Philsys Revisions!

RP-related discussion otherwise not covered in the Character Closet.
Bes Again
 

Still at college

Unread postby Bes Again » Thu Sep 08, 2005 5:32 pm

Ok, something for consideration:

Charisma has use, but only for things that are used in RP situations (such as singing, playing instruments, etc.) It's only in-system use where it's actually warranted is in intimidation/negotiation tests and the like, to make everyone feel like they're not dealing with a biased GM. Which I also see ignored more often than not when it's actually used that way.

So, if we hardly use it, and the reasons it's used for are ignored regularly (I'm looking at you Chris), why do we keep it around? I don't want to put removing it on the floor yet, as I know that there are more than a few people who would be heavily against that. But can we really justify it's existence aside from a sort of sentimental thing?

Also: Bump.


Archmage144
 

Re: Still at college

Unread postby Archmage144 » Thu Sep 08, 2005 6:28 pm

If we're keeping DEX, we have to keep CHA. It's pretty simple. CHA as a stat is used for roleplaying purposes, and we're apparently keeping DEX almost completely for roleplaying purposes (the "some people are good at full body coordination but lousy at fine work" stuff, which I think isn't a good reason to have a separate stat, but anyway). COU in this system replaces what CHA tends to stand for in d20, so CHA's function is a little more ambiguous and generally not combat useful.

However, combat useful or no, it is a distinct statistic. And if "GMs aren't using it as a non-biased indicator of NPC reactions/intimidation/negotiations," that's not a fault of the system, it's a fault of the GMs--who perhaps should be using it. <p>
<div style="text-align:center">Image</div>

</p>

User avatar
Besyanteo
Would-be GitP Bard
 
Posts: 4612
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2002 8:56 pm
Location: Virginia

Re: Still at college

Unread postby Besyanteo » Thu Sep 08, 2005 10:33 pm

Brian has satisfactorally answered my questions!

Someone else, preferably someone who understands PS, should post now with something else for him/us to consider. Because that's with this is here for. o.o Bweeoo.


User avatar
Kelne
EXTERMINATE!!!!
 
Posts: 3604
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 2:02 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Still at college

Unread postby Kelne » Sat Sep 10, 2005 2:00 am

One tweaked weapons list. Notable changes include the addition of medium and heavy damage values for polearms, along with various other weapons. A couple of weapons I've left, since I'm not sure they should be dealing heavy damage (that's what crits are for). I've also added a couple of weapons from various sources which never made it onto the list.

ACs have been slashed to half their previous values, and AT penalties adjusted. Basically, no penalties for anything short of plate armour. I'm not sure that helmets and bracers should be providing penalties to PA. I'd assume that these would be largely insignificant compared to the rest of a person's armour. The higher-end armour may still require some AC reduction, since it requires a fair bit of effort to punch through it at present. Then again, perhaps it should require that much effort.

At present, I'm pondering cutting or renaming certain weapons (catchogre, rondracomb and nak'leth chief amongst them), as they're not exactly well-defined, real-world weapons. There are also a few weapons I'm not sure about adding, since they don't seem like they're that distinct from existing ones in terms of stats. <p>Centuries of threats of "I'll turn you all to stone!" and "I'll knock you all down!" have caused Domans to develop an instinct to form small groups. For safety, I assure you. – Keir</p>

Archmage144
 

A SAUSAGE DRAWS NEAR

Unread postby Archmage144 » Sun Sep 11, 2005 3:06 am

Looks very good, Kelne.

Feel free to axe the super-obscure weapons that no one has ever heard of, or else rename them or change them to more common weapon types. Also, I think we should eliminate the weapon categories given on the old list ("Piercing Weapons" etc) and replace them with skill groupings by weapon skill (Sword, Knife, Axe, Polearms, whatever) and by weight (light, standard, heavy). Though it might be sufficient to just denote light weapons, as you have already done. I think the scythe given on the table is one of those little hand sickle types, so it could be renamed "sickle" and a scythe two-handed weapon could be added to the list. I figure it should be pretty damaging with a well-landed heavy attack, so 15/18/30 with a -2/0 AT/PA mod seems reasonable to me. The giant warhammer should probably have its damages increased slightly--X/27/34 seems right to me.

It might be a good idea to note somewhere that players should feel free to utilize the stats given to create similar weapons that are not on the list. A katar, for example, might use the stats of a heavy dagger, or some more specific/exotic weaponry like a scimitar or jian (the Chinese longsword) can utilize the same stats as a counterpart weapon. If you want to add specific weapons to the list, go for it.

Let's also stick some "weapons" for fistfighters on the list. Having innate claws should add between +2 and +6 to punching/kicking damage, depending on the length and sharpness. Brass knuckles should add +4 to damage. Other, more exotic options could be available, but most of them are going to be either man-made claws (see above) or become full-out weapons in themselves (katar, for example).

