|
Post by SilvaShado on Feb 14, 2006 6:21:55 GMT
Character Name: Stelrein Player Name: Will (Sarah/Silva's husband)
Description – a traveler quick with the blade as well as his mind. Spent his life going from town to town, tutoring young people in the art of the sword. He was a decorated war hero who grew disillusioned of the many power struggles.
HP: 50 AR: 8 (agility+parry) Mana: 60 Speed: 50 Lift: 80
Strength: 8 Agility: 5 (+1 attack) Intellect: 6 Endurance: 5
Skills: Read/Write: 2 SpellCraft: 4 Stealth: 3 Parry: 3 Use Swords: 5 Use Axe: 1 Use Bow: 1 Tutor: 3 Create Weapon: 1 Create armor: 1
|
|
|
Post by Glance A'Lot on Feb 14, 2006 10:19:04 GMT
Hmm - on martial arts of unarmed combat:
In a fantasy setting with a lot of armor around I believe the Karate types are less interesting - but, being an adept in Aikido, I was wondering whether such self-defense (avoiding, disarming) abilities could/should not be considered as a potential strength or equalizing factor against heavily armed/armoured opponents.
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Feb 14, 2006 12:19:07 GMT
Quite possibly, Glance. Martial Arts, and the various advantages and disadvantages of each style, are an incredibly complex thing - and one that, quite frankly, I am not very qualified to work on. Because of this, I am going to concentrate on traditional fantasy/medieval European settings for now, and leave martial arts out of the game. That doesn't mean they won't be added later, mind - just that it will probably be MUCH later
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Feb 14, 2006 12:45:54 GMT
Rule revision - Bows & CrossbowsThanks to Silva for spotting the holes in the original version Ideally, crossbows should be the weapon of choice for anyone with a low strength score, but in my original version anyone with even a Str of 1 was better off using a bow. This doesn't really work, so for game purposes each crossbow type will be given a Str rating that it is equivalent to. This mechanical Str counts instead of the character's own when determining damage dealt, bringing crossbows back to where they should be.I am also going to clarify the damage types for bows. Historically speaking, the only reason not to use the best bow available is if you don't own it, or are not strong enough to use it. As I am unprepared to put Str requirements on every weapon (Needless nit picking, and very tedious, with no appreciable benefit to players or GM) you should always seek the best you can find. Crossbows:Light Crossbow - Atts 1 Dam 4 acts as Str 4 Medium Crossbow - Atts 1 Dam 4 acts as Str 6 Heavy Crossbow - Atts 1/2 Dam 6 acts as Str 8 Notes: A Light Xbow is usually cocked by hand, a Medium Xbow has a pulley system to cock it, and a Heavy Xbow is huge with a really strong pulley system. Note also that Agility bonuses to atts add 1/2 att/rnd to Heavy Xbows instead of the normal 1 att/rnd. They are that hard to handle. Bows:Short Bow - Atts 2 Dam 3 Hunting Bow - Atts 2 Dam 4 Long Bow - Atts 2 Dam 5 Yes, there really were medium bows, mainly used for hunting or before the true longbow developed (The Self Bow). Most game systems tend to ignore them, but even so. Having a middle ground also allows me room for the Mongol horn bow, and other Eastern European and Arabian developments, such as the Mameluke bow, which I may or may not include at a later date. Hope this clarifies bows & crossbows, and the advantage each gives
|
|
|
Post by SilvaShado on Feb 14, 2006 16:12:14 GMT
Good. I like how you worked those out. Though I'm surprised you didn't make the crossbows simplier by just increasing the damage, but I can understand your reason for differentiating damage from the strength bonus. Assuming I'm understanding it correctly, a light crossbow does 8 damage - 4 from damage and 4 from the strength bonus.
On another note, should we pick spells for our characters now, just in case we remember them later?
I've also thought of some more spells. Let me know what you think of them.
