Firehawk Games
Firehawk Games RPG Products => Novus RPG => Topic started by: imported_Rasyr on June 16, 2011, 01:41:26 PM
-
This thread is for making comments on and/or asking questions about things from version 0.5 of the Open Beta.
I am asking that comments and questions be kept separate from the list of things needed to be fixed. If something over here turns out needing to be added to the Typo thread, I will go ahead and do that.
If you are unsure, then post it here. (http:///bigwink.gif)
-
Wow Rasyr, you have definitively left Murphy behind this time ! (http:///bigwink.gif)
-
Yeah, that should be "Bow and 1 other Combat Skill", not 2. When I downgraded them from Combat Training II to Combat Training I, I missed removing the extra Combat Skill...
I have added this to the typo/corrections page
-
Any other questions? Comments? Fireballs of Doom?
-
Ok, but just because you seem to be positively craving for more typos.
Maybe a small rewording ?
On page 73, you have written :
"In fact, a campaign setting could include multiple religions, and thus multiple Cleric classes, all focused on a single deity."
Since v0.5, Cleric is no more a class but only a title for some mages. You may want to drop classes for another word...
Seems not woth noticing it to me, but you seem to be suffering some kind of "typo withdrawal"... (http:///bigwink.gif)
-
the more you find, the more I fix, and the sooner Novus will be completely finished.... (http:///bigsmile.gif)
-
Okay, the page numbers are using the Deluxe Version.
I'm stuck in the hospital with a friend of mine for the night, so I figured I'd go over some of the 0.5 rules.
Might I suggest using the same artist for the various sections. For instance, it might be good to use the same artist for all of the racial drawings. Some of the styles seem to clash slightly IMO. I think the Dwarves, Elves, and Half-Orcs are very well done. The Halfling just seems out of place or at least of a different style. Also I've noticed that some art is reused in various places.
Page 18 - I still think Skill Ranks are too expensive at higher levels. Perhaps you could put in a note saying that if a GM wants their characters to advance faster to give out more CPs per level (20, 25, etc). Also several players have mentioned that there are lots of skills and not a lot of CPs to spend on them. None of my players have spent ranks on Standard Skills because they are even more expensive.
Page 19 - Characters may always
attempt to accomplish physical
skills even if they do not have any ranks in the skill. When
doing so, the TN of the task is increased by 5 points.
Conversely, instead of raising the TN of the task, the GM
could just assign a -5 modifier to the player's roll.
Mental skills, such as the Lore skills, will have their TN
increased by 10 (or have their roll modified by -10) when
attempted without any ranks in the skill. Success in such
cases indicates that the character may have heard somebody
else talking about it without realizing it and was able to
dredge up the memory.
I'm not sure if these are needed. If a skill has zero ranks and only has a stat modifier they already have a pretty low chance of succeeding at the task.
Page 27
Major Adept
Cost: 25
Trainable: No
Description: This is the most powerful type of spell caster.
Major Adepts have the lowest cost on all Codified spells,
gaining a 2 Character Point discount on the cost of all
Codified spells (i.e. if a Codified spell is listed as costing 5
CP, the Major Adept only pays 3 CP for it). Major Adepts
start with a base of 10 + Magic Stat Bonus in Spell Points.
A Minor Adept may upgrade to a Major Adept for a
cost of 12 Character Points.
You seem to use the words Codified Spells more than you need to.
Page 30, the last line of text for the Lute is below the picture, I think the last line should be above the picture.
Page 30, the multi-tool has a negative 20 modifier if you use it as a weapon? Isn't that a bit of a steep penalty?
Page 30, shouldn't the quick release be listed in A.P.s instead of a percentage of the round?
Page 35
War Hammer - The War Hammer resembles a hammer
on one side, with a single spike on the reverse, allowing
the wielder to do either a crush or puncture critical at
will, utilizing but a single skill. Dwarves are often fond of
utilizing this as a thrown weapon as well.
Doing a Crush or Puncture Critical sounds like HARP or Rolemaster, is this left over from those games?
