Musings on a fan made 2nd edition

MarcoSkoll
Second Lieutenant
Second Lieutenant
MarcoSkoll
Second Lieutenant
Second Lieutenant
Joined: November 3rd, 2011, 3:43 am

August 23rd, 2013, 11:15 am #1

Link to latest version (V0.3.1 - Released 2nd August 2018):

Printer Friendly: http://www.mediafire.com/file/4o8wtodtw ... dly%29.pdf
Colour coded: http://www.mediafire.com/file/sc3d624bd ... ded%29.pdf

Codes:
- Red: changed from last IRE release (in this case, since V0.3).
- Green: Experimental/WIP
- Orange: Both the above
- Black: None of the above, but IRE differs from official LRB
- Grey: Essentially the same as LRB.


Latest Crib Sheet (V1 for IRE V0.3.1 - Released 2nd August 2018):
http://www.mediafire.com/file/cqb8lqdpp ... -0-3-1.pdf

~~~~~

Original post:

If you're reading this, I know a lot of you aren't so much "rules people" - and I am somewhat aware that I have a bit of a habit of being rather forceful in my opinions of playing the game.

However, this project really does need input and feedback from the full spectrum of the Inquisitor community and is almost moot if it isn't a collective effort. So, if you're willing, I would very much appreciate it if you'd chip in with your comments and criticism. I (and others) may have counter-comments and critique, but discussion is what we need!

And with that said, what is this project?

I'm guessing there's one thing most of you probably agree with me on: Inquisitor, as a game, has problems. 12 years, hundreds of players, thousands of characters and some very large number of games have turned up a great many flaws.

Although the rumours of a new Inquisition themed game box are intriguing, the chance that the rules within will prove to be the second edition that Inquisitor needs are just about diddly squat. Any such project is going to have to come from the community... and while PrecinctOmega previously worked on an Inquisitor 2 ruleset, that project seems to be on hiatus (or worse) and didn't necessarily represent a consensus.

So, I think it's well worth trying to start such a project again.

This first post is mostly more of that bad habit of mine - a post that's mostly just a brainstorm; some of it is from the foetid depths of my mind, although other parts may well have been stolen from other places like Dark Heresy or Infinity first.
You'll likely notice that I'm not really looking to cut detail from the game - I feel it's part of what makes Inquisitor "Inquisitor", so I'd prefer to try streamlining things before we try simplifying them, although it is always an ultimate option.

So, without further ado, Marco-brand waffle - just thoughts for the moment, but I've "spoilered" them into categories for neatness.
[+] spoiler
This is going somewhat against previous convention, but it's a pretty damn clever idea from Infinity that makes it very fast and easy to include opposed rolling within the rules.

How much a roll passes by is the number on the dice (rather than how much below the target number has been rolled); even for the best mental mathematicians, it's far faster to see that a roll of 15 has passed by 15 than to have to subtract from the target number of 57 to get a pass of 42.

The distribution is essentially the same, just flipped - the absence of a 0 result (as 00 on a d100 is typically 100) to give a "just passed" result does mean that passes are increased by a single point, but the convenience strongly outweighs this, I feel.
[+] spoiler
I'd like to see a greater degree of reactive play, giving characters more options to act out of sequence - this isn't entirely out of place, as it already occurs in the game with Overwatch and the IGT version of Lightning Reflexes.

It always seems funny that characters can run across open ground in front of armed mercenaries who, because they haven't overwatched, just ignore it.

My core idea here would be to allow characters to reserve actions to use as reactions.

The exact mechanics aren't completely set yet, but I'm imagining three ways in which characters might reserve reactions:
- Sacrificing action dice - each die sacrificed saves up a reaction.
- Declaring a "Wary" action - if the action succeeds, it saves up a reaction. (This might immediately seem less useful than the above, only having a chance of working, but it would be useful if declared later in the turn - not risking the chance of succeeding on important actions, or to use up that last action that you can't think what to do with).
- A "Ready" state where characters can take certain reactions without needing to reserve reactions, but any other action/reaction breaks the state. For example, Overwatch might generate a Ready state that gives free shooting reactions vs. characters in a given area.

This may also probably come with increasing speed values by a point (at least, on average).
