|
Post by Rusty Radiator on Mar 28, 2012 22:29:46 GMT
Dual Wielding. It is way too easy to make this too powerful with add the Skill + Weapon bonus for the offhand (in the New Order series, a GM with Grand Weaponmastery Axe and Sunderer would get a +10CS Bonus IN ADDITION to his Primary hand and Kai Weapon!). Two Scion-Kai (assume equal with regard to all other bonuses, including Lore Circles), one with Weaponmastery (Sword, carrying 2 Swords) the other with Psi-surge (and Weaponskill Spear, carrying Spear): The one with Weaponmastery would gat +8CS (+4CS x2), the one using Psi-surge would get +6CS and pay -2EP per Round, and Psi-surge is a 'good' bonus. If the foe isn't immune to Mindblast the Sword Scion would get +10! I say halve any Offhand bonus, after all they are not going to be as good as with their Primary hand [at a squeeze you could argue that the one-hand Broadsword/Spear/Quarterstaff knack at Sun Knight could indicate Ambidexterity and therefore permit this full bonus but i wouldn't agree]. BUT WHATEVER RULING YOU DECIDE FOR DUAL WIELDING MUST GIVE AN EQUALLY BALANCED BONUS FOR TWO HANDED WEAPONS, when used fully Two Handed anyway. (Like double Skill bonus): If the Weaponskill table is a representation of the ratio of melee Weapons to Kai Lords, 30% will 'choose' Two Handed Weapons (Spear, Broadsword, Quarterstaff). They will be terribly left out else. Consider this. A player in the new FftD buying Weapons they have Weaponskill for at Rendar Bucklar's on two different runs. Run 1 Buys Broadsword 4 Gold Crowns (cheap!) and gains +2CS. Run 2 Buys 2 Daggers also 4 Gold Crowns (2GC ea.) and gains +4CS - who would ever want a Broadsword again? But wait, what about the Master's Weapons? You can pick up 2 Daggers +1CS or 1 Broadsword +1CS so with Weaponskill the Master's Broadsword gives +3CS whereas Dual Wielded Master's Daggers give +6CS! Then of course the final confrontation against the Helghast, the +1CS Broadsword cannot be Dual Wielded with the Helghast Dagger, which you must use. The second run gives +5CS bonus - Weaponskill with Dagger and one +1CS Master's Dagger Dual Wielded with Helghast's Dagger. So, quick and dirty it's one only of either Double Handed* (Two handed Weapon in both hands), Dual Wielded* (One One Handed Weapon in each hand) or One Weapon with Shield bonus permitted. *Both versions forbid the Shield bonus; so using Broadsword & Shield permits normal Skill Bonus and normal Shield bonus instead. Dual Wielding, I say the Offhand's Bonus is halved (Skill Bonus plus Weapon Bonus [if any] divide by two, round down). The Off hand is the hand which gives the LOWEST bonus: So in FftD fighting with the Helghast's Dagger will most likely be in the Offhand allowing you to claim full normal bonuses with Primary hand, even if you have no weaponskill at least you get the Weapon bonus if you are, say, using a +1CS Master's Sword. Double Handed your Skill Bonus is Doubled (just Skill doubled, not Weapon bonus too). I'd say a Sun Knight using their Weapon in only one hand loses the Double bonus but may still keep the standard +5CS bonus, e.g. fighting whilst hanging on one handed to a drawbridge, or of course in normal combat they could Dual Wield Broadswords and claim that bonus instead: Armed with Firefall and Illuminatus you wished to Dual Wield them underground against Huan-zhor! Example (assume basic Kai Weapon bonus). A. Grandmaster with Firefall & Grand Weaponmastery (GW) Broadsword using Double Handed = +15CS; +5CS Kai Weapon & +10CS GW (+5CS x2). B. Grandmaster GW Axe Dual Wielding Sunderer & Alema {Primary hand + Alema, Off hand Sunderer} = +15CS (Primary hand +10CS {GW + Alema}, Off hand +5CS {GW + Sunderer/2}. C. One Weapon with Shield bonus permitted, Grandmaster GW Sword with Valiance & +2CS Shield = +12CS, hey the Shield is Blue Steel before you start about GM Armour... Right, think I agree about the GM stuff, now about his Dual-wielding malarkey, I have a few ideas..... Rather than just give straight CS boni I propose that a different method be used. When dual-wielding you should get -2CS for your primary weapon. Work out the damage as normal. Now for your secondary weapon pick another RND & give yourself -4CS. For this pick however you take no damage. Dual-wielding therefore allows you to inflict greater damage at greater risk to yourself, which is what you'd expect. This also gives you the visceral image of which weapon does the most damage- more satisfying I think. For 2-Handed lets have something different again. How about, instead of the extra 2CS a shield could provide the 2-Handed sword could do 2 extra damage a turn, as long as at least 1 was inflicted? Maybe the quarterstaff could subtract 1 or 2 damage instead. Maybe a spear could subtract 1 from yours & add 1 to theirs, at the cost of 1CS? All this would add a bit more tactics to weapon selection I feel.
