2 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

I had an idea that I think you guys might go for, but I need some help on the details. I'd call it a compromise, but, if anything, I like it more than the original suggestion:

Discard Strategy. Instead, use Knowledge (Warfare) for the opposed check. In order to avoid one skill for both parts of Mass Combat, replace the Clever Commander talent that allows the character to use Knowledge (Warfare) for Mass Combat with "Flexible Commander" (or "Adaptable Commander"): Once per Mass Combat after a phase, may (spend 1 Destiny Point, make a Hard Leadership(?) check, take X strain) and re-roll the opposed check.

What do you think? Also, I need some help with the details (as you can see). It would go into the Strategist tree at square 2B and because of how the tree is built, it would cost a minimum of 25 XP to get to it.

Why?

Just now, Daeglan said:

Why?

Because I like the idea of the opposed check, and this fixes the balance issue of using Warfare for both.

2 hours ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

Because I like the idea of the opposed check, and this fixes the balance issue of using Warfare for both.

It already is an opposed check. It is you players skill vs the opponants skill.

Just now, Daeglan said:

It already is an opposed check. It is you players skill vs the opponants skill.

I like to occasionally add something special to cater to the focus of any given campaign, and in the case of a commander focused campaign, I think that it would be fun to have an opposed strategy (lowercase "s" strategy) check to see if you can gain (or lose) an advantage over your opponent. It adds a new dimension to Mass Combat checks that I think makes it a little bit more interactive and adds to the drama a little bit.

The Clone Commander tree also has Clever Commander, so it would have to be replaced with "Flexible Commander" as well.

I'm thinking of also changing Calm Commander to "May use Cool instead of Knowledge (Warfare) for opposed strategy check." Because Leadership and Coercion are parallels for organizing and commanding your troops, and Cool and Knowledge (Warfare) could be considered alternate methods of strategy, Cool to try to trick, outfox, etc. your opponent, and Knowledge (Warfare) to take a more conventional approach and simply focus on your attack.

Just now, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

I like to occasionally add something special to cater to the focus of any given campaign, and in the case of a commander focused campaign, I think that it would be fun to have an opposed strategy (lowercase "s" strategy) check to see if you can gain (or lose) an advantage over your opponent. It adds a new dimension to Mass Combat checks that I think makes it a little bit more interactive and adds to the drama a little bit.

The Clone Commander tree also has Clever Commander, so it would have to be replaced with "Flexible Commander" as well.

I'm thinking of also changing Calm Commander to "May use Cool instead of Knowledge (Warfare) for opposed strategy check." Because Leadership and Coercion are parallels for organizing and commanding your troops, and Cool and Knowledge (Warfare) could be considered alternate methods of strategy, Cool to try to trick, outfox, etc. your opponent, and Knowledge (Warfare) to take a more conventional approach and simply focus on your attack.

Sure. It already is an opposed check. The way you build a mass combat pool you take you forces size and that is your charcters charcteristic. Then you upgrade by the skill being used. This is opposed by the size of thr opposing force upgraded by the opposing.commanders chosen skill.

Mass combat checks are always opposed checks

5 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

Sure. It already is an opposed check. The way you build a mass combat pool you take you forces size and that is your charcters charcteristic. Then you upgrade by the skill being used. This is opposed by the size of thr opposing force upgraded by the opposing.commanders chosen skill.

Mass combat checks are always opposed checks

I know, but that is your character's ability to command their troops, and their troops' strength, whereas what I'm doing is adding an extra dimension where you also compare strategy, and good strategy can compensate for inferior forces or skill in actually commanding your troops.

I'm not suggesting a general change to Mass Combat rules, as they are fine the way they are, I just think that, under proper circumstances, it is a fun and beneficial addition.

1 hour ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

I know, but that is your character's ability to command their troops, and their troops' strength, whereas what I'm doing is adding an extra dimension where you also compare strategy, and good strategy can compensate for inferior forces or skill in actually commanding your troops.

