[Burichan] [Futaba] [Nice] [Pony]  -  [WT]  [Home] [Manage]

[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts] [Last 100 posts]
Posting mode: Reply
Name
Email
Subject   (reply to 7913)
Message
File []
Embed   Help
Password  (for post and file deletion)
  • Supported file types are: GIF, JPG, MP3, PNG, SWF
  • Maximum file size allowed is 10000 KB.
  • Images greater than 250x250 pixels will be thumbnailed.
  • Currently 2000 unique user posts. View catalog

File 132708631475.jpg - (29.17KB , 550x413 , Falchion.jpg )
7913 No. 7913 ID: 3fbae5

Ok. So as much as I love Pathfinder(and I really do) I find there are too many things that irk me; to the point that houseruling them all is just silly. In that vein, I'm thinking of building my own system; from the ground up, based off of as many other systems (cherry picking the good stuff) until I end up with something interesting.

A friend, fellow DM, and rather intelligent fellow, suggested I design the most basic of basic first, and so for this first post, I will post literally the first and most fundamental rule in the game. It isn't original, it isn't unique, but it's my start.

when attempting an action that requires a check, a player rolls a d20, and adds all relevant modifiers related to that check. If the final score is equal to or higher than the check's difficulty, the check succeeds. If it does not; the check fails. Passing or failing by increments of five cause successively more positive or negative effects to happen.

From here I was going to branch into attribute scores, then into the action system, followed by skills and movement, and finally combat; wrapping up the more technical aspect of the game. Each time I'm stuck I'll post an in-depth writeup of the ideas I am toying with, and test it against your guys' votes and opinions. But, for now, I have computers to fix. Expect the first bit written by the end of today, if not earlier.
Expand all images
>>
No. 7914 ID: 3fbae5

This is what I have for attributes. Again, I would relabel everything for the sake of being vaguely original; but then I would sacrifice familiarity for players of older systems.

A character’s physical attributes are expressed in six(6) broad categories; Strength (Str), Dexterity (Dex), Constitution (Con), Wisdom (Wis) and Charisma (Cha)

Strength
A Character's physical prowess.
Dexterity
A Character's hand-eye coordination, on the micro and macro scale.
Constitution
A Character's toughness and endurance.
Intelligence
A Character's knowledge of academic pursuits, and ability to learn. (this one tends to be ill defined in games)
Wisdom
A Character's experience in life, and awareness of the world. (this one tends to be ill defined in games)
Charisma
A Character's social skills, and their ability to control how people perceive them. (this one tends to be ill defined in games)

Currently, the plan is to use a Score/Mod system, though having straight scores might be easier for new and old players alike. In this case the scores would go so that 0 is average human, +5 is highest possible without magical enhancement(pinnacle of existence), and -5 is completely disabled. Opinions? the more and more I look at the base-0 system, the more I like it; having simpler, smaller numbers mans less math and less work, without a massive loss of positive complexity. Granted, there would not be “half-mods” aka “odd scores” but then each point is actually tangibly -worth- something.
>>
No. 7916 ID: c90d7d

If the ill defined bothers you, a suggestion that may lessen the ill definition?
>Intelligence
>A Character's knowledge of academic pursuits, and ability to learn. (this one tends to be ill defined in games)
education and formal, structured learning
>Wisdom
>A Character's experience in life, and awareness of the world. (this one tends to be ill defined in games)
Learning by doing, perception - especially of patterns, reflection on experience
>Charisma
>A Character's social skills, and their ability to control how people perceive them. (this one tends to be ill defined in games)
The ability to identify, assess, and control the emotions of oneself, of others, and of groups

IMHO a Score/mod system only makes sense if you use the straight scores for some things and the mods for some others. Otherwise they are more an artifact of character generation methods than anything else.
>>
No. 7920 ID: bdb3f8

If you are designing from the ground up with a different score baseline, is there really any reason to stay with the six D&D stats, with their inherent confusion points? I am personally a fan of eight or nine stat systems, which offer a good balance of complexity and manageability for in-depth games. How about something along the lines of:

Strength Endurance
Dexterity Agility
Education Wisdom
Personality Appearance

Except for renaming constitution to endurance, (which is simply for the purposes of being slightly different from D&D) I believe the arguments for each tweak are obvious. No one with a passing familiarity with role playing games should need much explanation about any of them either.
>>
No. 7921 ID: 9130c6

>>317920
I'll argue against 'education' as being also very vague. You could cut it out entirely and stick what it would cover under skills, divided up into areas of specialisation.
If it's potential for education, then education is somewhat misleading of a name.
>>
No. 7925 ID: 1b321f

What about intelligence being a character ability to understand and learn ?

Intelligence the means: seeing a new situation and immediatly being able of grasping the underlying rules and creating an abstract concept of its function in his/her head.

In contrast to knowledge: A book (or a computer) "contains" a lot of knowledge, just like a person can "contain" a lot of knowledge.

But intelligence determines whether one understands whatever one knows.

Somebody with a photographic memory might, for example, catch the glimpse of the plan of a complicated machine.
He/She might replicate the plan, but maybe won't be able to tell what it does.

A person with high intelligence needs longer to look at the plan and grasp all details. But (by combining basic foreknowledge) will be able to guess what the function of the machine is.

A warrior might be able to use a trebuchet, but a siege engineer is able to build and modify it.
>>
No. 7926 ID: 9eb660

The reason I'm going with the 6 basic D&D attributes is because, for the most part, I actually agree with them. When you gauge a person, you base it off of a similar set of attributes, with skills based off the attributes.

For example, a very dexterous person is often both dexterous with their hand and their entire body, too, with specializations built up as "skill ranks" as it were.

Building upon this, and examining my choices it makes a lot more sense.

Strength (the name sounds fine to me), in it's most basic form is literally a person's musculature, and their ability to use that musculature to effect the world around them.

Constitution (which I am planning on renaming either Toughness or Endurance) can be very apparent, with even the "weakest" person physically having almost unnatural resistance to diseases and pain.

Intelligence (Which I actually want to rename Intellect, but that's me being a dick) is not simply having a wider skill set, though a person witha highly diversified skill-set often is intelligent, it is also the capacity for a person to recall, remember, learn and apply knowledge they receive.

Wisdom (which I want to find a better word for), is as much understand how the world works as it is understand how your own mind works. It could be better defined as combat experience, and battlefield awareness, if one were to use a modern context. You don't just have better eyesight or better hearing or can read faces, you know where to look, and you do it instinctively. I plan on making Wisdom a very important Attribute for Combat Skills, (which replace Combat Maneuvers from pathfinder, and can be ranked up into)

Charisma is palpable, and is not just a person's appearance. I've met ugly trolls with such a silver tongue that they can get anything they want, whenever they want. Charisma is about effecting others using your words, body, and effecting how a person sees you.

This is why I chose these as the most important Attributes. I feel adding additional attributes, such as "perception" or "appearance" would add some structure to that part of the game, but can be better explained throughout the basic skills. In that case, it's better relegated to roleplay, or to specific racial, character, or class traits, feats, or flaws.

I'm not saying that you're wrong in your opinion, merely that from a more vital, mechanical standpoint adding additional attributes without clearly planning the repercussions is not advisable.

My plan is to create, instead of a single, specialized system, a framework which I can then adapt to a series of systems. As such, I want to understand the core of the game, the most basic of the basic, before I move onto Classes, Feats, or even Skills. I'm basically taking the whole of human existence and trying to boil it down to something that can be understood and explained to people in a casual, non-academic setting.

Preferably with funions and mountain dew.

And so, to that end, I think I'll keep some bits that are familiar in taste, texture, or color, (in a figurative sense) so that old fogeys won't feel too uprooted when they change over, but make it new and fresh enough that they have a reason to.

Still, not shooting the ideas down handily just yet, I'm just letting you know my own perspective at length. Though, if you must TL;DR, then I'll summarize. "Don't fix what ain't broke, break it first, then fix it better."
>>
No. 7929 ID: 689e28
File 132734697232.png - (14.89KB , 170x172 , Untitled-1.png )
7929

Well, crap. I screwed up my repost, so I lost all my eloquent wording. Basically, I found out how to set up the point-buy system fairly decently.

1 = 1 point
2 = 2 points
3 = 4 points
4 = 8 points
5 = 16 points

Negatives give you points, positives cost points.

Attached are some examples of point buys in this system, using 6 points. I see the average point allowance hovering around 4-6 points for an average game, with less points for lower-powered games and more for higher-powered games. Each race will likely have bonuses/penalties to attributes, according to their culture and physiology.
>>
No. 7939 ID: bdb3f8

I disagree with the premise that people with good hand dexterity tend to have good body agility and vice verse. That is the thing I dislike MOST about the D&D stats, and the urge to fix it is the thing which leads me to consider other stat options.

Thieves and rogues as presented in fantasy settings often do have both high dexterity and high agility, that much is true. The same can not be said for a dancer, or for a clockmaker. A elderly bard might have excellent control of his fingers to aid in the manipulation of his instrument, but rarely leave his chair at the inn because of his creaking joints. An ogre can learn to move swiftly and precisely with training, but no amount of training is going to make up for hands the size of melons. There are countless other examples I could enumerate if you intend to have the option to step outside of the fantasy rpg setting with this system.

Other points are well taken though. Making appearance its own stat would be purely for the purposes of pulling it OUT of charisma, for the very reasons you mentioned. However, it comes up rarely enough that it would perhaps be better handled as an optional advantage or flaw than as a stat.

