PDA

View Full Version : Weird@55 ideas #3: What?! Only one hit die?



Thoughtbot360
2007-02-18, 04:54 PM
I've reada charming article from gamegrene.com (Level One Forever (http://www.gamegrene.com/node/403)) and I was wondering: is there a way to take all the higher level class abilities, feats, most spells (If the PC's wizard has Chain lightning and the enemy has Cloudkill, the fight is reduced to a Spaghetti Western quickdraw bewteen the spellcasters) , and monsters and scale them down for use in a low-level campaign?
Basically, you "switch" classes ala Final Fantasy 5 or Final Fantasy Tactics instead of multi-tasking, keeping the best hit die/your BAB from the old class/skills and feats of your old class, while learning the abilities of the new class. Also, you spend experience to buy skills/feats/a new class/more Wild Shapes per day/etc. while staying relatively the same power level. You get a discount for feats playing as a fighter, and one for skills playing as a Rogue, Bard, or Ranger. Also discounts on advancing BAB for your martial classes.

For monsters, you'll have to reduce them to 1 hit die unless they have a pretty good reason for them to have more (Even if you rule no dragon gets more powerful than an Adult class, thats still a large-to-huge sized lizard that should not, even though we're nerfing everything, go down with a lucky critical hit with the scythe. Although, a lot of monsters out there, dragons included, DO have major constitution scores...)

Sadly, I can't give you a full system to work with, as its incomplete. I might use EOM rules (http://enworld.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?products_id=2699&) for spellcasters, as its flexible and has even a cantip version of (most) every kind of spell you can imagine.

RandomNPC
2007-02-18, 05:21 PM
i think what your looking for is a non level based system.

but for the spells, try every X many uses the spell gets a +1 or some such, and the stronger it is, the higher X is. im working on something like that for my games, but i dont think its ever going to be introduced. but im still making it.

Thoughtbot360
2007-02-18, 06:31 PM
i think what your looking for is a non level based system.

but for the spells, try every X many uses the spell gets a +1 or some such, and the stronger it is, the higher X is. im working on something like that for my games, but i dont think its ever going to be introduced. but im still making it.

That spell system is actually quite good. Use-based progression, of course! Hmm... how much progress have you made? Maybe we can compare notes.

I have studied two other systems that are very point-buy based. Street Fighter the story telling game has a minimum of 1 stamina (reduces incoming damage dice) and 10 health. A maximum of 8 stamina (not if M. Bison has eight) and 20 health. There are no rules for dying, its left to the GM to kill your character at a time that seems narratively appropriate. Still, a veteran street fighter is at best, twice as healthy as some new kid on the circuit. Just stay away from those supplements, though. They killed the game with their crazy Cyborg/Animal Hybrid Ninjas with Cartwheel kicks (all of which is held in the Player's guide, not to be confused with the main SF:STG sourcebook, simply called "Street Fighter: the storytelling game.") Overall, I give Street Fighter a good score for a non-level based system, but it has poor rules regarding weapons/guns/armor/material possesions in general. Also, even if its limited, you might think the average Street Fighter can advance too far. I like it, though and can easily send a Special Forces operative (literally a fighting style that can be used to make a PC) or a Die-hard detective who took some Kickboxing lessons to go after an out-of-control player to re-establish law and order.

The other system is Shadowrun, which has you rolling d6s equal to your Body stat (or your Willpower stat vs. certain types of magic) to reduce damage. You have a certain thing called "a condition box" which is basically 2 sets (one for stun damage) of 10 hit points and penalties attached as you pass a certain limit of damage. Its a little deadly, and rules-heavy, but Shadowrun (I only have 2nd edition. 3rd and 4th are out now) does enforce that you can kill anybody AND there will always be somebody better than you.

The_Werebear
2007-02-18, 07:18 PM
I had the idea of doing a system where you simply got your original one HD, and then an AC bonus, with the idea being you simply got a lot better at avoiding being hit rather than absorbing the absurd punishment you can.

Then someone mentioned that a magic missile from a fifth level character could drop a level 20 barbarian in one shot.

HP just works better with DND. If you want that, you will need to try a different system.

Gralamin
2007-02-18, 07:21 PM
I had the idea of doing a system where you simply got your original one HD, and then an AC bonus, with the idea being you simply got a lot better at avoiding being hit rather than absorbing the absurd punishment you can.

Then someone mentioned that a magic missile from a fifth level character could drop a level 20 barbarian in one shot.

HP just works better with DND. If you want that, you will need to try a different system.

Come now Werebear, just because this makes Wizards the unrivaled king of the multiverse, even above clerics and possibly druids, does not mean thats its unbalanced in any way :smalltongue:

I hope No one thinks I'm serious I mean thats what :smalltongue: is for.

Thomas
2007-02-18, 07:44 PM
Yeah, just use a skill-based game instead. You usually don't gain more hit points in games that aren't level-based (or if you do, it's within a pretty set range).

Indon
2007-02-18, 08:19 PM
You might want to implement something similar to the Vitality System variant (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/vitalityAndWoundPoints.htm#vitalityPoints) on the D20 system rules.

Thomas
2007-02-18, 08:21 PM
Vitality points, or massive damage saves at 10, 15, or 20 points... CoCd20 has them at 10, and even a 20th-level character will have, at most, a Fort save of +18 (good Fort save, Con 18+5)...

Matthew
2007-02-18, 08:31 PM
Consider making the Fortitude Save DC equal to the Damage dealt - potentially very deadly.

Thoughtbot360
2007-02-18, 09:34 PM
I had the idea of doing a system where you simply got your original one HD, and then an AC bonus, with the idea being you simply got a lot better at avoiding being hit rather than absorbing the absurd punishment you can.

Then someone mentioned that a magic missile from a fifth level character could drop a level 20 barbarian in one shot.

HP just works better with DND. If you want that, you will need to try a different system.

