| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So I've been asked by some folks to chronicle my more realism inclined, uber-gritty house rules--dubbed the Grimcleaver System--for people who are curious as to how it all works, so here goes:
Stats--
roll 4d6 discard lowest, roll 7 times discard lowest roll, allocate as you see fit.
Hit Points--
The damage stats for weapons given are just about perfect for a first level character and get rapidly too dinky as characters progress. Therefore characters do not recieve extra HP at levelup. In fact they only get extra HP when they buy Toughness or when their Con goes up. Why don't they drop like flies? Read on.
Oh and also you get hitpoints based on race, not class. This is so you avoid ridiculous results like a halfling with 12 base hitpoints or a half orc with 4. It breaks down like this:
Halfling/Gnome 4, Elf 6, Half-Elf/Human 8, Dwarf 10, Half-Orc 12
to which you add or subtract your Con modifier as usual.
BDB Base Defense Bonus--
There are three attack progressions The Fighter (taps out at 20 at level 20) The Cleric (taps at 15) and The Wizard (taps at 10). In Grimcleaver there's a Base Defense Bonus which you add to your Defense(AC) which reflects how nimbly your character can duck and weave around blades without getting hit. Armor doesn't factor into this, but is important for it's own reasons. Your Defense = 10 +BDB +Dex Mod
The very dodgy classes base their BDB off the Fighter progression. They tend to be restricted to light or no armor by their write ups and tend to use a lot of finese on the battlefield rather than reliance on armor. They are:
Rogue
Monk
Ranger
The hardend combat classes base their BDB off the Cleric progression. They usually rely on armor to save them from the brunt of damage they take, but nonetheless have been in enough fights that while they are not acrobatic ghosts like their fleet brethren, they can spot a telegraphed blow coming in and bend to their armor's best effect. They are:
Barbarian
Cleric
Fighter
Paladin
The noncombat classes base their BDB off the Wizard progression. They do not have much knack for combat, usually relying on their friends to help them or crosstraining in other disciplines. Nonetheless as they continue to face combat situations they are forced to gain marginal proficiency at getting out of the way of their attackers. They are:
Bard
Druid
Sorcerer
Wizard
Armor--
In Grimcleaver armor does not keep you from getting hit, it lessens or deadens the resulting hit. It gives a flat damage reduction equal to the usual AC bonus. So for example leather armor grants a DR 2, enough to turn a weak knife thrust or take the bite out of a good one. Full plate grants a mighty DR of 8 for those who can afford it, absorbing all but the mightiest blows. Mind you, armor still imposes Dex limits as well and impedes special abilities--plus it requires special training (class or feat) to use.
Spells and Backstabbing--
There's a lot of special abilities in the game geared toward people with gobs of hit points that just don't make sense with Grimcleaver and need to be adjusted. The adjustment is simple to make however--additional dice become an add. Therefore a 4d6 backstab becomes a 1d6+4 backstab. A 6d6 fireball becomes a 1d6+6 fireball. Oh and because everyone has a but a single hit die, spells that affect characters based on hit die are instead based on Con modifier.
Love for Magic Users--
Rather than consult the table at the front of the book for bonus spells, all magic users use their modifier for the appropriate stat to determine extra spells per level. So a 5th level Wizard with no Int bonus gets 4 0-level spells, 3-1st, 2-2nd per day (granted this becomes moot since no bonus means he'd be unable to cast anything but cantrips, but stick with the example) whereas a Wizard with a +4 to int would get 8 0-level, 7-1st, 6-2nd.
Likewise in Grimcleaver there's no automatic saving throw versus spells. That doesn't mean spells are unescapable, it just means that like every other encounter in D&D you have to use your skills and brains to escape them. They do what the flavor text says they do. If someone tries to levitate you you can try to hold onto something. If a fireball is headed toward the party you can swig a fire resistance potion and charge to intercept it halfway to save your friends. Spells become dramatic encounters of their own rather than statistic based binary effects. Plus when you cast a spell on a badguy it's less likely you'll have wasted a precious spell slot and an action swirling your hands through the air and babbling like a loon only to have the thing ineffectually peter out when he makes his save.
There's plenty of other stuff, but it's mostly small changes to tweak things like initiative rolls being made whenever two people want to do something first instead of only once per combat, and making some feats more flavorful (mostly the ones that just allow you to do stuff without triggering an attack of opportunity) or making some of the other ones less ridiculously overpowered and suspension-of-disbelief wrecking (Power Attack, Great Cleave) but honestly the heart of Grimcleaver is right here. Most of the rest is pretty nitpickey.
If you have any more questions or would like to run it through its paces by giving me a situation to adjudicate then feel free. Mostly this is here because folks asked me to post it--and y'know I'm kinda' proud of it.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Thanks Grim!
Do you do anything else to the races? Given the importance of hit points, halflings/gnomes seem like a very poor choice. Do they have any other benefits (e.g., bonus to the defense skill)?
Aren't magic users very powerful? It seems like at third level hold person would utterly dominate if you can cast it once per round and there was no save. How does a person avoid a hold person in character?
