I am still trying to get the designs right for my system for the weapons.

[img]http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l236/aussiegamer/Flamethrower.jpg[/img]

Nexus uses the weapons size as the TH modifer.

My initial thoguhts would be to reduce the maximum range from 10x to 2 or 3x

Thoughts?

I don't quite understand the spreadsheet, what game is it for or is it a new game system?

This isn't helpful, but I think that "NEXUS FLAMETHROWER UNIT" is one of the coolest names I've heard for an RPG in the past year.

Also, any other links for Nexus Flamethrower Unit? I couldn't find the rules docs on a quick search. I'm assuming it's kind of a strategy/tactical military game?

-Andy

yer unit is the wrong word, should have been weapon. Sorry.

I have my site linked in my sig.

Yes its for my RPG system, Nexus. It can be used table top for the vehicle combats, but is basically a roile playing game.

Its the raw data so heres a bit of a tech readout for the manuals

I think this makes it easier for you to see how easy it is to read

Automatic Sentry Gun (Nexus)

Weapon
Twin barrelled Machine guns
Damage: (4d6+12) x2
TH: +4
Range; 82m

Armour
AC:
Armoured: 14, unarmoured: 10
Touch: 10
Flat footed:
Armoured: 12, unarmoured: 10
Damage reduction: Armoured: 20, Unarmoured: 12

Hit points
45

Skills
Awareness: +10, Use Sensors: +10

Sensor package
Mark VII

GM note:
Robotic Sentry is able to act independently once set up. It has INT score of 3.

Improved Shielded Version

Type: Buffering flickering
Flicker Rate: 8

Shield HP: 124
AC: 11

So...

Automatic Sentry Gun (Nexus)

Weapon
Twin barrelled Machine guns
Damage: (4d6+12) x2
TH: +4
Range; 82m

Armour
AC:
Armoured: 14, unarmoured: 10
Touch: 10
Flat footed:
Armoured: 12, unarmoured: 10
Damage reduction: Armoured: 20, Unarmoured: 12

Hit points
45

Skills
Awareness: +10, Use Sensors: +10

Sensor package
Mark VII

GM note:
Robotic Sentry is able to act independently once set up. It has INT score of 3.

Improved Shielded Version

Type: Buffering flickering
Flicker Rate: 8

Shield HP: 124
AC: 11

No its not just a house rules minor changes system.

Yes it is a d20 system but after that the system is wholy a different system.

It has simliar ascepts but like all d20 games they tend to have that, but I feel that the differnces are what makes Nexus better. It allows the GM to build from scratch most gear, and you don't have to guess.

A different combat system, a different magic system (working on a newer  whole system right now), a different psionics system.

Also sorry I put the wrong example for the above flamer gun. thats a robotic sentry gun.

Just so you know, there was a role-playing game put out in the 80s named Nexus, so you probably can't use that as the name of your game, seeing as the Trademark/Copyright wouldn't have run out yet.
I could be wrong, though.

You can not copyright a name that is in normal everyday use, there is also a star trek nexus PC game and several other Nexus names used.

Mine also has d20Nexus and is different.

But saying that,
1. this is a working title
2. if this ever does maybe one day go to print then I am sure that checks will be done and then at that point a decision will be made.

But thanks any way
Rick

Hi Rick,

I'm a little curious about the question you're asking in this thread. You called for others' thoughts on your proposal to reduce the weapon's maximum range.

I have absolutely no way to address that question, with play-experience using it. Did you arrive at that idea through something that happened during play? If so, what was it?

Best, Ron

I would like your feed back on the whole thing. I put up my own thoughts about the ranges but interested in the whole data. The sheet is just off my excel sheet and would not be used as is.

I have tried several ways on the site to get some chat going, this is just the latest.

Aussigamer,

I'm going to make a few observations.
These will reflect the methods I've found most effective on The Forge, just to, y'know, help you out.

I can see you're doing a great deal of work and getting very little response. And that sucks.
So, observations:

1.) You've got this system which is on a site, which you have to become a member to use - at least, if I remember correctly.
Frankly... if I wanted to respond to this thread I'd need to sign up to your site, download your files, read them all, and then try and process your question. I am not going to do all that, just to respond to a question about maximum ranges.

If you are going to talk about Nexus, use the first bit of the post to outline some of the stuff. A line or two describing what Nexus is, and maybe a quick rundown of how the mechanics in question work.

