Welcome! These forums will be deactivated by the end of this year. The conversation continues in a new morph over on Discord! Please join us there for a more active conversation and the occasional opportunity to ask developers questions directly! Go to the PS+ Discord Server.

Feedback on Potential Major Errata

109 posts / 0 new
Last post
Thu, 2011-02-10 19:32
#1
RobBoyle RobBoyle's picture
Feedback on Potential Major Errata
Hello everyone, With the reprint of the EP core book coming soon, we've been compiling errata corrections. We've been considering a few major errata changes, and after some playtesting, we've decided to throw the changes we're considering out to the public for final feedback evaluation. So here are a few of the major changes we're considering: 1) INITIATIVE The current process of rolling 1d100 + Initiative is a bit cumbersome, math-wise. We're considering changing Initiative from the current (INT + REF) x 2 to (INT + REF)/5, rounded up. So with INT 15 and REF 20, your Init Score would be 7 (15 + 20 = 35; 35/5 = 7). When rolling for Initiative, you would roll 1d10 + your Initiative Stat. So in this case, with Initiative 7, you would end up with an Initiative Score of 8 to 17. We feel the math of 1d10 + a single or double-digit stat (ranging from 2 to 16) is a bit easier than rolling d100 and adding it to a double or triple-digit stat. An average transhuman would have INT 15 + REF 15, for an Initiative of 6; most PCs will have higher Initiative stats. The mean roll of a d10 is 5.5, so a character's Init is going to be slightly more of a factor than random chance. Someone with a boosted initiative is still going to be hard to beat -- though not impossible. Moxie could still be used to jump the gun, but criticals will no longer have an impact on Init rolls. One of the nice things about this change is that the conversion from the old Initiative to the new one is fairly simple -- just divide by 10. So if your Initiative was 70 before (INT 20 + REF 15 = 35, 35 x 2 = 70), it is now 7 (INT 20 + REF 15 = 35, 35/5 = 7). This means that implants and modifiers that affected Initiative would also simply be divided by 10. So wounds (-10 each before) would reduce Init by -1 per wound. The Mental Speed implant, which gave a +30 Init bonus before, would now give a +3. And so on. 2) BEAM WEAPONS We feel these are underpowered. Though the intent was to have Kinetic weapons more useful for lethality and beam weapons more useful for non-lethality, beam weapons ended up being fairly anemic. So we're considering the following changes: * The Sweeping Fire and Concentrated Fire rules for beam weapons (pp. 194-195, EP) would apply to all beam weapons. Pulsers would no longer be excluded. * Concentrated Fire would now inflict DV x 2 (rather than DV x 1.5 before). * Laser Pulsers: Can now fire in BF and FA mode. * Microwave Agonizers: Downgraded from SA to SS mode. * Particle Beam Bolter: Can now fire in BF and FA mode. Also, to make them slightly more practical, all bolters will be designed for dual atmospheric/exoatmospheric use, simply requiring the user to switch between them. * Plasma Rifle: We decided to make these live up to their designation as the deadliest weapon. The plasma rifle will now inflict 3d10 + 20 DV (avg DV of 36), it will be an area effect weapon (blast effect equal to half the DV inflicted on the target, -2 per meter as usual), and will automatically set stricken targets on fire unless in vacuum (extra 1d10/2 DV per turn). The cool-down time will only apply when used in vacuum.Love these changes? Hate them? See any problems? Let us know what you think.
—

