Warren
PS Yes I loaned the Print version because I uncomfortable doing that with PDF's, also IMHO a dead tree version is more likely to get looked at than a PDF by someone who looks at a computer all day

Moderators: finarvyn, dancross
Warren1965 wrote:I have both the PDF and a dead tree version of ERP, I gave the printed version to the best DM in our group to see if he would run it. Good news for you he bought the PDF however his reason made me wonder about something. He bought the PDF because he has been reading the board and wanted to make sure he had the correct version of the text and examples. My question is did the print version get updated and if it did how can someone tell if they have the current version. I would compare them myself but I only have the PDF at the moment.
Warren
PS Yes I loaned the Print version because I uncomfortable doing that with PDF's, also IMHO a dead tree version is more likely to get looked at than a PDF by someone who looks at a computer all day
Understandable. Eldritch has that in common with FUDGE...it can easily be bent and molded to suit ones' needs. I still have plans to show how the rules can be adapted to different settings, but it's been SLOW going.Warren1965 wrote:I am blessed in that we have a rotating group of 3 GM's and it isn't Ray's turn yet but he is planning on running ERP. He is getting used to the system (ie realizing it is simplier than we make it out to be), So far Characters and combat are things he likes, right now he is dealing with the magic system. Coming off of the worlds most popular system a free form system is hard to wrap your head around.
You can have a mastery that applies to any specialty, but the rules generally restrict it to a maximum of three dice rolled at once. So it would be better to make it an "advantage", rolled in addition to the regular ability check when facing a certain monster type. Otherwise, you could make it Melee D8 > Sword D8 > vs. goblin mastery style, or somesuch, so that you are really good at dispatching goblins with swords in general."I had a thought the other day while making up a character, say you wanted to simulate the extra damage certain character class had against a specified foe would that be a specailty under Melee/ranged or a mastery? Specailty would take the place of sword or what have you so I am not feeling the love for that, however can you have a mastery that applies to any specailty? I mean if you hade Melee D8 > Sword D6 and >Axe D6 could you take Mastery vs Orcs D4 that would get added to either axe or sword depending on what you were using? Or is there another way to do this that I am missing?"
LOL
Actually it is vs 6 fingered men
I tried the magic system out of the box and it did not fly very well unfortunately. It feels clunky where the rest of the rules are so smooth and also a mage type character is rather quickly drained of his spell points and is reduced to whatever other way of contributing to the group beside spellcasting.Warren1965 wrote:...right now he is dealing with the magic system. Coming off of the worlds most popular system a free form system is hard to wrap your head around.
You could do that due to the flexibility of the system (I have on purpose not read Dans reply yet....). Personally I would put such customization as an Advantage though.Warren1965 wrote:I had a thought the other day while making up a character, say you wanted to simulate the extra damage certain character class had against a specified foe would that be a specailty under Melee/ranged or a mastery? Specailty would take the place of sword or what have you so I am not feeling the love for that, however can you have a mastery that applies to any specailty? I mean if you hade Melee D8 > Sword D6 and >Axe D6 could you take Mastery vs Orcs D4 that would get added to either axe or sword depending on what you were using? Or is there another way to do this that I am missing?
It was revised: The number of spell points a magic user has is determined by adding up the Max-Value of Arcanum Tree ×2. The printed book had it as just MV of Arcanum Tree with no modifier.cogitare wrote: I tried the magic system out of the box and it did not fly very well unfortunately. It feels clunky where the rest of the rules are so smooth and also a mage type character is rather quickly drained of his spell points and is reduced to whatever other way of contributing to the group beside spellcasting.
.I have devised a cooldown system which always allow a spellcaster to be able to sling the simpler type of spells (like damaging a single opponent much like an archer or close combat fighter) but more powerful spells (stronger effect, effect more people (ie. area affect and the like), multi effect) have to cool down before being able to be used again
Do you want a copy of the revised PDF? I'd be happy to send it to you, since you obviously bought the print book. PM me with your email and I'll send it to you.Also I run the game with specific spells (not really freeform) made up of effects from the 9 general effects found in the core rules.
Ok, I actually think I tried that one as well. Still with a fairly good roll and spell that carried on into subsequent rounds the spell points drained away quickly.dancross wrote:It was revised: The number of spell points a magic user has is determined by adding up the Max-Value of Arcanum Tree ×2. The printed book had it as just MV of Arcanum Tree with no modifier.
Yeah, that's in my version and that's how I ran it as well.dancross wrote:I originally had lower spell points because magic users would cast using their own Resilience: "An arcanist who casts a spell but has no spell points to spend will deplete his Resilience Defense Pool. The spell will work this way, but it is fatiguing, and can leave him more vulnerable to many magical effects". Experienced arcanists have a lot of Resilience to draw from.
I have and you've actually read it. You can find it here :https://docs.google.com/document/d/14r- ... sZzSg/edit. And you're already added as a contributor in the document.dancross wrote:Do you have this written out? I'd be curious to see it.
Yeah, I'm making single-target Harm effects free of charge basically. They are similar to a ranged attack. Ethereal spells, ie. those bypassing armor, are resisted by a save trait (similar to how it's described for spells in the monster compendium) so it's harder to get those through. And the surplus can then be mitigated by Reslience before effecting Toughness.dancross wrote:Are you making basic single-target spell attacks free of spell points? Since most "Harm" Effect spells bypass armor and Active Defenses, how do you balance this out?
If you figure out who I am you should already have my mailaddress in your gmail-accountdancross wrote:Do you want a copy of the revised PDF? I'd be happy to send it to you, since you obviously bought the print book. PM me with your email and I'll send it to you.
Don't sweat itdancross wrote:I do remember now...I just didn't put 2 and 2 together. I will have to go back and read the cooldown doc again.
Well, Obfuscate affects only the ability to see and strike by conventional means. The Curse Effect can target any ability at all.cogitare wrote:
Also I wonder how you rule with Obfuscate effects vs. Curse. Obfuscate effect can penalize everyone attacking you (regardless if Melee, Ranged, Unarmed or Arcanum basically) based on the premise that you are hard to detect for whatever reason. This seem awfully potent where Curse effect will effect "only" one of the above mentioned Abilities.
Yes, several fans submitted ideas that I incorporated as optional rules in the revised PDF. They are:It came up in the 2nd session we played actually and I have handwaived it since but would like to handle it better than that and in a consistant fashion. I noticed in the revised PDF there were some optional rules for detecting invisible creatures which might be usable?