Set 3 Open Playtest

[kobbold]

Sorry but I find this incredibly underwhelming for the high cost, both in mechanical choices and situational disadvantages.

That is both "is this all I get from three Master Talents?" and "bringing along a horse on my adventures is generally a pain in the arse and this is all get for doing it?".

In my view, in order to see my players selecting mounted combat, they should be awarded with incredible damage in the few corner cases they successfully manage to set up a successful charge.

Of course, the utility of these Talents does vary with your campaign style. But for what I consider general use, where the opportunities to execute mounted charges come far and few between (since you'd have a lot of indoor or underground or broken terrain combat), I'm gonna beef up the charge combat action substantially. YMMV.

I think the complete opposite : Selecting a mount and mounted combat should be rewarded not by amazing advantages that will be used in a very few situations, but in the fact, as a GM, of creating adventures where the mounted warrior will be able to use his mount, as any other character would be using his abilities.

I don't believe everything should be seen rulewise. This is clearely a choice that should be taken in account by the GM for him to allow the mounted character not to suffer from the presence of his mount.

It's like having a guy taking the "music" talent and an GM never making him in position to use that talent. Two solutions for me :
- as a GM, creating situations where the talent will be used and the investment rewarded.
- as a GM, telling the character " a mount will be a pain in the a**, select another talent".

[orcface999]

The true rewards of mounted combat will reveal themselves in "warfare" stunts

[Loswaith]

On mounted damage an alternative to speed/distance is to add the mounts strength to the damage (including rider and weapon) on the charge. This was done in earthdawn and makes mounted charges quite appealing/deadly.

[Estoirtoh]

Concerning the +1dmg/speed thing: I wouldn't give the mount's whole speed as a damage bonus. Instead I would go like: How far is it to the enemy? And then add 1 damage per yard to the attack (as well attack roll as damage roll).

But doesn't this amount to the same thing? You will charge at maximum speed, I mean.

Unless you want a charge from, say, 7 meters to deal less damage than the same charge from, say, 8 meters. That doesn't make any sense to me, since I'm envisioning any serious charge to be started by a few rounds of galloping (thundering towards your target for several seconds). Whether the enemy just happens to begin the final round before impact 7 or 8 meters away is inconsequential and just an artifact of the round-by-round game system.

Zapp

PS. I wouldn't necessarily add steed bonus to attack - that probably makes it too easy to hit. And I don't see a charge attack being any easier to make. Just incredibly powerful if you do connect!

Well, first of all, i was thinking of the charge action. But even, or especially, when you charge for several rounds, adding damage per yard charged makes much more sense to me. The more yards to run, the higher your speed and your impact and the deadlier your charge will be.

Concerning your PS .. Another kind of balancing, which I just thought of, may be to drop the attack roll for your charge and instead have the character do a Dexterity (Riding) test against a specified TN. The way I imagine a mounted charge the rider does not carefully aim with his lance to stab the enemy - he just tramples him over with his horse. It doesn't really matter if the rider hits perfectly with his lance: The main damage a charge inflicts comes from the momentum of the mount. This would at least be usable against troops on foot. Jousting would be a different matter.

[Teryn]

There are some major issues with the set three play test. Tevinter Noble, the ruling class in Tevinter are all mages... There is no way a group of mages is going to let a person who cannot us magic be part of the noble class.... now... honor guard.... that is something that they would have use of. Lets take a look at the Archer... Volly, you may need to use rapid reload a couple of times to make this work.... Issue, according to set one on page 61, the only stunt that can be used multiple times is skirmish. Mounted combat... while mounted you can move attack and finish your move... Again set one, you must attack, then move, you cannot move and then attack... Granted I have never been a big fan of that rule. And lets not forget all the broken spells.... All the spells that do damage in this play test do penetrating damage... all the spells that make the target unable to preform actions, like sleep, prevent you from killing them out right, and still allow defense. Some how, someone who is sleeping due to magic spell is some how aware just enough to defend themselves let alone to stop someone from slitting their throat... I don't think so. I know why they did this, it is to prevent the person casting spell X then the next round walking up to that same target and killing them outright. One way to fix this is to have the spells effect end as soon as damage is taken. this way as soon as the knife starts to slide across the skin the person wakes up... But that wouldn't make the spell work how it works in the video game.

There is only a couple of things in this play test that I would make very little changes to, the runes, and the talents, but even those I would still make changes to.... Where are all the grandmaster level talents and runes? Granted those might be something they left out.

