I support this endeavor.

>uh, guys.... what gives? The thread 404'd so early, with no archive? WEEEAK.

mods only like warhammer threads
>What happened to /tg/'s legendary shit-getting-done powers?

you arnt posting warhammer son zelda is shit

warhammer thread? warhammer thread.
/tg/ will belong to warhammer

>>15683795
Today i went to GamesWorkshop and picked up my SoM Fine casts! what did you guys get?

>>15683716
>>15683716
>>15683716
>>15683716
You don't seriously think you have to type both words of the captcha, do you?

Did i enter a /tg/-in-the-'90s thread?

>>15683795

Like hell. I want a Zelda RPG. Tell me more, OP.

>>15683776
Many thanks, good sir.

Come on, Where is everyone from this project? We're almost to the point of full playtesting; lets not let thi sproject dies so close to the finale! As I recall, Cz was compiling artwork, and the crunch-fellows were deciding whether Attacks of Opportunity warranted a universal mechanic, or if the capacity to perform them was a purchasable technique.

I'm of the opinion that Attacks of Opportunity don't quite mesh well with the feel of Zelda-esque combat. Plus, a mage in this system should have access to either defensive spells or raw power in order to keep the big crushy enemies away from him. Either that, or a magic-using character could easily invest in the armor, shiled, or acrobatic skills, and be a front line mage. For non-wisdom/courage mages saving their own bacon, I feel like there should be a Power-based spell designed to slow/cripple enemy combatants. Such non-damaging shennanegains would usually fall under Wisdom, but I view it as raw, magical force impeding the target. (iirc Ganondorf does things like this with his magic in OoT's cutscenes, so there ya go)

In my opinion we could also use a few more songs. Spiritual-based characters don't seme as viable as Physical or Mental characters with what we have. (I think we're also a bit lite on Sway-based techniques)

>>15683903
>lets not let thi sproject dies so close to the finale!
>thi sproject dies
good god I'm tired.

>>15683895
The handy Dandy 1d4chan link in the OP post will whisk you away to a wonderland that is the base system, mechanics, and work so far on this project.

>>15683887
Fuck I don't know how captcha works. Goron. 3 Redeads. Suplex.

Argument. Invalid.

Looks like an awesome game, OP. If you ever need playtesting done, I'll pitch in.

>>15683716
I can repost my Scale ideas, seeing as they didn't get much critique and probably need work, though there are more important things to work on.

Some of the spells we have probably need to be edited so they're more "Zelda"-flavored. They should be fairly useful inside and outside of combat- a spell that does nothing but impose accuracy penalties on enemies might not be what we want in this system. Same goes for songs.

I can keep redoing monsters, and while I fear that their accuracy rolls need updating, that's easy to fix with a "search-replace."

And of course I'm still trying to be useful art-wise.

>>15683933
Holy crap this is awesome.
(though the suplex probably ends with him Paralyzed on the ground, being gnawed on.)

Also, the last thread is here. Not a lot done, except for opportunity attack discussion (I am against them, for the record.)
http://archive.easymodo.net/tg/thread/15663673

>>15684239
I dont believe I'm acquainted with these scales. please continue.

While I work/procrastinate on this damnable Mask Maker, care to draw a Goron adventuring through the Water Temple?

rolled 16 = 16

Here's your archive of thread #20: http://archive.easymodo.net/tg/thread/15663673#p15663673

Keep up the good show, everyone.

>>15684303
Sure, for both of those.

>Sizes (For grid combat, mostly)
6x6 and upwards could just be referred to by their numbers.
Colossal: occupies a 5x5 space 
Giant: occupies a 4x4 space
Huge: occupies a 3x3 space
Large: Occupies a 2x2 space
Medium: occupy 1 space.
Small: Occupy 1 space
Tiny: occupies 1/4 of a space, can enter other creatures spaces
Minish: Too small to fill a space, can enter and occupy other creature's spaces

Scale ideas: For games that deal with size alteration, or occasionally use mounted or vehicular combat, different Scales could be used for maps.

Giant Scale: 1 Giant space = 4x4 Normal spaces (useful if a majority of the party gets huge, or to show off a really big monster.)
Mount/Vehicle/Field Scale: 1 Field space = 2x2 Normal spaces
Normal scale: 1 space = 1 space.
Minish Scale: 4x4 Minish spaces = 1 Normal space

On a Field-scale map, a Large horse would occupy 1 space (being considered Medium at that scale), and a Medium human or Small creature would be considered Tiny. Huge and Giant creatures and vehicles would be considered Large (occupying 2x2 spaces, rounding up for the Huge one.)
At Minish scale, a Tiny Keese would be a Large creature (perfect for riding.)

Also, a different Mass system could be used for Minish scale (it's the only scale that really needs it) that works just like normal mass, denoted as M#. The only difference is that it any mass at that scale counts as mass 0 at the Normal scale. (maybe 

Example: At Minish scale, M1 is the same as Mass 1 to a normal-scale creature. An average shrunken human (usually mass 4) would have a mass of M4. To his normal-sized friends, he counts as having a mass of 0.

>>15683903
I am starting to lean towards making attack of opportunity style mechanics as part of the techs instead of as a universal mechanic. If so, should it be easily accessible? Would it function just like a regular AoO? I'll think more about this and post a suggested tech later.

>>15684711
Wind Waker had a counter strike, though it could act like an attack of opportunity/delayed attack. You use it as an active attack and it goes off when an enemy threatens you?

>>15684711
I made this in the previous thread.

Opportunity Attack
-Prerequisites: Melee 2, Perception 2 (?)
-XP Cost: 4
-Held OR Immediate Action
Trigger: An enemy adjacent to you moves more than one space into a space no longer adjacent to you.
Reaction: Make a Melee attack against the enemy. If you hit, in addition to damage, that enemy loses the rest of it's movement action.

>Feel free to refine the prerequisites/trigger/effect/XP cost or whatever, just throwing the idea out there. This way OA's aren't an integral part of combat, but allows characters who want to limit enemy movement can take this technique.

>>15684514
Mmm, could be good for Hyrule Field or Epic-Scale fights like Twinmold or Morpheel. I wouldnt use it in dungeons though except for the Minish Scale

Huh, I guess we must've burnt ourselves out with all that heavy number-crunching over the magic system in thread 19 or something...

At any rate, there is the easymodo archive, which I added a link to on the wiki. And there wasn't much lost, just some back-and-forth over opportunity attacks and the need (or lack thereof) to protect casters and sneaks.
Which I guess is why we 404'd...because there wasn't anything being discussed...

Anyway, we do still have a few canon spells that I intend to convert for our system. No time to do it tonight, but I'll get those up for review first thing in the morning.

>>15684514
I feel like the medium/small distinction can be cut for our system, since most everything it applies to in D&D is handled differently by our system (mostly by mass).
Other than that, looks pretty good.

>>15684965
I suppose it could, but it still helps players and GMs visualize how big a monster is compared to a medium-sized one. Plus, Small creatures would be Huge (3x3 spaces) on the Minish scale.

I had some rules for the Giant's Mask's effect, but it's pretty broken. I'll wait to post a revised version.

Reposting!

Yea I was worried when the last thread died and there was no replacement in sight.

>>15685934
>Zora the Explorer
Can you help me find the MAP? The MAP is in my BACKPACK!
Sorry, I saw the title of your picture and couldn't resist. :)

Here's a question, do we have a good way to play "Magical energy death ball tennis" in this system? Readied actions seem fine if you only have to deflect it back once, but I am not sure how well it would work for a good back and forth.
Ideas, something I missed?

>>15684303
Finally doodled this request. I'm not good at scenes, but I thought this one turned out okay.
http://i.imgur.com/pYHTV.jpg

Oh, and Cz wanted the links to my other drawings, so here are the ones that I haven't been able to properly scan and upload.

>Kokiri and Deku Baba: http://i.imgur.com/sSDUt.jpg
>ReDead: http://i.imgur.com/QgSjN.jpg
>Gerudo mage and Stalfos: http://i.imgur.com/46OL8.jpg
>Poe: http://i.imgur.com/IbGHh.jpg
>Skulltula (unfinished): http://i.imgur.com/JMJlH.jpg
>Armos Statue: http://i.imgur.com/6JcLT.jpg
>Gohma (unfinished): http://i.imgur.com/zNAK2.jpg
>Ghoma Larva: http://i.imgur.com/y511S.jpg
>Tektite: http://i.imgur.com/37ou9.jpg
>Dodongo: http://i.imgur.com/wIgQ8.jpg
>Minish: http://i.imgur.com/21pH4.jpg
>River Zora and Geozard/Zora Warrior: http://i.imgur.com/h2vgP.jpg
>Moblin: http://i.imgur.com/OdgkM.jpg
>Darknut: http://i.imgur.com/fpeKB.jpg

bump

>>15686405
There were some ideas kicked around in one of the earlier threads, but I don't think any kind of concrete mechanic was ever decided on.

So, I promised spells last night, and here they are. Starting with the Cane of Byrna and Magic Cape, which were posted earlier but I figure could use one last look since they didn't seem to get too much attention last time I posted them. I've modified the mp costs and difficulties for the unopposed check to activate the effect since then, too.

Magic Cape (Wisdom)
Enchantment
Single action
10 MP (sustained)
Duration: Sustain
Range: Personal
Target: You
Check: Unopposed - 4(2)

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, but you can't interact with the physical world while this effect is active.

--------------------------------------------
Cane of Byrna (Wisdom)
Defense
Single action
10 MP (sustained)
Duration: Sustain
Range: 1
Area: 1-meter radius, centered on you.
Check: Unopposed - 5(2)

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. A creature is only considered "in contact" with the field if it is within the area of the spell or attempts to attack a creature within the field with a melee attack; creatures adjacent to the field's area do not take damage as long as they don't try to attack a creature inside the field.

How's this for an AoO technique?

First Strike (Passive)
Requirements: Physical 3, |Melee| 4
XP Cost: 4
Once per turn the hero gets a free |Melee| attack against a single foe who moves adjacent to him. This automatically interrupts the opponent’s action and does not cost the hero his action if he is on Hold or has not yet acted this round.

pretty much stole the wording straight from SW. requirements and XP cost might could use some work.

>>15688307
The |Melee| requirement seems ok, but I think rather than Physical an AoO tech should probably have a Courage requirement -- after all, the point of AoO is usually to stop the advance of an enemy, putting yourself between it and your allies. Very Courage-flavored.

Courage 3 would probably be good, but we could also go with Courage 2 if we wanted it to be a bit more accessible.

>>15688736
I agree with Courage instead of Physical as a prereq.

>>15688307
Some suggestions:
Change 'adjacent' to 'within reach' to allow reach weapons to take their due advantage and control more space. (Why does everyone forget about reach weapons?!)
Perhaps as a follow-up tech allow the character to move up to 2 sq to intercept an incoming enemy, like this:

Intercept Strike (Passive)
Requirements: Courage 3, |Melee| 4, First Strike
XP Cost: 4
When a character is able to use First Strike, he may additionally move a free 2 sq immediately when an enemy moves within 2+ weapon's reach and take the First Strike as normal.

>>15688307
I'm a bit confused on the way the action is spent on this tech, would it work better to use the action requirement from this proposal? >>15684767 (immediate actions work like held actions, but consume one of the actions on your next turn.)

Also, moving into a space adjacent to you isn't what should provoke it; since the point of the attack is to deter enemies from moving away from you, the trigger should have to do with that.

So, I'm updating the wiki with the rules for magic and character death from earlier, and I had a few tweaks and refinements to the death/dying rules I wanted to run by the group:

When a player character is reduced to 0 hearts, he or she is knocked unconscious (or similarly incapacitated, if the GM feels that unconsciousness is not appropriate). The character falls prone, can take no actions (not even free actions, like talking), and is unaware of his or her surroundings. A downed character can be revived in one of five ways:

* If a party member has access to a spell or song that restores hearts, it can be used to revive the downed character as long as the number of rounds the character has been downed is not greater than the healer's total ranks in the relevant skill (either |Magic| or |Music|). Some effects may explicitly bypass this restriction, and can be used even if the target has been downed for a longer period of time. A character revived by magic or song recovers as many hearts as he or she normally would as a result of that effect.

>>15688930 cont'd
* If a party member has a healing potion, it can be used to revive a downed character. It is difficult to get an incapacitated individual to drink, so in order to revive a downed character with a potion you must spend four consecutive actions doing nothing but tending to the patient. If you take damage, are forcibly moved away from the patient, or become subjected to a harmful non-damaging effect such as the Cripple spell, your treatment is interrupted and the potion is wasted. You can still roll passive defense against attacks, but you suffer a -2k2 penalty due to being distracted. In short, using a potion to heal a fallen ally is a difficult and risky task, and is best saved for after combat. Fortunately, unlike with healing magic and songs, potions can revive a downed character regardless of how much time has passed since he or she fell. A character revived with a potion recovers as many hearts as the potion would normally restore.
* A more practical alternative to potions for mid-combat healing is a fairy. You can revive a downed character using a fairy as a single action. A downed character revived by a fairy recovers 6 hearts (the standard amount healed by a fairy).
* If the party acquires a heart container or piece of heart, it can be given to a downed character, restoring him or her to full hearts (for a heart container) or half his or her maximum hearts (for a piece of heart).
* Finally, a downed character can be revived by 8 hours of rest, or 4 hours if a party member actively tends to the downed character's injuries (in which case the character providing the treatment is not able to rest properly, and so receives none of the usual benefits of rest). A character revived in this way recovers 1 heart, and then can be healed further as normal by rest, magic, or other means.

>>15688935 cont'd again

A player character can only be killed if he or she takes further damage from a direct attack while downed. Indirect attacks, such as Din's Fire and other area-effect magic, will not slay a downed character.

Most monsters and NPCs are killed outright when reduced to zero hearts, though the players may choose to incapacitate rather than kill if they wish. This intention need not be stated in advance; the players decide when they learn that they've defeated an enemy whether they want to kill or spare their foe.

>>15688921
There's two theories going on here for AoOs:
Deter enemies from going past you by allowing free damage from an AoO.
-or-
Deter enemies by making a technique that stops them with an attack.

>>15688935
4 Actions to forcefeed a potion seems a bit excessive in my opinion, but you didnt touch on the biggest method of revival in the games. (and explicitly magic potions I think should be easier to apply, because magic)

what happens if we just drop a fairy next to the downed ally?

>>15688935
This seems a bit complicated. Would it be okay to simplify it to:
>Double action to heal with a potion
>single action to release a fairy
>Picking up a heart container or piece of heart restores the party's Life to full
>8 hours or a night's worth of rest restores a character to full Life.

I'm still not sure if spells should restore unconscious characters, since that's basically the same as using magic jars (or recovery hearts), but it's not too bug a deal. Healing songs should be okay, since their use is limited to a few times a day.

>>15688942
Should it be default that non-villanous NPCs are automatically knocked out? I don't want to try and impose artificial restrictions on players, but Zelda isn't the kind of setting where murdering shopkeeps (or innocent guards) is an acceptable thing to do.

>>15688947
Is damage alone enough of a deterrent? Since opportunity attacks won't be something everybody can do, it might not be potent enough.

>>15689237
I figured potions should be kept impractical for in-combat healing, same as in the video games (fairies are a rez, potions are prevention).

And I did mention fairies, right after potions:
>* A more practical alternative to potions for mid-combat healing is a fairy. You can revive a downed character using a fairy as a single action. A downed character revived by a fairy recovers 6 hearts (the standard amount healed by a fairy).

>>15689390

How about it stops movement too.

>>15689390
>Double action to heal with a potion
>single action to release a fairy
>Picking up a heart container or piece of heart restores the party's Life to full
>8 hours or a night's worth of rest restores a character to full Life.

I'm ok with the simplification for pieces of heart/heart containers and rest, but I think potions should be a bit more impractical, as mentioned in the post you ninja'd (>>15689399)

Plus if we make potions difficult to start with, we can make nifty techs for someone who wants to play the combat medic! Not a glamorous role, but I for one would play it just for the interesting RP aspect of it, and I love when the system I'm using has mechanical options to reflect the RP archetype.

Good point on the NPCs, too -- we certainly don't want townsfolk dropping like flies.

>>15683716

.... twili are friggin' awesome.

does anyone have a .rar or something of art made for the project?