|
|
|
Post by Snowshadow on Mar 29, 2012 8:34:48 GMT
Dual Wielding. It is way too easy to make this too powerful with add the Skill + Weapon bonus for the offhand (in the New Order series, a GM with Grand Weaponmastery Axe and Sunderer would get a +10CS Bonus IN ADDITION to his Primary hand and Kai Weapon!). Two Scion-Kai (assume equal with regard to all other bonuses, including Lore Circles), one with Weaponmastery (Sword, carrying 2 Swords) the other with Psi-surge (and Weaponskill Spear, carrying Spear): The one with Weaponmastery would gat +8CS (+4CS x2), the one using Psi-surge would get +6CS and pay -2EP per Round, and Psi-surge is a 'good' bonus. If the foe isn't immune to Mindblast the Sword Scion would get +10! I say halve any Offhand bonus, after all they are not going to be as good as with their Primary hand [at a squeeze you could argue that the one-hand Broadsword/Spear/Quarterstaff knack at Sun Knight could indicate Ambidexterity and therefore permit this full bonus but i wouldn't agree]. BUT WHATEVER RULING YOU DECIDE FOR DUAL WIELDING MUST GIVE AN EQUALLY BALANCED BONUS FOR TWO HANDED WEAPONS, when used fully Two Handed anyway. (Like double Skill bonus): If the Weaponskill table is a representation of the ratio of melee Weapons to Kai Lords, 30% will 'choose' Two Handed Weapons (Spear, Broadsword, Quarterstaff). They will be terribly left out else. Consider this. A player in the new FftD buying Weapons they have Weaponskill for at Rendar Bucklar's on two different runs. Run 1 Buys Broadsword 4 Gold Crowns (cheap!) and gains +2CS. Run 2 Buys 2 Daggers also 4 Gold Crowns (2GC ea.) and gains +4CS - who would ever want a Broadsword again? But wait, what about the Master's Weapons? You can pick up 2 Daggers +1CS or 1 Broadsword +1CS so with Weaponskill the Master's Broadsword gives +3CS whereas Dual Wielded Master's Daggers give +6CS! Then of course the final confrontation against the Helghast, the +1CS Broadsword cannot be Dual Wielded with the Helghast Dagger, which you must use. The second run gives +5CS bonus - Weaponskill with Dagger and one +1CS Master's Dagger Dual Wielded with Helghast's Dagger. So, quick and dirty it's one only of either Double Handed* (Two handed Weapon in both hands), Dual Wielded* (One One Handed Weapon in each hand) or One Weapon with Shield bonus permitted. *Both versions forbid the Shield bonus; so using Broadsword & Shield permits normal Skill Bonus and normal Shield bonus instead. Dual Wielding, I say the Offhand's Bonus is halved (Skill Bonus plus Weapon Bonus [if any] divide by two, round down). The Off hand is the hand which gives the LOWEST bonus: So in FftD fighting with the Helghast's Dagger will most likely be in the Offhand allowing you to claim full normal bonuses with Primary hand, even if you have no weaponskill at least you get the Weapon bonus if you are, say, using a +1CS Master's Sword. Double Handed your Skill Bonus is Doubled (just Skill doubled, not Weapon bonus too). I'd say a Sun Knight using their Weapon in only one hand loses the Double bonus but may still keep the standard +5CS bonus, e.g. fighting whilst hanging on one handed to a drawbridge, or of course in normal combat they could Dual Wield Broadswords and claim that bonus instead: Armed with Firefall and Illuminatus you wished to Dual Wield them underground against Huan-zhor! Example (assume basic Kai Weapon bonus). A. Grandmaster with Firefall & Grand Weaponmastery (GW) Broadsword using Double Handed = +15CS; +5CS Kai Weapon & +10CS GW (+5CS x2). B. Grandmaster GW Axe Dual Wielding Sunderer & Alema {Primary hand + Alema, Off hand Sunderer} = +15CS (Primary hand +10CS {GW + Alema}, Off hand +5CS {GW + Sunderer/2}. C. One Weapon with Shield bonus permitted, Grandmaster GW Sword with Valiance & +2CS Shield = +12CS, hey the Shield is Blue Steel before you start