Let's Rethink the Combat Round!
-
Things I think really work well:
- Fixed-order combat actions. I may be deluding myself, but I like to think that there's interesting parallel tactics in having to decide both what you want to do and when you get to do it.
- A nice balance between explicitness in the variety of actions without ever explicitly limiting what PCs can do. The ability to "come up with something crazy-ish" and negotiate what combat action that would be needs to stay a priority.
- Speed. I like to see combats that resolve in 4 to 10 rounds, hopefully the entire combat takes between ten minutes and forty-five minutes to play through, with lots of Awesomeness going on in between.
So here's where I'm currently thinking I'd change the Combat round, but this is off the top of my head and I'd appreciate some thoughts or suggestions:- Defend Yourself/Protect Someone - Either defend yourself and get an AC bonus or protect someone and force opponents to make Daring rolls to be able to attack them. Both come with counter-attacks.
- Shoot Something - I feel pretty strongly that shooting should be separate and sooner than regular attacks, it's meant to be part of the Ranged Weapon's "perks". Plus Holding and Aiming just seems cool (it's an elf-talent too).
- Start Focusing - Activate a Focus talent or try to do something that the DM decides makes you vulnerable and interruptible.
- Move to a new Arena/Grab Somebody - Either change Arenas or make a Brawn check to keep somebody from moving (sequential successes resulting in a Pin?)
- Attack someone/Do something Awesome - Hack away! Be Awesome!
- Yank someone/Throw someone - Daring to move yourself and others into another Arena, or Brawn to move 1 other into another Arena but stay where you are. Have to tweak the Thief's Distraction Talent if we open Throw to just anyone.
- Focused Events go Off
This is by no means a set-in-stone list, just my current thinking.
Concerns:
I'm worried about having too many "This or This" actions, because it ups the basic complexity level and makes the Action Cards busy and less clear. That being said I'd love to "thin down" the number of actions to six or seven and make combat rounds go even faster, combining the Defend/Protect Actions for instance seems like a no-brainer.
The more I think about it the less I like the idea of having a specific "Come up with something Awesome!" Action, I'd much rather that stay in loose negotiation with the DM among the other Actions. -
I have thoughts. You'll have them in the morning.
-
First let me throw out a disclaimer that what you've already got (as of the GenCon playtest docs) works quite well. It was tons of fun and I have no qualms at all about running it as is. That said, I'm a fan of increased options that goes hand in hand with streamlining the system so I'll offer a few ideas.
One thing that struck me as I was printing off my copy of the game and thinking of getting the cards laminated, etc., was that I'm not sure the cards themselves are necessary. I am thinking of using the sheet of uncut cards as a sort of "Round Track". My idea is to make an extra copy of the tokens with each character on them (Fighter, Elf, Thief, etc.) and allow the players to place them wherever they want on the Round Track. Then I can start at box 1 (currently Defend) and proceed right through the round. Any time I get to a box that has more than one token on it (be they PC tokens or bad guy tokens) I know to roll initiative. And I can hand the tokens back to the players as a way to keep track of where we are in the round.
I really enjoy games that have tactile elements like cards. But in this case I'm thinking that you don't gain that much by having each player playing a card. Having all that information in one place on the Round Track seems like a better way to know who's going when at a glance than having to look around a table of up to 7 players and having multiple cards in front of me (the GM) as well.
So that's my first thought and I think I'll leave it as a post unto itself. -
My next thought is that I actually dig the "This OR This" actions because they maintain a specific spot in the round order for certain types of actions but still provide the player with a choice. So long as each "card" only represents two actions at most then I think it's not going to lead to confusion. Especially if the two options are linked thematically. This is my (off the cuff) proposal of the combat round:
Defend/Protect - The only thing that I'd change about your current arrangement is that I'd make the choice between Defend Myself (+2 AC w/counter attack) and Protect Somebody (attacks against whoever you protect come at you, no AC bonus, you may counter attack on a hit). I'd ditch the opposed Daring check. My thinking is that the player in question is giving up their turn to try and absorb attacks directed at another character. That's pretty selfless and it would suck to give up your turn that way and then fail the Daring checks meaning that the person you're trying to protect maybe gets hit AND you don't get any counter attacks. It also gets rid of a fiddly roll during the enemy turn, which speeds things along. Also not requiring the roll provides narrative control to both the players and the GM by virtue of being able to declare that "If you want to take down X then you'll have to go through me first!
