Annoying Game Questions You Want Answered

[Prak]

So, yeah, as this discussion goes on, I think I am really tied to the idea that the artificer makes big permanent real magic items as their main shtick.

But watching Adam Savage talk on Youtube, I'm starting to form this idea of something like the artificer, maybe named something else just because of how my brain handles words, that's more like a stagehand/grip/etc on a set. They can pull off phenomenal feats of building that will do the job, but they will only do the job, for only as long as they're needed (possibly needing constant shoring up with magic duct tape), and if you look behind the drop cloth, you find the mighty mountain is actually just a bunch of apple crates.

So maybe something like the Eberron Artificer, but anything they make using class features has a set duration? I don't know how I'd want to make that work, precisely, but maybe something like they can make random utilitarian supplies work like magical reagents worth a lot more as a class feature (because I reject the whole "magic items cost xp" thing) with the drawback being that the amount of time they last is inversely proportionate to how much you're inflating the value of your paper clips and duct tape?

[Thaluikhain]

So, yeah, as this discussion goes on, I think I am really tied to the idea that the artificer makes big permanent real magic items as their main shtick.

But watching Adam Savage talk on Youtube, I'm starting to form this idea of something like the artificer, maybe named something else just because of how my brain handles words, that's more like a stagehand/grip/etc on a set. They can pull off phenomenal feats of building that will do the job, but they will only do the job, for only as long as they're needed (possibly needing constant shoring up with magic duct tape), and if you look behind the drop cloth, you find the mighty mountain is actually just a bunch of apple crates.

So maybe something like the Eberron Artificer, but anything they make using class features has a set duration? I don't know how I'd want to make that work, precisely, but maybe something like they can make random utilitarian supplies work like magical reagents worth a lot more as a class feature (because I reject the whole "magic items cost xp" thing) with the drawback being that the amount of time they last is inversely proportionate to how much you're inflating the value of your paper clips and duct tape?

Sounds a bit like Scotty from Star Trek, doing makeshift repairs that only have to last the battle/episode, so there's good precedent for that.

[JonSetanta]

That Phil Foglio webcomic... Girl Genius... Comes to mind.
Probably mentioned here, but that's the best comparison.

[merxa]

But watching Adam Savage talk on Youtube, I'm starting to form this idea of something like the artificer, maybe named something else just because of how my brain handles words, that's more like a stagehand/grip/etc on a set. They can pull off phenomenal feats of building that will do the job, but they will only do the job, for only as long as they're needed (possibly needing constant shoring up with magic duct tape), and if you look behind the drop cloth, you find the mighty mountain is actually just a bunch of apple crates.

Weird Science

An artificer is not a spellcaster, but instead possesses the ability to imbue items with magical power. This weird science allows the artificer to create devices that combine the effects of one or more spells, either arcane or divine.

An artificer has access to both arcane and divine spell lists, but only up to 4th level. Any number of spells can be combined into a single device. Spell statistics (casting times, etc.) remain unchanged, although no components are required and the artificer is considered the “caster” for the purposes of CL.

Weird science devices must be invented in advance, however — they cannot be created on the fly. The time to create such devices is 4 hours per spell level used. As such, an artificer usually has a fixed collection of regularly-carried devices.

Weird science devices are temporary and unreliable. They are able to be used reliably a number of times per day equal to 1 plus half the class level of the artificer who built the device (rounding up, naturally). The device may be used by anyone — but if used by someone other than the artificer who built it, it requires a Use Magic Device roll at DC 15 to activate (a failed roll indicates that the device fails to activate for that user, and a roll of 1 means that the device breaks down for good).

If the device is used more times than allowed (by anyone), it requires a Use Magic Device skill check with a DC equal starting at 20 and rising by 1 every additional time the device is used. A failed roll means that the device breaks down and may not be used again (the artificer will have to build another).

Combining multiple magical effects into a single device means that both effects function simultaneously upon activation (effectively casting two or more spells at once) — but such devices are even more unstable than usual: The Use Magic Device check for extra activations starts at DC 25 + the number of effects used, and goes up for each additional usage by the number of effects used.

maybe i earned an ignore for prak for some past infraction, but i literally linked this days ago. but cool, go on a riff and rant when there's already a rule set that involves your duct tape which you can modify as needed.

[Prak]

No, I just have depression, so my memory sucks. I also, as a human (if I must be...), reserve the right to change my mind, and feel differently about an idea one day than I do another.

[The Adventurer's Almanac]

An artificer has access to both arcane and divine spell lists, but only up to 4th level. Any number of spells can be combined into a single device. Spell statistics (casting times, etc.) remain unchanged, although no components are required and the artificer is considered the “caster” for the purposes of CL.

