This thread is for us to discuss different things to look at and, hopefully, design a workable system. Since the current edition war is still pretty close to it's beginning (each side has 2 of 20 advantages) we should have plenty of time to create a simple yet elegant system that meets all of our design goals.
April 11th Update:
Current questions/issues we're looking at, as summarized by DirtyFrank
dirtyfrank;18312147 wrote:
Dark Stryke's Proposal
Alright, I've spent the last few hours working on a system, just so there's something moderately concrete to go on. I've partially developed 2 classes, a specialist and a generalist, with build outlines and possible basic specials. The general plan is to allow a character to branch out into offense, defense, or support with higher level specials, which would not necessarily be more powerful, but would be geared towards giving a minor bonus to the aspect you wish to pursue.
Proposal for a Play-by-Post War
Basic rules: In this game you create a character to attack and defend locations in an attempt to capture them for your side. When building your character, you choose a class focused on one of three stats, or a hybrid class focused on two. The three stats are:
Close: This represents how good your character is at getting up close and personal in a fight, using weapons such as swords, axes, maces, or even bare fists or teeth and claws if your character happens to be a monster. Close characters are strong against Magic characters, but weak against Ranged characters.
Ranged: This represents how good your character is at attacking from a distance, whether with bows, thrown weapons, projectile flames, or something else entirely. Ranged characters are strong against Close characters, but weak against Magic characters.
Magic: This represents how potent your character’s spellcasting ability is. Your character could be a priest who calls upon the power of the gods, a wizard who fries enemies with arcane power, a psychic who assaults the minds of others, or any other type of mystic. Magic characters are strong against Ranged characters, but weak against Close characters.
Goals: The goal of the game is to reach 10 advantages. This is done by controlling more territory than the other side at the end of a given week. A side gains 1 advantage by having more territory than the other on Sunday. In addition, if your side manages to capture the other side’s capitol, you instantly gain 1 advantage (note that this is very difficult to do!)
Declaring Attack and Defense: In order to declare attack or defense of a location, simply post that you are attacking or defending in bold in the Battles and Items thread. Then, send a private message (PM) stating which stat you are using to fight to the dungeon master, DivinciDilemma. A new battle takes 2 days to complete, though you can jump into an existing battle at any time without increasing its length. In battle, your character is randomly paired off with characters on the opposing side in a series of 1 on 1 fights until only members of one side are left standing. The results of the battle are posted in the Battles and Items thread upon completion of the battle.
How and when you can fight: Your character is worth a number of Deployment Points (DP) based on level. A level one character is worth 10 DP, and increases by one point each level, up to a maximum of 20 DP at level 11. Everyone who wants to make a lame “DP” joke can go straight to hell now. A standard battle allows a maximum of 50 DP to be present on each side, though no more than four characters can be on a single side. What this means is that even though 4 level 1 characters only cost 40DP, you cannot include more characters to reach the maximum of 50DP. However, certain characters may have pets or special abilities that cost DP, and may add them to the fight in order to reach the maximum.
Creating a Character: Your character starts at level 1 with no special abilities, and 1d4 in each of the primary stats. As previously stated, you begin playing the game by picking one of six classes. After that, you pick a special ability, and your character is mechanically complete! From there, you can make up a description and background to let the other players know a little bit about your character, and then you can jump right into the battles!
Character Advancement: As you fight in battles, you gain experience points (XP) and eventually increase in level. In general, winning a battle earns you 2XP, and losing earns you 1XP. As your level increases, new special abilities and options become available to you. Below you will find the class advancement tables for each of the six classes.
Melee Specialist: You are at home in melee combat. You might be a powerful swordsman, a raging monster, or a skilled tactician leading a phalanx of pikemen. Whatever the case, you excel on the front lines. Below is your advancement table:
Level 1: Close increases to 1d10, choose Magic or Ranged as a secondary stat. Secondary stat increases to 1d6. Choose first special.
Level 2: Close increases to 1d12
Level 3: Choose second special
Level 4: Secondary stat (Ranged or Magic) increases to 1d8
Level 5: Choose Advanced Special
Level 6: Close increases to 2d6
Level 7: Free Point
Level 8: Secondary (Ranged or Magic) increases to 1d10
Level 9: Choose Expert Special
Level 10: Tertiary increases to 1d6
Level 11: Free Point
Melee/Magic Hybrid: You are capable in melee and magic. You might be a swordsman who has dabbled in the arcane, a trickster rogue with a pack full of alchemical items, or even a young dragon, a being of might and magic.
Level 1: Close and Magic increase to 1d8, choose Close or Magic as a primary stat. The other becomes your secondary stat. Choose first special.
Level 2: Primary increases to 1d10
Level 3: Choose second special
Level 4: Secondary increases to 1d10
Level 5: Choose Advanced Special
Level 6: Primary increases to 1d12
Level 7: Free Point
Level 8: Secondary increases to 1d12
Level 9: Choose Expert Special
Level 10: Tertiary increases to 1d6
Level 11: Free Point
Basic Specials: These are special abilities that can be taken at first level, and again at third level. Some classes share special abilities, though at least three are unique to your class. Below are the basic special abilities available to each of the classes.
Melee Specialist basic Specials
Only Melee Specialists may take these specials.
Power Attack: Once per week, increase a Close roll by +2. Using this special takes 1 DP.
Magic Hunter: Gain +1 to all rolls (regardless of whether you are using Close, Magic, or Ranged to battle) when fighting someone using Magic.
Close-Quarters Fighting: reduce your DP cost by 2.
Quick Recovery: You resurrect on Wednesdays as well as Sundays.
Minion: You gain control of a minion with 1d6 Close power, and 0 Ranged and Magic power. This minion costs 5 DP when sent into battle.
Melee/Magic Hybrid Basic Specials
Only Melee/Close Hybrids may take these specials.
Adaption: When using Close or Magic, gain a +1 to rolls against opponents who have selected the stat that has an advantage over you (Ranged if you’re using Close, or Close if you’re using Magic)
Lucky: Once per week, gain +1 on any roll. Using this special costs 1 DP
Minion: You gain a minion with 1d4 Close power, 1d4 Magic power, and 0 Ranged power. This minion costs 5 DP when sent into battle.
General Basic Specials
A member of any class can take these.
Looter: Whenever your side wins a battle that you are involved in, instantly gain 1 resource.
Craft: You have a 20% chance per battle you are involved in of creating a random basic item.
Possible System Mechanics
Here is an old system that I had work on and proposed in times past. It still needs some tweaking.
I've already laid it out and have talk about it extensively but I guess I'll have to do so some more.
I've already laid it out and have talk about it extensively but I guess I'll have to do so some more.
The progression that I've suggested
1st level: 5 points, Class, Race
2nd level: Class 1 bonus
3rd level: Racial bonus
4th level: +1 point, Class 1 bonus
5th level: Class 2 expansion (new ability)
6th level: Racial bonus, Class 1 bonus
7th level: +1 point, Class 2 bonus
8th level: Class 1 bonus
9th level: Racial bonus, Class 2 bonus
10th level: +1 point, Class 1 bonus
2nd level: Class 1 bonus
3rd level: Racial bonus
4th level: +1 point, Class 1 bonus
5th level: Class 2 expansion (new ability)
6th level: Racial bonus, Class 1 bonus
7th level: +1 point, Class 2 bonus
8th level: Class 1 bonus
9th level: Racial bonus, Class 2 bonus
10th level: +1 point, Class 1 bonus
Starting with my basic assumptions for what we'll want things to look like:
- Each poster will control one character/avatar, and declare their actions.
- the main source of conflict will be battles over locations, which will take a set amount of time to resolve
- There will be sides/teams
And here's some questions to get us thinking about other things:
- How much do we want the game to resemble D&D?
- Do we want any sort of character growth/progression?
- Do we want the game to be a competition of high results, rock paper scissors, some combination?
- Will character creation be freeform and point based, or static and class based?
- If we have levels or character growth, how should a beginning character compare to an advanced character?
- Should locations have strategic importance?
What other questions do people think we should consider before starting in earnest?
Design Goals:
-The system should be fun. This is of tremendous importance. Anything that gets in the way of fun goes bye-bye.
-The system should be balanced. Balance tends to create a fun game. Therefore, we want as much balance as possible. I shall present bibliography about this later.
-The system should be simple. This doesn't mean shallow, mind you. However, simple arithmetics should be the name of the game. The complexity should come from the player's choices, not understanding just how much ATK you have. Bibliography will be presented about this as well.
-The system should be dynamic. The less downtime, the better. However...
-The system should be easy to direct. We don't want to strain Pig, so its important to find a balance between this goal and the previous one.
Escher, what you outlined is tremendously important, but I wouldn't call them design goals, or at least not direct design goals. That's more like design assumptions (you have one character, etc.). A design goal is how we want the game to work, as I see it. Its characteristics, once all fluff is taken out. Still, good list. We WILL want to discuss that.
Now, the ideas we have floating around and might want to develop:
A) Hoarding system: No special levels, you simply gain a new special at level 5 and 10.
B) Points system: High level players are worth more than low level players, so you can have less of them per battle.
C) Class system: You pick a class at first level, which narrows your choices. At certain levels, you can choose to take a new class or continue further down your current class on a specialized path.
Anyway.
Re: DirtyFrank
I'm not quite sure how to phrase this... I think what you have is interesting and if we decide to go that route or explore it more, it would be worth considering, but an avenue I would like to go (and hey, I can always get over-ruled here) is considering other options for the base conflict resolution mechanic.
Re: the game should be simple
Well, this is a maybe. It should be simple to understand, sure. But that doesn't necessarily mean it needs to be simple to compute. An example would be the battle resolution for unit combat in the civilization games. The top-level abstraction gives each unit an attack score and a defense score, and maybe a few special abilities. What the game then does is have a few round of the different units attacking, taking damage, and other things to get a result.
High level abstraction, but the actual resolution is more complicated.
Of course, that's assuming that we use this wonderful device called a 'computer' to 'aid' us in calculating battles. Really, it could be as simple as creating a text file of:
We have a system right there that looks interesting and would be departure from the last two wars.
). I suggest we go with the ideas presented by David Sirlin, who wrote the famous Playing to Win article. In his site, Sirlin talks about developing a multiplayer game.Now, for balance, we need to understand a number of things. First, we need to decide if we want the game to be symmetric or asymmetric, as explained here. This is kinda obvious, but bear with me.
Obviously, we want an asymmetric game. You should be able to start different from your opponents, and REMAIN different throughout. Anyone against or in favor of this?
Further, we want balance. And here's the trick: do we want local balance, or global balance? The term is explained here. Basically, we want to have some specials be better against each other, correct? However, we want no special to be better against everything, right? What do you think about that? Should all specials be balanced against each other, or should they be worse or better depending on the situation?
And now, simplicity. This is something I'm not going to elaborate on. To make it easier on myself, I'm just going to put up a link: Designing Kongai. We want to do something similar here: keep it simple for the director, and simple for the player. Who's in favor and who's against this motion?
That would only be possible if the arbiter is not a player (as people would PM in their actions instead of declaring them publicly)
Overall, I think we want to keep dice involved, but that's the only sacred cow that I would quibble over dropping.
Hrm... interesting reads. I'm not really interested in game design for the most part, but still, interesting reads. An interesting concept that I saw that would be... difficult... to implement was the double-blind idea.
That would only be possible if the arbiter is not a player (as people would PM in their actions instead of declaring them publicly)
Overall, I think we want to keep dice involved, but that's the only sacred cow that I would quibble over dropping.
I ran a play by post wargame as a judge being a nonplayer. The double blind makes it interesting, but it can be a lot of trouble at times, and its hard to stay as interested in it when you aren't playing. Not saying it would be for other people, but it isn't the easiest way to do it. Of course, you could have someone set up a "judge" account and not open it and read the pms until arbitration time, but that involves a lot of trust.
So the other side would know that a location was under attack, and by how many people, but wouldn't know just what their plans were.
That would probably work better if more individual choices were built into the game, which might not work if we keep it at a straight attack/defense for the main stats. For a more varied system like I mentioned before it might work, so maybe it's an idea that just wouldn't work here.
In the next war I was going to have a knight > skirmisher > mage > knight thing.
On a forum where you don't have direct control over the situation (unlike an owned website), it makes matters that much tougher to manage and control. Even with some helpers along it can be a tough nut to crack. My personal advice is to pick a system that is inherently easy, manageable, and doesn't require everyone to whip out a calculator or pen and paper every time they wish to do something or level up.
Hope it all works out for you though!
But if it's simple in concept and only the implementation is complicated, then that works great for a computer-aided game.
Idea
So here's a basic idea... if we go with a rock-paper-scissors approach, then each person would have three stats, each strong against one and weak against another. Let's call the stats Magic > Ranged > Melee which circles around to magic.
So when someone attacked a location they would declare which stat they're using as their primary stat. Now, having multiple combatants on a side means we can't just roll a large dice pool and compare, so we would probably resolve individual fights. So if there are three on team A and four on team B, then we would create a random order of combatants (or maybe just in the order they joined the battle...) and cycle through doing a combat resolution for each.
For example, Team A has a Mage, an Archer, and a Knight (magic stat, ranged stat, and melee stat, respectively) and Team B has a Archer and Knight.
First we run MageA vs. ArcherB
then ArcherA vs. KnightB
if ArcherB lived through their first fight, then we do KnightA vs. ArcherB, and then continue cycling through each list seperately until only one team is still standing.
This might be tedious if done by hand, but with a program would take less then a second
So when someone attacked a location they would declare which stat they're using as their primary stat. Now, having multiple combatants on a side means we can't just roll a large dice pool and compare, so we would probably resolve individual fights. So if there are three on team A and four on team B, then we would create a random order of combatants (or maybe just in the order they joined the battle...) and cycle through doing a combat resolution for each.
For example, Team A has a Mage, an Archer, and a Knight (magic stat, ranged stat, and melee stat, respectively) and Team B has a Archer and Knight.
First we run MageA vs. ArcherB
then ArcherA vs. KnightB
if ArcherB lived through their first fight, then we do KnightA vs. ArcherB, and then continue cycling through each list seperately until only one team is still standing.
This might be tedious if done by hand, but with a program would take less then a second
...
...
I'd go gay for Escher! :D
I wonder about having 3 teams next time so that it's a bit harder for 1 team to have a run away win effect. It has been a concern since the first war.
If we still have to declare attacks then if a melee goes into battle for one side then all the other side needs to do for the advantage is to send a ranged in against them. Things could keep being countered in such a manner so that the team to declare an attack will likely lose.
Which brings us to another question (though indirectly): do we want to encourage specialization/generalization/whatever with the system?
The current duality of attack/defense encourages specialization, with generalizing being only possible to some specials that help make up for it or are attack/defense independent.
I'm trying to think of the implications of three stats on that, and about all I can see is that people would want to avoid having only one stat to avoid exactly what you describe... people know they have a choice of ranged or melee, but if the choice itself is secret then they're still left with a choice and a gamble.
I wonder about having 3 teams next time so that it's a bit harder for 1 team to have a run away win effect. It has been a concern since the first war.
That's a possibility, but it depends on just how many people are interested in playing... I like it in concept, but I'm not sure if there would be enough players to make it work.
Dice still matters. A sufficiently strong Melee attacker should be able to kick a mage's ass, period. We might have to go with a doubling system, where the guy who chose something advantageous gets to roll twice and keep both results. What do you guys think? And how would specials factor into this?
As for specials... I'm not sure. I think we should actually agree on a base mechanic before building up from there.
So far we have the base attack/defense (that I personally find prone to causing pigeon-holing)
My proposed magic/melee/ranged
any other base mechanics that people think it might be interesting to talk about before we go further?
Which brings us to another question (though indirectly): do we want to encourage specialization/generalization/whatever with the system?
The current duality of attack/defense encourages specialization, with generalizing being only possible to some specials that help make up for it or are attack/defense independent.
I think the class system will help balance some of these specialization problems. The specialist attackers and defenders wouldn't have buffs, or at least non that effect other characters, and the generalists would be the ones with buffs. I was also thinking that in a class system there could be classes that could lower dice levels as well as raise them or what not.
Basically, on would specialize in a class rather than with a special or series of them. Every class would in a way be a specialist but a specialist built around manipulating a different mechanic. I'm not sure exactly how to explain it fully at the moment.
The game I ran had a rock/paper/scissors idea in which if you had advantage your die size went up one. that way even if you got rocked and you were scissors, if you were strong enough you could still win.
That sounds like a pretty elegant implementation of having one attack type trump another, without it being overwhelming. I like it.
@DF: I like the basic idea, as long as there's enough options in each individual class so that two people of the same class won't look exactly the same.
Or, possibly, just go with 4e's idea of having a 'paragon path' that determines a few more things, so that once your character starts getting advanced they can start to differentiate themselves more... Actually, I really like that idea now...
(with three base stats) have seven base classes, one that specializes purely in each and three that raise two stats evenly, and one that tries to equalize all three (that last one sounds like it might be a problem to me), and have paragons/prestige classes availible to all that allow for more customization after some advancement...
Oh yeah, still random chance, just trying to get away from the attack/defense mechanic, which I think causes a lot of design restrictions and pigeon-holing.
I don't think it was the attack/defense that caused the pigeon-holing, I think it was the freedom.
Think of 3e and it's feats. You have hundreds to choose from if you use all the splat books but for the most part every character is going to choose most of the same feats because they are the best. Most wizards will all choose the same spells. The same goes for for clerics and druids. The reason for this is, despite the abundance of options, there are choices that are obvious good choices. Thus the same few choices are almost always chose by the same few people. So even though you have given tons of freedom, everyone gets pigeon-holed into making the same character because most of the choices plane suck.
With a class system all one needs is to find a class they like. As long as all of the classes are interesting to people there will be no pigeon-holing into certain specials.
Also, I think it's possible to make a class system for a 3 stat system. It could also be interesting.
A) Current system, freeform.
B) RPS system, probably classed.
C) Class system.
Those are the three big ones we're currently considering. I suggest we put this to vote.
IMO, I'd prefer C. Dirtyfrank is right in that it's the freeform what makes ATK/DEF look pigeonholed. It's not the number of stats, its being able to tailormake your character.
So, we have a vote for RPS (Escher, of course), Classed (me). Anybody else in favor of one of the two or the current system?
Well, here's a quick argument in favor of three: it prevents people from being pigeon-holed into 'attackers' or 'defenders', if you choose which stat you use whenever you get in a battle. That means that defenders don't feel left out when there's a big boss battle, because there are no defenders!1
It does make the combat resolution a little more complicated, but only in implementation, not in the abstract or execution, and since I'm planning on making a program to handle the implementation, that's not a concern to me.
Benefits of the two stat system is it allows quicker resolution in that we can just roll two large dice pools and call it good, and we've been working with it for a little bit.
... I hope that was convincing.
--
1Along this line of thought, I would recommend against specials that specifically helped when attacking or defending. Maybe a top tier one for both, but I don't think it's a great idea in general.
Take Arms, for example. He's been a lone warrior from day 1. From the previous edition war, he has always been built to take on several defenders at once...and win. Could a concept like that be built with the tri-stat system you propose, Escher? Would I be forced to grossly separate fluff and crunch? Or would there be a way to allow for the realization of that concept?
What about a Pet Master? Would the mooks have to be tailor-made for a single stat? Would they be equal on every stat, and thus supremely weak to avoid imbalances? What would be the answer to that?
PS: One last question: what about the Points system you outlined earlier today? I really like the idea, but it would pretty much die if we go with tri-stat because you're always countered by someone who can kick your ass the moment you attack, and multiple small-fries with the appropriate stat are much stronger than one high-leveled character who happened to strike first. It puts attackers at a massive disadvantage.
In fact, that's the big problem of tri-stat: attackers are hosed. Since the defenders are the ones that counter, they can hit with precisely the best counter-character, and have a massive win-streak while the attackers always die on the first day of the week.
Exactly. Not only are defenders godlike with that system, there is NO fix for that. The only thing I can think of that could be doable is sending PM's to Pig/Escher so that they can play out the encounters without anyone knowing who's going to partake...but it takes out all the fun from the game. If we want three stats, we want something that's not RPS, that much I can tell.
Well for it to work we would have to use a blind system and the attackers would half the time need to use their weak stats to keep the defense always guessing.
- Definitely Classed
- Tri-Stat or Bi-Stat
- Melee beats ranged which beats magic which beats melee for Tri-Stat
- Bi-Stat Attack and Defense still
- Bi-Stat classes would be focusing on Attack, Defense, or Specials
- Tri-Stat would be one of the three stats or any combination
- PP's for Bi-Stat would be Defense, Attack, or Special
- ED's for Bi-Stat would be Defense, Attack, or Special
- PP's for Tri-Stat would have specials related to one of the stats
- ED's for Tri-Stat would have specials weighted towards Attack or Defense
My principle complaint with the current two stat system is that it pigeon-holes people as atackers/defenders, while there is some amount of success in making generalists that's mostly in spite of the system design rather then because of.
A three stat system with a rock-paper-scissors concept requires a double-blind system to some degree, which forces people to have at least two stats that are fairly equitable such that their choice isn't obvious. So this would force people to not focus on one stat, but split up their efforts to at least two.
I need to think about this some more... I'm good at implementing, not designing...
Now, the four-stat system will be different. Instead of just picking one stat, all four of them contribute to the battle. How does that sound?
It should take about 100 XP to hit max level, so 5 XP/20 levels or 10 XP/10 levels. I prefer 5 XP/20 levels myself, allows for an exciting, dynamic game.
But then you have the possibility of people being able to gain about 3 levels per week with 5xp per level. That is of course if we stick with the 2 xp for wins and 1 xp for losses thing.
We can think about it some. I'm thinking of if we do 20 levels that we go with something like 6 to 8 xp per level.
What about tiered advancement? The first four levels are cheap, just 5 XP. The next four take 6, the levels from 9 to 12 take 7 XP, 13-16 8 XP, and 17-20 10 XP. This way, its easy to be more than a zero, but it'll take serious commitment to hit the cap.
Something like that could work. It would also allow for new players to sort of catch up to senior players, in power level, quite quickly.
What about tiered advancement? The first four levels are cheap, just 5 XP. The next four take 6, the levels from 9 to 12 take 7 XP, 13-16 8 XP, and 17-20 10 XP. This way, its easy to be more than a zero, but it'll take serious commitment to hit the cap.
I think that increasing XP requirements are a good idea to be honest
Barbarian
Melee: 1d8
Ranged: 1d4
Magic: 1d4
Archer
Melee: 1d4
Ranged: 1d8
Magic: 1d4
Wizard
Melee: 1d4
Ranged: 1d4
Magic: 1d8
Paladin
Melee: 1d6
Ranged: 1d4
Magic: 1d6
Ranger
Melee: 1d6
Ranged: 1d6
Magic: 1d4
Warlock
Melee: 1d4
Ranged: 1d6
Magic: 1d6
Each class would have its own fixed progression, though every now and again a "free" point could be thrown in that you could pick for yourself. I'd suggest going with the idea that having an advantaged type ups your die size by one.
Just throwing an idea out there.
Each class would have its own fixed progression, though every now and again a "free" point could be thrown in that you could pick for yourself. I'd suggest going with the idea that having an advantaged type ups your die size by one.
Either that or a flat bonus to your rolls such as a +2 or +3 or something.
Imagine a pentagram with five 'stats', one at each point.
________melee_________
__stealth______ranged__
_____armor__magic_____
As you can see, each 'stat' has two opposing 'stats' across from it. Say you employ melee against an opponent. Your opponent's defenses against your melee capabilities are determined by the values 'across' from melee, his armor and magic values in this case (perhaps using the average between the two). When your opponent counters with magic, your defenses are determined by your melee and stealth values.
Not sure how the math behind it could work, but I think this allows for more complexity than RPS without overcomplicating things too much. Plus, this way every stat is an attack stat and a defense stat. Anyone like it?
Okay, and moving on, here's Quad-Stat as I see it. You have these four stats:
-Martial Power
-Arcane Capacity
-Divine Faith
-Psionic Creativity
Now, the stats are aligned in the shape of a rhombus. Like this:
Arcane
What you do is pick a main stat. Let's go with Martial, okay? Now, you have a range of values from 3 to, say, 20, to go with our beloved game, which determine which dice you use. 3 is a d4, 20 is, well, any arbitrarily high value, like 4d8+4. In any case, when you have to battle, you'll use your best stat, then pick two other support stats, your secondary and tertiary stat. Remember how I talked about how Magic doesn't really have an RPS factor if you build your deck right? Something similar happens here. See, your secondary stat gives you half its value (lets go with 8, a weakish stat, but with nice bonuses, for our secondary and tertiaries, and 10 for our primary, which we'll assume gives you a 2d10) to your die roll, while your tertiary gives you a quarter of its value. So, you're a Martial Artist, and you have picked Arcane as your secondary stat, with Divine as your tertiary. Therefore, you roll 2d10, then add 4 from Arcane, and 2 from Divine, for a total of 2d10+6.
Now, here's where RPS factor comes in. Each power source is strong against one other source, and weak against a third. It goes like this:
Martial>Arcane>Divine>Psionics>Martial
How does this work? Well, you compare all of the sources the warriors from each side use. Say that side A has a prevalence of Martial as the primary, Arcane as the secondary, and Divine as the tertiary, while side B has a focus on Psionics, Martial, and Arcane. If a side has supremacy on the primary stat, the players gain a die size increase (or a +4 bonus to all rolls for everyone who is at 20 in their main) as if they had gained an extra point temporarily. If they have supremacy on the secondary stat, they gain a +2 bonus to all rolls, and a +1 bonus for supremacy on the tertiary. If there isn't a clear-cut primary, secondary, or tertiary, no one gains a bonus, so that its not as easy to gain a massive advantage against attackers like it is with simple RPS. How does that sound?
I say we only get to 3 stats at the most. It doesn't matter if we call it melee, ranged, and magic or if we call it martial, magic, primal or what ever. I just think that going over 3 is just making things more complicated than it needs to be.
I have no problem with three stats. However, we have to mitigate the RPS factor to avoid giving the "black pieces" of this chess an insurmountable advantage. At least, that's my design goal for a tri-stat system. Do you agree with that, DF?
I have no problem with three stats. However, we have to mitigate the RPS factor to avoid giving the "black pieces" of this chess an insurmountable advantage. At least, that's my design goal for a tri-stat system. Do you agree with that, DF?
I have no clue what you just said. I'll assume you mean giving the defense an advantage. Yes, it is something that needs to be worked on but I don't think that making the game more complicated is the way to go.
I have no clue what you just said. I'll assume you mean giving the defense an advantage. Yes, it is something that needs to be worked on but I don't think that making the game more complicated is the way to go.
That's exactly what I meant. I used the "black pieces" idea because, if we found a way to get defenders to move first, the attackers would have the same insurmountable advantage too.
Hmm...I have an idea. What about having three different effects for when you face off against each stat? If you fight Rock with Rock, you use your base stats, if you fight Scissors with Rock your dice "broadens" (for example, 2d6 becomes d12, d12 becomes d14-2 or something), and if you fight Paper with Rock your dice "thickens" (2d6 becomes 3d4, d12 becomes 2d6). How does it sound?
I say we name the stats fluffy, crunchy and angst.
That's exactly what I meant. I used the "black pieces" idea because, if we found a way to get defenders to move first, the attackers would have the same insurmountable advantage too.
Hmm...I have an idea. What about having three different effects for when you face off against each stat? If you fight Rock with Rock, you use your base stats, if you fight Scissors with Rock your dice "broadens" (for example, 2d6 becomes d12, d12 becomes d14-2 or something), and if you fight Paper with Rock your dice "thickens" (2d6 becomes 3d4, d12 becomes 2d6). How does it sound?
A dice change may be a bit tougher to handle. I don't know how tough it would be for EE to program. I'd say for us to just implement a flat bonus instead of a dice increase or decrease. I think it would make it easier on everyone.
A dice change may be a bit tougher to handle. I don't know how tough it would be for EE to program. I'd say for us to just implement a flat bonus instead of a dice increase or decrease. I think it would make it easier on everyone.
Yes, but the dice bonus is what creates the advantage for the "black pieces" in the first place. A change in how the dice roll, meanwhile, will give you only a slight edge, instead of an insurmountable one.
Also, programming a dice roller is really easy. Don't worry about that. The question now is, how do we work multiple character matches into the game using this system? Make battles a mass of one-on-ones?
Also, programming a dice roller is really easy. Don't worry about that. The question now is, how do we work multiple character matches into the game using this system? Make battles a mass of one-on-ones?
Pretty much what I was thinking, a battle would be resolved as a sequence of one-on-one fights.
So if, for example, SoldierA, KnightA, and MarshallA were on one side with MageB and ClericB on the other, the battle might be resolved as:
SoldierA vs. MageB
KnightA vs. ClericB
MarshallA vs. MageB
SoldierA vs. ClericB
As chracters were 'defteated' they would be pulled out of the rotating queue for their side, and a side would win when all members of the other side were defeated. This would need some considerations of how much we want a single strong combatant to be able to take on multiple weak ones (like say, one really strong person vs. 4 pets), do we just rely on the probability of the strong rolling low to create a realistic threat versus the big guy, or do we implement some sort of hit point system (limited only to a single battle) such that even if you 'win' a combat round you still may take some damage...
As I said, while that might be tedious if done by hand, with a program it would be quick and easy. The important bit (to me) is to keep it conceptually simple so people can make intelligent choices without being terribly concerned with the exact mechanics of the implementation.
/shrug
Like I said, I'm not the best at design. I have some ideas, but I'm not sure they're great.
Edit: As for the ways to threaten a strong character, HP would be WAY too clunky, since it would have to be corrected multiple times and would probably carry over. IMO, I just think we should use the points system your presented a few days ago and take advantage of the weaker side having many more attempts at killing the big guy.
If we used hit points then we should have it be related to your level, your dice or both. I'm thinking of something like your level*10 or something.
I wonder if we used a kind of resistance thing with the program. Add the dice results plus modifiers and the only damage that is done to the opponent is by how much you beat them. So if Mr. A rolls a 10 and Mr. B rolls a 6 Mr. B will be dealt 10-6 = 4 damage. If we do it this way then we can have hitpoints be something like level*5 or something. This is of course if we decided to use hitpoints. We could just go by a one time who has the highest result wins thing.
One other thing I'd like to suggest: Locations giving a small bonus to various things. For example:
Seige Foundry (city, fortification)
X -control
Special: Reduces the use cost of siege weapons for the controlling side by 1
Arcane Laboratory (magic)
X - control
Special: Grants +1 to magic rolls for all members of the controlling side
Gold Mine (cave)
X - control
Special: Worth 1 additional resource.
Fort Pigknight (plains, fortification)
X - control
Special: Counts as 2 areas to determine who gains an advantage on sunday
I'd like it if every location could have a small, unique bonus like that.
If we do use a multistat system then I think the combat queue should not be determined by the order by which people declared their attack but rather have it be random. This can just be done with the computer.
This was something I mentioned before, but it was easy to overlook. A couple of ideas I had was in order of joining the battle, in the order chosen by one of the combatants on that side (so someone PMs and says "this is the order we want), random, or based on something else (highest level goes first so the strongest match off? mooks go first?). If we have a 'default' method (random or order-of-joined-battle) but allow combatants the option of choosing their order, that gives more options that may or may not be tactically important.
It's a question, but I'm not sure if it's an interesting one.
my only concern then would be static bonuses. If you have someone with a d12+3, then a d4 mook can never defeat them without other bonuses. And we might be 'ok' with that, but it is a concern at least, if not an actual problem.
I think that mooks should be a class feature of summoners or beast masters and that the mooks should increase in power as their controller does. They should probably increase in power with their master instead of separately as they do now in the edition war (I think this is another failing of a free form type system).
Spell Immunity, Defensive Stance, Cover: Opponents do not gain the strength bonus against you when rolling (insert strong stat here) against your (insert weak stat here) stat.
D_S: Sounds awesome. Let's focus on getting the tri-stat system right first, but that's an awesome idea.
On HP: What about making it a fourth stat? It doesn't actually influence battles, but it makes you stay in the fight longer. Basically, your HP stat would act as a multiplier. If you have HP 1, you have 1 HP per level, etc. This creates an interesting dichotomy between glass cannons and resilient but less powerful warriors.
This was something I mentioned before, but it was easy to overlook. A couple of ideas I had was in order of joining the battle, in the order chosen by one of the combatants on that side (so someone PMs and says "this is the order we want), random, or based on something else (highest level goes first so the strongest match off? mooks go first?). If we have a 'default' method (random or order-of-joined-battle) but allow combatants the option of choosing their order, that gives more options that may or may not be tactically important.
It's a question, but I'm not sure if it's an interesting one.
There should be no set order about who fights first or else this will be used as a means to gain a major tactical advantage. If you know who your enemies highest in level is and you know they are attacking a location then send the highest level counter to stop them. Just keep doing that all the way down the battle order and you've basically won before anything has been calculated because your fights have the advantages.
There should be no set order about who fights first or else this will be used as a means to gain a major tactical advantage. If you know who your enemies highest in level is and you know they are attacking a location then send the highest level counter to stop them. Just keep doing that all the way down the battle order and you've basically won before anything has been calculated because your fights have the advantages.
Right, which is why the 'default' method would probably be random. But I like the idea of allowing a side to choose their order, though it would be declared in secret and not public knowledge.
Mostly I was just throwing out options.
--------------------------------------------------
EDIT: I also like the idea of letting people decide their battle order but I know that PMing people can be a pain in the but. Especially when not everyone is on at the same time. I think letting the teams decide what order things go in will just make the same few people decided all the battle orders for everyone else.
I also like the idea of letting people decide their battle order but I know that PMing people can be a pain in the but. Especially when not everyone is on at the same time. I think letting the teams decide what order things go in will just make the same few people decided all the battle orders for everyone else.
/shrug
I like the idea, but I figure that there should be a default method in case the team doesn't PM the battle master, or in case they get conflicting orders.
Also, seeing how df agrees on HP, it's down to Escher to give it another yes for me to start tweaking it.
1. Tri-stat, most likely Melee, Ranged, and Magic.
2. Random battle order, possibly with the ability to determine your own order in secret.
3. Class system.
Now, how many classes are we looking at? Personally, I like the idea of six base classes, one of each "specialist" and one of each of the two-stat combos. From there, you can branch out in several directions. Specialists should be able to choose a secondary stat. I think a max level character could look something like:
Specialist
Primary: 2d6
secondary: 1d10
tertiary: d6
Generalist
Primary: d12
secondary: d12
tertiary: d6
Each class would have 2 "floating" points somewhere in the progression, allowing them to bump up whatever stat they wanted, assuming a progression of:
d4 - d6 - d8 - d10 - d12 - 2d6 - 2d6+1 - 2d6+2
Now, this would mean that a specialist and a generalist could use their floating points to end up with exactly the same build, but only a specialist can reach the highest rank in the primary stat (which makes their secondary and tertiary suffer).
I don't think class should have any influence on how you have your dice organized. I think it should only influence your specials. Dice should be controlled by ones level and when a person gets to upgrade their dice they can upgrade it how they wish.
What he said. I like the dice progression, but I think it'd be best if we left advancement unrestricted. We'll let specials tailor characters towards certain builds. ;)
Okay, HP then. Just like normal dice, it has 8 levels. Each "die size" gives you half a point per level, so that if you have a 1 in HP, your HP is level*0.5, with a minimum of 1. HP is irrestricted: Thus, a character that always wins through attrition is possible, so that you can end up with a juggernaut with 80 HP...and a d6 in their main stat. How does it sound?
One last question: Do we want HP to carry across the week? I'd vote against it, but I'm not sure. Also, how will we influence who dies if a side is beaten soundly?
Primary: 5 points (2d6)
Secondary: 3 points (d10)
Tertiary: 1 point (d6)
A generalist gets:
Primary: 4 points (d12)
Secondary: 4 points (d12)
Tertiary: 1 point (d6)
This still allows for a degree of customization, without forcing specialization on everyone.
As we've seen from this war, when given free reign over stats, specialization rules. I expect that if free reign is given, most people will opt to either focus completely on one stat, or balance two stats while ignoring the third.
My method allows a degree of specialization, as well as a few unique builds depending on if your starting class was a specialist or a generalist.
Specialist-only builds:
Primary: 7 (2d6+2)
Seconday: 3 (d10)
Tertiary: 1 (d6)
Primary: 5 (2d6)
Secondary: 3 (d10)
Tertiary: 3 (d10)
Generalist-only build:
Primary: 4 (d12)
Secondary: 4 (d12)
Tertiary: 3 (d10)
If it's left in the player's hands, I imagine the only builds we'll see are:
Primary: 7 (2d6+2)
Secondary: 4 (d12)
Tertiary: 0 (d4)
Primary: 6 (2d6+1)
Secondary: 5 (2d6)
Tertiary: 0
Primary: 4 (d12)
Secondary: 4 (d12)
Tertiary: 3 (d10)
If we include HP, this doesn't matter anyway. With just the right number of points on HP, a character has a very, very good shot at simply outlasting an enemy with the advantage on him. Plus, I don't think we need to fixate stats when predefining the specials will do the same thing.
I'm actually against the idea of HP, simply because it creates an unnecessary amount of system mastery.
If we're going to regulate stats, certain classes can have access to the same specials. For example:
Magic Missile: once per week, you may add 1d4 to your magic value for a single battle.
This could be available to the "wizard" (magic specialist), "paladin" (magic/melee hybrid) and "warlock" (magic/ranged hybrid).
Making all the specials only available to single classes even further pigeon holes people. If "magic missile" and further magic-oriented buffs are only available to one class, you're practically forced to put all your points into magic to make it worthwhile.
Incidentally, I think stuff like adding to your rolls is terrible in this system. Stuff like closing the gap you have against a character strong against you is okay...but 1d4 per fight? No. Way. We'll have to change our design paradigm if we go ahead with our current version of tri-stat. Stuff like Infinite Rage/Stand Alone (god, I miss the old name so much) becomes unbelievably strong, to the point I'd take it even against a two die-step disadvantage. Even PA/MM is monstrous in this kind of game.
Personally, I'm hesitant about multiclassing, as the entire purpose of having classes is to keep the degenerate combos away from each other. Allowing multiclassing makes it harder to balance, and also means that the basic abilities of each class have to be more bland. In addition, you have to make sure that multiclassing is just as good (but not better than) sticking with your primary class, which is rather difficult to do.
I am in favor of "advanced" classes, though. And I'm also comfortable with allowing certain specials to be available for more than one class (such as the aforementioned magic missile, but obviously it would have to be changed).
Three focused classes, one for each stat.
Three two-stat classes, essentially the bastard child of specialists and generalists, though it sounds awfully harsh.
One "pure" generalist, who gets equal values on everything.
Two paths for each class, one for defense and one for offense, 'cept for the "pure" generalist, who gets one per stat then one for 100% generalism.
Is that correct? If so, I think we finally have a framework with which to work the specials and HP into. The next thing we have to do is decide how many stat points you get at CharGen.
Offense and defense no longer exist, though maybe specials will allow you to change that (ex: +1 to magic rolls while defending?)
Now, this is just a weird suggestion, but I was thinking the "pure" generalist could start out with less points, but as an advantage, gains a greater bonus when his type trumps his opponent's.
Check back a page or so for my suggestions for starting classes. Everyone essentially started with 2 points, with an additional 9 spread over 20(?) levels. So I guess the pure generalist could start with 0 (so he gets 1d4 in everything, but pulls ahead when he gets an advantage). Call the class "Specialist". Or "Jester".
I'd rather not go too far with this without everyone's approval, though I could draw up a basic progression without specials pretty quick.
Now, about the starting number of points, I say you should start with 3 points in your main stat (or 3 points to spend in any stat for gishes/the generalist), then 2 points to put either on your secondary/tertiary or on HP. How does that sound?
PS: Also, the generalist HAS to be named Factotum. It's too badass NOT to use it.
Specialist Progression
Level 1: 2 points in main stat, special, choose secondary
Level 2: +1 point in secondary stat
Level 3:
Level 4: +1 point in main stat
Level 5: special
Level 6:
Level 7: +1 point in secondary stat
Level 8:
Level 9: +1 point in any stat
Level 10: advanced class, advanced special
Level 11: +1 point in main stat
Level 12:
Level 13: +1 point in tertiary stat
Level 14:
Level 15: expert class, expert special
Level 16: +1 point in secondary stat
Level 17:
Level 18: +1 point in main stat
Level 19:
Level 20: +1 point in any stat
dead levels = 7
Level 2: +1 point in secondary stat
Level 3:
Level 4: +1 point in main stat
Level 5: special
Level 6:
Level 7: +1 point in secondary stat
Level 8:
Level 9: +1 point in any stat
Level 10: advanced class, advanced special
Level 11: +1 point in main stat
Level 12:
Level 13: +1 point in tertiary stat
Level 14:
Level 15: expert class, expert special
Level 16: +1 point in secondary stat
Level 17:
Level 18: +1 point in main stat
Level 19:
Level 20: +1 point in any stat
dead levels = 7
...I'm really scared about going down that path. I know the idea is good on paper, and it has potential, but I can see generalists giving specialists a beatdown from a mile away if we screw up even slightly. I suggest we tackle the specialists and gishes first.
