Phil Sys Addendum Addition?

Character sheet archiving. Help with characters can be solicited here. This is also the place to talk Philsys or other RPing systems.
User avatar
Jak Snide
 
Posts: 5457
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 7:14 am
Location: London

Phil Sys Addendum Addition?

Unread postby Jak Snide » Tue Apr 06, 2004 2:32 pm

Over the past few days I've been thinking about how melee weapons get the short end of the stick in PS. Compared to magic users, who's spells increase in power as their base ranks rise, melee weapon damage remains fairly static. So I tried thinking up a way to make the higher ranks of melee weapons provide a similar bonus.

What I'm thinking is that at certain ranks, which depend on weapon size (every 6 for small, 8 for medium and 10 for two handed) the character gets an extra weapon action to use, which can be used as an extra attack or extra PA roll that round. For example, a fighter with 12 ranks in short sword could take 3 attacks and 1 PA roll, 2 of each, or a single attack and 3 defense rolls.

I've got some more thoughts on this concerning two weapon fighting, but I'd like to see what you all think of this first. I haven't put this past anyone except Shan, so I'm not sure how sound it is. So please, rip it to shreds all you wish if you see a gaping flaw that I've missed.


JoshuaDurron
 

Re: Phil Sys Addendum Addition?

Unread postby JoshuaDurron » Tue Apr 06, 2004 2:40 pm

It sounds like an excellent idea to me. I've noticed this as well, and it's why I've opted to create more characters as unarmed fighters (who's damage increases as their Ranks do) then as weapon users. By the same token, I would suggest that this rule NOT apply to unarmed fighters (or possibly count them as Two Handed fighters.) <p>

"Crazy is good." - Luffy, One Piece
</p>

Uncle Pervy
 

Re: Phil Sys Addendum Addition?

Unread postby Uncle Pervy » Tue Apr 06, 2004 3:19 pm

It should be noted that the Unarmed Damage Thing is out of date. It's (Rank)+(Strength)+d6 for a punch, and (Rank)+(Strengthx2)+2d4 for a kick, with a -3 penalty to hit

I like this idea myself. Would it apply to Ranged weapons as well?

I presume using a tech precludes multi-attacks?


Archmage144
 

Re: Phil Sys Addendum Addition?

Unread postby Archmage144 » Tue Apr 06, 2004 3:58 pm

Sounds brilliant if you ask me. I see no reason why not to implement this--it's a lot like the DnD system for extra attacks.

It shouldn't apply to certain ranged weapons because no one is fast enough to fire a bow multiple times in a round, but thrown missiles such as darts or certain firearms might be perfectly fine.

Finally, on the tech issue--yes, but the thing to consider is that now some techs are obsolete unless they are reworded--a tech that grants two attacks, for example, should grant an extra attack or two "full attack" actions, depending on the strength of the tech. <p>
<div style="text-align:center">Image</div>

</p>

Uncle Pervy
 

Re: Phil Sys Addendum Addition?

Unread postby Uncle Pervy » Tue Apr 06, 2004 6:26 pm

Ducky raises points of excellence.


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

Re: Phil Sys Addendum Addition?

Unread postby Jak Snide » Tue Apr 06, 2004 7:32 pm

That he does, since multi-attack techs are out there. Thanks for the comments, all. I'm not sure how to handle unarmed damage myself. Anyway, two weapons.

My thought is that each weapon earns separate attack points, with the on hand being used purely for offense (with the off hand being fixed at one attack) and the off hand contributing wholly to defense. For example, say you have a rapier and dagger combo (both at rank 12, along with both ambidexterity and two weapon fighting at rank 12 as well). He gets two attacks with the rapier (medium weapon) and one with the dagger, and gets three defense rolls with the dagger. If his ambidex and TW fighting ranks limited his respective weapon ranks (say the pair were at 6) he would only get 1 attack with each weapon, and 2 defense rolls with the dagger.

Now, I'm well aware that this seems damn powerful, but a fighter who only uses one weapon type and duel wields has to, essentially, pay double ranks to duel wield at his weapon level. Add a different weapon in the off hand and the skill point cost is even higher. Even though I say that, though, it still seems a bit powerful. Suggestions, anyone?


JoshuaDurron
 

Re: Phil Sys Addendum Addition?

