# Grim-n-Gritty: Revised and Simplified



## KenHood

Howdy folks,

It's been a while since I've posted on this site or even worked on the d20 system. I've had a revision of the Grim-n-Gritty Hit Point and Combat Rules brewing in my skull for a couple of years and thought I'd put them to paper. Those of you familiar with the old rules will find these a major departure, though the spirit and intent are the same. Hopefully, you will find a couple of the old problems with the system have been solved. For example, you can overcome a creature's heavy armor with a good attack roll. There's a dice cap that makes it easier to incorporate the existing fire-n-forget magic system. You'll find converting existing creatures to the revised GnG is a HECK of a lot easier than the original GnG.

Should you decide to use this system in your games, you will find that it screws up the CR's of nearly every creature. Also, I think you'll find it's a little easier to kill or be killed in this revision of the system.

If you use this in play and have any anecdotes to share, I'd be interested in reading them.

Caveats: It's not a realistic system, just a less cinematic one. It's not perfect. It's not universal. It's not for everyone. And, no, I do not think the entire d20 combat system should be replaced with it.

Enjoy,
Ken Hood

----

*ADDED 04/07/2004*

ENWorld is now hosting the rules at http://www.enworld.org/forums/local_links.php?action=links&catid=19

Thanks, ENWorld!

The latest version of the rules is dated 4-7-2004. 

Changes:
*Corrected a couple of typos.
*Clarified explanation of figuring base defense bonus.
*Moved the dice cap and sneak attack rules to a variants section. 
*Added a variant rule for Dexterity as the universal attack roll modifier, rather than Strength for melee and Dexterity for ranged. (Also added a feat, Brute Force, to go along with this variant.)

Again, thanks for the suggestions and requests for clarification. I look forward to hearing some playtesting discussion.


----------



## Cergorach

Whoo! I thought you had disappeared fom the face of the earth, welcome back, i'll be taking a look at the new rules when i'm fully awake ;-)


----------



## KenHood

Thanks. I'm still disappeared from the face of the earth, but I needed to get this little thing out of my skull.


----------



## Cheiromancer

KenHood said:
			
		

> Thanks. I'm still disappeared from the face of the earth, but I needed to get this little thing out of my skull.




Some folks were reminiscing about the Sleeping Imperium setting.  I don't suppose you still have some of the documents hanging around from that, would you?

It would be enthusiastically appreciated if they were made available somehow.

Here's a recent link where they were discussed: http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=38220


----------



## KenHood

It looks like they've got most of the generic rules posted on that thread already. As for the content specific to the Sleeping Imperium, I want to keep that closed for now. There's a reason for that, but I cannot go into details on it yet.


----------



## SSquirrel

KenHood said:
			
		

> It looks like they've got most of the generic rules posted on that thread already. As for the content specific to the Sleeping Imperium, I want to keep that closed for now. There's a reason for that, but I cannot go into details on it yet.



Hey Ken I've been hosting the old GnG rules on my site since people seemed to be having a hard time finding it recently.  Hope that's cool.  I'll hafta take a look at these new ones and include them as well *grin*

Hagen


----------



## KenHood

SSquirrel said:
			
		

> Hey Ken I've been hosting the old GnG rules on my site since people seemed to be having a hard time finding it recently.  Hope that's cool.




That's fine. Like Fight Club, the GnG rules are free to all.


----------



## Cergorach

Just got around to reading it, SWEET! Reminds me of Shadowrun, 

Couple of remarks:
1.) The Life Bar goes directly from Lightly Wounded to Severly Wounded, it could be me but it would sound better if there was a Moderately Wounded in between there.
2.) Dying says that you suffer a -5 penalty on all attack rolls, defense, ability checks, skill checks, and saving throws, but then states that you cannot take any actions...
3.) Toughness feat adds +1 Soak per level, are we talking about character level? If so, the Thoughness feat is way to powerful. If not, what are you talking about?
4.) If one uses default classes, where do the difference in hit points come in? What makes a Ranger and a barbarian different in taking on damage?


----------



## Yair

Just wondering, are these rules inspired by Ars Magica in some part? Some of the terminology and mechanics are just the same.
Regardless - although I never used it, I was very impressed by your Sleeping Imperium material, and I am glad to know you have some plans for it.


----------



## KenHood

Cergorach said:
			
		

> 1.) The Life Bar goes directly from Lightly Wounded to Severly Wounded, it could be me but it would sound better if there was a Moderately Wounded in between there.




I appreciate the suggestion, but I disagree. Adding a new column increases survivability. However, you have a semantical point about the need for a middle category. I've dropped Not Wounded, and changed it to Lightly Wounded.




			
				Cergorach said:
			
		

> 2.) Dying says that you suffer a -5 penalty on all attack rolls, defense, ability checks, skill checks, and saving throws, but then states that you cannot take any actions....




Yes. You are correct. There are some things that occur whether or not one is conscious or able to take actions. The penalties apply in these cases.




			
				Cergorach said:
			
		

> 3.) Toughness feat adds +1 Soak per level, are we talking about character level? If so, the Thoughness feat is way to powerful. If not, what are you talking about?




Each purchase of Toughness is a "level" of Toughness. I would permit a character to acquire no more than three "levels" of this feat. Each time you get Toughness, you get +1 Soak. 

I did change the wording in the original document to add clarity.




			
				Cergorach said:
			
		

> 4.) If one uses default classes, where do the difference in hit points come in? What makes a Ranger and a barbarian different in taking on damage?




There are no hit points. 

A barbarian's Damage Reduction would make them quite different from a ranger in taking damage. 

Hit points are a cinematic element of the d20 system. The GnG rules favor less cinema, so everyone has pretty much the same reaction to being stabbed, shot, and burned. If you wish a character more resistant to damage, get a high Constitution, wear armor, and acquire levels of toughness. In this manner, fighter types have more resistance to damage. (And that makes combat a little more like real life.)

Hit points in the d20 system don't represent a character's actual life, but more luck, ability to avoid attacks, etc. In the GnG system, Defense handles that. Characters with high attack bonuses or good Reflex saves have better Defense. In the GnG system, the Life Bar is your actual life. 

You'll find, in the end, that classes end up sorting out in combat ability pretty much the same as if you used hit points and regular AC. 

Fighter types will be at the top end of soaking up damage (from use of armor and toughness) and avoid damage (from high base attack bonuses). (Remember, in the regular system, high Hit Points mean you are better at avoiding attacks.) 

Rogue types come out in the middle. They'll have poor Soak capacity from light armor and typically low Constitution. They'll have decent ability to avoid attacks, because of the high Reflex save or middling base attack bonus. Their sneak attacks will devastate characters with high Soak.

Cleric types notch out the rogues in the Soak department: They can wear armor and most people put a better Constitution score on a cleric than a thief. Their ability to avoid attacks will be about the same as rogue. Overall, it's about what you'd expect in the difference between d8 and d6 hit points.

Wizard types end up on the bottom of the scale. Their Soak will stink. Their ability to avoid attacks will likewise stink. 

----

Honestly, if you want to maintain the specific core rules differences between classes, DO NOT use this system! 

This is one of the things I found frustrating about comments regarding the original GnG rules. Folks kept sending e-mails along the lines of "It doesn't work like the core rules! Why won't you make it work like the core rules?!" They missed the point that it is NOT SUPPOSED to work like the core rules. It's a variant, and it changes the game on a fundamental level. That's not a weakness of the system, but the PURPOSE of the system.


----------



## KenHood

Yair said:
			
		

> Just wondering, are these rules inspired by Ars Magica in some part? Some of the terminology and mechanics are just the same.




I'm not familiar with Ars Magica. The inspiration for the system came from the Fudge rules. I loved the way they handled combat. 

A few years back, I played a computer game that used Soak as the term for a character's ability to absorb damage. Couldn't think of a better term that wasn't already in use by the d20 system, so I used it.


----------



## Cergorach

Ken, my comment wasn't about the lack of hitpoints, but rather the game balancing effects hit points had between the different fighter types: Ranger d8, Fighter/Paladin d10, Barbarian d12. From a balance perspective the Ranger got less hit points than the Fighter because the Ranger had more special abilities than the Fighter. The Barbarian gor more hit points than the Fighter because the Barbarian had less special abilities than the Fighter. So when you ditched the hit points you kind of removed a variable out of the balance equation. This would theoretically make the Ranger stronger than the Fighter and way stronger than the Barbarian. Maybe some guidelines for balancing the classes would be helpful?


----------



## KenHood

I don't think your theory will bear out in practice, so I don't perceive a need for rebalancing the classes. Test the rules in play before coming to the conclusion that a ranger will be more powerful than a barbarian or fighter. 

The original GnG system did practically the same thing, as far as eliminating HP differences between classes. 

You'll find that I'm touchy when it comes to issues of theory. I welcome anecdotes from play and make adjustments when someone finds something from actual use of the rules. I welcome requests for elaboration or explanation, but theory is theory. One can end up discussing it all day and night and arrive at nothing, save more theory. Experiment with the rules in play, share the results of your play, and we can discuss this issue further.


----------



## RangerWickett

What other sorts of things had you considered using?  Your damage system actually looks a bit like the one for Mutants & Masterminds, where damage just causes penalties until you're knocked out.  Of course, they go on the opposite side of the scale and have very cinematic combat, but it's remarkable how the same mechanic sorta works for both systems.

I'm surprised you didn't just tie 'hit points' somehow to Constitution.  Well, time to read more.


----------



## KenHood

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> What other sorts of things had you considered using?  I'm surprised you didn't just tie 'hit points' somehow to Constitution.  Well, time to read more.




Heh-heh! That's a funny question. Remember, the original GnG system tied HP directly to Constitution?

This is a "flat" system, where you Constitution reduces the damage you take. So, in a sense, "hit points," as the revised system works, depends upon Constitution.

The goal is to make it very simple to use. For a while, I was considering eliminating the need for damage dice rolls to further streamline it, but keeping the rolls adds more unpredictability.

I've been thinking about this for about three years, so I've considered a lot of ways to handle it.


----------



## KenHood

Consider this: At the nitty gritty, every character in this system has 15 hit points before being disabled.

Two characters of equal ability fight. Both have a +2 Strength , Constitution, and Dexterity modifier, so the advantages of the respective abilities cancel out. Both wield daggers 1d4 damage. Neither wears armor. A single attack roll could result in a miss or from 1 to *23*(!) points of damage. (Assume your attack bonus is equal to your defender's defense bonus. If you roll a 20 and your enemy rolls a 1, you hit and add +19 damage.) In other words, a single stab from a knife could leave a little cut or incapacitate you instantly. 

Now imagine how unpredictable a fight becomes when you add in differences in size, armor, weapons, and -- most important -- attack and defense skill. 

In these revised rules, two things determine your character's survivability: luck and skill. A bad die roll could result in your death. On the other hand, a highly skilled character could make mincemeat of a lesser skilled individual, even if the lesser is turtled up in the best armor. 

Fights are unpredictable. They are not balanced. Even the best prepared character can end up slain from a peasant's stone, while the worst prepared just end up dead. That's the way I like it.


----------



## KenHood

Cergorach said:
			
		

> The Barbarian gor more hit points than the Fighter because the Barbarian had less special abilities than the Fighter. So when you ditched the hit points you kind of removed a variable out of the balance equation. This would theoretically make the Ranger stronger than the Fighter and way stronger than the Barbarian. Maybe some guidelines for balancing the classes would be helpful?




Consider this: An enraged barbarian adds +4 Strength and +4 Constitution. These provide a +2 bonus to attack rolls and damage rolls, and +2 Soak. The barbarian suffers two less points of damage _per attack_. Since your degree of success influences the damage you inflict, the +2 attack bonus and +2 damage bonus combine to give the barbarian an average +4 extra damage against opponents. This is almost a whole wound column's difference in damage. 

I did think about your remarks. They got me to reflecting on generic damage reduction. I added a line to the rules that allow you to convert generic damage reduction (e.g., 2/-) directly to Soak on a 1-for-1 basis. For example, if your character has 2/- damage reduction, he gets +2 Soak. (Soak applies to all forms of damage, not just weapons and natural attacks.)


----------



## KenHood

By the way, the comments of all posters have been very helpful. I've been able to "clean up" some small points in the rules in just a matter of hours. Thanks for the feedback.


----------



## KenHood

*Attachment Vanished!*

Hey, why did my attachment vanish?


----------



## whydirt

KenHood said:
			
		

> Hey, why did my attachment vanish?



I was about to ask where these new rules were, since I didn't see an attachment.  Can you repost it or put it up as a link somewhere else?


----------



## SSquirrel

whydirt said:
			
		

> I was about to ask where these new rules were, since I didn't see an attachment. Can you repost it or put it up as a link somewhere else?



 Speaking of updates, whenever ya update it Ken, drop it in my email and I'll update my site with it.

 hagen_kirk at yahoo.com

 Hagen


----------



## SSquirrel

I was just rereading the original version *as I never played them but have had them d/led for ages* and I was seeing exactly how simplified all of the things are.  Quite a bit from the original.  No more rules about bleeding or not being proficient with the armor for one.  I'm very curious to see how this all works out in a game.  I spread the word over to Monte's boards as well.  I now have the revised rules posted for download, but have no incorporated the changes mentioned in this thred to the downloadable version.  I just have those in my personal version.


http://www.giant.net/~hagen/GrimNGrittyRevised.doc

 old for comparison:
http://www.giant.net/~hagen/GrimNGrittyHitPointRules.rtf

 Hagen


----------



## KenHood

Well, I can't get the doggone things to upload. The site says the upload is "in progress" and gives me an error, but no go on getting it to post. 

I did send a copy of the file to you, SSquirrel. If you could post it, I'd appreciate it.


----------



## SSquirrel

KenHood said:
			
		

> Well, I can't get the doggone things to upload. The site says the upload is "in progress" and gives me an error, but no go on getting it to post.
> 
> I did send a copy of the file to you, SSquirrel. If you could post it, I'd appreciate it.



www.giant.net/~hagen/Grim-n-GrittyRevised.doc is the new version.

 Hagen


----------



## KenHood

Thanks.


----------



## Anabstercorian

Extremely nice, Mr. Hood.  I look forward to seeing more Sleeping Imperium stuff sometime, be it fiction or game material.  Few settings are as evocative as it.


----------



## SSquirrel

I made a thread over on Monte's boards and some of the initial impressions are in (without trial naturally):

"I have to say I seriously dislike the revised version. It is a vast, vast departure from standard D&D, where the old version tried to use as much compatable terminology and concepts as possible."

"I like the critical hit rules, but everything else seems like an attempt at a straight conversion of the Storyteller system into D&D; I don't find that terribly grim or gritty, only extremely upsetting to balance (who would ever play a spryte?)"

"Faen get hosed badly enough...this system makes anything but a spellcaster faen impossible. And giants become the melee gods, once they take their class levels...and can't they become Huge with Giant Paragon? You're giving them +8 to damage and effectively DR 6/--- because of that size. (It's only 6 because they get +8 soak, but -2 to their Def.)"

The main thrust of those comments is how the rules affect Faen who can morph into a spryte if they choose which is a Tiny creature. Would likely discourage play of the race in general as stated above.

(edit:deleted the alk of +8 and -8 as taht references teh Sneak bonus not AC bonus heh)

I know, untested and all, but it definitely doesn't make people real eager to play smaller races. Bigger sure.

Oh yeah the topic is here:

http://pub247.ezboard.com/fokayyourturnfrm29.showMessage?topicID=2316.topic

Hagen


----------



## whydirt

SSquirrel said:
			
		

> www.giant.net/~hagen/Grim-n-GrittyRevised.doc is the new version.
> 
> Hagen



Is there a chance anyone could reformat this real quick as an .rtf file for those of us without MS Word?


----------



## KenHood

SSquirrel said:
			
		

> "I have to say I seriously dislike the revised version. It is a vast, vast departure from standard D&D, where the old version tried to use as much compatable terminology and concepts as possible."




I figured a lot of folks would feel that way. Few cultures are more resistant to change than roleplaying gamers.




			
				SSquirrel said:
			
		

> "I like the critical hit rules, but everything else seems like an attempt at a straight conversion of the Storyteller system into D&D...."




Seeing as I have no idea what the Storyteller system is, that's a patently untrue statement. I hate this sort of speculation.




			
				SSquirrel said:
			
		

> "Faen get hosed badly enough...this system makes anything but a spellcaster faen impossible. And giants become the melee gods, once they take their class levels...and can't they become Huge with Giant Paragon?




This falls in the category of those "Why doesn't it work like the regular system?!" comments I got on the previous release of the GnG system. Answer: Because it's not the regular system. 

It's like commenting on how poorly a screwdriver drives nails. 




			
				SSquirrel said:
			
		

> I know, untested and all, but it definitely doesn't make people real eager to play smaller races.  Bigger sure.




Yep. That's how the rules should work. Remember the key words: LESS CINEMATIC, MORE REALISTIC. Bigger hits harder and takes more damage. In a combat comparison between squirrels, humans, and elephants, who do you think comes out on top? Squishing the squirrel is easy, assuming you can get your hands on it. The elephant will probably ignore attacks from the other two or just get annoyed. Seriously, what's the chance of a human's punch or bite inflicting damage on an elephant?

This is how the GnG system is SUPPOSED to work!

It's always amused me when folks complain about something working like it's supposed to work, expecting it to work like something else. Then, they suggest it works like something else. It needs to be changed into the something else, or it's obviously broken.

It drives me nuts when people complain about the GnG system working like it's SUPPOSED TO WORK, then saying that's a DESIGN FLAW.

Ugh!

I'll say it once and say it again: 

1) If the Grim-n-Gritty system does not work for you, DO NOT USE IT! 

2) If you do not want big things having an easy time killing little things, DO NOT USE IT!

3) If you want to play a small or tiny creature and have equal footing with the big guys, DO NOT USE IT!

4) If you want cinematic combat, DO NOT USE IT!

----

You may say, "Geez, Ken, you're getting emotional about this. In fact, you're going on a rant."

You are doggone right that I'm going on a rant. 

I feel like I'm experiencing the same doggoned conversations I saw when I first released the Grim-n-Gritty rules. There's a whole crowd out there that likes to think they are demonstrating some sort of original thought when they point out that it doesn't work like the regular combat system or that their favorite small furry doesn't seem as tough under the new rules or that big ole dragon they found such an easy target under the normal rules can mop the floor with them under the new rules or that their dagger does not punch a nice hole through plate armor or AGH! AGH! AGH! Then, they give a sniff, put on an intellectual air, and offer in somewhat pious tones, "You know, if you would just make this system more like the normal rules, I would use it, because -- you know -- I really like the normal rules." 

THREE YEARS I've been getting messages like this on messageboards and e-mails. Heck, even after I shut down my site, I *still* get messages to this effect. 

It's no wonder I get so worked up. 

So, for those folks with those sort of comments (particularly the folks who have never tried the rules in play and *never intend* to try the rules in play), I write this: "These rules were not made for you."

And again I say, "If you want to use the regular rules, use the regular rules."

I made these rules for one reason: I wanted to play with them. 

I offered the rules on the board for two reasons:

1) There's a group of folks out there who are gonna "get" them and dig them. They tend not to be a vocal group. They take the rules, make them theirs, and go to town. And that's that. 

I dig that group. 

2) I was hoping that folks from that group would give the rules a spin and let me know how they worked in their home games. 

Like I've said before (though not in these words), I dig anecdotes from play, not whinin', pissin', and moanin' from speculation or theory. 

And, by God and green apples, it gives me a hairlip and conniption when I hear folks complainin' about the rules working like they're supposed to work. 

-----

Now, you may say, "Geez, Ken, you're a mean guy."

If you think I'm mean, you should talk to my fourth grade students!  

-----

Now, if you wanna help me out and playtest the rules, go ahead. That's why I put them out here. 

If you wanna complain and try to one up me by telling me how the rules don't work or don't work _right_, please, save both yourself and me some time. Seems like everybody gets so busy trying to prove they're smart by showing folks how poorly their rules work or don't meet personal preferences/expectations that they forget good manners and useful discourse.

I put the rules out here hoping to get some help on the playtesting. If you don't want to help, please don't stand in the way. 

-----

For those of you who do want to help or who "get" the rules, thanks. You're the folks I appreciate, and the reason I offer stuff for free. I like knowing that you get some enjoyment from things I tinker with in my spare time, and I hope you get a little fun from using them in your game.

Thanks for involving me in your time.


----------



## KenHood

whydirt said:
			
		

> Is there a chance anyone could reformat this real quick as an .rtf file for those of us without MS Word?




Couldn't post it, so I sent you an e-mail of the .rtf version. If you can load it onto the thread, I'd appreciate it.

Seem to recall your handle from a while back.


----------



## Cergorach

whydirt said:
			
		

> Is there a chance anyone could reformat this real quick as an .rtf file for those of us without MS Word?



We have the following:
http://www.TheHelix.nl/GrimNGrittyRevised.doc
http://www.TheHelix.nl/GrimNGrittyRevised.rtf
http://www.TheHelix.nl/GrimNGrittyRevised.pdf


----------



## Fenris

Ken,
First of all kudos on the revision. Everytime I said "well, but what about X" I read one more paragraph and there it was.
One small thing;
At least the copy I downloaded had a typo in the Critical Hit effect for Bypassing Heavy armor. It references Medium Armor.

Thanks for your efforts. Even if I never use the rules, I like the idea of them.


----------



## whydirt

KenHood said:
			
		

> Couldn't post it, so I sent you an e-mail of the .rtf version. If you can load it onto the thread, I'd appreciate it.
> 
> Seem to recall your handle from a while back.



Thanks Ken!

It seems .rtf isn't a valid file type for uploads, so I changed it to a basic .txt file.  This lost a bit of the nice formatting, giving the rules a gritter feel.  I've included this .txt version for others.  EDIT: It looks like I was beaten to the punch on providing a different version for people to use.  I'll keep the .txt version here just in case.

I'll post my reaction after I've had a bit of time to let the rules soak in a bit (pun intended).

Yeah, I followed most of your d20 stuff from back in the day.  I'm sad to see the Sleeping Imperium stuff gone for the timebeing, but I hope that means that I might see some official product in the future.


----------



## whydirt

I took a quick break for a snack, then took some time to read through the rules.  Here are just a couple questions/comments:

1.  Out of curiosity, what made you pick 5 pips per damage level?  You could use different number of pips for each category to represent varying levels of cinematic/gritty combat, so that your system can be used more generally by people who want to represent armor as soaking blows and not just by those looking for Grim-n-Gritty combat.  This probably was not an intended design goal, but I think it is a handy side-effect.

2. How does healing, both natural and magical, work in this system?  The most obvious conversion would be to equate healing 1 hp to one damage pip, but that isn't very gritty in my opinion.

3. The extra damage from more than 4 dice seem a bit high at just under the average result for each die (an exception being the +6 for a d20).  You mention your reason behind eliminating the extra dice is because of the limited life bar, but taking a set value so close to the average random result doesn't reduce the damage that much.  I think your previously used even numbers become 1s rule would work here again.  Another way to do it would be to reduce all damage dice from spells by one or more steps.

4. Your critical hit rules seem more like older called shot rules since you choose your intended effect.  This is not necessarily a bad thing, but I'm curious as to your reason behind making it a choice instead of a random effect.  I will say that the DC formula for avoiding critical hit effects seems overly complicated.  Maybe you could just make the confirmation attack roll the base DC instead?

5. What do you think about adding a "Damage Armor" effect in your critical hit list?  If you wanted to streamline your "Bypass Armor" critical effect types, just give a general penalty equal to the AC bonus of the armor instead of having to list each armor type separately.


----------



## KenHood

whydirt said:
			
		

> 1.  Out of curiosity, what made you pick 5 pips per damage level?  You could use different number of pips for each category to represent varying levels of cinematic/gritty combat, so that your system can be used more generally by people who want to represent armor as soaking blows and not just by those looking for Grim-n-Gritty combat.  This probably was not an intended design goal, but I think it is a handy side-effect.




5 pips ended up producing the effect I most wanted. I was basing the number off the result of a d20. Assuming two opponents are equal, there's a +1 to +19 bonus to damage. I wanted it possible to disable or nearly kill a character based on the success of the d20 attack roll.

I didn't think about using the system for varying degrees of reality. You're right.




			
				whydirt said:
			
		

> 2. How does healing, both natural and magical, work in this system?  The most obvious conversion would be to equate healing 1 hp to one damage pip, but that isn't very gritty in my opinion.




Check the last page of the rules. It discusses healing and shows how much the various "cure" spells will recover. I didn't list every curative spell in existence, just gave enough so that you could fix others by comparison.




			
				whydirt said:
			
		

> 3. The extra damage from more than 4 dice seem a bit high at just under the average result for each die (an exception being the +6 for a d20).  You mention your reason behind eliminating the extra dice is because of the limited life bar, but taking a set value so close to the average random result doesn't reduce the damage that much.  I think your previously used even numbers become 1s rule would work here again.  Another way to do it would be to reduce all damage dice from spells by one or more steps.




It does seem a little high, but when I plotted it out, it gave the results I wanted and kept the die sizes differientiated. I reckon that anything with 4d+ damage should kill your character, unless something extraordinary takes place. I am considering collapsing the table to something like...

1d6 or less: +1 per die
1d8 to 1d10: +2 per die
1d12: +3 per die
1d20: +4 per die

...but I need some playtesting. That's why I released these rules, so y'all could give them a spin and see if they perform to expectations.

I've never been a fan of the 1s rule. I don't like reducing damage dice. 




			
				whydirt said:
			
		

> 4. Your critical hit rules seem more like older called shot rules since you choose your intended effect.  This is not necessarily a bad thing, but I'm curious as to your reason behind making it a choice instead of a random effect.  I will say that the DC formula for avoiding critical hit effects seems overly complicated.  Maybe you could just make the confirmation attack roll the base DC instead?




The critical hit rules are a conversion of the older called shots. They also replace the penetration rules of the older system -- and put an end to that whole doggone argument over what things have the best penetration, along with the endless suggestions to create a comprehensive list of all weapons performance against different types of armor, along with the nasty e-mails saying that a pick isn't better than an arrow, etc., when all I intended to do in the original with the short list was give a few examples to let folks create their own penetration items.

You can choose the effect, so that a critical hit (which is supposed to be a really good thing) can bail you out in a bad situation. If you have trouble bypassing a creature's natural armor, then a critical hit allows you to "punctuate probability" and break through that armor.

I thought about the confirmation roll for DC, but that makes things REALLY complicated. A set DC is easier to keep up with.

I don't think the formula is too difficult. It follows the standard base + main modifier + ability score + other modifiers. 

Base: 10
Main modifier: 1/2 your base attack bonus
Ability Score: Strength for melee, Dexterity for ranged
Other modifiers: Weapon's enhancement bonuses, Critical multiplier

For example, a 10th level fighter with 17 Strength and a +2 pick has a Critical Effect DC as follows:

Base: 10
Main modifier: +5 (10/2)
Ability Score: +3 (Strength modifier)
Other modifiers: +2 enhancement bonus, +10 for the pick's x4 multiplier

Total DC: 30 (Picks do good criticals!)

You might be saying, "Well, heck, I'll always use a pick!"

But think about this: If the same character used a +1 keen rapier (critical threat: 18-20 [3 points] doubled to 15-20 [6 points]), he would threaten a critical hit with every successful attack. His DC would be different, though.

Base: 10
Main modifier: +5 (10/2)
Ability Score: +3 (Strength modifier)
Other modifiers: +1 enhancement bonus, +0 for the x2 multiplier

Total DC: 19 

Creating the "critical effects" mechanic allowed me to do some of the same stuff as the penetration mechanic in the old system (i.e., get past all that protection), but opens up options for using a wide variety of weapons, rather than just running around with a pick.

