Dark Gate OOC Thread
- Thread starter Tassadar
- Start date
Ubberific
Tentacle God
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2012
- Messages
- 6,640
- Reputation score
- 27
Re: Dark Gate OOC Thread
But perma-stunlocks are trouble nevertheless, just feels off to win with a single spellcast.
Always nice to have someone to bounce thoughts off ^,^
Though I still stand strong on the upkeep change. If you're using a spell THAT powerful to subdue a freakin Lord or Boss. BY joe, that upkeep has to reflect it. It's a insanely intense spell the PC is using to hold down the enemy
Hardly something that should take minor effort to upkeep.
Hm... It's true I only thought about light bindings not the heavy duty restraining stuff. Guess it's my bias for the heroines/heroes to always have a chance to escape. And most gm's will probably give the characters proper adjustments whenever they should be able to escape or find some way to get themeselves out of the flat DC outside of simple struggles.
But perma-stunlocks are trouble nevertheless, just feels off to win with a single spellcast.
Always nice to have someone to bounce thoughts off ^,^
Though I still stand strong on the upkeep change. If you're using a spell THAT powerful to subdue a freakin Lord or Boss. BY joe, that upkeep has to reflect it. It's a insanely intense spell the PC is using to hold down the enemy
Hardly something that should take minor effort to upkeep.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2008
- Messages
- 11,998
- Reputation score
- 431
Re: Dark Gate OOC Thread
I repeat what I said earlier: Taking prisoners shouldn't be too hard. For the same 12 or 18 EP, you can just use Gorgon's gaze to get rid of the enemy all together.Hm... It's true I only thought about light bindings not the heavy duty restraining stuff. Guess it's my bias for the heroines/heroes to always have a chance to escape. And most gm's will probably give the characters proper adjustments whenever they should be able to escape or find some way to get themeselves out of the flat DC outside of simple struggles.
Always nice to have someone to bounce thoughts off ^,^
Though I still stand strong on the upkeep change. If you're using a spell THAT powerful to subdue a freakin Lord or Boss. BY joe, that upkeep has to reflect it. It's a insanely intense spell the PC is using to hold down the enemy
Hardly something that should take minor effort to upkeep.
Ubberific
Tentacle God
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2012
- Messages
- 6,640
- Reputation score
- 27
Re: Dark Gate OOC Thread
But if such spell exists it doesn't make it any less *cough* broken.
So how about not 10% but still somekinda penalty to the original DC check. Not enough for the character to rapidly free themselves, but enough to create the possibility of it with enough effort.
If men dig out their cells with spoons, who says bindings are forever
Don't hit me!
Nmeeh... really don't want to prod, but discussion is hardly ever a bad thing.
But if such spell exists it doesn't make it any less *cough* broken.
So how about not 10% but still somekinda penalty to the original DC check. Not enough for the character to rapidly free themselves, but enough to create the possibility of it with enough effort.
If men dig out their cells with spoons, who says bindings are forever
Don't hit me!
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2009
- Messages
- 2,179
- Reputation score
- 279
Re: Dark Gate OOC Thread
How about GM discretion on this proposed rule? Obviously the lady in the pillory can't exactly free herself, but what if she had a friend who's trying to set her free? The lock may still be too much, but the friend could then try to damage the whole thing. This would result in a lower DC for escape.
How about GM discretion on this proposed rule? Obviously the lady in the pillory can't exactly free herself, but what if she had a friend who's trying to set her free? The lock may still be too much, but the friend could then try to damage the whole thing. This would result in a lower DC for escape.
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2011
- Messages
- 2,151
- Reputation score
- 310
Re: Dark Gate OOC Thread
I already give a number of roll bonuses/penalties when I feel it's applicable to a situation, personally. GMs have a lot of freedom in Dark Gate, although it's not detailed overly much in the rules.
Also, there used to be a rule where the losing side on a grapple of any sort would gain a stacking +5 bonus until they escaped which lasted until the end of the encounter (this could easily be extended to resistance for binding). I don't wholly recall what happened with that as an official rule, I think it was done away with when rape fatigue damage came into play, but a GM could theoretically still use that if they liked in a situation where an enemy shouldn't remain easily captured without a bit of a beat-down first (obviously, courtesy would be to inform the player of the home-ruling before it happens, but yeah).