Ah, Magic missile, my old enemy/most boring friend ever, we meet again. Evocation spells on a whole are problematic because even the weakest tend to upgrade with your caster level, but the humble magic missile is the worst because you can't even hide in an airtight shelter behind a four-inch thick wall of adamantium because it just slips through as soon as the mage knows you're there (although Meteor swarm is probably bad too.) If you keep wizards killable (probably by denying them and all other d4 characters those AC bonuses you talked about) then wizards become a sort of "High risk, High reward, we might not survive, but we can at least leave them a huge f***ing repair bill" type of class that has to be killed long before he kills you. Going for a less fatalistic version requires that you get some new spell lists/rules. Either way, I'd cap all Class abilities off at somewhere beween 5th and 10th level.


You might want to implement something similar to the Vitality System variant (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/vitalityAndWoundPoints.htm#vitalityPoints)on the D20 system rules.

...I think I'm in love.

Gralamin
2007-02-18, 09:38 PM
Wizards are also invulnerable to ranged attacks. Fly + invisibility + windwall = hidden death machine.

Thoughtbot360
2007-02-18, 10:42 PM
Wizards are also invulnerable to ranged attacks. Fly + invisibility + windwall = hidden death machine.

Well, I could say that someone could still try to assasainate the wizard or kill him in a ride-by shotting with repeating crossbows, and that those spells have limited duration, I think I'd rather muse about just how deadly that comination is with IMPROVED INVISIBILITY. He pops off a fireball, and disappears again, still floating above the paniced archers that remain that are shooting wildly into the air, probably hitting nothing so they arc back down to earth, and into their friend's eyes in bewteen fireballs. If the wizards of the world got together and organized (and they probably already are, having an orderly access not only to spells but the scry, spellcraft, and knowledge (arcana) skills cuz' who else would use them?) well, I think I can sum up what I'm saying with: "Don't f*ck with the Wizard mafia. If you kill one of us, we'll kill all of you."

Gralamin
2007-02-18, 11:05 PM
Wind Wall (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/windWall.htm) Blocks arrows and bolts. And in the shield spell and its rather hard to kill him.

Thoughtbot360
2007-02-19, 09:10 AM
Wind Wall (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/windWall.htm) Blocks arrows and bolts. And in the shield spell and its rather hard to kill him.

Oh I didn't forget about wind wall. Its just that Improved Invisibility has the demoralizing factor of "OMG WHERE IS HE COMING FROM NEXT!?" However, now that you mention it, the arrows that "hit" the wizard probably would spiral off to God knows where, increasing the chances of innocent bystanders dying. :smallwink:

Stareyes
2007-02-19, 09:24 AM
I saw something on the True20 discussion boards about converting d20 spells in a system where you don't get that much less squishy as you level (True20 doesn't use hit points, but the idea still works). A poster suggested that after 1 or 2 dice, you just implement a +1 damage per X caster levels. That way, even your low-power spells still get better as you level, but you won't be trying to cope with 30-damage fireballs when your character would probably have less than 20 HP (and less than 10, if you were playing a wizard yourself). Granted 2d6+X (reflex for half) is still going to hurt, but it no longer becomes the massive overkill that 1d6 per level would be.

Thoughtbot360
2007-02-19, 11:14 AM
I saw something on the True20 discussion boards about converting d20 spells in a system where you don't get that much less squishy as you level (True20 doesn't use hit points, but the idea still works). A poster suggested that after 1 or 2 dice, you just implement a +1 damage per X caster levels. That way, even your low-power spells still get better as you level, but you won't be trying to cope with 30-damage fireballs when your character would probably have less than 20 HP (and less than 10, if you were playing a wizard yourself). Granted 2d6+X (reflex for half) is still going to hurt, but it no longer becomes the massive overkill that 1d6 per level would be.

Hmm... Good idea. (Actually, I've been swamped with good ideas so far. And I'd like to give a little expostion on my thoughts about them here)

The Growing Armor class theory: This has some merit, and it seems a neccessary counter measure if you allow for a player to develop his attack modifier (which you probably should, unless you want to limit it to strength score increase, weapon focus, and greater weapon focus.) I much prefer raising Dexterity and Con and the possibly someone actually buying the toughness feat. Also, there is the problem of taking too many magic missiles to the chest, and it might do better with Stareyes' idea. I give it a 3/5. The reason it comes up short is because I like the idea of a fantasy game with a little bit of fatality, where the true hereos know what they can handle and what they can't, and when they have to take on something they can't handle, they get creative. They get better, but in a less explosive way as having 2nd level chars becoming twice as good as 1st levels.

The Vitality system: I like this very much. It gives a 1st level Dwarf Barbarian with 20 constituion more staying power than ever, compared to an Elf Wizard, but I like it. I'm not sure I'll use it AND Stareyes' spell leveling, but I like it. 5/5

The +1 spell damage system: Best artifice I've heard for controling spell damage so far! Using the EOM system, your mage can start with a 2d6 touch attack spell of your choosen element. If I assume that you never "technically" leave 1st level, than all damage beyond that is simply +1 per magic point spent, now just purchase range and AOE enhancements, and BAM! The exact version of the Fireball you refered too, Stareyes! :smallcool: . I might have to outright ban the temporary hit point spells (EOM Infuse: Nature spells can net you far over 100 hp, even with the errata. Though I could just make it a +1 per caster level deal again), but, hey, you got a 5/5.

Also, I probably will limit the number of attacks to just one unless they're using a monk's flurry of blows, if its at first level, is a relatively harmless two attacks with a -2 penalty.

Thoughtbot360
2007-02-19, 08:54 PM
Sorry for double post.

*ahem* Anyway in a world were you might achieve the class abilities of a level 20, but remain at the basic fighting potential of level 1, this has certain implications.


