During our changes vote for Felltower, I proposed this rather big change:
Are you in favor of the changes to the monetary system (magic 10x more expensive, loot 10x more)?
Details here & below:
10x Loot in Felltower
Effects on Play & Rules
- Starting Wealth and Trading Points for Money are unchanged.
- Findable loot will be approximately 10x as much as before.
- Jewelry, gem, luxury good, and coin values will not change unless they are permanent or temporary magic items.
- Permanent and temporary magic items, items that convey spells (scrolls), spellstones, potions, etc. cost, and are worth, 10x listed or $200/point of energy.
- Potions sold in town are sold at $1,000 per as their base value (subject to Wealth sale percentages) regardless of the potion.
- Power Item recharging is $50/point.
- Spells cast by NPCs cost $200 per point, or 10x list cost (so $150,000 for Resurrection, or $10,000 for Remove Curse, $1,600 for Analyze Magic).
- Loot Thresholds for XP are 10x higher.
- Upkeep costs are unchanged.
Notes:
This should make magic items more scarce, since comparable (or nearly so) mundane items are cheaper.
Orichalcum is still restricted for purchase. You can't just order any. That's a Felltower feature.
Because it's mid-game and would require a big change, I wasn't going to implement it without a unanimous vote in favor.
It fell one vote short. It's too bad. I think it would make for a good switch for a future campaign, but without full support of the current players it wasn't going to implement well here.
Tuesday, February 28, 2023
Monday, February 27, 2023
New DF Felltower player - teasing hint post!
We've added a new player to our DF Felltower roster.
It's a tryout, as usual. Our rules are simple - anyone can suggest a tryout. The GM gets to agree or disagree. Anyone is allowed to veto the player (so far, never an issue).
Once we play, after the session, if everyone who played agrees we should keep the player . . . we keep the player. This was trivial in person - when Vic started, about halfway through the game one of the vets said something like, "You'll get used to this the more you play" and a relative newcomer agreed. It was a clear fit.
So this could be a one-shot. Also, people have tried our game and decided it wasn't for them - it's why you haven't seen Naila River appear in play. Some people decided it was for them and then added 1d2+1 kids to their marriage, or moved away, or got a crushingly busy new job, or all three (Honus's player, for example.)
It's kept our game in harmony. We've even had a few suggestions veto'd by the person who brought up. "Hey, I know a guy . . ." turns into "I'm not sure I want to spend 9 hours with him on a Sunday" turns into "maybe not."
But I like this guy's odds because a) I've gamed with him, b) several other of my players have gamed with him (seperate from me, I think), and c) he seems to know GURPS pretty well and d) has played DF before.
I'll do a reveal Sunday (if I write the summary then) or Monday (probably) after our next game. Unless it goes badly, and we'll forever refer to the Unknown Player who Didn't Make the Cut. We'll see!
It's a tryout, as usual. Our rules are simple - anyone can suggest a tryout. The GM gets to agree or disagree. Anyone is allowed to veto the player (so far, never an issue).
Once we play, after the session, if everyone who played agrees we should keep the player . . . we keep the player. This was trivial in person - when Vic started, about halfway through the game one of the vets said something like, "You'll get used to this the more you play" and a relative newcomer agreed. It was a clear fit.
So this could be a one-shot. Also, people have tried our game and decided it wasn't for them - it's why you haven't seen Naila River appear in play. Some people decided it was for them and then added 1d2+1 kids to their marriage, or moved away, or got a crushingly busy new job, or all three (Honus's player, for example.)
It's kept our game in harmony. We've even had a few suggestions veto'd by the person who brought up. "Hey, I know a guy . . ." turns into "I'm not sure I want to spend 9 hours with him on a Sunday" turns into "maybe not."
But I like this guy's odds because a) I've gamed with him, b) several other of my players have gamed with him (seperate from me, I think), and c) he seems to know GURPS pretty well and d) has played DF before.
I'll do a reveal Sunday (if I write the summary then) or Monday (probably) after our next game. Unless it goes badly, and we'll forever refer to the Unknown Player who Didn't Make the Cut. We'll see!
Sunday, February 26, 2023
Revised GURPS Magic: Great Haste (for DF Felltower)
After some discussion and a vote, we had a (nearly) unanimous vote in favor of this change.
