Post/Author/DateTime	Post
MikeTheAmazingMuskrat 01-06-05, 07:08 PM	Hiya. I'm looking for some criticism or even potential abuses of this ruleset. I'm a big believer in using variant rules to affect game feel and play, and I have been monkeying around with the stuff below for a while. I have playtested this world with two separate groups on seven or so occasions... maybe 25 hours of gameplay? It worked fairly well, but I wanted to post the rules here to generate a larger body of critique. A few real quick things: -This is, as will readily become apparent, a low magic setting. -Most conflict would involve humanoids. Monsters exist, but they aren't going to be popping out of the shadows every time you set up camp for the night. -I'm using 3.0. It doesn't make a huge difference anyway, and I normally use 3.5, but for this I wanted to use 3.0. I'm most interested in opinions on the HP and feat rules, so if you don't feel like going through everything, you can jump right to those two. If anyone is interested in story details or rationale behind certain things, lemme know and I'll post them. Thanks! Without any further blathering... Low Hit Point Rules -One hit die at first level, and every five levels (1,5,10, etc) -Hitdice can either be rolled or a player can take the average number (rounded down). This applies to the level 1 HD, also. -At every non-hitdie level, the character gains just one hitpoint. -Bonus hitpoints for a high Constitution modifier are only applied to hitdice. -For every size category larger than medium, a creature has an additional hitdie. Character Generation -4d6, drop the lowest. -Every character starts play with one additional bonus feat. Thus, a human fighter will have 4 feats at first level. -Every class has one additional skill point -Players can choose one skill to be a class skill for their character Races Half breeds don’t exist, or rather, are so rare that they might as well not. Dwarves exist, but are not the standard variety. I’m not going to post them yet. Elves have no favored class. Gnome favored class is monk. Also, their low light vision is 4x rather than 2x. Their racial combat bonuses are against orcs, and their dodge bonus is against mounted combatants. Halfling favored class is ranger. Orc favored class is fighter. +4 strength, -2 dex, -2 int. Low light vision. +2 racial bonus to Ride checks. Armor and Weapon Proficiency *a note: bucklers are +1, light shields +2, heavy +3 -Weapon proficiencies are gained at 1st character level and further weapon proficiencies can be gained through feats. Multiclassing doesn’t grant additional weapon proficiency. Adepts: No armor, 4 simple weapons. Barbarians: Light armor, all shields (except tower shields), all simple melee, 1 simple ranged, 3 martial melee weapons. Fighters: Armsman- All armor and shields, all simple and martial melee weapons. Archer- Light armor and bucklers, all simple and martial ranged weapons, 3 simple melee weapons, 1 martial melee weapon. Paladins: All armor and shields, 4 simple weapons, 3 martial weapons. Rangers: Light armor, all shields (except tower shields), all simple ranged weapons, 3 martial weapons. Rogues: Light armor, bucklers, light shields, four weapons from the rogue list. Classes -No bard, cleric, druid, sorcerer or wizard. -Adept is a player class, with the addition of one domain chosen from Air, Animal, Chaos, Earth, Evil, Fire, Good, Law, Plant or Water. Also, at 20th level, Adepts have one 6th level domain slot, in addition to their normal spells per day. -Barbarian rage provides one temporary hit point per class level. These hit points disappear when the rage ends. -Fighter has two subclasses: armsman and archer. Players choose one. -Paladins lay-on-hands for their Charisma modifier, +1/level. -Rangers can substitute Point Blank Shot and Farshot for Ambidexterity and Two Weapon Fighting. Also, Ambi and TWF can be used with double weapons. -Rogue sneak attack does a flat +2 for every odd level of the class, rather than 1d6. Feats -Every character is considered to have Expertise and Power Attack as a combat option, regardless of whether the prerequisites are met. Feats that require Expertise or Power Attack still have ability requirements. -Feats that provide a bonus can be taken up to three times. The bonuses stack. However, if a feat provides a bonus higher than +1, subsequent bonuses will be half of the original (rounded down). Thus, a character with improved initiative three times will have a +8 to its initiative check: +4, +2, +2. -Improved Trip, Improved Disarm, Overrun, Bull Rush, Sunder, etc provide a +2 bonus on the associated rolls and checks. -Empower is +2, Maximize is +1. Magic and Spells -Spells that refer to hitdice affect hitdice, not level. -Damage spells deal the normal die, plus one per level of caster. Thus, burning hands does 1d4 and an additional +1 per level (to a max of +5). I might change this around a little bit. Static damage? +2 per level? Not sure yet. I’ve been using the die+level in playtest. -Cure and Inflict spells have a casting time of 1 full round. Also, they only affect 1d8+1 hp per level of spell (a la 2nd Ed.) Thus, a cure moderate heals 2d8+2 hp and doesn’t take effect until just prior to the caster’s next turn. -Lesser Planar Binding is added as a 3rd level spell to the Adept list. A planar binding can be cast without a magical trap. -I have to play around with turning and rebuking. Probably something along the lines of a contested level check. -mike the amazing muskrat
MikeTheAmazingMuskrat 01-09-05, 08:10 PM	Nothin', eh? -mike the amazing muskrat
MikeTheAmazingMuskrat 01-10-05, 01:02 AM	Oh. Oh, yeah. There are no base attack prerequisites for feats, either. I make use of that for NPCs equally. -mike the amazing muskrat
evangelion1010 01-12-05, 09:31 PM	I really don't like them. You randomly nerf things, give 2 bonus combat feats to everyone, even though only a few classes will use them. Not to mention that a level 20 wizard can still be felled by a lucky critical, especially from a fighter. Assuming average HP of 2.5 hp/HD, a con of 14, he'd have 34 hp at level 20. (4*2.5 + 16*1 + 4*2). I find it hard to keep characters alive with twice that many HP at half that level, and i've got all d6 and d8 HD. The wizard and bard can easily be felled with one round of attacks from most creatures, unless they have mirror image up. You further nerf casters by not even really having them in your game, then have your insane HP rules, with full round casting for healing spells. Must be real fun to play a healer in your campaign, with almost no HP (i assume you give adepts a d4 or d6 HD), being forced to be in the front lines healing the fighter, as a full round action. I do like the bonus skills, i don't know about the bonus feat, but its needed in your campaign, if only for toughness (which you probably say is +1 hp total). I totally agree with the weapon/armor proficiencies - finally something that makes a rogue 1/fighter 1 not totally superior to a fighter 1/rogue 1. Looking at these, i think you like PC death. The 4th level caster needs to worry about the mobs of rats, for fear that one might get a critical and kill him. Realistic, yes, fun....well, its not my cup of tea...
