crymson
Junior Member
Eternalknight
Posts: 90
|
Post by crymson on Aug 20, 2008 2:28:53 GMT -5
I have gone trhough the new Flight from the Dark and looked as the Giaks within.
The median score of a single Giak is CS 13 and EP 11.
The median score of 2 Giaks is CS 14 and EP 15.
The median score of 3 Giaks is CS 16 and EP 17.
The only instance of 4 Giaks is CS 14 and EP 18.
There was also the instance of a Vordak (CS 16, EP 24) and a Kraan riding Vordak (CS 17, EP 25).
|
|
crymson
Junior Member
Eternalknight
Posts: 90
|
Post by crymson on Aug 20, 2008 6:20:13 GMT -5
Ok. I have settled on the final system for multiple combats.
I am going to use Beowuuf's idea of CS/5 (round down) and EP/5 (round down). This gives the followng results:
Giak: CS 13 EP 11 3 Giaks: CS 17 EP 15
Drakkar: CS 16 EP 24 3 Drakkarim: CS CS 22 EP 32
Helghast: CS 22 EP 30 3 Helghast: CS 30 EP 42
I think this is fair. Monsters facing multiple characters sufffer a -2 CS penalty per character beyond the first.
Do the classes look balanced?
|
|
|
Post by Maerin on Aug 20, 2008 11:33:36 GMT -5
Do the classes look balanced? Maerin chuckles. In a word, no. But perhaps not for the reasons you might think. The trouble is, without any sort of system to measure modifiers to difficulty, it is hard to measure what those Skills/Disciplines/Magic do in game mechanical terms. And that puts aside the problems of having a baseline task resolution system that implies only a 50% chance of success unmodified; which means the baseline is measuring very difficult tasks as "common place" (which means you are sacrificing a lot of potential flexibility for setting difficulties based on external conditions). Which, in turn, makes "game balance" (as well as playability) impossible to measure right now. When one further considers that the d20-OGL RPG classes that you have based your classes upon were never balanced with one another (or the game system as a whole) either, that only casts further doubt upon the potential balance issues you may or may not have right now. Now, I do not necessarily suggest that you address these concerns up-front. Honestly, the system you are using is considerably less rigid than the d20 system you are deriving your ideas about "class" from. And that means you should not allow too much rigidity to develop up-front, in hopes of trying to "fix" a problem that one cannot even mark the boundaries of right now. Instead, I would recommend you approach your first few games on the LWRPGoL forum site as playtesting, rather than the campaign play you have currently advertised. Try a few different short adventures with different characters, and see in application what works and does not work in non-combat situations. Honestly, the gamebooks give you a really good system to work with so far as combat and a fairly poor system so far as non-combat (makes sense though; they were not designed with the same non-combat considerations that go into an RPG design). So I think you can trust that the former will work reasonably well as a start, and so you can focus on fleshing out the latter as you go. As a playability issue, you need a better class spread for a good RPG. The current LW RPG is very poor in that regard, mostly due to a serious lack of class flexibility combined with a bias towards Sommerlending characters at the expense of pretty much the entire rest of two rather very large and diverse continents. I do not think you need to permit one of the published LW RPG's very worst flaws as a game to poison your game as well.
|
|
|
Post by Beowuuf on Aug 20, 2008 12:29:38 GMT -5
The d20 system has the baseline assumption of a ~50% unmodified success in skills and attack/defense. I've never worked out if this is a very good assumption or not for playing.