Finally, linking armor penetration to critical hits creates some unique situations with undead, constructs, and oozes. They are immune to critical hits. Heh-heh! Now, they're a heck of a thing to kill, but I don't have to create special rules for dealing with their unique physiologies.



			
				whydirt said:
			
		

> 5. What do you think about adding a "Damage Armor" effect in your critical hit list?  If you wanted to streamline your "Bypass Armor" critical effect types, just give a general penalty equal to the AC bonus of the armor instead of having to list each armor type separately.




I'd rather have a character perform a sunder to damage armor. The critical effects deal with things that happen to the organism, rather than its equipment. My personal preference is to avoid having critical hits do the same thing as special attacks, like the trip, sunder, bull rush, et al. 

You can give the "Damage Armor" effect a whirl in your own game, though. Let me know if it fits and works.


----------



## KenHood

*Expectations for the System*

These are my expectations (i.e., desires) for the system:

1) Characters will die more often in a fight.

2) At low levels, fights are not horribly lethal, though still unpredictable.

3) At high levels or against monsters, fights get lethal.

4) Equally matched opponents have a good chance of killing one another with a single blow.

5) Area-effect attacks or anything with a lot of damage dice should cremate characters.

6) Big things splatter little things.

7) Armor helps a hell of a lot.

8) Cover helps even more.

9) Sneaking and ambush help most of all.

10) Overall, combat becomes more unpredictable.

11) Overall, characters are rewarded for greater skill.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

Cergorach said:
			
		

> Ken, my comment wasn't about the lack of hitpoints, but rather the game balancing effects hit points had between the different fighter types: Ranger d8, Fighter/Paladin d10, Barbarian d12.




From a design balance perspective, there really isn't a huge difference between d8 and d10 or d10 and d12 (an average of 1 hit point per level).

If your fighter could sacrifice 1 hit point per level for the skill points and/or spellcasting ability of a ranger, would ya do it? Or do you think skill points and spellcasting are better balanced, for example, by the fighter's bonus feats?

I guess my point is, that hit die difference isn't really offsetting very much from the other classes. It's really more of a "rounding up or down," last minute, final tweak kinda thing.

Ken, I think your rules are great. I'm not surprised that they didn't get a warm reception on Monte's boards-- why anyone would think that Monte's high fantasy system would be a match for Grim and Gritty is beyond me. AU is not the place where GnG goes to play. (I tell you I'm running Grim and Gritty in my game, and you tell me you want to play a fairy, I'll show you the door...)

Wulf


----------



## whydirt

KenHood said:
			
		

> Check the last page of the rules. It discusses healing and shows how much the various "cure" spells will recover. I didn't list every curative spell in existence, just gave enough so that you could fix others by comparison.




My fault.  Too much reading, too quickly, too late at night.



> It does seem a little high, but when I plotted it out, it gave the results I wanted and kept the die sizes differientiated. I reckon that anything with 4d+ damage should kill your character, unless something extraordinary takes place. I am considering collapsing the table to something like...
> 
> 1d6 or less: +1 per die
> 1d8 to 1d10: +2 per die
> 1d12: +3 per die
> 1d20: +4 per die
> 
> ...but I need some playtesting. That's why I released these rules, so y'all could give them a spin and see if they perform to expectations.
> 
> I've never been a fan of the 1s rule. I don't like reducing damage dice.




Fair enough.  Obviously real playtesting is much better, but I thought I'd give some initial feedback in the meantime.

In terms of actual playing-the-game context, I like being able to throw fistfuls of dice every now and again.  And there are few things more grim for a player than watching the DM grab for a pile of dice while flashing a grin.



> I thought about the confirmation roll for DC, but that makes things REALLY complicated. A set DC is easier to keep up with.
> 
> I don't think the formula is too difficult. It follows the standard base + main modifier + ability score + other modifiers.




You're completely right.  Considering you'll likely only need to calculate the DC once per weapon per level or so, it's not a big deal.



> Finally, linking armor penetration to critical hits creates some unique situations with undead, constructs, and oozes. They are immune to critical hits. Heh-heh! Now, they're a heck of a thing to kill, but I don't have to create special rules for dealing with their unique physiologies.




Heh.



> I'd rather have a character perform a sunder to damage armor. The critical effects deal with things that happen to the organism, rather than its equipment. My personal preference is to avoid having critical hits do the same thing as special attacks, like the trip, sunder, bull rush, et al.
> 
> You can give the "Damage Armor" effect a whirl in your own game, though. Let me know if it fits and works.




I'll let you know if/when I get a chance to test-drive it.


----------



## doghead

*doghead finally works it out*

Er, yeah. Once I realised that the 2002 dates were not the 'posted' dates, this thread (and its appearence now) made a whole lot more sence.

I am currently looking to start a PbP dnd game here on the boards using the Grim n Gritty rules. I was really taken with them when I first read them (the HP version). I'll read through the new rules asap. Should it get off the ground, I'll keep you informed of anything significant that comes out of it.



> And, by God and green apples, it gives me a hairlip and conniption when I hear folks complainin' about the rules working like they're supposed to work.




Not exactly sure what 'conniption' means, but i sure wouldn't want one  

the head of the dog


----------



## KenHood

whydirt said:
			
		

> In terms of actual playing-the-game context, I like being able to throw fistfuls of dice every now and again.  And there are few things more grim for a player than watching the DM grab for a pile of dice while flashing a grin.




Me, too. Remember, I'm the guy who created the original GnG rules and didn't have any "softeners" for the magic system. You got hit with a 10d6 fireball, you got the whole 10d6 -- no odds equal 1s.

It wasn't until a lot of folks started freaking out about their characters dying when they used the regular magic system that I added some suggestions for "softeners." By putting the dice cap in the rules, I head that off at the pass. And it *looks* like I'm making them softer....

Uh, did I say "looks"? I meant, I really *am* making it softer. 

Yeah. That's the ticket.

Anyway, the dice cap makes the difference between your character ending up dead from dragon's breath and ending up dead from dragon's breath. 

(You read that last sentence correctly.)

At the lower ends of the damage spectrum, the dice cap allows you to make the difference between being disabled by a fireball and suffering serious injury from a fireball. For example, a 6d6 fireball becomes 4d6+4. Average damage 18. Unarmored human with 10 Constitution fails save. Splat! Disabled. Same person makes save. Splat! Seriously wounded. Screams a lot. 

That's about how a fireball should work in "real life" (tm).

Switch to a 10d6 fireball. In revised GnG, it becomes 4d6+12. Average damage 26. Unarmored human with 10 Constitution fails save. Splat! Dead! Same person makes save. Splat! Seriously wounded.  Screams a lot more.

Boppo the Barbarian with 18 Constitution (+4 Soak), +4 armor, and Damage Reduction 2/- (+2 Soak) has a total Soak of 10. He gets hit by the 10d6 fireball. Average damage 26. Boppo fails save. Suffers 26 - 10 = 16 points of damage. He's disabled. Boppo makes save. Suffers 13 - 10 = 3 points of damage. Lightly wounded. Singed and angry. Run, wizard, run!

Boppo gets hit by great wyrm red dragon. Red dragon normally inflicts 24d10, average 132. In revised GnG, inflicts 4d10+80 damage, average 102. (Hey! Ken is sneaky. Adding flat damage modifiers significantly increases survivability at lower end of dice spectrum, but doesn't do jack squat at higher end. Whatta jerk!) Boppo fails save against red dragon breath. Suffers 102 - 10 = 92 damage. Incinerated. Boppo makes save against red dragon breath. Suffers 51 - 10 = 41 damage. Incinerated.

Bye, bye, Boppo.

Should Boppo have not been incinerated? No, no. Boppo *should* be incinerated when thrown in the equivalent of a furnace. This is, after all, the Grim-n-Gritty rules. Why is this dummy fighting a dragon?!

Against area effect attacks with a lot of dice, your character should grab heavy cover. The kind that affords Improved Evasion when you're under it. That's how "real folks" would deal with dragon breath. They don't stand around and take it. They run away and hide.

-----

"Real Life" is a registered trademark of God.


----------



## doghead

KenHood said:
			
		

> Hey! Ken is sneaky.




Ken is funny. Your rant and descriptions have had me laughing out loud. Although I do empathise.

I've just finished reading through the Revised version. It looks very neat and tidy, and I couldn't see any issues. I'll post up here if anything comes up.

Thanks again.


----------



## mafisto

KenHood said:
			
		

> Me, too. Remember, I'm the guy who created the original GnG rules and didn't have any "softeners" for the magic system. You got hit with a 10d6 fireball, you got the whole 10d6 -- no odds equal 1s.




That reminds me, I've been meaning to say 'thanks' for the last year.  My group has been using G&G modified rules for the last eight months, and it has worked extremely well.  The players are very happy with the system (as it's more lethal for the bad guys too) and everyone has been much more committed to roleplaying.

I have no intention of using most of the revised rules as the old fashioned ones work well for me, but I will be using a few to 'patch' what I have seen as shortfalls the original.  Namely, touch attacks get a +4 bonus to hit; sneak attack converted to +2 dmg per d6 of sneak attack.  The Pounce bonus was decent, but making sneak attack more lethal is imperative.  Then again, I use magic full strength as well - I demand bloody combat.

Enough rambling, just wanted to say thanks for the original and for the good ideas in the revised.  I had zero interest in DMing a d20 group until I encountered your variant, so you're responsible by proxy for the deliquency of eight individuals you've never met.

M


----------



## whydirt

Ken,

I like both your design goal list and the example with Boppo and think it would be cool to include them in your next version of the rules to help set them in context for others.


----------



## KenHood

mafisto said:
			
		

> I have no intention of using most of the revised rules as the old fashioned ones work well for me, but I will be using a few to 'patch' what I have seen as shortfalls the original.  Namely, touch attacks get a +4 bonus to hit; sneak attack converted to +2 dmg per d6 of sneak attack.  The Pounce bonus was decent, but making sneak attack more lethal is imperative.




Yep. That's why I added them.

Now, I would suggest that you try out the rules -- not necessarily in your home campaign, but on the side. Use one human-on-human combat, one party vs. a bunch of little guys, and one party vs. a Really Big Thing. You might find these rules give you a lot of bang for your buck and may end up upgrading to the new version.

It's like I'm always saying to my young, impressionable students, "Shut up, and do as you're told!"

You know you're reaching people on a meaningful level when they collapse into the fetal position and whimper. 

And that's just their parents...




> ...so you're responsible by proxy for the deliquency of eight individuals you've never met.




Well, that's just GREAT! 

Oh, yeah, DUCKY! 

JUST FREAKIN' DUCKY!

Delinquency! That's what EVERY teacher loves to hear!

Get off your rear, put up the games, get an edumacation, and find a job! It ain't hurt me none! Hell, I'm a bona fide corn-you-co-pee-ah of book learnin' and et-i-kit.


----------



## SSquirrel

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Ken, I think your rules are great. I'm not surprised that they didn't get a warm reception on Monte's boards-- why anyone would think that Monte's high fantasy system would be a match for Grim and Gritty is beyond me. AU is not the place where GnG goes to play. (I tell you I'm running Grim and Gritty in my game, and you tell me you want to play a fairy, I'll show you the door...)



Well I didn't really expect that people would naturally piece AU and the GnG rules together, but there's some real masochists on those boards so I figured I'd ask *grin*  Really it was more of my own curiosity as to why I would post about it over there.  I wanted more people to see Ken's rules and even know taht they've been revised.  While it might not blend as well in AU, it might be right for another campaign they're running.  Think of it as advertising.

Actually, I could see a GnG variant of AU as being quite interesting...especially since there are far few spells that do handfuls of damage, no dragons, etc.  The setting is high fantasy (as is standard D&D) but I think it could be made to work nicely.  But Faen would definitely need to be sneaky and avoid combat.  Duh heh.

Ken>Sorry for the apoplexy I gave ya there, but I just wanted to share the initial reactions of folks with you.  The good thing is that you posted a lot of things that I think you need to insert into the document.  Your expectations of the system is more detailed.  Your examples of how weapon DCs are figured as well as combat examples are excellent and should definitely be in the document.  Naturally, any of the files you want up can be sent to me and I'll post them for you as usual.

Doc vs MS>technically OpenOffice and WordPerfect can both open .doc files no problem.  OpenOffice is a free office suite originally designed for Linux but it has been ported to many OSes including Windows.  .doc files aren't the end of the world *grin*

Hagen


----------



## mafisto

SSquirrel said:
			
		

> Well I didn't really expect that people would naturally piece AU and the GnG rules together, but there's some real masochists on those boards so I figured I'd ask *grin*




Now, that's just funny.  I use the original G&G rules with many AU variant rules and all of the AU spell system.  In my mind they're an excellent match, as the spell system is more flexible and less oriented towards combat spells.  That doesn't mean the system is less deadly, per se.  With combat being the meat grinder that it is, even simple spells like Compelling Command can get you killed nice and quick.

I don't use the AU setting, which I understand would be very different story; personally I don't think it would work terribly well, what with the commonplace occurance of a wide range of PC sizes.  In Ye Olde Generic England Setting (tm) most of your opponents are Medium, just like you, which levels the playing field.


----------



## KenHood

*Another Combat Example*

Once upon a time, there were three adventurers: Fred the Fighter, Harold the Halfling Rogue, and Warren the Wizard. 

They took counsel among themselves and said, “Lo, there are many holes in the ground. Within these holes, we often find lump sums of currency, mystic tomes, gemstones, and magical items, wherewith we may acquire goods and services upon exiting said holes. This treasure is oft protected by challenges commensurate to our ability. Said challenges, whilst sometimes difficult, do not pose threat that exceeds the worth of the reward. Shall we not go forth into these holes and acquire more riches?” 

“Verily, we shall,” said they, and off they went.

So, they met an ogre, named Otis.

----

Pertinent Statistics

*Fred the Fighter* – 5th level
Attack: +10 (+5 base, +3 Strength, +1 masterwork, +1 weapon focus)
Defense: +8 (+5 base, +1 Dexterity, +2 heavy steel shield)
Soak: +10 (+2 Constitution, +8 full plate)
Damage: bastard sword, 1d10 + 5 (+3 strength, +2 specialization)

*Harold the Halfling Rogue* – 5th level
Attack: +9 (+4 base, +4 Dexterity (weapon finesse), +1 enhancement) 
Defense: +11 (+5 base, +4 Dexterity, +1 buckler, +1 size)
Soak: +0 (+1 Constitution, +3 studded leather, -4 size)
Damage: short sword, 1d6 – 3 (+0 Str, +1 enhancement, -4 size)
Special: Sneak Attack +6

*Warren the Wizard* – 5th level
Attack: +2 (+2 base)
Defense: +4 (+2 base, +2 Dexterity)
Soak: +2 (+1 Constitution, +1 Bracers of Armor)
Damage: quarterstaff, 1d6

*Otis the Ogre*
Attack: +9 (+4 base, -1 size, +5 Strength, +1 weapon focus)
Defense: +2 (+4 base, -1 size, -1 Dexterity)
Soak: +16 (+3 Constitution, +4 size, +5 natural armor, +3 hide armor, +1 toughness)
Damage: greatclub, 2d8 + 9 (+5 Strength, +4 size)

-----

Fred wins initiative and swings at Otis with his bastard sword.

Fred (attack): rolls 20
Otis (defense): rolls 9

Fred hits with an 11 point margin of success. He makes a critical hit and selects “Bypass Natural Armor.” He makes a confirmation roll: 15 (Fred) v. 16 (Otis). Fred fails the critical.

Fred rolls his damage: 1d10 + 5 + 11 (margin of success) = 20 points – 16 (Otis’ Soak) = 4. Otis suffers 4 points of damage. He loses 4 pips in the Lightly Wounded column.

---

Harold sneaks up behind Fred, flanks, and performs a sneak attack on Otis.

Harold (attack): rolls 18
Otis (defense): rolls 11

Harold hits with a 7 point margin of success. He does not make a critical hit.

Harold rolls his damage: 1d6 – 3 + 6 (sneak attack) + 7 (margin of success) = 16 points – 16 (Otis’ Soak) = no damage. Otis is not even scratched.

---

Otis attacks Fred, the real threat.

Otis (attack): 27
Fred (defense): 12

Otis hits with a 15 point margin of success. Otis gets a critical hit and selects “Bypass Heavy Armor.” He rolls to confirm. Otis gets 15, Fred rolls 12, and Otis confirms the critical. Otis ignores Fred’s Soak from the full plate armor!

Otis rolls damage: 2d8 + 9 + 15 (margin of success) = 32 points – 2 (Fred’s Soak without the armor) = 30 points of damage. 

Fred loses all of his life pips.

With a resounding battle cry of “UGH!” followed by a moist splatter, Fred decorates the room in fleshtones and crimson.

---

Warren panics and casts fireball, thinking, “Well, Harold _does_ have evasion and a good Reflex save….”

In the normal rules, Warren would roll 5d6 for his fireball. Under the GnG rules, he rolls 4d6 + 2 and inflicts 18 points of damage. Otis’ Soak absorbs 16 points, so Otis suffers only 2 points of damage. This fills in two more pips and brings him to Moderately Wounded. He suffers a -1 penalty on most rolls. 

Harold does make his saving throw, but he’s not too happy about the fireball.

---

Harold curses Warren. Though Harold no longer flanking Otis and loses the sneak attack, Harold attacks again.

Harold (attack): 21
Otis (defense): 6

Harold hits with a 15 point margin of success. It threatens a critical hit and selects, “Bypass Natural Armor.” Harold rolls to confirm and gets a 16, while Otis rolls 12. Otis is forced to make a Reflex save against DC 13. Bad luck for Harold! Otis rolls 19. 

Go, ogre!

Uh, I mean, poor Harold!

Harold rolls his damage: 1d6 – 3 + 15 (margin of success) = 17 – 16 (Otis’ soak) = an astounding ONE POINT OF DAMAGE! Otis loses fills in another pip in the Moderately Wounded column.

Go, halfling thief!

---

Otis beats Harold like a drum.

A squishy, screaming, fluid-filled, bone-supported drum.

Otis (attack): 28!
Harold (defense): 21

Otis wins by a margin of 7. Not enough for a critical hit, but plenty to ruin Harold’s day.

Otis rolls damage: 2d8 + 9 + 7 (margin of success) = 24 – 0 (Harold’s soak) = 24 points of damage. 

Good news! Harold isn’t dead! 

He’s just dying! 

Yee-haw!

---

Shortly after soiling himself and wondering if CR 3 still means the same thing in the GnG system, Warren tries an acid arrow against Otis.

Warren (+4 for ranged touch attack): 24
Otis (defense): 14

Warren hits with a 10 point margin of success. He threatens a critical hit! He selects “Bypass Natural Armor” and rolls to confirm: Warren gets 18. Otis gets 4. Warren confirms the hit and ignores the Soak from Otis’ natural armor.

Warren rolls for damage: 2d4 + 10 = 15 – 11 (Otis’ Soak without Natural Armor) = 4 points of damage. Otis loses 4 more life pips. Now, he’s Severely Wounded (-2 on most rolls). 

And angry!

---

Otis charges Warren!

---

Lucky Warren! He gets to make an attack of opportunity against the charging Otis. Screaming like a girl-child, he swings his staff.

Warren (attack): 17
Otis (defense): 12

Warren hits with a 5 point margin of success. Not a critical hit!

Warren rolls damage: 1d6 + 5 (margin of success) = 8 – 16 (Otis’ Soak) = NO DAMAGE!

Yeah!

---

Otis completes his charge.

Otis (charge, attack): 20
Warren (defense): 9

Otis gets an 11 point margin of success. He threatens a critical hit and selects, “Disable Head.” With a -8 penalty, Otis rolls to confirm. He gets a 13. Warren rolls a 12. Warren makes a Fortitude save against DC 17 and fails with a 6. Warren is stunned for one round and his head disabled (-2 on all rolls).

Otis rolls his damage: 2d8 + 9 + 11 (margin of success) = 35 – 2 (Warren’s Soak) = 33 points of damage. Warren dies instantly.

Good news! He doesn’t have to deal with a disabled head!

Bad news! He doesn’t have to deal with a head at all!


----------



## KenHood

SSquirrel said:
			
		

> Sorry for the apoplexy I gave ya there....




Don't worry about it. Everything gives me apoplexy.

Uh...

That's a form of incontinence, right?


----------



## SSquirrel

mafisto said:
			
		

> Now, that's just funny. I use the original G&G rules with many AU variant rules and all of the AU spell system. In my mind they're an excellent match, as the spell system is more flexible and less oriented towards combat spells. That doesn't mean the system is less deadly, per se. With combat being the meat grinder that it is, even simple spells like Compelling Command can get you killed nice and quick.
> 
> I don't use the AU setting, which I understand would be very different story; personally I don't think it would work terribly well, what with the commonplace occurance of a wide range of PC sizes. In Ye Olde Generic England Setting (tm) most of your opponents are Medium, just like you, which levels the playing field.



Ahh but you don't discount my comment of masochists on Monte's boards *grin*
Actually I think it could be interesting in the setting and storyline as well.  I definitely appreciate teh flexibility of AU and will be running it in mid may (can't start sooner due to conflictin gschedules sadly) but I don't think my group would enjoy the grim n gritty rules.  Altho who knows maybe they would.  maybe I'll have people look at them and if they like em we'll try them out.  If everyone hates em in play we'll dump em.

yes in a setting where all the PC races are medium it balances them better against each other, but as Ken said, if you're tiny you SHOULDN'T be equal.

Hagen

Hagen


----------



## Uruush

I didn't even have time to read this thread, but I did want to drop a quick note to say to you, Mr. Hood, that I downloaded GnG, playtested it, and plan to use a slightly tweaked variant of it in a d20 fantasy campaign sometime in the future.  Thanks for providing it - I think it's great.


----------



## mafisto

SSquirrel said:
			
		

> Ahh but you don't discount my comment of masochists on Monte's boards *grin*
> Actually I think it could be interesting in the setting and storyline as well.  I definitely appreciate teh flexibility of AU and will be running it in mid may (can't start sooner due to conflictin gschedules sadly) but I don't think my group would enjoy the grim n gritty rules.  Altho who knows maybe they would.  maybe I'll have people look at them and if they like em we'll try them out.  If everyone hates em in play we'll dump em.




Honestly, if you can get everyone to at least give the rules a shot you may be in for a pleasant surprise.  The rules are tough on PCs, but they're also very tough on NPCs, which can bring a real sense of excitement to the game.  If you're smart, you can take on way more than you could in the core rules (hint: ambushes are awesome!)  Combat isn't so much a bunch of crunching numbers ("let's see, I have 75 hit points, so should last eight rounds against this guy with a longsword...") but more of an "aw, crap, here we go again" wild ride.  If you confront someone toe to toe and win you feel like major badass.  And don't get me started on mages - I've never seen players so proud of their level one spells as these.

Perhaps it's not cinematic in a Conan the Barbarian way, but it's certainly cinematic in a Miyamoto Musashi way, especially at higher levels.  Higher level fighters can kill with a single blow, and higher level mages elicit fear and awe from everyone.  I know G&G can sound like a getting-your-ass-whooped fest, but my players have become much better tacticians and roleplayers than ever before.

Finally, with the original G&G rules there's little to change if you want to go back to core rules.  Aside from Defense and Protection scores, just about everything else stays the same.  In case of a pending mutiny, just recalculate a few stats and you're back to chopping away at each other like trees.

And if you do this in AU, please let us know.  That would absolutely crazy and I'd love to hear how it pans out.  I love the idea of a non-level (rolling?) playing field from the very beginning.


----------



## SSquirrel

mafisto said:
			
		

> Honestly, if you can get everyone to at least give the rules a shot you may be in for a pleasant surprise. The rules are tough on PCs, but they're also very tough on NPCs, which can bring a real sense of excitement to the game. If you're smart, you can take on way more than you could in the core rules (hint: ambushes are awesome!) Combat isn't so much a bunch of crunching numbers ("let's see, I have 75 hit points, so should last eight rounds against this guy with a longsword...") but more of an "aw, crap, here we go again" wild ride. If you confront someone toe to toe and win you feel like major badass. And don't get me started on mages - I've never seen players so proud of their level one spells as these.
> 
> Perhaps it's not cinematic in a Conan the Barbarian way, but it's certainly cinematic in a Miyamoto Musashi way, especially at higher levels. Higher level fighters can kill with a single blow, and higher level mages elicit fear and awe from everyone. I know G&G can sound like a getting-your-ass-whooped fest, but my players have become much better tacticians and roleplayers than ever before.
> 
> Finally, with the original G&G rules there's little to change if you want to go back to core rules. Aside from Defense and Protection scores, just about everything else stays the same. In case of a pending mutiny, just recalculate a few stats and you're back to chopping away at each other like trees.
> 
> And if you do this in AU, please let us know. That would absolutely crazy and I'd love to hear how it pans out. I love the idea of a non-level (rolling?) playing field from the very beginning.



Ok ya have me convinced...so long as Ken will update the rules with the new examples he wrote today *hint hint* I'll direct my would be players to look at that and give me their ideas.

Ken>Those new examples had me almost falling outta my chair man.  The combat with Otis was too freakin funny.  Right now I know we'll be having a Verrik 3 / Wolf Totem Warrior 2 and a Giant 3 / Unfettered 2 in the group.  2-3 more players will be in the group, one of which I'm almost sure won't be playing a spell caster.  The other one may.  I'm not allowing Oathsworn in the game so magic is a likelihood for him.  I think the Oath will be a bit hard to work into it in the beginning since I'll be running a couple of pregens courtesy of Monte to start with.  Maybe down the line I'll allow them.  I just don't want to have constant "I'll protect my friends" oathes heh.

Just dropped this discussion link to one of my players.  *grin*

Hagen


----------



## KenHood

*Updated Version of the Rules*

Okay folks,

Here's an updated version of the rules, with the examples in this thread added as an appendix.


----------



## Kemrain

Though I've downloaded and intend to read your new rules, having read the thread and seen what people hav to say about it, I don't think it's for me.  That said, I'm currently playing in a game running with your 3.3 rules, and I just wanted to say "Thank you!"

When I read your 3.3 rules, I was thrilled to find that someone had done my work for me.  I'd been looking for a more Grim and Gritty way of handling combat in the d20 system.  It was perfect for a Dune game I played in (where we made the mistake of applying wound pelanties to Defense, too. Made combat VERY tense.), and its working very well in my current game. I've made your 3.3 system a standard addition to my players handbook.

My current GM made the switch when he discovered that his players would wade into combat without fear, having run the math and figured out that their opponent couldn't do enough damage to drop them in the first 5 rounds.  Combat wasn't something to be feared, it was a mathematical exercise.  Since we've switched, Combat has become more deadly and less predictable in some important ways: a single hit might spell death, even if we're hit much less often (multiclassing can net VERY high Defense). Combat is still predictable in that we can figure out about how many HP an opponent has however, and those numbers vary much less. The change *has* been dramatic, and everyone at the table enjoys the new rules.

I noted that you recieved a lot of negitive feedback for your troubles, and that you've found that the people who dig your work tend to be a quiet minority.  I wanted you to know there's another group out there who quietly digs your work, and is very grateful that you went through the trouble to make this system, and put it out for free.

- Kemrain the Appreciative.


----------



## Pielorinho

I just read the rules; while I'm unlikely to use them, they look pretty darn interesting, and I'd love to play a oneshot with them at a con.

