PDA

View Full Version : (New RPG) Rogue: Clandestine Operations (comments are welcome)



Pages : [1] 2

Kensen
2011-11-30, 07:22 AM
This is a design thread for my Rogue: Clandestine Operations (working title) RPG. The main design goals are:

the game is streamlined for PbP but can be played tabletop as well
the default setting describes a low-magic medieval world but is modular enough to allow customization for different settings
the main focus is infiltration and assassination jobs, and the scope of the rules and how the mechanics balance out are chosen with that in mind.


Setting

In the default setting, player characters are medieval resistance fighters that undertake dangerous missions in an attempt to throw off oppressive government (who are pretty much medieval Nazis). For example, they may attempt to infiltrate a castle to steal specifications a device that may change the course of the resistance war.

The tech level is similar to real-world medieval times, but may include some clockpunk. Most of the time, magic and advanced technology are indistinguishable.

The rules of the game are updated in a system reference document. The SRD is available in HTML (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0AjfBKMVc1_KcdGxNN0pMdlIzRG8tcXZsajNfMkU0S nc&output=html) and PDF (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0AjfBKMVc1_KcdGxNN0pMdlIzRG8tcXZsajNfMkU0S nc&output=pdf). (Hosted by Google Docs)

Kensen
2011-12-01, 03:18 AM
(Outdated information removed. See the System Reference document, link above.)

Kensen
2011-12-01, 06:47 AM
(Outdated information removed. See the System Reference document, link above.)

Yitzi
2011-12-01, 09:42 AM
Looks likely to be fun. If you decide to actually start a game with this system, let me know.

Kensen
2011-12-01, 10:09 AM
Looks likely to be fun. If you decide to actually start a game with this system, let me know.

Thanks! I intend to run a playtest sometime soon, and I'll let you know when I start recruitment.

BarroomBard
2011-12-01, 03:17 PM
Color me interested. A game focused on stealth and subterfuge rather than combat is a cool idea.

How is the game tuned for PbP, since that is one of your stated goals?

Kensen
2011-12-01, 05:06 PM
Equipment

All standard equipment will be statted in the game rules (eventually). These include ignition & illumination equipment (flint+steel, torches, lamps, oil, etc.), observation equipment (spyglass, magnifying glass, etc.), method of entry equipment (lockpicks, crowbar, ladder, rope, grappling hook, etc.), weapons, armor, clothes/disguises/props, entry/pursuit denial equipment (hammer+nails, iron spikes, caltrops, grease, marbles, etc.) and so on.

Specialized equipment deserves a special note. Much like James Bond has Q, and Ezio has Leonardo, the medieval spies working for the resistance also have a quartermaster who supplies them with the latest infiltration tools and assassination weapons. Better yet, the player characters can order equipment crafted according to your specifications. The player works with the GM to create unique but balanced new tools and weapons.

Example

Cane sword

This object looks like an ordinary wooden walking stick with a metal grip, but the cane is in fact a sheath for a slender sword-like blade. When unsheathing the blade for the first time, the user has to make a Gadgetry (TN 20) check to figure out how the unlocking mechanism works.

When unsheathed, the blade grants a +2 bonus on your Fighting skill.

Yitzi
2011-12-01, 09:27 PM
Example

Cane sword

This object looks like an ordinary wooden walking stick with a metal grip, but the cane is in fact a sheath for a slender sword-like blade. When unsheathing the blade for the first time, the user has to make a Gadgetry (TN 20) check to figure out how the unlocking mechanism works.

When unsheathed, the blade grants a +2 bonus on your Fighting skill.

You'd better also put in the Awareness TN (which may or may not depend on the wielder's stealth skill) to detect what it really is.

Also, I notice that there are no opposed checks; instead, there is always one that's "taking 10". Is that intentional?

Cieyrin
2011-12-01, 09:37 PM
Color me intrigued. The skill part seems fast but how is equipment going to be managed? Since we're rogues and rebels, I assume some of it's going to be looting and fencing of goods. It probably involves the Quartermaster in one way or another, so I guess we'll wait and see.

I'd love to playtest some of this, if its half as fun as the Goblins TRPG was. Pity that didn't pan out, since there was plenty of material written for it already.

Laura Eternata
2011-12-01, 09:37 PM
I'm intrigued. I'd definitely be interested in participating in that playtest once you're ready.

So, how does the combat work? I notice a lack of hit points or a similar mechanic. What happens when a character gets hit?

Oh, and the title is awesome. Don't change it.

Howler Dagger
2011-12-01, 09:42 PM
it's usually "one hit, one kill", i.e. very fast and lethal combat.

That is how combat damage works. You make an attack roll, if it hits, it kills.

Vixsor Lumin
2011-12-02, 03:57 AM
Hmmm it sounds very fun and interesting. I've never tried PbP so ill probably sit it out but ill definitely be watching it on the PbP thread so maybe ill play next time?

Kensen
2011-12-02, 04:49 AM
Color me interested. A game focused on stealth and subterfuge rather than combat is a cool idea.

How is the game tuned for PbP, since that is one of your stated goals?

Combat is usually what makes PbPs slow, so I want combat to be as fast and easy as any other skill use. You try to open a lock - if you roll high enough, you succeed. Similarly, when you try to kill a human guard - if you roll high enough, you succeed. You can use the Fighting skill to achieve other results, too, such as disarming or rendering the opponent unconscious.

Also, there won't be any out-of-turn actions like attacks of opportunity that require another player to react, and for the same reason, there will be few or no opposed rolls, which makes action resolution faster. (Using opposed rolls works just fine as an optional rule, though.)

Other than that, character creation is fast and easy and there won't be many rules to learn, so you won't have to invest a lot of time to get started. You use the same mechanics everywhere (1d20+relevant mods vs TN), and no other types of rolls are needed. (For example, separate damage rolls do not exist.)


You'd better also put in the Awareness TN (which may or may not depend on the wielder's stealth skill) to detect what it really is.

Also, I notice that there are no opposed checks; instead, there is always one that's "taking 10". Is that intentional?

Yes, that's a good idea. An Awareness check (TN 20, for example) reveals that the weight and balance of the object is unusual for a cane of its size.

When a character tries to achieve something actively, you make a skill check. When a character reacts to something rather than acting himself, you'll use 10 + skill modifier. Opposed rolls can be used, but that's an optional rule.


Color me intrigued. The skill part seems fast but how is equipment going to be managed? Since we're rogues and rebels, I assume some of it's going to be looting and fencing of goods. It probably involves the Quartermaster in one way or another, so I guess we'll wait and see.

I'd love to playtest some of this, if its half as fun as the Goblins TRPG was. Pity that didn't pan out, since there was plenty of material written for it already.

Basically, (in the default setting) you'll be briefed on the mission and based on the intel, you'll devise a plan - as simple or detailed as you like. The quartermaster sees to that you'll get all the equipment you'll need to get the job done. If you don't ask for anything too weird (like ten crates of dead kittens), no questions will be asked. I won't be putting price tags on equipment (at least not for the playtest phase), but if you requisite something very expensive (like a 1000-gp spyglass...), the quartermaster will kindly ask you to return it in one piece and functional.

Since you're a bunch of rogues and rebels (and some of you may be ex-criminals) it's ok to steal any equipment the feudal fascists have lying around in their fortresses and mansions, and if you forget to report it back at the HQ, you'll have some personal equipment, too. :smallwink:


I'm intrigued. I'd definitely be interested in participating in that playtest once you're ready.

So, how does the combat work? I notice a lack of hit points or a similar mechanic. What happens when a character gets hit?

Oh, and the title is awesome. Don't change it.


That is how combat damage works. You make an attack roll, if it hits, it kills.

In a nutshell, that's how it works. I may later add some conditions like injured, incapacitated and so on, so that there are other possible outcomes, too. Naturally, you can move and do other things than just attack during a hostile encounter, I'll write more about that later.

And thanks, I'm glad you like the title. :smallsmile:

Yitzi
2011-12-02, 07:19 AM
Yes, that's a good idea. An Awareness check (TN 20, for example) reveals that the weight and balance of the object is unusual for a cane of its size.

An important tip (and this applies to any game anyone is designing): As a general rule, there should be no tactic that cannot be countered by the right build. (Conversely, there should be no build that counters every single tactic.)

Also, is there some way for someone with a high Stealth skill to sneak along someone with a lower one? (Otherwise, everyone on the mission needs a high Stealth skill to make it worth getting most of the time.)

Kensen
2011-12-02, 08:07 AM
An important tip (and this applies to any game anyone is designing): As a general rule, there should be no tactic that cannot be countered by the right build. (Conversely, there should be no build that counters every single tactic.)

Also, is there some way for someone with a high Stealth skill to sneak along someone with a lower one? (Otherwise, everyone on the mission needs a high Stealth skill to make it worth getting most of the time.)

I agree, for every tactic there should be a counter-tactic.

A high Stealth isn't an absolute must, though it will certainly be useful. I like to think that a good game or adventure always has at least two, preferably three or more ways to tackle a problem.

You need a very high Stealth if you're planning to sneak into a room, steal a guard's keys and get out without the guard even realizing someone was there. However, an average or even low Stealth is enough most of the time if at least one person in the group is a Stealth specialist who can scout ahead and warn the others if he spots an enemy.

Another way to avoid hostile encounters is to "hide in plain sight", i.e. use disguises. A character with decent Guile can pretend to be a guard or even a high-ranking officer if he can aqcuire a disguise. To use modern terms, some areas are "public" while others are "restricted" (and some such areas are more restricted than others). To access restricted areas, you either need an escort, or a security clearance or ID of some sort, e.g. an uniform or falsified (or stolen) papers. And a good story in case someone starts asking questions.

Yet another way to access restricted areas is to use Mobility. Instead of walking in, you scale walls, jump from rooftop to rooftop and pick a route where there aren't many guards because they didn't think anyone would be so crazy as to try what you did.

Yitzi
2011-12-02, 10:10 AM
Another way to avoid hostile encounters is to "hide in plain sight", i.e. use disguises. A character with decent Guile can pretend to be a guard or even a high-ranking officer if he can aqcuire a disguise. To use modern terms, some areas are "public" while others are "restricted" (and some such areas are more restricted than others). To access restricted areas, you either need an escort, or a security clearance or ID of some sort, e.g. an uniform or falsified (or stolen) papers. And a good story in case someone starts asking questions.

Clearly. But of course it's often difficult to have half the party use that approach (or mobility) and half use stealth.

Kensen
2011-12-02, 11:28 AM
Regardless of the approach, it is likely that one or two of the characters in the group are better at the relevant skill than the rest of group. If they choose to don disguises and talk their way in, the party face is going to do the talking while the rest of them keep mum. If they do it the stealthy way, one of them scouts ahead and the rest of them follow. And so on...

But I don't see a problem there. If the adventure is well-designed, the PCs cannot just use Guile or Stealth at every turn. Rather, they're going to have to use all their skills, and therefore every character gets a chance to shine.

Anyway, if the playtest proves that Stealth needs fixing, I'll be sure to try what you suggested.

SamBurke
2011-12-02, 11:47 AM
Count me interested in a playtest!

I think there might be too many skills given out, though.

It seems like you get to get decent skill points in all of the skills... maybe give some specialization bonuses?

Also, I don't think getting stabbed in the leg is an insta-kill, so I'd have an "area map" of where you hit. Torso/head, definite kill. I'd also include conditions, and maybe weapons with special attacks (Saps? Whips? Nets? Tasers? or the like). Very simple system, but pretty robust.

Laura Eternata
2011-12-02, 03:44 PM
Hit points (or any equivalent) do not exist - it's usually "one hit, one kill", i.e. very fast and lethal combat.

...In my defense, I was really tired last night. Sorry.

And I kind of agree with SamBurke. All characters seem to be at least pretty good at most skills even at the very beginning of the game. You might want to tone that down a bit, or characters won't have to specialize, which seems to be what you're aiming for. I'd recommend lowering the starting XP to 60 or so, and possibly giving Trained Skills more of a bonus.

Yitzi
2011-12-02, 03:50 PM
What will naturally force specialization to some degree is that you usually will use a single skill to solve an encounter, and most adventures will be solvable with more than one skill. On the flip side, you do want some balance, and a more balanced skillset is cheaper per point.

Eldest
2011-12-02, 06:05 PM
I would be interested in playtesting as well on a PbP.
I would also recomend maybe adding another two skills, and possibly grouping them and and having possible atributes? As simple as a plus 1/2 to one group and minus 1/2 to another.
Of course, that would remove the simplicity, so feel free to ignore it.

Kensen
2011-12-03, 03:23 PM
Count me interested in a playtest!

I think there might be too many skills given out, though.

It seems like you get to get decent skill points in all of the skills... maybe give some specialization bonuses?

Also, I don't think getting stabbed in the leg is an insta-kill, so I'd have an "area map" of where you hit. Torso/head, definite kill. I'd also include conditions, and maybe weapons with special attacks (Saps? Whips? Nets? Tasers? or the like). Very simple system, but pretty robust.


...In my defense, I was really tired last night. Sorry.

And I kind of agree with SamBurke. All characters seem to be at least pretty good at most skills even at the very beginning of the game. You might want to tone that down a bit, or characters won't have to specialize, which seems to be what you're aiming for. I'd recommend lowering the starting XP to 60 or so, and possibly giving Trained Skills more of a bonus.


What will naturally force specialization to some degree is that you usually will use a single skill to solve an encounter, and most adventures will be solvable with more than one skill. On the flip side, you do want some balance, and a more balanced skillset is cheaper per point.

If you specialize in just three skills and use your xp evenly, you'll get skill bonuses as high as +9 and +8. If you want to play a jack of all trades, all your skill bonuses will be +5 or +6. In D&D, which uses similar action resolution mechanics, a 1st-level character with max ranks in a skill and an ability score of 18 will have a skill bonus of +8 (or better if he has the right feats). So, if the TNs are roughly as high as their D&D equivalents, I don't see a problem there.

Also, it is reasonable to assume that some characters are experts in their field even before they join the resistance. A 40-year-old resistance fighter who was a locksmith before the resistance war, for example, might have poor Stealth and Mobility but a +10 bonus in Gadgetry and decent Legerdemain. A self-taught ex-burglar and street gang member, on the other hand, would probably be more of a jack-of-all-trades type of a character. He would have decent bonuses in at least Mobility, Stealth, Gadgetry, Awareness and Fighting, and quite possibly also in Guile or Legerdemain.

When facing an easy challenge (TN=10), untrained characters have a 55% chance of success, skilled (+5 bonus) characters have a 80% chance of success, and expert characters (+10 bonus) have no chance of failure. If critical failure occurs when you fail to check by 5 or more, only unskilled characters have a chance of critical failure. Sounds about right to me.

Master (+15 bonus) and grandmaster (+20 bonus) level characters can tackle most challenges in their chosen field without even breaking a sweat, but they're in trouble if run into something they cannot defeat with their best skills. A jack of all trades, on the other hand, will probably never reach that level of expertise. The war is over before they can amass that many xp. :smallbiggrin: Both approaches to character building have their advantages and disadvantages, and a group will probably benefit from having both types of characters.

Laura Eternata suggested that I decrease the xp allowance to 60. What about the rest of you, what do you think would be a good amount of starting xp? Would you also change the cost of gaining the first rank in a skill, or something?

Targeting body parts or having several attack types sounds like a fun idea, and I had something like this in mind as well. A successful attack vs legs would immobilize the target, an attack vs hands might disarm the target, and so on. And some weapon types would be better for special attacks than others. A glaive or bow, for example, would be well suited for attacks vs the legs, whereas a club would not. These attacks would be useful when you have to capture the target instead of killing him.


I would be interested in playtesting as well on a PbP.
I would also recomend maybe adding another two skills, and possibly grouping them and and having possible atributes? As simple as a plus 1/2 to one group and minus 1/2 to another.
Of course, that would remove the simplicity, so feel free to ignore it.

I don't know if attributes are necessary. With such a small skill list, it might just increase complexity. But do tell what skills you would add?


Hmmm it sounds very fun and interesting. I've never tried PbP so ill probably sit it out but ill definitely be watching it on the PbP thread so maybe ill play next time?

You're welcome to join the playtest if you wish, or a later game if you'd prefer that. Actually, having a diverse group of playtesters if better than a bunch of "experts". :smallsmile:

SamBurke
2011-12-03, 03:49 PM
Comparing it to DnD skills may not be the best analogy, but I see your point anyway.

Will you DM the playtest?

Eldest
2011-12-03, 03:53 PM
I don't know if attributes are necessary. With such a small skill list, it might just increase complexity. But do tell what skills you would add?

Lore: Roll to know something rare or unusual. Could also be rolled to deal with any magic the party runs across (I would recomend not letting the party have any magic of it's own).
Not sure about the second skill. I'll think about it.

Kensen
2011-12-03, 05:31 PM
Yeah, it's not like DCs in D&D are perfectly balanced. But it's the system I'm most familiar with, and it's the part of the rules where D&D and Rogue: Clandestine Operations most resemble each other. So I don't have to re-invent the wheel, I'll just use what I like and change what I don't.

Yes, I intend to DM the playtest, why? The playtest rules won't be perfect, just a first draft, so someone else might interpret the rules differently than I've intended. Of course, I hope that sometime in the future someone else, too, will want to run a game because it'd be cool to be able to play as one of the player characters and see how thing work from a player's perspective. And if you have any ideas for what would make the playtest scenario fun and interesting, please share. :smallsmile:

Actually, if there are more than 4 playtesters (which seems to be the case), there'll be two groups and I'll run the same scenario twice and see how similar or different solutions you'll come up with.

I actually considered including a Lore skill back when I started designing the skill set. Why I decided against it was that in other games, I've always thought it's odd that it's random whether you know something or not. I thought I'll let the GM decide whether a character knows something or not, based on his backstory - this also rewards players who put effort into writing a backstory. Adding the skill is not necessarily a bad idea, though. It really depends on how often situations where the characters try to recall some obscure lore come up (this is my first criterion for skill selection). Perhaps in a spy/infiltration game, knowing or not knowing something should not determine whether you can successfully complete a mission nor is it a "core competence" of spies/assassins/saboteurs (this is my second criterion).

I don't know, really. What do you guys think?

I also thought about adding a Performance skill, but rejected the idea because it's really not one of infiltrators' core competencies. Therefore, it's an RP skill and not something the players should sink their hard-earned xp in.

