Quote from: Christopher Brady;1003049I have issues with class based damage dice.  It makes anything classified as two handed weapons mean nothing.  Dual Wielding stops being a thing, as well.  Unless there's special 'effects' for two handed weapons, one weapon and shield (usually that's extra AC) or two one handed weapons.

You're exactly right. Which is why my heartbreaker has tags and such for weapons, i.e., a great weap N is "deadly," so you get some additional dice, but it is also "slow," so you often swing later than others. Offahnd weapons give you a damage bonus, or can be used to parry, but doesn't soak damage like a shield. Versatile gives a flat damage bonus, and etc.

Quote from: tenbones;1002982I could get behind this as a core. Everything else I'd want as an option could easily be done outside this core. Solid.

I've been writing this up, and using it, bit by bit, in the home game. It's basically all shit stotlen from elsewhere--some black hack, some Dungeon World, b/x, microlite, and so on. The same thing we all do--tweaking and such. For spells, I'm tempted to just use an online generator for names, and "Freebooters" the spells.

Quote from: Dumarest;1003070I assume rolling twice when you level up is to give you a better chance of success, or is there some other reason I didn't comprehend?

That was pretty much it. Progression is dependent on stat increases. Stolen from black hack's idea of rolling a d20 versus each stat, then raising if you level. I split the difference and allowed two rolls, and used 4d6 because if flattens the curve a bit. But it could easily be done with d20s.

The "reset level to zero" idea is from Microlite. I mistyped it. It's lvl x 20 for next level target xp's. I think Microlite used lvlx10, and based advancement on monster levels.

Quote from: Aglondir;1003078That's what I thought as well. But it seems overly-generous, since you're already rolling 4d6 (and I assume) dropping the lowest?
I think I'd go either 3d6 twice, take best-- or 4d6 once, drop lowest.

It's 4d6 versus current stat, and only used when you level. Starting stat generation will produce some avrage numbers, since it's 2d6+4 (typically, 10-12, with total range of 6 to 16). I also thought about, "roll 2d6 for each stat, then assign 6 points as you see fit, that way everyone isn't running around with 10-12 in everything. Then again, you get a class bonus to specific stats, so maybe that's handled by that.

Quote from: cranebump;1003086You're exactly right. Which is why my heartbreaker has tags and such for weapons, i.e., a great weap N is "deadly," so you get some additional dice, but it is also "slow," so you often swing later than others. Offahnd weapons give you a damage bonus, or can be used to parry, but doesn't soak damage like a shield. Versatile gives a flat damage bonus, and etc.

So spit balling here, what I would have ask is, do you do random initiative or players always go first?  If random, I'd make Heavy (or Two Handed) weapons get a -1 or -2 to initiative, One and Shield +0 and Dual +1 or +2 (on the reasoning that the opponent is hesitating and having to figure on how to deal with two weapons.  Of course, if you want to be silly, you say that against similarly armed opponents they lose/gain benefits, although it seems a bit math intensive at that point...

The next thing is 'weapon types', like how axes, hammer and swords react differently against certain materials.  Hammers/Blunt work better against bone and stone, maybe an extra die whenever facing Skeletons, Stone Golems and stubborn castle walls and the like, Axes are great for carving up flesh and wood, but that can get silly...  And swords, this one's a stumper for me, because swords -even big ones- are more agile and easier to control than an axe or hammer of the same size (ish), but how do you do that in a system without making it superiour over everything else?

Again, this is just me thinking out loud and I do want to know or have my suggestions cleaned up.

Quote from: Aglondir;1003064Like the four stats, but I like splitting them in two even better: Str/Con, Dex/Ref, Int/Perc, Pres/Wil.  I don't get why you toll twice when you level up... ?

Gives you a better shot at raising your stats, esp at higher levels, when your stats have risen.


I like skill lists, so this doesn't do much for me. I'd rather use Advantage as advantage (you have the high ground, you're flanking, etc.)

Sure. But since everyone can try anything, I differentiate skill with advantage.

Good.



Race as class I get, but what is a Class Die? Do all fighters do dX and all mages dY? Regardless of weapon and Str?

Class die is also used for HP's, recovery and so on. STR doesn't modify damage. It just makes you hit more often in melee. Fighters do more damage because they get more attacks as they level, and thus, more chances to hit. The rules set I'm using grants "attack dice," that can be used to hit more often damage more, grant advantage, and so on.

I like both mana pools and "burning health" (spells cost HP, or do non-lethal damage.) The choice is a major one, though. Mana pools are necessary for Jedi-type characters who can both fight and cast. I prefer burning health, which keeps mages out of combat. Class level as spell level? It will work. But I'd make spells skills.  

Burning health a la Microlite? I thought about that. It definitely makes a difference with casters. But their HP's are so low anyway, I feel like it makes them way to fragile.

That's a cool idea.



Your system reminds me of Microlite 81. Which is a good thing.

