-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Kiss The Five Foot Square Good-bye!
- Thread starter GMSkarka
- Start date
HeapThaumaturgist
First Post
I feel a quickening of interest within me ...
This is something pretty interesting.
--fje
This is something pretty interesting.
--fje
So i broke down and got it.. now i got questions lots of them.
When casting in the offensive stance, it seems that what spell cast does not matter. I could be a 5th level Wizard casting Fireball and do only a 1d to the damage threshold, or be a 1st level Wizard casting Acid Splash and do the same. That doesnt seems right. The same applies to fighters the weapon you wield does not add to the damage done to the damage threshold.
What effect does stating your position have? you would think being at range would mean that you take less damage.
Narrative Combat removes the distinction, from single and full round actions. I am not sure that this balances out. As some spells take a full round to cast, and what about fighters and their additional attacks? Yes, the inner table top wargamer wonders about all the little details, but I am the guy that has to explain why I wish to use this system over D20's tactical one.
When casting in the offensive stance, it seems that what spell cast does not matter. I could be a 5th level Wizard casting Fireball and do only a 1d to the damage threshold, or be a 1st level Wizard casting Acid Splash and do the same. That doesnt seems right. The same applies to fighters the weapon you wield does not add to the damage done to the damage threshold.
What effect does stating your position have? you would think being at range would mean that you take less damage.
Narrative Combat removes the distinction, from single and full round actions. I am not sure that this balances out. As some spells take a full round to cast, and what about fighters and their additional attacks? Yes, the inner table top wargamer wonders about all the little details, but I am the guy that has to explain why I wish to use this system over D20's tactical one.
Last edited:
Hey there. Let me see if I can help with these. I'm a bit dazed at the moment though (I'm preparing for job interviews) so I apologize in advance for the gibberish I'm about to write.
RE: Spells and Weapons and Things
It does seem odd that a 0-level spell and a 3rd level spell (especially one as iconic as fireball) do the same damage. Similarly an unholy flaming +3 longsword seems like a more powerful weapon than, say, a table.
Let's take your example of an acid globe and a fireball. Both default in the offensive stance to providing 1d of damage plus their associated damage types. So in default mode an acid globe contributes 1d (acid, magic) while a fireball contributes 1d (fire, magic). This represents the minimum level of effort a magician can make; he's not planning, thinking, or even describing his actions. The player's description might sound like "I throw a fireball! Fireball! Fireball!" *insert player jumping up and down here*
The second option is to make a Spellcraft skill check, representing the character's effort to control not just the power but the placement and impact of the magical effort. In this case the spell level plus its function (damage dealer or not) impacts the maximum number of damage dice the spell can possibly inflict. So....
Acid Globe - Max 1d (0 level spells have no maximum damage so we default it to 1) (acid, magic)
Fireball - Max 10d (3rd level area of effect spells deal a maximum damage of 10d by the rules in Core Rulebook II) (fire, magic)
Now we begin to see a difference. It doesn't matter how well the player rolls on his Spellcraft check with acid globe - he will ALWAYS do a maximum of 1d. Fireball, on the other hand has a hefty 10d cap; more than enough to accommodate most Spellcraft checks.
So, why would you use acid globe at all? It adds acid to a threshold, something that you will need on occasion.
RE: Position
This is a tough one to get a handle on. I'll give you the simple mechanical answer then delve a bit into the more esoteric parts of the logic.
Mechanically position affects targeted damage and tags the character for conditions/events in the template. If a character in Ranged position directly targets a character in Melee position (or vice versa) he suffers a -1d penalty, mitigated by feats. Your position may also invoke a conditional or event effect (say, Event (characters in ranged position): +1d general damage each round).
More esoterically the position variable describes your relative placement with regards to the encounter. It takes the place of the entire map-variable in standard d20 combat without giving you even a quarter of the functions. The map describes flanking, movement, range, penalties, types of allowed attacks, environmental conditions; position just gives a SWAG as to where a character stands.
Honestly I don’t use the Position variable much in my own games. It’s included in the book because it helped smooth the translation between standard d20 combat and the NC rules. If it makes you uncomfortable just drop it.
RE: Actions
I'll first break this down mechanically then bore you to death with the reasoning.
