New Horizons on an old and stitched together horse... (Inactive)

Game Master Helaman

GM Helaman wrote:

Dont forget your ability to either sacrifice a shield or if wearing medium or heavy armour, to take half damage.

What is this referring to - I couldn’t find it in the rules on combat/damage? Is this with any attack? And like the “Shields shall be splintered” rule, does it destroy the armor, similar to stopping an Autohit/Critical?

So shields can negate Upto 10 points of damage.

Once.

You can choose if and when this happens. Presumably during a critical juncture.

Get hit by an ogre for 15? Shield breaks at 10 hit points... but SOME of the damage gets through. You take 5.

Think Eowyn fighting the witch king in LotR. She blocks the hit, the shield breaks... and so does her arm BUT she lives.

If the ogre hit does 8 hit points? None of the damage goes through, but the shield still breaks.

It won't stop crits (which I also call auto hits), so if that ogre to hit roll was a 20? Shield won't come into play.

But armor does.

So if you have medium armor? If you take a hit that's up to 10 hit points? You only take half damage (heavy Armour is 15) but if it's over the threshold? You take the full damage - it's either found a weak point, armor failed etc.

Armor protects you vs weak/glancing blows. You get a bit rattled, bruised but it's keeping you alive.

Armor- ALL armor, turns crits into a normal hit but the rolled damage just goes through without the damage reduction.

OTHERWISE crits can do Either Double Damage OR Max damage (attackers choice before rolling damage). Armor is really a potential life saver.

Again, this seems to work best in a table setting... but also works for pbp, but probably favors the players more here.

Example: when you attack in PbP, you normally add a roll for damage. Let's say you get a 20/autohit/crit.

At that point you can say. Ignore the damage roll and just say... "Wow, a crit, give me max damage". Or you could Say "Ill roll a second damage dice", and add in the roll...

As a rule of thumb, as DM, I'll choose max damage if I land a crit... if you're unarmoured, that could be very painful. If you're armored? I have to roll the damage... there is still a chance I'll roll average or less.

As an added note? That bandit has just been eating magic missiles until now, when you made your to hit roll.

Pity armor does sweet fanny Addams about magic... he's having a bad day.

On a positive note? If the bandit leader dies? Guess he's not gonna need that armor...

As an added note? That bandit has just been eating magic missiles until now, when you made your to hit roll.

Pity armor does sweet fanny Addams about magic... he's having a bad day.

On a positive note? If the bandit leader dies? Guess he's not gonna need that armor...

So Din did 3 and 7 damage with Magic Missile. If I hit that’s 14 all up. Though I’m still confused why you are mentioning armor. To be clear - armor only stops damage from a crit/autohit, by making them a regular hit and then applying soak UNLESS the total damage does more than the soak of the armor can handle and then it fails completely?

Or succeeds in reducing from a critical to a regular, but fails to soak any damage if it exceeds the soak level?

And then breaks?

I feel like the obtuse kid in the class.

Helaman wrote:

As an added note? That bandit has just been eating magic missiles until now, when you made your to hit roll.

Pity armor does sweet fanny Addams about magic... he's having a bad day.

On a positive note? If the bandit leader dies? Guess he's not gonna need that armor...

So Din did 3 and 7 damage with Magic Missile. If I hit that’s 14 all up. Though I’m still confused why you are mentioning armor. To be clear - armor only stops damage from a crit/autohit, by making them a regular hit and then applying soak UNLESS the total damage does more than the soak of the armor can handle and then it fails completely?

Or succeeds in reducing from a critical to a regular, but fails to soak any damage if it exceeds the soak level?

And then breaks?

I feel like the obtuse kid in the class.

It could be my writing style.

Let me know if you understand my efforts (again... it could well be me, not you in this case) in regards to shields?

If yes then groovy.

Let me have another stab at explaining armor. Maybe I'll be able to do a better job. Let's break it down somewhat technically (I'm not a flow chart guy but will do my best)

----
Armor.

Section A. In regards to all armor...

Critical Hit?
No. If light armor. Take damage as normal. If Medium or heavy armour go to section B.

Critical Hit?
Yes.
A) IF defender is NOT armored, attacker can choose maximum damage possible for the weapon with appropriate bonuses OR roll twice and double bonuses.
B) IF defender IS armored? Damage is rolled instead of being maxed or doubled.

