O.L.D. Playtest Document: Book I - Characters (October 2014)

[Morrus]

One potential gameplay issue I noticed. The fifth level of knight-errant make you immune to ranged attacks. Sounds great! Until you're an archer character and you GM made the villain a fifth rank knight-errant. Now your character is completely useless. Maybe you get a large defense bonus against ranged attacks or reduce the damage instead.

You're right - it is a powerful ability. It's a (minimum) 10th grade ability, assuming the squire/knight/knight-errant progression, so it's very high level; and I hope the system encourages a bit of diversity in builds so the archer wouldn't be completely stymied. That said, I think that a single high level archer vs. a single high level knight errant would be an unusual piece of encounter design on the part of the GM. I will consider switching that to a high DEF bonus instead, though.

I was considering an arcane-archer-esque tradition which required Mage III and Archer III to enter. It would be able to circumvent such things.

 

[User_Undefined]

Instead of an opposed check, I was thinking maybe reduce the arrow's damage dice by X (actual number pending playtesting). In effect, it means most arrows just bounce off the shield, but even the best knight slips up sometimes. The archer might damage him, but it would probably take some luck dice and trying to stack as many exploits as possible. Another question would be would the immunity count during an ambush. Flavor-wise the ability is there because the knight knows how and where to use his shield, so I'd say that the ability only works when you are aware of the archer. RAW the knight-errant can't even be sniped by an enchanted seeking arrow fired from across the continent.

EDIT: Slightly more positive, I'm liking the new traditions and exploits. I get they're going to be some of the last things added, but more variety is always appreciated. The idea of a warrior monk with an amped jump height, Death from on High, and Opportunist Stomp makes me giggle.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

? Knight Errant V: When you have a shield equiped, any physical ranged attacks suffer a penalty based on the size of the shield. 1d6 for bucklers and small shields. 2d6 for medium shields. 3d6 for large shields. 4d6 for tower shields.

I don't like the idea of reducing damage dice simply because it is a new mechanic that is roughly equivilent to increasing SOAK.


I would think Arcane Archer would more be Mage III and skill BOW III; Mage Blade as Mage III and LongSword III. Each rank of these advanced traditions would have a specialize Path(s) that only they could learn and an exploit that is essentially "You may make a normal attack with your weapon and deliver the spell effects as part of casting a spell. The attack deals normal weapon damage as well an any spell effects. Charm/Compel/Transform effects must beat the targets mental defense in addition to the physical defense when delivered by a weapon."


Warrior Monk....Ha! I just watched a very silly (B- or maybe C+ level) movie that had a Demon Hunter whose name was "Astounding Foot".... His attack was to jump really high and then his 20' long invisible/force foot would smash the target into a pancake!

 

[Vlagrate]

Out of curiosity, how much playtesting has been done on the progression system itself? I remember that the original document gave you a die per 2 points in a score, but groups wanted to reduce the sheer number of dice being rolled, which resulted in the current attribute-to-dice scale.

I'm decidedly unhappy with the progression rules thus far, because players need to go through 2 separate formulas in order to get an extra die. The thresholds at which a character gets extra dice are 1, 3, 6, 10, 15, 21 & 28. Assuming cinematic advancement costs and starting attributes of 1, the XP investment thresholds are 0, 5k, 20k, 54k, 119k, 230k & 405k respectively. Skill costs follow a similar curve.

Granted, there are derived statistics or prerequisites that involve most attributes, providing some benefit between new dice, but only a handful of skills are involved. Whether or not the investment into individual stats is worth it between dice+ thresholds, advancing skills or attributes directly quickly becomes cost prohibitive, especially when advancing traditions is an option.

Granted, traditions can only be advanced during downtime (which precludes their purchase during single-adventure campaigns), but given how much XP is required to acquire meaningful advancement in either attributes or skills, how many parties will have such an amount to spend in the middle of an adventure? For that matter, how much time is required to learn a new skill or advance an attribute?

 

[Morrus]

Out of curiosity, how much playtesting has been done on the progression system itself? I remember that the original document gave you a die per 2 points in a score, but groups wanted to reduce the sheer number of dice being rolled, which resulted in the current attribute-to-dice scale.

On the dice pools per attribute - craploads! The current table is the result of a LOT of playtester feedback over several months.

