Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About SladeWeston

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

951 profile views
  1. I'm not sure that is fair when the full statement was: Regardless, I understand that you were just trying to help and I'm sorry for my rudeness. I frustration was more to do with my bad day and the general state of the internet and had little to do with you. Please accept my apology. Regarding your suggestion. I have two concerns about this. One, it forces GM's to completely develop an adversary's skill list. As a GM, that generally isn't something I always take the time to do, particularly if I only plan on using them as fodder in a combat. Two, it puts extra weight on skills that are already, typically, pretty good. Resilience, Coordination, Discipline, etc. don't generally need a reason for players to take them as they are already pretty important skills. Plus that adds a new layer of skill balancing to class building that I'm not sure I'd want to deal with. On the flip side, I do see how scaling could be a concern. My plan was to put in some talents for boosting this but maybe that wouldn't be enough. One thing that might work would be to make a Save: Agility(Coordination) That would address the GM prep issue as enemies could always just default to their characteristic. Unfortunately, that doesn't really address the skill valuation issue and I'm a little worried about how quickly a player could scale their saves. Another way to do it could be to allow a player to level it up like a skill or characteristic. I'm not 100% sure how that would work, as I'd still want it to have a default value but its something to consider.
  2. What are you talking about my dude? I haven't changed my mind. My original post stands. Some spells will have a Save as I outlined in that post. I never said anywhere that I was going to change anything about my system. I like my Save mechanic and I thought I'd share it. While feedback is always welcome, sometimes I wonder why people bother posting anything. These types of threads just end up full of posts from people posted the first idea that comes to mind as an alternative. I mean why wouldn't their 30 seconds of thought come up with a better idea than the OPs well considered and playtested one? Look, I appreciate that you are trying to help, but that isn't what my post was about. I was just posting to say "Hey, I had this problem X and after some playtesting, I came up with the solution Y. Has anyone else tried it? How did it go for you?" If you don't like my system, that's cool. If you see a logical reason why it won't work well, I'd love to hear about it. Just please don't assume that I lack a basic understand of Genesys nor suggest solutions that obviously don't address the basic problems I was looking to address in the OP. In my system I never actually call it a saving throw; I just call it a Save. I think I may have said that I was looking to recreate the mechanics of a Saving Throw but I don't think I ever called them that. Although looking through the thread I see several other people did, so I suppose that means that the name is confusing enough that I should consider changing it. I called it a Save mainly because I am using it in a D&D Eberron conversion and they play a similar role. I don't hate the name Resist. My worry is that I could see possibly wanting the keyword Resist for something like elemental resistance, down the road, and I'd hate to waste it. I'll have to google up what other games call Saves to see if there is a better name I'm missing.
  3. Not just that. I want a mechanic that allows spells to resolve differently based on the target's stats that can be evaluated quickly for multi-target effects. Also, it doesn't have to be completed avoided, in fact, most saves won't be full avoidance. Fireball for example, would likely be half damage and no burn (if it triggers). Not at all. There are plenty of ranged attack spells in D&D that will translate to ranged attack spells in Genesys. While some spells might bypass soak, I suspect most won't. When balancing damage for Fireball, for example, I'm taking standard enemy soak into account. Well no, as mentioned, there will still be spells that target like a ranged attack. Plus, you know, there will still be plenty of things that defence and dodge are good for. I mean, it's not like just because a few spells disregard those stats that they lose all value. Also, as I suggested in my example, things like Adversary could still apply to the check and of course this opens up the possibility for new talents or enemy abilities to boost them as well.
  4. I appreciate you going to such depth and indeed you've made a slightly different point than I thought. Still, I'm afraid it just runs into a different issue I mentioned in the first post as something I was trying to avoid. Namely, I think narrative dice resolution is far too time intensive to just have every enemy make a check in response to a spell. Well specifically, I was thinking of the situation where a Fireball spell is opposed by each targets coordination check. What you proposed is basically the same thing but adds a caster check in addition to a per enemy roll. That might work for small veteran groups but you get a group of 6 with a newish player with a caster and you're going to run into a nightmare of checks. I guess you could put the burden of those rolls on the GM (which is what I think you are proposing) but that's a lot of extra work to ask of a GM. I think I may use that system for some lingering effects, but I don't think it's a good solution for what I'm trying to solve for.
