Archiving a thread started by Pedro...
If there’s one thing that pisses me off, it’s people saying that d20 is as good a set of rules for Call of Cthulhu as Chaosium’s BRP system is. Still, rpg.net is littered with morons repeating this rubbish again and again. The very fact that the characters’ hit points raise as they advance in levels makes the system complete inadequate for a lovecraftian setting. Some people seem to believe that a character with high Dodge skill under the BRP rules is as unrealistically tough to kill as a high-level d20 character. Again, that’s complete non-sense, and here is why...
Let’s say a character with very high Dodge skill (90%) is trying to escape from a warehouse while fired upon with a .9mm gun. Let’s assume point-blank fire rules don’t apply here as the victim is further away from the attacker than the attacker’s DEX in feet. The victim will probably be able to dodge the first bullet due to his high skill level in dodging. However, as rules are very clear that characters may only dodge one attack per round. Now what happens? The bad guy smiles, as has still has one (or two – depending on his skill with the gun) attack left this round and the victim is too of balance to dodge his bullet again. The damage of a .9mm gun is 1d10. Let’s remember that BRP characters usually have 9-13 hit-points and that a loss of half a character’s hit-points is very likely to rend that character unconscious, which in this case would be a good as dead. The fleeing character is in real danger here, and if the attacker has a high skill with the gun, chances are he won’t be getting out alive.
Now let’s look at the same situation under the d20 rules. The damage for a .9mm gun under d20 is still 1d10. Our high-level character trying to escape from the warehouse doesn’t have much to fear when you bear in mind that he probably has over 100 hit-points, meaning he could take an average 20 shots from a .9mm before going down. Oh, what do you say? No, I haven’t forgotten about the much talked about Massive Damage Rule that states that a character taking 10 hit-points of damage should save against fortitude or die. The thing is, you see, that the save improves with levels, so our high level character would probably only die on a roll of 1 on a d20. That is a 5% chance of dying out of the shots that make 10 points of damage, what is a 10% chance to begin with. That makes out a pretty slim chance of a high-level character ever dying of massive damage, I’d say. I don’t think that character needs to run out of the warehouse, he can simply walk out in no hurry. Hell, the attacker will most likely even run out of bullets before he can kill him. This is as realistic as your typical D&D game, where characters can walk around with so many arrows sticking out of their backs that they look more like a hedgehog than anything else. While that is fine for a high-fantasy epic game, it’s not ok for CoC. Is that the sort of atmosphere for a lovecraftian game? Certainly not.
So, there you have it. A character with high Dodge skill under the BRP rules would most likely die during the first two rounds of a fight against a highly-skilled enemy armed with a gun. That sounds pretty realistic to me.
Taking twenty gun shots before you die in a CoC game? That can only be a joke.
Saturday, 31 May 2003
Thursday, 29 May 2003
Rolling Ability Scores
I think I may have found a solution to my on-going problem with rolling ability scores. Firstly, the problem:
If you use point-buy, you inevitably end up with extremely focussed characters. No Fighter will ever have a Charisma above the minimum allowed, for instance. If you use random rolling, even if no-one cheats, you may well end up with one member of the group with significantly better or significantly worse stats than anyone else (it doesn't matter if they're all high or low, only if there's a mismatch within the group). And you must never, never combine the two, or else you get both problems, which is doubly bad.
My solution (for d20 - not that I've been thinking about this a lot in the last 24 hours :-):
Prior to the game, the DM must roll up a whole load of stats. These will be grouped onto PC cards, each of which has 4 columns. The players then randomly select a card, and choose one of the columns.
The columns are as follows:
Column 1 has the "default array": 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8
Column 2 has a set of 6 stats rolled using 4d6, drop lowest.
Column 3 has a set of 6 stats rolled using 4d6, reroll 1's, then drop lowest.
Column 4 has a set of 7 stats rolled using 4d6, drop lowest.
Additionally, the following should be true: Columns 1 & 2 should have a net bonus of +5, column 3 a net bonus of +7, and column 4 a net bonus of +6 when the lowest score is ignored. Columns 2 and 3 should have 3 odd stats and 3 even stats. Column 4 should be the same, again when the lowest score is ignored. The lowest stat, in any of the columns, should be 7.
Having selected a card and a column within the card, the player assigns stats. The method for this depends on the column chosen:
If column 1 or 2 is used, the stats can be assigned in any order. If column 3 is used, the stats have to be used in the order given: Str, Dex, Con, Int, Wis, Cha. If column 4 is used, the player may swap any two numbers, and then drop any one number (or drop and then swap), but must then use the resulting six stats in order.
This method gives the following:
There's a trade-off between raw power and flexibility - column 3 is the most powerful, but it might saddle your Fighter with a really high Charisma, which is sure to be a hardship :-)
If you use point-buy, you inevitably end up with extremely focussed characters. No Fighter will ever have a Charisma above the minimum allowed, for instance. If you use random rolling, even if no-one cheats, you may well end up with one member of the group with significantly better or significantly worse stats than anyone else (it doesn't matter if they're all high or low, only if there's a mismatch within the group). And you must never, never combine the two, or else you get both problems, which is doubly bad.
My solution (for d20 - not that I've been thinking about this a lot in the last 24 hours :-):
Prior to the game, the DM must roll up a whole load of stats. These will be grouped onto PC cards, each of which has 4 columns. The players then randomly select a card, and choose one of the columns.
The columns are as follows:
Column 1 has the "default array": 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8
Column 2 has a set of 6 stats rolled using 4d6, drop lowest.
Column 3 has a set of 6 stats rolled using 4d6, reroll 1's, then drop lowest.
Column 4 has a set of 7 stats rolled using 4d6, drop lowest.
Additionally, the following should be true: Columns 1 & 2 should have a net bonus of +5, column 3 a net bonus of +7, and column 4 a net bonus of +6 when the lowest score is ignored. Columns 2 and 3 should have 3 odd stats and 3 even stats. Column 4 should be the same, again when the lowest score is ignored. The lowest stat, in any of the columns, should be 7.
Having selected a card and a column within the card, the player assigns stats. The method for this depends on the column chosen:
If column 1 or 2 is used, the stats can be assigned in any order. If column 3 is used, the stats have to be used in the order given: Str, Dex, Con, Int, Wis, Cha. If column 4 is used, the player may swap any two numbers, and then drop any one number (or drop and then swap), but must then use the resulting six stats in order.
This method gives the following:
- All PCs are balanced (to within 1 or 2 points).
- There can be no cheating.
- The system contains both randomness and player choice.
There's a trade-off between raw power and flexibility - column 3 is the most powerful, but it might saddle your Fighter with a really high Charisma, which is sure to be a hardship :-)
Auto-calculating Character Sheets
As I've mentioned before, I'm a big fan of character sheets that do all the sums for you, not least because they cut down on my mistakes. The character form I currently use comes from the Mad Irishman, and is a wonderful sheet (the new version looks even better, but isn't available as a form yet).
However, the form as it stands doesn't quite handle everything I want - it doesn't handle fractional skill ranks, for one thing, and I would prefer it if the appropriate skills automatically accounted for the armour check penalty, the swim skill accounted for equipment carried, and the maximum Dex bonus was applied to armour class.
So, I've spent the last day and a half screwing around with the form (for personal use only, of course), and have just about got it doing everything I want. I don't know how to make Javascript detect an empty box, or I'd have a few more additions to make, but otherwise it's solid.
Unfortunately, in order to handle everything correctly, I've had to create lots of custom Javascript calculations, which either need to be placed within a .js file to go with the form (which doesn't bother me, but means that completed forms wouldn't be readable by anyone else), or within the cells themselves. This latter option has caused the file to bloat to 2.5 Mb in size.
Oh, well, it was a nice thought experiment. I guess I'll stick with the original.
However, the form as it stands doesn't quite handle everything I want - it doesn't handle fractional skill ranks, for one thing, and I would prefer it if the appropriate skills automatically accounted for the armour check penalty, the swim skill accounted for equipment carried, and the maximum Dex bonus was applied to armour class.
So, I've spent the last day and a half screwing around with the form (for personal use only, of course), and have just about got it doing everything I want. I don't know how to make Javascript detect an empty box, or I'd have a few more additions to make, but otherwise it's solid.
Unfortunately, in order to handle everything correctly, I've had to create lots of custom Javascript calculations, which either need to be placed within a .js file to go with the form (which doesn't bother me, but means that completed forms wouldn't be readable by anyone else), or within the cells themselves. This latter option has caused the file to bloat to 2.5 Mb in size.
Oh, well, it was a nice thought experiment. I guess I'll stick with the original.
Wednesday, 28 May 2003
Mutants and Masterminds
I looked at the character creation rules for this game on Sunday, and also took a quick look at some of the other rules. Very nice.
I liked the point-buy system, insofar as I like such things at all (which isn't a huge amount, as you know). It was quick and simple, and provided a lot of flexibility for the game. Unfortunately, the costs for the various powers are such that it would be a lot of work to develop a similar system for D&D, or the swashbuckler game I was developing a couple of weeks back. (You could do non-spellcasters easily enough, but spellcasters would be a lot more challenging.)
However, the damage system, where you use a saving throw to resist damage rather than a hit points total was great! Alas, that's all I have to say about it. I guess quality speaks for itself.
(I wouldn't use such a system for D&D, 'cos I like hit points. However, I probably would use a variant of this system if I were doing a Shadowrun conversion, for instance.)
I liked the point-buy system, insofar as I like such things at all (which isn't a huge amount, as you know). It was quick and simple, and provided a lot of flexibility for the game. Unfortunately, the costs for the various powers are such that it would be a lot of work to develop a similar system for D&D, or the swashbuckler game I was developing a couple of weeks back. (You could do non-spellcasters easily enough, but spellcasters would be a lot more challenging.)
However, the damage system, where you use a saving throw to resist damage rather than a hit points total was great! Alas, that's all I have to say about it. I guess quality speaks for itself.
(I wouldn't use such a system for D&D, 'cos I like hit points. However, I probably would use a variant of this system if I were doing a Shadowrun conversion, for instance.)
+1 keen shortsword
Sorry, I have to mention this somewhere, or I'm going to explode. On Saturday, we picked up a +1 keen shortsword. This is all very exciting, except:
The keen enhancement can only be placed on Slashing weapons, and
The shortsword is a Piercing weapon.
I realised that on Monday when looking something entirely different up, and it's been bugging me ever since. Of course, from a game balance point of view, it doesn't make a damn bit of difference.
Just another of the hidden joys of being an obsessive rules lawyer.
The keen enhancement can only be placed on Slashing weapons, and
The shortsword is a Piercing weapon.
I realised that on Monday when looking something entirely different up, and it's been bugging me ever since. Of course, from a game balance point of view, it doesn't make a damn bit of difference.
Just another of the hidden joys of being an obsessive rules lawyer.
Tuesday, 27 May 2003
Class-specific Feats
While I'm at it, I'll take issue with those few feats that require specific class levels to access. In the PHB there are three of these: Extra Turning (Cleric or Paladin), Spell Mastery (Wizard) and Weapon Specialisation (Fighter level 4+). There are others in various supplements.
Fact is, two of these three don't need specific class restrictions. Extra Turning should have as pre-requisite "Ability to Turn Undead", and Spell Mastery should be "Prepares Spells from a Written Source". The feats are useless to any other class anyway.
Weapon Specialisation is a bit more difficult. Clearly, this feat is useful to other classes. However, I don't believe that it's so useful that every character would necessarily take it, even if freely available. So, try changing the requirements to "Weapon Proficiency (chosen weapon), Weapon Focus (chosen weapon), BAB +4 or higher". This opens the feat to Rangers, Paladins and Barbarians of 6th level (since they don't get a Feat at 4th or 5th level), or multi-class Fighters of lower level (Take Paladin at levels 1-3, make sure Weapon Focus is one of the feats, and then add Fighter at 4th level). This probably isn't unbalanced.
(Actually, there was a discussion about Weapon Specialisation in the very first Dragon after 3rd Edition came out. I'll look up the thoughts in there when I get home tonight.)
As regards Fighter access to Feats, I would propose that the best way to retain the usefulness of Fighters at high level is to expand the various Feat chains, so that other classes, who get a maximum of 8 feats in their career (okay, apart from Rogues and Wizards, but they have other things to spend feats on), can't learn all the feats in the chain. For instance, have 10 mounted combat feats in the chain. That way, a high-level Fighter is the only character who can learn the whole of the chain, and so will be the undisputed master of mounted combat.
Anyway, that's my thinking on feats.
Oh, one more thing...
I really like the handling of Track - any character can follow obvious tracks, but only by getting the feat can a character follow tracks with a DC of 21 or more. I think a similar feat should be present for the Rogue traps ability. For instance:
Traps-lore
Benefit: A character may detect traps with a DC of 21 or higher.
Normal: A character may only detect traps with a DC of 20 or less.
Special: Rogues receive this feat at 1st level.
Similarly, there is some scope to add some of the high level Rogue special abilities (the really high level ones that they choose at 10th, 13th, 16th and 19th level, such as Crippling Strike and Opportunist) to the list of Feats, with prerequisities set to make it extremely difficult for non-Rogues to gain them.
Just a thought or two...
Fact is, two of these three don't need specific class restrictions. Extra Turning should have as pre-requisite "Ability to Turn Undead", and Spell Mastery should be "Prepares Spells from a Written Source". The feats are useless to any other class anyway.
Weapon Specialisation is a bit more difficult. Clearly, this feat is useful to other classes. However, I don't believe that it's so useful that every character would necessarily take it, even if freely available. So, try changing the requirements to "Weapon Proficiency (chosen weapon), Weapon Focus (chosen weapon), BAB +4 or higher". This opens the feat to Rangers, Paladins and Barbarians of 6th level (since they don't get a Feat at 4th or 5th level), or multi-class Fighters of lower level (Take Paladin at levels 1-3, make sure Weapon Focus is one of the feats, and then add Fighter at 4th level). This probably isn't unbalanced.
(Actually, there was a discussion about Weapon Specialisation in the very first Dragon after 3rd Edition came out. I'll look up the thoughts in there when I get home tonight.)
As regards Fighter access to Feats, I would propose that the best way to retain the usefulness of Fighters at high level is to expand the various Feat chains, so that other classes, who get a maximum of 8 feats in their career (okay, apart from Rogues and Wizards, but they have other things to spend feats on), can't learn all the feats in the chain. For instance, have 10 mounted combat feats in the chain. That way, a high-level Fighter is the only character who can learn the whole of the chain, and so will be the undisputed master of mounted combat.
Anyway, that's my thinking on feats.
Oh, one more thing...
I really like the handling of Track - any character can follow obvious tracks, but only by getting the feat can a character follow tracks with a DC of 21 or more. I think a similar feat should be present for the Rogue traps ability. For instance:
Traps-lore
Benefit: A character may detect traps with a DC of 21 or higher.
Normal: A character may only detect traps with a DC of 20 or less.
Special: Rogues receive this feat at 1st level.
Similarly, there is some scope to add some of the high level Rogue special abilities (the really high level ones that they choose at 10th, 13th, 16th and 19th level, such as Crippling Strike and Opportunist) to the list of Feats, with prerequisities set to make it extremely difficult for non-Rogues to gain them.
Just a thought or two...
Fixed Skill Lists
At present, a character's classes will give him one of three levels of access to a skill:
It could be a class skill, in which case he can build up a high level of mastery.
It could be a cross-class skill, in which case he can get some facility with the skill, but will mostly suck.
It could be an exclusive skill to another class. In this case, the character will have no access to the skill. But, see below.
Anyway, the problem with this approach is that it is fairly foolish for a character to assign lots of points to a cross-class skill. After the first few levels, they're inevitably going to suck. Moreover, classes with lots of skills aren't likely to want to invest in cross-class skills, and classes with short skill lists don't have the skill points to waste.
I'm not 100% sure I like the division of skills into class skills and cross-class skills, since I'd expect characters to learn skills based on their character concept, which would tend to lead to Rogues emphasising Tumble and Disable Device, Wizards favouring Spellcraft and Concentration, and so on. Classes with few skill points don't have them to spread around, so aren't going to replace the Rogue anyway, which renders that a non-issue.
However, it is entirely possible that allowing a free purchase of skills might lead to problems. It is also likely to cause every Fighter to have high ranks in Tumble and Spellcraft, as these are probably the two most useful skills. This latter fact leads me to favour not allowing total freedom of choice.
The point I'm getting to, and that I also mentioned on Saturday, is that I think classes should have more flexible lists of class skills. For instance, perhaps a class would have five skills fixed as class skills for all members of the class, and be allowed to choose a further five from a list of eight choices.
For example: a revised skill list for Fighters:
All Fighters treat the following skills as class skills: Craft (Int), Profession (Wis). Additionally, at first level a Fighter may select five of the following skills as class skills: Balance (Dex), Climb (Str), Handle Animal (Cha), Intimidate (Cha), Jump (Str), Knowledge(nobility and royalty) (Int), Ride (Dex), Swim (Str), Tumble (Dex)
Further, I feel that every class should have Craft and Profession as class skills, and at least one Knowledge in the discretionary list.
Making this change doesn't make a huge difference to the power level of the basic classes (although it will make accessing Prestige Classes easier, and require that a list of class skills for each class be maintained - whereas now you can just look up the PHB). It does make the characters a bit more flexible. For even greater flexibility, allow each PC to choose two of Craft, Perform and Profession as a permanent class skill, regardless of class.
Exclusive Skills
I'm also really not fond of exclusive skills. Frankly, I feel that every skill should be available to all classes, even if they suck at it. Of course, some choices just don't make sense - a Fighter with ranks in Scry has wasted his points since he has no means to actually use the ability. Confusing the issue further is the Bardic Lore ability, which functions like a skill in almost every regard (the Bard gains an automatic rank per level, and can't spend additional points in the skill, but otherwise it is a skill).
I take the view that the game should go one of two ways: remove the exclusive skills from the skill lists, and make them class abilities in the same way as Bardic Lore is, or add Bardic Lore to the skill list, but make all existing exclusive skills cross-class skills for other characters.
The latter approach is dangerous - Use Magic Device is even more powerful than Spellcraft and Tumble.
It could be a class skill, in which case he can build up a high level of mastery.
It could be a cross-class skill, in which case he can get some facility with the skill, but will mostly suck.
It could be an exclusive skill to another class. In this case, the character will have no access to the skill. But, see below.
Anyway, the problem with this approach is that it is fairly foolish for a character to assign lots of points to a cross-class skill. After the first few levels, they're inevitably going to suck. Moreover, classes with lots of skills aren't likely to want to invest in cross-class skills, and classes with short skill lists don't have the skill points to waste.
I'm not 100% sure I like the division of skills into class skills and cross-class skills, since I'd expect characters to learn skills based on their character concept, which would tend to lead to Rogues emphasising Tumble and Disable Device, Wizards favouring Spellcraft and Concentration, and so on. Classes with few skill points don't have them to spread around, so aren't going to replace the Rogue anyway, which renders that a non-issue.
However, it is entirely possible that allowing a free purchase of skills might lead to problems. It is also likely to cause every Fighter to have high ranks in Tumble and Spellcraft, as these are probably the two most useful skills. This latter fact leads me to favour not allowing total freedom of choice.
The point I'm getting to, and that I also mentioned on Saturday, is that I think classes should have more flexible lists of class skills. For instance, perhaps a class would have five skills fixed as class skills for all members of the class, and be allowed to choose a further five from a list of eight choices.
For example: a revised skill list for Fighters:
All Fighters treat the following skills as class skills: Craft (Int), Profession (Wis). Additionally, at first level a Fighter may select five of the following skills as class skills: Balance (Dex), Climb (Str), Handle Animal (Cha), Intimidate (Cha), Jump (Str), Knowledge(nobility and royalty) (Int), Ride (Dex), Swim (Str), Tumble (Dex)
Further, I feel that every class should have Craft and Profession as class skills, and at least one Knowledge in the discretionary list.
Making this change doesn't make a huge difference to the power level of the basic classes (although it will make accessing Prestige Classes easier, and require that a list of class skills for each class be maintained - whereas now you can just look up the PHB). It does make the characters a bit more flexible. For even greater flexibility, allow each PC to choose two of Craft, Perform and Profession as a permanent class skill, regardless of class.
Exclusive Skills
I'm also really not fond of exclusive skills. Frankly, I feel that every skill should be available to all classes, even if they suck at it. Of course, some choices just don't make sense - a Fighter with ranks in Scry has wasted his points since he has no means to actually use the ability. Confusing the issue further is the Bardic Lore ability, which functions like a skill in almost every regard (the Bard gains an automatic rank per level, and can't spend additional points in the skill, but otherwise it is a skill).
I take the view that the game should go one of two ways: remove the exclusive skills from the skill lists, and make them class abilities in the same way as Bardic Lore is, or add Bardic Lore to the skill list, but make all existing exclusive skills cross-class skills for other characters.
The latter approach is dangerous - Use Magic Device is even more powerful than Spellcraft and Tumble.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)