Omega Tech and actions - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Omega Tech and actions

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
rudagur
Feb 26, 2011 13:23:26 How do you guys handle Omega tech in battle, do you make them use minor actions to put away weapons and draw the omega tech, or do you just let them use the tech?

For example I have a character with a ranged weapon drawn and they want to throw a photon granade. Do they need to use two minors to get the granade and than a standard to throw, or do you just let them throw it and than have two more actions.

Right now I'm making them put away and draw, but I'm thinking of just letting it slide.

What do you think?
#2
ikilledbojangles
Feb 26, 2011 13:50:26 Typically, since the Techs are "readied," I assume the players can just use them as the type of action listed.
#3
Feetz
Feb 26, 2011 14:18:35 I was wondering that myself. I think I'm just going to let it slide. I don't see it breaking the game and I'd rather focus on the fun of GW than the rules.
#4
Oraibi
Feb 26, 2011 18:52:26 I don't make anyone spend actions for changing weapons. That kind of micromanagement is too much for Gamma World IMO.
#5
Muderfly
Feb 27, 2011 4:07:01
I don't make anyone spend actions for changing weapons. That kind of micromanagement is too much for Gamma World IMO.

Ditto, my group is mostly people that havent played DnD/GW so we opted for none of that haha.
#6
FlashbackJon
Feb 27, 2011 10:15:44
I don't make anyone spend actions for changing weapons. That kind of micromanagement is too much for Gamma World IMO.

I was going to ask this exact same question because I've been letting my players simply use any of the weapons at their disposal at any time.

#7
delong1522
Feb 27, 2011 10:47:23 I'm not saying that removing drawing weapons isn't a valid house rule for the game, but they do list drawing weapons as a minor action in the Gamma World main book and...

...in Legion of Gold, one of the vocation feats (a grade TWO storyteller feat) gives quick draw. Making drawing weapons free would remove the value of that vocation. There may be some origins that rule would be nerfing, but I'm not sure.

In addition, theoretically having both a ranged or melee 2 handed weapon "readied" for opportunity attacks or granted basic attacks (from say an Engineered human) has an obvious game benefit as well.

While I believe Omega Tech should be considered readied, I'm not sure it's a good idea to remove drawing and sheathing weapons entirely. I don't think it's micromanagement.

#8
hoffnung
Feb 27, 2011 11:33:55 At my table, we spend actions for every thing as per the rules. Doing so forces us as players to think through how we spend our actions and even what order we spend them in. This probably slows down the game a bit which is fine at our table. We sort of enjoy this kind of thing. What I would suggest for those that don't is this. Let people draw and sheath with one minor action. This will save people from having to drop things which simplifies things rather well. Additionally, I would let players treat all none equipable Omega Tech as if they had Quick Draw when using it. The equipable tech is a different issue which I would suggest ignoring if you want to keep things simple. I suppose just treat it like it's good to go. I think this is a little more balanced, but whatever works for your table.
#9
FlashbackJon
Feb 27, 2011 14:20:36 You're right, by RAW, swapping equipment to use a weapon omega tech item would take 2 minor actions (or 2 minors AND a standard if you have a shield and you use 4e to fill in the holes) in succession and then again to switch back (during which you may or may not be left making opportunity attacks with your bare hands). And I definitely do appreciate, to some degree, the tactical element there.

[end RAW/fact, begin houserule/opinion]

Omega Tech is substantially more powerful than your garden variety encounter power, but a total of 4 minor actions (or 3 if you drop an expended item) is too high a surcharge for a 1/encounter item in any case. I mean, swapping equipment is a PitA in 4e already, where you're virtually never expected to do it in the first place, so I feel pretty comfortable leaving it out in Gamma World, where you could be doing it several times per encounter (switching between melee and ranged in addition to using omega tech).

I had considered using "switch held equipment" as a minor, or giving the players "(free action, limit 1/round, must be your turn) swap equipment." (Honestly, I would probably implement this in 4e straight-up.) I simply didn't think about it before the campaign started and some of the players new to 4e/RPGs-in-general have already gotten used to it this way, so I didn't end up making a change.
#10
rudagur
Feb 27, 2011 17:57:01 So this is what I ended up doing when we played on saterday.

I let them use melee omega tech as a weapon with out "turning it on". One of my players had a force pike, so I let him use it as a standard 2 hand heavey weapon and activate the power only if he wanted to.

For ranged I said they had to switch them out, but for grenades after they threw it they were empty handed so only one action was needed to draw a new weapon.

I almost changed my mind and droped the draw/sheath, but than one of my players got the third arm and being able to hold a extra weapon became important.

I know in the end I can do what ever I want, but your input is great.

Thanks!
#11
sirkaikillah
Feb 27, 2011 22:15:13
..,I had considered using "switch held equipment" as a minor, ...

