Monday, March 31, 2014

And Now Post 32... this is getting HEAVY (hehe. An encumbrance joke)

I've never liked encumbrance rules. They were unwieldy and slow, and brought the game to a crawl as you tried to handle the weight of the rules.

If that wasn't the most laborious encumbrance pun you've ever read, then I simply didn't try hard enough.

Anyhow, I've worked out a system (borrowing liberally from the idea that I first read about on Delta's Site for using the stone as a system of measurement) and tweaking it for my purposes...

You can carry your strength score in tenweight units. A tenweight is a measure of about ten pounds. When determining encumbrance, use the following generalizations:
·         A suit of light armor weighs 1 tenweight.
·         A suit of medium armor weighs 2 tenweight.
·         A suit of heavy armor weighs 3 tenweight.
·         Your basic gear typically weighs 1 tenweight; if you carry an exceptional amount of gear, count it as 2 tenweight.
·         Your weapons (including ammunition) have a general weight equal to their total dice divided by 10 (rounded off normally). If you carry two daggers (1d4 each), a short bow (1d6) and a two-handed sword (1d10), you carry 24 dice of weapons; count this as 2 tenweight.
·         For every 100 coins you carry, add +1 tenweight to your encumbrance (coins are fairly heavy).


Each time you surpass your STR score in tenweight units, decrease your move by -10. With STR 7, you can wear chainmail armor (2 tenweight), basic gear (1 tenweight), a mace and sling w/20 sling stones (1 tenweight) and 300 coins (3 tenweight) without being encumbered (you are carrying 7 tenweight: your STR score). You can carry from 100 to 700 more coins (bringing your total encumbrance to from 8 to 14 tenweight) and take -10 to move. If your total encumbrance increases to anywhere from 15-21 (you start carrying around a chest with 1400 coins inside), take -20 to move.

While this requires a little bit of book keeping, it can easily be adjudicated on the fly, and doesn't require you to count every piece of gear. If you are one of those players who jams every conceivable item into your backpack, then the GM can just decide you carry 2 tenweight (or heck, even 3) of gear, and call it a day. 

31 Posts in 31 Days

I am pretty sure that March has set a record for me for posting, since I have averaged one post a day... and most of them have been pretty substantial! With twelve days left in the Kickstarter Campaign (so get over there and PLEDGE ALREADY), I thought it would be a good time to recap some of the rules I have going for Saga of the Splintered Realm. I wanted to get a full play test edition out this last weekend, but I got about halfway through editing the draft and realized I have a whole slew of things still to tighten up before releasing it to the wild. While it is 'only' a play test version, I still don't want to put something in your hands (or on your screen) that I already know the errors in... it's rather pointless for ten of you to point out that I say that elves get +2 to sense on one page and +4 to sense on another page, when I'm already aware of that but was just too sloppy to fix the error.

The quick lowdown (with some of the newest flourishes I'm working on):

- Attribute scores range from 2 to 12 for PCs.
- One XP/level progression for everyone (and the same spell progression for clerics and magic users in their respective fields).
- One saving throw progression for everyone (although demi-humans get a bonus)
- The 'check' is the default non-combat system. Roll 1d20 + modifiers, target 20 for success. Examples: As a thief, you can pick pockets or foil traps as a check, rolling 1d20 + level +2 (target 20). As a cleric, you make a wisdom check to compel undead, modifying the roll by 2x the difference between cleric and undead level (a cleric 4 attempting to turn an undead 6 takes a -4 penalty to the check). Want to force a door? Strength check. Want to learn a new arcane spell? Intelligence check (there is no read magic spell). Want to see if your henchmen stay by your side after two of them bite it in a burst of dragon's breath? Charisma check.
- Class and race are separate options (this is a big change from my previous drafts of the game). Four core classes (cleric, fighter, magic user, thief), and four core races (human, dwarf, elf, stoutling).
- You can multiclass. If you want to multiclass, you divide xp earned by the number of classes you have. You progress in all classes simultaneously; as a fighter/magic user/thief, you only count 1/3 of all xp you earn. You are going to progress S.L.O.W.L.Y. but at the same glacial pace in all three classes.
- Levels cap out at 12 (a change from the working draft I had that went to 14). I am thinking of three 'tiers' of progression: low level (1-4), medium level (5-8) and high level (9-12). This means that HD can progress all the way to level 12 without ever breaking the game, and monsters of greater than 12 HD are truly beyond humanity - even the best of humanity. This also means that any ability or spell with a + Level modifier doesn't need an artificial cap on its progression; a burst of flame (i.e. fireball) deals up to 12d6 damage, because you will not have casters higher than level 12 (at least in the core rules...).