Unread postby JoshuaDurron » Tue Apr 06, 2004 7:50 pm

Well if what Pervy says is true (and it makes sense, the unarmed damages in the current version of the handbook are quite huge, IMO) then an extra unarmed attack every 8 Ranks seems OK to me.

On the side of two handed fighters, perhaps when they're fighting with two weapons, they gain extra attacks based on their Two Weapon Fighting ranks? To continue the analogy started in the first post of this thread, it would be similar to DnD's Improved Two Weapon Fighting feat. <p>

"Crazy is good." - Luffy, One Piece
</p>

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

Re: Phil Sys Addendum Addition?

Unread postby Jak Snide » Tue Apr 06, 2004 7:58 pm

While at a glance that seemed like a good idea to me, the benefits of taking two weapon fighting to a high rank is simply an extra attack, from what I can see. At low level this is worth the skill investment, but at higher levels it becomes far less useful.


Archmage144
 

Re: Phil Sys Addendum Addition?

Unread postby Archmage144 » Tue Apr 06, 2004 7:59 pm

I don't think it should be required that the off-hand be used purely for defense--that screws those of us who wield dual swords or other such styles of fighting. The off-hand's "penalty" comes from having to spend extra points on the Dual Wielding skill to keep it matched up with the weapon skill. Even considering the associated Ambidexterity requirement, the "off-hand" should not get as many attacks as the primary hand, but limiting the off-hand to one attack seems unreasonable. How about doubling the rank requirements for extra attacks with an off-hand weapon? The rank in question would be the Dual Wield or Two-Weapon Fighting rank, of course. <p>
<div style="text-align:center">Image</div>

</p>Edited by: [url=http://pub30.ezboard.com/brpgww60462.showUserPublicProfile?gid=archmage144>Archmage144</A]&nbsp; Image at: 4/6/04 8:01 pm

JoshuaDurron
 

Re: Phil Sys Addendum Addition?

Unread postby JoshuaDurron » Tue Apr 06, 2004 8:08 pm

I think AM's got it again. Fewer attacks for the off hand makes sense, and is the most flexible in terms of fighting styles. <p>

"Crazy is good." - Luffy, One Piece
</p>

User avatar
Spleen
I put a BOMB inside EVERY BAD GUY!
 
Posts: 2625
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 5:07 pm
Location: Demon Realms of Niu-Jiurzi

Re: Phil Sys Addendum Addition?

Unread postby Spleen » Wed Apr 07, 2004 1:54 pm

I definetely think this would be a great addition to Philsys.

I have one question, though: Would the DEX or AGI of a character have any effect on this? Because I would think it would be a lot easier for a sword-user relying on speed to get an extra attack in than it would for one relying on brute strength. After all, aren't many of the two-attack techs already implemented on character sheets reliant on DEX and AGI? <p>_________________
OLHADO: "You killed more people than anybody in history."
ENDER: "Be the best at whatever you do, that's what my mother always told me."
-Lauro Suleimão "Olhado" Ribeira and Ender Wiggin, Speaker for the Dead</p>

FlamingDeth
Moderator
 
Posts: 2128
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 1:54 am

Re: Phil Sys Addendum Addition?

Unread postby FlamingDeth » Wed Apr 07, 2004 3:28 pm

There's also the issue of the weapon's size. There's really no reason for a huge two handed great axe to be attacking just as fast as a dirk. <p>
<hr width="70%"><center>Superion, Autobot air gestalt, recently died protecting Los Angeles from a nuclear missile. Rest in peace. :(</center></p>

JoshuaDurron
 

Re: Phil Sys Addendum Addition?

Unread postby JoshuaDurron » Wed Apr 07, 2004 3:31 pm

FD: This is why Jak said '6 for every small, 8 for every medium, and 10 for two handed.' What he means is, an extra attack every six ranks with small weapons, every eight ranks for medium weapons, and every ten ranks for two handed weapons. In other words, that ax weilder would have to be substaintially better than the dirk weilder to get his second attack, and by the point the ax user got his second attack, the dirk user would almost have his third. <p>

"Crazy is good." - Luffy, One Piece
</p>

FlamingDeth
Moderator
 
Posts: 2128
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 1:54 am

Re: Phil Sys Addendum Addition?