Partly to stop saving reactions making the game sluggish, but also to tie into my house rule of 3+ actions until the action's about to kick off.
In this way, the start of the game could have the characters moving about faster (using all their action dice as actions), not watching their backs just yet, but later on through the game, they might be more wary and thus slower (saving reactions based on the perceived threat).

Hence, a character running around the side of a building he believes is clear might be faster and less wary, but one running past a building he knows is occupied might be slower about it.

My concern here is that this might be more time consuming, with variable action counts, reactions interrupting turns, etc.
It could work (and could be pretty cool) but I think it definitely needs some tests to suss out the pros and cons.
[+] spoiler
The maths of risky actions is a bit of a problem. As the character's speed increases, the chances of getting more ones than sixes also increases. What's a 16.7% chance on one die, is 25% on two, up to ~36% by Speed 6.

Given high speed characters are also more likely to have enough successful actions to reach the risky one (and thus fail it), this creates a bit of an odd effect that the more agile and alert characters are the clumsy ones.
It's also not possible to control the riskiness of an action. All risky actions are equally risky.

I know PrecinctOmega was also looking to move away from Risky Actions with his INQ2.0, making it a separate D10 roll, with a target number depending on riskiness.
My inclination here is to do much the same - personally, I'd adopt the system used in the Revised Armoury, where the units digit of a die roll is used to determine the risk of an action.
[+] spoiler
There's not strictly anything wrong with most of movement.

However, I would prefer to move to a system closer to Dark Heresy for determining things like climbing and jumping, replacing Risky actions with Hazardous Strength/Agility rolls.

It's also an area where, if better thought out encumbrance rules were being instated, I'd like them to have some of their effect. For example, partially over-encumbered characters might take penalties to their movement rates, rather than their speed values.
[+] spoiler
I think this is one of the more problematic areas in the rules.

I feel it's important to have a progressively debilitating sequence of injuries, as a "hit point" system doesn't work well for the player-vs-player play of Inquisitor (victory going to whomever doesn't run out of hit points first) or even its heroic style. Where's the thrill in a character heroically fighting through their injuries if those injuries don't actually make it harder for them?

Dark Heresy's system is an improvement, but it is still ultimately hit points until you reach critical damage. (When playing Dark Heresy, characters/enemies taking a boltgun to the face and not reacting at all because they've still got two wounds left afterwards... it feels wrong).

My best theory is to work from the current solution. It's not bad (I think my re-format helps) - it just needs more clarity and refinement.

On this front, I would genuinely like to keep mechanics like Rending, Trivial and Tearing such as I use in the Revised Armoury. I know they are a little more complicated than just adding or subtracting from the damage roll, but they also
allow for a wider range of variation (and, in many cases, actually speed things up).

None are overwhelmingly complicated effects - but if people are opposed, I'm entirely prepared to just leave them for a 2nd edition version of the Revised Armoury.
[+] spoiler
The problems I see with close combat:

- It's usually all the same thing. For many characters, the only actions worth declaring are attack (or advance and attack), defend (although that comes in parry or dodge flavours) or run away. Actions like circle* are usually unheard of, so the only movement is normally the dodge or (occasionally) an acrobatic character.
I'd like to encourage more movement. Any sustained fight from a film or TV show will usually involve trekking over a wide area.
*One of my characters does use it as part of a "signature move" - Move Up-close; Circle opponent & prime grenade; unarmed Attack to attach grenade. It fits a character who has experience fighting Traitor Marines in close quarters (and who has probably, background wise, killed the most Astartes of any of my characters).

- Combat is a little too weighted towards having to wear down your opponent's parry/dodge chance first. While a reducing chance of defence is realistic and helps weight things against outnumbered characters, I think it would be better if initial parry chances were lower and the successive penalties were milder.

This could also allow the phasing out of the halving WS, which usually results in several moments of muttering about mental arithmetic in order to work out what parry chance #3 is going to be.

What I have in mind is to make close combat opposed rolling. If a hit roll passes by 19, the parry will have to beat that.* This will naturally make parrying/dodging harder, so we could simplify and reduce the subsequent parry modifier to perhaps a straight -10 or -20, which would be much easier to add up during game play.
*This may require Critical rolls to be rethought a bit (else they'd be the most easily parried), but I'm thinking possibly something similar to the Hazard rules again - something like a units die of 1 is a critical hit.