Sunday, March 30, 2014

Experimenting via the Webcomic

I had let the Army Ants Webcomic get a bit behind, so tonight I corrected that while also playing with some approaches to inking. I roughed in the solid black areas before I went in and did any linework, and I ended up with both heavier images and some cooler contrast in frames than I might have ended up with otherwise... by the way, I love being part of a community of creative people. I have had several people message me privately to give tips, suggestions and feedback on the images I've been posting. It is great to be part of a group like this. You guys are awesome!




Saturday, March 29, 2014

More Art - Macheon in the Vaults

I'm continuing with my 'burn through all of my sharpies in one day' experiment - this time a cleric attempting to compel undead. They don't look particularly compelled yet, but poor Macheon is really trying...


Copping Mignola's Style - First Crack

Here is the first 'official' piece of art I've created for Saga of the Splintered Realm. I tried to emulate some of Mike Mignola's techniques - with uneven results, to be honest. I like it, but I don't love it. I don't know how he does what he does yet, but I'm going to keep plugging away at it. I just can't run all of those black areas together without the whole thing losing its shape. He is able to run multiple black areas together and you never lose each individual piece - your brain is able to fill in the line work. I either can't get it to do it, or I'm not confident enough to just go for it. You can decide for yourself...


Friday, March 28, 2014

Character Sheet - Second Crack

I've moved a few things around, added a spot for level, and made a little more breathing room in a few places. I have transferred our three play test characters over to these sheets, and they look pretty snazzy.


Thursday, March 27, 2014

Character Sheet - First Crack

Here's my first go round with a character sheet, strongly inspired by +Dyson Logos B/X character sheet (and a few that were derived from it). It's not perfect (the AC, Hits and Save text are all too large... don't have a place for level...) but this gives you a sense of what I'm working towards...


Moving towards a working draft - An Art discovery!

I get closer and closer all the time to a working draft of the core rules, and I'm chomping at the bit to get this released. I think this will give people who are on the fence for the Kickstarter a better idea of exactly what it is that they are investing in.

As I've worked, I've finally succumbed to an inevitable fate - I am making something new here. Yes, it's the game we all love at heart, but it's moving in directions I didn't expect. My plan was to stick much closer to the B/X rules than I'm going right now, but your collective feedback has encouraged me to investigate other avenues, and I've made cool discoveries along the way.

The trick here is making sure that the whole remains unified. I've been trying to think of how I want to go about unifying the concept. And then I stumbled upon this image on Google +..

Mignola Atlantis Design

Mike. Flippin. Mignola.

The man is an incredible artist. I have no shame in saying that I plan to cop his style and use his artwork to guide the visual direction I want to take Saga of the Splintered Realm in. As I've been thinking of how to best use the resources available (which is just over $500 in the art budget as of today), I've finally found some clarity on it - I want to hire some up and coming artists who are willing to (or already do) emulate Mike's style. This is the visual direction I want to go, and I'd rather have five guys each make $100 doing a handful of illustrations and getting a publishing credit under their belts than paying one artist who I deeply respect $500 for a single illustration.

But we'll all be learning from Mr. Mignola.

