Heroica: Glory Amongst The Stars - Rules & FAQ

[Waterbrick Down]

@Duvors I completely understand the point about classes, and hence why I don't want to revise the rules system until we've got all this straightened out. Right now the classes "work" with the current rules, no change to the rules without considering classes, though honestly if it's rules vs. classes, I think the rules will take priority in most cases for what gets adjustment.

The complaints I've observed about ranged combat:

• Having 4 ranges and the corresponding penalties is complicated
• Ranged weapon users need to prioritize Velocity in order to get into optimal range for their preferred target
• Opportunistic attacks (against ranged weapon users) are complicated
• Maps are often too small to allow for good maneuverability

The strengths of ranged combat I've observed:

• Able to hit a greater number of squares (albeit some with penalties) compared to melee
• Able to position self to avoid taking some attacks (or at least have those attacks made with penalties)

The complaints I've observed about melee combat:

• Able to hit a limited number of squares compared to ranged
• Melee weapon users need to prioritize Velocity in order to close the distance and attack ranged weapon users

The strengths of melee combat I've observed:

• Current maps tend to be of a size that is easily covered by the average character's Velocity, meaning ranged weapon users are generally easily cornered
• Melee weapon users can keep adjacent ranged weapon users from attacking allies (via Opportunistic Attacks)

I think the things we all agree on are:

• Melee needs to be equally viable
• Keep things simple if possible

The existing system does seem to put a premium on Velocity. Movement gives you options and both ranged and melee styles want it, so I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing. It does end up potentially weighting Skill as more preferable compared to Strength or Smarts, as the Attribute governs Energy Weapon Grades, Defensive Combat Checks, and Velocity boosts (Part of me wonders if we really need the even number bonuses...), but this is beneficial to both ranged and melee styles equally. With the current meta, most maps mean everyone is easily targetable, so I don't think the defensive benefits of ranged weapons are fully capitalized upon. Additionally because everyone has prioritized Velocity and because the maps tend to be smaller, Opportunistic attacks against ranged weapon users are rare. This just leaves the following statement that we're really trying to answer:

Ranged Weapons have a greater number of available squares to target so melee weapons need                  (fill in the blank).

Suggestions have been:
Ignore armor
Have a higher Weapon Grade Modifier
Have a boost to Velocity
Prevent adjacent characters from moving without taking an Opportunistic Attack

Personally, I feel the tradeoff for having a limited number of squares to hit, is probably being able to hit them harder. From a mechanics perspective this can be accomplished in a variety of ways:

• Change the number needed for a success, similar to the Rogue's feature, melee weapons could count 3's toward successes
• Add a static modifier/or dice similar to a weapon mod
• Add a static modifier/or dice that keys off another stat (similar to how Yzalirck suggested adding Strength)
• Double the weapon mod
• Double the Proficiency dice
• Add some sort of critical hit/exploding dice
• Allow for multiple hits
• Impose -1 Skill dice for Defensive Combat Checks vs. melee attacks.

[The Legonater]

2 hours ago, Waterbrick Down said:

 

• Add some sort of critical hit/exploding dice
• Allow for multiple hits

At the risk of just recreation Heroica 1.0, I'm intrigued by this possibility. I'm tempted to suggest every "range" having some special critical ability if they roll 6's, but that might be over-complicated for something that happens relatively often. 

[Duvors]

4 hours ago, Waterbrick Down said:

Personally, I feel the tradeoff for having a limited number of squares to hit, is probably being able to hit them harder. From a mechanics perspective this can be accomplished in a variety of ways:

Not really a fan. I don't like making melee weapons work fundamentally differently from ranged weapons in this way.

[Waterbrick Down]

1 hour ago, Classic_Spaceman said:

Yelana looked up; "Wait, you're using Plasma Potions? Can't you just, like, meditate, or something to heal yourself?" 

