pansophy

BTW: I use different d6 for Might Damage. Usually I use numbered d6, but for Might I use pips on d6'es. That way it is easy to destinguish the weapon damage from might damage. On a narrative level it is fun to explain how the damage comes together and with the different dice it is easy to visualise it Anyways, just a bit of chit chat along the way ...

You know, the amount of dice rolled for Might is actually really frightening for players, once you have used the Mighty Blow Damage Effect as a GM. Players will never ever underestimate the size of a creature thereafter ... And the best thing: if using the effect, you do not roll the dice for Might at all ...

BTW: a list of all Traits in the book categorised by Skill would be a helpful resource for the GM during play. Please include the Power Traits of the mail rule book, too. Just yesterday I found myself looking up Traits in the rule book many times, which was irritating. Oh, and is there a Trait like 'Library use' or 'Research' ? If not, would that be a Knowledge Trait? Cheers! Rob

What prevents you from having both entries as a Trait? Separately as you need them ... You would do the same for Weapons anyway...

As long as the picture matches the character, I am OK with the Hit Location optional add on. As soon as it would represent a generic silhouette, I would omit the image and make it a table instead. Depending on if the silhouette matches the setting, it might be OK, too. What I do not want to see is a human silhouette representing a sci-fi robot or alien. Or a skeleton warrior with a sword and shield for a horror skeleton. That would disrupt the mood. Saying that, the last part is only possible for setting books, though.

To be honest I don't mind rolling 5d2. IMHO it shows how Strength affects weapon damage, up to the point where the weapon itself becomes irrelevant. Can you exchange the dice from 5d2 to something else? Sure, simply use 1d6+4. Same minimum and maximum value. I guess the key concept behind rd100 is to get rid of all these +X values. IMHO this makes it easier at the table to SEE the damage done and distribute it along armour, toughness and show the remaining damage at the gaming table. My players are especially bad at remembering these +X bonuses, so they are happy the way rd100 works currently.

Actually, I struggle with character creation. The Traits for Powers should be listed in the Skills Section, underneath the skill it is meant to be used. Even if it is just an example, but it would clear things up. Also, the Manipulation stunts should be in there. What about the Weapon Stunts? I would love to see them in there. Having them all in one place would speed up finding them during game play and creates less clutter in the Powers and Combat sections.

Good question. I can remember I struggled a bit while reading it at first, but I'm not sure if that is due to wording or just me getting the concept straight. I remember writing down a few terms, e.g. what is meant by Opposition and what does Roll for Effect mean. Overall a short list of 'technical terms' would help to clear things up in the beginning. The examples are good and very helpful. As a side note, it helped me to just read the book the first time and ignore all side bars. Then, later, I looked up the side bars to see what I missed. That way it was more fluent to read and my thoughts were not distracted by additional information. Does it need a rewrite? Maybe, but concentrate on the other chapters first.

This is awesome news, indeed! I will be on board for the Kickstarter, so expect some content to be shipped to Australia again!

Ha! Thanks, Paolo, I totally overlooked the Bestiary Section! I had a look at different other D100 sources, but not Shade Lands - probably because I did not print it ... Which is now on my List. 😁

I'm planning a new adventure - and was wondering if anybody has any stats for giant spiders, ants, wasps, scorpions or such. Maybe even different sizes? A boy can dream ...

Hi Paolo, thanks for clearing that up. At least I now know I understood the rules right. 😁 Sorry for taking up your time you probably could use on one of your other started projects, but this really helps.

Hello Forum, I need a bit of help. Just yesterday I looked at the Armour Creation rules (p.158) and I can follow all the examples until I hit page 162. These are the issues I have with the examples: 1) the text for the helmet does not seem to match the example. The Plating seems to cover all slots of 5+. Then there is a Visor added at a slot 4. 2) why does the Plating for the Head have 5/0+ and 8/5+ ? From what I see it should be 5/0+ and 8/4+. But then the text at the bottom left reads: Head: 5/0+, 8/0+ 2a) if that is because of the added Plating Joints, why even bother covering the slots 5, 6, 7 & 8 with Plating, and not instead add the Plating Joints in slot 8? It would have the same mechanical effect (8/0+) and would not cost as much. 2b) the slot 0 for the Head Padding layer should be 'Mail Joints', not just 'Mail', as Padding starts at slot 1 - and slot 0 can only be covered by Joints. 3) Arms and Legs: the Total values for the Armour/Covering ratings are wrong. They should be as in the text on the left: Arms: 1/0+, 5/2+ & Legs: 1/0+, 5/3+ My biggest issue is this: a Plate armour for the Body. This could be true, if the Head example on page 162 is correct: Layer 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Total Padding --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Plating n/a n/a --- --- --- --- --- --- Plate Iron 8/0+ Joint Plate But I suppose the example for the Head should be more along this: Layer 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Total Padding (Mail (Mail) (Mail) (Mail) (Mail) (Mail) (Mail) (Mail) (Mail) (Mail) 5/0+ Joint) Plating Plate Plate Plate Iron Iron Iron Iron Iron Iron Iron 8/0+ Joint Joint Joint Plate Plate Plate Plate Plate Plate Plate Am I correct - or am I not getting something?