I like intellect as a stat name better than my own suggestion, and I suggest renaming wisdom to wits, as whitewolf systems do. It makes more sense as a name for the vast majority of the things the stat is used for.
>>
No. 7940 ID: 6f96b7

I tend to agree wuith you, but the problem with separating Agility and Dexterity is pretty similar to separating Charisma and Appearance. A player understands that there are separate sub-Attributes, but for the sake of simplicity, from a mechanical standpoint they both fall under the same purview. If you break it down completely, you can have upwards of 16 Attributes, all of which are palpably unique, but in doing so you make the system significantly more complicated. Yet, you can also simplify it down to 2 attributes, Mind and Body; but in doing so you lose a good deal of the complexity. It's about finding the middle ground and interpreting how the world works through it. In my case, I'm picking six mostly because it's simple, familiar, and understandable to players. I have toyed with having 8, Str, Dex, Agi, Con, Int, Wis, Cha, App but decided not to on the grounds of familiarity.

If it seems like this is a more popular/accepted way of doing things, I may switch to it.

Opinions?
>>
No. 7944 ID: 9dc814

I agree with the Dexterity and Agility split.

>[Appearance] would perhaps be better handled as an optional advantage or flaw
This I agree with. I don't see a reason to make Appearance a separate attribute. Mainly because I don't see where a check on Appearance alone would be used. Well okay, for first expressions, but that's it. Everything else in that sector seems to require a check on Charisma anyway.

If you want to go for eight attributes, something like Will, Conviction or Fortitude would be better than Appearance. But seven attributes with Str, Dex, Agi, Con, Int, Wis, Cha would be IMHO sufficient, too.
>>
No. 7946 ID: 057cd0

If you are thinking about splitting attribute A into A1 and A2 or not, make a list of things A you think A shall influences. Assign points between 1 and 10 based on how often a player will encounter the item and how important the item is to play. Then go through the list and decide for each item if it is influenced by A1 alone, A2 alone or both A1 and A2. After that it shouldn't be hard to see if the split is worth considering.
>>
No. 7947 ID: 689e28

Ok, so I know I said I was only gonna have 6 attributes.

I may have been lying.

After a good deal of thinking and postulating, I decided that Agility and Dexterity are disparate enough to warrant two separate Attributes. I'm not sure how this effects game balance yet, but it does mean that Agility is now functionally a dedicated Defense stat, while Dexterity will be focused on hand-eye coordination on a more micro scale, including ranged weapon attacks.

I have also somewhat arbitrated the health system, and wanted your opinions.
First, off, all characters start with 5+Con Wounds. (This may change to 7 or even 10, depending on how playtesting goes.) This represents a character's physical, bodily health. It is likely that after being reduced to a certain amount of wounds, players begin to take penalties of some kind.

In this case Attacker and Defender will be called A and D
A: Roll to hit
D: Compare to Defense.
A: If attack breaks Defense, roll damage
D: Roll Fortitude, DC 10+Damage. If fails, take 1 wound. If fails by increments of 5, add 1 wound to damage taken. If pass, no damage taken.

So, a weapon doing 1d6 damage, against a player with 0 Fort (0 Tns, no archetype bonuses) would do a maximum of 3 wounds (6 damage+10 versus a 1 Fortitude roll). Doing more than half a character's total wounds in one blow is considered to be a mortal wound, requiring a save or they go unconscious.

Please let me know if this is too complex, or if my explanation was funny. When I write this up, it will probably be in the form of a flowchart, making it much easier to read.
>>
No. 7950 ID: a21374

I understood it. You know with this setup it is possible to overcome defense but still do no damage, right? I think that is something you should mention or some people will be very surprised when it happens in game. There are also a few questions that aren't explained in your post.

What happens if the Fortitude roll is five, multiple of five, above DC 10 + damage?
Another thing that's not addressed is a weapon doing multiple damage types. Since you intend to use this system with different worlds, that's is something you should think about.
>>
No. 7953 ID: bdb3f8

>You know with this setup it is possible to overcome defense but still do no damage, right?
Hitting but not doing damage is a thing that can happen in many systems that have ten or fewer "hit-points". D&D attacks DO always do a minimum of 1 damage, but when you can have a 100 hp at mid levels, that might as well be no damage. I wouldn't worry about that too much.

I think that weapon system will work. I would just recommend against saying a sword does 1d6 DAMAGE if that does not translate directly into loss of 1d6 wounds. Even in just that brief description, you used the word "damage" to describe both loss of wounds and sword power, and they are not the same number. Too much potential for confusion. How about if the sword is 1d6 POWER or something similar?
>>
No. 7955 ID: 9eb660

I like the idea of rewording it form damage to "power" or "impact" or soemthing similar. I'm aware that you can possibly do no damage on a hit; while I'd liek to amke ti so that every hit does damage, doing so would end up being -too- realistic; where after about 2 hits, you're dead.

For call of cthulu, that might work, but for games involving "epic heroics" it's less than ideal.
>>
No. 7956 ID: 9130c6

>>317955
I'd take care of that in abilities.
In addition to the usual bits which are going to pop up (Sword/Training/Feat/Bracers/Garter/Etc. of +1 POW) have a thing that lets you deal one damage on a hit that would otherwise deal none.
>>
No. 7960 ID: 0b1389

>while I'd liek to amke ti so that every hit does damage,

That isn't necessary. You can define defense as a combination of weapon skill(parry) and evasion. Then Fortitude mods are armors and natural resistances and there is no issue expressing everything in fluff.
>>
No. 7961 ID: f74c90

>>317960
So, like in Savage Worlds, where the rules flat out say "we don't care about the bumps and scrapes and attacks that are narrowly avoided."
>>
No. 7962 ID: 6f96b7

Hindsight-wise, I feel like that's acceptable. I'm just so unused to having two defensive stats that I'm having problems conceptualizing the game in my head. I'll be adding this to the wiki I've been building up, tonight or tomorrow.

So, I'm gonna ask this now, does anyone have issues with making each square 1 meter and/or yard (I'm using SI because I feel like it.) and making movement through space based on time, with a base cost of 1 second, and a turn being 6 seconds?

I'm looking at 3 meters per second as the base speed of movement in a fast, tactical manner.

Keeping this in mind, about what time scale aught attacks and skills be?

>>317950

I was considering allowing either a 1 square shift from the target, or possibly an attack of opportunity, or ending the attacker's turn, but I'll tweak that more as I go on.
>>
No. 7963 ID: 6f96b7

Guys. GUYS.

I just realized with a system that breaks actions down into seconds, you don't need rounds, or turns.

Oh. Oh my. I think we need to play-test that.
>>
No. 7974 ID: 057cd0

If you do away with rounds/turns and assign everything a time, I think it will get complicated fast.

One issue is that a char should be able to do multiple actions at the same time. Say the fluff 'The fighter slashes at the highway man while he rushes past him, all the while throwing insults at the archer.'
The fighter is moving, attacking and taunting with at least two, maybe all three happening concurrently at some point. You need to define which are allowed to happen concurrently and which aren't.

Second issue: A char with long actions may force it's player to wait and watch while a char with short actions does things. I think you will need to draw time charts to keep track of which char is occupied with what and when a player can initiate new actions.
>>
No. 7975 ID: 7b9491

>>317963
You'd want a computer to help you with that. -.-
>>
No. 7976 ID: 9eb660

Hmn, the more I design,the more cans of worms open up and stare me in the face.

Which is good, cause I love puzzles, and this is just one bigass puzzle to get everything working.

You bring a good point for "Idle" time for players, and performing concurrent actions. I could see certain skills such as intimidate being "reactionary" instead of "instigated" where when you one-shot someone, you can make a free intimidate to demoralize. As for movement and attacks happening at the same time; for now I will say if that happens it will be a feat, or combat maneuver of some kind. Essentially, you can't attack in the same second you move, and you can't move the same second you attack. It still isn't quite as fluid as I'd like, but it's a lot more organic than taking turns.

For weapon attacks, I'm currently looking at most weapons being basically the same categorically.
Light/Unarmed 1s
One-handed 2s
Two handed 3s
Ranged weapons would have 1s firing time and a reload time, based on their type.

I'm kinda stuck on how two weapon fighting would work for this, though it may just mean you can attack twice in the same second.

The other thing I'm puzzling over is whether or not to use +6/+1 type multiple attacks. Realistically, I could see how it would work, but only to a certain extent. Maybe if you beat a target's initiative by 5 you get two consecutive attacks?

Basically, I want Agile-heavy characters to be doing high amount of attacks, and strength-based characters to be doing singular, bone-shattering strikes, but I'm still mulling on how to arbitrate that in a balanced, fair way.

I really appreciate all the feedback you guys have given me; without this feedback, I'd never get this thing off the ground.
>>
No. 7984 ID: 69599d

>Basically, I want Agile-heavy characters to be doing high amount of attacks, and strength-based characters to be doing singular, bone-shattering strikes, but I'm still mulling on how to arbitrate that in a balanced, fair way.
Given the time system I don't see how to get them more attacks easily. I don't understand How you mean the initiative thing to work. You could use the agility mod to shorten the times, like (1-mod*1/10)*time. That would shorten the time by 10% for every point above 0, lengthen by 10% for every point below 0.

One other thing you can do, is allow to add the agility mod to the attack roll. That doesn't give high agility chars more attacks, but it does give them more hits(i.e. attacks that include a fortitude roll). Similar you can allow chars to add the strength mod to damage.
Illustration:
* Defender D with 10 defense and no fortitude mods
* Attacker Al with +3 agility mod, 0 strength mod
* Attacker Steve with 0 agility mod, +3 strength mod

Al: Roll to hit, add agility mod: 4-23
D: Compare to 10
Al: If attack>=10, roll damage
D: Roll Fortitude, DC 10+Damage.

Steve: Roll to hit, add agility mod: 1-20
D: Compare to 10
Steve: If attack>=10, roll damage
D: Roll Fortitude, DC 10+Damage+3(added strength mod).