Anyway, here's my to-do list of things I have to get done before we can start the playtest. If you have ideas, suggestions or something else to help me with the following, let me know:


Expanded descriptions for skills, including examples of what you can do with the skill, TNs for various tasks, or a way of calculating them. For the time being, I'll use DCs from D&D as a guideline. When in doubt, use TN 15 (average difficulty). How you can help: Ask me questions like "If I want to throw an axe, which skill should I use?" and I'll make sure those aspects of skill use will be covered in the playtest rules.
Description of how "tactical rounds" work (basically the same as combat rounds in other games, but the rules also apply to situations where the characters are not fighting but timing and distances matter. The description should define what actions you can take during your turn in a tactical round. The basic rule is "you can move and attack". How you can help: Again, ask questions. Like "Would I be able to do this and that in one round." I'll try to write the rules to be so clear that there won't be any need for those questions once you've read the rules.
Equipment list and descriptions for standard equipment. How you can help: Tell me what equipment the character you intend to play in the playtest would be most likely to need.
Scenario for the playtest. How you can help: Tell me what sort of setting you would like the best (e.g. castle, mansion, urban neighborhood, monastery, theater) and what tropes and themes you would want to see/play (e.g. assassination, rescuing prisoners, cultists, masquerade ball).

Vixsor Lumin
2011-12-04, 01:46 AM
You're welcome to join the playtest if you wish, or a later game if you'd prefer that. Actually, having a diverse group of playtesters if better than a bunch of "experts". :smallsmile:

Alright you've convinced me haha :p id love to join the the playtest (not that it took much convicing the whole idea for this seems really cool)

Vixsor Lumin
2011-12-04, 02:00 AM
Ok as far as equipment my playtest character intends to use; a small easily concealed dagger, a scarf that can be pulled around the face without obscuring vision to hide isdentity, some form of make up or disguise kit. A scenario for the platest: I think something multi staged, like stealing some papers from a low ranking noble while planting evidence. Then breaking in to somewhere with higher security to assasinate someone high ranked. Round question: would I be able to draw and attack with a concealed weapon in one turn? What about throw it? Non concealed weapon? As for the skills I think that the ones you have are good, but would gadgetry also include McGuyver-ing something up?

I also love that your rewarding back story in game :smallbiggrin:

Kensen
2011-12-05, 03:24 AM
Ok as far as equipment my playtest character intends to use; a small easily concealed dagger, a scarf that can be pulled around the face without obscuring vision to hide isdentity, some form of make up or disguise kit. A scenario for the platest: I think something multi staged, like stealing some papers from a low ranking noble while planting evidence. Then breaking in to somewhere with higher security to assasinate someone high ranked. Round question: would I be able to draw and attack with a concealed weapon in one turn? What about throw it? Non concealed weapon? As for the skills I think that the ones you have are good, but would gadgetry also include McGuyver-ing something up?

I also love that your rewarding back story in game :smallbiggrin:

Ok, scarves and other ordinary clothes/accessories are readily available, so no problem there. The disguise/makeup kit is also ok; you can change your appearance somewhat, and your Guile check determines how well you can pull off your new look. And yes, a small dagger can easily be concealed.

Equipment generally comes in three size/encumberance categories: small, medium and large.

Small items are small enough to carry in a pocket. They're easy to hide (in your boot or up your sleeve, for example), and cause no Mobility/Stealth penalties if you carry them on your belt. Example: Dagger, roll of lockpicks. Drawing a small item takes no action if you're carrying it on your belt, on a bandolier, or similar easy to reach place. If the item is concealed, however, it takes a TN 15 Legerdemain check to do that. A sheath specifically designed for that purpose (a wrist sheath, for example) decreases the TN to 10.

Medium items can be carried in a backpack without penalty, but carrying them on your belt causes a -1 Mobility/Stealth penalty. Drawing a medium item from a sheath takes an action, or at least one full round if you retrieve it from your backpack. Example: Grappling hook, Short sword & sheath.

Large items are too big to carry in a backpack. They can only be carried in your hands, or a sheath/holster specifically made for them, but the latter causes a -2 penalty on Mobility/Stealth. Drawing a large item from its sheath takes an action.

You have two actions per round, so you can, for example, move and throw a dagger, or draw a sword and attack. Sometimes you don't have to spend an action if you roll high enough in a particular skill. For example, if you're running down a corridor, you can make a DC 20 Mobility check to make a somersault and pick up something on the ground without stopping. During the playtest, you can just ask me "can I do this" and I'll give you the TN.

Yes, you can do some McGyvering with Gadgetry.

Thanks for the ideas for the scenario. :smallsmile:

Vixsor Lumin
2011-12-05, 02:53 PM
How often is the ability to skip using an action going to come up? Are there things we have to spend two actions on? Does it take two to pick a lock? Does loading a crossbow count as an action? You said in an earlier comment that team work was more important than maxing out fighting, so is there a way we could use our actions at the same time?

I don't think it would work in the middle of combat but maybe for a tactical round. Say Shawn and Azoth are hiding on either side of a hallway with a rope between them but its laying slack on the floor. Could they both use an action to pull on it and clothesline the guard coming down the hall?

You wanted descriptions and ideas for standard equipment right? Well since I think most of the gear a character would want would be specialized for the mission, what if you just say if the Quartermaster has it or not? The only things I think everyone will have is: clothing, a weapon (bow, sword, dagger, sap) and maybe some rope or something. The rest is specilized equipment. The grappling hook for the Mobility ninja, longsword for the former soldier who specd in Fighting. Lockpicks for the Legerderman(sp?) Theif. Things like that, if you want to stay light on your feet then you carry your gear that you need and have everyone else do the same

BarroomBard
2011-12-05, 03:00 PM
Will there be some form of parry or counter-attack rules? I ask because when I think about this game, two things that come up immediately are Assassin's Creed and Splinter Cell. Both these games portray a cunning rouge who fights by attacking the unaware, and dodging the attacks of guards.

Perhaps a rule where, if a Fighting check is missed by a certain amount (I'd say if you miss by an amount greater than your opponent's armor) your opponent gets a bonus to their next Fighting check against you?

Yitzi
2011-12-05, 03:55 PM
Lockpicks for the Legerderman(sp?) Theif.

Lockpicking would be gadgetry. Legerdemain is more like picking pockets or drawing a hidden item.


Will there be some form of parry or counter-attack rules?

I think that's the point of getting your Fighting bonus added to the DC to hurt you in melee, provided that you're aware.

Vixsor Lumin
2011-12-06, 12:50 AM
Lockpicking would be gadgetry. Legerdemain is more like picking pockets or drawing a hidden item.

Oops hahaha thanks :smallsmile: but reading this gave me an idea, what if you do something that fell under more than one skill? Like discreetly picking a lock? Would that fall under Legerdemain, Stealth, or Gadgetry? If im trying to rig the portcullis of a castle to fall at some point, while disguised as a repairman of some kind, would I need a Guile check to maintain my disguise or would they just assume that what I'm doing is what I'm supposed to be doing?

Kensen
2011-12-06, 05:38 AM
Good questions, keep them coming! :smallsmile:


Q: How often is the ability to skip using an action going to come up? A: It's probably impossible to try to list all the situations where it might come up, so I'll let the players attempt such stunts whenever they feel like it. By default, the TN is 15, but the GM (that's me in the playtest) has the right to adjust the TN if the player attempts something ridiculously difficult. We'll see how well it works that way.
Q: Are there things we have to spend two actions on? Does it take two to pick a lock? A: Yes. Spending both actions on your round to pick a lock sounds about right to me. Retrieving an item from your backpack also takes a full round to do.
Q: Does loading a crossbow count as an action? A: I'd say one action for a small crossbow, and two actions if it's big enough for military use. As a balancing factor, crossbows are easier to use and better at piercing armor, so they grant a bigger bonus on Archery checks than bows.
Q: Is there a way we could use our actions at the same time? A: Yes. I'll call it the coordinate meta-action for the lack of a better term. :smallbiggrin: Whenever you and your ally are next to each other on the initiative track, you can coordinate your actions to occur simultaneously. For example, if you coordinate your attack actions against the same target, you both get the +4 bonus even if, technically speaking, player A posted his actions first and player B had not attacked yet. Clotheslining an opponent should work within the rules. I'd say you use your Fighting skill to make the attack with the rope, and if you succeed, the target is knocked prone and stunned, so you can easily take his weapon and/or stab him in the heart.
Q: ...what if you just say if the Quartermaster has it or not? A: This is how it works in the "resistance fighters" setting. Save for any ridiculously expensive gear, you get the equipment you want, but carrying too much causes Stealth&Mobility penalties, and if you're trying to talk your way past guards with your backpack full of burglary equipment, you've got to have a really good explanation. So, take what you need, but no more than is absolutely necessary.
Q: Will there be some form of parry or counter-attack rules? A: As Yitzi pointed out, they're already included (sort of). Of course, it could be argued that the fighting stance of an experienced fighter makes it hard to find openings, and that's what the bonus to your defense represents. I might add a parry/dodge action to the rules, so you can make a Fighting check (or two, if you use both your actions) to try to actively block the first one or two attacks that would otherwise hit you. We can use it in the playtest, and see if it feels too reduntant or not.
Q: ...if a Fighting check is missed by a certain amount ... your opponent gets a bonus to their next Fighting check against you? A: I'll think about it. Giving the foe another chance to kill you might be enough of a punishment, though.
Q: what if you do something that fell under more than one skill? Like discreetly picking a lock? Would that fall under Legerdemain, Stealth, or Gadgetry? A: A Gadgetry check would be required, of course, to determine whether you can successfully open the lock. If you're trying to open the lock while hiding in a shadow, you'd also make a Stealth check. If, on the other hand, you're standing where everyone can see you, but you're trying to disguise your activity as something else (such as pretending you have the key but the lock is jammed), it'd be a Guile check.
Q: If im trying to rig the portcullis of a castle to fall at some point, while disguised as a repairman of some kind, would I need a Guile check to maintain my disguise or would they just assume that what I'm doing is what I'm supposed to be doing? A: If they have ordered a repairman, and you have some kind of false ID, you'd only need a rather easy Guile check to convince you're doing what you're supposed to be doing. But if you have no ID and no-one has ever complained about a malfunctioning portcullis, it'd be a devilishly tough Guile check.

Kensen
2011-12-06, 05:59 AM
Actions in a tactical round

Here's a summary of what has been discussed above about actions:


no action: Drop an object (carefully placing an object on the ground requires an action, though)
no action: Draw a small item or ammunition
1 action: Attack (attacking twice causes a -4 penalty on both attacks)
1 action: Move
1 action: Parry
1 action: Pick up an object
1 action: Draw a medium or large item
1 action: Load a small crossbow
2 actions: Load a heavy crossbow
2 actions: Pick a lock
2 actions: Retrieve item from backpack


Anything you have to spend two actions on, you can start on one round and finish it on next round.

Comments/questions?

SamBurke
2011-12-06, 12:08 PM
Could you update/post links in the OP to all the various parts? Thanks.

Kensen
2011-12-06, 05:14 PM
Could you update/post links in the OP to all the various parts? Thanks.

Yes, a good idea. I'll do that as soon as I have the time. :smallsmile:

Machinekng
2011-12-06, 05:42 PM
Interesting.

What sort of magical elements are you introducing? Is the deafult setting an alternate version of earth or a new fantasy world?

Vixsor Lumin
2011-12-06, 06:05 PM
I think that parrying and counter attacks should only be used if you have a high fighting score. I think a TES style thing could work here. The higher your score the more abilities you have in it. Fighting starts as swinging a weapon, then to finding holes in an opponents defense, then you can counter attack. Archery you can make target specific parts of the body, arms for disarming, legs for crippling, heart for increased damage, eyes for blinding, and finally into the throat to silence and kill in one go im sure something can be figured out for the rest.

Kensen
2011-12-07, 07:56 AM
I updated the first and second posts with things we've been discussing.


Interesting.

What sort of magical elements are you introducing? Is the deafult setting an alternate version of earth or a new fantasy world?

All magic is low-key. It mostly exists in the form of magic items. Magic items tend to be bizarre (or rather, often misunderstood because no identify spells exist), and the reasons for which they were originally created are long forgotten. Magicians and magical creatures - if they exist at all - are very rare.

It's a new fantasy world that in many ways resembles our world. :smallbiggrin:


I think that parrying and counter attacks should only be used if you have a high fighting score. I think a TES style thing could work here. The higher your score the more abilities you have in it. Fighting starts as swinging a weapon, then to finding holes in an opponents defense, then you can counter attack. Archery you can make target specific parts of the body, arms for disarming, legs for crippling, heart for increased damage, eyes for blinding, and finally into the throat to silence and kill in one go im sure something can be figured out for the rest.

I'll think about it.

For the rules governing special attacks/targeting body parts, I'll take a purpose-oriented approach. Usually, the purpose of an attack is to kill the enemy, so that's the standard attack you can make with most weapons. If varying degrees of success have different effects, a minor success would only result in a wound, which would weaken the opponent or possibly cause the opponent flee in panic.

Sometimes you have to capture an enemy, and in this case the purpose of the attack would be to knock the enemy unconscious. Generally speaking, blunt weapons have this special attack option. A minor success would make the target stunned.

Sometimes you have to stop an approaching or fleeing enemy, but for one reason or another you cannot kill or knock them unconsious. In this case, the purpose of the attack is to immobilize them. A minor success would make the target slowed.

And sometimes you are not authorized to harm the target or don't have the time to first knock them unconscious and then revive them. Or you just don't have the right weapon to kill them. That's when you use disarm.

And so on...

SamBurke
2011-12-07, 11:08 AM
So... when does the play test begin?

Kensen
2011-12-07, 02:27 PM
We can start the playtest as soon as all relevant parts of the rules are complete enough. And I have to write the playtest scenario, of course. It'll take a few days.

I don't know if people want to start a game right before the holidays, though. (?) But anyway, I'll post the actual recruitment thread within a few days. We can decide the starting date there.

Yitzi
2011-12-07, 03:55 PM
Just make sure to PM me, as I don't really look at that forum.

Vixsor Lumin
2011-12-07, 05:58 PM
Id appreciate a pm but I'll probably just check thee recruitment thread once you say its up

Eldest
2011-12-07, 10:25 PM
Or he could just post a link to the recruitment thread here?
I'm going to be away from a computer for the next few days, so if you put up the recruitment thread while I'm gone keep in mind I'm interested.
So basically don't close recruitment really fast.

Vixsor Lumin
2011-12-08, 12:55 AM
I was looking at the equipment rules and I had a few ideas/questions: would someone intending to use gadgetry need to carry something for components? It would be similar to a casters component bag but instead of random casting materiel, it would have adhesives, nails, tools and maybe schematics. Another question, in the interest of statting weapons, what weapons are you envisioning? So far I've seen sword, dagger, sap, glaive, bow and arrow, and club. Oh and the sword cane :smallwink: are there any others you want to add? Spear? Halberd? War hammer? Is there gun powder?

Kensen
2011-12-08, 03:06 AM
At the very least, I'll post a link here. I'll probably also send a PM to everyone who's expressed interest so far.


I was looking at the equipment rules and I had a few ideas/questions: would someone intending to use gadgetry need to carry something for components? It would be similar to a casters component bag but instead of random casting materiel, it would have adhesives, nails, tools and maybe schematics. Another question, in the interest of statting weapons, what weapons are you envisioning? So far I've seen sword, dagger, sap, glaive, bow and arrow, and club. Oh and the sword cane :smallwink: are there any others you want to add? Spear? Halberd? War hammer? Is there gun powder?

More than anything, you'll need tools to use Gadgetry. Nails, etc. will also be useful. It really depends on what you want to accomplish. Bypassing or disarming a trap only requires some tools, but modifying or repairing a device might also require spare parts. You can always improvise if you don't have the right tools or materials, but the TN will be higher.

For the playtest, we only need the weapons and equipment you and the guards going to use, so I won't be statting out everything just yet.

Kensen
2011-12-08, 08:32 AM
The recruitment thread is up. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=12343310#post12343310)

BarroomBard
2011-12-09, 03:38 PM
What is the "brace" number some of the weapons have?

SamBurke
2011-12-09, 04:34 PM
Brace is an old word for pair, as in, "A brace of dueling pistols."

Vixsor Lumin
2011-12-09, 07:10 PM
I have serious doubts about it meaning a pair in this case. How would you duel wield a crossbow? I think it means you get +1 to your attack on top of the other weapon bonus, if you brace it against something. Ie laying prone, setting it on a window sill, etc.

Kensen
2011-12-09, 07:11 PM
Sorry, I forgot to explain the term. I meant brace = support the crossbow against something so you can shoot more accurately. You get the +1 bonus on your Archery check if you spend a round to brace the crossbow against a structure. So, an arbalest (heavy crossbow) is better than a bow when you're in a good sniping position, while the bow is better is you have to fire and move each round.

Kensen
2011-12-10, 02:45 AM
Now that dual wielding has been mentioned, I should note that I intend to work fighting with two weapons into the rules somehow. But it's probably going to be just a small bonus to parrying (if your second weapon is a parrying dagger (also known as main gauche, which is French for left hand), for example. Or a small bonus to offset the heavy penalty on attacking twice in a round.

Yet another thing I totally forgot to mention is that if you try to throw a melee weapon not designed for throwing, you lose the Fighting bonus on your attack roll. Conversely, a throwing knife isn't well suited for melee combat, and you get no bonus on melee attacks, defense or parrying, but a throwing knife is still sharp and pointy, and you can inflict lethal wounds with it more easily than with your bare hands.

Speaking of bare hands, which Cieyrin asked about in the recruitment thread, currently they're a +0 melee weapon that you can only use for knocking an opponent unconscious, much like a sap/baton. Of course, once the opponent is unconscious, you can strangle him to death. Let's say it takes a full round to kill someone you've knocked unconscious. So, unarmed combat doesn't compare well with armed combat, but only in Hollywood is it a bad idea to bring a knife to a fist fight. :smallbiggrin: Of course, a thug (Fighting +1) attacking Chuck Norris (Fighting +15?) with a knife is going to have his behind handed to him, but only because Chuck has spent decades of his life to master unarmed martial arts.

Then there's garrote (strangle wire). I don't know how big a bonus I should assign to that weapon, but I'm going to give it a +2 bonus so that there's a reason to use one instead of a knife. Another benefit is that you can very easily disguise a garrote as part of your clothes or conceal it since it takes up virtually no space. The caveat is that you can only use it against an unaware opponent. If your initial attack with it fails, you're out of luck. It could be argued that the benefits outweigh the disadvantages, and I may decide to lower the bonus to +1 after the playtest.

Thoughs, comments, questions about these rules?

SamBurke
2011-12-10, 02:51 AM
Works for me, though I think unarmed is a really, really, unusually bad way to fight, unless you have some pretty good skills.

I'd say ninjas, Chuck Norris, and similar martial artists, are going to have Fighting of more like 30.

Vixsor Lumin
2011-12-10, 03:45 AM
They seem good to me, but I have little experiance with homebrew so I'm not sure if I can make a fair assesment. Wasn't there also a question about poisons?

Kensen
2011-12-10, 05:17 AM
Ah yes, the knockout poison. The quartermaster manages to obtain a vial of knockout poison, which should be enough to affect a large man, or two smaller targets. If the target ingests a sufficient dose of the poison, he'll start experiencing mild nausea and dizziness in 1-5 minutes. A minute after the symptoms begin, the target passes into a stupor which lasts for 2-4 hours.

