I know asking design issues here is a bit like pissin in the sea but I am really looking for an opinion more than anything else.

Fanatasy Heartbreaker - with a S&S feel.

3 Classes but classes have many archetypes which the GM creates in line with his setting (a number of archetypes are given in the base rules anyway).

As PCs gain a level they get 10 points to spend from a list made up of
Attack Bonus
Defense Bonus
Hit Dice
Weapons skills (ranked 1 - 5)
Armour Skills (ranked 1 - 5) for Light, Medium or Heavy
Other skills (ranked 1-5)
Spells (detail is more subtle but Spells covers it)

If I look at 3 sample 3rd level PCs one for each Class I think I will roughly get

Warrior
+2 Attack
+2 Defence
+3HD  (D10)
1 weapon style at Novice
1 weapon style at Adept
1 armour type at Novice
3 Skills at Novice

Rogue
+1 Attack
+1 Defence
+2HD (D8)
2 Weapon Styles at Novice
Light armour at Novice
4 Skills at Novice
2 Skills at Adept

Caster
+1HD (D6)
1 weapons Style at Novice
2 Skills at Novice
1 Skill at Adept
6 Spells

Obviously there could be a lot of variation in those numbers but that seems like a fairly typical L3 position to get to.

Now I have a fear .... it's  round Hit points.

You have Hit points and you have wounds (I have discussed the mechanism at length here before). Armour absorbs damage.
As it stands the Wizard is going to be vastly weaker in combat. I mean worse than 1e D&D weaker.

A typical Wizard will wear no armour have no combat bonus and at 3rd level they will have 7 HP (0 level folk all get 1d6 hits and class HP add to this) and 6 Wounds (everyone has 6 wounds) and no armour.

A typical warrior will have +2 attack (+3 with a set weapon style) +2 Defense, 21 HP, 6 wounds and some armour that will give them an average AR of say 4.

Now the question is is that too great a variation? The Caster can mitigate this of course by dropping some spells or skills in favour of combat but to no great extent.

Now I can mitigate it by taking HD out of the purchase bit and add it as something you automatically get each level but it detracts from the choice element of levelling.

Opinions ?

Without seeing how the system works it's impossible to answer your question.  This is just a bunch of stat names and numbers; if you want better feedback you'll need to show us the moving parts.

Dude, ime, you'll have to play it for awhile before you can tell if it works. I know that's not very helpful, sorry.

Quote from: misterguignol;524461Without seeing how the system works it's impossible to answer your question.  This is just a bunch of stat names and numbers; if you want better feedback you'll need to show us the moving parts.

I have posted a few details as I have been going.


I don't think you need great detail at this point but I will outline combat.



Roll to hit on 2d10 + Attack Bonus Vs Defense.

Weapons will probably deal dice approx equal to AD&D.

Weapons 'tricks' come in via weapson style mastery. So if you are a master in Sword and Shield you get additional parries , shield rush etc.
Again these are not critical for this question.


Hit Points roll damage and you can roll 33% of your HP off any blow.
Armour provides protection with Plate providing 8 points and padded 1. This is then averaged over 10 hit locations so a typical fighter in a Chain mail hauberk, and a pot helm would have an average AR of 4. There is a hit location sytem but its optional and not relevant to this discussion.

So the cirital things here are HP, Defense and AR

The 3rd level Caster described has

HP - 7  - this means they can absorb 3HP
AR - 0
Attack +0
Defense +0

a 3rd level figther would have

HP- 21 - this means they can absorb 7hp
AR - 4
Attack +3
Defense +2


If hte Figther was trying to hit the Caster they would need to

Roll 2d10 - base defense is 12 so they need to get 9 on 2d10
Damage - say longsword - 1d8

The Caster can roll 3 then the rest come of wounds so a single hit is likely to cause a lot of damage


In comparison -

the caster trying to hit the fighter would need

Roll 2d10 - fighters defense is +2 so total is 14
Damage - say a short blade 1d6

The Fighter can absorb 7, then his armour will absorb 4 then he takes wounds.
Therefore if the Figther is fit (ie on full HP) and the Caster doesn't get lucky with a critical they would be swinging their blade for a while before they could harm the fighter. The fighter might even opt to cut his absorbtion and let his armour deal with the damage.

