought the awesome artwork for some robots. And both companies used them and then HG sued FASA because HG only loves money and has no soul. They won (sort of) and a lot of iconic BT mechs couldn't be used.

Until they could, and then they were called the Reseen.

But that is another story....


Male Psi-slinger: Parry 4 / RATN 4 (6/8/10) / Toughness 14 (6) (18 (6) vs Energy) / ISP 40/40 /Quick/Danger Sense/Psychic Sense/ Bennies 3/3

I have a few questions about Gaius, some of which were asked but didn't get answered.

First, are you sure you are switched entirely over to SWADE rules? I see a few references in your description (Such as Ace providing +2 on Piloting checks, that were correct in the old version, but are no longer the case in SWADE.

Second, is he using a custom Mech of some sort? I am not seeing anything that matches it from the Rifts books, so I am assuming it is something the player cooked up. Just as a note, you have your mech as filling one square on the map, but at size 7, it should be Large bordering on Huge, and so should take up at least 4 squares.

Last, were you ever able to address that Ability score question that was raised a while back?


Male Psi-slinger: Parry 4 / RATN 4 (6/8/10) / Toughness 14 (6) (18 (6) vs Energy) / ISP 40/40 /Quick/Danger Sense/Psychic Sense/ Bennies 3/3

I have a few questions about Gaius, some of which were asked but didn't get answered.

First, are you sure you are switched entirely over to SWADE rules? I see a few references in your description (Such as Ace providing +2 on Piloting checks, that were correct in the old version, but are no longer the case in SWADE.

Second, is he using a custom Mech of some sort? I am not seeing anything that matches it from the Rifts books, so I am assuming it is something the player cooked up. Just as a note, you have your mech as filling one square on the map, but at size 7, it should be Large bordering on Huge, and so should take up at least 4 squares.

Last, were you ever able to address that Ability score question that was raised a while back?

Edit: Just took another look to see 8f I could spot anything else from the old version. Charisma was eliminated; bonuses and penalties are applied directly to Persuasion.

You have bonuses to notice from both optics, helmet and when in your robot; I think those are all basically just duplicates of the same sensory enhancements, so they wouldn't stack, you'd just use the best of the three.


My entire knowledge of the Battletech universe comes from playing multiplayer matches of Robotech: Battlecry on my friend's Xbox, so bear with me if you expect me to get something.

Liberty's Edge

Init:+1 Perc: +4{Passive: 19}{P. Invest: 22} | Insp = Yes!| +7/d8+4 x2| FS: 1 C: 1| Artificer 5| AC:19 | HP: 43/43{5} | 1st: 4/4 2nd: 2/2|
Zhan wrote:

I have a few questions about Gaius, some of which were asked but didn't get answered.

First, are you sure you are switched entirely over to SWADE rules? I see a few references in your description (Such as Ace providing +2 on Piloting checks, that were correct in the old version, but are no longer the case in SWADE.

I don't have +2 Piloting from AceMechWarrior. The piloting bonuses is from a different source.

Zhan wrote:
Second, is he using a custom Mech of some sort? I am not seeing anything that matches it from the Rifts books, so I am assuming it is something the player cooked up. Just as a note, you have your mech as filling one square on the map, but at size 7, it should be Large bordering on Huge, and so should take up at least 4 squares.

This has been addressed with the GM, but I'll look into the squares it takes up and increase it if needed.

Zhan wrote:
Last, were you ever able to address that Ability score question that was raised a while back?

Addressed with the GM

Zhan wrote:
You have bonuses to notice from both optics, helmet and when in your robot; I think those are all basically just duplicates of the same sensory enhancements, so they wouldn't stack, you'd just use the best of the three.

I've noticed that even SW veterans still have a very "Pathfinder" mindset when addressing things. I myself fall into this trap sometimes. But the wonderful thing about SW (And even more with SWADE) is how -easy- it's -meant- to be played.