Unread postby FlamingDeth » Wed Apr 07, 2004 3:34 pm

Exactly! Guess what I missed completely. <p>
<hr width="70%"><center>Superion, Autobot air gestalt, recently died protecting Los Angeles from a nuclear missile. Rest in peace. :(</center></p>

Uncle Pervy
 

Re: Phil Sys Addendum Addition?

Unread postby Uncle Pervy » Wed Apr 07, 2004 7:07 pm

Spleen has a very good point, I think. Could we mix Dex into the equation?

Perhaps Dex+Weapon Rank/Weapon Size, or (Dex/2)+Weapon Rank/Weapon Size?


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

Re: Phil Sys Addendum Addition?

Unread postby Jak Snide » Wed Apr 07, 2004 7:40 pm

I'm not so sure about Dex. While I can see it making a difference for smaller weapons, I can't see how it'd help much concerning heavy, two handed weapons where moving the damn thing fast enough is probably more of an issue.

However, since I don't believe Dex is a base attribute for any melee weapon skill (it's Str/Agi/Cou, isn't it?) perhaps those who dedicate points into it should be rewarded with extra attacks. I'm thinking Dex/2 should be added to the weapon rank for the purpose of calculating extra attacks/defenses for small weapons, Dex/3 for medium weapons, and Dex/4 for two handers, rounding down in all cases. Thus a starting character with Dex 6 and 4 ranks in dagger already has an extra attack (4+3=7). With a longsword (4 ranks) he's a little bit off at 6, and with a two handed weapon (rank 4 again) he's still a ways off at 5.

Also, a separate issue; is it just me, or is it dead easy for even the most unskilled marksman to connect in ranged combat? The average character might have a roll of around 6+d20 (Agi+Cou+d20), when in most cases the gunman's weapon accuracy exceeds that, sometimes by a great deal, before his weapon rank is even added. I'm thinking the dodge roll become more like magic resistance: 10+Agi*2+Int + d20. This gives something in the range of 12-18 for a level 1 character. I'm unsure if Int should be there, but I want to avoid using Courage due to its current status as the most influential stat on a character sheet.


JoshuaDurron
 

Re: Phil Sys Addendum Addition?

Unread postby JoshuaDurron » Wed Apr 07, 2004 7:54 pm

Again, Jak brings up a valid point. Although I'm not sure if Agi should be doubled, since there's already a base of +10, I think this is a better formula than the old one. (Of course, I'd never really thought about it before this...) <p>

"Crazy is good." - Luffy, One Piece
</p>

Archmage144
 

Re: Phil Sys Addendum Addition?

Unread postby Archmage144 » Wed Apr 07, 2004 8:47 pm

Agreement on changing the gun formula. Philsys 2.0, anyone?

With regard to DEX as a factor in influencing attacks per round--I don't really think DEX should affect melee weapons, which are far more about body coordination than they are about hand coordination. DEX for ranged weapons (like firearm extra attacks or thrown missiles) is fine, but perhaps AGI should be used instead when calculating extra attacks for melee weapons. <p>
<div style="text-align:center">Image</div>

</p>

User avatar
Spleen
I put a BOMB inside EVERY BAD GUY!
 
Posts: 2625
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 5:07 pm
Location: Demon Realms of Niu-Jiurzi

Re: Phil Sys Addendum Addition?

Unread postby Spleen » Wed Apr 07, 2004 9:01 pm

Does Dexterity also have coordination as a part of it? I would think that would factor into how many times you can hit something.

Also, how are we going to deal with changing targets between the two attacks? Is there going to be a penalty for that? Is it even going to be possible? <p>_________________
OLHADO: "You killed more people than anybody in history."
ENDER: "Be the best at whatever you do, that's what my mother always told me."
-Lauro Suleimão "Olhado" Ribeira and Ender Wiggin, Speaker for the Dead</p>

Archmage144
 

Re: Phil Sys Addendum Addition?

Unread postby Archmage144 » Wed Apr 07, 2004 9:59 pm

Changing targets, no. And DEX is hand-coordination, not the body coordination required for using a weapon. Trying to catch a thrown baseball would be DEX, while trying to hit a baseball with a bat is AGI. <p>
<div style="text-align:center">Image</div>

</p>

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

Re: Phil Sys Addendum Addition?

