PDA

View Full Version : What's the best built system mechanically?



randomhero00
2010-05-14, 05:15 PM
D20 is popular, is it the best? I've only had experience with d20 (D&D) and exalted, D10 I guess. Even though I have a ton of dice now, I still don't like the fact that you have to roll so many sometimes (in either game) and D&D requires so many different sided dice (D3 grrr), which is also annoying.

I'm wondering if there is a system that only uses one type of dice, and where you never have to roll more than 10 per turn.

raitalin
2010-05-14, 05:27 PM
Mutants and Masterminds?

SurlySeraph
2010-05-14, 05:44 PM
World of Darkness only uses d10s, but depending on your level of power you'll probably have to roll over 10 at a time, and dice pools can be a bit tedious to deal with. It's a very elegant system overall.

Mutants and Masterminds has balance issues, but it has extreme versatility while still being pretty easy to understand.

I understand that FUDGE is great for rules-light, but I know nothing about it firsthand.

Really though, there is no best, because systems are a compromise between different aspects of play. You can't have a game that's incredibly detailed, can model lots of different things, allows for lots of playstyles, is well-balanced, *and* resolves simply and easily.

Tengu_temp
2010-05-14, 05:53 PM
All rolls in Mutants and Masterminds 2e are solved with a single roll of a d20.

Tinydwarfman
2010-05-14, 05:55 PM
GURPS. d6 for everything.

Also has streamlines rules, is reasonably realistic, and can be in any setting or power level, or genre.

Prodan
2010-05-14, 05:55 PM
I hear good things about Savage Worlds and fun things about Paranoia.

Optimystik
2010-05-14, 05:56 PM
I'd say there's a lot more factors involved in a "best built system" than just how few dice you have to roll.

By that metric, Snakes & Ladders has the best mechanics of any tabletop game ever.

Koury
2010-05-14, 06:32 PM
By that metric, Snakes & Ladders has the best mechanics of any tabletop game ever.

I see your Snakes & Ladders and raise you one Candyland. Color-coded cards for the win! :smalltongue:

AlterForm
2010-05-14, 06:38 PM
I see your Snakes & Ladders and raise you one Candyland. Color-coded cards for the win! :smalltongue:

Players can't even influence the game's outcome with personal skill! Perfect Balance!

Dragero
2010-05-14, 06:47 PM
Players can't even influence the game's outcome with personal skill! Perfect Balance!

We need a card based roleplaying system! NOW!!

As for die pools, you could always use a computer.

And, yes, GURPS can be great....if your willing to put some effort into it.

Irreverent Fool
2010-05-14, 07:02 PM
We need a card based roleplaying system! NOW!!

Malifaux (http://wyrd-games.net/shop/home.php?cat=266) is a tabletop miniatures game based on the use of cards rather than dice. D&D was adapted from a tabletop miniatures game. It's doable... well, it's probably already been done.

While I greatly enjoy Mutants & Masterminds and marvel at how beautifully put together it is, it has a fatal flaw: One has to try to not build an over-powered character. Certain options are mechanically superior. As long as one is focusing on flavor and story, it's fine, but after years of optimizing in 3.x, it is difficult to switch back to such a mentality.

I think the games that adapt the old D&D are some of the best mechanically.

obnoxious
sig

Aotrs Commander
2010-05-14, 07:03 PM
D20 is popular, is it the best? I've only had experience with d20 (D&D) and exalted, D10 I guess. Even though I have a ton of dice now, I still don't like the fact that you have to roll so many sometimes (in either game) and D&D requires so many different sided dice (D3 grrr), which is also annoying.

I'm wondering if there is a system that only uses one type of dice, and where you never have to roll more than 10 per turn.

Number and type of dice rolled per round has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the mechanical quality of the rule sets. There are lots of systems that require you only to roll a small number of dice per action, but that doesn't necessarily make them good (nor necessarily bad.)

Most systems will either be buckets of one type of dice, or less dice but different dice types. (Personally, I think the former has more problems than the latter.) I think D20 (I mean systems that use D20s, not necessarily D&D/D20 OGL games) and to a lesser extent, percentiles give the best trade off for probability verses playability out of all the options, but it really depends on what you prefer.

D&D 3.5 is my system of choice, despite it's numerous flaws.

Rolemaster will always be my second choice. Rolemaster only ever requires you to roll D100, and you'll rarely have to roll more than once or twice per round; but I'm guessing if you don't like rolling lots of diuce, rolling and adding percentiles is unlike to appeal to you, either.

It's also perhaps not so breakable as D&D can be, and it has the advantages of being able to be used anywhere/anywhen more easily, but it is slower and more cumbersome to run; you need someone intimately familiar with it to get the best out of it. (But the criticals make up for any other short comings...)

MachineWraith
2010-05-14, 07:06 PM
Warhammer Fantasy RPG has a pretty nice system. Percentage dice for everything. Very GRIMDARK though, and very easy for players to be maimed/crippled/killed instantly. All it takes is one (un)lucky roll.

Doc Roc
2010-05-14, 07:13 PM
Man, this is a hard one. I think that it's hard to beat savage worlds for speed of play combined with mechanical elegance, but there's some wonky issues with exploding dice as a probability mechanic, particularly when you have an effectively fixed target number.

Burning Wheel is absolute gold, by all accounts, specifically Mouseguard.

Kiero
2010-05-14, 07:19 PM
FATE 3.0, nice and flexible, treats all conflicts the same, and very hard to break when you're hacking it.

randomhero00
2010-05-14, 08:22 PM
I'm wondering if there is a system that only uses one type of dice, and where you never have to roll more than 10 per turn.
Since there seems to be some confusion from what I said above...that's just a personal opinion. I don't like rolling 30-40 dice or rolling 5 dice 9 times. That comment is separate from the main paragraph/body.

Although I think one could make an argument that it is a mechanical flaw if one were so inclined. Many people are not willing to purchase that many dice or roll that many times. It is prohibitive to some, hence a mechanical flaw being that the number of dice one rolls is a mechanical feature.

senrath
2010-05-14, 08:42 PM
I'm gonna have to go with whatever system you're not playing right now.

TheEmerged
2010-05-14, 08:52 PM
D20 is popular, is it the best? I've only had experience with d20 (D&D) and exalted, D10 I guess. Even though I have a ton of dice now, I still don't like the fact that you have to roll so many sometimes (in either game) and D&D requires so many different sided dice (D3 grrr), which is also annoying.

I'm wondering if there is a system that only uses one type of dice, and where you never have to roll more than 10 per turn.