Now, about the starting number of points, I say you should start with 3 points in your main stat (or 3 points to spend in any stat for gishes/the generalist), then 2 points to put either on your secondary/tertiary or on HP. How does that sound?
PS: Also, the generalist HAS to be named Factotum. It's too badass NOT to use it.
Note that with my progressions it's quite possible for a specialist and a generalist to end up with the exact same build. Most likely 6/4/1 or 5/5/1, though the specialist can go for the very focused 7/3/1, and the generalist can get the very... general... 4/4/3. The specialist's most general build option is 5/3/3, which stands a fair chance agains the generalist's most general build. The generalist's most specialized build is 6/4/1, and it compares decently with the specialist's 7/3/1.
Of course, the specialist can pick his secondary, which means there are more build options for specialists than generalists, though this sort of makes sense.
On a relatively unimportant note, am I the only one that would rather not give flavorful names to the classes, but maybe have a list of 'descriptive' names? I don't want to tie general character concepts (druid, wizard, sword-guy) to specific mechanical implementations (class A, class B, class C).
*pokes head in*
I agree with this.
And with the advancing XP idea (more XP needed for higher levels).
*sneaks out*
On a relatively unimportant note, am I the only one that would rather not give flavorful names to the classes, but maybe have a list of 'descriptive' names? I don't want to tie general character concepts (druid, wizard, sword-guy) to specific mechanical implementations (class A, class B, class C).
Meh, I the names I picked are just "alpha" names. We can make them more or less descriptive as we see fit. I suppose "magic user" is about the least descriptive you could get for a magic specialist, without outright calling it that. Though, maybe we want to do that? Would that make it too dry? Calling the classes "X specialist" and "X/Y Hybrid"?
Would that make it too dry? Calling the classes "X specialist" and "X/Y Hybrid"?
Personally, that's what I would prefer, with a note to encourage people to describe their characters in a way they find appropriate, possibly with some possible 'class names'.
That way we can have wizards, clerics, druids, sorcerers, warlocks, and all such as 'magic specialists', while also allowing people that want to be clerics to be 'magic/melee hybrids'.
But this is relatively minor.
Personally, that's what I would prefer, with a note to encourage people to describe their characters in a way they find appropriate, possibly with some possible 'class names'.
That way we can have wizards, clerics, druids, sorcerers, warlocks, and all such as 'magic specialists', while also allowing people that want to be clerics to be 'magic/melee hybrids'.
But this is relatively minor.
I like this as well. And it is minor (hence why I'm offering my opinion on it :P).
I'd rather have generic names and then flavor it in-game as I like. If someone wants to call him/herself a Paladin, that's fine, but the character sheet is simple and can be read easily by all.
How about this. Lets keep it as simple as possible so maybe we should toss out any hp idea. Lets also toss out any idea that there will be different progression for generalists and specialists. Being a G or an S should be determined by what class (special) you choose and not by your dice. Look back at post 4 where I have my idea for a class system. Each class needs to follow the same progression. Each class will however have a different special, some may have two, tied to them. Each class will progress in a similar manner such as their specials slowly getting better and more flexible.
I'm fine with specialists and generalists having the same progression (or as similar as possible) and in fact only made them different for the sake of being different. Probably not the best idea. However, I do think dice should be tied to class, since giving complete freedom to players has lead to specialization being king for the last two wars. I think that with a tighter control on the players' dice, we can keep the game more balanced, without swinging the the pendulum too far in favor of specialization or generalization.
In this system, the major tension should be between magic, ranged, and melee. Specialization or generalization should be more of a thematic choice, rather than something that gives glaring advantages.
Now, a specialist has 2d6 in his attack stat, and presumably uses it for everything. The generalist has split his points such that he has d8/d8/d6. Now, let's say that have an advantage gives you a modest +2 bonus. Even if the generalist picks the stat that has an advantage over the specialist's 2d6, he's behind no matter what.
2d6 averages 7
1d8 averages 4.5 (+2 = 6.5)
1d6 averages 3.5 (+2 = 5.5)
Even with a "weaker" stat, the specialist has an advantage over the generalist! Generalization is pointless!
I'm fine with specialists and generalists having the same progression (or as similar as possible) and in fact only made them different for the sake of being different. Probably not the best idea. However, I do think dice should be tied to class, since giving complete freedom to players has lead to specialization being king for the last two wars. I think that with a tighter control on the players' dice, we can keep the game more balanced, without swinging the the pendulum too far in favor of specialization or generalization.
Here's the problem. A class sticks a person with a special. They are now stuck with that special, or set of them, and the only thing they have for freely manipulate is their dice. Taking that away from a player gives them no freedom. They basically pick a class and all future character choices are predetermined by it. Or basically the class choice would be the only mechanical choice that a character would make. It seems that you want to give an attacker a high attack and an attack special when they are likely to pick a high attack to go with their attack special. You plan seems to be more of a pigeon-hole to me.
I think that dice should be free for the player to manipulate. A class is suppose to determine what a player will be good at. The classes should all fit different roles. A character should be free to have their own personal dice be what they want it to be. Sure they may want to be an attacker with high attack dice and attack specials. Or they may just take the attack specials and go with a more even build or defensive build. A player should be free to do such especially if a class take away the specials freedom they once had.
ShowFrank, the problem with your method is partially the number of points given out at the start. With 5 points, my only real options become: specialize 5/0/0 and generalize 2/2/1.
Now, a specialist has 2d6 in his attack stat, and presumably uses it for everything. The generalist has split his points such that he has d8/d8/d6. Now, let's say that have an advantage gives you a modest +2 bonus. Even if the generalist picks the stat that has an advantage over the specialist's 2d6, he's behind no matter what.
2d6 averages 7
1d8 averages 4.5 (+2 = 6.5)
1d6 averages 3.5 (+2 = 5.5)
Even with a "weaker" stat, the specialist has an advantage over the generalist! Generalization is pointless!
What system of method are you talking about here?
Your method in post 4. A character starts with 5 points at level one.
Now I see why you're upset about classes being responsible for dice progressions.
I plan on having a small number of classes, and multiple specials for each class.
So, picking class A doesn't get you dice scores B,C, and D, and special E. It gives you dice scores B,C, and D, and your choice of specials E,F,G, or H. Furthermore, your class might share specials F and H with class X, which has a different dice progression.
Your method in post 4. A character starts with 5 points at level one.
Now I see why you're upset about classes being responsible for dice progressions.
I plan on having a small number of classes, and multiple specials for each class.
So, picking class A doesn't get you dice scores B,C, and D, and special E. It gives you dice scores B,C, and D, and your choice of specials E,F,G, or H. Furthermore, your class might share specials F and H with class X, which has a different dice progression.
First off, that is a guide line and has not been refined one bit.
Second, it is designed for a 2 stat system and not a 3 stat system.
Now since it is a guide line we can talk about how it can be improved rather than just saying it sucks lets throw it out. So far it is the only proposed idea that actually has any flesh to it.
First off, that is a guide line and has not been refined one bit.
Second, it is designed for a 2 stat system and not a 3 stat system.
Now since it is a guide line we can talk about how it can be improved rather than just saying it sucks lets throw it out. So far it is the only proposed idea that actually has any flesh to it.
At what point did I say "it sucks lets throw it out"? I believe I said there was a problem with it as written. I have no psychic or prophetic powers, so I can't make any comments about changes you're thinking of implementing, only things that exist now. I looked at it, I offered a criticism based on math rather than feelings.
Furthermore, none of us are under any obligation to comment and improve on your system, though I will gladly do that when you come can show me a system that actually works with the three stats we're leaning towards using. You talk as if we've already decided to use your system, when we're still in the very preliminary development stages.
Thirdly, I think you're vastly understating the amount of effort that others have put into their suggestions. Your progression doesn't even have die sizes in it. It's just a bunch of placeholders stretched over a ten level progression. My idea at least organized the max/min/average die values that can be expected from the players*.
*By the way, using a system like mine, a +2 bonus for an advantaged type is fine at lower levels, but it needs to be about +4 at the highest levels for a decently low stat (d10, 3 points) to beat the highest possible stat (2d6+2, 7 points). I'm unsure of how this would work.
Also as it is written the classes don't dictate dice sizes. Dice sizes are based off of what we have been using. One's level advancement allows for one to increase their die size and not class because I feel that die size should be tied into level and not ones class.
I'm not assuming that it is my system that will be used. I am however seeing that since it is the only proposed system that has been fleshed out we can use it as a springboard for a class system. I'd most prefer it if a class system for 2 stat was made and fix and another for a 3 stat system was make and fixed. This way we could weigh the two systems against each other and compare their strengths and weaknesses. If we jump into only working on one system and one system only, the way we did after the first edition war, then we have doomed ourselves to work around that one systems failings without exploring other systems in any detail.
Anyway, I kinda had some ideas that you might concider chewing over. It seems that the general concensus is a "Tri-Stat" system. Main proposals for them have been Close, Ranged, and Magic. It also seems that the general thought of how they would work is with the player choosing an attack type before battle, and then a bonus being gained if their type beats the opponents. This system assumes a series of one-on-one battles, if I follow correctly.
I'm just concerned that the "Bonus for rocking their scissors" approach may get cluncky, and may cause wild imbalances in power. By that I mean that it will either decide the battle by giving the advantaged player get such a boost that they almost autowin, or that it is so insignificant that a large stat can be used to simply bludgeon your way through a disadvantage. The clunckiness would come in by way of needing to first check types, then adding either a static number or a dice size change, then rolling.
Now, what I propose is that along with having these three stats, each class also has a "Type". Basiclly, this would corispond to one of the three stats. The way this would change things is that instead of the player choosing which stat to attack with, it is determined by the opponents "Type".
I'll try to give a clearer example. Let's say that a "Mage" and a "Paladin" get in a battle. Their stats are:
Mage: Type-Magic, Stats-C=1d4 R=1d6 M=1d8
Paladin: Type-Close, Stats-C=1d6 R=1d4 M=1d8
This means that the Mage must roll with Close (Because the Paladin is Close Type), and the Paladin must roll Magic (Because the Mage is Magic Type).
As you can see, the Mages Close rating is a 1d4, while the Paladins Magic rating is a 1d8. Wait a second! That doesn't sound right! The Paladin is Close, shouldn't he have a 1d8 in Close?
Well, that's the beauty of this system. Your "Type" is simply a mechanic by which your opponent's rolled stat is determined. You are not in control of what stat you must roll. In this way, you wouldn't see a player simply spamming their highest stat. They don't have the ability to simply pick and choose their best stat.
This also allows for some interesting flavour. Although our Paladin charges into Melee, he is best at fighting Magic users, because of the divine protection he brings to bear. This means he would be excellent for nuking Mages, although he is not as well trained in Melee as a Fighter (Type Close, 1d8 Close rating). In this way, even characters with the same Type will have better odds at fighting different foes.
Please note that in the previous example, class names like Paladin and Mage were used simply for illistrative purposes. I read the debating over how specific class names may not be desirable, so they may be removed. However, the basic framework of my proposal still stands without deinitive classes. Players would choose a Type, choose stats, and then Class can determine specials, as was proposed. The "Specialist vs Generalist" idea that was talked about previously can also be ported in. In essence, my proposal is less about the determination of stats and more about what they mean in mechanical terms.
Problems that I can see with my proposal include the loss of the player choice of which stat to use. This removes a tactical option, and makes the battle determined more by luck. Of course, depending on how specials or levels work, there may be strategy coming from other means than choosing an attack stat.
Sorry I rambled, but I just had this idea in my head and had to let it out. Any feedback is much appretiated. Hope everything goes well in this thread. I fidn discussions of game design facinating.
One of our ideas is that the stat you're using is kept secret from the other side, creating a guessing game. This wouldn't be possible if everything was determined by your type.
As for bonuses, I've gone over this briefly myself. Assuming a dice progression of:
d4 - d6 - d8 - d10 - d12 - 2d6 - 2d6+1 - 2d6+2
at the beginning of the game, a bonus of +2 makes a d4 able to beat a d8 about 50% of the time. Later on, this bonus should increase to roughly +4, as this gives a 1d10 a .5 edge over 2d6+2. Assuming we use my point progression, player A could have the stats:
melee: 2d6+2
ranged: 1d6
magic: 1d10
Melee beats magic beats ranged beats melee, so let's say player B comes along with stats like:
melee: 1d6
ranged: 2d6+2
magic: 1d10
Player A attacks a location, choosing his stat in secret. Player B defends the location, also choosing his stat in secret. If player A chooses his highest stat (melee), he's at a disadvantage if player B chooses his highest stat (ranged). However, if player A chooses magic in an attempt to be tricky, he ends up with an advantage over Player B.
Unless there is some way for us to prevent this, other than predetermining peoples stats for them, I think that this will likely lead to a lot more unintended over-the-top specialization. Specialization is bad if a system is not built for it and this system seems to be trying to break specialization. If we can't find a way around said problem then we might have to throw it in the scrap box with a lot of other things.
Now, with that out of the way, we need to work on CharGen. IMO, you should get 3 points, just like in this war, plus 10 HP as a base (plus 1 from rounding down). This is something I discovered when tinkering with the HP system: it's too lethal if you don't give new characters a buffer. With 10 HP, combats will last about two rounds at level 1, becoming either more lethal or more dragged out as you increase in level depending on the character. Finally, alongside those benefits, you get one special from a pool of three or four, with at least two being unique to your class. How does that sound?
Funny thing is, we HAVE an answer to the RPS factor in the form of the one-on-one resolution system. Since you can't know who you're gonna go up against, there's already an element of double-blind guessing in most battles (that is, any battle where both sides have two people, which is most of them in the early game), so the RPS factor is countered.
If it's in 1v1 battles and to some extent 2v2 battles then I'd say that it is far from being countered. Several battle recently had 1v1 or 2v2 or even 1v1 with each side using a pet. In such a case we would have the RPS imbalance show up. I would think that we would want to eliminate it as much as possible rather than just saying that it wont be a problem if the battles are big enough. I do think that such a system needs to be looked into rather than just writing such things off assuming that such problems will fix themselves.
Then, we can just solve the RPS factor by going with the fix I proposed earlier: If you picked Rock to someone else's scissors, your dice doesn't grow, it just becomes more consistent. Meanwhile, scissor guy's dice becomes LESS consistent than normal.
This can still cause that problem that EE mentioned earlier about 1d4 minions auto losing. If you have a 2d6 it can condense into a 3d4. I'm not sure what a 1d4 would spread/open into but my guess is that it would be something like staying a 1d4 or becoming a 1d3 or something. A 1d3 auto loses and a 1d4 wins the the 3d4 only about 1 in every 256 tries or something. This is without adding any special bonuses of which minions have basically never had any. Adding is specials a 1d4 will likely also become an auto lose. This method can have some of the same problems as a static bonus has.
PS: Plus, there's a very easy way to broaden a d4: it becomes d6-2. Similarly, if you want to condense it, it becomes 2d2. Problem solved.
Well, a set of minions would lose anyway, so this isn't a problem of the system. Quite simply, if you send a 1d4 minion, you EXPECT IT to die and do simple chipping damage, not be a threat. Note that, because they take a slot, pets do at least 1d6, and will probably do at least 1d8 and have an HP pool of their own in this new system. A d4 minion would only be feasible if they didn't count against the personnel limit, in which case I don't have any problem with them losing horribly and inflicting minor damage.
Then why have minions when they will do nothing but die. Why have pets when they will likely be of little to no use in higher levels. Such a system will make mook attacks by an NPC enemy basically completely useless unless something like 10 to 20 (or more) mooks hit a location at once. That or the mooks will need to have a d12 dice or so. If simple stats can't work out for mooks then this means that all NPCs will need to be stated like all PC which may end up taking way too much time for simple mooks.
You are assuming that we will use an hp system and a points pool for combat. We have talked about these subjects and decided that it would be a good idea to explore them further but we have not come to any sort of consensus that they will be mechanics that we will incorporate.
PS: Plus, there's a very easy way to broaden a d4: it becomes d6-2. Similarly, if you want to condense it, it becomes 2d2. Problem solved.
And is the above scenario that I presented, both of these dice would basically be an auto lose so it solves nothing. If anything, such a system would encourage everyone to be generalists so that they would never end up in an auto lose situation.
Why have pets when they will likely be of little to no use in higher levels.
Uhm...because pets will have upgrades over the course of the 20 levels to keep them competitive and are not mooks? Seriously, this is pointless debating. You're confusing pets with mooks, and making a mountain out of a molehill. Minions are SUPPOSED to lose unless you mass them. The end. It's pets that are supposed to stand up and have a fighting chance.
And is the above scenario that I presented, both of these dice would basically be an auto lose so it solves nothing. If anything, such a system would encourage everyone to be generalists so that they would never end up in an auto lose situation.
And here is where the logic fails. If I have a 2d6+2 on my Melee stat, am I going to chicken out and go for my pathetic 1d12/1d10 Ranged stat in a fight?
HELL NO. I'm going to take my chances with the 2d6+2 becoming 2d8 or whatever, I'm NOT going to be such an idiot to fall into the trap of using a much weaker stat when it is unfavorable. That's the beauty of simply adding or reducing consistency: there ISN'T a major RPS factor. There just isn't, a specialist isn't going to swap his tasty maxed out stat for a craptastic semi-competitive backup stat unless he's about to get his face pounded in by someone using 6d2+2 or something. Once again, this is making mountains out of molehills.
Nah, it's just that we're like muslim factions trying to convince the rest that we are the ones who are following the Prophet's Word. We're not that bad, you know. :P
Or any other religious faction debate.
Edit: Sort of. We know we're going to go through 20 levels, we know how much XP it'll take to reach each one, but we don't know what you get every level.
....
<(>o<)>
....
<(>o<)>
...
<(>o<)>
<(^o^<) Woo! I turned water into tequilla.
Base 2/day.
And the board would be like
HDI: The problem with that system is that it turns matches into a bore. You just whack at each other, with no emotion or strategy. That's why I'm pushing for HP-as-stat, which adds a strategic element into deciding how much HP you have. Sure, at first level, you don't need it...but at high levels, HP will be the difference between a glass cannon who hits hard and prays that he wins and a stone wall that fights through its matches through attrition. Meanwhile, fixed HP...might as well not use HP at all if we're doing that, and calculate who dies by using dice differences as always, then.
Rustmonster has something interesting there but I'm wondering if there is a bit of a way around such a system. I can see many people just boosting the stat of their own type. So a close-type would boost their close stat, a magic-type would boost their magic stat and so on. I see this happening because if someone is a close type they know that the enemy will be attacking their close stat. The guaranteed way to win such a battle is to boost your own close stat.
I'm sorry, maybe I didn't explain well enough. You see, you roll YOUR stat depending on what the opponents type is. They don't roll your dice. Like in that example above, the Paladin does not get a 1d8 because the MAGE had a 1d8 in Magic, the Paladin got a 1d8 because the PALADIN got a 1d8 in Magic. If it was that you rolled your opponents stat, then the Mage would have gotten a 1d6, because that is the Paladin's Close, but he rolled a 1d4, which is the Mage's Close.
But yeah, I just kinda threw that out there as a possible idea. I don't quite know what exactly you guys had in mind, but I'd love to try to help out, if I can. I'm gonna look over all your guys ideas again.
Mage: Type-Magic, Stats-C=1d4 R=1d6 M=1d8
Paladin: Type-Close, Stats-C=1d6 R=1d4 M=1d8
This could work if characters were specked in such a fassion. The why I see it going is more like this:
Mage: Type-Magic, Stats-C=1d4 R=1d6 M=1d8
Paladin: Type-Close, Stats-C=1d8 R=1d4 M=1d6
If the Paladin knows that his/her enemies will be using close attacks against them then the Paladin will likely make sure that the Close stat is the highest so as to win most often. The same goes for the Mage.
I'm sorry, maybe I didn't explain well enough. You see, you roll YOUR stat depending on what the opponents type is. They don't roll your dice. Like in that example above, the Paladin does not get a 1d8 because the MAGE had a 1d8 in Magic, the Paladin got a 1d8 because the PALADIN got a 1d8 in Magic. If it was that you rolled your opponents stat, then the Mage would have gotten a 1d6, because that is the Paladin's Close, but he rolled a 1d4, which is the Mage's Close.
But yeah, I just kinda threw that out there as a possible idea. I don't quite know what exactly you guys had in mind, but I'd love to try to help out, if I can. I'm gonna look over all your guys ideas again.
I kinda had two ideas on it. The first one is something I stole from this online game. I forgot what it was called, but basiclly, every combatant has a combat value. It's a static number. The way that the system determines a winner is by "rolling a dice" that is the size of both of the combatants combat values combined. So if one had a 5, and one had a 7, it would roll 1d12.
The dice is rolled, and each combatant has an X in Y chance of winning, where X is their personal combat value, and Y is the size of the "dice" that was determined earlier. So in the case of the above example, if the "dice" rolled 1 to 5, then the first player would win. If it rolled 6 to 12, then the other player would win.
This avoids the problem of dice minimums, as you always have at least SOME chance of winning. Static bonuses would be the norm, and while giving you a better chance to win, it would not disallow your opponent from winning.
The other idea is to, again, replace "dice size" with a static "combat rating". Instead of the above method, each combatant rolls a dice that size X, where X is their combat value. This way, there is always the chance of a 1, which can easily be bested by the enemy. This also adds more granularity, since you don't have to jump from 1d4, to 1d6, to 1d8. It could go 1d4, 1d5, 1d6, etc.
Both of these methods sort of assume that a computer will do the rolling, as a 1d17 is hard to come by. It does remove the problem of auto-losing, though, makes combat values much easier to write (4 instead of 1d4), and makes increasing capabilities more intuitive and logical (instead of rasing from 1d4 to 1d6 or 1d4+1 it would raise form 4 to 5 to 6).
This could work if characters were specked in such a fassion. The why I see it going is more like this:
Mage: Type-Magic, Stats-C=1d4 R=1d6 M=1d8
Paladin: Type-Close, Stats-C=1d8 R=1d4 M=1d6
If the Paladin knows that his/her enemies will be using close attacks against them then the Paladin will likely make sure that the Close stat is the highest so as to win most often. The same goes for the Mage.
Yes, but if combatants are chosen at random, then they won't KNOW who they are fighting. They won't know that they will go up against a close opponent, unless there is only one other person in the battle. Then again, that would mean that this Paladin would be poor against anything BUT a battle where there is only Close combatants.
So unless you are going to just cherrypick battles like that, and are lucky enough that no one of another type ever joins a battle, yes, you will do well.
I think that there is some disconnect here though. Why do you think that having a high stat in your own Type would be more of an advantage than having a high stat of something other than your Type? Your type does not interact with your stats in any way. It is determined by the enemy. So I can see someone specing themselves as a Mage-Killer who is focused entirely on having a high Magic stat, but your type wouldn't effect that. If you are also Magic type, it just means that other Magic types with a high Magic stat will stalemate you. If you have high Magic stat but are Close, then you will be better against a Magic type who has a low Close.
Yes, but if combatants are chosen at random, then they won't KNOW who they are fighting. They won't know that they will go up against a close opponent, unless there is only one other person in the battle. Then again, that would mean that this Paladin would be poor against anything BUT a battle where there is only Close combatants.
So unless you are going to just cherrypick battles like that, and are lucky enough that no one of another type ever joins a battle, yes, you will do well.
I think that there is some disconnect here though. Why do you think that having a high stat in your own Type would be more of an advantage than having a high stat of something other than your Type? Your type does not interact with your stats in any way. It is determined by the enemy. So I can see someone specing themselves as a Mage-Killer who is focused entirely on having a high Magic stat, but your type wouldn't effect that. If you are also Magic type, it just means that other Magic types with a high Magic stat will stalemate you. If you have high Magic stat but are Close, then you will be better against a Magic type who has a low Close.
I think I've just been misunderstanding your proposed system because I'm tired. I was thinking that the Mage would roll their close vs the pally's close and then the pally would roll his magic vs the Mages magic. I was having a brain fart and not seeing that it would be the pally's magic vs the Mage's close.
This could work. The problem we've had before is everyone specializing so that they can have the best chances they could get at winning all the time. The best chance of winning with this system would be to go with a d6/d6/d6. If so we might end up with a similar problem unless we decide to use a mechanic that takes basic character building freedoms away from players. If such freedoms are taken away from people everyone might see about going with balanced builds. Basically most people will likely play a generalist. This way they can still have a chance against a specialists good stat and will likely win against a specialists bad stat.
When you think about it...that actually makes high leveled characters MORE likely to win, unless you want to make 20 levels of progression worth very, very little. Between specials, monstrous combat ratings, etc., a level 20 character could easily have something like 32 to a newbie's 5, giving them absolutely amazing chances to win. Contrast and compare with a d8 newbie facing off against a 2d6+2 powerhouse, where the powerhouse has to roll over his average by two points to outright defeat the newbie, while the new guy can still deal some very decent damage to the level 20 juggernaut.
Unless you plan on thinning out level progression with 20 levels, I'm sure a level 20 will have something over a 2d6+2. That is basically less than what some of our level 5 or level 6 people currently have in our second edition war. My character's defense when with 3 allies is 1d12+1d4+3 and I'm only level 5. I am a 5-12-19 A d8 level 1 character in the current war has almost no chance of over coming that. Even if it is a one-on-one fight with a 1d12+1d4 vs 1d8 I still have the upper hand because my average is the other person's max. So right now a basically already have a 2d6+2 and I'm only level 5. If you plan for a level 20 to have that then there will be a lot of thinning out of levels going on.
Uh, to avoid confusion and ensure good communication, could proponents of the best ideas at the moment please summarize things so I can put it in the first post for reference? I missed a lot and pretty sure I misunderstood some other stuff, so a quick run down of the concepts being batted back and forth would help me a lot.
Thank you.
When you think about it...that actually makes high leveled characters MORE likely to win, unless you want to make 20 levels of progression worth very, very little. Between specials, monstrous combat ratings, etc., a level 20 character could easily have something like 32 to a newbie's 5, giving them absolutely amazing chances to win. Contrast and compare with a d8 newbie facing off against a 2d6+2 powerhouse, where the powerhouse has to roll over his average by two points to outright defeat the newbie, while the new guy can still deal some very decent damage to the level 20 juggernaut.
I don't quite follow. I saw the previous level chart, and it seemed that you did not gain combat ability every level. As well, special increases are usually once a week or something.
I also don't understand how a 32 vs a 5 is that bad. The newbie has a 13.5% chance to win the combat (5/37). I think that, being 19 levels lower, this is reasonable.
In the case of d8 vs 2d6+2, you calculated wrong. If he has a +2, then his average will defeat the newbie instantly. It would be 3.5+3.5+2=9. The "needs two over average" would be if he was 2d6, which I think would be low for level 20 (isn't that only 4 points in the stat?).
Even in that case, the big guy has a 28% chance to win instantly. To beat just his average, the newbie needs a max roll, a 12.5% chance. I won't do the exact math for how easy it is for him to win, but the fact that he requires the brute to roll extremely low and that the brute can win outright seems to give him lower odds.
3 stats is more favored but 2 stats is a bit more simple for everyone.
Class-Type: Your type determines what stat your enemy uses against you.
Level progression is staying in.
Level progression may be expanded to 15 or 20 levels.
Condensing and expanding dice.
Dice Percentiles based of of static stats.
Classes are in.
Should classes contain 1 special or 2.
Should stats be tied to class.
I can't think of any others at the moment.
This could work. The problem we've had before is everyone specializing so that they can have the best chances they could get at winning all the time. The best chance of winning with this system would be to go with a d6/d6/d6. If so we might end up with a similar problem unless we decide to use a mechanic that takes basic character building freedoms away from players. If such freedoms are taken away from people everyone might see about going with balanced builds. Basically most people will likely play a generalist. This way they can still have a chance against a specialists good stat and will likely win against a specialists bad stat.
Yes, but I don't understand why everyone would play a generalist. A generalist would, as you said, still have a chance vs a specialists good stat, and have an okey chance at beating their bad stat. However, this basiclly means that generalists strive for mediocriety. They are either equal, marginally better (Medium vs Low), or marginally worse(Medium vs High).
On the other hand, with specialists, they can either be fantasticly better (High vs Low), marginally better (High vs Medium, or Medium vs Low), equal (High vs High, Medium vs Medium, Low vs Low), marginally worse (Medium vs High, Low vs Medium), or fantasticlly worse (Low vs High).
basiclly, Specialists would be riskier, but if they work just right then the payoff will be a massacre. If they are unlucky, then they will be ground into the dirt. Generalists would be far more conservative, and while better at not losing, would also be poor at winning. A cautious style does not make them automaticlly better. It would allow the two playstyles of all-or-nothing vs jack-of-all-master-of-none.
PS: I hope I'm not hijacking things here. I just had a butt-ton of ideas and wanted to see what people think. I don't really care if my ideas are used, I just wnated to see if there are any ideas in them that might be of interest or may be developed.
I don't quite follow. I saw the previous level chart, and it seemed that you did not gain combat ability every level. As well, special increases are usually once a week or something.
I also don't understand how a 32 vs a 5 is that bad. The newbie has a 13.5% chance to win the combat (5/37). I think that, being 19 levels lower, this is reasonable.
In the case of d8 vs 2d6+2, you calculated wrong. If he has a +2, then his average will defeat the newbie instantly. It would be 3.5+3.5+2=9. The "needs two over average" would be if he was 2d6, which I think would be low for level 20 (isn't that only 4 points in the stat?).
Even in that case, the big guy has a 28% chance to win instantly. To beat just his average, the newbie needs a max roll, a 12.5% chance. I won't do the exact math for how easy it is for him to win, but the fact that he requires the brute to roll extremely low and that the brute can win outright seems to give him lower odds.
Just one thing to say: My posts. HP. Idea about buffer. Read.
10 HP as a buffer to avoid stuff like I saw for years in 3.X where an orc with a falchion murdered you most of the time. Why do you think I've been advocating HP so much? Because it prevents precisely these kinds of matches. With HP, a level 1 character has 11 HP, as a minimum. A 2d6+2 character, as you said, has nine on average. Guess how much you have to go over your average to kill a newbie?
That's right. Two points. While the newbie is still digging at YOUR HP pool and will probably have another shot at killing you later after you've been worn down by successive battles, and can be even tougher if he pours a point or two on his HP stat. So, my question is, since we're discussing completely different things (I didn't understand a word of your idea about close, ranged, and melee, BTW. Please, explain it more clearly), shouldn't we try to find some middle ground before continuing this any further?
Even in that case, the big guy has a 28% chance to win instantly. To beat just his average, the newbie needs a max roll, a 12.5% chance. I won't do the exact math for how easy it is for him to win, but the fact that he requires the brute to roll extremely low and that the brute can win outright seems to give him lower odds.
I think it would be quite lower. It would be something like a 40% or 30% chance of the brute rolling that low. Now for the n00b to win they have to roll a max which will happen 12.5% of the time. With a quick guess that would be something like:
.3*.125=.0375
.4*.125=.05
So the 1d8 will win somewhere between 3.75% to 5% of the time.
Yes, but I don't understand why everyone would play a generalist. A generalist would, as you said, still have a chance vs a specialists good stat, and have an okey chance at beating their bad stat. However, this basiclly means that generalists strive for mediocriety. They are either equal, marginally better (Medium vs Low), or marginally worse(Medium vs High).
On the other hand, with specialists, they can either be fantasticly better (High vs Low), marginally better (High vs Medium, or Medium vs Low), equal (High vs High, Medium vs Medium, Low vs Low), marginally worse (Medium vs High, Low vs Medium), or fantasticlly worse (Low vs High).
basiclly, Specialists would be riskier, but if they work just right then the payoff will be a massacre. If they are unlucky, then they will be ground into the dirt. Generalists would be far more conservative, and while better at not losing, would also be poor at winning. A cautious style does not make them automaticlly better. It would allow the two playstyles of all-or-nothing vs jack-of-all-master-of-none.
Right now the safe conservative way to go with 2 stats is to specialize. If you are always attacking then the safe thing to do is to max your attack. If you are always defending then you max your defense. with 3 stats a person can't just max one and never need to use the other. All will be of use so instead of having a dead stat because it wont be used, I can see people instead going with an average build so that all of their stats will be of use because more than likely they will be using all of them.
PS: I hope I'm not hijacking things here. I just had a butt-ton of ideas and wanted to see what people think. I don't really care if my ideas are used, I just wnated to see if there are any ideas in them that might be of interest or may be developed.
I'm completely cool with you posting here. I kind of like the ideas you have posted even if I may disagree with some of them from time to time.
Hp is a possibility.
3 stats is more favored but 2 stats is a bit more simple for everyone.
Class-Type: Your type determines what stat your enemy uses against you.
Level progression is staying in.
Level progression may be expanded to 15 or 20 levels.
Condensing and expanding dice.
Dice Percentiles based of of static stats.
Classes are in.
Should classes contain 1 special or 2.
Should stats be tied to class.
I'm going to go ahead and move this to the first post.
Just one thing to say: My posts. HP. Idea about buffer. Read.
10 HP as a buffer to avoid stuff like I saw for years in 3.X where an orc with a falchion murdered you most of the time. Why do you think I've been advocating HP so much? Because it prevents precisely these kinds of matches. With HP, a level 1 character has 11 HP, as a minimum. A 2d6+2 character, as you said, has nine on average. Guess how much you have to go over your average to kill a newbie?
That's right. Two points. While the newbie is still digging at YOUR HP pool and will probably have another shot at killing you later after you've been worn down by successive battles, and can be even tougher if he pours a point or two on his HP stat.
Okey, so you are advocating that there is no "accuracy roll", but instead a roll just determines how much HP they lose? I understand that. Sorry, I was thinking more in line with the old "Higher roll wins" way. My system sort of assumed that you have no "HP", and simply got KOed if you didn't win the round.
So, my question is, since we're discussing completely different things (I didn't understand a word of your idea about close, ranged, and melee, BTW. Please, explain it more clearly), shouldn't we try to find some middle ground before continuing this any further?
Yes, I would say that is a good idea.
First, I'll try to condense my idea. Basiclly, everyone has 3 stats, right? Close, Range, and Magic. This shows how good you are against a character of that Type. Every character has one Type, either Close, Range, or Magic. When you get into a battle, your combat ability is determined by your stat that matches up with the opponents Type.
So if you are against a Magic type, you will use your Magic score. If you are a Close type, they will use their Close score. The resolution system can be pretty much anything we want, all the CRM system does it determine which stat you use.
Does that make it simpler to understand? It is a rather simple idea, I'm just pretty verbose, so it might have been buried under my walls of text.
I'm completely cool with you posting here. I kind of like the ideas you have posted even if I may disagree with some of them from time to time.
Hey, I wouldn't be posting them here if I didn't want them to be disagreed with. ;)
If we develop everything together, we can probably amalgomate all these loose ideas in a way that suits everyones tastes.
Does that make it simpler to understand? It is a rather simple idea, I'm just pretty verbose, so it might have been buried under my walls of text.
It does. Oh, it does. Thanks for the idiot proofed version. :P
While I like the idea, it means that generalists are hosed. The broader your type, the easier it is for the specialist to just go ahead and kick the crap out of you. Any idea on how to mitigate that? I just can't see a generalist holding a candle to a specialist in that system when the opponent gets to choose whether he wants to spank you with Magic or Melee. And if YOU get to choose, then generalists are insanely strong, as they always get to pick the stat that their opponent is bad with.
Lets for now say I am. Lets also say that the n00b has a 1d8 and the level 20 vet has a 2d6+2.
The n00b has an average of 4.5 and the vet has an average of 9.
The vet will do, on average, 18 damage to the n00b in 2 rounds.
The n00b will do, on average, 9 damage to the vet in 2 rounds.
This knocks the vet from 30 hp to 21. This means a vet can take on about 3 n00bs and still be standing. It would also take a n00b about 7 rounds to beat a vet.
This is of course not calculating any sort of specials of any sort into the whole equation. A vet will have a bit more specials than the n00b. If a special can raise the vet's stat average to 11+ then a vet will almost always win the n00b in the first round. If attacks are done by turns then the vet can go untouched the whole way through. If attacks are resolved at the same time then the vet can kill 7 n00bs.
It does. Oh, it does. Thanks for the idiot proofed version.
No prob, Bob. :P
While I like the idea, it means that generalists are hosed. The broader your type, the easier it is for the specialist to just go ahead and kick the crap out of you. Any idea on how to mitigate that? I just can't see a generalist holding a candle to a specialist in that system when the opponent gets to choose whether he wants to spank you with Magic or Melee. And if YOU get to choose, then generalists are insanely strong, as they always get to pick the stat that their opponent is bad with.
Umm... I don't understand what you mean by "Choosing to spank you with Magic or Melee". Are you kinda thinking that you choose your type every battle? The idea was that your Type is set in stone. Everyone you ever fight will use their X stat. The generalist would not get to "choose" which stat to use. He must use the opponent's Type to attack. So he would only "spank" you if you happen to be the Type he is specialized at being good against. Even a Generalist would only have one Type, so individual Generalists would still be better at fighting certain Types of enemys (IE, if the opponent has a low score in the Generalist's Type, they will be at a disadvantage).
Could you elaborate a bit more? I don't think I understand.
PS Will be gone for a bit, won't be back til about 10 (central time).
No prob, Bob. :P
Umm... I don't understand what you mean by "Choosing to spank you with Magic or Melee". Are you kinda thinking that you choose your type every battle? The idea was that your Type is set in stone. Everyone you ever fight will use their X stat. The generalist would not get to "choose" which stat to use. He must use the opponent's Type to attack. So he would only "spank" you if you happen to be the Type he is specialized at being good against. Even a Generalist would only have one Type, so individual Generalists would still be better at fighting certain Types of enemys (IE, if the opponent has a low score in the Generalist's Type, they will be at a disadvantage).
Could you elaborate a bit more? I don't think I understand.
PS Will be gone for a bit, won't be back til about 10 (central time).
Sure. Paladins have Melee/Magic, for example (we'll use names to make things clearer, okay?). Ergo, their "type" is Melee/Magic, right? Which means that when they go up against a fighter, the fighter can choose to use his pimped out Melee stat, all while a Wizard can riddle the paladin full of holes with his might Magic stat. Essentially, you're hosed by choosing a class that offers generalism, and would do better if you specialized. And IF the generalists only have one type, why have generalist classes at all?
I kind of like rustmonster's idea of having a flat score, but it would probably be difficult to implement.
Not really. Just add up the numbers to get a total. That total will be the dice that is being used. So a 3 going against a 7 will use a d10. The d10 will be rolled an the 3 wins if the result is a 1, 2 or 3. The 7 wins if the result is 4 through 10. Basically the 3 has a 3/10 (30%) chance of winning and the 7 has a 7/10 (70%) chance of winning.
I hope I'm getting this one right.
After some thought, I'm kind of liking Rustmonster's type idea. It can allow for use to make the system dependent on more stats without complicating things much. If we went to 4 stats we could have stats that are strong/weak vs each other and other stats that are neutral vs each other.
Maybe we could so something like arcane > martial > nature > divine > arcane.
In this example Arcane is stronger than martial and weak vs divine. It doesn't touch nature so it would be neutral vs nature. If fighting against nature there would be no bonuses or penalties.
I think the percentage thing up above might work well. Lets say that a 3 and a 7 fight against each other. If they are neutral it would be as stated above. Now if the 3 is, lest use my above type example, arcane and the 7 is martial then we could add 1 to 3 and subtract 1 from 7. This leaves the same overall total of 10 but now changes the chances of winning to 4/10 (40%) for 3 and 6/10 (60%) for 7. 7 still has the advantage but now 7 is less likely to win. 7's advantage has gone down by a bit.
What are peoples thoughts on these things?
And hasn't we decided that the plan was to limit the RPS factor, not embrace it?
