Annoying Game Questions You Want Answered

[Prak]

Lets say you wanted to play D&D in a setting with no humanoids, where instead, the humanoid races and monsters are replaced with Partially Civilized Animals or Civilized Animals, like, cats that talk and have opposable thumbs, but still walk on all fours mostly. Like, Equestria, but with cats.

Would it be better to use d20 as it is, so every character has a -8 str, or whatever, or to adjust it downward, so that Tiny is the new Medium, and cats and similar characters have a 10 strength? For starters, I mean.

[angelfromanotherpin]

My experience with that sort of thing is all in GURPS, but rescaling to the new mean worked a lot better than not.

[Grek]

It depends very much on how much of the old monster manual you intend to use.

[Prak]

I think in so far as I'd want to use existing monsters, I'd be reskinning them as something on the same scale as cats, so ogres are basically large dogs, that sort of thing

[Grek]

Then yeah, just renormalize the sizes such that Medium is "Normal Cat Size" and Large is "Bigger than a Cat" and Small is "Small Cat", etc.

[RobbyPants]

You probably don't have humans in this setting, but if you did, you could end up using ogre stats for human children and hill giants for adults, or something.

[deaddmwalking]

In real life, pretty much nobody has anything to fear from my fists, but I'm pretty sure that with a knife or large blade I could cause severe injury or death. The idea of a martial artist who is as deadly with their bare hands as I am with a blade is cool, but if that same person TOOK MY BLADE, wouldn't they be even MORE DEADLY?

How do you make martial arts a viable life choice without making choosing those same options and using weapons strictly superior? Is it simply a matter of making the martial artist damage equal to weapon damage (so a martial artist is exactly equally deadly with a longsword as with a 'death strike')?

Similarly, if you want armor to be a 'good thing' but you don't want players to wear heavy armor in a swashbuckling campaign or when attending the duke's ball, how would you provide an incentive to skip the armor without making armor always unnecessary?

[RobbyPants]

In real life, pretty much nobody has anything to fear from my fists, but I'm pretty sure that with a knife or large blade I could cause severe injury or death. The idea of a martial artist who is as deadly with their bare hands as I am with a blade is cool, but if that same person TOOK MY BLADE, wouldn't they be even MORE DEADLY?

How do you make martial arts a viable life choice without making choosing those same options and using weapons strictly superior? Is it simply a matter of making the martial artist damage equal to weapon damage (so a martial artist is exactly equally deadly with a longsword as with a 'death strike')?

It's already an abstraction, so I guess you could set it up however you wanted. Setting the damage to the same is fine. You could also have special abilities that only trigger with an unarmed strike. Look at the tome monk. Apart from that style ability that lets you use your styles with any weapon, the special style abilities tend to trigger on your slam attack. The actual slam attack itself doesn't really scale. What gets better is the abilities you can use.

Similarly, if you want armor to be a 'good thing' but you don't want players to wear heavy armor in a swashbuckling campaign or when attending the duke's ball, how would you provide an incentive to skip the armor without making armor always unnecessary?

Probably have them offer different defensive bonuses and/or have heavy armor give penalties to certain things. If nothing else, it could be something like a trade off between weapon damage (AC and/or DR) and spell/effect damage (Reflex saves/touch AC). In a system where skill checks work better, you might eschew armor for the stealth minigame (and any combat that comes afterward). If you know the task is "fight 39,287 orcs" you might prefer a defense against the attacks.

[angelfromanotherpin]

Similarly, if you want armor to be a 'good thing' but you don't want players to wear heavy armor in a swashbuckling campaign or when attending the duke's ball, how would you provide an incentive to skip the armor without making armor always unnecessary?

In a proper swashbuckling-style game, you can just declare that there is no armor worth wearing; rapiers can stab you through armor-chinks and guns just blow through things, and (true story) soldiers throw their issued armor away because it hinders them more than it protects them. Everyone gets Armored In Life instead of armor proficiency, happy birthday.

For a more nuanced situation, when I was trying to encourage armor worn in pitched battles but not otherwise, I gave everyone an Armored In Life variant I called Parry (active only, doesn't stack with armor, only works on one enemy/round), and also made the armor check penalties a little harsher (and had them count against Diplomacy most of the time). So small scale fights focused a lot more on unarmored sneaking around for surprise rounds, and the PCs armored up when they expected to be fighting large numbers of enemies. It worked okay, but it was a very short test run.

