STILL Not Dead (Terrors & Tactics Updade)

Williams's actions ought to be taught in business ethics classes, as a "don't do this crap" kind of example.

***

From a corporate perspective, using Forgotten Realms as the core setting makes sense, for the reasons you outlined. It just sucks as a setting, especially from a theological standpoint. What I'd do with the setting is retcon the prominent gods to be false gods, mortals and spirits that feed on worship in order to increase their power. The real god would be Ao, the actual creator, who's the center of worship for a Crystal Dragon Jesus-style faith (per TVTropes), which has different status depending on the nation. But that's me ripping up a setting because I don't like it, which is why it's a good thing that I'm not involved with that IP.

***

Also from a corporate perspective, I get why Hasbro pulled the budget plug - I've got no problem with the profit motive, and there's no sense throwing good money after bad, but it absolutely sucks that it came about because the software developer trashed his work and committed a murder-suicide. The character visualizer alone would have made bank. The dream 4e online tools would have made D&D Beyond look like chump change.

***

The mage and its school features made far more sense than the old wizard's implement specializations. And the soft control angle is also a good counter to the problem that 4e controllers had, which was them just having better powers, since they didn't have ways to manipulate base powers like your controller classes do.

As to the Swordmage, it just needed a general rework: get rid of Sword Bond, give them Intelligent Blademaster for free, split up the Aegis mark and punishment features so that they can respond to generic marks, either combine or scrap the Assault and Ensnaring Aegises, and give them some damage-oriented powers to provide an alternative to the control-heavy powers.

***

I'd probably stick with species, since it's the least bad of your options. Race is right out for the reasons you stated, type is way too generic, and origin fits better in its current usage. Race's only advantage is sheer genre inertia, and that's going away thanks to PC culture bitching about race. Maybe heritage could work - I got the idea from Pathfinder 2e's heritages, which if I recall correctly are like subraces.

Yeah, one thing I definitely appreciated with Essentials that I ended up retaining in Ruins & Realms was the move towards using basic attacks as the basis upon which augments were added and then giving classes a way use their key score (a la Intelligent Blademaster) to make basic attacks using at least some weapons.

That was definitely the way 4E was headed and, heck, my rebuild of the Bladesinger in my old “Essentials Options” article (including making it a defender and letting it pick Swordmage utilities) basically ran with all the things you suggested as ways the Swordmage could have evolved if they’d had another year or so to iron the system out.

****

You’re probably right on keeping species, though another contender I found is “kind” which has potential in the sense of “humankind” “your own kind” and “class and kind” (just need a “hard-c/k word to replace background for that one to absolutely).

That said, for clarity I may need to change “Origin” (as it relates to species and monsters) to Affinity (or similar) anyway, because since your reply I did a search just to see how much I used the term and whether changing any origin keyword effects to specific species (because all the primal origin PC and opponents are Eldritch for example).

What I found though was that I actually used Origin far more in relation to determining movement, range, line of sight/effect and area (origin square and point of origin most commonly) than for actual planar origin mechanics (a couple of rituals, utility spells and detect X features).

And my unofficial rule on terms is to only use a word for jargon in one way. While there’s little practical way to confuse species/monster Origin and measurement Origin... principles of good design say “don’t use anything that could remotely confuse unless necessary.”

And as sad as I am to have to say it, I do know a few people who try to argue for being able to pick an origin square as the origin a Magic Circle can hedge out (then position it at a doorway so anything trying to pass the door is affected by the Circle). The “Rules as Written is to use Rules as Intended” clause covers that... but it’s also something foreseeable and avoidable on my end.

Also, Origin as a term made more sense when PCs could actually reach or come directly from those places. But all the Fetches and Eldritch and Elves and such are born in the mortal world now. Hell hounds are Abyssal, but were created in the mortal world before the demons were even exiled the Abyss. So I’m thinking Affinity or Essence (though I think I used Essence somewhere... though it may have been in my Mage system rewrite) might be a better term than Origin for creatures while as jargon Origin then entirely relates to measurement in game.

The Hunter's at-will powers were the best expression of it - they didn't have the minor action start-up that the Knight and Slayer did, and they didn't repeat the same attack and damage information on every power the way that the pre-Essentials attack powers did.

