Forums of the Megaverse®

Okay so I have been reading a lot of rpg books of late, and was thinking about the system etc.

Stats
Strength: PS
Constitution / Endurance: PE
Dexterity /Agility: PP
Intelligence: IQ. Not even sure this is even necessary to be honest.
Willpower: ME

The rest of the other stats are not really required. So anyone that is highly intimidating may have a Talent (partial power see below) such as Aura (Affliction-Intimidating).

Derived
Hit Points: Str + Con
Speed: Str + Dex = Miles per hour.

Edges
Now i know you are all moaning and saying that this belongs in Savage Worlds. I did contemplate calling them Feats, or even Talents (Omni system). Now before you all say they do not exist in PB Fantasy, they do, albeit disguised as class abilities.

Now in Omni we have the following talent-

Way of the Arrow: Archery Training, Advanced Archery Training, Disabling Shot, Improved Range, Point Blank Shot, Quick Reload, Trick Shot, Weapon Focus (bow or crossbow).

This seems awfully similar to the Archer class. Now this is covertly hidden as-
Rate of Fire, Superior Range, Aimed Shot, Dodge / Parry Arrows

I mean the Wizard, Witch, and other magical classes have a formidable array of abilities, but most other classes are missing out, elevating them, and making the others seem trivial. A problem DnD has had for years, and something that has been addressed in 5e. At this point I was convinced that I was on to something, and as I was going to use Talents as something else later, I decided that these were the best thing to call this section.

So Edges would cover-
Traits: These are simple things like Fast Reflexes, Acute Senses (but not Heightened Senses as this is a superpower), Fleet Footed (Add 5 mph each time taken).

Combat: This covers various Weapon Proficiencies *
HTH: Martial Arts, Assassin, Boxing, Pankration, Expert, Basic **
Magic: Cantrips, Innate, Pact, Arcane etc***

* These are all weapons, Weapon & Shield, Armour, and any ranged weapons too.

** On both these counts, I would suggest that the bonuses be easily altered, such that if someone was trained in a defensive sword art, the attack bonuses would be switched for defence, and vice versa. I would assign points here as HTH Martial Arts would be more expensive than say HTH Basic.

This would allow other classes to have cantrips, or even to have a magical monk.

Talents
These are partial powers, kind of like those possessed by a Ley-Line Shifter, or various monsters.

Levels-
1: The ability is minor and usually doesn’t affect another (sonar, infrared vision, etc.)
2: The ability is significant and has a minor effect on someone else (paralyzing venom, water breathing, etc.). This would cover the Aura effect above.
3: The ability is major and can have significant effects (intangible, invisible, etc.)

Skills
For these you need simplicity, not huge numbers of skills, so best to just use programs, e.g. Athletics, Domestic, Espionage, Horsemanship, Military, Rogue, Scholar, Wilderness.

Then add on Specialisation or Expertise. These are individual skills from a particular program they are skilled in. I would make these half the cost of a normal program.

Magic
Again, these need to be changed.

Each level has an Essence or Magic Points. And then each level costs a certain number of points, not per spell.

Chargen
Stats: Everyone starts at the average 10. And gets ten points to spend, more at higher level games.
Edges: Depends on the level of game. A basic level game would maybe start with five points to get a few here. Whereas a more advanced game may have as many as thirty. So someone picking Cantrips would get five, and four spells each time it is picked.
Talents: This depends on the game, most will get zero, unless you are gearing for a low level supers game.

This would allow a Monk to advance, and then either pick Ancient Master or Weapon Master as an advancement; or a Soldier to likely go Weapon Master. It would also allow say a Physical Training in a Fantasy game.

Looks good.
The only issue I have is for deriving HPs. Strong doesn't necessarily mean resiliant. (How many "glass cannons" have you seen in literature, or met IRL? Think about a fighter with a "glass jaw" - one hit in the right spot, and they collapse like wet paper.) If you want to include strength in the calculation, maybe use half the person's PS score? I'd also suggest giving everyone a base number of hit points, modified by the formula of your choice. That being said, I'd suggest also considering the character's mass. Someone with average stats, and slim build, should have fewer HPs than a physically larger / heavier person with identical stats.

