STILL Not Dead (Terrors & Tactics Updade)

Re: initiative: that makes sense. Not everybody can keep track of initiative order in their head. And if the players can't be mature enough to decide who goes first, then maybe they need to take a minute to cool off.

Re: players roll and cheating, we both know ain't no system on the planet's gonna stop that. The only cure for that is "cut the crap or you're gone." The only real loss there would be GMs fudging rolls in their players' favor, and there are plenty of GMs who let the dice fall where they may.

I think the big dislike for players rolling everything in relation to players cheating is that it removes the tool of subtly nudging up numbers against the offending player (“oh, you got three 20’s in a row? Well, the ogre just landed a critical hit.”) in the hopes of getting the player to knock it off without having to directly call them out on their behavior.

That’s why I think it’s going to be important that I keep “the GM can choose to roll instead of using the static value for any opponent” as a default rule rather than even listing it as an optional rule. The default rule is the GM can pick and choose as they feel best fits the situation.

In terms of progress, I’ve got the conditions adjusted, but the big thing I spent most of my free tume messing with over the weekend was layout; specifically how to distinguish between an entity using rolls and an entity using scores. There are a few edge cases, particularly with very powerful monsters where one might have an attack bonus of 11 or an initiative bonus of 13 and there are a few critters with initiative bonuses as low as 1 (so a score of 11).

What I think I’ve settled on is opponent entries using scores will, instead of “Defenses” use “Defense TNs”, Initiative will be “Initiative TN” and for their attacks instead of 7 vs. Armor it will be noted as “Armor TN 17”.

That way it’s obvious just from the nomenclature which version it’s using and so what you need to do to convert it is similarly obvious (if its TN’s you subtract 10 from the things labeled as TN’s to get the check modifiers, if there’s no TN then add 10 to the value to get the TN).

This was important, because my alternative was having to put a + in front of everything that was a check modifier and I’d dropped that long ago because all those pluses break up the easy reading of text... compare;

STR -1, END +2, REF +1, WIT +4, INT +1, PRE +3

STR -1, END 2, REF 1, WIT 4, INT 1, PRE 3.

It’s also something where it will be relatively quick to run a text replacement through the opponent section to change Defenses to Defense TNs and “X vs. Armor” to “Armor TN 1X” for the ranges of 2-10.

The next big question is for the NPC section; which build types do I use Opponent assumptions and which do use PC/Ally assumptions for? Right now I’m thinking Standard Build will use opponent assumptions (i.e. calculate scores) and PC-Light will use PC/Ally assumptions (since the base of the build is a PC). Each would then have a “how to convert” section added.

Similarly, the mounts and sample hirelings in the Player’s Guide should probably be built using checks with notes for converting them to opponents (basically add 10 to defenses, initiative and attack modifiers for their opponent TNs.

As a side note; I know that technically to keep the math identical it should be adding 11 to things, but the ease of conversion basically being “add/remove a 1 from the front of the number” is worth the 5% variance, particularly since the switch to scores will be in the PC’s favor rather than against them. I should probably put that in a sidebar actually.

So, that’s where it sits as of Monday morning.

With regard to which NPCs get the new assumptions and which ones work like PCs, I'd do it the way you were thinking, with standard build using opponent assumptions, PC-light using pc/ally assumptions.

Part of me wonders if the champions might benefit from going PC-light in terms of assumptions, i.e. allowing them to roll as a default.

My thinking is to leave it up to the GM which version to use; not every champion is going to necessarily be a climatic battle. Plus the conversion is actually pretty easy;

"For allies and opponents you wish to make checks for, subtract 10 from the defense, initiative and attack TNs to get the modifiers they will use for their checks."

It's so easy in fact that, based on the issues I'm having rearranging the core rules to reflect players rolling for everything, I'm almost wondering if instead of rewriting it in that way if I shouldn't instead write it as "Both sides roll checks for everything, but the GM can always take 10 for all NPC checks, even in combat (and are encouraged to do so)."