Simple Action/Focused Action - So my opinion is still that you want a spot to put things that are specific actions but which aren't as involved as Focused Actions. My proposal is that if a PC wants to take a Simple Action then it goes off immediately on this turn in the round ("I switch weapons" or "I drink the potion" or "I pin the bad guy"*). And if they are taking a Focus Action then this is when it starts but it could be interrupted.
Move/Forced Move - I like how this parallels Defend (myself)/Protect (somebody else). Also I would specifically put a "Pin" or other movement prevention action under the Simple Action heading because it would suck to give up your turn trying to Pin the bad guy and not even get a chance because he beat you on initiative during the Move phase. It makes sense to me to keep all types of movement, voluntary or otherwise, on the same phase. But I might not be understanding your reasons for having it come at the end of the round. I'd probably change the Thief ability to something called "Trick" and allow it to target one enemy as a Ranged attack and move them to an Arena to which they have access. It could either be a Forced Move or remain a Focus Action.
Shoot - No changes to this
Attack - No changes to this
Resolve Focus Actions - No changes to this
That pares the combat round down to 6 phases and even though three are "This OR This" actions, they are thematically linked and not confusing (in my opinion). -
The cards have always been purely optional, but I like your idea of just using the card sheet as a round tracker and everybody just places their secondary tokens on the action they want to do. I figure every group can do whichever they like.Rel said:One thing that struck me as I was printing off my copy of the game and thinking of getting the cards laminated, etc., was that I'm not sure the cards themselves are necessary. I am thinking of using the sheet of uncut cards as a sort of "Round Track". My idea is to make an extra copy of the tokens with each character on them (Fighter, Elf, Thief, etc.) and allow the players to place them wherever they want on the Round Track. Then I can start at box 1 (currently Defend) and proceed right through the round. Any time I get to a box that has more than one token on it (be they PC tokens or bad guy tokens) I know to roll initiative. And I can hand the tokens back to the players as a way to keep track of where we are in the round.
Speaking of, I'll try to post the token sheet and card backs sheet tonight when I get home.
Eeenteresting... I could see players wrankling at the idea of "bad guy does x this round and he's got enough protectors, there's nothing you can do to stop him from sacrificing the princess/pulling the lever/summoning the demon" but maybe we can think of a tweak to one of the other actions that lets you get past that.Rel said:I'd ditch the opposed Daring check. My thinking is that the player in question is giving up their turn to try and absorb attacks directed at another character. That's pretty selfless and it would suck to give up your turn that way and then fail the Daring checks meaning that the person you're trying to protect maybe gets hit AND you don't get any counter attacks. It also gets rid of a fiddly roll during the enemy turn, which speeds things along. Also not requiring the roll provides narrative control to both the players and the GM by virtue of being able to declare that "If you want to take down X then you'll have to go through me first!
I've always assumed that "simple actions" like your examples are free, including using Awesome points to heal (especially since when DMing I pump my bad guys on the fly the same way anyway). Personally I don't see much need to force players to give up a round to do this kind of stuff.Rel said:Simple Action/Focused Action - So my opinion is still that you want a spot to put things that are specific actions but which aren't as involved as Focused Actions. My proposal is that if a PC wants to take a Simple Action then it goes off immediately on this turn in the round ("I switch weapons" or "I drink the potion" or "I pin the bad guy"*). And if they are taking a Focus Action then this is when it starts but it could be interrupted.