On the XP table - those numbers are mainly placeholders for now. There hasn't been much XP advancement feedback other than a few first-read reactions. Hopefully some
will arrive soon! I imagine there's a close to 100% chance that particular thing will develop some.

Granted, traditions can only be advanced during downtime (which precludes their purchase during single-adventure campaigns), but given how much XP is required to acquire meaningful advancement in either attributes or skills, how many parties will have such an amount to spend in the middle of an adventure?

Depends on the adventure! Monster XP can rack up fast (the current N.E.W. Document has some examples), and storyline XP doesn't have any guidelines yet but should be a sizeable amount.

For that matter, how much time is required to learn a new skill or advance an attribute?

None at all - when you spend the XP it's instantaneous.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

I actually think the current attribute to dice scale itself is working, however there needs to be tweaks on the XP side and a huge look at the spells that modify attributes and/or related dice. We definately need to retain the magical ability to alter attributes via Infuse/Drain/Move Force {strength}/Transform.. but the cascade effects of re-calculating everything {in combat} gets messsy.

Take for instance an Infuse Earth 5. Easy peasy, your STR attribute goes up 5 points.
Which may mean you get an additional Die, or maybe two. Your speed may go up. Your DEF might go up, or might not. You gain an amount to your carry weight. If you expect to have this cast on you, you need to do all the calculations. In my group the Cleric has this as a Mass Strength spell and everytime it is cast we spend a bit of time clarifying what the spell did to each character.

If a BBEG hits the group with a Drain Earth 5, well.. the player couldn't forsee that so play would have to stop while everyone recalculated. The Archer wouldn't really be affected {AGI+END} while the Halfling Barbarian would be hit harder {and might lose a point or 2 of Speed}
Which is, IMHO, how it should be.. but its a pain to do in combat.

So how to keep the awesome level of detail in the spell where Drain Earth might not be as powerful as you thought even if it does hit, while not slowing down gameplay?

Incidently, the Mental Def for creatures probably needs looking at as well, perhaps granting a bonus based on the level of sentience. Its almost not worth rolling vs animals since their Mental Def is so low. My recent foray into critter building the Drider Mage has the highest Mental Def at a 16... pitiful compared to the Physical Defence of the Monstrous Spider at 26 {plus a SOAK 10}
At a minimum I would recommend that one half of the MAG attribute gets added to Mental Def ...highest two of INT, LOG, and WILL plus 1/2 MAG/Psi/Ki. Using this method the Drider Mage would have a mental DEF of 22 and would be much harder to affect than a Troglodyte or Skeleton with a Mental Defence of 10.

Maybe just a flat +5 DEF for Brainless and +5 for the target being a type not equal to your own (Animal/Abberation/Ooze/Undead/Dragon/Humanoid.. with Monstrous and normal together} That way a Brainless Skeleton would have a Mental DEF of 20.

Okay, I think I have wandered off track somewhere.. what were we talking about?

 

[Morrus]

I

Incidently, the Mental Def for creatures probably needs looking at as well, perhaps granting a bonus based on the level of sentience. Its almost not worth rolling vs animals since their Mental Def is so low. My recent foray into critter building the Drider Mage has the highest Mental Def at a 16... pitiful compared to the Physical Defence of the Monstrous Spider at 26 {plus a SOAK 10}

Is that because you're using your hybrid system. Old O.L.D. monsters and new N.E.W. attributes? Animals have high INT scores and lack of sentience increases MD. Non-sentience gives immunity.

Using this method the Drider Mage would have a mental DEF of 22 and would be much harder to affect than a Troglodyte or Skeleton with a Mental Defence of 10.

Eh? There's no drider mage or troglodyte or skeleton. If you want your homebrew critters to have higher stats, give 'em higher stats.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

Looks like I need to re-read the N.E.W. monster creation rules

 

[RisTigger]

I just noticed this while helping a player make a mage, but all the magical traditions increase Intuition and some have prerequisites for Intuition. Why is this when magic now works off Logic? I get the feeling it's an accidental hold over from the previous play test document?

 

[Morrus]

I just noticed this while helping a player make a mage, but all the magical traditions increase Intuition and some have prerequisites for Intuition. Why is this when magic now works off Logic? I get the feeling it's an accidental hold over from the previous play test document?

My copy doesn't say that. You might need to re-download it - I don't think you have the latest one.