>I'm kinda stuck on how two weapon fighting would work
To begin,I don't like that two weapons always equals two attacks notion. For two weapon fighting I would take the timing of the larger weapon and increase the hits of the char. In other words two weapon fighting gives you a positive attack modifier. The mod might be staged by a two weapon talent or skill. Since untrained two weapon use is more bad than useful, without that skill it should be a slight negative modifier. There are more ways how you then can determine damage.
For example you assign each offhand weapon how much they add to the damage roll of the primary weapon.
Another variant is adding the damage of both weapons together.
A third variant is making sure the two weapon modifier is high enough to make a +5 advantage very likely and declare with two weapons the first +5 on the attack roll forces a Fortitude roll for the offhand weapon.
>>
No. 7986 ID: 9eb660

>>317984

If I do that, then Agility becomes both an offensive and a defensive stat, not necessarily a bad thing, but right now Agility already is super important for movement-based skills; so it'll feel overpowered compared to other physical skills.

That said, logically it makes sense that you are using your ability to move through space to attack the enemy.

That said, STR is actually a bit of an odd man out; it modulates only the barest minimum of skills, and if I remove it's ability to add to hit, then all it really has going for it is damage, and a few combat maneuvers like bull rush. I feel like it needs something extra to give it some importance to the player; since now a warrior has to worry about giving himself Agility(To hit/dodge), Strength(cause damage), toughness(Resist damage), AND Wisdom(a handful of combat maneuvers). Of course, I could always put a minimum strength requirement for certain weapons, below which wielding them incurs a -2 to hit. That would make sense in a mechanical and realism context, since even if you are agile, you need strength to wield a two-handed weapon effectively.

For now, wielding two weapons will incur penalties as a default, though I plan to implement some abilities/feats that will make two-weapon fighting viable.

Also, Abbreviations of attributes are as follows.

STR
DEX
AGI
TGH (Unsure whetherto go TGH, TGN or TNS. I may just keep CON/Constitution just for the sake of simplicity.)
INT
WIS
CHA

Defense(AKA DEF) - Defense Score. I was going to go with Dodge; but it will later also add deflection bonuses given by certain archetype abilities.
Armor(AKA DR) - Armor functionally adds to your fortitude save VS Threat.
Attack(AKA ATK) - Attack bonus. BAB+AGI+Relevant mods.
Threat(AKA HIT) - The threat that a weapon does. For example 1d6+STR+10, VS fort.

I'll try to do some maths on what would happen now with Agility being a ATK and DEF attribute, and if it seems to work ok, then I'll just tweak any inconsistencies using the armor scores.

I'll also be doing some proper playtesting of the system via PvP, and will post the results.
>>
No. 7987 ID: 0b1389

>I feel like it needs something extra to give [strength] some importance to the player
Well, you could make it contribute to fortitude. It might already play an indirect influence on fortitude if armors and shields have strength requirements.

>now a warrior has to worry about giving himself Agility(To hit/dodge), Strength(cause damage), toughness(Resist damage), AND Wisdom(a handful of combat maneuvers).
I don't think this is necessarily bad. It mostly depends on how the numbers, the statistics, work out in play. I think most likely there will be three archetypes, the dancer, the artist and the tank.
The tank has strength and toughness in about equal measure. He hits hard and can take it until he hits. The dancer has foremost agility and a little bit in one of the other three. He hits often but softly and avoids being hit to survive. The artist has foremost wisdom and a little in one of the other three. He uses special techniques.
>>
No. 7989 ID: 3fbae5

Ok, so did some playtesting with a handful of people at the local college. The rules were simple enough that even people who haven't played D&D or similar were having little to no problem after about 2 minutes of explanation; and it was stable enough that I was able to leave the players to duke it out against each other, grab a sandwich, and chat someone up without any arbitration problems.

This bodes EXTREMELY well.

Some more veteran players actually commented on how "fun and dynamic" (their words, nto mine) the system was, since everyone is moving all at once to gain advantageous positions.

Some things I immediately changed were minor tweaks, btu a big one was that whoever moves into melee combat first (not necessarily strikes first) gets a +2 to hit and defense for that and the following second.

I implemented that after players spent about 7 seconds dodging around each other trying to goad the other into moving into a space so they could attack them.

After I implemented that rule, suddenly everyone was rushing into combat, vying for advantage, using flanking tactics in combination with gaining the advantage, and much more.

An example of the depth this system allows was when two players ganged up on a high agility character. They both attacked from either side, but on that round he rolled initiative against them both, and won. He slipped out of the space before they could attack him, moved back, just as a high STR character barged in and threatened one, leaving the second at the mercy of the Agility character's light blade.

The game makes opportunity attacks, and therefore the old 5-foot step totally useless; because if you move before they can attack, they don't hit you, but if you don't they hit you and you can still move.

Guys. We might just have something awesome here.
>>
No. 7990 ID: efca38

>>317989
I very much like the "combat readiness" bonus (the thing where you give whoever moves into combat first gets a +2 whether he strikes or not). I also makes sense since that character kinda mentally/physically prepares himself for a beating.

Some chance to make this scale with an attribute or skill?
e.g Everybody gets at least +1/+1, but can improve it?

(By the way, I'm planning to throw stuff out here in this thread from time to time in hope any word might give somebody else a reasonable idea, because I'd really like this system to get a roll on. Feel free to totally ignore me anytime :D )
>>
No. 7991 ID: d0c3ca

>>317990

Feel free to post random blurbs, ideas and the like. I'll secretly absorb them, dissolve them, and use the materials to make something shiny.

Oh, also, to all /tg/-ers.
http://www.mediafire.com/?da4nc48te13ks2m
Here are the rules for combat as it stands. I'd love to hear about you guys playtesting it, especially any problems, discrepancies, or other whatnot you run into.

Feel free to tell me how to tweak the design, change some variables, dance in the pale moonlight, and the like.

But whatever you do, please do not suggest weapon stat blocks.

Yet.
>>
No. 8008 ID: 955d4f

For my playtesters, I'll be putting some new stat blocks up within the week for equipment, as well as a rough system to design your own stat blocks for weapons. (Basically, you get points to spend on weapon attributes, and everything costs certain points. there are different point amounts for simple, martial, and exotic. Obviously this wouldn't be part of the system proper for players to play with; it's merely so I can balance weapons pretty easily.)

Also, I'll be giving a rough idea of how the first archetype will work, The Warrior.

I also will be posting up some lore on the basic intelligent races of the game, and I'll want some feedback.

I'm basically in a holding pattern here, guys. I wanna know if this system works or if it flops without me to moderate it.
>>
No. 8012 ID: 9e626b

I'm getting good vibes from a handful of my players; though I wanted to bring up something one of them pointed out and I wanted your honest opinion on it.

Currently, everyone moves basically at the same time, with conflicts figured out by competitive initiative rolls.

Do you feel like that system will be heavily exploited by metagming, and if so, do you have any suggestions (besides the black die of pain) for reducing it? For example, a player waiting for someone to move into the range of their spell before firing it off, and the like. I feel like it's mostly truncated by bonuses given to the player who initiates combat, but I'm afraid that there will be metagaming douche-nozzles that basically go "waitwaitwait. no, if you move there, I'm moving here" and the etc.

I know how I'll personally handle the situation (2-3 minute turns, anyone who doesn't move by then loses their action, and if all else fails, the black die of pain), but I wanted your opinions.

On another note; I wanted to get some suggestions for weapon families, for the Warrior archetype.
Basically; the Warrior archetype chooses an armor type, and a weapon family, and is proficient in both of those; and receives level-based bonuses to hit/damage with those weapons. I'm ok with most weapons having up to two families, but I'm unsure as to what I wanna name them or how I wanna categorize them.
>>
No. 8013 ID: 9130c6

Don't see why you need weapon statblocks and families AND the point-buy kit.
And what about characters that depend on several different weapons and the like?
I'd just say put in a basic statline that can be adjusted with points (both positively and negatively) and purchase or not purchase abilities on the side as well.
No, it doesn't make sense that a spear with tines for disarming deals less damage than just a spear, but it still works. Then you just add points through upgrades to get better weapons, or add abilities with magic.
>>
No. 8014 ID: e8cde6

Like I said, I'm just using it to rough the weapons out, and it'll be entirely a backend system; not for use by players, or even possibly DMs.

Ideally I'd use some actual sensor equipment to measure the trauma each individual weapon can cause...but sadly I don't have the resources for that.

You do raise a good point with how certain weapons do have inherent game play advantages over others, and though I will try to negate that with restrictions and whatnot, I don't plan on making it so all weapons are completely fair; just fair enough that certain weapons don't immediately become useless.

For weapon families, I'm thinking of ascribing some base attributes; for example, Swords tend to have 19-20 critical range, and average threat, whereas Hammer (bludgeoning) weapons tend to have higher threat, but 20/x2 critical, and Axes tend to have threat damage, and x3 crit, but often have and worse Speed ratings. Etc, etc.

If you have one of a weapon's families as a proficiency, you can use the weapon without any penalties. Weaker/Simpler weapons will have more than one "family" to represent that more people would know how to use them, while other weapons may belong to an exotic family (Samurai weapons, for example) meaning if you take a Exotic weapon proficiency, you can sue more than just one weapon. Extremely specialized, or unique weapons (like a flying guillotine or an assassin's creed blade) would have their own family, all to themselves.

And moving smoothly onto armor...

Armor effectively gives you a bonuses to Fort Saves against damage. Initially they modified threat, but that wording is bloody annoying and I won't stand for it; adding things from here and minusing them from there is bloody tiresome, so from here until I have to change this, all DC changes are directly connected to the thing they are most logically modifying. That seems obvious, but trust me, saying that now makes skill checks a lot more sensible.

