1) The novice powers for some origins (Empath, Giant, Hawkoid, Hypercognitive, Plant, Rat Swarm, Speedster, Yeti) are Encounter powers, while the rest are At-Will. However, they all have a green title bar. Now, my brain, honed on years of D&D 4E, keeps telling me that these should all be at-wills, but I don't think that the error would be made so often.
2) The felinoid expert power Killing Bite has a special entry that reads as follows: "When charging, you can use this power in place of a melee basic attack." However, GW doesn't provide for charging, and even if it did, it doesn't specify that a melee basic attack should be used at the end of one.
My gut says that 1) is part of the game, while 2) needs to be errated. Let me know what you guys think.
I agree with you on 2) the power was probably written by someone who didn't realize charging had been cut. As a GM, I will certainly let people Charge in GW, though.
1) I'm not so sure of. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me for a novice power to be an Encounter. (For one thing, that'd just give a character with two such Origins startlingly little to do in most fights.) I think any playtesters or proofreaders would, like you, be looking first at the color of the bar. I didn't even notice it, for that reason.
I agree with you on 2) the power was probably written by someone who didn't realize charging had been cut. As a GM, I will certainly let people Charge in GW, though.
1) I'm not so sure of. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me for a novice power to be an Encounter. (For one thing, that'd just give a character with two such Origins startlingly little to do in most fights.) I think any playtesters or proofreaders would, like you, be looking first at the color of the bar. I didn't even notice it, for that reason.
Given it's basis in 4E, I didn't even notice the lack of charging.
I admit I skimmed the parts that were familiar. I'll allow any typical 4E-isms that make sense, including charging.
As for Encounter novice powers, I don't see the problem.
By the writing, it's clear that MBA/RBA are the expected norm.
The at-will powers are not much stronger than basic weapon attacks.
Cockroach is Con+Lvl vs Fort, 2d8+Con+2[Lvl] and push 1.
Heavy 2-hand melee weapon with an MBA is
Str/Con+Acc(2)+Lvl vs AC, 2d8+Str/Con+1[Lvl].
The Cockroach power is a bit more damage (equal to level) and push 1.
Better than MBA (as at-will powers normally are) but not a lot.
Now look at the Novice encounter powers. You have things like Close Burst 2 powers.
Giant has a burst 1 knock prone.
Those are NOT at-will powers. They are cool encounter powers, but otherwise you use an MBA or RBA (all guns are RBA, for instance).
Basic Attack does not equal useless in GW, unlike D&D.
1) I'm not so sure of. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me for a novice power to be an Encounter. (For one thing, that'd just give a character with two such Origins startlingly little to do in most fights.) I think any playtesters or proofreaders would, like you, be looking first at the color of the bar. I didn't even notice it, for that reason.
I noticed this when crafting a Yeti Hawkoid. It may simply be that the game assumes you make more normal weapon attacks than your average game of D&D. The weapon attacks are, after all, nearly as potent as the origin at-wills, if not moreso.
Played a game last Sat night and I ran into a similar problem with 2 origins that had ENCOUNTER novice powers. I was a Hypercognitive Speedster. So I had 2 attacks (neither of which seem encounter-power strength) then I was religated to running around (as much as I could as the maps were tiny) and throwing screwdrivers (my ranged weapon of choice) at the baddies.
The speedster power lets you shift before the attack and if you hit shift after the attack... other than that it is a regular weapon attack. I don't see how that isn't an at-will.
The Hypercognitive attack (again a weapon attack power) still only hit one target and then you get CA on the target until next turn.
I would blow my 2 encounters then spend the rest of the fight not doing anything very interesting (unless I drew a good alpha or omega... which then game me 1 or 2 fun things to do).
I wonder if Charging should be added back in, to me that was one of the big surprise deltas between GW and 4e basic.
I don't know...I'd argue no. The Felinoid power is the only thing that mentions it—no other powers, no Alpha Mutations, nothing. So it makes more sense to change one power then to add a whole new mechanic.
There's always been a slight problem with charging in 4E. What charging really does is give you an extra move action, because you can in effect double-move and then attack. In D&D, this is balanced out by the fact that you're forced to use an MBA, when most characters would rather use their at-will powers. But with the increased weapon damage in GW, and the increased reliance on MBAs, perhaps the unbalanced aspects of charging became a bit more prominent?
P.S. If I ruled the world, I'd change Killing Bite so that you can shift half your speed before the attack.
GW is ranged attack heavy as it is, so a minor edge added to melee is no biggie.
Back onto the subject of Encounter Novice powers. How is the Empaths power an Encounter power? It has a range of 3... does no damage... weakens the enemy (somewhat usesful)... and grants 4 TEMP hp. This would be a pretty lame At-Will and yet it is an encounter power.
In my head Id let the player use WIS for Ranged attacks and CHA for melee attacks.
