[suggestion] Get rid of D&D attributes and a bit on equipment

As someone who was in track, I can assure you there is a big difference between endurance (moves) and speed.

Have you cheked the calculation? your attack = your base attack * your strength / 10

You can find items that increase your base attack and you can increase you strength only with level up.

That way, the weapons can have an absolute value for attack while taking into account the fact that some heros will do more damage than others with the same weapon.

What is wrong with this approach?

Nothing wrong with that approach Peace Phoenix as that is fine I just made up a mechanic on the spot. I just see no need for having the "names" for the attributes be D&D based. Also, why have attributes on the same scale as the dnd stats? Seems simpler and more effective to have lower stats that are easier to improve.

As someone who was in track, baseball, basketball and football yes endurance makes a difference but we're talking inhuman abilities here and the small amount of difference isn't important enough to dictate two different stats in my humble opinion. If a normal move is 1 or 2 and you can move 12 this should mean something in combat don't you think? I had a game where my sovereign was at 19 movement!

I used to teach fencing and my hands were olympic but my feet were mediocre which is why I was rarely able to beat my mentor who was an Italian Olympian of average Olympic ability. Like I said it does make a difference I'm just not sure it makes enough of a difference to merit two separate stats.

Well,  some weapons increases your combat speed (like dagger) while others decrease it (like 2 hands swords). Similarly, plate armor decreases you combat speed. It would be horrible in term of gameplay if you couldn't move on the map a full armored units. after all, there were some complaint about base movement speed when it was only 1.

Good point on the weapons...

I realize I forgot about a constitution or endurance ability. To compromise you could have a derived stat based on speed and endurance that handles movement on the cloth map. Eh, more complications...problem with game designing! These days I prefer simple and easy to understand versus complicated and heavily reality based.

Armor should slow you down though. I remember doing an SCA event in the 90's wearing full chain and I could hardly run after an hour or so. Thus, mounted units become important if you're heavily armored. But, the penalty is fairly small as is. If different terrain had different move modifiers (haven't paid close enough attention to see if they have implemented this) you could have a speed of 1.8 which on a road would get you two moves but through the swamp would give you one. If the bonus was cumulative such as having .4 move left over that could get applied to the next move that might be useful or just irritating.

have you played wow ?

there is nothing "wrong" its just more easy to rely on few stats, more comparable with each other

thats why wow started with agi str ap this and that and ended with just AP and SP(not 100% but main part)

Movement rate and combat speed need to be separate, endurance vs. reflexes/agility. I'd rather not have significant movement rate upgrades for Sovereigns on level up either. There's no way to justify someone traveling twice as fast, barring someone carrying a heavy load. But experience does not make you faster. It might make you better at traveling difficult terrain and eliminate penalties though. There will be enough spells and mounts to speed you up I'm sure.

Heavily armored troops would not march in armor either so I would not penalize movement rate for armor, only combat speed.

Well, if experience means that you tap into more of the magical energy within you then it would be really cool to be extremely capable and powerful.

I'd like to see a starting Sovereign be able to beat a well armed and equipped Peasant while in a bathrobe and slippers using a towel. Why shouldn't a Sovereign be as capable as a decent fighter in real life?

In my athlete days I'd take on four skilled opponents whether it was Kendo, fencing, or Judo without too much effort. Using Jujutsu weapon disarming techniques it really didn't matter if I was armed or not at the start unless the worked really well as a team. My friends all ran dojos in the pacific northwest and at least half of my sparring partners were better than me especially a sifu of the wu shu style who was barely five foot and couldn't have weighed more than 110 lbs and she could take on the Shudokan Master and me at the same time or a group of 8 or more skilled opponents on an open mat as long as she had room to move.

I'd like to see Sovereigns and adventurers on par with Amberites or Chaosites if you've read Zelazny once they get in the six to tenth level range. As things stand now there isn't that much of a difference between a fighter with a dex of 12 versus one with 18. If they're using the DnD system then 18 is human max while 12 is just good and between the two there is an inseparable gulf. Someone good versus world class shouldn't last more than a couple of seconds unless the master is being very careful and cautious. I used to pretty good before I got fat and I took out 3 skilled fighters in an event in under 3 seconds and they had to slow the film to see the blades move as I was using florentine style.

As far as marching in armor if you're not in armor you'd still have to carry your kit. a 50 lb kit would be pretty light for an infantryman.

With armor I preferred the mobility of Cuirbolli or boiled leather as my crappy feet slowed me down too much as is.