I'm not suggesting a general change to Mass Combat rules, as they are fine the way they are, I just think that, under proper circumstances, it is a fun and beneficial addition.

You can already do that with the existing system. That is what anowledge warfare check before a mass combat check can do

1 minute ago, Daeglan said:

You can already do that with the existing system. That is what a ok nowledge warfare check before a mass combat check can do

So if that is the case, why not just tweak it a little bit?

I don't see what your objection is. Do you have any balance suggestions for my addition?

Because we already have rules to do what.ypu want. Why not use them?

Have your guy make a knowledge warfare check before the battle. Have your player do the same. The results effect the opposed mass combat check. Ie successes upgrade. Advantagres give boosts. For example

1 minute ago, Daeglan said:

Because we already have rules to do what.ypu want. Why not use them?

Have your guy make a knowledge warfare check before the battle. Have your player do the same. The results effect the opposed mass combat check. Ie successes upgrade. Advantagres give boosts. For example

Is that noted specifically in the rules, or are you suggesting a house rule?

Then why not just make it an opposed check where they cancel each other out? It is superior, in my opinion, because it allows you to seem to "counter" someone, rather than just getting a slightly better strategy, you counter your opponents strategy or advantages. For example, removing a Setback die can mean that you have planned for, or countered the reason for the Setback die, and Triumph could indicate that you managed to outflank the enemy, thus leaving part of their force impotent and removing them from the force consideration (removing one die as suggested in the OP). Simply adding dice because of a good roll to suggest "a good strategy" is less narratively interesting to me than being able to say that "they fell for my feint and I was able to cut off some of their forces, but they were prepared for the poor conditions, removing the Boost die, and saw me coming so the commander was able to prepare, upgrading the opponent's pool once" (a result of 1 Triumph, 1 Failure, and 2 Threat).

40 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

Is that noted specifically in the rules, or are you suggesting a house rule?

Then why not just make it an opposed check where they cancel each other out? It is superior, in my opinion, because it allows you to seem to "counter" someone, rather than just getting a slightly better strategy, you counter your opponents strategy or advantages. For example, removing a Setback die can mean that you have planned for, or countered the reason for the Setback die, and Triumph could indicate that you managed to outflank the enemy, thus leaving part of their force impotent and removing them from the force consideration (removing one die as suggested in the OP). Simply adding dice because of a good roll to suggest "a good strategy" is less narratively interesting to me than being able to say that "they fell for my feint and I was able to cut off some of their forces, but they were prepared for the poor conditions, removing the Boost die, and saw me coming so the commander was able to prepare, upgrading the opponent's pool once" (a result of 1 Triumph, 1 Failure, and 2 Threat).

It is a way of.doing things already in the dice mechanics. An example ofnhow to work with th dice to get what.you are looking for. Thats the thing this system is very flexible and it is with in the rules to do what.you want. I suggest you go read over the dice mechanic really throughly as what you you are looking for often times already exists as a mechanic that all you might have to do is adapt to your situation. You keep trying to come up with new rules instead of looking at the rules and figuring out how to your accomplish your desire using the rules you have.

2 hours ago, Daeglan said:

I suggest you go read over the dice mechanic really throughly as what you you are looking for often times already exists as a mechanic that all you might have to do is adapt to your situation. You keep trying to come up with new rules instead of looking at the rules and figuring out how to your accomplish your desire using the rules you have.

That's what I'm doing. For relatively subjective balancing concerns, I'm tweaking a couple of minor talents that I'd leave alone if I wasn't adding the opposed check. Aside from adding the extra roll, that's the ONLY thing I'm tweaking.

Is there anything in particular you are pointing me towards?

1 hour ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

Is there anything in particular you are pointing me towards?

Look specifically at the dice mechanics. There are several kinds of.rolls.

36 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

Look specifically at the dice mechanics. There are several kinds of.rolls.