Rob Boyle :: Posthuman Studios

Top
Fri, 2011-02-11 00:18
icekatze icekatze's picture
Re: Feedback on Potential Major Errata
hi hi Here are my initial thoughts on these subjects. Initiative: While the current initiative rules may be cumbersome, I think that breaking away from the d100 may be confusing if people are switching back and fourth a lot. One alternative would be to stick with ((INT + REF) x 2) but rather than adding the numbers together, just go in the order of margin of success/failure. People use margin of success a lot and should be used to it. (getting a negative number wouldn't mean failure, it just means going later than people who got higher numbers) --- Beam Weapons • In General: I like the idea that beam weapons are distinct from kinetic weapons in their effects. The suggested changes seem to be making them more similar to kinetic weapons and I am not sure that is a good thing. Surely there must be other ways to increase their usefulness without making them carbon copies. Perhaps an up front bonus to hit targets vs kinetic weapons, or halving the range modifier penalties, something to indicate that beam weapons reach their target nigh instantly? • Concentrated Fire: I do not know if DV x 2 is overpowered, it seems to be comparable to Full Auto fire for kinetic weapons. If I may suggest a more flavorful but perhaps more complicated approach, reduce the DV back down to x1.5 for the first round, but allow the concentrated fire to carry over from one action to another, increasing as time goes by. A second successful round of concentrated fire will create a second attack for DV x2, a third round will create a third attack of DV x2.5 (an so on up to a cap of maybe x3) This gives beam weapons a niche of being used to attack big slow targets, or as tools for cutting through tough inanimate objects. • Full Automatic: Does full automatic on beam weapons use up 10 shots as well? How does that interact with the cooldown on the Plasma Rifle? • Particle Beam Bolter: The atmospheric/exoatmospheric difference was a neat and very realistic distinction, but I can appreciate the gameplay simplicity (like how PBBs don't cause radiation backscatter like they would in real life), but I am not sure if a simple action to switch them is enough of a distinction. Why not just give the weapon a pressure sensor and have it switch automatically? I agree that allowing people to switch between the two is a good idea, but it should be something a little bit more substantial, like having to wait a round at least. Or maybe an extended test that skillful characters can complete quickly. • Plasma Rifle: I think that maybe the plasma grenade should do at least as much damage as a plasma rifle shot. Under the new rules, the plasma grenade will be weaker. Though perhaps it should be weaker, I don't know what the intention is there. Also, while this is totally tangential to the proposed changes and not at all what you asked for, I think it would be cool to allow the Plasma Rifle to operate in a "shotgun" mode, where it shoots a cone of plasma from the barrel. (or make that a different weapon and put it in an upcoming expansion book)
—
[url=http://knhauber.phpwebhosting.com/]Nothing Important[/url]
Top
Fri, 2011-02-11 06:02
Rastus Rastus's picture
Re: Feedback on Potential Major Errata
Initiative: That sure does seem a little simpler. I figure you could probably have both in the book though. Have the new one be standard, and the old one be kept in a sidebar as an alternative. Concentrated Fire: Having the base multiplier be at x2 almost makes beam weapons using semi-auto shots have similar power to full-auto kinetic weapons of the same damage. The primary example for this would be the Laser Pulsar vs. Light Pistol. Laser would do an average of 22(2d10, average 6+5x2) damage, while the Pistol on full-auto would have an average of 26(3d10+10, average of 6+5+5+10) damage. This is hardly dramatic, but it does cause the max damage of both to peak at 40. In of itself, this would be okay, but considering what else you propose... Burstfire/Fullauto modes: This idea I am rather unsure about, albeit mostly in concept as beams kinda are already going full-auto. There is slight concern that BF modes combined with the x2 concentrated fire multplier could make the common laser a real nasty piece of work, provided the target isn't loaded down with the extreme abundance of incredibly cheap energy-defeating armor upgrades out there. I have had an odd idea, though. Perhaps BF and FA modes could instead increase the Concentrated Fire multiplier by +0.5 and +1, respectively(Full-Auto would already be considered concentrated fire anyway, if you think about it). Also, it raises the question if you could use beam weapons for suppressive fire. Plasma Rifles: I'm with icekatze on this one, should have the weapon switch between a semi-coherant beam and a cone-effect spray weapon instead of some psuedo-grenade launcher. The setting people on fire thing is good, though. Kinda works like the Torch weapon.
Top
Fri, 2011-02-11 18:11
Janusfaced Janusfaced's picture
Re: Feedback on Potential Major Errata
1) INITIATIVE I am fine with new rule. Well, t might step away a little more from standard "roll d100 and more Mos means faster action" system. But simpleness with it worth such an exceptional handling, at least in my opinion. And I like it needs minimum updates to many Initiative modifiers. 2) BEAM WEAPONS The Sweeping Fire and Concentrated Fire rules: While pulser sweeping might be usefull, I am afraiding it bring other problem - if I can sweep/concentrate fire pulser, why I can't same thing with kinetic weapons? Both are pulse(pulser's is beam and kinetic weapons' are bullets), aren't they? Concentrated Fire would now inflict DV x 2: I am not sure it is hoped, if you intend beam weapons should be better at non-lethality. I am figuring it would be better if it bring penalty to SOM test. And Laser Pulser and Particle Beam Bolter will have BF and FA modes. If 2 shots (2 SAs) inflict x 1.5 or 2 bonus, what bonus by 3 shots (BF) or 10 shots (FA) inflict? Laser Pulsers: In normal mode, it is fine. But how about stun mode? It needs two fire to create one effect. So I understand if it can't fire at FA. Can I assume its firing mode will be "SA, BF"? Microwave Agonizers: Agreed. Particle Beam Bolter: About firing mode, it is fine. About atmospheric/exoatmospheric use, I agree with icekatze. Plasma Rifle: So at 36 DV (average), area of 8m in radius around of a target gets some damage (at 8 meter distance, 36 / 2 - 2 * 8 = 2 DV) and catchs fire, doesn't it? If I interpret correctly, I plefer icekatze's "shotgun mode". And I think the deadliest weapon SHOULD have reasonable unhandiness. So I do like it has cool-down time. Well, current rule won't work if you don't try to the third shot. So some change, like "only one shot in any action turn, no matter how high your Speed", will be fine. But don't remove it, please! Edit: I corrected some typo about Concentrated Fire.
—
Your average, everyday, normal, plain and dull transhuman Janusfaced's outpost(writtern in Japanese) http://janusfacedsoutpost.blog.fc2.com/
Top
Fri, 2011-02-11 09:38
CodeBreaker CodeBreaker's picture
Re: Feedback on Potential Major Errata
Might as well reply here I guess, keep it all together with everyone else' feedback. Initiative – I like this change, and it doesn’t break game precedent so much that it isn't viable. People already have to divide a number by 5 at character generation (LV → TT), so that isn't difficult, and they already roll lots of 1d10s during combat. Just be careful that you catch all instances of initiative boosting in the game. It isn't terrible if you miss one or two since it is just a divide by 10 thing, but if this is going to print it might as well be perfect. Beam Weapons: These changes are quite close to those I apply in my homegame, so I have no trouble with them being applied officially. However; Sweeping Fire/Concentrated Fire – Applying this change to all beam weapons is a good idea in my books, as long as they stay the same in the other important way, that they can only be used with SA attacks. This was not a problem before because any weapons that could use the rule couldn't use BF/FA. If it is left the way it is, it makes SA useful. If BF can be used with these rules, there is literally no reason not to fire on BF (Beam Weapon ammo values being so high). I have a slight worry that Sweeping/Concentrated Fire is actually still close to useless for Beam Weapons, at least when compared to what Kinetic Weapons get. An example. Kinetic Heavy Pistol, Smartlinked, using Hollow Point/Homing/Zero round. That weapon gets 2d10+4+1d10 (AVG. 21DV) with a -2AP. It has a flat +20 to hit, with a +30 to hit on the second SA shot. The Pistol still gets those increases when using BF. Beam Weapon Laser Pulsar (The cost equivalent), Smartlinked, using Sweeping/Concentrated Fire when apply-able. That weapon gets 2d10DV. It has a +10 to hit on the first shot, and if it hits the second shot automatically hits. If it misses, the second shot has a +20 to hit. At least to me it is fairly obvious which I would prefer to be using. The Heavy Pistol is more accurate overall (I think my math on the Beam Weapons guaranteed hit works out in the long run, DnD4E minmaxing, you have served me well!), does more damage, and its AP negates the built in difference between KA and EA. Beam Weapons are still falling behind when you use things like specialist ammo (Which you always should be, they are cheap as hell). My suggested fixes for this are three fold. First, increase the AP of all Beam Weapons by 4. Second, increase the Sweeping Fire aim bonus to +30 (A complex aim instead of a simple aim). Third, increase the base damage of Beam Weapons to be comparable to their kinetic weapon cost equivalent. The Laser Pulsar becomes 2d10+3 (Submachine Gun value), and the Particle Beam Bolter becomes 2d10+6 (+2 from its current, Assault Rifle value). A different potential fix could be to introduce a version of Beam Weapon special ammo in the form of specialist battery packs. Perhaps ones that have half the ammo, but add 1d10DV and increase AP by 4. Keep the Sweeping Fire bonus. EDIT: On Plasma Weapons AoE, make sure to make it clear if the burst area is calculated before or after armour. It makes a big difference to the size.
—
-
Top
Fri, 2011-02-11 10:13
It that must no... It that must not be named's picture
Re: Feedback on Potential Major Errata
If redoing the rulesbook, I'd suggest adding the notes on nuclear batteries recharging themselves to the main rulesbook. If nuclear batteries are going to be standard gear in the game people should not have to get gatecrashing to have them, even if gatecrashing it great. One issue I might like to recommend is limiting the extent moxie points can change roles. I mean, you can take a super failure of 90 and turn it into a super success on 09 by reversing the roll. Maybe a movie point should just buy a reroll instead of flipping the results. BTW, the new version will it be available to those who bought the pdf as an update?
—

"I learned the hard way that if you take a stand on any issue, no matter how insignificant, people will line up around the block to kick your ass over it." -Jesse "the mind" Ventura.

