Grim Tales + Black Company = Big Fun!

[Old One]

Hey Gang,

For those that might be interested, I thought I would post an "After-Action Report" from my GT/BCCS Hybrid 1-shot at NC Game Day 7. The "Assault on the Enemy's Inner Sanctum" scenario was set in my Faded Glory Homebrew. The party consisted of 6 Level 9 PCs supported by 25 Emorian Legionnaires, 1 Senior Centurion and 4 Imperial War Wizards and their mission was to neutralize or destroy a power nexus for enemy spell-casters known as the "Black Eyes of the Demon Scorpion".

The PCs where built using the GT ruleset...with magic, healing, some action point conventions, equipment and a few other odds and ends imported from BCCS. Many thanks to the work HeapThaumaturgist did in melding BCCS and GT...it saved me a ton of work!

In addition to the BCCS equipment guidelines...I included some power "props" and made a differentiation between material props and fetish props (important for BCCS spell-casting). I also used the "Armor as Damage Conversion" variant from GT...one of the "Fewer Dead Heroes" choices. Finally, I tweaked the Action Points a bit...melding the GT/BCCS versions and adding a bit of homebrew into the mix.

To set the stage a bit, here are some background notes, PC stats and gear...followed by my observations. I will also ask the players to drop in with any comments:

Backgrounder/Rules

Backgrounder/Map

Table Rules/Action Point Expansion

PCs and Gear

S. Antonius Bellicus - War Wizard (Smart 9)

Brandis Tollhart - Halfling Scout (Fast 4/Smart 5)

Boldric of the Brigantes - Barbarian/Slave/Gladiator (Strong 6/Tough3)

Maxian of Tyrial - "Hammer of the Sythians" (Strong 3/Dedicated 6)

Vercinius of Osirian - Battlepriest (Dedicated 5/Charismatic 4)

Myrwyn of Eastenmarch - Bounty Hunter (Fast 5/Tough 4)

S. Antonius Bellicus and Brandis Tollhart Gear

Rest of Gear

Observations

(1) The BCCS casting system take some getting used to! Even after reading the BCCS Magic System front to back several times, downloading the augmentation .pdf from Green Ronin and utilizing Henry's nifty BCCS Spell Calc...it still took some doing. Part of this was playing with higher level effects right off the bat...instead of playing through lower levels. You also have to keep track of "spell drain", which can quickly reduce casters to mewling kittens that will keel over unconscious after their next spell.

Having a high INT to store several spells is VERY helpful...since these stored effects can be cast with one action and, as HeapThaumaturgist has aptly noted in other threads, there are no real "dump" stats for casters. INT, CON, WIS and CHA are all very important.

Time is also a major hinderance to casters until they get a few levels under their belts. Given half a day (or more), even a hedge wizard can whip up a pretty nasty effect...but the drain stands a decent chance of knocking them out once they cast it. Getting the drop on an enemy spell-caster is mucho important...since their lead effect is likely to be there mose potent.

Midway through the scenario, I stopped tracking "drain" for enemy casters and just eyeballed it. I used three basic casters...apprentices, mid-levels and BBECasters...each with a pre-stated "quickshot" and "prepared" effect. Essentially, apprentices could cast 3 effects, mid-levels 5 and BBECasters 7 before they became useless...not exact, but I was really watching the clock on the scenario.

With the non-lethal drain, rest becomes inordinately important. The scenario didn't build any resting time into it (partially because I really wanted to stretch the system), so the PC casters (S. Antonius Bellicus and Vercinius) were fairly low on resources once the final battle ensued. In a regular campaign, the DM (and PCs) would need to be aware of encounter pacing since an hour's rest can be critical.

That said, I really like the BCCS spell system. Flexible, challenging, fun and infinitely customizable. Playing with the various props allowed PCs to hit some pretty high DCs for potent effects and I would make that a major part of an ongoing campaign, with all manner of expensive power props, harvestable props and crafted props to support casters (and bleed away their cash ).

(2) Grim Tales is, without a doubt, my new favorite ruleset. Even though I jettisoned the GT spell system (which I like), it allows you to build very flexible PCs with enough variation to that no two every really look alike. I don't think the PC concept exists that can't be built in GT. Sure...there are trade-offs and powergaming munchkin-masters might not be happy with the ruleset...but I love it. I ran an Arthurian-based GT 1-shot at another game day and it left me thinking GT PCs were a little underpowered compared to "regular". This scenario erased such thoughts.

They are not underpowered...just different. The big tank in the scenario...Boldric...was absolute death in melee combat.

