Grim-n-Gritty: Revised and Simplified
- Thread starter KenHood
- Start date
FraserRonald
Explorer
SSquirrel said:
Ask and ye shall receive. I also believe in giving credit where credit is due. If you have time, whip by the review again.
Merci!
Take care all.
Speed and Movement Rules
Hi all,
As I promised days ago, we just have posted our rules about pursuits and movement.
I had to create a new post just to follow the forum policy, although we treat it as a complement to the G-n-G rules we use.
You can find the document at http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?p=1559903#post1559903
We'd be really happy if you could post any comment about them.
Thanks again.
Hi all,
As I promised days ago, we just have posted our rules about pursuits and movement.
I had to create a new post just to follow the forum policy, although we treat it as a complement to the G-n-G rules we use.
You can find the document at http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?p=1559903#post1559903
We'd be really happy if you could post any comment about them.
Thanks again.
Last edited:
Ken - first off, nice to see you back. Sorry to hear about you not gaming (assuming that wasn't your decision), and hope you end up doing it again someday.
Anyway, I was looking through my old stuff and trying to sort out the varying versions of the psionics system that I have, and I was wondering which version had the Five Cardinal Skils? I have a printout (sans date, unfortunately), of a version that had that. It looks to be an earlier version, since it was only 22 pages, but I could be wrong. I'm curious as to when that idea was removed/came about.
Also, I'm wondering if the "completepsionics.rtf" file is the latest version. It's dated 12/10/2001, so it's the latest version I have.
Hmm ..to get back on topic, about the revised GnG rules. First, very cool. Haven't tried them out yet, but I'm thinking of running a game this summer that they would be very cool for. I just have one caveat with them, and it relates to the critical hits, and possibly a semantic difference in how we think of critical hits. My idea of them has always been that you get lucky and hit a vital spot, and it seems odd to hit for a critical, then decide where the critical would go. Not a big problem, though, and I think I'm just going to modify it slightly and have the GM decide which critical threat to use based on where the player attacked the enemy.
Anyway, I was looking through my old stuff and trying to sort out the varying versions of the psionics system that I have, and I was wondering which version had the Five Cardinal Skils? I have a printout (sans date, unfortunately), of a version that had that. It looks to be an earlier version, since it was only 22 pages, but I could be wrong. I'm curious as to when that idea was removed/came about.
Also, I'm wondering if the "completepsionics.rtf" file is the latest version. It's dated 12/10/2001, so it's the latest version I have.
Hmm ..to get back on topic, about the revised GnG rules. First, very cool. Haven't tried them out yet, but I'm thinking of running a game this summer that they would be very cool for. I just have one caveat with them, and it relates to the critical hits, and possibly a semantic difference in how we think of critical hits. My idea of them has always been that you get lucky and hit a vital spot, and it seems odd to hit for a critical, then decide where the critical would go. Not a big problem, though, and I think I'm just going to modify it slightly and have the GM decide which critical threat to use based on where the player attacked the enemy.
doghead
thotd
KenHood said:
According to my copy of the revised rules*:
Base Defense Bonus = BAB + Dex mod or Total Reflex saving throw (inc Dex mods).
ie BDB = BAB + Dex mods *or* BDB = base Reflex save + dex mods.
Have I missed something?
While I'm here. We're just kicking off a pbp gng game at the moment. But the question of how flatfooted affects defense came up during character generation, as did Uncanny Dodge. If the above is correct, then you just lose your dex mods (and Uncanny dodge allows you to keep them?) when flat-footed?
*I have the .pdf rather than the .doc version as I don't have a .doc reading application. I know that there were some updates/alterations in the .doc version but I think that I have caught most of them.
Fieari
Explorer
Well, I pitched the system to my group recently, and they eventually decided against it, preferring the more cinematic approach. One additional complaint did arise though, with regards to the specifc spell Magic Missile... as you start going up in levels, enemies with soak start comming into play more and more. Magic Missile, in straight D&D, is useful more or less forever, but in this, it seems that with soak greater than 5, it becomes 100% completely worthless. And if you modify the spell to ignore soak, it becomes god-like.
There are a number of spells and effects that work by deal large numbers of very small attacks... the epic level spell Crown of Vermin comes to mind. Straight D&D, that spell deals 1000 points of damage to anything that comes too close. In GnG, it deals NOTHING to ANYONE who has ANY soak AT ALL, since it works by dealing 1 point of damage at a time repeatedly.
