STILL Not Dead (Terrors & Tactics Updade)

That is what D&D and a lot of other nostalgia-driven franchises are missing: a willingness to look to sources beyond previous iterations of the franchise itself for inspiration. Without that, the ouroboros consumes itself, the creative fields lie fallow from being overfarmed, and the incestuous family tree withers into something like Charles II of Spain.

***
I was thinking of boons that might apply in combat as well as out, but I get what you're saying now.

***
The Quick Strikes and Multi-Attack action mechanics look good. The only change I'd make would at the end of "Multi-Attack:" "then divide that by 2 (when using the action twice) or 3 (when using the action three times), just to make sure it's clear when you're dividing the threat in half and in third.

Oh, I absolutely agree on D&D turning into an entirely self-referential genre. In hindsight, having to break from the D&D defaults in terms of creature lore and go back to genuine myths and legends was probably one of my most important decisions.

Related specifically to the Battletech/mass attack bit previously; one interesting discussion I had recently was that, if you think about it, multiple attacks per round is basically a success-count dice pool system just with an extra step at the end.

What I mean is that, in a counting-successes dice pool system, for an attack you roll a pool of dice based on your skill vs. some target number (fixed or variable) and you then count the number of dice that meet or beat that target number to determine damage. In many of them if you want to make multiple attacks then you split up your pool.

In D&D your number of attacks is based on your skill. Each attack gives you one die to roll against a target number and if you succeed you do one hit’s worth of damage. Four attacks could just as easily be “roll four d20’s at once and for each that beats the target AC you deal X damage.” If you want to attack multiple creatures then subtract those from your pool and roll them against a different target.

The main difference is the damage roll made at the end. Otherwise, it’s all in the descriptions used for each… the only other difference is that in a dice pool you are generally know or are told your target number before you roll and in fixed TN ones usually the defense is a number of successes to be overcome… which makes it a less perfect analogy, but still points to certain underlying principles that a lot of D&D-exclusive designs would never even think to look at.

Being able to look beyond D&D is definitely a plus in my book. I haven’t strayed too far mechanically, though I’ll admit to having been tempted by both also removing threat rolls from PC attacks (generally for something like the current multi-attack action so depending on the rolls you’d have your variable damage per turn from the number of attacks that hit… or basing the threat dealt on the margin of success, since with the hit numbers where they’re at, once you hit you’ve got an even shot at any of the remaining numbers on a d20… which makes it effectively it’s own separate die roll) and for going to the readily available 2d6 (and tighter bonus numbers) with hindered being best/worst two of 3d6… potentially even stacking those to 4d6 for extreme cases).

Ultimately I always rejected those (I think the only one that pings at all still is static PC threat) because of various shortfalls… ex. using margin of success instead of a separate threat roll adds another math function that can’t be started until you know what the margin is. A threat die can be rolled at the same time as the d20 and adding it’s modifier can start as soon as you finish calculating your attack check number…

… but not without giving them their due.

Anyway, at the moment, I am writing about how the “advantage/disadvantage” mechanics should work when mass combat involves already rolling a lot of d20s. I suspect without my knowledge of dice pool tricks I’d be in a real jam (the typical D&Der solution would be to buy pairs of similar colored dice), but it’s actually pretty simple;

If you roll with advantage, you only need to re-roll any failures, while with disadvantage you only re-roll any successes. After re-rolling those then just count up the hits. Yes, you’ll probably miss a few natural-20s, but mass combat is generally between mooks where they’ll be down soon enough anyway and if a few crits go missing against PCs… that’s probably a good thing when they might have to make as many as 5-6 defense checks per round (i.e. plenty of opportunities to roll a 1).

Anyway, enjoy the rest of your Sunday, I’m feeling a nap coming on shortly.

Okay, time for an update on the monster section rebuild… and yes, it’s turned into something of a rebuild.

The most noteworthy part is in the section for Men. I’ve moved pretty strongly into the sci-fantasy direction with some distinct tech levels for things and, as a result, I’ve come to the conclusion that the old setup of “weak, veteran, elite” versions of the same type of warriors just isn’t going to deliver an appropriate feel.

Sure, you might find an elite bowman out there in the wild parts of a region, but by and large, realms with the capacity will switch over to musketeers or riflemen without necessarily being significantly more skilled. Primitive cavalry will be on horseback, but the elite mounted warriors of more prosperous realms probably use griffins, wyverns, or even motor or hoverbikes.