Cieyrin
2011-12-10, 09:42 AM
Ah yes, the knockout poison. The quartermaster manages to obtain a vial of knockout poison, which should be enough to affect a large man, or two smaller targets. If the target ingests a sufficient dose of the poison, he'll start experiencing mild nausea and dizziness in 1-5 minutes. A minute after the symptoms begin, the target passes into a stupor which lasts for 2-4 hours.

Aw, good, good. Just gotta play off the initial symptoms as 'guess he can't handle his liquor!' and go from there. There's a reason a lot of medication tells you not to drink alcohol with it. :smallwink:

Vixsor Lumin
2011-12-12, 04:33 AM
What are our movement speeds? Is it affected by Mobility? I'm thinking maybe you could try to roll for mobility to move more than your movement speed.

Cieyrin
2011-12-12, 11:39 AM
What are our movement speeds? Is it affected by Mobility? I'm thinking maybe you could try to roll for mobility to move more than your movement speed.

I think you're overthinking this, as it should probably be normal speeds for people and use Mobility for when it matters, like if you outrun or lose a pursuer, etc, etc.

Vixsor Lumin
2011-12-12, 01:31 PM
Hahaha ok I like yours better

Kensen
2011-12-13, 03:06 AM
When tactical rounds are used, your speed is 5 per action. So, if you take a "double move", you can move 10 squares. With a Mobility check you can increase your speed as per the skill description.

I don't know if that's an elegant way to handle tactical movement, but we'll see how it works in practise.

Vixsor Lumin
2011-12-13, 03:15 AM
When tactical rounds are used, your speed is 5 per action. So, if you take a "double move", you can move 10 squares. With a Mobility check you can increase your speed as per the skill description.

I don't know if that's an elegant way to handle tactical movement, but we'll see how it works in practise.

Ok I think that works. On Team Garrote's map does 1 . Equal 1 square?

Kensen
2011-12-13, 03:41 AM
Ok I think that works. On Team Garrote's map does 1 . Equal 1 square?

Yes, the ...'s are floor squares.

Kensen
2011-12-20, 03:16 PM
Rules that need to be added, updated, clarified or rewritten:

* Wounds and recovery: While combat is fast and lethal and shall remain that way, it is usually fair to give the characters a chance to recover from their wounds.

* Two-weapon fighting rules: TWF shall not be so good as to be a no-brainer, nor should it be completely useless.

* Drawing while moving and other simultaneous actions.

* Item rarity and/or legality classes: poisons, uniforms and other rare items. For example, a good way to limit the availability of such items is to give max 1 rare item per person for each mission. Legality classes: restricted, military or illegal.

* Moving, fighting and using skills in the dark, and illumination effects.

* TNs for building a prototype or a copy of a design, and material availability penalties and bonuses when using Gadgetry

* Initiative rules.

* All new objects shall be added to the list: wrist sheath, garrote, poison, staff, hunting/bodyguard license, uniforms and other disguises.

* Other benefits from ranks than just +bonus: Should some skill uses be "trained only"? Should higher ranks unlock other benefits?

* Dirty tricks, improvised weapons.

* Possible new skills: Physique (resist poison, tough it out, break things),
Throwing, Medicine (examine, revive), Explosives, Lore?

Anything else that should be added or clarified? Any ideas on how to implement the suggested changes above?

Eldest
2011-12-20, 03:40 PM
Rules that need to be added, updated, clarified or rewritten:

* Wounds and recovery: While combat is fast and lethal and shall remain that way, it is usually fair to give the characters a chance to recover from their wounds.

Maybe a four step health system: you're fine, wounded, crippled, dead.

* Two-weapon fighting rules: TWF shall not be so good as to be a no-brainer, nor should it be completely useless.

I like the current idea. Maybe say you can't attack with the same weapon twice a round, so if I wanted to attack twice I would need a knife in the other hand?

* Drawing while moving and other simultaneous actions.

Have one be the main action (like the moving) and don't make them roll for that. The other (like the drawing) would be a suplemental action and you'd have to make a roll for it. Maybe a TN around 15?

* Item rarity and/or legality classes: poisons, uniforms and other rare items. For example, a good way to limit the availability of such items is to give max 1 rare item per person for each mission. Legality classes: restricted, military or illegal.

No idea, sorry.

* Moving, fighting and using skills in the dark, and illumination effects.

Move at half speed without penalty, if you move faster/try other stuff have a penalty to the roll (-2 to -5, depending on what they're trying to do).

* TNs for building a prototype or a copy of a design, and material availability penalties and bonuses when using Gadgetry

Also no idea.

* Initiative rules.

If you want to make it one skill, I'd recomend any of Awareness, Fighting, or Mobility. Or just tell people to use their best skill out of those three to roll.

* All new objects shall be added to the list: wrist sheath, garrote, poison, staff, hunting/bodyguard license, uniforms and other disguises.

Don't need my help here.

* Other benefits from ranks than just +bonus: Should some skill uses be "trained only"? Should higher ranks unlock other benefits?

No, and yes. Maybe steal an idea from D&D and have high ranks (11+) in a skill give a bonus to one or two other skills.

* Dirty tricks, improvised weapons.

Seems like it fits the best under Fighting. Maybe have people with at least 6 in Fighting be able to do an ability, 8 do another, 10 another, etc. Then you'd have to make similar stuff for the other skills, though.

* Possible new skills: Physique (resist poison, tough it out, break things),
Throwing, Medicine (examine, revive), Explosives, Lore?

Have Throwing work with Archery, Explosives with Gadgetry, and I like the other three.

Anything else that should be added or clarified? Any ideas on how to implement the suggested changes above?

Suggestions are in green.

Yitzi
2011-12-20, 04:12 PM
Another idea: If someone devises a cover story or lie that simply can't work (it contradicts known facts that the target will know as well), they're entitled to a Guile check to realize that and not use it.

Vixsor Lumin
2011-12-20, 05:33 PM
I like the added ranks unlocking new things, but I think you should still be able to try things untrained. If my character got seperated from my team, and couldn't make untrained checks, I would die. I can lie a little and shoot stuff that's it. I wouldn't be able to fight in close quarters, I couldn't steal anything, experiance shows that a simple lock is my mortal enemy, etc. But I can still try things which I love.

I really like the idea for the 4 step health system. And maybe add a penalty at each one and require some kind of kit to heal someone. That way people can't just say, "ill fight till I'm crippled and run away." It adds more fear of danger to the game but not enought to not take risks.

EDIT: also if you add new skills I think you should boost the starting exp pool a little. I felt it was perfect for what we had but I would want to add some ranks in medicine if we had started with it, but I wouldn't want to hurt my stats at all. I already took from guile so I could have a higher archery

Kensen
2011-12-21, 11:58 AM
I understand why you like the idea of a four-tier health system better than the binary healthy/dead system, but that would also make the game more difficult and combat much slower. If it takes three hits to drop an enemy, he'll have a plenty of time to raise an alarm, and a round of surprise attacks becomes much less effective if you only manage to wound your opponents, not kill them.

Also, it'll take three times as many rounds to play a battle. I like the idea that it doesn't take days or weeks (OOC) to find out who wins. I also think real-life swordfights were usually short and brutal, not to mention bows and other projectile weapons you can use to one-shot an enemy from a distance.

If I give the PCs four tiers and NPCs only two tiers to remedy the above problem, the odds become oddly skewed in the PCs' favor, and in the current scenario you would not have had to resort to any sort of guile or subterfuge to capture the captain.

How would you solve these problems?

Currently the system is rather gritty, but what I had in mind was that a hit doesn't usually result in instant death. Your allies can revive you and you can continue the mission, albeit with some penalties, much like Laura's character did. That way it's still quite gritty but also forgiving.

I really like what Eldest suggested for initiative. It's brilliant in its simplicity and I also had something similar in mind, so I'm going to use that. In other words, when you roll init, you can use the best of Awareness, Mobility or Fighting to roll.

Vixsor Lumin
2011-12-21, 12:15 PM
What if, like my character, you have two of those that are the same? I have Fighting 0, Awareness 4, Mobility 4.

SamBurke
2011-12-21, 12:18 PM
Suggestion: You have to beat the fighting roll by a certain amount; every 3 you beat it by, the next category up of damage you deal.

Let's say the TN is 10, and the attacker rolled 19; they dealt 1 damage rank, moving their target from Fine down to Wounded. However, they had +9 extra to the roll, so they did 3 extra categories of damage (9/3=3). That way, if you do decently, you'll kill people anyway (as in real life), but if you dodge well, you kill, too.

Also, say that you get a massive penalty at wounded, and are incapacitated/unconcious at crippled. To end combat, you now only need to move enemies down to incapacitated. This'd be like punching your enemies, the way they do in movies.

Almagesto
2011-12-21, 12:26 PM
You could also try taking a look at the Hitman series for PC. It's a really good way to start he brainstorming needed for your assassination ops.

Vixsor Lumin
2011-12-21, 12:29 PM
Suggestion: You have to beat the fighting roll by a certain amount; every 3 you beat it by, the next category up of damage you deal.

Let's say the TN is 10, and the attacker rolled 19; they dealt 1 damage rank, moving their target from Fine down to Wounded. However, they had +9 extra to the roll, so they did 3 extra categories of damage (9/3=3). That way, if you do decently, you'll kill people anyway (as in real life), but if you dodge well, you kill, too.

Also, say that you get a massive penalty at wounded, and are incapacitated/unconcious at crippled. To end combat, you now only need to move enemies down to incapacitated. This'd be like punching your enemies, the way they do in movies.

Aaww but I liked killing people in one hit :smallfrown: and it has the potential to screw archery. If I cripple a guy on a roof top and he falls out of view, he could have a teammate heal him which brings him back up and I have to keep killing him.

Maybe PC's get three: fine, wounded, dead. And NPC's get two: fine and dead. This is excluding special attacks, like shot in the leg, disarmed, getting hit with a sap, and things like that

Cieyrin
2011-12-21, 01:23 PM
Aaww but I liked killing people in one hit :smallfrown: and it has the potential to screw archery. If I cripple a guy on a roof top and he falls out of view, he could have a teammate heal him which brings him back up and I have to keep killing him.

Maybe PC's get three: fine, wounded, dead. And NPC's get two: fine and dead. This is excluding special attacks, like shot in the leg, disarmed, getting hit with a sap, and things like that

Trained people are more likely to kill or maim at their leisure, thus bring those skill bonuses more to bear. In your case with the falling maimed guy, wouldn't he take more damage from falling off a roof? Hurt people aren't so good at making soft landings, y'know.

Kensen
2011-12-21, 02:42 PM
I've thought about having different effects for "varying degrees of success" (I think I probably mentioned that somewhere earlier in this thread...) but haven't been able to decide how it should work, exactly.

In a way, Seira in the playtest went through three different conditions: that of being "fine", then being stabbed in the gut and losing consciousness and a lot of blood (I decided that killing her would have been too cruel so I gave her allies a chance to revive her), and finally, being patched up (with some penalties). So basically, the condition track would look like this: Fine -> Dying -> (Bandaged) -> Dead. If a dying or bandaged character is hit again (or say, falls off a roof... :smallbiggrin:) he'll die. That way, you don't have to "kill" the same soldier over and over again. You only live twice... per scenario. :smallbiggrin:


What if, like my character, you have two of those that are the same? I have Fighting 0, Awareness 4, Mobility 4.

That's easy to answer: the best of 4, 4 and 0 is 4, of course. :smallwink: Doesn't matter which skill of the three skills you use, only the bonus matters.


You could also try taking a look at the Hitman series for PC. It's a really good way to start he brainstorming needed for your assassination ops.

I've read some articles about the games but never played them. Assuming that you had the time to read through the playtest rules (in the first two posts of this thread), what things in particular would you recommend borrowing from those games?

Laura Eternata
2011-12-21, 03:55 PM
I personally thought the method used for Seira was perfectly fair. You should probably increase the penalties, though; I can't speak from experience, but I imagine getting stabbed in the gut would be a bit more impactful than rendering the stabbee 10% less mobile. :smallwink:

There should also be a time limit. If Bob the Fighter gets shot and is found an hour later, it's probably too late to save him.

Also, for initiative, can archery be substituted for fighting if the character is wielding a ranged weapon?

Eldest
2011-12-21, 05:22 PM
I actually meant for the fine-wounded-crippled-dead scale be for when you recover. So it depends on now badly you got hit for how well you recover. The actually damage was still meant to be fine-not fine.
And the wounded would give -2, and the crippled -4. Fine and dead have obvious effects.

Kensen
2011-12-22, 09:39 AM
I personally thought the method used for Seira was perfectly fair. You should probably increase the penalties, though; I can't speak from experience, but I imagine getting stabbed in the gut would be a bit more impactful than rendering the stabbee 10% less mobile. :smallwink:

There should also be a time limit. If Bob the Fighter gets shot and is found an hour later, it's probably too late to save him.

Also, for initiative, can archery be substituted for fighting if the character is wielding a ranged weapon?

Yes I agree, the penalties should be heavier than just -2 on one skill.

And yes a time limit makes sense. Maybe the amount by which the attack roll beat your TN should determine how much time you have left. If your enemy beats it by 5, you only have a minute or so to receive first aid. If he beats it by 10, you'll die if you don't receive first aid within one round. Or something like that... If a medicine skill exists, the skill check should also affect the time after which a character can still be revived.

I'd say no to substituting archery for fighting when rolling for initiative. Shooting doesn't develop a similar sense of timing and instinctive defenses like close-quarters fighting does... well that's how I see it. :smallconfused: Seira should not have a problem with that as her Awareness is even better than her Archery. :smallsmile:


I actually meant for the fine-wounded-crippled-dead scale be for when you recover. So it depends on now badly you got hit for how well you recover. The actually damage was still meant to be fine-not fine.
And the wounded would give -2, and the crippled -4. Fine and dead have obvious effects.

I'll think about this condition track you suggested and the similar four conditions I discussed above, and I'll have to decide how these penalties interact with hits that aren't intended to kill the target, such as targeting the legs.

Laura Eternata
2011-12-22, 10:26 AM
And yes a time limit makes sense. Maybe the amount by which the attack roll beat your TN should determine how much time you have left. If your enemy beats it by 5, you only have a minute or so to receive first aid. If he beats it by 10, you'll die if you don't receive first aid within one round. Or something like that... If a medicine skill exists, the skill check should also affect the time after which a character can still be revived.

I don't know about the medicine bit. I guess it depends on the severity of the wound. In Seira's case, the most she could have done to stop the bleeding was cover the wound with her cloak, which most people would do despite a complete lack of medicinal training (case in point, me. :smallbiggrin:) Physique would make more sense, assuming you add that skill as well. Unless I misunderstand it, it seems to basically be Shadowrun's "Body" stat, representing physical prowess and general toughness. To me, that seems to be what would keep an injured character alive, even if they're unconscious and unable to administer any kind of medical attention to themselves.


I'd say no to substituting archery for fighting when rolling for initiative. Shooting doesn't develop a similar sense of timing and instinctive defenses like close-quarters fighting does... well that's how I see it. :smallconfused: Seira should not have a problem with that as her Awareness is even better than her Archery. :smallsmile:

I suppose you're right. Archery training would be more focused on accuracy than speed, come to think of it. And I wasn't concerned about Seira; I've had a blast throughout the playtest and plan to use these rules myself once they're complete, so I was just looking for clarification.

Kensen
2011-12-23, 12:32 AM
I don't know about the medicine bit. I guess it depends on the severity of the wound. In Seira's case, the most she could have done to stop the bleeding was cover the wound with her cloak, which most people would do despite a complete lack of medicinal training (case in point, me. :smallbiggrin:) Physique would make more sense, assuming you add that skill as well. Unless I misunderstand it, it seems to basically be Shadowrun's "Body" stat, representing physical prowess and general toughness. To me, that seems to be what would keep an injured character alive, even if they're unconscious and unable to administer any kind of medical attention to themselves.



I suppose you're right. Archery training would be more focused on accuracy than speed, come to think of it. And I wasn't concerned about Seira; I've had a blast throughout the playtest and plan to use these rules myself once they're complete, so I was just looking for clarification.

I meant the Medicine skill of the character administering first aid. :smallsmile: But the Physique stat should also affect your ability to withstand injuries.

If you use the rules in a PbP or tabletop game, I hope I get to hear how it goes, and if there's any rules-related feedback, I could use it to further develop the game. :smallsmile:

Vixsor Lumin
2011-12-23, 04:44 AM
Is Aly still in the game?

SamBurke
2011-12-23, 11:49 AM
Yes, I am... I'm just stalking, because there's not much my character can actually *do*, with my skills.

Vixsor Lumin
2011-12-23, 12:09 PM
Ah, gotcha

Cieyrin
2011-12-23, 12:24 PM
Yes, I am... I'm just stalking, because there's not much my character can actually *do*, with my skills.

Not necessarily true, as a clever idea can make up for lack of skill. Like in the Rook's version of the scenario, my character is not trained at all in Fighting yet grabbed onto the nearest thing to extricate himself anyways. At this point of the game, a smile from the RNG can still beat DCs. As long as you're not trying to bust through walls like the Juggernaut as an 80 pound sick guy or picking a lock with a needle in the dark when you barely understand how a doorknob works, you should be fine. It's a playtest, we're supposed to be testing. :smallbiggrin:

SamBurke
2011-12-23, 01:56 PM
Well, I can pick locks like a baus, that's for sure.

Laura Eternata
2011-12-23, 08:14 PM
I meant the Medicine skill of the character administering first aid. :smallsmile: But the Physique stat should also affect your ability to withstand injuries.

Oh.

Well, alrighty then! :smallredface:

(My reading comprehension fails me yet again...)


If you use the rules in a PbP or tabletop game, I hope I get to hear how it goes, and if there's any rules-related feedback, I could use it to further develop the game. :smallsmile:

I will. If I can talk my brother into it, we'll try a one-on-one game tonight and I can get back to you tomorrow.

BarroomBard
2011-12-27, 04:57 PM
I think a good solution for the wound tracks idea, would be to use the idea of Mooks and Tough Guys used in many RPGs. Most NPCs will be Mooks, simple, one hit minions who go down easy. Important NPCs would be Tough Guys, who have wound tracks like PCs.

Laura Eternata
2011-12-27, 11:59 PM
Well, the impression I got from both the playtest and the game I'm currently running in person (don't worry, everyone, I'll be back with a full report once it's done!) is that the game really isn't designed for "bosses." Commanders and the like die just as easily as everyone else in reality, which this system represents quite nicely. Sure, it leads to TPKs more often than D&D or even Shadowrun, but in my experience that's part of its charm. As I believe Kensen said at some point, their's nothing wrong with using wound tracks as alternate rules for live play, but at least in PbP (which is what the game's designed for) it's just quicker and easier to have everyone go down in one shot.

