# Introducing Enlightened Grognard



## amnuxoll (Jan 9, 2011)

Does this sound familiar?

_"I prefer Pathfinder, but the majority of players in my group want to play 4e."

"I really like some of the 4e game mechanics, but I feel like 4e characters are all the same."

"Trailblazer was a good start, but I wish they'd done something about the complexity.  It just gets too bogged down a high levels.  Combat takes _forever_."

"I've invested way too much money in books for 3.5e and d20.  But there are so many annoyances in the 3.5e rules."_​
I hear stuff like this on ENWorld all the time.  18 months ago, I was inspired to really create the D&D game that I believe many of us wish we had.  I call the result *Enlightened Grognard*.  E.G. has been tempered with over 6 months of playtesting.  Feedback has been enthusiasticly positive.  I encourage you to give this a try.



Want to know more?  Read on.  Or download the beta-version of Enlightened Grognard: View attachment EnlightenedGrognard_PDFs_08Jan2011.zip (3.0MB)

[sblock=Design Approach]
*More focus on the game, less focus on the rules.*  When designing a role-playing game, one of the fundamental conflicts is between realism and ease of play.  Experienced roleplayers are all too familiar with scenarios like this one:


_Player:_  I rolled a 12 with +7 that makes a 19.   
_DM:_  As you swing your axe at the beast it ...   
_Player:_  Wait!  I forgot about my amulet.  It's actually a 21.   
_DM:_  In that case, ..   
_Player:_  Oh, wait!  Are we in an "outdoor environment?"  I get a bonus for that.   
_DM:_  I guess so.   
_Player:_  Oh then I really rolled a ...   
_DM:_  Wait, did you remember to roll your miss chance?   
_Other Players:_ *collective groan*​
My solution is to keep the complexity in character design but opt for simpler rules when dealing with events that occur during a play session.  
[sblock=Major steps I've taken to accomplish this are

A token system is used to turn temporary modifiers to attacks, defenses, saving throws and skills into a currency that is readily visible to all and can be hoarded, shared or spent as the players desire.   Thus, the problem is addressed while simultaneously adding a compelling tactical layer to combat encounters.  As a result, every player at the table is engaged in the combat all the time rather than stacking dice or sending text messages while they wait for their next turn.

If you have to pause your primary action to make an auxiliary check or resolve some contingent effect, then it's likely you're diluting the excitement.  Common culprits include:  spell resistance checks, concentration checks, calculating spell ranges, miss chances, spell durations and figuring out just where to place a complex-shaped area-of-effect.  I've taken many steps to repair or eliminate distractions like this that add only a little realism to the game at too great a cost.

Complex actions like grapple and overrun that require one or more players to stop and look up the procedure in a rulebook make everyone lose focus.  While such actions can't be eliminated without over-simplifying the game, I've observed that a modest effort to simplify them and make them consistent helps a lot.  
[/sblock]

*Engaging, fast-paced combat.*  A frequent complaint is that high level combat takes too long and, worse, each player has to wait too long for her next turn.  Just making a combat turn shorter is not sufficient if it leads to “grind” where combat rounds go quickly but aren't tactically interesting.  My approach is to keep the combat system mostly intact, but look for ways to carefully limit the number of actions you can take in a round and also limit the number of dice rolls associated with any given action.  I also look for ways to keep the tactical situation in constant flux so that it's never repetitive or boring.  As a result, a single turn in EG goes much faster but is still varied and interesting.  
[sblock=Some of the major changes that I made to speed up combat include

Remove rules that allow many attacks with a single action.  You won't find full round attacks in Enlightened Grognard.  

I've introduced a clever mechanic for area-of-effect attacks that avoids making a separate roll for every target of the attack.

I've streamlined rules for cohorts, animal companions and other non-PCs.  These rules used to make one player's turn take forever.

One of the biggest reasons for the slowdown in high level combat is the huge number of free-action and no-action benefits that each player has access to on every turn.  Everything from activating those boots of speed to entering a barbarian rage takes a little bit of time to adjudicate.  At high level those seconds really start to add up.  In contrast, very few benefits come automatically or as a free action in E.G.  Instead, every benefit you get or effect you might create costs an action.  This even includes benefits like an attack bonus for flanking or an AC bonus for taking cover.  In addition to a dramatic speed up in high level combats, this change creates an economy of actions.  Players must make difficult, tactically important choices about what to use their actions for each round.
[/sblock]

*Character design that is both flexible and balanced.*  Given the sheer number of rules that have been added to the game and the wonderfully rich multiclassing system that's in place, some unbalanced character builds have inevitably arisen.  

[sblock=My approach to this is has these core elements

I've taken the obvious step of altering or removing overpowered rules items.  

I've adjusted the design of character classes so that so that you can't “cherry pick” powerful abilities via multiclassing.  

I've smoothed the rate of bonuses to the base attack bonus and saving throws (now called defenses) so you can't inflate a character's statistics by taking a level in another class.

I've greatly expanded the feat system so that characters aren't handcuffed to a particular subset of must-have feats.   Not only do characters have many more feats, but I've added many many feats to the game that are designed to make both combat and non-combat encounters richer and full of tactical intrigue.  Many feats from non-core rules sources are still compatible too.  For example, with this system a fighter can be a noble fencer, a brutal street thug, a polearm specialist, a spinning knife hurler, an armored knight, a gladiator, an acrobatic dodger, a deadeye archer, a tactician, a whirling dervish, or one of the myriad combinations of those.
[/sblock]

*Eliminate the “15 minutes workday.”*  With E.G., adventurers no longer have a strong incentive to stop and rest after every combat.  I've accomplished this with two fundamental changes.  First, the frequency with which spells, magic items and feats can be used is rarely limited to once per day.  Some are always on, other reset every encounter and some can be used an unlimited number of times.  Second, the damage and healing mechanics in E.G. are subtly but significantly different.  Hit point recovery is quick and does not require magic or long-term rest.  Actual physical injury occurs when hit point damage is severe.  The result, is that PCs recover quickly from individual combats but still need rest eventually.

*Reevaluate spells.*  Several spells and spell mechanics have been improved.  Here are the highlights:
[sblock=Here are the highlights

Spells that allow the caster to fight better than a fighter or find traps better than a rogue ruin the fun for the players.  I've identified and repaired spells like this.

Some divination spells allow the caster to ruin a good plot.  Simultaneously, taking divination away from the players spoils the opportunity for some exciting revelations.  My solution is to remove or adjust the oft-abused divinations but keep the others intact.

The fact that spell levels do not line up with character levels is confusing to new players and even some old players too.  I've done the obvious and created 18 spell levels instead of 9.

Spells that provide a long term improvement in character ability (often called "buff" spells) cause too much frustration everyone as the players constantly try to meta-game when the next combat will be so they can be prepared in advance.  I've changed the rules so this is both impossible and unnecessary.

Polymorph.  If you can be any monster, why not be the most overpowered beast in the book?

I've adjusted the power level of many spells to bring the power level of a spellcasting character in line with martial characters.  
[/sblock]

*Oh, Christmas Tree!*  Everyone loves the mystery and excitement of finding items imbued with magical power.  However, a problem arises when a character can't get along without them.  In too many cases, I've seen a player happy to sacrifice his PC's life in order to save his PC's magical gear.  I've addressed this by making some fundamental benefits always inherent to the character and never available via magic items.

*Teamwork.*  A fun game is one where everyone gets a chance at the spotlight and every PC gets a little help from his friends.  Many of the mechanics changes I've mentioned so far are also designed with this in mind.  The playtests I've conducted show that it works very well.  Victories more reliably feel like team victories rather than a collection of individual successes.  

*Familiarity.*  I am a grognard after all.  I've created a system where you'll be just as comfortable running a classic adventure as you would running something that was published yesterday.  All the familiar tropes are here.  Dwarves are dour, barbarians rage and magic missile always hits. 
[/sblock]
[sblock=Top 10 Things about Enlightened Grognard that Surprise Experienced Players]

*Tokens.*  Be sure to carefully review the token rules in Chapter 7: Combat.  Tokens are a currency that represents advantage in combat.  You can gain tokens in many ways, including just moving around on the battlefield or spending a swift or standard action for that purpose.  As a rule of thumb, anything that used to grant a bonus to attacks rolls, defenses or saving throws now grants tokens intead.

*The swift action is tactically critical.*  Benefits due to the conditions of the battlefield (e.g., flanking or a prone opponent) now require a swift action to acquire.  Many more spells have a swift action casting time.  Several different basic actions also require a swift action.  You only get one swift action per turn so interesting tactical choices arise in deciding how to spend your swift action.  You may trade your standard action for a second swift action.  You may NOT trade your move action for a swift action.

*Many class abilities are now feats.*  If, for example, you want to be a druid with an animal companion you must take the appropriate feat.  The roles of the classes have shifted a little as a result.  The biggest shift is that rogues, rather than fighters, receive the most combat feats.  Fighters now have a favored weapon mechanic, instead, that reflects a singular focus on raw combat ability rather than fancy tricks.  Of course, you get a lot more feats with E.G. This approach lets you build a character exactly way you want.

*The saving throw mechanic is significantly revised.*  Saving throws are not used as a defense versus an attack (though those defenses exist as well).  However, most ongoing effects with a duration can be removed with a saving throw.  Making a saving throw is a swift action.

*The skill system has been overhauled.*  Diplomacy and Intimidate don't exist any more.  Craft, Knowledge, Linguistics and Profession skills use a specialty-based mechanic.  There is no longer such thing as rolling a Knowledge check.  Being "trained" in a skill has a different meaning.  Overall, you'll find the system familiar and yet completely different.  These are changes designed to make the skill system encourage roleplay and fit your character not the other way round.

*You don't "memorize" spells anymore.  You just know them.*  Many spells can be cast an unlimited number of times per day.  Others have a casting frequency of once per encounter or once per day.  Spell durations also tend to be one of the following: instantaneous, encounter, 24 hours or permanent.

*The death and dying mechanics have been revised.*  There are some actions you can still take while unconscious.  You can also regain hit points much more easily, death comes from Constitution damage gained due to hit point damage.  Review the death and dying rules in Chapter 7: Combat.

*Area-of-effect attacks use a novel three-dice mechanic.*  See Area-of-Effect attacks in Chapter 7: Combat.

*Ability damage/drain does not affect your ability score.*  Instead it works like hit points.  You're fine until you reach zero.  Then you're unconscious (or possibly dead).

*The rules for vision and light have been altered.*  Light sources no longer have a radius.  Darkvision provides no benefit in low-light conditions so that both low-light vision and darkvision have a distinct "niche" where they are valuable.

[/sblock]
[sblock=How to Read the Enlightened Grognard Rules in Half an Hour]

While it looks like the rule system is huge (hundreds of pages) it's actually about the same amount of content as your _Player's Handbook_.

Nonetheless, it's easy to skim the most important parts in a half hour and get a good picture of what E.G. is all about.  Most chapters have a section at the very top titled _"Changes from the Core Rules"_ which is usually only a page or two.  Read these sections to find out what the big changes are.  If something makes your eyebrows raise, skip to the corresponding section about it in that chapter and read more.

[/sblock]
[sblock=Answers to Common Questions]
Q.  Who the heck are you?  How do you know what kind of game system I like?
A.  I'm nobody special but I have logged thousands and thousands of hours at the gaming table.  I've played many different systems in many ways.  But I think the biggest pitch I can make is E.G. itself.  Give it a try and see if you aren't won over.

Q.  Enlighted Grognard reminds me of D&D 4e / Pathfinder / D&D Essentials / Trailblazer / Iron Heroes / Champions / Fantasy Craft / AD&D / GURPS / etc. and etc.
A.  Yes.  Yes it does.  It's also different from any of those systems.  I've drawn from my experiences with many different game systems when I built Enlightened Grognard.

Q.  Is this "compatible" with my favorite version of D&D?
A.  The Open Game License forbids me to make claims one way or the other.  I encourage you to read the conversion guide and decide for yourself.

Q.  Hey!  Where's the art?!?
A.  Sadly I am worse that bad at art.  Donated art is welcome though.

[/sblock]

[sblock=More Quotes (aka Accidental Testimonials)]
Sometimes it's painful to read EnWorld posts because people continue to complain about problems I feel EG does an excellent job of addressing.  


"High level DnD is leaving me cold. My group is playing an adventure path (Age of Worms) and we've hit 14th level and frankly I'm finding it dull. It takes so long for any character to do anything. ... I think the combination of sssllllloooowwwww combat and reduced choice is making me want to leave the game." -- DrunkOnDuty
"I'm on record as being a fairly strong supporter of the 3.x / Pathfinder rules.  But more and more I'm coming to believe that if there's one thing 4e did right, it was ditching Vancian magic. " -- innerdude
"There are certain things about 3.x that I don't miss, especially the emphasis on 'system mastery' and the workload involved in DM preparation, both elements which I'm pretty sure Pathfinder hasn't drastically changed." -- Mercurius (considering "defecting" from 4e to Pathfinder)
"D&D is supposed to be complex but it has become complicated, not just through endless splats and rules options, but more than anything (imo) through the countless modifiers, conditions and adjustments that come through feats and powers (including spells). This is why it is virtually impossible for anyone but a very knowledgeable D&D player to create a high level character from scratch and play it without looking up rules for every action. " -- Mercurius 



[/sblock]

 Beta Testers Wanted!   If you're planning on running a gaming session with Enlightened Grognard, I want to know what you think!  Please send me a private message.


