|
If I wanted advice on hacking up an existing Retroclone (in this case Basic Fantasy RPG) as well as information about older editions of the game which might be useful sources for interesting rules, would this be the place to post?
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 16:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 00:30 |
|
|
Bob Quixote posted:If I wanted advice on hacking up an existing Retroclone (in this case Basic Fantasy RPG) as well as information about older editions of the game which might be useful sources for interesting rules, would this be the place to post? I believe you are in the right place. Or at least the one most likely to get you useful answers.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 17:35
|
|
|
aldantefax posted:I'm thinking about a hexcrawl game on the seas (similar to like, Etrian Odyssey 3). Are there any retroclones out there that have a nautical focus, or should I just freewheel it and estimate based on various source material like GURPS Swashbucklers and the like? This hasn't gotten an answer from anybody yet, and I'm going to give a bad answer. A lot of retroclones have a boats section because it was in D&D, but I've never seen one that focus on naval stuff. I'd freewheel it personally. Just don't forget to make them save vs scurvy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 18:53
|
|
|
Hey, are there any neutral good outsiders with wish in 2e? We want to make one of our party a Dragon forever.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 19:02
|
|
|
DalaranJ posted:This hasn't gotten an answer from anybody yet, and I'm going to give a bad answer. Oh theres a pdf now. : http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product/16933/DMGR9-Of-Ships-and-the-Sea-2e?it=1 quote:As its title almost suggests, DMGR9: Of Ships and the Sea covers two related topics: nautical adventuring and underwater adventuring. (Perhaps it should have been called "Of Ships and the Undersea" for clarity.) I have "The Sea Devils" and the U series. Those are all entertaining. I have the FR Sea of Fallen Stars stuff and remember it had nautical-type rules in it, but cant recall any details. http://www.amazon.com/Devils-Advanced-Dungeons-Dragons-Edition/dp/078690643X http://www.amazon.com/FALLEN-STARS-Advanced-Dungeons-Dragons/dp/0786913932 http://www.amazon.com/Pirates-Fallen-Fantasy-Roleplaying-Forgotten/dp/1560763205 ... and if youre rich, grab a "new" copy of this! http://www.amazon.com/Advanced-Dungeons-Dragons-Adventure-Character/dp/0880380284/ (For underwater adventures, not boats.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 19:05
|
|
|
Moriatti posted:Hey, are there any neutral good outsiders with wish in 2e? We want to make one of our party a Dragon forever.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 19:06
|
|
|
I dunno, a naval-hexcrawl-focused RPG sounds like it'd be pretty fun.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 19:07
|
|
|
aldantefax posted:I'm thinking about a hexcrawl game on the seas (similar to like, Etrian Odyssey 3). Are there any retroclones out there that have a nautical focus, or should I just freewheel it and estimate based on various source material like GURPS Swashbucklers and the like?
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 19:07
|
|
|
It been sooooo many years I am not sure, but I think the A series (Slaves...) had some ship/boat stuff in it as well?
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 19:12
|
|
|
Gasperkun posted:I believe you are in the right place. Or at least the one most likely to get you useful answers. Alright then - forgive me if the post is long, I've just been thinking on things a lot and scouring the internet for interesting rules and wondered how these would work out together. I can come back later and edit it out if its redundant. Class Changes Thief : I wanted to ditch the Thief entirely since their percentile based abilities have almost no chance of working at low level and they almost never fail at high level. It seems to me that just having a guy whose party role is "can roll to pick lock" can be gotten around by just having the rest of the party either find the key, break down the door or attempt to pick the lock themselves without having to be a specific class that is solely for that kind of thing. Thief type skills would just be handled as the standard Ability checks for characters to attempt, without anything else in the way of a more complex skill system. Fighter: I wanted to run something with really simple rules, but the Fighter in this particular version of the game has been oversimplified to the point of extreme weakness - he's limited to single attacks just like every other character and aside from having a higher attack bonus, good saves and hp he's pretty unremarkable. I'd read that in an older edition of the game there was the "chop till you drop" rule where Fighter's could continue attacking if they successfully killed an enemy in a single attack (like Cleave but without the whole pain in the rear end process of going through the feat system). It would give the Fighter some much needed OOMPH and let them chew threw low level mooks nicely. I thought that still might not be enough though - I'm trying to decide if also giving Fighters a flat damage bonus every few levels + extra attacks every few levels would be good (and maybe a defense/AC bonus so you can have lightly armored nimble fighters who are competitive with the traditional full-plate battle tank?) What else could be added in to improve them (or at least bring them up to the level of the non-fighter classes), without over-complicating the game? I've looked into the Weapon Mastery rules, and while they have a lot of fun stuff in them they make your guy extremely specialized in one or two particular things and the rules as a whole don't really jive with how I want to handle weapon damage. Combat Changes Weapon Damage: I wanted to do away with damage based on weapon type, but didn't want to just give all characters a flat 1d6 damage. I was thinking that it could be class based - Mage does 1d4 (one handed) and 1d6 (two handed), Cleric gets 1d6 (one handed) and 2d4 (two handed) & Fighters get 1d8 (one handed) & 2d6 (two handed). I'm not sure if those numbers might be a bit too much on the two handed weapon side, they just kind of felt right. Two Weapon Fighting: Rather than having two weapon fighting result in two attacks that each have poor chances to hit I thought it would be better to just roll it as a normal attack but on a hit you roll two sets of 1 hand weapon dice and use the higher result - so you don't lose chance to hit but still slightly increase your damage output. A player could also choose to fight defensively and just treat the off-hand weapon as +1 AC against melee attacks (but not against missile weapons). Shields: Players equipped with a shield can attempt to use