On Monsters
- Even the poor old guard, armed with a halberd actually stands a chance when the thief he tries to arrest turns out to be a vampire or Ogre mage. (Or rather, his reinforcements stand a chance. If he doesn't have time to get them, the vampire's probably already raised him as a spawn.)
-Speaking of vampires and other monsters, you should rewrite their stats and favored classes from scratch. Heck, you ought to give them unique classes entirely because they developed their military and magical culture completely seperate from the humans. Also, look up monster-related articles at roleplayingtips.com (http://www.roleplayingtips.com/index.php) for clues on how to make your combats and other monster-player interactions (http://www.roleplayingtips.com/readissue.php?number=340) much more interesting. Think about it, you could might even have a group that would much prefer to take on Minotaurs than Goblins either because they've had a bad string of luck with Goblins and their tricks or because they've never fought goblins before and are actually nervous over what evil ideas the GM has ruled the little buggers have cooked up for anyone who would be their enemy. They've avoided slavery and extinction this long, who knows what'll happen.
-Vampires and other monsters from the horror should be used as if the adventure was a horror movie: you never know that they are anything more than a normal NPC until you are locked in the mansion with them. Then the fun begins.
- There's no Tarrasque, nor should there be. No, not even in your regular campaigns. (Come on, man! You have to kill it with a WISH after reducing it to MINUS FIFTY HIT POINTS? If the tarrasque ever procreated itself, it'd be doomsday.) And the huge monsters that remain, like dragons, are still very difficult and defeating a adult dragon is considered one of the pentacles of achievement for an adventurer. Those who do so are celebrated heroes, spoken of with reverance, but fighting those dragons never gets any easier. Fortunetly they are solitary, slow-breeding creatures that hibernate for most the year.

On Magic
-You actually might choose to persue more than one spellcasting class! Okay, maybe not, you'll never get the cool stuff like "wind wall," "resurrection" or "polymorph any object" that way. But still...
-Highly developed PC classes in armies are treasured, and now they are actually killable on the battlefield. Therefore, they are treated much like swordsmen and knights (and other rare, elite-level warriors in different war periods.) were in actual history: Held back in reserve while the peasant levies do all the fighting, told to rush to a hot spot when a breach in the line occurs or when there was a particular vulnerability the enemy presented. Also, ever been flanked by a group of men (and they still are mortal men and not 20th level gods, technically) going into a Greater Rage before? Probably would be devasting. Or fireballs? Or Summoned outsiders? Hell, a group of bow-specialized Rangers with the many shot feat could theoreticall sneak around an army (or disguise themselves as trees with Tree Shape in a place the enemy is likely to walk past without noticing), cast Entangle over 50-75% of the entire army the first round, and pelt them with arrows from behind all the following rounds, and cast wind wall on themselves to protect themselves from arrow fire. The possibilities, as they say, are endless. But if the enemy army sees through there tricks and their spellcasters dispel the illusions (or use whisper wind to alert the commanders thats there's something creeping around them in the nearby grove of trees)
-Magic items are either much more common or much rarer. I'm not really sure (I mean, come on, you spend experience points to create them, and a lot are one-shot. For all the healing potions that have been created for sale in the market, it seems like society suffers a net experience loss. Couldn't you just get something like a Adept hireling in addition to the party? He can heal you, AND he gets your stuff.) Personally, I think you should try this philosphy to magic items (http://www.mu.ranter.net/theory/economy.html#magic)

TSGames
2007-02-19, 09:33 PM
Wizards are also invulnerable to ranged attacks. Fly + invisibility + windwall = hidden death machine.
Wow, that only takes 3 rounds.

I always thought invulnerability would be quicker or more passive somehow...

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-02-19, 09:41 PM
Wizards are vulnerable to not seeing it coming. So it's really a crap shoot to begin with and you'd better have mad skillage to pull it off.

Thoughtbot360
2007-02-20, 01:29 PM
I felt like adding another thing to what my analysis of a 1 hit die world:

On the dynamics of relationships between low level and high level charcters, I'd like to point out a time in history (Maybe you've heard of it, it was called the "Mid-dal Aag-ges") when the military needed a lot less manpower, so long as the soldiers in question are properly equipped. Hey's a few paragraphs from an article at Conceptual Guerilla's website (http://www.conceptualguerilla.com/?q=node/217), the third part of a four-part piece written by CG himself. (its a long article and touches other subjects outside of whats neccesary to read for my post, but if you want to read the entire piece here's:part 1, (http://www.conceptualguerilla.com/?q=node/219) part 2, (http://www.conceptualguerilla.com/?q=node/218) and part 4 (http://www.conceptualguerilla.com/?q=node/216) of that piece, with the first link being the 3rd part, if you're interested.)

Warning: political rheotoric ahead. Just ignore it if it offends your senses, you whinning ninny.


Medieval feudalism was a singular example of the kind of decentralized tyranny the conservatives love. It evolved with the introduction of a rather inconspicuous technological improvement – the stirrup -- which was introduced into Western Europe shortly after the fall of the Western Roman Empire. The stirrup allows a rider to stand up while riding his horse. This simple convenience turns a horse into a really potent weapons platform. Armed with a long sharpened pole – jousting anyone? – an armored horseman can smash through lines of infantryman. This simple improvement in the technology of warfare helped the Germanic kingdoms of Western Europe contain the spread of Islam.

It also dramatically shrunk the manpower needs for the military. Which was a good thing, because no central government existed with the wherewithal to outfit an army with horses and armor. In fact, warfare was largely a contractual arrangement, with knights furnishing their own horses and equipment, and kings paying them. Only there wasn’t any “money” to pay them with. Instead, medieval kings paid their soldiers with land. This arrangement is the origin of our particular brand of property rights. Essentially, a knight’s “property right” was the right to steal from peasants, who lived on the land but didn’t own it. Sound familiar?

The result was a collection of interesting social and political conditions. First, feudal kings were constantly broke, going to their nobility hat in hand asking them to pony up for the next military adventure. For its part, the nobility throughout medieval Europe was highly independent and frankly unruly. The English nobles were some of the worst. They humiliated – and occasionally killed – unpopular kings on a fairly routine basis. This leads to the third condition of feudalism, a militarily powerful class of people with their own independent economic base, who gradually reduced the peasantry to serfdom – a relatively late development in medieval history.

A grim view of the historical period our favorite genre takes place in, indeed. But with a little tweaking, it gets better.

First of all, keep in mind that in the real world second millenium A.D., there were no orcs, kobolds, or any other intelligent race besides humans. Its concievible that a human government could subjegate (sp?) and enslave some other humanoids to do the farming, raising the majority of humans to nonfarmers (I've envisioned that Elves do this. I mean, if it sucks to be doomed to be a serf all your life when you live for 30 years, imagine how tedious it is for 700+ years! Besides, you ever see an Elf peasant? Didn't think so.) However, this might upset the tone you want for your campaign (and it might erk the Paladin in your group to be fighting the "Kobold Liberation Front" as a first adventure rather than "a terrible horde of monsters invading to eat our children!")