These are quotes from other people but they convey the meaning:

The only general rule I'm aware of related to stacking is that trait bonuses from different Professional Edges don't stack with each other.

From my experience unless a particular source of a bonus states explicitly all bonuses and penalties stack with each other.

Swade doesn't categorize bonuses and stuff like Pathfinder, so there shouldn't be much to keep track of.


Male Psi-slinger: Parry 4 / RATN 4 (6/8/10) / Toughness 14 (6) (18 (6) vs Energy) / ISP 40/40 /Quick/Danger Sense/Psychic Sense/ Bennies 3/3
Gauis Marcus Arvitus wrote:
I don't have +2 Piloting from AceMechWarrior. The piloting bonuses is from a different source.

I was referring to the Ignore -2 listed in your description of Ace.

Gauis Character Sheet wrote:
Ace MechWarrior: Ignore two points of penalties to any Piloting roll, and may spend Bennies to Soak damage for any vehicle they control or command, using the appropriate Piloting skill instead of Vigor. Each success and raise negates a Wound.

Emphisis added.

The SWADE version reads like this:

SWADE, pg 47 wrote:

Ace

REQUIREMENTS: Novice, Agility d8+
Aces are pilots and drivers who have a special affinity with their car, boat, plane, or other vehicle. They may spend Bennies to make Soak rolls for a vehicle they control or command, using Boating, Driving, or Piloting instead of Vigor. Each success and raise negates a Wound and any associated Critical Hit (see page 119). Aces also get to Reroll if they fail a maneuvering roll due to a Complication (see Reroll, page 89).

You obviously upgraded your Rifts books to the SWADE versions, but did you realize the Savage Worlds Core Rule Book was different as well?

Gaius Marcus Arvitus wrote:
Zhan wrote:
Second, is he using a custom Mech of some sort? I am not seeing anything that matches it from the Rifts books, so I am assuming it is something the player cooked up. Just as a note, you have your mech as filling one square on the map, but at size 7, it should be Large bordering on Huge, and so should take up at least 4 squares.

This has been addressed with the GM, but I'll look into the squares it takes up and increase it if needed.

Zhan wrote:
Last, were you ever able to address that Ability score question that was raised a while back?
Addressed with the GM

Addressed with the GM is good enough for me. On a side note, I was looking at your character sheet in order to figure out what Mech you were using. I was figuring I could find a cool top-down image of it to use on the encounter map. It was while I was looking at that that I noticed the other things.

Gauis Marcus Arvitus wrote:
Zhan wrote:
You have bonuses to notice from both optics, helmet and when in your robot; I think those are all basically just duplicates of the same sensory enhancements, so they wouldn't stack, you'd just use the best of the three.

I've noticed that even SW veterans still have a very "Pathfinder" mindset when addressing things. I myself fall into this trap sometimes. But the wonderful thing about SW (And even more with SWADE) is how -easy- it's -meant- to be played.

These are quotes from other people but they convey the meaning:

The only general rule I'm aware of related to stacking is that trait bonuses from different Professional Edges don't stack with each other.

From my experience unless a particular source of a bonus states explicitly all bonuses and penalties stack with each other.

Swade doesn't categorize bonuses and stuff like Pathfinder, so there shouldn't be much to keep track of.

This comment isn't a game-rules one, so much as a common sense one. If I have thermal imagers built into my ocular implants, putting on a multi-optics helmet is not going to make my Thermal Imaging twice as detailed. Actually, the two are likely to interfere with each other in a fashion that forces me to shut off one or the other, as having both is useless. Likewise, using my thermal imaging eyes to look at the display screen in my giant mech isn't going to enable me to see better, it is just going to show me the temperature of the screen that I'm looking at. I probably wouldn't even be able to see the image on that screen as a result.

