Busy, busy week for me, and not for gaming. Here are a few things I did like, though, and some notes.
- Here is yet another look at Appendix N from the AD&D DUNGEONMASTERS GUIDE, with more Gygax commentary on his influences.
Prependix N
- This was the Traveller set I wanted. The bookstore had Starter Traveller and Deluxe Traveller. The first was $12, the second $20. I had $12. I really wish I'd saved up another $8 before I bought the game. I spent a lot of time with supplements that assumed you had the little black books, and nothing I had pointed back to pages in Starter Traveller. I felt like I'd gotten a bit of a broken game, because I could never tell what was missing or different.
Deluxe Traveller
- Mini combat in the Pacific in WW2.
- Game is Sunday, in all likelihood. I hope the PCs can find another gear and win this fight they're in, and finish exploring the dungeon. I expect it's likely to be another split session, though.
Friday, January 31, 2025
Sunday, January 26, 2025
DF Felltower: Why can't you temporarily suppress magic?
Over the course of Felltower, the question of countering magic has come up.
Canonically in GURPS Dungeon Fantasy, there is no way for PCs to temporarily suspend an enchantment. If magic is permanent, the effect remains and is not subject to the relatively simple and easy counters of Dispel Magic and Counterspell. Curse-like effects are often removable with Remove Curse, and you can dispel/counter non-permanent magic.
But it's deliberate that the spell list doesn't include Suspend Enchantment. Because of this, these things are generally true:
Dispel Magic doesn't harm created undead, contructs, or permanent enchantments (wether on items or locations.) It does generally have the potential to end the magic behind spells like Animate Shadow or Animate Object or Create Warrior. Some spells have very specific counters, and thus aren't subject to Dispel Magic - examples include Flesh to Stone and Entombment.
Counterspell can only directly counter spells, not magic effects in general, and are subject to the revised rules we use.
Ward is only useful defensively, and again, only against spells, not enchantments and magical effects that just happen to be possible to create with a spell. Just because you may potentially be able to Ward against Burning Touch doesn't mean all touch-based fire attacks from magical creatures are subject to Ward.
Remove Curse is effective against a special set of spells and effects - they're called out specifically in the descriptions of the individual spells.
Why?
Because enchantments should be special. They should not be subject to a high-skill caster or a good roll to end. Magic-based obstacles should be solved with cleverness or sucking up the effects, not by just spamming out Dispel Magic.
In additional, magical creatures - undead, constructs, mana-dependent beings, etc. - shouldn't be singled out for a special generic damage / save-or-die spell (such as allowing Dispel Magic to damage or outright kill such creatures). And if even some are, that means step one should always be casting Dispel Magic to see if it'll damage or kill such creatures. The spell would go from a way to counter temporary magic to doing that plus potentially killing otherwise potentially problem-causing foes. Don't know what to do with a critter? Start with Dispel Magic.
Therefore I don't even allow it on a critical - the "I rolled a 3, so a miracle occurs!" that is the equivalent of post-1st edition D&D/AD&D's "I rolled a 20." Allowing such would encourage people to just keep trying to same spells over and over and over, hoping/praying for a 3. Once that's possible, generally, people will just try Dispel Magic on everything unti it works. I've seen this with our special rule on Missile Shield that allows a 3 or 4 to penetrate it (if you had an effective 1+ skill in the first place, of course) - people just keep plugging away, hoping for that low roll that will solve the problem without them needing to find a different solution. I like that rule enough to keep it, but allowing it does push people to a thoughtless repetition of a failed tactic until they've rolled a 3 to see if it "really" doesn't work.
With that in mind, players can be sure that only NMZs really mess with their enchanted items, magical creatures won't just take damage from one spell that automatically acts as a damage spell / off button, and that spells designed to counter spells aren't the answer to fantasy problems that aren't instantly amenable to "I hit it really hard in the hit points."
Related:
Revised Dispel Magic (and for people who groan that a 1-hex spell was 3 seconds, 2 with Skill 20, is now 5 seconds, 3 seconds with skill 20, thus making the spell "useless" for combat . . . feel free to not cast it!)
But it's deliberate that the spell list doesn't include Suspend Enchantment. Because of this, these things are generally true:
Dispel Magic doesn't harm created undead, contructs, or permanent enchantments (wether on items or locations.) It does generally have the potential to end the magic behind spells like Animate Shadow or Animate Object or Create Warrior. Some spells have very specific counters, and thus aren't subject to Dispel Magic - examples include Flesh to Stone and Entombment.
Counterspell can only directly counter spells, not magic effects in general, and are subject to the revised rules we use.
Ward is only useful defensively, and again, only against spells, not enchantments and magical effects that just happen to be possible to create with a spell. Just because you may potentially be able to Ward against Burning Touch doesn't mean all touch-based fire attacks from magical creatures are subject to Ward.
Remove Curse is effective against a special set of spells and effects - they're called out specifically in the descriptions of the individual spells.
Why?
Because enchantments should be special. They should not be subject to a high-skill caster or a good roll to end. Magic-based obstacles should be solved with cleverness or sucking up the effects, not by just spamming out Dispel Magic.
In additional, magical creatures - undead, constructs, mana-dependent beings, etc. - shouldn't be singled out for a special generic damage / save-or-die spell (such as allowing Dispel Magic to damage or outright kill such creatures). And if even some are, that means step one should always be casting Dispel Magic to see if it'll damage or kill such creatures. The spell would go from a way to counter temporary magic to doing that plus potentially killing otherwise potentially problem-causing foes. Don't know what to do with a critter? Start with Dispel Magic.
Therefore I don't even allow it on a critical - the "I rolled a 3, so a miracle occurs!" that is the equivalent of post-1st edition D&D/AD&D's "I rolled a 20." Allowing such would encourage people to just keep trying to same spells over and over and over, hoping/praying for a 3. Once that's possible, generally, people will just try Dispel Magic on everything unti it works. I've seen this with our special rule on Missile Shield that allows a 3 or 4 to penetrate it (if you had an effective 1+ skill in the first place, of course) - people just keep plugging away, hoping for that low roll that will solve the problem without them needing to find a different solution. I like that rule enough to keep it, but allowing it does push people to a thoughtless repetition of a failed tactic until they've rolled a 3 to see if it "really" doesn't work.
With that in mind, players can be sure that only NMZs really mess with their enchanted items, magical creatures won't just take damage from one spell that automatically acts as a damage spell / off button, and that spells designed to counter spells aren't the answer to fantasy problems that aren't instantly amenable to "I hit it really hard in the hit points."
Related:
Revised Dispel Magic (and for people who groan that a 1-hex spell was 3 seconds, 2 with Skill 20, is now 5 seconds, 3 seconds with skill 20, thus making the spell "useless" for combat . . . feel free to not cast it!)
No Felltower Today
Due to a cold weather-related house problem, half of our gamers can't game today. We've postponed the resolution of the Brotherhood Complex. Next game date is as yet undecided.