|
|
|
Post by Beowuuf on Aug 20, 2008 14:05:12 GMT -5
Ok, checked the classes. I guess I can't really speak to the system, but some small comments, balance and not, I'll make: Elder Magi gets one ability without limit that basically beats the Herbalish's whole skillset. Also, will the Herbalish only get another potion each level? Seems a little restrictive... The BCS Mind Charm doesn't list a cost for use, let alone the cost for multiple opponent use The Dwarf gunner takes a four endurance hit for double damage alone, when the Elder Magi gets to set huge multiples for only wllpower loss. The classes don't have a balance of numbers of powers between each other - the herbalish with 5 out of 15, versus the knight with 1 out of 6, versus the kai/BCS with 3 our of 10. So a party doesn't appear to be build at the same rate. Is this ok? It seems to make the knight a little restricted, unless the idea is a high level knight should either have his lack of powers baalnced by the ability to command troops and gain boons? Umm...I htought I had more comments, but I seem to be out... oh well! In general though, I'm impressed you managed to make somehting of the classes - especially impressed with the SKotR! I agree with Maerin about the 50% chance of failure being too restrictive, I think a lower chance of success for unskilled will allow you to build bonuses for skills (like +3 for bow with kai lords and weapons) along with other situational bonuses (+1 for discipline, +2 for rope, +2/3 for good tactics, etc) I'd say a basic 4-9 or even 3-9 fails to start with perhaps?
|
|
|
Post by Maerin on Aug 20, 2008 14:49:57 GMT -5
The d20 system has the baseline assumption of a ~50% unmodified success in skills and attack/defense. I've never worked out if this is a very good assumption or not for playing. Actually, you are incorrect on both points, though only the non-combat side is relevant here. On the combat side: the target number of 10 to hit on a roll of d20 is based on the assumption that the target is active and mobile and that the blow must be delivered with enough force to cause intentional damage; neither condition represents an "unmodified" measure of success or failure. That is why that number is not described as a DC in the system in the same sense as skill- and attribute-based DC's (instead, it is the baseline AC of a target that has some degree of mobility and awareness of the attack). Even if no other bonuses are added to the d20 attack roll, the fundamental difficulty is described by the difficulty of the action being performed. An untrained person with no natural talents person is not an "average" situation in d20, and so one cannot assume that the difficult of that person hitting a 10 is "average". A completely untrained person trying to hit someone is not making an average-difficulty roll, they are making one that is difficult for them. Skill checks are much the same way. A DC of 10 is only "average" because the system assumes that a skilled person does not have a +0 bonus to the roll. In fact, the "baseline" design-assumed bonus is a +4 to any skill check where "average" competency is assume. That means the true "average" DC is not 10 but 6 (which is still not quite the usual assumption of "average" odds of success of 75%, but is a heck of a lot closer than 50% chances of success being "average"). If you have ever heard the d20 cliche, "it is better to be good at a couple skills then suck at everything" then you understand why that cliche holds true. It is no coincidence that, in the Player's Handbook, the sample characters for each class have 4 Ranks placed in each skill that has Ranks. Beowuuf, if you are assuming that the average person only has a 50-50 chance of success at an average-difficulty action, I hope you never, ever, ever drive in the United States.... In both circumstances, however, there is a further design assumption in d20 that dictates that the difficulty of the action is dictated by the conditions of the action, not by the skill of the person performing an action. This is why a level 1 person might have a 75% chance of success at an "average" action, but a level 20 person (with a proportional increase in skill) might have a 99+% chance of success at the exact same "average" action.
|
|
|
Post by Beowuuf on Aug 20, 2008 15:55:26 GMT -5
I see you point Maerin. Although the ~50% (I say that simple because rolling 10 is a success) still holds slightly. A DC10 means you have a 50/50 shot at remember some general knowledge. However, the cleverer person, with some ranks of knowledge (the +4-5 bonus) still only have a 50/50 chance of remembering more in depth info that he should have been good at. (the at least DC15 checks that actually mean anything in the game)
The unskilled person swinging against the normal person has a 50/50. but the more skillful stronger person swinging against the more mobile armoured person still have a coin toss to decide who suceeds as the +2 strength +2 fighter level would say meet the +2/+2 armour/dex or +4 heavier armour bonus of the defender
It just seems that the premise is that all things being equal, the character should have a 50/50 to be pressed at their level, and the game balance breaks down when BAB and magic outstrips AC (so much that they have made AC rise in the 4E), and the skills break because the DC system seems to pivot at around level 8 - 10 (if that's what people said)
Anyway, sorry if it's an oversimplicifcation, it was just something I noticed as a fundamental assumption, and wondered if it was a deliberate choice, and if it had led to the game balance issues.
