| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Bernd Seasoned
Joined: 05 May 2009 Posts: 109
|
Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2011 4:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Clint wrote: | | Bernd wrote: | | EDIT: After my latest question I would bring back the sentence about being Shaken after magical and natural healing and Incapacitation. Furthermore, it could be added that this is relevant only in combat situations. |
Not picking on Bernd, but this is a great example of "clarification" being an eye of the beholder issue many times.
A Shaken character recovers on their action.
An Incapacitated character gets no action; they don't even get dealt cards.
So an Incapacitated character by definition cannot naturally recover from being Shaken.
So then consider the implication of bringing back the sentence that states an Incapacitated character "becomes Shaken if healed."
Since they are already Shaken, there is no reason to make that statement if it is a non-damaging Shaken since it would have no effect on an already Shaken character.
Meaning the only effect would be if it was a damaging Shaken, which would cause the already Shaken character to suffer a wound, and since it also states they are at 3 wounds....
Successfully healing an Incapacitated character would then cause them to be Incapacitated again.
That's truly a killer healing roll.  |
My words were "being Shaken", not "becoming Shaken"
But I can see that you have a valid point here.
And what do you mean by "eye of the beholder issue"? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ValhallaGH Legendary
Joined: 25 Apr 2010 Posts: 4475
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
77IM Heroic

Joined: 23 Jun 2009 Posts: 1591 Location: Austin, TX
|
Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2011 9:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
One minor issue I'd like to see changed: The darkness penalty for pitch blackness is -4, but for blindness or the obscure power it's -6. It confuses me how there can be obscurement penalties worse than pitch blackness? I guess the obscure power is arcane so maybe it's extra confusing or something, but what about blindness? If anything, wouldn't the blind character have less of a vision penalty than an ordinarily sighted person who is momentarily in pitch blackness, since the blind person is accustomed to not seeing?
-- 77IM _________________ Stuff I made: Arcane Abilities · Talent Edge · Savage Fading Suns · Savage Wuxia! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Clint Site Admin

Joined: 13 May 2003 Posts: 16174
|
Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2011 2:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bernd wrote: | | And what do you mean by "eye of the beholder issue"? |
If unfamiliar with it, there is a saying that goes, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder," meaning each person has their own unique position on what is attractive (which may be similar to others or diametrically opposed). The same can also apply to "clarification," where what is clarifying to one person would be confusing to another. _________________ Clint Black
Savage Worlds Core Rules Brand Manager
www.peginc.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Clint Site Admin

Joined: 13 May 2003 Posts: 16174
|
Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2011 2:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 77IM wrote: | | One minor issue I'd like to see changed: The darkness penalty for pitch blackness is -4, but for blindness or the obscure power it's -6. It confuses me how there can be obscurement penalties worse than pitch blackness? I guess the obscure power is arcane so maybe it's extra confusing or something, but what about blindness? If anything, wouldn't the blind character have less of a vision penalty than an ordinarily sighted person who is momentarily in pitch blackness, since the blind person is accustomed to not seeing? |
As described under Pitch Darkness, the character might still determine a foe's location if a "glint of light shines off his blade" or some other quick visual cue.
Blindness, total obscurement, or complete invisibility don't even offer that opportunity. _________________ Clint Black
Savage Worlds Core Rules Brand Manager
www.peginc.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Bernd Seasoned
Joined: 05 May 2009 Posts: 109
|
Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2011 4:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Clint wrote: | | Bernd wrote: | | And what do you mean by "eye of the beholder issue"? |
If unfamiliar with it, there is a saying that goes, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder," meaning each person has their own unique position on what is attractive (which may be similar to others or diametrically opposed). The same can also apply to "clarification," where what is clarifying to one person would be confusing to another. |
I indeed wasn't aware of the phrase (although we have the exact same phrase in Germany), but I am aware of the issue. I trust your (the staff of Pinnacle) judgement, with all your rules-wisdom, to sort these cases out. All we (the fans) can do is suggest some topics you (the staff) can think about. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Virgobrown72 Veteran

Joined: 19 Jan 2010 Posts: 843 Location: The other side of the Sun, baby!!!
|
Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2011 9:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I'd like to see the ammo rules changed on the Wildcards to be handled like it is on the Extras. |
I probably wouldn't make this cannon, buuuuuut.......
This will fit well with my Sci Fi homebrew!!! I stealin' it!!!
Yoink!!!  _________________ "Anything smaller is just fiddly, and fiddly is not one of SvgW's three Fs..." |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
cpk666 Veteran
Joined: 21 Jul 2003 Posts: 765 Location: Atlanta West, GA
|
Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2011 9:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'd like to see the Area Effect Attacks section explicitly state that area effect attacks ignore armor that does not provide full coverage. Yes, I know that is implied by the rules, but if it was clear, then why was it necessary to note it for flamethrowers? And that also is an inconsistency, since no other area effect weapon gets that note.
CK _________________ Since this is my post, please understand that the thoughts expressed in it are my opinion.
"Tact is just not saying true stuff. I'll pass."--Cordelia Chase |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Clint Site Admin

