So, spells!

Magic Cape (Wisdom)
Enchantment
Rank 5
Single action
20 MP (sustained)
Duration: Sustain
Range: Personal
Target: You
Check: Unopposed - 4(3)

You become undetectable and untouchable, moving like a ghost.
When activated, you become invisible and incorporeal. You are immune to all attacks and can pass through solid objects unimpeded.
>I believe the MP cost for this one was determined based on its cost in LttP; we may want to trim it down a bit.

--------------------------------------------
Cane of Byrna (Wisdom)
Defense
Rank 6
Single action
15 MP (sustained)
Duration: Sustain
Range: 1
Area: 1-meter radius, centered on you.
Check: Unopposed - 4(4)

You are surrounded by a protective field that shelters you and adjacent allies from harm, and damages enemies who get too close.
A force field extends out from your space to a 1-meter radius. You and any allies within the field are immune to all harm, and any enemy that comes in contact with it takes 1 heart of damage for each round it touches the field.

Shields. You should be able to add 'Reinforced' to a shield, giving it the same +1/4H, but add an addendum as to minimum Physical (let's say 3, for argument)

I would also add in requirements for armour:
Light - Physical 1 (natch)
Medium - Physical 2 (not asking a lot)
Heavy - Physical 3 (since it's, well... heavy)

Not trying to be too simulationist, but since shields have no stat requirements (like light armour) it doesn't really change much except the fluff

>>15597591
I'm not quite sure what you're getting. Do you mean have shields apply no damage reduction unless you have the Reinforced property, which would add a Physical requirement?
That's a bad idea -- shields only apply their damage reduction if you take an action to ready a shield defense. Removing their damage reduction would make acrobatic defense strictly better, since it always gets the bonus of free movement, whereas shields only get the bonus of additional damage reduction if you have a special shield.

Also, I don't think I like the idea of Physical prereqs for armor. It makes sense from a simulationist perspective, but from a balance standpoint it ensures that a low-Physical character will be extraordinarily squishy. Not only will you have fewer hearts, but you also will be basically defenseless barring magic -- not only will you be barred from wearing decent armor, but you'll also have a crappy defense roll.

We need this thread linked on the wiki, for ease.

>>15597677
Agreed here about the Physical requirement for armor. What I think he meant about the reinforced shields is simply that the reinforced special quality should be applicable to shields as well with some kind of Physical requirement. I'm not sure about the Physical requirement part, but maybe having a reinforced Shield add 1 to mass? Doesn't seem like a great option either, really.

MAGIC: Unless anybody has objections, I'll go ahead and add the revised versions of the basic spells and techniques up to the wiki.

>>15597677
>Reinforced (armor only): This armor provides an additional 1/4 heart damage reduction (included in the description), and increases the wearer's Mass by an additional 1.
Said it should apply to shields. Said maybe heavy shields should have a hindrance, reading this it increases your mass and would slow you accordingly, that's fine. It's like a Heavy Shield instead of the Biggoron Tower Shield.

>Shield defense: Roll |Shield| (Courage) to defend. Additionally, you gain the damage reduction benefit of your shield for any damage taken from the attack. Even the attack deals no damage, it still makes contact (with your shield), which may be important for electrified attacks and similar effects.
>Acrobatic defense: Roll |Acrobatics| (Wisdom) to defend. Additionally, you may move 1 space as a free action (part of your defense), plus one additional space for each success you score over your attacker's total number of successes.
Neither of those defenses are Physical Based. Hence, your argument that heavier armour having a prerequisite makes others squishy is invalid. What it DOES do is put a price to that 1H of resistance, creating a cost-to-benefit.

>>15597722
>We need this thread linked on the wiki, for ease.

It's on there, I just moved the "Current thread" link to the top of the External Links list rather than the bottom, since it looked like the list was getting rather long. Figured it'd be more convenient that way.

I'm all for the idea of being able to improve shields (much like we can improve weapons), but I think that adding a Physical requirement would be silly, since anyone using a shield is likely to have a good Physical score anyway. It would probably be better to just have it be an option that can be obtained later on in the game as a quest reward or something you can buy if you save up your rupees.

Also, on the subject of armor, it strikes me that, as currently statted, the only reason anyone would go without some form of armor would be if they really didn't want to part with one of their starting item slots. Light armor provides protection with absolutely no drawbacks whatsoever, so there's basically no good reason not to get your hands on a suit as soon as you can.
It seems to me that if everyone in their right mind is going to be taking light armor anyway, we may as well cut it as an actual armor category and just say that the damage taken is assuming you've got some sort of basic protection, be it simple armor or just a knack for rolling with the punches or however you want to fluff it. Make wearing armor actually be a meaningful choice, y'know?

>>15597734
Ah, I wasn't aware of the Reinforced property on there. I recall it ever being mentioned in any of the threads, and if something gets added to the wiki without being brought up here first I tend to miss it.

And as for defenses, read over the skills section. Each skill always uses a particular Attribute, and both |shield| and |acrobatics| are Physical skills. Since the skill always uses the same Attribute, it's redundant to mention it in anything telling you to use that skill.

>>15597734
Also, there is already a cost to heavier armor -- it penalizes movement speed and anything using the |acrobatics| skill.

>>15597854
>I recall it ever
*don't recall it ever

I hate when I important words...

>>15597828
What I think we're hoping to do is make being an armorless character a viable option with some unique benefit of its own, but so far we haven't come up with a really solid idea for it yet.

Maybe give a character not wearing armor a bonus to defense rolls, active and passive alike? Perhaps that should be a tech or series of techs, though. Now that I recall, that was actually suggested before I think but didn't get much feedback.

>>15597919
That would make sense.

Speaking of armor and techs, once we get closer to finalizing the tech list, we need to make sure to remember to highlight specific ones as being unusable in armor beyond certain weight levels, since that was also supposed to be a balancing factor for heavier armor.

>>15597854
And having Phys 2 then 3 points in either Shields or Acrobatics means you are 4k? (not bad at all). A Hylian with stacked courage (putting that +1 to use) would undeniably do this, esp. with the 'guard and attack' strategem being much cheaper than Riposte (2 techniques) or Counter Attack (Melee 4).

Glancing at the rules, I just made a melee-type with a 6k6 attack, so don't worry about balance.

>>15598011
Forgot to mention - Heavy weapons become more viable when there's something preventing magic users from using heavy armour and shields, and a technique like Low Blow loses its appeal if every damn character wears platemail.

>>15598063
One last thing - Shield is a Rank 1 spell. If you let someone with 4 wisdom (24 MP) get Heavy armour and a shield without forcing at least a little bit of physical, they're just going to enjoy their 1 3/4 H resistance for 24 rounds of combat.

>>15598011
6k6 actually sounds just about like what I'd expect for someone's primary attack skill.
And 4kX isn't actually that great, considering that (like I just mentioned) the primary attack rolls you'll be up against will have rolls in the 6 or 7kX range. Adding even one die to your rolled pool has a pretty substantial impact on your chances of getting good rolls, especially at the smaller end of the pool size. And it still doesn't change the fact that low-Physical characters will still be squishier in every regard, even if it will take a bit more than merely a stiff breeze to knock them over. They'll already have fewer hearts and weaker defense rolls than a Physical combatant; is it really necessary to deprive them of armor as well? I really don't think mages in this game will be so powerful that they need extraordinary squishiness to balance them out. And at any rate, making mages squishy is a terrible way to compensate for overpowerful magic, since the magic will usually more than compensate for the squishiness.

Also, bear in mind that you won't have "every damn character" wearing full plate -- just because there are stats for it doesn't mean it's readily available for anyone who wants it. This system relies heavily on GMs keeping tight control of the loot (pretty much a necessity to keep the LoZ feel), and heavy armor will not be available as starting gear. It's intended to be a mid-to-late game, high-tier item that's not at all easy to come by. Granted, the GM could give them out like party favors, but the same could be said for anything else in the system -- overly generous GMs will break the game. That's a risk we're willing to take, because otherwise it's not really a Zelda game -- it's just a generic fantasy RPG that happens to be put in a Zelda setting.

Finally, I think you misread Low Blow -- it doesn't lose it's appeal when heavy armor is common; it becomes a gimme tech.

>>15598277
I'm going to have to agree with this. There really isn't a need to restrict armor based on Physical, because people with a low Physical will be taking more damage from attacks than those with moderate to high physical. Imagine a character with a 1 Physical. Their defense rolls and life are going to be so low they will NEED heavy armor to survive an attack.

>>15598672
I agree that magic users with low physical need good armor to stay alive. But should they still be able to use all of their magic and techs while encumbered with heavy armor? I think not. Non-magical characters need a tech to use techs in heavy armor, so should magic users.

Heavy Armored Magic Training (Passive)
Prerequisites: |Magic| 3, Physical 2
XP Cost: 5
Allows a character to use magic and magic techniques while wearing heavy armor. You must still have your hands empty (or holding the magical item) to use magic.

Even if they start with physical 1, using 6 XP to bump it up to 2 isn't asking that much.

>>15598277
Also, finally someone who shares my concerns with heavy armor and over abundance! Heavy armor is incredibly rare in the games, save for a few high-tier enemies. The same should be true for the PCs.

>>15600320
On the other hand, it slows you down and makes you more vulnerable to aimed attacks at the chinks, so you'd better have a good weapon (like a giant battleaxe) to back up the armour.

Anyone seen Cz?

>>15600811
Or just remember to keep facing your enemies.

I'm still open for drawfag request ideas. Any characters, races or monsters people want drawn? Scenes can work too, but I can't promise much.

>>15600834
A Korok in heavy armor.
Now that I think about it, should small creatures have armor that weighs less? There's not any weight restriction for armor, and it would weigh as much as he does.
Pictured: what I don't have.

>>15600303
I can definitely get behind restricting the use of certain techs in heavy armor, though I'm rather ambivalent on whether it should apply to magic. But maybe that's just because of reading that "why can't casters into armor?" thread yesterday...

>>15598094 does raise a good point, though I question whether it's really something we should be too concerned about. 1+1/2h of damage reduction is impressive, but I have my doubts as to whether it'd really be game-breaking, so I think we should playtest it first, but it's definitely something to keep on the radar. If it does prove to be a problem, we should make Shield not stack with armor (though damage reduction from shield defense would still stack), since restricting armor use wouldn't really help the problem -- even if mages can't wear armor, there's nothing stopping them from casting Shield on the party's heavy-armored brute, turning him into the juggernaut.

>>15600939
Thinking again, maybe no spells in heavy armor without training is too much. We could make plain magic usable, but only the techs would be restricted, like melee and heavy. Perhaps make the same tech for using melee and heavy techs in heavy armor also cover magic-modifying techs.

One thing that im worried about, is that we dont have any mechanic to manage a situation where a creature is attacking another creature and then said creature disengages the blows exchange and goes after the wizard of the party. In d&d this is mnaged with marking mechanics form defenders to make defending a doable thing.

If we dont implement a mechaninc similar to this (opportunity attacks and such), squishy characters will drop dead like rain. And things like a rogue character reatreating to cover and hiding wont be viable as well, cause in the crreatures turn nothing is endangering them for following the said rogue and finding him, not even if the enemies have to pass the entire pcs party to find him.

>>15601200
We don't nescesarily make this game too tactical either. We aren't trying to replicate D&D's complex combat mechanics (though there are a lot of similarities.)

In an interview I read about the development of OoT, they designed the enemies to attack you one at a time so you wouldn't be overwhelmed. That's a bit harder to justfy here, since nothing restricting players from ganging up on enemies, but maybe there's still something to it.

Or we could give players a Run action, which let's them move three times their speed as a Double action to get away from a hairy situation, while the enemies left behind turn their attention to more immediate threats.

>>15600811

I'm here. I haven't be able to touch my tablet for a good long while. I can get back to drawfaggin' later tonight.

My next picture is gonna have something to do with this fella.

>>15602080
Good luck. Moblins are nearly impossible for me to draw, but I also try to draw the piglike versions. Maybe you'll have better luck with the bulldog type.

The best moblin sketch I've come up with is this one:
http://i.imgur.com/OdgkM.jpg

>>15602080
Can't wait to see your stuff.

>>15597865
So what's the problem? Make the penalties a little harsher, and we have a deterrent for people to take heavy armour without incorporating it into their strategy.

>>15601462
But getting that far away effectively removes you from the fight, unless you use a ranged weapon. You'd have to spend a whole other turn getting back in, so Run wouldn't really be viable unless you're just retreating.

I'm personally in agreement that we should put in opportunity attacks. It's a pretty simple idea that most people are familiar with, we can include a couple techs for making them better or avoiding them, etc. It will allow the creation of an actual front-line, assist in protecting the party casters/sneaks, and give some viability to a knight/tank character concept. All in all I think it would be nothing too complex for a significant enhancement of the flow of combat.

Actually, this is something my group brought up during our first session that they didn't like, but I forgot to mention it.

>>15600870
I figured Koroks would just have Korok-sized and shaped versions of armor, and for simplicity we should just say armor is miraculously one-size-fits-all.

With regard to restricting use of armor in general, I don't think we need to do too much more. Also, restricting tech use in heavy armor is a tricky idea, because it just doesn't make sense for all techniques. Do we include passive techniques as well? I'm not sure it's entirely necessary, given the mobility-limiting and intended rarity of heavy armors. If all it requires is a technique to overcome this, anybody who wears heavy armor will inevitably invest in that technique anyway, so what's the point, really?

I think heavy armor is fine as-is, but what we need to keep in mind is that finding it should be a rare occasion, reserved for mid-game play.

Okay, I posted the list of basic spells and magic techniques to the wiki with the modifications suggested. Let me know if you see something wrong with it.

Also, I noticed something that I wanted to bring up. Things like Fire Arrow and Magic Cape. Should those really be spells? I always saw those as more of an item that needed MP to be used. I realize that spells are treated like items, but I think a distinction needs to be made between spells and objects that allow you to create magical effects.

The key difference is that an item like the magical arrows or Bombos Medallion can be taken from you. A spell is learned, and in your mind. It has no physical representation. The majority of what Link winds up getting are objects that allow magical effects at the cost of MP, but looking at the antagonists from the games this is clearly not the only way magic works.

I really think the distinction is important for practical application. Spells are learned by an individual, but objects can be stolen or shared. Think about the Light Arrows and how only Link OR Zelda could use them at one time. It's an object, not a spell, and I think we should make that separation as well. It just makes sense.

>>15604304
If there is a distinction between learned and item spells, would the only difference be whether the spell can be transferred between people (which I believe is both a weakness and a strength)? In that case, would the character be able to choose whether he wants the item or the knowledge of the spell at creation and with purchasing basic spells?

I also looked at the wiki and Sap Strength needs to be updated. It still has damage increment back from the old system. I believe it should be upgraded to a full heart of damage reduced per attack. Would it still be unable to reduce damage below 1/4H damage just like armored damage reduction?

>>15603814
Opportunity attacks slow down combat and make fights less mobile and dynamic. I'd really like for this system to be have as little bloat as possible.

If needed, opportunity attacks could be replicated with held actions, maybe only as a technique that stops enemy movement. But I'm strongly against having it become a part of combat round after round.

>>15604522
They only slow things down if they happen continuously, really. Every other game I play has opportunity attacks, and rarely are they an inconvenience. I agree that we want a relatively simple and smooth system, but I really wouldn't call opportunity attacks "bloat". I think it's pretty standard fare for RPGs, honestly, and while you could replicate it with held actions, that's just not a tactically sound alternative to bashing somebody while you've got the chance. I doubt people would ever really use the option.