OoC: 

  Hide contents

This is actually an out-of-character question presented in-character: What are the current rules surrounding the Meditate action? 
@Waterbrick Down, @Duvors

 

Current rules have Meditate as an action that can be performed in and out of combat. MM's are as always free to modify the rules for their particular game/scenario, but should consider doing so with caution and should aim for player by in. Players are also certainly allowed to limit their own character (i.e. a player may choose to not meditate outside of combat, or only meditate outside of combat) knowing that that may have negative repercussions from certain players and again should aim for player and MM buy in.

3 hours ago, Duvors said:

Not really a fan. I don't like making melee weapons work fundamentally differently from ranged weapons in this way.

So to clarify, you're not in support in a different mechanic, but would agree that melee needs some sort of boost to combat ranged weapons higher number of targetable squares, correct?

[Classic_Spaceman]

1 minute ago, Waterbrick Down said:

Current rules have Meditate as an action that can be performed in and out of combat. MM's are as always free to modify the rules for their particular game/scenario, but should consider doing so with caution and should aim for player by in. Players are also certainly allowed to limit their own character (i.e. a player may choose to not meditate outside of combat, or only meditate outside of combat) knowing that that may have negative repercussions from certain players and again should aim for player and MM buy in.

👍
 

[Scubacarrot]

Honestly I probably don't have enough experience with the Heroica 2.0 combat system... But as a new player the one mechanic that i feel is most complicated is the oppertunistic attack.

I think one way to simplify them AND to boost melee without overhauling everything could be to make oppertunistic attacks an automatic thing (not requiring standing still for a round) whenever an enemy attempts to move out of range or when the enemy attacks an ally while in melee range.

Edited March 17, 2022 by Scubacarrot

[Yzalirk]

On 3/16/2022 at 1:31 AM, Duvors said:

This would actually hamper non-kinetic melee, since you would them have to raise two attributes to optimize your attack instead of one. Kinetic melee, on the other hand, would be boosted by getting a damage bonus tied to it's attribute without additional investment (and they already have armor requirements tied to it).

Good point.  I think with the current rules of the game when it comes to the passive perks to Strength / Skill / Smarts it would only be possible if we changed those, which I am not fond of.

I like the suggestions that @Waterbrick Down and @Scubacarrot provided.  I think if opportunistic attacks were an automatic thing calculated by the GM and, at least for melee users, has a larger modifier or something so when the attack does land it penalizes the NPC for trying to run away.  From my experience as a melee user in both the trial mission and current game, stats like damage and survivability are manageable because I can control that.  But when I have to chase an NPC around for three turns that is something I cannot reliably counteract.  Also as a bonus to this suggestion, if the opportunistic attack does hit, the target should also receive a Hindered debuff that prevents them from moving for one turn or something.  That way I can pursue them and continue fighting them.

[Duvors]

9 hours ago, Scubacarrot said:

I think one way to simplify them AND to boost melee without overhauling everything could be to make oppertunistic attacks an automatic thing (not requiring standing still for a round) whenever an enemy attempts to move out of range or when the enemy attacks an ally while in melee range.

1 hour ago, Yzalirk said:

I like the suggestions that @Waterbrick Down and @Scubacarrot provided.  I think if opportunistic attacks were an automatic thing calculated by the GM and, at least for melee users, has a larger modifier or something so when the attack does land it penalizes the NPC for trying to run away.

Opportunistic attacks already work like that. All you have to do to trigger one is end your turn next to an enemy and wait for them to trigger it, every other part of the action is done by the MM without player input. It is not mutually exclusive with movement. That's why it's a special action (an action type that is specifically not exclusive with other actions) and not a full action (one per turn, not counting special actions). The only way this doesn't reflect the current rules is the bit about attacking targets who move away, which was removed for being annoying and hard to remember in practice.

2 hours ago, Yzalirk said:

From my experience as a melee user in both the trial mission and current game, stats like damage and survivability are manageable because I can control that.  But when I have to chase an NPC around for three turns that is something I cannot reliably counteract.  Also as a bonus to this suggestion, if the opportunistic attack does hit, the target should also receive a Hindered debuff that prevents them from moving for one turn or something.  That way I can pursue them and continue fighting them.

