Grim-n-Gritty: Revised and Simplified

[mafisto]

Ahh but you don't discount my comment of masochists on Monte's boards *grin*
Actually I think it could be interesting in the setting and storyline as well. I definitely appreciate teh flexibility of AU and will be running it in mid may (can't start sooner due to conflictin gschedules sadly) but I don't think my group would enjoy the grim n gritty rules. Altho who knows maybe they would. maybe I'll have people look at them and if they like em we'll try them out. If everyone hates em in play we'll dump em.

Honestly, if you can get everyone to at least give the rules a shot you may be in for a pleasant surprise. The rules are tough on PCs, but they're also very tough on NPCs, which can bring a real sense of excitement to the game. If you're smart, you can take on way more than you could in the core rules (hint: ambushes are awesome!) Combat isn't so much a bunch of crunching numbers ("let's see, I have 75 hit points, so should last eight rounds against this guy with a longsword...") but more of an "aw, crap, here we go again" wild ride. If you confront someone toe to toe and win you feel like major badass. And don't get me started on mages - I've never seen players so proud of their level one spells as these.

Perhaps it's not cinematic in a Conan the Barbarian way, but it's certainly cinematic in a Miyamoto Musashi way, especially at higher levels. Higher level fighters can kill with a single blow, and higher level mages elicit fear and awe from everyone. I know G&G can sound like a getting-your-ass-whooped fest, but my players have become much better tacticians and roleplayers than ever before.

Finally, with the original G&G rules there's little to change if you want to go back to core rules. Aside from Defense and Protection scores, just about everything else stays the same. In case of a pending mutiny, just recalculate a few stats and you're back to chopping away at each other like trees.

And if you do this in AU, please let us know. That would absolutely crazy and I'd love to hear how it pans out. I love the idea of a non-level (rolling?) playing field from the very beginning.

 

[SSquirrel]

Honestly, if you can get everyone to at least give the rules a shot you may be in for a pleasant surprise. The rules are tough on PCs, but they're also very tough on NPCs, which can bring a real sense of excitement to the game. If you're smart, you can take on way more than you could in the core rules (hint: ambushes are awesome!) Combat isn't so much a bunch of crunching numbers ("let's see, I have 75 hit points, so should last eight rounds against this guy with a longsword...") but more of an "aw, crap, here we go again" wild ride. If you confront someone toe to toe and win you feel like major badass. And don't get me started on mages - I've never seen players so proud of their level one spells as these.

Perhaps it's not cinematic in a Conan the Barbarian way, but it's certainly cinematic in a Miyamoto Musashi way, especially at higher levels. Higher level fighters can kill with a single blow, and higher level mages elicit fear and awe from everyone. I know G&G can sound like a getting-your-ass-whooped fest, but my players have become much better tacticians and roleplayers than ever before.

Finally, with the original G&G rules there's little to change if you want to go back to core rules. Aside from Defense and Protection scores, just about everything else stays the same. In case of a pending mutiny, just recalculate a few stats and you're back to chopping away at each other like trees.

And if you do this in AU, please let us know. That would absolutely crazy and I'd love to hear how it pans out. I love the idea of a non-level (rolling?) playing field from the very beginning.

Ok ya have me convinced...so long as Ken will update the rules with the new examples he wrote today *hint hint* I'll direct my would be players to look at that and give me their ideas.

Ken>Those new examples had me almost falling outta my chair man. The combat with Otis was too freakin funny. Right now I know we'll be having a Verrik 3 / Wolf Totem Warrior 2 and a Giant 3 / Unfettered 2 in the group. 2-3 more players will be in the group, one of which I'm almost sure won't be playing a spell caster. The other one may. I'm not allowing Oathsworn in the game so magic is a likelihood for him. I think the Oath will be a bit hard to work into it in the beginning since I'll be running a couple of pregens courtesy of Monte to start with. Maybe down the line I'll allow them. I just don't want to have constant "I'll protect my friends" oathes heh.

Just dropped this discussion link to one of my players. *grin*

Hagen

 

[KenHood]

Updated Version of the Rules

Okay folks,

Here's an updated version of the rules, with the examples in this thread added as an appendix.

 

[Kemrain]

Though I've downloaded and intend to read your new rules, having read the thread and seen what people hav to say about it, I don't think it's for me. That said, I'm currently playing in a game running with your 3.3 rules, and I just wanted to say "Thank you!"

When I read your 3.3 rules, I was thrilled to find that someone had done my work for me. I'd been looking for a more Grim and Gritty way of handling combat in the d20 system. It was perfect for a Dune game I played in (where we made the mistake of applying wound pelanties to Defense, too. Made combat VERY tense.), and its working very well in my current game. I've made your 3.3 system a standard addition to my players handbook.

My current GM made the switch when he discovered that his players would wade into combat without fear, having run the math and figured out that their opponent couldn't do enough damage to drop them in the first 5 rounds. Combat wasn't something to be feared, it was a mathematical exercise. Since we've switched, Combat has become more deadly and less predictable in some important ways: a single hit might spell death, even if we're hit much less often (multiclassing can net VERY high Defense). Combat is still predictable in that we can figure out about how many HP an opponent has however, and those numbers vary much less. The change has been dramatic, and everyone at the table enjoys the new rules.

I noted that you recieved a lot of negitive feedback for your troubles, and that you've found that the people who dig your work tend to be a quiet minority. I wanted you to know there's another group out there who quietly digs your work, and is very grateful that you went through the trouble to make this system, and put it out for free.

- Kemrain the Appreciative.

