Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Savage Worlds Black: Things to fix/clarify

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

  • #16
    The paragraph for Unstable Platform under Situational Combat Rules shouldn't be exclusively about Shooting, unless you really mean that for some reason Shooting from and on a moving vehicle gives me a -2, but Throwing from a moving vehicle doesn't, while Throwing on a vehicle does.

    The texts about Rate of Fire (Gear) and Automatic Fire (Situational Combat Rules) should both allow rolling Shooting dice up to the weapon's Rate of Fire unless specifically forbidden by the weapon. Otherwise, that'd mean that "firing with an automatic weapon without the Auto (Core) / Semi-Auto (SFC) designator" (rolling Shooting dice up to the RoF) and "using the Automatic Fire maneuver" (rolling Shooting dice equal to the RoF) are two different things, which I'd find extraordinarily confusing.

    Comment


    • Kristian Serrano
      Kristian Serrano commented
      Editing a comment
      I guess technically it'll be Athletics and Shooting now.

  • #17
    When do you get a dodge from area-effect attacks, and when do you not get that? I have absolutely no idea. I am just told "No, that one allows a dodge" and "no, there's no dodge on that" and they seem totally random to me.

    "Bennies" is not a good name. Please, just make them Fate Chips. They don't have to get all the rules of Fate Chips for Deadlands, but Fate Chips sounds so much better as well as better explaining what they are and do.

    Comment


    • Kristian Serrano
      Kristian Serrano commented
      Editing a comment
      But they're not always chips. That's an aesthetic for Deadlands.

    • IlzmerZolond
      IlzmerZolond commented
      Editing a comment
      Then call them Fate Points or Fate Marks or something other than "bennies".

    • WildDude
      WildDude commented
      Editing a comment
      Absolutely agree that "Bennies" should be changed. In the UK "Benny" is used as derogatory term and just makes me cringe every time I hear/read/use it.

  • #18
    Originally posted by IlzmerZolond View Post
    When do you get a dodge from area-effect attacks, and when do you not get that? I have absolutely no idea. I am just told "No, that one allows a dodge" and "no, there's no dodge on that" and they seem totally random to me.
    Oh, another note - saying "It's just trappings" isn't sufficient here for powers, because an AoE power that gets a dodge roll is significantly weaker than one that doesn't. That's the advice I've seen a few times from official sources, and the difference in power level was ignored. I expect that will be cleared up based on how FG trappings/power modifiers work, but it's a point I want to raise.

    Comment


    • Deskepticon
      Deskepticon commented
      Editing a comment
      Agreed.

      A more comprehensive listing of Trappings and their benefits/drawbacks would be extremely helpful.

    • Kristian Serrano
      Kristian Serrano commented
      Editing a comment
      I kind of like the new modifiers approach, too.

  • #19
    Also, remove the "if someone is in cover and would have been hit without it, then the attack hits but there's extra armor" rule. It's an extra step to remember, and what it means is "Even though we say cover makes you harder to hit, cover does not make you harder to hit, because the attack penalty from cover cannot cause an attack to miss you." It's nonsense. Darkness rules don't say "If an attack would have hit you without the darkness penalty, then the attack hits, but the thickness of the inky night adds to your armor", that would be absurd. Not being able to see someone makes it harder to hit them! An unarmored person in a gun fight should be hiding behind a wall, but since almost every gun has AP 2 (and so do crossbows?), getting in what should be "full cover" only increases your effective toughness by 1. Cover should be really, really important; it's basically the substitute for having a Parry score in ranged combat.

    Comment


    • #20
      That's just facetious. Cover is a poorly worded mechanic and could use some cleaning up, but it's viable. In essence, there are three possible outcomes for shooting at someone behind cover.
      1. Outright miss (the result of the roll is too low to hit them anyway).
      2. A hit through an obstacle (The result of the roll would be a hit if not for the cover so the shot penetrates cover, which provides extra armor).
      3. A hit around an obstacle (the result of the roll is high enough that the cover offers no additional armor).
      At the very least, a reference to obstacle toughness should be included. An example would also be nice.
      Example: Lacy O'Malley seeks cover during a gunfight in a saloon. He flips a table to hide behind, giving him Heavy Cover (-4). The cowboy shooting at him rolls a 7, so the bullet pierces the table and still hits O'Malley. (see Obstacle Toughness).
      Last edited by Jounichi; 05-23-2018, 03:25 PM. Reason: I cited the wrong section in the book.

