Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
New system design: Ashkhar RPG
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Ashkhar Ben" data-source="post: 6168310" data-attributes="member: 6749162"><p>This is all very logical, and has gotten my wheels turning. Like you said, this system has been in development for a while but, my innovation streak has grown a little stale as I've been working on some iteration of these rules for over four years (initially started as Sci Fi hack for Mass Effect, then original Sci Fi System, then convert to Fantasy to accommodate my gaming group's campaign world: Ashkhar. The focus has been on Ashkhar for nearly two years now, and as I said, I'm getting a case of the stale eyes.)</p><p></p><p>If I were to make a change to the system, I would probably do something like removing Melee Combat, Ranged Combat, and Movement. I would then create three new skills, Might, Coordination, and Tactics. Might would be useful for strength based movement, heavy melee fighting styles, lifting heavy stuff, etc. Coordination would be based around balance, lock picking, art, dancing, and of course ranged combat. Tactics would involve the other more ethereal aspects of the Movement skill, that of Tactical decisions, piloting, processes, efficiency, moving from cover to cover, etc. I think this way you could still keep those three skills applicable for various combat actions, just like Melee, Ranged, and Movement can now, but it opens up a slew of new options and makes a little better sense.</p><p></p><p>It does eliminate some of the "training" aspect of melee and ranged combat, but that can be explained with Tactical. There could be an optional trait or rule that says that any attack can be made with Tactical, although at a -1d6 penalty or something. Tactical could also be used to fire trebuchets and other non-coordination non-might attacks (like shooting an arquebuss.)</p><p></p><p><strong>To your grohlkin fighter</strong></p><p></p><p>Thanks for taking the time to make a character! I'm glad that it went pretty smoothly.</p><p></p><p>It seems to be a pretty typical "combat heavy" build that I've seen a lot in my playtests. This type of character can do pretty well in exploration and combat, but doesn't excel in social interaction. But all in all, well rounded and a pretty common build (with lots of variations of course.)</p><p></p><p>Most of the players who do build a grohlkin fighter type favor going unarmed, but there aren't many weapons that can modify an unarmed attack that I would allow mechanically. In one playtest game, one of my playtest GMs reasoned that some kind of metal claws or a gauntlet would assist with the Grohlkin's unarmed attack, and thus gave him a bonus to damage (but no bonus to attack/defend.)</p><p></p><p>Also I noticed that you didn't pick a second trait, was there a reason for this? Combo attack goes well with this type of character build, and is one of the more favored for combat-heavy characters.</p><p></p><p>Yeah, I was trying to be clear with the math that it all either applies as a bonus or penalty to the number of d6s rolled. I can probably clarify that a bit more. The only exception to this is that there are bonuses to bonus damage, which is just a flat damage. </p><p></p><p>As to maneuvers like Perturb, that penalty is against the enemies, which have a static number, not dice. In combat or any kind of obstacle, the players make all of the rolls, not the GM. So for example, if a player used Perturb, he would roll his Influence dice pool (let's say it is 3d6). He rolls 3d6 and gets 2 successes. The GM notes that the bad guy he is trying to use Perturb against has a Resist Value (RV) of 1. This means that the player got 1 success over the enemy's RV, essentially dealing "1 Perturb Damage." This would then apply to the enemy's AV or DV for its next roll. So if this same character wanted to shoot a bow at the bad guy he just used Perturb against, the enemy's DV would be 1 less, in essence giving the player a +1d6 bonus to his ranged AV. </p><p></p><p>I like to reduce bloat as well, although I'm trying to make them feel different based on the minimum requirements and what penalty is applied. This is easier to do in the complete ruleset, as there are many more mechanical advantages or disadvantages, but in Basic we had to kind of dumb down a lot of the maneuvers. This could probably be streamlined or give other riders to the effects (don't want to make them too complicated.)</p><p></p><p>The idea of "offensive" or "defensive" weapons is that while they excel in a particular field but suffer in another. It is designed to be the first modification available for basic weapons, and simply relate to the overall design/function of the weapon. The other modifications elevate the quality of the weapon. </p><p></p><p>I enjoy separating attack and defense, as I think it's simply easier to understand and mechanically manufacture. I've seen some of the playtest groups practically hand-wave combat, they make a few combat rolls, the GM counts the number of successes, and says "you guys defeat the enemy squad in such and such fashion, you all lose 1 Fatigue." Each to their own. </p><p></p><p>In game terms, there are abilities that encourage loss of limb. Even one of the maneuvers, hack and slash, specifically allows someone to lose a hand or foot. There will be some "beast maneuvers" that do similar things. Since "character equivalent enemies" can use these advanced maneuvers just like a PC can, it is a real possibility for the character to lose a limb. </p><p></p><p>If you mean what penalty is applied to the loss of a limb, that I haven't really specifically stated, and probably won't. It is one of those "the GM and player have to figure it out." The ability is more interesting from a cultural level, in that if a grohlkin army isn't completely defeated and destroyed, their wounded (even severely wounded) will eventually restore to full ability even without the aid of magic. It makes them a more dangerous and grueling fighting force. </p><p></p><p>As to the distinction between Attacks and other actions, I just like it mechanically. Making multiple attacks in a round is pretty strong, and there are easy enough ways to eliminate that. I don't want to penalize high skill characters though, especially in an encounter that specifically isn't combat oriented. That could be made clear through some rewording of some of the circumstances, but I think this way still is clear and works fine. Never has come up before with any of my other playtests. It isn't a bad idea though. </p><p></p><p>A lot of the playtest GMs, now that they've gotten used to the system and typical values for most of the character's skills, they don't even play with any bad guys/difficulties written down. I try to make it as intuitive as possible, and GMs can hit that expert level in the matter of a few sessions. </p><p></p><p>Thanks again, I look forward to more discussion!