2 Harm
Range 10 ft. / 2 squares / Close
At 10 ft / 2 squares, deal 4 Harm as you crack the tip of the whip and fillet a chunk from a target.
//
The first time you attack, deal 4 Harm, as your target is at the tip of your bladewhip. Any other target is dealt 2 Harm unless you Weave to put them at whip-tip distance.
making maps like, making something tactically interesting.
like i know how to source hexes and rapidly pixel basic buildings and shit but.
makin' a cool arena I'm super not grasping. I feel I need to like, study like a tactical rpg to see what they do with maps and shit.
It's tough. Depends on a lot of things, but the biggest ones are like...map size vs. range vs. mobility.
I actually don't feel like most tactics RPGs do maps terribly well, most of them end up in a cluster of units on one part of the map. Pre-Awakening Fire Emblem is one of the few series that consistently put a lot of thought into it.
For my money what makes it is a combination of good variety of maps, terrain that matters, a lot of objectives (including timed ones and semi-timed ones like thieves who steal loot if you wait too long or reinforcements) so you have reasons to split up, and a combination of bottlenecks and open areas combined with varied unit movement types (on foot vs. cavalry vs. flying). Movement is decently high but attack range only rarely goes above 2 squares away so you can funnel expectations a lot better.
we love splitting up the crew into the A-Team of Shitwreakers and Loser Shitbirds, and matching forces with other A-Teams and Shitbirds.
has me thinking on like my current philosophy of combat/enemy design where:
PCs and Enemies need to be a back and fourth, one informs the other design. If an enemy is to be Armored, then there must exist some form of anti-armor. If there's to be swarms, AoE needs to exist.
etc.
So interesting terrain and maps would therefore stem from interesting movement and hazards. Flying units can soar over mountains and pits. Footmen can trek a swamp, but not cavalry. and so forth.