Would the character have to hold an action to drink the potion to avoid the effects of the fireball, or does everyone get an "oh s*$$" action whenever they are targeted with spells to do stuff like grab walls and such?
Are you using the 6 second round? For some reason I thought you were doing old school minute rounds.
What have you changed based on your playtesting? Are there still any rough patches where you have to waive your hands and say "oh, that didn't work that way, here's what happened instead."
|
BDB Base Defense Bonus--
There are three attack progressions The Fighter (taps out at 20 at level 20) The Cleric (taps at 15) and The Wizard (taps at 10). In Grimcleaver there's a Base Defense Bonus which you add to your Defense(AC) which reflects how nimbly your character can duck and weave around blades without getting hit. Armor doesn't factor into this, but is important for it's own reasons. Your Defense = 10 +BDB +Dex ModThe very dodgy classes base their BDB off the Fighter progression... They are:
Rogue
Monk
RangerThe hardend combat classes base their BDB off the Cleric progression... They are:
Barbarian
Cleric
Fighter
PaladinThe noncombat classes base their BDB off the Wizard progression... They are:
Bard
Druid
Sorcerer
Wizard
I've been thinking about a BDB for my campaign as well. You way, with the dodgy classes having the highest BDB, make sense, but have you considered that this means that two fighters of equal level (with high BAB and medium BDB) will hit each other more often than not because their attacks will out-pace there defenses, more so as their levels increase. Similarly, two rogues of equal level (with high BDB and medium BAB) will become less and less likely to hit each other as their levels increase. Maybe this is okay, but my first reaction is that two equal fighters should have the same chances of hitting each other at 1st level as at 10th level. But then again, maybe not; I'm just thinking in print. Two high-level rogues would have spent most of their time learning to dodge, so their combat would be a lot of near misses. Two high level fighters would be expected to have good armor so wouldn't worry about dodging as much and would make contact a lot. Okay, I'm convinced. (There might be room in this system for a dodgy fighter type who focuses less on armor and more on speed. Dualist? Gladiator? Boxer?)
[BTW, before I was changed my mind - damn you! - my thought was going to be that BAB and BDB should be the same so they'd cancel each other out as levels progresses, kinda' like size bonus to AC and BAB. AC makes sense but +! to BAB for small only makes sense if you remember that it means to halfings have the same chance of hitting each other as two humans or two storm giants. But never mind.]
Any thoughts about a damage bonus equal to BAB? Wouldn't people get better at hurting one another as they got better at fighting?
Do you do anything else to the races? Given the importance of hit points, halflings/gnomes seem like a very poor choice. Do they have any other benefits (e.g., bonus to the defense skill)?
I want to. I'm always tinkering with stuff, but just so as to keep my players from yanking out their hair from session to session with all the new rules I try not to integrate everything I come up with immediately. I would like to see things like smaller characters being generally quicker (bonus to init) and pushing the AC slider for size from +1/-1 to something like +4/-4 per catagory. My most radical idea so far has been to flip some of the mechanics for races and classes, so classes give stat adjustments and special abilities and races give favored skills and skill points. Maybe fighters might get +2 Str/-2 Cha for being strong but somewhat distant and haunted, while Wizards might get a +2 Int/-2 Con for being bookish, but frail. Meanwhile Dwarves could get Craft and Know: Archetecture and a handful of skills they would likely have. Likewise they would get a midling number of starting skill points reflecting their fifty years of gearup before becoming adventurers. Elves would get the most for being a hundred. Humans and such would get way less.
Aren't magic users very powerful? It seems like at third level hold person would utterly dominate if you can cast it once per round and there was no save. How does a person avoid a hold person in character?
Yes. But then they should be. Magic should be mighty and powerful. You certainly get that feeling in fiction. Plus these guys give up weapons and armor and good skills for something they only get to do a few times a day. They deserve to be loved. That said I would probably run that a held person can struggle against the magical force holding him as would a person held in a grapple causing a bit of a battle between the will of the mage and the struggling victim. Mind you I wouldn't give him a great chance of escaping if the mage chooses to focus on his spell, but if he were distracted by the rest of the group and helped by some friends perhaps. Then again with a one round per level duration, I don't know that just letting the character suffer total immobility for a while might not be more fun. It hasn't come up yet, to tell you the truth but it's fun to think about. At least it's a challenge for players to overcome.
Would the character have to hold an action to drink the potion to avoid the effects of the fireball, or does everyone get an "oh s*!#" action whenever they are targeted with spells to do stuff like grab walls and such?
Most spells have some gearup to them. Fireballs actually fly at the characters. So everyone rolls initiative. Those who go before the spell get to react. Those that don't can't react until it's too late. Likewise even before the spell goes off, the mage is doing somatic and verbal components that allow characters to predict what's coming with a good spellcraft roll. Generally the idea is to put an arrow into the wizard first, or get the heck out of his line of sight if you see him caressing the air with his fingers leaving streamers of purple light and speaking crackling incomprehensible words of power--because what's coming is bad.
