Gamma World: Vehicles

34 posts / 0 new
Last post
Just came out. Thoughts?
I am so looking forward to trying out these systems. I don't have a game going on yet, but I think I'll have to try and throw some players together and playtest it out. :D
Here's a dumb question. When Gamma Terra came out, the file name was "185_GammaTerra.pdf". Now with Pedal to the Metal, the file name is "188_GW_PedalToMetal.pdf". Is there a 186, and 187? Or anything before 185? Sorry I just want to make sure I'm not missing any content.
oh hmm factory of misfits had the number 185 in front of it too.... I'm guessing the numbers don't mean anything
It makes me want to make more augmentations on our party's Gamma Rover.
These rules seem very heavily influenced by the Savage Worlds Explorer's Edition vehicle rules, which is awesome as SWEX is tied with 4e for my favorite RPG system so a bit of crossover makes things easy to remember and easy to teach my players.  I really like the map suggestion for moving firefights and intend to use it not only in my GW games but also for horse chases in D&D and vehicle chases in SWEX.  

Another plus is that I can now make great use of the Deadlands: Hell on Earth post-apocalyptic vehicle tokens.

I kind of want to run a Twisted Metal or Deathrace style campaign now.

Anyhow, well done WotC on your Gamma World support.  You may be dropping the ball a little on D&D with all this Essentials style nonsense, but GW is slick as hell. 
oh hmm factory of misfits had the number 185 in front of it too.... I'm guessing the numbers don't mean anything

They represent issue numbers of Dungeon magazine.

Been looking for this. Don't suppose it's available on the website?

Been looking for this. Don't suppose it's available on the website?

Did you look on the website?

Here are the PHB essentia, in my opinion:
  • Three Basic Rules (p 11)
  • Power Types and Usage (p 54)
  • Skills (p178-179)
  • Feats (p 192)
  • Rest and Recovery (p 263)
  • All of Chapter 9 [Combat] (p 264-295)
A player needs to read the sections for building his or her character -- race, class, powers, feats, equipment, etc. But those are PC-specific. The above list is for everyone, regardless of the race or class or build or concept they are playing.

Been looking for this. Don't suppose it's available on the website?




Pedal to the Metal
I'm quite pleased with the outcome of this article.  In particular, I like the inherent immunities/resistances, and the alternate critical hit effects.
I like the new rule.  THey are well thought out.  I'm going to have a lot of fun with them.   I just can't run a post apacolyptic campaign without some road warrior action.
Co-author Craig Campbell here,

Glad this finally went up. It languished in development a month beyond what we were expecting.

Hope you enjoy the rules. We had a ton of fun developing and playing them.

In my own miniscule attempt to continue WotC's renewed focus on designer/player interaction and feedback, feel free to post questions or comments. I'll check this thread regularly.

'Til then, pedal down!

Craig Campbell
Co-author Craig Campbell here,

Glad this finally went up. It languished in development a month beyond what we were expecting.

Hope you enjoy the rules. We had a ton of fun developing and playing them.

In my own miniscule attempt to continue WotC's renewed focus on designer/player interaction and feedback, feel free to post questions or comments. I'll check this thread regularly.

'Til then, pedal down!

Craig Campbell

After rereading the rules I have a question Craig.  For the stunt maneuvers is the move action required for them the same move action as is required to control the vehicle, or do you have to use two move actions on a turn you plan to do a stunt, one to control the vehicle and one to do the stunt?
I expected this question, as it's kind of unclear in the rules as written.

The INTENT of the design is that a driver can only use one move action to move his vehicle, whether that action be a regular move action (to move his vehicle its speed) or a Stunt that requires a move action (and dictates specific movement and other effects in the Stunt's description). For example, the "Trade Paint" Stunt defines specific movement that might be less than the vehicle's standard speed. This is built around the idea that ramming one's vehicle into another vehicle requires a bit of work on the driver's part, decreasing the overall movement that the vehicle might make otherwise.

If you use "Trade Paint" to crash into a nearby vehicle, this choice might result in a shift in the "encounter speed" described in the "Speeding Firefights" section. The result of such a situation is left in the hands of the GM, possibly adjusting the "encounter speed" of the fight for a round or two as the vehicles slow down or speed up relative to one another.

All of this said, it's entirely possible that this rule might create some strange situations that fall outside of "realism." If you want more realism for such a situation, you might petition your GM to let your driver spend a minor action to make a driving check to make up for a situation that doesn't feel right to you from a "realism" standpoint. It's really up to you and your GM. Realism vs. rules as written. My co-author and I saw this strangeness come up a couple of times, and the GM (me) simply made a call on how to handle things.