The question is is that an acceptible gap after just 3 levels or should it be mitigated but say for example giving HD as an automatic feature of each level.


Now the Caster will have 6 "spells" from this example so they may well be able to counter or beat the figther through magic if he gets to do something prior to an attack.
I am just concerned that here the  difference between warriors and non warriors gets pretty wide pretty quick. Not necessary an issue in what should be a S&S type game but it has hte potential to get even wider with levelling.

Quote from: Aos;524464Dude, ime, you'll have to play it for awhile before you can tell if it works. I know that's not very helpful, sorry.

I can take samples to test out combats at different levels and the combat system is fast exciting with a range of options so that is fine.

What's harder to test is the process through levelling that gives rise to quite a rapid divergence between classes.

The idea is that Caster specialise in magic, Rogues specialise in skills and Figthers specialise in fighting.
There is room in the system for a lot of flexibility but I worry that the specialism happens too fast and is too effective.

The problems with samples and test combats is that players will do shit and want shit that you are unlikely to foresee on your own. Make a test document and run some adventures.

Quote from: jibbajibba;524472What's harder to test is the process through levelling that gives rise to quite a rapid divergence between classes.

The brute force way of doing this, would be to write a computer program which generates all possibilities exhaustively, which are deducible directly from the rules.

What it won't tell you, is stuff which is not directly deducible from the rules.

Quote from: jibbajibba;524469I have posted a few details as I have been going.


I don't think you need great detail at this point but I will outline combat.

The additional information helps make a response feel well informed rather than just a stab in the dark.  The more information, the better.  Forgive me for not knowing your prior posts.

Quote from: jibbajibba;524469In comparison -

the caster trying to hit the fighter would need

Roll 2d10 - fighters defense is +2 so total is 14
Damage - say a short blade 1d6

The Fighter can absorb 7, then his armour will absorb 4 then he takes wounds.
Therefore if the Figther is fit (ie on full HP) and the Caster doesn't get lucky with a critical they would be swinging their blade for a while before they could harm the fighter. The fighter might even opt to cut his absorbtion and let his armour deal with the damage.

The question is is that an acceptible gap after just 3 levels or should it be mitigated but say for example giving HD as an automatic feature of each level.

Is there a reason that the caster is using a short blade?  For the purposes of the test, is there any reason to not assume the fighter and caster are using the same weapon?  A difference in weapon damage is going to exacerbate or hide the comparison of class hp with respect to straight melee combat.  Now, perhaps there is a reason, but it is not clear at this point without more information.

Quote from: jibbajibba;524469Now the Caster will have 6 "spells" from this example so they may well be able to counter or beat the figther through magic if he gets to do something prior to an attack.
I am just concerned that here the  difference between warriors and non warriors gets pretty wide pretty quick. Not necessary an issue in what should be a S&S type game but it has hte potential to get even wider with levelling.

So, what you are asking is...assuming a design goal of a caster being inferior to an equivalent level fighter in melee combat without using spells...where on the spectrum of melee combat ability should the caster fall.

Do you hope to have a similar situation with your third class, the rogue?  Do you also hope your caster is inferior to an equivalent level rogue in melee combat where the caster is without spells and the rogue is not using skills?  Is it true that you hope the caster to have tougher time with the fighter than the rogue?  Is it true you want the fighter to have an easier time with the caster than the rogue?

I would suggest a chart where for each level you figure out the average number of rounds it takes to bring each opponent down to zero hp.  (Perhaps there is a better metric to measure this?)  Importantly, I think you actually also need a chart for facing opponents of higher and lower levels.  This should give you enough information to decide whether this is working as intended.  (Hopefully, this makes it seem a less daunting task though I guess it is brute forcish.  In any event it captures the gist of what you are asking about.)

For example, you may figure out that your numbers show that a two level gap between your worst melee class (caster) and your best melee class (fighter) is decisive where the fighter has the higher level.  It might also reveal that when the caster has the two level advantage it makes the fight fairly even.  That may appeal to you, or it may not.  But, at least you'll have some basis for making the comparison you are asking us about and we will have a basis for giving you our input before you begin playtesting.  Playtesting should point out errors you have overlooked AND whether your design decisions aid or interrupt fun at the table.  