Are you using the 6 second round? For some reason I thought you were doing old school minute rounds.
I tend to have an amorphous definition of a round. A round is the amount of time everyone in a group takes to do something. Everyone who's going to swing a sword swings it. Everyone who's jumping from one tall platform to another has jumped. That sort of thing. Likewise actions are the amount of time to do a set thing, like drink a potion or chop a guy in half with an axe. It's never exactly the same amount of time. It's a subjective measure.
What have you changed based on your playtesting? Are there still any rough patches where you have to waive your hands and say "oh, that didn't work that way, here's what happened instead."
Yeah, all the time. The whole idea of BDB was developed because taking armor away made everyone get hit way too much. I'm still tweaking how the "no saves" thing works--it's the new kid among the Grimcleaver rules. The rule capping Power Attack to +5 actually came from an epic campaign where I had a character who was doing weapon breaking damage to badguys that was impossible to narrate the numbers were so high. I changed Great Cleave for similar reasons, when characters with super high initiative would superhumanly cleave through eight badguys in a single round--then repeat this every round. It just didn't make no sense.
On the other hand, lots of stuff has been proven. I was scared just taking the AC bonus of armor right across to DR would make armored characters too tough to ever die, but in testing it has proved to be right on the money as first concieved. The new spell damages likewise are proving to be about right. But yeah, these rules are constantly getting tweaks and optimizations.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
Has your system altered the prevalence of magical items at all? It seems that, when all of your opponents have but a single hit die, a +1 flaming frost shock longsword would be pretty effing devastating. Similarly, +5 full plate would give a DR of 13 (assuming that magical AC bonuses convert to DR as well). What about natural and deflection bonuses to armor? Does natural armor still stack with regular armor? Does it add to DR as well? It seems that, if you build a character with insane armor and natural armor, you're nigh-invincible under this system. Do rings of protection add to Defense? I'm just curious to know if you've addressed these things yet.
Has your system altered the prevalence of magical items at all? It seems that, when all of your opponents have but a single hit die, a +1 flaming frost shock longsword would be pretty effing devastating. Similarly, +5 full plate would give a DR of 13 (assuming that magical AC bonuses convert to DR as well). What about natural and deflection bonuses to armor? Does natural armor still stack with regular armor? Does it add to DR as well? It seems that, if you build a character with insane armor and natural armor, you're nigh-invincible under this system. Do rings of protection add to Defense? I'm just curious to know if you've addressed these things yet.
Shields as well as deflection bonuses are all adds to Defense. Basically anything that pushes attacks away from the character and keeps them from hitting the character are Defense adds. They work or they don't and if they don't the character gets hit with the full damage of the weapon (barring other, non deflecting, defenses). Things like natural armor or things that make characters or their gear thicker and tougher to resist injury are DR. So yeah, magical +5 full plate is freaking hard to penetrate. Then again, it IS +5 full plate--which is pretty close to being the end all, be all in magical armor so yeah. Also please note that identical enhancements overlap but still do not stack, so a guy with a +2 ring and an +5 amulet providing a deflection bonus would leave the guy with only a +5 not a +7.
Likewise magic weapons reave unarmored people into chum as they should do. I tend to feel the same way about +1 flaming frost shock weapons however as other folks feel about half-dragon troll warlock barbarians. Magic weapons tend to be heavier on flavor and lighter on prefixes. You'll get a really wicked looking flaming longsword maybe, and maybe it will do some other nifty things for you--but it will probably not be a salad of every magic ability in the book.
Likewise I tend to view XP and gold requirements for making magic items more as guidelines for how many XP of sessions of adventures you need to go on and the relative expense and rarity of the reagents you need to assemble to make one. Making a magic item can be a campaign all by itself. So yeah, most weapons tend to be ones that I make and hand out--so the really cheesy stuff stays tends to stay where it belongs.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
Magic weapons tend to be heavier on flavor and lighter on prefixes. You'll get a really wicked looking flaming longsword maybe, and maybe it will do some other nifty things for you--but it will probably not be a salad of every magic ability in the book.
What if the item were player-created? Say a mage with the appropriate feats and spells wanted to make an elemental reaver? Basically, he describes the weapon as a falchion that contains the combined powers of all the elements and strikes out at foes with the fury of the planes. Would you let him create it for his buddy the barbarian? I mean sure, mechanically it's a +1 flaming frost shock falchion but to the characters it's an elemental reaver. Does that change things for you? Or would you still hose the idea? I saw that you talked about 'making a magic weapon could be the focus of an entire campaign'. How do you work that out? Do they have to seek special reagents to craft it?
Well I would have the wizard travel to a kingdom where such weapons have been researched--a xenophobic military city that does not like to give out its secrets. They would then have to prove their benign intent to the rulers there and somehow convince the stern mage smiths there that he is worthy and has something to contribute to their ongoing research.