For spells: It doesn't matter. Standard d20 controls spells though a combination of map, resource expenditure, and round-time. NC controls spells by skill check/resource expenditure. Since we ditched the action-oriented round structure for intent-based "pulse structure", the action rules went right out the window.
For fighters: A greater number of attacks (basically, more dice of damage output) comes with raised Base Attack Bonus. In NC the greater your BaB the more likely it becomes you will generate multiple dice of damage. Fighters also generate generic types and extra dice of damage though feats.
The theory: Stances are not actions. A stance (offensive, defensive, active, support, or passive) represents the character's intent in the scene. The variables he selects represent how he wants to go about realizing that intent. He then describes the effort and decides whether or not to make a check or use the defaults for minimal effect.
Since a stance is not an action, a round does not take six seconds. It represents a scene "pulse"; basically the space in which every character in a scene acts then pauses to reassess the situation. To see this structure in action fire up your favorite action movie. Take a look at the way the director paced the exciting bits. It usually comes out as activity - breath - activity - breath - activity - pause or end. That's the structure of NC combat rounds; we use them to break up the action into understandable chuncks rather than control action timing.
RE: Why run Narrative Combat?
Because you are the GM and you want to?
In the end the choice comes down to what you want for a specific situation. Do you want highly detailed tactical combat? At times, you absolutely do. Other times you want to dispense with minor battles quickly, make combat the spice rather than the meat of a scene, or do things involving radically different scales than the tightly focused skirmish level combat system sustains. In those cases NC steps in to give you another tool set; not a be all end all set, not a best thing since sliced bread set, but a working set designed to help you do it consistently and fast.
Shannon
RE: Spells and Weapons and Things
It does seem odd that a 0-level spell and a 3rd level spell (especially one as iconic as fireball) do the same damage. Similarly an unholy flaming +3 longsword seems like a more powerful weapon than, say, a table.
Let's take your example of an acid globe and a fireball. Both default in the offensive stance to providing 1d of damage plus their associated damage types. So in default mode an acid globe contributes 1d (acid, magic) while a fireball contributes 1d (fire, magic). This represents the minimum level of effort a magician can make; he's not planning, thinking, or even describing his actions. The player's description might sound like "I throw a fireball! Fireball! Fireball!" *insert player jumping up and down here*
The second option is to make a Spellcraft skill check, representing the character's effort to control not just the power but the placement and impact of the magical effort. In this case the spell level plus its function (damage dealer or not) impacts the maximum number of damage dice the spell can possibly inflict. So....
Acid Globe - Max 1d (0 level spells have no maximum damage so we default it to 1) (acid, magic)
Fireball - Max 10d (3rd level area of effect spells deal a maximum damage of 10d by the rules in Core Rulebook II) (fire, magic)
Now we begin to see a difference. It doesn't matter how well the player rolls on his Spellcraft check with acid globe - he will ALWAYS do a maximum of 1d. Fireball, on the other hand has a hefty 10d cap; more than enough to accommodate most Spellcraft checks.
So, why would you use acid globe at all? It adds acid to a threshold, something that you will need on occasion.
RE: Position
This is a tough one to get a handle on. I'll give you the simple mechanical answer then delve a bit into the more esoteric parts of the logic.
Mechanically position affects targeted damage and tags the character for conditions/events in the template. If a character in Ranged position directly targets a character in Melee position (or vice versa) he suffers a -1d penalty, mitigated by feats. Your position may also invoke a conditional or event effect (say, Event (characters in ranged position): +1d general damage each round).
More esoterically the position variable describes your relative placement with regards to the encounter. It takes the place of the entire map-variable in standard d20 combat without giving you even a quarter of the functions. The map describes flanking, movement, range, penalties, types of allowed attacks, environmental conditions; position just gives a SWAG as to where a character stands.
Honestly I don’t use the Position variable much in my own games. It’s included in the book because it helped smooth the translation between standard d20 combat and the NC rules. If it makes you uncomfortable just drop it.
RE: Actions
I'll first break this down mechanically then bore you to death with the reasoning.
For spells: It doesn't matter. Standard d20 controls spells though a combination of map, resource expenditure, and round-time. NC controls spells by skill check/resource expenditure. Since we ditched the action-oriented round structure for intent-based "pulse structure", the action rules went right out the window.