Unread postby NamagomiMk0 » Thu Apr 08, 2004 12:10 pm

Actually, speaking of enhanced gun rules, I was thinking of proposing this little addition. Aiming becomes a standard action, and adds some mixture of DEX and INT (and potentially skill) to the mix, at the cost of a round. Too many variables here for me to consider, but I'm under the impression that it should be a standard action. I know some techs are based around aiming, but I don't feel it would make much sense that taking time to aim would cost 2-3 TP.

Scopes and stabilizers could also be added into the mix, I think. Equipping a scope would confer an extra accuracy bonus if you take a turn to aim, but confers a penalty equal to that bonus if the target is in close range (Let's face it. It's hard to aim with a limited field of vision up close). Stabilizers are things like bipod and tripod mounts, which absorb some of the shock of a weapon firing. It reduces the STR requirement for firing (Sorry, carrying STR requirements are still in place for certain guns) and gives an ACC bonus (variable between mounts) for each unnecessary reduction point, with the tradeoff of not being able to move (except for turning to face another target) and fire within the same round.

Additionally, a solution to certain multihit attacks can be twofold. Ones that are meant to be many hits, or "custom combos" (You choose the attack) could have that be the number of "full attacks" or an extra attack, but then there are some which are preset sequences of attacks (Zait being the obvious example), in which a damage multiplier could instead be placed.

Of course, with what has been done before, I feel that all of these ideas are going to get rejected for some godforsaken reason, but I'm putting them out there 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>Edited by: [url=http://b3.ezboard.com/brpgww60462.showUserPublicProfile?gid=namagomimk0>NamagomiMk0</A] at: 4/9/04 9:04 am

Archmage144
 

Re: Phil Sys Addendum Addition?

Unread postby Archmage144 » Thu Apr 08, 2004 4:05 pm

Most of the "aim" techs, for the record, have a cost because they infer a very large bonus or don't require a turn be spent doing the aiming. <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: Phil Sys Addendum Addition?

Unread postby Jak Snide » Thu Apr 08, 2004 8:18 pm

Also, unless I'm mistaken, delaying your action until after someone else has acted that turn confers a 2 bonus. Aiming would come under this, I take it.

As for multi-attack techs, I prefer the idea of extra attacks just being added on. I say scrap fixed sequences of techs in favour of extra attacks. It's far more versatile for the character, and you can conform to the sequence you originally had in most cases.

As for the issue of using Agi for extra attacks I'm not sure. The stat is already incorporated into AT/PA. Then again, so is Str and Cou. I'm still hesitant, but Brain is correct concerning which attribute would help you maneuver a weapon.

Now, concerning extra ranged weapon attacks I'm thinking every 8 ranks for pistols (seeing as they can do up to 40 damage or so per shot) and 10 for rifles, with Dex contributing to pistols by Dex/3 and to Rifles by Dex/4. As for other types of ranged weapons, I see thrown weapons getting extra attacks every 6 ranks with Dex/2 as a bonus, and bows getting an extra attack every 8, with Dex/3 being added. Crossbows I doubt could be fired any faster, although repeating ones could function like a rifle concerning extra attacks. I'm leaning toward bows getting extra attacks since otherwise they're completely outclassed by firearms, and archers gain extra attacks with bows in D&D.

Of course, that leaves crossbows lagging behind, but I'm thinking that at rank 8 or 10 the full action required to reload the crossbow becomes automatic (although it still takes a turn) and at rank 16/20 the reload takes a split second, with the crossbow being ready to fire each turn.


Archmage144
 

Re: Phil Sys Addendum Addition?

Unread postby Archmage144 » Thu Apr 08, 2004 8:41 pm

Keep in mind that in order to have 8 ranks in a stat, you only have to be level 3. That's really not all that high.

Scrapping existing techs in favor of standardized bonus attacks? That goes against the very heart of Philsys. o_o

And with regard to AGI vs. DEX, Philsys has always been a system that was more concerned with attempting to model a logical reality than it was with "balance"--I suppose that in theory there are still a few gripes with the mechanics of the magic system, but those ARE a form of "balance," and it's one of the few places where "balance" is really stressed over "realism." <p>
<div style="text-align:center">Image</div>

</p>

User avatar
Spleen
I put a BOMB inside EVERY BAD GUY!
 
Posts: 2625
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 5:07 pm
Location: Demon Realms of Niu-Jiurzi

Re: Phil Sys Addendum Addition?

Unread postby Spleen » Fri Apr 09, 2004 9:17 am

I would hope we're not basing our magic system on reality XP

Also, do you have to take the time out to aim when using a gun, or could you shoot it right away and just not be as accurate?