They would tell him that there are few creatures in the known multiverse where opposing energies such as would be had if this "reaver" were to be constructed can coexist without cancelling each other out. If they are to continue the research they must find an omnimental and study it. They make their way to a place in the setting where omnimentals are rumored to exist with a gnomish sample jar on a 50' pole. They must hunt down the omnimental and get a sample of it's essence by sticking the pole into the creature and swirling it around. The omnielemental, suffice it to say, is not likely to abide such nonsense.
But if they succeed. They discover that their research has not gone unnoticed, and a blackguard and a small army of his undead lieutenants are hunting after them to get the sample and rush it to their lich lord who has been long invoking the Elemental powers for just such a weapon to no avail. He is not only jealous but insensed that where he has failed this ragtag group of fools has appeared to have succeeded. He will have their research, see the weapon created for his use, and then see them die long painful deaths before being warped together into a plague walker for his amusement...
And so on. If the characters overcome the lich and his associates, more merriment will likely ensue, whereupon they may have to journey to the planes to follow through on key breakthroughs gleaned from the sample. They they might have to obtain rare zerth metal from Limbo (or the like) as it is the only material that can conduct such effects. Then after all of this, they might finally forge the thing into being and hold this mighty embodiment of the planes in their hands. But unknowing they have offended the gods, and captive Tharizdun lord of the Elemental Eye is furious and sends forth the Avatars of Elemental Evil to punish this nation for their new creation.
Uh-oh. Here we go again...*smirk*
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
I like your style, Grim. I tend to take the same approach whenever players want to create something with an effective market modifier of +5 or greater. Of course, we play a more 'traditional' D&D game with standard 3.5 rules (for the most part) but I like to make anything with that level of power special. If the 10th level paladin wants a +1 holy longsword, I usually let him purchase it from his church (but only in a major city and only if the deity has a substantial following there). If the fighter wants a +1 flaming vorpal greatsword, though, he's gotta work for it. :)
Very cool stuff. I wish I could play in one of your games.
Heh-heh. Thanks guys! You both have a chair open at my table any time you want to show up! If any of you want to take my rules out for a spin sometime I would love any playtesting feedback you'd care to give.
Really what I love most about d20 is how modular it is. You can plug and play custom mechanics very easily without having to rewrite the whole game. I'm glad you guys like. I'm pretty proud of what my friends and I have been able to put together and love the stories we've been able to tell with it.
cool, I will have to read this in depth later but it sounds interesting GC.
Thanks for posting it!
Yeah, no problem. And hey, like I said before, if you have any questions or want to toss me a what if or two--feel free.
|
Thanks for this info, Grim! Ok, now for my question. Lets say you have the "classic" party of 4 lvl 3 characters: mage, fighter, cleric, rogue. This group meets an Ogre with its 10' reach and 2d8+7 greatclub. A successful hit will deal a minimum of 9hp damage less armor, a max hit will be 23hp, clearly enough to kill anyone not in full plate armor and will deal a wopping 15 hp of damage to a fighter in plate. It seems like the the ogre will be the one eating well that night. How do you accomodate this sort of thing?
I can't imagen what a Troll would do with its multiple attacks and rend, it must consume characters like mad. Which raises another question, do each of your monsters get racial HP as well, and if so, are they they assigned along the lines of creature Type (eg 12 for undead, 8 for animals etc)?
Thanks for this info, Grim! Ok, now for my question. Lets say you have the "classic" party of 4 lvl 3 characters: mage, fighter, cleric, rogue. This group meets an Ogre with its 10' reach and 2d8+7 greatclub. A successful hit will deal a minimum of 9hp damage less armor, a max hit will be 23hp, clearly enough to kill anyone not in full plate armor and will deal a wopping 15 hp of damage to a fighter in plate. It seems like the the ogre will be the one eating well that night. How do you accomodate this sort of thing?
I can't imagen what a Troll would do with its multiple attacks and rend, it must consume characters like mad. Which raises another question, do each of your monsters get racial HP as well, and if so, are they they assigned along the lines of creature Type (eg 12 for undead, 8 for animals etc)?
The easy answer. Monsters work by the same rules as characters. They get toned down so that everyone is playing in the same ballpark. There's a lot of rules bloat, with some creatures that have tons more hitpoints than they should to justify a higher CR and special abilities that are fun but with mechanics that aren't.
The messy answer. There's no simple equation to convert monsters. They have been created by a plurality of authors and voices for a variety of situations and challenge ratings. The best guide I've found is in the MMII which gives a listing of HP and stats that make sense for different creatures by size category and type (ooze, giant, construct, dragon, etc.) and it has been my bible in a lot of my conversion work. That said, monsters need a lot of work still to be a coherant consistant group of creatures scaled with the PCs.
I know the ogre's great club would do damage equivalent to a great club scaled up one size category with the strength of the ogre. It's to hit would be a factor of how "advanced" he was relative to player characters--my guess not a tremendously skilled combatant used to bullying weaker characters with overwhelming force. So say he's got a +2 to hit, adding it's Str mod. and subtracting size mods. He's not likely to hit our heroes often, but when he does it'll hurt. The rend ability is a little different. I would probably say that when a troll gets both sets of claws into you he can rip them out again with no attack roll and doing two-handed strength damage to base claw damage...but like I said, with a lot of the monster listings it's a lot of DM interpretation of the flavor text with an eye toward trying to stay loyal to the idea of the mechanics.
