>>18303811
Attributes measure the physical capabilities of a character. They generally aren’t “rolled for.”
•Life: Hit points. Minimum of 3 hearts (12 points) at character creation
•Magic: Used to fuel magic items, spells, and certain techniques. Minimum of 1 bar (4 points) at character creation
•Stamina: Used to perform certain combat and movement techniques. Minimum of 1 bar (4 points) at character creation
>These three can be customized at character creation, and can later be advanced through rewards from the GM.
•Size: How big you are.
•Strength: Carrying strength, denotes how much weight you can push or lift. Average strength can lift a heavy barrel and move slowly. Someone with above average Strength could lift the same barrel and move unimpeded.
•Speed: How fast you can move, specifically in combat. The average speed score is 3 meters, although the actual distance you can move varies. The basic “move action” would let you move 6 meters, and dashing lets you move 9 meters at the cost of some Stamina points. You would move 3 meters when performing a small action, such as using a potion, dodging, or moving while blocking.
•Weight: How much mass your character has compared to others. Also controls buoyancy and resistance to being pushed by external forces.

I'd play it/help work on it.

>>18303834
Certain items will boost or limit these attributes. Iron Boots, for example, increase your Weight up to Heavy, allowing you to walk against gusts of wind or an underwater current. Certain races already have these bonuses built in. Gorons are naturally Heavy, so they can already do what lighter creatures need Iron Boots to do. However, they would need an item that reduces their Weight if they want to cross deep water without sinking like a stone.

The system focuses on skills to resolve actions. The current idea is to use Fudge to handle skills, but it’s up for debate. The current skill list includes One-Handed Melee, Heavy Melee, Hand-to-Hand, Ranged, Block, Dodge Stealth, Observation, Riding/Piloting, Knowledge, Music, Sway, and Magic. Some skills could become more specific (divide magic into Offensive/Defensive/Utility groups, and Sway into intimidate/diplomacy/inspiration/etc), or could be broader: it’s up to debate.

Techniques are perks that characters can purchase with experience points. These include combat maneuvers (Spin Attack, Sword Beam, Backstab), advanced racial abilities (electric shields for Zora), and general perks (bonuses to using certain elemental magic, improved swimming/climbing, etc.)

I never really sat down and played all the way through a Zelda game, but I can appreciate this project and am willing to see it through to its conclusion. If there's any way to help, I'm here to assist.

>>18303862
>Combat and Actions
In a combat or otherwise dangerous situation, each player has 3 Actions they can use in each round. They can use these actions on their turn, or instead react to enemy actions outside of their turn. Example reactions include
>Block (You can move if you choose to start blocking on your turn, instead of waiting for an enemy. You keep blocking until you take another action or your block is interrupted.)
>Dodge (use your Dodge skill to oppose an enemy attack. You get to move your speed if you succeed.)
>Parry (use a shield or weapon to deflect an attack. You don’t do damage with this attack, but the enemy loses their next action.)
>Counterattack (attack at the same time as an enemy. Opposed attacks, winner hits.)

Being a Zelda RPG, aquiring new tools, spells and weapons is intended to be an important part of the game. Items avaliable to the player characters and environmental features placed by the GM have various “tags” that describe their function and capabilities. An item like a sword or axe may have the Edged tag, but something like Skyward Sword’s Beetle may have the Edged, Remote, Flying and Grabbing tags.
Giving different items with shared effects is meant to allow for ease of designing “lock-and-key” type challenges, where creative use of avaliable tools is required to succeed. The GM can review what items the characters have, and pull from a list of obstacles, hazards, and enemies that respond to the effects of those items.

This concept is currently a WIP of a WIP, so there are a lot of holes that need filling and could use the most outside input.

>Defense actions and unusal defenses
What happens if a character is attacked more than once in a round? Taking an action to defend with a shield assumes you keep defending until you take another action. Should the same be done for defending with the dodge skill? Should there be a 2/1 limit for actions (use 2 actions on your turn, 1 outside of your turn, or vice versa)? What do players do to defend against a magical effect that targets their mind, rather than their physical defenses? On that same note, what would players use to escape graples?

>Songs
How can songs and similar effects be kept from being abused (spamming the Sun’s Song to completely incapacitate certain enemies, for example.) Are “useable only x times per day” limits appropriate? Could it be related to a Spirit attribute or skill that handled unusual effects like songs, transformations, etc?

>>18303944

For multiple blocks, the effectiveness can wear off with each hit within the round.

>>18303944
>Conflict Resolution/Dice system
This is a big one. Even though the concept was created without a specific method of conflict resolution in mind, the current idea is to use Fudge (3dF, specifically).
The old project’s dice method was a roll-and-keep, Risk style system. You roll a number of dice equal to an Attribute (physical, mental, spiritual) and keep a number of dice equal the appropriate Virtue (Power, Wisdom, Courage) and compare your dice to the dice of the opposing party. Skill ranks increased both rolled and kept pools. Unfortunately, in practice it’s very slow and becomes unweildly as it scales up.
Fudge works fine because of its speed and coarse granularity, but maybe there’s another system out there that works just as well or even better with the current concept.

>Virtues
Virtues were a part of the earlier dice system, and fit the flavor of the game setting very well. They don’t exist in the current concept, but there should be a way to include them. They could provide a flat bonus to skills when used a certain way (+1 in Courage gives +1 to sword attacks, +1 Wisdom gives +1 to defensive magic, etc), but it is still open to discussion. This depends greatly on the dice system that ends up being used.

>>18303944

Songs could take time to play in their entirety.

I thought we finished this?

>>18303981
That's the summary out of the way. I can answer questions and expand on particular points if requested.

>>18303998
The project lost steam and is still a WIP. My intention of bringing up this revival was both to bring interest back to the project and remove some of the crust that built up around the system. That said, I hope the concept is palatable to the previous contributors and I'm more than willing to discuss issues with the changes.

>>18304083
>>18304093
Well I remember helping with the project.

It was a long ass time ago in 4chan time.

I would help but I have neither a group and need to read the current fluff.

We're talking about the same system as that on the 1d4chan wiki, right?
http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Legend_of_Zelda_RPG

How could I help with this?

Then the project died again.

>>18304155
Yep.

>>18303873
>>18304137
>>18304191
Currently, the best thing to hammer out is to decide on a dice system to use from this point onward, since all the other crunch depends on it.

Currently, Fudge seems like a good choice. (a sort of summary can be found at http://www.hill-kleerup.org/pmwiki/FATE/TheLadder), as it fits well with a skill-based game and provides a bell curve. However, it makes tasks more than one rung above a player's skill level difficult to achieve, which makes scaling challenges hard.

However, the Silhouette model ( http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/systemdesign/dice-silhouette.html ) seems good too, with some modification.  

In general, ease of use and quick comparison is the main goal. (Sticking to d6's is preferable as well.) If anyone has any suggestions, please chip in.

>>18304683
I say we go with a d10 style.

>>18304888
What sort of d10 style? That's not too specific by itself.

>>18305056
I like the DH style one.

Personal taste though.

Didn't the old threads use a d6-based "roll and keep" system? Could always snag L5R's version (which is d10-based).

>>18305177
Yeah, but the old Risk-style comparison is very slow. Roll and keep sounds fine, though it sounds like the revision wouldn't fit it in.

>>18305148
Roll under sounds ok too, maybe even with d6's.

>>18305366
Something to consider is the fact that larger dice pools take much longer to resolve, no matter the system. So far, the only stat related to dice looks to be Skills; if we arrange it so Skill value = number of dice rolled, then things get cumbersome once you get a skill higher than 3.

Is there an IRC channel to discuss all this?

I recently was telling my girlfriend about how this was a work in progress, I would love to see it come to completion. From what I've read on the wiki it seems like it would be a lot of fun.

Come on /tg/ let's get stuff done

>>18305896
Most of the game is done, we need a group of people to test it a lot.

Which I would love to do, if I had a group.

I would love to test it, just so long as I can be the awesome Deku Scrub arsonist.

Feel free to hit me up if you need players.

Would Fudge with the modifiers from Virtues work for a system? Like it was said before, the resolution mechanic isn't built into the loose concept of the system, and it's just assumed to be linear (no degrees of success.) It can stand as a placeholder, at least.

And sorry for being absent, things to do. If anyone asks I can try to dump some example races/techniques/monsters/items.

So is there a particular time period that this will take place in? Ancient Hyrule, Great Sea, Spirit Tracks, etc.?

Or perhaps another way to put it: Would a team consisting of an Anouki, a Kokiri, a Korok, and a Subriosian be viable, seeing as how they are all from different times and places?

>>18307461
It's all up to the players and GM on what sort of world they want to play in. It could be based on any of the major settings in the games, or borrow bits of everything from the series as a whole. You can disregard or adhere to canon as much as you can agree upon.

The same goes for race selection. While the game may break up the races into groups (like Ancient, Common, Great Sea, Uncommon, and Monstrous) for ease of organization, the available races are up to the GM's discretion. If your group has no problem refluffing (or handwaving) Rito allow them to coexist with Zora, all the more power to you.

On that note, here are a few sample race concepts:

>Human
Medium size - Average Strength - Average weight - Speed 3
Cultured: You gain one of the following benefits
-Hylian: +1 Life
-Sheikah: +1 Magic
-Gerudo: +1 Stamina
(specific human races  are mostly for flavor, although certain techniques are more easily available to certain races)

>Goron
Medium size - Great Strength - Heavy - Speed 2
Heat resistance: Gorons are immune to Burning and environmental heat.
Goron Roll: (Costs Stamina, treated like dashing with a speed of 3  (9 spaces per action) and a constant tackle attack, you stop moving if you hit something with more Weight than you or are otherwise halted)

>Zora
Medium size - Average strength- Average weight - speed 3
Aquatic: Zora have a swimming speed of 4 and can breathe underwater.

Bump.

I'd love to be a player if the chance ever comes up.

I dislike the idea of limiting the turn use and forcing players to split their actions. Many players (and characters) will want to go balls deep in combat at least occasionally, attacking and running wildly with no concern for their well being. On the flip side, less fight-y types will probably want to devote more actions towards defense.

Also, could you please explain the core attributes a bit more? You said virtues no longer exist in this version, but the 1d4chan page still lists them. If they're not there and the wikipage needs updating, what takes their place?

>>18307461
I'd say that'd be a call for the GM to make. The rules should probably include a little list of canon settings and the races that show up there (i.e. "If you want to emulate the setting from Game A, includes races B, C, D, E, and F"), but by default all races should be playable and the universe treated as one giant mashup/crossover setting.

>>18308438
Everything's open for discussion, and the 2/1 action thing was a suggestion. That's the sort of input we want to hear though.

I haven't changed anything on the 1d4chan page, since this is even more incomplete and I don't want to overwrite what's already there, especially of there are diehard supporters of the previous version.

As for attributes, this concept scraps the Physical/Mental/Spiritual attributes and puts more focus on skills alone. Right now it seems like Virtues may return in the form of bonuses to using certain skills certain ways. Similar to how the original version used Physical Courage to represent swords with the Melee skill, this version may use the Skill and add a Courage bonus if using a sword.

More questions and critique would be welcome, and will probably keep the thread alive during the night. Hammering out the particulars of the base mechanics will make designing the content of the system much more streamlined, so any ideas or examples that call attention to missing features would be helpful too.

>>18308575
If the system is that skill-centric, I'm foreseeing some difficulties. Stuff like shrugging off mental attacks (or direct physical spells like lighting someone on fire as opposed to attacking them with a ray or flame) will need their own skill, which sounds off to me but that might be just me. You could throw in a grappling skill, and that would fit in nicely in my opinion as well as give a way to counteract them (perhaps maybe allowing Acrobatics to slip out of the grapple instead of breaking out?).

I'm also casting my vote for the Anon's decision to have defenses degrade. Devoting an action to defenses allows you to theoretically defend against an infinite number of attacks, but cumulative penalties will make defending yourself against multiple multiple enemies (or an enemy with multiple attacks per round) risky with only one defense action. Multiple defense actions should either let a player "refresh" their defense, dropping all penalties for defending against multiple attacks, or use multiple types of defenses in a round.

Example in the next post, field too long.

>>18308726
For example, Bob the Kokiri got dragged into an evil castle by his party. He brought along a shield and a wimpy knife. When fighting a horde of Stalchildren, Bob elects to not attack or move and focus on defense. He uses Block initially, and he can keep using his Block defense without spending another action if he accepts growing penalties. Eventually Bob's player gets worried about that penalty to blocking and decides to refresh it, using up his second action and bringing his blocking score up to its normal levels. After a few more attacks are blocked, penalties drop the blocking score to below Bob's dodging score, and Bob's player feels that he needs to GTFO so he decides to start using Dodge instead of refreshing Block. For the rest of the turn he dodges with increasing penalties, and since he's out of actions he can no longer switch defenses or refresh any of them. He can still only use one defense against a single attack (no trying to dodge an attack you failed to block).

>>18308730
>>18308726
Addendum: because blocking in the vidya was the end-all defense, perhaps the penalties for repetitively blocking should be lower compared to dodging/parrying? Parries constitute not only positioning your weapon in a way of an opponent's strike, but also holding it strongly enough and at the proper angle (lest you disarm yourself), so I'd say they'd also have the largest penalty (also a balance issue, as Parry will probably be the heights defense since it's probably based of the user's melee skill and we'll want something to stop people from relying on it 24/7). Dodging is just GTFOing, so I'd make the penalties less sever than parrying. Blocking is moving a good sized hunk of metal/wood/whatever in-between yourself and whatever is trying to hit you, and you don't have to worry that much about supporting the shield or proper angling, so I'd make the penalties the lowest (once again, also a balance issue. Blocking will probably require its own skill, or be tied into the rarely used shield bash skill, so players will need an incentive to not completely ignore it IMHO).

>>18308730
Can't say tracking a penalty every round for something like that sounds fun to me. Fighting more than one enemy quickly means that you spend all your actions re-blocking instead of being able to do anything else.

Mornin' bump.

>>18308863
Parrying could be made its own skill, or just be a harder use of the block skill. Or, it could tie into margins of success: where great success means you parry, moderate success means you block normally, failure means your block breaks, and great failure means it breaks and you take damage as well.

Speaking of blocks, howdo people feel about SS's shield durability? Maybe shields and some armor has a seperate pool of "hearts" that soak damage for you until breaking?

I run a LoZ RPG group right now. There isn't a problem with the Roll and Keep system, comparison happens quickly even with 6+ dice.

Also, blocking doesn't always stop all of the damage, and parry is in the the game already I think. Degrading defenses would bog things down a lot and just seems unnecessary.

Things that really need to be look at are songs and other Spiritual things.

>>18311492
I dislike separating Parry from Melee, as I feel that defending yourself with a weapon is innately part or learning how to use it. I don't see how you could learn to hit someone with a sword but not defend yourself with it, and vice-versa. Making Parry harder isn't a bad, though. It also fits the feel of the game, as no one ever fucking parries.

Also tracking the health of equipment might increase the bookkeeping past what most people would want. Instead, what if there was a "save or die" mechanic in terms of equipment damage. Only the biggest and baddest attacks risk breaking the defender's shit (maybe crits as well? I'm not crazy about the idea but I'm throwing it out there), like a giant's club potentially breaking the shield or a dragon's breath melting armor. If save or die is too swingy, maybe there could be tiers? Like a weapon could be OK (no penalties), Damaged (some penalties), or Broken (can't use it). If that were the case, equipment damage could be tracked by having two little boxes at the end of every inventory line. You check the first one off if it's damaged, and check the second if it's broken.

>>18310219
True. Instead, what if defenses had a number of "actual defenses" per use before they had to be refreshed? Like for every action I use on a defense allows me to defend myself X times that way. Blocking could either have infinite defenses, or a number high enough that in actual combat it's effectively limitless, Parrying would have a low amount, and obviously Counterattack allows for only one defense per use. I'm worried about dodging, as it allows you move as well as defend yourself. Maybe lower the dodge movement to half your character's speed and have it work twice per action devoted to it.

How about this for a dice system?

Roll 3d6
Take the median die (if you roll a 2, 3, and 5, you use the 3)
Add Skill and Virtue values, if applicable
Compare to the target number.

It uses d6, is easy to scale, is quick to compare, and gives a rounded result. More features could be added on (extra 6's and 1's give +1 and -1 to the kept die, getting 3 above the target number counts as an extra degree of success.)

Is this something people could get behind?

