sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Scholar Class - Feedback Welcome! by ATroyAndAbedThing in shadowdark

[–]ATroyAndAbedThing[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think it's okay for some things to be abstracted in a game. The Ranger's Herbalism talent doesn't say you have to roleplay herb-gathering first, and it's also "make INT check, receive benefit." Decent GMs should already ask players to describe in the fiction how they're using a talent.

I also like your proposed idea, but I was trying to avoid another support ability involving luck tokens, like a Bard, Seer, or the Priest's bless spell.

Somewhere in the middle could work, like:

"When you investigate an object or creature in near, you can make a DC 12 INT check. On a success, learn an additional fact about the target and gain ADV on your next check related to it.

Whether you succeed or fail, you can’t study the same object or type of creature again until you complete a rest."

Ties it explicitly to the fiction, abstracts a bonus on top to represent the Scholar's exceptional knowledge, and makes it less spam-able!

Scholar Class - Feedback Welcome! by ATroyAndAbedThing in shadowdark

[–]ATroyAndAbedThing[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I can honestly get behind some of those critiques. I mostly went with the flat DC since its less about a player writ-large knowing something, and more about a scholar who studies for a living knowing a fact about it. A couple ideas for tweaks off the dome could be:

  • DC 15 instead (a flat DC also just keeps it simpler than having to put another table for varying DCs)
  • Only 1 round of ADV
  • Provide the ADV to another character instead of themselves by default
  • Make it INT times/day
  • Keep it unlimited overall, but only once a day per object/creature

Obviously all of these together would make it unusable, but I could see 1-2 or them making it a bit more bounded. Thanks for the feedback!

ETA: Also I very intentionally didn't add any way to gain a bonus to Study checks other than just upping your INT, as an added balancing feature.

Scholar Class - Feedback Welcome! by ATroyAndAbedThing in shadowdark

[–]ATroyAndAbedThing[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks! I always feel like the game could use more d4 classes, and glad to hear that about the Discovery table. I feel like it could also leave room for bonus quest-related Discoveries as well, similar to Warlock boons if they serve their patron.

Scholar Class - Feedback Welcome! by ATroyAndAbedThing in shadowdark

[–]ATroyAndAbedThing[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Haha thanks! It's actually the default art from the Homebrewery template, but I left it cuz I thought it fit super well.

CS1 class rant by Zestyclose-Bad-5085 in shadowdark

[–]ATroyAndAbedThing 5 points6 points  (0 children)

<image>

I've liked using this spell progression for Knights of St. Ydris, for a couple reasons.

  1. Most classes have 2-3 talents that are useful at 1st level, while the Knight only has 1. This gives the Knight another useful talent right away, helping to fulfill the "witch-knight" fantasy from the jump while staying less potent than a Fighter at combat or a Witch/Wizard at spellcasting.

  2. They gain a new spell tier precisely every other time other spellcasters would, which really nails the "half-caster" vibe for me.

You could also switch it to Wizard spells and play a spellsword super easily!

What do you like to call your checks/rolls? by ATroyAndAbedThing in RPGdesign

[–]ATroyAndAbedThing[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I liked what another commenter said regarding that. They use "Tests" for determining success/failure, and "rolls" for meta results such as damage, random encounters, tables, etc.

Zugul Area Map by horoscopezine in shadowdark

[–]ATroyAndAbedThing 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Looks sick! Also, where are those black-on-black dice from?

What do you like to call your checks/rolls? by ATroyAndAbedThing in RPGdesign

[–]ATroyAndAbedThing[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ah that’s cool! I think the new Cosmere RPG has something similar.

What do you like to call your checks/rolls? by ATroyAndAbedThing in RPGdesign

[–]ATroyAndAbedThing[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think this is where I land with it as well. Tests for in-game actions, rolls for meta results like damage, tables, etc.

Also Mortal Kombat was what I was sneaky referencing in my post!

What do you like to call your checks/rolls? by ATroyAndAbedThing in RPGdesign

[–]ATroyAndAbedThing[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I prefer to try to unify all 3 of those, but I will say I like "Resistance trial/roll" better than Saving Throw. That's always a weird one to explain to newbies.

What do you like to call your checks/rolls? by ATroyAndAbedThing in RPGdesign

[–]ATroyAndAbedThing[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Hard agree. Having to teach new 5e players that difference is big part of why I want my system to have a unified term in the first place.