Another point to remember is that these creatures will have substantially reduced hit points as part of all this (probably somewhere around 20ish). If the cleric can cast entangle on the thing and the rest of the party can barrage it with arrows and spells from a safe distance it really might not be much of a fight. Or the rogue might lead the thing on a merry chase, leaping and tumbling just out of reach until the thing is open for a flanking attack by a coorinated hit of a heavy attack spell like Flame Arrow and melee attacks from the fighter and cleric. That could do it too. It's far from unwinnable.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
Thanks for this info, Grim! Ok, now for my question. Lets say you have the "classic" party of 4 lvl 3 characters: mage, fighter, cleric, rogue. This group meets an Ogre with its 10' reach and 2d8+7 greatclub. A successful hit will deal a minimum of 9hp damage less armor, a max hit will be 23hp, clearly enough to kill anyone not in full plate armor and will deal a wopping 15 hp of damage to a fighter in plate. It seems like the the ogre will be the one eating well that night. How do you accomodate this sort of thing?
I can't imagen what a Troll would do with its multiple attacks and rend, it must consume characters like mad. Which raises another question, do each of your monsters get racial HP as well, and if so, are they they assigned along the lines of creature Type (eg 12 for undead, 8 for animals etc)?
Well, if I'm reading Grim's rules correctly, monsters are similarly restricted in hit points. A clever party will attack the melee-machine at range, probably opening up with a melf's acid arrow at stupendous range and whittling the foe down as it approaches.
EDIT: Beaten by seconds with a much better answer by the man himself. :)
With only a few exceptions, these are very good ideas, Grim.
In fact, the more I read it, the more inspired I become in resurecting an older fantasy game I once played.
Thanks for sharing, and I will monitor this thread here on out.
You know, if Paizo were slick enough, they would do a few things:
1) Hire Grimcleaver for some freelance work to publish a new fantasy system based on his house-rules, but spelled out. Perhaps make it a .pdf only file available for download for $5-$10 bucks.
2) Create a modern game system Pathfinder (also .pdfs)
3) Create a sci-fi game systm Pathfinder (also .pdfs)
In fact, a truly ambitious Paizo would hire consultants and web-savy individuals to create their own Open-GL online gaming community system (i.e. virtual gaming table, online mapping resources, etc.)
|
|
It's to hit would be a factor of how "advanced" he was relative to player characters--my guess not a tremendously skilled combatant used to bullying weaker characters with overwhelming force. So say he's got a +2 to hit, adding it's Str mod. and subtracting size mods.
I guess this is the part that confuses me. Asumming the Ogre is +2 (not +3 per Giant type) BAB, he would have a to-hit of +2 (BAB) + 5 (str) -1 (size) for a net of +6 (exclusive of the weapon focus feat the MM allows for HD). The Rogue would have a Defence of 10 (base) + 3(BDB) + 4 (18 dex if lucky) = 17, meaning the Ogre would hit him 50% of the time, with any hit being exceedingly deadly to the poor rogue since the Ogre's average damage output per swing averages 16 points of damage (2d8+7) of which the thief can reduce by a mere 2 or 3 due to armor. The Fighter would have a Defence of 10 (base) + 2 (BDB) + 2 (dex - for example = 14), allowing the Ogre to hit 65% of the time. The fighter's best (practical) armor (chainmail and heavy shield) at a 15 dex grants DR7 meaning the fighter takes 16 - 7 = 9 points on an average hit. That's enough to drop a Human with a 12 or lower CON outright and smash a gnome or halfling.
While I agree an Ogre is a tough fight for a third level group using the 3.5 rules, your approach seems to make things harder on the players. A 3.5 Rogue will have an average of 13hp at third level (no CON bonus), not enough to survive an average swing by an Ogre, so that is about the same as your method. The Fighter, however, will have an average of 24hp at third level (assuming a 12 CON). This means that a 3rd level fighter with 12 CON will be dropped in a single (average) blow by your Ogre but will live to fight another round in 3.5e. Of course Fighters don't typically have a 12 CON, but the example holds true. I haven't bothered to work it out, but I would wager the Fighter with a 16 CON would be at least as grieviously wounded, proportionally, under both systems. However, such situations grow worse as the monsters grow quite powerful in melee combat. A Fire Giant (CR10) with its +20 attack bonus (+11 BAB, +10 STR, -1 Size), 3 attacks per round and 3d6+15 damage (averaging 24 hp damage before DR from armor is applied) will squash all but the most heavily armored characters in a single round regardless of CON. And while I am aware that creatures like Ogres and Giants can be engaged at a distance or with magic, they won't always be so and they too have spells (through shamans and clerics) as well as deadly ranged attacks for their levels, making them exceedingly dangerous at range since there are no saves against magic.