The gist of the issue I'm having is how to easily distinguish when a listed check is intended to be rolled by the user of the action and when its intended to be used as a reaction by the target. Because right now including "Dodge TN 18" is not explicitly the targeted player's Dodge; particularly when I use the same nomenclature (ex. Acrobatics TN 20) for actions the PC undertakes on their own that happen to have a fixed difficulty.

Basically I need easy nomenclature to distinguish;

- A player targets another creature with an action (currently "Action Modifier vs. Trait").

- A player uses an action without a specific target or against a fixed difficulty (currently "Action Modifier TN [difficulty]").

- An opponent targets a player with an action (currently "Action Modifier TN [difficulty]")

The most sensible is leave the first two alone and make the third maybe "TN [difficulty] vs. Action Modifier")... but "TN 16 vs. Armor" just feels clunky to me compared to just "Armor TN 16" and "16 vs. Armor" is just unclear.

So yeah... today I'm throwing together various sentences and expressions to see what's going to look the best and I am more than open to suggestions.

And so, after a lengthy banging out of different combinations I finally decided on clarity despite it being slightly clunky looking.

The nomenclature should now consistently be...

[Modifier Name] vs. [Trait Name] for player/allied creature actions that target a trait.

[Modifier Name] TN [Value] for actions that do not have a specific target (ex. extra effort to climb).

TN [Value] vs. [Modifier Name] for opponent actions that a player rolls to resist.

So when you see TN 16 vs. Dodge you know the target is the one making a check. 6 vs. Dodge means the attacker is the one making a check (and if the target is a Player or ally, they also make a check).

I just blazed through the whole opponent section making the changes using 'replace text' and the next step is to go through it to fix all the formatting that broke because TN 16 vs. Armor is notably longer than 6 vs. Armor and so things ended up on additional lines, which through other things onto entire other pages.

I think its going to work though. Its clear and using TN everywhere, despite being longer, makes it absolutely clear which things get adjusted when making it an allied creature.

So, back to the glass mines... got a real job deadline I'm crunching currently and typing in between pieces of glassware.

While I was thinking that you'd need to hang onto the "everybody rolls, NPCs can take ten" option as an ace in the hole in case you couldn't find an answer, but the method you were proposing looks like it's going to work.

A brief update. Opponent rework and format fixing is complete. Chapter One: Rules is done. The prior initiative system and “who rolls” options are headed to the Optional Rules chapter.

I’m currently halfway through chapter two for basic and skill actions. I expect to have that wrapped this evening.

I tweeked the duration changes based on the revised initiative to 1 round (i.e. end of next round) and 1 turn (i.e. until the end of the affected creature’s next turn). For the most part all the ENT durations became 1 round and all the SNT became 1 turn.

It’s less of a buff than you’d think since ENT previously would work through your own turn and to the end of your next so a minor action would get you two uses on your turn. The main advantage to 1 round (1r) is if you win initiative the turn you use it it’ll also last through two monster turns. But that’s why the above is “for the most part” rather than universal. Most of the defensive actions, particularly those that don’t cost focus, are going to be 1 turn (1t) and more than I remembered were SNT initially anyway.

Next up after the skills section will be character creation. The main change there will just be the change from “choose an array of 11/11/11 or 10/11/12” to “choose an array of 1/1/1 or 0/1/2” and a couple of durations under the heroic action benefits.

Species*, Classes and Backgrounds shouldn’t need much beyond swapping out the durations.

Gear should be fine for the most part, though I need to decide how to handle item Hardness. I’m almost thinking it should always be static TNs since they don’t really actively resist, but with a note about how to handle attacks on them by opponents. Basically the “who gets to roll” priority is Players > Opponents > Objects. I’m open to suggestions though.

* I don’t intend to change it since I think it subtly reinforces the “sufficiently advanced technology” aspect of arcane magic, but I did recently read a fairly convincing argument for why you should use Race over other alternatives for a pure fantasy setting. I REALLY wish there was an equivalent word that started with an A though... because “ABC’s” is a great shorthand for character creation “A..., Background, Class.”

The ONLY thing that’s really come close to replacing “Species” for me would be “Kind”; as in humankind, dwarfkind, mutantkind, etc.; and even then I’m dubious.