---

Section B. In regards to armor... both medium and heavy.

Critical hit? No.

Is damage Equal or under damage threshold (10 for medium, 15 for heavy)?
Yes ? Defender Take half damage.

Is damage Equal or under damage threshold (10 for medium, 15 for heavy)?
No (ie the total damage of the hit is over the above damage threshold) Take rolled damage in full. Armor has failed, gap has been found etc.

Critical hit? Yes.

Attacker rolls damage as in section A but defender takes rolled damage in full without any damage reduction.

----

I am actually grateful that you are helping me reframe it in different ways. Maybe I did a bad job, maybe the format is bad.

People digest information in different ways. If nothing else expanding my next version to include an example page wouldn't hurt.

If it's still not cool, maybe one of the other players could take a stab at it (assuming they believe they have it in hand) as maybe their communication style might be clearer.

I'm hoping I can give you all some fun but at the same time every question you clarify helps me too.

I am just praying you are compiling all this info somewhere Helaman, otherwise I will just forget it... Or are you updating/re-writing the PDFs as we go?

That is much clearer. (Armor explanation).

Hmm. Clearer in parts but not without some confusion:

* Part A mentions being unarmored in a section about armor. It also starts from a premise of criticals or lack thereof.

* Part B mentions criticals again that seem to say something different to Part A:

(Critical Hit YES)…IF defender IS armored? Damage is rolled instead of being maxed or doubled.

(Critical Hit YES)…Attacker rolls damage as in section A but defender takes rolled damage in full without any damage reduction.

The swapping between attacker/defender is confusing, as is the mention of criticals so while it is trying to clarify it just leaves me confused. Also, the first section seems to suggest that an armored individual will never take doubled/maxed damage from a critical.

Also this:

Is damage Equal or under damage threshold (10 for medium, 15 for heavy)?

Yes ? Defender Take half damage.

Is damage Equal or under damage threshold (10 for medium, 15 for heavy)?
No (ie the total damage of the hit is over the above damage threshold) Take rolled damage in full. Armor has failed, gap has been found etc.]

Really is harder to understand than just using “equal to or under” for the first example and “over” for the second without YES or NO - I get that it approaches a flow chart style but it confuses this febrile mind.

I think the way I would understand it is if it were presented thus:

Damage Rolls, including criticals and autohits.

Armor
—-> Medium and Heavy: take half damage if damage doesn’t exceed soak threshold
—-> Shields, soak and splintering.
—-> Armor, shields and blast protection.

Criticals and the various ways to delimit them with armor and shields.

I’m very sorry to still be confused, and doing my best to understand it!

My final thought is that if these are the rules as you want them, clerics should be able to start at 1st level with at least Medium armor for the warpriest vibe which I always thought OSR leaned into, but I could be completely wrong on that. Regardless, there is nothing to say a cleric can’t wear medium or heavy armor they find or buy, is there?

Are there such a thing as proficiencies? What is to stop a wizard using armor?

My final thought is that if these are the rules as you want them, clerics should be able to start at 1st level with at least Medium armor for the warpriest vibe which I always thought OSR leaned into, but I could be completely wrong on that. Regardless, there is nothing to say a cleric can’t wear medium or heavy armor they find or buy, is there?

Clerics can start with medium armor as a starting boon.

I may look at that again. I tend to start my adventurers under equiped and with limited resources. It makes the first few adventures a mite harder and 'rewards' the players via building equipment up.

Are there such a thing as proficiencies? What is to stop a wizard using armor? Or a Cleric Heavy armor?

Class Abilites for the most part.

Heavy armour is the domain of the martial style classes. Both Clerics and Elves top out at medium armour BUT clerics can take heavy armor as a class option at levels 3,6 or 9. It is possible to build towards a paladin or war priest style.

Wizards have a class option for light armor also at levels 3,6 and 9. There are more attractive options BUT the 'war wizard' is a common trope and the option scratches that itch.

As for armor? From the equipment PDF (with some rewording)

-Armor Summary-
Light Armor allows full Dexterity attribute. Medium and Heavy changes wearer maximum Dexterity Attribute (13 for Medium and 9 for Heavy).