it to block one incoming Missile or Melee attack a round by rolling a save. If they fail they just get hit, which would have happened anyway so its not imposing anything extra bad on the player, just making shields a bit more useful than "+1 AC". Dodge: If a player is attacked before they have a chance to act they can roll a save to try and Dodge the attack, but if they do so they give up their action for the turn and you only get 1 Dodge attempt a round. I figured this would help give low-hp characters a little more survivability if they get into the thick of it. Sneak Attacks and Helpless Targets: Since the Thief is gone I also wanted to give anyone the chance to Backstab/Sneak Attack since getting stabbed in the kidneys while unaware is probably pretty bad no matter who is doing it to you. I was even thinking it might be cool to steal that old Assassin ability and force the target to Save vs Death on when you get a sneak attack on them and they take the regular double damage if they pass the check. -- None of these ideas are really that groundbreaking and I've seen most of them done before, I was just wondering if there were any suggestions for improvements or additions that could be used or sources I could look up for further inspiration? Bob Quixote fucked around with this message at 20:21 on Dec 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 19:32
|
|
|
Bob Quixote posted:Alright then - forgive me if the post is long, I've just been thinking on things a lot and scouring the internet for interesting rules and wondered how these would work out together. I can come back later and edit it out if its redundant. I like pretty much all of these, and actually do similar things to a bunch of them. Dropping thieves is a good choice, and I really like the simplifying weapon damage. The fighter changes are actually almost exactly how ACKS does fighters, which works really well. The only bit I'm not sure about is the rules for dual wielding, but that's just because I haven't seen it tried that way before. Also, I do 1d10 instead of 2d6 for fighters with two-handed weapons, since the jump from 1d8 to 2d6 is actually pretty big, but depending on how strong the shield save thing is that might be fine. aldantefax posted:I'm thinking about a hexcrawl game on the seas (similar to like, Etrian Odyssey 3). Are there any retroclones out there that have a nautical focus, or should I just freewheel it and estimate based on various source material like GURPS Swashbucklers and the like? I know a guy working on a 'Salt Box' set for BD&D ocean hexcrawling, and I'm actually supposed to playtest it with him some time in the near future. I could see if he'd be interested in sharing some notes or something, but I don't know of any existing products that don't have kind of goofy implementations.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 20:24
|
|
|
OtspIII posted:I like pretty much all of these, and actually do similar things to a bunch of them. Dropping thieves is a good choice, and I really like the simplifying weapon damage. The fighter changes are actually almost exactly how ACKS does fighters, which works really well. Hmm, maybe I should stick Fighters with 1d10 for 2-handers and give Clerics 1d8 for 2 handers then? The extra damage might be a bit too much at low levels after all. How do you think I should work out extra attack progressions for Fighters? I want all attacks to use the same flat bonus if possible - I didn't like the way 3.5 handled iterative attacks at all. I was also thinking a bit on the role of Cleric - they occupy such a strange niche too since they have that jack-of-all-trades thing with their mid level HP/Attack Bonus as well as their spellcasting ability. While Fighter and Magic User are really generic and can be re-fluffed to fit pretty much anything, Clerics seem oddly restrictive in their whole priest role since it ties them to a particular profession and assumptions about the game world. I do want to keep Clerics (or a Cleric-like role) in the game as well, but I'm wondering how they could be re-fluffed and their mechanics re-tweaked to give them the same amount of versatility that the other classes enjoy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 20:49
|
|
|
Bob Quixote posted:How do you think I should work out extra attack progressions for Fighters? I want all attacks to use the same flat bonus if possible - I didn't like the way 3.5 handled iterative attacks at all. ACKS just gives a flat +1 damage per level, I think. Honestly, with how low HP is in earlier D&Ds that's plenty.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 22:05
|
|
|
This article might have an idea for you. It basically uses Turning as a method to emulate some general magical effects. If you want new fluff for clerics, are you after them being able to fulfill a different role or are they sort of in between fighters and moos still but you don't want to keep them specifically with the religious baggage? If so, maybe they are sort of a paladin type idea, but rather than being bound to a specific religion and that hooplah they serve an ideal, the way some of the later versions of the game have allowed. So maybe the "cleric" is someone who embodies a particular philosophy and draws power from it. Maybe clerics are like warlocks (from later editions) or shamans, and they make pacts with extra-planar creatures or spirits. They are more or less the same but they will have a weirder air about them because they are not overtly religious any more, even if they still occupy a similar kind of supernatural space. Their spells become rites given to them by their patrons or gifts of the spirits they honor. Alternately, you could make them sort of bard-like, having a range of abilities and some proficiency with both fighting and magic. Through incantations/music, they can hamper enemies or aid allies. Or maybe they are warlord-y (e.g. 4e), in that they can fight but they can also augment their buddies, and their spells become battle cries that happen in the middle of their whooping on enemies. They could also be like alchemists, who many times I have seen have abilities that largely center around healing, buffing, and such. By rubbing oils on someone, they can grant them new abilities, and maybe they make tinctures that they can feed to someone like potions. Or they do a sort of "cauldron of knowledge" bit with divinations, and upon drinking those brews they can see things they normally can't, such as the future, far away distances, etc. This is probably the closest to retaining a magical kind of feel that isn't magic, per se. Each of these ideas is a bit of re-fluffing but you'd have to decide which you can reconcile best either with dropping certain effects that are no longer thematic or trying to find a way to have a spell make sense within the new framework, if you want to go with any of them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 22:12