If you want separate combat speed then make it a derived stat based on your base attack and defense skills (strength and dex) and maybe your intelligence as most of the really fast and effective fighters I've known were quite bright. Combat speed is how well and how fast you move in combat so the greater your natural ability in weaving and attacking modified by your weapon...I'm not sure how it is calculated now other than a separate stat modified by weapons and those little white potions.

dd888 I haven't played WoW but many of my friends are addicted to it like crack cocaine.

Or you could see Sovereigns as similar to the physical magicians of Shadowrun. Able to use sorcery at various levels but channeling part of the magical energy through their bodies or minds like physical adepts in order to achieve speed and power unmatched by anyone barring a cyber or biotech. Or like vampires in half the movies and books. Able to move faster than the eye.

well, other than the fact that its NOT fencing unless its 1 vs 1 ... being able to invest that much time into athletics (espcially combat oriented) sounds pretty cool.

Double post ... what year did u graduate highschool btw??

I think everything is superior to your system as is. All your system represents is a "dumbing down" of the current system.

I think if you ask around these forums you'll find not to many people would appreciate it. Simplicity is nice in some things... Not in 4X RPG Strategy games.

BTW when you spiel BS like taking on 4 "skilled" opponents in Kendo without trouble... You reveal yourself to be a child. If they were truly "Skilled" you wouldn't be taking on 4 without trouble.

Tch.

What I would really like to see is the fact that stats are a little intertwined : instead of attack = strength * base attack / 10 it could be something like (STR*2 + DEX*1) * base attack / 30, so str AND dex would be important to get a good attack rating.

Defense would use Wisdom AND dex. It would avoid uber character with 34 in STR and wiping everything. If you want to get a supercombat unit you'll need to invest in 2 stats instead of one.

What did I do to offend you? Or are you one of those internet trolls that made it past the captcha?

Skilled means proficient. A brown belt in karate is very proficient. I was pretty good as a martial artist and my mentor was mid ranked Olympian fencer who could and often did wipe the floor with me.

I've seen sifus take on groups much larger than four of skilled fighters. If you don't work together or in tandem then what you'll find is that a group of people will get in each others way and interfere with each other. It takes at least a year to learn how to fight as a team and can take at least a couple of days of practice to learn to work in tandem with other people if they have also been trained to fight as a team. Ask anyone who has military experience how hard it is to avoid crossfire and other pitfalls.

Four skilled fighters who are trained to fight as team can probably beat anyone but the very best.

I don't see anything dumbing down about not using DnD attributes and the scale system of 10 being average and 18 being extraordinary.

If strength does more than effect attack THEN it would be useful to have but as is it is just an extra term that serves no purpose.

@tasuke: I don't know I've trained mainly in italian style fencing with a little german and a lot of french. I didn't have the patience to learn the spanish magic circle stuff just like I've never been one for relying on katas.

My preferred weapons were small swords like the epee though originally I practiced with a rapier and a main-gauche.

I got to travel the world as a kid since my biodad was army and my adopted dad was a general in the marine corp so I got to practice against lots of different people and learn tidbits of many different styles. I actually got to fence and play chess with the guy who taught Kasporov in former Yugoslavia. My dad managed to get him out before it got really bad over there.

I'd like to see something like that too. What you suggest would be something similar to what the HERO system did.

I don't particularly mind the "D&D-based Attributes" -- or at least what appears to be such foundationally.  I am far more concerned that these attributes have a relevant impact on gameplay, helping to distinguish one Sovereign from another even after a handful of levels are gained.  By example <snipped from another thread:>

2) Spells can be researched to higher levels dependent upon one's Intelligence score (e.g. a 10th level fireball versus an 8th level fireball).   Spells with "save" capabilities have reduced save percentages for Sovereigns with higher Intelligence.

3) Intelligence has some impact on Spell Points, either total and/or SP regeneration rate.

4) Wisdom has an impact on the Mana Cost required to cast a spell-- the higher the Wisdom, the lower the individual casting cost. Wisdom has an impact on the mana regeneration rate.  Some mathematical function of Wisdom and Essence results in your TOTAL mana pool. Ultimately, if you lose Essence, you reduce the mana pool maximum but not the rate by which you recharge (which is a function of Wisdom).

Each of those statistical point gains should make a very relevant difference, such that a level 3 Sovereign would be hard-pressed to defeat a level 6 Sovereign one-on-one (just as a Yellow Belt would find it near impossible to be victorious over a Brown Belt).  Frankly, the way characteristics are leveled I don't see that much differentiation (in 2b) which to me cheapens the entire leveling experience.   Indeed, D&D had a great game mechanic where Hit Points went up very reasonably for each level gained.  Perhaps this mechanic should be brought into E:WoM....

In sum, make each attribute gain of even one point truly COUNT.