ALL Armor changes Autohit/Critical Hit damage to be resolved as normal hit. Damage is rolled normally (instead of maximised or doubled). Critical hit damage, once rolled bypasses armor damage reduction.

If wearer takes equal or less damage than the damage threshold of the armour, damage is halved. Otherwise wearer takes full damage.

-Shield Summary-
Shields add AC normally

Option:

You can sacrifice the shield to block up to 10 points of damage. Damage in excess of 10 is taken by the defender.

Shields can also be sacrificed to take half damage from some area attack spells and effects as if the defender had passed their saving throw.

If either option is taken the shield is destroyed.

----

Not sure what more I can do if this doesn't land. Again, it could well be me and my own writing limitations. Trust me for the moment and move forward and I'll take another stab at as time continues.

No, that is all much, much better! Thanks Helaman!

[dice=Surprise Attack]1d20+7

[dice=Dmg]1d4+2 if cunning applies, doubles to 12..otherwise 10

I'd like to try a combat maneuver here. Basically throwing a dagger to pin his hand to the wagon. Otherwise he takes my surprise attack damage.

Firstly? Excellent!

This is how they are meant to be done AND the threat of additional sneak damage? Yeah... its REALLY hard to want to take that sort of damage.

In this case, spoiler, he'll accept the maneuver but more about that later.

Lets look at your calculations for damage.

Its damage D4, +1 for knife fighter (I assume thats your boon).

THEN add in Cunning Combatant

When attacking a foe engaged in combat with another enemy add +1 damage for every level you have.

At level 5th a Specialists ambush and surprise attacks are now +6 to hit do triple damage.

So thats another +2.

Then its a sneak attack! Double everything.

So you rolled a 4.

+1 for knife master, +2 for Cunning Combatant. That equals 7.

Sneak attack doubles it to 14.

The bandit, hereafter known as "Mr 4 hitpoints" can either a) have his hand disabled and pinned to the wagon or b) die really horribly.

While SOME enemies might prefer death? This one is gonna just settle for being called "Left Hand Dan"

Dex is not added to damage.

Ah thanks, glossed over that Cunning was per level. I'm really going to enjoy this maneuver system I think...allows for a lot of creativity.

Note that these sort of conditions arent hit points.

They are conditions and any penalties are applied as required. So as a DM I would rule that "Left Hand Dan" (formally known as "Mr 4 hitpoints") just cant use his left hand until it had time to heal, healing magic etc.

Using this system its clear why Luke Skywalker chose to lose the hand.

He was LOW on hit points because Vader had kicked the crap out of him first not because he lost the hand. Then Darth Vader rips out a pretty good damage roll, suggests cutting off the weapon hand and... Luke said "Sod it, I can't wear that sort of damage roll. I'll lose the hand"

When later trying to climb up the Bespin weather vane, the DM imposes an appropriate penalty... and Luke fails the climb check, leaving Luke hanging there, waiting for the Falcon.

Ok, as per my question earlier regarding proficiencies - what about weapons? I know there are weapons we start with, but what are we allowed to use? Can clerics and magic users pick up and use any weapon? Ranged?

Ok, as per my question earlier regarding proficiencies - what about weapons? I know there are weapons we start with, but what are we allowed to use? Can clerics and magic users pick up and use any weapon? Ranged?

I just checked the class pdf... all the other classes have what they can do. I forgot that off the cleric. I SHOULD be all simple weapons (as defined in the Equipment pdf). That's something I'll fix asap.

What happens if you use armour outside your class? For a spell caster it's no casting. I haven't locked in a penalty to hit etc yet. Same for weapons outside of class but let's call that one -2 to hit.

Ok, thanks again. So I can use a hunting bow, a hand axe and a shortsword! Sarn will wait to see if Nilelane, Terion or Eddrikk wants a hunting bow first…

Not me, thanks though.

Sorry, now I see why the GM asked if I was shooting at the bandit with the sling. Sorry Nilelane I forgot you wanted one. Apologies.

I think only Fighters should be able to wear heavy armor. Ever. Period.
And I think the penalty for weapons outside your class should be higher, perhaps -4?
Yes, I am shamelessly lobbying to make Fighters better :D

----------

All good on the loot claim Sarn - Terion will maybe grab a handaxe (don't think he really NEEDS it, but it looks cool hanging off the weapon belt) and the arming sword (first I need to find out what it is).

