|
RyvenCedrylle posted:Remember, each one of these is ALSO a Background and I think 5 or more Backgrounds is asking a lot for a character. Personally I'd stop at 4 and have a couple run double-duty but generally, that's the idea. Also, I've never seen a 13th Age character with a 19 attack stat. So there you go, ability scores gone, not a ton of houserules. RyvenCedrylle posted:And yeah, I'm totally going to do a Page XX on this. I want to play this character setup now. 
Jackard fucked around with this message at 20:32 on Aug 14, 2013 |
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 20:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 04:41 |
|
|
Actually I am pretty sure the done thing in 13th Age is starting with a 16 in your primary two stats. It is generally better to put 14s in a couple places rather than to min max. That said I do have a character with 20 Strength, but that is a barbarian bear. And my defenses suffer for it. But that is the price one pays to min max.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 20:36
|
|
|
Jackard posted:Would you still be able to swap points between backgrounds? Technically I think you'd be swapping Backgrounds between point spreads, but sure. You'd have to throw out the extra Backgrounding feat also, come to think of it. Jackard posted:Do that and I'll make a character sheet for it Deal.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 20:56
|
|
|
RyvenCedrylle posted:Remember, each one of these is ALSO a Background and I think 5 or more Backgrounds is asking a lot for a character. Personally I'd stop at 4 and have a couple run double-duty but generally, that's the idea. Also, I've never seen a 13th Age character with a 19 attack stat. So there you go, ability scores gone, not a ton of houserules. Yeah, five's a lot, but on the other hand this is on a character sheet that lists no ability scores whatsoever. What you used to be able to say by giving your wizard Con 14 you now say by giving your wizard "University Graduate 2" (he developed amazing stamina by pulling all-nighter after all-nighter)(it'd probably be fun explaining how each background relates to the combat stat it's linked to). I do want to condense things and this post used to have a list of four broad background categories to which you'd assign a variety of 13A combat stats, but it's hard to put things together such that they don't immediately suggest a nigh-mandatory "max these two, ignore these two" or "divide all points as evenly as possible" strategy, which is why I like an utterly straightforward "just buy 'em up piecemeal" approach. Actually, the best thing to do is probably: Power: Attack and damage, whether using primary or secondary ability scores from the class writeup Health: AC: PD: MD: Power's automatically 3 and corresponds more or less to your class, you have seven points to distribute among the others and no secondary background can be more than 3 points higher than any other secondary background. Each new tier (champion and epic), increase your Power by 1 and increase two secondary backgrounds by 1. There's no default initiative bonus but maybe you can buy one for a feat? You certainly don't have to buy feats or talents any more to swap which ability score you use to attack or cast with, sooo. Further backgrounding, wizard training, etc, give you "Specialties" - 1 to 2 to point backgrounds that stack with existing backgrounds for the purpose of skill checks only. You'd also want to reduce environment DCs across the board. Edit: Messed with this a bit Ryuujin posted:Actually I am pretty sure the done thing in 13th Age is starting with a 16 in your primary two stats. It is generally better to put 14s in a couple places rather than to min max. That said I do have a character with 20 Strength, but that is a barbarian bear. And my defenses suffer for it. But that is the price one pays to min max. The way I see it, the choice of base array is between 17/14/14/10 and 16/16/14/10. So, it's really a question of whether you want a +1 attack and damage a little bit later or a +1 to one or two non-attack qualities right now. In a non one-shot, the former seems like the better bet, although if I knew the campaign wasn't getting to champion tier or whatever I'd almost definitely go with the latter. Ferrinus fucked around with this message at 21:25 on Aug 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 21:04
|
|
|
Do people seriously not roll their characteristic scores? Optimum array means jack when you've got a couple of nines a sixteen and a six
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 22:15
|
|
|
I would suspect more than a few don't, given how heavily discouraged it was in 4E and how much this draws from that tradition.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 22:16
|
|
|
But.... I just find it more fun? Maybe that's just me.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 22:18
|
|
|
Rolling for stats hasn't been a thing since the Infinity Engine games. They started presenting it as an alternative to point buy all the way back in Third Edition.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 22:20
|
|
|
I've done rolling in most of my groups. Even then, in the games I DM I've moved to "everyone rolls but anyone can use anyone else's array" because losing the probablistic lottery and having to deal with that for several months of sessions is aggravating at best and doesn't have many advantages.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 22:27