I've been doing this since 3e. It has stopped arguments of if and where a weapon was dropped. But then it negates the new feat master at arms. So for our new DS campaign I have gone back to 4e raw concerning drawing weapons. I think we will stick with the raw rules when we restart GW this summer. We will al be used to it and I don't want to rob the effectiveness of one players choice to implement a house rule.
#12
FlashbackJon
Feb 28, 2011 13:40:09
But then it negates the new feat master at arms.

While that is true, wouldn't that player prefer one of the flavorful new Focus feats instead? (Although I would assume that the "effectiveness" lies in the fact that it applies to all weapon attacks, regardless of how easy it is to switch weapons. In which case the answer to the first question is probably "no.")
#13
sirkaikillah
Mar 01, 2011 21:37:03
But then it negates the new feat master at arms.

While that is true, wouldn't that player prefer one of the flavorful new Focus feats instead? (Although I would assume that the "effectiveness" lies in the fact that it applies to all weapon attacks, regardless of how easy it is to switch weapons. In which case the answer to the first question is probably "no.")

Maybe. But if they want master of arms, I don't want to nulify that feat with a house rule.
#14
FlashbackJon
Mar 02, 2011 9:58:00 I mean to say: houseruling weapon swaps doesn't nullify the benefit of master-of-arms. Even if you completely removed the weapon swap mechanic, that feat would still be incredible. It doesn't have the cool riders of the new focus feats, but it's still equivalent to as many feats as the player has weapons.

To clarify, I'm not saying the way you play is waybadwrong (as there's no such thing, obviously), in particular because I myself have a general tendency to play things as close to RAW as possible. Just to maybe think about it differently with regards to your players.
#15
miniaturegeek
Mar 02, 2011 10:38:15 We haven't kept track of switching of weapons and things seem fine. At this point vocations aren't an issue because the party isn't there yet and also I made it clear I wasn't sure I'd allow them at all.
#16
Tony_Vargas
Mar 02, 2011 19:59:13 While it'd be reasonable to require a minor to put away your weapon and another to pull out your Omega Tech, it'd also be reasonable to say you can't find a mini-tank in a broom closet or should count bullets if they're such a scarce post-apocalypse resource.

So, no, I don't worry about it.
#17
sirkaikillah
Mar 03, 2011 9:50:09
... Just to maybe think about it differently with regards to your players.

could you elaborate? As I feel I always think I think in regards of the players? As in if I thought playing it RAW was robbing the fun of the game from my players, I would change the ruling. But if they are still enjoying the game and offer no arguement over such changes in the rules, then what?
#18
FlashbackJon
Mar 03, 2011 10:07:43
... Just to maybe think about it differently with regards to your players.

could you elaborate.

Yeah, wow, that sentence barely even makes sense. I just meant that if your players wanted to be able to swap weapons easier, houseruling that does not invalidate the master-of-arms character's choice: he still has a MAJOR advantage (for extra emphasis: major major) over the other players. If he wields three different weapons regularly then master of arms is the rough equivalent of 2 free feats.

On the other hand, if he took the feat specifically to be faster at switching weapons (as opposed to more effective) than his compatriots, you could also houserule it up to, say, a free action (1/round) for him.

But anyhow. That's D&D and I'm really just pimping a random houserule, so... uh... I think I'm just rambling at this point.
#19
sirkaikillah
Mar 03, 2011 20:57:00
While it'd be reasonable to require a minor to put away your weapon and another to pull out your Omega Tech, it'd also be reasonable to say you can't find a mini-tank in a broom closet or should count bullets if they're such a scarce post-apocalypse resource.

So, no, I don't worry about it.

great point!
#20
sirkaikillah
Mar 03, 2011 21:02:10
... Just to maybe think about it differently with regards to your players.

could you elaborate.

Yeah, wow, that sentence barely even makes sense. I just meant that if your players wanted to be able to swap weapons easier, houseruling that does not invalidate the master-of-arms character's choice: he still has a MAJOR advantage (for extra emphasis: major major) over the other players. If he wields three different weapons regularly then master of arms is the rough equivalent of 2 free feats.

On the other hand, if he took the feat specifically to be faster at switching weapons (as opposed to more effective) than his compatriots, you could also houserule it up to, say, a free action (1/round) for him.

But anyhow. That's D&D and I'm really just pimping a random houserule, so... uh... I think I'm just rambling at this point.

