>>15759263
Shove (Single action): Roll Physical Power against an enemy within arm's reach, opposed by your enemy's Physical Power or Physical Wisdom (their choice). Ties count as successes for you. For each success you score, push the opponent back 1 space; modifiers for forced movement based on Mass apply to this movement. If you scored at least two more successes than your opponent did, the opponent is also knocked prone at the end of the shove.
*When using a shove as part of a charge, you get a +1k1 bonus to your Physical Power roll, and if you score more total successes than your opponent, you may opt to push the opponent 1 square out of your path and continue the charge (though you cannot attack or shove if you encounter a second opponent in the path of your charge). When shoving an opponent out of the path of your charge, Mass-based modifiers apply to the distance moved, and the opponent is still knocked prone if you score at least two more successes than your opponent.

>>15759263
>>15759284
I also updated the Goron's rolling ability to reflect the changes to the charging rules (since the old version was just that they move by charging, but as a single action at normal movement instead of double action for double movement):

Goron Roll: While curled up, a Goron can move by rolling around. Treat this movement as a charge, but with the following modifications:
* The Goron need not roll directly at an enemy, but rather can move in any direction (though he still must roll in a straight line).
* Rather than taking a double action to move up to twice his speed, the Goron takes a single action to move up to his speed.
* The only action a Goron can take at the end of the charge is a shove; however, in addition to the normal effects of the shove, the Goron deals 1/4H of damage per success to the target.

Dang, where is everybody?

Bumping.

Sorry I haven't been on, been gone with family. Also, EVO 2011.

>>15759284
On shove, shouldn't ties go to the defender, as per everything else we have set in the system?

>>15762612
For shoving rules, I basically just copied over the way the old charge worked, but removed the damage. Giving ties to the defender probably would make sense for consistency's sake, though.

>>15763034
I think if shove is done at the end of a charge, it should go to the attacker (Rule of Cool, going for something a little more fancy) but as a regular attack goes to the defender.

>>15763174
That would be an interesting way to do it, but since we're shooting for simplicity as much as possible in this system I don't think it would work well for our purposes. I could see giving ties in a shove to the attacker all the time despite ties in an attack going to the defender (since they're two different actions), but having ties decided differently for the same action depending on context is a bit too much.

Would make for an interesting houserule, though. You could do it with attacks as well if you wanted to make charging a bit more powerful.

Here's my suggestion for splitting up Charge Mastery:

Balanced Charge (Passive)
Prerequisites: Physical 3, |Melee| or |Heavy| 2
XP Cost: 3
When a character uses a charge, it no longer causes a defense penalty.

Charge Attack Mastery (Passive)
Prerequisites: Physical 3, |Melee| or |Heavy| 3
XP Cost: 2
The character gains a +1k0 bonus to any offensive option at the end of a charge.

>>15763677
Sounds fair to me, though I think a Courage requirement would be more appropriate than Physical for Balanced Charge.

>>15764025
Good point. I agree.

Don't mind me, just dropping a late-night bump before I go to bed so that the thread will last until we get the rest of the regulars back in here.

I made a Zelda Pen and paper game a few years ago, I have character sheets floating around here someplace, I offer my services in the artwork department.
I did character portraits and some game imagery when I made the test book. I'll doodle down some ideas and see if you guys want me to make more.
And I offer you a doodle I did a few days ago. A book Wyrm.

Bumping away the dreaded Forouphor demon.

>>15763677
>>15764025
Actually, Wisdom seems more appropriate than Courage. Sure, it'd doing a brave thing, but it's doing a brave thing in a controlled, careful manner.

>>15763210
Agreed that ties should go to defender for consistency and simplicity, but yes it does make a neat little houserule.

And thank you much to the anon updating the wiki, I've been busy/lazy lately.

Just finished a race sketch, A basic one but it's pretty neat, Made the Goron armor like very thick scale mail.
Any suggestions or changes that you'd like to see?
Also I'm gunna start messing with a bestiary.

>>15766612
Now that I think about it, maybe Balanced Charge should require both Courage and Wisdom. Courage for movement and Wisdom for precision. Perhaps 2 of each?

>>15766612
I think Wisdom isn't quite appropriate for Balanced Charge, because Wisdom doesn't really go for the aggressive side of things -- Wisdom wouldn't charge at all. Courage strikes a balance between reckless offense (Power's area) and cautious defense (Wisdom's area), so it seems most appropriate to me for this tech.

>>15766824
I like your artwork! It's amazing how much artistic talent this project has attracted.

Regarding the bestiary, make sure you check the progress we've already made first -- there's a list in the GM Resources section of the wiki with the older, simpler statblocks, and Temporary Combat Namefag has been working on updating them with full Attribute and Virtue stats. You can see his work if you look at the past few threads in the archives.

>>15768673

We really need to get someone to compile all of the artwork.

General Question: When do you think this project will be done?

>>15768683
CZ has actually put together a compilation of just about everything that's been done up through the last thread; I think the only stuff it's missing is TCN's monster sketches. You can download it at http://www.sendspace.com/file/xc0at7

As for how long it'll take to finish this project...who knows? We're getting fairly close to having a more or less complete beta version, but it all kind of depends on how productive the threads are. We've been getting bogged down a lot lately with working through mechanical details, which isn't necessarily a bad thing per se, since those details do need to get worked out, but it has kind of slowed the progress.
Personally, I'd expect at least two more weeks at minimum, probably more. Though if we're talking just enough that you could run a game of it, we're already to that point. There are definitely holes, but you could probably still run a reasonably playable campaign. And anyone interested is heavily encouraged to do so -- and report back here with feedback on what needs work, of course.

>>15766824

That is so boss I can't even tell you, and it's so getting added to the art comp.

Sorry for my absence I'll get back to drawing some characters again real soon.

I'll be sure to look into the work that's already done before, So I can work in tandem with everyone.
I'm working on racial sketches for the Korok at the moment, I'm building, After I finish some more sketches and put them together i'll scan them in and show you guys.

>>15770540
I just realized that when you said "messing with a bestiary", you meant art, not statblocks...
In that case, don't worry about what's been done already -- the more art, the better.

ah ok sweet, Yah I'm new to this project and I love to make art for games so i'll focus on that.
If I do have an idea for something i'll be sure to run it by you guys first though.

>>15768637
I don't think it's quite right to say that Wisdom is never used offensively. It's just the way you go about something. If Wisdom was never aggressive, there wouldn't be weapons based on Wisdom, and we're in pretty strong agreement that using Wisdom for light weapons is appropriate.

>>15771112
I don't mean to say that Wisdom is never used offensively, just that it favors a more refined and cautious approach rather than direct, in-your-face aggression.

I don't mean to be selfish, but I'd like to finish discussing Helm Splitter. We touched on it last thread, but didn't get far after me posting my suggestion. I'll post again:

Helm Splitter (Active)
Prerequisites: |Melee| 3, |Acrobatics| 3
XP Cost: 4
Actions: 2
If an enemy is wearing medium or heavy armor, the character may make an attack against the armored enemy that ignores their armor bonuses. The character must be within 1 square of the enemy. The character then rolls |Acrobatics| to jump over the enemy (difficulty 4, variable successes depending on target's size). If successful, the character may make a single |Melee| attack against the enemy with no armor reduction. The character will land on the square opposite of where he started. If the acrobatics check is failed, the attacker falls to the square he started from and is prone. This techniques does not provoke opportunity attacks.

If we want to be even closer to the game material, then we should make it usable only after a shield bash. However, I would like to see the tech usable without a shield. I think it would do best to have there be a bonus to the tech after using shield bash, like only costing a single action instead of 2.

>>15771814
As far as actions go, what we could do is have a cheap tech that allows you to perform a shield bash and helm splitter in the same double action, with each of the techs included as a requirement.

I do like this tech, but it seems like it takes a lot to perform. I would cut out the Acrobatics test and make the jump an assumed part of the technique, since it requires a certain level of Acrobatic skill to buy in the first place. That would make it a bit more streamlined. Make it so it's only usable against a certain size category of enemy (perhaps the using character's scale rating plus one?).

Also, it should ignore all armor, not just medium and heavy. It doesn't make much sense to me that having less armor would somehow give you the ability to reduce damage from an armor-bypassing technique.

>>15772037
Agreed on all counts. So perhaps something like:

Helm Splitter (Active)
Prerequisites: |Melee| 3, |Acrobatics| 3
XP Cost: 4
Actions: 2
You jump over the enemy, striking at its head as you pass. Make a normal |Melee| attack against the enemy, ignoring any damage reduction it might have from armor. You end this technique in the square directly opposite the target from where you started. This technique can't be used on any enemy more than one scale rating larger than you.

Helm Splitter Combo (Active)
Prerequisites: Helm Splitter, Shield Bash
XP Cost: 2
Actions: 1 (special)
You have learned how to use a Shield Bash to set up for a devastating Helm Splitter attack.
You may only use this technique if you used your previous action this turn to successfully stun a foe using the Shield Bash technique. This technique functions as the Helm Splitter technique, except it takes only a single action to use, and the enemy must use passive defense to oppose your attack roll.

Also, on the subject of Shield Bash, the wording on the wiki says that you stun the opponent "if you beat their defense roll". That's not really a concept that we're using in this system, is it? I'm thinking that should be reworded to "if you score more successes than the defender".

>>15772282
Those look good to me. Great, in fact.

On the wording for Shield Bash, I think it's meant to be the same thing, but it could easily be reworded for clarity. I'll take care of that now.

>>15772282
That looks good.

>>15772864
>On the wording for Shield Bash, I think it's meant to be the same thing, but it could easily be reworded for clarity.

That's what I figured it was referring to, yeah, but seeing as I don't think I've seen that expression used hardly at all, I figured it should probably be spelled out.

Thinking a bit more about this particular tech chain, should we perhaps give the Helm Splitter Combo a little more oomph? In order to get it, you need 3 ranks each in |Acrobatics| and |Melee|, 2 ranks in |Shield|, and a total of 11 XP invested in techs between the prereqs and the Combo itself. That's a lot of buildup, and while ignoring both armor and active defense is pretty impressive, I question whether it's really worth 3-4 sessions worth of XP (11 for techs + 3 for skill ranks). Especially considering that, since it's predicated on pulling off a successful Shield Bash, you won't be able to use very reliably unless you invest even more XP into |Shield|. Perhaps we could make the improved Helm Splitter be in addition to the stunning from Shield Bash, rather than replacing it? I feel like that ought to make it a bit more appropriate for the amount of investment required.

>>15774056
Wait, the Helm Splitter combo doesn't replace the stun from Shield Bash. The shield bash has to take place first. The benefit is getting to use a tech that is normally a double action as a single action in a certain situation, which I think is worth about 2xp. You have a lot of buildup to this tech, but much of that buildup is in techs that have their own benefits. This is simply a way to make better use of what you've already got.

>>15774672
I could've sworn I'd worded the Combo above such that it replaced the stunning...I guess it went missing during one of my rewording/proofreading passes and never got back in, lol. Carry on, then.

>>15774939
Heh, alrighty then. So, are Helm Splitter and Helm Splitter Combo pretty much where we want them? Anyone got anymore suggestions before we put them up on the wiki?

I'm working on some enemy pictures right now, along with the Kokor character sketches, I was just wondering if anyone has a particular monster they want me to do?

>>15775167
Those two look good. I don't see any problems with it.

We still haven't decided on Balanced Charge prereqs. Should it be Courage, Wisdom, or both?

>>15775396
I personally see Wisdom as being more appropriate, but I can see both at a simple 2.

Ok I did six sketches so far for Kuroks.
Sone heavy armored most not so much,

>>15775558
Sir, are you aware just how awesome you are?

>>15775451
2 of each sounds perfect to me. If there's not any objections, can we get that added to the wiki please? (I really need to learn to edit wiki so I can help more.)

Well here are some simple Rito sketches, Male and female.

>>15775684
When you click an edit tab, on the editing page next to the Submit Changes button is a link to Editing Help. I found it immensely useful.