In my game, I've instituted a "glancing blow" system (if a character's attack roll misses by one point, they deliver a glancing blow instead, which gives a -1 to fighting and archery or fighting and mobility as determined by a 1d2 roll until the end of the battle), but I think that would just get annoying in PbP.

Speaking of my game, I have a question for you, Kensen. What do you consider to be "average" scores in each ability? I've been using 3, which seems to be working, but I'm curious as to what you had originally intended.

IcemanJRC
2011-12-28, 11:38 PM
I am highly interested. So far the system seems sound and I'd appreciate a place in the next playtest. Until then I fill pop in periodically to contribute to discussion. Good job indeed.

Vixsor Lumin
2011-12-29, 12:43 AM
My team seems to have dissapeared :smallfrown: we should probably hurry this up so the rooks can run the second part

Eldest
2011-12-29, 11:23 AM
I'm here. And bored.
@IcemanJRC: You would probably join the Garrotes, as the Rooks (my team) has four people and they only have three.

Snowfire
2011-12-29, 12:19 PM
I...wow. I like. I like a lot!

It sort of reminds me of a much simpler version of the old Mechwarrior RPG - the level of lethality etc.

Please count me in for the next playtest, if you can take another player. I'd really like to see how this plays.

Kensen
2011-12-30, 06:35 AM
I think a good solution for the wound tracks idea, would be to use the idea of Mooks and Tough Guys used in many RPGs. Most NPCs will be Mooks, simple, one hit minions who go down easy. Important NPCs would be Tough Guys, who have wound tracks like PCs.

For some particularly (inhumanly) tough opponents, I might include some special rules like this, but most bosses are just as fragile as their underlings and their enemies. This is one of the things that sets this game apart from many popular, more heroic RPGs like D&D. Underhanded tactics are the norm here because a "fair fight" will easily get you killed.

However, they have other advantages that allow them to stay alive longer. Von Richter, the playtest villain, for example, cannot be killed in the scenario because he has important information. Real-life villains stay alive because they are paranoid and they've taken precautions, and villains in this game should follow their example rather than that of high fantasy villains.


Speaking of my game, I have a question for you, Kensen. What do you consider to be "average" scores in each ability? I've been using 3, which seems to be working, but I'm curious as to what you had originally intended.

I'm thrilled to hear you're running a game in person, and I'm looking forward to hearing more about how it went. :smallsmile: A skill rank of 3 might be a good "average" value for NPCs. In the playtest, Von Richter had an array of 6, 5, 4, 3, 0, 0, 0, 0 while his minions had 5, 4, 3, 2, 0, 0, 0, 0. They should be equivalents of 65 xp and 50 xp, respectively. Having 3 points in each skill would cost 64 xp, nearly the same as Von Richter's point-buy.

It's good to remember that the skill set is designed around the rebels' needs, and most Invictus soldiers simply don't need Gadgetry or Legerdemain, for example. Therefore, "standard" guards and soldiers should only have 50-75% of the PCs xp allowance. If you want to create an NPC on the fly and you don't have time to calculate xp costs, giving him a +3 or +4 bonus on all skill checks might work just fine.


I am highly interested. So far the system seems sound and I'd appreciate a place in the next playtest. Until then I fill pop in periodically to contribute to discussion. Good job indeed.


Please count me in for the next playtest, if you can take another player. I'd really like to see how this plays.

Thanks, I'll contact you when we'll start the second part of the playtest. :smallsmile:


My team seems to have dissapeared :smallfrown: we should probably hurry this up so the rooks can run the second part

Mattock's still active and Aly's waiting. Should be over in a few days. :smallsmile:


I'm here. And bored.
@IcemanJRC: You would probably join the Garrotes, as the Rooks (my team) has four people and they only have three.

I'll open a new recruitment thread for you sometime soon. You can use your current character or create a new character if you want to try something new. We can transfer team members between the teams as well if the continuity gap doesn't bother you. This is a playtest so I'm not so concerned with a small continuity issue, personally.

EDIT: There are some improvement suggestions and things I haven't commented on yet - I'll try to answer all questions once I have the time to start updating the rules for the second part of the playtest.

SamBurke
2011-12-30, 12:18 PM
My team seems to have dissapeared :smallfrown: we should probably hurry this up so the rooks can run the second part

Hey, internet problems, man. See sig.

Vixsor Lumin
2011-12-30, 12:42 PM
Hey, internet problems, man. See sig.

Haha oh ok :smalltongue: I get it, stuff happens. Just there were only like 2 posts in 3 days so I got worried :smallredface:

Kensen
2012-01-09, 09:50 AM
It looks like the Garrote have also successfully completed the mission. I apologize for the delay, and I hope I have the time to update the rules section in this thread with updates from the playtest threads and the discussion in this thread.

Here are the playtest threads:

The Rooks (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=225399)
The Garrote (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=225356)

Cieyrin
2012-01-09, 10:54 AM
Poor Ally taking that device to the face. Though, that's just one of the worries of field testing new mechanical devices.

SamBurke
2012-01-09, 11:15 AM
Poor Ally taking that device to the face. Though, that's just one of the worries of field testing new mechanical devices.

Inorite? I should have been able to use it more or less successfully, but I epic-failed the roll to make the thing.

Will there be more missions? I'd love to continue the game, if possible.

Eldest
2012-01-09, 11:22 AM
The garrotes mission...
How did that turn out for the better at the end? Really?

SamBurke
2012-01-09, 11:45 AM
The garrotes mission...
How did that turn out for the better at the end? Really?

Could you explain your question?

Eldest
2012-01-09, 12:00 PM
I am surprised that you managed to get the captain when it seemed like he was on the verge of getting away. He was on a horse, galloping away from you guys at top speed, and you managed to stop him. It just seems really lucky.

SamBurke
2012-01-09, 12:09 PM
I am surprised that you managed to get the captain when it seemed like he was on the verge of getting away. He was on a horse, galloping away from you guys at top speed, and you managed to stop him. It just seems really lucky.

Yeah, true. But, speeding arrows help the matter quite a lot, and Jack's archery rolls are almost always good.

We did fail it pretty hard through most of it, though.

Vixsor Lumin
2012-01-09, 02:05 PM
Yeah, true. But, speeding arrows help the matter quite a lot, and Jack's archery rolls are almost always good.

We did fail it pretty hard through most of it, though.

I'm surprised I got him to but +10 archery helps a lot. I also agree we failed hardcore for most of it haha. The Garrote has issues with stealth :smallredface:

SamBurke
2012-01-09, 02:29 PM
I'm surprised I got him to but +10 archery helps a lot. I also agree we failed hardcore for most of it haha. The Garrote has issues with stealth :smallredface:

/understatement of the thread.

I'll invest in some stealth... with Guile/Gadgetry, that should help.

Vixsor Lumin
2012-01-09, 02:39 PM
Haha I'm dumping most of my xp in stealth, and if the new skills get added, medicine. Also I just finished reading the rooks thread and saw the comment about us being outnumbered and against the odds when we were fighting. That never even occured to me. :smalleek: apparently we have issues with stealth and risk management.

SamBurke
2012-01-09, 02:49 PM
Haha I'm dumping most of my xp in stealth, and if the new skills get added, medicine. Also I just finished reading the rooks thread and saw the comment about us being outnumbered and against the odds when we were fighting. That never even occured to me. :smalleek: apparently we have issues with stealth and risk management.

I should begin crafted Power Armor, methinks.

HOH YEAH.

Garrote!

Vixsor Lumin
2012-01-09, 02:58 PM
I should begin crafted Power Armor, methinks.

HOH YEAH.

Garrote!

Power armor could win the war for us!:smallbiggrin: GARROTE!!! Now we just need to subdue the captain and save face for the resistance.

The unconious guy upstairs whose gonna raise hell when he wakes up:200 gold
The broken window upstairs: 20 gold
Dead bodies all over the inn that need to be cleaned up: 347 gold
Walking off like nothing happened, without even looking at the owners: priceless

But seriously we should help them:smalltongue:

SamBurke
2012-01-09, 03:06 PM
Power armor could win the war for us!:smallbiggrin: GARROTE!!! Now we just need to subdue the captain and save face for the resistance.

The unconious guy upstairs whose gonna raise hell when he wakes up:200 gold
The broken window upstairs: 20 gold
Dead bodies all over the inn that need to be cleaned up: 347 gold
Walking off like nothing happened, without even looking at the owners: priceless

But seriously we should help them:smalltongue:

Help..... who?

I'll get working on the armor. Idea the first... auto-load feature for your bow, maybe adds bonus to second shots on a turn? (I can draw it up for the DM, if you like... sorry in advance for terrible drafting skills).

Vixsor Lumin
2012-01-09, 03:40 PM
Help..... who?

I'll get working on the armor. Idea the first... auto-load feature for your bow, maybe adds bonus to second shots on a turn? (I can draw it up for the DM, if you like... sorry in advance for terrible drafting skills).

The family that owns the inn haha :smalltongue: hmm that might be cool if it adds a bonus, or lessens the penalty for multiple attacks, but I already get free reloads. I also had an idea for a collapsable bow (for stealth missions) but I like a better attacking one better

Eldest
2012-01-09, 04:07 PM
The family that owns the inn haha :smalltongue: hmm that might be cool if it adds a bonus, or lessens the penalty for multiple attacks, but I already get free reloads. I also had an idea for a collapsable bow (for stealth missions) but I like a better attacking one better

Better attacking bow=recurve bow. They're (comparability) tiny and really, really scary.

SamBurke
2012-01-09, 04:17 PM
The family that owns the inn haha :smalltongue: hmm that might be cool if it adds a bonus, or lessens the penalty for multiple attacks, but I already get free reloads. I also had an idea for a collapsable bow (for stealth missions) but I like a better attacking one better

Or, I could use casters and make a modern bow... Hrm...

OR BOTH!

Vixsor Lumin
2012-01-09, 04:29 PM
Better attacking bow=recurve bow. They're (comparability) tiny and really, really scary.


Or, I could use casters and make a modern bow... Hrm...

OR BOTH!


Hahaha I like the both idea but that much awesome would probably have balance issues :smallbiggrin: and as for the recurve bow, Google has proven the wisdom of your words but it also showed me that they were louder because the string slaps against the actual bow when fired. So is Aly up for the challenge of making a quiet, collapsable, recurve bow? And if at all possible I think we should avoid compound bows because the only advantage to them is being to keep them drawn with out fatiguing your arm.

Kensen is this ok? I don't want Sam to put a bunch of work into this, and me get my hopes up witgout your approval :smallwink:

SamBurke
2012-01-10, 12:43 AM
Hahaha I like the both idea but that much awesome would probably have balance issues :smallbiggrin: and as for the recurve bow, Google has proven the wisdom of your words but it also showed me that they were louder because the string slaps against the actual bow when fired. So is Aly up for the challenge of making a quiet, collapsable, recurve bow? And if at all possible I think we should avoid compound bows because the only advantage to them is being to keep them drawn with out fatiguing your arm.

Kensen is this ok? I don't want Sam to put a bunch of work into this, and me get my hopes up witgout your approval :smallwink:

It's cool, man. I already have the design for an auto loader in the feed (it was already in my mind), and compound is an internet search and some ingenous use of materials away.

I'll wait for Kensen, though.

Vixsor Lumin
2012-01-10, 01:30 AM
Would a compound bow help though? What advantage would keeping it drawn have? And I dont think it's possible to make a recurve compound bow haha :smallwink:

SamBurke
2012-01-10, 03:05 AM
Would a compound bow help though? What advantage would keeping it drawn have? And I dont think it's possible to make a recurve compound bow haha :smallwink:

Yeah, it is possible.

Keeping it drawn...? It'll hold you down.

Vixsor Lumin
2012-01-10, 03:36 AM
It'll hold you down.

what do you mean by that?

Kensen
2012-01-10, 03:49 AM
I'm not a bow expert and I don't know if it would have been possible to make a compound bow with medieval materials. And if so, I don't know if it would have been significantly better than the medieval bows and crossbows.

However, while realism/verisimilitude matters, game balance is the main concern. No game element should be strictly better than another. So, if you add something, you also have to take away something. Currently, there are three mechanical aspects each item has: size, game effect and circumstancial bonuses and limitations. I'm also adding two new ways to classify items: rarity and legality. So, basically, when you work on a new equipment type with the GM, think of it as a sort of a point buy: For example, if you make the item smaller than an existing item of the same type (yes, smaller is better in this game :smallbiggrin:), you're going to have to a) make it less powerful, b) include a limitation, c) make it more difficult to obtain, or d) make it illegal to carry. Not all of these categories are equal, so you may have to make the item worse in two categories to make up for the improvement.

Size: Very small > Small > Medium > Large > Very large
Game effect (Bonuses vs penalties): +3 > +2 > +1 > -1, and so on
Circumstancial bonuses and limitations: See garrote, knightly sword or crossbow for examples
Rarity/availability: Common > Rare (only one rare item/character) > Very rare (only one very rare item/team)
Legality: Unrestricted > Requires licence > Military only > Illegal

Vixsor Lumin
2012-01-10, 04:14 AM
The bow I'm using is large right? How small would it have to be to be moderately concealable? I'm not expecting to sneak it past a pat down but it would be nice to hide under a coat. Compound they probably could have made (it's just a pulley system like they used in construction) but I still don't see the advantage. In hunting it's a great way to be prepared for instantly firing the second you see an animal, but in combat it would seem impractical because I'm not generally walking around with it drawn.

As for the take away I'm thinking ( if collapsible) small when collapsed, large when expanded (after some kind of time spent "building" it)
Illegal as humanly possible (for obvious reasons)
And rare (if it gets labeled very rare then I'm voting for it to get toned down, I don't want to use our only very rare on something we won't all get use from)

EDIT: Because I forgot the hopeful bonuses :smalltongue: from the sound of it I'm hoping collapsable read:concealable and a lower penalty on multiple attacks. How this happens, what it looks like, and the fluff to go with it, I have no idea.

SamBurke
2012-01-10, 04:20 AM
what do you mean by that?

I meant it'll hamper you quite a lot, that means both of your hands will be on your bow.

That'll correspond to large penalties to movement and other things.

Vixsor Lumin
2012-01-10, 04:53 AM
Right then so lets not do that haha :smallsmile: what do you think of the draw backs I proposed? Too many? Not enough?

Snowfire
2012-01-10, 05:32 AM
Note to self: If assigned to Garotte, aquire materials to construct nomad horse bows. Now those weapons are scary.

Eldest
2012-01-10, 08:13 AM
I'm not a bow expert and I don't know if it would have been possible to make a compound bow with medieval materials. And if so, I don't know if it would have been significantly better than the medieval bows and crossbows.

They couldn't build compound bows, no. That's a modern invention. A straight up recurve would probably keep the same stats as a bow, but smaller and rare. And yes, the recurve bows that Gengis Khan's area used would be my suggestion for a model to follow. That was about as good as small bows went.

Vixsor Lumin
2012-01-10, 02:43 PM
They couldn't build compound bows, no. That's a modern invention. A straight up recurve would probably keep the same stats as a bow, but smaller and rare. And yes, the recurve bows that Gengis Khan's area used would be my suggestion for a model to follow. That was about as good as small bows went.

My google-fu has shown me that those were reflex bows, not recurve bows. The difference between the two was that recurve were shaped so that the the string rested against part of the limbs when not drawn and the tips of them curled away from the archer. This caused the bow to change shape when drawn and confer a mechanical advantage to the arrow.

Reflex bows are shaped kind of the same but, but the real difference shows up when they are unstrung. Recurve bows turn into almost straight lines with curved tips, whereas reflex bows look like a capital C that you have to turn inside out to string. the advantage here is that it provided more energy because the arms were under much more tension. In fact they were under so much tension that if they were made from wood or other lighter materials, they would shatter. They were usually made of horn or some other composite material.

Eldest
2012-01-10, 05:15 PM
My google-fu has shown me that those were reflex bows, not recurve bows. The difference between the two was that recurve were shaped so that the the string rested against part of the limbs when not drawn and the tips of them curled away from the archer. This caused the bow to change shape when drawn and confer a mechanical advantage to the arrow.

Reflex bows are shaped kind of the same but, but the real difference shows up when they are unstrung. Recurve bows turn into almost straight lines with curved tips, whereas reflex bows look like a capital C that you have to turn inside out to string. the advantage here is that it provided more energy because the arms were under much more tension. In fact they were under so much tension that if they were made from wood or other lighter materials, they would shatter. They were usually made of horn or some other composite material.

Whoops, wrong name for it. But yes, they were made of layers of horn and a type of very bendy wood that they had on the steppe.

Vixsor Lumin
2012-01-10, 05:40 PM
Whoops, wrong name for it. But yes, they were made of layers of horn and a type of very bendy wood that they had on the steppe.

Gotcha haha :p Jack is gonna have issues drawing the darn thing haha :smallbiggrin: I was looking at the old laws for these and it turns out recurve bows were for the upper crust and reflex bows were generally used for the military. They weren't "miltary only" but most civilians didn't need a bow that powerful. So I'm thinking a collapsable silenced reflex would definitley fall under flat out illegal, but does maybe making it non collapsible make it military only? I wouldn't mind carrying around a flat out illegal thing but a guile check would probably be easier if it was lower on the legality scale.

Of course depending on the next mission we might not walk straight in. I'm thinking we avoid people from now on. We sneak past them instead of lying our way around, if my team is ok with that.

SamBurke
2012-01-10, 05:45 PM
In other news, compound bows are freakishly hard to make.

Just hope you know that. I can't make one (it takes a year or more to make a good one), but it's buyable.

Vixsor Lumin
2012-01-10, 06:01 PM
It takes a year of in game time to? Hmm do you think I could requisition one from the quartermaster?

Kensen
2012-01-11, 03:11 AM
I can almost hear the QM saying: "Jack, you want me to get you a bow from the steppes..? Why Jack, why?" :smallbiggrin:

Anyway, a traditional composite bow cannot be made collapsible. The horn, wood and sinew is all glued together and it takes a lot of time for it to dry. Otherwise it would break when drawn, with very dangerous results. Modern materials are more durable and I believe the draw weights are much smaller, so it's possible to make collapsible bows. (I'm still no bow expert, but this is how I understand things work. :smallsmile:)

Moreover, a bow used in the dry steppes is incompatible with the climate of most parts of the Aurelian continent, and therefore such a bow would not last very long.

A recurve or reflex bow is smaller than a longbow, but still big enough to go to the "large" category.

I don't know if it is possible to make a collapsible wooden bow durable enough to withstand a draw with enough poundage to reliably kill a human, but I'll allow it. When the limbs are removed, it's a medium-sized object, i.e. small enough to carry in a backpack (without penalties) or on your belt (with minor penalties). It takes about one minute to attach the limbs and string it. The difficulty of making such a bow pushes it into the rare category, and its legality rating is "requires licence but may be considered illegal by some authorities" because officially, no such bows exist.

SamBurke
2012-01-11, 03:20 AM
What's the TN to make it?

