- My players remarked on how much they enjoyed the twist of fighting on the same side as their enemies - especially skilled and tough ones like the golden swordsmen. They did express some disappointed when they suffered some damage right away from the mindwarper, because you know, foes they can beat one on one should be able to take on a boss-level monster without significant harm. It says something that they see a foe whupping on someone to mean the someone sucks, not that the foe is tough. It's a tough crowd.
They did realize that the golden swordsmen weren't fighting to save them, but to win the fight, which made sense. I was please to see them notice this . . . I was expecting some moaning about cowardly golden swordsmen who wouldn't sacrifice themselves for the PCs. It's not about them.
- I need to spend some time between now and next session noodling around with Foundry to get the injury tolerances and DR right. It sucks when I have to manually change the damage every time and uncheck the "use injury modifiers" box.
- Someone asked me if you could change facing as part of a defense, like a Retreat without changing hexes. NO. Categorically no. Retreat causes plenty of problems now. Opening up a "but I don't move" Retreat or "I just change my facing" Retreat would be extremely abusable. It would especially allow for people to start flanked and having a foe behind them, but then use a defense against one foe to prevent a back shot that would otherwise come from the foe behind.
- This was the first time my players encounted void brutes. The original idea for them was from a prior campaign - they were the physical hosts for symbiotic critters that rode them. I didn't get to use them in that game, so I converted them for DF when Sean and I wrote Dungeon Fantasy Monsters 1.
The picture of them in DFM1 matches the description pretty well. But that's not really what they're based on. They're actually based on this guy - and specifically his action figure:
One thing I've toyed with is to allow a single hex rotation during a retreat (and since you only get one retreat per turn, you only get one hex rotation per turn), but then if an attacker can get into your back hex, you get no defense. No, not even run-around shots (because you can use your hex rotation to actually make it the side rather than the back).
ReplyDeleteIt removes the "you must begin your turn in your foe's back hex" to get a real back shot but may increase whinging over "but I'd have seen it coming!" Yes. You saw your foe jink around your 60-degree rotation and get to your back, and then you saw his blade slip into your kidneys.
I'd want to try it at the table; it feels like it wouldn't be too much overhead, but it also might have knock-on effects I don't like.
That would actually gel with how everyone wants to do it - they want to Retreat into a back hex but then face a chosen way . . . not face into the hex they left.
DeleteI'm going to leave it as-is. If I did change Retreat, it would be fairly violently and not just to muck around with Facing.
Do go on...?
DeleteThe easiest way to deal with it would be to get rid of it. It's a big additional to the "whiff" factor in games, and players can and will build their PCs around needing to Retreat.
DeleteAnother option is to only allow it if you haven't take a Step. If you did, this reduces the value of the Retreat by 1 (which can take it to 0, yes), which matches the -2 for an extra Step in Committed Attack. Or you can impose this penalty on the next move - if you Retreat, you suffer a -2 to your next turn's attacks.
I'd consider making all Retreats +1, no exceptions for Fencing or Dodge.
"... and players can and will build their PCs around needing to Retreat."
DeleteTotally. I rarely see it, but I've made Characters that didn't "need" to Retreat, but were built around having multiple Steps (Step 2 or even 3) and getting "extra Steps" in a Retreat in order to deny enemies attacks or force them to Move and Attack or All-Out Attack.
"Someone asked me if you could change facing as part of a defense, like a Retreat without changing hexes."
DeleteI could see myself allowing it, but as there is no hex-changing, thus movement is limited, it wouldn't impart any defense bonuses, just allow for a facing change as part of a defense. Of course it goes without saying that it would use up their Retreat. It would also be treated as a deliberate turning their back on any enemies that were in their new back hex.
"I could see myself allowing it, but as there is no hex-changing, thus movement is limited, it wouldn't impart any defense bonuses, just allow for a facing change as part of a defense."
DeleteThat's exactly what my player was asking for, here. The goal was essentially to use an attack from one foe to improve defenses against the next foe without having to leave the hex . . . which in the situation wasn't possible. It was pure upside. I can forsee a lot of situations where the "loss" of the +1 or +3 isn't really a loss, but the facing change provides a benefit . . . mostly by facing less towards the incoming attack and more towards the next. That's why I shot it down emphatically.
"...but the facing change provides a benefit . . ."
DeleteSure, but I don't mind if tactically giving up one benefit (even an unneeded one) imparts a different, more needed benefit.
Also maybe I play a more Wuxia inspired game, but I could see a Jackie Can, Bruce or Jett Lee inspired PC defending against a mook, then using that defense maneuver to spin to face a more dangerous foe. Especially as it would place whomever was now in their back hex as having free-and-clear back attacks against the PC.
But I've also toyed with All-Out Defense (Retreat), where the defender can Retreat up to half their Move hexes as part of a single or multiple Retreats taken during their defenses that Turn.
See, I can see circumstances where you're not giving up anything with the facing change and using it to gain another benefit. You could potentially get attacked by someone from the front, "retreat" in this fashion and prevent a flank or back shot from a foe behind you. If you then say, "But people who flanked you before you took the facing change still benefit as if you hadn't" then you've got a special case at best and a complete nerf at worst. In either case I'd rather just not have it at all.
Delete"CHEAP AS FREE" ... I don't consider over $11 a good deal for something I would find in the Dollar Tree toy section, and definitely not as cheap as free. What a misnomer!
ReplyDelete... unless this is binary. The only digits in the price are 1 and 0 so that would be $3.25 in decimal. Nope, still overpriced IMO.
Yeah, he doesn't come with the double deuce action and glow-in-the-dark abs of his brother's action figure, either. But I'd want a complete set myself.
DeleteI always thought of Bobby Rebholz artwork, linked here, as void brutes
ReplyDeletehttps://drive.google.com/file/d/1EIdW5aqRi1e8hRt2xjlIKDvNo1DG6jmk/view?usp=drivesdk
Interesting! They have heads, though, even if they don't have much of a neck. The actual void brutes literally have a face on their chest, not even a head-like bump.
Deletelike a blemmy?
DeleteVery much so, only angrier. But I literally did sit down and design them to match the description of Strong Mad's action figure.
Delete