Now that you got to read all the bad stuff, here is the one good thing. No mater how bad set 3 is, I will still buy it. I want all the world info they are putting out. The rest can be corrected to my liking with house rules.

[si1vergecko]

Lets take a look at the Archer... Volly, you may need to use rapid reload a couple of times to make this work.... Issue, according to set one on page 61, the only stunt that can be used multiple times is skirmish.

One interpretation of that is Volley creates an exception to the rule with the talent itself when you use it. Another thing is with the archery talent journeyman level grant you the ability to reload for free with a bow. If I recall you do have to have at least journeyman level to be a marksman in the first place.

Mounted combat... while mounted you can move attack and finish your move... Again set one, you must attack, then move, you cannot move and then attack... Granted I have never been a big fan of that rule.

I would take that as that is what is established in set 1 but in set three the talent grants those with mounted combat training to move, attack then move again. No biggie.

There is only a couple of things in this play test that I would make very little changes to, the runes, and the talents, but even those I would still make changes to.... Where are all the grandmaster level talents and runes? Granted those might be something they left out.

Pramas did say in a QA in the general section I believe and when he was asked on that very topic they are not doing Grandmaster talents and runes.

[Teryn]

Pramas did say in a QA in the general section I believe and when he was asked on that very topic they are not doing Grandmaster talents and runes.

Honestly i didn't even know that. Thank you for letting me know to look in other areas. I assumed (bad thing to do) that that kind of stuff would be here.

[Elfie]

I did know that Grandmaster Talents weren't part of the plan, but this got me thinking that it'd make for a really cool supplement. Something designed only for NPCs who focus their entire life on nothing but this particular talent, but a PC might be able to acquire it as part of long-term questing/adventuring. A GM reward for long-term role-playing to your talent selections, rather than a level-up choice.

[Teryn]

I don't know how true this is, but it at least looks like they are trying to stay as true to the video game as they can, and in the video game, all the talents have four levels. I was expecting them to follow that trend. And they still might be. They only way to know for sure, is to see the final product.

[Elfie]

Actually they're not trying to stay as true to the video game as possible, at least with regard to specific mechanics. That's also been stated in interviews. BioWare said it'd be too complicated to try to replicate the video game's mechanics, so they should come up with their own. Thus we have the (totally awesome) AGE system!

[MagusRogue]

one question i do have is: we ever going to see the Reaver? One of my DA pc's, an axe-wielding insane Avvar, would love to branch into Reaver. We got all the other specializations from the two games, why not reaver?

[shonuff]

I did know that Grandmaster Talents weren't part of the plan, but this got me thinking that it'd make for a really cool supplement. Something designed only for NPCs who focus their entire life on nothing but this particular talent, but a PC might be able to acquire it as part of long-term questing/adventuring. A GM reward for long-term role-playing to your talent selections, rather than a level-up choice.

In a similar vein, I was thinking about creating a Paragon level for specializations. At level 20, a character could choose one of their specializations and get an increased ability of some sort.

[si1vergecko]

one question i do have is: we ever going to see the Reaver? One of my DA pc's, an axe-wielding insane Avvar, would love to branch into Reaver. We got all the other specializations from the two games, why not reaver?

Possibly. They listed NPC templates for it as they did for many of the other specializations already and they did say in the documentation that not everything is being included in the play test.

[Ridrith]

I'm actually gonna go with whoever said that the Chevalier is a little underwhelming. I can understand and get behind this type of class because it's different in comparison to every other option, but in terms of throwing this kind of character into a campaign. Where my players are right now, it would make sense. They're currently working for a group of Chevaliers. However, once they leave this area or go into a dungeon it won't always make sense for a horse to be able to go where the players need to go. Yeah, I could change the dungeon to make it happen but I don't think that's a very good option. There will be sections where something like this will be awesome, but other times where choosing Chevalier will be almost entirely useless. I like the idea, but I don't want my player to feel like he's any less useful in comparison to a templar or a guardian.

[zanwot]

I'm actually gonna go with whoever said that the Chevalier is a little underwhelming. (...)

Hey guys, there is no answer to this: You can't make Chevaliers overpowered just because they can't take horses in a Dungeon!

Let me remind you one of the first rules of RPGs: Players tell you what kind of adventure they want with their PCs. So if they get Horseriding skills... guess what: they don't want a dungeon!
Of course players can be just reacting to what they perceive as being usefull currently, then it is your job as GM to clarify and avoid this behaviour if it is too exagerated.