----------



## samursus (Jan 9, 2011)

After a quick skim through the beta... I have to say that this seems like you have started with 4e and then 3.5ified it.  (or vice versa?)

That being said, I like it.  Personally I like 4e as it is, but I can see you put a lot of thought and work into this, and it looks like you may have just managed to combine a lot of the best traits of the 2 editions.

I will keep reading through it to see if there is anything I want to steal for my own games as a house rule.

Nice work!

PS: I would play, even DM this.  I cannot say the same for 3.5.


----------



## amnuxoll (Jan 9, 2011)

samursus said:


> After a quick skim through the beta... I have to say that this seems like you have started with 4e and then 3.5ified it.  (or vice versa?)




If I started with anything, it was the SRD.  I did add mechanics that I liked from several different game systems including 4e.  However, some mechanics are completely new.  

I drew my playtesters from people who both like and do not like 4e.  Responses were positive in both cases.


----------



## Alzrius (Jan 9, 2011)

If nothing else, you certainly make a great pitch - I'm going to download and read through EG based on the strength of your initial post.


----------



## Seandemonium (Jan 9, 2011)

*EG works*

Speaking as a person who has played and is playing the EG rules set. It does have elements of both 3.5 and 4e. 

To me it has some of the oustomization of 3.5 yet some of the simplistic play of 4e. So it is the best of both worlds. 

It may seem complicated, but really there are very few differences, and once you get used to them, they play quite well together.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Jan 9, 2011)

Based on the pitch, I endorse this project!


----------



## steeldragons (Jan 9, 2011)

Seconding Eric's "great pitch."

That said, I'm only up to the classes section at the moment, but am thoroughly enjoying it.

Also, if you are in need of some art...
http://www.enworld.org/forum/media-lounge-miscellaneous-geek-stuff/283445-steel-dragons-art.html
...give me a holler.

Be happy to contribute.
--Steel Dragons


----------



## amnuxoll (Jan 10, 2011)

Thanks for the kind comments.

steeldragons: Yes, I'd love to have some art for this system.  I'm so incapable with visual media that I always view artists as something like sorcerers.  I'll contact you off list.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Jan 10, 2011)

I like the attitude. About to see if I like the game...


----------



## apothecartae (Jan 10, 2011)

*EG Is Awesome*

Having played EG for a bit on Google Wave I'd like to lend my support; it really has the same breadth of character creation as 3.5/Pathfinder, with some great added depth.  The token system is very engaging, and makes each combat round interesting to every player, whether they've set up their character's special abilities that round or not.  

My one criticism is that I really enjoy the 4E concept of "At-Will" attacks/powers that starting level characters have that are tactically interesting (push/pull/slide/bonus/etc.), and my Cleric doesn't have much that has that feel.  Of course, I've talked to amnuxoll about this, and he happily agreed to consider any feats I can come up with that might give EG that same kind of component.  In fact, if anyone has suggestions after reading the rule set, I'd encourage you to present them; amnuxoll has been very open to suggestions, and he has a clear vision of what he's trying to achieve, and how they might fit.

The upshot is that I'd play EG over Pathfinder or 3.5 any day, and I'm currently playing in a very fun Pathfinder game.  If anyone has any player-perspective questions to ask, I'd be happy to respond via post or PM.


----------



## steeldragons (Jan 10, 2011)

amnuxoll said:


> steeldragons: Yes, I'd love to have some art for this system.  I'm so incapable with visual media that I always view artists as something like sorcerers.




That we are AMN, that we are. <pulls out his _pencil of major image +3_> BWAHAHAHA!


----------



## Grimstaff (Jan 10, 2011)

If nothing else, I think its cool that your system has inspired two brand-new members to sign up on ENWorld and make their first posts ever!


----------



## Animus (Jan 10, 2011)

I like the pitch and design philosophy. I'll check this out for sure.


----------



## Wiseblood (Jan 10, 2011)

This is really good.


----------



## amnuxoll (Jan 11, 2011)

Thank you animus, wiseblood and Grimstaff.   I'm glad to hear the positive reviews.  I've been holding my breath.  

If there are particular things you like or dislike I'd like know.

:AMN:


----------



## Animus (Jan 11, 2011)

amnuxoll said:


> Thank you animus, wiseblood and Grimstaff.   I'm glad to hear the positive reviews.  I've been holding my breath.
> 
> If there are particular things you like or dislike I'd like know.
> 
> :AMN:




Well after skimming the doc I am even more impressed. It's not 4e or 3.5, it's not IH or Pathfinder; but yet it's all of them at once. You seem to have a good feel for what is fun. 

BTW, this is Ron. We played some LG together in Michigan .

P.S. Can we see some example characters? That would be great.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Jan 11, 2011)

I second some example PC that you think highlight EG


----------



## Alzrius (Jan 11, 2011)

Will future releases have a monsters chapter? I realize that'd be a ton of work, but as it stands now using d20 monsters in EG wouldn't be something you could do on the fly (notwithstanding the conversion notes in chapter 12).


----------



## amnuxoll (Jan 11, 2011)

Alzrius said:


> Will future releases have a monsters chapter? I realize that'd be a ton of work, but as it stands now using d20 monsters in EG wouldn't be something you could do on the fly (notwithstanding the conversion notes in chapter 12).




For what it's worth, conversion really is close to trivial.  I ran one playtest using Pathfinder's Kingmaker and had very little monster conversion to do at all.  Most of the time I just ran them as written using the trick of creating defenses by "taking 10" on the saving throws.  

The DM who is running my current playtest group hasn't talked to me much about what he's doing since I'm one of the players but I get the impression his experience is the same because he has yet to ask me a single question about how to do conversion.  He's having fun building up some creative fully-statted NPCs too.  

However, I realize that it's handy to have pre-stated monsters around.  I have a stat block format already done.  What I'm debating is whether I should 
a) convert the SRD monsters
or 
b) write an adventure path (which would come with stat blocks)

Which would make you more inclined to give EG a try?

:AMN:


----------



## amnuxoll (Jan 11, 2011)

Animus said:


> BTW, this is Ron. We played some LG together in Michigan .




Is this the Ron with the ready grin and the blue car (Taurus?) that always felt about two miles away from breaking down?   



Animus said:


> P.S. Can we see some example characters? That would be great.




Sure!  I'll ask some of my playtesters if it's ok to post their characters.


----------



## Animus (Jan 11, 2011)

amnuxoll said:


> Is this the Ron with the ready grin and the blue car (Taurus?) that always felt about two miles away from breaking down?




Indeed .


----------



## Animus (Jan 11, 2011)

Double post.


----------



## Volkai (Jan 17, 2011)

Grimstaff said:


> If nothing else, I think its cool that your system has inspired two brand-new members to sign up on ENWorld and make their first posts ever!




Make that three.

===========

I'd like to be testing out Enlightened Grognard, but I'm having trouble finding people to do it with, as well as the time to.

One thing that immediately stands out in the Jan08/2011 version is the ability score-based BABs. I like this idea, but there is one revision I would immediately recommend, which is to give a minimum progression of 1/4 to every BAB either in every class, or as a classless level bonus. This keeps people who multiclass against type from being completely shafted, while still giving a significant advantage to using related classes, such as multiclassing Barbarian and Fighter, as opposed to Barbarian and Sorcerer. This is similar to how every class gives at least a +1/4 progression to every Defense.

In fact, you might consider making a generic, classless "Level Bonus" stat of (1/4*level) which applies to all attack and defense stats, and modify the class-specific bonuses to suit. 

Some examples of how this would then read:


			
				Fighter said:
			
		

> *Base Attack Bonus per Level:*
> Strength or Dexterity*: +3/4 or +1/2
> any#: +1/4
> 
> ...






			
				Bard said:
			
		

> *Base Attack Bonus per Level:*
> • Strength: +1/4
> • Dexterity: +1/2
> • Constitution: +1/4
> ...






			
				Sorcerer said:
			
		

> *Base Attack Bonus per Level:*
> • Charisma: +3/4
> • any*: +1/2
> • any*: +1/4
> ...




While this might add a little more crunch to the game, I think it works out a little bit better overall.

As an aside, I think a good term for that base bonus would be a "Base Combat Bonus."

Alternatively, simply replacing any +0 BAB or DB with a +1/4 BAB/DB _would_ work just as well without adding an additional mechanic. But... well, what can I say? I like having baseline level-dependent bonus. It helps keep things on a more even footing.

After all, if a level 16 Barbarian decides to multiclass into Sorcerer, he has a 0 Charisma BAB from his sixteen levels of Barbarian, so that 1 from Sorcerer will have him casting 1st level spells... which at level seventeen are likely to be pretty useless. However, if he's getting a +1/4 progression, he'll have a 4BAB already, which goes up to 5, and while fifth level spells will still be far weaker than what any career (or significantly multiclassed) caster will have at that level, it's at least enough to make it worth considering. Perhaps more important is the ability to use 'enhanced' versions of lower level spells... on the other hand, maybe I'm misreading the relationship between the spell-relevant BAB as opposed to class level when it comes to spell selection and enhancement usage....

==========

Another thought that has crossed my mind is that you have given each class a first-level-only bonus. Each one seems to go to some trouble to point out it's only for starting characters. I like these, but I think you could move it around to make cleaner. Perhaps you could make them Character Level 1-requisite feats (and give 1st-level characters an additional Feat slot - or maybe it's specifically a Background Feat slot?) But it just seems redundant when you have 


			
				Traditional Student said:
			
		

> A character who takes Wizard as a first level character ... If you multiclass into the Wizard class at 2nd level or higher you do not gain this benefit.


----------



## Aloïsius (Jan 22, 2011)

Your work is pretty impressive. You have done what I looked for, but never find the strength or the smart to do. 
I'm impressed by your token mechanic, the area attack, the feats... 
The only things I would change is the health system, because I like mine to be more grim&gritty (lasting wounds etc.) even if it's less "fun".


----------



## amnuxoll (Jan 23, 2011)

*Example Characters*

As requested, I'm posting some sample characters.

[sblock="Fahfrd the Barbarian"]
Race: Human
Class: Barbarian/Rogue/Fighter
Level: 8/5/2=15
Languages: Common, Goblin, Dwarven, Elven

28 pt buy + racial +5 bonuses 
Value Bonus Cost lvl adds End result
STR: 16 +3 (10) +2 (18) +4
DEX: 15 +2 (8) +1 (16) +3
CON: 14 +2 (6) +1 (15 ) +2
INT: 12 +1 (4) +1 (13) +1
WIS: 8 -1 (0) 8 -1
CHA: 8 -1 (0) 8 -1
HP: 137 Hide Armor (AC 4 armor check -1)
Defenses: AC : base 10 + 10.75 + 3 Dex + Armor 4 = 27.5
Fort: 24.5 Reflex: 23.5 Will: 20.5 (human bonus) 

Save Mods: Fort +3 Reflex +3 Will +3

Base Speed: 6 in armor 6 out
Initiative: 1d20+6 (Gain 3 tokens, + 1 fighter bonus = 4)
Base Attacks: 
Str 12.5 Dex 6.5 Con 6 Int 0 Wis 4 Cha 4.75 
Attacks: To hit Dmg Crit
TH Sword 1d20+12 2d6+8 19-20
Javelin 1d20+12 1d6+4 
Greatclub 1d20+12 1d10+8 

Skills: 88 ranks + 2 background ranks
Acrobatics (Dex - +3/-1) 8 = 10
Athletics (Str +4/-1) 10 = 13
Bluff (Cha -1) 11 = 10
Craft (Int 1) (Metal work) 1 = 2
Endurance (Con 2) 11 = 13
Handle Animal (Cha -1) 7 = 6
Knowledge (Int 1) 2 = Nature, edible plants
Linguistics (Int 1) 3 = Goblin, Dwarven, Elven
Perception (Wis -1) 15 = 14
Profession (Int 1) 2 = Hunter, Nature Cook (adept at putting all kinds of weird things together)
Stealth (Dex +3/-1) 11 = 13
Sense Motive (Wis -1) 9 = 8

=============
Feats: 
Barbarian - 15
Repressed Rage (x2) (1 for Fighter, 1 for Rogue)
Rage
Greater Rage
Mighty Rage (16 tokens generated when entering Rage)
Sustained Rage (maintain rage even while healed)
Untempered Rage (enter rage anytime wounded)
Unfettered Rage (enter rage anytime)
Steel Teeth (use metal weapons, pro Greatsword)
Unfeeling Rage (spend tokens to reduce dmg taken 1 token - 3pts)
Pain Fueled Rage (each time you take dmg gain 2 tokens)
Armored Rage (opponent spends 2 tokens instead of 1 for automatic hit while raging)
Second Skin (treat Hide as light armor)
Primal Howl (Con bonus + level HP recd + 4 tokens as a swift action, while not raging)

Rogue - 10
Evasion (Dex 13, Int 13 1/2 dmg from aoe attacks)

Fighter - 3
Brutal Attacker (spend power tokens to improve attack, also count towards damage)
Cleave
Great Cleave (free action extra attack)
Blind Fighting (treat invis creatures as concealed)
Improved Iniative (double Dex bonus for init)
Toughness (4 + 1 hp lvl)
=======================
Strong Focus (resistant to Distracted (req Int 13)
Iron Skull (resistant to being Dazed)
Improved Iron Skull (resistant to being Stunned Con 15)
Clear Mind (resistant to being confused)
Bottomless Courage (resistant to fear)
Iron Stomach (resistant to sickened or nausated)
Perfect Balance (resistant to becoming unbalanced)