|
|
|
I know, but its an alternative. I guess there's balance between choosing your characters abilities and having them semi randomly assigned. Each to their own, it's something that can exist in concord with point buy and set array. I think t depends on your vision, and how comfortable you are with adapting that vision. Edit: that's why I put a lower limit on the dice rolls that depends on the roleplaying ability of the party. That's also why I like the background system - divorcing skill checks from strength for example could show that you're a weak guy, but have the knack of..... I don't know... Digging a big hole? lenoon fucked around with this message at 22:35 on Aug 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 22:32
|
|
|
Ferrinus whether that is the optimal array or not I do not know. But in my experience most people spread out a number of 14s, before race/class adjustment, going for a more even spread rather than focusing on one, or two, stats to the exclusion of all others. Though like I said there are outliers. My Bear Barbarian for one put an 18 in strength before race/class. But he suffers for it in other areas. That said if he comes up against anything that requires strength and being an unstoppable bear he would be rolling +10, before counting +level.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 22:37
|
|
|
Not to interrupt the rules talk but what ever happened to the Nightfall setting book for 13th Age? All I can find on it is the now very much over Kickstarter. Even the page for Fun Tyrant games appears to have expired. Anyone have any idea what it's current status is now?
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 23:33
|
|
|
Ryuujin posted:Ferrinus whether that is the optimal array or not I do not know. But in my experience most people spread out a number of 14s, before race/class adjustment, going for a more even spread rather than focusing on one, or two, stats to the exclusion of all others. Players optimize for the level range they're playing at. 13th age games on this forum all a) start at level 1 and b) don't get much past that - that's not so much a 13th age thing as it is a symptom of PbP games in general. Starting with a 17 only makes sense if you're going to make it to level 4, and then spend enough time at Champion tier for it to matter. It evens out again at level 7 to the advantage of starting with a 16, and is only really fully superior if you get all the way to level 10 and then keep playing. Starting with a pre-bump 16 gives you better defenses at no cost for 6 out of the 10 levels in the game, and only leaves you slightly behind for 3 of them and your campaign's Final Climactic Battle, taking the reasonable assumption that you're probably not going to keep playing much longer after you cap out on levels. If you ever actually get there.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 23:37
|
|
|
Bellicose Buddha posted:Not to interrupt the rules talk but what ever happened to the Nightfall setting book for 13th Age? All I can find on it is the now very much over Kickstarter. Even the page for Fun Tyrant games appears to have expired. Anyone have any idea what it's current status is now? The 13th Age mechanics guy apparently ran off. That guy was also their internet person. The fluff guy had some problems, but is still working on it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 23:39
|
|
|
PublicOpinion posted:The 13th Age mechanics guy apparently ran off. That guy was also their internet person. The fluff guy had some problems, but is still working on it. Fluff guy has turned in some ridiculously high wordcount(Over 50k words I think? ) to Gau, so he's in no way the hold up. I believe they have found someone to take over the creation of the 13th age mechanics. I believe none of the updates on KS are not backer only so you should be able to read through those and see. Edit: Its over 70k words. Krabkolash fucked around with this message at 16:43 on Aug 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 00:20
|
|
|
Krabkolash posted:Fluff guy has turned in some ridiculously high wordcount(Over 50k words I think?) to Gau, so he's in no way the hold up. I believe they have found someone to take over the creation of the 13th age mechanics. I believe none of the updates on KS are backer only so you should be able to read through those and see. 70k at least I think.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 00:33
|
|
|
I'm running a game for new RPG players, and one problem we've run into is that although backgrounds and icons are both really really good for connecting characters to the world, as new players they haven't quite gotten the hang of getting their characters to mesh with each other. after I played Dungeon World recently, I got the idea to take the Bonds system, blow it up, and plug it into 13a. there are a lot of bonuses, definitely more than enough to outweigh the XP you get for resolving a bond in Dungeon World, but I've always thought it is more fun to grant the players larger, more interesting bonuses and balance by providing greater challenges than it would be to provide measly +1s per day or something. pre:BONDS:
objective: to give 13a characters as much reason to interact with one another as they do the world around them via icons and
backgrounds.