Manoeuvring could also be included as a modifier to a combat roll - making the attack (or perhaps even defence) more difficult, but also making its opposing roll more of a challenge.
So, if a character wished to try and circle to the right to attack their opponent, that might be a -20 to hit, but also a -20 to the parry/dodge. With the right modifiers, it could make fights much more mobile and interesting.
Similarly, add in the possibility of trying to manoeuvre opponents.

Inspired somewhat by Taleworld's Mount & Blade videogames, I'm also wondering about different attack types; some bladed weapons could be offered both stabbing and slashing options - something like a slashing attack might gain something like Rending(2) over a stabbing attack, but also count double armour. Maybe also different hit/parry penalties.
That, again, opens up more possibilities.

I don't know exactly. But I think close combat needs more options - other things like the option for offensive/defensive stances as in what I think were DapperAnarchist's house rules could potentially be built in.
As is, "Attack attack attack" is almost a platitude when it comes to the turn of a character in close combat.
[+] spoiler
The range table... um. Well - it's a mess. But I don't want to replace it with something that's vague - Inquisitor is too detailed to make range something too coarse (many games have very broad range modifiers); it needs to be reasonably granular. Similarly, I think I prefer look-up tables to mental maths.
Again, this is an area that I think would be better improved, but don't know how to improve.

Automatic fire also needs work.
Semi-auto less so, but things like Semi(6) being largely guaranteed to completely miss at point blank range are daft, so I think it may need the specifics changed. My favourite options are either the semi-auto penalty scaling with range; or the penalty being reduced and increasing the range penalties for auto fire.

Full-auto is a lot of the time just hitting on the automatic 5% or near it (again, even at point blank range). I'd prefer to see it fit with the semi-auto rules better - being a "the same, but more" matter (with rules for engaging multiple targets - but strictly, I wouldn't say no to that with semi-auto).
As is, there have been three official versions of these rules, and none of them have been very good.

Overall, I should say I'm not hugely a fan of the "one roll with degrees of success" method used for auto fire in Dark Heresy as the method here. It looks tempting as a way of reducing the number of rolls, but the way it's done dramatically increases the likelihood of several hits; I always see that rolling location and damage for a hit takes longer than rolling more hit rolls. (Also, we don't want a huge chance of taking characters out with multiple hits in one!)

However... I do support "one roll with degrees of success" as an option with flame weapons. I've already made a proposition for this in the Revised Armoury that takes it back to one hit roll per target, modified by range, movement and number of targets. Until something else comes along, I think that's my preference.
[+] spoiler
While I do think Koval's recent attempts are very much an improvement, I think it's worth throwing in some other alternatives and picking through them (particularly if we do have the option for a complete redo).

I proposed a crude set of ideas some time ago... something closer to a mix of Dark Heresy and how magic worked in 6th/7th edition Fantasy (editions before or after that I don't know what it's like), about rolling power dice to beat a certain threshold. I recognise my early version was too complicated, but I think it can be neatly trimmed back.

So, power dice - then willpower may then enter this to control the power's effect - that is to say, after one has rolled to summon a fireball, it would be Willpower to make it go in the right direction; or after having enough power to forge a link to another mind, it would be an opposed Willpower roll to plant one's suggestion).

This might reintroduce Risky Action like rolling - counting the 1s and 6s on the power dice in order to determine Perils of the Warp. As I said, the risks ramp up (although diminishingly so) with more dice, so it's got a nice scaling effect to it.
Well, that's my initial thoughts on what would be best fixed, and how it might be possible to fix them.

Feel free to agree or disagree, make your own suggestions for problems or solutions, or whatever really.
Quote
Like
Share

Bruticus
Second Lieutenant
Second Lieutenant
Bruticus
Second Lieutenant
Second Lieutenant
Joined: November 30th, 2012, 9:29 pm

August 23rd, 2013, 4:29 pm #2

Good idea. I've only played a couple of games of Inquisitor but it made a pretty strong impression on me, compared to Necromunda it felt rather inelegant and unwieldy. I can't offer much useful feedback about the specific rules of Inquisitor but I can point out a few things that felt odd from a newbie POV, or from a Necromunda POV (I am quite involved with the Necromunda community edition, the fan made rules that try to fix that grand old game). I'm not sure this will be much help.