[Lynata]

Aye, I'm sure mounted combat will become somewhat more popular once we'll see what these ominous "Warfare" rules are about. I'm still thinking it's a mass combat system, and mass combat means armies clashing with armies, and this means the PCs likely playing an important role there!

Other than that, every specialization will see times when it is useful, and other when it's ... not. What makes a templar special when the group isn't facing spellcasters, for example? In my opinion, specializations should be taken primarily because they fit to the character and support his or her portrayal, not because they seem particularly powerful in terms of mechanics. That's secondary.

What is important is not that characters have to shine constantly, but that they shine in situations when it'd be expected of them.
This way, it'll also be far easier to pass the spotlight from one PC to another, assuming they all play different kinds of roles of course.

[Admiral Yacob]

Aye, I'm sure mounted combat will become somewhat more popular once we'll see what these ominous "Warfare" rules are about. I'm still thinking it's a mass combat system, and mass combat means armies clashing with armies, and this means the PCs likely playing an important role there!

Other than that, every specialization will see times when it is useful, and other when it's ... not. What makes a templar special when the group isn't facing spellcasters, for example? In my opinion, specializations should be taken primarily because they fit to the character and support his or her portrayal, not because they seem particularly powerful in terms of mechanics. That's secondary.

What is important is not that characters have to shine constantly, but that they shine in situations when it'd be expected of them.
This way, it'll also be far easier to pass the spotlight from one PC to another, assuming they all play different kinds of roles of course.

I agree with this fully, look at others for similar ideas. Will a Marksman be useful in melee situations? What about rangers in areas that are dead such as the Silent Plains? I don't think it's fair to say just because they aren't as powerful in dungeons, it's underpowered. My group has been going for over a year and we've yet to enter a dungeon, they prefer overland type situations, marshes, hills, plains, etc.

[shonuff]

One of the problems is that mounts are (as of now) undefined. You can finagle stats for a war horse using a riding horse, but it IMO feels thrown-together. If nothing else, how much does a war horse cost?

[Arimmus]

There is a lot left out. I feel they wanted to give us enough to play a game with 11-20. We are the play testers after all.

[Jekias]

Has anyone had an actual playtest session yet?

I've put my normal session on hold for next week to do just a single session run through with my usual group. Curious to hear what people have found from an actual game test session so far.

[shonuff]

There is a lot left out. I feel they wanted to give us enough to play a game with 11-20. We are the play testers after all.

Yeah, but a lot of it should have been in Set 1... If you're going to have falcons, wagons, and riding horses, you can throw in war horses. Or at least they should have been included in Set 2.

[Teryn]

One of the problems is that mounts are (as of now) undefined. You can finagle stats for a war horse using a riding horse, but it IMO feels thrown-together. If nothing else, how much does a war horse cost?

War horses are trained to go into combat. It's not cheap to train them either. And currently there is only one nation that will have them, Orlais. They are the only ones who use mounted units.

[empyrien]

And currently there is only one nation that will have them, Orlais. They are the only ones who use mounted units.

This isn't true. In DA:The Stolen Throne the rebels made use of cavalry in fighting the Orlesian occupiers.

[Teryn]

Has anyone had an actual playtest session yet?

I've put my normal session on hold for next week to do just a single session run through with my usual group. Curious to hear what people have found from an actual game test session so far.

Well.. we found a very broken spell... I can't remember the name off the top of my head, but it's a hex... a rogue killed the big bad guy in the first round due to a slight issue with generating 2 stunt points on each attack... The rogue was able to preform twenty two attacks in a row due to this spell... and that was on segment 13 on the first turn of combat.

[empyrien]

Well.. we found a very broken spell... I can't remember the name off the top of my head, but it's a hex... a rogue killed the big bad guy in the first round due to a slight issue with generating 2 stunt points on each attack... The rogue was able to preform twenty two attacks in a row due to this spell... and that was on segment 13 on the first turn of combat.

I'm assuming you are talking about a Death Hex + Lightning Attack (2 SP) combo from a dual wielding rogue. I don't think that this is possible. I would rule that you cannot generate stunt points on a Lightning Attack. I would argue that the intended effect of Death Hex is that attacks that can generate stunt points always do regardless of rolling doubles, but it doesn't allow attacks that can't generate stunt points to do so.

I can see how it might be interpreted differently though, so the wording should probably be tightened up.