Anybody excited by Undead Presidents Press?

[Zoatebix]

I just read their design diaries (http://www.undeadpresidentspress.com/columns.html) and both of their preview documents, and I'm really, really stoked. Their 1 action combat system has me particularly happy, and I'm keenly anticipating learning more about archtypes .

Wulf Ratbane is right about them needing a proofreader though.

Check them out here: http://www.undeadpresidentspress.com,

-George

PS - Has anyone out there who's familiar with the 1 action system and a fan of U_K's "Challenging Challenge Ratings" thought about retooling the numbers in the latter to work with the changes in the former?

 

[whydirt]

I've been wondering what people think about the 1 action combat system. I'd like to use the rules in an upcoming Arcana Unearthed campaign.

I was thinking about reinserting full-round attacks with a feat. Maybe something that allows for 2 attacks with a full-round action, where the first attack happens immediately and the second at the beginning of your next turn. I'd give both attacks a -4 penalty to hit and require a BAB of +6 to take the feat, since that's when Fighter-types would normally get a second attack.

 

[lp]

Yup the combat system looked nice to me too. I didn't look over the rest of the site much (its bookmarked but I'm busy)... I figured I would probably go through the spycraft books to steal few feats to allow multiple attacks at high levels as well, but as I generally play low level stuff it wouldn't be a big problem.

 

[HeapThaumaturgist]

Hrm. Godlike has a similar combat round ... 3 seconds, one action, severe penalties for trying to perform more.

We hated it. Hate hate hated it. I really like Godlike, but the simple fact of the matter was combat took twice as long. At least for us. And there's the thing. Different things work well for different groups. I'm sure for those designers the people they play with have alot of fast fun with 3 second rounds. For us it didn't seem to REMOVE any complexity, and just doubled the time combat took. Because people can only move or attack it's that much more important to decide what you're going to do any given round, so people are even MORE likely to sit and agonize and measure and judge and hem and haw around before deciding because they can move into a position and get snarked.

That and trying to run somebody down and whack them becomes fun ... I move, he moves, I have to move again ... he moves again. Etc etc. Ranged combat gets a heavy heavy boost because they can stay stationary and, basically, take two shots per D&D round because they don't need to move until threatened by an enemy.

--fje

 

[Laslo Tremaine]

This looks interesting.

I really like the Archetype system that they are proposing (at least from the overview that they have given so far).

The One-Action Combat System, I feel neutral about. I think I would have to try it out before I could make any sort of ruling on it. The one thing I do like about it is the, X number of spell points per encounter and 5X points per day. That is something that D&D could really use.

 

[John Q. Mayhem]

That's really interesting/cool and stuff...I doubt I'll be able to use it but I'll probably buy it.

 

[SteveC]

I just read their design diaries (http://www.undeadpresidentspress.com/columns.html) and both of their preview documents, and I'm really, really stoked. Their 1 action combat system has me particularly happy, and I'm keenly anticipating learning more about archtypes .

I'm very excited about this after what I've seen so far. When I first heard about Castles and Crusades and a simplified, streamlined version of D&D, I thought they would be doing something like what the presidents seem to be trying to do. So yes, I'm pretty happy about what they're trying to do. I suppose time will tell...Hmmn, I wonder if they're looking for play testers...

--Steve

 

[Crimson_Manticore]

I vote yes!

I am also really excited about the stuff the Undead Presidents are doing! I’ve been impressed by most everything they’ve put up so far. The one-action combat is slightly more complex than it needs to be, but I have the impression that what they put out is only half-way between the core rules and their final plans. Removing iterative attacks will go a long way toward speeding up high-level play, especially if they also lower the Hit point progression or have some reliable way to scale single-attack damage with level.

Anyway, I’m really energized by what I’ve seen so far. I hope that they are able to get a good, well-designed product out fairly soon without getting continuously delayed and bogged down like so many other new game publishers do.

 

[whydirt]

I just had a couple of ideas instead of adding in options for second attacks. You could go two ways:

The first is that for every 10 by which the attacker beats the defencer's AC, he lands an additional hit. This could either be an ability available to everyone (keeps things simple), available for free when your BAB hits +6 for one additional hit (two bonus hits at +20 above AC at BAB +11, etc...), or available as a bonus fighter feat.

The second is an option I've seen before, but could work well here. Instead of rolling damage dice from a hit, add the average weapon damage to the amount the attack beat the defender's AC.

Both of these options would require some adjustment of certain items and spells (like True Strike) and removing the bonus AC from character level as listed in the PDF.

These ideas are still very rough, but I'll try to think them over some more during the weekend.

 

[DonAdam]

Cool

Wow. Didn't expect to see this here. Thought we were pretty much under the radar thus far (which wasn't disappointing, just expected).

Yeah, we definitely blew the proofreading on the 1-action. A revised version should be up later tonight or tomorrow. We also forgot to put the magic item changes in. Charged, single use items, and scrolls should cost more given the changes to spells.

The system in the pdf is definitely way more complex than what's in Summa; we hadn't looked at 1AC for a long time until a couple weeks ago, and I was floored by the difference.

We're going to do our best to have Summa out in pdf in the summer. We can't promise a print edition until we see how the pdf does; this is a part time thing for all of us.