While I agree in principal to the point that being kited around is annoying and difficult to manage, I don't want to give attacks native access to special effects. I really don't think getting a free attack with a chance to deal restrained when someone moves away from you would be balanced.

My own personal issue here is that pretty much that every suggestion so far has either boiled down to 'hit harder' (which I find boring and would create an exception to the game's standards) or bringing back the old opportunity attack. I have said many times that I do not like the old opportunity attack. I distinctly dislike a mechanic that de-incentivizes movement when movement is the source of most of the dynamism and tactical complexity of the fights. If players and enemies are just going to stand next to each other and attack every round we may as well go back to the old system of 'front row, back row'.

[Duvors]

This is probably a terrible idea.

Special Action: Follow
When you end your turn adjacent to character, you may choose to follow them. When that character moves, you move in the same direction up to your velocity. You may not dash on the same turn.

Critique?

[Yzalirk]

3 hours ago, Duvors said:

Opportunistic attacks already work like that. All you have to do to trigger one is end your turn next to an enemy and wait for them to trigger it, every other part of the action is done by the MM without player input. It is not mutually exclusive with movement. That's why it's a special action (an action type that is specifically not exclusive with other actions) and not a full action (one per turn, not counting special actions). The only way this doesn't reflect the current rules is the bit about attacking targets who move away, which was removed for being annoying and hard to remember in practice.

While I agree in principal to the point that being kited around is annoying and difficult to manage, I don't want to give attacks native access to special effects. I really don't think getting a free attack with a chance to deal restrained when someone moves away from you would be balanced.

My own personal issue here is that pretty much that every suggestion so far has either boiled down to 'hit harder' (which I find boring and would create an exception to the game's standards) or bringing back the old opportunity attack. I have said many times that I do not like the old opportunity attack. I distinctly dislike a mechanic that de-incentivizes movement when movement is the source of most of the dynamism and tactical complexity of the fights. If players and enemies are just going to stand next to each other and attack every round we may as well go back to the old system of 'front row, back row'.

I just do not remember it happening in Mission #5 where it would have been very useful, particularly during the fight with the Glacial Mongers by the dead Drake.  I remember chasing one down and it would run away and attack me.  I am not exactly sure when an Opportunistic Attack can be applicable but in that case it would have been nice if I could have scored an attack before the target fled, especially when my basic attacks did no damage. 

I understand the sentiment that the "hit harder" idea is boring but there has to be something to incentivize melee combat.  If every fight were like the one I described, I would respec my proficiencies to use a different weapon type.  That is partly why I opted to choose Artillery as a secondary weapon proficiency.  That is what makes a melee build not fun.  

[Duvors]

47 minutes ago, Yzalirk said:

I just do not remember it happening in Mission #5 where it would have been very useful, particularly during the fight with the Glacial Mongers by the dead Drake.  I remember chasing one down and it would run away and attack me.  I am not exactly sure when an Opportunistic Attack can be applicable but in that case it would have been nice if I could have scored an attack before the target fled, especially when my basic attacks did no damage. 

As I said:

4 hours ago, Duvors said:

The only way this doesn't reflect the current rules is the bit about attacking targets who move away, which was removed for being annoying and hard to remember in practice.

This change actually occurred during Mission 5. The reason it never came up was because the enemies in the first battle were immune to them anyway, and in every other battle it was either never triggered or had already been removed.

[Waterbrick Down]

11 hours ago, Yzalirk said:

Good point.  I think with the current rules of the game when it comes to the passive perks to Strength / Skill / Smarts it would only be possible if we changed those, which I am not fond of.

I like the suggestions that @Waterbrick Down and @Scubacarrot provided.  I think if opportunistic attacks were an automatic thing calculated by the GM and, at least for melee users, has a larger modifier or something so when the attack does land it penalizes the NPC for trying to run away.  From my experience as a melee user in both the trial mission and current game, stats like damage and survivability are manageable because I can control that.  But when I have to chase an NPC around for three turns that is something I cannot reliably counteract.  Also as a bonus to this suggestion, if the opportunistic attack does hit, the target should also receive a Hindered debuff that prevents them from moving for one turn or something.  That way I can pursue them and continue fighting them.