Ancestry could work for everything except golems, since they don't really have ancestors. (The only time a golem or any kind of robot is going to reproduce on its own is if it was designed to, and the Praetorian Empire wasn't having that.)

As to Gear, I'd go along with what you were planning; unless an object is an animated object, it's not going to be making attacks. Thus, static TNs (and always static TNs) are the way to go, like you were saying. Opponents getting to roll against objects not only gives the GM something to roll against, it also introduces randomness into the opponent vs object contest instead of just comparing two static TNs.

So, I plowed through the changes to the entire Player's Guide over the weekend and finished up the Optional Rules section of the GM's Guide to include the prior Cyclical Initiative and Changing Who Checks elements (the latter with options of Attacker Rolls, Defender Rolls, Armor is Different for the old school lovers who want weapon attacks and saving throws) and GM Rolls Everything.

For gear, I did go with what I was planning and it didn't take much work to do it. A single line; "Creatures that use attack TNs (most opponent creatures) instead make a check using their TN-10 for the modifier when they target Hardness."; handled the main issue.

Opponents and NPC sections are also revised.

The one section still needing revision is the encounter setup chapter... and I'm specifically thinking of the section on managing larger battles and basically needing to add a section explaining that in a big battle the GM basically needs to pick a side that does the rolling and flip the TNs/checks to match.

The general rule would be that Players should roll for their allies, but in a game where the battle is more out of their control, the GM is basically free to pick a side, so I'll note that the math slightly favors the side who is rolling so if either side when the PCs aren't involved has any sort of edge, have that side be the one rolling. Alternatively, they could use the Attacker Rolls or Defender Rolls option and only roll the attacks or defenses for both sides.

After that its back to finishing up the Ruin-Builder section and this whole thing is... dare I dream? Done?

The "Armor Is Different" option is definitely a good idea to reach out to the old school crowd (and the 5e crowd while we're at it). I don't think I've ever seen "Defender Rolls" or "GM Rolls Everything" in any system, so I can only assume that they're there for completeness.

***

Having the army with an edge be the one to roll is a good idea, since it gives them an advantage, but doesn't completely overwhelm the other army - there have been plenty of armies over the course of history who had every advantage and still managed to screw the pooch.

***

Kind of hard to believe, isn't it? Being almost done, I mean.

It is hard to believe. To ease the editing process because the final document is near 700 pages its currently sitting split into about 10 "rebuild" files at the moment, but its near done. I wrapped up the rule revisions this evening so its on to finishing out the ruin design and events sections of the final chapter.

As to GM rolls everything, I've seen a few games run that way where the GM wanted the players firmly immersed in their PCs so they even had the PC sheets while the players only had pure fluff sheets with things like "you're very agile and light on your feet and healthy, but not terribly strong. You're not big on books, but you're alert and reasonably charming" instead of Str 10, Dex 16, Con 14, Int 8, Wis 13, Cha 12... spells were basically the fluff text without the mechanics, maneuvers and skills were listed off as things you had various levels of skill in, etc.

Its certainly not something I'd want to do for more than a one-shot, and probably not in a fantasy campaign. I did a one-shot at a Con for six players many years ago in the Robotech setting where all the players had were the hard stats of their machines like tonnage, top speed and armament/payloads and the PC's MOS (military occupational specialty) and SOS (secondary operational specialty). The mission was a fairly basic patrol where they ran into various things and had to deal with them... I handled all the rolling behind a screen and focused on keeping the descriptions flavorful.

But that was about my limit. I would not want to do that full time for a game nor would I want all the added complexity of a full magic system (vs. various caliber guns and missile payloads).

But yes... it was mostly there for completion. Attacker Rolls (i.e. 4E) and Armor is Different (i.e. every other edition of D&D) are the two I expect to be used most often outside of the main rules (which I do expect to be used most often).

That example of GM Rolls Everything requires a level of trust that I think is beyond 90% of all gaming groups, and that percentage would only increase over the course of a long campaign.

