|
Post by Ryan H. on Apr 17, 2016 0:40:28 GMT
Hello. I am the Anon who messaged the tumblr handbook page awhile back. Didn't realize that there was a response to my paragraph long question/statement! XD These are the houserules I mentioned. I only made these for the reasons noted below the text. Sorry if I duplicated a rule already in place.
If anyone wants to contact me, I'd be happy to chat about the game and my experiences running it. Email me at mrhankinson@gmail.com
Craft: This skill is "missing." I think that adding it in may or may not give buffing your Intelligence a little too much power. But, no other skills really seem to cover the idea of "crafting". So, consider craft added in to the list of skills under Intelligence. This skill, like Knowledge, should be specified for a type.
Knowledge: This skill seems to be too general. Please specify a type of knowledge to have.
Ranges: Close = 2sq/10ft, Medium/Long = 3-9sq/15-45ft, Far = 10sq+/50ft+
Flanking: When two allies are on opposite sides of an enemy, they are considered to be flanking. In order to receive this bonus, at least one of the two allies must be in close range, and the enemy in question must be aware of the closer ally. The other ally will gain a +1 bonus to ACC. If both allies are within close range, and the enemy is aware of both of them, both allies shall gain the +1 ACC bonus.
Gang Up: When an enemy of equal size, or up to one size step larger, has at least one ally within close range on each of it's facings, it is considered surrounded. The enemy will take a -1 DODGE penalty, and the allies will gain a +2 ACC bonus.
Charge: As a complex action, a combatant may charge an enemy. The combatant in question must move toward the target enemy in a straight line. If the combatant has enough movement to end in close range of the enemy, they make a single attack with a -2 ACC penalty and a +3 DMG bonus.
Retreating: As a complex action, a combatant in close range of an enemy may move a distance equal to their MOV directly away from the enemy. This movement does not have to be in a straight line, but the combatant must end their move further away from the enemy than a distance equal to 50% of their MOV.
Attacks of Opportunity: If an enemy moves out of close range of a combatant without using the retreat complex action, the combatant may take a single attack of opportunity on the enemy. This attack can be made at any point during the enemy's non-retreating move.
Dodging: If you successfully dodge an attack that was directed at you (not an attack with the area quality), then you MUST move at least one square.
Note: While there seem to be quite a few rules, this is to make the game a little more tactical and action based. NOT to mimic Pathfinder.
|
|
|
Post by Gazmer on Apr 17, 2016 2:20:13 GMT
I have a lot to say aboyt this. But i'll have to do it later. Expect me back later. No time right now.
|
|
|
Post by TM93 on Apr 17, 2016 4:00:46 GMT
Well Gazmer if you don't mind me cutting in line, it's 11PM and I want to address my feelings on these rules.
Not all of these are inherently bad, some are just a bit of a misunderstanding from my perspective. But I think a lot of these rules are simply redundant, or unneeded. I'll work my way from the top.
Craft: Unless you houserule in a lot of gear, this is a bit pointless and can still be covered in general Knowledge without breaking the 3-branch balance we currently have for the Attribute/Skill breakdown.
Knowledge: This is a simple misunderstanding, but it's fine to not get. Most Intelligence based things involve the character using their book smarts: Computer is straightforward and niche, Decipher Intent is knowing how people work, and Knowledge is simply... the rest! History exam? Knowledge. Remembering where you left your backpack? Knowledge. Remembering that one obscure fact you learned the one time way back in Elementary school which is useful now? Knowledge. The reason it's so broad is because a lot of the things it'd cover which aren't covered by the other two Knowledge skills are very niche things, so they group together to become a more common thing. Is it daunting? Yes, but it's also fairly reasonable in general.
Range: Page 38 already covers the mechanical nitty-gritty of Ranged Attacks for both general and specifics, which you're sort of mixing, when one side is meant to be general, the other specific. The mix of the two simply seems like a lot of work for not a lot of tactical benefit. You're also using feet, which is a much more annoying calculation to swap between than meters on the fly for a square. The game uses Meters because it's easier to eyeball and get an idea for without having to do multiplication in your head.