about GM Armour... Right, think I agree about the GM stuff, now about his Dual-wielding malarkey, I have a few ideas..... Rather than just give straight CS boni I propose that a different method be used. When dual-wielding you should get -2CS for your primary weapon. Work out the damage as normal. Now for your secondary weapon pick another RND & give yourself -4CS. For this pick however you take no damage. Dual-wielding therefore allows you to inflict greater damage at greater risk to yourself, which is what you'd expect. This also gives you the visceral image of which weapon does the most damage- more satisfying I think. For 2-Handed lets have something different again. How about, instead of the extra 2CS a shield could provide the 2-Handed sword could do 2 extra damage a turn, as long as at least 1 was inflicted? Maybe the quarterstaff could subtract 1 or 2 damage instead. Maybe a spear could subtract 1 from yours & add 1 to theirs, at the cost of 1CS? All this would add a bit more tactics to weapon selection I feel. I had considered similar, almost identical rules but discarded them as they were too complicated. If it works for you, go for it. The way I see it is anyone armed with two daggers in a fight will use them both if they can so that is why thy retain their normal CS, it's only when the daggers give a bonus and/or the wielder has a bonus that dual wielding actually gives a benefit. Similar with the two handed weapons, a normal person is using them two handed (and I say gets the Shield bonus otherwise Joe should've said no in Book 2) but a skilled user gets the extra benefit when the Shield isn't in the way. In other words you can use the normal rules and the extra rules seemlessly without inconsistancy. Want to do one fight or even one Round with Spear and Shield you can, want to do the next with Double Handed Spear and no Shield bonus - you can and there is no 'reality slip'. I don't agree necessarily with everything you say but debate is great, it either confirms what I already feel or makes me change my opnion. You have raised some very good points about the Helghast. If only Oren and his Madelon had been visiting the king at Fehmarn, would have been so much better. Oh well. In a poll on the Mongoose site 70% felt that the new version was much better than the previous. I thoroughly recommend fans reading it, don't just judge it on my 'brief' summary. Looks like I ought to pick a Random Number before play, Odd = 1st edition, Even = Mongoose. Just because we didn't read about it in Bk1 originally, doesn't mean it didn't happen.
|
|
|
Post by Snowshadow on Mar 29, 2012 10:31:33 GMT
Tried your method on the Vordak with raven, CS 18 EP 26. Assumed the three different LW all had Weaponskill in relevent Weapon and relevant Weapon(s) but all other Random Numbers were 5 ("Average 'Joe'!") so LW CS15 EP25.
LW A, 2 Daggers Dual Wielding. CS=17 - 2 Primary, -4 Secondary. Or Combat Ratio -3 Primary, -5 Secondary. So with all rolls fixed at 5 each Round Enemy loses -9EP[5+4] LW loses -4EP so the fight takes 3 Rounds and Lone Wolf has 13EP remaining.
LW B, Broadsword Two handed. CS=17 or Combat Ratio -1. Enemy -8EP[6+2], LW -3EP. Fight takes 4 Rounds and LW again has 13EP remaining.
LW C, Normal rules Sword. CS=17 or Combat Ratio -1. Enemy -6EP, Lone Wolf -3EP. Takes 5 Rounds, LW has 10EP left. Interestingly if LW has a Shield (CR1) the fight takes 4 Rounds and he is left with 17EP.
Try it with examples of your own, I know that this is only one example but if you have the choice between Sword & Shield, Dual Wield or Two Handed I wouldn't ever want Two Handed: Based on the example I would (only) Dual Wield for time limit fights and With Shield for all others for the damage reduction - it takes the same time as Two Handed; Two Handed gives no real benefit as opposed to the others.