Kensen
2012-01-11, 03:47 AM
No need to make any checks, really. The rules don't really cover anything that happens during the downtime between missions, and Gadgetry is mainly intended for opening locks, disabling traps, sabotaging mechanisms, and for minor repairs and some McGyvering. But we can RP it so that Aly crafted the bow, if you wish. Normally it's the QM who gets you all the equipment you need, but that's just flavor, not part of the game mechanics.

For balance reasons, the limit of one rare item per person still applies even though you have a crafter in the group. However, as a special reward for completing missions, you may earn rare items that you get to keep.

Vixsor Lumin
2012-01-11, 03:47 AM
Ok that seems fair :smallsmile: I kind of want to RP the downtime at headquarters (talk to the QM, interrogate the captain, etc) What about the silencing factor? I don't think an unmodified reflex bow would be as silent as id like. Would adding some kind of padding to the arm work? If the "collapsable" component is that the limbs are removed, then it shouldn't add to the TN too much.

Also, does anyone else want anything? I feel like I hijacked the thread :smalleek:

EDIT: oops no TN haha so would that push the rarity and legality any farther?

Kensen
2012-01-11, 03:56 AM
Ok that seems fair :smallsmile: I kind of want to RP the downtime at headquarters (talk to the QM, interrogate the captain, etc) What about the silencing factor? I don't think an unmodified reflex bow would be as silent as id like. Would adding some kind of padding to the arm work? If the "collapsable" component is that the limbs are removed, then it shouldn't add to the TN too much.

Also, does anyone else want anything? I feel like I hijacked the thread :smalleek:

No need to worry about the silencing factor. Assume that some kind of padding is added.

RPing the downtime is fine - I just meant the are and there will be on rules for things like crafting because that's not what the game is about.

SamBurke
2012-01-11, 10:45 AM
I'm cool... personally I'm thinking about going with an auto-crossbow and working from there.

And yes, there are such things... :nale: :smallbiggrin:

Eldest
2012-01-11, 11:15 AM
Repeating crossbow. Chinese invention, although it had poor draw strength because you would have to pull it back multiple times in seconds.

SamBurke
2012-01-11, 11:37 AM
Repeating crossbow. Chinese invention, although it had poor draw strength because you would have to pull it back multiple times in seconds.

I was actually thinking of scaling down the polybolos, as it was completely automatic, as long as there was tension in the chain.

Eldest
2012-01-11, 12:03 PM
*blink*
I actually don't know what that is...
MUST KNOW!
*googles*

SamBurke
2012-01-11, 12:26 PM
*blink*
I actually don't know what that is...
MUST KNOW!
*googles*

GASP! I have won the war of the nerds! Your Google-fu is no match for my intrinsic knowledge of random military weapons from ancient civilizations! The world will bow...

OK, I'm done.

Vixsor Lumin
2012-01-11, 02:45 PM
*blink*
I actually don't know what that is...
MUST KNOW!
*googles*

My thoughts exactly, haha :smalltongue: but as for the polybolo, how does the firing mechanism work? It looks like you just keep cranking on it and it keeps firing right?


P.S. melee needs nice things to, any ideas?

SamBurke
2012-01-11, 02:55 PM
My thoughts exactly, haha :smalltongue: but as for the polybolo, how does the firing mechanism work? It looks like you just keep cranking on it and it keeps firing right?


P.S. melee needs nice things to, any ideas?

That's the best part: the trigger is activated by the rotating chain.

As long as there's torsion (either from a crank or other source), it fires full-auto... admittedly the RPM is low, but, still..

Vixsor Lumin
2012-01-12, 12:50 AM
How would rapid fire correlate in game? More attacks per round? And extra action so you can move and attack twice? With the penalty for multiple attacks I think the second one sounds more effective.

Kensen
2012-01-12, 05:19 AM
If I understand correctly, the polybolos is mounted on a stand which makes it easier to aim even if you crank the windlass at the same time. A crossbow, on the other hand, requires two hands to aim and fire. A portable polybolos would therefore be very difficult to use because you'd need two hands to keep it steady and a third hand to operate the windlass, not to mention that the added auto-reload mechanism would make it heavier and also clumsier to use if the stock is resting against your shoulder when you operate the windlass.

But as always, I'm willing to work with you to create a new weapon that's reasonably realistic and balanced. :smallsmile:

SamBurke
2012-01-12, 01:14 PM
If I understand correctly, the polybolos is mounted on a stand which makes it easier to aim even if you crank the windlass at the same time. A crossbow, on the other hand, requires two hands to aim and fire. A portable polybolos would therefore be very difficult to use because you'd need two hands to keep it steady and a third hand to operate the windlass, not to mention that the added auto-reload mechanism would make it heavier and also clumsier to use if the stock is resting against your shoulder when you operate the windlass.

But as always, I'm willing to work with you to create a new weapon that's reasonably realistic and balanced. :smallsmile:

Here's my thought: I'd pretty much auto-fail all mobility checks, moving at one square per round. I'd also be unable to hold much else. AND I'd either need an external winding method (tension from twisted bowstrings might work...) or someone else holding it... Perhaps a small stake/stand that I could plant, allowing me to balance it on one hand, while turning with the other?

Hrm... I'd probably also be very visible.... This could be bad.

Eldest
2012-01-12, 02:15 PM
I should probably think of something to upgrade my person with.

Snowfire
2012-01-12, 02:18 PM
Here's my thought: I'd pretty much auto-fail all mobility checks, moving at one square per round. I'd also be unable to hold much else. AND I'd either need an external winding method (tension from twisted bowstrings might work...) or someone else holding it... Perhaps a small stake/stand that I could plant, allowing me to balance it on one hand, while turning with the other?

Hrm... I'd probably also be very visible.... This could be bad.

Or set one up so that you can load it, wind it up with a set amount of tension, and then rig it to a tripwire or remote firing mechanism. You now have a Gatling crossbow turret - well ok, not quite, but close.

These are wonderful ambush weapons. For a portable version however...hmmm. Gimme some time, I think I have an idea that might just work. It depends on the level of clockpunk we can get, but...

Eldest
2012-01-12, 02:48 PM
I have a sword (I stole the Captains, I'll need to know the stats for it before we start the next playtest), a big knife, and a little knife. My mobility and stealth is good. So the only spot I need to get better in is gadgetry.
I have two ideas for a custom item: a hidden blade (yes, I've been playing assassin's creed recently, why do you ask?) or a small toolkit that would give a bonus.
Any ideas for those?
Also, would I be able to have a magic item instead of the above? I'm thinking of a cloak that jumps me (or anyone else wearing it, really) from shadow to shadow within LoS or within a fixed distance, either/or.

Laura Eternata
2012-01-12, 05:28 PM
*ahem* I stole it from the Captain and gave it to you. :smallwink:

Do hand crossbows exist in the game? Something less conspicuous than my longbow could come in handy.

Vixsor Lumin
2012-01-12, 05:46 PM
Also, would I be able to have a magic item instead of the above? I'm thinking of a cloak that jumps me (or anyone else wearing it, really) from shadow to shadow within LoS or within a fixed distance, either/or.

This is a cool idea, I've actually been working on a story where that is one of the antagonists abilities. If this comes up id gladly sell Jacks soul to the 9th level of the underworld for it :smallbiggrin: doubt it would get approved though and I'm thinking if any of our characters run into a mage or magic wielding soldier our only safe response will be run like children haha

Eldest
2012-01-12, 05:54 PM
Or shoot him/her from very, very far away before they know we're coming. Or poison them. Or kill them in their sleep.
It all just depends on your creativeness.
And yes, you stole the sword and gave it to me. Thanks (belatedly).

Another idea, because I seem to have problems picking locks:
Custom Item: Thieves' Tools
Size: Small
Legality: Illegal
Bonuses: +3 on picking locks, +1 on all other gagetry.

Base item was the small tool kit, changes were adding the bonuses and making it illegal.

Vixsor Lumin
2012-01-12, 06:29 PM
Or shoot him/her from very, very far away before they know we're coming. Or poison them. Or kill them in their sleep.


i stand corrected. :smalltongue: let me rephrase that: if a mage/magic user/scary thing attacked Jack without him expecting it he would (provided he wasnt abondoning his team) run away and try to fight another day.

Eldest
2012-01-12, 07:22 PM
i stand corrected. :smalltongue: let me rephrase that: if a mage/magic user/scary thing attacked Jack without him expecting it he would (provided he wasnt abondoning his team) run away and try to fight another day.

I know that if we are working together next playtest and we met a mage, I would be right behind you.

Cieyrin
2012-01-12, 08:37 PM
I know that if we are working together next playtest and we met a mage, I would be right behind you.

I was under the impression Rogue was No-Magic or at the least Low Magic...:smallconfused:

Eldest
2012-01-12, 10:24 PM
I was under the impression Rogue was No-Magic or at the least Low Magic...:smallconfused:

There is virtually none and what little there is isn't understood very well. As such, anybody that's on the other side and knows enough magic to call himself a mage is scary in my book.

SamBurke
2012-01-12, 11:14 PM
Or set one up so that you can load it, wind it up with a set amount of tension, and then rig it to a tripwire or remote firing mechanism. You now have a Gatling crossbow turret - well ok, not quite, but close.

These are wonderful ambush weapons. For a portable version however...hmmm. Gimme some time, I think I have an idea that might just work. It depends on the level of clockpunk we can get, but...

ME GUSTA CLOCKPUNk!

Tripwire's a good idea, actually... might create a small trap one, five shots or so.

Vixsor Lumin
2012-01-13, 12:42 AM
There is virtually none and what little there is isn't understood very well. As such, anybody that's on the other side and knows enough magic to call himself a mage is scary in my book.

Hence the running away in search of new pants :smallbiggrin: I'm actually kinda hoping we at least see some magic in the next part. Right before The Garrote started doing good, I saw a spoiler labled the truth about the captain. I didn't look but in my mind the captain instantly became god-like and all powerful. I.e. he could stop my arrows by looking at them or something. Still not sure what the real truth was.....

Snowfire
2012-01-13, 11:56 AM
Hmmmm. I'm wondering.

Kensen, would it be possible to build something akin to an air pistol via the use of clockpunk? I think it could work, but it depends on the level of clockpunk you're willing to allow.

For example:

Custom Item: Clockwork Gun
Size: Small
Circumstancial bonuses and limitations: +2 attack. Silent. Free reload for six shots, then two action reload. TN 15 Gadgetry check to reload in one action. Requires specialised training to understand and use properly, however is relatively simple to just fire. On first use of this weapon - if they have not been trained in its use - a TN 20 Gadgetry check allows you to instinctively understand how it works. A failed check inflicts a -3 penalty on Archery rolls with this weapon until you have had enough time to acclimatise yourself to the way the gun works.
Rarity/availability: Rare
Legality: Unique weapon and therefore as yet unclassified. Will definitely be classified as illegal/military if one falls into enemy hands.

I think this comes out as fair by the system you put up. I think. Not sure though and would appreciate comments.

Thanks

Kensen
2012-01-14, 04:38 AM
I have a sword (I stole the Captains, I'll need to know the stats for it before we start the next playtest), a big knife, and a little knife. My mobility and stealth is good. So the only spot I need to get better in is gadgetry.
I have two ideas for a custom item: a hidden blade (yes, I've been playing assassin's creed recently, why do you ask?) or a small toolkit that would give a bonus.
Any ideas for those?
Also, would I be able to have a magic item instead of the above? I'm thinking of a cloak that jumps me (or anyone else wearing it, really) from shadow to shadow within LoS or within a fixed distance, either/or.

The captain's sword is a standard issue infantry officer's sword with the captain's name on it. It's a standard knightly sword, as per the equipment list. If used with the captain's hauberk and cloak, it'll grant you a small bonus on your Guile checks to impersonate the captain.

A hidden blade would be ok (and no, you don't need to remove any fingers...). What size were you thinking? A small blade would most definitely be ok (basically a wrist sheath with a stiletto-like mechanism), but a medium blade (equivalent of the short sword) would be a bit more difficult to build, so that'd push it into the Rare category, and maybe it'd also cause some penalties on skill checks that require the use of that hand/arm.

There's some discussion about custom toolkits below, have a look.

As for the cloak, it's a no. All magic items are way beyond the Rare and Very rare categories.


Do hand crossbows exist in the game? Something less conspicuous than my longbow could come in handy.

I've been thinking about adding a hand/pistol crossbow. Historically, such weapons existed, but they were only good for shooting birds or as toys. So, a pistol crossbow would have a +1 bonus on attacks, and you can use it to wound a target (stun 1 round, can be used to deliver poison), and you can use it to wound a target's legs and hands (to immobilize or disarm, respectively).


Another idea, because I seem to have problems picking locks:
Custom Item: Thieves' Tools
Size: Small
Legality: Illegal
Bonuses: +3 on picking locks, +1 on all other gagetry.

Base item was the small tool kit, changes were adding the bonuses and making it illegal.

90% of all Gadgetry rolls in the game are checks to open locks, so +3 would be a huge bonus. However, if it's also a Rare item, a better bonus would be easier to justify. I'll revise the tools section of the equipment list and add some new tool kits. :smallsmile: Maybe I'll add a Rare "universal tool" (precursor of the Swiss army knife :smallbiggrin:).


I was under the impression Rogue was No-Magic or at the least Low Magic...:smallconfused:

You're right. Beings and items with mysterious powers may exist, but they are rare and generally prefer to keep their presence unknown to mere mortals. :smalltongue: However, some of you seem to want to see at least some magic in the next part, so there's a chance you will. :smalltongue:


ME GUSTA CLOCKPUNk!

Tripwire's a good idea, actually... might create a small trap one, five shots or so.

A crossbow trap doesn't really require any clockpunk. A regular crossbow or arbalest + some wire + a decent Gadgetry check should do it. :smallsmile:


Kensen, would it be possible to build something akin to an air pistol via the use of clockpunk? I think it could work, but it depends on the level of clockpunk you're willing to allow.

Custom Item: Clockwork Gun

I think this comes out as fair by the system you put up. I think. Not sure though and would appreciate comments.

Any sort of clockwork mechanisms would be difficult to build with medieval tools and materials, so as a general rule, such devices are Very rare or unavailable because usually only prototypes exist in inventors' studies and maybe producing more of them would be too expensive for the inventor, the Resistance or even the Invictus to produce. So, they're mostly only available as special rewards for completing missions.

Eldest
2012-01-14, 12:33 PM
The captain's sword is a standard issue infantry officer's sword with the captain's name on it. It's a standard knightly sword, as per the equipment list. If used with the captain's hauberk and cloak, it'll grant you a small bonus on your Guile checks to impersonate the captain.

Sadly, we didn't grab anything other than the sword.


A hidden blade would be ok (and no, you don't need to remove any fingers...). What size were you thinking? A small blade would most definitely be ok (basically a wrist sheath with a stiletto-like mechanism), but a medium blade (equivalent of the short sword) would be a bit more difficult to build, so that'd push it into the Rare category, and maybe it'd also cause some penalties on skill checks that require the use of that hand/arm.

As long as there is a bonus on attacking somebody while they are suprised, a small blade would be good. Something like:

Hidden Blade (common version)
You have played too much Assassin's Creed, but you assassinate anybody who says that.
This object looks like a stylized metal bracer, but the bracer is in fact a sheath for a slender stiletto blade. When unsheathing the blade for the first time, the user has to make a Gadgetry (TN 20) check to figure out how the unsheathing mechanism works. An Awareness check (TN 20) reveals that the weight and balance of the object is unusual for a bracer of its size. When unsheathed, the blade grants a +2 bonus on your Fighting skill when unsheathed.

Hidden Blade (rare version)
You have played too much Assassin's Creed, but you assassinate anybody who says that.
This object looks like a stylized metal bracer, but the bracer is in fact a sheath for a slender stiletto blade. When unsheathing the blade for the first time, the user has to make a Gadgetry (TN 20) check to figure out how the unsheathing mechanism works. An Awareness check (TN 20) reveals that the weight and balance of the object is unusual for a bracer of its size. When unsheathed, the blade grants a +2 bonus on your Fighting skill to attack, parry and defense, and gives a further +2 stacking bonus when attacking an enemy that didn't realize the bracer was a weapon.

Should either of these be illegal?


As for the cloak, it's a no. All magic items are way beyond the Rare and Very rare categories.

Yeah, didn't expect it to work.


90% of all Gadgetry rolls in the game are checks to open locks, so +3 would be a huge bonus. However, if it's also a Rare item, a better bonus would be easier to justify. I'll revise the tools section of the equipment list and add some new tool kits. :smallsmile: Maybe I'll add a Rare "universal tool" (precursor of the Swiss army knife :smallbiggrin:).

Maybe if I took the bonus down to +1 general/+2 Lockpicking? Or (depending on how the hidden blade turns out statted) a rare toolkit would work out.


Beings and items with mysterious powers may exist, but they are rare and generally prefer to keep their presence unknown to mere mortals. :smalltongue: However, some of you seem to want to see at least some magic in the next part, so there's a chance you will. :smalltongue:

... We're all going to die. :smalleek:

SamBurke
2012-01-14, 04:37 PM
A crossbow trap doesn't really require any clockpunk. A regular crossbow or arbalest + some wire + a decent Gadgetry check should do it. :smallsmile:


Oh, you're implying I'm just going with a SIMPLE trap. Ha! HA! The Great and Powerful Ally never wastes time on such pathetic non-reseting traps!

(Sigh... I will use some, actually, they may be useful.)

Vixsor Lumin
2012-01-15, 08:06 PM
Hahaha the ambush thing could have hilarious applications :smallamused:

*set trap*
*throw noisy thing in front of trap*
*wait*
THUNK
*laugh*

Laura Eternata
2012-01-22, 11:31 AM
So... will the second test be starting soon?

Vixsor Lumin
2012-01-22, 08:23 PM
So... will the second test be starting soon?

Pretty please?

Eldest
2012-01-22, 09:27 PM
Pretty please?

With a sweet fruit of your choice on top?

SamBurke
2012-01-22, 11:25 PM
With a sweet fruit of your choice on top?

And/or a cookie and/or an internet? And... and... and... a picture of Fluttershy to help convince you?

Eldest
2012-01-23, 10:46 AM
FYI, I put a link to this thread in my signature, because I finally deleted my LoC game that was dead and my sig looked too empty then. If you mind, I'll remove it.

Kensen
2012-01-23, 11:45 AM
I don't mind at all. It's awesome that you like the game enough to put the link in your sig. :)

I started updating the equipment list the other day but didn't get very far yet. I hope I'll find the time to finish the updates sometime soon... and yes, I still intend to run the second part.

Vixsor Lumin
2012-01-23, 03:21 PM
and yes, I still intend to run the second part.

YES! I would've hated for this to have died.

Laura Eternata
2012-01-23, 06:16 PM
So would I have. This is by far the best PbP game I've ever been in.