|
|
|
Bob Quixote posted:Hmm, maybe I should stick Fighters with 1d10 for 2-handers and give Clerics 1d8 for 2 handers then? The extra damage might be a bit too much at low levels after all. Just treat their divine spells like the wizard's arcane, and explain the focus/restricted list as a function of their martial training? Warlock and Warlord ideas above are good too. What setting are you reflavor ing into? Stuff like sci-fi has Jedi/Psions and the like for instance.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 23:14
|
|
|
OtspIII posted:ACKS just gives a flat +1 damage per level, I think. Honestly, with how low HP is in earlier D&Ds that's plenty. The game I'm using as a base to bolt all this stuff onto (Basic Fantasy RPG) gives Fighters +1 to hit every Odd level or so and maxes out at +10, so maybe I can give them +1 to damage every Even level, that way the numbers don't get too big for the low HP & the player still gets an increase of some sort every level? The Fighter should have some pretty big flat bonuses when all is said and done (Weapon Damage + STR mod + Level based damage bonus), and combine that with the Cleave thing mentioned earlier, it should allow them to cut a swathe through quite a few enemies without keeping it restricted to just 1HD creatures. Gasperkun posted:This article might have an idea for you. It basically uses Turning as a method to emulate some general magical effects. Having clerics stay on as a support role, but using different mechanics from the magic user sounds good. That article with the Turning-as-Spellcasting seems pretty interesting, and maybe combining it with some Bardic music type effects could be good. They would still be able to serve as backup fighters and have utility spells and abilities to help the party, but it wouldn't be as OP as full casting + heavy armor & since they wouldn't be using traditional "spell slots" they wouldn't have to worry about getting turned purely into healbots to keep the party afloat. Fluff wise I'm not really sure what exactly to call this kind of character - they seem like they'd be someone who has picked up a little bit of everything along the way. Moriatti posted:Just treat their divine spells like the wizard's arcane, and explain the focus/restricted list as a function of their martial training? I wanted to do it in one of those hokey old-school 'Weird Fantasy' settings, with the usual mishmash of magic and the buried remains of technologically advanced civilizations and the like. Actually, if I just fluff the "clerics" abilities to be willpower based psionic type effects instead of weird other-planar energy arcane effects it would go along with the science-fantasy theme, so thanks for the suggestion! Bob Quixote fucked around with this message at 23:24 on Dec 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 23:20
|
|
|
Bob Quixote posted:I wanted to do it in one of those hokey old-school 'Weird Fantasy' settings, with the usual mishmash of magic and the buried remains of technologically advanced civilizations and the like. Just remember, a wand of lightning bolt is indistinguishable from a ray gun mechanically.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 00:04
|
|
|
Moriatti posted:Oh, I love that setting! Exactly - functionally there's no difference between draining a ray guns battery and running out of wand charges, a ring that summons a cloud of AI controlled nanites is basically the same thing as having a limited sort of genie at your command (provided you know at least a few words of the ancient language needed to command it) & it lets you mix and match bits of odd futuristic technology (or more durable versions of current tech) in with the usual monster loot and actual magical stuff. Plus it just feels right to use Vancian casting in an actual Dying Earth type of setting. I'm still trying to figure out how to do the 'cleric' exactly. They would still be the middle of the road option in terms of HP/Attack Bonus/Weapon Damage, but I think if I give them some sort of limited magical/psionic effects geared towards healing and buffing it would be a decent substitute. The Turning as Spellcasting article was really vague in terms of actual solid mechanics - but I am thinking that the gist would be that these characters would be able to roll checks to manifest certain effects (heal an injured party member, an aura that gives bonuses in combat, magical light, compulsion, etc.). Though if their effects are too weak and limited they would probably be better off either playing a Fighter or Magic User and I could just fold the Clerics utility & healing spells into the general MU list? I'm not sure if players would find that too limiting though since that would leave just 2 viable classes on the table.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 01:07
|
|
|
Bob Quixote posted:Alright then - forgive me if the post is long, I've just been thinking on things a lot and scouring the internet for interesting rules and wondered how these would work out together. I can come back later and edit it out if its redundant. These are all good ideas. 1. Yes, either dump the thief entirely and/or use a standard "roll under ability score" for his lockpicking and wall climbing attempts 2. Natural cleave is good, as is an AC bonus scaling with level. If you want them to do more I think just opening it up for the player with an ability check might work - roll under DEX to disarm, roll under STR to to pin/grapple, etc, but I don't know if you're going to further formalize what they can actually do specifically. 3. Scarlet Heroes does weapon damage almost exactly the same way: you can use any weapon you want, but the actual damage dice you use is still capped by your class. Keeps things simple. 4. The original Basic Companion set does two-weapon fighting the same way: all it does is let you roll damage twice and use the better result. I like it for its simplicity and maintaining the abstraction - a Fighter's extra attacks have nothing to do with how many weapons he's attacking with or how physically fast he's striking the enemy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 01:14
