I had slapped together the "Lackey" class a week or two ago using the custom class making system. That wasn't too bad, if a little more labor intensive than just making up a class off the cuff for regular old school D&D versions.
This weekend I delved deeper into the process. I made up the custom races of Halflings and Orkin (half-orcs, and all the varieties of those with some orc and human ancestry to various degrees). Now that was a lot more time consuming still.
Then I used my new races to make a few classes. The halfling scout (similar to the orginal Basic D&D halfling), the halfling burglar (a more or less straight halfling thief) and the Orkin Bandit (a bushwhacker with a small amount of orcish ancestry).
I also adapted the Gnome Titan from Hackmaster as a Gnome fighter type with Groin stomping powers, but at least the gnome racial template was already in the ACKS rules.
I must say that I'm not sure whether the system where each class is tied to the race so tightly is really worth all the hair-pulling and jumping about. Just having separate race and class rules would be simpler. I suppose the payout is that the class combinations should be a lot more easy to deal with during play than the clunky D&D multi-class system. But, just saying that each race could be a straight class fighter or thief at least would have saved a lot of effort.
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
Monday, April 29, 2013
Reviews: Seaon of the Witch; Vikings
A couple of Quick Reviews:
Season of the Witch (movie, Nicolas Cage, 2011): Generally speaking it deserved the 1 1/2 stars it got. However, I found myself not hating it, even though it was bad. I was a little irritated that it had the main characters as crusaders, and it seemed like they were formally "enlisted" in the church "army" and then "deserted" all of which is completely ridiculous, people could join and quit any of the crusades at will and wouldn't have to worry about being "tried for desertion"--totally bogus. Also, they were wearing 12th century style gear, were fighting in the Middle East, and always on foot. However, the screen says it takes place in the mid-fourteenth century (because it has to match the time of the Black Death). There weren't any crusaders in the Middle East during the mid-fourteenth century, the crusades were lost by then, and if there had been they would have been using different gear and would have been on horseback.
Okay, that stuff is really pretty minor. The real bad stuff was in the clunky plot, bad dialogue and poor acting. Nevertheless, there were two good things that made me not hate the movie after all. Number one was pacing, the moving really moved right along. There are times when I've watched 10 minutes of a movie or TV show and it seems like forever, this was not one of those times. It just moved right along and kept me, if not interested at least distracted. Number two, it proved once again that there's nothing that can't be solved by violence and Latin.
Vikings (TV series, 2013, season 1): The first season of Vikings just finished up on the History Channel. I wasn't really in to the first 1-2 episodes, but the more I watched it the more I liked it. I was particularly impressed by its use of real-world source material. It tells the fictionalized story of a half-real, half-legendary Viking named Ragnar Lothbrok. I recognized the real events from historical chronicles it used, and the elements from the "Saga of Ragnar Lothbrok" a medieval legendary version of the real viking's life. It also used a lot of authentic description of viking religious practice. For a drama, it was incredibly respectful and mindful of its historical and literary source material, and I was quite taken with it.
Season of the Witch (movie, Nicolas Cage, 2011): Generally speaking it deserved the 1 1/2 stars it got. However, I found myself not hating it, even though it was bad. I was a little irritated that it had the main characters as crusaders, and it seemed like they were formally "enlisted" in the church "army" and then "deserted" all of which is completely ridiculous, people could join and quit any of the crusades at will and wouldn't have to worry about being "tried for desertion"--totally bogus. Also, they were wearing 12th century style gear, were fighting in the Middle East, and always on foot. However, the screen says it takes place in the mid-fourteenth century (because it has to match the time of the Black Death). There weren't any crusaders in the Middle East during the mid-fourteenth century, the crusades were lost by then, and if there had been they would have been using different gear and would have been on horseback.
Okay, that stuff is really pretty minor. The real bad stuff was in the clunky plot, bad dialogue and poor acting. Nevertheless, there were two good things that made me not hate the movie after all. Number one was pacing, the moving really moved right along. There are times when I've watched 10 minutes of a movie or TV show and it seems like forever, this was not one of those times. It just moved right along and kept me, if not interested at least distracted. Number two, it proved once again that there's nothing that can't be solved by violence and Latin.