Top
Fri, 2011-02-11 15:33
Octomorph Octomorph's picture
Re: Feedback on Potential Major Errata
Can't say we've had any problems with the current initiative system, so don't really see the need to change it. We haven't really used Beam weapons yet, so can't comment on those changes. "One issue I might like to recommend is limiting the extent moxie points can change roles. I mean, you can take a super failure of 90 and turn it into a super success on 09 by reversing the roll. Maybe a movie point should just buy a reroll instead of flipping the results." I strongly disagree with the above suggestion regarding a change to Moxie - deciding when to use Moxie to flip rolls is key for our group. I do think some work needs to be done on scale and time frame for combat - movement rates are significantly out of whack and need some refactoring.
Top
Fri, 2011-02-11 16:04
badmedo badmedo's picture
Re: Feedback on Potential Major Errata
Alternative initiative system is good! Would you put it in there as a Variant rule box or overhaul the game to support it? (Not that the overhaul sounds hard to do). I don't have any opinions on the Beam weapons yet.
—
[upgrade your gray matter, because one day it may matter]
Top
Fri, 2011-02-11 19:07
Janusfaced Janusfaced's picture
Re: Feedback on Potential Major Errata
And may I submit a new change? It is about AP of "normal" weapons. In current rule, almost all weapons have some AP, but to be honest, applying AP to almost all damage determination is a bother a little. If my character fire a firearm heavy pistol (2d10+4 DV with -4 AP), I roll 2d10, add 4, and subtract target's Armor... wait, I must apply AP to the Armor. So I am wishing it can be incorporate into DV. How to convert AP into DV modifier might bring some argument. I mean, if a target has 4+ Armor, "2d10+8 DV without AP" is same as "2d10+4 DV with -4 AP". On the other hand, if a target has no Armor, "2d10+4 DV without AP" is same as "2d10+4 DV with -4 AP". I am feeling "absolute value of AP * 2 / 3" would work, but it is just my feeling. That said, I am fine with some weapons (like armor-piering ammo) have AP. What weapons deserve to retain AP might bring some argument...
—
Your average, everyday, normal, plain and dull transhuman Janusfaced's outpost(writtern in Japanese) http://janusfacedsoutpost.blog.fc2.com/
Top
Sat, 2011-02-12 14:51
Abschalten Abschalten's picture
Re: Feedback on Potential Major Errata
I dig the initiative changes. I've always thought deep in the back of my brain that the initiative system was a wee bit on the clunky side. Changes towards simplicity that don't grossly affect the way initiative plays out is a plus in my book. I'm all for this one (just make sure, as mentioned above, you catch all instances of initiative and the scores in the book and change them all.) Regarding Beam Weapons, I've always thought stylistically that they were exceptionally cool, but mechanically (as you said) anemic. I had a player in a convention game who used the Oversight Auditor from Sunward and he really took a shine to Beam Weapons, but had a hard time doing comparable damage to the guys using automatic kinetic weapons. I am extremely excited about the idea of using x2 for the Sweeping Weapon multiplier instead of x1.5. This was even a comment during the games I ran at the con, where we wondered why the damage wouldn't just be doubled, as it wasn't that much more powerful and it was easier to resolve (don't have to worry about rounding, easy to do the math in head, etc.) I agree with Codebreaker above: If you're going to help Beam Weapons keep up with Kinetic Weapons, you should also turn the aiming bonus for a failed shot into a +30 instead of a +10. You are essentially trying to use the entire turn to smack the target with the beam, so I don't see this as a gamebreaker. If you put a Smartlink into the picture, you essentially have a +20 bonus to hit, but a +50 bonus to hit on a missed shot. This would make Beam Weapons really great as "second chance" weapons, something Kinetic Weapons wouldn't have barring the inclusion of specialized ammunition that can run out. You could throw in an optional rule in a sidebar about how 1.2g+ gravity on exoplanets can screw with the aim with Kinetic Weapons, since the user is trying to aim based on gravitational accelerations that are stronger than he or she might be used to. Say, a -10 penalty for strong exoplanet gravities. Beam Weapons, being energized and/or massless particles moving close to or at the speed of light would be exempt from this penalty. Just a thought. I dig the damage increase on the Plasma Rifle, but I think perhaps the blast radius on the target might be a wee bit over the top. It's workable as is but seems to be a room clearance weapon like a grenade launcher. As a side thought: How come we have no shotgun-type weapons in the game yet? :) Surely Kinetic Weapons haven't rendered them obsolete.
Top
Sat, 2011-02-12 12:57
Yerameyahu Yerameyahu's picture
Re: Feedback on Potential Major Errata
You mean Spray Weapons?
Top
Sat, 2011-02-12 14:49
Abschalten Abschalten's picture
Re: Feedback on Potential Major Errata
No, I mean honest-to-jebus shotguns, not flamethrowers or nanite sprayers. I would think that a shotgun, despite firing in a cone if you use shot rounds, would be more of a "kinetic weapon" anyway.
Top
Sat, 2011-02-12 17:01
Yerameyahu Yerameyahu's picture
Re: Feedback on Potential Major Errata
I guess, but Shard Pistols and Shredders both shoot a cone of physical bits, can hit multiple targets close together, and do extra damage up close. That's as shotgunny as I need in The Future, but I guess they're technically not firing lead shot.
Top
Sun, 2011-02-13 08:55
crizh crizh's picture
Re: Feedback on Potential Major Errata
If you are going to make major changes might I recommend a couple of things? Firstly, and most importantly, Uniform Blast!!!! For God's sake put some ranges in for them. To date I don't think I've even seen a dev' respond to this problem in the errata thread let alone suggest any sort of fix. Secondly, as the Initiative change is so major, how about moving to or at least include as an option a static target number of 100 for success? The mechanics for determining success and margin in opposed tests are the clunkiest part of the system and the part that feels least intuitive. A straight highest roll wins system with MoS determined by the difference between the two totals is so much easier to run with. No other part of the system would have to change, it would just slot seamlessly in like the Initiative change will. Pretty please?
—
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
Top
Sun, 2011-02-13 13:08
Saerain Saerain's picture
Re: Feedback on Potential Major Errata
1) Although I'm generally all for reducing reduntantly large numbers, I have to say that I prefer keeping any game to as few roll types as possible, so I like that [i]Eclipse Phase[/i] is mostly percentile and I think the non-1d100 rolls there already are tend to break the elegance; I'd be reluctant to adopt another. 2) I was going to say 'they should be,' but then I actually read the changes. Not much more to say but 'make it so.'
—
[img]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/5730951/Images/Userbars/Eclipse%20Phase/FallEvac...
Top
Mon, 2011-02-14 11:26
Angry_Ghost Angry_Ghost's picture
Re: Feedback on Potential Major Errata
I very much like the idea of having the new initiative with the old initiative in a box as an option - alternative rules officially printed are always good. Also stops a whole bunch of moaning about how "if I were to do it I would do it this way" arguments. (not to mention I'm personally terrible at houseruling, if I've not seen it officially printed I worry that alternative rules I've put in will not work as I envisioned). I think you're spot on with the beam weapons, though they wouldn't pop up much (player wise anyway) in my games. One thing though, and it might seem trivial - would it be possible to have 3rd Printing (or whatever it will officially be called) obviously printed somewhere in the first couple of pages? This is not to say you wont, it's just there was another space faring game of a very popular licence that had reprinted with a whole lot of errata in it (and some minor/major changes) that was extremely difficult to get from your FLGS or bookstores in general (esp. over internet). Mainly I found retailers having problems with checking what printing it was due to the only sign being a slightly different serial code. As the UK often gets later printings a lot later than are available in the US it gets doubly difficult to get the latest printing, often not helped by there being a certain amount ignorance from some retailers on what constitutes a new printing and what is a new edition. Sometimes the only option to go to the publisher themselves and pay large international postage costs. Hope that last made sense.
—
The Force will be with you. Sometimes.
Top
Mon, 2011-02-14 13:45
ssfsx17 ssfsx17's picture
Re: Feedback on Potential Major Errata
Initiative: Fully in support of using d10 for it, main reason being that it is an additive roll. Most percentile checks only require a quick comparison, or seeing how many degrees of 10 a roll is over or under another number. but, addition of percentile dice and a very large number requires that much extra mental effort which can take 1 to 5 seconds longer, depending on how people are feeling on a given day. Addition of a d10 to a number that is no larger than 20 will not take more than 2 seconds. Beam Weapons: The problem is that, realistically, kinetic weapons are much more efficient and cost-effective for causing damage to fleshy targets. They cause great hydrostatic shock, and bullets can be designed to be very efficient at defeating armor. Beam weapons [i]have[/i] to deal with all mass that their projectiles/beams encounter, and they are likely to cauterize any wounds they cause. If the weapons absolutely have to be "balanced" then changes to Sweeping Fire and Concentrated Fire rules should be sufficient for damage and accuracy. Non-laser Beam weapons that are considered to be "underpowered" could have a sort of EMP effect, where they cause negative effects to all electronic devices and wireless signals to anything they hit. Laser weapons, if they need to be more useful, could come with free auto-tracking auto-stabilizing upgrades that are of a high-enough quality to shoot down incoming seeker missiles and seeker grenades.
—


