1

(10 replies, posted in LotFP Gaming Forum)

DeathKnight4044 wrote:

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Also.. regarding removing attribute mods ill have to think about how I feel about that. My gut reaction is that its a bad idea, and that someone with 18 strength ought to hit harder than someone with 10. Then again, with all skills being a 6 sided and with saves no longer being d20 based (meaning you probably wouldnt be applying mods for future save systems) I could see attribute mods being stripped out. Then again my 18 strength character should probably get a bonus for attempting to grapple a guy with 8 strength, and my archer with 18 dex should probably shoot more accurately than someone with 9 dex. It also means everyone but a fighter will lack any combat modifiers and really just amount to a feeling of lack of distinction between non fighters. Every character will be just as unremarkable and vanilla as the other regardless of attributes.

Ill have to think about it a bit and post my thoughts later..

I believe they will still be provided in the rulebook and/or rules/suggestions for how to deal with them when they appear in modules. I still include them on my character sheet b/c they show up a lot in D&D modules, but I don't have their use built into my current rule set.

2

(10 replies, posted in LotFP Gaming Forum)

DeathKnight4044 wrote:

Quick thought:

What is saves just had a single task resolution number on a d20? Base 15. Lowers by 1 per level after first. Add your appropriate attribute modifier. Fighters get an extra +2 against strength and constitution based saves, specialists get +2 against dexterity and charisma based saves, and magicians get +2 against intelligence and wisdom based saves. You could also use this system for raw attribute checks and not just saving throws when its something more general and not in the realm of a specific skill, instead of the commonly used "roll under or equal to attribute" mechanic.

Thoughts?

To make sure I understand...so if poison gas is sprayed at a first level fighter, she will roll a d20 and has to get higher than 15. She will add +2 (I assume poison is a CON thing, although the spray could also be avoided with DEX). If she had a 14 STR, she would add another +1 to the roll. She would need to meet or beat 15 to save vs. the gas. If she was second level, she would need to meet or beat a 14.

I think this would work fine. There are some systems (Numenera, Pathfinder...Savage Worlds, I think?) that use this for skill checks but the Referee assigns a difficulty to the task.

If you want "all high rolls = good" in your game, the publisher was considering at one point changing skills to requiring a 7 to succeed. You would roll a d6 and add your skill points to the roll. This would maintain the exact same chance of success vs failure, but flips it so that high rolls are desired.

3

(10 replies, posted in LotFP Gaming Forum)

I use a pretty radically different system than traditional D&D. I liked the idea in the playtest document of having each stat do something unique, b/c I personally find the range of ability scores a bit boring and meaningless. I actually want a difference from 11 to 12 in a stat to mean something mechanically. I also like the use of the dice like those in DCC.

I already described what CHA and WIS are used for (roll under magic/non-magic saving throws).

STR and DEX determine your damage die for melee and ranged attacks respectively. Yes, if you have a 14 in STR, you roll a d14 for melee damage.

CON determines your hit die. If you have a 12, you roll a d12 for each level (so a 3rd level character will roll 3d12 for hit points).

INT = number of skill points. (Skills range from 0-6 points, you roll 2d6 and add your skill points, you need to get into double digits to succeed. Classes are limited by how many skill points they can put into certain skills, Combat, Arcana, and Religion are skills that require skill points.)

Averages of certain stat combinations provide: Base AC, Movement rate, Encumbrance, and Perception.

While it does add a bit of math when creating a 1st level character, I mitigate this by having players start out with four 0-level characters that have simplified rules. These four characters can be done in about 10 mins or less.

I have been tinkering with LotFP for years now, and I'm pretty happy with my current rules iteration!

(NOTE: I do have more rules than described above that are in place to make this rule set compatible with LotFP, and published modules, like how to handle low vs. high weapon dmg, ability score modifiers, healing, etc.)

4

(10 replies, posted in LotFP Gaming Forum)

AnonymousWizard wrote:

To keep with the 'saves as skills' idea, how about the following:

There are six saves, each tied to an Ability. Might (Strength), Agility (Dexterity), Endurance (Constitution), Deduction (Intelligence), Perception (Wisdom), and Willpower (Charisma). Each begins at two in six, a positive modifier in the linked Ability makes it a three in six, a negative modifier makes it a one in six.