      Comment


      • #21
        That being said, illumination has been the topic of much discussion at my table. There are penalties to attack rolls, but not Notice checks when trying to spot something in the dark. Rather, there are stealth rolls. Something a bit more unified would be much appreciated.

        Humans, their free Edge as per their racial ability, and the Born a Hero Setting Rule also need some clarification. Assuming the new race creation rules as prescribed in the SFC are to become core, humans should have Adaptability. The wording should be tweaked either there, or under Born a Hero, to avoid confusion over which one takes priority. As they all currently read, it's unclear whether or not Adaptability overrides Born a Hero. There's a rather lengthy discussion on it right now in another thread.
        Last edited by Jounichi; 05-23-2018, 05:33 PM. Reason: Additional thoughts

        Comment


        • #22
          Dear god please sort out Size for creatures/vehicles/monsters.

          At the moment it is confusing with a size that adds to toughness but might or might not make you easier/harder to hit depending on the size of the person trying to hit you, unless they are a PA/RA/Vehicle in which case ignore all the rules and you are +2 to hit them and they are -2 to hit you, even if you are godzilla!!!

          I would suggest lose the small/normal/large/huge categorisation and simply use the size level, then use the existing rules of +2/-2 per level of difference for every 4 levels of size difference between the combatants, then drop the 'a matter of size' rule as it is no longer necessary.

          Comment


          • IlzmerZolond
            IlzmerZolond commented
            Editing a comment
            Totally agreed.

            The numerical denomination of Size only maps to the Toughness bonus Size gets you, which is only relevant when creating the character. 1 point of Size isn't one point of anything else, so everything else that Size interacts with during play works on weird, chunky thresholds. I would make 1 point of Size a larger difference, and then say "the difference between your Sizes is the bonus/penalty to hit".

        • #23
          Originally posted by Demonetrigan View Post
          Dear god please sort out Size for creatures/vehicles/monsters.

          At the moment it is confusing with a size that adds to toughness but might or might not make you easier/harder to hit depending on the size of the person trying to hit you, unless they are a PA/RA/Vehicle in which case ignore all the rules and you are +2 to hit them and they are -2 to hit you, even if you are godzilla!!!

          I would suggest lose the small/normal/large/huge categorisation and simply use the size level, then use the existing rules of +2/-2 per level of difference for every 4 levels of size difference between the combatants, then drop the 'a matter of size' rule as it is no longer necessary.
          The way that I have house-ruled it for clarity is every two steps of size difference equals +/-1 to hit.
          ...
          Size -2 (-2 T) - a Size 0 creature is -1 to hit
          Size -1 (-1 T)
          Size 0
          Size +1 (+1 T)
          Size +2 (+2 T) - a Size 0 creature is +1 to hit
          Size +3 (+3 T)
          Size +4 (+4 T) - a Size 0 creature is +2 to hit
          ...

          This keeps the Toughness modifier directly associated to Size, while keeping the hit modifiers consistent and making them simpler.
          - Dave R

          "Sometimes when I look at my computer screen, I wonder - are there little demons inside drawing the letters? I don't know! I'm just a simple caveman. My primitive mind can't grasp these concepts."

          Comment


        • #24
          It's a small thing, however probably they could re-phrase the Bonus Damage from the Raise. see here for details:
          https://www.pegforum.com/forum/savag...-i-doing-wrong
          "Balance is the key, Trapping is the word." - - Lord Lance


          Proud reviser of the SAVAGE FREE BESTIARY

          Comment


          • #25
            I would like to see Suppressive Fire revisited. Its always seemed underpowered. I was running a scenario where it was optimal to use and it really did not impact the battle. One simple fix might be either as default or as an option that the effect lasts for a full round.

            Let me give the example of what I was seeing. The map had a trench that was a switchback - much like a meandering stream. So you could take the long, slow way and keep to some cover in the trenches or you could risk getting there faster by risking running in the open to part of the trench that was closer to the objective. The suppressive fire-ers (in this case, the bad guys) either just went on their round and fired into cover, or might hold their action and attack those that tried to cover more ground by going in the open to a closer trench. The former worked as the rules indicated. For the latter, it was not really worth it given it was a PC + up to 2 extras vs. just shooting them on full auto.

            But I think they might have hesitated if they would have had to enter a zone of bullets as (in this case, blaster fire) and chose just to keeping to the trenches to work their way forward.

            Jeffrey...
            Left is Death!