I do think that folks who want to allow for small characters could use the G&G rules as written with small characters; they would just need to make some modifications to the small races. Namely, dramatically increase the dex bonus for smaller races, and give them weapon finesse for free, and maybe even grant them a free sneak attack die.  Conversely, a system like AU might grant larger dex penalties to giants in order to partially make up for their current benefits under GnG.

After all, although an elephant will squish a fly quite easily if it hits, it's gonna have a heckuva time hitting. Meanwhile, the fly might not do much damage to the elephant, but it can pretty much hit the elephant wherever it wants.

I want to emphasize that these are not criticisms of the rules as written, but rather suggestions as to how to make a small race that's playable under the GnGRAW.

Daniel


----------



## KenHood

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> I do think that folks who want to allow for small characters could use the G&G rules as written with small characters; they would just need to make some modifications to the small races. Namely, dramatically increase the dex bonus for smaller races, and give them weapon finesse for free, and maybe even grant them a free sneak attack die.  Conversely, a system like AU might grant larger dex penalties to giants in order to partially make up for their current benefits under GnG.




A simpler solution: Base all melee attack bonuses on Dexterity, rather than Strength. Strength only increases damage. 

Big creatures with high Strength tend to have low Dexterity. Small creatures with high Dexterity tend to have low Strength. 

Then, make the Weapon Finesse feat permit a character to use Dexterity bonus for damage.

Otis the Ogre with a normal attack bonus of +9 (+4 base, -1 size, +5 Strength, +1 weapon focus) ends up with an attack bonus of +3 (+4 base, -1 size, -1 Dexterity, +1 weapon focus). 

Harold the Halfling ends up with an attack bonus of +9 (+4 base, +4 Dexterity, +1 enhancement). His damage bonus changes because of Weapon Finesse. It changes from short sword: 1d6 – 3 (+0 Str, +1 enhancement, -4 size) to 1d6 + 1 (+4 Dexterity (weapon finesse), +1 enhancement, -4 size).

The big guys end up hitting less, but still with a load of damage. The little guys hit the same amount, but have a little more damage.


----------



## DonAdam

These rules are super smooth. And yes, Ken is quite funny.

The rules are especially good using the standard d20 rules as a base. That said, I think Conan has the best take on defense (parry and dodge being two separate options); I'm undecided about which works better for armor as DR (Conan gives armor penetration and lets finesse weapons sometimes bypass armor, Ken's system adds damage for better attack rolls). I would lean towards Ken's system as more elegant because its faster and allows bypassing armor at multiple levels. Ken's life meter is also unqualifiedly superior to hit points for the style.

I love associating special maneuvers with crits, makes them a fun element of the game without the constant headache of them being tried every turn.

Another benefit of this system: since most tough characters will have some amount of DR (Soak), you do away with what I consider a silly paradigm, that the guy who has been punched alot (subdual damage) can get pricked with a knife and fall unconscious. It doesn't come up that often, but it has become an issue with things like armor as damage conversion and Green Ronin's psychic's handbook (a whole class of adventurers that ALWAYS gets knocked unconscious rather than killed from a sword blow... bizarre). Because of the soak, they only relate on substantial hits (as a side note, in the regular hit point system, I've come to the conclusion that real damage should work like real healing and also convert a like amount of subdual damage to real damage).

I think the suggestion (to help small characters) to switch Dex to the to-hit stat is fine, but I think it goes over the top with weapon finesse. Because dex is adding to hit and damage, and when you beat defense you add that much to damage, you're effectively adding twice your dex to damage in addition to adding it to hit and to AC. That might make dex the uber stat++. Maybe have weapon finesse make armor penetration easier?


----------



## SSquirrel

DonAdam said:
			
		

> I think the suggestion (to help small characters) to switch Dex to the to-hit stat is fine, but I think it goes over the top with weapon finesse. Because dex is adding to hit and damage, and when you beat defense you add that much to damage, you're effectively adding twice your dex to damage in addition to adding it to hit and to AC. That might make dex the uber stat++. Maybe have weapon finesse make armor penetration easier?



Actually no.  Dex adds to the attack roll only in that variant.  Strength is the stat that controls damage bonus.

With the standard version of the RGNG rules, in Arcana Unearthed you will have many many people decide to play a character with 3 racials levels of Giant (to get size large) and almost no one will play the Small Faen or the Tiny Sprites they turn into.  The changing of attack bonus to Dex and damage to strength make sa lot of sense really.  Ken is this something you would suggest as a permanent change or just if you were going to be playing in a world where there is a lot of variety in PC size?

Heh right now I know I already have someone playing a Giant 3/Unfettered 2 when we start that game, so with her 10' Reach and being large, she'll do massive damage.

Hagen


----------



## DonAdam

SSquirrel said:
			
		

> Actually no.  Dex adds to the attack roll only in that variant.  Strength is the stat that controls damage bonus.




Not accurate.

The amount by which I beat their defense increases damage. Dexterity, by adding to the attack roll, thus adds to damage (though not at 100%).

If you then add weapon finesse, letting Dex add to damage on the damage roll, you let Dex count twice.

I like moving the attack roll to Dex (thus removing the same problem from Strength and getting rid of the silly dragon's always hit phenomenon) but I think the Weapon Finesse suggestion goes too far.


----------



## KenHood

SSquirrel said:
			
		

> Ken is this something you would suggest as a permanent change or just if you were going to be playing in a world where there is a lot of variety in PC size?




I wouldn't make it a permanent change. It was just a suggestion for those who wanted to "even up" stuff with the small guys.


----------



## KenHood

DonAdam said:
			
		

> If you then add weapon finesse, letting Dex add to damage on the damage roll, you let Dex count twice.




Much like you already count Strength twice in the system, but the weapon finesse feat has limited application (light weapons), whereas Strength (as it stands) applies to all melee weapons. Light weapons have lower damage potential than other weapons, so it ends up helping only a little. 

Consider the example of Harold the Halfling. The +4 bonus from his Weapon Finesse was cancelled by his -4 damage penalty from size.


----------



## KenHood

Here's how combat would work if the "Dexterity controls all attack rolls" rule were implemented. 

I've taken the Otis v. Fred, Harold, & Warren fight, used the same rolls, and applied the modifiers differently. 

Also, I realized that 3.5E handles weapon finesse a little differently than 3.0E, so I applied a -1 penalty for Harold's buckler and made his short sword small size.

---

Pertinent Statistics

*Fred the Fighter* – 5th level
Attack: +8 (+5 base, +1 Dexterity, +1 masterwork, +1 weapon focus)
Defense: +8 (+5 base, +1 Dexterity, +2 heavy steel shield)
Soak: +10 (+2 Constitution, +8 full plate)
Damage: bastard sword, 1d10 + 5 (+3 strength, +2 specialization)

*Harold the Halfling Rogue* – 5th level
Attack: +8 (+4 base, +4 Dexterity, +1 enhancement, -1 buckler) 
Defense: +11 (+5 base, +4 Dexterity, +1 buckler, +1 size)
Soak: +0 (+1 Constitution, +3 studded leather, -4 size)
Damage: small short sword, 1d4 + 1 (+4 Dexterity (weapon finesse), +1 enhancement, -4 size)
Special: Sneak Attack +6

*Warren the Wizard* – 5th level
Attack: +4 (+2 base, +2 Dexterity)
Defense: +4 (+2 base, +2 Dexterity)
Soak: +2 (+1 Constitution, +1 Bracers of Armor)
Damage: quarterstaff, 1d6

*Otis the Ogre*
Attack: +3 (+4 base, -1 size, -1 Dexterity, +1 weapon focus)
Defense: +2 (+4 base, -1 size, -1 Dexterity)
Soak: +16 (+3 Constitution, +4 size, +5 natural armor, +3 hide armor, +1 toughness)
Damage: greatclub, 2d8 + 9 (+5 Strength, +4 size)

-----

Fred wins initiative and swings at Otis with his bastard sword.

Fred (attack): rolls 18
Otis (defense): rolls 9

Fred hits with an 7 point margin of success. Not enough for a critical hit.

Fred rolls his damage: 1d10 + 5 + 7 (margin of success) = 16 points – 16 (Otis’ Soak) = 0. Otis shrugs off the blow.

---

Harold sneaks up behind Fred, flanks, and performs a sneak attack on Otis.

Harold (attack): rolls 17
Otis (defense): rolls 11

Harold hits with a 6 point margin of success. He does not make a critical hit.

Harold rolls his damage: 1d4 + 1 + 6 (sneak attack) + 6 (margin of success) = 15 points – 16 (Otis’ Soak) = no damage. Again, Otis shrugs off the blow.

---

Otis attacks Fred, the real threat.

Otis (attack): 21
Fred (defense): 12

Otis hits with a 9 point margin of success. No critical.

Otis rolls damage: 2d8 + 9 + 9 (margin of success) = 26 points – 10 (Fred’s Soak) = 16 points of damage. 

Fred is disabled.

In this version of the combat, Fred gets to crawl away…

And get killed later by Otis.

---

Warren panics and casts fireball, thinking, “Well, Harold _does_ have evasion and a good Reflex save….”

In the normal rules, Warren would roll 5d6 for his fireball. Under the GnG rules, he rolls 4d6 + 2 and inflicts 18 points of damage. Otis’ Soak absorbs 16 points, so Otis suffers only 2 points of damage. This fills in two more pips and brings him to Moderately Wounded. He suffers a -1 penalty on most rolls. 

Harold does make his saving throw, but he’s not too happy about the fireball.

---

Harold curses Warren. Though Harold no longer flanking Otis and loses the sneak attack, Harold attacks again.

Harold (attack): 20
Otis (defense): 6

Harold hits with a 14 point margin of success. It threatens a critical hit and selects, “Bypass Natural Armor.” Harold rolls to confirm and gets a 16, while Otis rolls 12. Otis is forced to make a Reflex save against DC 13. Bad luck for Harold! Otis rolls 19. 

Go, ogre!

Uh, I mean, poor Harold!

Harold rolls his damage: 1d4 + 1 + 14 (margin of success) = 18 – 16 (Otis’ soak) = 2 points of damage. Otis is Lightly Wounded.

---

Otis beats Harold like a drum.

A squishy, screaming, fluid-filled, bone-supported drum.

Otis (attack): 22
Harold (defense): 21

Otis wins by a margin of 1. Not enough for a critical hit, but plenty to ruin Harold’s day.

Otis rolls damage: 2d8 + 9 + 1 (margin of success) = 18 – 0 (Harold’s soak) = 18 points of damage. 

Goody! This time Harold is only disabled!

Otis will kill him later.

---

Shortly after soiling himself and wondering if CR 3 still means the same thing in the GnG system, Warren tries an acid arrow against Otis.

Warren (+4 for ranged touch attack): 24
Otis (defense): 14

Warren hits with a 10 point margin of success. He threatens a critical hit! He selects “Bypass Natural Armor” and rolls to confirm: Warren gets 18. Otis gets 4. Warren confirms the hit and ignores the Soak from Otis’ natural armor.

Warren rolls for damage: 2d4 + 10 = 15 – 11 (Otis’ Soak without Natural Armor) = 4 points of damage. Otis loses 4 more life pips. Now, he’s Moderately Wounded (-1 on most rolls). 

And angry!

---

Otis charges Warren!

---

Lucky Warren! He gets to make an attack of opportunity against the charging Otis. Screaming like a girl-child, he swings his staff.

Warren (attack): 19
Otis (defense): 13

Warren hits with a 6 point margin of success. Not a critical hit!

Warren rolls damage: 1d6 + 6 (margin of success) = 9 – 16 (Otis’ Soak) = NO DAMAGE!

Yeah!

---

Otis completes his charge.

Otis (charge, attack): 15
Warren (defense): 9

Otis gets a 6 point margin of success. No critical hit.

Otis rolls his damage: 2d8 + 9 + 6 (margin of success) = 30 – 2 (Warren’s Soak) = 28 points of damage. Warren dies instantly.

Good news! Warren didn’t get a disabled head in this version of the combat!

Bad news! Warren is still dead!

----

The main difference: Fewer critical hits. 

Harold still can't get a decent hit on the Ogre.

Fred gets the shaft on his attack roll. 

Otis really gets the shaft on his attack roll. He doesn't instantly kill folks, just disables them.

Maybe making Dex the only stat for attack rolls isn't such a big deal...


----------



## Cheiromancer

KenHood said:
			
		

> Shortly after soiling himself and wondering if CR 3 still means the same thing in the GnG system...
> 
> Maybe making Dex the only stat for attack rolls isn't such a big deal...




What CR *is* Otis, anyways, in GnG?  Maybe 9 or 10?  The Dex variant makes him a little weaker, but not enough to help our heroes.  A quick'n'dirty CR calculator would be a nice addition to the rules, methinks.


----------



## Pielorinho

A couple questions regarding your example. First, I notice that the PCs are pretty underequipped for fifth-level characters; is this deliberate? Harold especially would benefit from a masterwork buckler, and poor Fred looks like he has no relevant magic at all. But this may well be deliberate; just figured I'd check.

Second, I think there are some incorrect numbers, as follows:



			
				KenHood said:
			
		

> Fred wins initiative and swings at Otis with his bastard sword.
> 
> Fred (attack): rolls 18
> Otis (defense): rolls 9
> 
> Fred hits with an 7 point margin of success. Not enough for a critical hit.
> 
> Fred rolls his damage: 1d10 + 5 + 7 (margin of success) = 16 points – 16 (Otis’ Soak) = 0. Otis shrugs off the blow.



That's a nine-point margin of success, enough for a critical and at least two points of damage.  However, assuming the same critical as in the previous example, Otis shrugs it off.



> Warren panics and casts fireball, thinking, “Well, Harold _does_ have evasion and a good Reflex save….”



Warren may want to change this action, now that his friend Fred is still alive.  Of course, wizards do sometimes panic....  It might be interesting to see Warren choose a noncombat spell in this example, since damage spells are going to be just about useless.  What about grease, or haste, or ray of enfeeblement, or enlarge?  *What about enlarge?*  Now the single best first-level spell, far eclipsing magic missile.



> In the normal rules, Warren would roll 5d6 for his fireball. Under the GnG rules, he rolls 4d6 + 2 and inflicts 18 points of damage. Otis’ Soak absorbs 16 points, so Otis suffers only 2 points of damage. This fills in two more pips and brings him to Moderately Wounded. He suffers a -1 penalty on most rolls.



?? This was the first time in the combat he was wounded, in this version.  Except, of course, for the two points that Fred did in the first round (see my first correction):  he should not be moderately wounded yet.

Also, while it may be a bug and not a feature that magic stands almost no chance of hurting large creatures, a system by which failed saves add to damage in the same way that high attack rolls do (e.g., fail the save by 5 points and suffer an additional 5 points of damage) might be interesting.  Or it may suck.



> Harold curses Warren. Though Harold no longer flanking Otis and loses the sneak attack, Harold attacks again.



Do disabled people no longer threaten? Or did you just assume that Fred crawled away immediately on his turn instead of (sensibly) delaying until after Harold acted? Or did Warren's fireball finish Fred off?



> Harold hits with a 14 point margin of success. It threatens a critical hit and selects, “Bypass Natural Armor.” Harold rolls to confirm and gets a 16, while Otis rolls 12. Otis is forced to make a Reflex save against DC 13. Bad luck for Harold! Otis rolls 19.



Not that it would matter, but if you switch the prime attack attribute to Dex, shouldn't the save vs. melee-inflicted criticals also be dex-based? Otis would make it in either case, of course.



> Harold rolls his damage: 1d4 + 1 + 14 (margin of success) = 18 – 16 (Otis’ soak) = 2 points of damage. Otis is Lightly Wounded.



May need recalculation, based on above questions.



> Warren rolls for damage: 2d4 + 10 = 15 – 11 (Otis’ Soak without Natural Armor) = 4 points of damage. Otis loses 4 more life pips. Now, he’s Moderately Wounded (-1 on most rolls).



Recalculate?



> Lucky Warren! He gets to make an attack of opportunity against the charging Otis.



As do Fred and Harold, right? or am I missing something about the disabled condition?

Daniel


----------



## Pielorinho

I want to expand on what I said before:  enlarge absolutely rocks.  For example, if Harold were enlarged, he'd be doing an extra 3 points of damage per attack (+4 size, +1 weapon size, -1 dex penalty from attack, -1 dex penalty from damge) and taking 2 points of damage less per attack from soak (includes dex defense penalty and size defense penalty).  Fred, relying on strength for damage, does an extra 4 points of damage per attack and sufers two less damage per attack.

Daniel


----------



## DonAdam

To be fair, Enlarge Person has been broken since 3.5, even before this; it is superior to Bull's Strength and 1 level lower.

Another thing that scares me is True Strike. Looks like instant death.


----------



## apoptosis

Ken love ure system.  Have used the first edition of it (though it was a mite deadlier than i anticipated when dealing with critters but u did warn ahead of time)

The new system looks interesting.  From my type games. Magic is rare, dangerous to the user but is supposed to be very deadly (evasion is somewhat different for instance).

In ure new system it seems to go from magic being relatively non deadly at low levels to once u past the soak level to exceedingly deadly (which i like).  Low level spells that do 1-4 damage will not affect anything (for instance if i am understanding everything, harold could hold a torch in his bare hand indefinitely)

Some ideas that i was thinking about (they could be awful so feel free to unload) is to maybe increase magics effectiveness (if wanted) would be for area effect spells of certain size (fireball etc.) to treat critters as 1 to 2 sizes smaller for purposes of soak.

I also liked the idea of missing the save by a certain amount adds to the damage.

One possibility of dealing with spells like true strike would be to consider the bonuses only in terms of making criticals and not as damage (but this could lead to other issues).

My 0.01 cents  feel free to disembowl at leisure.

apoptosis


----------



## Pielorinho

DonAdam said:
			
		

> Another thing that scares me is True Strike. Looks like instant death.



 Good call! Had Warren gone true strike in his first round, then his acid arrow in the second round would have done a bit more damage--20 pips instead of 4. (this assumes that Otis was in melee but didn't have cover from Harold or Fred). That, combined with the two points of damage Fred did in the first round, would've knocked Otis down to dying. 

_True Strike_ becomes a must-have spell, too.  In fact, most fighters with an Int or Cha of 11 or greater would be fools not to take a level of wizard or sorcerer in order to gain the spell.

Suggestion:  GnG rules should either reduce the effect of, or eliminate, enlarge and true strike.

Daniel


----------



## KenHood

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> A couple questions regarding your example.




Whoa. Whoa.

I just cut-n-paste to give an example of what might happen if you adjusted the rules. That's why the text is the same darned stuff and none of the actions were changed. It was about five minutes of work. I'm not going to put in a lot of effort of something to show what _might_ happen if you implement a variant rule -- that I don't even use! It's got mistakes because it's something I slapped together, to give folks a general idea of differences.

No nitpicking!

As for the equipment, I took the NPC's listed in the DMG 3.5.


----------



## KenHood

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> Suggestion: GnG rules should either reduce the effect of, or eliminate, enlarge and true strike.




Nope. 

I saw those two coming a long way back and was waiting to see if anyone would pick up on it. 

I like the fact that the system causes some non-combat spells to increase in value. If it's a big deal to you, then change their level or eradicate them in your personal application of the rules. 

I don't mind clearing up an error or two here and there. One thing I won't do is create a whole list of variants on spells or (UGH!) a long list of new CR's. I'm not interested in doing that sort of detailed grunt work. For me, it is no fun.


----------



## KenHood

apoptosis said:
			
		

> (for instance if i am understanding everything, harold could hold a torch in his bare hand indefinitely)




Harold has a soak of 0. He'd get burned by the torch.

As for save-based damage not penetrating Soak...
Possible solution could be increasing the damage suffered by +1 per point a character misses the save. That way, it would work like damage, and spell-casters would have incentive to get feats that increase save DC by +2 or +4.


----------



## Pielorinho

Okay, no problem on the nitpicking; I was not sure what level of accuracy you were looking for on it.  And as long as the practical effect of true strike works for you (i.e., it makes a third-level wizard a fiercer attacker than a fifth-level fighter, a couple of times a day, and steers spellcasters heavily away from DD spells), that's cool; I was just talking about some potential issues.

Daniel


----------



## KenHood

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> And as long as the practical effect of true strike works for you (i.e., it makes a third-level wizard a fiercer attacker than a fifth-level fighter, a couple of times a day, and steers spellcasters heavily away from DD spells), that's cool; I was just talking about some potential issues.




Yep. That's cool. Having wizards use spells they don't normally use in normal rules is more interesting for me. It gets drab to see fireball after fireball. Heck, when I play D&D on the computer, that's the only 3rd level spell I end up using. 

Big difference between the direct damage and buff magic: a wizard casting a fireball kills a lot of guys, a wizard casting true strike kills one guy every other round. (And face it, if your wizard has a good potential to whack a guy every other round, the grunts are gonna kill everybody in robes during the first round.)

I do appreciate the consideration of potential issues. 

I'd appreciate some playtesting even more than that!


----------



## KenHood

The more I consider it, the more I like using Dexterity as the primary attack attribute. 

Some of you playtesting these rules, please give it a spin.

Thanks,
Ken


----------



## Pielorinho

Like I said, I'd love to play by these rules at a con sometime.  My preferred style of campaign to run, however, is pretty combat-light and death-light; if we get in one combat per session, we're doing good, and two deaths per year of play is a bit high for us.  Anyway, I'm not running a game now, so my playtest opportunities are limited.  All the same, if I get together with some friends for a oneshot, I'll pull these rules out and see what they think.

It does occur to me that a pretty cool image comes up:  a wizard with quickened true strike and a handful of darts killing one person every round by throwing a dart directly into their brainpan .

Danile


----------



## Verequus

Hi Ken!

I looked through your rules and I like them! While I still will use the normal rules in play, I have now the right rules... ehm, guidelines for a story I plan to write. There are writers, who write only realistic stories and there are other, who write whatever looks appropriate. Obviously, a story using magic as a element can't be fully realistic, only look realistic, and for that I simply need not only nature's laws, but magic's laws and the correlation between the two. Applying the hit point-system would only result in fights, where at first the hit points are reduced and then the combatants die a quick death.

Yes, I could simple write want I want, but then it would be completely arbitrary like that: "The big rock starts to float 3 meters high, about 15 meters the path along, while it transforms to a big elephant. The suddenly existing animal trumpets loud, before it falls to the earths and crumbles to stones and dust." Following Murphy'S Law somewhat.  Okay, enough with the rant...

Some comments:
-The Critical Threat Range table: The entry "15-20" should be something like "Every other".
-An error in the Bypass Heavy Armor entry at the Critical Hit Effects: You wrote "medium armor" instead "heavy armor".
-"Apply your target’s damage reduction or energy resistance (if applicable) to the attack’s damage." Do I understand it right: If I have DR 10/magic, then any applicable damage will be reduced by 10 points?
-How do you handle hardness?
-What are the effects of Fast Healing and Regeneration?
-There aren't examples for every situation, you cover with your rules.
-In which product Mongoose used your rules?
-The storyteller system is used in Vampire: The Maskerade or Werewolf: The Apocalypse, for example.

I hope I didn't overlook that someone asked or mentioned anything above.


----------



## Melkor Lord Of ALL!

I really like those rules, but don`t you think it would work better if used with lower magic system, like Call of Chtulhu or Conan, making casting spells dangerous to the caster, with penalties to ability scores, corruption, more ritual and subtle spells, etc?


----------



## KenHood

Melkor said:
			
		

> I really like those rules, but don`t you think it would work better if used with lower magic system, like Call of Chtulhu or Conan, making casting spells dangerous to the caster, with penalties to ability scores, corruption, more ritual and subtle spells, etc?




Ain't even gonna worry about it!

Ran into this same thinking with the previous iteration of the GnG rules, and I'm taking the same line as before: I have zero, zip, nada, none interest -- NONE! -- in figuring out what magic system works best with the rules or figuring how to convert a magic system to the rules. 

And so, I shall say NOTHING! about magic systems. 

You've got figure the best fit for these rules in your use.


----------



## KenHood

RuleMaster said:
			
		

> Some comments:
> -The Critical Threat Range table: The entry "15-20" should be something like "Every other".




Why? 




			
				RuleMaster said:
			
		

> -An error in the Bypass Heavy Armor entry at the Critical Hit Effects: You wrote "medium armor" instead "heavy armor".




Yep. I fixed that one. Look later in the thread for a copy of the rules. 




> -"Apply your target’s damage reduction or energy resistance (if applicable) to the attack’s damage." Do I understand it right: If I have DR 10/magic, then any applicable damage will be reduced by 10 points?




Yeah. Apply before figuring Soak.




> -How do you handle hardness?




Same as the regular rules. It reduces damage.

Rule of thumb: If I don't say anything about something, I've no changes for it.

Second rule of thumb: I believe in Minimum Necessary Effort. If I don't change it, I don't explain that I didn't change it.  




> -What are the effects of Fast Healing and Regeneration?




See previous rules of thumb. Substitute life pips for HP.




> -There aren't examples for every situation, you cover with your rules.




I don't understand your statement. 

If you mean that I didn't give examples of everything, you're right. I have no intention of providing copious and detailed examples of the system at work. I expect folks to fill in the blanks.

You may say, "That sucks!"

To which I would reply, "It's free!"

In other words, you get what you pay for.




> -In which product Mongoose used your rules?




A generic book that presented a lot of OGL content. Can't recall the title. A friend sent me an e-mail with a link to the sales page for the book.




> -The storyteller system is used in Vampire: The Maskerade or Werewolf: The Apocalypse, for example.




Okay.


----------



## Ukyo the undead

I think I found a typo. 

When explaining hpw to figure out defense, there is a phrase that confused me:

"Your base defense bonus equals your base attack bonus + your Dexterity modifier or your total Reflex saving throw (*including your Dexterity modifier*), whichever is higher"


Shouldn´t it say "excluding"?

Well, other than that, I only have to say that this optional rules are exactly what I was looking for, and the revision clarified a lot the old rulings.

Ps: I translated your rules to portuguese, and I am going to ask the "local Enworld" to put it online. Is this ok?


----------



## KenHood

Ukyo said:
			
		

> "Your base defense bonus equals your base attack bonus + your Dexterity modifier or your total Reflex saving throw (*including your Dexterity modifier*), whichever is higher"




What I meant was your Defense equals either...

1) Base Attack Bonus + Dexterity

2) Base Reflex Saving Throw + Dexterity

Hmm. I probably should have wrote it like that.




> Ps: I translated your rules to portuguese, and I am going to ask the "local Enworld" to put it online. Is this ok?




Sure. That's okay.


----------



## KenHood

ENWorld is now hosting the rules at http://www.enworld.org/forums/local_links.php?action=links&catid=19

Thanks, ENWorld!

The latest version of the rules is dated 4-7-2004. 

Changes:
*Corrected a couple of typos.
*Clarified explanation of figuring base defense bonus.
*Moved the dice cap and sneak attack rules to a variants section. 
*Added a variant rule for Dexterity as the universal attack roll modifier, rather than Strength for melee and Dexterity for ranged. (Also added a feat, Brute Force, to go along with this variant.)

Again, thanks for the suggestions and requests for clarification. I look forward to hearing some playtesting discussion.


----------



## SSquirrel

KenHood said:
			
		

> ENWorld is now hosting the rules at http://www.enworld.org/forums/local_links.php?action=links&catid=19
> 
> Thanks, ENWorld!
> 
> The latest version of the rules is dated 4-7-2004.
> 
> Changes:
> *Corrected a couple of typos.
> *Clarified explanation of figuring base defense bonus.
> *Moved the dice cap and sneak attack rules to a variants section.
> *Added a variant rule for Dexterity as the universal attack roll modifier, rather than Strength for melee and Dexterity for ranged. (Also added a feat, Brute Force, to go along with this variant.)
> 
> Again, thanks for the suggestions and requests for clarification. I look forward to hearing some playtesting discussion.



