Revised edition needs

[Fenway5]

Here is a thread where you can let me know what issues you see as needing to be cleared up for the revised edition.

[Deleted]

Assuming that weapon skills will continue to grant an additional attack or parry going forward...

p46;third paragraph
When attacked, a Hero or creature may choose to react to only ONE attack per turn.

Should that be "only ONE attacker per turn"? As currently worded in the reactions description above, no one gets multiple parries...but the skill descriptions contradict this. Consider a character with Sword +3. He currently gets 1 additionaly attack or parry per turn. Let's say he is fighting an opponent that also has Sword +3. His opponent attacks twice but our poor defender can only parry one of his attacks?

I wonder if it might be simpler and more balanced to do away with the additional attacks and parries. Just allow weapon skills to be split between attack bonus or damage at the player's discretion.

Another idea is to drop the parry reaction altogether. In this scenario, you allow weapon skill to be split between attacking or parrying. I'm not sure if this was official D&D back in the day but this is how my group did it. Let's say a swordsman has Sword +3. He could declare at the beginning of his turn that he was going to use 1 point of skill to attack and 2 points of skill to parry. The points he used for parry were deducted from all attacks against him. I'm not sure I would do it exactly like that here, but the idea is there to kick around.

Allowing these splits, a Sword +6 guy could use +2 for attack, +2 for damage, and +2 for parry.

[Deleted]

Weapon skills as currently defined:

Ax/Club/Mace (3/DX) Bonus to attack when using an Ax, Club or Mace. For every +3 in skill bonus, the Hero can make 1 additional attack per turn.

Bows (3/DX) Bonus to attack when using bows. For every +2 in skill bonus, the Hero can make 1 additional attack per turn.

Dagger (3/DX) Bonus to attack when using daggers and knives. For every +2 in skill bonus, the Hero can make 1 additional attack per turn.

Fencing (3/DX) Expert in using rapier or saber weapons. The skill level bonus is applied to attacks and parry tests using these weapons. For every +2 in skill bonus, the Hero can make 1 additional attack or parry per turn. When used for parrying roll 1d6. If the result is a 6, the rapier or saber breaks.

Pole Arms (3/DX) Bonus to attack when using spears and pole arms.

Sling (3/DX) Bonus to attack when using slings.

Staff (3/DX) Bonus to attack when using staff as a weapon.

Swords (3/DX) Bonus to attack when using swords. For every +3 in skill bonus, the Hero can make 1 additional attack or parry per turn.

Throw (3/DX) Bonus to attack when throwing knives, rocks, darts etc.

Two Weapon Combat (3/4/DX) First weapon attack made at 3/DX. Second weapon attack made at 4/DX. You may only use one-handed weapons and may not be using a shield. Bonus is applied to both attacks.

Unarmed Combat (3/DX) Bonus to attack, damage, and grapple attacks.

First up, Two Weapon Combat. Is that bonus applied on top of the character's weapon skill with each weapon in each hand or is it used instead of those bonuses? My suggestion: Replace Berserk with 'Dual Strike' or 'Two Weapon Attack'. It should read something like this: An attacker may attempt to strike one adjacent foe twice or two adjacent foes once each if he wields a weapon in both hands. The first strike succeeds by passing 3/DX. The second strike, from the other hand, succeeds by passing 4/DX. Each strike benefits from weapon skill with the weapon used in that strike. The attacker forfeits his reaction this round. [allow normal, 'attacking movement' before two weapon attack. delete the two weapon combat skill]

Second, it has been pointed out that all weapon skills don't appear equal. Ax/Club/Mace, Bows, Dagger, Fencing, and Swords all allow extra attacks. However, Ax/Club/Mace and Dagger say nothing about parry. Is the skill even applied to parry? Do they get extra parries?. Meanwhile none of the other weapon skills say anything about extra attacks or parries. I actually see some good logic in this.

Ax/Club/Mace - these are heavy weapons. Maybe too heavy to 'react' with. Then again, they are given extra attacks with skill, which doesn't fit into the logic of 'too heavy' to parry. These weapons tend to do some heavy damage on their own without needing a second attack...but they would be fine, sturdy objects for blocking attacks.

Daggers are small. Historically, some daggers were designed for parry with gaudy hits and what-knots. Maybe a normal dagger shouldn't be allowed to parry or maybe it is allowed but the skill bonus doesn't apply? I'm not sure which makes more sense. I'm not sure which makse for a better game or if it really matters to a game. I suppose it depends on the type of game one likes to play - heavy social or heavy combat.

Bows - seems obvious to me that 'traditional' thinking would not allow a bow to parry but maybe I'd allow it and have a rule like Fencing where it might break. I think we actually did something like this back in the day to appease a begging player with a dying character.