I have a con story about him that I will share... I had just come out with my first ash can of Army Ants (this was maybe 1995) and Mike was the guest of honor at the con (maybe Pittsburgh? I can't remember for sure) I had purchased a table at. I decided, because people had been really kind about Army Ants and had said nice things about it, that I wanted to get an artist jam page together with army ant drawings. I took out a piece of bristol board and took it from table to table, asking people to draw their version of an army ant. I got cool ants crawling through fields, or driving tanks, or running with guns, or whatever. I left a spot near the middle of the page for Mike, and I waited until the line had died down at his table (which was a while - he was already a popular artist) and approached the table (shaking a little). I explained who I was, and what the jam page was, and showed it to him. He sort of looked at me like I smelled funny. I tried to clarify...

Me: It's my book. It's about army ants. So I was hoping you'd maybe... I don't know... sketch an ant.
Mike: You want me to draw an ant?
Me: Yeah. Any ant. It doesn't have to be an army ant...
Mike: But I don't draw ants...
Me: Oh. Well. Yeah. Um. It doesn't have to be good or anything. Just an ant.
Mike: Hrm (and against his better judgement) Okay.
Me: Thanks!

He quickly drew three circles on top of each other, popped two lines on top for antennae, and drew six lines off the side for legs. He wrote the word 'ant' and drew an arrow back to the 10-second sketch he had done. He handed it back to me... I don't think he signed it.

I love Mike Mignola's art. He's a fantastic storyteller.

But man, that was one crappy ant.

Wednesday, March 26, 2014

Of Cans of Worms and Other Things

In working up a master spell list, I find that each decision can potentially have huge consequences across the system. It seems easy to say you want to develop an iconic, streamlined version of the rules. But, the more you start to tinker, the more you have the potential to muck things up... Here are some of the internal debates that pop up...

- When does something become a sacred cow that you're maintaining just to maintain it? Snake charm is a funky, quirky spell. It's something of a 'classic'... but it really makes no sense. It's sort of random. Why not just charm animal? It's more useful and versatile. A spell that ONLY charms snakes? How utilitarian is that?

- Where is the line between versatility and taking all of the flavor out of the spell system? Wall of ice and wall of fire are effectively the same spell, with a different duration component (wall of fire requires concentration; wall of ice lasts for a while). They are mechanically the same. Why not just elemental wall and you get to choose the wall type? A wall of solid lightning, a wall of flame, a wall of ice, a wall of water... they are mechanically the same. I've just taken two spells, merged them into one spell entry, and made them more flexible. That's a win!

- Then, I take the same thinking to fireball and lightning bolt... what about elemental ball and elemental bolt... you can have balls of frost, or balls of lightning... or bolts of cold, bolts of fire... and suddenly it feels like all of the quirky coolness of the magic system has been ripped from it. I've applied the same thinking from elemental wall above, and suddenly it doesn't feel like a win anymore. It feels like a 'general' magic system and not a specific, nuanced and quirky one. That happened fast... so can magic missile be 'missile of flame' or 'missile of frost' or 'missile of light'... if we call it 'arcane dart' instead of 'magic missile', we can make it deal any type of energy we want. And then we're writing a different game. But then again, I am writing a different game... aren't I?

There is a point where we jump the shark and no longer are writing the next edition of B/X, but an entirely new thing altogether. And, while that is not necessarily a bad thing, that's not my fundamental design approach.

Then again, it tiers things nicely to have a progression of spells that are your 'baseline attack spell' at each level...

  • Arcane Dart. Level 1. Deals 1d6 + caster level damage. Hits a target within 120' automatically.
  • Arcane Bolt. Level 2. Deals 1d4 per caster level damage to all creatures in a line 5' wide and 60' long. Affected creatures may save for half damage. 
  • Arcane Burst. Level 3. Throw a ball up to 120' that explodes with a 20' radius, dealing 1d6 per caster level damage to all creatures in the area of effect. Affected creatures may save for half damage.
  • Arcane Wall. Level 4. Erect a wall of magical energy with a total length of up to 60'. Creatures less than 4 HD cannot move through the wall. Creatures of 4 or more HD moving through the wall suffer 2d6 damage (4d6 if of the opposite type: fire giants take 4d6 damage when moving through a wall of ice). 