@-rep: 2 | x-rep: 1 | y-rep: 1

Top
Mon, 2011-02-14 21:36
RobBoyle RobBoyle's picture
Re: Feedback on Potential Major Errata
Great feedback, everyone, keep it coming. A bunch of responses:
IceKatze wrote:
One alternative would be to stick with ((INT + REF) x 2) but rather than adding the numbers together, just go in the order of margin of success/failure. People use margin of success a lot and should be used to it.
This was the original version actually, but early playtesting sided against it. Also, we tried to avoid making people calculate MoS, and when we do we try to make it simple to eyeball (like MoS of 30+ for increased attack damage).
IceKatze wrote:
Full Automatic: Does full automatic on beam weapons use up 10 shots as well? How does that interact with the cooldown on the Plasma Rifle?
Yes, it would be 10 shots. Plasma rifles don't have an FA mode.
IceKatze wrote:
I think it would be cool to allow the Plasma Rifle to operate in a "shotgun" mode, where it shoots a cone of plasma from the barrel.
We considered this, but it would make it a Spray Weapon instead of a Beam Weapon, skill-wise. We might add something like this down the line though.
It That Must Not Be Named wrote:
I'd suggest adding the notes on nuclear batteries recharging themselves to the main rulesbook.
Already planned.
It That Must Not Be Named wrote:
BTW, the new version will it be available to those who bought the pdf as an update?
Yep, of course!
Octomorph wrote:
I do think some work needs to be done on scale and time frame for combat - movement rates are significantly out of whack and need some refactoring.
Can you clarify your issue?
Abschalten wrote:
I agree with Codebreaker above: If you're going to help Beam Weapons keep up with Kinetic Weapons, you should also turn the aiming bonus for a failed shot into a +30 instead of a +10.
This is an interesting idea, I'd like to hear what others think of it.
Abschalten wrote:
How come we have no shotgun-type weapons in the game yet?
Because we felt the shard pistol and shredder filled that role.
Angry_Ghost wrote:
One thing though, and it might seem trivial - would it be possible to have 3rd Printing (or whatever it will officially be called) obviously printed somewhere in the first couple of pages?
It will say so on the Credits page (p. 5). It will also have the Posthuman logo rather than the Catalyst logo on the cover.
—

