We finished the split-session delve into the Brotherhood Complex today.
Short version?
The PCs fought their way out of a large mob of foes, cutting most of them down and driving some off, before provoking even more enemies and needing to flee. They escaped mostly with their lives . . . but in an entertaining session.
Full summary tomorrow.
Sunday, October 20, 2024
Friday, October 18, 2024
Random Thoughts & Links for 10/18/2024
- D4 Caltrops gives magic axes some love.
- Not so much gaming time this week of any kind. I'm finishing a very long, very dense military history book on top of a lot of non-gaming reading and video review, so no video games or Revolt on Antares or anything to report there.
- I did get a little cleanup done on the Brotherhood Complex. It's done and just sitting around ready to play, so all that's left is the PCs fighting it out and possible surviving a close-in fight.
- This shouldn't be a side note, but another of my friend Ryan V's gamers passed away . . . age 48. Young to go, but I gather he'd suffered some issues from his younger days that just never really let go. I only played with Lou a few times, but they were fun times. I remember scaring the living hell out of him with something I did in game that was pretty intimidating. Which is funny, because Lou was a big, strong dude but had this deer-in-the-headlights look at whatever the hell I did. I remember his reaction far more than I remember anything about the game itself. Probably Armageddon, I played that the most with that group. Sorry for that Lou, but it's a pretty funny memory. Maybe my buddies Jon or Don remember what the hell I did that provoked that look.
Really sad to hear of a friend passing even if I didn't know him as well as I could have.
- Not so much gaming time this week of any kind. I'm finishing a very long, very dense military history book on top of a lot of non-gaming reading and video review, so no video games or Revolt on Antares or anything to report there.
- I did get a little cleanup done on the Brotherhood Complex. It's done and just sitting around ready to play, so all that's left is the PCs fighting it out and possible surviving a close-in fight.
- This shouldn't be a side note, but another of my friend Ryan V's gamers passed away . . . age 48. Young to go, but I gather he'd suffered some issues from his younger days that just never really let go. I only played with Lou a few times, but they were fun times. I remember scaring the living hell out of him with something I did in game that was pretty intimidating. Which is funny, because Lou was a big, strong dude but had this deer-in-the-headlights look at whatever the hell I did. I remember his reaction far more than I remember anything about the game itself. Probably Armageddon, I played that the most with that group. Sorry for that Lou, but it's a pretty funny memory. Maybe my buddies Jon or Don remember what the hell I did that provoked that look.
Really sad to hear of a friend passing even if I didn't know him as well as I could have.
Monday, October 14, 2024
GURPS Magic clarification: Fire Cloud & Starting Fires
This clarification is for DF Felltower.
Add the following sentence to the end of the spell description:
"Damage from Fire Cloud is treated normally for setting fires."
In other words, a level 3+ Fire Cloud will partially light up clothes, etc. per the usual GURPS rules (p. B434 or DFRPG Exploits, p. 68), assuming a full turn spent in the area of the spell. It takes a level 6 Fire Cloud (and thus Magery 6*) to do that to anything that passes through the area effect. The note about lighting the easily ignited happens if the subject spends any part of a turn in a Fire Cloud area effect, regardless of the intensity of the damage inflicted - even a 1-point Fire Cloud is sufficient.
* We always allow all spells to cap at the level Magery if it exceeds the listed spell maximum.
Add the following sentence to the end of the spell description:
"Damage from Fire Cloud is treated normally for setting fires."
In other words, a level 3+ Fire Cloud will partially light up clothes, etc. per the usual GURPS rules (p. B434 or DFRPG Exploits, p. 68), assuming a full turn spent in the area of the spell. It takes a level 6 Fire Cloud (and thus Magery 6*) to do that to anything that passes through the area effect. The note about lighting the easily ignited happens if the subject spends any part of a turn in a Fire Cloud area effect, regardless of the intensity of the damage inflicted - even a 1-point Fire Cloud is sufficient.
* We always allow all spells to cap at the level Magery if it exceeds the listed spell maximum.
Saturday, October 12, 2024
Who Gets the Magic Item You Found? - Addenda
This is related to Who Gets the Magic Item You Found?
Who is actually going to use it?
Another option for handing out magic items is simply, who will actually use it? This approach hands off items - especially charged or consumable items, although not always - to the person most likely to actually use it. Yes, the high-DX Thief might actually be the best person to give a grenade-type potion to, but if the Thief isn't ever going to be ready to throw it, it's not a great choice. The wizard might be the most likely to use a wand, even if giving it to another PC means you have multiple sources of magical attack. The cleric might benefit the most from an undead-turning item, but if the cleric will generally end up healing and not turning, giving it to someone else might be a better solution. Somethings this isn't template or character based, but player based - some players are more likely to hold on to items until they really need it, others to use it whever it seems like a good choice. Conversely, you might keep certain items away from certain PCs or players because they're unlikely to use it well - the guy who insists on using his new-fangled Wand of Fireballs every fight, or who tosses back rare potions just to get to use them up. This approach chooses actually basic utility over maximal utility, either chosen to avoid waste or avoid lack of use.