If you said, "Listen. Here's 200 words on how weapons and combat work. Now, by making X am I unbalancing the game?"...
It'd be easier for us to productively comment on this thread than it is now.
But...

...2.) You're asking a very, very narrow question about how a particular item's stats work in play. That question would be best answered by playtesting, not by idle speculation.

3.) Posting and saying, "What do you think of this?" will typically give you stale results.
For example...
In this thread, after explaining Nexus quickly, telling us how combat worked, and posting about your gun...
You could say, for example, "I want to stress fatality in combat. I want people to be weary about entering a fight without knowing their odds. So, does X help me re-enforce that design goal?"

That's perhaps a poorly constructed example, but gives you an idea what I mean, right?
Ask questions tied to your design goals, and pose questions in the form of, "Does X re-enforce Y".

joepub wrote:
Aussigamer,

I'm going to make a few observations.
These will reflect the methods I've found most effective on The Forge, just to, y'know, help you out.

I can see you're doing a great deal of work and getting very little response. And that sucks.
So, observations:

1.) You've got this system which is on a site, which you have to become a member to use - at least, if I remember correctly.
Frankly... if I wanted to respond to this thread I'd need to sign up to your site, download your files, read them all, and then try and process your question. I am not going to do all that, just to respond to a question about maximum ranges.

If you are going to talk about Nexus, use the first bit of the post to outline some of the stuff. A line or two describing what Nexus is, and maybe a quick rundown of how the mechanics in question work

If you said, "Listen. Here's 200 words on how weapons and combat work. Now, by making X am I unbalancing the game?"...
It'd be easier for us to productively comment on this thread than it is now.
But...

...2.) You're asking a very, very narrow question about how a particular item's stats work in play. That question would be best answered by playtesting, not by idle speculation.

3.) Posting and saying, "What do you think of this?" will typically give you stale results.
For example...
In this thread, after explaining Nexus quickly, telling us how combat worked, and posting about your gun...
You could say, for example, "I want to stress fatality in combat. I want people to be weary about entering a fight without knowing their odds. So, does X help me re-enforce that design goal?"

That's perhaps a poorly constructed example, but gives you an idea what I mean, right?
Ask questions tied to your design goals, and pose questions in the form of, "Does X re-enforce Y".

By the by, I agree that it's probably a good idea to reduce the maximum range here. Even if your other weapons calculate the maximum range as x10 the short range, that doesn't work so well with a flame-thrower, considering what people would expect. Does it have a cone effect, by the way? If you're going to have stat blocks for weapons anyway, having customized ranges doesn't particularly increase the burden.

Also: if that's a normal flamethrower, I don't think it should work in space at all realistically speaking. Of course that's easy to ignore if you like the visuals of a flamethrower fight in space...

About lack of feedback: I am of the same mind with you here, Aussigamer, you're not getting enough discussion to justify starting threads here. As I see it you have two choices about it:
- Make a real effort to outline your design goals and philosophy, the state of the project, your publishing plans and the current state of the game. Summarize enough pertinent material for the fellows here to get a sense of what you already have. Lay out genuine conundrums and your reasoning as to how you think they could be solved. Write up the reasons why you think this is a worthwhile project, loan your motivation to others so they will harness the energy to help you. Time and again we've verified here the very simple fact that feedback is not automatic; even interesting projects need to be presented in a frank and personal way to garner that interest, and when a project isn't obviously original and flashy (like here), it's twice as important to present it in an interesting manner.
- Decide that it's not worth the effort, and stop trying. I don't think that this is a particularly bad choice in this case, because it should be clear as day that success in finding a common ground between the Forge regulars and your design is going to take some work. What you're working on seems uninspiring and bland to the great majority of posters here, and while they perhaps could help you with time, it would take lots of effort from both sides to get over the cultural gap.
I suggest that you think about these options frankly, without letting ego issues get in the way. What kind of help do you really need with your game? Do you think the people here are equipped to help you with it? How much work are you willing to put in to get people to care? If the equation doesn't seem favorable, well, there are a lot of other places to look for support in your design efforts. And if it still seems worthwhile to try, look at those suggestions seriously: you have to write longer, more detailed and personal posts to get anybody to answer with the same. Short and vague gets only short and vague in reply, and most will just skip those in favor of threads where they can actually be helpful.

Eero wrote:
By the by, I agree that it's probably a good idea to reduce the maximum range here. Even if your other weapons calculate the maximum range as x10 the short range, that doesn't work so well with a flame-thrower, considering what people would expect. Does it have a cone effect, by the way? If you're going to have stat blocks for weapons anyway, having customized ranges doesn't particularly increase the burden.