MikeTheAmazingMuskrat 01-20-05, 09:30 PM	dUde. Thanks for your comments. You bring up some good points, and I'd like to address them. First off, yes, I do nerf a few things, but not (at least I hope not) randomly. Let me do what I should have done in the beginning and outline what I'm trying to accomplish with these variants. Ok. Here goes. I am indeed trying to create a more realistic set of mechanics, but I don't want to eliminate the heroic aspect of the game. I want getting clobbered in the head with a heavy flail to be bad, no matter what level your character is. I want combat to be quick, dirty, and just a bit terrifying. However, I also want the characters to be able to achieve truly magnificent feats of skill and prowess, and I want to enable a player with the tools necessary to make their character not just accomplished, but expert at something (thus the stacking of feats). Perhaps the hit point rules make combat a bit too terrifying. I haven't had any complaints from players in that regard, but maybe they were just being polite (the bastards). I also want to encourage players to make use of skills that they might otherwise ignore. Thus, the one chosen class skill and the extra skill points. My hope is that more skill points will allow players to feel free to spend ranks in some of the less regarded things... Knowledge Geography, Decypher Script, Read Lips, Handle Animal, etc etc. Those are my goals. Perhaps my implementation is off. I'm still definitely interested in feedback. Speaking of implementation... I included Expertise as a general combat option because I felt that a more experienced combatant should be able to better defend herself, regardless of whether her Int is 13 or not. I included Power Attack because I wanted someone to be able to exchange accuracy for damage. If I can do that, a character should be able to...and, uh... I really liked the idea of a halfling adept, out of spells, winding up to crack a human across the back of the knees with an oaken quarterstaff, Babe Ruth style. Healing: A combat healer, as you pointed out, is a difficult concept with these rules. That was my intention. A lucky critical could certainly kill a 20th level adept. The adept could put to sleep a 20th level fighter. Three notes before I move on to new material: Feats should be useful, not stupid. Toughness is still +3 hp. Skill Focus is +3. If I liked PC death, I wouldn't bother making up new rule variants. I'd just stomp the PCs with stupidly high CRs. I suppose the low hp rules do lend themselves to that conclusion, though. All right. I was discussing the orc stats with one of my players and they thought the stat bumps weren't quite balanced. I was thinking of changing it from- Orc favored class: fighter. +4 strength, -2 dex, -2 int. Low light vision. +2 racial bonus to Ride checks to- Orc favored class: fighter. +4 strength, -2 dex, -2 int. Low light vision. +4 racial bonus to Ride checks. Dark Vision 10 ft. First, is the latter version balanced? Second, if not, how can I reflect my version of the orcish race? The orcs are, in this setting, a race of horsemen. Their combat tactics aren't very complex, but they are effective. They make use of their mounted speed to outmaneuver larger groups of assailants and get themselves quickly into positions where they can make use of their great strength. I see them as terrifying night time opponents, also, but their senses aren't overly keen (thus the short range dark vision). I want them to be great, lumbering brutes that become majesticly moving figures when upon their mounts. Another long post. I wouldn't bother posting at all, but there are so many views that someone's gotta be reading this stuff. I appreciate it. Any more feedback, negative or positive, would also be appreciated. Thanks, -mike the amazing muskrat
yeloson 01-21-05, 11:18 PM	Hi Mike, Sorry to come late to the party, but I like the idea of Power Attack & Expertise being available to everyone. Basically- you're opening up new options and tactics for folks in the midst of combat, and they're going to need the extra control to offset the lack of hit point buffer that they'll be getting. You will need to seriously consider some of the damage levels of spells and monsters though, because without the extra HP, things get ugly really fast. You may wish to also grant that everybody gets Sneak Attack at +1D6, for realism, as an unguarded attack can do some serious damage. You might want to NOT have that count for flanking though, because it gets way too powerful. Also be wary of flat footedness, because it could mean that a bad initiative roll could leave someone dead real quick. (Realistic? Depends on the circumstances...) In regards to the Feats options- I think it works well, but you got to have an incentive for folks to take the option to double up on the same feat. I'd recommend increasing how often Feats are earned, perhaps every other level. Otherwise, I (personally) would probably keep taking stuff like Toughness to offset the hitpoint modification(that would be one to apply diminishing returns to). Another issue is that you may wish to seriously consider adding a "tactics" bonus or better define the +2/-2 suggestion in the main book. Because players won't be able to rely on hitpoints to shield them as much, you (and they) are going to want them to be using more strategy and tactics within each combat round to improve their odds of survival. The final concern you might want to take into account is either significantly upping non-combat xp rewards or reducing the amount of xp necessary to level up. If you want people using skills and things other than combat- reward it. A simple method might be to reward xp equal the DC of any skill used (or what they rolled, if they failed). This would be a minimal encouragement for the use of skills though I would probably reward DC x 2 or more in XP to make it more worthwhile. Rewarding failure would be realistic, in that people learn from both success AND failure (or don't learn, but they tend to do it equally, depending on if they're a fast learner or not, talent, life experience, etc.). Also- a personal house rule I'm applying to my game eliminates healing potions as the instant cure. Instead, I have 2 healing items- 1) A salve that heals 1 hp/minute(up to the effective Cure Wounds roll). The healing stops if you get physically active while its doing its work. 2) A potion that heals instantly like a Cure Potion- except there's a 50% chance that the healing is temporary hp(and the player doesn't know which) AND it also has a percent chance of throwing the imbiber's body into shock and killing them on the spot(and that percent increases the more you imbibe in a week). It's basically like shooting yourself full of morphine or PCP... Though both of these work much better than most anything we have in real life- they still don't allow folks to charge into battle strapped with a bandolier of potions and guzzle while fighting. You might want to rule that all healing magic works like the salve idea- which would make it a good option between fights, but not during. Chris
evangelion1010 01-23-05, 11:09 PM	I think it just gives far too much to randomness - the caster gets hit by 2-3 attacks, and simply drops. One round, from full hp to dead... or if its a lucky hit, only 1. Its realistic, to some degree. I just don't care for the fighter with 25+ feats running around, master of every combat style known to man, yet if two thugs beat his initiative, and manage to hit him, he may be nearly dead. I'm not familar with your DM style, but if it was any of the games i've played, there would be 1-3 player deaths/session. But if it works for you and your players, more power to you.
strenoth 01-24-05, 02:11 AM	Just a thought, regarding this line in particular: -Spells that refer to hitdice affect hitdice, not level. Well, with hitdice being only 1/5 roughly, the moment yoru cleric learns Holy Word (level 13), yoru cleric can kill any evil person with 3 or fewer HD instantly, no save Oh lookie, all level 14 and below NPCs have fewer than 3 HD by your rules. That's a lot of dead evil NPCs. and at 14th level, they can kill any 19th level or lower evil person. at 15th level, they can kill epic powered 24th level evil wizards, with no saving throw allowed! I think you get the idea here.
