We are gearing up for a fresh campaign and I'm finally going for a pirate focus. Given the rag-tag nature that my players have slapped together, as well as the nature of said players, this honestly is the best fit.
Nothing else really to share, just wanting to see some activity here!submitted by /u/gamesfromthegrave
Hi, today I finally GMed my first oneshot a year after buying up every book.
My players and I love the world, we like some rules, but we would wish for some kind of overhaul for some very clumsy mechanics. I guess this question was already asked a thousand times, but I am looking for semi-official errata of any kind, not house rules (because I am bad at balancing)
We are considering switching out the rules with a completely different system before stumbling through another weirdly paced drama sequence where the raises don't really make sense.
For your overview: I GMed the last adventure of the adventure booklet "Attack of the Kraken". It's very straightforward, but seems well suited for newbies like us.submitted by /u/typhaona
Okay, so, after stressing out myself for a long, long time about this system (I seriously dislike Narrative systems, but it's what my group wanted to play, so I got with the program), I put together a character that I'm reasonably sure is only moderately bad and can, at least, contribute in a fight, if not as effectively as the Duelist. (Student of Combat. I find it telling that a lot of old threads and posts mentioned making a 'Duelist-Lite' advantage as a necessary houserule and that's exactly what got printed.)
But this isn't about my character. It's about one of the others. They're trying to make a combative character, and they fixed on Balayeur from Nations 1, wanting to make a Balayeuse.
Now, the group already has two combative melee characters, my Brawny half-duelist with Student of Combat (fluffed as having picked up a few tricks from watching an old Rossini master and an old Drexel master teaching basic melee with improvised heavy weapons at a dockside fight-club and being more observant than most) and Swashy McBucklass who's pretty much the most-optimized a fencer can be out of chargen. This player, though, wants to come at things from the other route: she wants to be primary a gunner (both in person and on the ship, though on the ship I think she's thinking of being the master gunner rather than a crows-nest sniper), and maybe sword on the side. She was considering taking Epee Sanglante as her second background, which would give her both Dueling and Porte, but was not set upon it, especially as it didn't mesh well with the rest of her idea, which was to basically be a 'troubleshooter' pun fully intended. Also, neither of those backgrounds really suggested a means by which she wound up on the group's ship, though that's something that arguably just needs some backstory.
But my concern is this: someone who wants to be good at combat, but not a Duelist/Duelist-Lite, seems like they're doomed to suck, and the numbers-crunching I've seen seems to back that up. Firearms have some "burstiness" in that they automagically deal a Dramatic wound unless in the hands of Brute Squads, but the evaluations on that seem to range from "so you get one cheap shot and then suck because it takes the rest of two whole turns to reload your pistol" to "it's OP that you can just pull a Blackbeard and machine gun down a Villain." (Also, this leaves out anyone who wants to fight with their fists, or a bow and arrow.)
I want to help my friend not-suck. However, there's some more wrinkles:
The Swashy McBucklass's player just about threw a one-person riot over any suggestions about preemptively implementing house-rules that either nerf their Duelist; personally I liked the proposed house-rule I saw that was "Duelist Maneuvers apply to one person, so Duelists are no better or worse than anyone else against Brute Squads," but they drew a line in the sand about it, or buff everyone else thus devaluing their investment in Duelist, and they explained that objection by telling an RPG horror story about a time they were playing a combat monster in a game that was sort-of like a modern CoC, and everyone but them got frustrated with missing all their shots, so the GM implemented a house-rule that made everyone else satisfactorily competent in combat but made them feel totally crap because with everyone else killing enemies regularly now, they were only "super"killing enemies regularly (which is indistinct from regularly killing them since dead is dead), meaning that while everyone else got able to kill enemies and still do their old jobs (investigating harder, interrogating harder, hacking computers harder, doing sorcery harder, etc), their super-murderer combat monkey was functionally demoted to mook.
So, I need to find some printed, rules-as-written assistance here. They want to use a rifle, which... Doesn't well synergize with Balayeur, since Deadeye seems more close-quarters weapons. I want to help them make a character who is viable in combat, but... I'm at a loss. It seems like Duelist and its maneuvers just completely dominates the combat in 7th Sea 2e, leaving unarmed combat and projectile combat as utter sideshows with a few cheap tricks that are only barely comparable to Duelist maneuvers (that they may freely spam) which you must pay Hero Points to use anyway.submitted by /u/ShadowDragon8685
The rules for duels to the first blood are very underwhelming. In such a duel, whoever gets to go first can just lunge to win.
Even if house rules forbid lunges, the player that goes first can force a win if he has an advantage of at least one raise at the beggining of the round: he can alternate slashes and bashes, and the opponent can only parry and riposte. When the opponent uses his riposte, he just needs to riposte back and he will still be ahead in tempo, and after the opponent has used the next parry he will have no way to prevent the next attack.submitted by /u/clown_hand
I plan to run a game in the setting, but using another system, which edition's lore should I pick? What differs from both editions?
The primary details I am aware of (by reading some posts here) and that I care, is that there is more (and cooler) sorcery and overall fantastical elements in 1ed, Which I do prefer, in fact I did read the 2ed some years ago, and remember thinking the sorcery to be pretty boring, so this is a point for 1st edition for me.
In the other hand, the polish inspired Sarmatian Commonwealth do attracts me, as well as the New World and [japanese?] stuff (I am not so sure about this one).
So, which edition's lore should I follow, or better yet, is there a way to merge these elements I said to be in my liking?submitted by /u/TrueChristianKnight