|
|
Post by reaperwolf on Jan 4, 2015 2:49:47 GMT -5
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. Oh yeah? Awesome!!! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2015 10:35:43 GMT -5
1 - strikethrough - just delete this sentence. the wording here conflicts with p16, 4th paragraph. no need to say it again anyway.
2 - bolded - the Hero/Adventurer terminology is easily confusing. i have seen others ask questions about this on G+, the blog, and in the forums. i remember asking you about this myself way-back but i can't find the convo now. it must have been email or PM. i misunderstood your answer as well. thankfully, mabon corrected me a few weeks ago. everyone that asked was tripped up by this Hero/Adventurer business, especially since the 2nd sentence countermands the commandment in the 1st sentence. according to p16, all characters are Heroes - including Wizards.
i'm not sure how to re-word this paragraph without knowing your current intentions.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2015 15:02:58 GMT -5
judging from the discussions on the blog and G+, the rules concerning resistance have changed from how they were presented in the core rule book. obviously this needs to be updated in a revised edition. from those discussions i'm uncertain if it has been nailed yet. maybe it was nailed down in Magi Carta? the revised edition needs to get it nailed down and covered comprehensively...
- which spells can be resisted?
- when can a spell be resisted?
--- only when it is cast?
- what is the die-test of resistance?
- what are the results of failed and passed resistance?
--- if failed, can resistance be attempted again? when?
--- if passed, what are the effects?
------complete immunity from that spell-casting?
------half duration of that spell?
------half effect of that spell?
------does each spell present it's own rules for resistance?
i am not fond of charging EN/ST to resist a spell. it turns every spell into Death Spell.
my opinion may be best ignored though. from looking over the tome of terrors, this game has taken some huge leaps towards D&Dism. i suspect it started with Magi Carta. that is not a critique. it is simply an observation. i have not decided if i still love this woman that is different from the woman i fell in love with. perhaps she has not changed and i only saw the woman i wanted to see in the beginning. nevertheless, i'm at a crossroads. i must contemplate before going further down this path.
|
|
|
|
Post by reaperwolf on Jan 4, 2015 20:52:28 GMT -5
Maybe each spell needs a resist condition stated in the spell description?
|
|
|
|
Post by etc on Jan 6, 2015 12:07:24 GMT -5
I have had issues with the Bard skill, which seems to allow a Bard +6 to buff team members to +6 some trait for 6 turns with no downside (such as an EN hit) to the Bard. If I have been reading this right, then the Bard skill is way more powerful than the corresponding mage spell to buff characters.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fenway5 on Jan 6, 2015 21:21:56 GMT -5
Appreciate all the great thoughts and feedback! Lots to consider and I really appreciate your highlighting issues and providing ideas of what you would like to see. Keep the notes and suggestions coming, it can only make the revision better.
|
|
|
|
Post by reaperwolf on Jan 8, 2015 2:53:29 GMT -5
Yeah, I took one look at Bard and removed it. If a player wants a character who can sing, dance, tell stories, act, or play an instrument to earn a few coins (like a profession) I'd go with:
Perform (IN or DX): Your character is trained in a performance art: acting, singing, comedy, storytelling, oration, etc. This skill does not cover Dance or Play Instrument, both are their own skills and are DX based. Other skills such as Puppetry would also be its own DX skill. This skill can be taken multiple times each time a different skill is selected.
|
|
|
|
Post by etc on Jan 8, 2015 13:20:07 GMT -5
What makes HOW so appealing to me is the simplicity of the system. Rolls under x/DX or x/INT, etc to see if a skill is successful or not. Many things are not discussed in details in the rules and are left to the DM/GM/whatever to determine the penalty to perform - and this is not just fine, but a great attribute of the system: there are fewer details to memorize and the DM/GM/whatever has more leeway to fit the play to the campaign. I have had issues with Bard (mentioned above) and with the weapons and weapon damage (a dagger at 1d6 using the optional rule of +1 dmg for every +2 STR above minimum STR to use it, makes a dagger a 1d6+3 weapon for most characters, or the same damage roughly as the shortsword, certainly better than a rapier for a STR 7 character. The trick is to find a way to allow weapons a base amount of damage with an adjustment based on maybe strength, but certainly skill - so I love the idea stated earlier that a weapon skill should be allowed to go towards increased chance to hit or increased damage or increased parry (you announce at the beginning of the turn how you are splitting it). You might even have a chance, at high skill level, to trade those skill points for a second or third attack, say each extra attack costs 2 skill points, then at skill level 6 you could use 2 pts to make one attack more accurate, 2 pts added to damage, and 2 pts to make a second attack with no to hit add or extra damage... and then make the rule for extra damage with more strength just go away.