Honestly, the Swordmage might have worked as a V-class with Hunter-style powers and Weapon Finesse as an optional feature.

***

Kind could work as well. It's simpler, fits the fantasy setting, and flows well with class. I wouldn't change background, though - it works too well to change just for alliteration's sake.

I know that you've used essence to describe magical power, primarily in the context of diabolic and necromantic power. I'd probably go with affinity if you're going to change it up, though I'm definitely open to ideas.

So, that's a NOPE on using Kind -or- if I do it would require massively rewriting the fluff of the section. I used species nearly 200 times in that chapter alone and in reference to actual species. Converting that in a way that makes sense to Kind would be ridiculously labor intensive and also make things less clear, as I've used kind in other places in the more general sense and also in the sense of "Womankind" in the case of one of the astral gods; which probably would be more confusing.

So species remains the strongest option at this point, and I think I'm okay with it. People think of it as more sci-fi, but it was used by Aristotle in the 300's BC so its actually older than race in terms of defining genetic traits (that wasn't until the 1700s... before then you could say "race of cobblers, race of miners, race of Gen-X, race of Millennials, race of wine" it was a general "this is like this" term).

Likewise, species does cover everything except golems and, given there are some sci-fi elements and its a post-apocalypse, species hints at that too.

So species it is.

* * * *

I agree on your judgement regarding the Hunter's at-will powers. That was pretty much the basis for my stances (and the inflictions for spellcasters once I wised up to giving them their own basic spell attack).

I think A classes are generally best though unless you pull a trick like I did where every option worked with any score (making my fighter basically an "X" class... choices at the top and bottom for the build). V was interesting but really did suffer from the way early powers were built.

Given how 4e set up powers, with a locked-in stat for attack and damage and a second locked-in stat for riders, A-shaped classes were the best way to ensure that each potential player got the widest range of options. Now, if they had made powers stat-neutral and based on source instead of class, they could have saved a ton of room in the PHB and fit in more classes, which when coupled with the extra year of refinement, could have been damned interesting. Kind of like what you did with Ruins and Realms. But, they had a "sell the splat" mentality, whereas you've got a "one and done" mentality.

“Sell the Splat” vs. “One and Done” (at least for the rules part... I have all sorts of ideas for supplements, just not the kind to bury you in hard-to-find splat options) does bring about differences in approach.

In my case, my plan is much more in line with 1e AD&D... i.e. back when TSR was a small indy publisher (as hard as that is to imagine today), because a plan like that feels sustainable.

After core the focus is solid adventure/campaign regions so that those who don’t want the hassle of creating everything from scratch can just buy and use. Then depending on how many monsters and such I’m adding in those, maybe add a “monster manual 2.”

I’m also wondering if something even smaller, say on the order of a single ruin, for a couple bucks each might not be a thing.

Ultimately, one of my thoughts behind my system license is that I can get other people writing adventure and setting content (perhaps with a proviso... must be 1000+ miles from the Free Cities region... which if each was a 1000 miles from each other would still give you 6-8 spots just on a North America sized continent).

Another completely random thought about adding region books is including a consistent narrator who is relating information about the region in story form as if to a stranger... I’m obviously thinking of the teller of tall tales himself... sample PC, Jack Knave (teller of a thousand tales, some of which might even be true). That at least adds some value to the book just as a fantasy yarn about Jack’s misadventures in a region before his inevitable departure just ahead of an angry mob.

You've mentioned a few major adventure/campaign regions already. I'd probably start with Riverhold, but that's just me.

Your "single ruin" idea could be a mega-dungeon like the Tomb of Horrors, or you could release them individually, then collect them in one big "Ruins of the Cataclysm" book.

It wouldn't really be a Monster Manual 2 so much as a Supplemental Monster Manual, kind of like Volo's Guide to Monsters or whatever it's called. Though I think it would need a theme of its own to unify the opponents that aren't associated with the various region supplements.

***

Jack Knave needs to be careful, or his retirement's going to consist of finding a deep, dark hole and pulling it in after him.

***

Just a heads up, the ravager and striker's bonus talent section still lists weapon talents instead of martial talents.

Regarding a monster supplement, how about taking a cue from 4E and call it “Threats of Old Praetoria”? Then arrange it in the form of specific groups/locales with a bit more background (i.e. not just generic pirates, but The Ironspar Raiders (river pirates who strike along the Titan River near where the Ironspar River joins it).