As always, www.giant.net/~hagen/Grim-n-GrittyRevised.doc and www.giant.net/~hagen/Grim-n-GrittyRevised.rtf are also download points for the file.

Hagen


----------



## Etiquette_Gnome

I think it would be great if you gave the same treatment to your psionic rules, personally. But other than that, I think I'm going to try out at least a one-shot game with this sytem.


----------



## mafisto

*Playtesting*

Okay Ken,

A few playtest scenarios, and I have to agree with your more recent assessment - DEX is a better melee attack stat than STR.  It seems to balance size differences better, and allows 'dodgy' classes the ability to last a whole six seconds longer in combat (better than nothin'!).

I'm still not fond of some of the revisions, but that's a matter of personal preference rather than structure; combat flows smoothly and intuitively, and it's very fast.  My personal preference comes in on the 'very fast' part of the equation - my players are adapted to the increases lethality of the older rules, but this would drive them over the edge.  

Hmm... I guess that's not personal preference at all, but rather player preference.  Well, the DM is the servant.

Regardless, I'm very impressed by the thought you put into this.  I was expecting to hate the 'pip system' but I found it very fun & simple to use.  If I start a new campaign (perhaps years from now) I'll be using the revised rules.


----------



## KenHood

mafisto said:
			
		

> A few playtest scenarios, and I have to agree with your more recent assessment - DEX is a better melee attack stat than STR.  It seems to balance size differences better, and allows 'dodgy' classes the ability to last a whole six seconds longer in combat (better than nothin'!).




Yep!




> My personal preference comes in on the 'very fast' part of the equation - my players are adapted to the increases lethality of the older rules, but this would drive them over the edge.




One of my goals: Increase the speed of combat. In Real Life (tm), fights tend to be nasty and short. No more than a handful of seconds. 

If the rules end up giving you those results, then they're working according to design.




> Well, the DM is the servant.




Heh! Pull the other leg!

DM's are manipulative SOB's with God-complexes. 

Hmm. Maybe that's why I liked being a DM more than a player...



> I was expecting to hate the 'pip system' but I found it very fun & simple to use.




The pip system was "borrowed" (i.e., stolen) from Fudge, one of my favorite RPG systems. (The Fudge dice bell-curve on success is the best I've ever seen.)

When I first made the switch to Fudge, my players thought the pips would suck. After one session of combat, they were hooked. 

I'm fond of it because it's visual. One look, you know where your character stands and what penalties to apply. Even though it's as abstract as hit points, it doesn't _feel_ like a number. It feels more like the gas gauge on a car. When you're on the last couple of pips in the Severely Wounded column, you get the same sinking feeling in the pit of your stomach as when your gas needle hovers on the red line, below "E."

---

One act of evangelism for the system...

Now that you've seen how intuitive and quickly it works, your players may buy into the same features. Why not take their characters, convert them into this system, and run a couple of major, old battles in the new rules? Pick a couple of fights about which they reminisce. That way, they remember how the fights worked under the old rules. It will give them a more immediate, visceral response when they're run under the revised rules. 

There's no risk involved for their characters, since it's just a couple of test runs. Very little effort is necessary to convert a character to the new system. Just figure attack, defense, soak, and weapon damage/crit DC. (Not like the old rules which required a lot of multiplication and consultation of charts.) You can track it all on a single 3x5 card for each character.

Once you're done, if there's no "buy in" by the players, just chunk the cards. 

Despite the fact that many RPG'ers have more progressive ideas about politics and morality than most folks, they are rabidly conservative when it comes to their rules. They hate change. They hate trying new stuff. They immediately respond with suspicion and derision to variation or innovation. 

Why, if I recall correctly, a few years back, there was this big RPG company that wanted to revise their core rulebooks and create a third version. Hordes of naysayers came out, crying the apocalypse of gaming had arrived. There was speculation. There was derision. There was suspicion.

But in a short while, after trying the rules, people bought into it. The game almost completely blew away all competition and became the dominant system in RPG's.

Then, that company went for another revision. Yet again, people freaked out. 

Strange thing: Once folks tried the new revision, they found out that they liked it. Sure, everyone has their golden calf about which they feel some resentment when it got changed, but overall folks liked the fixes.

I'm talking about D&D 3E and 3.5E.

I expect -- once folks overcome their resistance to change and try the revised GnG rules -- they'll come to much the same conclusion as folks who switched from 2E AD&D to 3E D&D. I think they'll end up hooked.


----------



## Northcott

Well, I finally cracked and registered at ENWorld for the sake of this thread.  So much for my resolution to whittle down on the number of messageboards.  

Anyway, I've thrown these new rules at my group, and there's some debate about them, but they seem to be digging it overall.  Most of us like the quick n' nasty side of things; the debate comes in what flavour people prefer.

A couple things I'd wanted to throw into the mix as possible additions/ideas that we may end up playtesting in the future:

1) The use of 2d10 instead of a d20 in combat provides a nice curve that makes variant skill levels more important, and reduces the chance of pleasant or unpleasant surprises.   A natural 20 is now a 1 in 100 chance, while most rolls will fall in the 8-12 range.  Makes it a little easier to calculate your odds stepping into a fight.

Mind you, the 2d10 gig starts to fall apart when applied to non-combat skills, due to the painful difficulty in some DCs... but that's a story for a different time.  I figured some folks might like to wrestle with that idea given the overall open tone of this thread.

2) It's been my experience that while dexterity/speed is certainly a key ability for a combatant, brute strength should not be underestimated.  It provides not only extra damage, but can make blows harder to block with increased force (there's a reason why epees and greatswords didn't meet on medieval battlefields), and increased muscle mass provides valuable protection for interior organs and bones.  The bigger body is harder to hurt.  With that in mind:

2 a) Strength bonus, halved and rounded down, is added to the "to hit" factor.
2 b) Strength bonus provides one free "pip" in the "lightly wounded" category per point of strength, providing a one-time "Soak" that is diminished by wounding, yet can be healed.  

I'm still chewing over the last -- it's probably waaaaay too much.  Perhaps as with 2a, it should be halved and rounded down in lethal, but left full in non-lethal?

Either way, the basic rule alteration is brilliant.  It addresses the parts of the d20 rules that I liked the least; the rules were so well tailored that they practically become a genre unto themselves.  To capture the flavour of realistic historical games, Harn, or Old West gunfights, this kind of process seems to be far superior.


----------



## KenHood

Northcott said:
			
		

> 1) The use of 2d10 instead of a d20 in combat provides a nice curve that makes variant skill levels more important, and reduces the chance of pleasant or unpleasant surprises.




I'm a fan of bell curves in task resolution, but the d20 system is the *d20* system, so I takes whats I gots and does whats I musts.




> 2) It's been my experience that while dexterity/speed is certainly a key ability for a combatant, brute strength should not be underestimated.




To quote Tyler Durden, "Skinny guys fight until they're burger."

The suggestions about strength are logical, but they add complexity. The goal of the new GnG is to revise and simplify. 

The Dexterity as primary attack stat is a variant rule. That way, if you think Dex should be prime, use that. If you think Strength should be prime, use that. 

For the Dex as prime attack stat variant, I added a Brute Force feat to cover the issue of strength blasting through parries, etc. 

Keep it simple. Keep it simple.

Our tendency, as gamers, is to add complexity, because reality has a lot of variables, and we want to imitate it. Butterfly wings aflutter in Mexico cause hurricanes in China. Sometimes it's best just to sit back and imitate life in broad strokes, rather than details. Get the spirit, not the letter.


----------



## Northcott

Re: d20/2d10 -- what can I say?  I'm a curve junkie.    It doesn't work worth a damn in standard d20 task resolution, being built for the linear mechanics as it is, but with your altered combat system it holds some interesting promise.  I may be looking at a test run in the near future, if I can get a breather from the swiftly-growing work pile.

Re: Simplicity -- good point.  Point taken.


----------



## Blacksad

Northcott said:
			
		

> Well, I finally cracked and registered at ENWorld for the sake of this thread.  So much for my resolution to whittle down on the number of messageboards.




Bwahahaha!!! My Evil plan is working  

err...Perhaps I should mention to Mr. Kenhood that I've done a PDF of the revised rules and posted them at Nutkinland (I've also modified a bit some font size, so that the OGL and the Critical Hit Effects takes only one page each), is it OK?


----------



## Northcott

Blacksad, you evil b@$t@rd!   If you direct him to Nutkinland, he'll surely go MAD!  Mad, I tell you!

Y'know, I pointed the guy who was running a Deadlands d20 game at this thread.  The bugger's now thinking of adopting the rules for Deadlands.  I see a TPK coming down the pike.


----------



## FraserRonald

Northcott said:
			
		

> Y'know, I pointed the guy who was running a Deadlands d20 game at this thread.  The bugger's now thinking of adopting the rules for Deadlands.  I see a TPK coming down the pike.




You're just lucky I didn't have this in hand when you guys were going through Brass. Zombie Beggars? The least of your worries!


----------



## Northcott

Oh Jeezus!  _You're_ here too?  You and your damned zombie ninja beggars.

I like to think that you'd have been kind enough to at least temper the number of undead, magical traps, and spell-wielding villains with these rules in hand.  (I knew you'd dig this.)


----------



## KenHood

Blacksad said:
			
		

> err...Perhaps I should mention to Mr. Kenhood that I've done a PDF of the revised rules and posted them at Nutkinland (I've also modified a bit some font size, so that the OGL and the Critical Hit Effects takes only one page each), is it OK?




Sure. 

Free to all!

The first rule of the revised Grim-n-Gritty rules is that you do not talk about the revised Grim-n-Gritty rules.

The second rule of the revised Grim-n-Gritty rules is that you *do not talk* about the revised Grim-n-Gritty rules!

By the way, what's a nutkinland?


----------



## KenHood

Northcott said:
			
		

> Y'know, I pointed the guy who was running a Deadlands d20 game at this thread.  The bugger's now thinking of adopting the rules for Deadlands.  I see a TPK coming down the pike.




What's a TPK?


----------



## Northcott

Total Party Kill.  Bugger darn near did it to us anyway.    Messy.

And a Nutkinland is www.nutkinland.com -- the forums will break your brain.  Or insult you.  Most people experience both. (Actually, we're a right friendly buch, save for a misanthrope or three.)


----------



## KenHood

Northcott said:
			
		

> Total Party Kill.




Well, it could happen -- but -- if you run into a fight prepared, it shouldn't. Best thing to do is gather information about your enemy, figure out its habits, and ambush it. 

And spread misinformation so the bad guys don't do the same thing to you.

I've played for a pretty good while with rules like this. Once players dispense with the "sport" mentality (i.e., "Fights are fun!") and start acting like total bastards, TPK's don't happen. You've got to be ruthless, plan ahead, and make sure that no one gets the drop on your group. (In that way, they're a lot like real life.)

The word is RUTHLESS.

If your group survives a few fights, your GM should take that into account and give you a reputation. Folks tend to avoid types who can handle themselves and have proven it. Bad guys want to prey on the sheeple, not the wolves.


----------



## Northcott

Oh, we were pretty ruthless... and we were even passable in the planning department (edit; but when we screwed up?  Whooooo-boy!).  Where we failed miserably (especially me) was in the luck category.  I think I set a new record for the number of 1's rolled in a session.   I'm sure that as Fraser reads this he's chuckling to himself... I think I'd gotten up near a dozen 1's by the time he started demanding I warm up for my combat turns with "practice rolls".  

Then, of course, we had one of _those_ wizards -- you know the sort.  The nutter in the robes who, like the friendly chap in your example, tosses big fire spells at the party figuring "they've got a decent save, I'll probably only get the NPC bad guys".  

On second thought, you're right.  My planning was amiss.  In hindsight, I should have killed the bugger with one of my few good rolls.


----------



## KenHood

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> It does occur to me that a pretty cool image comes up:  a wizard with quickened true strike and a handful of darts killing one person every round by throwing a dart directly into their brainpan.




Hey! Now, that would be cool.

True strike is first level. Quicken knocks the spell level up by +4. Grab a sorcerer, make it to 10th level, and you'll be spattering folks at least three times a day. 

I like it!

All the more reason to kill the pencil necks in the back row, first.


----------



## Hodag

*Vindictive SOB aren't you?*

Hey now, some people _like_ playing spellcasters...

Seroiusly though the GnG rules seem that they would work better with D20 Modern then any sort of fantasy game. It's awfully difficult to play fictional heroic when ambushes become the preferred method of attack.
I used to be all about the realism, but when it started interfering with the fun I started slacking off. Now don't get me wrong, I think the GnG rules are beautiful piece of work, but I probably won't use them because that's not the tone of game I want to run. I have had TPKs, but the fights that engendered them were awesome and took a while to play out, rather than smack dab, body on slab like GnG strives for.

I have played out three combats with AU characters
Human vs. Giant (3 lvls Giant)
Human vs. Spryte
Giant (3 lvls Giant) vs. Spryte
All were warmains (ECL:4th level) same equivalent equipment
The larger turned the smaller to goo every time. The Giant vs. Spryte took the longest because of the Spryte's flight, then the Giant threw a dagger...


----------



## KenHood

Hodag said:
			
		

> The larger turned the smaller to goo every time.




Excellent! That's how it should work out.

Did you try the Dexterity as primary attack statistic variant?

---

I agree that the rules don't fit well in a "heroic" game. If that's what you're aiming for, you're better off using the core combat mechanics. 

In the "heroic" Old West, gunfights took place at high noon, amidst a cloud of gunsmoke and blaze of bullets. That's core combat mechanics.

In the historic Old West, people were shot in the back or while on the toilet.

The revised GnG rules aim for the latter feel.

---

Size is very important in the RGnG rules. (As it was in the original.)

I reckon you should probably pump the ECL of large characters up by +2 per size category. (Maybe even +3 or +4 per size category.) A similar drop in ECL can occur for small characters.


----------



## KenHood

Hodag said:
			
		

> I have had TPKs, but the fights that engendered them were awesome and took a while to play out, rather than smack dab, body on slab like GnG strives for.




In about 25 years of role-playing, I've had only one total party kill. I can count on my fingers the number of PC's that have permanently died. 

The goal of the GnG rules isn't to kill your party. The rules are intended to "raise the bar" on combat, force the use of tactics and stealth, and the like.

For example, in my games, a standard party tactic is ...

1) Ready by door.
2) Open door and cast fireball into room.
3) After explosion, fighters hose room down with arrows.
4) Mage casts vision obscuring spell.
5) Party charges into room and mops up survivors.

I admit: It's a different way of playing than most people.

When we'd play dungeon crawls, the noise of the first fight in the dungeon would use draw out all of the monsters in the place. They'd converge on the PC's and try to cut off retreat. We'd have long, running strategic withdrawals, where the PC's would spend hours of real time on the move. 

Once the battle's over, everyone is so relieved to be alive that they dance for joy. They've been holding their breath every time they make a dice roll.

It's stressful. It's difficult. I've had players get so mad at the monsters that the players curse and hurl objects across the room, screaming profanities at _imaginary_ opponents! 

But it's also a load of fun. You feel like you've made a major accomplishment when you survive.


----------



## Coredump

Okay Ken, that does it!!

I am a teacher (secondary).  If I get a transfer to your school district, will you DM a game for me??  Huh?  will ya please...??


----------



## Hodag

*GM vs. Players*

The main problem I have with the GnG rules is it tends to enforce the "GM vs. Players" concept. I much prefer that an interesting story is told, and heroic action is taken. The PCs are supposed to be exceptional. The purpose of the game is to describe their exploits, not anybody else's. 
In answer to your question Ken I just reran it with the Dex variant and the Spryte wasted the Giant with arrows.(Flight + Tiny + Bow=Lethal!)
I am a High School History/Drama teacher and I do *NOT* want to ever play in Ken's game! No offense meant Ken, it's just not my preferred style of play 
I did try the system, and it's not what I'm looking for, but thank you Ken for the effort that you put into it!


----------



## mafisto

Hodag said:
			
		

> The main problem I have with the GnG rules is it tends to enforce the "GM vs. Players" concept. I much prefer that an interesting story is told, and heroic action is taken. The PCs are supposed to be exceptional.




The only case where I can see these rules enforce a "GM vs. Players" environment is when the GM is attempting to punish players with a set of rules.  Otherwise, if your campaign is a grim-n-gritty one, where's the conflict?  So big creatures kill small creatures more easily - that's a foundation of the campaign and not intended in any way to pit the GM against the party.

From the very beginning Ken has made it clear that G&G is NOT Heroic D&D.  I think that ignoring that first and fundamental statement is what gets him (and me!) all riled up.  PCs aren't 'supposed' to be anything in my campaign.  They are what they are.  If they want to slink the shadows and snipe their enemies and set up clever ambushes then THAT is what they're 'supposed' to do.  Not some pre-fabricated ideal that, for some reason, has become the status quo.

Finally, having an interesting story does not mean that your players need to be able to walk through fire and get shot up with dozens of arrows and swim through pits of burning acid.  That certainly could be an interesting story, but I've read plenty of fascinating tales (George R.R. Martin's Ice & Fire, for instance) where a deep sense of humanity and mortality makes the story even MORE interesting.

I doubt that you intended to be combatative in that innocent little statement, but whole point of the Grim-n-Gritty rules was to challenge the status quo and provide an alternate way of playing the game.  So, every time I read "But I want my game to be interesting!" or "I want my players to be heroes!" in response to these variant rules, they'll get nice little essays from myself or other proponents of the system.  GnG does not mean that GMs have to hate their players, or spin boring tales, or kill off all of their PCs every session.  It simply means that the physical reality of the game takes on more gravity than before.


----------



## KenHood

Hodag said:
			
		

> The main problem I have with the GnG rules is it tends to enforce the "GM vs. Players" concept.




I disagree with this conclusion. 

Having played for many years under similar rules-sets with high degrees of lethality, I have not felt a "GM v. Players" concept. 

"GM v. Players" is an attitude, not a rule. If the GM is the insecure sort who needs to demonstrate superiority over others by killing their characters, then he or she shall do so regardless of rules set. If the GM is the sort who wishes everyone to enjoy themselves, then he or she will do so regardless of the rules set. 

Rules cannot enforce an attitude. Much like law cannot change the heart. 

---

*An aside comment...*
I think many of us have had an experience with a jackass GM who wanted nothing more than to harm his players. I think many of us can see the obvious potential for such a GM to abuse these rules and use it for TPK's and the like. But that's not a fault of the rules, it's a fault of the person.

The best way to avoid this sort of abuse is to ask oneself, "Why in the hell I am hanging out with a jerk like this and letting them make me miserable?"

It's funny, but sad, how players and GM's can enter the same cycle of codependence as wives and husbands. 




> I much prefer that an interesting story is told...




You are making an assumption that use of these rules make a game uninteresting. Interest lies in the players and the GM, not the rules set. I think many of us can attest to playing wonderful, interesting games with horrible sets of rules -- usually created by ourselves! I think many of us can also attest to boring games with the best rules sets. 




> ...and heroic action is taken.




I think it's more likely said that most RPG's -- by their nature -- do not have heroic action. 

Heroism occurs when one strives against real, personal danger and demonstrates personal sacrifice for the betterment of others. 

In most RPG's, there is no real, personal danger for PC's. They know how much damage they can suffer. They do not think twice about receiving a blow from a sword or a shot from a bow. They know what probability their attacks will strike. They know the general proportion of damage from their opponents and the likelihood of saving throws. There is no real danger, because the PC's know the general outcome of their actions.

How is it heroic to engage in a battle that you know has a threat level artificially arranged to be a commensurate challenge to your abilities, and that if you expend 25% of your resources, you should be able to win?

As to personal sacrifice, consider this: In RPG's, PC's fight to accumulate personal power and wealth. Levels are power. XP's are power. Every gold piece, every magical item is an accumulation of power. Even when PC's come into a town to rescue the hapless villagers from the horrible monster, their ultimate (unspoken) concern is their rewards in XP and goods at the end of the module. Sacrifice involves giving up something with no expectation of a return, but PC's expect a return: gold, magic items, XP!

RPG's are sport, not heroism.

The heroism is an illusion created by the storytelling of the GM and roleplaying of the players. You achieve that feeling with attitude, not rules. 

Consider this: Which is more heroic: facing a monster in a game knowing that under X circumstances, your character will always win, or facing a monster knowing that a bad dice roll could end up killing your character, despite weeks and months of development through play?

---

*An aside comment...*
I think it's important that we don't confuse cinematic with heroic. People seem to use the two terms interchangeably, because heroic has more positive connotations. However, PC's in RPG's are often no more heroic than a bullet-proof superhero taking out bank robbers in a comic book. There's no real danger because of the certainty of outcome.

In RPG's, there is certainty of success. Hence, the whole issue of game balance. PC's _need_ to win, or at least have a reasonable certainty of success. 

Heroism occurs when you perform an action _despite_ the certainty that you will come to harm or death.




> The PCs are supposed to be exceptional.




Nothing in these rules counters this statement. 

It seems that you're drawing a conclusion that PC's are no longer exceptional because their abilities do not function according to the status quo of the standard combat rules. In other words, because big things easily kill small things, the PC's are weak because they tend to be said small things. 

I disagree.

It is true that PC's of equivalent level/hit dice to a Big Thing are at a disadvantage. PC's must achieve more levels before trying to take on large opponents, such as an ogre. However, this tends to reinforce the myth of the heroic ideal, rather than counter it. Consider: In the tales where a hero kills a giant, troll, or ogre, said hero is often heads-and-shoulders more powerful than the general population or receives some sort of divine dispensation. In the d20 system, this superiority to his fellow man is best reflected in a character's levels. 

Is a PC unexceptional because he possesses several more levels than the NPC population? Is said PC unexceptional because he can defeat large opponents by virtue of these levels? Is he unexceptional because he requires training and perseverance to achieve the power to accomplish such a superhuman feat as slaying a giant?




> The purpose of the game is to describe their exploits, not anybody else's.




I'm not sure how you have drawn this conclusion from the rules-set. This seems more an expression of your personal preferrences, rather than an application of the rules. 

RPG's -- by their very nature -- are egomaniacal fantasies for players. In these sollipsistic realities, players are the prime movers and shakers. Nothing occurs in the fantasy world apart from their exploits. What occurs "off stage" occurs "off stage." It's just window dressing for the player's activities.




> In answer to your question Ken I just reran it with the Dex variant and the Spryte wasted the Giant with arrows. (Flight + Tiny + Bow=Lethal!)




Very good. Such a thing should have happened with that variant.




> No offense meant Ken, it's just not my preferred style of play.




No offense taken. 

I likewise hope that you've taken no offense to my attempts to counter your arguments. No ire is intended. I feel no hostility, only a desire for discourse.

Everyone is entitled to their preferrence. As I've stated many times, the rules are not meant for everyone. If they do not fit your needs and desires, do not use them.

I appreciate that you've given them a try and revealed the results of your experimentation.


----------



## Northcott

It strikes me that, if these rules are used _and_ the corresponding fantasy world is more suited in tone (low to mid fantasy, rather than high fantasy with enchanted creatures around every corner), then things balance themselves out.   After the first couple notches on the belt, the levels will begin to slow down; it might be expected that most people will hit 2nd or 3rd in their lifetime, and exceptional individuals might get 2 or 3 levels above that.   When one considers the risks a typical adventurer must go through to achieve that kind of advancement, and then we throw them into a more "gritty" world, there's a definite curve that appears in regards to the relative levels of NPCs and PCs.

A low-level ogre can, by itself, lay waste to a band of armed soldiers trying to take it down.  The lone PC warrior who dares stand against such a beast had best have a considerable advantage in levels if he expects to survive.  If we consider that such characters in myth and legend often had the advantage of some enchantment or divine blessing (in game terms: buff spells, magic items, and or clerical/paladin abilities), their chances increase.

If someone can get their character to 9th or 10th level in this system, they probably will be able to mow down a 4th level ogre (with considerable personal risk)... but that seems about right to me. (Depending on the flavour one wants in a game.)  It all just seems to be a matter of responsible scaling from the GM, and judicious application of common sense from the players.  Fire burns, cuts hurt, and getting stabbed with pointy things is bad... regardless of how tough you think you are.


----------



## KenHood

Northcott said:
			
		

> It all just seems to be a matter of responsible scaling from the GM, and judicious application of common sense from the players.  Fire burns, cuts hurt, and getting stabbed with pointy things is bad... regardless of how tough you think you are.




Yes! You've got the spirit of it!


----------



## FraserRonald

Northcott said:
			
		

> Oh, we were pretty ruthless... and we were even passable in the planning department (edit; but when we screwed up?  Whooooo-boy!).  Where we failed miserably (especially me) was in the luck category.  I think I set a new record for the number of 1's rolled in a session.   I'm sure that as Fraser reads this he's chuckling to himself... I think I'd gotten up near a dozen 1's by the time he started demanding I warm up for my combat turns with "practice rolls".




Ruthless? They were keeping track of the sections of the city burned to the ground thanks to their actions (though, in their defence, the razed sections were pretty much the "bad" portions of town). There was even a bard (yes, a bard) who seemed to have a penchant for kicking the crap out of the elderly.

And those 1's were fun. The great and powerful knight  . . . who kept failing! Still, a great character and a memorable group. But I digress.



			
				Northcott said:
			
		

> Then, of course, we had one of _those_ wizards -- you know the sort.  The nutter in the robes who, like the friendly chap in your example, tosses big fire spells at the party figuring "they've got a decent save, I'll probably only get the NPC bad guys".




Well, in his defence, he didn't actually *kill* anyone. And really, who needed hair?



			
				Northcott said:
			
		

> On second thought, you're right.  My planning was amiss.  In hindsight, I should have killed the bugger with one of my few good rolls.




But you played such a noble knight. A noble knight who participated in plenty of arson and mayhem, but noble none the less. I can't think of one instance of elderly abuse.

But, back on topic, I was really thrilled with the original Grim N Gritty rules and the revised rules look excellent. I am using the old version's Protection rules in a D20 Modern campaign. I don't see anything for that in the new one. It does mention damage reduction. Am I to assume that the Protection rules have not been updated?

Take care all.


----------



## FraserRonald

I'm definitely going to have to update the links in my old article on GnG rules at _Sword's Edge_. Ken, do you have a website I could use rather than the broken link to Sleeping Imperium?

Thanks.


----------



## KenHood

FraserRonald said:
			
		

> I am using the old version's Protection rules in a D20 Modern campaign. I don't see anything for that in the new one. It does mention damage reduction. Am I to assume that the Protection rules have not been updated?




Yes and no. Soak replaces the Protection mechanic. 

Effectively, they are the same thing, but I chose to change terminology to change thinking about their application. 

Also, Soak has fewer syllables.


----------



## KenHood

FraserRonald said:
			
		

> Ken, do you have a website I could use rather than the broken link to Sleeping Imperium?




'Fraid not. I haven't had a site for a couple of years. They're a pain in the butt, so I probably won't get another one. 

ENWorld is hosting the rules in the downloads section. If you look through this thread, you'll find a few other places hosting the rules.

Heck, if you wanted to host a copy of the rules with your article, I wouldn't mind. 

Free to all.


----------



## Northcott

FraserRonald said:
			
		

> Ruthless? They were keeping track of the sections of the city burned to the ground thanks to their actions (though, in their defence, the razed sections were pretty much the "bad" portions of town). There was even a bard (yes, a bard) who seemed to have a penchant for kicking the crap out of the elderly.