=================
Equipment with Total Weight: gp, sp, cp spent Pounds total: 102.5 lbs
Greatsword 8 lb Favored sheath on back
Greatclub 8 lb
Full Plate Armor AC 8 Armor Check - 7 Spd 20 ft 50 lb
Javelins (6) 12 lb

Traveling items.
Backpack (empty) 2 lb.
Bedroll 5 lb
Blanket, winter 3 lb
Flint and steel 
Grappling hook 4 lb
Rope, silk (50 ft.) 5 lb
Pouch, belt (empty) Â½ lb
Waterskin 4 lb
Whetstone 1 lb
Funds: gp sp cp

[/sblock]

[sblock=Percival the Bard]
Race: Human 
Classes(Level): Bard(11),Rogue(4)
Character Level: 15
Languages: Common, Elven
Vision: Normal

Attributes:
Increases: DEX@3, CHA@6, CON@9, DEX@12, DEX@15
BASE(COST) MODIFIER
Total: (28)
STR: 10(2) +0
DEX: 18(8) +4
CON: 13(4) +1
INT: 10(2) +0
WIS: 12(4) +1
CHA: 16(8) +3

HP: 88 ( 13 + (15x5) = 88 )
Bloodied: 44
Bard HP Gain: 5 HP/Level
Rogue HP Gain: 5 HP/Level
Defenses: AC 30
Fort 18 1/2
Reflex 30
Will 25
Save Mods: Fort 2 Reflex 4 Will 3
Base Speed: 40' (8 tiles)
Initiative: +3 (3 Tokens)
Base Attack Bonuses: (w/ Stats)
Str +8 1/2 +8
Dex +12 1/4 +16
Con +5 1/2 +6
Int +5 1/2 +5
Wis +5 1/2 +6
Cha +13 +16

Attacks: Attack | Dmg | Crit Range | Range | Other
Merciful Rapier +16 | 2d6+2 | 17-20(Keen:16) | - | No Con Dam
Whip +16 | 1d3+2 | 20(Keen:19) | - | 3 sq Reach
Dagger +16 | 1d4+2 | 19-20(Keen:18) | 5 sq. | P/S Throw

Skills: Bard: 5 Ranks/Level | Rogue: 7 Ranks/Level (7x4+5x11=55+28=83 skills total)
Acrobatics [12 RNK, 3 DEX, 0 MISC, 15 TOTAL]
Athletics [ 0 RNK, 0 STR, 0 MISC, 0 TOTAL]
Bluff [15 RNK, 3 CHA, 0 MISC, 18 TOTAL]
Endurance [ 0 RNK, 1 CON, 0 MISC, 1 TOTAL]
Perception [ 4 RNK, 1 WIS, 0 MISC, 5 TOTAL] (15 Passive)
Perform [13 RNK, 3 CHA, 5 MISC, 21 TOTAL]
Sense Motive [14 RNK, 1 WIS, 0 MISC, 15 TOTAL] (25 Passive)
Sleight of Hand [ 9 RNK, 3 DEX, 2 MISC, 14 TOTAL]
Spellcraft [ 4 RNK, 3 CHA, 0 MISC, 7 TOTAL]
Stealth [ 8 RNK, 3 DEX, 0 MISC, 11 TOTAL]
Search [ 3 RNK, 0 INT, 0 MISC, 3 TOTAL]
Tinker [ 1 RNK, 0 INT, 2 MISC, 3 TOTAL]


Knowledge Skills (7 to start)
(Craft, Knowledge, Linguistics, Profession]
Linguistics [Common (Speak/RW), Elven (Speak)]
Knowledge [History, Politics, Government]
Profession [Stringed Instruments]


Feats: 
BARD(1): Feint (Bluff/Sense Motive vs Reflex - steal 2 Speed tokens)
BARD(1): Free Hand Fighting (+1 AC Dodge Bonus)
HUMAN(1): Two-Weapon Defense (+1 AC when dual wielding)
HUMAN(1): Mobility (+5 AC vs Opportunity Attacks)
BARD(2): Parry (+1-5 AC, grant threatening foes Power tokens)
BARD(3): Combat Reflexes (+DEX Opportunity Attacks @4 = 5 total)
BARD(4): Predictive Strike (Couterattack threatened foes who roll less than Sense Motive)
BONUS(4): Verbal Compensation
BARD(5): Fencer (gain 1 power token when attacking successfully)
ROGUE(1): Luring Move (Unbalance a foe that misses you)
ROGUE(1): Feint, Improved (Gain 3 tokens instead of 2)
ROGUE(2): Omnipresent Blade (Swift action, 2 power tokens when ally is adjacent)
ROGUE(2): Opportunist (Spend 1 speed token to attack threatened foe that an ally hit)
BARD(6): Punishing Strike (+5 Damage w/ Opportunity Attacks)
BONUS(6): Song of Courage (Standard: Perform result/15 tokens to each ally. Maintain w/ Swift.)
BARD(7): Reactive Step (Move 1 square when opponent misses)
ROGUE(3): Improved Critical (Rapier)
ROGUE(3): Coordinated Swap (exchange places with adjacent, willing ally)
BARD(8): Unwelcome Swap (Unwilling creature gains Unbalanced to prevent)
ROGUE(4): Fast Movement (Base speed +2)
ROGUE(4): Coordinated Strike (Gain 1 speed token if you hit an unbalanced target)
BARD(9): Penetrating Strike (Spend 2 Power tokens to ignore DR of target for one attack)
BARD(10): Improved Defensive Attack (Gain 4 speed tokens instead of 2)
BONUS(10): Song of the Hero (One ally gains Perform chk/5 tokens of choice - Maintain w/ Swift.)
BARD(11): Weapon Finesse (+2 Damage w/ Dex-based melee attacks)



Racial Abilities:
2 Bonus Feats
+2 Racial Bonus to Defense (Will)
1 Bonus Skill @ Each Level
+1 to Saving Throws
Extra Token when rolling Initiative.
Class Abilities: 
Weapon Proficiencies: 
Simple Weapons, Longsword, Hand Crossbow, Rapier, Sap, Short Sword, Shortbow, Whip
Armor Proficiencies:
Light Armor, Bucklers
Greater Masteries (Bard):
Arcane, Combat, Magic
Greater Masteries (Rogue):
Combat, Skulduggery
Lesser Masteries (Bard): 
Agility, Companion, Expertise, Item Creation, Leadership, Metamagic, Two-Weapon Fighting, Transmutation(Selected @1), Amelioration(Selected @2), Illusion (Selected @8)
Lesser Masteries (Rogue):
Agility, Companion, Expertise, Intuition, Power Attack, Stamina, Two-weapon Fighting, Unarmed, Weapon

Expertise: +1/2 Bard Level in Perform Skill.
Bard Spells: Gain 1 Spell Per Level (+CHA Cast)
Bardic Practice: At Even levels, gain bonus feat from Performance OR one lesser mastery from (list)
Expertise: +1/2 Rogue Level in Tinker & Sleight of Hand Skills.
Rogue Bonus Feats: Rogues gain a bonus feat from Combat and Skulduggery at each level

Magic: (Refresh, Components, Cast Time, Duration, Attack, Effect)
Bard Spell Lv1: (Knock)
Bard Spell Lv2: (Pyrotechnics)
Bard Spell Lv3: (Glibness)
Bard Spell Lv4: (Darkvision)
Bard Spell Lv5: (Blink @ 5) - Enhance to @15 (CL13)
Bard Spell Lv6: (Haste @ 6) - Enhance to @12 (CL9)
Bard Spell Lv7: (Keen Edge)
Bard Spell Lv8: (Invisibility @8) - (CL10)
Bard Spell Lv9: (Image @9) - (CL11)
Bard Spell Lv10: (Mislead @10) - (CL11)
Bard Spell Lv11: (Mage Armor @11) - (CL13)

Equipment with Total Weight: 
* = Item is Carried or Worn
# = Item is assumed in Wagon
Item (Container Tabbed) Qty Cost Weight
Merciful Rapier 1
Whip 1
Daggers (3) 3
Flashy clothes 1
Feathered cap 1
Lyre (in case) 1
Violin (in case) 1

Total Weight: xx lbs
Load: xxxxx (xx lbs) 

[/sblock]

[sblock=Gulg the Druid]
Race: Half-Orc
Class: Druid 14 / Ranger 1
Level: 15
Languages: Common, Druidic

STR: 22 (8 points)
DEX: 14 (6 points)
CON: 14 (6 points)
INT: 8 (2 points)
WIS: 14 (6 points)
CHA: 6 (0 points)

HP: 119
Defenses: AC 21.75 Fort 29 Reflex 19.75 Will 23
Save Mods: Fort +2 Reflex +1 Will +2
Base Speed: 6 squares (usually 8 with longstrider spell)
Other Speeds: fly 6 with pterodactyl form
Initiative: +2 (gains 5 tokens)
Base Attacks:
Str +21 Dex +2.75 Con +12 Int -1 Wis +9.5 Cha -2

Attacks:
Club: +21 vs. AC // 1d6+12 damage (2-handed)
Bite: +21 vs. AC // 2d6+9 damage
Claw: +21 vs. AC // 2d6+9 damage
Grabbing Claw: +21 vs. AC // 1d8+9 damage
Rock(thrown): +2 vs. AC // 1d3+6 damage // range 10 sq.

Wild Shapes:
Wolf: 2 tokens of each type, bite, scent, 3 tokens for flank, 
Bear (Troll): 6 power tokens, -5 Int/Cha checks, gain 1 power token for spending 1+, gain half power tokens for spending on defense, swift action=2 hp
Pterodactyl: bite, grabbing claw, improved grab, fly 8 sq. (hover), can std action while flying
Smilodon (Tiger): 2 tokens of each type, bite, claw, successful charge = prone foe

Skills (2 ranks per level):
- Linguisitics: Common, Druidic (R/W)
- Profession: Wilderness Survivor <--1 background rank!
- Knowledge: Natural medicine
- Athletics: +18
- Endurance: +17
- Handle Animal: +5


Feats:
1: Animal Ferocity // Swap Wis and Str BAB bonuses from druid class
1: Short Charge // Can charge with only 1 square
1: Crocodile Totem // bite attack
2: Imbued Natural Attack // magic item properties transfer to natural attacks
2: Wolf Totem // 3 power tokens from flank
3: Dual Strike // 2nd attack as swift if first hits) <-- ranger multiclass
4: Improved Unarmed Strike // Add Str mod to natural attacks
5: Cougar Totem // claw attack deals 1d8 damage
5: Wolf Form // see above
6: Rending Claws // if two claw attacks hit, deal more damage equal to Str mod
7: Improved Natural Attack: Claw // increase damage 1d10
7: Wild Shape Scent
8: Improved Natural Attack: Claw // increase damage to 2d6
9: Bear Totem // gain +2 power tokens, get 1 power token back when you spend some
9: Lizard Totem // Spend tokens on AC or Fort --> get half of them back
10: Troll Form // see above
11: Eagle Totem // flight
11: Crag Totem // grab with claw attack
12: Pterodactyl Form // claw attack while flying
13: Variant Totem (stealth) // +5 stealth
13: Tiger Form // +2 tokens of each type, successful charge = prone
14: 1000 faces // take any humanoid form
15: Winged Hover // can hover while flying
15: Healing Form // gain hp when leaving wild shape


Racial Abilities:
- gain Power Attack area of mastery.
- Ignore pain when it inhibits actions.
- Darkvision. 
- Orc Blood

Class Abilities:
- +1/2 level bonus to Handle Animal skill


Spells:
1: Summon (level 1->15) // summons "Stinker" (see below)
1: Shillelagh (level 1)// use power token for +5 to club damage 1/round
2: Cure Wounds (level 1->15) // heal 4d8+25 hp for you and all allies in a cube 5 centered on you
4: Produce Flame (level 2->10) // swift + standard = ranged attack: 3d6+8 fire damage; range 10
5: Longstrider (level 1) // +2 sq. movement
6: Enlarge (level 2->10) // +1 size category, +2 power tokens, +1 sq. reach, +1 speed (affects 2 as swift action)
7: Meld Into Stone (level 3->7) // You and ajacent allies hide in stone
8: Bull's Strength (level 4->12) // +4 power tokens and +5 to Str checks in cube 5 centered on you
9: Bear's Endurance (level 4) // +4 power tokens and +5 to Con checks
10: Cat's Grace (level 4->12) // +4 speed tokens and +5 to Dex checks in cube 5 centered on you
11: Restoration (level 4->14) // remove all negative levels, ability damage and mental effects incl. dazed/stunned
12: Barkskin (level 2->6) // can spend swift action to gain 4 speed tokens that must be spent for defense if attacked before next turn.
13: Speak with Animals (level 1)
14: Stone Shape (level 6)  //mold stone into crude shapes
15: Spike Stones (level 6) // foes take 2 hp damage per square of movement

Equipment with Total Weight:
- leather armor (15lb)
- club (3lb)
- belt pouch (1/2 lb)
- flint+steel
- trail rations x5 (5 lb)
- waterskin (1lb)
- amulet of mighty fists +3
TOTAL 24 1/2 lbs


Funds:
3 gp (in assorted coinage)
182 gp (in unrefined gold ore nuggets)