Rob Boyle :: Posthuman Studios

Top
Wed, 2011-02-16 00:37
crizh crizh's picture
Re: Feedback on Potential Major Errata
crizh wrote:
To date I don't think I've even seen a dev' respond to this problem in the errata thread let alone suggest any sort of fix.
I see what you did there. Very funny.
—
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
Top
Wed, 2011-02-16 11:22
Gee4orce Gee4orce's picture
Re: Feedback on Potential Major Errata
I'm all in favour of seeing beefier energy weapons. I'd also like to see pistol sized bolters - perhaps powered by (expensive) consumable cartridges that contain a tiny amount of antimatter. I can't recall if this is currently the case, but I feel energy weapons should get at a minimum the +10 bonus you'd get for having a laser sight, and probably more due to them being line-of-sight and near light-speed (mostly). Perhaps this comes more into play at longer ranges, so maybe they have reduced penalties for long/extreme range attacks... I have a suggestion for the errata: Standardise the margin of success rule to this : margin of success = the number rolled on the dice. At the moment, this is the way it works for opposed tests, but for standard unopposed tests you have to do some maths to subtract the roll from the target number to work out the MoS - why not just use the number rolled as is ? It's mechanically and statistically the same, and simpler. If you need, for example, a minimum MoS of 40 on a task, then you just need to roll greater than 40 and less than you target number to succeed. I'd also like to see a hit location system for more granular armour rules. A simple 'flip flop the rolled numbers and look up on a chart' in the style of Warhammer RPG would be great. This is maybe the kind of thing that belongs in an 'Advanced Players Guide' publication though.
Top
Wed, 2011-02-16 18:01
crizh crizh's picture
Re: Feedback on Potential Major Errata
I quite like that method of flipping MoS calculations for simplicity. How do you plan on dealing with high skill characters? Say two guys, two Alpha Forks, with a skill of 99, try to compete against each other. One has a slight advantage in tools or plans etc giving a +10. Both roll 99 on the dice. Who wins? Instinctively I'd say the guy that had the +10. Going to a fixed TN of 100 involves a little more calculation but success, failure and MoS/MoF in opposed tests is much more clear cut.
—
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
Top
Wed, 2011-02-16 18:39
Backgammon Backgammon's picture
Re: Feedback on Potential Major Errata
I'd like to also add my vote for a "shotgun" weapon. I get that the shredder weapons are meant to fill this role, but what I think you're missing is the shared imagery of wielding a shotgun to blast hordes of zombies backwards. Don't laugh. There is something incredibly satisfying, ingrained by popular media, about using a badass boomstick to blow something backwards 20 feet in zero gravity. It's the feel, it's the imagery - not necessarely just about having "a weapon to use at close range". You just can't replace the shotgun.
Top
Wed, 2011-02-16 18:57
randombugger randombugger's picture
Re: Feedback on Potential Major Errata
Also a good shotgun can be used with a wide variety of munitions. It can be a Kinetic weapon, most if not all of the spray weapons, and a micro-missile launcher all at once with the right ammo.
Top
Thu, 2011-02-17 03:55
Rastus Rastus's picture
Re: Feedback on Potential Major Errata
randombugger wrote:
Also a good shotgun can be used with a wide variety of munitions. It can be a Kinetic weapon, most if not all of the spray weapons, and a micro-missile launcher all at once with the right ammo.
For some reason, I feel compelled to tell you that the houseruled shotguns I made (shown here: http://www.eclipsephase.com/yet-more-assorted-weapon-houserules#comment-...)do all that and slightly more. Shotguns may seem a little old school compared to the newfangled weapons in AF10, but I doubt they'd vanish either. They are high powered weapons with mediocre penetration, meaning these things would be quite handy for use aboard orbital habs when punching through bulkheads and viewports is a concern. Shotguns would probably a lot more legal in more places than a shredder or assault rifle, due to the fact that it won't chew through armored security goons as easily. Lastly, shotguns can fire almost anything that can be packed into a shell: Lead pellets, white phospherous, microgrenades, nanoswarms, rock salt, coins, recon microdrones, splinters of the true cross, etc., all without having to swap out another gun or add more weight with underbarrel attachments. Besides, they're SHOTGUNS, man. You can't just toss them to the wayside! Humanity and it's descendants will never truely be able to outgrow the shotgun. It could be AF500 with everyone using antimatter weapons, and shotguns will still have it's place somewhere. They don't necessarily need to be in the core book, but they oughta come around sooner or later. Maybe in a splatbook detailing all the military, paramilitary, mercenary, and security forces in the system or something.
Top
Thu, 2011-02-17 04:39
Gee4orce Gee4orce's picture
Re: Feedback on Potential Major Errata
Reply to Crizh: High skill characters: When one characters TN reaches 99, then I'd apply any excess as a penalty to the other character. ie. in this instance, the highest characters TN would be 99, and the the other character's TN 99-10 or 89. If this high skilled character received another +20 bonus for whatever reason, I'd apply that as a -20 penalty to the other character, so it would be 99 vs. 69. The character that rolls highest (but still under skill) wins, except if the other character rolls a critical success. SHREDDERS: I think these are massively overpowered. Why do they have AP -10 ?! This is more than most other weapons in the game, including the plasma rifle ! I house rule this to mean for soft (fabric) armour only - for hard armour I rule it's AP+10 ! The tiny needle shards can cut clean through any fabric armour, but they have such low mass that they shatter on impact with hard armours, or most synth shells and habitat walls. This makes them perfect anti-boarding weapons, as they shred a vacc suit, but wont penetrate the habitat walls.
Top
Thu, 2011-02-17 12:26
crizh crizh's picture
Re: Feedback on Potential Major Errata
Hmmm, that's getting at least as fiddly as my proposal. What I was suggesting feels cleaner to me. That might just be my OCD talking though. ---- More errata I'd like to see. The last line of Multiple Personality the word 'turn' needs to be replaced with 'Action Phase' or 'Action Turn'. If the latter then some sort of further text explaining exactly when it may be used is required. Clarification of what exactly qualifies as a Mental Action would be nice. The system uses the phrase repeatedly like it means something but fails to adequately define it. Can I 'aim' a Seeker for an Indirect Fire attack as a Mental Action? Can I command said Seeker's Smartlink to make said attack as a Mental Action? If no, why could I do so if I were tele-operating the same Morph through a Puppetsock? Etc...
—
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
Top
Thu, 2011-02-17 15:25
Wyldknight Wyldknight's picture
Re: Feedback on Potential Major Errata
Gee4orce wrote:
SHREDDERS: I think these are massively overpowered. Why do they have AP -10 ?! This is more than most other weapons in the game, including the plasma rifle ! I house rule this to mean for soft (fabric) armour only - for hard armour I rule it's AP+10 ! The tiny needle shards can cut clean through any fabric armour, but they have such low mass that they shatter on impact with hard armours, or most synth shells and habitat walls. This makes them perfect anti-boarding weapons, as they shred a vacc suit, but wont penetrate the habitat walls.
The reason they are so strong is because they are so limited. Shredders have insanely short range compared to other weapons. It's longest range is still short range for assault rifles. Shredders are CQC weapons and they fulfill that niche. When you nerf them like you did then what is the point of choose them over an assault rifle or SMG?
—
C-rep +1
Top
Thu, 2011-02-17 15:41
CodeBreaker CodeBreaker's picture
Re: Feedback on Potential Major Errata
crizh wrote:
Clarification of what exactly qualifies as a Mental Action would be nice. The system uses the phrase repeatedly like it means something but fails to adequately define it.
A quick note, just as an attempt to help. While I agree that some clarification would be good (and is probably needed), I believe the intention of Mental Actions is the use of any skill tagged Mental. However that might be wrong, especially as Scrounging (Which I think of as a physical action) is tagged Mental. A small paragraph putting down limits might indeed be handy. P.S, o/ crizh, I believe I remember you from Dumpshock, maybe, possibly. I think we butted heads about the Agent Smith problem a few times.
—
-
Top
Thu, 2011-02-17 17:52
crizh crizh's picture
Re: Feedback on Potential Major Errata
Wouldn't shock me. What's your handle on DS?
—
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
Top
Thu, 2011-02-17 18:05
CodeBreaker CodeBreaker's picture
Re: Feedback on Potential Major Errata
Same as here. Just checked my PMs though, I was arguing with you, against someone else. Which is a bit of a relief, the person I was arguing against was part of the reason that I avoid Dumpshock like the plague these days. This was back in July '09 though, so a long time ago either way. Anyway, enough reminiscing about old times, back to errata! P.S, goddamn, I know that I am not the most articulate of writers these days, but back then I was just terrible. I knew that my writing had improved with practice (And that I still have a long way to go, cursed dyspraxia), but golly.
—
-
Top
Thu, 2011-02-17 21:22
RobBoyle RobBoyle's picture
Re: Feedback on Potential Major Errata
"Crizh" wrote:
Firstly, and most importantly, Uniform Blast!!!! For God's sake put some ranges in for them. To date I don't think I've even seen a dev' respond to this problem in the errata thread let alone suggest any sort of fix.
It's on the list to be corrected. IIRC only thermobaric needs to be fixed.
—

Rob Boyle :: Posthuman Studios

Top
Fri, 2011-02-18 01:05
RobBoyle RobBoyle's picture
Re: Feedback on Potential Major Errata
Gee4orce wrote:
I have a suggestion for the errata: Standardise the margin of success rule to this : margin of success = the number rolled on the dice. At the moment, this is the way it works for opposed tests, but for standard unopposed tests you have to do some maths to subtract the roll from the target number to work out the MoS - why not just use the number rolled as is ? It's mechanically and statistically the same, and simpler. If you need, for example, a minimum MoS of 40 on a task, then you just need to roll greater than 40 and less than you target number to succeed.
This is actually something Brian and I were also discussing. I agree that it's a more elegant approach. What do people think about this change? It's a change to one of the core mechanics of the game, but a fairly simple one in terms of errata, and would certainly streamline things.
—

