Schweet.

Yeah. I also had to tweak the Learning Spells section. Do you like what I did to it?

In reply to steelsmiter (msg # 11):

Looks good. Just a few typos to fix up and you're godlen. :P

Added a few Runes. Can't think of any more at the moment. Also restructured the first and second posts, and added several edits, including Height. Because Fable was amusing when you could be 7 feet tall.
This message was last edited by the player at 19:53, Wed 15 Oct 2014.

Any thought on how you will handle flourishes, and charging up spell?

Missed that one. It's something to think about. Do you have any ideas?


Yep. Already had that one.
This message was last edited by the player at 22:29, Thu 16 Oct 2014.

Do you have a round-by-round turn-based combat system?

If normally an attack costs [action] then make flourish cost [action * 2] and deal x3 damage but make only one attack at a small penalty. Riskier but if you hit its a great payoff and it blasts right through someone who's blocking.

IDEA:

Attack = 1 action
Block = 1 action (vs. 1 enemy/direction take 1/3 damage and get +3 defense, double these bonuses if using shield)
Charge Flourish = 1 action (flourish attack deals x3 damage and breaks block causing target to be stunned for 1 round)
Charge Spell = 1 action (charge up time reduced based on one of the Will stats)
Move = 1 action
Reload weapon = free action 1/round or 1 action every use thereafter in the same round
Switch weapon = free action 1/round or 1 action every use thereafter in the same round
This message was last edited by the GM at 03:52, Fri 17 Oct 2014.

Yeah, I'm not of any other way to do combat.


Well, in Fable 3, I know they could charge for around the same length of time as a spell (which I'm calling 5 rounds max). If I allow regular combat to scale like spells currently do, that gives them an edge because current damage codes are

[Melee/Ranged] Damage=Tier (max 10) x Attribute (max 5) x Skill (max 5).
Backstabbing foes deals Double Damage if you also beat their Guile

[Spell] Damage= Magic Rank (Max 5) x (Charge Turns up to 5) x Rune Level (for +Damage)

I suppose I could up the maximum Rune Level.
This message was last edited by the player at 03:52, Fri 17 Oct 2014.

In reply to steelsmiter (msg # 17):

Sounds good to me. Although I would make charge ups exponential.

Maybe...

1 action = 1 x normal bonus
1 charge up = 3 x normal bonuses
2 charge ups = 6 x normal bonuses
3 charge ups = 10 x normal bonuses
4 charge ups = 15 x normal bonuses
5 charge ups = 21 x normal bonuses

That way stopping someone from charging up is an essential function in combat.

Or something like that, doesn't have to be that exact calculation.
This message was last edited by the GM at 03:56, Fri 17 Oct 2014.

Well, a more canonical boost would be a Combat Multiplier, which is the number of kills you got uninterrupted. That way foes could watch out for both flourishes and combat multipliers :D

Right, So I'm thinking on some changes

Mundane Damage=Attribute x (Melee or Ranged) x Weapon Tier
Spell Damage = Will x Magic Rank x Gauntlet Runes (Since you could have a rune on each gauntlet, if Runes individually max at level five, this means total maximum would be x10)

Affects Both
Charge Time (Up to 5 turns)
Combat Multiplier (Theoretically unlimited)

Thoughts?
This message was last edited by the player at 20:14, Fri 17 Oct 2014.

Hard enough to work a charge up in there. Adding a combat multiplier would just get ridiculous.

You'd have to go real time instead of turn-based and have a computer doing it otherwise it would just get beyond tedious to have to calculate both with exponential growth.

Unless you had one table for the combination or something? If you can think of a useful formula.
This message was last edited by the GM at 04:45, Fri 17 Oct 2014.

I didn't say anything about that. My offer was instead of. Incidentally, I've found players to be quite ready to keep track of how many they killed in the ongoing battle.
This message was last edited by the player at 05:11, Fri 17 Oct 2014.

Oh, I see. Just ONLY use a combat multiplier and use it as a flat growth rate instead of exponential. Yeah, that'd be simple and easy.

But then you don't really have an effective "charge up" like you do in the games. But that's a small price to pay if you can get everything else.

I'm not sure how much you need with maximum HP of normals being right around 625, and bosses probably not much more than that.

You're making flat set caps?

In reply to Arkrim (msg # 24):

Yep. At least for players. I haven't wrote anything for monsters. I plan on doing that during playtesting. Fable itself specifies flat set attack value levels. Or at least the original does. There was a two handed weapon that bypassed the Sword of Aeons in 1 but they retconned it to be equivalent in Anniversary to be equivalent.

But like with Combat Multipliers of the actual fable games, Combat Multiplier has no maximum as long as you keep making kills. So um... I guess the final answer is... sorta.

Unless you're talking about HP, in which case, unlimited HP would be pretty weird.
This message was last edited by the player at 18:09, Fri 17 Oct 2014.

Also I noticed that I failed to account for the fact that you can have a rune on each Gauntlet, which would make the total maximum +10 on 2 runes.

