Life, Stamina, and Magic: Statistics that are measured in Hearts or Bars with 4 points each. Life is used for hit points, Stamina is used to perform combat techniques and athletic maneuvers, and Magic is used to cast spells and fuel magic items.

Attributes: The physical characteristics of your character, such as Size, Speed, Strength, and Weight. Attributes have no effect on your dice rolls, but alter the ways you affect or can be affected by external forces. Your race determines your starting attributes, and they can be adjusted by certain items.

Skills: Your character’s proficiency with certain tasks. You add your Skill level when using an action that requires that skill. Skill levels go from 0 to 5. They do not expand a character’s capabilities by themselves, but Techniques and Talents related to the skill may have a Skill level requirement that must be met before they can be used.
The current skill list includes: Melee, Heavy, Hand-to-Hand, Ranged, Block, Dodge, Magic, Observation, Stealth, Music, Sway, Knowledge, and Riding/Piloting.

Virtues: Courage, Power and Wisdom. They represent how much your character embodies or values those aspects of the Triforce. Virtues go from 0 to 3. They act as contextual modifiers; when using a Skill in a way that aligns with a certain Virtue, you add that Virtue’s level to your die roll.

>>18384692
>Character Customization
Using experience points, players can purchase new Talents and Techniques as the primary method of character customization. Talents are treated like static bonuses or perks, while Techniques are new abilities or combat maneuvers, such as the Spin attack, for your character. Enhanced racial abilities are also purchased as Talents or Techniques.

>Dynamic combat
Every round of combat, Each PC has three Action Points to use during that round. These can be spent to perform Actions such as attacking and moving, or to perform Reactions to enemy attacks like dodging or parrying. Action Points can also be saved and used to take Actions outside of the user’s turn. The reason for this is to allow for players to react to moments of opportunity common to the Zelda series.

>Item Tags
Most items, weapons, tools, equipment, and magic spells have tags to describe their capabilities. Tags are descriptors like [Edged], [Impact], [Remote], [Fire], or [Grappling] that indicate that the tagged item uses those effects. GM’s will be able to look over the tags of the items that the PC’s have, and pull from a list of obstacles, monsters, and environmental features that respond to those tags

>Setting Independent
The LoZ RPG is intended to be usable with any possible world, setting, or time period. The avaliable races and previous history are up to you and your group. If you want a campaign set in Termina, or think a Western-themed Zelda game is a good idea, nothing is stopping you.

I'm not sure you can really... well, do this.

The focus of the entire setting is the Triforce and the people who have it. There are a few games where the Triforce doesn't play into the plot, but even then, it's about Link and Zelda. There's nothing really unique enough to this setting other than the Triforce mythology to bother making a system for.

This would be like a Star Wars system where you can't play as a Jedi. It's like, sure, you can, but what's the point? The Force is the only thing that keeps the setting from being a generic space opera.

>>18384879
25 threads on the subject disagree with you.

>>18384879
Dice-rolling mechanics and numbers within the system can create a different sort of feel. Or quite literally effect the mood of combat and challenges. An extremely lethal system will most likely make combat avoidable and extremely fast-paced. Crippling and break-down characters. On the other hand, you can have a sort of system that takes some emphasis or inspiration from the Zelda games, like these folk are doing, in an attempt to capture that particular mood. Slighty item-centric, emphasis on tags and reactions, not-especially-lethal or morbid play. Sure, this can be easily emphasized by the GM and their own storytelling, but having the system play out in a thematicly Zelda way can make the game especially enjoyable when played in that manner.

And to refute your point, why the hell not? The setting isn't just about Zelda and Link. It's about the land of Hyrule, birthed by the goddesses. Full of various strange people and races. Gorons pleading to their gods for mercy and salvation while being fed to dragons, Hylians trying to keep their heads down and survive the random craziness being thrown about.

And a Star Wars system where you can't play as Jedi? That could easily be an improvement. I, myself, would play a mechanic or down-on-their-luck bounty hunter any day over a Jedi.

>>18385142

There's nothing IN the setting except the mythology and Link, Zelda, and Ganondorf. Gorons are what, an underground, mountain-dwelling race of friendly tough guys and the Zoras are a lithe, agile race who like to be mysterious and live in cities humans can't easily reach? There's nothing unique enough about the setting to warrant not just using GURPs or something.

>>18385307
I'm kind of a GURPS fan myself, so I'll concede that throwing the Zelda setting into it would be a whole lot easier and almost as good.

Lemme ask you this. Name a setting you /would/ consider unique enough to not just stat up in GURPS. That it would be only natural to homebrew a system for.

I ask this because pretty much every setting, ever, can be broken down to generic sort of tropes like you just did. It's just a matter of some people liking a setting so much so that they'd like to sit down and create a pseudo-unique game system for it. That's the case with this one.

>>18385405

Established settings in other stuff? Off the top of my head,
Star Wars (if you have the Force)
Star Trek
Chrono Trigger
The majority of mainline Final Fantasy games
Maaaaybe Kingdom Hearts

>>18384879
>>18385116
>>18385307
>>18385405
>>18385441
Guys, let's not do this. This thread has a purpose. Can we please get back to it?

>>18385460
Well if no one else will...

Lurker with regards to LoZ RPG here. What about dungeons? Would it be a realistic expectation to set up rules for their generation, with the focus of each on new items gained in the dungeon, in typical LoZ fashion?

>>18385460
Bah, fine. Carry on.

why is ganondorf blue?

So whats been done so far with the race/class options? Also, which game are we using as a baseline, or does it not matter with all the timey whimey stuff?

1. Why are there no hylians?
2. Since when did Zelda have humans???

>>18385650
He said upthread that there was no 'baseline', it was planned to not tie to any one specific game, but give options to play in any of those time periods or use the info to do your own.

Originally, we were planning on giving options that covered a little bit of everything, so we had writeups for the common races (Zora, Goron, Gerudo, Kokiri, Deku Scrub) and some of the uncommon races (Korok, Rito).

From what I recall though, there were no classes; it was primarily customization through abilities. I'd hit the link in the first post in the thread to go to the 1d4chan page, it should have good chunks of what was already finalized.

>>18385725
Weren't all the Hylians called Human in Twilight Princess? Plus, some games made a big deal about being a Hylian versus being a normal Hyruelan/Human.

>>18385725
Hylians are a subspecies of human. As are Gerudo.

No need to create seperate rules for races that are basically the same.

>>18385565
We should create a lot of "puzzle objects" that can be used with certain types of items (for example, an eye that can be shot with a bow), and creating dungeons would be all about arranging these puzzle objects (or creating your own) in interesting ways.