|
|
|
|
Post by reaperwolf on Jan 9, 2015 1:18:53 GMT -5
What makes HOW so appealing to me is the simplicity of the system. Rolls under x/DX or x/INT, etc to see if a skill is successful or not. Many things are not discussed in details in the rules and are left to the DM/GM/whatever to determine the penalty to perform - and this is not just fine, but a great attribute of the system: there are fewer details to memorize and the DM/GM/whatever has more leeway to fit the play to the campaign. I have had issues with Bard (mentioned above) and with the weapons and weapon damage (a dagger at 1d6 using the optional rule of +1 dmg for every +2 STR above minimum STR to use it, makes a dagger a 1d6+3 weapon for most characters, or the same damage roughly as the shortsword, certainly better than a rapier for a STR 7 character. The trick is to find a way to allow weapons a base amount of damage with an adjustment based on maybe strength, but certainly skill - so I love the idea stated earlier that a weapon skill should be allowed to go towards increased chance to hit or increased damage or increased parry (you announce at the beginning of the turn how you are splitting it). You might even have a chance, at high skill level, to trade those skill points for a second or third attack, say each extra attack costs 2 skill points, then at skill level 6 you could use 2 pts to make one attack more accurate, 2 pts added to damage, and 2 pts to make a second attack with no to hit add or extra damage... and then make the rule for extra damage with more strength just go away. I reign in the bonus damage by limiting the maximum bonus to the damage based upon weapon size, tiny weapons like shuriken and darts are +1 no matter how high your ST is, small (daggers and short swords, hatchets) +2, medium +3 and two handed weapons +4 (or +1D). Dividing up the pool for every combatant as you describe will lead to longer combats IMO but whatever works for you. I'd just as soon +1 combat action (attack or parry/block) per +3 weapon skill. Easy to remember. |
|
|
|
Post by mabon5127 on Jan 13, 2015 18:55:09 GMT -5
judging from the discussions on the blog and G+, the rules concerning resistance have changed from how they were presented in the core rule book. obviously this needs to be updated in a revised edition. from those discussions i'm uncertain if it has been nailed yet. maybe it was nailed down in Magi Carta? the revised edition needs to get it nailed down and covered comprehensively... - which spells can be resisted? - when can a spell be resisted? --- only when it is cast? - what is the die-test of resistance? - what are the results of failed and passed resistance? --- if failed, can resistance be attempted again? when? --- if passed, what are the effects? ------complete immunity from that spell-casting? ------half duration of that spell? ------half effect of that spell? ------does each spell present it's own rules for resistance? i am not fond of charging EN/ST to resist a spell. it turns every spell into Death Spell. my opinion may be best ignored though. from looking over the tome of terrors, this game has taken some huge leaps towards D&Dism. i suspect it started with Magi Carta. that is not a critique. it is simply an observation. i have not decided if i still love this woman that is different from the woman i fell in love with. perhaps she has not changed and i only saw the woman i wanted to see in the beginning. nevertheless, i'm at a crossroads. i must contemplate before going further down this path. I agree with this. This is my biggest complaint. Have the rule in each description or an overarching one, it doesn't matter to me. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2015 20:32:38 GMT -5
for the record, it doesn't matter to me either (resistance by individual spell, resistance by type of spell, or one resistance rule to rule them all). however, the Magi Carta is already written and it's hefty. seems a little late to say each individual spell description will have it's own resistance rule. the following seems pretty simple and easy to ret-con into the rules while maintaining the balance of spell power:
I really like HOW simple that is and HOW it creates variations in spell durations. You might throw something in there about Instant spells but I'm not sure if they were ever intended to be resisted (i.e Fireball, Lightning, Fist, Strike) - half-damage? no damage? no resist but use dodge/block/parry?
|
|
|
|
Post by ewookie_guest on Jan 28, 2015 13:57:05 GMT -5
could not post comment on blog...
would Broken Shield require any sort of test? like 3/DX? if so, i can't see any usefulness. if there is no test - it is simply a choice and the damage reduction is guaranteed - very nice! Broken Weapons soon follow!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2015 21:54:32 GMT -5
was finally able to post on the blog. here's what i posted:
ewookie January 28, 2015 at 4:25 PM
does Broken Shield require any kind of test? like 3/DX? if not, sounds great. if a test is required, i don't see the point. will there be a Broken Weapon too?
ewookie January 28, 2015 at 5:23 PM
on second thought, i can't imagine anyone ever sacrificing their small, AR1 shield to stop 3 points of damage when they could possibly stop all damage with a Shield Block. perhaps the hit stoppage should be 6 plus the AR of the shield? or just sacrifice the shield for one guaranteed (no test) Shield Block?
ewookie January 28, 2015 at 5:43 PM
also, there was some discussion on the trollsmyth blog about how to handle this for magic shields. i'm not sure if it was ever decided. i stopped reading the comments after the first 20 spam posts. the best proposed method i saw went like this:
a +3 shield becomes a +2 shield after the Broken Shield option is taken. +2 becomes +1. so forth.
if the shield did not have a magical bonus like that - if it just granted some ability - i'd treat it like a normal shield for Broken Shield purposes.
|
|
|
|
Post by geordieracer on Jan 31, 2015 16:51:16 GMT -5
I wouldn't want to lose the implied setting of Grau, Grox and Titans. There's a charm to HOW when it's doing it's own thing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2015 0:30:18 GMT -5
I wouldn't want to lose the implied setting of Grau, Grox and Titans. There's a charm to HOW when it's doing it's own thing. me neither. i hope no one suggested that. |
|