The only vote that wasn't "yes" was an "other" vote expressing concern that I'd increased the Casting Time to 3 seconds from 2 seconds. That just goes to show how people get used a specific power level - it's always been 3 seconds . . . it's just that most casters have a 20 in it in DF Felltower, and thus cut the time like so: 3/2 = 1.5, round up to 2.
Either way, even one No vote wasn't going to veto this change. We were going with a simple majority for these and this is how we ended up.
Great Haste (Revised)
- 3 seconds, 5 energy to cast; 10 second duration (unchanged)
- Subject's Move (or Step, for Step & . . . actions) is doubled
- Subject gains Extra Attack 1 (on Attack actions) or Extra Concentrate 1 (on Step and Concentrate)
- Subject gains +2 to Active Defenses
- Subject loses 2 FP after 10 seconds, unless subject is the caster.
Notes:
We'll give this a go, and if it turns out to suck, we'll dump it. It is more complex than the original spell, and I expect it will cost time every turn for a while as people say, "I used to get a bazillion attacks and that would be useful here as I do this, and this, and this, and this, and this, then this, and then had a second turn, but now I can't, so I'll do this and this instead." But I think it's a better rule for us in the long run.
I think the drop in FP costs means it's more likely to get used over and over, which is fine, without the usual Lend Energy dance in the middle of a fight. Bad enough after a fight. It also answers the stupid "Can I use Great Haste as an attack?" concept, where you cast Great Haste on a foe, keep away, then throw it again and again - essentially, a cheap way to inflict a non-resistable 5 FP loss on the foe. You can still do that, but even a normal human will take 5 castings and 1 minute of castings by a 20 skill caster to drop to zero. It becomes a non-issue.
This will affect Frenzy, the magical axe in DFT3, when and if the PCs finally figure out where I stashed it in Felltower.
The only vote that wasn't "yes" was an "other" vote expressing concern that I'd increased the Casting Time to 3 seconds from 2 seconds. That just goes to show how people get used a specific power level - it's always been 3 seconds . . . it's just that most casters have a 20 in it in DF Felltower, and thus cut the time like so: 3/2 = 1.5, round up to 2.
Either way, even one No vote wasn't going to veto this change. We were going with a simple majority for these and this is how we ended up.
Great Haste (Revised)
- 3 seconds, 5 energy to cast; 10 second duration (unchanged)
- Subject's Move (or Step, for Step & . . . actions) is doubled
- Subject gains Extra Attack 1 (on Attack actions) or Extra Concentrate 1 (on Step and Concentrate)
- Subject gains +2 to Active Defenses
- Subject loses 2 FP after 10 seconds, unless subject is the caster.
Notes:
We'll give this a go, and if it turns out to suck, we'll dump it. It is more complex than the original spell, and I expect it will cost time every turn for a while as people say, "I used to get a bazillion attacks and that would be useful here as I do this, and this, and this, and this, and this, then this, and then had a second turn, but now I can't, so I'll do this and this instead." But I think it's a better rule for us in the long run.
I think the drop in FP costs means it's more likely to get used over and over, which is fine, without the usual Lend Energy dance in the middle of a fight. Bad enough after a fight. It also answers the stupid "Can I use Great Haste as an attack?" concept, where you cast Great Haste on a foe, keep away, then throw it again and again - essentially, a cheap way to inflict a non-resistable 5 FP loss on the foe. You can still do that, but even a normal human will take 5 castings and 1 minute of castings by a 20 skill caster to drop to zero. It becomes a non-issue.
This will affect Frenzy, the magical axe in DFT3, when and if the PCs finally figure out where I stashed it in Felltower.
Saturday, February 25, 2023
Revised Higher Purpose for Felltower
One concern we've long had in DF Felltower is that Holy Warriors are basically out-done in offensive combat vs. their chosen foes by, well, basically every template with Weapon Master. That is, Barbarians, Knight, Swashbuckler, Scout, Martial Artist. Defensively, that +3 for 3 levels is pretty sweet, but "I'm harder to be hit by my chosen foe!" isn't really that exciting, especially if your chosen foe recognizes this and just ignores you.
So I put a few questions to a vote, and the results were unanimous - everyone liked a modified version of Higher Purpose.
Here is what we are going with, going forward, in DF Felltower.