Or if he rolled the same attribute for his origins maybe giving him a 16 in any attribute he wanted.
Ideas?
The whole idea of Novice Encounter powers is odd to me. With the current table, you have about a 1 in 7 chance of making a character with no at-wills. I can't say I would want to play that character.
Having no at-wills may not be a bad design decision, but it certainly aint fun!
One thing that hasn't come up but has me worried for is a player that rolls up a strictly Wis/Cha character. Hyper/Empath would be the best example. The poor sap has 2 encounter powers and if he rolls poor on Light or Heavy attributes his basic attacks are gonna be terrible.
Then he's terrible.
Gamma World isn't about everyone being equally useful or competent in combat.
It's random. Worst case, I'd let them reroll if it was a real issue.
One thing that hasn't come up but has me worried for is a player that rolls up a strictly Wis/Cha character. Hyper/Empath would be the best example. The poor sap has 2 encounter powers and if he rolls poor on Light or Heavy attributes his basic attacks are gonna be terrible.
Then he's terrible.
Gamma World isn't about everyone being equally useful or competent in combat.
It's random. Worst case, I'd let them reroll if it was a real issue.
Yeah, he'll just die quicker. It's no big deal. If someone doesn't like the character they end up with, sure, let 'im reroll. But first make him admit "bawww, I'm a big crybaby" before allowing the reroll.
One thing that hasn't come up but has me worried for is a player that rolls up a strictly Wis/Cha character. Hyper/Empath would be the best example. The poor sap has 2 encounter powers and if he rolls poor on Light or Heavy attributes his basic attacks are gonna be terrible.
Then he's terrible.
Gamma World isn't about everyone being equally useful or competent in combat.
It's random. Worst case, I'd let them reroll if it was a real issue.
He could find some entertaining way to die, or maybe find some other way to be useful in combat than basic attacks. Kinda like an AD&D wizard who just launched his one spell.
A: Roll as specified
B: Take an array of 13 12 11 10 (14)
The array matches the original PHB array of 16 14 13 12 11 10, you then get +2 for each origin, making your 18 and 16. (If you got a 20, then you get the (14) on the array as well).
Thus no critical weaknesses and no flukey powerhouses.
The one house rule I'm using is that for secondary stats, you have a choice.
A: Roll as specified
B: Take an array of 13 12 11 10 (14)
The array matches the original PHB array of 16 14 13 12 11 10, you then get +2 for each origin, making your 18 and 16. (If you got a 20, then you get the (14) on the array as well).
Thus no critical weaknesses and no flukey powerhouses.
The problem is that the PHB array assumes you're going to roll 4d6 drop lowest, arrange as you like, and thus gives an average of 11.5.
But Gamma World assumes you're rolling 3d6, in order. That averages out to 10.5. So you could drop the array down to 12, 11, 10, 9 which has the same average. However, letting players choose where to place their stats is going to throw things off again.
So maybe say "for your secondary stats, roll 8 + 1d4" or maybe just drop the array another point and let them arrange as desired: 11, 10, 9, 8.
In Gamma World, having low stats is not really a big handicap. My housemate's favorite character (well, one of them) had a 3 Int. He was a powerhouse. I think you're overthinking this by wanting to have PHB level of stats for GW characters.
The good news is that from what I've heard, the powerhouses are just as susceptible to dying as the weaklings. So just go with it until you die, and then roll up a new character. For people used to playing D&D, it's going to take a sec to get past the "horror" of crappy characters and dying. But it's part of the fun and the chaos of the game.
I think you're overthinking this by wanting to have PHB level of stats for GW characters.
ope, I'm going with Rule Of Fun.
Some people can easily have their fun impacted by some bad stat rolls, because they're bad rolls you're STUCK with.
For them, they can take an array, have some decent stats and not worry about it.
Others want more chaos. They can roll all they want
Yeah, I think we're getting a little bit too worried about balance. If Gamma Terra were real, and people were randomly getting mutations, they wouldn't all be created equal. Some people would be powerhouses, and some people would get the short end of the stick.
Yep, and Gamma World's prettymuch always been that way. Thus the classic 'hopeless character' rule. Heck by 1st-ed GW standards, all the characters in 7th are powerhouses. Two powers as good or better than weapon attack to start, an 18 and 16 (or a 20!), heal half your hit point every encounter, all of them between encounters - and /no defects/!
Anyway, it's always been a bit like high-speed evolution. Even if you didn't invoke the hopeless character rule, the crap characters would tend to die and be replaced fairly quickly. When they didn't, they'd often become quite memorable and fun...
Anyway, it's always been a bit like high-speed evolution. Even if you didn't invoke the hopeless character rule, the crap characters would tend to die and be replaced fairly quickly. When they didn't, they'd often become quite memorable and fun...
To me, that's enough of a reason to disallow the "hopeless character" rule at my table.