IMO forcing an initiative roll to see if a character escapes or gets pinned is a fun little bit of dice-rolling excitement, but I like your reasoning to keep things condensed. Maybe all "Movement"-related actions should take place on the same turn.Rel said:Move/Forced Move - I like how this parallels Defend (myself)/Protect (somebody else). Also I would specifically put a "Pin" or other movement prevention action under the Simple Action heading because it would suck to give up your turn trying to Pin the bad guy and not even get a chance because he beat you on initiative during the Move phase. It makes sense to me to keep all types of movement, voluntary or otherwise, on the same phase. But I might not be understanding your reasons for having it come at the end of the round. I'd probably change the Thief ability to something called "Trick" and allow it to target one enemy as a Ranged attack and move them to an Arena to which they have access. It could either be a Forced Move or remain a Focus Action.
Yeah, I'm just being fussy about the "This or This" stuff, cuz I've only got so much room on those little cards. We'll see when I attempt to lay out the next set of revisions.Rel said:Shoot - No changes to this
Attack - No changes to this
Resolve Focus Actions - No changes to this
That pares the combat round down to 6 phases and even though three are "This OR This" actions, they are thematically linked and not confusing (in my opinion). -
kiznit said:
Eeenteresting... I could see players wrankling at the idea of "bad guy does x this round and he's got enough protectors, there's nothing you can do to stop him from sacrificing the princess/pulling the lever/summoning the demon" but maybe we can think of a tweak to one of the other actions that lets you get past that.
My opinion about this is similar to my opinion about the whole "Move train" issue, which is that it isn't much of an issue. It provides the GM with some narrative control and he can let up on that whenever he wants.
If the BBEG's evil ritual is key to making the rest of the game interesting then assign half a dozen Guards to Protect the BBEG. The PC's won't typically be able to get past that and target him but MAYBE you let them if they spend Awesome Points and come up with a creative solution. If you want the PC's to have a genuine chance to disrupt the ritual then assign one Guard to Protect the BBEG. The solution for the players is simple: Throw enough damage at the Guard that he's killed and then try to get an attack on the BBEG to interrupt his Focus Action. The players get the same degree of empowerment when the Fighter Protects the Cleric while the Cleric Focuses Prayers of the Hurt on the Magic User.
Extending this to the Move Train, again the GM can simply lead the PC's on a merry chase to wherever he considers to be a fun Arena for the next part of the encounter to take place. The PC's might be able to stop it by spending Awesome Points on a creative solution. Or maybe the GM imposes some opposed Awareness v. Cunning checks for the PC's to avoid having the bad guys lose them. But this places the whole thing in the province of narrative control for the GM and provided that the GM doesn't want to tell a boring story (and who does?) then you know the story won't be boring.
kiznit said:I've always assumed that "simple actions" like your examples are free, including using Awesome points to heal (especially since when DMing I pump my bad guys on the fly the same way anyway). Personally I don't see much need to force players to give up a round to do this kind of stuff.
Fair enough. I'm still mildly concerned about the Golf Bag issue and was looking at the cost of an action to solve it. But maybe you consider that a non issue. I'd probably agree that it's not worth adding a phase to combat for the sole purpose of solving that issue.
kiznit said:IMO forcing an initiative roll to see if a character escapes or gets pinned is a fun little bit of dice-rolling excitement, but I like your reasoning to keep things condensed. Maybe all "Movement"-related actions should take place on the same turn.
I guess this also goes to the concept of "declared actions vs. what you actually do on your turn". So at the start of the turn I say, "I don't want the enemy Wizard to flee so I'm going to take an action to Pin him in this Arena." But the Wizard wants to flee and also declares a Move to get out of the Arena. If he beats my initiative and flees to the next Arena then I assume that I can cancel my Pin and instead take a Move to follow him? What if I declare my intention to Pin at the start of the round but then he opts to Focus to cast a spell and doesn't try to Move? Can I then opt to go later in the round and Attack instead?
kiznit said:Yeah, I'm just being fussy about the "This or This" stuff, cuz I've only got so much room on those little cards. We'll see when I attempt to lay out the next set of revisions.
I hear ya. It's an elegant piece of design to have all the rules fit on the card. But you've got some extra white space to play with on a couple of them and it's not the end of the world if there is a brief rules reference sheet that exists alongside the cards. Either way you've still got a very rules light system that will be easy for players to grasp.