I have no objections to these being added.

>>15766007
>>15766824
>>15775558
AWESOME!

>>15770540
>>15776655
pic related. especially >>15776655
your cartooning is awesome, but you really need to work on your anatomy

I'm getting tired so my work is suffering, But thats alright I can just make some new sketches some time, So thats not a big deal.

>>15775558
These are amazing, by the way. Great work!

Ok well I've been up for going on 24 some odd hours and I'm tired, So i'll finish the next sketches in the morning.
These ones are better I promise.

>>15776815
Incredibly useful. Thank you. I'll try to get the charge masteries and helm splitters added and see how I do.

>>15775558
those are some great koroks. The Rito need a little bit of work though...

I'd like to see more techniques for agile, acrobatics-based characters. It seems like most of the techniques on the wiki work best for link-like adventurers, rather than a more nimble and less direct fighter.

>Shoving mechanics to follow in next post.

Did anyone else read that as "shoveling mechanics"?

Because I think we could actually use some shoveling mechanics.

Did Cz ever finish the Moblin art?

>>15781449
If you've got suggestions, please post them. We have mostly Link-inspired techs because what we're going off of are the games, but I would certainly love to see equal support for other character archetypes.

One thing we do still need is a way to make unarmored characters a viable and appealing option, without making it a necessarily better option than armor.

>>15782295
Drawing from 3.X, perhaps make a technique that adds Wisdom to defense like monks had. Alternatively, have a tech like Battle-Hardened that applies when not wearing armor. I believe we have discussed something similar in previous threads.

>>15782968
>Drawing from 3.X, perhaps make a technique that adds Wisdom to defense like monks had.
Totally doesn't work with our stat system.

My thought would be to give some kind of benefit not directly related to defense per se, but I'm kind of stuck for ideas on what exactly that could be.

On the topic of armor, I noticed something when I was updating the wiki the other day: the wiki says that medium and heavy armors reduce your "effective skill" for |acrobatics| and |stealth| by 1 or 2 (respectively). This seems needlessly complex, since the exact penalty will depend on your skill rank -- for example, someone with 1 |Acrobatics| would take a -1k0 penalty when wearing medium armor (effective skill rank 1 --> 2), but someone with 2 |Acrobatics| would take a -0k1 penalty (effective rank 2 --> 1). It also strikes me that this isn't really a strong enough drawback to account for the defensive bonuses they provide. Should these perhaps be -1k1 and -2k2 instead?

>>15782968
adding wisdom to defense certainly makes both ninja-esque stealth characters more viable, it should probably have an acrobatics requirement though. If only to keep every spellcaster taking it and becoming untouchable.

>>15782295
we already have a sneak attack technique, but maybe add a second, more advanced technique?

As far as other techniques go it would be nice to see some that improved acrobatics or gave the skill novel uses. Maybe a handful of "parkour" techniques that allow a skilled acrobat to climb and run up things easily?

>>15783708
I like it. The harsher penalties you proposed would make it almost impossible to do acrobatics or stealth in armor, which is probably a good idea for game balance if nothing else.

>>15783713
Wisdom isn't necessarily a caster trait. There are plenty of Courage and Power spells available as well as Wisdom |Melee| options.

>>15783708
>>15783735
I agree here too. 1k1 and 2k2 would be both simpler and more balanced.

How close to being played is this game? Would it work well enough if I tried to write an adventure as of right now?

>>15783778
all in favor of editing the wiki?

>>15783713
as far as climbing techniques go maybe something like this:

Monkey Climb
Requirements: Acrobatics 3
XP Cost: ?
Action: Passive
Your study of acrobatics has made it much easier for you to climb. You can now climb at your full speed, rather than at half speed.

>>15783824
the bones are there, but there are still a lot of gaping holes that need to be filled in. You could probably run a game with this, but youd have to improv or do it rules-light.

>>15783839
I give you my vote and I don't think there will be much opposition.

I would put XP Cost 2 on Monkey Climb and it should be good.

>>15783867
wiki edited

>>15783839
>>15783713
had another idea

Cat-fall (Passive)
Prerequisites: Acrobatics 4
XP Cost: 2
Your acrobatics training has taught you how to gracefully manage falls. All damage taken from falling great distances is halved.

>>15784260
Hmm... We don't really have any fall damage rules yet. My guess as to what we will have is something like rolling |Acrobatics| and each success negates one increment of fall damage. If that is so, then I would change the mechanics of the tech slightly. Probably a +2k2 bonus to rolls made against fall damage.

>>15784702
That would be my thought as well, yes. Either that, or treat the tech as something similar to how armor works in combat, automatically negating a certain amount of fall damage.

just an idea, but a crafting system would be interesting. Obviously the games never went into crafting/smithing too much since the player was concerned with saving the world, but plenty of other characters (Biggoron for example) were famous for their crafting prowess.

Obviously this should be added after the main mechanics are finished. And sorry if this was mentioned already, haven't been able to keep up with the whole project.

Actually I like that idea, We could develop a simple concept for it and some simple crafting options, But for the most part it would be up to the DM.

>>15785020
The problem with implementing crafting rules is that it completely undermines the defining feature of games -- namely, that the heroes (Link in the vidya, the PCs here) don't have easy access to the tools necessary to overcome certain obstacles. In order for the GM to be able to make any kind of meaningful challenges for the players, puzzle-wise, (s)he needs to be able to keep tight control over what tools the players have available, and free-form crafting rules shoots that out the window.

The fact that we're shooting for as rules-light a system as possible also speaks against implementing crafting rules. If a player wants to play a character who does crafting stuff, they can work things out with their GM so that they can incorporate that aspect of the character into how the party gets items, but giving players a toolkit they can use to make whatever they want just wouldn't work well in this system.

>>15785155

Good point...

Should falling actually be capable of damaging players much? Replaying through OoT, you can see Link fall several hundred feet with only half-a-Heart gone.

>>15785507
It shouldn't be terribly life-threatening, but it should definitely hurt. I may be wrong, but I seem to recall taking a solid 2 hearts or so for falling off the cliff by the Goron's grave in MM...

I'd say something like 1/2H for every 20 meters fallen, with an |acrobatics| check against a target of 4 to reduce this amount by 1/2H per success. Or something like that, just kind of pulling numbers out of my ass here.

About the crafting, The difference's between Video games and Tabletop games is that the DM can make the materials to break the game inaccessible to the PC's. Like I run pathfinder and let them craft whatever they want.
You have to remember if you let them craft it's not like they are going to know what they'll need in every situation.
It's mostly for crafting weapons and armor anyway, Something to add a big of personal touches to the character.
Besides that it's the DM's responsibility to add challenges to the PC's, So if crafting breaks the game for the DM the DM needs to get better methinks.

>>15785507
>>15785678
I think we should keep in mind that Link has godlike stats and a whole bunch of points in acrobatics (what with all the rolling). So the average PC is logically going to take a lot more falling damage than Link.

>>15786211
The point is that in order to keep crafting from unbalancing the game, you need to put so much of it into the GM's hands in the first place that you might as well leave the whole thing up to GM ruling rather than making a set of rules that say "if you have these components and spend so much time and make this high of a crafting check, you can make this particular item". You can't even begin to compare it to D&D and similar games, because items in general are handled completely differently from this game. Item availability in most games is on an opt-out basis -- generally speaking, any item found in the permitted sources is fair game unless the GM says otherwise. That's precisely the opposite of how it is for this system -- you get the items the GM makes available, when the GM says so. It simply doesn't work otherwise, since a fair majority of the non-combat challenges you face hinge on having the proper tool and using it in the right way, and it's the non-combat challenges that set the Zelda games apart from generic fantasy.

It would be much more conducive to the goals of the game to simply leave it up to the GM to work with the player to find ways to incorporate crafting into the campaign -- for instance, rather than simply receiving a new and improved weapon as the final reward of a side quest, the side quest is to track down materials needed so the PC can forge the weapon. The end result is the same either way, it's just a matter of how you describe it.

Crafting in this system works best as a function of the narrative rather than anything mechanical, so adding mechanics for it is simply a bad idea.

I see your point but again i re-open the point, if the GM is so stiff that a simple crafting table is to much to handle that's a little bad.
Even if it's not in the rules I'll make my own tables not like it's going to be that hard. Besides that's half the fun is looking out components that can be made into something greater, And of the PC's choice and design.
not like a situations gunna pop up like,
"You enter a water filled cavern with small platforms 100 feet above the water, What do you do?"
"I build a bridge and pass over"
You could just say, uh no you can't do that. How would you build a bridge without the proper supplies and time?
Point being, It's easy to adapt rules to play styles, And it is up to the GM to prevent things like that from happening.
Besides did you miss the part where I said mostly for crafting armor and weapons?
Not like your player is going to know what he's going to need, That is, Unless you tell them.
I dunno.
If it's in the Wiki or not i'm gunna make a way so my players can craft, It just makes it more fun then just running through the same old scenario over and over again.
Besides as a GM if your PC's can break your puzzles with a simple crafting table, I think you gotta work on your puzzles a bit.

>>15786681
Have you even played the LoZ games? Let me give you a rundown of how the typical dungeon works:

>Enter dungeon
>Find an obstacle you can't surpass with the tools at hand
>Find the appropriate tool somewhere in the dungeon
>Now you can pass the obstacle

That is the Legend of Zelda formula. It's not a matter of the GM being "too stiff", it's a matter of the entire premise of the game breaking down when the players are able to take the reins and acquire items on their own terms. When the players can make whatever tools they can think of unless the GM says "no", either the GM is going to be saying "no" a hell of a lot, or he's going to have a hell of a time finding some obstacle to put in front of the players that they can't solving using the arsenal they made for themselves. The players may not know exactly what they'll need, but they're sure to be able to think of quite a few things that'll come in handy (certainly if they've played the video games at all they'll have numerous ideas), and the more tools the players have available the more difficult it is for GMs to challenge the players without the game degenerating into "Generic Fantasy RPG: Hyrule Edition".

And if you're restricting it solely to arms and armor...what's the point? There's virtually no difference between various weapons and armor types within the same broad category as it is, so why bother making mechanical rules to govern it? Anything that isn't readily available as a starting equipment option would be something that needs to have restricted access anyway for balance purposes, which brings us back to the same narrative difference vs mechanical option issue.

If a GM wants to make a crunch-based crafting system for their campaign, there's certainly nothing stopping them, but I see no reason why we should make crafting mechanics part of the official rules.

>>15786858
Of course, the players will always have the extensive list of ingredients they need to make items, and the ability to get others to give them said items. Sure, you can use a tree to make a wooden shield if you have tools and other items, but there go the partys' deku sticks.

It's a trade-off, and definitely in the Zelda style of needing items to progress.

Yes i've played my fair share of Zelda games, That's not the point, I don't really think of this game as just another Zelda game, But played with paper, I think of it more as a world pack. Races weapons and armor monsters and so on. You can build what ever kind of adventure you want, That kinda... Y'know the beauty of pen and paper games.
if I wanted a Zelda game that was like EVERY other Zelda game I'd just play a Zelda game. There would be no need for the Pen and paper.
If you want to play it like that then go do that, But not including another way for people to play just because you want to play it conventional isn't the right idea.
Why not include all the materials so people that want to play it that way can.
That way conventional players and others will be happy to. That's just smart from a creator perspective.
Besides that, Making a list of pre generated Bosses and Magical special weapons and armor would be prudent.
That way it could give the DM on the go some stuff to roll with without having to create and adventure from scratch.

The point is your supposed to give people all of the resources that you can so that they can decide what way to play.
I prefer more open world let the PC's choose what they want to do, And I build the Adventure around the choices they make.
You probably play differently, Either way it's ok i'm just saying don't take content away just because you wouldn't use it.
I've shown this Wiki to a few DM friends of mine and they sound enthused.