Agility 1 - cost 5, increases agility 1. Agility 2 - cost 5, increases agility 2. Agility 3 - cost 5, increases agility 3. Agility 4 - cost 5, increases agility 4. Agility 5 - cost 5, increases agility 5.
Repeat that series for Intellect, Strength and Endurance.
Stat 1 - cost 10, increase any one stat by 1. Stat 2 - cost 10, increase any one stat by 2. Stat 3 - cost 10, increase any one stat by 3. Stat 4 - cost 10, increase any one stat by 4. Stat 5 - cost 10, increase any one stat by 4.
Bless 1 - cost 15, increase damage done by 1 for all in a 20 foot radius. Bless 2 - cost 15, increase damage done by 2 for all in a 20 foot radius. Bless 3 - cost 15, increase damage done by 3 for all in a 20 foot radius. Bless 4 - cost 15, increase damage done by 4 for all in a 20 foot radius. Bless 5 - cost 15, increase damage done by 5 for all in a 20 foot radius.
All those above should last for 1 combat encounter.
Skill 1 - cost 10, increase a skill by 1. It lasts either until the skill is used or for one combat encounter. Skill 2 - cost 10, increase a skill by 2. It lasts either until the skill is used or for one combat encounter. Skill 3 - cost 10, increase a skill by 3. It lasts either until the skill is used or for one combat encounter. Skill 4 - cost 10, increase a skill by 4. It lasts either until the skill is used or for one combat encounter. Skill 5 - cost 10, increase a skill by 5. It lasts either until the skill is used or for one combat encounter.
That's all I can think of for now.
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Feb 14, 2006 16:30:40 GMT
Stat seems a bit redundant, and Bless is a no, at least for now. I need to think about area of effect spells more - although I do like that the spell does not differentiate between friends & foes... The others are fine. There's still no point picking starting spells. You'll understand why in due course... Edit - 'Mechanical strength' seemed like a good concept, and one that would be useful in other genres, and possibly for other objects or weapons down the road. And it makes it clearer who gains by using crossbows, which I don't think is a bad thing
|
|
|
Post by SilvaShado on Feb 14, 2006 16:50:59 GMT
The reason for stat is that it costs more, but you can choose any stat. The previous spells you have to know 1 spell for each stat.
Area spells are going to be tricky. Honestly, I didn't know how to describe Bless, but I thought I'd give it a try. Hopefully you can come up with something. I was actually thinking of going more with Lucky and calling it a luck bonus. Or maybe Morale and have it add a morale bonus. But not sure how to define those.
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Feb 14, 2006 16:59:27 GMT
I think I want to see how the system works before playing around with too much stat boosting by spell. Too many good combos can easily mean that both sides have real trouble hitting each other, which could prove problematic.
Oh - while I remember - Tumble might also be useful for dodging falling objects, such as rock slides & the like, or mechanical traps.
|
|
|
Post by SilvaShado on Feb 14, 2006 17:26:12 GMT
That's great to hear about Tumble. I knew it would be good for other things. How about entertainment? Like in a crowd, maybe earn some money from passerbys (assuming the situation comes up).
And I understand about not wanting too many bonus giving spells. It was just things that crossed my mind. I'd love to come up with more complicated ones like move through objects or levitation, but not sure how to define those right now.
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Feb 14, 2006 17:30:34 GMT
Yep, that would be a good use for Tumble, too Basically, the skill system is pretty open ended, in that if you can think of a use for a skill, there's a fair chance you can get away with it as long as it doesn't stretch belief too far. Phasing, flying & levitation I'll leave for a while. Doesn't mean at least a couple of them aren't in the grand plan, just that they need a bit of thought
|
|
|
Post by SilvaShado on Feb 14, 2006 17:34:48 GMT
Okay, I'll keep that in mind about skills.
And as for spells, most of my experience is from video games and D&D. There are a lot of simple spells we could incorporate as well as complicated spells. But they'll take time to create, test and incorporate into the game.