-
Hmm. Color me convinced on some of your points, especially the problem that "losing initiative on an action means your pin is pointless". The only thing I think I want to stand firm on is separating Move and Yank/Throw, just because I think that's too many options on a single action. However, I'm going to broaden Move to become Move/Follow, giving someone specific ability to simply say "I'm going where he's going".
Alright, so let's take a new stab at this, and this time try to nail down some of the wording:- Defend/Protect - Defend yourself and get an AC bonus (free counter-attacks against non-ranged attack attempts) or protect someone and force their opponents to attack you (free counter-attacks only against successful attacks).
- Shoot - Use a Ranged Weapon to attack someone or something, with the option to hold fire until a specific moment.
- Focus/Obstruct - Begin focusing a special talent or other tricky attempt, or attempt to prevent someone from moving (Daring check).
- Move/Follow - Move to a new Arena, or Follow someone who is moving.
- Attack - Make some sort of attack against someone in your Arena.
- Yank/Throw - Either pull someone with you into another Arena (Cunning check) or push them into another Arena while staying put (Brawn check).
- Focused Effect/Pin - As long as you were unattacked, either Focused Effect goes off or your Obstruction becomes a Pin (preventing opponent from Moving next round).
This is really only six cards, since 3 and 7 are the same. I like it!
Possible supplemental Rules:
Preventing the Golfbag - Any weapon you carry past two types of weapons counts as a Heavy Item (Endless Daggers exempted).
The Thief's Distraction Talent - Ability to "Throw" opponent without being in the same Arena, And can use Cunning instead of Brawn, maybe get a +2 bonus as well. Maybe secondary ability of Daring check to prevent Thief from being Obstructed (some sort of dangerous feint, the cool leap that followers shirk at, whichever). -
Could there also be an action for "Aim/Study" action? It could count as a Focus and hit on the 7th initiative and add +2 to hit ...
-
Question about Follow: Why is this necessary as a specific option? If you lose initiative to an opponent and he Moves then you have the option to move to whatever new Arena he entered. If you win initiative, I'd assume you have the option to say, "I'll wait and see where he's going and then go there."
-
It isn't necessarily a specific option, and basically is just a way to imply the Move action allows you to do just such a thing as you've suggested.
Maybe it's not needed, I don't know. I guess I've switched over to this whole "This or This" way of thinking and was looking for symmetry. -
Well by all means, don't let me interfere with that! ;)
-
So in the latest rendition above, does Obstruct -> Pin have the same requirement as Focus that you don't get hit while you're doing it?
-
MarkCausey said:
Could there also be an action for "Aim/Study" action? It could count as a Focus and hit on the 7th initiative and add +2 to hit ...
There is already an Elf Talent that more or less does this. -
My line of thinking is that succeeding at an Obstruct means you prevent someone's movement.Rel said:So in the latest rendition above, does Obstruct -> Pin have the same requirement as Focus that you don't get hit while you're doing it?
Then, if you manage not to get attacked before Action 7, you've successfully "Pinned", which means no movement next turn.
Is that too powerful? -
Nope! I actually like that a lot because it gives an immediate benefit and it may provide a benefit that extends into the next round. That feels like a good benefit ratio for what is essentially a "spoiler" activity.
On the subject of the whole This OR This concept and our previous discussion about Shoot being its own card, what if there was a Shoot/Attack card/phase with the stipulation that all Shooting is resolved prior to Attacking?
My thinking is that the text on the card needn't be too involved so there should be room. It still gives Shooting the advantage that you want it to in terms of going first. And it provides an interesting choice for the Shooter who wants to benefit from Delay (as per the Elf Talent). If they delay then they must roll initiative with all the Attack folks.
As it stands there is rarely a reason to Delay beyond the Focus part of the turn and I can't think of any reason to ever Delay beyond the Move part of the turn. By having Shoot be earlier I suppose that it does allow for Shooting somebody before they can Move.