I don't wholly agree with the need for this as a hard rule, myself. As an assistant GM, I might home rule that bosses and juggernauts get large, cumulative bonuses to breaking free of bindings until they're beaten unconscious, but at the same time I tend to stat my own boss monsters for threads and they tend to be incredibly durable at the price of dealing lower amounts of damage less reliably. As noted, the damage that can be done with the same amount of EP that safely binding an angel requires with, say, a touch hellfire blast deals 102-187 damage. The amount of EP required to 100% bind an unbuffed angel is only 2 lower than the amount of EP necessary to 100% instantly kill one with Gorgon's Gaze.
Not a bad suggestion, I just personally don't agree with the need for it.
As far as emanation and AoEs go: I think those are two cases where mechanical balance has to beat out fluff a bit. Attacks that automatically hit, even if it makes fluff sense for it to do so, take a lot of the threat out of combat. In DG2 there were a few mages running around empowered AoEing everything that moved in order to avoid dealing with grapple and attack rolls, IIRC. So, I can understand the need for it to go, I'm just hoping that maybe an attack bonus can take its place 'cause character benefit bias. >.>
And, really, the GM can easily fluff that a dodging character dodged out of the way of the blast without needing it to be an official mechanic.
Finally, something I forgot to bring up previously:
"Note: EV cannot decrease Speed below 1, and also cannot decrease Base Casting or Spirit Ceiling below 3."
I think I disagree with the Base Casting and Spirit Ceiling minimum as it stands. It devalues disciplined wielder and armored mage to some extent (a person with a spirit ceiling of 10, 3 after plate EV penalty because of the minimum, would have 5 ceiling with disciplined wielder). Plus, if a character has that much of an EV penalty and is still relying on their base casting and spirit ceiling then it's sort of their fault. Also, it makes it less possible to play a paladin psyker whose lay on hands always run the risk of doing horrible things to them and those around them. >.>
Maybe drop it to 1 for psykers (i.e. a character with psyker and severe EV penalties can use up to 3 EP maximum, regardless, in order to avoid any conditionals when dropping below 1 ceiling) and allow it to run negative for people without psyker?
I already give a number of roll bonuses/penalties when I feel it's applicable to a situation, personally. GMs have a lot of freedom in Dark Gate, although it's not detailed overly much in the rules.
Also, there used to be a rule where the losing side on a grapple of any sort would gain a stacking +5 bonus until they escaped which lasted until the end of the encounter (this could easily be extended to resistance for binding). I don't wholly recall what happened with that as an official rule, I think it was done away with when rape fatigue damage came into play, but a GM could theoretically still use that if they liked in a situation where an enemy shouldn't remain easily captured without a bit of a beat-down first (obviously, courtesy would be to inform the player of the home-ruling before it happens, but yeah).
I don't wholly agree with the need for this as a hard rule, myself. As an assistant GM, I might home rule that bosses and juggernauts get large, cumulative bonuses to breaking free of bindings until they're beaten unconscious, but at the same time I tend to stat my own boss monsters for threads and they tend to be incredibly durable at the price of dealing lower amounts of damage less reliably. As noted, the damage that can be done with the same amount of EP that safely binding an angel requires with, say, a touch hellfire blast deals 102-187 damage. The amount of EP required to 100% bind an unbuffed angel is only 2 lower than the amount of EP necessary to 100% instantly kill one with Gorgon's Gaze.
Not a bad suggestion, I just personally don't agree with the need for it.
As far as emanation and AoEs go: I think those are two cases where mechanical balance has to beat out fluff a bit. Attacks that automatically hit, even if it makes fluff sense for it to do so, take a lot of the threat out of combat. In DG2 there were a few mages running around empowered AoEing everything that moved in order to avoid dealing with grapple and attack rolls, IIRC. So, I can understand the need for it to go, I'm just hoping that maybe an attack bonus can take its place 'cause character benefit bias. >.>
And, really, the GM can easily fluff that a dodging character dodged out of the way of the blast without needing it to be an official mechanic.
Finally, something I forgot to bring up previously:
"Note: EV cannot decrease Speed below 1, and also cannot decrease Base Casting or Spirit Ceiling below 3."