Flanking: Not a bad idea but it makes investing in Pack Tactics feel redundant, even if the bonus increases.
Gang Up: This also isn't a bad idea, but it's another layer of rules on top of Flanking, which a lot of people already have trouble remembering in a system. I can already see players going "Wait are we Ganging Up or Flanking? Is it both? Can it be both?" every time two of them are in melee range.
Charge: There's a Quality for this, which makes that scenario a Simple Action. Adding more layers of complexity with the situational Accuracy and Damage changes just feels messy to me. The less you have to look up in Combat, the better.
Retreating: This is another layer of complexity which is, for all intents and purposes worse than just using two Simple Actions to move.
Attacks of Opportunity: This really just feels here to justify the Retreat mechanics and vise-versa, they just seem to be making the system more complex and rule-heavy than it needs to be in combat. And there's a lot to keep track of as it is.
Dodging: Not bad inherently, but I feel it limits the potentially hilarious fluff of not receiving Damage. Maybe they just want to take that hit and pretend it did no damage. It also seems like another reason to provoke Opportunity Attacks.
I'm not saying you did this with the intent of making DDA more like Pathfinder, but it's very clear you came from a Pathfinder/3.5e heavy background. While not bad, not all of these rules entirely mesh with how DDA works, and due to a lot of them being very Combat-centric, they sort of slow down a Combat system which is meant to be as quick and painless as it can be. I don't mean this in the wrong way, if they work for you, they work for you, I just don't think that they're necessarily needed.
|
|
|
Post by Ryan H on Apr 17, 2016 4:27:53 GMT
Thank you for the input. I really do appreciate it.
To put up my reasoning for each of the points: 1) Craft/Knowledge. This one really does have to do with my background in 3.5/d20 system stuff. I guess it just felt weird for me to have one "Knowledge" skill cover all the bases. I like that concept, but a specified Craft and Knowledge skill was literally just my way of making some concessions to my players. 2) Range: I just use feet/squares because that's what Roll20 let's me use. The ruler pops up in feet, but we can visually count squares. The actually specification of distances for each range increment, though, is itself a concession to the players. 3) Flanking/Ganging Up/Charge: To be honest, I totally didn't even see these qualities. I briefly skimmed this section to note things that may cause problems when used in combination with each other, and left the actual use of qualities up to my players. 4) Retreating/Attacks of Opportunity: This is a mechanic which my group doesn't see a whole lot yet (we're still early enough on, that the mooks are generally designed to not be the most intelligent foes ever), but one that I felt was necessary. While I'm sure that the whole mechanic could use a little bit of re-working and simplification, I don't see the point in not having one. After all, if your enemy is standing next to you in melee combat, and you try to leave, he'd probably at least take a parting swipe at you. 5) Dodging: One that my entire group agreed on. Most of us felt it was somewhat silly that in most games, having an attack miss you (with you dodging), meant you continued to remain in the same place. Five feet/one square is not much distance, but it's enough to keep combat moving, rather than standing in one place and slogging it out. Mind you, this mindset does come from a mainly D20 background, so take that for however you wish to perceive it.
In sum, I love the work that's being done here with the game, but some things feel a little too simple for some parts. Not saying it needs to be complex, but the lack of detail in certain areas can cause some potential players (like myself or several of my players), to be lead to think that the game doesn't quite feel complete. I just want to the sessions to feel like a real episode of the shows, to flow smooth and have a big epic battle at the end. Which, so far, has been the case. The system runs BEAUTIFULLY outside of combat, and still runs really well inside of combat.
So, thanks for all the hard work that has gone into the game so far.
P.S. The group loves the Torment and Aspect rules. Really makes the characters a little more fleshed out.
|
|
|
Post by Gazmer on Apr 17, 2016 5:20:23 GMT
Okay sorry I took so long. Didn't have access to a computer.