Heck, in Metamorphosis Alpha from TSR back in the stone age, your HPs was directly dictated by your constitution. (Con+1D6 per point of Con.) Going from that to regularily playing D&D and AD&D was occasionally confusing!

Well, there are plenty of things I would remove from the game. MA is one. It's the antithesis of role-playing. The player should make a convincing plea or make a scary threat on his or her own. I don't like rolling for role-playing. IQ is another tough one. If your PC has a high IQ, you recieve the skill bonuses, which is nice, but it's often a small bonus. It also requires the GM to help the character with the high IQ with knowing/remembering/deducing things. It's easy to play stupid, but difficult to be smarter. A stat I'd like to see included is Aim. Some people are just better at this than others and it doesn't seem to correlate to any other ability.

Now, I like the skills selections in Palladium. I do not like every iteration of a class having such similar skills. I would not want to see them dumbed down.

For ability scores, I detest the "put points where you want" option. Roll those dice and see what your parents give you.

I also think that Palladium's magic system is the best I've seen. You have energy and certain spells take certain amounts of energy.

For H2H, I think the game should revert to the 1st edition in which each OCC had their own table of progression.

-Vek
"Oh, and no more SDC please."

Nah disliked most those ideas.

Palladium isn't complete and could use a tweak here or there for what Id like but I prefer it still to what youve suggested.

I knew this would be a mixed bag when I posed it.

My other thing are classes to be honest.

Do we need a Class triad, Warrior, Magic-User, and Rogue for example? Then add class specialisations in? So a Warrior specialisation could be Monk or a Martial / Fighter; while a Rogue could refer to a Ranger, Thief, or an Assassin.

Or have a more Modern Age approach, each class is a specialisation in itself?

Borast wrote:Looks good.

It just needs some tweaks and play testing I guess.

Borast wrote:The only issue I have is for deriving HPs. Strong doesn't necessarily mean resiliant. (How many "glass cannons" have you seen in literature, or met IRL? Think about a fighter with a "glass jaw" - one hit in the right spot, and they collapse like wet paper.) If you want to include strength in the calculation, maybe use half the person's PS score?

This is a fair point I had not actually considered.

Borast wrote:I'd also suggest giving everyone a base number of hit points, modified by the formula of your choice. That being said, I'd suggest also considering the character's mass. Someone with average stats, and slim build, should have fewer HPs than a physically larger / heavier person with identical stats.

Would you give base HP by species, or by class?

Borast wrote:Heck, in Metamorphosis Alpha from TSR back in the stone age, your HPs was directly dictated by your constitution. (Con+1D6 per point of Con.) Going from that to regularily playing D&D and AD&D was occasionally confusing!

I have never heard of that, and love hearing about different rpgs, even if they are from a long time ago.

Veknironth wrote:Well, there are plenty of things I would remove from the game. MA is one. It's the antithesis of role-playing. The player should make a convincing plea or make a scary threat on his or her own. I don't like rolling for role-playing.

Couldn't agree more, and it is one of the reasons I removed it.

Veknironth wrote:IQ is another tough one. If your PC has a high IQ, you recieve the skill bonuses, which is nice, but it's often a small bonus. It also requires the GM to help the character with the high IQ with knowing/remembering/deducing things. It's easy to play stupid, but difficult to be smarter.

My reason for removing it, was essentially I could never, and I am sure most others would struggle to, is if someone actually played Sherlock Holmes from the UK tv series Sherlock. It would be a nightmare! But someone being highly knowledgeable in a lot of fields, and having Specialisations would work.

Veknironth wrote:A stat I'd like to see included is Aim. Some people are just better at this than others and it doesn't seem to correlate to any other ability.

Are you talking with regarding aiming and shooting? Or more long term goals which is how I understood your statement. Can you clarify?