Sure. Paladins have Melee/Magic, for example (we'll use names to make things clearer, okay?). Ergo, their "type" is Melee/Magic, right? Which means that when they go up against a fighter, the fighter can choose to use his pimped out Melee stat, all while a Wizard can riddle the paladin full of holes with his might Magic stat. Essentially, you're hosed by choosing a class that offers generalism, and would do better if you specialized. And IF the generalists only have one type, why have generalist classes at all?
If a pally and wizard are:
Wizard: Magic; C-1d4, R-1d6, M-1d8
Paladin: Close; C-1d6, R-1d4, M-1d8
Then the Wizard uses its close stat vs the Paladin's magic stat. The Paladin uses its magic stat because the wizard is magic type and the Wizard uses its close attack because the Paladin is close type. This means that the fight will be:
W-1d4 vs P-1d8
Basically both the Paladin and the Wizard are designed to fight against Magic types because they must use their magic stat, their highest stat, vs magic types. Sure they could go d4/d4/d10 but then they would likely only win vs magic types and lose against everyone else. Specializing would be a good way to lose. If you fight against another magic specialist that has d4/d4/d10 then you are split even. So basically such a person loses vs close and ranged opponents and has about a 50% chance of winning verse another person of their same type having their type's stat maxed. Basically the character is designed to fail. A generalist of close or ranged designed as a d6/d6/d6 will have a good chance vs such a character. A magic generalist still has a chance vs the d10 but not much. In a way the generalist is less likely to be hosed because they are more capable of not auto losing most every fight.
Hadn't we decided to ditch Quad-Stat because of too much clutter and CharGen difficulty?
And hasn't we decided that the plan was to limit the RPS factor, not embrace it?
Yes, but that was before Rustmonster presented a way for us to be able to actually resolve such battles in a somewhat easy manner. I can resolve these types of fights easily by hand and think and plan them out. Before half our ideas were completely dependent upon using a computer program so that we could do them. Before our ideas were extremely complected. This is a nice and easy stream lined way of doing this that a lot of the complicated work out of calculations and battle and such.
A) Sentimental value. This sounds stupid, but I'm betting 3:1 that if we use a percentile system we'll suffer a HUGE player dropoff. It's just not as fun as having a funky 2d6 in your stat or something.
B) RPS Factor. As mentioned above, ANY imbalance to make types interesting is going to be HUGE.
C) Easy blowouts. A newbie against a big character DIES, under this system. End of story. And when the newbie doesn't die, it creates a sense of futility to advancement which is really bad for player continuity.
Maybe an advanced draft will convince me, but for now, color me unimpressed on this version of quad-stat and the fixed combat ratings.
Also I liked Rustmonster's stat based class thingy.
The problem is that it's too easy to break, and makes any bonuses FAR too valuable. Even a +1 bonus can make a massive difference with this kind of system, especially early on, and taking 1 point from a character to give it to the other brings back the RPS factor in full force. It's not that it's bad, per se, but it has many things against it.
A) Sentimental value. This sounds stupid, but I'm betting 3:1 that if we use a percentile system we'll suffer a HUGE player dropoff. It's just not as fun as having a funky 2d6 in your stat or something.
B) RPS Factor. As mentioned above, ANY imbalance to make types interesting is going to be HUGE.
C) Easy blowouts. A newbie against a big character DIES, under this system. End of story. And when the newbie doesn't die, it creates a sense of futility to advancement which is really bad for player continuity.
Maybe an advanced draft will convince me, but for now, color me unimpressed on this version of quad-stat and the fixed combat ratings.
With this system the 1d4 vs a 2d6+2 will be a 4/18 (2/9) chance of winning for the d4 and a 14/18 (7/9) chance of winning for the 2d6+2. This translates to 22.2% and 77.8% chances of victory respectively. With your system a n00b has 0% chance of victory. I have no clue how you plan to make your HP thing but from what I can guess the n00b will basically do nearly no damage to the vet. With the percentiles the n00b has a 22.2% chance of winning. With your system the n00b has a 0% chance of beating the vet with the dice roll. I'm failing to see how the percentile system hurts the n00b or destroys balance.
I rather use max 10 because like with Warcraft III, a level 1 hero has a chance of beating a level 10 (as slim as it may be).
If we do increase the max level I don't think we should go much over 10. Maybe up to 15 max. Even then I think it's stretching it. A 15+ will either be way more powerful than a n00b or level progression will be thinned out so much things will sort of seem boring.
With this system the 1d4 vs a 2d6+2 will be a 4/18 (2/9) chance of winning for the d4 and a 14/18 (7/9) chance of winning for the 2d6+2. This translates to 22.2% and 77.8% chances of victory respectively. With your system a n00b has 0% chance of victory. I have no clue how you plan to make your HP thing but from what I can guess the n00b will basically do nearly no damage to the vet. With the percentiles the n00b has a 22.2% chance of winning. With your system the n00b has a 0% chance of beating the vet with the dice roll. I'm failing to see how the percentile system hurts the n00b or destroys balance.
This is how it works. First off, let's clarify that, just like dice, HP has 8 steps, appropriately named 1-8. Each step lets you add 1/4th HP*level, which means that if your HP stat is a 4, you add 1 HP*level, etc. Additionally, you start the game with a buffer of 10 HP+whatever your HP calculation gives you, rounded up. Therefore, you always start with at least 11 HP.
So, a 4 newbies and a vet fight. The vet has... HP 3, for example. 0.75*20 = 15, for a grand total of 25. The newbies, meanwhile, have d8's and a combined total of 40 HP.
Round 1:
Vet rolls 6.
Newbie A rolls 5. Both survive.
Round 2:
Vet rolls 13.
Newbie B rolls 2. Newbie B dies.
Round 3:
Vet rolls 4.
Newbie C rolls 7. Both survive.
Round 4:
Vet rolls 11.
Newbie D rolls 3. Newbie D dies.
Round 5:
Vet rolls 7.
Newbie A rolls 8. Both die.
Newbie C survives, and claims the territory.
Is this an unreasonable scenario? Note that I'm discounting the "special edge" that newbies will have over the vet. THAT is how I envision the HP system working. If we cut down to 10 levels, we'd have to double the benefits of HP, of course, but it still seems solid.
Edit: Incidentally, I need to work on a dying mechanic for this that's better than just running out of HP...
ShowThis is how it works. First off, let's clarify that, just like dice, HP has 8 steps, appropriately named 1-8. Each step lets you add 1/4th HP*level, which means that if your HP stat is a 4, you add 1 HP*level, etc. Additionally, you start the game with a buffer of 10 HP+whatever your HP calculation gives you, rounded up. Therefore, you always start with at least 11 HP.
So, a 4 newbies and a vet fight. The vet has... HP 3, for example. 0.75*20 = 15, for a grand total of 25. The newbies, meanwhile, have d8's and a combined total of 40 HP.
Round 1:
Vet rolls 6.
Newbie A rolls 5. Both survive.
Round 2:
Vet rolls 13.
Newbie B rolls 2. Newbie B dies.
Round 3:
Vet rolls 4.
Newbie C rolls 7. Both survive.
Round 4:
Vet rolls 11.
Newbie D rolls 3. Newbie D dies.
Round 5:
Vet rolls 7.
Newbie A rolls 8. Both die.
Newbie C survives, and claims the territory.
Is this an unreasonable scenario? Note that I'm discounting the "special edge" that newbies will have over the vet. THAT is how I envision the HP system working. If we cut down to 10 levels, we'd have to double the benefits of HP, of course, but it still seems solid.
Edit: Incidentally, I need to work on a dying mechanic for this that's better than just running out of HP...
It seems to be simple enough and it seems to work without calculating any specials into the system. I'm sure that after we come up with specials and classes the we will have to recalibrate the whole thing so that it doesn't get unbalanced. If the vet has a sort of special that raises its attack stat, lowers the enemy's or gives a bit of hp buffer then the vet will likely win.
I assume that you were also using the whole battle points system to determine how many of each player can enter a battle. With this system will a level 16 or 18 have to also go it alone vs 4 n00bs like the level 20 did? If so then the lower level players will be owned. Not only that there is no point in a high level character being build for support if they always have to fight alone at high levels. Basically a generalist that is designed for supporting allies in battle because weak at high levels because they are force to fight alone do to their high level.
I'm thinking that we should probably have the two duke it out until one dies and then have them cycle through rather than have people cycle through with each attack.
I think we still need to look further into these things so that we can explore them more.
Uhm...how would the newbies get owned when I just used a match with random rolls to prove that yes, the system works fine (before I add to the fact that the newbies are going to drown a vet under a barrage of Magic Missiles, Power Attacks, et al)? Yes, they probably would lose, but not by so much that they'd die. There's only so far numbers can take you, after all. If you go up against a capped character with four level 1 players, you almost deserve to lose, and will still probably only lose the battle and no players anyway. Notably, this was a level 20 vet that lost to four weaklings. I don't think much more can be said after this.
As for your concerns, I think a level 20 character could easily work by costing 30 points. Effectively, a newbie can join in so that support characters (which are a terrible idea and shouldn't really exist anyway at such high levels) aren't hosed, but if its needed, I can see an ability intended for support characters that reduces your "cost", letting you join a battle and have a few lackeys, among other ideas I have for fixing this "problem".
As for the cycle thing, that can be subject to change, of course. I prefer cycling because it seems more fair and lets you escape a total beating with a little luck, but if you want to have it be a gauntlet, be my guest.
Uhm...how would the newbies get owned when I just used a match with random rolls to prove that yes, the system works fine (before I add to the fact that the newbies are going to drown a vet under a barrage of Magic Missiles, Power Attacks, et al)? Yes, they probably would lose, but not by so much that they'd die. There's only so far numbers can take you, after all. If you go up against a capped character with four level 1 players, you almost deserve to lose, and will still probably only lose the battle and no players anyway. Notably, this was a level 20 vet that lost to four weaklings. I don't think much more can be said after this.
If we keep using a system where a vet gains more specials and stronger specials as they level up then a vet will likely have more than a 2d6+2.
With our current system a level 10 vet could have a 2d6+1d4+4d12 or 7-35.5-64. With our current system this is a vet with specials. With our current system a n00b with specials is a 1d12+1d4 or 2-9-16. So on average the level 10 vet with specials will kill each n00b in 1 hit. On average the it will take all 4 n00bs to kill the vet. At the end of the battle each side should be dead. If the first 3 n00bs roll great then they call kill the vet without the last guy going at all. This is of course assuming that we are doing the battle points limit thing. If not then 2 vets will slaughter the n00bs. Not only that two of our level 10s could likely kill each other in 1 hit as is. So doing things with base stats can make things seem all find and dandy but when specials are added in things get out of whack.
As for your concerns, I think a level 20 character could easily work by costing 30 points. Effectively, a newbie can join in so that support characters (which are a terrible idea and shouldn't really exist anyway at such high levels) aren't hosed, but if its needed, I can see an ability intended for support characters that reduces your "cost", letting you join a battle and have a few lackeys, among other ideas I have for fixing this "problem".
The bold is with something that I disagree with. By discouraging support characters from being possible or worth while we are pigeon-wholing the new, not yet developed, system into the same specialist problems that we now have and are trying to avoid. We will basically end up pushing everyone to max out all their stat points into one stat and that's it. Everyone will basically just look the same with little variation. With no support everyone will basically be a bunch of individuals rather than a team. I a person wants to make their player a individual then that's find. It is however ludicrous to force everyone into being an individual. If a person wants to play a supporter or generalist they should have said option and still be functional and worth while to play. They should not be forced into playing only in one style.
As for the cycle thing, that can be subject to change, of course. I prefer cycling because it seems more fair and lets you escape a total beating with a little luck, but if you want to have it be a gauntlet, be my guest.
I think death should just be random rolls done after battle so that a defeat in battle doesn't directly mean character death. Defeat will just mean that you lost and only if you lost bad enough can you have a chance of death.
DF, the whole HP thing is just to determine if you win or lose. I think specials will probably even out for vet vs. newb, with newbs having more, but worse, specials.
More? If each n00b has lets say 1 each. Lets say that the vet has 4. The vet has 4 that are upgraded and strong while the n00bs have 4 extremely weak ones. If the n00bs have 2 each they have 8 total and the n00b will likely have 4 or 5 or some such. Anyways, the n00bs will have weak specials and the vet will have good maxed specials. Also the n00bs will likely only have one of their specials that are of use in the battle. I'm assuming this since we are currently seeing this happen all the time with our current system. Half the tier 1 specials don't help with dice at all but rather help you res, flee, get a pet, or kill others. So the n00bs will likely have only 4 specials of use. The vet will have probably all but 1 that is of use. Lets say that each n00b has one of use and the vet has 2 of use. This then goes to the example I had above because I had the vet using a tier 1 and a tier 3 and each n00b used a tier 1 special. The result basically that of the n00bs being owned big time. For it to even out the specials have to not increase much, if at all, as one levels up. But at that point we have a vet with a couple magic missiles going against 4 n00bs who each get to use 1 of their own. With this the n00bs will likely blow the vet out of the water. So like I was saying before, adding specials to the mix can make things extremely complicated. Yes the HP system's bare structure looks all find and dandy but the system's skeleton is not taking anything into account except for basic stat roles. It does not take into account any specials. Because we don't have any set specials as of now, such a system can't be fully tested until we develop the specials system.
If we keep using a system where a vet gains more specials and stronger specials as they level up then a vet will likely have more than a 2d6+2.
With our current system a level 10 vet could have a 2d6+1d4+4d12 or 7-35.5-64. With our current system this is a vet with specials. With our current system a n00b with specials is a 1d12+1d4 or 2-9-16. So on average the level 10 vet with specials will kill each n00b in 1 hit. On average the it will take all 4 n00bs to kill the vet. At the end of the battle each side should be dead. If the first 3 n00bs roll great then they call kill the vet without the last guy going at all. This is of course assuming that we are doing the battle points limit thing. If not then 2 vets will slaughter the n00bs. Not only that two of our level 10s could likely kill each other in 1 hit as is. So doing things with base stats can make things seem all find and dandy but when specials are added in things get out of whack.
The bolded part, right there, is what you need to ditch. D'you think I'd go with someone else's rules when I'm basically making up my own little system before actually designing our system? Maybe it's my designer pride, but that sounds delusional. Who said I was going to use specials like the ones we have now?
Exactly. Nobody. In my fantasy world system which I want to transplant to the real world, MM and PA add, at most, 2 fixed points, Stand Alone exists as a rerolling mechanic in which you take the best result, etc. Don't assume I'm playing with the same rules when I'm using my own system, df.
Sorry if this sounded abrasive, BTW. I don't know why I did such an ardent counterargument. If I offended you, df, I'm really sorry. You're a
guy, and have very good ideas.The bold is with something that I disagree with. By discouraging support characters from being possible or worth while we are pigeon-wholing the new, not yet developed, system into the same specialist problems that we now have and are trying to avoid. We will basically end up pushing everyone to max out all their stat points into one stat and that's it. Everyone will basically just look the same with little variation. With no support everyone will basically be a bunch of individuals rather than a team. I a person wants to make their player a individual then that's find. It is however ludicrous to force everyone into being an individual. If a person wants to play a supporter or generalist they should have said option and still be functional and worth while to play. They should not be forced into playing only in one style.
This, BTW, is absolutely right. Support characters DO have a place in this new system, it's just that, as I see it, a support character is a secondary character, while what you mean is a character that doesn't fight directly and wins, but most definitely pulls the strings. For that, I already have a plan, involving the points mechanic. I'm working on a special to reduce cost, and something to introduce weak-ass minions which cost less than a real player to "play" that the puppetmaster can use to fight for him. Don't worry about support characters: after the case you've made, I'm convinced that they deserve a place in this new game.
I think death should just be random rolls done after battle so that a defeat in battle doesn't directly mean character death. Defeat will just mean that you lost and only if you lost bad enough can you have a chance of death.
As for this, I disagree. It's just really unfair that you might have done the biggest effort of the whole team, but you died. The HP difference mechanic makes for a better gauge, IMO, because it means that you can avoid dying due to your stellar performance making for a narrow loss.
Any other concerns?
The bolded part, right there, is what you need to ditch. D'you think I'd go with someone else's rules when I'm basically making up my own little system before actually designing our system? Maybe it's my designer pride, but that sounds delusional. Who said I was going to use specials like the ones we have now?
Exactly. Nobody. In my fantasy world system which I want to transplant to the real world, MM and PA add, at most, 2 fixed points, Stand Alone exists as a rerolling mechanic in which you take the best result, etc. Don't assume I'm playing with the same rules when I'm using my own system, df.
Sorry if this sounded abrasive, BTW. I don't know why I did such an ardent counterargument. If I offended you, df, I'm really sorry. You're a
I'm not assuming that you will be using our current system, but seeing as it is the only system we can reference, unless we use my skeleton of a class system to speculate, I think it is fair to use it as a sort of gauge. Until I am given another set of specials that I can use to speculate I'll refer back to the base which is the current system.
I don't mean to offend you at all it's just that I can't calculate out a realistic fight in this system if its specials are just pure thought or concept. Basically to me tests done with the HP system are useless until the full combat system, including things such as specials, is very well developed. Until special are made I'll use what I have which is our current system. If you want me to use my class skeletal system I can.
On a side note: Do you think I should see about adjusting my 2 stat class system to be more functional for a 2 stat system and/or do you think I should adjust it to working in a 3 stat system?
As for this, I disagree. It's just really unfair that you might have done the biggest effort of the whole team, but you died. The HP difference mechanic makes for a better gauge, IMO, because it means that you can avoid dying due to your stellar performance making for a narrow loss.
Any other concerns?
Well, with your cycle through system wouldn't 3 of the 4 n00bs die? Sure they are weak characters but it kind of sucks if n00bs are always dieing and in such high numbers. It seems like a sure fire way to scare off n00bs that join later in the game.
Now, you're absolutely right about the comment for specials. I think we should work together on this: you develop the classes, and I'll go adapting specials and making new ones for the system. What do you think about it?
Speaking of which, make the class system into something useful for tri-stat. It looks like we're going to go tri-stat, after all.
Sure. Paladins have Melee/Magic, for example (we'll use names to make things clearer, okay?). Ergo, their "type" is Melee/Magic, right?
Umm... No. That was not the idea at all.
As I said before, everybody would have a single type.
Maybe you got confused by my use of "Paladin". That was pretty much just a flavour thing so I would have an excuse to give him a high Magic stat. He still was only Close. I was not basing him off of the D&D Paladin.
Which means that when they go up against a fighter, the fighter can choose to use his pimped out Melee stat, all while a Wizard can riddle the paladin full of holes with his might Magic stat.
As I said, this isn't how it works.
Look at it this way. Your Type is how you attack. The Paladin attacks at Close (again, not talking about D&D Paladin, just a random fluff example. The character may not even be of a "Paladin" class). This is why the enemy has to use Close. Look at the stats as if they were "Defenses". You are assumed to already be the best you can be at attacking, so that aspect is ignored. But how well you defend is the important part.
What this means is that your Type is not necessarily your best stat. In my example from way back, the Paladin is Close, but his best stat is Magic. This is because he is not as good at defending against melee attacks as a Fighter (again, hypothetical) would, but he is excellent at defending against the arts of Magic.
It sounds strange at first, but if you look at it fromt he angle of Type equals "Attack" and stat equals "Defense", it might be a bit clearer. To go further, what if we called the stats Fortitude, Reflex, and Will? Your Type would tell you which "Defense" you attack against. Your stats would therefore be analog to 4E style "Defenses", or 3E style "Saving throws".
Essentially, you're hosed by choosing a class that offers generalism, and would do better if you specialized. And IF the generalists only have one type, why have generalist classes at all?
Again, I think you are under a strange misaprehension that your Type would consist of every stat you have good Defense in. That isn't how it was intended.
As well, the reason to have generalist classes is not to have a multi Type character. It is so that your Defenses are more even, so you do not suffer the same risk a Specialist has of going toe-to-toe against someone they are bad at Defending against. In exchange, they lose the Specialist ability to Defense as well against certain Types.
One option is to allow certain specials to, once per week perhaps, change your Type when faced with an opponent who has a weaker Defense than your current Type. Probably there would be one for each Type. It could even be a Class ability. For example, the Paladin is Close Type, but once per week, when fighting an opponent who has a lower Magic Defense than Close, his Type changes to Magic against that enemy, gaining an upperhand.
PS: Just stopped in, am going back out again until 10. I will be sure to read over your ideas of HP later. I hope that you will look over my ideas again, and see if you feel that any of it should or could be implimented. Unfortunatly, it looks like I have spent more time explaining my ideas than looking over those of others. I will attempt to give more comments on other people's ideas in the furture, as I can see you all have some great ideas. A pleasure talking with you.
I think death should just be random rolls done after battle so that a defeat in battle doesn't directly mean character death. Defeat will just mean that you lost and only if you lost bad enough can you have a chance of death.
As for this, I disagree. It's just really unfair that you might have done the biggest effort of the whole team, but you died. The HP difference mechanic makes for a better gauge, IMO, because it means that you can avoid dying due to your stellar performance making for a narrow loss.
If you don't mind, I might have an idea. I leave it to you to gauge its worth.
I think randomizing deaths would be good, since it would not always be the weakest characters who die. On the other hand, Armisael is right in his concern about über-killers dying because of the bad luck.
My solution - and I think this is close to what dirtyfrank meant - would be to have random roll to check if a character dies, but that roll would be modified by remaining HP.
So for example, you would need to roll 10 or more on a d20 to stay alive. If you had, say, 5 HP left at the end of the battle, you would only need to roll 5. If you had 10 HP left, you would survive automatically.
This way it might be a bit (too?) complicated, but at least it wouldn't necessarily always be the weakest characters who would suffer the death.
Feel free to criticize, my thinking is not at its most cohesive at the moment.
EDIT: Might be a bit late, I might have been nodding off a bit while writing.
Also, another important thing is are we going to be using rustmosnter's battle system or are we going to be using the absolutely random lots of work method we came up with very early on?
Until all of these are answered I can't really get started. Also I'll work on a few systems for us to test because only looking at 1 system is what has gotten the edition war into balance issues before. We aren't looking for the best theoretical system but instead the best actual system and that can't be determined until several systems have actually been tested.
That's...a pain in the ass and useless. Sorry if it sounded abrasive, but it really, really is. Say a fighter specializes in Close. However, in all but two, maybe three matchups, he's going to use Magic or Ranged to attack. All I can say to that is, WTF? A fighter is better at attacking by ignoring his type stat? I repeat, WTF?
Crofter:
The problem is, if you lose, there ISN'T going to be remaining HP for you. What my mechanic is about is comparing how far from 0 the HP of the winners is. If they have 10 HP or less, no losers die. If they have 11-20, one loser dies, etc. It needs fine-tuning, of course (I think I should cut the margin in half, 10 HP is WAY too much), but it seems better than penalizing the guy who had a beastly performance and was screwed up by crappy rolls from his teammates, by letting him avoid having anyone on his side dead.
I can't really make a class without having specials so I will use example specials until I get the type of specials you wish to implement for your system. I think I'm going to make the classes for 2 stat and 3 stat systems just encase we decide somewhere down the road that 3 stats may not be the way to go. Also, do you want level caps to be lvl 10, 15 or 20? How much multi classing do you think there should be?
Also, another important thing is are we going to be using rustmosnter's battle system or are we going to be using the absolutely random lots of work method we came up with very early on?
Until all of these are answered I can't really get started. Also I'll work on a few systems for us to test because only looking at 1 system is what has gotten the edition war into balance issues before. We aren't looking for the best theoretical system but instead the best actual system and that can't be determined until several systems have actually been tested.
Working on both systems: good idea, but focus on tri-stat first.
Level Cap: Try both 20 and 10. What you find best will probably be what decides what the cap will be.
Battle system: I might have gotten it wrong (again), but if I did get it right, Rustmonster's system creates the absolutely rediculous situation where every fighter who attacks is going to cast better than a wizard or use ranged better than a ranger. I'll take anything over something like that, even that basic system that requires a program to work.
Anything else you need?
Rust:
That's...a pain in the ass and useless. Sorry if it sounded abrasive, but it really, really is. Say a fighter specializes in Close. However, in all but two, maybe three matchups, he's going to use Magic or Ranged to attack. All I can say to that is, WTF? A fighter is better at attacking by ignoring his type stat? I repeat, WTF?
Here are 3 example close characters. Lets use Fort (close), Ref (ranged), and Will (magic) as the names of their defenses respectively. I'm also going to make them specialists.
Cha #1: d10/d4/d4
Cha #2: d4/d10/d4
Cha #3: d4/d4/d10
#1 has a high Fort defense so #1 would be good against Close type characters. (If #1 fights a close charater #1 uses its d10.)
#2 has a high Ref defense so #2 would be good against Range type characters.
#3 has a high Will defense so #3 would be good against magic type characters.
A close type doesn't have to have their magic stat as highest. They can choose to do so if they wish.
The dice are the defense. They character's type is the attack or the offense. Your type (your attack) determines which stat your opponent will be using. Basically they are defending with their stats. Both sides compare their defensive rolls.
Oh, now I see. I understood you meant it would be unfair for the winners if they lost their killing machines due to some lousy rolls.
And of course the losers have no HP.
Your idea looks good now that it is in a more understandable form. And we would still have the random effect by randomizing the deaths, should they happen.
I'm going to bed now. Two weeks with 3 hours of sleep a night won't help clear thinking, at least at 2 am.
And that's precisely why I don't like it. A fighter should be specialized on Melee, NOT magic. Seriously, when was the last time you saw a fighter who had better Will than Fort?
All the time in 3e. Almost every fighter seemed to multiclass into a spellcasting class and then take a prestige class that mixed the two. They would have very good will saves. Of course there were the few that mixed fighter with rogue. I don't know if everyone did something like this but I know most of my friends didn't really wont to play a straight gimp fighter unless they just wanted tons of RP. Also there are a few melee classes in 3e that have a higher Will than fortitude such as the Hexblade. In 4e there are melee classes that have bonuses to things other than fort. Paladins, Warlords, Swardmages, Avengers, and Wardens are all 4e melee classes that get bonuses to Will. A high Will for a melee class doesn't seem counter intuitive seeing as how it seems to reflect D&D mechanics. And yes, with few of the classes such as Avenger and Warden, a stat like Wisdom is important to these classes so they will likely have Will be higher than Fort and Ref.
and yet, you probably do better by picking Will over Fort. And a wizard will probably fare better by having a higher Fort than Will. Again, what the heck is happening there?
Not really. If a wizard has a high magic they will do best against other magic users. They will get owned if they fight against non magic types. I'm not seeing why there is much of a problem here.
...Aaah, there it is. The problem is that you aren't really playing "into" your class. THAT is what I dislike. The system feels like it encourages you to munchkinize your class instead of staying true to it. I have no idea if that's the case, but it sure as hell seems like that. Plus, it places WAY too much emphasis on RPS factor. It simply runs counter to all I've been preaching about reducing its impact as much as possible, but that system almost FORCES you to be Rock, Paper, or Scissors.
Edit: Also, df, a two level dip in fighter for a gish a fighter does not make. :P
So your character could be a Close type, and his attacks are:
Vs. Close: 1d8
Vs. Ranged: 1d6
Vs. Magic: 1d4
So, you pick a type, and then you pick what you're good at fighting against. For example, this Close fighter is good against other Close characters, but bad against Magic characters.
Not that I necessarily support Rust's idea. I just think it makes more sense when explained this way.
Lloyd
Type: Close
Close - 1d10
Ranged - 1d4
Magic - 1d10
Dormir
Type: Magic
Close - 1d4
Ranged - 1d6
Magic - 1d12
Lloyd rolls his magic value (1d10) vs Dormir's close value (1d4).
Also, D_S, thanks for rephrasing it. The system is nowhere near as unpalatable that way, and makes much more logical sense. Sure, it's just refluffing, but now, the system looks tolerable.
Dormir starts the fight with a spell duel, then Lloyd rushes the Naughtling, forcing him to swap to a close combat style.
I think it might have made more sense if I had went with Fort, Ref, Will. Would it make a bit more sense to you if you thought of Type as which Defense you attack, and your stats are your Defenses? That's kinda what I was going for. I had only used Close Ranged Magic because those were the original tri-stats brought forward. It did NOT mean that when fighting a Mage, your character will use magic. That would be silly, and if that is how you took it, then I can see why you found it "unpalatable".
Anyway, enough about my thingy. I'm a little bit confused about the proposed HP system. I keep hearing it brought up, but I think I might have missed how it was proposed to be implimented. Could someone run over it again for me? I think I've kinda lost track in general of how progress of ideas is going.
I'm pretty sure I should under stand it.
Yup. That's how it works.
Also, D_S, thanks for rephrasing it. The system is nowhere near as unpalatable that way, and makes much more logical sense. Sure, it's just refluffing, but now, the system looks tolerable.
Yeah, explaining it like this also somewhat changes the RPS element. Instead your melee guy always being weak to ranged, you can be an anti-ranged close fighter, or an anti-caster magic user, etc etc. RPS still exists, except you choose what the paper to your scissors is. Of course, everyone else can do the same, and a random battle order makes things interesting. Generalization becomes "safest" but specializing could give you a blowout victory.
It's interesting, and might require playtesting to see how it'll be balanced.
In the edition war, HP is your fourth stat. Unlike Melee, Ranged, and Magic, HP does not influence combat, however. Instead, it is a measure of your abilities to stay in the fight for a prolonged period, be it through luck, skillful counters and parries, or simply being made of iron and being capable of taking more blows than the Terminator.
HP, like the other stats, has eight different "die sizes". This is notarized by a number going from 1 to 8 on your HP column. For each point in the HP stat you gain one quarter of a hit point per level/half of a hit point per level (depends on how many levels we decide to use. 1/4 is for 20 levels, 1/2 is for 10), rounded up, which is added to your HP total. Additionally, you start the game with a buffer of 10 HP, at no cost. Thus, a character with a 1 on his HP stat would have...
10+0.25*1 (round up to 1) = 11 HP
...Meanwhile, a level 20 veteran who specialized in being a stone wall would have...
10+2*20 = 50 HP.
Is it clearer now? If my HP stat is a 4, I add a point per level, for example. HP can be increased just like any other stat, but instead of increasing in die size (i. e. 1d4 to 1d6), it increases the multiplier you use to calculate your HP (from a multiplier of 1*0.25 to 2*0.25= 0.50*level HP).
...Aaah, there it is. The problem is that you aren't really playing "into" your class. THAT is what I dislike. The system feels like it encourages you to munchkinize your class instead of staying true to it. I have no idea if that's the case, but it sure as hell seems like that. Plus, it places WAY too much emphasis on RPS factor. It simply runs counter to all I've been preaching about reducing its impact as much as possible, but that system almost FORCES you to be Rock, Paper, or Scissors.
If you don't want to be forced to use the RPS factor with a 3 stat system then battles have to be in the open for all to view so that defenders get to see what attackers are attacking where and what stat they are using. This puts defenders in the winning position almost all the time. For a 3 stat system to be feasible one must implement an RPS system. It will not work without such a system without getting way too overly complicated. If you don't want an RPS factor then you really have to support completely public combats or a 2 stat system that doesn't have the RPS factor.
If you don't want to be forced to use the RPS factor with a 3 stat system then battles have to be in the open for all to view so that defenders get to see what attackers are attacking where and what stat they are using. This puts defenders in the winning position almost all the time. For a 3 stat system to be feasible one must implement an RPS system. It will not work without such a system without getting way too overly complicated. If you don't want an RPS factor then you really have to support completely public combats or a 2 stat system that doesn't have the RPS factor.
I've come to terms with having an RPS factor, I just want it to be smaller than it is with that system. Most of my anger with it was with the incredibly poor presentation (when D_S made a case for it, my hate mostly subsided), but we HAVE to make the RPS factor low enough to let combats be in the open without defenders kicking the crap out of attackers.
I've come to terms with having an RPS factor, I just want it to be smaller than it is with that system. Most of my anger with it was with the incredibly poor presentation (when D_S made a case for it, my hate mostly subsided), but we HAVE to make the RPS factor low enough to let combats be in the open without defenders kicking the crap out of attackers.
Then there has to be quite a bit of it. The more of the RPS factor that is taken out, the more easy it gets for defenders to predict and thus win.
...Wouldn't it be the other way around? The more RPS factor you have in the works, the worse defenders can school attackers when you play in the open.
What you just said is the opposite of what I said.
Me: More RPS that is taken out the more it favors the defense. Less RPS = better for defense.
Your Response: The more RPS factor the worse it is for defenders. More RPS = worse for defense.
All you did was repeat what I said but using an opposite example.
What I said is:
The more RPS factor you have in the works, the worse defenders can school attackers when you play in the open.
What does this mean? The more RPS you have, the bigger the victory margin defenders will have in their battles. I said precisely the opposite thing, you know.
What post is that from because I can't find me typing that?
Df, I typed that! Not you! You even quoted me! Look!
...Wouldn't it be the other way around? The more RPS factor you have in the works, the worse defenders can school attackers when you play in the open.
And this was your answer:
What you just said is the opposite of what I said.
Me: More RPS that is taken out the more it favors the defense. Less RPS = better for defense.
Your Response: The more RPS factor the worse it is for defenders. More RPS = worse for defense.
All you did was repeat what I said but using an opposite example.
This misunderstanding is hilarious! :P
*Throws firecrackers inside*
*Sneaks out*
Me: More RPS that is taken out the more it favors the defense. Less RPS = better for defense.
What I say:
Defenders kick the crap out of attackers with RPS. Not the other way around.
Essentially, you're saying RPS favors attackers, while I'm telling you it favors defenders.
Defenders kick the crap out of attackers with RPS. Not the other way around.
Essentially, you're saying RPS favors attackers, while I'm telling you it favors defenders.
Ok, now that you have laid it out clearly I now know what you mean.
I was going off the assumption that we had decided to go with a double blind system which would increase the RPS quite a bit and makes it extremely hard for a defender to exactly counter.
For the most part, all systems that are done out in the open favor the defenders unless the attackers are just given more power. This is because attackers have to make the first move and defenders react. If we are to switch to a 3+ stat system and do it in the open then there is no RPS. There is no, to little, RPS because there is basically no guessing. The defenders know what stat they will use against the attacker and what stat the attacker will use against them. The defenders can make a good and exacting match up that will lead to a good chance of victory. Now if you wanted to add RPS to this public encounter system thing each side would have 1 of their 3 random stats picked during combat and that would be the stat they used. Doing such would severely cut down on the chances of the defense winning because they can't match up their good stat to the enemies bad stat.
If the battle system is done publicly then the battle mechanic has to be RPS. If the battle system is done privately such as through PMs then the battle mechanic doesn't really need RPS because the secretiveness will add some.
Also from what I understand, whether or not we have battles be private or public, is that order will likely be random and that we will cycle through characters so this adds a lot of RPS. Sure one defender can be quite strong vs an attacker but that attacker could be very strong vs all the other defenders. Not only that but the defender might not start out attacking the fighter they are strong against since the combat orders will be randomized. This cuts down on defenders being able to win by predicting and planning.
I think it's possible to make defense proactive sometimes by using a mechanic I suggested for this edition war. Essentially, some areas can occasionally have "buried treasure" in the form of items. The controller of that area can search for the item, which takes 2 days, just like a regular battle. If the other side attacks during that time, it becomes a regular battle, with the "searcher" being automatically counted as one of the defenders.
Time would not be reset if the search team were attacked, and if the attackers won, they would gain control of both the item and the land.
Thoughts?
So you're saying that everyone has 3 stats and picks 1 to be attack, 1 to be defense and one to be worthless? Why not just go with 2 stats and give those stats types?
How come you're having so much difficulty understanding what Arms is saying, this morning? This is't what he meant at all, but I'll let him explain it.
Re: Defense being proactive
I think it's possible to make defense proactive sometimes by using a mechanic I suggested for this edition war. Essentially, some areas can occasionally have "buried treasure" in the form of items. The controller of that area can search for the item, which takes 2 days, just like a regular battle. If the other side attacks during that time, it becomes a regular battle, with the "searcher" being automatically counted as one of the defenders.
Time would not be reset if the search team were attacked, and if the attackers won, they would gain control of both the item and the land.
Thoughts?
Why dig for treasure if it means you can miss 2 encounters? Why dig for treasure when it means that attackers that can counter your abilities can just pounce on you? You are stuck for 2 days so they have ample time to exploit a defender's weaknesses. Why would a defender want to do this unless the item is uber kick ass?
How come you're having so much difficulty understanding what Arms is saying, this morning? This is't what he meant at all, but I'll let him explain it.
I did just wake up several minutes ago. The other thing is that I find him hard to understand half the time anyways. It could be that english may not be his native language.
Armisael attacks the Cathedral of the Forgotten Ones. He picks Melee as his stat.
ToastedAmphibian defends the CotFO, he picks Magic. Magic is strong against Melee.
Baneofelves attacks the CotFO, he picks Magic.
Ragnar_Lodbrok defends the CotFO, he picks ranged. Ranged is strong against magic, but weak against Melee.
Random battling ensues. The matchups end up like this:
Armisael vs. Ragnar. Nobody is K. O.'ed, Arms has the RPS advantage.
Baneofelves vs. ToastedAmphibian. Both are evenly matched, no one is K. O.'ed.
Armisael vs. TA, nobody is K. O.'ed, TA has the RPS advantage and his die size grows by one.
Baneofelves vs. Ragnar. Nobody is K. O.'ed, Ragnar has the advantage.
Armisael vs. Ragnar, Ragnar is K. O.'ed.
Baneofelves vs. TA, Bane is K. O.'ed.
Arms vs. TA, TA has the advantage but loses due to poor rolling. He is K. O.'ed. Armisael's side wins and claims the CotFO. Ragnar dies.
Does that make more sense?
Why dig for treasure if it means you can miss 2 encounters? Why dig for treasure when it means that attackers that can counter your abilities can just pounce on you? You are stuck for 2 days so they have ample time to exploit a defender's weaknesses. Why would a defender want to do this unless the item is uber kick ass?
I'm thinking you might be underestimating how much people enjoy having items. If it's such a concern, have it be worth XP like a regular battle.
Also, why attack, ever, since it gives defenders ample time to exploit the attacker's weaknesses?
Re: Defense being proactive
I think it's possible to make defense proactive sometimes by using a mechanic I suggested for this edition war. Essentially, some areas can occasionally have "buried treasure" in the form of items. The controller of that area can search for the item, which takes 2 days, just like a regular battle. If the other side attacks during that time, it becomes a regular battle, with the "searcher" being automatically counted as one of the defenders.
Time would not be reset if the search team were attacked, and if the attackers won, they would gain control of both the item and the land.
Thoughts?
Good idea, but defense is going to remain reactive in most cases anyway. Still, it's something to think about implementing, D_S.
Why dig for treasure if it means you can miss 2 encounters? Why dig for treasure when it means that attackers that can counter your abilities can just pounce on you? You are stuck for 2 days so they have ample time to exploit a defender's weaknesses. Why would a defender want to do this unless the item is uber kick ass?
Because you might get a healing potion which you might need to use to refill your HP later on? That's just one example, mind.
Good idea, but defense is going to remain reactive in most cases anyway. Still, it's something to think about implementing, D_S.
Yeah, defense will still be reactive in most cases, but it should help the situation a bit. Of course, we needn't just have items "buried". Caches of resources could be found the same way. How many / how often is a discussion better left for when we're out of the initial planning stages.
No, what I'm saying is something like this:
Armisael attacks the Cathedral of the Forgotten Ones. He picks Melee as his stat.
ToastedAmphibian defends the CotFO, he picks Magic. Magic is strong against Melee.
Baneofelves attacks the CotFO, he picks Magic.
Ragnar_Lodbrok defends the CotFO, he picks ranged. Ranged is strong against magic, but weak against Melee.
Random battling ensues. The matchups end up like this:
Armisael vs. Ragnar. Nobody is K. O.'ed, Arms has the RPS advantage.
Baneofelves vs. ToastedAmphibian. Both are evenly matched, no one is K. O.'ed.
Armisael vs. TA, nobody is K. O.'ed, TA has the RPS advantage and his die size grows by one.
Baneofelves vs. Ragnar. Nobody is K. O.'ed, Ragnar has the advantage.
Armisael vs. Ragnar, Ragnar is K. O.'ed.
Baneofelves vs. TA, Bane is K. O.'ed.
Arms vs. TA, TA has the advantage but loses due to poor rolling. He is K. O.'ed. Armisael's side wins and claims the CotFO. Ragnar dies.
Does that make more sense?
Ya it makes more sense as far as understanding it. Now why use a 3 stat system when 1 will always be used, 1 might be used from time to time, and the last will never be used? Why have 3 stats if you just want to be a 1 stat pony? Why not just go with a 2 stat system and give type to your stats? Or why not just use rustmonster's battle system? His system, when done with random battle queue organizing, not makes use of type but also allows for everyone to use each of their stats?