Rob Boyle :: Posthuman Studios

Top
Fri, 2011-02-18 04:30
crizh crizh's picture
Re: Feedback on Potential Major Errata
I obviously prefer the method I proposed but if it's too much for you then that would certainly be an improvement. As it stands with equally skilled opponents it is the one with the smallest MoS that wins which is painfully counter-intuitive.
—
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
Top
Fri, 2011-02-18 06:19
Gee4orce Gee4orce's picture
Re: Feedback on Potential Major Errata
The only real problem I can see with counting up for MoS is, as Crizh pointed out, there's a maximum MoS of 99, and it's possible for very high skilled characters to not benefit from favourable bonuses if they push the TN over 100. I pointed out you can deal with this by, instead of adding bonuses that would push the TN over 100 for one character, you apply them as penalties to the other character. The maths is no harder, but the logic might need some careful explaining.
Top
Fri, 2011-02-18 07:13
Gee4orce Gee4orce's picture
Re: Feedback on Potential Major Errata
Wyldknight wrote:
The reason they are so strong is because they are so limited. Shredders have insanely short range compared to other weapons. It's longest range is still short range for assault rifles. Shredders are CQC weapons and they fulfill that niche. When you nerf them like you did then what is the point of choose them over an assault rifle or SMG?
Because in real life - and probably in most RPG combat situations - firearms combat is at very close range. Only 5% of gunfights take place over 15yds, 80% below 7yds, 50% below 2yds ! (source: the very well researched GURPS:Tactical Shooting). A Shredder will do an average of 16DV per shot, can be fired full auto, and has 100 round capacity, and cuts through 10 points of armour like butter. Say you target a Security Trooper (WT 7, DUR 35, Armour 11/12) then even an average shot is going to do him 2 wounds. Concentrate full auto on him (why not, you've got 100 rounds to play with) and he's going to take 4 wounds on average, and you'd have a very good chance of killing him outright. They are massively overpowered - criminals wouldn't carry anything else. So law enforcement would need to go around in HOPLITE armour to have any chance of surviving. They NEED nerfing, somehow. Lowering that AP, or nerfing it versus certain types of armour is one way. Reducing the ammo down to 10 is another. Reducing the damage is a third. Reduced range isn't a significant disadvantage. I'd favour saying that the AP bonus is only for flexible or woven armour, as the needles pass between the weaves (this is probably most common armour, so this isn't crippling them too much), and reduce the ammo capacity significantly to stop full auto being an easy decision. This also answers the 'why would you choose them' question, because they are much less likely than a solid slug to puncture the hull of a ship or habitat, and therefore kill the shooter as well as the target ! Would mono-molecular shards really do that much damage anyway, surely they'd just pass right through. It'd be like getting stabbed with a syringe 100 times, only less so.
Top
Fri, 2011-02-18 14:05
CodeBreaker CodeBreaker's picture
Re: Feedback on Potential Major Errata
If you are going to try and say something is OP in an Errata thread, could you please also include your numbers that prove it? Railgun Heavy Pistol (Moderate, includes a Smartgun system and a Safety System), 100 AP ammo (Low), Arm Slide (Low, because I have a Low cost to throw about and I cannot get anything else). Shredder (Moderate), Smartgun system (Low), 100 ammo (Low). Both weapons cost the exact same amount. They have very close to the same range, with the pistol coming out ahead by a small margin. The damage on the Railgun Heavy Pistol is 2d10+6-2 (15 avg.), -12AP. The damage on the Shredder is 2d10+5 (16 avg.), -10AP. The only advantage that the Shredder has is that it can fire on FA for more than a single round, but as I explained in a previous thread, unless you are encountering player optimized Synthmorphs on a daily basis (Which I do not tend to do), BF is the more efficient method for dealing large amounts of damage. Conclusion? The Shredder is far from OP, it is actually almost perfectly in line with all the other balanced (*cough not beam cough*) weapons. A note, this becomes even more apparent when you use normal kinetic weapons (such as a kinetic assault rifle) and you give a very small leeway on credit cost (no more than 1000). If you do that, then you can start using all the specialist ammo that you should always be using anyway, and you start to rack up even more benefits such as accuracy and increased damage. Normal encounters, i.e those that the players would encounter normally as long as the GM is not purposely ramping up peoples armour to counter them, simply do not have enough armour to make the FA advantage that large.
—
-
Top
Fri, 2011-02-18 14:11
Wyldknight Wyldknight's picture
Re: Feedback on Potential Major Errata
The only thing I agree with is the ammo. 100? That's pretty high, last I checked not even the LMG gets 100 rounds and it's not like a drum magazine (or dual drum for 150 if I remember correctly) is that hard to come by. Heavy you say? In a future where you can easily boost your strength not really. With 10 being the average human strength, every transhuman starting at 15, and a lot of morphs giving a bonus of 5 - 10 weight isn't much of an issue.
—
C-rep +1
Top
Fri, 2011-02-18 16:32
Gee4orce Gee4orce's picture
Re: Feedback on Potential Major Errata
Yeah, I think it's the ammo capacity that's the root of my concern because you can shoot off full auto for 10 rounds without pausing for breath. I believe that extended handgun mags are restricted in parts of the US because it enables the shooter to keep going longer and therefore be more dangerous. But the high AP bother me too :-)
Top
Fri, 2011-02-18 17:03
CodeBreaker CodeBreaker's picture
Re: Feedback on Potential Major Errata
The thing is, -10AP on Kinetic Armour isn't really that high. In fact it is lower than a Kinetic Assault Rifle firing AP rounds, which has the exact same cost, plus other advantages (range, accuracy, easier access to other useful weapons). That 100 ammo is not all that much of a bother either, it is a quick action to remove a clip and a single complex one to smack a new one in. If the person you are trying to kill is still standing after 15 BF volleys (Extended Mags) from your Assault Rifle you might want to look at finding more to-hit modifiers. Or run the hell away. The only times the Shredder really, really comes into its own is when you are within 10m of the target and you are getting that extra 1d10 damage, OR when you are simply using it to put prolonged suppression fire down on an area. Otherwise there are harder hitting, better ranged weapons out there for you to use. The Spray Weapon you should really be scared of is a Sprayer filled with Liquid Thermite. All someone needs is to hit you with that, and then unleash with a volley of Zap from a sidearm and you light up light the 4th of July. 3d10+5DV a turn, that burns through armour, is nasty.
—
-
Top
Fri, 2011-02-18 17:12
Wyldknight Wyldknight's picture
Re: Feedback on Potential Major Errata
How many turns does it burn? I couldn't find it.
—
C-rep +1
Top
Fri, 2011-02-18 17:18
CodeBreaker CodeBreaker's picture
Re: Feedback on Potential Major Errata
By the rules? Forever :p It is a tad silly, my group purposely avoids the stuff because it can be extremely powerful if used correctly. A different trick is to use Smart Magazines to combine Capsule rounds with Zap rounds to turn any kinetic weapon into a Liquid Thermite spraying death machine. You can do the same thing for Scrappers Gel, but it is slightly less effective. It got so bad in one of my games that I ended up requiring a called shot with the Zap rounds to ignite the gel. Might want to have a time limit added to the Thermite/Scrapper (Single Application = 3 turns or something).
—
-
Top
Fri, 2011-02-18 19:14
thelabmonkey thelabmonkey's picture
Re: Feedback on Potential Major Errata
1) I tend to introduce a lot of new players to the system and I feel like every time you deviate from the standard d100 rolls it slows things down. Keeping it as percentile dice keeps things consistent. Being able to say "You just roll two of these and add stuff for pretty much everything" is very convenient. It may not be perfectly streamlined, but consistency counts for something. 2) While I'm not opposed to the beam changes, I don't feel like they need to do more damage per-se... I would lean towards making them a little cheaper and easier to use. Here's my reasoning... I like to think of them like the las-pistols in Warhammer 40k, or "Flashlights" as they are jokingly referred to. They are used because they are cheap to make, hard to break, and any joker can point-and-sweep. They are the everyman-gun. Sure, they don't do the damage of big kinetic weapons, but they won't punch a hole in the bulkhead and hit a person outside your apartment either. They are also easy to make small, sleek and sexy for the person who wants self-defense with style and doesn't want the hassle of ammunition. I'm all in favor of bumping up the bonus to hit for sweeping attacks to, as it allows non-combat chars to acquire a weapon and use it with little to no training. There is also no kick-back on a beam weapon, so maybe providing a +10 if you attacked the same target in the previous round? I would also argue that with nuclear batteries, beam weapons would be the weapon of choice for those who don't have easy access to fabbers. There are also fewer loose moving parts to jam. Gatecrashers might go with beam weapons over other types simply because of fewer maintenance and ammo concerns. Bonus points since most beam weapons are silent.
Top
Sat, 2011-02-19 00:49
Rhyx Rhyx's picture
Re: Feedback on Potential Major Errata
I really like a lot of the changes being talked about. I especially like the "walking the fire" rule with beam weapons. It gives weight to the whole continuous laser idea which I always loved and gives it the boost necessary to be more palatable. So far in my game no one has taken any kind of beams weapon. They just gloss over the entry and that's that. Making the Plasma rifle the king of the hill is also a great idea although I do wonder about the Area of effect at the end, maybe make it an extra setting kind of like it's own special "burst" setting that costs more ammo but gives you the oomph. As for all that shotgun talk, I find that for versatility of ammo types the seeker is by far the winner. On the other hand the shredder could be a victim of it's own success. Imagine the over penetration factor when firing that into a crowd! I don't see anything wrong with adding a shotgun but what you are really looking for is fragmentation and that could easily be taken care of by hollow point or contact explosive ammunition. The only problem is, contrary to the Shredder, the classic shotgun will actually have severe penetration problems especially up against future armor made out of molecular aligned carbon nantubes and artificial spider silk.
Quote:
Bonus points since most beam weapons are silent.
and invisible especially if using an X-ray laser.
—