Dang, my favorite system (HERO) was doing good until the bolded part. 12-15 per turn on average isn't as frightening as it may sound :smallbiggrin:

GURPS is probably the best given your criteria. It's second only to HERO for its ability to handle multiple genres, at least in my experience -- and has a *better* skill system than HERO (one of the best out there, actually). However, it often fails *miserably* when you try to cross the genres. The psionic rules work well, for example... until you try to cross them with what the magic rules can do with a comparable number of points.

RE: Card based systems. The Dragonlance 5th age rules used a card system that came close to working well (ran into a problem with monster stamina, as I recall), and there was a Marvel SuperHero RPG that tried to use a simplified version of those same rules (tried as in, failed).

Malificus
2010-05-14, 09:03 PM
I'm wondering if there is a system that only uses one type of dice, and where you never have to roll more than 10 per turn.

I think Mouse Guard is like this.

SilveryCord
2010-05-14, 09:08 PM
Well, even with only the qualifier 'mechanically', there are a lot of things you have to look at. Efficiency (How quickly and easily can a round be resolved?), Learnability (How quickly can the system be learned be a new player?), Adaptability (How many different scenerios can be handled in the rules without requiring the GM to step in?) Verisimilitude (How consistent is the system, and is it realistic within its own terms?)

Efficiency: Mutants&Masterminds
Learnability: RISUS (?)
Adaptability: GURPS
Verisimilitude: You tell me.

Raum
2010-05-14, 09:15 PM
D20 is popular, is it the best? Can you define "best"? Seriously, different systems focus on different areas.


I'm wondering if there is a system that only uses one type of dice, and where you never have to roll more than 10 per turn.Sure, a lot of systems meet those requirements. Risus, Over the Edge, ORE, Rolemaster, BRP, WEG's d6 system, FATE, GURPS...and many more.

I'd really recommend looking beyond what dice are used when choosing a game. Look for a system which supports the type of play you enjoy, paces the game to your preferred speed, and has the level of detailed mechanics / abstraction you're most comfortable with.

BTW, I like Savage Worlds but it doesn't meet the OP's 'one type of dice' requirement...

Sir_Elderberry
2010-05-14, 09:16 PM
Warhammer Dark Heresy is all d100, and it plays quite smoothly.

raitalin
2010-05-14, 09:34 PM
Oddly enough, I'm in the midst of homebrewing a card based system inspired by the Harry Potter series.

Dragonlance 5th age and the then-current Marvel Superheroes game both used the SAGA card system.

Ormagoden
2010-05-14, 09:50 PM
This system is. (http://www.samkass.com/theories/RPSSL.html)

herrhauptmann
2010-05-14, 10:24 PM
WoD is primarily a d10 game. But the local larp group at school uses a system where you draw from a deck of playing cards.
Apparently the shift happened after it became apparent that while some of the guys could afford 200$ skirts (not kilts, skirts), they couldn't afford 2$ for a handful of dice. So a single set was being used for the entire stinking game.

Swordgleam
2010-05-14, 10:28 PM
Tri-stat dX. Two dice of type X (which depends on power level - d6 for normal humans, d8 for low fantasy, d10-d12 for high fantasy, etc) for everything.

It's a fun point-buy system that's fairly easy to break and great for a lot of genres.

Lost Wanderer
2010-05-14, 10:45 PM
WoD is primarily a d10 game. But the local larp group at school uses a system where you draw from a deck of playing cards.
Apparently the shift happened after it became apparent that while some of the guys could afford 200$ skirts (not kilts, skirts), they couldn't afford 2$ for a handful of dice. So a single set was being used for the entire stinking game.

That's because the New WoD LARP rules use cards, and if someone told you otherwise, they were either lying or extremely misinformed. Also, if you think dice are the standard task resolution tool in LARPs, you're extremely misinformed.

Having seen this particular one in action, I can say its actually quite an elegant system. Very quick, very simple, and far less time consuming and needlessly confusing and wonky than the Old WoD's LARP system.

herrhauptmann
2010-05-14, 10:53 PM
That's because the New WoD LARP rules use cards, and if someone told you otherwise, they were either lying or extremely misinformed. Also, if you think dice are the standard task resolution tool in LARPs, you're extremely misinformed.

Having seen this particular one in action, I can say its actually quite an elegant system. Very quick, very simple, and far less time consuming and needlessly confusing and wonky than the Old WoD's LARP system.

We had been playing with dice. I took time off for exams, during that time, the group shifted to cards, but used the same characters. As far as I can tell, we were always using NWoD. (The fluff for Vampire seems different from what a friend described to me 8 years ago)

No, I did not own the rule books for WoD (old or new). Since we played vampire, changeling, mage, created, and were trying to start a hunters game, I saw no reason to sink over 30$ a book for a game we'd only play about 4 times in 3 months. So I was stuck trying to learn the rules in the hour before gametime each week.
So how does the card system work? I haven't actually been back to a game since the group shifted.

btw: It was an official Cammarilla group, so you'd think they'd keep to the posted rules.

Lost Wanderer
2010-05-14, 11:29 PM
We had been playing with dice. I took time off for exams, during that time, the group shifted to cards, but used the same characters. As far as I can tell, we were always using NWoD. (The fluff for Vampire seems different from what a friend described to me 8 years ago)

No, I did not own the rule books for WoD (old or new). Since we played vampire, changeling, mage, created, and were trying to start a hunters game, I saw no reason to sink over 30$ a book for a game we'd only play about 4 times in 3 months. So I was stuck trying to learn the rules in the hour before gametime each week.
So how does the card system work? I haven't actually been back to a game since the group shifted.

btw: It was an official Cammarilla group, so you'd think they'd keep to the posted rules.

I was trying to point out that the reason they switched to cards wasn't because $2 (more like $6-10 for ten dice these days) was too expensive, but because cards are the actual way the system works, and that your implication that clothing is somehow more difficult to justify the purchase of than dice is silly.
In any case, the system is that you have a deck of 42 cards, the non-face cards and two jokers. When you want to do something, you pull a card and add the number on it (Ace is worth 1) to the dots you have the relevant attribute and ability. If the total is above 8, you get a success, and every three after (11, 14, etc.) is another success. So a 15 total is worth 3 successes. 1 success is considered "marginal" and not fully effective, you need 2 to get a "full" result, most of the time. Jokers are a critical success, you get to narrate the impressive thing you just pulled off. If an ST pulls a joker on you in an opposed roll... they get to narrate things not going your way at all. To put it lightly.
The rules for different supernatural powers can get weird sometimes (but that's the case in any game with magic), but the base mechanic is quite simple.

mabriss lethe
2010-05-15, 12:31 AM
ADRPG! (Amber Diceless) As the name implies. no dice at all are used. Nothing but static numbers and GM arbitration. But the system isn't for everyone, not by a longshot.