two characters describe their relationship (beyond "they are my teammate.") first impressions are a rank 0 bond; for example,
Rusty the fighter thinks Malthus the paladin needs more training, which Malthus is pretty indignant about. so the bond is
written as:
0: MALTHUS is indignant at RUSTY's attempts to take him under his wings.
when both players and the DM agree this description is no longer accurate at all, rewrite it and increase the rank by 1.
for example, when Malthus and Rusty defeat a dangerous foe together as equals:
1: MALTHUS and RUSTY are comrades in arms.
note that a small change like "malthus admits he is learning something" may not be sufficient, at the DM or players' discretion.
the point is that a bond's resolution reflects a deep change in relationship that should be apparent in roleplay.
bond rank shouldn't be stable or simply a flat bonus-- as part of dungeon world, it should be dynamic and narrative. if two
characters haven't interacted in five sessions, their rank may go down. if a sage teaches two rival party members to get along
via brainwashing, their rank may increase by 2 for a single battle. if characters enter another character's mind, perhaps
their bonds will have even greater effects on the mental landscape.
bond rank, written as +bond from here, has a number of benefits at each tier. the maximum here of 3 is an estimate of how
deep a bond can go across 10 levels; in theory, each bond rank is increasingly hard to resolve as characters grow closer
and interact more easily under their bonds; it may take catastrophe to change strong bonds. if this is not the case, it
is up to the dm to restrict higher level bonds at low levels. note that all ranks encompass previous ranks' abilities.
BOND RANK 0: no benefits. first impressions, available from level 1.
BOND RANK 1: suggested level: 3
Aid: any background check you make specifically to aid a bond takes +bond.
Swap: one battle per day, you and a bond can swap initiative results. you can only do this with one bond per battle,
but you can use this action twice a day total, with 2 different bonds.
Synchronized Attack: once per battle, when you and your bond are next to each other in the initiative order, you can
combine your attacks. attack once using the higher of your two attack rolls +bond. if the attack hits, both attacks
are successful; if not, neither are.
BOND RANK 2: suggested level: 6
+Aid: once per day, reroll a failed check to aid a bond.
+Swap: one battle per day, with one bond, use either the previous Swap move, or share any number of initiative points
with your Bond, i.e. if nav gets an 18 and rip gets an 11, nav can give rip 3 points so nav has a 15 and rip has a 14.
+Synchronized Attack: as the previous synchronized attack, but describe how you and your bond not only attack at the
same time, but combine your attacks. hit or miss, the DM describes how your combination additionally affects the enemy,
enemies, or narrative.
BOND RANK 3: suggested level: 9
++Aid: replaces +Aid. once per day, reroll a failed check to aid a bond with an additional +bond.
++Swap: one battle per day, with one bond, use either of the previous Swap moves, or take the higher of your initiative
checks for both characters.
++Synchronized Attack: as the previous synchronized attack, but if you miss, you may choose to forefeit the dm bonus
from missing to reroll the attack with the lower of your two attack rolls; this reroll does NOT get +bond, nor do you
get to describe the combined attack for the DM bonus.
CLASS BOND BONUSES:
BARBARIAN: when a bond takes damage, deal +bond damage if your next attack this round hits the attacker.
RANK 3: once per battle, deal quarter damage to all nearby enemies when this attack hits
BARD: once per day, allow a bond to reroll a background check with +bond.
RANK 3: before the reroll you can put your reputation as bard on the line to increase the bonus by another +bond,
but if they still fail, the dm describes how this affects you until the end of the battle (or equivalent time).
CLERIC: choose one:
all healing granted to a bond increases by twice +bond.
RANK 3: as above, and +1 to next attack/defense hit, whichever is first
once per battle, an attack or defense bonus to a single bond increases by +bond.