Veknironth wrote:Now, I like the skills selections in Palladium. I do not like every iteration of a class having such similar skills. I would not want to see them dumbed down.

My thoughts are that you could a monk trained in Espionage, and Intelligence; and the same for an assassin, but the latter is more likely to have specialisations or areas of expertise in both whereas the former may not. Plus in PB Fantasy 1e & 2e, each of the classes had specialisations, and a bonus towards certain skills. This would be an easy thing to include here if needed, such that they get the basic skill program - plus areas they want to be better in.

Veknironth wrote:For ability scores, I detest the "put points where you want" option. Roll those dice and see what your parents give you.

You can easily remove points buy for stats etc, and just roll. Whichever works really.

Veknironth wrote:I also think that Palladium's magic system is the best I've seen. You have energy and certain spells take certain amounts of energy.

To be honest, there are others that are far better, Aetaltis for DnD 5e, each level of spell has a cost across the board. It also has rules for casting when you run out of juice, so you take HP damage.

Veknironth wrote:For H2H, I think the game should revert to the 1st edition in which each OCC had their own table of progression.

You could easily have this, although

Veknironth wrote:-Vek
"Oh, and no more SDC please."

I was undecided about this, but in the end decided to remove SDC as not really necessary.

Veknironth wrote:Well, there are plenty of things I would remove from the game. MA is one. It's the antithesis of role-playing. The player should make a convincing plea or make a scary threat on his or her own. I don't like rolling for role-playing. IQ is another tough one. If your PC has a high IQ, you recieve the skill bonuses, which is nice, but it's often a small bonus. It also requires the GM to help the character with the high IQ with knowing/remembering/deducing things. It's easy to play stupid, but difficult to be smarter. A stat I'd like to see included is Aim. Some people are just better at this than others and it doesn't seem to correlate to any other ability.

We should also remove PP. You should either be able to throw a punch or not, none of this rolling garbage.

My main issue with MA and PB is that they've got these things applied to them that make no gorram sense. What does Trust/Intimidate MEAN in the game?

On some other points...

Personally, I have no issues with MA - after all, we've all met people that were ugly as you know what on a stick, but simply drew the eye and eased the mind.
The same is true with PB...I can remember one lady I met that was...wow... But talk to her, and when she was trying to be pleasant, it was like she had no clue how to be nice. (Yes, the sterotypical self-absorbed "Mean Girl" trope.)
Robert Heinlin had a character of this type in "Number of the Beast"... she was short, dumpy, and plain looking; but every time she walked into a room, she could draw *every* eye, Male and Female.

As for intimidation...there are many ways you can do that. Extreme beauty, extreme ugliness, physical presence, presence of weapons, psycological skill, etc. Personally, I'd detatch intimidation from stats, and add it as a skill, with bonuses from appropriate stats and skills.

Aside: for playing a character with higher IQ than the player has, here's a tip... take notes! (Player, not GM.) Talk to the other players about the session to see if there was anything they think may come in at a later date. Vek stated that playing a stupid character is easy...not so much. After all, YOU remember / know things that the character won't/doesn't. I had a character with a below average INT in AD&D. Things were constantly coming up in the game that I reacted to, but I had to check to see if the character could figure it out/remember/know. I typically would make regular rolls against his intelligence to see if the zombie hampster managed to stumble into the exercise wheel.

Vek also brought-in "Aim" for a stat. I would suggest a derived stat. Like HPs, a base figure modified by one's agility/prowess, and learned skills. Please keep in mind that aim and shooting / throwing are not interchangeable. Aim helps, but is not 100% required. Aim adds to the effectiveness of shooting / throwing. Someone with a high inate Aim can be considered a "natural" in certain skills, where others would have to train extensively. Similar to an idiot savant. Able to do things that you had no clue about prior!