[img]http://boxall.no-ip.org/img/A_Rep.jpg[/img] 2 [img]http://boxall.no-ip.org/img/R_Rep.jpg[/img] 7 [img]http://boxall.no-ip.org/img/C_Rep.jpg[/img] 2
[img]http://i.imgur.com/qtBZ9.jpg[/img]
[img]http://i.imgur.com/AT25J.jpg[/img]

Top
Sat, 2011-02-19 05:51
mysyndrome mysyndrome's picture
Re: Feedback on Potential Major Errata
CodeBreaker wrote:
The Spray Weapon you should really be scared of is a Sprayer filled with Liquid Thermite. All someone needs is to hit you with that, and then unleash with a volley of Zap from a sidearm and you light up light the 4th of July. 3d10+5DV a turn, that burns through armour, is nasty.
Though possibly easily countered with Lotus Coating(pg313) which should provide protection against most types of “liquid” based attacks.
Top
Sat, 2011-02-19 07:13
Decivre Decivre's picture
Re: Feedback on Potential Major Errata
RobBoyle wrote:
Gee4orce wrote:
I have a suggestion for the errata: Standardise the margin of success rule to this : margin of success = the number rolled on the dice. At the moment, this is the way it works for opposed tests, but for standard unopposed tests you have to do some maths to subtract the roll from the target number to work out the MoS - why not just use the number rolled as is ? It's mechanically and statistically the same, and simpler. If you need, for example, a minimum MoS of 40 on a task, then you just need to roll greater than 40 and less than you target number to succeed.
This is actually something Brian and I were also discussing. I agree that it's a more elegant approach. What do people think about this change? It's a change to one of the core mechanics of the game, but a fairly simple one in terms of errata, and would certainly streamline things.
As someone already mentioned, the problem mainly comes when higher target numbers than 99 are present. If my target number is 105, and I roll an 80, is my MoS merely an 80? Does this mean there is no further benefit for a target number greater than 99? This could be key if a GM wishes to use open-ended MoS effects (I do it with damage... +5 damage for every 30 MoS achieved). Plus, while this decreases the amount of math someone does in an unopposed test, it increases the amount of math that they do in an opposed test. You have to compare rolls to target numbers in order to see whether the players succeed, then compare to one another for which player wins (as is standard). Now, you'll have to subtract the winner's total from the loser's, which is far harder to eyeball than the difference from target number. It could be easier overall if you converted the mechanic into a "roll over" one, and currently existing modifiers would not have to be changed if the target number was a static 100 and all skill values and modifiers were added and subtracted from the die roll (skill of 50 with +20 modifier? 1d100 + 70, every point over 100 is MoS). This would require a dramatic alteration of the present mechanics, though. Probably too much so. One way the proposed roll=MoS scenario might work is if you change opposed mechanics to be more streamlined as well. For instance, in an opposed check, the highest die roll that still succeeds is a success, but the MoS for the winner is decided by the loser's dice (unless he failed). So if we both succeed, I roll an 80 and you roll a 40, I win and my MoS is 40. If I rolled an 80 and you rolled a 90 and failed, my MoS is 80. This takes away the excessive math, while keeping the mechanics very simple for calculation. For target numbers of 100+, perhaps the excess could be simply looked at as an "MoS bonus". A target number of 120 means that the character gets a +20 to whatever their rolled value is. This allows characters with high totals to get a benefit, while keeping with simpler math.
—
Transhumans will one day be the Luddites of the posthuman age. [url=http://bit.ly/2p3wk7c]Help me get my gaming fix, if you want.[/url]
Top
Sat, 2011-02-19 07:30
crizh crizh's picture
Re: Feedback on Potential Major Errata
One of the things I love about EP is it's CC licence which gives it a very open-source feel. One of the problems with traditional gaming companies is a sort of momentum where there is huge resistance to making anything more than minor changes to the game mechanics or to being perceived as admitting any sort of error. While the fixed target number change is a huge one mechanically I would be immensely happy to see Post-human have the courage to embrace the agility of open-source systems. Would it be a big change? Yes, most definitely. Would it be a better mechanic? Without doubt. There is no shame in saying, 'Yes, in hindsight, we should have done things this way from the start.' Quite the opposite in fact. Yes, dead-tree editions would be rapidly outdated but it's not like folks don't have access to free pdf's containing all the relevant changes. The important stuff, the fluff and background aren't ever going to change. EP has an opportunity here to embrace evolution and to become better and better with the passage of time rather than stagnating and becoming irrelevant.
—
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
Top
Sat, 2011-02-19 09:41
Octomorph Octomorph's picture
Re: Feedback on Potential Major Errata
My biggest issue with combat scale is movement. 4 meters/ action turn is fine, given the scale of 3 seconds per AT, but an increase to 20 meters / AT for running for every character doesn't make sense. Current world record for the 100 meter dash is slightly under 10 seconds (call it 10 m / sec), which means that every morph in the game (even Flats and Synths) can move at 2/3 of that rate with only a -10 penalty. I'd probably want to see Movement rate changed to a derived value along the lines of (COO+SOM)/10 (round up) for base walking speed and 4x walking speed for running. Looking at the sample characters in the core book, this does lower many base move rates from four to three meters for non-physically specialized characters and increases it to five or six for some. Running speeds increase correspondingly. With most morphs, running speed tops out at 24 meters / AT, but the average drops significantly and much more variability is added to the mix. Characters who aren't optimized for physical activity suffer more (consider that a move 3 character can only run at 12 meters / AT), but that places more of a premium on sprinting. Additionally (or alternatively) I would allow a character to increase his/her running move by up to 4m/AT by sacrificing an additional -10 per meter and have sprinting apply after that. So a Move 3 character could move 3 meters / AT at no penalty, move 12 at -10, move 16 at -50, and sprint (complex action) up to an additional 5 meters with a successful Freerunning roll.Max move= 21 meters A Move 6 physical character would go 6 meters with no penalty, 24 at -10, 28 at -40 and up to 33 maxes sprinting. This puts the upper end characters slightly faster than today's top sprinters, but under vastly different conditions. Using this approach also opens up the possibility for some additional biomods to increase speed and morphs which are optimized for fast movement.
Top
Sat, 2011-02-19 11:13
Decivre Decivre's picture
Re: Feedback on Potential Major Errata
crizh wrote:
One of the things I love about EP is it's CC licence which gives it a very open-source feel. One of the problems with traditional gaming companies is a sort of momentum where there is huge resistance to making anything more than minor changes to the game mechanics or to being perceived as admitting any sort of error. While the fixed target number change is a huge one mechanically I would be immensely happy to see Post-human have the courage to embrace the agility of open-source systems. Would it be a big change? Yes, most definitely. Would it be a better mechanic? Without doubt. There is no shame in saying, 'Yes, in hindsight, we should have done things this way from the start.' Quite the opposite in fact. Yes, dead-tree editions would be rapidly outdated but it's not like folks don't have access to free pdf's containing all the relevant changes. The important stuff, the fluff and background aren't ever going to change. EP has an opportunity here to embrace evolution and to become better and better with the passage of time rather than stagnating and becoming irrelevant.
