Thieves' World d20

[EricNoah]

Some examples of healing: The Cure X Wounds have been changed to Convert X Wounds, converting damage from lethal to non-lethal damage. There is a prestige class that has, as the 3rd level ability to Create Healing Salve: Cure 1 pt damage, give +2 to healing check, double healing rate for next 24 hours.
There are rules for permanent damage, like scars and ability losses.

Wow, that sounds frighteningly close to the house rules I'm using in my AU game. (The AU rules already have a "common" healing spell that turns one person's hit points into the caster's subdual damage -- I took it a step further and did what Convert Wounds apparently does). I have rules for crafting herbal remedies that increase healing rate. I have rules for injuries and a "damage threshold" that's tied to CON score (with possibility of mobility injury if crossed in one blow).

In my game, players spend much more time unconscious than they do "dying". They spend a little more time between encounters recuperating. It's a different pace, but I wouldn't call it more lethal.

 

[Nightfall]

I can't wait for this book!

 

[Patrick O'Duffy]

Speaking as the guy who wrote most of the combat tweaks, it's not that Thieves' World combat is more lethal; it's that it has more long-term aftereffects. And yes, death can be one of those - but so can lingering injuries, weakness, infection, scarring or simply remaining hurt for long periods.

Standard D&D combat is calibrated so that a party can enter multiple combats per day at peak or near-peak efficiency. TW combat is calbrated so that more time needs to elapse between fights, because the combatants are busy recovering from the last one. That (hopefully) encourages characters to explore other problem-solving avenues - bribes, theft, magical bargains with evil powers - before rushing into combat. What it doesn't (hopefully) do is make combat so dangerous that it stops ever being a problem-solving option - because TW is as much about desperate action as it is clever skullduggery.

 

[Tharen the Damned]

Playtester View

My group and me, we playtested BCCS and TW. It is indeed as Patrick pointed out: You have to play a different style in comparison to Core D&D. As we first started with BC my players did the normal D&D thing: Sword out and whack the enemy. That was really deadly. Not only for the enemy, but also for the PCs. As they are bright lads, they adapted. You do not attack without knowing what the enemy can do and what not. You do not attack without a plan. And you always try to have the surprise.
And gues what? It worked!
Now it was even possible for the PCs to take on much larger Groups and anihilate them. Thanky to a plan and surprise.
Knowing how to do "Grim and Gritty" we started with TW.
TW rules are Grim and Gritty.
My Players did not die very often. Some got scars and injuries. But if you play TW the Grim and Gritty style, you will survive the odds. And sometimes that means to use the rearward charge action!
Even playing without magical healing is possible without rolling for new PCs every session.

Felon, wait until TW is out, have a look at it, play it and you will see, that the playstyle follows the Rules.

 

[Akrasia]

Since we have some of the GR design team around ...

How do the rules measure up in terms of 'heaviness'/'crunch'? Ditching the 3e magic system and the reliance on magic items suggests that the game will play somewhat lighter and faster than 'default' D&D. Deadlier, and thus fewer, combats is also a good thing IMO. But does TW introduce just as much (or even more) 'crunch' back into the game? (I hope not -- I didn't bother to pick up BC for this very reason.)

Also, how viable would it be to run TW with GR's True20 instead of standard d20?

Thanks!

 

[swrushing]

[/QUOTE]

How do the rules measure up in terms of 'heaviness'/'crunch'? Ditching the 3e magic system and the reliance on magic items suggests that the game will play somewhat lighter and faster than 'default' D&D. Deadlier, and thus fewer, combats is also a good thing IMO. But does TW introduce just as much (or even more) 'crunch' back into the game? (I hope not -- I didn't bother to pick up BC for this very reason.)

I would say the magic system adds back in as much crunch as it removed, if not a little more, from our playtests. Its was very playable and fun, but i couldn't say it was less crunchy.

Also, how viable would it be to run TW with GR's True20 instead of standard d20?

I have read True20 but not run anything with it. it could indeed be used to run a TW campaign, in which case the TW RPG would make for good source material. Obviously, you would have to make whatever adjustments to the True20 magic you felt was necessary to capture the feel of the magic and port in the cultural info and such.