Yeah I got yah. To elaborate the house rule to switch weapons as a free action was my idea as dm. At the time many new players were struggling with the idea of minor, move, and standard actions. they would just declare they are shooting with there bow one round and the next round swinginging the sword. The concept of a minor to do these things, at the time just baffled some players, over and over again. So at the time I dumped it. Now I have a more sophisicated gaming group so I switched back to RAW, with no problem.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 rudagur Feb 26, 2011 13:23:26	How do you guys handle Omega tech in battle, do you make them use minor actions to put away weapons and draw the omega tech, or do you just let them use the tech? For example I have a character with a ranged weapon drawn and they want to throw a photon granade. Do they need to use two minors to get the granade and than a standard to throw, or do you just let them throw it and than have two more actions. Right now I'm making them put away and draw, but I'm thinking of just letting it slide. What do you think?
#2 ikilledbojangles Feb 26, 2011 13:50:26	Typically, since the Techs are "readied," I assume the players can just use them as the type of action listed.
#3 Feetz Feb 26, 2011 14:18:35	I was wondering that myself. I think I'm just going to let it slide. I don't see it breaking the game and I'd rather focus on the fun of GW than the rules.
#4 Oraibi Feb 26, 2011 18:52:26	I don't make anyone spend actions for changing weapons. That kind of micromanagement is too much for Gamma World IMO.
#5 Muderfly Feb 27, 2011 4:07:01	I don't make anyone spend actions for changing weapons. That kind of micromanagement is too much for Gamma World IMO. Ditto, my group is mostly people that havent played DnD/GW so we opted for none of that haha.
#6 FlashbackJon Feb 27, 2011 10:15:44	I don't make anyone spend actions for changing weapons. That kind of micromanagement is too much for Gamma World IMO. I was going to ask this exact same question because I've been letting my players simply use any of the weapons at their disposal at any time.
#7 delong1522 Feb 27, 2011 10:47:23	I'm not saying that removing drawing weapons isn't a valid house rule for the game, but they do list drawing weapons as a minor action in the Gamma World main book and... ...in Legion of Gold, one of the vocation feats (a grade TWO storyteller feat) gives quick draw. Making drawing weapons free would remove the value of that vocation. There may be some origins that rule would be nerfing, but I'm not sure. In addition, theoretically having both a ranged or melee 2 handed weapon "readied" for opportunity attacks or granted basic attacks (from say an Engineered human) has an obvious game benefit as well. While I believe Omega Tech should be considered readied, I'm not sure it's a good idea to remove drawing and sheathing weapons entirely. I don't think it's micromanagement.
#8 hoffnung Feb 27, 2011 11:33:55	At my table, we spend actions for every thing as per the rules. Doing so forces us as players to think through how we spend our actions and even what order we spend them in. This probably slows down the game a bit which is fine at our table. We sort of enjoy this kind of thing. What I would suggest for those that don't is this. Let people draw and sheath with one minor action. This will save people from having to drop things which simplifies things rather well. Additionally, I would let players treat all none equipable Omega Tech as if they had Quick Draw when using it. The equipable tech is a different issue which I would suggest ignoring if you want to keep things simple. I suppose just treat it like it's good to go. I think this is a little more balanced, but whatever works for your table.
#9 FlashbackJon Feb 27, 2011 14:20:36	You're right, by RAW, swapping equipment to use a weapon omega tech item would take 2 minor actions (or 2 minors AND a standard if you have a shield and you use 4e to fill in the holes) in succession and then again to switch back (during which you may or may not be left making opportunity attacks with your bare hands). And I definitely do appreciate, to some degree, the tactical element there. [end RAW/fact, begin houserule/opinion] Omega Tech is substantially more powerful than your garden variety encounter power, but a total of 4 minor actions (or 3 if you drop an expended item) is too high a surcharge for a 1/encounter item in any case. I mean, swapping equipment is a PitA in 4e already, where you're virtually never expected to do it in the first place, so I feel pretty comfortable leaving it out in Gamma World, where you could be doing it several times per encounter (switching between melee and ranged in addition to using omega tech). I had considered using "switch held equipment" as a minor, or giving the players "(free action, limit 1/round, must be your turn) swap equipment." (Honestly, I would probably implement this in 4e straight-up.) I simply didn't think about it before the campaign started and some of the players new to 4e/RPGs-in-general have already gotten used to it this way, so I didn't end up making a change.
#10 rudagur Feb 27, 2011 17:57:01	So this is what I ended up doing when we played on saterday. I let them use melee omega tech as a weapon with out "turning it on". One of my players had a force pike, so I let him use it as a standard 2 hand heavey weapon and activate the power only if he wanted to. For ranged I said they had to switch them out, but for grenades after they threw it they were empty handed so only one action was needed to draw a new weapon. I almost changed my mind and droped the draw/sheath, but than one of my players got the third arm and being able to hold a extra weapon became important. I know in the end I can do what ever I want, but your input is great. Thanks!