----

"Stinker" (Dire Bear)
Str 31, Dex 13, Con 19, Int 2, Wis 12, Cha 10

HP: 105
Defenses: AC 17 Fort 22 Reflex 19 Will 19
Save Mods: Fort +2 Reflex +1 Will +1
Base Speed: 8 squares

Attacks:
Claw: +19 melee (2d4+10) //standard action
Bite: +13 melee (2d8+5) //swift action

Skills:
Athletics +13, Perception +12

Feats: Toughness 

[/sblock]

[sblock=Belkar the Rogue]
11 levels rogue, 4 sorcerer (first level sorcerer, then 11 levels of rogue, then the remaining three of sorcerer)
STR: 10
DEX: 24
CON: 15
INT: 10
WIS: 10
CHA: 12


HP: 101
Defenses: 29 AC 18 Fort 31 Reflex 20 Will 
Save Mods: 8 Fort 21 Reflex 10 Will (+1 racial to all, -2 fort for size)
Base Speed 6, increased 8
Initiative: 7
Base Attacks: 
10.25 Str 14 Dex 0 Con 0 Int 0 Wis 9.5 Cha

AC = 10 base + 7 dex bonus + 3 armor + 1 size bonus + 1 dodge feat + 1 dual weapon + 6.5 level bonus = 29
Fort = 10 base + 2 con bonus + 1 halfling - 2 small + 7.5 class save mod = 18
Ref = 10 base + 7 dex bonus + 1 halfling + 13 class save mod = 31
Will = 10 base + 9.5 class save mod + 1 halfling = 20

Attacks


2x punching dagger: +22, 1d3+5 dmg, crit: +1
crossbow: +22, 2d6 dmg, crit: 19-20
(+7 from dex, +14 BAB, +1 from size = +22)

Skills

82/82 ranks (11 * 6 rogue + 4 * 3 sorcerer + 4 background)
Skill Attr. Racial Ranks Misc Total
Acrobatics (Dex) +7 +2 +10 +19
Athletics(Str) +0 -4 -4
Bluff (Cha) +1 +15 +16
Craft (Int) +0 +0
Endurance (Con) +2 +2
Heal(Wis) +0 +4 +4
Knowledge (Int) +0 +7 +7
Linguistics (Int)(Drac)+0 +1 +1
Perception (Wis) +0 +2 +15 +17
Perform (Cha) +1 +1 +2
Profession (Wis) +0 +1 +1
Search (Int) +0 +0
Sense Motive (Wis) +0 +10 +10
Spellcraft (Int) +0 +2 +2
Sleight of Hand (Dex) +7 +2 +6 +15
Stealth (Dex) +7 +6 +15 +28
Tinker (Int) +0 +6 +6

two ranks spent for gaining heal

Feats

2 feats per rogue level, 1 feat per sorcerer level
Light Foot (racial): As long as you are not wearing medium or heavy armor and are lightly encumbered, your speed increases to 6 squares. Your base speed is still 4 squares.
Weapon Finesse: +2 dmg (melee)
Weapon Finesse, Improved: +4 instead of +2 damage
Dual Strike
Dual Strike, Improved
Two-Weapon Defense: +1 AC
Dodge: + 1 AC
Feint
Parry: retroactively increase AC by up to 5, grant threatening foes equal number of power tokens
Fencer: 1 power token per hit
Sneak Attack (spend 2 speed tokens for +20 dmg)
Bigfolk Assailant: +1 dmg
Bigfolk Threat: +2 tokens at initiative if one enemy is larger
Goliath Maneuver: jump larger creature, always add sneak attack bonus
Two-weapon Rend: if both attacks hit same creature, str BAB extra dmg
Anatomical Sneak Attack: +3 sneak attack dmg
Scholar's Sneak Attack: +3 sneak attack dmg
Sneak Attack Intuition: +3 sneak attack dmg
Assassin's Eye: +3 sneak attack dmg
Daggermaster: +3 sneak attack dmg
Improved Defensive Attack: +4 speed tokens when attacking defensively
Hidden Blade: if sneak attack misses, attack again, dmg = sneak attack bonus
Fast Movement: +2 movespeed
Combat Reflexes: +7 Attacks of Opportunity
Debilitating Strike: no sneak attack damage but foe loses 7 tokens
Opportunist: spend 1 speed token to hit a threatened foe which was just hit by an ally
Spring Attack: move before an after attack

Spells

minor AoMs: Illusion, amelioration, force, evocation
2 for first level sorc, 2 per sorc level = 10 spells
spells, in the order they were learned in:
Mage Armor + enhancement to 13 at level 13: +8 AC (force)
Blink + enhacement to 13 at level 14: swift action to blink up to movespeed squares, +1 speed token for blink, +3 for cast, can stay in etheral plane (amelioration)
Darkness to 13 at level 15: full concealment, only see with dark vision, self unaffected (evocation) - magic domain feat
Telekinesis (force)
Invisibility + enhancement to 13 (illusion): swift to cast, can affect cube 3, self can take all actions normally, spend swift action to gain 2 power and 5 speed tokens
Silence (illusion): swift to cast, silences whole area for encounter
Darkvision (amelioration)
Image (illusion)
Limited Wish: duplicate any 8th level spell or any 12th Arcane spell within AoM
Fly: swift to fly for encounter, speed 12

Racial Abilities

small, Immunity to fear effects.

possible feats:

Name: Omnipresent Blade
Areas of Mastery: Combat, Expertise
Prerequisites: Dex BAB +5
Description: When you and at least one other ally
are adjacent to a foe, you can spend a swift action
to gain 2 power tokens.

Name: Sand in the Eyes
Areas of Mastery: Skulduggery, Weapon
Prerequisites: Sneak Attack, 1 rank in Acrobatics
Description: You must spend 2 speed tokens to
activate this ability. As a standard action, make
two Acrobatics checks vs an adjacent creature's
Reflex defense. If both are successful, the
creature is blinded for 1 round. This feat does not
work against creatures that lack eyes.

good magic gear:
armor:
best shadow version: +10 stealth
speed: act as if under 'haste' till end of encounter
weapons:
subtle: +5 sneak attack damage 

[/sblock]

[sblock=Fabio the Cleric]
Race: Human
Class: Cleric
Level: 15
EXP: 91000
Alignment: Chaotic Good
Diety: Lathander

Gender: M
Size: M
Age:  25
Height: 6'2"
Weight: 210lbs
Eyes: Bright Blue
Hair: Blonde
Languages: Common, Literate in Common, Elven

STR: 14  +2  (6)
DEX: 10  +0  (2)
CON: 12  +1  (4)
INT: 10  +0  (2)
WIS: 16  +3  (6) 
CHA: 18  +4  (8)

HP: 127
Defenses:  AC: 20, Fort 27, Reflex  19 1/2 (10+2)+1,  Will 27 
Save Mods:            Fort +21      Reflex +15      Will +21
Base Speed: 6
Initiative: 0 (2 tokens +1 from Race)
Base Attacks:    
    Str 11 1/4   Dex 0   Con 0   Int 0   Wis 15   Cha 7 1/2

Attacks:

Heavy Mace: +2(str)+10(BAB) to hit, 1d8+2(str) damage
Channel Energy: +3(wis)+14(BAB) to hit, 5 damage to undead (swift action)
Turn Undead: +3(wis)+14(BAB) to hit, 5 damage and Frightened Condition to undead

Skills: 2 at first level, 7 background, 1 as Human
2 from 2nd level, 1 from Human at 2nd Level
24 from 14th level, 12 from Human at 14th Level
2 from 15th level, 1 from Human at 15th level

The cleric’s class skills (and the key ability for each skill) are Craft (Int), Endurance (Con), Heal (Wis), Knowledge (Int), Linguistics (Int), Profession (Wis), Sense Motive (Wis) and Spellcraft (Int).

Athletics (4)
Bluff (7)
Heal (15) 
Knowledge: Humanoid Anatomy
Knowledge: Religious Texts and Rites
Linguistics:
  Common (literate)
  Elven  (spoken)
  Elven  (literate)
Perception (2)
Profession: Companion (similar to FireflyWiki.org | Firefly / Companion)
Profession: Fertility Priest
Sense Motive (7)
Spellcraft (8)
Endurance

Class Abilities: 
Proficient with simple weapons, light armor & all non-tower shields.
Greater Areas of Mastery: Combat, Divine & Magic
Lesser Areas of Mastery: Abjuration, Amelioration, Channeling, Companion, Compulsion, Conjuration, Detection, Divination, Domain, Enchantment, Evocation, Faith, Force, Hallowed, Item Creation, Leadership, Metamagic, Necromancy, Secrecy, Summoning, Teleportation, and Transmutation. 
Clerics with the Good subtype also gain the Healing area of mastery.

Feats: 2 at first level, 2 as Human 1 at 2nd level, 12 at 14th level, 1 at 15th level

1) Channel Energy
Description: You gain the ability to channel positive energy. As a swift action, spend two insight tokens to channel positive energy. All living creatures that you have line of effect to are healed a number of hit points equal to your ranks in the Heal skill (1). Enemy undead take a like amount of damage from this ability.

2) Turn Undead
By presenting your holy symbol and channeling positive energy, you invoke fear in one undead creature. You can spend additional insight tokens to affect additional creatures (1 per token). As a standard action, make an area of effect attack with your Wisdom BAB against all target creatures. If you succeed, the undead creature gains the frightened condition. The condition can not be ended with a saving throw. Instead, it persists as long as you continue to concentrate (move actions and free actions only) and present your holy symbol.

3) Sun Domain
Description: When you successfully turn an undead creature with your Turn Undead feat, the creature also takes damage as if it were affected
by your Channel Energy feat. Bonus spells: endure elements, light

4) Nobility Domain
Description: You gain Combat Leader as a bonus feat. Bonus spells: command, magic vestment

4a) Combat Leader
Description: Your allies look to you for leadership in combat. When an adjacent ally spends tokens to retroactively increase her attack roll, she only needs to spend 2 tokens for each +1 bonus. You can not use this ability on yourself.

5) Coordinated Move
Description: As a standard action, you can spend two insight tokens to grant a move action to every ally you can see including yourself. Each ally must take this move immediately in initiative order and it does not count against the ally's regular allotment of actions.

6) Name: Lay on Hands Areas of Mastery: Divine, Channeling Prerequisites: none Description: By spending one insight token as a swift action, you can heal an adjacent ally 2 hit points per class level.

7) Name: Remove Affliction Areas of Mastery: Divine, Channeling Prerequisites: Lay on Hands Description: By spending one insight token as a swift action, you can remove any one of the following conditions from an adjacent ally: blinded, confused, dazed, dazzled, frightened, nauseated, shaken or stunned.

8) Name: Channeled Resolve Areas of Mastery: Divine, Channeling Prerequisites: Lay on Hands Description: By spending one insight tokens as a swift action, you allow a non-adjacent ally that you can see to make a saving throw. If the saving throw is versus a fear effect, it is automatically successful.

9) Eyes in the Back of your Head - Your opponents can not gain tokens due to flanking you.

10) Name: Counterspell Areas of Mastery: Magic Prerequisites: Ability to cast spells Description: When a foe attempts to cast a spell, you spend 2 insight tokens as an immediate action to use your own magical energies to disrupt the spell as it is being cast. Make a Spellcraft check versus the caster's passive Spellcraft skill. On a success, the caster's spell dissipates with no effect and the caster loses the action he was using to cast the spell. On a failure, you must discard one spell of any level that is currently ready to cast. Counterspell can also be used to negate spells cast from spell storing items like scrolls and wands.

11) Feint (take 1 level of Expertise) As a swift action, you make a Bluff skill check against an adjacent opponent's Reflex defense or passive Sense Motive (whichever is higher). On a success, you gain 2 speed tokens and your opponent loses 2 speed tokens. On a failure, your opponent gains 2 speed tokens and you lose 2 speed tokens.

12) Name: Enlarge Spell
Areas of Mastery: Magic, Metamagic
Prerequisites: Cha 11
Description: When you cast a spell with a range of Close, Medium or Long, you can spend 2 insight tokens to double the spell's range. 

13) Name: Realign Spell
Areas of Mastery: Magic, Metamagic
Prerequisites: Cha 11
Description: When you cast a spell that deals energy damage (fire, electricity, cold or acid), you may spend 1 insight token to change the type of damage it deals to one of the other three energy types.

14) Name: Shape Spell
Areas of Mastery: Magic, Metamagic
Prerequisites: Cha 13
Description: When you cast a spell that has a cube shaped area of effect, you may spend 2 insight tokens to use your lowest attack roll against creatures in the area who are your allies.  (Normally when you an attack a spell with an area of effect, you must use the second highest attack roll against all creatures except the primary target.  See Area of Affect Attack in Chapter 7: Combat.)

15) Name: Spell Focus
Areas of Mastery: Magic, Metamagic
Prerequisites: Cha 13
Description:  When attacking with a spell, you may proactively spend insight tokens to increase your attack roll.  If attacking with an area-of-effect spell, you must specify which die each token is augmenting.  You may also retroactively spend insight tokens to increase your spell attack rolls on a 3-for-1 basis.

16) Name: Tenacious Spell
Areas of Mastery: Magic, Metamagic
Prerequisites: Cha 15
Description: When you hit a foe with a spell with effects can be shaken off with a saving throw, you can spend a swift action and 3 insight tokens to require that the enemy make two successful saving throws to shake off the effect.