>>18385852
More specifically, there would be a template like:

Mysterious Eye - Rank 1 Puzzle
An eye sits in the center of a golden diamond.
Vulnerable to: Projectile

Just as a rough example.

>>18385905
Each puzzle would be vulnerable to a certain keyword or several. A block of ice may be vulnerable to fire, a frozen Eye may be only vulnerable to fire projectiles. A rusty switch may be vulnerable to Heavy. A torch may be vulnerable to water or wind.

A lot of this would be roleplayed more often than just attacking the object. (I blow out the torch) But in terms of rules, it would count as attacking the object.

Kokiri
Small – Low Strength – Light Weight – Speed ?
Guardian Fairy
-When a Kokiri runs out of hearts his fairy can revive him once a (day-week)

I'm thinking maybe they have less hearts? Basically lil' suicide troops.

>>18386098
Are we really rewriting all the races a third time?

I honestly don't think we should be streamlining/changing the stuff that's already done.

We should focus on actually doing stuff that isn't done, like items, puzzles, etc.

>>18385905
Something along those lines, but there will likely be a category for switches in general. That is the purpose of tags: a way to easily figure out what at items are capable of, and what objects respond to them.

In the case of the eye switch, it's title could read
Eye Switch [Edged, Pojectile]
followed by descriptive text, then a "Trigger" section that explains that a sharp, projectile weapon is needed to pierce the switch and activate it.

>>18386001
Rather than being "vulnerable" in the sense that attacks are more effective against it, the tags are intended to act with their counterparts as "lock and key" puzzles. Both a bomb and a magical hammer have the [impact] tag, which means they can shatter rocks (and possibly have a concussive effect when used near slime creatures), but the hammer also has the [Pounding] tag, meaning it can drive in sturdy posts or rusty switches, which a bomb couldn't do.

>>18385565
Dungeon guidelines will definitely be included. The GM is always free to mix up the formula (creating a dungeon with multiple main items for instance) if they desire. Hopefully a library of puzzle-type items and their interactions will make dungeon building light on the GM.

>>18385750
>>18385725
See the previous thread for a potential race list.

>>18386248
>>18386269
A lot of the old material is based around the old rules, so they will be updated.

>>18386098
Kokiri are still a bit of a sore point; based around the use of their fairy. We'll be back to them soon.
Also, one of the main points is that races do not provide bonuses or penalties to Skills or Virtues, or Life/Stamina/Magic (with the exception of humans, who get +1 to Life, Stamina, or Magic depending on their race).

A lot of the ideas brought up have been addressed in some way in the previous thread; reading that may help understand the direction the project is heading.

Will look at document later.

The previous thread ended with a discussion about Virtue points being awarded at the end of a major story arc or plot phase. This sounds like an interesting way to structure total XP/Skill/Virtue gain: by using the general structure of a Zelda story.

It could be said that by the end of a certain phase, players could be expected to have a certain amount of XP, skill points and virtue points. The frequency of experience distribution could vary depending on how long of a campaign to be, and a general suggestion could be provided for GM's who don't want to plan that far ahead.

What would need to be determined is the identification of the phases, and how many maxed skill and virtue levels a character should have at the end of a full campaign. Also, it should be considered that Virtues go up to 5 as well, to allow for more range (while still making them slower to improve than Skills).

Thoughts?

>>18387158
You should find out how much XP techniques should cost first. Would Techniques all cost the same, like D&D feats, since they already have Skill or Virtue requirements?

>>18388220
That would simplify things, although in the case of Racial techniques, a lot of them could be hard to attach to a skill.

Also, on the topic of Kokiri, there was a debate on Kokiri having a +1 bonus to attack due to their fairy, which was too powerful to have as a constant effect. However, if it were treated like an ability that required an action to spend, it could probably be fine as a starting racial ability, especially if it were given a short range. It would not be much different from spending an action or two to improve aim on a ranged attack.

S'what I get for trying to start the thread early in the afternoon and promptly dying, but this one sticks around.

What exactly was wrong with the old rules?

>>18389686
Issues with the dice system and a lot of crust. The old version won't be going anywhere, though, in case some people prefer it over this one.

Also, that Google document needs to get updated so we know what changes have been agreed upon.

Updating the document a bit now.

Doc updated!
Hopefully the examples in the Combat section accurately reflect Actions as intended.

>>18387158
I'm thinking three or four maxed skills by the end of a full campaign. Since Techniques and such are the main method of customization, skill points can be more sparse. Will different ranks of skills cost differing amounts of skill points (ex. raising to rank 4 costs 4 skill points while raising to 1 only costs 1)? I'm thinking that's a safe way of preventing someone from front-loading a given skill and dominating. In which case, handing out a skill point or two every X sessions (say, 3 or 4) and/or after finishing objectives/quests sounds good.

In the case of Virtues, we probably only want one maxed since they're so closely tied to the character. Becoming a paragon of their one Virtue seems like enough.

>>18390507
Thanks for the update! I may try and edit some minor things later, but I'll bring them up later to see if there are any objections.

All of those sound like good ideas. It may still be good to implement a pyramid limit for skills (if you want a level 3 skill, you must have two level 2 skills and three level 1 skills) but that may be even more limiting.

When mentioning phases, I meant
"By the end of the first/second phase (typically after the first three dungeons) the players should have x Skill points and Y Virtue points." Using phases or arcs would be a way to measure character level in other games, and a way to measure monster threat levels against players.

Also, a thought just came to me on Observation vs. Knowledge to find monster weaknesses, regarding Kokiri. What if only Knowledge were used to find weaknesses by default, but Kokiri could use Observation instead. This ability could be in addition to the "spend an action to get +1 to next attack" ability.

>>18392224
Kokiri
Small size - Strength 2 - Weight 2 - Speed 6
Guardian Fairy: You have a fairy companion. It has a range of 5 spaces from you, and it can move anywhere within that range whenever you take an Action or Reaction. Your fairy provides the following benefits:
-You can use an Observation check instead of a Knowledge check to find the weakness of a creature within the fairy's range.
-Fairy Focus: Single Action
--Move your fairy to a creature, object, or other target within it's range. You gain a +1 to your next attack, defense action, or Observation check towards the target. The bonus ends at the beginning of your next turn if unused.

Other Talents could increase the fairy's range, let you use the fairy's line of sight as your own, or let it grant the Fairy Focus benefit to others.
The fading away power still needs figuring out, and it probably involves the stealth rules. More on that in a bit.