[nockermensch]

In real life, pretty much nobody has anything to fear from my fists, but I'm pretty sure that with a knife or large blade I could cause severe injury or death. The idea of a martial artist who is as deadly with their bare hands as I am with a blade is cool, but if that same person TOOK MY BLADE, wouldn't they be even MORE DEADLY?

How do you make martial arts a viable life choice without making choosing those same options and using weapons strictly superior? Is it simply a matter of making the martial artist damage equal to weapon damage (so a martial artist is exactly equally deadly with a longsword as with a 'death strike')?

Similarly, if you want armor to be a 'good thing' but you don't want players to wear heavy armor in a swashbuckling campaign or when attending the duke's ball, how would you provide an incentive to skip the armor without making armor always unnecessary?

Martial arts movies are based on the false* premise that spirit cuts harder than steel. By training a whole fucking lot, meditating and such, a kung-fu master can just punch through walls. A dude who trained to punch super-hard holding a sword works exactly like attaching spikes to a missile: the damage you care about is all coming from another source. See also, from the same genre of story: Swordmasters cutting stuff with wooden training swords, or parrying actual sword blows with a stick they picked from the ground.

In real life this obviously doesn't work*, but if you're doing fantasy already, it's a trivial bit of metaphysics to say that just as some people channel magic outwards in the form of fireballs or illusions, other people channel it inwards, becoming superheroes in the process. It's magic, and you can even add that anti-magic just doesn't work on permanent magical effects active from the inside of a creature: A monk's fists and supernaturally hard skin can't be dispelled by the same reason one can't "dispel magic" an iron golem or even a zombie.

EDIT: The way to make people who punch real good don't see the point of picking a sword is the one used by the 3.Xe monk already: Their martial arts damage dice increase with level. Now, the monk is somewhat weak*, so I'd not mind if they could just do their thing with any weapon, using the higher damage dice from the weapon if they don't flurry, or their martial-arts dice if they do. A change like this probably fixes the monk class*.

*[Citation needed]

[OgreBattle]

How do you make martial arts a viable life choice without making choosing those same options and using weapons strictly superior? Is it simply a matter of making the martial artist damage equal to weapon damage (so a martial artist is exactly equally deadly with a longsword as with a 'death strike')?

In many wuxia & samurai movies where badasses crush thing with their hands and with swords, they go unarmed because of law and ambushes. Some films like Jet Li's Fearless have "I grabbed a sword in anger" as a bad thing that should be avoided as it's peace time.

Grappling technique is also a huge boon especially against people who don't know much about it. Yeah in real life it's difficult to avoid being knifed when you don't have a longer reach weapon but 'master disarmament of knife thug' is a staple of martial arts storytelling worldwide, most of those European renaissance fightbooks have detailed sections on doing that.

Grappling also applies to armored armed combat, so being an expert unarmed combatant makes him an even better armed combatant. Here's some nice visuals from the age of poofy sleeves:
http://elegant-weapon.blogspot.com/2017 ... rozzo.html

Here's an armored combat video, at the 2:00 mark you see how polearm wielders get into a grapple where their weapons are dropped and being a better grappler will determine who gets stabbed on the ground:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZICS-tBPBI

The Wollonian knight Jacques Lailang also has accounts of throwing his poleaxe to create an opening to rushdown and defeat people with his superior grappling.

I've also been attending a German Longsword club and my tiny bit of wrestling experience does give me an edge against other sword novices in the clinch, it's playing to my strength to initiate blade contact as early as possible to press into grappling range.

Similarly, if you want armor to be a 'good thing' but you don't want players to wear heavy armor in a swashbuckling campaign or when attending the duke's ball, how would you provide an incentive to skip the armor without making armor always unnecessary?

Have scenarios where success and failure isn't about tanking hits and killing. So heists, chases, things where heavy armor combat isn't going to help as much as being an agile guy with a grappling hook. Having mechanics that let unarmored people escape more cumbersome

Robert E. Howard's Conan relies a lot more on stealth and diplomacy than tanking stuff in armor.

There's lots of real life elements of armor like maintenance (repairing cut straps, preventing rust on metal, etc.), taking a long time to put on, etc.