>>15604464
I think letting players choose between learned spells and an implement of some sort that holds the spell would be fine for those chosen at character creation. And yes, in practice the only functional difference is whether the spell is inherent in a character or if it is held in an item and can be stolen or traded. I'm really just thinking about things that are traditionally handled as objects, like the magical arrows and medallions, capes, etc. These are clearly objects, not spells somebody casts after learning them.

Was anybody still working on the high-res version of this character sheet? I'd like to see the latest versions available on the wiki. And of course, if somebody could create a writable version, that would be spectacular.

>>15603814
I thought the issue was squishy wizards being endangered by being too close to the action. Don't they use ranged attacks almost exclusively?

>>15604304
"Spells as items" refers to how they're aquired and equipped in a "hand." I don't know If those items should count as Spells, but many magic items do use the Magic skill and consume MP. Maybe we should just limit the types of spells there are so that Magic items and spells are more distinct?

>>15604522

Well, as i see it, the question is wheter we tanking/defending to be a feasible thing then we have to implemt some kind of mechanic to make it work. im all about making the game simple but there is a line where you have to sacrifice a little bit of simplicity in favor of make this kind of things possible.

By the way, the issue of opportunity attacks slowing down a game its very relative, if the dm like his crits to die in the first round, then he will just go for the mage and his crits will die after getting smacked by the rest of the party, if he has some sense he will stop that strategy after the first or second opportunity attack, at that point opp atks arent slowing things down. And you know what, the first scenario will result in a faster end of the combat too.

>>15604661
Right now many of those items are listed under Spells, which is what I was drawing attention to. I definitely think they should be listed as magical items, and not in the Spells section. That's really the only distinction I was looking for.

While squishy wizards use ranged attacks almost exclusively, the issue is that there is absolutely nothing stopping a gang of enemies from charging right past all the melee PCs and into the caster's face. If the caster has a low Physical score, even a single round of assaults from multiple enemies could spell a quick death.

CHARACTER DEATH: How are we wanting to work this? Is it when your life meter is gone you're dead, and that's that unless you've got a fairy? Will it be an incapacitation instead, and you're only really DEAD-dead if the whole party is defeated? Given the often light-hearted nature of the setting, I'd actually be open to the second option. In other systems that might be considered totally coddling, but in this system it sort of seems appropriate. When I think Zelda I don't think of gritty with the threat of permanent death around every corner (an exaggeration, but you get my meaning).

Also, on non-lethal combat. To avoid inflating the system with a non-lethal mechanic, were we alright with just saying that when you reduce an enemy's hearts to 0 you have the option of incapacitating them rather than killing? Was brought up before, but I don't remember much feedback.

>>15604742
I always thought that the magic items were simply spells in item form. The Magic Cape casts "Intangibility" and the Cane of Somaria casts "Summon Block".

I believe that attacks of opportunity need to be present. Maybe something similar to 3.X in that if you enter and exit an opponent's attack range in the same round then they get an attack. Then if you move half-speed or slower then it does not provoke.

For character death, I would have it like this:
If your hearts are depleted, then you are knocked out. After battle you may be revived up to 1 heart at no cost. You may be revived in combat with a fairy on your person or with an ally's fairy (costs an action). If you are not revived in 1 day, then you are dead.

>>15605002
Just had another thought. Heavy weapons would still need to recover after an attack of opportunity right? They must have their weapon already recovered in order to take it?

>>15604742
I think I prefer the "moving half speed" to the "1 square shift" as D&D does it. I could live with that.
However, maybe we could balance it out by having immediate actions like those taking one action out of the attacker's next turn? Just so the actions aren't being pulled out of thin air. (it's not a big concern, but it might be neat and allow some strategy to opportunity attacks: sure you can swipe at the guy, but you can't defend and attack on your next turn either. Maybe that's a bad idea though.)

As for dying, I figure that if a member drops to 0H, they're knocked out and have to be carted around by the party or left where they are. They could be revieved by a potion or fairy, but not healing spells or Heart pickups (maybe healing songs, though, since those are more valuable.) Or the party can sleep. I'm not sure if killing individual players off outright fits with the spirit of the game, but that decision should be left up to GM's (along with whether NPC's are killable, either.)

If the entire party wipes, however, depending on the DM and what led to their death (like poor rolls or some unpreventable catastrophe,) they might restart at the dungeon entrance/ last safe area they entered. They
might have only a little Life, Magic, and none of the XP or items they aquired prior to their death.

Or, if thats too immersion breaking orbthe players totally deserved it, then it's Game Over.

>>15605202
Forgot my name again.

>>15605072
I assume so, (which means that using that "lose an action on your next turn" idea would mean that they don't get to attack at all their next turn,) or maybe you can't opportunity attack with Heavy weapons.

Still need some drawing ideas, scenes preferred.

>>15605202
I agree with taking the immediate action out of the next round's actions (or from the previous round if you prepare an action). Then you could also have a tech that allows the action without the penalty to the next round.

>>15605245
Perhaps a campfire scene with everyone in the party unwinding after a day of adventuring. The deku/korok of the party would of course keep a safe distance from the fire.

Finished with the Kokiri Ranger!

>>15605569
Beautiful.

>>15605788

Thanks!

Anyone have any suggestions for my next project?

I'm leaning towards a Sea Zora of some sort.

>>15603814
>Also, restricting tech use in heavy armor is a tricky idea, because it just doesn't make sense for all techniques. Do we include passive techniques as well?
The idea was never to restrict all techs, just specific ones (like Back Slice, for instance) that require more agility and such. It'd be on a case-by-case basis.

>>15604464
There is no "old system" to update Sap Strength to; we're still using damage increments, and Sap Strength still affects damage increments. The only thing that got changed was how armor affects damage -- it deducts from total damage rather than individual increments, but the increment system is still there to be worked with.

>>15605569

What about a male martial artist zora performing a spinning kick.

>>15605277
This seems like a reasonable compromise, and there should be tech that enhance the opportunity attacks so that a defending character concept can excel at it if they want. As for allowing avoidance of opportunity attacks, I think I'd be alright with it if somebody only moves half their speed. Here's the other thing, though, what about ranged attacks? Should those allow opportunity attacks as well? It would be less dangerous than usual, since opportunity attacks detract from your actions next round it's not like it's a "free" hit, necessarily. And, of course, techs to avoid provoking them for ranged attacks would be available.

I'd be interested in seeing that scene as well. Big Goron laughing, somebody playing an instrument, Sheikah leaning up against a tree in shadows.

>>15605202
I think that character death should definitely be a rare thing, to be done only as part of the plot or with player consent. How about this:

When reduced to 0 life, a character is knocked unconscious or otherwise incapacitated and unable to take any actions. At this point the character can be revived by a healing fairy or healing potion, or certain other effects, but not by healing magic (unless otherwise stated in the spell) or simple heart pickups. A Piece of Heart or Heart Container will revive an incapacitated character. If not revived, an incapacitated character recovers 1 heart after 8 hours of inactivity.

>>15605002
I guess that's one way of looking at magic items, but if that's the case then we still need to differentiate between what's a spell and what's an item that holds a spell. You wouldn't have the spell "Magic Cape", you would have the spell "Intangibility" and then there's a cape that can cast it for those who don't use magic themselves.

A few thoughts on specific topics:
>Spells/magic items
I second Tech-point Gent's interpretation here >>15605002. Yes, things like the Magic Cape and elemental arrows and medallions and such are all items, but there's nothing saying you couldn't have a mage who can replicate precisely those effects by using a learned spell. And even if we do distinguish between learned spells and spells cast from items, we should still require |magic| ranks and checks -- if any old schmuck can pick up a magic item and use it no problem, what's the point of having ranks in |magic| in the first place? The idea is that, even though the magic is contained within the item, you still need to be able to draw that magic out and control it.
I think any spell should be available in either learned or item-based form, according to player & GM discretion. The idea of a character who does magic solely by harnessing the power found in artifacts left behind by long-forgotten sages sounds really neat to me, and very appropriate for a LoZ setting. To keep learned casters from having a leg up on item-based casters, we should make learned magic dependent on some kind of focus item of the player's choice -- could be a tome, a staff, a piece of jewelry, whatever.
Now, I know somebody's going to complain, "but that makes it too easy to dick over a pure caster by taking away their focus!" And to that I reply: you can also dick over a fighter by taking away their weapons. I see no reason why casters should get special treatment in this regard, particularly in this setting. And besides which, given how dependent this system already is on GM/player cooperation (item availability and whatnot), I really don't think that's an issue worth agonizing over. If a GM's enough of a dick to deprive a caster of his focus without damn good reason, odds are the poor guy's not having a very good time of it to begin with, since he's probably also not getting any decent spells.

>>15606183
It seems like a lot of work to go through and judge each and every technique on whether or not it can be used in heavy armor. Each tech would probably be a decent sized discussion in and of itself. And again, if we put that in place, you're basically just requiring any character who wants to wear heavy armor to take the tech that lets them use techniques with it.

As a compromise, why not require a technique to wear and function in heavy armor? This will help to limit access to heavy armor to those willing to invest the xp in it and take the penalties, but without arbitrarily dividing techniques into what can and what cannot be used in heavy armor.

And just to point something out, there's nothing prohibiting a Korok from investing entirely in Heavy weapons, and zooming around the battlefield at high speed with an enormous greataxe, body painted half-blue for fun. Realism most certainly doesn't necessarily need to be represented in character capabilities by this system. It's more fun that way, anyway, and fits with the generally light-hearted theme of the game.

>>15606415

>Character death
I thought we'd agreed awhile back that dropping to 0 hearts would be incapacitation, unless the whole party dropped in which case you're dead...lemme dig through the archives...
Yup, way back here in the 15th thread
http://suptg.thisisnotatrueending.com/archive/15396589/#15402316
>>What happens when you reach zero hearts? Do you die? If so, that might be a bit harsh. Perhaps we could have it like in Final Fantasy, where the party survives as long as one member does?
>This sounds fair to me. When you hit 0 hearts, you're not exactly dead, just unconscious. Monsters will almost always ignore a downed enemy to focus on more pressing threats. If everyone is incapacitated, though, the monsters will finish you off. A fairy can restore a downed character, but it takes more attention than your teammates can spare in battle to bring you back with a potion or similar item. As long as one party member survives the fight, they can take a handful of rounds to nurse the rest back to consciousness (1 heart) afterward.
Since we're going to include healing magic, should any healing spell revive a downed character, or should that require a specific spell? Maybe limit the more basic healing spells to only working on allies who were downed within the last turn (or possibly longer if you have a higher |magic| skill)?

There's a bit more discussion and refinement of the topic there, but this basic idea was pretty generally accepted. It just never got added to the wiki, so here we are.

>>15606435
I'd be ok with just requiring a tech to use heavy armor in the first place. Sounds like a fair way of handling it to me.

>>15606415
If all magic effects are available as spells as well as items, then what makes items special in the first place? I think that they should be seperate things, although we can certainly transfer the spell effects we have into their item versions.

>>15605969
Yes! Can we have an ocean zora? Maybe less human than the OOT versions, but not ALTTP...

Who's That Blin?

>>15606453
Derp, the line beginning with "Since we're going to include healing magic..." should be greentexted too, since that's also a quote from the old thread. I didn't notice there was a linebreak there, lol.

That subject, btw, was decided that you could only use healing magic to revive a downed character if they'd been downed no more than one round for each rank you have in |magic|. So if you catch them right away you can heal them up and get them back on their feet, but otherwise you need to find a fairy or spend time nursing them back to health.

>>15606510
I would argue the opposite perspective -- if you can get any spell effect as a magic item, what's the point of spells? Why invest ranks in |magic| if you can just get any spell effect you want as an item anybody can use?

Granted, the GM could choose to not give out items for any spell he doesn't want the party fighter using, but still having a skill only be useful if the GM runs the campaign so you have to have it seems pretty silly, and counter to what we're trying to accomplish with our skill system.

Better to have the learned spell/item spell distinction be purely a matter of fluff and just let GMs houserule in anyone-can-use-it magic items if they want, rather than having magic items universally usable by default and relying on GMs to make |magic| something worth investing in.

>>15606435
>>15606492
I also agree with a simple tech for wearing heavy armor.

>>15606580
I also agree here. One -must- have magic skill ranks in order to use magic. The only functional difference between a learned spell and item spell is whether you can lose it after you obtain it.

>>15606415
I'm going to have to disagree with requiring ranks in Magic for things like the magic cape, etc. It just doesn't fit thematically. There's no way Link had any training or even a decent grasp of how magic worked. The items found and used by the hero are pretty easily understood and used, and requiring those ranks would prohibit any non-caster character from using magic items that don't just have blanket effects.

The key benefit of being a magic user with ranks in the skill is that your spells will be more effective, and you can use a lot more of them thanks to your larger magic meter. You've also got the ability to use magic techniques to enhance or alter your basic spells.

How about this: A magic item can be used with a simple Mental(Virtue) roll, perhaps with an inherent bonus for ease of use. But if you have ranks in Magic, you can use your Magic skill instead, making the effects of the item more potent in your hands.

For every spell there could easily be an item. What I think we should do is create a list of spells, detailing the effects there. Then, when defining items, for those that simply emulate a spell we can just say, "allows user to cast spell X" possible adding "with these changes/conditions". I just doesn't make sense to me to have a spell called "Magic Cape" or "Fire Arrow" or "Staff of Inversion". Those are items that do things, things that a caster could easily do without need of a cape, arrow, or staff.

>>15606627
The unless magic cape is incredibly MP exhaustive, it would be possible to have your whole party intangible for a simple +50% MP cost using the burst spell tech. I think that is too much. There are some spells that I think are best left unable to be used with the techniques.

>>15606580
But you attack with and use most magic items with the Magic skill. There is training involved in it's use. I think that tying as many magic effects to items as possible fits better with the Zelda feel. Non-item spells might be more abstract and combat-based than say, the Cane of Somaria.

>>15606518

>>15606710
No, i agree absolutely. I explicitly stated that the techs only work for the basic spells, not things like intangibility, etc.

>>15606627
Who's to say it doesn't fit thematically? If you're thinking of magic items in terms of how they work in D&D, as basically supernatural technology, then sure, it's baffling. But I provided a perfectly good explanation here >>15606415 for why you'd need |magic| skill to use magic items -- it's not a simple point-and-shoot affair, you have to know how to bring out the power inherent in the item. Magic is never really explained in much detail in-canon, so we have plenty of room to make up whatever fluff we like to justify the mechanics.

As for why Link can use them with such apparent ease...he's the fucking chosen hero of the goddesses! He might as well have full ranks in all skills -- after all, he uses stuff like the spinner and the hookshot with ease too.
You, the player character, are not a fated hero chosen by divine powers. You have to work at it.

And of course, if you had learned the spell replicated by the Magic Cape, you wouldn't call it Magic Cape -- that would be silly. But whether you call it an item called Magic Cape or a spell called Intangibility or Noncorporeal Form or what-have-you, it works the same way. It's just a matter of how you fluff your mage.

Yes, we could come up with a system to restrict use of magic item for non-mages by letting |magic| users have an easier time of it, but that seems needlessly complicated for this system. As you yourself pointed out not too long ago, we're not going for perfect simulationism here.

>>15606747
On point of what fits thematically, you're right that magic is never described in detail in the games, so whatever we do will be our own. But still, not allowing magic items to be used by anyone without ranks in Magic is hugely restrictive. What if your party has no casters in it? Are magic items now no longer a part of your game at all?