There are two listings for halberd with different AT/PA modifiers. That should be fixed. ^^;

The "new" AC values look good. Also, go right ahead and eliminate all AT/PA penalties for things like bracers, but I feel that there should be a penalty of some sort to cast magic spells when wearing anything more than gloves. Maybe we need a new column or category on the list for casting penalties?

Also, I appreciate all the work you're putting into this. I hate to feel like I'm shoving it off on you, so I just wanted to thank you sincerely for everything you're doing. Maybe at some point I'll be able to provide a greater contribution, but right now life is bogging me down in a lot of different ways. >_< Major props to you, Kelne for all your dedication and effort. <p>
<div style="text-align:center">Image</div>

</p>

User avatar
Kelne
EXTERMINATE!!!!
 
Posts: 3604
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 2:02 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: A SAUSAGE DRAWS NEAR

Unread postby Kelne » Tue Sep 13, 2005 6:33 pm

And again.

Changes include the axing of AT/PA penalties on bracers and helmets, along with an addition of casting penalties for wearing different types of armour. It may be worth introducing a skill along the lines of Armoured Casting to reduce these penalties. 2 points per rank seems fair.

I've done a bit of shuffling of weaponry so that aside from the occasional French name, it's all fairly intuitive. A few extras have been added in.

And with that, I think the equipment list is pretty much done. Many of the numbers are still open to change, and people should feel free to submit any weapons or armour they feel are missing from the list. <p>Centuries of threats of "I'll turn you all to stone!" and "I'll knock you all down!" have caused Domans to develop an instinct to form small groups. For safety, I assure you. – Keir</p>

User avatar
Kelne
EXTERMINATE!!!!
 
Posts: 3604
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 2:02 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: A SAUSAGE DRAWS NEAR

Unread postby Kelne » Thu Sep 15, 2005 11:35 pm

Right. Yet another updated skill list.

Focused on support skills this time round, adding in prerequisites and benefits, and adding in a couple from the addendum which hadn't made it onto the list. With the result that that section of the list looks an absolute mess.

I do think that it should be possible to see the benefits of support skills on the main skill list, but it may not be practical. I didn't even try with chink detection. Of course, chink detection seems more like a tech than a skill to begin with...

I've also added in my suggested armoured casting skill. <p>Centuries of threats of "I'll turn you all to stone!" and "I'll knock you all down!" have caused Domans to develop an instinct to form small groups. For safety, I assure you. – Keir</p>

NamagomiMk0
 
Posts: 1223
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 1:47 am

Re: A SAUSAGE DRAWS NEAR

Unread postby NamagomiMk0 » Mon Sep 19, 2005 10:32 am

This may just be me, but I personally disagree with the idea of the Cutlass and Sabre being light weapons. This especially comes from the fact that I've held a saber in person, and they would be more in the weight category of a longsword than in that of a foil or shortsword. And something has seemed to me as if a cutlass also would be a heavier weapon.

Again, just nitpicks, but it also seems as if there are too few weapons in the "medium" sword category anyway. <p>ChibiUrusai: *chomps* I am underage. ^-^
Arch mage144: This means nothing to me. =P
T3chn0Namagomi: *motherly voice* Brian! What would Kate think if she heard you say that?!

---Dirtiness in a chat. Blame my mind for being in the gutter.

-Namagomi, who lives up to his name in this case.</p>

User avatar
Jak Snide
 
Posts: 5457
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 7:14 am
Location: London

Re: A SAUSAGE DRAWS NEAR

Unread postby Jak Snide » Mon Sep 19, 2005 12:45 pm

The lad might be havin' a point thar. Now, it may just be Sid's Pirates! speakin' to me, but the cutlass seems a deal more mighty than yer standard toothpick. Me thinkin' be that it should be akin ter an unwieldy longsword; uppin' the damage and AT/PA penalties alike.


NamagomiMk0
 
Posts: 1223
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 1:47 am

Re: Well:

Unread postby NamagomiMk0 » Tue Sep 20, 2005 6:59 am

Question for those who have an idea:

What to do about critical failures of attacks? Namely ranged/magical attacks, which seem to be a bit too "safe" for my tastes. It is said that the best offense is a good defense, but I might bring to mind the fact that though PCs may run out of MP or ammo, it is highly unlikely that a NPC will run out of MP without the assistance of spells to deal with such, or in the case of ammo, at all.

As such, caster and "ranged" characters can attack from range with impunity, as there is no apparent penalty for totally fucking up, or going against a clearly superior (or lucky) enemy. <p>ChibiUrusai: *chomps* I am underage. ^-^
Arch mage144: This means nothing to me. =P
T3chn0Namagomi: *motherly voice* Brian! What would Kate think if she heard you say that?!

---Dirtiness in a chat. Blame my mind for being in the gutter.