I think Chris summed it up best: "Don't worry, the blood will put out the fire."


----------



## FraserRonald

KenHood said:
			
		

> Yes and no. Soak replaces the Protection mechanic.
> 
> Effectively, they are the same thing, but I chose to change terminology to change thinking about their application.
> 
> Also, Soak has fewer syllables.




Just went back, looked again, and there it is. Sweet.



			
				KenHood said:
			
		

> Heck, if you wanted to host a copy of the rules with your article, I wouldn't mind.
> 
> Free to all.




Sniff . . . he's just so darn selfless. Excuse me, I'm choking up. Sniff.

But seriously, thanks Ken. I really would like to host these rules as well. I don't know when the next issue of SE will be coming down the tubes (life and work has intruded) but at least now I have an idea for a new Gamers' Table article.


----------



## FraserRonald

Northcott said:
			
		

> I think Chris summed it up best: "Don't worry, the blood will put out the fire."




Dude, that was *SO* my line as DM. If "Accidental Survivors" was still up, I could prove it!

And an aside to others, "Accidental Survivors" was a campaign website maintained by one of the players. It included a tally of buildings burned to the ground.

Did I mention ruthless?


----------



## KenHood

For clarification's sake: When I write "ruthless," I don't mean burning down towns and kicking elderly people. 

Webster's defines "ruthless" as "having no ruth : MERCILESS, CRUEL." 

When I use the term, I meaning having no mercy upon one's enemies and demonstrating cruelty to them, because they have chosen to oppose you. Cruelty not in the sense of killing their dog because you don't like them, but in the sense of an absolute void of humane feelings, since humane feelings are not necessarily conducive to one's survival.

For example, when you knock down your enemy, you kick him. When he sleeps, you hurl a grenade into his chambers. When he goes to the toilet, you strike. When he goes to confessional, you stab him with your dagger. (To steal an image from _Hamlet_.)

In other words, you observe your enemy, select the most vulnerable moment, and strike with the most deadly means at your disposal. You don't engage in soliloquy or quips. You don't posture or preen. You strike fast, strike first, and strike hard. Precise. No mercy. No surrender.

Ruthlessness is a cold, unswerving, unrelenting process of the systematic destruction of one's enemies. 

Ruthlessness is proactive, not reactive. It seeks the enemy in its lair. It identifies and destroys the threat before it becomes a threat.

It's not random. It's not careless. 

It is measured, planned, calculated, and executed.

Most people, at this point, experience a "Holy crap!" moment when the skin crawls and the stomach turns just a bit. That feeling you have is the feeling your enemies should feel.

That's ruthlessness.


----------



## SSquirrel

FraserRonald said:
			
		

> Dude, that was *SO* my line as DM. If "Accidental Survivors" was still up, I could prove it!
> 
> And an aside to others, "Accidental Survivors" was a campaign website maintained by one of the players. It included a tally of buildings burned to the ground.
> 
> Did I mention ruthless?



 In an old Vampire game I played in when the DM lived in Cincinnati, we had a big map of Cincy spread out and we all hated White Castle, so a couple of acts of vandalism involved homemade dynamite, bricked pedals of stolen cars and blown up White Castles becoming blackened marks on said map.  Same thing for Northgate Mall after an incident involving many police and driving cars thru the mall ended up in a car hitting a gas main that ran down the strip near the mall and all thru it, blowing it all sky high.  We just drew a big oval around it and kinda scratched thru it heh.

 Hagen


----------



## FraserRonald

Hi Ken

Sorry if we cast a pall over the concept of ruthless. Just some good-natured tom-foolery with a friend I don't see any more due to a move. We kind of hi-jacked this thread and I apologize.

In future, the Accidental Survivors will no longer be called ruthless, they shall be called what they truly are: sociopaths.


----------



## KenHood

FraserRonald said:
			
		

> Sorry if we cast a pall over the concept of ruthless. Just some good-natured tom-foolery with a friend I don't see any more due to a move. We kind of hi-jacked this thread and I apologize.




Quite all right.


----------



## Hodag

*Wrong Term Used Repeatedly*

I meant _Cinematic_, I typed _Heroic_. [Rumsfeld]Yes, a lot of my statements were based on my personal opinions. Yes, I like running games that feel like big-budget action movies. No, I do not apologize for that.[/Rumsfeld] I disagree with your statements on status quo. My normal bad guys, when I run fantasy games, tend to be humans or humanoids more often then not. Your games, judging only from your posts, tend to utilize large creatures more often. Different choices. However I am truly enjoying this discussion, and the thought a lot of people are putting into a variant set of rules.
Question: How many other people have actually tried out the new rules?


----------



## KenHood

Hodag said:
			
		

> Yes, I like running games that feel like big-budget action movies. No, I do not apologize for that.




There is no need to apologize for it, nor do I wish to imply that there is anything wrong with it. 

Sometimes I enjoy the big-budget action feel, too, and I play games that way.




> Your games, judging only from your posts, tend to utilize large creatures more often.




They tend to involve human v. human conflict, more often than not.

When I bring out large creatures, it is for the "WOW!" moment -- much like the cave troll in Lord of the Rings. 

Big things need a lot to eat, so I can't often justify their presence, especially in an underground dwelling with poor ventilation and limited food choices. (Has anyone ever wondered why the ogre often lives next to a tribe of orcs? And why there is still a tribe of orcs, instead of a single, well-fed, fat and happy ogre?)

As for small creatures, I rarely use them. When I do, they tend to have lower intelligence than larger creatures. (Smaller brain size.)




> Question: How many other people have actually tried out the new rules?




I don't know. Not too many people have responded with roleplaying remarks.


----------



## Hodag

KenHood said:
			
		

> Has anyone ever wondered why the ogre often lives next to a tribe of orcs? And why there is still a tribe of orcs, instead of a single, well-fed, fat and happy ogre?



Symbiotic relationship maybe?



			
				KenHood said:
			
		

> As for small creatures, I rarely use them. When I do, they tend to have lower intelligence than larger creatures. (Smaller brain size.)



That's right, cows are smarter then gibbons! It's all about the actual size of the brain.


----------



## KenHood

Hodag said:
			
		

> Symbiotic relationship maybe?




That brings to mind an interesting scenario.

An ogre with above-average intelligence uses a tribe of orcs to lure in adventurers. After the adventurers come in and kill a sizable chunk of the orcs, the ogre steps in and "saves the day" (for the orcs, not the adventurers). Then, the orc eats the adventurers and the dead orcs.

Two birds, one stone.


----------



## KenHood

Hodag said:
			
		

> That's right, cows are smarter then gibbons! It's all about the actual size of the brain.




Heh!

It's not necessarily *all* about the actual brain size, but creatures with smaller brains tend to be much simpler than those with larger. (I've read research results to this effect.) 

For example, faeries look human, but have the size of birds. Their brains would be as large as a pea, maybe. Therefore, when faeries show up, I make them as intelligent as birds. 

Very disturbing to see beautiful, tiny humanoids that flit about with little intelligence for functions other than food consumption and copulation. Give them "song" like a bird -- and have it sound vaguely like language -- it gets even weirder.


----------



## Cyberzombie

Ken: I just wanted to say that, while I like heroic games and would never use your rules, they rock.  I'm helping to pimp them over on Nutkinland, 'cause there are a lot of people who like that style of play.  Keep up the good work!


----------



## Hodag

Why is all this real world and logic stuff being brought into a fantasy game?
Maybe you should go back to playing Pedants and Paychecks  
j/k however, the GnG rules should plug into D20 Modern nicely. When I get home I'll try a few kinds of combat situations and post the results.


----------



## monboesen

Hmm been playing around a bit with the rules. One observation is that power attack is made obsolete. Reducing chance to hit and thereby increasing average damage comes out worse than keeping the bonus to hit. Not surprisingly really, just hadn't seen it before testing. It will likely also be better to take greater weapon focus than weapon specialist as a to hit bonus is actually both a to hit and a damage bonus and makes criticals more likely to boot.

All in all fighters should opt to maximise attack bonus over damage in this system. I even think that finesse fighters will be better off than in regular d&d.

Ambushes are clearly the way to go, thats for sure. 

I tried running mock combats with either d20 or 2d10. I would advice against the 2d10. It just gets boring as a difference of 3-4 between defense and attack ensures that opponents either will never hit each other or that they hit every time. Somebody smarter that me can proberbly do the math, suffice it to say that my poor +5 attack hobgoblins never really hit the dexterous fighter/rogue with +9 defense. Whereas the players +8-10 attack bonus was (mostly) dead sure hits against the hobs +5 defense bonus.

The fights were more varied and interesting with the d20 approach.


----------



## Northcott

Monboesen: That's pretty much exactly why I _like_ 2d10.    Skill, rather than blind luck, becomes the chief factor -- though not utterly removed.  It's still possible for opponents to roll extremes.  It's just unlikely.

The point about the considerable shift in importance of feats is noteworthy.  


Fraser: To be fair, you devil, only a couple of us were sociopaths.  A couple more were ruthless.  Well, I had some ruth... just not much... that whole "honour" thing was a pain in the @$$.  Then the last couple players... well, Knights of the Dinner Table comics are funny for a reason.  It was a low magic world, and evil necromancers had infiltrated the city on every level.  Undead were everywhere, hidden in the shadows.  

So you lob vials of burning oil at a couple "choice" folks when they least expect it, and perhaps burn down a building or three.  It was expedience, not sociopathy.  

Now, Chris with the merchants in the town square; that was another matter entirely.

Back on topic:  I'm trying to talk the lads into giving things a whirl.   Chris is intrigued with the possibilities of this rules variation in Deadlands.  Should make things colourful.  It's also got me considering another fantasy campaign... something vaguely Warhammer FRP-ish.


----------



## spider_minion

I just tried out the revised grim-n-gritty rules with some Redline characters (I'm planning on running a Redline one shot in the future).  The rules worked great for a brutal post-apocalyptic world, and combat could be REALLY deadly!  

I ran some staged fights among the two players and also against our pals Otis, Fred, Harold, and Warren.  Warren rolled bad on initiatve and was filled with bullet holes, dying before even getting a turn.  One time Harold was quickly killed due to a few bad defense rolls, and another time he crippled a PC with a lucky sneak attack.  Surprisingly, my two players were able to take down Otis (though I toned down his numbers--see below).  Oh, and Fred maimed a PC with a lucky 20.  And vehicles--pedestrains are just speedbumps with ability scores.  Good stuff; we really had a blast.

There still some small things that bother me, however.  It seems large creatures really get some serious bonuses.  Just by being big, monsters already get significant bonuses to Str, Con, and natural armor.  Giving them a +4 addition per size catagory is a little too generous, methinks.

One minor change I made was giving characters extra lightly wounded pips based on their level and hit die.  I did something like this:

d10 or d12 hit die: 1 pip per level
d6 or d8: 3/4 pip per level
d4: 1/2 pip per level

It did this mainly to balance survivability with extra attacks at higher levels.  I haven't ran a battle with really powerful PCs, but it seems like they'd get several attacks in a round, each of which could easily be lethal (a buff, specialized fighter with a +2 flaming greatsword would deal 3d6+10 damage, enough average damage to kill something in one hit).

And power attack: perhaps this should give a more generous penalty to damage ratio?

Other than what I mentioned, these rules are really solid and fast paced.  Now my players will fear combat!

Afterthought--Oh, these rules are perfect for gun combat.  Really makes players fear getting shot, which is good.


----------



## KenHood

spider_minion said:
			
		

> It did this mainly to balance survivability with extra attacks at higher levels.




Survivability at higher levels comes from the Defense bonus. In Real Life (tm), the best defense is not getting hit.

Hit points in the core rules not only represent your life, but also represent your ability to avoid attacks and resist harm. In the GnG rules, Defense represents the ability to avoid attacks, Life Pips represent your life, and Soak is your ability to resist damage. 

If you want to increase survivability, increase Soak, not pips. Increasing pips permits characters to ignore the _effects_ of a sword stab or bullet. That's neither grim, nor gritty. Once that three feet blade of steel penetrates your armor, your body mass, and outright cussedness, you should tumble like a house of cards. 

Increasing survivability moves back into a cinematic spirit. 

Consider Real Life (tm): Training makes you better able to handle pain, but doesn't necessarily make you more likely to survive having three feet of steel shoved into your body. Severing a major artery would kill you, me, Arnold, and an elephant all the same. Doesn't matter how tough you are or how athletic, you die all the same. Once you get through all the metal, muscle, and body mass (represented by Soak), you don't have to do much to end life (represented by the Life Bar).

If you want tougher characters, give them the Toughness feat and better armor. Give them the Dodge feat. Use a shield. Have them use cover. 

If the combats you run are straight, stand-up-and-take-it fights, then this system is not the system to use. Try the rules, as is, but change tactics, so that players avoid direct confrontation. If your players run out in the middle of things, guns a-blazin' and swords a-swingin', then they should die -- as they would in Real Life (tm). If they sneak, hide, confuse, harass, bewilder -- much like Special Forces do today -- then you're working in the spirit of the system, and you'll find survival is not a tremendous issue.




> There still some small things that bother me, however. It seems large creatures really get some serious bonuses. Just by being big, monsters already get significant bonuses to Str, Con, and natural armor. Giving them a +4 addition per size catagory is a little too generous, methinks.




That's not a small thing. It's a central conceit of the system!

Big things are _supposed_ to have generous bonuses!

If the bonuses to big things bothers you, use the variant rule where Dexterity is the primary attack statistic. You'll find that it tends to level the playing field a bit, while still permitting big things to level small things, should they manage to get ahold of them.




> And power attack: perhaps this should give a more generous penalty to damage ratio?




3.5E rules already do so -- when you use a two-handed weapon!


----------



## KenHood

monboesen said:
			
		

> Hmm been playing around a bit with the rules. One observation is that power attack is made obsolete.




Not necessarily. In 3.5E, you get a 2-for-1 damage bonus when using a two-handed weapon. +10 damage? You'd have to roll 10 points higher than your enemy to get it. With power attack, all you need to do is roll the same amount! Good incentive for a muscle-bound warrior to put away the shield and pick up that gigantic sword.




> All in all fighters should opt to maximise attack bonus over damage in this system. I even think that finesse fighters will be better off than in regular d&d.




Yes. That's kind of the way things work in Real Life (tm), too. 

Consider the elderly martial artist who moves with great ease and devastates younger, stronger, and faster opponents.


----------



## SSquirrel

Ok so I'm looking at things to convert one of the characters that is made for my upcoming campaign into GnG's combat version and I noticed that Soak has Armor and Defense has Shield.   
Just want to make sure that I'm not supposed to count Shield under Armor and vice versa.


Hagen


----------



## KenHood

SSquirrel said:
			
		

> Ok so I'm looking at things to convert one of the characters that is made for my upcoming campaign into GnG's combat version and I noticed that Soak has Armor and Defense has Shield.
> Just want to make sure that I'm not supposed to count Shield under Armor and vice versa.




You are correct.

Your armor bonus applies to Soak. Shield bonus applies to Defense.

Reasoning: Armor reduces damage, so Soak. Shields block attacks and decrease likelihood of a hit, so Defense.


----------



## SSquirrel

KenHood said:
			
		

> You are correct.
> 
> Your armor bonus applies to Soak. Shield bonus applies to Defense.
> 
> Reasoning: Armor reduces damage, so Soak. Shields block attacks and decrease likelihood of a hit, so Defense.



Ok sounds good.  Another question.  In AU there is a feat called Focused Healing.  It allows you once a day to make a Concentration check and heal up to your Con bonus*your character level in Hit Points with the DC being however many points you're attempting to heal.  How would you convert this to GnG?

Using the Toughness feat as a possible example, maybe have 1 pip equal 3HP so I can just see what their possibility is and round down?  I can still know what the DC would be either way.

Hagen


----------



## HarryFlashman

Ken, I have   no  critical remarks, yet.  I just  came  back to ENworld after a  month Hiatus.  I have  been  extolling the  virtues of  your   old system  for  several months while I work on my own  low-magic  low-fantasy game and now this.  Once I  get a good look at the system and  perhaps run a  fight or two I will see how  well I like  it over the old system (which I have used  extensively).

I  noticed that   your   old  G-n-G ( actually Skills-n-Feats) system made it to  OtherWorld Press's Forbidden Kingdoms.  I  was  overly  pleased to see it  in print.

Thank you for  coming  back, even if it  is only for  a limited  engagement.  You should know that you and your  creations are  very much appreciated  by myself and  my gaming  group.


----------



## rangerjohn

The only thing is, according to your philosophy, rogues make better combatants than fighters.  Sure fighters get bab, but rouges get hide, move silently, sneak attack.  In your system the best chance is to either sneak up on the opponent, skills which are cross class for a fighter or attack from range, in which case the rogue is more likely to have a high dex.


----------



## monboesen

rangerjohn: Don't discount soak. That is what keeps the fighter alive. With heavy armor, a decent con score and the toughness feat (and thats going to be popular) a fighter can easily reach soak scores of +12-15. Thats a lot. At the end of his career it should reach +20 (+13 armor, +5 con, +2 toughness).

Also defence is tied in with BAB, meaning that high BAB opponents will be difficult to hit for the moderate BAB rogue.

A viable tactic not relying on sneaks are mounted charges. The +1 to hit for higher ground, the +2 to hit from charge and doubled damage from the lance (should extra damage from a high hit roll be doubled too?) makes it deadly.

Rogues will simply have a hard time both hitting (high defense) and hurting (high soak) more skilled opponents.


----------



## KenHood

SSquirrel said:
			
		

> In AU there is a feat called Focused Healing.  It allows you once a day to make a Concentration check and heal up to your Con bonus*your character level in Hit Points with the DC being however many points you're attempting to heal.  How would you convert this to GnG?




Wow. That would be a lot of life pips.

Depends on what you want to do with the feat. If you want your players to instantly recover from damage and be rip-roaring ready, then go with the 1 pip = 3 HP. If you want it to give your guys a little boost, maybe change the feat to 1d4 or set the Concentration check at DC 20 and give the character a number of pips equal to the relative degree of success.


----------



## KenHood

monboesen said:
			
		

> rangerjohn: Don't discount soak. That is what keeps the fighter alive. With heavy armor, a decent con score and the toughness feat (and thats going to be popular) a fighter can easily reach soak scores of +12-15. Thats a lot. At the end of his career it should reach +20 (+13 armor, +5 con, +2 toughness).




Yep. And he'll probably get the Soak even higher with Constitution enhancing items, natural armor bonuses, and maybe an item that increases size.

Imagine: 20th level fighter
*Base Constitution: 20 (+5 Soak)
*Amulet of Health +6 and Natural Armor +5 (+8 Soak)
*Full Plate Mail +5 (+13 Soak)
*Toughness x3 (+3 Soak)
Total Soak: 29

Then, once a character gets into epic levels, he can take the Damage Reduction feat for +3 soak a shot.




> Also defence is tied in with BAB, meaning that high BAB opponents will be difficult to hit for the moderate BAB rogue.




Yep. Makes a significant difference as levels increase.




> A viable tactic not relying on sneaks are mounted charges. The +1 to hit for higher ground, the +2 to hit from charge and doubled damage from the lance (should extra damage from a high hit roll be doubled too?) makes it deadly.




I never thought of that one. Very good suggestion for the medieval crowd. 

The Mexican Army, during the days of the Texas Revolution and USA's War with Mexico, was a terror. They were the only army in the theater that had mounted calvary. (The US had dragoons. They'd ride up and dismount to fight.) The Mexicans would charge in and lance the lot of their enemies. Devastating.

I like how the revised GnG rules make that work. 

I don't think I'd double the damage from the attack roll, just the dice and bonuses.




> Rogues will simply have a hard time both hitting (high defense) and hurting (high soak) more skilled opponents.




Yes. Their sneak attack helps level the field, but there are easy ways to overcome that special ability (such as Uncanny Dodge).

I'd hate to be a Rogue fighting a Barbarian.


----------



## SSquirrel

KenHood said:
			
		

> Wow. That would be a lot of life pips.
> 
> Depends on what you want to do with the feat. If you want your players to instantly recover from damage and be rip-roaring ready, then go with the 1 pip = 3 HP. If you want it to give your guys a little boost, maybe change the feat to 1d4 or set the Concentration check at DC 20 and give the character a number of pips equal to the relative degree of success.



 Well the Magister I just made for an online AU game has a +3 Con bonus and so an heal up 15 points on a DC 25 check heh.  That would convert into healing an entire wound category on a successful roll.  I already planned that is say they were trying to heal 10 points (DC 20) and rolled a 19, they would heal 9, so I'll probably go with the 1:3 conversion rate.  I like the fact that its something that can improve with level.  Hell someone with a 20 Con at 5th level could heal up 8 pips at once, but it would be a DC 35 roll.  Definitely Heroic.  I know 35 is in the Heroic end of teh old West End Games version of Star Wars. heh.

 Hagen


----------



## Northcott

KenHood said:
			
		

> Not necessarily. In 3.5E, you get a 2-for-1 damage bonus when using a two-handed weapon. +10 damage? You'd have to roll 10 points higher than your enemy to get it. With power attack, all you need to do is roll the same amount! Good incentive for a muscle-bound warrior to put away the shield and pick up that gigantic sword.




I've never gone beyond 3.0... that makes a heck of a difference.  The modification still makes feats like "Weapon Specialization" sound inappropriately named, though.  But perhaps turning back time to the good ol' days when WS gave a fighter a +1 hit and +2 to damage works well here.

I'm sure I'm looking past the basics, but past there I can't think of any fighter feat that's made worse by this variation.  Hell, Cleave is suddenly a fearsome little stunt!


----------



## handforged

Tactical combat maneuvers also become money-makers in this system.  Anything that puts your opponent on the ground is great.  Anything that can control opponent movement is great.  This is another area in which the fighter will mop up with all the bonus feats.  A fighter-mage character with some battlefield control spells and some direct damage spells, along with true strike and enlarge would be almost unstoppable.  A quickened wall of stone would provide plenty of cover from dragonbreath.

I see the maximum damage dealer here being a fighter-mage that focuses on archery, touch, and ranged touch attack spells.

Ftr 2/Wiz 4/Spellsword 3/Dragonslayer 1/Eldritch Knight 10
BAB +18, Caster Level 16
Casts in Twilight Mithril Fullplate with no Arcane Spell Failure
several bonus feats, etc
ability focus on DEX and INT, then CON

I really like the system, and I think it will fit in nicely with a group I plan to play with soon.  Thanks for the work.  I think that it is interesting that people are so argumentative about what is essetially a highly developed house rule.  If you think that your characters should survive more, give them more pips, it's your game, but I think that Ken's system is very to the point and successful at its goals.

~hf


----------



## KenHood

Northcott said:
			
		

> I'm sure I'm looking past the basics, but past there I can't think of any fighter feat that's made worse by this variation.  Hell, Cleave is suddenly a fearsome little stunt!




Yep! Can you imagine a big bruiser with long reach and the improved version of Cleave? 

Splat! Splat! Splat!


----------



## KenHood

handforged said:
			
		

> Tactical combat maneuvers also become money-makers in this system.  Anything that puts your opponent on the ground is great.  Anything that can control opponent movement is great.  This is another area in which the fighter will mop up with all the bonus feats.  A fighter-mage character with some battlefield control spells and some direct damage spells, along with true strike and enlarge would be almost unstoppable.  A quickened wall of stone would provide plenty of cover from dragonbreath.




Yep. That's how it should work.

In Real Life (tm), controlling your enemy's movement and "grounding" him are paramount in a fight. It places your enemy under your control. Once this happens, all that is necessary: mop-up. 

Feel and flow. Two very important concepts to battle. Two things I wanted to emphasize with these rules.

"Feel" your enemy and respond to that feeling.

"Flow" with your enemy and control his body.

There are three stages of control:
1) Control yourself.
2) Control your opponent.
3) Control your environment.

If you can achieve control of all three of these things, you should be able to beat any opponent.

---

Side comment...
Speaking of grounding your opponents, I'm surprised that no one has mentioned grappling. I guess folks don't use that too much in their regular games.


----------



## Wolffenjugend

Whats with the (tm) behind Real Life?

You can't trademark that phrase...


----------



## Blacksad

Wolffenjugend said:
			
		

> Whats with the (tm) behind Real Life?
> 
> You can't trademark that phrase...




I think that he mentioned elsewhere in the thread that it had been trademarked by God...


----------



## Blacksad

KenHood said:
			
		

> Side comment...
> Speaking of grounding your opponents, I'm surprised that no one has mentioned grappling. I guess folks don't use that too much in their regular games.




they're too complicated in 3.0 (IIRC touch roll with AoO, then opposed grappling roll, winner choose result among a list), you need to consult the book to use this manoeuver, or have a special sheet for it.

A manoeuver sheet would be handy to gives more flavor in martial arts games.


----------



## rangerjohn

But that fighter won't be sneaking up on Tommy the pinball wizard.  He would feel the ground shake!  That goes against your philosopy, also how did he reach 20th level to get +5 full plate?  If your use the dex variant,  the rouge may come out with a higher attack bonus, not bab, attack including bonueses.  Also your making the knight the only viable fighter.  What if that arch-type isn't available in the campaign?  The GM that sent me to this thread wants to use it for fuedal Japan.  No knights in shining full plate there.


----------



## KenHood

rangerjohn said:
			
		

> But that fighter won't be sneaking up on Tommy the pinball wizard.  He would feel the ground shake!




Huh?




> That goes against your philosopy, also how did he reach 20th level to get +5 full plate?




You're making some assumptions about my "philosophy" that aren't true.

First, why is it such a stretch for a character to make it 20th level? Are you assuming I'm trying to kill off everyone that plays? Don't be silly!




> If your use the dex variant,  the rouge may come out with a higher attack bonus, not bab, attack including bonueses.




*If...*

*...may...*

Speculation unfounded by experience! 

I'm looking for playtest comments or requests for clarifications, not some sort of panicked response based on exposure to a new paradigm of combat. These are precisely the sort of comments that send me flying into a rant.




> Also your making the knight the only viable fighter.




From what facts are you drawing this conclusion?

Again, this is assumption on your part. 

Tell me, where have I identified specific classes as most appropriate to the rules. I HAVE NOT!




> What if that arch-type isn't available in the campaign?  The GM that sent me to this thread wants to use it for fuedal Japan.  No knights in shining full plate there.




If you're so terribly worried about your character's survival or the presence of archetypes, et al, isn't this a sign that perhaps this isn't the campaign or the rules for you? Why do you wish to put yourself in a situation which has you so obviously worked up on an emotional level?

If you don't like them, DON'T USE THEM!

Could I be any clearer on the message?

And please, spare me the ranting assumptions regarding my philosophy.


----------



## rangerjohn

Your right, that campaign would be masochistic. He wishes to include ogres, hill giants and stone giants, in culture that would be decimated by them.  Hardly any heavy armor and paper walls.  Hopefully, someone else will open up a game.


----------



## Blacksad

The document which can be downloaded at ENworld has a date of modification of 04/11, so what has changed?


----------



## KenHood

Blacksad said:
			
		

> The document which can be downloaded at ENworld has a date of modification of 04/11, so what has changed?




It's a Word document. The date field down at the bottom is an "active" field. It keeps updating every time the document is opened. (One of those things I don't think about until afterwards.) 

So...

The only thing that has changed is the date.


----------



## KenHood

rangerjohn said:
			
		

> Your right, that campaign would be masochistic.




Please, don't put words in my mouth.