Saturday, January 25, 2025
Trying some new VTT settings
I put in some new settings for the VTT for tomorrow:
- auto-popout for the Combat Tracker
- larger font sizes to make it easier to read
- I think I managed to turn off the ability to take yourself out of combat
- turned off the auto-open on the modifier bucket - huge for me, since I use two screens and it's effective in the middle
- maybe made some other tweaks that will affect combat positively . . . but we'll see. Sometimes it's hard to parse out what it is I'm actually causing to happen.
- auto-popout for the Combat Tracker
- larger font sizes to make it easier to read
- I think I managed to turn off the ability to take yourself out of combat
- turned off the auto-open on the modifier bucket - huge for me, since I use two screens and it's effective in the middle
- maybe made some other tweaks that will affect combat positively . . . but we'll see. Sometimes it's hard to parse out what it is I'm actually causing to happen.
Friday, January 24, 2025
Friday Links 1/24/2025
Friday has come.
- I finally got around to getting & reading Lyorn (Amazon.com link), by Steven Brust. He dedicated it to John M. "Mike" Ford, with regrets that Mike wouldn't be able to see it.
It involves a musical, with based-on-real-world-music songs in the text.
I mostly bring this up because, yeah, John M. Ford would have loved it.
I interacted with him on the Pyramid message boards back in the day, as I mentioned here. Knowing his taste, as soon as I saw the first music, I thought, oh, yeah, he would have loved this book. I'm not a musical guy, but I can read along and grin and bear it because of the dedication.
- I think our next game is Sunday. I hope so, because I'm planning on it.
- Yexil from Gamma World mini. I had no idea they made that. We met one of them, once.
- I finally got around to getting & reading Lyorn (Amazon.com link), by Steven Brust. He dedicated it to John M. "Mike" Ford, with regrets that Mike wouldn't be able to see it.
It involves a musical, with based-on-real-world-music songs in the text.
I mostly bring this up because, yeah, John M. Ford would have loved it.
I interacted with him on the Pyramid message boards back in the day, as I mentioned here. Knowing his taste, as soon as I saw the first music, I thought, oh, yeah, he would have loved this book. I'm not a musical guy, but I can read along and grin and bear it because of the dedication.
- I think our next game is Sunday. I hope so, because I'm planning on it.
- Yexil from Gamma World mini. I had no idea they made that. We met one of them, once.
Thursday, January 23, 2025
GURPS VTT Module Wish List
Here is a quick list of what I'd like to see in my VTT, especially for the GURPS module. I'll keep the updated as I go or as things change.
drag and drop damage onto the combat tracker. There are times I'd like to be able to drag and drop damage to the combat tracker. Or to an open character sheet, for that matter.
Ability to automatically assign a random 3-digit number after all NPCs. If I drop 10 orcs down on the board, giving them adjectives before their names just causes goofiness from my players. "Sleepy Orc" or "Angry Orc" is going to start a whole derailing series of time-wasting comments and annoy me. "Orc (175)" and "Orc (609)" are easy to tell apart and minimize the commentary.
Undo Damage. Look, sometimes people mess up their roll, or their target, or it gets on the wrong guy. One-click Undo would be awesome.
Assignable Mods. I'd like to be able to, on the fly, add changes to a figure. Give it Homogenous or additional DR or whatever and keep the change on the character.
GM-only visibility on statuses. I'd like to be able to put a status on an NPC that I know about, but that the PCs don't. They shouldn't know if someone is mentally stunned, or can fly (if they haven't flown yet), or have Armor 3 cast on them, or whatever. I'd like to mark it privately but visibly to me.
drag and drop damage onto the combat tracker. There are times I'd like to be able to drag and drop damage to the combat tracker. Or to an open character sheet, for that matter.
Ability to automatically assign a random 3-digit number after all NPCs. If I drop 10 orcs down on the board, giving them adjectives before their names just causes goofiness from my players. "Sleepy Orc" or "Angry Orc" is going to start a whole derailing series of time-wasting comments and annoy me. "Orc (175)" and "Orc (609)" are easy to tell apart and minimize the commentary.
Undo Damage. Look, sometimes people mess up their roll, or their target, or it gets on the wrong guy. One-click Undo would be awesome.
Assignable Mods. I'd like to be able to, on the fly, add changes to a figure. Give it Homogenous or additional DR or whatever and keep the change on the character.
GM-only visibility on statuses. I'd like to be able to put a status on an NPC that I know about, but that the PCs don't. They shouldn't know if someone is mentally stunned, or can fly (if they haven't flown yet), or have Armor 3 cast on them, or whatever. I'd like to mark it privately but visibly to me.
Tuesday, January 21, 2025
Are we still using . . . (Felltower Rules)
Let's look at some rules we've used in the past but may or may not be using now.
Are we still using Trademark Move?
In a word, no.
It's 1 point for a +1 to a very specific combo. Only a couple of PCs use such a combo, and even then, they vary it up based on circumstances. So it's just easier to say no, we're not using that anymore. I'm not willing to have people pick a "best case" scenario that factors in the +1, pay 1 point for it, and then use it only when it's the best option . . . and then modify it anytime their skill increases, and ignore it whenever they quaff an Agility potion to increase their DX as it's not optimized for the temporary, new DX. I'm not sure it's a great use of 1 point, but it's also a poor use of the rule, and it sure doesn't fit the bargain of speeding up play in return for a bonus.
If I could get my players to agree to fixed feints and fixed Deceptive Attack, I would go for this . . . but they're always proved fairly resistant to the concepts.
Are we still using the Modified Mook Rule?
Yes.
You don't see it quite as often. The PCs generally encounter larger numbers of Worthy foes and less mobs of Fodder. I don't use the Modified Mook Rule for Worthies, so . . . it's in play but doesn't show up as often. And the Modified Mook Rule doesn't apply Mook vs. Mook, so when you have a big brawl of 62-point hirelings vs. 62-point cultists neither side just drops automatically. Those two factors mean it's not as front-and-center as it could be.
Are we still doing No Rule Lookups?
No. Sadly, no.
We look stuff up. Not enough of my players follow this post, so we fairly often get specialty moves used without actual certainty about how those rules work. Through in some "helpful" comments like, "I think a miss by 1 hits torso" or "I don't think we do that" or "Did you remember the -1 for Curse?" or "Can't you use (name totally different move)?" on top and . . . the game stops until we check. I get it when someone literally does a totally new thing we haven't had come up . . . but it comes up for always-used things like Evasion and grappling and weapons Getting Stuck, too.
So, in theory I'd like to get back to this but 9/10 times my players recollection of how the rule works isn't complete, generally people dont seem inclined to just let me rule and go, and so then what? Better to look it up.
Mapless Combat
No.
With a VTT, I've found that I need to keep tokens down on the screen to run a fight. Any tokens on a screen will result in people trying to move tactically. Any mapless aspect of the combat disappears into map-like combat without actual assigned hexes and facing . . . so it's the worst of mapped (slow!) and mapless (imprecise!) instead of either fully implemented. It's just easier to make everything mapped.