For fighters: A greater number of attacks (basically, more dice of damage output) comes with raised Base Attack Bonus. In NC the greater your BaB the more likely it becomes you will generate multiple dice of damage. Fighters also generate generic types and extra dice of damage though feats.
The theory: Stances are not actions. A stance (offensive, defensive, active, support, or passive) represents the character's intent in the scene. The variables he selects represent how he wants to go about realizing that intent. He then describes the effort and decides whether or not to make a check or use the defaults for minimal effect.
Since a stance is not an action, a round does not take six seconds. It represents a scene "pulse"; basically the space in which every character in a scene acts then pauses to reassess the situation. To see this structure in action fire up your favorite action movie. Take a look at the way the director paced the exciting bits. It usually comes out as activity - breath - activity - breath - activity - pause or end. That's the structure of NC combat rounds; we use them to break up the action into understandable chuncks rather than control action timing.
RE: Why run Narrative Combat?
Because you are the GM and you want to?
In the end the choice comes down to what you want for a specific situation. Do you want highly detailed tactical combat? At times, you absolutely do. Other times you want to dispense with minor battles quickly, make combat the spice rather than the meat of a scene, or do things involving radically different scales than the tightly focused skirmish level combat system sustains. In those cases NC steps in to give you another tool set; not a be all end all set, not a best thing since sliced bread set, but a working set designed to help you do it consistently and fast.
Shannon
barsoomcore
Unattainable Ideal
I'm sold. Read over the demo and it's a bit "math-y" (me and my English degree tend to run screaming from terms like "variables" (which renders my current employment as a software development manager more than a bit fraught)), but the above conversation has gotten me sufficiently curious that I just need to have a closer look.
Any comments on how this might integrate with the "damage save" mechanic used in M&M?
Any comments on how this might integrate with the "damage save" mechanic used in M&M?
Geoff Watson
First Post
Sounds terrible.
It seems that character ability and players choices mean very little.
Ie: the only way to win the brawl is by doing damage.
All PCs do 1d damage, so the brawl takes PCs/20 rounds.
You can't intimidate, trick, calm, or otherwise deal with the brawlers, except by beating them up.
Sounds totally boring.
Geoff.
It seems that character ability and players choices mean very little.
Ie: the only way to win the brawl is by doing damage.
All PCs do 1d damage, so the brawl takes PCs/20 rounds.
You can't intimidate, trick, calm, or otherwise deal with the brawlers, except by beating them up.
Sounds totally boring.
Geoff.
I try to avoid the "mathy" feel but my day job (when employed) involves project management and IT governance. Some things just scar to the bone.
RE: Damage Save and Narrative Combat
I cannot seem to find my copy of M&M. The transition shouldn't take too much work
If its someting people have a strong interest in I will dig up the book and do the analysis. It will have to wait until at best next weekend or maybe December depending on how things turn out next week.
Shannon
RE: Damage Save and Narrative Combat
I cannot seem to find my copy of M&M. The transition shouldn't take too much work
If its someting people have a strong interest in I will dig up the book and do the analysis. It will have to wait until at best next weekend or maybe December depending on how things turn out next week.
Shannon
Geoff Watson said:
Gosh, you're pleasant.
Quite the opposite, really. You're misunderstanding how things work....which makes sense, since you haven't read the book.
Geoff Watson said:
Sure you can. I just gave a basic, simple example.
The GM is the one who creates the templates...you can create complex templates with multiple success thresholds and methods.
For example, there's a sample template in the book for a Duel, which can be won with arms or etiquette.
...and again with the pleasantness. If it's not your bag, why do you feel the need to express your displeasure in a Press Release thread?
Manners, much?
(Yes, I know I should've just let this go by, but certain gamer behaviors really push my pet-peeve buttons)
Last edited:
Geoff Watson
First Post
GMSkarka said:
Gosh, you're condescending.
I'd have to buy it to read it, and I'm not going to buy something that sounds bad.
The general idea could be interesting, but there are many, many RPG books with interesting ideas but lousy implementation. The examples that have been given seem like the implementation is lousy.
Geoff.
Geoff Watson said:
I tend to get that way when somebody displays a complete disregard for common-sense social norms.
You're pissing all over a PRESS RELEASE, Geoff.
You're certainly welcome to your opinion....but why do you feel the need to broadcast it in a PR thread? Is it really that important to you that we know how you feel?
Similar Threads
