Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Verequus" data-source="post: 2095517" data-attributes="member: 9135">It may be a bit late, but before now either I had no time, or I have forgotten to look into this thread.  I've seen the revised version of Grim and Gritty, but not the original one, so I don't know, how offense and defense work out.   The book itself isn't OGL, but under the OGL and thus contains OGC. A fine but important difference. But for you, that doesn't matter, because you could change the system, even if it wouldn't be under OGL.  "Odds are One" reduces the average to 2.5, the same compared to d4. It isn't that much of difference, if used under the core rules, because the maximum is still the same. We are talking about your game, where a lucky roll of 3d6 can kill a character, so a delay of 3 levels isn't enough. If the player can accumulate damage dice, then it will be inevitable, that the player reaches a point, where the minimum damage kills everyone outright. This is also true for the suggestion, that you use a dice cap and then add some bonus to the roll - sooner or later the bonus becomes a problem.A solution is difficult. If you don't cap the damage, then you have a "realistic" damage system - in the real world the damage potential keeps racking up, but the protection has been left behind. There isn't a real protection from the a-bomb, isn't it? In your world, the reaction would be, that magical protection would be more commonplace than in the core rules, where 20th level characters have a lot of more HP than 3rd level characters.     That has been covered already.  Hmm, at first glance I would have agreed, but then I thought about the situations, where the fighter doesn't get his damage through as usual. But first to the saves: The fighter has to use an attack roll, the mage can choose so. But a mage has a poor BAB, so he uses usually the save-based variant - in this point, no one has a disadvantage.The soldier has still a miss chance due to concealment and cover results effectively in a penalty for his attack. Damage reduction is the SR for the soldier, like the banning of all weapons is the anti-magic field equivalent. That leaves only costing MP. True, there is no limit for the swinging of swords or firing arrows in the rules, but this isn't really realistic - GURPS includes rules for fatigue for this situation. If we don't go into this direction, then you should recall, that soldiers can more or less only hack all day - mages with no limit have a far increased potential of doing things, like wreaking havoc on the entire earth.There needs to be a limit - maybe a replenishing of the MP pool á la Diablo II will suffice?Edit:Another solution would be with unlimited MP pool the burn-out. A fortitude (?) save against the DC of the spell has to be done at every casting of a spell. If you fail, then the MP maximum for the spells is reduced by one. Scaling can be changed - then several failures have to occur before reduction happens, which allows a greater probabilty to cast higher level spells. Or we can use (MPmax - used MP + 1) number of times failures, accounted for every used MP separately.For example, Jagor is 17th level mage. If he casts a spell with 17 MP, then he has to make a fortitude save against the DC 10 + 17/2 = 18 - if he fails, then can cast only spells with 16 MP or lower. With my latest rule, Jagor can cast 4 MP spells, and until he fails (17 - 4 + 1) = 14 times his fortitude save, his maximum MP for his day isn't reduced to 16. Too bad, when this happens and he hasn't cast a 17 MP spell yet.Of course, this reduction makes it necessary, that signature spells can be reduced in power to be still castable. Maybe versions for all possible MPs have to be prepared before.</blockquote>

Verification