Harshax

I think for opposed rolls (PvP or PvGM), I'll use a roll under skill, but higher than your opponent [for ties], otherwise I'll compare success level. I'm also going to borrow the Masteries concept from Hero Wars/Quest, where each 100% equals 1 Mastery. The character with the highest Mastery can raise their own success one step, or lower their opponent(s) one step for each mastery they have in excess of their opponent(s).

Let's back up a second. WotC can't, and didn't, take d20 off the market. They can (and did) take all Wizards of the Coast products off the PDF market. This is kind of an important distinction. Many of the big 3/3.5 d20 Publishers out there decided they would not support 4E. Aside from being cost prohibitive ($5000 licensing fee), there was the additional requirement that you drop sale and support of all previous edition products. One of their biggest channels (Paizo), not only refused to follow 4E, they launched a huge year long playtest to build their own OGL (Pathfinder - and it's pretty neat). Somewhere, someplace, their is a group who thinks that D&D's largest customer base is composed largely of brand-loyalty gamers. They'll play anything, if it is called Dungeons & Dragons, and is populated by copyrighted Githyanki, Vecna, Tharizdun, and Flumphs. That group might be right. We have a game store in the region that has been around since the beginning (I'm talking about Games Plus out in Mount Prospect, IL). I asked one of the owners about how well D&D 3.x sold compared to previous editions, and what he said was absolutely shocking. He asserts that the no single D&D book has sold more units in his store than the Unearthed Arcana (1st Edition). He also asserts that D&D never regained the same popularity it held in the early 80's. If that's the truth, then cancelling WotC PDF sales and enforcing Online Subscription and dead-tree sales can only help them, since the statistics imply that WotC's core customer has always been brand-loyal, second generation gamers (post OD&D Grognards). I admit a great sentimentality for D&D. However, it isn't so blind that I would follow D&D to its fourth incarnation automatically. While I've purchased a few of the old gems (modules, books), I have acquired most of my originally-purchased dead-tree books in electronic format from a variety of other sources. Now, the d20 OGL has done more than open D&D 3.0 and 3.5 to 3rd party publishers. It opened many people's eyes to the realization that you can't copyright game mechanics. Systems like OSRIC and Basic Fantasy Roleplay have already captured the essence of OD&D, D&D, and AD&D gameplay. As previously speculated, this is the largest customer fanbase of Dungeons & Dragons. By selling PDF's of old edition material, WotC is directly supporting a system that they receive no income from, or have inadvertently marginalized themselves with remedial sales by offering PDF's of OOP material - which are already highly pirated. In the end, this move won't kill Wizards. I foresee a stronger push toward MMORPG gameplay powered by D&D 4E rules. Tools that allow DM's to create purely digital scenarios, without a degree in graphic arts. 3rd Party Licensees of a 4E digital game engine, and an incidental market for players who insist on taking 4E to the kitchen table with paper and pen. The rest of us will still play D&D the way it has always been played. With or without WotC's permission.

Here's what I've noticed about WotC Products: 1. All 4th edition rulebooks have appeared illegally on download sites before they were officially released. 2. Document Sharing portals like scribd, have allowed their members to host WotC material for download by anyone. 3. The entire pre 4E library has been available via torrents for years. 4. I've seen at least one attempt to take the goodies out of 4E, and adopt them for professional publication in 3E products. In my opinion, WotC has a serious issue. People are blatantly ripping them off. Considering point 1, some of those people work for them! Considering point 2, it's like you don't even need to hoist the Jolly Roger to get access to these files. 4E is probably not doing as well as WotC would like. I don't yet see a plethora of 3rd party support, at least not the kind of support I saw when the two previous editions came out. How pulling Original, 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 3rd.5 edition material from the virtual shelves will help them solve sales problems with 4th is beyond me. My only theory is that they realise they can't not sell digital versions of 4th edition products if they still offer previous editions, because they have proof that digital/online purchases account for the majority of their sales. So not providing digital 4E might make potential customers just stick with the gaming products that are on line. Now I'm more inclined to believe that illegal downloads represent a small fraction of owners of D&D material. I believe most people pay money for them - it's a chicken/egg argument - in that, I see the stuff in the stores, I see the stuff is lavishly illustrated, has a large staff of writers, is high page count, therefore they must be making money. However, when sales decline, you have to increase demand. Even if sales are down because of the poor US economy, lack of jobs, increased cost of living, you'd be a fool to ignore some rather blatant attempts to distribute your property illegally. This is especially true if you were use to seeing X number of units flying off the shelves or downloaded from drivethru rpg, and now you're only seeing Y. Even if the number of illegal downloads (Z) hasn't changed, your profit margin is still down. If you also have statistics that show your lusciously illustrated, well bound, high quality, high production dead-tree book is outselling your PDF products, then you might as well drop the PDF line - - - Especially because the biggest reason for PDF sales is for the convience of savvy laptop owning gamers who commute to work, or who prepare games at work, and you; being WotC; have just invested many developement hours into an online digital library/GM Tool/Character Manager that costs just a few dollars a month in subscription fees. Maybe you've also been convinced by recent tv commercials, that 3G and pure mobile internet is becoming common, so why not dump dead-pixel versions of your product and invest whole-hog into online applications that index and correlate all your products and errata. I guess I did have a theory. However rambling.