Also: if that's a normal flamethrower, I don't think it should work in space at all realistically speaking. Of course that's easy to ignore if you like the visuals of a flamethrower fight in space...

About lack of feedback: I am of the same mind with you here, Aussigamer, you're not getting enough discussion to justify starting threads here. As I see it you have two choices about it:
- Make a real effort to outline your design goals and philosophy, the state of the project, your publishing plans and the current state of the game. Summarize enough pertinent material for the fellows here to get a sense of what you already have. Lay out genuine conundrums and your reasoning as to how you think they could be solved. Write up the reasons why you think this is a worthwhile project, loan your motivation to others so they will harness the energy to help you. Time and again we've verified here the very simple fact that feedback is not automatic; even interesting projects need to be presented in a frank and personal way to garner that interest, and when a project isn't obviously original and flashy (like here), it's twice as important to present it in an interesting manner.
- Decide that it's not worth the effort, and stop trying. I don't think that this is a particularly bad choice in this case, because it should be clear as day that success in finding a common ground between the Forge regulars and your design is going to take some work. What you're working on seems uninspiring and bland to the great majority of posters here, and while they perhaps could help you with time, it would take lots of effort from both sides to get over the cultural gap.
I suggest that you think about these options frankly, without letting ego issues get in the way. What kind of help do you really need with your game? Do you think the people here are equipped to help you with it? How much work are you willing to put in to get people to care? If the equation doesn't seem favorable, well, there are a lot of other places to look for support in your design efforts. And if it still seems worthwhile to try, look at those suggestions seriously: you have to write longer, more detailed and personal posts to get anybody to answer with the same. Short and vague gets only short and vague in reply, and most will just skip those in favor of threads where they can actually be helpful.

I can see that I am wasting your and my time by trying to get feed back on here and I'll stop bothering.

For the feel
Nexus is about allowing GMs and players to set there own campaigns up from scratch. Too many systems give little infomation about building stuff from scratch exept for some guidlines. Yes there are other systems that do well in one area or another, I am trying to make a system for all areas.

Allowing a game to be placed in D&D settings, modern, near future or distant future. Most games work in setting area but have real problems coping with the other settings.

I have gone for a simple combat system, as I and my players like that, but a very detailed setting up system. This allows for more variation to whats on offer, than just the basic gear.

I like a free system for building characters, you get to assign the character feats which allows it to be mutant or psionic or magic user. The skills are open to all, to some extent as you do have requirements for the upper ones, so no cross class. the skills can be learned by doing or by going to a place of learning.

Again here I seem to giving the rules and not the feel.

joepub wrote:
No! I sincerely apologize if I was giving you that impression.
In fact, I would really like to see Nexus become a kickass, rock solid game. The kind that makes me excited about playing a d20-ish game.
In order for people to help you MOST EFFECTIVELY, though, I was trying to give you some tools that've helped me AT THIS SITE.
So... in no way take my earlier post as saying, "Get out of here."
Take is as saying, "Here are some ways that you can make the most out of the Forge, as I see it."

This is really helpful. Awesome.
Wanna know the part that's the most helpful to me, as someone wanting to get in on the conversation?
"I have gone for a simple combat system, as I and my players like that, but a very detailed setting up system."

Cool. That's a very direct Design Goal. And it's worded really simply. (Some people have an issue with succinctness. You don't, which is awesome.)

I want to know more about how you've done this.
Either in this thread, or in a new one... can you explain how your game achieves this?

So... someone could use your system to create this item, right?

Like... I understand that you've created this one and it's a pre-generated item... But someone could theoretically re-create it using your system?

Is that an example of what you mean by "very detailed setting up system"?

I have removed the critical confrim check, as the 1st die does it all. Also allowing for failure results on this as well.

So I am not wanting to add to much "detail" into the D&D base action system.

I did add a improved initiative system, that allows for actions to adjust initiative. This has made it a bit more complex, but the tables are pretty easy and not to detailed once again.

One addition is the %roll for location.

joepub wrote:

Cool. The "No, it's not a critical, it's a critical threat" thing was the single biggest piss-off playing d&d for me.

by this, I interpret, "I don't want to flesh out the system and have it any more bogged down." Is that what you meant?