Similarly, as technology plays more of a factor, the variance in racial traits becomes less significant (at least in terms of opponent statistics for singular fights)… at best small tweaks to movement, senses and skills with only a few having species traits noteworthy enough to make a difference in their combat abilities (ex. Troglodytes’ stench).

So, what I am presently doing is reorganizing the Men into sets of opponents of approximately similar tech levels (basically along the item quality lines of primitive, standard, advanced, and legendary) that you can then apply a few racial modifiers to.

There will still be some outliers; oversized and small races (ex. ogres, trolls, cobalts) and fliers (ex. ravenkin and free goblins) or those with really bizarre abilities (ex. Dracosi breath weapons, Trog stench) have combat capabilities different enough to need their own entries; but overall having a set of broad opponent types that are “primitive humanoids” “standard humanoids” “advanced humanoids” and “legendary humanoids” (perhaps with Spellcasting forces as their own side category) will probably be a lot more useful, particularly if setting up a region outside the default Old Praetoria.

So, for example, the Toria Tribes would pull primarily from the Primitive and Spellcasting sets if you needed to represent them. The Bloodspear Empire is a mix of the Standard and Advanced sets with Ogre and Goblin types mixed in. The Free Cities use Standard and Spellcasting forces and a smattering of the other Men types befitting their egalitarian natures.

An example of the sort of racial modifers would be the Wolfen; +1 ground speed, low-light vision, scent; or Dwarf; -1 ground speed, low-light vision, resist toxic.

Level range-wise; weaks are staying 0-5, but in terms of design it’s probably going to be primitive 0-2, standard 1-3, advanced 2-4, and legendary 3-5. So a halberdier is probably weak level 0, a Mechsuit infantryman is weak level 5. A horse mounted knight is a weak level 2, hoverbike cavalry are weak level 4.

Into the normal and tougher foes, right now I’m eyeing 0-5 for primitive, 3-8 for standard, 6-12 for advanced, and 9-18 for legendary.

The idea is to provide more of a range across all the levels because one of things in my latest round of testing has been the number of elite opponents I’ve needed to use to challenge players without bogging encounters down with a LOT of opponents (basically things with enough Edge to not drop yet also not do so much threat per hit that they can oneshot a PC).

In a sense, I think I overloaded my opponent list with weak opponents because I was getting into a bit of a simulationist mindset where I needed to present options to present the broader world vs. things actually worth PC’s time to fight. Weak level 0 bandits aren’t going to be much more than a nucience by level 3-4… so I don’t need 5 different varieties of them (particularly when the most effective use for them is the “aid attack” action so a standard or elite ally can attack with advantage).

Basically, I need maybe a weak tier “trooper” or two for each of the tech levels; but everything else needs to be normal threat or better for it to be of real use to the GM who is planning encounters for PCs.

I’m also re-building a lot more of the higher level monsters to use the multi-attack action by default. Using that makes the need to rely on elites less necessary.

* * * *

The stuff that isn’t Natural in origin will still get its own sections and entries… with Golems now getting a much less odd location among the Arcane races instead of the Dreadnought Golem sitting in the midst of the Men entries.

Anyway, that’s how things are progressing.

The revised/race-neutralish statblocks are going to provide you with a lot more freedom. I like the idea of factions pulling from generalized rosters of enemies instead of having specific stablocks representing the minute differences between different types of infantry, scouts, or marksmen. No need to reinvent ten slightly different versions of the same wheel. If the opponent is radically different from something in the general set, then they get a new statblock.

Exactly!

Archons have a different statblock despite being mostly cavalry, because flight changes up many aspects such as making flechettes into a deadlier attack option than any sort of lance charge would be (dropping handfuls of tip-heavy blades from a couple hundred feet up is a nasty maneuver… basically each archon could be the equivalent of a score of archers doing volley fire with gravity doing most of the work instead of needing to draw a bow).

My thinking too is that by keeping things a bit vague, more advanced/higher level opponents could also represent less advanced but stronger species (ex. orcs might default more to “advanced” despite their tech being mostly “standard” grade simply because they’re innately stronger and faster than normal humans).

My big task at the moment is setting up a list of specific types to make it interesting. The big transition I think is going to be going from primitive to standard and then standard to advanced.

Primitive is going to have more specialists because that’s how combat worked. The infantry, the archers and the cavalry all had different kit and gear was generally too cumbersome to fulfill multiple roles in the same battle without some type of compromise (ex. Skirmishers might mix melee and range, but will probably not be as good at melee as the pikemen or good at ranged as the longbowmen, nor have the heavy armor of the cavalry).