I think I disagree with the Base Casting and Spirit Ceiling minimum as it stands. It devalues disciplined wielder and armored mage to some extent (a person with a spirit ceiling of 10, 3 after plate EV penalty because of the minimum, would have 5 ceiling with disciplined wielder). Plus, if a character has that much of an EV penalty and is still relying on their base casting and spirit ceiling then it's sort of their fault. Also, it makes it less possible to play a paladin psyker whose lay on hands always run the risk of doing horrible things to them and those around them. >.>
Maybe drop it to 1 for psykers (i.e. a character with psyker and severe EV penalties can use up to 3 EP maximum, regardless, in order to avoid any conditionals when dropping below 1 ceiling) and allow it to run negative for people without psyker?
xivvix
Lurker
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2008
- Messages
- 2,286
- Reputation score
- 69
Re: Dark Gate OOC Thread
I feel that emanations should never require an attack roll, since there is no way to "dodge" a field that simply extends from a certain point and touches everything between its center and its radius. If you really feel like there should be a way for creatures to avoid taking damage, then perhaps a resistance roll would work. Fluff explanations could be that the creature is simply strong willed enough to throw off the caster's magic, or natural magical immunity is becoming common due to the prevalence of unnatural invaders, etc.
An alternate suggestion is to lower the damage on emanations. Since an emanation does 1d8 + X/8, and a bolt does 2d4 + X/6, there isn't a large difference between them until X starts to get very high (ex. Mind = 40, emanation does 6-13, bolt does 8-14). Maybe halving the damage dice, or reducing the mind bonus would bring emanation damage more into line with being able to hit multiple targets without attack rolls. For example, 1d4 + X/8 with Mind = 40 means the spell does 6-9 damage, while 1d8 + X/12 means the spell does 4-11 damage.
Cone and ball spells, on the other hand can be dodged, so I can see those requiring an attack roll, though I feel if the spell is directly targeted at one opponent, that opponent should have a penalty to dodge. The direct target would have to move father to avoid the spell than any incidental targets.
I feel that emanations should never require an attack roll, since there is no way to "dodge" a field that simply extends from a certain point and touches everything between its center and its radius. If you really feel like there should be a way for creatures to avoid taking damage, then perhaps a resistance roll would work. Fluff explanations could be that the creature is simply strong willed enough to throw off the caster's magic, or natural magical immunity is becoming common due to the prevalence of unnatural invaders, etc.
An alternate suggestion is to lower the damage on emanations. Since an emanation does 1d8 + X/8, and a bolt does 2d4 + X/6, there isn't a large difference between them until X starts to get very high (ex. Mind = 40, emanation does 6-13, bolt does 8-14). Maybe halving the damage dice, or reducing the mind bonus would bring emanation damage more into line with being able to hit multiple targets without attack rolls. For example, 1d4 + X/8 with Mind = 40 means the spell does 6-9 damage, while 1d8 + X/12 means the spell does 4-11 damage.
Cone and ball spells, on the other hand can be dodged, so I can see those requiring an attack roll, though I feel if the spell is directly targeted at one opponent, that opponent should have a penalty to dodge. The direct target would have to move father to avoid the spell than any incidental targets.
Tiffanian
Smut Slut
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2011
- Messages
- 6,208
- Reputation score
- 214
Re: Dark Gate OOC Thread
You sure do love nerfing shit I build characters around, don't you?
dorl
Demon Girl Master
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2011
- Messages
- 193
- Reputation score
- 5
Re: Dark Gate OOC Thread
Soo in the Character Creation Thread Tassadar mentions something about character's spreadsheet. I did not find any, so I whipped this little thingie. It's really basic (it does the math for secondary attributes but you have to manually input your modifications), but saves a bit of time (as well as I personally find working on a spreadsheet easier, clearer).
There's of course the possibility that DG spreadsheet exists, but I'm just to blind to find it on my own.
In case it doesn't, feel free to use this one. At the moment I'm writing this, I'm thinking about some improvements already, so I might post an updated version. Or not.
Thoughts?
Ps. Every calculation should be alright, but I'm not a machine, so feel free to correct me if I made a mistake.
Pps. The file is of .xlsx extension.
Soo in the Character Creation Thread Tassadar mentions something about character's spreadsheet. I did not find any, so I whipped this little thingie. It's really basic (it does the math for secondary attributes but you have to manually input your modifications), but saves a bit of time (as well as I personally find working on a spreadsheet easier, clearer).
There's of course the possibility that DG spreadsheet exists, but I'm just to blind to find it on my own
.In case it doesn't, feel free to use this one. At the moment I'm writing this, I'm thinking about some improvements already, so I might post an updated version. Or not.