I'm thinking there will be 3 "classes" or "types" of armor; Light, Medium, Heavy. Light armor is basically leather, hide, and anything else that doesn't weigh much and doesn't make much noise. Medium armor is louder, put provides better protection (something like double the protection of comparable Light armor) think Chainmail Hauberks and Scale armor, as well as the slightly sneakier Brigandine armor. Heavy armor is loud, but can withstand very heavy blows. The problem with this armor is, more than anything, is it's rather prohibitive cost.

That said, I really do like the idea of cobbling armor together from random sources (I'm a huge monster hunter fanboy) so I might add some kind of mechanic to pick and choose armor instead, and each part gives an incremental bonus to Armor. (Helm, Mail, Gauntlet, Greaves, Tasset, each would give a certain + to Fort against damage, but would also incur a penalty to Dex or Agi)
>>
No. 8015 ID: 0b1389

>For example, a player waiting for someone to move into the range of their spell before firing it off
This you can curtail by making holding a spell drawn but unfired risky. Like adding a penalty for each second the spell is held back.

> I'm afraid that there will be metagaming douche-nozzles that basically go "waitwaitwait. no, if you move there, I'm moving here" and the etc.
Changing the action during execution gets a penalty. If you start to do one thing and then change your mind and start another thing, you don't do either action right. And the more different actions you start and abort, the worse it gets.

If you have someone really bad in a group, you could use covered instructions. Every player writes down his actions and only reveals them once everyone has committed. Allied players might look at each others orders or not.
>>
No. 8016 ID: 9130c6

>>318015
>prepared spell action
Or just make it an initiative check.
No reason you should be able to finish casting and shoot off a fireball IMMEDIATELY upon someone doing something.
>weapons
I'm just thinking on a usual route, which is weapons needing to get more complex the higher up in levels you go, but it's probably just me. Like, you start out with BOG STANDARD SPEAR OF SHITTINESS and work up to THREE TINED SPEAR OF VISCERAL EXTRACTION thence to FUNKY ASS NINJA SPEAR OF TURNING INTO A DRAGON MADE OF LOVE OR SOME SHIT I DON'T KNOW the point being that you get more 'exotic' as you improve concurrent with getting better weapons.
Why aren't +5 swords made of magically suspended sand moving insanely quickly? Or a solid slab of adamantine, lightened with magic except for when striking? Or a sliver of the heavens themselves, chilling to the bone and lighting eldritch fires with the fragments of sky and stars?
>>
No. 8018 ID: e8cde6

There are rough plans to make magic weapons/items a lot rarer; and almost impossible to buy(a +1 weapon would require the average king to mortage several farms and at least one iron mine, type thing,), but make it so that the spear you start with, if you take care of it and watch over it and reforge it when it's broken, etc, it can become said Epic Ninja Spear Made Of Pure Darkness or whatever it is.

As for spells, right now the plan is to give a player a mana score, which is whittled down as you go along. Most spells will take 1 second, but more powerful/unique spells will take longer, use more mana, I'm thinking that most lower level spells will have really rather low threat, whereas higher-level spells will have significantly higher threat, but may take longer to cast.
>>
No. 8027 ID: 9130c6

>>318018
Just an old thing I go on about occasionally. As you get more skilled with weapons, you should be able to take more advantage of funky little things they do, be they natural attachments, like little hooks on the back or magical bits like being on fire.
Lots of variation for fightingmans that way that's almost never tapped.
>>
No. 8041 ID: dfc57c

>>318027 Part of that is generally covered by better chances to do damage. With better skill the char can use the odd hook or edge when before that attack would have failed.
You could add choice attacks with advancing weapon skill. Think of it like Combat Skills that are supplied by the weapon. But that might be an unnecessary bell.
>>
No. 8042 ID: 9130c6

>>318041
Devoted a lot of the thread to this, but...
I don't remember the series, but I was reading through a comic the other day with a great deal of focus on how the weapons and skills worked with things. I'm not just saying more damage; more like the higher strength you are, the higher you should be pushing the requirements on your weapon- if you're a really strong spear-wielder, then you should keep using heavier and heavier spears, even if it's just 'Tie rocks and giant chunks of lead onto the end of this spear' or the like. If you push the limits of speed with a set of daggers, then you'd want to keep improving them with I don't know, little hooks or magic that makes them fluid in form or the like. If you're pushing the limits of endurance, then armor that keeps getting thicker and thicker seems reasonable.
>>
No. 8050 ID: dfc57c

As far as I understood, Combat Skills in this system are things like Bull Rush, Disarm, Trip, Sunder, Overrun, etc. What I meant was for example a halberd enables a char with enough halberd skill a Trip with better success chances.
>>
No. 8056 ID: 9130c6

>>318050
Yes.
I'm suggesting that the weapon should be altered as the character gets better with it, to better take advantage of the user's skill.
If the fighter keeps getting stronger and stronger, and doesn't care about keeping the stats evened out, what's to stop him from eventually carrying around a hammer the size of a volkswagen casually on one shoulder, since he's got five belts of giant strength on and bracers of same on all his limbs?
Obviously he can't start with the hammer, but working up to it...
>>
No. 8059 ID: e8cde6

That sort of thing is basically what level-ups are for. You get a stat bonus every "tier" you go up, and, for example, as a warrior, you do more damage with what is essentially a mundane weapon.

Effectively, as you level, you can eradicate the ever-living hell out of a small gang of mundane humans without even taking a single lick of damage. You are harder to hit, hit much more often, and can resist the lucky blow they might get off on you.

As a Warrior, that threat is multiplied, because you do additional threat, as well as more hit with your favored weapon, on top of having additional skill points to put towards trip, bull rush, etc.

Considering it like that, even a level 1 character is terrifying compared to a regular mundane npc.

More of this will be roughed out via the lore of the game, which I've been industriously working on.
>>
No. 8064 ID: 3fbae5

Terrans;
Terrans are a well-rounded, versatile people, with many shades of grey, but few extremes. Terrans are fairly simply put, human in form. Commonly between 5 and 4 feet tall at adulthood, Terrans have a wide variety of body types, tending towards an athletic build. Most Terrans have tan skin, often with darker freckles on the face, shoulders, arms and legs. Their skin color varies from fair to swarthy, but never pure white or black. Most Terrans tend to have earth-toned hair, ranging widely from almost-black to sandy blonde. As a Terran gets older, their hair slowly fades in color, never becoming white, but instead taking on pastel hues. Terran eyes range from green to violet, with tones of browns and hazel in-between. With such diversity, comes many forms of personal identification. Hair dye and piercings are fairly common, but scarification and tattoos are not; and are often related to rebels, criminals, and violence.

Elemeis;
Bestial form and great in strength; the varied elemeis are competent warriors, strong and proud. Elemeis are humanoid in form, but often with digitigrade legs, snouts, and other mamallian animalistic features. though they can tend to have different forms, such as a more feline or canine face, their are of the same race, and can interbreed without trouble. Some clans have tails, though it's considered a somewhat uncommon trait. Almost all Elemeis have strong, well-defined bodies, with hard, toned muscle. They have four fingers and an opposable thumb on their hands, with four toes on their feet. Their entire body is covered in fur, under which they have skin which often follows the pattern of their coat in tone, but tends to be lighter, with pinks and tans instead of browns and blacks. Most Elemeis have short fur covering their entire body, as well as hair on their head, which ranges in color from completely black to forest brown, to pure white, but never green, pink, blue, or purple. Eye color varies, but is often brown grey or gold, with blue being very rare. Fur-dying is relatively common, and many tribes use ritual scarification as a rite-of-passage. The scars cause changes in the patterns of the relatively uniform fur, and can be made into rather intricate designs.

Ijosai;
Ijosai are lean, with wiry muscles. They tend to be taller than Terrans, though not by much. Other than that, they are rather humanoid.Their skin is often pale, the color of alabaster, rarely with any blemishes or marks. Their hair is often varying shades of green, blonde or brown, tending towards lighter, pastel tones. They rarely have any visible body or facial hair. An Iljosai's eye color is actually determined by the season they were born in; green for spring, yellow-gold for summer, orange for fall and deep grey for winter. It's very common to see flecked or speckled eye color, and the color can also change if they live in a climate with one season. Iljosai often dye their hair to suit the seasons, all the better for hunting with. Their tattoos are often naturally inspired; organic curving vines with seed-pods, leaves, and flowers, or dark, hard lines of dead branches.

Mortei;
Mortei have stocky, humanoid bodies. Though they tend on the short side at 4 to 3 feet, they are well built, often appearing "thick." Mortei have pale, grey-ish skin, which is tough and surprisingly hard. Mortei tend to have dark, ruddy hair, which is often very curly. Mortei eyes often are black, brown, or dark red, and shine when light hits them. Motei often have luminescent tattoos, which glow with a pale, ethereal light in the darkness of their homes. this can be surreal in many Mortei cities at night; filled with ghastly, glowing images moving about eachother.

Nafrin;
Weaker than some, but smarter than most, with an inventiveness that seemingly knows no bounds. Tending to be somewhat thin, and short, Nafrin don't have bodies necessarily built for heavy labor. Nafrin have uniquely-colored skin; blues and purples are most common. As a Nafrin ages, their skin color lightens. Nafrin have cool, light-colored hair, though white and grey hair is not uncommon. As a Nafrin ages, their hair darkens. Nafrin have unique eyes, with black sclera, and bright purple, silver, blue or green irises. Often, tattoos will be of great personal significance and practicality; measuring scales, unit conversion charts, and arcane lores are very common, often on the arms and hands.