RANK 3: when the bonus ends, you can use one of your recoveries on them
FIGHTER: once per battle, reroll an attack against an enemy engaged with a bond with +bond
RANK 3: hit or miss, your bond can disengage from one enemy free, or roll a disengage against all enemies with
no penalty
PALADIN: once per battle, force an engaged enemy to reroll an attack against a bond with -bond
RANK 3: if they still hit, you may take the damage instead, but shoving their bond out of the way might have
some side-effects, DM...
RANGER: once per battle on a hit on an enemy engaged with a bond, add four times +bond damage
RANK 3: deal the bonus damage even on a miss, but you must describe what wonderful aspect of your bond distracted
you from making the perfect shot.
ROGUE: when an enemy you are engaged with is also engaged with one or more bonds, total +bond to disengage (note that
this is the only class bond ability that can use multiple +bonds at once.). traps take -bond to attacks bonds.
RANK 3: if you fail to disengage, deal your level damage to the enemy.
SORCERER: once per day when you roll your chaotic benefit, choose a bond. when rolling, add or subtract up to +bond;
the chaotic benefit also applies to the chosen bond.
RANK 3: twice per day, but your bonds are left with a sorcerous aftertaste-- roleplay accordingly.
WIZARD: twice per day, at any time, choose a bond. that bond has one modifier of your choice magically enhanced by +bond
for one action, be it a background check, attack, etc. you must choose to apply this bonus before they make a roll.
if the check fails, you and the dm improvise a side-effect, i.e. sprouting chicken wings on a failed dex.
RANK 3: you can choose to apply this bonus after they roll, but it requires both uses.
(you still get to improvise a side-effect, but maybe a less harmful one.)
ikks fucked around with this message at 01:52 on Aug 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 01:44
|
|
|
This thread has been kind of mind-blowing since at least 2 pages of it have been a lot of people getting up in arms a bit over intiative and that is such a meaningless thing to care about.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 03:48
|
|
|
Failboattootoot posted:This thread has been kind of mind-blowing since at least 2 pages of it have been a lot of people getting up in arms a bit over intiative and that is such a meaningless thing to care about. This is a spectacularly useless post! Anyway, poll time - are there any special features anyone would want in a 13th Age character creator? I'm already putting in automation like the ability to have the computer pick the best armor and whether or not to use a shield, but there were other things I was thinking of (build recommendations, stat help, stuff like that), and there's probably a bunch of stuff that I can't even think of.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 03:59
|
|
|
Coolness Averted posted:Kinda shifting gears, is there any other weird corner case math I should watch for in getting players new to this but who've played other D&D games, or traps they might fall into in character creation? The fact that AC, PD, and MD are decided by the middle attribute will probably seem off to a few people. When it comes to amount of spells a wizard, sorcerer, etc. gets per full heal-up, you might want to explain the spell slot system and the spell upgrade system. The mechanics for distance might throw people off. The flexible rolls of the Fighter's maneuver system might require an explanation. The fact that feats are upgrades to class talents will problem lead to some raised hands. I guess some people might question the hit on a miss thing and I suppose mentioning that max level is 10, not 20, is worth mentioning. Besides those things, I can't think of anything that might cause too much confusion to people who have played other OGL D20 games.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 04:00
|
|
|
PlasmaMan posted:I'm running a game for new RPG players, and one problem we've run into is that although backgrounds and icons are both really really good for connecting characters to the world, as new players they haven't quite gotten the hang of getting their characters to mesh with each other. after I played Dungeon World recently, I got the idea to take the Bonds system, blow it up, and plug it into 13a. Flaky Biscuit posted:Anyway, poll time - are there any special features anyone would want in a 13th Age character creator? I'm already putting in automation like the ability to have the computer pick the best armor and whether or not to use a shield, but there were other things I was thinking of (build recommendations, stat help, stuff like that), and there's probably a bunch of stuff that I can't even think of.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 04:19
|
|
|
PlasmaMan posted:I'm running a game for new RPG players, and one problem we've run into is that although backgrounds and icons are both really really good for connecting characters to the world, as new players they haven't quite gotten the hang of getting their characters to mesh with each other. after I played Dungeon World recently, I got the idea to take the Bonds system, blow it up, and plug it into 13a. Giving mechanical benefits to developing and deepening PC relationships is a great way to underline the character focused parts of the game. I like how the class bonuses reinforce the broad central purpose of the class, and how most of them call for more improvisation at their highest level. It's a big improvement over the earlier draft you shared.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 04:26
|
|
|
Would it be worth making a goon effort to create a 13th Age dataset for PCGen or a similar existing generator?
