Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 10
31
License to Improvise / Re: (Fantasy Craft) Mounted combat house rules
« Last post by TKDB on September 25, 2016, 02:10:35 PM »
  Except you haven't "already paid for it". The price for an action and two attacks in a single round is well established, and adding a mount to the equation is no different than adding a extra weapon - it doesn't inherently give you more actions.

You have paid for it though, because a mount is an entire extra character that you've gone to the trouble of acquiring (either by paying a whole lot of silver or, probably more typically, by taking the Animal Partner or Personal Lieutenant feat). The mount comes with its own actions, and you give those up as part of the cost of mounted combat. It's not at all like a weapon, which has no impact on the actions economy of your side regardless of whether it's wielded or not.

You take the Animal Partner feat, selecting a bear as your partner. With this, you have four actions at your disposal: Your character has two actions, and the bear has two actions.

If you decide to ride the bear, you lose one character's worth of actions. You were two characters with two actions each, you are now one character with two actions between you. You have given up an entire turn -- and that's a big deal! This (along with the worsened Defense, saves, and initiative one of you will suffer, and the attack penalties you'll have unless you use cavalry weapons or take Combat Rider) is the price you pay for the improved mobility, damage management, and  afforded by mounted combat.

Now, I agree that this is a perfectly fine price to pay as a baseline (hence why I'm not interested in doing away with it outright with a campaign quality). To be honest, I think it's a bit of a bum deal in the general, but that's not a bad thing for a baseline option requiring no particular investment: It makes it dependent on the details of the situation. It is absolutely not a given that mounted combat would be preferable to unmounted; you need the right kind of circumstances, and the right kind of mount and rider. All well and good.

But I do think it's something that those interested in investing in mounted combat ought to be able to buy off, because otherwise it has a big impact on what kinds of things are appropriate for riding. The action cost makes for a serious mechanical disincentive against taking a mount that's anything more than a damage sponge on some fast legs (or wings), because those are about the only benefits you can actually make use of. It leaves you wondering why you're trying to be a bear cavalry when you'd be a lot more dangerous as a guy fighting side by side with a bear. (Maybe because you want the mobility and tankiness -- but that simply changes the question to why you wasted resources on a mount with offensive options you can't use rather than something like a warhorse that's focused on the mobility and tankiness you want.)

Basically, I consider this a bit of a different category from other feats that affect action economy, because it's not just the actions you'd have without the feat that are relevant, but also the actions you'd have if you and your mount just fought separately. Obviously there needs to be an appropriate investment demanded, but I'd rather that investment be in terms of character building opportunity costs, not in terms of penalties you wouldn't suffer were you trying to use the same actions unmounted. The point is to provide the ability for people to play mounted combatants with cool and exotic mounts without feeling like they're shooting themselves in the foot by doing so -- and while there must of course be a commensurate cost in character power any way you slice it, it feels less intrusive when it's purely an opportunity cost, rather than a penalty staring you in the face every time you act, reminding you that you'd be better at this if you just fought separately.

Quote
  Hmm. Trying to slim down what you're describing~

  Fierce Rider
  Benefit: Once per round while part of a mounted pair, as a single half action both rider and mount may each perform a non-Movement half action (in the order of your choice).

  That's VERY powerful and I'd be looking to put some form of restriction on it before turning it loose into the wild because it does violate some well established elements of the action economy. I'd also avoid the cross-blocking simply because Mastercraft goes out of it's way to not create dead options because of overlap. Both rider and mount having the feat should be awesome, not annoying. I'd likely be more comfortable not having a second feat in the chain and have both rider and mount take this feat as the way to utilize the effect twice per round... which creates a somewhat amusing situation where a Captain could hand this out to any and all special character mounts in the group along with the riders :).
Hm, it loses the ability to split the actions across either side of the move, but I guess that's an acceptable price to pay.
As for the cross-blocking, my thinking on that was originally that (based on my experience) feats are a bit more of a premium resource for PCs than for NPCs, so I figured requiring a two-feat chain would be a steeper cost than letting them split the cost between the rider and mount (which, when one is a PC, the other will typically be an NPC). However, on further reflection, that's kind of silly since there's no reason the NPC can't be the one to take both, so making it dependent on each having it for the maximum benefit would actually be the better for enforcing a certain level of investment.

As far as additional restrictions, perhaps making it require a prereq feat of some kind to force a higher degree of investment? I'd actually thought about having the two-feat chain build on Combat Rider as a prereq, though that might not be as good an idea here due to the intent of avoiding dead investments when both mount and rider take it (and the expectation of both mount and rider taking it to fully buy off the mounted combat action cost). Not sure what other feats would work well as a prereq, though...
32
Play-by-Post / Re: [IC] The Secret of Kung's Island
« Last post by jarvvoitlus on September 25, 2016, 01:43:49 PM »
"Cut them down before we're overwhelmed!"
With a savage flurry of blades, the goblin twins chop and slice at the legs of the foe being held at bay by Vashkar.