The map for the combat tracker is public domain The cards would be without the fighter images Alternatively, maybe Paolo could make his cards available as PDFs via Drive-thru - personally I would like that better, as it adds an other official product to the game.

Ahhh, true. ☺️ Will correct it in the post

Would the OGL on one page of a document containing the cards be sufficient?

Hm, true, the only thing that might come up in a Charge is 'who goes first' - not 'does anybody act in between the two'. That changes the combat quite a bit ... So here's the updated example, still without paying attention to Combat Effects, Wounds, etc.: Example: Jimmy (Weapon SR 17; DEX 12; Attack SR 6; Defence SR 4; Fatigue Threshold 1) declares a harge at Rob (Weapon SR 19; DEX 13; Attack SR 12; Defence SR 6; Fatigue Threshold 3). Opening Move SR: Jimmy: 12 Rob: 19 At SR 19, Rob uses a Wait action to get a Free Attack action and pays 12 SR, reducing his current SR to 7. Jimmy: 12 Rob: 7, one Free Attack Action At SR 12 Jimmy charges at Rob, paying 5 SR for a new total of SR 7. Jimmy: 7 Rob: 7 Both Attacks against each other happen at SR 12, when Jimmy charges at Rob. Now, as declared by the rules, you should look at the 'normal Opening Move SR value' to determine who goes first. This would be Rob, as his SR of 19 is higher than Jimmy's 17. Rob uses his Free Attack action make a Close Combat Attack at Jimmy, who decides to Parry the blow, paying 3 SR for his weapon to defend. This reduces Jimmy's SR to 4. Jimmy survives (Rob misses) and now attacks Rob, who decides to parry at a cost of 6 SR. This costs Rob 1 Exertion Point (as it brings him below his Fatigue Threshold of 3), but his Parry is not at a Penalty as his SR is 1, well above 0 SR. Jimmy does not do enough damage to overcome Rob's armour, so nothing else happens. Jimmy: 4 Rob: 1 Since both characters do not have enough SR left to make further attacks at their full skill, they decide to let the next round of combat begin. I think a full combat example including 3 or 4 rounds with 3 combatants would visualise the whole thing better than any rule can explain. At least for me. This is why I write it up, so I can show it to my players. They find it easier to understand it that way as well .

One thing that came into mind: would it streamline the rule if you give a charging character a Free Attack action? I ask because sometimes the charging character does not attack first when engaging a character with an Wait action ready. Example: Jimmy (normal SR 17, DEX 12) declares a charge at Rob (SR 19, DEX 13). Opening Move SR: Jimmy: 12 Rob: 19 Rob uses a Wait action to get a Free Attack action and pays 12 SR, reducing his current SR to 7. Jimmy charges at Rob, paying 5 SR for a new total of SR 7. This gives him a Free Attack action. Jimmy: 7, one free Attack action Rob: 7, one free Attack action Now, as declared by the rules, you should look at the 'normal Opening Move SR value' to determine who goes first. This would be Rob, as his SR of 19 is higher than Jimmy's 17. Rob uses his Free Attack action to attack Jimmy, who decides to Parry the blow, keeping his Free Attack action for later and paying 3 SR for his weapon to parry. (I am not sure if Jimmy can keep his Free Attack action for later at this point, but I rule 'yes'.) This will reduce Jimmy's SR to 4. Jimmy: 4, one free Attack action Rob: 7 Rob could attack Jimmy one more time, but as he does not have the required SR left, he would be at a penalty. He decides against it and simply waits to defend. Jimmy uses his Free Attack against Rob, who decides to parry at a cost of 6 SR. This costs Rob 1 Exertion Point (as it brings him below his Fatigue Threshold of 3), but his Parry is not at a Penalty as it is 1, still above 0 SR. Jimmy: 4 Rob: 1 Since both character do not have enough SR left to make attacks at their full skill, they decide to let the next round of combat begin. Now, this is a simple combat as there are only two characters involved. The benefit of giving a charging character a Free Attack action is getting more clear in a combat with multiple combatants where Strike Ranks might be all over the place and at some point it is unclear if the charging character already got his chance to attack. By using a coin or token to symbolise a Free Action, it makes it much easier to track. It also correlates 'Charge' and 'Wait' actions, bringing them closer together and also makes the Charge action more clear.