These rules weren't playtested to the extent that a set of rules for a print book might be tested. Some GM caveat is necessary to make everything work for everyone involved. GMs are encouraged to establish rules for strange situations and stick to them, assuming everyone involved is enjoying the scenario.

Craig Campbell

Four things:


To the person who asked me whether I looked on the website: thank you for the sincere question. I appreciate your well intentioned inquiry. The answer is that Yes, yes I did, and when I checked this morning it didn't come up on the site search or underneath any of the previous gamma world releases.

Secondly, in the article....

I notice that the motorcycle is 2x1 squares and the car is 4x2. Motorcycle is a 2 seater and car is a 5 seater with 500 pounds of cargo. Based on this, is there any way to justify say a small Jeep (Jeep Wrangler or Willys MB for instance) as 2x2, or would it need to be 2x3 (and therefore size huge rather than large)?

Thirdly...

it seems that passengers in a vehicle are not restricting from attacking while they ride. If they're in the back of a car, they have partial cover (but can still attack). In the back of a dump truck (or in an armored car, for instance) they have superior cover (but can still attack). Is this everyone else's interpretation?

Fourth...

If someone were to apply the mini tank to this system, would this give the people inside superior cover, or do you think they'd be totally enclosed and thus fully protected by the tank (and also unable to return fire)?

Just a few thoughts this article inspired in me. Thanks again for the concerned question!

I expected this question, as it's kind of unclear in the rules as written.

The INTENT of the design is that a driver can only use one move action to move his vehicle, whether that action be a regular move action (to move his vehicle its speed) or a Stunt that requires a move action (and dictates specific movement and other effects in the Stunt's description). For example, the "Trade Paint" Stunt defines specific movement that might be less than the vehicle's standard speed. This is built around the idea that ramming one's vehicle into another vehicle requires a bit of work on the driver's part, decreasing the overall movement that the vehicle might make otherwise.

If you use "Trade Paint" to crash into a nearby vehicle, this choice might result in a shift in the "encounter speed" described in the "Speeding Firefights" section. The result of such a situation is left in the hands of the GM, possibly adjusting the "encounter speed" of the fight for a round or two as the vehicles slow down or speed up relative to one another.

All of this said, it's entirely possible that this rule might create some strange situations that fall outside of "realism." If you want more realism for such a situation, you might petition your GM to let your driver spend a minor action to make a driving check to make up for a situation that doesn't feel right to you from a "realism" standpoint. It's really up to you and your GM. Realism vs. rules as written. My co-author and I saw this strangeness come up a couple of times, and the GM (me) simply made a call on how to handle things.

These rules weren't playtested to the extent that a set of rules for a print book might be tested. Some GM caveat is necessary to make everything work for everyone involved. GMs are encouraged to establish rules for strange situations and stick to them, assuming everyone involved is enjoying the scenario.

Craig Campbell




Craig, thanks so much for monitoring this thread - we all appreciate your involvement and your contributions. It's gonna be a good month before I will be able to incorporate these rules into my campaign, and I'm sure that I'll come up with a lot of questions while in play. I hope that you are still looking at this thread then!


To the person who asked me whether I looked on the website: thank you for the sincere question. I appreciate your well intentioned inquiry. The answer is that Yes, yes I did, and when I checked this morning it didn't come up on the site search or underneath any of the previous gamma world releases. 




No worries =) The search feature seems to not work that well from my experience. They also don't seem to make a lot of content very accessible. I still don't know where to find Factor of Misfit Omega Tech besides scrolling through the content calendar. But yeah the link was on the content calendar.
Content Calendar
Hi All,

Ray here, the other co-author. Glad everyone is enjoying this article! I love what WotC has done with Gamma World, and I feel very humbled to have been part of this addition to the system.


I notice that the motorcycle is 2x1 squares and the car is 4x2. Motorcycle is a 2 seater and car is a 5 seater with 500 pounds of cargo. Based on this, is there any way to justify say a small Jeep (Jeep Wrangler or Willys MB for instance) as 2x2, or would it need to be 2x3 (and therefore size huge rather than large)?




I would say a Jeep, Willie or 2 door Wrangler would need to be 2x3 at minimum (I used to have a 4 door Jeep Wrangler Unlimited X so I am rather partial to Jeeps). The engine takes up a 1x2 space and the remaining space for the driver and up to 3 medium sized passengers should take up the remaining 4 spaces. But if you want to roll with a 2x2 vechicle go for it. I say its up to you and your GM ultimately. The vechicle list provided was a sample and was meant to inspire GM's to come up with their own variations. For example: page 116 of the corebook references a skycycle. You could take the stat block for a helicopter and mix it with the stat block of the motorcycle and viola! Skycycle.