MikeTheAmazingMuskrat 01-24-05, 03:37 AM	Hey. Thanks for the responses. I'll write up something longer tomorrow, but I just wanted to address this real quick before I headed off to bed: Just a thought, regarding this line in particular: Quote: -Spells that refer to hitdice affect hitdice, not level. Well, with hitdice being only 1/5 roughly, the moment yoru cleric learns Holy Word (level 13), yoru cleric can kill any evil person with 3 or fewer HD instantly, no save Yes. You're absolutely right. But, uh, there are no clerics. Check out the very first item in the class section. Paladin, ranger and adept-with-domain are the only spell casting classes. Regardless, thank you. Those are the sort of potential abuses that I want to look out for. Right now, the biggest spell related concern I have is with Sleep. I need to play around a bit with the level mod for Max and Empower, too. -mike the amazing muskrat
nick012000 01-24-05, 05:11 AM	I don't like your style of play (I like high-power, high-magic), but hey. You might want to check out the Magewright from Eberron. Because there is no Arcane casting there at all. Rogue with UMD and a Wand of Maximized Magic Missle (9th caster level, 13,500 gp) kills everyone automatically. Two or three rounds tops.
MikeTheAmazingMuskrat 01-24-05, 12:38 PM	I don't like your style of play (I like high-power, high-magic), but hey. I feel that perhaps people think I'm trying to push this rule set as some sort of "fix" to the system. That's not my intention. Sometimes I just like a change of pace, or a game that (hopefully) accentuates different aspects of roleplaying. You might want to check out the Magewright from Eberron. Because there is no Arcane casting there at all. I hadn't thought about that. Good idea. The fact that there is no arcane casting doesn't bother me so much, since the way I see magic working in this setting involves a more divine aspect. The Magewright might be interesting to put in, though. Thanks. Rogue with UMD and a Wand of Maximized Magic Missle (9th caster level, 13,500 gp) kills everyone automatically. Two or three rounds tops. Yes, but where's he going to get that Wand of Maximized Magic Missile? From a wizard? Once more, thanks for looking out for abuse, though. I appreciate it. -mike the amazing muskrat
MikeTheAmazingMuskrat 01-24-05, 12:44 PM	One of my players sent an email. I'll just cut and paste. having not registed on wiz.com you can quote me as a random player who is too lazy to go through internet ********: having played in the sys i have to say i liked it. it is hard to ge ta good view of the gameplay just from the rules, but it is possible. scaredy cats take options like ranged weapons, sneaking about, mounts, poisons, companions, the limited magic that exists and traps. if youre not scared, you really should be. player deaths are definitely a possibility, but not a nessesity, magic becomes something extraordinary and well... magical instead of mundane (oh yeah lets just get him raised from the dead, we're over 10th level) and intrigue becomes a huge part of the game. combats are shortened in length and quick thinking and elaborate plans become the focus of the game. it indeed takes on a more storyteller system feeling. there are many things i like (the added power attack and expertise options) and the fact that monsters are really monsterous. maybe too monsterous, youll be needing to tweak some special abilities. think of something that can cast magic missile at will... not really appropriately CR'ed for your game IMHO. i also have a thing about proficiency in particular weapons. i like restricting it (especially at 1st level), but maybe do it by categories (reference 2nd ed fighters handbook), or make # of proficient weapons be some function of your starting class and current base attack instead of additional feats. i like the healing salve and temporary healing potion idea, and it might not be a bad idea to play it the same way with adepts CLW as yeloson mentioned. your going to run into problems with feats being overpowered on occassion, and you might want to blatantly mention the optional parry feats for fighters that want to live. monks are going to kick some serious ass with their incredible saves, healing, skills and special powers (which is hard to come by in your game) and REALLY REALLY DEADLY FISTS. animal friendship really needs to be rewritten, or something i think too. and leadership is especially dangerous when your 1st level minions can wipe your 10th level enemy. umm.. other than that, it was fun. I just want to add that his group was playing goblins. -mike the amazing muskrat
MikeTheAmazingMuskrat 01-24-05, 01:34 PM	Hi Mike... You will need to seriously consider some of the damage levels of spells and monsters though, because without the extra HP, things get ugly really fast. Yes, you're absolutely right. I'm not quite sure yet how I'll handle monsters. Spells, I have a clearer idea on. I was thinking of doing something like 1dx +1/caster level with the usual caps, where x is the original dietype of the spell. So, lightning bolt would deal 1d6+10 at tenth level. That might in fact be a bit low. Maybe 1d6 per two caster levels? I haven't quite decided. We've been playing with the 1dx +1/level, but we've also been playing at 4th level. I think the power level of at least the higher level spells might need to be tweaked. 1d6 +2/level for lightning bolt? It's a 3rd level spell for the adept, who can get that at 8th level provided they have a wisdom of 16 or higher. Otherwise, they'd have to wait until 9th. Assuming Con 14 and toughness taken once, HP looks something like: Adept: 26, Barbarian: 35, Fighter: 32, Monk 29, Paladin: 32, Ranger: 32, Rogue: 26 If everyone fails their reflex saves, no one dies unless damage from the 1d6 +2/level lightning bolt does above average damage, but they're hurtin', a lot. Eh. Maybe that's too much damage. Then again, it is an Adept... 1d6 +1/level just seems too weak, though. What do you think? You may wish to also grant that everybody gets Sneak Attack at +1D6, for realism, as an unguarded attack can do some serious damage. Huh. That's interesting. I'll have to playtest it. I was thinking that a free attack would be reward enough in and of itself. In regards to the Feats options- I think it works well, but you got to have an incentive for folks to take the option to double up on the same feat. I'd recommend increasing how often Feats are earned, perhaps every other level. Otherwise, I (personally) would probably keep taking stuff like Toughness to offset the hitpoint modification(that would be one to apply diminishing returns to).[QUOTE] Yes, or perhaps I need to retool how the bonuses work. +3 for skill focus isn't bad, but taking it again for only +1 is pretty lame. I could try subsequent bonuses having full effect, instead of half rounded down. I am reluctant to give a feat every other level. I don't want to PCs to be masters of everything, but I do want them to be able to focus to a greater degree. Maybe I'll write up bonus feat lists for each class, and provide bonus feats every five levels or so, in addition to the standard one per three. That way, I can control to some degree how a particular class can focus. I don't want the rogue to be able to become a better fighter than the fighter. If a rogue wants to become more combat oriented, then it should take levels of fighter. [QUOTE=yeloson]The final concern you might want to take into account is either significantly upping non-combat xp rewards or reducing the amount of xp necessary to level up. I try to be fairly heavy handed with non combat xp. Characters gain xp based upon goals and challenges, whether they be physical or not. Good point. I like your cure potion rules. I think I'll give them a try, if you don't mind. I don't think I'd apply it to the cure spells themselves, though. I feel that the 1 round casting time will eliminate most combat casting, but still make it possible in desperate situations. Hey, man. Better late to the party than never. Thanks a bunch. -mike the amazing muskrat
