v0.10 First impressions
- Thread starter Tantarus
- Start date
• Damage should scale with build spent. Let’s say, for starters, 1 per 30 build spent, or 1.5 for two handed weapons like currently. I’m not tied to the number. Weapon Proficiency would be removed.
• Critical Attacks should cap at a stack of 3, effectively mirroring what Damage Aura was once capable of providing. They should contribute to “base” damage, so that someone who had 7 points of “base” damage from build spent that activated 3 Critical Attacks would get the full additional +5 bonus damage if using a two handed weapon. Currently there is no benefit from using a two handed weapon with Critical Attacks; the aforementioned Fighter would only receive +3 bonus damage from using a two handed weapon. Empowered Warrior would be removed.
• Mettle would change to a 5 second flat timer that could no longer be reduced through multiple simultaneous expenditures of Mettle. Fighters already commonly experience 5 second timers due to the Disarm skill. This would standardize their timers for “temporary effect” management.
• Resolute would change to the user’s choice of either negating a single non-damaging effect, or remaining at 1 body when a damaging effect would otherwise reduce them to zero or fewer body. This would allow Dodge to retain its position as a superior comprehensive defense, while still providing a strong complementary skill that allows players the opportunity to choose between it and Mettle based on the current state of the fight. This would also bring them in line with every other class, each of which has both weapon and non-weapon full defenses available in their native skill trees.
• People can’t seem to agree on a points cost or body value for Hearty. Since 0.6 it has changed in various ways, from 2 build for 3 body, to 5 build for 5 body, to variable cost based on race. In reality, with the decrease in average monster damage based on the cards we have playtested to date, player body totals are perfectly fine where they are. Hearty would be removed.
• Martially delivered Disarms and Shatters are now overwhelmingly effective, and defy the conventional interfacing of weapons strikes versus equipment and the activation of Weapon Shields. This delivery further raises concerns over the technical definition of when a shot becomes a shot, it’s interpretation and application on the field, how two simultaneous impacts are processed, and several other points raised in various threads. Martially delivered Disarms and Shatters would return to being struck against the target, and not their equipment - OR - martial Disarms and Shatters should now be able to be expended to counter a martially delivered Disarm or Shatter.
• While I personally don’t care, I have seen many Fighters (and “backpack” play style Earth Casters) express concerns over the removal of “Prepare to Die” calls. The number of responses appear to be substantial enough to warrant returning this function to its original operating state. “Prepare to Die” calls would be reinstated.
• Fighters are sorely lacking an endgame. The implementation of a High Magic styled “Martial Prowess” feature for Fighters and Rogues would help combat this. High Magic has successfully been implemented for a considerable time, and has shown itself to be a well received feature. Designing a similar game mechanic for Fighters and Rogues would help further close the performance and opportunity gap between those classes and Scholars.
That’s what I can come up with right now. I’ll edit this post if I can think of anything else that should be included.
Last edited:
If I had to "go to print" right now, I would only make the following changes. 60 rit limit; remove the following rituals: Spirit Store, Monster Slayer, Race Reaver, Expanded Enchantment, Greater Wand, Damage Aura; remove High Magic Bane; modify elemental burst so it doesn't add to wand damage; do the spell changes per 0.10.
Tulbor
Artisan
From 1.3? or how .10 is written currently?
In other words, if we had to get a rules change out ASAP, those would be the only changes I think are "needed".
Edit: even removing high magic Bane isn't needed, that's like... Just my opinion man. *The Dude Voice*
Tulbor
Artisan
I agree on all those changes, except for the DA. +3 is negligible vs monsters and is easy to balance for (also not everyone can afford the scroll, nevermind the full +3), but for low level players who can get their hands on it, it's a great boost and goes a long way towards adding them into a mod that might otherwise be too much to handle.
mikestrauss
Squire
Assuming the current, non-playtest rules are 1.3 (who actually pays attention to edition number?).... Yeah, I mean the rules that exist now. Or, if I am completely out of touch, maybe I mean the rules I played with 20 years ago. Either way, I think I described it clearly enough in my post that it is obvious what I like about the design of Spell Parry.
-MS
Tulbor
Artisan
well, that's why i wanted to clarify. Since we're in the 2.0 Playtesting forum section, "currently written" could refer to the latest playtest rules set. "currently live" would be a better way of saying current rules that are being played with.
Muir
Fighter
I think this is something I'm not always clear enough about here as well. I like and enjoy this game, and respect the folks working to make it the best it can be. My criticism is harsh because I don't think beating around the bush when talking game theory is going to be any good for the game. It's not personal, and me picking apart a system is never meant to be a reflection on the persons writing it, just me expressing how I believe it will impact the game and change in play.
Text doesn't to tone, as we all know too well.
Yeah, I've done about the same period as a Rogue/Scout (depending on the current build total) whose MIs consist of arcane armor and a couple activateable cure lights. I just got my first DA that's not a loan from a sympathetic friend cast at the SoMN campaign ender last fall... on the same character I played the first event of SoMN's campaign almost a decade ago.
Truly and honestly, if you take out cloaks, banes, and golems, you solve 99.99% of the MI problem. The only issue with DA is that it is a huge buff for scholars, and the easiest way to solve that is to simply require that a wielder have at least 1 Weapon Prof per +1 to use a DA. Create a second version called Weapon Precision that does the same thing only with Backstabs, and don't let both be on the same weapon.