Thoughts?
Ps. Every calculation should be alright, but I'm not a machine, so feel free to correct me if I made a mistake.
Pps. The file is of .xlsx extension.
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2011
- Messages
- 2,151
- Reputation score
- 310
Re: Dark Gate OOC Thread
I'm suggesting some buffs to grapple skills. My reason is that, given the way the rest of DG has evolved since I originally proposed them, they're a bit gimmicky and as a whole, per round, probably one of the lowest damaging single target set of skills available while taking an upwards of 2 rounds to set up.
Slam (Activated) - When the character has the target in a grapple, they may choose to make an attack at 2d12 + Body/2 damage. The target must make a resistance check against the character or be stunned. If the target is in a submission hold the character gains a +8 bonus to the resistance check. In addition, they may trade grapple modifier to damage at a 1:2 ratio (IE: for every point of grapple that they sacrifice, they deal an additional 2 damage) with a 10 point cap. Requires Grapple Expert.
Fling (Activated) - The character throws a grappled opponent, or a willing ally, a short distance at another target. Deals 3d6 + Body/3 damage to both targets. Both the creature being thrown and the one being hit must win a Resistance check against the character or be knocked Prone. If the flung target was in a submission hold they automatically fail the resistance check. This skill has a 15 foot range. Requires Grapple Expert.
Stranglehold (Activated) - When the character has a target in a grapple, they may forsake all other actions for that round in order to make a grapple check at a -4 penalty against their target. If the target is in a submission hold, the -4 penalty becomes a +4 bonus. If the character wins, they deal the difference between the check in damage to the target's Resistance. When the target’s Resistance hits 0, they are knocked unconscious. Requires Grapple Expert.
These changes would mean that the necessary setup time is 1 round instead of 2, there's still a benefit to putting targets in a submission hold, and juggernauts are slightly less vulnerable to being choked out. Plus, it means that one of the best spells for attempting to stranglehold angels and nightmare lords isn't blessing anymore, but rather dark armor or fell might. >.>
I'm suggesting some buffs to grapple skills. My reason is that, given the way the rest of DG has evolved since I originally proposed them, they're a bit gimmicky and as a whole, per round, probably one of the lowest damaging single target set of skills available while taking an upwards of 2 rounds to set up.
Slam (Activated) - When the character has the target in a grapple, they may choose to make an attack at 2d12 + Body/2 damage. The target must make a resistance check against the character or be stunned. If the target is in a submission hold the character gains a +8 bonus to the resistance check. In addition, they may trade grapple modifier to damage at a 1:2 ratio (IE: for every point of grapple that they sacrifice, they deal an additional 2 damage) with a 10 point cap. Requires Grapple Expert.
Fling (Activated) - The character throws a grappled opponent, or a willing ally, a short distance at another target. Deals 3d6 + Body/3 damage to both targets. Both the creature being thrown and the one being hit must win a Resistance check against the character or be knocked Prone. If the flung target was in a submission hold they automatically fail the resistance check. This skill has a 15 foot range. Requires Grapple Expert.
Stranglehold (Activated) - When the character has a target in a grapple, they may forsake all other actions for that round in order to make a grapple check at a -4 penalty against their target. If the target is in a submission hold, the -4 penalty becomes a +4 bonus. If the character wins, they deal the difference between the check in damage to the target's Resistance. When the target’s Resistance hits 0, they are knocked unconscious. Requires Grapple Expert.
These changes would mean that the necessary setup time is 1 round instead of 2, there's still a benefit to putting targets in a submission hold, and juggernauts are slightly less vulnerable to being choked out. Plus, it means that one of the best spells for attempting to stranglehold angels and nightmare lords isn't blessing anymore, but rather dark armor or fell might. >.>
Last edited:
OP
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2008
- Messages
- 16,468
- Reputation score
- 430
- Thread Starter
- #1,072
Re: Dark Gate OOC Thread
As for making it easier or harder to avoid certain types of attacks, I've considered missed AoE attacks still dealing half damage, but have never actually moved on that idea. Removing Emanation's autohit wouldn't severely weakened it, it would just make Dodge-heavy monsters/PCs a little bit stronger. The same with Wind Armor: right now it's an extremely powerful spell at only level 3. Characters with Experienced Caster can use it to become nearly invulnerable if they want to abuse the rules hard enough. Making it not stop AoE attacks would not severely weaken it, but it would bring it more in line with a reasonable level 3 spell.