You could apply the assumptions of superwheat, hedge magic, and other things listed in Musashi's Game Design theory: Food section (get a summury by checking the last chapter: a sample society based on food. (http://www.mu.ranter.net/theory/food.html#sample) That has all the good stuff. The most important reason to do this is to free up a certain amount of the population to allow for more people teaching the traditions of the 11 core adventurer classes as well as the people who try to improve their lot by becoming freelancer adventurers. You might also have a king who is dependent on a handful of highly skilled Fighters/Rangers/Martial artists (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=219521)/Mages/ outright thieves (Rogues) and they (and their family memeber, most of whom are also training in PC classes) have collectively more control than the king. These arrogant jerks have more justification for their actions because of the always encroaching humanoids, and they see commoners who become adventurers as bitter rivals (and threats to their job security). Also don't forget the all-powerful church! (Clerics)

Matthew
2007-02-20, 03:31 PM
*Bangs head against wall*

The Stirrup Theory is long since dead. Most periods of pre modern history (maybe all periods) involve the rich and strong exploiting the poor and vulnerable. No real reason why Dungeons & Dragons should be any different (or is any different). It would suck to be an Elf Serf, though.

Thoughtbot360
2007-02-20, 10:47 PM
*Bangs head against wall*

The Stirrup Theory is long since dead. Most periods of pre modern history (maybe all periods) involve the rich and strong exploiting the poor and vulnerable. No real reason why Dungeons & Dragons should be any different (or is any different). It would suck to be an Elf Serf, though.

What do you mean "The Stirup Theory is dead?" I never implied that the stirrup was solely responsible for all the exploitation in history. I was merely bringing up a cetain instance in the 6000 years of pre-modern times when the government power (The King) was particularly weak and gave up a lot of power to knights, which in those days were closer to gangs of prat boys that turn to crime for excitement than the idealistic "Knight in Shining armor" image the Paladin class mirrors. Actually, the article goes much further down history that to when people were "freed" but only freed to be held over a barrel and become wage slaves. Also made a reference to pirates and the East india company. Getting back to the Knights, its just funny to me that the king was the english nobility's bitch. It seems like nobody writing fantasy supposed modelled after medival europe gets this fact.

Heck, somebody could make a setting thats almost exactly like Shadowrun, only with proto-coporations (See east india company) instead of super corporations set in the time immediately after the serfs were "liberated" in europe, only to be made to work at a set wage for all work much lower than what they could have normally gotten in productive years if they kept on getting a percentage cut. The only thing is that shadow run characters usually went one of two paths: magic or cyberware. But hey, its still dystopic.

And I'm glad to see you agree that being an Elf serf would blow. Actually, if elves live much longer (meaning their inventors have more time to invent) and they were "the first race" (giving them a head start on all other intelligent creatures), why are they not living in an environmentally-friendly futuristic utopia? Or at least in control of the world? Seems to me like theirs something more than that -2 to constiution holding them back....

The_Werebear
2007-02-21, 01:50 AM
Tradition, probably. I get the feeling that since elves aren't big with laws, they go off what has been done before them for ages.

Matthew
2007-02-21, 12:59 PM
What do you mean "The Stirup Theory is dead?"

Exactly what I said. About thirty years ago there was a theory that the introduction of the Stirrup completely changed the nature of warfare and made it possible for Knights to smash through peasant infantry laughing and killing as they went. The theory continues that this was the reason that feudalism came into being (i.e. to support this new tye of combat machine). It is still a popular theory outside of academia, but has long been shown to be false. The stirrup was a refinement of an already existing tactic and cavalry never ever managed to smash through a solid line of infantry (which were not particularly rare).
Describing Knights collectively and without reference to period as prat (frat?) boys does them a grave injustice. Certainly, they weren't, by and large, Paladins, but characterising them as occupying the other end of the scale is just as silly. Ruthless and violent? Yes. Universally devoid of piety? Idiots? No. It would be funny if the king was the 'bitch' of the nobility, but again that is over generalising. Some were politically weak, some were not.

Thoughtbot360
2007-02-21, 05:12 PM
Exactly what I said. About thirty years ago there was a theory that the introduction of the Stirrup completely changed the nature of warfare and made it possible for Knights to smash through peasant infantry laughing and killing as they went. The theory continues that this was the reason that feudalism came into being (i.e. to support this new tye of combat machine). It is still a popular theory outside of academia, but has long been shown to be false. The stirrup was a refinement of an already existing tactic and cavalry never ever managed to smash through a solid line of infantry (which were not particularly rare).
Describing Knights collectively and without reference to period as prat (frat?) boys does them a grave injustice. Certainly, they weren't, by and large, Paladins, but characterising them as occupying the other end of the scale is just as silly. Ruthless and violent? Yes. Universally devoid of piety? Idiots? No. It would be funny if the king was the 'bitch' of the nobility, but again that is over generalising. Some were politically weak, some were not.

So, it looks like the ariticle was proven wrong slightly wrong upon further investigation by historians. Oh well, thats what happens when the world of academia marches on: Just when we think we've found a connection between pesticide use and brain cancer in french farmers, we find another, not-exciting-enough-to-be-published previous report disproving the connection laying in the publisher's file drawer and it turns out the researchers of the latter report were just massaging the data too much. One should wonder why they found a specific link to brain cancer and not other types of cancer (tobbacco kind of has a direct feed to the lungs, so there's little question about why the lung cancer rules the roost there.)

So, you got me on the stirrup thing. However, I think I may just have choosen poor words when discribing the knighted gentry of europe. Here's a more specific explaination for what I mean: Particularly in England, there was a tradition for all the first-born child's siblings (having their older brother inheriet everything their father left them) to form a gang (rather than join the army or the church). This occurence reminds me of the third type of the three types of gang sterotypes thats used by pulp fiction: 1) The criminal gang, which deals drugs or starts protection racquests, possibly organized enough to resemble a mafiaso-esque group. 2) The Xenophobic gang, which actually might not be all that bad, as they are made up of member that seek to protect themselves from other gangs, found in crime-ridden areas. And 3) The Aristocrat gang. The Street Fighter: the Storytelling game main book calls them the worst type of gang there is; made up of jaded hedonstic youths from society's "well-to-do" families that turned to crime not for money, but for entertainment.

