Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Green Martian (Adamant Mars)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Ninja-Bear
    replied
    Fwiw, I’m keeping with Deluxe Explorer’s edition.

    Leave a comment:


  • Deskepticon
    replied
    Added an update to this post.

    Leave a comment:


  • Deskepticon
    commented on 's reply
    That's my bad. I probably should have stuck to discussing only the Deluxe ruleset. I think I just assumed you were going to update the setting to SWADE.

    But just to clarify, Large for the Deluxe rules only applied the +2/-2 modifiers to attack rolls. Adventure Edition added the additional Wound and optional Reach bonuses. Sorry for any confusion I may have caused.

  • Ninja-Bear
    replied
    Ok, thanks again I got it. I missed that the Parry only affects Fighting rolls. And I got the implied part Deskeption when you listed other traits for Large up-post.

    Leave a comment:


  • Deskepticon
    commented on 's reply
    Well I could ditch Large and say “Bulky” -2 Parry. Net effect should be the same.
    -2 Parry would not be the same. Parry is only challenged by Fighting rolls, whereas the Scale modifier for Large applies to all attacks (Fighting, Shooting, throwing, and direct-attack powers).

    A -2 to Parry is worth -2 points, while "+2 to all attacks" is -4 (a value I feel comfortable with due to diminishing returns).

    I wish that if it was supposed to be a negative trait hence negative points then they would’ve said something like even though they aren’t Large by Size we’re still giving it to them as a Negative Trait worth X points.
    But.... that's exactly what Adamant did.
    They said the race is considered to be Large, and listed the penalty. They didn't provide a point value because most settings never do. But the wording is clear it's intended to be a negative ability. It could have been more clear on how much of the Large ability is supposed to apply, but it's probably safe to assume it's only what's written.

    I’m fine with giving a creature a penalty separate from its implied benefits.
    The Large ability in Deluxe didn't have any "implied" benefits (those started in SWADE); it was all negatives. Small/Large/Huge were never intended to be playable abilities. The penalties for being Large or Huge (which translate as bonuses for Normal characters) are to help score raises for bonus damage; really the only way to beat the creature's higher Toughness. And of course for the verisimilatude of bigger things being easier to hit.

  • Deskepticon
    commented on 's reply
    paladin2019 I'm not sure what you're asking. Are you asking why I listed Size and Scale separately?

  • paladin2019
    commented on 's reply
    How is Large an additional penalty to the already Large Scale the +4 Size imposes? I'm not sure they should be any more than Size 2 (which is ogre sized) to begin with.

  • Ninja-Bear
    replied
    Btw, this has been really helpful discussion. Thanks for everyone’s input.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ninja-Bear
    replied
    Well I could ditch Large and say “Bulky” -2 Parry. Net effect should be the same.

    I don’t mind that they used Large in Racial Traits. I wish that if it was supposed to be a negative trait hence negative points then they would’ve said something like even though they aren’t Large by Size we’re still giving it to them as a Negative Trait worth X points. I’m fine with giving a creature a penalty separate from its implied benefits.

    Leave a comment:


  • Deskepticon
    commented on 's reply
    They already had Large from the original setting. I just tried keeping as "true" as possible. I would agree the race probably doesn't need Large, but then you'll need to finagle the ability list to bring them down to +2 or +3.

  • Radecliffe
    replied
    Originally posted by Ninja-Bear View Post
    Radecliffe there is the rub. They’re listed as +3 Size and listed as Large with the +2 to be hit. Hence my questioning.
    As I recall size and scale got a bit of a refurb between SWD and SWADE so making them Normal sized as opposed to Large shouldn't be a big deal.

    Deskepticon I would go with +1 Toughness rather than making them Large. That's my two cents anyway.

    Leave a comment:


  • Deskepticon
    commented on 's reply
    Radecliffe Correct. Initially I had them at +3, just like the original writeup, but that valued them at only +1 total. So, I bumped up Size since they already were Large Scale anyway.

  • Ninja-Bear
    replied
    Ok, I just re read their Racial Traits-again and for those whom exact wording matter, it says they are considered Large targets. So I take that that they are Large by mechanics and not due to Size (per se).

    Leave a comment:


  • Ninja-Bear
    replied
    Radecliffe there is the rub. They’re listed as +3 Size and listed as Large with the +2 to be hit. Hence my questioning.

    Leave a comment:


  • Radecliffe
    commented on 's reply
    Normally the max size would be +3. Any reason to make them +4? I don't remember the description of them from the books making them so large.
Working...
X