yeloson 01-24-05, 03:49 PM	Hi Mike, Lightning & Magic In regards to the lightning bolt issue, the question you have to ask yourself is if A) "realistic/gritty"(whatever you want) means that even high level people die when hit by lightening, or if B) it's magical enough that this person is throwing around lightning? A would mean upping the damage. B would mean well, people have been known to survive lightning, and the fact that an unarmed person could throw a nasty bolt of lightning which will probably kill most people, and be a nasty counterattack to a mob of folks in metal armor...Your call. Monsters As far as monsters, reducing their damage would probably be keyed off of hit dice and size. Though "realistically" size would make a huge difference. Getting stepped on by a elephant will cripple if not kill you. I'd rework and just change monster damage to the most appropriate equivalent of weapons. "Hmm, I'd say an alligator's bite is about as nasty as a scythe..." and then add bonuses for size, etc. You will also probably want to lower some of the monster's hit points as well. Feats It's an iffy thing. If people keep taking a skill focus type feat at full power, you get really high skills in specialized areas. Which can be good, but also can get really hard to adjucate. At a certain point you have the "Spiderman" thief who can climb anything, with or without tools, and that might be too "unrealistic" for what you're going for. On the other hand, if I am only getting feats once every 3 levels(aside from class bonus feats), I'm probably going to take anything and everything to assure my survival, and skill feats would get neglected. Again, your call how you want to handle that. Cure Potions Feel free to use it. It still provides very powerful magical healing, in that for the salves, in a few minutes you go from dying to standing, but still it takes time. The "morphine" style potions I mentioned work along these lines: 1) GM rolls % in secret 2) If the % is under (# of potions imbibed in the last 7 days), then the drinker goes into shock and begins dying. (Cures against poison, slow poison might help). 3) If the % is over that, but under 50%, then the hitpoints are temporary and will fade after 1D10 minutes. You can look at the one's die of the % roll to pull how long that will be. 4) If the % is over 50%, then the imbiber is healed the appropriate amount, and is all good. If you wanted to get more nasty with it, potions that heal more hitpoints may have higher chance of overdosing you. This basically means players have to think about getting away from combat to let the salves do their work, or else popping crazy potions that risk death everytime they take one, and might not really work. Chris
Neoatomic 01-24-05, 09:17 PM	I think the addition of DR from Armor would be a good Variant to use, Normal D&D makes it seem like just because you wear Armor, attacks are going to miraculously miss you, very unrealistic. I mainly prefer DR because you can also have players keep track of the damage to thier armor, thus making Blacksmithing a useful skill. It also makes Gold more valuable players since they will have to save money in order to have armor Repaired or to buy a new set. Seroiusly, If you want to play a real game where you actually fear for your Characters life, You have to play a Low Magic Setting!!!!!!
MikeTheAmazingMuskrat 01-24-05, 11:56 PM	Lightning & Magic In regards to the lightning bolt issue, the question you have to ask yourself is if A) "realistic/gritty"(whatever you want) means that even high level people die when hit by lightening, or if B) it's magical enough that this person is throwing around lightning? To be honest, what I'm most concerned with is maintaining balance for the adept. It is the only full caster in a world of low magic, so that certainly gives it's otherwise lame-O-NPC class abilities a bit more appeal. People probably aren't immediately familiar with the adept, so I'll post it below. +1 BAB per two levels Good Will Save d6 for hp Divine, Wis based caster. Summon Familiar at 2nd level ALSO: I added one Domain choice for the adept, chosen from any of the four elements, any of the four alignments, plant or animal. At 20th level, the adapt gains access to a 6th level domain spell slot. Class Skills: The adept’s class skills (and the key ability for each skill) are Alchemy (Int), Concentration (Con), Craft (Int), Handle Animal (Cha), Heal (Wis), Knowledge (all skills taken individually) (Int), Profession (Wis), Scry (Int, exclusive skill), Spellcraft (Int), and Wilderness Lore (Wis). Table: The Adept ---------Spells per Day --------- Level 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th - --- --- --- --- --- 1st 3 1 - - - - 2nd 3 1 - - - - 3rd 3 2 - - - - 4th 3 2 0 - - - 5th 3 2 1 - - - 6th 3 2 1 - - - 7th 3 3 2 8th 3 3 2 0 - - 9th 3 3 2 1 - - 10th 3 3 2 1 - - 11th 3 3 3 3 2 - 12th 3 3 3 2 0 13th 3 3 3 2 1 14th 3 3 3 2 1 - 15th 3 3 3 3 2 - 16th 3 3 3 3 2 0 17th 3 3 3 3 2 1 18th 3 3 3 3 2 1 19th 3 3 3 3 3 2 20th 3 3 3 3 3 2 Adept Spell List 0 level-create water, cure minor wounds, detect magic, ghost sound, guidance, light, mending, purify food and drink, read magic. 1st level-bless, burning hands, cause fear, command, comprehend languages, cure light wounds, detect chaos, detect evil, detect good, detect law, endure elements, obscuring mist, protection from chaos, protection from evil, protection from good, protection from law, sleep. 2nd level-aid, animal trance, bull's strength, cat's grace, cure moderate wounds, darkness, delay poison, endurance, invisibility, mirror image, resist elements, see invisibility, web. 3rd level-animate dead, bestow curse, contagion, continual flame, cure serious wounds, daylight, deeper darkness, lightning bolt, neutralize poison, remove curse, remove disease, tongues. 4th level-cure critical wounds, minor creation, polymorph other, polymorph self, restoration, stoneskin, wall of fire. 5th level-break enchantment, commune, heal, major creation, raise dead, true seeing, wall of stone. As all of the damage dealing spells are unique to the adept spell list, I want to try to make the class balanced. I mean. Come on. It's an NPC class. It doesn't get a lot of spells per day. It is, however, the only class that has full caster progression. Point. The spells it does have can't be totally lame, but they can't be broken, either. I'm currently favoring a 1 die per two caster levels progression for the damaging spells. 5d6 for lightning bolt at 10th level? 