Tengu;
Hailing from high mountains, the Tengu are solitary, philosophical, and often very honorable. Tengu have humanoid bodies, with digitigrade legs, and taloned feet and hands. They posses three fingers and one opposable thumb on their hands and feet. They have hardened, bony plates on their noses/faces, resembling a beak, but also posses lips and teeth. The bony plates and talons are often the same color, or similar, and can change based on diet. They are most commonly black, yellow, grey or deep roan. Their body is covered in a layer of feathers, under which is a rubbery, skin. the skin is often grey or black, though there are sometimes variations. A Tengu's feathers cover their entire body, with crests of long feathers often forming on the forearms, as well as their head, neck and back. Their hands and feet are uncovered, revealing their skin. Their feather color is often black, white, and grey, with some grey-brown. Tengu eyes are somewhat unnerving, with dark, mottled brown sclera, often almost black. Blue, grey and white are common eye colors, with gold being much rarer. Traditionally used in battle, ritual paints and dyes are a form of personal identification, signifying one's personal status, including wealth, and the region one hails from. Most Tengu will dye their own feathers, though in formal settings, they are often dyed by a professional.

Davein;
The sewn offspring of outsiders, the Davein are often equal parts swarthy, comely, and charming. Davein are similar in form to Terrans; though they are rarely fat or thin. Their bodies are often somewhat lean, with few harshly defined muscles. Davein have fairly tan skin, though darker tones are not uncommon. Rarely, their skin will be night-black. Their hair is most often black, thick and very glossy. It is not uncommon to see straight, curly or wavy hair, though it is somewhat rare to see a Davein with much, or any body or facial hair. Davein have cat-like eyes, which are often bright, almost neon colored. Red, orange, and yellow are the most common colors, though rarely they have black eyes. Davein rarely have any kind of tattoos or markings, but tend towards tribal or maori-like tattoos. Piercings are not uncommon, but scarification is.
>>
No. 8072 ID: 0b1389

The Narfin stroke me as a little too colorful. Blues and purples with bright hair needs a background to explain it.
From the description of the others, the natural colors of the environment are the usual greens and browns. Blues and purples don't contribute to concealment and they aren't a usual warning color signifying poison.

Another thing, the description of the Narfin eyes calls them unique, but to me the description of Tengu eyes includes very similar eyes.
>>
No. 8074 ID: e8cde6

You have an excellent point. I was going to hand-wave it as "magical race" since they're supposed to be the most mage-inclined of all the races, but ti might be interesting to give them an evolutionary reason on top of that.

Hmn....maybe they -are- poisonous to eat. That'd be kinda neat.

But, yeah for most of them I tried making them earthy-toned and a bit less fantastical, just out of personal preference.

In addition; I will need a race that receives a +1 to dexterity, and was thinking of making an Arachnid/insectoid base race. Do you think that would work?

Also, small not on societies of all the races, as so far.

Terran live mostly in organized city-states, in mutual cooperation and competition with eachother. Military service is often compulsory, but limited in scope to a certain age range.

Elemeis often have mobile, nomadic existences, hunting and trapping and then selling those goods to others. Each member of a tribe is ready to fight to the death for their tribe.

Ijosai organize themselves into small tribal villages, often in forested areas, which are often hostile to outsiders. Masters of ambush; they can turn any patch of forest into an impenetrable fortress.

Mortei are often found in mountains and the underlying foothills, organized into small nations with a roughly feudal system. Many of them are the underground, or partially underground cities, often with a standing army raised by feudal dukes or lords, under the discretion of their king.

Nafrin organize and build academies; large sprawling cities dedicated to trade and learning. With hardly any army to speak of, they rely on both hiring mercenaries, and the Mages of their Academy to keep enemies at bay.

Tengu often live in small, self sufficient monasteries which often do not trade with others. While isolated, each Tengu monestary is well-connected, and anyone attacking a monestary will quickly find reprisals in spades.

Davein hardly ever have their own nations, instead living anywhere they can; eternal refugees. That said, they often organize small "covens" that meet to trade stories, support eachother, and find love.


I should take this point to point out, I'm thinking none of theses races can genetically interbreed. That isn't to say they can't fall in love/have sex (they all have more or less standard functional genetalia) but having children won't happen. And yes, there is a decent amount of stigma of interracial couples in the default world, because what's life without drama?
>>
No. 8075 ID: 0b1389

It doesn't have to be evolutionary. For example saying that Nafrin had a period of self-modification and the blue strain proved dominant would work.

>Arachnid/insectoid base race. Do you think that would work
They'd work for a Dex bonus. But I think one issue would be limb organization, because the base has 8/6 limbs. How many of them are arms, legs or both, depending on need. Insectoid might be easier to deal with since they only have 6 legs. A centaur like setup would essentially hide the additional limbs in the legs.
>>
No. 8076 ID: 275917

>>318074
Need some more interaction, in the larger cities?
Particularly thinking yakuza tengu...

Wouldn't necessarily have to have 6/8 legs on something to make it insectoid... Just stick on armor plating. Maybe limbs that split at the knees and elbows? Had an 'insectoid' race that just had four limbs and a prehensile tail once...
>>
No. 8079 ID: 275917

>>318072
Steal a little from science?
Cobalt comes in poisonous compounds, is blue, and is reasonable to build up in a biological system.
They have a better system for eliminating and storing poisons than the usual- instead of just passing them on through, they store them up? Include a diet that customarily involves lots and lots of poisonous and venomous bits...
>>
No. 8083 ID: e8cde6

>>318076
Of course, what I posted is merely what the moajority of the race does. There are still plenty of Terran who abscond to the forests to be taught by the Elemeis or Ijosai, and Ijosai that seek a life of quiet contemplation in the roosts of the Tengu, etc.

>>318079
>>318075

I like the idea of making it somewhat sciency; and possibly giving them some kind of resistance to poisons or magic. The academy is supposed to have a very dark underground full of intrigue and murder anyway. (think like a huge chess/go game, with the objective being to be the wealthiest and most powerful mage)
>>
No. 8108 ID: e8cde6

For the Cranid (the bug people), I feel like the biggest focus is the fact that they'll have chitinous exoskeletons, and possibly a set of extra micro-arms for finer work. as for being quadrupedal...it's possible but unlikely; without giving them some bonus to certain combat skills it'll feel hollow.

I was thinking about weapons and proficiencies and came up with this; basically a weapon has a series of "types" that it's associated with (think like tags or whatnot), and if you have 2 or more of the tags, you are considered proficient. If you have 1, you only take a -2 to attack, instead of a -4.

To be concise, remember that threat is both the ability for a weapon to do damage, and it's ability to bypass armor.

Here are the running types for weapon proficiency, and tendencies associated with them. Weapons can have more than one proficiency type.

Blade/Sword (Need a good name for this...do daggers fall into this category?)
Pretty self explanatory in shape. Swords boast moderate threat and high crit chance.

Axe
Again, self explanatory. Axes have high threat and high crit chance; but tend to have higher strength requirements, as well as slower recovery.

Hammer(Mace/Pick/Adz) (Need a good catchall name for this one)
See above. Hammers have high threat and high crit multiplier; but as above, tend on the slow side, with higher strength requirements

Spear
Ahdoi. Spears have both a high critical multiplier, and a higher critical chance, but tend on the slow side and don't do very good threat.

Light
Light weapons are designed for finesse and skill, not necessarily brute strength. Low Strength requirements, and shorter recovery times, but they tend to have lower threat.

Heavy
Heavy weapons are designed to cleave through armor, bone, and flesh in equal measures. High strength requirements, coupled with slow recovery are balanced by significantly higher threat.

Polearm
Weapons with a long haft, like longspears, naginata, and halberds. They double the range of a character's melee attack, and require 2 hands to operate effectively.

Flail
Weapons with a flexible section somewhere along the length. Often useful for tripping or disarming.

Thrown
Weapons designed to be thrown at a target.

Any suggestions for modifications/additions? I'm all ears.
>>
No. 8113 ID: 0ac74e

>>318108
How about a thing that gives bonuses based on proficiencies for fightypeeps?
Things that you can apply axe proficiency to get +1 Threat, or spear proficiency applicable weapons get +1 Crit damage or the like. The idea being that you could stack up with QUINTUPLE AXEMANGLERMASTER OF AWESOME or go the stupidly exotic route and have THE OMNIWEAPON.
Just idle thinking.
I think you can get away with slipping daggers under swords, or even just giving people automatic dagger proficiency, then just better options for mastering. I mean, medieval society, you'd use them for eating, too.
>>
No. 8115 ID: 0ac74e

>>318108
It would fit better for a tankier insectile or even crustacean race, but having the larger limbs be unwieldy but strong and the smaller ones weak but finer would be cool. I'd just say make them mantid and include fearsome claws.
>>
No. 8117 ID: e8cde6

>>318113
That's actually the idea, is that a Warrior picks proficiency that they get bonuses on attack and hit. I can see what you mean, making it so that the types give different bonuses, I'll keep it mind, but I'm worried about new players getting confused, or being buried with tables.

As for the Cranid; I was thinking of giving them 4 arms, 2 macro-arms with about the same basic strength as a Terran, with 3 fingers and an opposable thumb each, and then two micro-arms with a similar configuration, but smaller (1/3 the size or smaller) and with much more dexterity and far less strength. The microarms would be linked to the thorax, under the primary arms. They will probably have some kind of mandibles as well, which host a set of spinnerets that they use to produce rope/string/twine. Said material is similar to silk, and is their main material export. The arms, in Pathfinder terms, would be considered to be tiny-sized, meaning they'd have problems wielding pretty much any weapon, but the inherent dexterity bonus to disable device or similar checks would be worth it. In addition, I'd probably make the males a bit on the short size, with the females being sexually dimorphic (larger, and probably with some kind of elongated, prehensile antennae.) Might be interesting to introduce a effectively matriarchal society, just to mix things up.

If I get a chance, I'll sketch up some concepts for the different races this weekend.