>>15689461
CZ is working on a compilation, but it's not quite done yet.
Ultimately, I think we're going to upload all or most of it to the wiki.

>>15689442
I was concerned about potions for a few reasons; four consecutive actions is hard to keep track of, and imposing a defense penalty while the character can't properly defend themselves anyway is very harsh. Also; that's two whole rounds where the healer doesn't get to do anything, which isn't very fun.

I'm all for combat medic techniques; if we use the Double Action proposal, a 4 or 5 XP tech could let a player uncork and apply a potion as a Single Action instead.

>>15689497
I guess we're just looking at the issue from two different perspectives -- I'm of the opinion that potions should be utterly impractical for use as a mid-combat rez, essentially a last-resort option if you really need that guy back on his feet right now and have no other ways of doing so, whereas you want it to be a feasible option, just not as practical as a fairy.

Perhaps a compromise? You can use a potion as a double action in combat to revive a downed character, but since it's a rushed and sloppy job (I mean, seriously, pouring liquid down an unconscious dude's throat in the span of 6 seconds?) it's subject to a time restriction similar to spells -- I think it would be good to have this tied to your Wisdom, maybe a number of rounds equal to 2x your Wisdom score, but we could also just go with a flat 5 or 10 rounds or something. And there could be techs for a combat medic to extend the time limit (possibly for spells as well as potions, rolled into one tech).
However, if you get a breather out of combat to where you're able to focus and take your time, you can then use a potion to heal a downed ally no matter how long he's been down.

>>15689629
...the other thing I had issue with was the time restriction thing for spells, since that seemed unnecessarily complicated too.

We need more opinions.

>>15689783
I went back through the old threads and saw nothing but support for the time restriction on spells, hence why I included it, and I think while it does make things slightly more complex, it's not really a bad thing in this case since it makes things a bit more interesting for a healer. A little bit of complexity can be a good thing sometimes.

>>15689629
I like the idea of using the potion to resurrect in combat being impractical and sloppy. Perhaps make the drawback be that it only restores half as many hearts as usual while still using up the whole potion. You would trade effectiveness for convenience.

>>15690148
That sounds like a good way to do it. If we have red potions be the most commonly available healing potion and restore 8 hearts, as in TP, that would make healing potions restore fewer hearts to a downed character than a fairy (4 for the potion compared to the fairy's 6) for twice as many actions, keeping fairies as the clearly superior choice for in-combat revival.

What does everyone think of the time limit on using healing magic to revive a downed character? Personally, I like it because it gives healers a bit more usefulness, but doesn't make healing an automatic "cannot lose" ability (which could be a problem if we let healing magic work regardless of how long the target's been down).

Here's a Sendspace link with the zip of every original piece of art for the project I can muster. 13 Folders Of contributors including anons. And one folder containing pictures that are ready to go on the PDF.

http://www.sendspace.com/file/xc0at7

More then likely I am missing afew, if I am let me know and I'll do my best to fix. Also this isn't the finish collection so go ahead and keep on drawfaggin', I'll just add it to the collection.

>>15691648
Thanks for compiling everything so far. If nothing else, we aren't low on artists.

>>15690742
I'm of the opinion that most healing magic shouldn't restore unconscious characters, since that's not much different than using recovery hearts to heal (except in this case, it's magic jars in the form of spells.)

Somewhat off topic, I also feel like many of the spells we have are too much like 4e's powers in terms of utility. I feel like most of them ought to be more valuable and useful outside of combat (not to mention thematically appropriate for the game.)

>>15692207
I thought the spells and |Magic| were more combat oriented whereas utility and non-combat effects were more in the realm of music. Of course there will be exceptions like the fire rod lighting torches/lanterns for puzzles.

>>15692207
There's plenty of precedent in the video games for spells with minimal out-of-combat utility. The medallions from LttP, the Cane of Byrna, and the spells from OoT have pretty minimal puzzle applicability -- the medallions have one-time usefulness in opening up certain locations, and Din's Fire can be handy for puzzles requiring you to light a lot of torches in quick succession, but that's about it. And virtually none of the spells from Adventure of Link are good for anything other than combat (though admittedly that game is a lot more hack & slash than the rest of the series).

Also, the usefulness of spells out-of-combat largely depends on the GM's creativity. Pretty much all of the basic spells have their usefulness -- Burn and Freeze should be obvious; Blast could be used for the same sorts of things bombs are good for; Cripple might be needed to weaken a creature that's holding up a platform so that it lowers it enough to jump or climb onto; Lift could be quite useful for clearing wide gaps; Inspire could have story-based applications, such as lifting someone's spirits a la Saria's Song in OoT; Shift could be made very useful for puzzles if we switched it to be more like Gust, which it was based off of -- something that pushes things around rather than a tactical maneuverability boost. That just leaves Shield and Heal, which are both canon spells (from AoL).

>>15693412 (Sorry about the delay between parts of this post, my internet's really flaky right now.)
Then of the advanced spells, I believe the only original stuff we have is Sap Strength, Faultline, Haste, and Slow. Sap Strength has similar applicability to Cripple; Faultline could be used to smash open floors; Haste and Slow could be used for puzzles involving timing (for instance, if a super-fast blade trap blocks your way you could either Slow it down to your level or Haste yourself to keep up).
Just take a page from the source material -- there are plenty of cases where something that superficially seems combat-focused can be applied to solve a puzzle. You just need to think outside the box sometimes.

Also bear in mind that a mage's spells serve in many respects the same role as a fighter's techs -- it's pretty difficult to apply the same kind of versatility via techs to spells as you can to weapon-based combat, so a mage's options have to come from somewhere else. A sword can be used in a plethora of different ways, but the same can't really be said for a spell.

>>15693624
Good points. It's also better to have too many spells to begin with instead of too few, I suppose.

>>15688921
>I'm a bit confused on the way the action is spent on this tech
there is no action spent.
>free |Melee| attack
>does not cost the hero his action if he is on Hold or has not yet acted this round.
what are you confused about?

>would it work better to use the action requirement from this proposal?
no. that would defeat the purpose. in the majority of cases someone will be moving into a space adjacent to you because they are closing in to attack you. if you haven't taken your action yet that round then you would get to attack them on your turn anyway.

>Also, moving into a space adjacent to you isn't what should provoke it
sure it is. they move close enough for you to hit them, and you're quick enough to take advantage of the opportunity.

>since the point of the attack is to deter enemies from moving away from you
this doesn't make any sense. in a combat scenario would you be more reluctant/eager to move towards someone who wants to hit you with a sword or away from them? generally when someone is trying to stab you, it is much better to move out of stabbing range than to hang around and wait to be stabbed. the only way AoO makes sense for moving away is if you assume that everybody drops their guard and takes the time to turn 180 degrees before walking away. your base movement speed is walking speed. I can easily move backwards while keeping my guard up at the same speed as walking forward.

>>15689413
it already stops movement
>This automatically interrupts the opponent’s action

i agree with both of these >>15688736 >>15688898

>>15695303
when did |Smithing| get added as a skill? I don't even remember it being discussed recently. I thought we were adamantly against a smithing skill.

>>15695448
didn't mean to link to that other post. I was just using it to quick reply to the thread

>>15695303
>what are you confused about? 
It says it uses a free action, and then immediately says that it doesn't cost the character one of their Actions under certain circumstances. That implies that it uses up an action when the character doesn't have a Held Action.

>no. that would defeat the purpose. 
You missed the question I was asking. I asked if it was better to use a Held or Immediate Action (both of which take place between other creature's turns and use an action up from either the user's previous or next turns.) this was because I thought the aforementioned "free action" line was misleading.

>sure it is. they move close enough for you to hit them, and you're quick enough to take advantage of the opportunity. 
>in a combat scenario would you be more reluctant/eager to move towards someone who wants to hit you with a sword or away from them?
You seem to be missing the point of an Opportunity Attack. In D&D, OA's are provoked by leaving a square threatened by a nearby enemy, not entering it. This is supposed to control movement, because you cannot walk freely around enemies without risking being attacked.
Especially in this case, where opportunity attacks were requested to help players defend their allies, the point is to use opportunity attacks to keep enemies near you and away from the weaker characters.

I leave for a weekend and the thread 404s? *sigh*
Heheh, just kidding.

Anywho, onward!

OPPORTUNITY ATTACKS: There's still contention on this, and that's fine, but I'm going to lay out my case in favor of them one more time.

First of all, people should stop saying that having opportunity attacks is "too much like D&D". TONS of other game systems involve opportunity attacks. I can't actually think of one I've played that doesn't have them in one form or another. And as for the system becoming "too tactical," we aren't even coming close to that yet. We also can't have the opposite extreme of boring or repetitive combat, because combat will be a big part of the game and should be dynamic and fun enough to be enjoyable.

Opportunity attacks are necessary not simply for protecting "casters" and "sneaks." It's much deeper than that. Opportunity attacks allow for control of the battlefield. They allow for protection of PCs or creatures with low health (either base or due to injury), and keep enemies you are engaged with from fleeing whenever they wish. Without opportunity attacks, every PC and monster has universal access to any enemy within their move rate and no penalty whatsoever for moving whatever way they wish through the melee. That's just not how combat should work. EVER.

>>15695603
In addition, we can't say "you don't get them in the video games" because of course you don't. It's a video game. Pretty much no video game ever has opportunity attacks, because they just don't fit. But /tg/entlemen, this is not a video game. This is a tabletop, pen & paper RPG. What we want to capture are the themes and feelings of the Zelda universe, not the exact mechanics. Trying to force game mechanics into the PnP RPG will only give you problems.

In order to have combat that allows for any tactical thinking or movement at all (and that is necessary for entertaining combat), you have to have field control as a basic element, not just the limited purview of a few dedicated characters. Opportunity attacks accomplish this easily, and without overcomplicated compromises. They're pretty much integral to grid-based, turn-based combat.

If this has already been taken care of please excuse me, but...

Is there any way that these rules support a fairy being anything more than a familiar? A friend wants to play one.

>>15695715
Nothing yet, and it's not terribly likely. The logistics of playing something that small are something our system (or any system) won't handle terribly well. You'll probably have to ad-hoc that one, if you want to allow it at all.

>>15695715
What would your friend do as a fairy? I wouldn't say "no" outright, but my impression of fairy PCs makes it seem like they'd be pretty polarized towards being either ineffectual or overpowering.

For example, melee combat would logically destroy them, but their flight and size can make it very easy to trivialize puzzles.

>>15689390
In the same section as rules for incapacitating characters, I think we can include an explicit mention that killing of humanoids is almost always considered evil, and knocking them unconscious is the typical heroic alternative.

>>15695753
Me personally, I think fairies should be an important race... I mean, the first race involved in the series were the elfy lookin fellas, followed by the fairies, both in same game. The other races took much longer.

They are healers afterall (I guess), and can help with hard to reach areas.

>>15695840
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "in the series" in this context. Which game? The first game started with a dude in a tunic next to a cave. The problem with having fairies included as a PC race is that they can't work off the same mechanics used for all the other races. Their size simply makes it impossible. It would be like playing an entirely different game alongside the standard one, and I doubt we want to go to all that trouble.

As a half-assed way of doing it, you could use the outlined stuff for "miniaturized" or whatever characters people have suggested for Minish stuff, but I think you'll see that won't work well.

>>15695943
The first two Zelda games had elfy dudes and fairies, but none of the other weird fellows. While I understand it'd require different systems, that's extremely normal for RPGs -- lots of RPGs have different systems going around. I'm okay with the notion that a fairy couldn't kick ass, but they could scout, sneak, heal, and provide useful advice...

...every 3 seconds

>>15695840
If I may be so bold as to suggest alternatives, koroks and deku cover small, nimble, nature folk (on top of which, koroks can fly). Rito are a bit larger, but have another take on flight. Kokiri would give this person a fairy to play with, as well as a humanoid dummy through which to experience the world as necessary. If they really just want to play the fairy, even to the exclusion of being a part of some of the crunchier parts of the game, maybe they could take over as the fairy of another player's kokiri.

>>15695840
fairies aren't even treated as characters in the game. they're treated as items. fairies have never come close to anything resembling a PC in the games

>>15695968
Wait, what games have -entirely different mechanics- between races? I don't think you're appreciating the difference in scale here. Also, this: >>15695997.

>>15695997
>>15695746
It's a possibility, but maybe it's not something we should worry about too much right now (similar to the Blin situation.)

>>15695997
Well, there have been SOME fairy NPCs.
>Navi, Tatl etc.
too small, ineffective (no way to damage, heal, move stuff...)(inb4 fairies can heal. Did Navi ever save link when he got to 0 hearts? nope.)
>The Great Fairies
obviously not PC material, too overpowered
>small fairies from Majoras Mask
actually part of a great fairy. so yeah, nope.
>Wind Waker fairies (the Queen and such)
While you could do something with that (can fly, size of a human) there aren't any techs or so i guess

But yeah, there aren't any fairies in Zelda that are both 1)PC material and 2)on the same powerlevel as other races.

>>15692207
>I'm of the opinion that most healing magic shouldn't restore unconscious characters, since that's not much different than using recovery hearts to heal (except in this case, it's magic jars in the form of spells.)

This is a fair point, though I'm not entirely sure that it's necessarily a bad thing considering the more lighthearted nature of the setting. I guess I'm kind of on the fence, here.

If we do decide to disallow healing magic except in special cases, would we want that special case to be an advanced spell, a tech, or both? I don't think we should have too much redundancy in spell effects, but having just one advanced version of Heal wouldn't be a bad idea. And I could see a place for a tech to allow you to revive downed characters with heal spells that otherwise couldn't do that (or possibly two techs, one that lets you do it within a time limit, and a second one that extends or removes the time limit). I don't think we should do both, though -- unless the advanced spell is significantly more potent, the tech(s) would pretty much invalidate its primary usefulness over the basic Heal.

>>15698136
I'd be down for the advanced version of heal to be able to revive, but if we make one we have to make sure it's got a distinct difference or advantage over the basic heal. A tech would be fine as well.

>>15698941
Tech seems the way to go for that.

I'm trying to flesh out monsters, and have two defense-related concerns. The first one is for Shield or guarding defense; how strong should shields be? Would damage resistance of 1/2H be considered the "average" for guarding with a shield?
Secondly, for Acrobatics; I know this was discussed before, but won't Acrobatic checks require more successes to match difficulty with non-acrobatic checks, like pushing a block or hanging onto a ledge?

I can see acrobatics being used for something like rope swinging, but other than that and balancing, why not make those sorts of checks skill-less, like all other physical movement checks? They could be boosted by techniques and items, just like climbing, swimming and pushing would be boosted with things like Grip Rings, Zora Flippers and Power Bracelets.

Making the acrobatic skill deal mainly with a dodging and quick movement-related techniques (like Shield is used mainly for defense and shield attacks) makes more sense to me.

>>15699363
I thought we'd already agreed to have basic jumping and such be handled without skills, and only use |acrobatics| for the more exotic stuff...
Could you give some more concrete examples of what you think should be handled skill-less rather than with |acrobatics|?

>>15699431
All I can think of Acrobatics being used for would be to balance on a narrow surface, reduce falling damage, and swinging on a vine/rope/chandelier. The dodging part of the skill is what it seems like the skill should be focused on, since it seems strange for the above uses to require a skill when other forms of movement don't.

I guess my argument is that there isn't enough "exotic stuff" to warrant a skill, when the "mundane stuff" is handled without skills as well.

>>15699520
Balancing on a narrow surface? Depends on how narrow is "narrow". Walking a typical gymnastics balance beam? Use a difficulty setting like you would for an unskilled check, but still apply the skill -- anyone can do it (some better than others), but for an acrobat it's effortless. Moving at a swift clip across a tightrope, or perching on top of an inch-wide pole 10 feet above the ground, ninja style? You better have some |Acrobatics| ranks, or else you're about to take a ride on the gravity express.

Falling damage seems appropriate for the skill as well. I imagine it'd be a scaling effect rather than pass/fail, so while anybody can soften their fall by at least a little bit, a trained acrobat can do a better job of it.

Swinging on a rope I wouldn't even require a roll for, and if I did I don't imagine it would be |acrobatics| unless you're trying for something more than just swinging, like attacking as you swing or leaping off the swing into a flying flip kick or something.