            Comment


            • Lord Lance
              Lord Lance commented
              Editing a comment
              I love this creation of mine. Works like a charm in my games:
              http://archive.pegforum.com/viewtopi...430108#p430108

            • DoctorBoson
              DoctorBoson commented
              Editing a comment
              I've got a solution for that up on my Savage Everything blog. The short version is that it functions as written with two exceptions: a raise on the Shooting roll puts the victims' Spirit rolls at –2, and a success on the Spirit roll leaves the victim Distracted (–2 to Trait rolls, per Savage Worlds Black). Victims require a raise on Spirit to be wholly unaffected, and a failure still leaves them Shaken as well as Distracted (1 on the Spirit die also means getting hit). I also include a mechanic for maintaining Suppressive Fire as well, but the above two tweaks really makes Suppressive Fire a viable tactic over just shooting at folks.

          • #26
            Originally posted by amerigoV View Post
            I would like to see Suppressive Fire revisited. Its always seemed underpowered. I was running a scenario where it was optimal to use and it really did not impact the battle. One simple fix might be either as default or as an option that the effect lasts for a full round.

            Let me give the example of what I was seeing. The map had a trench that was a switchback - much like a meandering stream. So you could take the long, slow way and keep to some cover in the trenches or you could risk getting there faster by risking running in the open to part of the trench that was closer to the objective. The suppressive fire-ers (in this case, the bad guys) either just went on their round and fired into cover, or might hold their action and attack those that tried to cover more ground by going in the open to a closer trench. The former worked as the rules indicated. For the latter, it was not really worth it given it was a PC + up to 2 extras vs. just shooting them on full auto.

            But I think they might have hesitated if they would have had to enter a zone of bullets as (in this case, blaster fire) and chose just to keeping to the trenches to work their way forward.
            I got to run the scenario ago. In this case Suppression Fire was particularly brutal because (1) an inordinate number of 1s on the Spirit (PCs and Extras) and (2) the group never moved from their initial spot so I could get most of the group with one roll (and there were two heavy MGs available to suppress). Fun was had by all (well, me - but that's really the point isnt it? )
            Jeffrey...
            Left is Death!

            Comment


            • #27
              I personally think that having a "caster" (AB Edge) roll vs. the damage (in die points) to not drop all his maintained spells is ludicrous - I'd rather see the roll be just a TN=4 Arcane roll, modified by the number of Wounds (after Soaking) in the attack that's going to cause the disruption, and modified (as usual) by current number of Wounds/Fatigue. Success means all maintained Powers stay maintained.
              Savage Summaries-RAW, with added info from Clint:Combat Actions,Cover,Healing,Using Powers,Grappling,Chases
              Also:Persuasion,Better Bosses,Better Combat Rating
              And:historical tech levels,generic SW sci-fi tech levels

              Comment


              • Lord Lance
                Lord Lance commented
                Editing a comment
                Agreed. Actually I'm using TN=4 for every Shaken result, with a penalty of -2 to the skill if the Shaken (or Shaken + Wounds, obviously) came from Damage. This works like a charm.

            • #28
              My List:

              I will note that there's a list of what I call "Trait Die Exceptions" that continually seem to catch newer players off-guard, and are often even forgotten about by old hands. These are the special cases where a 1 on the Skill die causes a negative effect that trumps the usual rules for the Wild Die:

              1: Persuasion Reaction Table
              2: Arcane Skill
              3: Shooting if a potential Bystander is around
              4: Fear/Nausea checks
              5: I'm sure there's more that aren't coming to mind right away.

              At the very least, a small list of these exceptions in the rules describing the Wild Die mechanic would probably be useful.

              *****************

              Poison and Venom, at the very least, need an entry for Onset Time, ranging from rounds to hours. This, to me, is more important than dialing down the lethality of poison. Poison SHOULD be deadly and terrifying, if you lack antivenom (Healing Skill) or suitable magic to prevent it from kicking in.

              ******************

              Opposed rolls. I'd like to see this set as the Defender setting the TN after the Active character makes their roll (thereby eliminating the issues that come up with ties for binary contests). The exception for this would be situations where both characters are considered the Active character (ie, wrestling for control of the Amulet of Doom).

              Comment


              • Freemage
                Freemage commented
                Editing a comment
                ZenFox: Yeah, that's the other bit--sometimes the wild die still lets you succeed, other times it doesn't--it's just kind of a mishmosh. And lord that's a long, very specific list of specifics. Thanks for putting it up.

