Introducing Enlightened Grognard

[pawsplay]

I
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.

I disagree. By mid-level, a wizard may have adventured for literally years. Simply because he focuses on casting does not mean he's not going to get practice doing other things. Speaking from my experience with combat sports, it's very possible to pick up plenty of skill through osmosis. It would be really difficult, in my mind, to go traipsing into orc-infested territory and not, from time to time, pick up some pointers from the party fighter. Really, a member of just about any class engaged in the usual adventuruous activities should know a modicum of stealth, swordplay, wilderness survival, climbing, bluffing, haggling, and so forth.

The bookish wizard stereotype has some humor value, but it doesn't hold up to inspection, nor is it well-reflected in the literature. Merlin, Gandalf, the wizard's apprentice in Dragonslayer, Elric, and every evil wizard in every Arabian Knights movie ever have all been portrayed as capable swordsmen.

 

[CuRoi]

I disagree. By mid-level, a wizard may have adventured for literally years. Simply because he focuses on casting does not mean he's not going to get practice doing other things. Speaking from my experience with combat sports, it's very possible to pick up plenty of skill through osmosis. It would be really difficult, in my mind, to go traipsing into orc-infested territory and not, from time to time, pick up some pointers from the party fighter. Really, a member of just about any class engaged in the usual adventuruous activities should know a modicum of stealth, swordplay, wilderness survival, climbing, bluffing, haggling, and so forth.

You know - I'd agree with this sentiment. I mean if a Wizard is decent at shooting rays from his finger tips, there's no reason he couldn't be decent at say aiming a crossbow. In either case it's targetting an enemy in the middle of combat with a ranged attack. In fact, I could see an argument for Wizards being naturals for ranged weapons. They need to constantly judge distance and environmental factors on the fly as they cast spells. Thats a good step toward other types of missile combat.

Adventuring parties are like special ops teams I'd think. And just because one is highly specialized in one discipline (say the "demolitions guy") doesn't mean the rest of the group has to haul his dead weight around until something needs to be blown up. I know stereotypical DnD is like that, but I definitely see the argument that it doesn't have to be.

 

[mxyzplk]

Hey, just started reading through EG and I like it. You've done a bunch of work! I similarly was initially intrigued by the 4e changes but eventually disappointed, but not happy with the state of 3.5e evolution either.

Question - why the six BABs when there are only three defenses? Did you consider just having fort/ref/will both attacks and defenses to simplify? Seems like this system wants to go more Tri-Stat.

I'll also agree with some of the other folks you'd do well to change the name especially if you're looking to intrigue noobs - only the old guard knows or cares what a grognard is in the first place.

I like the boiling down of the skill list. I don't agree with removal of Diplomacy etc, however, I understand the rationale but to me it's more a syndrome of people making a whole encounter hinge on one Diplomacy roll and not having interesting social options, it'd be like making combat into one "roll BAB, on 15+ you kill the other guy. Next!" Now, i thought that maybe you could just use CHA BAB instead of having a skill, since you could argue Diplomacy is just trying to be "CHA but better." But then I noticed Endurance is kind of a "CON but better" skill. In general it seems like skills could fade into the background more or synergize better with the six BABs and four Defenses. Why aren't skills based on the BABs with a small bonus, just having somewhat fewer skill points would balance it out.

Why not collapse Search into Perception like Pathfinder does?

I like generalizing Disable Device to proactive Tinkering. PF comboes Open Locks and Remove Traps into DD but it's nice to get activation in there (and maybe call out sabotaging explicitly as well).

Have you considered making a Move(ment) umbrella skill that can take specializations? The Ride/Handle Animal/Survival breakup isn't compelling, and you get a bit of the "if I get athletics I can climb and swim and everything". Move (Ride), Move (Fly), Move (Swim)...

I like the removal of full attacks and all that. I find it a little odd to still have the like six different kinds of actions (free, immediate, etc, etc...) - that's complexity I could do without.

More later... good work!