>>18312288
Not bad, not bad. A rounded result is nice as it makes extremes less likely, but it still has a bit of swingyness. However, if the base roll is at most a six, those modifiers will quickly become WAY more important then the roll itself. A total of +3 from race, equipment bonuses, magic, or any other miscellaneous sources is equivalent to an average roll, or +10 in D&D terms, and would probably not be that hard to get. Or am I just getting worried about nothing?

>>18312733
That is a very good point. My reasoning why it would still be okay is that bonuses from things like Skills and Virtues would be acquired very gradually. Those are generally the only thing that impact your actual dice. Spells and equipment shouldn't improve your dice, but rather their effect (things like +1 buffing spells should be uncommon, if included at all.) The other reason would be that it's just as easy to scale up the target numbers the players try to reach. Even if characters eventually get a +6 to some skill, the challenges they face may require an 11 to succeed.

Hopefully that answers that question. I'm eager to settle on one rule, especially because a lot of issues with Defense can be resolved with degrees of success. I'll propose a solution, but more concerns or critique of this system won't hurt before we settle on it.

>>18312893
Ah okay I see. I was overestimating the ease characters got bonuses. I like it.

Everyone has a Base Defense. (it will either be a roll you make with a -2 modifier, or a flat target number.) If you don't react to an enemy attack, you use this defense.

The Block skill includes blocking with both a shield and a weapon. Shields provide the ability to resist certain effects (burning, electricity.) Weapons also have a -2 penalty to block ranged attacks.
Success: The enemy connects, but does no damage and your block continues.
Failure: You take damage and your block ends.

Parrying is treated like a Block roll. You can parry with a weapon or shield (a technique will allow players to use their Melee skill to parry instead of Block skill if using a weapon.). Again, weapons have a -2 penalty to deflect most ranged attacks.
Success: You deflect the enemy's attack. 
>If it was a melee attack, the enemy loses their next action. 
>If it was a ranged attack and you parried with an appropriate item, you use your Parry result to attack the enemy with their own projectile.
Failure: If it was a melee attack, you lose your next action. If it was a ranged attack, you are hit.

>>18313814
So parries against melee attacks are automatically successful? That seems a bit powerful. Or do you lose an action in addition to being hit while ranged failures only result in being hit?

Also I like the passive defense idea. I'd go for the roll with a penalty as how well a person can defend themselves shouldn't be a static thing.

Also I'm saddened by the loss of Dodge. At the same time, since we're working strictly off skills instead of attributes, I don't know how we'd manage it, as treating dodge like a skill seems odd. Maybe Acrobatics with a penalty? If I'm the only one that liked it, though, I'll accept its passing quietly.

>>18313814
(I'm thinking there should be some benefit to blocking on your own turn instead of waiting for an enemy to hit you. Maybe a +1 bonus to block the first attack you take?)

Dodging costs an action to use each time, unlike blocking which lasts until interrupted. (perhaps a technique will allow you to dodge twice for one action.) The advantage over blocking is that dodging lets you move away from your attacker, requiring them to pursue and use up their actions if they want to attack again.
Success: You are not hit and you can move your speed. 
Failure: You are hit.

>>18313935
The idea for failing a melee parry was that you connect with the enemy's attack, but you are thrown off guard instead of them. Getting hit for failing could be included, although being at the mercy of an enemy's next attack seems like it could be just as bad. The point of parry is that it leaves the enemy open for some nasty attack you have lined up. It does need fine tuning, any suggestions?

Also, Dodge is right here. In fact, the Dodge skill is basically Acrobatics with a different name. It's used both for avoiding attacks and for fancy footwork.

I'd go so far as to raise it to +2. The extra preparation (holding the shield out in front of you, getting in a better stance to support the shield, etc.) would be a really big help, but mostly I'm suggesting a bigger bonus to make up for the fact that since your character is obviously defending themselves in a specific way ahead of time, smarter baddies might elect to do stuff other than basic-attack you (charge up a more power attack, use a spell, attack in a way that bypasses your defense, pull a lever while cackling maniacally, etc.), so there's a chance you're just wasting your action. With normal Reaction defenses, the enemy has no clue what you'll do. You could doge, block, counterattack, or even ready a normal attack for when your target steps closer.

And I see your logic behind the parry only wasting an action on a failure. A bit cinematic but it fits quite well. I like it. And does the Acrobatics skill still exist and there's a lot of overlap between the itself and Dodge, or was it just renamed?

/tg/ does not want to let me post today, it seems.

>>18314132
Good point. It may dissuade enemies fom trying to attack you even more though. Maybe it's +1 normally and becomes +2 with a technique? It would need to be tested to find out how useful it is.

The Acrobatics skill is basically merged into the Dodge skill.

On a side note, I might change Speed for races to be what they move when they take an action just to move, change Dashing to multiply speed by 1.5 and dodging/minor movement to 0.5, to allow for more fine-tuned speeds. 

Speaking of, how should the Stamina Point cost of dashing be handled? The idea is that it lets you move faster and get over hindering terrain easier (it increases your "pool" of movement points.) Should it cost a point of stamina for every few bit moved? Can you stop and start dashing in the same movement sequence? Maybe it reduces the cost of movement instead of giving you more movement points?

I'd like to help in some way, but just by following this thread, I'm a wee bit lost as to where you're getting all this information. the 1d4chan wiki on Zelda doesn't seem to be connecting the same dots.

How can I be of service?

I'd go so far as to raise it to +2. The extra preparation (holding the shield out in front of you, getting in a better stance to support the shield, etc.) would be a really big help, but mostly I'm suggesting a bigger bonus to make up for the fact that since your character is obviously defending themselves in a specific way ahead of time, smarter baddies might elect to do stuff other than basic-attack you (charge up a more power attack, use a spell, attack in a way that bypasses your defense, pull a lever while cackling maniacally, etc.), so there's a chance you're just wasting your action. With normal Reaction defenses, the enemy has no clue what you'll do. You could doge, block, counterattack, or even ready a normal attack for when your target steps closer.

And I see your logic behind the parry only wasting an action on a failure. A bit cinematic but it fits quite well. I like it. And does the Acrobatics skill still exist and there's a lot of overlap between the itself and Dodge, or was it just renamed?

Also my internet went down for a while, so I apologize for not responding and this thread is probably way past what we we're talking about when I typed my post out.

>>18314425
This is supposed to be a revised concept of the previous Zelda RPG project. I guess it's sort of like Zelda 2e if that helps. The new rules are based on the old, with changes that hopefully improve on the original concept.

Providing ideas for mechanics/tools/races/monsters or critique is very helpful. The old project had a loyal following of drawfags as well, and I'm still hoping some are still around. Fluff and art are always welcome as well.

>Movement
When you take an action to move, you can move a number of spaces equal to your speed. Certain spaces cost more or less to move into. An uphill slope costs twice as much to run up, while a downward slope costs half as much. Shifting sand may cost as many as 3 regular spaces to enter.

You can climb, jump or swim as parts of a move action as well. Unless otherwise noted, the distance you can jump is equal to half of your current speed. Climbing, swimming, crawling and other methods of movement you are unsuited to reduce your current speed by half. For example, a human with speed 6 can only swim 3 spaces per movement action.

Dashing lets you increase your speed to 1.5 times that of your original speed once per action, at the cost of 2 Stamina Points. It’s useful mainly to cross difficult terrain, but it also affects your alternative forms of movement. When you make a jump while dashing, your jump distance is half of your new speed. (A human who dashes (speed 9) and jumps can jump 4 spaces instead of 3.) Likewise, a human who “dashes” while swimming, climbing, or crawling also has a speed of 4 instead of 3.

i just want to wish you good luck we're all counting on you

>>18313814
4chan ate my post.
I suggest that blocking ranged attacks with weapons simply not be possible without a technique; either one technique to do it at no penalty or two cheaper ones (the first to do it w/ penalty the second for no penalty). I believe the binary can/cannot keeps it more simple.

>>18315367
That makes sense. Ranged attacks will just target Base Defense if the target is blocking with a weapon. I prefer the first technique idea (the one without penalty), and it would probably fit into a family of weapon talent techniques (like the one that lets you parry with the melee skill.)On the same topic...

>Ranged attacks
Most Ranged attacks use the Ranged skill. Things that fall under the Ranged attack skill include thrown objects, projectile weapons such as slings and bows, boomerangs, chainshot weapons and so on.

The Range of a weapon indicates the distance it can be used without penalty. A slingshot may have a Range of 10/20/30. That means its normal range is 1-10, its long range is 11-20, and its far range is 20-30. Attacks into long range take a -2 penalty, and attacks into far range take a -4 penalty. Weapons cannot shoot farther than their far range.

Ranged abilities or tools may instead have a Limited range, which indicates that the item cannot reach any farther than that distance. A hookshot may have a limited range of 15 meters, which means it cannot extend further than 15 meters away.

(Hopefully all of this is comprihendable. An organizer I aint.)

is this project still using power/wisdom/courage as stats because seriously that was never a good idea

>>18315987
Currently the plan is to use the Virtues as modifiers to certain skills, rather than stats.

>>18315949
>An example race that has a built-in ranged attack:

Deku Scrub
Small – Strength 2 – Weight 2 – Speed 7
Deku Spit: (One Action, 2SP, Ranged)
-Deku scrubs can form and fire nuts from their mouths at the cost of 2 Stamina Points. The attack uses the Ranged skill, has a Range of 5/10/15 and deals 1H damage.
-Flammable: Deku scrubs take 1H of damage per turn from Burning instead of ½H.

Have to head out in a second, I'll bring up specifics about weapons, damage and a few sample status effects when I get back.

>>18316170
If you're effectively making Zelda 2e, where will you post all this? On a separate 1d4chan article?

>>18317196
That might work, or refer to the previous version as an archive. I'd rather not overwrite the efforts of the earlier version just in case. This thread has been archived on sup/tg/ already, so it can stay there until the content can be moved to the wiki.

>Weapons and Damage
Damage is measured in Hearts, which can be abbreviated into nH, where n is the number of hearts. Damage is fixed for weapons; you mainly improve the amount of damage you deal by performing combat techniques.

A regular, one-handed Melee weapon deals 1H of damage, regardless of type (although each type of weapon has tags to differentiate them from others.)

A standard two-handed, Heavy melee weapon does 2H of damage per swing, but also takes two actions to attack with. Most heavy weapons also have a longer reach and better knockback capability than their smaller counterparts to compensate.

The Hand to Hand skill covers both unarmed attacks and small weapons such as daggers. Without any techniques, hand to hand weapons deal 1/2H of damage per attack. However, various techniques will be available to make hand to hand fighters extremely versatile.

>>18317557
Ranged weapons follow a similar pattern of damage as melee weapons do. Starting bows do 1H of damage per shot and  have a range of about 15/30/45.
>Bows are often found in the midgame of most Zelda titles, but limiting their use until much later would not be fun for Ranged-based characters. (Guess that means GMs get to use eyeball switches from the very start.)

Crossbows are similar to Heavy weapons: they take an action to load and another action to fire, but beginning crossbows do 2H of damage and deliver a lot of force.

Small projectile weapons (like the sling) and thrown weapons (like Sheik's needles from Smash Bros.) deal little damage (possibly as little as  1/4H), but with the right techniques they can be used multiple times in a single action.

Damage for unusual ranged weapons are a bit complicated. Traditionally, the slingshot, boomerang and hookshot don't deal damage to enemies (other than extremely weak ones,) but instead stun their target. What's the best way to handle this in tabletop format? Having them only stun seems a bit limiting. Maybe the attacker chooses whether they're aiming to wound or to stun?

>>18317943
Maybe half-a-heart of damage and stun, assuming the enemy is not already resistant to small arms like a slingshot.

>>18318036
1/2H of damage is appropriate, but it may be a bit much if it does that in addition to incapacitating monsters. Maybe combining both features could be a purchasable benefit.

Thrown items use the Ranged skill, including bombs. Bombs have their own attack roll, unrelated to any of your skills, but you still use your Ranged skill to aim the trajectory of the bomb. Bombs explode at the beginning of the turn of the person who activated it, and do 4H of damage in a 4x4 radius.

Thrown objects deal damage based on their weight. Some examples include

Weight 1: Small pot, shrub - 1/2H
Weight 2: Large pot, small rock - 1H
Weight 3: Heavy barrel, medium boulder - 2H
Weight 4: Large boulder - 4H
Weight 5: Dense boulder, Stone pillar - 8H

To lift an object, you need to have a Strength value equal to or greater than the Weight of the object. If your Strength is even with the object's Weight, you move at half speed while carrying it and lose 2 stamina every round you hold it. If your Strength is even just one rank higher than the object's Weight, you don't incur those penalties. While carrying an object like this, though, you have to use your Base Defense.

>If anything seems fishy/unbalanced/overly complicated, please call me out on it.

Hey, good to see this project being worked on again. If you get a decent-sized thread going (like this one) don't forget to link to it on the wiki page, and let's make sure to archive our shit so we don't lose development.

I don't have time to come back to the project yet, but I wanted to drop off this little kernel:
We are not trying to recreate the MECHANICS of the video games. Those work in the video games because it is a video game, but this RPG is an entirely different medium. What we must focus on is creating a solid, functional system that captures the FEEL of the Zelda games (largely dependent on the DM and players, actually) and includes as much recognizable content as possible.

TL,DR: Yay for project back. Don't forget to archive/track on wiki. "It doesn't work that way in the video game" is not a reason for it not to work that way in THIS game.

Carry on, gents. I'll throw myself in when school dies down.

Having a bit of a struggle trying to figure out how exactly Strength and Weight relate to each other in terms of forced movement. If anyone has any ideas (or would like more clarification) please speak up. Hopefully this thread will be here tomorrow.

>>18320374
What, exactly, is "the FEEL of the Zelda games," in that case?

>>18304683
well if you're planning on fixing the current system then I'm in. I contributed to the project all the way from the first thread until it died, but I eventually realized how fucked the dice system is and didn't like the direction in which it was headed so I dropped off shortly before it died out completely.

>>18320576
That's exactly the reason I dropped off too. Too much crust added to the combat system and awkwardness with the Attributes/Virtues mechanic turned me away, even though I probably contributed to a lot of those problems.

Right now everything is fresh, simple and hopeful, and we should try to keep it that way as long as possible.

Mind if I ask what sorts of things you contributed with? Crunch? Fluff?

>>18320671
honestly, a lot of my ideas got shot down, and I tried to point out the flaws with the dice system but got ganged up on constantly, though I did contribute some stuff with the races, a few of the techniques, helped keep the wiki up to date, and made the second iteration of the character sheet which was later revised again by someone else. by the end of it I was just trying to keep things from getting too out of control, but no one would listen to me. so I gave up. I still cringe every time I look at that damn "check difficulty" chart.

>>18320671
speaking of the attributes/virtue system: what if instead of having virtues as an stat we use them kinda like edge/bennies in shadowrun/savage worlds (respectively)? you do something courageous/"wise"/"powerful" you get a courage/wisdom/power point that can be spent to gain a bonus on a corresponding skill roll (still have skills linked to certain virtues).

>>18320787
Something that falls in line with one of the three virtues, eh? Edge in Shadowrun is considered a character's X-factor, that which makes him a PC and someone extraordinary. I can see something like that applying to this as well. For the virtues to speak to the PCs so much and so elegantly would certainly separate them from the crowd.

>>18320832
maybe even let them do something really cool if they've earned a point in each virtue and spend all three at once.

>>18320787
>>18320832
I had been kicking around the idea of "Hero Points" that act like bennies, letting players cash them in for some benefit like gaining an extra action, rerolling or improving a check, regain some Life/Magic/Stamina, influencing a roleplaying situation, and so on

Tying them to Virtues seems like the natural thing to do, but Virtue bonuses should probably be more permanent, since it represents a character's beliefs. Maybe they are given as rewards for sticking to character (especially if it impacts you negatively), similar to FATE points?

It's definately worth looking into. I would like to keep Virtues as static bonuses for now, but I'm sure there's a way to make this concept into a useful mechanic.

I'd like to throw my two copper in with what I've read in this thread so far, if that's cool.
DISCLAIMER: My understanding is still a little sketchy, so I'm just throwing things out there. If the understanding is wrong, but the concept is neat, lemmie know how it'd be implemented correctly so I can catch up with this.

>>18303862.
You mention Fudge here, but I don't know what that is (my gaming knowledge is incredibly limited with other systems D:). With a quick Google search to give me the quick and dirty, I'm not sure I'm sold on that, it looks like really generic probability which I find kinda underwhelming. Honestly, when I read what you want to do here, my brain instantly goes to White Wolf's d10 style of play. But that's just me. If you aren't keen on that, I can look more into Fudge if you like where my think-tank is at.

