There's only so much you can glean by just reading it. That's why it's a playtesting program, not a proofreading assignment.
N.E.W Playtest- first read feedback
- Thread starter Peter Holland
- Start date
There's only so much you can glean by just reading it. That's why it's a playtesting program, not a proofreading assignment.
Peter Holland
Explorer
Also- what are Technobabbles?
And the sample adventure refers to 'packages' what are they?
And the sample adventure refers to 'packages' what are they?
They were excised in the last iteration. They were a group luck pool, basically. There are still some references to them that need cleaning up.
Peter Holland
Explorer
Considering there are a lot of careers that give them.
Yep, I'm aware of them. For now, it's safe to consider then a +1 per day luck pool recharge, though that'll change in the next document.
Peter Holland
Explorer
Re-reading the rules ready for our first game I noticed something- if you are arm-wrestling someone with say 5 STR and you have 5 STR, unless the GM calls for a roll, you can't actually beat them- the difficulty is STRx4 or 20, you roll (STR/2)+1 dice or 3d6- giving you between 3 and 18- you can never win. The same is true of most odd-numbered stats as you are adding 4 for each increase- more than 1 dice would add.
Peter Holland
Explorer
However, it is the example you give in the book. The only time I can ever see a static difficulty would be when trying to be stealthy or sneaky, wouldn't it make more sense to have a 10+2xINT+Perception ranks as a defence instead?
Yeah, the example is left over from a previous iteration. Thanks for spotting it!
An opposed AGI vs. INT check with stealth or perception providing d6 bonuses on each side is what you'd use there
That said, I do have pre-calculated static perception scores for monsters - mainly just to speed up play.
Peter Holland
Explorer
Those are the scores I was talking about.
Similar Threads