Are we still using Trademark Move?
In a word, no.
It's 1 point for a +1 to a very specific combo. Only a couple of PCs use such a combo, and even then, they vary it up based on circumstances. So it's just easier to say no, we're not using that anymore. I'm not willing to have people pick a "best case" scenario that factors in the +1, pay 1 point for it, and then use it only when it's the best option . . . and then modify it anytime their skill increases, and ignore it whenever they quaff an Agility potion to increase their DX as it's not optimized for the temporary, new DX. I'm not sure it's a great use of 1 point, but it's also a poor use of the rule, and it sure doesn't fit the bargain of speeding up play in return for a bonus.
If I could get my players to agree to fixed feints and fixed Deceptive Attack, I would go for this . . . but they're always proved fairly resistant to the concepts.
Are we still using the Modified Mook Rule?
Yes.
You don't see it quite as often. The PCs generally encounter larger numbers of Worthy foes and less mobs of Fodder. I don't use the Modified Mook Rule for Worthies, so . . . it's in play but doesn't show up as often. And the Modified Mook Rule doesn't apply Mook vs. Mook, so when you have a big brawl of 62-point hirelings vs. 62-point cultists neither side just drops automatically. Those two factors mean it's not as front-and-center as it could be.
Are we still doing No Rule Lookups?
No. Sadly, no.
We look stuff up. Not enough of my players follow this post, so we fairly often get specialty moves used without actual certainty about how those rules work. Through in some "helpful" comments like, "I think a miss by 1 hits torso" or "I don't think we do that" or "Did you remember the -1 for Curse?" or "Can't you use (name totally different move)?" on top and . . . the game stops until we check. I get it when someone literally does a totally new thing we haven't had come up . . . but it comes up for always-used things like Evasion and grappling and weapons Getting Stuck, too.
So, in theory I'd like to get back to this but 9/10 times my players recollection of how the rule works isn't complete, generally people dont seem inclined to just let me rule and go, and so then what? Better to look it up.
Mapless Combat
No.
With a VTT, I've found that I need to keep tokens down on the screen to run a fight. Any tokens on a screen will result in people trying to move tactically. Any mapless aspect of the combat disappears into map-like combat without actual assigned hexes and facing . . . so it's the worst of mapped (slow!) and mapless (imprecise!) instead of either fully implemented. It's just easier to make everything mapped.
Sunday, January 19, 2025
Do DF Felltower foes play by the rules?
This is expanding on Rules & Rulings for Session 203.
Do DF Felltower foes play by the rules?
Yes.
Why not cheat?
I'm the GM. I define the parameters of the world.
I literally have unlimited bad guys.
I have unlimited points in my budget.
I have unlimited access to equipment in the game world.
I can impose any limitations I want on the PCs up to what the players will tolerate and still come back to the next game session.
So why would I need to cheat?
All Felltower NPCs aren't built with a point budget. Basically, only PCs are hirelings are, although occasionally I'll build an NPC and see what the total is. That's really just so I don't have an idea of a Worthy rough peer to the PCs only to hand out so much extra stuff that they're now a near-Boss. I do it sometimes as an exercise to see if what I'm doing matches what I thought it would cost up as. But I almost never set a budget and build unless it's a bunch of mooks, and then only once for a repeat-use type foe that is meant to hit a very specific power niche.
Why do I play by the rules?
I find I benefit a lot from playing things as straight as I can.
The players can judge their abilities and limitations based on what they know of the rules, and what they observe. They benefit from in-game knowledge and knowledge about the game. If I, in a word, cheat, the players can depend on what's on their sheet for their own characters and nothing else at all. Even there, there will be doubt. Will my spell work? Who knows. If the enemy displays an ability that I also have, does it work like mine? Will my resistances work? I've played in a game like that. The GM was a hoot to play with, but honestly, it was hard to do anything but concentrate on story because your paper man sure as hell wasn't playing on a level playing field.
It means I can largely rely on my players to help the game run smoothly* without needing a second set of rules for the foes. I can let them Charm foes and order them around and have their powers work as expected. I can look the answers up in the rules instead of just making stuff up as I go. And there can be a consistent set of rules instead of a hodge-podge of exceptions and individual rules for each and every power and bad guy. Petrifaction works the same way for everyone. Paralysis works the same way. Death checks work the same. The works.
None of this means I'm constrained from what I can do, but I am constrained in how I do it. Constraints lead to creativity, in my opinion. I'm able to make exceptions that make sense, and have unique powers and unique foes that do things that - by the book - might not work. But I don't let them casually violate the rules and basic operations of the system in a way that doesn't let the players figure out what they're up against.
In the end, that makes the game run more smoothly for me, more enjoyably for the players, and more understandable for people reading along at home. And I find it easy enough.
* Except for Vic. No helping, Vic!
Do DF Felltower foes play by the rules?
Yes.
Why not cheat?
I'm the GM. I define the parameters of the world.
I literally have unlimited bad guys.
I have unlimited points in my budget.
I have unlimited access to equipment in the game world.
I can impose any limitations I want on the PCs up to what the players will tolerate and still come back to the next game session.
So why would I need to cheat?
All Felltower NPCs aren't built with a point budget. Basically, only PCs are hirelings are, although occasionally I'll build an NPC and see what the total is. That's really just so I don't have an idea of a Worthy rough peer to the PCs only to hand out so much extra stuff that they're now a near-Boss. I do it sometimes as an exercise to see if what I'm doing matches what I thought it would cost up as. But I almost never set a budget and build unless it's a bunch of mooks, and then only once for a repeat-use type foe that is meant to hit a very specific power niche.
Why do I play by the rules?
I find I benefit a lot from playing things as straight as I can.
The players can judge their abilities and limitations based on what they know of the rules, and what they observe. They benefit from in-game knowledge and knowledge about the game. If I, in a word, cheat, the players can depend on what's on their sheet for their own characters and nothing else at all. Even there, there will be doubt. Will my spell work? Who knows. If the enemy displays an ability that I also have, does it work like mine? Will my resistances work? I've played in a game like that. The GM was a hoot to play with, but honestly, it was hard to do anything but concentrate on story because your paper man sure as hell wasn't playing on a level playing field.
It means I can largely rely on my players to help the game run smoothly* without needing a second set of rules for the foes. I can let them Charm foes and order them around and have their powers work as expected. I can look the answers up in the rules instead of just making stuff up as I go. And there can be a consistent set of rules instead of a hodge-podge of exceptions and individual rules for each and every power and bad guy. Petrifaction works the same way for everyone. Paralysis works the same way. Death checks work the same. The works.
None of this means I'm constrained from what I can do, but I am constrained in how I do it. Constraints lead to creativity, in my opinion. I'm able to make exceptions that make sense, and have unique powers and unique foes that do things that - by the book - might not work. But I don't let them casually violate the rules and basic operations of the system in a way that doesn't let the players figure out what they're up against.