Yes, that is a big part of my argument which may have been lost amongst the other tangents.

As I said before there isn't a big enough difference between an attribute as 12 compared to 18.

Thus, changing the scale away from the dnd scale would probably be the biggest and most important thing to change for the better.

Or if we are truly must use the dnd scale then you must be given more points to spend when you level up in order to really see a difference in competency. Or change the metric that is used to determine attack/defense so that small changes mean more in the derived stat. If you divide by 10 now to get the result divide by 2 instead. Thus, a six point differential in a stat goes from 1.2 (12 dex) to 1.8 (18 dex) ending up with a .6 change to a much bigger 6 to a 9 or a 3 point change. So, a more experienced character or more talented character sees a much bigger dividend by investing in an attribute. Hopefully that made sense.

In other words it would be significantly harder for a less talented or experienced sovereign to face his betters and stand a chance. Or for a character who specialized in magic and spent all his skill points on intelligence to be able to expect any chance of victory against a warrior in an hand to hand melee.

As it stands now equipment is far more important than abilities of the sovereign for dictating effectiveness. One would hope that a sovereign would more than just a platform for powerful artifacts but would be deadly in his or her skivvies!

This was always the problem with dnd especially for the non spellcasters which leads to a demand for monty haul type adventures in those not interested in role playing. It isn't the mage Syntorax who is important it is the Staff of the Magi who is the more important character.

A 10th level warrior specialist with a staff and leather armor could lose to a 1st level mage specialist in full plate with a claymore as the game stands.

Can you prove that through your prior mathematical manipulations because if that is true, that to me is game breaking.

yea, currently levelling up just isn't strong enough imho. However, I'd rather that Sovereign's simply started strong.

TL;DR: OP is claiming to be good at game design because he did sport.

Hmm wow cant really respond to all of this properly, i deleted what i was going to type like5 times.

So in a nut shell. Complexity within the system works fine and is great when it comes to strategy as long as it doesnt tax the player with tons of information.

Love to see champions have more of an RPG feel to them. Thankfully traits will be in Beta 3.

Please stop comparing reality with a fantasy turn based video game. Not always the best route.

And D&D doesnt always have the best rules, especially the way it turned out over the years.

Apparently I did a really piss poor job of explaining myself since few people seem to grasp what I've written. I've had complaints for simplifying from reality and complaints for comparing to reality.

When doing RPG design you have to make choices between realism, gameplay, and game balance. For example in Ars Magica the game is designed to focus on the magi so game balance between characters types became a non-issue with a magus vastly more powerful than a companion which is a decision very few games make as many roleplayers don't want to take a secondary role. In Shadowrun magic and technology compete but much effort is made to make them roughly equivalent with enough weaknesses in each and abilities that the other can't do which also encourages team play as most games won't be solos. As in DnD you want a party that works together with an arcane caster, a warrior of some sort, a healer like a cleric or druid or any type of divine caster, and a rogue since all four have a niche.

Realism through crunchiness is a strength of games like Champions or to a lesser extent GURPS. Smooth gameplay with a quick learning factor and an emphasis on having fun I think games like Truth and Justice or Savage Worlds do an excellent job of getting the spirit of reality without requiring a calculator to figure out your stats or combat.

As far as complexity goes I like complexity IF IT SERVES A PURPOSE. Having two names for the same effect does not. I've worked with Amber DRPG which is about as simple as it gets and I've worked with Ars Magica and Shadowrun which are both complex. I haven't done any design with HERO system but I've enjoyed playing it though today I prefer simpler game design and smoother systems in which unnecessary complexity is removed.

Autarkos are you suffering from cognitive difficulties? Where did I say what you claim?

I can't prove my statement right now but I can throw a rough guess out: a staff has an attack of 2 versus an attack of 6 I believe for a claymore. So a warrior equipped with a staff and a strength of 20 would have a 40 / 10 or a 4 attack while the mage with a strength of 10 and a claymore would have a 60/10 or a 6 attack. So a fifty percent higher score which is fairly substantial if my number and calculations are correct. I've stolen the equation from a poster above but it looks right.

From memory which might be flawed the best game design from an rpg perspective in a video game was in Darklands a masterpiece by Microprose.

Also, as far as starting equipment goes...I'll take back the free bit but you do start with 500 gildar so having the option of buying equipment at sovereign creation makes sense to me and would give a sovereign who decides to be choosy in placing his first city a chance to actually survive the wasteland to find a good spot. Rather than spending valuable character points on equipment you will completely replace in fifty to a hundred turns. As it stands the best decision is to spend your points on stats and then plop a city down and buy what equipment is available at least from my perspective.

Looks like the new beta has handled several of my complaints. Very cool.