Yeah, I know. Opposed checks, Competitive checks, Assisted checks, and Skill checks. Were you referring to something else?

1 hour ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

Yeah, I know. Opposed checks, Competitive checks, Assisted checks, and Skill checks. Were you referring to something else?

Now consider how to use them to accom pop liah your goala

1 minute ago, Daeglan said:

Now consider how to use them to accom pop liah your goala

By using an Opposed check. Like I've been suggesting all along.

8 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

By using an Opposed check. Like I've been suggesting all along.

You dont need a custom skill to do it.

5 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

You dont need a custom skill to do it.

Yeah I changed my mind on that a while ago:

Quote

I had an idea that I think you guys might go for, but I need some help on the details. I'd call it a compromise, but, if anything, I like it more than the original suggestion:

Discard Strategy. Instead, use Knowledge (Warfare) for the opposed check. In order to avoid one skill for both parts of Mass Combat, replace the Clever Commander talent that allows the character to use Knowledge (Warfare) for Mass Combat with "Flexible Commander" (or "Adaptable Commander"): Once per Mass Combat after a phase, may (spend 1 Destiny Point, make a Hard Leadership(?) check, take X strain) and re-roll the opposed check.

What do you think? Also, I need some help with the details (as you can see). It would go into the Strategist tree at square 2B and because of how the tree is built, it would cost a minimum of 25 XP to get to it.

First of all, I love how invested you are in the game, as you constantly share your ideas with the community.

This game is designed to work very well with a particular set of skills and attributes. You don't need a lot of tables, grids and stuff.

So when is house ruling necessary? For me house rules should be applied to run the game more smoothly, to make things easier. For example take starship combat or vehicle combat, where many GMs brought some house rules in.

And I think (at least in this case) creating a new skill or changing a talent make the game more complicated instead of easier.

My piece of advice would be, let the player throw a few knowledge warfare opposed checks, like who analyzed the battlefield better, who positioned their troops the best and so on. With the results you finally can upgrade or downgrade or add boost and setback dies to the last check, which should determine the result of the battle.

4 hours ago, Vader is Love said:

My piece of advice would be, let the player throw a few knowledge warfare opposed checks, like who analyzed the battlefield better, who positioned their troops the best and so on. With the results you finally can upgrade or downgrade or add boost and setback dies to the last check, which should determine the result of the battle.

That's what I'm doing, I'm just adjusting a talent for balance reasons.

On 9/6/2019 at 2:16 PM, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

The issue is that you can use Warfare for the Mass Combat roll itself, and then you'd end up with one skill that is used for both.

You can use Ranged Light to make rolls for a ridiculous number of different weapon types, that "technically" should be covered by different skill sets, if you're trying to justify things with the "well technically" kind of defense. Shooting a pistol is not the same thing as throwing a thermal detonator, and neither of them are the same as firing a rifle, but all of that different stuff is apparently just fine for Ranged Light by itself. So I don't see why it's necessary to create a whole new skill, when they are by design, meant to be very broad general skills, specifically to prevent forcing players from skill specializing like crazy. This isn't a bug of the system, it's a feature, this is on purpose. It's so you guys can not bother debating the skills validity in the roll, and get back to playing the game quickly.

If a player wants to use a skill that isn't ideally suited to the task at hand, like say Knowledge: Education instead of Medicine to try and stabilize someone "I saw this on a holotube video! I know what I'm doing!" Then the GM is well within their rights to increase the difficulty, or upgrade it, to reflect this "less than ideal" skill check. But this should be a rare situation at best. Using Knowledge: Warfare to do warfarey, knowledgey stuff, is exactly what it's for.