There are thirty six possible points in this system, and your average PC will begin with twelve. If we assume we want PCs to have a maximum in all saves by level twenty one there's still more than twenty points to hand out, so increasing a single save by one point per level should be fine, or one skill point every other level if you want something closer or 'classic' LotFP scaling.

Oh, we should also decide important things that the six saves defend against. Might is our basic save versus restrained, so it's what you roll to break out of ropes or paralysis. Agility is essentially reflex from D&D3.5, so is our anti-area affect save (less useful given the lack of AoE spells in LotFP, but it's already important due to AC). Endurance is save versus poisions. Deduction is our save versus illusions. Perception is a catch-all save versus traps. Willpower is a catch-all save versus magic. Not perfect, but each one has their uses.

For the record I'm less important about the Intelligence save being important because I give everybody bonus skill points equal to 2+int modifier(+the number of additional skills I add).

Here starting save values begin at roughly the same ranges as in the original rules, and advance slightly faster (which makes a big difference by the teens).

The problem is that the Dwarf and Halfling begin needing extra bonuses if you're running with demihumans, elves actually get enough advantages already to stay at their current XP track (being MUs with combat options, less restrictive casting, and better skills). Okay, maybe we can give the elf spells as a MU (read magic+three at first level, one that costs no money each level), but otherwise there's no problem. I'd be tempted to just give halflings a skill point per level and then give dwarves a Fighter's to hit bonus and maybe raise their XP table to be identical to an elf's, but then I like the idea of there being a second 'complete warrior' option in the demihumans.

Hmm, I kinda like this idea. I wouldn't rename the saves and would just apply whatever ability score made sense for the save. I like the idea of starting at 2 in 6, and only getting a single modifier of +1 or -1 based on ability score. I'd probably do +1 every other level.

5

(10 replies, posted in LotFP Gaming Forum)

1) True, and this is an understandable characteristic that many would agree with.

2) I also experimented with a system that utilized the ability scores for saves because I generally agree with the idea that the ability scores and saves can have some correlation, but it required more character sheet checking, first to find the save, then to find the modifier. With my current system, nobody misses the correlation they used to have, and it's easier.

I'm okay with varying task resolution mechanics, as long as they're fairly streamlined, get the job done, and are enjoyable to resolve.

---
The playtest rules actually had pretty different things tied to each stat, so there were more task resolution mechanics than just the saves. James wanted to amp up the importance of each stat in order to avoid dump stats.

Here is the full spread for the saves in the playtest document:

3-4: 2d6
5-8: 3d6
9-12: 4d6
13-16: 5d6
17-18: 6d6

Con determined the die for hit points.
Dex determined the die for initiative.
Int modified number of skill points.
Str determined # of items that make up an encumbrance point.

There were NO ability score modifiers tied to any stat!

6

(10 replies, posted in LotFP Gaming Forum)

The mechanic overall seems fine, but 1 in 6 for all saves at first level seems very low. In the rulebook, the best starting save is 10, and the worst is 18, which means first level characters have between a 15% and 50% chance, whereas with a 1 in 6, it's about 17% across the board.

Of course, as you say, ability scores can modify this, but that means you can end up with negative saves...does that mean that some characters will basically start with an auto fail vs death save?

Like I said, I think the mechanic itself can work, you may just want to think about how negative modifiers affect things, and what happens if a character with weak ability scores is affected by having a 17% save vs almost everything (which can be pretty much instant death in LotFP).

---

Have you seen the system introduced in the LotFP Playtest document? PCs roll a number of D6s based on their ability score in Charisma (vs. magic threats) and Wisdom (vs non-magic threats).  Two sixes is a full save, one six is a half save, zero sixes means they failed.

If you're interested in this, I can post more later, but I don't have it in front of me right now.

---

I'll also share what I'm currently doing, it takes one part of what was used in the playtest document and changes it up:

Charisma is used to save vs. magic threats.
Wisdom is used to save vs. all non-magic threats.