Imagine a non-caster. Their Mental stat is most likely to be 2, at the most, and not likely to ever increase. Why would it? In our system Mental is used for exactly 2 things: Using magic and the vague "being smart".

Put a magic item that casts a basic attack spell. At absolute best (a 4 Power) the non-caster rolls 2k4, balanced to 3k3. Put the same item in a dedicated caster's hands, allowing him to use his ranks in Magic. With a 4 Mental and only a 3 Power, and with 3 ranks in Magic, the caster's roll with the same item is 6k4, a considerable improvement. And this is only a starting level caster with rank 3 in the Magic skill. Worthwhile for the caster, but the non-caster would be better off making an attack with a weapon.

>>15606627
>>15606747
I always had imagined Link with at least some skill in magic depending on his iteration. Zelda II Link probably had the highest magic skill of all the Links, he learned the spells straight up instead of having them tied to items. Then Twilight Princess Link would have none, he didn't even a magic bar.

>>15606831
It's not so much things like the Fire Rod that I'm worried about -- it's stuff like the Cane of Byrna, things that wouldn't be reliant on opposed checks but would be extremely useful for a dedicated fighter. If we make these available without requiring |magic| ranks (either by way of skill checks or as a hard prerequisite), then it makes |magic| a much less attractive skill than it already is. If we require checks with no rank prerequisite, anyone without |magic| will have very little luck pulling them off anyway (at least these high-level effects), so making it a hard-and-fast restriction isn't too big a deal.

I really don't think requiring |magic| ranks to use magic items is unnecessarily restrictive. And like I mentioned earlier, if a GM really wants to include magic items in a campaign for a party with no casters, he can houserule and homebrew up whatever he likes -- homebrewed items in general should be something we heavily encourage for this system in the first place anyway. But as a default rule, I see no compelling need to mechanically differentiate spells and the items that replicate them. Essentially, it's only a problem if you're expecting a setup like D&D where everybody, regardless of background and training, gets to play with magic in some form. Which definitely doesn't seem very appropriate for this setting. I don't think there's anything wrong with restricting those who don't bother learning magic from using magic through items.

>>15606831
I see your point. There's a pretty good possibility that a magic item won't see use if there isn't someone at least somewhat dedicated to magic using that system. You're also right about the balancing issue; the spell item would see much better use in the hands of a dedicated caster.
Without requirements on the magic items, the MP of the non-caster would be depleted quickly, MP they could much better spend on techniques better suited to their build (those techs that use MP anyways).
If we want magic to be like the other combat skills, it would be necessary to allow anyone to use the magic items, but then have someone with skills (training in the use of) in magic is do the best with it.
Anyone can use a sword or shoot a bow right? Those with training simply do it better.

tl;dr Do we want magic to be restrictive to only magic users or do we want everyone able to use it, but casters use it much better?

>>15606987
Very powerful spells like the Cane of Byrna would require successes that a non-caster would not be able to achieve; he wouldn't have enough kept dice to get it all. That, I suppose, is the key balancing factor in high level magic.

>>15606987
My concern is still that it's too restrictive. And unnecessary. Why is allowing a swordfighter to use a useful utility magic item inappropriate? Why does that somehow detract from a caster's role? What I want to avoid is making any role, in this case spellcaster, absolutely necessary for a party. If you explicitly and totally prohibit the use of magic items by anybody without ranks in Magic, the usefulness of those items plummets considerably. Every magic item you ever come across automatically goes to the caster? Really? That just doesn't seem right at all. And again, what if nobody creates a character that uses magic? Is that really something we should have to make an exception to allow for, rather than just allowing for it by default?

Gonna do each Blin one by one.

>>15607049
Yes, this is pretty much what I'm getting at. And I like that you brought up that anybody can use a weapon without training, just not well. It's my feeling that the same should be used for magic, with your example of the Cane of Byrna as a perfect example of how I don't think this will get out of hand.

>>15607097
It's so cute and sinister! Love it.

>>15607049
I suppose if we require some kind of roll for every spell, and set the check difficulties properly for unopposed checks, it would be ok to drop the skill rank requirements for magic entirely, thus allowing those without |magic| ranks to (attempt) to use magic items. We could maybe keep the skill ranks in, but as recommendations for guiding GMs with regard to how readily the spell should be given out rather than mechanical prerequisites for use.

Learned spells and their item-based equivalents could still operate under the same mechanics, including my proposed requirement of a focus for learned-spell casters so they don't have an advantage. I feel like the "advantage" of being able to let a party member try using your magic item is pretty negligible, and certainly not comparable to the advantage of being incapable of being disarmed.

>>15607083
You have convinced me to accept allowing anyone to use magic items. Now my question is: What is the balancing factor with learned spells? Why would you ever learn a spell when you can just get the spell without any of the prereqs? My suggestion is that you can only use spell techs on learned magic.

>>15607155
My thought would be cut prereqs entirely -- learned spells are obtained the same as item-based ones anway; it's just a matter of how you go about obtaining it in-game. An item is physically obtained, whereas a learned spell is obtained by tutoring from a sage, or a blessing from a Great Fairy, or studying an old tome, or something of that sort. Either way, anything beyond the basic spells is only available at GM discretion.

Perhaps we might want to restrict basic spells to only those with at least 1 rank in |magic|, since they aren't explicitly subject to GM control, but that's about it. It wouldn't mean jack for a dedicated caster, but it would make it so we don't have every single combat minmaxer running around with the Shield spell. Which we still might have, but at least in this case they actually have to drop an XP into getting that |magic| rank.

>>15607155
I would be totally fine with that stipulation. It actually makes a lot of sense to me. As-is, the active techniques that are up can only be applied to basic spells, not unique ones. However, I could see there being other techniques, perhaps passive ones, that augment your use of magic in general. Those would probably only apply to learned spells.

One concern with that, though, is the concept anon suggested of the caster who does all their spells by recovering lost artifacts. Such a character should be able to augment their item spells, since that's their thing. Although, that's the kind of thing that could just be adjucated on an individual basis. The DM says you can augment item spells with techniques, but can't have learned spells as a balancing thing just because that's the concept. It seems like a pretty unique concept, but easy enough to houserule for.

>>15607286
This is a very good point. Perhaps the basic list should be strictly the purview of casters. Since I expect most magic items won't be based on the basic list, that doesn't really restrict their use, but still keeps some magic only for those invested in the skill.

So, then, should the basic list only be learned? I think that works fine unless your concept is based on item spell use, but I don't know how common that would be wanted. Opinions?

>>15607286
I still feel that learned spells should have |Magic| prerequisites. It might not take skill to use a magic item because the item houses all of the magic. Using magic from within yourself -should- require training and study. Having a spell given to you by a great fairy would imbue you with the knowledge of the spell. You could also use scrolls of magic as treasure, then you simply study the scroll to learn the spell.

>>15607345
I agree. Have the items-only spell caster be a houseruled thing. We're going for a balanced system.

>>15607384
I vote to have the basic spell list be learned only. You must have |Magic| 1 to get these spells (anyone who won't spend the 1 XP to get that is lazy or min-maxing). We don't want dedicated fighters to be also good at healing and shielding allies with magic.

>>15607384
My original thought was that the basic list can be learned or item-based, just like any other spells, just that they're the only ones with rank prerequisites. Though I guess this doesn't quite make sense for the items...but then again, who says everything has to make sense? Plenty of games get away with a lot of mechanical stuff that makes little to no fluff sense, all in the name of balance, so I think we can be forgiven for dipping into that principle just this once.

>>15607428
If learned spells and item spells are mechanically identical, the rank prerequisite bit is moot. A GM giving magic to a non-mage would just do it through an item. If we require learned spells to be cast using some kind of mechanical focus, there's basically no difference, balance-wise, between a learned spell and an item-based one.

Logically speaking, yes, learning a spell should require knowledge of magic, but I think this is one detail we can let slide.

So.

Can I dual wield shields? Do I need a free hand to cast spells? I have an idea for a character.

>>15607526
I believe we've stated that your hands must be empty (besides the magic item/spell focus) in order to cast spells. You could logically use a shield as a magic focus, but you could not defend with it in the same round. It would give no real benefit.

>>15607562

Duel wield shields, take the feet that lets you move half your speed to defend a teammate. Learn only defensive and healing magics. Prance around like a crazy person.

>>15607579
But... even if one of your shields is a magic focus, your other hand must be empty. You would not be able to use your shield and defensive magics in the same turn.
However, you could sustain the Shield spell on yourself and then use the shields to jump in front of all of the enemy attacks. Sounds crazy awesome.

>>15607345
I don't like the idea of having |magic| techniques apply only to learned spells. There's basically nothing about learned spells that makes them inherently inferior to item-based spells -- sure, they can't be given to another character, but that doesn't really make the spell any less effective or useful for *you* specifically. Making techs only applicable to learned spells makes them strictly better than item spells, and I don't see any reason why you couldn't justify someone who's skilled with magic being able to manipulate magic from an item. You're already using your own magic power to fuel the item, and using your skill with magic to direct and control its effect, so why wouldn't you be able to apply special techniques to alter the final result?

Also, on the subject of |magic| techs, I think rather than applying only to basic spells, they should be restricted to spells with particular qualities. Most of them already specify that the spell being modified must have a "single target" -- so why not let them apply to Fire as well as Burn? After all, a swordsman who gets ahold of an improved weapon can still use all their techs with it.
It might take a bit of work to balance properly, but I think if we restrict all metamagic-type techs solely to basic spells, it would leave very little of value for a mage to invest in, XP-wise.

>>15607675
Well, my answer is "for balance", but I agree that's not good enough. However, I firmly believe that there are some spells that should and shouldn't be able to be modified. Should we then, instead, label spells that are specifically unable to be used with spell-mod techs? Alternatively, have the option to learn a spell from an item given enough time and resources?

Bokoblin Butcher.

>>15607501
I got to thinking again while brushing my teeth (happens a lot actually) and came up with an explanation. Yes, it would be easier just to have no actual prereqs on spells since they're all loot given at a certain time. I was thinking something like even if you acquire a learned spell (great fairy, scroll, etc.) you could simply be unable to use it until you get enough skill in magic. Like this:

>Cool, I got a spell scroll! Wait, I don't understand all of the intricacies of the spell. Maybe if I study a little more I can figure this spell out and how it works. (Rank 4 spell scroll, Rank 3 |Magic|)

>>15607097
I was wondering...did you ever finish the mask maker? I mean, our stuff's all good, but I was just wondering how it'd look when done... :p

Thanks again for drawfagging for the threads.

>>15607801
>Well, my answer is "for balance"

No, see, that's my point -- there's no need to "balance" learned spells against item-based ones by making them the only ones modifiable by techs, since there's ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that makes item-based spells better than learned spells. The only thing that makes item spells different from learned ones is that they can be given to someone else to let that person try to use it. That doesn't give the mage who uses items any edge whatsoever on the mage who learns their spells. It helps the other members of the party, but not by much. Restricting techs to use only with learned spells doesn't balance anything -- it UNbalances it.

Balancing tech use with non-basic spells would simply be a matter of adjusting the costs of applying the tech. Additional MP use, additional actions, perhaps additional skill checks, that sort of thing. Certain techs would only be applicable to certain kinds of spells; for instance, you could only use Burst Spell on spells with a single target -- not spells with a range of Personal or spells that already have an area effect.

>>15607876
You could argue the same for magic items...

>Oh cool, I found this magic rod! Wait, how do I get this damn thing to work? Maybe if I study a bit more I can figure it out.

For the sake of simplicity, if nothing else, I think we should cut prereqs for learned magic if we're doing so for magic items.

>>15607933

I got that and two other images on the back burner right now. It will get done sooner or later. Sorry for the slow updates on that but it will be finished eventually.

>>15608000
No problem, and thanks for doing it.

>>15607995
But that takes away the incentive to play a pure magic character...

>magic items aren't effected by attribute bonuses
>learned magic is

balance

>>15607975
>>15607995
I've got the idea stuck in my head that a spell is inherently better when it comes from the source. After all, where does the magic in the item come from? It must have been made by someone or something magical right? As such, an inherently better version of a spell would have more requirements. When you consider the source and item version of the spell completely equal, then your view on the matter makes a lot more sense.

tl;dr You and I have different ideas about the origins and power of spells.

>>15607833
>>15607097
>>15606518

Hey guys I know its something that we shouldn't even care at this point....but would we be against purposing racials for the different types of Blins to be considered for playables?

For example...

Miniblin (2 Mass, 8 Movement)
Wall Cling: Miniblins can dig their hooves or claws into walls, thus they can stand upon walls and ceilings. Miniblins can walk along walls and ceilings at their movement but must spend an action to remain clung to the surface or fall. If hit with an attack, the Miniblin will lose concentration and fall.
Think Head: Creatures of the Blin species lose -1 to their Mental Attribute (cannot negate further then 1).

>>15608053
>But that takes away the incentive to play a pure magic character...

What do you mean by "pure magic character"? One who focuses on |magic| as their primary skill?
Since the skill applies to rolls for both magic items and learned spells, it doesn't matter which one you're looking at -- skill ranks are worth the same either way. Assuming we treat both sources of magic the same with regard to prerequisites, that is. And since we've concluded that magic from items should be free of prerequisites, dependent only on your ability to make the required skill checks, then we should probably do the same for learned spells.

>>15608071
That is an interesting idea, but I don't think it's one we should include for this particular system based on two factors:
1) Simplicity. Adding mechanical differentiations between spells cast from knowledge vs the same spell cast from an item introduces unnecessary complexity to the system.
2) Source material. A pretty big chunk of the magic in the video games comes from items, which suggests to me that a magic items should be allowed to have a significant role.

>>15608053
How does it remove the incentive? Putting ranks in Magic makes you better with magic, whether you learned the spells or use them from an item. That's the incentive. A non-caster with magic items cannot accomplish nearly as much as a caster with the same items.

With regard to the rank requirements, I think I'm fine removing them altogether. Spells should be given out as loot and rewards at appropriate times as judged by the DM.

As far as using techs with unique spells rather than just basic spells, the issue is that the unique spells have effects that make some techniques unreasonably overpowered. I think it's more trouble than it would be worth to go through and specifically list which spells work with which magic techniques. Here's my solution:

To solve this issue, we adopt a certain convention with regards to creating our unique spells. Rather than being able to augment them with techs, we include a description within the spell itself for how it can be augmented, if at all. For instance, Din's Fire could get a larger area or set enemies on fire with more MP or a longer cast time, but that wouldn't be appropriate for Nayru's Love. Nayru's Love would probably include the ability to target another creature, but at a vastly increased cost than you would get from the Chain Spell tech, because the effect is just so powerful.

If we take this on as a standard convention for the creation of unique spells, then we allow for them to be augmented in ways that aren't overpowered without going through and making dozens of specific exceptions to things. It also helps to further separate the basic spells from unique ones.

>>15608302
Agreed here. Having different rules govern their operation seems unnecessary. Magic is magic, and I don't see a huge need to add an "except..." into that.

>>15608245

And to top it off.

Blin (4 Mass, 6 Movement)
Blin Diversity: Blins choose from one of three races at character creation: Moblin, Bokoblin Bulblin. This choice determines the costs of certain techniques. The choice is more cultural than it is racial.
Thick Head: Creatures of the Blin species lose -1 to their Mental Attribute (cannot Negate further then 1).

