On playtest:
"Like the d20 but it feels way different from IS particularly in skills." - Christian

"i like irdium. we should look at updating standard instead of lite."- Saida

Then when she read my IS version,
"ilike these updates. they make it a unified mechanic and that bothered my group." - Siada

"I like the IS version better than the IL version. My group liked both but they said that the IL version is basically D20 with the serial numbers filed off. I like the idea of rounding to the nearest 5% for Defense. We should have a list of actions that can mod Defense." - and much more from John

I have gotten feedback from about 30 groups. About 75% like the IL (D20 roll over) mechanism. All of them have expressed positive feedback on the changes to IS and think that is the way we should go with the system. They also wanted a list of things we were updating in the IS version should we go forward. I will try here to list them all.

1. Combat goes to Roll Weapon Use skill - target's Defense. Everything will be roll under in this way.

2. We go to a % base for Stats, Combat and Skills.

3. Defense becomes (CON+AGL+Dodge Skill)/6 but might become /10.

4. Unarmed combat gets treated like any other weapon specialization with XP/Dev Points buying ATT, To hit, To Damage, dice of damage.

5. Order of Combat MAY be changed to rotating attacks. This means if you had 5 attacks you would get 1 attack on your init and rotate around the table. This creates a series of Cycles within Rounds. I have not decided if Segmented combat is too complex or the All attacks on your init is too simple yet.

6. Armor will work as before but now the tens digit of damage soaks through the armor. So, do 34 points and 3 points soaks through to the Body Fortitude.

7. All stat bonuses are now off one table, standardized and the same for equal ranks between stats.

I think those were all the changes. If I think of more I will post them.

Anything jump out as comment worthy?

Bill

I like all these changes! Everything looks much smoother. It was already a good system, but now it's much better!

-clahs

Two thumbs up for all the changes!

Looks solid to me, good work!

Seems like it'd be smoother all-around.  Well done, sounds like!

Thanks guys! Any opinions on Segmented vs Alternating vs the way we used to do it for order of combat?

Playtesters are mixed on this. I have one guy who really likes the granularity of the segmented round. He likes the ability to trade segments for benefits.

The downside I see is a far more complex order of combat.

With alternating attacks everyone gets one attack on their init and it cycles through all the players then returns to the highest init until all attacks are dealt. Again, we could have a method for swapping attacks for pluses to hit or all manner of bonuses.

Downside: More book keeping. You need to track your init sometimes through several attacks. This is not too horrible.

The original way was more of an ordering the table more than a representation of the combat round. That is to say that it was more about having an order of declaration for players at the table. For this reason, you got all your actions on your init. This gave the advantage of winning init meant you could disable your opponent before they could retaliate.

Downside: It has caused some folks over the years to argue that it is "unrealistic" in that you have all these attacks on you init. Most have sited the Alternate method as preferred.

Any opinions are welcome.

Thanks,
Bill

I prefer the non segmented combat, but not the "flurry" on my Init method. Having alternating attacks. However I think I'd require declaration of actions in reverse order--slowest people first. This way, the fater people can judge what the others are doing to counteract that.

Plus depending on the farthest range of initiatives you could always get a die or dice to "book keep" your initiative.

Quote from: SilverlionThis way, the fater people can judge what the others are doing to counteract that.

 

Sweet! The chubbier you are the better! Simmulationists will be up in arms but the forgies will LOVE IT!:D

I don't care for segmented combat. It tends to get seriously mixed up when I run it. If doing all your attacks at once is a problem, what's wrong with doing them sequentially starting on your init? We talked about this before, but I think we got hung up on 'does the system curtail any attacks after X,' but that is a separate issue. That would solve the flurry of attacks thing as well as keep it simple.

-clash

Quote from: McrowSweet! The chubbier you are the better! Simmulationists will be up in arms but the forgies will LOVE IT!:D

But is this player-centric fat or character-centric fat? There's the REAL divide!



-clash

Added: And as ordained in the Law Of Internet Typos, which states that any post criticizing another poster's typo will contain one itself, that would be "Simulationists!"

Quote from: flyingmiceBut is this player-centric fat or character-centric fat? There's the REAL divide!



-clash

Added: And as ordained in the Law Of Internet Typos, which states that any post criticizing another poster's typo will contain one itself, that would be "Simulationists!"

I suck!

Designer cred -10 on that one, I guess.

Quote from: SilverlionI prefer the non segmented combat, but not the "flurry" on my Init method. Having alternating attacks. However I think I'd require declaration of actions in reverse order--slowest people first. This way, the fater people can judge what the others are doing to counteract that.

Plus depending on the farthest range of initiatives you could always get a die or dice to "book keep" your initiative.

I am leaning away from segmented combat despite my inner geek. I think it will most likely be the rounds with cycles approach;i.e. everyone gets 1 attack on their init.

Don;t worry Mike, you are still tops in my book.

Thanks guys,
Bill