@The above discussion regarding decreasing DCs: that's something that I and many other GMs handle in the moment. A great many mechanics in DG are left up to the GM, and that would be one of them. As for fixing Gorgon's Gaze, I imagined increasing the DC and either upping the base cost, or limiting it so that it can't exceed Spirit Ceiling, or even 1/2 Spirit Ceiling. That, or treat it like Dominate and Charm and just make it a straight Res check for so much EP.
The problem in this case is more with the wording that I went with than anything else. The word "Dodge" is misleading, as I generally use it simply to indicate the character missing in any number of ways, usually having to do with whatever makes sense in character. For instance, I had Anthriel avoiding bullets not by physically dodging them, but by having her aura naturally deflect them away from her body harmlessly. In the same sense, I sometimes have magic attacks that miss mechanically simply get ignored by the one targeting them ala dragonball-z rather outright missing.
As for making it easier or harder to avoid certain types of attacks, I've considered missed AoE attacks still dealing half damage, but have never actually moved on that idea. Removing Emanation's autohit wouldn't severely weakened it, it would just make Dodge-heavy monsters/PCs a little bit stronger. The same with Wind Armor: right now it's an extremely powerful spell at only level 3. Characters with Experienced Caster can use it to become nearly invulnerable if they want to abuse the rules hard enough. Making it not stop AoE attacks would not severely weaken it, but it would bring it more in line with a reasonable level 3 spell.
I approve of this plan, as I felt that they were somewhat underpowered but didn't have time to devote to fixing them.
@The above discussion regarding decreasing DCs: that's something that I and many other GMs handle in the moment. A great many mechanics in DG are left up to the GM, and that would be one of them. As for fixing Gorgon's Gaze, I imagined increasing the DC and either upping the base cost, or limiting it so that it can't exceed Spirit Ceiling, or even 1/2 Spirit Ceiling. That, or treat it like Dominate and Charm and just make it a straight Res check for so much EP.
Shrike7
Lurker
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2008
- Messages
- 7,437
- Reputation score
- 102
Re: Dark Gate OOC Thread
ah, you're right, it was the monster template i kept skimming over. Ask Blarg, he's used the gun point thingie most recently of all i know, he's likely know. that's on top of the usual people, of course.
ah, you're right, it was the monster template i kept skimming over. Ask Blarg, he's used the gun point thingie most recently of all i know, he's likely know. that's on top of the usual people, of course.
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2009
- Messages
- 2,859
- Reputation score
- 254
Re: Dark Gate OOC Thread
It's... somewhere in the OOC thread. *searches*
There. http://www.ulmf.org/bbs/showpost.php?p=303901&postcount=782
Please for to stick that in the creation thread or somesuch Tass?
It's... somewhere in the OOC thread. *searches*
There. http://www.ulmf.org/bbs/showpost.php?p=303901&postcount=782
Please for to stick that in the creation thread or somesuch Tass?
OP
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2008
- Messages
- 16,468
- Reputation score
- 430
- Thread Starter
- #1,079
Re: Dark Gate OOC Thread
I think I was retarded when making the stats for guns for DG3.
Also, range increments have been suggested numerous times, and I wondered what you lot thought (other than Squid.) Basically, it would be similar to the Far Shot skill, but instead apply to all weapons. I think it might work like this:
1x < C < 2x == - 4 penalty, 2x < C < 3x == -8 penalty, 3x < C < 4x == -12 penalty, 4x < C < 5x == -16 penalty, and you can't fire farther than 5x the range increment. In this case, the Far Shot Skill would be changed to halve the penalties or somesuch.
Where x = the weapon's listed range and C = the current distance to the target. The penalties would apply to attack rolls only.
For you people who haven't been raped to death by college math, 1x < C > 2x means that the current range is greater than the weapon's listed range but less than twice the weapon's listed range.
In words: For each range increment past the first, the shooter takes a -4 penalty on attack rolls.
I think I was retarded when making the stats for guns for DG3.
BASE
Damage: 2d6, AV 0
Range: 10 ft
shots: 1
Reload: 1t
Points for construction
16 for two-handed; 12 for one-handed.