Moblins Get some easy techs in Heavy
Bokoblins Get some easy techs in Melee
Bulblins Get some east techs in Ranged

>>15608381
>>15608245
I wouldn't be against seeing racials for blins, but it's definitely not going to be something I devote any energy to right now. Giving a stat penalty isn't really in keeping with what we've got so far, so that should probably be taken out. Most are dumb, but any PCs would be the exceptions.

>>15608346
Rather than having augmentation options listed under the unique spells, perhaps we could have techs specific to each spell? So your basic |magic| techs would apply to basic spells, but then you could have stuff like:

Spell Mastery: Din's Fire (Active)
>Rank prerequisite
>XP cost
>Action cost
>Ways you can augment Din's Fire if you buy this tech

That way mages have techs worth spending XP on, but don't get absurd versatility due to having each tech multiply their potential options by being usable for all spells.

We could have each of these "spell mastery" techs give multiple ways to augment a single spell all rolled into a single tech, or have separate techs for each kind of augmentation -- whichever one seems more balanced.

>>15608508
It's an interesting idea, but I that seems like an exorbitant amount of XP for casters to be spending, especially when it's on a per spell basis. You'd also have to go to the trouble of creating an xp and action cost for every new tech for every single spell, and the workload multiplies quickly.

>>15608553
>>15608508
And idea! While rank requirements for spells are out, how about having certain augmentations for unique spells only available at certain ranks? Or, perhaps better, having a limitation on how much you can augment the unique spell based on your Magic skill, just how the magic techs work already for the basic spells? That at least keeps character from going crazy with augmentation, while still allowing it.

>>15608553
>You'd also have to go to the trouble of creating an xp and action cost for every new tech for every single spell, and the workload multiplies quickly.
Realistically speaking, the workload wouldn't really increase all that much compared to if we were coming up with augmentation options on a spell-by-spell basis as part of the spell description. XP cost and rank prereqs aren't that much work to come up with, and other than that everything's exactly the same. Plus I feel like having the augmentation options listed in the individual spell descriptions would make them really cluttered.

I think if we keep the XP cost reasonably low, and let each of these techs provide 2 or 3 ways to augment a particular spell, the XP expenditure would be pretty reasonable. Particularly given that a mage in this system isn't going to be brimming over with options the way D&D casters are -- I'd be very surprised if anyone got more than 6 or 8 different unique spells. If we try to keep it balanced to where each tech can reasonably be in the 2-4 XP cost range, I don't think it would be all that much more exorbitant compared to a different character archetype. Techs are really supposed to be the main XP expenditure in this system anyway, especially once you max out your primary skills, and I expect a fighter or a sneak will be dropping plenty of XP on techs to get all their nifty tricks.

>>15608592
Limits on augmentation based on |magic| rank sounds like a very good idea. We should definitely do that.

>>15608681
Hm, seeing it spelled out like that, it does seem pretty reasonable. And it's not too much more work that putting the augmentation into the spell itself anyway.

Okay, so let's see if we're in agreement.
>No functional difference between how learned or item spells are cast or altered with techs
>Anybody can use a magic item, but won't be very good at it without ranks in Magic
>Many (not necessarily all) unique spells will have a low-cost Spell Mastery tech to allow specific ways to augment them.

Are we good on these points? Was there anything I missed?

>>15608814
That all looks good to me. Just one thing you're missing:
>|Magic| rank prerequisites are cut for all spells except the basic list (which all require rank 1, since they're not explicitly restricted by the GM).

>>15605569
looks more like an adult gnome than a child

>>15604653
Yes, I am still working on it. Sorry it's taking a while. Been working a lot lately.

>>15609055
Any chance of going back to the triforce layout for virtue scores? Or making an alternate version with that layout, at least?
I rather liked the mockup someone posted a few threads back of the triforce with bubbles to fill in along the sides of the pieces.

>>15609080
Sure, I can easily make an alternate.

>>15609180
>>15609080
>>15609055
I liked the Triforce thing with the dots in them from the other thread.

>>15608866
That seems reasonable.

>toward urAtorm
Is that where we're headed, captcha? Sounds interesting.

>>15608814
>>15608866
I suppose I can agree to all this.
On the spell mastery techs, would they require the precursor spell tech to purchase?
>i.e. Spell Mastery: Din's Fire would require Area Spell or Burst Spell since it's increasing the area akin to those spell techs.

>>15607833
>>15607097
>>15605569
Nice work on these.

Sorry I haven't contributed for a while. I'm liking how the Magic system is coming along.

By the way, are there any writable versions of any of the character sheets?

>>15610121
someone posted a writable pdf version of this one a few threads back. I don't remember what thread it was in though

>>15610430
Found it!
http://www.mediafire.com/?r73gcg8o90beaer
It was on thread 15.

>>15609608
Considering that each Spell Mastery technique would have it's own effects, it might not be appropriate to have a precursor prerequisite. It seems like an odd requirement to place on it, anyway. I think the basic techs should be for basic spells, and the spell mastery techs should be for unique spells. They don't need to have anything to do with each other, really.

>>15610533
Agreed. I don't see any reason why you'd need anything other than simply ranks in |magic| for spell mastery techs.

So, since we seem to have come to a consensus regarding the magic system, does anyone have any comments on the spells proposed here >>15597400?

Ignoring rank prerequisites, of course, since we're doing away with those. One thought that crossed my mind -- would it perhaps be better for these high-end effects to require more successes at a lower success threshold? The percent chance of success could be kept roughly the same for the same number of dice rolled, but it would require more ranks in |magic| and/or the relevant Virtue to pull it off, which might be something we would want if we're removing rank prerequisites.

>>15610430
>>15610532
I feel warm and fuzzy just knowing someone remembered...

>>15615108
I believe there should be about 75% chance of success of someone with the appropriate ranks in Magic to meet the spell (Rank 4 spell and rank 4 |Magic|), and very near 100% if they are also specialized in the specific virtue of the spell.
High level magic should be hard for people who don't have a lot of training, and pretty consistent for people who do, IMO.

>>15615284
I'll do some calculations to get solid number after I'm done doing other stuff.

>>15615284
That's roughly the idea I'm going for, yes. Although since Virtues affect kept dice rather than rolled, they don't really help you succeed more reliably -- they just help you get access to the spell with fewer ranks in |magic|, due to allowing you to get the required number of successes in the first place (expanding your keep pool).

Also, I've already done all the number crunching we need for this kind of thing -- there's a spreadsheet linked on the wiki that has percent likelihood of getting a given number of successes against any given success threshold for rolled pools up to 10d6. So we can just consult the tables to figure out what someone's chances of success would be for a given set of stats.

>>15615108
I'm cool with these, but as spells they should have different names, and the items refer back to the spell. The intangible one should explicitly state that you cant' affect the world while it's in effect. I'm also in favor of making high-end effect require more successes at lower threshold to make them difficult for somebody without ranks in Magic to achieve. The number of successes needed shouldn't go any higher than 5 or 6, through. We don't want to make it difficult for casters to achieve, and I think it's okay if it's a possibility for a caster to activate an item with these spells, but highly unlikely.

Also, keep in mind that a non-caster is unlikely to have the mp to sustain such an effect for more than a round or two (for those that are sustainable), so that's another limiting factor already in place. And on the topic of MP, it probably needs to be reigned in a bit on these two spells.

Perhaps, for these, it would be better to have duration based on number of successes, rather than sustained? Just an option, I'm not sure which would be better.

Also, if we're agreed on those magic rules, we should add them to the wiki soon so we don't lose them and have to have the discussion over again.

>>15617016
I'd prefer to stick to the sustained cost for those two, since they cost MP over time to use in LttP. I don't think it makes too much of a difference, balance-wise, if the duration is sustained rather than success-dependent, and I'd prefer to keep it as close to the source material as possible as long as doing so doesn't wreck game balance.

The high costs are calculated directly from how much it costs to use them in LttP (see way back here in thread #6: http://suptg.thisisnotatrueending.com/archive/15069694/#15082336), but I wouldn't be opposed to reducing them a bit (since those are really crazy-expensive).

>>15617016
Also, as for the naming, everything I've been posting is stuff that was drafted specifically to mirror magic from the video games, hence why they're named for the items rather than the spells. Obviously the names will be changed to something more appropriate for the spell for the final version, but at this stage I think it's useful to keep the item names so everyone knows that this is based on a canon effect, and thus has a point of reference for comparison.

Magic items use the Magic skill and cost MP. That's how they've always worked, except for the games without a Magic Meter.

Don't try to make them too separate from spells. Or the whole spell idea needs a rewrite.

>>15617198
We've already resolved this earlier in the thread -- the only difference between spells cast from items vs learned spells is the name and the fluff. And I suppose the fact that you can give your Cane of Byrna to somebody else, whereas you can't just give somebody your learned Force Field spell (or whatever we want to call it).

>>15617198
Uh, our whole discussion pretty much led to treating them nearly exactly the same, so... Yeah. Also, I wasn't aware there was a game that included a Magic skill to put ranks in.

>>15617176
>>15617139
Alrighty, I'm fine with keeping them sustain and I understand the names being in there for the creation stage. The MP cost should probably come down just a bit, but being in the double-digits is totally fine, as these are fantastic effects.

Actually, I'm not sure about the MP cost. I don't know how to estimate how much MP will be available to casters at higher end games.

>>15617348
Zelda II: The Adventure of Link had a magic skill you could put points into. All it did there was lower the cost of the spells, it didn't restrict the use of the spells (although the final spells in the game are a lot more practical when they don't cost your entire magic bar.)

I also agree with keeping magic cape sustained.

>>15617395
Right! I completely forgot about that game. My bad. But yeah, definitely a very different kind of RPG than we're building.

Does anybody have an estimate for how much mana a high-end caster or other character might have? We haven't really gone over how frequently parties will receive heart containers or magic meter boosts, even a ballpark figure. Can we even estimate that with any reliability? Probably relies too much on the particular campaign.

>>15617440
The character sheet has a maximum MP of 60, and if you go by Alttp or Link's Awakening then you would get a buff from a fairy or something to half your magic costs. So... 120 MP at the very end of the game with maxed mental and magic upgrades.
I would imagine this number would vary widely by campaign.

>>15617539
Yar, it's the varying wildly that makes it difficult to consider MP costs based on how much people will have. Probably better to just judge MP cost based on the strength of the effect, and see how it plays.

So, really, I guess we can keep the cost on the cape & cane where they are, and adjust it lower if it proves too high in play.

>>15617609
Personally, I think they should come down at least a bit; even if you do get the half-cost boon (which I was not expecting to be something that happens much, if at all) you can only run the magic cape for 6 rounds, and then you're completely spent. The cane of Byrna's a little better, but not by much. Considering these are *absolute maximum* numbers, the costs definitely need cut.
I think 10 MP per round would be better, at least for starters. Playtesting may indicate a need for further tweaks (I expect it might need to come down even lower), but we'll see.

>>15617677
I agree with about 10. That's what I was thinking too.

I was thinking about how many successes should be on each spell. It's not so much set in stone as much as a guideline: There should be a number of successes required equal to the rank of the spell.
I'll begin doing calculations based on this guideline for the difficulty of the spell and I'll get back to you all later.

>>15617758
>There should be a number of successes required equal to the rank of the spell.

That's a terrible idea if we want to have Virtues be at all meaningful. If a rank 1 spell requires only 1 success, then literally anyone can pull it off. Anyone. The only restricting factor is your Mental score and |magic| skill ranks, since they determine your rolled pool (and thus your likelihood of making that 1 success).

Essentially, requiring more successes means you need EITHER a higher score in the relevant Virtue, OR more ranks in |magic|. And requiring 5 or more successes means that you absolutely must have a certain score in the Virtue -- subtract 3 from the number of successes required (since a maxed skill gives +3k3), and that's the Virtue score you need to be able to cast the spell.

However, I don't think we should be requiring 5+ successes for any spells except the really high-end ones -- it's just a tradeoff between being able to use the spell with more or fewer skill ranks. A spell requiring 3 successes can be cast with only 1 rank in |magic| by anyone with at least 3 in the appropriate Virtue, but somebody with 2 in that Virtue would need 2 ranks in |magic|, and someone with 1 would need 4 ranks.

>>15618001
Your explanation of why it's a terrible idea is exactly why I chose that guideline. We have it set up so that anybody can use any magic item without restriction (learned spells are a different matter). The only restriction is the amount of successes one can achieve. With that, usually anybody can get up to about rank 2-3 spells without magic training, but it would require a lot of luck to get it to work with poor magic skill. You would need significant training and a high virtue to access the higher rank spells. That's exactly what I was aiming for.
>However, I don't think we should be requiring 5+ successes for any spells except the really high-end ones
I agree completely. The higher end spells would be rank 5-6, and thus require 5+ successes to use.

3 Down. 1 to go.

>>15618130
No, see, I don't think you get my meaning. If we make rank 1 spells require only 1 success, that means that the Virtue for that spell is 100%, absolutely, totally meaningless. ANYBODY AT ALL can cast a rank 1 Wisdom spell, even if they used Wisdom as their dump stat. So there may as well not be a Virtue listed for the spell at all. You need to require at least 2 or 3 successes for the Virtue to start mattering in the slightest.

Properly setting the check difficulties for spells would really require a combination of changing both the number of successes and the success threshold. And it should probably be done on a spell-by-spell basis, since we're dropping the spell rank system.

>>15618609
That's why I said that they were guidelines, and not set in stone. I realize that it would be nigh impossible to fail a rank 1 spell with the system, which is where we would not follow the guide. Right now I'm just trying to set up a general system to base the spells on. We can go in and tweak it spell-by-spell after that.

Alright I've done some calculations with an average array of stats and made some charts. It seems with my 1 success per rank guideline, it's nearly impossible to fail a rank 1 spell even if you don't have any |Magic|, which may or may not be appropriate.

If I may explain my chart: Caster 1 and Warrior 1 have a good virtue for the spell (3-4), while Caster 2 and Warrior 2 have an average virtue (2-3).
I made and assumption that each of these characters has a |Magic| equal to the rank of the spell, except for the warriors, who cap out at 3 |Magic|. I also assumed that each spell requires a number of successes equal to the rank of the spell.
I then filled out average stats for each and made a magic roll success probability chart.
The number represents the proposed difficulty of the spell roll and the probability that the roll will succeed given the stats of the characters.

Looking at the chances, it looks like the difficulty should scale down gradually as the rank increases, maybe even pushing it down to difficulty 2 on rank 6 spells.

>>15618718
Forgot to mention that this chart is only for unopposed rolls.

>>15618718
Could you list the full stats of your test "characters"? It would help to know where you're getting those numbers from.

Okay, I was gone for a little while but I'll re-address the armour thing.

What it does is build directly into the mechanics a failsafe for creating balanced characters. IF you cannot wear even medium armour without putting that point in to get Phys 2, you must make the decision and stick by it. It also makes it so that newer players have a sensible reason to make sure they start with 4 hearts. Later, when you are comfortable with the system you can opt to go another route, but ensuring strength in all three virtues is what made Link the boss. Techs are fine, but does that mean everyone starts Light Armour and has to learn their way up? So, a starting character could 'learn' medium right away, and since they spent the training it makes sense they have the item - but nobody starts Heavy?

Opportunity attacks aren't necessary, you make the choice each round of using your second action to defend yourself or give chase. Also, [Heavy] attackers have it built in that they have a delay, so it's smart to use skirmish tactics against them. Will they swing at what they can reach, or sacrifice a turn to chase?

Non-lethal combat - if they're knocked out at zero hearts, it takes true intent to kill. An extra attack on a helpless, unconscious enemy.