[Whiysper]

Also, without training in weapons, the movements you use to attack people don't really work with weaponry - lines of attack and grips and such are off by enough that you're basically an amateur at best. Personally, I'd rather fight barehanded!

Game-wise, for MA attacks, you either need to use perks or something similar, such that some traits are for specific weapons. Your call whether you think 'invisible weapon that's not usually disarmed' is worth making it weaker. Or if you just want to encourage knuckle-dusters/wristbands to add to damage. That's the fine-tuning.

For Armour, I genuinely like to differentiate between avoidance and resistance - so I just do that. Armour makes you more likely to be hit but less likely to be hurt, and so not wearing it makes dodging much easier (VERY light-touch encumbrance system, but it's there - bodysuit is fastest and most nimble, and so on).

[Thaluikhain]

Also, without training in weapons, the movements you use to attack people don't really work with weaponry - lines of attack and grips and such are off by enough that you're basically an amateur at best. Personally, I'd rather fight barehanded!

Yeah, I remember a martial arts type once saying he found fending hard to get into, because he was used to using his hand/arm to block attacks, which you aren't supposed to do against swords (usually).

[Prak]

Also, without training in weapons, the movements you use to attack people don't really work with weaponry - lines of attack and grips and such are off by enough that you're basically an amateur at best. Personally, I'd rather fight barehanded!

Yeah, I remember a martial arts type once saying he found fending hard to get into, because he was used to using his hand/arm to block attacks, which you aren't supposed to do against swords (usually).

...now I want to see a match between a fencer and a martial artist...

[tussock]

In real life, pretty much nobody has anything to fear from my fists, but I'm pretty sure that with a knife or large blade I could cause severe injury or death. The idea of a martial artist who is as deadly with their bare hands as I am with a blade is cool, but if that same person TOOK MY BLADE, wouldn't they be even MORE DEADLY?

Well, normal folks do 1d3 subdual, so you sort of stun folks by punching, and sort of kill folks by stabbing, yes. The rules also say you can try to kill people by punching them at -4, like repeated head shots or chokes, and that is a real thing that really kills real people.

In fact, people get beaten to death by being punched quite regularly. Reasonably strong adult males have enough power in their upper body to kill another human.

D&D 3e is abstract combat rounds representing a few seconds of attacks, at a few blows per second. That 1d20 can be a physically active adult punching you in the head a dozen times, and that might kill you if they stick at it for long enough and you don't get medical attention pretty quickly afterward. Maybe you choke on all the blood.


Now first level Monks are Awesome and hit you as hard as a fucking mace, smashing bones and just plain killing fools (in a sense of leaving them to suffocate with their crushed throats) at a rate of up to one every three seconds. Big ass roundhouse kicks and axe kicks and neck breakers and smashed ribs poking the liver and other unlikely woo happening non-stop, or until the Monk gets stabbed.

The question of "why isn't that guy bad-ass with a sword", is that everyone in the party (except the Wizard) is bad-ass with a sword, everyone does 1d8+Str and kills fools with a sword very quickly (except the Wizard). The Monk is just also bad-ass without a sword.

How do you make martial arts a viable life choice without making choosing those same options and using weapons strictly superior?

Math. You run the numbers and check the weapons aren't strictly superior. If they are, you add more stuff to the martial arts only and run the numbers again.

Similarly, if you want armor to be a 'good thing' but you don't want players to wear heavy armor in a swashbuckling campaign or when attending the duke's ball

Real armour wasn't worn all the time because wearing it caused a need for maintenance that was time consuming. All that shit is ignored for D&D, because maintenance is sensibly assumed to occur out of the spotlight. But in real life, wearing armour meant you were looking for a fight right now, and the social implications of that are huge.

Note, in like, the War of the Roses, people in armour did turn up to social events and just fucking kill everybody. There's fuck all anyone could do about half a dozen guys in plate with swords riding in and setting to it. Someone showing up in armour was a big deal.

Having said that, it's D&D, and so a lot of the art for a long time is just people walking around in armour all day like it's nothing, so you can just accept it as in-genre that Clerics get to carry their holy symbol, Wizards get to carry their spell components, and Fighters get to wear their weapons and armour, as part of their class features, and no one cares. You only take away weapons and armour when you also take away holy symbols and component pouches, and bind and gag the sorcerer, and lock the Monk in a small steel cage.

[Thaluikhain]

Reasonably strong adult males have enough power in their upper body to kill another human.