I think you're overthinking this by wanting to have PHB level of stats for GW characters.
ope, I'm going with Rule Of Fun.
Some people can easily have their fun impacted by some bad stat rolls, because they're bad rolls you're STUCK with.
For them, they can take an array, have some decent stats and not worry about it.
Others want more chaos. They can roll all they want
Hopeless characters are extra fun. If your players don't agree with this, you probably should reconsider playing Gamma World with them, because they WON'T enjoy the game with that kind of mindset.
That said, it's nearly impossible to roll up a truly hopeless character. There's a single pair of origins that could present a problem, and that's assuming that you don't get a fluke good score on your 3d6 rolls. Even then, your character will still be pretty competent (two good defenses including AC).
Gamma World very much minimalizes the effects of a few bad stats. Your 3d6 rolls will rarely make or break a character, and players who think they're doomed because they rolled a 5 just don't understand the game enough -- or they're letting their ego get in their way. ("I can't play a DUMB character!")
I'm liking the following right now:
If you get a character with 2 encounter powers your encounter power from your primary origin novice power becomes an At-Will.
Empath (Cha) -- Vitality Transfer
Giant (Str) -- Brickbat
Hawkoid (Wis) -- Terrifying Shriek
Hypercognitive (Wis) -- Uncanny Strike
Plant (Con) -- Lashing Creepers
Rat Swarm (Dex) -- Swarm!
Speedster (Dex) -- Quick Attack
Yeti (Str) -- Big Claws
Of those, the only ones which wouldn't be overpowering if used as at-wills are Uncanny Strike, Swarm!, and Quick Attack. The rest are too powerful for at-wills.
Note that anything with Str, Con, or Dex already has a good melee basic and ranged basic attack -- so we don't need to feel that sorry for them.
That just leaves the problem of the Charisma- and Wisdom-based origins: Empath, Hawkoid, and Hypercognitive. There's a 1.5% chance of rolling such a character (no at-will and not automatically good basic attacks), 12.5% chance of rolling a character with no at-wills and a good basic attacks, and a 14% chance overall of rolling a character without any at-wills.
For Hypercognitive you might want to allow them to use their power as an at-will. For Hawkoid and Empath, at-will isn't a good idea, so you might want to just let them reroll instead if they're unhappy or bored with their character. Or give them an extra Omega Tech draw at the start of the game.
For Hypercognitive you might want to allow them to use their power as an at-will. For Hawkoid and Empath, at-will isn't a good idea, so you might want to just let them reroll instead if they're unhappy or bored with their character. Or give them an extra Omega Tech draw at the start of the game.
Kudos on the math, but I think I'm going to stick with your earlier comment. If players are going to whine about randomness, or not getting good origins/cards, or not being as powerful or balanced as the guy sitting next to them, this game isn't for them. There are too many people trying to make this game D&D, and it's not. It's not designed to be 100% balanced. Post-apocalyptic is about survival, and part of that means learning how to be effective when you get dealt a lousy hand.
It might help to keep in mind that we're playing a game. That's supposed to be fun. This might just be me, but if someone at my table was upset because their character was underpowered, I'd wonder whether they were playing the game to have an enjoyable time, or just to get an ego boost.
Consider taking a moment to think about the possibility that what you feel is the 'right' way to play or the 'right' way to have fun is different for other people.
I really don't see how someone wanting to play Gamma World with some changes from the rules as written makes them any less worthy of playing it, or means that they shouldn't be playing Gamma World, or that it's somehow an indicator that they need some kind of external ego-stroke. Maybe - just maybe - they really like the setting or the art, or any number of other things about Gamma World, but they want to play in a way that is less random, less lethal, or that balances the relative power of all the characters at their table.
In short: there's no need to attack people for wanting to play the game differently than you do.
I do think that if someone is the type of player who "can easily have their fun impacted by some bad stat rolls, because they're bad rolls you're STUCK with," then Gamma World isn't a real good game for them. Gamma World is a game where nearly everything about your character is random.
Yeah, people can pay the game with whatever changes they want to make, but after a while it becomes a situation where they really aren't playing this game -- the one with out-of-control random nonsense -- and are playing something different entirely.
They're welcome to do that -- but again it's showing that this game, Gamma World, isn't really the game for them and never was.
That's not a personal attack, just an opinion, and I don't really like you painting me as someone who simply "attacked."
So let's pretend that I made exactly the same statement, but swap the word 'attack' with whetever language fits to carry across being dismissive and/or derisive of what others want out of Gamma World.
It seems clear to me that the game was written around that idea that characters would have random powers and unbalanced stats without breaking the game. I'm pretty damn confident that the game will run just fine with characters that have static powers and balanced stat lines as well.
Sometimes, my Gamma World games are going to be as zany as zany can get. Sometimes we're going to choose our origins (and mutations, and stats via an array, and starting omega tech) to match the ideas we may have for a character, and we're going to have a game with a very low level of zany and wacky. We'll still be playing Gamma World that whole time, regardless of what you (or anyone else) thinks is the 'real' or 'right' way to play Gamma World.