>>15618827
Actually, on second thought, we should probably go ahead and be really thorough with this. I don't have time tonight, but tomorrow after I get off work I'll go ahead and fill out tables for characters with 1, 2, 3, and 4 Mental at each potential rank of |Magic|, probably looking at success thresholds from 2 to 4. A lot of possible combinations to fill in, but since I'd just be looking up the numbers in the probability spreadsheet I don't think it'd take me too long.

>>15618827
Well, here's my chart anyways. It only explores average mental stat, scaling up slightly with the spell rank.

>>15618798
This is the question - do you WANT warriors to be able to achieve high-end spells?

If you do not, then you set the # of successes higher. If you want them to have a shot, you keep it lower but set the bar higher (ie a rank 3 still only takes 3 successes, but need to roll 5's - so, your 4k4 is not bloody likely but still a chance)

Also, I stand by the notion of needing [Magic] 1 to use any items. Not asking a lot...

>>15618866
Your arguments regarding armor make no sense to me. Essentially, all you're proposing is that we punish dedicated magic/music and magic/social builds (the only reason anyone would dump Physical to 1) by making them even squishier than they already are -- and they're already pretty damn squishy.
A tech for heavy armor (which probably would have a Physical requirement, since there's no skill directly relating to it) is fine by me since we want to keep heavy armor somewhat rare anyway, but medium armor should stay unrestricted. If you're dumping Physical to 1, you need all the help you can get at staying alive, and every option taken away only widens the gap. The point of game balance is to minimize the power gaps between different builds, not widen them, and I think there's plenty of incentive not to dump Physical even without making it a prerequisite for medium armor.

>>15619065
I'm in agreement with this. If somebody wants to dump stat any stat, they shouldn't be punished for it, and restricting armor use away from people with a low Physical is definitely punishment. It's those people that need it the most.

Here's my idea for a basic tech for using heavy armor, as discussed earlier.

Heavy Armor Proficiency (Passive)
Prerequisites: Physical 2
XP Cost: 2
Benefit: You can wear heavy armor.

I included Physical 2, since if somebody isn't willing to spend the 6xp or a single starting stat point on it, they're just min-maxing. It's very reasonable, but I don't think it should be any higher. I left the xp cost low because the primary limiting factor of heavy armor will be its rarity in the game, but I guess it go up a little.

>>15619039
I think we want them to have a shot, but a long one, so the latter option you mentioned.

Actually, I think it IS asking a lot, not numerically, but in principle. Basically, you're putting a requirement on being able to use a vast majority of the loot and dungeon treasure throughout the game. If you require that rank in Magic, not a single character won't invest in it, ever, unless they want to make some kind of statement. And at that point, what purpose does the requirement serve? Might as well just give one less starting skill point.

>>15619065
you could make physical requirements for armor without penalizing casters by making the Shield spell give 1/4h damage reduction per success. it is the only basic spell that doesn't have a scaling effect.

>>15619039
I agree with >>15619785 about requiring a rank in |Magic| to use magic items. I think it would be much more appropriate to have a Virtue requirement dependent on the item.

>>15620112
What about casters that don't have Shield, though? And, if you make it scalable, it will become better than heavy armor at a point, which is certainly not something we want.

The thing is, there's nothing in Zelda that reinforces the robe-wearing glass-cannon stereotype of casters, and I don't think it's something we should represent in our system. There's just no call for it, really.

>>15619039
I also don't agree with increasing the success threshold or the target number to make it harder for "warriors" to cast magic so that their "4k4 is not bloody likely". the most a starting warrior is likely to have is a 3 in mental and a 1 in magic (4k4). if that's the case then they're obviously not strictly playing a warrior. someone with a 4k4 to cast spells has clearly put an investment into being able to cast spells and there's no reason why they should be penalized for it. someone who's strictly playing a warrior is much more likely to have a 2k4 (depending on what virtue is used for the spell) at the very most and is already going to have a hard enough time casting spells, which he'll only be able to do while equipped with a magic item anyway unless he puts at least a point in magic.

>>15620260
That's a good point on the numbers. Have to say I agree.

Blins got added as a playable race but Miniblins got left out? That's racist and makes me sad.

>>15620863
Take another look, they're in there...

so gerudos have been reduced to a human subrace?

I guess that makes sense

there should really be a female-only restriction on them

though DM discretion, I guess

>>15620890
okay, cool. do you mind if I change them to Mass 3, Movement 7? They were about the same size as Link in WW (actually slightly taller) so they'd be closer to the mass of a Kokiri than that of a Korok/Deku.

>>15620941
That's something that pretty much goes without saying for born Gerudo. However, it is stated that the subtypes of Human are largely cultural. There was speculation a few threads back for a character concept of a male who had earned Gerudo acceptance through some great deed or other, and was allowed to move among them and receive training in their ways. Basically an expanded concept of what the Gerudo do for Link in OoT.

Such a character would, of course, be rare, but not something that should be forbidden explicitly. PCs are always free to be the exception to norms, within reason.

Hey guys, came up with a new song I want to use in my campaign. Wanted to post it here for critique, see if anything could or should be changed.

Melody of Mists
- This haunting tune can help you to see through that which obscures your goals, or cloud the senses of your enemies. It can even allow you to become lost in the mists, only to find your way to where you need to be. -
Rank 2: Clears an area of fog/mist/haze, allowing sight.
Rank 3: Creates an area of fog/mist/haze, obscuring vision and allowing for Stealth checks (though people could still hear the song being played). You and allies can see in this mist.
Rank 4: Clouds the perceptions of those who hear it, creating a deception. This can make a broken-down barn look like a lavish inn, or disguise the true appearance of a small group of people, but not create an illusion where no object exists. This can also easily create sounds and shadows. The deception can be seen through with a Perception check opposed by your Instrument check.
Rank 5: The song dispels illusions and lets the performer and their allies see through perceptual deceptions and obscurances, including darkness. This does not automatically reveal a creature using Stealth to hide, unless they are only hidden by darkness, fog, etc.
Rank 6: After a minute of playing, mists gather around the performer and their allies, and wisks them away to a distant location. The destination may be the one intended by the performer, or it could be to where the party must go, as dictated by the whim of destiny.

So, what do you think?

>>15621446
I love it. Especially the rank 4 effect

>>15621520
Thanks.

With regards to songs in general, we need to go through the songs on the wiki and put them into a somewhat standard format. I liked the one presented in the past couple threads, which I tried to replicate in mine (>>15621446). We should also see if the ones posted need a little retouching to fit better with the way we're working songs more recently, and where appropriate should we include guidelines for the difficulty of Instrument checks for them?

>>15620260
I think a 4k4 should be good enough to cast low- to mid-tier spells reliably, but for the really high-grade stuff I'd still lean in favor of the "not bloody likely". 3 Mental/1 |Magic| definitely shows that you're leaning toward magic, but it's still not your primary focus. If we were still using spell ranks, I'd say such a character should have no trouble with rank 1 or 2 spells, have a decent (well over 50% chance) shot at rank 3, and struggle with anything rank 4 and above.

>>15622361
I suppose that makes sense. This is also really only important for high-end spells that don't have a scaling effect based on number of successes.

>>15622350
Actually, looking over the songs again, only a couple of them could use a little touch-up. There's still a question about whether the Sun's Song should be split into two, for example.

>>15621446
I like it, though I'm not so sure about the rank 5 effect. It doesn't really seem to make sense with the overall theme of the song -- mists tend to hurt more than they help if you're trying to *reveal* something.

>>15622421
I don't think splitting the Sun Song would be a good idea. It's a canon song that appears in the video games, so its mechanics in our system should be kept as close to the original form as we can manage.

Stats for the big bad of my up coming campain.

>>15626131
I forgot to add, "What do you guys think of it?"
Also, if anyone is instrested in playing in another test camping, email me.

>>15626155
Note, not the same Big bad I will be using in the test camping.

>>15626131
I feel like if you're making a mage BBEG, you should either wait for us to come up with more spells, or brew up some yourself (and share!)
Most of the spells we have rules for are rather on the weak side, not terribly appropriate for a final boss.

>>15626189
I'll try and think of more spells,In the mean time I'll try and make a Warrior BBEG.
The original plan was for this guy to be a leader of a cult disguised as a Church for the three triforce gods.
The cults purpose was to summon gannon, and to do so they were hire the PCs to go find some maguffins to do. I guess I could have this guy be the underling to the REAL leader of the cult.

>>15626131
It seems odd to me for a cultist of Ganon to have a higher Wisdom than Power score, but I suppose it works. Since he is a boss-man, I'd come up with one or two neat abilities that only he can do, something to make him unique. Also, his Burst and Area spells probably shouldn't take extra actions, because you want him to be a threat to a group of people without sacrificing defense.

Another concern is how much HP to give him. We haven't really settled on a solid mechanic for making bosses in our system yet. You can set it up so he's got some time or condition during which he's vulnerable, and have him be immune otherwise, like most bosses in the more recent games. Or, as a rough estimate, you could give him 3-4 hearts per PC that will be facing him, so he has some ability to keep standing. Although, if you go either of these routes, would probably be best to remove Heal. If you keep the healing ability on him it might be fine, he'll just have to take actions to do it.

Were you planning on having him fight them solo, or supported by minions?

>>15626756
Minons, I think we should give him ten hearts.

>>15626793
Ten hearts is probably good, but if he can heal it might be too much.

>>15623431
The idea behind it was that the song sort of makes you one with deception and that which obscures, which also allows you to recognize and see beyond such things. That said, I would certainly be open to any ideas for an alternative, since it is kind of the one that doesn't fit super well.

>>15626756
>I think we should give him ten hearts.>>15626793 Never mind, I'll go with
3-4 hearts per PC
Also, I just want to note that this is my first time GMing, so any tips will be appreciated.

>>15626834
Game design 101: Give the players choices that matter. If you want the players to do something, give them a reason to want to do it.

Also, how much will items cost?

>>15627501
As a general rule of thumb, items in this game are not purchased, they're given as rewards in some fashion. Either loot found in a treasure chest, or given to the players by an NPC as payment for a task, or something of that nature. As the GM, you should have a pretty tight control on what items (including spells and songs) the players have access to. You should of course take the players' wishes into account (it'll take a lot of communication), but if you make too much available too quickly, it'll make it really difficult to provide any meaningful challenge to the players, particularly with puzzles (which are really the defining feature of the LoZ series...except for Adventure of Link, but let's not go there).

Occasionally you could make something available for purchase, but these should be rare, and limited to things that, while helpful to the PCs, aren't strictly necessary. These items should be very expensive -- we're talking 200 or 300 rupees, minimum. Something they'll have to really save up for.

The things that would be readily available for purchase would be basic consumables, such as potions, bombs, arrows, shields (Like-Likes are bitch), and so forth. These types of things typically run anywhere between 10 and 50 rupees in the video games, depending on various factors, though some of the more potent potions could cost as much as 100.
Basic spells can also be purchased, and I'd personally say somewhere around 80 to 100 rupees apiece would be reasonable. It's fairly within reach for the players even early in the game, but does require some effort to attain.

>>15626830
Personally, I'd say just cut that ability of the song entirely and leave it at that. I don't think there's any problem with having "dead" ranks for a given song; on the contrary, if every single song gains a new effect for every skill rank, that gives a musician an absurd amount of versatility.

4 different effects for a single song is plenty.

Guy who posted >>15618893 here.
I'm afraid I won't be able to get that chart done tonight; a whole bunch of stuff came up this evening, and I'm just now getting to the point where I could begin working on it. And at this point, there's no way I have enough time to finish it.

I should have no problem getting it done tomorrow evening, so count on it then.

>>15628689
That's a good point. Thanks for the input.

Finally back, glad the magic stuff is out of the way for now. And I have an actual sketch!
http://i.imgur.com/fpeKB.jpg

>>15628689
I agree. 1 or 2 effects should be the norm for most songs, and it's alright to have lots of space between certain effects.

>>15629897
Forgot my name yet again, it's been a while.

I'll be doing unarmored and mighty Darknut variants next, unless people have other ideas. I'm not the best at drawing scenes, it turns out.

I'm just gonna drop this off before I go back to my birthday drinks. Along side of this I edited the race list. I'll post that next.

The whole she-bang. 14 Playables and all.

http://i.imgur.com/ag3P5.jpg

>>15629984
miniblins should be same size as kokiri

compare link to miniblins
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFJu1n086Tg

compare link to a kokiri (about 4 min in)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPFRtSTMqy0

compare link to a korok
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAIAs2kzyMg

>>15629984
maybe use one of these hylian glyph fonts instead of that chicken scratch you have over their heads?
http://www.zeldalegends.net/index.php?n=fonts

i noticed there isn't a 'to hit' roll as such for ranged weapons, i improvised an idea while DMing, that i think might just work. It's an unopposed roll requring 1 success of 4 on 'x' dice. where 'x' is the skill level with ranged weapons. failing that it could just be a simple chart? lvl1 - hit on 5, lvl2 - hit on 4, etc lvl6 always hits. Also is the slingshot the starting weapon for ranged specialists? And it comes with a bullet bag which isn't included in the maximum for the 3 items max on creation cap?

Sheesh! I regret deciding to try and do all those bubbles. :\

Anyways, here's a Zora lady, doing her party a favor by finding a treasure chest underwater. Colors to come eventually, been busy.

>>15629984

When did we decide that the 'blins were going to be playable?

I mean, if we're including the more monster-like races, I think some variety would be better...

>>15630325
Huh? We have |Melee|, |Heavy|, and |Ranged| all use the same system of rolling your skill versus the target's passive or active defense. We have "to hit" and "damage" all in one roll. Are you talking about hitting something with ranged weapon that isn't an enemy, like a target on a shooting range?

>>15630253

I honestly dont think the font is gonna crux the picture.

>>15630253
>>15630446
I actually find the "chicken scratch font" endearing. It looks like ancient runes of sorts.
Also, I'm not sure I agree with the blins as playable races. I guess we could just leave them in for now and anybody could houserule them out.

>>15630428

Ah so it's all in the one roll, i understood it was for combat as hiting them would be the difficult part then the weapon does the damage, but with slings it just seems that they either do the damage or bounce off harmlessly

>>15630474
I'm not so sure about blins being playabe either, although I find miniblins adorable and like the idea of playing one. canonically blins have always been Ganon's evil minions. they just don't seem appropriate as a playable race unless you're playing a campaign in which all the PC's are bad guys

>>15630373
I don't know if we ever officially decided. It's ok for the stats are there, (maybe in a separate section, if it's that big a deal) but I don't think we need to try and work out special techs for them just yet. I figure that sort if stuff could come in a supplement or something once we get the main project finished- possibly coinciding with the inevitable Skyward Sword material.

Also more sketches.
http://i.imgur.com/IV4rh.jpg
I've been playing a lot of Zelda 1 recently. Also, I need suggestions on how to make ghinis scarier

>>15630509

Yeah thats what I figured as well, cater to the Evil setting crowd. Plus lets consider the following.

While they we're enlisted as Ganon's minions they also have civilizations outside of those timespans. Consider them like orcs, just living their lives day by day trying to get along in this world. Perfect opportunity to play mercenaries for the highest bidder when Ganon's not around. Zora's and Deku's acted as Ganon's minions in various games, so it's only a matter of time before Blins end up civilized or atleast neutral to other races.

>>15630509
I thought the 'blins were there exclusively for an evil campaign

or an orky one, at the very least, with lots of raiding

>>15630563
>>15630577
as far as the lore goes, the 'blins just follow the biggest and strongest

it just so happens that whenever Link's around, that's Gannon, so they follow him

One campaign idea before I set off.

