Iren's PbP - Fantasy Rules

[Irenaeus]

Good, so you saw the problem and found a solution.
As for the second question, a spellcaster can do things no other class can do, e.g. teleportation or conjuration spells. One would choose to play a mage for that aspect. And for the last question, having a cantrip that can deal 1d6+X damage per round is literally the same as having a bow that can deal 1d6+X damage per round. You're just reflavouring something, so you might as well get yourself a laser gun that deals 1d6+X damage per round.

Yeah good that we are not speaking about cantrips then but level 1 spells which are limited by a cast limit of 1 per day and can be interrupted and I have no way of actually reacting to a combat situation. You are just saying stuff that is completely unrelated to the existing rules because you have an issue with magic users for some reason.

Okay, so make sure you pick the right moment to cast your 1 spell per day. Strategize around this restriction, take cover during combat, pelt people with rocks with your sling. And only use magic when it's critical to your survival.
And I don't have an issue with magic users. My PC is a caster too.

I think we had decided to cast each spell once per day, not 1 spell per day. Then, I found a good idea of using weaker versions of the spells as cantrips a few more times - how many times and how weak wasn't settled yet.

[Lord of Riva]

Good, so you saw the problem and found a solution.
As for the second question, a spellcaster can do things no other class can do, e.g. teleportation or conjuration spells. One would choose to play a mage for that aspect. And for the last question, having a cantrip that can deal 1d6+X damage per round is literally the same as having a bow that can deal 1d6+X damage per round. You're just reflavouring something, so you might as well get yourself a laser gun that deals 1d6+X damage per round.

Yeah good that we are not speaking about cantrips then but level 1 spells which are limited by a cast limit of 1 per day and can be interrupted and I have no way of actually reacting to a combat situation. You are just saying stuff that is completely unrelated to the existing rules because you have an issue with magic users for some reason.

Okay, so make sure you pick the right moment to cast your 1 spell per day. Strategize around this restriction, take cover during combat, pelt people with rocks with your sling. And only use magic when it's critical to your survival.
And I don't have an issue with magic users. My PC is a caster too.

Then let fighter test if their weapons break every round and test if archers shoot themselves in the foot every shot, then we can talk about "limitations"

[Acrux]

I think that since none (?) of you have played ACKS it makes more sense to try out the rules as they are written before deciding things don't work.

I don't want to play the rules as written. By the way, you're not even playing, so why are you increasing unrest in my game?

I should have phrased that as "play with the rules as Irenaeus intends". I also don't think I'm ncreasing unrest in the game (aren't the players arguing that they don't feel powerful doing that?)

Anyway, here's the ACKS II version of mage missle. Magic users can cast it every round for 8 hours unless concentration is lost.

[Irenaeus]

I think that since none (?) of you have played ACKS it makes more sense to try out the rules as they are written before deciding things don't work.

I don't want to play the rules as written. By the way, you're not even playing, so why are you increasing unrest in my game?

I should have phrased that as "play with the rules as Irenaeus intends". I also don't think I'm ncreasing unrest in the game (aren't the players arguing that they don't feel powerful doing that?)

I was just agitated at how many people were agreeing with you and how I was about to lose all I had worked for this already.

[Humbaba]

Acrux is increasing unrest. Not cool at all.

[Irenaeus]

Making a game that is fun and engaging to both @asf and @Lord of Riva will demand some compromises that I'm trying to tie on a strong knot here. I'm setting the rules so the game can finally begin. The spell controversy is almost settled.

[Irenaeus]

Acrux is increasing unrest. Not cool at all.

It was just my kneejerk reaction. Sorry, Acrux, you're the best.

[Irenaeus]

Anyway, here's the ACKS II version of mage missle. Magic users can cast it every round for 8 hours unless concentration is lost.

It's also 1d4 instead of 1d6, so this could be the weaker version to be cast a few more times.