As far as I'm concerned, everyone playing Gamma World and having fun in the process is doing it right.
AFossDDI, I didn't attack anyone.
I do think that if someone is the type of player who "can easily have their fun impacted by some bad stat rolls, because they're bad rolls you're STUCK with," then Gamma World isn't a real good game for them. Gamma World is a game where nearly everything about your character is random.
The difference here is one of perception... but look at the random rolls you're "stuck" with.
You have origin - and there are no bad origins
You have ability scores - there certainly are bad ability scores.
You have a random skill - there are no bad skills.
That's it.
Every other random thing about your character GOES AWAY. Get saddled with Giant Feet and a teddy bear? Finish the encounter and you draw something new. Problem solved.
Gamma World is a game for anybody - saying otherwise smacks of elitism.
Randomness is not the point of the game. The point of the game is to have fun. If not having to roll stats (while still doing EVERY other random thing) is what it takes for someone to have fun... what's the problem?
Because ultimately your ability scores won't make much of a difference anyway, and a bad score makes for a much more interesting character than one with a guaranteed "average array" or all "good" scores.
Because ultimately your ability scores won't make much of a difference anyway, and a bad score makes for a much more interesting character than one with a guaranteed "average array" or all "good" scores.
No, a bade score does NOT make for a more interesting character.
Bifff the Mighteee can be just as interesting (i.e. not at all) no matter what his scores are.
What makes an interesting character is an interesting PLAYER.
If someone's fun will be ruined by a bad roll, do you really think forcing them to play that out is going to result in a virtuoso performance? That's what you're saying here, you realize.
Gamma World is a game for anybody - saying otherwise smacks of elitism.
Also, no, saying that not all games are going to appeal to every person isn't some kind of elitism. There are plenty of people for whom Gamma World will hold very little appeal, and there's no single game that can be guaranteed to have universal appeal.
Remember that in the rules-as-written, you're not only discouraged from having control over your character concept, you're actively mocked in the game text.
Page 29, for example:
What mutations does your character possess? Is he or she strong, agile or brilliant? [...] It's all up to you.
Well ... not exactly. Now that you have your ideal character fixed firmly in your mind, pick up some dice and start rolling to see what sort of bizarre freak you're ACTUALLY going to play.
Sorry, that's life in Gamma Terra.
Now that you understand how it is, here are the rules for building a character to explore this dangerous world.
Page 35:
If you really want to play something specific, ask your Game Master if you can pick your origins. But you're a big chicken.
I can easily see people reading those rules and deciding "you know, that's just not the game for me; I don't like that much randomness in my game." I can see other people going "well, screw it, I'm going to ignore that rule and any other rule I don't like," and while it's certainly their option to do so, it seems an odd starting point to use in a non-random game, given that the game itself insults (attacks?) you if you don't like random character generation.
If I don't like chess because it has no dice, I could go ahead and add in random rolls somewhere. Does that mean chess is a good game for me to play now? ("A pawn moves 1d4 squares forward. When attacking, each side makes an opposed 1d20 roll with +1 for pawns up to +10 for queens; highest roll wins.") Am I still playing chess?
Because ultimately your ability scores won't make much of a difference anyway, and a bad score makes for a much more interesting character than one with a guaranteed "average array" or all "good" scores.
No, a bade score does NOT make for a more interesting character.
Bifff the Mighteee can be just as interesting (i.e. not at all) no matter what his scores are.
What makes an interesting character is an interesting PLAYER.
If someone's fun will be ruined by a bad roll, do you really think forcing them to play that out is going to result in a virtuoso performance? That's what you're saying here, you realize.
If someone's fun is going to be ruined by a bad roll, they're probably playing the wrong game. (Which is what I've been saying all along.)
Sure, you can ignore everything that might give you bad rolls or annoying random chances or whatever, but why bother? When you have to put up safety cushions for players who can't handle a bad roll, that's a sign that maybe the very random and chaotic Gamma World game might not be what they'd have the most fun playing.
d20 rolls might piss someone off too. I've had many players get frustrated because they kept missing their attacks in 4e. Should I have instituted an auto-hit rule, or should I have just told them that sometimes the dice go in their favor and sometimes they don't?
The one valid complaint I can see a player coming up with about low ability scores and skills is that the skill table favors Int and Wis origins. The ratio of ability/Origin is fairly even, but not so in the skills department. Thus I can see being unlucky on ability score rolls could make them feel less able to contribute to the group's success as a whole, as powers and attacks are primarily a wash. The issue is compounded if the random skill also uses a "bad" ability score.
