Game Day mini = Spined Devil

[Mad Mac]

Devil and Evil in the new DDM indicate subfactions. Apparently they're moving towards a system where instead of distinct factions, you just have larger groupings. No good or evil warbands exactly, you just can't mix the two. Also Borderlands, Civlization, Underdark, ect descriptors that have a similar effect.

For what it's worth, on both versions of the mini card, the poison slows without causing damage. (And Standard Poison in DDM is damage per round)

 

[jodyjohnson]

One more thing...
wouldn't Wounded be a better generic term, both in usage and common parlance, than Bloodied?

It's too generic a term. Kind of like 'level'.

They are stuck with 'level'.

Too easy to confuse 'wounded' as taken some damage and 'Wounded' as at the mid-combat threshold.

Some of the blogs talk about this difficulty in selecting game term with specific meanings.

 

[jodyjohnson]

I personally don't like this +/- 1 idea. It seems to me that BAB + Ability + Level/2 makes more sense. (And very in line with SWSE)
For this it would be:

Melee: Str (4) + Level/2 (3) + BAB (4, based on rogue-like BAB for lvl 6) = 11

I'm not seeing a double-dipping formula like this in SWSE. BAB depends on level and then add 1/2 level again?

But, as per SWSE, you take -2 for making two attacks for the +9 on the card.

SWSE Rapid Strike is -2 on the roll and you make only one roll for both attacks and add +1d6 damage for the combined attack. The stat card adds the word 'each' which implies 2 separate attacks. However in the creature stat blocks they make all their attacks at BAB+Str (see p. 275-77 SWSE).

 

[Knight Otu]

Devil and Evil in the new DDM indicate subfactions. Apparently they're moving towards a system where instead of distinct factions, you just have larger groupings. No good or evil warbands exactly, you just can't mix the two. Also Borderlands, Civlization, Underdark, ect descriptors that have a similar effect.

I was under the impression that they were moving to a more Magic-esque faction system with "philosophies" (wild, civilized). So rather than that, they are moving to a descriptor system? Or is it a combination of both?

For what it's worth, on both versions of the mini card, the poison slows without causing damage. (And Standard Poison in DDM is damage per round)

That strengthens my belief that Poisoned is what Saga would (as far as I know) call a Persistent move on the condition track; you get a penalty that you have to get rid of in a specific way (remove poison). I still think the 5 is a duration in this case, after which the condition move is undone. I doubt it is 5 steps down the condition track (does it even have so many steps?), though it might be a modifier of sort.

And I have to say that something like the Spine Shield ability for the mini game should be in the RPG stats as well. That would mitigate some of the sparseness I perceived and making it a more memorable creature without adding much in the way of complexity.

 

[Reaper Steve]

This photo shows the DDM stats.

Any idea what the blue line and symbol below AC, and purple line and symbol below Defense are?

 

[Reaper Steve]

And I have to say that something like the Spine Shield ability for the mini game should be in the RPG stats as well. That would mitigate some of the sparseness I perceived and making it a more memorable creature without adding much in the way of complexity.

I concur.
I wonder why that isn't in the 4E stats? I figured they would use the new edition of both games to try and synch creatures back up (so they don't have different powers based on the game you are playing) but that doesn't look to be the case from this example.

 

[Mad Mac]

I was under the impression that they were moving to a more Magic-esque faction system with "philosophies" (wild, civilized). So rather than that, they are moving to a descriptor system? Or is it a combination of both?

It's a combination of both. Creatures with very strong good/evil alignment, (Devils, Celestials) can't fight together. There may be other opposing types, but generally it's as you said. Which is good, if it means we don't have to get 3 new dwarfs in every set just to pad out LG's roster.

I have to agree that Spine Sheild would make a good RPG ability, though.

 

[Hussar]

Those are the 4e stats.

This photo shows the DDM stats.

Oops. My bad. I'll go back to watching again. :\

 

[Benabik]

I'm not seeing a double-dipping formula like this in SWSE. BAB depends on level and then add 1/2 level again?

It may be that they're trying to add level most places they use the stat. I don't know. But the math with the multi-attack penalty works best this way. It might be +4 Str, +6 BAB, +1 other (weapon focus?), -2 multi-attack. Makes a lot more sense to me than -1 melee, +1 ranged which limits your options based on your role for no particular reason I can see. Adding bonuses to specific weapons like Weapon Focus yes, but a penalty to all melee attacks? Not such a fan.

SWSE Rapid Strike is -2 on the roll and you make only one roll for both attacks and add +1d6 damage for the combined attack. The stat card adds the word 'each' which implies 2 separate attacks. However in the creature stat blocks they make all their attacks at BAB+Str (see p. 275-77 SWSE).

DND4 is only similar to SWSE, not identical. I'm guessing they're keeping the multiple attack rolls. Two weapon fighting is two rolls at -2 now, so they might keep it that way.

 

[jodyjohnson]

It might be +4 Str, +6 BAB, +1 other (weapon focus?), -2 multi-attack. Makes a lot more sense to me than -1 melee, +1 ranged which limits your options based on your role for no particular reason I can see.

So why list Skirmisher in the creature type area if it has no statistical effect?

To me, the roles are there to focus combat decisions (by strengthening one area and possibly weakening another). This creature is better at X than something else and the mechanics reinforce that.

You've stated twice that you "'don't like" the idea so that's really going to nullify any defense I might make.

DND4 is only similar to SWSE, not identical. I'm guessing they're keeping the multiple attack rolls. Two weapon fighting is two rolls at -2 now, so they might keep it that way.

My point was that your point did not match SWSE and as you say, we don't need to even leave D&D to find a -2 penalty for using two attacks.

However since you appealed to SWSE I wanted to point out SWSE does NOT penalize creatures for multiple attacks at all.