In the end, that makes the game run more smoothly for me, more enjoyably for the players, and more understandable for people reading along at home. And I find it easy enough.
* Except for Vic. No helping, Vic!
Friday, January 17, 2025
Weekly Roundup 1/17/2025
Another busy week is coming to a close, but I did have time to check these out and recommend them:
- Color me interested by Against the Darkmaster, discussed a bit here. Except I never played MERP, I liked Rolemaster.
- I always wonder about the best ways to do this kind of "vastness." How do you give people a chance to fill in a hex map by exploring the nooks and crannies, yet also show them what they can see far away? Give the rough outline, even the terrain, but make sure it's clearly not explored yet. My mapping vocabulary isn't up to that.
- I stumbled upon this in my bookmarks of things to "read later." Well, it sure is later. But it's an article about a private airforce with outdated but still modern and lethal aircraft. It's the kind of thing that reminds me that in a modern game, when the PCs need to go up against UFOs or flying squid monsters or whatever . . . it's quite possible to get military gear into their hands without putting them into the military. My sci fi games PCs always wanted a private arsenal . . . maybe in such games you could do the same.
- Color me interested by Against the Darkmaster, discussed a bit here. Except I never played MERP, I liked Rolemaster.
- I always wonder about the best ways to do this kind of "vastness." How do you give people a chance to fill in a hex map by exploring the nooks and crannies, yet also show them what they can see far away? Give the rough outline, even the terrain, but make sure it's clearly not explored yet. My mapping vocabulary isn't up to that.
- I stumbled upon this in my bookmarks of things to "read later." Well, it sure is later. But it's an article about a private airforce with outdated but still modern and lethal aircraft. It's the kind of thing that reminds me that in a modern game, when the PCs need to go up against UFOs or flying squid monsters or whatever . . . it's quite possible to get military gear into their hands without putting them into the military. My sci fi games PCs always wanted a private arsenal . . . maybe in such games you could do the same.
Monday, January 13, 2025
Rules & Rulings from Session 203
Rules & Rulings from last session!
Can you Wait until someone else's turn ends? Essentially, can you hold your turn until later in the sequence, usually to ensure you get to surpress defenses before someone (or after someone else has done so)? Yes, but the trigger needs to be concrete - after so-and-so attacks is okay, but not "after so-and-so goes" or "just before so-and-so goes." It is also subject to the same rules for Wait as written.
I don't have any real issue with essentially changing your initiative order permanently to later, but GURPS doesn't allow that, and I'm not willing to change that rule just to change it. I'd have to put a lot of thought into NPC turn order to optimize it, and the players would put a lot of time into optimizing their order, too. I don't see an upside to that right now.
Can I shoot down a Missile spell?
Our Scout wants to use Wait and aim at a wizard's held missile spell, to shoot it as soon as it's thrown to either set it off or deflect it off course.
There might be a place for a rule like this, but it feels too much Marvel Comics and not enough DF, especially DF Felltower. Plus I feel like it creates too many edge cases - what kind of missile, does damage matter, can you use missiles to disrupt other attacks, can you throw grenades as an attack to harm a weapon on the way to you, etc.? So I said no.
Like I said, I can see a rule for this - maybe even a Power Up that allows you to do this kind of thing. But as a standard ability with ranged attacks . . . eh, no. Do I really want people hurling meteoric knives at Lightning spells and then claiming this somehow should disrupt the magic or block it or something, or toss Alchemist's Fire at a Fireball to shower an otherwise shielded wizard? No, no I don't want to deal with that. Again, nice idea, but not a DF Felltower kind of idea. Feel free to develop this one yourself for your own games but you won't see it here.
Heads I Win, Tails You Lose - spotted!
The martial artist used Judo to throw opponents for the first time today. So naturally, this question came up - if I Judo Parry and then can throw, does that mean if I attack with Judo and they parry unarmed, I can throw them next turn?
No! There are no "heads I win, tails you lose" effects like that for Judo. That was specifically written up to avoid that.
I was amused how quickly Doug Cole stepped in to say that this was a specifically-blocked case. He's right. Nothing is worse than a system where HIWTYL is in place, especially for the "You" in this equation. Imagine having to fight someone where your attacks lead to bad things for you if you fail, and your defenses lead to the exact same bad things whether you succeed or fail. No one wants to fight where the 4 possible quadrants of results are 3:1 against you - 1:1 on the attack and 2:0 on defense.
This isn't to say that circumstances can't create HIWTYL - unarmed guys punching at armored folks can have this happen, damage to unarmed on parries can make this happen, the Flaming Armor spell is designed to make this happen - but it's not a basic assumption of grappling rules, that's for certain.
Does the Iron Witch cheat?
DF is a game where the monsters might be totally unfair. I always play by the same rules, even if I find ways to give monsters exceptions or powers that PCs couldn't have.
The Iron Witch, well, maybe. She's thrown, that the PCs know of, Shield 6 (base cost 12), Missile Shield (base cost 5), two Explosive Stone Missile spells, at 12 (base cost 24) and 18d (base cost 36), and two Flesh to Stone spells (base cost 10 each). Assuming skill 20 (they know she has Magery 6, and IQ 16 isn't crazy since wizards start with a 15), and my rules for energy reductions on missile spells, this works out to 10, 3, 18, 30, and 16 points of energy. 77 energy. That's a lot.
A standard DF wizard can have ER 20, FP 26, and a power item. Give her a 35 point power item ($18,001 item), and she has 5 energy left. So even without "cheating," and nothing special, she'd be okay if low on FP. Given higher skills on some of the spells, or a larger Power Item, and she's fine even with a lower base FP. Skill 25 on the spells would net back 11 points; it would net back 6 if it's just Stone Missile. That's a lot of money and character points to get there, but you don't always need to bend the rules to get the results. That said, maybe she's just a Cheater McCheaterson and has scads of energy or free spell-like powers. That's possible, too. It's just not the only answer on the table.
And for comparison, Chop has Major Healing-25 and has expended IIRC close to 30 power. He spams out 0-cost spells like Curse a lot, but he's belted out a lot of healing. Duncan has probably spent a bit less but still a lot.
We didn't try Dispel Magic on the golems! No, it hasn't been tried. It won't work. You cannot disrupt an enchantment with Dispel Magic. Only a No Mana Zone or the Suspend Enchantment spell - not available in DF - can do that. You can't "turn off" enchantments in DF Felltower with spells. It makes logical sense to consider it, but the wording of the spells and the underlying assumptions of enchantment vs. temporary magic are very much different than the logic assumes.
Can you Wait until someone else's turn ends? Essentially, can you hold your turn until later in the sequence, usually to ensure you get to surpress defenses before someone (or after someone else has done so)? Yes, but the trigger needs to be concrete - after so-and-so attacks is okay, but not "after so-and-so goes" or "just before so-and-so goes." It is also subject to the same rules for Wait as written.