-Namagomi, who lives up to his name in this case.</p>

User avatar
Besyanteo
Would-be GitP Bard
 
Posts: 4612
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2002 8:56 pm
Location: Virginia

Re: Well:

Unread postby Besyanteo » Tue Sep 20, 2005 11:10 am

In the case of ranged weapons, RIFTS handles a critical failure shooting to cause the clip to fall out, the gun to jam, or something else appropriate to the gun type azt the GM's discretion.

As for magic, the test for success seems to take place after the actual casting, so a mana burn type of thing seems inapropriate. Maybe rather than fizzling, the spell could ricochet about at random, and have a chance to hit anyone within the casting area? <p>
<div style="text-align:center">Image</div></p>

Archmage144
 

Re: Well:

Unread postby Archmage144 » Tue Sep 20, 2005 6:04 pm

If you wanted to use a critical failure, use the inverse rule for a critical success--this can be applied to any test of skill, combat or not. If you miss by 15 or more, you critically fail, and something spectactularly bad happens.

I personally don't feel that critical failures necessarily add a lot to a gaming system, especially if player's egos are at stake--but they can be interesting, so GMs should feel free to use them.

Edit: As an added note, if you're specifically wanting a hard rule so that you can see NPCs critically fail, keep in mind that rules that increase randomness generally favor NPCs over players. While an individual NPC opponent (especially the grunts) will usually get one battle before biting the dust, PCs have to go through many battles--so anything that increases the chance of "randomly getting fucked" generally works against players in the long run. Lots of NPCs are expected to die as plot fodder--that's not the case for PCs, for whom "randomly getting fucked" is exceptionally bad. <p>
<div style="text-align:center">Image</div>

</p>Edited by: [url=http://p068.ezboard.com/brpgww60462.showUserPublicProfile?gid=archmage144>Archmage144</A]&nbsp; Image at: 9/20/05 18:20

User avatar
NebulaQueen
Moderator
 
Posts: 2557
Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 6:38 pm

Re: Well:

Unread postby NebulaQueen » Tue Sep 20, 2005 7:20 pm

I'd like to point out that shooting with a ranged weapon is hardly safe when it comes to critical failures; for example, when one shoots into combat, they run the risk of shooting one of their allies. They also run the risk of their weapons malfunctioning, as well. Now, about magic, there is a chance of the spell going horribly wrong. For example, if one is using astral magic and gets a crit failure, they could end up damaging their own aura.

Anyways, the point is that ranged and magical attacks aren't as safe as one might think. Their are plenty of ways that Murphy's Law can come into effect, if a GM is creative enough. <p>

"My naturally quivering state makes any display of fear deliciously arbitrary" - Manowar Leader, Scary-Go-Round</p>

Archmage144
 

Re: Well:

Unread postby Archmage144 » Tue Sep 20, 2005 7:53 pm

I'm not really sure what the whole issue of "safety" is in this. Combat is dangerous, no matter how you happen to be engaged in it. <p>
<div style="text-align:center">Image</div>

</p>

User avatar
NebulaQueen
Moderator
 
Posts: 2557
Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 6:38 pm

Re: Well:

Unread postby NebulaQueen » Wed Sep 21, 2005 12:05 am

*Shrugs* I think Doug feels that fighting with magic or long distance weapons isn't as risky as straight up melee, and/or that the critical failures for them aren't as damaging. <p>

"My naturally quivering state makes any display of fear deliciously arbitrary" - Manowar Leader, Scary-Go-Round</p>

User avatar
Kelne
EXTERMINATE!!!!
 
Posts: 3604
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 2:02 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Well:

Unread postby Kelne » Wed Sep 21, 2005 12:39 am

Which, if you think about it, makes sense. Shooting or blasting a foe with magic is generally safer than going toe to toe with them.

Although I have seen people inflict magical backlash on critical spell failures. Generally if someone's tried to cast a spell at a mage.

As far as critical failures go, I only tend to inflict them on people if they've attempted something particularly risky and failed miserably. I'll normally give them a warning beforehand, indicating that failure may have dire consequences. <p>Centuries of threats of "I'll turn you all to stone!" and "I'll knock you all down!" have caused Domans to develop an instinct to form small groups. For safety, I assure you. – Keir</p>

NamagomiMk0
 
Posts: 1223
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 1:47 am

Re: Well:

Unread postby NamagomiMk0 » Wed Sep 21, 2005 5:55 am

However, this "safety" negates a good deal of the punch of some spells. Mainly the better Malediction and some (theoretical) Benediction spells in question, and thus eliminating a possible route of strategy.

Of course, nobody really uses them, so it's a moot point, really. <p>ChibiUrusai: *chomps* I am underage. ^-^
Arch mage144: This means nothing to me. =P
T3chn0Namagomi: *motherly voice* Brian! What would Kate think if she heard you say that?!

---Dirtiness in a chat. Blame my mind for being in the gutter.

-Namagomi, who lives up to his name in this case.</p>Edited by: [url=http://p068.ezboard.com/brpgww60462.showUserPublicProfile?gid=namagomimk0>NamagomiMk0</A] at: 9/21/05 6:17

User avatar
Kelne
EXTERMINATE!!!!
 
