Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
DiasExMachina 4ED Update
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Dias Ex Machina" data-source="post: 5112248" data-attributes="member: 58907"><p>Here is something someone asked: What can we take out? Which of our new rules for applying modern technology to 4th Edition can a GM ignore (or alter) without affecting game balance. In truth, there are only a few rules we added, mostly dealing with moving and firing with heavy weapons. We didn’t insert armor penetration or hardness or the resilience of cover (we do that in NeuroSpasta). But if a group believes a certain rule is uninteresting or too complicated, can it be removed without breaking the game? </p><p></p><p> </p><p>This topic was discussed at length in the development of the rules. One co-developer insisted that our disruption rules be a game-balancing effect. The rest of us were adamant that this not be the case. As I stated in an earlier post, disruption rules are optional (even in an Amethyst game) and should only be implemented if the group is being irresponsible with their technology in the fantasy world. You can ignore them as you see fit, regardless of which game you are running. Other rules of question include ammunition usage, move and fire penalties with two-handed weapons, and the advanced rules regarding explosives and vehicle combat. Everything else in the book are based on rules already present in the GSL, so removing them is ignoring rules from core D&D (so do so at your peril). </p><p></p><p> </p><p>I believe whole heartedly that players keep track of ammunition as its acquisition and management is a key issue of the Amethyst setting. However, this may not be a necessary if you are running a modern setting with these same rules. I still would prefer people track their ammunition as it does force an additional level of skill. If a GM is expected to track the hit points of a dozen monsters, I am certain said GM can ask his/her players to track how many bullets they fire. If you are reenacting the Mogadishu conflict of Black Hawk Dawn, I would still suggest you enforce the tracking of ammunition usage. If you have to do that when playing Fallout 3, you can do it here. It’s simple common sense. Now that being said, if you still insist on claiming this rule as clumsy, you can still ignore it without breaking game balance. The only power I think it would affect would by the aforementioned Passing Kill power available to the Stalker. I could consider amending it to a move action but personally, I wouldn’t bother. So technically, ammunition usage can go. </p><p> </p><p></p><p>Move and fire rules are present only to offer realism to those untrained in how to effectively use two-handed and heavy weapons. This is why these move and fire rules are ignored with the grounder class. You can choose to disregard them for all classes, but then the grounder looses a class feature (as it is shared by the whole party now). I would still insist heavy weapon incur an attack penalty when moved. Once again, it’s not game balance. It’s just common sense.</p><p> </p><p></p><p>Vehicle Rules are complicated and only present for those wishing to take advantage of it. With these, I figured there were too options: Not make them detailed and offer the opinion we didn’t care or make them detailed and allow you to make the judgment on how you wish to implement them. If you just want a basic skill challenge without the math, please go right ahead. </p><p></p><p> </p><p>Explosives may feel complicated but they are actually only there when someone dives into their use. Meaning, if a PC doesn’t take the Demolitions skill and purchase the necessary explosives and detonators, he/she would never encounter the complicated layers of planting explosives.</p><p></p><p> </p><p>Finally, I’ll end off with several rules which I DO believe would break game balance if they were ignored. The first and most obvious one deals with firearm damage. Beyond the argument comparing damage outputs of arrows versus firearms (ignoring their damage in comparison to melee weapons), some people still insist that a bullet should do two or three times more damage than a sword. Obviously adjusting these damage values would greatly affect game balance. The same goes for our unique weapons. These are speciality weapons which can only be used with a ranged basic attack. If you choose to overlook this rule and allow their use with an encounter or a daily power, the results would be…well…biblical. </p><p></p><p> </p><p>Here is another argument toward using ammunition. Let’s say your character finds a high tech weapon (higher tech = higher enhancement) early on. This can be a plot point or a connection to his or her back-story. I am doing this currently in my Amethyst game. By using ammunition (in this case, an energy cell), you allow that PC a weapon that is impressive and potentially game breaking…until it runs out. I made it perfectly clear to a player that was given a +5 Plasma pistol that once said weapon runs out of shots (he has used about 4 of its 10 charges already); he will not find another power cell until ohhh....about level 20. I also then don’t have to worry about him being near a store which could sell technology that high when he achieves that level.