# of Skills by Key Ability
Str: 1
Con: 0
Dex: 2
Int: 3
Wis: 3
Cha: 1
# of Origins by Key Ability
Power:
Str: 3
Con: 4
Dex: 3
Int: 3
Wis: 4
Cha: 3
That said, I'm still in favor of the random stat rolling. In fact, I have one player that prefers to use arrays, and may initially have an issue with this. However I am counting on the setting and other mechanics to help him get over this hurdle.
If I don't like chess because it has no dice, I could go ahead and add in random rolls somewhere. Does that mean chess is a good game for me to play now? ("A pawn moves 1d4 squares forward. When attacking, each side makes an opposed 1d20 roll with +1 for pawns up to +10 for queens; highest roll wins.") Am I still playing chess?
Gamma Chess
d20 rolls might piss someone off too. I've had many players get frustrated because they kept missing their attacks in 4e. Should I have instituted an auto-hit rule, or should I have just told them that sometimes the dice go in their favor and sometimes they don't?
You're missing my point.
A bad attack roll? GOES AWAY. You make another one next turn.
A bad alpha mutation? GOES AWAY. You draw again after the encounter.
A bad ability score is TILL DEATH. It will never go away, get better or even change until you're dead, and then everything goes away. Including all the things you like.
To me, it's not a matter of randomness, it's a matter of duration.
Then again, right now I'm thinking in terms of Game Day, and the idea is for everyone to have fun while trying something new, and having someone think they suck (whether or not they do) will ruin the fun for everyone.
But enough about this, on to a more relevant topic.
Your character sheet is awesome. Just printed off 50 at work (heh).
OK, here's one really on topic.
Feliniod Novice Power - Slashing Claws
It's a standard action, at-will
But it does TWO attacks (vs Reflex!).
And if both hits, it's 2[W] and BLIND.
That's WAY powerful. More powerful than Speedster Quick Attack, for instance, and that's an Encounter. More powerful than Twin Strike, and CharOps knows how overpowered that is.
Do you think it was supposed to be an Encounter power?
(Conversely, I would make Quick Attack at-will, and Move instead of Shift)
...
OK, here's one really on topic.
Feliniod Novice Power - Slashing Claws
It's a standard action, at-will
But it does TWO attacks (vs Reflex!).
And if both hits, it's 2[W] and BLIND.
That's WAY powerful. More powerful than Speedster Quick Attack, for instance, and that's an Encounter. More powerful than Twin Strike, and CharOps knows how overpowered that is.
Do you think it was supposed to be an Encounter power?
(Conversely, I would make Quick Attack at-will, and Move instead of Shift)
It's not 2[W], it's 2d6 if both attack rolls hit, so the damage is on par with the other powers. However, the ability to blind is pretty strong, although it is situational in that it requires both attack rolls to hit. So until I see it in action, it's hard to say how strong it really is.
As for Speedster Quick Attack, the ability to shift 2 before the attack and 2 more on a hit is very strong. 4 free squares (granted 2 are situational) of non-OA movement is to powerful to allow as an at-will is my gut feeling. Changing to Move vs. Shift could be the solution, but I'll wait until my players bring it up before tweaking.
Part of the issue is that it targets Reflex... there's a lot less to buff NADs in GW than D&D. Minimal treasure, and no feats.
The main issue is that it's 2 attacks. As CharOps know, this increases your accuracy considerably.
It's +5 vs Reflex (assuming 18 Dex).
The majority of enemies in Game Day (Porkers) have Reflex 13. That's 8+ to hit, so 65%.
Times 2.
That's only a 12% chance to completely miss, better than 1 attack at Reflex + Level + 4
There's a 42% chance of 2 hits.
That's 7+4+2 = 13 times .42 = 5.46 average.
Plus 3.5+4+2 = 9.5 times .455 = 4.32, for a total average of 9.78 damage per round.
And 2 times out of 5, he's blinding the target
Now lets take an Android, also targetting Reflex at +5.
1d10=5.5+4+2=11.5 times .65 = 7.475 - considerably less.
It's the accuracy of 2 attack rolls that jacks up the damage. Even if it only did 1d6 on 2 hits, the average would still be 8.36
If you compare to a heavy 2 handed weapon (2d8) on a Str 18 character, vs AC 18 (heavy armor), which is 50% chance to hit, doing an average of 7 damage per round.
It's ranger Twin Strike, along with all those inherent problems.
- - -
Changing Quick Attack to Move instead of shift brings it close in line with Deft Strike
Then again, right now I'm thinking in terms of Game Day, and the idea is for everyone to have fun while trying something new, and having someone think they suck (whether or not they do) will ruin the fun for everyone.
The problem with this is the person who ruins the fun for everyone because they think they suck.
There's no way to get around that problem; there's no way to make a game that prevents someone from deciding they suck when they don't really suck, and thus ruining the game for everyone.
The problem is that person's attitude, not the game.
Then again, right now I'm thinking in terms of Game Day, and the idea is for everyone to have fun while trying something new, and having someone think they suck (whether or not they do) will ruin the fun for everyone.