My point in all of this is not to say your system is unworkable, but to express my concern that DR and low HP-based systems result in very deadly combat situations more akin to Shadowrun, where combats must be very carefully planned out lest a respectable foe land a single telling blow. It doesn't mean the game is bad or not exciting (certainly not true of Shadowrun despite the deadliness of combat), but it does change the way characters view combat in a fundemental way.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
You know, if Paizo were slick enough, they would do a few things:
1) Hire Grimcleaver for some freelance work to publish a new fantasy system based on his house-rules, but spelled out. Perhaps make it a .pdf only file available for download for $5-$10 bucks.
I'm telling you, if we could just combine Paizo and Grimcleaver here. Forge the mighty Paizocleaver......I would be very interested in playing such a rule set/system.
Could be really gritty, and really cool.
Thanks for the high praise guys. While I certainly wouldn't turn down any efforts by Paizo to headhunt me (yeah...no kidding) I really think they've got a full plate on their hands getting Pathfinder off the ground. I once hinted around about how hard it would be to have a digital game marketed on their online store here and the response was that it would be crazy wicked hard. So I will probably be here amongst the buyers for some time to come. I do have some settings of my own though that I would love to set down for others to play though *sigh* someday down the road.
As for Lich-Loved's very thorough (more than any number crunching I've yet done) I have to say I agree. It is more deadly on the whole. I don't know that I mind this terribly on one hand--since powerful villains are part of what I think makes RPG's exciting and fun. Likewise I don't know that meeting an ogre would spell the death of any character party--but yeah I have to admit the math bears it out. Fighting a ten foot tall toothy guy with a club is rough. Rougher in Grimcleaver than standard. All I can say is that the result for us has been to motivate characters to come up with a solid plan. It hasn't made things ponderous and timid. If anything our glory stories drip with hard earned victories amid our characters own broken ribs and whistling chipped teeth. I never really looked at the math to see just how much grittier it is than normal, but from the looks of it--it looks quite a bit grittier.
You know, if Paizo were slick enough, they would do a few things:
1) Hire Grimcleaver for some freelance work to publish a new fantasy system based on his house-rules, but spelled out. Perhaps make it a .pdf only file available for download for $5-$10 bucks.
I'm telling you, if we could just combine Paizo and Grimcleaver here. Forge the mighty Paizocleaver......I would be very interested in playing such a rule set/system.Could be really gritty, and really cool.
Here's a question guys. In all seriousness, if I dropped a free Polyhedron-style Grimcleavery minigame on the Campaign Journals one of these days, would you guys seriously play it? Maybe post your experiences in the Campaign Journals? I mean if you'd like to see some of my ideas enough that you'd actually play them--enough people play them and give their stories and I'm bound to get noticed. I mean the developers here do follow things. I'm just saying...I'm game if you all are.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
How does your system, with its limited hp totals (which I really like), handle death and dying? Does a character die at zero hit points? Or did you keep the dead at -10 standard? (I would think that would be odd, since many characters would have more negative hit points than positive ones . . .)
Any changes with stabilizing a dying character?
totally
@grimcleaver
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Here's a question guys. In all seriousness, if I dropped a free Polyhedron-style Grimcleavery minigame on the Campaign Journals one of these days, would you guys seriously play it? Maybe post your experiences in the Campaign Journals? I mean if you'd like to see some of my ideas enough that you'd actually play them--enough people play them and give their stories and I'm bound to get noticed. I mean the developers here do follow things. I'm just saying...I'm game if you all are.
I'm between regular gaming groups right now with work, friends having babies (all at once, argh), etc. etc. I would follow very closely anything you put up on the subject though.
I would religiously read any campaign journal you posted using your rules.
Maybe - a Pbp game here on the boards, using your system? Give people here a chance to participate in it AND see it used. It would also be readily available for the Paizo peeps to drop in and check out.
Just a thought.
How does your system, with its limited hp totals (which I really like), handle death and dying? Does a character die at zero hit points? Or did you keep the dead at -10 standard? (I would think that would be odd, since many characters would have more negative hit points than positive ones . . .)
Any changes with stabilizing a dying character?
I usually run that characters die at negative their raw Con score. So a guy with a 6 in Con dies at -6 or -14 if they've got a 14, or whatever. I think if Con is worth anything it's for determining the tenacity with which one might cling to life. Yeah, for most characters that means they'll be out of commission in much shorter time than they'll be dead--but I sort of enjoy that. Everyone but one guy can be down, but if that one guy brings down the beast there's fair odds he can stabilize his friends.
As for stabilizing a character (and I honestly don't know how much like or unlike RAW this is) I rule that any points healed magically or a Heal check (DC 10 + number of hitpoints below zero) will stabilize the character. Sometimes I'll modify this if the cause of dying is either relatively straightforward and easy to mend (like a bleeding wound) or pretty hard to treat (flesh eating poison or something). Also healing kits and knowledge of herbalism or alchemy can help. As always I also reward a good plan with a fat bonus.
|
|
All I can say is that the result for us has been to motivate characters to come up with a solid plan. It hasn't made things ponderous and timid. If anything our glory stories drip with hard earned victories amid our characters own broken ribs and whistling chipped teeth. I never really looked at the math to see just how much grittier it is than normal, but from the looks of it--it looks quite a bit grittier.