Anyway I don't think this is a major deal. Functionally my idea is the same as Shoot having its own card right before Attack. I was just thinking in terms of retaining the benefits while consolidating onto one card/phase. -
Truth be told I don't really have any reasoning for making Shoot it's own played-earlier card except for the fact that old school D&D always allowed ranged weapons to go first and the idea that in later higher-level versions of OSH there'll be more powerful talents, like being able to shoot twice in a round, once in the shoot action and once in the attack action.
Well, that and I feel like a sense of "Ranged Weapons get their own card" is an important balancing element for Ranged Weapons compared with an extra attack die, double damage, or higher AC like the other weapons, even if that's more of a psychological sense of balance rather than a mechanical one. -
I hadn't considered the system needing to be robust enough to hang higher level talents on later. That's a good point and plenty of reason for Shoot to have its own card.
On an unrelated note, I think I just groked that Reach Weapons improve armor by one CATEGORY rather than simply granting a +1 to AC. Is that correct? Is that meant to imply that you gain the attending penalties to sneaky stuff? -
Yes, that's correct. A Cleric in Very Heavy Armor (Hyp in the Midnight GenCon game) has maxed out at 17 AC, virtually untouchable and a good target for Magic Missiles or swarms of Mooks.Rel said:On an unrelated note, I think I just groked that Reach Weapons improve armor by one CATEGORY rather than simply granting a +1 to AC. Is that correct?
Nah, it's an improvement to your category, but doesn't actually count as Heavy Armor or V. Heavy Armor. I don't see any common sense reason as to why carrying a polearm would interfere much in trying to do Tricky/Sneaky stuff.Rel said:Is that meant to imply that you gain the attending penalties to sneaky stuff?
-
kiznit said:
Nah, it's an improvement to your category, but doesn't actually count as Heavy Armor or V. Heavy Armor. I don't see any common sense reason as to why carrying a polearm would interfere much in trying to do Tricky/Sneaky stuff.
Um...ok. It's not terribly hard for me to rationalize why it would make sneaking harder if you're toting around a 10 foot pole with an axe on the end.
But I do think it would have some unintended consequences like the polearm wielding barbarian not getting credit for wearing No Armor (and the attending Awesome Points). -
I suspect it's okay to leave that rule undefined and up to individual groups to mediate. In my group I don't think I'd rule that Reach weapons affect the Tricky&Sneaky penalty, or count against the Awesomeness of fighting in a loincloth.
-
It'll also apply to the Puppet Strings ability.
-
Alright, just to clarify, but I think we're about finalized here:
- Defend/Protect - Defend yourself and get an AC bonus (free counter-attacks against non-ranged attack attempts) or Protect a friend in your arena so that anyone attacking them attacks you instead (free counter-attacks only against successful non-ranged attacks).
- Shoot - Use a Ranged Weapon to attack someone or something, with the option to hold fire until later in combat.
- Focus/Obstruct - Begin using a Focused Talent, or Attempt to prevent someone else from Moving (Daring check).
- Move - Move to a new Arena, or Follow someone else who is Moving (free counter-attack if you are successfully Obstructed).
- Attack - Make some sort of attack against someone in your Arena.
- Yank/Throw - Either Pull someone with you into another Arena (Cunning check) or Push them into another Arena without moving (Brawn check).
- Focused Effect/Pin - As long as you were undamaged this round, either your Focused Effect goes off or your Obstruction becomes a Pin (preventing opponent from Moving next round).
Note the idea of getting a free counter-attack if you tried to Move but were Obstructed - I hate the idea of a round going to waste. Is "Obstructed" a good word? Would "Block" or "Corner" be better?
I'm happy to hear other thoughts or considerations, otherwise I plan to start laying things out as I've got them here. -
I think that's a great working model! I think you should go ahead with the layout and then we do some more yummy, yummy playtesting!
-
RE: Obstruct
Bar seems like the natural term to me, but is a little awkward. If it were extended to mean "Ready oneself to prevent movement or take a specific action" then you could go with Interrupt or Impede.
Actually, I like Impede the best. Just my thought. -
Oh and any ideas on handling the unarmed combat idea?
If I was going to rectally extract an idea, I'd go with "Roll 1d10 and add your Brawn bonus."
