Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • GM Points



0 Neutral

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. You do realize that quadruple damage has a level minimum of 17, right? Also, as I wrote before, balancing things around certain feats makes those feats mandatory buys instead of just a build option. Zat guns are a weird anomaly, in that they are literally the only dangerous weapon in the game. But they also only fire every other round, don't stun and are stopped by armor, so good luck having a standard npc ever hit a PC more than once.
  2. I probably should have made the math a separate reply. To expand on that. The 3 big issues I'm trying to address here are suspension of disbelief, sense of danger and playability. Suspension of disbelief I wrote about in the bestiary topic. Playability is a huge concern. Ideal combat encounters in 5e are usually around 3 rounds. 5 is where people start losing focus. That's the big reason I keep breaking things down to average rounds to kill. Combat PCs should be in the 2ish range, and Daniel Jackson PCs should probably be in the 4ish range. NPCs of course will range based on how deadly you want the system to be. Sense of danger is (imo) important to encourage players to seek out diplomatic options and to plan necessary combat encounters carefully. Make them feel like they are the underdog defeating a superior foe through cunning. If you want any sense of danger, then 4-5 rounds for NPC to kill PC maximum. The closer that number gets to what the party can dish out, the more likely they lose people in a fair fight. The more likely that is, the more they are encouraged to ambush, set traps and generally be smart.
  3. Good to know you are looking into this. A few thoughts: 1. Balancing for possible feat choices at mid to high levels has some problems. It makes the feats almost a mandatory pick for at least part of the party. Which becomes a big issue when the game isn't supposed to be centered on combat. It messes with early game balance when that is the most played part of the game. What was the research that WotC did where they found most games didn't last past something like 6th level? They don't even make campaigns that go past level 9 any more. (Though it looks like leveling might be faster here?) 2. After crunching some numbers in the other thread, the problem isn't just HP. Part is how easy it is to get resistance, which is still sort of an HP problem since it basically doubles effective HP. Part is too high AC for PCs. A Jaffa warrior can nuke a level 1 PC on round one, but the average time to kill is over a half dozen rounds, mostly because of what is known as the "whiff factor" in the WFRP community.* Very low hit chance leading to multiple rounds of no damage being dealt. (That Jaffa Warrior has a 20% hit chance vs a PC in heavy armor and helmet, and only shoots every other round.) If I was to house rule the armor, I'd make resistance only against tech 1 ranged weapons. I'd lower AC for vests to 11, 12 and 14, all +dex. I'd remove the sneak debuff from plate carriers because it doesn't make sense, but keep the Str requirement. I'd switch helmets to light armor and make shields only apply to tech level 1 damage. PC's can still hit 20AC, just not at level 1. Snake helmet armor down to 16. No charge on staff weapons (no burst and short range are big enough down sides). 3. Bursting should give a damage buff in addition to giving advantage. *Maths: damage/round (DPR) = (chance to hit)×(attacks per round)×[(damage die+1)/2×(number of dice)x(1+crit chance)+Dex/Str] Chance to hit = (21-AC+AB)/20 >/= 0.05 Rounds of combat = HP/DPR (x2 with resistance) Jaffa warrior (CR 5) vs 21AC/40HP (level 5 HP, no Con): DPR = (0.2)×(0.5)×[(6+1)/2×(6)×(1.05)] = 2.205 hp per round Rounds of combat to kill the PC on average = 40/2.205 = 18.1 rounds vs 16 AC = 8 rounds No "1 charge" = 4 rounds (near good combat length) PC (level 5, +3 Dex, rifle) To hit = (21-14+6)/20 = 0.65 (0.88 with advantage) DPR = (0.65)×(1)×[(10+1)/2×1×1.05+3] = 6.21 Rounds to kill Jaffa = 40/6.21 ×2 = 12.9 rounds With burst = 8.4 rounds No resistance = 4.2 rounds (near good combat length) Combat vs Jaffa takes too long because of HP/damage. Combat vs PCs takes too long because of low chance to hit and low fire rate.
  4. I think the big issue hear is straining suspension of disbelief and (moreso) the gameplay implications. Most people aren't going to think much about a cow taking 3 or 4 shots. But 6 RPGs, or having to reload after emptying your magazine into it, and it's still not dead? 5e is a heroic setting. Much moreso than Stargate SG-1. Yet the rules here make the system even more heroic than 5e, with higher HP, lower damage and higher AC.