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:These are all good ideas. I don't think I've ever run across the idea of doing combat maneuvers as ability checks before, but I really like it! It would probably be good to list out a few of the most basic ones (Trip, Disarm, Shove) and outline what they do & then just let the DM work out the little corner cases if the player comes up with something really fun. That way the Fighter can cleave through goblins without a care, but if you are dueling an actually tough opponent you can try to neutralize him with a tactic that isn't necessarily "stand here and beat each other till one of us dies". Throwing in things like bolas or nets to try and trip or entangle guys from a distance could be cool too, as well as the usual jars of oil and alchemical potions - it might make the fighter a bit too equipment based, but so is Batman and he's a pretty popular fellow. (on that note I would also say that every truly intelligent character should probably carry some pocket sand just in case they need a one-time "get out of an rear end beating" card - that gnoll can't hit what he can't see) Grappling is always kind of a hassle, but it would be worth keeping in too. There's probably an easier way to do it than 3.5, so I'll try and find a good one. EDIT "" posted:3. Scarlet Heroes does weapon damage almost exactly the same way: you can use any weapon you want, but the actual damage dice you use is still capped by your class. Keeps things simple. It just occurred to me that if weapon damage is based on class rather than weapon type, is there any reason why Magic Users should be restricted to the standard Dagger/Staff/Dart setup? A first level mage could have a bow & plink away at enemies for 1d4 damage, contributing something to the fight after having expended his single spell - or he could have a sword for flavor (which would still do 1d4 damage because he barely knows how to use the drat thing). Letting the mage have a bow wouldn't even really steal the Fighters thunder since he does 1d8 damage with it & at higher levels is able to mow down enemies with a stream of arrows while the mage would still be restricted to his 1 shot per round. They'd still be near-useless in actual close-in combat and would want to avoid it at all costs, but would have more to do in any given encounter than than a standard magic user who has expended their spell slots. Heck, since Sneak Attack is a standard combat maneuver that anyone can attempt now that the Thief is gone, a Magic User could even try to slit some throats if they were feeling particularly bold enough and thought that they could get away with it. Bob Quixote fucked around with this message at 05:45 on Dec 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 01:57
|
|
|
OtspIII posted:I like pretty much all of these, and actually do similar things to a bunch of them. Dropping thieves is a good choice, and I really like the simplifying weapon damage. The fighter changes are actually almost exactly how ACKS does fighters, which works really well. I'd be down to look at it for ideas! Also thanks to everybody else for the good pointers. I had assumed that there were some nautical-type things back in the day (I know that 3.5 had Stormwrack as the most recent example of a boat-based thing) but nothing explicitly for hexcrawling, so this is bound to give me good starting points.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 02:07
|
|
|
I have just one last post to make of questions and ideas here and then I'll try to stop cluttering up this thread with my nonsense: Magic User: This class is kind of a tricky one to deal with since they are always just outside of the curve. At first level they are basically helpless (outside of a single encounter-ending use of Sleep) & at higher levels they are near unstoppable engines of death, so figuring out exactly what to do with them is giving me a bit of a hard time. For lower level improvements I think that allowing them to wear non-metal armor like a druid would make them at least somewhat more survivable at the time when attacks by Kobolds are an actual challenge, and allowing them to use any weapon (including a bow) doesn't seem too unfair to the Fighter since combat damage is class based and not weapon based. A first level wizard plinking away at enemies with a bow for 1d4 damage would allow them to actually contribute after their one spell slot gets spent but wouldn't overshadow the Fighters bigger damage and bonus Cleave attacks. Giving them simple at will Cantrips also seems like a good way to add some more magical flavor to the class that won't really come up in combat, but could still allow for fun and creative uses of character power. At higher levels the Magic User will probably drop the bow forever since they have access to many more options for what to do during combat. Aside from just going through the spell list and axing all the completely broken (and completely useless) spells, is there any way to bring high level MU's to a point where they don't completely dominate the Mid-to-End game scene? Spell-points+Spontaneous Casting seem like they would give more flexibility and also make it so that fewer high-level spells would be cast in one day, but I'm not sure if they would be more fiddly to track than standard Vancian spell slots. Another solution I've seen suggested is to make it so that the total number of spells that the caster knows of any given level is equal to the number of slots they have available in that level (so a 3rd level MU would know two 1st level spells and a single 2nd level spell). Empire of the Petal Throne apparently took that idea a step further and made it so that the MU couldn't memorize multiple copies of the same spell - you could cast every spell you knew once per day, but the number of spells you knew was limited by the available slots granted by your level. It seems odd, but kind of flavorful - though at the same time I wonder if it might be too restrictive? Are there any particular systems or strategies that have been tried that work better? Critical Hits: Thinking about combat maneuvers made me think that it would be fun to add something like that into the Critical Hit system. Normally the player has the option to attack as normal and deal damage, or do an ability check, like gradneko suggested, to try some sort of maneuver like disarming or grappling with the enemy. I thought it would be cool to add something like that onto a Critical Hit roll - on a natural 20 you choose whether you want to deal Double damage OR to deal regular attack damage AND also perform a maneuver of your choice. If your roll to confirm the crit is also a natural 20 then you deal double damage and get the maneuver as a freebie. Critical Hit maneuvers can even go a bit beyond the usual, such as blinding a dragon in one eye or maybe lopping off a limb or something similarly gruesome/ridiculous. I don't think its something that would come up too often (well, around 5% of the time I guess), but I think it could make rolling a crit a bit more interesting than it normally is.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 05:08
|
|
|