When saving, a PC rolls equal to or less than their score in that stat. If they roll an even number, it's a half save, if they roll an odd number, it's a full save.

One side effect of this is that saves will not normally increase when leveling up. So, every other level, PCs can bump one ability score so they have an option of increasing their save if they would like.

7

(2 replies, posted in LotFP Webstore Forum)

Currently, there is no option for a print version of the no-art nook. And, I think, all previous print versions have some sort of sexual imagery.

You could e-mail the publisher directly and make a request for this. Perhaps if there’s enough interest he could make it print-on-demand at RPGNOW or something.

8

(5 replies, posted in LotFP Gaming Forum)

AnonymousWizard wrote:

I'm interested to know if the VaM spellcasting system is the one being used in the new edition. I'd honestly pick it up and just port it's magic system into the current version just for that.

The magic system was introduced in the play test document, more fully formed in VAM, and is being used again for this year’s free rpg offering: Eldritch Cock. I’m confident the publisher is all-in on this new system and it will be used in the new rule book.

Also, I believe firearms will be integrated fully into the rules instead of being in the appendix.

I agree with Andomedanaea. If all PCs start with a "1" in each skill, then you can think of Sneak Attack as always being the modifier anybody multiplies times damage when attacking with surprise. For most PCs, it will be: 1 X damage roll. For Specialists, if they decide to put points into it, then they can increase this multiplier.

The trick here is that Sneak Attack works differently than all other skills.

10

(5 replies, posted in LotFP Gaming Forum)

The author/publisher is on this site, but he isn't always able to respond quickly (he's busy authoring/publishing/conventioning). I follow updates pretty closely and am a moderator, so feel equipped to respond to your questions as far as what's been officially/publicly stated:

1) There is a new edition coming out eventually. He released a playtest document in 2/2016, only available to those who ordered from the webstore at a certain time. There is no official date, but I would wager it's going to be a few years. The Referee book will come out first, and then work in earnest on the new rulebook will likely begin sometime after that.

2) Clerics will be removed/appendicized. There will be rules for how to handle them when using non-LotFP modules and adventures that do refer to Clerics. Yes, there will only be one spell list, and I believe the idea is to focus on interesting "utility" sort of spells and not just blunt damage or healing spells.

3) I would say keeping the skill system is likely but there's always a chance for a change. It was kept the same in the playtest document (although some skills were added and some removed). I think most people like it, so it will probably be the same.

4) The playtest document features a new save system. Basically you have "magic" and "non-magic" saves. To save vs magic, you roll a number of d6s as determined by your Charisma score (so if that score is in the 9-12 range, you roll 4d6). If you roll two 6s, you fully save, if you roll one 6, you half save, and if you roll no 6s, you fail the save. Wisdom is used exactly the same way for non-magical saves. I have no idea if he is going to keep this system or change it again.

5) For sure the demi-humans are being put in the appendices. There was talk about adding a new class or two, but not sure if it will happen or not. I would say you can count on Fighter, Magic-User, and Specialist. The rest is up in the air.

Hopefully that helps!

mgalosi wrote:
Crunk Posby wrote:

Looks thematically appropriate.

I'm curious if the Witchhunter uses the same chaotic magic that the magic-users they're hunting use, or are they using "holy" magic like a Cleric would? Are you going to have a special spell list for them? I like the tracking M-U/magical creature ability.

The Colonial Gothic RPG might be a good resource for you to get additional ideas for your setting.

They are chaotic, fighting fire with fire, using the magic-users spells against them. But the idea of having their own spell list appeals to me, maybe swapping in some Cleric spells would be apt.

I recommend checking out Wonder and Wickedness. It's compatible with LotFP, and has it's own magic system. Might be a fun way to make M-U, Cleric, and Witchhunter each unique in your setting.

Looks thematically appropriate.

I'm curious if the Witchhunter uses the same chaotic magic that the magic-users they're hunting use, or are they using "holy" magic like a Cleric would? Are you going to have a special spell list for them? I like the tracking M-U/magical creature ability.