Actions affecting initiative = cool.
a bit more complex = okay, so long as you don't contradict your goal of a quick-and-easy combat system.
charts = UGH!

Aren't there ways to do an improved initiatve system without charts?

joepub wrote:

Does this conflict with your goal of "quick, easy combat"?
I ask because I've never seen Hit Locations mechanics that didn't bog the game down - in combat, but especially in EQUIPPING characters.

How does this work? Does it keep combat quick and easy?

INITIATIVE
Every round, each combatant gets to do something. The combatants’ initiative, from highest to lowest, determines the order in which they act, from first to last.
Surprise Initiative
All have this as a base for the equations below.
All Initiative = DEX + feats + Weapon Speed (Primary) + Armour Skill Penalty + Attack type modifiers + d6.
Note: This is only used if both sides have at least one (1) combatant unsurprised.
Weapon Speed Primary: This is the weapon that is used by the creature as its primary attack, or the weapon at hand for the surprise round.
1st round
All combatants who have not rolled their knowledge (Tactics) do so now. But they are considered flat-footed until their combat go.
Flat-footed Initiative = DEX + feats + Weapon Speed (Primary) + Armour Skill Penalty + Attack type modifiers (+ d6).
Non-Flat-footed Initiative = DEX + feats + Weapon Speed (Primary) + Armour Skill Penalty + Attack type modifiers + Knowledge (Tactics) (+ d6).
Knowledge (Tactics): Creature rolls a skill check and for every 5 points above DC 0 the creature/ pilot/ driver is granted a +1 modifier to the initiative number. This is only every rolled once per combat and is rolled in the 1st round that the creature is not flat footed. Even if they are caused to be flat–footed after being not flat-footed they do not roll again.
(+ d6) This is only rolled if surprise round did not occur.
After each round
The number that the character had rolls over, thus if they had a 5 initiative number last round they start with a 5 again this round. The initiative number can be modified by the type of attack they used last round. Like “Aiming” or the primary weapon they are used last round (swapped a small knife for a large plasma rifle last round thus dropping their weapon speed) or rushing to attack or dropping a piece of armour.
Delay
If a combatant delays its action, they are deemed to be on the same initiative number as the combatant it went after in the last combat round minus 1.
Same number
If 2 or more combatants have the same initiative number, then the combatant with the highest BAB goes 1st. If still a tie then the combatant with the highest DEX goes 1st, and if still a tie the combatant which went 1st in the last round again goes 1st this round.
Surprise and being Flat-Footed
At the start of a battle, or during a battle if a character is unaware of a new combatant, before the character has had a chance to act (specifically, before the character’s turn in the initiative order), the character is considered flat-footed verses those opponents only. A character can’t use his or her Dexterity bonus to Defence from attacks from them or make attacks of opportunity against those opponents while flat-footed.
A tripped prone combatant is flat-footed to all, but a feinted character is only flat-footed to the character feinting.
Only during the 1st round, called the surprise round, the non-flat footed characters get only one action, and the flat footed none.
All non-flat footed character gets a +4 initiative modifier for the next round if any combatant is flat-footed, including allies.
Attacks against Flat-Footed
Attackers can choose which body point they want to target for all attacks until the opponent can react normally, if they are within normal melee range for their size, i.e. a medium character must be within 2m and a large 4m. This allows them to stick a gun next to the head of an opponent and say, “Dodge this!” to them.
ACTIONS THAT AFFECT INITIATIVE ORDER
A character can alter its initiative number by using some of the following types of attacks.
Rushed Attack
This must be selected at the START of the round.
All personal weapons can be used without proper aiming. Thus the combatant gains a –4 to hit for that combat round, but gains a +2 bonus to their initiative.
All Combatants must declare that they are “Rush Attacking” before the round begins, as it alters their initiative before the round starts. It is a free action to set this action.
If “Rushing” is selected then no other from of initiative altering action is allowed.
Aiming
This type of attack uses up a MEA. The +2 to hit only counts for the 1st attack made during their next combat go. Aiming takes more time to get a more precise attack and thus modifies their initiative by –4 for the next round. If the aiming occurs over another creature’s combat go, then that aiming must be able to see their target for that entire time.
Steady
At the cost of a MEA, the character is able to get an understanding of what to do next. This action grants a +2 initiative modifier. This action can be taken twice in a round.
Changing Weapons
If a character changes from one weapon to another during the last round, then the primary weapon they used in the last rounds combat is used to change their overall initiative number.
WEAPON SPEED
The size of the weapon and the type sets the weapon speed (WS). This shows how quickly the combatant can bring the weapon to bear in the combat.
Weapon speed minimum is 0.
[code]All weapons WS
Each size category the weapon is larger than the user                 -2
Each size category the weapon is smaller than the user +2 (Max +4)
Master worked +1 to +4 (depends on level of master working, MW for increase WS.)
(Magic weapons) (+1/ +1 to hit)
Melee Weapons
Piercing +2
Slashing +0
Bludgeoning -2[/code]
Example: A 2-handed huge long spear is considered to be 2 sizes larger than the user and it has reach, and has a WS of –3 (-4 for size and +1 for piercing), whilst a small pistol has a WS of +2.