Posts: 3604
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 2:02 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Well:

Unread postby Kelne » Wed Sep 21, 2005 6:38 am

Actually, I see the main advantage of the higher-end malediction spells as being that they're more likely to suffer critical hits from people attacking them, and that they'll need to be very lucky to penetrate a foe's defenses. Stacking critical failures on top of that would mean the person's better off doing nothing at all than they are stubbornly attempting to fight on.

Granted, the person might well be better off giving in than trying to fight on, but fighting on should at least be a viable alternative. Above all, I don't want to see a situation where players think to themselves, "Oh dear. I have been sorely wounded, and am suffering a -4/-4 penalty. I had better not do anything until I am healed, lest I suffer a critical failure."

In all, I think critical failures are best applied sparingly. They discourage risk-taking. Granted, sometimes the GM may want to discourage the taking of certain risks. But generally, the run-of-the-mill risks of straightforward combat aren't among them. <p>Centuries of threats of "I'll turn you all to stone!" and "I'll knock you all down!" have caused Domans to develop an instinct to form small groups. For safety, I assure you. – Keir</p>

Archmage144
 

Re: Well:

Unread postby Archmage144 » Wed Sep 21, 2005 11:59 am

As far as "no one uses them," four of my characters use Malediction magic, and two of them use Benediction magic (though one of them uses it to a less extreme degree). As I see it, critical failures add nothing to "strategy" on the PC end--I think that making your opponent crippled with Malediction to prevent them from hitting you is pretty strategic already. Adding the idea that you would cripple them specifically so that they would critically miss is just icing on the cake.

Naturally, as previously stated, increasing randomness is generally worse for PCs than it is for NPCs, not that that's really the point here.

At some point here the Philsys rules are going to need a full rewrite/edit--I have no problem with being responsible for that, but it won't be immediate, as I'm fairly busy this week (and was last week, and we'll see about next week, but bleh), but it does seem like something I should do.

I want people to continue presenting concerns and suggestions regarding changes to the rules, equipment lists, and the like--I would also like to expand the spellbook and possibly expand the tech suggestions/standardizations. <p>
<div style="text-align:center">Image</div>

</p>

NamagomiMk0
 
Posts: 1223
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 1:47 am

Re: Well:

Unread postby NamagomiMk0 » Fri Sep 23, 2005 8:55 pm

Proposal: Give the Bastard Sword (and similar weapons in scale, if there are any) a "Split STR req"--namely, a higher requirement for using it one-handed than two-handed. Namely because, if other sources are any indication, they are capable of being used one-handed. <p>ChibiUrusai: *chomps* I am underage. ^-^
Arch mage144: This means nothing to me. =P
T3chn0Namagomi: *motherly voice* Brian! What would Kate think if she heard you say that?!

---Dirtiness in a chat. Blame my mind for being in the gutter.

-Namagomi, who lives up to his name in this case.</p>

User avatar
Kelne
EXTERMINATE!!!!
 
Posts: 3604
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 2:02 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Well:

Unread postby Kelne » Sat Sep 24, 2005 1:55 am

On the other hand, longswords, maces, warhammers, axes and so forth can all be used two-handed. And often are. It's simpler just to leave things as they are, rather than working out different damages and strength requirements for a weapon depending on whether or not you're holding it in two hands.

To say nothing of AT/PA penalties. Sure, you might have the strength to wield a bastard sword one-handed, but it's still going to be rather unwieldy as compared to a two-handed grip. You pretty well need new stats entirely for it, and a longsword might well be a better option if you want a one-handed weapon. <p>Centuries of threats of "I'll turn you all to stone!" and "I'll knock you all down!" have caused Domans to develop an instinct to form small groups. For safety, I assure you. – Keir</p>

Archmage144
 

Re: Well:

Unread postby Archmage144 » Sat Sep 24, 2005 3:07 am

Perhaps wielding a weapon two-handed should provide some sort of bonus to your STR multiplier. This is logical--if you're using both hands to swing your weapon, you get much more leverage, and your natural strength is going to be multiplied more.

Wielding a weapon two handed could add STR an extra time to damage and increase the size of the bonus damage dice:

Light: Rank+Damage+STR*2+2d4
Medium: Rank+Damage+STR*3+2d6
Heavy: Rank+Damage+STR*4+3d6

This would apply whenever a weapon was being used two-handed, which will help give definite damage priority to two-handed weapons. In addition to their high natural base damage, the extra STR bonus will really boost the damage of a fighter using a claymore, warhammer, or similar large weapon. <p>
<div style="text-align:center">Image</div>

</p>

User avatar
Jak Snide
 
Posts: 5457
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 7:14 am
Location: London

Re: Well:

Unread postby Jak Snide » Sat Sep 24, 2005 10:25 am

Ducky's proposal appeals. It makes two handed weapons a much more desirably option than they were before.