And I agree, Attackers Roll and Armor is Different are likely to be the two most common alternatives, both because they've been successfully used before and frankly, they're more fun than GM Rolls Everything/Defender Rolls.

Edit: I could see Defender Rolls working in a horror game where the PCs aren't attacking, but are just trying to survive.

Edit 2: I wonder if an "everybody rolls" setup could work, or if it would introduce too much randomness.

Everybody rolls pulls the results towards the mean because it’s basically 1d20-1d20+mods-mods vs. TN 1. The result is more a pyramid than a bell curve, but it’s definitely not the flat distribution of a single d20.

That said I know it works because it’s the core mechanic for Palladium Books games, which is pretty much tied with 4E for my favorite system not designed by myself.

The only reason its not in the optional rules is because the GM choosing to roll for any opponent is a default rule. If the GM wants to roll for every opponent they can absolutely do so.

I wrote it with “players roll most” as the default because making “everyone rolls but GM can always take 10” subtly pushes new GMs towards NOT taking 10 because they want to use what the rules suggest is the standard (roll everything) and less the exception (take 10).

It’s something I noticed when trying a few 5e games. The 5e monster manual has both rolled and static damage for the monsters expressed as, say, 2d6+8 (15) damage. I’ve YET to see a DM use the static damage, even for minions, because they invariably use the first listed option which for 5e is a damage roll.

So to encourage GMs to use the static scores for most opponents I’m essentially “listing them first.” And if my observations are anything to go by that means probably 80% of GMs will use that as their only resolution system, another 10-15% will use rolls occasionally and the final 5-10% will either roll everything or use one of the optional rolling rules.

The GM choosing to roll as a default rule must have slipped my mind. In my defense, I was posting at 2 am.

To be equally fair, you haven't actually seen the revised text yet so have only the info I've shared on the changes at this point... so part too is on me in terms of clearly conveying info.

Once its recompiled and a new revision is out there will be plenty of time to reassess how things are presented.

Update: I was hoping I was finally going to have the whole thing done, but the ruin creation section; specifically determining the CP budget just wasn’t working as written, so I’ve had to go back to the drawing board for that chunk. But at least it’s a new chunk.

As such, I’m going to recompile everything else today and get it out as an update so people can start digging into that while I try writing up different approach to budgeting the ruin encounters this weekend.

On the plus side, every other part of the ruin generator seems solid so it’s just the encounter building sub-section that’s an issue.

I’m also not expecting any problems with the events section. The idea is to have a couple of tables of different intensity; Typical, Unusual, Major and Cataclysmic. The framework will be to roll or choose several major and probably one cataclysmic event as the most notable historical events of the region and to then roll or choose six more times on a table that includes all the intensities to get the events of the next six months that will occur if the PC’s don’t act. This gives the GM some elements to work into local rumors and what sort of jobs a PC might be offered.

Ex. you roll “Invasion” for month four; so you can start with people talking about tensions between the two realms, around two months in the rumors turn to troop movements and NPCs start looking for adventurers to recover or deliver various resources. At month three the regular bartender at the pub the PC’s frequent isn’t in because he’s drilling with his conscript levy and rumors are flying about reports of the Invading force being spotted near the border.

Now, Invasion is a major event so odds are it’s going to be surrounded by more typical ones; official decree, visiting dignitaries, a murder in the good part of town, a new fashion trend among the aristocrats (if it involves hard to acquire materials it could even become an adventure), etc.

I’m also going to suggest, if you’re doing them randomly to roll several months at a time and arrange the order to taste as some events might work as a catalyst for other events;

ex. you roll war, but also political tensions and assassination. So you might string those together as is and have them be unconnected or you might start with the political tensions followed by an assassination (or an assassination followed by political tensions) and then follow that with war and have all the same players involved in an escalating series of events.

The idea though would be that the events aren’t fixed if the PCs choose to involve themselves. They might turn an assassination into an assassination attempt by interceding. Socially adept PCs with the right backgrounds might diffuse political tensions. Striking a key fortress might forestall the invasion.