(It is one thing for us to believe that it's cool for a two level gap, just to keep the above example, to be the dividing line and another thing to find out whether it works out in actual play.  For example, if people in the world fall over a huge spectrum of levels, perhaps you want a wider spread...if people in the world are assumed to all be level 0, then perhaps the gap is perfect...etc.  A two level gap means one thing in a system with 10 levels and another in a system with 30 levels...etc.)

Wait, if the mage's short sword only does 1d6 damage and the fighter can soak 11 points of damage due to hit points and armor...how can he ever actually wound the fighter outside of critical hits?

Quote from: misterguignol;524493Wait, if the mage's short sword only does 1d6 damage and the fighter can soak 11 points of damage due to hit points and armor...how can he ever actually wound the fighter outside of critical hits?

Thanks for all comments I will talk to them tomorrow off out salsa dancing now .

On this particular point .... Exactly right except that as he soaks damge to his hit points they drop , just like in DnD the difference here is that the hit points really don't mean real damage. A clever fighter would just soak a couple off damage on hits and let his armour absorb the rest.
However wounds are serious so ...

I can talk to it tomorrow in more detail and on other points and thanks.
a

Quote from: Ram;524491The additional information helps make a response feel well informed rather than just a stab in the dark.  The more information, the better.  Forgive me for not knowing your prior posts.


Is there a reason that the caster is using a short blade?  For the purposes of the test, is there any reason to not assume the fighter and caster are using the same weapon?  A difference in weapon damage is going to exacerbate or hide the comparison of class hp with respect to straight melee combat.  Now, perhaps there is a reason, but it is not clear at this point without more information.


So, what you are asking is...assuming a design goal of a caster being inferior to an equivalent level fighter in melee combat without using spells...where on the spectrum of melee combat ability should the caster fall.

Do you hope to have a similar situation with your third class, the rogue?  Do you also hope your caster is inferior to an equivalent level rogue in melee combat where the caster is without spells and the rogue is not using skills?  Is it true that you hope the caster to have tougher time with the fighter than the rogue?  Is it true you want the fighter to have an easier time with the caster than the rogue?

I would suggest a chart where for each level you figure out the average number of rounds it takes to bring each opponent down to zero hp.  (Perhaps there is a better metric to measure this?)  Importantly, I think you actually also need a chart for facing opponents of higher and lower levels.  This should give you enough information to decide whether this is working as intended.  (Hopefully, this makes it seem a less daunting task though I guess it is brute forcish.  In any event it captures the gist of what you are asking about.)

For example, you may figure out that your numbers show that a two level gap between your worst melee class (caster) and your best melee class (fighter) is decisive where the fighter has the higher level.  It might also reveal that when the caster has the two level advantage it makes the fight fairly even.  That may appeal to you, or it may not.  But, at least you'll have some basis for making the comparison you are asking us about and we will have a basis for giving you our input before you begin playtesting.  Playtesting should point out errors you have overlooked AND whether your design decisions aid or interrupt fun at the table.  

(It is one thing for us to believe that it's cool for a two level gap, just to keep the above example, to be the dividing line and another thing to find out whether it works out in actual play.  For example, if people in the world fall over a huge spectrum of levels, perhaps you want a wider spread...if people in the world are assumed to all be level 0, then perhaps the gap is perfect...etc.  A two level gap means one thing in a system with 10 levels and another in a system with 30 levels...etc.)

The choice of sword was arbitary. The way combat styles work is that a particular class archetype has access to a limited range of combat styles. The Classic wizard gets Sticks and Kives however I have been thinking that that is be being influenced by a D&D trope that probably has no relevance to the genres I am after so I might change it up a little.

You are basically correct and in my example the 3rd level fighter will kill the wizard in 6 rounds of combat, although they could kill them in 2 (or in 1 with ciriticals).
The Wizard would need at least 7 rounds but with intelligent play it woudl take at least 14. (if we move to a longsword it shifts to 7)
They hit each round the Fighter elects to absorb 2 damage off each wound allowing their armour to take the rest. So they can use their hitpoints to handle 11 strikes  (11 x 2 = 22). Then the Caster would need to hit another 3 times at max damge 6 (6 -4AR = 2 wounds per hit) to kill the warrior.
But on average the Wizard will only hit he fighter 28% of the time (14 on 2d10) so in reality we can extend the combat to 55 rounds ......