There are some areas of the game where there are multiple ways to get a bonus, but it doesn't mean I can use all of them together. I can get a targeting eye implant that gives me a +2 to Shooting, use a multi-optics helmet to get a +1, or use a scope or sight on the weapon for an additional +1. Clearly this should not work. Looking through a set of binoculars to look through a scope could theoretically allow you to get really high magnification, if you managed to like them up at the perfect sweet spot, but the image would be so small, and lose so much light as to make the effort pointless. The built-in sight is the best, so if given the choice, I'd probably go with that one, but using a helmet that overlays a crosshair on top of the crosshair I was already looking at is in reality going to make my shot worse, not better, as the two systems will never line up 100%, and I will get confused by the muddled sight picture. Now, if I take my sight picture (that already has 2 sets of crosshairs) and look through my sighting system on my weapon, I'm not more accurate, I'm actually having trouble seeing my target because of all the garbage in the way.

I would argue it is great to have a sight for your weapon, but you need to choose the best one, since more makes it worse, not better.


Female Lyn-Srial : Parry 10 / RATN 8 / Toughness 15(6) / 3 Bennies

I had the same problems re-logging in, mine was that my version of Firefox was too old. But an older version of Chrome is doing just fine for now...

Regarding stacking, my impression of SW's attitude (from reading many discussions and rulings) is "if the bonus comes from different sources (magic, plain armor, tech, etc.)" the bonuses stack. If they come from the same source, they don't. So the Armor Power stacks with worn Armor, but two worn Armors don't stack, and casting Armor twice doesn't stack.


Male Psi-slinger: Parry 4 / RATN 4 (6/8/10) / Toughness 14 (6) (18 (6) vs Energy) / ISP 40/40 /Quick/Danger Sense/Psychic Sense/ Bennies 3/3

Gaius, I added a top-down view mech onto the map. Have a look and see if you like it. If you don't, delete it. Hope you like.


The mech should take up at least 4 squares, I think. From what I have read, it seems that Savage Worlds retains a more 3.0 sensibility for size and spacing, with things being different lengths, heights, and widths. The mech should be 2x2 on the map and 4 squares tall, I think.

As for the stats for the mech, it is a modified Gunwolf, which was the closest thing we could find. Overall, I think we modified it to have less powerful attacks.

I would agree that bonuses shouldn't stack from things that are similar, like multiple targeting systems.


Constant apologies for my newbness.

I can't find rules regarding notice and how you know who is aware of whom at the beginning of combat. How does that work? Or just give me a reference and I'll check it out.


Unless people are rolling Stealth checks, Notice checks probably shouldn't be necessary, just like in Pathfinder.


Seems like the contact ranges with weapons available in Rifts are so long that it wouldn't even be Stealth, exactly. I mean, there are rockets and missiles and sniper rifles and all kinds of things available.


Yeah but if we're being all sneaky-like and they don't spot us somehow, then we have The Drop (tm) on them.


We are approximately 30" or so away from the mechs on the bridge, or 60 yards. That's just a little more than half a football field. Those who aren't hiding behind trees would be obviously visible to each other.

If you want to figure out if a mech sees someone hiding behind a tree, I'd roll Notice at -4 for Medium Cover.

And if someone fires a gunpowder rifle or launches a rocket-based weapon, the sound would be a dead giveaway, no rolls needed.

Just to re-phrase what Storm Dragon said, we only get The Drop on them by using our Stealth, sometimes opposed by the opponent's Notice. See page 88 of the latest version of SWADE for opposed rolls.


Male Psi-slinger: Parry 4 / RATN 4 (6/8/10) / Toughness 14 (6) (18 (6) vs Energy) / ISP 40/40 /Quick/Danger Sense/Psychic Sense/ Bennies 3/3

Question about specialty ammo... most characters and weapons in Rifts don't use traditional bullets, but my character is one of the few. There are a few options listed but there is one that I think has interesting potential. There is a one off line in the main book about Uranium rounds:

Tomorrow Legion wrote:
Uranium Rounds: Negate the regeneration of Wounded targets. Triple cost, CS banned.