>Magic
While you have magic set up as a skill, I think you should clarify it into the three possible groups like you have suggested to give the player a better idea as to what category of spell's they're using. You can go so far as to even categorize songs into this to give a better understanding with a quick glance what the song will do.

Quick late night bump and a quick question: what sort of skills would the whip and grappling hook fall under? They are held like melee weapons, but attack from a range like the clawshot/hookshot and have similar effects...

>>18303944
You mentioned blocking here, and >>18303834 has your solution: Stamina.
Why not assume for each block, you lose stamina? To me that makes plenty of sense since you're holding up your shield and that arm is taking a beating. I'd assume it'd get tired after awhile (as determined by stamina). But for the multiple attack thing? Switch it off. Have the player roll a check to switch off from a block to a parry. That way, if they go from blocking one round to a parry, it'd be a simple check for parry. Now for the skill thing: what's to stop block from actually mitigating damage with a penalty to the skill for each subsequent block past the first?

>Combat
It should be a little more than just actions, honestly. I mean, yeah it's a little more bookkeeping, but stamina should determine your total number of actions. I suggest this because it gives martial based characters more of an edge to keep up with casters (who wouldn't have nearly as much, but their spells would do the damage necessary to keep up with the lack of stamina) with more fancy trickery and greater chances of pulling off something amazing. So basically, I'm proposing that X amount of stamina = 1 spell. While spells are static (in my mind) with what they do (low on style points, high on substance (read: consistent damage), physical attacks are an even balance of both with a greater chance of higher damage (just not as great for a closer average). Have swagger, will travel. And the whole debate a few posts below could be solved depending on how successful your skill check is (if I'm understanding everything correctly). You could easily lead in with a block, but end with a dodge of some kind. Or a parry into a counterattack.

>>Songs
To prevent them from being "spammed" give 'em a recharge of some sort with a spirit based stat. Mysticism could easily fill that role as a skill, stat, or something. Say all songs have a recharge of 6 (for simplicity's sake). Mysticism (call it whatever you want) reduces the turns required to use them by whatever its rank is. Yay, you can't spam anymore, and more magic inclined players will be able to utilize this more often.

>>18303981
>>Virtue
How you described it sounds solid to me, actually. And to increase those could be story arcs rather than having them upgraded by the players.

I wanna through this idea out there though with the WW d10 if you don't mind. With Virtue it could easily be an extra d10 to the dice pool, a bonus if you will, since these are no ordinary characters. But what you have suggested right now would easily work I think. Though, I have a strong dislike of static numbers and enjoy things being more left to chance with a higher dice pool for better odds of success.

But then again, you keep bringing up Fudge, so I'm assuming that's what you want to use in the end. So if that's the case, the only thing I can really do is throw ideas out there instead of troubleshooting mechanics.

I'll hold off on posting more to make sure that we're on the same track.

>>18321824
just for reference, the degree of success distribution for fudge is graphed near the bottom of this page:
http://rpg-design.wikidot.com/evaluation

I volunteer to play-test this. I haven't read the full thread yet, but I am very interested, and will read after this post.

Oh how this fascinates me..

>>18321888

Not only am I good at rolling, but I'm a dirty liar. I would, truth be told, learn all this in-game than from reading all this. Would make it easier for me. But have no doubt, I am still following this thread!

>>18321854
Thank you for posting this! It kinda warps the way I'll look at the different systems... But that's a lot better than what I was throwing around inside my head, I guess because I was thinking of scenario's where succeeding with Fudge weren't possible.

Guess it's time to do a little more reading.

>>18321968
>Guess it's time to do a little more reading.
Here you go:
www.diku.dk/~torbenm/Troll/RPGdice.pdf

>>18321968
also, just in case you're not already familiar with this site:
http://anydice.com/

>>18321988

Thank you :3

Quick question, though it may have already been answered. Is the ruleset in an actual workable condition? Or is it still in the extremely early phases?

I think if I want to play a Zelda RPG, I'll probably just use Warrior Rogue & Mage's game system, but change the core stats from WRM to Power, Courage and Wisdom.

It's a damn fine game system, I think it would work well for Zelda.

>>18322064
This is basically a revival of a homebrew that was nearly completed but dropped off the radar some time ago. However, the original was such a mess that we're attempting to overhaul it into something more manageable. No real progress has been made yet in this thread aside from tossing around a few ideas.
Here's our starting point, though keep in mind the dice mechanics are the main thing that need to be reworked and will most likely see the most change:
http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Legend_of_Zelda_RPG

>>18322102

I'll take a glance, to say the least. Not in the most prime of states, not only being sick but up late as well, but I'll see if I can offer some advice.

http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Legend_of_Zelda_RPG

>>18321804
>>18322064
>>18322102
Actually, a new dice system was proposed that seems like it would work right here: >>18312288

>Roll 3d6
>Take the median die (if you roll a 2, 3, and 5, you use the 3)
>Add Skill and Virtue values, if applicable
>Compare to the target number.

>>18324174
I'd use it.

>>18321804
My current plan for a dice system is to use the 3d6 median idea on >>18312288
Fudge was my original plan since it fit easily into skill-based games and provided round results, but it seemed a little too round (very high or low results are extremely unlikely) and would make fights against stronger enemies almost impossible. The 3d6 median method provides round results too, but also scales linearly and swings a bit more than 3dF. I'd like to get a consensus on it before setting it in stone, but right now it's what I'm using to work with.

>Magic
When you mention categorizing magic into groups, do you mean dividing Magic into three seperate skills, or making seperate categories under a general Magic skill? The latter seems better to me, using Virtues to grant bonuses to each category (Offense/Power, Defense/Wisdom, Utility/Courage). Magic skill then would have to be a little more expensive than the martial skills, since a fighter would split his skills up between defense and offense, where a magic user only has one skill to sink points into. A similar category could work for songs, mainly to help organize them.

>>18325273
>3d6 median
I did some test rolls and it seems pretty solid. I'm in favor of this as well.

>Magic
I could see splitting magic into two categories similar to a martial character's two. It would either be:

Combat + Utility; or
Offensive + Defensive

The former would tie Off./Def. magic into Combat while the latter would combine Def. and Util. into Defensive.
If Magic is to remain as one skill, I could see it having twice the cost of normal skills (effectively making it as expensive as putting into both offense and defense) while possibly making spells cheaper. In this way, enhancing your overall magical ability is expensive but gaining diversity (or super-specializing) is easier. So long as spell effects are generally tied to your Magic skill, I don't forsee many problems.

>>18325602
Making Magic skill cost twice as much (or even thrice as much) but allowing for specialization in different categories seems the way to go. 

Ideally, a weapon fighter will be able to afford a few skill ranks in places outside of his specialization (like a Melee focused character having a few ranks in Heavy weapons or Ranged) to let them use special tools effectively. Making Magic into a general skill (with customization through techniques) would ensure that magic users can operate items outside of their comfort zone if needed.

>For some reason, using the same idea for melee weapons (having a general Melee skill and specializing with one-handed/heavy/hand-to-hand technique paths) seems like it wouldn't work as well. Maybe because Magic items have an extreme range of effects, by comparison.

>>18325868
On the topic of magic spells; this would be good time to talk about they are planned to be used: Magic "spells" in the game are treated like items, rather than memorized abilities (Think of the medallions from ALttP and the crystals of OoT). The user has to possess the item that grants the spell to cast it. You can pass them around the party just like items if you need to, but powerful spells will have requirements that keep them from being abused by less skilled magic users. Spells and most magic items will both use the Magic skill, but the requirements of spells is probably what will separate them from magic tools, which anyone can use if necessary.

Some minor magic effects that act like traditional spells (like telepathy) could be available as techniques. (This could include some minor attack ability like a short range attack, so magic users aren't gimped before they find their first magic weapon.)

Guess I'll just name up for these threads

>>18325868
I agree that splitting Melee similarly might not work as well, though I'll think on it. Perhaps folding some of the martial skills into each other would be prudent as well. For example, Melee governing one- and two-handed weapons with Heavy as just an item quality (I believe this is how it was before). From there, take techniques to specialize.

I only propose this because I'm still wary of the requirement of some character concepts to only put in one skill as opposed to another's many skills to be effective in their area. I also don't want to make Magic prohibitively expensive for anyone but a dedicated mage because of combination fighter/mage concepts.

>>18325926
I like the idea in terms of flavor but then I become worried about having an alternate Magic Item Christmas Tree effect except on mages. Perhaps we can relegate the more powerful spells to items (which would give the GM much more control over what he allows in the game) and leave the low to moderate spells as purchasable techniques, mainly so that their character's progression isn't halted by the requirement of an item. In effect, there is a kind of ceiling at a certain point with this method. You can gain a variety of spells, but the more powerful spells are tied to items that you must find. However, you're still capable of raising your Magic skill to strengthen your current spells, so there's still some progression.

>>18326052
I'm gonna go ahead and reword that last part of my post to be a bit less awful.

Perhaps we can relegate only the more powerful spells to items and leave the low to moderate spells as purchasable techniques, mainly so that there exists a large potential for magic-item-less character progression. In effect, the ceiling is just being raised. You can gain a variety of spells, but the more powerful spells (along with some alternate low- and mid-power spells, of course) are tied to items that you must find. You're still capable of raising your Magic skill to strengthen your current spells, so there's still some progression even at the upper echelons.

>>18326052
>>18326391
So, you're saying that there should be spells that magicians can acquire that aren't required for progression? I like that idea. It would be sort of like a weapon selection for mages. They could still act like items in the sense that their possess and equip it like a weapon, but they would be purchasable with experience or money (possibly in the guise of a magic school or shop.)

However, the worry is that if optional spells have certain effects (like fire, wind, teleportation), they have a big impact on what sort of challenges the GM can use. If a challenge depends on the player buying an optional ability, that's not what we want. (Building challenges to include abilities the players have ALREADY chosen is actually a good idea.) Likewise, a character in a dungeon who already has a spell effect similar to the dungeon's treasure can potentially skip and subvert challenges that depend on the treasure. 

>>18327013
One safe way to handle this is to limit the purchase of spells with effects like that until the group already has a similar effect. An example would be limiting optional long-range fire spells until the players have an item like the Fire Rod or Fire arrows. ...but then the problem is that the optional spells are redundant to what the party can already do.

Another solution would be to make early optional spells without any special effects that can't be used as tools. Later spells can afford to become more flashy because the challenges the players face will have expanded. Another problem with this is that it could lead to a number of unnecessary and uninteresting spells (generic buffs and debuff effects) that are included just for inclusion's sake.

Maybe I'm overthinking this. The magic system was one of the stumbling blocks of the old version too. 

>>18327013
>>18327187
>It would be sort of like a weapon selection for mages.
That's pretty much the idea, yeah. Much like how other characters can purchase techniques to increase their repertoire, so too can mages.

>However, the worry is that if optional spells have certain effects (like fire, wind, teleportation), they have a big impact on what sort of challenges the GM can use.
This is always the problem with things like this. I think the best we can do in this regard is to limit the utility potential of all non-item spells, with Utility spells still getting the most.

For example, although the mage can chuck a fireball, it has a short range. Maybe it has a small burst to compensate, maybe not, but the item Wand of Fire has superior range and likely no burst. That way, a solution to challenges being circumvented is to put the thing that needs to be lit on fire further away. With some PC Plans they may still be able to circumvent the challenge but I think that's an important thing to preserve in a tabletop game. The mage's fireball then just becomes another tool at the party's disposal rather than a single player's ability to ignore challenges.

(cont.)
>One safe way to handle this is to limit the purchase of spells with effects like that until the group already has a similar effect.
>but then the problem is that the optional spells are redundant to what the party can already do.
Yeah, I'm not sure that would turn out so well.

>Another solution would be to make early optional spells without any special effects that can't be used as tools.
>Another problem with this is that it could lead to a number of unnecessary and uninteresting spells (generic buffs and debuff effects) that are included just for inclusion's sake.
So I think that we also have to look at roughly how many spells we might include as techniques and adjust the cost accordingly, the goal being to limit the overall utility of spells as I mentioned above for the GM's sake. I'm also of the opinion that buff/debuff spells shouldn't be generic, though I'm not sure what would constitute a "generic" spell. Some people enjoy playing the buff/debuffer however generic it might seem.

So, without getting into specific Spells, here's a short list of what I think we should aspire to accomplish when designing magic:

- Higher cost to power up the skill, normal cost for Techniques
- Low- and/or Mid-tier spells as purchasable Techniques
- Spell diversity similar to weapon choices
- Generally limited Spell utility
- Powerful Spells tied to items
- Distinct effects for Spells above Low-tier
- Options at all times, even when MP is gone*

Thoughts? Additions?

*It just occurred to me that although MP-eating spells are iconic to LoZ, it might be good to take a hint from other games and include some free ones so that mages can be mages all the time. These would be similar to the Diablo 3 Wizard's "Signature Spells", 4E D&D's "At-Wills", and Pathfinder's "Cantrips/Orisons". Naturally, they'd have the weakest and most generic effects but would allow mages consistent options as well as provide combination concepts some cheap and easy Spells.

>>18327546
Your fireball example is exactly the sort of thing I was imagining for an early spell. Anyone can light a torch by hand, so a nearby burst of fire doesn't have as much utility beyond that. It also has a flavor of it's own, compared to other magic fire effects. And I wholeheartedly agree about PC Plans.

>>18327556
Limited utility does seem like the best way to go. A lot of enemy magic attacks from the series would make good spells (the wizrobe's penetrating crescent attack, Agahnim's lightning, Ganondorf's tennis ball) seeing as they provide interesting combat functions, like combat techniques are intended to do.

I'm not against buffs or debuffs in general, but the previous version had a few spells like Cripple and Inspire on the 1d4chan page that seemed bland. More flavorful effects like Curses, freezing and exhaustion are preferable than things like penalties to attack rolls.

>>18328130
I think that list is spot-on. I also agree with the idea of minor MP-free attacks; a short-range magic punch is what I had in mind when I mentioned minor spells for beginning magicians.

Can we please call them something other than Techniques? The name fits for combat moves, but other things you buy with xp should be called Perks or Edges or something to differentiate them.

>>18328501
>a short-range magic punch is what I had in mind when I mentioned minor spells for beginning magicians.
I cast Fist.

>the previous version had a few spells like Cripple and Inspire on the 1d4chan page that seemed bland.
Unfortunately, I think it's inevitable that some spells like that show up. Boosting your teammates' odds is one of the basic functions of a Utility mage. I agree we should try to limit how often things like that show up and make the bonuses/effects more specific and flavorful, but we likely can't eliminate them altogether.

To throw out examples of what I intend, a Utility Spell like Speed might grant a character or characters a +X to their movement. Another Utility Spell like Haste might give a single character an extra Action. While these don't directly add numbers to a character's dice rolls, they do provide some periphery utility. An acrobat with Speed cast on him is being attacked. He can dodge further away without directly increasing his odds. The same one with Haste and Speed on him still doesn't have a higher chance, but he can attempt it once more than usual and get further away each time. Even better, a character with Haste can swing a Heavy weapon twice.

>>18328588
We could always separate them into combat and non-combat categories. The combat ones we can call Techniques and the non-combat can be Perks, Edges, Advantages, Boons, or whatever. It wouldn't be difficult since Techniques are likely going to be tied to particular kinds of weapons and it would assist players in locating their desired options besides. I know that one thing I dislike in D&D is the wall of Feats, most of which are combat-oriented and none of which are separated from the deviants.

To that end, I would like a name more distinct than Edges, Advantages, or Perks. Something that has more LoZ flavor to it.

>>18328989
Those kinds of buffs sound good. In the case of Haste… adding extra actions is very potent. Since some things cost multiple actions, I guess it’s not as bad as 3.0 D&D where most spells are one Standard action. That one might have to be a mid-to-high level spell.

We might want to establish some more details before we start writing up lists of spells, but the concepts are always helpful.

I'm stumped on a fitting name for perks/feats. I'll try and continue covering the mechanics in broad strokes.

>>18329691
Specifics can wait for a while. Now that we have a better idea of what to do with Magic, what other areas still need discussion? Maybe we can figure out what to do with Songs in general?