  5. Ahh I appreciate you pointing out the poison rule, I had forgotten about that, but addressing the specific example doesn't really address the case. This could have been a strong-willed person surrounded by weak-willed ones. It could have been one super agile person surrounded by clumsy people. It could be one person with some sort of magic resistance talent in a group without. The point is that area effect spells will often include a very mixed group of characters and being forced to pick the one with the highest stat doesn't make a lot of sense. Not to mention, none of that covers an area of effect spell that is cast with no targets in the area. Such as someone who casts a spell to cover their retreat. Don't get me wrong, I get what you are saying. Genesys has options for converting just about any spell effect if you are will to sacrifice simulation for simplicity. Of course, this is always the line all RPGs have to tow. For my setting, I'm willing to sacrifice a bit of Genesys nature simplicity to better emulate the crunchy nature of some of the D&D spells I'm converting, although I certainly respect people who would rather stay on the more streamlined side of things. I do think the system I presented does a solid job simulating the feel of a saving throw for people who want that kind of thing in there setting.
  6. Thanks for the feedback @Richardbuxton. While I like the simplicity of your idea, it suffers from many of the same issues as the previous ideas. You still get the logical strangeness and you still get wildly swingy difficulties. If anything, upgrading exaggerates these issues even more. Using this method with my dwarf-poison cloud example from before, the dwarf not only protects these children with his toughness somehow but he adds a ridiculous Dispair chance to the check. I'm not sure I understand how his presence in the target area results in the caster critically failing a casting check, perhaps his dwarven manliness is just that intimidating? As before, you run into the same issue where it encourages the table to metagame who is included in the target area which I'd rather avoid.
  7. I appreciate the feedback. As it turns out, I tested this option pretty extensively, as it was my initial thought too. My issues with it were: Brawn, Agility & Willpower are already really strong stats in a combat heavy fantasy game. Excluding Cunning, Presence, and Intelligence just aggravates that. This forces multi-targeted spells to use something like "the highest X among enemies targeted" which seldom makes sense narratively. Having a tough dwarf in a group of sickly children doesn't all of a sudden make the children more resistant to a poison cloud. Logically it doesn't make sense for many spells. Sure it makes sense for something like Charm Person where you are directly targeting a single target but it makes a lot less sense for area spells or things that have more ambient effects. If you are casting a poison cloud spell, your likelihood of successfully casting that spells shouldn't be affected by how tough the dwarf in your target area is. A casting check should determine how powerful a spell is and how likely the enemies affected are to resist but the dwarfs toughness doesn't all of a sudden cause you to fail your casting. This is particularly important when trying to recreate spells that have a duration that could cause other creatures to be affected in later rounds. Lastly, having the checks opposed results in super swingy difficulties. This was the biggest issue during testing. Opposed checks can result in a huge success, vs a 1 attribute no skill adversary, or a devastating failure, vs a high stat skilled foe, depending on the target of the spell. This resulted in my testers being super meta-gamey in a way that was pretty annoying. This was only augmented by the fact that I was using the best stat among targets for the save, so players were not only discussing enemy stats but were also trying to shape their spells to not include some enemies. I imagine that your ideas would work in a less combat-focused setting or one that wasn't trying to recreate specific iconic D&D spells, but it wasn't right for what I was trying to do.
  8. One of the main issues I've been struggling with while creating a Vancian magic, D&D style, structured spell system is the idea of Saving Throws. While many spells can be converted without the concept of a Save, some just didn't feel right or fair without them. I found myself coming up with elaborate advantage and threat triggers to accommodate a mechanic that could be easily replicated with a Save. Here was what I was trying to solve for: The effectiveness of some spells should vary depending on the enemy it is being cast on. IE, charming a 1 Willpower goblin should be easier than charming a 5 willpower lich. Spell difficulty should typically be around 2-4. This made straight opposed checks undesirable. Multi-target spells would ideally require only one roll. The nature of narrative dice makes them more complex than binary systems (d20) and table experience would suffer if fireballing a group of goblins generated a dozen rolls. GMs should be able to use any adversary without having to come up with saves for them. IE No save stat block Saves need to function for damaging and non-damaging spell effects. So no Saves = Spell Soak With that in mind, I tested a half dozen different ideas that met some or all of these criteria. In the end, one stood out due to its relatively low complexity and quick and easy implementation at the table. Here is what I came up with: One of the things I like most about this systems is that it means I don't need to have a Success scaling effect for every spell I create. One of the issues I was having when converting D&D spells was making extra successes on a casting roll matter. While scaling spells is a fun mechanic, sometimes I just wanted a reasonably static effect but it felt strange to not offer some benefits for excessive success. This also helped with the balance of some spells, like fireball, were scaling by success was a bit too powerful. Has anyone tried anything like this? How did it work? Please feel free to provide thoughts and feedback. One last thing. For context, I should mention that my magic system is using a different resource system to power spellcasting than the standard Genesys system and a grid-based combat system. This shouldn't change how these Save rules work but its worth mentioning just in case something in my rules conflicts with the standard system.