Personally I couldn't play a game where you have to deduct numbers from 100, I'm some sort of arithmetic moron and anyway the system just felt very counter-intuitive: from a game design perspective there is satisfaction in rolling high and trying to roll low feels wrong. I like your suggestion.

One of the most fun things about combat in Necromunda (and many board games) is that you roll off at the same time as your opponent and can quickly compare the dice rolls. I have no real idea here other than to say 'that's fun'. It made combat feel more competitive.

The fact that your character seems to ignore the results of being shot was one of the most surprising things to me. My inquisitor got shot in the back by a sniper rifle that (I think) quite seriously hurt him, but it had no real effect on him at all in game play terms. Maybe similarly to an wary state there could be a suppressed or wounded state (like in Necromunda) that is harder to recover from.

For psychic actions, I also fondly remember how magic worked in old editions of Fantasy. You could have a system where you roll a certain number of power dice based on a level of mastery, needing a number of 6s based on the difficulty of the spell. Rolling a 6 could allow you to roll the dice again, so if you kept rolling 6 you could keep rolling (a fun mechanic from Dystopian Wars and Chaos in the Old World). This would give using psychic powers a great sense of possibly spiraling out of control. Perhaps if you rolled a lot of 6s you could trigger an ultimate force effect while lots of 1s would be the Perils of the Warp.

I guess a lot of this comes down to: knowing what you are trying to roll or rolling against someone makes rolling the dice a bit more interesting. And I'm sure I mainly felt that way due to being a novice.
Quote
Like
Share

MarcoSkoll
Second Lieutenant
Second Lieutenant
MarcoSkoll
Second Lieutenant
Second Lieutenant
Joined: November 3rd, 2011, 3:43 am

August 23rd, 2013, 6:09 pm #3

> Bruticus said: The fact that your character seems to ignore the results of being shot was one of the most surprising things to me.
... I'm not sure quite what you mean here. I find most characters tend to be quite easily debilitated to some degree or another by being hit. Being stunned or losing speed are common injury results and quite a disadvantage to a character. Not acting for three turns is not a good thing and Speed 4 doesn't look so great after you're at -2, leaving you only able to declare/roll for two actions.
(Light injuries are generally not much of a matter, but these are heroes and villains. Almost any big action movie will include the hero shrugging off a few flesh wounds).

> For psychic actions, I also fondly remember how magic worked in old editions of Fantasy.
I haven't played editions further back than 6th, so I don't know details of their rules but that sounds like it could be something well worth considering.

I recall playing a game called Havok years and years ago with a similar "explosive dice" mechanic for much of its play - it was basically about trying to get a certain number of passes on the dice, with 4+ being a pass and a 6 allowing an extra die to be rolled. (Although it actually had custom D6s, with two "pass" sides and one "pass and roll again" side).

> I guess a lot of this comes down to: knowing what you are trying to roll or rolling against someone makes rolling the dice a bit more interesting.
I think you've got a good way of putting what I like about reactive combat mechanics - dice rolling is more interesting when you have that direct involvement and making you feel like you have more of a hand in things.
Quote
Like
Share

Koval
Warrant Officer Second Class
Warrant Officer Second Class
Koval
Warrant Officer Second Class
Warrant Officer Second Class
Joined: October 28th, 2012, 8:19 am

August 27th, 2013, 9:03 am #4

General notes from a Skype discussion with Marco last night:

General Dice Rolling: The proposed mechanic seems fine to me. We had to butt heads for a while over magnitudes of failure, though.
----Suppose you're making a Willpower test and you need a 65. If you roll a 12, you pass by 12 points. Simple enough.
----If you roll a 98, you fail by (98-65) = 33, which is what it is at present.
----So for a pass, you pass by how many points over zero you rolled; for a failure, it's how many points over your target number.

Actions and Reactions: This is a bit trickier. Early thoughts included defining what each type of "stored action" might be (so giving examples of how Sacrificed Actions, Wary Actions and Ready States work), and having the upper limit for stored actions be dictated by your Speed stat. Again, early days.

