Quote from: RPGPundit;447766Ok, I understand the objections now.  The fact is that the slowness or clumsiness of a large creature should not be represented in its chance to hit, but in its "speed" attribute (what is used for monsters in place of DEX to determine initiative).   This means that in determining the order of declaration of actions, a slow lumbering monster would have to make its declared action (what it intends to do that round) before faster PCs, meaning the PCs can figure out what the big slow monster is planning to do and try to react accordingly.

Hmm... What would said reaction likely be from a game mechanics standpoint? Would winning initiative give the characters a better chance of dodging?

Would this same principle apply to aiming heavy weaponry, like attempting to hit a human-sized opponent with a ballista?

And how would you handle the reverse: an accurate-but-weak attack like a poisoned blowgun dart?

Quote from: RPGPundit;447766Throwing a boulder would be a ranged attack, but the above idea of rolling a boulder down on a T-rex would be something I would personally probably handle as a stunt, rather than an attack.

I'd be curious to know how that would work mechanically as well.

Quote from: RPGPundit;447766I don't know if the above would really solve your stated objections to the game or not, obviously any system has its own ways of handling things, and certain systems will do things in ways more suited to different styles of play.  But I think that there are two important points made here: first, in FtA! its very important to run combat correctly, "declaring actions" is not a mechanic that should be skipped.  Second, that the stunting system is one of the things that allows for a lot of versatility in play if the GM chooses to let players get creative with it.

RPGPundit

I'm honestly not sure yet whether this would address my objections from the standpoint of my personal taste, pending the answers to my questions above. But certainly, it's a completely valid game mechanic to which I have no objections in principle. As I always stipulate, "not my thing" doesn't equal "bad game".

And I'm a big fan of stunting mechanics. I'd love to hear some examples of that in play.

Quote from: Shazbot79;447767I bought the the PDF for F:tA a while ago.

I haven't gotten a chance to read t all the way through yet, but so far there are some novel ideas. It meets current interests, which are games with an old school feel built on top of modern mechanics.

The combat phases are...interesting. My opinion on this is actually neutral and will remain as such until I have a chance to play and experience it first hand. But from reading it, I figure that combat will be tactical while swift moving and easy to adjudicate...OR it will end up feeling like a slow plodding nightmare.

The magic system is interesting. I haven't taken a microscope to the numbers to see if they're breakable, but I like the idea of a risk-based system for magical resources. I also like the themed spell lists. Then again, I support any game mechanics that are designed to support a theme.

There are only 5 classes, Fighter, Rogue, Mage, Fighter-Mage, Rogue-Mage.  However, these 5 basic archetypes manage to cover a lot of ground. I could grouse at this being yet ANOTHER indie game with humans, elves, drwarves and halflings. But the game also features mermen and orcs as playable options...so here I won't begrudge Pundit his beloved rubber-forehead races.

As much as it pains me to admit, it looks like Pundit may have written an all around decent game. I find that I do not regret shelling out $6 bucks for it on RPGNOW.

I'm glad you were able to admire it, and impressed you were able to admit that.

I should note that the FtA!GN! sourcebook (don't know if you have it) has a huge expansion of material; not much in the sense of actual new rules, but lots of additional peripheral rules material; including one new class (Monk) and several new races; and its in FtA!GN! that you'll find the less standard races (though yes, I included the half-merman specifically to try to say "you can make any kind of weird race you want" in FtA!).  FtA!GN!'s races range from the uncommon but still-pretty-standard races like Kobolds, to less usual stuff like Centaurs, to really out-there stuff like Drakes (basically, miniature dragons).

RPGPundit

Quote from: Dan Davenport;447784Hmm... What would said reaction likely be from a game mechanics standpoint? Would winning initiative give the characters a better chance of dodging?

So just to clarify, you haven't actually read the FtA! rules yet? Just reviews, maybe?

Anyways, the way it works is basically this: you have to announce what you want to do this round, in reverse order of DEX/Speed; so the lowest-speed characters have to announce their actions first.  They can't change it later.  That means characters who are swifter get to know what the other guy is going to do BEFORE they have to decide what they do.  It makes speed into not a mechanical issue as much as a tactical one; knowing what the slow lumbering Giant is planning to do means that you can choose to move, fight, stunt, or spell accordingly based on that knowledge.

QuoteWould this same principle apply to aiming heavy weaponry, like attempting to hit a human-sized opponent with a ballista?

That's a good question, and its been so long since I wrote the game that now I don't recall if I actually included ballistas.  But I would imagine something like that would take more than one round to fire.  Could a person choose NOT to fire after spending the first round or two loading? Sure, but then whatever they choose to do instead would still be declared in reverse order of Dex/Speed.

QuoteAnd how would you handle the reverse: an accurate-but-weak attack like a poisoned blowgun dart?

If by a dart, you're talking about something actually too-small to do real physical injury, like a needle, where the only issue is the poison, you would fire it as per usual but then not actually apply damage, only the requisite "PAS CON" check versus poison. So you'd roll to hit mainly to see if you actually struck your target, and well enough to bypass the DR from armour.  If so, you've injected the poison.

QuoteI'd be curious to know how that would work mechanically as well.

Stunts happen in their own phase in combat; and the GM decides for his campaign whether he wants stunts to be something that happens before melee, or melee to happen before stunts.  The former means that stunts become far more appealing, so its a question of whether you want your campaign to feature more "PCs doing unusual things rather than attacking" kind of stuff.