17.5 damage on average. Maybe I'll make it 1d6 +1d6/2 caster levels. Maybe, just maybe, I'll take the time to rewrite some of them, instead. Oi. Monsters You will also probably want to lower some of the monster's hit points as well. Oh, definitely! Lest there be confusion, I use the same HP rules for monsters than the PCs have. A large, con 18, 15 HD dragon would turn into a 5 HD dragon (1 for 1st level, 1 for large size, 1 for every five levels) with +1 hp for each dragon level that didn't get a hit die. It comes out to be something like 61 HP instead of 157 (I take half round down for monstrous HD hp). Rather than scaling monster strength and damage, I think I might instead modify the CR. Less work and I won't have to worry as much about reducing a huge monster to an otherwise silly strength score. I have also been going through the monster damage dice, but so far many of them are reasonable. I figured a troll's massive clawed hands would rend someone about as well as a short sword, and lo and beyond, they do 1d6. Cure Potions Feel free to use it. Cool. Thanks for the details. -mike the amazing muskrat
MikeTheAmazingMuskrat 01-25-05, 12:08 AM	I think the addition of DR from Armor would be a good Variant to use Ah, dUde. That's an excellent idea! I'll see how it works. Seroiusly, If you want to play a real game where you actually fear for your Characters life, You have to play a Low Magic Setting!!!!!! Yeah, s'what I feel. I hope this one works. :D -mike the amazing muskrat
yeloson 01-25-05, 01:03 AM	Hi Mike, The adept seems fine by me. There's only 4 features about spellcasters in D&D that instantly kick the world up into high fantasy, and that is the ability to make magic items(including potions/scrolls), the insta-healing, wishes, and raising the dead. These 4 things alter the reality of the game world to such a degree that plausibly having a world anything like our own becomes impossible. But, without that, spellcasters pretty much balance themselves out. Rather than scaling monster strength and damage, I think I might instead modify the CR. The only thing I'd be careful of is animals. While many natural animals can quite easily maul people to death, you might just want to double check some of the ratings so you don't have attack dogs from hell. Chris
MikeTheAmazingMuskrat 01-25-05, 01:08 AM	Some questions for everyone: 1) Would you play an Adept in this setting? I feel kinda... dirty asking that. 2) Is this verison of orc balanced at ecl +0: Orc favored class: fighter. +4 strength, -2 dex, -2 int. Low light vision. +4 racial bonus to Ride checks. Dark Vision 10 ft. 3) What do you think about allowing in Greater Spell Penetration and Greater Spell Focus? I think I'd modify at least GSF so that it provided an additional bonus, instead of an increased bonus- stacking at +2 +2 instead of an overlapping with +4. Thus, taking it additional times wouldn't give a caster ridiculous saving throw DCs. You could take Spell focus three times for +2, +1, +1, and GSF for another +2, +1, +1. Ok, maybe that is a ridiculous save DC anyway, but it cost six feats. I'm less worried about adepts blasting through SR. 4) A test run. A hill giant would have 41 HP in this setting. It's melee is +16/+11, 2d8+10 with a greatclub. Ranged attack is +8, 2d6+7. What CR do you think it should be? you guys have come up with some very insightful suggestions and comments. I keep saying this...thanks! -mike the amazing muskrat
MikeTheAmazingMuskrat 01-25-05, 11:38 PM	From my lazy player again: [SNIP!] id be tempted to make ac more like a dodge pool, and offer damage resistance to armor in lieu of ac bonuses. figure something like 1/piercing, slashing for padded, 1/bludgeon for leather, 2/- for chain and yaddah yaddah yaddah. would make dex fighters and heavy list fighters much different. would prolly keep people alive for longer in stick fights. i dunno, just some more thoughts, seems like it would give pcs a new approach to surviving the deadly combat, as well as help out monsters (figure natural armors also to be transferred). also if you keep track of armor points then it makes craft(armoring) that much more widely used. so though more to keep track of armor becomes specialized for combat with a DR, armor points and suceptability. there is alot of complexity in weapons already, the same in armor is really only to be expected. the list is pretty short, just figure out what armor is good against. IMHO you only need include SPB, and not elemental/other damage. that being said, you could do funky things too like throw in armor alchemical items that allow their DR to apply across to these things, cooling gel on your platemail helps you run through fires... etc. after looking at spell lists im thinkin about thinkg like "what ever happened to scry"? seems like adepts should be all about it(then i thought about crystal balls and THEN i thought about how only monsters could make them... then i was happy again... then i thought about dragons being considered sorcerors of a certain level based on age, and i was scared... again. because sorceror spells were there... just in the hands of tooth and fire, then i thought how it is called dungeons and dragons and how well... with arcane spells dragons yet again end up being the most powerful beings in the world... and then i smiled... again) . got me wondering if you should think of allowing some kind way to get new spells. what about possible prestige classes for an adept that allows him to access different spells or what not. so long as it was dm managed, itd work out i think. thought 1: offer a feat that allows you to take any spell you want, and dm chooses one of your current spells of equal power to swap it out with. if you ask for wish, it is a waste of a feat... lets be honest. its also a bit of a regulated feat, cause asking for the above mentioned scry could gimp your lightning bolt. thought 2: offer adepts more spells, but take somethign away from them for wanting it. maybe it makes you crazy (-2 wis), or shatters your health (-2 fort) or maybe it takes your life force (-5 hp, not much elsewhere, but here it is deadly) or what not. i like the thought of this for any of the casters actually, and it would allow you to use some non-core rules. and the gm always wins, snicker snicker. where does magic come from in your system? is it from the gods? are there gods? is it from some other powerful beings? what are spells? just some questions for worldbuilding more than anything else. im getting the urge to play an adept. when i saw that make undead is on the evil list, i got excited. kinda wanna play some evil cult member. i think the sys is great for city campaigns, kinda reminds me of a more put together old school warhammer. ps- if you do DR for armors it makes fighters more deadly, cause they can use a wider range of weapons... just a thought. in a way fighters have an uphill battle. if it were me, id ride monk or barb til i get DR, or id go parrying fighter. [/SNIP!] -mike the amazing muskrat
BrianD 01-26-05, 12:01 AM	Looks interesting. Have you considered implementing some kind of variation on the VP/WP system with this? Also, take a gander at the mage class in my signature. Mechanically, it's just a non-musical bard, but in a low-magic setting it makes a fine primary arcane caster.