>>18393365
>Hide or Keep hidden - Free action (Part of a movement action)
You make a Stealth check at the end of a movement action against the Observation checks of every enemy that has line of sight on you during the movement.
•If the enemies are already aware of your presence, you must start the movement action out of their line of sight or be obscured (behind cover or in darkness or fog) from them.
•Not moving or moving up to half your speed (per movement action spent) incurs no penalty.
•Moving more than half speed per movement action causes a -2 penalty to the Stealth roll.
•Dashing causes another -2 penalty.
Success: The enemy treats you as invisible.
Failure: The enemies that beat your Stealth roll notice your presence and can see you.

>If you are invisible to a creature, it takes a -2 penalty to all rolls related to you.

>If a creature is unaware of your presence, it cannot React to you and must use it's Base Defense if attacked. If it is aware of your presence, but you are still invisible to it (such as through magic), it can React and defend normally, but still takes the -2 penalty from invisibility.

The way the Kokiri's fading ability could work is to automatically be obscured/concealed from anything more than 10 squares away from them. High level talents could upgrade it to complete invisibility from that distance.

Seem useable?

>>18392224
Story phases?

1: Call to action: Short phase, introductions and minor world establishing, often 1 dungeon. Characters don't leave far from home (Forsaken Fortress, Hyrule Castle)
2: First Trials: The first few dungeons. The world gradually opens up here. (getting the pendants/spiritual stones)
3: Shit Gets Real: The general mid-game turning point or plot twist. Master Sword shows up around this point. Most of the world is open now and warping is more common (Forest Temple through Fire Temple, getting the Sacred Flames)
4. Final stretch: The last batch of dungeons or challenges. Relatively short, marked by a increase in enemy difficulty. Whole world is open. (Shadow and Spirit Temples, Triforce shards)
5. Endgame: Assault on the BBEG's lair. Everything gets nastier. Climax and resolution. (Ganon's Tower, the Moon)

>>18397315
I like it, and it follows the 5 point scale that seems to be turning up.

I'm trying to make some changes to the google document, and wanted the changes by some people:

-Clarifying Block and Dodge as "stance" defenses that last until a new action is taken or they're interrupted.
-Saying that Dodging lets you move your speed over the course of the stance, up to 1/2 your speed per dodge (so someone with Speed 6 could take two 3 space dodges, or three 2 space dodges). Not moving on a successful dodge is also an option.
-Changing the "start blocking on an action instead of a reaction" idea into a general Prepared Defense action; grants +1 to your next defense reaction (dodge/block/parry/etc) and causes you to move 1 space fewer if you get hit with Knockback.
-General reorganization of the attributes list and race descriptions.
-Virtue information.

Any objections to these changes?

How is magic being handled?

Zelda has a lot of high magic but with crazy high costs.

>>18398375

>>18398516
Right now, magic spells are split between ones that are found like treasure (like the medallions/OoT spells), with a lot of utility outside of combat, or ones that are purchaseable like techniques, which tend to be more combat-focused or minor. A lot of the item spells will be able to be improvedwith Techniques or Talents. Spells will also take decent chunks out of your Magic, and it doesn't regenerate like Stamina does.

Google Document partially edited. I'll post some proposes updated races in a bit.

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

>>18399511
Human (Hylian, Gerudo and Sheikah)
Medium size - Strength 3 - Weight 3 - Speed 6
-Diverse Culture: You gain one of the following benefits.
--Hylian: +1 Life
--Gerudo: +1 Stamina
--Sheikah: +1 Magic
(If you are playing in a game without distinct human races, you can use any one of the options.)

Kokiri
Small size - Strength 2 - Weight 2 - Speed 6
Fade Away: Kokiri are obscured to creatures more than 10 spaces away from you.
Guardian Fairy: All Kokiri have a fairy companion. It has a range of 5 spaces from you, and it can move anywhere within that range whenever you take an Action or Reaction. Your fairy provides the following benefits:
-You can use an Observation check instead of a Knowledge check to find the weakness of a creature within the fairy's range.
-Fairy Focus: One Action
--Move your fairy to a creature, object, or other target within it's range. You gain a +1 to your next attack, defense action, or Observation check towards the target. The bonus ends at the beginning of your next turn if unused.

Goron
Large size - Strength 4 - Weight 4 - Speed 5
-Heat Resistant: Gorons are immune to Burning.
-Goron Roll: Two or more actions (Movement action, SP cost)
--Spend one action to curl yourself into a ball. On your next action, you begin rolling. While rolling, your speed becomes 8 and you are considered to be Dashing. Each action you spend rolling costs 2SP. 
>Need some help with this one. How do we handle tackle attacks and turning at high speeds? Also, is large size (2x2 meters on a grid) fair?

>>18400648
Zora
Medium size - Strength 3 - Weight 3 - Speed 6
-Aquatic: Zoras have a swimming speed of 7. They can breathe and stand on floors underwater, and suffer no penalties for aquatic combat.

Deku Scrub
Small size - Strength 2 - Weight 2 - Speed 7
-Deku Spit: One Action (Ranged, 2SP)
--You form a hardened nut and fire it from your mouth. The attack has Range 5 and deals 1H damage.
-*Flammable*: You take 1H of damage per turn from Burning instead of 1/2H of damage per turn.

Extra talents, techniques, and background benefits would be the way to bridge the gap between races with few abilities with the races with many.

>>18398783

How does it regain then, if it does not regen? Because I could see someone wanting to play a combat mage (More or less a firendly wizrobe) and magic needs to be regainable enough that the player doesn't feel like they are just storta standing there for most battles.

>>18400760
I don't know about TCN, but one way I envisioned things like Magic and Health restoring is that at the end of combat the DM rolls 2d6 and returns that much (plus maybe some bonuses to certain attributes for certain virtues) in Health points and Magic points. It's akin to picking up hearts and magic jars after killing enemies in the video games, except translated to general resting and patching up in the RPG.
Perhaps it could even be something like 1d6 times Hearts/Bars restored in points. (Rolling a 2 with 3 hearts would restore 6 points [one-and-a-half hearts]).

A potential problem I see with this is getting into fights for the sake of healing. If the party's low on health or magic, they can go pick a fight with some chumps and get back more than they originally had. Normally this isn't too bad because they're in more danger with the hopes of coming out better. It might get silly if the enemies pose no threat. Then again, this might be desirable or just not a real concern.
They might also have a modest regeneration outside of fights only. Say, 1 point or so for every X amount of time that passes, maybe also with a Virtue bonus. More Health/Magic might be rewarded for doing certain things or on a "per scene" basis.

Alternatively, we could just give Magic regen as well. Returning the same number of points per round as they have Bars would do nicely, I think.

>>18400760
After a battle, there could be a simple rest system in place; you regain 1/3 or 1/2 of your total Life and Magic.