----------



## Ukyo the undead

"Dexterity as Prime Attack Statistic
This variant rule makes it more difficult for big and slow creatures to hit a character, though they still inflict massive damage. 
Strength no longer affects a character’s attack rolls. It only increases a character’s damage.
Dexterity modifies a character’s attack bonuses for both ranged and melee attacks.
In this variant, you should change the Weapon Finesse feat. Let it permit you to *substitute your Dexterity modifier for Strength when you roll damage with light weapons.* "

I don´t have my books here with me, so I may be saying something stupid, but...

What you mean by "light weapons"? Are the weapons classified only in "large Medium or Small" and "Martial or Simple", or there´s a "light" category?

Edit: spelling

Edit2: hmmmm... because you´re using the 3.5 edition´s weapon classification? If yes, how would it be in 3rd edition rules?


----------



## monboesen

Ken have you thought about the option of letting characters go for multiple critical effects by lettting penalties stack. So if trying to bypass heavy armor and blinding the target the penalty would be -12. The only possible abuse I see is with True strike. Additionally the Daze result would need a small penalty as well, maybe -2.

It could be too much for *4 critical weapons and their +10 to confirm I guess.


----------



## Ukyo the undead

DM:"and now your head is disabled, and your arms... and your legs...oh, and you´re dazed"

Player:  "What was that? A 16 wheeled(sp?) truck?"


----------



## KenHood

Ukyo said:
			
		

> What you mean by "light weapons"? Are the weapons classified only in "large Medium or Small" and "Martial or Simple", or there´s a "light" category?
> 
> Edit2: hmmmm... because you´re using the 3.5 edition´s weapon classification? If yes, how would it be in 3rd edition rules?




In the 3E rules, if I remember correctly, light weapons are weapons one size category smaller than your character. The weapon can be wielded with one hand. 

If you're using 3E rules, then weapon finesse applies to a _single_ weapon, not to a group of weapons. Very limited!

In 3.5E, there is indeed a light classification for simple, martial, and exotic weapons.


----------



## KenHood

monboesen said:
			
		

> Ken have you thought about the option of letting characters go for multiple critical effects by lettting penalties stack.




In the original GnG rules, I permitted the stacking of called shots -- which is pretty much the same thing as critical effects in the revised rules. However, because these new rules allow you to increase your character's damage based on the success of the attack roll, it seems overkill to do so. 

And it makes things more complex. 

Remember: Simplified!


----------



## SSquirrel

KenHood said:
			
		

> In the original GnG rules, I permitted the stacking of called shots -- which is pretty much the same thing as critical effects in the revised rules. However, because these new rules allow you to increase your character's damage based on the success of the attack roll, it seems overkill to do so.
> 
> And it makes things more complex.
> 
> Remember: Simplified!



 Heh.  KISS is the law of the GnG land.

 Keep It Simple Stupid not the band *grin*

 Hagen


----------



## Blacksad

KenHood said:
			
		

> It's a Word document. The date field down at the bottom is an "active" field. It keeps updating every time the document is opened. (One of those things I don't think about until afterwards.)
> 
> So...
> 
> The only thing that has changed is the date.




doh!

I wondered because the download had been unavailable during a few days.


----------



## Ukyo the undead

A question:
The Attack Roll
"Automatic Misses and Hits: A natural 1 (the d20 comes up 1) on an attack roll is always a miss. A natural 20 (the d20 comes up 20) is always a hit. "

If I´m not mistaken, in the old Grim-n-Gritty rules there was a rule that said "A natural 20 is always a hit, unless the defender get a natural 20 as well."

Did the rule change, or you forgot  it in the revised GnG?


----------



## Samurai

Hey Ken!  First, welcome back to the gaming community.  I myself moved out of the big city to a smaller town, and feared I'd never find a role-playing group here.  It took almost half a year, but I finally found a good group and I'm gaming again... hopeful you'll find (or create!) some new gamers yourself.

I like the rules... MUCH leaner and more straight-forward than the previous set (which, I'll be honest, I didn't care for... too complex).  I'm going to give them a try, but with 1 change:  I know you want size to matter, but I think it's a bit too much for my tastes.  Also, while the bonuses/penalties for attacks are doubled each time (1,2,4,8), for Soak and Damage they are linear (4,8,12,16).  I've decided to make all of them all double, so that they match, and so that characters of Small or Large size are not quite so domineering or handicapped.  The new size modifiers (for soak and damage) I'll be using are 2, 4, 8, 16.  This leaves the top modifiers (Fine and Colossal) where they currently are, but reduces the others by a few points each.  So Otis will have a -1 attack and +2 Soak and Damage, while Harold has +1 and -2/-2.  I'll be leaving Str as the modifier for melee attacks, as I don't want Dex to become even more crucial a stat than it already is.

By the way, thank you for releasing it as a Word Doc... it makes it simple to implement personal changes like this before printing it out!  Most people don't have an Adobe pdf writer, and must write any changes to a pdf in ink on the printout, which looks ugly.


----------



## spider_minion

Another thought . . . have you considored adding a wounding option to the critical hit table?


----------



## Verequus

Sorry, that I'm late - RL succeeded in preventing me from posting.



			
				KenHood said:
			
		

> RuleMaster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -The Critical Threat Range table: The entry "15-20" should be something like "Every other".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
Click to expand...


Every hit within the threat range of 15-20 scores automatically a critical. Every hit within the threat range of 14-20 scores automatically a critical. Every hit ...

So every hit within the threat range of xx-20 with xx < 16 scores automatically a critical. Then it covers every situation (although I don't know, if it is still possible to reduce the threat range below 15).



			
				KenHood said:
			
		

> Rule of thumb: If I don't say anything about something, I've no changes for it.
> 
> Second rule of thumb: I believe in Minimum Necessary Effort. If I don't change it, I don't explain that I didn't change it.



If you don't write that into your Design Goals, how are other supposed to know it?



			
				KenHood said:
			
		

> RuleMaster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are the effects of Fast Healing and Regeneration?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See previous rules of thumb. Substitute life pips for HP.
Click to expand...


Isn't that too good? Consider a creature like the Tarrasque - it has a Regeneration score of 40. In other words, it can regenerate 15 pips more per round than they are available! Fast Healing and Regeneration scores higher than 5 or 10 bring creatures to full hit pips in two, three rounds - that's something not possible in the core rules because of the steadily increasing amount of hit dice and makes your system somewhat _less_ lethal. I can think of two solutions: A) A simple cap of the healed pips. B) Reducing the effectiveness - e.g. 2 points of Regeneration heal 1 pip. B) will need a cap, too, for crippling things like the tarrasque.



			
				KenHood said:
			
		

> If you mean that I didn't give examples of everything, you're right. I have no intention of providing copious and detailed examples of the system at work. I expect folks to fill in the blanks.
> 
> You may say, "That sucks!"
> 
> To which I would reply, "It's free!"
> 
> In other words, you get what you pay for.



IMHO: That wouldn't be problematic, as long 1. the rules are 100% clear and 2. you have considered every case, which is affected through your rule changes. Without examples from your side it is for others difficult to determine if 1. and 2. are both true.

So please include the example battle you already posted.


----------



## KenHood

RuleMaster said:
			
		

> IMHO: That wouldn't be problematic, as long 1. the rules are 100% clear and 2. you have considered every case, which is affected through your rule changes. Without examples from your side it is for others difficult to determine if 1. and 2. are both true.




You don't understand. It doesn't matter to me if #1 and #2 are true. I'm aiming for "good enough," not "perfect." 

Perfect is a pain in the ass, and often not worth the effort anyways.

I'm assuming that people who use the rules are clever enough to adapt them to their personal situation.

Otherwise, if I follow your suggestions, I end up creating a 20- or 30-page document dealing with every little detail of the rules. I'm not going to put that much work into it. All I wanted to create, I have created.


----------



## KenHood

spider_minion said:
			
		

> Another thought . . . have you considored adding a wounding option to the critical hit table?




Adding wounding (i.e., bleeding) ends up a pain in the rear. You'll have characters bleeding to death in short order, if it happens in rounds. 

'Course, that is realistic...


----------



## MacMathan

First off, thank you for GnG it really is great. 

I have come up with some questions that I would like to get some feedback on from the more experiened users and creator of GnG.

Here goes-  (all of these questions refer to 3.5 unless noted)

1. Let me see if I understand how DR works? You apply it if the attack is not of the appropriate type to ignore it before you apply soak? 

2. Armor with DR such as adamantium plate, should it add to soak?

3. Any suggestions for temporary hitpoints from spells etc?

4. Any suggestions for spells that effect x hp’s?(life word of stun, heal, harm etc)

5. Would you suggest a feat for monsters similar to Brute Force if the Dex as prime attack variant is used?

6. How does soak handle falling damage? 

7. Suggestions for a conversion rate of HP to Pips for a Paladins lay hands ability?

8. Suggestions on which spells might help Disabled Limbs recover?

9. Are all energy attacks Soaked? What about the hand over the torch example with a high con? Would the player get a defense roll?

10. Any ideas on Con reducing effects such as poison, they no longer reduce hps but your loose ability to soak? Does this seem desired?

11. Is there such thing as a negative Soak?

12. Any ideas on force armor types (i.e. mage armor) negating certain crit options (like Bypass?)

13. Ideas on the Empower feat only effecting the actual dice and not the set modifier for spells? This seems like it might be a good idea if the Maximum Damage Dice variant is used.

14. Any suggestion for coverting the Diehard feat?

15. Questions about the combat example: 
A) Why did the mage get an AOO on Otis? 
B) How do the subsequent rounds of the MAA effect Otis? (or constant damage in general)

16. Opinions on Cover detail of 3.0 vs 3.5 given its importance in GnG?


----------



## Thomas Hobbes

Firstly, I can't thank you enough for a really killer rules system.  My group and I have been using the previous version of Grim-n-Gritty in a d20 Modern game for a while now and having lots of fun with it.

I also like the new system a lot- it, as you say, is _simplified_.  I've been running d20 Modern with both the more-complex stunning variant (make a fortitude save vs. damage, fail by 1-5, dazed, fail by 6-10, stunned, fail by 11+, stunned for 2d6 rounds) and the more-complex bleeding variant (every 1d6+con modifier rounds, go from OK to fatigued to exhausted to incapacitated to dead) and while I liked them for their game effect, it was a pain to GM a game with multiple combatants all bleeding to death.  Perhaps any attack that deals more than 1 wound category has you then losing 1 pip/round, or something?  But I digress.

I was wondering if perhaps you have any advice on using the system for d20 modern.  The primary difficulty, I think, lies in the fact that the problem of Hit Dice outlined by another poster in reference to D&D is more pronounced in d20 modern, where the tie between base attack bonus and hit die is much more tenuous, and the pre-existing defense bonus further complicates things.  For example:

The class with full BAB (strong) has a d8 hit die and the class with a d10 (tough) has 3/4 BAB.  Each class already has a defense bonus listed, and this defense bonus' relation to BAB is less than direct- the strong hero has the second best defense progression, as does the tough, and the fast hero has 3/4 BAB, d8 hit die, and the best of the defense bonuses.

Since toughness=soak, that’s the obvious way to do things, and since modern settings tend to be armor-light, it won’t break things too much to have level-based soak.  So how about this (round down, as always):

d10= +1/3 soak
d8 or d6= 1/6 soak
d4= 1/12 soak

Defense bonus would be... kept as in d20 modern?  Converting to the RGnG system would remove the balancing factor of the listed defense bonus, but if you keep it the d20 modern way the defense roll tends to be much, much higher than it would be in RGnG.

What do you think?  If I can convince my players, I might have some more playtest data for you at some point.


----------



## SSquirrel

Been out of town and unable to reply to anything the oast few days so here's a few opinions:



			
				RuleMaster said:
			
		

> Isn't that too good? Consider a creature like the Tarrasque - it has a Regeneration score of 40. In other words, it can regenerate 15 pips more per round than they are available! Fast Healing and Regeneration scores higher than 5 or 10 bring creatures to full hit pips in two, three rounds - that's something not possible in the core rules because of the steadily increasing amount of hit dice and makes your system somewhat _less_ lethal. I can think of two solutions: A) A simple cap of the healed pips. B) Reducing the effectiveness - e.g. 2 points of Regeneration heal 1 pip. B) will need a cap, too, for crippling things like the tarrasque.



 IMO what you need to do is look at the healing magic chart and take the average die roll for the comparable spell and figure based on that.  Let's say you have Regen 6.  This would be equal to a 1st level Cure Light Wounds.  Look at the chart and that gives you X pips back.  Standard conversion I'm assuming for feats like Focused Healing from Arcana Unearthed is 1 pip:3 HPs healed.

 Hagen


----------



## SSquirrel

Some more opinions:



			
				MacMathan said:
			
		

> 3. Any suggestions for temporary hitpoints from spells etc?



 Take the results of the temp HP roll and divide by 3.  Make these Lightly Wounded boxes (ie no penalties)



			
				MacMathan said:
			
		

> 4. Any suggestions for spells that effect x hp’s?(life word of stun, heal, harm etc)



 See above.



			
				MacMathan said:
			
		

> 5. Would you suggest a feat for monsters similar to Brute Force if the Dex as prime attack variant is used?



 Monsters would have access to the same feats as the players.



			
				MacMathan said:
			
		

> 6. How does soak handle falling damage?



 I wouild assume you would soak the first X damage as normal and then after that you have to eat it regularly.  Divide by 3 seems like a decent conversion ate based on Ken's original chart for pips based on spells.



			
				MacMathan said:
			
		

> 7. Suggestions for a conversion rate of HP to Pips for a Paladins lay hands ability?



 Again 3 HP:1pip



			
				MacMathan said:
			
		

> 15. Questions about the combat example:
> A) Why did the mage get an AOO on Otis?



 a)Otis charged Warren

 Hagen


----------



## Fenris

Question for Ken or anyone else who has been seriously thinking on this:

Should there be a limit on the feat Toughness? As far as taking multiple feats. Limit it to three? One Toughness feat for every four levels? Should it matter? I can imagine a human fighter taking three levels of toughness at first level, garnering 3 soak right away. Not bad.

Also, if you use the Dexerity variant should you substitute Dex modifier on a melee critical confirmation? Str would make sense since it is damage, but the Dex would be the better hit.

BTW Thanks for a great system Ken.


----------



## SSquirrel

Fenris said:
			
		

> Question for Ken or anyone else who has been seriously thinking on this:
> 
> Should there be a limit on the feat Toughness? As far as taking multiple feats. Limit it to three? One Toughness feat for every four levels? Should it matter? I can imagine a human fighter taking three levels of toughness at first level, garnering 3 soak right away. Not bad.
> 
> Also, if you use the Dexerity variant should you substitute Dex modifier on a melee critical confirmation? Str would make sense since it is damage, but the Dex would be the better hit.
> 
> BTW Thanks for a great system Ken.



 Toughness has already been limited to 3 times max.  The first version of the Revised rules did not include this.  If you haven't downloaded the rules since the first couple of days, please grab the newest.  Otherwise it's covered on page 3 under the Soak modifier table.

 Dex>Whatever stat you're needing to use for the attack roll is what you would use for threat confirmation.  So if you had the Brute Strength feat you would be able to use Strength.  Otherwise Dex is the stat that would be added.  Strength only comes into play as a damage bonus in the Dex variant.

 Hagen


----------



## Fenris

SSquirrel said:
			
		

> Toughness has already been limited to 3 times max.  The first version of the Revised rules did not include this.  If you haven't downloaded the rules since the first couple of days, please grab the newest.  Otherwise it's covered on page 3 under the Soak modifier table.
> 
> Dex>Whatever stat you're needing to use for the attack roll is what you would use for threat confirmation.  So if you had the Brute Strength feat you would be able to use Strength.  Otherwise Dex is the stat that would be added.  Strength only comes into play as a damage bonus in the Dex variant.
> 
> Hagen




I thought there was a 3 feat limit, but couldn't find it, of course I was looking in the wrong place. Thanks for the clarifications Hagen.


----------



## MacMathan

SSquirrel said:
			
		

> Some more opinions:
> 
> 
> Take the results of the temp HP roll and divide by 3.  Make these Lightly Wounded boxes (ie no penalties)
> 
> 
> See above.
> 
> 
> Monsters would have access to the same feats as the players.
> 
> 
> I wouild assume you would soak the first X damage as normal and then after that you have to eat it regularly.  Divide by 3 seems like a decent conversion ate based on Ken's original chart for pips based on spells.
> 
> 
> Again 3 HP:1pip
> 
> 
> a)Otis charged Warren
> 
> Hagen




Do Charges in GnG provoke an AOO or have I just missed a rule for 3.5?


----------



## SSquirrel

MacMathan said:
			
		

> Do Charges in GnG provoke an AOO or have I just missed a rule for 3.5?



 Ahh I don't own 3.5 so if Charges don't give AoOs anymore then that was my bad.

 Hagen


----------



## Pielorinho

SSquirrel said:
			
		

> Ahh I don't own 3.5 so if Charges don't give AoOs anymore then that was my bad.



Charges never provoked AoOs .

Daniel


----------



## SSquirrel

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> Charges never provoked AoOs .
> 
> Daniel



 Actually there's typos somewhere in the 3.0 PHB in that case:

 Page 82 Improved Bull Rush
 "When you perform a bull rush, you do not draw an attack of opportunity"

 Page 128 table of Misc Actions:
 "Standard Actions:Bull Rush (charge)....AoO-No"

 Page 136 Bull Rush:
 "First you move into the defender's space.  Moving in this way provokes an attack of opportunity from each foe that threatens you"

 I'm sure there was likely errata somewhere, but the way its written the table is wrong.  I'd asume that 1 mistake is more likely than 2.

 Hagen


----------



## MacMathan

I see. I did not realize he Bullrushed him. I believe a Bullrush and a Charge are two different types of actions.


----------



## Pielorinho

*duplicate post*


----------



## Pielorinho

*SSquirrel*, there may be a typo in the 3.0 PhB (I don't have mine handy), but it doesn't have any bearing on charges; near as I can tell, nowhere does it mention charges provoking an AoO.  The only inconsistency I see in what you referenced is a suggestion that bull-rushes don't provoke an AoO, not that charges do.

I don't think Otis Bull-rushed, given that a BR doesn't do damage.

And sixteen, if they're square-dancing and fold their wings in.

Daniel


----------



## MacMathan

Double post............


----------



## MacMathan

Thanks for the clarifications on the example.

Any ideas on my other questions?


----------



## Eltern

Tried to post this before and the system went wild, so if this double posts (or triples) my apologies.

I had heard about Grim n Gritty before, and just now read Ken's stuff.  I like it, I think, having not seen it in action, but I have a question: 

One of the stated objectives of the system is to make dodging good, armor better, and cover best.  However, I think that as the numbers with D&D 3.5 cover stand now, anything less than total cover is not very helpful.  Mayhaps you meant total cover, but I would think that even 9/10 cover ought to be very helpful, don't you?  The main reason that I think it is ineffective concerns Area of Effect spells or weapons.  I realize that you've said the system was not designed with a specific magic/psionics system in mind, but I think that ANY AoE attack overpowers 3/4 or 9/10 cover a little too easily, be it a fireball, grenade, or a sack of acidic flour or something   

(I don't have my books with me here, and I cannot seem to find cover on the systems reference document, so I'm working off of memory)  If I've got 9/10 cover, it provides me with something like +7 to AC (my defense roll) and +4 to Reflex saves.  All AoE attacks I have heard of do NOT care about AC, just reflex saves.  In such cases, cover is about getting behind the cover quick enough to dodge the explosion.  My suggestion is to give cover some sort of soak bonus.  Whether this soak should be in addition to its defense roll or  instead of the defense roll I don't know, but given that this system goes for realism, the way cover works is misrepresented a little, I think.  

The big problem in my head is that this aspect of cover pretty much just includes AoE attacks.  Against other attacks it still makes sense.  The two options in my head, then, are to give cover a soak bonus to just AoE attacks, which seems a little clunky, or give a soak bonus to all attacks, which seems to stretch it a little.


----------



## Eltern

*Fireballs and Grenades*

Tried to post this before and the system went wild, so if this double posts (or triples) my apologies.

I had heard about Grim n Gritty before, and just now read Ken's stuff.  I like it, I think, having not seen it in action, but I have a question: 

One of the stated objectives of the system is to make dodging good, armor better, and cover best.  However, I think that as the numbers with D&D 3.5 cover stand now, anything less than total cover is not very helpful.  Mayhaps you meant total cover, but I would think that even 9/10 cover ought to be very helpful, don't you?  The main reason that I think it is ineffective concerns Area of Effect spells or weapons.  I realize that you've said the system was not designed with a specific magic/psionics system in mind, but I think that ANY AoE attack overpowers 3/4 or 9/10 cover a little too easily, be it a fireball, grenade, or a sack of acidic flour or something   

(I don't have my books with me here, and I cannot seem to find cover on the systems reference document, so I'm working off of memory)  If I've got 9/10 cover, it provides me with something like +7 to AC (my defense roll) and +4 to Reflex saves.  All AoE attacks I have heard of do NOT care about AC, just reflex saves.  In such cases, cover is about getting behind the cover quick enough to dodge the explosion.  My suggestion is to give cover some sort of soak bonus.  Whether this soak should be in addition to its defense roll or  instead of the defense roll I don't know, but given that this system goes for realism, the way cover works is misrepresented a little, I think.  

The big problem in my head is that this aspect of cover pretty much just includes AoE attacks.  Against other attacks it still makes sense.  The two options in my head, then, are to give cover a soak bonus to just AoE attacks, which seems a little clunky, or give a soak bonus to all attacks, which seems to stretch it a little.


----------



## Ukyo the undead

I think the idea is:

AoE attacks: Behind a cover, you sitll feel the heat of fireball, the chilling cold os a ice storm. So, You feel some of the efects, but you avoid the worst.
So I think I agree with you with the cover as Soak against area attacks.

But other attacks have a different logic.

A cover bonus against a ranged attack or a  melee attack should count to Defense, since it helps you to avoid all attack´s effects.


----------



## Eltern

Ukyo said:
			
		

> I think the idea is:
> 
> AoE attacks: Behind a cover, you sitll feel the heat of fireball, the chilling cold os a ice storm. So, You feel some of the efects, but you avoid the worst.
> So I think I agree with you with the cover as Soak against area attacks.
> 
> But other attacks have a different logic.
> 
> A cover bonus against a ranged attack or a  melee attack should count to Defense, since it helps you to avoid all attack´s effects.




I think that's what I said, yup.


----------



## SSquirrel

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> *SSquirrel*, there may be a typo in the 3.0 PhB (I don't have mine handy), but it doesn't have any bearing on charges; near as I can tell, nowhere does it mention charges provoking an AoO. The only inconsistency I see in what you referenced is a suggestion that bull-rushes don't provoke an AoO, not that charges do.
> 
> I don't think Otis Bull-rushed, given that a BR doesn't do damage.
> 
> And sixteen, if they're square-dancing and fold their wings in.
> 
> Daniel



Ok the table listed both Bull Rush (charge) and Bull Rush (attack) so that was what I saw.

Page 124 has the description of Chage and while it doesn't specifically say "there is an AoO for this", the way its worded agrees with how AoOs are given out.  You enter a new area and someone should get a swing at you.

Naturaly I can easily be wrong heh

Hagen


----------



## RavenProject

After all this revisions and postings I'm a bit unsure but there seems to be an error right in the first important sentence of the rules. I've downloaded it from ENWorld and thus I expect it to be the most recent version.

_"Every character uses the same Life Bar. For each point of lethal or non-lethal damage a character suffers in combat, you fill one pip of the Life Bar, *starting from the right and going to the left*."_

So I start with dying? Interesting system indeed.


----------



## Eltern

So Ukyo, would you think giving cover a soak value against AoE of x2 its AC bonus would be sensical?


----------



## vertigo99

Thomas Hobbes said:
			
		

> If I can convince my players




*WRONG.*


----------



## Strockrow

Thomas Hobbes said:
			
		

> If I can convince my players




*WRONG.*


----------



## Wileama

Thomas Hobbes said:
			
		

> If I can convince my players




*WRONG.*


----------



## Nac Mac Feegle

Thomas Hobbes said:
			
		

> If I can convince my players




Now, in a reasoned fashion, I must state my dislike for this system and my belief that it would be not the best solution.  I dislike especially the fact that the high level character can withstand many "helpless" strikes by a low-level character.  Furthermore, I find that this reminds me entirely to much of the d6 starwars system that preceded the WotC d20 version (wizards.com/starwars I believe) which I firmly disliked in its general nature and was quite happy to switch systems.  I believe that there is too much of a change in the standard d20 system to really work for compatibility and ease of use.  Now beyond that, I personally dislike this system for several reasons, but I will not mention them here because they are simply personal and have no place in a rational argument.

Or, to put it in other words,












*WRONG.*


----------



## SSquirrel

Nac Mac Feegle said:
			
		

> Now, in a reasoned fashion, I must state my dislike for this system and my belief that it would be not the best solution. I dislike especially the fact that the high level character can withstand many "helpless" strikes by a low-level character. Furthermore, I find that this reminds me entirely to much of the d6 starwars system that preceded the WotC d20 version (wizards.com/starwars I believe) which I firmly disliked in its general nature and was quite happy to switch systems. I believe that there is too much of a change in the standard d20 system to really work for compatibility and ease of use. Now beyond that, I personally dislike this system for several reasons, but I will not mention them here because they are simply personal and have no place in a rational argument.



 Actually personal beliefs DO have a place in a rational arguement.  They can let your DM, Ken, myself, and everyone else in this thread see points which maybe we had not seen before or at least see other viewpoints and determine their validity for our own game.  Maybe you have some reasons for disliking it that are actually quite logical and would make people think.

 Hagen


----------



## SSquirrel

So anyone with the spare time and the talent wanna be cool and make a new character sheet that has the new stats from the GnG system and none of the old outmoded crap? *grin*  I know I'd love to have it for when I run a game with GnG middle of May

Hagen


----------



## Fenris

A number of you have said that they like the system but were going to scale the Soak/Defense differently. Well I took all the tables and used a 2,4,8,16 progression for Soak, Defense, and Damage and re-ran Ken's combat example to see how it would play out. 
The big difference was that the crit by Fred on the first hit succeeds. This alonf with the Soak and defense changes leads to an 11 pip loss for Otis on that hit, leaving him Severly Wounded. That -2 to Otis makes a huge difference. Harold's attack woul now be a crit. I assumed it did not succeed for simplicity, but Harolds attack adds 6 pips to Otis, leaving him at 17 and Disabled. Otis then, even with the -3 for being disabled, still squished Fred. But it is close, the crit confirmation roll is tied but the tie goes to the attacker so Fred loses his armor soak. He only takes 25 pips of damage this time, but is still dead. Warren's fireball then does 4 pips to Otis leaving him unconcious and dying.

So quite a bit better really. One PC died but the others are unharmed. The lessons: One hard blow will kill you. Strike early and hard the penalties from the life bar affect everything  (except soak) and the lowering of defense, and attack makes a huge difference early on. Every -1 you put on your opponent is a big big deal.

Just wanted to run the numbers so people could see. I don't think they really made so much difference as the crit success did. And that could have been made under Ken's numbers. I will be using them scaled down though. 

Fenris


----------



## Eltern

What is this example that you speak of? Is it buried somewhere in this uberlong thread? I haven't read through all of it. (it's big, ok?!    )


----------



## Fenris

Eltern said:
			
		

> What is this example that you speak of? Is it buried somewhere in this uberlong thread? I haven't read through all of it. (it's big, ok?!    )




Page 3 has the original, page 4 has it using the DEX variant. It is also attached as an appendix to the latest version of the rules.

I should mention that I used the standard STR rules and that I used the rolls Ken did.