a quick thought on hit locations -- steal a page from 1st edition Warhammer FRP.

roll to hit is now d100 (easy adjustment -- multiply everything by 5).

procedure:

-roll d100 for location.
-adjust to hit number based on location's AC
-now, just reverse the numbers rolled on the first roll (ie: a 26 becomes a 62) to determine your to-hit number.

cuts one die roll out of the process, and doesn't add to handling time if you set all of your charts & tables to work in increments of 5 instead of 1.

That system does not seem to suit d20, and seems to me to be useless.

As the reverse of the location for the TH would either mean a division by 5 or changing the system to d100. Also if you get 11 means vastly different to 12, 11=11, 12=21. Pretty high jump for a digit change.

Also mean that you will get poor TH in some locations always but great TH is some others.

So thanks but I see that that would complicate the rolls more than I have now.

I like the d20 system, as everything then is the saem dice for most checks. Changing to d100 would involve heaps of rewriting and I am not up for that, but thanks.

Complex calculations and charts don't seem to make a system faster, especially if you must calculate and cross-index every time you want to attack. An alternative to the critical (confirm threat) and hit location is to use the numbers that are before you (the attack roll and die roll). Several ways to add variety without bogging down the speed of play:
  if a die roll of 20 with bonuses would not normally hit the target AC then treat it as a normal successful hit
  if a die roll of 20 with bonuses would hit the target AC then treat it as a critical
  if the attack roll hits the defender's AC exactly then the defender receives a -1 on AC the rest of the round and the following round (reflects a shift in the armor)
  If the attack roll hits and the die roll is 10 or less then consult the advantage table:
    10-9: attacker gets a one time +1 to next attack against the same opponent
    8-7: attacker gets a one time +2 to next attack against that same opponent
    6-5: defender's AC is -1 for the rest of the combat with any opponent
    4-3: defender's AC is -2 for the rest of the combat with any opponent
      2: attacker gets another attack against the same opponent

The above situations would probably happen 5% of the time and don't require another die roll to confirm a threat or act as a lookup value.

Troy

TroyLovesRPG wrote:
Complex calculations and charts don't seem to make a system faster, especially if you must calculate and cross-index every time you want to attack.

An alternative to the critical (confirm threat) and hit location is to use the numbers that are before you (the attack roll and die roll).

Several ways to add variety without bogging down the speed of play:
  if a die roll of 20 with bonuses would not normally hit the target AC then treat it as a normal successful hit
  if a die roll of 20 with bonuses would hit the target AC then treat it as a critical

if the attack roll hits the defender's AC exactly then the defender receives a -1 on AC the rest of the round and the following round (reflects a shift in the armor)
  If the attack roll hits and the die roll is 10 or less then consult the advantage table:
    10-9: attacker gets a one time +1 to next attack against the same opponent
    8-7: attacker gets a one time +2 to next attack against that same opponent
    6-5: defender's AC is -1 for the rest of the combat with any opponent
    4-3: defender's AC is -2 for the rest of the combat with any opponent
      2: attacker gets another attack against the same opponent
The above situations would probably happen 5% of the time and don't require another die roll to confirm a threat or act as a lookup value.

Troy

Hello Aussigamer,

You are welcome and thank you. This topic got me thinking about natural, nominal and critical hits. There are some options I'll try in the next game session. I like the fun, quick and easy stuff. I missed the info on the 10/20 above/below part. Sounds like its appropriate in the d20 modern and not D&D.

Good luck,

Troy

Hi Troy,

I think that if you use the same table for all physical and maybe even targetted spells as well, then it allows the system to be used as a single unit. And you don't end up with several tables for this or that type, which is annoying.

It seemed to play test OK for the D&D style game I am running.

Rick