Page 38
In an earlier section you mention that Initiative is a non-explosive roll, but in the initiative section you don't mention that. My players seem to like the dice exploding for initiative, and I agree with them.
Page 41
Mark: "I want my character to run to the door,
kicking the rope into the hole for Andy's character
along the way, and drawing his sword at the same
time and then melee attack the Orcs with whatever
percentage he has left."
Instead of percentage shouldn't you use A.P.?
-
Might I suggest using the same artist for the various sections. For instance, it might be good to use the same artist for all of the racial drawings. Some of the styles seem to clash slightly IMO. I think the Dwarves, Elves, and Half-Orcs are very well done. The Halfling just seems out of place or at least of a different style. Also I've noticed that some art is reused in various places.
As the preface on the Credits page says, some of the art currently in the book is placeholder art. If you recall, earlier versions had preliminary sketches of the half-orc, and now we have the finals. In some cases, I don't even have the preliminary sketches, so I put in what I did have, until I get something more definite.
So, there will be more artwork and replacement of some of the existing artwork as things progress.
Page 18 - I still think Skill Ranks are too expensive at higher levels. Perhaps you could put in a note saying that if a GM wants their characters to advance faster to give out more CPs per level (20, 25, etc). Also several players have mentioned that there are lots of skills and not a lot of CPs to spend on them. None of my players have spent ranks on Standard Skills because they are even more expensive.
But before I make ANY changes to the upper level skill costs, I would like to see some folks try out different costs to see how it works out.
I would have no problems changing it to something a bit smaller, but as I said, it needs to be tested further.
And don't forget that one of the reasons for the increasing costs IS to slow development down at higher levels, so that we don't end up with ungodly skill bonuses.
Then again, we also have a limit of 1 rank per skill per level once that particular skill has a number of ranks equal to the Stat Value of the associated stat, so having smaller (but still increasing) costs might not be a bad thing.
What I would like to see is a separate thread discussing this, and putting out several ideas and trying them out to see what the results look like.
Page 19 -
Characters may always attempt to accomplish physical skills even if they do not have any ranks in the skill. When doing so, the TN of the task is increased by 5 points. Conversely, instead of raising the TN of the task, the GM could just assign a -5 modifier to the player's roll. Mental skills, such as the Lore skills, will have their TN increased by 10 (or have their roll modified by -10) when attempted without any ranks in the skill. Success in such cases indicates that the character may have heard somebody else talking about it without realizing it and was able to dredge up the memory.
I'm not sure if these are needed. If a skill has zero ranks and only has a stat modifier they already have a pretty low chance of succeeding at the task.
Attempting something with no training is always harder than with training. But then again, you may be correct in that I am letting my past influence me, and the goal of the system IS to have fun....
I will consider removing the modifier for the physical skills, and perhaps adding notes in the GM section about untrained skills being 1-2 more Difficult than for those who have training (i.e. leaving it up to the GM to decide, based on the situation).
Page 27
Major Adept
Cost: 25
Trainable: No
Description: This is the most powerful type of spell caster. Major Adepts have the lowest cost on all Codified spells, gaining a 2 Character Point discount on the cost of all Codified spells (i.e. if a Codified spell is listed as costing 5 CP, the Major Adept only pays 3 CP for it). Major Adepts start with a base of 10 + Magic Stat Bonus in Spell Points. A Minor Adept may upgrade to a Major Adept for a cost of 12 Character Points.
You seem to use the words Codified Spells more than you need to.
quite possibly.... (http:///bigsmile.gif)
Page 30, the last line of text for the Lute is below the picture, I think the last line should be above the picture.
will fix.... as it should ALL be on one side of image...
Page 30, the multi-tool has a negative 20 modifier if you use it as a weapon? Isn't that a bit of a steep penalty?
Oopsey... This item is actually based on part of an "Adventurer's Kit" that a GM I had while in the Army handed out to all PCs in his AD&D campaigns (I still have the printout he gave us -- I will post the whole kit in another thread). I later adopted it and was going to include it a certain project that you were a playtester for that never saw the light of day.