I think Improved Initiative and Toughness will be must have feats in this system. Striking first is vital to survival. But that's the way Ken likes it  And I would agree.


----------



## Fenris

Ken, SSquirrel and other Devotees:

How are undead and constructs handled in rGnG? No Con score-How does that affect soak. Are they immune to the penalties at each wound stage and simply fall apart at 20 (or 25) life (or unlife) pips?
Thanks.


----------



## SSquirrel

Fenris said:
			
		

> Ken, SSquirrel and other Devotees:
> 
> How are undead and constructs handled in rGnG? No Con score-How does that affect soak. Are they immune to the penalties at each wound stage and simply fall apart at 20 (or 25) life (or unlife) pips?
> Thanks.



I would say that with no con they have no Soak bonus, but they are still immune to the Sneak Attack damage as they have no weak points.  They would receive penalties b/c I see this as seriously tearing up the body and making it less apt to hold together.  Really bad for undead...especially zombies heh

Hagen


----------



## Coredump

I hope you are not gone... as I would really like to hear your opinions on this. I am thinking of running a game with these rules, and any input would be valuable.



			
				Nac Mac Feegle said:
			
		

> I dislike especially the fact that the high level character can withstand many "helpless" strikes by a low-level character.



I may be not understanding... but this is *very* much true of the stock D20 game. a level 12 fighter can stand there and ignore the first 2-5 hits (which may take 10+ rounds to achieve) of a low level fighter before deciding to turn and swat him dead in one round. I find the *opposite* true of the GnG rules. Every fight is dangerous, and the low level fighter can take down the other with a lucky attack. It makes every fight a real fight, and not something to ignore and take easy. What do you see in the rules differently than I do?



> Furthermore, I find that this reminds me entirely to much of the d6 starwars system that preceded the WotC d20 version (wizards.com/starwars I believe) which I firmly disliked in its general nature and was quite happy to switch systems.



I played that system, but years ago. What do you see that seems the same? What were the aspects that make it sub-par?



> I believe that there is too much of a change in the standard d20 system to really work for compatibility and ease of use.



Now, this I will call you on.  I do not think this is a fair statement to make without trying it first.  There are a ton of changes out there, from campaign settings, to alternative classes, magic, etc.  They seem to integrate well enough. Lots of people have used this system, even *before* the revision. Before making this assertion, I would hope to see your group at least run one encounter using the rules. See how you like it.  It really doesn't seem to make much time to 'convert' the info from stock to GnG. And all that would be your DM's time anyway




> Now beyond that, I personally dislike this system for several reasons, but I will not mention them here because they are simply personal and have no place in a rational argument.



Well, like SSquirrel, I would like to hear them. It may give additional insight to us before using the rules. (like the changing of the 2-4-8-16 modifiers)

.


----------



## Ukyo the undead

Eltern said:
			
		

> So Ukyo, would you think giving cover a soak value against AoE of x2 its AC bonus would be sensical?





I would give simply de AC bonus( I dont think the cover would offer much more protection against a "splash" attack than against a melee or ranged attack), but you could say that the AoE attacks loses a lot of offensive power if it doesn´t hit directly on the target.

In the end, its a matter os personal taste, so a 2x AC bonus sounds ok as well.


----------



## SSquirrel

Heh one of these days if I get bored, I'll redownload the SRD, delete anything superceded by this and put a Grim n Gritty SRD up on the web.


edit:

Actually aya know I have the day off so I'm looking in the SRD and did a search on hit point to replace with life pip or pip in each instance...and the point of ability loss came along.  How is that covered?  If we utilize the extra lightly wounded box idea professed early in the thread (so Con 16 has 8 pips instead of 5 for that wound category) then those boxes can be easily removed and we could even take some more away as we went along.

Hagen


----------



## SSquirrel

Slowed down.

Bump

Hagen


----------



## Thomas Hobbes

Heh.  My apologies for my enthusiastically naysaying players, although I must profess myself amused by the whole incident.  I'm afraid it's partially my fault; my willingness to try new systems has led them to grow tired of me bringing new toys to gaming sessions.  I will attempt to persuade them to try at least an encounter in it, and see how that goes.


----------



## Happiest_Sadist

As for regeneration, it might be good to make regeneration just 1.  I looked around the MM, and I didn't see any creatures with regeneration above 10% of their HP.  Considering that monsters fall after 15 damage, that seems more in keeping with the spirit of regeneration.

However there is a real problem with this system.  Lucky shots are not truly devestating.  Take the following.  Level 1 orc with greataxe vs level 10 fighter.

The fighter wears +2 full plate armor and has a 12 dex.  He wields a +2 shield.  However he rolls a natural one on his defense check.
Defense result is 1 + 10 (bab) +1 (dex) +4 shield = 16

The orc rolls a natural 20.  His attack is 20 + 1 (bab) = 21

Say the fighter has a 16 con and has taken toughness twice.  His soak is 3(con) + 2 (toughness) + 10 armor = 15

The orc rolls maximum damage.  That is 5(beating the defense check by 5) +12 (roll) + 3 (str) = 20.

The fighter takes only 5 points of damage, not even enough to make him slighly wounded.  Most likely the orc would do no damage whatsoever, as a change of just 5 total from the best possible roll on a d20, a d20, and a d12 would lead to no damage.

This hardly seems as grim and gritty as one would expect, because a charachter can eventually almost ignore a strong opponent (14) swinging a giant axe at them.

Also, what happens to the BAB bonus to defense when someone is caught flatfoooted?  I would suggest that it is either completly lost or halved in any situation when the attacker would lose their dex bonus.  Invisible attackers mop up on those without blind-fight.  To balance this out, in symettric situations BAB to attack should be lost.  Skill isn't that important when you have no idea where your opponent is.


----------



## SSquirrel

Happiest_Sadist said:
			
		

> As for regeneration, it might be good to make regeneration just 1. I looked around the MM, and I didn't see any creatures with regeneration above 10% of their HP. Considering that monsters fall after 15 damage, that seems more in keeping with the spirit of regeneration.
> 
> However there is a real problem with this system. Lucky shots are not truly devestating. Take the following. Level 1 orc with greataxe vs level 10 fighter.
> 
> The fighter wears +2 full plate armor and has a 12 dex. He wields a +2 shield. However he rolls a natural one on his defense check.
> Defense result is 1 + 10 (bab) +1 (dex) +4 shield = 16
> 
> The orc rolls a natural 20.  His attack is 20 + 1 (bab) = 21
> 
> Say the fighter has a 16 con and has taken toughness twice.  His soak is 3(con) + 2 (toughness) + 10 armor = 15
> 
> The orc rolls maximum damage.  That is 5(beating the defense check by 5) +12 (roll) + 3 (str) = 20.
> 
> The fighter takes only 5 points of damage, not even enough to make him slighly wounded. Most likely the orc would do no damage whatsoever, as a change of just 5 total from the best possible roll on a d20, a d20, and a d12 would lead to no damage.
> 
> This hardly seems as grim and gritty as one would expect, because a charachter can eventually almost ignore a strong opponent (14) swinging a giant axe at them.
> 
> Also, what happens to the BAB bonus to defense when someone is caught flatfoooted? I would suggest that it is either completly lost or halved in any situation when the attacker would lose their dex bonus. Invisible attackers mop up on those without blind-fight. To balance this out, in symettric situations BAB to attack should be lost. Skill isn't that important when you have no idea where your opponent is.



 Considering that in current D&D in that same situation there's NO chance of said orc hurting the fighter....that's an improvement *grin*  If he had a couple of other lucky buddies around that would be good.  If one is a sorceror even better.  GnG works best with 2 evenly matched fighters.  It still doens't produce some of the Warhammer RPG or ROlemaster results you'll see, but you will see him actually managing to wound the fighter instead of nothing.

 Hagen


----------



## Wolfix

A friend of mine just started a GnG game last week, and I'm playing a monk (lvl 1, human). I found out that my monk has a great bonus to the defense roll (because of high dex & wis, and in later lvls the monk's ac bonus), but his soak sucks because of a con of 11 and no armor. Now don't get me wrong, I'm definately not complaining (I created the char myself), but I was wondering what tips you guys could give me to improve soak.
In non-magical combat my bonus to defense seems better than if it was a bonus to soak (both reduce damage taken, but the defense bonus also adds to miss chance), but spells are going to hurt. Fortunately, magic is rare in that world . But anyway, I was wondering if anyone had some good ideas other than increasing con at lvl4 or taking the toughness feat.


----------



## Happiest_Sadist

Actually, he does more harm in standard D&D.  If he rolls a 20, that hits automatically.  It does a d12 + 3 damage, In G&G the rolls I had to describe had a 1 in 4800 chance.  There is a comparable chance of the orc rolling 2 natural 20s for 3d12+9 damage, which is a chunk of the fighter's HP, to him doing even 1 pip of damage in G&G.

Also, I think that the defense roll creates some problems, because large creatures have much higher defenses than small charachters.  Older dragons have incredible BAB.  For instance a great worm white dragon has a BAB of 36.  Even with its size modifier, it has a defense roll of 32.  This makes it almost unhittable, and after that there still is soak to deal with.  It seems that large creatures should not be difficult to connect with, just difficult to damage.  This defense, assuming it rolls an 11 on its d20 roll is higher than its AC in the standard d20 system.  I don't quite see that.


----------



## Strithe

Happiest_Sadist said:
			
		

> Actually, he does more harm in standard D&D.  If he rolls a 20, that hits automatically.  It does a d12 + 3 damage, In G&G the rolls I had to describe had a 1 in 4800 chance.  There is a comparable chance of the orc rolling 2 natural 20s for 3d12+9 damage, which is a chunk of the fighter's HP, to him doing even 1 pip of damage in G&G.
> 
> Also, I think that the defense roll creates some problems, because large creatures have much higher defenses than small charachters.  Older dragons have incredible BAB.  For instance a great worm white dragon has a BAB of 36.  Even with its size modifier, it has a defense roll of 32.  This makes it almost unhittable, and after that there still is soak to deal with.  It seems that large creatures should not be difficult to connect with, just difficult to damage.  This defense, assuming it rolls an 11 on its d20 roll is higher than its AC in the standard d20 system.  I don't quite see that.





The GnG rules state:
"Your base defense bonus equals your base attack bonus or your base Reflex saving throw."

I'd use base Ref save for Defense bonus for monsters (anything without class levels).  This gives the Great Wyrm white dragon a defense bonus of +20  (+16 after size modifier).   Considering that characters facing monsters of this CR would be +20 to hit for fighter types I'd say that would balance pretty well.


----------



## Pielorinho

SSquirrel said:
			
		

> Ok the table listed both Bull Rush (charge) and Bull Rush (attack) so that was what I saw.
> 
> Page 124 has the description of Chage and while it doesn't specifically say "there is an AoO for this", the way its worded agrees with how AoOs are given out. You enter a new area and someone should get a swing at you.
> 
> Naturaly I can easily be wrong heh



Reread the rules.  You NEVER incur an AoO by moving INTO a square:  it's only by moving OUT of a square that you get an AoO against you.  Specifically, by leaving a threatened square.

With a bull rush, you're moving from the squares a person threatens into their own personal square; that's why you get an AoO.  (Well, technically that's not true.  Technically they get an AoO because the rules specifically allow one.  But this is philosophically why you incur one, and is similar to why you incur one when trying to grapple).

Again, you unambiguously dont' get an AoO during a charge.  But rather than hijack this thread further, I'd suggest opening a thread in the rules forum if you don't believe me. 

Daniel


----------



## Pielorinho

Strithe said:
			
		

> I'd use base Ref save for Defense bonus for monsters (anything without class levels). This gives the Great Wyrm white dragon a defense bonus of +20 (+16 after size modifier). Considering that characters facing monsters of this CR would be +20 to hit for fighter types I'd say that would balance pretty well.



They're CR 20, right?  If a 20th-level fighter can't manage a +36 to hit, she deserves to be smacked into pudding.

Off the top of my head:
+20 BAB, +5 weapon, +1 weapon focus, +8 str (16 start, +5 advancement, +6 item, +1 inherent), +2 luck/morale/divine/misc.

This means that a millennium-old dragon could get hit by a non-epic human well more than half the time.  Of course, the 20th-level human could easily have better than a +36 to hit, and indeed SHOULD have better than that if she's hunting dragons.


----------



## Happiest_Sadist

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> They're CR 20, right?  If a 20th-level fighter can't manage a +36 to hit, she deserves to be smacked into pudding.




The point is not that a 20th level fighter can hit the dragon, the point is that it seems that it should not be incredibly difficult with a flying beast the size of a house.

Also, wizards must fight them too.  A 20th level wizard with 20 dex has only a +19 to hit with any ray attacks.  This means that even with true strike, any ray they shoot has a 30-some% chance of missing, and they cannot hit with ray attacks without that.  How are these dragons dodging like that?

Using base reflex save is a problem too.  2 great worm white dragons, A & B are fighting.  After some circling and testing of distance A charges B and bites him.  A rolls a 10 + 36 (attack bonus) + 2 (charging) = 48
B rolls a 10 + 20 (base save) -4 (size) = 26
A rolls 1 above average damage 15 (4d6) + 12 (str) + 12 (size) + 22 (48-26)=61
B's soak is 12(size) + 35 (natural) + 8 (con) = 45
B takes 16 pips of damage and is disabled instantly by an average attack.  If BAB had been used the same hit would have done 0 damage, not even wounding B.
If reflex saves are used then large creatures often instantly kill other large creatures.


----------



## SSquirrel

Actually it would be a matter of getting thru the dragon's scales.  I mean you're using an axe and those things are freakin thick!  

AoO>Yeah taht came up in my group.  In 3.0 w/a different group we ran AoOs when you moved in as well.  Can you say WAY too many AoOs?



Hagen


----------



## Throthvile

I just recently dicovered Mr. Hood's rules. I, for one, would be glad to have his babies. You see I got Conan from Mongoose not too long ago because I was fed up with high fantasy, common magic crap. I chose Conan because I am already pretty familiar with the D20 system. I am currently trying to develop a low magic fantasy campaign setting using the races from the Player's Handbook and the Conan book for everything else.  (with a few dark twists here and there)  Then I find the GrimNGritty rules. Now, I am torn betwixt the two rule sets. However, seeing as Mr. Hood's system is infinately less complicated than the one I was working with, I may have just found an easy solution. I plan on using the Conan character classes, but not the weapons anymore(they have higher damage, so I'll just stick to the PHB weapons and fudge the names a bit) GrimNGritty will cover the combat nicely, and then I just need to do some world crafting........


----------



## Fenris

*A Feat for Revised Grim and Gritty*

Hi All,
I was considering using the following feat with the revised GnG rules. Does it fit with the overall grittiness of the system and is it balanced. Thanks for you input. Also any suggestions for a better name?

Grin and Bear It
This feat allows a character to ignore some of the pain from his injuries.
Prerequisites: Endurance, Toughness, Great Fortitude
Benefit: A character with the Grin and Bear It feat has a penalty of one less to his attack rolls, defense, ability checks and saving throws due to his wound condition. A character then suffers a -1 when severly wounded instead of -2. The character suffers from all other effects resulting from their wound condition. This feat may only be taken once.


----------



## SSquirrel

Fenris said:
			
		

> Hi All,
> I was considering using the following feat with the revised GnG rules. Does it fit with the overall grittiness of the system and is it balanced. Thanks for you input. Also any suggestions for a better name?
> 
> Grin and Bear It
> This feat allows a character to ignore some of the pain from his injuries.
> Prerequisites: Endurance, Toughness, Great Fortitude
> Benefit: A character with the Grin and Bear It feat has a penalty of one less to his attack rolls, defense, ability checks and saving throws due to his wound condition. A character then suffers a -1 when severly wounded instead of -2. The character suffers from all other effects resulting from their wound condition. This feat may only be taken once.



 I think it's balanced fine with the 3 previous feats needed, but I'm not entirely sure on fitting with the feel.  Certainly it would make sense that someone who is as tough as you would be with those 3 feats would maybe be able to push the pain away....I don't know if it would go into Ken's document itself, but I think it could be played just fine.  Give it a shot an dlet us know.  Sadly the best replacement name I can think of is Intestinal Fortitude to help describe that it's just your inner will which keeps you on your feet.

 Hagen


----------



## SSquirrel

bumperooni

 Hagen


----------



## Fenris

SSquirrel said:
			
		

> I think it's balanced fine with the 3 previous feats needed, but I'm not entirely sure on fitting with the feel.  Certainly it would make sense that someone who is as tough as you would be with those 3 feats would maybe be able to push the pain away....I don't know if it would go into Ken's document itself, but I think it could be played just fine.  Give it a shot an dlet us know.  Sadly the best replacement name I can think of is Intestinal Fortitude to help describe that it's just your inner will which keeps you on your feet.
> 
> Hagen




This would be a house rule certainly. It is gritty if not grim at least  But in Ken's example it would have done the poor fighter no good at all. It can be useful certainly but if you're disabled who cares if your penalty goes down to -2 if you still lose a point if your move . Thanks for the feedback though. This would help you keep fighting well through low levels of damage. In Grim and Gritty, that isn't always assured.


----------



## Alanbit

*Questions for Ken (About G&G gaming experiences)*

Hi ken and you all.

We've addopted your G&G rules in our weekly game and we have some comments, experiences, suggestions and so on we wanted to make you.

First of all, I'd like to sorry for my english, I'll do my best to explain myself with some kinda clarity.

Second of all: Thanks, thanks, and a thousand thanks.

I've seen one of my friends (a ninja) almost cry of emotion when he killed a wizard for THE VERY FIRST time in his PC's life with a deadly and unique shuriken.
Now I can handle a bow and get in the battle (with old rules I stayed behind the warriors just making d8 damage in my turn and wondering what did I wrong to choose an archer, and how was it possible that with normal arrows Legolas could kill as much orcs as Gimli with a broad axe and cleave...). Even I can kill a centinel with ONE ARROW (and some dosis of luck, of course).

Really we've experienced a huge rise of adrenaline in our gaming.
For example. We are 4 players of level 4, and we entered in a small castle and found a Large level 10 humanoid with a Large battle axe. We did what we had to: run. Now we are preparing an ambush to slash the monster. Our DM proposed to play the hypothetical combat, and we did, and we died. Charged 3 of us, 2 of us dead with the oportunity attack. The other was smashed a round after. Obvious when you try to stop a bus at 100km/h with a sword...

We die really fast, but enemies do too. Now we can plot killing the centinel of a castle with a knife, we really get frightened when a Huge Monster roars, and we've found really interesting your system.

I was searching for your email address to send you a pair of suggestions on the rules on points not treated neither by you nor the traditional D&D, but as I could read, maybe you've said 'nuff of getting tons of email, so I'll post them here and you tell me what do you think about.
I'm making this post too long, so I'll just write in short the esence of the stuff.

D&D Rules and G&G Rules let our PC's stay awaken and fighting for a week.
We wanted more realism and created a very very simple system of Fatigue, so now the players have to manage to survive to large deadly creatures...and then take a rest!!
This rule is quite interesting for it's simplicity and we are now in testing time, but results are quite realistics.

The other rule was about real speed of a character. 30 Feet are not a number, 2 humans in a dessert (none of them a monk) will always run the same? Of course not. We've created another simple rule for this, but I don't know if it's exportable, because of the metrical system we use.

I'm not gonna define now them with it's examples, I'm getting you bored,
but we wanted to know your opinion on these points.

After years and years playing, we try to avoid complications and non-logical points, and your rules help us to keep it simple (quick), logic (realistic) and funny (really funny).

Oscar Alvarez
Barcelona - Spain - Europe


----------



## Alanbit

*Questions for Ken Hood (About G&G gaming experience)*

Hi ken and you all.

We've addopted your G&G rules in our weekly game and we have some comments, experiences, suggestions and so on we wanted to make you.

First of all, I'd like to sorry for my english, I'll do my best to explain myself with some kinda clarity.

Second of all: Thanks, thanks, and a thousand thanks.

I've seen one of my friends (a ninja) almost cry of emotion when he killed a wizard for THE VERY FIRST time in his PC's life with a deadly and unique shuriken.
Now I can handle a bow and get in the battle (with old rules I stayed behind the warriors just making d8 damage in my turn and wondering what did I wrong to choose an archer, and how was it possible that with normal arrows Legolas could kill as much orcs as Gimli with a broad axe and cleave...). Even I can kill a centinel with ONE ARROW (and some dosis of luck, of course).

Really we've experienced a huge rise of adrenaline in our gaming.
For example. We are 4 players of level 4, and we entered in a small castle and found a Large level 10 humanoid with a Large battle axe. We did what we had to: run. Now we are preparing an ambush to slash the monster. Our DM proposed to play the hypothetical combat, and we did, and we died. Charged 3 of us, 2 of us dead with the oportunity attack. The other was smashed a round after. Obvious when you try to stop a bus at 100km/h with a sword...

We die really fast, but enemies do too. Now we can plot killing the centinel of a castle with a knife, we really get frightened when a Huge Monster roars, and we've found really interesting your system.

I was searching for your email address to send you a pair of suggestions on the rules on points not treated neither by you nor the traditional D&D, but as I could read, maybe you've said 'nuff of getting tons of email, so I'll post them here and you tell me what do you think about.
I'm making this post too long, so I'll just write in short the esence of the stuff.

D&D Rules and G&G Rules let our PC's stay awaken and fighting for a week.
We wanted more realism and created a very very simple system of Fatigue, so now the players have to manage to survive to large deadly creatures...and then take a rest!!
This rule is quite interesting for it's simplicity and we are now in testing time, but results are quite realistics.

The other rule was about real speed of a character. 30 Feet are not a number, 2 humans in a desert (none of them a monk) will always run the same? Of course not. We've created another simple rule for this, but I don't know if it's exportable, because of the metrical system we use.

I'm not gonna define now them with it's examples, I'm getting you bored,
but we wanted to know your opinion on these points.

After years and years playing, we try to avoid complications and non-logical points, and your rules help us to keep it simple (quick), logic (realistic) and funny (really funny).

Oscar Alvarez
Barcelona - Spain - Europe


----------



## SSquirrel

Alanbit said:
			
		

> I've seen one of my friends (a ninja) almost cry of emotion when he killed a wizard for THE VERY FIRST time in his PC's life with a deadly and unique shuriken.
> Now I can handle a bow and get in the battle (with old rules I stayed behind the warriors just making d8 damage in my turn and wondering what did I wrong to choose an archer, and how was it possible that with normal arrows Legolas could kill as much orcs as Gimli with a broad axe and cleave...). Even I can kill a centinel with ONE ARROW (and some dosis of luck, of course).
> 
> Really we've experienced a huge rise of adrenaline in our gaming.
> For example. We are 4 players of level 4, and we entered in a small castle and found a Large level 10 humanoid with a Large battle axe. We did what we had to: run. Now we are preparing an ambush to slash the monster. Our DM proposed to play the hypothetical combat, and we did, and we died. Charged 3 of us, 2 of us dead with the oportunity attack. The other was smashed a round after. Obvious when you try to stop a bus at 100km/h with a sword...
> 
> We die really fast, but enemies do too. Now we can plot killing the centinel of a castle with a knife, we really get frightened when a Huge Monster roars, and we've found really interesting your system.



Since Ken seems to have gone back into hiding I guess I'll field this one.  The above examples are EXACTLY what I imagined when Ken first posted this new revision and I think it's fantastic that you guys are having so much fun with the rules.  I'm going to be using them soon myself in an Arcana Unearthed game (delayed 2 weeks again arrgh!) and I'm very excited.



			
				Alanbit said:
			
		

> The other rule was about real speed of a character. 30 Feet are not a number, 2 humans in a dessert (none of them a monk) will always run the same? Of course not. We've created another simple rule for this, but I don't know if it's exportable, because of the metrical system we use.



Actually I would be intersted in seeing this.  I think we can do the conversion from metric on our own.  For those who forget, 1 meter is 40 inches or 3.33 feet.  Post away.  Just make sure it's grim *grin*

Hagen


----------



## Theseus

Alanbit said:
			
		

> We die really fast, but enemies do too.




 Remember that next time we play, pal


----------



## KenHood

Alanbit said:
			
		

> Second of all: Thanks, thanks, and a thousand thanks.




You're welcome.




> D&D Rules and G&G Rules let our PC's stay awaken and fighting for a week.




Combat fatigue is something that I tend to handle common sense, but if I were to create a system for it, I would do the following:

Characters can fight a number of rounds equal to their Constitution score without adverse effect. At the end of that time, they are fatigued. 

Characters can "catch their breath" as a standard action. This allows them to "recover" 1d6 + Constitution modifier rounds.

Keeps things simple, but allows you to wear out your characters.

As for staying awake, aren't there already rules for sleeping?


----------



## FraserRonald

Hey All

Just wanted to let you know that I've written a review of _Grim N Gritty Revised and Simplified_ in the new issue of _Sword's Edge_. It's not entirely positive simply because for my game, the GnG V3 worked great, but hopefully it'll get the word out and more people will have a look and make their own decisions.

Thanks for all the work you've done, Ken. Though GnG Revised isn't my cup of tea, you have my eternal gratitude for GnG V3.

Take care all.


----------



## Theseus

*GnG character sheet*

Alanbit---> Come on man, I know you have redesigned the D&D "Core" sheet adapted to the GnG system, what are you waiting for to release it? : )


----------



## Alanbit

Theseus said:
			
		

> Alanbit---> Come on man, I know you have redesigned the D&D "Core" sheet adapted to the GnG system, what are you waiting for to release it? : )




Maybe tomorrow. I'm having some problems with a damned font that is kinda reluctant to be embeded in a pdf, so I'll have to change it for a more willing one.


----------



## Alanbit

Hi Ken



			
				KenHood said:
			
		

> As for staying awake, aren't there already rules for sleeping?




This rule is commonly "forgotten" when you enter in a whirl of combats and action scenes. I don't blame my DM, first because we, players forget it as well, and second, because he reads this forum  



			
				KenHood said:
			
		

> Characters can fight a number of rounds equal to their Constitution score without adverse effect. At the end of that time, they are fatigued.




Our Fatigue rule is very similar to what you explain here, but some kinda more general.
I'm going to resume it in two words.
You have a Fatigue Score that contains ten pips (same as life). Circumstances makes you fill these pips. For each pip you have marked you have a -1 bonus in all your actions (as negative modifiers in life score), but you can "ignore" as many pips as your Con bonus.
For example, a player with 5 pips marked will suffer a -5 penalty if he has a Con bonus of 0, a player with a Con bonus of +3 will suffer a -2 penalty, and a player with a Con bonus of +5 or higher will no suffer any penalty.
As you said:



			
				KenHood said:
			
		

> Keeps things simple, but allows you to wear out your characters.




That's our thought.

How you fill/wipe these pips? 
All based in common sense, but I wouldn't like to half-describe this rule (as I've done indeed) without describing some other factors we have considered to make this rule to have a sense.

I'm finishing the movement document and as soon I'm done I'll write the Fatigue one out. I hope I can do it in the next 24 hours, and I'm afraid I'll have to open another discussion for each one, in order to follow the forum policy, but I'll make you know when it's done.


----------



## SSquirrel

FraserRonald said:
			
		

> Just wanted to let you know that I've written a review of _Grim N Gritty Revised and Simplified_ in the new issue of _Sword's Edge_. It's not entirely positive simply because for my game, the GnG V3 worked great, but hopefully it'll get the word out and more people will have a look and make their own decisions.



Reading the review now. The size issue is teh creatures in quetsion not weapon sizes. So it's Large creature vs small creature not large weapon vs smal weapon. Altho, I suppose you could add that as an extra layer and show why you're disadvantaged fighting a 2 handed sword wielder with just a dagger heh.