Vikings (TV series, 2013, season 1): The first season of Vikings just finished up on the History Channel. I wasn't really in to the first 1-2 episodes, but the more I watched it the more I liked it. I was particularly impressed by its use of real-world source material. It tells the fictionalized story of a half-real, half-legendary Viking named Ragnar Lothbrok. I recognized the real events from historical chronicles it used, and the elements from the "Saga of Ragnar Lothbrok" a medieval legendary version of the real viking's life. It also used a lot of authentic description of viking religious practice. For a drama, it was incredibly respectful and mindful of its historical and literary source material, and I was quite taken with it.
Saturday, April 27, 2013
Mystic
I was working on converting the henchman deck, and it really does help get all the details in focus. One guy I converted was a Monk named "Brother Ignatius of the Holy Fist". Just like all D&D monks, as a first level AD&D guy, he sucks on toast. In ACKS, the equivalent class is called the Mystic, and while there aren't that many listed powers, nevertheless, if you compare the Mystic to other ACKS classes, he turns out to appear to be quite playable. Here's what he looks like:
Brother
Ignatius of the Holy Fist human mystic-1 lawful
Str
14 Int 9 Wis 15 Dex 17 Con 17 Cha 15
AC
4 Hit Points: 8 Morale:
XP:
0 Treasure:
Proficiencies:
Performance (chant), Swashbuckling
Class
Abilities: +1 missile and melee damage, graceful fighting (1 AC
incl), mindful (+4 to hear noise, detect secret doors), meditative
focus 1/day
Encumbrance:
2 stone carried: Combat
move 40' run or explore:120'
Clothes:
robe, low boots, belt, back pack
Large
Gear: lpole arm
Belt
Gear: dagger, case 5 darts
Back
pack , waterskin, 2 week's
iron rations
Attack:
10+ Pet 15+ Poison 14+ Breath 16+ Wand 16+ Spell 17+
Now, to be sure, I used the only set of ability scores that I rolled that were uniformly good, He has 2 17's and no one else I rolled had even 1, so he is pretty much superman. But, even without the 2 points of AC from dex, and the 2 extra hit points from CON, he's not shabby. He moves fast, and will hit pretty hard. A class ability and a Proficiency get him to AC 2 alone (= leather) when not wearing armor and he'll hit for 1d10+1, plus an additional +1 from strength. I would definitely rate the mystic as far more compatible with the rest of the classes than the AD&D monk was.
Thursday, April 25, 2013
Whirling uncontrollably
I'm starting to whirl out of control. I'm trying to get some sort of focus in ACKS preparation, but can't quite stay on one task. I have miniatures to paint, setting to convert, adventures to consider, characters to consider for conversion and placing in the setting, and I keep jumping all around both rulebooks and the mass combat playtest document trying to understand everything. I am making progress with converting the old henchmen deck, so that's something. Although it would probably be better to make henchmen from scratch rather than converting the old ones, it does give a sense of the system differences.
I don't think all the old PC's would have domains. I think Septimus, for example, would be scraping by with his magic shop. Nigel might have a sanctum, but probably not a dungeon or domain. I do need to come up with some Halfling and Half-orc custom classes of some sort for Bosco Tripod and Marlon's old evil summoner.
I don't think all the old PC's would have domains. I think Septimus, for example, would be scraping by with his magic shop. Nigel might have a sanctum, but probably not a dungeon or domain. I do need to come up with some Halfling and Half-orc custom classes of some sort for Bosco Tripod and Marlon's old evil summoner.
Wednesday, April 24, 2013
ACKS assassins
I don't quite know what to make of the ACKS assassin class yet. They are really nothing more that splitting the difference between fighters and thieves.
Just like fighters, they can use all weapons, wear any armor, have fighter attacks and saves, and have the fighter damage bonus. The only restriction, equipment wise, is that they can't use shields. [edit: not true, they can use shields in errata]
They have a few thief abilities: Hide in Shadows, Move Silently, and Backstab, just as a thief of their level. However, they are restricted to leather armor if they want to use any of these abilities.
They're hit points are d6, while thieves are d4 and fighters are d8, so splitting the difference. Likewise, their experience points for leveling are about halfway between thief and fighter.
They don't have any other special powers, like "death blow" or anything. It might be ideal if you wanted a high-dex, stealthy fighter type, or a beefy back-up to a gang of thieves.
I suppose, they're just what you'd make of them. They aren't crippled and they're not broken in super-awesomeness. I guess I'm curious to see how useful they'll be in practice.