One option I considered for Dual Wielding was to impose -1EP strain per round to reflect the exertion of using two weapons. In Masquerade in Hikas Darren lets players use Paido's Twin Blade ability up to three times per adventure (a straight re-pick and only apply damage to foe in addition to standard round).
Two Handed Weapons +1/+2 damage or -1/-2 I have tinkered with before but it isn't satisfying enough. Perhaps a -/+ 50% damage reflects the beserking/keeping at bay effect better. I mean either keep at bay and only lose 50% damage or go beserk and inflict +50%. Alternatively as you use the Weapon in '2' hands pick 2 random Numbers and keep the best*. {I like this 2 numbers one best}.
*I also toyed with pick 2 Random Numbers and, to reflect beserking, the higher roll is the Enemy (only) EP loss but the lower roll is LW (only) EP loss.
Whatever options you choose they mustn't be too complicated nor conflict too much with Psi-surge's +4CS -2EP/Round "GOOD" Bonus.
If a player can make their mind up in seconds about one of the three options then it isn't balanced enough. If they lie awake at night mulling it over you are on the right track.
|
|
|
Post by Snowshadow on Mar 29, 2012 11:37:53 GMT
Two Handed Weapons Alternatively as you use the Weapon in '2' hands pick 2 random Numbers and keep the best. The thinking for this re-roll was that it is SO much better when using a Magic Spear against a Helghast (when you only have a 10% chance of Weaponskill Spear) or Ironheart Broadsword against the Chaos Master.
|
|
|
Post by anotherknight on Mar 30, 2012 14:29:48 GMT
Mr Dever has to be proud of this fans. Good points about battle rules revision. But it's obvious for me that the original book was fit to a beginner. When you are just a pupil you cannot use the possibilities of a Grand Master. There is another problem i see. I don't know anything about the statistics of new young Lone Wolf readers, but in my place a complex system to play a gamebook is a problem to the young boys. Nowadays, there is a lot videogames, reading is always better but it is not easy to convince a child to begin an adventure of around thirty books. Rules Simplicity was a good point when we were children
|
|
|
Post by Rusty Radiator on Apr 1, 2012 11:59:40 GMT
Mr Dever has to be proud of this fans. Good points about battle rules revision. But it's obvious for me that the original book was fit to a beginner. When you are just a pupil you cannot use the possibilities of a Grand Master. There is another problem i see. I don't know anything about the statistics of new young Lone Wolf readers, but in my place a complex system to play a gamebook is a problem to the young boys. Nowadays, there is a lot videogames, reading is always better but it is not easy to convince a child to begin an adventure of around thirty books. Rules Simplicity was a good point when we were children Gah, there's too much Rules Simplicity- why must everything be dumbed down constantly? I was disappointed when I heard they had replaced D20 rules with simple CS & EN like the gamebooks, when I was a kid I was eager to learn complex rules in order to give a more realistic & fleshed out gaming experience. I agree that maybe a 6 to 10 yr old child who has not done any gaming might appreciate the simplicity of Lone Wolf & FF books as they are, but as I understood it we were discussing possibilities for enriching replays of the books for adults by adding a dash of complexity.