* * * *

Jack has his issues, but he’s already supposedly won at least one game of chance against Lady Luck herself so he might actually pull off some type of happy ending. In thinking about it, I think his travelogue should probably be letters to a Dulcinea-type figure (I’m gonna say a barmaid in, say, Daysmarch or some other less important locale). Someone specific to address and say a goal of striking it rich so he can settle down with her properly (as some sort of hopeless romantic gesture), but facing constant reversals would be an interesting direction for the fellow.

* * * *

All corrections are welcome. I found a bunch recently when copy-pasting the short description blurbs from my species, classes and backgrounds into a thread to show off the number of options available as a bit of hype/promotion.

This is why I’m including a copy editor in my kickstarter budget, but even they won’t find everything (particularly not technical jargon mixups like the one you located... you need to more than proofread to catch those), so I definitely appreciate the catch.

Threats of Old Praetoria works for me. In fact, using that supplement as an expansion on the core setting the way that Threats to the Nentir Vale did is a brilliant idea. The only thing I'd suggest is changing the name to cover your tracks. Something like "Dangers of Old Praetoria" might work.

***

Re:Jack Knave's travelogue to the barmaid, to quote Palpatine, "do eet!"

Just a heads up, I was looking at Shift Form again and I noticed that Improved Senses looked like it was unclear as to whether you had to pick it multiple times to get each sense, or if you could pick it once and activate one of the senses when you shift form.

Just another heads up, Beegee, the butler/bodyguard golem sample character, still references wards instead of minor spells.

Thanks for the heads ups. I've had some real life stuff taken priority for a bit so haven't made much progress, but am trying to free up some time to hammer out the last sections.

I clarified the Improved Senses entry. It is actually supposed to be the one pick gives you all of those options because having multiple types only rarely help outside of edge cases (though I did improve the ranges for the beastman abilities slightly since those are locked in).

As to the example PCs; all corrections are welcome. My updates to the main rules are the bane of the sample PC's existence as something invariably gets overlooked (the elven abjurer was also not updated). I made the changes, though I suspect that after all the changes are locked in, I'll need to run through them all and rebuild the mechanics from scratch just to be sure.

Don't sweat it man - real life comes first, no matter how appealing the game is. I hope everything went okay.

Thanks for the clarification on Improved Senses - it's one of those form traits that would be a boon suck if you had to pick each sense individually.

On an unrelated track, I was comparing Energy Adaptation to the various specialized type adaptors like Pyromancy/Cryomancy/etc. and I was wondering why you would take Energy Adaptation when the others were available for the same price, but I realized I was looking at it wrong: Energy Adaptation is functionally Kinetomancy - it's the only talent-based way to change your damage type to kinetic, which has its own generic benefit of not being resisted unless Resist All comes into play. The damage bonus is a gimme for if you already have kinetic inflictions, and the other damage types were thrown in to give them the same benefit.

Your thought about having to redo the sample PCs every time you make a major change has actually led me to think that I'd be better off not pointing out inconsistencies with them until after you've had a chance to rebuild them from scratch like you were saying. Because you're right: they're going to need that final once-over with the finalized rules just to make sure that you aren't producing D&D-style non-functional sample PCs. It'd be a waste of time trying to get the sample PCs locked down before the rules were done.

Well, to be fair, I don’t mind the issues being pointed out because the player side stuff IS supposedly done minus minor typo type things... my comment was more in the vein of “maybe I should look at these again if I have a writer’s block day.”

Because in order to have a representative sample I actually put together a spreadsheet to make sure I had a roughly equal spread of backgrounds and classes... and I looked at that earlier and I haven’t cross-checked it since courtiers and nobles were still separate backgrounds and what are now paths were classes.

In updating the spreadsheet earlier today I actually realized that I need to swap out Rayla A’Toria in the human entries, because she is a Barbarian Fighter (swift wary striker) and the very next species includes Erin’yi from the cover art and she is ALSO a Barbarian Fighter (swift wary striker).

While the talents and boons and species are different, it’s pretty close as builds go when I could have someone more distinct (she’ll still be depicted in the human section, just not have a statted up entry).