A loot drop table was used in the previous edition (roll 1d6, result tells whether you get hearts/magic/ammo/rupees). That might be fun to include, since prizes from defeating enemies are always nice, but there should also be a reliable way to regain some resources outside of battle.

I recall seeing something in the archive about a "scavenging system" from the older project. I'll try and look into that.

>>18401240
Hm, it didn't turn out to be very useful. It involved using different attributes to find different items and basically combing large areas for money.

If did have a few interesting ideas on economy, especially buying another copy of certain dungeon items. There's probably a lot of other good ideas that just fell through the cracks.

What should be covered next? Should we get back to Skill point distribution and phases?

bump

Going from the phase/arc idea, Skill distribution seems like it should go like this:
-Beginning of phase 1 (chargen): one level 2 skill
-Beginning of phase 2: A few level 2 skills, 
-Beginning of phase 3: A few level 3 skills
-Beginning of phase 4: One level 5 skill or a few level 4 skills
-Phase 5: A few level 5 skills

Originally, the idea was to have each level of a skill cost gradually more than the last level (costing as much as the level of the skill).
>Total skill point cost for each level with triangular increases (including previous level costs)
Level 1: 1
Level 2: 1 + 2 = 3
Level 3: 1 + 2 + 3 = 6
Level 4: 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 = 10
Level 5: 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 =15

Even with the higher slope, it would be relatively easy to reach level 5 in a skill by ignoring most others. A pyramid or column system (see http://www.hill-kleerup.org/pmwiki/FATE/ThePyramid for examples) would require skills to be spread out to allow for more diversity.

With the triangular cost increases, the pyramid is too costly. A column seemed to be a better solution

>Total skill points (including previous level costs) with the column system and triangular increases
Level 1: 1
Level 2: 3 + 1 = 4
Level 3: 6 + 3 + 1 = 10
Level 4: 10 + 6 + 3 + 1 = 20
Level 5: 15 + 10 + 6 + 3 + 1 = 35

While an improvement, this method makes it hard to restrict high skill levels and still allow for players to dabble. However, when checking the pyramid system with a linear skill cost (where raising any skill level costs 1 skill point), an interesting comparison was found.

>Total skill points (including previous level costs) with the pyramid system and linear increases
Level 1: 1
Level 2: 2 + 1x2 = 4
Level 3: 3 + 2x2 + 1x3 = 10
Level 4: 4 + 3x2 + 2x3 + 1x4 = 20
Level 5: 5 + 4x2 + 3x3 + 2x4 + 1x5 = 35

The total skill points spent are the same, but allow for more skill diversity. This seems like the idea to go with.

>>18405518
As for Virtue points, you should only be able to max out one of the virtues barring extraordinary circumstances. An unbalanced Virtue set would be one Level 5 Virtue and two level 2 virtues, while a balanced set may be one level 4 and two level 3s. The issue is, though: there is no cap to prevent virtues from being raised to level 5 immediately, and a pyramid system doesn't seem appropriate for only 3 Virtues.

A solution could be to have higher ranks to scale triangularly (costing 3 virtue points to raise from level 2 to level 3), although that isn't consistent with skills if they scale linearly. Another solution would to use a staggered column or pyramid, requiring another point in a virtue two levels below you (needing one level 1 virtue before raising another to level 3), but that seems a little confusing too. Any thoughts on this?

>>18406538
Lastly there's XP for Techniques and Talents, or whole techniques and talents awarded for whatever reason. Which one to use is an issue. On one hand, using XP would allow for more variable technique prices, in particular for restricting those that don't have an appropriate skill attached to it. On the other hand, sincere most techniques and talents have skill or virtue requirements, assigning xp values to them could be unnescesary.

It could just end up being 1xp = 1 technique, talent, or background feature, with particularly potent ones without other balancing factors costing 2 or 3xp. Background penalties may give you extra XP back.

>>18406538
You could cap the Virtue at the relevant story phase number thing your game is at (using >>18397315's suggested phase numbers).
_____

Possibly gonna work on dungeon stuff some more after I finish improving the tag system.

>>18407552
True, but the phases seem like they should be more like suggestions rather than hard levels. But I like the idea. Maybe there's a good balance.

Have you been working on the tag system?

>>18405518
How concerned is everyone with hyper-specialization? That's really the only problem I see with a linear progression model and even that might be desirable on some level. I'm also not too sure if they should be strictly tied to phases since there's no telling what pace a given group will go at, nor do I think that many campaigns can be so easily sub-divided even if they were given as guidelines.

A flat skill point gain per session, assuming one session per week and 1 skill point per session, would have the party arrive at 35 points in about 9 months. That's a nice long campaign and can be the base for games of indeterminate length. Predictably shorter campaigns can easily accelerate progression by handing out 2 points (~4 months) or 3 points (~3 months) per session instead.

Virtues might be trickier. Handing them out for accomplishments is a solid idea and one that keeps with their theme, but it naturally comes with added unpredictability in terms of character power progression. It might require that we either disregard them when determining difficulties or assume a sub-par value. As an optional rule we could also include a Virtue progression similar to skill points. They could be awarded at a rate of 1 Virtue Point per 4 Skill Points (essentially once a month). The result is that they will have achieved your aforementioned 5-2-2 distribution (assuming starting values of 1-0-0) by the end of whichever rate of progression is used. At worst it would warrant a sidebar.

>>18408585

Yeah, I'm messing around with them in the Google Document (since I came up with them in the first place and I'm using a similar idea in a different project).
Clumping similar tags together, removing useless tags, writing in obvious tags that should've already been there... All that good stuff.

>>18408852
The main argument against rapid overspecialization or minmaxing is the rate of monster difficulty growth. Players who front-load one attack skill could trivialize low-level monsters. A pyramid would limit the speed at which high skills would grow, as well as encouraging dabbling in other skills.

Phases could both serve as a general indicator of power level. Let's suppose the phase guideline says the players should get "x" skill points by the end of the current phase or something. The GM can divide up the skill point rewards among how many dungeons or other challenges they have planned, give or take a few extra. Fewer challenges would mean denser skill point rewards. However, the "phase method" of skill point distribution would be an optional guideline, with the "per session" suggestion alongside it.

Virtues would probably be fine to raise without restriction, especially if skill progression is spread out. Monster stats and difficulty ratings would account for average or slightly sub-par Virtue scores from characters of their threat level.

>>18409364
>Switch X ⇔ Y (Z): Changes the state of something between X and Y when condition Z is fulfilled.* Examples:
>-A target with "Switch Bridge [1] ⇔ Bridge [2] (Pierce)" causes a bridge to rotate between position 1 and position 2 when hit by a piercing weapon, such as an arrow.
>-Gibdos with "Switch Self → Stalfos (Ignite)".
>-A panel with "Switch Door [1] → Open (Light)", unlocking the next room when struck by any effect with the Light tag.