The Music skill is used to perform magical songs. Songs can have a variety of effects, but very few of them are offensive; where spells are spontaneous and flashy, the effects of songs tend to be more subtle, affecting the environment rather than specific targets. Songs must be found in order to be learned, and anyone who learns the song can play it.
To properly play a song, the performer must make a Music check against the difficulty level of the particular song. When performed during combat, certain songs also require a varying number of actions to complete, with most songs requiring 2 actions.

The issue with songs is figuring out how often they can be used. The previous version’s solution was to limit the some effects of songs to being used only a few times per day. Minor songs like Epona’s Song were unlimited, things like the attack of the Sun’s Song were only useable three times a day, and extremely powerful songs like the Song of Time could only be used once a day.

>>18330363
>Whoops, forgot my name.
For powerful songs, this works out alright, but it’s a bit clumsier with the slightly more powerful effects. >>18321824 suggests songs having to recharge for a number of turns before they can be used again. That seems like a decent idea for minor songs. Including a new statistic to measure it may be difficult, but ranking the songs by how long they take to recharge sounds like a good place to start.

>Minor magical songs (Wind’s Requiem, Epona’s Song, Elegy of Emptiness) recharge measured in turns.
>Potent, combat effective songs (Sun’s Song, Song of Storms): Recharge measured in minutes
>Warping songs and other potent effects (Goron’s Lullaby, Sonata of Awakening, Ballad of Gales): Recharge measured in hours
>Extremely powerful or sacred songs (Song of Time, Oath to Order, Ballad of the Wind Fish): Recharges after a day.

>>18303811
Yay, the cover I made for you guys!

>>18330662
This sort of scale would also work well for balancing the effects of other unusual items, like transformations and mask effects. Techniques could reduce the recharge time instead of using a skill

Just stopping by to let you all know you're awesome for picking this up again. I look forward to trying out whatever you guys manage to get together. Also, the art makes my penis hard; keep up the good work.

>>18330662
>>18330709
Sounds pretty good. Variable duration is about the best we can hope for. We should probably come up with some kind of short-hand for the recharge rates.

>>18330692
I like it, I just wish there was a version without the white bits on the logo...

>>18330692

I went ahead and fixed the coloring inside the letters being off, it was bothering the fuck out of me.
>>18331486

If you wanna explain what you mean by white bits I'll take a look at it.

>post right pic but wrong text on the wrong board

I'm am beyond hopeless.

>>18331671
The antialiasing around the logo is fuzzy. Maybe you could type it out in the Zelda font and replace it?

>>18332233

If you wanna point me in the direction of the font you're talking about. Google gave a me a bunch of different ones, so not sure which one you're talking about.

>>18332425
The one on this page called "Triforce"
http://www.zeldalegends.net/index.php?n=fonts

here are the probabilities for keeping the middle of 3d6
>http://anydice.com/program/f8b
which seems to have roughly the same distribution as fudge dice

>>18333295
Cool. That's close to what I expected to happen.

Has this thread been archived yet?

>>18333403
Yeah, it's been archived. Part of the reason the first attempt crashed and burned was that people forgot to archive half the fucking threads.

Remember kids, suptg archive is your friend. It is easy to use and will not snap at you. So if any of you gets the idea to archive it, don't check with anyone, just do it.

Also, vote up the old LOZ rpg threads.

>>18330946
Thanks!

>>18331449
Shorthand? Do you mean an abreviation? Or to get more specific values for how long between uses?
Also, it would be important to note that you can't have two musicians play the same song individually to get past the recharge time. It's the song's effect on the world that is recharging, not the ability of the player. (There could possibly be an exception for the minor songs.)

Right now I'm trying to find a solution for Weight, Strength and forced movement. The idea is that some attacks or environmental features can push or knock down creatures, and creatures with a greater Weight than the force's Strength are pushed less, and creatures with less Weight are pushed farther.

Strength and Weight for creatures normally go from a scale of 1-5. Each rank doubles the amount of weight or strength of the previous rank, so something with Weight 4 is about twice as heavy as something with Weight 3.

I figure that certain techniques would have a Push or Knockback keyword attached to them, with a number indicating how many spaces the technique is supposed to move the target. The Spin Attack could have Knockback 2 or 3, for example.

The difference between the Strength of the attacker and the Weight of the target would adjust the number of spaces the target is forced to move. A Strength 2 creature attacking a Weight 2 creature with a Knockback 3 attack would move the target 3 spaces. If they used the same attack against a Weight 4 creature, it would only move 1 space. If they used it against a Weight 1 creature, it would move 4 spaces.

Is this too complicated? Does it unfairly limit the abilities of weaker/lighter creatures? Would it just be simpler to have knockback affect all creatures equally, regardless of strength and weight differences?

>>18333528
I don't see it being too bad. It's like the Size thing from D&D 3.X. As long as you have an assumed average (Medium in 3.X, 2 or 3 for both stats in LoZ perhaps?) that players can compare their stats to, it should be fine. Say a Goron player has Weight 4 and the humanoid average is 2 ST/Weight. Instead of constantly comparing his stats to what he's facing, the Goron player can just look at that Weight of 4 and think "okay, so I get knocked back two squares less than normal" unless noted otherwise.

>>18333528
By short-hand I meant something akin to tags or keywords. For example, a song entry might at some point read "Turn 3" or "Hour 1" indicating that it takes 3 turns or 1 hour to recharge. Even just a typical "3 Hours" rather than a dedicated sentence.
>(There could possibly be an exception for the minor songs.)
Probably worth making the exception to accommodate not only two or three musicians but also silly concepts like a wandering troupe of magical musicians.

>Weight, Strength and forced movement
I think they're worth keeping. Although lighter characters get pushed around more, heavier characters had such drawbacks as being unable to swim and stuff like that. We might consider not making the penalties so harsh, but if we can make it more simple then it's worth keeping.

I think we could get away with it if we change the weight scale. Instead of 1-5, we can do -X to +X and have 0 be the base Weight. From there, we can incorporate the Weight number directly into Knockback resistance. For example, a Weight 1 character (maybe a Goron) being hit with a Knockback 3 would only be pushed 2 instead (3 [base] - 1 [weight]). On the other hand, a Weight -1 character (a Deku) would be pushed 4 (3 - [-1]).

Now, if we're going to figure Strength into it, we may elect to have Knockback run off of Strength entirely with static bonuses added for purposely stronger effects (such as magical items). In effect, Knockback always pushes STR spaces by default. Extra effects might read Knockback +2 indicating STR+2 spaces.
Non-physical effects such as Magic can use Push instead, which is a static value determined by the Spell and also directly opposed by Weight. So a Spell or Song entry might read: "Push 4".

If the Knockback-Push divide seems too redundant, we can trim it even further and just use one and indicate what values to add for things like martial Techniques. For example, a Technique might read "Knockback Str+2" or "Push Str+2". Magic would be the same thing with a different, or no, stat.

The exact values of Weight and Knockback/Push we can figure out later, but that's what I was thinking might work out well. Although the above method has us subtracting negatives, I think it might be easier to get away with than a heavier character having a negative weight.

do we have a google document for this?

>>18334129
There's a 1d4chan page here:
http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Legend_of_Zelda_RPG

but that's all the original stuff that we're using as a strong base for a revision. I'll see about combining all the proposed changes as well as the base stats and mechanics into a document though. It would be a nice way to summarize for newcomers to the thread(s) where we are and what we've discussed so far.

sorryu about taken so long, but iended up getting slightly drunk and wandering of to /k for a couple of hours. thi is the best i could manage while drunk, im awae how shittty it is, gona fix it up tomrrow when hopefuly the room will have stopped shaken.

>>18333872
>>18333792
The average for the scale is 3, which is supposed to be the adult human average. Setting average at 0 and having numbers go into the negatives makes sense, but is also a little weird to read on a character sheet that you have "negative weight." It could also read as "very light/light/average/heavy/very heavy", but maybe numbers are easier to read and check differences. It doesn't affect the mechanics at all, but it can be changed.

I had thought of using Strength to determine Knockback, but scrapped it because I hadn't considered being able to adjust it. Having each weight category give a flat penalty or bonus to all movement solves the problem. So there could be a table that read something like:
>Very light: +2 spaces
>Light: +1 space
>Average: +0 spaces
>Heavy: -1 space
>Very heavy: -2 spaces

This means that using a typical Knockback attack against most things your size will result in a 3 space push, which sounds just fine.

Do we even have a character sheet, or the startings of one?

>>18334334
I could go dig up the WIP from the original project
I was just waiting to see what kind of changes were being made before I bothered with it

>>18334359
alright. Can you do that? also how do the stat's really work? what's the set limit for virtues at creation and have you simplified the attrabutes any yet?

>>18334296
>Having each weight category give a flat penalty or bonus to all movement solves the problem.
Essentially giving lighter characters more movement speed and heavier characters less? That sounds alright. I like that solution.

> It could also read as "very light/light/average/heavy/very heavy"
I don't see any reason we couldn't have both, much like what you greentexted. At this point we just need to pick our demon. I think it would be fine as you've outlined it. On a sheet it could be as simple as writing "Heavy (-1)" and directly below that the character's movement.

>>18334334
I made a character sheet for the original way back when under a different name. Since we haven't finalized any changes except for maybe the dice mechanic, character sheets will probably be a little while yet.

>>18334385
Here it is.
We really haven't touched on exactly how virtues and attributes will work now that the dice mechanics have changed.

>>18334416
okay so what's changed? I can work it all out.

>>18334451
to explain how the dice mechanics have changed would require me to explain the old mechanics, and I'd rather not even think about that.
What we have now is 3d6 keep the middle + skill (and attribute?). So if you roll 2, 4, 6, you keep the 4 and add your skill.
I'm not really clear on what role attributes and virtues will/should play at this point.

>>18334487
alright. Let's work this out. The virtues are connected to specific character qualities. you have to figure out which quality goes with each virtue.

Let's liken POWER to D&D Strength and constitution. The more points in power a character has, the stronger and hardier they are.

WISDOM could be equated to Intelligence and Wisdom inD&D, the more points in it, the more aptitude for magic problem solving they have.

Lastly, COURAGE would be like Charisma and Dexterity. More points mean you can interact with people and charge into danger easier.

>>18334657
so drop the attributes and make virtues function as attributes?

>>18334387
I meant to say "forced movement" instead of just "movement" but most heavy races will be slower than lighter ones and vice versa. Not all, though, so it shouldn't be a rule.

>>18334585
We aren't in a good place to start making a character sheet just yet. We would need to figure out what information is most important to have on hand before we start.

>>18334657
>>18334585
Virtues do not work that way. Did you read the thread (or even the old 1d4chan page?)

>>18334672
yes. it would simplify the mechanic while still hold the spirit of the games. have a minimum score of one and a maximum score of three with five points to work with at creation allows for specialized or rounded characters.

a focused character would have three points in one Virtue while having one point in the other two. a rounded character would have two points in two different Virtues while having one point in the other.

>>18334792
I did, but I didn't like it that much.

Could virtues just be a way to specialize characters? (Forgive me if this idea has already been suggested.)

Perhaps each race receives different traits on top of general traits for leveling power/courage/wisdom. Example: for each Power your character has that character receives +1 HP, but a Deku Scrub would also receive +1 Fire Resist (or whatever you call it). Make up spells and techniques that require virtue thresholds. Maybe give each virtue a different mechanical function as well to solidify their differences.

Slaving away into the morning starting up that Google Document.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MfxgWI4fkqE9j1EEy8fOrglrcmGsZ9Z2iqXVVD6bwZ4/edit

You guys should be able to edit it. Feel free to add anything I missed. Near the bottom begins the In Progress section. Jot down your ideas to topics of discussion. I tried to create a standard format for organizing them, so while you don't have to follow it exactly I would still appreciate it if further entries were similar. It's usually a question followed by numbered entries of proposed solutions.

I'm going to bed now. Hope to see more interesting discussion tomorrow!

>>18334657
>>18334792
>>18334834
>>18334972
Ok, let's get a few things clarified.
Virtues have never represented the physical or mental qualities of your character. Those were handled by Attributes in the old version (Physical, Mental, and Spiritual). Virtues represented concepts or ideals that your character identified with, and your value in a Virtue told you how many dice you kept from a rolled pool. Any social skill would roll a number of dice equal to your Spirit attribute, but intimidation would let you keep a number of dice equal to your Power (diplomacy used Wisdom, and inspiration used Courage.) Versatile weapons like swords fell under Courage, but overpowering weapons like hammers fell under Power. 

In this new concept, the idea is that your Virtue bonus is added on top of your skill bonus when you make a roll, if you are using your skill a certain way. If you use your Melee skill and you're using a sword, add your Courage to the roll.

tl;dr; virtues aren't supposed to be attributes. I'll add more on what they represent in the morning.

>>18335206

so then they're situational attributes.

>>18335388
i prefer "contextual"

>>18335146
Dice
>What dice mechanic should it use?

[x] Median 3d6 (roll 3d6 and take the middle result)
[] Fudge
[] 1d10

Blocking
>How do we limit the effectiveness of Blocking versus other modes of defense?

[] Degrading defenses: Each attack after the first imposes a penalty to the Blocker. The Blocker can use an action to “refresh” their block, clearing them of the penalties.
[] Static defenses: You take no penalties for multiple attacks against you.
[] Blocks used as a reaction do not persist beyond that single attack
[x] Each successive block consumes Stamina.


>How much of a bonus should a player get for blocking on their own turn?

Parrying
>Should it auto-succeed at the peril of the character losing an action?

[] Losing an action may be enough as it can set the player up for some brutal attacks later on despite avoiding one.
[] The character should take damage and/or lose an action.
[x] Wat?

Virtues
>What part should they play in the game?

[] Function as stats
[~] Give situational bonuses to actions aligned with each
[~] Be accumulated and used similar to edge or bennies

Magic
>How much more should raising the Magic skill cost?

>“Beginner” Spells with no Magic cost?

>How much magic is tied to items?

>How do we limit the utility of magic so as not to trivialize challenges?

[] Non-item spells have limited effects, ranges, and/or durations. Utility spells have specific effects. For example, a Fireball has a short range but may have a burst. A Wand of Fire has no burst but superior range, damage, and Magic cost. For Utility, a Speed spell might grant a character or characters +X Speed for a turn.

>>18335452
I don't like the idea of blocking costing Stamina. Isn't the point of it to act like MP for extraordinary physical maneuvers? Anyone who tries to block loses something when they succeed. It means that blocking around multiple weak enemies is inviting them to overwhelm you. Not to mention it seriously limits the ability of the defender to use their abilities when their turn returns.

I'd rather go with the continuous block, and include something like shield durability if nescesary

>>18337453
You know, I just had a thought. If Blocking is going to be continuous and not accrue any penalties or consume any Stamina for successive attacks, perhaps we should just make it consume all remaining actions or multiple actions.

>>18337506
>>18337453
The main reason for proposing blocking to be a continuous action was to deal with the awkwardness of using actions to defend against multiple attacks. In a 1-on-1 fight, the combatants would ideally save at least 1 action to react to their enemy's attack. If you have to spend multiple actions to respond to multiple attacks, it quickly burns up your remaining actions, and after you run out you can no longer defend yourself. That doesn't seem ideal.

In the case of Blocking, taking 1 action to use your Block skill until you take a new action (or get interrupted) is an imperfect solution, but is easy to keep track of and doesn't use up actions.

On a similar note; since (currently) Dodging costs an action every time you are attacked, it becomes painfully underpowered compared to the constant defense that Blocking provides. On the other hand, dodge's effect of letting you move half your speed every time you use it is too potent to be a constant effect. A solution to this could be:
>When you use an action to dodge, you use your Dodge skill to oppose enemy attacks until you take a new action or are interrupted. Until the beginning of your next turn, you can move a total number of spaces equal to your Speed every time you successfully dodge (with a limit of half your speed per dodge.)

This would make Dodging a "stance" effect like blocking. It gives players a "pool" of movement spaces they can spend whenever they dodge an attack. A Deku scrub with a speed of 7 could move 0-3 spaces when they successfully dodge, and could move only a total of 7 spaces per Dodge action.

>>18338661
>hopefully that dodge explanation made sense, it could use some rewording in the future.

If Blocking is still too good compared to the alternatives, something involving the durability of the shield could be worked out. Shields could have their own Durability that's measured in hearts like Life. Damage blocked takes away from the shield's durability, and certain elemental attacks (Fire on a wooden shield, electricity on an iron shield) would damage them greatly or destroy them outright. Shields could be repaired with a certain type of potion, or with some sort of Craft skill outside of battle.