I LOVE M81. Can't get anyone to play it--yet.:-)

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1003107So spit balling here, what I would have ask is, do you do random initiative or players always go first?  If random, I'd make Heavy (or Two Handed) weapons get a -1 or -2 to initiative, One and Shield +0 and Dual +1 or +2 (on the reasoning that the opponent is hesitating and having to figure on how to deal with two weapons.  Of course, if you want to be silly, you say that against similarly armed opponents they lose/gain benefits, although it seems a bit math intensive at that point...

The next thing is 'weapon types', like how axes, hammer and swords react differently against certain materials.  Hammers/Blunt work better against bone and stone, maybe an extra die whenever facing Skeletons, Stone Golems and stubborn castle walls and the like, Axes are great for carving up flesh and wood, but that can get silly...  And swords, this one's a stumper for me, because swords -even big ones- are more agile and easier to control than an axe or hammer of the same size (ish), but how do you do that in a system without making it superiour over everything else?

Again, this is just me thinking out loud and I do want to know or have my suggestions cleaned up.

I use a REALLY simplified initiative system--everyone rolls a d6--monsters roll as a whole, or are grouped. Players who match or beat monsters go first--in whatever order they choose. Slow weapone have disad on the roll (2d6, lowest die).

I don't get into specific weapon effects, outside damage type. Tags are completely about generating choices. A knife is fast, offhand, concealable and can be thrown. A sword can be swung with both hands for additional damage, or you can wield a shield instead, for more soak (though said shield adds to overall weight, as does armor). A crossbow grants me a bit more damage, but requires more actions to reload. A gun gives me a big damage bonus, but has even slower reload, has a chance to "jam," and is an "ammo sucker" (I abstract ammo, a la Dungeon World.). Stuff like that. It's not realistic at all, but the idea I go with is "no weapon is perfect" (except a hand-held, nuke-gun):-)

I'm not sure how well it would work in D&D, but I rather like the Dragonquest 2-handed weapon rule:  A 2-handed weapon counts as a prepared weapon in each hand.  Given moderate skill in it, the character can thus use it to attack up to 3 targets that are in front of the character.  This is distinct from dual wielding, which allows 2 separate attacks at the same target or 2 different ones.  The penalties for dual-wielding are a little steeper than the "sweep" of the 2-handed weapon.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1003126I'm not sure how well it would work in D&D, but I rather like the Dragonquest 2-handed weapon rule:  A 2-handed weapon counts as a prepared weapon in each hand.  Given moderate skill in it, the character can thus use it to attack up to 3 targets that are in front of the character.  This is distinct from dual wielding, which allows 2 separate attacks at the same target or 2 different ones.  The penalties for dual-wielding are a little steeper than the "sweep" of the 2-handed weapon.

I like this.

The Dragonquest rule is stupid. The utility of two-handed weapons is reach, and damage potential not an increased number of attacks. The only downside is the inability to use a shield.

Quote from: estar;1003173The Dragonquest rule is stupid. The utility of two-handed weapons is reach, and damage potential not an increased number of attacks. The only downside is the inability to use a shield.

And abstractly (you know, in the style of D&D), what would be one of the things that increased reach would allow you to do, if you know, you weren't all that concerned about reproducing GURPs, and wanted to abstractly give a bonus to two-handed weapons?  

What's with all the literal-mindedness all of a sudden in a D&D fantasy heartbreaker thread?

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1003191And abstractly (you know, in the style of D&D), what would be one of the things that increased reach would allow you to do, if you know,

The fact I have a five foot blade (2H Sword) or a holding a pole with a blade doesn't grant me any more attacks than if I was holding a three foot blade or axe with a two foot handle.

What counts for making more attacks is better technique i.e. more skill or in the case of D&D higher levels.

More reach means that I can attack at a distance that all. It also allows an army to create formations of with two or three ranks being able to attack for example Swiss pikemen.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1003191What's with all the literal-mindedness all of a sudden in a D&D fantasy heartbreaker thread?

OD&D just counted all weapons as doing 1d6 damage. Likewise for Chainmal all weapons did one hit. However in Chainmail is certain weapons against specific types of armor are more likely to do damage. This got translated over OD&D in the Greyhawk in the form of the Weapon versus AC table.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1003191you weren't all that concerned about reproducing GURPs, and wanted to abstractly give a bonus to two-handed weapons?

As for myself, I stated numerous times that one test of a good RPG rule system is how well it translates the concepts of the setting. That this is independent of the level of abstraction. You can go into a lot of detail like in GURPS or Harnmaster, or not so much like Microlite d20. When it comes to realism, my view that unless stated otherwise by the setting, it should work like like in real life.

This thread is about fantasy hearbreakers, specifically rules that work like classic D&D. Classic D&D combat is not fantasy superheroes rather it is grounded in how medieval combat worked. But far more abstractly than GURPS or Harnmaster.

Since in real life, in most cases, the number of attacks is based on skill. However abstract the fantasy heartbreaker rules should reflect that. It OK if that not the case but nowhere somebody saying in this thread that I want to make combat look like anime fantasy, or fantasy superhero, or cool moves I seen in 80s fantasy movies.