I know you don't want magic to be strong, but I also don't want a weak magic system. I know it'll be hard to find a balance, but I'm willing to help however I can. I just know I hate playing games were the magic sucks and just isn't worth the time and cost.
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Feb 14, 2006 18:22:58 GMT
The big problem would be with damage spells getting out of hand, rather than auxiliary spells, like Light, Levitation, etc. I certainly don't mind having loads of those. I'm trying to avoid TOO many direct D&D equivalents, though, I must admit. Ideally, every system needs its own feel. In time, there will be plenty of new spells, more playable races, and plenty of other things that add depth and colour to the system, and hopefully help to create the unique feel a good game needs. That said, I don't want to try running before we know if the system walks or not
|
|
|
Post by Gray Lensman on Feb 14, 2006 21:50:00 GMT
I do have one idea for a skill. I'm presenting this as a lump, but the GM may split this or not at his discretion. The Art of War: Basically, this includes a knowledge of battlefield strategy and tactics. This is not the same as Leadership, as that includes a whole host of different abilities. Art of War would be useful in identifying enemy formations, the best use of terrain, and things of that nature.
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Feb 14, 2006 21:53:06 GMT
Ah, yes. 'Lazy skills'. Another type I hate ;D Nothing personal to you, Steve, but I really dislike skills that make me hand out knowledge to players because they have a skill, rather than because they are thinking about it themselves. So that's a no. Sun Tzu is not THAT hard to read. trust me
|
|
|
Post by Gray Lensman on Feb 14, 2006 21:55:45 GMT
Fair enough.
|
|
|
Post by SilvaShado on Feb 15, 2006 3:59:06 GMT
Elliot - Whenever I create a mage-user, I'm pretty darn happy with a heal spell, an armor spell and one damage spell. If I get those - I'm good to go.
That said, I was wondering if you've thought about different elemental damage spells - fire, water, wind, earth, acid, force, etc.
Also wondering if you're going to repost the basic system info in the new thread about the system. It may make it easier for new players to have it all together. And you can edit it when new things are added, like skills. I know I posted about the survival skill later as well as tumble. People may not look at my posts when choosing skills.
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Feb 15, 2006 4:43:50 GMT
There will definitely be many elemental and other damage types, Silva, yes As for a revised & updated rules thread - yeah, good idea. I'll get to it soon.
|
|
|
Post by SilvaShado on Feb 16, 2006 3:10:39 GMT
Cool.
More spell ideas:
Sleep - target one person. It lasts longer as the spell level goes up. But I'm not sure how to determine resistance. Thinking about basing it off endurance, but not sure how.
Confusion - ditto above, except basing resistance off intellect.
Light Fog - slows down people's attacks and movement. 1 less attack per round and 10 slower. Higher levels last longer. 20 ft area.
Medium Fog - slows down people's attacks and movement. 2 less attack per round and 20 slower. Higher levels last longer. 20 ft area.
Heavy Fog - slows down people's attacks and movement. 3 less attack per round and 30 slower. Higher levels last longer. 20 ft area.
Thinking about fog led me to thinking about creating obstacles, like low walls, but not sure how to go about that.
Lock - magically lock one door/gate.
Unlock - magically unlock one door/gate.
Anyway, these are just some non-damage spell ideas that add variety to a spellcaster's style.
|
|
|
Post by Glance A'Lot on Feb 16, 2006 10:35:16 GMT
Because of this, I am going to concentrate on traditional fantasy/medieval European settings for now, and leave martial arts out of the game.Wrestling? - older than 'medieval European', certainly and 'globally' known. You wouldn't dispute this to also be a 'martial art'? <Glance is stubborn at times>
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Feb 16, 2006 10:55:52 GMT
All forms of weapon and non-weapon fighting are 'martial arts' Glance, so I wouldn't dispute it at all, no Some are, however, far easier to create simple rules for than others
|
|