Umbrias's page

Hmm
1) That is a good point, I was thinking about that earlier, I just haven't thought about if I want to implement it or not. I was thinking about having a Luck attribute and it would likely come into play there. The problem I was thinking about is that I'm not sure that I can make the ability to dodge aim like that a simple thing. Mostly I am thinking that it just applies as a modifier to the shooter, like aiming at a running/moving target.
--I have added to the system that aware and defensive targets may cause a -1 penalty to the attacker.

2) I sadly have to run off of a hit location system, as the wounding as opposed to HP slightly requires it. However keeping with the nature of the system, this does make combat incredibly quick as characters on both sides can go down very rapidly. This has led to characters avoiding combat unless they know they are not outclassed, and even then tactical advantage can turn the tables. Now the system isnt completely brutal, and at least in my games it has not been a permanent issue. Sci fi lends itself to avoiding death entirely, and I at least have gotten around it by saying characters lose something (attribute for example) but are then respawned. That is one of the most changing parts of the system is accounting for the brutality. Experience carries over between lives, we have found, works pretty well too. Looking at a system like The Riddle of Steel, the piecewise works perfectly here.

3) Yes, the static values are there to make stealth more predictable, and to solve a major problem that persists with a stealth character: Once they enter stealth, nobody else can do anything. Now with static values, non-stealth characters can still be part of the party during stealth sections. Instead of ever rolling, characters have a static “stealth” value, that is modified by conditions. Then characters also have a perception value (sight and hearing are separated, but lets just say perception) and when the perception value is higher then the stealth value, the sneaking character is noticed. However, the sneaking character isnt necessarily instantly seen, or heard. Instead it becomes a margin issue, if they are only noticed by a margin of 1 for example, the guard might shrug it off immediately, or investigate it for a few seconds and then be on their way.

This is an interesting tactical example indeed. I imagine that in this system that scenario would end in massive bloodshed on both sides. However I feel like depending on the actions of the forest people, they will either have a massive advantage or a massive disadvantage.
If the forest people surround the house, then it is likely that the people in the house will die, and very few forest casualties. This is because bullets often like to penetrate wood, and range is no meager thing.
If the forest people all attack from one side, they will be cut to shreds, as the shrubbery will provide very little cover.
However, this is all assuming they HAVE to fight, and that is never a case, but for the thought puzzle it will work.
Instead the forest people would likely send off a few troops for supplies and arms, as the farmhouse is cut off from supply lines. Now the forest people have a mortar or two, and so on.
Now stealthily, at best the forest people could sneak up in the night if they were lucky about timing and the enemy patrols.

However, this is all assuming they HAVE to fight, and that is never a case, but for the thought puzzle it will work.

This doesnt have to be dealt with as opposed checks, unless you are quickly rolling for the overall situation in which case I would probably roll for the group intelligence and tactics of farmhouse vs group intellignce and tactics of forest, and whoever comes out on top will have the tactical advantage. Then you look at the margin of success and see casulties for both sides. Past that it is all up to the DM or players how the tactics work out.

Maybe I didnt interpret your question correctly, but this is a great exercise. I have been trying to think of situations like this and look at how the system pans out.

Thank you for the discussion on my system, it is helping me make quite a bit of progress.

1) I would simply have the attacker and the defender /both/ make opposed rolls.

--1) Defense in a firefight is fairly powerless to the defender. The attacker aims at them, but due to the speed of bullets there is nothing the defender can specifically roll to defend. Instead defenders have to place themselves behind cover and in situations that make it difficult to be hit. (They can also do reaction fires, overwatch kind of thing from xcom, etc.)

Defense also is damage reduction, never the ability to hit. Chinks in armor are recognized by a piecewise armor system.

2) I'd also simplify soft armor vs hard armor.

This is something Ive been struggling with. I have been going through and overall cutting off stats and information. However I keep coming back to needing three main damage types, a piercing, cutting, and bludgeoning. I have simplified cutting and piercing into one damage, (with bullets it made sense, piercing actually subtracts from the bludgeoning damage of a bullet unless the armor absorbs all the piercing. The tumble of a bullet is the thing that does damage, and theres some bludgeoning in there too. No common armor in the game will be able to absorb the bludgeoning, but they can avoid bullets ripping open flesh.)

I will likely have to deal with adding in the piercing vs cutting distinction and reworking bullets. I want to make the system work with melee weapons as well, as improvised weapons are very common. Guns are lesso.

I have considered reworking the damage stacking equation to be the difference between the two added to the highest. I will play around with that, definitely.

And yes, no armor deflects damage entirely. Even a kevlar vest will still leave a bruise from most guns. I have looked at making cloth armors block a lot more bludgeoning then metallic or rigid armors, I am playing around here a lot.

3) I would lastly, take a hard look at cover/concealment rules.

Oh yes, this is an absolute must. I have also made a new stealth system that works off of static values and not constant rolls.