This doesn't make much sense to me, as if they were used for stopping the regeneration of certain targets, why would the CS ban them? Only monsters regenerate. Silver rounds are described in Blood and Banes, which makes more sense as a Regeneration stopper, as it has the mythos of supernatural significance and so forth.

I do think the CS would ban it, but I think that has more to do with its Armour Penetrating abilities. Last thing they want is civies with old-school firearms being able to put a hole in a Dead-Boy or CS vehicle.

DPU rounds are noted to fracture in a way that leaves sharp points on all the fragments, making them ideal for penetration. Uranium fragments also spontaneously combust in air when they reach a certain surface area to volume ratio, as they do when they fragment upon hitting a Hard target, like an MDC vehicle. With those points in mind, I think a specialty ammo like this should be available:

Depleted Uranium Rounds wrote:

Doubles a projectile weapon's AP value. Inflicts Mega-Damage and cause It Burns when used on MDC targets. Triple normal ammunition cost.

Depleted Urarium can be combined with other some varieties of specialty ammunition. Silver plating can be added to DPU round for the regular cost associates with bullets of the given size. DPU Ramjet rounds cost 30x normal ammunition cost.

Railgun ammunition tends to be cost prohibitive, as each projectile requires a muti-stage process where the Uranium is encased in an iron or steel sleeve, accurately enough that they do not become unbalanced when spinning. DPU Railgun ammo is available for 10x the normal cost.

Silver Ammo:
Solid silver bullets are prohibitively expensive—a single small-caliber bullet costs 1,000 credits—but silver-coated ammunition proves just as effective. Designed with hard metal jackets with a veneer of silver, silver-coated bullets suffer no reduction in accuracy or stopping power. Small (.22 to .32 caliber) bullets cost 50 credits apiece, medium (9mm to .45 caliber) bullets cost 100 credits each, and large bullets (for .50 caliber handguns and most rifles) cost 200 credits apiece. Silver coated arrowheads and quarrels can also be purchased for 200 credits each.

Thoughts?


Ami Swiftblade wrote:
GM ST - please note, in SW you re-draw the cards for each character on every new round.

Yeah, I meant to mention this bit in my post but forgot. Since there seems to only be one enemy cluster your idea still sorta works for this combat, but it's perfectly possible for a single person to take two consecutive turns sometimes (last in the first round, first in the second round).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yep. I did know about new initiative each round, just forgot to translate that into PbP.

Guys, I know you are all hyped for Savage Rifts excitement, but I'm not sure you are here for the same thing I am here for. You guys are talking rules interpretation and stacking and house ruling ammo and private messages responding to each other's posts and how do we build this stuff that isn't in the book

And I'm just over here working on initiative and attacks.


A killer GM with a killer smile.

Don't sweat it. I think everyone is here just to have fun. You were upfront about your familiarity with the game, and I think we are all on board for teaching you the mechanical stuff.

I've been in campaigns with you and have no doubts about your storytelling ability, which is the more important part anyway.

When it comes to these specific rules questions, I think we are expecting the group to police each other, or help come with answers, more than we expect you to be able to know the rules implications of a given question. When they come up, I think I'm expecting the group to debate, counter, and settle on an answer, and then you can simply give royal assent (or sign or veto the legislation like the president, or whatever you Americans do...), or choose the option that makes more sense to you if there is no clear consensus.

The easiest answer to any of these questions is of course just to say If it's not in the book, you can't have it, or What is the official PEG answer.

Given where you are coming from, I can certainly live with that, even if I disagree with the writers from time to time (which I have).


I hear all of that, but you guys have pretty different approaches to the rules, sometimes, and I'm really not in a position to be the referee there. Which I understand is traditionally part of the GM role, so that is responsible for some of the tension.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
A killer GM with a killer smile.

Then go with the simple approach. Nothing that is not in the book (for now). Rules questions need go to the PEG forum.

This needs to be fun for you, or you won't want to keep up with it. So let's sidestep controversy, and just go with official and basic for now.


The problem with the PEG Official Answers board is that it is only checked once every 3-7 days by the moderator, so it might take a while to get the answer...