17) Name: Twin Touch Spell
Areas of Mastery: Magic, Metamagic
Prerequisites: Cha 11
Description: When you cast a spell with a range of touch that normally affects one creature, you can spend 2 insight tokens to cast this spell on two creatures instead of one provided both of them are in range. When split this way, the spell only affects willing targets.

18) Name: Widen Spell
Areas of Mastery: Magic, Metamagic
Prerequisites: Cha 13
Description: When you cast a spell that has a Target that is cube shaped, you can spend 2 insight tokens to increase all the dimensions (width, height and depth) of the cube by 2. Thus, for example, a cube 3 would become a cube 5.  

Racial Abilities: 
• Medium: As Medium creatures, humans have no special bonuses or penalties due to their size.
• Human base land speed is 6 squares.
• Humans gain a +2 racial bonus to one defense: Fortitude, Reflex or Will (player's choice).
• Humans gain a +1 racial bonus to saving throws.
• Humans gain 2 extra feats at 1st level.
• Humans gain 1 extra skill rank at every level.
• Each time a human rolls initiative, he gains 1 additional token of his choice.

Expertise: Clerics receive a bonus to Heal checks equal to half their class level.

Alignment Subtype: Good

Power of Faith: Cure Wounds usable 2/encounter, bonus spells enhanced at every level.
Gift of Faith: At every (even?) level, either a. learn a new spell, or b. gain access to one of the following areas of mastery: Agility, Courage, Stamina, Expertise, Mounted Combat, Power Attack, Ranged, Two-Weapon Fighting, Unarmed and Weapon.
Bound by Faith: Follow your deity's code or you lose powers.

Magic/Psionics: 1 new spell per level, 1 extra spell or feat per level from Gift of Faith.  WIS+BAB (17)  to attack.

Spells:
Endure Elements
Light
Command
Breath of Life
Cure Wounds
Bless
Dispel Magic
Wind Wall
Consecrate
Owl's Wisdom
Restoration
Glyph of Warding
Searing Light
Protection from Energy
Bestow Curse
Good Hope
Flame Strike
Divine Power
Dispel Diametric
Banishment
Resurrection
Crushing Despair
Break Enchantment
Heal
Heroes’ Feast
Regenerate
Owl's Wisdom
Holy Word
Holy Aura
Cloak of Chaos






Equipment with Total Weight: 
Item (Container Tabbed)         Qty Cost    Weight
Heavy Mace(1d8)                 1   6Gp     3lbs   
Light Steel Shield (1AC,-1ACP)  1   9Gp     6lbs   
Studded Leather (3AC,-2ACP)     1   25Gp    20lbs

Backpack                        1   2Gp     2lbs
Blanket                         1   5sp     3lbs
Flask                           1   3cp     1.5lbs
Flint and Steel                 1   1gp
Grappling Hook                  1   1gp     4lbs
Holy Water                      1   25gp    1lb
Lamp                            1   1sp     1lb
Rations, trail                  6   3gp     6lbs
Water Skin                      1   1gp     4lbs
Rope, hempen (50ft)             1   1gp     10lbs
Rope, silk (50ft)               1   10gp    5lbs
Traveler's Outfit               1   1gp     5lbs
Cleric's Vestments              1   5gp     6lbs 

Case                            2   2gp     1lb
    Ink                         2   16gp    
    Parchment                   10  2gp   
    Sealing Wax                 1   1gp     1lb
    Signet Ring                 3   15gp

    Mirror, small steel         1   10gp    .5lbs
    Oil                         3   1sp     1lb
    Soap                        2   1gp     2lbs

Bedroll                         1   1sp     5lbs
Pole, 10-Foot                   1   2sp     8lbs
Pouch, belt                     2   1gp     .5lb

Barrel                          1   2gp     30 lbs
    Ale (32 Gallons)            32  6gp 4sp 256 lbs

Donkey                         2     8Gp      - lbs
Open-topped Wagon              1    35Gp    400 lbs
Waterproof Tarps               2     6Gp      6 lbs

Total:                              130.8gp 445.5lbs

Total:                                130gp 2sp  445lbs

On Person:

Heavy Mace
Light Steel Shield
Studded Leather
Traveler's Outfit
Coin Pouch
Belt Pouch
Potion of Coure Moderate Wounds
Holy Water
Flask
Flint & Steel

Load: 38lbs


Funds: 44gp 2sp 
[/sblock]


----------



## amnuxoll (Jan 23, 2011)

Volkai said:


> Make that three.



Welcome to EnWorld!



Volkai said:


> One thing that immediately stands out in the Jan08/2011 version is the ability score-based BABs. I like this idea, but there is one revision I would immediately recommend, which is to give a minimum progression of 1/4 to every BAB either in every class, or as a classless level bonus.




I wrestled with this very issue multiple times and the BAB/Defense adjustments have been through some adjustment and fine-tuning during the playtest.  I shared your concerns but I hit upon a solution that like better:  The Refocused Attack feat lets you redirect a +1/2 BAB bonus to another ability.  As a result, you aren't tracking a lot of tiny bonuses to BAB that are unlikely to matter but your hypothetical barbarian-sorcerer can be quite viable.




Volkai said:


> Another thought that has crossed my mind is that you have given each class a first-level-only bonus. [...] But it just seems redundant [...]




These first-level-only abilities were a late addition to EG that also came out of playtesting.  Like you, I had assumed that it'd be better to give players more feats and let players build as they wished.  But it turns out that the temptation to use that feat for other purposes is too strong.  You end up with a character that looks good on paper but isn't fun to play at low level due to a lack of options.  So, my approach is basically to do both.  A 1st level character in EG starts with at least 2 and as many as 5 feats in addition to their first-level class ability.  This is taking from the 4e model of making 1st level characters more powerful and it seems to work as well in EG as it does in 4e.


----------



## amnuxoll (Jan 23, 2011)

Aloïsius said:


> Your work is pretty impressive. You have done what I looked for, but never find the strength or the smart to do.  I'm impressed by your token mechanic, the area attack, the feats...




Thanks for saying so!  If you get a chance to play EG, please do pass on any further thoughts you have.  




Aloïsius said:


> The only things I would change is the health system, because I like mine to be more grim&gritty (lasting wounds etc.) even if it's less "fun".




I don't see any reason you couldn't do this.  One way you might be able to create the "grim and gritty" effect and still avoid the 15-minute adventuring day would be house rule out spells that repair ability damage and possibly also reduce the natural healing rate for such damage.  Couple that with some specific rules that impose permanent effects when characters take severe ability damage and it might work quite well.


----------



## Animus (Jan 23, 2011)

Thank you for the example characters. I'm really liking how the characters look. I would love to get a chance to play it, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.


----------



## Volkai (Jan 28, 2011)

amnuxoll said:


> Welcome to EnWorld!



Thanks!



> I wrestled with this very issue multiple times and the BAB/Defense adjustments have been through some adjustment and fine-tuning during the playtest.  I shared your concerns but I hit upon a solution that like better:  The Refocused Attack feat lets you redirect a +1/2 BAB bonus to another ability.  As a result, you aren't tracking a lot of tiny bonuses to BAB that are unlikely to matter but your hypothetical barbarian-sorcerer can be quite viable.



Hmm, I see. I suppose that works, though I'd probably like to have more options, such as splitting that +1/2 into two +1/4 bonuses (Say, for DEX and INT, or INT and CHA) or maybe a 'generalist attack bonus' feat that spreads things out... but maybe that's something outside of the scope of listed rules and more in the domain of house rules?






> These first-level-only abilities were a late addition to EG that also came out of playtesting.  Like you, I had assumed that it'd be better to give players more feats and let players build as they wished.  But it turns out that the temptation to use that feat for other purposes is too strong.  You end up with a character that looks good on paper but isn't fun to play at low level due to a lack of options.  So, my approach is basically to do both.  A 1st level character in EG starts with at least 2 and as many as 5 feats in addition to their first-level class ability.  This is taking from the 4e model of making 1st level characters more powerful and it seems to work as well in EG as it does in 4e.



However, you can remove that temptation to use an additional feat for other purposes by specifying the slot as a "Background-Only Feat" slot and categorizing these as Background Feats. It also allows for the possibility of non-class-specific first-level-only feats, which could represent a character's past as, say, a crafter, or coming from a different class background (for example, a Fighter who grew up part of a tribe of Barbarians but left while still in his youth might have Tribal Origin without any actual levels of Barbarian.) This would also allows something like Hybrid Classes as 4e depicts them, I think.

Additionally, I feel I should clarify that what I see as redundant is not having the 1st-level bonus, but that you specify that it's only for first-level members of that class both at the beginning and end of the text block.


----------



## Alphastream (Feb 4, 2011)

I've had the fortune to play EG in the Kingmaker campaign AMN mentioned. It is a very cool system. It has a really nice balance between 3.5 and 4E. I'm a big fan of 4E, but I would really like to play more EG.

I recommend everyone give it a shot and post what they experience.


----------



## pawsplay (Feb 4, 2011)

Congratulations on your accomplishment! I am very impressed by the way you stripped the systems down and built your own skeleton for character development and resolution. Feel free to drop by the Open Gaming Symposium (in my sig) if you want to talk shop.


----------



## amnuxoll (Feb 6, 2011)

Thanks, pawsplay.  I'll throw my hat in the ring.

Also, thanks to Alphastream for his kind comments.  I think you were my biggest critic?!?

Also, general FYI, my local group is warming up to play Paizo's current adventure path with EG.  The DM is a relative newbie so we'll see how he does.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Feb 6, 2011)

Have you considered giving the rules a name change?


----------



## steeldragons (Feb 6, 2011)

Eric Anondson said:


> Have you considered giving the rules a name change?




Out of curiosity, Eric...do you think the rules name is limiting to an audience?

I will admit, I clicked on this thread, originally, _because_ of the "gorgnard" in the title.

But I'd certainly be interested in hearing your reasoning behind the comment.

--Steel Dragons


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Feb 7, 2011)

steeldragons said:


> Out of curiosity, Eric...do you think the rules name is limiting to an audience?



I think the name _might_ be a limitation on its acceptance outside of word of mouth circles and those with an affinity towards the term.

This is a complete anecdote, but I've heard from among those I've gamed with or near (at conventions) say that the "grognard" term has entered their bucket of "tired" terms.

It's nowhere near the sort of off-putting like Panty Explosion, and I'm *not* equating them, but a more marketable name I think is achievable . . .


----------



## pawsplay (Feb 7, 2011)

Enlightened Grognand says, "I am a grognard, and I have found the solutions I was seeking to life's great mysteries." I think it's expressive in that way. but it could be off-putting if it seemed like you were telling other people what was best for them. What it does not say is the kind of play experience you are offering. "Trailblazer" says "Like Pathfinder, a 3.5 variant that makes use of your 3.5 books," and Fantasy Saga tiptoes around some interesting trademark issues, but we get what they're saying. Enlightened Grognard sort of says, "I may be a retro-clone, or maybe not; maybe I'm some kind of highly experimental 'indie' game based around a dungeon skeleton; you'll have to read me to find out."


----------



## CuRoi (Feb 7, 2011)

Wonderful job here. I have been working on something very similar to this - sort of a 3.5/4/Trailblazer mish-mash. I've done some very similar things, though I think I took mine a bit further (and probably would alienate more traditional DnD fans - I made hamburger of more than a few sacred cows and even mixed up the ability scores). I just got tired of the exact same things you mentioned with rules bloat, out of control bonuses and the like. 

At any rate, nice work!


----------



## amnuxoll (Feb 7, 2011)

Eric Anondson said:


> Have you considered giving the rules a name change?




Eric: 

Yes, I have.  I realize that it'll be turn off to some potential players.  But I'll be darned if I can think of something I'm willing to replace it with.  I _don't_ want another alliterative two-word name like "Tunnels and Trolls" or "Swords and Sorcery".  I _do_ want a name that says "D&D done right" because that's how I think of it.  Ideally something that will catch the eye of even a newbie gamer.  

It's a tall order but there it is.

:AMN:


----------



## amnuxoll (Feb 7, 2011)

CuRoi said:


> Wonderful job here.




My thanks to you, sir.  Let me know if you get a chance to try it out.


----------



## GhostBear (Feb 9, 2011)

I took some time to skim over some of the sections (races, classes, one of the others - I honestly forget!), plus the original post, and I really like what I see so far.

One thing that I particularly like is that taking a level in a class gives you some extra benefits at first level - but only if that is your first class level. This helps side-step the multi-class abuse that I have seen in too many games (if I take one level of X, and one level of Y, and one level of Z, I'm so uber, then I just level up my main class again).

I also like the different attack stats. It really doesn't make sense that a L4 wizard should be able to fight as effectively with a longsword as a L1 warrior, nor should a warrior be familiar with finger-lasers. It does add more rules and numbers to look after, but in this case, I think it's a good change.

I disagree with an above poster who recommended that every class get some fractional base bonus to all attacks. A wizard is a wizard is a wizard, and isn't going to be spending his time learning about the fine art of swordplay unless he's actually planning on learning the trade of a fighter. A wizard is going to spend his time on what he's good at - casting spells.

Similarly, a fighter knows how to hit people, throw stuff, and use a bow. If a fighter decides to start studying the almighty pew pew, then finger-lasers will be a totally new experience. 

I'd actually rather see a little bit less "auxiliary" BCB overall.