If this idea seems like too much to keep track of or is too penalizing for shields, it might work well for heavy armor instead (with the possible exception that difference being that damage is divided between the armor and the wearer, instead of all going to the armor.) Heavy armor in the game would behave like the armor of Iron Knuckles or Darknuts in that they can be chipped away. 

Wearing heavy armor may also let you add your Power to your Base Defense to support reckless heavy weapon users. (In that same vein, Dodging and Block would get bonuses from Courage and Wisdom. I'm not sure which would go to which though. More on Virtues in a bit.)

>>18338661
>>18339561
Since the characters are expected to save an action for evasion, I think this might work out okay. I was initially concerned about combat slowing to a crawl with persistent defenses floating around but I've reconsidered. I think it would be okay to have Dodge and Block be continuous defenses while Parry and Counter-Attack are one-offs, mostly because they provide some potent extra functionality on top of avoiding an attack.

We'll iron out dodge's description later but what you're proposing is that dodge:

1. Be continuous like Block
2. Allow the defender to move half their speed each time they successfully Dodge
3. Be limited to the defender's total Speed in terms of how many spaces they can move overall (essentially, they can only move twice for the duration of the "stance")

Is that right?

I think this might be alright since it provides good options for two broad types of characters: Warriors and Acrobats.

As for the Shield and Armor thing, I don't quite like the idea of tracking durability. If they're going to break then they should probably just break right away. I figure that broken items should be a rare occurrence anyways since it can greatly affect the user's performance. Equipment breaking can be left to enemies like Like Likes or some Boss enemies. Even then it probably shouldn't be something they can casually do (by default, anyways).

For things like shields, we might opt to make them ineffective against certain things rather than destroyed by them. For example, a Wooden Shield might automatically fail Blocks against Fire. Ditto with Electricity and Iron Shields.

I can get behind the idea of Heavy Armor adding your Power (or even Strength) to your Base Defense. On that note, is armor going to add to your Base Defense or provide damage reduction? Right now I'm thinking that Heavy Armor's bonus to Base Defense would be little or no higher than normal armor but provide damage reduction on top of that.

I also have some concerns over the median 3d6 system. Since the results are so predictable, bonuses would have to be within a small margin of each other in order for one side not to dominate the other. A bonus as small as +2 above the defender would likely end with the defender losing very often. Unless bonuses are going to be minimal and skill raises few and far between, I think there needs to be a bit more swinginess in the dice results.

Perhaps 2d6 would work better in that regard? Maybe even flat probability as with a d10 would be more suitable.

>>18340009
>1. Be continuous like Block
>2. Allow the defender to move half their speed each time they successfully Dodge
>3. Be limited to the defender's total Speed in terms of how many spaces they can move overall (essentially, they can only move twice for the duration of the "stance")
That's correct, except the dodger can also choose to move less than half their speed. Someone with Speed 6 who dodges three times can move 2 spaces for all three dodges, 3 spaces for two of them and 0 spaces for another, or 1 space each time and not use the remainder of his available movement. (Dodging and moving 0 spaces is like ducking, weaving and jumping in place.)

>>18340155
Count out the durability idea then, it seems like block will work well without it. It still would be interesting and within Zelda fashion to give heavy armor some kind of glaring weakpoint.

And yes, I think heavy armor would increase both Base Defense and damage reduction. It should kill your speed though, without training.

>>18340731
I'm get where you're coming from. There was a suggested option to have extra 6's and 1's give a +1 or -1 to the kept roll; that could be interesting but should get approval before implementing. Skills and Virtues will be acquired fairly slowly (5 may be the maximum for both, and you can have negative skill/virtue.) Situational bonuses in combat (things like cover) could be a -1/+1 on average, with +2/-2 being exceptional cases. How do these guidelines sound?

>>18341127
>That's correct, except the dodger can also choose to move less than half their speed.
Right.

>It should kill your speed though, without training.
Agreed.

>There was a suggested option to have extra 6's and 1's give a +1 or -1 to the kept roll
Not a bad idea but I think we could simplify it even more. Maybe just giving bonuses for 6s? We should probably explore both options when the time to test comes around.

>Situational bonuses in combat (things like cover) could be a -1/+1 on average, with +2/-2 being exceptional cases
Sounds good.

So Block and Dodge will be continuous and end upon being hit.
Blocking on your turn gives you a bonus while Dodging allows you to move on a success.
What shall we do with Parry and Counter-Attack then?

Parry could probably do with a quick touch-up. Rather than losing an Action for failure, the defender just gets hit. The result for success is the same. The catch could be that you can't parry Heavy weapons except with other Heavy weapons. This also serves to give Blocking and/or Dodging another distinct use, presumably to avoid stacking just Melee and winning.

Counter-Attack, I'm not sure. It has the disadvantage of being a one-off defense but the advantage of being a combined defense and attack. What do you think?

For anyone wishing to offer their thoughts in-between threads or just get a quick-and-dirty version of our progress, you can find basic information and an ideas section ("In Progress") here:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MfxgWI4fkqE9j1EEy8fOrglrcmGsZ9Z2iqXVVD6bwZ4/edit

Feel free to add in your own ideas for current or new topics!

>>18341527
Counter-Attack doesn't really strike me as a defense in itself but rather something that's done after a successful block, dodge, or parry.

>>18341527
Sounds good for Parry. I do think you should be able to parry heavy weapons with a Shield though. Also, you would use the Block skill for parrying with both shields and weapons (just like normal blocking) unless you took a skill to let you use Melee or hand-to-hand instead.

Counterattacks... they're fairly situational; if used against a poor attacker it's more efficient than trying to get past their block, but against a strong attacker it's very risky.

On that note, I wonder if the counterattack maneuver could be given a different name (like preemptive attack or something), and the name Counterattack were given to a technique that actually involves countering. I'm thinking to the Ghirahim fights in Skyward Sword, where hitting his blade while he blocks a certain way lets him instantly strike back at you. I should hold off on making up new techniques before things are more finalized.

Speaking of Techniques, would Talents be a good name for non-maneuver purchaseable benefits? It sounds broad enough to cover both general perks as well as improved racial traits.
On the same topic, maybe the optional combat spells should be bought with money like weapons, rather than XP? The XP could then be used to enhance those spells.

Sorry about the tangent.

>>18343252
>>18343430
Perhaps Counter-Attack should just be relegated to a Technique wholesale. Three defense options should be enough, right?

>Talents
Seems cool. I'm still hoping we can think up something totally Zelda, but it'll probably serve just fine.

>maybe the optional combat spells should be bought with money like weapons, rather than XP? The XP could then be used to enhance those spells.
Perhaps, though I think spells being enhanced through upgrading the Magic skill is similar enough. Besides, if Spells are to be analogous to Techniques then there's no reason we can't have both. A few Spells can be bought with XP as Techniques and more can be bought in item form with Rupees. Hell, there could always be the option to use items that enhance your learned spells.

>>18343585
I guess the idea of the (to be renamed) counterattack is that it's a very basic reaction; simply trying and hit the other guy at the same time he tries to hit you. Now that I think of it though, a more obvious way to represent it is just using an action outside of your turn to attack before or after the action of your opponent.

I guess it should be important to figure out and define how actions outside of your turn work. 
>It would be a good idea going forward to use different names to distinguish the "pool" of actions you have each round, and the actual actions/reactions that can cost multiple points from that pool. Maybe call the former Action Points and the latter just Actions/Reactions. 

On your turn, you can use multiple Actions in a row, immediately after one another in the "initiative order." Outside of your turn, though, you can't use two Actions right next to each other. You have to wait between the Actions of the other combatants. 

Example: On an enemy's turn, he uses one Action to move next to you, and the uses another Action to attack you. You could perform an Action of your choice between move and the attack, and another Action after the attack, but you can't do both Actions between his move and attack.

An legal action order would be
>Enemy - Enemy - *Player* - Enemy - *Player*
where the asterisks mean that the player is acting outside of their turn. An illegal action order would look like
>Enemy / Enemy / *Player* / *Player* / Enemy
because the player acts twice in a row out of turn.

>>18344749
There would be two major exceptions: the first is that techniques or moves that cost multiple Action Points are considered individual Actions.

The second is that Reactions (like Dodge/Block/Parry) occur simultaneously with a different combatant's Action, so you can use an Action right before or after a Reaction (or another Reaction).

In shorthand, the way reactions would look is 
>Actor+Reactor
or
>*Actor+Reactor*
if the person performing the triggering Action is out of turn.

In that earlier example, if you let the enemy attack and you React with a dodge backwards, you could immediately afterwards perform a Jump Attack (which costs two action points) back towards him. If the enemy had other action points left, he could also React to your attack with his own defensive maneuver.

The order of that action sequence would look like 
>Enemy / Enemy+Player / *Player+Enemy*

>>18344749
>>18344778
uh... most games just let you hold your action to be used at any point in the round, including attempting to interrupt someone else's attack.

>>18334416
Guy who made the fancy character sheet here.

Slightly buthur about the wanted removal of Virtues and Atributes, but I might be biased due to making the sheet.

I'll (re)make a pretty sheet again when shit is more decided.

(also I only read a portion of the thread.)

>>18344778
In short:
1) You can use multiple Actions in a row during your turn.
2) You can't use more than one Action in a row outside of your turn.
3) Reactions count as being part of the triggering combatant's action.
4) You can use multiple Reactions in a row.
5) You can use an Action outside of your turn before or after a Reaction.

Does this make sense? Does it seem fair? Abuseable? Are there any major issues I left out?

>>18344904
I understand that you didn't read the whole thread, but I don't know where you got the "wanted removal of Virtues and Attributes".
To my knowledge there's only been talk of changing the role that Virtues play. To be honest though, I'm not quite sure what role Attributes now play with the new dice mechanic.

>>18344937
If it's removed or renewed, it's fine either way.

I'd rather not try to translate all this info in my head tonight, I'll just wait till there's a more focused direction before making major input and revising the sheet.

>>18344916
Okay, I think I understand what you're getting at now. I like the idea in principle but I think we can simplify it yet. Perhaps rather than attempt to incorporate it in the core mechanics we can attach a tag to Techniques indicating that they can also be used after a Reaction in addition to their normal use. It could be "Follow-up" or some such thing.

I think acting before a Reaction is a bit much and kinda takes away from the idea of a reaction. Acting directly after it keeps perfectly with the spirit of LoZ combat, I think.

>>18344916

I can imagine the feel of combat in this ruleset, and I like it a lot. It's different, more intense.

As a side note, maybe there are items/magic that add to your Action pool. Just a little thought for later.

>>18344986
That's probably for the best. At the moment the thread is a pile of hopeful ideas that seem to work well together so far. Sheets should probably hold off until we know what information the characters will need to keep track of.

>>18344937
The Attributes of Physical/Mental/Spiritual are gone. Attributes is the new name for statistics that don't affect dice rolls (Carrying strength, weight, size, speed, and health/magic/stamina). Virtues are still around, we just haven't gotten around to carefully defining them yet. (I will do them tomorrow for sure)

>>18345079
It definitely does need simplifying, or at least clarifying. I'd sort of prefer to leave the possibility open to use any Action after a Reaction (drawing items, making other attacks, running away). Using an action after dodging or blocking also ends those "stances," so it adds a bit of risk.

When I said "you can use an Action before a Reaction", I meant it more like "if you use an action outside of your turn and then get attacked, you're still allowed to use a Reaction, so you don't accidentally screw yourself out of a chance to defend while you still have Action Points left."
It probably should have read "you can use an out-of-turn Action next to a Reaction." It probably sounded like you could act and then immediately choose to react without the target's chance to do anything, but that's not the intention.

>>18345137
Glad you think so, and there will be.

>>18345304

Aww. I'm gonna miss the Physical/Mental/Spiritual attributes. The way they were designed on the prototype sheet looked pretty sweet. But function is more key than form, I suppose.

>>18345365
I did like the idea of combining Attributes and Virtues. It was really flavorful but the overall mechanics were too cumbersome.

>>18345304
>Using an action after dodging or blocking also ends those "stances," so it adds a bit of risk.
Ah, that is true.

>When I said "you can use an Action before a Reaction", I meant it more like "if you use an action outside of your turn and then get attacked, you're still allowed to use a Reaction, so you don't accidentally screw yourself out of a chance to defend while you still have Action Points left."
That's good. I have some reservations about taking any assortment of actions on another character's turn, but it's probably not as bad as I imagine it might be. Especially when I take into consideration that defending is active. I can see it being interesting to fiddle with.

I suppose the next logical step is to ask how we'll determine who can take their action first. If anyone can take an out-of-turn action, what do we do when multiple characters (including enemies) want to take one? The scenario running in my mind is this:

Players A and B are fighting Enemies C and D. Suppose that it's Enemy C's turn and they take an action to move up to Player B. In response, both Player A and Enemy D want to use an out-of-turn action to move next to them as well. For the sake of argument, assume that there's only room for one of them. Who goes first?

I've gotta sleep now but I look forward to reading any responses in the morning.

>>18345578

Well, I believe that would be decided by the starting initiative. Unless they chose to begin actions against each other, simultaneously with the other two they would have to go by what's already been decided.

As far as actions go, as well, if you use your three action on a turn other than your own, are they refreshed when your turn comes up? The reason I ask is, if you don't go first in a normal initiative, you have an unfair advantage versus the sorry suckers that go before you. Therefore, to be able to even use said actions during other people's turns, you must ready them, such as the ready actions common in normal D&D. I don't want to seem like I'm being redundant, which I very well might be, but this seemed like an issue, at least for the very start of a fight.

As I said before, this can lead to very intense and strategic battles. While this -may- cause some delay in battle due to the players maybe wanting to think their moves out carefully, after some adjustment (as would be expected in any tabletop game), things should pick up. Just my thoughts and comments on the matter.

>>18345912

Also, I'll be back in the thread after a little rest, probably six hours or so from now...if anyone is gonna be active at that time. Cheers, friends! I hope this project really turns into something amazing.

>>18345912
1) You can hold your actions and go on a later turn.
2) On whatever turn you use your held actions, you may declare your action before or after the other player/GM has declared their action, but you must declare your action before the action phase on which you wish to act is resolved. In other words, you can't wait for the result of someone else's action and then retroactively attempt to prevent it.
3) Any actions that would not interfere with another action taken in the same action phase are resolved simultaneously. Any such actions that would interfere with one another are resolved in order of initiative.
4) In the case of any held actions that would interfere with another action
a. If successful, the other character is prevented from performing their action
b. If unsuccessful, the other character's action resolves as normal.
5) If held actions are not used before your next turn, you lose those held actions.

How's that?

>>18346169

Perfect. I mean, I can't think of much more related to combat now, other than items that may give you boosts, but that pretty much goes without saying.

>>18347733
I can't even BEGIN to picture what the armory in this game will look like. Parrying attacks with a butterfly net will be hilarious.

>>18348238
Ready your weapons!

>>18348336
Keep a magic bottle filled with some lava from Death Mountain. Crack bottle against enemy's head. Enjoy show.

>>18348391

You would lose the bottle, though..so wasteful.

>>18346169
This sounds just about perfect. All the explanations will eventually need to be cleaned up for brevity, but everything there looks good to me. Hopefully this won't be too cumbersome in practice

DetermInimg the order of initiative, though, that's the tricky part. The original project made it a Physical Courage roll, which is already an imperfect solution. Giving initiative it's own value or skill doesn't seem too important, as the ability to act out of turn makes having to go last in a round less scary than in a more structured system. Knowing your turn is still important for knowing when you can chain actions and when certain effects trigger.

It could be tied to something like speed, just be a normal roll with Courage added, or be something overly simple like "Players go before NPCs", and letting them delay to mix up their turns as the initiative goes on.


(You should be able to delay your turn by taking no actions when it comes up, and then placing it back into the order after a different turn ends.)

>>18348444
>"Players go before NPCs"
Zelda players *do* take initiative in combat, usually. Might get a little ham-handed if Skulltulas don't ever get to swing before getting decimated. Enemies (particularly bosses) ought to be able to have more leeway within initiative.

Speed+Courage would be passable enough for initiative. Again, though, considering the fluid and engaging nature of what combat is becoming, it can become irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. If an enemy and a player tie, the player automatically wins. If two players tie, higher Courage wins (the player is more inclined to throw themselves into the fray).

>>18348444

I'm thinking maybe the roll plus courage. I think that'll be the easiest. For when players roll the same initiative, whoever has the higher courage should go first, but if they're tied even then, have them reroll their initiative seperately

>>18348480

I really don't think we should downsize enemies so much. They're probably not gonna have nearly as good stats as the players most of the time, so stunting them even moreso seems like a moot point. If they go first, they go first.