Higher Purpose (Slay Truly Evil)
10/level, maximum 3 levels
Gives +1 per level to all rolls directly against anything Truly Evil, as normal Higher Pupose would. Gives +1 per die to damage rolls (including CP) against the same.
Notes:
This will cover a lot of ground - Demons, Elder Things, and a large swath of Undead plus some oddball things in between.
One of my players asked if you can still get Slay Undead or Slay Demons. I'm going to say no. Slay Undead is largely redundant - only mindless undead aren't covered by Truly Evil. Slay Demons is completely redundant. We could do (Slay Truly Evil) and (Slay Undead) with different coverages, but I'm reluctant to deal with potential overlap and costing issues.
Unholy Warriors get (Slay servitors of Good) for 10/level, and that covers Truly Good plus any who directly serve said Good (lookout clerics and holy warriors!)
There are no "whatabout" exceptions here. It's 3/level even if somewhere else allows higher levels, Holy Warriors can't get Weapon Master, so the only issues should be with multi-profession folks (Lenses), and we can deal with that then. I'm not sure I'd love +5 per die to damage but what the hell, it'll be 50+ points for a limited target selection with a specific weapon type. In this type of game, is that really a problem? I think no.
Holy Warriors will use the current template but swap 5 points out of their Advantages pool to cover this.
We'll allow retroactive respec'ing of Holy Warriors already made (should just be Sir Bunny Wigglesworth right now) to allow them to convert their existing (Slay Undead) and (Slay Demons) to (Slay Truly Evil) on a point-cost basis. So if you have Higher Purpose (Slay Undead) 2 for [10] and Higher Purpose (Slay Demons) 1 for [5] you have 1 level of Higher Purpose (Slay Truly Evil) for [10] and 5 points saved towards a second level.
So I put a few questions to a vote, and the results were unanimous - everyone liked a modified version of Higher Purpose.
Here is what we are going with, going forward, in DF Felltower.
Higher Purpose (Slay Truly Evil)
10/level, maximum 3 levels
Gives +1 per level to all rolls directly against anything Truly Evil, as normal Higher Pupose would. Gives +1 per die to damage rolls (including CP) against the same.
Notes:
This will cover a lot of ground - Demons, Elder Things, and a large swath of Undead plus some oddball things in between.
One of my players asked if you can still get Slay Undead or Slay Demons. I'm going to say no. Slay Undead is largely redundant - only mindless undead aren't covered by Truly Evil. Slay Demons is completely redundant. We could do (Slay Truly Evil) and (Slay Undead) with different coverages, but I'm reluctant to deal with potential overlap and costing issues.
Unholy Warriors get (Slay servitors of Good) for 10/level, and that covers Truly Good plus any who directly serve said Good (lookout clerics and holy warriors!)
There are no "whatabout" exceptions here. It's 3/level even if somewhere else allows higher levels, Holy Warriors can't get Weapon Master, so the only issues should be with multi-profession folks (Lenses), and we can deal with that then. I'm not sure I'd love +5 per die to damage but what the hell, it'll be 50+ points for a limited target selection with a specific weapon type. In this type of game, is that really a problem? I think no.
Holy Warriors will use the current template but swap 5 points out of their Advantages pool to cover this.
We'll allow retroactive respec'ing of Holy Warriors already made (should just be Sir Bunny Wigglesworth right now) to allow them to convert their existing (Slay Undead) and (Slay Demons) to (Slay Truly Evil) on a point-cost basis. So if you have Higher Purpose (Slay Undead) 2 for [10] and Higher Purpose (Slay Demons) 1 for [5] you have 1 level of Higher Purpose (Slay Truly Evil) for [10] and 5 points saved towards a second level.
Wednesday, February 22, 2023
Short posting break
Folks, I'm away Wednesday-Friday-ish, so I'll probably be back to posting this weekend. Sorry for the break! Gives you time to catch up on other people's posts and my old nonsense.
Tuesday, February 21, 2023
New monsters I need to stat
Monday, February 20, 2023
Pathfinder bundle
Pathfinder 2e has a big Humble Bundle:
Click here if you're interested - it's $28 for a 25-book bundle, or $5 for a much smaller bundle of just the basics.
Click here if you're interested - it's $28 for a 25-book bundle, or $5 for a much smaller bundle of just the basics.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
