Anybody excited by Undead Presidents Press?

[SteveC]

Just a quick note: there's a new design diary up today, the subject is skills.


--Steve

 

[whydirt]

Anyone know if they're still looking for playtesters for Summa Fantasia? I thought I saw one of the Dead Presidents post something about it the other day.

 

[reanjr]

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.

Personally, I think moving to full attacks is going backwards. As for the system in general I think the full-round action thing is a bit inelegant. I'm not sure what to replace it with, but I know I don't like it. Also, the spell point thing is going overboard. Why not keep the current system? The only issues that crop up are spells that cause damage each round. I believe it best to deal with those spells on a case by case basis rather than revamp the entire system. Not to say the spell-point system is bad, I just don't think it belongs with the 1 action system. It clouds the purpose of the entire document.

I prefer a two-action system. All the things you can do are either actions or double-actions. Full Attack is replaced by simply taking two seperate attack actions. If you want to do a full move, you just take two move actions.

You can cast two spells per round. Contrary to common wisdom, I've never found that this overpowers casters. There are some creatures whose best tactic is to stay moving to avoid full attacks. If a fighter who can only make a move-attack against this creature each round and a wizard who can move-cast in a round are considered equal than a fighter who attacks 3 times in a round should be on equal footing with a wizard who can cast two spells in a round.

While it may seem at first that two attacks weakens a high level melee character, it doesn't affect things all that much due to the high AC of opponents at that level. If you have an Attack Bonus of +16/+11/+6 (about average for level 11 melee combatant, offhand) you are fighting creatures with an AC of 20 (average of random sampling of 4 CR 11 creatures). Average number of successful attacks per round is 1.8. With +16/+16, average number of successful attacks per round is 1.7 with a slightly higher critical confirmation rate.

I do appreciate people willing to make these kinds of drastic changes to the system, though, and I hope they continue with that sort of thing. Especially if they can disentangle them.

 

[DonAdam]

Anyone know if they're still looking for playtesters for Summa Fantasia? I thought I saw one of the Dead Presidents post something about it the other day.

Shoot Joe Miller an email, he's in charge of coordinating playtesters: washington@undeadpresidentspress.com

Also, the spell point thing is going overboard. Why not keep the current system? The only issues that crop up are spells that cause damage each round. I believe it best to deal with those spells on a case by case basis rather than revamp the entire system. Not to say the spell-point system is bad, I just don't think it belongs with the 1 action system. It clouds the purpose of the entire document.

We felt the change to spells (even instantaneous spells) was needed because of the loss of full attack actions; when we had to approach spells from the ground up, we decided to balance them per encounter, which is why the change is so radical.