Goodman Games

jmucchiello wrote:

Ravenheart87 wrote:Jmucchiello: smathis was talking about a setting he's writing...

If I'd known that.... nevermind.

Geoffrey wrote:I just finished reading Lord Dunsany's 17-page story "The Fortress Unvanquishable, Save for Sacnoth", which is collected in The Sword of Welleran and Other Stories. In this story, the magician Gaznak wields a sword as he fights in a full suit of armor that leaves only his wrists, face, and neck uncovered.

Harley Stroh wrote:Joseph's current rules as written allow for wizards to be trained in a variety of weapons, including the long sword. The might of a warrior isn't that he gets to carry a sword, but what he can do with it.

Elves and wizards can certainly don any armor they'd like, but heavier armor does impede spell casting. Those who seek to bend reality to their will risk body and soul; when you're knocking on the door at R'lyeh, imprecision is not an option.

The penalty for casting in armor can be temporarily offset by spellburn (MtnJeff's elf sacrificed a whopping 12 attribute points this past weekend to get a crucial spell off), ala Elric and his patron Arioch, but just like in Melniboné, magic always comes at a price.

//H

nanstreet wrote:If wizards in some stories wear armor and use swords, but in other stories they do not, then why? Are they really wizards acting like warriors, or warriors who can also cast spells?

GnomeBoy wrote:I'd like the option to make a viable fighter who wears little to no armor, as in numerous early D&D illustrations (and elsewhere).

geordie racer wrote:Maybe wearing heavy armour could make you roll a smaller dice type for your MDoA so it's harder to be a swashbuckler in plate, easier with little or no armour.

Or to keep it simple, if unarmoured you get to roll a bigger dice type for MDoA.

GnomeBoy wrote:I'd like the option to make a viable fighter who wears little to no armor, as in numerous early D&D illustrations (and elsewhere).

finarvyn wrote:While I hate to have too many sub-classes or the like, certainly there is precident in literature for having two types of fighters: the strong fighter and the agile fighter. Some fighters wear heavy platemail and carry big nasty weapons, but the pirate or swashbuckler musketeer type clearly does not.

GnomeBoy wrote:I'm not sure where there's wiggle room to insert a mechanic that (IMO) has been missing since day one.

mshensley wrote:

GnomeBoy wrote:I'm not sure where there's wiggle room to insert a mechanic that (IMO) has been missing since day one.

This has long been a sticking point with me and D&D (in all it's forms). It really sucks at being able to represent a competent, unarmored warrior which is far more common in fantasy literature than the walking tank that is so prevalent in game.

Initiative is rolled on a d6, to this roll the players add their Armor Class value and the highest roll at the table attacks first. This helps simulate how cumbersome armor can be during combat. The lighter the armor the better, as the higher AC value adds more to the Initiative roll. In most sword & sorcery literature the combatants tend to wear lighter armor or none at all, and handling Initiative in this manner helps simulate this pretty well I think. (Edit: In most cases, the Armor Class value added to an Initiative roll is not adjusted due to any magical properties the armor might have. This, of course, is something each Game Master will need to decide for their own game, and also may vary from one magic set of armor to the next.)

nanstreet wrote:I'm not in favor of messing with the MDoA die size, though, as that also affects the probability to hit for the Warrior class.

Professor P wrote:Perhaps unarmored/lightly armored fighters receive an extra attack per round or every other round at the end of the round using a d16 and no d3 to hit and perhaps a reduced damage die as well. This way the unarmored/lightly armored fighter gains no extra defense (the fighter would have little to no armor after all), but fighting prowess would increase due to more damage potential. On its face, this dichotomy gives an advantage and disadvantage to each type of fighter.

In addition to their d20 die, Unarmored Fighters get an extra d16. Lightly armored fighters get a d12. Each round this extra die can be used along with an attack roll or as a "Parry" against one attack. The Fighter can choose to assign either the d20 to the Parry or the extra die. Or the Fighter can choose to attack or defend with both dice. In any instance where both dice are rolled, the highest roll of the two is kept.

Parrying an incoming attack is accomplished by the Fighter rolling a die, adding his BAB and attempting to exceed the attack roll of his opponent.

Example:
Kronjob the Fighter is unarmored and in melee against a goblin. Kronjob has a d20 and a d16 to roll. His BAB is +4. On his turn he decides to use his d20 to attack and his d16 to parry. He rolls an 11 on the d20 for a modified roll of 15. That hits. The goblin attacks and gets a 23. Kronjob can't parry that with his d16+4 so he takes a hit. The next round Kronjob decides to roll the d16 to attack and saves his d20 to parry.