</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ashkhar Ben, post: 6168310, member: 6749162"] This is all very logical, and has gotten my wheels turning. Like you said, this system has been in development for a while but, my innovation streak has grown a little stale as I've been working on some iteration of these rules for over four years (initially started as Sci Fi hack for Mass Effect, then original Sci Fi System, then convert to Fantasy to accommodate my gaming group's campaign world: Ashkhar. The focus has been on Ashkhar for nearly two years now, and as I said, I'm getting a case of the stale eyes.) If I were to make a change to the system, I would probably do something like removing Melee Combat, Ranged Combat, and Movement. I would then create three new skills, Might, Coordination, and Tactics. Might would be useful for strength based movement, heavy melee fighting styles, lifting heavy stuff, etc. Coordination would be based around balance, lock picking, art, dancing, and of course ranged combat. Tactics would involve the other more ethereal aspects of the Movement skill, that of Tactical decisions, piloting, processes, efficiency, moving from cover to cover, etc. I think this way you could still keep those three skills applicable for various combat actions, just like Melee, Ranged, and Movement can now, but it opens up a slew of new options and makes a little better sense. It does eliminate some of the "training" aspect of melee and ranged combat, but that can be explained with Tactical. There could be an optional trait or rule that says that any attack can be made with Tactical, although at a -1d6 penalty or something. Tactical could also be used to fire trebuchets and other non-coordination non-might attacks (like shooting an arquebuss.) [B]To your grohlkin fighter[/B] Thanks for taking the time to make a character! I'm glad that it went pretty smoothly. It seems to be a pretty typical "combat heavy" build that I've seen a lot in my playtests. This type of character can do pretty well in exploration and combat, but doesn't excel in social interaction. But all in all, well rounded and a pretty common build (with lots of variations of course.) Most of the players who do build a grohlkin fighter type favor going unarmed, but there aren't many weapons that can modify an unarmed attack that I would allow mechanically. In one playtest game, one of my playtest GMs reasoned that some kind of metal claws or a gauntlet would assist with the Grohlkin's unarmed attack, and thus gave him a bonus to damage (but no bonus to attack/defend.) Also I noticed that you didn't pick a second trait, was there a reason for this? Combo attack goes well with this type of character build, and is one of the more favored for combat-heavy characters. Yeah, I was trying to be clear with the math that it all either applies as a bonus or penalty to the number of d6s rolled. I can probably clarify that a bit more. The only exception to this is that there are bonuses to bonus damage, which is just a flat damage. As to maneuvers like Perturb, that penalty is against the enemies, which have a static number, not dice. In combat or any kind of obstacle, the players make all of the rolls, not the GM. So for example, if a player used Perturb, he would roll his Influence dice pool (let's say it is 3d6). He rolls 3d6 and gets 2 successes. The GM notes that the bad guy he is trying to use Perturb against has a Resist Value (RV) of 1. This means that the player got 1 success over the enemy's RV, essentially dealing "1 Perturb Damage." This would then apply to the enemy's AV or DV for its next roll. So if this same character wanted to shoot a bow at the bad guy he just used Perturb against, the enemy's DV would be 1 less, in essence giving the player a +1d6 bonus to his ranged AV. I like to reduce bloat as well, although I'm trying to make them feel different based on the minimum requirements and what penalty is applied. This is easier to do in the complete ruleset, as there are many more mechanical advantages or disadvantages, but in Basic we had to kind of dumb down a lot of the maneuvers. This could probably be streamlined or give other riders to the effects (don't want to make them too complicated.) The idea of "offensive" or "defensive" weapons is that while they excel in a particular field but suffer in another. It is designed to be the first modification available for basic weapons, and simply relate to the overall design/function of the weapon. The other modifications elevate the quality of the weapon. I enjoy separating attack and defense, as I think it's simply easier to understand and mechanically manufacture. I've seen some of the playtest groups practically hand-wave combat, they make a few combat rolls, the GM counts the number of successes, and says "you guys defeat the enemy squad in such and such fashion, you all lose 1 Fatigue." Each to their own. In game terms, there are abilities that encourage loss of limb. Even one of the maneuvers, hack and slash, specifically allows someone to lose a hand or foot. There will be some "beast maneuvers" that do similar things. Since "character equivalent enemies" can use these advanced maneuvers just like a PC can, it is a real possibility for the character to lose a limb. If you mean what penalty is applied to the loss of a limb, that I haven't really specifically stated, and probably won't. It is one of those "the GM and player have to figure it out." The ability is more interesting from a cultural level, in that if a grohlkin army isn't completely defeated and destroyed, their wounded (even severely wounded) will eventually restore to full ability even without the aid of magic. It makes them a more dangerous and grueling fighting force. As to the distinction between Attacks and other actions, I just like it mechanically. Making multiple attacks in a round is pretty strong, and there are easy enough ways to eliminate that. I don't want to penalize high skill characters though, especially in an encounter that specifically isn't combat oriented. That could be made clear through some rewording of some of the circumstances, but I think this way still is clear and works fine. Never has come up before with any of my other playtests. It isn't a bad idea though. A lot of the playtest GMs, now that they've gotten used to the system and typical values for most of the character's skills, they don't even play with any bad guys/difficulties written down. I try to make it as intuitive as possible, and GMs can hit that expert level in the matter of a few sessions. Thanks again, I look forward to more discussion! [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
New system design: Ashkhar RPG
Top