>>18348501
So final suggestion for Initiative (applies to PCs and NPCs):

Initiative = Speed + Courage
PC = NPC: PC wins
PC = PC: Higher Courage wins; if tie exists, roll-off

>>18348520

Still think initiative should be a level playing ground even to NPC's, since some of them won't be smart enough to use their actions super-effectively anyways, but I can cope with that.

>>18348533
So scratch the "PC auto-wins if tied" rule?

>>18348540

I don't mind it, and it does simplify initiative, so keep it for that sake.

>>18348594
We'll make it an optional rule, then, for those GMs who want to offer the option. Beyond that, the standard will always apply (Speed+Courage, higher Courage wins).

>>18348533
>>18348520
It could be arranged that higher Courage wins ties, even for NPC's. Also, since attributes aren't intended to affect dice rolls, I'd rather Initiative be +Courage instead of +Speed+Courage.

Also, having a small stat called Initiative that is equal to your Courage modifier could work. It could be improved with Talents (That would say "+2 to Initiative" instead of "+2 to Courage for the purpose of Initiative.") Most monsters will not have Virtues either, so having an Initiative stat for them, independent of Courage, would solve that problem easily.

>>18348611
So, wait. Are players rolling for initiative or using their baseline number?

>>18348623
Whoops, yes, rolling. No idea how I forgot to mention that.

>>18348650
That fills in a lot of blanks. In that case, Initiative will be Roll + Courage + extra mods, higher Courage wins ties.

>>18348663

Sounds good. Are there any moves in combat that we should go over otherwise? I heard the push action or something similar up above having to do with weight, for instance. Should we do something special for actions such as trip attempts or grapples? Or are they already covered by the skills?

>>18348683
Any particular maneuvers like trips and shoves and anything extra-fancy can be left to GM discretion, assuming there's no space in the rules to adequately explain it. Hell, one of the pieces of art constantly reposted involves a Goron hurling a Shiekah ala fastball special. How would you explain THAT in the rules, if at all?

>>18348846

By special, I didn't particularly mean -that- special, though that would be quite epic, eheh. I just meant more like the variety of combat choices you have in D&D.

>>18348683
We worked out how Weight ties into forced movement attempts, in that it reduces or increases the number of spaces pushed. Attacks that knock you prone, though... That's tricky. It's going to be very important for things like the Fatal Blow maneuver, where you execute a downed enemy at the cost of several actions (note: monsters shouldn't have this ability). The way I see it happening most often is tied to attacks with Knockback like the Spin Attack. How you actually determine whether a creature gets knocked down is going to be an issue. It could be something like if you get pushed 3 spaces or more by Knockback (the average distance) you go prone. Taking an action on your turn to stand your ground would move you 1 or 2 less than usual. (which could also give a bonus to all defenses as you prepare yourself, which could replace the "bonus to block before a reaction" idea.)

Grappling is another issue. Grabbing someone could be a Hand-to-Hand attack (with Power as a modifier). It would restrain the creature and keep them from doing much of anything until they escape. Escape, though, is another issue. What sort of skills would be used to escape? Perhaps a choice of Hand-to-Hand or Dodge, whichever is higher. It may also be good to give grabs a penalty to hold on after the first round of grabbing, so players aren't trapped forever by a vastly superior grappler.

>>18348846
You could treat the thrown partner, or even enemy, as a thrown object (see >>18318855 ), using their Weight and your Strength. There's a precedent in the games for carrying around and throwing your allies.

>>18348864
Always leave possibilities open for PC Plans.

>>18348930

Thanks for the info. Just wanted to hear some more concrete stuff, is all. This is all stuff we have to think about, and at that, think carefully, so I just want to cover all our bases.

At any rate, once we tidy up combat and such, I think we should move on to skills, and maybe after that, to give ourselves a break, start to create a list of items players can get. I think we can invent some on our own, but there should be a metric fuck-ton of them from the series. I'm personally hoping to see the fire-spewing candle from the original LoZ.

>>18348930
Ahh, grappling. It had to come up sooner or later. Definitely a H2H attack to initiate the grab. From there,

the attacker may:
- throw the opponent (H2H + Power vs. Weight),
- maintain the grab/choke/submission (a continuous H2H + Power per turn/action to do damage vs. Passive/Active Defense [not sure which] + Weight; option to drop to the ground with enemy for extra grapple bonus),
- shift/hold opponent in place (H2H + Power vs. Weight),
- and other assorted options.

The defender, meanwhile, can:
- break/escape the grapple (primary attack stat [physical/magical] + Power vs. enemy grapple check),
- reverse the grapple (H2H + Power vs. identical),
- struggle (primary attack stat [physical/magical] + Power vs. grappler's Passive Defense to do damage),
- and other assorted options.

Use preferred stats (Str/Agi/etc.) where applicable. Mages ought to be able to defend themselves against grapples too, likely by exuding magic or laying hands to burn the enemy grappler, hence the "primary attack stat" line above. Magical/physical binding may differ from general grappling, so elaborate where necessary if it comes to it.

Pic related: an enemy's (very) successful throw against Saturday morning!Link.

>>18349406
Adjust the checks with applicable/more pertinent stats where necessary, obviously. That's just a rough draft.

>>18349406
>>18349428
Definitely a good selection of options. The main adjustment would be to switch the defender's Weight with Base Defense, since Weight isn't rolled for. Weight would still affect how far the defender could be dragged/thrown.

>>18350590
Grabber
>use a basic Hand-to-Hand attack (which could be a punch, choke, or stab) against the grabbed target, vs. their Base Defense. You can't use Techniques while grabbing unless the technique specified otherwise.
>Drag or reposition the target (H2H + Power vs Base Defense). Success lets you move the target a number of spaces equal to your Strength. You can move half your speed while doing this, but your grabbed target has to stay next to you or the grab ends.
>Throw target (H2H + Power vs Base Defense). Ranges for throwing objects need to be determined, but they'd treat the target like an object with their equivalent Weight. The grab ends whether you succeed or fail.

Grabee
>Escape forcefully (H2H + Power vs enemy's grab skill)
>Escape agilely (Dodge + Wisdom vs enemy's grab skill)
>Use a basic attack (Attack skill and virtue - [some penalty] vs Base Defense). Deals damage as usual and would break the grab. Hand to Hand attacks would take no penalty. Melee and Magic would take -1 or -2, Heavy and Ranged would be worse. (maybe this should be only avaliable as a technique)

Action point values for those maneuvers (especially the grabber's) may need to cost more. We can say that doing any action that involves the grabbed target sustains it... Although I'm wondering if it would be better to have grabs automatically end at the end of the grabber's next turn. Escaping earlier than that would be ideal for you, but you couldn't hypothetically be trapped forever by a poor rolls or insufficient skills.

Glad to see this is coming back. I'm sort of disappointed none of the drawfags are back, though. I miss the art from the old threads.

Just popping in for a sec to offer up my opinion.

>>18350736
Since it looks like the Grabber's actions boil down to H2H + Power, I think it's safe to say that it will boil down to that for non-attack actions.

For reasons similar to the Block/Parry discussion earlier in the thread, I would say that the Grabee simply shouldn't be able to attack unless using H2H. Techniques can always be made to allow it later on, but not by default.

>On initiative
If initiative's role is downplayed by the ability to act outside of your turn, perhaps it's best to simplify it as much as possible by not having it rolled.

>Prone
It could always be its own effect, though I do think fondly of the idea that getting knocked back a certain distance inflicts it. However, we'll have to consider that when eventually seriously building race blocks.

In the Zelda RPG, Virtues represent the aspects of the Triforce that your character most embodies or most strongly believes in. Mechanically, they are statistics that affect your skills based on how they are used. To overgeneralize, it could be said that Power is offensive, Wisdom is defensive, and Courage is versatile. However, in terms of how virtues affect playstyles, it can be more accurately said that Power is overwhelming, Wisdom is subtle, and Courage is decisive.

When using a skill with an appropriate item, spell, or weapon, or using an appropriate function of the skill, you add your Virtue modifier to your roll, on top of your Skill modifier.

Swords, being versatile, are Courage weapons. Blunt and brutal tools like halberds and maces are Power weapons. Performing a Hand-to-Hand attack to strike a pressure point and stun an enemy would fall under Wisdom, but grappling them into submission would fall under Power. Performing a spell that carries you forward on a gust of wind would be Courage related, one that froze a body of water to cross it would be Wisdom related, and one that shaped platforms out of raw earth would be Power related.

>>18352226
The Virtue of Power represents force, authority, desire, and the will to exert change on the world. Din, the goddess of Power, shaped and formed the world through strength. It represents both a noble king whose strength inspires his confidence in his subjects, and an ambitious tyrant who subjugates others to fulfill his goals.

In game terms, Power is related to overwhelming martial and magical force. A character who values power is inclined to destroy obsticles in their path and reshape the world to suit their designs, for good or ill.

The Virtue of Wisdom represents knowledge, responsibility, temperance, and compassion. Nayru, the goddess of Wisdom, created the laws of nature and gave order to the world. At best, it represents a prophet who shares his wisdom to guide and support others. At worst, it represents a trickster who decieves and misdirects to achieve his own ends.

In game terms, Wise characters are patient and subtle, choosing to fight defensively or evasively. A sorceror who uses magic to protect their allies and impede their foes, and an assassin who strikes only when the circumstances are right, both plan and think ahead to turn the odds in their favor.

The Virtue of Courage represents innocence, loyalty, determination, and bravery. Farore, the goddess of Courage, placed life on the world to grow and mature. A faithful and heroic champion or a vain, naïve or boastful individual, both align with this virtue. Courage also represents a point of balance between the opposing forces of Power and Wisdom.

In game terms, Courage-based characters are versatile and decisive fighters. Instead of overpowering force or cautious judgement, they are warriors that stand and fight, adapting well to changing circumstances and influencing the direction of battle by opening up and exploiting the weakness of their enemies.

Have the new races from Skyward Sword been added? Kikwii, Mogma's and Lanayru Mining Robots?

>>18352285
They will be, fairly soon.

>>18351688
It also clears up the issue brought up in >>18345578 of conflicting actions. The conflicting parties could compare initiative values or roll to see who goes first. Having it be equal to Courage is also thematically appropriate and makes it simple to determine.

The alternative to Initiative would be to have all the players go at once before the monsters, but even that doesn't help decide who goes first in those chunks. Turn order is important for things like status effects and when you can chain actions. No initiative could work, but right now it seems like it's not hurting much.

>prone
Let's stick with the "Knockback 3 knocks you prone" for now, if it ends up being horribly overpowered we can change it.

Speaking of, since Blocking is now classified as a Reaction, the earlier idea of "blocking ahead of time to get a bonus" isn't quite compatable with it. What if it were replaced with this action?

Prepared Defense - [Action, 1AP] - Stance
You gain a +1 bonus to your next Reaction against an attack. Also, if you are affected by Knockback during the Reaction, you move 1 space less than usual. This effect ends after the reaction takes place, or if you take a different action before then.

Skills and Virtues are both upgradable through rewards given alongside experience points (Skill points and Virtue points, respectively.) Broad skills cost more to improve than specific skills will. 

Skills are meant to improve slowly, possibly capping at 5 (Virtues will improve even more slowly, and may cap at 3 instead of 5). Each rank in a Skill or Virtue will cost more to improve than the previous rank. You can have negative ranks in a Skill or Virtue at character creation.

Buying ranks in Skills does not expand their abilities directly, only their modifier. However, many Techniques and Talents have a Skill or Virtue requirement before you can buy them.

>Thoughts on this, or any earlier proposals?

>>18353781
Prerequisites to techs or talents can be prohibitive if mishandled.

>>18354013
Ideally, there will be a large variety of skills avaliable for different skill ranks, and plenty without requirements.

Skill List:
>Melee (Courage/Power/Wisdom)
The Melee skill covers the use of one-handed melee weapons. The Virtue varies depending on the type of weapon used.

>Heavy (Courage/Power/Wisdom)
The Heavy weapons skill covers the use of large, two-handed melee weapons. The Virtue varies depending on the type of weapon used.

>Hand-to-Hand (Courage/Power/Wisdom)
The Hand-to-Hand skill is used for unarmed combat and the use of small weapons, like daggers. The Virtue can vary depending on the style of unarmed combat used. Daggers always use Wisdom.

>Ranged (Courage/Power/Wisdom)
The Ranged weapon skill covers the use of thrown and projectile weapons. The Virtue varies depending on the type of weapon used.

>Magic (Courage/Power/Wisdom)
The Magic skill is used to activate magic items and cast spells. The Virtue varies depending on the type of item or spell used.

>Block (Courage)
The Block skill is used to defend against or deflect attacks with shields and other items, and is also used for various shield-related techniques. It uses the Courage virtue.

>Dodge (Wisdom)
The Dodge skill is used to avoid attacks, as well as perform acrobatic maneuvers. It uses the Wisdom virtue.

(It should be important to note that difficulty for target numbers shouldn't heavily depend on the bonuses from Virtues. A non-Wisdom focused character should still have a reasonable chance using Dodge with the skill bonus alone.)

I haven't yet read through everything, but I'm happy you kept the tag concept.

I'll suggest a dice mechanic (even though you might already have one) where your Virtue, Attribute, Skill and possibly Technique give you a d6, then you get successes for each die that rolls under your Virtue score, each die that rolls under your Attribute score, etc. Might be iffy when everything's maxed, though.

>>18354553
Methinks that would work better with d10's, and I think we're pretty set on sticking with d6's.
Current mechanic is 3d6, keep the middle + skill rank + applicable virtue bonuses

>>18354553
Roll-under dice pools were one of the options I came across (and scrapped) while trying to find a useable dice system. I think it boiled down to just not having enough grades on a d6, and no real ideas on how to make a success based system (the previous version used successes, but they only really mattered for damage rolls, which this new system lacks.) Right now we've got a binary, straight comparison dice mechanic with curved results, which seems sufficient so far. Hope you're pleased with the rest of the concept.

Skill List (cont.)
>Observation (Wisdom)
The Observation skill is used to observe and discern details and clues about objects and creatures. It is also used to detect hidden or illusory creatures or features. It uses the Wisdom virtue.

>Stealth (Wisdom)
The Stealth skill is used to move carefully and quietly, hide from other creatures, and perform activities without them being noticed. It uses the Wisdom virtue.
>(Should Stealth be used for things like balancing on a narrow ledge instead of Dodge? Just a thought.)

>Music (Courage/Power/Wisdom)
The Music skill is used to perform magical songs. The Virtue varies depending on the effect of the song used.

>Sway (Courage/Power/Wisdom)
The Sway skill is used to influence the thoughts and emotions of others and perform other social functions. The Virtue varies depending on the method of influence used.

>Knowledge* (Wisdom)
The Knowledge skill is used to acquire, recall, and apply information about a variety of subjects. It uses the Wisdom skill.

>Piloting/Riding* (Courage/Power/Wisdom)
The Piloting/Riding skill (could use a better name) is used to drive and control vehicles, mounted creatures, and remote-controlled devices. The Virtue varies depending on the type of thing the skill user is attempting to control.

>>18354970
*Knowledge and Piloting are both skills that could benefit from having sub-skills attached to them, such as Knowledge: Reptiles, Knowledge: Kokiri Forest, Piloting: Horse or Piloting: Boats. What would be good ways to handle this? Buying skill ranks in topics that narrow seems unusual.

Also to consider is the inclusion of the Craft skill. In the last version, it was consistently rejected due to the lack of need or precedent for it in a Zelda game. However, with the advent of Skyward Sword's upgrade system for items and potions, it seems like treating Craft along those lines could make it a viable skill again. Thoughts on this? Any other new skills that could be considered?

>>18354988
crafting as a skill just doesn't seem to fit the pace of zelda games. crafting usually entails extended actions or multiple successes required. even if you only have to get one success and *bam* it's done, what if you fail? how long do you have to wait until you try again? it just seems simpler to do gear upgrades the way they're done in the games. there's always been precedent for upgrading items, but I still don't think there's any precedent for crafting as a PC skill, unless you want to play The Legend of Zelda: Merchants of Hyrule the RPG.

>>18354970
>(Should Stealth be used for things like balancing on a narrow ledge instead of Dodge? Just a thought.)
I say no. Even Gorons can make balance checks when necessary, and they're not exactly stealthy.