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 04:26
|
|
|
Jackard posted:Printer friendly and the ability to rename stuff like items Seconding this, and definitely include powers/spells on the list of renameable things. I really like this idea a lot, and would consider implementing it in future games.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 04:39
|
|
|
OmniDesol posted:Seconding this, and definitely include powers/spells on the list of renameable things. This brings up another question - the power/spell/talent text isn't actually copyrighted, is it? It would be a lot nicer if I could include it (that would also let me work feats into the power text itself, which is an added bonus).
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 04:49
|
|
|
Flaky Biscuit posted:This brings up another question - the power/spell/talent text isn't actually copyrighted, is it? It would be a lot nicer if I could include it (that would also let me work feats into the power text itself, which is an added bonus). From the book itself, here's what is identified as Product Identity, not open content: 13th age book posted:"All trademarks, registered trademarks, proper names (characters, icons, place names, new deities, ect.), dialogue, banter and comments between Jonathan and Rob, plots, story elements, locations, characters, artwork, and trade dress" I, admittedly, only have the most baseline of business legal educations, but it seems like you're probably okay (everyone please yell at me if I am wrong).
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 04:57
|
|
|
Honestly, send wade an email and have him ask about a character generator and the lengths of what you can add in to it. Heck, he may even have suggestions and get you in contact with others who are working on something like this as well (probably over in the Pelgrane forums).
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 05:13
|
|
|
My first Patreon product came out yesterday and I'm looking to line one up for 13th Age. If you've got a minute filling out this very short questionnaire (2 entries) would help. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 12:51
|
|
|
PixelScum posted:70k at least I think. I talked to the the author, 73k as of this moment so you were correct. Sorry about that, didn't mean misrepresent how much was finished!
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 13:37
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:There's no default initiative bonus but maybe you can buy one for a feat? You certainly don't have to buy feats or talents any more to swap which ability score you use to attack or cast with, sooo. Upon overnight reflection, I think you need to put MD with Initiative. You just don't get hit in the MD that often. It would be the obvious dump if left on its own. Also, you should go read Quinn's post on typed backgrounds.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 13:51
|
|
|
RyvenCedrylle posted:Upon overnight reflection, I think you need to put MD with Initiative. You just don't get hit in the MD that often. It would be the obvious dump if left on its own. Also, you should go read Quinn's post on typed backgrounds. Is that so? I haven't really read all the monsters so I don't know how often each defense crops up. It seems to me that even if MD doesn't currently get much traction, it's SUPPOSED to, so if it's a known problem you could expect GMs to make up monsters with MD attacks, future monster manuals to contain not-mindflayers and so on. Maybe init could be the average of your Ds or something but it shouldn't be premised on the defenses themselves being poorly balanced.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 14:33
|
|
|
Flaky Biscuit posted:I really think it would've been better served by throwing off those shackles.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 15:46
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:Is that so? I haven't really read all the monsters so I don't know how often each defense crops up. It seems to me that even if MD doesn't currently get much traction, it's SUPPOSED to, so if it's a known problem you could expect GMs to make up monsters with MD attacks, future monster manuals to contain not-mindflayers and so on. Maybe init could be the average of your Ds or something but it shouldn't be premised on the defenses themselves being poorly balanced. Even without looking at monster writeups, psychic and enchantment attacks just aren't as common in the genre. More things want to hit you anywhere with a sword, claw or bite than specifically want to hit you in the brain with their brains. Your point is not without merit though, so let's say you always use your middle Background for Initiative. Also, I'm ok shortcutting AC and PD together. The likelihood that the middle of your Con/Dex/Wis is the same as