Furthermore, standardized bonus attacks are teh suck, especially in a very loose system like Philsys (especially RPGWW Philsys, because now there's two versions) <p>_________________
OLHADO: "You killed more people than anybody in history."
ENDER: "Be the best at whatever you do, that's what my mother always told me."
-Lauro Suleimão "Olhado" Ribeira and Ender Wiggin, Speaker for the Dead</p>

Archmage144
 

Re: Phil Sys Addendum Addition?

Unread postby Archmage144 » Fri Apr 09, 2004 3:55 pm

There will never be two versions of Philsys.

No, you don't have to take time to aim a gun, your turn is sufficient. However, there are certain techs nicknamed "aim" techs that improve your to-hit bonus. <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: Phil Sys Addendum Addition?

Unread postby Jak Snide » Thu Apr 15, 2004 7:24 pm

Sorry to dredge this up again, but I'm wondering if these rules are to be added to the addendum or to be considered "house rules" for use at GM discretion?


Archmage144
 

Re: Phil Sys Addendum Addition?

Unread postby Archmage144 » Thu Apr 15, 2004 8:27 pm

I think that with all the addendum notes we've drawn up, Philsys really needs rewritten. Again. Partly for clarity, partly to include an obscene number of revisions, and partly to allow for some new revisions that sound promising.

Unfortunately, between school and my new job, I'm a little short on time and motivation to do that. Anyone volunteer? <p>
<div style="text-align:center">Image</div>

</p>

JoshuaDurron
 

Re: Phil Sys Addendum Addition?

Unread postby JoshuaDurron » Thu Apr 15, 2004 9:17 pm

o_o If there are no objections, I would be willing. Could I get a .txt or Word formated document of the original Philsys rules? <p>

"Crazy is good." - Luffy, One Piece
</p>

Archmage144
 

Re: Phil Sys Addendum Addition?

Unread postby Archmage144 » Thu Apr 15, 2004 11:19 pm

I'm sure it'd be easy enough to copy and paste the entirety of them off the website and then revise from there. <p>
<div style="text-align:center">Image</div>

</p>

JoshuaDurron
 

Re: Phil Sys Addendum Addition?

Unread postby JoshuaDurron » Sat Apr 17, 2004 12:15 am

And now, since I seem to have been chosen by default, I will ask the following two questions.

1) Are there any other rule changes not reflected on the website, and not in this thread, that I should know about? If so, please post them here.

2) While we're talking about rule changes, I'd like to take issue with the way MDefense is currently calculated. Cou*2+Int+1d20 doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense, and it also grinds one of the existing problems Jak mentioned in deeper: It makes Courage the most rediculously all-inclusive stat in the system. I'd like to propose changing it as follows: Instead of Cou*2+Int, change it to Cou+Int+Sta. Why? Because the tougher someone is, the more difficulty you're going to have affecting their Aura, as Aura is typically taken to represent one's overall durability (and greater durability = greater aura = better MDefense.) Other possibilities: Cou+Int*2 (because people with high intuition can second guess mages better,) Cou+Int+Agi (at least half the time, resisting magic is RPed as evasion), Cou+Int+Wis (the higher your wisdom, the more likely you are to know how to get around magic), Cou+Int+Mag (higher Mag = stronger aura,) OR Int+Sta+Mag/Wis/Agi (thus eliminating Cou entirely.) Thoughts? <p>

"Crazy is good." - Luffy, One Piece
</p>Edited by: [url=http://b3.ezboard.com/brpgww60462.showUserPublicProfile?gid=joshuadurron>JoshuaDurron</A] at: 4/17/04 12:15 am

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

Re: Phil Sys Addendum Addition?

Unread postby Jak Snide » Sun Apr 18, 2004 3:20 pm

I'm personally fond of Int+Sta+Wis/Agi. I'm not sure which to pick for the third stat: on the one hand dodging, on the other knowing how the spell works.

Also, at the moment the calculation is 10+Cou*2+Wis. How about we reduce the base resistance to around 6 and add Int, Sta, Wis and Agi?

EDIT: After talking with Pervy, we've come up with 10+Mag+Wis+Sta. As Lorr said all 3 make sense as to why the spell won't connect, and all three of the stats are far less used on PS sheets than the alternatives.