I don't have any real issue with essentially changing your initiative order permanently to later, but GURPS doesn't allow that, and I'm not willing to change that rule just to change it. I'd have to put a lot of thought into NPC turn order to optimize it, and the players would put a lot of time into optimizing their order, too. I don't see an upside to that right now.
Can I shoot down a Missile spell?
Our Scout wants to use Wait and aim at a wizard's held missile spell, to shoot it as soon as it's thrown to either set it off or deflect it off course.
There might be a place for a rule like this, but it feels too much Marvel Comics and not enough DF, especially DF Felltower. Plus I feel like it creates too many edge cases - what kind of missile, does damage matter, can you use missiles to disrupt other attacks, can you throw grenades as an attack to harm a weapon on the way to you, etc.? So I said no.
Like I said, I can see a rule for this - maybe even a Power Up that allows you to do this kind of thing. But as a standard ability with ranged attacks . . . eh, no. Do I really want people hurling meteoric knives at Lightning spells and then claiming this somehow should disrupt the magic or block it or something, or toss Alchemist's Fire at a Fireball to shower an otherwise shielded wizard? No, no I don't want to deal with that. Again, nice idea, but not a DF Felltower kind of idea. Feel free to develop this one yourself for your own games but you won't see it here.
Heads I Win, Tails You Lose - spotted!
The martial artist used Judo to throw opponents for the first time today. So naturally, this question came up - if I Judo Parry and then can throw, does that mean if I attack with Judo and they parry unarmed, I can throw them next turn?
No! There are no "heads I win, tails you lose" effects like that for Judo. That was specifically written up to avoid that.
I was amused how quickly Doug Cole stepped in to say that this was a specifically-blocked case. He's right. Nothing is worse than a system where HIWTYL is in place, especially for the "You" in this equation. Imagine having to fight someone where your attacks lead to bad things for you if you fail, and your defenses lead to the exact same bad things whether you succeed or fail. No one wants to fight where the 4 possible quadrants of results are 3:1 against you - 1:1 on the attack and 2:0 on defense.
This isn't to say that circumstances can't create HIWTYL - unarmed guys punching at armored folks can have this happen, damage to unarmed on parries can make this happen, the Flaming Armor spell is designed to make this happen - but it's not a basic assumption of grappling rules, that's for certain.
Does the Iron Witch cheat?
DF is a game where the monsters might be totally unfair. I always play by the same rules, even if I find ways to give monsters exceptions or powers that PCs couldn't have.
The Iron Witch, well, maybe. She's thrown, that the PCs know of, Shield 6 (base cost 12), Missile Shield (base cost 5), two Explosive Stone Missile spells, at 12 (base cost 24) and 18d (base cost 36), and two Flesh to Stone spells (base cost 10 each). Assuming skill 20 (they know she has Magery 6, and IQ 16 isn't crazy since wizards start with a 15), and my rules for energy reductions on missile spells, this works out to 10, 3, 18, 30, and 16 points of energy. 77 energy. That's a lot.
A standard DF wizard can have ER 20, FP 26, and a power item. Give her a 35 point power item ($18,001 item), and she has 5 energy left. So even without "cheating," and nothing special, she'd be okay if low on FP. Given higher skills on some of the spells, or a larger Power Item, and she's fine even with a lower base FP. Skill 25 on the spells would net back 11 points; it would net back 6 if it's just Stone Missile. That's a lot of money and character points to get there, but you don't always need to bend the rules to get the results. That said, maybe she's just a Cheater McCheaterson and has scads of energy or free spell-like powers. That's possible, too. It's just not the only answer on the table.
And for comparison, Chop has Major Healing-25 and has expended IIRC close to 30 power. He spams out 0-cost spells like Curse a lot, but he's belted out a lot of healing. Duncan has probably spent a bit less but still a lot.
We didn't try Dispel Magic on the golems! No, it hasn't been tried. It won't work. You cannot disrupt an enchantment with Dispel Magic. Only a No Mana Zone or the Suspend Enchantment spell - not available in DF - can do that. You can't "turn off" enchantments in DF Felltower with spells. It makes logical sense to consider it, but the wording of the spells and the underlying assumptions of enchantment vs. temporary magic are very much different than the logic assumes.
Sunday, January 12, 2025
GURPS DF Session 203, Brotherhood Complex 8 - Raid, Part III - War of the Robots
Actual Date: 1/12/2025
Game Date: 12/12/2024
Weather: Cold, clear, dry.
Characters
Chop, human cleric (301 points)
Brother Quinn, human initiate (125 points)
Duncan Tesadic, human wizard (335 points)
Hannari Ironhand, dwarf martial artist (316 points)
Amlaric, human squire (125 points)
Persistance Montgomery (303 point knight)
Thor Halfskepna, human knight (306 points)
Leon the Eye, human archer (125 points)
Aaron, Brandon, Cedric, Dortmund, Ernie, Ferd, Grunlark, and Hansel, human guards (62 points)
Bullworth and Oxford, human laborers (62 points)
Honest Charles LeGrand, human squire (125 points)
Vladimir Luchnick, dwarf scout (298 points)
We picked up where we left off.
Hannari opened up with first one, and then another, smoke nageteppo to mask the melee from the Iron Witch and the Stone Missile she was holding. The PCs kept banging away on the mechanical knights. The Iron Witch called, "To me!" and those knights that could disengage (most of them) just turned and ran back through the smoke to her.
The PCs formed a rough line . . . very rough. Hannari pushed around the flank along with Thor and they ate the blast effect of a 12d Explosive Stone Missile that dealt 60 damage on the impact hex. Then the knights were ordered to "Charge!"
After that, the PCs just kept fighting away, taking down a few of the knights. Thor and Hanari were pushed to one side, the others to the other side. Vlad decided to give up just causing minor damage (if that) to the knights and engage in melee, hoping to use up blocks and parries and force the knights to their (hopefully) lower Dodge. However, he immediately was hit in the hand and it was crippled. Brother Quinn healed it right up but the HT roll for recovery was a miss . . . it's a lasting (1d months) cripple. Unable to use his bow or his hatchet, he tried to just attract hits. He called for a couple of hirelings to come forward, and Chop called for everyone to come.
The brawl continued, and the Iron Witch moved closer. Duncan hit near her with a 4d Explosive Lightning that failed to stun her, just as Percy was rushing toward her. She kept her knights pulling back to fend him off, tossed a massive 18d Explosive Stone Missile into the back ranks of the PCs, and killed three of the guards and wounded Chop badly and finished off Honest Charles. Amlaric was badly wounded and kept fighting, but he can't hit hard enough to really bother the knights. He'd fall unconscious a few seconds later. But eventually the Iron Witch got off a successful Flesh to Stone on Percy and he failed to resist, and the knights pushed through.