If you just want a 1 stat thing then lets just go to 2 stats and give them type. There is no point in have 3, 4 or 5 stats if you're only going to use 1 stat because all the other stats suck.
Ya it makes more sense as far as understanding it. Now why use a 3 stat system when 1 will always be used, 1 might be used from time to time, and the last will never be used? Why have 3 stats if you just want to be a 1 stat pony? Why not just go with a 2 stat system and give type to your stats? Or why not just use rustmonster's battle system? His system, when done with random battle queue organizing, not makes use of type but also allows for everyone to use each of their stats?
If you just want a 1 stat thing then lets just go to 2 stats and give them type. There is no point in have 3, 4 or 5 stats if you're only going to use 1 stat because all the other stats suck.
Even if you're going to only raise one or two stats, there's still a point to having three, because you're not necessarily raising the same one or two as the other players! It's hard to have an RPS element if there's no paper.
I'm thinking you might be underestimating how much people enjoy having items. If it's such a concern, have it be worth XP like a regular battle.
Also, why attack, ever, since it gives defenders ample time to exploit the attacker's weaknesses?
I've never played an attacker. Also recently attackers have been attacking last minute which gives defenders less time plan and respond. All attackers need is one person to start an attack. The defenders can only accurately counter than one attacker. To sure up defense the defenders may put a second person in defense. Minutes or hours before cut off the attackers can pile on 3 more people that not only overwhelm the defense but can also be strong vs the 2 defenders that are defending.
This is kind of the way battles have started going. Also with weird attackers can attack without having to worry that the defense will put up much of a fight.
Because you might get a healing potion which you might need to use to refill your HP later on? That's just one example, mind.
OK, so while you're digging for a potion that may or may not be their so that you can refill your HP you get attacked because you look like an easy target to exploit. How is this suppose to be a good thing? The attacker can go into the fight on his/her own term and gain the upper hand through such. It will likely end up giving any item that is there to the attacker.
tl;dr version: in tri-stat, specialists work just like in two-stat, but generalists are stronger. Nothing more, and nothing less.
Even if you're going to only raise one or two stats, there's still a point to having three, because you're not necessarily raising the same one or two as the other players! It's hard to have an RPS element if there's no paper.
Basically is if A>B>C>A then if you chose stat B as your primary and most a lot of other people chose A as their primary stat then you will either be a very sucky defender or a very sucky attacker because all the As will be very powerful.
How can this happen? Lets say the next edition war is to start up. I can PM the guys on my side and tell them not to sign up right away. As the other side signs up and makes their characters, I tell my players one-by-one to make a character that is a counter to one on the other team. Each person on my team could have a person on the other team they are specifically designed to counter. Now if the other team has several people that all chose the same stat, so lets go with 50% A, 30% B and 20% C. I would go with something like 30% A, 20% B and 50% C.
Remember in my example A>B>C>A so half my team is designed to win against half of the other team. Will actually the team is designed to win the other team nearly all time. My Cs would go where their As are. As where their Bs are and so on. It could turn into a mess. Not only that if we were able to retrain the first team would likely retrain many of their As into Bs in order to gain an advantage. Lets say that their team turns into 20% A, 60% B and 20% C. They have retrained to counter my team but my team can also retrain and will retrain to counter the other team. It would end up shifting to something like 60% A, 20% B and 20% C.
Basically, no I don't like such a system.
TBH, I didn't want tri-stat in the first place because I despise a game where even the best tactics can be crapped on by an opponent getting lucky. This sounds hypocritical, considering we are using dice and all, but the idea of "u sux nubz i gots teh luckiz!!!!1oneoneone1!" where you're stuck using a d4 on all your fights just because the other guy happens to have a good type against you is terrible. It's the reason I've been fighting against Rust's system, the reason I proposed a quad-stat system, and the reason I'm all for HP and random battling. Essentially, to me, tri-stat is something we can use to give generalists more power while the specialists remain the same, not lower the overall power of the game like Rust's system does. I don't like the ideas behind the system you want, and I'm trying to tear it to pieces and reconstruct it to avoid a game that seems terribly boring and even more luck based than our current version.
tl;dr version: in tri-stat, specialists work just like in two-stat, but generalists are stronger. Nothing more, and nothing less.
Generalists being the powerhouses was my first concern about the system. It is still a concern. The best for sure way to be a consistent winner in the system is to go d6/d6/d6 or at higher levels d8/d8/d8 or d10/d10/d10.
Tell you the truth, most of the time it seems as if I'm the only one still trying to toss out the idea of a 2 stat system. We've done 2 wars with 2 stats and free-form. I'd really like to try 2 stats with classes. I think we should test this out before moving to 3 stats.
As for using two-stat, if you can show me a draft, I'll be happy to work with it. The problem is that right now, tri-stat is looking like a version of two-stat that allows for generalists that are up to par. You'll need something pretty good to convince me about working on two-stat.
As for using two-stat, if you can show me a draft, I'll be happy to work with it. The problem is that right now, tri-stat is looking like a version of two-stat that allows for generalists that are up to par. You'll need something pretty good to convince me about working on two-stat.
The reason why generalists haven't work out so far with the free-form is that there have been no specials that benefit them. There were a few that were designed to do such but they ended up being best for a specialist.
I see a generalist partly as someone that gives boosts and such like that. These boosts can not only help themselves out in many situations but can make their own team mates more versatile. I have some such examples in the example classes posted in post 4. If you want me to right up completely new classses and such then I may not be able to get back to you for a while. I will be busy later today and I will likely be busy throughout a lot of this next week.
As I see it, we have no info on a 3 stat system. We have speculation on a 3 stat but no hard info. We have info on a 2 stat free-form system and we know it's failings. I think we should first see about only changing a few things at first rather than basically designing an entirely new system. This would either be to go to a 2 stat class system or to a free-form 3 stat system. Each jump is only 1 jump away from what we know. Any further from that and everything starts to become to abstract for speculation to be reliable. I'll start working on the 2 stat class system. Someone else can work on a 3 stat free-form. I'll try to keep out of (not post in) this thread until I can revise and add to my current class system so that we have a more consistent and workable hard example.
PS: Also, I've always seen tri-stat as a classed system. I never thought of it as a free-form.
Do the opposite thing: keep feeding us info. It's a good idea to use playtesters when you can get them for free. I'm looking forward to seeing what changes you want to implement.
PS: Also, I've always seen tri-stat as a classed system. I never thought of it as a free-form.
Like I said before, I think we need to implement some of our ideas but only as a one change from what we know which is a 2 stat free form. What we can do is, as a suggested, is go with a 2 stat class system and a 3 stat free form. What I'd also like to see is a hp system that is in working order. Because nothing else is decided I was wondering if you could modify what you have planned for your hp system arms and see if you can get one that works for the current 2 stat free-form system. You may need to change combat rules a little to implement it or add up everyone's hp to make an hp pool seeing as how everyone attacks with an attack pool. Basically try to implement an hp system or two into the current edition war's system. This way we can see what problems it can fix and what problems it makes.
I'm working on the 2 stats classes system. We need someone to work on a 3 stat free-form system. This would mean that some specials would need to be redesigned and it may also means new ones can be made.
Me and Armisael can work together. For the Two-Stat, HP isn't really necessary because you just pool values. If you didn't pool values and did 1v1's like in Tri-stat then HP would be good to use.
Your right it isn't necessary but that doesn't mean it can't be used. It also isn't necessary for a 3 stat system but there are a few that think it might add depth and/or balance to the game.
My suggestion was to make a few hp systems. If you want to make an hp pool think with the current system then go ahead and try it out. If you want to change the current system to a series of 1v1 fights then go ahead if it will allow Arms to use his suggested system. If you change it to a 1v1 with the current system then a few of the specials will need to be adjusted a bit.
All I'm looking for is for us to actually start making some hard examples in a system that can be tested so that we can see their strength and their weaknesses. Having data will be of more value than just speculation.
If you want to help arms with the hp then that's cool. I still think we need someone to explore a 3 stat free-form system to see what things a 3 stat system can bring to the table. Who ever grabs this task may need to make a few different battle systems that we can test.
A pooled HP for two-stat would mean that averages would be more dominant, decreasing the chances of newbs being able to beat vets. If bi-stat had HP, make it a match-up system like the tri-stat
We must also remember that in the current system n00bs fight with vets.
Also with a pool hp, the side with the higher dice average might have the lower hp.
I was thinking that a pool hp system could be looked at and a 1v1 type fights could be looked at.
I had another thought but I can't remember it.
Have a point system, allowing 50 points worth of characters to be available in a battle. A character is worth 10 points + 1/2 level, rounded down. A maximum of 4 characters can be in a battle, pets don't count and are likely worth 5 points (though this also goes up, probably at a slower rate).
What this means:
You can have up to 4 level one characters in a fight, as well as 2 pets, but you can only have 2 max level characters, as well as possibly 1 pet.
A level 4 character is worth 12 points, so around level 6, it stops being possible to have 4 characters in a battle.
A level 10 character is worth 15 points, so around level 14 (17 points) it stops being possible to squeeze even 3 characters into a fight.
A level 20 character is worth 20 points, so only 2 of them can be present in a battle. Thus, more terrain needs to be available later in the game, as fights become smaller.
Potentially, support characters could allow your side to include more points, so you could fit more higher level characters into the conflict.
Thoughts? (Note that this was thought up in about 10 minutes, and probably needs a lot of work)
Point system for people in combat
The basic idea is that each combat area will have a limit on the 'points' of combatants that can battle there. For example, one area might have a limit of 40 points worth of combatants. To this end, in locations design that could be one of the considerations, how many points (more points allows more combatants).
It will take some tweaking, but a characters 'point worth' should be based on the 'expected value' of their contribution to a fight. This might be difficult to judge on a three stat system (and may take a bunch of simulations, or some thorough math. Possibly both) but can be worked out once we have a better idea of what exactly we're going with.
In a two-stat system we can easily base the 'point value' based on the 'average expected roll' for a character of that level.
Whichever method, it would mean that higher level characters take up 'more' of a fight, while you can squeeze in more low-level characters. The exact point value that people are worth will take some adjustments based on their expected contribution to a fight, so we won't be able to calculate and tweak that until we have more detail on the system, but the basic concept seems sound.
The basic idea is that each combat area will have a limit on the 'points' of combatants that can battle there. For example, one area might have a limit of 40 points worth of combatants. To this end, in locations design that could be one of the considerations, how many points (more points allows more combatants).
It will take some tweaking, but a characters 'point worth' should be based on the 'expected value' of their contribution to a fight. This might be difficult to judge on a three stat system (and may take a bunch of simulations, or some thorough math. Possibly both) but can be worked out once we have a better idea of what exactly we're going with.
In a two-stat system we can easily base the 'point value' based on the 'average expected roll' for a character of that level.
Whichever method, it would mean that higher level characters take up 'more' of a fight, while you can squeeze in more low-level characters. The exact point value that people are worth will take some adjustments based on their expected contribution to a fight, so we won't be able to calculate and tweak that until we have more detail on the system, but the basic concept seems sound.
Anyway, after reading Arm's explaination of how the HP works, and seeing his little example, I actually feel that that might be a worthwhile avenue to persue. It opens up ability possibilities for healing moves, and allows smaller fighters to at least soften up the stronger ones.
However, as for how many stats other than HP will be included, I am a bit foggy. It seems that for a bit tri-stat plus HP was favoured, but now there is much talk of bi-stat plus HP. Does either option have more favour with the general collective?
My main problem with the old "Attack" and "Defense" stats was that you were heavily typecast. Attackers attacked. Defenders defended. Both roles were needed, yes. But It came to the point where it was just automated, in my opinion. Your team tries to take a teritory? Attackers go. Enemy tries to take yours? Defenders go. Generalists could exist, trading versitility for power, but your team could just as easily have "Strike Force" and "Homeland Security".
Basiclly, my main concern for battling where your goal in combat (defending or attacking) determines how well you fight seems off. I am a grand warrior who can storm the mightiest fort, yet if I stay at home, I will be overrun easily. I would be all for two stats if we could find a way to use them BOTH in EVERY battle, yet make them both unique and interesting. Anyone got ideas or comments?
Aaaaand it looks like I got left behind again. Now we are talking about how to limit noob stomping. I kinda like the "Max Points per battle" system. It could allow us to have certain areas that have massive maximums, for epic scale battles.
The problem is that more options IS "More powerful options", it's just that it isn't directly more powerful, AKA it's not as easy to see. If I take Magic Missile AND Power Attack, which both add 1d4 to my rolls, I'm going to choke the newbie under the wealth of dice the same way that I would if I had taken Infinite Rage.
Well what I was thinking is that both the n00b and the bet could have a MM that would give them a 1d4. Their base stats would be different but it would be something like a 1d10 (n00b) and 2d6 (vet). There would probably be a special limit in battle. Basically that you can only use so many specials. This would make the battle vs the two be 1d10+1d4 vs a 2d6+1d4 or 2-8-14 vs 3-9.5-16. The vet would have the advantage but not by much.
The vet would likely also have more options so the vet would have something like 3 or 4 specials to choose from rather than just 1 or 2.
Also, in a system that I'm looking forward to implementing there will be no Infinite Rage type power because it is too powerful. Such a power in the current system puts a level 10 worlds higher than a level 9. Being able to use all your specials in one battle just adds insult to injury.
I say we let vets be more powerful, but make that power have a cost. Just like in D&D you have to step up the challenges, in the third war you have to spread your powerful warriors in a more strategically sound way.
I believe that making higher levels much much more powerful than everyone else is what is causing a lot of the problems we are seeing. A level 5 is much more powerful than a level 4. A level 19 is theoretically more powerful than a level 9. That one extra special is a huge jump in power. It is as if one goes from level 1 to level 5+ in D&D. Doing such just seems to imbalance.
Now making a higher level character take more combat points/slots seems to be punishing the character for us designing them to powerful in the first place. We give them a huge power jump and then say "Oh, you can't fight goblins 1v1 any more. You have to fight them 1v5 now because you're too strong" seems to be just........dumb to me. Why make them unbalanced and then balance them out when you can just balance them out ahead of time and save the extra work and hassle?
@D_S: I like it. Probably a T1 special that allows up to 5 more points in a battle, a T2 that allows 10, etc.
I'm starting to get a bit lost here. Maybe jumping in four pages through wasn't a good idea. >_<
Anyway, after reading Arm's explaination of how the HP works, and seeing his little example, I actually feel that that might be a worthwhile avenue to persue. It opens up ability possibilities for healing moves, and allows smaller fighters to at least soften up the stronger ones.
However, as for how many stats other than HP will be included, I am a bit foggy. It seems that for a bit tri-stat plus HP was favoured, but now there is much talk of bi-stat plus HP. Does either option have more favour with the general collective?
My main problem with the old "Attack" and "Defense" stats was that you were heavily typecast. Attackers attacked. Defenders defended. Both roles were needed, yes. But It came to the point where it was just automated, in my opinion. Your team tries to take a teritory? Attackers go. Enemy tries to take yours? Defenders go. Generalists could exist, trading versitility for power, but your team could just as easily have "Strike Force" and "Homeland Security".
Basiclly, my main concern for battling where your goal in combat (defending or attacking) determines how well you fight seems off. I am a grand warrior who can storm the mightiest fort, yet if I stay at home, I will be overrun easily. I would be all for two stats if we could find a way to use them BOTH in EVERY battle, yet make them both unique and interesting. Anyone got ideas or comments?
Yeah. This. This right here. Having designated attackers and defenders also sucks for the RP, because it makes it very unlikely you'll ever meet certain people. For example, Escher's character is pretty much never going to meet any of our attackers or any empire defenders, barring weird RP situations like Aliforn healing him, or bumping into people at the ball.
Quick idea for two stat system
Damage stat and resistance stat, with Damage being a variable (dice roll) while resistance is a static (set value). HP is on the side.
Attacker has first strike, rolls damage. Defender's resistance is subtracted from the damage, remainder is subtracted from HP. Defender get's to strike back, same story.
Then we move to the next people in the circular queue, with people accumulating damage until they're removed from it.
This gives people three stats to balance, Damage, Resistance, and HP, without pigeonholing them. If we still want to introduce some RPS mechanic, we can give people multiple damage and resistance stats
(say, martial, magic, divine damage, martial magic, divine resistance) and the attackers (and defenders) declare what stat they'll be using to strike. That might be introducing too many possible stats for people to balance, so if we go that route I would suggest that the bulk of that balance be set by class, while only allowing minor modification by choice.
Attacker has first strike, rolls damage. Defender's resistance is subtracted from the damage, remainder is subtracted from HP. Defender get's to strike back, same story.
Then we move to the next people in the circular queue, with people accumulating damage until they're removed from it.
This gives people three stats to balance, Damage, Resistance, and HP, without pigeonholing them. If we still want to introduce some RPS mechanic, we can give people multiple damage and resistance stats
(say, martial, magic, divine damage, martial magic, divine resistance) and the attackers (and defenders) declare what stat they'll be using to strike. That might be introducing too many possible stats for people to balance, so if we go that route I would suggest that the bulk of that balance be set by class, while only allowing minor modification by choice.
One thing I was thinking of (assuming 20 levels):
Have a point system, allowing 50 points worth of characters to be available in a battle. A character is worth 10 points + 1/2 level, rounded down. A maximum of 4 characters can be in a battle, pets don't count and are likely worth 5 points (though this also goes up, probably at a slower rate).
What this means:
You can have up to 4 level one characters in a fight, as well as 2 pets, but you can only have 2 max level characters, as well as possibly 1 pet.
A level 4 character is worth 12 points, so around level 6, it stops being possible to have 4 characters in a battle.
A level 10 character is worth 15 points, so around level 14 (17 points) it stops being possible to squeeze even 3 characters into a fight.
A level 20 character is worth 20 points, so only 2 of them can be present in a battle. Thus, more terrain needs to be available later in the game, as fights become smaller.
Potentially, support characters could allow your side to include more points, so you could fit more higher level characters into the conflict.
Thoughts? (Note that this was thought up in about 10 minutes, and probably needs a lot of work)
More or less what I was thinking about. I actually think only one vet should be allowed in each fight (I'll get to how this works out for single-target buffers in a minute), but it sounds good. Here's the system as I envision it:
In each battle, each side has 40 deployment points. A character has a deployment cost equal to level+10, except for level 1 characters, whose cost is level+9. This cost must be paid to deploy a character in a certain zone. Thus, a side could deploy two level 5 characters and a level 1 character, or one level 1 character and a level 20 character, etc. Additionally, certain abilities can reduce deployment cost. Support characters, such as pets, minions, and mooks, use special systems. They are as follows:
A pet costs 10 deployment points. Pets can be augmented through time by electing to focus points on the Pet Master special ability. Augmentations to pet abilities are not global: each time you opt to augment the strength of your pet, only one of its combat stats is increased. Pets have an HP stat equal to half of their master, rounded up, and their HP pool is calculated by utilizing their master's level.
Minions cost 5 points. Minions, unlike pets, a minion's stats can only be augmented in battle by special abilities.
Mooks cost 1 point each. Unlike pets and minions, mooks cannot benefit from any augmentation.
Finally, a character's cost can be reduced through the Swift Skirmisher ability. Each time you take this ability, reduce your deployment cost by 5. The deployment cost of mooks, minions, and pets you control cannot be reduced in any way. Additionally, your cost may not go lower than your level.
How does this look?
Aaaaand it looks like I got left behind again. Now we are talking about how to limit noob stomping. I kinda like the "Max Points per battle" system. It could allow us to have certain areas that have massive maximums, for epic scale battles.
We have figured a way. It's called weird. You switch a players stats around, so their attack becomes their defense and their defense becomes their attack. It is being changed today but before the change it was usable on anybody and could only be used once per battle. Because you can be in up to 7 battles a weak you could use it 7 times. A few people have specialized themselves in either attack or defense and now they can function as both. If they need to do the opposite the just weird themselves and they are ass good as those on their team that fit into that roll. Basically they are now specialists that turn into generalists that are as powerful as specialists.
We give them a huge power jump and then say "Oh, you can't fight goblins 1v1 any more. You have to fight them 1v5 now because you're too strong" seems to be just........dumb to me. Why make them unbalanced and then balance them out when you can just balance them out ahead of time and save the extra work and hassle?
/shrug
I agree to a point, but if we do make higher leveled characters significantly more powerful then lower level characters, then I would prefer if there was some sort of checks and balances to keep lower level characters still useful. If they take up a slot that prevents a higher level character from joining the battle, such that it actually hurts their team for them to join, then that's bad. The point system is one solution to that (by not having a hard limit on the number of combtantants). If you have an alternative, I would be happy to hear it.
Note: having fewer levels all together (seriously, why do we need 20? If these games go on that long I think people would seriously lose interest) and having them be more about increasing versatility and having relatively minor bonuses such that a level 1 character is still a viable threat to a max level character is one option, but I don't think it's favored.
Quick idea for two stat systemDamage stat and resistance stat, with Damage being a variable (dice roll) while resistance is a static (set value). HP is on the side.
Attacker has first strike, rolls damage. Defender's resistance is subtracted from the damage, remainder is subtracted from HP. Defender get's to strike back, same story.
Then we move to the next people in the circular queue, with people accumulating damage until they're removed from it.
This gives people three stats to balance, Damage, Resistance, and HP, without pigeonholing them. If we still want to introduce some RPS mechanic, we can give people multiple damage and resistance stats
(say, martial, magic, divine damage, martial magic, divine resistance) and the attackers (and defenders) declare what stat they'll be using to strike. That might be introducing too many possible stats for people to balance, so if we go that route I would suggest that the bulk of that balance be set by class, while only allowing minor modification by choice.
Here’s my Free-Form Tri-Stat
Rules: You have 2 points to spend on Close, Ranged, and Magic at first level, and gain 2 free tier 1 specials. If you have an advantage, your die size increases by one. Close has advantage against Ranged which has advantage against Magic which has advantage against Close.
Die Progression: d6>d8>d10>d12>2d6>2d7>2d8
Level System: It takes 5 XP to gain a level for levels 1-5, 6 XP for levels 6-10, 7 XP for levels 11-15, and 8 XP for 16-20
10 level is exact same as current, except swatch 6 and 7 for the level bonus
Rules: You have 2 points to spend on Close, Ranged, and Magic at first level, and gain 2 free tier 1 specials. If you have an advantage, your die size increases by one. Close has advantage against Ranged which has advantage against Magic which has advantage against Close.
Die Progression: d6>d8>d10>d12>2d6>2d7>2d8
Level System: It takes 5 XP to gain a level for levels 1-5, 6 XP for levels 6-10, 7 XP for levels 11-15, and 8 XP for 16-20
10 level is exact same as current, except swatch 6 and 7 for the level bonus
15 levels
1-Two stat points for Close/Ranged/Magic and two Tier 1 Specials
2-Gain Home Terrain (+1 bonus to all stats when on chosen terrain)
3-Gain a Special Point to use to upgrade Specials
4-Gain a Stat Point to use on Close/Ranged/Magic
5-Gain Tier 2 Special
6-If your HP is not reduced to 0 when in a battle that is not on your home terrain, that area gains your home terrain’s descriptor (Each place can have up to 3 Home Terrain descriptors. If a location already has 3, the farthest on the left is removed [New descriptors are added on the right])
7-Gain another tier 1 special
8-Gain a Special Point to use to upgrade Specials
9-Gain a Stat Point to use on Close/Ranged/Magic
10-Gain a Tier 3 Special
11-When on your Home Terrain, you have a 20% chance of finding a potion after the battle
12-Gain another tier 2 special
13-Gain a Special Point to use to upgrade Specials
14-Gain a Stat Point to use on Close/Ranged/Magic
15-Gain a Tier 4 Special
1-Two stat points for Close/Ranged/Magic and two Tier 1 Specials
2-Gain Home Terrain (+1 bonus to all stats when on chosen terrain)
3-Gain a Special Point to use to upgrade Specials
4-Gain a Stat Point to use on Close/Ranged/Magic
5-Gain Tier 2 Special
6-If your HP is not reduced to 0 when in a battle that is not on your home terrain, that area gains your home terrain’s descriptor (Each place can have up to 3 Home Terrain descriptors. If a location already has 3, the farthest on the left is removed [New descriptors are added on the right])
7-Gain another tier 1 special
8-Gain a Special Point to use to upgrade Specials
9-Gain a Stat Point to use on Close/Ranged/Magic
10-Gain a Tier 3 Special
11-When on your Home Terrain, you have a 20% chance of finding a potion after the battle
12-Gain another tier 2 special
13-Gain a Special Point to use to upgrade Specials
14-Gain a Stat Point to use on Close/Ranged/Magic
15-Gain a Tier 4 Special
Also, it means that part of the group never gets to deal with bosses or try out new territories. Tri-Stat I think will be better than Bi-Stat for those reasons.
Bi-stat only has that problem because Attackers are the only ones who actually get to go out and do things. Tri-stat would eliminate this problem, yes, but another solution is just somehow removing the "Only use one stat in battle" thing. Making them both useful will allow anyone to go fight a boss and anyone to defend.
Random idea number one: The two stats are still Attack and Defense. This system would use mass battle instead of 1v1 battles. Your Attack roll determines how much damage you do. Everyone on a side results together to make an Attack Pool. Then, Defense is rolled and made into a Defense pool. Somehow, the Defense pool would reduce the amount of the enemy team's Attack pool, wether by subtracting outright, or something. Then remaining damage is distributed at random between team members, lowering their HP. Rounds continue until an entire side is down.
Benifits: Defenders are crutial when attacking a territory, because they help to prevent damage, so that your Attackers can wail on the enemy.
Problem with this system: If Defense pool subtracts, then Defense dice would need to be lower (probably about 2 steps down) from Attack or else super Defenders will simply negate all damage. Another system like fractions could be used, but this would be complicated and wonky.
EDIT: Ninjaed by EE. Perhaps static would be the way to go?
I almost want to go with a weird 11 level system, just so we can have characters go from 10 to 20 points (using 9 + level as your point cost)
I almost want to go with a weird 11 level system, just so we can have characters go from 10 to 20 points (using 9 + level as your point cost)
I have always been partial to 6 Level systems, but that may be too few in this case.
"This one goes to eleven."
Classic! You win a cookie for the unintended reference, D_S!
But nah, specials costing points is bad, because it costs us an archetype: many posts back, df argued in favor of support characters who fought through other characters and buffed them. If we make specials cost points, that archetype suffers a quick and painful death.
"This one goes to eleven."
Classic! You win a cookie for the unintended reference, D_S!
But nah, specials costing points is bad, because it costs us an archetype: many posts back, df argued in favor of support characters who fought through other characters and buffed them. If we make specials cost points, that archetype suffers a quick and painful death.
Depends. Different specials could be worth more or less points. Passive specials should be worth nothing. I've even thought of a support special like so:
Efficiency: Specials used by you or your allies in battles you are participating in cost 1 less point.
/shrug
I agree to a point, but if we do make higher leveled characters significantly more powerful then lower level characters, then I would prefer if there was some sort of checks and balances to keep lower level characters still useful. If they take up a slot that prevents a higher level character from joining the battle, such that it actually hurts their team for them to join, then that's bad. The point system is one solution to that (by not having a hard limit on the number of combtantants). If you have an alternative, I would be happy to hear it.
Note: having fewer levels all together (seriously, why do we need 20? If these games go on that long I think people would seriously lose interest) and having them be more about increasing versatility and having relatively minor bonuses such that a level 1 character is still a viable threat to a max level character is one option, but I don't think it's favored.
I'm thinking of 10 levels and with powers that are balanced across those levels so that a level 10 is better than a level 1 but not to the point where it is a guaranteed win. I'm thinking more along the lines of the vet will have a few more choices or options and will likely have their powers be usable more often throughout the week. I'm also of thinking about limiting the amount of specials a person can use during an battle so that we don't have vets unloading 5 specials each on a n00b that has only 1 or 2. This one will help fix a lot of problems.
As is now 4 lvl 1 n00bs with Shield fighting against a level 10 with On Your Feet, Power Attack, All or Nothing, and Infinite Rage the fight will look like:
4d10+4d4 vs maxed 2d6+4d12+1d4
or
8-32-56 vs 64
With such a battle the 4 n00bs can't win and the vet can res right away. At least 1 n00b will die but likely all 4 will.
Now this n00b combo of 4 can take on some level 10 builds but for a group of level 1 n00bs to have about a 50% chance of winning this build there will need to be 8 n00bs.
I seriously think that we need to look at more balanced progression and more balanced specials and powers.
How bout everyone has an Attack stat that determiens damage, HP which determines health (duh), and Special. What Special would do is allow you a chance (gets better with a higher score) of using a unique Special move in any given round. Everyone would choose one at level one, and it would be seperate from other gained abilities. If your Special proced, you'd still get the Attack roll, but you'd also get to use your special, which might do stuff liek reduce damage you take this round or steal health.
More than likely you can just ignore this rambling. :P
Frank's idea of specials also costing points is an interesting one. This means that a higher level character using high level specials takes up space that could be used by other characters. It's interesting, and I could imagine that low level specials could cost 1 point (nearly irrelevant) while high level specials could cost as many as 5 (a quarter of a max level character).
I'm not advocating specials costing points. I'm advocating specials being nerfed some. Basically we can take all the specials in the current war and nerf them all in order to make them weak. Some are fine just giving them more uses per week. Some can slowly increase in power. A power should be something that grows in level with its user. It shouldn't be like a random low level adventurer finds an item that is 10 levels higher in level than the adventurer is.
I'm for balanced powers. Slow progressing powers rather than jumping in power. Power/specials should be tied to ones level not to a point system or stat thing like now.
Power Attack/Manyshot/Magic Missile: add +2 to your Melee/Ranged/Magic rolls for one battle. Usable once per week.
Upgrades: Choose one of the following upgrades:
-Increase bonus by 1.
-Increase uses per week by 1.
-Choose a stat other than the stat normally used by this special. You may apply this special's bonus to that stat as well as the default stat.
Weird: For one round, your opponent utilizes its stat weakest against a stat of your choice (thus, if you are utilizing your melee stat and your opponent has a ranged stat value of 1d8 but a melee stat value of 1d4, your opponent would use his melee stat). Usable three times per week and once per battle.
Spell Immunity/Cover/Counter Stance: Enemies who utilize their magic/ranged/melee stat do not gain Advantage* against you.
Upgrade: You gain Advantage against enemies who utilize their magic/ranged/melee stat against you, regardless of which stat you choose to use.
Stand Alone: Whenever you fight a battle alone (that is, you are the only combatant for your side even with spare deployment points available), you may roll every dice twice and take the better result. Additionally, treat your HP stat as 1 point higher for the purpose of the current battle (for example, a character with an HP total of 25 at level 20 would have an HP total of 30 for the duration of the current battle). Usable whenever the requirements are fulfilled (passive).
*Advantage is a special term in this system.
So, how do they look? They're redesigned to fit a classed tri-stat system, BTW.
Over The Top: You can treat your dice as having rolled their maximum values, but are instantly reduced to 0 HP and taken out of the battle order. Usable once per week.
Nice Armisael. I'll probably shamelessly steal those specials and put 'em as various specials in my system. What do people think of my level progression?
Unless the specials are weak and there is a limit on how many can be used per week, I think I like it. If these things aren't true then I don't like it. The higher levels will be more powerful than the lower levels, and no I don't support the battle slot/points system.
df, there has to be a limit to the number of people you can pitch into a battle, otherwise the week is decided on the first day with a massive slugfest. The slot system is what we've been using until now, and the points system offers a balanced alternative to it with regards to vets squishing n00bs. What is it you don't like about them?
I'd say that we haven't been using a slot but rather a cap. A guess you could call capping and slotting the same except that with slots you can do the whole "because you are too powerful you now take up 4 slots" thing where with a cap the max number is always the same.
What I don't like about it is that fighting a 1v1 with vet vs vet is not the same as a 5v1 n00bs vs vets. In order to really do this anyways without having the system suck the specials would need to be balance. It would allow for specials to be godly but all specials of a certain level would need to be balanced.
I don't like it because if I am a booster/buffer type character, which I would play if the current system actually allowed for one without you needing specialize or suck, then at high levels I would suck because I would have no allies to buff because they aren't allowed into the fight. So in order to stand a chance vs 4 or 5 n00bs I have to be able to use my buffs on myself, which can lead to me being overpowered, or I have to redesign my character with a retraining feature. Basically because of this I see a lot of the high level characters just being specialists. Likely when you are fighting by yourself all the time there are likely only one or two specials combos that will be effective vs both 1 opponent and 5, which will likely lead to most everyone at such a level being of similar build. If they aren't then they will get pewned.
I'd say that we haven't been using a slot but rather a cap. A guess you could call capping and slotting the same except that with slots you can do the whole "because you are too powerful you now take up 4 slots" thing where with a cap the max number is always the same.
What I don't like about it is that fighting a 1v1 with vet vs vet is not the same as a 5v1 n00bs vs vets. In order to really do this anyways without having the system suck the specials would need to be balance. It would allow for specials to be godly but all specials of a certain level would need to be balanced.
I don't like it because if I am a booster/buffer type character, which I would play if the current system actually allowed for one without you needing specialize or suck, then at high levels I would suck because I would have no allies to buff because they aren't allowed into the fight. So in order to stand a chance vs 4 or 5 n00bs I have to be able to use my buffs on myself, which can lead to me being overpowered, or I have to redesign my character with a retraining feature. Basically because of this I see a lot of the high level characters just being specialists. Likely when you are fighting by yourself all the time there are likely only one or two specials combos that will be effective vs both 1 opponent and 5, which will likely lead to most everyone at such a level being of similar build. If they aren't then they will get pewned.
In each battle, each side has 40 deployment points. A character has a deployment cost equal to level+10, except for level 1 characters, whose cost is level+9. This cost must be paid to deploy a character in a certain zone. Thus, a side could deploy two level 5 characters and a level 1 character, or one level 1 character and a level 20 character, etc. Additionally, certain abilities can reduce deployment cost. Support characters, such as pets, minions, and mooks, use special systems. They are as follows:
A pet costs 10 deployment points. Pets can be augmented through time by electing to focus points on the Pet Master special ability. Augmentations to pet abilities are not global: each time you opt to augment the strength of your pet, only one of its combat stats is increased. Pets have an HP stat equal to half of their master, rounded up, and their HP pool is calculated by utilizing their master's level.
Minions cost 5 points. Minions, unlike pets, a minion's stats can only be augmented in battle by special abilities.
Mooks cost 1 point each. Unlike pets and minions, mooks cannot benefit from any augmentation.
Finally, a character's cost can be reduced through the Swift Skirmisher ability. Each time you take this ability, reduce your deployment cost by 5. The deployment cost of mooks, minions, and pets you control cannot be reduced in any way. Additionally, your cost may not go lower than your level.
How does this look?
All I can say: Uhm...yeah. :P
All I can say: Uhm...yeah. :P
So I as a level 20 will have 1 mediocre pet or 2 crappy pets to boost up, but probably not that will? Also are they a one time per week thing or do they go until dead? If it is one time then I am only effective once in the week if such a build can be effective at all. If they last until dead then because they are far weaker than I they will likely end up dying in the fight anyways so this also means such a build will likely be a one shot and one trick pony. I basically have 1 mediocre ally that I can boost a stat and if my enemies are using all 3 then it ain't really of much use anyways. You have done nothing to convince me. You may need to build sample characters and sample encounters with all the dice probabilities to convince me it can work.
You can also have multiple high-level characters in a fight (2+10 deployment points worth of minions/mooks/pets/newbs). Really DF, buffers will be fine.
From what I saw before it was a level 20 had to solo. Now I'm getting that a level 20 takes up 30 of the 40 deployment points (level+10). Now the vet can't have a level 1 n00b assist because they cost too much (1+10=11). They can however have a pet (10 points) or 2 minions (5 points each) or 10 mooks (1 point each). A pet is easy to augment but there is only one. Minions are harder to augment but come in greater number. They are likely also kind of weak. Mooks can't be augmented and I assume are weaker than minions. They are likely almost useless. Basically the only good choice here would be to take a pet and try to augment it until it was about as good as you are, but even then you likely still suck overall.
From what I saw before it was a level 20 had to solo. Now I'm getting that a level 20 takes up 30 of the 40 deployment points (level+10). Now the vet can't have a level 1 n00b assist because they cost too much (1+10=11). They can however have a pet (10 points) or 2 minions (5 points each) or 10 mooks (1 point each). A pet is easy to augment but there is only one. Minions are harder to augment but come in greater number. They are likely also kind of weak. Mooks can't be augmented and I assume are weaker than minions. They are likely almost useless. Basically the only good choice here would be to take a pet and try to augment it until it was about as good as you are, but even then you likely still suck overall.
First off...
except for level 1 characters, whose cost is level+9.
Second...
Finally, a character's cost can be reduced through the Swift Skirmisher ability. Each time you take this ability, reduce your deployment cost by 5. The deployment cost of mooks, minions, and pets you control cannot be reduced in any way. Additionally, your cost may not go lower than your level.
Seriously, df, I'm fine with complaints, but read through what I've posted first. Buffers have ways of reducing their deployment cost and can bring a crapton of mooks, a good number of minions, and up to two friends/pets to the battlefield. They will do fine.
BTW, mooks are critters that deal 1 points of damage. Arguably, they're the most powerful type of support character, because 20 of them are an unholy can of whoop ass you can't fight against very well.
check it, yo
Proposal for a Play-by-Post War
Basic rules: In this game you create a character to attack and defend locations in an attempt to capture them for your side. When building your character, you choose a class focused on one of three stats, or a hybrid class focused on two. The three stats are:
Close: This represents how good your character is at getting up close and personal in a fight, using weapons such as swords, axes, maces, or even bare fists or teeth and claws if your character happens to be a monster. Close characters are strong against Magic characters, but weak against Ranged characters.
Ranged: This represents how good your character is at attacking from a distance, whether with bows, thrown weapons, projectile flames, or something else entirely. Ranged characters are strong against Close characters, but weak against Magic characters.
Magic: This represents how potent your character’s spellcasting ability is. Your character could be a priest who calls upon the power of the gods, a wizard who fries enemies with arcane power, a psychic who assaults the minds of others, or any other type of mystic. Magic characters are strong against Ranged characters, but weak against Close characters.
Goals: The goal of the game is to reach 10 advantages. This is done by controlling more territory than the other side at the end of a given week. A side gains 1 advantage by having more territory than the other on Sunday. In addition, if your side manages to capture the other side’s capitol, you instantly gain 1 advantage (note that this is very difficult to do!)
Declaring Attack and Defense: In order to declare attack or defense of a location, simply post that you are attacking or defending in bold in the Battles and Items thread. Then, send a private message (PM) stating which stat you are using to fight to the dungeon master, DivinciDilemma. A new battle takes 2 days to complete, though you can jump into an existing battle at any time without increasing its length. In battle, your character is randomly paired off with characters on the opposing side in a series of 1 on 1 fights until only members of one side are left standing. The results of the battle are posted in the Battles and Items thread upon completion of the battle.
How and when you can fight: Your character is worth a number of Deployment Points (DP) based on level. A level one character is worth 10 DP, and increases by one point each level, up to a maximum of 20 DP at level 11. Everyone who wants to make a lame “DP” joke can go straight to hell now. A standard battle allows a maximum of 50 DP to be present on each side, though no more than four characters can be on a single side. What this means is that even though 4 level 1 characters only cost 40DP, you cannot include more characters to reach the maximum of 50DP. However, certain characters may have pets or special abilities that cost DP, and may add them to the fight in order to reach the maximum.
Creating a Character: Your character starts at level 1 with no special abilities, and 1d4 in each of the primary stats. As previously stated, you begin playing the game by picking one of six classes. After that, you pick a special ability, and your character is mechanically complete! From there, you can make up a description and background to let the other players know a little bit about your character, and then you can jump right into the battles!
Character Advancement: As you fight in battles, you gain experience points (XP) and eventually increase in level. In general, winning a battle earns you 2XP, and losing earns you 1XP. As your level increases, new special abilities and options become available to you. Below you will find the class advancement tables for each of the six classes.
Melee Specialist: You are at home in melee combat. You might be a powerful swordsman, a raging monster, or a skilled tactician leading a phalanx of pikemen. Whatever the case, you excel on the front lines. Below is your advancement table:
Level 1: Close increases to 1d10, choose Magic or Ranged as a secondary stat. Secondary stat increases to 1d6. Choose first special.