[Irenaeus]

Yeah good that we are not speaking about cantrips then but level 1 spells which are limited by a cast limit of 1 per day and can be interrupted and I have no way of actually reacting to a combat situation. You are just saying stuff that is completely unrelated to the existing rules because you have an issue with magic users for some reason.

Okay, so make sure you pick the right moment to cast your 1 spell per day. Strategize around this restriction, take cover during combat, pelt people with rocks with your sling. And only use magic when it's critical to your survival.
And I don't have an issue with magic users. My PC is a caster too.

Then let fighter test if their weapons break every round and test if archers shoot themselves in the foot every shot, then we can talk about "limitations"

Shooting themselves in the foot is something out of a fumble, but weapons breaking sometimes should be part of the game, particularly the rusty bronze ones everyone starts with.

[maidenhaver]

Are we using the hunger and thirst rules? Maybe we shouldn't, unless your plan is to take a ship up a savage river, or we're going to need like three wagons and teams of oxen/slaves.

Did anybody take cooking? Is @PixiGreen playing?

[Irenaeus]

Are we using the hunger and thirst rules? Maybe we shouldn't, unless your plan is to take a ship up a savage river, or we're going to need like three wagons and teams of oxen/slaves.

Yes, there will be hunger and thirst that I will try to keep track of, but it won't be like a stat, more like a condition.

[maidenhaver]

Are we including age? Because we'd need to roll and then modify our attributes again.

[Irenaeus]

Are we including age? Because we'd need to roll and then modify our attributes again.

I assume everyone is between 18-39.

[maidenhaver]

Kalarion should be the leader, sense he has a high CHA and Luck.

[Irenaeus]

Kalarion should be the leader, sense he has a high CHA and Luck.

There are many potential leaders. I imagine they will arise when it's time to take important decisions for the group in the adventure.

[ERYFKRAD]

Kalarion should be the leader, sense he has a high CHA and Luck.

There are many potential leaders. I imagine they will arise when it's time to take important decisions for the group in the adventure.

We're either going to be an extraordinary mercenary company or the single biggest agglomeration of civil wars in a single table.

[DemoGraph]

I'm not a big fan of this system but we can use it if you want, I'm open to suggestions

Exploding 3d6 (or at least exploding d20) is better than a guaranteed hit on 20.
Nat 20 means we could gather 100 peasants with slings and have 5 guaranteed hits on some dragon in a round.

Shield +1 AC seems weak (especially for tower shields). An armored door covers you more effectively than a full plate does.

Some distinction should be made between target that actively defends itself in melee (or with shield against shooters) and the one that's hit in the back.

the single biggest agglomeration of civil wars in a single table.

Fun!

[maidenhaver]

Will Rangers modify the whole party's hit rolls with ranged weapons? Can we have that be a thing?

I also think that, as Luck was classically understood, a very Lucky man should modify the Luck of his company. So Spellsword needs to pick somebody to follow with 18 Luck, because a fool like that is hated by God.

[ERYFKRAD]

.
Nat 20 means we could gather 100 peasants with slings and have 5 guaranteed hits on some dragon in a round.

Not really, each roll is an independent event and there's no guarantee of getting your one in twenty chance that way.

[DemoGraph]

.
Nat 20 means we could gather 100 peasants with slings and have 5 guaranteed hits on some dragon in a round.

Not really, each roll is an independent event and there's no guarantee of getting your one in twenty chance that way.

Of course there's no guarantee. But mathematical expectation is on my side.

[logincrash]

Nat 20 means we could gather 100 peasants with slings and have 5 guaranteed hits on some dragon in a round.

100 peasants with slings is quite a force, especially if they're attacking first. Getting 5 hits with a 1d4 or 1d6 weapon out of a hundred is quite reasonable.

Nat 20 means we could gather 100 peasants with slings and have 5 guaranteed hits on some dragon in a round.

Not really, each roll is an independent event and there's no guarantee of getting your one in twenty chance that way.

We could always test it out
4 out of 100. 4% is really close to the proposed 5%.