Con/Dex/Str is pretty darn high, especially if you're working the system. Looking at the point baseline, I want a character setup that's efficient but not obviously abusive of the system. A 28 pt. 10/18/18/10/10/10 Rogue (after race/class) has +4 hit/damage, +4 HP, +4 init, +4 AC, +4 PD and +0 MD. Rules-legal? Yes. Poking the rules in the eyes repeatedly while asking "u mad bro?" Also yes. Change that array to 10/16/16/10/14/14 and you have +3 hit/damage, +3 HP, +3 init, +3 AC, +3 PD and +2 MD with a broad range of stats from which to use skills. It's effective, efficient and no one's going to so much as bat an eye at it. A standard 8-pt Background split into +3, +3, +2 using this version of the arrangement now has +3 hit/damage, +3 HP, +3 AC/PD, +2 MD and +3 Init - a perfect replication of our Rogue standard. The only mechanical wrinkle I've found has to do with armor. Letting heavy armor users take their highest Background for AC gives you AC 21 and 22 characters at level 1. Letting them use their highest Background for HP also goes wonky. Not so good. Therefore if you wear heavy armor, you must use your highest Background (or one tied for highest) for MD. So let's say you want to be the guy or gal who writes out a 5pt Background to get +5 hit, damage, AC, PD and skill checks (in light armor). You know what? Go for it. At least I've likely got you beat on initiative and Priestess help you when I do manage to hit you (which I still will about 40-ish% of the time on AC and 55-ish% on PD) because I'm certain you don't have the HP to deal with it. Also, as you said before, any concept can be optimized, or at least not-penalized. I can't rock at EVERYTHING but I can rock at ANYTHING without weird mechanical side-effects. If I want to be the smart Paladin, it's easier in 13th Age with the use of Backgrounds instead of INT-tied Skills. I'm still facing some mechanical penalty just for INT even being there because I need STR and CHA (and maybe CON) to stay combat-effective, meaning I can't jump my INT the way I'd like. If there are no ability scores, problem solved. In conclusion, let me simply quip that some people are mad as hell about being MAD as hell.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 17:18
|
|
|
Hang on, what's the background assignment breakdown you're looking at, there? Is it: 1. Attack/Damage/Secondary Attack Crap/AC/PD 3. MD/Init 4. Health ? Because rolling attack and AC and PD together into a single trait is kinda crazy. +5 to all your attacks and to all but one of your defenses is a total no-brainer, especially if you've still got 3 point left over to shore up your health or something. Like I keep saying, in a system like this I don't think backgrounds should go up to 5 in the first place. Frankly, it's already too good to just take a big broad +5 background rather than diversifying in the first place. Ferrinus fucked around with this message at 17:39 on Aug 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 17:36
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:Hang on, what's the background assignment breakdown you're looking at, there? Is it: It's AC/PD -- MD -- Health. If light armor, do whatever you want. If heavy armor, you have to prioritize MD. Primary attack is your best Background, init/secondary attack is your middle Background. First off, +5 to attack and damage doesn't bother me. The Escalation die already shoots attack bonuses through the ceiling over the course of a fight and 13th Age doesn't have the modifier tricks for damage that 4E did. Also, they will never go past 5. For me, at least, it's a non-issue. Is going +5 the big obvious thing to do? Maybe. In heavy armor, definitely not because that big 5 is stuck in MD. You want to diversify so that you can have 2s and 3s in AC/PD and Health. Sure you could run a 4/4/0 to maximize either Health or AC/PD but then if something goes wrong, the other won't save you. In light armor, your base level adjusted AC tends to be about 13 versus the monster's level-adjusted attack of +5. That's a hit on 9 or better with no stat bonus. If you really want to chuck 5 points into AC to make it a 14, I'm cool with that. You're still probably not as tough as the heavies, walking around with 19 or 20. That leaves the issues of PD and Health. I could deal with a +5 AC/PD on a lightly armored character. I'm still hitting your PD on a 12 or so and enough attacks target PD for it to be worthwhile. +3 to Health is pretty wild in combo, though. The thing is I'm trying to minimize the number of points to spread around. 10 points among four categories to me says "fine, +5 AC, +5 Health and I'll just ride out whatever PD and MD hit for." Hmm.. ok. Next proposition: 8 pts: AC, PD and MD/Init. Health is the lowest of the three (can be 0), can't take AC highest in heavy armor. edit: OR Health, PD, and MD/Init. AC is middle of three. That might even be better. RyvenCedrylle fucked around with this message at 19:06 on Aug 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 18:53