Arbane
2010-05-15, 12:32 AM
Risus (http://www222.pair.com/sjohn/risus.htm)?

A universal system that's so mechanically simple, you can fit the entire ruleset into 6 pages!

Slightly more seriously, it depends on what you _want_ from a rules system. If you want grit and detail, don't use HeroQuest. If you want speed, don't pick Exalted. If you want over-the-top flashy heroism, Rolemaster is out.

But whatever style of play you like, definitely don't try <Your Favorite Game>. It's an overpriced, clunky abomination that was obviously created by malevolent nerds with an overwhelming hatred of fun. :smallbiggrin:

Doc Roc
2010-05-15, 12:33 AM
I think Mouse Guard is like this.

I don't remember using anything other than a single die-type, but it's been a while. It's also one of the prettiest books I own.

Totally Guy
2010-05-15, 05:50 AM
Mouse Guard and Burning Wheel are amazing. I don't think it's the dice that does it though. They're built upon lots of theory and the mechanics encourage really good play.

It's not so good for passive players or GMs that can't improvise. Although Mouse Guard is a bit better in that respect.

Players have many more GM-like powers than other systems. Instead of Gather Information to find out what the GM will tell you you can Circle Up A Contact and (if successful) tell the GM what's going on. It's a big shift in thinking and the traditional gaming power structure.

Satyr
2010-05-15, 09:09 AM
Gurps is very close to perfection. It is elegant and streamlined, yet not overtly simple and superficial; it includes more options than you ever need so that you can easily form your unique game of choice, and finally, the game is one of the few that treats its players and GMs as mature and intelligent people and not some kind of small children or idiots who are apparently unable of independent thoughts or creativity.

Unfortunately, Gurps require a bit more time to adjust the rules to what you need, so it is somewhat of a luxury in the time department.

Most games confront you with a finished set of rules and expect the players to adapt; Gurps (and Hero, which is very similar, but manages to be even more "nerdy") offers a great box of tools which you can adapt to what you want. Because it is not unlikely that you know better what you and your group will enjoy than any game designer you never have met; and this respect is what sets such flexible games above more standard fare.

Apart from that, the game is, indeed very well built. The rules are simple and streamlined but offer more options than most other games combined. Despite its complexity, the game is yet simple, uses constantly the same mechanisms in the game and is thus very intuitive.
What's more, it puts a lot of focus on creating well-rounded and unique characters who are defined by what they are, not what they do, and is probably the best game around to teach complete new players how to create interesting characters.

Knaight
2010-05-15, 09:24 AM
Gurps is very close to perfection. It is elegant and streamlined, yet not overtly simple and superficial; it includes more options than you ever need so that you can easily form your unique game of choice, and finally, the game is one of the few that treats its players and GMs as mature and intelligent people and not some kind of small children or idiots who are apparently unable of independent thoughts or creativity.

Unfortunately, Gurps require a bit more time to adjust the rules to what you need, so it is somewhat of a luxury in the time department.

Most games confront you with a finished set of rules and expect the players to adapt; Gurps (and Hero, which is very similar, but manages to be even more "nerdy") offers a great box of tools which you can adapt to what you want. Because it is not unlikely that you know better what you and your group will enjoy than any game designer you never have met; and this respect is what sets such flexible games above more standard fare.

I should add that this also applies to Fudge. Fudge is far more open than GURPS will ever be, and requires a comparable amount of work in choosing what you want, furthermore it is well supported and can work at a variety of different detail levels. I've seen Fudge builds that were heavier than GURPS at its heaviest, and I've seen Fudge builds that made Risus look rules heavy, and they both worked beautifully. Like GURPS and Hero it is genre neutral, however it is far more genre neutral. GURPS, for instance, has a set four attributes, strength, agility, toughness, and intelligence, and skills that are heavily attribute dependent, the entire system is built around that. Fudge has whatever attributes and skills determined for the game, using one of dozens of different skill systems, that may or may not be connected in a variety of ways, and in games where the GURPS attributes are largely useless (ie, the highschool kids genre. You would probably want something like appearance, popularity, grades, maybe intelligence, wealth, etc.) Fudge does better.

On dice. Fudge uses unique dice, that produce a zero centered bell curve, and it uses 4 of them (I personally cut that down to three, with no issue.), though d6 can be subbed in. The math is extremely easy by default, and only ramps up if you start adding a lot of rules heavy stuff (variable attack and defense penalty weapons, combat stances, long lists of modifiers, etc. forms most of the combat examples), and even then it is less in difficulty and more in time. If any of your players care about that, you're good.

Oh, and it is free. Completely free, and currently at www.fudgerpg.com, though the commercial stuff has a lot of sample add-ons, and a complete fantasy system for the extremely lazy.

LibraryOgre
2010-05-15, 09:43 AM
D20 is popular, is it the best? I've only had experience with d20 (D&D) and exalted, D10 I guess. Even though I have a ton of dice now, I still don't like the fact that you have to roll so many sometimes (in either game) and D&D requires so many different sided dice (D3 grrr), which is also annoying.

I'm wondering if there is a system that only uses one type of dice, and where you never have to roll more than 10 per turn.

Given your dislike of rolling tons of dice, you might also try Cinematic Unisystem, which is a system that relies on a single d10. You can also look at API (Apocalypse Prevention, Inc.), which relies on a single d20.

The question of "best built system" depends a lot on what you want to do with it.

Zeta Kai
2010-05-15, 09:57 AM
Risus (http://www222.pair.com/sjohn/risus.htm)?

A universal system that's so mechanically simple, you can fit the entire ruleset into 6 pages!

Minimus (http://www.adastragames.com/downloads/RPGs/Minimus.pdf) got its rules down to 4 pages, although it's possible to get fairly complex, if you want to. It's a decent/good system, but it's not for everyone; no system is, really.

Zergrusheddie
2010-05-15, 10:04 AM
"Best" is always an opinion.

Personally, I am a fan of Mutants and Masterminds just because the system is set up with the idea of "to hell with it; what do you want to do?!". The only problem with it is that it is ridiculously easy to make something that utterly destroys game play. A permanently incorporeal 'ghost' is nearly impossible to stop from just waltzing into an area and defeating all the enemies unless they just so happen to have an attack that can hurt him.

