DevoutlyApathetic wrote: »
The political/social stuff feels lacking in binary resolution systems to me. It is one thing FFG deals with really well since you have three axis of resolution which gives more "textured" results than pass/fail.
How to kit bash that into a d20 system is questionable. I do think I'd steal the "Hard Choice" concept and offer a PC who gets within [Some Number] of the DC but fails to accept a complication in order to resolve the check successfully. How big [Some Number] should be is undecided.
I also realize I am violating sacred d20 rules here by using the d20 as a "how well" instead of "yes/no" but idgaf on that anymore.
Delduwath wrote: »
This thread has inspired me to finally start reading through the 13th Age Core rule book (of which I bought a physical copy a year ago, and a digital copy via Bundle of Holding half a year ago). I just got to the part talking about using backgrounds for skill tests, and was kind of surprised by one bit of wisdom there, which they refer to as "Failing Forward". Failing a test in battle is one thing, and is generally fine, but failing one outside of battle (climbing a wall, picking a lock, etc etc) just means dragging out the game in a boring way; therefore, they suggest that a "failed" skill test could really mean "succeeded, but with complications". So, like, failing to impersonate a new dishwasher when sneaking into a castle could mean the guard lets you pass, but gets suspicious and tails you as you sneak about, that kind of thing.
I thought that was a pretty novel way to look at things, but then I haven't really looked at any new RPGs in many years; maybe all the indies are filled to the brim with this kind of thinking.
Anyway, the talk about the binary resolution system made me think of this. They account for the "succeed, but at a price" outcome right there in there rules, which I think is more than D&D has ever done for me.
doomybear wrote: »
So, failing forward can mean a lot of different things.
Elvenshae wrote: »
FYI: I can't help but read the thread title in Mako's / the Great Aku's voice.
Grunt's Ghosts wrote: »
I read everything in Morgan Freeman's voice.
Saurfang wrote: »
Hey folks, got a 13th Age question. How do you guys interpret a line in a statblock that says a power can target "1d3 nearby enemies in a group"? The first part is self explanatory, but I'm getting hung up on "in a group. "
wildwood wrote: »
The one distinction that I can see between troopers and wreckers in the SRD is that troopers will primarily focus on doing HP damage. I would expect wreckers to be able to do more to characters in terms of inflicting statuses, or using extra mobility, that lets them get past the party's well-armored front line.
Troops are the default monster type. They’re nothing super-special, aiming to hurt PCs via hit point damage.
Wreckers really bring the pain. Sometimes they work alone. Enemy groups containing only wreckers will be very dangerous to the PCs.
13th Core Book pg. 253 wrote:
Level-Based Monster-Stat Adjustments:
If you want to add a full level to a monster:
. . . and you only want to boost its attack: Give the monster a +6 attack boost.
. . . and you only want to boost AC: Give the monster a +6 AC boost.
. . . and you only want to increase the monster’s hit points: Double the monster’s hit points.
. . . and you only want to increase the damage the monster deals: Add a second attack or ongoing damage.
. . . and you only want to increase every stat: Add +1 to attack, +1 to all defenses, multiply its damage output by 1.25, and multiply its hit points by 1.25.
Here are other adjustments Jonathan has experimented with, modifying a monster’s stats but keeping its current level.
Scrapper—Sharp but thin: +3 to attack, 70% of normal hp
Offensive—Soft but strong: +3 to attack, –3 to all defenses
Oaf—Tough and clumsy: –3 to attack, +3 to AC
Defensive—Tough but weak: +3 to AC, 70% of normal hp
Lunk—Big and squishy: –3 to all defenses, +40% hp boost
Brittle—Tough but thin: +3 to AC, 70% of normal hp