The thing that seperates the medieval aristocratic gang from the modern aristocratic gang is that they are not doing their evil deeds for fun. Not just for fun, that is. They're making a name for themselves and end up using legal authorities' castles as safehouses. Of course, to be "knighted" was a ritualistic predicure with heavy religious overtones, although that was due to the culture at the time, with the concept that kings ruled by divine right, and the duke/baron/etc. ruled his fiefdom by the right of the king. So, religion played a part of who they were. And they were indeed not ignoramuses, as they had all the legisure time. Besides, being an effective professional fighter requires much more knowledge than "the pointy end goes into the other man." Darn it, now I have to break my silence and post on the "Why are fighters so unskilled" thread! Anyway, "Prat boys" was just the word that seemed to be a world that stuck out in my mind when I needed to describe them, so I took it. I apologize to the medieval english nobility for suffering the most henious of indiginities anyone can endure, being compared to prat boys.

Matthew
2007-02-21, 05:24 PM
Prior to the twelfth century it was considerably more usual for land to be divided amongst all inheritors.
I am not sure what you mean by saying that sons of the gentry conventionally formed gangs. As far as I can tell, the usual post twelfth century paradigm was that the eldest inherited, the second born joined the church and anybody younger was out on his ear as a potential competitor (which was often the case). Have you any specific examples in mind?
As for the difference between modern and medieval gentry, the key difference is that the medieval gentry were active political and military figures. It has become popular in recent years to compare feudalism to organised crime, but it is really a poor analogy.

The_Werebear
2007-02-21, 05:30 PM
After the Norman conquest, William the conquerer gave his eldest Son, Robert Curthose Normandy, William Rufus, his middle England, and Henry, the youngest a chunk of land. Henry proceded to cause problems, William Rufus died in a hunting accident, and Robert got captured by Henry when he started getting obnoxious. So, the Youngest ended up with everything.

Basically, you can't make generalized claims because it gets too messy.

Matthew
2007-02-21, 05:35 PM
Indeed. Don't forget that Robert, after his initial defeat, also led a large contingent during the First Crusade, was offered the Crown of Jerusalem (apparently) and went back to Europe with the intention of recapturing his lost lands, before finally ending his days the prisoner of his youngest brother.

Sergeantbrother
2007-02-21, 06:09 PM
My gaming group and I have spent years working on house rules that basically limits the amount of hit points that characters receive. A Character has hit points equal to his Constitution plus one half of the max dice roll for his best class.

For example, a 7th level rogue with a Constitution of 13 would have 16 hit points. If he got a level of fighter, this would increase to 18 hit points. No name NPC's receivce half this amount, while large creatures receive more.

Of course, there are numerous other changes to AC, armor, and spell casting to balance this. If you're interested in seeing it let me know. It certainly does make high level characters seem a bit more human, since they can be killed by a mob of peasants.

Thoughtbot360
2007-02-21, 07:16 PM
I am not sure what you mean by saying that sons of the gentry convetionally formed gangs. As far as I can tell, the eldest inherited, the second born joined the church and anybody younger was out on his ear as a potential competitor (which was often the case). Have you any specific examples in mind?

In fact, I do (http://www.tvfactual.co.uk/terry_jones_medieval_livesl.htm#The%20Outlaw). In the episode titled "The Outlaw" Terry believes he has found the real life Robin hoods an english family called the.....okay, sadly the internet is being very uncooperative and every time I mentally search the names my memory jumps up like an over-excited eight-year-old and yells "Baskevilles!" I know thats not it because that from a Sherlock Holmes story, "The Hound of the Baskevilles" Come on, memory give me the real name...
Memory: Baskevilles! Its Baskevilles, I know I got it this time!
Me: .....No, thats Sherlock Holmes again.

Anyway, I have a synopsis quote about the episode here:

THREE
Terry Jones takes us on a tour of the Middle Ages destroying old myths and discovering extraordinary stories of real people. Were the outlaws really like Robin Hood and were the sheriffs all evil and corrupt? Terry discovers that sheriffs were actually pen pushing bureaucrats, and the greatest threat to law and order in the Middle Ages were gangs of upper crust outlaws terrorising the country for the sole purpose of getting rich quickly. But those same outlaws died heroes just like Robin Hood. As you will see, the story is not just a black and white tale of goodies and baddies.
source, its under number Three (http://d52.rp.pl/matura2006/maj/ang_a2_trans.pdf)


My gaming group and I have spent years working on house rules that basically limits the amount of hit points that characters receive. A Character has hit points equal to his Constitution plus one half of the max dice roll for his best class.

For example, a 7th level rogue with a Constitution of 13 would have 16 hit points. If he got a level of fighter, this would increase to 18 hit points. No name NPC's receivce half this amount, while large creatures receive more.

Of course, there are numerous other changes to AC, armor, and spell casting to balance this. If you're interested in seeing it let me know. It certainly does make high level characters seem a bit more human, since they can be killed by a mob of peasants.

I certainly would like to hear about it. Feel free to post it (although you could send private messages. But I might not be the only one interested. This forum was originally meant to discuss these sort of things.)

Matthew
2007-02-21, 07:30 PM
Terry Jones? Oh no, the worst historian known to man... He has an axe to grind, you know. A very specific Knights were thugs axe. He makes academics cry with his awfulness.

Yeah, he might have found one particular family given over to banditry (and hell, robber knights weren't that uncommon), but they were the exception rather than the rule.

[Edit] Okay, I'm coming off a little harsh about Terry, but he's not a very good historian (he doesn't do most of his own work, so I hear, which might slightly exonerate him, I suppose). Knights could be very violent men, especially if they were away from home or lacking income, but Terry only ever really tells it from one side.

Sergeantbrother
2007-02-22, 02:36 AM
Alright, here's the basic changes that make the system what it is. I'm going to exclude the majority of my magic system changes because they don't directly adress this topic and my rule changes are long enough as it is.