|
|
|
Post by beowuuf on Apr 1, 2012 16:54:24 GMT
Sometimes it's because the mechanics in RPGs get in the way of the story of RPGs. I don't recall Elric arguing with Dyvim Slorm over who got Mournblade, becuase Elric fancied dual wielding both blades, and I don't recall lengthy monalogues in the Lord of the Rings where Gandalf was weighing up if Glamdring or his wizard's staff would be better for each combat. Sometimes mechanics are allowed to take a back seat and be the coin flip they are between the GM and player so the story can keep going as quickly and easily as possible. I recall being 9 or 10 when playing the books (when they were released), and just not really attempting to learn the combat rules even when they were perfectly understandable. I just decided I won, or sometimes just decided that if they had a higher CS than me, they would automatically win (depending on if there was a different route or not). Sometimes mechanical crunch isn't all it's cracked up to be
|
|
|
Post by Snowshadow on Apr 2, 2012 11:39:17 GMT
I agree that maybe a 6 to 10 yr old child who has not done any gaming might appreciate the simplicity of Lone Wolf & FF books as they are, but as I understood it we were discussing possibilities for enriching replays of the books for adults by adding a dash of complexity. Sure, I have no problem with complexity but it has to be balanced. When I say about rules being too complicated what I really mean is that would it be obvious for a third party reading Lone Wolf to be able to apply them in the way they were intended seemlessly each time, every time? For example your Dual Wielding rules are identical with D&D - Primary-2THAC0, Secondary-4THAC0 - nothing wrong in that but is it balanced? D&D rules make it much harder to hit at all, the Dual Wielding merely imposes a -10% and -20% respectively penalty to hit; so it is much harder to cause ANY Damage. On the other hand only reducing CS by -2 or -4 will generally, on average, only reduce the EP loss of an enemy by about 1-4EP PER ROLL but very rarely actually mean they don't lose any EP at all; so the penalty isn't much of a penalty at all (so why does anyone still want a Shield or Two handed weapon when you get to hit the other guy twice for more overall damage and only a slight chance of a minor increase in damage to yourself?). What works for one system cannot necessarily be transplanted directly into another. You may as well go the whole hog and play Lone Wolf as a Psionic D&D Ranger - nothing wrong in that at all, just make sure the enemies are equal D&D foes. I quite like the similarities between Earthdawn's Scout & Lone Wolf, always meant to play it that way one day. Rules must be fair - "What's Good for the Goose must be Good for the Gander." If Lone Wolf can do it without the requirement of a special skill, so can everyone else: Let's see, known Dual Wielders are Barraka Bk 4 (section 325 from 274 describes Dual Wielding a Scimitar and the Dagger of Vashna), Zantaz of course Bk20, Dromodon Bk21 by the picture {pity that fight was hard too}. Whereas known Two Handers are of course Corporeal Shadow Reavers with Spears Bk11, Cadak with Staff Bk16, Sesketara with Spear Bk 22 and who could forget dear old Ixiataaga with the Death(Quarter)staff? So your Damage altering rules must be equally applied to all these fights, as would my original re-roll suggestion. Anyone fancy Ixiataaga choosing the lower of two Random Numbers[My Way]? Or how about Ixiataaga enjoying -2EP Damage reduction due to Deathstaff, that'd have to be before it got doubled for Damage vs Undead of course [Rusty's Way]? Not all fights are quite so clear. How do you go about the three Tukodaks at the approach to Darke Bk 15, by the picture two thirds are Two Hander Damage types whereas the other is a Dual Wielder, how do you calculate that. Or how about the Sharnazim Underlord Bk5 '123', he has his Primary hand wounded by Lone Wolf before the fight begins - so does he Dual Wield or not, Mongoose's Illustration has him drawing the Dagger with the Unijured Offhand - so is he -2CS, -4CS or what, even if he uses his Offhand only? I see myself several years ago with your suggestions, you're on the right track if I may say so. I've had loads of different Dual Wield ideas, some simple some not. One method was simply to determine the combat from the point of view of each hand - roll independantly and only use the best, unfortunately that works best when you are Dual Wielding similar Weapons with similar Skill, as soon as you pull out the Sommerswerd almost anything less than Skarn Ska in your Offhand is useless. Plus Dual Wielding independantly has other problems: For example. Dual Wielder 'Average Joe(!)' Lone Wolf CS 15 enters the Tomb of Maakon to fight Darklord Haakon. He has both the Sommerswerd +8CS and Dagger of Vashna +7CS vs Darklords and Weaponskill in Dagger +2CS. So which