Eclipse Phase does have a vast disadvantage in comparison to other open-source projects... it's appearance. The format of a game book is not similarly structured to digital code... we can't simply write a few lines of change into a large document of data when we alter key elements. The core book is specifically parsed in a way that is meant to make it an appetizing read for customers, and that makes it a tumultuous thing to modify and manipulate, especially to a large degree. Plus, there are hurdles in the way of player preference. A tabletop game is not the same as a piece of software when it comes to optimization. An optimized piece of code runs does the same thing as an unoptimized piece of code in a smaller number of cycles. What constitutes an optimal game mechanic will vary from person to person. Posthuman has to cut a very fine line as they make decisions about the game mechanics. That said, it would be nice if the boys at Posthuman created a "System Reference Document" that concisely put the mechanics and rules of the game into an easily-edited document format (word, rtf, or odf). That way, we could send them proposed game modifications and mechanical errata much easier. This would give them better options about how to alter the game. It doesn't even need to have flavor text... just the mechanical bits so we can get a simpler look at the game's "mechanical source code".
—
Transhumans will one day be the Luddites of the posthuman age. [url=http://bit.ly/2p3wk7c]Help me get my gaming fix, if you want.[/url]
Top
Sat, 2011-02-19 11:26
crizh crizh's picture
Re: Feedback on Potential Major Errata
I had considered knocking together an SRD myself. An open source RPG mechanical framework seems like a pretty damn good idea. I agree, I've heard what Adam has to say about the difficulties of his job often enough to know that is not as easy as just doing a quick cut and paste and your done. That was one of the things I liked about changing the Target Number to 100. It's pretty much transparent to the rest of the system. None of the modifiers change, none of the other mechanics change. You only have to alter the text describing how you determine success and MoS/MoF. Opposed tests are resolved with highest MoS and your done. It might even be possible to take existing text, do a word count and craft it's replacement to fit into the same space so the document doesn't need extensive alteration.
—
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
Top
Sat, 2011-02-19 13:07
Decivre Decivre's picture
Re: Feedback on Potential Major Errata
crizh wrote:
I had considered knocking together an SRD myself. An open source RPG mechanical framework seems like a pretty damn good idea. I agree, I've heard what Adam has to say about the difficulties of his job often enough to know that is not as easy as just doing a quick cut and paste and your done. That was one of the things I liked about changing the Target Number to 100. It's pretty much transparent to the rest of the system. None of the modifiers change, none of the other mechanics change. You only have to alter the text describing how you determine success and MoS/MoF. Opposed tests are resolved with highest MoS and your done. It might even be possible to take existing text, do a word count and craft it's replacement to fit into the same space so the document doesn't need extensive alteration.
I'm glad you liked that mechanic. The "roll over 100" system was devised largely to appease my players, most of which came from the d20 system. We kind of stumbled on the extreme ease of use... it wasn't until we had playtested it for a week that we realized that it combined the near-subtractionless elements of the "blackjack" system, with the capability of having an open-ended MoS. As an interesting note, you can make the mechanic truly subtractionless if you simply use "lowest raw die roll (that succeeds) wins" on the opposed tests (literally making it an inversion of the original mechanics).
—
Transhumans will one day be the Luddites of the posthuman age. [url=http://bit.ly/2p3wk7c]Help me get my gaming fix, if you want.[/url]
Top
Sat, 2011-02-19 18:27
RobBoyle RobBoyle's picture
Re: Feedback on Potential Major Errata
Decivre wrote:
As someone already mentioned, the problem mainly comes when higher target numbers than 99 are present. If my target number is 105, and I roll an 80, is my MoS merely an 80? Does this mean there is no further benefit for a target number greater than 99? This could be key if a GM wishes to use open-ended MoS effects (I do it with damage... +5 damage for every 30 MoS achieved).
Most likely, yes, MoS would cap out at 99. Anything beyond that is pretty much overkill anyway.
Decivre wrote:
Plus, while this decreases the amount of math someone does in an unopposed test, it increases the amount of math that they do in an opposed test. You have to compare rolls to target numbers in order to see whether the players succeed, then compare to one another for which player wins (as is standard). Now, you'll have to subtract the winner's total from the loser's, which is far harder to eyeball than the difference from target number.
I think you're mistaken here. MoS on Opposed Tests is not calculated by subtracting the loser's from the winner's roll -- you simply use the MoS of the winner. That's how it is in the rules now and that's likely how it would stay if we made this change. So if two people in an Opposed Test both roll under their skill but one rolls a 60 and one a 59, the winner would succeed with an MoS of 60. There's no math involved.
Decivre wrote:
It could be easier overall if you converted the mechanic into a "roll over" one, and currently existing modifiers would not have to be changed if the target number was a static 100 and all skill values and modifiers were added and subtracted from the die roll (skill of 50 with +20 modifier? 1d100 + 70, every point over 100 is MoS). This would require a dramatic alteration of the present mechanics, though. Probably too much so.
We specifically discarded a roll-over mechanic because we were trying to eliminate math from the equation as much as possible (even addition, though especially subtraction). Rolling and comparing numbers is much simpler than rolling and doing addition.
Decivre wrote:
One way the proposed roll=MoS scenario might work is if you change opposed mechanics to be more streamlined as well. For instance, in an opposed check, the highest die roll that still succeeds is a success, but the MoS for the winner is decided by the loser's dice (unless he failed). So if we both succeed, I roll an 80 and you roll a 40, I win and my MoS is 40. If I rolled an 80 and you rolled a 90 and failed, my MoS is 80.
This is similar to what we already have, only you're suggesting using the loser's roll as the MoS rather than the winner's. My taste would be to keep MoS as based on the winner's roll, just to have it be consistent with standard Success Tests. I could see where some people might not like the fact that the loser's effort isn't reflected in the MoS in these cases, but I think simplicity wins out here. If we went with your suggestion of using the loser's roll to determine MoS, MoS would actually be higher when the loser got a higher roll, which is counterintuitive.
—

Rob Boyle :: Posthuman Studios

Top

Pages