Simplifying spell durations is also great. Breaking spells up into 18 levels gives casters something to look forward to every time they level up. Basic classes decorated with lots of feats removes the need for a bazillion ridiculous prestige classes (ugh), allowing for a lot of customization and, for those who enjoy it, lots of interesting choices for optimization.

I still have a lot to look over a lot of the material, but from what I have seen, I really like it. It would be great to see this in a web-based format; if you don't want to deal with bandwidth, domain names, etc., then one of the many free Wiki sites out there might be the way to go.

Thank you so much for sharing your hard work.

Now, convincing my guys to give it a try is a whole other matter...


----------



## pawsplay (Feb 9, 2011)

GhostBear said:


> I
> I also like the different attack stats. It really doesn't make sense that a L4 wizard should be able to fight as effectively with a longsword as a L1 warrior, nor should a warrior be familiar with finger-lasers. It does add more rules and numbers to look after, but in this case, I think it's a good change.
> 
> I disagree with an above poster who recommended that every class get some fractional base bonus to all attacks. A wizard is a wizard is a wizard, and isn't going to be spending his time learning about the fine art of swordplay unless he's actually planning on learning the trade of a fighter. A wizard is going to spend his time on what he's good at - casting spells.




I disagree. By mid-level, a wizard may have adventured for literally years. Simply because he focuses on casting does not mean he's not going to get practice doing other things. Speaking from my experience with combat sports, it's very possible to pick up plenty of skill through osmosis. It would be really difficult, in my mind, to go traipsing into orc-infested territory and not, from time to time, pick up some pointers from the party fighter. Really, a member of just about any class engaged in the usual adventuruous activities should know a modicum of stealth, swordplay, wilderness survival, climbing, bluffing, haggling, and so forth. 

The bookish wizard stereotype has some humor value, but it doesn't hold up to inspection, nor is it well-reflected in the literature. Merlin, Gandalf, the wizard's apprentice in Dragonslayer, Elric, and every evil wizard in every Arabian Knights movie ever have all been portrayed as capable swordsmen.


----------



## CuRoi (Feb 10, 2011)

pawsplay said:


> I disagree. By mid-level, a wizard may have adventured for literally years. Simply because he focuses on casting does not mean he's not going to get practice doing other things. Speaking from my experience with combat sports, it's very possible to pick up plenty of skill through osmosis. It would be really difficult, in my mind, to go traipsing into orc-infested territory and not, from time to time, pick up some pointers from the party fighter. Really, a member of just about any class engaged in the usual adventuruous activities should know a modicum of stealth, swordplay, wilderness survival, climbing, bluffing, haggling, and so forth.




You know - I'd agree with this sentiment. I mean if a Wizard is decent at shooting rays from his finger tips, there's no reason he couldn't be decent at say aiming a crossbow. In either case it's targetting an enemy in the middle of combat with a ranged attack. In fact, I could see an argument for Wizards being naturals for ranged weapons. They need to constantly judge distance and environmental factors on the fly as they cast spells. Thats a good step toward other types of missile combat. 

Adventuring parties are like special ops teams I'd think. And just because one is highly specialized in one discipline (say the "demolitions guy") doesn't mean the rest of the group has to haul his dead weight around until something needs to be blown up. I know stereotypical DnD is like that, but I definitely see the argument that it doesn't have to be.


----------



## mxyzplk (Feb 10, 2011)

Hey, just started reading through EG and I like it.  You've done a bunch of work! I similarly was initially intrigued by the 4e changes but eventually disappointed, but not happy with the state of 3.5e evolution either.

Question - why the six BABs when there are only three defenses?  Did you consider just having fort/ref/will both attacks and defenses to simplify? Seems like this system wants to go more Tri-Stat.

I'll also agree with some of the other folks you'd do well to change the name especially if you're looking to intrigue noobs - only the old guard knows or cares what a grognard is in the first place. 

I like the boiling down of the skill list.  I don't agree with removal of Diplomacy etc, however, I understand the rationale but to me it's more a syndrome of people making a whole encounter hinge on one Diplomacy roll and not having interesting social options, it'd be like making combat into one "roll BAB, on 15+ you kill the other guy.  Next!"  Now, i thought that maybe you could just use CHA BAB instead of having a skill, since you could argue Diplomacy is just trying to be "CHA but better."  But then I noticed Endurance is kind of a "CON but better" skill. In general it seems like skills could fade into the background more or synergize better with the six BABs and four Defenses.  Why aren't skills based on the BABs with a small bonus, just having somewhat fewer skill points would balance it out.

Why not collapse Search into Perception like Pathfinder does?

I like generalizing Disable Device to proactive Tinkering.  PF comboes Open Locks and Remove Traps into DD but it's nice to get activation in there (and maybe call out sabotaging explicitly as well).

Have you considered making a Move(ment) umbrella skill that can take specializations?  The Ride/Handle Animal/Survival breakup isn't compelling, and you get a bit of the "if I get athletics I can climb and swim and everything".  Move (Ride), Move (Fly), Move (Swim)...

I like the removal of full attacks and all that.  I find it a little odd to still have the like six different kinds of actions (free, immediate, etc, etc...) - that's complexity I could do without.

More later... good work!


----------



## Scott DeWar (Feb 10, 2011)

CuRoi said:


> Adventuring parties *are like special ops teams I'd think. *And just because one is highly specialized in one discipline (say the "demolitions guy") doesn't mean the rest of the group has to haul his dead weight around until something needs to be blown up. I know stereotypical DnD is like that, but I definitely see the argument that it doesn't have to be.




I was just brousing through and saw this comment in bold. I am avid reader of Tom Clancy novels and there is a lot of spec. ops action those stories. You might want to read a few to get the feal of that comment better. it might open up some new thoughts as to the part that adventures play. The comment: "they are all great shooters" was used to describe the team of the main characters.

if the party wishes to be a mecenary band, there should be a commen action that theya re good at (informatin aquisition for example, but with their own special task ability :  Traps, meat shield, distraction tactis .. .. .. ..

I am just throwing this out there in hope that it is helpful.


----------



## Janx (Feb 10, 2011)

pawsplay said:


> I disagree. By mid-level, a wizard may have adventured for literally years. Simply because he focuses on casting does not mean he's not going to get practice doing other things. Speaking from my experience with combat sports, it's very possible to pick up plenty of skill through osmosis. It would be really difficult, in my mind, to go traipsing into orc-infested territory and not, from time to time, pick up some pointers from the party fighter. Really, a member of just about any class engaged in the usual adventuruous activities should know a modicum of stealth, swordplay, wilderness survival, climbing, bluffing, haggling, and so forth.
> 
> The bookish wizard stereotype has some humor value, but it doesn't hold up to inspection, nor is it well-reflected in the literature. Merlin, Gandalf, the wizard's apprentice in Dragonslayer, Elric, and every evil wizard in every Arabian Knights movie ever have all been portrayed as capable swordsmen.




I concur.  In real life, i am a senior software developer with a patent.  The equivalent of a higher level wizard.  I'm also a black belt, had ground fighting and fencing courses, and taught myself to play guitar.  I can also paint and write.  And I'm not even a genius, nor really old.

Star Wars Saga introduced the idea that high level PCs get a bonus on skills they didn't spend points in.  Basically reflecting that high level PCs learn some skill outside of their focus area.  Combat is just such an area.

Thus, as supported by real life, fiction, and even game system design, a high level PC is justified in having skill in other areas he would be naturally exposed to over time, like stealth, and combat.  Possibly even magic.  While the rogue and wizard got some pointers from the fighter, and wizard and fighter learned to be more stealthy, the rogue and fighter could have at least learned some arcane knowledge.  Maybe they still can't cast a spell, but they can recognize things that a skill check would allow.

What should be undesired from any rule change, is one class being so good they can overshadow the class thats's dedicated to an art.  thus, the wizard, while he COULD wield a sword, he's not great at it compared to the fighter or rogue.  But he's better than incompetent at it.

At high levels, that's no big deal to model.  The wizard has a low BAB, but better than 0.  Let him wield a sword, he's still going to miss more than the rogue.  At low level (say 1st), everybody's got a +0 or +1 BAB, and the wizards not much worse than anybody else.  That might be a bit unfair.


----------



## amnuxoll (Feb 13, 2011)

GhostBear said:


> I really like what I see so far.



Thanks for saying so!



GhostBear said:


> Now, convincing my guys to give it a try is a whole other matter...




Good luck.  I'd be tickled if you got it to go.  I've recently converted a couple of bits of other material to EG right now to aid players in my home campaign:  
 the traits from the player's guide for the Serpents Skull adventure path (Paizo)
 the Oracle class in Pathfinder
 the Arcane Trickster prestige class
I've been pleased with how easy it has been to do those conversions.  

:AMN:


----------



## amnuxoll (Feb 13, 2011)

CuRoi said:


> You know - I'd agree with this sentiment. I mean if a Wizard is decent at shooting rays from his finger tips, there's no reason he couldn't be decent at say aiming a crossbow...Adventuring parties are like special ops teams I'd think. And just because one is highly specialized in one discipline (say the "demolitions guy") doesn't mean the rest of the group has to haul his dead weight around until something needs to be blown up. I know stereotypical DnD is like that, but I definitely see the argument that it doesn't have to be.




I don't have a strong objection to going with a minimum +1/4 to all BABs.  I personally prefer it better without.  I think the combination of Refocused Attack and the fact that multiclassing doesn't make you sacrifice your maximum spell level means you can get much of the same effect with more flavor and more conscious character crafting.

Example:  I have a player in our home group who is going to play an Arcane Trickster.  If you're familiar with that prestige class, it's a Wizard+Rogue combo.  I'm really pleased with how the existing mechanics already force some balanced but fair tradeoffs for this type of character, particularly with regard to BAB.  We'll have to add very little to the game to support that concept.


----------



## amnuxoll (Feb 13, 2011)

mxyzplk said:


> Hey, just started reading through EG and I like it.




Thank you!




mxyzplk said:


> Question - why the six BABs when there are only three defenses?  Did you consider just having fort/ref/will both attacks and defenses to simplify? Seems like this system wants to go more Tri-Stat.




I had some very similar thoughts when I was building this.  I think you'll agree that 4e wants to be Tri-Stat in some ways as well.  Ultimately, I didn't go that way because I wanted to keep the game as similar to the original as I could.  I guess, to me, it's just not D&D without Str, Con, Dex, Int, Wis, & Cha (and sometimes Com).



mxyzplk said:


> I'll also agree with some of the other folks you'd do well to change the name especially if you're looking to intrigue noobs - only the old guard knows or cares what a grognard is in the first place.




No argument.  Someone please rescue me by suggesting a new name that will make the game more "marketable."  I'm hopelessly bad at such things.



mxyzplk said:


> I don't agree with removal of Diplomacy etc, however, I understand the rationale but to me it's more a syndrome of people making a whole encounter hinge on one Diplomacy roll




I realize that most experienced players don't make this mistake.  But all it takes is one munchkin to sour the experience for everyone.  I saw it happen far too often, especially in public venues like game stores and conventions.  On the other side, I'm also drawing on the positive roleplaying experiences I've had with other systems that lacked Diplomacy and Intimidate skills.  I really think that's not an accident.  But I acknowledge that some players would really prefer to house rule those skills back in.



mxyzplk said:


> Why aren't skills based on the BABs with a small bonus, just having somewhat fewer skill points would balance it out.




Well I'd never thought of this.  What do others think?  



mxyzplk said:


> Why not collapse Search into Perception like Pathfinder does?




Well I took a somewhat different tack.  Perception is _passive only_ so it's your ability to notice something you're not aware or looking for versus not your ability to find something you know might be there.  That's different from 3.5e and Pathfinder where a player can say "I want to make a Perception check to see if I can see where that sniper is."  Now that player would use Search for that purpose.  This makes Perception less of a "must have" skill and also avoids tempting the players to metagame in many situations.



mxyzplk said:


> Have you considered making a Move(ment) umbrella skill that can take specializations?  The Ride/Handle Animal/Survival breakup isn't compelling, and you get a bit of the "if I get athletics I can climb and swim and everything".  Move (Ride), Move (Fly), Move (Swim)...




I did spend time thinking about importing the Fly skill from PF.  I hadn't considered taking it as far as you've indicated here.  My impression is that it becomes almost a "skill tax" for players with certain abilities.  Also, I want to move away from having to make a skill check every time you take a move action.  That slows the game down a lot.  I like the idea of "I can fly" and then that's the end of it.

What do others think?  Should EG have movement skills like this?




mxyzplk said:


> More later... good work!



I'm looking forward to it.


----------



## amnuxoll (Feb 13, 2011)

Janx said:


> I concur.  In real life, i am a senior software developer with a patent.  The equivalent of a higher level wizard.  I'm also a black belt, had ground fighting and fencing courses, and taught myself to play guitar.  I can also paint and write.  And I'm not even a genius, nor really old.




This is rather anecdotal! =)  FWIW, I am a higher level wizard than you are by your definition and also definitely not a genius. (Contact me off list if you'd like to have a wizard duel!)    Nonetheless, I disagree (albeit very mildly) with this sentiment.  See my comments in the post above.


----------



## pawsplay (Feb 13, 2011)

amnuxoll said:


> Well I took a somewhat different tack.  Perception is _passive only_ so it's your ability to notice something you're not aware or looking for versus not your ability to find something you know might be there.  That's different from 3.5e and Pathfinder where a player can say "I want to make a Perception check to see if I can see where that sniper is."  Now that player would use Search for that purpose.  This makes Perception less of a "must have" skill and also avoids tempting the players to metagame in many situations.