#11 sirkaikillah Feb 27, 2011 22:15:13	..,I had considered using "switch held equipment" as a minor, ... I've been doing this since 3e. It has stopped arguments of if and where a weapon was dropped. But then it negates the new feat master at arms. So for our new DS campaign I have gone back to 4e raw concerning drawing weapons. I think we will stick with the raw rules when we restart GW this summer. We will al be used to it and I don't want to rob the effectiveness of one players choice to implement a house rule.
#12 FlashbackJon Feb 28, 2011 13:40:09	But then it negates the new feat master at arms. While that is true, wouldn't that player prefer one of the flavorful new Focus feats instead? (Although I would assume that the "effectiveness" lies in the fact that it applies to all weapon attacks, regardless of how easy it is to switch weapons. In which case the answer to the first question is probably "no.")
#13 sirkaikillah Mar 01, 2011 21:37:03	But then it negates the new feat master at arms. While that is true, wouldn't that player prefer one of the flavorful new Focus feats instead? (Although I would assume that the "effectiveness" lies in the fact that it applies to all weapon attacks, regardless of how easy it is to switch weapons. In which case the answer to the first question is probably "no.") Maybe. But if they want master of arms, I don't want to nulify that feat with a house rule.
#14 FlashbackJon Mar 02, 2011 9:58:00	I mean to say: houseruling weapon swaps doesn't nullify the benefit of master-of-arms. Even if you completely removed the weapon swap mechanic, that feat would still be incredible. It doesn't have the cool riders of the new focus feats, but it's still equivalent to as many feats as the player has weapons. To clarify, I'm not saying the way you play is waybadwrong (as there's no such thing, obviously), in particular because I myself have a general tendency to play things as close to RAW as possible. Just to maybe think about it differently with regards to your players.
#15 miniaturegeek Mar 02, 2011 10:38:15	We haven't kept track of switching of weapons and things seem fine. At this point vocations aren't an issue because the party isn't there yet and also I made it clear I wasn't sure I'd allow them at all.
#16 Tony_Vargas Mar 02, 2011 19:59:13	While it'd be reasonable to require a minor to put away your weapon and another to pull out your Omega Tech, it'd also be reasonable to say you can't find a mini-tank in a broom closet or should count bullets if they're such a scarce post-apocalypse resource. So, no, I don't worry about it.
#17 sirkaikillah Mar 03, 2011 9:50:09	... Just to maybe think about it differently with regards to your players. could you elaborate? As I feel I always think I think in regards of the players? As in if I thought playing it RAW was robbing the fun of the game from my players, I would change the ruling. But if they are still enjoying the game and offer no arguement over such changes in the rules, then what?
#18 FlashbackJon Mar 03, 2011 10:07:43	... Just to maybe think about it differently with regards to your players. could you elaborate. Yeah, wow, that sentence barely even makes sense. I just meant that if your players wanted to be able to swap weapons easier, houseruling that does not invalidate the master-of-arms character's choice: he still has a MAJOR advantage (for extra emphasis: major major) over the other players. If he wields three different weapons regularly then master of arms is the rough equivalent of 2 free feats. On the other hand, if he took the feat specifically to be faster at switching weapons (as opposed to more effective) than his compatriots, you could also houserule it up to, say, a free action (1/round) for him. But anyhow. That's D&D and I'm really just pimping a random houserule, so... uh... I think I'm just rambling at this point.
#19 sirkaikillah Mar 03, 2011 20:57:00	While it'd be reasonable to require a minor to put away your weapon and another to pull out your Omega Tech, it'd also be reasonable to say you can't find a mini-tank in a broom closet or should count bullets if they're such a scarce post-apocalypse resource. So, no, I don't worry about it. great point!
#20 sirkaikillah Mar 03, 2011 21:02:10	... Just to maybe think about it differently with regards to your players. could you elaborate. Yeah, wow, that sentence barely even makes sense. I just meant that if your players wanted to be able to swap weapons easier, houseruling that does not invalidate the master-of-arms character's choice: he still has a MAJOR advantage (for extra emphasis: major major) over the other players. If he wields three different weapons regularly then master of arms is the rough equivalent of 2 free feats. On the other hand, if he took the feat specifically to be faster at switching weapons (as opposed to more effective) than his compatriots, you could also houserule it up to, say, a free action (1/round) for him. But anyhow. That's D&D and I'm really just pimping a random houserule, so... uh... I think I'm just rambling at this point. Yeah I got yah. To elaborate the house rule to switch weapons as a free action was my idea as dm. At the time many new players were struggling with the idea of minor, move, and standard actions. they would just declare they are shooting with there bow one round and the next round swinginging the sword. The concept of a minor to do these things, at the time just baffled some players, over and over again. So at the time I dumped it. Now I have a more sophisicated gaming group so I switched back to RAW, with no problem.