>>15786591
I'm in pretty much complete agreement here. We've had this discussion about adding grafting rules at least half a dozen times, and the answer is always no. It just doesn't fit in well as a mechanic. If you want a character who makes things, you can work that out with your DM to keep it in line with his campaign. As soon as you put down hard rules for crafting things, you are on a dangerous slope into the 3.5 magic item crafting rules, which in case you are unaware, pretty much result in breaking everything.

It would be much better for the DM to allow special cases of item creation based on the character and circumstances than to create a situation where the DM has to specifically forbid things or make exceptions to rules that are posted for characters to pull from.

>>15785678
I think that's not a bad outline for falling damage. Anybody wanna crunch some numbers and see how it would actually play out? We should certainly keep in mind that falling won't be as lethal as in most other games, but should still be a significant deterrent to leaping off cliffs and buildings.

Oh dear, how would we handle the diving into a bottomless pit thing? The PC just shows up at the entrance to the room inexplicably? Wait, maybe a version of those hand monsters could explain it. Haha.

Here is the rules so far compiled into a lovely PDF for you guys!

Enjoy!

http://www.mediafire.com/file/na2y1h6t02s53f5/LoZ%20RPG.pdf

>>15787934
thanks dude

>>15787934
That's pretty awesome, thank you. One issue, though, the PDF says "d20", which this is certainly not. Heh.

>>15788608

fuck.

I actually spent time considering if D20 should be in the title of it or not. I'll take it out, and if I compile a DMG then I'll do another copy of the PHB.

>>15787934


The Human section says there are different costs for techs depending on race, but it doesn't say which techs have the reduced cost. Otherwise I like it, easier to read than the wiki

>>15790123
Eventually we need to attach racial descriptors to the techs that would be appropriate, but it just isn't something we've gotten around to yet.
Personally, I think it would be best to put that off until we have a more complete list of techs written up, that way we can make sure each race gets roughly the same amount to play with. In the meantime, GMs running playtests should judge on a case-by-case basis.

I was just looking at the spells and was thinking about Shift. It says the creature may move, but doesn't specify ally or enemy. It's implied that it moves allies, but I'd like to see the spell able to be used to move enemies around with an opposed check as well.

>>15791838
I think the idea is that it can both move allies (which can help, to be honest) or move enemies (into a pit, for example).
So yeah, it should be an opposed check for enemies. Against Physical Courage, perhaps?

>>15792218
I believe Physical Courage is appropriate. Shall I add it to the wiki?

>>15791838
I personally think it would be a good idea to rename it to Gust and make it push the target (ally or enemy) in a straight line. In this case, Physical Power seems most appropriate to resist.

This would change the tactical implications of the spell (it'd be less useful for maneuvering allies, since they could only move in straight lines, but being able to move enemies opens up a lot of new uses), and more importantly it would make it less of a strictly tactical spell and more useful for non-combat puzzle applications.

>>15792475
Hmm.. I'm not sure. Physical Power is more about brute strength, whereas Physical Courage is more akin to endurance. They both make sense logically, but I think Courage is a better fit for resisting a gust.

>>15792582
Either one could fit, I just figured Power since it's basically like shoving, but in this case you're being shoved by wind rather than a physical entity.

Though I did just realize a snag we'd run into if we let it be either opposed or unopposed -- a "willing" target could often be harder to move than a resisting one, since your chances of getting a given number of successes stand to be better in an opposed roll. A die that comes up less than 4 can still be a success in an opposed roll, and if you have more kept dice than the opponent, each of those is an automatic success.
I think it would be better to just make it an unopposed roll whether the target is willing or not. We could perhaps allow the target to make their own unopposed roll to mitigate the effects, but that strikes me as a bit too complex for a "basic" spell. And really, even with high stats, you're not too likely to get more than 4 successes. Being shoved 4 spaces in a straight line isn't exactly devastating, particularly if we consider that a large enemy would be getting moved less than that due to Mass, so I think it'd be ok if we left the magnitude of the effect solely up to the caster's roll for this one.

>>15787508
That's like saying including combat means it'll degenerate into all modifiers, all day.

Would it really be that gamebreaking to allow people to make a few deku sticks from trees? Or a low-quality shield from a high quality piece of wood? Remember, it takes time to craft things, exactly the right materials, and it's less efficient in the short run than buying it from NPCs or looting.

>>15792944
The issue here is that crafting would essentially need to be limited only to things that you would be making available to the players in some fashion in the first place. If you wouldn't let them find it in a shop, you're not about to let them craft it either, so it essentially boils down to a stylistic or narrative distinction. Your shield was eaten by a Like-Like -- do you replace it by hiking back to town to buy a new one, or by hiking through the woods to track down a good quality piece of timber and making it yourself? It's best handled on a case-by-case basis under GM discretion rather than as an additional mechanic. Including crafting rules will only serve to give players the misguided assumption that they can take item availability into their own hands, when this is in fact the exact opposite of how it should be.
The fact that there are no crafting rules doesn't mean that you can't play a character who makes stuff; it just means you'll need to discuss with the GM how to incorporate making stuff into the narrative. Not everything needs to be spelled out in the RAW.

>>15792475
Gust can be its own thing, meant for shoving enemies and activating puzzles. The intention of Shift is to help maneuver allies into more advantageous positions, or out of danger. It was intended as a purely supportive role, since shoving people around strikes me as more of a Power-based thing.

Having Shift work differently based on the target is adding a little more complexity to it than was initially intended. I see the appeal, but it was meant as a support spell only, and I'm fine with it staying that way and only affecting willing targets.

>>15794362
The issue with Shift in its current form is that it's purely tactical. Every other basic spell we have can be used for puzzles (though it admittedly takes more creativity for some than others), but I can't see any way that Shift could be used for this purpose. It's also very much lacking in flavor compared to the others. What exactly is a "shift", anyway? Are you sliding people around, or are they moving of their own accord, or what?
It's a very useful spell for combat, but it just feels very out of place compared to the rest of the spells, and Gust would be a much better fit. It works just fine for Courage, too -- it combines forcefulness with tactical finesse, useful for both supporting allies and disrupting enemies. That's definitely Courage -- bridging the gap between Power's brute force and Wisdom's subtle finesse. Plus wind has a thematic connection to Farore, the goddess of Courage -- not that thematic connections in and of themselves are enough to justify a Virtue assignment, but it certainly lends weight to the option.

>>15795269
Hmm.. You could even combine the effects of both Lift and Shift into a Gust spell. Lift would simply be a Shift aimed upward.

>>15795302
That makes sense from the perspective of how it works in the game world, but it might be a little too complex for a basic spell. Plus then we'd only have two basic Courage spells compared to three for each of the other Virtues, so we'd either have to come up with a new spell or just have an odd asymmetry. I'd rather keep Lift and Gust separate.
It's not really hard to justify, either -- Lift is a more gentle, sustained force, whereas Gust is quick and powerful.

>>15795269
I would be alright with allowing Shift to affect enemies, but we have to find a way to balance it. Having it be an automatic effect is too powerful, because you could easily maneuver an enemy into a pit of lava with that. If we have the opposed roll require comparison of successes rather than simple moving 1 space per success (similar to an attack), then the ability to move enemies becomes much more difficult, and thus more balanced, but still useful. For the resisting check, I'd vote for Physical Courage. Power is for affecting other things, Courage is for enduring.

In addition, the effect should most definitely not be restricted to a straight line push effect. Pushing with force is decidedly a Power effect, and making that change to Shift would destroy any tactical application for its use on allies with was the reason it was made in the first place.

With regard to giving Shift a use for puzzles, how exactly does Heal work in puzzles? And I don't see how Cripple could be used for that purpose, either. Just because a spell doesn't have a puzzle-based effect or "lacks flavor" is not a mark of inadequacy.

>>15795688
Typos, typos everywhere. Dammit.

>>15793202
But there's no good reason not to with all the other aspects we're covering. If it's broken to the point you're suggesting, then why leave it up to homebrew? If it's not guaranteed to be broken, why not work on rules for it that work?

>>15795688
Heal and Shield get passes because they're lifted from the LoZ canon (The Adventure of Link). Cripple could be used to interact with dungeon elements -- for instance, suppose there's a big dumb beastie holding up a platform, and you need that platform lowered. Cripple the beastie, now it's too weak to hold up the platform, and the platform is lowered. That's classic Zelda right there -- creative uses for the tools at your disposal that go beyond the most apparent purpose.
In fact, every single spell on the wiki except Shift is either a canon example or can reasonably be used for non-combat puzzles. Inspire can be used to cheer someone up, much like playing Saria's Song for the Goron elder in OoT. Sap Strength can be used for similar purposes as Cripple, Faultline is good for smashing floors, Haste and Slow are good for puzzles involving timing (a super-fast blade trap, for instance).

Considering that the defining feature of the Zelda games is how basically every tool in your arsenal is used for some kind of puzzle, we should definitely try to maintain this theme with at least the basic spells, if not all the spells we write up.
Upon further deliberation, I suppose Shift could pass muster if we gave it some kind of flavor besides "You get to move! Somehow! Yay!". For instance, if it was explicitly a sort of telekinetic pushing/sliding around, that could have uses in puzzles involving manipulating objects you can't reach. But as a strictly tactical option, it sticks out like a sore thumb. That sort of thing is fine for stuff like D&D, but this is decidedly not D&D.

>>15795895
A telekinetic push sounds fine to me. How about make moving a willing creature N(3), moving an object N(4), and moving an enemy an opposed check (Physical Courage).

>>15795895
>"get a pass" because they are lifted from canon
I have a bit of an issue with that mentality, but I see where you're coming from.

What I'm hearing is that this is an issue largely revolving around flavor and non-combat use. Simply lifting from your examples on other uses for spells, Shift could be used to maneuver an ally into a particular position for a puzzle, allowing movement beyond their normal capacity and thus accomplishing a task faster (or at all, if normal actions don't allow for completion).

For flavor, how it was originally thought of was as granting your ally a burst of bravery, clarity, and speed, allowing them to quickly adjust their position into or out of danger without fear of reprisal (opportunity attacks). That doesn't really work, though, if we decide to change it to affecting enemies/objects. If we do that, it is pretty much forced to become a telekinetic ability.

If that's the route we take, making it a telekinetic ability, then I guess it's fine for it to affect allies and objects. The movement should remain in any directions you choose, simply to remain useful and tactically applicable in combat as well as out. It will require two separate rolling styles, unopposed for a willing target or opposed for a willing target. The opposed check will need to compare successes rather than using strict linear comparison, or you have something with too much ability to affect enemies.

>>15796206
Objects and willing creatures can probably use the default 4 target number. For the opposed check, I'm not sure if it warrants a mechanic beyond linear comparison, but I'm concerned that using this you will be able to move the enemy too much. I'd have to see some number, though. It could be just fine.

>>15795763
>If it's broken to the point you're suggesting, then why leave it up to homebrew?

Specifically because it's broken to the point we're suggesting. It should only be allowed if the DM is comfortable with it, and must be carefully monitored.

>If it's not guaranteed to be broken, why not work on rules for it that work?

Because it runs counter to many themes in Zelda. It's the same reason we decided against including a lockpicking skill. It would give players an idea about how their characters can function and what capabilities they can have, which in order to maintain thematic consistency would have to be curtailed and heavily restricted by the DM. This creates a bad atmosphere at the game table, with players pointing at the rules and the DM either saying no and being resented or allowing it and having to make significant changes to the structure of the game.

Again, this has all been discussed before. The answer is always no. If you want to craft stuff, work it out with your DM. It shouldn't be that hard.

>>15796536
Personally, I think if we're having it be a telekinetic ability, I think it'd be fine to limit it solely to willing targets and inanimate objects, letting us stick with a single resolution mechanic. If anyone asks why it doesn't work on enemies...it's magic, I don't have to explain shit!
(Or, you know, since it's a basic spell it's not powerful enough to overcome the will of a resisting target. Or something.)

This would make it much easier to apply to puzzles than something involving a burst of speed or what have you, and seems very fitting to me for a Courage spell.