Hello, just want to show off my Advanced Combat Tracker and my Cards. Since I did not order Paolo's Combat Cards (postage is killing it), I created my own (see pictures). Then I got the idea to create a Strike Rank Tracker: basically a table with 35 boxes with numbers in them. Makes counting Strike Ranks very easy and visual. I currently use dice for each combatant as I can use the dice numbers to show negative Exertion Points - and I must say combat became very visual even without miniatures. The Strike Rank Tracker doubles as a Hit Location table, an Attack Resolution table and an Opening Move table, too. You can also find the Trigger Actions and their according Strike Rank values on it. The Cards show basically all the possible Actions and their descriptions, this reduces time looking them up on a chart or flipping through the rule book. During playtest I found most of the time as a GM I use the same Combat Effects and once you have all the Damage Effects laying in front of you, combat speeds up a lot. Might also be me just getting used to the rules. It also offers the players to get into the rules step by step by limiting the Effects to what is currently available on the cards (as Paolo did in the introductory adventure). Now, I think I can make the Strike Rank Tracker available, but I am not sure about the Cards as they include all of the rules. Paolo, what do you say? Here are the pictures:

page 22: "Difficulty Modifiers"; the note at the bottom should read 'See Multiple Traits below' page 92: Typo, 'Colse Combat as Opening Move'; in the middle of the text block ' ... of the weapon used. meelee Strike ...' capitalise the 'M' of 'melee'

Hello Forum, after some time off (playing other games) I am back to Rd100. And it feels good to be back! Re-reading the rules is fun as they make immediate sense. Also, the new Hardcover version (or current PDF) include the clarification/corrections and are easier to follow. Paolo did a great job putting out these rules. Our group will start a new campaign next month and I am thrilled to use Rd100 for it. After trying out 'Cypher System', 'FATE' and the more recent 'Genesys', Revolution D100 feels a lot more like an RPG, less 'game-y'. Not that they are bad games, they just don't feel right for our group. All the gimmicks these games offer do in the end just drag down the flow of the story or feel clunky. Genesys was pretty good, but high skilled characters (creating lots of dice and having lots of Talents) made it extremely hard to provide challenges and creating the dice pool for each roll became an immediate break of immersion in the story line. Anyway, I am not talking down on these systems (they are good and provide lots of fun!), I just wanted to share my reason why our group is back on Rd100. :) We will start a medieval Horror campaign, where the players are knights of a local ruler and send out to investigate strange occurrences (the local town people talk about dragons scorching the fields and monsters attacking merchants in the woods), using the Merrie England: Robyn Hode setting book as a starting point. :) I think I'll mix in the Amber Coast setting at times, and draw from Mythic Iceland, too. That is the beauty of d100 games: so many good resources available. Maybe not as fancy and beautifully coloured, but the content is amazing. I was hoping at this time Paolo's new setting Red Moon would be out, but since we are in no rush I can easily bridge the time until its availability with this campaign. :) Well Then, Off I go and create a few more threads. Game on! Rob.

It replaced HQ2 and Fate for me, when using Basic Combat. For more crunch a la Stormbringer or 2300AD we use the Advanced Combat rules. The beauty: no re-learning of different rules all the time.

No rush, I hope all goes smoothly. The important bits are in, that's what really matters.

TCT is good to do that, true. My regular group had no drama at all with adapting to Strike Ranks and the gradual increase of options/effects. And they love modern adventures. I think I should refrain from dropping the RD100 rules on everybody, even if I know they dislike the old BRP system or Strike Ranks. It's like pushing a round object into a square hole. 🤔🙄😁😎

Hi Rosen, I have some questions about the PDF: - I thought you wanted to add the detailed Chapters at the bottom of even pages, e.g. 'Basic Combat' and Advanced Combat', instead of just 'Combat' - wasn't Basic Combat supposed to be reworded to something else? I might be wrong, but wanted to raise these before a possible reprint ...