yeloson 01-26-05, 03:03 AM	Hi Mike, 1) Would you play an Adept in this setting? I feel kinda... dirty asking that. I could see it, especially if they're the only magic using characters. I would probably pad them with some multiclass options like Fighter or Rogue to keep them survivable. 2) Is this verison of orc balanced at ecl +0: Orc favored class: fighter. +4 strength, -2 dex, -2 int. Low light vision. +4 racial bonus to Ride checks. Dark Vision 10 ft. Your orcs are really, really buff. You might want to check the fact that they'll have a (basically) +2 to hit and +2 to damage in a setting with low hit points already. If anyone(including yourself) goes to min/max, you got orcs starting with 20-22 Str out the gate... 3) What do you think about allowing in Greater Spell Penetration and Greater Spell Focus? I think I'd modify at least GSF so that it provided an additional bonus, instead of an increased bonus- stacking at +2 +2 instead of an overlapping with +4. Thus, taking it additional times wouldn't give a caster ridiculous saving throw DCs. You could take Spell focus three times for +2, +1, +1, and GSF for another +2, +1, +1. Ok, maybe that is a ridiculous save DC anyway, but it cost six feats. I'm less worried about adepts blasting through SR. I think if it doesn't give the big bonus, you probably won't see mages taking it that much. There's way more important feats they'll need to take to survive- such as Toughness. Up to you how you want to swing that. 4) A test run. A hill giant would have 41 HP in this setting. It's melee is +16/+11, 2d8+10 with a greatclub. Ranged attack is +8, 2d6+7. What CR do you think it should be? I'm probably the last person to ask about this, as I'm a big fan of quick leveling, plus I don't dig the CR's as they stand already. Just think of this, if you had 4 characters, at what level would they be able to take this guy? Remember, he does an average of 19 pts per hit, and if you don't have a lot of magical armor, he's guaranteed to hit twice every turn. Also, if there's no magical weapons, attack damage is going to be pretty low. I'd probably start calling CRs at least 50% higher than what's in the book, maybe more depending on how the system tweaks actually play. Chris
BrianD 01-26-05, 03:36 AM	Here's something to consider, since yeloson mentioned multiclassing for survivability: if you only roll for hit points at every 5th level, wouldn't it make sense to take a high HD class like fighter for that?
starfire311 01-26-05, 12:16 PM	I was thinking of that too about teh half orc. 1st level half orc barbarian with 22 str raging upto 26 wielding a Great sword say he takes WF so at first level he will have a +10 to hit and will deal 2D6+12 or 19 points on average looking at average fighter HP at 5th level with con 14 has (2D10+4 con+4 level) 19 HP at 5th level. Assume AC of 21(+8 full plate, +2 shield, +1 Dex) this fighter has a 50% chance of being hit and an average hit will drop him. So if your 5th level party were to fight a goup of 1st level half-orc barbarians there is a good chance that at least on PC will die, odds are one will die if not more. If you did the encounter say 20 times there is a chance that the group of 1st level NPCs will beat the group of 5th level PCs. I think that a group of 5th level PCs should ahve almost no chance of losing encounter vs 4 1st level NPCs, actually I think it would be rare that a PC would be killed in a straight up fight like this, but using this system you are gaurenteed to lose one PC every encounter if not more. If you don't then A) your PCs are incredibly lucky, or B) you are pulling your punches.
starfire311 01-26-05, 12:19 PM	Here's something to consider, since yeloson mentioned multiclassing for survivability: if you only roll for hit points at every 5th level, wouldn't it make sense to take a high HD class like fighter for that? Absolutly, why is it that my Rogue just happens to take a level of barbarian every 5 levels, it is just kismet I gues.
MikeTheAmazingMuskrat 01-26-05, 03:16 PM	if you only roll for hit points at every 5th level, wouldn't it make sense to take a high HD class like fighter for that? Hehe. Excellent question, guys. If a character is multiclassed, I have the player roll one die for each level of each class and then take the average. It is a bit cumbersome, but I figure that since they'll only be rolling hitdice every five levels, it wouldn't be too obnoxious. I'm going to address the orc issue and the 1st level vs 5th level encounter that Firestar brought up when I get home tonight, but let me just point out that these are full orcs, not half-orcs. Full orcs by the book are +4 Str, -2 Int, -2 Wis, -2Cha, darvision 60ft, dazzled in bright light. However, ya, given the nature of HP in this game, maybe I should knock the orcish strength down a bit, or at least try to balance it out with something else. -mike the amazing muskrat
Derren S. 01-26-05, 03:36 PM	I don't see how this can work. The death rate at lower levels among players would be extreme. Two kobolds with crossbows could mean a TPK even to a 4th level party. If you want a really realistic setting, I would suggest a different system than D&D. (Rolemaster so whatever)
Lina_Inverse 01-26-05, 03:42 PM	A.this is not realistic.you do not die from being poked in the arm with a crossbow bolt in real life. B.you hate your players huh?
yeloson 01-26-05, 03:55 PM	Hi, Technically the entire hit point concept is not realistic at all. And, you could catch a crossbow bolt and bleed out from getting hit in the artery in a few short minutes. Or you could catch gangrene or blood infection and die hours to days later. Therefore, getting too deep into "realism" as an issue is pretty pointless. Could kobolds with crossbows kill folks, sure! Could humans hunt and kill mammoths and whales using spears and harpoons? We did it. Realistically, its about shock, bloodloss, and location of wounds. Is Mike asking for all that? Nope. So- to point, yes, if you are hoping on hp to absorb hits, you're going to die. The main tweak issues are in providing players more tactical choices to avoid that from happening, so that while one or two hits will likely kill, the player can control how much they expose their heroes to that possibility. The other issue is how armor works, seeing how as, in real life, chainmail gave people more than a piddly 20% better chance to survive getting killed. Probably the alternate rules that have armor aborbing damage would be good. Maybe a feat that allows people to duck behind cover in melee would help as well(think Jackie Chan ducking back and forth behind a pole). And, as Mike said, if he's giving out xp based on roleplaying and story awards more than fighting, the amount of fighting that needs to happen drops significantly, and it becomes possible to level up without having to do the prerequisite "13 encounters" as recommended in the DMG. The real issue of lethality comes in A) how much Mike chooses as a DM to force encounters on the PCs, especially ambushes, and B) how much the players choose to run in like morons instead of ambushing and fighting dirty every chance they get. Chris
MikeTheAmazingMuskrat 01-26-05, 11:51 PM	Whoa, dUde. Wow, thanks. Exactly what Chris said. -mike the amazing muskrat