You could post on the General Discussion board, and very experienced players will offer their opinions within 24 hours, but they're only opinions, and like as here might disagree with each other.


"I usually just list them all in one dice roll, like this:
RoF 3: 1d8 ⇒ 4 1d8 ⇒ 8 1d8 ⇒ 8"

Which is done in Paizo by the following, replacing []'s with {}'s so they show in this post :

{dice=Shooting,RoF3}d8; d8; d8{/dice}

We PC's can even include the Wild die in-line with the other rolls :

{dice=Shooting & Wild}d8; d8; d8; d6{/dice}

ALL : as a GM myself, I find it very helpful for my players to include brief reasons for the bonuses and penalties in the "declaration", so :

{dice=Shooting-Range-MAP}d8-2-2; d8-2-2; d8-2-2{/dice}

This might help explain things to GM ST as we go.

GM ST : please note that Zhan re-rolled the d12 Ace in-line with the original roll :

Damage with a Raise AP 8: 3d12 + 4 + 1d6 + 1d12 => (12, 6, 1) + 4 + (4) + (10) = 37
........................................................................... ........^re-roll.^^original Ace..........^re-roll result

Others like to re-roll the Aced die explicitly in another line.


GM ST wrote:
...but you guys have pretty different approaches to the rules...

In the most recent posts on Gameplay, I haven't noticed any conflicting opinions about the rules, but I might have easily missed something...


Moving the current Gameplay derail to Discussion, mine also says:

Quote:

The acting character in an opposed roll

always gets his Trait total first (including
spending any Bennies, see page 89), and
must get at least a basic success (TN 4) or he
fails. The defender rolls next and must meet
or exceed
the first character’s result or the
attacker wins.

Maybe Rigor is still working on a playtest book or something?


A killer GM with a killer smile.

Maybe I am? I'll have to take a look when I get home.

Edit: I checked and you guys were right; it totally is an old version. I'll have to dig up my passwords and download the latest version. Then I'll have to go through my character and see if there are any changes between versions that affect my character.

Liberty's Edge

Init:+1 Perc: +4{Passive: 19}{P. Invest: 22} | Insp = Yes!| +7/d8+4 x2| FS: 1 C: 1| Artificer 5| AC:19 | HP: 43/43{5} | 1st: 4/4 2nd: 2/2|

"Muhahahaha! " laughed the goatee-bearing and black-clad villainous villain of the evil robot. "Once all my missiles are locked on I'll destroy you, you dumb hero, and then I'll crush all your allies one by one! Muhahaha!"

*beep**beep**beep**beep**beep**beep**beep**beep**beep**beep*

Meanwhile, in the opposing robot, an alarm klaxon started wailing while the shapely and scantily clad holographic avatar of the battlemech's AI gently warned the heroic and handsome pilot. "Honey, I'm detecting a missile-lock attempt. If he's able to keep us painted for three seconds, it's gonna get real."

"Thanks, darlin'," our daring and gritty protagonist replied. Acting quickly, he put his giant killer robot through a set of basic evasive maneuvers, taught to him by the best back at the academy.

*beep**beep**beep**beep**beep**beep**beep**beep**beep**beep*
"It's not working honey. Two more seconds!"

Sweat pouring down his face in rivulets, he abandoned the text-book evasions and started doing his own set of movements. The robot seemed to dance, random yet graceful, as if rockin' to a particularly moving beat.

*beep**beep**beep**beep**beep**beep**beep**beep**beep**beep*
"It's not working! One more second!"

Suddenly our hero's mech spread his legs wide and bent over, almost double.

*beep**beep**beep*---

The warning klaxon suddenly ended, giving way to an all-consuming silence.

"Congratulations, honey."

"Thanks, darlin'. Now it's our turn."