Spoiler: show
Jick activates his battle plan as combat starts, granting everyone +2 with melee and unarmed attacks. Further, I'm granting everyone Wolf Pack Basics, granting them +2 if they are flanking. Keep in mind that an enemy is flanked if at least one goblin and one other character is next to them in any orientation. Jick makes two attack checks with his machete at +16 to hit, dealing 1d8+3d6+7 damage with AP 4 and keen 8. Quag makes two attacks at +10, dealing 5d6+4 with AP 4.
33
Off-Topic / Re: Movie Reviews, Reactions, and Rumors 2016.
« Last post by Morgenstern on September 25, 2016, 01:39:32 PM »
Samurai Rauni Reposaarelainen
WTF did I just watch?!

  That was awesome :). Bushido (and all its less heroic trappings) for everyone!
34
Off-Topic / Re: Movie Reviews, Reactions, and Rumors 2016.
« Last post by Morgenstern on September 25, 2016, 01:33:59 PM »
  Saw Magnificent 7. Loved it.

  I've heard a lot of "eh, do they really need to do a re-make?" My answer will always be "I enjoy any remake made with love." And this was made with immense love. I also found it drew a lot on Seven Samurai, in ways the original Magnificent 7 did not, so there was even more for me to love. And I think many of the actors would have done it for damn near the cost to show up, because there was a distinct undercurrent of gleeful abandon in the performances. Nobody was phoning it in.

  Beautiful scenery, some -excellent- dialogue/character interactions, a somewhat shockingly diverse spread of backgrounds for what you might ordinarily thing of as a pretty homogeneous genre (they'z all cowboys, right? not so much...), and the all essential violence goes from nerve-wracking to apocalyptic in the blink of an eye. And some fabulous cross-party butt-saves, the kind you DREAM of engineering at the gaming table.

  Two guns (and all 12 bullets) up.
35
License to Improvise / Re: [WIP] Fantasy Craft: Bronze and Steel
« Last post by Morgenstern on September 25, 2016, 01:21:53 PM »
  In both official rules and homebrew one of the goals is always utilize the minimum amount of raw power to give the desired cool. If separate 'maiming strike' and 'maiming shot' tricks are worth taking (and I tend to think they are), then fusing them into a single trick is overdoing it. Each supports a very flavorful type of combatant, and the kind of character that does this sort of thing both in melee and ranged can afford to pay two proficiencies for the far reaching privilege :).
36
License to Improvise / Re: (Fantasy Craft) Mounted combat house rules
« Last post by Morgenstern on September 25, 2016, 01:15:26 PM »
  Except you haven't "already paid for it". The price for an action and two attacks in a single round is well established, and adding a mount to the equation is no different than adding a extra weapon - it doesn't inherently give you more actions. Similar principle in it costing a feat to take two half action moves (run) and still attack via Charging Basics. If a mount represents more trouble than carrying an extra weapon, that's made up in small change with the feat not imposing attack penalties, not be dropping the fundamental price of admission.

  One of the goal really has to stay NOT incentivizing mounted combat substantially over what it already offers (the potential for MUCH faster movement and damage sponging) without substantial cost to the character.

  Hmm. Trying to slim down what you're describing~

  Fierce Rider
  Benefit: Once per round while part of a mounted pair, as a single half action both rider and mount may each perform a non-Movement half action (in the order of your choice).

  That's VERY powerful and I'd be looking to put some form of restriction on it before turning it loose into the wild because it does violate some well established elements of the action economy. I'd also avoid the cross-blocking simply because Mastercraft goes out of it's way to not create dead options because of overlap. Both rider and mount having the feat should be awesome, not annoying. I'd likely be more comfortable not having a second feat in the chain and have both rider and mount take this feat as the way to utilize the effect twice per round... which creates a somewhat amusing situation where a Captain could hand this out to any and all special character mounts in the group along with the riders :).
37
Play-by-Post / Re: [OOC] The Secrets of Kung's Island
« Last post by Ares on September 25, 2016, 01:05:26 PM »
Also, does the enemy in front of vashkar have cover against Jick and Quag?

No, or rather only the cover from their shields.
38
License to Improvise / Re: (Fantasy Craft) Mounted combat house rules
« Last post by paddyfool on September 25, 2016, 01:01:50 PM »
I had a similar idea visavis bonus actions, except that the first feat would specifically allow a 1/round free standard move action by the mount on condition neither mount nor rider took any other move actions that turn (a kind of "steer with the knees"/" mount moving independently" idea), while the second feat would say that, once per round, when one if the mounted pair made an attack action the other could also make a standard attack as a free action. (More of an "attack in unison" idea).
39
Play-by-Post / Re: [OOC] The Secrets of Kung's Island
« Last post by Fiendbasher on September 25, 2016, 12:28:21 PM »
Next round, after the turned ones flee I'll see if I can't taunt the leader out and pull him past the goblin twins... by then a bunch of them may be rounding the corner from the other door though, so it might get ugly...
40
Play-by-Post / Re: [OOC] The Secrets of Kung's Island
« Last post by Ares on September 25, 2016, 12:09:20 PM »
Don't trust me, I'm the GM ;)

Yeah, your spellcasting test needs to beat their defense to hit. But that shouldn't be to much of an issue with a skill test (if you don't roll to low)

Regarding disarm: They only get the two hand bonus  :)
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 10