I cribbed that description for here (cause it IS such a cool tool), and missed adjusting
Page 30, shouldn't the quick release be listed in A.P.s instead of a percentage of the round?
yup, will fix....
Page 35
War Hammer - The War Hammer resembles a hammer on one side, with a single spike on the reverse, allowing the wielder to do either a crush or puncture critical at will, utilizing but a single skill. Dwarves are often fond of utilizing this as a thrown weapon as well.
Doing a Crush or Puncture Critical sounds like HARP or Rolemaster, is this left over from those games?
More like just a hold-over of terminology and habits of how I phrased things when writing for those games, since Novus doesn't actually have criticals.
However, Novus weapons DO have damage types, so the War Hammer can do either Bashing or Piercing damage.
Page 38
In an earlier section you mention that Initiative is a non-explosive roll, but in the initiative section you don't mention that. My players seem to like the dice exploding for initiative, and I agree with them.
Can you point out where I mention that it is non-explosive? I am willing to make it explosive, but don't want to make it implosive.
Page 41
Mark: "I want my character to run to the door,
kicking the rope into the hole for Andy's character
along the way, and drawing his sword at the same
time and then melee attack the Orcs with whatever
percentage he has left."
Instead of percentage shouldn't you use A.P.?
Good Point
-
Favored Skills - In the Special Abilities section of the Archer, Minstrel, and Rogue it gives them 1 favored skill, is this factored into the above list of favored skills? You might want to put in something like, (factored in above). Or just remove the favored skill listed in the special abilities section since it is already listed above. It might confuse some people.
This actually belongs over here, and not in the typo thread. (http:///bigwink.gif)
Special Abilities: This section lists any Talents or special
abilities that members of this class automatically know and
have. There are certain abilities, such as Combat Training
and Favored Skills which add to the number of Favored
Skills that the Class may have. In all such cases, these
additional skills are already added to the Favored Skill list.
Please note the bits that I have marked in Maroon, and especially the word in Maroon that I have made bold green. So that we tell folks that they are already figured in before they even get to the actual descriptions....
Sigh.... I really dislike the idea of being so redundant, especially so soon after spelling it out. However, if I put something like "(factored in above)" next to the Favored Skills listings, then I would need to do the same for the Combat Training abilities also listed.
I would like to hear from others - to see what the general consensus is on adding this bit of text in (it would be to ALL applicable instances).
-
Page 5
Unless stated otherwise, all dice rolls should be considered
to be "explosive". For example, initiative rolls will specifically
state that they are a "non-explosive" roll.
Personally, to keep things consistent, I would let Initiative be implosive and explosive. It will allow a much more varied initiative order.
From my experience so far in the playtest, the players and I seem to think skill costs are too high, but you are right, that might not be everyone's experience.
Attempting something with no training is always harder than with training. But then again, you may be correct in that I am letting my past influence me, and the goal of the system IS to have fun....
I will consider removing the modifier for the physical skills, and perhaps adding notes in the GM section about untrained skills being 1-2 more Difficult than for those who have training (i.e. leaving it up to the GM to decide, based on the situation).
I like the idea of leaving it up to the GM as a modifier if they want to include it. One of the houserules I used for HARP was to ignore the negative penalty for zero ranks in a skill. We found that it was a lot less accounting to add up all the skill bonuses.
I guess I just don't see the need to include extra favored skills in the special abilities section, when they are listed right above there...
-
Initiative -- the problem with allowing it to be implosive, we also state elsewhere that an initiative of zero or less would result in the character taking no action in that round, and initiative is only rolled once per combat normally, so that could result in a character not allowed to partake in the combat...
The main reason that the extra Favored Skills are listed in the special abilities section is for those system tinkers who want to know how a class is put together. (at least until I put out the official Class creation rules).
I guess that I could remove them from the Special Abilities section, and remove Combat Training as well (instead just listing the bonus to Combat Skills -- the only portion of the ability that is not already figured in), and then I can change the special abilities descriptor (before the actual class listings) to say that some Classes have Special Abilities that are not listed because they are already figured into the other aspects of the Class description.