The problem with this is the person who ruins the fun for everyone because they think they suck.
There's no way to get around that problem; there's no way to make a game that prevents someone from deciding they suck when they don't really suck, and thus ruining the game for everyone.
The problem is that person's attitude, not the game.
Elitist
"Always landing on your feet when you fall" isn't even close to "resist 5 physical." You have to consider the entire origin and what it lets you do, not just one of the powers. "Machine Powered" trait for Androids sucks compared to a Hawkoid's "Flight." "Vital Presence" for Empaths isn't nearly as cool as "Fiery Aura" for Pyrokinetics.
So there's more to the package than just the novice power.
The problem with this is the person who ruins the fun for everyone because they think they suck.
The problem is that person's attitude, not the game.
Elitist
You realize I am going to kill you in today's Gamma World game, right? Just so you know.
The problem with this is the person who ruins the fun for everyone because they think they suck.
The problem is that person's attitude, not the game.
Elitist
You realize I am going to kill you in today's Gamma World game, right? Just so you know.
Not if i beat you to it.
Not if i beat you to it.
Elitist photosynthesizer.
Not if i beat you to it.
Elitist photosynthesizer.
How dare you put me with the likes of you.
This game came with a rulebook, a 160-page instruction manual for how the game should be played. It didn't come with a card saying "Hey, it's post-apocalypse! Do whatever you want!" The first page doesn't say, "These are the rules, but feel free to substitute whatever you want if your players can't handle it." And yes, like was previously mentioned, there are even times when the rulebook calls you out for substituting rules.
I'm all for coming up with house-rules, but I'm not going to do it just because my players think things are too hard, or they're upset because they think they have a sub-optimal character. If I have trouble with a video game, I don't get to call Nintendo and tell them to change it because it's too hard. I either (a) man up and figure out a way to get through it, or (b) put it down and pick up another game.
The problem with this is the person who ruins the fun for everyone because they think they suck.
There's no way to get around that problem; there's no way to make a game that prevents someone from deciding they suck when they don't really suck, and thus ruining the game for everyone.
The problem is that person's attitude, not the game.
Elitist
Guess I'm an elitist then. I was perfectly happy with my Dumb-as-a-Stone Radioactive Yeti. He had an Int of 3, so he was really just a trained animal.
Seriously, the game deliberately gives you an 18 and a 16 in the stats your origin powers use. If you still think you suck after that, its an attitude problem of some sort, or you're a moron for taking ranged/melee waepons that don't fit those two stats.
if I then have to change a bunch of rules
Since when did "You can take a minor array instead of rolling" become "a bunch" of rules?
It's ONE thing, it's fairly minor, and it's actually a lot less significant than "choose your origins" which is explicitly allowed (albeit mocked).
What gets me is that nobody is jumping on and criticizing the people in other threads who want to let people pick permanent alpha mutations, eliminate alpha flux, choose origins, roll 4-5d6 for stats and otherwise eliminate most of the randomness from the game.
I'm the ONLY person who has been criticized for a house rule on this forum, and I really don't understand why. It's really upsetting to be singled out like this.
So why are you all picking on me?
I let my players charge. So clearly I'm not playing Gamma World.
I'm the ONLY person who has been criticized for a house rule on this forum, and I really don't understand why. It's really upsetting to be singled out like this.
So why are you all picking on me?
Some of us are not picking on you. We have instead chosen to stay out of the conversation because, well, any argument over how to play a game is basically a waste of everyone's time.
What gets me is that nobody is jumping on and criticizing the people in other threads who want to let people pick permanent alpha mutations, eliminate alpha flux, choose origins, roll 4-5d6 for stats and otherwise eliminate most of the randomness from the game.
That's what I've been trying to do. I don't have much of a problem with tweaking one or two things if, after playing a few games, you've decided it creates major problems at your table. But we're hearing people talk about all those things you mentioned, and the game's barely been out for a week. And much of it has been motivated by, "oh, my players won't like this," or, "that's too underpowered." IMO, that doesn't come from people trying to promote fun. That comes from people who don't like to play RPGs unless they can impress everyone else at the table (I acknowledge that people will disagree with me on this, and that there are exceptions).
I am trying to criticize those things you mentioned. To me, those people are trying to make Gamma World into a different, less "scary" game. Criticize, criticize, criticize.
I am trying to criticize those things you mentioned. To me, those people are trying to make Gamma World into a different, less "scary" game. Criticize, criticize, criticize.
My issue here is that I am the ONLY person being so criticized, and that I am being criticized over something so minor.
I say "Roll, or take a simple array" and there's 2 pages of criticism about how that's wrong, too powerful, against the spirit of the game, playing the game wrong, ego stroking and numerous other spurious accusations. Oh, and being told that how "interesting" a character turns out to be is a direct mechanical result of low ability scores (WTF?).
community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...