Stunts are very free-form in FtA!, so they are basically the player describing what he's doing, and the GM deciding what the relevant check is (it could either be an ACT + attribute check, or an ACT + (relevant) skill check), what the difficulty would be, and what the possible benefits from success would be (and sometimes, consequences for failure).
Stunts can be done to give you or an ally a bonus to a subsequent skill check, to provide bonuses to a subsequent PAS check, to focus damage on a specific opponent (ie. by leaving him exposed or distracted in some way), to provide some kind of protection to an ally (meaning he won't be taking damage from a melee round), to stun an opponent (though the GM can easily determine a stunt might outright knock-out or kill an opponent if he so desires), to cancel out some kind of penalty, to disarm an opponent or destroy their weapon, to give your group a bonus in the Intimidation check phase, to maneuver into an area you normally couldn't get to or to basically make some kind of extended move that round, to make a called shot in the ranged attack phase, to get a bonus to the next spellcasting check, or to make a master-quality item.
Those are just examples detailed in the book, but basically you use the Stunt rules to attempt almost anything within the framework of what the GM wants to allow stunts to be capable of doing in his game.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;447916So just to clarify, you haven't actually read the FtA! rules yet? Just reviews, maybe?

That's correct.

Quote from: RPGPundit;447916Anyways, the way it works is basically this: you have to announce what you want to do this round, in reverse order of DEX/Speed; so the lowest-speed characters have to announce their actions first.  They can't change it later.  That means characters who are swifter get to know what the other guy is going to do BEFORE they have to decide what they do.  It makes speed into not a mechanical issue as much as a tactical one; knowing what the slow lumbering Giant is planning to do means that you can choose to move, fight, stunt, or spell accordingly based on that knowledge.

Would it be accurate to say that a stunt would be the only way to offset the Giant's huge attack bonus? I'm trying to grasp how the PCs could best apply the knowledge that "the Giant is going to try to hit us" from a tactical standpoint.

Quote from: RPGPundit;447916That's a good question, and its been so long since I wrote the game that now I don't recall if I actually included ballistas.  But I would imagine something like that would take more than one round to fire.  Could a person choose NOT to fire after spending the first round or two loading? Sure, but then whatever they choose to do instead would still be declared in reverse order of Dex/Speed.

If by a dart, you're talking about something actually too-small to do real physical injury, like a needle, where the only issue is the poison, you would fire it as per usual but then not actually apply damage, only the requisite "PAS CON" check versus poison. So you'd roll to hit mainly to see if you actually struck your target, and well enough to bypass the DR from armour.  If so, you've injected the poison.

Stunts happen in their own phase in combat; and the GM decides for his campaign whether he wants stunts to be something that happens before melee, or melee to happen before stunts.  The former means that stunts become far more appealing, so its a question of whether you want your campaign to feature more "PCs doing unusual things rather than attacking" kind of stuff.

Stunts are very free-form in FtA!, so they are basically the player describing what he's doing, and the GM deciding what the relevant check is (it could either be an ACT + attribute check, or an ACT + (relevant) skill check), what the difficulty would be, and what the possible benefits from success would be (and sometimes, consequences for failure).
Stunts can be done to give you or an ally a bonus to a subsequent skill check, to provide bonuses to a subsequent PAS check, to focus damage on a specific opponent (ie. by leaving him exposed or distracted in some way), to provide some kind of protection to an ally (meaning he won't be taking damage from a melee round), to stun an opponent (though the GM can easily determine a stunt might outright knock-out or kill an opponent if he so desires), to cancel out some kind of penalty, to disarm an opponent or destroy their weapon, to give your group a bonus in the Intimidation check phase, to maneuver into an area you normally couldn't get to or to basically make some kind of extended move that round, to make a called shot in the ranged attack phase, to get a bonus to the next spellcasting check, or to make a master-quality item.
Those are just examples detailed in the book, but basically you use the Stunt rules to attempt almost anything within the framework of what the GM wants to allow stunts to be capable of doing in his game.

RPGPundit

Thanks for the detailed reply! Sounds like a pretty cool game. Let me know if you'd like a review sometime. I can't guarantee a quick turnaround, but I can guarantee "thorough" and "fair".

Quote from: Dan Davenport;447939Would it be accurate to say that a stunt would be the only way to offset the Giant's huge attack bonus? I'm trying to grasp how the PCs could best apply the knowledge that "the Giant is going to try to hit us" from a tactical standpoint.

It wouldn't be the only way.  If the Giant declares he's going to do a melee attack, then you can try a number of things to avoid or minimize it.  Obviously, you could choose as a group to strike back in melee, if you have confidence that sufficient numbers of PCs doing a melee attack will be likely to hurt the Giant (and not get hurt by him). But aside from that, since movement happens before combat, you could choose (if the site of combat makes it possible) to move out of range of the giant and avoid the attack; or since you can try to quick-cast before the giant's attack, maybe a spell could be useful against him.  Ranged attacks are also resolved before melee combat. So there are several options aside from stunting.

QuoteThanks for the detailed reply! Sounds like a pretty cool game. Let me know if you'd like a review sometime. I can't guarantee a quick turnaround, but I can guarantee "thorough" and "fair".

The choice isn't mine to make; Clash is the publisher and he'd be the one who'd have to make any decisions regarding reviews.

RPGPundit

Of course I would be happy to send Dan a copy, and of FtA!GN! too. PM me with details, Dan - email for pdfs, or snail mail for print.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmice;448013Of course I would be happy to send Dan a copy, and of FtA!GN! too. PM me with details, Dan - email for pdfs, or snail mail for print.

-clash

Good stuff!

RPGPundit