By the way, I finished my IRL game last weekend. I'll tell you all how it went as soon as I have a few hours to spare (probably this weekend.)

Eldest
2012-01-23, 07:21 PM
So would I have. This is by far the best PbP game I've ever been in.

Quite in agreement. It moves fast, doesn't get stuck up on stuff, and no rule arguments.

SamBurke
2012-01-23, 08:03 PM
Quite in agreement. It moves fast, doesn't get stuck up on stuff, and no rule arguments.

Yeah, I'd recommend this as a perfect PbP game. Creating a char sheet is really, really, simple, and could be done within fifteen minutes of opening the rules. Playing the game is incredibly simple, while still being fun. Giving this game 5 diamonds for ease of use.

That is pre-quoteable, in case you're wondering.

Eldest
2012-01-23, 08:28 PM
That is pre-quoteable, in case you're wondering.

So tempted to quote this.

SamBurke
2012-01-23, 08:36 PM
So tempted to quote this.

And I, sir, am tempted to quote you quoting that.

Your line make my day, btw.

To quote a great actor:


"Ah think ah will.... ah think I will."

Eldest
2012-01-23, 08:57 PM
If only interlocking quotes worked.

Cieyrin
2012-01-23, 09:09 PM
If only interlocking quotes worked.

You can, you just have to do it manually, the Playground software just doesn't do it by default so posts don't get cumbersome.

SamBurke
2012-01-23, 11:03 PM
If only interlocking quotes worked.

I also would mention how much I want to quote-in-quote this, too.

So many quotes, so little time.

Eldest
2012-01-23, 11:14 PM
Yeah, I'd recommend this as a perfect PbP game. Creating a char sheet is really, really, simple, and could be done within fifteen minutes of opening the rules. Playing the game is incredibly simple, while still being fun. Giving this game 5 diamonds for ease of use.

That is pre-quoteable, in case you're wondering.So tempted to quote this.And I, sir, am tempted to quote you quoting that.

Your line make my day, btw.

To quote a great actor:If only interlocking quotes worked.I also would mention how much I want to quote-in-quote this, too.

So many quotes, so little time.

And that shall be the end of that.

SamBurke
2012-01-23, 11:26 PM
EPIC. I'm gonna have to get an extended sig.

Eldest
2012-01-23, 11:33 PM
And you're going to have to redo it yourself, because if you quote my thing you just get "And that will be the end of that."

NOW, actually on topic: so is the Hidden Blade approved?

SamBurke
2012-01-23, 11:39 PM
And you're going to have to redo it yourself, because if you quote my thing you just get "And that will be the end of that."

NOW, actually on topic: so is the Hidden Blade approved?

Not if you temporarily invalidate one...

In other news, I can't find the extended sig thread anyway. GRR.

Kensen
2012-01-24, 01:20 AM
I'll have to scale the hidden blade's bonuses down to a level comparable with other Rare items such as the cane sword and collapsible bow. Right now it's basically a +2 (or +4) small item that you can easily take anywhere you want without anyone noticing, making it the equivalent of an invisible short sword (+2)/greatsword (+4). A Rare version of an item generally only has one advantage over its Common counterpart. The collapsible bow is medium when the limbs are not attached, and the cane sword is a disguised short sword, for example.

EDIT: And thanks to everyone for the encouraging words. :smallsmile: I'll do my best to get the updates finished soon so we can continue playtesting.

Eldest
2012-01-24, 08:19 AM
Ah, I was operating under the assumption that the Cane Sword was a common item, and just scaled up the power on it. Let's see...

Hidden Blade
You play too much Assassin's Creed, but you kill anybody who says that.
Legality: None, since it's unique. If it's found, it would likely be frowned upon heavily.
Rarity: Rare
Size: Small
This object looks like a stylized metal bracer, but the bracer is in fact a sheath for a slender stiletto blade. When unsheathing the blade for the first time, the user has to make a Gadgetry (TN 20) check to figure out how the unsheathing mechanism works. An Awareness check (TN 20) reveals that the weight and balance of the object is unusual for a bracer of its size. When unsheathed, the blade grants a +1 bonus on your Fighting skill.

So now it's a hidden dagger, which is basically what it is. How does attacking somebody who doesn't expect it (suprise attack/sneak attack) work? Do they get a defense roll? Do I get a bonus on my attack roll?
Also, the other item I suggested.

Thieves Tools
This small bundle of tools is highly illegal, since it's hard to use them for something other than breaking into somewhere.
Legality: Illegal
Size: Small
This item acts as both lockpicks and a tool kit, and provides a +1 to Gadgetry checks.

Would the +1 work, since it's illegal, or should I get rid of the bonus?

Read the legality thing of lockpicks. Darn.

Kensen
2012-01-24, 08:42 AM
The legality rating doesn't affect an object's mechanical balance so much as its size or bonus to attack do. For example, a very small or disguised item is very hard to find anyway, so most of the time, it doesn't really matter if it's illegal. I suppose I could try to make a table that explains the math behind the weapons and other equipment, but I guess it's often more complicated than saying that making an otherwise restricted item illegal gives you x build points you can spend on making the item smaller or more effective...

Anyway, the hidden blade looks balanced now. Since you probably want to draw it as a free action (just like a knife in a wrist sheath), I'd add that a Legerdemain TN 5 check allows you to un/sheathe it without spending an action.

EDIT: Or change the skill check to unsheathe it for the first time to a Legerdemain TN 20 check.

I changed the tool kit bonuses a little bit because I think the standard version of all items (except weapons) should have no bonuses or penalties on skill checks. Now the medium tool kit has no bonus and the small tool kit has a -2 penalty but is otherwise identical to the medium one. A universal tool also exists which pretty much does what you suggested for the thieves' tools, but without the bonus. If the playtesters insist, I might add a few more tool options, such as masterwork lockpicks, a Rare version of the lockpicks with a small skill bonus.

Eldest
2012-01-24, 08:57 AM
Anyway, the hidden blade looks balanced now. Since you probably want to draw it as a free action (just like a knife in a wrist sheath), I'd add that a Legerdemain TN 5 check allows you to un/sheathe it without spending an action.

Changed to TN 20 Legerdemain for the first time use, because I really don't want to have to generalize into another skill. I already cover 4 skills in my group...
Can I say that since Lydia made this for herself, she already knows how to use it? Not sure why she couldn't, but better to check first.

Kensen
2012-01-24, 09:00 AM
The characters always know how to use the special equipment given to them. The first activation clause is there mainly for the NPCs, or if you happen to find a new gadget and you try to activate it blindly.

Kensen
2012-01-26, 04:24 PM
Equipment and weapon lists updated! Minor updates to skills! (No new skills yet but I'm working on it.)

Anyway, I have some good news and some bad news.

The good news is that I made the cut for the top 32 in an RPG design contest, which is totally awesome. The bad news is that the coming weeks will be so hectic that it's impossible for me to GM a playtest now, so I'll have to postpone the second part of the playtest... again.

Meanwhile, I'll do what preparations I can for the next mission so that we can get started once the contest is over.

SamBurke
2012-01-26, 04:28 PM
EPIC.

Is there anything we can do to help the game out? Post reviews? Bribe Judges?

Vixsor Lumin
2012-01-26, 04:30 PM
Congratulatons!!!!! I'm not surprised that you made the cut, this is an amazing game! On that note though, I'm very sad that its been postponed :smallfrown: but I understand. Good luck in the contest and I'm very excited for the next mission.


EDIT: ^^ yes haha if we can help please just say something

Cieyrin
2012-01-26, 04:56 PM
Equipment and weapon lists updated! Minor updates to skills! (No new skills yet but I'm working on it.)

Anyway, I have some good news and some bad news.

The good news is that I made the cut for the top 32 in an RPG design contest, which is totally awesome. The bad news is that the coming weeks will be so hectic that it's impossible for me to GM a playtest now, so I'll have to postpone the second part of the playtest... again.

Meanwhile, I'll do what preparations I can for the next mission so that we can get started once the contest is over.


Congrats on placing in the RPG Superstar 2012. You'll be the second person to place in this year's contest that I have a personal knowledge of. May I ask which item you submitted? :smallsmile:

Kensen
2012-01-26, 05:58 PM
Cieyrin, I'm trying to maintain some degree of anonymity on these boards (and I try not to derail this thread from its original purpose), so I'll send you a PM with the item's name. :)

Sam and Vixsor, if you have an account on www.paizo.com, you can vote on entries (round 2 voting begins on Tuesday if I recall correctly). I'd greatly appreciate any votes if it is not too much trouble. But of course, please vote for any entries you like - I also appreciate fair play and don't want to win by manipulating the votes. :smallbiggrin: Send me a PM if you need more info.

EDIT: Btw, the contest is about the Pathfinder RPG, an offshoot of D&D 3.5. Round 2 is about organizations which are mostly flavor text, so it's easy to evaluate the entries even if you're not familiar with the rules.

SamBurke
2012-01-26, 06:08 PM
I happen to have an account, so I'll give some other RPGs a look over to feel honest, then vote for you. :small tongue:

EDIT: Which one are you..?

Eldest
2012-01-26, 06:53 PM
Would you mind sending me a PM with the name of the item as well? I understand the anonymity thing, this account handle is completely separate from my main online thing. No real reason for it for me, just wanted to keep it separate.

Kensen
2012-01-26, 07:27 PM
Sent!

So, anyway... back to Rogue: Clandestine Operations. Are there more weapons or other equipment you'd like me to add on the list? I haven't added the portable polybolos yet because I haven't been able to decide what its stats should be. I'd recommend that we use either the crossbow or arbalest as the base weapon, and then add a new feature, like I did with the collapsible bow and the hidden blade.

Eldest
2012-01-26, 07:33 PM
I have enough stuff to suit me for now, I just need to know if you are adding skills and how much XP we got to start working on updating Lydia.
For the other Rooks: Should we plan out what we're going to cover now, and any new gear we get? Lydia has her four things, she can't expand to something else if there are new skills.

SamBurke
2012-01-26, 07:54 PM
My thought: It can fire 5 shots before being reloaded. When it needs to be reloaded, it takes two full rounds of no other actions, TN 20 Gadgetry check.

It should also be ludicrously heavy, maybe a large object?

Kensen
2012-01-27, 01:59 AM
I wouldn't change the size category. Sure, it's heavier than the standard crossbow, but not that much bigger. Crossbows already have the "brace" quality, which gives you a +1 bonus on attacks when you brace the weapon against something, so I'd work from there, making it a medium size weapon with free reload, magazine with 5 bolts, +3 (total bonus) on attacks when braced against something, but only +1 when it's not because it's very hard to rotate the windlass when you're trying to aim. It seems a bit underpowered for a Rare item but far too technologically advanced to be Common, so I'd have the magazine change take only 1 round not 2. You just pull the empty one out and slam a new one in.

How does that sound to you?

SamBurke
2012-01-27, 02:02 AM
I wouldn't change the size category. Sure, it's heavier than the standard crossbow, but not that much bigger. Crossbows already have the "brace" quality, which gives you a +1 bonus on attacks when you brace the weapon against something, so I'd work from there, making it a medium size weapon with free reload, magazine with 5 bolts, +3 (total bonus) on attacks when braced against something, but only +1 when it's not because it's very hard to rotate the windlass when you're trying to aim. It seems a bit underpowered for a Rare item but far too technologically advanced to be Common, so I'd have the magazine change take only 1 round not 2. You just pull the empty one out and slam a new one in.

How does that sound to you?

Sounds great! I'll be using it, foh shoh.

Kensen
2012-01-27, 02:11 AM
Excellent! :smallsmile: I like the new Rare items. They're not just "masterwork" versions of the standard item. They add a twist that makes them unique but not gamebreaking. Thanks for the awesome ideas! :smallsmile:

Eldest
2012-02-16, 10:26 PM
This has not been abandoned, correct? Just working on your other homebrew?

Kensen
2012-02-17, 03:03 AM
While the contest is over for me, there have been other things like adventure writing that has kept my attention away from Rogue: Clandestine Operations. I still intend to continue this project, sooner or later. Sorry to keep you waiting. :smallfrown:

Eldest
2012-02-17, 08:12 AM
Aw. :smallfrown: I liked your entry, but I forgot to vote for it. And I haven't checked (chuck? looked at?) up on the contest for a while now. Sorry! And I doubt you would have abandoned this, it's just I wanted to make sure. Tis an awesome idea and I want to play again.

Vixsor Lumin
2012-02-17, 09:36 AM
I'm sorry to hear that you didn't make it Kensen :smallfrown: better lock next you're though, right? Also I really liked playing this and cant wait for the next game :smallbiggrin:

Kensen
2012-04-17, 02:23 AM
Arise, Rogue! Arise from thy slumber!

So, after a long hiatus from homebrewing, I decided to dig this game system up from its early grave. Below are some changes to the rules (not yet updated on page one). Comments, questions, suggestions?

Wounds and recovery

There are three severity classes for hits: Glancing blow (roll equals TN), hit (roll exceeds TN), critical hit (roll is equal to or greater than TN+10).

The effect of each hit type depends on the attack that was used. Different weapon types have different attack types available. The different attack types and their effects (glancing/hit/crit)are listed below.

Lethal (default): staggering/dying/dead (With most weapons, if you don't specify an attack type, you are using this attack. You try to kill your opponent.)
Knockout: staggering/unconscious/dying (You attempt to render the target unconscious.)
Wounding: distracted/wounded/dying (You try to inflict a flesh wound to deliver poison or to win a duel to first blood)
Disarming: cannot use weapon for 1 round/disarm/cripple
Crippling (arm): disabled for 1 round/disabled/sever (dying)
Crippling (leg): slowed for 1 round/slowed/sever (dying)
Stunning: staggering/stunned/unconscious (targeting solar plexus, armpit, groin, knee or other body part to inflict so much pain the target is unable to act for a while)

The effects are described below:

staggering: You are limited to 1 action on your round, and you take a -5 penalty to all checks.
stunned: You cannot take any actions or speak.
unconscious: You cannot take actions and you are not aware of your surroundings.
dying: You are unconscious and in need of immediate medical attention or you die.
dead: You can no longer be revived.
distracted: You take a -2 penalty to all checks for 1 round.
wounded: You are bleeding. You are also distracted for 1 round.
disabled: You cannot use your arm.
slowed: Each square you move costs 2 squares of movement.
bandaged: You are fully functional once again, but cannot be revived again without long-term care.
(comatose: You are unconscious and stabilized but cannot be revived without long-term care.)

New action types

Revive (1 round): You help an adjacent character to recover from the dying or unconscious condition. The revived character is staggering for 1 round, and distracted for 1 round after that. Can be revived only once per adventure. (Optional rule: Until the end of the scenario, the revived character takes a -1 penalty to all checks for each point the attack roll exceeded the TN.)

Dodge (1 action): Make a Mobility check to move 1 square and negate an attack. If there is no adjacent square you can move into, you cannot dodge.

Ready (1 action): You can ready an attack or other action to occur in response to a triggering condition. Your action occurs just before the triggering action/condition.

New weapons

Main gauche: Like dagger but also grants +1 to melee defence when dual wielded with another weapon. Requires licence.

Vixsor Lumin
2012-04-17, 02:52 AM
HURRAAAAY ITS BACK!!!!!!! Kinda :smalltongue: I like the additions, especially the wounds and recovery system. how does dodging work? Do I declare that I'm dodging for the round and lose an action? Or do i use it as a reaction and lose an action on my next turn? Can I declare a dodge and ready an action? It makes sense to be able to, but then you could say some thing like, "I'm going to dodge if the Invictus foot soldier attacks me, and I ready an action to attack him if he attacks me." Then (since the readied action occurs before the trigger) the dodge could be wasted, or I just got a full extra turn. Either way seems bad.

Kensen
2012-04-17, 04:31 AM
Dodging works a lot like parrying. You use one (or both) of your actions to prepare a dodge action. You can negate the first successful attack against you that occurs before the beginning of your next turn (or two attacks if you used both of your actions). In a PbP game, it's useful to make the Mobility roll when you declare the dodge action and put it inside spoiler tags so the GM won't have to wait for you to make a roll later or do it for you.

If you kill the attacker with a readied action, you can still use your dodge against another opponent. You don't have to specify whose attacks you're dodging.

EDIT: Oh and by the way, I think I've solved most of the problems with the rules that were bugging me after the first playtest. With the new rules for reviving fallen allies, I don't have to add any new skills which is good because the current skill set covers pretty much everything you need in a stealth/espionage game. Some adjustments may be needed later, but at least there are no major problems.

So I'm thinking I might post a recruitment thread sometime soon, if there's still enough people interested in playtesting.

EDIT2: Now I've copy-pasted the new information in the first three posts in the thread. I guess it could use some editing, but at least the info is now there... I've been thinking about what would be the ideal format for the rules, though. A HTML page, a wiki, or a PDF... the messageboards don't have so many layout options, and it's a bit inconvenient to edit the text because the text editing field is really rather small.

Eldest
2012-04-17, 07:13 AM
STILL INTERESTED!
Quite seriously, if you had left the system as is I would have requested to take over making it. I like this system.

Yitzi
2012-04-17, 08:41 AM
Still interested.

SamBurke
2012-04-17, 09:28 AM
I was still subbed, actually.

Interest still here.

Snowfire
2012-04-17, 10:56 AM
Oh sweet god yes.

Still interested!

Vixsor Lumin
2012-04-17, 01:03 PM
So much interest, that I was actually thinking about this a couple days ago haha. I think a pdf wood be best. Its more...professional

Kensen
2012-04-17, 03:02 PM
That's good, many enough to run a second playtest. :smallsmile:

There's another rules change, I forgot to mention it above: To move faster than 5 squares per action, you no longer need to make Mobility rolls. You simply add +1 to your speed for each 5 ranks you have in Mobility (5=+1, 10=+2, 15=+3, 20=+4).

Vixsor Lumin
2012-04-17, 03:08 PM
Alrighty, now just to go find my stats and check my Mobility :smalltongue:

SamBurke
2012-04-17, 03:46 PM
Oh, in other news: I gave this to one of my GMs in a modern game, and he liked the system a lot. We were running behind, and I had a character for it in under 5; so we played.

So far, the game is very, very, slick. Every action moves with intense ease.

unosarta
2012-04-17, 08:06 PM
This seems fantastic!

One question I had; how exactly does Rogue deal with a knowledgeable character? I mean, you could potentially do it with Manipulation, but there is no in game way to differentiate a character who is incredibly knowledgeable from a dumb character. Is this intentional? Did you want that to be more of an out of character thing? I ask solely because the knowledgeable character who is a master manipulator is one of my favorite character archetypes to play, and I found myself disappointed that I couldn't recreate it in the system.