is his Primary hand and which is his Offhand? Visually you'd say the Dagger was held in the Offhand almost certainly; however the Dagger provides the better bonus for this fight - +9CS total for DoV, +8CS for Sommerswerd so should Sommerswerd wierdly be held in the Offhand? Dagger Primary = 24CS, Sommerswerd Primary =23CS. So using Rusty's Dual Wield that'd be Dagger Primary 22CS, Sommerswerd Offhand 19CS or is it Sommerswerd Primary 21CS Dagger Offhand 20CS which do you choose? I'm coincidentally lucky that my 'Offhand = Weapon Plus Skill Bonus Combined then Halved (& Rounded Down)' is the same +4CS Offhand Bonus to Primary whichever way around you hold the Weapons! Another idea I had years ago was to again roll Primary and Secondary/Off hands and only use the best of the two: calculate Primary hand as normal but for Secondary/Offhand don't add their normal Bonus, instead to Calculate the Offhand modify the Primary by ... -6CS if Weapon and Skill in Offhand both provide no Bonus at all. -4CS if Either Weapon or Skill but NOT BOTH provide a Bonus, regardless of value. -2CS if Both Weapon and Skill provide Bonuses, regardless of value. It doesn't matter what the Bonus in the Offhand is, just if there is one at all. For example LW with Primary hand Sommerswerd against Darklord Haakon; LW with an Offhand +1CS Dagger is 'the same' as the +7CS Dagger of Vashna (-4CS to Primary or -2CS if Weaponskill [or even Mastery/Grandmastery] in Dagger). Ditched this eventually too, can't remember exactly why probably too complicated and just didn't feel lone Wolf enough. ...................................................... When it comes to Lone Wolf, my experience is that small Bonuses are big. That's why my ideas for Dual Wielding and Keeping at Bay (Double Hander) might seem lower in power - that's the point. If you are looking to give Lone Wolf a chance (Book 6+) you might also want to consider a 'Lore Sphere Bonus'. I was tinkering with the rules to come up with a way of Lone Wolf starting from BK 1 being on a par with any other Grand Master starting from BK 13+. Basically the difference in stats rolled in Bk 1 to Book 13 is +15CS, +10EP so I changed the Lore Circles and gave a bonus for completing multiple Circles to reflect that - from +5CS +11EP the Lore Circles now give the +15CS +10EP instead: N.B. Using Sommerswerd is limited to unnatural & evil opponents -Sommerswerd's powers disappear forever if used by a normal man but also if it spills the blood of a normal man: Lone Wolf must only use Sommerswerd against the deadliest foes and resort to lesser Weapons against lesser enemies. So he can only use Sommerswerd against supernatural enemies like Tagazin, Chaos Master or any Undead, or powerful evil foes like Kimah, Barraka, Vonotar & Co., or the most lethal creatures like Xargath, Javek or Kalkoth. Say Sommerswerd's flames disappear and the blade glows dim when confronted by a normal Drakkar, Stornlands Bandit or Vassagonian Warhound so LW would know to sheathe it. {Or, for a more simplistic method, Lone Wolf may only use Sommerswerd in the most desperate life or death circumstances to avoid detection - like the Korlinium Scabbard idea.} Lone Wolf would not be punished by placing Sommerswerd in safe keeping this way, whereas before a player wanting to keep his original Flight from the dark character would have no choice but to take the Sword of the Sun. To balance this Lore Circle Bonuses are slightly tweaked: Lore Circles (Revised from +5CS +11EP to +15CS +10EP when Lore Sphere Bonus included)- Lore Circle of Fire +2CS +0EP (Weaponmastery & Huntmastery, note previously +1CS +2EP)
- Lore Circle of Solaris +1CS +3EP (Unchanged; Invisibility, Huntmastery & Pathsmanship)
- Lore Circle of Light +0CS +3EP (Unchanged; Animal Control & Curing)
- Lore Circle of Spirit +4CS +4EP (Divination, Nexus, Psi-screen & Psi-surge; note previously +3CS +3EP, wanted to make Psi-surge more attractive)
Lore Sphere Bonus* (Only Best applies) - +2CS Any Two Lore Circles Complete
- +4CS Any Three Lore Circles Complete
- +8CS All Four Lore Circles Complete
For Multiplayer balance perhaps others gain +1CS/WP +1EP each rank above 10th (Spellcasters may choose either CS or WP). {* Individually Lore Circle of Fire implies greater reactions and speed, Lore Circle of Spirit includes the ability to maximise terrain advantages/minimize terrain disadvantages, Lore Cirlce of Light would suggest an enemies 'Soft Spots' and weaknesses plus knowledge of special natural abilities, Lore Circle of Spirit gives limited mind-reading and precognition of attacks; when two or more of these Circles are combined to make a Sphere these jointly-assumed Bonuses create a numerical Bonus. In Bk 12 The Masters of Darkness Section '303' Completion of BOTH the Lore Circles of Spirit & Solaris give you the ability to avoid the Ictakko's surprise attack from a crevasse.