Edit: Oh, it's actually exactly 5/100

13,10,20,17,17,13,12,1,11,14,6,11,6,13,1,7,2,2,20,18,19,16,11,15,14,17,17,7,2,3,7,4,17,15,2,20,9,13,13,11,5,16,13,18,13,7,7,5,11,1,9,10,7,7,5,2,3,5,19,4,12,16,6,4,1,10,19,6,15,7,20,2,9,17,10,16,4,6,19,8,6,18,6,11,5,20,10,6,13,1,12,18,8,16,19,10,14,1,11,2

[Lord of Riva]

Okay, so make sure you pick the right moment to cast your 1 spell per day. Strategize around this restriction, take cover during combat, pelt people with rocks with your sling. And only use magic when it's critical to your survival.
And I don't have an issue with magic users. My PC is a caster too.

Then let fighter test if their weapons break every round and test if archers shoot themselves in the foot every shot, then we can talk about "limitations"

Shooting themselves in the foot is something out of a fumble, but weapons breaking sometimes should be part of the game, particularly the rusty bronze ones everyone starts with.

It would only be equal if there is a 50% chance every round for it to happen. Because the Argument was that a weapon that is massively limited in use, deals the same damage as any other weapon is OP when it can also not disabled after having to declare that you use it.

[Lord of Riva]

Will Rangers modify the whole party's hit rolls with ranged weapons? Can we have that be a thing?

I mean... why?

[logincrash]

Then let fighter test if their weapons break every round and test if archers shoot themselves in the foot every shot, then we can talk about "limitations"

Shooting themselves in the foot is something out of a fumble, but weapons breaking sometimes should be part of the game, particularly the rusty bronze ones everyone starts with.

It would only be equal if there is a 50% chance every round for it to happen. Because the Argument was that a weapon that is massively limited in use, deals the same damage as any other weapon is OP when it can also not disabled after having to declare that you use it.

Would you be fine with having a 1d6 cantrip?

[maidenhaver]

Will Rangers modify the whole party's hit rolls with ranged weapons? Can we have that be a thing?

I mean... why?

Training at camp.

[DemoGraph]

Edit: Oh, it's actually exactly 5/100

That's a pure chance. IIRC, you could've had 4-6 nat 20s with about the same chance.
If you roll 100d20, there's 99.5% to roll at least one 20.
Nat 1/20 is bad for representing low probability lucky outcomes, because it has flat distribution and then a sudden success blowout. Suppose that you roll 0+d20 vs 100 def target. You'll have effective results like 1, 2, ... 19, 100. It's meh.
Normally distributed die set (at least 2 dice, but 3 is much better) is much better at it. If you want it to have a small chance of very good results, you add exploding dice on top. Preferably "tail exploding", that is, you don't add additional die on ALL the 6th, you add them only on 18.

[Lord of Riva]

Shooting themselves in the foot is something out of a fumble, but weapons breaking sometimes should be part of the game, particularly the rusty bronze ones everyone starts with.

It would only be equal if there is a 50% chance every round for it to happen. Because the Argument was that a weapon that is massively limited in use, deals the same damage as any other weapon is OP when it can also not disabled after having to declare that you use it.

Would you be fine with having a 1d6 cantrip?

No, when this topic was brought up I thought about it and I specifically do not want a zapper every round, I can use a sling and that is fine I am more than willing to work around the limit of the amount of casts, even if level 1 spells are not stronger than a normal weapons, later spells will certainly be.

The two things I would want is the following: If we are talking about low level spells I do not want to have to designate that I want to cast magic missile only to realize that an enemy is a mage making me want to cast shield instead, this could be different for higher level spells like a cloudkill variant, I have no issue with that and that damage does not automatically interrupt instead I would like a chance to save the spell, like a concentration skill check that works 50% of the time. (maybe wis or con derived, or even luck)

I reiterate that it is not a limitation that is bothering me but that I won't be able to act on things happening and that my already limited spells are more likely than not not even usable due to a plink shot by goblin no.3

EDIT: Am I missing something here, I tried thrice now, to make clear where my actual issues are, I already said that i am fine with the spell slot limitations after realizing I can just take a missile weapon. Cantrips are only necessary in systems that do not really allow mages to use them and I was confused because modern DND allows the use of cantrips and that for me was the norm, but old DND did not and there was a perfect solution already back then. I just had to shift my perspective around.