This is too much, and  is part of the "crust" of the old edition that we're trying to avoid.

Tags/Properties here are supposed to be an easy form of reference between the capabilities of an item or spell and what things can react to it. Things shouldn't "gain" tags depending on their state. What's in the document right now reads like programming shorthand. 

Instead of giving a Gibdo a tag like "Switch Self → Stalfos (Ignite)", instead a tag reaction list would include [Fire] next to the Gibdo's name in the reaction column, and notes for the Gibdo would read "if hit with a fire attack, the Gibdo becomes a Stalfos, keeping it's current damage taken." 

Maybe this works well for the other project it's being used in, but here it's overly specific and unnecessary.

>>18409402
DM options are good too, so I guess we can at least settle on a linear skill progression? How do we want to handle XP? Same fashion?

Along those same lines, how will we determine the relative strength of monsters? I assume it will be tied in some way to the amount of skill points the players have accrued, possibly also dividing monsters into "Phases". The terminology might need some change to prevent the reader from feeling too constrained by it, but I think it's a solid way to gauge power in a system running primarily off of skills.

so the ability to act out of turn eliminates the need for dnd style "attacks of opportunity", right? *fingers crossed*

>>18409631

That's one of the things I don't have a good idea how to replace. On the one hand, I kinda think it might have potential somewhere if I rework it. On the other hand, I'm the only one that thinks that...

Oh well, I'll hide it somewhere and maybe put in a Toggle tag so you can see what changes are reversible at a glance.

>>18409801
Right, there is currently no need for them. You can sorta-kinda replicate the effect of one by using an action to attack after they act, but that's about it.

>>18410018
or by using a held action to interrupt their action, right?
cause that's one of the things I had in my post in the last thread and got replies like:
>Perfect
and
>This sounds just about perfect.
but I don't see it in the doc

>>18409801
Yes. You can prepare an action to attack someone that moves past you, but AoO's aren't a part of the system. The google document is always a bit behind.

>>18409641
Are you in favor of the pyramid (specifically, the last example in the post)? And XP would be awarded in a similar way, though more frequently. It needs some fine tuning.

The monsters were part of what I tried to accomplish during the original project, and happens to involve 5 threat levels that go along somewhat with the phase idea.

Minimal Threat: Tiny enemies, mooks, or minions that pose no serious danger by themselves. Often come in groups. (Keese, Rope, Miniblins, Octorok, Zol, Stalkin/Stalchild, Deku Baba)
Low threat: More capable than minimal threat monsters. Slightly more health and begin to show unusual defenses. (Bokoblin, Peahat, Armos Statue, ChuChu, Hylian soldier, Bari, jumping Stalfos)
Moderate threat: The largest category. Monsters begin to have more elaborate defenses and weaknesses. Dangerous "duelist" type monsters start to show up here. Often make good minibosses for beggining characters. (Stalfos knight, Lizalfos, Moblin, Dodongo, ReDead, Wallmaster)
High threat: Dole out and take even more damage than usual. May have more than 3 actions. (Mothula, Darknut, Iron Knuckle, Hinox, Gibdo, giant Stalfos, Wizrobe)
Extreme threat: Highly powerful monsters, usually powered-up versions of other monsters. Rarely fought outside of miniboss battles, but not quite tricky enough to be bosses themselves (Mighty Darknut, Grand Wizrobe, Stalmaster, Magmanos, Dead Hand).

>>18409906
I guess the guideline is to make tags that only relate to item's capabilities, and let how other things respond to them be described in detail elsewhere. Instead of rope having the "taut" tag, rope would have the [Edged] property in it's reaction section, and say something like "Ropes can be cut with edged weapons or projectiles." The goal is to have a list of dungeon features with tags they react to next to them for quick reference.

>>18410116
In my efforts to update it I inevitably miss things. I try to get all the major things first and then work on details, the held actions being one that I missed.

>>18410185
>Are you in favor of the pyramid (specifically, the last example in the post)?
It's not my preferred method but I am in favor of using it. I'm of the opinion that XP distribution should be more fluid. Since we have skill and virtue points to account for the worrisome parts, the rest can be a bit more devil-may-care, I think. Varying Technique and Talent costs can keep people from buying too much too early.

>5 threat levels
Awesome.

>>18410203

Ah, so you're imagining it something like:

Rope: This rope holds the water barrel in place.
[Edged]: Cuts the rope.
[Fire]: Burns through the rope in 4 turns.

While I'm imagining it like:

Rope [Taut 5, Burn 4]: This ROPE holds the WATER BARREL in place.

>village cludon

My village is certainly clued on now, CAPTCHA.

I see you there, you green cursor, you.

A couple of questions:

Are actions considered Held if you don't use them on your turn or are they something you have to specify?

Do turn and out-of-turn actions indeed resolve simultaneously (if non-conflicting)? I was under the impression that one acted before or after the other but not at the same time unless it's a reaction (or a prepared action, I guess).

>>18410330
That's exactly it. The descriptions can be a little more informal, but I like the idea of putting the tag right in front of the specific reaction. I apologize about the harshness of my comments towards the earlier tag system.

>>18410536
The combatant chooses when to end their turn. If they have actions they didn't spend on their turn, they can use them out of turn.

Actions have to resolve one at a time, unless they're Reactions. If they're non-conflicting, it doesn't really matter the order they resolve in, but if either combatant wants to makes sure they go first, something like an opposed initiative check could be used to see who goes before the other.

>>18410278
Alright, so varying XP sounds like the way to go. XP is a bit easier to be loose with, since skills, virtues and dice rolls are the main thing that need keeping in check.

I'm having second thoughts about the pyramid. It may be too artificial... but without limiting skill costs, skills could outpace difficulty levels by far. Maybe it's ok, since Virtue points will be considered into monster stats; stronger monsters will still have a slight advantage over the PC's skill level alone, without the Virtue benefit. Just using the triangular scaling costs might work out. Opinions though?

>>18410536
I would imagine you would specify "I hold the remainder of my actions" to resolve your turn so people aren't sitting around waiting to see if you're going to do anything. Using one action and not declaring your turn over when your done would make things kind of awkward, and simply losing your actions just because you didn't specify that you're holding them would just be silly.
If you have a held action you can use it at any time, even after someone has already declared their action. You had initiative over them so you get to act before them. If they've already resolved an action however, you cannot say, "I attack before you do that." It's too late. The action's already resolved.
There may be some cases in which using a held action this way may prevent someone else's action from resolving, such as reducing their life to zero or using a knockback effect before they roll.

