| Register Now | |
| My Points | |
| My Games | |
Feedback on the rules for the Edge of the Empire Beta
| Page 2 of 17 (250 messages) | « First page... 1 2 3 4 5 ...Last page » |
ynnen said:
The starting difficulty indicates a general, universal level of challenge. The subsequent die upgrades, setback dice, and other modifiers look at how this particular skill check is distinct from that universal default.
Nothing in the combat chapter indicates that it operates on the same narrative level as skill checks, though. You have recommendations for cover, but on the whole the game is heavily slated towards offense (which makes the David and Goliath suggestion above all the more galling - do you WANT characters to drop like flies?).
If anything, I'd honestly suggest that [b]a starting character's base general Defense equals Agility[/b] and may be further modified by Talents, similar to how Brawn is important to Soak. Right now Brawn seems to have a definitive edge in derived statistics, and speaking from a WHFRP standpoint, the low Defense problem inherent to that game [i]hasn't been solved[/i].
ynnen said:
It is easy to look only at the default dice pool when evaluating combat effectiveness.
For ranged combat, the static difficulty refers to how difficult it is, in general, for an attacker to hit a target of roughly human size at a given distance. For close combat, the static difficulty refers to how difficult it is, in general, to strike an engaged target who is reasonably attempting to protect themselves. Those are the most basic, default situations. However, keep in mind that few skill checks happen in a complete vacuum.
The target may have special talents, armor, or defenses that make it more challenging to engage them in combat. They may be wielding a weapon with the Defensive trait. They may be dodging, assisted by someone else, or behind cover. And the target has the opportunity to spend a Destiny Point to make the incoming attack more difficult.
If nothing else, facing an opponent with one or more obvious situational advantages (epsecially if they have been narrated as such) is an encounter tailor-made for adding setback dice to the attacker's pool. The opponent is a skilled melee combatant? Well, that may introduce one setback die to the attack pool. He is extremely skilled? Or knows the attacker's weapon style and can predict his movements? Then the situation may even warrant two or more setback dice!
The starting difficulty indicates a general, universal level of challenge. The subsequent die upgrades, setback dice, and other modifiers look at how this particular skill check is distinct from that universal default.
Soooo…. I'm still not clear on whether Combat Skills are Opposed checks, or Simple checks. The example of a Simple Check - slicing a security terminal - mentions using Boost and Setback dice too, depending on circumstances.
If the Skill descriptions are correct for the Combat Skills, and they are opposed checks, then wouldn't that mean that in addition to the static difficulties mentioned in the Combat chapter, a target engaged in Melee would possibly add its Brawn and Melee skill dice to the attackers attack roll, and a sentient being targeted by a Ranged attack would potentially add its Agility and Vigilance or Perception or Cool skill dice to that combat check - in a similar fashion to the Sneaking example given for Opposed Checks (p.21)?
Or, is the reference to "opposed checks" in the Combat Skills descriptions referring to the "…maneuvers a character makes and specific combat situational modifiers as described…", as in the attackers target can actively do things to add in setback die, as opposed to the security terminal in the Simple Check example, which cannot actively oppose the PCs?
I definitely think this needs clarification.
Without signature
Also, a detailed Combat Example would be awesome! We get detailed examples about Skill Checks in the intro sections, but nowhere are there any combat examples! There should be at least one continual situation broken up into smaller example excerpts, walking the reader through all the different steps of Combat, to help insure clarity.
Without signature
theDevilofWormwood said:
Also, a detailed Combat Example would be awesome! We get detailed examples about Skill Checks in the intro sections, but nowhere are there any combat examples! There should be at least one continual situation broken up into smaller example excerpts, walking the reader through all the different steps of Combat, to help insure clarity.
Yes please :)
Without Signature
I can't find any reference to Brawn being added to melee/brawl damage. Based on WFRP its seems to work this way and close combat weapons have +x damage, but where does it say so in the book? (I'm sure I might simply be overlooking that part of the text but I'm curious).
Without Signature
theDevilofWormwood said:
Also, a detailed Combat Example would be awesome! We get detailed examples about Skill Checks in the intro sections, but nowhere are there any combat examples! There should be at least one continual situation broken up into smaller example excerpts, walking the reader through all the different steps of Combat, to help insure clarity.
Yes, this.
I think a comabt example would be excellent. We tested the combat briefly last week, and it actually worked out pretty well using the rules in the combat chapter. It does seem to favor the attacker if he or she has moderate skill, and proper defense requires a little more planning and a bit of luck for the defender. I am actually ok with that, and re-reading the section on skills I think the lines in the combat skills about it being an opposed check is an artifact from a previous version of the rules. I know there are lots of instances like that, as well as unfinished or unclear rules, but that is part of it being a beta. But I would be curious if using opposed checks would make a significant impact on how combat plays out, or even RedBaron's suggestion of some base Defense dice derived from Agility or maybe from a skill. I am sure when the Jedi book comes out in 2015 <sigh> there will be more detailed rules on lightsaber duels and the final version of this book will have it cleared up, but some definitive answers on whole simple/opposed combat difficulty would be good in the meantime.
dirklancer said:
But I would be curious if using opposed checks would make a significant impact on how combat plays out, or even RedBaron's suggestion of some base Defense dice derived from Agility or maybe from a skill. I am sure when the Jedi book comes out in 2015 <sigh> there will be more detailed rules on lightsaber duels and the final version of this book will have it cleared up, but some definitive answers on whole simple/opposed combat difficulty would be good in the meantime.