Edited by: Jak Snide&nbsp; Image at: 4/18/04 3:38 pm

Divinegon2130
 

Re: Phil Sys Addendum Addition?

Unread postby Divinegon2130 » Sun Apr 18, 2004 10:19 pm

Quote:
1) Are there any other rule changes not reflected on the website, and not in this thread, that I should know about? If so, please post them here.

I believe there are the blood magic rules. Rather than re-link the thread, since it's about to be bumped off the OOC forum altogether, let me re-post the rules we've got here so far and get final modifications taken care of in this thread.

Quote:
The ability to try and control blood magic is reflected by a skill called "Blood Magic Control", and the attributes for this skill are MAG/INT/STA. Despite this, the ability that is blood magic is considered inherited, and thus this skill must be present at character creation if the character is to have that ability.

When any puncturing or cutting attacks deal damage within 50 feet of the blood mage, 1/2 of the damage dealt is put into a special "reserve pool" that is effectively extra MP for the blood mage. Every round that there is mana in the "reserve pool", at the end of the round, the mage must make a Blood Magic Control check, with the DC equalling the amount of MP in the "reserve pool". If the check succeeds, the mana stays in that pool, and the blood mage can draw upon it for spells; in fact, all spells besides those of the Benediction and Healing varieties draw from this first. (Healing and Benediction spells, for the most part, do not draw from the blood MP pool, for balance reasons.)

If the check fails, all the mana in the "reserve pool" releases in a burst that extends to 10 feet around the caster. This burst deals (reserve MP) damage to all within its radius.

As a note, the blood mage's standard MP pool is reduced by 33% to account for the need to continually be absorbing mana. This goes for any level-ups the blood mage may attain, as well.

Maximum mana for this pool? (MAG+INT/2)*(Blood Magic Control rank).


Also, since there are quite a few magic types that didn't make their way into the PS spellbook and that I'd consider viable to go in there (I.E. they're not something an exclusive group of characters would have), I'm considering writing an updated version of it when I have the time to include these types - or at least the spells that have been considered for these types (Benediction and Necromancy I know of for certain; any others that aren't very restricted types?). Do people mind me doing this or is it alright? <p>

Image <span style="font-size:medium;"> Quotes of the Moment: </span> <span style="font-size:xx-small;">

=="Yeah, well STUDY THIS!!" - Sonya Blade, "Mortal Kombat"
=="Buckle your seat belt Dorothy, 'cause Kansas is goin' bye bye." - Cypher, "The Matrix"

View my online journal here.
Also, if you have a question about my characters, look here. </span></p>Edited by: Divinegon2130&nbsp; Image at: 4/18/04 11:44 pm

Archmage144
 

Re: Phil Sys Addendum Addition?

Unread postby Archmage144 » Sun Apr 18, 2004 10:35 pm

Wait, you're going to change the present resist formula completely? If anything, all that will do is lower the average magic resistance of PCs, making them very vulnerable to what is already considered to be incredibly dangerous--being blasted in the face by a spell is generally far more harmful than a single sword slice (ignoring the fact that ganging up on someone in PS totally and utterly obliterates them). PvP is something that rarely (if ever) happens, but in any situation where a character with PC-like stats is pitted against present player characters (some of which have made stat selections specifically so they WOULD have good magic resistance), it's going to totally unbalance the system (which has never, for the record, been my primary concern, but in this case it's worth noting). <p>
<div style="text-align:center">Image</div>

</p>

Uncle Pervy
 

Re: Phil Sys Addendum Addition?

Unread postby Uncle Pervy » Mon Apr 19, 2004 12:53 am

I presume barehanded fighters also get multi-hits, right?


JoshuaDurron
 

Re: Phil Sys Addendum Addition?

Unread postby JoshuaDurron » Mon Apr 19, 2004 10:38 am

Pervy: I would presume so.

AM: o_o That's not something I had considered... But then again, this is why we have this thread, no? To hash out concerns over how the system works... perhaps we could eliminate the base resistance all together, and throw Cou back into the mix? <p>

"Crazy is good." - Luffy, One Piece
</p>

Archmage144
 

Re: Phil Sys Addendum Addition?

Unread postby Archmage144 » Mon Apr 19, 2004 4:56 pm

The problem with that is that most people have a COU considerably lower than 10. Let's do some math.