At any rate, the primary usage of the skill would still definitely be dodging, but there could be plenty of other things you can do with it if you happen to think of something fancy. Especially if you're playing a Shiek-esque character, you're going to want some way to pull off those crazy ninja moves, which is what |acrobatics| is for. The crazy stuff isn't the reason for its existence, but it does fall under its purview, and we should keep it that way. The thing about exotic stuff is that it's...well, exotic. It's out of the ordinary, so it doesn't necessarily come to mind easily. Just because we can't think of many examples right now doesn't mean such uses don't exist, and sooner or later somebody's going to think of something crazy that would be too much for a basic attribute check, but would fit perfectly for |acrobatics|, so we should keep the system open to such eventualities.

>>15699690
> The crazy stuff isn't the reason for its existence, but it does fall under its purview

That's a good point, but it's also sort of the problem I have with it. Having it catch the "crazy stuff" distracts from the purpose of the skill, which is primarily defense. There also isn't a skill to let someone invest in being a skilled swimmer or climber (I'm not saying there should be one, I'm just pointing out the inequality.)

Would it be out of the question to have techniques that grant bonuses to those kinds of rolls, just like skill ranks would? That way players can choose to invest in those sorts of abilities, while still keeping the purpose of the Acrobatics/Dodge skill clear. There would also be similar techniques for the other kinds of checks that wouldn't fall under the acrobatics skill.

>Guénot turible

>>15699855
The issue here is that these various exotic things are all kind of diverse unless you make some very broad generalizations, and unlike climbing and swimming and such are individually very limited in application. You stand to do a lot of climbing, swimming, and jumping in an adventure, but how often will you be doing backflips off a swinging rope? Even with a general catch-all tech, it's not likely to be worth it.

Plus there's the problem that handling that sort of thing via techs rather than rolling it into the |acrobatics| skill makes it even harder to build a proper ninja/rogue type character. Most types of character can do just fine with two primary skills -- one for offense (|ranged|, |melee|, |heavy|, or |magic|), one for defense (|shield| or |acrobatics|) -- but a sneaky type needs three: |melee|, |acrobatics|, and |stealth|. Making them spend additional XP for techs to be able to do the classic nimble rogue stuff that could otherwise be handled under |acrobatics| just isn't fair.

I really don't think the issue of unclarity/distraction from the main use of the skill is significant enough in this case to be worth worrying about. Our goal with the system is to make sure there's plenty to do with every skill, and narrowing the focus from |acrobatics| to |dodge| seems like it goes counter to that intent. There's a lot you can do with |acrobatics| (dodging being a very important piece), but not so much with |dodge|. You also need to consider the implications for techs -- making it focused strictly on |dodge| sharply limits the kinds of techs you could make for it without really stretching the boundaries of what makes sense under that name, but this is not the case for |acrobatics|. Making it a little bit easier to tell at a glance what skill you use for dodging isn't worth putting excessive restrictions on what you can do with that skill.

I got shanghaied into running a LoZ game because of these threads, so this afternoon I made a world map for our game. All PC races are present except Twili and Rito.

One of the players had a great suggestion to frame the game: Link exists in this world, but he took on Ganon too early and the Triforce of Courage was broken into many shards. These shards spread throughout the land, embedding themselves in beings that will become the PCs and bosses. Once they get all the pieces back together the Triforce of Courage will probably bring Link back or something.

Setting is fairly generic: Death Mountain is full of caves and Gorons. Korikori Town and Danda Town are rivals. Flatfield is one big flat field. Clock Town is full of automatons, very few living beings live there. The Shiekah live in the badlands. Forests are probably full of Kokiris and Koroks.

>>15700767
Looks pretty nifty, and I like that campaign idea. Just one thing -- shouldn't it be the Gerudo in the badlands, not the Shiekah?

I mean, I guess they could both be there, but Gerudo are the classic desert race.

>>15700795
>Just one thing -- shouldn't it be the Gerudo in the badlands, not the Shiekah?

Yeah, whoops, I meant Gerudo.

>>15700767
>Once they get all the pieces back together the Triforce of Courage will probably bring Link back or something.

Weak. The dead should stay dead.

Maybe he pulls an Obi-wan and comes back as a voice in their heads.

>>15700109
You're right, it doesn't seem like a big enough issue to spend too much time on right now.

>>15700795
I dunno, the hidden village in TP seemed like a western sort of thing, and Kakariko in that game was very badlands-like. I see the poster corrected themselves, but it's still an interesting possibility.
(on a side note, Zelda would make a cool Western if you think about it.)

Will post fleshed out Minimal Threat monsters in a bit.

>>15700921
Maybe he's not dead? Being the bearer of a piece of the Triforce, he could have just been crippled or reduced to a spectral state rather than being killed outright.

>>15700970
Yeah, like I said, they could both be there, it just seemed odd to have Shiekah in the desert and NOT Gerudo.

>>15700921
>>15700996

We were thinking that Link went into a coma or some kind of Sleeping Beauty-like state, and he'll wake up when things are right again.

Then the players can trollface him.

Minimal Threat Monsters: Defeatable by ordinary means, minions, cannon fodder, threatening only in groups for low-strength characters.

Land Octorok (Aquatic) (Medium)
Life: 2, Mass: 3, Speed: 5 (Swim 5) 
Attack: Rock Spit (Range 10, 3k3, 1/2H) 
Defense: Passive 2k2, Active 3k3 (Dodge 1)
P2/M1/S1
P1/W2/C1

Keese (Beast) (Tiny)
Life: 1/4, Mass: 1, Speed: 2 (Fly 8)
Attack: Bite (Range 0, 3k3 1/4H)
Defense: Passive 2k2, Active 4k3 (Dodge 2)
Special: Flyby Attack: Double Action - The Keese flies at twice its speed and makes a bite attack at any point during this movement. It must land at the end of this movement.
Defensive Flier: Keese are considered to be actively defending while airborne, and cannot otherwise take the Active Defense action.
P2/M1/S1
P1/W1/C2

Rat (Beast) (Tiny)
Life: 1/2, Mass: 1, Speed: 8 (Climb 8)
Attack: Bite (Range 0, 3k3 1/4H, Thieving)
Defense: Passive 3k3, Active 4k3 (Dodge 2)
Special: Thieving - When the rat hits with a bite attack, it can steal either 5 Rupees or 2 pieces of ammunition per success from the target.
P1/M2/S1 (Stealth 4k3)
P1/W1/C2

Deku Baba (Plant) (Medium)
Life: 2, Mass: 3, Speed: 0
Attack: Bite (Range 2, 3k3 1/2H)
Defense: Passive 2k2, Active 3k3 (guard 1/4H)
Special: Vulnerable - Fire x2, Edged x2
P2/M1/S2
P2/W1/C1 (Gear: Deku Nut/Deku Seeds)

Rope (Beast) (Small)
Life: 2, Mass: 2, Speed: 6
Attack: Bite (Range 1, 3k3 1/2H)
Defense: Passive 2k2, Active 3k3 (Dodge 1)
Special: Charger - The Rope gets a +2k0 bonus to charge attacks.
P2/M1/S1
P2/W1/C1

Walltula (Spider) (Small)
Life: 1/2, Mass: 1, Speed: 6 (Wallclimb 6)
Attack: Bite (Range 1, 4k3 1/4H)
Defense: Passive 2k2, Active 3k3 (Dodge 1)
P2/M1/S1
P1/W2/C1

Tektite (Insect) (Medium)
Life: 2, Mass: 4, Move: 2 (Jump 6, Waterwalk 4)
Attack: Tackle (Range 1, 4k3, 1/4H)
Defense: Passive 3k3, Active 4k3 (Dodge Jump 3)
P2/M1/S1
P1/W1/C2

Stupid fields too long.
>>15701791

Morth (Insect) (Tiny)
Life: 1/4, Mass: 1, Speed: 1 (Jump 4)
Attack: Cling (Range 0, 3k3, Cling)
Defense: Passive 2k2, Active 3k3 (Dodge Jump 2)
Special: Cling: On a hit, the Morth sticks to the target, occupying its space. The target takes both a -1k0 penalty to all rolls, -1 speed, and +1 Mass for every 3 Morths attached. The Morth remains attached until killed, submerged in water, or Grappled off.
P1/M1/S1
P1/W2/C1

Skullfish (Aquatic, Undead) (Tiny)
Life: 1/2, Mass: 1, Speed: 0, Swim 6
Attack: Bite (Range 1, 4k3 1/4H)
Defense: Passive 2k2, Active 3k3 (Dodge 1)
P1/M1/S1
P2/W1/C1 

Bokoblin Grunt (Blin) (Medium)
Life: 2, Mass: 3, Speed: 7
Attack: Boko stick (Range 1, 3k3 1/4H)
Defense: Passive 2k2, Active 3k3 (Dodge 1)
P2/M2/S1(Acrobatics 3k3)
P1/W1/C2 (Gear: Boko stick)

Miniblin (Blin) (Small)
Life: 1/2, Mass: 2, Move: 8
Attack: Trident (Range 1, 4k3, 1/4H)
Defense: Passive 3k3, Active 4k3 (Dodge 2)
P2/M1/S1
P1/W1/C2

Popo (Strange) (Small)
Life: 1/2, Mass: 2, Speed: 3 (Burrow 3)
Attack: Caress (Range 1, 3k3, 1/4H)
Defense: Passive 2k2, Active 3k3 (Guard 1/4H)
P2/M1/S1
P1/W1/C1

>>15701791
>>15701898
>>15701942

Thank you for posting these! Here's an updated copy of the map for my game. I'm calling the land Meridia. There's no Hyrule Castle, so there are no Shiekah to protect the royal family. I was considering letting someone play Zelda if they wanted, but I scrapped that idea as the world started to develop. There are however Hylians, who are the commoners living in most of the towns and settlements around Meridia.

>What happened to /tg/'s legendary shit-getting-done powers?
You'er an asshole.

>>15702053

>>15700109
I agree with these points. Acrobatics is pretty straightforward, and the things it includes make sense for characters likely to invest in it as a defense skill. I think it's fine as-is.

OPPORTUNITY ATTACKS: We need to come to a consensus on this issue. I had thought we'd gotten close a while ago, but I guess some folks didn't get their say, so it's good we continued for a bit. Here's what we were working with before:
>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 opportunity attacks in specific situations likely to be included

I still really like the option as outlined here. Please everyone put in your yay or nays, critiques, etc. so we can get a sense of board support in one way or another, so we can put whatever option we go with into effect for testing.

Technically, I've already been testing the no-opportunity-attacks option, and my players and I are not fans. It doesn't make combat unplayable, but it certainly leaves a lot to be desired.

>>15702466

It should be obvious by now, but i agree with you about opportunity attacks. It is time for everybody to discuss this subject so we can conclude it.

>>15702466
I am new to this, but I am for them.

>>15702466
I would be fine with allowing anyone to have OA (as you described) or having it as a technique (as described here >>15688307
Both of the options have pros and cons, but I suppose I am leaning towards the former.

What would be required in order to take an OA? Do you need to be armed? Do you need to be proficient in the weapon you are wielding? Can you take an action other than attacking (like say, casting a spell or moving)?

>>15702466
I'm ok with opportunity attacks, though I wouldn't get my panties in a twist if we did decide not to include them as part of the core combat mechanics. However, if we don't make it a core mechanic, we should definitely make a tech to replicate it for those wishing to play defending, battlefield-controlling character.

My one stipulation would be that movement should only provoke an AoO if you're *leaving* a threatened square, never entering. Same as in D&D -- you don't get a free hit every time somebody moves in to hit you. Probably what you were thinking of anyway, but since it's not spelled out in the proposed set of rules there I figure it's worth bringing up for clarity.

>>15702752
Yes, provocation in this suggestion is for leaving, not entering.

>>15702740
I don't know if you need to be armed, necessarily, but if you don't have a non-ranged weapon in hand you should need at least one hand free and be allowed to take an unarmed swing. Not likely to succeed or do much without training, but why not? Might have a hero moment.

I wouldn't allow anything past attacks with Melee or Heavy weapons by default, but I could see certain Advanced spells with a range of touch being allowed, or allowing touch spells with a tech.

It should also be explicitly stated that when your next action is predetermined, such as with the Magic techs that modify basic spells (your next action -must- be to cast a basic spell or use another Magic tech) then you can't take the opportunity attack without losing the benefit of your previous actions. We should also include include inability to make opportunity attacks in certain conditions (stunned, other?).

>>15702852
I agree with all of this. I can't think of any other problems with the system.

>>15702852
Just casting my vote: Agreed.

A thought on opportunity attacks: I think we should include forced movement and movement made as part of an acrobatic defense in the exceptions of what kinds of movement provokes attacks. I know pretty much any time an effect pushes someone around in D&D it has a disclaimer that this movement doesn't provoke AoO, which always struck me as clunky, and provoking AoO when being pushed around doesn't seem like a good fit for what we're going for. And having acrobatic defense provoke AoO would be silly, since you'd be provoking AoO every time you defend.

>>15703146
I believe we had said something about that before, but it got lost. I agree that acrobatics and forced movement shouldn't provoke.

>>15702852
>>15702466
I would really rather have opportunity attacks require an action if they were made an every-round thing. But again, many of us think that we shouldn't be trying to make the system focus on tactical, role based combat.

Also to note; all we have is your single playtest for feedback (and even then, it sounded like a combat encounter, as opposed to part of dungeon exploration). I think it needs more experimentation with varied playstyles before this is forced into the system.

>>15703170
>>15703146
Agreed here.

>>15703282
"Forced into the system" is a bit of an extreme way of putting it, don't you think? Anyway the problem that was brought up with having the opportunity attack cost an action from one of your regular turns was that it becomes no longer a significant detriment to the enemy. They just take an attack now instead of later, and that won't keep an enemy from fleeing or pushing past you, because it doesn't impact them in the long run. You could add things to an opportunity attack to make it better, but that kind of thing works better as techs than a base mechanic.

And again, "tactical, role-based combat" is not what we have here. Opportunity attacks are the barest minimum of tactics, and there's no role basis here at all. Any character can invest in opportunity attacks, if that's what they want.

Final(ish) version. Any comments?

Korikori Town gets rich off trading from the Gorons who run a factory in the mountains, and Danda Town gets rich off of the produce from Flatfield (which is just one huge agricultural field).

There are a few other landmarks not shown. Unlabeled squares are solitary buildings or other points of interest.

>>15702466
Is there a way to incorporate Guarded Movement to be a part of Active Defense? If Active Defense is similar to Z-Targeting, then would it make sense for actively defending make you not provoke opportunity attacks with your movement, but at the cost of being able to only move half-speed? Think about Darknuts in TP slowly advancing, shields raised, or Link strafing around an enemy ready to juke left or right or block with his shield.

It could either be taking an Active Defense action lets you choose to move half your speed as a part of the action, or taking the action and then moving is how you avoid OA's. The latter is a bit more restrictive, but makes more sense.

I'm trying to find ways to compromise, here.

>>15704488
Hmm... that's not a bad idea. Allow someone to move half their speed while using active defense. It makes sense.

>>15704488
Just had another revalation: what if Opportunity Actions were used for counterattacks? Like Wind Waker's parries or the Mortal Draw? That would solve the issue of trying to force those techniques to rely on Held triggers, or an Immediate action (which we could drop if opportunity actions replace it.)

>>15704686
>>15704488
These both sound pretty good, though I'm not sure if it'd be a good idea to incorporate the movement as part of readying active defense.

Seeing as readying your defense costs an action anyway, we could just say that if you ready your defense first you can then use your second action to move at normal speed without provoking opportunity attacks.

>>15704795
Allowing a player to move as a part of actively defending makes it a more attractive option, because then you can maneuver and attack in the same turn. It's more fun, and doesn't seem overpowering. Plus, it feels like moving with your guard up in one of the 3D titles.

>>15704965
Okay, so just to clarify, the suggestion is that as part of the Active Defense action, you can move half your speed, and this avoids opportunity attacks, right? I'm fine with that option. It makes a lot of sense to me, and makes Active Defense even more appealing. Basically incorporates the Guarded Move into Active Defense, which I think is a great idea.

>>15704686
If we have opportunity attacks use the same kind of action (Immediate) as things like counter attacks, it means you can't do both in the same turn, and I think that's a good idea. I support this.