Mutants and Masterminds is like playing epic level DnD, only that's how you start with MnM...

Satyr
2010-05-15, 10:11 AM
Which is then also the problem I have with Fudge: It is so open-minded, that the rules effectively become random again; there is little of a framework

Yes, it is cool system if it works, but it perhaps offers too little orientation and stimulation.
This is generally the downside of more free-form systems, and it is obviously not easy to keep the balance between the different approaches. Ideally, I suppose a game should be so accessible that one can easily just read it and than start to come up with some ideas, and not so condescending that it supposes to know better than you what is fun! (fast! furious! as an example for a special obnoxious representative of this category).

Gurps is seriously not the only game in this category; the aforementioned Hero, Fudge are very similar, the Unisystem or Fuzion also have aspects of this, Mutants and Masterminds goes in similar direction even though it is a lot more hidebound in the genre question, and I suppose that Savage Worlds once wanted to be something similar when it would have grown up and before the system settled for its bland mediocrity.
Among these "open" game concepts, however, I think it stands out for two reasons: accessibility and research.

It can hardly be stressed enough that Gurps is actually simple once you know it (or have someone explain it). It offers a reliable framework while it at the same time offers you all the tools you need to build your own worlds. Therefore, I have both reliability at hands ( I know what mechanic fulfills which function, I have a standardized vocabulary which makes it much simpler to communicate between players and I have a framework I can constantly refer to; this is basically a best of both worlds approach, which includes a very well-working balance between familiar elements and novelty. Honestly, with Fudge I felt a bit abandoned.

The other aspect I really like about Gurps is how well researched its source books and rules are. The source books are pretty much the standard for their specific genres; even if you never intent to use the Gurps rules for a certain genre, the corresponding Gurps source books are usually the best you will find for many, many aspects.
The same is true for the rules - they are based on real world logic, or realism, if you like. This makes the game a lot more intuitive because things work pretty much as you expect them to do, and effectively, reality is the ultimate bottom line, the lowest of the lowest common denominator, because this is the one aspect, everyone probably has to agree to (delusions notwithstanding).

Besides, it makes the game fun to read if you don't feel as if a lobotomy seems to be a prerequisite for enjoying the game. As a slightly exagerated conclusion: "Smart games are made for smart people. Stupid games are... not."

Tengu_temp
2010-05-15, 11:09 AM
So, if a game's rules are based on an abstraction, not realism, then it's a stupid game and you can't enjoy it without a lobotomy?



What's more, it puts a lot of focus on creating well-rounded and unique characters who are defined by what they are, not what they do, and is probably the best game around to teach complete new players how to create interesting characters.

Personally, I prefer when mechanically the characters are defined by what they do. That makes it easier to make them mechanically diverse and interesting.

Satyr
2010-05-15, 11:45 AM
Every rule is an abstraction, and every abstraction bases in a way either on reality or a facsimile of it. Likewise, every argument sounds silly when taken to the extremes; I just like it when I don't find blatant errors in a game like the Shadowrun book that claimed that Henry Ford invented the car.

Stupidity lies in context, and in content. Overtly abstract rules are not really something I consider to be very fulfilling, because they usually sacrifice too much for something I regard just to be a mean to an end (simplicity), but that's a complete different discussion.

Tengu_temp
2010-05-15, 11:50 AM
Overtly abstract rules can also be used to reinforce the feeling of the game's setting. Take a look at Weapons of the Gods or Bliss Stage. A lot in the former and everything in the latter are rules that have no base in reality, yet their impact on giving the game an interesting, unique feel is undeniable.

Morty
2010-05-15, 11:53 AM
Warhammer Fantasy RPG has a pretty nice system. Percentage dice for everything. Very GRIMDARK though, and very easy for players to be maimed/crippled/killed instantly. All it takes is one (un)lucky roll.

I don't really thing WFRPG counts as "well-built". It's fun to play, sure, but I don't feel like it's been carefully designed.

Raum
2010-05-15, 11:56 AM
I find this ironically amusing:
Gurps is very close to perfection. It is elegant and streamlined... and
...not so condescending that it supposes to know better than you what is fun! (fast! furious! as an example for a special obnoxious representative of this category). in the same thread. They're both advertisement. They're both opinion.

-----
Games are different. That's great! Because so are preferences. Hopefully we can all find a game we enjoy.

Tengu_temp
2010-05-15, 12:04 PM
I don't really thing WFRPG counts as "well-built". It's fun to play, sure, but I don't feel like it's been carefully designed.

Yeah, I'd say the best part about WFRP is that it's fast. Building a character is fast, making tests is fast, combat is fast, losing a character is fast. Other than that, it's not really the best system out there.

Morty
2010-05-15, 01:13 PM
Yeah, I'd say the best part about WFRP is that it's fast. Building a character is fast, making tests is fast, combat is fast, losing a character is fast. Other than that, it's not really the best system out there.

I wouldn't say combat is quick in FFRP, which is what led me to the opinion that it's not that well-designed. It can take a dozen rolls to resolve a combat between two characters unless the GM, player or both decide to use all-out attacks to make it quicker.

Ravens_cry
2010-05-15, 01:43 PM
"Best" is always an opinion.

Personally, I am a fan of Mutants and Masterminds just because the system is set up with the idea of "to hell with it; what do you want to do?!". The only problem with it is that it is ridiculously easy to make something that utterly destroys game play. A permanently incorporeal 'ghost' is nearly impossible to stop from just waltzing into an area and defeating all the enemies unless they just so happen to have an attack that can hurt him.

Mutants and Masterminds is like playing epic level DnD, only that's how you start with MnM...
Considering its main, intended, subject matter, that's hardly surprising. Some supers could one shot Superman, others couldn't stand up to Stilt-man. The thing is, the game also explicitly tells the DM and players to work together to make the game fun for everyone, and labels things the developers found game breaking.

Tengu_temp
2010-05-15, 01:48 PM
I wouldn't say combat is quick in FFRP, which is what led me to the opinion that it's not that well-designed. It can take a dozen rolls to resolve a combat between two characters unless the GM, player or both decide to use all-out attacks to make it quicker.

Maybe it changed in the second edition. I'm mostly familiar with the first edition of WFRP, the most popular RPG in Poland when I was still active in the local RPG community. Those were the times, both terrible and beautiful at the same time.

