Thieves' World d20

[thalmin]

Granted, no monsters, and I'm glad they can understand themes, but do they appreciate game machanics? In D&D, humans with character classes can outdamage most monsters anyway. Magic is the main defense characters rely on.

Let me ask some specifics here. If curative spells don't remove damage, and characters can't count on magical bonuses to AC, is the damage output of a power-attacking barbarian with a greatsword significantly lessened? Does a rogue still receive 1d6 sneak every other level? Do we have action points, fate points, anything like that?

Damage output is the same as core D&D. Sneak attack damage for the THIEF is unchanged. I didn't see any fate or hero points. The world is dangerous.

 

[Felon]

Then so far it sounds pretty disappointing. Dangerous I can accept, grim-n'-gritty I enjoy, and I desperately want alternatives to D&D's video-game approach to fantasy, but that's not a license to simply decide there won't be any real mechanics in place to allow characters to survive the damage they're going to sustain in a combat.

All glib comments about grit aside, characters are probably going to get in a tussle or two somewhere in the course of a Thieves' World campaign whether they like it or not, and it's tough to move a plot along when half the party dies in every fracas.

In particular, it seems patently insane to have rogues inflicating +1d6 damage every other level. That's pretty deadly stuff in D&D. In TW, even low level sneak attacks will force MDT saves.

 

[HellHound]

Felon - I disagree.

If there are mechanics in place to make characters survive encounters, then the element of deadliness is seriously reduced. I don't think you can have both "brutal and deadly" and "easily survived" in the same set of mechanics, and I don't think that every game should embrace one or the other.

 

[Barrier Peaks]

All glib comments about grit aside, characters are probably going to get in a tussle or two somewhere in the course of a Thieves' World campaign whether they like it or not, and it's tough to move a plot along when half the party dies in every fracas.

In that case, it relies on the player characters to use their brains a little bit more than their sword arms. Yes, combat will occasionally happen, and characters will probably die. Such is life in Sanctuary. My best advice for player groups is to pick their fights wisely.

My only advice to you is that you give it the once-over before you dismiss it completely. You're perfectly entitled to your opinions, but the book hasn't been released yet. Even I don't know all the details.

Gary

 

[Felon]

Felon - I disagree.

IMO there's nothing to disagree with here--we're talking pretty straightforward principles. Even Paranoia has a "send in the clones" rule, and WarHammer has fate points. People don't want to make up new characters after every little dust'em-up.

Just for a second, stop dwelling on the importance of ensuring the deadliness of the setting, and focus on the pragmatic elements of having a world that players arre going to have function in.

If there are mechanics in place to make characters survive encounters, then the element of deadliness is seriously reduced.

Don't have to make sure they survive. Do need make sure that party devastation isn't all but guaranteed. A barbarian with a two-handed greatsword and no magical defenses can easily output enough damage to kill himself in one round, as can a sneak-attacking rogue.

 

[HellHound]

Sorry, there's nothing to disagree with here--we're talking pretty straightforward principles. Even Paranoia has a "send in the clones". People don't want to make up new characters after every little dust'em-up.

Just for a second, stop dwelling on the importance of ensuring the deadliness of the setting, and focus on the pragmatic elements of having a world that players arre going to have function in.

Strange, even through there is supposedly nothing to disagree with... I still disagree.

I've run several very long term campaigns involving very deadly systems where one good shot is all it takes to write off a character. In those games, every character, low or high level, had the ability to deal lethal damage to just about any other character.

And it still worked, and the players loved it. In fact, I still get bombarded by requests to resurrect those old games, and I do sometimes. Last session we played of said game killed off 5 of the 6 PCs present, and everyone walked away with huge grins on their faces, stoked and hyped for the next game.

Coming at it from the 'nothing to disagree with' angle just makes your argument sound condescending to those of us who don't agree with it.

 

[Felon]

In that case, it relies on the player characters to use their brains a little bit more than their sword arms.

That sounds good, but what does that actually mean? After you hand out Darwin awards to the hack-n'-slashers, how do the brainy characters stay alive the first time someone fails a skill roll to sneak past a couple of guards, or the first that brainy character fails a Listen check for the guy creeping up on him? That stuff will happen all the time, even to smart characters.

The only real foolproof smart move is to not engage in any internecine activities. Are characters playing the sort of adventurers who will opt to stay home and play bridge instead of engaging in almost-certainly-fatal skullduggery?

Yes, combat will occasionally happen, and characters will probably die. Such is life in Sanctuary. My best advice for player groups is to pick their fights wisely.

Your post is dripping with blithe dismissal of some pretty significant issues. I suspect even if they opt to pick their fights wisely, sometimes the fight will be brought to them, no? How many times in a night do you think a DM can just shrug at the player of a freshly-dead character and tell him "hey, such is life in Sanctuary" before he earns a pop in the mouth? When a character dies, it doesn't just punish the character. It slows the game down big-time, and makes it pretty tough for a DM to create a cohesive campaign.

My only advice to you is that you give it the once-over before you dismiss it completely. You're perfectly entitled to your opinions, but the book hasn't been released yet. Even I don't know all the details. Gary

Fair enough. I'll check it out.

 

[HellHound]

Fair enough, but it sure seems you did your fair share of dismissal here.

Nowhere near as much as your post to me, I'm afraid.

 

[Felon]

And it still worked, and the players loved it. In fact, I still get bombarded by requests to resurrect those old games, and I do sometimes. Last session we played of said game killed off 5 of the 6 PCs present, and everyone walked away with huge grins on their faces, stoked and hyped for the next game.

Well, from everything I hear, you're a hella DM. I suspect there are probably a lot of groups where wiping out 5/6 of the party would sow some discontent.

Coming at it from the 'nothing to disagree with' angle just makes your argument sound condescending to those of us who don't agree with it.

Sorry, no offense, I'm throwing out pretty substantive issues, and they're just getting hand-waved without actually being addressed. That's an aggrivating experience.

Nowhere near as much as your post to me, I'm afraid.

Not my intent to dismiss or slight you (and I'm re-editing some of my posts in a vain effort to conceal my own intense exasperation) but I feel like I need something to sink my teeth into. If you're just saying "in my campaign players die like mayflies and they love it", then that doesn't wash for a rulebook that's intend to be used by gamers at large.

 

[thalmin]

Since Cure X Wounds has been changed to Convert X Wounds, healing is still available. It just takes longer.
The new massive damage threshold is now much lower, and tied to CON modified by size. But failing to make the Fort save does not mean instant death. It means you are reduced to -1 HP and dying.