>>18354988
We can't make Knowledge or Piloting skills overly narrow. I'd say depending on how many ranks you have in either skill, you can expand your boundaries and learn and understand more. The more ranks, the more domains of your choice. Languages in other games comes to mind when handling this.
I see no reason to be opposed to Crafting as a skill. Link has always found damn near everything he's ever used. What's to stop a Goron from forging a cousin of the Biggoron Sword in the fires of Death Mountain himself? What's to keep a Shiekah and a Kokiri from pooling their talents and resources to make herbal remedies (and poisons) for the rest of the party?

>>18355083
Gear upgrades in games generally involve beating a boss and finding an oddly-convenient upgrade in the immediate vicinity. That's how Link does things more often than not. He's a child of serendipity, you can't deny that.
On the other hand, there's nothing keeping a party from being perfectly self-sufficient. You sound like you're worried about the overall elegance of a crafting system; I figure it's ultimately no different from any other skill check. Depending on how involved the process can be, the party can forage and make their own potions and doodads.

Updated the archive with the current information.

http://suptg.thisisnotatrueending.com/archive/18303811/

Copying over the Stamina rules I wrote in a previous thread [with additional info]:
- You have Stamina equal to three times your Power [might need to be calculated some other way if characters can have 0 Power].
-- Moving less than half your speed this round recovers your Power in Stamina.
-- Not moving at all this round recovers your Power in Stamina [stacks with the previous rule, in case that isn't clear].
-- Not using Stamina this round recovers your Power in Stamina [I think normal sword attacks paused Stamina regeneration in Skyward Sword, but "don't attack to recover Stamina" seems too harsh to me].
-- Running out of Stamina forces you to recover it all next round [tried to get the feel of the Stamina system, doubt I succeeded].
- Sprinting: You can spend 1 Stamina to increase your movement by 1, up to your Move score [might not fit with the current rules - "Spend half your Speed in Stamina to dash" would screw over Deku Scrubs].
- Climbing: You spend your Mass in Stamina for each round spent climbing. You can spend your Mass in Stamina to double your distance climbed this round [might penalise high-Mass characters twice, depending on how climbing works].
- Special Moves: You must pay the Stamina cost of the move to use it.

>>18355119
mixing potions on the fly or cobbling together special tools isn't a big deal, but crafting/upgrading shields/weapons/armor etc. requires special equipment that can't exactly be carried around on an adventure, so it seems more thematically appropriate to have that handled at shops in towns or a village forge or some such.

>>18355148
A) That kinda goes without saying, although
B) who's to say what a party has access to wherever they are out and abroad? Leave it to GM discretion to say what can be crafted where.

>>18354988
>>18355093
>knowledge skills
y'know how highlighted keywords pop up in dialogue in the vidyas to let you know that something's important? how bout whenever something sounds important you can roll to see if you know about it and how much? the higher your knowledge skill the more likely you are to know and the more you are likely to know about random things that come up throughout the adventure.

>>18355212
So just a general overall knowledge stat that triggers on keywords?

>>18355219
yes?

>>18355219
the GM can adjust the difficulty based on the character's background and what he's likely to know

>>18355093
>Gorons
That's racist (but I agree about Dodge).

>>18355212
>>18355240
>Knowledge topics
So your level of Knowledge skill would give you access to more obscure information? Ok, hang on.

Individual topics of knowledge you want to specialize in would be treated like Talents, with obscure, mysterious or broad topics giving a +1 bonus and more specific or familiar topics giving you a +2. (Your background could also give you one free topic at character creation.) Succeeding on a Knowledge check would give you a bit of info or a hint from the GM about the thing you're asking about. The more obscure the information or specific the question, the GM would assign it a higher difficulty. Failure means you don't remember and can't try again until after a while (you check your notes or it comes back to you.)

Not sure if the same idea (topical bonuses) could be used for Riding/Piloting, but just using Talents and Techniques specific to animal riding, vehicle driving, or remote operating would work just fine on top of the base Skill and Virtues. Come to think of it, we already had this idea about the Magic specialization Talents. This seems ok.

>Crafting
Making potions in the field is mostly what I imagined using Craft for. The problem is providing the resources used to make them, and Skyward Sword's bug collecting wouldn't translate well to a tabletop RPG. Let's scrap the Craft idea again for now.

The way I see it, players who want to play craftsmen/alchemist characters could reflavor the cost of buying upgrades or potions by saying they're material costs. In fact, there could be some Talents that relate to it as well (an Alchemist talent giving a discount for potions, saying it cuts out the shop's markup price).

Morning bump

>>18355137
>Starting Stamina
Right now, the idea is to have Life, Magic and Stamina be arranged independently of other stats at character creation, so that's covered.

>Recovering Stamina
I suppose the current idea is to have stamina recharge 2 points per turn by default. Either that, or maybe 1/4 your total Stamina (which would get very powerful once you have 4 bars.) Not spending stamina or attacking in a turn could boost it up to 4 points.

>Running out
Running out of Stamina in SS basically cut your speed in half and made you unable to attack or defend. That would be easy enough to emulate (maybe as a Weakened condition), but what counts as running out may be hard. Triggering it when you have 0 Stamina effectively reduces your usable Stamina by 1 point, since you'd try to keep at least one point in reserve. Instead, perhaps you trigger it if you go under 0. It would then last until the end of your next turn, when you start recovering as usual. (needs work)

>Sprinting and alternate movement
 Right now the plan is to have Dashing (sprinting may be a better name) increase your movement speed by 1.5 for 2SP per movement action. Alternate modes of movement like climbing, swimming, and crawling cost twice as much movement as usual, so Dashing applies to that too. It could also increase your max jump distance, which is normally half your speed (it would become half your improved speed.) Jumping costs normal movement though.

>Climbing, Balancing and Pushing
A simple way to do this would be to have each action spent doing a strenuous task like this cost 1 or 2 Stamina. So dashing to climb would cost 3 stamina per movement action. Attaching penalties to Mass/Weight hurts heavy characters twice as badly as light ones, since their movement speed is already lower than average.

Thoughts?

>>18357527

>Starting Stamina
I don't have a strong opinion on how to calculate this, so I have no complaints with your idea.
Have you thought of how characters can get more Life/Magic/Stamina at character creation yet?

>Recovering Stamina
I'm a bit biased because this is the Neat Thing of my rules, so I'd want to use something similar - maybe regain 1/4 of your total Stamina (needing to spend more time to fully recover if your Stamina is better seems wrong to me) for each (non-attack) action that doesn't use Stamina?
Kinda depends on what sort of Stamina costs moves like Spin Attack have and how often they should be used.

Also, does lifting an object with a Weight equal to your Strength basically stop your Stamina regain (automatically regain 2 a round, spend 2 a round)?

>Running out
I think running out at 0 is fine, since the penalty is so bad in combat you'd want to keep a buffer against it anyway. It also gets rid of negative Stamina, which I find a bit odd.

>Sprinting and alternate movement
Just to clarify:
- If you spend 2 actions Dashing, it'd cost you 4 Stamina points?
- If you jump 3 spaces, that'd cost 3 movement?
Again, you could Dash once a round if you don't mind "losing" your Stamina regain.

>Climbing, Balancing and Pushing
Stamina costs for Pushing, possibly Climbing, could be based on your Strength - it's less effort for a strong character to push a block all over the place than a weaker team-mate.
I kinda want Balancing to be more difficult for heavier characters in some way, but a higher Stamina cost seems wrong.

>>18357990
At character creation, players will have a minimum of 3 Life, 1 Magic, and 1 Stamina, and will have 3 points to spread among them. Currently, Humans get one extra point. In game, upgrades to these stats will be acquired in the form of Heart, Magic, and Stamina Containers. (how to distribute them among a party is an issue for another time.)

Recharging 1/4 sounds fine. Since each level of Stamina is 4 points, it could even be said that you regain SP equal to your Stamina level. I'm thinking that a starting technique like Spin Attack would cost 3SP to use. You can use a technique whenever, as long as you have the SP and meet the conditions.

Having it recharge every action is a bit much, though. Regaining 1/4 SP at the the start of your turn is a lot cleaner, if not as precise. Performing no attacks or reactions, moving at half speed, and using no SP in a round could let you regain 1/2 your SP on your next turn instead (which could be the same conditions of being weakened).

I also agree with 0 SP meaning fatigued/weakened. However, it should be noted that when you reach 0 SP, you become weakened and don't regain stamina on the start of your next turn. The turn after that, however, your stamina returns to full. Essentially, you invisibly regain 1/2 your total SP instead of 1/4 per turn, but you remain weakened until it completely refills. (Hopefully that's comprehensible.)

>>18358445 (cont.)
> If you spend 2 actions Dashing, it'd cost you 4 Stamina points?
>If you jump 3 spaces, that'd cost 3 movement?
Yes to both. 

Strength should definitely have an impact on pushing, possibly just in adjusting push distance. Stronger characters could push heavier objects further with the stamina cost. I don't think Strength should affect Climbing, though; You're only comparing your strength to your own weight, which should usually be even, and weight adjusting items like Iron Boots usually affect your speed anyway.

In a way, stamina costs for slower characters are technically higher than costs for faster ones, since they move fewer spaces for the same cost. A Heavy character on a tightrope could only move 2 spaces for the same price a Medium weight character would pay to move 3. It could also be said that things like tightropes couldn't even support something as heavy as a goron in the first place (narrow stone beams and ledges would still be fine.)

>>18358445
So you'd have at least 1 round of weakness? Seems accurate.

There seems to be a lack of large, heavy races besides Gorons. Are there some more obscure species who are built similarly that I'm just missing?

bump

Where'd everyone go?

Tentative Race List
>Common Races
Humans (Hylian/Sheikah/Gerudo)
Deku Scrub
Zora
Goron
Kokiri

>Ancient Races
Kikwi*
Mogma
Ancient Robot
Parella**

>Great Sea Races
Rito
Korok

>Uncommon Races
Twili*
Tokay*
Subrosian*
Anouki*
Minish*
Fairy*

*Slightly challenging to implement due to a lack of information, requiring special rules to cover (scale rules for Minish and Fairies), or a lack of popularity. Definitely possible to include with some creativity.
**Very difficult to include due to being completely aquatic.

Comments or concerns about this or any other subject in the thread?

Going to turn in soon. I wanted to ask though; should there background benefits or flaws that could be bought with starting XP at character creation? Things like owning a mount, starting with more money, having a good or bad reputation, etc. Races with more racial abilities would have less XP for these background benefits than races with fewer abilities.

Does this seem like a good idea? Should XP avaliable at character creation be able to be spent on Talents and Techniques, or just limited to background benefits?

>>18365351
You mean a Perks/Flaws system like the positive and negative Qualities in Shadowrun? I dunno. It seems like a optional step to character creation and shouldn't be overtly integral, at least right now. I have no problem with implementing it, but I think other things should come first.

>>18366247
That's pretty much what it would be, but you're right. A lot of these ideas aren't essential right away and are easy to fit on top of the important rules.

So, currently we have tentative examples of
-A dice mechanic
-A combat order/action system with examples of defenses and reactions
-Ideas for movement and relationships between attributes
-A list of Skills and Virtues with broad ideas of how they are applied
-Ideas to manage the aquisition and use of spells and music

What's the next big thing to do? Discuss Items and their tags/keywords? Flesh out some races? Create some hypothetical Techniques and Talents? Figure out how to distribute XP?

>>18368005
XP before Talents, so we know what the cost for things is beforehand and how much techniques should be split up.
Items and Races before that, though. Someone has to start working on the massive Zelda armory sooner or later.

Some one has made a bestiary? Because a bestiary will be a great thing to have...

>>18368144
Once we hammer out how to build characters fully first, then we'll move to the Bestiary, since they'll be built off the same stats mostly.

>>18368263
>>18368144
Hopefully soon, once we have a clearer idea of how characters will progress it will be easier to create challenging ones.

Once we have templates and examples out of the way for things like items, races, techniques/talents and monsters, it will be easier for people to propose statblocks to be fine-tuned.

I'll write up something on Items soon, but until that: should Weight and Strength be written as 1 to 5 or -2 to +2? I'm leaning towards the former, myself

>>18368628
1-5 is straightforward enough, and everyone understands what that means without needing an exact frame of reference.

>>18368628
1-5.

Are we about to hit autosage soon? I don't know high /tg/'s reply limit is.

>>18368729
We're nowhere near the limit. Last I heard, it was around 500 posts or so. We only just recently broke 250.

Most spells, weapons, tools and items the Zelda RPG will be described with keywords/tags/properties (needs a good name) that roughly list the functions of the item. The hope is that when creating challenges for the players, the GM can look at the properties of the items the PC's own or will acquire, and can pull from a list of obstacles and devices that respond to those properties.

>Sample properties
Edged/Sharp: Can cut through or pierce things (Sword, Axe, Hookshot, Arrows)
Explosive/Pounding/Shattering: Capable of destroying certain sturdy obstacles (Bomb, Skull Hammer)
Grappling: Can attach to other objects (Whip, Hookshot, Clawshot)
Fire, Water, Wind, Ice, Electricity, etc: Produces or affects the listed element.
Remote: Can be controlled from a distance (Bombchu, Beetle)

More tags will further define the item's function. The Hookshot would have both Grappling and Edged, meaning it can only attach to soft targets like wood, while the Clawshot could have Grappling and Claw, and only be able to attach to surfaces like gratings and vines.

>>18369610
This system works. A sword would have a damage listing and however many pertinent tags.
A Zoran Cutlass, for example, would do 1H of damage and be tagged [Edged], [Water], [Ice], [Light (weight)], [Well-crafted (optional tag equivalent to masterwork)].
A Kokiri Boomerang would do 1/2H damage and be tagged [Projectile], [Returning], [Light (weight)] and gain [Edged] mid-flight.

>>18369809
Naturally, even with the Tag system of item organization, players will still come up with out-of-the-box solutions for problems. I look forward to when that happens.

>>18369610
>Things to consider
Most tags should try to be as general as possible, using highly specific tags (like Claw from the earlier example) only when it has to do with a recurring enemy or terrain feature. Tags also need to have simple and concise names. Both bombs and pounding hammers can destroy rocks, they need a tag name that describes that effect (Explosive is too narrow, Crushing could work, Impacting or Shattering would be even better.)

Any ideas of other tags or item functions that would need them?

>>18369843
Consider situational Tags, or Tags that come and go as things change. See the Kokiri Boomerang example in >>18369809. Once thrown, it would gain [Edged] and [Grabbing] as tags, since it can cut through things and be used to snatch items far away for the PC to grab once the boomerang returns.

Obviously, the Tags will extend beyond weapons and armor. Optimally, Tags can be used for most anything in a PC's inventory. The Masks from Majora's Mask, for example would have the [Metamorphosis] Tag.

>>18369912
>>18369843
I think [Impact] would work both for explosions and blunt weapons. I agree that we should have the most generalized tags possible not only for the sake of simplicity, but also to leave a greater feeling of freedom for the GM/players to make up more specific tags of their own. Ideally, most things will have only 1-3 tags at any given time. Less common items like the boomerang or Zoran Cutlass will have 3 or 4 and special items will (likely) have 5+.

I also want to mention the possibility of having player unlocked tags on certain items. Players with a certain degree of some skill might unlock more potential from mundane and special items, granting them an extra beneficial tag or removing a hidnering one. This wouldn't necessarily be codified, just mentioned.

Taking a step back to skills: why not have Craft be available as part of Knowledge? If we're planning to incorporate bonuses to Knowledge specialties through use of Talents, it seems like the perfect candidate. All we need to do is mention that it covers it and let the user take it from there.

Also on the subject of skills, perhaps rather than have specialties we can have the skill (ride/pilot, specifically) rank up to accommodate increasing complexity. One rank in Ride/Pilot would allow for use of simple animals or vehicles such as a Pony, Horse, boat, or hang glider to name a few. Three or four ranks might allow for riding some of the most exotic beasts and operating a mobile fortress or some such thing.

>>18363529
For now, let's just stick to making the common races as developed as possible in relation to one another. Since there isn't much of a class system, a lot of skills are gonna have to be race-based, and new races means incorporating a slew of new techniques. (if I'm behind the times, forgive me, I haven't worked on this since it dropped off the face of /tg/ last time)

>>18370987
Traits can come from all notable examples of a given race. For instance, Deku Scrubs could potentially have access to something that grants them a mercantile bonus, limited flight capabilities through Deku flowers or some such thing, and some manifestation of Deku Link's bubble attack.