Archmage144
 

Re: Well:

Unread postby Archmage144 » Sat Sep 24, 2005 11:57 am

It had also occurred to me that a lot of RPGWW characters use one-handed weapons but do not carry shields--some of them, at least, might actually be using the weapons two-handed when attacking since they have a free hand and it's almost a natural instinct to do so if you want to get more force and control.

This will give those characters who won't start carrying shields for any reason and use their weapons two-handed despite them not being explicitly two-handed weapons a small boost, as well. The way this is designed is that characters with high STR scores are going to get the most out of it--characters with low scores will notice a relatively small increase in damage, but those with high scores are going to deal an extra 5-15 or so damage every hit "for free." <p>
<div style="text-align:center">Image</div>

</p>

User avatar
Besyanteo
Would-be GitP Bard
 
Posts: 4612
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2002 8:56 pm
Location: Virginia

Re: Well:

Unread postby Besyanteo » Sat Sep 24, 2005 1:34 pm

Actually, I don't think I ever saw standard shield stuff anywhere. I expect they would give you some additional AC/PA/Both, but I never really saw anything sayying as much. I'd definitely consider giving one to a character is there was some stuff written out for them. <p>
<div style="text-align:center">Image</div></p>Edited by: Besyanteo&nbsp; Image at: 9/24/05 13:35

NamagomiMk0
 
Posts: 1223
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 1:47 am

Re: Well:

Unread postby NamagomiMk0 » Sat Sep 24, 2005 2:37 pm

Uh, there's a slight consistency error here with the damage dice--this would be an appropriate increase in accordance with current formulae, but the proposed formula when rank was introduced was also altered to

Light: Rank+STR+Damage+1d6
Medium: Rank+2*STR+Damage+2d6
Heavy: Rank+3*STR+Damage+3d6

If increasing the variable quantity, it could be viable to either increase the number of dice, or alternately, increase the die size from d6s to d8s. <p>ChibiUrusai: *chomps* I am underage. ^-^
Arch mage144: This means nothing to me. =P
T3chn0Namagomi: *motherly voice* Brian! What would Kate think if she heard you say that?!

---Dirtiness in a chat. Blame my mind for being in the gutter.

-Namagomi, who lives up to his name in this case.</p>

Archmage144
 

Re: Well:

Unread postby Archmage144 » Sat Sep 24, 2005 3:30 pm

Yeah, I realized that right after I posted I was using the old damage numbers instead of the new ones. As such, the numbers for dice should be 2d6, 3d6, and 4d6 for wielding a weapon two-handed. <p>
<div style="text-align:center">Image</div>

</p>

User avatar
Jak Snide
 
Posts: 5457
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 7:14 am
Location: London

Re: Well:

Unread postby Jak Snide » Sun Sep 25, 2005 6:48 pm

Say, is Cou+Agi still the calculation for Initiative? I'd have thought it'd be Int+Agi. Unless it already is, and the PS guide doesn't reflect this change.


User avatar
Besyanteo
Would-be GitP Bard
 
Posts: 4612
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2002 8:56 pm
Location: Virginia

Re: Well:

Unread postby Besyanteo » Sun Sep 25, 2005 7:32 pm

I was under the impression that that change had been made, yeah. <p>
<div style="text-align:center">Image</div></p>

Archmage144
 

Re: Well:

Unread postby Archmage144 » Sun Sep 25, 2005 9:54 pm

Initiative is now AGI+(COU/2). Fractions are rounded down.

At some point I'm going to recompile the changes made in this thread into a document and repost a total overview. <p>
<div style="text-align:center">Image</div>

</p>

Archmage144
 

Re: Well:

Unread postby Archmage144 » Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:22 pm

Philsys Changes and Revisions: Current Official List

Basic Stat Modifiers:

•TP at first level is now equal to 10+((COU+STA)*3). TP gained per level is equal to STA + 1d4, but never less than 1.
•AT/PA for light weapons (including unarmed attacks) can now be adjusted to substitute DEX for STR. Damage is still calculated based on STR.
•Initiative is now AGI + (COU/2) + 2d6. Fractions are rounded down.
•MAG stat is now increasable. Obviously, this still needs a plot reason/explanation. The success roll to increase MAG from 0 to 1 automatically succeeds with plot justification.

Combat and Damage:

•Most armor no longer has any AT penalty, except for certain very large and cumbersome shields.
•Double the PA penalty of any armor worn is applied to any spellcasting rolls.
•Changed terminology of thrust/slash/chop to light/medium/heavy. Attack type damages for weapons that previously lacked them have been added (like a "heavy" attack for a spear).
•Missile evasion is now equal to 10+AGI*2+INT+d20.
•Attack rolls with missile weapons are calculated as a simple skill roll plus or minus weapon modifiers, like casting a spell.
•The total defense option: A character can now choose to adopt a defensive stance, trading his attack for the round for an additional parry roll. This does not require a tech and costs nothing.
•Delayed actions do not grant a bonus to rolls.