I'm also going to put the rule changes behind a spoiler, since they are so long and some people might not be interested.

We've used these rule changes for a while and only had realtively minor problems. Though, keep in mind our campaigns were fairly low magic ones, and in high magic campaigns there may be additional problems we didn't run into.


AC Bonus : Every class gets an AC bonus equal to the Base Attack Bonus of the class. This bonus is negated if the character is immobilized. Shields provide a greater AC bonus than they previously did. Bucklers or other small protective devices add +1 AC. Small shields, such a round shields, add +2 to AC. Medium shields, such a heater and teardrop shields, add +3 to AC. Large shields, such as Viking round shields, add +4 AC. Body shields, such as Roman ones, add +5 to AC.

Hit Points : Player Characters do not get class hit dice, rather they have a number of Hit Points equal to their Constitution plus half of the of the maximum hit points that can be roled for their class at one level. This is the same for inhuman creatures, their hit points are modified by their size:
Fine & Diminutive : No hit Points, instant kill
Tiny : 1/4 Constitution Hit Points
Small : 1/2 Constitution Hit Points
Medium : Constitution Hit Points
Large : 1.5 * Constitution Hit Points
Huge : 2 * Constitution Hit Points
Gargantuan : 3 * Constitution Hit Points
Colossal : 4 * Constitution Hit Points
No-name faceless NPC's have half of the above hit points, while named or important NPC's have the same Hit Points as PCs do. Something that is brought to zero or fewer Hit Points can survive down to negative their maximum Hit Points before dying. The Toughness feat may only be taken once.

Sneak Attack : A rogue's sneak attack does 1d6 damage plus 1 per level of the rogue plus the damage for a normal attack of that type. Every other level (2, 4, 6, 8, etc.) a rogue gets a +1 bonus to score a critical hit on a sneak attack. This means that on the sneak attack roll of a 5th level rogue, a natural 18 on a roll to hit would be treated as a natural 20. This only applies to the first roll. Non-rogues who successfully sneak attack an opponent do an additional 1d6 damage but nothing more.

Magic Spells : Magical spells can only inflict one die of damage to any single opponent per level of the spell, plus the level of the casting magic user. For example, a level 10 wizard casts fireball - everyone in the area of effect takes 3d6+10 damage before a saving throw is made. Some damage spells ignore armor (such as horrid wilting), while others (like magic missile or fireball) half (round down) the armor value of the victim(s). Healing magic can only heal up to the spell's level in Hit Points to any particular target. This means that Cure Light Wounds will only heal 1 point of damage. Level 0 spells cannot heal actual Hit Points, but it will stop bleeding and stabilize the dying.

Armor Rules

Armor Rating : This is a value of damage reduction that a character has based upon the armor that they wear, the toughness of their skin, or anything else which provides a physical barrier that protects the character from injury. Armor provides no bonuses to AC. Below are new rules :

Damage Reduction
Padded or soft leather : 1
Thick leather, wood, wicker, hide, weave, etc. : 2
Buff coat, cuirboulli, or thick hide : 3
Byzainted or light chainmail : 4
Heavy chainmail, scale, splint : 5
Coat of plates, banded : 6
Light or partial plate : 7
Heavy plate : 8

Critical Threat Range
Critical threat scores are based on the armor being worn and not the weapon. A successful critical hit ignores the armor's damage reduction instead of multiplying damage. If an entire character’s body is covered by armor (including the face), then the critical threat range is 20. If the helm is open faced, it drops by 1. If there is no helmet, it drops by 2. If the arms are only partially covered, it drops by 1, if there are is no arm protection, it drops by 2. If only one arm is covered it drops by 1. The same applies to legs. If the body is not protected, it drops by 4 and if the body is only partly protected, it drops by 2.

Armor Weight
When determining the degree to which a suit of armor weighs down a character, double (quadruple for body) the damage reduction of each region protected and all locations together (head + left arm + right arm + left leg + right leg + body). If the area is only halfway protected, do not double the value. For every 10 points above 10 that the total value comes to, there is a -1 armor penalty. For every 25 points, reduce the character Dexterity modifier by -1. For every 35 points of armor, the wearer of the armor suffers a -5 penalty to movement speed.
Bronze armor weighs a little more than steel or iron armor (same penalties) but it provides one less point of armor Damage Reduction. Masterwork armor either acts as if it were 1 DR lighter or adds 1 to DR.

Armor Examples

Armor DR, Dex Penalty, Speed Penalty, Critical
Full Plate 8, -4, -10, -15, 20
Chain Haulberk 5,-1, -3, -5, 16
Roman Lorica 6, -1, -3, -5, 16
Buffcoat 3, -, -, -, 15
Breastplate 8, -1, -2, -, 14
Thick Clothing 1, -, -, -, 18
Full Chainmail 5, -2, -5, -5, 19
Greek Plate 6, -2, -6, -5, 18
Scale Shirt 5, -, -1, -, 14
Samurai Armor 5, -2, -6, -5, 20
Field Plate 7, -3, -8, -10, 20
A Great Helm 8, -, -, -, 12


There it is, kinda long and seemingly compicated. Its not too bad once you get used to it though. We have a number of other house rules we use that aren't directly related to having few hit points and damage reduction armor. Things like rolling to cast spells instead of memorization and tweaks for combat rules or feats.

Indon
2007-02-22, 10:06 AM
Damage Reduction
Padded or soft leather : 1
Thick leather, wood, wicker, hide, weave, etc. : 2
Buff coat, cuirboulli, or thick hide : 3
Byzainted or light chainmail : 4
Heavy chainmail, scale, splint : 5
Coat of plates, banded : 6
Light or partial plate : 7
Heavy plate : 8

Critical Threat Range
Critical threat scores are based on the armor being worn and not the weapon. A successful critical hit ignores the armor's damage reduction instead of multiplying damage. If an entire character’s body is covered by armor (including the face), then the critical threat range is 20. If the helm is open faced, it drops by 1. If there is no helmet, it drops by 2. If the arms are only partially covered, it drops by 1, if there are is no arm protection, it drops by 2. If only one arm is covered it drops by 1. The same applies to legs. If the body is not protected, it drops by 4 and if the body is only partly protected, it drops by 2.