Tallyrand says "I'm letting people pick origins, or roll origins AND roll 5d6 for stats! Or mix and match!" which is way more powerful AND anti-random than my proposal.
Nobody has a thing to say to him about that. Oraibi, who is criticizing me for taking away one little bit of randomness, is in other threads offering suggestions on how to eliminate randomness. That's hypocritical at best.
I'm trying to see where "all" the things I mentioned are. The only thing I mentioned was allowing an array instead of rolls.
In summary - your criticism is valid, but your singling out only one person to criticize is unfair.
You guys made me blog.
Might what to adjust your privacy settings if you are going to link to your blog. Here is what I see:
Due to privacy restrictions, you cannot see this user's full profile.
community.wizards.com/doctorcomics/blog/...
You guys made me blog.
Might what to adjust your privacy settings if you are going to link to your blog. Here is what I see:
Due to privacy restrictions, you cannot see this user's full profile.
Have I mentioned yet how I dislike Wizards's blog, wiki, and forum UI?
Thank you both for helping me find the problem. Solved, with your help.
"Suck it up, you irradiated pansies!"
Kudos on the math, but I think I'm going to stick with your earlier comment. If players are going to whine about randomness, or not getting good origins/cards, or not being as powerful or balanced as the guy sitting next to them, this game isn't for them. There are too many people trying to make this game D&D, and it's not. It's not designed to be 100% balanced. Post-apocalyptic is about survival, and part of that means learning how to be effective when you get dealt a lousy hand.
It might help to keep in mind that we're playing a game. That's supposed to be fun. This might just be me, but if someone at my table was upset because their character was underpowered, I'd wonder whether they were playing the game to have an enjoyable time, or just to get an ego boost.
The issue that I have doesn't have a foot in balance or how powerful or underpowered your character is. It's that having at-wills that are more interesting than basic attacks will make the game more fun to play.
I thought one of the best design goals of 4E was to make the game more fun for everyone at the table and get away from a "Your character got screwed? Sorry, that's the game!" attitude. I'm surprised they didn't approach this Novice Power discrepancy in the same manner.
(Or maybe they did and didn't think it was an issue. And honestly maybe fun won't be lessened if you have no at-wills, as I expect it will. I've played 4E plenty but haven't played GW at all, so this is all based on my intuition.)
I thought one of the best design goals of 4E was to make the game more fun for everyone at the table and get away from a "Your character got screwed? Sorry, that's the game!" attitude.
This ed of GW has gotten away from that. It was really a major theme in the earlier versions of the game that your character was totally random, could be totally screwed, and that's just the game. There was even a 'hopeles character' rule for characters who were so screwed they weren't even worth playing until they died in the first fight they got into.
I'm surprised they didn't approach this Novice Power discrepancy in the same manner.
I'm a bit perplexed by it. Basic attacks are pretty effective, but some origins don't get a stat that helps with them - and some of them have an encounter novice power. An number of GMs have said that they will or will consider, making all novice powers at-will. I playtested Freesboro with that ruling - they're all standard-action, at-will, 'encounter' must be a mistake - and had no troubles. The hawkoid/plant (there was one) didn't rule the roost or anything. On Game Day, I decided I wouldn't officially rule that way, but if anyone assumed their green novice power was an at-will, I wouldn't correct them. Only one player noticed his novice was an encounter, he was the yeti, and he also noticed it was a /minor/ action, which really does justify it being an encounter.
You guys made me blog.
I liked the post, DC, but I feel like you completely mischaracterized my position. I'm all for house rules (as I mentioned in the post you quoted). If I made the comments I made after playing the game for a year, the so-called "macho" position would seem a bit ridiculous. But that's not how these discussions have gone. It's mostly consisted of people looking at GW, most before even playing the game, some before even opening the box, and deciding they they're going to change a bunch of rules because they know better.
Sure, there are legitimate arguments with some of the choices that the designers made, but I don't design games for a living. I'm going to defer to the people who do. When I ran at WWGD, the only thing I changed was making everyone draw from the same two decks. And the game went great. No one complained about being too underpowered, and the world didn't explode. Which is good, because I decided to actually play the game before I started making assumptions about how players would react to it.
So it's fine to dislike parts of the rules, but most people don't say, "I don't like this; I'm going to house-rule it." Most people argue that something is "wrong," "unbalanced," or "needs to be errated." That's more a criticism of the choices the designers made. The latter camp, of course, is entitled to its opinions, but I don't know why they're spending $50+ on the game if it's so inherently flawed.
So it's fine to dislike parts of the rules, but most people don't say, "I don't like this; I'm going to house-rule it." Most people argue that something is "wrong," "unbalanced," or "needs to be errated." That's more a criticism of the choices the designers made. The latter camp, of course, is entitled to its opinions, but I don't know why they're spending $50+ on the game if it's so inherently flawed.