Bob Quixote posted:Another solution I've seen suggested is to make it so that the total number of spells that the caster knows of any given level is equal to the number of slots they have available in that level (so a 3rd level MU would know two 1st level spells and a single 2nd level spell). Empire of the Petal Throne apparently took that idea a step further and made it so that the MU couldn't memorize multiple copies of the same spell - you could cast every spell you knew once per day, but the number of spells you knew was limited by the available slots granted by your level. It seems odd, but kind of flavorful - though at the same time I wonder if it might be too restrictive? I am 100% in favor of making mages only able to memorize one copy of each spell. A lot of spell levels have obvious best choices (Sleep at level 1, for example), so I have a really hard time justifying not taking multiple copies of it if I have the option, even though that's not nearly as fun as spending the session intent on finding ways to save everyone's life with Ventriloquism. If you're worried that's too restrictive letting them cast any spell they know frees things up a bit, too. (So, like, a second level MU can cast two spells, and doesn't have to memorize them before hand, but they can't be the same thing.) One thing you could try is just channeling 4e and capping the total number of spells you can memorize, then upping the number of spells people start with. A first level mage can cast three spells a day, but no mage can ever cast more than...ten? I'd have to actually playtest to come up with a good feeling number. Bob Quixote posted:Critical Hits: Thinking about combat maneuvers made me think that it would be fun to add something like that into the Critical Hit system. Normally the player has the option to attack as normal and deal damage, or do an ability check, like gradneko suggested, to try some sort of maneuver like disarming or grappling with the enemy. I thought it would be cool to add something like that onto a Critical Hit roll - on a natural 20 you choose whether you want to deal Double damage OR to deal regular attack damage AND also perform a maneuver of your choice. If your roll to confirm the crit is also a natural 20 then you deal double damage and get the maneuver as a freebie. Critical Hit maneuvers can even go a bit beyond the usual, such as blinding a dragon in one eye or maybe lopping off a limb or something similarly gruesome/ridiculous. Crits can be a dangerous topic. HP is so low that giving double damage on a crit really ups the odds of players suddenly exploding unexpectedly, even against trivial foes. I usually just roll damage twice and pick the higher (unless I pick a different crit effect--more on that in a second)--it's enough of a boost that it still generates that 'oh poo poo, this is going to hurt' feeling without feeling too unfairly unavoidable. Crit maneuvers sound like they could be fun, although it's tricky to balance. I usually just do contextual stuff with crits for monsters--if the player is fighting in a location with poor footing and they get critted or fumble they lose their footing and fall down. If they're fighting a monster that I can imagine a kind of cool special attack from, that happens on a crit (maybe a wolf knocks you prone and leaps on top of you, putting you in a bad position next turn unless a teammate helps you). Basically, if I have something interesting and sensible I can imagine happening in the fight and somebody rolls a 1 or a 20 I try to use that as an excuse for the thing to happen, letting things ramp up a bit in intensity as HP totals get lower. Generally if a player crits I'll just ask them if there's anything cool they think their attack could cause, and let them choose to either do that or just let them reroll damage and take the higher. Uhh, the monster crit stuff above should maybe be avoided if your group is more into tactical combat and less into combat as something you just need to survive, since it is by nature just the DM pulling usually unbalanced abilities for monsters out of their rear end. I tend to think of them almost as little mini combat-plot-twists more than anything else--suddenly this fight is about the gargoyle having managed to restrain the bloodied halfling well enough to run away with it and the party stopping it from escaping. It's not something that combat by the book would ever result in, but I think D&D is more fun with weird stories like that taking place in it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 08:01
|
|
|
For Magic Users, what I did was to give them a "Basic Ranged Attack" that's d20 + INT modifier on the attack roll and deals 1d4 damage. They can flavor it however they like - one player still wanted to depict it as a sling that he just got better and better at, while another player played it off as a Magic Missile, but at bottom the point is that I wanted to give the Magic Users a way to attack after their 1 spell that didn't penalize them for having low DEX or low STR. Since you're basing damage dice on class, then the MU can say that the ranged attack is anything that's consistent with their character. Changing Vancian magic is trickier. I don't like it either, but muck around with it too much and you're basically playing armchair designer and/or are better off playing a different system entirely. Random thoughts: 1. Not having more than one spell sounds very feasible and I want to try that as well. 2. Payndz's There's Always A Chance has a rule where the MU gets an additional spell slot for every +1 on their INT modifier. So a level 1 MU with 18 INT would have 4 spell slots, and these "Auxiliary Spell Slots" can carry any level of spell. That gives the MU a lot more flexibility at low levels, but then you combine it with idea #1 to rein in the possibility of having 4 Fireballs as soon as the MU hits level 5. The other thing to note though is that this places a lot more importance on having a high INT stat, which could be a problem if you're going by classic random rolling for attributes and no way to increase attributes. 3. A more ambitious idea would be to look at the 13th Age Wizard for inspiration: all of their "slotted spells" are combat-related, but then they have a single generic Utility Spell that covers stuff like Feather Fall, Levitate, Water Breathing. On crits and combat maneuvers: my inspiration comes from Jimbozig's Strike!, which has a very simple combat mechanic: Roll a d6 1 means you miss and gain some sort of on-going disadvantage 2 means a flat miss 3 means you deal damage OR you get to inflict an effect 4-5 means you deal damage AND you get to inflict an effect 6 means you deal 2x damage AND you get to inflict an effect The effect is anything you and the DM agree to as being narratively appropriate, with the provision that if they try to use same effect twice, it's not as strong (or possibly won't work at all) Trying to translate this to a D20/D&D context lead me to the idea of: An attack roll to deal damage An ability check to inflict an effect You could also do something like attack rolls are always used for everything; damage OR effect if you just make the needed roll; damage AND effect if you exceed the needed roll by 4 or better. It might be slower to process since there's more math involved as far as getting the margin of success, but the advantage is that you won't have players with 18 in their main attribute inflicting effects left and right (although the "don't use the same effect twice" rule is supposed to already curb that, and it depends on the tone and narrative of your game). Finally, you can also do something like "If you crit an attack roll, you also get to inflict an effect. If you crit an ability check (a 1 on a roll-under d20), you also get to inflict damage.", but remember that crits only really happen 5% of the time so I don't know if it's worth adding on a bunch more edge cases.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 11:57