In my own Majestic Fantasy rules, I have a mechanic called combat stunts that allow you inflict an adverse result on an opponent (like tripping him) in lieu of doing damage. The catch is that the opponent gets a saving throw. Why? Because saving throws in D&D are used to see if a character avoids somebody bad happening to them. Also they get better as the character.

In addition stunts (disarm, trip, etc) are rarely as good as just developing a line of attack meant to injure. They occur because of opportunity or specific circumstance (a guy is holding something that need to be knocked away right now!).

To reflect what I read and experienced through fighting in reenactments, I allow specific stunts or effects for various weapons in my rules. Try to keep them as simple and as D&Dish (for the lack of a better term) as possible.

Of course I get a lot of "Why bother with all this fussiness in regards to a classic D&D campaign?" First and foremost many of these additions are a result of something a character wanted to do and it make sense for him to attempt it.

For example a character wanted to use his shield to knock an opponent off a platform. I had him make a to hit roll and the target got a save. Why the save because I assume that it make sense that the normal way of rolling to-hit and if successful roll damage is the optimal default. Otherwise people will be trying to slam, trip, disarm, going for the face shot rather than trying to hit their opponent like the game was originally designed to do. Yet my view I would a dick as a referee if I said "no that not possible" if the player need to try to disarm, or in my example shove a guy off of a platform.

After the first time I ruled that way, I ruled the same way in other situations and it seemed to work well. There was a reasonable chance of success, it accounted for the level of the character and the hit dice/level of the opponent. And by the time everybody had high levels and fighting high dice creatures, more extreme measure were needed rather than trying for the face shot.


What important is not the rules I came up with but the process used to come up with them. Write down some rules, run some session, evaluate, alter, and repeat. Over and over again until you got something that is well-honed for the kind of campaign you want.

Too often I see people flit from setting to setting from rule system to rule system and they never really develop anything that well honed for them. One virtue of using Traveller, classic D&D, or newer Runequest is that they each have editable system reference documents. You can start off with using the rules as is (which I did with OD&D and then with Swords & Wizardry). Develop an understanding of how it work as written. Then start adding in the changes to make it work like how you want it work.

You won't get it right at first, but after the changes from umpteen campaigns and sessions, you will have something that work perfectly for the way you referee.

Some example of what I add for combat in my Majestic Fantasy rules.

Helm   100d/ea.   3.0/lbs.
This is a steel or bronze helmet that covers the crown of the character's head. It comes with a guard that covers the nose. This will protect the character from all head shots but not face shots.

Shield Slam: After making a successful attack with a shield, the target needs to make a saving throw at an advantage or be knocked prone to the ground. The target has to spend a full round getting up. Anybody hitting a prone character has advantage for their attack roll. Fighting from a prone position result in a disadvantaged attack roll for all weapons except a crossbow.

Axe, battle   50d/ea.   8.0/lbs.
Damage: 1-Hand, 1d8
This is a single head axe between 24 to 36 inches long.  Like the throwing axe, the bottom of the blade or heel extends out further into a beard shape. At the attacker's option you can use this extension to pin an opponent's weapon or shield. After making a successful to hit roll, the opponent needs to make a saving or the weapon or shield is pinned. The attacker can't use the axe to attack with.

Hammer, war   8d/ea.   3.5/lbs.
Damage: 1d4+1
The spread of plate armor in the last few centuries has seen the adoption of the war hammer as a weapon. This version is designed to be used by one hand. It is 18 to 24 inches long, with a hammer shaped lump of metal affixed to one end. It gets +1 to hit when used against plate armor and creatures with natural plate like armor. It is usable in the off-hand when dual wielding.

Mace, small   9d/ea.    3.0/lbs.
Damage: 1d4+1
Used since the beginning of recorded history, maces became a popular battlefield weapon when chainmail became common a millennia ago. It is still a popular choice despite the spread of plate armor and war hammers. This weapon is between 18 to 24 inches long and has a ball of metal affixed to the end. It gets +1 to hit versus opponents wearing chainmail or gelatinous creatures like ochre jellies or black puddings. It is usable in the off-hand when dual wielding.

Face Shot
The attacker may elect to try a face shot on a target without a great helm. The attacker makes a normal to-hit roll. The target makes a roll for his saving throw at an advantage. If the target fails his saving throw, he falls unconscious. If the target is unaware or surprised the attack is normal.

Targets that are five times the size of the attacker or wearing a full helm are not effected by head shots.

Quote from: estar;1003204This thread is about fantasy hearbreakers, specifically rules that work like classic D&D. Classic D&D combat is not fantasy superheroes rather it is grounded in how medieval combat worked. But far more abstractly than GURPS or Harnmaster.

I disagree that this is what the OP wanted, as my understanding was that he wanted a neutral base system upon which to build modules that would support multiple versions of D&D.  I'll defer to the OP to clarify.  In any case, your answer makes sense given your assumptions.

Earthdawn.  First edition or Classic.  The rest are garbage.  Best D&D heartbreaker ever.