I think only Fighters should be able to wear heavy armor. Ever. Period.

And I think the penalty for weapons outside your class should be higher, perhaps -4?
Yes, I am shamelessly lobbying to make Fighters better :D

That all sounds properly OSR. It is weird, I vacillate between trying to make OSR more versatile while still simple, and then also respectful of how down and dirty it was and yet how needlessly limiting I feel it is.

----------

All good on the loot claim Sarn - Terion will maybe grab a handaxe (don't think he really NEEDS it, but it looks cool hanging off the weapon belt) and the arming sword (first I need to find out what it is).

Posted a link to definition in Gameplay…

Thx for the link! I want it! Shinies!

Terion Stoutheart wrote:

I think only Fighters should be able to wear heavy armor. Ever. Period.

And I think the penalty for weapons outside your class should be higher, perhaps -4?
Yes, I am shamelessly lobbying to make Fighters better :D

That all sounds properly OSR. It is weird, I vacillate between trying to make OSR more versatile while still simple, and then also respectful of how down and dirty it was and yet how needlessly limiting I feel it is.

Completely agree with you on this - it is not easy to find that balance, but I feel we are off to a good start :)

(Just a note that I am conscious that Edrikk (for example) is not posting as much as I am, so trying not to move anything too far along, and happy to keep roleplaying/questioning the prisoner.)

Din, no problem at all.

Posting in a few hours

Not having paid attention to the appearance of Coal, Sarn wonders at Terion’s assessment of hair as a dietary ingredient. He shrugs, then finally gains some vague traction on the conversation with the injured bandit.

Sarn approaches the man, taking particular note of the state of the man’s hair, and frowns.

“None of us believe you. About much. But I particularly don’t believe you about little Timmy.”

Sarn places a dagger under the man’s chin.

”I don’t think you call him Tiny Tim at all!” Sarn explodes, glowering.

This cracked me up. Loved it.

Sarn is going to prove a very entertaining character

…while he lives. ;)

Nice, tonight or tomorrow I'll writeup some pickpocket or other thievery shenanigans. ;)

Let's talk actions.

I had limited it to ONE thing because it would be good to keep players focused and moving. Not a lot of analysis paralysis etc... but given how rapidly things can move? I'm thinking it locks players into optimised decision trees in regards to having weapons ready etc.

That said OSE allows for move and attack. For a map? Probably not bad. Zones? Unsure.

It don't think allowing a move and either attack or action would hurt.

Nilelane was trying hard to attempt something different in that encounter but the action economy mechanics really worked against her.

I don't want the 5e action thing, and not the pathfinder 1/2 thing but at least with PF2 as a general guide, maybe 2 actions a round with none of them being duplicated?

Anyway, thoughts?

I'm holding off judgement for now. That was just one encounter, and it was staged. Had it been more naturally part of some dungeon/wilderness crawl it could have happened out of combat before the encounter began. Fine sticking with the single action economy a bit more seeing what else it produces.

Hmm. I guess the question for me is twofold:

1: how do i feel about it in terms of this game’s essence - I’m personally struggling with a desire for simplicity and yet feeling confined by that very simplicity. For example: given the lack of advancement in combat bonuses for clerics (after first level) and magic users (ever) [not sure about thieves, didn’t check] I feel the combat maneuver system will very quickly move out of reach of those non-combatatants and just be the preserve of fighters. Giving fighters the only narrative ability in combat isn’t to my mind good for interesting combats, spell-users magic or thieves tricks notwithstanding. So I don’t know what to say except that one action seems pretty freaking useless if you want to move to engage so have to do it over two turns, yet that is OSR. But this is a frankenstein. So….I still don’t know.

2: will it be universal. If we get more actions, the opposition probably should too. And given how deadly OSR is, will that just make us die more quickly?

As an aside on “deadliness”, I think your armor rules do a lot to protect the medium and heavy armored from damage, and all armored from crits, but makes the unarmored squishies really squishy, and make “unarmored squishy vs medium/heavy armored” enemy kinda funky.