  5. To add to this, look a 1st level soldier with same stats, 24 hp with +2 Con, plate carrier and helmet for 21 AC. Now the CR 5 Jaffa Warrior's average damage per round drops to 2.2. So, it'll take around 11 rounds. Almost becoming a coin flip for the 1v1. That soldier makes it a melee fight instead? Jaffa damage drops to 1.38 per round, or 18 rounds of combat. The soldier's drops by less, down to 1.88 per round, or 21 rounds of combat. If the character specs +3 strength they can turn the coin flip in their favor (17 rounds). Either way, it'll take like 2 sessions worth of combat.
  6. A little breathing room and 6 rounds for a CR 6 "monster" to kill a first level character are very different things. Add to that, 14 rounds bursting turned into a party of 4 becomes 3-4 rounds. So a level 1 party without a soldier should be able to fairly reliably breeze through a CR 6 encounter. The other aspect of this is that ranged weapons are weak. You are better off running at the Jaffa and using a greatsword, since now you also get resistance against attacks and have higher AC. In order for there to be a reasonable threat, combat needs to last a very long time, and with no reference to CR. This also means that combat is not something to be avoided, and any sort of planning is unnecessary. Combat becomes the easy solution and the Jaffa are the underdogs.
  7. To do more math on this: For a character with +2 Dex and +2 proficiency, it will take 21 rounds (on average) to kill a Jaffa soldier in normal armor. 14 rounds bursting. Much easier than a cow, but still absurd combat length. Giving a first level PC 22 hp and 18 AC (tactical vest), it'll take 6 rounds (on average) to kill the PC. There are some serious issues here. Not about a Jaffa winning a 1v1 against a level 1 PC, but that combat will take ages.
  8. I feel like the math wasn't done before these decisions were made. One shot to the head from a .22 (which is significantly less powerful than any military round) is the answer to this question. The odd thing here as well is that SMGs (like the P90) use pistol rounds, not rifle. It's weird to me that the game is more crunchy than 5e, but then generalizes guns into pistol/shotgun/rifle. Still, one round to the head from a P90 would kill a cow irl.
  9. It'll only take 30 shots from a rifle to put a cow down. Lol. Yes, hp is really high, AC is really high and damage is pretty low for some reason. I really hope that it is something that gets changed.
  10. Sounds like fluff text to explain the d8 minimum. Mostly only makes a difference with explosives and staff weapons, assuming 3d6 upgrades to 3d8. Even then its not an insane buff. Upsizing by a damage die across the board would be better imo.
  11. Diplomats, engineers and scouts won't have a tough time with combat. They're going to have 20+ HP and probably 18+ AC at level 1, and resistance vs anything that isn't an energy weapon. Even if we're talking about 3rd level soldiers with max damage and a 10% chance of crit, we're talking about an average of 11+dex damage (not counting misses), which then gets halved when fighting Jaffa. A machine exploding does an average of 21 damage on a failed save. Add d6 to a medic's roll for an average of 9+dex damage. We're talking here about it almost certainly taking at least 2 rounds for a level 3 party to kill a single dog. This is bad for immersion, boring gameplay and makes a game that isn't supposed to be focused on combat centered on it (do to any combat encounter taking a long time to resolve). Like I wrote before, it isn't just that PC's aren't putting out enough relative damage, but also the reverse. NPCs aren't putting out enough damage and ACs are too high. Combat is going to be a slog with a lot of misses and low damage relative to HP on hits, even with 3rd level solders in the party.
  12. Usually a game that doesn't want to focus the gameplay on combat does that by making combat a risky option. These rules make combat hitting each other with nerf bats. Yes, if the characters want to spend their feats on damage dealing, then they can reduce the amount of time combat is inevitably going to take, but that also only increases the viability of combat being the best option. The problem here isn't only that PCs have low damage and NPCs have high HP, but also the reverse. It's extremely easy to get 20+ AC at first level, HP is high, and PCs get resistance against tech 2 and lower attacks.
  13. The damage dice for weapons seem extremely underwhelming compared to the huge hp pools of PCs and NPCs, as well as very high AC. A junkyard dog can take 3 max damage rolls from an RPG and walk away? A rifle is unlikely to kill a common snake? Are there any plans to change this at all?
  • Create New...