•Weapon damages now add the wielder's rank to the base damage of the weapon. The overall damage of physical attacks has been increased slightly; the new formulae for light, medium, and heavy attack damages and penalties are as follows:

•Light: Base damage + skill rank + STR + 1d6
•Medium: Base damage + skill rank + STR*2 + 2d6 at a -2 penalty
•Heavy: Base damage + skill rank + STR*3 + 3d6 at a -5 penalty

If the weapon is being used two-handed, regardless of whether or not it is a two-handed weapon, it deals additional damage. Some weapons (mostly light weapons) cannot be wielded two-handed for additional damage--common sense applies. The penalties for making medium and heavy attacks do not change. The damage formulae are:

•Light: Rank+Damage+STR*2+2d6
•Medium: Rank+Damage+STR*3+3d6
•Heavy: Rank+Damage+STR*4+4d6

•Unarmed characters simply calculate their damage as if they were using no weapons. Punches are light attacks and kicks are medium attacks. Unarmed attacks are always considered light weapons.
•AC now equals damage reduction, pure and simple. Change your sheets from the old AC/3 formula to whatever the defense of the armor in question should be by looking at the equipment list. In some cases, you will be able to calculate the correct AC by simply dividing the listing by three--these cases should be obvious, such as if your character can summon a creature with AC 60 (when what we're really looking for is 20 points of damage reduction).

•The penalties to AT/PA for various detrimental conditions are as follows:
•Blindness: -6/-6
•Paralysis/Total Helplessness: -10/-10 (some attacks will hit automatically, most helpless characters cannot make attacks)
•Broken Arm/Leg: -4/-4
•Severe Wounds (10 or fewer HP remaining): -6/-6
•As a general rule, -2 is a minor penalty, -4 is a harsh penalty, -6 is a serious penalty, and -10 is a critical penalty.

Skills:

•The maximum cap for skills is now (base stats + 6).
•The base stats for light weapons can be substituted as COU/AGI/DEX (instead of COU/AGI/STR).
•Ambidexterity is eliminated. Two-Weapon Fighting DEX/DEX/STR now covers the maximum effective rank for an off-hand weapon. Two-Fisted covers unarmed attacks and is AGI/AGI/DEX.
•Bows are now COU/DEX/STR, crossbows are STR/DEX/DEX, and guns are COU/DEX/DEX.
•Wielding two light weapons requires a DEX of +3, a light and a standard weapon requires DEX +4, and two standard weapons requires DEX +5.
•Extra attacks/parries are gained at weapon skill rank 8 for light weapons, 12 for standard weapons, and 14 for heavy weapons. This is self-explanatory; a character can make an additional attack each round or forfeit the additional attack in exchange for a bonus parry roll.
•[s]Two-Handed Weapons is now eliminated. The only thing needed to wield a two-handed weapon effectively is the appropriate skill.

Standardized Techs:

•[Light Weapon Skill=2]Precise Striking (2 TP) - Uses DEX to determine weapon damage bonuses instead of STR and eliminates all penalties to hit other than those caused by magical debuffs for one round. Heavy attacks are impossible when using Precise Striking.
•[Light Weapon Skill=4]Dextrous Striking (2 TP) - Adds DEX to AT a second time for one round.
•[Light Weapon Skill=6]Rapid Striking (3 TP) - Allows one additional attack (of any type) this round.

•[Standard Weapon Skill=2]Defender's Stance (1 TP) - Adds weapon skill rank to all PA rolls made this round. Even if no parry roll is allowed, half of the users's weapon skill rank is added to his PA for the remainder of the round. This tech cannot be combined with any other offensive tech, and the user forfeits any bonus attacks (but may use them, instead, as bonus parries).
•[Standard Weapon Skill=6]Full Attack (4 TP) - Allows one additional attack (of any type) this round.

•[Heavy Weapon Skill=4]Devastating Blow (2 TP) - As a heavy attack, but damage is multiplied by 1.5x. If the attack misses, the user loses his one of his parry rolls for the round.
•[Heavy Weapon Skill=6]Follow-through (5 TP) - Allows one additional attack (of any type) this round.