In her place I’m leaning toward the half-dwarf woman I’ve not yet named, but have done art for the facing page to the Aspects. Based on the spread of things she should be a Theurge with the Empowered Path.

Option B would be to move Sister Jadia from mutant to human (mutant ancestry) and develop a brand new mutant pregen with a Barbarian background.

Option C is instead restat Rayla or Erin’yi to not be a swift wary striker.

I’m going to sleep on that one, but will also take any suggestions offered too because I’m not married to any of those options.

I'd probably go with the half-dwarf woman, since you'd have to come up with a new mutant character to replace Sister Jadia, and half-dwarves don't really see a lot of play in fiction.

I was looking over the light projectors again, and while you can probably apply inflictions to their weapon attacks (otherwise the Monkeywrencher's going to be stuck using implement attacks if they want to use inflictions), but the only indicator is the end of the text where it says that you can't apply inflictions to projectors that are used as maces (implying that you could otherwise apply inflictions). That's if I'm reading it right and not unintentionally pulling some rules lawyer BS.

By the way, I hope you're doing well - it's been a minute.

After looking it over again and remembering the previous discussion of Ref-primary monkeywrenchers being defensive versus the Int-primary gadgeteers being offensive in nature, I was wrong with regard to projectors. Oh, well.

Hope you're doing okay, man. It's been a minute.

It has been a minute. Still not dead, though I did have some family matters and a bit of writer's block that slowed me down a bit.

And despite being "wrong" on projectors, that did help me catch a rules issue. Previously, anyone could take skill with an implement as a basic talent so, for example, Jack Knave having a projector was absolutely something you could do.

However, when the order of class vs. path got rearranged that talent also got reworded so that you could only select implements from your class list... and since fighters don't have a class list of implements, it would no longer be possible to select projectors as a weapon in that way.

So I re-worded it. Projectors may now be selected using the weapon skill talent as a master skill weapon from the bow group and can be used to make weapon attacks. Gadgeteers who select Projectors as implements automatically get master skill with them as weapons for free.

As to the writer's block, its mostly related to how to best lay out, for want of a better term, "encounter density." The short version is that, from testing I now know the rough limits of PCs in a "fighting withdrawal" scenario (basically multiple encounters without rests in between) and so I want to make sure that if the PCs screw up in a section of the ruin and end up drawing down multiple encounters at once, that there's a very good chance they can still survive if they choose to do retreat fairly quickly.

The idea is that no single screw up will call down more CP worth of adversaries than a group of the appropriate level wouldn't be able to escape and fight another day. Multiple screw ups or choosing to stand and fight can still get you killed, but any single one should not.

The trick has been how best to convey this information (which amounts to an upper limit of about 100+20/level CP per PC in the party able to be drawn in by a screw up... since just about that is about where the limit before party deaths start happening even with a fighting retreat is).

Anyway, there's a new update up at the usual location with a number of fixes and the region creation rules up through settlements added. Rayla has been swapped out for the dwarven ancestry Davina Stoneheart and Kalla got a slight tweak that makes her a little less convoluted for the setting... she's now Eldritch ancestry instead of Elven which removes a layer of complexity from her backstory that, while relevant in the character as she developed out of the 4E campaign that featured her parents, it just wasn't needed for the sample PC in Ruins & Realms (given the Eldritch's semi-fae nature, I think I might even keep her ears as a little bit pointed).

I hope the family issues weren't anything too serious.

***

At least something good came of that error.

***

I don't see any reason why you couldn't keep Kalla's ears the way they are. And good point on condensing her backstory - a player could easily alter or expand her new backstory if needed, and the current one has the advantage of simplicity.

***

The settlement section looks good so far, and the naming section is going to take a huge burden off the GMs- it's no longer some arcane thing, it's something that has logic to it, logic that the GMs can follow. Nice work!

***

Maybe working that "encounter density" into the challenge section as a sidebar could help: "here's the upper limit for what PCs can deal with before bodies start dropping. They've got wiggle room, but multiple screwups that draw extra encounters on them are going to get ugly" or something to that effect. Seems kind of obvious, but I figure I'd might as well put it out there.