Morty
2010-05-15, 02:01 PM
Maybe it changed in the second edition. I'm mostly familiar with the first edition of WFRP, the most popular RPG in Poland when I was still active in the local RPG community. Those were the times, both terrible and beautiful at the same time.

Yeah, I've heard it was different in the 1st edition. I'm not familiar with it myself, I've only seen the beautifully oldschool rulebook once or twice.

Ravens_cry
2010-05-15, 02:11 PM
I played WFRP at a con, and ooh boy, can you die fast. Unfortunately, the gritty feel it may be going for mechanics wise is lost by the fact that you basically get 'lives'. As for world feel, it's Warhammer. It's so gritty it ****s defecates boulders, so dark it ****s defecates bats.

randomhero00
2010-05-15, 02:21 PM
Just wanted to say this has nothing to do with me choosing a game to play. Its more like a mathematical curiosity.

Moriato
2010-05-15, 02:37 PM
Most fun system for me was from a game called Whispering Vault. You used die pools, similar to white wolf, but it was d6s rather than d10s, and you added up matching dice to find your total. For example, a roll of 4 3 5 6 6 would be 12, or a roll of 6 3 3 3 1 2 would be 9. If you beat the difficulty rating, you succeed. It made rolling a lot of fun for me. Kinda like playing yahtzee every time you make a roll.

Also all of the fluff was pretty much up to the player. For example there was an ability called Rend, which allowed your character to make a ranged attack, and used X die pool. What exactly happens when you character uses rend is entirely up to you, the only rule being that it should be thematically appropriate to your character, whose appearence is also entirely up to you.

It was tons of fun, I only wish that I could actually find someone willing to run it again.

Knaight
2010-05-15, 04:11 PM
Just wanted to say this has nothing to do with me choosing a game to play. Its more like a mathematical curiosity.

In that case, I point you towards the brilliance that is ORE. You have a pseudo dice pool system, rolling d10s. However, you look for matches instead of counting successful dice, every roll has two parts, how good the roll is (number rolled, called height.) and how many matches there are (width). For instance, in combat Width determines initiative. Furthermore there are rules that allow for dice manipulation. For instance, there is a body location wound system in most ORE games (Nemesis has one, Wild Talents has one, etc.), a called shot is made by placing one die on the number that corresponds to where you want to hit then rolling the rest. Its brilliant.

Furthermore, supernatural types might roll, and just have an automatic ten attached, or get bonus dice set after, etc. It is a great example of a mathematically interesting game, and it works well.

randomhero00
2010-05-15, 05:59 PM
Thanks guys, that's an interesting system ("yahtzee" system; moriato's post.) I was curious about the average points per roll and did a small experiment. Rolled 5 dice 21 times (105) and got a total point score of 188 (the mode was 10, occurring 8 times.) So it was an average of 1.79 points per die when rolling 5 dice. The problem is this number changes quite a bit when increasing or decreasing the amount rolled. I wonder what it looks like? An exponential curve? Has anyone done the math for this system?

Knaight
2010-05-16, 01:01 PM
The free rules in Nemesis include some of the math behind ORE, such as probabilities of matches.

PinkysBrain
2010-05-16, 02:17 PM
Are there any high magic systems which don't only manage to keep it together by DM fiat? (Either through being rules light or through requiring the DM sign off on characters such as with GURPS and D&D.)

For what I mean by high magic ... lets say that mid campaign a magic user should be able to cast a combination of minute+ lasting flight/invisibility/flight/illusions and area damage spells at least a dozen times a day (without worrying about sudden death or demons appearing out of nowhere).

PS. don't give me 4e as an answer ... the magic at low/mid level has only minor effects with very low synergy ... all IMO of course :)

Tengu_temp
2010-05-16, 02:32 PM
I've yet to see an RPG system that's impossible to break, so I'd say that all games require DM fiat to some extent.

Altair_the_Vexed
2010-05-16, 02:35 PM
D20 is popular, is it the best? I've only had experience with d20 (D&D) and exalted, D10 I guess. Even though I have a ton of dice now, I still don't like the fact that you have to roll so many sometimes (in either game) and D&D requires so many different sided dice (D3 grrr), which is also annoying.

I'm wondering if there is a system that only uses one type of dice, and where you never have to roll more than 10 per turn.

Star Wars d6 game only ever had a few d6 per check.

I'm not sure that makes it the best built system, mechanically.

The Big Dice
2010-05-16, 03:06 PM
Star Wars d6 game only ever had a few d6 per check.

I'm not sure that makes it the best built system, mechanically.

You sure about that? I seem to remeber characters chucking around a dozen or more D6 per action in that game. Especially Jedi or dedicated pilots.

Kiero
2010-05-16, 03:18 PM
Yeah, I'd say the best part about WFRP is that it's fast. Building a character is fast, making tests is fast, combat is fast, losing a character is fast. Other than that, it's not really the best system out there.

WFRP's combat system has one of the worst examples of a chain-of-rolls resolution, the only thing worse is WoD/Storyteller/ing. It's three-fold whiff where any "success" can be turned into "failure" by the thing it interacts with.

Roll a hit, but your opponent dodges or parries. If they fail their first attempt, they might spend a Fortune point to have another go.

Get a confirmed hit, but fail to roll high enough damage to beat their Toughness bonus and armour, and it achieves nothing.

Finally whittle away their Wounds and get into critical hit territory, and you could still be achieving nothing if you roll poorly on the table.

You can have entire rounds with nothing but misses, parries and dodges, and basically nothing happens. Tens of rolls with very few actual outcomes.

That ain't "fast".

wadledo
2010-05-16, 03:27 PM
I like the system for Don't Rest Your Head.
You roll three types of dice. And then there's the Red dice.

Tengu_temp
2010-05-16, 03:37 PM
WFRP's combat system has one of the worst examples of a chain-of-rolls resolution, the only thing worse is WoD/Storyteller/ing. It's three-fold whiff where any "success" can be turned into "failure" by the thing it interacts with.

Roll a hit, but your opponent dodges or parries. If they fail their first attempt, they might spend a Fortune point to have another go.

Get a confirmed hit, but fail to roll high enough damage to beat their Toughness bonus and armour, and it achieves nothing.

Finally whittle away their Wounds and get into critical hit territory, and you could still be achieving nothing if you roll poorly on the table.

You can have entire rounds with nothing but misses, parries and dodges, and basically nothing happens. Tens of rolls with very few actual outcomes.

That ain't "fast".

I'm talking about WFRP 1e. Most enemies don't dodge or parry, Fortune points are only for the PCs, and armor gives much lower benefits. Unless you're fighting a dragon, a greater demon or some other powerful monster, most enemies die in 2-4 blows.