Just like fighters, they can use all weapons, wear any armor, have fighter attacks and saves, and have the fighter damage bonus. The only restriction, equipment wise, is that they can't use shields. [edit: not true, they can use shields in errata]
They have a few thief abilities: Hide in Shadows, Move Silently, and Backstab, just as a thief of their level. However, they are restricted to leather armor if they want to use any of these abilities.
They're hit points are d6, while thieves are d4 and fighters are d8, so splitting the difference. Likewise, their experience points for leveling are about halfway between thief and fighter.
They don't have any other special powers, like "death blow" or anything. It might be ideal if you wanted a high-dex, stealthy fighter type, or a beefy back-up to a gang of thieves.
I suppose, they're just what you'd make of them. They aren't crippled and they're not broken in super-awesomeness. I guess I'm curious to see how useful they'll be in practice.
Tuesday, April 23, 2013
What we'll need
Before we start ACKS, whenever that will be, we'll need a few things:
Setting Booklet: the most important thing is getting the region all staked-out ACKS style.
Henchmen Deck: Once we know the size of Portchester and Orchester, we'll need a deck of henchmen. I've started converting the old deck, mainly as a learning exercise, but getting it fully operational won't be a problems. It's interesting that I'll have to have separate decks by level, since the numbers appearing in the book are differentiated by level.
I do find it interesting that level 0 henchmen are treated differently than level 0 specialists and mercenaries. With the variety of proficiencies, there really will be a wide variety of level 0 guys in play. I do admit the way the game deals with henchmen is just about perfect (at least at the read, but not yet play level). Everyone can have 4 plus charisma mod henchmen at a time. However, each one, even a level 0 henchman, gets 15% of the bossman's share of treasure (plus their monthly fee). They're useful, but it's a real balancing act about whether to bring them along. An 18 charisma guy with 7 henchmen would have to pay them all his treasure if he brought them all. But, henchmen (and followers) are the only NPC's you can bring along in dungeon or similar adventure. So, you simply can't bring a band of mercenaries into a dungeon, or along on a dragon hunt, unless they're made into henchmen.
Gear Book?: It might be nice to make up one of my traditional gear books. It's convenient to have all that stuff in one place, plus then I could add some extra pieces hear and there. On the other hand, it is all in the books somewhere. Are the gear books a noticeable plus?
Setting Booklet: the most important thing is getting the region all staked-out ACKS style.
Henchmen Deck: Once we know the size of Portchester and Orchester, we'll need a deck of henchmen. I've started converting the old deck, mainly as a learning exercise, but getting it fully operational won't be a problems. It's interesting that I'll have to have separate decks by level, since the numbers appearing in the book are differentiated by level.
I do find it interesting that level 0 henchmen are treated differently than level 0 specialists and mercenaries. With the variety of proficiencies, there really will be a wide variety of level 0 guys in play. I do admit the way the game deals with henchmen is just about perfect (at least at the read, but not yet play level). Everyone can have 4 plus charisma mod henchmen at a time. However, each one, even a level 0 henchman, gets 15% of the bossman's share of treasure (plus their monthly fee). They're useful, but it's a real balancing act about whether to bring them along. An 18 charisma guy with 7 henchmen would have to pay them all his treasure if he brought them all. But, henchmen (and followers) are the only NPC's you can bring along in dungeon or similar adventure. So, you simply can't bring a band of mercenaries into a dungeon, or along on a dragon hunt, unless they're made into henchmen.
Gear Book?: It might be nice to make up one of my traditional gear books. It's convenient to have all that stuff in one place, plus then I could add some extra pieces hear and there. On the other hand, it is all in the books somewhere. Are the gear books a noticeable plus?
Monday, April 22, 2013
ACKS RAW WWJWD?
[Adventurer, Conquerer, King System, Rules AS Written, What Would John Wayne Do?]
My first instinct when coming to a new game system is to play it strictly as written for the first campaign. I also like to monkey around with game systems I've played before, in order to acheive certain game style effects. ACKS is a bit of a strange duck in that is both something we've played before (many times) and something new.
All told, it tweaks so many things from D&D into a direction that I like, that I'm falling more on the Rules as Written side (unlike, say Castles and Crusades, another Retro-clone that wasn't quite as much to my taste).