The same is not true with the casting rules there, specifically having to designate targets at the initiative and being interrupted "by damage", I do not even mind interruption by failed save, though you can only ever be interrupted when you have to say you are casting beforehand which I simply think is ****. If this system is implemted it should be for highler level spells, casting time there is warranted.

I would suggest, aside from "concentration" which I think is more than reasonable (eg. a saveroll for interruption), that the group decides which higher level spells has an actual cast time and must be designated beforehand and which are "spontaneous"

[Lord of Riva]

Will Rangers modify the whole party's hit rolls with ranged weapons? Can we have that be a thing?

I mean... why?

Training at camp.

There is the command (which i have and don't know what it does) and "manual of arms" skill that is supposed to be training of soldiers, I mean it's irens thing but you having a skill that allows you to help people with pointers when resting to help them aim until the next rest is a cool Idea imho. It just sounded like an aura or something that was a bit weird.

Could also be an "Archery trainer" skill or something. I personally like the idea.

[Irenaeus]

I can use a sling and that is fine I am more than willing to work around the limit of the amount of casts, even if level 1 spells are not stronger than a normal weapons, later spells will certainly be.

The two things I would want is the following: If we are talking about low level spells I do not want to have to designate that I want to cast magic missile only to realize that an enemy is a mage making me want to cast shield instead, this could be different for higher level spells like a cloudkill variant, I have no issue with that and that damage does not automatically interrupt instead I would like a chance to save the spell, like a concentration skill check that works 50% of the time. (maybe wis or con derived, or even luck)

I reiterate that it is not a limitation that is bothering me but that I won't be able to act on things happening and that my already limited spells are more likely than not not even usable due to a plink shot by goblin no.3

EDIT: Am I missing something here, I tried thrice now, to make clear where my actual issues are, I already said that i am fine with the spell slot limitations after realizing I can just take a missile weapon. Cantrips are only necessary in systems that do not really allow mages to use them and I was confused because modern DND allows the use of cantrips and that for me was the norm, but old DND did not and there was a perfect solution already back then. I just had to shift my perspective around.

The same is not true with the casting rules there, specifically having to designate targets at the initiative and being interrupted "by damage", I do not even mind interruption by failed save, though you can only ever be interrupted when you have to say you are casting beforehand which I simply think is ****. If this system is implemted it should be for highler level spells, casting time there is warranted.

I think it's fair to have a concentration skill check for interruption, not automatically being interrupted from damage alone. Do you guys have any other suggestions for the magic system? I'm open for changing anything if there's consensus.

As for cantrips, that is, weaker versions of level 1 spells, I'm thinking of allowing the use per day of 2 + double the INT bonus of the magic user. How about that?

I would suggest, aside from "concentration" which I think is more than reasonable (eg. a saveroll for interruption), that the group decides which higher level spells has an actual cast time and must be designated beforehand and which are "spontaneous"

Indeed, for higher level spells we can come up with more details in their casting and maintaining when the time comes, as they surely are very powerful.

[Lord of Riva]

I think it's fair to have a concentration skill check for interruption, not automatically being interrupted from damage alone. Do you guys have any other suggestions for the magic system? I'm open for changing anything if there's consensus.

As for cantrips, that is, weaker versions of level 1 spells, I'm thinking of allowing the use per day of 2 + double the INT bonus of the magic user. How about that?

So we are still having to designate spell use on Initiative for all spells? This is incredibly limiting.

I do not see the point of cantrips in this setting, just use a weapon instead so I am actually opposed to cantrips after talking about this in the other thread.