 

[Scott DeWar]

Adventuring parties are like special ops teams I'd think. And just because one is highly specialized in one discipline (say the "demolitions guy") doesn't mean the rest of the group has to haul his dead weight around until something needs to be blown up. I know stereotypical DnD is like that, but I definitely see the argument that it doesn't have to be.

I was just brousing through and saw this comment in bold. I am avid reader of Tom Clancy novels and there is a lot of spec. ops action those stories. You might want to read a few to get the feal of that comment better. it might open up some new thoughts as to the part that adventures play. The comment: "they are all great shooters" was used to describe the team of the main characters.

if the party wishes to be a mecenary band, there should be a commen action that theya re good at (informatin aquisition for example, but with their own special task ability : Traps, meat shield, distraction tactis .. .. .. ..

I am just throwing this out there in hope that it is helpful.

 

[Janx]

I disagree. By mid-level, a wizard may have adventured for literally years. Simply because he focuses on casting does not mean he's not going to get practice doing other things. Speaking from my experience with combat sports, it's very possible to pick up plenty of skill through osmosis. It would be really difficult, in my mind, to go traipsing into orc-infested territory and not, from time to time, pick up some pointers from the party fighter. Really, a member of just about any class engaged in the usual adventuruous activities should know a modicum of stealth, swordplay, wilderness survival, climbing, bluffing, haggling, and so forth.

The bookish wizard stereotype has some humor value, but it doesn't hold up to inspection, nor is it well-reflected in the literature. Merlin, Gandalf, the wizard's apprentice in Dragonslayer, Elric, and every evil wizard in every Arabian Knights movie ever have all been portrayed as capable swordsmen.

I concur. In real life, i am a senior software developer with a patent. The equivalent of a higher level wizard. I'm also a black belt, had ground fighting and fencing courses, and taught myself to play guitar. I can also paint and write. And I'm not even a genius, nor really old.

Star Wars Saga introduced the idea that high level PCs get a bonus on skills they didn't spend points in. Basically reflecting that high level PCs learn some skill outside of their focus area. Combat is just such an area.

Thus, as supported by real life, fiction, and even game system design, a high level PC is justified in having skill in other areas he would be naturally exposed to over time, like stealth, and combat. Possibly even magic. While the rogue and wizard got some pointers from the fighter, and wizard and fighter learned to be more stealthy, the rogue and fighter could have at least learned some arcane knowledge. Maybe they still can't cast a spell, but they can recognize things that a skill check would allow.

What should be undesired from any rule change, is one class being so good they can overshadow the class thats's dedicated to an art. thus, the wizard, while he COULD wield a sword, he's not great at it compared to the fighter or rogue. But he's better than incompetent at it.

At high levels, that's no big deal to model. The wizard has a low BAB, but better than 0. Let him wield a sword, he's still going to miss more than the rogue. At low level (say 1st), everybody's got a +0 or +1 BAB, and the wizards not much worse than anybody else. That might be a bit unfair.

 

[amnuxoll]

I really like what I see so far.

Thanks for saying so!

Now, convincing my guys to give it a try is a whole other matter...

Good luck. I'd be tickled if you got it to go. I've recently converted a couple of bits of other material to EG right now to aid players in my home campaign:

• the traits from the player's guide for the Serpents Skull adventure path (Paizo)
• the Oracle class in Pathfinder
• the Arcane Trickster prestige class

I've been pleased with how easy it has been to do those conversions.

:AMN:

 

[amnuxoll]

You know - I'd agree with this sentiment. I mean if a Wizard is decent at shooting rays from his finger tips, there's no reason he couldn't be decent at say aiming a crossbow...Adventuring parties are like special ops teams I'd think. And just because one is highly specialized in one discipline (say the "demolitions guy") doesn't mean the rest of the group has to haul his dead weight around until something needs to be blown up. I know stereotypical DnD is like that, but I definitely see the argument that it doesn't have to be.