Am I overlooking something, or is this fucking sick?

[merxa]

No, I just have depression, so my memory sucks. I also, as a human (if I must be...), reserve the right to change my mind, and feel differently about an idea one day than I do another.

we're all human (hopefully), so hang in there -- and if you really want to make it up to me you can rip into my stealth rule set ^_^, I'd like some feed back on how to make it more readable and playable, and if it's unplayable to know why.

[The Adventurer's Almanac]

What is the distinction between skills and stats in systems that only have one or the other? If you only have one series of numbers that determines how good you are at doing shit in-game, is there any point in calling one series Skills and one series Stats or Attributes or whatever?

[JonSetanta]

Personally I enjoy RPGs that don't have an Ability Score which then does a fancy little calculation, and then grants a Bonus.

Seriously, do the Shadowrun thing and slap out some numbers, then add those values to your dice pool or d20 roll, and you don't have to explain to new players "oh you raised your CON from 14 to 15, you'll have to bump it up to 16 to actually get a +3" and they say " ... Huh?"

[Prak]

I'm OK with rpgs that do that, except D&D. Pf2 sort of de- emphasizes the scores, trying to get you to focus on just the modifier, and it bugs the shit out of me. Because Pf is just a version of D&D and that's not what D&D numbers mean.

Fuck, I'd be more on board with them overhauling the ability mods so you mod is just "score-10" or something

[Whatever Jr.]

What is the distinction between skills and stats in systems that only have one or the other? If you only have one series of numbers that determines how good you are at doing shit in-game, is there any point in calling one series Skills and one series Stats or Attributes or whatever?

If a game only has skills, then skills will typically represent not just how good you are at an action, but whether you can do it at all. Superhero games may let you buy varying levels of invisibility or eye beams or super strength, but you don't get a "default" number unless you buy at least the minimum. Players without the skill can't roll to see if they turn a little bit invisible.

Meanwhile, an all-stat game has nothing BUT defaults.

[deaddmwalking]

There's been a lot of dismissal of attributes, and I still don't buy it.

There's a classic business metaphor - you have container, and a bunch of rocks. The rocks are labeled; meetings, vacation, etc. The thing is, dumping them all into the container overflows it. In order to get everything to fit, you have to put the big rocks in first, then you fill in with smaller and smaller rocks.

Now, you could get everything to fit if you break all the big rocks into small rocks. But having your 'big rocks' cover the important things that need to stay together is useful and helpful. Breaking your vacations into 15 minute increments doesn't get you to Europe!

Character building can be a similar thing. Rocks are 'big rocks' - they cover a lot of things and involve relatively few decisions. Attributes can serve a similar role. Just having big rocks may not give you the 'fine detail' you want, so there will be 'small rocks'. But there's a huge difference from having to pick 1 feat/level to having to pick 20 abilities that cover skills/feats/class abilities etc.

Attributes COMMUNICATE character abilities in a very quick shorthand which is important to theater of the mind. Attributes help reduce the complexity of character creation without necessarily arbitrarily limiting choice. It is true that 'being strong' or 'being smart' comes with some expectations that you can do 'strong things' or 'smart things' well.

[Whatever Jr.]

"important things that need to stay together" should be class features. That's the whole fucking point of having classes and levels.

[Kaelik]

People are really carrying a lot of baggage from the other thread.

"Stats" means statistics, it's a an extremely generic term.

Attribute has a connotation of inherent defining qualities.

Skills has a connotation of stuff you learned.

If you only have one thing that covers everything, those are stats. Look at what stats you have. If your stats are Laser and Feelings, then attributes and skills both don't really fit, so you probably want to stick with stats.

If your stats are running, unarmed, chopping trees, and stabbing, those are all more skill themed, so maybe you name them skills.

If your stats are "strong, fast, smart, lucky" then you could probably get away with calling them attributes.

[Foxwarrior]

Players without the skill can't roll to see if they turn a little bit invisible.

Meanwhile, an all-stat game has nothing BUT defaults.

Oh yeah? What ability check is it to turn a little bit invisible then?

[JonSetanta]

Concealment.

[merxa]

? there's a check that turns you slightly into a bush and that's somehow analogous to being slightly invisible? what game are you even talking about?

[The Adventurer's Almanac]

People are really carrying a lot of baggage from the other thread.
"Stats" means statistics, it's a an extremely generic term.
Attribute has a connotation of inherent defining qualities.
Skills has a connotation of stuff you learned.
If you only have one thing that covers everything, those are stats. Look at what stats you have. If your stats are Laser and Feelings, then attributes and skills both don't really fit, so you probably want to stick with stats.
If your stats are running, unarmed, chopping trees, and stabbing, those are all more skill themed, so maybe you name them skills.
If your stats are "strong, fast, smart, lucky" then you could probably get away with calling them attributes.