>>18410803
>but if either combatant wants to makes sure they go first, something like an opposed initiative check could be used to see who goes before the other.
Not only would that slow things down, it's not necessary. Initiative has already been determined. Whoever was first in initiative gets to act first.

Also, doc says Virtues go from 0-3 but we decided on 0-5, didn't we?

>>18410803
>>18410828
Okay, so any unused actions are saved once you end your turn and go away once your next turn begins. Normally, nothing happens simultaneously (except Reactions) but a character can act either before or after someone has declared their actions (but not actually taken them yet).

What I was imagining before was that you can act out-of-turn either before someone -declares- their action or after they've -resolved- their action. The case of multiple people wanting to act out-of-turn still presents a problem that initiative would deal with.

>>18410803
This is one of those difficult parts. I had a few thoughts about how to do it but I scrapped them. I'll post some anyways.

We could cap skills at the players highest Virtue. If the highest Virtue is 2 then their skill cap for all skills is 2. This has the obvious drawback of heavily incentivising pumping Virtue points into your main Virtue and doesn't leave room for diversifying without gimping yourself. I think even limiting it to your -total- Virtue points is a bit more cumbersome than it could be.

Skill caps could be based on how many total skill points characters have received, effectively tying them right back into Phases without explicitly saying so. This suffers from a similar problem to the last one in that it requires more tracking than I think should be necessary.

>>18410828
It might be a good idea to use a different name than "held action", since that brings to mind the idea that you're waiting for a specific trigger. Just "unspent actions/action points" is more specific.

>>18411065
>you can act out-of-turn either before someone -declares- their action or after they've -resolved- their action
not being able to act after the the action is declared but before it is resolved would defeat the purpose of holding your action in most cases
>multiple people wanting to act out-of-turn
they go in order of initiative

>>18411065
Just a note: Out of turn actions should still be able to interrupt in-turn combatants. If a Dodongo takes an action on it's turn to charge it's breath attack, someone else could take an action right after to throw a bomb into it's mouth. This makes turns matter less, since you only get the effect of chaining actions together if no one intterupts you, but they aren't that vital in the first place.

Capping skill level at the phase number is one solution, but a clumsy one. Maybe the pyramid is the safest bet for now, and can be changed again later if a more perfect solution is found.

One of the things about the pyramid that tripped me up was; if you have two Level 3 skills, do you need to have three level 2 skills underneath it, or is two level 2 skills enough? Having three might be too costly, I think. I may need to do some math on it.

>>18411119
Not necessarily. What it means is that you can move away from or attack something that just moved up to you but you can't move away from something that decided to attack you. As in the examples in the doc, it also means that you normally need to wait until after their attack resolves on you to attack them back.

>>18411341
Even working the way I described it, so long as the Dodongo needs to take two actions to use its breath attack, interruption of that kind is still possible. My concern is that there will be too much declaration of action and waiting for responses.

>Maybe the pyramid is the safest bet for now, and can be changed again later if a more perfect solution is found.
We'll definitely need to do more brainstorming in that department.

>>18411501
The actions thing is probably a lot harder to write down than it is to play.

Also, codifying phases/arcs and using them to limit maximum skill level seems to be a safe bet, the main problem with it is that players would be chomping at the bit to increase them. Maybe it's just fine to do triangular scaling, since players who invest in just attack skill will get suffer defensively, and vice versa.

The same doesn't really apply for Virtue points, since there aren't downsides to having low virtue. It may be interesting thematically to have an imbalanced virtue cause some problems for you, but maybe that's thinking too far ahead.

>>18405518
>Beginning of phase 1 (chargen): one level 2 skill
>-Beginning of phase 2: A few level 2 skills, 
>-Beginning of phase 3: A few level 3 skills
>-Beginning of phase 4: One level 5 skill or a few level 4 skills
>-Phase 5: A few level 5 skills

>Total skill point costs for each level (including previous level costs)
>-Level 1: 1
>-Level 2: 1 + 2 = 3
>-Level 3: 1 + 2 + 3 = 6
>-Level 4: 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 = 10
>-Level 5: 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 =15

With that in mind, how does this look like an outline for skill point distribution?

CharGen: 5 skill points: enough for a smattering of level 1 skills or a level 2 skill
End of Phase 1: ~10 skill points total
End of Phase 2: ~20 total
End ofPhase 3: ~30 total
End of Phase 4-: ~40 total
End of Phase 5: around 50 skill points total.

The real numbers don't matter (Phases 4 and 5 tend to be shorter, so more skill points may be awarded in phases 2 and 3 and fewer in the last 2). The GM is expected to have a rough outline of dungeons for a campaign, but how loosely or how tightly they want to hand out skill points is up to them.

Just saying now I love the art.

Bump for interest

Virtue Points are awarded fore freeformly. After a major event (clearing a dungeon or accomplishing some other major goal) is when a virtue point should be awarded. Just to check, should virtue point costs scale the same as skills do (2 points to raise from level 1 to level 2 and so on)? In that case, there should be around 20 virtue points awarded in an entire game.

Regular Experience Points are a bit of an enigma, since we haven't solidified much about talents or techniques yet. Would they be retrainable? That could be hard to explain in the case of racial techniques or abilities ("I forgot how to be giant, guys." -Goron after dropping the Biggoron talent).

>>18413107
there was so much great art done for the original project

If skill points and virtue points are figured out, should we move on to figuring out regular XP?

A good baseline for technique and talent costs would be 2XP. That way, lesser techniques could cost 1XP and stronger ones could cost 3-4. With that in mind, I'd guess at least 2XP a session would be fair.

Here's a sample technique block:
Spin Attack [Melee 1 or Heavy 1, 2XP]
Two actions (Charge 1), 3SP • Knockback
First Action: Take one action to charge the attack.
Second action: Attack every enemy within your weapon's reach in a circle around you. The attack does x2 damage and inflicts Knockback.

(It should be noted that doing this with a heavy weapon costs 3 action points total, due to heavy weapon attacks costing 2 action points.)

Quick Spin [Melee 1 or Heavy 1, Spin Attack, 1XP]
One action, 3SP • Knockback
Action: Attack every enemy within your weapon's reach in a circle around you. This attack inflicts Knockback.

Would it be wiser to keep these moves split up, or just make the chargeup optional on the standard Spin Attack? Also, how to handle area attacks? Should the attacker make an opposed attack/defense roll against each target, or make one attack and let each target oppose the result?

Also, I've considered the idea of giving most monsters static attack and defense numbers. Maybe that could be an optional rule.

>>18417669
Some example magic techniques. The format still needs adjustments.

