Introducing Enlightened Grognard
amnuxoll
First Post
Thanks, pawsplay. I'll throw my hat in the ring.
Also, thanks to Alphastream for his kind comments. I think you were my biggest critic?!?
Also, general FYI, my local group is warming up to play Paizo's current adventure path with EG. The DM is a relative newbie so we'll see how he does.
Also, thanks to Alphastream for his kind comments. I think you were my biggest critic?!?
Also, general FYI, my local group is warming up to play Paizo's current adventure path with EG. The DM is a relative newbie so we'll see how he does.
AdmundfortGeographer
Getting lost in fantasy maps
Have you considered giving the rules a name change?
Out of curiosity, Eric...do you think the rules name is limiting to an audience?
I will admit, I clicked on this thread, originally, because of the "gorgnard" in the title.
But I'd certainly be interested in hearing your reasoning behind the comment.
--Steel Dragons
AdmundfortGeographer
Getting lost in fantasy maps
I think the name might be a limitation on its acceptance outside of word of mouth circles and those with an affinity towards the term.
This is a complete anecdote, but I've heard from among those I've gamed with or near (at conventions) say that the "grognard" term has entered their bucket of "tired" terms.
It's nowhere near the sort of off-putting like Panty Explosion, and I'm not equating them, but a more marketable name I think is achievable . . .
pawsplay
Hero
Enlightened Grognand says, "I am a grognard, and I have found the solutions I was seeking to life's great mysteries." I think it's expressive in that way. but it could be off-putting if it seemed like you were telling other people what was best for them. What it does not say is the kind of play experience you are offering. "Trailblazer" says "Like Pathfinder, a 3.5 variant that makes use of your 3.5 books," and Fantasy Saga tiptoes around some interesting trademark issues, but we get what they're saying. Enlightened Grognard sort of says, "I may be a retro-clone, or maybe not; maybe I'm some kind of highly experimental 'indie' game based around a dungeon skeleton; you'll have to read me to find out."
Wonderful job here. I have been working on something very similar to this - sort of a 3.5/4/Trailblazer mish-mash. I've done some very similar things, though I think I took mine a bit further (and probably would alienate more traditional DnD fans - I made hamburger of more than a few sacred cows and even mixed up the ability scores). I just got tired of the exact same things you mentioned with rules bloat, out of control bonuses and the like.
At any rate, nice work!
At any rate, nice work!
amnuxoll
First Post
Eric:
Yes, I have. I realize that it'll be turn off to some potential players. But I'll be darned if I can think of something I'm willing to replace it with. I _don't_ want another alliterative two-word name like "Tunnels and Trolls" or "Swords and Sorcery". I _do_ want a name that says "D&D done right" because that's how I think of it. Ideally something that will catch the eye of even a newbie gamer.
It's a tall order but there it is.
:AMN:
amnuxoll
First Post
My thanks to you, sir. Let me know if you get a chance to try it out.
GhostBear
Explorer
I took some time to skim over some of the sections (races, classes, one of the others - I honestly forget!), plus the original post, and I really like what I see so far.
One thing that I particularly like is that taking a level in a class gives you some extra benefits at first level - but only if that is your first class level. This helps side-step the multi-class abuse that I have seen in too many games (if I take one level of X, and one level of Y, and one level of Z, I'm so uber, then I just level up my main class again).
I also like the different attack stats. It really doesn't make sense that a L4 wizard should be able to fight as effectively with a longsword as a L1 warrior, nor should a warrior be familiar with finger-lasers. It does add more rules and numbers to look after, but in this case, I think it's a good change.
I disagree with an above poster who recommended that every class get some fractional base bonus to all attacks. A wizard is a wizard is a wizard, and isn't going to be spending his time learning about the fine art of swordplay unless he's actually planning on learning the trade of a fighter. A wizard is going to spend his time on what he's good at - casting spells.
Similarly, a fighter knows how to hit people, throw stuff, and use a bow. If a fighter decides to start studying the almighty pew pew, then finger-lasers will be a totally new experience.
I'd actually rather see a little bit less "auxiliary" BCB overall.
Simplifying spell durations is also great. Breaking spells up into 18 levels gives casters something to look forward to every time they level up. Basic classes decorated with lots of feats removes the need for a bazillion ridiculous prestige classes (ugh), allowing for a lot of customization and, for those who enjoy it, lots of interesting choices for optimization.
I still have a lot to look over a lot of the material, but from what I have seen, I really like it. It would be great to see this in a web-based format; if you don't want to deal with bandwidth, domain names, etc., then one of the many free Wiki sites out there might be the way to go.
Thank you so much for sharing your hard work.
Now, convincing my guys to give it a try is a whole other matter...
One thing that I particularly like is that taking a level in a class gives you some extra benefits at first level - but only if that is your first class level. This helps side-step the multi-class abuse that I have seen in too many games (if I take one level of X, and one level of Y, and one level of Z, I'm so uber, then I just level up my main class again).
I also like the different attack stats. It really doesn't make sense that a L4 wizard should be able to fight as effectively with a longsword as a L1 warrior, nor should a warrior be familiar with finger-lasers. It does add more rules and numbers to look after, but in this case, I think it's a good change.
I disagree with an above poster who recommended that every class get some fractional base bonus to all attacks. A wizard is a wizard is a wizard, and isn't going to be spending his time learning about the fine art of swordplay unless he's actually planning on learning the trade of a fighter. A wizard is going to spend his time on what he's good at - casting spells.
Similarly, a fighter knows how to hit people, throw stuff, and use a bow. If a fighter decides to start studying the almighty pew pew, then finger-lasers will be a totally new experience.
I'd actually rather see a little bit less "auxiliary" BCB overall.
Simplifying spell durations is also great. Breaking spells up into 18 levels gives casters something to look forward to every time they level up. Basic classes decorated with lots of feats removes the need for a bazillion ridiculous prestige classes (ugh), allowing for a lot of customization and, for those who enjoy it, lots of interesting choices for optimization.
I still have a lot to look over a lot of the material, but from what I have seen, I really like it. It would be great to see this in a web-based format; if you don't want to deal with bandwidth, domain names, etc., then one of the many free Wiki sites out there might be the way to go.
Thank you so much for sharing your hard work.
Now, convincing my guys to give it a try is a whole other matter...