I use IQ as learning capacity. Hi IQ means extra skills and more spells, low the opposite
MA alters the encounter mood, with having a low MA make them tend to dislike you from the start so buying stuff costs more for example.
PB can help with too though, but if you have a low MA and PB be prepared to pay a lot more for everything and vice versa.
I already have a perception stat and that is used for bonuses and negatives to ranged weapons.
I also thought having bonuses against magic PE based odd, so i have willpower for saves vs magic, but that is also what helps with innate spell strength too.
and Humans special ability is adaptability. They don't get a lot of the racial bonuses that the others do, but when they roll up their character they can put their stats where they like.

Mark Hall wrote:We should also remove PP. You should either be able to throw a punch or not, none of this rolling garbage.

My main issue with MA and PB is that they've got these things applied to them that make no gorram sense. What does Trust/Intimidate MEAN in the game?

Neither PB nor MA are really useful.
Appearance is best simulated by using a Trait, such as Attractive, Attractive (Very), and Attractive (Model), being possible examples.

Now PP, that is essentially Dexterity, or better yet Agility. Now while we don't expect a mage to be a master martial artist, all the players are supposed to be above average - and as such should have some capacity to beat a bunch local farmers up without too much hassle.

Borast wrote:Vek also brought-in "Aim" for a stat. I would suggest a derived stat. Like HPs, a base figure modified by one's agility/prowess, and learned skills. Please keep in mind that aim and shooting / throwing are not interchangeable. Aim helps, but is not 100% required. Aim adds to the effectiveness of shooting / throwing. Someone with a high inate Aim can be considered a "natural" in certain skills, where others would have to train extensively. Similar to an idiot savant. Able to do things that you had no clue about prior!

On the subject of Aim, would that not be covered by say a Weapon Proficiency? Kind of like say Pathfinder does with Weapon Groups?
So you could have Weapon Group (Bows), Weapon Group (Thrown) that kind of thing?

Borast wrote:Personally, I have no issues with MA - after all, we've all met people that were ugly as you know what on a stick, but simply drew the eye and eased the mind.
The same is true with PB...I can remember one lady I met that was...wow... But talk to her, and when she was trying to be pleasant, it was like she had no clue how to be nice. (Yes, the sterotypical self-absorbed "Mean Girl" trope.)
Robert Heinlin had a character of this type in "Number of the Beast"... she was short, dumpy, and plain looking; but every time she walked into a room, she could draw *every* eye, Male and Female.

Could this not be done with a Trait? Call it Presence, and have it graded at Basic, Intermediate, and High. So someone with Presence High would give everyone a -5 to resist their charms? Now an alternative to this would be to make it a minor power I guess.

Rogerd wrote:

Mark Hall wrote:We should also remove PP. You should either be able to throw a punch or not, none of this rolling garbage.

My main issue with MA and PB is that they've got these things applied to them that make no gorram sense. What does Trust/Intimidate MEAN in the game?

Neither PB nor MA are really useful.
Appearance is best simulated by using a Trait, such as Attractive, Attractive (Very), and Attractive (Model), being possible examples.

Not something Palladium Books deals with; the closest I can think of were TtGD's sorcerous proficiencies.

But it doesn't change the point: Saying that someone should be able to roleplay everything without referencing their stats is like saying someone should have to be able to fight, without referencing their stats for fighting. If my character is good at social interactions, and I've invested in being good at social interactions, I should be good at social interactions, even if I hate talking to people, just as a paraplegic gamer should be able to have a character who knows Tae Kwon Do.

Furthermore, if I have invested in being good at social situations, I should be good at social situations, because my character has invested in it. If Sara has chosen to take Increased MA as a superpower, for example, her character should be good at social situations. Bob's character, who has an MA of 2 and a PB of -16, should not be better in social situations just because Bob is better at social situations; Sara has invested, mechanically, in being good at this. Bob has not. Similarly, if Sara's character has a huge ME, she should be better at resisting torture than Bob, because "My character isn't going to give up anything." Bob, your character has an 8 ME. It doesn't how stubborn you are, your character will fold like a paper flower.