I was looking through the second paths section and noticed that the brigand was missing epic accuracy, the defender was missing epic defiance, the sentinel was missing epic resolve, and the maledictor was missing malicious accuracy. I'd initially figured that it was intentional, but other classes like the abjurer and captain keep their Lv15 feature on account of said feature being part of a lower-level feature. I'd also noticed that the summoner was missing a Lv15 feature entirely, but I'd figured that it was intentional.

Good catch, and definitely not intentional on my part... rather a process of moving the level 15 features into paths and not remembering to update the Second Path entries. Summoner on the other hand was a complete flub on my part, it would be another target/range for aspect effects at level 15.

Ideally, I think I actually need to go in reverse from what you’d think and rewrite the path features to remove the free level 15 options from all the second paths as the original balance was around the level 11 hero’s rebound and level 15 feature effectively being the Epic Destiny features for the PC and doubling up on the level 15 isn’t what I prefer.

That said, why certain features are split out for seemingly little reason (even if there is one) might look just as odd.

Probably the easiest fix would be to add a line under Second Path that “you do not receive the level 15 benefit from your second path” that would clarify why the level 15s that are their own features are absent, and that those with level 15s built into other features don’t get them.

Definitely a good catch there.

Thanks!

Your fix also emphasizes the character's starting class in that even if they spend all their time building towards something else, they still need to take their primary class into account, as obvious a statement as that is. No 3.x-style "take a couple of levels in class X and take the remaining levels in class Y" here.

Okay, so its been awhile. First up was the mother of all writer's blocks... though to be fair it was specifically R&R block, not general writer's block because in that time I also wrote/designed THIS;

Rebuild of Robotech RPG

and did some cleanup on THIS;

D6 Star Trek Conversions

And part of the reason was just that my regular home game group fell apart over scheduling and its hard to stay motivated without the regular feedback. The fact that dungeon design tables are boring as all get out didn't help either.

But the main thing that blew me off track was the double-edged sword of perusing game design forums as I ran into a discussion on "best initiative systems" and had to, without really thinking about it, throw out my all time favorite initiative/action system... Paradigm Studios' Turn Clock for their Arcanis RPG (their in house system rather than their previous 3.5e-based or current 5e-based setting).

And the result was to get me thinking...

A) "why didn't you build that into Ruins & Realms three years ago before everything was nearly done and locked down?"

B) "how much work would it really take to build that system into R&R anyway?"

The answer to B (after a solid week of trying) is "way too much to ever be worth it." But it did spawn...

C) "Are there any ways I could make the initiative and turn order sequence run better without having to gut my whole game engine?"

That one at least had the prospect of success, but also was a bit of a rabbit hole until earlier this week. Which is why you have two bare-bones RPG systems linked to up above as the hope was that futzing with those would inspire something for Ruins & Realms.

In terms of the discussion; one of the biggest takeaways from the discussion at well is just how gamey the WotC-era "Cyclical Initiative" feels. Even though everything in the round is happening more or less simultaneously, you actually know the outcome of other simultaneous actions before you choose your own.

You know the previous attack didn't drop one of the targets so they're closer to death and your attack will stand a much better chance of dropping them -OR- you know that target WAS dropped by the attack and so there's no reason to attack that one... even though realistically you'd have no way of knowing if your ally's attack would connect and kill the target at the point you'd have to choose your target.

At the same time, if you want to keep the mass appeal you can't make things TOO complex (the real wargamers in that thread discussed the use of initiative, declaration and resolution phases of the round rather in line with Battletech if you're familiar with that.

So I fiddled, but finally got some serious feedback from one of friends whose job keeps him on the road for weeks at a time so getting together over lunch every couple of months is one of the really good and creative outlets for both of us.

The ultimate question we finally settled on that I was really trying to answer with C was... "How can I make combat feel more dynamic and less locked into a turn order?"

The answer came in two parts and another switch.

The first is this... opponents don't have an Initiative modifier, they have an Initiative Score; basically "Passive Initiative." Instead of only rolling initiative at the start of combat, you roll it each round, but because the opponent initiatives are fixed the only thing a player has to keep track of is "Am I going before this monster or after it?"

And because that will change with your roll each round you'll get points where, because you rolled lower on one turn and higher the next there will be times where you get to go twice in a row before the monster goes again, and conversely, a low roll could mean the monster goes twice before you get to go again. It also neatly divides up into groups of "before fastest monster", "fastest monster", "after fastest monster" with a few extra groupings if you've got monsters with radically different initiative scores. So it's a little more chaotic and uncertain.