(Any setting) Four aspects of great disaster and turmoil have descended on the world, claiming to herald the end of the world. Each aspect sets out to destroy one of the great spirits of the world (Jabun for Water, the Great Deku Tree for Earth, etc) and plunge their domains into chaos. Defeating each aspect restores the domain of the spirit they had attacked, revealing new paths across the overworld and (possibly) granting them new abilities.

SUDDENLY ZORAS

>>15630869
idea by the person who did these pictures:
try to stop a returning Ganon any way you can when the Hero doesn't return

fight before and during the great flood

>>15631740

Been following you guys and your game casually since its inception. Just wanted to say you guys are awesome, and, the prospect of playing a huge fat Zora makes me squirm with delight. If I could lend a pen or something to your cause, I would. I'm more of a writefag, but you all seem more than capable on that front.

Regardless, keep up the totally awesome work! One of the coolest ideas I've seen in a while.

>>15630563
I'm agreed here. Also, disallowing a race is certainly easy enough. Many folks who play in a strictly WW setting won't allow zoras and kokiri, for example. If you want to play a blin, I don't see anything wrong with including the option, but there probably won't be as much support for it as for more traditional good-guy races.

Admit it, the social stigma your blin character would encounter is tempting, isn't it?

So, what's our next big mechanical challenge? We should probably get the points on magic and death/dying up on the wiki before we forget.

What did people think of my suggestion here >>15619785, for handling heavy armor proficiency?

>>15632185
The heavy armor tech looks good, though I think 3 or 4 XP might be more appropriate.

>>15631816
I'm shocked at how many awesome artists this project has attracted. Of course, we'd be glad to have you on board! Anything you want to contribute will be very welcome.

We're short on writefaggotry, possibly because we're still waist deep in game mechanics, and possibly because we don't know what to use it for yet. Little vignettes, race/monster/location descriptions or ecologies, and campaign or story ideas are what come to mind. Not that art wouldn't be any less valuable.

(On a side note, I have been trying to draw a fat Zora for the past two days to no avail. Mostly because I haven't been able to find that drawing for reference!)

>>15633743
M'kay, I'll set it at 3. Just out of reach of starting, but not too much for somebody willing to take the penalties anyway.

How about the death/dying rules I outlined earlier?
>When reduced to 0 life, a character is knocked unconscious or otherwise incapacitated and unable to take any actions. At this point the character can be revived by a healing fairy or healing potion, or certain other effects, but not by healing magic (unless otherwise stated in the spell) or simple heart pickups. A Piece of Heart or Heart Container will revive an incapacitated character. If not revived, an incapacitated character recovers 1 heart after 8 hours of inactivity.

>Additionally, when reducing an enemy to 0 life, you have the option to incapacitate them rather than kill them, and in fact this is a common practice for many heroes.

Are those okay? Any tweaks we should put in?

>>15631740
I'm down with the fat Zora only if it doesn't take him fifteen minutes to move 3 inches to the left.

You got a DA or some other place you post art?

>>15634352
You want writefaggotry?
There is something I can do!
But I have to leave at the moment, so right now all you can get is a campaign idea, Kay?
Like I said, a Gannon cultist took over a church of the trifoce goddesses, and hired the PC to find some Crystals That have recently reactivated, he has convinced them that they are "religious artifacts".
All of them hidden in dungeons of course.
They will also have a recurring miniboss who was also hired to get the crystals, but this time to Destroy them.
Also, where ever the crystals lie, all life on top with stays there too long becomes corrupted and fairly evil.
(First town in the campaign does mouthy human sacrifice to the first boss) Have I mentioned this takes place in between ocarina of time and wind waker? The timeline in witch Gannon destroyed hyrule?
So,what do you think?

>>15635218
OH!
And I forgot, a third party will enter the fray, but this time to try and use the cystals for "Good"
Witch is possible, just very very hard to do.
Battles between the three factions will be "Mêlée à Trois" syle.

OH!
And, if you ever run two campaigns that are on distant timelines IE you one a campaign set in ocarina of time of time and another game 200 years after that, or the other way around.
If the former, in the second game have them run into a temple were sautes of there old characters Lay (If there were heroic) and have a book telling about the old campaign, and getting it all wrong of course.
If the latter, have some shrine or some crazy old men call the PCs from the last game "Chosen ones".
I say this because the zelda series LOVES call backs and call forwards.

One more thing (Sorry if I keep spamming my posts, this will be the last one for a while, promise)
if I remember correctly there was a hylian civil war at some point in the zelda lore, you could do wonders with that.
Mabye the pcs will end the war, or who knows? Mabye they will start it.
Also, for a justification of having bottles be rare, make it so that normal bottles usually shatter when carrying them with all your adventuring equipment and such, you you have to get special "Magic bottles" witch do not shatter. Or course, these are as rare as fuck.
Also, hylian description.
"Hyalin, a subrace of humans that seem to have concurred most of hyrule. They are No doubt the most common race in all settings, the reasons for this are unknown, but many speculate that they had the upper hand during the hylain civil war do to having a great power on there side. They usually have pointed ears and rather long noses. The long ears seemingly get more and more rarer as time goes by, this, again, is unkown. They are undoubtedly the most powerful race in hyrule in terms of military, simply because of there mass numbers."
That's my first draft, not very happy with it mahslef, but I figured I would shoot it at you guys,I'll work on it more later.

>>15629953
Happy birthday?

>>15620941
Yeah. We had some ideas about male Gerudo (best one was a desert nomad from another group who did them a huge favor or bested several of their warriors in combat), but that's something we should definitely note is unusual.

>>15635979

I listed off abunch of events that we're useable for lore purposes in the 12th thread. I'll post em again.

Possible Settings:

Hyrulean Civil War: Taking place between the events of Skyward Sword to Ocarina of Time. While undetermined how long this war lasted or for what reason it started, the war sparked conflict between Hylians who wished to unify their tribe with the Zora and Goron, while the other wished to wipe them out so they would not get close to the Sacred Realm. The end result was the Royal Family called a cease fire and unified the Zora and Goron tribes together with the Hylians. This war also brought about how Link was given over to the Great Deku Tree by his mother who fled from the war but was mortally wounded in the process. Afew years would pass and the start of Ocarina of Time would begin here.

Interloper War: While undetermined if this takes place during before or after the Hyrulean Civil War, this war is made mention in Twilight Princess. After the Goddesses crafted Hyrule and the Triforce, word of their legend spread across the land and a tribe of "Dark Interlopers" using a dark and unknown force of magic tried to take hold of the Triforce for themselves. The magic they used was known as the Fused Shadow. The Goddesses commanded the Light Spirits to craft a new Realm called the Realm of Twilight, and cast the Dark Interlopers into that realm, along with breaking the Fused Shadow into separate pieces and hiding them away in different templed. Descendants of the Interlopers would later be known as the Twili.

War of the Bound Chest: This War took place before the events of the Minish Cap. One day in Hyrule the whole land was overwhelmed by evil creatures nearly obliterating it. While on the verge of destruction the Picori(Minish) appeared to a lone hero and granted him a Picori Blade and source of magic called "Light Force" that drove away the evil creatures and restored light to the land of Hyrule. To ensure that the evil would not return the Hero of Men banished all the evil creatures in a chest called the Bound Chest and used the Picori Blade as the seal. To prevent misuse of the Light Force the Hero of Men placed the magic within the bodies of the Royal Family, giving the current and descending family members the Light Force Magic.

The Imprisoning War: Taking place during the start of the Adult Link Timeline in Ocarina of Time, this war began as soon as Gannondorf entered the Sacred Realm and ceased the Triforce of Power. Gannondorf once obtaining the Triforce Piece, infused himself with powers from the Twilight Realm which granted him dominion over evil creatures and transformed him into the Beast named Ganon. Seven years later the Hero of Time would appear gathering the Seven Sages and with Princess Zelda's assistance sealed Gannondorf away into the Sacred Realm.

The Twili Invasion: Taking place during the Child Link Timeline just after Majora's Mask. Went the King of Hyrule caught wind of Gannondorf's plans to rule over Hyrule, he instructed the Sages to banish Gannondorf into the Twilight Realm. Afew years later the Twili would escape from the Twilight Realm and invade Hyrule fusing the Twilight Realm upon the land. The attack on Hyrule was coordinated by Zant, a Twili who overthrew Princess Midna from her throne, and tainted the Twili into beast like creatures with Gannondorf's power.

The Great Flood: Taking place after the events of Ocarina of Time's Adult Link Timeline. After Gannondorf was sealed away in the Sacred Realm, the hero of Time returned back to his time period. Once again Gannondorf would break free of the seal and summoned a massive flood that would drown Hyrule. The people called out for the Hero of Time to save them, but he did not return and thus Hyrule was sunken under a massive flood. Hundreds of years later the land would repopulate on small broken islands, however the people of this land still practice Hyrulian traditions in hopes of invoking the return of the Hero of Time.

The Faithless Years: This takes place in Majora's Mask's past as the game gave subtle hints of the Hyrulian's decent into losing faith in the three Goddesses. In Termina's past the people of the land slowly began to lose faith in the three Goddesses and started creating their own tribal-esk gods in the hopes of having their wishes and desires come true, one of them being Majora. While still vaguely practicing the traditions of the Goddesses, their faith grew idle over the years upon the third eve of Termina's Festival the Moon grew a face and began to descend upon the land. Through the course of the three days people would spin into a chaotic fit of uncertainty, despair, and madness, however there were some who still held faith and became at piece with their final hours, but through it all knew they would turn out alright if they just had faith. Some say their returned faith was the key in reawakening the four Giants who saved the town from utter obliteration by the crazed moon.

>>15636401

Thanks for the Birthday wish.

>>15636520
Nice.
I might work on wirtefag stuff later, a bit to late right now.

Awesome again, Cz.
Sorry to nitpick, but in >>15636508 , Ganon didn't summon the flood- it was the King of Hyrule who prayed for his land to be protected. Ganon didn't want to destroy Hyrule- he wanted to rule it, and having it sealed under the ocean prevented him from doing so.

Also, it might be interesting to provide the original interpretation of the Imprisoning War- where the Seven Sages and Knights of Hyrule fought their way into the Dark World to imprison Ganon. Having players be either members if the Knights or Sages would be very cool, especially because it lets them fight the King of Evil without stealing Link's job.

>>15631736
>>15631740
Can't tell if clothed or just fins everywhere. Looks good either way.

>>15634747
3 XP on heavy armor is fine.
I agree with the death and dying rules.

There's still the matter of hammering out all of the success requirements on unopposed spells, but I suppose that can wait until later. We've been working on magic for days now.

(Side Note: I would upload stuff to the wiki, but I lack the knowledge of how to do so D: )

>>15634747
These death/dying rules seem ok to me, though I think I preferred the idea from back in the 15th thread about letting healing magic revive a downed character if they've only been out for a number of rounds no greater than your ranks in |magic|.

>>15636520
Termina worships the four giants as minor deities as well, as well as a goddess of time. No mention of the three beyond the Hero's Shield...

Maybe a setting post-Mask in Termina would also work. Tensions between the different races, outright war between the Zora and the pirates? Basically, the aftereffects of Skull Kid's meddling.

Hey guys,I'm making a dungeon and I was wondering how do I implement puzzles.
Any tips?

>>15638400

Either just make it, and then when you figure out who and what your players are tailor the dungeon to them.

Or pick a theme and gear puzzles to items they may find or use.

The dungeon can also be used as a side quest in which case the players may not have the right kind of equipment or know how just yet to continue onward.

>>15638400
How to implement puzzles? Do you mean youre having trouble figuring out where to put puzzles, placing puzzles in a dungeon, or coming up with puzzles?

For the first one, puzzles can go anywhere you want in a Zelda game. The simplest one is:
>there is a locked door
>you don't have a key
>go find a key
>profit.
You can exchange "locked door" for "unreachable ledge" or "giant central elevator", and replace "find a key" with "activate water-geyser platforms" or "kill 4 ghosts hidden in the dungeon." basically a challenge that requires some thought is a puzzle.

Zelda dungeons often hardly make any sense, as long as they're entertaining. If you can work out a story reason for why a flying castle has a huge wind-based puzzle just to open the pantry door, all the better. But entertainment is higher priority than realism. (you still want the puzzles to match the dungeon's theme somewhat.)

As for kinds of puzzles, there wee a few awesome setpiece puzzles posted a while back, but I can try and make up or remember some simple ones.

>kill one/some/all enemies in the room
>push blocks
>-to create a path to reach something
>-to hold switches
>-to make a pattern
>cut/blow up/burn/freeze/crush an obstacle
>-using items
>-using the environment
>step on/shoot/attack/pull/hold down switches 
>-in a certain order
>-within a certain amount of time
>trick an enemy into accomplishing one of the above goals

I'm going to try and make a version of the Eagle dungeon from the Legend of Zelda, will post as it's completed.

Secretly roll 1d4+1. That number is which of their hunches is correct. String them along something vaguely puzzling until then.

I made another chart. This one should be much more useful as it makes no assumptions about the strength of the caster. It simply lists the spell roll versus the number of successes required on difficulties 3 and 4.

By my calculations, a starter caster would have around 5k4. A seasoned caster would have about 7k7. An average warrior would have about 3k3.

>>15638938
Would it be easiest to set the difficulty of all unopposed rolls to be 3 or 4? I haven't anything that references variable difficulty, except in the first part of the wiki.

>>15639088
Yea that's what I was thinking. By the looks of the numbers, 3 would be the way to go on all unopposed spell rolls. Here's my suggestion about the number of successes required:

Rank 1-2 spells: 2
Rank 3-4 spells: 3
Rank 5 spells: 4
Rank 6 spells: 5

>>15638938
The numbers on this chart are full of crap. In a roll & keep dice system, the kept dice total only affects how many successes you're capable of getting, not how likely you are to get those successes -- a roll of 3k3 is just as likely as a 3k2 to make 2 successes at a given difficulty; the only difference between them is that the 3k2 isn't capable of passing a test requiring 3 successes, whereas the 3k3 is. Your chart shows different kept dice amounts getting different results for the same difficulty, which is not how roll/keep works.

Also, I'm guessing the "cannot fail" result is something you just added in, since it's technically always possible for someone to fail -- just not always very likely. While I wouldn't be opposed to having techs to allow this sort of thing, I don't like the idea of making it part of the core system. It's one more layer of complexity to the mechanics, which is fine when added through techs and other character options, but can cause problems when added to the core rules.

>>15639693
Did you forget about unopposed dice being an automatic success? That's where cannot fail and the differences in chances of success come in.

Can we get a table of random encounters?
I mean, when traveling trough hyrule field, your bound to run into some monsters.

>>15639088
Easiest, yes; best, no. The fewer variables you have to play with, the more quantized your system becomes, and the more difficult it is to properly assign difficulty in a way that scales with the players' capabilities.

For example, if we go by the system proposed here >>15639147 (and use the ACTUAL probabilities for rolls, not the bizarro-world probability in Tech-point Gent's chart), a specialized mage (4 Mental + maxed |magic| for a total of 7k(V+3) on |magic| checks, where V is his score in the relevant Virtue) has only a 57% chance of succeeding on a "rank 6" spell (making 5 successes against a threshold of 3). Having someone whose primary focus is magic to barely succeed more than half the time on his strongest spells unless he shells out for an Attribute boost (a whopping 15 XP -- that's three whole, fairly productive sessions worth). And if you didn't max your Mental at character creation, you may as well kiss your high-tier spells goodbye.