>>15796758
Actually, I really like that solution. It's simple, yet elegant. Moving enemies around can be handled by any number of other spells, and it really does make it easier to handle. Thank you anon. I support this way of handling Shift.

>>15796758
>>15796924
I'd still like to see it move enemies, but I'm fine with limiting it to allies and objects. We could save moving enemies to a more advanced spell like Gust we were discussing earlier.

>>15796675
Lockpicking is different. (Could be solved by ruling that dungeon locks work differently from normal doors, but meh.)

My point is, crafting does play a role in Legend of Zelda (Just look at all those fetch quests, Biggorn's sword, potion ingredients...) and that it's hardly gamebreaking to have it incorporated as a one-line note or only for certain items, any more than Songs or spells are.

The answer is always no from you. The fact it keeps on coming up means there might not be universal agreement on whether it should stay or not.

>>15797000
Agreed. I certainly see the desire to have Shift affect enemies, but it's probably best and simplest if we leave that to other spells.

REQUEST: Hey, TCN? If you're around, I'm wanting to use some Gerudo bandits in the next phase of my campaign. Any plans on making stat blocks for those any time soon?

So has anyone worked out a mechanic for angry cuccos yet? This is very important

>>15797100
All of those fetch quests have NPCs doing the crafting for you. Link never pulls out a hammer and starts forging a sword of his own.
The reason that crafting keeps coming up is because so many other RPGs have a crafting system. Zelda is fundamentally different from those because items and equipment are treated in differently in the games than in a typical RPG. The best compromise I could offer is writing up alternate or supplementary rules for PC crafting, but having the default be PCs unable to craft. Like we've said before, it should be an exception from the DM, not a general inclusion in the system.

>>15797100
Here's the thing -- as has been explained numerous times in this thread alone, crafting in this game will by necessity need to be extremely limited, to the point that making full-blown rules for it would simply be more trouble than its worth. Yes, people make stuff in the Zelda games, but ultimately there's not much difference between "give craftsman materials, he makes them into something for you" and "give person trade item A, he gives you trade item B in return". It's strictly a narrative difference, which is the very point we've been making about the issue of crafting rules -- there's no point in making mechanical rules for what ultimately will be nothing more than a narrative distinction.

There will be no mechanics for crafting. Period. End of discussion. However, this does not mean that you cannot be a dude who crafts stuff -- you just have to talk it through with the GM to determine how to work crafting into the narrative. Just because there aren't mechanics for it doesn't mean it can't be done.

>>15797328
Supplementary rules work. I just think that as we're trying to make a game based around PCs that might closer to the villagers than the games' Heroes, it would be nice to have those options at some point.

>>15797000
It fits. What about having heavier/bulkier objects also fall under Gust, seeing as I get the impression is the idea is that if it can put up resistance, you need Gust for it. Pots, willing subjects, lamps are one thing, a Dodongo or an Amos is another.

I've had these done for a day now but I got busy so I couldn't post them till now,
Just some Miniblin doodles, A Goron in chain mail, And a Rito in some light armor. Oh and a Goron sword.

Hey folks! Been a while, haven't had the time to work on anything for the project, but I do now, so here's some progress on a new character portrait!

I've been noticing that the Hylians have been woefully neglected, unsurprisingly as they're the "default", so I mean to fix that.

Here we have a Hylian fellow, looks to be some sort of Kingsguard, in his ceremonial dress. I always enjoy the wide range of characterful faces/features Hylians often have in the Zelda games, so I tried to capture some of that.

>>15800141
Looks pretty damn awesome, keep it up!

>>15798097
Supplementary rules are definitely the way to go, if at all. Probably not going to be a concern until we hammer out things like dungeon building, monster building, and a slew of other essential concerns.

I'm good with Shift being only for small/medium objects, and Gust or other effects for larger things.

>>15800141
Go Hylians! Woo!

Late night bump.

>>15800141
This guy's mustache is awesome.

...That's all I have to say. The thread needed a bump, but I couldn't think of anything to contribute in terms of development, so...yeah.

Is someone planning on updating Shift?

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/da.vane/ZeldaRPG.htm

Been done bros.

>>15805738
I'll do it here in a couple minutes.

For most of the spells, it just lists a Virtue after the name. Does the attribute used vary, or do you assume it's Mental?

Great work, but you're basically doing absolutely nothing of value. There's already dozens of RPG systems out there, nobody wants to take the time to learn another.

Play DnD, and if someone wants to be Link, he can roll a warrior/bard.

>>15805897

It's been pointed out several times, we know there's been other Zelda RPGs. Pretty much everyone here agrees that none of them effectively capture the feel of the Zelda games, and are instead just D20 rehashes with the Zelda setting layered over them.

>>15806184
>>15805897
Okay, you're being very cute, but there's many of us that like the system being made more than the others that are out there.

>>15806184

>nobody should ever do anything, because everything's already been done before!

I don't mean to sound like I'm over-reacting, but if you truly think like this, you might as well just kill yourself now because everything you do in your life will be "nothing of value".

>>15804645
It looks really familiar, too. Fits perfectly with the style of the games.

...Was it someone in Wind Waker that had that moustache? It looks like that game style, but I'm not too sure if it's original or based on something...
Maybe the foreman from OoT? Nah...

>>15806124
All spells use |Magic| skill which is implied to use mental.

>>15806192
>Implying this homebrew captures the 'feel'
You know just by coming up with a system and sticking Zelda terms all over it doesn't capture it any better than the d20 clones. You're deluding yourself if you think you're doing anything better just because you're the one making it.

>>15806502
>>15805897
>>15806184

Gee, thanks. That's so helpful. Now fuck off, we're working here.

>>15805964
I edited it a little additionally. Made sure to note the movement was in any direction and doesn't provoke opportunity attacks, and added a qualifier stating it may not be able to activate switches and levers, at the DM's judgement. That way it can't be used to overcome a puzzle where there's a lever/switch on the other side of a small chasm, and the point is to puzzle your way across.

Okay, so what's the next really hard issue we have to resolve? We've got a lot of great work done on techs, songs, and spells. There's plenty more to do there, but I think there are a few large areas of base mechanics to hammer out.

How about falling damage? Did we come to an agreement on that? Past that, we certainly need to get some established conventions for building dungeons and bosses, and probably rough guidelines for how often a party should receive items that upgrade Life and MP.

>>15806667
Falling damage kind of fell by the wayside and got buried under the Gust/Shift discussion. I'll repost the proposal from >>15785678:
>I'd say something like 1/2H for every 20 meters fallen, with an |acrobatics| check against a target of 4 to reduce this amount by 1/2H per success. Or something like that, just kind of pulling numbers out of my ass here.

Some other things I can think of that need done in terms of core rules is how resting works, and to give the weapon stats on the wiki a thorough review. I'll take a crack at the weapons when I get home and can properly focus on it rather than procrastinating at work >.>

>>15807238
I guess that's my fault for bringing up shift. Sorry about that.

1/2H per 20 meters doesn't sound like enough to me. I think it would be better at 1/2H per 10 (or 1/4H per 5). The acrobatics check to reduce damage looks fine.

I don't think it would be too much to say that a night's rest restores all of your hearts and magic. In TP you can refill all of your hearts just by spending a minute in a hot spring.

>>15807487
1/2h per 10 meters does sound better, though I'd keep it to 10-meter intervals. And full restoration for a night's rest sounds reasonable too.

>>15807238
I just had a though regarding different classes of weapons. I notice that brawl and the dagger are labeled as having a bonus to the attack roll, +0k1 and +1k0 respectively. Perhaps we could have a general system that gives different classes of weapons different bonuses. Fine piercing weapons like a dagger or claws could get a bonus to the rolled dice pool which would reflect it being easier to land a blow on an opponent. On blunt weapons you could have a bonus to the kept pool which would reflect the weapon better able to damage an opponent once a hit is landed. Reach weapons already have a bonus, but have the deficit of needing 2 hands to wield. I'm not sure what bonuses would be given to a balanced or edged weapon. It's a work in progress.
I realize that this may be more complicated than we want to make weapons, but I was just thinking about how to make the specific weapons different from each other to add some more flavor.

>>15809760
I like this idea a lot, it makes the different weapon decisions feel less arbitrary

>>15809760
Just had another thought. Balanced weapons like a longsword would have a +1k0 bonus to Parry.

>>15809760
I kind of like the idea, though you're right that it might be a bit too much for our purposes. I'm personally kind of torn -- part of me likes the idea of keeping weapons pretty general for this system, to keep the focus more on the rest of the gameplay, but at the same time part of me really likes it when roleplaying choices have a tangible effect on the mechanics...

On the subject of weapons, a thought occurred to me: Are we still going with Power adding to your damage in melee? I don't recall if that got struck or not, but if we're still doing that we need to find another way to differentiate Power |melee| weapons from Courage ones besides damage, since giving Power weapons a bigger damage increment on top of the bonus damage from having high Power is a bit silly.

Personally, I'd be in favor of dropping the Power bonus to damage (it's an extra detail that could easily be forgotten) and just giving Power-based |melee| weapons the improved damage increment.

>>15809877
Power adding to damage was dropped a while ago, yes.

On weapons, I would love to see some mechanical differences. Nothing extravagant, just a few broad categories with simple, minor differences.

>>15809852
The problem with that is if you decide not to invest in Parry, and go with Shield or Acrobatics. However, given a balanced, edged weapon's ease of use in a variety of circumstances, both offensive and defensive, we could have it add a +1k0 to Active Defense rolls instead of just Parry, to make it more useful.

This also allows us to split up some weapon techs into the few categories. One or two techs to make each weapon category better for an expert user.

In fact, if there's a lot of opposition to making those traits default in weapons, we could still use the techs to put those bonuses in there. I'm personally in favor of splitting the weapons into a few broad categories, and assigning minor bonuses to each by default, with a tech or two to make them even better.

One issue, though, isn't +0k1 technically a much better benefit than +1k0, because of how unopposed dice affect combat? How about blunt weapons having a minor armor penetration instead, since their damage isn't dependent on the weapon actually getting to the flesh of the person you're attacking?

>>15810411
I agree to giving blunt weapons armor penetration rather than +0k1, that would be much more balanced.

>>15810411
There's not really anything in here I don't agree with. I know that my initial suggestion needs a lot of refinement. Just trying to get the ball rolling for a cool idea.

What kinds of categories were you talking about? Divided by virtue like they are now, or more like blades/blunt/light/reach and things like that?

If I were to have a suggestion, I would say the Songs could use some work next(and I do see that weapons are being done at the moment). Just a suggestion, I'm not working on it myself, so my opinion has no weight here. Songs just seemed, to me, like the only part that were obviously not done.

A little sketch of a Moblin still intent on killing Gannon's enemies.

>>15811234
This is a good point. We've got a pretty good outline for how songs should work, and a number of examples songs. What really remains to be done is making sure the songs on the wiki share the same format, and adapting as many canon songs as we can. In practice, many of the songs used in campaigns will likely be designed by DMs to fit the needs of their own campaign, though of course a lot of the old standbys should make appearances.

>>15810933
I was thinking that for categories we could split them based on what the weapon does to inflict damage. Perhaps making the categories as such: Piercing, Slashing, Bludgeoning. It brings back 3.X memories, but those are the logical separation between how things hurt someone. Could call them something different if you like.

As for the bonuses, I'm not sure if we should include a flat bonus to attack (such as the suggested +1k0 with piercing). Perhaps the bonuses should be conditional. For example, blunt weapons bypass some armor, which is only helpful if the enemy has some. Edged weapons can be swung in an arc to increase defense, but if you don't use Active Defense you won't get that +1k0.

I'm a bit stumped on the benefit for Piercing weapons in this categorization, though. And as for reach weapons, we could have reach weapons of all categories. Reach would have the extended reach benefit at the downside of 2-handed weapon with a 1-hander's (or slightly higher) damage. So reach is already balanced out there.

>>15814638
So let's see if I got this right...