The average 1st level magic user PC is going to have the equivalent of a +4-6 in each of INT, WIS, and MAG. Let's average that out and suggest that they have a total INT+WIS+MAG of 15. 4 ranks in skill brings the total to 19--that's the "average" magic attack roll for a 1st level character.

Let's assume that the average stat is 3--this is for a "balanced" character whose stats are roughly even (with 21 points, this is a reasonable assumption). Therefore, the average level 1 character has a base COU*2+INT of 9. Adding 10, that rounds things out to 19--which means that the average level 1 character has a good shot at defending themselves against another level 1 character throwing a spell. Removing the 10 base resist would result in magic being much, much harder to dodge. When I make NPC monsters, I always balance their "MBlock" (resist roll bonus) around these sorts of averages and numbers.

However, most characters do not have all +3's as their stats. Since all stats start at zero, accomplishing the "on par" magic defense indicated above requires the expenditure of 6 stat points, leaving 15 points to divide amongst the other 7 stats. Requiring three separate stats changes the requirement to 9 points, leaving only 12 points to distribute amongst the other stats--which makes a big difference. And of course, as previously mentioned, changing the stat bases would radically affect how well some characters can defend themselves against magic. COU is a measure of willpower--that's why it was included to begin with.

This is, of course, all musing and notes from experience with the system. <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: Phil Sys Addendum Addition?

Unread postby Besyanteo » Mon Apr 19, 2004 7:54 pm

I've noticed that no one aside from Lorr or Pervy has really commented much on the concept of unarmed attacks getting multihits. Also, if it is done no one's, said anything for or against Lorr's suggested implementation of it. If somehting's been said to the contrary and I simply misread, then Let me know?

Also, an idea was presented to me for unarmed fighters. Due to the style they use, they could easily equip iron knuckles, or a similar weapon, and have it fall within the same fighting category. This way, they would not require a new weapon proficiency to use them, and could do damage comparable to standard weapons.

On the same note, because of the size and use of Knuckle type weapons, it doesn't seem like an AT/PA modifier would be applicable. Perhaps a Dex modifier instead? It's true that the weapon can be removed out of battle, but the same can be said of most any weapon the deals a penalty to it's user. In this case, for the sake of balance, perhaps a GM could find a way to make Dex a little more important in battle?


JoshuaDurron
 

Re: Phil Sys Addendum Addition?

Unread postby JoshuaDurron » Mon Apr 19, 2004 9:02 pm

1) Could we sticky this topic somewhere? Perhaps in the CC (the forum where systems are supposed to be discussed in the first place)? It would make it easier to keep track of.

2) Unarmed strikes are generally considered a light weapon, thus they would be subjected to the same rules as light weapons, including those relating to multi-attacks. As for brass knuckles, or similar weapons, I would suggest that they give a flat bonus to damage, somewhere for +2-4 for normal knuckles, +6 for spikes.

3) OK, perhaps we can hold off on changing the MBlock formula, or let people readjust their stats a little as part of converting to 2.0. Or give MBlock a higher calculation formula. Or lower the MAttack formula. A topic for further dicussion.

4) Totally new, unrelated issue: I seem to recall reading somewhere around the boards that an increase in Stamina during level-up results in a bonus 5+Level HP. Is this so? And if so, do similar rules apply to a Wis or Int increase as to MP?

EDIT: 5) Just noticed Div's post. There is no way in hell I'm messing with the spellbook until the rest of this is sorted out. No offense, but even I don't have that much free time. <p>

"Crazy is good." - Luffy, One Piece
</p>Edited by: [url=http://b3.ezboard.com/brpgww60462.showUserPublicProfile?gid=joshuadurron>JoshuaDurron</A] at: 4/19/04 9:18 pm

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

Re: Phil Sys Addendum Addition?

Unread postby Jak Snide » Mon Apr 19, 2004 9:22 pm

In reply to #4 PCs do receive a bonus to their HP and MP when the stats that determined their base value at creation increase. 5 HP for a stamina point, 5 MP for an Int or Wis point. Also, in the unlikely event that a character's Magic stat rises (as has happened with Rai'm I believe) they get an extra 10MP per Mag point.

Edit: Moved thread and stickied.

Edited by: Jak Snide&nbsp; Image at: 4/19/04 9:22 pm

Next

Return to Character Closet

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron

Yalogank