Finders, Keepers
Even in a cooperative game, sometimes the person who gets it is the person who finds it. Or the group that finds in. In a rotating cast of PCs game, a delve might leave out the dwarf fighter because that player is busy on game day, only to find dwarf-sized magic armor . . . and sell it, trade it, or give it to some dwarf NPC because the PC wasn't around to earn it. You may have to have some part in the finding to have any part of the keeping.
Any I missed, in this post or the previous one?
Who is actually going to use it?
Another option for handing out magic items is simply, who will actually use it? This approach hands off items - especially charged or consumable items, although not always - to the person most likely to actually use it. Yes, the high-DX Thief might actually be the best person to give a grenade-type potion to, but if the Thief isn't ever going to be ready to throw it, it's not a great choice. The wizard might be the most likely to use a wand, even if giving it to another PC means you have multiple sources of magical attack. The cleric might benefit the most from an undead-turning item, but if the cleric will generally end up healing and not turning, giving it to someone else might be a better solution. Somethings this isn't template or character based, but player based - some players are more likely to hold on to items until they really need it, others to use it whever it seems like a good choice. Conversely, you might keep certain items away from certain PCs or players because they're unlikely to use it well - the guy who insists on using his new-fangled Wand of Fireballs every fight, or who tosses back rare potions just to get to use them up. This approach chooses actually basic utility over maximal utility, either chosen to avoid waste or avoid lack of use.
Finders, Keepers
Even in a cooperative game, sometimes the person who gets it is the person who finds it. Or the group that finds in. In a rotating cast of PCs game, a delve might leave out the dwarf fighter because that player is busy on game day, only to find dwarf-sized magic armor . . . and sell it, trade it, or give it to some dwarf NPC because the PC wasn't around to earn it. You may have to have some part in the finding to have any part of the keeping.
Any I missed, in this post or the previous one?
Wednesday, October 9, 2024
My Modified Mook Rule & Hard to Subdue
I use a modified mook rule, as discussed in these two posts:
My Modified DF Mook Rule
Reflections on my Modified Mook rule in play
I still use these in play, although they don't come up as often as you'd probably expect; unsure of what foe is a mook or not, PCs generally fight as if everyone is a potential boss monster and go for random hit locations hoping for a cripple or lucky vitals/neck/skull shot, or "aim for the hit points" and try to just force the foe down to -5xHP as fast as possible. In effect, going for the surety of eventual death but skipping the possible quick knockout by forcing lots of rolls, penalized or otherwise. But still, they are there.
I am considering modifying the effect of Hard to Subdue, however.
Instead of an off/on switch for the auto-fail of HT rolls, each level of Hard to Subdue pushes the auto-fail threshold down 1xHP.
So a mook auto-fails at 0 HP or below.
One with Hard to Subdue 1 auto-fails at -1xHP or below.
Hard to Subdue 2 fails at -2xHP or below.
Etc. Only 4 levels matter as -5xHP is automatic death without certain advantages - none of which you'd find on something that counts as a mook!
This can allow Hard to Subdue to have its normal effect, but not act as such a big swing between automatic failure and a tough fight - especially since HT 12 is pretty common on the kind of foes that have Hard to Subdue 1+, and HT 13 is likely to keep a foe up for a long, long time.
I'm not sure if I'll do this, but I'm leaning toward it pretty heavily.
My Modified DF Mook Rule
Reflections on my Modified Mook rule in play
I still use these in play, although they don't come up as often as you'd probably expect; unsure of what foe is a mook or not, PCs generally fight as if everyone is a potential boss monster and go for random hit locations hoping for a cripple or lucky vitals/neck/skull shot, or "aim for the hit points" and try to just force the foe down to -5xHP as fast as possible. In effect, going for the surety of eventual death but skipping the possible quick knockout by forcing lots of rolls, penalized or otherwise. But still, they are there.
I am considering modifying the effect of Hard to Subdue, however.
Instead of an off/on switch for the auto-fail of HT rolls, each level of Hard to Subdue pushes the auto-fail threshold down 1xHP.
So a mook auto-fails at 0 HP or below.
One with Hard to Subdue 1 auto-fails at -1xHP or below.
Hard to Subdue 2 fails at -2xHP or below.
Etc. Only 4 levels matter as -5xHP is automatic death without certain advantages - none of which you'd find on something that counts as a mook!
This can allow Hard to Subdue to have its normal effect, but not act as such a big swing between automatic failure and a tough fight - especially since HT 12 is pretty common on the kind of foes that have Hard to Subdue 1+, and HT 13 is likely to keep a foe up for a long, long time.
I'm not sure if I'll do this, but I'm leaning toward it pretty heavily.
Monday, October 7, 2024
A "Dungeons & Dragons" Adventure - Comic Book Back Cover Ad
On the back of one of my comics - ROM: Spaceknight issue #28, March 1982, I found this advertisement for Dungeons & Dragons drawn by Bill Willingham.