Few years back in Australia, the media went into a frenzy about so-called "King Hits", which they helpfully renamed "Coward Punches", which kills an Australian on average every 6 months or so.

Real armour wasn't worn all the time because wearing it caused a need for maintenance that was time consuming. All that shit is ignored for D&D, because maintenance is sensibly assumed to occur out of the spotlight.

Isn't the primary reason that it's heavy and cumbersome and annoying, and most of the time you aren't fighting? Similar to US troops in WW2 who preferred the M1 Carbine to the M1 Rifle, cause you had the carry the damn thing around everywhere, and relatively rarely actually used it.

Having said that, it's D&D, and so a lot of the art for a long time is just people walking around in armour all day like it's nothing, so you can just accept it as in-genre that Clerics get to carry their holy symbol, Wizards get to carry their spell components, and Fighters get to wear their weapons and armour, as part of their class features, and no one cares. You only take away weapons and armour when you also take away holy symbols and component pouches, and bind and gag the sorcerer, and lock the Monk in a small steel cage.

Eh, I think the greater problem would be that you'd have to stop and decide what your character was wearing all the time, which would be tedious. You could have them run into somewhere where the weight of their armour posed a risk or drowning or falling into a swamp or something, and let them wear it or not, though.

[virgil]

I was working on a variation for After Sundown, introducing the Error mechanic from Warp Cult, which I think is a safe feature to add to the system? I was thinking of "errors" contributing to some kind of heat counter or GTA star meter (not counting obvious actions), or even just giving the DM more "ammunition" for the opposition, instead of arbitrary "bad stuff happens."

[Grek]

Assuming you had a good rule for determining error thresholds, yes.

[virgil]

if you were to write a game if you were to write a game design flow sheet for Call of Cthulhu, what would be the 6 player party?

[Trill]

For a investigative campaign I'd say:
Brawler: This guy is great at dishing out, taking in and intimidating people. Useful for getting to stuff behind breathing paywalls (owners) and partially to gather information. May also know people (policeman, mobster, bouncer)
Sneaker: This one is a good infiltrator, capable of checking out places unseen and stealing stuff like books or passes.
Librarian: The knowledge-based character. Has a wide knowledge-base, polyglot and knows where to get more.
Cultist: If not a full member, then at least someone with basic knowledge of the paranormal and deeper lore. May have connections to other cults.
Speaker: Knows how to speak with others and convince them to do things. Also good at acting.
Smuggler: Knows someone who knows a guy. Can get artifacts, supplies and services.

So e.g.
Brawler, Librarian, Speaker: They have someone who knows, someone who can convince others to help and someone who can force others to help. They are a more direct group, seeking out people and getting information that way.
Sneaker, Cultist, Smuggler: This is a low-key group. The Sneaker and Smuggler can get things while the Cultist knows what to get and who to ask.

[Grek]

The Academic, who wields knowledge in pursuit of understanding. Can access obscure knowledge about the natural (and unnatural) world.
The Innocent, who does not yield, even if the depths of despair. Exceptional resilience to giving up, can help others ignore their trauma.
The Investigator, who follows the trail of truth into the darkness. Sherlock Holmes meets Harry Dresden meets the X-files Agents.
The Socialite, who is made welcome even where others are mocked. Exceptional resilience to being discredited, serves as party Face.
The Soldier, who blends unwavering discipline with incredible violence. Exceptional resilience to fear, can kill any kill-able mythos critter.
The Abhuman, who is altered in mind or body by otherworldly forces. Some kind of human/mythos hybrid or other innate magic user.

[OgreBattle]

Are there magical negros and cunning orientals in Call of Cthulhu?

[Schleiermacher]

If you're using Frank's suggested lower levels for arcane Evocations (these), what levels should you assign to divine Evocations like Flame Strike and Fire Storm?

Flame Strike is basically the cleric's Fireball and has previously been higher level to be worse... but does it need to be 2nd level when Fireball is level 1 or is the smaller area enough of a nerf? Conversely with Fire Storm, it doesn't deal any more damage than a Fireball, but it covers a much wider and more flexible area, giving it wider tactical uses -how many spell levels is that worth?

[DenizenKane]

I'd say Flame Strike for level 1, and Fire Storm for level 2.

[Schleiermacher]

What about "I can't believe it's not an Evocation", Incendiary Cloud?