(3) While I need to do a bit more tinkering with feats and talent tree conversions, I think these two systems work very well together in a low(er) magic setting. While BCCS casters are capable of creating some ferocious effects, it takes time to get there. Also, casting time and spell-drain are always going to be an issue. Even PCs that load up on feats to increase spell energy (to soak drain) are going to miss out on all manner of other character options.

I plan to overhaul my homebrew setting to include this combo as my base ruleset !

I plan on pointing the scenario players in this direction...hopefully they will drop by to add their 2 coppers.

~ Old One

 

[HeapThaumaturgist]

Mwa ha ha. My homebrew's ruleset is very similar, for all of the same reasons.

I will say that GT can be munchkined a little. I've been used to interesting, varied PCs with quite a few talents and a focus on interaction.

We had a "girls' night out" scenario with alternate PCs ... one happened to be the "daughter of a high ranking military man" so the player built her as a bit of a rough-and-tumbler. Strong/Fast 3/3, I think, with a quarterstaff and TWF. The girl is a beast. Between high AC and pretty good damage output (Melee Smash x2) she can handle herself well.

--fje

 

[Henry]

Plink! (+2 cp)

I had a great time with the system, and am currently working up a small story hour to recap the session we had. As I keep writing, I went from one short story to what I am now planning as several posts!

My thoughts:

I never knew what a butt-kicker could be built with the GT system, until I saw Boldric of the Brigantes in action. The player had the misfortune of rolling 2's and 3's and 4's ALL over combat, and he WAS STILL HITTING! He did have rage, but even without it he was quite formidable.

If GT has one drawback to me, it's that sneak attack is designed to be a high-level ability, so that you don't start getting it until at least 5th level, to the exclusion of other talents. I can understand the need to reduce its effectiveness, because it's the "mass damage" ability of the GT system if one is not careful. Even so, seeing a thiefly type such as Brandis with 1d6 sneak attack at 9th level was a weird sight. The player (Rel) acquitted Brandis Famously, however - I still haven't written the scene with the two guards in the inner sanctum yet, but it's going in there, believe me.

Antonius Bellicus the wizard was a fun character. If there's one thing I learned, however, it's that the GT/BC wizard might have a slightly more important need for high INT than high CHA, unless you bring in more of the BC magic feats (even that's still a toss-up for priority) or unless you tie taking more Magnitude to a higher CHA, which would force a high CHA over a high INT. Otherwise, I CANNOT STRESS ENOUGH the importance of having spell effects prepped. If this were a permanent character for me, I'd have taken an 18 in INT over an 18 in CHA any day, because the two extra prepped spells can make a life and death difference. I'd also tie spell energy Reservoir as a Talent instead of a feat, because I'd be tempted to take it at every chance I got. The difference between 5 spell energy or 7 to 8 spell energy is the difference of two or three whole spells over the course of a large combat.

Spell Drain is a fascinating mechanic, one that models many fictional wizards well, and puts the group in a mindset to rest frequently. Near the end of the climactic battle, I was running around with 42 hit points and FORTY nonlethal damage. I've never been so healthy and yet close to death at the same time, my hat is off to you, sir. That was the point where the crossbow and the action points got used. Otherwise, that magic system meshes superbly with GT, and I can't wait to see Wulf's alternative system - due out later this year, I think he said?

Side note: Old One I have an oddball question -- in real life military maneuvers, is it more believeable during a series of smaller military actions to take short breaks when safety allows, or is it more believeable to GO, GO GO -stop once a day- like traditional D&D parties? I had the thought that Grim Tales' "fewer dead heroes" option, along with the Black Company magic system, seems to encourage this.

 

[Old One]

Mwa ha ha. My homebrew's ruleset is very similar, for all of the same reasons.

I will say that GT can be munchkined a little. I've been used to interesting, varied PCs with quite a few talents and a focus on interaction.

We had a "girls' night out" scenario with alternate PCs ... one happened to be the "daughter of a high ranking military man" so the player built her as a bit of a rough-and-tumbler. Strong/Fast 3/3, I think, with a quarterstaff and TWF. The girl is a beast. Between high AC and pretty good damage output (Melee Smash x2) she can handle herself well.

--fje

Heap,

Thanks for leading the way on this...as noted above, you made my job MUCH easier. Did you include most of the magic feats from BCCS as available feats in your rules mesh? I plan to allow them in future development.

The S3/F3 sounds like a fun PC!

~ OO

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

I can't wait to see Wulf's alternative system - due out later this year, I think he said?