Monday, March 24, 2014

Simplifying Surprise and Initiative

In keeping with the check as the unified mechanic, I'm thinking about having a check for initiative and surprise all in one roll... here are the options for what will happen:

- If you get a 20 or better on your initiative check, you surprise your foe; take +2 to your attack in the first round because you caught your opponent somewhat unprepared.
- If you get a 1 or lower on your initiative check, you botch initiative; take -2 to your attack in the first round because you were relatively unprepared to attack your foe this round.
- If both sides gain surprise, they cancel each other.
- If you use sneak against your foe, you automatically gain surprise over your foe, regardless of his initiative result.
- Depending on the situation, the GM may automatically award surprise to one side without rolling initiative. For example, if you listen to a door and hear a group of creatures talking, you can kick in the door and take automatic surprise.

Once you determine the sequence of initiative, that remains the sequence for the rest of the turn. If combat goes to a second turn (quite unlikely), then re-roll initiative.

I like these rules for a few reasons:
- They conflate surprise and initiative.
- They align with the check system I'm using elsewhere.
- They cut a number of rolls from the sequence of combat, keeping things moving more quickly.

I am not sure what modifier is added to your initiative roll. I'm thinking that it should be your DEX modifier (since that makes sense, and has been used in varieties of these rules). I'm thinking that if the group is making a representative check, they take the DEX bonus of the caller... that will tend to get people to want to push for the Thief being the caller, so that may not be the best way to go... the other option is to have the group default to the lowest bonus among the group, but that also doesn't make a ton of sense. I could just say that group initiative (if you use that instead of individual initiative) grants a default bonus of +2 to the roll (since I'm using a default +2 elsewhere in the rules - like when searching for secret doors).



Sunday, March 23, 2014

Slogging Through Spells - Let's Talk Healing

So, I'm moving through the spells sections, attempting to put together a solid working draft of the core rules to release as a play test version. It's coming together quite quickly, so I expect to have a draft to release in the next bit here (maybe next weekend?).

As I work through spells, I'm starting from the description in B/X as of 1981, checking the same spell against 1983, and then also checking it against how it was presented in 3.0... I can see how some decisions are shaped by the expected experience of players. Let's just look at healing...

In 3.0, the cleric has access to a healing spell at every spell level (1-4), increasing by +1d6 each spell level, and taking a bonus based on cleric level (capped depending on the level of the spell). This inflates to match character hp (which are quite a bit higher in 3.0 vs. B/X), so the totals are not that out of line... the difference is in availability of healing.

In B/X, you get cure light wounds as a level 1 spell (1d6+1 hp restored), and this is available as of level 2... your next pure healing spell is a level 4 spell (2d6+2 hp restored) that you don't get access to until you hit level 6 (1981, which has a VERY wonky spell progression for clerics) or until level 8 (1983). The ONLY benefit of cure serious wounds over cure light wounds is the fact that you can recover twice as many hp in the same action, assuming a fast-paced combat where every second counts. The problem here is that this spell is up against comparatively high utility spells (Animate Dead, Dispel Magic, Neutralize Poison, Prot. from Evil 10' radius) that simply give a LOT more bang for the buck. The options are to either move the spell down or increase its effectiveness. Right now, it is worth exactly two level 1 spells - and there's just no way that this is worth the trade off.

In the end, at least for play testing, I'm going to leave it at level 4 (which becomes available when you hit level 7 as a cleric), but give it an extra 1d6+1, moving it to a total of 3d6+3 hp restored. Now, it goes from restoring an average of 4.5 points to an average of 13.5... it's still not going to be a huge game changer, but it's more useful than it was.

I'm tempted to stagger even more, putting a healing spell at spell levels 1, 3 and 5... I mean, you can use a level 5 spell to bring a dead character back to life, yet with a level 5 spell you are struggling to restore 10 hp? Seems out of sync, for sure.

The other issue to consider is a default assumption of the game - that is, in B/X you will have fewer and fewer of your starting hp as you progress through the adventure. There is almost no expectation that you are meeting later threats at anywhere near full strength. 3.0 healing allows you to meet later encounters at near full hp, allowing you to delve deeper into the dungeon before you start to feel the burn. In B/X, a tough opening encounter can leave you with very little healing left and down some hps as you move on to area 2- and that's true even for characters in the level 4-6 range, if not later.