Later in the combat, Kronjob decides it's time to finish the goblin. So he dedicates both dice to an attack roll, giving up the ability to parry this round. He gets a 1 on the d20 and a 14 on the d16. He takes the 14 for a modified roll of 18. Another hit. The goblin's dead.

geordie racer wrote:

nanstreet wrote:I'm not in favor of messing with the MDoA die size, though, as that also affects the probability to hit for the Warrior class.

Maybe I'm wrong but from what I've read the Action Dice is not the 'To Hit' dice. I thought that you roll a d20 and an Action Dice, one determining whether you hit, the other whether you do a MDoA.

I'm not penalizing a platemail-wearing Knight's chance to hit, just his chance to pull off cool stunts in comparison to a less-armoured fighter.

goodmangames wrote: What I'm playing with right now is base attack bonus. In traditional D&D, fighter types get +1 at level 1, +2 at level 2, +3 at level 3, and so on. In DCC RPG right now, warriors get d3 at level 1, d4 at level 2, d5 at level 3, and so on.

By "d3 at level 1," I mean the warrior rolls a d3 on every attack roll. This attack is d20+d3+Str mod; next attack is d20+d3+Str; etc. It's not a d3 made at the level-up time, but rolled anew every attack.

The sum of these dice forms the attack roll, which is compared to AC as usual.

If the overall attack roll hits, AND that d3 is a 3 or better, the warrior can perform a cool stunt declared at moment of attack. We call this a Mighty Deed of Arms.

Geoffrey wrote:Here's an idea:

Initiative is rolled on a d6, to this roll the players add their Armor Class value and the highest roll at the table attacks first. This helps simulate how cumbersome armor can be during combat. The lighter the armor the better, as the higher AC value adds more to the Initiative roll. In most sword & sorcery literature the combatants tend to wear lighter armor or none at all, and handling Initiative in this manner helps simulate this pretty well I think. (Edit: In most cases, the Armor Class value added to an Initiative roll is not adjusted due to any magical properties the armor might have. This, of course, is something each Game Master will need to decide for their own game, and also may vary from one magic set of armor to the next.)

link: http://swordandsanity.blogspot.com/2011 ... rview.html

(The above of course assumes descending AC scores.)

nanstreet wrote: The MDoA die seems to be both the modifier to hit and to determine if a MDoA is possible, so unfortunately changing the MDoA size would also change the to hit modifier.

Geoffrey wrote:The above of course assumes descending AC scores

mshensley wrote:

GnomeBoy wrote:I'm not sure where there's wiggle room to insert a mechanic that (IMO) has been missing since day one.

This has long been a sticking point with me and D&D (in all it's forms). It really sucks at being able to represent a competent, unarmored warrior which is far more common in fantasy literature than the walking tank that is so prevalent in game.

Machpants wrote:Remember the walking tank is also prevalent IRL because it works! If you want to sacrifice some verisimilitude in combat there is no problem buffing the loin cloth clads defence in some way.

The other option is to stress the problems of full time armour wearing ... Although this is probably all too complex for DCC!

GnomeBoy wrote: Oh, man!

Should I bust out the Fatigue rules I wanted to play test with DCC RPG in a new thread...?

Ravenheart87 wrote:

finarvyn wrote:While I hate to have too many sub-classes or the like, certainly there is precident in literature for having two types of fighters: the strong fighter and the agile fighter. Some fighters wear heavy platemail and carry big nasty weapons, but the pirate or swashbuckler musketeer type clearly does not.

And don't forget the half-naked barbarians and the chain-bikini wearing amazons!

mshensley wrote:

GnomeBoy wrote:I'm not sure where there's wiggle room to insert a mechanic that (IMO) has been missing since day one.

This has long been a sticking point with me and D&D (in all it's forms). It really sucks at being able to represent a competent, unarmored warrior which is far more common in fantasy literature than the walking tank that is so prevalent in game.

geordie racer wrote:

nanstreet wrote:I'm not in favor of messing with the MDoA die size, though, as that also affects the probability to hit for the Warrior class.

Maybe I'm wrong but from what I've read the Action Dice is not the 'To Hit' dice. I thought that you roll a d20 and an Action Dice, one determining whether you hit, the other whether you do a MDoA.

I'm not penalizing a platemail-wearing Knight's chance to hit, just his chance to pull off cool stunts in comparison to a less-armoured fighter.