Now PP, that is essentially Dexterity, or better yet Agility. Now while we don't expect a mage to be a master martial artist, all the players are supposed to be above average - and as such should have some capacity to beat a bunch local farmers up without too much hassle.

Local Farmer is literally a valid character concept. In Palladium Fantasy, it is actually a character class. This is a game which has "useless drunkard" as a character class.

Well, regarding Aim, I don't think that the WP's cover it. Some people are just better at throwing things accurately, firing a bow accurately, or firing a gun/rifle accurately. If it's just WP, then there is no taking into account natural gifts.

-Vek
"Of course, taking away the randomness of a natural gift can streamline the process.

Mark Hall wrote:Not something Palladium Books deals with; the closest I can think of were TtGD's sorcerous proficiencies.

But it doesn't change the point: Saying that someone should be able to roleplay everything without referencing their stats is like saying someone should have to be able to fight, without referencing their stats for fighting. If my character is good at social interactions, and I've invested in being good at social interactions, I should be good at social interactions, even if I hate talking to people, just as a paraplegic gamer should be able to have a character who knows Tae Kwon Do.

Furthermore, if I have invested in being good at social situations, I should be good at social situations, because my character has invested in it. If Sara has chosen to take Increased MA as a superpower, for example, her character should be good at social situations. Bob's character, who has an MA of 2 and a PB of -16, should not be better in social situations just because Bob is better at social situations; Sara has invested, mechanically, in being good at this. Bob has not. Similarly, if Sara's character has a huge ME, she should be better at resisting torture than Bob, because "My character isn't going to give up anything." Bob, your character has an 8 ME. It doesn't how stubborn you are, your character will fold like a paper flower.

You still do not need MA or PB, and both can be represented with Edges, or Traits. Both of which would which would give a bonus in various situations, e.g. Attractive I might be give a +2 to reactions for example.

Now if it is taken as a superpower, then it is a power.

Mark Hall wrote:Local Farmer is literally a valid character concept. In Palladium Fantasy, it is actually a character class. This is a game which has "useless drunkard" as a character class.

Doesn't change my statement in any way, nor the blurb in the Palladium Fantasy where it states players are above average.
And just because the game has it has a OOC, I do not believe they are really for players, and are more NPC type OOC. In truth, Palladium Fantasy would be better following DnD 5e, Or Modern Age - and things like that would be a background, not class.

Veknironth wrote:Well, regarding Aim, I don't think that the WP's cover it. Some people are just better at throwing things accurately, firing a bow accurately, or firing a gun/rifle accurately. If it's just WP, then there is no taking into account natural gifts.

-Vek
"Of course, taking away the randomness of a natural gift can streamline the process.

So would that not be akin to being dextrous, or represented by say a Trait or Edge, with something like Sharpshooter?

The alternative would be add in a Fighting and a Shooting stat like in Savage Worlds. Nothing wrong with that, and it is a perfectly valid way to go, but that would mean that WP, and HTH Martial Arts and stuff would need massive redesign due to the dice mechanics I guess. In the same way that 5e, and Modern Age do.

Well, I don't know about edges or traits, but I don't like everything being dependent on the choices a player makes. I like the randomness of ability scores. Some people are just naturally better at things and no amount of training or effort can overcome that. You can maximize your talent, but that talent has a limit.

As for aim, I've just seem too many people who would be considered dexterous/agile be terrible shots. Conversely, ive seen a lot of people who would not be considered dexterous/agile be dead eye shooters. So it seems some other stat is needed to account for this.

-Vek
"Admittedly, there are differences in how much these disparate shooters practice."

I have perception as a stat that give bonuses (or negatives) to ranged combat. The number of dice is different amongst races, like PP.
Minimum to hit numbers based on weapon range
Modifiers for cover, movement, and environmental effects.

I have perks for enhancing shooting.
Dwarves make devices that don't give bonuses to strike per se, but alter the modifiers to reduce the negatives.