Level 2: Close increases to 1d12
Level 3: Choose second special
Level 4: Secondary stat (Ranged or Magic) increases to 1d8
Level 5: Choose Advanced Special
Level 6: Close increases to 2d6
Level 7: Free Point
Level 8: Secondary (Ranged or Magic) increases to 1d10
Level 9: Choose Expert Special
Level 10: Tertiary increases to 1d6
Level 11: Free Point
Melee/Magic Hybrid: You are capable in melee and magic. You might be a swordsman who has dabbled in the arcane, a trickster rogue with a pack full of alchemical items, or even a young dragon, a being of might and magic.
Level 1: Close and Magic increase to 1d8, choose Close or Magic as a primary stat. The other becomes your secondary stat. Choose first special.
Level 2: Primary increases to 1d10
Level 3: Choose second special
Level 4: Secondary increases to 1d10
Level 5: Choose Advanced Special
Level 6: Primary increases to 1d12
Level 7: Free Point
Level 8: Secondary increases to 1d12
Level 9: Choose Expert Special
Level 10: Tertiary increases to 1d6
Level 11: Free Point
Basic Specials: These are special abilities that can be taken at first level, and again at third level. Some classes share special abilities, though at least three are unique to your class. Below are the basic special abilities available to each of the classes.
Melee Specialist basic Specials
Only Melee Specialists may take these specials.
Power Attack: Once per week, increase a Close roll by +2. Using this special takes 1 DP.
Magic Hunter: Gain +1 to all rolls (regardless of whether you are using Close, Magic, or Ranged to battle) when fighting someone using Magic.
Close-Quarters Fighting: reduce your DP cost by 2.
Quick Recovery: You resurrect on Wednesdays as well as Sundays.
Minion: You gain control of a minion with 1d6 Close power, and 0 Ranged and Magic power. This minion costs 5 DP when sent into battle.
Melee/Magic Hybrid Basic Specials
Only Melee/Close Hybrids may take these specials.
Adaption: When using Close or Magic, gain a +1 to rolls against opponents who have selected the stat that has an advantage over you (Ranged if you’re using Close, or Close if you’re using Magic)
Lucky: Once per week, gain +1 on any roll. Using this special costs 1 DP
Minion: You gain a minion with 1d4 Close power, 1d4 Magic power, and 0 Ranged power. This minion costs 5 DP when sent into battle.
General Basic Specials
A member of any class can take these.
Looter: Whenever your side wins a battle that you are involved in, instantly gain 1 resource.
Craft: You have a 20% chance per battle you are involved in of creating a random basic item.
Basic rules: In this game you create a character to attack and defend locations in an attempt to capture them for your side. When building your character, you choose a class focused on one of three stats, or a hybrid class focused on two. The three stats are:
Close: This represents how good your character is at getting up close and personal in a fight, using weapons such as swords, axes, maces, or even bare fists or teeth and claws if your character happens to be a monster. Close characters are strong against Magic characters, but weak against Ranged characters.
Ranged: This represents how good your character is at attacking from a distance, whether with bows, thrown weapons, projectile flames, or something else entirely. Ranged characters are strong against Close characters, but weak against Magic characters.
Magic: This represents how potent your character’s spellcasting ability is. Your character could be a priest who calls upon the power of the gods, a wizard who fries enemies with arcane power, a psychic who assaults the minds of others, or any other type of mystic. Magic characters are strong against Ranged characters, but weak against Close characters.
Goals: The goal of the game is to reach 10 advantages. This is done by controlling more territory than the other side at the end of a given week. A side gains 1 advantage by having more territory than the other on Sunday. In addition, if your side manages to capture the other side’s capitol, you instantly gain 1 advantage (note that this is very difficult to do!)
Declaring Attack and Defense: In order to declare attack or defense of a location, simply post that you are attacking or defending in bold in the Battles and Items thread. Then, send a private message (PM) stating which stat you are using to fight to the dungeon master, DivinciDilemma. A new battle takes 2 days to complete, though you can jump into an existing battle at any time without increasing its length. In battle, your character is randomly paired off with characters on the opposing side in a series of 1 on 1 fights until only members of one side are left standing. The results of the battle are posted in the Battles and Items thread upon completion of the battle.
How and when you can fight: Your character is worth a number of Deployment Points (DP) based on level. A level one character is worth 10 DP, and increases by one point each level, up to a maximum of 20 DP at level 11. Everyone who wants to make a lame “DP” joke can go straight to hell now. A standard battle allows a maximum of 50 DP to be present on each side, though no more than four characters can be on a single side. What this means is that even though 4 level 1 characters only cost 40DP, you cannot include more characters to reach the maximum of 50DP. However, certain characters may have pets or special abilities that cost DP, and may add them to the fight in order to reach the maximum.
Creating a Character: Your character starts at level 1 with no special abilities, and 1d4 in each of the primary stats. As previously stated, you begin playing the game by picking one of six classes. After that, you pick a special ability, and your character is mechanically complete! From there, you can make up a description and background to let the other players know a little bit about your character, and then you can jump right into the battles!
Character Advancement: As you fight in battles, you gain experience points (XP) and eventually increase in level. In general, winning a battle earns you 2XP, and losing earns you 1XP. As your level increases, new special abilities and options become available to you. Below you will find the class advancement tables for each of the six classes.
Melee Specialist: You are at home in melee combat. You might be a powerful swordsman, a raging monster, or a skilled tactician leading a phalanx of pikemen. Whatever the case, you excel on the front lines. Below is your advancement table:
Level 1: Close increases to 1d10, choose Magic or Ranged as a secondary stat. Secondary stat increases to 1d6. Choose first special.
Level 2: Close increases to 1d12
Level 3: Choose second special
Level 4: Secondary stat (Ranged or Magic) increases to 1d8
Level 5: Choose Advanced Special
Level 6: Close increases to 2d6
Level 7: Free Point
Level 8: Secondary (Ranged or Magic) increases to 1d10
Level 9: Choose Expert Special
Level 10: Tertiary increases to 1d6
Level 11: Free Point
Melee/Magic Hybrid: You are capable in melee and magic. You might be a swordsman who has dabbled in the arcane, a trickster rogue with a pack full of alchemical items, or even a young dragon, a being of might and magic.
Level 1: Close and Magic increase to 1d8, choose Close or Magic as a primary stat. The other becomes your secondary stat. Choose first special.
Level 2: Primary increases to 1d10
Level 3: Choose second special
Level 4: Secondary increases to 1d10
Level 5: Choose Advanced Special
Level 6: Primary increases to 1d12
Level 7: Free Point
Level 8: Secondary increases to 1d12
Level 9: Choose Expert Special
Level 10: Tertiary increases to 1d6
Level 11: Free Point
Basic Specials: These are special abilities that can be taken at first level, and again at third level. Some classes share special abilities, though at least three are unique to your class. Below are the basic special abilities available to each of the classes.
Melee Specialist basic Specials
Only Melee Specialists may take these specials.
Power Attack: Once per week, increase a Close roll by +2. Using this special takes 1 DP.
Magic Hunter: Gain +1 to all rolls (regardless of whether you are using Close, Magic, or Ranged to battle) when fighting someone using Magic.
Close-Quarters Fighting: reduce your DP cost by 2.
Quick Recovery: You resurrect on Wednesdays as well as Sundays.
Minion: You gain control of a minion with 1d6 Close power, and 0 Ranged and Magic power. This minion costs 5 DP when sent into battle.
Melee/Magic Hybrid Basic Specials
Only Melee/Close Hybrids may take these specials.
Adaption: When using Close or Magic, gain a +1 to rolls against opponents who have selected the stat that has an advantage over you (Ranged if you’re using Close, or Close if you’re using Magic)
Lucky: Once per week, gain +1 on any roll. Using this special costs 1 DP
Minion: You gain a minion with 1d4 Close power, 1d4 Magic power, and 0 Ranged power. This minion costs 5 DP when sent into battle.
General Basic Specials
A member of any class can take these.
Looter: Whenever your side wins a battle that you are involved in, instantly gain 1 resource.
Craft: You have a 20% chance per battle you are involved in of creating a random basic item.
fourth stat has arrived
Hit Points: Every character has hit points, which are a measure of his skill, luck, grit, ability to stay in the fight, and flat out toughness. When fighting, your character engages in combat with the characters of other players, and each of you attempts to deplete each other's HP. To do that, you roll the dice stipulated by the stat of your choice, and subtract that result from your HP pool. You go through a number of 1v1 battles against your opponents until either your team or theirs are knocked out, at which point the side with remaining HP wins.
HP Pool: Your HP pool is the number which represents how long you can stay in the fight. Once reduced to 0, you are knocked out and cannot fight anymore.
Calculating the HP Pool: To avoid making starting characters too fragile, all characters begin play with 10 HP, regardless of their HP stat (its effects on the HP pool will be discussed later). Additionally, for each point on HP, you add half your level in HP, rounded up. Thus, even the weakest character starts play with 11 Hit points in his pool. Like other stats, HP has eight "die sizes".
Formula: 10+(0.5*HP)*level
Character Generation: You begin play with five stat points to spend as you see fit, and one special ability slot to fill with a Basic Special from your class. No stat may be increased to a die size higher than 4 (1d10 for battle stats) in this way.
HP Pool: Your HP pool is the number which represents how long you can stay in the fight. Once reduced to 0, you are knocked out and cannot fight anymore.
Calculating the HP Pool: To avoid making starting characters too fragile, all characters begin play with 10 HP, regardless of their HP stat (its effects on the HP pool will be discussed later). Additionally, for each point on HP, you add half your level in HP, rounded up. Thus, even the weakest character starts play with 11 Hit points in his pool. Like other stats, HP has eight "die sizes".
Formula: 10+(0.5*HP)*level
Character Generation: You begin play with five stat points to spend as you see fit, and one special ability slot to fill with a Basic Special from your class. No stat may be increased to a die size higher than 4 (1d10 for battle stats) in this way.
As for HP, if you have any ideas for avoiding the chaos of massed tri-stat combat without creating one-shot unfair matchups, I'd love to hear it. As is, HP is our best bet for avoiding that, so I'm sticking with it until we find something better.
I'm not sure I like how using some specials costs DP though. Also, I think minions need to have at least a value of 1 in their weak caegories, otherwise they are totally useless unless they always use that stat.
On a related note, it doesn't seem right that only Melee Specialists can have a minion that's strong at Close. Maybe Minion needs to be a General Special and give a minion at 0/0/0, then gives 2 points to assign. 1 point makes something a 1d4, two makes it 1d6.
Specialist:
2d6+2
d10
d6
2d6
2d6
d6
2d6+1
d12
d6
2d6
d10
d10
generalist:
2d6
2d6
d6
2d6+1
d12
d6
d12
d12
d10
Other builds involving bumping the low stat to d8 are possible, but unlikely, because it's kind of a dumb idea.
Other than the slightly more than irritating 11 levels thing, it looks good D_S.
I'm not sure I like how using some specials costs DP though. Also, I think minions need to have at least a value of 1 in their weak caegories, otherwise they are totally useless unless they always use that stat.
On a related note, it doesn't seem right that only Melee Specialists can have a minion that's strong at Close. Maybe Minion needs to be a General Special and give a minion at 0/0/0, then gives 2 points to assign. 1 point makes something a 1d4, two makes it 1d6.
Interesting ideas. To be honest, I'm a little strapped for specials. I have a vague idea about "melee gets to reduce DP, magic is best at changing battle conditions, and ranged can affect fights it isn't even involved in", but not much more than that. A lot of specials would be copies of each other. For example, each of the specialists would get a +2 to primary stat 1/week, and a "hunting" special for the one they have an advantage against. Similarly, all generalists would get the "Lucky" special, and an "adaption" special.
For example, say there's a Specialist pool. This pool would have the powers that you want every Specialist to have, regardless of Speciality. This pool would contain, currently, 2 powers. Using very generic names that should probably be changed:
Specialist Basic Specials - If your class is a Specialist, you have all of the powers in this list.
Power Up: Once per week, you can gain a +2 bonus to your Specialty stat.
Hunting: You gain a +1 bonus when fighting someone you have Advantage* against.
*To steal someone else term that I liked.
This would reduce repetitiveness, but also make it harder for the player to know what they had exactly.
Also, I'm not sure Ranged characters should be able to affect battles they aren't even in. That may prove to be far too unbalanced if one side has lots of ranged attackers, they could simply steamroll the opposition.
And what about Buffers?
BTW, I think Melee (let's ditch Close, please. Melee sounds better) should focus on making yourself more powerful. Stuff like Stand Alone, Over The Top, etc., seems tailor-made for the meleers we've had in this war.
I'll work on the specials. Leave them to me, and expect to see a full revision of the specials later today. I'll go as far as the Expert level and make a few for each group. D'you think my version of Stand Alone is fine in this system?
Personally, I have detested Stand Alone/Infinite Rage since its first incarnation, and would gleefully burn it in a fire. So I'm probably not the best person to ask. :D
I'd like to see the specials you create, though.
Seriously, df, I'm fine with complaints, but read through what I've posted first.
I did and this is what it said.
All I can say: Uhm...yeah. :PIn each battle, each side has 40 deployment points. A character has a deployment cost equal to level+10, except for level 1 characters, whose cost is level+9. This cost must be paid to deploy a character in a certain zone. Thus, a side could deploy two level 5 characters and a level 1 character, or one level 1 character and a level 20 character, etc. Additionally, certain abilities can reduce deployment cost. Support characters, such as pets, minions, and mooks, use special systems. They are as follows:
Will I guess I missed the part about a level one being an exception but this brings up more problems. A level 2 isn't much stronger than a level 1 but a 1 can support a level 20 but a 2 can. Basically the only people that can support a level 20 is either a pet, minion, mook or a level 1. Lets say our game lasts long enough for a person to reach level 20. Do you really think we'll still have lots of level 20s? There will likely still be level gaps but at that point the lowest level will likely be 10 to 15.
BTW, mooks are critters that deal 1 points of damage. Arguably, they're the most powerful type of support character, because 20 of them are an unholy can of whoop ass you can't fight against very well.
Are they a thing that does 1 point but is dead in one hit type thing? So a person will kill 20 in 20 rounds and take 20 damage? From what I'm getting a level 20 could probably do something like 10 to 20 damage a round. 2 rounds of a player is equal to 20 mooks in 20 rounds. How are they more powerful? They seem to be lame to me.
specials galore
Melee specialist, Basic Specials:
Tough as Nails: Once per week, you might refill yourself to full HP before Sunday (Better than On Your Feet in its basic form, but if you die, you die. You're not getting back up). You may not use this while participating in a battle. DP 0
Dirty Fighter: Once per week, if you participate in a battle and win, treat the remaining HP of your team as 5 points higher for determining how many enemies die. DP 3.
Stance Swap: Once per battle, you can switch your stat chosen for battle inbetween rounds*. You must specify the point at which you'd like to switch your stats in the PM sent to the battle administrator in which you specified your original stat. DP 2. +
Venomous Barb: Once per battle, you may opt to automatically be the first member of your team to battle in that round. DP 2.
Impressive comeback: If a battle lasts for three rounds or more, once per week you can recover half of your HP at any time within battle. You must include a note detailing the use of this ability along with the PM sent to the Battle Administrator which details the stat you want to pick. DP 1.
Melee Specialist, Advanced Specials:
Combat Challenge: Once per battle, you may force an opponent to have a match with you. This effect lasts for one round. DP 4.
Over The Top: Once per battle, you may maximize all of your dice in exchange of being reduced to 0 HP instantly. 4 DP.
Action Point: Twice per week, you may roll all of your dice twice and take the best result plus half of the other result, rounding down. DP 6.
Settling The Score: If you fight an enemy on two consecutive rounds or more, you gain a +4 bonus to all rolls against him. This effect stacks with itself, and prolongs itself in time if you battle an enemy more than twice. DP 5.
Melee Specialist, Expert Specials:
Stand Alone: Whenever you fight a battle alone (that is, you are the only combatant for your side even with spare deployment points available), you may roll every dice twice and take the better result, adding a +3 static bonus on top. Additionally, treat your HP stat as 3 points higher for the duration of the current battle, even above the standard maximum of 8. 0 DP (passive).
Invincible Warrior: Once per battle, you may regain half of your HP. You must specify the point at which you'd like to use this ability in the PM sent to the battle administrator in which you specified your original stat for the battle. 8 DP.
Vicious Wound: Once per battle, you may inflict a vicious wound to an enemy you fight which weakens them throughout the battle. Each round after the one in which you decided to utilize this ability, the target loses HP equal to 1/4th the damage you inflicted on him, rounded up. 8 DP.
Flurry of Strikes: Twice per week, you may add a +4 static bonus to your rolls for two rounds. You must specify the point at which you'd like to use this ability in the PM sent to the battle administrator in which you specified your original stat for the battle. 6 DP.
*A round is defined as the sum of all matches that take place between combatants in a single battle cycle. That is, it refers to the time during which all combatants go through at least one match.
+Generalists with a Melee subtype may take this ability too.
Tough as Nails: Once per week, you might refill yourself to full HP before Sunday (Better than On Your Feet in its basic form, but if you die, you die. You're not getting back up). You may not use this while participating in a battle. DP 0
Dirty Fighter: Once per week, if you participate in a battle and win, treat the remaining HP of your team as 5 points higher for determining how many enemies die. DP 3.
Stance Swap: Once per battle, you can switch your stat chosen for battle inbetween rounds*. You must specify the point at which you'd like to switch your stats in the PM sent to the battle administrator in which you specified your original stat. DP 2. +
Venomous Barb: Once per battle, you may opt to automatically be the first member of your team to battle in that round. DP 2.
Impressive comeback: If a battle lasts for three rounds or more, once per week you can recover half of your HP at any time within battle. You must include a note detailing the use of this ability along with the PM sent to the Battle Administrator which details the stat you want to pick. DP 1.
Melee Specialist, Advanced Specials:
Combat Challenge: Once per battle, you may force an opponent to have a match with you. This effect lasts for one round. DP 4.
Over The Top: Once per battle, you may maximize all of your dice in exchange of being reduced to 0 HP instantly. 4 DP.
Action Point: Twice per week, you may roll all of your dice twice and take the best result plus half of the other result, rounding down. DP 6.
Settling The Score: If you fight an enemy on two consecutive rounds or more, you gain a +4 bonus to all rolls against him. This effect stacks with itself, and prolongs itself in time if you battle an enemy more than twice. DP 5.
Melee Specialist, Expert Specials:
Stand Alone: Whenever you fight a battle alone (that is, you are the only combatant for your side even with spare deployment points available), you may roll every dice twice and take the better result, adding a +3 static bonus on top. Additionally, treat your HP stat as 3 points higher for the duration of the current battle, even above the standard maximum of 8. 0 DP (passive).
Invincible Warrior: Once per battle, you may regain half of your HP. You must specify the point at which you'd like to use this ability in the PM sent to the battle administrator in which you specified your original stat for the battle. 8 DP.
Vicious Wound: Once per battle, you may inflict a vicious wound to an enemy you fight which weakens them throughout the battle. Each round after the one in which you decided to utilize this ability, the target loses HP equal to 1/4th the damage you inflicted on him, rounded up. 8 DP.
Flurry of Strikes: Twice per week, you may add a +4 static bonus to your rolls for two rounds. You must specify the point at which you'd like to use this ability in the PM sent to the battle administrator in which you specified your original stat for the battle. 6 DP.
*A round is defined as the sum of all matches that take place between combatants in a single battle cycle. That is, it refers to the time during which all combatants go through at least one match.
+Generalists with a Melee subtype may take this ability too.
I did and this is what it said.Will I guess I missed the part about a level one being an exception but this brings up more problems. A level 2 isn't much stronger than a level 1 but a 1 can support a level 20 but a 2 can. Basically the only people that can support a level 20 is either a pet, minion, mook or a level 1. Lets say our game lasts long enough for a person to reach level 20. Do you really think we'll still have lots of level 20s? There will likely still be level gaps but at that point the lowest level will likely be 10 to 15.
Are they a thing that does 1 point but is dead in one hit type thing? So a person will kill 20 in 20 rounds and take 20 damage? From what I'm getting a level 20 could probably do something like 10 to 20 damage a round. 2 rounds of a player is equal to 20 mooks in 20 rounds. How are they more powerful? They seem to be lame to me.
You fight them all in a single round. That's why they're powerful.
You fight them all in a single round. That's why they're powerful.
So it is a flat 20 damage in one round. How much HP? I don't feel like fishing through posts.
I'll be working on the 2 stats class system over the next few days. I have class and work tomorrow so I will not be on much. I think I have a way to make both of the 2 stats be usable for both attack and defense. I will have it presented when I present the system.
Assuming you managed to pull so many mooks into the fight (20 in one fight is an exaggeration, mind), that's about all of the HP of a standard character. HOWEVER, remember we're talking about an absurd scenario. At most, it's likely to be 5 HP or something.
So they are suppose to be a one round easy kill but hard hitting enemy?
If they are in low numbers and then they are weak. If someone exploits the system, which I'm sure someone will, then they will likely get out 10 to 20 and have a big hitter. Basically fill in any extra space you have or keep allies out so that you can do tons of flat damage to get a one round insta kill. This can give ones side an advantage.
I don't like and wont support a DP system. We have to test all the powers against each other and all the combos against each other before we can assign any DP value that is accurate or means much of anything. If we don't some powers will be be too low and some will be too high which will likely pigeon-hole everyone into the same few specials.
Pretty much why I said if we're going to go for a point-system to determine how many and who can be in a battle, we'd want to put that off until a bit further into development so we can actually run some simulations and do some analysis to determine points based off the impact characters of a given level can have on a battle.
Just assigning a point value before we really know how much they impact the battle seems a bit like... jumping the gun to me.
Assuming my vote counts, (;)) I will not support a DP system either. I don't like spending what appears to be points that should be spent to put extra characters in the fight on special ability activations, in addition to the point costs needing to be playtested.
Since combat will use a "round" system, I think we could capitalize on it by allowing characters to have effects placed on them that only start working on the next round. For example, maybe a Special would sometimes cause an enemy to take 2 damage at the start of each of their subsequent rounds. Or they might get dazed and take a -1 penalty on their next attack roll.
They could either be a per week ability that you declare you are using before battle, in which case it applies to every enemy you fight, or it could use a proc system, something like it works on a roll of X on a d6, in which case it would be a passive, always on ability.
I'm seem to be more of the "Throw out crazy ideas and see if they stick" type. I'll leave you guys to the actual system work. Hope some of my ideas help.
It seems to get more complex by the post :P
I thought we were trying to keep this simple?
It seems to get more complex by the post
Hehe, well, I'm sure the finished product will be simpler than it sounds right now, cause it's still in bits and peices.
Arms, I want to add your stuff to the first few posts as your proposal/collection of ideas/whatever, but can't find a condensed/collected thing. Am I just missing stuff, or have you not written everything into a coherent whole yet?
There was a writeup of the HP system right after D_S' ideas, and the specials are in forms that are pretty close to final. Other than that, I don't know about anything else that should make it to the first post. I'd use D_S' system as a framework, then treat anything I post as something that builds on that.
DF: I'm getting the feeling you're contradicting me just for the sake of being argumentative, at this point. Look, you're NOT going to use the DP you'll blow on specials to deploy more people. You have 50 DP, and a limit of 4 people. You can only completely fill your DP by playing 2 level 2 players and 2 level 3 players or a similar combo. The rest of the time, you'll have ample DP to use on your specials. I just gave them a value to try and get a hold on the concept of spending DP to use the specials. If you don't like it, that's fine, but give me constructive criticism instead of just saying "I won't support it, BAWWWWW". I'll admit that that's an exaggeration, but really, if you don't like it, suggest changes instead of complaining.
Silver: How many times have we played with a full set of characters in a battle? DP is just a way of standardizing things, really. If you have any better ideas, I'd love to hear them, but until then, I'm sticking with the concept and running with it.
@EE: The XP system is fairly solid, 5 XP for 1-5, and every 5 levels increase XP needed to level by 1. I don't think anyone disagrees with that.
Silver: How many times have we played with a full set of characters in a battle? DP is just a way of standardizing things, really. If you have any better ideas, I'd love to hear them, but until then, I'm sticking with the concept and running with it.
I think that a point system like this is going to be a nightmare for everyone to keep track of. If the system is doubleblind through PMs to the Battlemaster, you'll have no idea how many points your side has already spent in a battle. And if it's not doubleblind, you'll have to add up all of your side's actions in order to know whether or not you can even join, much less use specials.
If we're going to make it so that there's enough points for there to be 1 10th level character, 2 5th level characters, or 4 1st level characters, but so that all of them can use their specials, and for there to be enough points left over for, say, 5 mooks or a minion, then what was the point of the DP system?
Why not just say there's four battle slots, at level 5 a character takes up 2 slots, and at level 10 they take up 4, and then have pets/minions/mooks use a point system based on the number and level of combatants?
Example: CharA is level 5, CharB is level 4, CharC is level 3. Lets say, for the sake of argument, the number of points spent on mooks equals 20 - the total level of combatants on a side. So in this fight, the side with CharA, CharB, and CharC fighting is allowed 20-5-4-3 = 20-12 = 8 points to spend on NPCs. Say they go with a Minon (5 points) and 3 Mooks (1 point each). Each of the three characters can use their specials unrestricted.
This seems very similar to what the result would have been with the DP system (as I understand it), and increases the power of high-level support characters that would, under the DP system, have to choose between using their special or deploying another pet/minion/mook. It also makes it much easier to figure out if you can join a battle or not, and whether or not you can use your specials.
If there's a problem because you feel that specials are too powerful unless you also limit mooks deployed by spending DP on both, well, I'm not sure what I'd do about that. I'll think about it if that's the problem. But the system as it stands seems, to me, to be complex for the sake of complexity.
EDIT: I think this is one of the longest posts I've made since leaving the Future Releases and RulesQ&A boards :P
I used to hang around there sometimes but I'm almost always here now. I still go back from time to time, but lately... not so much. :D
Master of Logistics: Reduce your deployment cost by 5. DP 0 (passive).
...So I'm REALLY not seeing how there's going to be a problem, especially because I haven't even started tackling buffing yet. Wouldn't it be better to wait until I've presented a draft of the buffing specials before going medieval on my poor crappy designer behind?
I agree though, we have to eliminate double-blind guessing. With the advent of HP and stuff like Stance Swap, it's not like we need it anymore, IMO. A player can just state what he's doing and the DP cost of his actions and be done with it. Some consulting with the teammates will be necessary, probably, but nothing too extreme.
PS: Your system sounds interesting though. I think you should elaborate a bit on it.
It just seems unnecessarily complex when I look at it, is all. I suppose if everyone consults with everyone else and posts how much DP they're spending total between deployment and specials, it won't be too much of a problem, especially if it's not doubleblind. Also, just want to say that having 11 levels is annoying. :P
As for elaborating, it was really more of a 'for instance' that I threw out off the top of my head. All I have right now is combat resolution, of course.
It's a hybrid of what we're doing in the current war and the DP system. The problem, though, is then stuff like the Infinite Rage and Unbound Fortitude that we have now become nearly mandatory at level 10, unless you're a pet/minion master. But as a rough outline...
Each battle has 4 slots for players. A level 1 character takes up 1 slot. At level 5, a character's slot size increases to a total of 2 slots, and at level 10 (the max in my system because 11 is annoying ;)) it increases to 4 slots. Each battle also has a number of Extra Points, or EP (Using something different for clarity. I prefer DP personally). EP are spent on Minions and Mooks, which are very low-powered 'helpers' during the battle. Minions cost 5 EP and Mooks cost 1 EP. The number of EP that are able to be spent during each battle is equal to 20 minus the total level of characters on your side. For example, if you are level 5, and are fighting with a friend who is level 9, your side would have 6 EP to spend, and could send a Minion and a Mook, or 6 Mooks, to that battle.
Combat resolution would basically be the same as in this war unless you guys want RPS, which case we could use the series of 1v1 random fights plus HP, and then Infinite Rage/Unbound Fortitude aren't necessary. I'm also not sure how to handle pets in this system. Maybe Pets are a special, and you can deploy them for 5 EP, since they also take one of your special slots?
EDIT: Also, I forgot to say, I'm not sure I like the idea of DP reducing specials like that. People that take them will be able to use more DP specials, and I think everyone will want them.
If they do end up in the final draft, I think I'll have to find room for at least one...
As far as I see it is that an appropriate DP value can't really be appropriately assigned to a special unless there are countless hours spent testing them against each other and testing combos against each other. Even then there might be problems because a DP value that makes each individual skill balance out with each other will make combos unbalanced and if you balance them upon the most problematic builds then then builds that depend upon each special's individual power might be quite weak and underpowered.
I don't support this type of a system because it was the big thing that cause problems initially. We tried to fix it with tiers. I'm not seeing how going back towards the original problem is a solve for the problem. This is why I'm not liking this system that is being tossed around with the DP.
Nope, the specials didn't cost points, or rather, didn't cost in-battle points but CharGen points. The problem was that one side didn't adapt to the other side's tactics, and thus was crushed, pretty much.
That was only part of the problem. Part of the problem was that SYG would win every time vs minions and they both were things one could get from the get go. The powers were a bit unbalanced from each other. Minions had to be low power and 1 use per week because there was no minion limit for combat. SYG was just too powerful as it was. It basically was an auto win vs if a minion or two was in the battle but for the most part it won most of the time even if minions weren't in the battle. Every offensive booster kind of has to be used to beat a power that was obtainable from character creation. It's equivalent in a class system would be that tier 2 and tier 3 specials would need to be unloaded in order to beat a tier 1 special.
That was only part of the problem. Part of the problem was that SYG would win every time vs minions and they both were things one could get from the get go. The powers were a bit unbalanced from each other. Minions had to be low power and 1 use per week because there was no minion limit for combat. SYG was just too powerful as it was. It basically was an auto win vs if a minion or two was in the battle but for the most part it won most of the time even if minions weren't in the battle. Every offensive booster kind of has to be used to beat a power that was obtainable from character creation. It's equivalent in a class system would be that tier 2 and tier 3 specials would need to be unloaded in order to beat a tier 1 special.
You'll notice that my system still uses tiers, though you do make a point. I'm trying to think of a good way of keeping a max level character from unloading 4 specials in a fight and absolutely pulverizing the newbies.
I don't think "make all the specials weak" is a good solution, because quite simply that isn't much fun. There's not much of a feeling of accomplishment if the specials I get throughout the levels are all equally powerful. Why even bother having higher tier specials if they aren't stronger? And if we remove tiers, how is it satisfying to reach a higher level, get a new special, and then have a new player join and take the exact same special?
After so much leveling, I want to be a sexy shoeless god of war and I want to ****ing own. That's pretty much the point of Epic Destinies, in fact, giving you all sorts of badass abilities. I don't see why our game should be different with this. Leveling should have tangible advantages, not boring, small increases. We can balance around this to compensate.
As for the special problem, there's an easy counter to that: HP. How much HP does a max level character have? If it maximizes a stat, a four, maybe, and at the expense of every other stat except for the main. At this point, the guy has something like 31 HP at most, while the newbies have 44 HP as a minimum. Sure, the vet might do more damage...but what stops the newbies from unloading THEIR specials too and utilizing the massive amount of static bonuses they could get from, say, PA to pulverize the vet? This was, in fact, the reason I added that "+3 to HP even above the stat cap" part to Stand Alone: going it alone puts you in the uncomfortable situation of having to rely on crappy rolls for your foes to survive. You might be badass, but you're still mortal and can be easily felled by a rookie squad.
Why not just a general rule of only 1 activated special per battle? This would probably lead to most of the powerful specials being unloaded early in the week, though.
That would make passive specials absolutely unfair and buffers nearly impossible to pull off. Let people eat their cake, they won't be able to have it too because they'll be overmatched in other ways.
If we think specials don't need to be limited, I won't argue. ;)
Also, I did elaborate somewhat on my idea above, in case you missed it right before DF's posts. :P
Now I'm actually confused. Maybe I misunderstood something important...
Or, in other words, if I want to fight alongside you, I can. We just won't be able to go all SSJ with specials on the poor sods who challenge us.
I know I will. :P
After so much leveling, I want to be a sexy shoeless god of war and I want to ****ing own. That's pretty much the point of Epic Destinies, in fact, giving you all sorts of badass abilities. I don't see why our game should be different with this. Leveling should have tangible advantages, not boring, small increases. We can balance around this to compensate.
In D&D an epic character fights epic monsters and epic NPCs. In D&D an epic PC does not fight heroic monsters and heroic NPCs. To put it in D&D terms, we need a system that will allow a heroic, or group of heroic, character(s) to stand a chance vs an epic character(s). In D&D an army of heroic characters don't really stand a chance vs an epic character. For the game to be fun for everyone no matter when they join a n00b needs to be able to stand a chance against a near max level vet.
There's too many targets for the high-level character, and while he may defeat most of them in 1v1 combat, in the end his HP may run out and he could lose.
I'm not dropping any ideas, even my own ill-conceived thrown-together one. Right now I'm just throwing some mechanics out there for people to consider, along with my thoughts. I'm not really for or against any of the systems.
I think the only way to see it work is if the Specials get finished and we draw up characters and test it, adjusting specials and other mechanics if they need adjusted.
Alright, I've spent the last few hours working on a system, just so there's something moderately concrete to go on. I've partially developed 2 classes, a specialist and a generalist, with build outlines and possible basic specials. The general plan is to allow a character to branch out into offense, defense, or support with higher level specials, which would not necessarily be more powerful, but would be geared towards giving a minor bonus to the aspect you wish to pursue.check it, yoProposal for a Play-by-Post War
Basic rules: In this game you create a character to attack and defend locations in an attempt to capture them for your side. When building your character, you choose a class focused on one of three stats, or a hybrid class focused on two. The three stats are:
Close: This represents how good your character is at getting up close and personal in a fight, using weapons such as swords, axes, maces, or even bare fists or teeth and claws if your character happens to be a monster. Close characters are strong against Magic characters, but weak against Ranged characters.
Ranged: This represents how good your character is at attacking from a distance, whether with bows, thrown weapons, projectile flames, or something else entirely. Ranged characters are strong against Close characters, but weak against Magic characters.
Magic: This represents how potent your character’s spellcasting ability is. Your character could be a priest who calls upon the power of the gods, a wizard who fries enemies with arcane power, a psychic who assaults the minds of others, or any other type of mystic. Magic characters are strong against Ranged characters, but weak against Close characters.
Goals: The goal of the game is to reach 10 advantages. This is done by controlling more territory than the other side at the end of a given week. A side gains 1 advantage by having more territory than the other on Sunday. In addition, if your side manages to capture the other side’s capitol, you instantly gain 1 advantage (note that this is very difficult to do!)
Declaring Attack and Defense: In order to declare attack or defense of a location, simply post that you are attacking or defending in bold in the Battles and Items thread. Then, send a private message (PM) stating which stat you are using to fight to the dungeon master, DivinciDilemma. A new battle takes 2 days to complete, though you can jump into an existing battle at any time without increasing its length. In battle, your character is randomly paired off with characters on the opposing side in a series of 1 on 1 fights until only members of one side are left standing. The results of the battle are posted in the Battles and Items thread upon completion of the battle.
How and when you can fight: Your character is worth a number of Deployment Points (DP) based on level. A level one character is worth 10 DP, and increases by one point each level, up to a maximum of 20 DP at level 11. Everyone who wants to make a lame “DP” joke can go straight to hell now. A standard battle allows a maximum of 50 DP to be present on each side, though no more than four characters can be on a single side. What this means is that even though 4 level 1 characters only cost 40DP, you cannot include more characters to reach the maximum of 50DP. However, certain characters may have pets or special abilities that cost DP, and may add them to the fight in order to reach the maximum.
Creating a Character: Your character starts at level 1 with no special abilities, and 1d4 in each of the primary stats. As previously stated, you begin playing the game by picking one of six classes. After that, you pick a special ability, and your character is mechanically complete! From there, you can make up a description and background to let the other players know a little bit about your character, and then you can jump right into the battles!
Character Advancement: As you fight in battles, you gain experience points (XP) and eventually increase in level. In general, winning a battle earns you 2XP, and losing earns you 1XP. As your level increases, new special abilities and options become available to you. Below you will find the class advancement tables for each of the six classes.
Melee Specialist: You are at home in melee combat. You might be a powerful swordsman, a raging monster, or a skilled tactician leading a phalanx of pikemen. Whatever the case, you excel on the front lines. Below is your advancement table:
Level 1: Close increases to 1d10, choose Magic or Ranged as a secondary stat. Secondary stat increases to 1d6. Choose first special.
Level 2: Close increases to 1d12
Level 3: Choose second special
Level 4: Secondary stat (Ranged or Magic) increases to 1d8
Level 5: Choose Advanced Special
Level 6: Close increases to 2d6
Level 7: Free Point
Level 8: Secondary (Ranged or Magic) increases to 1d10
Level 9: Choose Expert Special
Level 10: Tertiary increases to 1d6
Level 11: Free Point
Melee/Magic Hybrid: You are capable in melee and magic. You might be a swordsman who has dabbled in the arcane, a trickster rogue with a pack full of alchemical items, or even a young dragon, a being of might and magic.
Level 1: Close and Magic increase to 1d8, choose Close or Magic as a primary stat. The other becomes your secondary stat. Choose first special.
Level 2: Primary increases to 1d10
Level 3: Choose second special
Level 4: Secondary increases to 1d10
Level 5: Choose Advanced Special
Level 6: Primary increases to 1d12
Level 7: Free Point
Level 8: Secondary increases to 1d12
Level 9: Choose Expert Special
Level 10: Tertiary increases to 1d6
Level 11: Free Point
Basic Specials: These are special abilities that can be taken at first level, and again at third level. Some classes share special abilities, though at least three are unique to your class. Below are the basic special abilities available to each of the classes.
Melee Specialist basic Specials
Only Melee Specialists may take these specials.
Power Attack: Once per week, increase a Close roll by +2. Using this special takes 1 DP.
Magic Hunter: Gain +1 to all rolls (regardless of whether you are using Close, Magic, or Ranged to battle) when fighting someone using Magic.
Close-Quarters Fighting: reduce your DP cost by 2.
Quick Recovery: You resurrect on Wednesdays as well as Sundays.
Minion: You gain control of a minion with 1d6 Close power, and 0 Ranged and Magic power. This minion costs 5 DP when sent into battle.
Melee/Magic Hybrid Basic Specials
Only Melee/Close Hybrids may take these specials.
Adaption: When using Close or Magic, gain a +1 to rolls against opponents who have selected the stat that has an advantage over you (Ranged if you’re using Close, or Close if you’re using Magic)
Lucky: Once per week, gain +1 on any roll. Using this special costs 1 DP
Minion: You gain a minion with 1d4 Close power, 1d4 Magic power, and 0 Ranged power. This minion costs 5 DP when sent into battle.
General Basic Specials
A member of any class can take these.
Looter: Whenever your side wins a battle that you are involved in, instantly gain 1 resource.
Craft: You have a 20% chance per battle you are involved in of creating a random basic item.
It's also the system that Armisael wants to use in the DP system for resolution of battles, which is the main thing I'm trying to change (as you can see in my other posts) other than the 11 levels thing.
like this.
Well, there are some flaws, and I think most people are unhappy with having the number of viable dice builds controlled. I'm mostly working from a balance standpoint. If we can say "Alright, these are all the possible max level builds" then we can balance around that. Giving people free reign could force them into trap builds, like my horrible 2d4/2d4 no specials character in the first war.
Level 1: Close increases to 1d10, choose Magic or Ranged as a secondary stat. Secondary stat increases to 1d6. Choose first special.
Level 2: Close increases to 1d12
Level 3: Choose second special
Level 4: Secondary stat (Ranged or Magic) increases to 1d8
Level 5: Choose Advanced Special
Level 6: Close increases to 2d6
Level 7: Free Point
Level 8: Secondary (Ranged or Magic) increases to 1d10
Level 9: Choose Expert Special
Level 10: Tertiary increases to 1d6
Level 11: Free Point
Basically, the idea is that, at the bolded levels, if you chose to make HP your secondary stat at level 1, you can opt to increase it. Thus, by sacrificing in-combat versatility, you can become a tank. At level 10, if you chose HP as your secondary, you can also opt to boost any combat stat other than your main instead. At level 3, you can choose to forgo a second special in exchange for an HP. Any questions?
(
for anyone who gets the reference)And I'd RP with you Arms, but Escher is still in the woods and you've gone all Ziggy.
BTW, what does the Ziggy comment mean?
PS: Also, it's our systems. I'm tweaking it, but it was D_S that created the badass progression we have now.