Risky Actions: Turning currently Risky Actions into Hazardous Actions seems like a decent idea as it eliminates the messy higher-Speed-means-greater-risk-of-failing-Risky-Actions thing we have at present, although we need to define what constitutes a Hazardous Action and how one can fluff it up. Providing examples would help to illustrate the point, but it does currently revolve around individual actions rather than the action roll at the start of the turn.
----How to define fluffing up a Hazardous Action? In the RIA, it's currently "if the units die comes up as a 5", though if it's percentile I'm more partial to "if you roll a double".

Movement: I had nothing meaningful to add here, but the jury's still out on whether getting rid of Sprinting is a good idea or not. I'm tempted to keep it, but impose a hefty penalty on Awareness checks and such like, as your focus is on pegging it.

Damage and Injury: I had a few things to say here.
----The Injury table needs some serious cleaning up. This is abundantly obvious. Taking the Abdomen chart as an example, we currently have a lot of "see the previous level, which redirects you to the previous level". That's a lot of messy bookkeeping that could and should be simplified and streamlined with discrete entries that don't refer you back to an earlier point.
----A suggestion I had was to scrap the current "one point into the next injury level forces that level of injury" mechanic, and introduce "floating injury points". Say you have a BIV of 6, and you're hit in the abdomen for 14 points of damage: that becomes two full levels (14/6 = 2.something), and then the remaining damage becomes "floating injury points" that can be transferred to other locations on the next wounding hit. So a subsequent hit to the chest for 4 points of damage might just add to the floating injury total, but because we already have two points saved up, that 4 becomes a 6 and that's enough to cause a Light Injury.
----I realise that the above means more bookkeeping and generally tougher characters, but sorting out the injury tables should balance that out, and it also gets rid of Four Slaps To The Head.

Close Combat: More actions and action types would be useful, but there's a danger of overcomplicating things if we go too crazy.
----Movement actions would help immensely.
----I took a hint from a couple of other games I used to play, where weapons were subdivided into such categories as "slashing", "stabbing", and "blunt". This has two implications.
----Firstly, we could incorporate "slash", "bash" and "stab" actions, each with their own additional effects. Stabbing actions, for example, could increase the likelihood of scoring a Critical Hit.
----Secondly, some weapons could be naturally suited to certain types of attack action and provide some measure of benefit -- a hammer would be a poor choice for stabbing someone, but ideal for inflicting blunt trauma and causing Knockback.
----I will freely admit that this needs more thought, as I came up with that at around 11pm.
----This branched off into ideas for a Close Combat RIA, or creating melee weapons where things like power swords and shock mauls are "upgraded" versions of normal swords and hammers. Needs more work.

Shooting: This needs more discussion, but basically, the current range modifier chart is a complete mess.
----I proposed a short/medium/long/extended range chart, so that each range band has discrete sub-ranges. That would be paired up with a single fixed modifier for each range; it wouldn't matter whether your weapon has Range A or Range F, firing at long range would still have the same fixed penalty, but what Range A might call long range, Range F might call medium or short.
----That ran into a problem where half an inch one way or the other might determine whether something gets slapped with a light modifier or a significantly heavier one.
----Cutting down the number of range categories (not range bands; I'm talking about 0-5, 6-10 et cetera) would be a compromise, making the table less messy without sacrificing too much granularity.
----What we do with Semi and Full Auto then depends on what we do with the range modifier chart.
----Aiming could be reined in to +10 rather than +20. This brings it more in line with Concentration and stops the silliness of a character's BS going well into triple figures*.
*At the most recent INQvitational, Sergeant Visstra managed to stack up no fewer than seven aim actions and ended up with an effective BS of 203. The DMR he was carrying made a very big mess of his unfortunate target's head. We decided that this made sense given the circumstances, but was otherwise a bit silly in practice.

Psychic Powers: Different systems can at the very least be used as starting points. This needs more thought.
----The "power dice" suggestion would only really make sense if we ported in Dark Heresy 1E's system (which IIRC was itself ported from WFRP 2E?). I'm personally more partial to Willpower tests than power dice, as that preserves a measure of the existing system, but then again, we can always playtest different options.
Quote
Like
Share

MarcoSkoll
Second Lieutenant
Second Lieutenant
MarcoSkoll
Second Lieutenant
Second Lieutenant
Joined: November 3rd, 2011, 3:43 am

August 27th, 2013, 10:02 am #5

To touch on a couple of comments I don't actually recall you making last night:

> Koval said: How to define fluffing up a Hazardous Action? In the RIA, it's currently "if the units die comes up as a 5", though if it's percentile I'm more partial to "if you roll a double".