|
|
|
OtspIII posted:I am 100% in favor of making mages only able to memorize one copy of each spell. A lot of spell levels have obvious best choices (Sleep at level 1, for example), so I have a really hard time justifying not taking multiple copies of it if I have the option, even though that's not nearly as fun as spending the session intent on finding ways to save everyone's life with Ventriloquism. If you're worried that's too restrictive letting them cast any spell they know frees things up a bit, too. (So, like, a second level MU can cast two spells, and doesn't have to memorize them before hand, but they can't be the same thing.) Yeah, the more I think about it the more I really like the 'only memorize one copy of a spell' rule - it gives the MU's spell-list more of a workout and would probably encourage a little more flexibility beyond just using multiple charges of your "go-to" spell for that level. I'm sort of on the fence about the flat total number of spells idea though - in theory it sounds really good (and a lot more genuinely "Vancian" than the standard D&D system), but I can see it having some serious balance issues. Having the ability to cast 10 total spells at max level isn't nearly as many total spells as the MU could cast normally, but that could also mean that they would be able to fire off 10 spells of the highest level they could cast where normally they might only get 4 slots in that area. I really like the idea of how much it would simplify the book-keeping for the MU player though since they wouldn't have to track lots of little discrete slots for spell levels, and when combined with the 'single copy' rule it could be really good. Would probably need to be tested though to find a good balance for it. OtspIII posted:Crits can be a dangerous topic. HP is so low that giving double damage on a crit really ups the odds of players suddenly exploding unexpectedly, even against trivial foes. I usually just roll damage twice and pick the higher (unless I pick a different crit effect--more on that in a second)--it's enough of a boost that it still generates that 'oh poo poo, this is going to hurt' feeling without feeling too unfairly unavoidable. Yeah, the crit stuff was kind of an afterthought. I liked the idea of there being a simple system in place to allow for interesting non-damaging effects (hence the ability checks for combat maneuvers) and thought that tacking them on as an extra bonus to crits would be a way to make rolling a crit seem more special than just "double damage". Though as you said, player survivability is an issue at low levels and no one likes the idea of being one-shotted by a Kobold about 5% of the time. gradenko_2000 posted:Changing Vancian magic is trickier. I don't like it either, but muck around with it too much and you're basically playing armchair designer and/or are better off playing a different system entirely. That's one of my worries too because I think a lot of the game math is built around the assumption of Vancian casting as the standard. It's kind of frustrating and overly fiddly, but I worry that just changing too much would end up wrecking the game completely. gradenko_2000 posted:You could also do something like attack rolls are always used for everything; damage OR effect if you just make the needed roll; damage AND effect if you exceed the needed roll by 4 or better. It might be slower to process since there's more math involved as far as getting the margin of success, but the advantage is that you won't have players with 18 in their main attribute inflicting effects left and right (although the "don't use the same effect twice" rule is supposed to already curb that, and it depends on the tone and narrative of your game). Hmm, I hadn't considered the "18 Stat character dominates the encounter" problem. I guess folding it into the standard attack system wouldn't be a bad idea. If your success is dependent on attack bonus it means that Fighters would be better at it, but if it was based solely on ability then a STR 18 mage could go around suplexing orcs with impunity which might cut a bit too far into the Fighters wheelhouse. gradenko_2000 posted:Finally, you can also do something like "If you crit an attack roll, you also get to inflict an effect. If you crit an ability check (a 1 on a roll-under d20), you also get to inflict damage.", but remember that crits only really happen 5% of the time so I don't know if it's worth adding on a bunch more edge cases. This seems like an idea solution - it's straightforward and elegant. -- Forgive me for sperging out a big on this next part - its kind of dumb, but I thought it was funny. I was crunching the math on some of the Fighter ideas I'd mentioned earlier (Cleave ability + Bonus Damage based on level) and came up with some pretty interesting results: A 20th level Fighter making an attack roll does damage of either 1d8 or 1d10 (depending on their weapon), plus their Fighter damage bonus of +10. They may also be able to make up to 19 bonus cleave attacks in total for the round if they continue to slay their targets in one hit apiece. The potential total Damage per attack depending on STR bonus and Weapon Enhancement is between 11-24 for one handed weapons and 11-26 for two handed weapons - which means that on average a Max level Fighter is able to kill a 4-5HD creature in a single swing. I checked the MM and the 1st 4HD creature I came across was Bear, Black. I'm sort of digging the idea that a max level Fighter is so badass that he could wade into a horde of angry bears and come out the winner - in 10 seconds. EDIT I sort of wonder if I've gone too far with the damage bonuses though? I'm unfamiliar with a lot of older systems except for what I've read here and there, but I don't think that bonus damage was awarded too often (and probably not to the level of +10 points at level 20) - will setting things up like this gently caress the math up too much? I also know that in earlier versions of the game the 'Cleave' attacks were limited to enemies of 1HD or less, but to me that just seemed like a really weird idea - letting a Fighter plow through a wave of goblins but only being able to attack a single Hobgoblin because he had +1 HP seemed nonsensical. I also got to thinking about the whole 'up to 19 potential bonus attacks' thing and thought that it sounds good in theory but waiting out for the result of up to 40 consecutive die rolls for a single players turn sounds tedious as hell. Maybe it would work out better if the player made a single attack roll and if his damage was enough to kill the target he would use the same attack roll result against the next target and roll damage automatically until he either ran out of bonus attacks, available targets or didn't roll damage high enough to kill the opponent? That might be a bit too overpowered though since it would discount the chance of one of the attacks missing - is there a better solution that I'm not seeing? Bob Quixote fucked around with this message at 05:48 on Dec 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 02:12