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Dias Ex Machina, post: 5112248, member: 58907"] Here is something someone asked: What can we take out? Which of our new rules for applying modern technology to 4th Edition can a GM ignore (or alter) without affecting game balance. In truth, there are only a few rules we added, mostly dealing with moving and firing with heavy weapons. We didn’t insert armor penetration or hardness or the resilience of cover (we do that in NeuroSpasta). But if a group believes a certain rule is uninteresting or too complicated, can it be removed without breaking the game? This topic was discussed at length in the development of the rules. One co-developer insisted that our disruption rules be a game-balancing effect. The rest of us were adamant that this not be the case. As I stated in an earlier post, disruption rules are optional (even in an Amethyst game) and should only be implemented if the group is being irresponsible with their technology in the fantasy world. You can ignore them as you see fit, regardless of which game you are running. Other rules of question include ammunition usage, move and fire penalties with two-handed weapons, and the advanced rules regarding explosives and vehicle combat. Everything else in the book are based on rules already present in the GSL, so removing them is ignoring rules from core D&D (so do so at your peril). I believe whole heartedly that players keep track of ammunition as its acquisition and management is a key issue of the Amethyst setting. However, this may not be a necessary if you are running a modern setting with these same rules. I still would prefer people track their ammunition as it does force an additional level of skill. If a GM is expected to track the hit points of a dozen monsters, I am certain said GM can ask his/her players to track how many bullets they fire. If you are reenacting the Mogadishu conflict of Black Hawk Dawn, I would still suggest you enforce the tracking of ammunition usage. If you have to do that when playing Fallout 3, you can do it here. It’s simple common sense. Now that being said, if you still insist on claiming this rule as clumsy, you can still ignore it without breaking game balance. The only power I think it would affect would by the aforementioned Passing Kill power available to the Stalker. I could consider amending it to a move action but personally, I wouldn’t bother. So technically, ammunition usage can go. Move and fire rules are present only to offer realism to those untrained in how to effectively use two-handed and heavy weapons. This is why these move and fire rules are ignored with the grounder class. You can choose to disregard them for all classes, but then the grounder looses a class feature (as it is shared by the whole party now). I would still insist heavy weapon incur an attack penalty when moved. Once again, it’s not game balance. It’s just common sense. Vehicle Rules are complicated and only present for those wishing to take advantage of it. With these, I figured there were too options: Not make them detailed and offer the opinion we didn’t care or make them detailed and allow you to make the judgment on how you wish to implement them. If you just want a basic skill challenge without the math, please go right ahead. Explosives may feel complicated but they are actually only there when someone dives into their use. Meaning, if a PC doesn’t take the Demolitions skill and purchase the necessary explosives and detonators, he/she would never encounter the complicated layers of planting explosives. Finally, I’ll end off with several rules which I DO believe would break game balance if they were ignored. The first and most obvious one deals with firearm damage. Beyond the argument comparing damage outputs of arrows versus firearms (ignoring their damage in comparison to melee weapons), some people still insist that a bullet should do two or three times more damage than a sword. Obviously adjusting these damage values would greatly affect game balance. The same goes for our unique weapons. These are speciality weapons which can only be used with a ranged basic attack. If you choose to overlook this rule and allow their use with an encounter or a daily power, the results would be…well…biblical. Here is another argument toward using ammunition. Let’s say your character finds a high tech weapon (higher tech = higher enhancement) early on. This can be a plot point or a connection to his or her back-story. I am doing this currently in my Amethyst game. By using ammunition (in this case, an energy cell), you allow that PC a weapon that is impressive and potentially game breaking…until it runs out. I made it perfectly clear to a player that was given a +5 Plasma pistol that once said weapon runs out of shots (he has used about 4 of its 10 charges already); he will not find another power cell until ohhh....about level 20. I also then don’t have to worry about him being near a store which could sell technology that high when he achieves that level. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
DiasExMachina 4ED Update
Top