              • Gordon
                Gordon commented
                Editing a comment
                I'm against any new in-game tables. The less tables the better. One of my groups has dipped their toes into Genesys, and the number of tables in that game are ridiculous for a modern RPG.

              • Freemage
                Freemage commented
                Editing a comment
                Gordon: None of mine really require a new table; the poison bit would be an amendment to an existing table, adding one more column for Onset Time, the list of Wild Die exceptions could be put in prose form--just a list with parenthetical page-numbers would do--and the Opposed Rolls piece would just be part of that section of text.

            • #29
              Regarding taking Free Actions that require rolls and how they affect the MAP for Regular Actions, it's clear from HERE that they don't. But in the SWD, under multiple actions, it says (emphasis added) "Each additional action attempted in a round subtracts 2 from all the hero’s rolls." and possibly (in SWEX? which I don't have) "multiple actions inflict penalties on all rolls the player makes in the round" which makes it sound like they do. This should be re-worded.
              Savage Summaries-RAW, with added info from Clint:Combat Actions,Cover,Healing,Using Powers,Grappling,Chases
              Also:Persuasion,Better Bosses,Better Combat Rating
              And:historical tech levels,generic SW sci-fi tech levels

              Comment


              • Lord Lance
                Lord Lance commented
                Editing a comment
                Mmmm... a recent discussion on Google+ made me dubious about those rules. I always ruled that Free Actions suffered the MAP (while not inflicting it). But I start to think they don't inflict and they don't suffer MAP at all. Is my brain burning?

              • ValhallaGH
                ValhallaGH commented
                Editing a comment
                Lord Lance, your brain is burning. They suffer MAP but they don't inflict it. Not sure why you're doubting that.

              • Lord Lance
                Lord Lance commented
                Editing a comment
                ValhallaGH I always thought that thing you are saying, ie. Free Actions suffer MAP but they don't inflict it.
                However, here a recent PEGClint post, saying the opposite: https://www.pegforum.com/forum/offic...ctions-and-map
                Posted by yshi: I know free actions do not increment Multi-Action Penalties, but it appears to be a little foggy as to whether they may still be subject to them.
                Clint's answer: Free actions don't suffer Multi-Action Penalties.
                So, apparently, Free Actions don't inflict MAP, neither they don't suffer about that (apologies in advance if they are talking about some specific Rift rule, I haven't that book).
                Even after about ten years of S.W., I still need to learn something "new"...
                And/or this could be another interesting thing to better clarify in the new Black ed.

                So, let's say I have a character with Quick Draw and Extraction edges. That character in his turn wants to Run + Ready 2 long swords + Attack an Enemy + ending the run away from the enemy Withdrawing from Melee. I always ruled that all the rolls involved were at -2, included the two Agility rolls needed to readying a couple of weapons and for withdrawing with no "counterattack". From what I read, the attack should suffer the -2, while the 2 free action Agility rolls should have no penalties at all. (and I hope to have written a good example...)

            • #30
              This disruption rules scale poorly with high toughness and armor (if the check is against ANY damage received. Maybe I'm wrong in that reading) For example, a mighty space wizard with 30 some toughness would lose powers most of the time when getting hit with 10 damage.

              Brainstorming: I think being damage requiring a skill check to maintain powers is more elegant. Maybe throw in, "at -2 if the damage is greater than half toughness".

              Our group has been house-ruling disruption at damage greater than toughness and most are using the no-power point rules for casting.

              Comment


              • Mara
                Mara commented
                Editing a comment
                Yes our house-rule works like what Freemage described. We are playing high powered games right now, so being shaken would be basically an auto-fail to maintain powers. I think our weakest caster has 21 toughness, which even his d12+4 would auto-fail. Under our house-rule, when he takes 30 damage, he must roll against a 9 (and is probably soaking two wounds).

                It's go to know that when damage doesn't effect you that it can't disrupt.

              • ZenFox42
                ZenFox42 commented
                Editing a comment
                And in the version I suggested above (on this page), in Freemage's example the TN would be 4 (Shaken=0 Wounds), and in Mara's example the TN would be 6 (4 + 2 Wounds).

              • Lord Lance
                Lord Lance commented
                Editing a comment
                I totally changed that rule. In my campaigns Disruption is rolled with Arcane Skill, vs. TN 4 (if Shaken, or worse), and at -2 if the Shaken was inflicted by a damage. Stop. Power Users aren't overpowered, if they lose their powers almost every time they are shaken or wounded, they become sad characters/villains.
            Working...
            X