The Colonial Gothic RPG might be a good resource for you to get additional ideas for your setting.

13

(4 replies, posted in LotFP Gaming Forum)

Much of this I made up on the fly, or as the adventure progressed and I started to see what the players might do, I thought up ideas between sessions. Go with what seems fun at the moment and "reward" players for risky or bold choices and ideas.

It's more fun to play in a fucked up world than it is to end the world and start over again! wink

14

(4 replies, posted in LotFP Gaming Forum)

My players went in to kill the witches, then discovered everyone else trying to kill the witches were total dicks, so they decided to help instead. The ritual succeeded, and the players were all made "ambassadors" to the witches. They each got a random (beneficial) mutant power from The Metamorphica and a symbol magically carved into their foreheads (it can't be covered - it burns through any hat or helmet placed over it).

The witches now help provide the players with quests ("to explore the dark parts of the earth and make them safe for humanity") and to spread their message of equality to all.

So far, the players have enlisted Joop van Ooms to the cause. However, King James has allied himself with a certain wizard from a certain tower that the players mercilessly mocked as they stole his shit (they actually don't know this guy is involved yet, just that London Tower was somehow magically protected as the Witches invaded it to free the political prisoners).

As the players go on other adventures and return to England, they see events that have transpired and interact with the Witches as needed, otherwise they're generally in the background. My plan is to mix it up with England Upturn'd - there will be a civil war between the Witches and King James, but the common person is going to have to decide if their religion is more important or their belief in equality.

Top of page 140: https://www.dropbox.com/s/zif86cjn9pyg5 … e.JPG?dl=0

I believe the last line, "and this is consumed with every casting" implies that the circle does not remain intact. My interpretation is that perhaps the markings of the circle are there, but the materials and components that were used to create it are used and therefore requires a new circle to be made in order to be effective.

You could say it disappears completely, leaves a scorched mark in the shape of the circle, or fades or whatever you decide.

17

(4 replies, posted in LotFP Gaming Forum)

I do it differently too. All PCs start with skill points equal to INT score. Fighters can put up to 6 into attack, but only only 1 in anything else. M-U/Clerics can put up to 6 in Arcana/Religion but only 1 in anything else. Specialists can put 1 in Arcana/Religion and Fighting, but as much as they want elsewhere.

18

(5 replies, posted in LotFP Gaming Forum)

tbastos wrote:
Crunk Posby wrote:
tbastos wrote:

Every magic there has its own miscast table, and if the result is a 7 or plus, we go to the fist table of miscast results. What are you doing there? Allowing the players to re-roll the 1d12 or just looking the 7 or plus result? Because what happens when using the first logic is very simple: you give the player the hope that maybe nothing happens with a new 1-6 result, but if you use the latter logic, something terrible will always happens.

So you're basically asking whether we follow the rules in the book or house rule it to encourage better results from dice rolls?

I play the rules as-is, because:

1) The player is choosing to cast the spell and understands the risks.
2) They can cast the spell without making a roll as long as they memorized it in the morning and are not casting more spells than allowed.
3) If they DO decide to risk it and cast an un-memorized spell or spells beyond their daily allotment, then per "1" above they know the risks, and are pushing their luck to cast an extra spell or one they really need right now.
4) Even in the case of "3" above, they get a saving throw to see if they even need to roll on the miscast table.
5) They now get a 50% chance of the "not so bad" results on 1-6, or the "worse" results on 7+
6) Going through all of the above, and getting some crazy miscast result is actually pretty fun (even for the players).

Just to be clear, you are NOT rolling on the miscast table after every single casting of every spell, right?

Actually no. I am in doubt of what Raggi wanted here. It tends more, reading carefully, to the catastrophic end, which, of course, is better and it is what I will follow.

I guess I'm confused about why you ask about a reroll? I would say there is a 50/50 chance to either get a 1-6 or a 7-12, so to me it doesn't "tend toward the catastrophic end."