Doubles does fix it as a 10% chance though. The RIA varies it with things such as Hazardous(2) which expands the threat band to include rolls that end in 6s, Hazardous(3) adds 7s, and so on - allowing percentages of any decimal fraction (so 10%, 20%, 30%)

Shifting the percentages with a doubles system would be more of a mess!

> *At the most recent INQvitational, Sergeant Visstra managed to stack up no fewer than seven aim actions and ended up with an effective BS of 203.
Robey had a suggestion of capping aim levels for his INQ2.0, such that most characters were limited to only so much of a bonus (those with some kind of marksman skill might be able to take more, but still limited to a degree).

This was also in addition to reducing the bonus (which you did say, yes). I'm open to either or both - but if it were staying at +20, I think I'd definitely cap it... possibly to three, maybe four. Seven is daft.
Quote
Like
Share

Drubbels
Corporal
Corporal
Drubbels
Corporal
Corporal
Joined: August 16th, 2011, 8:51 pm

August 28th, 2013, 2:54 pm #6

Partial draft for close combat rules (apologies for poor formatting; I'm posting this from my phone).

The Attack

The character initiating an attack is called the attacker, and his target is the defender. The attacker and defender make an opposed WS test, with the following modifiers:
+10 for the party with the longer Reach.
+10 for the party with the high ground.
+10 for attacking a character in the side.
+20 for attacking a character in the rear.
-20 for attacking or defending from a prone position.
-10 for the defender per attack he has defended himself against this turn.
-Defender's weapon's Parry Penalty for the defender.

-Attacker wins: the attack hits. Roll for hit location and damage.
-No winner or the defender wins by less than 30: the attack misses. Nothing happens.
-The defender wins by 30 or more: the defender may Attack or Manoeuver the attacker. This attack automatically hits.
After the attack, the defender may always turn toward the attacker.

Note: a defender may choose to forgo defending himself if he believes he'll be needing his parries more later in the turn. In this case, the attack automatically hits (still make an attack roll to determine whether it is a Critical Hit).

Actions

Advance - A character closes in on his enemy.

A character at arm's length moves closer to his opponent. The characters are no longer at arm's length.

Attack - a character makes a simple melee attack with the intent of hurting an enemy.

The character makes a close combat attack.

Circle - A character circles around his opponent, intent on outflanking him.

A character at arm's length from his opponent may move up to two yards to the side, preserving the distance between him and his opponent.

Crushing Blow - A character trades accuracy for greater force upon impact.

The character makes a close combat attack. If the attack hits, it deals Trivial (2) (or +2) damage, but counts as double damage for the purposes of knockback. Requires a heavy, blunt weapon, such as a staff, maul, club or hammer (or the side of a particularly gigantic sword).

Disengage - a character uses swordplay to cover his own retreat.

The character makes a close combat attack. If it hits, it does not deal damage. Instead, the character does not provoke an opportunity attack if he leaves the combat as his next action on this turn.

Fire Pistol - A character draws a pistol and fires it at his opponent point-blank.

The character makes a close combat attack using a pistol. Reach modifiers are ignored, and the defender cannot counter-attack.

Manoeuver - a character attempts to control the position of a fight to his advantage.

The character makes a close combat attack. If it hits, instead of dealing damage, move both characters up to 4 yards in the same direction, preserving the distance between them. This cannot move any character into a harmful obstacle or off a ledge.

Piercing Thrust - a character settles for making only a small wound if it means he can bypass most of his adversary's armour.

The character makes a close combat attack. If it hits, it ignores the first four points of armour the target has but deals Trivial (2) (or +2) damage. Requires a sharp-tipped weapon, such as a spear, sword or knife.

Slashing Strike - a character intends to make a wide, deep cut, even if it means sacrificing some armour piercing capability.

The character makes a close combat attack. If it hits, it deals Rending (2) (or +2) damage, but counts double armour points. Requires a bladed weapon such as an axe, sword, knife or claw.