The only thing I'm looking to change so far, is the switch from 6 mile hexes to 10 mile squares, and 24 mile hexes to 50 mile squares. If we weren't using the Gatavia region again, I would have used hex maps, but on the whole, I do like squares better too.
The initiative system might get a little clunky, with everyone rolling dice and adding modifiers every turn. But, as much as I'd like something faster, such as dealing cards as per Savage Worlds, or rolling once per side, as per AD&D, there are just too many classes that have initiative modifiers built into their schtick and too many unforseen implications of changing the rules, I think that is certainly better to stay with what's written until we've seen it practice.
There are surprisingly few situational combat modifiers in the rules. I think I'm going to miss some sort of gang-up bonus. I just want to have piles of low hit dice slobs to have some sort of chance against up-armored jerks. As written, once a creature or character has gotten to AC 9 or higher, a level 0 guy needs a 20 to hit, and most times that's a natural 20. Now, Plate and Shield, the best straight armor has a AC of 7, so you'd still need to find another 2 points of bonus, but that's just the Weapon and Shield fighting style and a 13 Dex, or +1 plate and +1 shield.
I'd just like it to be possible for the schmucks to get a few situational modifiers like:
1) gang-up rule: +1 to hit for each guy over 1; or
2) flank rule: 3.0 style, when 2 guys are on directly opposite sides of same target, both get +2 or
3) Shield/Rear: old school AD&D: when surrounded, guys on side ignore shield, guy in back ignores shield and gets a +2 attack bonus.
All three rules have their charms: the first is simplest to manage and tends to be used most often. The second focuses the mind on position at all times, and is a noticeable but always manageable bonus. The third has the virtue of really only applying to humanoids, and can be ignored for most monsters.
I suppose we could just see how it works in practice and live with RAW. I noticed that the magic armor is limited to only +3 and never gets to +5, which is awesome. I will try to be vigilant about keeping magic armor and other magic AC boosts to a minimum, since they are the D&D game killers, if you want to keep your characters in the "real world."
My first instinct when coming to a new game system is to play it strictly as written for the first campaign. I also like to monkey around with game systems I've played before, in order to acheive certain game style effects. ACKS is a bit of a strange duck in that is both something we've played before (many times) and something new.
All told, it tweaks so many things from D&D into a direction that I like, that I'm falling more on the Rules as Written side (unlike, say Castles and Crusades, another Retro-clone that wasn't quite as much to my taste).
The only thing I'm looking to change so far, is the switch from 6 mile hexes to 10 mile squares, and 24 mile hexes to 50 mile squares. If we weren't using the Gatavia region again, I would have used hex maps, but on the whole, I do like squares better too.
The initiative system might get a little clunky, with everyone rolling dice and adding modifiers every turn. But, as much as I'd like something faster, such as dealing cards as per Savage Worlds, or rolling once per side, as per AD&D, there are just too many classes that have initiative modifiers built into their schtick and too many unforseen implications of changing the rules, I think that is certainly better to stay with what's written until we've seen it practice.
There are surprisingly few situational combat modifiers in the rules. I think I'm going to miss some sort of gang-up bonus. I just want to have piles of low hit dice slobs to have some sort of chance against up-armored jerks. As written, once a creature or character has gotten to AC 9 or higher, a level 0 guy needs a 20 to hit, and most times that's a natural 20. Now, Plate and Shield, the best straight armor has a AC of 7, so you'd still need to find another 2 points of bonus, but that's just the Weapon and Shield fighting style and a 13 Dex, or +1 plate and +1 shield.
I'd just like it to be possible for the schmucks to get a few situational modifiers like:
1) gang-up rule: +1 to hit for each guy over 1; or
2) flank rule: 3.0 style, when 2 guys are on directly opposite sides of same target, both get +2 or
3) Shield/Rear: old school AD&D: when surrounded, guys on side ignore shield, guy in back ignores shield and gets a +2 attack bonus.
All three rules have their charms: the first is simplest to manage and tends to be used most often. The second focuses the mind on position at all times, and is a noticeable but always manageable bonus. The third has the virtue of really only applying to humanoids, and can be ignored for most monsters.
I suppose we could just see how it works in practice and live with RAW. I noticed that the magic armor is limited to only +3 and never gets to +5, which is awesome. I will try to be vigilant about keeping magic armor and other magic AC boosts to a minimum, since they are the D&D game killers, if you want to keep your characters in the "real world."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)