This is what I love about D&D. The end goal, as good DMs know, is to tell a great story, using something to resolve uncertainties to keep the characters guessing. As long as the approach is consistent and the players know what to expect and are happy with it, it works.
Thank you for this thread and for taking my comments as points of exploration rather than an attack on something you obviously feel strongly about. I would game with you using your system anytime.
|
|
Here's a question guys. In all seriousness, if I dropped a free Polyhedron-style Grimcleavery minigame on the Campaign Journals one of these days, would you guys seriously play it? Maybe post your experiences in the Campaign Journals? I mean if you'd like to see some of my ideas enough that you'd actually play them--enough people play them and give their stories and I'm bound to get noticed. I mean the developers here do follow things. I'm just saying...I'm game if you all are.
Yup. Call it beta-testing so you can charge $5-10 for the real deal later.
I love your very un-4e approach to spellcasting!
I've played campaigns similar to what you describe, using Victory Games rules which more or less simulate many of the combat changes you've made to D&D. I loved it. Every fight became a matter of meticulously rigging the odds in your favor until there was no way you could lose, and then hoping like hell the bad guy didn't get a lucky shot in. Reaseach and stealth became paramount; soon everyone was playing the equivalent of wizards and rogues, and there were no more fighters... except my good buddy, the main player, who bridled under the fact that he couldn't, in his words, just "f--- some s--- up!" I ended up having to modify things back towards a D&D-like standard, because he hated the skulduggery and wanted some straight up brutal battles of attrition.
Not that I haven't had straight up brutal battles of attrition. Heck, if there's ANYTHING Grimcleaver is really good for...
If you take the time to drum up the core "players-lite" book, I'd be more than happy to team your system up with "The Styes" as a beta-test, then report our results and comment on the system - both the good and the bad.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
If you take the time to drum up the core "players-lite" book, I'd be more than happy to team your system up with "The Styes" as a beta-test, then report our results and comment on the system - both the good and the bad.
Oh man, gritty rules + gritty setting = f&*%ing cool.
I would really like to read a journal or PBP game with that combo Reach.
|
|
I think this system is intriguing. The thing that really concerns me is the power you give spellcasters. Between more spells per day and no saving throws (How do you manage that? Do you have to ad hoc rule every spell? Sounds a bit tiring and arbitray),spellcasters would dominate the game. As it stands now, they already rule the roost past 7th level. If anything the non-spellcasting classes (particualrly the fighter) need a boost more than the spellcasters.
Hit points based on race...yikes...
|
|
Hit points based on race...yikes...
I think a hybrid would be pretty cool. At each level you would get something kind of like:
gnomes, halflings: 1d2
humans, elves, half-elf: 1d4
dwarves, half-orcs: 2d2
plus
sorcerer, wizard: 1d2
rogue, cleric, druid, monk, bard: 1d4
ranger, fighter, paladin, barbarian: 2d4
I think a hybrid would be pretty cool.
I don't. The races are already balanced against one another. Further penalizing certain races based on size is poor design.
|
|
I don't. The races are already balanced against one another. Further penalizing certain races based on size is poor design.I think a hybrid would be pretty cool.
I have to agree here. Unless, you really need a good intelligence or charisma, why would you ever play anything but a half-orc? It seems to me that every party would consist of half-orcs with toughness, improved toughness, a high beginning con, and amulets of health. Also, once spellcasters get save or die effects. it all boils down to who gets initiative first. It essentially becomes a one roll game. That doesn't sit well with me. I know you are going for grim and gritty, but I think that this takes it too far.
I have to agree here. Unless, you really need a good intelligence or charisma, why would you ever play anything but a half-orc? It seems to me that every party would consist of half-orcs with toughness, improved toughness, a high beginning con, and amulets of health. Also, once spellcasters get save or die effects. it all boils down to who gets initiative first. It essentially becomes a one roll game. That doesn't sit well with me. I know you are going for grim and gritty, but I think that this takes it too far.
Works out about fine for us. I think we get the odd half-orc now and again, but not that many since I've used the rules. The additional hitpoints really don't make up for having to play a half orc (for oh so many reasons). Then again, our game is anything but a dungeon romp. You have to play your character. Honestly I'd rather a game that was unbalanced in the way the world would really be unbalanced anyway over a setting where everyone and everything is artificially optimized and nothing is what it should be. Bleh. Half orcs are big and beefy. Halflings are small and frail. They just have to lump it.
I think this system is intriguing. The thing that really concerns me is the power you give spellcasters. Between more spells per day and no saving throws (How do you manage that? Do you have to ad hoc rule every spell? Sounds a bit tiring and arbitray),spellcasters would dominate the game. As it stands now, they already rule the roost past 7th level. If anything the non-spellcasting classes (particualrly the fighter) need a boost more than the spellcasters.