Boom, DAs are now a fighter or rogue specific buff that makes them better at their primary ingame skill, not a way to shore up casters.
If you want to go a step further, remove times per day skill/spell store items and replace them with times ever only, and a hard ritual cap.
Last edited:
marceasue
Newbie
As a newer player, you really hit the nail on the head. Agree with everything u said.
Mike Ventrella
Duke
I would be more than happy to take the rules, let me pick my own committee of people whose views match mine, and simplify the rules as the original idea was when we sent them off years ago to ARC. We all agree that needs to be done, right? But somewhere along the lines, that became only a side goal it seems.
Surely you all know my opinion of this. Some of these new ideas I think are great. Some are just changes that don't necessarily make the game better or simpler but just different. And as I've said many times, there are hundreds of ways the rules can be written, as evidenced by the hundreds of different LARPs out there. It's all a matter of taste as to what you like, just like the many different tabletop games. Hell, Dungeons and Dragons isn't even the same game depending on which DMs you play with. Everyone has their own personal tastes, and people play our game because they like our tastes. Changing them always loses players who don't like our new recipes, and changing them too much means losing lots of players, and we all acknowledge that.
So change to improve the game and make the rules simpler and more consistent? That was the goal. Change because people have new ideas? That was the whole problem we always had with our rules, isn't it? Every time a new set of owners come along with their ideas, the rules change, and then sometimes change back again when another new set of owners comes along.
The other problem has to do with democracy, which is the most inefficient system of government even though it's the fairest. But we're not a government. Representation shouldn't be as important to us as producing the best game. We're more of a business, and no business allows its shareholders to design the products and the packaging. And no creative work is done by committee. Maybe this isn't the best way to do this.
The other problem with democracy is that the majority of people tend to not vote or get involved, so the loudest and most active participants win. And then the winners may not even represent what the majority wants. (See: 2016 US Presidential election.)
But your contracts and the By-Laws allow you guys input. So if I do anything, I risk having you all say, "Fine, then since you're not obeying our contracts, we're leaving" and that doesn't help the Alliance at all.
What I need is for you guys to say, "Mike, we trust you, having run this game for 25 years, to assemble a great group and get this done in a short period of time." I can then organize a committee of people whose opinions about the game match mine and then make sure the game fits my vision instead of the vision of whatever owners may come along and change that vision every few years. And instead of me vetoing, the owners get to veto my rules changes in case I come up with something terrible.
Less democracy? Sure. More likely not to be a rules set that is diluted because of compromises and "too many cooks"? Absolutely.
Draven
Count
This response is meant to be honest, and not harsh or mean.
As a new player representative for Alliance Seattle, I’ve seen a lot of changes occur in the last few years. Our culture, our focus on community, our approach to customer service and our approach to professionalism have all been very, very strong.
Because of this, we’ve attracted a lot of new players, and I would guess that well over half of our current active player base has been playing for five years or less. I would further guess that less than 10% of our active players have ever met you, much less interacted with you in any significant amount.
So, realistically, why should I, or they, trust you? That’s not really in our best interests. I put trust in Emily Mungo, not because she’s the owner of the Seattle chapter, but because she and I have communicated on a number of things, and I believe in her ability to see a differing point of view, even if she doesn’t necessarily share that point of view. I wouldn’t expect someone from HQ to have that same trust of her, either; that would be unreasonable.
So, I apologize, but I can’t just trust you. There are issues I have with the existing and proposed rules, and I’m going to continue to advocate for myself and those who share those same concerns as me in whatever manner is available.
Draven
Count
Anyway, Evan that's my viewpoint, not that it really makes a difference.The Powers That Be are going to do what they're going to, regardless of what you or I say. You know that right?
Oh, I do. But I disagree that a viewpoint doesn’t make a difference. The voice of the consumer matters.
The owners might make the changes in the game, but if the players walk away, Alliance ceases to exist.
Muir
Fighter
I would be curious to see what you come up with. I know regionally the game is rather varied, but honestly the more of these playtests I read, the more I don't think design by committee is going to work.
PirateFox
Scholar
@Mike Ventrella I wouldn't really call that less democracy, given how things are currently. Not sure I'd be for or against that kind of change, but as things are, ARC doesn't represent most chapters. They represent a few, and are very open about that fact. When I was still a coordinator, I was flat-out told that my chapter's opinions don't matter to ARC because we don't have a member on ARC, and ARC knows better than we do...only our owner's vote mattered in the slightest. That's far from democracy, given that we're one of the largest chapters (if not the largest), and we don't even have our feedback weighed by ARC. The "sit down and take what we give you" replies I'd gotten were very very very far from democratic.
Might be time for a discussion of how better we can build our rules or make decisions for the chapters' futures. If owners aren't voting as was mentioned a few times in here, and ARC doesn't take feedback from players into account, and the owners who are voting are getting overwhelmed or shouted down...then it's not a healthy and functional system.
Just my 2cp. I represent no one but myself.
Might be time for a discussion of how better we can build our rules or make decisions for the chapters' futures. If owners aren't voting as was mentioned a few times in here, and ARC doesn't take feedback from players into account, and the owners who are voting are getting overwhelmed or shouted down...then it's not a healthy and functional system.
Just my 2cp. I represent no one but myself.