Kensen
2012-04-18, 02:02 AM
SamBurke, glad to hear that. If you have the time, please tell us more about how it went, what kind of encounters and objectives there were, and so on.

unosarta: This question came up earlier, Eldest suggested that I add a Lore skill. See my reply here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12318552&postcount=25). In short, my reasons for not adding such a skill were that knowing something shouldn't be random but rather, it should depend on the character's backstory. Also, I don't expect knowledge checks to be so prevalent that players should spend xp on it. Besides, I want the skills represent dynamic actions (searching, sneaking, climbing, shooting, stabbing, lying, stealing, etc.).

That said, adding Lore to the skill list would make a fine optional rule. I'll probably include a GM tip section in the rules about adding new skills and modifying existing ones to accommodate your play style.

Vixsor Lumin
2012-04-18, 02:25 AM
I actually considered including a Lore skill back when I started designing the skill set. Why I decided against it was that in other games, I've always thought it's odd that it's random whether you know something or not. I thought I'll let the GM decide whether a character knows something or not, based on his backstory - this also rewards players who put effort into writing a backstory. Adding the skill is not necessarily a bad idea, though. It really depends on how often situations where the characters try to recall some obscure lore come up (this is my first criterion for skill selection). Perhaps in a spy/infiltration game, knowing or not knowing something should not determine whether you can successfully complete a mission nor is it a "core competence" of spies/assassins/saboteurs (this is my second criterion).

I don't know, really. What do you guys think?

I also thought about adding a Performance skill, but rejected the idea because it's really not one of infiltrators' core competencies. Therefore, it's an RP skill and not something the players should sink their hard-earned xp in.

Anyway, here's my to-do list of things I have to get done before we can start the playtest. If you have ideas, suggestions or something else to help me with the following, let me

Hopefully this explains how you can play your favorite archetype :smallsmile:
Edit:swordaged

Kensen
2012-04-18, 02:57 AM
Hopefully this explains how you can play your favorite archetype :smallsmile:
Edit:swordaged

Thanks. :smallwink: So yeah, to play your favorite archetype, write a good backstory that explains why your character knows a lot of stuff, get a decent number of ranks in the Guile skill, and also check out the brand new Assess "meta-skill" that allows you to use your skills in a new way. :smallcool: (Added to the first post.)

unosarta
2012-04-18, 06:31 AM
unosarta: This question came up earlier, Eldest suggested that I add a Lore skill. See my reply here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12318552&postcount=25). In short, my reasons for not adding such a skill were that knowing something shouldn't be random but rather, it should depend on the character's backstory. Also, I don't expect knowledge checks to be so prevalent that players should spend xp on it. Besides, I want the skills represent dynamic actions (searching, sneaking, climbing, shooting, stabbing, lying, stealing, etc.).

That said, adding Lore to the skill list would make a fine optional rule. I'll probably include a GM tip section in the rules about adding new skills and modifying existing ones to accommodate your play style.

The problem was, no one posted in response to that at the time. I have read through the entire thread (I was going to mention that post in my original thought, but I forgot and had to sleep anyway), and there was no question of why Lore wouldn't be a good skill to have. It wouldn't necessarily have to be representative of knowing something, but rather your ability to bring up obscure facts that wouldn't necessarily directly align with your backstory. If my character is, say, an ex-Librarian who has now taken up a life of crime in order to pay for her current abusive lover's gambling debts, the only plausible things I could say that she knew would be about books, being a librarian, and some stuff about crime. However, as someone who has read a lot of books, it wouldn't make sense that she wouldn't be able to bring up obscure facts into a situation that could be helpful. Hell, that would make more sense than just making it so she knew about everything (and would remove the need to describe every single book in order to show the GM exactly what she knows); sometimes she can bring up those facts, and sometimes she can't. And if you think about it in that light, it is an active skill- it doesn't show what she knows, it shows what she is able to dig up and remember.


Hopefully this explains how you can play your favorite archetype :smallsmile:
Edit:swordaged

That didn't really explain anything at all... :smallconfused:
The master manipulator who is also incredibly intelligent and more specifically knows a lot of things still has no differentiation in game from the blithering diplomat; they are functionally the same character. One is highly intelligent, but this is not supported by the mechanics, which is what I am frustrated with.

As for the skill being able to be used to circumvent an encounter; that just depends on how savvy players are with their skills. Blackmail, social customs, reading people, knowing the backdoor, all of these things could be covered with a Lore skill (or some derivative thereof) that would allow you to defeat most any encounter.

Kensen
2012-04-18, 07:35 AM
Sorry, I didn't know you had read through the entire thread. :smallsmile:

If you want to playtest a character with ranks in Lore (or whatever we'll call it), that's fine. It's the best way to find out how useful or relevant it is.

But I won't penalize other players for not taking ranks in the skill; your backstory still determines what things you generally know about. And some things are simply not meant to be known. For example, if you happen to find a magic item (which are really rare in the setting) or a clockwork artifact (also quite rare), I don't want to reveal anything about it too easily. Trial and error is the way. :smallcool:

SamBurke
2012-04-18, 09:45 AM
Again, RP.

For example, I have an excuse for using all the MacGyver inventions and my out-of-character insanity with my character, because she's good with gadgets, and so it's legitimate for her to know.

You can represent your character's knowledge about obscure plants by looking on Wikipedia, for example, and then RP'ing it.

unosarta
2012-04-18, 10:51 AM
Again, RP.

For example, I have an excuse for using all the MacGyver inventions and my out-of-character insanity with my character, because she's good with gadgets, and so it's legitimate for her to know.

You can represent your character's knowledge about obscure plants by looking on Wikipedia, for example, and then RP'ing it.

Roleplaying won't give you any mechanical benefits, and won't allow you to actually solve any encounters, unless your GM is being particularly nice.

And if there are things that you yourself cannot know without your GM telling you, even if your character might, you cannot really roleplay that. Again, in the case of said librarian, what do I tell my GM? My character knows a lot of obscure knowledge? That is far too general to be useful to the GM, and just makes their job harder. If instead the character were to have a Lore skill, they could just say, "I attempt this Lore check to know what kind of stone the keep is made out of." If they fail, they don't recall. If they make it, they know some of the properties of the stone. Bam, done. There is much less complexity for the GM to have to work around, and it makes it more interesting for the character trying to find things out. It might trip things up if you have a character asking for a bunch of things constantly, so you could limit the number of times a character can attempt a Lore check per scene, probably capped at a number equal to one half of their ranks in Lore.


Sorry, I didn't know you had read through the entire thread. :smallsmile:

If you want to playtest a character with ranks in Lore (or whatever we'll call it), that's fine. It's the best way to find out how useful or relevant it is.

But I won't penalize other players for not taking ranks in the skill; your backstory still determines what things you generally know about. And some things are simply not meant to be known. For example, if you happen to find a magic item (which are really rare in the setting) or a clockwork artifact (also quite rare), I don't want to reveal anything about it too easily. Trial and error is the way. :smallcool:

No worries, I hadn't verbalized (textualized?) it at all.

As for your final point; nothing is requiring the GM to not use both. For instance, the mechanist should know things about clockwork that a character with the Lore skill cannot. However, that doesn't mean that you should think of these as binary terms. You can have both in one game, and having both will allow for much more complex characters with less headache on the DM's shoulders. This is overall a positive thing on all counts, as far as I can see it.

And you can always just say that some things are too rare to have a Lore check attempted on them, or only give away partial information. Say, if it is a clockwork artifact, say that the character might have seen something similar to this back in one of the older books, and that the make seems older than any recorded technology that the current era has access to, but don't say it's function. Alternatively, give the function and not any of the details. These details could also vary depending on the result of the roll.

In the case of including the Lore skill, I would recommend that the GM not show the roll, at least so that the players can't use that as metagame knowledge to affect their reaction to the information, but that would only be a problem if the GM were to actively change the information if the players were to fail by a wide margin. This would add an extra edge of paranoia to the game, as you have to be constantly second guessing the information you can recall. Of course, in most cases it would probably be best to just roll it in the open, and if they don't make the check they just don't receive any information at all.

The optimal numbers:
Everyday Event (Local): TN 5
Everyday Event (Foreign): TN 10
Rumors: TN 15
Uncommon: TN 17
Ancient: TN 20
Secret: TN 25

TN: Partial recollection of some information to do with the item, concept, person, or event.
TN+5: Limited recollection of all of the information to do with the item, concept, person, or event.
TN+10: Full recollection of some of the information to do with the item, concept, person, or event.
TN+15: Perfect recollection of all of the information to do with the item, concept, person, or event.

Let's say that the librarian, with 9 ranks in Lore, comes up to a throne room, and sees a giant portrait of a nobleman that none of the party members are aware of (and have no reason to know of). She rolls her Lore skill, and compares it to the TN to know about the portrait. The portrait is uncommon, certainly, but not quite ancient. She rolls an 13, and gets a 22. She asks her GM what that gets her. The GM says that the nobleman was a Duke about a century ago, and he ruled this area. He died mysteriously. In order to know how he died, or why he got a portrait, she would have had to have rolled a 27. In order to know his name, some of his genealogy, the reasons behind his death, the connections he has to the current people who own the place, and information about this portrait specifically, she would have had to rolled a 32. Someone local to this area could probably have told her most of that information, especially if they have a direct connection to him (like the current owners, if they were descendants), and almost certainly more accurately, but those people might not tell all of the information, and they might have ulterior motives. In addition, in areas where such people are not around to give information, such a skill could be very useful, and add some depth to the story.

Those numbers that I provided are rough estimates, and would probably need to be tweaked in order to function with maximum efficiency and realism. Still, something like this could be pretty effective.

Kensen
2012-04-18, 04:55 PM
I'm not convinced that knowing something about a portrait or stonework is quite as useful as what you can do with the other skills, but as I said above, it's ok to take ranks in that skill in this playtest scenario. Prove me wrong. :smallsmile:

The name of the playtest scenario is Storm over Eisendorf (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=13093172), by the way. Oh, look it's a link! :smalltongue:

Yitzi
2012-04-18, 11:35 PM
Roleplaying won't give you any mechanical benefits

In the sort of game this system is designed for, it definitely will. After all, even an extremely high Guile check won't help if your story is completely implausible, whereas a plausible one will greatly help your trickery attempt. The plausibility of your story depends in large part on how much in-character thinking you're capable of.

So your "knowledgeable master manipulator" is actually a very "sponsored" archetype in the system, perhaps more so because the knowledge doesn't take any build points. (The skill to use that knowledge, on the other hand, takes real-life skill...)


and won't allow you to actually solve any encounters, unless your GM is being particularly nice.

What you call "particularly nice", I call "the whole point of this system".


And if there are things that you yourself cannot know without your GM telling you, even if your character might, you cannot really roleplay that.

The GM can tell you anything your character would know.

A Lore skill might help quantify things, but this system is by nature somewhat more open-ended than something like D&D-as-per-SRD*, and so such things aren't as necessary.

*Throwing in the non-SRD parts of the DMG really turns it into a different game.

unosarta
2012-04-19, 07:00 AM
In the sort of game this system is designed for, it definitely will. After all, even an extremely high Guile check won't help if your story is completely implausible, whereas a plausible one will greatly help your trickery attempt. The plausibility of your story depends in large part on how much in-character thinking you're capable of.

So your "knowledgeable master manipulator" is actually a very "sponsored" archetype in the system, perhaps more so because the knowledge doesn't take any build points. (The skill to use that knowledge, on the other hand, takes real-life skill...)
I don't think you understand what mechanical benefit means. Role playing out a scenario and then gaining the allegiance of some nobleman is not a mechanical benefit. Doing something within the context of the mechanics and having those mechanics benefit you is. So, a Guile check to persuade a person and then having that person believe you is a mechanical benefit. Knowing something as a character and then having the GM grant you things based on that is not. The thing about only role playing out the knowledge (and nothing says you can't have both, which I definitely mentioned at least once in an earlier post), is that by just having knowledge of something makes it much less of an active thing. The GM reviews your background, tells you some information, and then you act upon it. That is very different from you make a check, succeed, find out some information, and then act on it. One of those situations feels like it is something you/your character is doing. The other feels like something that is happening to you or your character. In terms of play experience, people generally dislike having things just happen to them. The whole point of role playing games is that the players become an active participant in the story; simply handing out information, while is feasible, doesn't feel as active. Of course, for most people, this doesn't matter. But for some it really does.


What you call "particularly nice", I call "the whole point of this system".
The whole point of the system is catering to individual character's knowledge in order to make them feel special?


The GM can tell you anything your character would know.

A Lore skill might help quantify things, but this system is by nature somewhat more open-ended than something like D&D-as-per-SRD*, and so such things aren't as necessary.

*Throwing in the non-SRD parts of the DMG really turns it into a different game.
What about incredibly obscure things that your character would have some inkling of, but wouldn't necessarily know everything about? Like, for instance, in the above painting example I provided, let's say a young man who lived in the area was with the group. Let's also say, just to make this as realistic as possible, that the painting is more like 600 years old. If you were to ask him who the man in the painting was, he could probably tell you his name (the GM would theoretically have to provide the information, since it is in his backstory), but there is no way he would be able to tell you in depth information about some nobleman from 600 years ago. This is not reflected very well in the system, and puts more work on the shoulders of the GM who has to decide exactly what information the man might know, and what information would be impossible for him to know. This would be a simple decision if the GM knew exactly how well the man was able to remember said information, and such a skill as Lore would provide that. Also, it opens up the space for there to be an in character way to solve that particular problem; if they don't know who the man in the portrait is, then the only options are to go find someone who does. There is literally no other method to find out besides maybe finding a library. Lore allows for there to be more of a focus on the group.

Kensen
2012-04-19, 09:02 AM
This is not reflected very well in the system, and puts more work on the shoulders of the GM who has to decide exactly what information the man might know, and what information would be impossible for him to know. This would be a simple decision if the GM knew exactly how well the man was able to remember said information, and such a skill as Lore would provide that.

Well, even if the Lore skill does exist, the GM still actually has to decide exactly what information the character can remember with his roll. A TN table like you suggested would be useful, but it cannot answer the question for the GM. It's just as much work for the GM, or even more if he has to come up with somewhat balanced and fair multi-tiered answers to the players' questions.

Anyway, I guess we agree to disagree on whether Lore is necessary as a skill or should just be roleplayed. There are players and GMs out there who would consider it a useful addition and those who would not. As I said, if you're joining the playtest, I'll allow you to use the skill, but I won't force anyone else to take ranks in it. That way both play styles are possible.

So, are you in? :smallsmile:

Yitzi
2012-04-19, 10:22 AM
I don't think you understand what mechanical benefit means. Role playing out a scenario and then gaining the allegiance of some nobleman is not a mechanical benefit. Doing something within the context of the mechanics and having those mechanics benefit you is.

Ok, so then what you're saying makes sense, except for one thing: Why does it matter if all the benefits are nonmechanical? This system is very much designed for games where the greatest benefits aren't the mechanical ones.

One of those situations feels like it is something you/your character is doing. The other feels like something that is happening to you or your character. In terms of play experience, people generally dislike having things just happen to them.[/quote]

I don't think they'll mind if the knowledge "just happens", if the application of that knowledge to great effect is something that their character does (with or without a roll.)


The whole point of the system is catering to individual character's knowledge in order to make them feel special?

No, the whole point of the system is the usage of nonconventional and even largely non-mechanical approaches to solving problems. So when the GM supports that, it's how the game is (as far as I can tell) meant to be played.


What about incredibly obscure things that your character would have some inkling of, but wouldn't necessarily know everything about? Like, for instance, in the above painting example I provided, let's say a young man who lived in the area was with the group. Let's also say, just to make this as realistic as possible, that the painting is more like 600 years old. If you were to ask him who the man in the painting was, he could probably tell you his name (the GM would theoretically have to provide the information, since it is in his backstory), but there is no way he would be able to tell you in depth information about some nobleman from 600 years ago. This is not reflected very well in the system, and puts more work on the shoulders of the GM who has to decide exactly what information the man might know, and what information would be impossible for him to know.

This system is a lot more work-heavy on the GM than a more mechanical system like D&D, but that's not going to be changed that much by a Lore skill, as the main contributor is figuring out how characters are going to react to the party's actions.

I don't think a Lore skill is a bad idea, but I don't think it's necessary, primarily because the mechanics are simply less important than in many other systems.

unosarta
2012-04-20, 10:11 AM
Okay, I think I see your points. I don't necessarily agree, but I understand where you are coming from, and I can see the logic. Thanks for explaining to me, both of you. :smallsmile:


So, are you in? :smallsmile:

Oh man, if only I could. I am part of something like three games at the moment, and taking college classes in addition to my high school classes in addition to doing extra-curriculars. Another game would probably kill me.

Of course, that makes me feel bad since you seemed to think I did. I honestly would love to playtest this at some point, but not right now. I will certainly keep updated with this thread and the system in general, but I can't afford the time commitment to another game. I am sorry. :smallfrown:

Kensen
2012-04-21, 08:40 AM
unosarta, that's ok. Maybe next time, then. :smallsmile:

Yitzi, what about you? The recruitment thread is up, the link is in my sig.

Yitzi
2012-04-21, 08:50 PM
I'm in; are we doing the same characters?

Kensen
2012-04-22, 01:49 AM
Same character or new one, either is fine. Vixsor, Eldest, SamBurke, Cieyrin, Laura, and BarroomBard are back with their characters from the first playtest, and there's also a new player, Snowfire. It looks like we're going to have the same teams as last time.

SamBurke
2012-04-23, 11:17 AM
We're moving everything to the other thread, right?

Vixsor Lumin
2012-04-23, 11:28 AM
Were already there haha

Kensen
2012-05-11, 09:07 AM
I did some thinking and realized that there's no good way to intimidate people in Rogue. Sure you can use Guile to fool them into thinking you're someone very dangerous, but it's not quite the same. So I'm adding a new way to use your combat skills (Fighting, Archery, Legerdemain): threatening gestures.

You can add your weapon's attack bonus on the roll because bigger weapons are scarier. :smallbiggrin: The target must be able to see the weapon and understand that you may do something bad to them if they don't comply which might involve drawing the first few inches of your sword or playing with a throwing knife in a dextrous manner, or reaching for an arrow in your quiver. You can also make threatening gestures without a weapon (cracking your knuckles or assuming a combat stance) but you can do that only with the Fighting skill.

Kensen
2012-05-30, 03:32 PM
I have some new rules updates and suggestions!

Firstly, while I think the current health system is quite elegant and less unforgiving than the original which was literally one hit = one kill, I've come up with a wounds & recovery system that I think is even more streamlined, more realistic and also better for the players. Here's how it works.

All characters, PCs or NPCs, have two life points (well ok, some incredibly pathetic creatures may have just one life point and some supernatural creatures may have more than two but really, these are rare exceptions). If you lose a life point, whether it is lethal or stun damage, you also lose one of your two actions. In other words, a wounded/stunned character is 50% less effective than a healthy one. If you lose your second life point, you die or go unconscious depending on the damage type. If an unconscious character is hit again, he gets one point of lethal damage regardless of the attack type.