The second part of that is that players in those groups can go in any order they like just like monsters you roll for initiative all as one group can without needing to hold actions or anything else special. If someone wants to do something simultaneously, just have them both roll and apply the outcomes at the same time. The funny part is that this was basically true even with cyclic initiatives... all the effects still take place before or after the monster goes either way, the specific counts just add an extra bit of counting and tracking to the mix, particularly if players start using more advanced actions like holding and readied actions.

Now, this does mean some changes for durations. ENT becomes End of Next Round. Sustains work the same. I actually went through every last SNT power and it turns out they're all either the game equivalent of "toggles" (you spend an action or take some penalty each turn to keep them running) or already only really apply during your own current turn (many of the movement-based ones that add extra speed or allow you to avoid Free Strikes for example).

The other switch is this... another way to keep things feeling more flexible and chaotic for the players as a real battle would is instead of just changing making Initiative into Scores for opponents, Monster attacks would also be scores (ex. 6 vs. Armor becomes 16 vs. Armor) and player defenses go from Passive Values to a modifier added to their rolls to avoid attacks (so Armor 16 becomes Armor +6, with a natural 1 on the defense roll inflicting a critical hit on a player).

This means that, even if a player hasn't gone yet or just went in the round, they could still have to make a check to see if they successfully block with their armor or dodge or their willpower shrugs off the effect.

Player on Player violence involves rolls on both sides... the attacking player rolls to attack and the defending player rolls their defense. It adds rolls to the resolution, but is a rare enough situation and the situation likely tense enough that both sides rolling will hopefully be a net plus to the feel of the combat.

Allied creatures (or NPCs the GM just really wants to roll for) subtract 10 from the Initiative, Defenses and Attack Scores found in the opponent section and roll like players do so that there's always at least one roll being made.

In terms of the various "roll twice; use best/worst" conditions, its actually arguably simpler... the first is a change to the Hindered Condition...

"When a player or allied creature rolls a check vs. a hindered trait, they roll twice and use the best result. When a player or allied creature's trait is hindered they roll it twice and use the worse result. If both traits used for the check are hindered the player or allied creature rolls normally."

The second change is that Flat-footed gets reworded to "The target's defenses are hindered."

A related change that was more of an associated catch than anything is that, if you can both roll twice and use the best result and take 10 on the same check, you can instead "take 15." Conversely, if you can take 10 on a hindered check you can instead "take 5."

So... anyway. That's where I've mostly been; pounding my head against a wall for quite some time until I finally had a breakthrough.

I've got a fresh copy of the rules document saved under a new name and will be running through to make the edits and see how it looks this weekend.

I'll keep you better apprised this time.

Good to hear from you, man! I was wondering what had happened; I figured it was more RL stuff. Hope everyone's doing okay.

***

Rolling initiative each round would definitely make things more chaotic on the battlefield, but it would also add more to track during each fight, thereby lengthening it. I'd put it on a switch with WotC-style cyclical initiative being the other setting, so that people who want the convenience of WotC-style initiative get access to it.

***

I've seen the idea of "players roll attacks and defenses while the GM just lists scores" idea floated a few times in 4e design/retroclone theorycrafting circles. While I've seen arguments for both sides, I'm ambivalent on it - it looks like it works just as well as the "attacker rolls" setup, so having the switch is simply a matter of preference. Still, it's good to have it in there officially.

***

One thing that I noticed that probably needs to edited is that on page 212, you still say that Basic Training allows you to use any stat for your weapon attacks, while the actual boons now just give expert training in two weapons (or master training in small shields) and the Extra Effort bonus. I get why you changed the boon, though - allowing somebody to pick Endurance for their weapon stat would give them too big a boost in their surges.

I'm looking forward to the next update.

Honorbound wrote:

Rolling initiative each round would definitely make things more chaotic on the battlefield, but it would also add more to track during each fight, thereby lengthening it. I'd put it on a switch with WotC-style cyclical initiative being the other setting, so that people who want the convenience of WotC-style initiative get access to it.

A switch is certainly doable, but the thinking is that the complexity of the extra rolls would be offset by the players only needing to track whether they beat a monster’s fixed initiative TN, not a specific value and after the first turn they’d know those TN’s.