Knaight
2010-05-16, 03:38 PM
Are there any high magic systems which don't only manage to keep it together by DM fiat? (Either through being rules light or through requiring the DM sign off on characters such as with GURPS and D&D.)

Ars Magica is pretty close to this, though it is very structured and very magic focused, and doesn't really do the whole adventuring party thing per se. Burning Wheel is also fairly reasonable here (classic, not revised).

The Cat Goddess
2010-05-16, 03:44 PM
Tri-Tac wound system for highest realism! :smallbiggrin:

GM-"Okay, you got hit in the upper arm for 10... that's 1pt flesh, 2pts muscle, 3pts bone, 2pts muscle, 1pt flesh... and the last one is lost 'cause it went through... your arm got severed by the axe."

PC-"Hey, my guy has exceptionally high strength!"

GM-"Oh, you're right... so that's 3pts muscle each time." recalculates. "So your arm is hanging on by 1pt of flesh."

PC-"Cool! I grab the axe that's stuck in my arm!"

PinkysBrain
2010-05-16, 06:43 PM
Burning Wheel is also fairly reasonable here (classic, not revised).
Isn't their suggestion to balance magic to have everyone play magic users?

wadledo
2010-05-16, 06:51 PM
Isn't their suggestion to balance magic to have everyone play magic users?

That sounds like Burning Wheel, yes.
Pretty good advice too.

Totally Guy
2010-05-17, 04:15 AM
Isn't their suggestion to balance magic to have everyone play magic users?

We've found that the power of a character is tied straight into the Beliefs. Strong beliefs give good direction and good direction results in good play.

It's not really made for balance. With the same lifepaths elves have better stats and skills than men and orcs are often terrible. But when it's interpreted as the nurture the character would have had growing up it makes more sense.

Avilan the Grey
2010-05-17, 05:12 AM
Question coming from left field: Why does this discussion sound exactly like discussions about Linux distributions? :smallbiggrin:

More or less On topic: I have heard very good things about Savage Worlds and GURPS. I have only played Rolemaster, D&D D20, CoC 3E and Vampire (the edition before the newest one, whichever that one was). Of these I prefer Call of Cthulhu.

FatR
2010-05-17, 05:35 AM
Most games confront you with a finished set of rules and expect the players to adapt; Gurps (and Hero, which is very similar, but manages to be even more "nerdy") offers a great box of tools which you can adapt to what you want.
No, you can't. Without rewriting the system. And if I need to rewrite the system to do something, it doesn't offer me tools I want. As for examples, GURPS generally sucks at representing superhumanly capable characters, and the every set of "powers" from GURPS I'm familiar with (magic, cyber-enhancements) breaks the game as badly as DnD's wizard spellist.



What's more, it puts a lot of focus on creating well-rounded and unique characters who are defined by what they are, not what they do,
I suppose that's why GURPS rewards extreme specialization?

FatR
2010-05-17, 05:39 AM
As about my personal best system, DnD 3.X, at least for fantasy. No other system I've tried is superior in actual gameplay.

Avilan the Grey
2010-05-17, 05:46 AM
As about my personal best system, DnD 3.X, at least for fantasy. No other system I've tried is superior in actual gameplay.

Actually I disagree. I have not played Rolemaster for years, but the Swedish games that inherited the system of whatever edition that was out somewhere in the late 80ies worked better for me than D&D 3.5 does now. The biggest reason, of course, was NO ALIGNMENTS and NO LEVELS, both which I find belongs to computer games and not tabletop RPGs... IMHO, of course. The rest of the game was very easy to grasp and could cope with any situation that we came up with.

Kaiyanwang
2010-05-17, 06:01 AM
This system is. (http://www.samkass.com/theories/RPSSL.html)

Meh.. I mean, sounds perfectly balanced, but lacks of deep. Moreover, it's IMO affected by sameness.

How could you mechanically separate, as an example, Lizard and Paper? The fluff could be different, but they play in the same way.

:smallsigh:

As a side note, is more playable of previous editions.. this should be recognized - the designer get rid quite well of the tie problems.

Sliver
2010-05-17, 06:04 AM
Did anybody try to play M&M's Warriors And Warlocks?

wadledo
2010-05-17, 07:44 AM
It's exaclty like M&M, except more restricted in some senses and less restricted in others. I'm pretty sure they have a feat that lets you parry any ranged attack indefinitely, and magic users are either as broken as normal M&M or completely useless, depending on what rules the DM decides to go with.

kestrel404
2010-05-17, 08:45 AM
D20 is popular, is it the best? I've only had experience with d20 (D&D) and exalted, D10 I guess. Even though I have a ton of dice now, I still don't like the fact that you have to roll so many sometimes (in either game) and D&D requires so many different sided dice (D3 grrr), which is also annoying.

I'm wondering if there is a system that only uses one type of dice, and where you never have to roll more than 10 per turn.

As has been stated, the 'best' system is a matter of personal choice.

As for what you asked for, the ORE system (stands for 'One Roll Engine') is quite exactly what you just stated. You can role no more than 10 dice per turn (because that's the largest possible dice pool), and it's always d10. This system is still completely different than the white wolf system though, in that you're looking for sets (more than 1 d10 with the same value showing). Look here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-Roll_Engine) or here (http://www.arcdream.com) for more info.

As for personally, I strongly recommend the Earthdawn rules system. It's interesting, fun, and has a lot of nuances that make rolling the dice as much fun as the role playing.

The Big Dice
2010-05-17, 09:09 AM
No, you can't. Without rewriting the system. And if I need to rewrite the system to do something, it doesn't offer me tools I want. As for examples, GURPS generally sucks at representing superhumanly capable characters, and the every set of "powers" from GURPS I'm familiar with (magic, cyber-enhancements) breaks the game as badly as DnD's wizard spellist
GURPS isn't as bad as that. The costing for abilities tends to balance things out, and the one second per combat round timeframe combined with the relatively long casting times means that magic doesn't dominate as much as it does in other games. Especially as (at least in 3rd edition, I don't know about 4th) spell damage tops out at 3d6.

Which, to put it into perspective, is the same damage as a .44 magnum round does.

The real problem with GURPS is when you make your character, that's your character for the rest of the campaign. Development is both subtle and very slow, plus equipment isnt a big thing in GURPS.