|
|
|
RyvenCedrylle posted:edit: OR Health, PD, and MD/Init. AC is middle of three. That might even be better.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 19:35
|
|
|
Jackard posted:Would this be without the heavy armor complication? Yep, at that point it doesn't matter. edit: no, that doesn't work. 4/4/0 gives you a crazy AC. Light Armor: AC is middle Background. Heavy Armor: AC is lowest Background. RyvenCedrylle fucked around with this message at 19:48 on Aug 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 19:38
|
|
|
So that means possible arrays go: 5/3/0 (max attack, max pd or hp, near max and hp/pd, awful md/init) 4/4/0 (trade one attack for one armor; i'd say strictly worse than the above) 4/3/1... Actually, I don't think I need to finish this list to make the case that any "take the middle for an extra stat" system ends up encouraging dump stats and extreme focus. Two attack beats two to one of your defenses any time, because you use your attack every round but you don't use any particular defense every round, and your attack lets you make stuff happen rather than stop stuff happening. "Ah, but you'll be really vulnerable to psychic attacks!" smacks of merits/flaws logic and the kind of vengeful, time-based balance that points to level one wizards as a justification for level twenty wizards. I'm telling ya - just cap this stuff at 3. Or, at this point, just give characters 2/2/1 to their defenses, 3 or 4 to their attacks, and call it a day, because the whole point is to avoid these silly games, not shuffle them elsewhere. Alternate solution: everyone is allowed to name their ability scores whatever they like. They have to be different and have to represent innate qualities rather than past experiences, so "crackling with power" works but "lifetime academic" doesn't.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 19:51
|
|
|
Alright, we can shelve this but before we do, I'm curious about something.Ferrinus posted:So that means possible arrays go: The Escalation die hands you ever-increasing attack bonuses for free. I won't get more defense as the battle goes on (and if my enemy uses the Escalation die also, they'll actually get worse!) but I will continue to pick up attack bonus. Combine that with the lack of reliable ways to alpha-strike or deliver absurd damage and abilities that become more efficient with higher Escalation dice and it seems to me that attack bonus may not be quite so much better than defenses?
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 20:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 04:41 |
|
|
RyvenCedrylle posted:The Escalation die hands you ever-increasing attack bonuses for free. I won't get more defense as the battle goes on (and if my enemy uses the Escalation die also, they'll actually get worse!) but I will continue to pick up attack bonus. Combine that with the lack of reliable ways to alpha-strike or deliver absurd damage and abilities that become more efficient with higher Escalation dice and it seems to me that attack bonus may not be quite so much better than defenses? This is actually something I forgot to address last time. I didn't object to someone being able to pick up +5 attack because, wow, +5, so high! You're absolutely right that the escalation die means that high attack bonuses for PCs are the norm, which is good because high attack bonuses mean that player turns are more likely to advance the fight rather than minimally affect it. I object to players being able to pick +5 attack instead of something else, because attack is more valuable than defense. It's not insanely better - if you offered me either +1 attack or +2 to every defense, I'd probably choose the defenses, for example - but I think it clearly wins out in any kind of 1 for 1 trade, such that if you can have either +1 hit or +1 AC the +1 hit is clearly superior, and even +1 hit or +1 to every defense probably comes out in favor of the attack bonus, because "I hit you and you hit me" is cooler and more interactive than "I miss you and you miss me". I think limited defense for defense tradeoffs are good things (as in, I can have 14 PD/11 MD or 12 PD/13 MD but I can't have 20 PD/5 MD), but attack for defense tradeoffs are always going to be questionable. The more lopsided you're allowed to make your attack/defense ratios, the more game balance ends up relying on intermittent grognardy comeuppance for hubris (thought you could dump your HP/AC/PD/MD, did you? well now you're going to regret it because of the way these new enemies work!!) and there ends up being a widely-known-to-be-optimal attribute spread either way.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2013 21:57
|
|