Adjustments that Still Need to be Made:

•Shields should have PA bonuses, not penalties. Part of the benefit to a shield is that it will block some attacks simply by being there, especially if it's a big shield. I don't want to apply that rule to armor at large, but I do want to apply it to shields. Large shields will still have AT penalties.
•[s]Shield Blocking, a skill that was on the original list, should be better defined (though it was defined in Kelne's skill revision). The definition in the addendum is flawed. My thought is that it should work somewhat like [s]Advanced Parrying, but be more beneficial since it requires/utilizes a shield. My thought is +1 to a PA roll/rank as long as the character has a shield available. A shield can only be used to block one attack in this manner per round. This essentially allows a character to train in both [s]Shield Blocking and [s]Advanced Parry to get a
bonus on two separate PA rolls during a round if they have the ability to make multiple parries and are using a shield.
•Some [s] skills in general need more precise definitions. The definitions in the guide need overhauled (especially crap like [s]Chink Detection and [s]Motion Style Analysis).
•The rules need rewritten. I should be the one to do this, so I'll do it--eventually.
•Anything else that anyone can think of! <p>
<div style="text-align:center">Image</div>

</p>Edited by: [url=http://p068.ezboard.com/brpgww60462.showUserPublicProfile?gid=archmage144>Archmage144</A]&nbsp; Image at: 9/28/05 21:12

User avatar
Kelne
EXTERMINATE!!!!
 
Posts: 3604
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 2:02 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Well:

Unread postby Kelne » Mon Sep 26, 2005 9:10 pm

One thing I keep meaning to bring up is the skill rank caps. While the stats+6 cap means that characters have access to those skills which have a high rank requirement, there are effectively no limits at lower levels. Even a character with a combined stat score of three has their skill rank capped at 9, which means they're not restricted in the least until they reach level 4. And often characters will have base stats totalling at least 5 for nonspecialist skills.

As an alternative, I suggest that skill ranks be capped at the base ranks + level/2. This means that there are meaningful restrictions at low levels, while by the time higher-level characters are wanting to reach, say, rank 18 in their primary skills, they should be able to. <p>Centuries of threats of "I'll turn you all to stone!" and "I'll knock you all down!" have caused Domans to develop an instinct to form small groups. For safety, I assure you. – Keir</p>

NamagomiMk0
 
Posts: 1223
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 1:47 am

Re: Well:

Unread postby NamagomiMk0 » Mon Sep 26, 2005 9:11 pm

Some [s] skills require definitions, period. [s]Charge Attack is an example.

Also, [s]Vital Striking is still 3 points per rank, right?

Kelne: Yes, this would make a more distinct cap at lower levels, but I get the feeling that this might make too MUCH of one, in fact. Given, this would raise the overall cap, but only after level 14 is hit--which would be no time soon, for sure. However, as one might note, this actually would decrease the average cap extension from 6 to 5.25. Now, not everyone has skillpoints to spare, but the cap itself would be A:Hard to keep track of, and B:WAY too low for someone at lower levels. I might like to note that lower-level characters would be hard-pressed to branch out of their attribute-defined "class" at all, while high-level characters would be free to generalize here and there and everywhere-which-way. Admittedly, characters that high don't exist yet, but there is still the principle.

In effect, this change would limit options early on too much for a character, creating "Classes in a classless system", so to speak. Not exactly my cup of tea, but what can I say? I'm only one person. <p>ChibiUrusai: *chomps* I am underage. ^-^
Arch mage144: This means nothing to me. =P
T3chn0Namagomi: *motherly voice* Brian! What would Kate think if she heard you say that?!

---Dirtiness in a chat. Blame my mind for being in the gutter.

-Namagomi, who lives up to his name in this case.</p>Edited by: [url=http://p068.ezboard.com/brpgww60462.showUserPublicProfile?gid=namagomimk0>NamagomiMk0</A] at: 9/26/05 21:44

Archmage144
 

Re: Well:

Unread postby Archmage144 » Mon Sep 26, 2005 10:28 pm

Kelne: No. I don't want there to be a "meaningful" cap at the lower levels--I want all characters to be able to improve up to a certain point though practice, but true mastery will require aptitude as well as training. The cap that is in place allows even characters without great base stats to improve "off" skills (like a mage training in swords) to a certain point, but his cap is still going to be several ranks behind someone dedicated to the skill.

In other words, almost anyone should be able to get to the level of adept (even with +1 in all three stats you can still get close to rank 10) with enough practice, but only a person with a bit of natural aptitude is going to be able to break rank 15 (+3 in all base stats), and only someone with a lot of natural aptitude (+5 in all stats) is going to be able to break 20, no matter how many levels they gain.

Edit: Also, in retrospect, there is a level-dependent cap in place already. Your max rank at level 1 is 4, and the most you can increase a skill by is 2 ranks at levelup. <p>
<div style="text-align:center">Image</div>

</p>Edited by: [url=http://p068.ezboard.com/brpgww60462.showUserPublicProfile?gid=archmage144>Archmage144</A]&nbsp; Image at: 9/27/05 11:42

User avatar
Jak Snide
 
Posts: 5457
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 7:14 am
Location: London

Re: Well:

Unread postby Jak Snide » Tue Sep 27, 2005 1:46 pm

I'm still all for Int being factored into initiative, but it's something I can live with. Guns being Cou/Dex/Dex seems odd to me, however. Surely being perceptive (part of Int) is more important than having a measure of courage and/or willpower? Lastly, I'm guessing crossbows will use the same skill base that guns do.