This is kind of what I suspected, but I didn't want to totally derail that other thread.

[Prak]

So, I'm working on a one shot inspired by Night in the Woods, and in particular the song Die Anywhere Else from it. The idea is that the PCs are all nascent adults stuck in a dying town, who haven't really gotten any experience to speak of yet, and even if one of them made it out, they got dragged back, whether because they couldn't handle it, or their parents needed them, or whatever.

I've been thinking about having the characters be "not even first level," ie, they have a hit die and proficiencies (using 5e), but no actual class features, to reflect that they're basically just kids who haven't done anything yet.

But as I've been thinking about it, I'm wondering if 1st level would work just as well to reflect that. Mostly I'm unsure about spellcasting classes, beefsteak is easy to say a first level Rogue is a kid who's just stolen a lot and a first level fighter is a kid who worked as part of the local watch/militia/whatever for a little bit. It feels harder to justify even a first level spellcaster in this sort of premise.

So I'm curious what other people think.

[angelfromanotherpin]

Shadow of the Demon Lord starts campaigns at effectively level 0 by default, and as long as the challenges are properly calibrated it's as functional as the rest of the system. I'd go that route – even low-level casting is hard to calibrate down to feeling not special.

[Prak]

What does that mean in a practical sense? How does it compare to 5e characters? I'm not... absolutely set on using 5e, but absent finding another game that is literally perfect for the game I have in mind, I'm planning on using 5e, because, if nothing else, I'm accustomed to it, so I can at least tinker things to where I want them.

Edit: As things stand now, I intend for any combat to be against NPCs built with the same rules as the PCs (ie, no full classes, or only level 1), and whatever I decide the ultimate antagonist is, I'm planning on them not overcoming it through a straight up fight, but rather guile, compromise, or simply taking advantage of the situation. I've gone through a few ideas, and examples of the last are "There is a vampire that a nascent cult is serving, in the hope that he will enrich the town, but the vampire is just barely not-dead, impaled by a celestial lance on a wall. He can be defeated by setting the building on fire, or letting the sun in" or "the nascent cult is serving a lone elder brain that survived the destruction of its colony. It is starved, and has no mind flayers to call on. It can be defeated by waiting for it to plane shift away to get a reward for its cultists, and then making its pool uninhabitable." and stuff like that.

[angelfromanotherpin]

Check the links here, there's a bunch of sample characters where you can see the difference between the level 0 and 1 versions.

[Prak]

Interesting. Looks pretty similar to what I was thinking of doing with "proficiencies only" vs 1st level characters. The other idea I have is basically "first level characters, but spellcasters only get their cantrips." But I don't know how that would affect character balance between spellcasters and non-spellcasters.

[deaddmwalking]

If commoners have no class features and less BAB/HD than every other class, you can start with a L1 Commoner and then change it to a L1 PC class.

[nockermensch]

But as I've been thinking about it, I'm wondering if 1st level would work just as well to reflect that. Mostly I'm unsure about spellcasting classes, beefsteak is easy to say a first level Rogue is a kid who's just stolen a lot and a first level fighter is a kid who worked as part of the local watch/militia/whatever for a little bit. It feels harder to justify even a first level spellcaster in this sort of premise.

So I'm curious what other people think.

It totally depends of how people learn to use magic in-universe: If magic is something requiring advanced and precise mental and/or manual manipulation, akin to advanced math or brain surgery, then nobody gets to become a caster without a background that includes "learned the craft for X years".

In this case, you should make a level 0 "acolyte" or "apprentice" template to simulate somebody studying to become a level 1 caster. Maybe they get to cast two cantrips once per day, and cast a level 1 spell with a chance of miscast? This level 0 caster may look noticeably stronger than a level 0 commoner that gains nothing of the sort, but I think it balances out for the PCs based on two factors:

1) The commoners that will become fighters or rogues will probably have better physical stats, and these are just more useful in a low level/no magic set-up.
2) How much time of this planned campaign will be spent on level 0 bs anyway?


If magic is something acquired in a flash of inspiration/dreams/awakening kind of experience, you can have about any commoner be the person who becomes a caster when the time is right.

Both options are probably right for different kinds of casters. Bards, some clerics, druids and wizards can spend their teens and early adulthood as apprentices, while other clerics, sorcerers and warlocks were just common people until the day they just awakened as complete level 1 characters.