Any thoughts on how to handle this? I know you don't mean to deal with re-writing spell lists and CRs and all that, but this seems like a common enough situation that a general solution is needed. How do you deal with effects that would deal a large amount of damage, but in rapid small bursts?
Oh, by the way, the biggest complaint from my players was that it forces you to ambush ALL THE TIME and that they think that would get a little boring after a while. "We beat the troll by ambush." "We beat the ogre by ambush." "We beat the dragon by ambush." "Oh boy, another ambush." was the specific complaint, if I recall correctly. We only did a couple trial runs, converting the characters to the new system and then pitting them against various foes to see how it worked out, and they noted that for most things, it was whoever struck first that won, few other factors withstanding.
I'm really interested in hearing more playtest stories. The comment about the archer now being actually effective really struck a chord with me, and the leathality of it all does make things, in my mind, raather appealing. I agree about the fact that most D&D heroes aren't heros at all, because there's no risk. But unless I can convince my players, it won't happen, and convincing players won't happen unless I can show them stories that appeal to THEM about the system...
There are a number of spells and effects that work by deal large numbers of very small attacks... the epic level spell Crown of Vermin comes to mind. Straight D&D, that spell deals 1000 points of damage to anything that comes too close. In GnG, it deals NOTHING to ANYONE who has ANY soak AT ALL, since it works by dealing 1 point of damage at a time repeatedly.
Any thoughts on how to handle this? I know you don't mean to deal with re-writing spell lists and CRs and all that, but this seems like a common enough situation that a general solution is needed. How do you deal with effects that would deal a large amount of damage, but in rapid small bursts?
Oh, by the way, the biggest complaint from my players was that it forces you to ambush ALL THE TIME and that they think that would get a little boring after a while. "We beat the troll by ambush." "We beat the ogre by ambush." "We beat the dragon by ambush." "Oh boy, another ambush." was the specific complaint, if I recall correctly. We only did a couple trial runs, converting the characters to the new system and then pitting them against various foes to see how it worked out, and they noted that for most things, it was whoever struck first that won, few other factors withstanding.
I'm really interested in hearing more playtest stories. The comment about the archer now being actually effective really struck a chord with me, and the leathality of it all does make things, in my mind, raather appealing. I agree about the fact that most D&D heroes aren't heros at all, because there's no risk. But unless I can convince my players, it won't happen, and convincing players won't happen unless I can show them stories that appeal to THEM about the system...
doghead
thotd
Fieari said:
I think that one of the underlying intentions of the system is make it very dangerous to go toe-to-toe with an large monster like an ogre or dragon. Ken posted a sample of play where 4 4th level characters did this and got slaughtered in a few rounds. On the other hand, it makes the 'ordinary' monsters (ie: orcs, gnolls, bugbears, hobgoblins and goblins) potentially much more challenging, and thus interesting. Even the higher level characters won't be able to just shrug off a band of goblin worg riders (especially if I can learn to play them right
).Both of these things are advantages in my opinion. The common monsters will play a significant recurring role - better reflecting their stonger presense in the world. The exotic ones will appear only occasionally, and will be taken on with only a great deal of planning.
I can understand how the thought of spending the entire campaign planning ambushes for large monsters could be a little off putting. One solution lies in changing the nature of the campaigns. Start with a raiding party of orcs. If your players are fairly used to battling larger monsters, it might come as a rude shock to find the orcs (especially raging ones) proving to be dangerous opponents. If it were me, I'd play the orcs to the full - a couple of kills/having to retreat might get the players respect for the more 'ordinary' monsters. It could be followed by a number of things - rescue someone captured in the raid; find and kill the orc chieftan; get out of the area alive.
Hope that that helps.
Well I've been slowly reading over the rules and this thread for the last couple of days, and I'm pretty pumped about the revised rules. I to will probably implement the 2 4 8 16 rule to make small and large creatures not as horribly outclassed (I like playing halflings), but that's about all I will change withoutu doing some playtesting.
Anyway, thanks to Ken for the rules, and to the other guys who really seem to be jumping onboard. These rules will really change how my players game.. which is scary because they already try to avoid most combats when I'm running.
Hope to see the rest you guys around in these threads.
Anyway, thanks to Ken for the rules, and to the other guys who really seem to be jumping onboard. These rules will really change how my players game.. which is scary because they already try to avoid most combats when I'm running.
Hope to see the rest you guys around in these threads.
