Martial Pool - a New combat mechanic?

[Galloglaich]

You could always rule that PCs start with 2 dice and mooks start with 1 (just because PCs are special). Basically I just thought if you wanted to spread it out it would be for BAB +0 1 die, +1 to +5: 2 dice, +6 to +10: 3 dice, +11 to +15: 4 dice, +16 to +20: 5 dice. Then monks with Flurry of blows could gain +1 die for a -2 to hit, and +2 dice with an attack at 11th or higher level (you probably already do this, I haven't read that far into the document).

it's not a bad idea to be honest...

E6 is here: http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/206323-e6-game-inside-d-d.html. And I suspect the 1 die per BAB would work well with the system.

Yeah I like what they did with E6 from what little I know, I'd like to learn a bit more about it.

And I've thought about doing a Runequest and d20 hybrid just as an exercise in game design and this might work better than giving straight combat actions for Dexterity. I hope that's okay with you.

By all means, thats why I posted this so other people could use it. Mention the Codex if you ever publish it

As for d20 modern action points you could give the character's 5 + 1/2 level points per level and they can spend one to add to their martial pool, but only once per combat.

Thats a good idea, you mind if I borrow that?

How do you think this would work with the passive defenses of 4e now since they aren't rolled by the player (just 10 + 1/2 level + ability modifier)?

I have no idea about 4E, I've never even seen it.

G.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

How do you think this would work with the passive defenses of 4e now since they aren't rolled by the player (just 10 + 1/2 level + ability modifier)?

AC used to be static, too. You can replace that 10 with a d20, and set the "passive" value at 8 + 1/2 level + ability modifier. The only disadvantage (in the 3.x variant as in 4E) is the extra roll.

 

[Achan hiArusa]

it's not a bad idea to be honest...

By all means, thats why I posted this so other people could use it. Mention the Codex if you ever publish it

Thats a good idea, you mind if I borrow that?

G.

Any ideas I put up here are ripe for stealing, so please go ahead. And, yeah, if I can publish it, I will. Unfortunately, 4e lends itself to a generic system really, really well and even though I try to avoid it, it can be easier to use than 3e for certain things.

That's just part of the OGL, we are in it together to build a better game.

To: Mustrum_Ridcully

I could use something like the defense roll variant from the 3.0 DMG, just giving you the better of your base defense or your roll + modifiers.

 

[Achan hiArusa]

Oh, and for mass combat, I very, very, very much recommend Cry Havoc by Skip Williams from Malhavoc Press Where's the D&D Mass Combat System? . The mass combat tables alone are worth the cost of the book. I used those tables in a fight between 250 undead minions and 3 PCs and 12 NPCs in a fight and it ran really smoothly.

 

[Galloglaich]

If either of you are interested in a copy of the Codex let me know I'll send you a comp coupon.

G.

 

[Achan hiArusa]

Too late, already bought it.

 

[Galloglaich]

How do you like the Martial Feats? And what do you think of how the weapon stats work?

 

[Achan hiArusa]

What I've looked at so far is pretty good, but it will be a little bit before I can give you a detailed analysis. I do think that the optional rules could be cleaned up and placed in their own section to avoid breaking the flow of the text.

A friend of mine was wondering what you do about attack actions, such as casting a spell. My take would be to make an attack action reduce your pool to a single die unless it is one die and then it would reduce it to zero. He wanted to know if he could use this mechanic to cast three spells in a round and I said no.

 

[Galloglaich]

What I've looked at so far is pretty good, but it will be a little bit before I can give you a detailed analysis. I do think that the optional rules could be cleaned up and placed in their own section to avoid breaking the flow of the text.

A friend of mine was wondering what you do about attack actions, such as casting a spell. My take would be to make an attack action reduce your pool to a single die unless it is one die and then it would reduce it to zero. He wanted to know if he could use this mechanic to cast three spells in a round and I said no.

Yes that is basically how we have been handling it. The integration with magic here introduces some other possibilities which we only begin to address in the codex. At 40 pages its basically limited to combat. But you may have noticed there is a small magic section in the appendix which (very briefly) outlines the spell-failure system we use which incorporates the armor check penalty on the spellcraft roll.

With regard to spells specifically, I agree the standard would reduce your pool to a single die, but you have some flexibility that you can play with. You can have fast spells and slow spells. A very simple cantrip might be only one pool... or a specifically 'fast' spell might (including using metamagic feats). On the other hand, some spells from their descriptions sound like they might take longer to cast even though casting time is listed as one round. You might want to make complex spells with material components use up your whole pool....

Other attack actions like say, throwing a flask of oil might only use one die from your pool, some the DM might just have to judge on the fly, like say throwing a grapnel or opening a door. Basically having attack actions use up your pool is a good default rule but you could have fun opening up a bit more with special cases...

I agree with you we could organize the optional rules a bit better by the way. Effectively the whole thing is optional, because it can be either taken as a smorgasboard of combat options or as a complete system, but there are some 'options' which are part of a general system and some which are for taking it in different directions. Maybe I'll do something with that in a later update, organize the options into categories or something. There are a couple of other minor things we are working on right now which should be out in an update this weekend.

G.

 

[jedavis]

Very neat system! My group's a little skeptical, but there was some interest. And it would indeed work very nicely with a good Matrix system (or Iron Heroes). Also considering adding it to the WH40k d20 system I'm working on.

I'm a little unclear about one thing, though: If you allocate a die to active defense, does that set your defense until your next turn to d20 (or best of multiple d20s) plus defense rating, or just against one attack (and then multiple d20s allocated allow you to block multiple attacks or take the best against a single attack)?