Friday, March 21, 2014

The Core Attributes

Thanks to your input and suggestions, I'm going to be play testing (and including in the first play test version of the rules) Attribute ranges from 2 to 12. During character creation, you will roll 3d6, but keep the better 2 results. The scores would never scale higher than 15 (what I'm equating with Storm Giant Strength). Actually, as far as strength, I put hill and stone giants at STR 13, frost and fire giants at STR 14, and cloud/storm giants at STR 15. I suppose that someone like Hercules would have STR 16. 

I like this because the 'sweet spot' on checks is between around 5 and 12. At 5, you have a 30% chance of success on a check (it's not impossible for you by any stretch, but it's definitely not likely) while 12 gives you a 65% chance of success (likely, but not a guarantee). This aligns nicely with how I want checks to work - you should not get to a point where a check is automatic for you - only a very high level character, or one with powerful magic, is going to surpass a +15 modifier. This keeps attribute scores generally in line with other numbers in the game.

One other revelation here is that I should swap compel undead, which I wrote about recently, to the player side of the table. Instead of the monster making a morale check, the cleric makes a WIS check, modified by the difference between cleric and monster level. A cleric 3 with WIS 11 attempting to compel a skeleton 1 rolls 1d20+13 (70% chance of success). If he rolls 20 or better, he compels the skeletons. This same cleric against a wraith 5 rolls 1d20+9 (50% chance of success). Now, the ability to compel undead is completely in the hands of the player, and is primarily based on the cleric's ability and level.

Attribute Scores
Range
Descriptor
Modifier
2
Impaired
-3
3-4
Poor
-2
5-6
Below Average
-1
7
Average
+0
8-9
Exceptional
+1
10-11
Heroic
+2
12
Supreme
+3
13
Beyond Mortal
+4
14
Titanic
+5
15
Godlike
+6








Wednesday, March 19, 2014

What Are Iconic Game Elements?

In game design, it's easy to get into places where you cannot see the forest for the trees... 'hey, I have a great idea for critical hit locations tables' doesn't really jive well with 'fundamentally, hit points are an abstraction of a variety of factors'. In designing a (quite literally) back to basics B/X modernization, I'm left with tons of options - and I have to start with a list of iconic game elements that are 'must haves' not because they are the best or most intuitive, but because they are iconic to the game. A good example of this is the rating of ability scores from 3 to 18. It would be preferable to have the numbers a little lower (maybe 2 to 12 or so) in some circumstances.

But that's not iconic.

I know that some systems have done away with ability scores altogether, and get away with looking only at the modifier (-3 to +3 in most cases) that reflect the way in which the ability scores are used most of the time.

But that's not iconic.

Here's a stab at a list of 'top ten' iconic game elements that (I think) set a baseline for all future game decisions. I don't even pretend to think that this is comprehensive:

1. Characters have six primary ability scores (STR, INT, WIS, DEX, CON, CHA) that typically range from 3 to 18.
2. Characters earn experience points to advance in level.
3. Health, luck, moxy and battle acumen are reflected in an abstract system of Hit Points.
4. Armor, toughness, defensive maneuvering and natural protection are reflected in an abstract system of Armor Class.
5. You roll 1d20 to attack. A 20 is a good thing, and a 1 is a bad thing.
6. There are four primary human classes: cleric, fighter, magic user and thief; the are three primary racial classes: dwarf, elf, and halfling (my stoutling).
7. Player ability is an important facet of play; not everything can be resolved through character ability.
8. There are two types of magic: arcane and faith-based; spells are rated in increasing complexity and power.
9. You have an alignment that suggests your overall philosophy.
10. The default assumption of the rules is that you play heroes exploring dungeons and defeating monsters.

Tuesday, March 18, 2014

Rolling High, Rolling Low, and Mechanical Decisions

The design process is plugging along apace, but we're hitting the point where rubber must needs come into contact with road, and decisions - they gots to be made.