|
|
|
Bob Quixote posted:Though as you said, player survivability is an issue at low levels and no one likes the idea of being one-shotted by a Kobold about 5% of the time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 03:14
|
|
|
Honestly, I really hate that idea. NPCs may lie to the players all the time. The GM shouldn't - and if that means a PC goes down, the PC goes down. Adventuring is dangerous, and they aren't heroes until they earn it. If they've already earned it, they shouldn't be level 1...
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 04:30
|
|
|
hectorgrey posted:Honestly, I really hate that idea. NPCs may lie to the players all the time. The GM shouldn't - and if that means a PC goes down, the PC goes down. Adventuring is dangerous, and they aren't heroes until they earn it. If they've already earned it, they shouldn't be level 1...  Totally different style. I care about making sure the players are having fun and the narrative is good. I have never felt the need to make players survive "flip the coin" at level one. If people want to play against a RNG or a computer they have nethack or dungeon crawl.Players die from player decisions. Not coin tosses. (I am exaggerating to make the point.) I also think players should die more from attrition (valiantly fighting there way along, making decisions and ect) than SURPRISE YOURE DEAD! ... and thats what you get at bottom levels against criticals.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 04:42
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:(Secretly) Make players (mostly) immune to crits until level 3 or 5 or so. You can pretend its a "crit" when they take max damage from the orc spear. Normally I will fudge things all the time to keep a session running, but lately I thought it would be interesting to try and do things strictly by the books and just let the dice fall where they lie - make it more of a game. Of course, my desire to do so is also why I'm trying to find all these alternate rules and patches to apply to the base game in the first place - if I'm going to play exactly by the rules then I want the rules to be fun to play with. I think if all the players of the game are aware for what sort of game they are going to be in for and everyone agrees that this style is something that they'd want to try that there isn't anything wrong with playing this way.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 05:30
|
|
|
Theres always crit = take another swing. Or you could just bluntly announce that only PCs and named/leveled NPCs get critical hits? Or only intelligent weapon-users. Or whatever. Then theres no "Oh poo poo that calico cat scratched you for LETHAL DAMAGE" things... and the players are aware from the beginning. FRINGE fucked around with this message at 05:58 on Dec 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 05:54
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:Theres always crit = take another swing. Crit's as a a PC / named NPC only thing sounds like a good idea - though the idea of having posters around a town warning about the sheer number of unsuspecting people killed every year by vicious stray cats does have a certain morbid appeal to it too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 06:08
|
|
|
There have been times when I've been pretty hardline against fudging, but I've softened somewhat. I tend to fudge things for new players a bit, to try to show them as much of the cool stuff that RPGs *can* contain as possible, but I tend to get pretty anti-fudge the deeper I go into a campaign or the more experienced (and into 'fairness' over storytelling) my players are. Even then, though, I usually fudge less by faking dice rolls and more by doing stuff like "well, the rules say that you would normally die from this, but you're just on the edge of death, and then the gnome tells you that she knows a powerful healer nearby, and that they would probably be willing to save your life in exchange for a promise to [plot hook]. . ." Basically, I don't like fudging a bad thing happening into a good thing happening, but I'm all about fudging an unfun bad thing into a fun (and potentially profitable) bad thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 07:38
|
|
|
Bob Quixote posted:Normally I will fudge things all the time to keep a session running, but lately I thought it would be interesting to try and do things strictly by the books and just let the dice fall where they lie - make it more of a game. Speaking here from the perspective of BECMI's Basic set: Do it strictly by the books, but first generate a big (like ~20) pile of spare characters on premade sheets. Place those sheets face down on the table. If a PC dies, they take the next sheet in the pile (or take the top 2 and choose one and place the other back on the bottom), and arrive on scene in 1d4 rounds (ie, probably during the current fight, if there's a current fight). If you don't feel like making pregens, tell the dead PC's player to immediately start making a new character. The new PC arrives on scene as soon as the sheet is completed (ie, 5-10 minutes). You might want to drink some beers or something while this is going on, but it makes for a really fun (if somewhat lighthearted) session. FRINGE posted:Then theres no "Oh poo poo that calico cat scratched you for LETHAL DAMAGE" things... and the players are aware from the beginning. I'd fix this problem by not calling for initiative or attack rolls when a cat scratches someone or in any other situation where it would be silly or uninteresting to do a combat. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 08:29 on Dec 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 08:25
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:Speaking here from the perspective of BECMI's Basic set: Do it strictly by the books, but first generate a big (like ~20) pile of spare characters on premade sheets. Place those sheets face down on the table. If a PC dies, they take the next sheet in the pile (or take the top 2 and choose one and place the other back on the bottom), and arrive on scene in 1d4 rounds (ie, probably during the current fight, if there's a current fight).