Liberty's Edge

Init:+1 Perc: +4{Passive: 19}{P. Invest: 22} | Insp = Yes!| +7/d8+4 x2| FS: 1 C: 1| Artificer 5| AC:19 | HP: 43/43{5} | 1st: 4/4 2nd: 2/2|
Jethro Tull Maxton wrote:
Hey Gauis, I'm pretty sure the wild die is never modified, just a straight exploding D6.

Huh. Yeah, reading the sections on it in the SWADE rulebook, you're right in that it doesn't say explicitly that all modifiers also apply to the wild die.

Mind you, it occurs to me that all the modifiers ought to apply, or else you could rack up elevnty billion MAP penalties and things, but then still try to carry them off, knowing that the wild die still gave you a 50% chance to do any of it.

Same thing with an untrained skill. The -2 applies to both the d4 and the wild die, or else both someone who's untrained and someone with a point in a skill at d4 would have a roughly equal chance (since they'd both just be relying on the wild die's d6.)


Check that I can calculating all of this correctly.

Armor just adds to Toughness, and Armor Piercing reduces that Toughness, but only to the limit of the armor.

So if I have Toughness 15 (5) so 5 of that Toughness is Armor, and you have AP 10, that makes the Toughness 10.

Damage=Toughness to Toughness+3 results in Shaken.

Damage=Toughess+4 is a raise, causing a wound.

Liberty's Edge

Init:+1 Perc: +4{Passive: 19}{P. Invest: 22} | Insp = Yes!| +7/d8+4 x2| FS: 1 C: 1| Artificer 5| AC:19 | HP: 43/43{5} | 1st: 4/4 2nd: 2/2|

That is correct, sir!

Liberty's Edge

Init:+1 Perc: +4{Passive: 19}{P. Invest: 22} | Insp = Yes!| +7/d8+4 x2| FS: 1 C: 1| Artificer 5| AC:19 | HP: 43/43{5} | 1st: 4/4 2nd: 2/2|

Re: Robot warfare!

Alright!

Now for...unrelated reasons...I've studied the walker robot armor combat system of RIFTS in some depth. And, O, chummer, just getting wounds is only the start.

Now, if you just want the thing to take 4 wounds right now and die, that's frosty. If that's all you can do right now then that's all you can do.

Mind you, just to be accurate:

1) Critical hits

Every hit that causes at least one wound also causes one critical hit. (Hence, if it takes 3 wounds, that's still only 1 critical hit. {SWADE Core pg 117.})
The crit table in RIFTS is on page 110.

2) Falling.

RIFTS pg 109. ": If the robot vehicle suffers a Wound the operator must make a Piloting check or it falls; this replaces the Out of Control rules"

Hence, again, a hit that causes 3 wounds will only need one roll.
(Also, I suspect that, in the same sense that each wound to a vehicle reduces it's Handling by 1, each wound to a Robot reduces all piloting checks by one...but I can't quite find that right now so it might be open to interpretation.)


GM SuperTumbler wrote:

Check that I can calculating all of this correctly.

Armor just adds to Toughness, and Armor Piercing reduces that Toughness, but only to the limit of the armor.

So if I have Toughness 15 (5) so 5 of that Toughness is Armor, and you have AP 10, that makes the Toughness 10.

Damage=Toughness to Toughness+3 results in Shaken.

Damage=Toughess+4 is a raise, causing a wound.

And also every 4 after that wound is another wound.


Jethro wrote:
Hey Gauis, I'm pretty sure the wild die is never modified, just a straight exploding D6.

If by "modified", you mean that a +2 (for example) to the Trait roll affects only the Trait die and not the Wild die, that is incorrect. The modifier affects "the Trait roll", and for Wild Cards the "Trait roll" *is* (Trait roll and Wild die). So any modifiers apply to both dice.

It provides *consistency* - whatever modifiers are applied to the Trait die are also applied to the Wild die, whatever affects the first also affects the second.


GM ST - I just a couple of days ago ran across this description of how to handle AP, which is the *best* one I've *ever* seen :

Toughness is written like this: 18 (6). In that case it means a total of 18, with a value of 6 point of armor already included in the total.