(But in most cases, you should assume Raggi always tends toward catastrophic results! wink

19

(5 replies, posted in LotFP Gaming Forum)

tbastos wrote:

Every magic there has its own miscast table, and if the result is a 7 or plus, we go to the fist table of miscast results. What are you doing there? Allowing the players to re-roll the 1d12 or just looking the 7 or plus result? Because what happens when using the first logic is very simple: you give the player the hope that maybe nothing happens with a new 1-6 result, but if you use the latter logic, something terrible will always happens.

So you're basically asking whether we follow the rules in the book or house rule it to encourage better results from dice rolls?

I play the rules as-is, because:

1) The player is choosing to cast the spell and understands the risks.
2) They can cast the spell without making a roll as long as they memorized it in the morning and are not casting more spells than allowed.
3) If they DO decide to risk it and cast an un-memorized spell or spells beyond their daily allotment, then per "1" above they know the risks, and are pushing their luck to cast an extra spell or one they really need right now.
4) Even in the case of "3" above, they get a saving throw to see if they even need to roll on the miscast table.
5) They now get a 50% chance of the "not so bad" results on 1-6, or the "worse" results on 7+
6) Going through all of the above, and getting some crazy miscast result is actually pretty fun (even for the players).

Just to be clear, you are NOT rolling on the miscast table after every single casting of every spell, right?

20

(4 replies, posted in LotFP Gaming Forum)

Yes!

21

(5 replies, posted in LotFP Gaming Forum)

Ulukai wrote:

Thank you very much! That helped me quite a bit.

Crunk Posby wrote:

2. M-U declares spell, fighter makes attack roll. If fighter misses, then the spell succeeds at the end of the round. If the M-U takes damage from the attack, the spell is interrupted (and lost).

So, when I have, for example, 3 level-1 characters that gang up on a powerful wizard, they have a good chance to down him, without him getting off a spell?

Check out the rules on bottom of page 57 and top of 58: it's done a bit differently than I've described. Instantaneous or permanent spells take effect right away, so depending on the spell, you may have them declare it first, but then cast it either during the melee or ranged portion of the turn if they haven't been hit yet.

This allows M-U to get a spell off if they win initiative and cast something like, say, Death Spell on a character during the ranged attack phase.

So, to revise my earlier response:

M-U declare spells.

Instantaneous and permanent spells with range occur in initiative order during the ranged portion of combat.

Instantaneous and permanent spells with a touch requirement occur in initiative order during the melee portion of combat.

Then all other spells take effect.

22

(5 replies, posted in LotFP Gaming Forum)

1. I think you are correct, I can't find anything that says differently. However, you can decide to give a rear attack a bonus if you think it's fitting for the situation.

2. M-U declares spell, fighter makes attack roll. If fighter misses, then the spell succeeds at the end of the round. If the M-U takes damage from the attack, the spell is interrupted (and lost).

3. People handle this in different ways. Here's what I do:

M-U declares which spell they are casting.
Bandits "declare" spells if one or both happen to be M-U.

Missile fighter makes attack.
Bandits who are using missile weapons (and did not declare a spell) make attacks.

Melee fighter makes attack.
Bandits (who have not done anything yet) now make melee attacks.

M-U spell goes off, assuming they took no damage.
Bandit spell goes off, assuming they took no damage.

I'm pretty loose if players want to move in or out of melee, for example, someone can run up and engage in melee, while another stays put and shoots with a gun, staying at ranged distance. Of course, the one who ran up will most likely be attacked by the enemy.

23

(9 replies, posted in LotFP Gaming Forum)

5 is all items, 6 is a mix of items and creatures, 7 is all creatures.

(You should just buy all of The Undercroft, though...)

24

(4 replies, posted in LotFP Gaming Forum)

Referee book is being worked on right now, but that is not a replacement of the current Rules edition (it's in addition to).

The new rules iteration is many years out, so you should just get the current Rules & Magic now. You'll probably be able to run a campaign or two before the next edition comes out!

25

(3 replies, posted in LotFP Webstore Forum)

E-mail James at: lotfp@lotfp.com

Prove which books you have...a pic of them on your table, or you holding them, or the receipt, or whatever way works for you and him.