However, if you drop it down to only requiring 4 successes, you run into the issue that you now have only 3 tiers of difficulty. Realistically speaking, we should have more potential for variation than that.

I need to get dinner, but once I'm done with that I'll sit down and see if I can figure out some difficulty guidelines that actually make sense.

>>15639780
There is no such thing as "automatic success" in unopposed rolls -- all dice count as opposed, by the success threshold. "Unopposed dice" only exist in opposed checks, where you can also have "opposed dice".

No wonder your numbers are borked.

>>15639864
Is that part about no automatic successes in unopposed rolls in the wiki, or in a previous thread? I've read the wiki and haven't seen anything like that. That seems like a very important detail to leave out. I don't claim to know everything, but I have never before heard of that rule.

I'm curious, where can one find all of this project's art?

Also bump for general interest

>>15639917
I don't think it was ever explicitly stated, but as far as I can tell everyone's taken it as a pretty clear implication of the rule -- there's only a distinction between "opposed" and "unopposed" dice in an opposed roll, so you can only have "unopposed dice" succeed automatically in an opposed roll. The concept of having "unopposed dice" in an unopposed check is just silly.

Note that the only mentions on the wiki of unopposed dice autosucceeding are with regard to opposed checks.

>>15639987
Right now all we really have is the archives of the old threads which people have posted art on. Links to all of the past threads can be found on the wiki:
http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Legend_of_Zelda_RPG

>>15640003
I don't think the unopposed dice in an unopposed check is silly.
>This task can only be done so well until it reaches perfection. Once it does reach perfection, then additional skill only adds to the chances of achieving perfection.
I did see that, as you said, the automatic successes are only mentioned in opposed rolls. We need to get more input, and if that is indeed the case, then it should get put on the wiki so that others don't make the same mistake I did.

>>15640040
It took me a minute to see what you were getting at with that greentext there, but I suppose I do see your point there. Though I would argue that skill in this system is divided into two areas -- reliability (rolled dice) and magnitude (kept dice). A pass/fail check cannot change in magnitude, and thus your ability to produce higher magnitude feats is irrelevant.

At any rate, I do still think we should stick to no autosucceeding in unopposed checks, because it makes it much easier to determine difficulty settings for those checks -- which is very important for this system due to the fact that we want GMs to be homebrewing lots of custom items, spells, songs, and puzzles to suit their particular campaign. It's much easier to determine someone's chances of success if you don't have to worry about subtracting their autosuccesses from the effective number of successes required, so a system with no autosuccesses that decides difficulty based on tweaking both success count and success threshold would be easier to homebrew for (and design, on our end!) than one with autosuccesses where you only tweak success count.

>>15640163
I definitely agree about being easier to calculate, as it was a pain to juggle all the subtracting of successes while I was making the chart up here >>15638938
I'll make another chart like the last with the assumption that unopposed dice -don't- autosucceed and then look at the numbers again and make a suggestion.

>>15640241
Save yourself the trouble, i finished half of mine while waiting for ,y pizza to bake, lol. I should have it up within 20 minutes, tops.

>>15640298
Or, y'know, 5...done with my left hand, too!

interpretations come when both hands are clean to type.

>>15640353
So, here's what I would say for check difficulty guidelines based on these results:
>Rank 1: 2(3)
>Rank 2: 3(2)
>Rank 3: 3(3)
>Rank 4-5: 4(2)
>Rank 6: 5(2)

Allow me to elaborate...

"Rank 1" spells would be things that anyone with at least some interest in magic can pull off reasonably often, and anyone really focusing on magic can do quite reliably. A check of 2(3) serves this role nicely -- someone with a roll of at least 3k2 (3 Mental, or 2 Mental and 1 |magic|) can do it with a 74% chance -- not terribly reliable, but not bad. Anyone rolling 4 dice for their |magic| check (say, 3 Mental and 1 |magic|) can do it about 89% of the time, and anyone rolling 5+ dice (which is quite reasonable for a dedicated mage) succeeds at least 95% of the time.

>>15640353
>>15639852
Alright, I definitely see your point about having only either successes or difficulty threshold differentiate the spells being a problem if we're using no autosuccesses. So then the question is, how do we go about making the required spell checks? Should we make each spell specifically tailored based on the chart, or should we make a generalization and then find individual tweaks later?

>>15640518
Lol ninja'd!

>>15640517
"Rank 2" spells are still easy for a dedicated mage, but a bit trickier for someone with little or no magical background. These are easily represented by a difficulty of 3(2) -- this is virtually identical to a rank 1 in terms of % chance of success for anyone with 4 or more kept dice (slightly harder, but only by 1 or 2%), but significantly harder for someone with only 3 rolled dice -- they only have a 58% chance of success.

"Rank 3" is where we start getting into stuff that's really geared for dedicated casters. A rank 3 spell has a difficulty of 3(3), which, while hypothetically doable for a dabbler, isn't likely -- not even a 30% chance for a rolled pool of 3, and only 59% for someone with 4 dice. However, a more focused caster can pull off rank 3 spells pretty reliably -- 79% chance if you're rolling 5 dice, and 90% for a 6-die pool (which is the maximum a starting character can have). Someone with maxed |magic| and starting Mental can successfully cast rank 3 spells 95.5% of the time.

>>15640517
>>15640567
The numbers look solid. I have no complaints.

>>15640567
Rank 4 and 5 (which I may as well have just called rank 4, since spell ranks need not match |magic| ranks, but...hindsight) are soundly in the realm of the dedicated mage. Even a semi-dedicated dabbler (rolling 4 dice) can only succeed 48% of the time, and you need at least 4 dice to even try (this also means that Virtues start to matter more for these higher-level spells). However, a dedicated mage, with 6 or 7 dice, can still succeed pretty reliably (actually slightly more reliably than for a rank 3 spell, but that's a quirk common to all roll/keep systems).

And finally, rank 6. For these spells, mastery is an absolute must. Not only do you need a minimum of 1 |magic| and 2 ranks in the relevant Virtue, but you also have a pretty shaky chance of success even if you do devote a fair amount of focus to magic -- a roll of 5k5 only has a 40% chance of success. A starting character specializing in magic can muster 6k5 for a |magic| roll in their favored Virtue, which gives them a 74% chance at popping a rank 6 -- not too shabby -- and a master mage can do it just over 90% of the time.

>>15640644
I think we should stick with Ranks 1-6 so as to match with music's 1-6 ranks. It may not represent the actual prerequisites, but could simply represent a measurement of power.

>>15640691
Fair enough. It just struck me as amusing that I listed two different "ranks" that actually have no difference between them.

Also, I went ahead and added this chart (>>15640353) as a separate sheet on the dice probability spreadsheet, since it would be a handy reference for GMs trying to design custom challenges for their players, whether spells or otherwise.

>>15640644
>>15640567
>>15640517
These all look really solid to me. That ought to be a darn near perfect system for managing all the all-or-nothing spells. Great work!

>>15636682
I'll try to add stuff during this week, but might not get to it until later. Performing a wedding this weekend.

>>15637493
Hm, I like that, I think. Unless I hear an objection I'll include that when I put it up (or somebody else can, if they beat me to it).

>>15639987
>>15640040

Any objections to me collecting all the art and putting it into a zip?

>>15641723

Mmmm, so long as the files are kept only for distribution in these threads.

>>15641770

Also try and keep only the most up-to-date versions of each image in the file.

Hey TCN can you post me all the links of the monsters you drew?

>>15640517
what are you doing? the target number on all unopposed rolls should be 4. period. there's no need to over-complicate things by varying the target numbers based on spell ranks. that's what the success threshold is for! Each individual die has a 50% chance to roll a 4 or higher. Each die added to your dice pool increases your chances of rolling a 4 or higher and each die added to your kept dice increases the number of successes you can get. We already have a table for this.
https://spreadsheets.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjlBKq_uScFFdFJhV0JibWEtS3FIbnBYc2Q2bm5vMlE&
;hl=en_US#gid=2

>>15642186
I'm not certain what you're upset about, here. While the target number for success on an unopposed roll is most often a 4, it's pretty well established that the difficulty of a task can modify this target number. We're simply employing that principle when putting together guidelines for casting powerful spells, since casting a more powerful spell is a more difficult task.

Am I somehow mistaken on what's going on here?

>>15642269
typically when the difficulty of the task modifies the target number, only one success is needed to succeed at the task and any successes beyond that simply increase the degree to which you succeed. Requiring multiple success is generally employed for tasks that are performed over an extended period of time or require a greater degree of success (i.e. opposed rolls). The only system I know of that adjusts target numbers for difficulty and has degrees of success is WoD, and this is used much more for storytelling purposes than for mechanics. Other roll and keep systems that ours is based on use static target numbers while using success thresholds to determine success or failure. Due to the liberal use of multiple-success requirements so far I had assumed the number of successes determined whether one succeeds or fails while target numbers would remain static for unopposed rolls. Shadowrun, another dice pool system, also uses static target numbers while adjusting the success threshold for difficulty.

>>15642429
M'kay. At this point I'm not sure we should stick ourselves strictly with one or the other method, as each has their purposes. The probabilities for success with spells using the system here >>15640517, are I think pretty close to where we want them. I'm not sure how to achieve numbers close to those while maintaining a threshold of 4 while simultaneously keeping to what we wanted to accomplish with keeping high-end magic mostly just for magic-focused characters.

If it can be done, I'd be fine with it, but since the variable threshold of success is there I don't see a problem with employing it here. Just because the number of successes doesn't represent a task accomplished over time doesn't mean the mechanic shouldn't be used.

>People?" fferyin
Well people, apparently, fferyin.

>>15643415
let me define my terms since you seem to be using the terms "target" and "threshold" interchangeably.
"target number" = the number you need to roll on a die in order for that particular die to be considered a success
"success threshold" = the number of total successes needed to succeed at a task
if the target number is always 4, then any dice that land on 4 or higher are always considered successes.
if the task is easy, you give it a low success threshold. the simplest of tasks would require someone to roll a 4 or higher on at least one die. the greater your dice pool, the easier this becomes.
if you want to increase the difficulty of the task, you simply increase the success threshold
if the success threshold represents the difficulty of the task then it is not necessary to ever adjust the target number

>>15643634
say the success threshold for a rank 1 spell is 2 successes with a target number of 4
someone who put the absolute minimum in magic (1 mental and 1 magic) would be capable of casting a rank 1 spell, but wouldn't have a very easy time:
2d6 = 25% chance of success
someone with either a 2 mental/1 magic or 1 mental/3 magic still isn't putting much emphasis on their ability to use magic
3d6 = 50%
someone who's a little more well rounded (3 mental/1 magic or 2 mental/3 magic) would have the odds a little more in their favor
4d6 = 68.75%
someone who's a little more dedicated but doesn't want to neglect other areas (4 mental/1 magic or 3 mental/3 magic) will will probably be pretty confident in their ability
5d6 = 81.25%
and someone who goes full tilt caster at character creation (4 mental/3 magic) will have pretty good odds, but still enough of a chance of failure to keep things interesting
6d6 = 89.06
and that covers all possible starting characters. obviously as the characters progress rank 1 spells will become easier and easier to cast, but even at max ranks (9d6) a rank 1 spell will be successful the vast majority of the time, but there's still a near 2% chance of failure.

just looked at the basic system section again and i don't know how I overlooked this for so long
>one stone block may require two successes of 3 or greater on a Physical Power check to move, while a somewhat larger block may require two successes of 5 or greater. Both are within the realm of what's possible for someone of average Power, and impossible for one who's below average in that area, but the second block is notably more difficult to move than the first one.
okay, I'm with ya so far...
>However, a block that requires three successes of 2 or greater is actually harder to move than either of the first two, even though its success threshold is lower
um, no. it's simply impossible for someone with less than 3 Power, but what about everyone who has 3 or more power? with 3d6 (the minimum needed to move the last block. the numbers are the same for the first two blocks with 2d6) there's a 74.06% chance to lift the first block, 25.93% for the second block, and 57.87% for the last block. so for someone with 3 or more Power the third block is actually significantly easier to lift than the second block (the odds are more than double), but for someone with 2 power it is impossible to lift the third block even though they can lift the second block. this makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
like i've been saying, it should be a static target number of 4

>>15644146
I also think we should give characters a chance, however slim, to get more successes than they have kept dice. this way difficult tasks, rather than simply being impossible for some characters, will just be much more... well, difficult.

>for each 6 on your initial kept dice, you may keep one extra die (unopposed rolls only)

this gives someone with a 3k2 a very slim chance at tasks that require three successes (a 12.5% chance of all three dice succeeding, but on top of that at least one of those has to be a 6, which is only a 42.13% chance. ) while still leaving it impossible for someone with a 2k2 to perform the same task. the odds get better as the dice pool goes up, but they're still at a significant handicap compared to someone who has 3 or more kept dice and the same dice pool. at 9k3 there's a 91.02% chance of success on a 3 success roll. even with 9k2 there's still the same 91.02% chance of rolling all three successes, but only an 80.62% chance of getting at least one 6 making it a successful roll.

>>15643638
The problem is that sticking with a single target number (which we've been calling success thresholds, since it's the "threshold" you need to meet with a given die for that die to be a success) makes it very difficult to scale properly. Sure, a difficulty of 2(4) works ok for rank 1 spells, but if you bump it up to 3(4), the difficulty increases quite sharply. The difference is tremendous.

Changing both the target number and the number of successes needed to succeed allows for a smoother scaling of difficulty to account for a broader variety of difficulty levels. It's particularly important when we're talking about checks that don't rely on a skill, such as the Physical Power check to push a heavy block. The number of successes necessary doesn't just reduce your chances of succeeding -- it places a hard limit on who is capable of succeeding in the first place. If you don't have enough kept dice, you simply can't do it. So in order to represent a block that could be pushed by anyone with roughly average strength, if we stuck with a single target number for all unopposed checks, then these are always 2(4). There's no way to vary that to represent a slightly heavier block, but one that's still within the realm of what's possible for the average individual.
And this number also doesn't really reflect the difficulty well at all -- someone with Physical 3 (reasonably above-average) would only succeed 50% of the time, and even someone with maxed starting Physical would only have a 68.75% chance. That's not right.

>>15644173


Frankly, I don't see why we should change it just because other systems do it a certain way. Varying both target number and required success count gives a lot of flexibility without adding all that much complexity (I mean, come on, you'd be consulting a table either way if you were trying to come up with a difficulty rating for a task); as far as I can tell, it's a net gain. The fact that other systems do it differently is irrelevant, because we've built this system from the ground up anyway. The roll/keep dice system wasn't even chosen on the basis of a specific existing game, it was chosen because of an online essay that was linked in one of the early threads explaining the implications and benefits of the system.

>>15644174
Also, it just struck me while I was in the shower that neither of the systems mentioned here >>15642429 actually use the same dice system we're using anyway -- WoD and Shadowrun are both straight dice pools, not roll/keep, which is a pretty significant distinction.

The only system I can think of that uses a roll/keep system is L5R, but there you're adding the kept dice up rather than looking at individual values.

>>15644173
see >>15644146

>gives a lot of flexibility without adding all that much complexity (I mean, come on, you'd be consulting a table either way if you were trying to come up with a difficulty rating for a task)
for the system of adjusting both the target number and the number of successes needed, consulting the probability table is absolutely necessary, otherwise you end up with mathematical bungles like I pointed out above. it's also more to keep track of while playing the game.
with a static target number there's no need to consult a probability table when I can just set the number of successes needed based on a very simple guideline:

1 = Below average
2 = Average
3 = Above average
4 = Phenomenal
5+ = Legendary

>And this number also doesn't really reflect the difficulty well at all -- someone with Physical 3 (reasonably above-average) would only succeed 50% of the time, and even someone with maxed starting Physical would only have a 68.75% chance. That's not right.
fair point. drop the target number from 4 to 3.