Here are my thoughts so far:
1. ACTIONS: I don’t mind 1 action per turn but it adds a couple of rounds (days) to pbp. There are already mechanics to move and attack like charging but you might want to add a way to move and draw a weapon (perhaps limiting it to light and 1 handed weapons). Adding two actions per turn won’t be game breaking but it has the potential to minimize the the importance of range and the zoned combat system. Having said that 1 action per turn is probably better suited for live play where you don’t want players taking 10 minutes on a turn but in pbp you probably need ways to keep the action moving to keep players engaged. However a simple solution (and tactically smart) is to carry a ranged weapon.
2. BONUSES: I agree with Sarn bonuses for other classes should increase. The rate of increase could be along the lines of b/x d&d thac0 (where classes progressed differently) or you could go with the 5e proficiency bonus (where everyone progressed the same). The key to balance with either system is how much experience it takes each class to level up but that is another discussion in and of itself.
3. ARMOR: I want to see this in action a little bit more. I like the idea but think the damage thresholds might need to be reduced.
4. ZONED COMBAT: I really like this mechanic but wonder about the effect more actions would have on it.

I may be the dissonant voice, but:

1. I like the one action per round. It keeps things simple both for players and DM, and I don't think it has broken anything yet.

2. Maybe because I am a Fighter, I think we should at least give a try to the 'combabt bonuses only advance for fighters' thing. So far it is not an issue, so we could handle it if/when it ever becomes one?

3.Regarding armor, I like the way things look at the moment. I think we are anticipating issues which do not exist yet, so I would prefer to deal with them if/when they come up.

4. I like zoned combat, mainly for PbP. It is easy for players, and easy for DM to keep track.

So yeah... As obviously displayed by my opinions, I am vying for simplicity in all things, until we find the simplicity is not enough anymore.

Great points Terion, and I guess you are right. They aren’t actual problems yet. I’m happy to go on as is, and if it becomes problematic it’ll be time to bring in Tableflip McRagequit.

I posted this in the current OSE Dolmenwood Recruitment thread - it has the combat bonus advancement I’d like to see for Fighters/Clerics/Magic Users and Thieves. Not sure about elves or dwarves - dwarves likely the same as Fighters? OSE Basic Rules - pages 17, 19, 21, 23.

The fighters getting the only advancement is a mechanic taken from Lamentations of the flame princess which is pretty much OSE.

I intend to get you to 3rd and possibly 4th before ending, revising rules and launching into a new game, likely starting at 4th or 5th.

Combat maneuvers are damage/or things. It's not massively affected by to hit rolls. Damage is the key... land the hit and you can name the maneuver. Fighters do have the option to bump up damage to make their maneuvers more 'persuasive', expert sneak attacks can also make things favor their maneuvers. Clerics can smite... more as time goes on.

Dwarves are incentivised to be uncreative and not use maneuvers... just out and out murder stuff, getting extra attacks on 20s... elves on the other hand are incentivised to get creative as they can re roll 1s, avoiding possible fumbles.

Magic users really bite because their weapons are not generally damaging enough to get the enemy to prefer to take the maneuver but if the foe is softened? I could still see a cheap knockoff Gandalf getting off something fancy.

Elves, dwarfs and clerics do have the option to get a +1 like a fighter but it's a choice to take rather than an automatic at 3,6 and 9

I posted this in the current OSE Dolmenwood Recruitment thread - it has the combat bonus advancement I’d like to see for Fighters/Clerics/Magic Users and Thieves. Not sure about elves or dwarves - dwarves likely the same as Fighters? OSE Basic Rules - pages 17, 19, 21, 23.

For me, one of the 'issues' has always been the too small martial difference specifically between Fighters and Clerics - heck, in the example of OSE you don't even notice it at all in their THAC0 for the first three levels, and then only again at level 7 (unless I am reading it wrong) + in general, Cleric Saving Throws is better or on par with Fighters, they can use all types of armors (in OSE), and they have the win button = spells.

Over the years I think this has degenerated into clerics which can easily emulate (end sometimes even surpass) Fighters as martial characters, just by using a few well placed buffs here and there. Historically, I get the feeling Fighters were always 'inferior' to other martial classes, or classes which can adapt to be more martial. And over the years, things have never visibly improved (except for perhaps in 4e, but I don't want to open that can of worms now, as much as I would like to play 4e :D)

I defend a more solid difference in stuff like THAC0 progression (but not only there) between Fighters and other classes, in a way to make players think 'We SHOULD have a Fighter in our group', much in the same way they think about a Cleric, a Magic User, or a Thief/Rogue. Instead of thinking 'we don't need a Fighter - we got a well armored Cleric". Along those lines.