Chop healed himself with a Gem of Healing, turned Percy back to flesh, then healed a bunch of the PCs at range, and then healed himself up to full.
Percy kept bashing the knights. Thor lost his sword to a critical block and swapped to his long knife to try to hack necks that way. Hannari used throws to put a few knights down, and then Hannari rushed the Iron Witch, only to fail to grab her as she put up Shield 6. Next, she cast Flesh to Stone and beat Hanari's resistance. Percy cracked her three times, missed once, was dodged once, and hit her on the right arm . . . for very little effect.
Shortly after she pushed out of the corner she was in and three of her least damaged knights formed an arc in front of her. Others are scattered around, in varying states of disrepair. One at least just froze up after briefly being stunned by Lightning. Still more have inoperable arms, legs, or feet. Thor is fighting one of the still-intact knights. Percy is moving towards the Iron Witch. Vlad is unable to fight at the moment, a couple of the NPCs ran off, Chop is low on power, Duncan temporarily out of ideas, and no one else up to fight.
That's were we left off, with both sides badly mauled, at the beginning of the 35th second of combat.
Notes:
- Loyalty rolls matter. A couple of the hirelings blew their rolls and fled . . . we'll see if they regroup and come back.
- The players are frustrated - that's a direct quote. The mechanical knights are fast, skilled, reasonably strong (2d-ish damage), lacking in vulnerable areas . . . they're tough to put down. The Iron Witch is fast, has solid DR, lots of power for spells, spells . . . not a "rush and kill" wizard. So the usual tactics aren't working, and bum rush the wizard isn't an option. They did a bunch of "mobility kills" on feet and legs, but the kneeling and sitting knights kept fighting.
- The PCs aren't in a terrible spot, but they sure aren't in a good one. A post-session debrief revealed an issue - they'd wanted to pile on one knight at a time, and literally only one knight in all of the turns of combat we played had to defend against two PCs at once. They'd wanted to form a line and force the enemy to come to them, and did not do that, either. It's too late for the latter but not for the former.
- MVP was Chop for Stone to Flesh and Major Healing a lot of fighters back into the fray.
Game Date: 12/12/2024
Weather: Cold, clear, dry.
Characters
Chop, human cleric (301 points)
Brother Quinn, human initiate (125 points)
Duncan Tesadic, human wizard (335 points)
Hannari Ironhand, dwarf martial artist (316 points)
Amlaric, human squire (125 points)
Persistance Montgomery (303 point knight)
Thor Halfskepna, human knight (306 points)
Leon the Eye, human archer (125 points)
Aaron, Brandon, Cedric, Dortmund, Ernie, Ferd, Grunlark, and Hansel, human guards (62 points)
Bullworth and Oxford, human laborers (62 points)
Honest Charles LeGrand, human squire (125 points)
Vladimir Luchnick, dwarf scout (298 points)
We picked up where we left off.
Hannari opened up with first one, and then another, smoke nageteppo to mask the melee from the Iron Witch and the Stone Missile she was holding. The PCs kept banging away on the mechanical knights. The Iron Witch called, "To me!" and those knights that could disengage (most of them) just turned and ran back through the smoke to her.
The PCs formed a rough line . . . very rough. Hannari pushed around the flank along with Thor and they ate the blast effect of a 12d Explosive Stone Missile that dealt 60 damage on the impact hex. Then the knights were ordered to "Charge!"
After that, the PCs just kept fighting away, taking down a few of the knights. Thor and Hanari were pushed to one side, the others to the other side. Vlad decided to give up just causing minor damage (if that) to the knights and engage in melee, hoping to use up blocks and parries and force the knights to their (hopefully) lower Dodge. However, he immediately was hit in the hand and it was crippled. Brother Quinn healed it right up but the HT roll for recovery was a miss . . . it's a lasting (1d months) cripple. Unable to use his bow or his hatchet, he tried to just attract hits. He called for a couple of hirelings to come forward, and Chop called for everyone to come.
The brawl continued, and the Iron Witch moved closer. Duncan hit near her with a 4d Explosive Lightning that failed to stun her, just as Percy was rushing toward her. She kept her knights pulling back to fend him off, tossed a massive 18d Explosive Stone Missile into the back ranks of the PCs, and killed three of the guards and wounded Chop badly and finished off Honest Charles. Amlaric was badly wounded and kept fighting, but he can't hit hard enough to really bother the knights. He'd fall unconscious a few seconds later. But eventually the Iron Witch got off a successful Flesh to Stone on Percy and he failed to resist, and the knights pushed through.
Chop healed himself with a Gem of Healing, turned Percy back to flesh, then healed a bunch of the PCs at range, and then healed himself up to full.
Percy kept bashing the knights. Thor lost his sword to a critical block and swapped to his long knife to try to hack necks that way. Hannari used throws to put a few knights down, and then Hannari rushed the Iron Witch, only to fail to grab her as she put up Shield 6. Next, she cast Flesh to Stone and beat Hanari's resistance. Percy cracked her three times, missed once, was dodged once, and hit her on the right arm . . . for very little effect.
Shortly after she pushed out of the corner she was in and three of her least damaged knights formed an arc in front of her. Others are scattered around, in varying states of disrepair. One at least just froze up after briefly being stunned by Lightning. Still more have inoperable arms, legs, or feet. Thor is fighting one of the still-intact knights. Percy is moving towards the Iron Witch. Vlad is unable to fight at the moment, a couple of the NPCs ran off, Chop is low on power, Duncan temporarily out of ideas, and no one else up to fight.
That's were we left off, with both sides badly mauled, at the beginning of the 35th second of combat.
Notes:
- Loyalty rolls matter. A couple of the hirelings blew their rolls and fled . . . we'll see if they regroup and come back.
- The players are frustrated - that's a direct quote. The mechanical knights are fast, skilled, reasonably strong (2d-ish damage), lacking in vulnerable areas . . . they're tough to put down. The Iron Witch is fast, has solid DR, lots of power for spells, spells . . . not a "rush and kill" wizard. So the usual tactics aren't working, and bum rush the wizard isn't an option. They did a bunch of "mobility kills" on feet and legs, but the kneeling and sitting knights kept fighting.
- The PCs aren't in a terrible spot, but they sure aren't in a good one. A post-session debrief revealed an issue - they'd wanted to pile on one knight at a time, and literally only one knight in all of the turns of combat we played had to defend against two PCs at once. They'd wanted to form a line and force the enemy to come to them, and did not do that, either. It's too late for the latter but not for the former.
- MVP was Chop for Stone to Flesh and Major Healing a lot of fighters back into the fray.
Friday, January 10, 2025
Friday Roundup - 1/10/2025
Friday roundup!