In the short term, you could model spell burn as non-lethal damage, same as BC.

1d6 per spell level works just fine. (You should also make sure that magical healing heals-- or converts-- lethal damage, but cannot do anything about non-lethal damage.)

I also think it dovetails nicely with Fewer Dead Heroes, especially in a very story-rich kind of game, where the PCs can fall unconscious without worrying about the enemy just killing them out of hand every time (as goblins or orcs would likely do, but enemy "military" might not).

 

[Old One]

Plink! (+2 cp)

I had a great time with the system, and am currently working up a small story hour to recap the session we had. As I keep writing, I went from one short story to what I am now planning as several posts!

Waiting with baited breath !

My thoughts:

I never knew what a butt-kicker could be built with the GT system, until I saw Boldric of the Brigantes in action. The player had the misfortune of rolling 2's and 3's and 4's ALL over combat, and he WAS STILL HITTING! He did have rage, but even without it he was quite formidable.

True. Although I specifically built him as the biggest combat machine I could. And, to be fair, most of the opponents you were fighting were not very well protected. Still, with his high STR, good BAB, feat/talent chain and weapon enhancements...he was pretty fierce !

If GT has one drawback to me, it's that sneak attack is designed to be a high-level ability, so that you don't start getting it until at least 5th level, to the exclusion of other talents. I can understand the need to reduce its effectiveness, because it's the "mass damage" ability of the GT system if one is not careful. Even so, seeing a thiefly type such as Brandis with 1d6 sneak attack at 9th level was a weird sight. The player (Rel) acquitted Brandis Famously, however - I still haven't written the scene with the two guards in the inner sanctum yet, but it's going in there, believe me.

That and it is a Smart talent...which makes it a bit tougher to incorporate into the "sneaky, back-stabbin' thief" concept...since you have to pick up lots of level in Smart to use it. I had considered opening that tree to Fast characters, but I think that makes it a bit too easy. One thing I had considered was allowing a feat chain to improve the damage dice of the sneak attack, so if a PC did persevere, they could really do some ugly damage at higher levels...still pondering that one.

Antonius Bellicus the wizard was a fun character. If there's one thing I learned, however, it's that the GT/BC wizard might have a slightly more important need for high INT than high CHA, unless you bring in more of the BC magic feats (even that's still a toss-up for priority) or unless you tie taking more Magnitude to a higher CHA, which would force a high CHA over a high INT. Otherwise, I CANNOT STRESS ENOUGH the importance of having spell effects prepped. If this were a permanent character for me, I'd have taken an 18 in INT over an 18 in CHA any day, because the two extra prepped spells can make a life and death difference. I'd also tie spell energy Reservoir as a Talent instead of a feat, because I'd be tempted to take it at every chance I got. The difference between 5 spell energy or 7 to 8 spell energy is the difference of two or three whole spells over the course of a large combat.

Agreed. Plus, with the expanded props, synergies and other options...having 1 or 2 extra Magic Use skill points really won't matter all that much. Having a high CHA doesn't improve apptitude (although I am considering a feat that would do just that - just to make the INT vs. CHA decision that much harder ). One way to limit spell energy resevior would be to require either a certain magnitude and/or ranks in Magic Use for further iterations...but I also think burning all of your feats on SER, although it helps with burn, can really cut down on the utility of the PC long-term, so I don't know that further restriction is necessary.

Spell Drain is a fascinating mechanic, one that models many fictional wizards well, and puts the group in a mindset to rest frequently. Near the end of the climactic battle, I was running around with 42 hit points and FORTY nonlethal damage. I've never been so healthy and yet close to death at the same time, my hat is off to you, sir. That was the point where the crossbow and the action points got used. Otherwise, that magic system meshes superbly with GT, and I can't wait to see Wulf's alternative system - due out later this year, I think he said?

Drain definitely make husbanding resources critical. In an ongoing campaign, I would probably allow "rest" to include moving at half-speed, no strenuous activity. The virtually non-existant "real" healing of BCCS makes routine "breathers" a necessity...which is another paradigm shift in thinking from a regular D&D campaign. I too look forward to Wulf's upcoming system...I have yet to be disappointed with a Bad Axe product !.

Side note: Old One I have an oddball question -- in real life military maneuvers, is it more believeable during a series of smaller military actions to take short breaks when safety allows, or is it more believeable to GO, GO GO -stop once a day- like traditional D&D parties? I had the thought that Grim Tales' "fewer dead heroes" option, along with the Black Company magic system, seems to encourage this.