I've had a few people remark - either in response to blog posts or in private messages - their feelings on a few key mechanical decisions. One of those that has generated the most heat is the idea of rolling high or rolling low. Let me do a quick comparison of the pros of the two approaches:

- Rolling Low Pros: It's easy to navigate; ability checks already use this system; it's got an old school vibe.
- Rolling High Pros: It's more intuitive; attack rolls already use this system; it's got a more modern vibe.

Let's do a brief comparison of the mechanical differences using a saving throw as a baseline for comparison:

In roll low, let's say my fighter 6 has a save of 10 (a 50% chance of success). If he rolls 10 or less on the 1d20 roll, he makes the save. The higher his level, the higher his save rating is going to be, and the wider the range of successful rolls. While it is intuitive that a higher rating is better, it is somewhat counter intuitive that you want to roll low to be successful, since this goes against what I see as an innate, natural understanding of dice. When you roll a die, you want a big number. Big numbers are better than little numbers. I think that this is a shared psychology of dice rolling; as an old-school player, you have learned to accept that roll low is sometimes good, but I don't think someone new coming to the game would ever agree that this makes sense on the surface. You have to learn to accept it, rather than naturally accepting it. It's the way I always felt about descending AC. I learned to accept it, but it always required a leap of faith... then when 3E rolled out ascending AC, I responded "well duh! I never thought of THAT!"

In roll high, my fighter 6 has a save of +9. In roll high, we'd have to have a target number in place to determine success; this system would use 20 as the default target (we are NOT going with the variable situational DCs of 3E, leaving it to the GM to determine difficulties from a wide range of options). Therefore, if the fighter rolls 11 or more (that same 50% chance as above) on the 1d20, he succeeds. This is somewhat more intuitive, since you have a higher rating AND you want to roll a higher number on the die. This requires a little more math on each roll; I have to add the die result to my rating (and possibly modify this by a situational modifier), so this could mean I have three different numbers to consider in the equation. This is simple math, but it's still math: adding 14+9-2=21 is not hard math, but it's harder than looking at a die and deciding 'yeah, that's lower than my rating. I succeed'.

Of course, this is the exact same level of math that someone has to do every time they make an attack roll, only in this case the target in place of 'AC' is a fixed value rather than a dynamic value based on your foe's armor and coordination.

And in the end, I think that's what must sway the decision on this. I like roll high vs. ascending AC - that is a guarantee to go into the rules. Since a dynamic is already in place for one of the key types of rolls in the game, I should - whenever possible - strive to emulate that same dynamic for other rolls in order to make the game easier to learn and internalize.

I've also found in play testing that when you go back and forth (roll an attack vs. roll a save vs. roll damage vs. roll an ability check), I as the GM have to constantly say 'roll 1d20, and you want a high number' or 'roll 1d20, aiming low'... for a new player, it's going to be a lot easier to say 'roll 1d20' with the default assumption that you want a higher number - whether you are rolling an ability check, a saving throw, or an attack.

One other odd mechanical drawback to roll high (at least, I find it odd) is that by setting the target to 20 on a check, I'm actually spotting someone +5% more than they'd get in roll low; an ability score of 18 will fail a check 10% of the time (on a roll  of 19 or 20) in roll low, but will only fail a check 5% of the time (on a roll of 1, since 2+18=20) in roll high. I could change the target for roll high to 21 to keep the math exactly the same, but now we begin moving into counter-intuitive area again. 20 seems like a reasonable target; 21 just seems wonky. I'll just have to accept that characters in this game are 5% more likely to be successful at a check than the same character in another game.

If THAT isn't a selling point, I don't know what is. I could almost make t-shirts... "Saga of the Splintered Realm: Where your Ability Score gives you 5% more on checks!"

Monday, March 17, 2014

On Artists

Well... we hit the $2k threshold tonight, so we've unlocked an art budget! I've done dozens of projects, but this is the first one (other than the cover for the MTDAA RPG last year) where I've actively sought out others to work with. +Erik Tenkar is cranking away on his dungeon level (I get more excited for this by the moment), and the Kickstarter Campaign just keeps gaining momentum (and very generous backers)!

So, it's time to have some serious discussions about art.