>>15644174
> The roll/keep dice system wasn't even chosen on the basis of a specific existing game, it was chosen because of an online essay that was linked in one of the early threads explaining the implications and benefits of the system.

From said essay:

>For a simple contest with no opposition, every die with a 3+ is a success.

>>15644447
>it's also more to keep track of while playing the game.
Technically speaking, yes, but the difference is miniscule. It's one more number to list for a given check, that's it. The GM should have difficulties for puzzles and environmental obstacles written down in their notes, and the players should have the difficulties for their abilities (techs and spells and the like) written down on their character sheet. The difference between "difficulty 3" and "difficulty 3(2)" is hardly worth scrapping an element that makes the math work much better.

>with a static target number there's no need to consult a probability table when I can just set the number of successes needed based on a very simple guideline:
The problem is, that guideline is incomplete and doesn't reflect the actual math well for a fixed target number. If you go by that guideline without understanding the actual probabilities it entails, you'll wind up frustrating players who can't understand why their rolls never succeed (see below).

>fair point. drop the target number from 4 to 3.
It still doesn't scale well. With the target number fixed at 3, then someone with "above average" roll for a non-skilled check only has a 29.63% chance of succeeding at a task of "above average" difficulty. And even someone of "phenomenal" capability can only succeed at an "above average" task 59.26% of the time.
Even if we set the difficulty at 2, it still doesn't scale right -- someone with "phenomenal" strength still can't even succeed at a task matching their ability even 50% of the time.

Plain and simple, the math for fixed target numbers just doesn't work as well as it does if we leave it flexible.

>>15644504
I suppose you're right here, but then again there's no reason why we need to stick precisely to that essay's explanation either. This is our system, and if we find something that works we should use it, regardless of whether or not it conflicts with the materials we used for inspiration.

>>15644173
>>15644174
>>15644260
>>15644725
I agree with this anon. I had suggested a similar system earlier for unopposed spells (flat 3 difficulty, varying successes threshold) but that simply doesn't allow enough flexibility for the different spell levels that we need. It's not any more complex because he has done all of the math for us already here: >>15640353, >>15640517.

>>15644782
I'm on board with Tech-Point Gent and this anon. While we do want our system to be simple, I think it's much more important for the system to be solid. It has to be dynamic enough to handle scaling effects, and altering the target number on dice -and- the number of successes required allows for much more solid scaling.

It's pretty much already right there in the wiki:
>The number of successes required indicates the general magnitude of the task, and the success threshold indicates the relative level of difficulty within that degree of magnitude.

If it's already there that both are variable, why not employ that principle to get the scaling we're looking for? The degree of complexity added is minimal within the system, so I'm down for it. I really do think it adds a dynamic strength to the mechanics. No need to limit ourselves in this regard.

>>15644782
>>15648034

I happen to agree too, we can sacrifice a little bit of simplicity if that means we adress things axaclty the way we want em to represent in in.game terms.

>>15649140

>if that means we adress things axaclty the way we want em to represent in in.game terms.

Sorry, i derped, i wanted to say: If that means we work things axactly the way we want them to be in-game.

I haven't worked on this in awhile. I'm taking a while to browse over all the developments that happened in my absence, but in the meantime, can I request an artwork done? I'd really like to see an adventurer wearing TP's Zora Armor (or something similar) in the middle of an underwater fight.

>>15651378
I'd fund it. Sounds like a cool bit of arts.

Late night bump.

Clarification. Did we come to a consensus on opportunity attacks, or was there more to be discussed there? That last thing I remember was agreeing to putting them in, but having such immediate actions detract from your actions on your next turn. Could be avoided by moving at half speed. No word on ranged attacks, though, I think.

>>15655920
I'm adamant against any type of opportunity attacks that don't use actions prepared on your turn.

It could be like setting a "threat zone" for yourself (this'd solve the whole "oky, so archers can AoO anywhere?" thing) which would represent the area you are protecting, or something.

>>15655920
Personally, I think opportunity attacks, at least in a very simplified form (probably just when disengaging from an enemy, with half-speed movement to avoid), would be a good idea, but take my opinion with a grain of salt. I always thought 3.5's AoO system was pretty straightforward, but I tend to hear about it being considered one of the most convoluted and confusing elements of the system, so if we're trying to avoid unnecessary complexity for our system my thoughts on this particular subject might not be the best to rely on.

>>15655945
to me the only time opportunity attacks make sense is if you move adjacent to an enemy with whom you're not already actively in engaged in combat. opportunity attacks for disengaging never really made sense to me. from personal experience, moving away from someone in a fight doesn't make it any easier to hit you. in fact they have to either follow you or over-extend their reach if they wish to hit you. it's when you're closing the distance that you're the most vulnerable. also, most people who came before you in the initiative order are either going to be actively defending or have just used an action to attack someone else and won't likely be able to seize such an opportunity.
how's this:
> If you move more than half your movement speed during combat then any enemies you move adjacent to who are aware of you (you're not hidden) and haven't acted yet in the round, whether because they've held their action or because their turn hasn't come yet, can make an attack of opportunity against you.
?
the "if you move more than half your movement" is so people who go on the offensive aren't constantly at a disadvantage for closing in on a target. otherwise you end up with everyone waiting for someone else to make the first move.
I guess opportunity attacks for disengaging to make sense if you move more than half your speed, since then you'd probably have to turn your back to your enemy.
"shifting" in 4e actually makes a lot of sense. I like shifting.

>>15656311
I believe it is very important to have attacks of opportunity in order to maintain any type of order on the battlefield. Controlling space is incredibly important in any type of fight, either in sport or in warfare; taking out AoOs would be taking out space control and movement tactics.
I must disagree about not being weak when you are disengaging an opponent. When you turn to run, then you are turning your concentration away from them, allowing them to take advantage of your lack of defense. Moving at half speed is the equivalent of maintaining your guard and carefully escaping. Besides, you could take a double action to move at half speed and move your whole speed anyways. Or hell, half speed on the first action to get out of their range, and full speed on the second once you're out.
I think we should have it so that you don't get an AoO when you enter their attack range, only when you leave it or move to another square that they control.
As for bows being able to AoO, I don't see why not as long as they have line of sight (crossbows, bombs, etc. are a different matter). If they are taking it out of their next round's actions, then they won't get any additional benefit from using an AoO other than getting the first attack a little earlier. However I do see a problem if we use the proposed technique to allow multiple AoOs in a round with a bow. You could logically be getting up to 3-4 extra attacks per round, and that would be broken. Maybe we should state on that technique that it only works on |Melee| and |Heavy|.

>>15656311
I think if we do have opportunity attacks cost you an action, it should be from your next turn, not your current one. Otherwise you're basically just holding an action to attack an enemy who moves by you, and we may as well not even have a defined opportunity attack mechanic in the first place. Giving you an attack early makes it a meaningful way of stopping/deterring enemies from barreling on past the front lines to pound on your casters and other soft targets in the back (which is what we're trying to accomplish by having opportunity attacks).

So maybe something like:
>In any round in which you move more than half your speed, if at any point during your movement you leave a space other than the one you started this turn in that is within melee attack range of an opponent who is aware of you (i.e., from whom you are not hidden), that opponent may immediately make an opportunity attack against you. If it does so, it loses an action during its next turn. A creature may not give up more than half of its total allotment of actions for its next turn in this way. Movement made as part of an acrobatic active defense does not provoke

The problem i see about having to spend an action of your next turn, or having to ready one, is that you end up doing the same number of attacks to the enemy as if you hadnt do an opportunity attack at all. To be an effective AoO it really has to be an extra attack period, otherwise there is nothing persuading the enemy of not provoking it since it doesnt matter to him if you attack him on your turn or in his turn as long as any of those attacks are extra attacks.

>>15657339
That's a good point. I had forgotten about that. However I do like the idea of taking an action so as to avoid abuse. How about a compromise?
>When you use the attack of opportunity the opponent gets -2k2 to defense rolls against it.
With this in effect, I would say to take out the ability of bows to AoO.

>>15657388

I dont see how they can be abusable at all with the current techs and even if they were they are so just if the enemy stupidly provoke em every damn time.

>>15657419
Are you saying that you would prefer a system that would allow a single AoO for free per round?

>>15657452

Exactly, thats the only effective way i know to make sure enemies are punished enough for going and gang on the sneak or the mage of the party, and even then, sometimes it is not enough, but at that point it is ok since they take some punishment for it. Besides, remember that enemies can take AoO too so it is a fair thing for all.

>>15657850
Oh right, there's one important detail that we forgot. Once you get hit by an AoO, then your movement stops and cannot continue. This would fix the problem of moving past an opponent even with AoO.

How does everyone else feel about the system? Should we have AoOs take from the next round's actions or have it as a free attack per round? I feel that both have their pros and cons, but neither is really better than the other.

rolled 14 = 14

>>15657892
Free attack. For some reason I'm not that sure that taking an action (from whatever round) is that good of an idea.

You could ready an "interrupt" action, or a cover this area action or whatevre and get multiple attacks in that are in exchange for the action you used to set it up. That way it wouldn't be a tacked on thing (like 3.5 did it...) and Archers would simply had to choose a spot to watch and shoot if anybody enters it, hence they wouldn't get a massively huge AoO against everything.

Number of attacks could be based on Wisdom or something? I don't know.

>>15658268
>>15658245
I prefer it being a free attack, for the reasons Gurtyel mentioned. I'm personally a fan of how 4E does it for limiting number of opportunity attacks you get per round: You can make one, and only one, against each enemy that provokes it in a round. If instead we limit it to a hard "you can only make one per round" then there could be a tech to allow for one against each enemy for defender-based characters.

As for stopping movement with opportunity attacks, I think that fits pretty well as a technique rather than a default function of the attack.

Ranged weaponry getting opportunity attacks? That honestly sounds like crazy-talk to me. I've never heard of a system where that's allowed, and it doesn't make a lot of sense to me. It's kind of the downside of being able to stab people from out of their reach, you aren't prepared to make attacks against people moving past you. There should definitely only be a defined area (adjacent spaces) where you can threaten and perform opportunity attacks, and a ranged character is unlikely to have that.

We could include an ability for a ranged character to mark an area or target, and if the target moves full speed or the area is passed through by an enemy they can get in a free shot, but I would relegate that to a tech.

>>15658753
It seems most everyone supports the free attack AoO system. I am hesitant about a AoO to everyone who provokes in a round though. I've got the image in my head of 5 enemies running by a warrior of average strength, and he gets a solid blow on each of them and still has actions to use when his turn comes up (All this in under 6 seconds). I don't think that infinite AoOs per round would be a good idea for a default. As a tech it would be just fine. What prereqs would the tech have? Just a lot of XP or would it need an Attr/Virt? Either way, I believe it should be limited only to |Melee| AoOs. |Heavy| would be ridiculous.

I suggested stopping movement on AoO with the taking-from-your-next-round system. It doesn't work well with having a free attack AoO system.
Same thing with the range weapon AoOs. As a free attack it would be overpowered because it covers the whole battlefield.

>>15659005

Letting heavy weps users is not overpowered, you forget that to be able to do an AoO they need to have not attacked in their last action of their turn otherwise they wouldnt be able to perform the AoO since they need one turn more to recover balance.

>>15659794
I was talking about |Heavy| not being able to use the multi-AoO technique. Of course they would still be able to take an AoO if necessary, but they would need to recover on the following round.

>>15658753
I support all this. Free action, limit 1 per round (though techs could expand this), no ranged attacks.

What would provoke AoO in our system? I'm thinking movement and ranged weapon attacks -- pretty much just the things that we'd need for balance.
Ranged weapons I think really need to provoke AoO as a drawback, because unlike in many other systems, a ranged weapon in our game deals about as much damage as a melee weapon, but has the advantage of range. Making them both provoke AoO and be unable to deliver AoO strikes me as a good way to compensate for this advantage.

Movement should provoke AoO specifically be for leaving a threatened square other than the one you start in -- that way you aren't inherently penalized for trying to disengage and run away (since your first space is safe), and you don't get hit for trying to bring the fight to an opponent either (since, unless he has extra reach, you'll only enter his threatened space, not leave it). Movement doesn't provoke AoO if it's done as part of an acrobatic defense or if you're using move actions to go no more than half your speed at a time (though moving even a short distance using other kinds of actions, such as a charge, still provokes).

I LIIIIIIIIVE

Er. Yeah. Sorry I dropped off of the face of the earth there.

Pic realted Work In Progress~ (I HAVE SUCH AN AMAZING WORK ETHIC THIS REQUEST WAS MADE WEEKS AGO)

I will totally finish this soon. Why am I putting so much effort into a drawfaggotry request. WHY.

>>15660499
>Why am I putting so much effort into a drawfaggotry request. WHY.

Because you are AWESOME that's why! Holy balls, just look at all that detail!

>>15660386
Hrm, provoking only for spaces other than the one you start in would allow a character/creature with a high speed, like a Korok, to hop back a step and still have the movement to just run around to your back with a single move action. I think I do prefer the option of moving at half speed to avoid attacks of opportunity in general, including the first square you leave and others (call it a Guarded Move maybe?).

So, let's see if I can summarize where we are at right now.
>Opportunity attack is a free attack
>You get one per round, but this can be expanded with an attack
>No ranged weapon opportunity attacks (though I do like the idea of an advanced Cover Fire technique for ranged characters)
>Threatened squares are only adjacent squares, for simplicity. Possible limited exception with special weapons or techniques.

What Provokes:
>Movement other than a Guarded Move (1/2 speed)?
>Making a ranged attack
>Techs to avoid ranged attacks in specific situations likely to be included

Are those pretty much good? What needs changing/adding?

>>15660718
What about reach weapons like a halberd, would those be able to AoO on creatures 2 sq away?
Alternatively, are they able to attack at 1 sq distance at all?

>>15660849
I think in this system allowing reach weapons to attack (including AoO) both adjacent enemies and those 2 squares away would be fair, since any such weapon would be 2-handed, meaning you couldn't use a shield. This means you'd either have to split your virtues between Courage and Wisdom so you have a decent acrobatic defense (which will be penalized by armor, if you wear any), or just suck at active defense in general. Heavy weapons get big damage to make up for the 2-handedness, but I don't expect we'd make reach weapons much more powerful than a 1-handed sword.

Perhaps if it proves too powerful we could apply a penalty (-1k1 or -2k2) to attacks against adjacent foes, but I'm not sure if this would even be necessary.

Also, we're only a couple posts away from autosage.

>>15661289
I'm wary of giving reach weapons additional threatened area for opportunity attacks, but those are good points as to the downside. A long as their damage is not much higher than 1-handed swords I think it should be fine, or if necessary we can always make a tech for it. That's the beauty of the tech system, really.

>>15660849
I do believe they can and should. That's the point of a reach weapon, after all. The downside of course being that they should be 2-handed but have damage equal or close to a 1-handed weapon.

Has this thread been archived yet? I don't remember. This one's got quite a bit of hammered out work in it.

>>15662265
Yep, it's archived:
http://suptg.thisisnotatrueending.com/archive/15597289/

And with this post, that's the bump limit. Shall I start a new thread?

New thread: >>15663673