The ruling however benefits both PC and Enemy ranged fighters, though. What you're describing is a feature not a bug. Ranged fighters should really be focusing on ranged fighters. If melee could handle every situation, then they wouldn't need other party members.

9 hours ago, Duvors said:

Opportunistic attacks already work like that. All you have to do to trigger one is end your turn next to an enemy and wait for them to trigger it, every other part of the action is done by the MM without player input. It is not mutually exclusive with movement. That's why it's a special action (an action type that is specifically not exclusive with other actions) and not a full action (one per turn, not counting special actions). The only way this doesn't reflect the current rules is the bit about attacking targets who move away, which was removed for being annoying and hard to remember in practice.

While I agree in principal to the point that being kited around is annoying and difficult to manage, I don't want to give attacks native access to special effects. I really don't think getting a free attack with a chance to deal restrained when someone moves away from you would be balanced.

My own personal issue here is that pretty much that every suggestion so far has either boiled down to 'hit harder' (which I find boring and would create an exception to the game's standards) or bringing back the old opportunity attack. I have said many times that I do not like the old opportunity attack. I distinctly dislike a mechanic that de-incentivizes movement when movement is the source of most of the dynamism and tactical complexity of the fights. If players and enemies are just going to stand next to each other and attack every round we may as well go back to the old system of 'front row, back row'.

 

5 hours ago, Duvors said:

This is probably a terrible idea.

Special Action: Follow
When you end your turn adjacent to character, you may choose to follow them. When that character moves, you move in the same direction up to your velocity. You may not dash on the same turn.

Critique?

I'm not sure what benefit it adds? It seems like just another way to implement the old rule of Opportunistic Attacks just with extra steps. Instead of a ranged character getting attacked on their turn when moving out of the threat range of melee character, they now move, the melee character follows, and then gets attacked on the melee character's turn. If the ranged character Dashes, you'll move up to your velocity to follow them on their turn and on your turn move again and attack.

5 hours ago, Yzalirk said:

I just do not remember it happening in Mission #5 where it would have been very useful, particularly during the fight with the Glacial Mongers by the dead Drake.  I remember chasing one down and it would run away and attack me.  I am not exactly sure when an Opportunistic Attack can be applicable but in that case it would have been nice if I could have scored an attack before the target fled, especially when my basic attacks did no damage. 

Prior to Mission 5, Opportunistic Attacks triggered automatically when either a hero or an enemy moved out of a melee character's threat range. We did away with it for the reason Duvors mentioned, i.e. it ended up locking all characters into one position and new players couldn't remember the rule and were always moving out of enemies threat ranges and getting KO'd because of it.

[Duvors]

9 minutes ago, Waterbrick Down said:

I'm not sure what benefit it adds? It seems like just another way to implement the old rule of Opportunistic Attacks just with extra steps. Instead of a ranged character getting attacked on their turn when moving out of the threat range of melee character, they now move, the melee character follows, and then gets attacked on the melee character's turn. If the ranged character Dashes, you'll move up to your velocity to follow them on their turn and on your turn move again and attack.

Not exactly. I was thinking of a bowling ball effect where a followed enemy can't move toward their allies without forcing them to scatter, though conversely a character could abuse being followed to pull someone into a disadvantageous position. It was intended to have a similar effect to the original OA, simply because being kited seemed to be a specific complaint surrounding melee. However the intent was to accomplish it in a materially different way, especially one that didn't discourage movement. I should also say that the wording deliberately allows someone to follow an ally, though I can only see niche uses for that.

[Waterbrick Down]

13 hours ago, Duvors said:

Not exactly. I was thinking of a bowling ball effect where a followed enemy can't move toward their allies without forcing them to scatter, though conversely a character could abuse being followed to pull someone into a disadvantageous position. It was intended to have a similar effect to the original OA, simply because being kited seemed to be a specific complaint surrounding melee. However the intent was to accomplish it in a materially different way, especially one that didn't discourage movement. I should also say that the wording deliberately allows someone to follow an ally, though I can only see niche uses for that.