I don't have a strong objection to going with a minimum +1/4 to all BABs. I personally prefer it better without. I think the combination of Refocused Attack and the fact that multiclassing doesn't make you sacrifice your maximum spell level means you can get much of the same effect with more flavor and more conscious character crafting.

Example: I have a player in our home group who is going to play an Arcane Trickster. If you're familiar with that prestige class, it's a Wizard+Rogue combo. I'm really pleased with how the existing mechanics already force some balanced but fair tradeoffs for this type of character, particularly with regard to BAB. We'll have to add very little to the game to support that concept.

 

[amnuxoll]

Hey, just started reading through EG and I like it.

Thank you!

Question - why the six BABs when there are only three defenses? Did you consider just having fort/ref/will both attacks and defenses to simplify? Seems like this system wants to go more Tri-Stat.

I had some very similar thoughts when I was building this. I think you'll agree that 4e wants to be Tri-Stat in some ways as well. Ultimately, I didn't go that way because I wanted to keep the game as similar to the original as I could. I guess, to me, it's just not D&D without Str, Con, Dex, Int, Wis, & Cha (and sometimes Com).

I'll also agree with some of the other folks you'd do well to change the name especially if you're looking to intrigue noobs - only the old guard knows or cares what a grognard is in the first place.

No argument. Someone please rescue me by suggesting a new name that will make the game more "marketable." I'm hopelessly bad at such things.

I don't agree with removal of Diplomacy etc, however, I understand the rationale but to me it's more a syndrome of people making a whole encounter hinge on one Diplomacy roll

I realize that most experienced players don't make this mistake. But all it takes is one munchkin to sour the experience for everyone. I saw it happen far too often, especially in public venues like game stores and conventions. On the other side, I'm also drawing on the positive roleplaying experiences I've had with other systems that lacked Diplomacy and Intimidate skills. I really think that's not an accident. But I acknowledge that some players would really prefer to house rule those skills back in.

Why aren't skills based on the BABs with a small bonus, just having somewhat fewer skill points would balance it out.

Well I'd never thought of this. What do others think?

Why not collapse Search into Perception like Pathfinder does?

Well I took a somewhat different tack. Perception is passive only so it's your ability to notice something you're not aware or looking for versus not your ability to find something you know might be there. That's different from 3.5e and Pathfinder where a player can say "I want to make a Perception check to see if I can see where that sniper is." Now that player would use Search for that purpose. This makes Perception less of a "must have" skill and also avoids tempting the players to metagame in many situations.

Have you considered making a Move(ment) umbrella skill that can take specializations? The Ride/Handle Animal/Survival breakup isn't compelling, and you get a bit of the "if I get athletics I can climb and swim and everything". Move (Ride), Move (Fly), Move (Swim)...

I did spend time thinking about importing the Fly skill from PF. I hadn't considered taking it as far as you've indicated here. My impression is that it becomes almost a "skill tax" for players with certain abilities. Also, I want to move away from having to make a skill check every time you take a move action. That slows the game down a lot. I like the idea of "I can fly" and then that's the end of it.

What do others think? Should EG have movement skills like this?

More later... good work!

I'm looking forward to it.

 

[amnuxoll]

I concur. In real life, i am a senior software developer with a patent. The equivalent of a higher level wizard. I'm also a black belt, had ground fighting and fencing courses, and taught myself to play guitar. I can also paint and write. And I'm not even a genius, nor really old.

This is rather anecdotal! =) FWIW, I am a higher level wizard than you are by your definition and also definitely not a genius. (Contact me off list if you'd like to have a wizard duel!) Nonetheless, I disagree (albeit very mildly) with this sentiment. See my comments in the post above.

 

[pawsplay]

Well I took a somewhat different tack. Perception is passive only so it's your ability to notice something you're not aware or looking for versus not your ability to find something you know might be there. That's different from 3.5e and Pathfinder where a player can say "I want to make a Perception check to see if I can see where that sniper is." Now that player would use Search for that purpose. This makes Perception less of a "must have" skill and also avoids tempting the players to metagame in many situations.

That's what Fantasy Craft did, and I think it works well.