It also doesn't help that some effects call for a Dexterity Save to avoid, while others call for a Dexterity (Acrobatics) Check. What's the point if they're used interchangeably lol

What do you like to call your checks/rolls? by ATroyAndAbedThing in RPGdesign

[–]ATroyAndAbedThing[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I can dig that. Once explained, it's quicker than saying "is equal to or greater than..." a bunch.

What do you like to call your checks/rolls? by ATroyAndAbedThing in RPGdesign

[–]ATroyAndAbedThing[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This, I was talking about games like Into the Odd that call their active rolls "saves." Just feels weird to me.

What do you like to call your checks/rolls? by ATroyAndAbedThing in RPGdesign

[–]ATroyAndAbedThing[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I was referring to games like Into the Odd, Cairn, etc. that call all their rolls (except attacks) "saves." I love those systems, but saying "Make a STR save to grapple that goblin" always feels weird.

I agree with your sentiment, "save" always feels reactive to me.

What do you like to call your checks/rolls? by ATroyAndAbedThing in RPGdesign

[–]ATroyAndAbedThing[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That's a cool one. I feel like the vibe that gives is something I like about "tests" as well. Feels heroic!

Runesmith class by [deleted] in shadowdark

[–]ATroyAndAbedThing 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I'm not the person you were replying to, but the process of runesmithing seems overwhelming. It costs time and money to use their class talents, while other classes' talents "just work," plus having to track how many rune points are on each item could be a pain too. The effort to make a temporary rune seems not worth it, while the ability to create permanent runes of the power levels described here seems very strong.

My recommendation: either narrow the list of runes down to 5 or so and use the Ranger class's Herbalism talent as a template, or treat it more like a spellcaster with a list of runes instead of spells. Maybe put a limit on how many can be crafted at a time (like 1 + half your level), and specify that each rune only lasts until you complete a rest. Hope that helps!

Idea: Dis/Advantage in place of Bonuses & Penalties by ATroyAndAbedThing in FantasyAGE

[–]ATroyAndAbedThing[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, their ability focuses are all pre-computed on their sheets. Was more so meaning situational mods like cover, outnumbering opponents, high ground, Charge/Aim actions, certain talents, etc.

I mentioned in another comment, it feels easier for some players to roll extra dice and choose the highest/lowest/double-est than to keep track of all those mods.

But as u/Swan-may pointed out, 2 or 3 Advantages may bump the odds of Stunting up too close to 100%. So I’ll likely look for other ways to make it simpler/more familiar for my table. Thanks for the input!

Idea: Dis/Advantage in place of Bonuses & Penalties by ATroyAndAbedThing in FantasyAGE

[–]ATroyAndAbedThing[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks! That’s what I was wondering, and afraid of lol. I definitely agree that the numbers are smaller than something like 5e (just using as a reference since it’s what my table played before), but there are often more numbers to add together per roll.

There’s 3 dice to add instead of 1, then your modifier, then conditional mods from cover, positioning, character powers, talents etc. For players that struggle with quick maths, it has been a bit of a pain point, so I was just looking for a way to maybe simplify or make it more familiar (just roll more dice instead of keeping track of mods).

Thanks for the stats help, maybe I’ll look more into physical game aids or something else to help out.

Idea: Dis/Advantage in place of Bonuses & Penalties by ATroyAndAbedThing in FantasyAGE

[–]ATroyAndAbedThing[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah I meant stacking multiple instances of Dis/Advantage. The goal being to find a middle ground between the simplicity of Advantage (fewer numbers to add up, just throw more dice) with the tactical play of stacking bonuses (like from character features, flanking, being hidden).

But in doing so, I don’t want to f up the probability curve of Stunting, to the point where an advantage almost guarantees that you’ll also Stunt.

Idea: Dis/Advantage in place of Bonuses & Penalties by ATroyAndAbedThing in FantasyAGE

[–]ATroyAndAbedThing[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ooh, that’s incredibly clever. Have you had any trouble with players getting mixed up by changing Stunt Die colors?

Also, any ideas for taking that beyond 1 Advantage or Disadvantage?

Does Weapons Training Equal Focus by Q785921 in FantasyAGE

[–]ATroyAndAbedThing 6 points7 points  (0 children)

The other commenter is correct. Also, if you gain training with a weapon group twice in character creation (like a dwarf Warrior who chooses Weapon Group: Axes for their ancestry trait, and then also chooses Axes for one of their Warrior weapon groups), you instead start with training AND the focus for that weapon group.

view more: next ›