Basically, events are the key to taking the region from a diorama of a place waiting for the PCs to interact with it and adding the dynamism of a real setting where things change over time and start adding time pressures and having to prioritize one good over another so the PC’s choices matter more.

So far, I'm not seeing anything out of sorts - the idea of rolling multiple events and stringing them together stands out the most in terms of doing what a DM needs for a setting, but they're all good..

Glad to hear that assessment. One of the main purposes for the GM’s Guide is specifically to give new GM’s the tools they’ll need while learning to do it themselves. The entire remaining section is something any experienced GM could do on their own, but there’s a big assumption there if you leave it out.

That’s something I’ve noticed in more than a few rpgs; the assumption that the reader already knows how to play and run rpgs instead of that every game could be someone’s first and so the new player and new GM are going to need tools on the way to being able to build on their own.

I don’t want to offload that job onto something like D&D, particularly under BigCorp Hasbro’s and the Seattle Gaming Mafia’s control. I want a teenager whose never touched an RPG before to be able to pick up the books, create their own region to explore and try to run it for his friends.

One of the reasons I’ve been pretty adamant about keeping damage checks to a single die by default is because I don’t want new players to need buckets of dice to play. With players rolling everything now you could even share a single set around the table in a pinch. With single dice you can also sub in a deck of playing cards (1-10 using two suits for a d20, use the other two suits for two different damage dice).

Basically, I want to be the anti-WotC. Now back to finishing up the compiling; I got called away on family errands yesterday so I’m only halfway through.

And the revisions are up at the usual site. Lemme know what you think.

So far, everything looks like you'd previously explained it. I noticed that you made Kar-Taxsu's Astral Artillery a non-automatic hit, thought that could be an old change that I missed.

I do note that according to my read of RAW, Action Focus could apply to defense checks as well (since I'm reading it to apply to attacks as well as ability checks and damage rolls).

***

Something unrelated that I caught was that the Water Eldritch entry on page 92 says that you gain a +1 to climb and jump and a +2 to swim, whereas the other elements only grant a +2 to one speed and +1 to another speed. Also, the Frost entry on the same page references "Cyromancy," not Cryomancy.

First, all corrections are welcomed. I’ll add it to the growing list that’s been found.

As for Kar-Taxu’s artillery, it was never auto-hit, just his unerring spear.

Autohit with the size of the AoE would have resulted in anemic damage (13 points as an epic tier threat is pretty wimpy) and the artillery is primarily intended as more of a “siege engine” against objects (hence the “hits on objects are always critical hits” part) rather than PCs (his unerring spear already targets two enemies per minor action with a range of 20).

Attacks vs. objects have required a check to deal damage even when they are autohit against creatures ever since I changed object hardness from damage reduction (which scaled horribly) to its AC. That made autohit damage WAY too good against objects without some sort of check (part of the reason Kar-Taxsu has an extremely high Engineering check in case he decides to use his spear against objects).

* * *

As to RAW and Action Focus, it wasn’t directly intended, but I don’t think I actually have a problem with players (who are just about the only critters to even have focus) being able to spend focus on evading an attack. It’s a flat bonus so it doesn’t avoid the natural-1 causing a critical hit and the other shield options are generally higher than +3 (though I think bumping the ones that are +4 to either +5 or +Focus would be reasonable).

* * *

I took a look and, and odd as it sounds, the Water Eldritch movement boosts aren’t a typo; reading it jogged my memory on why it’s like that... it’s a workaround to keep their innate hydromancy talent from being worth less than it should.

Hydromancy doesn’t add to, but replaces your normal swim speed and so the numbers were tweaked to account for that. Basically, the water eldritch mods are actually +1 to climb, jump and swim. The extra +1 to swim and applying the bonus after hydromancy accounted for is to make the talent provide enough difference to swim speed to be worth its position as a fixed talent for Water Eldritch PC’s.

One thing it has made me realize though is that I need to drop a line into the companion section about what to use for traits that use a Focus score since they don’t have one.