I've already had a few people approach me about contributing art. I am exceedingly grateful for everyone who is offering to chip in, and I want to make sure that the project belongs to the community and also reflects the highest standards of quality I can manage. I want to make sure to fill the book with quality images, and I want to invest the money of the backers wisely into hiring artists... you did buy this art, after all - you are going to own the rights to all of it on the back end. I want to make sure that the art you get is something you're going to be happy to have.

At one extreme we have the stalwarts of the OSR artist's ensemble... and some of these guys can eat up the entire current art budget for a half-page spot illustration. At the other extreme, there are some up-and-comers (a lot like me in many ways) who would probably be willing to donate a piece for the publishing credit and the exposure.

I want to strike a balance here; it's important that all of the art is of a certain level of professionalism, and that it all reflects the '81 B/X sensibilities that the game comes from. It's important that the art is well-crafted.

I suppose that the category I'm looking for is of the 'emerging professionals'. So, that means I'm also looking for suggestions. Where are some places to look for artists who are ready to break out? What connections do any of you have to artists who might be willing to contribute high-quality images without breaking the bank?

I'd like to start making some agreements and announcing some artists to sign on, but I want to also step carefully here and not commit too hastily without considering the different options we have available.

Thanks for your feedback, and thanks so much to everyone who has signed on so far. I'm truly flattered and humbled that you consider this project worth backing, and I'm absolutely dedicated to making sure this project is chock full of awesome.

Why the Stoutling?

One thing that will be different in Saga of the Splintered Realm is that the Stoutling replaces the Halfling. This is, in many parts, a cosmetic change. It’s the Halfling with a different flavor.

So Mike (you ask), why the stoutling? I mean, you’re keeping almost every other classic element you can – so why change Halflings? Haven’t they suffered enough? Do you have to take away their identity too?
It’s a fair question (nice job, you!). I don’t know for sure, but here are a few reasons…

- the decision to lock the game at level 14 is an echo from the Dragonlance setting, where character progression was locked at level 15. I always liked this conceit, and ported it over in the early days of the Splintered Realm (justifying this through the backstory of the game world, which will be in volume 2 of the rules). That - and the idea that Krynn didn’t have Halflings, they had kender - helped to define the setting in my mind. Kender were somehow more specific and interesting to me (at least in my memory) than Halflings. Stoutlings are ‘my take’ on the Halfling – although they are nothing like Kender.

- the game world is relatively harsh and unforgiving, and the happy-go-lucky Halflings may not have as much of a place in it. I’m not doing much to change them mechanically, but I feel like a bit of a shift in worldview leads to a different ‘take’ on the race.

Sunday, March 16, 2014

Burning the Midnight Oil with Spell Casting Charts

If I'm going with one XP chart (which I like more by the second as I keep going over it), I probably want a unified spell casting chart as well. Clerics and magic users would have one chart, while secondary casters (elves only in the core rules, although possibly other classes in expansion materials down the road) have a different progression, and dabblers (other classes who pick up spell-casting subclasses - I'm thinking here of bards and the like) have a different one. This way, instead of having to piece out the progression for each class each time, I just indicate which type of caster this class is, and the type or types of spells available, and I'm good to go...

Spell Progression Chart (by caster level and spell sphere)
Primary
Secondary
Dabbler
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
1
2-3
1
-
-
-
-
-
2
2-3
4-5
2
-
-
-
-
-
3
4
6-7
2
1
-
-
-
-
4
5-6
8-9
2
2
-
-
-
-
5
7
10-11
3
2
1
-
-
-
6
8-9
12-13
3
2
2
-
-
-
7
10
14
3
3
2
1
-
-
8
11-12

4
3
2
2
-
-
9
13

4
3
3
2
1
-
10
14

4
4
3
2
2
-
11


5
4
3
3
2
1
12


5
4
4
3
2
2
13


5
5
4
3
3
2
14


6
5
4
4
3
2

- Primary casters include magic users and clerics.
- Secondary casters include elves.

- Dabblers include characters who take casting as part of a subclass (for example, the bard). Dabblers do not have access to spells at level 1.