Well, IMO, these would be fitting quotes for each class:
Melee specialist: "I'm the star of the show, punks, and you're about to learn that the hard way!". In other words, the melee specialist focuses on making himself tougher and more badass. He's not too much of a team player, obviously, but he gets the job done. This one's already done, mostly.
Magic specialist: "Sure, you can hit me...if you can get out of that daze and free yourself from that solidified mud, blind man.". Modifying terrain and mezzing (AKA screwing up the opponent) is the name of the game for these guys.
Ranged specialist: "Somewhere in China, the death of this butterfly has caused three men to commit suicide.". Ranged characters are all about not being there yet still affecting the battle, or avoiding confrontation while still weakening their foes.
Melee/Magic hybrid: "I cast Enervation, then Waves of Exhaustion, then Polymorph into a Remorhaz before beating the tar out of those orcs!". Buff up while weakening your enemies. That's how gishes roll. The might not have buffs as strong as the melee specialists, or mezzes as good as the magic specialist, but meshing both styles gives the melee magic specialist an advantage just as big as the ones the specialists would get.
Melee/Ranged hybrid: "Ride like the wind, fight proud, my son!"*. Merging the self-buffing and glory seeking nature of melee specialists with the cold, distant strikes of ranged masters is a daunting task, but this hybrid manages to pull it off by strengthening his allies and letting them do the hard work before swooping in for the kill.
Magic/Ranged hybrid: "This battle was won before you even stepped into the field, idiot. Enjoy my death traps.". These hybrids try to win before the battle starts, by messing with enemy logistics. Reducing the enemy's ability to deploy units, canceling specials, and playing mind games with their foes is what these hybrids excel at.
I already have a capstone for each class, but I want to see how you can expand on the roles a bit before statting them up. So, what do you think about the classes?
*Manowar, Defender.
I kinda stated how each "source" worked a while back, but I think I can expand on the classes a bit more.
Well, IMO, these would be fitting quotes for each class:
Oh! I wanna add names! :D
Melee specialist: "I'm the star of the show, punks, and you're about to learn that the hard way!". In other words, the melee specialist focuses on making himself tougher and more badass. He's not too much of a team player, obviously, but he gets the job done. This one's already done, mostly.
Warrior or Soldier
Magic specialist: "Sure, you can hit me...if you can get out of that daze and free yourself from that solidified mud, blind man.". Modifying terrain and mezzing (AKA screwing up the opponent) is the name of the game for these guys.
Magic User or Mage
Ranged specialist: "Somewhere in China, the death of this butterfly has caused three men to commit suicide.". Ranged characters are all about not being there yet still affecting the battle, or avoiding confrontation while still weakening their foes.
Ranger or Archer
Melee/Magic hybrid: "I cast Enervation, then Waves of Exhaustion, then Polymorph into a Remorhaz before beating the tar out of those orcs!". Buff up while weakening your enemies. That's how gishes roll. The might not have buffs as strong as the melee specialists, or mezzes as good as the magic specialist, but meshing both styles gives the melee magic specialist an advantage just as big as the ones the specialists would get.
Spellsword or Arcane Knight
Melee/Ranged hybrid: "Ride like the wind, fight proud, my son!"*. Merging the self-buffing and glory seeking nature of melee specialists with the cold, distant strikes of ranged masters is a daunting task, but this hybrid manages to pull it off by strengthening his allies and letting them do the hard work before swooping in for the kill.
Sniper or Hunter
Magic/Ranged hybrid: "This battle was won before you even stepped into the field, idiot. Enjoy my death traps.". These hybrids try to win before the battle starts, by messing with enemy logistics. Reducing the enemy's ability to deploy units, canceling specials, and playing mind games with their foes is what these hybrids excel at.
Trickster or Beguiler
I already have a capstone for each class, but I want to see how you can expand on the roles a bit before statting them up. So, what do you think about the classes?
I want to have classes branch off.
Also:
Generalist: "Anything you can do I can do...kinda!" A generalist can do everything well, but not as well as others.
Freelancer or Adventurer
As for names, D_S doesn't want to restrict everyone's imagination by giving them names. We all know what they're going to be anyways. :P
/
Bard (Magic)
Should we try putting this system together so that we can play test it a bit?
We don't have specials for the majority of the classes, but we can try. I think.
Well, here's throwing out an idea.
Currently, and in the past, we've just had lands as a name and maybe a few words to give you an idea of what they are. Anyone can attack, and defend, any land.
For the next war it might be more interesting to have an actual map with locations represented as nodes on the map. Don't bother with travel time, but there has to be a connecting line of roads from your capitol to a place you want to attack or defend. Of course, to prevent a location from getting cut-off without defenders, we could track where characters 'are', such that they can defend a location they were already at if the location is cut off.
It makes the acquisition of land a bit more tactical rather then just a number of lands owned. What do people think of this idea?
... hrm. People stopped talking.
That's because we're waiting for the last few things of D_S's and Arms' system to be thrown together and organized so we can start play testing it.
Well, here's throwing out an idea.
Currently, and in the past, we've just had lands as a name and maybe a few words to give you an idea of what they are. Anyone can attack, and defend, any land.
For the next war it might be more interesting to have an actual map with locations represented as nodes on the map. Don't bother with travel time, but there has to be a connecting line of roads from your capitol to a place you want to attack or defend. Of course, to prevent a location from getting cut-off without defenders, we could track where characters 'are', such that they can defend a location they were already at if the location is cut off.
It makes the acquisition of land a bit more tactical rather then just a number of lands owned. What do people think of this idea?
It might be a pain in the butt to keep track of but it could work.
... hrm. People stopped talking.
Well, here's throwing out an idea.
Currently, and in the past, we've just had lands as a name and maybe a few words to give you an idea of what they are. Anyone can attack, and defend, any land.
For the next war it might be more interesting to have an actual map with locations represented as nodes on the map. Don't bother with travel time, but there has to be a connecting line of roads from your capitol to a place you want to attack or defend. Of course, to prevent a location from getting cut-off without defenders, we could track where characters 'are', such that they can defend a location they were already at if the location is cut off.
It makes the acquisition of land a bit more tactical rather then just a number of lands owned. What do people think of this idea?
Good idea. Incidentally, I'm putting up the magic and ranged specialists later today, since apparently being the lead designer actually means I'm the sole designer here, and someone has to do it.
PS: I hate all of you so much. Designing 80-odd specials is hell, and I also have to juggle two subplots, the introduction of a new character, and probably something else too in the RPG thread, plus coordinating our attackers in the battle thread. In other words, and without even a speck of comedy: get of your asses and help, I'm not making all of the classes alone.
Eh, if we did that I'd have a quick and dirty (and not pretty) image and would just update it to show who was in control of what area. Basically it would be a sequence of connected nodes, probably with colored rings around the nodes to show who was in control.
And then a list of people at their particular locations.
I think it's an interesting idea.
Good idea. Incidentally, I'm putting up the magic and ranged specialists later today, since apparently being the lead designer actually means I'm the sole designer here, and someone has to do it.
PS: I hate all of you so much. Designing 80-odd specials is hell, and I also have to juggle two subplots, the introduction of a new character, and probably something else too in the RPG thread, plus coordinating our attackers in the battle thread. In other words, and without even a speck of comedy: get of your asses and help, I'm not making all of the classes alone.
Do you have a few basic classes done? A few vanilla classes and an explanation of thought process behind designing specials would be helpful.
I haven't been designing stuff because, as I said, it's not my area. I'll be more then happy to work on implementing stuff as a system so that it can be quickly and easily done in practice, but I'm not great at coming up with ideas.
http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=18320916&postcount=305
What each class is supposed to do:
http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=18328982&postcount=357
DP cost is done through eyeballing. Any questions?
Also, sorry if I was abrasive, but I've never been able to finish a project alone. Without exchanging ideas with someone else, I've never been able to pull anything off, which is why I was feeling frustrated about no one pitching in.
PS: I hate all of you so much. Designing 80-odd specials is hell, and I also have to juggle two subplots, the introduction of a new character, and probably something else too in the RPG thread, plus coordinating our attackers in the battle thread. In other words, and without even a speck of comedy: get of your asses and help, I'm not making all of the classes alone.
I'm help. I'm helping by tossing together my system so that it can be looked at seeing as how it was tossed out even though it had a skeleton already tossed up. I'm refining it so that it is workable. While I do that I'll wait until you release your maser piece so that we can play test it.
And thus you guys see what I had to do. :D
All I remember you doing was rejecting everyone's ideas and then going with your own which was based off of the first EW. I could of course be remembering this wrong.
Ya...I messed up.
Magic Specialist, special abilities
Basic Specials, Magic:
Ray of Enfeeblement: Choose an opponent. For one round, that opponent treats the result of its dice rolls as two points lower, with 0 as a minimum value. 3 DP.
Transform Terrain: For one round, remove a keyword from the terrain. 5 DP.
Frozen Ground: Choose one enemy. That enemy must choose between taking 3 HP damage or fighting against the same enemy it fought last round. 4 DP.
Killing Floor: Every character takes two points of damage at the end of the round. 6 DP.
Spell Stronghold: Once per week, if you win a battle, add a keyword to the terrain you've just won the battle in. You must decide to use this ability before the battle starts. 0 DP.
Advanced Specials, Magic:
Enervation: For one round, an opponent must use its weakest stat instead of its chosen stat. 6 DP.
Black Tentacles: For a number of rounds, every opponent takes 2 HP damage. 8 DP per round.
Unexpected Backlash: An enemy takes damage equal to half of another enemy's result after the end of the current round. 8 DP.
Baleful Polymorph: An opponent has its damage reduced 4 and takes an extra 2 points of damage for a round. 8 DP.
Expert Specials, Magic:
Clone: An enemy must fight a clone of itself until either of them dies. The close has half the HP of the enemy, and treats is die size as two sizes smaller (minimum of 1d3). 14 DP.
Maze: For a round, an enemy does not take part in the battle. 8 DP.
Legion's Hold: Two enemies have treat their results as four points lower for the current round. DP 8.
Reshape Landscape: For two rounds, add or remove keywords to the terrain. 4 DP per keyword.
Ray of Enfeeblement: Choose an opponent. For one round, that opponent treats the result of its dice rolls as two points lower, with 0 as a minimum value. 3 DP.
Transform Terrain: For one round, remove a keyword from the terrain. 5 DP.
Frozen Ground: Choose one enemy. That enemy must choose between taking 3 HP damage or fighting against the same enemy it fought last round. 4 DP.
Killing Floor: Every character takes two points of damage at the end of the round. 6 DP.
Spell Stronghold: Once per week, if you win a battle, add a keyword to the terrain you've just won the battle in. You must decide to use this ability before the battle starts. 0 DP.
Advanced Specials, Magic:
Enervation: For one round, an opponent must use its weakest stat instead of its chosen stat. 6 DP.
Black Tentacles: For a number of rounds, every opponent takes 2 HP damage. 8 DP per round.
Unexpected Backlash: An enemy takes damage equal to half of another enemy's result after the end of the current round. 8 DP.
Baleful Polymorph: An opponent has its damage reduced 4 and takes an extra 2 points of damage for a round. 8 DP.
Expert Specials, Magic:
Clone: An enemy must fight a clone of itself until either of them dies. The close has half the HP of the enemy, and treats is die size as two sizes smaller (minimum of 1d3). 14 DP.
Maze: For a round, an enemy does not take part in the battle. 8 DP.
Legion's Hold: Two enemies have treat their results as four points lower for the current round. DP 8.
Reshape Landscape: For two rounds, add or remove keywords to the terrain. 4 DP per keyword.
Perpetual comeback
A new term would be added, "active land". Only "active" lands would be counted for resources at the end of the week, and only active lands can be attacked. The number of lands that could be active at once would even.
The number of total lands would be about three times the number of lands that could be active at once. Each Sunday, after battles were decided and resoures/advantages were awarded, if one side had more then the other then one land from that side would be moved to 'inactive' and one of the 'inactive' lands of the other side would be moved to active. If, due to monsters holding locations, this change would result in a reversal of which side had the most lands, it does not happen.1
If a side has no more inactive locations to swap in, this operation is still performed, making the total number of active locations smaller, condensing the battlefield.2
---
1Since the number of active lands is even, then this change cannot result in a swap of who has more lands if there are no monster held locations. It can result in an advantage becoming a tie
2Basically, if one side had their back against the wall then the total number or areas out gets reduced each week until they've made a comeback. Not sure if this is necessary or not, but it does have a 'the wolves are closing in' feel to me.
The number of total lands would be about three times the number of lands that could be active at once. Each Sunday, after battles were decided and resoures/advantages were awarded, if one side had more then the other then one land from that side would be moved to 'inactive' and one of the 'inactive' lands of the other side would be moved to active. If, due to monsters holding locations, this change would result in a reversal of which side had the most lands, it does not happen.1
If a side has no more inactive locations to swap in, this operation is still performed, making the total number of active locations smaller, condensing the battlefield.2
---
1Since the number of active lands is even, then this change cannot result in a swap of who has more lands if there are no monster held locations. It can result in an advantage becoming a tie
2Basically, if one side had their back against the wall then the total number or areas out gets reduced each week until they've made a comeback. Not sure if this is necessary or not, but it does have a 'the wolves are closing in' feel to me.
So your specials affect your cost? I have mixed feelings about this.
On one hand: High level =/= high cost all the time.
Other hand: This can lead to juggernauts that rip people apart.
Well, some interest was piqued by this, so I'm reposting it here:Perpetual comebackA new term would be added, "active land". Only "active" lands would be counted for resources at the end of the week, and only active lands can be attacked. The number of lands that could be active at once would even.
The number of total lands would be about three times the number of lands that could be active at once. Each Sunday, after battles were decided and resoures/advantages were awarded, if one side had more then the other then one land from that side would be moved to 'inactive' and one of the 'inactive' lands of the other side would be moved to active. If, due to monsters holding locations, this change would result in a reversal of which side had the most lands, it does not happen.1
If a side has no more inactive locations to swap in, this operation is still performed, making the total number of active locations smaller, condensing the battlefield.2
---
1Since the number of active lands is even, then this change cannot result in a swap of who has more lands if there are no monster held locations. It can result in an advantage becoming a tie
2Basically, if one side had their back against the wall then the total number or areas out gets reduced each week until they've made a comeback. Not sure if this is necessary or not, but it does have a 'the wolves are closing in' feel to me.
OOOOOH!
So your specials affect your cost? I have mixed feelings about this.
On one hand: High level =/= high cost all the time.
Other hand: This can lead to juggernauts that rip people apart.
No, your LEVEL affects your cost, and then you have to pony up more DP to play your specials.
Well, the core mechanic is simple: Pick stat, fight 1v1 match against enemies until either all of your d00dz are dead or all of their d00dz are. If your stat is good against someone else's stat, your die size increases by 1. D'you need me to explain anything in detail?
I would appreciate if it was explained in one spot.
Yes, there's more complexity, and its intentional, at least on that part. Boneheaded moves like using your specials without consulting with your team WILL get you killed. If you don't use teamwork, you'll get your ass kicked.
I'm sorry, but from what I've seen, this kind of thinking is a mistake. While I'm all for working as a team (I regularly ask what I should go do), the format in terms of times online and things like that makes this kind of thing fall apart.
While I don't think there should be all independent movers, I don't think making it "work together or die" really works out well in such a large-scale thing, and I think it discourages new players from joining.
I'm sorry, but from what I've seen, this kind of thinking is a mistake. While I'm all for working as a team (I regularly ask what I should go do), the format in terms of times online and things like that makes this kind of thing fall apart.
While I don't think there should be all independent movers, I don't think making it "work together or die" really works out well in such a large-scale thing, and I think it discourages new players from joining.
This is what I wanted to say.
This is what I wanted to say.
This is what I was thinking.
Long-ass post ahead!
Core mechanics: You have four stats: Melee, Ranged, Magic, and HP. Depending on if you are a hybrid class or specialist class (AKA, you merge two stats or not) your stats will follow a different progression. The progression go like this:
Specialist:
Level 1: Main stat increases to 1d10, choose one other stat as a secondary stat. Secondary stat increases to 1d6/2 in case of HP. Choose first special.
Level 2: Main stat increases to 1d12
Level 3: Choose second special or boost Secondary stat by one die step.
Level 4: Secondary stat increases to 1d8/3 or 1d10/4 if you didn't pick a second special.
Level 5: Choose Advanced Special
Level 6: Main Stat increases to 2d6.
Level 7: Free Point
Level 8: Secondary stat increases to 1d10/4|1d12/5|2d6|6
Level 9: Choose Expert Special
Level 10: One stat other than Main increases by one step.
Level 11: Free Point.
Hybrid:
Level 1: Type stats increase to 1d8, choose one as a primary stat. The other becomes your secondary stat. Choose first special.
Level 2: Primary increases to 1d10
Level 3: Choose second special/forsake special to increase secondary stat or HP.
Level 4: Secondary increases to 1d10/HP increases by one die step.
Level 5: Choose Advanced Special
Level 6: Primary increases to 1d12
Level 7: Free Point
Level 8: Secondary increases to 1d12/Increase HP by one step.
Level 9: Choose Expert Special
Level 10: Tertiary stat or HP increases by one step.
Level 11: Free Point
HP Calculation: HP determines how long you can survive in battle. To calculate HP total, use 10+(HP stat*level). HP must be refilled manually.
Battle: Pick a stat, and decide if you want to utilize any specials, and if so, at which point in time. All players fight at least one battle, this mechanic is termed Round. Once all players have battled once, the Round is over, and each combatant subtracts the results of the enemies they fought from their HP totals. This continue for a number of rounds until one side has been drained of all HP, at which point the other side wins.
Death: For every 8 Hit Points above 0 that the winning team has, one person on the other side dies.
Deployment Points: Deployment Points are the core mechanic of the game. To enter a battle, you must pay a number of deployment points (DP) equal to your level+9. Additionally, all special abilities have a set DP cost that must be payed to use them. If you cannot pay that cost, the special ability does not come into play.
Do you need anything else explained in detail?
PS: Also, fine. If you guys want it, I'll make sure the effects of boneheaded movements are minimized.
Characters
Characters have three base stats, their level, and four derived stats, as well as a handful of special abilities based on their class. A character's level ranges from 1 to 6, with characters mostly growing in versatility and a little bit in power. A level 1 character can pose a reasonable threat against a level 6 character, though the level 6 character will be favored in most cases.
Base stats are Melee, Ranged, and Magic. A character will have these stats set by their class choice, though they will be given two opportunities to adjust the stats a little bit. Points will be placed in these stats, such that a character might have Melee 3, Ranged 3, and Magic 1 for their base stats.
Derived stats are Melee Attack, Melee Defense, Ranged Attack, Ranged Defense, Magic Attack, Magic Defense, and Hit Points.
There are seven base classes, named the Melee Specialist, the Ranged Specialist, the Magic Specialist, the Gish (Melee-Magic), the Weapon Master (Melee-Ranged), the Artillery (Ranged-Magic) and the Generalist (all stats). At level 1 you gain a class feature, and again at level 4.
Base stats are Melee, Ranged, and Magic. A character will have these stats set by their class choice, though they will be given two opportunities to adjust the stats a little bit. Points will be placed in these stats, such that a character might have Melee 3, Ranged 3, and Magic 1 for their base stats.
- Melee: This stat represents the character's ability to fight in close combat with with weapons. This includes characters that use their bodies as weapons (monks and the like)
- Ranged: This stat represents the character's ability to fight at range with weapons.
- Magic: This stat represents the character's ability to fight with magic, either close or far away.
Derived stats are Melee Attack, Melee Defense, Ranged Attack, Ranged Defense, Magic Attack, Magic Defense, and Hit Points.
- Attack Stats: Attack stats (Melee Attack, Ranged Attack and Magic Attack) are determined by taking the number of points in a stat and moving that number of steps up the die size chart, below. The number of steps moved may be affected by specials chosen or class features. For example, a Melee 3 stat would give a 1d10 Melee attack.
- Defense Stats: Defense stats (Melee Defense, Ranged Defense, Magic Defense) are determined by taking the number of points in a stat and adding 1. This number may be modified by specials chosen or class features. For example, a Melee 3 stat would give a 4 Melee Defense.
- HP: HP, or Health Points, are based on your characters level and modified by class features or specials chosen. The base value is 9 + level, so a level 1 character has 10 HP, while a sixth level character has 15 HP.
There are seven base classes, named the Melee Specialist, the Ranged Specialist, the Magic Specialist, the Gish (Melee-Magic), the Weapon Master (Melee-Ranged), the Artillery (Ranged-Magic) and the Generalist (all stats). At level 1 you gain a class feature, and again at level 4.
Melee Specialist
The Melee Specialist focuses on their melee stat to the exclusion of all others. It is their primary attack and their strongest defense, though they do maintain passable defenses in their other stats.
At level 1 the Melee Specialist has Melee V, and a choice of either Ranged I or Magic I (the other is at 0). Their level 1 class feature is Improved Defense. At level 4 they gain Critical Hit.
Improved Defense: The character's attack scores all drop one step, but their defense stats are increased one step.
Critical Hit: The character has a 5% chance each time they attack to deal double damage.
At level 1 the Melee Specialist has Melee V, and a choice of either Ranged I or Magic I (the other is at 0). Their level 1 class feature is Improved Defense. At level 4 they gain Critical Hit.
Improved Defense: The character's attack scores all drop one step, but their defense stats are increased one step.
Critical Hit: The character has a 5% chance each time they attack to deal double damage.
Improved Defense: The character's attack scores all drop one step, but their defense stats are increased one step.
Man what
Why am I hosed by the system if I want a melee attacker?
Variable Defense: The Magic Specialist can improve one of their defense stats by 2 each combat. They declare the defense they are going to buff to the Battle Master in secret, but they must declare it to the Battle Master prior to the cut-off. If it is not decalre, it is lost.
Man what again
Why is defense so powerful in this system? Die rolls and static modifiers don't mix if you don't restrict them. Trust me, after so much time looking at Two Weapon Fighting builds dominating CharOp, I know this.
Single Target Damage: The character deals an extra 5 damage each time it attacks.
Group Damage: The character opens with an area attack, dealing 4 damage to all enemies.
Self Buffer: The Self Buffer improves all of their own defense scores by 4 for the duration of the combat.
Group Buffer: The Group Buffer is exceptional at boosting their comrades defenses. All allies (including the Group Buffer) increase all defense scores by 2 while the Group Buffer is undefeated. No allies can benefit from this more then once.
Quadruple man what
The power disparity here is immense. Seriously, dealing 16 damage (for example) spread out is brutal compared to 5 damage upfront. To explain WHY this is so broken, consider a team of four people who took Group Damage. All of them fire it off...and every opponent takes 16 HP damage, effectively KO'ed unless they picked Sturdy. And then there's the problem of how cutting all damage that comes your way by 4 is just brutal in this system...
Escher, if something about my system bothers you, tell me what it is and we'll work on it, but this system is unbelievably close to being "I Win" if you pick the right specials, it's skewed in favor of defenders, and requires such a massive redesign to be balanced it wouldn't be your system anymore.
Why am I hosed by the system if I want a melee attacker?
Mostly because I was throwing down quick ideas. Ideally I would have one or two options for each class feature leaning towards being more attack heavy or more defense heavy. Consider it an example. Like I said, this was quickly thrown together, and I know the balance is probably horribly off.
Why is defense so powerful in this system? Die rolls and static modifiers don't mix if you don't restrict them. Trust me, after so much time looking at Two Weapon Fighting builds dominating CharOp, I know this.
Hrm... the idea behind the defense stats was so you don't have to have huge HP values if you wanted battles to last more then one round. I added the defense stat with the idea of minimizing that, and regularizing damage without having to reduce damage dice to 1d4+X.
The power disparity here is immense. Seriously, dealing 16 damage (for example) spread out is brutal compared to 5 damage upfront. To explain WHY this is so broken, consider a team of four people who took Group Damage. All of them fire it off...and every opponent takes 16 HP damage, effectively KO'ed unless they picked Sturdy. And then there's the problem of how cutting all damage that comes your way by 4 is just brutal in this system...
Hrm... one thing I note is that I would need to explain the mechanics a bit better. It was intended that your defense stats would protect against all damage, so those area damages would be partially negated (maybe even fully negated for some characters) while the mage specialists class feature was intended to ignore defense. So part of that is explanation.
As for the numbers... like I said, it was quick and I know it's unbalanced. The numbers can be fixed.
Escher, if something about my system bothers you, tell me what it is and we'll work on it, but this system is unbelievably close to being "I Win" if you pick the right specials, it's skewed in favor of defenders, and requires such a massive redesign to be balanced it wouldn't be your system anymore.
/shrug Then don't say you like my system. I have no illusions about it being the best, but to be perfectly honest, I don't like some of the base premise of your system, so I made an attempt at my own for comparison.
But since you want to know what I don't like... I think you've gone overboard with the specials, I think you have too many levels, I don't like that a high level character can dominate a low level one, I think there's unnecessary complexity, and I really don't like that I have to search for the posts to find stuff.
And, to be frank, I think you do like many of the things I don't. You like specials, and lots of them. You like high level characters dominating. You like the complexity and system mastery aspects.
So for me, it's that no matter how much I criticize an apple pie, it's never going to be cheesecake.
But since you want to know what I don't like... I think you've gone overboard with the specials, I think you have too many levels, I don't like that a high level character can dominate a low level one, I think there's unnecessary complexity, and I really don't like that I have to search for the posts to find stuff.
The rest of the complaints are good, but these are kinda...hypocritical, really, when you have these kinds of specials...
Single Target Damage: The character deals an extra 5 damage each time it attacks.
Sturdy: The character is sturdy, and gains 10 hit points.
...and you have secondary stats, and everything is split up in two god-knows-why. I'll admit I'm really chaotic and don't really care too much about keeping everything nice and clean until I'm done with it, that the system could be made to use less levels, and that I introduced many many specials, but I refuse to accept the two bolded points when both systems have problems with that, and arguably, mine has less of a problem with high-level characters dominating due to the deployment costs and how its pretty obvious that if you only send one vet and one newbie to duke it out the newbie is going to die horribly. I'm sure we can reach a compromise, however. After all, that's what we're aiming for: a system that is simple enough that anyone can pick it, yet is deep enough for high-level play to exist.
What it comes down to is that I don't like the things you like, that you are spending time putting into your system, etc. You were talking about 80 more specials. That's a scary number to me, in the context of a play-by-post war thingy.
So honestly, if your concerns are purely around balance issues with mine, I think that's a good sign. Balance I can fix. Core conceits... I can't fix that.
I only implemented it because you guys wanted it so badly.
That is true, those would need to be balanced. I did say I threw it together in an hour.
What it comes down to is that I don't like the things you like, that you are spending time putting into your system, etc. You were talking about 80 more specials. That's a scary number to me, in the context of a play-by-post war thingy.
So honestly, if your concerns are purely around balance issues with mine, I think that's a good sign. Balance I can fix. Core conceits... I can't fix that.
TBH, I'm actually an adamant defender of "if I know how to build, I damn well should beat someone who doesn't 70/30 all the time", AKA system mastery having an effect, and I like to see a real gain from putting effort into the game, but I prefer politeness when it comes to heated topics like game design. IMO, a system that compares static numbers with random numbers is going to crash and burn, and the system still stacks the deck in favor of vets (arguably much more than the DP system), but I'm happy to work on anything design-related. ;)
EDIT: Also, just so you can think about my system: What I want to build is something akin to Magic: The Gathering but without all the crap choices created to get money and with a much smoother learning curve, then adding advancement through effort and time to represent RPG roots. What is so bad about it?
Also, I had an idea. It's ridiculously simple. Choosing a stat with an advantage lets you strike first. None of this "higher level attacks first" or "defender attacks first" crap. That's abusable. High level defenders pretty much become unbeatable because they always go first. Simply have the stat with the advantage strike first. It keeps it simple, without creating weirdness like increasing die sizes when you have an advantage. In the event that you and your opponent both chose the same stat, you resolve your attacks at the same time (which could potentially lead to a double knockout!). Simple.
As for defenses... I'm thinking you start with 3 points to put into defenses, and gain another 3-6 over the course of the game. So you could go:
Melee Defense: 1
Magic Defense: 1
Ranged Defense: 1
or focus on only one of your defenses. Of course, that leaves you vulnerable to the attacks of the other two stats, so it might not be the best idea...
Just a thought. We don't necessarily have to use defenses, and defense would have to scale much more slowly than attack in order to give newbies a chance.
But before I invest more time in my quickie system, is there enough interest in the basic concepts involved?
(and I like the idea of the 'advantage' being an RPS thing. That sounds like it would work nicely. I just couldn't think of anything good when I was at that part, written in an hour, remember?)
Also, I had an idea. It's ridiculously simple. Choosing a stat with an advantage lets you strike first.
:D
I like the way you think. That's brilliant, actually.
As for defenses... I'm thinking you start with 3 points to put into defenses, and gain another 3-6 over the course of the game. So you could go:
Melee Defense: 1
Magic Defense: 1
Ranged Defense: 1
or focus on only one of your defenses. Of course, that leaves you vulnerable to the attacks of the other two stats, so it might not be the best idea...
Just a thought. We don't necessarily have to use defenses, and defense would have to scale much more slowly than attack in order to give newbies a chance.
This is good, except for this part...
and gain another 3-6 over the course of the game
Six points + three initial points = subtract 9 from damage, effectively invincible if you can swap someone else's stats for the stat you're a monster against, which you CAN do. Even 6 def is tremendously powerful, as it means an average roll of 2d6+2 barely deals 3 points of damage. If we introduce defenses, I'll look for a progression to balance them. Personally, I don't like the idea, as it introduces more and more stats, but I'll work on it if everyone else wants it.
Also, expect Ranged specialist today.
Escher: Define ludicrously high. With an absolute focus on HP to the point of weakening your main stat, and careful special use, you can get 60-odd HP, but you have to fight alone, have a weakened main stat, and nonexistent secondary and tertiary stats. 40-50 HP is what is usually expected of each side, no more, no less, except in weird situations.
Since I don't have that experience it will be difficult to master this system and so my character won't be as likely to win as someone with the experience in character building.
Why is a noob punished for not having experience? A system should be simple so everyone has the opportunity to win. I do kind of like the idea that any character I might build might only win by luck.
Luck was a big deal in the current Edition War. But if the system is fixed so that only those with experience are likely to win, why would a noob like me decide to play. I would basically have to have someone else with more experience build my character and then I play it. However, if I let someone else build my character I might as well let them play it too.
I am not trying to get into an argument with anybody who has posted in this thread. I am just airing my concerns.
I don't really have much to add to this because, simply put, I have no idea how to build a system. However, I dislike the system mastery concept. I am relatively new to RPG's of any sort and so have little experience with character builds.
Since I don't have that experience it will be difficult to master this system and so my character won't be as likely to win as someone with the experience in character building.
Why is a noob punished for not having experience? A system should be simple so everyone has the opportunity to win. I do kind of like the idea that any character I might build might only win by luck.
Luck was a big deal in the current Edition War. But if the system is fixed so that only those with experience are likely to win, why would a noob like me decide to play. I would basically have to have someone else with more experience build my character and then I play it. However, if I let someone else build my character I might as well let them play it too.
I am not trying to get into an argument with anybody who has posted in this thread. I am just airing my concerns.
What, system mastery? That's endemic to RPG's, really. In 4ed, I can still kick the ass of anything else with a Tempest Pit Fighter. You can't escape it, but you can reduce the gap between n00b and master. Essentially, I want the game to have system mastery, but it should be easy to achieve it.
That's pretty much the answer right there. To put this in perspective, name a single game that isn't purely luck based that won't favor the guy who spent more time playing it and learning its tricks. You can't beat system mastery, but...
What, system mastery? That's endemic to RPG's, really. In 4ed, I can still kick the ass of anything else with a Tempest Pit Fighter. You can't escape it, but you can reduce the gap between n00b and master. Essentially, I want the game to have system mastery, but it should be easy to achieve it.
...You can make it easy to achieve. The system has to be simple, but it also has to be deep and allow for clever building, otherwise its bland and it withers and dies.
PS: Incidentally, would you be up for some playtesting?
Umm. Am I the only one that thinks this whole thing is getting way the flying elephant **** out of hand? It's not even a friggin' PbP game, guys. Make a streamlined, fair system with a couple of options. That's it. Think about it like this: What's made the EW fun? RP or battling? The answer can be found by looking at the respective threads. The battles are incidental to the RP. I believe it's a huge mistake to make a system as complicated as some of the suggestions I've seen. Granted, a couple of people have taken this EW stuff pretty seriously. Ok, too seriously. But the important thing is that most of the participants haven't. It's a casual deal, guys. So lay off the complexity and pages upon pages of required reading. It's just going to end up killing the thing before it even takes a breath. People are turned off as is because of all of the reading required to catch up. Imagine if you needed it just to play. I'll guarantee I won't bother with this if it's some messy complicated crap. Look, if we want a serious, hard core PbP game, we can all go to the PbP forum and join one. This is the EW. It ain't serious. It ain't complicated. It's a time waster and not much more. If you try to make it something it's not, you'll lose it.
This. Anyone notice how I don't really comment on this thread? I don't exactly *ahem* read it.
1d4 -> 1d6 -> 1d8 -> 1d10 -> 1d12 -> 2d6
Seriously Pig, if we had an easy way out that was still attractive enough to count as a game, we'd use it.
PS: In fact, I was actually planning on posting something like that as an example of why asking for what Z_B wants is asking for the moon to fall from the sky just for you. It's seriously that boring.
Now, here's what we do: we have a big board out, and every week we all gain a certain amount of guys per week based on how many locations we control. Winner controls the whole map.
1d6 atk/1d6 def. Higher value wins. But, and here's where it gets interesting, you can send up to 11 guys into a fight, where 3 guys fight at a time until one side is gone or retreats.
Now, here's what we do: we have a big board out, and every week we all gain a certain amount of guys per week based on how many locations we control. Winner controls the whole map.
I am definitly on board with this idea.
And stay tuned for when I throw MY hat into the ring! Will hilarity ensue? Conceivably!
...So, you want an intentional lame-duck situation? Where the winner is decided on the first week, barring freak rolls? C'mon, Pig. Try harder, at least.
You've never played RISK have you?
I EXPLAINED GOD DAMN RISK FOR CHRIST'S SAKE!
Risk doesn't have a limit on the armies you can place on a country. If I want, I can pull in 300 armies into Australia so you have to attack a crapton of times while I get to refresh my troops, but you can pull only 11 into each fight here before a territory exchanges hands.
...And now that I think about it, there were the missiles, so Australia wasn't that safe either...
...and there are multiple players, so you aren't lame-ducked unless everyone tag-teams you...
...and I think I'm forgetting something else.
Risk doesn't have a limit on the armies you can place on a country. If I want, I can pull in 300 armies into Australia so you have to attack a crapton of times while I get to refresh my troops, but you can pull only 11 into each fight here before a territory exchanges hands.
...And now that I think about it, there were the missiles, so Australia wasn't that safe either...
...and there are multiple players, so you aren't lame-ducked unless everyone tag-teams you...
...and I think I'm forgetting something else.
Risk uses a deck of cards? :D
@Armisael: Tell me what sort of specials you need and I'll come up with them.
But I guess I'll have to get over it since no one else cares about odd numbers. :raincloud :P
*Insert nerd rage over why 11 levels in a system is irritating*
But I guess I'll have to get over it since no one else cares about odd numbers.
I actually think that 6 and 11 level systems are the most elegant. Yes, you will come out in the end with an odd numbered level, but with an odd numbered system, the player will level up an even number of times. If it was 10 level, you level up 9 times. But in an 11, you level up 10 times.
If you wanted, you could even call level 1 "Level 0". That way, you would still level up to 10, but would get to level up an even number of times.
As for the RISK thing, although I can see that it was meant as a joke, I actually like that idea. It would feel more like an "Edition War" if everybody actually had a small squad. Yes, it would have to be a simplified version of RISK with a simple board, perhaps one where it takes a set amount of time to move between "continents" and a set amount of time to move to any "territory"within that "continent", and our personal armies would need to be limited, but I think that playing around as warlords would be rather neat.
To allow differences between players, everyone could have one special ability for their squad, like fearlessness or a prefered terrain. Maybe even port the current ideas for an RPS style "tactic" choice, where if you choose a tactic that beats the opponents then you get some sort of bonus, such as getting temporary "tactical strength" that counts as extra troops until the end of battle.
Babble babble babble babble. :D
So far it's an Edition Player Character vs. Player Character.
I was thinking scap the level up and make players "Heroes".
A hero changes the stats of their squad slightly and provides a minor bonus.
I was serious with the RISK idea.
Oh, sorry. Thought you were trying to be sarcastic. Can't really tell on the interbutts. :D
So far it's an Edition Player Character vs. Player Character.
I was thinking scrap the level up and make players "Heroes".
A hero changes the stats of their squad slightly and provides a minor bonus.
I agree with everything here.
This is a system for the Edition War as proposed by pigknight.
Basics
Before the war, the map is divided into several territories that are evenly divided between both factions (4e vs. 3e or D&Defenders vs. Republic) with a few locations in the middle that are unoccupied.
Every week each side gains 2 reinforcements of "redshirts" per location (minimum 10).
To battle, a player takes up to 10 "redshirts" asigned to their "hero" to a location to fight. A player's "hero" changes the statistics of their "redshirts". Such as altering attack and defense values and granting small boons as well as the unit's "strategy".
A faction wins the game by gaining control of the othr side's capitol.
Battles
Battles are determines by rolling your corresponding stat value vs. your opponent's. Each "redshirt" assigned to your "hero" in your unit uses your hero's value, and up to 3 "redshirts" can fight at one time. The side that rolls higher total kills one "redshirt" of the losing team.
[INDENT]EXAMPLE:
Lloyd commanded his units to attack location X. He took 5 "redshirts" andhas an attack stat of 1d8.
Dark Stryke is defending with 5 units and has a defense stat of 1d6.
In the battle, Lloyd rolls 3d8 (for 3 "redshirts") and comes up with a total of 16.
Dark Stryke rolls 3d6 and rolls a 12.
One "redshirt" in Dark Stryke's unit is killed.
This repeats until every unit on a side is killed.
After a while Dark Stryke is left with 2 redshirts, so now must roll 2d6.[/INDENT]
A unit's "strategy" (either "brave", "tactical", or "defensive") is used to determine if they win ties or not.
[INDENT]Brave beats Defensive.
Defensive beats Tactical.
Tactical beats Brave.[/INDENT]
When attacking a location a hero's unit uses their attack stat, and when defending use their defense stat. A unit can either be:
[INDENT]1d8 attack/1d4 defense
1d6 attack/1d6 defense
1d4 attack/1d8 defense[/INDENT]
Another variant is to get rid of levels all together. Everyone would have 2 or 3 specials with X amount of points in stats. I guess I could say that combat would earn someone Y amount of XP and when they got Z amount of XP they would be able to retrain either their ability dice scores or one special.
I'm not sure if I want to go with the level or if I want to ditch it all together. I think the no level system would be more balanced and it would allow for everyone to be more balanced with each other.
Another variant is to get rid of levels all together. Everyone would have 2 or 3 specials with X amount of points in stats. I guess I could say that combat would earn someone Y amount of XP and when they got Z amount of XP they would be able to retrain either their ability dice scores or one special.
I'm not sure if I want to go with the level or if I want to ditch it all together. I think the no level system would be more balanced and it would allow for everyone to be more balanced with each other.
Another use for XP in a non-level system is to allow the player to spend a certain amount (maybe ten or something) in order to gain a bonus to a battle, perhaps increasing stats or causing auto damage to enemies in the first round.
Another use for XP in a non-level system is to allow the player to spend a certain amount (maybe ten or something) in order to gain a bonus to a battle, perhaps increasing stats or causing auto damage to enemies in the first round.
That could also work. Spend X XP to get an extra Y damage.
I don't really like the round system because it makes things more complicated than what it needs to be.
And we could have one of them that gives you an advantage while attacking and one while defending, so while you still have the option to be a dedicated attacker or defender, you can choose not to.
I would also personally avoid differing dice types, because the way RISK works would kinda throw that off. You would get pounded by someone who has even a single dice step up. Perhaps we could limit dice changes to round one or something, but it seems like it might cause problems otherwise.
I don't really like the round system because it makes things more complicated than what it needs to be.
Well, I kinda like the thought of a round system, especially since it would make battle logs more interesting ("Pigknight gives Rustmonster a brutal blow!" instead of "One army blows the other army up").
I would personally have a no HP version of the system, though, where every round either ends in a tie or a KO. Makes me think of Chainmail.