} ......................................................... (Reprinted Healing ideas) Kai can only restore a maximum EP equal to their Initial EP in each adventure by Disciplines/Skills. Next to the Discipline/Skill on the Action Chart you could keep a note of the amount of remaining EP the Kai could heal this adventure {Call it Restorable EP}. This is in addition to any text-specific Healing which should not be counted, e.g. Fire on the Water '240' You can Restore your ENDURANCE POINTS to their Initial value if you have the Kai Discipline of Healing on board the Green Sceptre so this does not count towards your adventure limit neither does your demonstration of Healing to 'Ronan' in the same book. Note Permanent reductions to EP, e.g. Using Helshezag, only effect the limit of Restorable EP if the Initial EP becomes lower, in which case reduce the Restorable EP total until it equals the reduced Initial ENDURANCE POINTS. Healing (self) may only be used when the Kai Lord has at least half Initial EP remaining (Round down)*. Curing may be used regardless of remaining EP. Archmaster's Curing Battleheal up to +20EP/Deliverence up to +20EP** is included in this but has the advantage of course of being used in combat - all other Healing must be done as stated in a section without Combat. *So 29EP Lone Wolf with Initial 25EP wearing Chainmail Waistcoat +4EP could use Healing to Restore up to 25EP in total in an adventure provided his current ENDURANCE POINTS were 12EP or higher, i.e. Do not count Armour. ** An Unarmoured New Order Grand Master with 32EP may use Deliverence to heal up to +20EP and the remaining +12EP Restored via +1EP each Section without Combat, without using Deliverence they could restore 32EP through Non-combat sections. If the Grand Master had used Curing through Non-combat sections to Heal 22EP, then Deliverence would only give the remaining +10EP, for example. - It wouldn't matter where EP loss came from now - e.g. EP loss through starvation - as the ability is capped.
- Healing vs Curing - previously a Kai Master may not bother about Curing if Healing is the same but with only Curing being able to be used when the Kai is severely wounded, a Master may rethink his choices.
- Gives New Order Grand Masters, especially those without Deliverence, a chance where before they were limited to +10EP through Curing alone.
- We're less likely to worry about counting days for Deliverence if there is a cap to Healing as it is more than likely that Curing will be using up all the restorable EP in the meantime (by the time the 20 days are up there are no Restorable EPs left).
- (OPTIONAL) EP gained from MAGICAL Armour, e.g. Silver Bracers +2CS +1EP, MAY be included in your Restorable EP.
- (OPTIONAL) If you possess Deliverance, and therefore are a Master of Battlehealing, you may use Curing in ANY Section; including those featuring Combat (and other 'Action' Paragraphs if you feel you would not get the opportunity), after all the ability is still capped.
............................................................................................ beowuuf - simple balanced combat resolution, truely in the spirit of Lone Wolf and ten-year-olds everywhere, love it!
|
|
|
Post by anotherknight on Apr 2, 2012 14:26:38 GMT
Mr Dever has to be proud of this fans. Good points about battle rules revision. But it's obvious for me that the original book was fit to a beginner. When you are just a pupil you cannot use the possibilities of a Grand Master. There is another problem i see. I don't know anything about the statistics of new young Lone Wolf readers, but in my place a complex system to play a gamebook is a problem to the young boys. Nowadays, there is a lot videogames, reading is always better but it is not easy to convince a child to begin an adventure of around thirty books. Rules Simplicity was a good point when we were children Gah, there's too much Rules Simplicity- why must everything be dumbed down constantly? I was disappointed when I heard they had replaced D20 rules with simple CS & EN like the gamebooks, when I was a kid I was eager to learn complex rules in order to give a more realistic & fleshed out gaming experience. I agree that maybe a 6 to 10 yr old child who has not done any gaming might appreciate the simplicity of Lone Wolf & FF books as they are, but as I understood it we were discussing possibilities for enriching replays of the books for adults by adding a dash of complexity. Well, for you and me there is no problem with a set of complex rules, neither when we were little boys. But at this time, we should be realistic. Today there are few boys able to start a solo adventure like this. They are not dumb but a little bit lazy, perhaps. I would like to ask a question to the moderators: How many 18-year-old minors have this forum? And more than 30 years?. The times they are a changing and not always for better.