And now back to plotting some deviltry for my D&D group...



Great job, you guys! I know most everyone here appreciates the additional content for this system and this vehicle rules system addresses a lack in the rules as written.  I also appreciate the feedback you're giving on this post.

Here's hoping we see more Gamma World content from you guys in the future (though I don't envy whoever gets tasked with doing the errata).

Thanks again!



it seems that passengers in a vehicle are not restricting from attacking while they ride. If they're in the back of a car, they have partial cover (but can still attack). In the back of a dump truck (or in an armored car, for instance) they have superior cover (but can still attack). Is this everyone else's interpretation?





Yep, attacking while riding in a vehicle is fine. I'd say that people in the back of a dump truck can only attack if they stick their heads and upper torsos up over the side of the truck bed. If they're hunkered down, they have total cover and can't attack outside of the truck bed. Unless they want to blindly lob a grenade over the bed wall. :-)

Considering that the jeep should be 2 x 3, any ideas what kind of vehicle would qualify for a 2x2 square size? Maybe a mini cooper?
Considering that the jeep should be 2 x 3, any ideas what kind of vehicle would qualify for a 2x2 square size? Maybe a mini cooper?



I would say a jeep or a mini cooper would be a 2x3 square vehicle, given their real-world size and number of passengers they can hold.

There are 4-wheeled vehicles that are even smaller; I'm thinking about those mini-cars that are more prevalent outside of the US. Such a vehicle might be a 2x2 square vehicle. Also, alternate worldlines might have had such smaller 4-wheeled vehicles as a common occurence. You don't have to limit yourself to real-world vehicles.

Keep in mind that vehicles sizes don't strictly adhere to monster sizes (and their overall "square" sizes). In the article, a "Car" is a 2x4 square vehicle. That's 8 total squares. Huge creatures fill 9 squares, so a "Car" is Huge, since it's an 8-square vehcile, which almost matches a Huge creature's total squares (9 squares total). A GM might rule that a 2x3 square vehicle (6 total squares) qualifies as a Large vehicle since 6 squares is closer to a Large creature's size (2x2 squares, for 4 total squares) than a Huge creature's size (3x3 squares, for 9 total squares). If you're concerned about the "size category" of a vehicle, talk to your GM and present the argument above for 2x3 square vehicles qualifying as Large size rather than Huge size.

Craig Campbell (co-author of "Pedal to the Metal")


I used these rules for a couple of encounters before they were submitted, so I guess that would count as some light playtesting. 

In the one encounter I ran for my group (which included Shiv), where the group (in their pickup truck) was attacked by a porker bike gang, I played around with the size of vehicles a bit.

The Hogg Boss had a 1x3 Chopper motorcycle, his 2nd in command had a 4-wheeled ATV that I made 2x2, and the weakest member had a 1x1 Go-Cart. The others had 1x2 motorcycles. I used Hot Wheels die-cast toys, in conjunction with Gamorrean Guard miniatures, for all of them.
Has anyone noticed that a character can easily outrun a vehicle by taking a double move?
I suggest allowing a vehicle's pilot to perform double move and run actions.


Keep in mind that speed stats are based on the speed at which a vehicle remains maneuverable in the context of an encounter map, which is going to be slower than a smaller creature that's sprinting.  

That said, I don't necessarily disagree with the houserule.  Perhaps any second move cannot include turning and can only move forward or diagonally-forward.  
Rules for this?

A few questions about rules:

Is opening and closing the vehicle's door when the vehicle is stationary a minor action?

How would you handle a melee attack where the attacking player is seated within the vehicle, the target monster is in an adjacent space outside the vehicle with (1) the door is close but the window is open or (2) the door is open, in terms of cover etc when the vehicle is stationary?

How would you handle a monster trying to drag a player out of the car when the car is stationary and the door is open?
A few questions about rules:

Is opening and closing the vehicle's door when the vehicle is stationary a minor action?


If you're just opening/closing the door sure. If the player is opnening/closing the door and getting in/out then move action. In DnD to mount/unmount is a minor action, so I thought it was wierd that it's a move, but the there's that door thing to consider.

How would you handle a melee attack where the attacking player is seated within the vehicle, the target monster is in an adjacent space outside the vehicle with (1) the door is close but the window is open or (2) the door is open, in terms of cover etc when the vehicle is stationary?


In a staionary car i would treat the seated person as if they were prone.  I would think the defender would have cover if the door was closed.

How would you handle a monster trying to drag a player out of the car when the car is stationary and the door is open?

Just treat it as a normal grab and pull attacks. Can't remember if that's covered in the Gamma world rules? Well that's how I would do it.