|
|
|
Post by Maerin on Aug 20, 2008 17:00:38 GMT -5
I see you point Maerin. Although the ~50% (I say that simple because rolling 10 is a success) still holds slightly. A DC10 means you have a 50/50 shot at remember some general knowledge. However, the cleverer person, with some ranks of knowledge (the +4-5 bonus) still only have a 50/50 chance of remembering more in depth info that he should have been good at. (the at least DC15 checks that actually mean anything in the game) True, but only if the GM is very overly-generous with the potential results of such an "unskilled Knowledge" check. Nonetheless, I do see it happen quite often, and there is only one unfortunate reason for it: a GM is compensating for both poor use/misuse of Knowledge skills and poor compensation for players that do actually put Ranks in Knowledge skills. If an "unskilled" player makes that 10 and gets the same amount of information that a skilled player who rolls a 10, then the GM has not fairly executed the rules. That is a failure in the use of a game system, not in its design. Now, I will grant the point, however, that if too many playtesters consistently fail to use a given system element, then that is grounds for considering dropping that system. But there are a fair number of people out there who use Knowledge skills appropriately. The unskilled person swinging against the normal person has a 50/50. but the more skillful stronger person swinging against the more mobile armoured person still have a coin toss to decide who suceeds as the +2 strength +2 fighter level would say meet the +2/+2 armour/dex or +4 heavier armour bonus of the defender Yet neither of those examples represents an "average" situation "unmodified", and so these examples are getting away from the point. As already mentioned, the difficulty of a skill check in d20 is dictated by the external/environmental difficulty of the skill check, not the skill of the person making the check. Your armored fighter could easily take his armor off and therefore demonstrate himself more capable of making the same DC than the unskilled person. By choosing to make the roll more difficult, however, that skilled person has "modified" the odds of success. While the difficulty of the act itself has not changed, the skilled person has deliberately handicapped his ability to make that check successfully (and therefore his odds of doing so). It just seems that the premise is that all things being equal, the character should have a 50/50 to be pressed at their level... Yes, but "to be pressed" makes the point. A skilled person is not "pressed" to succeed at an average difficulty task. A skilled person is "pressed" to succeed at a difficult task. And that brings me back to the point that, all things being equal, the "normal" difficulty of an action with no significant conditions to "modify" it to be difficult has to have odds better than 50% in order to be both realistic and playable. ...and the game balance breaks down when BAB and magic outstrips AC (so much that they have made AC rise in the 4E), and the skills break because the DC system seems to pivot at around level 8 - 10... (if that's what people said) I suppose of one considered d20 the end-all-be-all of game systems, then one might accept the assumption that, because d20 is broken in specific points that therefore all other game systems must be broken in the same fashion. I am not one of those people who is going to make that assumption. Especially in a discussion of a different game system that, presumably, the designer wants to use expressly because he does not want to use the d20-based OGL LW RPG.. In any case, this is not a discussion about d20 and we have, therefore, wandered away from the point of this topic.
|
|
crymson
Junior Member
Eternalknight
Posts: 90
|
Post by crymson on Aug 21, 2008 3:12:58 GMT -5
Hey, that's ok, it's interesting to read RPG design theory
|
|
crymson
Junior Member
Eternalknight
Posts: 90
|
Post by crymson on Aug 21, 2008 6:01:59 GMT -5
I'm going to fix up some problems with the Brotherhood class and other stuff you mention beowuuf. Other than that I am going to run with what I have so far (plus the Vakeros which you guys haven't seen yet).
