ED4 Preview #1

[etherial]

[Henghyoke]

<insert image of flaming dice rolling around the table with background screaming here>

[LouProsperi]

Hello,

The following is based some comments I just posted on Facebook, and thought I should share them (and elaborate a bit) here as well.

To be clear, so far I am not a fan of many of the proposed rules changes we've seen in previews 1-3.

1. Combining talents with similar effects
I do not like this change,

One of the conceits of the ED rules is that the Disciplines adepts follow, the Circles they attain, and (perhaps to a lesser extent) the Talents they learn are all real concepts in the game world. An ED character might very identify themselves as a "3rd Circle Swordmaster".

Part of learning a Discipline is learning the various talents provided in that discipline. These are not general abilities, but discipline-specific abilities that characters learn and master over time. Archers should NOT learn a generic "impress people" ability. They should learn how use their archery skills to impress onlookers.

I see no downside to the play experience by retaining separate talents for specific disciplines.


2. Successes
I think this is fine, but am curious if this means that the current "Good, Excellent, Extraordinary" convention will be completely changed in lieu of referencing numbers of successes, or if each of the current categories will simply be based on a fixed number of successes (1 = Good, 2 = Excellent, etc.).

3. Armor-Defeating Hits
The armor-defeating hit rule in ED1 was designed to mitigate a specific issue, that of a situation in which an attack greatly exceeds that target's defense, but the damage roll is small and completely negated by armor. The proposed changes to armor-defeating hits completely negates that intent of this rule.

While I understand the challenge of armor-defeating hits being too common and making some armor occasionally ineffective, I think this change goes too far.

I actually think that the proposed "Successes" change (which again, I think is fine) provides a more elegant solution to this. In addition to its Physical and Mystic Armor ratings, armor could also be rated by the number of successes it takes to score and armor-defeating hit. More effective armor might require 3, 4, or even more successes to defeat. This would also provide more options for different types of armor. For example, imagine leather armor with a relatively low armor rating but that takes 6 successes to defeat - the possibilities are endless (well maybe not endless, but you get the idea).


Take Care,

Lou Prosperi
Who is feeling a a bit curmudgeonly

[Kasbak]

I really like the idea of higher success level requirements to bypass armor. You could keep a lot of the existing rules at that point, and the comparatively easier success scale makes a LOT more sense. I would even go so far as to suggest doing some modified armor forging rules to allow increases on success required to bypass. Perhaps a knack rather than a full blown Talent.

[Stormcrow]

[Kasbak]

[Dale]

I would think of the consolidation similar to Karma Ritual where each discipline had a Karma Ritual but they were different and unique to each discipline. The archer's Impress talent would be as it relates to archers (ie impressive shot) whereas a warrior's might be related to a weapon attack or other feat of strength.

I'm soso on the table change. It just never seemed to bother me or people I knew to have a table to look at. Simplifying it is not a bad thing, but wasn't ever an issue to me or any of the groups I ran/ran with.

The armor defeating hits change could be the biggest in this set of changes. Could the issue of bonus scaling be addressed by having the bonus scale with circle? Novices get +2, Journeymen get +4, Wardens get +6 (or whatever other scaling is needed)? If you go the "get to spend a karma point" route you lose that flexibility. I've always been of the opinion that karma should scale based on circle as well (+1 step at journeyman, another +1 at warden, etc). That overall change would allow a simple karma die bonus that would scale automatically.

We have a house rule that if you AD you get minimum damage equal to the damage step. If you roll higher you get that. If you roll crap you at least get your step. It cuts both ways and works out well. Maybe a modification of that could work. If you AD you get a minimum amount of damage past armor.

Armor defeating hits in general are an oddity though. In the game I currently play in I am the elementalist. Due to my lower dex I am the one in the party most often hit and the most often armor defeated. Anything that can hit our elven archer with any sort of regularity (to be a real threat) can armor defeat me all day long. It is compounded by the issue that as the caster I also have the lowest durability and (usually the lowest toughness) which makes me the one least able to handle the hits. I've seen this in most every ED group I've run or played with. The casters are the easiest to hit, least able to take the hit, and easiest to be hit by AD hits. It is a hard problem to deal with and I don't have anything the really solves the issue. The only semi-good news with it is it works both ways. If we can get one round in on an unprepared caster foe we can destroy them. The current group I run with are all very high dex (except me) and they wear almost no armor. I wear some armor but it has little impact over the course of a fight (might mitigate one hit in total over the course of the fight). A change that makes armor more useful and viable would be interesting (assuming it doesn't drag out combat longer than it currently does).

[Roth]

[Nahor]

[Roth]

Go for it.