Got it, it potentially addresses the kiting complaint. I think kiting is a legitimate strategy. It's valid for both PC's and enemies. It's annoying to melee fighters, but that's kind of the point of having a ranged weapon is so you can try and stay out of melee's reach. The solution is usually either force a ranged character into a corner with multiple PC's, or have the ranged PC's attack the ranged enemies.

On the idea of an action that shores up melee's inability to target as many squares as a ranged character. A new thought:

Defensive Actions (take 1)
Parry - After taking 0 damage from an adjacent Defensive Combat Check, make an adjacent Offensive Combat Check
Dodge - After taking 0 damage from a Defensive Combat Check, double Velocity for next turn
Brace - Reduce damage taken by 1

[Duvors]

24 minutes ago, Waterbrick Down said:

Got it, it potentially addresses the kiting complaint. I think kiting is a legitimate strategy. It's valid for both PC's and enemies. It's annoying to melee fighters, but that's kind of the point of having a ranged weapon is so you can try and stay out of melee's reach. The solution is usually either force a ranged character into a corner with multiple PC's, or have the ranged PC's attack the ranged enemies.

Correct. I'd also like to mention a few other uses I've thought of. For one thing, although following is primarily beneficial to melee characters, ranged characters can also get some benefit in a specific niche case. Using short range as an example, if a hero with such a weapon follows an enemy whose velocity is one higher than theirs, then they force the opponent to choose between using their full velocity or moving themselves into optimal position to be attacked. There's also some things that can be done with following allies, such as a character moving toward an ally and defending them before following. The other character then moves on their turn, giving their ally the benefit of dashing while being able to take another action. Then there's the fact that following can be chained. If someone follows an ally, and that ally follows an enemy, then when that enemy moves so will the heroes.
To be honest, this might not be the best thing to implement, but the fact that I can think of all these different ways to utilize it endears the concept to me. I like things that encourage people to think 'how can I use this?'

 

48 minutes ago, Waterbrick Down said:

On the idea of an action that shores up melee's inability to target as many squares as a ranged character. A new thought:

Defensive Actions (take 1)
Parry - After taking 0 damage from an adjacent Defensive Combat Check, make an adjacent Offensive Combat Check
Dodge - After taking 0 damage from a Defensive Combat Check, Disengage for free next turn
Brace - Reduce damage taken by 1

Parry - I think the concept of Parrying is pretty much covered by defending, but that doesn't matter since the mechanics here actually model a Riposte - which is already in game as a Swashbuckler class feature that works identically to this. Not that that's a bad thing, things can always be changed and the duel in M#9 shows that works out pretty well. I have to ask though, is this supposed to be a special action? Because if it's a full action it seems inferior to simply attacking.
Dodge - Unless the old OA is brought back, this action is completely useless.
Brace - This honestly seems just a worse version of Defend. Oddly, if this is a special action then I can't see people choosing any of the others instead, because a flat bonus to damage reduction - on top of skill, armor, and potentially defend - is just more valuable.

[Waterbrick Down]

1 hour ago, Duvors said:

Parry - I think the concept of Parrying is pretty much covered by defending, but that doesn't matter since the mechanics here actually model a Riposte - which is already in game as a Swashbuckler class feature that works identically to this. Not that that's a bad thing, things can always be changed and the duel in M#9 shows that works out pretty well. I have to ask though, is this supposed to be a special action? Because if it's a full action it seems inferior to simply attacking.
Dodge - Unless the old OA is brought back, this action is completely useless.
Brace - This honestly seems just a worse version of Defend. Oddly, if this is a special action then I can't see people choosing any of the others instead, because a flat bonus to damage reduction - on top of skill, armor, and potentially defend - is just more valuable.