Mmm... Chainmail...
Postin' some woooords.QUOTE]
Yes, let's keep it simple:
Proposed "Edition Wars III: RISKy Business" Rules
Each player controls a CO, who is their avatar. They can have a Squad of up to 10 units. Every day, they gain back a number of lost units (subject to approval by us), as long as not in a battle. There may be a bonus number of units given if a faction controls more Zones.
There are a number of Zones in the game, each with about 3 Regions. it takes a day to travel to any Region in a Zone, and two days to travel to any new Zone. Each CO is always in a Zone with their squad. Each Faction has a Home Region and starts the game owning all Regions in the Zone the Home is in. If a Home is taken, a new Home is set as one of the other Regions the Faction owns. If they own no Regions, they are out of the game.
COs who are in the same Region as an enemy may choose to battle. Battles take two days, as before. All combatants in a battle on each side are pooled, so that there is a pool for each Faction involved. COs do not fight unless they have a Special that lets them. Battles are as thus:
1) Each Faction involved rolls a number of d6 equal to their number of units, but no more than 3.
2) Dice are arranged for each faction form highest to lowest.
3) Values are compared (Highest to highest, middle to middle, lowest to lowest). The side that has a higher number on the dice causes the opponent one casualty. Ties cause no casualties.
4) Repeat until all units are defeaten on one side.
Some Specials may give a Tactical Strength bonus. TS is like temporary HP. It counts as units of its value, and is removed before units are killed. All remaining TS is lost after battle.
Losing COs are sent back to their Home, unless they have a Special that allows otherwise. Units remaining of the winning Faction are then distributed evenly between COs.
Control of a Region is gained by either winning a battle their or having a CO stay there with a Squad for at least two days.
COs with no units can not battle, and must wait for reinforcments.
Each CO has one Special that helps them in battle (or sometimes out of). These can include things like:
-Home Advantage: Gain +2 TS while in one of your Regions.
-Legendary Soldier: Your CO fights, and gives an effective +1 TS to all battles.
-Teleport: After losing a battle, you move to any Region you want.
-Cavelry: Moving to a new Zone takes only one day for your Squad.
-Charisma: Gain +1 unit more than usual each day while not in battle.
To win, a Faction must defeat all other Factions by owning every Region.
How does that sound? I know it looks long, but that's just because I run my mouth. It's really not that difficult to learn or run. If someone could condense it, I would be obliged. Please note that the title of the game was a joke.
With that said, that system is much more sound, at first glance at least. Needs a counter to lame-duck situations, though. Risk has it built-in in the form or more than two sides, but we don't have that here.
Much better, but why use specials? Hasn't Pig said they're the antichrist, root of all evil and stuff?
I think he is more opposed to Levels than to Specials.
Anyway, the reasoning behind having each CO have a Special instead of them giving different stats is so we can... Avoid stats althogether. That in itself GREATLY simplifies the system.
Specials would be left in, though, to give players a sense that their character is, at least marginally, different than those of other players.
With that said, that system is much more sound, at first glance at least. Needs a counter to lame-duck situations, though. Risk has it built-in in the form or more than two sides, but we don't have that here.
Why couldn't we, though?
Perhaps a 4E faction and 3E faction as before. But what if all of our fighting has stirred up the ghosts of the past? What if... The TSRchivests showed up to put us in our place?
"Get off my lawn, you damn punk kids!"
I'd prefer not having to pray that a third side is merciful for making a comeback. What about allowing CO's to mass? This way, a side reduced to two territories with 10 guys can put five on each, giving the squads a truckload of bonuses.
Yeah, definitly. I think it would be fine to allow multiple COs in teh same battle. That's why I put that "All units are pooled" thing. I still think that maaaybe we should have a limit to reduce abuse, but then again, if you send everybody to cockslap a single territory, the enemy can just waltz by and take everything, so maybe it wouldn't be a problem.
Or something, that's just an idea off the top of my head. But we should be able to find something to make sure losing on first week doesn't break your side.
Absolutly. The one major difference between this game and the current EW is that there is a way for players to permenantly be removed form play. That is highly undesirable.
Perhaps there would be some way to come back in? I don't know, I was just sort fo going off of the RISK thing, which I personally like, but this does bring up a big dilemma. Maybe if we still allowed removed players to interact with the game somehow, perhaps as some sort of mercs or allowing them to attempt a "raid" every so often.
I'm thinking hard about how to stop a side from winning on week one, but for some reason missiles keep coming up. Maybe we can base a comeback mechanic around them?
...You can be kicked permanently out of the game? That has to go. We can't counter lame-duck situations if that is in place.
No, I meant as in if your Faction loses, you are out of the game. Because your Faction is, like, gone. Their team is out, so to speak.
Individual players just being removed? Hell no. Oh God. Parish the thought.
I'm thinking hard about how to stop a side from winning on week one, but for some reason missiles keep coming up. Maybe we can base a comeback mechanic around them?
Oh, you and your missles! :D
A comeback mechanic might be good. But I can't think of much. Maybe after a few days of being defeaten, all COs of a defeated Faction get one unit and mass attack a single territory. If they win, they all get a few more units and take that place as their home.
Revolution!
Bravura: You may choose that in any battle you reroll any dice that is not minimum or maximum.
Resourceful: When you win a battle you gain one soldier, and when you lose a battle you have 3 soldiers.
So? Think about why we're dancing hoops around weird stuff. Don't you think we'd prefer an easy system? But there isn't one available. You can't just pull the "streamlined, fair system with a couple of options" out of your ass like that. What Z_B just said is just some random BS which anyone with a clue about design can disregard. Trust me, if we COULD make a "streamlined, fair system with a couple of options", we would. But this doesn't have an easy answer like you two seem to think it has.
... says the guy that wanted to implement a system with what, one hundred specials or something?
Yeah, you really tried to make it simple. Get over yourself, man. We know what you want. A serious (god knows why) and complicated system. Thing is, not many others want the same thing. I'd go further, but there's not much point. Hell, I'll even make this easy on you (though I'm sure you'd prefer some complicated series of dissected arguments ;)) and tell you to go ahead and disregard this, too. I'm done. Make your monster and play it. I sure as hell don't have to, right? And you can bet I won't. This is not your Edition War. It's not even Piggy's, really. It's the OTT's. Go ahead and force your ideas on everyone if that's what gets you off. I just ain't havin' it. Peace! ;)
The RISK system is also my idea!
Credit where credit is due.
PK thought of the RISK idea before me. I was simply giving my take on it.
So let's vote: Old Skool (Basically all level 1 version of the current war)
or
RISK system
I vote RISK.
So, what does everyone else think?
That won't stop me from playing in the RISK system, though. I love RISK. :D
Pros:
- People that play longer are better
Cons:
- New players are going to have a hard time catching up
RISK System
Pros:
- New players are not at a disadvantage
Cons:
- Older players are not neccesarily better
Level-up system:
Pros:
-Greater depth.
-Less chance of lame-duck situations.
-System mastery pays off.
Cons:
-Learning curve much rougher than RISK.
-Lack of system mastery can make the game one-sided (assuming one side is completely made up of people who don't think about their choices).
-Requires more testing and constant tuning compared to RISK.
Further...
Level-up system:
Pros:
-Greater depth.
-Less chance of lame-duck situations.
-System mastery pays off.
Cons:
-Learning curve much rougher than RISK.
-Lack of system mastery can make the game one-sided (assuming one side is completely made up of people who don't think about their choices).
-Requires more testing and constant tuning compared to RISK.
Some of the cons can be mitigated through proper playtesting and limitting build options. It makes designing the game harder, but in the end playing is easier.
No, because you'll make a complicated system.
I really think you should actually look at the final product he presents before declaring it will be too(?) complicated to suit your tastes. Chances are we'll have to scale back some on the complexity, and reduce the power level of a high level character in comparison to a low level, but I imagine we can make it work fairly well.
Here it comes again, straight through your heart!
*Dio reference. You can't get enough of them.
Ranged Specials, Basic:
Yield Ground: Select a round. You do not participate in that round's battles. 4 DP.
Trick Shot: Select a round. Instead of subtracting that round's attack from an opponent's HP after battle is resolved, perform the subtraction next round. 2 DP.
Deceptive Move: Once per week, you may retire from a battle, provided you are not the only person from your side participating in that battle. 0 DP.
Fire Support: An ally fighting in another battle gains a +2 bonus to all his rolls. 5 DP.
Act on Instinct+: Choose a round. For the duration of that round, you strike first, regardless of the opponent's chosen stat.
+Did I mention Frank Klepacki is a brilliant composer and we should use Hell March sometime?
Advanced Specials, Ranged:
Focused Fire: Choose an opponent. Apply the results of this round's roll to that opponent, instead of the enemy you fight. If you would already fight that opponent normally, the Deployment Points used to pay this special's cost are wasted. 5 DP.
Hidden Trap: Choose an opponent and a round. Neither you nor that opponent participate in that round's battle. 6 DP.
Slow Poison: Once per week, select an opponent. That opponent has its HP reduced by 5. 0 DP.
Diversionary Tactic: Choose an opponent and a round. Spread that opponent's damage for that round between two characters on your team. DP 8.
Expert Specials, Ranged:
Strike From The Shadows: Choose an enemy and a round. For that round, that enemy is removed from the battle cycle, and you deal damage to it using a stat of your choice. 10 DP.
Swift Skirmisher: Once per week, you may take part in two battles at once, utilizing your stats as they were before engaging in battle for each combat. You may not utilize specials with a deployment cost higher than 2 DP for any of the battles. 0 DP-
Disarming Shot: Select an opponent and a round. Treat that opponent's value as half of its real value, rounding down, for any attacks during this round. 8 DP.
Doombot Dummy Warrior: Once per week, before any round takes place, you may cancel a battle. No one gains ownership of a territory, specials with limited uses that have been triggered are considered expended, and no one recovers HP lost from battling. 10 DP.
Ranged Specials, Basic:
Yield Ground: Select a round. You do not participate in that round's battles. 4 DP.
Trick Shot: Select a round. Instead of subtracting that round's attack from an opponent's HP after battle is resolved, perform the subtraction next round. 2 DP.
Deceptive Move: Once per week, you may retire from a battle, provided you are not the only person from your side participating in that battle. 0 DP.
Fire Support: An ally fighting in another battle gains a +2 bonus to all his rolls. 5 DP.
Act on Instinct+: Choose a round. For the duration of that round, you strike first, regardless of the opponent's chosen stat.
+Did I mention Frank Klepacki is a brilliant composer and we should use Hell March sometime?
Advanced Specials, Ranged:
Focused Fire: Choose an opponent. Apply the results of this round's roll to that opponent, instead of the enemy you fight. If you would already fight that opponent normally, the Deployment Points used to pay this special's cost are wasted. 5 DP.
Hidden Trap: Choose an opponent and a round. Neither you nor that opponent participate in that round's battle. 6 DP.
Slow Poison: Once per week, select an opponent. That opponent has its HP reduced by 5. 0 DP.
Diversionary Tactic: Choose an opponent and a round. Spread that opponent's damage for that round between two characters on your team. DP 8.
Expert Specials, Ranged:
Strike From The Shadows: Choose an enemy and a round. For that round, that enemy is removed from the battle cycle, and you deal damage to it using a stat of your choice. 10 DP.
Swift Skirmisher: Once per week, you may take part in two battles at once, utilizing your stats as they were before engaging in battle for each combat. You may not utilize specials with a deployment cost higher than 2 DP for any of the battles. 0 DP-
Disarming Shot: Select an opponent and a round. Treat that opponent's value as half of its real value, rounding down, for any attacks during this round. 8 DP.
Looks like you've been doing some work here. Few things I like about Rangy, some I dislike.
First, the likes. I am absolutly gay for the concept of them giving ranged support. That is exactly the sort of thing that would make them really stand out. And the "Slow Poison" one? Although I would just make it some sort of arrow or something, the concept of causing damage to enemies while not in combat is terrific.
Now, on to the dislike. First pet peeve, they have way too many "leave when the going gets tough" moves. Those are kinda neat, but I feel that your teammates won't be too pleased that you chose an ability that has not benifit for the team, and instead simply allows them to save their own hide.
Also, I don't think that "choose a round" abilities would work. They would if we were all sitting around a table rolling dice, but as I understand it, there will simply be a DM who does it all, right? I would suggest that those sorts of abilities instead proc either on the first or second round, or have some sort of trigger ("If you take five or more damage in a single round...")
I think you've got some great ideas. I'm going to check out that linky you put at the end of your post now.
As for the ranged support, I actually had many more moves like that, but decided to cut on 'em when I remembered that the Melee/Ranged hybrid was supposed to be the buffer par excellence. Expect to see a ton of buffing moves when I get to that class, probably tomorrow.
Finally, the idea of the out-of-combat damage is something to be considered. I wasn't really thinking about it, but maybe I'll have to take it into account. My one fear as that you might be able to reduce a character to 1 HP (I'll add a rules about poisons not bein able to kill outright later), so I think it'd be best if we made most stuff like that into items.
PS: Also, expect the Melee/Magic hybrid later today.
Edit: As for this...
Also, I don't think that "choose a round" abilities would work. They would if we were all sitting around a table rolling dice, but as I understand it, there will simply be a DM who does it all, right? I would suggest that those sorts of abilities instead proc either on the first or second round, or have some sort of trigger ("If you take five or more damage in a single round...")
Just to clarify how they work, you have to decide to use them before battle starts. For example, you announce an attack on location A. The day after, you decide you need more oomph, so you post "X Activates Power Attack by paying its deployment cost of 2 DP, and adds 2 points to its Round 2 rolls". Essentially, you have to take a gamble and hope things work out before battle starts. While this is a gamble, it is much less risky than having to pray the dice gods decide to give you the trigger you wanted for it, which feels like hoping for a crit to save your behind. And if my years playing D&D have taught me something, it's to never hope for crits if your character's life hangs on the roll's result.
Some things I didn't like, though, were the specials that do things while not letting the enemy do anything... Diversionary Tactic, Strike from the Shadows, Disarming Shot...
They're quite similar to Weird in that they nerf the opponent pretty hard without them being able to do anything. Which is something I don't like, since Weird screwed me over so much. I'm not sure what I would do with them, though. Maybe they'll be ok since combat isn't decided in a single round any more.
Eh. I see that as not a very good power from an opponent's point of view. Anyone with that power will dominate in a fight against someone who dumped Magic. Also, it's very similar to Weird, which left a rather bad taste in my mouth. :P
Yes, but it doesn't necessarily give the user an advantage, unlike weird, which gives a huge power swing unless your opponent is a generalist, and while those are becoming slightly more popular, specialists still rule in this war.
You're right that it doesn't give the user an advantage all the time, but it seems to me that anyone specializing in Magic would choose to attack with Magic most of the time anyway, thus still granting a rather large bonus against only people that didn't specialize in magic.
I tried to illustrate, but fell flat on my face cause I don't have the new system memorized yet. :P
Meanwhile, Disarming Shot is probably the least powerful of the Expert-level specials until now. When you think about it, the most damage it can cut is 7, less than the Melee Specialist's special that adds +4 for two rounds. It's good, but hugely dependent on how good the opponent rolls.
Finally, Strike From The Shadows is ain interesting case. When I decided to put it in, I started thinking of what the other classes could do. The Melee Specialist can become a total tank when alone, the magic specialist can send in a clone to fight you. Thus, I started thinking, why not give the Ranged Specialists something that can compete with that? Strike From The Shadows was that thing. Consider that someone with Stand Alone can easily deal 15 points with that ability alone, and the Clone can chip away at a player, locking them out of the fight until they defeat their duplicate. Does Strike From The Shadows seem so powerful anymore?
One thing I've thought of is a power that forces the opponent to use your chosen stat. So if you chose Magic, anyone you fought would be forced to use magic. This means that they might not be getting nerfed if magic is their strong stat, and either way, you both attack at the same time since there's no type advantage, so you will be taking some damage when you use this power.
Check out the Magic Specialists Enervation.
A blade and a spell...sounds like a class in the works
Melee/Magic Hybrid Specials, Basic:
Steal Heroism: Select an enemy and a round. For that round, that enemy takes a -1 penalty on all of his rolls, while you gain a +1 bonus to all of your rolls. 2 DP.
Stronghold: Once per week, before you engage in any battles, select one land controlled by your side. This land becomes your Stronghold. While defending that land, you gain a +1 bonus to all your rolls, and gain +2 HP for your HP pool (not your HP stat). If you lose a battle for your stronghold, you die, and cannot come back until Sunday. 0 DP.
Retributive Strike: Select a round and an enemy. Before the combats from that round are resolved, you and the chosen enemy take 1d6 HP damage. 5 DP.
Close The Distance: Choose a round, an opponent, and an attack stat. That opponent must use your chosen stat or take a -2 penalty to all its rolls until the end of the round. To use this ability you must opt to use your secondary or tertiary stat for the duration of this battle. 5 DP.
Adaptive Warrior: Select a round. For the duration of that round, any opponents you fight do not gain Advantage against you if they utilize a stat that would normally grant it to them. Instead, both of your attacks strike at the same time. 3 DP.
Melee/Magic Hybrid Specials, Advanced:
Enchant Weapon: You utilize both your Primary and Secondary stat to determine if you have Advantage against your opponent. If you do, increase your die size by one step. 4 DP.
Bull's Strength: Increase the die size of your primary stat by one step for the duration of the battle. 4 DP.
Mind Swap: Select an enemy and a round. For a round, you utilize an opponent's secondary stat, while he utilizes yours.
Greenflame Blade: Select a round. You deal damage equal to a fourth of your result for your first battle of that round to all enemies, excluding the enemy you fought. 6 DP.
Melee/Magic Hybrid Specials, Expert:
Vampiric Blade: Select a round. You gain a +2 bonus to all rolls for that round. You also regain half of the result of that round's first battle as HP, rounded down. 8 DP.
Draining Touch: Select an opponent and a round. Reduce that opponent's die size by two steps and increase yours by two. 10 DP.
Counterspell: Select an opponent. You may use on of his Basic Specials at no cost. That opponent cannot use that special for the duration of the battle.
Polymorph: Select an opponent and a round. Before the combats of that round are resolved, you assume the form of that opponent, and utilize its stats instead of your for the rest of the battle, including its chosen attack stat and current HP. 10 DP.
Steal Heroism: Select an enemy and a round. For that round, that enemy takes a -1 penalty on all of his rolls, while you gain a +1 bonus to all of your rolls. 2 DP.
Stronghold: Once per week, before you engage in any battles, select one land controlled by your side. This land becomes your Stronghold. While defending that land, you gain a +1 bonus to all your rolls, and gain +2 HP for your HP pool (not your HP stat). If you lose a battle for your stronghold, you die, and cannot come back until Sunday. 0 DP.
Retributive Strike: Select a round and an enemy. Before the combats from that round are resolved, you and the chosen enemy take 1d6 HP damage. 5 DP.
Close The Distance: Choose a round, an opponent, and an attack stat. That opponent must use your chosen stat or take a -2 penalty to all its rolls until the end of the round. To use this ability you must opt to use your secondary or tertiary stat for the duration of this battle. 5 DP.
Adaptive Warrior: Select a round. For the duration of that round, any opponents you fight do not gain Advantage against you if they utilize a stat that would normally grant it to them. Instead, both of your attacks strike at the same time. 3 DP.
Melee/Magic Hybrid Specials, Advanced:
Enchant Weapon: You utilize both your Primary and Secondary stat to determine if you have Advantage against your opponent. If you do, increase your die size by one step. 4 DP.
Bull's Strength: Increase the die size of your primary stat by one step for the duration of the battle. 4 DP.
Mind Swap: Select an enemy and a round. For a round, you utilize an opponent's secondary stat, while he utilizes yours.
Greenflame Blade: Select a round. You deal damage equal to a fourth of your result for your first battle of that round to all enemies, excluding the enemy you fought. 6 DP.
Melee/Magic Hybrid Specials, Expert:
Vampiric Blade: Select a round. You gain a +2 bonus to all rolls for that round. You also regain half of the result of that round's first battle as HP, rounded down. 8 DP.
Draining Touch: Select an opponent and a round. Reduce that opponent's die size by two steps and increase yours by two. 10 DP.
Counterspell: Select an opponent. You may use on of his Basic Specials at no cost. That opponent cannot use that special for the duration of the battle.
Polymorph: Select an opponent and a round. Before the combats of that round are resolved, you assume the form of that opponent, and utilize its stats instead of your for the rest of the battle, including its chosen attack stat and current HP. 10 DP.
I'll use this one, but I think we should use a simple one.
I think I actually liked the first edition war's mechanics best. You could still have a major impact on the battle (due to system mastery. Remember how I abused Soul of Puppet?) but it was almost impossible to make a useless character.
I also don't like the idea of there being a point cap on who can get into a fight. I prefer the X/people per side can join.
I also don't like the idea of there being a point cap on who can get into a fight. I prefer the X/people per side can join.
There is a cap on people too. The point system is just something I use to standardize things.
( =A system where the person with the most intimate knowledge of it will have the most advantage, but where the new people wont immdediately notice.)
I think I actually liked the first edition war's mechanics best. You could still have a major impact on the battle (due to system mastery. Remember how I abused Soul of Puppet?) but it was almost impossible to make a useless character.
First off, it wasn't system mastery that made you awesome, Bane, it was having insane plot powers which were WAY more powerful what would have been balanced. If you want system mastery, try my d8/SA d6 setup, which gave the maximum possible values for attacking.
Also, about being impossible to make a useless character: Stronger and Better. What were you saying?
Finally, if you're so convinced this system will make for tons of trap characters, prove it. Make a character so gimped he's utterly useless in most fight. THEN I'll believe you.
Otherwise, there's only one thing I can say, to you two: stop *****ing and let me do my job, awright? If you're just gonna complain, there's no point in posting here. Sorry if this is abrasive, but developing this is hard as hell, I'm starting to run out of ideas for the specials, there's still a ton of fine-tuning left, and the last thing I need is inane and baseless complaints.
New special ideas:
Damage Distribution Tactics: If both parties are willing, an allied character can redirect damage taken to another character.
As for that ability, that's Diversionary Tactics for ya.
Endurance trainer:Pick one ally. They gain +1 to their HP stat. You may choose the ally 1/week.
Stronger than strong, an invincible force/I am the creator, I am the source/I'm the mind...
*Titans of our Time, Iron Savior.
Melee/Ranged Hybrid Specials, Basic:
Charismatic Leader: You gain control of a Companion, a friend, sidekick or henchman who assists you in your battles. Companions are special allies who have a deployment cost equal to half of yours, rounded down, and can assist you or your teammates in fighting for control of a location. Companions have an HP value equal to half of yours, rounded up. Upon selection of this ability, choose one of these arrays:
1d8/1d4/1d4
1d6/1d6/1d4
And then select which stats you want to assing each value to. Every three levels above 1st, you can increase the value of one of your Companions' stats by one die step (thus, at level 7, you could have a companion with 1d12/1d4/1d4 and another companion with 1d8/1d8/1d4). Aside from these considerations, companions are identical to normal Player Characters, and can be targeted by buffs and debuffs just like them. You may take this special multiple times. DP varies.
Minion Master: You gain control over a squad of minions, expendable soldiers who are nonetheless more capable than your random mook or redshirt. Upon selecting this special, you gain 3 1d6/1d6/1d6 minions, who have an HP value of 5 and a DP cost of 5. Once their HP is depleted, minions die, and can only be brought back once per week, resurrecting all minions currently dead. Unlike Companions, Minions never increase in power as you level, though you can summon them back from the dead one additional time per week per every three levels above 1st. Additionally, minions do not count towards the cap of maximum combatants per side (though there is a hard limit of 10 Minions or Mooks per side). You may take this special multiple times, gaining control of another minion squad each time. DP 5 per minion
Redshirt Contractor: You can send Mooks, weak and nameless warriors, to do battle for you. Upon selecting this special, you gain control over 10 Mooks, each of which has one Hit Point and does one point of damage with its attack, and costs 1 DP to deploy. When you send mooks to a location, you must select a stat. For the duration of that battle, mooks treat that stat as their stat of choice for the purpose of determining Advantage. Once their HP is depleted, Mooks die, and can only be brought back once per week, resurrecting all Mooks currently dead at once. Unlike Companions, Mooks never increase in power as you level, though you can summon them back from the dead one additional time per week per every three levels above 1st. Additionally, Mooks do not count towards the cap of maximum combatants per side (though there is a hard limit of 10 Minions or Mooks per side), and do not benefit from any specials that modify their rolls (they are not penalized by any such specials, either). You may take this special multiple times, gaining control of another Mook unit each time. DP 1 per Mook.
Tag Team: You may provide an ally with a +1 bonus to all of its rolls for the duration of two rounds, specified at the time of selecting this special for use. 4 DP.
Heal: Select a round and an ally. That ally regains 5 HP at the beginning of that round. 5 DP.
Melee/Ranged Hybrid Specials, Advanced:
Coordinated Assault: Select a round. All characters fighting on your side gain a +1 bonus to all of their rolls during that round, including yourself. 10 DP.
Shield Ally: Select an ally and a round. During that round, you take all the damage that ally would take. 6 DP.
Rally The Troops: Select a round. During that round, all allies gain Advantage against their opponents. 6 DP.
Brave Comrades: All of your companions gain 10 HP, but their deployment cost increases by 3. All minions gain 5 HP, but their deployment cost increases by 2. DP 0 (passive).
Melee/Ranged Hybrid Specials, Expert:
The Final Push: Select an ally and a round. During that round, before anyone else can act, that ally may attack an opponent. DP 12.
Perfect Fighting Force: Select an ally and a round. During that round, both you and your ally add half of the other's first roll in combat to all of your rolls. 15 DP.
Last Stand: Select an ally. If that ally is dropped to 0 HP or fewer, instead of being taken out of the battle cycle, he can keep fighting until the end of the round after the one in which he was knocked out. 10 DP.
Lead Them To Victory: Select a round. All characters fighting for your side increase their die size by one step and regain 3 HP. 10 DP.
Melee/Ranged Hybrid Specials, Basic:
Charismatic Leader: You gain control of a Companion, a friend, sidekick or henchman who assists you in your battles. Companions are special allies who have a deployment cost equal to half of yours, rounded down, and can assist you or your teammates in fighting for control of a location. Companions have an HP value equal to half of yours, rounded up. Upon selection of this ability, choose one of these arrays:
1d8/1d4/1d4
1d6/1d6/1d4
And then select which stats you want to assing each value to. Every three levels above 1st, you can increase the value of one of your Companions' stats by one die step (thus, at level 7, you could have a companion with 1d12/1d4/1d4 and another companion with 1d8/1d8/1d4). Aside from these considerations, companions are identical to normal Player Characters, and can be targeted by buffs and debuffs just like them. You may take this special multiple times. DP varies.
Minion Master: You gain control over a squad of minions, expendable soldiers who are nonetheless more capable than your random mook or redshirt. Upon selecting this special, you gain 3 1d6/1d6/1d6 minions, who have an HP value of 5 and a DP cost of 5. Once their HP is depleted, minions die, and can only be brought back once per week, resurrecting all minions currently dead. Unlike Companions, Minions never increase in power as you level, though you can summon them back from the dead one additional time per week per every three levels above 1st. Additionally, minions do not count towards the cap of maximum combatants per side (though there is a hard limit of 10 Minions or Mooks per side). You may take this special multiple times, gaining control of another minion squad each time. DP 5 per minion
Redshirt Contractor: You can send Mooks, weak and nameless warriors, to do battle for you. Upon selecting this special, you gain control over 10 Mooks, each of which has one Hit Point and does one point of damage with its attack, and costs 1 DP to deploy. When you send mooks to a location, you must select a stat. For the duration of that battle, mooks treat that stat as their stat of choice for the purpose of determining Advantage. Once their HP is depleted, Mooks die, and can only be brought back once per week, resurrecting all Mooks currently dead at once. Unlike Companions, Mooks never increase in power as you level, though you can summon them back from the dead one additional time per week per every three levels above 1st. Additionally, Mooks do not count towards the cap of maximum combatants per side (though there is a hard limit of 10 Minions or Mooks per side), and do not benefit from any specials that modify their rolls (they are not penalized by any such specials, either). You may take this special multiple times, gaining control of another Mook unit each time. DP 1 per Mook.
Tag Team: You may provide an ally with a +1 bonus to all of its rolls for the duration of two rounds, specified at the time of selecting this special for use. 4 DP.
Heal: Select a round and an ally. That ally regains 5 HP at the beginning of that round. 5 DP.
Melee/Ranged Hybrid Specials, Advanced:
Coordinated Assault: Select a round. All characters fighting on your side gain a +1 bonus to all of their rolls during that round, including yourself. 10 DP.
Shield Ally: Select an ally and a round. During that round, you take all the damage that ally would take. 6 DP.
Rally The Troops: Select a round. During that round, all allies gain Advantage against their opponents. 6 DP.
Brave Comrades: All of your companions gain 10 HP, but their deployment cost increases by 3. All minions gain 5 HP, but their deployment cost increases by 2. DP 0 (passive).
Melee/Ranged Hybrid Specials, Expert:
The Final Push: Select an ally and a round. During that round, before anyone else can act, that ally may attack an opponent. DP 12.
Perfect Fighting Force: Select an ally and a round. During that round, both you and your ally add half of the other's first roll in combat to all of your rolls. 15 DP.
Last Stand: Select an ally. If that ally is dropped to 0 HP or fewer, instead of being taken out of the battle cycle, he can keep fighting until the end of the round after the one in which he was knocked out. 10 DP.
Lead Them To Victory: Select a round. All characters fighting for your side increase their die size by one step and regain 3 HP. 10 DP.
Finally, if you're so convinced this system will make for tons of trap characters, prove it. Make a character so gimped he's utterly useless in most fight. THEN I'll believe you.
I never said that
Otherwise, there's only one thing I can say, to you two: stop *****ing and let me do my job, awright? If you're just gonna complain, there's no point in posting here. Sorry if this is abrasive, but developing this is hard as hell, I'm starting to run out of ideas for the specials, there's still a ton of fine-tuning left, and the last thing I need is inane and baseless complaints.
That's no excuse to be an *******. I have been busting my ass lately, too. I have:
completed a month's worth of science and math homework in four days
on each of those days, AND I also rolled up lvl 20 characters for some friends of mine. And, I've been working at my new job like crazy.
All I did was point out a few concerns that I had, and you threw a fit. If this is going to be common behaviors from now on in the EW, I'm not getting involved again. I'm sick of everyone turning this game into serious business. It's supposed to be FUN. With this behavior that has unfortunately become to common, it isn't fun. And don't bother responding to this, because I won't get involved in the EW. I hope you guys lighten up, but from the way things seem, it won't happen.
Best of luck to your designing.
@ Armisael: Why would I try to scare you? It's a futile and pointless effort. I was not "lambasting" your efforts, I merely pointed out a few things that seemed odd to me. I don't like it when people that I consider a friend to insult me over something as petty as a PbP game.
I realize that I did not word my opinions on the system as well as I could have, but it was in NO way insulting. Just incomplete. Of course, you then proceed to throw a fit, then use the excuse "Well I've been working hard on it" to make up for your behavior, which is BS.
And I hate it when people put words in my mouth. I never ONCE stated that your system was full of "traps"
And it's not new guy friendly. People are intimidated as is.
+1
@Armisael: More specials for Artillery. Could you remind me of what the Artillery should do?
Opening fire: Add half of the damage you deal in the first round to that of following rounds.
Pit Trap: Pick a location your team owns. The first opponent to attack that location still takes up DP and counts towards starting a battle to own the location, but does not participate in the combat rounds.
Poison Trap: Pick a round. The opponent you face in that round takes 5 HP damage each round after the one you picked.
Ice Trap: Pick an opponent and a round. That opponent does not participate in that round.
Beguiler Here!
Magic/Ranged Hybrid Specials, Basic:
Supply Disruption: Once per week, select an opponent. That opponent must pay 5 DP on top of his normal deployment cost to deploy at its next battle. You gain an additional use of this ability per week per every three levels above 1st. 0 DP.
Wall of Fire: Reduce the cap on additional combatants (Minions and Mooks) by 1 per Deployment Point you spend on this ability. 1 DP per point of cap reduction.
Rusted Swords/Dead Magic Zone/Broken Arrows: Upon choosing this special, select a stat. Those who choose that stat for the current battle must pay an additional 2 DP to deploy. 5 DP.
Illusionary Ally: Select an ally and a round. That ally does not take part in that round. Instead, an illusion takes its place. The illusion does no damage and vanishes at the end of the round, but behaves like the ally normally would otherwise (including the rolling of damage dice, etc.) and the ally is not affected by any attacks. DP 3.
Foil Maneuver: Select a special declared by one of your foes. Cancel the use of that special. DP 2 + the cost of the canceled special.
Magic/Ranged Hybrid Specials, Advanced:
Mirage: As Illusionary Ally, but every character on your team is affected, except for Mooks and Minions. 12 DP.
Antimagic Field: Select a round. No specials may be used for that round, other than this one. Points spent on specials for that round are refunded. 10 DP.
Hostile Terrain: Select a number from 1 to 8. People with an HP stat value below that may not join the battle. Anyone whose HP stat is lower than the target number is instantly expelled from the battle. 5 DP per point.
Stasis: Select a round. No effects resolve on that round (they are delayed one round), and nobody takes damage. 8 DP.
Magic/Ranged Hybrid Specials, Expert:
Magic Circle: Select a level. Characters below that level may not join the battle, and are expelled instantly if their level is lower than the target number. You cannot choose a level higher than 11. 2 DP per level.
Extreme Conditions: Select a stat. Characters who picked that stat may not join the battle, and are expelled instantly. 10 DP.
Baleful Transposition: Select an opponent. That opponent is instantly expelled from the battle, and half of his deployment cost is refunded to his side. 10 DP.
Cutting The Chain: Once per week select up to three locations under enemy control. Those locations provide no benefits (counting for advantages, granting resources, etc.) for the rest of the week. DP 0.
Supply Disruption: Once per week, select an opponent. That opponent must pay 5 DP on top of his normal deployment cost to deploy at its next battle. You gain an additional use of this ability per week per every three levels above 1st. 0 DP.
Wall of Fire: Reduce the cap on additional combatants (Minions and Mooks) by 1 per Deployment Point you spend on this ability. 1 DP per point of cap reduction.
Rusted Swords/Dead Magic Zone/Broken Arrows: Upon choosing this special, select a stat. Those who choose that stat for the current battle must pay an additional 2 DP to deploy. 5 DP.
Illusionary Ally: Select an ally and a round. That ally does not take part in that round. Instead, an illusion takes its place. The illusion does no damage and vanishes at the end of the round, but behaves like the ally normally would otherwise (including the rolling of damage dice, etc.) and the ally is not affected by any attacks. DP 3.
Foil Maneuver: Select a special declared by one of your foes. Cancel the use of that special. DP 2 + the cost of the canceled special.
Magic/Ranged Hybrid Specials, Advanced:
Mirage: As Illusionary Ally, but every character on your team is affected, except for Mooks and Minions. 12 DP.
Antimagic Field: Select a round. No specials may be used for that round, other than this one. Points spent on specials for that round are refunded. 10 DP.
Hostile Terrain: Select a number from 1 to 8. People with an HP stat value below that may not join the battle. Anyone whose HP stat is lower than the target number is instantly expelled from the battle. 5 DP per point.
Stasis: Select a round. No effects resolve on that round (they are delayed one round), and nobody takes damage. 8 DP.
Magic/Ranged Hybrid Specials, Expert:
Magic Circle: Select a level. Characters below that level may not join the battle, and are expelled instantly if their level is lower than the target number. You cannot choose a level higher than 11. 2 DP per level.
Extreme Conditions: Select a stat. Characters who picked that stat may not join the battle, and are expelled instantly. 10 DP.
Baleful Transposition: Select an opponent. That opponent is instantly expelled from the battle, and half of his deployment cost is refunded to his side. 10 DP.
Cutting The Chain: Once per week select up to three locations under enemy control. Those locations provide no benefits (counting for advantages, granting resources, etc.) for the rest of the week. DP 0.
Stats:
Melee
Ranged
Magic
Constitution
Select a class. You may opt to be a specialist of one of the first three stats, or merge two of them as a hybrid.
If you opt to be a specialist, use this progression:
Level 1: Primary stat (the stat that the class specializes on) increases to 1d10, choose another stat as a secondary stat. Secondary stat increases to 1d6. Choose first Basic special.
Level 2: Primary Stat increases to 1d12.
Level 3: Choose second Basic special.
Level 4: Secondary Stat increases to 1d8.
Level 5: Choose Advanced Special.
Level 6: Primary Stat increases to 2d6.
Level 7: Free Point.
Level 8: Secondary Stat increases to 1d10.
Level 9: Choose Expert Special
Level 10: Tertiary Stat or Constitution increases by one step.
Level 11: Free Point
If you opt to be a hybrid, use this progression:
Level 1: Choose one stat used by your class as your primary. The other stat (or Constitution) becomes your secondary. Both stats increase to 1d8. Choose first Basic special.
Level 2: Primary increases to 1d10.
Level 3: Choose second Basic special.
Level 4: Secondary increases to 1d10.
Level 5: Choose Advanced Special.
Level 6: Primary increases to 1d12.
Level 7: Free Point.
Level 8: Secondary increases to 1d12.
Level 9: Choose Expert Special.
Level 10: Tertiary stat or Constitution increases by one step.
Level 11: Free Point.
HP Calculations: HP is a measure of your capacity to stay in the fight, and the results of your opponents' rolls are subtracted from your HP pool. To calculate HP, use this formula: 10+[level*(Constitution/2)].
Die Progressions: Dice increase in steps like this:
1d4>1d6>1d8>1d10>1d12>2d6>2d6+1>2d6+2>2d6+4>2d8+2>4d20
If you have picked Constitution as your secondary stat, when your level progression would indicate an increase to a certain die step, use these numbers instead.
1>2>3>4>5>6>7>8>9>10>11
Death: If, on a battle you participate on, your side is defeated by 8 points or more, one person on your side dies randomly. When you die, you cannot take any further actions for the rest of the week, unless a Resurrection Scroll is used on you, another player uses an ability to bring you back, or a terrain effect resurrects you.
Declaring specials: Declaring specials is simple: At any time after you have declared an attack or defense and have chosen your stat for the battle (in the same post, even), and before the battle is resolved, you may pay a specials DP cost and utilize it.
In-depth explanation: Check the spoiler named Dark Stryke's Proposal here. Whenever a contradiction arises, this post trumps that post.
Battles: Battles (combats between two sides) are divided into rounds. A round is defined as the sum of all matches that take place between combatants in a single battle cycle. That is, it refers to the time during which all combatants go through at least one match. Each combatant must fight at least once each round, unless a special, item, or terrain feature expressly forbids him from participating.
Advantage: Whenever you fight with Melee against Magic, Magic against Ranged, or Ranged against Melee, you are considered to have Advantage. A character with Advantage strikes first. If no character has advantage, both attacks are resolved at the same time.
Specials:
Melee Specialist
Melee specialist, Basic Specials:
Tough as Nails: Once per week, you might refill yourself to full HP before Sunday (Better than On Your Feet in its basic form, but if you die, you die. You're not getting back up). You may not use this while participating in a battle. DP 0.
Dirty Fighter: Once per week, if you participate in a battle and win, treat the remaining HP of your team as 5 points higher for determining how many enemies die. DP 3.
Stance Swap: Once per battle, you can switch your stat chosen for battle inbetween rounds. You must specify the point at which you'd like to switch your stats in the PM sent to the battle administrator in which you specified your original stat. DP 2.
Venomous Barb: Once per battle, you may opt to automatically be the first member of your team to battle in that round. DP 2.
Impressive comeback: If a battle lasts for three rounds or more, once per week you can recover half of your HP at any time within battle. You must include a note detailing the use of this ability along with the PM sent to the Battle Administrator which details the stat you want to pick. DP 1.
Reckless Attack: Select a round. You take 2 HP damage, and in exchange you deal an additional 1d6 damage on the first roll of that round. DP 2.
Melee Specialist, Advanced Specials:
Combat Challenge: Select a round and an opponent. That opponent fights against you for its first battle of the round. DP 4.
Over The Top: Once per battle, you may maximize all of your dice. In exchange, you are reduced to 0 HP instantly. 4 DP.
Action Point: Select a round. you may roll all of your dice twice and take the best result plus half of the other result, rounding down. DP 6.
Settling The Score: If you fight an enemy on two consecutive rounds or more, you gain a +4 bonus to all rolls against him. This effect stacks with itself, and prolongs itself in time if you battle an enemy more than twice. DP 0 (passive).