>>15705157
>>15705201
Glad to hear. Opportunity attacks aren't so bad if you can do other things with the action, something that bugged me in D&D.

How do these sound for techs to use opportunity actions?

Back Slice
Prerequisites: Melee 3, Acrobatics 2
-XP Cost: 4
-Opportunity Action
Trigger: An enemy attacks you with a melee attack
Reaction: You move up to half your speed and make a melee attack against the triggering enemy.

Helm Splitter
Prerequisites: Melee 4, Acrobatics 4
-XP Cost: 5
-Opportunity Action
Trigger: An enemy attacks you with a melee attack and misses
Reaction: You jump your speed and make a melee attack against the triggering enemy.

Mortal Draw
-Prerequisites: Quick Draw, Sneak Attack, Melee 5, Wisdom 4
-XP Cost: 8
-Opportunity Action
Requirement: You must have your weapon sheathed and cannot be Actively Defending.
Trigger: An enemy moves into a space adjacent to you.
Reaction: You draw your weapon and make a melee attack against the enemy that deals 3x damage per success.

Critique requested.

>>15705550
Do we want to call it an "opportunity action" or an "immediate action"? I think since we're expanding it to other techs and stuff, "Immediate" makes more sense, and we can just explicitly state that opportunity attacks are an immediate action, which you only get one of per round (unless you get a tech for more).

For Back Slice and Help Splitter, there should probably be an opposed roll of some kind, otherwise they are just too much. Should also state explicitly that the triggering attack doesn't hit. How about you can only use these techniques if prepared (i.e.: actively defending), and the technique only works if the active defense is successful? It makes them more limited, for sure, but avoiding an attack automatically AND making one as an immediate action is a bit much.

For Mortal Draw, I'm iffy on the trigger condition. It seems fine, but I want to know if anybody has any alternatives to consider. If not, then it's fine.

>>15705550
I'll take these one at a time:
Back Slice - Why would you need to move half your speed to do the back slice? Shouldn't it specify that it goes behind the opponent who triggered it?
I notice that it says 'an enemy attacks you with a melee attack', does that mean it triggers even when it hits or misses or whatever?

Helm Splitter - 'An enemy attacks you with a melee attack and misses', does that mean you can use passive defense? Do you need to use active defense? Do all types of active defense work for a "miss"?
It says you can jump your speed, can you jump less than that? Do you have to move at all? Can you move anywhere within your move range, or does it have to be next to the opponent?
(Side Note: I had made a tech for Helm Splitter earlier that was an armor piercing attack. I am biased towards my own version of Helm Splitter :P)

Mortal Draw - I see lots of abuse potential for this one, but the prereqs probably offset that enough. 3x damage can be quite powerful. What about |Melee| weapons that don't have a sheath or aren't drawn easily (halberd/axe/etc.)

>>15705712
I think "Immediate Action" should define the action that is spent, and "Opportunity Attack" should describe the basic attack that everyone can do when enemies move around in your attack range.
I also agree about putting more prereqs on activating Back Slice and Helm Splitter (i.e. preparing an action / making a roll -probably |Acrobatics|- to make sure that it works)

OK, fairy PC GM from the other night here again. Here's his idea:

Just make them not miniaturized, but have them have all the other stuff from miniaturize (double damage, but +2k2 dodge)

My idea:

I think 0 mass works without the Miniaturized effect. Negligible (0 Mass): -0k2 penalty to Physical|Power checks to lift or move heavy objects.

What do you all think?

>>15705157
Actually, I've thought about this more, and realized a problem. Using Acrobatics for active defense already allows for a move (which shouldn't provoke opportunity attacks), and if we allow movement as part of active defense it takes away that benefit and makes Shield or Parry a distinctly better defensive alternative. If we simply allow Acrobatics to allow for movement in full rather than half, that means anybody can use Acrobatics to flee at full speed without provoking, and we've lost the whole point of the opportunity attack.

After thinking on the logistics a bit, including movement into Active Defense sort of does make Active Defense a little too good, and unbalances the defenses we've set in place so far. I don't think we should include this amendment to active defense, and Guarded Move should be its own action.

And really, if you want to withdraw from an enemy while actively defending, I don't think taking a single turn on that is terribly outrageous, and if you want to withdraw with one action and then flee at full speed with the other, why would need to use active defense?

>>15706375
How about allowing half-speed movement during total defense? Otherwise you're just stuck in place when you want to dodge/parry/block multiple opponents. Also, should you be allowed to take AO while in total defense? I'm thinking no.

>>15706270
You can feel free, but I still see some pretty big problems with that. A penalty to moving large objects doesn't make sense, because there's no way in hell a fairy-sized creature would even be able to make such a check. They'd need to make a check in order to simply pull an ordinary lever. There just isn't a way to mechanically represent the size difference and have it be managed by mechanics even resembling the normal ones.

As an alternative, you might make up a race of playable fairies that have been enlarged with magic, something with a more normal size so they can use standard mechanics, but with a racial ability to return to ordinary fairy size, using the miniaturization rules as a guidelines.

This is still not an idea solution, as a character that can miniaturize at will is still subject to severe abuse.

>>15706375
Acrobatics let's you move away if you're attacked, though, not as a part of taking the Active Defense action. What gave you that idea?

>>15706438
Right, my bad. Crap, I can't believe I got that confused. Okay, hrm... I'm still a little iffy on it, but the Acrobatics thing was the bit that tipped the scale in my mind. I suppose I'm fine with including the move into active defense. It seems like a lot, but I guess I'm in favor of encouraging characters balancing attacking with defending on their turns, so yes. Let's go for it. I apologize for my mistake, and retract my previous statement.

>>15706425
I think you should pretty much be stuck in place when defending against opponents on all sides and at range. You're concern is defense, not flight. If you want to run, you open yourself up to some attacks, which makes sense to me.

And yes, I would say that total defense doesn't allow for opportunity attacks, though there might be other immediate actions that are viable. Can't think of any off the top of my head, though.

>>15706459
We probably had different ideas on what rules are out there. Ive always been under the impression that using Acrobatics for your active defense let you move 1 space after being attacked (that's what Dodge is for on the monster statblocks.)
Also, I meant that your movement was halved until the beginning of your next turn when you took active defense, including the free move. Not sure if that part was clear either.

>>15706425
Do you mean whether you shouldn't provoke opportunity attacks while Actively Defending, or that you shouldn't be able to make them while Actively Defending?

>>15706428
We're both fine with requiring the fairy to make a check to move anything of any weight, and all significantly heavy objects are simply unmovable.

Any other mechanical problems you think might come up?

>>15706500
I meant being able to OA an opponent, but I suppose that not provoking makes sense as well. If moving at half speed always negates OA, then not provoking while also trying to negate your opponent's blows makes even more sense.

I think that the guarded move system should work like this:

Guarded Move -
Action: 1 or 0
Allows you to move up to half your speed and does not provoke opportunity attacks. May be used once per round concurrently with active defense to remove the action cost.

Move -
Action: 1
Allows you to move up to your speed, but provokes opportunity attacks when leaving a square threatened by an enemy (melee range only).

You could spend one action moving out of an enemy's attack range, and another to move further at full speed, attack, or whatever you need. If you want to move all the way passed an opponent, you will need to spend both actions moving and won't be able to attack the squishies when you get to them.

In the rules for blins, it says that the choice of which type of blin determines the cost of certain techniques. Does this give a discount of 1 xp to the relevant techniques?

>>15706962

I should have been more specific when writing the Blin stuff up. But yes that can work. I'll fix the wiki on em.

>>15683716
>>15706962
The relevant techniques haven't been determined yet, I believe. Convention is half cost for the technique in question.

>>15706600
If we simply include the 1/2 movement as part of the active defense, and stipulate that it reduces movement speed by 1/2 until the start of your next turn, we might not need to include a Guarded Move.

>>15706500
Yes, Acrobatics allows you to move when you successfully defend against an attack with it based on successes over the attacker, minimum 1. I knew that, but got it messed up in my head a bit earlier.

On the techniques, I think the versions of them that have been posted already could just be reworked to use an immediate action rather than the setup already in place.

Explosive Shot is listed as requiring Magic 3, even though the magic use of the tech is completely optional for a character with bombs, can you take the tech and be unable to use the MP cost option without the Magic skill?

I'm trying to make a Bulblin crossbowman/bomb merchant and I've been running into confusion about the "easier techs" and, later, the fact that most all ranged techs require 4+ ranged skill or 4 experience. That was assuming the racial was only -1xp costs, if it's halved then Volley is an option as well.

How do crafting skills work, anyway?

>>15707295

Oops no wait Volley, like the Ricochet I was trying to take, along with Dual Shot, all require 4 or 5 Ranged skill, so they can't be taken anyway.

>>15707295
Explosive Shot always bugged me, but we've had more pressing things to worry about so I hadn't brought it up.
If we want to use magic to add explosions to an arrow, that should be a spell, not a tech. The tech should be |ranged| only, and only apply to making bomb arrows.

>>15706600
I agree with Friendly Neighborhood DM here >>15707092, if we let you move 1/2 your speed as part of readying active defense, I don't think we need a separate "guarded move" action.

>>15709214
>>15707092
I'm fine with guarded move being a part of active defense, but what about those without an active defense like a Heavy user that doesn't take acrobatics? Does he simply not have the option to do a guarded move? I don't agree with that

>>15709517
I imagine that a Heavy weapon user would be able to take Shield (using their weapon to block, which is less effective) or Acrobatics. Even if they didn't have any points in either defense skill, you could take the Active Defense action; you just wouldn't add the skill's dice. You'd still be able to move safely.

>>15707039
I don't mean to sound racist, but is it ok if we put the races into categories? Like Common races (Human, Zora, Goron, Great Sea races, Uncommon races (Kokiri, Twili), Evil races?

>>15707295
I thought we did away with crafting skills. Are they still on the wiki for some reason?

>>15709748
A Heavy user can't use a shield because a heavy weapon takes up both hands. (Since when is a heavy weapon allowed to be used as a shield? I don't remember that.) He can't use parry because that requires a Melee weapon. If he wants good armor, acrobatics will be a problem. So really his only choices are - light armor w/ acrobatics, mid-heavy armor w/ the passive defense techs. In the latter case he wouldn't have any active defense.

If he takes the passive defense techs, then using active defense to make a guarded move will take away his bonuses.
(Side Note: Did we all agree about the "Battle-Hardened" passive defense techs I proposed a few threads back? If so they should get added onto the wiki.)

>>15709824
I didn't mean he could use a shield, I'm just saying he could use the skill to guard with a weapon (without the armor bonus a shield provides during active defense,) just using the dice to defend himself. Or was this made impossible by something I missed before?

I'm not aware of the passive defense techniques; can you repost them?

>>15709875
Using your weapon to guard is called parrying. There's a tech for that and it uses |Melee| skill. |Heavy| can't do that.

Here's the passive defense tech from thread 17:

Battle-Hardened (Passive)
Prerequisites: Physical 3
XP Cost: 5/10/15
The character is an experienced veteran and has learned to move with the ebb and flow of battle. The character gets a +1k1 boost to passive defense rolls. May be taken up to 3 times.

>>15709748

Honestly I don't think that's necessary. Because consider that every setting may/can be different, so for all we know someone can make a world where Twili are the majority and Hylian's are the minority. Any race can be evil or good depending on the setting as well.

>>15709999
It's just for sorting reasons, it doesn't stop GM's from using what races they want. It also helps so that a new player doesn't assume that every game setting is as cosmopolitan as the race list suggests, which might be a turn off for some.

>>15709875
I haven't seen anything in any previous threads suggesting that |shield| could or should be usable for blocking with a weapon, except for a proposal brought up a couple times that it be changed to |guard| and allowed to include weapon blocks. However, this proposal was always rejected, because it diminishes the value of parrying and the name change would mean that all the shield-bash type techs we currently have for the |shield| skill would no longer make sense under that skill -- it doesn't make sense to have an offensive tech under a skill whose name plainly marks it out as a defensive skill. |Shield| is, of course, primarily defensive, but the name suggests general use of shields, which could include offense as well as defense.
Basically, it doesn't make sense to allow blocking with a weapon to be influenced by a skill called |shield|, and changing the name to allow such a thing is just a bad idea.

>>15709926
I wasn't around for that discussion, so I'm not sure what I can suggest without trying to redo something that was already finished. To me, though, the passive defense thing seems contrary to what active defense is supposed to be for.

Is it a big deal if players can parry attacks without a shield? Maybe at a penalty (your skill rank is considered 1/2) without the Parry tech?

>>15710294
If shield bashing is what you're worried about, there could be restrictions on the technique that say only a shield can be used for them.

>>15710295
The point of the passive defense tech is to give a defensive option for those who can't effectively use any of the active defense options -- namely, those who use heavy weapons (which can't be used for parrying and take 2 hands, so no shield) and heavy armor (which penalizes |acrobatics|). The tech is actually pretty well balanced -- it takes significantly more XP expenditure to get the same defense roll as you could have by investing in active defense skills (30 XP to max the passive defense tech vs only 17 XP to max a skill), and you're missing out on the added benefits of active defense (damage reduction for a skill, free movement for acrobatics, potentially riposte for parrying). It's really only an attractive option for those who wouldn't be taking active defense anyway.

>>15710320
The point is that it makes no sense for an offensive tech, of any kind, to be governed by a skill called |guard|. However, it makes perfect sense for an offensive tech that uses a shield to be governed by |shield|.

Changing the name would cause far more issues than it would fix. Frankly, I don't see why we would want to let people defend using a heavy weapon in the first place -- the whole point of heavy (and really, Power in general) is that you focus on offense and damage, without much regard for caution or safety. Lacking active defense options is a fitting sacrifice to make for an increased damage output. If you want to tank, use a shield and heavy armor; if you want to dish out huge damage and fling people around like rag dolls, use a two-handed heavy weapon.

I could see giving |heavy| a tech to allow one-handed use of certain weaker heavy weapons, opening up a hand for use of a shield, but beyond that I think it's fitting that they should have difficulty with active defense. No need to clutter the system with unintuitive skill naming just to cover a weakness that was pretty much intentional in the first place.

>>15710337
That seems like a backwards way to compensate for poor active defense use. It seems wrong that a Heavy weapon user wouldn't be able to focus on defending himself (even to a lesser degree than another character), and that standing around not trying to defend himself would give him a better defense.

We should be trying to integrate the use of active defense, not finding ways around it. It doesn't have to be my way, but it should be fixed somehow.

>>15710417
What if we allowed for a "general" active defense that simply has you use your normal passive defense roll at a modest bonus (say, +1k0), gaining none of the benefits of a specific defense mode (as would be the case if you used shield or acrobatics)? It wouldn't require any changes to the skill system, and would keep skill-based defense options worthwhile, but would make sure you can always benefit (at least a little bit) by taking the action for active defense.

>>15710452
You still run into the problem of heavy users not being able to defend because they need 1 action per round to recover, not allowing for active defense.

>>15710414 the whole point of heavy (and really, Power in general) is that you focus on offense and damage, without much regard for caution or safety.
This is my exact reasoning. If you want good defense, you shouldn't be using a heavy weapon.

>>15710527
>You still run into the problem of heavy users not being able to defend because they need 1 action per round to recover, not allowing for active defense.

It's not intended to make heavy users be able to defend effectively, but rather to make sure that you can always have an active defense roll that's better than your passive defense.

I actually wrote both of those posts you linked to there -- I'm not looking to make heavy users effective defenders, just to make active defense always a better form of defense than passive (at least in terms of what you're rolling, if not in terms of action economy) in all scenarios.

>>15710589
Alright. Let's assume for a moment that a |Heavy| user takes the battle-hardened tech. If he wants to move out of the range of an opponent, he must either provoke an OA or lose his passive defense bonus by using active defense to make a guarded move. This is why I think that guarded move shouldn't be restricted only to active defense.

>>15710452
The only problem I can see with that is that it makes tge first rank in one of the defense skills useless. I think you could use Active Defense without a point in one if the skills and just gain the benefit of not provoking opportunity attacks.

I also think that you could use Shield to defend without a shield at half-effectiveness and use Acrobatics in armor at half-effectiveness, still without gaining the special benefit from actively defending with either. (A technique like Parry could let you use all the dice Shield normally gives you if you're wielding Melee weapons; I don't know if there should be an equivalent tech for Acrobatics in armor.) This gives even heavily armed or armored characters a limited way to increase their defense roll.