I'm going to sit down tonight and do a two mock combats - one using simple combat checks, and the other using opposed checks - to see how much of a difference it makes, and which feels better to me.
It just seems wrong to me that a combatant's skill in Melee (or Brawl) doesn't affect his opponents chances to hit at all… o_O
Without signature
theDevilofWormwood said:
dirklancer said:
But I would be curious if using opposed checks would make a significant impact on how combat plays out, or even RedBaron's suggestion of some base Defense dice derived from Agility or maybe from a skill. I am sure when the Jedi book comes out in 2015 <sigh> there will be more detailed rules on lightsaber duels and the final version of this book will have it cleared up, but some definitive answers on whole simple/opposed combat difficulty would be good in the meantime.
I'm going to sit down tonight and do a two mock combats - one using simple combat checks, and the other using opposed checks - to see how much of a difference it makes, and which feels better to me.
It just seems wrong to me that a combatant's skill in Melee (or Brawl) doesn't affect his opponents chances to hit at all… o_O
Except that Jay has already stated that it does effect it. Its a narrative system, so, if you're attacking a skilled fighter, you're going to get setback dice. And if you're attacking an exceptional fighter, or one who knows how you fight, you're stepping it up to 2 or more, likely.
I think part of the issue is that the writer's of the book assumed people would think of a narrative system like that--its not all about the specifics, but instead about what you can improvise and suggest to make narrative sense. But most people who haven't played more indie games might not be familiar with that sort of concept, so I definitely think it needs to be spelled out.
Well said, Ink. That's a point that can't be stated enough.
I would be curious to see how your test plays out, Devil. I still lean towards the idea of opposed rolls modified by tactics and circumstances for close combat and static difficulty modified by circumstances for ranged combat, but if it bogs down play then I would keep the simpler system.
And other narrative systems use opposed rolls for combat modified by luck, favorable and unfavorable circumstances, etc., and that mechanic seems to work fine while keeping the narrative style intact, so I don't see why trying it for this system is such a big deal. The idea of narrative systems is to emphasize storytelling and creativity above more tactical gameplay, and someone having a slight boon based on pure skill doesn't necessarily discount bonuses from good tactical thinking and pure luck.
Found it. :) It's stated under improvised weapons that like all melee weapons they add Brawn to damage. I guess this needs to be made clear somewhere else too.
Without Signature
Inksplat said:
I think part of the issue is that the writer's of the book assumed people would think of a narrative system like that--its not all about the specifics, but instead about what you can improvise and suggest to make narrative sense. But most people who haven't played more indie games might not be familiar with that sort of concept, so I definitely think it needs to be spelled out.
It's not just an indie game thing - Edge of the Empire is a mix of narrative and hard game mechanics. Setback dice already come into play with the (woefully underpowered) Defense mechanic. If Setback dice, or additional Difficulty dice other than upgrades garnered from dark side expenditures, also come into play relative to the opponent you're facing, that absolutely needs to be spelled out. Moreover, it needs to have guidelines provided so that GMs can properly adjudicate an encounter's strength.
TheRedBaron said:
It's not just an indie game thing - Edge of the Empire is a mix of narrative and hard game mechanics. Setback dice already come into play with the (woefully underpowered) Defense mechanic. If Setback dice, or additional Difficulty dice other than upgrades garnered from dark side expenditures, also come into play relative to the opponent you're facing, that absolutely needs to be spelled out. Moreover, it needs to have guidelines provided so that GMs can properly adjudicate an encounter's strength.
I completely agree.
TheRedBaron said:
It's not just an indie game thing - Edge of the Empire is a mix of narrative and hard game mechanics. Setback dice already come into play with the (woefully underpowered) Defense mechanic. If Setback dice, or additional Difficulty dice other than upgrades garnered from dark side expenditures, also come into play relative to the opponent you're facing, that absolutely needs to be spelled out. Moreover, it needs to have guidelines provided so that GMs can properly adjudicate an encounter's strength.
I'll chime in and say that the Defense mechanic is balanced carefully so as to prevent combats form bogging down into lengthy contests of attrition. Generally speaking, if most attacks are successful and everyone's taking damage (either to Strain or Wounds), the battle will move at a brisk pace toward its resolution and create a sense of suspense and danger. I vastly prefer this to combats where defense is roughly equal to offense, and many attacks get canceled out or have their damage mitigated so much as to be minimal, or ther eis so much healing that hte damage gets erased quickly. This was my issue with D&D4E's combat system as well. In that game, combats can last for a long time because there are so many defensive options.
I don't know if you have much experience with Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay 3E, but Defense in that game was handled exactly the same way and I thought it worked out very well there. It made a difference, for certain, just not enough of one to render most attacks harmless. It bought you time, but didn't alleviate the pressure.
Given all of that, I'd agree Defense is underpowered, but rather than woefully underpowered I would say it's appropriately underpowered.
Just my own experiences of course. Your mileage may vary.
| Page 2 of 17 (250 messages) | « First page... 1 2 3 4 5 ...Last page » |
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS