Ye Olde Inn

And just to keep things on point, here's a test I did to see how this might eventually turn out.


Not bad, I think. But I shouldn't get side tracked with graphics just yet. I need to nail down the core first.

Teldurn wrote:All this back and forth about the thief is making me realize that the ability isn't strong enough to stand on its own and the class will probably need to be cut. Oh well.

It might just be me. I don't need things to be realistic, just consistent. If you can steal gold from monsters when they're alive you should be able to when they're dead. Things like that just bug me. I think some other people would say the same about that one though.

Teldurn wrote:I can't say I've ever even seen wardancer as a class option. Which splatbook is that from?

Warhammer. The last issue of white dwarf I had introduced the waywatchers, which I think were just updated scouts. That's going back. There's probably tons of new stuff now. Never mind, hq is retro anyway.

Teldurn wrote:Which ones are broken?

Mainly the halberd and the spear. Definitely the spear. 400gp indeed. Remind me never to think about ever buying anything from you. I'll have a go at pricing them if you like. Compared to mine it will be a breeze. I'll out everything in the order I think it should be then check the standard US prices as a president and go from there. That's how I did mine.

Teldurn wrote:Even in D&D 3.5e, I always felt that short/long/extra long range rules were too, umm, I guess simulationist? It felt needlessly complicated. Like having a complex rule for the sake of being complex. All my groups never played with them.

Yea I was just thinking out loud really. The main thing is that it's at full power, then nothing. I think the best option if someone was going to use it would be it looses one dice for every one or two squares over max range.

Edit: Flail 200gp. Spear, Axe and Hammer 225gp. Halberd 250gp.

So, to recap, in no particular order:

Acrobat gets renamed Bravo because yes.
Thief gets canned.
Knight stays as is, but might or might not get an altered ability (like +BP) because no one wants to voluntarily get hurt.
Monk's Flurry of Blows gets renamed Whirlwind Attack.
Barbarian might get added, but also might not.
A couple items get rejiggered pricing values and assigned proper keywords.
Dwarves and Elves might get different and/or added abilities, possibly with a +/-1 BP/MP differential.
Probably some other things I might have missed. I should really start putting all these into a central google doc to keep track, really.

And after all that, I get to work on spells. Whee~.

I think this would work nicely with your rules. Elves -1BP +1MP and a range increase on bows. Dwarves +1BP -1MP and a range reduction on bows. BP is more useful than MP so it's balanced.

I really don't get the US item prices. Why would anyone buy a longsword or a shortsword. The shortsword does nothing unless you need a replacement, which you never would in the original game and the crossbow is the same price as the longsword and loads better?

Gold Bearer wrote:I think this would work nicely with your rules. Elves -1BP +1MP and a range increase on bows. Dwarves +1BP -1MP and a range reduction on bows. BP is more useful than MP so it's balanced.

I agree that the BP/MP modifiers would work for those classes, but I feel that would leave humans a bit lacking. If it is:

Dwarves - +1BP -1MP, ignore heavy armor movement penalty
Elves - -1BP, +1MP, +3 range with bows
Dragonkin - breath weapon
and Halflings - find food

then humans with just their "roaming +1 to BP, MP, or movement" feels a little lackluster in comparison.

Gold Bearer wrote:The Paladin should defend with either shield instead of skulls just because they're shields and it wouldn't alter him at all.

I was just putting all the changes over the last 5 pages into a single document and it occurred to me that this one wouldn't work. You may have seen me mention a 3 black shield threshold for dice rolls. If the paladin defends an attack with (let's say) 4CD and rolls , does that mean he defended successfully and damaged his armor? Creates a paradox, not cool. It would have to be defense on skulls instead for this to work correctly albeit less thematically than with shields. It's still mathematically sound, so it's good.

While mulling over the Knight tonight, here's another idea that came to me for the special ability, in keeping with the chivalrous defender concept: Any Hero adjacent to the Knight gains a defense score equal to the Knight's Defend Dice. This is simpler than the originally suggested idea; I think it's a more useful ability; Knight doesn't need to act out of turn; it doesn't require any fiddly bits; and this suddenly makes the Knight super attractive to squishy casters. And to other Heroes for that matter, since the Knight has the best starting equipment of all the classes (short sword, buckler, leather armor). No one else gets two pieces of armor. Woo~!

Example: Knight has 5DD and the Druid a couple squares away has only 2DD. If the Druid steps adjacent to the Knight, he suddenly can defend with 5DD by taking advantage of Knight's chivalry.

It also makes it very attractive for the Evil Wizard player to gang up on the Knight before the other heroes surround him. Which would mean risk of low hit, but might be worth it just to get monsters between the Knight and the other heroes. That makes for the knight to be the real tactical victim. Nonetheless, the EWP tactical POV is one reason why I like the rule.

The flipside of the rule is that heroes can delay the game simply surrounding the Knight at a wall while the EWP sends his two Zombies against the group uselessly.
Which is why I would limit the effect to any two heroes - or even one, for that matter - per round to be chosen right after the respective hero has moved because that leaves one weak member even after the entire group hedgehogged into a wall.

Try this for the back--it'll work much better:

knightkrawler wrote:It also makes it very attractive for the Evil Wizard player to gang up on the Knight before the other heroes surround him. Which would mean risk of low hit, but might be worth it just to get monsters between the Knight and the other heroes. That makes for the knight to be the real tactical victim. Nonetheless, the EWP tactical POV is one reason why I like the rule.

The flipside of the rule is that heroes can delay the game simply surrounding the Knight at a wall while the EWP sends his two Zombies against the group uselessly.
Which is why I would limit the effect to any two heroes - or even one, for that matter - per round to be chosen right after the respective hero has moved because that leaves one weak member even after the entire group hedgehogged into a wall.

Good call on the EWP POV. I agree limiting it to one is a good idea.

And to add further tactical deepness, this is where a Warlord would shine, too. "Oh, the knight is surrounded by baddies? *switch places* not anymore."

chaoticprime wrote: some hotlinked image.

Stupid anti-hotlinking site...