Morty
2010-05-17, 09:27 AM
WFRP's combat system has one of the worst examples of a chain-of-rolls resolution, the only thing worse is WoD/Storyteller/ing. It's three-fold whiff where any "success" can be turned into "failure" by the thing it interacts with.

Roll a hit, but your opponent dodges or parries. If they fail their first attempt, they might spend a Fortune point to have another go.

Get a confirmed hit, but fail to roll high enough damage to beat their Toughness bonus and armour, and it achieves nothing.

Finally whittle away their Wounds and get into critical hit territory, and you could still be achieving nothing if you roll poorly on the table.

You can have entire rounds with nothing but misses, parries and dodges, and basically nothing happens. Tens of rolls with very few actual outcomes.

That ain't "fast".

To be fair, it can be somewhat alleviated by using all-out attacks - it raises the chances of hitting by 20% and makes you unable to parry or dodge. When GMing WFRP, I made enemies use only that method of attack.

Darth Stabber
2010-05-17, 10:04 AM
If a sense of realism is desired I recommend the Riddle of Steel. I also recommend ignoring magic entirely in that system, as it is in no way balanced and the writers say they won't even try.

Ultimately any system in which mechanic enhance roleplay as opposed to meerly resolve actions. This is something that 3.5 D&D had that 4e does not. Wizards felt different from psions, because of the difference in mechanics handling them. That being said, it only worked because D&D is a very crunchy game.

PinkysBrain
2010-05-17, 10:05 AM
Actually I disagree. I have not played Rolemaster for years, but the Swedish games that inherited the system of whatever edition that was out somewhere in the late 80ies worked better for me than D&D 3.5 does now. The biggest reason, of course, was NO ALIGNMENTS and NO LEVELS, both which I find belongs to computer games and not tabletop RPGs... IMHO, of course. The rest of the game was very easy to grasp and could cope with any situation that we came up with.
AFAICS Rolemaster has always had levels ... even in the 80s.

PinkysBrain
2010-05-17, 10:13 AM
We've found that the power of a character is tied straight into the Beliefs. Strong beliefs give good direction and good direction results in good play.

It's not really made for balance. With the same lifepaths elves have better stats and skills than men and orcs are often terrible. But when it's interpreted as the nurture the character would have had growing up it makes more sense.
I don't really mind lack of out of combat balance ... in a social setting players care less if they accomplish their goals, as long as they get their time in. Even in failure you make an impact in a social encounter, you get the spotlight for a moment.

In combat all you generally do in failure is miss or fail to do damage, you're rolling the dice and not affecting the flow of combat ... round after round of that is no fun at all, you might as well not be there.

Kiero
2010-05-17, 10:53 AM
I'm talking about WFRP 1e. Most enemies don't dodge or parry, Fortune points are only for the PCs, and armor gives much lower benefits. Unless you're fighting a dragon, a greater demon or some other powerful monster, most enemies die in 2-4 blows.

So you mean the edition with the "Naked Dwarf" problem?

FatR
2010-05-17, 11:35 AM
GURPS isn't as bad as that. The costing for abilities tends to balance things out, and the one second per combat round timeframe combined with the relatively long casting times means that magic doesn't dominate as much as it does in other games. Especially as (at least in 3rd edition, I don't know about 4th) spell damage tops out at 3d6.

Which, to put it into perspective, is the same damage as a .44 magnum round does.
Spell damage is generally below what melee types can do in DnD past AD&D 2 too. Doesn't help, you know. So it doesn't in GURPS when a magic-user stabs you from dozens of feets underground without any chance of retaliation, until you die.

Draz74
2010-05-17, 11:56 AM
There's many things I don't like about 4e, but I have to say it does do a great job at being high-magic without making casters dominate non-casters.

SpikeFightwicky
2010-05-17, 12:18 PM
I suppose that's why GURPS rewards extreme specialization?

It also rewards playing as a group of PCs that would be involuntarily commited under normal circumstances.

Mechanically, I think my all time favorite is the L5R/LBS system. Everything's settled via d10 rolls using a 'Roll X dice, Keep Y dice VS a set DC' style, with the fun added bonus of exploding dice. The main problems my group had were fluff based, not mechanics based (bonus points for satisfying every player in my group).

CoC also has a fairly solid ruleset, though the GM has to rule on the fly more often. Unisystem and Savage Worlds are excellent as well.

PinkysBrain
2010-05-17, 12:30 PM
There's many things I don't like about 4e, but I have to say it does do a great job at being high-magic without making casters dominate non-casters.
I don't think it's high magic ... there's a lot of it, but it's not terribly impressive until epic. Stuff like flight, invisibility, illusions, wall spells (not energy, real walls) and teleportation are all pushed way back on the level curve.

PS. something which does -X to attack together with some damage or something similar is not the kind of illusion I'm talking about ... I'm talking about Major Image type of illusions.

Draz74
2010-05-17, 12:36 PM
I don't think it's high magic ... there's a lot of it, but it's not terribly impressive until epic. Stuff like flight, invisibility, illusions, wall spells (not energy, real walls) and teleportation are all pushed way back on the level curve.

I thought that was the definition of high magic?

In any case, limiting (certain kinds) of magic (like flight) until higher levels is, indeed, why casters don't rule over non-casters in 4e ... and I heartily approve!

cattoy
2010-05-17, 12:53 PM
Gurps is very close to perfection. It is elegant and streamlined,

Nothing says elegant and streamlined like calculating cube roots ^_^

Avilan the Grey
2010-05-17, 01:20 PM
AFAICS Rolemaster has always had levels ... even in the 80s.

My bad. I feel like a total idiot. Drakar och Demoner was built on a revised version of Steve Perrin's Basic Role-Playing (which in turn is based on RuneQuest).

Tengu_temp
2010-05-17, 01:42 PM
So you mean the edition with the "Naked Dwarf" problem?

Yup. I never said it's a balanced game, did I?

Kurald Galain
2010-05-17, 02:01 PM
I thought that was the definition of high magic?
Not in fantasy novels or other RPGs, at least.



In any case, limiting (certain kinds) of magic (like flight) until higher levels is, indeed, why casters don't rule over non-casters in 4e
That strikes me as a false dichotomy.

Draz74
2010-05-17, 03:29 PM
Not in fantasy novels or other RPGs, at least.
What is, then?


That strikes me as a false dichotomy.
If you can show me a system where magic can do everything it can do in 3e, but isn't overpowered like it is in 3e, I'll be impressed. :smallamused:

I agree there's some flexibility on the details. It may well be possible to write rules for, say, invisibility that don't make magic overpowered even if invisibility is available at low levels. But my point was that, to make magic not rule the game, you have to take things that are overpowered from magic's capabilities, and shove them back into higher levels until they aren't overpowered anymore. In a way that 3e so completely fails to do.