>>15710951
I think the ideas we're proposing are meant to replace the idea of Passive Defense bonuses.

>>15710951
If we allow a generic active defense option that is based on your passive defense, that no longer is an issue.

>>15711028
>The only problem I can see with that is that it makes tge first rank in one of the defense skills useless.
Not so -- the first rank lets you use that form of defense with the same roll as your generic active defense, but gaining the special benefit of that form of active defense (damage reduction from the shield, or free movement from the dodge).

>I also think that you could use Shield to defend without a shield at half-effectiveness and use Acrobatics in armor at half-effectiveness, still without gaining the special benefit from actively defending with either.
This is a lot more complicated than the generic active defense idea. If we keep the Battle-Hardened tech as-is and add a generic active defense option as proposed above, it fixes the issue of having active defense being weaker than passive in some cases (since you can always choose an active defense option that is, by definition, better than your passive defense), and gives a way to improve defense besides investing in skills you can't use (or can't use effectively -- an armored character can still use |acrobatics|, they just take a penalty to their rolls).
It's a very simple solution to the problem at hand.

Also, your proposal for Parry makes swashbuckling strictly weaker than sword-and-board, unless we come up with some damn good benefits for fighting without a shield. The whole reason Parry as it is now is an attractive option is because it lets you focus solely on |melee|, without investing in |acrobatics| or |shield|.

>>15711305
My mistake on Parry, but I'm still not sold on why Battle-Hardened should exist (aside from being a one-time technique.) Active Defense should always be the better choice; even if your armor prevents you from avoiding blows, there should be a way to defend yourself further than just standing around.

Maybe this is a case for the Armor skill to return? Or a series of techs similar to how Battle-Hardened was designed, but for unskilled Active Defense instead?

>>15712255
No, see, my entire point with the generic active defense is that it takes whatever your passive defense would be -- *including* improvements from stuff like Battle-Hardened -- and boosts it by a small margin. Enough to make active defense more likely to stop attacks than passive, but not enough to invalidate the usefulness of skill-based active defense.
So let's say you're a heavy with 4P/1W/2C and 4 Physical, and you took Battle-Hardened twice. Your passive defense would be 6k4 (4k2 + 2k2 from Battle-Hardened). You can't use shield defense at all, because you can't use a shield with your two-handed |heavy| weapon, and you can't use |acrobatics| because the penalty from your heavy armor reduces your kept dice below zero (4k1 - 2k2 = 2k-1). But you can take a basic active defense action, which uses whatever your passive defense would be and adds +1k0 -- in this case, your active defense would be 7k4 (4k2 base passive defense + 2k2 Battle-Hardened + 1k0 for basic active defense).

However, if you're not using both heavy armor and a |heavy| weapon, you're much better off investing in |acrobatics|, |shield|, or the parry tech, since these are far more XP-efficient for the bonuses they give to your active defense rolls, and give you extra bonuses besides.

>>15712564
I think if we allow for unskilled Active Defense, it will already have a benefit over passive defense, even though they would use the same dice roll. The benefit would be allowing for movement, which is now part of active defense, and the avoidance of opportunity attacks. That's probably enough, since somebody without any active defense skills is focused almost wholly on murdering things with 2-handed weapons AND shrugging off damage with armor.

I really don't see a problem with that concept as-is, and I don't think it warrants making more changes than we already are.

>>15712691
So what changes should we make? Should we drop the techniques that improve Passive Defense, or make them count for unskilled active defense as well?

>>15712691
The problem I have with this entire thing is more a case of not being able to play as a Darknut.
I don't care if you've got 6 Power and 6 Physical, you still can't wield a shield with that |Heavy| sword.

This thing is still based on the games, right?

Someone should compile all of the artwork

>>15712872
I think it has been.

http://www.sendspace.com/file/xc0at7

>>15712806
I would say that an unskilled active defense uses the same roll as your passive defense, whatever that roll may be due to increases from techs or whatever. Active defense should never be lower than passive, and this accomplishes that pretty easily.

>>15712813
I've been thinking about this, actually. In order to accomplish this, weapons could be given a rating of some kind denoting the strength required to wield them. It could be based on Mass, Physical, Power, or some combination of those. Each weapon has 2 numbers. The first number is the required score to wield the weapon 2-handed, and the second number is the score need to wield the weapon with 1-handed. It's a pretty big overhaul of the weapon descriptions and rules, but it would allow for such a character without making them commonplace. Balance is still, of course, an issue once you achieve that level of absurd strength, but perhaps there's a compromise in there somewhere.

Perhaps a very advanced tech to allow for such a thing? The requirements would be considerable, as would the cost. Perhaps there is a downside to this? Penalties to attack and defense (maybe speed also?) when trying to wield a 2-hander with one hand, but not so much that it's not worth it?

>>15712978
We could try and use the Wind Waker for reference, since Link gets his hands on all sorts of weaponry in that game. If that were the case, would he treat those weapons as Heavy? They all functioned similarly to the Skull Hammer in that game.

An easy (but unsatisfactory) way to do it would have it based on size: a Small character would have trouble wielding one of the Bokoblin's machetes one-handed, but could manage it two handed. The problem comes up for things like the Darknut's sword, which most Medium character would consider a Heavy weapon at the least.

Maybe there's a way to combine the two ideas?

>>15713076
Yeah, those would be heavy weapons. They were enormous.

My original idea for working this out was to use Mass or Mass Categories to determine ability/ease of wielding weapons, with only the largest being able to wield a 2-handed weapon with one hand. But that makes it almost exclusively the purview of Gorons or characters with magic items that artificially increase their Mass for that purpose.

I think the best way to work it would be with a tech, something with a fairly high requirement and a balancing, but acceptable, drawback to doing so. I think this would be the easiest way to implement and balance wielding 2-handed weapons 1-handed.

>>15713521
With regard to limiting use of 2-handed weapons by Small characters, this makes sense to me. 2-handers are just too big to be effectively wielded by a Korok or Deku Scrub. However, I would allow for their use with a tech similar to that which allows Medium and larger creatures to wield 2-handed weapons with one hand.

Other thoughts on this?

Alright, going to edit the wiki a bit. I plan on

-putting races into common/uncommon categories
-adding Scale mechanics
-Adding opportunity attacks/half-speed active defense movement thing
-Removing alchemy and smithing from the skill list
Any objections to these changes? I may go through the archives and see what else we missed.

I'd add the monsters statblocks, but I don't know if I should put it in separately from the list already made.

>>15712932
I can agree to this.

>>15713609
I don't think we need to get quite so in-depth in terms of weapon sizes and such. If this was a more realistic game it might be useful to restrict the little guys like Koroks and Deku scrubs from wielding really big weapons, but considering the lighthearted and somewhat cartoony atmosphere of the source material and the fact that we're trying to keep this system relatively lightweight, such restrictions strike me as being neither appropriate nor necessary. Especially considering that we'd need to come up with some benefit to give to the little guys to balance the fact that we took away their ability to wield high-damage weapons -- it just piles complexity on top of complexity.

I'd say just make a (fairly advanced) tech under the |heavy| skill to allow heavy weapons to be used one-handed, probably with penalty to attack. Something like:

>Darknut's Might (Passive)
>Requirements: |Heavy| 5, Physical 4, Power 3
>XP cost: 6
>You may wield |heavy| weapons one-handed, allowing you to leave your other hand free for other uses, such as a shield. However, when wielding a heavy weapon in this way, you take a -1k1 penalty to all attack rolls made with that weapon.

We could maybe also restrict this only to particular weapons. At any rate, I think relating it to character size is a bit too much. In terms of strict realism it should logically be a factor, but in this instance I think simplicity trumps realism.

>>15713800
I'm not sure that the common/uncommon distinction is necessary. Available races should be determined by the DM based on the campaign being run, and knowing what races are common or uncommon seems like something we don't really need to include in the description. We don't want to create ideas about some kind of key mechanical difference between these categories.

I haven't looked over the Scale mechanics much yet, so I don't know about those.

For the monster statblocks, for the time being they should be added to the GM section separately from the tables already there. Until we get a full conversion to the newer format, the large tables will serve as a useful guideline.

Just to make sure on opportunity attacks, here's an overview:
>Opportunity attacks are an immediate action, the same kind of actions used for counter attacks and interrupting actions
>You get one immediate action per turn, though techs may allow for more
>Opportunity attacks are provoked by leaving a space adjacent to an enemy, using a ranged attack while adjacent to an enemy, an possibly other actions
>Active Defense will include that as part of the action you may move 1/2 you speed, and that your speed is reduced to 1/2 for the rest of your current turn.
>You can use an unskilled Active Defense action using your Passive Defense roll, as modified by any techs you may have.

Is that all correct? That's where we agree on the opportunity attacks?

>>15713877
I can agree to that. With regard to the tech, I would like to see a Power 4 requirement rather than 3, and have the -1k1 penalty apply to defense rolls as well, because you are off-balanced. This means that you using a shield won't be as good as somebody else with a shield, per se, but it won't be too far off.

Beyond that, it seems fine.

On the scale system, I don't see a need to distinguish between Medium and Small. Also, if we employ the scale system, we should make sure there's no overlap with names in the mass categories to avoid confusion.

>>15714104
See
>>15685110

Scaling? Really? Where is scaling in the games? I thought this was supposed to be a Legend of Zelda rpg, not another /tg/ rpg with Legend of Zelda names on things. Having creature scales and attacks of opportunities just seems to be turning the game into D&D, to me.

>>15714170
Hate to say it, but this is both ignorant and unhelpful. We've been over this already. Scales are important because you need to know how much space something takes up on the grid, and opportunity attacks are key for grid-based combat scenarios. Nearly every single PnP RPG has them, not just D&D.

>>15714139
Ah, thanks, that does make sense.

Ok, going through the lists, all I've added are the monsters and cut out the crafting skills so far. I wanted to bring up the loot table- it looks like a nightmare to use in play.

I keep seeing a simpler table posted in the archives
>1-2: Nothing
>3: Rupees (1/5/10/20)
>4: Ammunition
>5: Hearts (1/1/3/3)
>6: Magic Jar (2MP/2MP/6MP/6MP)

Why aren't we using this?

>>15714285
This is okay for a basic principle, sure. I'm actually working on an overhaul for the loot drops mechanics, but I've been busy lately. I'll try to post my suggestion in the next few days.

>>15714170
Not this person, but I agree. This seems to be turning into something extravagant and bloated. You're probably going to say that's unhelpful, but I think the game could run fine without so many rules to factor in.

>>15714378
I'm really not sure what people are comparing this system to in order to call it "bloated" or "complicated". I have the most experience with D&D, World of Darkness, and Dark Heresy. By those standards, our little system is nowhere near the baseline for complexity. WoD is the simplest of those, and ours is probably going to wind up along the same scale, probably a little lighter. The problem with being overly minimalist is that you have an incomplete system unable to handle dynamic situations. That's why we added attributes/virtues to monsters. It's more work on our part, but it creates a more dynamic system that is prepared for a wider range of situations. The system has to be functional and able to handle scaling and additions at later stages (i.e. more races, items, equipment, techs, etc.). We want a system that is simple, but able to grow and adapt to incorporate more character options. This requires a strong baseline, which unfortunately demands a certain minimum level of complexity.

>>15714170
>>15714378
Why don't you post some suggestions then? The reason it's being "bloated" is because the people working on it are trying to accomidate each other with new rules.

>>15714170
>>15714378

Opportunity attacks as we've hashed them out to be are nowhere near as complex as you see in D&D, and (as stated before) are fairly essential for having any degree of tactics in grid-based combat. And the LoZ games are tremendously tactical -- you certainly can't just go running around all willy-nilly. The opportunity attacks are an abstraction of how your movement is limited by the positioning of your enemies, which is absolutely true in the video games.

As for the complaints about scaling...
>Ginormous bosses e'rrywhere
>Mounted combat in Twilight Princess (and didn't OoT have some too? I don't remember.)
>Minish Cap

I agree with the Friendly DM that we can probably do away with the small/medium distinction lifted from D&D, but the principle of a scaling system in general is perfectly suited to a LoZ game, or indeed any game in which you'll run into things that aren't roughly the same size as the PCs.

I remember about two or three threads ago some one said that they were working on a duneon, and was going to post it.
What ever happend to that?

>>15714534
Actually, I changed my mind on the Small & Medium issue. While they do take up the same space by default the difference is large enough to be considered for other purposes. See >>15685110.

>>15714953
Ah, yes, I suppose that is a good point when you shrink down to Minish scale.

Okay, so we've got opportunity attacks and scaling down. What's next?

Did we decide to go ahead and modify both target number and number of successes needed for advanced all-or-nothing spells? I'm in support of this idea, since changing only one or the other doesn't give us the scaling we want to achieve.

>>15714897
I was, it was just going to be a remix of the Eagle dungeon from the first game. Nothing fancy. I didn't get too far, but I can keep going if desired. Or I can try and work on a proper starter dungeon.

>>15714488
>The reason it's being "bloated" is because the people working on it are trying to accomidate each other with new rules.

That seems like the main problem. The game system is losing focus as more and more rules spin out of each other and more and more people try to work what they want into it.

A good system is one that aids the flow of the game and allows the GM and players to highlight what's important. This seems like it's becoming an exercise in working everyone's ideal rules into one product. Too many cooks, etc.

My two Rupees.

>>15714170

How about OoT?

Young Link can't use any of the items meant for Adult Link.

There's an example of scaling in the Zelda games right there.

>>15715429
Really, the only significant new element added within the past month of work is the opportunity attacks. Everything else has just been filling in the framework that was laid out really early on. Skimming over the past 5 threads, the vast majority of the work done so far has been drafting up techs, spells, and songs, with the occasional solidification of mechanics (such as magic and special movement modes -- jumping, swimming, climbing, etc) that were already there previously, but in an incomplete, murky, and ill-defined form.

It's basically just people seeing "opportunity attacks" and immediately thinking, "what? D&D? BLASPHEMY!" without bothering to notice that our opportunity attack system is absurdly simple compared to D&D. Whereas in D&D there's a whole slew of things that provoke, here we have just two things: movement (because that's the whole point of the mechanic), and ranged attacks (because ranged weaponry needed a nerf). That's it. One simple mechanic like that hardly amounts to a quagmire of bloat.

It could also just be the fact that the system is solidifying into a more concrete form, rather than being a vague framework that your imagination fills in with foggy notions of a beautiful dream system. It's easy to look at the early stages of a project and imagine it will be something wonderful without really working out the specifics of how this ideal finished form would actually work, and when you actually get down to the nitty-gritty details, it starts to become a lot more mundane and disappointing simply because it has moved from the realm of fantasy to reality.

>>15716164
>Whereas in D&D there's a whole slew of things that provoke, here we have just two things: movement (because that's the whole point of the mechanic), and ranged attacks (because ranged weaponry needed a nerf). That's it.

Oh, like in 4E? Because that's how it works in 4E. D&D.

3.5 wasn't the only edition.

>Sage because I'm not actually contributing :( Keep up the good work on this.

I'm working on the dungeon (which is shaping up to be a combination of the Eagle labyrinth and a tutorial dungeon) when I realized I forgot to post these monsters somehow.

Red or Green Chuchu (Slime) (Medium)
Life: 2, Mass: 4, Speed: 3 (Jump 3)
Attack: Tackle (Range 1, 3k3 1/2H)
Defense: Passive 2k2, Active (See Puddle)
Special: Slime Properties: (See below)
P2/M1/S1
P1/W1/C2

Zol (Slime) (Small)
Life: 1, Mass: 2, Speed: 2 (Jump 4)
Attack: Tackle (Range 1, 3k3 1/4H)
Defense: Passive 2k2, Active (See Puddle)
Special: Slime Properties: (See below)
-Split: When killed, the Zol splits into two Gels in the Zol's former space. The Zol doesn't split if the killing blow brought it to -1H.
P1/M1/S1
P1/W2/C1

Gel (Slime) (Tiny)
Life: 1/4, Mass: 1, Speed: 1 (Jump 4)
Attack: Cling (Range 0, 3k3, Cling
Defense: Passive 2k2, Active (See Puddle)
Special: Slime Properties: (See below)
-Cling: On a hit, the Gel sticks to the target, occupying its space. The target takes both a -1k0 penalty to all rolls, -1 speed, and +1 Mass for every 2 Gels attached. The Gel remains attached until killed, submerged in water, or grappled off.
P1/M1/S1
P1/W2/C1

>Slime Properties
>>Amorphous: Slimes cannot be knocked prone. They can also squeeze through tight spaces without penalty and as if they were 3 sizes smaller than their actual size.
>>Puddle: Single Action - The slime sinks into the ground. While puddled, the slime cannot take actions or be attacked. The slime automatically unpuddles at the beginning of it's next turn and cannot puddle again until it's next turn after. If Dazed while puddled, the slime immediately unpuddles. 
>>Jelly Constitution: If an Explosive or Pounding attack occurs within 5 spaces of a slime, the slime becomes Dazed.