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 14:30
|
|
|
Bob Quixote posted:Yeah, the more I think about it the more I really like the 'only memorize one copy of a spell' rule - it gives the MU's spell-list more of a workout and would probably encourage a little more flexibility beyond just using multiple charges of your "go-to" spell for that level. Empire of the petal throne has a much better system where character level determines what HD you get multiple attacks against.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 16:20
|
|
|
CountingWizard posted:Empire of the petal throne has a much better system where character level determines what HD you get multiple attacks against. Do you remember how it worked? I've heard some good things about that game but I'm not sure it was even in print when I was old enough to read, so I haven't had a chance to check out the rules for it. EDIT I really want to beef up the Fighter and make them more active/viable in mid-late game play (without being wholly dependent on equipment for effectiveness), but I like using simple mechanics whenever possible to do so. Maybe making your total number of attacks per round via Cleave linked to your Attack bonus rather than character level would be a decent solution? You could still potentially kill a bear in one swing, but no more than 10 bears in a round (the game I'm working with has a max +10 to-hit)? EDIT EDIT Someone had mentioned that Adventurer, Conqueror, King handled fighters pretty much the same way I had first posted about and in a little research I found this: http://www.autarch.co/blog/heroic-combat-adventurer-conqueror-king -where the creator basically outlines his thoughts on improving the fighter class which turned out to be nearly identical. The only major difference is that his Fighters max out at +5 to class based damage instead of +10, so while they could easily cut down a swathe of 2HD (or even 3HD guys) on a good swing they wouldn't be able to singlehandedly cleave their way through a batallion of Ogres or several circuses worth of bear. It does still leave the "rolling up to 20 attacks" problem though as a potential annoyance and could bring the game to a halt once you get past 5th or 6th level when the Fighters turn starts to take up to 8 or 9 minutes. AlphaDog posted:Speaking here from the perspective of BECMI's Basic set: Do it strictly by the books, but first generate a big (like ~20) pile of spare characters on premade sheets. Place those sheets face down on the table. If a PC dies, they take the next sheet in the pile (or take the top 2 and choose one and place the other back on the bottom), and arrive on scene in 1d4 rounds (ie, probably during the current fight, if there's a current fight). A lighthearted death-heavy game sounds interesting - sort of like running the dungeon as a murder-gameshow where the players work together to see who will win Fabulous Prizes (and also hopefully live long enough to spend/use them). AlphaDog posted:I'd fix this problem by not calling for initiative or attack rolls when a cat scratches someone or in any other situation where it would be silly or uninteresting to do a combat. This is also a great solution - even if you don't want to play a "heroic" style game there's really no point in getting locked into combat with housepets. Bob Quixote fucked around with this message at 17:14 on Dec 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 16:38
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:I'd fix this problem by not calling for initiative or attack rolls when a cat scratches someone or in any other situation where it would be silly or uninteresting to do a combat.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 16:40
|
|
|
CountingWizard posted:Empire of the petal throne has a much better system where character level determines what HD you get multiple attacks against.  Wait, why didn't anyone tell me EPT was out in pdf format? Merry Christmas to me.Bob Quixote posted:I really want to beef up the Fighter and make them more active/viable in mid-late game play (without being wholly dependent on equipment for effectiveness), but I like using simple mechanics whenever possible to do so. In TAAC the cleave rule is if you do more damage than a creature has and you are adjacent to another creature you can transfer the remaining damage to the next creature until you run out of damage.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 18:46
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:If everyone is into that (DnD as Diablo/Doom) its fine, but if the players are invested into playing "this" character and suddenly are forced from paladin to halfling they may not have as much fun. Bob Quixote posted:A lighthearted death-heavy game sounds interesting - sort of like running the dungeon as a murder-gameshow where the players work together to see who will win Fabulous Prizes (and also hopefully live long enough to spend/use them). I agree with both of you, I was offering a solution for keeping "...do things strictly by the books and just let the dice fall where they lie..." fun. If everyone wants to be invested in playing their character, playing Basic strictly by the books from level 1 is definitely not the way to go. FRINGE posted:I wasnt being literal. (Although I am sure people have done that.) I didn't think you were. I think that sort of thing is worth saying anyway because there seem to be lots of people who don't get it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 21:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 00:30 |
|
|
I kinda like the idea that if you're playing Basic from level 1, your dedicated PC is the character that survives the low-level meatgrinder. I'm assuming, of course, that your characters don't get a backstory at all, and you only invent one for them when they survive until level 3 or 4. You can also either take a paternalistic attitude towards low-level PCs (which I fully encourage) or just start PCs at level 3-4.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 22:23
|
|