Grab is not in Gamma World.  Monsters with "grab" attacks have all the stuff written out in their blocks.  If it was going be a common thing, I'd write up some at-wills for all PCs/NPCs to use, personally.

Also, for some random inspiration: I just saw this on sale on Steam.
So grab takes one turn, and move grabbed target takes another turn right? so it takes two turns for a monster to grab somebody seated in a prone car, and yank him out? Is that correct?
So grab takes one turn, and move grabbed target takes another turn right? so it takes two turns for a monster to grab somebody seated in a prone car, and yank him out? Is that correct?


Unless the monster has a means to make two standard actions in the same round (such as an elite or solo), yes.  If the vehicle moves in the interim, it will likely break the grab.

Has anyone noticed that a character can easily outrun a vehicle by taking a double move?
I suggest allowing a vehicle's pilot to perform double move and run actions.


Keep in mind that speed stats are based on the speed at which a vehicle remains maneuverable in the context of an encounter map, which is going to be slower than a smaller creature that's sprinting.  

That said, I don't necessarily disagree with the houserule.  Perhaps any second move cannot include turning and can only move forward or diagonally-forward.  



Craig Campbell, co-author of "Pedal to the Metal" here,

Yeah, character movement vs. vehicle movement is a problem, of a sort. And it's not specifically described in the article. That's our fault.

You can certainly houserule movement issues to deal with this issue in a "realistic" manner.

That said, the design intent was that vehicles moving during a speeding firefight would be moving more slowly than their "top speeds." The vehicle speeds are based on a vehicle moving through various terrains and dealing with hazards that keeps them moving more slowly, relative to their top speeds.

This is based on game mechanics and the "fun factor" of 4E combat. Some abstraction is necessary.

If a creature is thrown from a vehicle while the vehicles are moving REALLY FAST, that creature is, essentially, out of the combat. That's not fun for anyone (players in particular). Keeping the vehicle speeds manageable means that creatures thrown from a vehicle have at least a chance to get back into the fray. And that's heroic and a lot of fun.

A creature that is thrown from a vehicle should be knocked prone afterwards. This means that, on his next turn, that creature has to stand up (a move action) and then move to get back onto or into the vehicle he was thrown from (or another vehicle). That's quite the feat and might suck up all of the creature's turn, or even multiple turns. Such a creature might have to really hustle in order to get back on or in a vehicle in the speeding firefight. While hustling to get back on or in a vehicle, that creature will have to forgo attack actions, just to get back into or onto these vehicles.

Creatures driving vehicles through clear terrain not impeded by obstructions, traps, or combat might drive their vehicles much faster than what is described for speeding firefights.

Also, there's the assumption that vehicles in GW are old, rusty, clanky, and not really able to deal with "top speeds" for extended periods of time.

Overall, this situation is one for GMs to adjudicate as necessary for their games. A creature that double-moves to get out of the way of a vehicle or sprint alongside it is a necessary part of a GM describing a scene and making this scenario interesting and immediate. Players who see a baddie sprinting alongside a speeding firefight encounter SHOULD worry about what that baddie might do with the rocket launcher he's toting with him.

I hope the above clarifies things. It's a matter of the GM and his players working together to make a speeding firefight fun and involving for everyone.

I hope this makes sense.

Craig Campbell
 

A few questions about rules:

Is opening and closing the vehicle's door when the vehicle is stationary a minor action?

How would you handle a melee attack where the attacking player is seated within the vehicle, the target monster is in an adjacent space outside the vehicle with (1) the door is close but the window is open or (2) the door is open, in terms of cover etc when the vehicle is stationary?

How would you handle a monster trying to drag a player out of the car when the car is stationary and the door is open?



Craig Campbell, co-author of "Pedal to the Metal" here.

I'd rule that opening or closing a vehicle's door (whether in motion or stationary) is a minor action.

An occupant of a vehicle making a melee attack against an adjacent creature who is outside of the vehicle (assuming the vehicle provides cover to the occupant) would be an attack with the target gaining cover equal to the cover the occupant of the vehicle enjoys. That is, if the occupant gains partial cover from attacks originating from outside the vehicle, the creature adjacent to the vehicle gains the same cover bonus for attacks originating from adjacent occupants inside the vehicle. A vehicle's door provides some amount of cover in both directions. If the door is open, there's no cover for either creature.

If an occupant's door is open, the occupant gains no bonus to defenses in general. Creatures outside of the vehicle attempting to attack or drag such a creature out of the vehicle should be unimpeded in terms of the door. That is, an open door is not really an obstruction in any way.

That's my two cents, anyway.

Craig Campbell