There are three different types of damage from weapons:
-Piercing (+1k0)
-Bludgeoning (ignores 1/2H armour)
-Slashing (+1k0 to Active Defence)

There are three (or more?) categories of damage that the weapons do:
-Light (1/4H)
-Medium (1/2H)
-Heavy (1H+)

There are also three different skills that you use:
-|Ranged| (deal Light(darts) to Medium(arrows) damage)
-|Melee| (deal Light(daggers) to Medium(swords) damage)
-|Heavy| (deal Heavy damage)

Now, there are variations within types of damage. Medium damage goes up to 3/4H, while Heavy damage goes up to 2h.

Would this be an accurate assessment of our current system for weapons?

>This system has a lot of groups of three, by the way. Three Virtues, Three Attributes and so on.

>>15816366
>>This system has a lot of groups of three, by the way. Three Virtues, Three Attributes and so on.
Appropriate, given that a major theme of the LoZ games is the TRIforce!

That breakdown looks good, though I like DM's idea of trying to make all the different bonuses conditional. Also, I think ignoring 1/2h of armor reduction is too much for blunt weapons -- 1/4h would be better, since then medium armor is still effective.

Perhaps for piercing weapons there could be a modest amount of bonus damage for unopposed dice? It's situational in that it only benefits you if you have more kept dice than the target, and I feel like it would be appropriate since most Wisdom weapons are piercing, and this would give sneak attackers an extra edge (since sneak attacks penalize the target's defense considerably).
Might be a little overpowered compared to the others, though...maybe instead of bonus damage per unopposed die, just a flat bonus of 1/2h or 1/4h IF you have at least one unopposed die?

Just throwing the idea out there.

>>15816494
I suppose that it depends on if armour can reduce damage to zero.
If it can? 1/2H armour avoidance for blunt weapons.
If it can't? Yeah, 1/4H.

Oh, and there's already a technique for boosting damage with daggers during sneak attacks, IIRC. No need to give sneak attackers Physical Wisdom+Wisdom+1k0+1/2H Damage Increment+ additional damage for the thing you proposed.
Or at least that's how I remember it going.

Also:
A dedicated sneak attacker (4 Wisdom, 4 Physical, 3 |Stealth|, 3 |Melee|) will roll 8k8 with 1/2 Damage Increment. They don't need boosting.
...Not to mention that they'll have as much health as the party tank, since that's what Physical does.

>couldn't youtora
Sure, Captcha. How should I tora?

>>15816627
Personally, the one issue I'd have with giving blunt weapons 1/2h armor bypass is that it makes all basic light AND medium armor completely useless. That's pretty powerful right there.

As for the bonus damage for piercing weapons, I meant that to replace the +1k0, rather than be in addition to, since we were discussing making the weapon type bonuses situational. My reference to sneak attacks was that it seemed appropriate to me that the bonus given to piercing weapons should synergize with sneak attacking (though it would still be useful in other situations), rather than that sneak attack needs a buff.

Also, just FYI, the sneak attack would be a |Melee| Wisdom roll (of 6k5 for a maxed starting character) against the enemy's passive defense (which takes a -2k2 penalty), adding 1/4h to the damage increment if you're using a weapon that keys to Wisdom normally (which you probably are; that'd be a 1/2h increment for daggers, or 3/4h if you have assassin's training) and dealing double damage. Which...is a lot, but keep in mind that it's pretty situational and requires, at minimum, one action to set up (and that requires you to have the Flash Bomb Vanish tech, and a deku nut or flash bomb on hand to use for it). If you can't use the Flash Bomb Vanish tech, it's more likely to take 2 actions to set up (one to run to a hiding spot, then one to move out from hiding into range), and may be flatly impossible if there isn't sufficient cover.
If we do think it needs a nerf, I'd say drop the penalty to defense for being caught by surprise from -2k2 to -1k1, and maybe restrict the bonus to damage increment to light Wisdom weapons, rather than Wisdom weapons in general. At any rate, when you're already dishing out that kind of damage, adding 1/4h to the total amount as a function of your weapon is fairly negligible.

>>15817080
From Wiki:

>Assassin's Training (Passive)
>-Prerequisites: |Melee| 2, Wisdom 2
>-XP cost: 2
>Wisdom-based |Melee| and small |Ranged| weapons (shuriken, darts, etc.) weapons do +1/4H more damage.

>Sneak Attack (Passive)
>-Requirements: |Melee| 2, |Stealth| 2
>-XP Cost: 2
>-Special: You must be wielding a |Melee| weapon or a non-Explosive |Ranged| weapon.
>When you attack a creature you are hidden from, your attack uses Wisdom instead of its usual Virtue and does 2x damage. When attacking with a weapons that already uses Wisdom, the weapon's damage increment is increased by +1/4.

So yeah, sorry. Seems like I was wrong.
(It's just 6k5 with an effective Damage Increment of 1 1/2H. 7k5 if we go with Piercing adding to rolled dice.)

I think I was confused due to a discussion about adding your Wisdom to your kept dice back when we were working on sneak attacks.

(Also all Wisdom-weapons are light-ish, or at least do Light Damage if going with that)
(Also-also, you can sneak attack with ranged weapons. Throwing knives, darts, shurikens, miniature bowguns...)

>>15817218
Huh, I could've sworn there were at least one or two medium-level Wisdom weapons (like maybe rapiers or something). Well, staves are Wisdom-based and deal 1/2h increments...but then again, they're two-handed.

And I wasn't thinking about ranged sneak attacks, that would be pretty devastating. Actually, even with no weapon-based bonuses, that'd be devastating. You're essentially dealing |heavy|-weapon damage, at range, against a severely penalized defense roll, and quite feasibly with both actions per round. We definitely need to come up with some ways to limit that...

The thing is, if we're adding bonuses to weapons, no matter what the bonus is it'll apply on sneak attacks either way. So although this issue of the power level of sneak attacks is important to discuss, it's not entirely relevant to the topic of weapon type bonuses.

A while ago, it was decided that sneak attack would let you treat your weapon as having a dmg of 3/4 so it would be the same for every melee weapon, and now it says in the wiki that if you use a wisdom wep you just add 1/4 increment of dmg.

Did somebody changed the techs again without any sort of discussion?, cause i have been following the threads and nobody brought this change to discussion.

>>15817495
OH YEAH RAPIERS
forgot about those
(We should really update that list on the wiki, I suppose)
So then they do 2H damage, which is equal to high-level |Heavy| weapons.
The difference being that you're even MORE limited than with Heavy weapons, and can only attack very infrequently.

And Ranged sneak-attacks only work once before that enemy knows where you are, and good luck getting Line-of-sight while behind cover... So three actions for getting one ranged sneak attack? Two with the smoke bomb tech? And it's not guaranteed, since you can fail the |Stealth| test?
Now that I think about it, sneak attack is probably fine as is. A long as the GM realizes that the monsters can tell each other where the players are (well, some of them a.k.a. the ones that matter), there shouldn't be that many problems with it.

You get one big, strong hit after a long time of set-up. That's how the cannon should work as well, to be honest.

>>15817581
I have no clue. Adding 1/4H is probably better than a fixed number, though. Otherwise buffs and such are pretty useless for sneaky types.


>Question!
>Since Sneak Attack makes your weapon use Wisdom, would the bonus from Assassin's Training apply even if the weapon would normally not use Wisdom?
>If someone had the Master Sword people have been proposing (1H Damage Increment), would that mean that they would do (1H+1/4H)*2 damage, basically having a Damage Increment of 2 1/2H?
>That would be really, really end-game stuff, the kind of things you use while fight Ganon Reawakened and such, but you know what?
>I'm OK with that. They don't do that mush more damage than they would if they just attacked twice a turn.
>And a |Heavy| user will be doing two 8k8 2H attacks every turn. And a mage will kill an entire room with an übercharged AoE Fire spell. And the Ranged guy shoots the boss in the face with a bomb, while the swordsman does some crazy acrobatic beheadings.
>It all balances out in the end.

>>15817581
It's been like that as long as I've been watching the threads, but that's only been since about #12.

>>15817752
You only get the +1/4H damage increment from sneak attack when you're using a weapon that is already Wisdom based.

Proposition for Rapiers:
Wisdom, 1/2H, Piercing

I hope you guys remember to save the thread this time.

>>15817752
Those are some good points on the ranged sneak attack -- it would be pretty difficult to pull it off without giving your position away. Line-of-sight probably wouldn't be too difficult (if you've ever played hide-and-seek as a kid, you know it's a lot easier to see out of something like dense foliage than it is to see in), but you would still give yourself away -- either by the path of your projectile (it's a lot easier to follow an arrow or bolt than a modern-day bullet, after all), or by having to stand up/step out to get a good aim.

...Dang, now I'm imagining a crossbow sniper character using sneak attacks and the Take Aim tech to get off MASSIVE HUEG damage. That'd be pretty wicked.

>>15817795
Thanks for the reminder, anon!
Here we go:
>http://suptg.thisisnotatrueending.com/archive/15759263/

>>15817812
>Just lay in wait for three turns, aiming on a guy who stays in LoS
>get 3k3 bonus
>attack, maxed out at 6 in all relevant stuff
>12k12 ranged attack
>NOWAIT, PIERCING WEAPON
>13k12 ranged attack
>1 1/2H Damage increment
>unleash attack, cackle like a madman as I start rolling dice
>13 ones
>flip table in rage
>unopposed dice are 2+ for reasons that don't really work since defenders stopped winning ties
>Darknut sees, walks over, pummels face in

ALTERNATIVELY:
>roll all sixes
>12 successes
>18H damage
>ascend to immortality, 72 virgins etc.
>float out of hiding, glorious aura of light
>Darknut sees, walks over, pummels face in

SUCH IS LIFE IN THE DARK WORLD

Why not just limit sneak attack to pre-combat? It could be justified by saying that once people are all stabbing each other everyone's in combat mode and is much more prepared to defend against attacks, even if they're not actively defending. Or lessen the bonus for sneak attack from DOUBLE damage.

Sneaking and doing more damage than anyone else just doesn't seem zelda-ey to me. Maybe I'm weird.

>>15818951
Shiek. Various sneaky enemies. That first mission in that dark fortress in Wind Waker. The Shiekah are the very reason we HAVE rouge-ish skills in this.

Also, you aren't doing more damage. You need more turns to set up than anyone else in exchange for slightly better damage.
It's only better than |Heavy| because |Heavy| can't use ranged weapons.
Yet.

>Barrels: mobile Sneak Attack platforms???
>Cannons: psuedo-Heavy |Ranged| weapons???

Hey, guys.
Why are Blins and Minibins on the wiki as core races? I know that Cz made cool art and such, but didn't we decide to keep the race list as it was?
I mean, you just open the door for all the other races by changing the listing. People have added stats for things like Stalfos, River Zora and those magma-living guys from the Oracle-games.
If Blin are allowed to be added as core races, we leave those other ones out?
(Don't say "Techs" because they made techs for the magma guys just as soon as they were posted, iirc)

>>15819102
I don't think blins should be core races either. They were added to the list without a complete discussion, but nobody removed them. I think it would be appropriate to set them to the side and label them as an alternate race for an atypical campaign.

Yeah, they are kind of out of place in the race list.

>>15817581
This was done as a balancing issue some time ago. There was a discussion, but it was brief since there was almost unanimous support.

>>15819207
>>15819102
I don't think there's a need to split them off, really. If somebody wants to play them, and the DM says it's fine, then there we go. It's just an option, after all. Should probably make a note that they are an atypical choice (though that would only make them more appealing). Whatever we do can probably be handled when we add fluff description to each of our races (and other various options).

>>15819476
They don't really fit in as is. All the Blins are lumped into one category (much like humans), which I suppose is of of the big things.
Another thing is that they were added without much discussion.

>>15819207
OK.
So what races are there that should be saved for an eventual expansion/splatbook? (assuming we make one.)