I am interested to know how you treat monks in such a system. It strikes me that being a monk would kinda suck if everyone had a 15-20 critical range on you...

I imagine monks gain DR from their class levels and wisdom, and that whenever they gain the benefit of this DR they're counted as fully protected?

Thoughtbot360
2007-02-22, 01:03 PM
Thank you for posting, Sargent Brother.

Also, my memory has finally given me the name of the twelth century family and stopped fascinated about Sherlock Holmes.

Memory: Baskevilles!
Me: Do you wanna go back in the box?
Memory: Please don't send me back there

Anyway, it was the Folvilles! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eustace_Folville#The_Folville_Gang)

Although this information might not be entirely accurate. Wikipedia does bring democracy (or rather Mob Rule) to knowledge.

Also, all this talk of armor has reminds me of another thread I made concerning a certain god of armour and his wrath against arcane magic. I got something to post on that thread concerning the effective use of such a backstory as a game mechanic

Sergeantbrother
2007-02-22, 05:53 PM
I am interested to know how you treat monks in such a system. It strikes me that being a monk would kinda suck if everyone had a 15-20 critical range on you...

I imagine monks gain DR from their class levels and wisdom, and that whenever they gain the benefit of this DR they're counted as fully protected?

Basically, your standard monk wont wear armor so wont have a critical threat range at all, all attacks will do full damage. The Wisdom bonus goes to increasing the monk's AC. So basically, a level 8 monk with a Wisdom of 16 and a Dexterity of 16 will have an AC of 23. 10 base, +6 from a base attack bonus, +3 from Wisdom, +3 from Dexterity, and +1 from class AC bonus. However, the monk will have no DR and will take full damage from every attack - and thus criticals are virtually meaningless to the monk.

By comparison, a level 8 fighter with a 12 Dexterity and full chainmail armor and a heater shield will have an AC of 20. 10 base, +8 for base attack bonus, +1 for Dexterity, +3 for the shield, and -2 for the armor. The fighter will also have 5 points of damage reduction from his chain mail and a critical threat range of 19-20.

In our several years of playing nobody has played a monk yet, so it may be that a monk doesn't completely balance in the system because we haven't tested it completely. Our games have been mostly Eurocentric.

Matthew
2007-02-22, 05:56 PM
Apparently, the Folville gang appeared in the fourteenth century, their ancestors don't appear to have engaged in the same sorts of activities, nor their elder brother who inherited the lands; looks very exceptional to me. Interesting, though.

Thoughtbot360
2007-02-22, 10:37 PM
Magic Spells : Magical spells can only inflict one die of damage to any single opponent per level of the spell, plus the level of the casting magic user. For example, a level 10 wizard casts fireball - everyone in the area of effect takes 3d6+10 damage before a saving throw is made. Some damage spells ignore armor (such as horrid wilting), while others (like magic missile or fireball) half (round down) the armor value of the victim(s). Healing magic can only heal up to the spell's level in Hit Points to any particular target. This means that Cure Light Wounds will only heal 1 point of damage. Level 0 spells cannot heal actual Hit Points, but it will stop bleeding and stabilize the dying.

Ah. Since I've made a reference to the Elements of Magic: Revised Edition system in this (and many other posts) which is MP based. At each caster level you gain, your character may spend 1 more magic point on a spell (therefore a 3rd level spell would be 5 mp). Do you mind if I post a few rulings for those who might use that system (I know, I know. "All three of them.") for a low hit-point setting we are talking about here? Here I go:

WARNING! WILL MAKE NO SENSE IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE ELEMENTS OF MAGIC source book from rpgnow.com!

Evoke spells, Heal spells, and Elemental weapons using Create (Element/Alignment):
First of all, translate every d6 to simply 1 as if everytime you would roll a die, you decided to load it (just for gits and shiggles) to come up as a 1 (So that a spear of lightning created to do +4d6 bonus lightning damage simply does 4 instead.). Speaking of Elemental weapons, they multiply all damage done with the weapon by 1.5 when striking the opposite element, but for Life, Death, and Alignment weapons only triple the bonus damage when striking their opposites. Therefore a chaotic energy weapon made with Create Chaos does +3 bonus damage versus lawful enemies, +1 vs. those that are neither lawful nor chaotic, and get no damage bonus when striking another chaotic foe.

The exception to this rule are Evoke (Element/Alignment) spells used for direct, instant damage (but not Side effects or enduring damage.) Those still do only a single point of damage per d6). However, after the initial 1d6 you get for cantip-level evoke magic, extra dice costs you twice as much. Three times as much after 10 MP (which would be 5d6). All damage from Evoke spells is reduced by half the DR from armor worn by any recipients (You can't emulate a horrid wilting spell in EOM anyway. Evoke Void spells can drain air from a target but not moisture.) If the damage seems to tame the GM could raise the d6s to d6s +1 per 2 MP spent in Evoke spells. Heal (Element/Alignment) spells work much the same as Sargent Brother listed them, but a 2 MP per point of healing after the first one rule stands because of 1 EOM MP does not equal 1 core rules spell level. (Also, You might consider leaving the healing dice as d6s rather than 1s because in original EOM, Heal (element/alignment) and Evoke (element/alignment) are equal.)

Errata for Healing and Evoking rules!: Evoke (Death)'s side effects are purchased differently from other elements' side effects: you trade in damage dice for them. And Healing dice are used to reverse these exact side effects. Well, I've made dice/healing points more expensive. To remedy this, "dice" that are used for causing or curing afflictions are worth only 1 MP.

Charm (Creature), Compel (Creature), and increasing Threshold:
Because characters no longer gain HDs as they gain levels, I have come up with a different value. HD repersent how many and how big a creature you can influence with your spells:
1 HD- one Diminutive or Fine creature
2 HD- one Tiny
3 HD- one Small
4 HD- one Medium
5 HD- one Large
8 HD- one Huge
10 HD- one Gargantuan
12 HD- one Collosal

Say you cast a Charm Giant 5/Gen 1 spell that has 10 HD threshold and an area of effect of 10 feet around the caster. If you get surronded by Ogres, you can put two of them into a light sleep (5 HD per large creature). If you were surronded by more than two ogres, you might want a stronger "Sleep" effect, or buy more HD, because the noise of the third ogre fighting you might wake up the two you put to sleep!