Also for companions, one optional rule I want to add if I can squeeze it in is “less dependent companions”. The gist is that companions would no longer require PC actions be spent; they get their own set of actions. Instead, treat each bodyguard, enforcer, loyal beast, medic or group of warriors as an allied creature worth 15+5/level when determining encounter CP budgets. It has no effect on followers or the familiar as those already have their own rules of sorts for actions.

This is a way to let smaller groups have a bigger party without adding the complexity of a full PC or having to pay mercenaries since the companions are designed to be on the simple side and have roles that are naturally subservient to the main PCs (bodyguard, enforcer and beast explicitly, medic and warriors more implicit since the former is only available via the loyal lieutenant boon and the latter are clearly less capable than the PCs vs. the almost as capable of the bodyguard, enforcer, medic, beast).

Re: Kar-Taxsu's artillery: I clearly missed that part. Apologies.

***

I'd probably clarify the Action Focus to make it clear that you can use it for defense (and attack) checks, so that the players don't have to interpret RAW for that ability.

***

Re:Hydromancy: Okay, that makes sense.

No apologies needed; its a HUGE document. Even I struggle to remember every part of it and I wrote it.

I clarified Action Focus as "Gain +3 to your next action check (including attack, defense and recovery checks) or damage roll per focus spent."

I also changed any talents that spent focus for defense checks to +5 instead of +4 to keep those from being seen as too weak (though to be fair, all the ones that did offer that also added a +1 talent bonus to defenses which makes it worthwhile on its own, but adding a net +2 over the basic defensive use of Action Focus makes it feel more meaningful... basically a net +3 including the talent bonus over not having the talent).

I also added a note to companions that if they have a trait that references a Focus score to treat it as 3/5/7 (by tier) which is at or slightly behind what PCs will have.

And yeah, Hydromancy resulted in some weirdness. It was less an issue for Aeromancy which also replaces your normal jump movement because the value is already lower than most characters could achieve using physical talents (the 'equal to Focus' is there mostly to allow the actual benefit to be of some use even to physical weaklings) because the main benefit was being able to change direction while in mid-jump (i.e. you can jump around corners).

And I did actually add the independent actions option for companions to the optional rules under character generation (since its a change that WILL affect the choices players will make when building or improving their PCs) though at the expense of the "Infinite Levels" option.

Honestly, "Infinite Levels" was probably my least favorite option to begin with because it does actually break the power curve and will ultimately result in even something like the Dreadnaught Golem being something easily overcome. The continued advancement by just gaining additional talents and boons without Edge, attribute and other bloating is by far my preferred method of adding continued growth.

So I was probably looking for an excuse to cut it for a while now anyway and this just finally gave me something to replace what would have been dead space if I'd just straight cut it out.

It doesn't help that we've seen multiple versions of the system - heck, I still remember when the runic path was a thing.

***

Thanks for the clarification on Action Focus. I didn't even think about whether it covered recovery checks.

Tell me about it. Its even worse when you're the one writing it it and trying to keep versions straight.

And yeah, I think having it apply to Recovery Checks just makes sense; I double checked and there are no talents or boons that give bonuses to Recovery checks that require focus to use so I didn't even have to make any changes like I did with the couple of talents that gave bonuses to defense by spending focus.

Also worth noting though is that the character still needs to be granted a recovery check by some source in order to spend focus to add to it. Which means one of the more common places would be the recovery checks you automatically make while dying. Spending focus to improve that and avoid losing a surge (10+) or stop dying (15+) could make a lot of difference. At level 11+ you could burn 3 focus while dying for +9 to the check, meaning you definitely won't lose a surge (even a 1+9 hits the TN 10) and have a 75% chance (6+) to stop dying and just be unconscious.

What I like about it is that it actually provides a fairly diverse set of things for PCs to spend focus points on even if they don't have any talents or boons that require spending them; which, since inflictions/stances haven't been required choices for a while now, is a good thing.

Which also makes it harder to build an utterly gimped character too. You aren't letting an entire resource go to waste by not taking certain categories of talents or boons and I've worked really hard to make character creation a process where picking what YOU think is cool won't be a bad choice. It may not actually work with your playstyle the way you think it would, which is why retraining exists, but it won't be bad in and of itself.