Evil-ish
-Blins of all varieties
-Stalfos of all varieties
-...Poes?
-Skullkids
-River Zora
-Wizrobes could work, I suppose
-Darknuts (or whatever they are)
-Garo?

Appeared in One Game and Never Again (but aren't Twili)
-Dwarves (ALTTP)
-Anouki (PH)
-Subrosians (OoS)
-Tokay (OoA)
-Oocca (TP)

Just an idea. There are probably more races that people want to play, but that should be a somewhat exhaustive list.

>>15819595
That seems like a pretty complete list to me. And yeah, Blins do seem to fit more into an expansion type thing, but for the time being we have nowhere to put them, and I don't think the work on them should just be outright removed.

WEAPONS: So I think for blunt weapons a baseline 1/4 armor bypass is fine. We don't want these bonuses to be too much. I'm still not sold on any suggestions for Piercing weapons, though. Perhaps they could gain a +1k0 against a target using Active Defense, reflecting an ability to fit through holes in such a defense swiftly? That makes it conditional, but not so conditional that it won't come up fairly often.

So that would be...
>Blunt: Ignores 1/4 H armor reduction
>Edged: +1k0 to Active Defense rolls
>Piercing: +1k0 to attacks against Active Defense

Does that sound good? My only concern is that an overwhelming majority of our monsters thus far do not wear armor, so the benefit of blunt is kind of lost. However, I've been suggesting that appropriate monsters (those with a tough carapace, etc.) be given a minor natural armor value, treated exactly like normal armor. If we do that, blunt becomes much more useful against more than just a Darknut and Armos or whatever.

Thoughts?

>>15820220
I had assumed that natural armor was already a part of the monster stat blocks. If it's not, I definitely agree to add it in on appropriate monsters.
1/4H armor ignored on blunt sounds good to me.

I'm still not sure about the piercing bonus. +1k0 vs active defense makes sense for a light weapon like a dagger, but I don't think it fits well for a spear or pike. Maybe we should just have reach weapons as a separate category within |Melee| weapons that don't get the same bonus as 1-handed weapons.

>>15820220
Maybe put all the maybe-later stuff on it's own page? I have no idea if we are allowed to do that, but it might help clear up the wiki a bit.
It also gives people a place to put all those races they make! No need to have them just swallowed up into the archives.

As for the weapon types:
>Blunt: ignores 1/4 H armor reduction
This seems fine. I feel that we might want to take a look at the values of armour again though. Get some of our excellent statisticians to see what would be the best value for damage reduction.
>Edged: +1k0 to Active Defense rolls
Is this when parrying, or always?
>Piercing: +1k0 to attacks against Active Defense
What >>15820350 said.

>>15820350
Not to mention oddball stuff likes Staffs, which should fit in both Blunt (being blunt) and Edged (being excellent for defense).

Actually, this might be a solution for the entire |Heavy|-Active Defence debate.

>etherUni North
Welp, off to Hogwarts!

>>15820395
If you'll recall, I had originally suggested bonus to defense (parry) on balanced weapons, not specifically edged/slashing. >>15809852
So weapons like a short- or longsword and staves would get a defense bonus, while unbalanced blades like axes, would get a different bonus, like a larger damage increment (like it is now).

>>15820395
The bonus is for any Active Defense, mostly for balance and usefulness purposes. The idea is that whatever you're doing the weapons is meant to be swung in an arc, which is helpful for deflecting attacks. But again, mostly so that it's useful for more than a specific build of characters.

As far as the piercing bonus not making sense for spears, I'm inclined to disagree. The narrow point of attack is still able to bypass defenses, it just might require a bit more skill to put to use. But that skill difference is a little out of the scope of what we're trying to capture. I'm still in favor of not differentiating between a 1-handed weapon of a certain damage type, and a 2-handed weapon of the same damage type.

With regards to the staff, complex weapons like that (I think there are thankfully very few) will probably have more techs to support them. A staff would likely be blunt by default, but with a simple tech (Defensive Staff or Staff Training or something) you could gain a benefit to Active Defense nearly identical to the Edged weapon bonus. This represents a difference in proficiency with the weapon, which ordinarily would not be necessary, but in this case seems warranted for simplicity and balance.

>>15820517
That's a good point, but now we're starting to separate weapons further. We've got the blunt/edged/piercing separation, 1-handed and reach, melee and heavy, and now balanced and unbalanced? It's starting to get very cluttered. If we want something like that, we should probably dive in and go with a system like 4E has, with a moderate-sized list of weapon properties and each weapon assigned one or two of those properties based on its individual characteristics.

That might be a bit more in depth than we wanted to go with this idea, but I suppose I wouldn't be totally averse to it.

>>15820572
That sounds like a good idea. Make a big list and let GMs make their own weapons from the pieces.
>OK. Rapier.
>So what, 1/2 damage
>Piercing
>and Wisdom or Courage?
>Meh, ask the players what they think

>>15820572
I think the balanced/unbalanced distinction is a bit much for our purposes.

>>15820706
Actually, deciding whether a weapon is Wisdom or Courage-based is the hardest part of weapon generation. The rest is pretty intuitive, once you get guidelines for damage.
Could someone write up a guideline beyond "Wisdom is ninja"?

>>15820706
Thinking about it that way, that actually doesn't sound like a bad idea. Makes things very open-ended, which strikes me as a pretty good thing for this system.

>>15820745
>>15820517
Balanced I can understand, but is it really necessary to note that a weapon is Unbalanced?

>>15820542
Would those benefits for staffs apply for halberds, spears and those hammerstick-thingies?

>>15800141

Finished!

>>15820842
Yesss.
You really captured the style of the games there.
Are you planning on doing any other art?
Wait, what other art have you done? I'm awful at recognizing people's drawing style.

>>15820918

I did the Deku mage casting fire, the Goron musician, the Twili Knight in the OP, the Kokiri ranger, and the Zora explorer. They're all in the art pack, except for the Zora explorer which only has her linework in there.

>>15820961
OK, you are now officially one of my favorite artists in this project.
Why do we have so many drawfags in this project, while other ones have nothing? What did we do that they didn't? Have reference material?

>>15820794
They would probably be for staves only, though I suppose you could have something similar for polearms in general, or perhaps just have that tech and make a staff considered a rudimentary polearm.

OKAY, so is there support for the idea of creating a list of weapon qualities (blunt, edged, piercing, balanced, reach, etc.) and assigning 1 or 2 to each weapon on an individual basis? This is more work on our part, but is more dynamic and allows DMs to make customized weapons.

I'm in support of this idea, but I can see how there would be opposition. Let's hear some feedback on whether this is the direction we want to go with weapons before we start hammering out specifics.

Again, I support the weapon-quality addendum, so there's my vote.

>>15821065
...Is the weapon-quality addendum where you have weapons of varying quality doing different damage, like in the games?
Like, 1/4H=>1/2H=>3/4H=>1H for swords, with standard quality being 1/2H?
You could probably slide the scales a bit as well, having base damage for a weapon...
Probably with a minimum of 1/4H and max of 2H.
Sooo
BASE DAMAGE:
1/4H-Dagger, Throwing Knives
1/2H-Sword, Bow
3/4H-Axe, Crossbow
1H
1+1/4H
1+1/2H-Great Sword
1+3/4H
2H-Iron Knuckle Greataxe

Just going by the current stuff on the wiki for base damage.

>If you play DF, the idea is the same: just add a level (XItemX, basically) where it's worse than usual.

Whoah. Sorry if I got a bit carried away there, but I kinda like this system.

>Also: +1 for ooooh that's what you meant with weapon qualities, nvm then
>But yeah, +1 for the description list, it makes the game more modular. We don't have classes because they are restrictive, and give GMs ways to make own spells, so why not do the same for weapons?

>>15821218
Yeah, that's not quite what we're talking about, but thank you. That is useful as well.

Should probably call them weapon PROPERTIES instead of qualities, just to avoid confusion.

>>15821254
Yeah, I just play DF too much and got confused with Qualities.
Sorry about that.

Namefaggin' since I seem to be posting a lot.

Another doodle I had done last knight but I got busy so I didn't get to upload it until now.

>>15821065
Any more input on this here alteration to weapons? I realize it probably just got slow for a minute, but I'm keeping up the bumpin'.

>>15821302
That is awesome, sir.

I haven't been here in ages, and I know I've missed a lot of changes. I'd like to propose my own changes to the monster system (which was done largely by me and one other guy after), but are there any major overhauls I should know about first?

And because someone requested a Gerudo guard:
-Low Threat-
Gerudo Sentry (Humanoid, Gerudo) (Medium)
Life: 5, Mass: 4, Speed: 6
Attack: Glaive (Range 2, 4k3 3/4H)
Defense: Passive 4k3, Active 5k4 (Dodge 1)
P2/M2/S2 (Perception 4k3, Acrobatics 5k4)
P3/W2/C2 (Glaive)

>>15820842
I need to learn how to draw well again, just so my work can be shown in the same project as this guy's.

>>15822688
>>15821065
Yeah that sounds about what I was thinking about with the weapon properties. Give a number of fitting properties to each weapon. Then have a few techs that correspond to each weapon property.

>>15823844
Alright, so I've got some ideas. I've managed to make two groups of categories that seem to fit all the |Melee| weapons. Still working on |Heavy| and |Ranged|.

Damage Types - Piercing, Blunt, Edged (pretty standard DND stuff here)
Weapon Properties - Reach, Balanced, Unbalanced, Light, Special

Piercing - +1k0 vs active defense
Blunt - Ignores 1/4H armor
Edged - ??? (still thinking about this one, maybe extra damage to unarmored targets?)
Reach - Able to reach an additional square further at the cost of taking 2 hands to wield
Balanced - +1k0 active defense
Unbalanced - Additional damage increment (1/4H)
Light - Highly concealable, usable while grappling, can be drawn without spending an action, reduced damage increment (1/4H)
Special - (A quality of the weapon that is unusual or unique)

With unbalanced and light categories, I decided to make the assumption that all |Melee| weapons have damage increment of 1/2H. I put in Special to cover all the bases (I was trying to figure out how a whip would fit in and realized there needed to be a wildcard for weird weapons.) I didn't even have trouble assigning each of these properties to the weapons that we already have on the wiki. Most of them have exactly 2 that fit, but some may have exceptions. (See Pic)
(Note: I took some liberties with some of the categorization of claws and the rapier. I didn't think they belonged under Courage.)

>>15825533
I think if we're going to include unbalanced, it should have a penalty associated with it, because otherwise what's the point? It should have a -1k0 penalty to Active Defense, the opposite of Balanced, and the bonus is it's higher damage increment.

Other than that, I like how easily this seems to have been applied. I like it a lot. For edged weapons, perhaps the ability to reroll the lowest roll on an attack? That might be a bit much, and we don't have any reroll mechanics in place so it might not fit. I'm just brainstorming.

>>15826108
I was thinking the same thing about unbalanced in the back of my mind. I completely agree.
I really have no idea what to do with slashing/edged.

I thought edged weapons just cut things and were good against certain enemies (like Deku babas, cutting their stalks)

>>15826713
Actually, I was given an idea by one of my players. An edged weapon can deal a long bleeding slash (sword) or deep gash (axe), but only if they get through. How about the benefit of Edged weapons having to do with when they have unopposed attack dice? Such as, an extra 1/4 H of damage on each unopposed attack dice. This makes an edged weapon like a sword or axe very dangerous, but only when they have a distinct advantage already.

Just another idea, it might be a bit much by comparison to the others.

>>15823730
Thanks much for the stat block!

The things we went over were changing the Shift spell to affect objects for puzzles and such, decided once again against including a crafting system, and now we're on finishing our weapon system. I may have missed something.

>>15826929
Increasing damage per unopposed attack die does seem like a lot. How about a more reigned-in approach, where you get an extra +1/4 H damage IF you have any unopposed attack dice, but the number is irrelevant.