Now, some queries. Can characters who duel wield substitute their basic off-hand attack for an additional parry roll as a standard action akin to total defense?

Is Two Weapon Fighting a support or standard skill?

Other than those suggestions and queries everything looks good to me.


Archmage144
 

Re: Well:

Unread postby Archmage144 » Tue Sep 27, 2005 2:38 pm

I think enough things go into initiative, and INT is a strong enough stat already in most cases. The last thing we need is mages with more initiative.

DEX/DEX/INT does make more sense for guns and crossbows, which should have the same stats. The only reason I put down COU is because it was on Kelne's skill list that way.

Query 1: Yes, you can substitute a basic off-hand attack for a parry roll. You can substitute any attack you gain for an added parry roll. As far as techs go, this means that while you could hypothetically trade a bonus attack from a tech for a bonus parry, it will be cheaper (TP-wise) to trade it for a parry directly.

Query 2: Support, but it costs 1 point/rank. It is classified as a support skill only because it has base stat prerequisites. The benefits are definitely great enough to warrant the skill costing as much as a normal skill, as it effectively doubles the attack/parry capabilities of a first level character.

Edit: I clarified the TP formula math error. Now even if you don't use order of operations properly to determine your TP you will get the appropriate answer as opposed to getting 20 more than you're supposed to! <p>
<div style="text-align:center">Image</div>

</p>Edited by: [url=http://p068.ezboard.com/brpgww60462.showUserPublicProfile?gid=archmage144>Archmage144</A]&nbsp; Image at: 9/27/05 14:41

NamagomiMk0
 
Posts: 1223
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 1:47 am

Re: Well:

Unread postby NamagomiMk0 » Tue Sep 27, 2005 6:32 pm

Also, it is my belief as that there is no determined method for such, there needs to be a "set" way to calculate hits with breath weapons, for those that have them. I've been meaning to say this for god knows how long now, and it's driven me nuts, but I've never gotten around to doing so. <p>ChibiUrusai: *chomps* I am underage. ^-^
Arch mage144: This means nothing to me. =P
T3chn0Namagomi: *motherly voice* Brian! What would Kate think if she heard you say that?!

---Dirtiness in a chat. Blame my mind for being in the gutter.

-Namagomi, who lives up to his name in this case.</p>

Archmage144
 

Re: Well:

Unread postby Archmage144 » Tue Sep 27, 2005 8:04 pm

A magic resist roll vs. breather's skill. o_o Simple as that. As far as the bases used for the person breathing, perhaps Breath Weapon should be a skill for applicable characters--I'd think COU/STA/STA would be a good set of bases. <p>
<div style="text-align:center">Image</div>

</p>

User avatar
NebulaQueen
Moderator
 
Posts: 2557
Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 6:38 pm

Re: Well:

Unread postby NebulaQueen » Wed Sep 28, 2005 7:22 pm

Question: What were the reasons for including Dex in the formula for initiative? I can see how Cou fits in there, but I'm a bit shaky on Dex. <p>

"My naturally quivering state makes any display of fear deliciously arbitrary" - Manowar Leader, Scary-Go-Round</p>

NamagomiMk0
 
Posts: 1223
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 1:47 am

Re: Well:

Unread postby NamagomiMk0 » Wed Sep 28, 2005 8:35 pm

This, my friend, would be called a "typo". He likely meant AGI.

Additionally, I see some serious imbalances as far as the flail-type weapons go. Before one asks, let me bring the following to one's attention:

Goupillion: 2H, +5 STR req, X/20/30 damage, -2/-2.

Now, compare this to the other superheavies, the battleaxe and giant warhammer:

Battleaxe: 2H, +5 STR req, X/22/34 damage, -2/-2

Giant Warhammer: 2H, +4 STR req, X/27/34 damage, -2/-3

In effect, the former of the three, how do we say this...sucks. Less damage for equal reqs and penalties.

Then again, most flail-types are underpowered compared to other categories' weapons.

With one distinct exception.

Nunchaku: Light, 8/11/15 damage, +1/0.

Look at this compared to everything else and you can see what's wrong, balancewise.

Now, I would bring up the question of superheavy weapons, but of course, I'm the only one who likes them anyway, so I'll shut up on that point.

[Edit] While on the subject, there is NO reason to use the spear over the trident. Trident has superior light/medium damage, while otherwise being identical. <p>ChibiUrusai: *chomps* I am underage. ^-^
Arch mage144: This means nothing to me. =P
T3chn0Namagomi: *motherly voice* Brian! What would Kate think if she heard you say that?!

---Dirtiness in a chat. Blame my mind for being in the gutter.

-Namagomi, who lives up to his name in this case.</p>Edited by: [url=http://p068.ezboard.com/brpgww60462.showUserPublicProfile?gid=namagomimk0>NamagomiMk0</A] at: 9/28/05 20:51

PreviousNext

Return to OOC RP Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron

Yalogank