The Campaign Builder's Guild

Quote from: Ra-TielI was thinking along the lines of something similar to this from that thread:

Quote from:  EDR < 2*DT: target suffers moderate wound
- 2*DT <= EDR < 3*DT: target suffers serious wound
- 3*DT <= EDR: target suffers critical wound
#3: Apply appropriate wound penalties:
- light wound: cumulative -1 penalty per wound to all checks
- moderate wound: cumulative -2 penalty per wound to all checks, Will save against DC = EDR or become sickened for 1 minute
- serious wound: cumulative -4 penalty per wound to all checks, Will save against DC = EDR or become nauseated for 1 minute
- critical wound: cumulative -8 penalty per wound to all checks, Fort save against DC = EDR or become dying, Will save against DC = EDR or fall unconscious for 1 hour[/quoteThat's insane. You've got the opposite problem that my system supposedly has; No matter how long a pack of thugs wails on you, if you're significantly tougher than they are, you'll NEVER DIE.

Quote from: Stargate525That's insane.

Thank you! I see my wisdom is finally spreading. :D (Take a look at my title I got on the WotC boards. ;) )

Quote from: Stargate525You've got the opposite problem that my system supposedly has; No matter how long a pack of thugs wails on you, if you're significantly tougher than they are, you'll NEVER DIE.

That could be "easily" avoided by applying the wound penalties to the character's DT. However, this would have some other complications in return, and so far I haven't found an optimal solution to this conundrum... :-/

you know, we also need to take into account that if you get a serious enough wound you would get damage over time due to bleeding.

Quote from: Atlantisyou know, we also need to take into account that if you get a serious enough wound you would get damage over time due to bleeding.

That would be taken care of by critical wounds. Notice that you don't automatically fall unconscious from a critical wound, and you neither become automatically dying. So, you could be conscious but bleed to death slowly, or be not at risk to die but fall unconsciouos.

Well, we obviously can't use your system until you figure out a solution to the 'strongman can't die' scenario.

Quote from: Stargate525Well, we obviously can't use your system until you figure out a solution to the 'strongman can't die' scenario.

But that doesn't stop us from continuing making suggestions and collecting ideas for the CBS, does it? ;)

Quote from: Ra-Tiel#2: Make everything a skill.
In normal DnD characters get better at resisting attacks and wielding weapons, even when they are stuck in a purely social campaign and do nothing else than making Spot and Diplomacy checks for decades. Not only is this a little unrealistic, but also removes a custom element from characters, as all fighters advance in combat ability at the same constant rate. Making everything a skill (including combat abilities and spellcasting) allows for a greater variety of builds and removes the need to optimize ("a good gish always has CL17 and BAB16").

#3: Saves as a skill.
Standard d20 assumes that characters have access to magic items and do stockpile those. If you make saves into a skill, the character becomes independent from magic items and has a decent chance of succeeding even against optimized builds. In normal DnD, even without magic items a character's weak saves are mostly useless against optimized save DCs. Also, if saves were skills you would elegantly remove the problem of autofailure against save-or-suffer effects. And learning to become better at resisting certain attacks is no more or less realistic than training one's visual senses to almost superhuman level, but merely an abstraction made by the mechanics.
[spoiler=Details]Even without magic items, an optimized wizard's Intelligence could be the following:
Base: 18
Race: +2
Level increases: +5
Total: 25/+7

Minimum save DC: 17+spell level, or 26 for a level 9 spell.

On the other hand, a weak save is often only marginally better than +6. Without magic items, most characters tend to optimize their strengths instead of minimizing their weaknesses (as DnD rewards strong offense rather than defense). Thus, a character without magic items has often only a 5-15% chance of succeeding on a save targetting its weak saving throw.[/spoiler]

Well we were discussing making max skill ranks, BAB, BMB, and saves all run off the same formula (poor=1-11, average=2=17, good=4-23.) so i dont see any real differnce in turning BAB, BMB and saves into skills themselves if we stick with the layman, expert and master skill profiencies. But having no actual experience in a game where the above was turned into skills i was wondering if there were any adverse effects that could come about?

Quote from: ~Kalin~Well we were discussing making max skill ranks, BAB, BMB, and saves all run off the same formula (poor=1-11, average=2=17, good=4-23.)

Yes, that was the initial idea on my part. However, I've stumbled upon a massive problem. This system may work for levels 1-20, but afterwards it falls apart. It suffers an aggravated form of the same problem which led WotC to make "Epic Attack Bonus" and "Epic Base Save Bonus" instead of simply continuing the normal progression.

The progressions would be like this:
# poor: level*1/2 + 1
# average: level*3/4 + 2
# good: level + 3

Now, imagine a level 40 character. He'd have a max score of 21 in his poor skills and a max score of 43 in his good skills. That means, that a character with a "poor" melee skill can (ignoring ability modifiers and magic bonuses for the moment) never parry a blow of someone with a "good" melee skill. Same thing goes for saves, opposed skill checks, etc. And that's bad. One character will never fail his save against a poison, while the other character will always fail his save against the same poison, no matter what either character rolls on the d20.

Another idea would be to make the progressions use the same factor, but add different bonuses afterwards. Example:
# poor: level*1/2 + 1
# average: level*1/2 + 4
# good: level+1/2 + 7

This would keep the maximum different constant at 6 points, which is 30%. There is no level at which characters would fall that much apart from each other in their maximum bonuses that the d20 becomes irrelevant. Also, this would give a whole new meaning to the Skill Focus feat, which would effectively upgrade one single skill by one category.