Forgive my…direct honesty! I do like to hash this stuff out. And as I said, I’m completely fine to go on as is currently!

The fighters getting the only advancement is a mechanic taken from Lamentations of the flame princess which is pretty much OSE.

The OSE book I linked has all classes advancing, albeit slower than fighter.

Combat maneuvers are damage/or things. It's not massively affected by to hit rolls. Damage is the key... land the hit and you can name the maneuver. Fighters do have the option to bump up damage to make their maneuvers more 'persuasive', expert sneak attacks can also make things favor their maneuvers. Clerics can smite... more as time goes on.

I don’t get that at all. If you can’t hit you don’t get the opportunity to offer a combat maneuver as a trade. And I guess I would think monsters AC will get higher, whereas having *no* improving bonuses to hit will oeave all but fighter unable to hit much at all.

Dwarves are incentivised to be uncreative and not use maneuvers... just out and out murder stuff, getting extra attacks on 20s... elves on the other hand are incentivised to get creative as they can re roll 1s, avoiding possible fumbles.

Not sure why you would disincentivise creativity at all. And elves rerolling 1’s seems incredibly situational.

Magic users really bite because their weapons are not generally damaging enough to get the enemy to prefer to take the maneuver but if the foe is softened? I could still see a cheap knockoff Gandalf getting off something fancy.

Like I said, they’ll be so often missing it is a moot point. Maybe I’m wrong and the ACs never get that high.

Elves, dwarfs and clerics do have the option to get a +1 like a fighter but it's a choice to take rather than an automatic at 3,6 and 9

Where is this option? I don’t see it in Cleric, only the +1 at first level and then that is it. It isn’t in the 3/6/9 level options.

Same. Fighters have long been the red headed step child.

I started into DCC, LotFP etc and also did a lot of reading on forums, other systems etc and realised that there is the option for fighters to be "more".

It was one of the things that prompted me to write these rules.

On a similar note I haven't completely given up on 5e.

If I do run again? Fighters will be a straight single class that combines the features from weapon master and champion.

A YouTuber sold me on combining both Ranger achetypes into a single class too but now I'm buggered on what to do with Barbarians.

Ah, I might have left it off clerics, and come to think of it it was a deliberate choice. Magic and all that.

That said, once I wrap this up I'm gonna look at a class specific list of choices and a general list of choices, which will let clerics up their game.

Sarn Ket wrote:

I posted this in the current OSE Dolmenwood Recruitment thread - it has the combat bonus advancement I’d like to see for Fighters/Clerics/Magic Users and Thieves. Not sure about elves or dwarves - dwarves likely the same as Fighters? OSE Basic Rules - pages 17, 19, 21, 23.

For me, one of the 'issues' has always been the too small martial difference specifically between Fighters and Clerics - heck, in the example of OSE you don't even notice it at all in their THAC0 for the first three levels, and then only again at level 7 (unless I am reading it wrong) + in general, Cleric Saving Throws is better or on par with Fighters, they can use all types of armors (in OSE), and they have the win button = spells.

Over the years I think this has degenerated into clerics which can easily emulate (end sometimes even surpass) Fighters as martial characters, just by using a few well placed buffs here and there. Historically, I get the feeling Fighters were always 'inferior' to other martial classes, or classes which can adapt to be more martial. And over the years, things have never visibly improved (except for perhaps in 4e, but I don't want to open that can of worms now, as much as I would like to play 4e :D)

I defend a more solid difference in stuff like THAC0 progression (but not only there) between Fighters and other classes, in a way to make players think 'We SHOULD have a Fighter in our group', much in the same way they think about a Cleric, a Magic User, or a Thief/Rogue. Instead of thinking 'we don't need a Fighter - we got a well armored Cleric". Along those lines.

