Introducing Enlightened Grognard

[Clownmite]

Yeah, I may try a test battle or two to see how the token system would work in straight 3.5.

Also, what would you think of allowing players to exchange 3 tokens of 1 type to gain 1 token of another type, like 3 speed tokens for a power token?

 

[amnuxoll]

Also, what would you think of allowing players to exchange 3 tokens of 1 type to gain 1 token of another type, like 3 speed tokens for a power token?

I think that's reasonable. I recommend against a 1-for-1 exchange though.

A reason not to allow exchanges is that it devalues teamwork a bit. My current gaming group talks about tokens as we play. Examples: "Can someone spare a power token? I need one more to get sneak attack in next turn."

 

[Clownmite]

So, another thing about D&D that I've never liked was that weapons were generally only different by the dice that they roll damage with. I was thinking of ways to spice things up, and had the idea that some of the initial tokens in battle should be generated by the weapon someone is wielding. Instead of getting 2 tokens of your choice at the beginning of battle, why not get 1 token based on category (simple, martial, exotic) and 1 token based on how it's wielded (light, 1-handed, 2-handed). I came up with the following table:

http://i.*****.com/DOmnq.png
(I didn't include ranged weapons, but they could easily fit in)

To read the chart, just match up the type of tokens for the row and column (i.e, a Greataxe is Strength and Strength, Nunchaku is Speed and Insight). Now each weapon is differentiated not only by damage dice, but the tokens you get for wielding it. (I'm not sure whether I should flip the tokens associated with simple and exotic weapons).

Furthermore, maybe we can work up special attacks that can only be used by a particular weapon type? Say, if you're wielding a weapon that uses Strength/Insight, you can spend one type of each token to gain a special attack?

As a side note, have you thought about letting characters gaining an additional amount of tokens of their choice at the beginning of the battle equal to their Charisma modifier? It would make it less of a dump stat.

Finally, I was thinking of having Light weapons deal double or triple damage in a grapple (granted I'm probably gonna go with a hybrid system of 3.5/EG/my own for grapples). That way a light-weapon wielder could actually deal some serious damage by grappling and stabbing. (I'm thinking of allowing heavier weapons to be used in a grapple, but with no damage bonus added to the dice.) That way even strong characters would want to keep a dagger on them, in case they get grabbed by a Giant or something.

 

[amnuxoll]

Clownmite:

That chart is pretty awesome. I heartily approve! (One nit: They are Power tokens not Strength tokens.) You may also want to check out the Weapon feats. It may give you a jump start on your weapon-based ability ideas.

I thought seriously about using Charisma modifier or Wisdom modifier as the method for determining starting tokens. Ultimately, I used a flat amount because I didn't want anyone to start with less than 2. I thought about something like 3 + Cha modifier but that might yield too many tokens for a character. Feel free to try it though! I could be over thinking it.

 

[Janx]

Finally, I was thinking of having Light weapons deal double or triple damage in a grapple (granted I'm probably gonna go with a hybrid system of 3.5/EG/my own for grapples). That way a light-weapon wielder could actually deal some serious damage by grappling and stabbing. (I'm thinking of allowing heavier weapons to be used in a grapple, but with no damage bonus added to the dice.) That way even strong characters would want to keep a dagger on them, in case they get grabbed by a Giant or something.

Nice chart and idea.

Since my very first PC, I have always carried a ranged weapon, melee weapon, and a dagger for grappling/groundfighting.

It might be all but useless to grapple and use a bigger weapon, but IF you can get a stab in with a dagger, it'll be more lethal because you are probably going to stick it in deep, versus slash somebody. And kind of cestus or brass knuckles would also help for pummelling.

I'd warrant that it is harder to hit, but the damage should be higher. That would sort of balance things out, and support the concept.

Thus, a grapple from behind to hold, and plunge a dagger into their back ( a scene oft repeated in film) for 3d4 damage should be enough to kill most level 1 NPCs.

 

[Clownmite]

You may also want to check out the Weapon feats. It may give you a jump start on your weapon-based ability ideas.

I read through all your feats and spells yesterday, there's definitely a lot of good stuff in there. I may try to tie some of them to specific weapon types.

Even with the table I made out, I think a lot of weapons still feel too similar. I can further divide weapons up by damage type (slashing, bludgeoning, etc) or by weapon type (sword, axe, etc), since both of those are in core but don't really do anything. I don't want to overcomplicate things though. Please offer any suggestions if you have any. If I could come up with something like the Spearchucker feat you have, but for each weapon type, that could be fun.

Since my very first PC, I have always carried a ranged weapon, melee weapon, and a dagger for grappling/groundfighting.

It might be all but useless to grapple and use a bigger weapon, but IF you can get a stab in with a dagger, it'll be more lethal because you are probably going to stick it in deep, versus slash somebody. And kind of cestus or brass knuckles would also help for pummelling.

I'd warrant that it is harder to hit, but the damage should be higher. That would sort of balance things out, and support the concept.

Thus, a grapple from behind to hold, and plunge a dagger into their back ( a scene oft repeated in film) for 3d4 damage should be enough to kill most level 1 NPCs.