But yeah, keep asking me questions, especially about the races' various features; the more you guys do, the more I formulate ideas based on those questions.
>>
No. 8119 ID: 0ac74e

>>318117
Suggesting as a means of keeping the weapon choice feeling separate later on.
If the speardude only has a +2 or -2 to how things work because everything else is increasing at the same rate, then it doesn't feel very different. If he's got an easier path to getting crit bonus damage but a larger gap, or if the axedude is always dealing more damage, then it's a little different.
>>
No. 8120 ID: dfc57c

>>318108
An example to see if I understood: A short sword, like a Gladius, would be associated with Light and Blade. Is that correct?
Are the descriptions are meant to describe the group of weapons or what the proficiency brings the char?

>>318117
On the Cranid, that arm setup suggests to me they cannot use their Dex bonus with the big arms.
>>
No. 8126 ID: e8cde6

>>318120
On the first point, you are correct and rather astute, as for the Cranid's Dex bonus, I suppose you have a point; though in most circumstances they would be using their ancillary arms anyway. Maybe just give them extra fingers?


I'll begin working on the lore this week; and I'll be posting some creation myth stuff and magic theory (yes, the magic will vaguely make sense)
>>
No. 8189 ID: af6ae6

So, I was looking at a few article son making RPGs (mostly design stuff, but a few neat concepts on system design) and hit upon an article of some use. I'mma try to answer it's checklist as I go down.

>Design the basic system first, before any tables/charts/etc.

Basic system is, to perform an action, you roll a d20, and add a relevant modifier, versus a Difficulty Check. If you meet or exceed, you succeed at performing the action. All else, failure. Most times there are changes to the degree of success or failure depending on how much you pass or fail by.

>Know what your damage types are, how that damage can be mitigated.

Damage comes in the following, Types and subtypes

Physical Damage (unsure as to if I want to categorize them byt he woudns they make or the classical names)
-Slashing/Laceration
-Bludgeoning/Concussion
-Piercing/Puncture
Energy Damage
-Arcane (possibly adding more or moving force to Elemental)
--Force
--Psychic (Damage to the mind, not the body)
-Elemental
--Heat (Fire and heat)
--Cold
--Corrosive (Added here because of issues with Armor)
--Electric
--Sonic
-Diametric (Need a better name for healing/negative energy)
--Vital (Restores life)
--Entropic (Preserves death)

Armor can reduce physical damage due to allowing higher Fort versus Threat. Runic spells/armor can deflect/reduce threat from elemental sources.

Resistances give a creature bonuses to Fort against that particular damage source, while
Weaknesses reduce their Fort versus a source.

> Find your averages, use those to base everything else off of.

Average in each Attribute; +1-ish

Class BAB at level 1; +1 (average)

Class BDB at level 1; +1 (average)

Average to-hit; +2

Average defense; +2

Average Save score; +1

Average Fort v Threat +3 (Adding leather armor)

So, according to http://anydice.com/program/fb0 an average character versus an average level 1 character only does damage about 45% of the time, but hits 60% of the time.

That's about 5% less than I was expecting, but when you figure in additional Strength, armor.

Please, feel free to play around with the values and see what you get.
>>
No. 8191 ID: 32857c

>>318189
Explain the difference between 'Force' and 'Bludgeoning + Magic'.
I think you could get away with a generic 'Arcane' damage type that's caused by just throwing raw magic at people and seeing what happens.
Whereas blades of force just deal slashing damage, but hit ghosts, or the like.
As for 'Diametric'... Planar? Balance Forces? Make up a magic sounding term to note the pair with? You should probably do that for everything in the fluff, as I'm assuming the savants have figured at least this much of the system out.
>>
No. 8192 ID: af6ae6

http://anydice.com/program/fb1

My bad. fixed the chart.
>>
No. 8193 ID: af6ae6

I may just have Arcane as it's own energy type.

Force is pretty lame, considering it's just the arcane form of physical damage.

As for pure Arcane energy; I'm thinking Electrical is effectively the pure form of arcane energy; though that meas I should change it to such.
>>
No. 8194 ID: dfc57c

I would agree with taking force out of the magical list. any spells doing force damage should resolve according to the physical damage they do.

But I don't think Arcane should be the same as Electrical. I think you should keep Arcane and put transformational and (un)binding magic in that category.
>>
No. 8200 ID: 32857c

>>318193
That's a whole other set of questions, though.
What kind of damage is 'Making one section of a thing grow faster than the rest'? What about 'Imma turn just your arm into lava, have fun with the flaming doom etc.'?
I'd say psychic, arcane for just straight up tossing balls of magic, then an untyped bit that's a catchall for 'Buggered if I know what resists this, just run with the usual defenses' and make it rarer.
>>
No. 8201 ID: dfc57c

>>318200
I was thinking more 'turn into a chicken', 'turn to stone' and 'make your legs grow together' kind of spells with transformational. And with (un)binding things like 'rip your soul straight out of your body', attribute damage and planar shifting.

>'Making one section of a thing grow faster than the rest'
That is pretty much Laceration.
>'Imma turn just your arm into lava'
That I would put under arcane,
>'have fun with the flaming doom etc.'
while this falls under heat.

Maybe it is a different view of magic, but I think straight uncontrolled magic would do arcane damage by way of unbinding the usual laws of the world.
>>
No. 8204 ID: e8cde6

Entropic energy would basically be doing damage to the body/soul connection of living creatures, where Vital energy would be knitting flesh and fusing bone, reinforcing the connection between the vital soul and living body.

I think I will have Arcane as a "catchall" thing for the stuff that really does end up being "buggered if I know." Pure energy causing the skin of a living creature to slough off would be the kind of thing I mean, or causing the body's own systems to attack themselves, reversing the digestive system, making the mind recoil in horror, etc, etc.
>>
No. 8209 ID: 32857c

>>318204
Dichotomous, have a serpent god handling life and death in the fluff and call them Ourborotic Powers, Dualistic Powers, the Dark and Light sides of a singular Force (lolololol) or something along those lines?

Also, turning someone into raw arcane energy, then trying to siphon it off while they desperately try to hold themselves together with willpower.
>>
No. 8223 ID: e8cde6

So, melee combat is pretty figured.

For armor, how should we figure it? The way I have it now is that armor adds to fort saves against threat from physical attacks. Light armors provide +1 to +3 Armor, Medium armors provide +3 to +5, Heavy armors provide +5 to +7. Armors have penalties to Movement, Dexterity and Agility, depending on how they are made.

I'm concerned that armor provides too much defense against physical attacks, compared to a player's average threat. Anyone have an idea on how to fix this issue besides adding to the base number for threat?
>>
No. 8238 ID: dfc57c

>>318192
Not sure where the problem is exactly, but that is wrong. For the to-hit you are doing 1d20+5>=14. 1d20+5 is a discrete uniform distribution with a probability of 0.05. There are eight rolls below 14, namely [6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13], and 12 equal or greater 14. Hitting has a probability of 0.6, missing a probability of 0.4. How much damage you roll does not influence how often you miss. I think this http://anydice.com/program/fc8 shows how attacks resolve for the example. It's about 65% of attacks deal no damage, 35% deal damage.

>>318223
If you still think you need to lower the effect of armor, you could raise the threat of weapons by using multiple dice with less faces instead of one die with many faces. That raises the mean slightly.
Lowering the base fortitude is another way, but that's just a mirror of raising base threat.
>>
No. 8248 ID: e8cde6

Argh. I keep doing silly things.

Yes, you are right that is the correct way of doing it; after I set up an equation in excel, it became obvious I was doing it wrong before.

I've been building up a list of weapons, and wanted to know if you had any ideas on racial weapons, or just weapons in general.

The way that I'm figuring it is this,

Threat
The average amount of hurt a weapon does compared to other weapons.

Crit Range
The likelihood of the weapon hitting an internal organ, severing a artery, etc.

Crit Mult
The chance it will kill outright on a critical due to severe damage.

Time
How heavy the weapon is, which effect recovery, or how hard it is to handle. (Flails tend to be hard to handle, and have a higher Time Increment)

Min STR
How heavy the weapon is, basically. Often tied to Time.
>>
No. 8250 ID: dfc57c

>any ideas on racial weapons
For Elemeis perhaps weapon gloves and boots/foot gloves. And unless Mortei don't tight each other, they might have a preference toward weapons with a pick-like spike.

How do you determine if a crit happened? If you explained it already, I missed it. For that matter could you explain the entire crit matter in this system? You posted a bit of the weapon side in >>318014, but I didn't find the system spelled out.

>Time
>How heavy the weapon is, which effect recovery, or how hard it is to handle. (Flails tend to be hard to handle, and have a higher Time Increment)
>Min STR
>How heavy the weapon is, basically. Often tied to Time.
Do you intend to give boni for exceeding minimal requirements? Like lowering time for every x points above minimum? Otherwise you might not give that tied to each other bit. It might also be favorable to not tie minimal requirements to strength alone. Some weapons might use more than strength or allow to substitute strength.
>>
No. 8251 ID: 59434c

Essentially, right now, crits are handled like any regular d20 system, with weapons having a critical range and a crit multiplier. when you critically hit with a weapon (normally rolling a 20) you roll to confirm. If you beat the target's defense, you successfully, crit, if you don't you instead auto-hit.

When you crit, the weapon's threat die is doubled, tripled, or quadrupled according to the weapon's critical multiplier.

This represents you scoring a lucky hit on a weak point, not necessarily on purpose.
>>
No. 8252 ID: dfc57c

Okay, an attack with crit goes like this? For a weapon with crit on 20 and multiplier 3.