>>15716223
Well, 3.5's the one I usually hear complaints about regarding the AoO system, so I assumed that's what's given people a bad taste in their mouths regarding AoOs. Sue me.

>>15716408
Whoops, should have included (Spoils: Chu Jelly) after the Virtue line.

After this, its reworking the Low threat monsters, and I'm having to make some judgements on what elements of certain creatures to keep or drop. Another issue is weaknesses; for some monsters, like Peahats, there are a ton of ways to defeat them that vary by game (Wind Waker has the most, I think.) Should every possible method of defeat be listed in the statblock, or maybe included in a short table below the monster?

I also would like to expand (or reduce, since the last two categories were added by someone else and left blank) the levels of monsters from 4 to 5, and possibly increase the range of accuracy rolls (I made them without realizing a maximized roll would be 9k9.) 

>>15716468
Keep on truckin', TCN, you're doing a great job.

For the Peahats, I'd say just pick two or three of the more iconic ways of beating them and ignore the rest.

>>15716555
Thank you! Have some sketches.
http://i.imgur.com/iQjdV.jpg

(If anyone is good at drawing slime or spider legs, that could be helpful for this project.)

Session 2 of my playtest campaign is complete! Here's an overview:

>Party heads through forest, spooky music plays, creating mists in which the party is lost
>A series of Perception checks represent attempts to navigate through magical mists, with failed rounds resulting in brief combat with 1-3 enemies. I decided the party would have to get 7 successes in total to find the source of the music with a single check for each character, representing about 10 minutes of navigation.
>Fight with skull kid who plays pan pipes, creates illusions. When he is beaten, he drops a piece of heart and his pipes have the Melody of Mists inscribed on them (I posted it previously, will add to wiki later).
>Head out of forest, come to town occupied by army of Nargon, nation that used to include this section of what is now Hyrule, and they want it back.
>Couple side-quests, now party headed to nearby Gerudo fortress to look for the daughter of the occupied town's mayor.

Some issues that arose:
>Most recent character sheet is not well received. Not enough spaces on lines and skills area doesn't account for a single skill using different Virtues depending on what you do with it (Sway, Magic)
>Still need solid rules for scavenging (breaking pots/rocks, cutting grass, etc.)

Also, when did Freeze change to freezing an enemy for 2 rounds instead of 1? That's a bit extreme, since most of our combats have been 2-5 rounds tops so far. Removing somebody from play for that long is just too much for a basic spell. And the duration was modified as well. When/why did those changes happen?

Still need conventions for making bosses.

>>15717114
Also, tested opportunity attacks and Active Defense changes. Working fine.

Another issue that somebody brought up was the possibility of an Aim action for ranged weapons. I think this would work well as a tech, taking 1 action to aim for a bonus on your next shot.

With regards to the character sheet, it has been suggested that we make the sheet 2-sided, so there's room to include everything adequately without shrinking what's there already, allowing room to write enough.

>>15717155
which character sheet are you using?

>>15717114
>Most recent character sheet is not well received.
which one is it? post pic

>>15717114
Ah, sorry, I'm the one who changed Freeze. Just 1 round struck me as being too weak compared to the other spells, considering that it isn't a guaranteed thing, but if 2 rounds is turning out to be too much then feel free to change it back.

>>15717249
M'kay. Yeah, it is a bit much, and can already be augmented with Charge Spell. No biggie, but I'm always in favor of discussion or heads-up before changing the wiki.

I am using this sheet. Though Captcha says I should "Use idirso".

So what was decided on for |Heavy| using characters to avoid AoOs? A generic Active Defense bonus, or have we not concluded that yet?

>>15717249
always propose changes in the thread first along with an argument for why it should be changed. I almost lost my shit when I saw that someone had added |Smithing| as a skill without there being any discussion in the threads about adding it, especially since in the earlier threads when it was discussed it was pretty well decided against.

>>15717375
Active Defense can be used without a skill using your Passive Defense roll, which may or may not be boosted by a technique. An unskilled Active Defense action has the benefit of including movement and avoiding opportunity attacks.

Late night bump.

Also, area attacks: how do they work, and would the Spin Attack work as one?

>>15718587
The wiki has no information on what Area X means, so that makes bombs even more confusing.

Presumably a spin attack would be an Area attack tech as well.

>>15718587
Spin attack would be one, and I think all area attacks should work on the Group Opposed rules described in the Magic section. We should probably move those rules elsewhere so it's clear they apply to more than just magic.

Here's my proposal for the Aim tech I mentioned earlier:

Take Aim (Active)
Requirements: Ranged 3
XP Cost: 2
Action: Single+
You focus your aim to gain a bonus to your next attack with a ranged weapon. You may spend a number of actions on this technique equal to your ranks in Ranged. For the 1st, 3rd, and 5th action spent this way, you gain +1k0 to your attack. For the 2nd, 4th, and 6th action spent, you gain +0k1 to your attack. You must designate a target for your aim, and the target must remain in line of sight for the entire duration of your aim. If you switch targets or the target moves out of your line of sight, you have to start over. If you take any action other than making a Ranged attack after taking actions to aim, your aim is wasted.

Thoughts? It might be a bit much for a simple tech, but I wanted to give it some amount of scaling, since taking aim is a fairly integral part of ranged combat (though one not often given attention in RPGs).

>>15720430
Seems fine to me.

>>15718587
What if an area attack was just a single attack roll from the attacker, and every target of the attack rolled defense against that attack roll?

>>15720430
I don't think it's overpowered at all. The tech doesn't have much in prereqs, but is heavy in action cost, so I think it's fine.

Some more thoughts occurred though:
What happens if you're attacked while you're aiming? I would assume that it fails and you must start over, but I just thought it should be explicitly stated.
I was also thinking about OAs. We've decided to make ranged attacks provoke, but what does that mean? Does the archer fire an arrow and then provoke? Or does he provoke before the arrow is fired and get interrupted/get a penalty to the attack?

>>15721633
That seems a lot easier than what we currently have, which I think was focused too much on trying to make it unopposed.

>>15720430
It sounds good to me, although I would cap it at 2 actions (1 round) of aiming just for simplicity's sake. Not to mention 3 rounds of aiming for a 4k4+3k3 bonus (7 possible successes after 3 rounds) is less helpful than 3 attacks with a 4k4 +1k1 bonus (15 possible successes after 3 rounds.)

>>15721757
I don't think that a cap like that is necessary. Sometimes a lot of successes at once is more useful that spread over a lot of attacks. Suppose you get the jump on an opponent and get to take only a single round to line up your shot. Then you'll be wishing you could spend more time aiming.

>>15721787
True.

What does everyone think of the idea of >>15721633 ? Can we use this instead of what we already have?

>>15721857
I don't think that's as simple as it sounds. You would have to make your opposed roll and line it up against every single opponent in the range. I would say it's less complicated in theory, but in practice it would take just as much or more time.

>>15721857

The problem with each defender rolling directly against the attacker for an area effect is that you have to do the linear comparison for each individual defender, which could get very tedious and slow down gameplay significantly. The whole point of the system currently on the wiki is to avoid this snag by making the rolls go against target numbers rather than an array that will vary for each individual. It raises the learning curve of the system, but allows for smoother combat.

At least that's the idea. We should probably playtest the two different methods and see if the group opposed check actually streamlines the resolution of area attacks enough to justify the added complexity in the rules. If direct opposition is actually reasonably quick, then there's no sense in having the additional mechanic.

>>15722024
Ok, did some impromptu playtesting to see how they compare.

A hero with a 1/2H sword  and a 4k4 Melee roll is surrounded by 3 bokoblins, each passively defending with a 3k3 defense roll. The hero makes a spin attack.

>Roll attack once
The hero rolls 6,6,4,1 (one unopposed die)
Bokoblin 1 rolls 6,4,3 (1 success, 1+1/2H damage)
Bokoblin 2 rolls 6,6,3 (2 successes, 1H damage)
Bokoblin 3 rolls 6,3,2 (1 success, 1+1/2H damage)

>Group opposed (done to the best of my understanding)
Hero rolls 6,5,5,4 (4 successes, success threshold is 4, base damage 2H)
Bokoblin 1 rolls 6,5,2 (2 successes, 1H damage)
Bokoblin 2 rolls 4,2,2 (1 success, 1+1/2H damage)
Bokoblin 3 rolls 3,1,2 (0 successes, 2H damage, Bokoblin is slain)

Both methods work the same way with the same number of dice rolled for everyone involved in the attack. However, the first method is much easier to understand and is consistent with normal attack rolls, and the second method is a more complicated way to produce the same effect.

>>15722754
What you did is make the two systems equally tedious by writing them out. When you're actually doing this in a game session, it will be easier to make a threshold and roll against it rather than comparing each number of each opponent separately. The method we have on the wiki is much more stream-lined, even if a bit more complicated.

>>15723028
Is it, really? Isn't it more tedious for the attacker to calculate the base damage for the attack and the success threshold? It's much simpler just to line up dice and compare them, and it's not vastly different from what we're using for regular attack rolls, unlike the group one.

>>15723107
>Isn't it more tedious for the attacker to calculate the base damage for the attack and the success threshold?
It is slightly more tedious for the attacker. What about the alternative? It is drastically more time consuming and tedious for the defenders to use linear comparison, especially so if it's all being done by the same person (like a DM doing all the mobs).

I keep making this point over and over: this method -is- slightly more complicated, but the gains in time saved from lack of tediousness outweigh the added complexity.

>>15722754
By "playtest", I really meant run it by a group in an actual test campaign like what Friendly Neighborhood DM is doing, not an ad hoc isolated concept test. We really need to see how the two different systems play out in an actual game.

>>15723107
>Isn't it more tedious for the attacker to calculate the base damage for the attack and the success threshold?
Saying that the attacker calculates base damage is really more rulespeak than anything -- in the end, the defenders are taking one increment of damage for each failure on their defense roll, and extra dice in the attacker's roll count as automatic failures for the defender. That much is essentially the same as in a directly opposed check; it just can't really be expressed the same way because neither party can have direct successes or failures over the other.
As for determining the success threshold, the attacker is essentially doing that anyway in an opposed check too -- it's just more streamlined to generate a single, universal threshold rather than using the linear comparison.

The real key difference here is that with the group opposed check, you don't need to put the dice in order from highest to lowest like you do for a directly opposed check. This difference might not be very significant if you're only going against 2 or 3 defenders, but it adds up when you get more targets involved. Imagine a mage dropping Din's Fire or some other spell with a fairly wide area of effect -- do you really want to be lining up dice for a dozen different combatants, or would you rather just roll the dice and say "ok, this guy got three dice greater than or equal to N"?

The latter option definitely strikes me as the one that would make for swifter gameplay.

>>15723275
Listen to this anon, he's better at arguments than I am.

>>15723275
Then why are we using linear comparison in the first place, if the second method is more streamlined?

>>15723363
Because it's just that slight bit more complicated. The effects of avoiding tediousness only come into effect with the addition of multiple opponents in a single attack.

>>15723363
As Tech-Point Gent noted, the difference is only significant when you're working with large groups.

Also, linear comparison makes for more interesting and dynamic outcomes in one-on-one contests, since there's more variance of results. With the group opposed check, an attack roll of 5,5,4,3 is no different from 6,5,4,1; however, those two will most likely have very different results if you use linear comparison.

>>15723363
Linear comparison is our core mechanic, and we like how it functions. The need for the exception comes when attacking many opponents at once, a situation that is fairly uncommon (I think). The group opposed system is too complex for one-on-one attacks, but linear comparison doesn't scale to multiple targets well, so we have the group opposed roll for that situation.

Really, neither is appropriate/practical for both situations. If we had a single die-roll for things like in the d20 system, a single mechanic would be fine (such as saving throws against a set DC, or attacks against many opponent's set defenses), but because there are multiple dice involved in every single roll, and those dice are most often opposed, we have to work things a bit differently.

It's true, the group opposed roll is more complex than we probably wanted, but after considering the other options that were suggested around the same time, it really is the easiest option to work with, and the examples on the wiki make it much easier to understand.

>>15721787
Cool, I guess I'll go ahead and post it to the wiki. I've got a few more tech ideas based on opportunity attacks I'll post later.

So, I'm going through our Techniques section on the wiki and cleaning it up a bit, making formatting uniform. Added more description to Rito Flight, removed the bit in Dual Wield about avoiding penalties for attacking with both weapons (since we don't have penalties right now), changed Sneak Attack to Passive, because Active as a free action didn't make sense.

I noticed something about Low Blow. It's listed as an active tech requiring a single action, but has absolutely no downside and just ignores armor reduction. That mechanically very nearly identical to having it just be a passive tech, with the exception that as-is it cannot be combined with other active techniques. I think that's fine, but I wanted to know if that was the intention.

>>15723913
Also throwing in the new Immediate Action where appropriate, such as Intercept and Guard and Attack.

Also, our Heavy tech section could still use a once-over. Lots of effects that enemies get no defense against whatsoever, which isn't fitting with everything else we've got.

For Mortal Draw, I would like to see something closer to what TCN suggested put in (>>15705550). Same with Back Slice. For Helm Splitter, it should remain an armor-piercing technique, as proposed previous to TCN's version, but I do like the immediate action use.

Thoughts on these techs? They certainly need some refining, but I like what we have to work with.

>>15723913

Oh, that - I made Low Blow just so the Sheikah racial trait of using Unarmed techniques with Thrown stuff did something.
The concept and mechanics are iffy and the racial ability no longer exists, so feel free to delete that technique.
___

Still working on the dungeon side of things, since I'd sure need a good framework in place to plan and run a halfway interesting dungeon without screwing up.

Oh, I did come up with an acronym which describes most Zelda puzzles:
Action (at)
Place (for)
Effect.

...Not that mind-blowing, but A.P.E. makes me think about puzzle design a bit better.

>>15723913
I notice on Low Blow that it requires Brawler. Does that mean you have to be unarmed to use it?
My only reasoning that it would be an active technique is so that you can't use another technique at the same time and avoid armor on it.

Here's my version of Helm Splitter from thread 16:

Helm Splitter (Active)
Prerequisites: |Melee| or |Heavy| 3, |Acrobatics| 3
XP Cost: 4
Actions: 2
If an enemy is wearing medium or heavy armor, the attacker may make an attack against the armored enemy that ignores their armor bonuses. The attacker must be within 1 square of the enemy. The attacker then makes an acrobatics check to jump over the enemy (difficulty 4, variable successes depending on target's size). If successful, the attacker may make a single |melee| of |heavy| attack against the enemy with no armor reduction. Heavy weapon attacks will still need to recover after the attack. The attacker will land on the square opposite of where he started. If the acrobatics check is failed, the attacker falls to the square he started from and is prone.

I had originally made it usable for |Heavy| but now I think it should be restricted only to |Melee|. Of course if it is to be revamped as an immediate action tech, it will need some changes.

>>15724021
>Also, our Heavy tech section could still use a once-over. Lots of effects that enemies get no defense against whatsoever, which isn't fitting with everything else we've got.
I see...three that need work.
>Brutal Strike
Probably make the knockback contingent on getting a certain number of successes on the attack.
>Staggering Blow
Seems fine to me, since it takes a double action to use and they can avoid it entirely if they get a good roll with a non-shield defense. If we still think it needs balancing work, I'd rather add an additional cost (perhaps an MP cost and/or additional action loss, like we have for Rubble Spray) rather than give the enemy a chance to avoid it. I can't think of any way to give enemies a way out that would make sense with the tech.
>Earthshaker
This one should probably be done using an area-effect check.