The system is attempting to be semi-close to accuracy, but only where the accuracy can be simplified and used to the advantage of entertainment. Elsewhere it runs off of assumptions and guesswork like most systems. The system is slowly deviating from d20 however and has moved on to other methods which work out wonderfully with the level of complexity, playtesting is in progress. Thanks for the suggestions though.

I wont elaborate too heavily on the system, if you want to really hear about it and discuss it Ill do it through email, but for the most part I dont feel like getting to extravegant describing the rules in depth on these specific forums. (They seem more geared towards pathfinder, for obvious obvious reasons) I simply looked for a forum to look at relative material strengths, since I knew it was also a problem in pathfinder of figuring out weapon sundering and such.

If you do want to discuss the system in depth I'd be happy to, as expanding the suggestions and criticisms is fantastic, as often I will miss constant issues and overlook exploits.

--I am in a time crunch and I will address your suggestions in a while, but for now know that I am considering them.

Asking for advice on material properties for a homebrew system I have.

I wont elaborate too much on the system, but it has two primary damage types (Kinetic and Bludgeoning, names are working) and the armor system has already made armors, but also is going to be made so that you can create your own armors by looking at material properties and covering parts of your body.
Important things:
Stacking armor will (as much as possible) use a form of the distance formula. Sqrt((armor1^2)+(armor2^2)) This seems to have diminishing returns but still provides nice armor stacking bonuses.
Another important factor is that for reference, Kevlar vest III has a kinetic armor of 7, and Bludgeoning armor of 8, and an HP of 30. It will stop 3 7.62x51mm bullets, while letting through 12 Bludgeoning damage. Mostly unimportant information, but simply for reference.
Another important fact is that the damage system works, mostly, on a 1-16 scale.

The question then becomes, what would the kinetic resistance of other materials be? Materials like:
Silver
Gold
Bronze
Brass
Bismuth
Copper
Lead

Any help or suggestions appreciated, and questions can be answered but for the most part the system is kind of in an "alpha" stage and has many glaring issues that we are dealing with.

As per the spellcasting, it depends on the spell but the basic idea is that standard actions are 3 AP until they are shorter actions. Most spells are still gonna be 3 or 6 AP.

I also disagree with your idea that every attack is identical, they simply arent in a realistic standpoint. Doing an overhead attack is slightly slower then doing a thrust, and even if it is slower it doesnt mean it isnt going to hit. What if it is an ooze? If it is an ooze then theres no reason the attack should miss if it is just a little bit too slow. And while being faster then the attack itself could dodge, it isnt true that it will ALWAYS dodge the attack. Combat isnt as predictable as it is made out to be, even a basic attack could take more or less time, and that wouldnt cause a miss.

I will have to look at weapons more closely, to see if weapons should take more or less AP to use. A big part of the idea is that that way there is more variation in weapons other then dice, weight, and crit range without needing enchantments.

On "Borrowing" actions from other turns, I think you misunderstood. If the majority of the action is in the next turn, it doesnt complete until then. (2 this turn and 2 next turn rounds to the majority next turn.) It just is a way to use up leftover AP and have combat feel a little more fluid. In general yeah, players will have to keep more track of their numbers but me and those about to playtest this system already feel like there isnt enough complexity to combat. (or at least, the complexity that is there feels forced and too arcadey)

While it would be a good idea to switch to another system, having had consulted my players it simply wont work as they dont want to learn a new system. They prefer the idea at the moment (before playtesting, after we'll see) of modifying the system in this way. I might later on see if we can change the system, but for now this is just one idea we want to try out to spice up combat a bit.

Plain and simple, thought of it pretty recently and just want to flesh it out a bit with third party advice. The main idea:

Instead of 2 actions a turn, entities with actions get (say the average human) 6 action points. These action points are equivalent to 1 second or 1 second of effort. Faster entities get more AP, say, 6.5 or 7. Slower entities can get less. This equates to:
1 AP = 1/3 movement speed
3 AP = movement speed
3 AP = standard action
3 AP = standard attack
2 AP = quick attack?
4 AP = power attack?
1.5 AP = 1st level monk flurry of blows?

Actually in the case of "quick attacks" and "power attacks" I was thinking of getting more technical with things like jabs, lunges, all that, but that's just the general idea.

Even further with the idea is that some weapons take longer or more effort to use then others, a dagger might only cost 2 ap to use, whereas a two-handed sword could take 4.

Another idea is spillover, if an action, say an attack, costs more AP then you have, it costs AP from the next turn, and may not complete until next turn depending on the action.
An attack made when you only have 2 AP left means the next turn you also lose 1 AP, however because the majority of the attack was THIS turn the attack is completed. If you only had 1 AP left and made the attack, it would cost 2 next turn and not be completed until then.

All some brainstorming I had, might be playtesting it with a few friends soon to see where this needs rules specifically.

Comments and ideas? Things to take into consideration? (As long as they aren't along the lines of "this isn't pathfinder" or "go play a different ruleset" etc.)