You have three possibilities:

1. The Weapon has no AP: Roll damage, compare to 18.

2. The weapon has an AP lower than the armor value. Roll damage, add the AP value to the total, compare to 18. (For example, 3d6 AP 2 against 18 (6), roll 3d6+2, compare to 18)

3. The weapon has an AP equal to or higher than the armor value. Roll damage, add the armor value to the total (in this case 6), compare to 18. (For example, 3d10 AP 10 against 18 (6). roll 3d10+6, compare to 18)


A killer GM with a killer smile.
ZenFox42 wrote:

GM ST - I just a couple of days ago ran across this description of how to handle AP, which is the *best* one I've *ever* seen :

Toughness is written like this: 18 (6). In that case it means a total of 18, with a value of 6 point of armor already included in the total.

You have three possibilities:

1. The Weapon has no AP: Roll damage, compare to 18.

2. The weapon has an AP lower than the armor value. Roll damage, add the AP value to the total, compare to 18. (For example, 3d6 AP 2 against 18 (6), roll 3d6+2, compare to 18)

3. The weapon has an AP equal to or higher than the armor value. Roll damage, add the armor value to the total (in this case 6), compare to 18. (For example, 3d10 AP 10 against 18 (6). roll 3d10+6, compare to 18)

I usually do it this way...

1. Roll weapon damage, subtract lesser of Armour value or Armour Penetration from Toughness, compare toughness to damage.

It works for all three cases.

For example, say we have someone roll 3d10 and gets 17.
With AP 0, that damage is compared to Toughness 18. No damage.
With AP 4, that damage gets compared to Toughness 14 (18-4). Shaken.
With AP 10, that damage gets compared to Toughness 12 (18-6), 1 wound. This remains the same no matter how high the AP value, so it would work for AP 12, 15, or 30.

Each person should find what works best for them, which is often the system that makes the most sense to them. This is the system that works best for me.


Wounds 0 | Bennies 3/3 | Parry: 5; Tough: 12(5) | Notice: d8, Intimdate d6, Persuasion d6, Psionics d8 | 14/40 ISP | Active Conditions:

Sorry I've been quiet folks! This week has been a hell of a week for sure! Getting a post up now.

Liberty's Edge

Init:+1 Perc: +4{Passive: 19}{P. Invest: 22} | Insp = Yes!| +7/d8+4 x2| FS: 1 C: 1| Artificer 5| AC:19 | HP: 43/43{5} | 1st: 4/4 2nd: 2/2|

@GM: Might I suggest that you use some of your GM bennies (I think you get one per player) to Soak some of the Wounds to the Enforcer? Not only would that help you learn about the process of spending Bennies and doing Soak rolls, but then the Enforcer could be kept alive to continue to explore his role and the rules therein. (Some of those rules include the critical hits and Falling Down rolls.)


Why not. I'll give it a shot


Had a huge pile of extra work dumped on me yesterday for this week. I'll post when I can, but if I disappear for a few days you will know why.


Ami Swiftblade wrote:

We could remove a lot of complexity from this trial run if you want to change the mechs to creatures, maybe with the exact same stats (like, armor-skinned dragons or something)? Just come up with new attack methods (claws for Fighting, fire breath for Shooting). That would remove all the "vehicle" and "missile" aspects of the combat.

BTW, what were the results of my attack? Did either robot become Incapacitated?

It looks like everyone but Abe has acted this round. Then it's the Skelebots turn. Sorry, but as well as I know the system, even I don't relish the thought of figuring out the roll modifiers and making all those rolls.

Full Disclosure, I'm somewhat disappointed, discouraged, and dismayed by all of this. Between all of the various rules scattered through various books, I'm finding it much harder to run this thing than I expected. I've been spoiled by years of online srds (decades, really). Back when I was running Mutants and Masterminds 2nd edition, I created my own SRD so that everything would be hyperlinked and searchable. I started a similar project with Star Trek Adventures when I was running that.