+1 ammo - 1 pt
10 ft rng - 1 pt
+1 dmg - 1 pt
+4 AV ignore - 1 pt
+1 dice (i.e. 2d6 to 3d6) - 2 pts
+1 dice step (i.e. 2d6 to 2d8) - 2 pts
+/-1 reload turns - -3/+3 pts
Badarian Handcannon
4d10, 30 foot range, 1 shot, 1 round reload, ignores 8 AV
+4 for dice, +4 for dice step, +2 for AV ignore. Totals to 10 points.
Badarian Revolver
2d8 + 4, 50 foot range, 5 shots, 2 round reload, ignores 4 AV
+2 for dice step, +4 for damage, +4 for range, +4 for more shots, +1 for AV ignore, -3 for slower reload. Totals to 12 points.
Su-Ku-Ta Wargun
3d6 + 4, 60 foot range, 3 shots, 2 round reload, ignores 8 AV
+2 for dice, +4 for damage, +5 for range, +2 for more shots, +2 for AV ignore, -6 for slower reload. Totals to 9 points.
Su-Ku-Ta Hand repeater:
2d8, 30 range, 6 rounds, ignores 4 AV
+2 for dice step, +2 for range, +1 AV ignore, +5 shots. Totals to 10 points.
Badarian Breach Loader
3d8 + 5, 60 foot range, 1 shot, 1 round reload, ignores 8 AV
+2 for dice, +2 for dice step, +5 for range, +2 for AV ignore. Totals to 11 points.
Badarian Lever Action Rifle
2d12 + 5, 50 foot range, 6 shots, 3 round reload, ignores 8 AV
+6 for dice steps, +4 for range, +5 for shots, +2 for AV ignore, -6 for slower reload. Totals to 11 points.
Badarian Shotgun
3d12 + 8, 30 foot range, 2 shots, 2 round reload
+2 for dice, +6 for dice steps, +2 for range, +1 for shots, -3 for slower reload. Totals to 8 points.
Su-Ku-Ta Sniper Rifle
4d10 + 1, 100 foot range, 1 shot, 3 round reload, ignores 16 AV
+4 for dice, +4 for dice steps, +1 for damage, +9 for range, +4 for AV ignore, -6 for slower reload. Totals to 16 points.
Su-Ku-Ta Bolt Action Rifle
4d6 + 6, 60 foot range, 5 shots, 3 round reload, ignores 12 AV
+4 for dice, +6 for damage, +5 for range, +4 for shots, +3 for AV ignore, -6 for slower reload. Totals to 16 points.
Su-Ku-Ta Assault Rifle
2d8 + 4, 30 foot range, 10 shots, 2 round reload, ignores 8 EV
+2 for dice step, +4 for damage, +2 for range, +9 for shots, +4 for AV ignore, -3 for slower reload. Totals to 18 points.
Hand Crossbow
4d6 + 3, 40 foot range, 1 shot, 1 round reload
+4 for dice, +3 for damage, +3 for range. Totals to 10 points.
Light Crossbow
3d6 + 10, 50 foot range, 1 shot, 1 round reload
+2 for dice, +10 for damage, +4 for range. Totals to 16 points.
Heavy Crossbow
3d8 + 9, 80 foot range, 1 shot, 2 round reload, ignores 4 AV
+2 for dice, +2 for dice step, +9 for damage, +7 for range, +1 for AV ignore, -3 for slower reload. Totals to 18 points.
Repeating Crossbow
3d6 + 7, 40 foot range, 8 shots, 2 round reload
+2 for dice, +7 for damage, +3 for range, +7 for shots, -3 for slower reload. Totals to 16 points.
Someone please checks this math. I really hope that I am off on these. If I'm not, it means that I was drunk when I made the weapons or something.
Damage: 2d6, AV 0
Range: 10 ft
shots: 1
Reload: 1t
Points for construction
16 for two-handed; 12 for one-handed.
+1 ammo - 1 pt
10 ft rng - 1 pt
+1 dmg - 1 pt
+4 AV ignore - 1 pt
+1 dice (i.e. 2d6 to 3d6) - 2 pts
+1 dice step (i.e. 2d6 to 2d8) - 2 pts
+/-1 reload turns - -3/+3 pts
Badarian Handcannon
4d10, 30 foot range, 1 shot, 1 round reload, ignores 8 AV
+4 for dice, +4 for dice step, +2 for AV ignore. Totals to 10 points.