That's what Fantasy Craft did, and I think it works well.


----------



## CuRoi (Feb 13, 2011)

Still looking through the document and I like many things I see, though some I'm not sold on just yet. As I mentioned previously, I was working on my own collection of house rules so I'm not sure I'll use the document as presented, but I may incorporate some things.

One question I do have is why keep saves? We seem to have had a very similar approach with "training" attributes (or applying a BAB to attributes.) The way I set it up, Willpower is just a Wsidom Defense; Reflex a Dexterity Defense and Fortitude a Constitution Defense. The only reason for maintaining the save categories once you start "training" Attributes seems to be the sacred cow issue.

Of course, I've tried starting a few threads with my ideas and heard nothing but crickets so I may be way off anyone else's ideas : )


----------



## amnuxoll (Feb 14, 2011)

CuRoi said:


> One question I do have is why keep saves? We seem to have had a very similar approach with "training" attributes (or applying a BAB to attributes.) The way I set it up, Willpower is just a Wisdom Defense; Reflex a Dexterity Defense and Fortitude a Constitution Defense. The only reason for maintaining the save categories once you start "training" Attributes seems to be the sacred cow issue.




I do remember considering just the approach you describe.  And you're right  it was the sacred cow that played a big role in keeping me from rolling the defenses and saves together with the attributes.   

But sacred cows are serious business.  Keeping them in makes it easier to convert d20 monsters and NPCs to EG.

My other reason is that I really like the way that 4e always uses the same target number for all saving throws and I wanted to incorporate that idea.  

Finally, using one set of categories for (mostly) offensive stuff like attacks and skills and a different set of categories for defensive stuff (defenses and saving throws) is a comforting division.


----------



## Thanael (Feb 14, 2011)

> Belkar the Rogue
> 
> 11 levels rogue, 4 sorcerer (first level sorcerer, then 11 levels of rogue, then the remaining three of sorcerer)




Does it make a difference if his first level was sorcerer or rogue? If yes why? One of the great changes in PF was imo that there's mechanically no difference between a  Class x 1/ Class y 1 and a Class y 1 / Class x 1. 


Does EG cover epic levels ?


----------



## CuRoi (Feb 14, 2011)

amnuxoll said:


> I do remember considering just the approach you describe. And you're right it was the sacred cow that played a big role in keeping me from rolling the defenses and saves together with the attributes.
> 
> But sacred cows are serious business. Keeping them in makes it easier to convert d20 monsters and NPCs to EG.




I agree, it's the best approach for simplicity sake. I'm overcomplicated though and prefer my cows well-done. There is definitely something to be said for being able to make conversions on the fly. I haven't gone to monsters yet with the ideas I am toying aorund with, but I am also considering going back to 2e with monster stat blocks largely simplified and very different from PCs. At the very least taking something more similar to the 4e approach.



> My other reason is that I really like the way that 4e always uses the same target number for all saving throws and I wanted to incorporate that idea.
> 
> Finally, using one set of categories for (mostly) offensive stuff like attacks and skills and a different set of categories for defensive stuff (defenses and saving throws) is a comforting division.




I'm not a huge fan of using the same target number as I like having more variation to distinguish between the classes. I have divided out the attributes:

_Offensive (modifier + training + d20)_
Strength, Intelligence, Charisma
_Defensive (modifier + training +10)_
Wisdom, Dexterity, Constitution

So there is still a distinct category, but again, how comforting it all depends on how you like your steak. 

_________________
www.eyrurpg.com


----------



## Janx (Feb 14, 2011)

amnuxoll said:


> This is rather anecdotal! =)  FWIW, I am a higher level wizard than you are by your definition and also definitely not a genius. (Contact me off list if you'd like to have a wizard duel!)    Nonetheless, I disagree (albeit very mildly) with this sentiment.  See my comments in the post above.




Outside, by the swingset.  Children love watching wizard duels.  Until one of them loses an eye and swears a blood vendetta.


I draw my inspiration from folks like Ben Franklin.  Dudes who are multi-talented.  If nothing else, anecdotes give examples to support whatever game rule you got, and ignore anecdotes that contradict...


----------



## amnuxoll (Feb 15, 2011)

Thanael said:


> Does it make a difference if his first level was sorcerer or rogue?




Yes, the order does matter.  Personally, I like that it matters.  Please elaborate on why this is bad?



Thanael said:


> Does EG cover epic levels ?




Sorry, no.  =/  If anyone makes it to 18th level playing EG, I'll come up with some! =)


----------



## Clownmite (Mar 1, 2011)

I'd just like to say that this looks like a great system, and I like the philosophy around it very much. I don't think I can convince my players to give it a go, since we just learned 3.5 for our first system, but I'm thinking about adding combat tokens to my next campaign. 

Do you have any suggestions as to how it should convert? For example, something like Inspire Courage - should that grant x tokens/round to players (rather than the +x bonuses). I'm thinking that anything that gives + modifiers can give a token of the most appropriate type, but I'm afraid that having these modifiers come from many sources might make them overpowered.


----------



## amnuxoll (Mar 1, 2011)

Clownmite said:


> Do you have any suggestions as to how it should convert? For example, something like Inspire Courage - should that grant x tokens/round to players (rather than the +x bonuses). I'm thinking that anything that gives + modifiers can give a token of the most appropriate type, but I'm afraid that having these modifiers come from many sources might make them overpowered.




Thanks for your kind words about EG.

I give some general guidelines for converting temporary modifiers to tokens in the Conversion Guide (Chapter 12):  _"In general, a temporary +1 bonus equates to about 1 token.  A permanent +1 bonus equates to about 1 token per encounter.  These are rough values and, in particular, effects that last for an entire encounter should grant about twice as many tokens.  This might seem like the PC is getting less of a bonus since a combat is likely to last more than 2 rounds.  However, the inherent flexibility of tokens makes them much more valuable."_

For a conversion of Inspire Courage in particular, check out the Song of Courage feat.  
[sblock=Song of Courage]*Name:* Song of Courage
*Areas of Mastery:* Performance
*Prerequisites:* 1 rank in Perform
*Description:* You can make a Perform check as a standard action to inspire your allies. Every ally that can hear you gains a number of tokens equal to your Perform check result divided-by 15. Each player may decide what type of tokens his character receives. Each subsequent round you can maintain your song as a swift action. Each time you do this, you may make a new Perform check and grant additional tokens. Should you ever fail to maintain your song on a given turn, you can no longer grant tokens this way unless you restart the song with a standard action.[/sblock]

That's the conversion approach I settled on.  We had a bard in one of my low-level playtest groups and I was pleased with to see that, for the first time ever!, a first level bard easily could be a really valuable part of a party and a satisfying character to play because of his unique contribution.

:AMN:


----------



## Clownmite (Mar 2, 2011)

amnuxoll said:


> I give some general guidelines for converting temporary modifiers to tokens in the Conversion Guide (Chapter 12):  _"In general, a temporary +1 bonus equates to about 1 token.  A permanent +1 bonus equates to about 1 token per encounter.  These are rough values and, in particular, effects that last for an entire encounter should grant about twice as many tokens.  This might seem like the PC is getting less of a bonus since a combat is likely to last more than 2 rounds.  However, the inherent flexibility of tokens makes them much more valuable."_




I did look at the conversion guide; I was under the impression that it was converting 3.5 to EG, whereas all I want to do here is stick the combat token mechanic in 3.5 so my players don't have to learn a new system. 

My question is basically: would it be appropriate to play 3.5 with the blanket statement "Any spell, class ability, etc, that would grant a +X bonus for Y turns will now grant X tokens for Y turns"?


----------



## amnuxoll (Mar 2, 2011)

Clownmite said:


> My question is basically: would it be appropriate to play 3.5 with the blanket statement "Any spell, class ability, etc, that would grant a +X bonus for Y turns will now grant X tokens for Y turns"?




Sorry I misunderstood.  I think it's doable but you would need to be prepared for some negotiation with the players.  There were some things in the SRD that I felt didn't quite work with a straight conversion like you suggest.


----------



## Clownmite (Mar 18, 2011)

Yeah, I may try a test battle or two to see how the token system would work in straight 3.5. 

Also, what would you think of allowing players to exchange 3 tokens of 1 type to gain 1 token of another type, like 3 speed tokens for a power token?


----------



## amnuxoll (Mar 19, 2011)

Clownmite said:


> Also, what would you think of allowing players to exchange 3 tokens of 1 type to gain 1 token of another type, like 3 speed tokens for a power token?




I think that's reasonable.  I recommend against a 1-for-1 exchange though.  

A reason not to allow exchanges is that it devalues teamwork a bit.  My current gaming group talks about tokens as we play.  Examples:  "Can someone spare a power token?  I need one more to get sneak attack in next turn."


----------



## Clownmite (Apr 1, 2011)

So, another thing about D&D that I've never liked was that weapons were generally only different by the dice that they roll damage with. I was thinking of ways to spice things up, and had the idea that some of the initial tokens in battle should be generated by the weapon someone is wielding. Instead of getting 2 tokens of your choice at the beginning of battle, why not get 1 token based on category (simple, martial, exotic) and 1 token based on how it's wielded (light, 1-handed, 2-handed). I came up with the following table:






(I didn't include ranged weapons, but they could easily fit in)

To read the chart, just match up the type of tokens for the row and column (i.e, a Greataxe is Strength and Strength, Nunchaku is Speed and Insight). Now each weapon is differentiated not only by damage dice, but the tokens you get for wielding it. (I'm not sure whether I should flip the tokens associated with simple and exotic weapons). 

Furthermore, maybe we can work up special attacks that can only be used by a particular weapon type? Say, if you're wielding a weapon that uses Strength/Insight, you can spend one type of each token to gain a special attack?

As a side note, have you thought about letting characters gaining an additional amount of tokens of their choice at the beginning of the battle equal to their Charisma modifier? It would make it less of a dump stat.

Finally, I was thinking of having Light weapons deal double or triple damage in a grapple (granted I'm probably gonna go with a hybrid system of 3.5/EG/my own for grapples). That way a light-weapon wielder could actually deal some serious damage by grappling and stabbing. (I'm thinking of allowing heavier weapons to be used in a grapple, but with no damage bonus added to the dice.) That way even strong characters would want to keep a dagger on them, in case they get grabbed by a Giant or something.


----------



## amnuxoll (Apr 4, 2011)

Clownmite:  

That chart is pretty awesome.  I heartily approve!  (One nit:  They are Power tokens not Strength tokens.)  You may also want to check out the Weapon feats.  It may give you a jump start on your weapon-based ability ideas.

I thought seriously about using Charisma modifier or Wisdom modifier as the method for determining starting tokens.  Ultimately, I used a flat amount because I didn't want anyone to start with less than 2.  I thought about something like 3 + Cha modifier but that might yield too many tokens for a character.  Feel free to try it though!  I could be over thinking it.


----------



## Janx (Apr 4, 2011)

Clownmite said:


> Finally, I was thinking of having Light weapons deal double or triple damage in a grapple (granted I'm probably gonna go with a hybrid system of 3.5/EG/my own for grapples). That way a light-weapon wielder could actually deal some serious damage by grappling and stabbing. (I'm thinking of allowing heavier weapons to be used in a grapple, but with no damage bonus added to the dice.) That way even strong characters would want to keep a dagger on them, in case they get grabbed by a Giant or something.




Nice chart and idea.

Since my very first PC, I have always carried a ranged weapon, melee weapon, and a dagger for grappling/groundfighting.  

It might be all but useless to grapple and use a bigger weapon, but IF you can get a stab in with a dagger, it'll be more lethal because you are probably going to stick it in deep, versus slash somebody.  And kind of cestus or brass knuckles would also help for pummelling.

I'd warrant that it is harder to hit, but the damage should be higher.  That would sort of balance things out, and support the concept.

Thus, a grapple from behind to hold, and plunge a dagger into their back ( a scene oft repeated in film) for 3d4 damage should be enough to kill most level 1 NPCs.


----------



## Clownmite (Apr 4, 2011)

amnuxoll said:


> You may also want to check out the Weapon feats.  It may give you a jump start on your weapon-based ability ideas.




I read through all your feats and spells yesterday, there's definitely a lot of good stuff in there. I may try to tie some of them to specific weapon types. 

Even with the table I made out, I think a lot of weapons still feel too similar. I can further divide weapons up by damage type (slashing, bludgeoning, etc) or by weapon type (sword, axe, etc), since both of those are in core but don't really do anything. I don't want to overcomplicate things though. Please offer any suggestions if you have any. If I could come up with something like the Spearchucker feat you have, but for each weapon type, that could be fun. 



			
				Janx said:
			
		

> Since my very first PC, I have always carried a ranged weapon, melee weapon, and a dagger for grappling/groundfighting.
> 
> It might be all but useless to grapple and use a bigger weapon, but IF  you can get a stab in with a dagger, it'll be more lethal because you  are probably going to stick it in deep, versus slash somebody.  And kind  of cestus or brass knuckles would also help for pummelling.
> 
> ...




Yeah, that was my reasoning behind that idea. I'll have to do some more thinking to figure out the exact mechanics.