Elemental Specialization [Magic 2, 2XP]
Spell Talent
Choose one from Fire, Ice, Electric, Wind, Shadow, or Light. Spells that include your chosen element deal an extra 1/2H damage.
(You can take this talent multiple times, with a different element each time.)

Elemental Mastery [Magic 4, Elemental Specialization, 2XP]
Spell Talent 
The extra 1/2H damage granted from one of your Elemental Specialization talents becomes 1H.

Telepathy [Magic 1, 2XP]
Spell Technique 
One Action, 2MP • Spell, Wisdom
Make a Magic/Wisdom check, (target 5)
-Success: You can send a telepathic message to an ally up to a mile away. The ally can spend an action to reply to the message telepathically at no MP cost. Longer messages may require multiple actions, at the GM's discretion.

Magical Strike [Magic 1, 2XP]
Spell Technique
One Action, Range 5 • Spell
Make a Magic attack against an enemy within 5 spaces.
-Hit: 1/2H damage.

>>18417669
Firstly, I'm not sure if making it take two separate actions is a good idea. It leaves opponents two separate chances to attack the user and/or move out of range. Having it consume two Actions at once is probably enough.
Secondly, they can be left separate. It allows for buying an extra option at minimal cost.

>Also, how to handle area attacks?
One attack roll against everything is a nice way to expedite play.

>I've considered the idea of giving most monsters static attack and defense numbers.
As in, no dice rolls involved? I think it detracts a bit from play. Part of the fun is some unpredictability in results. I do think there's a place for it though. Traps and other such mechanisms that work in a consistent way could use static values.

>>18420442
I'm not concerned about the extra chance to hit (since there's a big payoff for taking the risk), but moving away is definitely an issue. No point of making a chargeable attack if everyone else can just walk away from it. However, being able to react to "charge actions" is important to exploit certain enemy weaknesses, like the Dodongo example used earlier.

What would be a good way to handle this? Something involving Reactions?

Hijacking your thread slightly, I'm making a Warmarchine army based on Zelda villians as warlocks and bosses as war beasts.
I think I have a good grip of the "iconic" and memorable bosses from each game, as helped by /v/, but the list is still really long
any of these you feel could go without, or need to be added?

King Dodongo
Moldrom
Gleeok
Ganondorf
Goht
Bongo Bongo
Orphan
Veran
Ganon
General Onox
Aquamentus
Eox
Big Green Chu Chu
Stone Head and hands floating
Helmaroc King
Jalhalla
Stallord
Argorok
Thunderbird
Vaati
Zant
Ghirahim
Koloktos

>>18419755
"Spell Talent" and "Spell Technique" probably aren't necessary on everything. They can just be put under the same header and assumed to be one or the other. Tags can take their place. We can assume that anything with a Virtue tag adds their bonus to the roll.

Telepathy [Magic 1, 2XP]
[Spell] [Wisdom]
One Action, 2MP
Magic check (Target 5)
-Success: You can send a telepathic message to an ally up to a mile away. The ally can spend an action to reply to the message telepathically at no MP cost. Longer messages may require multiple actions, at the GM's discretion.

Magical Strike [Magic 1, 2XP]
[Spell]
One Action, Range 5
Make a Magic attack against a target in range.
-Hit: 1/2H damage.

I also thought Talents were going to be used for non-combat things. Elemental Mastery and Specialization could just be under Techniques.

>>18420720
>being able to react to "charge actions" is important to exploit certain enemy weaknesses
True, but especially for things like Spin Attack the opportunity to act effectively negates the attack. In general, I have some concerns about combat becoming a cat-and-mouse affair. That's one of the primary reasons I don't like the idea of being able to act in the middle of someone else's action (without using a Reaction), but no matter how we do it we just won't be able to have some things work certain ways. Spin Attack in either scenario would be negated by movement, so the simplest solution is to have it occur at once. As one of the previous version's authors mentioned last thread, the goal shouldn't be to recreate the mechanics of the game. I think this is just one of those times when we'll have to make concessions.

>>18420864
That makes sense. This is where the Counterattack Reaction would come in handy, instead of waiting between charge actions. Some enemies wouldn't be interrupted at all by hitting them (like stalfos). You could Dodge or Block or Parry or use some sort of item to react to an attack (including one with a charge), but you couldn't just run away from it. Does that seem fair?

>>18421989
Could you elaborate a bit more?

>>18422237
Ok, that didn't make any sense, my bad. I was typing in a hurry.

What I'm proposing is a Reaction (based on what was once called a Counterattack, possibly called an Interrupting Attack) that costs an action. It allows the reacting combatant to use a weapon, item, or spell simultaneously with the original attacker's action. Success means the original attacker is hit and interrupted, and their attack stops. 

This could be handled by opposed attack rolls (winner hits first and interrupts), or separate attack rolls against each others base defense. Or maybe some other option.

Maybe only attacks with chargeup actions trigger it. The reason is because some unfeeling or particularly burly monsters (stalfos knights, moblins) could ignore most interrupting attacks and still have a chance to follow up. In that case, there should still be a small window for the PC (with remaining actions) to dodge/block/whatever. Not sure how to handle this, unless having both the chargeup and the actual attack provoke Reactions. I think there's merit in the concept, but it needs hammering out.

>>18422559
Here's what it assumes:
-Both the charge-up and the release of an attack are considered part of the same Action for the purposes of Actions- other combatants cannot take a regular Action in between the parts of your attack.
-Each "part" of the attack though (every charge portion and the actual attack, provokes a Reaction from the potential targets of the attack.
-Reactions include Dodge, Block, Parry, Prepare Defense (move half speed, get a +1 to defense against next attack) and Interrupting Attack.
-The Interrupting Attack can be any weapon, item, or spell attack. It must use equal or fewer action points than the enemy attack.
-Opposed attack rolls (not base defense for the charging enemy): Success means your attack lands and the enemy's attack is ends. Failure means you fail to hit and the enemy attack continues. (Failure could also mean that you can't react to the follow up attack and have to use Base Defense).
-If the attack continues and you can still react, you can.

Another thing to consider would be that charging an attack also lets you move half speed at any point before the attack finishes, so you can chase people down who try to back away with Dodge or Prepared Defense.

A hypothetical situation to reacting to an enemy charge up attack could be this:
>1. PC winds up attack+Enemy Prepares Defense and moves 3 away.
>2. PC moves 3 towards the enemy and releases attack+Enemy uses Dodge

Or
>1. Enemy moves up 3 and begins charging attack+PC uses Interrupting Attack. (PC hits, the attack ends.)
>2. If failing an Interrupting Attack leaves you unable to react, then the enemy attack goes through and targets the PC's Base Defense.