|
|
|
Post by Rusty Radiator on Apr 2, 2012 22:04:09 GMT
Sometimes it's because the mechanics in RPGs get in the way of the story of RPGs. I don't recall Elric arguing with Dyvim Slorm over who got Mournblade, becuase Elric fancied dual wielding both blades, and I don't recall lengthy monalogues in the Lord of the Rings where Gandalf was weighing up if Glamdring or his wizard's staff would be better for each combat. Sometimes mechanics are allowed to take a back seat and be the coin flip they are between the GM and player so the story can keep going as quickly and easily as possible. I recall being 9 or 10 when playing the books (when they were released), and just not really attempting to learn the combat rules even when they were perfectly understandable. I just decided I won, or sometimes just decided that if they had a higher CS than me, they would automatically win (depending on if there was a different route or not). Sometimes mechanical crunch isn't all it's cracked up to be I don't buy it. A fantasy novel is not the same as a Game(book). In a fantasy novel you are being drawn along by the author's imagination things have a more dream-like quality. The kick in a game is that of Total Immersion: by having a working paper model of each protagonist you gain a kind of realism that allows for practical strategy inconceivable in a world with more nebulous boundaries. It also allows the excitement of personalisation with a transparency that limits the interference from bias & poor judgement. Without rules we are left wondering 'could he really do that?' 'If he could beat one of those with difficulty surely one of these would severely injure him...?' The rules give us a way of comparing scenarios & seeing how they might work, in a satisfying & logical way. To return to game books- I always found that if I ever tried to bend the rules that I would lose some the connection with the character & with the final victory. To battle through & succeed within the rules framework given gave me the sense of personally achieving a sort of success, whereas just saying I won made the achievement feel hollow. The problem came when the rules themselves did not seem to make sense.
|
|
|
Post by Rusty Radiator on Apr 2, 2012 22:19:28 GMT
Snowshadow, you've gone very deeply into this, I can see. I just postulated the rules that I did because they would allow a bit of tactical switching around between fights, like when you decide whether to use psi surge or not etc. We're on a hiding to nothing injecting much realism into a Strength/Hit Points system though. That's why I was intrigued by the D20 system & disappointed to hear it had been abandoned. Anotherknight, I hear you about lack of patience. I think it is because kids expect computers to do the number-crunching for them, and Why Not indeed? That is the way of the future- have a ton of stats but let the computer remember them & work out all the rolls.
|
|
|
Post by anotherknight on Apr 2, 2012 22:45:02 GMT
I am a very honest player. I follow the rules strictly. The only thing i cannot do it is when i died in adventure 18 (for example) i start the game since the beginning of the 18th book not from Flight from the Dark. Even if i start 8 times, 8 times i delete the action chart and i try to kill all the enemies again. Ah!. I have made a little statics about the members of this forum. Based on a poll about the first 60 users who show their age: Minors of 18 years:.........1 19-29 years...................20 30-65 years...................39 So we can say that the 65% of Project Aon users are majors of 30 years. And just a 0.2% are minors of 18. There is something we all are making wrongly, if there are no new readers. We are always the same people!. Anyway, Mr Rusty Radiator, the future got to be very dark if young or old people expect the computers make all the work, even the work of reading.
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Apr 3, 2012 0:07:51 GMT
There is something we all are making wrongly, if there are no new readers. We are always the same people!. There are approximately 3x the number of registered users on this forum since I began frequenting it in 2005/6. That many of the readers are in their 30's should be no surprise, since Dever's LW books were originally published in the late 80's, when most of us (its target audience) were in grade school, and now we return to it because we love it. The new generation is largely distracted from books by video games, but eventually some come around...
|
|
|
Post by anotherknight on Apr 3, 2012 1:35:41 GMT
I am not surprised, Dave. The story you tell is my own story and the most part of this forum members. But some of us we are teachers, or fathers or people who should reach young people in order to teach them the glory of Gamebooks. And we are not reaching them.
|
|
|
Post by Taryn on Apr 3, 2012 5:11:26 GMT
One thing that appealed to me about LW was that the rules were complex enough to make the game interesting, but simple enough that I could understand them as an 8-year-old. Even as an adult, I could never get into games like D&D, largely because you need to know a huge amount of things just to get started. One of my friends once roped me into a D&D-type game, and when I was setting up my character there were often times where I had to pick a few things from a list of 50-100. Without knowing much about what they all are. And I didn't really want to read a huge reference guide before even starting the game.
|
|