Please correct me... as it could be that I don't understand.  And as thus perhaps an examination of the documentation might be in order unless I checked by brain out somewhere without making a note of it.

But it seems like combat amounts to a comparison of str for instance STR vs SPEED.  You roll you attribute in dice, and get filtered out a portion of those to get to count based on your skill.

That means, someone who's SPEED exceeds the other person's STR, even if the person has legendary skill.  That person will be unable to be successful at striking the individual?

It seemed like the type of weapon modified the type of damage it did, not how many dice you roll to try to beat their SPEED.

It seems like it is a fractional (by skill) attribute vs. a full attribute, which would make that attribute might have a disproportionate importance.  Would it seem there should be some filter on the speed attribute somehow, or some way to increase the dice rolled against it so that a faster person isn't impervious to all but the super strong?

Did I miss a component?  I know you have Speed rolls for defense, but specifically seem to indicate that they are only for Named foes.  Also, if their roll can exceed their speed, then there wouldn't seem to be much hope a defense roll would exceed their speed which is what is determining the number of dice rolled.  At best they would get SPEED successes, which was required to hit them in the first point.  Checking it against at something bound to be that value or less will assuredly be the same effect, unless you get to add your starting speed to begin with.

Understand I am not at all familiar with Fable... so I may be missing some key component that someone familiar with it would have no problem with.  But I figure I would point out what I'm seeing.

Good point, that's an oversight. I'll make the roll either based on the higher of Strength and Skill, or scrap Strength from the roll entirely, depending on what seems preferred.


Fair enough. I'm either changing that to "super skilled" or "Super strong or super skilled".


You know, that actually gives me an idea. The two options are either scrap the defense roll entirely, or allow active defense to apply Speed Dice+Speed Score for bosses/named and players. The only drawback to that is that it's possible to get a high enough difficulty the attacker can't hit, if speed is fast enough. That also means that players can't get hit if they actively defend, which could be an upside.
This message was last edited by the player at 02:01, Mon 20 Oct 2014.

Actually, upon thinking about it further, I definitely want Attribute Dice against Skill difficulty to hit an unmoving target, but rather I want to change defense from



to



So in essence, it would be whoever succeeds by more is the only one to actually succeed, even though rolls are generally successful.

But now I kind of want to add in a bonus for those that do nothing but defend on a given round.
This message was last edited by the player at 09:33, Mon 20 Oct 2014.

Potential... if you actively defend you win on a tie... if you passively defend you lose on a tie... unless you were only attacked by a passive attack (if that exists - like an AoO - or something like that that is a free or AoE attack)

Or allow them to roll once... and if it is higher than their passive roll, it can be applied vs. a number of attacks equal to their speed.  If lower, it is ignored.  (potentially a botch might have some wider negative effect though?)

Of note:  Saying Mooks get 1/2 their speed as a base... makes them roughly equivalent to someone with a 3 (or is it 4) skill?  Is that correct?  Is that what you are intending? (it is true, that since it is static a mook would get no benefit from odd speeds, as a limitation of sorts)

Usually for these types of games I like to establish priority as Player>Monster>Defender>Attacker, but active vs. passive defense is a nice touch. I've never been fond of active vs. passive offense though, so I'm not sure I really use it.


So I like the idea that one defense roll can be used on a number of attacks equal to your speed as long as your actual successes beat their successes.

So if you got 4 successes on 3 speed, you could defend against 3 attacks that don't get more than 4 successes, but if the second attack gets 4 successes(or 5 in the case of active defense) then further attacks against you would succeed.


Someone with a 3-4 can exceed them but is otherwise equivalent in the most likely success rate, yes. It is intended as a disadvantage that mooks can't roll defense, but say... a Lute playing contest involving speed would be Speed at Lute difficulty if that's what the contest was going for. NPCs could get rolls for that if it was storyline compelling and be on a more even keel. But it's easier to come up with 7-15 competitor names than a name for every bandit. Even still, some competitors are assumed to be making 1-2 successes. That separation between the figurative 'Men and the Boys' is kind of what I'm looking for.

Ok... question... but you can't get four successes with 3 speed... correct?  your attribute defines how many dice you roll, the skill limits the fraction of those dice roll which are considered success.  Am I correct?

Right. That's correct. Basically, if your attribute is low, you might be comparable to a mook. But if it's 3+ there's a chance you exceed them, because players always roll, so they're reasonably likely to average higher if they're above that statistical breaking point. An NPC has to have 4 before they can't be beaten out by a Player with attribute 2, and they can't automatically beat out a 4-5.
This message was last edited by the player at 22:38, Mon 20 Oct 2014.

Basically mooks are difficulty 1 until they have skill/attribute 4, at which point they are difficulty 2, and players get 1-3 rolls initially (because a starting attribute of 3 costs 12/40 points). Yes that leads to characters that don't have much more than a focus on one attribute and 1 skill, with 4 points thrown at a couple twos, but that's not really a problem for me.
This message was last edited by the player at 23:00, Mon 20 Oct 2014.