I believe Magic Skills are Mental Skills

Curious if you notice that all the t's are missing in the stat blocks for Deities in the Divine Magic chapter?

Methinks, the stat blocks are missing 1's and dashes? IIRC, the block looks like this: STR 2d6+6 13 CON 1d6+12 15 - 16 SIZ 1d6+12 15 - 16 INT 2d6+6 13 POW 3d6 10 - 11 DEX 3d6 10 - 11 APP 2d6 7 Hit Points: 16

Geez! The gamemaster's book has tables that are missing R's and T's. (see page 12) Is some strange chaos horror from Sesame Street stealing all the letters? EDIT: The table edits get worse - R, T, and L seems to be missing throughout most of the document's tables. Can't wait to see the Monster Book. EDIT: I would seriously recommend that you do NOT buy the Creatures book. This file is missing numbers and letters. Not just in boxed text, but blocked text as well. In case anyone will claim I'm being overly sensitive, here is the Stat Block for Broo Broo Characteristics Average STR 2D6+6 3 Move 4 CON D6+ 2 5 6 Hit Points 6 SIZ D6+ 2 5 6 Fatigue 29 INT 2D6+6 3 POW 3D6 0 DEX 3D6 0 APP 2D6 7

Let's see them comes and get me! >:-> Seriously, if someone doesn't get to this in the next couple of hours, I'll write out the stats and pm you later.

Hell of a good article! Thanks for sharing.

I know some of you were never D-n-Ders. I was, and proud of it. Dave Arneson was hugely influential on a game I enjoyed immensely as a young adult, and I will always be thankful of his contribution (creation?) to my favorite pastime. R.I.P. Dungeons & Dragons Co-Creator Dave Arneson, 1947-2009 | Geekdad from Wired.com

Curious if you ever though of lifting the whole Toughness concept, wherein damage below your toughness means you are shaken, while damage rolls greater than your toughness makes you wounded. Major Wound = Toughness would seem like a quick way to test the concept.

this. Unless you and your players like resource management, and also like to view Hit Points as a resource to gamble throughout the game, make opponent mook or extras that go down with one hit. Even if you all don't like resource management, don't tell the players you've got mook rules in place. It helps when it comes to the whole suspension of disbelief thingy. . .

It is worth pointing out again, that Pinnacle Entertainment offers a customizable 3-panel, landscape DM screen. EDIT: Hammerdog Games also offers a customizable 4-panel DM screen.

I'm not a fan of fluff at the beginning of chapters. I prefer them in boxed text through-out a chapter, eg. Cormac's Saga.

Additionally, Savage Worlds has great production values. It knows what it does best, and delivers it with precision. I got into it with 1st Edition and 50 Fathoms. Packed with adventures, I consider 50F one of my top 10 favorite campaign books. Savage Worlds can be gritty too. Just remove Soak Rolls.

Ach! I've been pantsed!

