A moofable feast.

Be brave enough to burn and you'll be brave enough to fly.


  • 1
The only question I have, and this may simply be due to a failed Perception check on my part, is how do you figure out if two targets are near enough to one another to be hit by a blast, without those two targets being adjacent to one another? Would it simply be a case that one is written down as being nearby to the other, and thus is potentially hit?

The more I think about this the more I'm concerned it may end up being a lot of bookkeeping per fight to keep track of who's adjacent/nearby/etc. to whom.

Being explicitly "near" someone won't happen that often or last that long: if you're adjacent and you shift away, you're near. If you're guarding, you're no farther than near them. "Adjacent" happens because people are fighting, generally... it's not much different than keeping track of who's fighting whom.

"Clustering" is to simplify bookkeeping. If I would put the enemies in three groups on a battlemap, I make three columns or three circles or whatever and list the members there there. Anyone in a cluster with the target of an area burst might be 1 square, 2 squares, 3 squares away from them... you don't keep track, though. That's what the threat roll is for.

If it's a big burst (burst 5, for instance), then somebody who was moving closer on their turn but didn't reach the cluster might be included in the threat. It's a judgment call.

If I might make a suggestion for the bookkeeping? Create a sheet that has four bands on it: near, close, far, and very far. The PCs begin the encounter in the near band, at the bottom of the sheet. The opposition begins in the center of the far band.

Since most of the squishy types like Controllers and ranged Strikers will want to stay more or less where they started, they provide something of an anchor for everything else, but you can also treat it like Tetris: when the lowest range band empties, everything slides down until it has something in it.

For keeping track of adjacency inside a band, use horizontal position of tokens. The PCs will probably start adjacent to one another in the near band, while the opposition might be scattered in the far band. If someone's moving from one band to another, you can slide them within the band to keep track. If two individuals are flanking, you can put their tokens on opposite sides of the flanked model; if they're just both adjacent, they can be put next to each other.

So long as the tokens don't get shifted, it's a fairly quick, abacus-like system for bookkeeping. You could also use counters for things like rough terrain and so on.

That would probably be a good way for some people to keep track, but it wouldn't work that well for me in particular. It also encourages linear thinking in laying out and playing out the encounter (we're all over here, they're all over there), which is something I would prefer to avoid..

Actully this system is a bit of a improvment over the way my gaming groups been doing wich was basicly the dm trying to maintian the battlemap in his head and rolling a fate dice to see if something was near trust me it's nice to beable to have clear rules

Well, you know there's no way I'd be able to keep a map in my head... and I prefer fate dice to be rare. I'd like a way for people to be able to know if they're at risk of blasting their allies, or else everybody will want to play single target Warlocks and Sorcerers instead of Wizards and Invokers.

i'm gonna need to take some time to digest this when my mind is concentrating enough. if you want some specific feedback i'll try to get to it in a few days; you can drop me a note if i haven't responded.

It's kind of hard to grapple with when you're looking at it in a chunk, I'm sure. I'm not sure how well I explained it, either... I have the "well, I know what I mean" problem.

  • 1
?

Log in