Well part of it is that spellcasters are really powerful in all the ways they should be. I will say I've always liked and used the second edition idea that magic is not done on the initiative roll of the caster, but rather after all initiative actions have been done. So you see the creepy guy trailing his hands through the air and making strange whispery sounds--you shoot him, or you get behind a corner and block his line of effect. That and I do adjudicate what the spell is actually doing. Fireballs actually travel in real time, that sort of thing. Really I try to handle it much as I would resolve any other action in the game and try my best to ignore the statty bits if they contradict the flavor of what's really happening here. It ends up being a lot less like arbitrary ad hocing and more like dynamic action scenes with magic. The only part of the game that gets lost is the contrived and artificial mechanics that automate what should be resolved through roleplay and quick thinking anyway.
Like I said before though, if there's any scenarios you wanna' throw at me to see how I'd handle them in game I welcome you to. And hey, none of this is anything more than me just sharing what I think is a more realistic way to play the game. Just hoping to share, cause I think it rocks. Not for everyone though, or for every kind of game.
Going back to the elemental weapon question, will the enchantments still do xd6 damage, or will they be lessened to account the fact that they can pretty much flash fry any creature?
My adjustment for pretty much all multi-dice damage is the same (rogue sneak attacks, fireballs, damage adds from weapons). You make the number of dice an add to raw damage. So a 6d6 fireball becomes 1d6+6. A backstab of 2d6 becomes 1d6+2. It scales very nicely to the lower hitpoints and best of all, it's easy and fast to convert. Now mind you stuff that does an extra die of damage still does an extra die--so a flaming longsword still does 1d8 + 1d6 fire. Thus the added magical damage is SERIOUS damage. On the other hand I tend to avoid train-wreck magic items that are lawful good flaming shocking icy longswords. I think that kind of stuff is lacking in flavor and good taste. Down that road lies munchkinville and causes me much facial contortions and vile speech.
Except the Elemental Reaver.
That's cool.
|
|
I think this system is intriguing. The thing that really concerns me is the power you give spellcasters. Between more spells per day and no saving throws (How do you manage that? Do you have to ad hoc rule every spell? Sounds a bit tiring and arbitray),spellcasters would dominate the game. As it stands now, they already rule the roost past 7th level. If anything the non-spellcasting classes (particualrly the fighter) need a boost more than the spellcasters.Well part of it is that spellcasters are really powerful in all the ways they should be. I will say I've always liked and used the second edition idea that magic is not done on the initiative roll of the caster, but rather after all initiative actions have been done. So you see the creepy guy trailing his hands through the air and making strange whispery sounds--you shoot him, or you get behind a corner and block his line of effect. That and I do adjudicate what the spell is actually doing. Fireballs actually travel in real time, that sort of thing. Really I try to handle it much as I would resolve any other action in the game and try my best to ignore the statty bits if they contradict the flavor of what's really happening here. It ends up being a lot less like arbitrary ad hocing and more like dynamic action scenes with magic. The only part of the game that gets lost is the contrived and artificial mechanics that automate what should be resolved through roleplay and quick thinking anyway.
Like I said before though, if there's any scenarios you wanna' throw at me to see how I'd handle them in game I welcome you to. And hey, none of this is anything more than me just sharing what I think is a more realistic way to play the game. Just hoping to share, cause I think it rocks. Not for everyone though, or for every kind of game.
That does make it easier to swallow if the PC's have time to do something before the spell hits them. I understand that half-orcs are big and burly so they should have more hp, but shouldn't the other races get a little extra something to take the sting out of the meager hp. Maybe something that really defines their race, so elves don't seem like humans with high dexterity and pointy ears.
Well if it helps, I've increased the size modifiers from +1/-1 per size catagory to +4/-4. So you have less AC, yeah, but you're +4 to hit anyone of medium size and -4 to be hit by them.
The hope is for a small quick guy who hits and fades--but if he ever take a hit he's burger. Heh--a halfling scout is a terror to behold.
That and bear in mind that Con mod is still added to your hitpoints, so a halfling with a +4 to Con and a human with -2 are still possible, so you COULD have very fit halflings who can take more damage than a really sick human. Then there's Toughness, which still stacks.
That and also weapon damage tends to fall in the d6 to d8 range, so it's usually a good hit that's going to kill any armored character (since armor is DR). Even if you do go down, you still get some extra rounds to stabalize compared to canon (usually, unless your Con is >10, in which case you have less time...but you deserve it!)
It's gritty, yeah, but I don't think it's unfair.
Had someone ask about my Grimcleaver System again (well okay actually they were more befuddled by how vehemently anti-RAW I can be sometimes) and I thought it might be fun to toss it on up again to let some other folks see it and comment.
Man, it's really been a while. This thread sure takes me back. I've been playing 4E for a long, long time. The purity of something like this, where the mechanics are what they are with very little obfuscation or abstraction just feels really--refreshing.
Huh.
Oh and for those who are curious, the guy who asked, he didn't like it at all.