It seems you're arguing the converse, that the player should get to make extra Skill Rolls to get a sure chance of not striking an ally. I would presume that intention in any attack roll, because nobody wants to strike an ally by accident. I can see your point though, and It would be nice if there was some kind of flourish mechanic, or challenge mechanic (I forget what it is called in other games) - a mechanic where you take extra penalties to do something spectacular. The fate or hero point mechanic might work well for this, as soltakss points out. I guess one more question to ask the GM; aside from which optional rules he is using; is whether he is using this kind of hero mechanics or more importantly, does he want to treat every character action as a special circumstance. If not, but he allows the player extra rolls to avoid hitting an ally, then he is opening himself up to special rulings in other situations too. eg. The crossing the pit trap scenario: "The characters encounter an open pit trap in a hallway. The walls of the hall are rough hewn and offer suitable hand-holds. There is also a 2 inch border around the pit trap. An Agility or Climbing roll must be made to cross the pit without falling in." - One player decides he is going to tip toe along the edge of the pit, in addition to using the hand-holds along the wall. Does the character get one chance or two to cross the pit successfully? Personally, I would be happy with either ruling, but think mine is faster and more realistic. Sometimes it's fun to play things out physically too. Have two of your friends stand close together. Now place your finger on one of their heads. Have them move about violently, and see if how easy it is to say "Bang" while keeping your finger both touching and perpendicular to the player's head. Unless the player is completely unaware of your attack, he should be actively avoiding you while engaged with the other player. I think if you go this route, you are essentially allowing or judging two separate actions for the character that round, and a question of timing comes into play. The character's first action is to place his weapon against the monster's head. Now if he is successful, he will make an attack. The "if" is very important here, because he must evaluate the result before attempting a second action. The second action, would come 5 DEX Ranks, or DEX + 3 Strike Ranks later, when the character would presumably pull the trigger if the beast hasn't run off or shrugged off the previous attack.

I don't see how the player's description of his desired action should alter or add additional rolls or mechanical effects. The problem is, the description of his action sounds like the result of a very good attack. Making the player roll more Skill or Characteristic rolls is actually penalizing the player for adding a flavorful description to his statement of intent.

The relevant Spot Rules in this situation are: Aimed Attacks [Attack is Difficult] Close Combat [Makes missile attacks Easy] Firing into melee [-20% to Hit, may hit ally] Net result: -20% to Hit. If the attack is under the character's Skill and misses because of the Firing into Melee Modifier, there is a 50% chance the attack struck the monster or the ally. . . . or . . . if the situation warrants it, you can treat the ally as cover for the monster. In that case, drop the -20% modifier, make the net attack roll Difficult [easy + difficult + difficult = difficult] A failed skill roll strikes the ally instead.

You could always just make your own.

Maybe the issue isn't the mechanics. It's the description of what is happening. In mechanics heavy games, poor or non-existence combat narration can be overlooked. YMMV

I picked up a couple of addition source books, such as GURPS Steampunk (SJG are always a good buy as source material), and have been reading about the planet Vulcan - a mathematical error perceived to be a hidden planet by Urbain Jean Joseph Le Verrier in 1859. I have an idea that instead of the discovery being an error, it is in actuallying a Twin Earth which is later explored by Tesla after he discovers that he can apply force to lumineferous ether and thereby creates a engine capable of space flight. I think this is super cool, but I'm not really feeling any good ideas of how to develop Vulcan further. Habitable: yes. Earthlike: very yes. I don't want to get stuck creating an entire fantasy world, as I want the setting to stay on Earth and explore an alternate Victorian history. (I also intend to add the Hollow Earth too, and habitable planets within the solar system) I first thought of a common heritage idea for Earth and Twin Earth. The pyramids, Atlantis, the face on Cydonia, ruins on Twin Earth - these are all remnants of an extinct culture. What wiped them out? Earth and Twin Earth have had separate technological progressions. Earth becoming industrialized, Twin Earth could have developed psionics or something else (not magic). Any ideas for what Vulcan is? Whatever it is, I think such a discover would be a catastrophic event for the Church. I also have to think about how such a thing changes British imperialism. I'm pretty sure I don't want rampant steam technologies or spacebattles. There is a reason to actually visit these places, to learn things, to find things, or destroy them - whether it is discovering what happened to the ancients, opening gates between worlds, protecting the Church, or exploiting the resources of a far away place. I don't think I want to have a "And now the world is filled with elves, trolls, and dragons again" type thing. I don't think I could make that work. Too high fantasy/science fantasy.

I really should read everyone's responses before I post. I suggested the very same.

Could it be that the thing lacking is something simple, like accompanying illustrations? As to mecha design: Are you looking for rules that you as GM will use to create a variety of mecha, or are you looking for something that players will use frequently during the campaign as they build bigger and better mecha? Either way, I have a very radical idea: Create mecha the same way you would create characters. (very *BIG* characters) They have attributes and skills, and maybe super powers, or just equipment bolted on. Their skills can improve, reflecting the character's experience with the mecha and the tinkering of dedicated engineers to improve the design. They can even suffer major wounds, and be permanently injured.

If I were to rule on this, I would suggest that a) the character wielding the weapon would use either their own skill, or the skill of the weapon. Using a weapon's skill precludes the character from improving their own. c) skills advance as normal.