>>18370987
>>18371041
The idea of race-restricted Talents doesn't sound right to me. Talents and Techniques should be general and accessible. I would classify racial abilities as something separate, unless one of their abilities explicitly says they get [X] Talent for free. Going with your example, a Deku racial would be the ability to spit Deku Nuts and an infinite supply of said Deku Nuts at their disposal.

>>18371435
Running with this, here's a list of example racials for the common races.

"Humans" (Hylians in particular): +1 bonus to any skill
Deku Scrub: Deku Spit, large supply of Deku Nuts
Zora: Max ranks in Swimming
Goron: Fire/earth resistance
Kokiri: ...get back to me on that one.

>>18369809
Tags like [lightweight] and [masterwork] are more of descriptors than general properties. Those details would belong in the item's description, not the tag list (and in the case of those two tags, they don't seem relevant to the system). 

I am intrigued at the Zora(n?) Cutlass you suggested. What sort of properties does it have? How does it have both the [Water] and [Ice] tags?

>>18369912
The point of Tags are meant to roughly list the abilities of an item or spell, so they should not change during the regular usage of the item.  In this case, a boomerang simply always has the [Returning] and [Grabbing] tags, even if it can't do those things while it's in your hand.

>>18370523
Gaining new tags on items or spells could be handled through upgrades to the item (the Beetle is a good example of this) or techniques and talents (mostly in the case of spells). 

I don't think skill levels should restrict the use of items or objects, or even  most spells (I'm backpedaling to when I said spells should have Skill requirements.) Complex tasks are better represented by having them just be more difficult, and Talents or Techniques related to the skill (that would have Skill requirements to buy) would make you more effective at them. 

The intention of restricting spells to high Magic characters was to not allow someone to hand the Bombos medallion to a fighter and have them run into a crowd of monsters to cast it. Now I think that should be possible, but the fighter's lack of Magic skill and magic Talents would make it much less likely to work and less effective than if a more experienced sorcerer had cast it.

Also I like the Craft/Knowledge idea.

>>18372016
Just an example idea thrown out. Since the Zora have their water affinity, it could translate to some of their equipment. It can be used for water-based puzzles (freezing a waterfall or raising water levels) or whacking an enemy with a weakness against water/ice. Something like that.

>>18370987
>>18371041
>>18371435
>>18371541
The idea is that all races get some benefit or ability at character creation, but more powerful abilities or upgrades to their starting ones would be availiable as Techniques and Talents. They would be specifically grouped under Racial Techniques and Racial Talents. A Zora can swim and a Goron won't burn and can roll from character creation, but creating an electic shield, ground-pounding and fire damage reduction would be bought with XP.

Also, for Humans the current idea is to have them get +1 to Life, Magic, or Stamina at character creation. I would shy away from any race getting extra Skills from the start.

>>18372161
I agree with not doling out skills at chargen.

Speaking of Stamina, I agree with regeneration being 1/4 of your total, though I think we could even say that your regeneration per round is equal to the number of bars you have since they'll be pretty easily identifiable on a character sheet.

>>18372049
>I don't think skill levels should restrict the use of items or objects, or even most spells
Perhaps not. In the case of spells, that might be better for not making magic prohibitively expensive to combination concepts. I suppose then that spells will definitely be scaling with Magic.

>>18372395
By "scaling with Magic", do you mean that the effects of spells would become more powerful with each rank in the skill?

>>18372535
Yes, that's what I mean.

>>18372563
I agree with the idea, but if no other skill does that, increasing spell potency could be tied to Talents, from ones that improve spell effects in general (extra damage from element specialization) and ones that actually modify the effects of certain spells (like letting Nayru's Love parry attacks against it). The more powerful effects would have higher skill requirements.

If this were the case, Magic skill wouldn't have to be more expensive as other skills, because their real power comes from specializing. (There would need to be skill level caps in general, to keep players from pouring all their skill points into one skill. Maybe like FATE's pyramid where you need two level 3 skills before you can get one level 4 skill.)

I recognize that this solution may not be as simple as spells increasing in power along with Magic skill alone, but it is more consistient with other parts of the system. What do you think?

I thought the legend of Zelda system was already complete! I'm going to be GMing the version on 1d4chan in a few days, so can you tell me what's wrong with it?

>>18372921
It would probably be a better idea than an increased cost for one skill. So I like it in theory but we'll need to figure out how to create cohesive specialization "groups" much like with melee-oriented techniques.

>>18373001
I think the reason this was restarted was because some people felt the last version was too cumbersome, much like how the last one was brought about. I liked some things about it but overall I have to agree. I would have a lot of trouble convincing my group to even try it out. I don't think anyone's proposing wiping it off the face of the internet (as if such a thing were possible), so it'll be there for people to use, much like the d20 Zelda game.

Part of me recommends an IRC channel, maybe on the sup/tg/ server, to more regularly and fluidly discuss things, assuming people are about.

>>18373473
The reason that these threads are the main way of discussing is so that we can get a constant influx of opinions and so that it's always in the community's view. Reserving it to an IRC channel alienates the discussion and can ultimately kill it. There's also the issue of some people not being able to access IRC for one reason or another.

>>18373048
Thanks for reminding me of Zelda d20.

>>18374011
Ideally we'll have less horrifying art for this project. I have a small amount of the art created for the older version (I even drew some of it), but not all. It would be great to get some new or old drawfag talent back.

What's the next thing to address? Example Items, Races? XP rewards? Enemies?

>>18374149
Example Items to get the concept down better. Best case: we develop a master list of Tags that can be applied to whatever item we want.
Then we fluff the races.

>>18374169
Example Items to get the concept down better. Best case: we develop a master list of Tags that can be applied to whatever item we want.
Then we fluff the races, XP and overall character creation. Assuming enemies are built vaguely similarly to PCs/NPCs, it's best to understand the baseline of what an entity is in this game.

>>18371541
Kokiri have that fairy guardian thing, which still has yet to be fleshed out. Anyone want to contribute anything to that? And while I like the idea of keeping talents free and accessible, you've got to admit, it's going to be hard giving any race other than the Gorons the ability to roll and do ground pounds and shit.
>>18372161
Actually, yeah, this is pretty much exactly what I meant. But y'all are right. Like in the case of that aforementioned mercantile talent for deku scrubs, it should be available to anyone, but scrubs get it for free at a certain point, or something.

Have we decided what to do with Virtues yet? How we'll determine values for it, the impact it'll have on play, and so forth? I think that's kind of important.

>>18374242
>Kokiri have that fairy guardian thing
Considering "fairy" is a playable race, last I checked, that might get a little awkward unless it's planned ahead of time.
Two PCs coincidentally roll a Kokiri and a fairy. "Welp, I guess you're indentured to the flower child. Good luck with that."

>>18374282
I don't think fairy as a playable race is a great idea, to be honest. They don't have a whole lot of material to base off of, and their size alone makes them... difficult. This is all I could come up with off the top of my head for a guardian fairy:

Kokiri Fairy guardian
_____________________

>Gets passive checks to notice out-of-the-ordinary or concealed things
>Produces light
>As a manifestation of the targeting mechanism from OoT, be able to "mark"
enemies and increase accurace towards them
>Can make lore checks against marked enemies? serve as a kind of scan ability?
>Should these lore checks also apply to things that the passive Spot-esque
checks notice?

>>18374321
A fairy would be the ultimate support member. They tag enemies for the rest of the party, they're very hard to catch and pin down let alone hit, they're a wealth of information. Give 'em a piece of string, a small twig and some toothpicks, and you have a tiny archer.

>>18374370
And all of that makes them very bad candidates for player characters. Plus, in a realm of gigantic Goron punches and Zora electric shields, toothpick bow and arrows are going to be less than useless. I mean, I know that's not all they'd be limited to, but I'm just demonstrating scale.

>>18374393
So unless they can be better implemented, if at all, you'd relegate fairies strictly to NPC slots.

>>18374415
Pretty much. They serve best as a physical avatar of the Kokiri's unique abilities. Without a fairy guardian, Kokiri don't have that many traits that a short Hylian wouldn't have. About the only thing that comes to mind that doesn't rely on having a fairy is the fact that they seem to disappear when you're a certain distance away from them, which could DEFINITELY be implemented.

>>18374415
I honestly don't see them as much more than a space on a Kokiri PC's character sheet.

>>18374415
>>18374454
Strike Faries from the hypothetical list, then. And technically, the Kokiri fade from view when far enough away too. That may be worth looking into.

>>18374321
I was thinking something along the same lines: Something that makes identifying enemies (using Observation or Knowledge) easier, and MAYBE a +1 to attack (that might be a bit overpowered because of how stingy we want to be with situational bonuses).

>>18303811
>Something that makes identifying enemies (using Observation or Knowledge) easier
We could always make it a choice at creation. Either a +1 to identifying monsters or a +1 to noticing something in particular.

>>18374566
That Attack bonus just makes SENSE though.
>>18374605
I don't think it would be too much to ask for both. Again, Kokiri have next to nothing without that fairy, so we may as well milk it for all it's worth.

>>18374605
Would we make them lore monkeys, too? They've always got something to say about everything they see.

>>18374675
Yep.

>>18374666
They have empathy with nature, though, especially where forests and grasslands are concerned. You know a Kokiri would have access to some of the best ganja in all Hyrule. They don't get lost, either.

>>18374703
Upon retrospect, you begin to realize how much of that you can chock up to the guardian fairy. Those flittery fuckers just KNOW SHIT.

>>18374694
So to be a Kokiri is to have a fountain of knowledge at your disposal wherever you go?
Plus, it'd be easier to get in good with any of the Great Fairies the party meets if they have a fairy to wave them in. "Nah, it's cool. They're with me."

>>18374715
Yeah. Though I'm sure that the difficulty class of the knowledge checks would increase relative to the obscurity of the information.

>>18374605
I'm wondering what the difference is going to be between Observation and Knowledge when it comes to identifying monsters, since both serve the purpose as to finding weaknesses. I would say that it falls under Observation, because even though Navi and Tatl seemed to have an encyclopedaic knowledge of monsters, it's a little more realistic for faries to be really good at noticing things (even though we're not trying to simulate realism).

If we don't want to make it a skill bonus, since we want to avoid that, it could be something like being able to reroll an Observation check. I don't think a skill bonus is unreasonable in this case, though.

>>18374666
The main reason against the attack bonus is that it makes Kokiri automatically better at combat than any other race. Not to mention that other 3D titles manage the Z-targeting mechanic without a problem.

>>18374750
Observation is to actually notice strange stuff, Knowledge is to figure it out/know enemies' weaknesses and shit.
And in terms of the attack bonus, it can only apply to one enemy at a time, and I don't know how else to balance it out. :P

>>18374750
So let's say the fairy guardian doesn't GIVE a Kokiri a combat bonus. How about, instead, it makes it harder for the Kokiri to LOSE a modifier in combat? Say a enemy throws a smoke bomb and obscures the party. The party would have a circumstantial penalty to hit the enemy EXCEPT the Kokiri.
There you go. The fairy guardian reduces or negates combat penalties.

>>18374781
>>18374784
Like mentioned earlier, you could also use the fairy guardian to "mark" targets so the whole party gets a bonus.

>>18374750
The skill bonus is tantamount to a free Talent, so I think it's okay. Perhaps another situational bonus to a skill will suffice for this one?

>>18374784
I really don't see fairies as having combat applications like that (initially). That kind of thing was really just a neat product of the 64 game. For the most part, I believe others are correct in saying that they're more about observation and knowledge.

>>18374805
It may be a bit much, thinking on it.
Still, we're confirming that one of the Kokiri's primary racials is the guardian fairy, a fae fountain of knowledge and insight. We can agree on that much.

>>18374784
>>18374805
>>18374793
Damn, you guys will find a way to make these things confusing. Let's just leave the combat application for fairies tentative. The rest seems pretty solid, aye?

>>18374866
Yes. Combat applications can be saved for Techniques.

Back to my previous question, what do we do about Virtues?

>>18374909
Elaborate. How do you get Virtue points? Where do they apply?
Is that what you're asking?

>>18374909
That's actually a perfect place for it. Just move that bonus to a Kokiri-specific talent that isn't just a quality thrown in at character creation. Anyone working on technique lists take note.

>>18375012
We haven't really started a full Techniques list. We only have the general list of Skills, which is mildly different.

>>18374939
Earlier in the thread, we established that Virtues would give bonuses to certain types of actions aligned with them and possibly apply to certain skills. Now I think it's a good time to determine what the value range of Virtues will be and their relative cost (medium, high, very high). TCN provided some good guidelines on virtues here:
>>18352226
>>18352249
I feel we need to really settle on a place for such a defining aspect.

>>18375047
Well, if you give me what's needed to write a talent, I could see if I could work on racial skills. From what I can tell the formula's changed a bit since I last worked on this project.

>>18375058
What do you mean, value range of Virtues and relative cost? You actually want to put numbers to them now? Like, how much of a bonus does one get from indulging a Virtue properly?

>>18375083
The minimum and maximum values for the attribute, much like how skills range from 0 to 5. "Cost" without regards to specific numbers. Earlier we had tossed around the idea of Magic being a more costly skill (that's since been scrapped). I also wanted to explore Virtues in such general terms in hopes of coming to a consensus on how difficult it should be to progress them and thus how much of an impact they'll have in play. I also think it's important to figure out how we'll determine starting values.

To begin with, I believe a maximum of 3 was mentioned earlier on. I think that it would be fine that way but it may be simpler to just give it the same range as skills (0 to 5) so that there is some uniformity and room for progression.

>>18374866
Good idea. I'm sure there will be a good compromise down the road, although I am fine with a fairy's combat bonus coming from Techniques (like spending an action to study an enemy before attacking) rather than a constant effect.

Also, this discussion makes me sort of want to consolidate the Knowledge and Observation Skills, since there's some overlap.

>>18375058
Earlier I suggested that the range of Skills to max out at level 5, and Virtues to max out at either level 3 or 5. (Both skills and virtues could be set to -1 at character creation.)

The XP used for Techniques and Talents, the XP for Skills, and the XP for Virtues should be seperate (possibly calling the last two Skill Points and Virtue Points). XP would be fairly common, Skill points rare and Virtue points even rarer. Each level of a skill or virtue would cost more than the level before it (with or without the Skill pyramid idea from >>18372921 )

Is that what sort of thing you were asking about? Sorry, I'm not used to this level of activity from this thread.

>>18375230
Three different XP values? Interesting, though not an inherently flawed way of handling things. You have to make sure distribution of each variety of points is handled properly. Part of me only wants to award Virtue points when completing a particular story arc or something.

>>18375230
>>18375270
I was about to suggest uniform XP expenditure but
>award Virtue points when completing a particular story arc
sounds pretty cool. It can be a great way to mark major accomplishments along with XP gain. I think the rest should all use XP though.

If Virtues are going to be doled out as rewards for major arcs, a max of 3 might work out okay. In which case, maybe all virtues should start at 0 and the characters work their way into a defining virtue? Or should they start with a single defining virtue (maybe give 1 point at chargen to pick one with)?

>>18375442
That'd be good, allowing them to define themselves out of the gate like that.
So at chargen, characters start with 3 hearts, 1 Magic and 1 Stamina (adjusted for race), with three points to spend between them. In addition, they have one free Virtue point to spend on their personal Triforce. Virtue points are awarded when a character reaches a significant point in their career/life (GM's discretion).
That'd actually be a pretty neat way to determine a character's so-called power level: check their Triforce. The more points their Triforce is worth, likely the more powerful overall they are.

>>18375270
Actually, that's a very good way to handle it. It may also be interesting to think of both XP distribution and campaign planning in the "phases" of a Zelda story; so much XP in each phase, regardless of how short or long the GM makes it.

>>18375442
>>18375543
1 point at chargen was my thought as well. It may be a decent idea to give a few Virtue points out before the end of a phase (enough to let them balance out their other virtues, or save up to spend on the next rank of their highest virtue).

Uh oh. Have we hit autosage?

>>18375730
Dunno.

It looks that way. Could someone create a new thread? I'm unable to post images at the moment. Links to the google document in the OP would be nice as well.

>>18375840
Everything so far has been consolidated, right? I haven't looked at the doc myself.
Make sure to link to the new thread from this one.

>>18375871
It doesn't look like it's been updated, but it's worth hanging on to. I can't make a new thread until sometime tomorrow.

>>18376235
I've been gone for the last two days so I haven't had a chance to change much. Everyone's free to make changes though.

...I guess no new thread until tomorrow then?