Hopefully this is a little clearer, and even makes sense.

>>18424831
What wouldn't count as a Reaction? Your list looks like it excludes everything but moving.

Bump.

>>18420864
Talents are passive effects, Techniques are abilities that need to be activated. At least, that's what it sounds like from the thread.

Actually, really the simplest thing to do would be to drop the "multiple reactions for chargeup attacks" idea. As >>18420864 said, it's a concept that has no realistic solution. While it would be cool to somehow allow people to take potshots at enemies building up attacks, it's too clunky if all charge-up attacks were like that.

Maybe only certain attacks (particularly ones that allow movement forward, like the hurricane spin) would have the charging treated as a seperate action from the attack. Or to let people charge up an attack, and then be able to move before releasing it. Or to only allow reactions to interrupt turns. I'm just throwing out ideas here.

Bump

Hope you guys will be able to implement Masks into the game, keeping an eye on the project.

>>18432136
Ok. For now let's assume that the charge up time is considered into the actual attack. So the Spin Attack would read

Spin Attack [Melee 1/Heavy 1, 2XP]
Two actions (3 actions Heavy), 3SP • Knockback
Make an area attack against every enemy within your weapon's reach in a circle around you. The attack does x2 damage and inflicts Knockback.

Other techniques:

Jump Attack [Melee 1/Heavy 1/Hand-to-Hand 1, 2XP]
Two actions (3 actions heavy), 3SP • Knockback
Move your Jumping distance forward and make an attack against one enemy. The attack does x2 damage and inflicts Knockback.

Flurry Attack [Melee 1/Heavy 1/Hand-to-Hand 1, 2XP)
Two Actions (3 Actions Heavy), 4SP
Make 3 seperate basic attacks (2 attacks Heavy) against each enemy in a 3-space arc within your weapon's reach.

>An arc is basically a series of contiguous spaces (so a 3 space arc with a Melee weapon could look like a 1x3 row or column on a grid).

Sweeping Attack [Heavy 2, 2XP]
Two Actions, 4SP • Knockback
Make an area attack against each enemy in a 5-space arc within your weapon's reach. The attack inflicts Knockback.

And some combat talents: Talents are passive effects and can apply to techniques.
Brawler [Hand-to-Hand 1, Power 1, 1XP]
Your unarmed attacks deal 1H damage instead of 1/2H.

Combo Momentum [Hand-to-Hand 2, Flurry Attack technique, 1XP]
When performing the Flurry Attack unarmed, the second attack in the sequence deals +1/2H extra damage, and the third attack deals +1H extra damage.

More to come.

Throwing out some standard status effects; they may need rewording or redefining (in particular the parts about things actlivating on people's turns.

Stunned: You lose an action point and (maybe) lose your next opportunity to use an Action or a Reaction.

Restrained: You cannot move from your space and cannot Act or React except to try to free yourself.

Cursed: You can take no actions other than Movement actions until the beginning of your next turn.

Burning: You take 1/2H fire damage at the beginning of each of your turns.

Shocked: You take 1/2H electric damage and are Stunned.

Frozen: You take 1/2H ice damage and cannot Act or React until the end of your next turn. While Frozen,
-You have Damage Reduction 5H to all attacks except Impact and Fire attacks.
-You take x2 damage from Impact attacks.
-Being hit with a Fire or Impact attack instantly ends the effect.

>>18438339
Shocked probably doesn't need to be its own effect, but it could be a typical type of attack.

Anyone still watching this thread? I can leave work in the Google Document and bring the project up again when more people are willing to critique.

>>18443305
I'm still following, I'm just busy. I'll likely get a chance to consider things and respond thoroughly tomorrow.

Might as well post a sample monster statblock. The formatting needs to be broken down eventually, but hopefully this conveys enough information.

Deku Baba [Plant]
Life 2 - Init. +0
Medium size - Strength 2 - Weight 2 - Speed 0
Bite • Melee, Reach 2
-Attack +1, 1H damage.
Dodge +1, Block +1
Features:
-Rooted: The Deku Baba cannot move from it's space. Knockback attacks stun it instead of moving it.
-[Edged] Thin Stem: Edged attacks against the Deku Baba when it's unable to react instantly destroy it.
-[Fire] Flammable: The Deku Baba takes 1H of damage per turn from burning instead of 1/2H.

Bump.

Some other monsters. For brevity, unlisted skills should be assumed to be at 0. Wondering about base defense for monsters that don't really have a way to protect themselves (Octoroks for example). Should base defense vary from creature to creature? Maybe Size has something to do with it?

Land) Octorok
Life 1 - Init. +0 - Base Defense +0
Small size - Strength 2 - Weight 2 - Speed 5
Spit Rock • Ranged 5/10
-Attack +1, 1H damage.

Keese
Life 1/2 - Init. +1 - Base Defense -1
Tiny size - Strength 1 - Weight 1 - Speed (Fly 6)
Bite (1 Action) • Melee
-Attack +1, 1/2H damage.
Dodge +2 - Stealth +1
Swoop (2 Actions): The Keese flies it's speed and Bites at any point during the movement.
-[Wind] If hit by a Wind attack while airborne, the Keese becomes (Dazed? Loses a turn basically.)

Bokoblin [Goblin]
Life 3 - Init. +1 - Base Defense -1
Medium size - Strength 3 - Weight 3 - Speed 6
Boko Stick (1 Action) • Melee
-Attack +2, 1H damage.
Dodge +1 - Block +2 - Stealth +1

>>18452753
Base Defense should likely be on a case-by-case basis. What if you have a small creature with a very strong shell that's tough to crack?

>>18453569
For creatures that can't dodge or block (specifically small ones), a slightly higher base defense may be in order. For armor specifically? Monster armor is likely to ignore most attacks that hit them, even if struck successfully. (Some Power weapons could have the potential to ignore enemy armor).

Monsters (in particular, boss monsters) could have multiple "targets" on their bodies that have different Base Defenses. The "body" of a Beamos and it's eye would be seperate targets of the Beamos, with the eye having a higher base defense. You could hit the body of the Beamos with an electrical attack to stun it, or shoot or stab the eye to actually deal damage.

D&D's Armor Class streamlines this by having armor make it more difficult to receive damage, rather than reducing the damage recieved. But, since different tools have different effects on different parts of creatures in this game, it seems appropriate.

For the small, shelled monster example, it's shell could have a base defense of -1, but be Armored, meaning most attacks bounce off. It's soft head or underbelly could have a base defense of +3. Impact attacks against the shell could ignore the armor and crush the creature outright, but without an Impact item, players may have to try and stab at the creature's vulnerable parts to defeat it.