Not an oddball question at all. My own military experience, historical readings and experience with SCA/Boffer LARP is that small military units need breaks routinely. Even the most heroic hero would collapse in exhaustion after swinging a sword for 30 minutes non-stop. The whole idea behind the Manipular Legion of Republican Rome was to continually feed fresh sword arms into the battle and allow front-line fighters to fall back for a breather, bind wounds, drink some water, etc. The adrenaline surge and subsequent "let down" of combat (even simulated combat, which is where all my experience is) make rest and recovery vital. The D&D mechanic of "we can fight all day with no rest" is pretty ridiculous IMO, heroes or no.

In an old 2E campaign, I actually had PCs start making saving throws once the
# of combat rounds exceeded their CON score to represent potential exhaustion. I have actually considered instituting that in future campaigns...but I don't think I have ever had a combat last that long! It would be a great benefit to picking up the Endurance feat.

~ OO

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

I ran an Arthurian-based GT 1-shot at another game day and it left me thinking GT PCs were a little underpowered compared to "regular".

It was the dice, I swear. We played perfectly, it was the fates conspiring against us

GT characters are just as powerful against human opponents as D&D characters are, because the same rules and restrictions apply to both the NPCs and the players. Neither side is going to be heaving fireballs willy-nilly, or swinging magical swords. What (few) problems there are arise when you place GT characters up against magical critters.

Just out of curiousity, how free-flowing were the action points this time? (And curse you for skipping the DC gameday )

The D&D mechanic of "we can fight all day with no rest" is pretty ridiculous IMO, heroes or no.

One of the reasons I've liked Fatigue/Endurance type systems since the old Dragonquest days. But in defense of D&D, except in those scenarios where time really is of the essence, playing out routine downtime is kinda silly. Easy enough to just handwave rest breaks except in unusual circumstances.

 

[Old One]

In the short term, you could model spell burn as non-lethal damage, same as BC.

1d6 per spell level works just fine. (You should also make sure that magical healing heals-- or converts-- lethal damage, but cannot do anything about non-lethal damage.)

I also think it dovetails nicely with Fewer Dead Heroes, especially in a very story-rich kind of game, where the PCs can fall unconscious without worrying about the enemy just killing them out of hand every time (as goblins or orcs would likely do, but enemy "military" might not).

Wulf,

Thanks for the comments. The non-lethal drain and armor as damage conversion work very well together. It did take a couple of players a bit to understand that they tracked them seperately...with lethal damage reducing hit points and non-lethal adding up.

Any chance you can give us any sneak peeks on what you are working on???

~ OO

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

It did take a couple of players a bit to understand that they tracked them seperately...with lethal damage reducing hit points and non-lethal adding up.

I made small sheets to show two rows of O's, top being HPs and marked off right to left, bottom being non-lethal and marked off left to right. When they crossed, you were out.

 

[Old One]

It was the dice, I swear. We played perfectly, it was the fates conspiring against us

GT characters are just as powerful against human opponents as D&D characters are, because the same rules and restrictions apply to both the NPCs and the players. Neither side is going to be heaving fireballs willy-nilly, or swinging magical swords. What (few) problems there are arise when you place GT characters up against magical critters.

Just out of curiousity, how free-flowing were the action points this time? (And curse you for skipping the DC gameday )

Ha! I didn't even think to attribute that to the, erm...incompetent dice of the players ! I agree that they are fairly well matched against non-magical opponents. Most of the PCs in this scenario had pretty high ACs (I think the average was around 22 or so, assuming they were "on-guard")...so my mooks had a tough time hitting them. Their ACs didn't help them much when my huge scorpions started snatching them up with their Improved Grabs and ungodly grapple checks!

We actually had alot of magic flying back and forth in this scenario...fireballs, mini ice storms, force hammers, burrowing worms of fiery death...all kinds of good BCCS effects.

The action points were flying fast and furious...lots of "1s" rolled...and I wasn't shy about awarding them. I didn't have too many crits on players...but they managed to award themselves plenty of APs via fumbles, blown skill checks, rolling 1 on initiative, etc. Everyone started with 7 (except Henry's S. Antonius, since Henry volunteered to chronicle a mini-SH). They pretty much burned through all of them. I kept a mechanic where a comrade could burn 2 APs to "aid other" on certain rolls, provided they were within supporting distance (10'). It came in useful on several critical occassions. I also instituted the exploding dice variant which was a lot of fun.

The Table Rules/Action Point expansion above lists all the uses/variants.

~ OO