Melee Specialist, Expert Specials:
Stand Alone: Whenever you fight a battle alone (that is, you are the only combatant for your side even with spare deployment points available), you may roll every dice twice and take the better result, adding a +3 static bonus on top. Additionally, treat your Constitution stat as 3 points higher for the duration of the current battle, even above the standard maximum of 8. 0 DP (passive).
Invincible Warrior: Once per battle, you may regain half of your HP. You must specify the point at which you'd like to use this ability in the PM sent to the battle administrator in which you specified your original stat for the battle. 8 DP.
Vicious Wound: Once per battle, you may inflict a vicious wound to an enemy you fight which weakens them throughout the battle. Each round after the one in which you decided to utilize this ability, the target loses HP equal to 1/4th the damage you inflicted on him, rounded up. 8 DP.
Flurry of Strikes: Select a round. For that round and the next, you add a +4 static bonus to your two first rolls for the two rounds. 6 DP.
Tough as Nails: Once per week, you might refill yourself to full HP before Sunday (Better than On Your Feet in its basic form, but if you die, you die. You're not getting back up). You may not use this while participating in a battle. DP 0.
Dirty Fighter: Once per week, if you participate in a battle and win, treat the remaining HP of your team as 5 points higher for determining how many enemies die. DP 3.
Stance Swap: Once per battle, you can switch your stat chosen for battle inbetween rounds. You must specify the point at which you'd like to switch your stats in the PM sent to the battle administrator in which you specified your original stat. DP 2.
Venomous Barb: Once per battle, you may opt to automatically be the first member of your team to battle in that round. DP 2.
Impressive comeback: If a battle lasts for three rounds or more, once per week you can recover half of your HP at any time within battle. You must include a note detailing the use of this ability along with the PM sent to the Battle Administrator which details the stat you want to pick. DP 1.
Reckless Attack: Select a round. You take 2 HP damage, and in exchange you deal an additional 1d6 damage on the first roll of that round. DP 2.
Melee Specialist, Advanced Specials:
Combat Challenge: Select a round and an opponent. That opponent fights against you for its first battle of the round. DP 4.
Over The Top: Once per battle, you may maximize all of your dice. In exchange, you are reduced to 0 HP instantly. 4 DP.
Action Point: Select a round. you may roll all of your dice twice and take the best result plus half of the other result, rounding down. DP 6.
Settling The Score: If you fight an enemy on two consecutive rounds or more, you gain a +4 bonus to all rolls against him. This effect stacks with itself, and prolongs itself in time if you battle an enemy more than twice. DP 0 (passive).
Melee Specialist, Expert Specials:
Stand Alone: Whenever you fight a battle alone (that is, you are the only combatant for your side even with spare deployment points available), you may roll every dice twice and take the better result, adding a +3 static bonus on top. Additionally, treat your Constitution stat as 3 points higher for the duration of the current battle, even above the standard maximum of 8. 0 DP (passive).
Invincible Warrior: Once per battle, you may regain half of your HP. You must specify the point at which you'd like to use this ability in the PM sent to the battle administrator in which you specified your original stat for the battle. 8 DP.
Vicious Wound: Once per battle, you may inflict a vicious wound to an enemy you fight which weakens them throughout the battle. Each round after the one in which you decided to utilize this ability, the target loses HP equal to 1/4th the damage you inflicted on him, rounded up. 8 DP.
Flurry of Strikes: Select a round. For that round and the next, you add a +4 static bonus to your two first rolls for the two rounds. 6 DP.
K, thanks for the link. Hmm, how about these? Also, you get to pick tier and DP cost.
Pit Trap: Pick a location your team owns. The first opponent to attack that location still takes up DP and counts towards starting a battle to own the location, but does not participate in the combat rounds.
Poison Trap: Pick a round. The opponent you face in that round takes 5 HP damage each round after the one you picked.
Ice Trap: Pick an opponent and a round. That opponent does not participate in that round.
See ARMS? Full of traps.
Yah, I'm a wackjob munchkin, but thats way to much stuff for me to bother with at this point.
Also, thank god you posted. I was scared I had killed the thread with that post. :P
Level: 1
Type: Melee/Ranged Hybrid
Main Stat: Melee: 1D8
Secondary Stat: Ranged: 1D8
Tertiary Stat: Magic: 1D4
Special: Redshirt Contractor
Select any number of people and any combination of specials (within the constraints set by the system, of course) and try to beat this character.
Armisael h4X
Level: 11
Type: Melee Specialist
Main Stat: Melee: 2d6+2
Secondary Stat: Constitution 6
Tertiary Stat: Magic: 1d4
Specials: Reckless Attack
Impressive Comeback
Action Point
Stand Alone
HP: 60
B0rken Elf
Level: 11
Type: Ranged Specialist
Main Stat: Ranged: 2d6+2
Secondary Stat: Constitution 4
Tertiary Stat: Magic: 1d6
Specials: Efficient Warrior (x2) (Reduced to 11 DP cost)
Slow Poison (0 DP)
Disarming Strike (8 DP)
HP: 54
DP: 19
And here is his buddy:
Personal Warlord
Level: 11
Type: Melee/Ranged Hybrid
Main Stat: Ranged: 2d6+1
Secondary Stat: Constitution: 5
Tertiary Stat: Melee: 1d6
Specials: Efficient Warrior (Reduced to 15 DP)
Charismatic Leader (1d4/2d6/1d4/30 HP)
Brave Comrades (6 DP)
Last Stand (10 DP)
HP: 59
DP: 31
Now, my stats don't include the Brave Comrades bonus. Add 10 HP to each character.
B0rken Elf
Level: 11
Type: Ranged Specialist
Main Stat: Ranged: 2d6+2
Secondary Stat: Constitution 4
Tertiary Stat: Magic: 1d6
Specials: Efficient Warrior (x2) (Reduced to 11 DP cost)
Diversionary Tactic (8 DP)
Advanced Multiclass (Settling the Score) (2 DP)
HP: 54
DP: 21
And here is his buddy:
Personal Warlord
Level: 11
Type: Melee/Ranged Hybrid
Main Stat: Ranged: 2d6+1
Secondary Stat: Constitution: 5
Tertiary Stat: Melee: 1d6
Specials: Efficient Warrior (Reduced to 15 DP cost)
Charismatic Leader (1d4/2d6/1d4/30 HP)
Brave Comrades (3 DP)
Last Stand (10 DP)
HP: 59
DP: 28
Take that!
First off, it looks like if you don't get an increase to HP some way, you're totally screwed. Constitution affects HP way too much if it's a multiplier to level, even if it only scales at half rate. Also, a question. I'm taking Tough as Nails' text to say that you don't regain HP between battles, which means a high CON is practically a prerequisite since even the winners of a territory will be very low on HP. The other possible scenario is that Tough as Nails is a trap, since it does absolutely nothing. And is Reckless Attack supposed to be free of a DP cost? Other than that...
Here's a team.
The Apocalypse Twins
Melee Twin
Level: 11
Type: Melee Specialist
Main Stat: Melee 2d6
Secondary Stat: Constitution 5
Tertiary Stat: Magic 1d6
Specials
Impressive Comeback
Reckless Attack
Action Point
Flurry of Strikes
HP: 36
DP: 27 (20 + 1 [Impressive Comeback] + 6 [Flurry of Strikes])
Ranged Twin
Level: 11
Type: Ranged Specialist
Main Stat: Ranged 2d6+2
Secondary Stat: Constitution 3
Tertiary Stat: Magic 1d6
Specials
Efficient Warrior [x2]
Multiclass: Illusionary Ally
Strike from the Shadows
HP: 26
DP: 23
There's no explanation of DP costs in the large post, so I guessed based on D_S's system and added special uses.
The Ranged Twin, on round 1 against Armisael H4x, uses Illusionary Ally on the Melee Twin, then Strike from the Shadows. On round 2, the Melee Twin uses Reckless Attack, Action Point, and Flurry of Strikes.
Round 1: Armisael H4x takes 2d6+2 Ranged and deals no damage.
Round 2: Armisael H4x takes 2d6+2+(1/2[2d6+2)+4 Melee and 2d6+2 Ranged, then does stuff.
It's the closest to a lock down off the top of my head. Let me look again.
After looking... Any Magic/Ranged character with Extreme Conditions completely trumps a Melee Specialist with Stand Alone. Same thing with Baleful Transposition. I think both of these, and possibly Magic Circle, need looked at for sure, since they prevent certain characters from participating in a battle.
First off, it looks like if you don't get an increase to HP some way, you're totally screwed. Constitution affects HP way too much if it's a multiplier to level, even if it only scales at half rate. Also, a question. I'm taking Tough as Nails' text to say that you don't regain HP between battles, which means a high CON is practically a prerequisite since even the winners of a territory will be very low on HP. The other possible scenario is that Tough as Nails is a trap, since it does absolutely nothing. And is Reckless Attack supposed to be free of a DP cost? Other than that...
Nope, you don't regain HP between battles. However. I WILL be introducing methods to refill HP, so you can choose between expending the team's resources and trying to tough it out. A CON 1 character is perfectly viable, as you can still survive a hit from a 2d6+2 enemy, even if the rolls max out, and go on to fight in the second round (assuming you don't get hit with Advantage, of course). Investing a point or two is a good idea, but you're not going to be taken out on the first round due to CON 1, unless your side is just terrible. Of course, you can feel free to prove me wrong.
Also, Reckless Attack's been fixed. It costs 2 DP.
Finally, lets compare the numbers.
Round 1: 2d6+2 damage. Arms H4X takes 9 damage (average).
Round 2: Reckless Attack + Action Point. Arms H4X deals [(3d6)*1.5]+5, rerolling both its original result and its Action Point result, and adding half of the AP result to the original result. That's...pretty much an instant K. O., or close enough, I believe, especially if the Ranged Twin is picked.
Round 3: Arms H4X uses Impressive Comeback and probably pulls out a win. Don't quote me on it, as I have to calculate what the average damage for that nova is, but it looks solid. We'll have to run simulations here. I might have to tone down SA a bit...
HDI: Sounds like a good idea. I'll edit that in.
How does your guy have Con 6 and 2d6+2?
Just noticed this. The answer is that CON is his secondary stat and he placed his tertiary point on it (something allowed because CON 8 is unattainable otherwise, and I preferred standardizing the amount all stats can reach).
B0rken Elf
Level: 11
Type: Ranged Specialist
Main Stat: Ranged: 2d6+2
Secondary Stat: Constitution 4
Tertiary Stat: Magic: 1d6
Specials: Efficient Warrior (x2) (Reduced to 11 DP cost)
Diversionary Tactic (8 DP)
Advanced Multiclass (Settling the Score) (2 DP)
HP: 32
DP: 21
And here is his buddy:
Personal Warlord
Level: 11
Type: Melee/Ranged Hybrid
Main Stat: Ranged: 2d6+1
Secondary Stat: Constitution: 5
Tertiary Stat: Melee: 1d6
Specials: Efficient Warrior (Reduced to 15 DP cost)
Charismatic Leader (1d4/2d6/1d4/30 HP)
Brave Comrades (3 DP)
Last Stand (10 DP)
HP: 37
DP: 28
My only concern is that, if HP can't be regained during the week except through Tough as Nails, then after the first round of battles people will end up dropping like flies in round 1 since they only have 1 HP left for the entire week.
Also, I'll have to edit the Twins now since Reckless Attack is DP 2 and the Twins were already DP 50 total ;)
In response to CON 1 characters not dropping on round one... Didn't you just K.O. my CON 3 character in one round? :P
As long as there's a way of restoring HP between battles easily... That should be ok.
My only concern is that, if HP can't be regained during the week except through Tough as Nails, then after the first round of battles people will end up dropping like flies in round 1 since they only have 1 HP left for the entire week.
Also, I'll have to edit the Twins now since Reckless Attack is DP 2 and the Twins were already DP 50 total ;)
In response to CON 1 characters not dropping on round one... Didn't you just K.O. my CON 3 character in one round? :P
Well, I'm blowing all of my specials on a single strike, and the idea is that a CON 1 character is capable of taking at least one normal blow before dropping. Considering you're getting a freebie hit on me, I think we're about even :P
HDI: Nah, it can't be used, because it'd be WAY too easy to auto K. O. characters (four people take Slow Poison, dump them all on a character on round 1, then proceed to win and make a mockery of the other side), but we'll go with the idea that you're using it before battle starts.
A Stand Alone build with 1 CON is going to be... uh. I need an euphemism.
Screwed works, but isn't entirely what I was going for. :P
A CON 1 character will never be able to go multiple rounds, and the ability to go multiple rounds is almost a requirement in this system. They'll be able to go at most 2, unless their opponents are rolling poorly.
Also, Novas seem to be almost the point of this system... If you can nova and take out an opponent, it's always worth it because you reduce the number of opponents you have to deal with. I'm not sure if that's a bug or a feature, though.
As for what you say, its true. Maybe we could increase the HP buffer so that characters aren't as fragile?
As for the nova comment, the trick is that every nova has a counter. If you put all your eggs in one basket and your opponent sees your move coming...it's not going to be pretty. In general consistency is better than nova'ing, as Arms H4X shows.
PS:
...I just noticed something about the SA comment.
"This one goes to 11". Bwahahaha. :D
Alternatively, if there's a way of retraining, expect Stand Alone characters to bump CON... until they get hold of Stand Alone. Then they'll all respec and dump their extra points into Melee. :P
Also... "This one goes to 11."
EDIT: I have to go for a while... I'll see what I can come up with for CON 1 and Stand Alone. I feel like making all characters in general less fragile is step in the right direction... but I also don't want combat to be 5-6 rounds long, for the battlemaster's sake. :P
With that said, I'll start working on that dilemma. Also, VOTE TIME!
Poll:
Should the HP buffer be bumped up to 20 HP, or should it remain at 10?
Option One: Move bump. For great justice.
Option Two: I like 10 HP, eh's a pretty good guy and doesn't afraid of anything.
If all else fails, I can program a spreadsheet to run it. So long as Escher doesn't mind OpenDocument instead of Microsoft. It'll have a hard limit to the number of rounds it can calculate if I do it that way, but I can make it an arbitrarily large number. I think a couple hundred would more than suffice. I could go to as many as a few thousand, but I think that's unnecessary. :P
@Poll
I think the most elegant solution would be to bump HP to 20 base, and then either cap the CON bump from Stand Alone at 8 total, or increase the CON bump to 5 and cap it at 11. So... Option 1, I guess? :P
EDIT: I could write it in Python easier, but there's precious little chance Escher has Python on his computer unless he runs Linux, so...
Right now, the idea is to see if 20 HP will be enough to stop one-shots, while keeping everything else competitive. I'll have to rework companions, though, as buffers could become total tanks otherwise, but I think it'll work.
PS: Also, you can take lower leveled specials from your own class or from the generic pool if none of the Advanced or Expert choices satisfy you. I think I forgot to put that in.
:P It is true though.
As for the spreadsheet, we'll see once we've ironed the kinks out of the system. I have a feeling I'll be able to pull it off, but if you could design a rolling system too, I'd be very, very
Edit: About SA, I REALLY don't want to cap it. It just feels unfair to the guy who invested in CON with the idea of being the ultimate lone wolf. Increasing the bonus to 5 seems...weird, really, but I'll give it a look. Maybe it's a good enough answer to our problem.
It's not so much that we ignore you, as much as we don't have anything we can say because your posts are impossible to attack. You're the Posting Turtle, of sorts. :P
I'm going to have to put that in my sig now, you know. :P
Something like this, maybe:
Show
.Resident Posting Turtle.
In other words, you'd trade 2 points of damage per swing for...a 22 point increase on HP. Ouch. That's brutal. Yeah, I think we need to find another fix.
PS: I can see it...
Silvercrys, world famous Forum Turtler (note the r at the end, it comes from the turtling strategy) faces off against Armisael, the reknowned Flame Specialist! Watch this match for the ages, ladies and gentlemen, you shall not be disappointed!
Ah, I haven't played Warcraft III in forever. I played Starcraft a couple weeks ago. I was never fond of turtling, though. :P
Maybe a Full Metal Alchemist reference? You'd be Roy Mustang, of course, but I can't think of any very defensive alchemists...
As far as the HP thing... yeah. We'll need something else. Maybe instead of a CON increase, it increases your HP by the total of the levels of the characters facing you? So you'd gain 22 if you were fighting two level 11's, but by 4 if you fought level 1's... No, that won't work either. Hmm.
For the dice roller, what did you have in mind, exactly? I could throw some Python together, or a JAVA class pretty easily. Other than that, I can do a spreadsheet and not much else. I can't do much outside of Python and Java, unfortunately. While I'm more familiar with Python, I haven't coded in it since this past summer. The easiest on me would be a spreadsheet of some kind, followed by a Python or Java class in about equal amounts of difficulty. It'd be easier for you to use my Java though, I think. So whichever of those you'd rather, or none at all. I wouldn't mind learning a little bit of a new language if I need to, but that may be a little too involved.
About SA, what about giving you 15 HP OR the sum of your opponents' levels, whichever is higher? Thus, you'll always have enough to give newbies a fight (Arms H4X would have 68 HP in comparison the newbies' 82, but could smoke them with specials), but will rise to the challenge if veterans try to fight you.
PS: As for the dream match...
Oh, boy, this is going to be awesome. :D
I should have a couple days this week... Tuesday or Wednesday, I think. I'm beginning to think how I'd do it in a Spreadsheet... I've been working on an autocalculating character sheet for myself recently, so I'm jumping to that.
It'd be awful complex in a sheet though. Maybe Java would be better.
Let's see... Call the class Battle. As part of the constructor, ask for character names on each side and put them in an array...
Do a "specials" phase, where it asks for the specials being used and the round. Have a method for each special that does something, either to everyone in the round or the opponent they face or a named character, depending on the special.
Seems pretty do-able. Do you think we need to keep track of DP? That'll complicate things somewhat, and it would be easier to keep track of that sort of thing at the board level so all Escher has to do is input what's in the posts. :D
Of course, we'll want to know that we're using this system for sure before anyone sinks a couple days into programming a system for the battlemaster :P
Otherwise this'll be a short fight, unless I can get you into the ocean Arms. :P
Even then I don't like my odds. :D
SUPER TURTLE!
It has the power of all turtles combined! :D
Silver: Yeah, I think we should work out DP by hand. Assigning values to everything would be a *****.
Also, I'll be putting up a "Badass Warrior" gallery using characters from the war to exemplify each class playing to win, and we'll see if they can be defeated before pitting them against each other.
As for the Badass Warrior Gallery, they'll have to be in teams unless they're all going to be Melee Specialists.
On that note, while Melee Specialist is most definitely Silver's current class, I think Melee/Magic is closer to the spirit of what I was trying to achieve.
Assuming Melee/Magic ends up being viable, and not curbstomped in the face, of course. And that I bring Silver back - I may end up playing Ranged/Magic character [Invoker] Or maybe a Storm Sorcerer, not sure what class that'd be though. :D
EDIT:
Turtled again, didn't I? Ah well. We are what we are, I suppose. :raincloudLevel: 1
Type: Magic/Ranged Hybrid
Primary Stat: Magic: 1d8
Secondary Stat: Ranged: 1d8
Basic Specials: Wall of Fire
Advanced Specials: N/A
Expert Specials: N/A
Also, we need a standardized stat block. Here's one I thought of:
Level: X
Type: X Hybrid/Specialist
Primary Stat: X: XdX
Secondary Stat: X: X
Tertiary Stat: X: X
Basic Specials: X, X
Advanced Specials: X
Expert Specials: X
Also, you still need to clarify the part about Constitution and your Tertiary point. As I read it, it means that if you pick Constitution as your secondary stat you Can't put your tertiary point into it. Don't make it a compound sentence, make two different sentences.
Why don't you make it that instead of CON giving HP based on level, it just gives you a flat amount of HP ber point of CON? Maybe like 2 per point or something. I'm not quite sure about the expectations for how high CON should be.
It just seems odd that CON and HP scale based on level while everything else does not. Having a high Melee stat doesn't make your Melee capabilities increase every level, so why should CON make your HP do that?
*Just from what I've seen. I haven't been keeping up too closely.
I'll start writing the program sometime tomorrow probably, if that's alright.
As far as standardized stat blocks, I don't like the stacking colons in yours HDI, but if we replaced the last set with parenthesis or brackets I think it'll be ok. Something like:
Level: X
Type: X Hybrid/Specialist
Primary Stat: X (XdX)
Secondary Stat: X (XdX)
Tertiary Stat: X (XdX)
Basic Specials: X, X
Advanced Specials: X
Expert Specials: X
So it looks like the system is pretty solid, except for SA shenanigans and having to adjust HP. Once we fix that, we'll probably be able to proceed to the next phase: items, resources, and logistics.
That said, if everyone else wants to play a RISK-like system, that wouldn't stop me.
So... I guess I'm against a RISK-like. :P
Who's for a RISK like system?
Oh! Oh! ME!
Not RISK - 1
I haven't played Risk but I have played several very similar games. Me did like them.
I think this might cover the lack of coordination thing - it'll be a balance, but I think it could work that way.
(Say you have 20 points worth of territories and 8 players: Two 30% and Six 20%. Each 30% would get 6 units and all the 20% would get 4 units.)
. Now I'll have to make more characters with individual personalities (since someone mentioned multiple units).AWESOME!
thats alot of resurections. Risk has a very high mortality rate.
I'm relatively bored (since I'm not sure if I need to bring the Thri-Kreen's level down and I can't just jump in right now anyway)... I can dig the rules for RISK out and post them in abbreviated form if it would help.
NOW I know what WotC feels like, god damn and good riddiance.
If they did, they failed.
And if they didn't try, it was only because they knew it would fail without him.
Or something.
Thanks guys, the Edition War became the real edition war. *clap, clap*
inb4somesnarkycommentaboutmewhinning
I've noticed that characters that are around too much get old. So, maybe we should have it to where a character can only appear for one EW, so that way when the character leaves, he/she is still likeable, instead of hated. That's my only real issue, but it's not a big one that I have.
Pig, I've been in this since the original war, and I can tell you nobody wants you to quit. People don't realize what they have until its gone. We can work it out. Don't leave like this.
Another EW grognard backs this statement up!
Edit: It's a game for me too. It's like D&D (the game, not our forums), where I've seen many characters which I've grown to like, and which I have helped develop. Don't let the complaints ruin it for you.
Yet I'm the only one that still treats this as a game?
It's never been more than a game to me. *shrug* May not seem that way to any of you, but that's how it is.
I'm not gonna try to influence or pressure you one way or another, it's your call. And I also think, if the GM isn't having fun, then we're doing it WRONG.
I QQ'd too much...to wikipedia!
Why there?
EDIT: Ninja'd. But that's good to hear.
Free RISK rules. Duh. :P
..............You don't own RISK?
That is sad....god damned god brother stole my set...
Everyone in my family except me...
...god damned god brother stole my set...
Violent reactions are needed.
Also, I think I'm gonna ignore arms and play a JPM for the next one.
Does it really detract from a character to be a JPM? I thought it added more RP potential. Y'know, like adventuring to find one of my hidden caches of shiny lewts.
And it will be squad based.
Next war no epic level guys.
And it will be squad based.
He can get to be a JPM by level 7. So it's not epic.
Next war no epic level guys.
And it will be squad based.
No epic levels.
So... ECL 20 is ok? :D
Next war no epic level guys.
Fine by me. I was planning for Scrag and the monk to be roughly level 6, and the rest be nameless mooks.
Huh, should I throw in a Str/Wis Paladin as well?
As in, mooks can still kill them.
I was planning on playing:
Dawn: Lloyd/Alex's first born. Avenger/Swordmage. Her birth was the "dawn" of a new chapter in Lloyd's life. Lloyd is cheesy that way.
Zeke: Lloyd/Alex's second born. A necromancer/archivist/mystic theurge. He wants to be just like daddy was before mommy made him "weak"...
Andrea: Zeke's twin sister. A swordmage/necromancer, who is a lot like a mix between Alex and Lloyd.
Leonard: Aura/Seth's son. A bard/fighter/sorcerer, who is nothing like his parents.
"Nubbers": Anub'reknahamen. Lloyd rezzed him and made him act as the nanny. Lloyd is weird that way.
Ark: A lecherous paladin with a heart of gold.
Arethis: A death knight that is your stereotype knight in shining armor.
Obviously some won't be getting a lot of screen time.
Also... I'm not sure how I feel about it being squad-based. I'm usually a single-character kind of person. I'll see what I can come up with, though. It'll be fine.
Give me a little while. I'll come up with something. ;)
5 unit squads
Strategy: Power in Numbers: Can have 2 extra units in your squad.
Proposed Edition War RISK Rules
In this rule set, players control a “hero” that can in turn control a “squad”. Squads are made up of a hero and up to 10 “units”. A hero gives a squad a benefit, such as increased “speed” or “attack value” or some such. Players play for either the 3rd Kingdom/4th Empire or for the 2nd Editia Republic/4th Remnant.
Battles take place when two squads of opposing factions occupy the same “location”. If two squads are in the same location, both sides roll 3d6 and the side with the lower “value” loses 1 unit, plus 1 additional unit for every 3 points the squad lost by. Battles are determined at 4 pm California time (12 am GST). When a squad is destroyed in a battle, the player’s hero retreats back to their “capitol”. After a squad either retreats from a battle or is completely destroyed, then the opposing squad takes over the location.
Everyday, a squad can move up to 4 “squares” on the “world map”. They can retreat from a battle in this fashion. If a squad moves into a square that is unoccupied and is controlled by the other faction, they can take control of the location, but cannot move anymore squares for that day. Instead of moving, a player can instead reinforce their squad if they are not in a battle. Reinforcing allows a player to gain units to bring their squad’s total up to 10 again.
On Sunday at, 4pm California time (12 am Monday GST), both factions gain 100 units to their pools.
~Hero: The main character under a player’s control. A hero has a special feature that gives a bonus to the hero’s squad.
~Squad: A group of units under control of a hero.
~Units: Used to increase the size of your squad to allow you to fight longer. These are drawn from a pool shared by each faction.
~Speed: The number of squares on the world map a squad can move each day. This is by default 4.
~Value: The roll a squad uses determined by 3d6.
~Attack Value: Value when attacking a location owned by the other faction.
~Defense Value: Value when defending a location owned by your faction.
~Location: A square on the world map.
~Capitol: One of 4 locations owned by a sub-faction. If these are taken, then the other faction, then players of a sub-faction must use their allies’ capitol when they are defeated.
~Square: A square on the world map.
~World Map: All the locations that can be taken.
And who should be Map Master?
Or do we not care about an actual map? :P
"[IMG] Like this?"
:P
|xy|A|B|C|D|E|F|G|H|I|J|K|L|M|N|O|P|Q|R|S|T|
| 0| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 1|i|i|i| |f|f| | | | | | | | | | | | |d| |
| 2| |i| | |f| |o|o|o|u| |u| |n|n|n| | |d| |
| 3| |i| | |f|f|o| |o|u| |u| |n| |n| |d|d| |
| 4|i|i|i| |f| |o|o|o|u|u|u| |n| |n| |d|d| |
| 5| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 6|t|t|t|h| | |i| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 7| |t| |h| | | | |s|s| | | | | | | | | | |
| 8| |t| |h|h| |i| |s| | | | | | | | | | | |
| 9| |t| |h|h| |i|s|s| | | | | | | | | | | |
|10| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|11| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|12| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|13| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|14| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|15| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|16| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|17| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|18| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|19| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
[/overline]
[noparse]
EDIT: Or I can use my mad MS Paint skillz.
And I don't think even pig knows the general way places connect.
I present this new concept! Redshirt 1! Unlike all the other redshirts, he CANNOT be hit! But. He can't hit anything either. He's worse than an imperial stormtrooper in that area.
cannot be hit? Woot! Human shield!
Exactly. BUT. IF you launch him from a catapult at an enemy castle, a barrier will pop up and keep him from hitting it.
But wait. That means the barrier would hit him.
And then the universe would implode!
KICK-ASS. That means that this is the best character I've ever made!
Side note: Should I make his personality like Mr. Garrison's? :D
How about rather than "can't be hit" you could go with "revives at the end of each show". You would have an infinite number of lives.
but.....my universe imploding idea......
I like it! I don't wanna give it up!
Eh, you could just go with 'invulnerable pacifist'. He refuses to strike anyone or dodge, but he's invulnerable. This occasionally leads to him shouting "this is against my principles!" as someone wields him like a club against the iron golem.
booooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooring.
He knows he's a character, created by a freak (me)
He knows that I am pretty much responsible for all the scary crap that's gonna happen to him. He will curse the critical success/fumble charts I dig up. And he will beg for me to stop, and give him some brawds. He will try to warn others of my madness. :evillaugh
That sounds kinda nihistic and angsty to me. Thought you were avoiding that?
No. He'll be more like desperate and crazed. He'll be begging to me.....like how some people go screaming WHY GOD WHY?!
It will be funny as long as I don't overdo it.
Why is it that whenever someone says that their next character wont be angsty or will be less angsty, their new character seems even more so?
He's an ordinary dood, thrust into a violent world. He learns that he's a fictional creation, and now he's trying to butter up to said creator so he gets what he wants.
Wow.....that just made me think of a lot of organizations that you see today.
But he's all sunshine and rainbows, really. He only has flashbacks every three posts. But aside from the constant moans of 'why does my life suck so much?!' he's chipper and and all that jazz. Really.
... this was parody, in case you couldn't tell.
I plan for my next character to be less angsty. Replacing Escher the fairly content (if not necessarily happy) druidic satyr will be Killmaster 15, the 15th goblin trained from birth to be a goblin engine of death. To get to this position he fought his 14 brothers (who all went through the same training) to death in a death match of deathiness.
But he's all sunshine and rainbows, really. He only has flashbacks every three posts. But aside from the constant moans of 'why does my life suck so much?!' he's chipper and and all that jazz. Really.
... this was parody, in case you couldn't tell.
Man, I wanted to play Echo. But if we're starting all over again, I guess I have to come up with someone/thing else ...
Are you still doing the monster faction?
Man, I wanted to play Echo. But if we're starting all over again, I guess I have to come up with someone/thing else ...
Are you still doing the monster faction?
You can be Redshirt 2.
This is my chance to make a crazy monster girl, and I'm going to take it, dammit.
I may bring back a semi-serious (well, she was serious in the other game, but she wouldn't be as serious for this) character from another game that fizzled. My human-turned-medusa who spoke to her snakes. It was never resolved whether or not the snakes actually spoke to her, or if it was just multiple personalities. She was fun, I wish I could have played her longer.
Or maybe something else.
A harpy? A lilend? Hrm, decisions, decisions.
Man, I wanted to play Echo. But if we're starting all over again, I guess I have to come up with someone/thing else ...
Are you still doing the monster faction?
Echo is undead so she can live a long time and you didn't really RP her much so she wouldn't be bringing along a lot of baggage so I don't see why you couldn't still use her...or at least as a side RP character.
General rules, as described by pig
General Outline:
Proposed Edition War RISK Rules
In this rule set, players control a “hero” that can in turn control a “squad”. Squads are made up of a hero and up to 10 “units”. A hero gives a squad a benefit, such as increased “speed” or “attack value” or some such. Players play for either the 3rd Kingdom/4th Empire or for the 2nd Editia Republic/4th Remnant.
Battles take place when two squads of opposing factions occupy the same “location”. If two squads are in the same location, both sides roll 3d6 and the side with the lower “value” loses 1 unit, plus 1 additional unit for every 3 points the squad lost by. Battles are determined at 4 pm California time (12 am GST). When a squad is destroyed in a battle, the player’s hero retreats back to their “capitol”. After a squad either retreats from a battle or is completely destroyed, then the opposing squad takes over the location.
Everyday, a squad can move up to 4 “squares” on the “world map”. They can retreat from a battle in this fashion. If a squad moves into a square that is unoccupied and is controlled by the other faction, they can take control of the location, but cannot move anymore squares for that day. Instead of moving, a player can instead reinforce their squad if they are not in a battle. Reinforcing allows a player to gain units to bring their squad’s total up to 10 again.
On Sunday at, 4pm California time (12 am Monday GST), both factions gain 100 units to their pools.
~Hero: The main character under a player’s control. A hero has a special feature that gives a bonus to the hero’s squad.
~Squad: A group of units under control of a hero.
~Units: Used to increase the size of your squad to allow you to fight longer. These are drawn from a pool shared by each faction.
~Speed: The number of squares on the world map a squad can move each day. This is by default 4.
~Value: The roll a squad uses determined by 3d6.
~Attack Value: Value when attacking a location owned by the other faction.
~Defense Value: Value when defending a location owned by your faction.
~Location: A square on the world map.
~Capitol: One of 4 locations owned by a sub-faction. If these are taken, then the other faction, then players of a sub-faction must use their allies’ capitol when they are defeated.
~Square: A square on the world map.
~World Map: All the locations that can be taken.
Less philsopically, what is to prevent a ground from just walking trhough the enemy forces and taking their back territories without fighting? Mabey make rules about not being able to keep moving after entering a territory with a foe in it. Then one special could be a way to "Hop" a territory, and another mabey to be able to not be seen on the map.
Extra men: Increase max squad size by X.
Onslaught: Add 3 to attack value.
Defensive: Add 3 to defense value.
What happens if there's more then one hero unit from a side present? Do both heros get a shot at the other guy? Only one of them? Do the two from one side just roll 6d6 and crush the 3d6?
Again, speed. Do we want to do the map as nodes and edges (like my example with the world map, but with many more nodes) or the grid? Problems I have with the grid include way too many locations, that it would be hard to see where everyone is, that it's would be difficult to show multiple people in the same location (there would have to be a key, @ is Arms, Pig, and Escher, ! is KGM, DF, and DS, # is just a wandering monster, and so-on). Problems with a node-edge graph instead would be that there would be more 'chokeholds', but that could be seen as a feature, where some locations have tactical advantage.
You mentioned a limit of 'units' that each side has to draw on for their hero units. How would this be determined?
1) Would you care to give me some locations and relativity so I can make a map?
2) Are we settled on rules, or is there more you need to do?
And the rules are mostly done, we just need specials.
I'll review them though. Someone has to proofread and test them, right?
Hmm...I might need to write up a basic sketch with the locations.
And the rules are mostly done, we just need specials.
Well, let's come up with the specials and make a summary thread of what we have so far.
I like the idea of the "node" locations, with having to take each location to progress. This also makes specials to be able to jump from place to place valuable.
Fall back: 1/week instantly move to your capitol.
Offensive: +2 bonus to attack value.
Defensive: +2 bonus to defense value.
No Mercy: Kill one extra opponent per day if you win.
Nuke: 1/week kill two units in an opposing squad in your node.
Fangirls/Fanboys: Add 10 to the number of units regained each week.
Large Company: Increase max squad size by 2.
Well, let's come up with the specials and make a summary thread of what we have so far.
I like the idea of the "node" locations, with having to take each location to progress. This also makes specials to be able to jump from place to place valuable.
How do multiple paths interact with nodes? We'll need those if we want to avoid concentrating all the battles on two or three spots. Would you need all the nodes of all the paths to strike a capital, or just one path, for example?
Pick one:
Fall back: 1/week instantly move to your capitol.
Offensive: +2 bonus to attack value.
Defensive: +2 bonus to defense value.
No Mercy: Kill one extra opponent per day if you win.
Nuke: 1/week kill two units in an opposing squad in your node.
Fangirls/Fanboys: Add 10 to the number of units regained each week.
Large Company: Increase max squad size by 2.
Needs a rules explanation. Right now, I can't gauge the worth of stuff like fanboys and nuke in comparison to Offensive.
Pick one:
Fall back: 1/week instantly move to your capitol. [Obvious movement benefit.]
Offensive: +2 bonus to attack value. [Rolls 3d6]
Defensive: +2 bonus to defense value. [Rolls 3d6]
No Mercy: Kill one extra opponent per day if you win. [Kill 1 + 1/2 points above opponent]
Nuke: 1/week kill two units in an opposing squad in your node. [Squads normally have 2 10 units]
Fangirls/Fanboys: Add 10 to the number of units regained each week. [Sides normally gain 100 units each week]
Large Company: Increase max squad size by 2. [Squad size is 10]
How do multiple paths interact with nodes? We'll need those if we want to avoid concentrating all the battles on two or three spots. Would you need all the nodes of all the paths to strike a capital, or just one path, for example?
Very simple example of what I'm thinking:
No Mercy can be hilariously strong or weak. I still don't know how you can die, so I'm not passing judgement on it yet.
Very simple example of what I'm thinking:
Okay...Fangirls/Fanboys is overpowered. Grossly so, in fact. It's a massive team-wide benefit, to the point it's an extra life for a single character. For comparison purposes, if a team has everyone with Fanboys while another team has everyone with Offensive, Team Fanboys can defeat Team Offensive 100% of the time due to being able to refresh with reckless abandon. It also showcases how the regaining mechanics are b0rked. A small team is more powerful than a big team, up to a point, because they can keep fighting many times, while a big team can be crippled by not being able to refresh its squads appropriately.
No Mercy can be hilariously strong or weak. I still don't know how you can die, so I'm not passing judgement on it yet.
Change fanboys/fangirls to 5?
And I'll scrap no mercy, it overlaps with nuke.
We should use this exact map. Notice how the line on the bottom right doesn't reach the capitol. That's called defensive tactics. ;)
You're a jerk. :P
Though that may be a good special, or thing to happen later on - the paths between nodes can be affected/destroyed, or new ones made.
I like. Although there was going to be 4 capitols, but either way it looks good to be.
I SAID IT WAS VERY SIMPLE EXAMPLE!! Christ! Give me locations, and I'll do a more accurate version. :P
Change fanboys/fangirls to 5?
And I'll scrap no mercy, it overlaps with nuke.
The problem is that it is on a different level from the rest of the specials. You can't balance it, because it works even if you don't post or are dead. The rest require you to fight, meaning a team with a bunch of inactive players could kick butt while a team of active players is comparatively weaker.
You're a jerk. :P
I know.
Though that may be a good special, or thing to happen later on - the paths between nodes can be affected/destroyed, or new ones made.
Yep, we could use some kind of resources or points or something to make new paths and destroy old ones and such.
Can't comment on the map yet, it's not displaying on my comp.
Here's a link:
http://i253.photobucket.com/albums/hh59/Killer_GM/NodeEx.jpg
*Comes back with a video camera* Now you can get all angry. Rawr. :P
The problem is that it is on a different level from the rest of the specials. You can't balance it, because it works even if you don't post or are dead. The rest require you to fight, meaning a team with a bunch of inactive players could kick butt while a team of active players is comparatively weaker.
Players can no longer die. They just go back to the capitol and grab a few units.
Players can no longer die. They just go back to the capitol and grab a few units.
I think this will be cool. It will help keep people interested.
There was nothing that got people to leave the EW more quickly than dying on monday and having to wait until sunday so that they could die on monday/tuesday again.
I think this will be cool. It will help keep people interested.
There was nothing that got people to leave the EW more quickly than dying on monday and having to wait until sunday so that they could die on monday/tuesday again.
And it makes the RP better/more consistent - nobody has to RP while dead, or wait to revive to RP.
Players can no longer die. They just go back to the capitol and grab a few units.
Fall back is b0rked then. The game is too skewed defensively, because the defenders can refresh themselves easily while the attackers cannot and are annihilated. Let people refresh at anytime, or make the offensive specials much stronger (Add "Orbital Bombardments", for example).
Show
:P
Fall back is b0rked then. The game is too skewed defensively, because the defenders can refresh themselves easily while the attackers cannot and are annihilated. Let people refresh at anytime, or make the offensive specials much stronger (Add "Orbital Bombardments", for example).
Um, this might be a good thing as in it will allow for the war to last longer than 2 weeks.
Fall back is b0rked then. The game is too skewed defensively, because the defenders can refresh themselves easily while the attackers cannot and are annihilated. Let people refresh at anytime, or make the offensive specials much stronger (Add "Orbital Bombardments", for example).
Hmmm...
How to word a special that gives a bonus to attackers...
Um, this might be a good thing as in it will allow for the war to last longer than 2 weeks.
It's not if it isn't clearly stated. If Attack and Defense have equivalent specials, you assume they're both equally valuable. If you can't refresh when outside your base, that is not the case. Essentially, it creates a trap for offensively minded players, which is bad. If we go with that, we need to state that offense is weaker than defense openly, at least.
I was going to as you to put it in the OP, but EE started this thread, so you can't.
Maybe you can start a new thread, going forward with the "RISK" rules?