Because it is Gamma World. It can still provide inspiration. New monsters for my 4E players. I might still run it by rules for an occassional diversion. Signal Fire Studios hasn't released the Metamorphosis Alpha game that will be fully compatible with D&D.
Because it is Gamma World. It can still provide inspiration. New monsters for my 4E players. I might still run it by rules for an occassional diversion. Signal Fire Studios hasn't released the Metamorphosis Alpha game that will be fully compatible with D&D.
Sure. But my point is still that there's a difference between expressing personal decisions to house-rule aspects of GW and complaining that certain parts of the game are "wrong," "unbalanced" or inherently "not fun."
Here are a couple oddities I've run into while looking through the GW rulebook. As the game's so new, I'm not sure if these are true errata, or just particularities of the game. I'd appreciate any thoughts on either of these matters.
1) The novice powers for some origins (Empath, Giant, Hawkoid, Hypercognitive, Plant, Rat Swarm, Speedster, Yeti) are Encounter powers, while the rest are At-Will. However, they all have a green title bar. Now, my brain, honed on years of D&D 4E, keeps telling me that these should all be at-wills, but I don't think that the error would be made so often.
2) The felinoid expert power Killing Bite has a special entry that reads as follows: "When charging, you can use this power in place of a melee basic attack." However, GW doesn't provide for charging, and even if it did, it doesn't specify that a melee basic attack should be used at the end of one.
My gut says that 1) is part of the game, while 2) needs to be errated. Let me know what you guys think.
I'm allowing charging as per DnD rules, since it was mentioned in this power. I'm also allowing crawling per DnD rules because it's mentioned under the Prone entry, even though there's no description for a movement type called Crawl.
The origins with encounter novice powers are:
Empath (Cha) -- Vitality Transfer
Giant (Str) -- Brickbat
Hawkoid (Wis) -- Terrifying Shriek
Hypercognitive (Wis) -- Uncanny Strike
Plant (Con) -- Lashing Creepers
Rat Swarm (Dex) -- Swarm!
Speedster (Dex) -- Quick Attack
Yeti (Str) -- Big Claws
Of those, the only ones which wouldn't be overpowering if used as at-wills are Uncanny Strike, Swarm!, and Quick Attack. The rest are too powerful for at-wills.
Note that anything with Str, Con, or Dex already has a good melee basic and ranged basic attack -- so we don't need to feel that sorry for them.
That just leaves the problem of the Charisma- and Wisdom-based origins: Empath, Hawkoid, and Hypercognitive. There's a 1.5% chance of rolling such a character (no at-will and not automatically good basic attacks), 12.5% chance of rolling a character with no at-wills and a good basic attacks, and a 14% chance overall of rolling a character without any at-wills.
For Hypercognitive you might want to allow them to use their power as an at-will. For Hawkoid and Empath, at-will isn't a good idea, so you might want to just let them reroll instead if they're unhappy or bored with their character. Or give them an extra Omega Tech draw at the start of the game.
The green bar really threw me off, I didn't even notice they were encounter powers when I ran the game last night with people who had never played an RPG before. It was a moot point as the guy running the giant never used the power but that is quite an oversight.
The green bar really threw me off, I didn't even notice they were encounter powers when I ran the game last night with people who had never played an RPG before. It was a moot point as the guy running the giant never used the power but that is quite an oversight.
Yep. The first time I ran, I missed it completely, and there was an Empath, Giant, Hawkoid, Plant, Hypercognitive, and Rat Swarm. Absolutely no problems from allowing all of them to use their novice powers at-will.
The only novice power that is just absolutely out as an at-will is the Yeti's - it's a minor action. Make it Standard, though, and it'd be fine.
The Giant's Brickbat and Plant's Lashing Creepers are potentially problematic, because they're selective (unlike the Telekinetic and Siesmic area novice powers). A party that took advantage of that tactically could make them overpowered, perhaps. Making them non-selective (or non-area, in the case of brickbat) would fix that.
The Hawkoid's Terifying Screech is not overpowered as an at-will, it's non-selective and not a large radius, so often hard to use effectively, but, it just doesn't make a lot of /sense/ as an at-will (why would you keep Terrifying enemies just by screeching at them over and over? ;)
IMX, the Empath's Vitality Transfer is weak and player-dissapointing even as an at-will.
IMX, the Empath's Vitality Transfer is weak and player-dissapointing even as an at-will.
The whole origin is pretty sad: From its description you expect some decent healing but its one regular healing power (I don't count temp hit point gain or a crit bonus as regular) is outclassed by that of two origins that have actual damage dealing capabilities as well. I sometimes suspect it was originally different and a last minute edit was thrown down: Share Strength feels more like it should have been the novice power and Zone of Pacification the Utility, with Vitality Transfer a last minute addition and some awesome expert power getting lost in the shuffle.