>>15825533
Yeah, Edged should cut things. Remember: not all properties need to be relevant in combat.
There should be something for hammers and smashing buttons and such, and for |Heavy| collateral damage.
Also, don't limit it to two properties. Some weapons would have more, for obvious reasons. (Halberds, |Heavy| stuff etc.)

Finally, could someone explain why Rapiers are wisdom? When I think rapiers, I think Musketeers/Pirates. That's a lot more Courage than Wisdom, unless the reasoning is that it's more elegant, with finesse and such?

>>15826108
A reroll in this system is, in most scenarios, effectively the same as +1k0, since you discard your lowest dice anyway. I like the idea of giving edged weapons a damage bonus against unarmored foes -- most armors stop cutting attacks better than anything else, so it makes sense that edged weapons should be more effective against unarmored enemies than armored ones.

>>15827781
I would think that non-combat applications needn't be considered in the basic weapon properties. Yes, a sword is useful for cutting ropes and deku baba stems and the like, but that shouldn't be its only benefit over other weapons. Each weapon has its combat bonuses IN ADDITION TO its appropriate non-combat applicability.
Also, on the subject of rapiers, I personally tend to think of them in association with nimble, foppish duelists, which would be more Wisdom than Courage. And although I'm not the one who wrote up the above list, I would be inclined to agree with the Wisdom designation, since it is very dependent on precision, dexterity, and finesse.
However, the beauty of making this modular system of weapon properties is that the GM can change properties as (s)he sees fit. If you can convince your GM to rule rapiers as Courage rather than Wisdom, all the more power to you.

>>15828271
Interesting fact: attacks against armoured opponents are already less effective when using non-blunt weapons!
But yes, I see what you mean. It might make edged weapons too powerful though, since not many enemies have armour.

(Not to mention that certain Piercing weapons should be better against armour, if we go that route: pickaxes, scythes and certain arrowheads will flat-out ignore armour.)

>>15825533
I'm not too deep into this project for various reasons, but isn't having Balanced/Unbalanced kinda redundant when we already have a separate SKILL for our heavy weapons?

I mean, one of the most attractive things about this project I've found so far is that the rules themselves isn't overly complicated, like the games often were. Do we really need to get so indepth on some things?

>>15827781
Finesse is exactly the word I would use to describe rapiers. Its design is not the same as a standard sword. You must move it carefully and precisely to get the most benefit from it.

I didn't purposefully limit the weapons to -only- 2 properties, it just happened that most fit exactly 2 categories. Oddballs like the halberd have 3, and I'm thinking about having |Heavy| as a property too.

>>15828710
I find that the distinction between |Melee| and |Heavy| is the size of the weapon, not necessarily whether it's balanced.

I agree with limiting edged weapons to deal 1/4 extra dmg for the attack when they have any unopposed roll, that way it is not to much of a buff.

I was looking at |Heavy| weapons to try to get something together for properties and noticed ball and chain. It is both heavy -and- a reach weapon, both properties which require 2 hands to wield. If the two overlap with no additional penalty, then that makes ball and chain explicitly better than a great hammer. Perhaps if you use the reach quality of it, it should take 2 actions to recover, and have a technique available to reduce it down to only 1.

>>15828906
The penalty for the ball and chain would be making you sloooooow. Like, halving your speed slow.
If you're wearing armour, that just makes it even worse.
Wait.
Can you do that spinning attack with the ball and chain?
You know, the charging-up-attack one?
Cause it was awesome.

>>15828949
Ah, ok. But it only slows you down when you're wielding it right? (i.e. iron boots are only heavy when you wear them. They're weightless in the pack)

More problems with heavy weapons: As the rules are now, the great axe is the best heavy weapon. It has 1/2H more damage than great sword or mace without any drawback. Great sword and mace have no additional benefit to even it out. Balanced won't work because most heavies can't use active defense (not to mention that even though a great sword is relatively balanced, its too bulky to allow better defense). I'd rather not go down the route that great axes can only be obtain from an iron knuckle.

>>15829001
Just like armour is wieghtless while inside the Backpack of Infinite Space, yes.

Standard AD=Passive Defence, iirc. We discussed that in last thread, I think.

The thing with Great Sword/Great Mace/ Great Axe is that they're directly based on Biggoron's Sword/Megaton Hammer/Iron Knuckle Axe. So, you know. Canon.

But the weapon list does need to be updated. Preferably using these properties.

(btw mace is good against armoured targets)
(but yeah, it should totally be a high-quality weapon, to use the thing i posted here >>15821218)

Ok

Guys

You are giving swords bleeding damage

Have you forgotten what kind of RPG you are designing

>>15829057
I'm currently in the process of adding a short explanation to the properties to make sure everyone knows where the bonus is coming from. After that I suppose I'll get to adding it to the wiki. I'll do |Melee| first, then get around to |Heavy| and |Ranged| after I get it all figured out.

>>15829083
Yes, I do know what kind. I don't recall the games ever having a bleeding mechanic on any weapon anywhere. In fact seeing any blood at all is extremely uncommon.

>>15829057
Actually, you know what?
Just assume that canon weapons are specific weapons with specific properties/tags/qualities.
And make the |Heavy| property add 1H to the damage increment.
Heavy Sword? Bam, 1+1/2H.
Heavy Axe? Bam, 1+3/4H.
High Quality Heavy Axe? Bam, 2H Iron Knuckle-style weapon.

Oh yeah, I based the quality thing on stuff like this:
http://zeldawiki.org/Weapon_Strength#Weapon_Strength_By_Game
In the games there are, at most, four different levels of damage. The kokiri sword is at level one, for instance, while the Master Sword is at two and the Biggoron Sword at four.
So 1/2H, 3/4H, 1+1/2H.

>>15829083
A simplistic Zelda RPG?
Oh. Oh dear.

>>15829111
That was a stroke of brilliance there with heavy adding 1H to the damage. It fits perfectly. I'll get to work.

I've got most of Heavy worked out, but I'm having some problems. I'm thinking about having 'unbalanced' apply to passive defense as well when wielding a heavy weapon and the bonus to the greatsword be that it -doesn't- have a defense penalty.

Updated the wiki with weapon properties. Please look over it and critique/analyze. If someone knows how to make the weapons look pretty in a table, please do so.

So apparently the character sheet on the wiki is outdated, and there's been several recent versions that are unusable for several reasons(incomplete, shrunken image, etc)

I'll make one if you tell me what you want on it, and at what resolutions/ratios.

>>15829610
Looking it over...

>Gauntlet----Blunt, Light----1/4----1/4h damage reduction, occupies shield slot
So is the damage reduction to total damage or the damage increment?
Also, equipping just one Gauntlet should not deny you the use of a shield.
Actually, you know what? Gauntlets are pretty useless. Just have an unarmed attack. Blunt, Light, 1/4H. (With Light reducing from 1/2H to 1/4H.)

So what's next? Ranged weapons?

>>15829753
TWO SIDES
MAKE IT USE BOTH SIDES OF THE PAPER
TECHNIQUES AND MAGIC NEED THE SPACE
also here is a decent version

>>15829829
I could make a two-page version.

Just give me a size to work in and I'll start.

>>15829913
Well.
I don't know.
Make it readable, and make sure that you have a higher detail version for printing?

The paper should be scaled to whatever is the standard American paper, since it's smaller than A4. (Letterhead?)
No clue on resolution though.

>>15829957
I'll just use photoshop's "letter" preset.

8.5x11in at 300dpi.

>>15829829
I actually just left gauntlet in there because it was already on the wiki. I don't really see a need to keep it. Also, yes I'm still working on ranged. Right now the only option I have worked out is 'light'.

>>15830016
Yea that sounds about right. It seems that one page is just not enough to fit everything that we need so 2 pages is the way to go. I like the style of the one we have already, but there's simply not enough space. Techniques definitely needs more space for details about what they modify and what they do.

>>15829829
Agreed to needing two pages and using this as the starting point.
One thing I would suggest, since it seems like there was a lot of support for it when it was brought up, is that for the Virtues, instead of using the segmented ring layout, use a Triforce in which you write the values, with bubbles on the side of each piece to fill in. This mockup was posted as an example a few threads back.

>>15830234
I love the triforce layout for the virtues. It's just so fitting!

>>15830052
There needs to be a Reload property. And it should work differently between bows and crossbows.
Also, something that shows what ammo is used.

Also, most of them are probably Piercing. Cannons aren't Blunt or anything, they're just long-range precision explode-on-contact bombs.

>>15830016
Alright.

>>15830234
I prefer the ring, personally. You can write current buffs and such in it.
(Also: six is a triangle number. Why put the dots in a line?)
>Pic related

>>15830275
oh wow, that was tiny. I thought 4chan resized thumbnails, but apparently not.
Remade with 100% more copypaste graphics.

So I notice that Bows and Crossbows have the exact same stats. Don't most RPG's put crossbows with a greater damage, but require more time loading? Is that what we want to do here?

>>15830428
I think we put them at higher damage, require an action to load.
So a |Ranged| heavy weapon.

I ran into another problem. How do we want to handle explosive weapons? Should we use the same rules as we did on area magic? What if it's only on a single target?

Other than that I have most of ranged worked out. I'll make a chart and report when I'm done.

>>15830658
Bomb rules. Blast centred on target.

>>15830726
Can you show me these bomb rules? They're not on the wiki.

>>15830767
Basically? AoE.
Check "Group unopposed check" in the magic section.
We don't have a very tidy wiki.

>was warchat
OK, that's awesome. Hey, what should we work on after weapons? Familiars/Fairies?

Ok, I've got enough of ranged done to make a suggestion. Still need to work on explosives though. Here's the |Ranged| weapon properties:

Projectile – Large range, provokes opportunity attacks at close range, requires 2 hands and ammunition.
Thrown – Short range, but does not provoke opportunity attacks, requires ammunition if not returning.
Returning – The weapon returns to the user at the end of the next action after it is thrown. Can be used to collect magic jars, hearts, and rupees. Reduced damage increment (1/4H)
Stunning – If at least 1 success is made with the weapon, the target is stunned until the beginning of your next round. Reduced damage increment (1/4H)
Explosive – Adds 1H to the damage increment. Blast zone within 1 square of the target.
Light – Highly concealable, can be drawn without spending an action, reduced damage increment (1/4H).
Heavy – Additional damage increment (1/4H), but requires an additional action to load/reload.

>>15830849 Should we use the same rules as we did on area magic?
Did you not see this question?

>>15830873
Oops, I forgot to take 1/4H reduction off of returning. Ignore that bit.

>>15830879
Whoops.
Yeah. I don't know why the bomb rules aren't on the wiki though, since I think the Magic rule was based on them.

>>15830873
Needs throwing knifes/Skiek's Nails (from SSB.)
Are the hookshot/grappling hook/clawshot supposed to be on that list, or do they just count as Improvised?
(I suggest Courage, 0H, Returning and the grabbing rules for the Hookshot.)
Oh, and maybe there should be feats for increasing throwing distance.
But yeah, excellent job.

Also:
>Crossbow has 3/4H DI
>Range 20
>Sneak Attack makes it 1+1/2H
>Assassins Training (Taken after chargen) makes it 2H
You now have a ranged heavy weapon if you are good at hiding.
...If you aren't, you have a bow that does less DPS.
Great for snipers, though.
(Take the Aiming tech and Smoke Bomb and you are even better.)

>>15831099
We have the throwing knives there. "Needles". Just a simple name-swap and we're golden.

I think that hookshot/clawshot should be in there too. I'll put that in the final version. It would be a returning weapon like the boomerang. What virtue should it use?

>>15831620
Ah I missed the needle.

Courage, for Link?
The hookshot might work as Power, due to the whole drag-em-to-you, but Courage fits better.
(Also: Remember that the hookshot, Clawshot and Grappling Hook work differently! The Grappling Hook steals items, Hookshot drags you/the enemy and Clawshot does like, 1/4H damage.)

In the equipment area, it has the boomerang being listed as returning, but nowhere does it say exactly what that does. Does it return the same turn, or immediately? Same is true for Stun. And explosive, but I'm so intelligent that I can figure out what explosive means.