And speaking of area-effect checks, Rubble Spray should probably be updated to use that mechanic as well.

>>15724474
I'm actually alright with the knockback on Brutal Strike. Pushing around doesn't seem like too much of an overpowered thing, long as it's contingent on dealing damage with the attack in the first place. I was more concerned with Earthshaker and Rubble Spray, which I agree should involve a group opposed check. Staggering Blow seems a little complicated to me, could maybe do with a couple fewer conditionals, but maybe that's just me. Is the Staggering quality really common enough to warrant being a quality on attacks, or should it just be this technique? I'm not sure how many monsters use it.

>>15724454
I'm not actually sure if I prefer the tech as a double action or an immediate. Was it used in reaction to something in TP, or just something you could do? I don't specifically recall.

I like the idea of Low Blow, but I'm not sure if it should be restricted to Unarmed attacks. Could be renamed and revamped as a different armor-bypassing tech, more about striking weak points, and yes I think it should remain an active tech to avoid use with other active techs.

Another thing that came up in my last session was the Charge rules we have right now. They seem off. It's basically traditional Charge plus traditional Bull Rush, but limited to doing both at once, reducing the effectiveness. Charge should allow an attack OR a Shove maneuver at the end, and Shove should be its own action able to be used outside a charge.

If we change that, should we allow active techs to be used at the end of a charge? It seems cool, using Lunging Strike or Low Blow at the end of a charge. I can't think of how it would be terribly unbalanced, but I might just not be seeing it.

>>15725867
Monsters that use Staggering are the dangerous ones like Darknuts and Iron Knuckles.
I think it was based on the Iron Knuckles ability to hit you while you defend with a shield.

And yeah, shoving people around is the reason we even HAVE the Mass system.

>>15725867
In TP helm splitter was a tech you could use under specific circumstances. With some armored enemies it was enough just to be within close range, but with others like darknuts, they must be shield bashed first. It was never really a reactionary tech.

About charge, if it's not tied to an attack at the end, then that would just make it a move with special properties, which isn't necessarily bad. I suppose we could have the 'charge' move action, and then have certain actions (attack, shove, maybe grapple?) and select techniques able to be tied to the end of it.

I also agree about using the group opposed check on Rubble Spray and Earthshaker.

>>15725867
>Staggering Blow
The Staggering quality was something that was thought up way back when as a way to reflect the way heavy hits (from Darknuts and the like) work in the video games -- if you block with your shield, you reel a little bit, but if you get hit directly you get sent flying. I don't expect it would be a terribly common effect, but I think it probably should be kept as a keyword (though probably with the explanation left in as much as possible).

>Helm Splitter
In TP, you'd start with a Shield Bash to knock the enemy off balance, then follow up with Helm Splitter. It was a combo move, not really a reactive thing like the Back Slice. Though I believe a similar maneuver may have been available in WW as a form of counterattack...

>Charging
The issue with allowing attacks as part of the basic charge is that we're missing the main balancing factor used for that in D&D: iterative attacks. In D&D, you generally can't make a full attack on a charge, which is a big deal, but we don't have any such thing in this system. Allowing attacks on a charge means you get to move double your speed and attack, effectively getting three actions for the price of two. The only drawback is that you have to move in a straight line, which is really not enough to balance the action economy you're getting.

I think it's fine as long as you're not specifically referencing D&D. And it effectively does work like it does in D&D anyway if you buy the Charge Attack tech (which apparently never made it to the wiki...oops) -- and restricting the attack to a tech helps to balance it.
If I were to change anything about the current charge action, it would be to make the damage a flat 1/2h or so rather than a scaling amount, but I'd leave the basic charge as a push, not an attack.
However, I would be fine with adding a "shove" action that can be done without a charge.

I have a minor issue with Deku Sticks. In-game, they're at least twice as strong as the Kokori Sword, but they've been archived as the opposite. I want my Kokori to be a Deku Stick Artisan. :C

>>15726272
This is, of course, referring to 3.X charging, btw. 4e charging isn't different enough from simply moving and attacking to warrant comparison in our system (the bonus on the attack is too small to be properly converted to the roll & keep dice system, as adding +1k0 to our dice system is much more significant than +1 on a roll of 1d20).

>>15726603
The downside of charging should be penalties to defense until the start of your next turn, and the risk of provoking opportunity attacks on your way. I think it would be fine to limit your possible actions at the end of a charge to a basic attack, a shove, or maybe a grapple, but I still like the idea of allowing single-action attack techs. Leaving it open-ended makes it more versatile.

In our system, I don't think there should be a bonus to rolls at the end of a charge. It doesn't fit very well without being too much. The big benefit would be the ability to combine a move with an attack action.

If we take this route, there are also the two options of distance/action with a charge. Should it be a double action for double movement, as is quite common, or a single action for standard movement, as used by 4E? I'm a fan of the latter option, because it makes charging more usable, but I'd be open to either option.

In summary: I think Charge should allow for a single-action attack/grab/tech at the end, with a -1k1 (or something) penalty to defense until the start of your next turn.

>>15727598
Double action for double movement definitely seems like the better choice, since with our action system a single action for single move + attack would be ludicrously broken, unless we included a disclaimer as in 4e that you can't do anything after making a charge attack...which is probably a step too much complexity for our needs. Double action for double movement would be fine, and I don't think we really need to be stressing too much over making charging something that people will want to do frequently beyond the issue of simply closing a large gap. If they're within range of normal movement, just move over to them. Plus making it a double action means that the defense penalty is a more meaningful balancing factor, since you can't ready defense and then charge. We could of course specify that you can't ready active defense and charge in the same round, but again...unnecessary rules. Just KISS and go with the double action.

Though frankly, I'm still not sold on the idea of charge attacks as part of the basic system to begin with. It just doesn't seem like a good fit for a LoZ game -- charge attacking isn't really something you see very often in the video games, barring special cases like the Pegasus Boots. I suppose I wouldn't have too much of a problem with it if the overall consensus is that it should be put in, assuming it was properly balanced, but for now I'm leaning toward keeping attacks as an optional addition to the charge action accessed by taking a tech rather than a part of the basic combat options.

>>15726523
An interesting point, but I don't think that holds up very well logically. You could always try for an enchanted Deku Stick that has a higher damage increment or something. Also, it was 2-handed, so that might account for increased damage.

>>15727894
Agreed on double action for double movement.

I do assert that it's best to have charge incorporate an attack/grab/tech/shove as default. Otherwise, what's the point of the charge, really? And while it's not used much in the video games, charging is a pretty basic tabletop mechanic and a basic action in combat in general. Another example of stuff that doesn't fit into a video game well, but should probably be included in a PnP RPG.

>>15727894
I agree with anon here on both points. The charge should be a double action - double move and no active defense. Tying an attack to the end of the charge should be a technique. Not a really expensive tech (probably a |Melee| or |Heavy| 2, 2 XP), but not everyone should have the option to do so. I have no problem with shove and grapple being able to be used as a default. Other techniques I think should specify if they are able to be used at the end of a charge.

>>15728181
But then what would a charge actually -do-? Throwing it in with a shove seems odd, and shoving should be something you can do without a charge, so tying them together is limiting on that case. I guess if we really think allowing attacks at the end of a charge should be limited to a tech, then charging at all should be limited to a tech. I personally feel it would be enough to say that a charge action allows only a basic attack at the end, but other kinds of actions might be allowed with a tech, such as a tech that allows charge + grab, or charge + shove.

>>15728411
I'm not opposed to having an attack at the end of a charge as long as there's a defense penalty for doing so. Other techniques, however, should have some sort of additional restriction.

>>15728411
As it stands now, charging is a way to close the distance between yourself and the opponent, dealing a modest amount of damage and getting an improved shove in the process. There's your reason for a charge right there.

And if we're making anything charge-based restricted to techs, it definitely shouldn't be shoving. Using a weapon in any way takes at least a little bit of skill, but anyone can run into somebody and make them move by sheer force of momentum. Plus the shoving charge is significantly less of a powerful option than a charge attack, so it's backwards from a balance standpoint.

If you step back from the D&D tradition of "charge = charge attack", it's really not that big a deal. And even though, yes, it doesn't quite make sense that you'd need special training to attack as part of a charge, the same could be said for much of our system. I recall a debate in one of the earlier threads about how parrying should be an integral part of the |melee| skill rather than something you need a tech for, which highlighted the facts that (1) the basic options do not represent the entirety of your training in a given field (which is not inherently a bad thing), and (2) realism can be breached for the sake of game balance.

However, on the subject of game balance, it strikes me that charge attacks might be a good idea to help melee characters keep up with archers. As was pointed out during the AoO discussion, ranged weapons have roughly the same damage output as melee weapons, so an archer would have a distinct advantage over melee fighters in any fight where you don't start out in melee range, since the archer can start firing away while the melee combatants are still closing the difference. A charge attack would help to mitigate this difference by helping melee combatants get in and deal damage more quickly, minimizing the head start the archers have on damage output.

>>15728797
Okay. I'm not actually sure if there was an argument there, or if it was just informative/perspective. But thank you.

>>15728713
Agreed.

Okay, so how do we feel about the following for dealing with charge:
>Charge is a double action
>You move up to double your speed in a straight line toward an enemy, and make a basic attack against your target. No bonuses.
>You take a -1k1 penalty to defenses until the start of your next turn after making a charge.
>Additional actions at the end of a charge are handled by techniques.

Does this seem reasonable? And in addition, of course, shoving would get its own action, so it's not tied specifically to charging. I don't see why you would -need- to rush somebody in order to shove them.

Late night bumpin'. Here are a few ideas for opportunity attack-based techs.

Halting Opportunity (Passive)
Requirements: ???
XP Cost: 4
Benefit: When you deal damage to a target with an opportunity attack, that target's current move action (if any) is immediately ended.

Dedicated Defender (Passive)
Requirements: ???
XP Cost: 5
Benefit: When you use your immediate action to make an opportunity attack against an enemy, you may make a single opportunity attack against each enemy that provokes them from you this round.

I'm really not sure on requirements for these. Should we tie opportunity attacks to one or more attributes/virtues? I'm not too sure on that. I guess they don't technically need requirements, really.

>>15729758
I'm agreed with giving shoving its own action separate from a charge, and I guess I'm ok with charge attacks being a default option as long as everyone else is on board; however, your description there seems to imply that shoving on a charge would require a tech, which doesn't make sense. Grappling and using techs on a charge, ok, those can require techs, but shoving should definitely be a default option. And it get a bonus on a charge, too, like how charging currently works -- shoving is something we can easily get away with giving bonuses to.

Also, just fyi, if we do make this change it will require revision of the Goron racial abilities, since the rolling ability currently references charging, with the assumption being that it's a shove that deals a little damage. Not really an argument against the change, just making sure it's on the radar so we don't forget about it and run into problems down the road should we change the way charging works.

>>15732261
>And it get a bonus on a charge,

Bleh, I obviously wasn't quite fully awake yet when I wrote this; that's supposed to say "And it *should* get a bonus..."

>>15732261
I agree that shove shouldn't need a tech to use at the end of a charge. Grapple... I feel it could go either way so I'm not sure. Perhaps lump it in with the Brawler tech: "taking this tech allows you to use grapple at the end of a charge".

If you get 2 moves and an attack with a charge, that's 3 actions in 1 round at the cost of -1k1 defense penalty. I think that is balanced right there. However it also makes sense to have a bonus to attack at the end of a charge because you have momentum from the movement. I propose a compromise:

Charge Mastery (Passive)
Prerequisites: Physical 3, |Melee| 3
XP Cost: 4

When a character uses a charge, it no longer causes a defense penalty. In addition, the character gains a +1k0 bonus to the charge attack.

>>15731108
I like these techs. I would put probably Physical 3 on both of them. They both seem very Courage to me as they control movement and protect allies, probably 2/3 respectively.

>>15732992
I agree with the idea of a tech to give a bonus on charge attack, and a tech to negate the defense penalty, but combining both benefits in a single tech seems like a bit much to me.

>>15731108
These techs look ok to me in principle, though I do think that the wording on Dedicated Defender could use some cleaning up, and Halting Opportunity needs a better name. I agree with Tech-Point Gent's thoughts on a Courage prereq, since opportunity attacks definitely strike me as a Courage type of thing, but I think rather than a Physical prereq, |Melee| would be more appropriate, particularly for Dedicated Defender (seeing as you wouldn't be able to get the benefit of that tech with a heavy weapon anyway). I'd say probably Courage 2 and |Melee| -or- |Heavy| 3 for Halting Opportunity, and Courage 3 and |Melee| 4 for Dedicated Defender.

>>15733345
Perhaps have an alternate version of Dedicated Defender for |Heavy| weapons?
You know, since this is on the wiki.

>Darunia's Might (Passive)
>-Requirements: |Heavy| 5
>-XP Cost: 7
>You no longer must spend an action to recover after a |heavy| attack.

It's a pretty awesome technique if you're a |Heavy| user. Even if it costs a total of 18xp if you end Chargen with 3 |Heavy|.

Which reminds me: can you save up those 2xp you get during character generation, or do you need to spend it on techniques?

>>15733428
I believe DM had allowed you to save your char-gen XP in his playtest campaign. I don't see any reason why you shouldn't be able to.

>>15733428
Anyone else think this tech should have stricter prereqs? I think it should stick around, but it is pretty goddamn ridiculous.
I'm thinking more like Physical 4, Power 4, |Heavy| 6, 8 XP. This is not something we want to make easily available.

>>15733662
Since the tech is so game changing, I can't help but agree that it needs more prereqs. This list seems pretty appropriate.
What if someone got both Darunia's Might -and- Darknut's Might from up here >>15713877.
Wouldn't that be pretty insane?

>>15734891
The thing is that no matter how high the prereqs are, as soon as somebody picks it up, that's a huge alteration to game mechanics right there. Darunia's Might should probably have some kind of balancing factor included, so it at least looks fair. How about this:
>You may attack with a Heavy weapon without recovering after a previous strike, but at a -1k1 penalty to the attack. You may take an action to recover normally to negate this penalty for your next Heavy weapon attack.

This allows the option of swinging like a madman, but at the cost of effectiveness. Given the prereqs, for anybody high enough to get the tech the -1k1 penalty should be an acceptable cost for the ability to swing without recovery.

CHARGE: Agreed that a charge should allow a basic attack OR a shove at the end by default. Techs/grabs should require another tech.

>>15732992
I'm okay with this being one tech, but I would up the Physical to 4 and make it either |Melee| or |Heavy|. Also change it so you gain the bonus not only to attacks, but also to shoves/techs/etc. you might do at the end of the charge. If we go that route shove wouldn't get a bonus at the end of a charge by default, but neither do attacks, so I think that's alright, and you can still pick up the bonus with a moderately expensive tech.

>>15735387
I have no problems with any of the suggestions here.

Okay, so here's how some stuff would look with current revisions.

Halt the Advance (Passive)
Requirements: Physical 3, Courage 2
XP Cost: 4
Benefit: If you deal damage to a target with an opportunity attack, that target's provoking move action (if any) immediately ends.

Dedicated Defender (Passive)
Requirements: Physical 3, Courage 3
XP Cost: 5
Benefit: You may use a single immediate action to make an opportunity attack against each enemy that provokes one from you in a round. You may only make a single opportunity attack against a particular enemy in a round, no matter how many opportunity attacks that enemy provokes.

Charge Mastery (Passive)
Prerequisites: Physical 4, |Melee| or |Heavy| 3
XP Cost: 4
Benefit: When a character uses a charge, it no longer causes a defense penalty. In addition, the character gains a +1k0 bonus to the charge attack (or other action) at the end of the charge.

Darunia's Might (Passive)
Requirements: Power 5, |Heavy| 5
XP Cost: 7
Benefit: You may attack with a Heavy weapon without recovering after a previous strike, but at a -1k1 penalty to the attack. You may take an action to recover normally to negate this penalty for your next Heavy weapon attack.

How are those looking? I added a Power requirement to Darunia's Might as well, though I suppose it could be lowered to 4.

Added opportunity attacks to the wiki. Please look over and critique.

>>15735387
>If we go that route shove wouldn't get a bonus at the end of a charge by default, but neither do attacks, so I think that's alright, and you can still pick up the bonus with a moderately expensive tech.