MikeTheAmazingMuskrat 01-27-05, 01:05 AM	I'd probably start calling CRs at least 50% higher than what's in the book, maybe more depending on how the system tweaks actually play. Around 30 to 50 percent seems to be the number I've been coming up with, too. Excellent. Obviously, it will depend greatly upon what exactly the creature can do, but it's a fair approximation. You're probably right about Greater Spell Focus. Maybe I can come to some compromise... otherwise I'll have 6th level adepts with +8 to their saving throw DCs, even before stat mods are added. By the way, how quick is quick leveling for you? I like to see level advancement every 2 to 3 sessions, though at early levels I prefer it at least once a session (depending upon how much time is available). My group's gaming sessions tend to run 6 to 9 hours. --------- Starfire311: all right- the orc. I assume you meant orc when you said half orc, otherwise the stats wouldn't make any sense. Your example is a really good one (he has an additional feat for you to use at first level, by the way). Let's stat out a fairly typical melee fighter at 5th level for this setting (if anyone strongly disagrees on choices, let me know): Using your numbers thus far: dex 12 or 13, Con 14 or 15. Strength 16, then? 7 feats. (2 for first level, 1 for human, 1 for 3rd level, 3 fighter feats) ---Weapon Focus X2, Weapon Spec., Exotic Prof Bastard Sword, Toughness, Cleave, Improved Initiative, Some Non-Combat Feat Attack Bonus with bastard sword is going to be 5+2+3=10 He's fifth level, so let's make the sword masterwork. Fair? +11. HP ~21 AC: 21 (+8 full plate, +2 shield, +1 Dex) INIT: +5 Damage Average: 10.5 This fighter, he's 5th level in a low hp setting. He really doesn't want to die, and he knows that there's a good chance he could. He "expertises" for his whole base attack, +5 AC, -5 to hit. AC: 26 Attack: +6 Now, our 1st level orc Barb is going to have a dex of around 14? Scale Mail? no shield, since he has a greatsword out. He's raging, too. Orc AC: 14 Orc Attack: +10 INIT: +2, probably. HP, raging: +6 +2(con) +1(temp hp rage) +2(con rage) = 11 The Orc needs a 16 or higher (20%) to hit the fighter and will do enough damage to knock him to 0 or below 10/36 of the time. 1 out of... 18 times (5.56%) he'll strike the fighter down on the first swing? Is that right? The Fighter needs an 8 or higher (65%) to hit the orc and will do enough damage to knock him to 0 or below half of the time. 32.5% of the time, the fighter will down the orc on his first swing. His chances are a lot better than the orc's; ~ six times. Someone let me know if my math is incorrect. This isn't a comprehensive work-up. I'm not quite sure how to take into account non fatal damage that would be dealt on a possible hit, but if anyone knows how to calculate the chances of each character model winning, I'd love to see it. I'm a bit of a numbers geek. Things will change depending upon what the orc's second feat is, obviously, but the fighter probably has a better chance of going first, which increases the possibility of his survival. ------ Huh. So, yeah. The raging barbarian orc is pretty freaking scary. I'm not so sure that more than one 5th level PC is likely to die from a four man orc attack, though. By 5th level, there's probably at least one character with +10 to spot, so the party will see the orcs before they get the drop on them. Further, an adept has a number of effective spells against groups, the fighter-type will probably have cleave, the paladin's mount could soak damage, etc etc. I believe there is a distinct chance that a character will be dropped to zero or below, but I also think the fight will be over before she or he bleeds out. None the less, I'll think more before I use the standard orc strength adjustment. Obviously, this set of rules isn't going to be much fun for a pure hack'n'slash game. I'm definitely not advocating that. Thanks for picking through this stuff. Let me know what you think. It has given me a lot to mull over. -mike the amazing muskrat
yeloson 01-27-05, 04:09 AM	Hi Mike, By the way, how quick is quick leveling for you? I like to see level advancement every 2 to 3 sessions, though at early levels I prefer it at least once a session (depending upon how much time is available). My group's gaming sessions tend to run 6 to 9 hours. Well, as you checked out in my houserules thread, I reward xp on the spot for aiding allies, friends, lovers, etc. and working against foes and rivals. So, advancement is as fast as the players can properly exploit their own roleplaying skills to get points. Bad roleplayers will find themselves earning a piddly 100-200 xp a session by neglecting to take action where possible, and never buying any extra ties. Good roleplayers earn hundreds of xp in just one scene, and often will invest 100-300 into buying more Ties to keep it going. So far, good roleplayers have been able to level once a session, although I could see with time, practice, and smart investment in ties, at least maintaining that average at higher levels, and maybe getting in twice in a session at lower levels with serious work. Typically my sessions run from 2-4 hours, and tend to accomplish more "story-wise" than most people get done in 5-6 sessions. This is because I cut out a lot of time eating factors, such as requiring players to meticulously detail shopping sprees, having random encounters, having more encounters to "build up", puzzles, traps, or punishing players to make them fearful or overcautious. Over the long run, my campaigns typically don't run longer than 3 months, but by the end of it, folks have gotten a chance to go from 1st level to the teens, and also have pulled off some serious epic storylines. I find that it works better because everyone gets to see a full story arc without it petering out or falling apart halfway, and they also don't end up getting sick of character choices they've made. Same logic behind why mini-series or short story arcs in comics tend to work better than continous serials. Chris
MikeTheAmazingMuskrat 02-02-05, 01:33 AM	I was talking with one of my players (same one whose emails I posted) about Armor Class. We were discussing the concept of different fighting styles as they could relate to armor, and how it would be interesting to have a quick combatant differ from an armored combatant a little bit more, mechanically. After going over a few systems that my player (let's call him the yellow glow monkey) thought were too complicated for what they accomplished (he was right), I decided to try out the concept that he had originally suggested: armor as purely DR. This is what I came up with: Armor Chart: (this table sux. I'll figure out how to format it.)(edit: VICTORY IS MINE!) Light Armor Cost DR Max Dex ACP Fortification Padded 5 gp 1 +8 0 0% Leather 10 gp 1 +6 0 5% Studded leather 25 gp 2 +5 -1 10% Chain shirt 100 gp 3 +4 -2 10% Medium Armor Hide 15 gp 2 +4 -3 10% Scale mail 50 gp 3 +3 -4 15% Chainmail 150 gp 3 +2 -5 20% Breastplate 200 gp 3 +3 -4 20% Heavy Armor Splint mail 200 gp 4 +0 -7 25% Banded mail 250 gp 4 +1 -6 25% Half-plate 600 gp 5 +0 -7 30% Full plate 1,500gp 6 +1 -6 35% Shields: Buckler- +1 AC Small Shield- +2 Large shield- +3 Tower Shield- as before; variable cover bonus. Armor doesn't provide an AC bonus (which kinda makes the concept of "Armor Class" silly). Instead, it provides damage reduction and fortification. Fortification is the percent chance that an armor has of negating a critical hit or sneak attack; the attack itself still succeeds, but the extra weapon damage is negated. Creature natural armor would be changed to DR equal to one half the natural armor bonus. What if the creature already has DR? Huh. I would use 3.5 MM. If a creature has DR/Magic, then the magic DR and armor DR would stack, though the magic DR could still be overcome. If the creature had DR/Silver, DR/Cold Iron or somesuch, then I would change the DR to Regeneration equal to 1/2 of the DR, and the creature would take lethal damage from the substance that would normally overcome the DR. So, a demon with 10/Silver would instead have regen 5 and take lethal damage from silver. I'm not sure what I'm going to do about DR/Adamantine quite yet. My greatest concern is Full Plate. DR 6/- means that a commoner with a dagger can't hurt someone in fullplate. Oh, he can definitely HIT the knight... he just won't do any damage. Now, the question is, do I care? DnD isn't about commoners kicking the crap out of PCs (usually :D ). I'm