Standard grade you’re going to start seeing a LOT more opponents capable of melee and ranged; pirates with pistols and cutlass, infantry with rifles and bayonets.

Advanced is going to favor ranged over melee with close combat weapons as the backup (whereas even up to WW1 the bayonet was considered the primary weapon of the infantry and the rifle or musket as something you fired off to soften up the enemy ahead of the charge). You’re also going to see a lot more conditions as Flashbangs and tear-gas and tasers and the like start becoming part of the kit.

Legendary gets weird though because legendary armor might have built-in energy shields or missile deflection capabilities and movement options for rapidly closing could make advanced melee weapons again more useful so you see a mix of melee and ranged. Lots of conditions at this level too… lightning guns, freeze guns, sonic disruptors, gravity generators, disintegrator rays, etc.

In a way, Legendary is where the Mechanist’s tech lives and you shouldn’t see too many places where its the norm in large numbers. I’ll probably need to include a note to that effect as it basically distinguishes from the Magery and Mystics (and with the difference in the classes now I’ll probably want to have those two be distinct as well).

Given the potential for overlap, I’m almost wondering if Mages shouldn’t actually fall under the “Arcane” category (alongside Avatars and Golems) and Mystics under “Primal” (alongside all the Eldritch) as there’s a fair bit of overlap in what they can do.

That changed-up archon strategy is freaking brutal! People don't think about stuff like that because most of us are confined to thinking about aerial combat tactics as being relegated to planes, like in the real world.

And the part about equipment generalizing as it advances is true as well. Look at phones: they've replaced pagers, cameras, calculators, watches, and can fill the role of computers and other gaming hardware (not as well as dedicated computers, but they're much more advanced than a Gameboy, for example).

And the nature of combat changing with technology is a very accurate (and thus verisimilitude-enhancing) reflection of the real world. Right now, offense rules and range is king. If armor catches up or Dune-style shields become a thing, then we might see a return to melee-focused combat.

***

I'd definitely put the Mages under "Arcane" and Mystics under "Primal" just for that overlap (and because it makes sense lore-wise).

I hope things are going well for you, and I hope you have a happy Easter.

I did have a good Easter, a niece-in-law joined our church at the Easter Vigil mass.

I haven’t really replied because I’ve been a bit blocked on the rebuilding of the opponents. Getting the basic math of existing ones cleaned up was easy enough (and can be found in my recent update of the finally separated back out GM’s Guide; and a new Player’s Guide so it’s not doubled up), but assigning boons (or equivalent) to everything and redesigning the Men around tech levels has been more work than I was initially thinking it would be.

Also, my mechanical adjustments to the opponents so far have been pretty rough; none of them have any sort of “improved crit” type options and other than realizing I needed to change up how things without END scores calculate their health (even powerful undead were sporting Health 1 (3 if elite)) that part of them is now pretty basic.

I don’t remember if I had mentioned it yet either, but I decided to drop Bulk from the latest version and just go back to real weights. It was a noble attempt, but it didn’t actually change the behavior of people who didn’t track weight already and having to distinguish between Bulk and Weight was leading to some things being more complicated without even the benefit of gear management being less complicated.

The bright spot in rebuilding the opponents was that in getting the GM Guide back in enough order for another interested party’s playtest I think I realized that part of my roadblock on the rebuild was that I was starting from the wrong end. The problem with us humans is we’re so adaptable that creating specific types of opponents becomes laborious. Critters though tend to be much more specific. Wolves are specific, Griffins are specific, Briar Beasts are specific, Horrors are positively monofocused on their means of tormenting humanity.

So, I’m going to switch to working up the non-combat elements of the Horrors, Demons, Eldritch and Avatars and hopefully get enough momentum and feel for how to make this upgrade work that I can then bring that into working on the Men entries (instead of trying to plow through what I realize now is the hardest part first).

That's good to hear!

***

I kind of figured that the revamp was going to take a bit, just due to the sheer number of opponents you have to go through and double-check, let alone picking boons. Speaking of which, I was thinking that for men, you could create a small list of useful boons from each background, then have the opponent statblocks pick a background, then a utility from that background.

***

Like I said a while back, if a mechanic isn't used, does it even exist? That's bulk as a whole. Like you said, it was a good attempt and the mechanic itself is solid, but if no one is using it, then there's no sense in having it. I'd still make a note of that mechanic and see if you can't make better use of it in another system.

***
Anyway, it was good to hear from you. Talk to you later.