Step Back - A character takes a few steps back, increasing the distance between himself and his enemies.

A character moves back to arm's length from his opponentu This action cannot be used by a character who is already at arm's length.

Critical Hits

If the units die of an attack roll comes up a 1, the hit is a Critical Hit. This means that the result of the damage roll for the attack is doubled (before reduction for armour).
Quote
Like
Share

Koval
Warrant Officer Second Class
Warrant Officer Second Class
Koval
Warrant Officer Second Class
Warrant Officer Second Class
Joined: October 28th, 2012, 8:19 am

August 28th, 2013, 3:48 pm #7

That looks to be on the same sorts of lines as what Marco and I were discussing on Monday. Tabulating modifiers and actions would certainly make things look nice and tidy, for what it's worth.
Quote
Like
Share

Drubbels
Corporal
Corporal
Drubbels
Corporal
Corporal
Joined: August 16th, 2011, 8:51 pm

August 28th, 2013, 7:36 pm #8

By the way, are you aiming more for an Inquisitor 1.5 (major changes and modifications) or an Inquisitor 2.0 (complete overhaul)?
Quote
Like
Share

Koval
Warrant Officer Second Class
Warrant Officer Second Class
Koval
Warrant Officer Second Class
Warrant Officer Second Class
Joined: October 28th, 2012, 8:19 am

August 28th, 2013, 7:48 pm #9

I'm angling for something closer to 1.75, but I'm also aware that I'm not the only person involved. At the moment, it's still pre-alpha.
Quote
Like
Share

Drubbels
Corporal
Corporal
Drubbels
Corporal
Corporal
Joined: August 16th, 2011, 8:51 pm

August 28th, 2013, 8:33 pm #10

General Dice Rolling
@Marco - that idea from Infinity feels counter-intuitive but is pure genius. Should definitely be implemented.

Actions (and Reactions)
I'd suggest doing something like D&D 4E, where you can spend a "Ready" Action. Essentially, you declare an action you want to take and the circumstances under which you'll take it.
"I'll start running as soon as someone rounds the corner."
Possible problem with this approach is that, where in D&D you get only one Standard Action a turn and as such can only Ready one action, you get more actions in Inquisitor. People might Ready all the time, which could really bog the game down. A possible solution is that a Ready Action means you automatically sacrifice the rest of your turn after that, but it only works reliably if you declare it early in your turn (since it only works if you actually reach the action). That way, people will only Ready if they feel they really have to; it will cost them (most of) their turn. Characters might also often declare their last action which they don't know what to do with as Ready, just in case they actually make all their action rolls, but this is rare enough that I don't believe it will slow things down too much.
Note: Overwatch can be fully incorporated into Ready.

Risky Actions
Completely agree, Hazardous Actions are a better system.

Movement
For Encumbrance reducing movement, there are basically two options: it either reduces the number of yards a character can move per action by an amount depending on the degree of over-encumbrance, or it simply blocks off sprinting for over-encumbered characters and both sprinting and running for greatly over-encumbered ones. I think I prefer the second option, but some thought needs to be put in to the Encumbrance thresholds.

Damage & Injury
Really like Koval's idea with floating injury points, definitely seems worth implementing.

Close Combat
See my earlier post.

Shooting
Perhaps something similar to the DH method could work, with some modifications: roll To Hit at a +5 bonus per semi-auto shot, causing an additional hit for every two degrees of success. That way, at least the amount of shots fired is actually relevant for your chances to hit (which, strangely, it isn't in DH).

Otherwise, keep it as it is now, but instead of a straight -20 penalty, it's -5 for every full 5 or 10 yards. I think I recall Marco proposing this or something similar on The Conclave some time ago.

Psychic Powers
I agree with Koval that it's probably best to keep WP tests for Psychic Powers: not only does this fit better with the rest of the game, it's also a lot easier to write powers for. Just coming up with an appropriate difficulty modifier is a lot easier than finding an appropriate psychic threshold, in my opinion.

A combined system (power dice to cast, willpower test to control) doesn't sit very well with me. It requires a LOT of depth for each and every power, coming up not only with what the power does when it is used properly but also with what it does when it goes out of control. I suppose using power dice to use the power and then testing Willpower to suppress Perils of the Warp could work.
Quote
Like
Share