In this case Attacker and Defender will be called A and D
A: Roll to hit: natural 20
A: roll threat, damage=threat*3
D: Roll Fortitude, DC 10+Damage. If fails, take 1 wound. If fails by increments of 5, add 1 wound to damage taken. If pass, no damage taken.
>>
No. 8255 ID: 4f0697

>>318248
I concur with >>318250
Have the Min line just have the requirements for using it competently. X much strength, Y much Dex, Z much whatever else.
Also, (going back to the absurdly exotic weapons idea earlier) magic weapons that increase the base stats of the weapons- A ten foot club made of spelled bricks and mortar with absurd time and absurd minimum strength; a staff-scythe-sword-chain that holds the spirit of a demonic snake with median time but very high dex requirements to keep it from biting the shit out of you while you're using it.
>>
No. 8264 ID: 58300e

I do like the idea of being able to change the way magic effects the weapons, instead of "oh you do more damage and to hit, hurr durr" but then again, I'm going to make it absolutely normal for magic weapons to have requirements in order for the, to activate, in keeping with the theme that most magical weapons in this world are made by effort of the user, not by some enchanter in a stuffy room.

I'm wondering if I should set out rules for the implementation of magic weapons, for example, every time a weapon successfully kills a magical creature it has a 1 in 100 chance of becoming magical in some sort of way?

At any rate, I'm thinking that it might be time to look at skills.

Before I blow up this thread with my own idea,s I'd like to mine yours, to see where I'm at compared to you all. Try to answer all of these, if you can manage.

What kind of skills would you like to see? Why?
What would you change from the basic Pathfinder/D&D paradigm? Why?
How should combat maneuvers be handled; pathfinder style, as a skill, or as a class ability?
With the addition of Agility, what skills should get relegated to Dex, and what get relegated to Agility?
Should concentration be a skill, or should it be based on static stats, like Will?
>>
No. 8265 ID: 4f0697

>>318264
This might be a little odd, but I think you can do it either with XP or crafting XP or some kind of resource you gain along the way intrinsic to the character that's not just gold. Gold may play the story part of how the item was received, though.
The idea being that you simply accumulate points for going on adventures and being awesome, and then you tell the DM at a certain point "Hey, I want to change in my points for a sword the size of a plowshare with a bit that flies off and cuts off faces and also there's straps for putting a live viper on it to bite while I smite and I have X points to spend on this- To fit my character, I think winning it at cards would be a fitting origin, and it was very briefly owned by a king who commissioned it from dwarves."
And the DM goes "Hmm. Well, you don't really have the points to build it yet, but I can add a drawback to make up for that, yeah, winning it at cards makes sense, and there might be some strings attached later."
If the thingus is too powerful, the DM takes it back and returns the points, which they can then spend on another thing.
It's a little narrative driven, but I think it has a decent chance of working.
Not sure how to make it interact with loot, though.

And of course, they could say "Since I've been slaying vampires with my silver-chain whip for many years, Imma spend some points to make it really awesome against vampires. No, I mean REALLY AWESOME against vampires. Let's see, eats some life force maybe kinda, only usable by my bloodline, what else..." as well.
>>
No. 8266 ID: 4f0697

>>318265
It's sort of based on an idea I had a while back for a system of magic to attempt to balance out fighters and casters. Everyone has a Mana score, normally you don't do much with it. Wizards can burn mana to cast big effects, which regens at some constant rate. Everyone else commits mana to magic items to power them- The fighter powers his own armor, sword and weapons. The rogue commits mana to his boots and is silent of foot. Etc.
Committing would take some time to establish and undo, and there would be options for increasing natural mana, and the like.
>>
No. 8267 ID: 55ba62

I've been building up an idea of how I want skills basically to work, so that they are both utilizable in combat and role play settings.

I'm of two minds about this, with things like perception or acrobatics, that hold lots of things under one roof. Do I consolidate them into smaller sets like this, or do I allow a greater expansion of skills, at the risk of promoting overspecilization and complication?

One thing I'd like to introduce are "exceeds" where a character can exceed their regular abilities. for example, a character wishes to move much more quickly than usual over land, and rolls an acrobatics. He bids that he is aiming to go 5 squares instead of the usual 3. If he rolls under the check, he fails, in this case tripping and falling prone.

Any ideas?
>>
No. 8268 ID: 4f0697

>>318267
I'd suggest having the basic skills, then having them be moderately hard to raise, but it's much, much easier to get minor specialisations, approved by the DM.
So you can only stack so many points in Perception, but you can note under it that you get a much larger bonus to 'Spotting Specific People In A Crowd So I Can Shoot Them' or 'Seeing People I'm Fighting In The Dark' or 'Noticing Things About Antiques'.
Then you just bicker out with the DM about what applies in each situation.
Might slow things down, though.
>>
No. 8269 ID: e8cde6

I'd consider those situational bonuses based on occupation. For example, a skilled tailor would receive bonuses to notice a man from the cut of his suit and his build, even through a mask or similar disguise. I've been fleshing out occupations for a bit, I promise not to fall prey to the multissitude of FATAL's occupation system.

I'm unsure how I want to award skill points. and I honestly dislike the idea that in order for you to be acrobatically inclined, you need to be an intellectual. Muscle memory is equally about insinct and determination as it is intellect, if not mroe, and so I'm trying to think of a way of breaking the skills up into different types.

I may break it into categories, as such

Learned skills
Skill which require intellectual study, rote memorization, and conceptual analysis.

Experiential skills
Skills which require real-life experience, observation from life, and trial and error.

Physical skills
Skills which require physical practice, rigorous training, and a level of innate skill.

In this way, players who are physically skilled would be able to allocate skills to their areas of expertise, but would be limited in intellectual or experiential pursuits to a greater or lesser degree.
>>
No. 8270 ID: 4f0697

>>318269
Have skills under two or more categories of difficulty, based on class? Like cross class skills.
Rogues can buy Acrobatics, Stealin' Shit, and Hit Magic Stick On Rock Until It Works much more cheaply than the fighter, but the fighter can buy Run For Fucking Ever In Heavy Armor And Shit and Basic First Aid Stuff Come On This Should Be Standard more cheaply, while both have to pay a premium on Shit From Dusty Old Tomes No One Really Cares About and Proper Magic Stick Maintenance That Doesn't Involve Rocks At All Honest that the wizard doesn't.
Class-specific skill lists would seem to do most of that job, unless you have a build your own class thing.

Also, the "Exceeds" seem like a good idea, but I don't know how to tie it to skills, other than to have the regular combat uses noted under the skill.
>>
No. 8272 ID: dfc57c

For awarding Skill points, you could give everyone a fixed amount of points, say 20. Increasing a skill costs a certain amount, but you can use your attribute modifier to lower the amount. Minimum cost is 1 point, without modifier cost is perhaps 4 points. With STR +3 you can raise any skill, which you can apply the STR mod to when rolling, for 1 skill point. With STR -2 any strength skill costs 6 skill points.

That allows you to advance the skills related to your good attributes pretty fast, while all skills of your bad attributes rise slowly. And the better or worse the attribute, the faster or slower skill progress is.
>>
No. 8273 ID: fa163c

I was actually gonna base it off of level/class like fort ref and will are. I'm not sure how I'd break them up, physical and experiential both feel like Wisdom based, with academic obviously being intellect.
>>
No. 8274 ID: e8cde6

So, small changes to the game;
I've made it so initiative is based off of reflex. This means Dexterity has relevance to melee combative players again.
Fortitude is based on Con, still.

I'm thinking I might remove weapon dice, and have all weapons have a straight threat rating. I want your opinions on this.

What that would mean is, each weapon would have a threat rating, which you would add your strength, plus ten. The target would then make a Fort save versus the threat, and if he passes, would take no damage.

I need votes yay or nay on this, if you would be so kind.
>>
No. 8277 ID: 4f0697

>>318274
I think it would make attacking not feel active enough.
I could sort of see it the other way around...
>>
No. 8281 ID: 5c25ea

>>318274
>I've made it so initiative is based off of reflex. This means Dexterity has relevance to melee combative players again.
This I've got no problem with. Personally I'd support making DEX available as STR alternate for chars, too. Things like weapons that accept either DEX or STR for the minimum requirement.

>fixing threat instead of rolling
Mechanically it makes the fortitude roll similar to the to-hit roll. But I don't think it'll work that well. At least with the numbers you used so far.

From armor you planned for a maximum of +7 fortitude, which is the heavy armor, the char will likely need good strength for. There might be a so far undetermined racial bonus or malus. I think that is everything you mentioned that can influence the fortitude roll.
On the other hand you the attacker gets a flat 10 + STR bonus to the threat. It doesn't only result in damage more often, it also make the damage greater.
In the anydice.com examples replacing the 1d8+1 with 8+1 eliminates the critical failures on the fortitude roll. You get three wounds double as often as before and you plan for 5+CON wounds for a char. You'll either have to up the wounds a good deal or lower the threats noticeable. Otherwise I expect combat to be short with the char landing the first hit to win almost always.
>>
No. 8299 ID: fa163c

So, updates. I've figured out how to do a lot of stuff for combat, I've worked out the classes for the most part, and I'm slowly chopping away at skills and magic.

Some primary heads ups; healing is transmutation-type until further notice, and it not only difficult, but somewhat dangerous and time-consuming; it's effectively like magic surgery. This prevents the "rich guy paradox" with some old fogey buying clerical services and living forever, and makes certain abilities I have planned more awesome.

Ok, so, classes.

Fury;
I've basically sounded out whatt he fury does, and how he/she does it. The Fury is like a barbarian, except instead of just a static bonus to stats, the Fury takes on the "Visage" of a specific creature, tied to the character's backstory, history, or some such. Some ideas include Elemental, Feral, Fey, Demonic, Angelic, Ghost, and Draconic. At about level 10, a Fury transforms into an aspect of that visage; An angelic creaturewith wings and fly, a Demonic creature with some kind of evil gaze/captivate power, a Fey with silly-hillarious spell-like abilities, etc.