I think shoving should still get a bonus on a basic charge, the bonus from the tech should just be added on top. So if we went with a +1k1 bonus to a charging shove by default, it would be +2k1 if you had the tech.

Also, I still don't like rolling both the attack bonus *and* the waiving of the defense penalty into a single tech. That strikes me as being neither appropriate nor balanced.

>>15736425
I'm not sure if we really need magic to provoke opportunity attacks in our system; it doesn't strike me as being quite as powerful as ranged attacks are by comparison to melee, and making magic not trigger attacks would make a magic swordsman type of build much more viable, which fits well with our aim of promoting generalization.
Also, I added forced movement as an exception to what provokes opportunity attacks, and reworded the bits for active defense to make it a bit clearer as to how it works with regard to opportunity attacks.

>>15736425
In the second sentence, a simple typo - 'And' should be 'An'.

We haven't discussed spells provoking OA. In DnD it is because spells require complex movements, but what if you're simply drawing on the power of an item to use the spell? I'm leaning towards spells not provoking.

>>15736806
Magic is most certainly as powerful as ranged weapon, often with additional effects. Not all magic, but certainly some. What I wouldn't be opposed to, and in fact expect, some techniques to avoid opportunity attacks when using ranged attacks. Those would be fine.

On the Charge Mastery, I'm not opposed to it being split into 2 cheaper techs.

>>15736868
What I was referencing was specifically ranged magic attacks, things that involve opposed defense rolls. It's not the complex movements that provoke, it's more about aiming and making an attack with somebody in your face. It's about the same as using a crossbow, which is very simple, but should still provoke for balance purposes.

>>15736979
I'm ok with magic provoking OA as long as it's limited to ranged attack magic.

>>15736019
Looking at these techs, I think Halt the Advance and Dedicated Defender could still use some cleaned-up wording. I would propose:

>Halt the Advance
>Whenever you deal damage to a target with an opportunity attack, if that target provoked your attack due to movement, you may immediately end that target's movement.

I also think there should probably be some sort of limitation to this tech's effect, something like getting a minimum number of successes (or a minimum number of successes beyond what the opponent got) on the opportunity attack roll -- otherwise it's basically impossible to run away from someone with this tech. In order to avoid the attacks you have to move at 1/2 speed, making it easy for them to catch up to you, and if you provoke the attacks you're likely to not move at all.

>Dedicated Defender
>If you have spend your immediate action for the round to make an opportunity attack, anytime an enemy against whom you have not already made an opportunity attack this round would provoke an opportunity attack from you, you may make that attack as a free action.

>>15737133
Derp, should say "have spent" not "have spend"...

>location: entrarAc

Quick, somebody run a playtest set in somplace called "Entrar'Ac"!

>>15737133

Now I feel like rewording those, too:

>Halt the Advance
>A successful opportunity attack can end the target's provoking movement in the square that provoked the attack.

>Dedicated Defender
>You can spend your immediate action to make a single opportunity attack against every provoking enemy this round.

I can't see any loopholes in my wording, but that may be a failing on my part.
___

It'd be neat to draw the boulder paths on the game map as they happen.

"Bomb (D7) -> Chest appears."

>>15737757
Your wording for Halt the Advance is actually nice and concise, but the one for Dedicated Defender is kind of confusing since it seems to imply that you're making several attacks all in one action. That's why I worded mine the way I did -- it specifies that you have to use your immediate action for an opportunity attack, but also makes it clear that the opportunity attacks made are all separate instances happening as the round progresses, rather than somehow all being lumped into a single immediate action.

>>15737133
I agree that it would be very difficult to flee from somebody with Halt the Advance. This is solved in other games by having a Withdraw action, which in our system would probably be a double action to move double speed, and the first square of movement does not provoke opportunity attacks.

If we don't want to include something like a Flee action, though, I'm not sure what to do without greatly diminishing the tech's appeal. Technically, you do have to defeat the target's defense in order to stop them, which already gives them some chance to escape it. If we make it harder, and the tech winds up only working sometimes, it's a much less useful option. Why take it if it might just fail anyway?

I'm personally in favor of including a Flee action for escape, not only from this tech but in general. Adding more options for players is never a bad thing in my book, as long as those options aren't contradicting each other, and Flee seems useful and simple enough. I'm really hesitant to make the tech harder to use.

Also, I prefer this wording on Dedicated Defender.

>>15742212
>Technically, you do have to defeat the target's defense in order to stop them, which already gives them some chance to escape it.

Some chance, yes, but not much. The odds of avoiding all damage aren't very good in our system, with the linear comparison method being what it is.
However, that is a good point on the diminished usefulness. I'd be ok with a Flee action -- it seems fairly appropriate for the Zelda games anyway.

>>15742212
>>15743674
Just to be clear, Flee would entail using a double action, moving twice your speed, and you don't provoke an OA from your first square of movement? What if you are fleeing from someone with a reach weapon? Is that simply one of the advantages that reach weapons has for being 2-handed?

>>15744981

If we let flee action to allow a character or monster move twice its speed without provoking AoO then it would be abusable for disengage a defender and chase and spot the sneak hidden somewhere behind those rocks so he cant sneak attack the creature the next turn.

>>15744981
Perhaps rather than making it avoid OA from leaving the first square, perhaps it should be that you avoid OA from opponents who threaten your starting square? It makes sense from a thematic standpoint -- you keep your guard up just long enough to get out of reach, then take off running -- and reach weapons shouldn't have quite THAT much of an advantage.

>>15745032
I wouldn't exactly call that "abuse". If you're spending a double action every round to keep an eye on the sneak, you're not dealing out any damage, nor are you able to ready active defense. That seems like a pretty fair tradeoff to me, especially considering that you're only saving your own skin -- even if you can see the sneak, he can still get the drop on a different target who can't. Hidden status is evaluated on an individual basis, not the team as a whole, so unless you have some kind of hivemind telepathy going on with your team, being able to see the sneak only benefits you.

And if the sneak's party positions themselves in the path of the lookout rather than always getting up close and personal, he's going to take OA anyway, since he only avoids OA at the very beginning of the movement, not the entire turn.

Plus, depending on the type of cover available, you may not necessarily be able to move enough to catch sight of the sneak in the first place. Cover and concealment are pretty situational, and can vary widely in terms of how easy it is to expose a hidden individual.

On the subject of stealth, what happened to the detailed stealth rules on the wiki? They're completely gone...

Indeed, what in the world happened with stealth rules?

>>15683866 >>15683795
Fuck off and die.

Has anyone heard from Cz? Their stuff's always good.

>>15745182
>>15745357
I found the old stealth rules in the old revisions in the wiki. I would stick it back in, but I'm afraid I'll mess something up, so I'll post it here:

To be able to make a stealth roll to become hidden You need to have cover (i.e. behind a big rock) or concealment (i.e. in a dense fog or totally dark place) from whomever you're trying to hide from. This is ultimately up to GM discretion -- you may only become hidden when the GM deems it feasible to do so.
If you have met the prerequisites, you may attempt an opposed |stealth| roll as a free action against a |perception| roll, if you get more successes than your enemy, you become hidden against it, but if both of you tie in number of successes you can't become hidden.
If you managed to become hidden, it means that the enemy is unable to see or hear you, and is unaware of your specific location (though it may have a vague idea of your general location if it observed you moving toward your hiding place).
In order to remain hidden, you must make additional |stealth| checks every time you take an action. If you tie you will remain hidden but your enemies will be alerted. Not every action may allow you to remain hidden -- for example, moving out into the open will obviously give you away, as will shouting, setting off a bomb, and so forth.

>>15745602 cont.
When you are hidden from an enemy, it cannot apply active defense bonuses against you, and it takes a -2k2 penalty to defense. To be considered hidden while attacking an enemy, you must either be able to attack from a hidden position directly, or make a single move action after beginning your turn hidden to get into range while remaining out of the enemy's line of sight. This movement requires a successful |stealth| check to avoid giving yourself away. Moving into range of one enemy may give you away to other enemies, but you are still considered hidden from the enemy you're approaching. Even if other enemies shout a warning to your target, since it all happens in one round it can be assumed that the target doesn't have enough time to react, and you still gain the benefits of being hidden.
Being hidden is a prerequisite for certain techniques, such as Sneak Attack.

>>15745602

I believe i found the most recient version of stealth rules

:To be able to make a stealth roll to become hidden You need to have cover (i.e. behind a big rock) or concealment (i.e. in a dense fog or totally dark place) from whomever you're trying to hide from. This is ultimately up to GM discretion -- you may only become hidden when the GM deems it feasible to do so.
If you have met the prerequisites, you may attempt an opposed |stealth| roll as a free action against a |perception| roll, if you get more successes than your enemy, you become hidden against it, but if both of you tie in number of successes you can't become hidden.

-
:If you managed to become hidden, it means that the enemy is unable to see or hear you, and is unaware of your specific location (though it may have a vague idea of your general location if it observed you moving toward your hiding place).

Oops, sorry tech point gent i didnt notice you were going to add the remaining text

I undid the stealth rules erase. It seem that somebody edited the skills section it with the sole intention of erasing said rules Pls dont add or substract any entries on the wiki without previous discussion.

>>15745782
Now that I look at it, the stealth rules do seem out of place in the skills section. Perhaps they could be placed under "Special Conditions" under the combat section.

>>15746509
Perhaps, since they are more extensively detailed than other skills by necessity. However, I also think I would find it out of place to look at the Stealth skill, and then have to look elsewhere for the description of how it worked. I suppose as long as it's linked it would be fine? I dunno, I don't mind it in the skills section, really.

>>15745182
Agreed that spending entire turns avoiding defenders isn't much of an abuse, especially with combat typically lasting 2-5 rounds unless there are complications. And flanking around to get to the more vulnerable party members seems like a viable strategy to me. If said vulnerable ones stick close to their protectors, it should be relatively easy to get back in an attacker's face anyway.

I like the idea of Flee avoiding opportunity attacks from reach weapons, it's only right that it would, but the problem I see with saying "You avoid opportunity attacks from foes that threaten your starting square" is that this allows you to theoretically run right past them, which is no longer fleeing, it's bypassing them to reach the weaker party members.

Honestly, the easiest fix for this is to only allow opportunity attacks on adjacent squares. It removes a bit of the benefit of reach weapons, but those weapons can still hit from further away on their wielder's turn. That's how they roll in 4E, and in my years with that system I haven't heard many complaints on that issue. If reach weapons need more of a buff than that, perhaps we could add 1/4 increment damage over most 1-handers, making them 3/4, which puts them between 1-handed Melee weapons and Heavy weapons on the damage scale. That sounds pretty appealing to me, but what are some other thoughts on this?

>>15747277
>the problem I see with saying "You avoid opportunity attacks from foes that threaten your starting square" is that this allows you to theoretically run right past them, which is no longer fleeing, it's bypassing them to reach the weaker party members.

The same could be true if you're only avoiding attacks for your starting square -- you just have to take a slightly more circuitous route to get to your target in order to stay out of reach of the attackers.

Personally, I would find it very odd if your range for opportunity attacks with a reach weapon was somehow made shorter than your range for normal attacks. I realize realism can be occasionally be ignored for the sake of game balance, but in this case I feel it's just a bit too much. Why does my weapon work differently for attacks made during my turn than for attacks made to exploit an opening in my enemy's defenses? Having something work differently than it does IRL for the sake of balance is one thing; having something work differently in different contexts without any rational justification for it apart from balance is quite another.

>>15747784
Taking a circuitous route, however, very rapidly diminishes the distance you can cover. I don't have a problem with somebody backing away from two folks and having to run a circle around them to get up to the archer who is causing him trouble, because you could logically do so. I do however have a problem with bolting at top speed between two melee characters/mobs and not facing any reprisal whatsoever. That just doesn't make sense, and defeats the purpose of putting opportunity attacks in at all.

With regard to reach weapons and threatening opportunity attacks, we definitely need to work out a satisfactory solution. Perhaps in the description of the Flee action, we can explicitly state that you only avoid opportunity attacks if your movement is directly away from those that threaten your space, but you do indeed avoid opportunity attacks from a reach weapon this way. Just a possibility.

On reach weapons having extended threat for OAs, though, it makes them vastly more useful for somebody who focuses on OA techs. Picking one up effectively doubles the likelihood and ability to perform an opportunity attack, and that seems like a bit much to me.

If you need rational justification for reach weapons not having an extended threat radius, think of it like this: You have reach because your weapon is long enough to extend into other spaces effectively. However, you don't constantly have the weapon extended like that, because doing so would logically hamper your own defense, and even if you did the weapon would not necessarily be ready to strike at any or all of the 24 different spaces within your theoretical reach at a moment's notice. Most of the time your weapon is held closer to you, and thus ready to strike at foes who venture too close for comfort without making an effort to protect themselves.

>>15748569
I can accept that justification. Let's go with that, then.

>>15748569
>>15748922
I agree with this justification too.

>>15748956
>>15748922
Okay, cool. So if I understand, we agree on these points:
>Opportunity attacks are only threatened in adjacent squares, regardless of weapon.
>The Flee action will be a double action for double move, and the first square moved does not provoke opportunity attacks.

That all sound good? Was there anymore critique on the opportunity attack techs or Darunia's Might? Any opposition to splitting Charge Mastery into 2 cheaper techs? I'd like to get all that added to the wiki and dive into the next issue.

We're doing great work here, guys. This continues to be awesome.

>>15749290
All that looks good to me.

>>15749290
What is the qualifier on spells provoking? We had decided that not all spells would provoke right, only the ones that you had to aim? So then, only spells that are opposed to active or passive defense provoke OA?

>>15749606
This does need clarification. In my mind it's only offensive spell with a range other than "touch" (I don't think we have any touch spell just yet) will provoke opportunity attacks. Burst spells are likely not to provoke, but area spells would because you have to aim for the origin square. Does that sound good?

>>15749894
What about having it be spells focused on someone else than the person who is threatening you?

Same thing goes for ranged attacks. No reason you couldn't shoot someone point-blank.

>>15749894
"Offensive spells" is a little too broad. All of the courage basic spells could be considered offensive if you use it right.

>>15749927
I like this idea better. If you are casting a spell only on the creature right in front of you, you would be able to watch him and not provoke. I also think burst should not provoke as opponents threatening at close range is exactly when you would need it the most.

>>15749927
I like this idea. Any spell targeting a creature other than you or a creature threatening you, or affecting an area not centered on you (so burst spells don't provoke, but stuff like Faultline would).

>>15750112
I think that if multiple opponents are threatening you, then you would provoke from all threatening opponents that you don't target with your spell. Burst, however, would not provoke as you are targeting all adjacent opponents.

>>15750150
Fair point, that's actually what I intended, but my wording had holes, lol. So, magic provokes opportunity attacks if it targets a creature other than you, or affects an area not centered on you, but never provokes attacks from the target of the spell. That good?

>>15709926
Did we all agree about Battle-Hardened up here? Are there any objections or complaints? If not, can someone please add it to the wiki? As I've said before, I'm not at all confident in my wiki-editing skills.

>>15753426
I think we're all onboard with it, but I was just about to go to bed, so I can't put it up now. I'll do it tomorrow if nobody's done it by then.

>>15753653
Thank you, anon.

>>15750181
This seems like a fine way to handle this to me. I think we can go ahead and make that amendment to the wiki soon as somebody feels the desire to.

>>15753426
I'm fine with this.

Late bump to keep the 404 monster at bay. Anybody know if this one is archived yet? I always forget.

>>15755363
Yeah, it's archived. Someone archived it (somewhat sloppily: not the same tags and such) under the name "Legend of Zelda RPG 20.5" IIRC.

Oh, and this is the 299th post in the thread. I would suggest that someone makes a new one once more people are active.

>MCommula (upside-down "there")
So what, rapping Communist Dracula? Awesome.

I've updated the wiki with the new developments in opportunity attacks (reach, the Flee action, and what provokes with regard to spells) and charging (double action for double move with an attack or shove at the end, taking -1k1 to defense until your next turn), as well as the techs listed here >>15736019 (except Charge Mastery, which we should discuss the details of how to split), the Battle-Hardened tech, and these two spells >>15688295.

Since we're only one post away from autosage, I'll get a new thread started.

New thread >>15759263