----------



## Clownmite (Apr 7, 2011)

One other thing I wanted to ask was what would you think if tokens could be spent retroactively 1-for-1 for everything? The main problem I see with this is that it could lead to a loop of someone increasing their attack by 1, other person dodging (speed token) for one, etc. I don't know how this would be avoided; maybe each party could only pledge tokens as a single immediate action after the dice is rolled, so no back-and-forth could occur. 

The reason I was thinking of going this route is that many times, a token will be wasted when declaring attacks. If you spend 3 tokens to gain a +3 to hit, and you roll a natural 19, then you didn't need those tokens to hit in the first place, and could have spent them on damage; alternatively, if you rolled a 2, you probably missed and wasted the tokens. Each token you spend to increase your to-hit will be wasted 95% of the time (or, the only time X tokens would matter would be if you missed your roll by X).

I have yet to run a battle with the token system, but in your experience, do players often spend tokens to hit other than when they want to apply a feat?


I think with weapons, I'm going to divide things as follows:
Bludgeoning: spend 1 power token to unbalance enemy or knock him into an adjacent square.
Slashing: spend 1 power token to attack 2 adjacent enemies in your reach (same attack and damage roll for each).
Piercing: Spend 1 power token to roll an extra damage dice.

Another random idea: Shields are widely regarded as not worth it compared to wielding 2 handed weapons, so what if in addition to the AC bonus, shields either negated or forced a re-roll on any damage dice that come up as maximum?

Finally, you should post EG on the Giant in the Playground forums, I think you'd be well received and get a lot of good feedback.

EDIT: And some more questions. You gain a speed token any time you move in combat, even if you're not in a threatened square, right? So if you're not threatened, you can theoretically Refocus, Move, and Total Defense to gain 6 speed tokens in a turn, right? 

Also, the unbalanced condition is a bit strange - if you're forcing someone to take a move action, they can just step backward and step forward to negate the unbalancedness. Why not force them to take a 5 foot step instead?


----------



## Aloïsius (Apr 28, 2011)

I'm very slowly exploring the beta E.G. I downloaded some weeks ago. The more I read it, the more I like it overall, but there are a few things that annoy me. 
Right now, I'm somewhat perplexed by the specialities/craft skill sub-system. I mean, you need at least 15 related specialities to craft a masterwork item. So, let's say I want to craft a mithral chain shirt. I have blacksmithing, armorsmithing, mithral smithing, mail smithing, chainshirt smithing... and then, what else can I imagine to specialize enough to reach the "masterwork" quality ? I need 10 more related specialities, because, with the five I get, I will only reach the "average" quality.... 
I could probably double each of those with the knowledge speciality skill, but it feels highly awkward. 

A solution could be to create three level of the skill speciality : initiate, competent, master. The first rank you invest make you initiated (worth one related skill), the second rank makes you competent (worth two related specialities), and the third makes you a master of this kind of knowledge/craft/profession. (worth three ranks...)

What do you think ?


----------



## amnuxoll (May 1, 2011)

Aloïsius:

I'm delighted that you're reading through the EG beta.  My group met for another session today and are enjoying ourselves playing one of the Paizo Pathfinder adventure paths.



Aloïsius said:


> What do you think ?




One of the observations I've made about D&D 3.5e is that crafting rules give players enough rope to hang themselves.  When PCs can make magic items (or unusual items like a mithral shirt) they are in danger of ruining the economy of the game at the least and overpowering their characters at worst.

In 2e, the ability to craft a magic item was firmly in the hands of NPCs.  In the rare case when PCs needed to craft an item (because of a plot or a PC's personal goals) then the DM had firm control over how and when that occurred.  It's my belief that it's a much better approach so I've architected Enlighted Grognard to use that approach.  

That said, some players and/or DMs really like crafting.  if a DM is running a campaign where players crafting is desired then the amendment you propose makes perfect sense.  

:AMN:


----------



## Aloïsius (May 2, 2011)

I was talking about non-magical item. Masterwork items precisely. I think that, even if it's just for background reasons, one should be able to play a legendary blacksmith, or at least a renowned one. Or the DM should be able to design NPC able to forge a masterwork armor or weapon without using DM's fiat.  I have no problem with such a character needing *a lot* of levels, but I have a problem with the player or the DM running out of imagination to give new specialty to his character in a focused field. I cited mithral not to make a better armor, but because that was the only added specialisation I could imagine (because specializing in "iron" seems kind of strange, since it's somewhat the default metal used...). 

As they are right now, the rules do tell what you have studied/learned, but they tell that you were a very bad student and are unable to do anything but the crudest items (even not of the standard quality), unless you are able to imagine a dozen related specialisations ("forging chainmail during the winter nights, when it's raining outside and my back is itchy..."). 

As for the DM controling the creation of particular items, well... Mithral shirt are made of mithral, which is supposed to be a very rare and expansive material, you don't craft out of thin air. If you add the time requisite (and place, and tools...) for crafting anything, I don't see how players could be at danger of threatening the game balance if they are able to make a living from their non-adventurous skills, be them craft, knowledge or profession.


----------



## Fanaelialae (May 2, 2011)

I have to say, of the many 3e variants I've read (Trailblazer, Pathfinder, Fantasy Craft, etc.) this is the only one that's seriously piqued my interest since I stopped playing 3e.  The token system looks like an elegant solution to the issue of modifier bloat.  I also really like your approach to area effects, and the way your class design embraces the modularity of 3rd.

I'm curious as to why you chose to allow Power and Speed tokens to boost Str & Dex attacks, but no other BABs can be boosted with tokens.  Do you feel that this is needed to balance a disparity between classes that have / don't have magic, or is it for some other reason?

As written, Limited Wish appears to allow you to cast spells with a Frequency of 24 hours or more, once an encounter.  I don't know that it is necessarily game breaking, but you may want to limit it to "Encounter or the Frequency of the spell cast, whichever is longer".  While I haven't read the entire spell chapter, and therefore don't know if this applies, you may want to apply the same restriction to Wish and Miracle, to avoid abuse of spells with a Frequency of once per year.

I know this has been mentioned before, but I also find it very odd that both Search and Perception exist (after your skill merging, they're the only skills that strike me as redundant).  If a Druid and a Ranger walk into an ambush, you end up with the strange scenario where the Druid notices the ambush automatically (assuming his Perception is high enough) while the Ranger only notices the ambush if the player says he is looking for an ambush.  The Druid is poor at actively finding the ambush if his Perception fails, whereas the Ranger's only chance is to actively search.  It creates weirdness, and I'd suggest the two be merged.

The biggest issue that I can find is that, as written, anyone without at least 1 rank in Perception has essentially no chance of noticing someone with even 1 rank in Stealth, which isn't the case for most opposed skills.  Assuming equal Str, someone with 1 rank in Athletics has a significant advantage over someone with 0 ranks (avg 13.75 vs avg 10.5), but it's far from a guaranteed success.  Against an untrained Stealth check, untrained passive Perception has very little chance of success (the average Stealth check will be 10.5, whereas passive Perception is 0).  Even trained Perception doesn't have much of an advantage over untrained Stealth at level 1 (11 vs avg 10.5).  Untrained passive checks don't seem to be of much practical value to the system, as far as I can tell.  That, in turn, makes Bluff and Stealth more potent than skills normally opposed by a DC or an opposed check.

The problem, as I see it, is that trained skills roll a _minimum_ of 10 (with a maximum of 20) whereas passive checks always "roll" either 0 or 10.  Under your system, an untrained check averages 10.5, but a trained check averages 12.75.  An approach that gives passive skills a slight advantage would be for untrained passive checks to be equal to 11 + modifier (note that it's still unlikely that this will beat a trained check).  Trained passive checks would be 13 + mod (making it challenging but possible for an untrained check to beat it).  Of course, at higher levels trained will beat untrained hands down (assuming you've been increasing ranks every level), but that applies to all skills.  This change brings active/passive skills more in line with active/active and active/DC skills.

I hope this doesn't come across as overly critical, as I really do think you've done an amazing job with EG!


----------



## amnuxoll (May 4, 2011)

Aloïsius said:


> I was talking about non-magical item. Masterwork items precisely.




My answer was about crafting in general.  EG is deliberately designed to discourage PC crafting.

But I think the last paragraph applies to your situation.  If you want to create a character who is a blacksmith, then that's good grounds for a house rule.


----------



## amnuxoll (May 4, 2011)

Fanaelialae said:


> I have to say, of the many 3e variants I've read (Trailblazer, Pathfinder, Fantasy Craft, etc.) this is the only one that's seriously piqued my interest since I stopped playing 3e.



It's kind of you to say so.



Fanaelialae said:


> I'm curious as to why you chose to allow Power and Speed tokens to boost Str & Dex attacks, but no other BABs can be boosted with tokens.  Do you feel that this is needed to balance a disparity between classes that have / don't have magic, or is it for some other reason?




That's the primary reason.  It's also easier for spellcasters to get more tokens.  So, making them only increase weapon attacks it creates more teamwork.  My home group has gotten savvy with this.  For example, we know that the ranger/rogue is most effective when he has two power tokens  (sneak attack) and 1 speed token (shield bash) every round so the druid and the paladin make a point of keeping him supplied with them.  Combats feel like a team effort.  



Fanaelialae said:


> As written, Limited Wish appears to allow you to cast spells with a Frequency of 24 hours or more, once an encounter.




Nice catch!  I will fix that.



Fanaelialae said:


> I know this has been mentioned before, but I also find it very odd that both Search and Perception exist




I agree that the concept takes some getting used to, but once you do it seems to work well.  The goal here is to make Perception less of "must have" skill by taking some of its capability and splitting it off into Search.  So, when building your character you have to choose what you want to be good at (or invest in both skills).  In your example, both the ranger and the druid will have moments when their respective skill investment pays off. 




Fanaelialae said:


> The biggest issue that I can find is that, as written, anyone without at least 1 rank in Perception has essentially no chance of noticing someone with even 1 rank in Stealth, which isn't the case for most opposed skills.




Well, you're absolutely right.  This is an issue I've spent a lot of time ruminating on over the last 12 months.  I have a friend who is a game designer who made a similar criticism to yours and I almost changed the system then but decided to give it a go as is.  I'm glad I did.  We've been playing the game for a while now and I think he's come to appreciate the current approach.  (I'll ask him.)  I certainly like it.

I've considered a number of different alternatives including using different base values as you suggested.  I settled on this solution because:  a) it's simple to use and remember b) it strongly rewards players who invest in skills.  Drawing on your example, when that assassin with 1 rank in stealth approaches the party then when the ranger who has a rank invested in Perception notices him approach then it makes that ranger look heroic.  It also makes the player feel rewarded for that investment.  It also makes the ranger valuable to the party.   

Also, remember that Perception is passive.  So, it's not a case of everyone at the table rolling a die and being told that they aren't good enough.  The DM simply announces "Ranger Rick, you detect the glint of moonlight off of a drawn dagger as a shadow detaches itself from the nearby alley."  So it's not about who failed but isntead about who succeeded.

I personally believe that these sort of "spotlight moments" really improve the game, as long as every PC gets them in roughly equal proportion.  If you ask me why so few players played pure rogues in D&D 3.5e, my answer is that skills didn't turn out to be as valuable as they were intended to be.  These changes to the skill system are one move I made to correct that.  And I think it's working.  One of my playtesters, who is known for creating powerful builds, actually took the feat that lets him get additional skill ranks to spend.  In 3.5e, taking a feat like that would have been seen as a wasted feat by most players.  





Fanaelialae said:


> I hope this doesn't come across as overly critical, as I really do think you've done an amazing job with EG!




On the contrary, it comes across as very well informed and thoughtful.  You've touched on some points that really indicate a strong understanding and appreciation of what I've done here and I'm flattered by that.


----------



## Aloïsius (Jun 23, 2011)

I will soon playtest EG (slightly modified for a less "dungeon heavy" gameplay), and, while reading the energy drain rules, I thought that it would be nice (and evil...) if the draining creature was able to drain token from its victim. This would inflict a penalty to a drained creature even if it does not die, and will give a boost somewhat more "active" to the draining attacker than mere hit point healing.


I'm also thinking about a way to convert the tome of battle (way of the nine swords) to EG. Its stances are more powerful than the stance feats in EG, and I don't know what to do with attacks and counters : make them work like the spells ? I guess the answer depends of the way I incorporate ToB classes, either as feat for the fighter/barbarian/monks or as entirely new classes.


(of course, this is also just another shameless bump, as I wish a lot of folk to read this thread and discover this system).


----------



## amnuxoll (Feb 15, 2012)

*D&D Next*

I don't know if anyone still subscribes to this thread but...

Last week I had the chance to playtest the current draft of the D&D Next rules.  The details of my experience are covered by an NDA (surprise, surprise) but I will quote this passage from the Introduction in Chapter 0 of the EG rules:


> So, for my sake and yours, I'm creating the Englightened Grognard rule system in an attempt to bring the best of everything together.  Let's hope it'll do until the pros step in with 5th edition.




Based on my experience, this prediction appears to be coming true.  Of course, D&D Next isn't everything I wish it was but, overall, I am very pleased with what I saw.  

The one nugget that I think really improves the game but won't be in D&D Next is the token-based bonus system.  I expect that I will house rule it into my home games if my fellow players will agree to it.

Otherwise, my fingers are crossed that D&D 5e will make EG more-or-less obsolete so I can relax and just play my favorite game again.

:AMN:


----------



## Animus (Feb 15, 2012)

That's great to hear!


----------