Compare this to AD&D.
Figther HP 16 (3d10 ave) . Needs a 10 to hit the Casters AC10. d8 longsword
Caster 8 HP (3d4 ave)  Needs a 16 to hit the Fighters AC4. d6 staff

So here the fighter will hit 50% of the time and will kill after 2 hits on average. That is about the same as in my heartbreaker.

However, the Caster will hit 25% of the time and needs to hit the fighter 5 times on average so we can push that to 20 rounds....

So my wizard is in this example about 2/5 as powerful in combat as an AD&D MU of the same level.

I think the reason for this is that when you have options with levelling the temptation is to specialise early. So in my example the wizard takes 2 'spells' each level they could opt to take 1 spell each level and have additional HD they could opt to learn how to use armour and have fewer spells but by its nature these choices cost more for wizards so the temptation is to specialise early.

The real question is is this okay. I have yet to write up detail on the spells but the method I am adopting would allow me to provide a fair bit of defense or offense for a Caster.

Its really a question of  balance I guess.

Quote from: jibbajibba;524618The real question is is this okay. I have yet to write up detail on the spells but the method I am adopting would allow me to provide a fair bit of defense or offense for a Caster.

Its really a question of  balance I guess.

I can only speak for myself, but whatever the spells do aside I would never play a mage in this game if there was even a chance of getting into a battle.  Which seems likely as this is a D&D heartbreaker.  So, yes, I do think there is too much disparity between your classes.

Quote from: misterguignol;524632I can only speak for myself, but whatever the spells do aside I would never play a mage in this game if there was even a chance of getting into a battle.  Which seems likely as this is a D&D heartbreaker.  So, yes, I do think there is too much disparity between your classes.

Cool so what would swing the balance?

So if a 3rd level wizard culd cast a spell that created a mysitcal suit of 3R armour that ran out of a Mana pool and could stay in play for an hour

If they could hit someone with a bolt for 3d6?

anythign else?

Quote from: jibbajibba;524618I think the reason for this is that when you have options with levelling the temptation is to specialise early. So in my example the wizard takes 2 'spells' each level they could opt to take 1 spell each level and have additional HD they could opt to learn how to use armour and have fewer spells but by its nature these choices cost more for wizards so the temptation is to specialise early.

I've raved about this sort of thing elsewhere as well but I'd consider this sort of costing system inherently unfair. Things should be costed based on what they're worth, not marked up or discounted arbitrarily.

Also, I think probably everyone will buy extra hit points, if that's an option - perhaps better to have at least some HPs automatic with level and then extra HPs at a (steep) cost. That's a bit of a guess since I don't know what other options are, or how easy it is to bypass HPs to do direct wound damage, but I'd be tempted to spend all my points to make a super-boring-to-play ultratank

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;524729I've raved about this sort of thing elsewhere as well but I'd consider this sort of costing system inherently unfair. Things should be costed based on what they're worth, not marked up or discounted arbitrarily.

Also, I think probably everyone will buy extra hit points, if that's an option - perhaps better to have at least some HPs automatic with level and then extra HPs at a (steep) cost. That's a bit of a guess since I don't know what other options are, or how easy it is to bypass HPs to do direct wound damage, but I'd be tempted to spend all my points to make a super-boring-to-play ultratank

Okay I can give you some alternate ways a warrior could turn out at 3rd level.

At the moment I haven't set definitive limits on what you can buy each level. I ahve decided you can only advance armour/wepon or a skill by 1 rank each level and you can only buy 1HD.
I haven't decided if I want to limit Attack and defence yet.
One of the reasons I want to have these discussions.

So you can buy the following each level.
This list is really quite small as I want each choice to be meaningful but don't want a full character rebuild each level.

Attack
Defense   
HD   
Weapon Styles   
Armour   
Skills
Magic
   
For a fighter the costs are - (you get 10 points per level)
Attack = 2
Defense =2
HD = 3
Weapon and armour = 2/4/6/8/10 for each of the 5 ranks
Skills = 2/4/6/8/10 for each of the 5 ranks
Magic - New type of magic = 20
New 'Spells' within existing = 5


so there are lots of ways a 3rd level figther could end up.