(Even Alter Self and Polymorph might not be overpowered if they were Level 4 and Level 8 spells, respectively. That's sort of what 4e did with some forms of magic.)

I have a particularly hard time imagining a system where flight is easily available at low levels without being overpowered. But I'd be interested to hear if there are arguments against that.

Avilan the Grey
2010-05-17, 03:45 PM
Not in fantasy novels or other RPGs, at least.


Actually the only definition of "high magic" I know is exactly that: Tons of mages and magical stuff.

PinkysBrain
2010-05-17, 03:57 PM
Flexible magic is not the problem ... the problem is trying to keep everything except for the casters too mundane. For instance I think that in 3e mook guards above level 4 should have single use items of flight and see invisibility and a continuous item of detect magic.

Mages combined with people who can only hit things with sharp/pointy/blunt objects is obviously going to be a massacre.

Tinydwarfman
2010-05-17, 04:23 PM
Nothing says elegant and streamlined like calculating cube roots ^_^

Wait, what? I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. When have you ever had to any any serious math in GURPS?

EDIT: were you playing 3rd edition vehicles? Because the vehicles rules are completely scrapped in 4e. I don't think anyone missed them.

J.Gellert
2010-05-17, 04:42 PM
Mutants and Masterminds is awesome if you have mature people playing it (as opposed to breaking it) and it can work on any setting.

World of Darkness does only one thing, but it does it very well.

D&D/d20 is fun because it can be so many different things (with all the supplements around for 3.5).

Tinydwarfman
2010-05-17, 04:54 PM
D&D/d20 is fun because it can be so many different things (with all the supplements around for 3.5).

On the contrary, the d20 system can be used for many things, but D&D is one of the most set in stone systems there is. No matter how many splatbooks you add, you still have the same base of medieval fantasy adventuring. M&M is not a D&D book.

J.Gellert
2010-05-17, 04:59 PM
On the contrary, the d20 system can be used for many things, but D&D is one of the most set in stone systems there is. No matter how many splatbooks you add, you still have the same base of medieval fantasy adventuring. M&M is not a D&D book.

I'm not talking about M&M, that's why I wrote that bit earlier. Look at all the campaign settings - Eberron is a whole new kind of D&D, and it just gets crazier once you look at 3rd party books. There's epic medieval fantasy, horror medieval fantasy, steampunk medieval fantasy... And D20 in general is even more varied.

FatR
2010-05-18, 06:37 AM
I have a particularly hard time imagining a system where flight is easily available at low levels without being overpowered. But I'd be interested to hear if there are arguments against that.
What are actual arguments for flight being overpowered, save for 4E tactical combat system being incapable of handling it well? In 3.5 getting outdoors flight for all party by level 6 is pretty trivial, and this does not break the game.

Tinydwarfman
2010-05-18, 06:52 AM
What are actual arguments for flight being overpowered, save for 4E tactical combat system being incapable of handling it well? In 3.5 getting outdoors flight for all party by level 6 is pretty trivial, and this does not break the game.

Really? Level 6? With the standard Wiz/Fighter/Cleric/Rogue team, how are you expected to do that? Even if you sub out fighter for Warblade and rogue for factotum, I don't see how that works.


I'm not talking about M&M, that's why I wrote that bit earlier. Look at all the campaign settings - Eberron is a whole new kind of D&D, and it just gets crazier once you look at 3rd party books. There's epic medieval fantasy, horror medieval fantasy, steampunk medieval fantasy... And D20 in general is even more varied.

Yea, D&D does have a lot of settings, but it's always medieval fantasy adventuring. It's not exactly up there on flexibility compared to many other systems. If your reason for D&D being fun is wide variety, then I suggest you look into a generic system.

SpikeFightwicky
2010-05-18, 06:53 AM
Mutants and Masterminds is awesome if you have mature people playing it (as opposed to breaking it) and it can work on any setting.

I always thought groups of such players were mere legends...

J.Gellert
2010-05-18, 07:20 AM
I always thought groups of such players were mere legends...

I am proud to say that my group is like that :smallredface:

Kurald Galain
2010-05-18, 01:42 PM
What are actual arguments for flight being overpowered, save for 4E tactical combat system being incapable of handling it well? In 3.5 getting outdoors flight for all party by level 6 is pretty trivial, and this does not break the game.

This.

Yes, it allows you to ignore any fight that doesn't involve (1) flying opponents, (2) ranged weaponry, (3) something the enemies are guarding that you need, or (4) a ceiling. It strikes me as trivial for any competent DM to create fights that aren't ignorable for flying opponents. I can think of several RPGs that allow flight at level 1 (or invisibility, or large or tiny characters, or whatever) and that have no problem whatsoever with that.

FatR
2010-05-19, 01:36 PM
Really? Level 6? With the standard Wiz/Fighter/Cleric/Rogue team, how are you expected to do that? Even if you sub out fighter for Warblade and rogue for factotum, I don't see how that works.
For outdoors flight? Capture and train some hippogriphs. Cranking out a DC 25 check should not be too difficult. Even if GM counts it against WBL, still is totally worth it for a mounted charger melee characters (which more or less sucks indoors anyway). Wizard flies on his own and so does rogue, thanks to UMD.

TheEmerged
2010-05-19, 01:55 PM
HERO = Nerdy? What, because it expects you to be able to do 8th grade math?

(In fairness, HERO was the first gaming system I ever saw that had character generation software. There's a reason for that. It may only be 8th grade math, but there's a lot of it :smallbiggrin: )

Tinydwarfman
2010-05-19, 05:57 PM
For outdoors flight? Capture and train some hippogriphs. Cranking out a DC 25 check should not be too difficult. Even if GM counts it against WBL, still is totally worth it for a mounted charger melee characters (which more or less sucks indoors anyway). Wizard flies on his own and so does rogue, thanks to UMD.

A wizard MAYBE flies on his own for one encounter per day, at level 6. Unless he wants to spend all his slots flying. And a rogue is never going to be able to afford a wand of fly. Alter Self might work for it, assuming your DM allows Avarial. Hippogryphs aren't exactly common, but if you can get them, it will work, although it does require the PC's to all be trained in ride. Barbarian McSmashalot might not have the required skills.

I'm not saying it's impossible, just not "trivially easy". Mounts are a great and underused strategy, but they aren't always available, even if you have the downtime.