How does that sound?
-
Having a character unable to act for one round dur to low initiative is good IMO, but not for the entire fight. Maybe make init rolls explosive/implosive and allow a character to reroll initiative next round if under 0 ?
-
The problem with that is that you are setting up a very specific exception to the rules. (i.e. "Init is only rolled once per combat, unless you roll below zero, then you get to roll again the following round")
Initiative isn't like other rolls where you are trying to reach a certain TN and where Boons and Snags can apply. It is a simple scale from 1 to whatever, with the highest going first. And we already have one situation (Surprise) which can inflict a -20 modifier to init for a single round) setting the precedent that anything below zero means you cannot act at all.
Besides, I think it would be easier to keep it simple and just say "init rolls are explosive, but not implosive" as that is very clear and simple, and still allows for a wide range of rolls...
-
I see what you mean by the system tinkerer. The way it is now, I would think some people might think they get yet another favored skill in addition to the ones listed above. I'll let you decide what is the best way to present it though.
Maybe just list the Favored Skill Talent, and the Combat Training Talent then in the description, since that is what they have essentially.
-
Been thinking... If I pull Favored Skill and Combat Training (leaving in the bonus to weapon skills as its own entry), and then in the next LN (races are going VERY slowly, so I may do something else instead - Class creation rules, and more talents and Combat moves or such, maybe even a Paladin or Warrior Mage Class - along with their spells). If I do include Class creation rules, I will have to include the breakdowns for each class, showing their costs as full examples....
How does that sound? Thus, I satisfy the tinker group by presenting the rules, and can still make the presented Classes more streamlined as it were and less confusing.
-
It would be great to ave the class creation rules. Do you still plan to introduce another "tier" of spell caster (minor adept ?) to make those limited spell casters ?
-
Initiative -- the problem with allowing it to be implosive, we also state elsewhere that an initiative of zero or less would result in the character taking no action in that round, and initiative is only rolled once per combat normally, so that could result in a character not allowed to partake in the combat...
I think taking no action as a player is a bad move... it's just not fun.
Having class creation rules is a good idea in my opinion.
-
Some questions after intense re-reading :
1. On p46, in the advanced martial arts - throw description, it is stated : The foe being thrown cannot weigh more than 3 times the Encumbrance capacity of the character performing the throw. If I read correctly the encumbrance limit on page 36, this is twice the character strength value (this should be reminded within the throw paragraph). It means that an average human is limited to throwing a 20-pound foe. Either I understand something wrong or a modification is needed. Maybe you could consider that a character can throw up to his own weight plus his strength value ?
2. How to handle sneak attacks from behind ? From what I gather from different places in the book : if you succeed to strike after a succesful stealth roll, you gain an extra boon point (p23, stealth) and if the target is unaware of the attack, its defense drops to 12+magical bonuses. I suggest that a new special situation be added on page 39 explaining that situation, something like : if the foe is ambushed (caught unaware from behind), his defense drops to 12 and the attacker gains an extra boon point. Maybe it could go along with a position bonus for the attacker, or do you consider that the defense drop is enough of an advantage ?
3. Do armor penalties to speed (p31make ) make speed bonus drop below zero or not ? I think it so. But then I have another question. Does a negative speed modifier makes your defense drops below 15 ? I think it should. But in that case, someone wearing a full plate armor would have a -5 speed penalty. That could make his defense drops to 10, which is less than the defense of a target being caught unaware or immobile (DEF 12, page 16).
4. On page 32, it is mentioned that some bracers give a bonus to a character's DEF. I haven't found any bonus anywhere. Or is it a reference to the advantage given to unarmed fighters when fighting defensively versus armed opponents (p39) ?
That's all at this time.
-
I am presuming that you are reading the Deluxe version - since the page number for question #1 fits.
1. On p46, in the advanced martial arts - throw description, it is stated : The foe being thrown cannot weigh more than 3 times the Encumbrance capacity of the character performing the throw. If I read correctly the encumbrance limit on page 36, this is twice the character strength value (this should be reminded within the throw paragraph). It means that an average human is limited to throwing a 20-pound foe. Either I understand something wrong or a modification is needed. Maybe you could consider that a character can throw up to his own weight plus his strength value ?