Maerin: I understand where you are coming from with repsect to classes. If I get time (or if anyone is interested in playing as one) I will represent the other 'good' aligned classes from the RPG, and see if I can come up with any others (any ideas?).
|
|
|
Post by Beowuuf on Aug 21, 2008 7:26:34 GMT -5
I think the BCS fills the role of 'knowl;edge sink' and diplomat, but still a sage based class that can come from there
I think the LW RPG sage came across as a swashbuckiling magic weilding renaissance man, wheras perhaps a more intellect based skill set might be interesting
|
|
crymson
Junior Member
Eternalknight
Posts: 90
|
Post by crymson on Aug 21, 2008 7:29:27 GMT -5
Yeah I thought the same thing about the RPG Sage; hence why I haven't done it yet I will see what I can come up with for it. Any interest in the Kundi class?
|
|
|
Post by Maerin on Aug 21, 2008 11:12:24 GMT -5
So far as the Kundi class is concerned, I think my only comment is some of the published LW classes are more absurd in concept than others. Who says I cannot be diplomatic when the occasion arises.
|
|
|
Post by Simey on Aug 24, 2008 9:59:59 GMT -5
I would recommend you approach your first few games on the LWRPGoL forum site as playtesting, rather than the campaign play you have currently advertised. Try a few different short adventures with different characters, and see in application what works and does not work in non-combat situations. I've not read the rules yet, but I completely agree with this. If a whole team of dedicated RPG designers and play-testers can come up with 3rd Edition D&D only to have to fairly quickly improve it with 3.5 because of difficulties with the system then for you to come up with something that works flawlessly straight off would be somewhat superhuman. Better to try it out and have some fun with it whilst discovering what needs fiddling with. Again, I've not seen the rules yet, but again I totally agree. Restricting characters in anything like the way the LWRPG does would seem to be missing the opportunity to 'correct' one of the worst aspects of the d20 system. I would have thought - though I'm only guessing here - that usuing a much simpler system would massively reduce the number of hoops you need to jump through in order to make character customisation more flexible. Character cusomisation in the LWRPG - particularly with regard to the core book's classes - is about as close to non-existent as you could get. To an extent it could be argued that this is to do with the available classes - most of them are people who would have been trained from a young age in very specific arts. But my personal view of Kai Lords, for example, would be that whilst they could all handle themselves to some decent degree in combat, some of them would have specialised in certain areas for more than others. Did the highest level Kai Lords all have the same abilities - as the LWRPG would seem to point to - or did they specialise? I would say maybe the latter, and I would argue that Lone Wolf was something of an exception in this respect - he was, after all, one of the greatest Kai Lords ever, so using him as a blueprint is probably unrealistic. Sorry - wittering on and yet to read the rules. EDIT: I like the look of the CS/5 and EP/5 concept for multiple combatants. And you can always modify for circumstances as you see fit - there's no need to have a rule for everything.
|
|
|
Post by Simey on Aug 24, 2008 10:51:15 GMT -5
A couple of questions (I'm not pretending I have the answers : Is it sensible to give a BotCS, for example, the same starting Combat Skill chance as a Kai Lord and a Knight? Could perhaps adding something lower than 10 to your random number table roll be applied? Would it be possible to have a set of skills/abilities that more general characters can pick up? If you wanted to just be a standard adventurer rather than a character of a specialised class, could there perhaps be a set of lower-powered skills/abilities that you could get? You could thereby create a character with a broad range of skills, but with all those skills being less potent than those wielded by the more focused classes. Yes, the Kai Lord would be an exception in that their skills are very varied and also very powerful, but I thnk the reason that the gamebooks focused on a Kai Lord is because they are the most able people in Magnamund. The Kai Disciplines are the ultimate in training human abilities, so they ought - generally speaking - to be better than everything else. And the easy argument that only those rare individuals with latent Kai abilities are able to train in the ways of the Kai avoids the suggestion that everyone would train to be a Kai Lord 'cause why would you want to be anything else?
|
|