Pole Arms. Again, maybe allow them to parry but have a chance of breaking. I have no feelings, thoughts, or ideas about mutlple attacks.

Staff. Same as pole-arm. In fact, I've often wondered why they aren't classified as a pole-arm.

Sling. Again, seems obvious to me that a sling is too slow for multiple attacks and can't parry...but an archer can make multiple attacks... I've never done this: if the sling were made of chain or something, the character could use it like a chain to block an attack or grapple a weapon. None of these ideas seem good to me. It be gettin' real compincated up in da house

Unarmed Combat. A good unarmed fighter might have some bad-ass bracers he could use to parry or block.

It all gets real hairy, complicated, sometimes silly, sometimes creative, XP award-winning genius.

[Deleted]

i would like to point out that listing All Out Defense under Defense Options (Reactions) creates a logical inconsistency at play time relating to sequence of events. sure, grammatically? it makes sense to list All Out Defense under Defense Options but it doesn't jive with the other reactions or the description of Defense Options (Reations):

When attacked, a Hero or creature may choose to react to only ONE attack per turn.

a player should really declare during their turn if they are going to perform Full Defense as their movement/action.

[Deleted]

allowing weapon skill to be arbitrarily split between offense and defense could potentially facilitate the complete removal of All Out Defense.

[buzzclaw]

I wanted to respond to some of what you posted on the blog, Brandon.

There will be some IQ 8, IQ 9 , and IQ 10 spells . . .

I think you should have the core spells go up to at least IQ 12. 

. . . some creatures . . .

I think the questions to ask are:

1) what creatures are absolutely needed?
Horses and bears for instance should definitely be in but are Halflings, Goblins, and Kobolds all needed? What about just one "good" small race and one "evil" small race? Given that the philosophy behind HOW seems to emphasize conflict between Humans, it seems best to trim the selection of monster races a bit. Any creature that can be summoned is also an auto-include.

2) Which creatures are "iconic" to HOW?
I really love your take on the Hill/Mountain Dwarves and I think you should keep it. Octopo are somewhat unique and they provide a useful antagonist faction in games that take place near or under water.

[reaperwolf]

Jan 4, 2015 0:22:23 GMT -5 @ewookiereturns said:

allowing weapon skill to be arbitrarily split between offense and defense could potentially facilitate the complete removal of All Out Defense.

Not necessarily, if you're fending off 4+ attackers, even with a +6 skill you're better off with all out defense because you'll chew through your extra parries real quick and be left vulnerable. All out defense is all attacks coming your way which, incidentally, I'd apply the +1D penalty to all hostile actions directed at the PC including enemy spells even those not normally dodgeable.

[Deleted]

Jan 4, 2015 0:53:35 GMT -5 reaperwolf said:

Jan 4, 2015 0:22:23 GMT -5 @ewookiereturns said:

allowing weapon skill to be arbitrarily split between offense and defense could potentially facilitate the complete removal of All Out Defense.

Not necessarily, if you're fending off 4+ attackers, even with a +6 skill you're better off with all out defense because you'll chew through your extra parries real quick and be left vulnerable. All out defense is all attacks coming your way which, incidentally, I'd apply the +1D penalty to all hostile actions directed at the PC including enemy spells even those not normally dodgeable.

I do understand what All Out Defense is and how it works. I did say potentially. It depends on how you implement it, like everything else. If you say that you use 2 points of weapon skill to defend, all attacks against you add 2 to the dice roll. An alternative might be to say that your AR is increased by that amount. In addition, the bonus (2) is applied to parry tests.

the bold is what i originally had in mind and seems best to me. i like that in the context of doing away with all extra attacks and parries granted by skill.

[reaperwolf]

I actually like extra parries/attacks for high skill but I'd prefer it be standardized at +1 combat action (attack or reaction) per +3 so by the time you've mastered your weapon, regardless of what it is, you've got a pool of options provided you don't move more than 5 ft. or just stand still.

This would make it rather like how attack routines work in D&D 3.X/Pathfinder games.

An option to a revised edition, invalidating the book I only got a month or so ago, would be a companion volume with options.

[reaperwolf]

Agreed on Full Defense, the intent to forgo all actions to defend yourself really should be announced early in the round, maybe even before Initiative is rolled.

[reaperwolf]

One thing that's bugging me is monsters lack EN. I realize this was deliberately made a PC only thing but as a result monsters tend to have high ST scores and yet their ST is only used for damage because ST isn't really a factor in how much damage the monster deals, i.e. look at the giants' damage scores. We discussed this a bit in another thread. By all counts the damage monsters cause is ballparked/fudged.