Badarian Revolver
2d8 + 4, 50 foot range, 5 shots, 2 round reload, ignores 4 AV
+2 for dice step, +4 for damage, +4 for range, +4 for more shots, +1 for AV ignore, -3 for slower reload. Totals to 12 points.
Su-Ku-Ta Wargun
3d6 + 4, 60 foot range, 3 shots, 2 round reload, ignores 8 AV
+2 for dice, +4 for damage, +5 for range, +2 for more shots, +2 for AV ignore, -6 for slower reload. Totals to 9 points.
Su-Ku-Ta Hand repeater:
2d8, 30 range, 6 rounds, ignores 4 AV
+2 for dice step, +2 for range, +1 AV ignore, +5 shots. Totals to 10 points.
Badarian Breach Loader
3d8 + 5, 60 foot range, 1 shot, 1 round reload, ignores 8 AV
+2 for dice, +2 for dice step, +5 for range, +2 for AV ignore. Totals to 11 points.
Badarian Lever Action Rifle
2d12 + 5, 50 foot range, 6 shots, 3 round reload, ignores 8 AV
+6 for dice steps, +4 for range, +5 for shots, +2 for AV ignore, -6 for slower reload. Totals to 11 points.
Badarian Shotgun
3d12 + 8, 30 foot range, 2 shots, 2 round reload
+2 for dice, +6 for dice steps, +2 for range, +1 for shots, -3 for slower reload. Totals to 8 points.
Su-Ku-Ta Sniper Rifle
4d10 + 1, 100 foot range, 1 shot, 3 round reload, ignores 16 AV
+4 for dice, +4 for dice steps, +1 for damage, +9 for range, +4 for AV ignore, -6 for slower reload. Totals to 16 points.
Su-Ku-Ta Bolt Action Rifle
4d6 + 6, 60 foot range, 5 shots, 3 round reload, ignores 12 AV
+4 for dice, +6 for damage, +5 for range, +4 for shots, +3 for AV ignore, -6 for slower reload. Totals to 16 points.
Su-Ku-Ta Assault Rifle
2d8 + 4, 30 foot range, 10 shots, 2 round reload, ignores 8 EV
+2 for dice step, +4 for damage, +2 for range, +9 for shots, +4 for AV ignore, -3 for slower reload. Totals to 18 points.
Hand Crossbow
4d6 + 3, 40 foot range, 1 shot, 1 round reload
+4 for dice, +3 for damage, +3 for range. Totals to 10 points.
Light Crossbow
3d6 + 10, 50 foot range, 1 shot, 1 round reload
+2 for dice, +10 for damage, +4 for range. Totals to 16 points.
Heavy Crossbow
3d8 + 9, 80 foot range, 1 shot, 2 round reload, ignores 4 AV
+2 for dice, +2 for dice step, +9 for damage, +7 for range, +1 for AV ignore, -3 for slower reload. Totals to 18 points.
Repeating Crossbow
3d6 + 7, 40 foot range, 8 shots, 2 round reload
+2 for dice, +7 for damage, +3 for range, +7 for shots, -3 for slower reload. Totals to 16 points.
Someone please checks this math. I really hope that I am off on these. If I'm not, it means that I was drunk when I made the weapons or something.
Also, range increments have been suggested numerous times, and I wondered what you lot thought (other than Squid.) Basically, it would be similar to the Far Shot skill, but instead apply to all weapons. I think it might work like this:
1x < C < 2x == - 4 penalty, 2x < C < 3x == -8 penalty, 3x < C < 4x == -12 penalty, 4x < C < 5x == -16 penalty, and you can't fire farther than 5x the range increment. In this case, the Far Shot Skill would be changed to halve the penalties or somesuch.
Where x = the weapon's listed range and C = the current distance to the target. The penalties would apply to attack rolls only.
For you people who haven't been raped to death by college math, 1x < C > 2x means that the current range is greater than the weapon's listed range but less than twice the weapon's listed range.
In words: For each range increment past the first, the shooter takes a -4 penalty on attack rolls.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2008
- Messages
- 11,998
- Reputation score
- 431
Re: Dark Gate OOC Thread
I approve of this. Also, regarding the points for construction, I'd make raw damage a little cheaper, like 1.5 dmg for 1 point.
I approve of this. Also, regarding the points for construction, I'd make raw damage a little cheaper, like 1.5 dmg for 1 point.