Warrior; Tweaked from fighter in that he has a list of nested abilities (think like modern's class traits) which allow him to focus on armor, weapon, or combat maneuver.

Rake; Similar to Warrior, nested abilities, fun-licious rape stuff. Sneak attack isnt' the only option for Rakes, and they are much mroe focused on sneaking, stealth, and tactical actions.

Huner; Similar focus on stealth, but with a penchant for ranged attacks, as well as tracking, and abilities focused on killing a creature that the character marks as a quarry.

Invoker; Since healing isn't divine anymore, I've made this cleric-liek class into a buffer; he provides positives buffs using abilities tied to his faith. He will have a class ability which allows him or assign temporary HP to allies, for short periods of time, as well as giving players bonuses to defense, resistances, and attack.

Loremaster; Inverse to invoker, the loremaster uses deceit, trickery and his encyclopedic knowledge of his enemies to provide debuffs. One of his key abilities will be to analyse an enemy and use his knowledge to give characters in his sight various bonuses versus enemies, or to demoralize enemies.

Mage; Mages pick a favored Composition and Form, and have an ability tree that allows them to explot magic that uses those two types. Example, a Mage with a Composition of Fire, and a Form of Ray, would receive bonuses on casting Fire-Ray spells, Ray spells, and Fire spells. In addition, Mages of sufficient level can use their intellect and skill to redirect enemy magical energy; converting it for their use.

Witch; Intelligent familiars provide magic for casting, and can act as a conduit for the Witch's magical power. A key ability will be bonuses and abilities given by the familiar chosen, which gets stronger as the Witch levels; representing her growing magical power. This familiar also has the ability to attack of it's own accord, and probably can't be killed, so much as temporarily disabled.

Minor tweaks to combat include me building a huuuuge repository of weapons and working on how they act in game so that they are both balanced and realistic; Reflex has replaced initiative, making Rakes and other dex-heavy classes more effective in combat, and making hunters deadly against even moving enemies.
>>
No. 8301 ID: 4f0697

>>318299
Not sure on witch. I'd say make the familiar the power source and the actual character the channel. Familiars being anything from magic powerhouses that happen to look like small animals to fiends/fey/ghosts/angels in disguise (or even not in disguise).
Also, summoning-focused mages?
>>
No. 8304 ID: c0b3f5

>>318301
Maybe done by choice of Form. Something like animal, humanoid gives the creature type of summonings, composition gives the realm.
>>
No. 8318 ID: e8cde6

>>318301
See
>>318304

So, some new work on feats.


Full BlowRequires Power AttackWhen weilding a one-handed weapon, a character may make an attack as if weilding it two handed. In return, the time increment of the weapon is doubled.

CleaveRequires Power AttackWhen weilding a cleaving weapon, a character may designate two targets for attack. Both targets must be adjacent to eachother, and within the character's attack range. The first target is attack as normal, the second may be attacked with a -2 penalty to hit.

Power AttackRequires BAB +1A character may take a penalty to their attack to increace their threat. The penalty may never be more than their BAB. This is declared before rolling to hit.

Cleave +Requires CleaveAs Cleave Feat, but you may designate as many targets as you choose. Each is at an additional -2 to hit. All sucessive cleave targets must be adjacent to the target before them.

Cleave, WhirlingRequires CleaveCleave targets do not need to be adjacent.

PunctureRequires Dex +3, PrecisionWhen rolling threat while weilding a precise weapon, forego your Strength to ingore armor. This must be declared before rolling to hit.

PrecisionPrecise weapons with Strength requirements now instead have Dexterity requirements.

All-InRequires Power AttackWhen using Cleave or Power Attack, you may take a penalty to defense for the time increment of your weapon instead of a penalty to hit.
>>
No. 8321 ID: 53476d

>>318318
Just make sure your physical feats scale well enough to remain relevant without minmaxing or introducing an element of "doing it wrong".
>>
No. 8324 ID: 7924f4

>>318318
>precision
Eh, just stick it on the weapons.

Also slightly worried about Mages being either too utililicious or not enough, as is the usual problem.
And how to work up the spells with better descriptors or make your own.
>Pick Composition: Fire
>Pick Form: Blast
>Make spell that lets you fly by dropping explosions
>Make shielding spell that does precisely timed explosions to deflect attacks

Is Form going to have the most effect on role, or the composition?
>>
No. 8325 ID: b6edd6

>>318324
This raises a very important issue for the purposes of shenanigans: Does fire magic produce force, or does it simply produce heat and set things on fire? This is relevant to cases like whether a fireball is compressed by a small room or narrow hallway, and well as determining whether the uses mentioned above can be done with fire magic or only with force magic.

Also, if you can precisely shape blasts, would that allow you to make blasts that act like shaped charges?
>>
No. 8327 ID: e8cde6

Basically, the way it works is that the fire is made by "converting" energy from raw arcane power into heat or flames. The only "force" is made by the expanding gasse,s of which there is little. Explosions would be Force. I'll be sure to add things like "adjective" type words so that you can add bludgeoning damage to a firebomb, etc.

As for mages being too utilitarian; the idea is that they will be able to cast spells other than their type, but without bonuses associated.
>>
No. 8328 ID: 7924f4

>>318327
I mean trying to cheese spells onto their form and composition with bullshit logic,
>>
No. 8329 ID: e8cde6

The way I'm gonna nerf that is by making it so that you have to add certain words to "power up" your spells.

Basically spells go
[Meta] [Composition] [Form] of the [Modifier]

Meta words enhance the whole spell. Examples include "Reaching" which allows you to cast spells at range what would otherwise not be able to be cast as such. These multiply the mana cost of spells.

Composition words define what the spell is. Compositions are the "root" word, and often have restrictions on what other words are allowed to be used. Some words include "Summon Monster" "Fire" "Transmute Earth"

Form words define the shape of the spell. Touch, Ray, Cone, Line, Burst. Possibly different based on the Comp, so "Summon" has Forms related to what you will summon and costs associated.

Modifiers is where things will get really interesting; and it's also the hardest to balance. They effect spells by adding secondary effects. For example, "Vitriolic" would either add acid damage to a spell(So for Fire Ray of the Vitriolic, you would do Fire/Acid damage. Summon Monster Vitriolic would give all the monster's attacks acid damage, or enhance an acidic monster's HP) or enhance an acid spell's power. This cost often is about the same as the cost of a comprable Composition, but errs on the side of more expensive.

So, to make a fireball that flings enemies, you would have to use something like

Reaching Fire Burst of the Tempest
Reaching, to throw a spell at range.
Fire, the composition.
Burst, the form
Tempest, adding a blast of wind, causing a bull rush attempt to all those caught in the blast.

Opinions? I know it sounds complex, but the idea is, a Mage would have a few words he favors, and gets bonuses to cast, or defend against, and the rest would be picked up like you would pick up spells.

When casting, a Mage makes a mana check VS the cost of the spell+10. If he passes, he doesn't lose any mana, if he fails, he loses 1 mana, if her fails by increments of 5, he loses 1 per increment.

Mana is probably CL+Relevant Modifier, meaning at low levels, you still aint casting anything of any relevance. The idea is, you will be able to cast some cool shit by level 5-6, but you'll end up running outta mana if you pull out the big guns; but that said, you can now cast all those relatively harmless spells repeatedly to do stuff like summon little flies to go look at shit for you.
>>
No. 8330 ID: c2a2bc

So, some design work on spells.

Basically, I'm working on finding out hwo spells act, and how much words cost.

Right now I have it as follows;

Compositions
Fire, Cold, Electricity, and Acid all cost 4
Piercing, Bludgeoning, and Slashing cost 3
Touch costs either 1 or 0
Ray costs 1 or 2
Line, Cone and Burst...no clue. I feel like maybe 5-6 works.
Elemental modifiers will probably cost 0-1 more than their regular words. So, For Infernal it would be 4-5.


The idea is, at level 1, you really don't have much available to you except Pierce/Slash/Bludgeon Ray, and elemental touch spells. (1CL+3 or 4 for relevant stat)

At level 5, however, you can cast Fire Cone, which is a damn sight more powerful and does 5d6 threat, or something like Vitriolic Fire Touch (5+4+1) for Fire/Acid devastation.

One of the things I really wanna push is that Mages, and spellcasters in general, have an effective range; beyond it, hunters and warriors can plink them with arrows, but too close and they just get sliced by swords. I'm making them powerful, but a bit hard to handle. That said, when I implement summons and some other stuff, it will make them versatile in response to level of difficulty.
>>
No. 8331 ID: 7924f4

>>318330
Eh... I'd stick it so you can do one or two small things in your best composition/form, otherwise why would you have it?
Not that you should be able to pull off 'LEVIATHAN'S DEATH BLAST OF THE WHALE' at first level, but it seems a bit silly to go 'Alright, I wield the fiery serpents of set-shalam and he's a Royal Shieldmage of the Throne of Alissan and we both plink at things for three more levels until we can actually cast shit that makes us different'
Or even have them limited to a few spells to start with, so their one or two tricks for the first few levels pretty much have to be in their favored form/comp or they'd have to roll ludicrously well to do it.
>>
No. 8334 ID: 7e47cc

With the way this works, out of the box you actually are different; because you can choose your preferred composition and form; when you cast those spells, you are treated as if you have more mana than you actually do.

That way fire mages cast fire rays at first level, etc.

The way it works is, the big badass powerful spells you can wield have a 50% chance of you losing mana, meaning you can only cast them once. But in return, they really are pretty damn dangerous.
[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts] [Last 100 posts]

Delete post []
Password  
Report post
Reason