Hard to Hit fighter.

Max out on defense (I will miss out Max out attack as it's just as extreme)

HD 1d6
Attack +0
Defense +15
Armour nil
Skills nil

This guy would be impossible to tag he would have a base defense of 27. You do get exploding die but this is the reason I intend to limit defense and attack per level just not sure to what degree.Of course tag him one and he is in a world of pain.

So leaving those two extreme builds lets look at more realistic types

The fencer
High defence, High Attack

HD 2d10 +1d6 (6pnts)
Attack +4 (8 pnts)
Defense +5 (10 points)
Fencing weapons style Adept (= rank 2 cost = 2+4 = 6)

So this guy has a base defense of 17. Adept in fencing gives him a free parry and +1 initiative and he can reduce the AR of and oppent by 1 by aiming for the weakenss in armour. Also he used Dex for his damage bonus and to hit.
Typically this sort of figther would put his highest physical stat in Dex so we can assume a +2 bonus which aplies to Defense, and 'finese' styles like fencing.

so overall

HP - 15 - absorb = 5
Attack + 6
Defense 19 (12 + Def bonus (5)  + dex (2) )
Damage - rapier 1d6 +2 (-1AR)
AR = 0
Initiative +4 (+2 dex + 2 unarmoured)

Tank

HD 3d10 +1d6  (9pnt)
Attack 0
Defense +1 (2pnts)
Armour heavy Skilled (3rd rank = 2+4+6 = 12)
Weapons and Shield Adept (2nd rank = 2+4 = 6)

This type would put their highest stat in Stamina for extra hits and to deal with that armour. so +2/HD.
Skilled in heavy armour lets him add +1 AR, gives him attack options with the armour itself, and reduces the initiative and move penalties for heavy armour (he still gets - 2 initiative but it would have been -4 on a d10).
Adept with a shield means he can attempt to parry 2 attacks per round and can do a sheild bash.

So overall
HP = 29 (3d10 + 1d6 + 2 per dice)
Attack +0
Defense 13
AR 9
Initiaive -2
Damage d8



Its worth mentioning initiative....
D10 + bonus + weapon = faster weapons have a higher score.
An actions costs initiaive points each round as does being hit.

So if I have +4 Init and I am using a Rapier speed 7 I would get on average, 16. This would enable me to attack on phase 16 and phase 6  (Attack costs 10 though you can reduce that though wepons skills)
My tank opponent in heavy armour with a Long sword (speed 5) would get D10 -2 +5 average 6.

So in a fight between these 2 the Fencer would expect to strike first to hit is oponent who could choose to absorb the damage on their armour. However if they did that their initiaive drops by the damage they take and if it falls below 0 they miss their attack that round.

In all probability in this fight the fencer would skip round the tank hiting him but dealing no damage. The tank needs to roll an 18 to tag the fencer and so would be unlikely to hit them.

The net result would be a long fight until the tank or the fencer got lucky , the fencer by getting a critical to double their damage. You get a crit when you achieve the target number and your attack dice both have the same number. So here the fencer needs to roll a 7 to hit the tank and would get a crit on 2x4, 2x5,2x6,2x7,2x8,2x9 or 2x0 and 2x0 has an additional effect. So that is a 7% chance of a critical hit.
The tank's sheild would actually be key here as it would parry thje majority of the fencer's attacks anyway and might get in for a shield bash.

Now I think that is actually a fairly accurate depiction of a well matched tank versus a well matched fencer. The fencer dances about trying to get his rapier through an eyeslit or the gap under the armpit or whatever whilst the armoured night bides his time and looks for the opportunity.
However, it might be a terribly boring to actually play

These are of course extreme builds and most build fall in between. Combat is not the whole of the game by any means and most characters want skills and a range of weapons and all sorts of other stuff. In addtion there are a number of combat tactics that both sides could use.
Game play is also more S&S so we are not talking about a game where the deungeondelve is the default play type. City games, political machinations and the like are far more likely.

It occurs to be that its the way AR and armour works that draws out the combat...