Defensive Actions would be a new category that a character can perform in addition to their regular action, sort of like a "stance". Updating the action scheme to something like this:

Move Action (Pick 1)
Reposition

Standard Action (Pick 1)
Defend
Rally
Attack
Cast Spell
Use Item/Change Equipment
Try Something
Reposition

Defensive Action (Pick 1)
Parry
Dodge
Brace

Opportunistic Attacks would no longer be an *action per say, just something that auto-triggers when the condition is met. Hopefully this avoids confusion with the other Actions

Parry - Yes, this would be the same as the Swashbuckler's Riposte (which I'm OK replacing)
Dodge - I updated the wording, but I think I was editing when you posted. It now just doubles Velocity next turn
Brace - Damage reduction is good, but not always the best option from a strategy perspective. Parry gives you potential two attacks a round, and Dodge allows for better positioning.

[Duvors]

1 hour ago, Waterbrick Down said:

Defensive Actions would be a new category that a character can perform in addition to their regular action, sort of like a "stance". Updating the action scheme to something like this:

Why? The defend action already fills all the same conceptual space, and quite frankly this seems like a lot to add for little. Why make movement actions their own category when there's only one of them? Brace seems utterly redundant with defending both conceptually and mechanically (and quite frankly would take away the importance of the defend action), Dodge is pretty much the same thing with dashing (and would, again, undermine the dash action), and Parry could just be rolled into the existing OA.

[Yzalirk]

@Duvors and @Waterbrick Down, while I was on my way home I got an idea and possible solution for the Opportunistic Attack thing.  Essentially my idea is that it can only occur when a melee user Defends. 

So for example, if Ronin moved next to an enemy and Defends himself and the enemy attacks Ronin and tries to move away Ronin can perform an Opportunistic Attack at the GM's discretion.  How that is determined can be by a D6.   1 and 2 are successful, 3, 4, and 5 are unsuccessful, and 6 can be a critical version that prevents the target from actually moving in addition to landing but does not do double damage or anything.

Alternatively, it can be determined through some sort of Velocity check or something.  If a player with a Velocity of 3 is challenging a target with a Velocity of 2, they get respective rolls based on that stat:
Velocity 3 - (2, 6, 3) = 11
Velocity 2 - (6, 4) = 10
The Velocity 3 player wins in this case.  Now if they were Defending, they can successfully perform the Opportunistic Attack.  But if they were the one of that opposite end of that, they resist the Opportunistic Attack.  In this version, there is no critical version like in the first example.

Edited March 18, 2022 by Yzalirk

[Duvors]

6 minutes ago, Yzalirk said:

@Duvors and @Waterbrick Down, while I was on my way home I got an idea and possible solution for the Opportunistic Attack thing.  Essentially my idea is that it can only occur when a melee user Defends. 

So for example, if Ronin moved next to an enemy and Defends himself and the enemy attacks Ronin and tries to move away Ronin can perform an Opportunistic Attack at the GM's discretion.  How that is determined can be by a D6.   1 and 2 are successful, 3, 4, and 5 are unsuccessful, and 6 can be a critical version that prevents the target from actually moving in addition to landing but does not do double damage or anything.

Alternatively, it can be determined through some sort of Velocity check or something.  If a player with a Velocity of 3 is challenging a target with a Velocity of 2, they get respective rolls based on that stat:
Velocity 3 - (2, 6, 3) = 11
Velocity 2 - (6, 4) = 10
The Velocity 3 player wins in this case.  Now if they were Defending, they can successfully perform the Opportunistic Attack.  But if they were the one of that opposite end of that, they resist the Opportunistic Attack.  In this version, there is no critical version like in the first example.

I think this has merit, but I think critical effects are a shade too far for this system, and all this stuff about rolling d6's and velocity checks would just burden the system with unnecessary additional complexity. Having to give up your action is a big enough penalty in-and-of itself methinks.

[Waterbrick Down]

13 minutes ago, Duvors said:

Why? The defend action already fills all the same conceptual space, and quite frankly this seems like a lot to add for little. Why make movement actions their own category when there's only one of them? Brace seems utterly redundant with defending both conceptually and mechanically (and quite frankly would take away the importance of the defend action), Dodge is pretty much the same thing with dashing (and would, again, undermine the dash action), and Parry could just be rolled into the existing OA.