Basically, instead of needing to ask everyone’s initiative score and put them in order (and reshuffle every time someone holds an action) the GM only needs to say “whoever beats a TN 15 goes now” and regardless of the order the players actually use... they all get their licks in ahead of the initiative 15 monsters. Then the monsters go, then everyone slower goes. Then roll initiative for next round.

Multiple monster types might require “everyone who beat a 15 goes” then those monsters go then “everyone who beat a 12 goes” then the initiative 12 monsters go then “everyone else goes.”

And on subsequent rounds everyone knows the break points are 15 and 12 for going ahead of the two types of monsters so 15+ and 12+ are all they need to track going forward.

Side-bar: it actually makes Elven Alacrity and Improved Initiative a bit more useful (because in cyclic initiative winning only matters the first time through, after which you’re always after somebody).

Likewise, if you only have two fights in a night it might not even matter that night (both rolls were terrible, both were amazing, the monsters rolled crap so your 18 and 7 both still go ahead of them, etc.).

But with rolling every round, it not only gets more chances to matter, it also improves your odds of rolling better than the monsters and ensuring they rarely  get two turns between your own. /sidebar.

At least that’s the theory. It still needs a bit of testing to see if it’s actually faster.

***

Quote :

I've seen the idea of "players roll attacks and defenses while the GM just lists scores" idea floated a few times in 4e design/retroclone theorycrafting circles. While I've seen arguments for both sides, I'm ambivalent on it - it looks like it works just as well as the "attacker rolls" setup, so having the switch is simply a matter of preference. Still, it's good to have it in there officially.

From the people who’ve tested it, the only things that make it less fun is if you’ve got a player who cheats on their dice since it doubles the opportunities to do or if you’re a GM who likes to fudge rolls because it’s a lot harder to fudge since you can’t just use a one time adjustment... once the table knows a 7+ successfully defends you can’t easily bump it back up next turn.

As an aside too; which is actually more related to initiative, but active defenses are what got me thinking about it; speed isn’t everything. Outside of my own system I would probably rank 1e Palladium Fantasy ahead of any edition of D&D; even 4E; because the interplay of actions per turn and both attacker and defender rolling to resolve an attack feels better because the act of rolling the die is a physical action that tells your brain you weren’t just passively taking the hit (even if the passive defense would have resulted in a better result).

Yeah, it took longer, but the players felt more involved in the stakes which I think is more important. I like my mechanical balance, but second on my list is definitely player engagement and letting players roll more often helps there.

It also adds a reminder of sorts to the various defensive reaction powers. I’ve seen reactions forgotten about regularly even as people dug through their power list in 4E to make sure they weren’t wasting their minor action because it was their turn.

But rolling your defense is sort of a mini-turn and you’re looking for every edge you can during your turn.

It’s definitely something that’s going to a switch even within the default rules. If the GM decides a particular opponent or NPC is important enough they’re encouraged to roll everything for them too which brings in that Palladium-style tension where your lousy hit or defense roll ends up succeeding anyway because the other guy rolled even worse and that time you counter the other guy’s natural 20 attack with your own natural 20 parry is on par with the endorphin rush of “save vs. failure.”

But having only one roll per action is definitely faster so it should definitely be seen as the norm for grunts and only a threat in numbers opponents.

As mentioned, this approach has had a bit more testing I’m personally familiar with as I’ve seen it used throughout 3.5e, 4E and even ancillaries like Mutants & Masterminds 2e and 3e (M&M3e feels like it cribbed from 4E in updating the rules from the 3.5e-based M&M2e).

As a result I’m definitely more confident about that change up than the initiative order changes.

***

Quote :

One thing that I noticed that probably needs to edited is that on page 212, you still say that Basic Training allows you to use any stat for your weapon attacks, while the actual boons now just give expert training in two weapons (or master training in small shields) and the Extra Effort bonus. I get why you changed the boon, though - allowing somebody to pick Endurance for their weapon stat would give them too big a boost in their surges.

I'm looking forward to the next update.

Error correction is always welcome and they’ve been added to the log. That whole line of thought though might need a little rewording since that example really doesn’t change the way you fight the way it used to.

Anyway; I have to read at 7am Mass tomorrow so I’m already up too late this evening. I’ll keep you apprised.