Quote from: ~Kalin~so i dont see any real differnce in turning BAB, BMB and saves into skills themselves if we stick with the layman, expert and master skill profiencies.

I don't see any difference either. However, we'd have to consider the number of proficiencies we would give to characters. Also, I'm still favoring one single save skill instead of one. After all, saves other than Reflexes almost always fall into the category of "save or suck", which is not really fun for the players. Nobody enjoys his character getting easily dominated (*cough*fighters, rogues*cough*) or being dropped by ability damage or negative levels like there'S no tomorrow (*cough*rogues, arcane casters*cough*). In the end, we play a rpg to be the heroes, not some schmock betting his ass handed to him. And anyways, in Iron Heroes all characters have their base saves equal to their current level, and it doesn't exactly break the game because the default setting for IH is very low on magic items.

Quote from: ~Kalin~But having no actual experience in a game where the above was turned into skills i was wondering if there were any adverse effects that could come about?

The first levels would probably be the most problematic ones. If we used the alternative progressions from above, a starting character could have an attack bonus of 7(skill)+3(str)+3(skill focus) = +13(total). Same goes for other skills, like Open Lock, Diplomacy, and so on. However, from that point on the advancement would only come in small steps, effectively increasing the total modifier by +1 every second level. To counteract this "problem" in combat, we could make it so that "Close combat" and "Ranged combat" refer to a single weapon group only. So, the example character from above could have "Close combat (swords)" at +13, but his "Ranged combat (bows)" would be effectively his Dex - 4, which would be kinda realistic (having been in the German military I know how to operate pistols, rifles, SMGs, MGs, and rocket launchers, but I absolutely have no idea how to use a AA-gun, or a tank, or an artillery cannon) and make fighters specialize in a few selected weapons.

Quick overview of the system for Damage used by the Hero System:

Two types of "HP": Body and Stun.

Stun values are considerably higher than body, for simplicity I'll say a character has 30 stun and  10 body.

 Stun
Non-lethal attacks deal large amounts of stun and very small (if any) amounts of body.

 For Example: Jimmy punches Bobby in the face, dealing 5 stun and 1 body.

When a character hits 0 stun, the character is unconscious. Both these values are mitigated by armor and the character's toughness.

 For Example: Jimmy punches Bobby, but this time, Bobby is wearing a hockey helmet. Jimmy's punch does no body at all, and only 2 stun.

 Body
Now, more lethal attacks, like sword slashes, do large amounts of body as well as stun.

 For Example: Bobby pulls out a gun and shoots Jimmy in the gut, doing 8 body and 24 stun.

Unlike stun, at 0 body a character is not dead. At 0 body, a character is no longer able to act (though may be conscious, if the stun is still in the positives: Note that this is unlikely). A character does not die until he reaches a negative value of stun equal to the maximum positive value. This sounds complicated, but isn't.

If the character has 10 body, the character dies at -10 body. If the character has 15 body, the character dies at -15 body.

Typically, lethal attacks have a "stun multiplier", allowing the character to just roll body damage, then multiply it to figure stun damage. This can be done on a hit-location table, or just randomly decided (usually 1d4 rolled alongside damage).

Personally, I like this system because it allows characters (especially good ones) to focus on knocking out enemies without being punished for it.

Quote from: psychoticbarberQuick overview of the system for Damage used by the Hero System: [...]

Interesting. But alas, it has the same flaws as HP. Punching someone repeatedly in the face is piling up penalties as if the person was shot right in the chest with a shotgun. There is no difference to the system if someone was shot with a large-caliber rifle, or punched half a dozen times in the face and got stabbed in the leg.

But other than that, it's a nice system. I especially like that each attack does both, body and stun damage. Consider this idea borrowed. :D :P

Quote from: Ra-TielInteresting. But alas, it has the same flaws as HP. Punching someone repeatedly in the face is piling up penalties as if the person was shot right in the chest with a shotgun. There is no difference to the system if someone was shot with a large-caliber rifle, or punched half a dozen times in the face and got stabbed in the leg.

But other than that, it's a nice system. I especially like that each attack does both, body and stun damage. Consider this idea borrowed. :D :P

Your system has the same flaw, and I'm betting that any numeric system will as well.

Quote from: Stargate525Your system has the same flaw, and I'm betting that any numeric system will as well.

Not really. It's true that the wounds' penalties will add up. But think about it, have you ever tried doing something with two deep cuts across your chest, with a broken ankle, and a burnt face? I rather guess not. ;)

The actual lethality, however, does not add up. A character can have an almost infinite number of minor and moderate wounds without his ability to survive a critical wound being impaired. A guy with a broken leg is actually just as likely to survive a gun shot to the chest as a completely healthy and uninjured person.

The system described by psychoticbarber does not seem to implement that. From how I understood it, Body and Stun points worked more or less like normal HP, tracking each hit until either score reached 0 (or its negative maximum).

Quote from: Ra-TielA guy with a broken leg is actually just as likely to survive a gun shot to the chest as a completely healthy and uninjured person.

Except, you know, shock...

Quote from: Stargate525Except, you know, shock...

Which is handled by the mechanics of the wound that caused the shock. If you break your leg, there are several possible outcomes. One would be nothing else really happens, it's just a world of pain every time you move your leg. Another one could be that a small bone fragment rips open your main leg artery and causes you to quickly bleed to death. However, neither outcome influences the chances of you dying when someone puts a 9mm round into your chest. Both wounds are inherently seperate from each other, and while their consequences may stack with each other, none of them has a direct influence on the other's lethality.

That's ridiculous.

That's like saying you died from a shot to the arm, and nevermind the other six shots you've taken.