As always, these are pretty goofy. Mysterious powers, an easily-scared (and easily-comforted) elf, a dragon-scaring sword, not a lot accomplished. At least there is a dungeon and a dragon.
The great sword Naril indeed. Just bite him, dragon, he's got like AC 4. And nothing more comforting after a red dragon nearly roasts you than relaxing by a warm fire, eh?
As always, these are pretty goofy. Mysterious powers, an easily-scared (and easily-comforted) elf, a dragon-scaring sword, not a lot accomplished. At least there is a dungeon and a dragon.
The great sword Naril indeed. Just bite him, dragon, he's got like AC 4. And nothing more comforting after a red dragon nearly roasts you than relaxing by a warm fire, eh?
Sunday, October 6, 2024
Felltower & Hiring Henchmen - Making Skill beat IQ
This post, and rules change, is heavily inspired by comments by Douglas Cole. His comment was that knights - with Born War Leader - should be better at recruiting hirelings - than the cleric, whose IQ beats the knight's Born War Leader-improved Leadership skill. I was immediately swayed by this, but I didn't love the rough proposed suggestion of making BWL or Leadership work better. I think the issue is that IQ is too broadly effective.
Here is my proposed solution. This is a change to Where Did You Find This Guy?, GURPS Dungeon Fantasy 15: Henchmen, p. 29.
The base roll for finding a henchmen is IQ-3, instead of IQ. Skill rolls are unmodified.
As a secondary note, Loyalty rolls are made based on the hiring character. To quote DF15, p. 30:
"Make a reaction roll when a hireling first signs up. Apply the usual reaction modifiers of the hirer, who may be a PC or an NPC companion, and record the result. This number is effectively a new stat for hirelings: Loyalty."
So if the cleric (IQ 14) or wizard (IQ 15) goes out and hires a squire or killer, the roll for Loyalty is 3d6 plus or minus the net reaction modifier of the cleric or wizard. If the Knight (IQ 10) with Born War Leader 2 hires the same squire or killer, the roll gains a +2 for Born War Leader. Who they nominally are commanded by or working for doesn't matter, the actual hiring character matters.
Notes:
Why didn't I just do this when I wrote it? Well, I actually didn't write that section, that I recall. I believe it was purely Sean Punch, and it draws on GURPS Basic Set.
With this change and clarification, it should be clear that the best person for the job will almost always be the template closest to the specialty.
You can always keep the base IQ roll, give a bonus to Loyalty for higher skill - each level above IQ is worth +1. So a knight with Born War Leader 2, IQ 10, and Leadership-13 has a net +3 (+1 for Leadership at IQ+1, +2 for BWL 2, not double-counting BWL) on Loyalty. Compare that with a cleric with IQ 14 gaining a Loyalty bonus of +0. Or do both.
For Felltower, I chose to go with the IQ penalty, but I'm open to persuasion - and yes, I do roll Loyalty whenever danger arises or there is a need for some roll for bravery or loyalty. I just like the idea that specialists - and yes, Merchant works across the board - do better finding people than someone who is just intelligent.
Here is my proposed solution. This is a change to Where Did You Find This Guy?, GURPS Dungeon Fantasy 15: Henchmen, p. 29.
The base roll for finding a henchmen is IQ-3, instead of IQ. Skill rolls are unmodified.
As a secondary note, Loyalty rolls are made based on the hiring character. To quote DF15, p. 30:
"Make a reaction roll when a hireling first signs up. Apply the usual reaction modifiers of the hirer, who may be a PC or an NPC companion, and record the result. This number is effectively a new stat for hirelings: Loyalty."
So if the cleric (IQ 14) or wizard (IQ 15) goes out and hires a squire or killer, the roll for Loyalty is 3d6 plus or minus the net reaction modifier of the cleric or wizard. If the Knight (IQ 10) with Born War Leader 2 hires the same squire or killer, the roll gains a +2 for Born War Leader. Who they nominally are commanded by or working for doesn't matter, the actual hiring character matters.
Notes:
Why didn't I just do this when I wrote it? Well, I actually didn't write that section, that I recall. I believe it was purely Sean Punch, and it draws on GURPS Basic Set.
With this change and clarification, it should be clear that the best person for the job will almost always be the template closest to the specialty.
You can always keep the base IQ roll, give a bonus to Loyalty for higher skill - each level above IQ is worth +1. So a knight with Born War Leader 2, IQ 10, and Leadership-13 has a net +3 (+1 for Leadership at IQ+1, +2 for BWL 2, not double-counting BWL) on Loyalty. Compare that with a cleric with IQ 14 gaining a Loyalty bonus of +0. Or do both.
For Felltower, I chose to go with the IQ penalty, but I'm open to persuasion - and yes, I do roll Loyalty whenever danger arises or there is a need for some roll for bravery or loyalty. I just like the idea that specialists - and yes, Merchant works across the board - do better finding people than someone who is just intelligent.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