I guess I don’t really buy into any kind of ownership of roles or have any problem with classes “stepping on each other’s toes”. By making the fighter the only combatant worth “fighting” in a game that primarily revolves around tactical combat (when not RP) seems ludicrous. I don’t see clerics being able to buff with any kind of great power in OSE, and fighters have the better armor, greater weapon die and hit die. Thieves backstabbing, mages spells etc - they all have their place. I wanted to play a fighter, and was willing to have few options but to hit hard and take damage. I have no problems with one class being inferior to another - you get what you get and you roleplay it until you or they die!

I’m also all for a party of all fighters with some battle medicine, so I don’t really have any horses in any races, I just want folks to be able to have fun!

I guess I don’t really buy into any kind of ownership of roles or have any problem with classes “stepping on each other’s toes”. By making the fighter the only combatant worth “fighting” in a game that primarily revolves around tactical combat (when not RP) seems ludicrous. I don’t see clerics being able to buff with any kind of great power in OSE, and fighters have the better armor, greater weapon die and hit die. Thieves backstabbing, mages spells etc - they all have their place. I wanted to play a fighter, and was willing to have few options but to hit hard and take damage. I have no problems with one class being inferior to another - you get what you get and you roleplay it until you or they die!

I’m also all for a party of all fighters with some battle medicine, so I don’t really have any horses in any races, I just want folks to be able to have fun!

I am not advocating ownership of roles, and I am not saying the Fighter should be the only combatant worth 'fighting', but I think the class should be clearly preferable for those who wish martial ability to be their main, and strongest asset.

Again, I think we are getting ahead of ourselves - we are playing this game, and not OSE. And in this game, so far things have been running smoothly, have they not?

I am also willing and really enjoy debating it all, so I gladly share my opinions on it. My main opinion at the moment is I would like to test things as they are. I admit I am a complete OSR noob, but the way I see it, a big selling point of the notion is to make the game yours, adapt it to what you want. So I think we should do just that - we should try to be flexible, adapt, change, hopefully improve as we go along if/when we find the need for it.

For now, after one single encounter, I see no particular need to change anything.

And to be completely clear, I am in full agreement that the gist of it like you said Sarn, is to find the balance between the desire for simplicity and the possibility of still making classes varied and interesting to play. I am just of the opinion we should start introducing modifications s.l..o...w....l.....y ;)

Yep. And as I keep saying, I’m happy to keep things as they are. :)

That doesn’t stop me from entertaining twelve different notions in my head at once and seeing them all as equally viable or correct, and opining about seventeen of them. I can be like this if we have had none, one or seven encounters. It is all just theorycrafting. On my first attack, I hit, so statistically, there is no problem. But, I wasn’t willing to make a combat maneuver, nor had I considered or understood that the bandit leader’s armor would completely negate the damage I dealt. So we are learning the system.

As for the fighter being clearly preferable, yes, they will be while they have the most hit points, the biggest weapons and the best combat bonuses. I just don’t think they should be the only ones who get better at fighting as they level up. It seems that the rules we are using, currently leave me feeling that only fighters progress. Take dwarves for example, like Clerics, they get a +1 bonus at 1st level, and that is it. They can choose another +1 bonus at levels 3/6/9, but at the cost of an ability bonus or some other, better (though some are possibly worse) options.

Yes, the fighter should be good, or even best at fighting. It just looks like no-one else is, which is not great when you….fight..monsters…a lot.

Another thing just occurred to me re: Din’s point about the armor and thresholds being reduced. Armored humanoids will necessarily move far ahead of unarmored monsters who have no soak, unless you give it to them via a tough hide/rubbery skin sort of mechanic. Just a thought.

Yes, the fighter should be good, or even best at fighting. It just looks like no-one else is, which is not great when you….fight..monsters…a lot.

Maybe it just looks like it, and turns out not being an issue.

Good points. Let’s wait and see… we have several areas we can monitor, evaluate, and give feedback.

Will wait a bit for anyone else to post their celebration shinneageans and move the game along in a few more hours

Ooookay, was NOT expecting that Nilelane BUT an awesome twist I want to run with.

Let's see how it pans out.

Yeah, the classic 'deal gone sour' spiel. Just trying to put a little motivation behind her, and a reason to keep herself on the downlow (and use thief abilities).

Gotta say, we hit page 3 of game play pretty fast and seamlessly. Thanks all. I think we have a decent tempo.