Rules light is incredibly liberating.

RandallS · October 17, 2011, 07:41:01 AM

Quote from: skofflox;485390Randall, those are pretty nifty ideas...how do you feel about class lvl. bonuses to those starting #'s, maybe for the fighter/sub-types but none for the others (or maybe costing xp or something)?

I'm not sure what you are asking. If you mean giving a +level or +(some percentage of level) bonus to the base AC for fighters, it would likely make the AC too high for TSR era games, but might work in 3.x or 4e where large bonuses are fairly common.

estar · October 17, 2011, 09:40:25 AM

Quote from: silva;485427But then you can have a mage with good health/endurance that can wear armor and cast spells normally, right ?

It possible but any armor worth a damn protection wise will inflict encumbrance on the normal range of human strength. A mage with liberal use of the lighten enchantment (25%) probably can get a suit of armor worth up to DR 3 (Hard leather DR 2 +1 for Fortify)

But if a mage is that concerned with armor protection then there are plenty of options in the spell list.

The design of GURPS Magic BtB makes no armor mages a logical consequence of the premises rather than just say mage's no armor.

Mistwell · October 17, 2011, 03:44:55 PM

To me, rules lite does not mean remove options from the players - it means the opposite. It means having such a flexible system that the players can rely more on their own imagination as to what they want to do, rather than the rules, and the DM can use the rules to adjudicate those decisions rather than mandating what decisions are made.

silva · October 17, 2011, 04:40:19 PM

Yeah, I think thats how the label "rules-light" got popularized, mainly through games like Over the Edge, Risus, Fate, etc. But we cant forget that do exists"rules-light" systems not flexible or free-form at all (I think 3:16 is like this).

Quote from: estar;485434It possible but any armor worth a damn protection wise will inflict encumbrance on the normal range of human strength. A mage with liberal use of the lighten enchantment (25%) probably can get a suit of armor worth up to DR 3 (Hard leather DR 2 +1 for Fortify)

But if a mage is that concerned with armor protection then there are plenty of options in the spell list.

The design of GURPS Magic BtB makes no armor mages a logical consequence of the premises rather than just say mage's no armor.

So would it like the rationale for archers/bowmen not wearing plate armor, as the armor´s weight and clunkness would hinder his ability to shoot ? But if we go in this direction, it should be plausible to see mages wearing chainmail or studded leather armor.

skofflox · October 17, 2011, 10:06:41 PM

Quote from: RandallS;485430I'm not sure what you are asking. If you mean giving a +level or +(some percentage of level) bonus to the base AC for fighters, it would likely make the AC too high for TSR era games, but might work in 3.x or 4e where large bonuses are fairly common.

Sorry for the ambiguity...that is exactly what I was asking.
Thanks for the response!

Perhaps something like +1/3 lvls. for Fighters, +1/5 lvls. for sub-types might work.
I can see your point though it depends a bit on how much treasure is to be had (equipment) and/or social limitations on armor etc.
I can see this working in many settings come to think of it.

might use this system soon...

RPGPundit · October 18, 2011, 03:38:45 PM

Its a funny term, because when I think "rules light", I think Over the Edge, or Everway, or stuff like that, and not B/E D&D, which I would consider "rules normal".

RPGPundit

Exploderwizard · October 20, 2011, 06:02:30 AM

Quote from: RPGPundit;485569Its a funny term, because when I think "rules light", I think Over the Edge, or Everway, or stuff like that, and not B/E D&D, which I would consider "rules normal".

RPGPundit

Once upon a time it WAS rules normal. These days without a 300+ page book that details how a character wipes his ass per the RAW it is considered rules lite.

thedungeondelver · October 20, 2011, 11:55:46 AM

Quote from: Exploderwizard;485771Once upon a time it WAS rules normal. These days without a 300+ page book that details how a character wipes his ass per the RAW it is considered rules lite.

I hope the ass-wiping is per encounter as opposed to just a daily.

Bedrockbrendan · October 20, 2011, 11:57:59 AM

Quote from: thedungeondelver;485792I hope the ass-wiping is per encounter as opposed to just a daily.

Only if there is a warlord in the party to talk you through it.

Sacrificial Lamb · October 20, 2011, 01:03:55 PM

Quote from: Malleus Arianorum;485275I prefer systems that consist (almost) entirely of bonuses. D&D 3.x has always bugged me that it takes fighters as the norm, and then penalizes everyone else. If I had a time machine, I'd change the -4 non-weapon proficiency to a +4 weapon proficiency and then I'd time travel some positive feedback to Ben Franklin.

That's actually a great idea, and it really helps to simplify things as well.

Phillip · October 20, 2011, 05:44:40 PM

Reducing saves to just one based on the average (possibly with a bonus vs. death) makes only a subtle difference in my view, at least in OD&D. (In AD&D, high-level magic-users and thieves are notably vulnerable to poison.) Some people will find the additional twists of different saves (even without magic bonuses and such) worthwhile, and no doubt some others won't.

StormBringer · October 20, 2011, 05:55:12 PM

Quote from: Phillip;485873Reducing saves to just one based on the average (possibly with a bonus vs. death) makes only a subtle difference in my view, at least in OD&D. (In AD&D, high-level magic-users and thieves are notably vulnerable to poison.) Some people will find the additional twists of different saves (even without magic bonuses and such) worthwhile, and no doubt some others won't.

I think the really big problem, especially with AD&D, was the nonsensical overlap in the saves. A general save vs magic spells, but a different one for paralysis? I save against a fireball cast by a Magic-User differently than from a wand by that exact same Magic-User?

I know, there were guidelines and rules for which save took precedence in which situations, but still. That would be one area that could definitely use some cleaning up, although three saves seems too few, and one is absolutely not enough, in my opinion.

Mistwell · October 20, 2011, 06:09:17 PM

Quote from: thedungeondelver;485792I hope the ass-wiping is per encounter as opposed to just a daily.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;485793Only if there is a warlord in the party to talk you through it.

I think you need a tool (TP) to do it without a penalty, and a masterwork tool will provide a bonus (not to be confused with a mastercraft tool). Just remember that magical toilet paper is automatically also masterwork.

StormBringer · October 20, 2011, 06:12:36 PM

Quote from: Mistwell;485881I think you need a tool (TP) to do it without a penalty, and a masterwork tool will provide a bonus (not to be confused with a mastercraft tool). Just remember that magical toilet paper is automatically also masterwork.

So Cardboard Tube is a valid implement for Wizards? Can they make a Wand of Charmin, or is that just a ritual?

Bloody Stupid Johnson · October 20, 2011, 06:38:51 PM

Quote from: Malleus Arianorum;485275I prefer systems that consist (almost) entirely of bonuses. D&D 3.x has always bugged me that it takes fighters as the norm, and then penalizes everyone else. If I had a time machine, I'd change the -4 non-weapon proficiency to a +4 weapon proficiency and then I'd time travel some positive feedback to Ben Franklin.

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;485808That's actually a great idea, and it really helps to simplify things as well.

Hmm.
Well, 2e/3e did it with a penalty for non-proficiency because characters will normally be using weapons they're proficient with. Making proficiency a "plus" is adding one extra modifier to almost every attack roll.