>>15830849
I second working on fairies next. You say familiars, but are there plans to give non-kokiri companions like that? I'm in no way against that, but I don't know who else might get one. But I haven't played that many LoZ games, soo

>>15832063
I listed those concerns up here
>>15830873

>>15830658
I think that our Opposed and Group Opposed rules should apply to all appropriate situations, regardless of source. In other words, anything that targets one person is linear comparison, and anything that targets multiple foes is handled by a group opposed roll.

WEAPONS: It's all looking pretty good to me, Tech-Point gent. I'll give it a more in-depth look later tonight and see if I can spot anything that needs tweaking. I'm really liking how it's coming along, now weapons don't feel quite so interchangable and boring.

One thing we do need to do is define things like the charging bonus on lances, and stuff like that. Anything with a rule that isn't described needs to be hammered out and explicitly stated.

Trying to work out rules on a hookshot/clawshot. Should they be considered 2 different weapons? Should either of them be considered stunning?

>>15832983
I'm glad you like it. I also agree about using the same rules as area magic (linear vs single, group opposed vs many). We should move those rules somewhere other than the magic section if it applies to more than just magic. Somewhere under combat?

>>15830275
>I prefer the ring, personally. You can write current buffs and such in it.
>(Also: six is a triangle number. Why put the dots in a line?)

The idea is you put the dots in a line on the side so the interior of the triangle is available for writing in temporary buffs (which probably aren't even going to exist in this system for Virtues/Attributes anyway, but just in case...).

>>15833198
I think the dice rules should probably go under the general system description, since they're basically the core mechanics.

I bring bad news.

I was almost done with the first page when my computer BSOD'd on me randomly.(for the first time in a very long time, too)

Even my saved psd file was ruined.

Now I have to start over again.

Gentlemen.

I mad.

>netsed over

Added Ranged weapon properties to the wiki. As before, look over it please.

>>15833732
That really sucks, I hope you can create it again without much trouble.

Hello. I just stumbled on this not to long ago and I'm hoping that I can be of some assistance. If you need anymore people to do some art work that is. I've made some sketches of different kinds of Pols Voice. And I'm currently working on the peahat.

>>15834252
It just peeves me that I did abuncha fancy smancy stuff for it which while it wasn't hard, it was tedious to do.

Anyway, after cooling off, I got back to work a little while ago, although I kinda lazily worked on it inbetween IMs and such. This is where it's at right now.

It doesn't look like much, but I'm making rather precise measures and almost everything involved is a multiple of three.(there are a few exceptions, such as the 2.5in x 3.5in portrait space and the 4thick lines inside the hearts, but previous attempts to make them look good didn't work too well.)

Now to redo the triforce, which I though I had a nifty idea going for before BSOD happened. It should hopefully please both the circlejerks and trifags.

>>15835381
Looks pretty good, but one thing I should point out -- since base MP is calculated as 6 x Mental, the magic meter should be divided into blocks of 6, not 5 (for a maximum of 60, not 50).

>>15835381
>It should hopefully please both the circlejerks and trifags.

At first I thought this was a typo, but then I saw what you did there. Clever wordplay there, very clever.

>>15835490
I got a good laugh out of that line too :).

>>15835381
Looks good so far. Thank you for the high res.

>>15835471
>6ths, not 5ths.

FFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU I coulda sworn 5ths was correct, but looking at the other sheets I am indeed incorrect! Oh well, shouldn't be too hard to fix. Easier to make even partitions than odd.

>>15835490
>>15835601
Hee, I'm glad you were amused by it.

Anyway, more related to the project, are there going to be any lightning spells of some sort besides the zora's shield? I admittedly haven't played every LoZ game, and the GOOD wiki has been down today.

Back to work now; cheers!

>>15835847
We had thought about a lightning spell as one of the Courage basic spells, but it was scrapped. The only lightning spell from the canon that I can recall is "Thunder" from The Adventure of Link. I'll think about it and write it up when I can.

>>15835935
>>15835847
Ah, speaking of lightning spells, that reminds me -- I have a handful of LttP spells left to post, including the Ether Medallion (which is a lightning spell)...

Ether Medallion (Power)
Single action
8 MP
Duration: Instantaneous
Range: 15 meters
Area: 15 meter radius centered on you
Check: Group opposed (defense?)
>I'm not sure if defense is the most appropriate for this or not...
The air crackles with electricity as bolts of lightning pelt the area.
Make an area-effect |Magic| check with damage increment 1H (electricity), opposed by defense, against each creature within 15 meters. Airborne targets take a -1k1 penalty to their opposing roll for this spell. Creatures damaged in this way are stunned.

>>15836155 and the other two while I'm at it...
Quake Medallion (Power)
Single action
8 MP
Duration: Instantaneous
Range: 15 meters
Area: 15 meter radius centered on you
Check: Group opposed (|Acrobatics|/Wisdom)
Requirements: Must be standing on a solid surface
Striking the ground beneath your feet, you cause a violent tremor that damages groundborne foes and knocks them off their feet.
Make an area-effect |Magic| check with damage increment 1H, opposed by |Acrobatics|(Wisdom), against each creature within 15 meters. You gain a +1k1 bonus to your roll for this spell if you are in some sort of location, such as a cavern or stone building, where the tremor might dislodge a rain of rubble and debris from above. Each target of this spell is knocked prone unless it makes at least 3 successes on its opposing roll. Airborne creatures and creatures standing on a surface that is not attached to the one you're standing on are unaffected by this spell.
Additionally, this spell destroys all breakable objects in its area, such as pottery, glass, and fragile walls, as long as those objects are connected to the ground in some way (eg, resting on the ground, or set into a wall that is connected to the ground you're standing on).

---------------------------------------------
Bombos Medallion (Power)
Single action
8 MP
Duration: Instantaneous
Range: 15 meters
Area: 15 meter radius centered on you
Check: Group opposed (defense)
Fiery explosions rip the air asunder, devastating your foes.
Make an area-effect |Magic| check with damage increment 1H (Fire), opposed by defense, against each creature within 5 meters. Each target of the spell is also pushed away from you unless it makes at least 2 successes on its defense roll. Treat this as a knockback 1 effect from a Heavy creature.
Additionally, this spell destroys all breakable objects in its area, such as pottery, glass, and fragile walls.

>>15836155
Yeah, I had remembered Ether after I posted. Just forgot. Defense is probably the way to go on all of these. In LttP, didn't Ether freeze enemies after it hit? I never really understood that. Stunning, like you have in the spell, is probably better as it makes more sense (that is, unless we want to strictly stay as close to the source as possible).
I don't see any problems with these. The Thunder spell I was thinking of would be much stronger, so I don't think there will be any overlap in usefulness. I'd like to get more input before we put them on the wiki.

>>15836251
I'm ok with defense for Ether and Bombos, but it doesn't seem appropriate for Quake. Acrobatic defense, sure, but a shield won't help you much when the issue is the ground beneath you. Might help a bit for a cave-in scenario, but that's a secondary effect dependent on circumstances, not the main effect of the spell. Hence why I went with |Acrobatics| for opposing the Quake Medallion -- it's all a matter of balance and reflexes for this one.

>>15836251
>In LttP, didn't Ether freeze enemies after it hit? I never really understood that. Stunning, like you have in the spell, is probably better as it makes more sense (that is, unless we want to strictly stay as close to the source as possible).

Come to think of it, we could have Ether paralyze enemies for a round or two, but we should probably nerf the damage in that case since it'd be a much more significant effect. Personally, I think the stunning is good enough for reflecting to the source material.

Gerudo!

I do love these ladies. This one doesn't seem very trustworthy, though.

Colors to come soon(?).

>>15836291 Defense is probably the way to go on all of these.
Whoops. That's not what I meant. I mean like this:
Ether - passive, acrobatics, shield with reflect
Quake - passive, acrobatics
Bombos - passive, acrobatics, shield with reflect
I wish I had a better way to phrase that.

>>15836327
Well, we do have a "frozen" status already on the wiki if we want to use that.

>>15836164
Oh, I did have one question. What kind of damage does Quake deal? Crushing/Blunt?

>>15836405
By default, shields are only usable against magic if they're warded or reflective anyway, so the only way that setup would change anything from how they're posted above would be that it would let those without |Acrobatic| ranks use Courage instead of Wisdom for their defense against Quake (since a passive defense can be either Physical Wisdom or Physical Courage, and an unskilled |Acrobatics| check is just Physical Wisdom).

>Well, we do have a "frozen" status already on the wiki if we want to use that.
The frozen status is supposed to be specifically for the "frozen in a block of ice" kind of frozen, not a general "can't move" kind. In LttP, there's no real distinction between the two (enemies hit with the Ice Rod just stop moving, no additional effects), but in the 3d games there are clear differences between being frozen and being paralyzed, and lightning would definitely be a paralysis effect.

>>15836439
Crushing would be appropriate, yeah. Though it's not particularly relevant here -- if you're thinking in terms of damage type bonuses like the ones discussed earlier in the thread, I don't think they should really apply to magic, and damage from magic bypasses all normal armor by default anyway. Which seems appropriate for Quake, since even though it is physical damage it's a general crushing sort of effect, which armor probably wouldn't help all that much against.

>>15836725
Agreed that type of damage shouldn't matter much. The way it is we have it split into Physical and Magical damage. The Edged/Blunt/Piercing distinction recently made for weapons doesn't reflect a different TYPE of damage, just a different way of dealing Physical damage.

I think Stunning is fine to reflect what Ether does, though perhaps Dazing is better?

>>15836725
Right now we have frozen listed as having armor vs edged and piercing, but weak to crushing and fire. For that reason alone the damage type is relevant. I agree that weapon bonuses from the damage type shouldn't apply to magic.

>>15836834
My one concern with going with daze over stun would be that it might make the spell overpowered if it cost the enemies an entire turn rather than just a single action.

>>15836906
Ah, true, I forgot about that detail. So yeah, it should be designated as crushing damage.

>>15836942
Yeah, stun is probably a better way to go than dazed. Otherwise you could just keep spamming Ether until your mana runs out for AoE perma-lockdown.

It seems that after a bit of digging at there are indeed more lightning spells in the zelda series, however they don't seem to be named and seem to be mainly used by bosses, including Agahnim, Phantom Ganon, Town Tool Shopkeeper,Ganon, Puppet Zelda, Mighty Darknut and the Black Knight.

It would seem that electrical magic is certainly that of Power.

>>15835381
One thing about the character sheet I wanted to bring up. Skills should either be lest as a write-in thing, or those skills that can use multiple virtues should have multiple lines to help calculate that.

For examples, having only one line for Magic isn't helpful, because there are spells that use different Virtues. Same situation with Melee, Sway, Acrobatics, and perhaps a couple others.

>>15837400
"should be LEFT as" is what I meant to say there.

Guh, it's late, so I'll just drop what I managed to get done for.

Hope you enjoy it or whatnot.

>>15838732
Lookin' good! I like the stylistic choices on the stats.

>>15838732
That looks amazing! I'm so happy you showed up.

Is stuff like potions, magic jars, and ammo going to be added to the equipment page at some point?

>>15837400
Personally, the way I'd handle skills that use multiple Virtues would be to just put "varies" on the Virtue line, then for the roll I'd write in, for instance, "5kV+1". Pretty much all of the ones that do use different Virtues would have spaces elsewhere on the character sheet to list the details for the specific use -- |melee| and |range| would list that in your weapon slot, and |instrument| and |magic| have the spell/song lines. The other ones that vary would be |acrobatics| and |sway|, which vary according to circumstances that you wouldn't be able to write in the details of effectively anyway.

>>15838732
Oooh, I like the way you did the stats! I especially like how you used the outlines of the OoT spiritual stones for the Virtue bubbles, very nice. It doesn't leave room for writing in bonuses or whatever like the rings were supposed to do, but since I really doubt we'd even have such bonuses at all in the first place that's not a big deal.