  9. I don't disagree except that I've gotten a pretty negative reception in the past with similar rules overhauls. "Why don't you just play X instead" or "Genesys is just fine. If you want that, maybe you should be playing Y" etc. I didn't want to deal with that, and the people who frequent the "My Setting" Section seem more open to rules alternatives. And really, this is specifically for my setting. I'm doing an Eberron Setting that has a ton of major rules overhauls. One of those is a Vancian magic system that needed real distances. At the same time, because it is a D&D based setting, the grid-based combat should help capture the more tactical feel there as well. One way other people could contribute would be to take 15 minutes and try out some combat with it in your own game or just for fun with some friends. We've done a decent bit of testing but its always good to get a second set of eyes on something.
  10. That is what the difficult terrain does, except you have the option of also doing 5 for 10 or 15 for 30. Plus I suspect it will be a bit easier to remember. I could be wrong though.
  11. This was my original plan. The issue I was running into was that movement per maneuvers made mobility very feast for famine depending on if the player was using two maneuvers for movement that round or not. I also ran into an issue with effects that changed movement getting amplified in both directions. For example, if you give someone +5 movement, sometimes that's +10 movement. That can have a dramatic effect on mobility. I would love to get more people doing some actual testing though. At the moment my speculation about the "Movement Pool" system is mostly theoretical as I have done only a little testing. The Maneuver = 20ft of moment system I tested a good bit. It wasn't bad but I suspect this new one will be easy to design and play with. I've considered this too and I don't think its a bad idea but the issue is how do you define "moving in an area". Ideally, you'd want a rule like this to cost extra movement when they enter or when they leave, but that isn't how difficult terrain works. Since you can't use difficult terrain to cover coming and going, I figured I'd not worry about an engagement cost and focus on the disengagement cost. Since really, that generally is the more problematic of the two when it comes to balance. It's still on the table though, particularly, if this most recent idea flops.
  12. True. Once I have a system I'm happy with there will undoubtly be a slew of updates to minor rules, traits and talents that will have to be considered, updated, created or removed. So at the moment it's looking like: Creatures have a movement pool (speed) each turn they can access (most races will have 25-30). Spending a maneuver allows them spend that pool of movement. They can spend a second maneuver each to to access any remaining movement balance. Moving out of an enemies reach deals strain equal to the creatures brawn A creature or player may avoid this damage by taking the Disengage maneuver but movement taken while disengaging is treated as moving through difficult terrain (+1ft per foot traveled or basically double) That seems like a good rule set to test. It make leaving a threatened square painful but not too punishing at first and allows for the every popular, eat several attacks to get to the caster, strategy. At the same time, it makes kiting hard and punishes in and out stragegies for people without the proper talents.
  13. See, this was my thoughts exactly. Which was why I was leaning towards a Strain cost that functioned almost like an AoO. Thematically, I figured it could represent the effort to avoid hits plus glancing blows and what not. I was thinking one of these might work: Leaving a monsters reach deals a flat amout of strain (maybe 2 or 3) Leaving a monsters reach deals strain equal to the monsters Advasary type (Minions = 1, Rival = 3, Nemesis = 5) Leaving a monsters reach deals strain equal to the monsters Brawn score I like the stain amount by advasary type but that seems a little hard to remember. Thoughts?
  14. This is true of course. There lots of talents that need converting and plenty of design space to create options for people to move through groups of enemies. The question then becomes, should that be an option for all players or does it need to be restricted to some? On the flip side, is this an ability we want all monsters to have or just a select few? Or am I going throught too much effort to avoid adding AoO and just should I just go ahead and add them?
  15. It is all about balance. If it's frustrating in a pretend testing situtation, how much more frustrating will it be when lovingly crafted character lives are on the line. In Genesys a group of minions spaces 10ft apart are still engaged with each other and thus require only a reasonably small effort to bypass by engaging the group one turn and disengaging the group the next turn, coming out the other side. In D&D, such a group wouldn't be an issue because you could just suck up the AoO's of some whimpy goblins so you could get to the important targets. This rule set doesn't allow either option which I'd like to remidy. (BTW, I know it was a joke, this is more just as a general commentary) I tested disengaged until the end of turn previously and that worked fine with 20ft movement per maneuver. Now that I'm testing the movement pool idea of @Swordbreaker, a character can get 30ft of movement with one maneuver. My gut says that would be over correcting in the other direction.
  • Create New...