- A pretty cool paint job on this Reaper Miniatures shoggoth
- Over on Don't Forget Your Boots, I read Out With The Old, In With The Gnu
Too-different character concepts is a tough problem to overcome. I've gone as far as making meta-game pronouncements to ensure everyone has some reason to be together to avoid that problem. Even then, you get the guy who wants to run a fanatical holy warrior and the guy who wants to run an undead-making necromancer and yet still play together.*
The other issue he mentions is skill-boosting. High skills are part of the fun of my game, too, but once they hit a certain point nothing can usefully compete. This is why I'm very reluctant to hand out items that boost skill. I'd hand out a +3 Puissance sword or a +5 Strength belt before I'd pass out a +1 Dexterity ring. I'd rather hand out wishes than skill boosters or non-ST stat boosters.
- Next DF Felltower game is Friday.
- Speaking of megadungeons, Elfmaids & Octopi has a look at the big published ones. It's in eyebleeding white-on-black with red, though.
* They're fighting crime the hard way, wearing magic armor, with a +3 Puissance Holy Avenger and the Black Cauldron.
- A pretty cool paint job on this Reaper Miniatures shoggoth
- Over on Don't Forget Your Boots, I read Out With The Old, In With The Gnu
Too-different character concepts is a tough problem to overcome. I've gone as far as making meta-game pronouncements to ensure everyone has some reason to be together to avoid that problem. Even then, you get the guy who wants to run a fanatical holy warrior and the guy who wants to run an undead-making necromancer and yet still play together.*
The other issue he mentions is skill-boosting. High skills are part of the fun of my game, too, but once they hit a certain point nothing can usefully compete. This is why I'm very reluctant to hand out items that boost skill. I'd hand out a +3 Puissance sword or a +5 Strength belt before I'd pass out a +1 Dexterity ring. I'd rather hand out wishes than skill boosters or non-ST stat boosters.
- Next DF Felltower game is Friday.
- Speaking of megadungeons, Elfmaids & Octopi has a look at the big published ones. It's in eyebleeding white-on-black with red, though.
* They're fighting crime the hard way, wearing magic armor, with a +3 Puissance Holy Avenger and the Black Cauldron.
Thursday, January 9, 2025
I Wouldn't Miss "Miss By 1 Hits Torso"
One rule that I find annoys me the longer I play GURPS is entries on the hit location table that say "[1] Miss by 1 hits torso instead."
Why?
- it slows play, even if only because everyone says, "Does a miss by 1 hit torso?" No one can seem to remember (it's eye, skull, face, groin, neck, vitals, and that's it.)
- it causes edge cases, like rolling a 17 to hit the vitals (a 17 always misses) when you have a 16 to hit. Does that miss? A 17 always misses. Does it hit the torso? It's a miss by 1, and a miss by 1 hits torso. What about Chinks in Armor? Does that count as the underlying location? I think yes, but it's not stated clearly.
- it complicates rolling in a VTT, because it will show "miss" and it'll still be a hit, just not to the location auto-selected for damage by a player's macro. That adds an additional step.
- some of the sitations feel wonky. A miss by 1 with a swinging attack to the skull hitting body? Sure, the upward sweep clips the torso instead of the skull, or a downward cut misses the head narrowly and hits the body. But a miss by 1 to the eye with an arrow hits the body? A thrust to the groin hits body instead . . . okay. A thrust to the face also hits torso, not skull or neck? They're both closer. Why do the limbs never get hit on a "miss" to a central location?
With all of those things in mind, I'd love to delete Note [1] off of the Hit Location Table and just let a miss be a miss.
This admittedly messes with PCs - who aim for vitals and eyes and neck and skull more often than their NPC companions and foes. But it's also the case that it comes up less than you might think. And I've ruled a 17 is still a complete miss, but it's still an edge case people want to argue when it comes up. It would just speed things up and get rid of what's essentially a freebie +1 to hit overall when going for a better location.
Unless my players really revolt over this . . . it's probably gone as soon as I can reasonably ditch it.
Why?
- it slows play, even if only because everyone says, "Does a miss by 1 hit torso?" No one can seem to remember (it's eye, skull, face, groin, neck, vitals, and that's it.)
- it causes edge cases, like rolling a 17 to hit the vitals (a 17 always misses) when you have a 16 to hit. Does that miss? A 17 always misses. Does it hit the torso? It's a miss by 1, and a miss by 1 hits torso. What about Chinks in Armor? Does that count as the underlying location? I think yes, but it's not stated clearly.
- it complicates rolling in a VTT, because it will show "miss" and it'll still be a hit, just not to the location auto-selected for damage by a player's macro. That adds an additional step.
- some of the sitations feel wonky. A miss by 1 with a swinging attack to the skull hitting body? Sure, the upward sweep clips the torso instead of the skull, or a downward cut misses the head narrowly and hits the body. But a miss by 1 to the eye with an arrow hits the body? A thrust to the groin hits body instead . . . okay. A thrust to the face also hits torso, not skull or neck? They're both closer. Why do the limbs never get hit on a "miss" to a central location?
With all of those things in mind, I'd love to delete Note [1] off of the Hit Location Table and just let a miss be a miss.
This admittedly messes with PCs - who aim for vitals and eyes and neck and skull more often than their NPC companions and foes. But it's also the case that it comes up less than you might think. And I've ruled a 17 is still a complete miss, but it's still an edge case people want to argue when it comes up. It would just speed things up and get rid of what's essentially a freebie +1 to hit overall when going for a better location.
Unless my players really revolt over this . . . it's probably gone as soon as I can reasonably ditch it.
Wednesday, January 8, 2025
Felltower, Money, and ACOUP's article
I linked to an interesting article on ancient and medieval coins vs. fantasy gold coins over on ACOUP.
Felltower uses devalued currency compared to standard DF. I use a silver standard, but gold coins appear in numbers. There are a few reasons for that:
- Felltower is more Renaissance / Pre-Modern than Medieval or Ancient.
- Felltower doesn't feature a true vassalage system, or a gifting culture in general.
- Modern expectations are not to be given gifts with social expectations attached, but to be paid. At least modern, US expectations.
- Devalued currency with gold coins thrown about are a fantasy fiction expectation.
I don't pretend my system is historical. It just needs to feel realistic in some way, not actually reflect history. I find it a lot easier to hand over different cultural expectations than to get people used to using money to exchange for good and services to not expect to do that.
Felltower uses devalued currency compared to standard DF. I use a silver standard, but gold coins appear in numbers. There are a few reasons for that:
- Felltower is more Renaissance / Pre-Modern than Medieval or Ancient.
- Felltower doesn't feature a true vassalage system, or a gifting culture in general.
- Modern expectations are not to be given gifts with social expectations attached, but to be paid. At least modern, US expectations.
- Devalued currency with gold coins thrown about are a fantasy fiction expectation.
I don't pretend my system is historical. It just needs to feel realistic in some way, not actually reflect history. I find it a lot easier to hand over different cultural expectations than to get people used to using money to exchange for good and services to not expect to do that.
Sunday, January 5, 2025
Mapping Felltower today
It's a Felltower Sunday, so I spent a bit of a time working on maps.