The reason this is a problem is enemy spellcasters have to use their ST to power their spells so your lowly kobold shaman has at most one maybe two spells cast before it's so weak a single puny blow takes it out. An enemy wizard scaled to oppose the PCs would have to have EN otherwise the wizard would have to have an enormous ST score.

[Deleted]

Jan 4, 2015 1:36:59 GMT -5 reaperwolf said:

One thing that's bugging me is monsters lack EN. I realize this was deliberately made a PC only thing but as a result monsters tend to have high ST scores and yet their ST is only used for damage because ST isn't really a factor in how much damage the monster deals, i.e. look at the giants' damage scores. We discussed this a bit in another thread. By all counts the damage monsters cause is ballparked/fudged.

The reason this is a problem is enemy spellcasters have to use their ST to power their spells so your lowly kobold shaman has at most one maybe two spells cast before it's so weak a single puny blow takes it out. An enemy wizard scaled to oppose the PCs would have to have EN otherwise the wizard would have to have an enormous ST score.

i think all of these concerns will flee from you once you get the big tome of terrors.

added much later: also, nothing prevents you from givine NPC spell-casters EN. if you're writing an adventure or creating one for your players, you should definitely do this...or just say that your NPC can X number of spells per day <- that seems to be the way of the big tome of terrors.

[Deleted]

Jan 4, 2015 1:30:38 GMT -5 reaperwolf said:

I actually like extra parries/attacks for high skill but I'd prefer it be standardized at +1 combat action (attack or reaction) per +3 so by the time you've mastered your weapon, regardless of what it is, you've got a pool of options provided you don't move more than 5 ft. or just stand still.

This would make it rather like how attack routines work in D&D 3.X/Pathfinder games.

An option to a revised edition, invalidating the book I only got a month or so ago, would be a companion volume with options.

after seeing how powerful the monsters became in the big tome of terror, i'm very appreciative of the extra attacks. the extra parries for ALL weapons? not so much. it creates logical problems. weapon skills should DEFINITELY NOT grant extra reactions in general. how does sword skill allow you to dodge more often. you probably meant (attack or parry), right?

i guess there may be another problem with the RAW. you say 'don't move more than 5ft or just stand still. the way i read the RAW, you can move up to 1/2 your MV and still attempt a reaction...

Defense Options (Reactions)
When attacked, a Hero or creature may choose to react to only ONE attack per turn. He may react defensively IF the target of the attacked moved 1/2 his MV value or less during the movement phase. This option is chosen as soon as your Hero is attacked. By reacting, you give up making any movement on your next turn. Note you could still act and react to another attack in the next turn of combat, but could not move.

i could be wrong though. I think the intention was this...

Defense Options (Reactions)
When attacked, a Hero or creature may choose to react to only ONE attacker per turn. He may react defensively IF he moved 1/2 his MV value or less during the movement phase. This option is chosen as soon as your Hero is attacked. By reacting, you give up making any movement on your next turn. Note you could still act and react to another attack in the next turn of combat, but could not move.

bolded text is where i changed things.

[Deleted]

Jan 4, 2015 0:34:11 GMT -5 buzzclaw said:

I wanted to respond to some of what you posted on the blog, Brandon.

There will be some IQ 8, IQ 9 , and IQ 10 spells . . .

I think you should have the core spells go up to at least IQ 12. 

. . . some creatures . . .

I think the questions to ask are:

1) what creatures are absolutely needed?
Horses and bears for instance should definitely be in but are Halflings, Goblins, and Kobolds all needed? What about just one "good" small race and one "evil" small race? Given that the philosophy behind HOW seems to emphasize conflict between Humans, it seems best to trim the selection of monster races a bit. Any creature that can be summoned is also an auto-include.

2) Which creatures are "iconic" to HOW?
I really love your take on the Hill/Mountain Dwarves and I think you should keep it. Octopo are somewhat unique and they provide a useful antagonist faction in games that take place near or under water.

it's not like there are a ton of monsters in the core rulebook already. why are you trying to talk the man into giving us less?
i would keep about the same number of monsters that are currently in it. but take out giants and stuff that novice GMs shouldn't be playing with or throwing at novice characters.

spells up to IQ10 sounds right if the intent is that novice characters can't know spells higher than IQ10...but hey, i'll take as much as Mr. Brandon is willing to give

[Deleted]

another thing. not a rules suggestion. use multiple (people) editors. have them not just check for spelling or grammar but things that are awkwardly worded. correct spelling and grammar are not key to communicating ideas effectively. no offense to pastor beau. we're all human and fallible.

i volunteer
i will read the whole thing in it's entirety, highlight text that seems questionable, compile a list of these highlights in another document along with questions and suggested re-phrasing. then give that you. no incessant-ness. no expectation of getting an answer from you.