This means you're rarely going to land a telling blow, even against somebody in No Armor. But given the granularity of your Hit Points I don't think that's a major problem. -
Unarmed Combat?
That's not bad, though I sort of generally disapprove of specific Attribute-affected attack rolls. Let me think about it. Maybe 1d10 and just add your biggest Attribute bonus, and then have to describe how it works. :) -
Also, do magic users just define a spell as a weapon type, like Reach or Heavy based on description? Or are they weapon users first and magic users second?
-
In my last playtest, the Magic User had a Magic Wand as her ranged weapon, and I was fine with that. An infinite damage-dealing spell that doesn't require an implement, though? I dunno... maybe I'd defer to the as-yet undefined unarmed combat rules.
The actual "Spells" - aka Focused Talents are specifically Talents and not Weapons though.
Magic Users in OSH certainly do seem to be weapon-users as much as magic-users, but IMO it's all in how you play, and I'm fine with that. I've done my nudging with the flavor text, and I think that's all that needs to be done. -
I dig your reluctance to add an attribute directly to the roll as a matter of course. How about instead:
Unarmed Attack: Roll 1d10. If your opponent is also Unarmed then add a +2 to the roll. (So that bar fights don't last forever.) For 1 Awesome Point you can add any Attribute Bonus to the roll provided you describe how that Attribute applies to your attack.
This also leaves you room for a Monk-ish Talent later on that says "You count as Armed even when you're Unarmed." -
What's the difference between a purchased weapon dealing damage every round and a purchased spell dealing damage every round?
-
The reason I ask is because Fighters get a lot of "always on" abilities and the magic user gets most dailies and such. Doesn't seem to compare well, you know? I'd choose Elf over Magic User every time, if it's just a matter of color.
-
Mechanically, none that I can think of, beyond the importance of the possibility of being disarmed of a spell in the same way someone might be disarmed of a weapon.MarkCausey said:What's the difference between a purchased weapon dealing damage every round and a purchased spell dealing damage every round?
Balance is only a concern so far - old school D&D classes are woefully unbalanced, for instance - so it's not something I'm stressing about.MarkCausey said:The reason I ask is because Fighters get a lot of "always on" abilities and the magic user gets most dailies and such. Doesn't seem to compare well, you know? I'd choose Elf over Magic User every time, if it's just a matter of color.
Generally, I'm fine with Fighters being "Always on" and Magic Users being "Wad-blowers then Weaklings", it fits the nostalgia for the Fantasy RPG genre. That being said since I expect we're killing dailies we'll probably see the Magic-User's powers given a bit more oomph. -
I think there is a ton of room for cool spell like effects that are tied to an implement, providing cool flavor under the existing mechanics. The magic wand is an obvious Ranged weapon. But you could have the ring that grants you crackly force-lightning up close (Light Weapon) or a staff wreathed in fire that helps keep enemies at bay (Reach Weapon).
-
So what's going to be the new paradigm now that Dailies are going away?
-
I'm totally with the weapon that is magical as Scott described - a focus for my spells works and allows for disarms and also for radically different descriptions of the effects.
-
Rel said:
So what's going to be the new paradigm now that Dailies are going away?
Probably a "Restore after you catch your breath/consult your notes/grab a bite" thing like the healing rules.
More or less an Encounter Power but as opposed to a specific "5 minute rest" I'd rather see the DM going "You're not in immediate danger, tell me what you're doing to recharge your power" kinda narrative-like thing. -
I'm not married to the idea but how about you keep it Daily but spend an Awesome Point to "Describe a way that your power recharges while you take a brief rest." It means the option won't be available every time UNLESS you don't wear any armor. Helloooo genre reinforcement.
-
When we started playing RBH the first time, the no armor rule was also available if you removed your armor before the fight. We would use it to 'level the field' with an enemy and let them know that we considered them beneath us.
-
Huh. Interesting.Rel said:I'm not married to the idea but how about you keep it Daily but spend an Awesome Point to "Describe a way that your power recharges while you take a brief rest." It means the option won't be available every time UNLESS you don't wear any armor. Helloooo genre reinforcement.