I have a nice book of 4 squares to the inch graph paper from someone recently (thank you!) and turned it into a "fine detail for Felltower" map book. I've been working on the levels far ahead of where the PCs have been going. It's a relaxing way to spend the afternoon, drawing up maps of locations the PCs will get to eventually.
That's pretty much what I've been doing each week. If I don't have any other Felltower work to do, I do some close-in maps to be ready for future play.
To aid this, I bought a few more tools:
- a better rule set
- a proper L-ruler
I do need a new mechanical pencil. Any recommendations for a 0.5 mm mechanical pencil?
I have a nice book of 4 squares to the inch graph paper from someone recently (thank you!) and turned it into a "fine detail for Felltower" map book. I've been working on the levels far ahead of where the PCs have been going. It's a relaxing way to spend the afternoon, drawing up maps of locations the PCs will get to eventually.
That's pretty much what I've been doing each week. If I don't have any other Felltower work to do, I do some close-in maps to be ready for future play.
To aid this, I bought a few more tools:
- a better rule set
- a proper L-ruler
I do need a new mechanical pencil. Any recommendations for a 0.5 mm mechanical pencil?
Friday, January 3, 2025
Weekly Roundup 1/3/2025
Getting started off on 2025's weekly comments and links.
- Rob has been up to a lot at Bat in the Attic Games.
- I don't include enough corrupt law enforcers in my fantasy games. Not by half. Not after reading this post about some.
- An Acoup post about gold coins? Hell yes. I tend to over-think my coins in fantasy games.
- The first RPG published in 2025? Periapt Games seems to have a good claim on that.
And I posted a fair bit this week, in the lulls around the holiday.
- Rob has been up to a lot at Bat in the Attic Games.
- I don't include enough corrupt law enforcers in my fantasy games. Not by half. Not after reading this post about some.
- An Acoup post about gold coins? Hell yes. I tend to over-think my coins in fantasy games.
- The first RPG published in 2025? Periapt Games seems to have a good claim on that.
And I posted a fair bit this week, in the lulls around the holiday.
Thursday, January 2, 2025
GURPS & the clunkiness of Chinks in Armor
First off, I think the name is clunky. "Chinks in Armor?" We don't say "Eyeslits of Helm" or "Vital Parts of Torso." I'd go with Armor Gaps. Sure, that implies a lack of armor, not reduced armor, but chinks doesn't imply reduced armor, either. So, Armor Gaps for me.
Second, while I can appreciate the symmetry of -8 for Torso, -10 for elsewhere, my players generally stumble over the lack of penalties for a hit location. One idea I've toyed with is -8 plus half the location penalty rounded down. So torso -8, neck -10, arms and legs -9, hands and feet -10 . . of course, that makes eyeslits of a helm -12, not -10 . . . but hey, it's DF, I don't care, people start with a 20 in combat skills.
Third, I think there needs to be additional specific exemptions:
- doesn't affect Fine armor
- some locations/armors may lack gaps (I'm thinking invisible bucket helms, say, or the vitals in general)
- I don't allow this on eyeslits or vitals at all with swing/impaling or swing/piercing weapons. I just don't buy it due to the angles involved.
Second, while I can appreciate the symmetry of -8 for Torso, -10 for elsewhere, my players generally stumble over the lack of penalties for a hit location. One idea I've toyed with is -8 plus half the location penalty rounded down. So torso -8, neck -10, arms and legs -9, hands and feet -10 . . of course, that makes eyeslits of a helm -12, not -10 . . . but hey, it's DF, I don't care, people start with a 20 in combat skills.
Third, I think there needs to be additional specific exemptions:
- doesn't affect Fine armor
- some locations/armors may lack gaps (I'm thinking invisible bucket helms, say, or the vitals in general)
- I don't allow this on eyeslits or vitals at all with swing/impaling or swing/piercing weapons. I just don't buy it due to the angles involved.
Wednesday, January 1, 2025
Images from Session 202
Here are the two enemies the PCs are facing in the Brotherhood Complex.
Mechanical Knight of Cornwood - a somewhat unreliable but formidable construct. Cheaper to make than most golems for this level of ability, but their speedy contruction has a cost in reliability.
These are straight-up statting up of a favorite mini of mine - a Tom Meier-scultped Ral Partha Mechanical Knight. I have a mounted one, as well, so beware, PCs!
Iron Witch of Cornwood - the inventor of the Mechanical Knight, one of the fractious Cornwoodian nobles who chafe at the iron-handed rule of King Titanius Anglesmith.
The Iron Witch is actually a mini painted by my sister. I had an enamel paint set from some model set, and she proceeded to use those to paint one of my TSR minis from set 5303 Magic Users and Illusionists. But we didn't have anything resembling flesh color - it was a set of vehicle colors. So she just didn't paint that. I kept the mini as-is, spray-sealed it, and put an "Iron Witch" in my GURPS campaign when I started to use minis again. She was a distant figure in that game - and was possibly responsible for giving the rapier Malice (see DFT3) to a swashbuckler type PC. I made her a bad guy in the Felltower world because she was an ideal match for the Ral Partha mini.
I loved the idea of an iron golem wizard, especially one that either a) was human, and made herself into an iron golem, or b) was always a golem. In the previous game, it was option a. In this one, it's likely that she's just a willful golem who has improved herself into a master wizard. A true self-made woman!
And why do we call them robots, and pronounce it robut? Here is Chop demonstrating his expertise in First Aid (Human) vs. Hidden Lore (Construct) . . .
Mechanical Knight of Cornwood - a somewhat unreliable but formidable construct. Cheaper to make than most golems for this level of ability, but their speedy contruction has a cost in reliability.
These are straight-up statting up of a favorite mini of mine - a Tom Meier-scultped Ral Partha Mechanical Knight. I have a mounted one, as well, so beware, PCs!
Iron Witch of Cornwood - the inventor of the Mechanical Knight, one of the fractious Cornwoodian nobles who chafe at the iron-handed rule of King Titanius Anglesmith.
The Iron Witch is actually a mini painted by my sister. I had an enamel paint set from some model set, and she proceeded to use those to paint one of my TSR minis from set 5303 Magic Users and Illusionists. But we didn't have anything resembling flesh color - it was a set of vehicle colors. So she just didn't paint that. I kept the mini as-is, spray-sealed it, and put an "Iron Witch" in my GURPS campaign when I started to use minis again. She was a distant figure in that game - and was possibly responsible for giving the rapier Malice (see DFT3) to a swashbuckler type PC. I made her a bad guy in the Felltower world because she was an ideal match for the Ral Partha mini.
I loved the idea of an iron golem wizard, especially one that either a) was human, and made herself into an iron golem, or b) was always a golem. In the previous game, it was option a. In this one, it's likely that she's just a willful golem who has improved herself into a master wizard. A true self-made woman!
And why do we call them robots, and pronounce it robut? Here is Chop demonstrating his expertise in First Aid (Human) vs. Hidden Lore (Construct) . . .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