I think that to run this game successfully I might have to create my own rules document/site with the specific optional rules and many extra rules from the Rifts books.

Honestly, I was hoping for something a little simpler from Savage Worlds.


Well, to be fair, pretty much everyone here did warn you that RIFTS is CONSIDERABLY more complex than regular Savage Worlds.

Liberty's Edge

Init:+1 Perc: +4{Passive: 19}{P. Invest: 22} | Insp = Yes!| +7/d8+4 x2| FS: 1 C: 1| Artificer 5| AC:19 | HP: 43/43{5} | 1st: 4/4 2nd: 2/2|

Might I suggest starting with a different SW setting?

RIFTS, from it's Paladium origins, prided itself on turning things up to 11, and this needed a lot of extra rules.

If you like M&M, there is always the Necessary Evil setting. (Having played both, I would say SW NE is just like M&M but MUCH MUCH MUCH easier to do. =)

Necessary Evil and M&M inside observation for Tumbler:

Odd thing, the very very first game I played on Paizo was a NE game. It was then that the concept for Imagine started and was developed. Hence, I've not only played both systems, I've played the same character in both and, yeah, just doing the die-levels for powers rather than the infinite modifiers and points for M&M is just easier, from even a paperwork perspective.

You mentioned the Sprawlrunners setting. There was also some interest in that. (I've played the Interface Zero SW ruleset, and it was simply AMAZING.)

RIFTS is the most complicated of the SW settings because every other class has its own rules and powers to learn, and you, sir, are a scholar and a gentleman for jumping in and giving it your best! We all learned a lot and what we did do was a lot of fun.

With that said, maybe with Sprawlrunners, were we are all, at least, some subset of humans that are...running...the sprawl...that would be an easier apple to bite?

Edit: Ninja'd by Storm Dragon the Dragon Storm Ninja.

Liberty's Edge

Init:+1 Perc: +4{Passive: 19}{P. Invest: 22} | Insp = Yes!| +7/d8+4 x2| FS: 1 C: 1| Artificer 5| AC:19 | HP: 43/43{5} | 1st: 4/4 2nd: 2/2|

A Rant about Missiles:

Of note, if, amongst the things to feel angst about, one of them is missiles, I fully concur. The whole thing seems needlessly complicated. You have to roll to attack, and the defender gets to roll to defend. And then the defender gets -another- roll. That's three rolls just to attack!

I came up with an easier way to do it. Instead of 3 rolls, it's just one roll (the Electronics one, as originally done) but instead all defenders get a Target Number. Just like Parry is Fighting +2, so too could all mecha pilots have their own Missile Defense Electronics Warfare Parry number.

Essentially you'd just get your Electronics skill die, in half, +2, just like the Parry number, and then that is the ONLY number an attacker needs to hit with a missile.

Instead of two numbers (one is easy, one is hard) it's just one number that is slightly harder to get.

Obviously customized rules are rough while trying to learn a system, so feel free to disregard all this if you like RAW...or are going to try a different settings. ^_^


That's fair, Storm Dragon. I think I didn't quite understand the level of difference.

The Rifts rules seem to be more than an order of magnitude more complex.

As for other settings, I definitely don't want to run a supers game in Savage Worlds. M&M is more than satisfying to me in that genre.

Sprawlrunners is way different from Interface Zero. Much more descriptive.

Liberty's Edge

Init:+1 Perc: +4{Passive: 19}{P. Invest: 22} | Insp = Yes!| +7/d8+4 x2| FS: 1 C: 1| Artificer 5| AC:19 | HP: 43/43{5} | 1st: 4/4 2nd: 2/2|
GM SuperTumbler wrote:
Sprawlrunners is way different from Interface Zero. Much more descriptive.

As a certain rabbit once said: Is it weird that I wanna do it even more now?

51 to 100 of 120 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Online Campaigns / Play-by-Post Discussion / Rifts-Tomorrow Squadron Discussion All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.