Yeah, that was my reasoning behind that idea. I'll have to do some more thinking to figure out the exact mechanics.

 

[Clownmite]

One other thing I wanted to ask was what would you think if tokens could be spent retroactively 1-for-1 for everything? The main problem I see with this is that it could lead to a loop of someone increasing their attack by 1, other person dodging (speed token) for one, etc. I don't know how this would be avoided; maybe each party could only pledge tokens as a single immediate action after the dice is rolled, so no back-and-forth could occur.

The reason I was thinking of going this route is that many times, a token will be wasted when declaring attacks. If you spend 3 tokens to gain a +3 to hit, and you roll a natural 19, then you didn't need those tokens to hit in the first place, and could have spent them on damage; alternatively, if you rolled a 2, you probably missed and wasted the tokens. Each token you spend to increase your to-hit will be wasted 95% of the time (or, the only time X tokens would matter would be if you missed your roll by X).

I have yet to run a battle with the token system, but in your experience, do players often spend tokens to hit other than when they want to apply a feat?


I think with weapons, I'm going to divide things as follows:
Bludgeoning: spend 1 power token to unbalance enemy or knock him into an adjacent square.
Slashing: spend 1 power token to attack 2 adjacent enemies in your reach (same attack and damage roll for each).
Piercing: Spend 1 power token to roll an extra damage dice.

Another random idea: Shields are widely regarded as not worth it compared to wielding 2 handed weapons, so what if in addition to the AC bonus, shields either negated or forced a re-roll on any damage dice that come up as maximum?

Finally, you should post EG on the Giant in the Playground forums, I think you'd be well received and get a lot of good feedback.

EDIT: And some more questions. You gain a speed token any time you move in combat, even if you're not in a threatened square, right? So if you're not threatened, you can theoretically Refocus, Move, and Total Defense to gain 6 speed tokens in a turn, right?

Also, the unbalanced condition is a bit strange - if you're forcing someone to take a move action, they can just step backward and step forward to negate the unbalancedness. Why not force them to take a 5 foot step instead?

 

[Aloïsius]

I'm very slowly exploring the beta E.G. I downloaded some weeks ago. The more I read it, the more I like it overall, but there are a few things that annoy me.
Right now, I'm somewhat perplexed by the specialities/craft skill sub-system. I mean, you need at least 15 related specialities to craft a masterwork item. So, let's say I want to craft a mithral chain shirt. I have blacksmithing, armorsmithing, mithral smithing, mail smithing, chainshirt smithing... and then, what else can I imagine to specialize enough to reach the "masterwork" quality ? I need 10 more related specialities, because, with the five I get, I will only reach the "average" quality....
I could probably double each of those with the knowledge speciality skill, but it feels highly awkward.

A solution could be to create three level of the skill speciality : initiate, competent, master. The first rank you invest make you initiated (worth one related skill), the second rank makes you competent (worth two related specialities), and the third makes you a master of this kind of knowledge/craft/profession. (worth three ranks...)

What do you think ?

 

[amnuxoll]

Aloïsius:

I'm delighted that you're reading through the EG beta. My group met for another session today and are enjoying ourselves playing one of the Paizo Pathfinder adventure paths.

What do you think ?

One of the observations I've made about D&D 3.5e is that crafting rules give players enough rope to hang themselves. When PCs can make magic items (or unusual items like a mithral shirt) they are in danger of ruining the economy of the game at the least and overpowering their characters at worst.

In 2e, the ability to craft a magic item was firmly in the hands of NPCs. In the rare case when PCs needed to craft an item (because of a plot or a PC's personal goals) then the DM had firm control over how and when that occurred. It's my belief that it's a much better approach so I've architected Enlighted Grognard to use that approach.

That said, some players and/or DMs really like crafting. if a DM is running a campaign where players crafting is desired then the amendment you propose makes perfect sense.

:AMN:

 

[Aloïsius]

I was talking about non-magical item. Masterwork items precisely. I think that, even if it's just for background reasons, one should be able to play a legendary blacksmith, or at least a renowned one. Or the DM should be able to design NPC able to forge a masterwork armor or weapon without using DM's fiat. I have no problem with such a character needing a lot of levels, but I have a problem with the player or the DM running out of imagination to give new specialty to his character in a focused field. I cited mithral not to make a better armor, but because that was the only added specialisation I could imagine (because specializing in "iron" seems kind of strange, since it's somewhat the default metal used...).

As they are right now, the rules do tell what you have studied/learned, but they tell that you were a very bad student and are unable to do anything but the crudest items (even not of the standard quality), unless you are able to imagine a dozen related specialisations ("forging chainmail during the winter nights, when it's raining outside and my back is itchy...").

As for the DM controling the creation of particular items, well... Mithral shirt are made of mithral, which is supposed to be a very rare and expansive material, you don't craft out of thin air. If you add the time requisite (and place, and tools...) for crafting anything, I don't see how players could be at danger of threatening the game balance if they are able to make a living from their non-adventurous skills, be them craft, knowledge or profession.