 

[Pielorinho]

I just read the rules; while I'm unlikely to use them, they look pretty darn interesting, and I'd love to play a oneshot with them at a con.

I do think that folks who want to allow for small characters could use the G&G rules as written with small characters; they would just need to make some modifications to the small races. Namely, dramatically increase the dex bonus for smaller races, and give them weapon finesse for free, and maybe even grant them a free sneak attack die. Conversely, a system like AU might grant larger dex penalties to giants in order to partially make up for their current benefits under GnG.

After all, although an elephant will squish a fly quite easily if it hits, it's gonna have a heckuva time hitting. Meanwhile, the fly might not do much damage to the elephant, but it can pretty much hit the elephant wherever it wants.

I want to emphasize that these are not criticisms of the rules as written, but rather suggestions as to how to make a small race that's playable under the GnGRAW.

Daniel

 

[KenHood]

I do think that folks who want to allow for small characters could use the G&G rules as written with small characters; they would just need to make some modifications to the small races. Namely, dramatically increase the dex bonus for smaller races, and give them weapon finesse for free, and maybe even grant them a free sneak attack die. Conversely, a system like AU might grant larger dex penalties to giants in order to partially make up for their current benefits under GnG.

A simpler solution: Base all melee attack bonuses on Dexterity, rather than Strength. Strength only increases damage.

Big creatures with high Strength tend to have low Dexterity. Small creatures with high Dexterity tend to have low Strength.

Then, make the Weapon Finesse feat permit a character to use Dexterity bonus for damage.

Otis the Ogre with a normal attack bonus of +9 (+4 base, -1 size, +5 Strength, +1 weapon focus) ends up with an attack bonus of +3 (+4 base, -1 size, -1 Dexterity, +1 weapon focus).

Harold the Halfling ends up with an attack bonus of +9 (+4 base, +4 Dexterity, +1 enhancement). His damage bonus changes because of Weapon Finesse. It changes from short sword: 1d6 – 3 (+0 Str, +1 enhancement, -4 size) to 1d6 + 1 (+4 Dexterity (weapon finesse), +1 enhancement, -4 size).

The big guys end up hitting less, but still with a load of damage. The little guys hit the same amount, but have a little more damage.

 

[DonAdam]

These rules are super smooth. And yes, Ken is quite funny.

The rules are especially good using the standard d20 rules as a base. That said, I think Conan has the best take on defense (parry and dodge being two separate options); I'm undecided about which works better for armor as DR (Conan gives armor penetration and lets finesse weapons sometimes bypass armor, Ken's system adds damage for better attack rolls). I would lean towards Ken's system as more elegant because its faster and allows bypassing armor at multiple levels. Ken's life meter is also unqualifiedly superior to hit points for the style.

I love associating special maneuvers with crits, makes them a fun element of the game without the constant headache of them being tried every turn.

Another benefit of this system: since most tough characters will have some amount of DR (Soak), you do away with what I consider a silly paradigm, that the guy who has been punched alot (subdual damage) can get pricked with a knife and fall unconscious. It doesn't come up that often, but it has become an issue with things like armor as damage conversion and Green Ronin's psychic's handbook (a whole class of adventurers that ALWAYS gets knocked unconscious rather than killed from a sword blow... bizarre). Because of the soak, they only relate on substantial hits (as a side note, in the regular hit point system, I've come to the conclusion that real damage should work like real healing and also convert a like amount of subdual damage to real damage).

I think the suggestion (to help small characters) to switch Dex to the to-hit stat is fine, but I think it goes over the top with weapon finesse. Because dex is adding to hit and damage, and when you beat defense you add that much to damage, you're effectively adding twice your dex to damage in addition to adding it to hit and to AC. That might make dex the uber stat++. Maybe have weapon finesse make armor penetration easier?

 

[SSquirrel]

I think the suggestion (to help small characters) to switch Dex to the to-hit stat is fine, but I think it goes over the top with weapon finesse. Because dex is adding to hit and damage, and when you beat defense you add that much to damage, you're effectively adding twice your dex to damage in addition to adding it to hit and to AC. That might make dex the uber stat++. Maybe have weapon finesse make armor penetration easier?

Actually no. Dex adds to the attack roll only in that variant. Strength is the stat that controls damage bonus.

With the standard version of the RGNG rules, in Arcana Unearthed you will have many many people decide to play a character with 3 racials levels of Giant (to get size large) and almost no one will play the Small Faen or the Tiny Sprites they turn into. The changing of attack bonus to Dex and damage to strength make sa lot of sense really. Ken is this something you would suggest as a permanent change or just if you were going to be playing in a world where there is a lot of variety in PC size?

Heh right now I know I already have someone playing a Giant 3/Unfettered 2 when we start that game, so with her 10' Reach and being large, she'll do massive damage.

Hagen

 

[DonAdam]

Actually no. Dex adds to the attack roll only in that variant. Strength is the stat that controls damage bonus.

Not accurate.

The amount by which I beat their defense increases damage. Dexterity, by adding to the attack roll, thus adds to damage (though not at 100%).

If you then add weapon finesse, letting Dex add to damage on the damage roll, you let Dex count twice.

I like moving the attack roll to Dex (thus removing the same problem from Strength and getting rid of the silly dragon's always hit phenomenon) but I think the Weapon Finesse suggestion goes too far.

 

[KenHood]

Ken is this something you would suggest as a permanent change or just if you were going to be playing in a world where there is a lot of variety in PC size?

I wouldn't make it a permanent change. It was just a suggestion for those who wanted to "even up" stuff with the small guys.