Joined: 13 May 2003 Posts: 16174
|
Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2011 9:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| cpk666 wrote: | | I'd like to see the Area Effect Attacks section explicitly state that area effect attacks ignore armor that does not provide full coverage. Yes, I know that is implied by the rules, but if it was clear, then why was it necessary to note it for flamethrowers? And that also is an inconsistency, since no other area effect weapon gets that note. |
Already handled in the posted errata. Last paragraph under area effect attacks now states...
"Targets use their lowest armor value against area effect damage—armor must cover the entire body without gaps to provide any protection at all." _________________ Clint Black
Savage Worlds Core Rules Brand Manager
www.peginc.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
cpk666 Veteran
Joined: 21 Jul 2003 Posts: 765 Location: Atlanta West, GA
|
Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2011 10:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Clint wrote: | [Already handled in the posted errata. Last paragraph under area effect attacks now states...
"Targets use their lowest armor value against area effect damage—armor must cover the entire body without gaps to provide any protection at all." |
Cool. Will the PDF be updated?
CK _________________ Since this is my post, please understand that the thoughts expressed in it are my opinion.
"Tact is just not saying true stuff. I'll pass."--Cordelia Chase |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Bernd Seasoned
Joined: 05 May 2009 Posts: 109
|
Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2011 10:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| cpk666 wrote: | | Clint wrote: | [Already handled in the posted errata. Last paragraph under area effect attacks now states...
"Targets use their lowest armor value against area effect damage—armor must cover the entire body without gaps to provide any protection at all." |
Cool. Will the PDF be updated?
CK |
It is already updated. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
cpk666 Veteran
Joined: 21 Jul 2003 Posts: 765 Location: Atlanta West, GA
|
Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2011 10:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bernd wrote: | | It is already updated. |
Sweet. Didn't know. Heading to Studio 2 now.
CK _________________ Since this is my post, please understand that the thoughts expressed in it are my opinion.
"Tact is just not saying true stuff. I'll pass."--Cordelia Chase |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
77IM Heroic

Joined: 23 Jun 2009 Posts: 1591 Location: Austin, TX
|
Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2011 11:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Clint wrote: | As described under Pitch Darkness, the character might still determine a foe's location if a "glint of light shines off his blade" or some other quick visual cue.
Blindness, total obscurement, or complete invisibility don't even offer that opportunity. |
"Pitch Darkness" in the common vernacular means that there isn't any light, period, so maybe that's what's confusing me. So it sounds like there should be a further level of darkness -- "Absolute Darkness" -- which would be a -6.
-- 77IM _________________ Stuff I made: Arcane Abilities · Talent Edge · Savage Fading Suns · Savage Wuxia! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Pariah74 Veteran

Joined: 16 Jun 2009 Posts: 934
|
Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2011 12:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
I don't know that there is such a thing as absolute darkness, except in an extreme circumstance that the rules don't need to account for. _________________ "Games give you a chance to excel, and if you're playing in good company you don't even mind if you lose because you had the enjoyment of the company during the course of the game. "
~Gygax |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
77IM Heroic

Joined: 23 Jun 2009 Posts: 1591 Location: Austin, TX
|
Posted: Sun Nov 13, 2011 9:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It does come up from time to time when the party is exploring a dungeon deep underground and the torch goes out. But the main value of such a rule would be to clarify what the -4 level of darkness means, and how it differs from regular "pitch darkness."
-- 77IM _________________ Stuff I made: Arcane Abilities · Talent Edge · Savage Fading Suns · Savage Wuxia! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
xxlgeeklord Seasoned

Joined: 21 Nov 2011 Posts: 249
|
Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2011 8:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
This is just my two cents, but...
The difference between -4 darkness and -6 darkness is that in -4 darkness you know where your aiming, you see the faint outline of the target, or you can hear it. In -6 darkness you can't. It's actually the same level of darkness, but if you know where to aim its -4, and else -6.
Just trying to help  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Timon Heroic

Joined: 21 Feb 2011 Posts: 1077 Location: Haarlem in the Netherlands
|
Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2011 4:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I must admit that when I was in a cave and the guide put the lights out it seemed darker than I had ever experienced before, like being encased in obsidian. _________________ Biting! It's like kissing but there's a winner!
The Doctor's Wife |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
kreider204 Heroic
Joined: 19 Jun 2009 Posts: 1712
|
Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2011 8:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Adding the Guts skill to the Setting Rules section would be helpful for backward compatibility with older settings. _________________ "It only takes an extra second to be courteous."
- Constable Benton Fraser |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Bernd Seasoned
Joined: 05 May 2009 Posts: 109
|
Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2011 5:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| kreider204 wrote: | | Adding the Guts skill to the Setting Rules section would be helpful for backward compatibility with older settings. |
I second that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
AFDia Veteran
Joined: 09 Jun 2007 Posts: 820 Location: Austria/Vienna
|
Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2011 4:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
2 more requests concerning darkness/illumination
1.) The -6 penalty (and the visual differences to -4) could be mentioned under the "Illumination" section.
2.) I would move "cover" and "illumination"/"darkness" rules out of the "ranged attack" section. They were better placed under "Special rules" like in SWEX.
Another advantage would be that some tables could also reference/use these rules.
Eg: Stealth would not need a +x for cover and darkness (because the Notice roll would get -x) and Tracking could reference those tables too (instead of explicitly listing "poor light") |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|