not sure yet how I feel about this, but any opinions would be more than welcome. At the same time, full plate is hard to come by. It is expensive to create, expensive to adjust, and takes six MONTHS to make. Cash is going to be somewhat limited in this setting, so 1,500 is going to be a pretty decent chunk of change. I imagine most "knights" would have breastplate, not fullplate. Maybe all of that time and hard won money is worth 6/-. Using this system, archery begins to fall apart against heavy armor. A melee combatant can power attack, but an archer has no such recourse. Perhaps different arrow types could solve the problem? Hunting/anti-infantry- standard. Armor Piercing- a smaller damage die (one step down), but negates up to... 4 points of DR? Maybe limits accuracy, also or instead of, thus we'd have something like -3 to attack, -3 DR; an effective power attack. Alternatively, "power attack" could apply to ranged attacks, also, but I feel like that's asking for trouble. I was playing around briefly with materials, also. Materials: Mithral halves weight, reduces effective category of a metal armor (medium to light, heavy to medium, but light is still light), armor check penalty lessened by 3, max dex bonus increased by 2. In addition, a weapon made of of mithral counts as one size category smaller for purposes of two weapon fighting. Mithral is considered to be silver. Adamantine must be used in mostly metal armor (duh). +1 DR for light armor, +2 for medium, +3 for heavy? Increases fortification by 5%. Prices: Something stoopid. 300gp per pound? Weapons: Effectively halves DR and Hardness of that which it strikes? Bonus to damage? ------------- Things to remember: -A combatant can subtract points from Base Attack to add to damage or AC. -Everyone has a lot less HP, including the monsters. -There isn't a lot of magic. ------------- I don't know if I actually want to use this armor setup, but I think I'm going to at least explore it a bit further. Any thoughts? I don't know how I would work magic armors with this. Shields would still gain +1 enhancements to AC, but perhaps armor would gain +1 to DR. Alrighty. Bedtime for the muskrat. I think I will write up a bit on magic and magic items tomorrow. Thanks, all. -mike the amazing muskrat
yeloson 02-02-05, 12:40 PM	Hi Mike, Don't forget also that most types of folks to get into tussles with weapons are likely to be sporting a +1 or +2 to damage from strength. Also, don't forget the power of the critical hit, or the sneak attack. -IF-(and this is a big if), you were concerned with a bit more of historical accuracy, you could afford to bump up the armor values 1 across the board, and up by 2 on the heavy armors. By the time people were wearing "heavy armor", heavier and armor piercing weapons were in play to overcome them- such as warhammers, mauls, poleaxes, and the two handed sword was used in a fashion not different than a spear("Half-swording"). This of course, would mean that armor would take a big edge off the threat of immediate doom from standard opponents- but then again, everyone also gets power attack as an option, right? So, under your current ratings, take a laborer-type civilian with +1 Strength, and maybe a +2 Base attack(he's a scrapper) and a knife, going for the power attack +2 damage, he would do 1d4 +3, with an average of 5.5 on each hit. If we're talking 1st level warrior types, we got +1 Base Attack, +2 for strength abouts, and a 1D8 longsword, we have an average of 6.5 damage, 7.5 if they go for the power attack... which means an alright-skilled warrior is breaching chainmail and breastplate on a regular basis. Of course, hp and such are abstractions, so it's not a 1 for 1 basis on real wounds. By the time we hit 5th level(maximum use of power attack), a warrior is doing 1D8 +2(strength) +2 (weapon specialization, if fighter), and up to +5 from power attack. Average damage? 11.5 (13.5 with specialization). If you're going to say that most people don't get above 5th level- then this sounds about right- that means that a top notch warrior is cutting down people even if they got armor, and doing a solid wound to folks with heavy armor. If equipped with appropriate anti-armor type weapons, like a 2 handed sword, the average is 14 with power attack and such, and 16 with specialization, which means they're killing people in full plate- on the average... Might be a bit too far, but that's for you to call. Heck, now that I've done the numbers, I might just nab your armor stats and use it for my game :) Just some things to consider. Chris
StormKnight 02-02-05, 01:20 PM	A blanket chop in HP likes this causes some real survivability issues. Basically, in D&D almost every aspect of how well you can survive attacks is translated into HP. While AC and saves fit in, its mostly HP. In a realistic game, a high level fighter should be much harder to hit than a high level wizard; skill at combat makes you harder to hit as well! In regular D&D, that translates into more HP. It doesn't seem like there is any correlation here.
yeloson 02-02-05, 01:55 PM	Hi Storm, A neat thing Mike has going that takes that into account- is that everyone gets the Expertise feat as a feature of combat. That means at 5th level a Fighter has the option to up the AC by 5 by sacrificing the same in a To-Hit bonus, but it takes folks like Sorcerers all the way to 10th level before they can pull it off to the same degree. Also, (depending on how Mike finalizes Hit Dice rules), every 5th level you get to roll Hitdice(averaged by your classes, right Mike?) and therefore, fighters will still get a bucket load of HP compared to the other classes- stacked with all those fighting feats. The only other thing to check is whether Toughness still gives 3 hp and whether it is still stackable. Chris
MikeTheAmazingMuskrat 02-02-05, 01:59 PM	In a realistic game, a high level fighter should be much harder to hit than a high level wizard; skill at combat makes you harder to hit as well! Yes, absolutely. That's why every character can subtract from their base attack to add to their armor class. edit: Ha! Chris beat me to it. Regarding Toughness: yes, I think it is still going to be +3 and yes I think it will still stack. +1 is way too low. It might be changed to +2. Lemme see here... a 1st level human character could take toughness with all of his bonus feats. 9 extra hp is an awful lot at first level. Maybe I'll change it to +2 or keep it at +3 but make it so that the feat can only be taken once for every hitdie a character has. Thus, you couldn't take toughness twice until the 6th level feat slot (because a character wouldn't have two HD until 5th). Thanks for your responses, guys. Maybe I will bump the DR a bit. Also, what do you think of the fortification of armor? -mike the amazing musrkat p.s. Chris, you are correct about how HD are rolled.
starfire311 02-05-05, 05:47 PM	I did armor as DR and just converted it straight over... so armor gave DR = to its ac bonus. Doing this also caused me to implement a class based Defense bonus. But then again I use VP/WP
yeloson 02-06-05, 05:29 AM	Hi Mike, Fortification seems... like a bit more that I(myself) would worry about. Maybe that's just because I figure we're talking abstractions and extra rolls are another step. But here's an option you might want to consider... 1) Roll a Threat (20, 19-20, whatever the weapon needs) 2) Roll to see if its a critical AC + Fortification Since all your Fortification numbers are in 5% increments, just divide it by 5 and you have the number by which the second roll is now harder to make into a critical. So you have the same basic idea, except its now wrapped up in the roll for critical and you don't have to do a seperate roll. The only disadvantage is that characters with high attack bonuses will tend to still get the criticals more often- but it makes perfect sense to me. Chris