It is possible to recover from stun damage if the character receives first aid. Lethal damage only goes away if you receive long-term care (i.e. between scenarios). It is, however, possible to recover your lost action if you receive first aid, but you still count as being wounded for all other purposes. One point of stun damage will knock you unconscious and one point of lethal damage will kill you.

So, it takes two points of damage to kill a character or render him unconscious. Does this mean that it's no longer possible to one-shot a guard? No, not at all! The answer is focused attacks. If you spend both your actions on a round to line up a shot or to launch a particularly deadly attack, you make two attack rolls against your target. If one of the attack rolls is successful, you deal one point of damage. If both are successful, you kill the target.

I'll probably ditch the current rules about attacking twice in a round (-4 penalty, etc.) and just say that if you're dual wielding, you can make two normal attacks per round if you spend both your actions, no penalties on the attack rolls. The rules for 2-weapon fighting need some fixes, more about that later.

Another rule I'd like to change is how armor interacts with Mobility when determining how difficult it is to hit you with ranged attacks. Currently, the better armor types make you harder to hit in melee, but against ranged attacks the increasing armor bonus is offset by the increasing Mobility penalty. So from now on, Mobility penalties from armor doesn't affect your defense rating vs ranged attacks. Also, it should be noted that if your Mobility drops below 0, your speed decreases to 4 squares per action.

So, what do you think about these proposed rules changes?

Oh and by the way, PLAYTESTERS, DON'T FORGET TO POST IN THE IC THREADS! Some players have been rather lazy recently... (admittedly, I've been too, but it's largely because I've been waiting for the players to react somehow.) Also, I have a new player who would be interested in joining the playtest, So I'm thinking I might introduce his character sometime soon, but I haven't decided yet which team he'll join.

Yitzi
2012-05-30, 05:36 PM
So wait...what is the advantage of wielding 2 weapons? With them, you can attack twice in a round using both actions, without them you can line up a shot to make a single attack using both actions, with the same effect as attacking twice (two rolls, each worth one point of damage).

Eldest
2012-05-30, 06:54 PM
Better defense, less offense?
A bigger, better weapon has more offense potential, say a +3. But a pair of long daggers has a total +4 to defense, even though on attacks, you roll a d20+2.

Kensen
2012-05-31, 01:49 AM
So wait...what is the advantage of wielding 2 weapons? With them, you can attack twice in a round using both actions, without them you can line up a shot to make a single attack using both actions, with the same effect as attacking twice (two rolls, each worth one point of damage).

The +1 defense bonus from having a main gauche in your off-hand still applies, so there isn't much of a change in how two-weapon fighting works. The other advantage is that you can attack two opponents in one round. If you're wielding just one weapon, you can only attack one opponent. (Previously it was possible to attack twice regardless of the number of weapons you're wielding.) This is a highly situational benefit since it usually makes sense to use a focused attack against one opponent rather than wounding two.

The 2-weapon fighting rules are not quite as elegant as I'd like for them to be. Allowing the the defense bonuses to stack as Eldest suggested might work. A +2/+4 bonus for dual wielding two long knives vs a +3/+3 bonus for wielding one knightly sword seems quite fair. If I did that, I'd probably also add a new "dual wielding" class for weapons or come up with some other way to prevent such absurd combos as dual wielding knightly swords for a +3/+6 bonus. :smalltongue: I guess the easiest way to prevent that would be to just say that only medium and small weapons can be dual wielded.

What do you think, does it sound fair/balanced to you?

Eldest
2012-05-31, 10:47 AM
Seeing as I used that to great effect in the last game, yes, I'm ok with that.

Snowfire
2012-05-31, 11:05 AM
If I did that, I'd probably also add a new "dual wielding" class for weapons or come up with some other way to prevent such absurd combos as dual wielding knightly swords for a +3/+6 bonus. :smalltongue:

I forsee a dual wielding halberd cyclone on the horizon :smalltongue:

I like the new updates. They look good. And I also like how this is going so far.

Laura Eternata
2012-05-31, 03:57 PM
Sorry! I've been sick for the past week and didn't have the willpower to do much other than go to class and sleep. I'll be better now.

The new health system sounds good. Focused attacks please the sniper assassin in me, and are much more realistic than the flurries from before. We still need targeted shots, though, unless I've missed something.

The Mobility change is okay. Not very realistic, but I can't think of anything better right now.

Dual-wielding is kind of weird when taken with the focused strikes rule. In my admittedly limited sword-fighting experience, dual-wielding always never aided in my defense. It actually made me easier to hit, as I had to stand almost horizontally to my opponent in order to use both weapons. Now, there is a very real possibility that I was doing something horribly wrong, so take that with a grain of salt.

When I ran a game with my group based on the new rules (in April), we decided that the defense bonus from a weapon is negated if that weapon was used to attack in the last round. That might get confusing for play-by-post games, of course, but you might consider it as an optional rule to encourage the use of shields or off-hand weapons in the case of a drawn out battle. Speaking of shields, are there rules for them? I didn't notice them after a quick check just now.

If you're interested, this is the way we incorporated targeted shots:
Melee attacks to the arms take a -2 to hit. Ranged ones take a -4. A successful hit hurts the arm, giving all actions undertaken by it a -6 until the wound is properly treated. If it is hit by another attack, it is severed, crushed, or otherwise rendered permanently unusable.
Melee attacks to the legs take a -2 to hit. Ranged ones take a -4. A successful hit hurts the leg, reducing the targets mobility by 4 until the wound is properly treated. If it is hit by another attack, it is severed, crushed, or otherwise rendered permanently unusable.
Melee attacks to the hands take a -5 to hit. Ranged ones take a -8. A successful hit causes the target to drop whatever is being held and gives all actions undertaken by it a -6 until the wound is properly treated. If it is hit by another attack, it is severed, crushed, or otherwise rendered permanently unusable.
Melee attacks to the feet take a -5 to hit. Ranged ones take a -8. A successful hit reduces the target's mobility by 8 until the wound is properly treated. If it is hit by another attack, it is severed, crushed, or otherwise rendered permanently unusable.
Melee attacks to the head take a -8 to hit. Ranged ones take a -10. A successful hit causes severe bleeding and minor head trauma, stunning the target for 1d4 rounds, dealing one damage, and giving all actions undertaken by the target a -5 until the wound is properly treated. If it is hit by another attack, it is severed, crushed, or otherwise destroyed, causing instant death.

Eldest
2012-05-31, 05:05 PM
Dual-wielding is kind of weird when taken with the focused strikes rule. In my admittedly limited sword-fighting experience, dual-wielding always never aided in my defense. It actually made me easier to hit, as I had to stand almost horizontally to my opponent in order to use both weapons. Now, there is a very real possibility that I was doing something horribly wrong, so take that with a grain of salt.

I've fenced for a while, and I can tell you, having a second weapon, or even a stick, to baffle, parry, or just block incoming attacks is fantastic. Really, a second weapon is always used for defense, and only used as an opportunistic attack, if you manage a corps a corps or something. The only reason the idea of a dual-wielding person being a cyclone of death is a common archetype is because the idea's cool. Sort of like oversized weapons.

Laura Eternata
2012-05-31, 06:15 PM
So I was doing it horribly wrong. Somehow I'm not surprised, my high school fencing club seemed to make up rules as we went along. We only ever used foils and epees, anyway, which I'm told don't really benefit from a main-gauche.

Eldest
2012-05-31, 10:02 PM
Épée, not very helpful, foil, very much so. You're basically supposed to hold the main gauche in close to your body where they have to hit, so you can actually parry with it, while Épée you generally target the back of the hand, which you can't parry. Make sense?

Kensen
2012-06-01, 05:24 AM
Same with nito (two-sword style) in kendo (Japanese fencing art). The few times I've fought a nito kendoka, I noticed that it's very hard to find openings because with two swords you can protect the target areas much better. It's also much faster to parry with the shorter and lighter shoto (short sword) than with a bigger sword and you can still attack with the daito (long sword).

There are no rules for shields (yet). The in-game reason is that shields are heavy and you only want to carry one if you expect to get into a fight. In times of peace, you don't have to protect yourself against volleys of arrows, or fight in tight formations, so most people favor mobility over heavy protection. For the same reason, I haven't included rules for armor types heavier than mail armor (="chainmail") or weapons bigger than the knightly sword. I'll cover polearms with a single entry in the next update, but really, they're not well suited for recon/infiltration/assassination jobs because they're so big. But many guards still use them so it makes sense to have them statted out.

Another reason for not statting out shields, heavy armor, etc. is that I don't want the players to think that they're equally good options and start making "builds" based on stacking different bonuses until no-one can hit you, so they can just walk in and destroy everything. :smallbiggrin:

Bucklers, on the other hand should probably be included because they're quite small and better suited for dueling and urban areas where many missions take place. I'd say they're small weapons with +1 a/d/p that deal stun damage and its defense bonus stacks with the main hand weapon. I'm still not sure whether to make to make the stacking bonus an universal ability that all small and medium weapons have or to keep it an exclusive ability only a few items have.

By the way, did you decide that the defense bonus is negated for the weapon you attack with because it felt more balanced that way or because it felt more realistic? Did some characters have too good melee defense values, for example?

The targeted shots system looks nice and detailed, but I wonder if is necessary to have so many options. It' may be a good optional rule, though, if you want more options. How often did the players use called shots in your group and in what kind of situations?

I think most of the time you just want to kill or incapacitate your opponent. Sometimes, though, you have to capture the enemy, and that's what stun damage is for. Sometimes you have to prevent the enemy from fleeing, and in the new system a wounded/stunned character loses one of his actions/round, which means he is 50% slower.

The only thing that I think is missing from my new system is the option to disarm an opponent. Sometimes an ally mistakes you for an enemy, or you want to interrogate an enemy right away and you don't want to hurt them because it takes too much time to recover from it.

Snowfire
2012-06-01, 07:37 AM
On the subject of shields, I would argue that normal sized rounds shields wouldn't be at all amiss to a bodyguard. If you're guarding someone, you don't want him/her getting hit. And a shield will help you stop that.

Shields are also, quite frankly, absurdly easy to make when compared to the man hours and material required to create something like chainmail. They're also verging on dirt cheap.

Then there's the really interesting fact that you can use them with a polearm without using a hand. And they're actually reasonably effective. You use the strap on the shield to loop it over your shoulder and let the shield hang down to cover the side not covered by your weapon. Then when an enemy closes you down, you drop the polearm, grab the shield with your off hand and pull your sword with your primary.

Takes about five/six seconds for the whole evolution, and you've got a shield covering you from shoulder to knee for most of that time - becoming a true, moving cover about half way through.

I also have a question. The way you've described it, a knightly sword seems more akin to a bastard sword. And I think that's what it would be, all things considered. A bastard sword is the sort of weapon that you would give officers and other high muckty-muck military figures.

So this leads to my question. What about the normal longsword? I'd see that as a weapon that is restricted - alike to the short sword - but I don't know what you think there. A longsword would be something akin to a mark of an extremely good bodyguard - they made the money to buy one. Admittedly, I can't see a great deal more then that, but it could be interesting. Make them medium, restricted, +2 a/d/p. But add in a fun little side note about them being - quite rightly - a status symbol. They're not inherently better than a shortsword, they just mean more.

And continuing this line of thought...axes. You see, there's an interesting little thing about most weapons of war. Almost all of them are utility tools in addition to being weapons. A spear is - or was originally - a knife tied to a stick. And a knife was used for just about everything. I would argue that you could, if you wanted, carry a throwing knife openly as your knife. It's a little ornate, but hey, as long as you dress right for it you won't get a second glance. A bow...well it's obvious really. Hunting.

And then we come to axes. Hand axes are everywhere in a medieval style world. They're used for dozens of tasks and are more seen as tools instead of weapons. It would not be out of place for country folk to carry axes for personal defence and for all the other things that axes are useful for in the wilderness. And this would carry through - to a degree - to the big two handed axes used by woodsmen. They're tools. Not weapons.

And then, finally, you come to the only true weapon in the medieval arsenal. The sword. A sword was a weapon of a warrior. It was a symbol that showed that you were a fighter. That you knew exactly what you were doing on the battlefield and that you had proven it before - you had to have to have even gotten your hands on the sword. Why, you ask? Because metal is expensive.

I'll put it this way. A sword? That's a Ferrari. Chainmail? A nice second home in the country. Well equipped warriors were rich. And they earned those riches with blood.

/end medieval history infodump

Yeah, my brother does medieval re-enactment semi-professionally. As does his partner. And they talk about it a lot. I pick things up. I've also done a smattering of it myself, so that helps too.

Hope this helps :smallsmile:

Kensen
2012-06-01, 08:39 AM
Thanks for the info. :smallsmile: The knightly sword is actually another name for the arming sword, and it's not that much bigger than the short sword. Longsword is a rather ambiguous term, and in a historical context it usually refers to the two-handed swords (the short sword < longsword < bastard sword < greatsword continuum only exists in D&D and other RPGs). In the setting they're exceedingly rare much like better armor types and I haven't statted them out because I don't want anyone lugging around one of those beasts. :smallbiggrin:

I know that spears and axes were cheaper and easier to make, but I didn't want a huge list of weapons in a game where the main difference between the different melee weapon types is their +x bonus. Fighting is just one of the eight skills and it would be unfair to give melee fighters a huge list of options when Gadgetry specialists only have two or three. :smalltongue:

Seriously though, I chose swords because they are the most iconic medieval fantasy weapons. I suppose I could add axes that have worse defense and parry values the swords of the same size but are easier to acquire and require no license to carry.

I don't know what medieval throwing knives looked like, but the modern throwing knives I've seen have distinct shapes that make them better balanced for throwing. And usually there's no crossguard which many knife and dagger designs have.

Snowfire
2012-06-01, 09:16 AM
Ah, was wondering about that.

And that's fully understandable, don't want to make things slanted.

Ah, now there I can help. A medieval knife and a medieval throwing knife have very little in terms of differences. Admittedly, this is talking from early medieval period POV, but I think it counts.

Yitzi
2012-06-01, 09:35 AM
Same with nito (two-sword style) in kendo (Japanese fencing art). The few times I've fought a nito kendoka, I noticed that it's very hard to find openings because with two swords you can protect the target areas much better. It's also much faster to parry with the shorter and lighter shoto (short sword) than with a bigger sword and you can still attack with the daito (long sword).

So that raises the interesting (though not really relevant to the game) question: What are the advantages and disadvantages of a second weapon as compared to a shield in terms of defense?

Snowfire
2012-06-01, 09:47 AM
A shield is much easier to use for one thing. A good round shield will cover your entire facing body from shoulder to knee with very little difficulty. And they're also much better for actual battles. A well formed shield wall beats just about anything as long as it can hold its flanks.

Eldest
2012-06-01, 12:53 PM
However, a second weapon can be used to attack with far easier, compared with a shield. So a shield should provide a bigger bonus to defense and parry but nothing (or just the ability to do lethal damage) for attack.

Snowfire
2012-06-01, 01:07 PM
However, a second weapon can be used to attack with far easier, compared with a shield. So a shield should provide a bigger bonus to defense and parry but nothing (or just the ability to do lethal damage) for attack.

I would disagree with that, actually. A shield can be used as a weapon in and of itself reasonably easily. I will admit, I do not have a great deal of experience with two weapon fighting, so *shrugs* I'm not that sure how the style of fighting translates across.

Regarding a/d/p I would say that a shield gives a small bonus to attack, but can only do stun damage. Lethal damage with a shield is somewhat difficult :smallbiggrin:

Laura Eternata
2012-06-01, 02:59 PM
Épée, not very helpful, foil, very much so. You're basically supposed to hold the main gauche in close to your body where they have to hit, so you can actually parry with it, while Épée you generally target the back of the hand, which you can't parry. Make sense?

I guess I can see the potential value in that. I personally have no dexterity in my left hand, which could explain why off-hand weapons never helped me.

Now I want to take up fencing again. :smallbiggrin:



There are no rules for shields (yet). The in-game reason is that shields are heavy and you only want to carry one if you expect to get into a fight. In times of peace, you don't have to protect yourself against volleys of arrows, or fight in tight formations, so most people favor mobility over heavy protection. For the same reason, I haven't included rules for armor types heavier than mail armor (="chainmail") or weapons bigger than the knightly sword. I'll cover polearms with a single entry in the next update, but really, they're not well suited for recon/infiltration/assassination jobs because they're so big. But many guards still use them so it makes sense to have them statted out.

A lot of guards used shields, too, since armor was so expensive. It would be useful to have stats for shields even if just for NPC use.


Another reason for not statting out shields, heavy armor, etc. is that I don't want the players to think that they're equally good options and start making "builds" based on stacking different bonuses until no-one can hit you, so they can just walk in and destroy everything. :smallbiggrin:

A valid concern, leading me to...


By the way, did you decide that the defense bonus is negated for the weapon you attack with because it felt more balanced that way or because it felt more realistic? Did some characters have too good melee defense values, for example?

I ruled that shields give +5 defense and +5 parry, so defensive scores were pretty high. I don’t know enough about weapons heavier than epees to say if it’s realistic or not, but removing the defensive traits from weapons that were just used helped with game balance.


The targeted shots system looks nice and detailed, but I wonder if is necessary to have so many options. It' may be a good optional rule, though, if you want more options. How often did the players use called shots in your group and in what kind of situations?

I came up with those rules before the third session of our five session game. Those three sessions only included four combats, so there wasn’t a huge amount of time to test out the rules, but a couple of my players seemed to really like them. The melee guy in particular found aiming for the sword arm to be an efficient way to reduce the threat of an opponent without dealing any hit point damage.

I'm not sure how I would merge targeted shots with focused attacks. I'd have to test a few ideas I have before suggesting something.

Yitzi
2012-06-01, 03:40 PM
A shield is much easier to use for one thing. A good round shield will cover your entire facing body from shoulder to knee with very little difficulty. And they're also much better for actual battles. A well formed shield wall beats just about anything as long as it can hold its flanks.

And the advantage of a second weapon is what? Just that it can also be used for offense?

Snowfire
2012-06-01, 05:30 PM
And the advantage of a second weapon is what? Just that it can also be used for offense?

At risk of sounding truly insulting - sorry if I cause offence here - because it looks pretty.

The vast majority of European two weapon fighting styles came out of 'court' sword fighting, which is vastly removed from the type of fighting that actually got done on battlefields, by warriors and soldiers. It was out of this that a great deal of the known fencing styles and suchlike grew; court and 'stylised' swordplay.

It was meant to look good, to wow crowds and woo women. To dazzle kings and queens with flashing displays of shining steel. To get so close to what those shielded from war thought was conflict that they became convinced that sword-dancing was war.

Now in the East, maybe it was an actual functional on-the-battlefield style. I don't know. My area of knowledge doesn't extend there. But in Europe...in Europe the majority of warriors left two weapon fighting to the dilettantes. It looks pretty, yeah. But pretty doesn't help much when you run into a wall of spears and have nothing to hide behind.