You are thinking "Encumbrance Unit". In short, because I kinda changed things with Encumbrance at one point, this doesn't make total sense. Basically, your Encumbrance Capacity is going to be a multiple of your Encumbrance Unit (i.e. 5x your Encumbrance Unit --- a modifier of -20 from the encumbrance).
Thus, if you have a Strength Stat of 15, that gives you an Encumbrance Unit of 30 lbs. Thus, your encumbrance capacity is (5 x 30) = 150 lbs and 3x that means you can throw a foe who weighs up to 450 lbs (i.e. 3x Encumbrance Capacity).
2. How to handle sneak attacks from behind ? From what I gather from different places in the book : if you succeed to strike after a successful stealth roll, you gain an extra boon point (p23, stealth) and if the target is unaware of the attack, its defense drops to 12+magical bonuses. I suggest that a new special situation be added on page 39 explaining that situation, something like : if the foe is ambushed (caught unaware from behind), his defense drops to 12 and the attacker gains an extra boon point. Maybe it could go along with a position bonus for the attacker, or do you consider that the defense drop is enough of an advantage ?
Note that the target must be caught COMPLETELY unaware for the change in DEF to take effect. In melee combat, that (the reduced DEF) won't happen, even if you are able to get in a sneak attack.
Now, I will be adding in some positional bonuses in the next version - to account for such things.
3. Do armor penalties to speed (p31make ) make speed bonus drop below zero or not ? I think it so. But then I have another question. Does a negative speed modifier makes your defense drops below 15 ? I think it should. But in that case, someone wearing a full plate armor would have a -5 speed penalty. That could make his defense drops to 10, which is less than the defense of a target being caught unaware or immobile (DEF 12, page 16).
Yes, it could -- I have been thinking about having the character's Str bonus reduce the size of the penalty before applying it to the Speed Bonus. Looks like I may need to go ahead and do that.
4. On page 32, it is mentioned that some bracers give a bonus to a character's DEF. I haven't found any bonus anywhere. Or is it a reference to the advantage given to unarmed fighters when fighting defensively versus armed opponents (p39) ?
It is a reference to magical Bracers and/or bracers made of special materials (i.e. Bracers of Defense - page 97).
-
Thank you for the explanations Rasyr.
-
I have another question: how do you handle mounted combat in Novus ?
Do you need a specific talent or do you use your riding skill to overcome a given penalty (though this mechanism is not used in Novus AFAIK) ?
-
I don't think that I have actually included any rules for Mounted Combat within Novus. I will have to think this over..
But, off the top of my head, I would suggest requiring a riding roll to control the mount properly.
The Basics: In fact, you could use the Riding roll (say Base TN 20 - adjusted for the specific terrain conditions; TN 20 represents optimal conditions - to properly control/direct the mount) to determine the effectiveness of the character's Attack Bonus (i.e. if the total is below 20, then that amount below 20 is subtracted from any Attack Bonus -- i.e. a total Riding roll of 17 would mean -3 to character's Attack Bonus), while rolling above 20 on the riding roll would not give a bonus, unless the character earns a boon point and spends it appropriately. (Note to self -- work this into the description of the Riding skill)
Of course, there are all sorts of special conditions or situations that could apply. For example, foot soldiers with spears/polearms who set their weapons against charges would definitely strike the horse first (and get the same bonus damage as a Moving Strike would get), unless the rider has a lance of his own and then it would boil down to who struck who first due to actual weapon length.....
-
20 is the TN for riding check in a melee environment, so I would go for that value.
I propose two other points:
1. a mounted attack costs two additional AP, showing the difficulty to fight from horseback and allowing only one strike every other round except if you go for a fast attack or, for example, buy a "mounted warrior" talent cancelling this penalty.
2. a snag on the riding check makes it impossible to attack this round, reflecting the fact that you have to cling to your saddle and that your mount is going its own way.
-
Some good suggestions there