GT: Rules Questions

[takyris]

So after failing to get my old group to switch from d20 Modern to Grim Tales, I got a partly new group for an e-campaign, and got them all into Grim Tales under the "It's d20 Modern, mostly" banner.

It's worked really well so far. I really enjoy the new treatments of the classes, and I'm having a good time. I do have a couple of questions, though.

1) In the book, taking the advanced caster level talent increases your effective character level and also gives you +1 Spell Burn Resistance each time you take it. In the GT SRD, the talent doesn't list the resistance improvement. Is this an oversight on the part of the dude who did the SRD, or is this actually the rule?

2) The vehicle rules don't say anything about whether a driver and make attacks, and they list the maneuvering phase as a full-round action without ever noting that the driver might want to do something else. For some vehicles, that makes sense, but if I'm running a game where people are doing WW2 dogfighting (or Battlestar Galactica ship-to-ship combat), it makes sense that a pilot could also fire. Is firing a maneuver, or an action taken instead of maneuvering, or what? (I asked this on the Mortality.net forum and never heard back. Right now I'm saying that a pilot can take a single shot as part of his full-round maneuver. It's still nice to have gunners who can make full-round attacks, but a pilot can crack off a shot per round on his own while flying. I'm comfortable with this, but I'd like to know how the rule is actually supposed to go.)

3) How do you handle an opponent trying to close with two vehicles who are at point-blank range with each other? Do you roll against the easier, or the more difficult, or what? In some cases, I'm fine with handwaving this, but if X is Point-Blank to Y, I don't think that Z can be at Point-Blank Range to X and Long Range to Y.

 

[HeapThaumaturgist]

For some reason I don't do alot of vehicle work, so I can't speak fully to those questions. By fully, here, I mean "at all". The time I used the chase rules worked out well, but involved only two people ... it was a foot-chase.

The SRD is correct on the lack of the burn resistance increase. Wulf changed that one at some point and didn't change it all the way before printing, I guess.

EDIT: And it really is amazing how hard it is to get people to play anything different alot of times. My BEST game was my GT game of Airships!. Everybody was really pretty into that one ... and the oddity was, I had two people to start with who agreed off the bat because they trusted me not to have picked out something that sucked ... and nobody else would play. Took us several weeks just to get a 3rd person, after much talking up on our parts. 3rd player liked it too, never could get a 4th nailed down.

--fje

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

1) In the book, taking the advanced caster level talent increases your effective character level and also gives you +1 Spell Burn Resistance each time you take it. In the GT SRD, the talent doesn't list the resistance improvement. Is this an oversight on the part of the dude who did the SRD, or is this actually the rule?

The additional spell burn resistance is an error. I'd recommend removing it.

The other significant piece of magic-related errata is that I recommend that all spells take effect at a minimum "effective caster level" equal to the spell level, if the actual caster level is less than the spell level. So if a caster level 1 adept manages to cast a 3rd level fireball, it should do at least 3d6 (effective level = 3, spell level).

2) The vehicle rules don't say anything about whether a driver can make attacks, and they list the maneuvering phase as a full-round action without ever noting that the driver might want to do something else.

You have two options here:

1) You can keep maneuvering as a full-round action. In this case, the driver can't maneuver in the same round that he attacks. He maneuvers to line up his shot; he attacks in the next round. (A driver could still maneuver as a Reaction if his opponent's maneuver forces it.)

2) You can reduce maneuvering to a move-action, leaving a standard action for making an attack.

Actually, there's a third option:

3) Very advanced, hi-tech, single-seat fighter-craft might have enough electronic subsystems to either act as a NPC gunner, or to allow an attack as a free action. (Or swift action, or whatever the hell they call it these days.)

3) How do you handle an opponent trying to close with two vehicles who are at point-blank range with each other? Do you roll against the easier, or the more difficult, or what? In some cases, I'm fine with handwaving this, but if X is Point-Blank to Y, I don't think that Z can be at Point-Blank Range to X and Long Range to Y.

I'd certainly consider hand-waving it as my first choice.

I would say that if you are closing against a vehicle that is point-blank to another vehicle, you can essentially maneuver against both at the same time (within reason-- you might not be able to Ram both of them at the same time, but then again you might...)

At any rate, in the above case, the Hero should make a single maneuver roll, and both of the opposing vehicles have the option to react to it, each with an opposed roll of their own. Work out the relative distances of all the vehicles involved afterwords.

 

[takyris]

The additional spell burn resistance is an error. I'd recommend removing it.

Excellent. Done. I've got a 10th-level game going, and with two people who are 4th-level casters with high ability scores, I really hated the idea of them having Spell Burn Resistance 7 or thereabouts.

The other significant piece of magic-related errata is that I recommend that all spells take effect at a minimum "effective caster level" equal to the spell level, if the actual caster level is less than the spell level. So if a caster level 1 adept manages to cast a 3rd level fireball, it should do at least 3d6 (effective level = 3, spell level).

Thanks. I got that off one of the boards, and I'm actually ramping it up further than that. I'm having spells take effect at minimum caster level (so a Flame Strike goes off at 9th-level at the very least). That makes magic more powerful than I'd planned for this campaign, but so far, the number of spells cast in the game is zero. None of the casters have found it worth it in the early fights.

1) You can keep maneuvering as a full-round action. In this case, the driver can't maneuver in the same round that he attacks. He maneuvers to line up his shot; he attacks in the next round. (A driver could still maneuver as a Reaction if his opponent's maneuver forces it.)

Awesome. I wasn't sure if the assumption was "maneuver, or you fall out of the sky" or whatever. Thanks.

2) You can reduce maneuvering to a move-action, leaving a standard action for making an attack.

Actually, there's a third option:

3) Very advanced, hi-tech, single-seat fighter-craft might have enough electronic subsystems to either act as a NPC gunner, or to allow an attack as a free action. (Or swift action, or whatever the hell they call it these days.)

Cool. For my dogfighting vehicles, 2 probably works better. But for the evil golem-ships they'll be fighting, I think an AI that fires for the pilot is an EXCELLENT idea.

Thanks, Wulf! Much appreciated.

 

[Kirin'Tor]

I missed the punch on this one, just wanted to throw in a note: the GT SRD incorporates the errata sheet Wulf released a while back, so all of his reccomended changes (like the spell-burn resistance) are already there

Also, I'm not dead ;-p