Craft: This is kinda redundant. And at most this is under the Survival stat. Knowledge: If it seems general it is general, it's called General Education for a reason. I can't think of a reason for a kid to have a special knowlege type and even then just put it in your character background and give them +2. Ranges: See TM93 Flanking: What TM93 said. Gang Up: Just give everyone Coordinated Assault and make it cost nothing. Charge: TM93 beats me to the punch Retreating: TM93 makes a point just make this a complex action and have full movement. Attacks of Opportunity: TM93 is reading my mind tonight. Dodging: I guess you can keep this if you want seems kinda random and uneeded.
Like TM93 said it's obvious too see that you play alot of Pathfinder and as a fan of 3.5 I can see why your group might think it's necessary. If it works for you guys it works, but try without them for a few games to see if it's really necessary.
|
|
|
Post by captainkatana on Apr 17, 2016 5:38:32 GMT
Same guy, just made an account now. Don't want to be an Anon forever. I totally agree with the way the game is written, and it works super well. In fact, I love how smooth it works. Problem is, my players (like myself), come from mostly D20 backgrounds. So, here's my thoughts on how to fix the house rules I've laid down so far. And until these thoughts are given the go ahead from the design team, I don't want to progress with them. After a bit of thought, it feels kinda insulting to house rule stuff that is that core to the system. 1) Craft/Knowledge: I'll change this stuff over to aspects, when it comes to the specifics. I suppose I just wasn't seeing it from the right angle earlier. 2) Flanking/Ganging Up/Charging: I will make them take the appropriate qualities and remove the rules entirely. 3) Retreating/Attacks of Opportunity: Not sure how to fix this one, but re-reading it, it feels too complex. On the right idea, but needlessly crunchy. Maybe an additional quality that allows the possessor to make an attack of opportunity? 4) Changing this to a quality. Seriously, having input from folks like you really helps.
|
|
|
Post by Gazmer on Apr 17, 2016 5:51:55 GMT
Glad you feel this way. Yeah you got the Idea about Making the fluff Qualitys. For example lets make AoO a Quality.
Name: Threatening DP cost: 2 Description: This Digimon can make the area directly around them Hazardous Terrain. This effect moves with the Digimon. Needs Selective Targeting to not effect allies.
Also there is a Counter Attack Quality I forgot about. You might want to look into that.
|
|
|
Post by captainkatana on Apr 17, 2016 6:20:18 GMT
Hmmm... I like this idea for AoO. Though, I don't want my PCs' partners to have to stay a good distance away from them if they have the quality. So, maybe they can activate it as a simple action?
|
|
|
Post by TM93 on Apr 17, 2016 14:25:06 GMT
Sorry, I just woke up again: I'd like to add that while a single Skill might be super useful, by making one Attribute have more Skills than the rest of them it makes the Attribute more useful to pour into: that's part of why I won't be adding more Skills unless I can make a new one for each Attribute; otherwise some will just be more covering and useful than others. Even then we've currently got 15 Skills with 5 more general Attributes which you can choose to do a raw roll for to keep track of with a total of 20, we're at a pretty fair place for at least being able to cover things with only a bit of stretching.
Also I know the current Handbook uses Hazardous Terrain it'll be changing to Difficult Terrain. Not because I don't think Hazardous works but because it's something I honestly have trouble remembering the name for (while I can appreciate original names, The Digimon Emperor seemed to like changing the names for things which have a more commonly accepted terms in tabletop, which can be confusing for new players.) so, the way I see it, we could probably change it to Difficult Terrain, as that gives the same idea give or take, stuff that's hard to move in, not necessarily harmful.
|
|
|
Post by captainkatana on Apr 17, 2016 23:24:45 GMT
I can dig it. And I agree on the naming conventions thing. As for the dodge mechanic, here's what I'm thinking:
Avoidance 2 DP per rank (3 ranks maximum), Prerequisite: Agility
When the digimon possessing this quality is missed with an attack due to successfully dodging the attack, they may move up to 1 meter per rank of this quality, in any direction.
|
|