Though I don't like the idea of recharging a Talent specifically costing an Awesome point. I don't want to get to a point where the system flips over into more or less requiring Awesome points to play a class effectively - Not everyone can be Awesome all the time, and I'm already slightly wary of how the Awesome Point economy creates a split in the group between the "Spotlight-hogging Creative" types and the "Just Along for the Ride" types. -
kiznit said:
I'd rather see the DM going "You're not in immediate danger, tell me what you're doing to recharge your power" kinda narrative-like thing.
If you put a clause into those powers like "Sleep Spell Regenerates when spell components are charged in a 5 minute ritual consuming the components and an Awesome point", that'd be cool. -
I get you. It's not a small concern.
My point was aimed at Marks mention of Fighters = Always On, Magic Users = Daily. If you can turn a Daily into a Per Encounter by spending Awesome Points then you can be certain of having Awesome Points by the simple virtue of No Armor, which grants 2 every time. If your Magic User wants to wear armor then that's fine. Just earn your Awesome Points by being awesome or be ok with the fact that you won't always be able to recharge after every fight. -
Put that way, I totally understand Scott's intent and agree with it. I thought the no armor = genre reinforcement meant that if you were a bare-chested fighter and then slept with women you'd be recharged for your abilities. Maybe my mind was in a different gutter at the time.
-
Huh, I didn't see where you were going with that, that's pretty awesome.Rel said:I get you. It's not a small concern.
My point was aimed at Marks mention of Fighters = Always On, Magic Users = Daily. If you can turn a Daily into a Per Encounter by spending Awesome Points then you can be certain of having Awesome Points by the simple virtue of No Armor, which grants 2 every time. If your Magic User wants to wear armor then that's fine. Just earn your Awesome Points by being awesome or be ok with the fact that you won't always be able to recharge after every fight.
An awesome point for you, sir!
-
MarkCausey said:
Put that way, I totally understand Scott's intent and agree with it. I thought the no armor = genre reinforcement meant that if you were a bare-chested fighter and then slept with women you'd be recharged for your abilities. Maybe my mind was in a different gutter at the time.
Well, in a way, it kind of does.
The Fighter's only Daily (at present) is Exploit Weakness. And (if kiz goes with the Awesome Point = Recharge concept) then he can wear No Armor and be certain that he'll be able to recharge it after every combat. But it's one of those meaningful choices because those 2 AP could instead be spent on soaking the first point of damage he takes next combat.
Maybe it's a little reckless of a Fighter to spend an AP to recharge Exploit Weakness. But then, speaking of genre reinforcement, isn't increased damage output at the risk of taking more damage just the kind of thing you'd expect from some loincloth wearing barbarian? -
I might suggest that if you are going to do this however, maybe consider making the cost 2 AP. It seems a little too cheap at 1 AP. And by costing both of the 2 AP that a Magic User might get by wearing No Armor, it forces the player to possibly have to choose which of his multiple Daily powers he wants to recharge, which feels very Old School to me.
-
Assuming they're at second level or higher.
-
I like it, guys. I've edited the list in the Awesome Point thread to reflect these.
-
Yes totally. Everybody KNOWS that first level spellcasters only have one spell! Duh! ;)
-
All right. Here's my rough of the new Combat Cards. I didn't get a chance to finish up the new Combat Crib Sheet or change the Class sheets to reflect the new Talent categories, but hopefully those'll be done by the end of the weekend. What do you guys think?
http://www.koboldstyle.org/stuff/OldSchoolHack/CombatCards_v03.pdf -
I think that you're a sexy god of graphic game design!
And it looks like you were up REALLY late working on this. If that was for my benefit alone then all I can say is tremendous thanks for your hard work! -
So I'm playing around with plugging in these combat icons I made - I like icons, I guess I see them as neat little graphical encapsulations of what a specific action is - but they do kind of make the cards even busier.
I'm going to have to keep playing around to see if I can make them "work" to my satisfaction. What do you guys think?
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
In this Discussion
- Dirk August 2010
- Hypersmurf August 2010
- kiznit August 2010
- MarkCausey August 2010
- Rel August 2010
Powered by Vanilla