10 minutes ago, KungFuFerret said:

You can use Ranged Light to make rolls for a ridiculous number of different weapon types, that "technically" should be covered by different skill sets, if you're trying to justify things with the "well technically" kind of defense. Shooting a pistol is not the same thing as throwing a thermal detonator, and neither of them are the same as firing a rifle, but all of that different stuff is apparently just fine for Ranged Light by itself. So I don't see why it's necessary to create a whole new skill, when they are by design, meant to be very broad general skills, specifically to prevent forcing players from skill specializing like crazy. This isn't a bug of the system, it's a feature, this is on purpose. It's so you guys can not bother debating the skills validity in the roll, and get back to playing the game quickly.

If a player wants to use a skill that isn't ideally suited to the task at hand, like say Knowledge: Education instead of Medicine to try and stabilize someone "I saw this on a holotube video! I know what I'm doing!" Then the GM is well within their rights to increase the difficulty, or upgrade it, to reflect this "less than ideal" skill check. But this should be a rare situation at best. Using Knowledge: Warfare to do warfarey, knowledgey stuff, is exactly what it's for.

You are missing the point, the issue is using one skill for both parts of the same roll, not a lot of different things. Plus, if I'm splitting it into two parts, those being strategy and commanding, it makes more sense to use Leadership or Coercion for the test of how well you can command your troops, and Knowledge (Warfare) and possibly Cool (I haven't made up my mind yet) for the strategy part. If you used one for both there would be a balance issue in that the player could invest in the one skill to do both phases (plus it's more fun if they have better strategy, but aren't as good at commanding their troops etc. [though I know that they could have both skills at the same level, I'm just saying it's more likely]).

And in case you didn't notice, I scrapped the idea of a custom skill a couple days ago.

One other point to your point about Ranged (Light): In the sidebar for custom skills, they mention "animal handling" as an example. You and I both know that animal handling is under the purview of Survival, however they seem to be suggesting that it is at least acceptable to have a more particular skill for a particular campaign if you deem it appropriate. An example would be that if you were playing as primitive Ewoks, you might have an "Archery" skill to represent that they are skilled with bows, but not blaster rifles. And if you're just going to say "well, just don't upgrade the roll for blaster rifles" that would have the same effect as having a separate skill. I'm not saying that you should break down existing skills to their base components, I'm just saying that the base game seems to accept it.

30 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

You are missing the point, the issue is using one skill for both parts of the same roll, not a lot of different things. Plus, if I'm splitting it into two parts, those being strategy and commanding, it makes more sense to use Leadership or Coercion for the test of how well you can command your troops, and Knowledge (Warfare) and possibly Cool (I haven't made up my mind yet) for the strategy part. If you used one for both there would be a balance issue in that the player could invest in the one skill to do both phases (plus it's more fun if they have better strategy, but aren't as good at commanding their troops etc. [though I know that they could have both skills at the same level, I'm just saying it's more likely]).

And in case you didn't notice, I scrapped the idea of a custom skill a couple days ago.

One other point to your point about Ranged (Light): In the sidebar for custom skills, they mention "animal handling" as an example. You and I both know that animal handling is under the purview of Survival, however they seem to be suggesting that it is at least acceptable to have a more particular skill for a particular campaign if you deem it appropriate. An example would be that if you were playing as primitive Ewoks, you might have an "Archery" skill to represent that they are skilled with bows, but not blaster rifles. And if you're just going to say "well, just don't upgrade the roll for blaster rifles" that would have the same effect as having a separate skill. I'm not saying that you should break down existing skills to their base components, I'm just saying that the base game seems to accept it.

Ypu dont use knowledge warfare for mass combat. You use leadership

1 hour ago, Daeglan said:

Ypu dont use knowledge warfare for mass combat. You use leadership

The "Strategist" tree from Lead by Example and the "Clone Commander" tree from Collapse of the Republic have the talent "Clever Commander" which allows the player to use Knowledge (Warfare) instead of Leadership to upgrade Mass Combat checks. "Calm Commander" from the "Figurehead" tree allows the player to use Cool and "Cruel Commander" from the "Separatist Commander" tree allows the player to use Coercion.