The spell influences a number of creatures (That have the approiate creature type) in the area of effect until it runs out of HD. For Charm (Humanoid) or Compel (Humanoid) spells, it will use up any excess HD on any allies in the area of effect after its spent HD making each of the enemies make a saving throw, so its worth it to spend 1 MP on the "Discerning" general enhancement.

Someone might bring up that with this system a mind flayer is just as Charmable/Compelable as an orc (Only one's an Abberation and the other's a humanoid.) I'd point out that the mind flayer has better will saves, though.

Summoning, Transforming, and creature Challenge rating:
Darned if I know. Although, most high challenge rating monsters are bigger than your medium-sized self, and/or have special powers. Keep the challenge ratings, but lower the monster's hit points and damage as usual.


BTW, how do you make a spoiler on this thread?
-Thanks, Matthew!

Matthew
2007-02-22, 10:51 PM
{Spoiler}Information{/Spoiler} where {} = []

Thoughtbot360
2007-02-23, 07:49 PM
Summoning, Transforming, and creature Challenge rating:
Darned if I know. Although, most high challenge rating monsters are bigger than your medium-sized self, and/or have special powers. Keep the challenge ratings, but lower the monster's hit points and damage as usual.

since I'm quoting myself here, let me be brief: Sargent brother, how do you deal with CRs? Or, is that list too comprehensive to post?

Sergeantbrother
2007-02-23, 08:38 PM
since I'm quoting myself here, let me be brief: Sargent brother, how do you deal with CRs? Or, is that list too comprehensive to post?

Honestly, I just fly by the seat of my pants. I mean, I take into account party level and size and the supposed CR of the creature involved - but in all honesty my changes do throw off balance a little bit. So, I just kind of use my judgement and intuition to decide how much experience the characters should get based on how much experience they are supposed to get for fighting a creature of their own level.

To a large degree, the combats in my games are between humans and humanoids. Less big monsters and such. This makes balancing a little bit easier since all humanoids are changed by the same amount and have low hit points and higher AC's.

This may seem like insanity to some people who depend on going by the book, but it actually works out pretty well.

Thoughtbot360
2007-02-23, 11:24 PM
Actually, I heard that in the first and second editions, Challenge ratings didn't exist. You took whatever the DM threw at you. I like the your approach though, Sgt. I mean, the monster manual has over 60 intelligent races alone (unintelligent creatures can be played down as well, stupid animals) and most of them not only outmuscle humans, but are much smarter to boot. In such a world, one thing is certain: Humanity would not only not be the dominant force it unrealistically is in most fantasy settings, it would be quite low in the pecking order, down there with the kobolds.

I would simply reduce the number of creatures that exist and if I find out that somebody picked a favored enemy that doesn't exist, I'd simply let them re-pick. I mean of all the creature types there are Abberations, Animals, Beasts, Constructs, Dragons, Elementals, Elementary School kids, Fey, Giants, Humanoids, Magical Beasts, Monstrous Humanoids, Magical Animals, Pokemon, Magical Monstrous Humanoids that are actually Beasts, Oozes, Outsiders, Insiders, Plants, Richard Simmons, Shapechangers, Undead, and EvilDead the Rock band- I mean, come on! (okay, maybe I made up a few of those)

P.S. If you complain about how I left out Vermin, you're just a gigantic bug-nerd. Probably over bugs that are actually gigantic, too.

Sergeantbrother
2007-02-24, 03:23 PM
...Elementary School kids...

You included vermin :smallbiggrin:

Basically in most of the games our group has done, its been more toned down kind of historically flavored games. I mean, sometimes with magic and demi-humans. But the enemy is very often other humans or humanoids because we like the flavor of that more. Big monsters are rare and mysterious - and dangerous when encountered.

With XP we often give out XP for role playing or major discoveries made or problems figured out - things that don't necessarily fit into the CR system. So it may not be quite as dependable as using CR - I think it can sometimes better represent a character's accomplishments. Particularly if a night of gaming is spent talking or scheming instead of bashing monsters.

Thoughtbot360
2007-03-01, 07:46 PM
You included vermin :smallbiggrin:

Basically in most of the games our group has done, its been more toned down kind of historically flavored games. I mean, sometimes with magic and demi-humans. But the enemy is very often other humans or humanoids because we like the flavor of that more. Big monsters are rare and mysterious - and dangerous when encountered.

With XP we often give out XP for role playing or major discoveries made or problems figured out - things that don't necessarily fit into the CR system. So it may not be quite as dependable as using CR - I think it can sometimes better represent a character's accomplishments. Particularly if a night of gaming is spent talking or scheming instead of bashing monsters.

Sorry for bringing this thread unholily back to life

Topic: KILL ME! :xykon:

But I'm kind of still in the market for campaign ideas. What are your "historically-flavored games" like, Sargentbrother?

Sergeantbrother
2007-03-03, 11:59 AM
Hey, sorry it took me a few days to reply. My "historical" settings (and that of my gaming group, we use the same modified rules and same kinds of settings) are more like history in a number of ways.

One thing is that magic is very rare. Magic may be known to exist, but most people have never seen it themselves. Religious figures are often experts or nobles - an actual cleric is more like a saint or miracle worker - someone who is exceptionally rare.

Monsters and magical creatures are extremely rare, to the degree that most people have never seen them. Its mostly rumor and legend, or superstitions about not going into the woods at night. Demihumans are also rare, and generally all of the PCs are human.

Legal systems are based on those that existed historically or at least are similar in some ways. There is no concept of human righst or freedoms. Peasants live short miserable lives, nobility rule with an iron fist, women are often property of their husbands or fathers, people of different religious faiths are persecuted and/or disliked. Ther is no ressurection curing of diseases aside from legend, so plagues can kill even the nobility much less the lowly peasant. Often magic users will be burned at the stake or otherwise mistreated or feared, though some people may not even believe there is such a thing as magic - as few have actually seen it.

Here is a site that has just a few of the cultures that have existed in some of my games : http://community.livejournal.com/fantasyfluff/