Back to Crafty Games Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
July 24, 2014, 09:28:38 AM
Home Help Search Login Register
News: Welcome to the Crafty Games Forums!

Note to New Members: To combat spam, we have instituted new rules: you must post 5 replies to existing threads before you can create new threads.

+  Crafty Games Forum
|-+  Community
| |-+  License to Improvise
| | |-+  [Idea Crowdsourcing] Shortening Combat
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] Go Down Print
Author Topic: [Idea Crowdsourcing] Shortening Combat  (Read 346 times)
SilvercatMoonpaw
Control
******
Posts: 1171



View Profile
« Reply #15 on: March 19, 2014, 05:52:06 PM »

No, all PCs are shifted to the health=# of hits model.
How do you determine PC health grade? Huh?

UPDATE: Okay I see the edit.  I think that would be more work than I'm looking for.

Relatively speaking, this hurts the low vitality classes (-66% base vitality) more than the high vitality classes (-33% base vitality). I think you'd be better served adapting the existing campaign quality for this purpose, Fragile Heroes*, which just cuts base vitality in half across the board. You could then just extend that to include all special characters.
*One note on Fragile Heroes: By default the 9 vitality per level classes becomes 4 vitality per level classes, which actually means they are penalized more than 50% of their base vitality. To get around this, I these classes 4 vitality and 5 vitality on alternating levels.
Okay, thanks for that catch.

However I could reduce all of them by 1/3: 6 to 4, 9 to 6, and 12 to 8.  Even reduction, still pretty good numbers.

EDIT: Or when reducing them by half do not round.
« Last Edit: March 19, 2014, 05:56:03 PM by SilvercatMoonpaw » Logged
Mister Andersen
Control
******
Posts: 10589


I'm leaving for a destination I still don't know


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: March 19, 2014, 06:21:46 PM »

I meant NPC, sorry. Stand and special
Logged

Morgenstern
Control
******
Posts: 5194



View Profile
« Reply #17 on: March 19, 2014, 06:29:41 PM »

Relatively speaking, this hurts the low vitality classes (-66% base vitality) more than the high vitality classes (-33% base vitality). I think you'd be better served adapting the existing campaign quality for this purpose, Fragile Heroes*, which just cuts base vitality in half across the board. You could then just extend that to include all special characters.

I avoid that one because it makes you literally a moron for taking levels in low skill point classes. The current ratio of 2 skill points to 3 vitality points barely hangs together under scrutiny. Converting it to 2 skill points for a point and a half of vitality is a sick joke.

While the -4 per level is not proportional, it effectively puts everyone 1 "hit" closer to the finish line per level. The people who paid a hefty fee in lost skill points for their extra buffer still get it, but the whole process is significantly accelerated Smiley.
Logged

At your own pace: Do. It. Now.
How about some pie? - Heroes of the Expanse
SilvercatMoonpaw
Control
******
Posts: 1171



View Profile
« Reply #18 on: March 19, 2014, 06:50:56 PM »

I meant NPC, sorry. Stand and special
So there's no difference in terms of how damage works between Standard and Special?

You also forgot to mention how DR and Resistances interact with it.


Ultimately I may be better served by simply making Specials work like Standards except they have their Wounds as a buffer after failing their damage saves.

UPDATE: So currently I'm leaning toward:

Quick-Close Combat (needs a snappier name): Class Vitality bonus is reduced by 1/3rd.  Instead of Vitality Special NPCs have a damage save, with critical hits and any damage after failing the save going to Wounds.
« Last Edit: March 19, 2014, 07:01:19 PM by SilvercatMoonpaw » Logged
paddyfool
Control
******
Posts: 1930


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: March 19, 2014, 10:54:20 PM »

Relatively speaking, this hurts the low vitality classes (-66% base vitality) more than the high vitality classes (-33% base vitality). I think you'd be better served adapting the existing campaign quality for this purpose, Fragile Heroes*, which just cuts base vitality in half across the board. You could then just extend that to include all special characters.

I avoid that one because it makes you literally a moron for taking levels in low skill point classes. The current ratio of 2 skill points to 3 vitality points barely hangs together under scrutiny. Converting it to 2 skill points for a point and a half of vitality is a sick joke.

While the -4 per level is not proportional, it effectively puts everyone 1 "hit" closer to the finish line per level. The people who paid a hefty fee in lost skill points for their extra buffer still get it, but the whole process is significantly accelerated Smiley.

I'm thinking a -3 per level might be a little fairer, making the high vitality classes only three times as tough, rather than four times as tough.  2 + con vitality isn't really any sort of damage buffer at all.

Also, special NPCs should have a corresponding reduction in their vitality if we're doing this to the PCs.  So that instead of being health grade x threat level x5, we could go with health grade x threat level  x 3 or something.
Logged
Uncle Muppet
Specialist
*
Posts: 7



View Profile
« Reply #20 on: March 20, 2014, 06:45:09 AM »

When you say PbP do you literally mean play-by-post(al mail, i.e. snail mail)?  Or are you using that as a generic term for what is actually play-by-e-mail?  And, how are you running the combats?  Do you handle like you would at a gaming table in person, where you send a post after every action by every combtant?  If so, perhaps you would want to consider how you RUN the combat, rather than the rules of how it takes place.

I've been in 3 or 5 PBeM games, and we've gotten a good system down for handling combat.  As players, we take time to set up some general combat strategies ahead of time and let the GM know what those are.  We also make it clear to everyone how our characters generally act, and what their goals and priorities are in combat.

Then, when a combat occurs, we state which strategy we're following and what we want to accomplish, in general terms, for the first three rounds.  The GM then runs those three combat rounds and reports back to us.  (And those rounds are run intelligently.  So if the fighter takes down his foe in the first round, he doesn't stand there for two more rounds awaiting new instructions.)

So with the combat being run in three round increments, it doesn't take that long for the players, and most of the work is on the GM - as it should be.  This could speed things up for you as you don't have to send a letter or e-mail to each individual player after every single action.
Logged
SilvercatMoonpaw
Control
******
Posts: 1171



View Profile
« Reply #21 on: March 20, 2014, 08:06:05 AM »

When you say PbP do you literally mean play-by-post(al mail, i.e. snail mail)?  Or are you using that as a generic term for what is actually play-by-e-mail?
Neither.  I am using the term that refers to playing by forum, which is known as play-by-post because you are playing by posting a reply to the thread.

(And those rounds are run intelligently....)
And there's the problem: I'm not intelligent when it comes to combat tactics.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.13 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!