Movement actions as a category allow for additional options in the future (or now if anyone has good ideas). Brace is not a necessity, but the thought was to round out the Defensive "styles" with something more direct. Dodge is used to allow more versatility to a Ranged character if they get attacked. Parry is the boost for melee, since it gives a possibility for two attacks per round. Just theorizing other ways to incentivize melee that doesn't directly affect how the weapons themselves work.

10 minutes ago, Yzalirk said:

@Duvors and @Waterbrick Down, while I was on my way home I got an idea and possible solution for the Opportunistic Attack thing.  Essentially my idea is that it can only occur when a melee user Defends. 

So for example, if Ronin moved next to an enemy and Defends himself and the enemy attacks Ronin and tries to move away Ronin can perform an Opportunistic Attack at the GM's discretion.  How that is determined can be by a D6.   1 and 2 are successful, 3, 4, and 5 are unsuccessful, and 6 can be a critical version that prevents the target from actually moving in addition to landing but does not do double damage or anything.

Alternatively, it can be determined through some sort of Velocity check or something.  If a player with a Velocity of 3 is challenging a target with a Velocity of 2, they get respective rolls based on that stat:
Velocity 3 - (2, 6, 3) = 11
Velocity 2 - (6, 4) = 10
The Velocity 3 player wins in this case.  Now if they were Defending, they can successfully perform the Opportunistic Attack.  But if they were the one of that opposite end of that, they resist the Opportunistic Attack.  In this version, there is no critical version like in the first example.

In this scenario, it almost seems like they'd always choose the Defend action. Again I don't think melee needs a way to combat ranged running away, the weapon styles don't need to shore up all of their weaknesses, they just need to have equivalent strengths.

[Duvors]

13 minutes ago, Waterbrick Down said:

Movement actions as a category allow for additional options in the future (or now if anyone has good ideas). Brace is not a necessity, but the thought was to round out the Defensive "styles" with something more direct. Dodge is used to allow more versatility to a Ranged character if they get attacked. Parry is the boost for melee, since it gives a possibility for two attacks per round. Just theorizing other ways to incentivize melee that doesn't directly affect how the weapons themselves work.

The thing is, this is all kind of pointless. The real issue we're trying to solve here is not action economy or lack of defensive options, it's that melee weapons can't attack outside optimal range. Honestly, everything you've suggested here is superfluous with existing full actions (and the purpose of dodge seems to undercut any boost to melee the others might provide anyway) and unrelated to what we're actually trying to accomplish. Parry Riposte is the only 'new' thing here, and honestly I don't quite see the point of it being separate from OA to begin with.

20 minutes ago, Waterbrick Down said:

In this scenario, it almost seems like they'd always choose the Defend action. Again I don't think melee needs a way to combat ranged running away, the weapon styles don't need to shore up all of their weaknesses, they just need to have equivalent strengths.

Now hang on, while tying it to defend might make that particular action too good, I don't see why Opportunistic attack can't be a full action. If that were on the cards, I could even see a case for restoring the movement trigger.

[Yzalirk]

59 minutes ago, Waterbrick Down said:

In this scenario, it almost seems like they'd always choose the Defend action. Again I don't think melee needs a way to combat ranged running away, the weapon styles don't need to shore up all of their weaknesses, they just need to have equivalent strengths.

I would like to be presented more combat scenarios against ranged enemies.  I think we need to get more data on this to come up with a more solid solution.

[Duvors]

I've found a minor formatting error in the Pugilist's class card.

[Waterbrick Down]

40 minutes ago, Duvors said:

I've found a minor formatting error in the Pugilist's class card.

Yep, I see it. Thanks!

[Classic_Spaceman]

2 hours ago, Scubacarrot said:

ooc: do multiple of the same item count as one or two in the inventory? Im assuming multiple. Also, Duvors and Peppy, you guys are out of space.

Multiples of the same item take an individual slot each (as the system currently stands). 
 

@Yzalirk, @Endgame: Would either of you be willing to sell a Structural Scanner? Additionally, how would such a transaction take place (and can items that are available at the Bazar be sold to other players?)? 🤔