Heh ya shoulda linked to this thread in teh review after mentioning that people should d/l the rules. Questions can be answeed here and all.

Overall a good review tho.

Hagen


----------



## Theseus

One of the things we have noticed while we were playtesting the rules was that we had a slight problem with the defense bonus:

 According to GnG rules :Base Defense Bonus = Base Reflex Bonus or BAB.Other bonuses to defense include deflection bonuses, dodge bonuses, and cover.

 According to this description you can rougly translate Defense Bonus for "Dodge", right?

 One of my players asked me why should he dodge when he was attacked by a guard with a short sword when he was armed with a +4 Long Sword and he had both Weapon Specialization and Great Weapon Specialization with it... Can you see where I´m going?

 "Ok" I said. "Parry with your sword and add the bonuses for the magical enhancement  and for you specialization"

 Voilá! Instant differentiation between "Parry" and "Dodge".
 Everyone agreed to this. The archer didn´t complain about not being able to parry with his bow, and neither did the "25 dexterity" Rogue.

 The only real problem we had was adding or substracting a couple of bonuses depending on the occasion (for instance, when the mentioned fighter was fighting with another weapon ). But fortunately a smart player changed the character sheet (Alanbit-->btw, you could post it here right now, don´t you think?) and next to the attack bonus on each weapon you have a defense/parry slot.

 One thing we have been wondering after the platesting:

 Isn´t the Power Attack feat useless in the GnG system? (unless you are wearing a 2h weapon)

 To keep the feat , you should consider it as a -1 Attack = +2 Damage ( if not, it doesn´t make any sense at all, don´t you think? )


----------



## KenHood

Theseus said:
			
		

> According to this description you can rougly translate Defense Bonus for "Dodge", right?




Not exactly. Defense is just defense. It can be dodging, parrying, blocking with a shield, jumping behind cover. Defense is your ability to avoid a solid, damaging hit.




> "Ok" I said. "Parry with your sword and add the bonuses for the magical enhancement  and for you specialization"




You don't apply weapon bonuses, etc. to your Defense. Defense is based on either your base Reflex saving throw or your _base_ attack bonus. Not total attack bonus. 

I handle parry/block (like you describe) as a move equivalent action. 

Once it's determined that an attack has hit you, you can sacrifice your next move action to attempt to block it. You make an opposed roll: your total attack value v. your opponent's total attack value. If you use a shield, add the shield's bonuses to your roll. If you roll equal to or higher than your opponent, you block the attack and suffer no damage. 

You can block a second time, but two move actions = all your actions on your next turn (in most cases). You'll have used up all your actions to avoid attacks. 

In other words, you can block/parry no more times than you have actions on your next turn. If you use up all of your actions, you use up all of your next turn and cannot block for the remainder of the round.




> Isn´t the Power Attack feat useless in the GnG system? (unless you are wearing a 2h weapon)




You've already pointed out where the skill is useful: two-handed weapons.


----------



## Theseus

KenHood said:
			
		

> You can block a second time, but two move actions = all your actions on your next turn (in most cases). You'll have used up all your actions to avoid attacks.



  I don´t know why, but this makes me think of a poor soldier hidden behind his shield , while being being repeatedly smashed by a huge mace wielding brute.




 I haven´t thanked you yet, Mr Hood. Thanks a lot for your wonderful system!
 It has really changed the nature of our D&D game forever. It was exactly what we were looking for. Now at last we´ll be to give our combats  the feel of excitement, fear and quickness that we want.


----------



## Theseus

*My ISP is having fun of me*


----------



## Theseus

*I REALLY REALLY hate my ISP*


----------



## Theseus

*Quadruple post*


----------



## Theseus

*Sigh! I hate my ISP*


----------



## Theseus

*sigh* I hate Spanish ISPs


----------



## SSquirrel

KenHood said:
			
		

> You don't apply weapon bonuses, etc. to your Defense. Defense is based on either your base Reflex saving throw or your _base_ attack bonus. Not total attack bonus.



 First off, welcome back Ken.  You weren't around for awhile and we all wondered if you hadn't gone offline again after emerging from your exile, putting forth the new word, then retreating to your hermitage again. *grin*

 I've always been a little unclear on this one b/c the rules don't actually state any clearer than this....you take whichever is higher right?  So if someone actually bought Lightning Reflexes and the like, their combat could be well pumped beyond their BAB value.

I do like the parrying variant as well.  Makes them really consider when to let hits thru and if they should hold out for other things next round.



			
				KenHood said:
			
		

> You've already pointed out where the skill is useful: two-handed weapons.



 Yes I believe it was stated early in the thread that if you're going to make use of the GnG Revised that you should utilize the 3.5 version of Power Attack instead of the 3.0 which is the 2:1 ratio mentioned previously.

 Hagen


----------



## KenHood

SSquirrel said:
			
		

> So if someone actually bought Lightning Reflexes and the like, their combat could be well pumped beyond their BAB value.




Nope. Remember: Defense is your _base_ Reflexes score or your _base_ attack bonus. Whichever is higher. 

Lightning Reflexes is a bonus on top of your base Reflexes. It wouldn't affect your Defense.


----------



## Alanbit

*Grim-n-Gritty Core Sheet*

Hi Theseus and all.
Here you have the modified character sheet.
Probably you'll find things you don't understand/agree with, no prob. My intention is to offer you what we are using in our game and if you can take advantage of it, perfect.
If you need me to modify it in any way, don't doubt to tell me, all together can create an "official" character sheet to enjoy even more Mr Hood's system.

Differences:
- I've not included in the description header fields such as "Eyes", "Hair", and so on. Excuse me the "puritans" but I needed the space and in our game we have in mind the description of all our pals.
- In the center of the header you have a score to count your action points in case you use them. I've included a Fatigue Score too because we use it, remember the sheet can be modified. There's also a Speed Score, which we use in our pursuits (swear I'll post our rules soon, can't find the time to finish the doc).
- Attack tables have an additional score, defense, to know the defense of a character using that weapon.
- Life counter down has five groups of pips. First three include the name Mr. Hood remarks in his rules, but in the last two I prefered to write the effect this level of damage has on the character. Call me pragmatic...    
- I have included 3 more life counters, below the character's one, just in case you have a horse, an animal companion, or simply if you want to control the wounds you inflict in an enemy.
- In the second page you can see I've forgotten all the weight counters. We don't use them, we use logic.
- Items table just include hardness and Hit Points. Really what we use playing.

The idea was to create a character sheet just containing things we use. We were pissed at writing the borders and leave most of the sheet in blank.

Again: I'd welcome your suggestions.

PS: I'm uploading two versions, I know somebody may feel offended if I touch the logo...


----------



## Theseus

SSquirrel said:
			
		

> Yes I believe it was stated early in the thread that if you're going to make use of the GnG Revised that you should utilize the 3.5 version of Power Attack instead of the 3.0 which is the 2:1 ratio mentioned previously.
> Hagen



 Mmm...I was wondering where had I read it...it was a few pages ago...


----------



## Alanbit

*GnG Core Sheet*

Hi all,

I'm seeing you people are viewing the two files I uploaded with the GnG Character Sheet, but I see no comments.
I would like to know your opinion in order to improve the pdf to be useful to the most of us.
Thanks


----------



## FraserRonald

SSquirrel said:
			
		

> Heh ya shoulda linked to this thread in teh review after mentioning that people should d/l the rules. Questions can be answeed here and all.




Ask and ye shall receive. I also believe in giving credit where credit is due. If you have time, whip by the review again. 



> Overall a good review tho.




Merci! 

Take care all.


----------



## SSquirrel

FraserRonald said:
			
		

> Ask and ye shall receive. I also believe in giving credit where credit is due. If you have time, whip by the review again.



Very cool.  Just wanna help spread the word and a link to this thread seemed like teh right idea.

Hagen


----------



## Alanbit

*Speed and Movement Rules*

Hi all,

   As I promised days ago, we just have posted our rules about pursuits and movement.
   I had to create a new post just to follow the forum policy, although we treat it as a complement to the G-n-G rules we use.

   You can find the document at http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?p=1559903#post1559903

   We'd be really happy if you could post any comment about them.
   Thanks again.


----------



## whyrph

Ken - first off, nice to see you back.  Sorry to hear about you not gaming (assuming that wasn't your decision), and hope you end up doing it again someday.

Anyway, I was looking through my old stuff and trying to sort out the varying versions of the psionics system that I have, and I was wondering which version had the Five Cardinal Skils?  I have a printout (sans date, unfortunately), of a version that had that.  It looks to be an earlier version, since it was only 22 pages, but I could be wrong.  I'm curious as to when that idea was removed/came about.

Also, I'm wondering if the "completepsionics.rtf" file is the latest version.  It's dated 12/10/2001, so it's the latest version I have.

Hmm ..to get back on topic, about the revised GnG rules.  First, very cool.  Haven't tried them out yet, but I'm thinking of running a game this summer that they would be _very_ cool for.  I just have one caveat with them, and it relates to the critical hits, and possibly a semantic difference in how we think of critical hits.  My idea of them has always been that you get lucky and hit a vital spot, and it seems odd to hit for a critical, then _decide_ where the critical would go.  Not a big problem, though, and I think I'm just going to modify it slightly and have the GM decide which critical threat to use based on where the player attacked the enemy.


----------



## doghead

KenHood said:
			
		

> Nope. Remember: Defense is your _base_ Reflexes score or your _base_ attack bonus. Whichever is higher.
> 
> Lightning Reflexes is a bonus on top of your base Reflexes. It wouldn't affect your Defense.




According to my copy of the revised rules*:

Base Defense Bonus = BAB + Dex mod or Total Reflex saving throw (inc Dex mods).

ie BDB = BAB + Dex mods *or* BDB = base Reflex save + dex mods.

Have I missed something?

While I'm here. We're just kicking off a pbp gng game at the moment. But the question of how flatfooted affects defense came up during character generation, as did Uncanny Dodge. If the above is correct, then you just lose your dex mods (and Uncanny dodge allows you to keep them?) when flat-footed?

*I have the .pdf rather than the .doc version as I don't have a .doc reading application. I know that there were some updates/alterations in the .doc version but I think that I have caught most of them.


----------



## Fieari

Well, I pitched the system to my group recently, and they eventually decided against it, preferring the more cinematic approach.  One additional complaint did arise though, with regards to the specifc spell Magic Missile... as you start going up in levels, enemies with soak start comming into play more and more.  Magic Missile, in straight D&D, is useful more or less forever, but in this, it seems that with soak greater than 5, it becomes 100% completely worthless.  And if you modify the spell to ignore soak, it becomes god-like.

There are a number of spells and effects that work by deal large numbers of very small attacks... the epic level spell Crown of Vermin comes to mind.  Straight D&D, that spell deals 1000 points of damage to anything that comes too close.  In GnG, it deals NOTHING to ANYONE who has ANY soak AT ALL, since it works by dealing 1 point of damage at a time repeatedly.

Any thoughts on how to handle this?  I know you don't mean to deal with re-writing spell lists and CRs and all that, but this seems like a common enough situation that a general solution is needed.  How do you deal with effects that would deal a large amount of damage, but in rapid small bursts?


Oh, by the way, the biggest complaint from my players was that it forces you to ambush ALL THE TIME and that they think that would get a little boring after a while.  "We beat the troll by ambush."  "We beat the ogre by ambush."  "We beat the dragon by ambush."  "Oh boy, another ambush."  was the specific complaint, if I recall correctly.  We only did a couple trial runs, converting the characters to the new system and then pitting them against various foes to see how it worked out, and they noted that for most things, it was whoever struck first that won, few other factors withstanding.


I'm really interested in hearing more playtest stories.  The comment about the archer now being actually effective really struck a chord with me, and the leathality of it all does make things, in my mind, raather appealing.  I agree about the fact that most D&D heroes aren't heros at all, because there's no risk.  But unless I can convince my players, it won't happen, and convincing players won't happen unless I can show them stories that appeal to THEM about the system...


----------



## doghead

Fieari said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> Oh, by the way, the biggest complaint from my players was that it forces you to ambush ALL THE TIME and that they think that would get a little boring after a while.  "We beat the troll by ambush."  "We beat the ogre by ambush."  "We beat the dragon by ambush."  "Oh boy, another ambush."  was the specific complaint, if I recall correctly.




I think that one of the underlying intentions of the system is make it very dangerous to go toe-to-toe with an large monster like an ogre or dragon. Ken posted a sample of play where 4 4th level characters did this and got slaughtered in a few rounds. On the other hand, it makes the 'ordinary' monsters (ie: orcs, gnolls, bugbears, hobgoblins and goblins) potentially much more challenging, and thus interesting. Even the higher level characters won't be able to just shrug off a band of goblin worg riders (especially if I can learn to play them right  ).

Both of these things are advantages in my opinion. The common monsters will play a significant recurring role - better reflecting their stonger presense in the world. The exotic ones will appear only occasionally, and will be taken on with only a great deal of planning. 

I can understand how the thought of spending the entire campaign planning ambushes for large monsters could be a little off putting. One solution lies in changing the nature of the campaigns. Start with a raiding party of orcs. If your players are fairly used to battling larger monsters, it might come as a rude shock to find the orcs (especially raging ones) proving to be dangerous opponents. If it were me, I'd play the orcs to the full - a couple of kills/having to retreat might get the players respect for the more 'ordinary' monsters. It could be followed by a number of things - rescue someone captured in the raid; find and kill the orc chieftan; get out of the area alive.

Hope that that helps.


----------



## lp

Well I've been slowly reading over the rules and this thread for the last couple of days, and I'm pretty pumped about the revised rules. I to will probably implement the 2 4 8 16 rule to make small and large creatures not as horribly outclassed (I like playing halflings), but that's about all I will change withoutu doing some playtesting.

Anyway, thanks to Ken for the rules, and to the other guys who really seem to be jumping onboard. These rules will really change how my players game.. which is scary because they already try to avoid most combats when I'm running.

Hope to see the rest you guys around in these threads.


----------



## Theseus

*Playtesting 2.0*

After more playtesting, a few issues came up and I´d like to know what have you done in your games.

 - Since undead are immune to crits, you can´t ignore their armor? It doesn´t make much sense, right? On the other hand, if you state that they are not immune to crits, they lose their biggest benefit of being an undead.

 - Which spells have you removed from game /changed? Whenever a player casts a new spell, we have to consider if it should change to adapt the new system. For instance, the deadly _creeping doom _is now utterly useless...

 -Magic Items. For instance, if you are using a vorpal weapon you should _always_ aim for the head on the crit confirmation roll.

  What else has come up in your game?


----------



## lp

I did a mock combat today with mainly 2nd level characters against our friend Otis, and I couldn't believe how long the combat lasted. I admit I was rolling horribly the entire time, and I had drubbed Otis down to 2s instead of 4s for being large.. but yeesh.

The fighter was the first to die (and quite quickly and spectacularly), then the sohei and the druid fight lasted at least 6 rounds, with small hits until the sohei got a good one in. The druid actually *survived*.

Of course I also ran a couple of other ones with the fighter against a ranger, and whoever won pretty much took the win.


----------



## Acid_crash

I don't know if this would change things, but if you use Dexterity as the main modifier to attack rolls, would you still keep Dexterity as the initiative modifier, or change it to Wisdom?  I've seen many other games use a combination of dexterity and wisdom like initiative modifiers, but by changing the attack roll modifier to only dexterity, then dexterity is really getting to becoming THE major ability for a lot of things it can modify.

Thanks Ken for this great system, I do like the feel of it, but haven't tried it yet.  I needs to gets me some players to doos that though..  

Another query:  I love Conan, and I like how it differentiates between Parry and Dodge Defenses (Strength modifies Parry, and Dexterity modifies Dodge)... would this be feasible using this GnG system?

And yet another query: I just got the Advanced Players Handbook, and in it is a defense variant that seperates Defenses into Armor Defense, Parry Defense, Dodge Defense, and Deflection Defense (Armor, Strength, Dexterity, Shield) instead of just one Defense modifier for everything.  How would having these seperate categories for defense work with GnG?   With or without the attack roll being either Strength or Dexterity.

Another question: Is Sleeping Imperium going to ever get published?


----------



## SSquirrel

Acid_crash
 And yet another query: I just got the Advanced Players Handbook said:
			
		

> Not having seen teh rules in question I can't comment on them, but teh obvious statement here is that it wouldn't really be the SIMPLIFIED GnG
> system then now would it? *grin*
> 
> Hagen


----------



## malebode

SSquirrel said:
			
		

> Ahh but you don't discount my comment of masochists on Monte's boards *grin*
> Actually I think it could be interesting in the setting and storyline as well.  I definitely appreciate teh flexibility of AU and will be running it in mid may (can't start sooner due to conflictin gschedules sadly) but I don't think my group would enjoy the grim n gritty rules.  Altho who knows maybe they would.  maybe I'll have people look at them and if they like em we'll try them out.  If everyone hates em in play we'll dump em.
> 
> yes in a setting where all the PC races are medium it balances them better against each other, but as Ken said, if you're tiny you SHOULDN'T be equal.
> 
> Hagen
> 
> Hagen




SSquirrel, I've been running a once-in-a-while campaign in the AU setting using the old Grim 'n' Gritty rules.  I made several modifications, and I'd be glad to forward that information on to you.

-Malebode


----------



## Jin

*Threat Range*

We started experimenting with a modified version of this system last night.

One of the items that wasn't customized was the new critical threat ranges.  One of the players in my group has a keen katana (old 17-20) & so crits when he beats a victim's defense roll by 4+.

This seems a bit low to me even with the usual confirmation roll.  This could be because we use a critical effect system instead of just doubling damage.

Has anyone changes these values at all?


----------



## Primitive Screwhead

*Grimm n not so Gritty*

Ken Hood! Thanks!

 I am one of those quiet types who has copies of your GnG, Psionics, and Martial Arts systems hiding on my hard-drive.. and incidently today I have started work on my next campaign world which will include all of them.

Anyway, I did a quick read through of the rules and I like what I saw. Alot of it reminds me of the CP2020 combat system, which I like alot.

But enough groveling at the feat of a master  I do have some suggestions to make..taken from CP2020 schema

Extend the 'dying' category out some more blocks, I would do 5. Each additional block add 1 to the penalties. Any round in which a 'dying' character takes damage, they must succeed at a FORT save vs the total number of pips lost or fall unconsious.

Undead and constructs automatically succeed on this save.

I will look into it more over the next couple weeks, but it looks like a solid system to me.


Again, thanks!


----------



## Malin Genie

I liked the idea of the original GnG, but it was too complicated and different for me to want to try to implement it.  This version looks eminently playable, and I'm keen to give it a go!  Well done, and thank you for making your hard work available to all of us!

Quick suggestion re Sneak Attack - the idea is that the Rogue can hit more easily and hit more vital spots if the opponent is unaware or distracted (e.g. flanked.)  Perhaps this could translate into a +1 attack bonus per Rogue level if the opponent is flatfooted/flanked, over and above the base +2.  Conversely, Uncanny Dodge could allow Level offset of opponents' bonuses for attacking an flatfooted/flanked opponent.

For example: A 5th level Rogue catches a 5th level Fighter from the shadows.  She gains +2 (opponent unaware) +5 (rogue levels) = +7 to the attack (slightly less damage than the +2 to attack / +6 damage she would gain under the original rules, but more likely to hit)

If she instead catches a 5th level Barbarian the -5 mostly offsets the +7 so she gains only the usual +2 bonus to attack (and is standing next to a probably very angry Barbarian - gulp!)


----------



## glass

Fenris said:
			
		

> I was considering using the following feat with the revised GnG rules. Does it fit with the overall grittiness of the system and is it balanced. Thanks for you input. Also any suggestions for a better name?
> 
> Grin and Bear It<snip>




How about 'High Pain Threshold'?


glass.


----------



## SSquirrel

Ahh the evils of necro posting *grin*

 Ok so I'm curious how things have been going with those who have been using the revised GNG ruleset.  My game managed to never get off the ground sadly so I still haven't been able to play them out.  How have your games been going?  What changes have you made to make things run more smoothly?  I figured I'd revive this thread since there seems to be some new interest in the system again.

 Hagen


----------



## Modin Godstalker

One suggestion.  You might want to adapt the damage system from Top Secret.  It had lethal and non-lethal  as well.  You had a number of damage boxes.  Put in a "X" for each lethal hit taken.  Put a "/"  for each non lethal.  If all the boxes are filled with "/"'s then each hit after that turns into an "X" regardless of whether it was a lethal or non-lethal hit.

To adapt this to your version, I would do the same thing you are doing now except if a person fills a lethal dot in, they also fill in a nonlethal dot.


----------



## SSquirrel

Modin Godstalker said:
			
		

> One suggestion. You might want to adapt the damage system from Top Secret. It had lethal and non-lethal as well. You had a number of damage boxes. Put in a "X" for each lethal hit taken. Put a "/" for each non lethal. If all the boxes are filled with "/"'s then each hit after that turns into an "X" regardless of whether it was a lethal or non-lethal hit.
> 
> To adapt this to your version, I would do the same thing you are doing now except if a person fills a lethal dot in, they also fill in a nonlethal dot.



 Isn't this basically what is already being done, except using 2 lines of dots rather than 1?  Been awhile since I glanced at the rules.  Actually, this variation would never knock someone out, they would keep going until dead, where the Revised GNG system has unconsciousness as the option for filling up on nonlethals.  I think.

 Hagen


----------



## FallenAngel

I just love this system. I could never stand the abstraction of hit points standing for dodging ability/etc. in the normal rules and as a result avoided D&D like the plaque(which is a shame since D&D has quite a few excellent campaign worlds).
Fortunately for me, mr. Hood's old Grim-n-Gritty system back then and the recent revised one have made D&D accesible for my tastes.
Many thanks to him for that   

That being said our gaming group recently ran into an ogre too...and our newest campaign having started only recently, the three of us were all only lvl 3   
Needless to say we almost wet ourselves, especially since the big guy was busy vandalizing a bridge we really had to cross in order to get over a huge chasm. Going out of our way to avoid the thing wasn't an option, since time was of the essence and to top it off, our GM informed us while smiling evilly that the bridge would hold out at most 3 or 4 another rounds so we had to cross that chasm really quick while somehow dealing with the ogre.

I decided to do the heroic martyr thing and square off with the ogre in mortal combat to provide a distraction, while my two comrades would cross the bridge as fast as possible and hurry on towards our goal.

This is how the combat went:

-First the important stats of my character
Race: Elan 
Class: Level 3 Soulknife
Attack: +6(+1 class, + 3 Dex, +1 Weapon Focus)
Defense Bonus: +6(+3 Ref. save, +3 Dex) 
Soak: 8 (Con +3, Studded Leather +3, Heavy Wooden Shield +2)
Damage: 1d6+3 (+3 Str)
Special: Psychic Strike +1d8 damage, Psionic Weapon +2d6 damage 
Psychic Strike had been readied in advance and Psionic Focus was also accomplished before the fight

I got Init. and opened up with my most potent attack, utilizing both the charged Psychic Strike and the Psionic Weapon Feat to beef my attack up with 1d8 and 2d6 extra damage(we convert all extra damage dice besides the weapon dice into their equivalent flat-point values from the GnG table, which equals a total of +7 damage).
My roll turned out 11(17) and the ogre's defense roll was a 3(5).
Hit by 12 and threatened a critical!
I chose to try and ignore his size modifier and managed to confirm the critical while the ogre failed his ref. save.
All in all a hit by 12, ignoring 4 points of the ogres soak.
My damage roll (1d6+22 all in all) turned out to a 28, less the ogre's lowered soak of 12 = 16 pips which dropped him right into the "Disabled" condition and probably made him pretty angry   
Disregarding his injuries, he gleefully took a swing at me.
He rolled a 19(still 19 after his Attack bonus and wound penalty were applied)...and my defense roll came up 2(8).
Being hit by 11 and getting threatened by a critical clearly  was NOT GOOD.
Thankfully he couldn't confirm the crit. and ended up rolling *only* 2d8+20 damage.
He got a 24, less my soak of 8 = 16 pips which would have dropped me straight into "Disabled" too, if I didn't have my racial ability of Resilience on which I burned 4 Power Points to stop another 8 damage, leaving only 8, to drop me to moderately wounded and at -1 to most rolls.
He also lost another pip due to performing a strenous action while being in the "Disabled" condition, for a total of 17 pips so far.
At this point the fight was pretty much over already, since all I had left to do was moving away from him(since he was barely able to move anymore) and killing him with a thrown Mindblade.

I guess this shows that even in the GnG system a lvl 3 character can take on a CR 3-Large creature alone and win, although it's pretty risky for him


----------



## SSquirrel

Great tale FallenAngel, glad your character made it out alive. *Grin*
 I think the main complaint I've seen of this system is people saying they don't want constant TPKs and such.  Well if their players would think before acting they would probably live throught the session.  I don't think it takes completely planned out, something out of Splinter Cell kinda actions...just giving more than 2 seconds thought and planning into your actions.

 Hagen


----------



## ShinRyuuBR

*A tidbit more of heroism*

I've been thinking about using only base Ref bonus, never BAB, for Defense, but adding base Fort bonus to Soak. I like realism, but I think warriors could use a little touch of additional heroism. Anyhow, it could account for psycological damage tolerance as well. Also, since higher-HD classes always have better Fort, things seem to mesh a bit better (particularly for the barbarian, who, unlike the other high-HD classes, tends to use lighter armor).

Such a change means characters not only will get better at avoiding being hit, but also at taking damage. A lean towards heroism, without grossly offending realism, in my opinion. I just don't feel SOO grim'n'gritty towards my players...   I'm even thinking about removing size modifiers to Soak, since larger monsters tend to have higher Fort anyway. Feels neater to me, is all.


----------



## FallenAngel

I dunno, but to me it seems that always using base Ref bonus instead of the higher between BAB and Ref as Defense and including the Fort bonus in soak transforms the Grim'n'Gritty system right back into standard DnD, because with your changes:

1. You get hit a HELL of a lot more (Fighter lvl 20 with a Defense of 6 (with all stats 10 and without shield) under your system compared to the Defense of 20 he'd have under GnG).

2. You can take a ton of hits before going down (taking the Fighter from before, he'd have a Soak of 20 in Full Plate in your system(again, all stats 10 no other boni), compared to the Soak 8 he'd have in GnG.

You'd probably be better off just playing with hit points if you're going to change the system as drastically as that.


----------



## Malin Genie

FallenAngel said:
			
		

> ...
> Defense Bonus: +6(+3 Ref. save, +3 Dex)
> Soak: 8 (Con +3, Studded Leather +3, Heavy Wooden Shield +2)




Wouldn't the shield contribute to Defence, not Soak?

But good to see another actual example of play!  I've been trialling the system with a friend, and we've enjoyed it, although I'm still wrestling with the problem of increased versimilitude but decreased ability to use published sources --> increased work!


----------



## Thomas Hobbes

The shield would indeed have contributed to defense rather than soak, which is actually more beneficial- each attack is 10% less likely to hit you AND each one that does hit deals 2 less damage than it would otherwise, since each point the defense is beaten by also adds to damage...

This is one thing about GnG- things like Power Attack and Rage no longer work quite the way the used to.  Power attack, as discussed before, is only really "worth it" when wielding two-handed weapons (a possible revision would make a one-handed power attack have a 3/2 damage/modifier ratio, and two-handed be 5/2 damage/modifier ratio).

Rage is an interesting case.  The Strength bonus either does double duty (if you're keeping strength as the melee attack modifier) because it adds to hit, as well as to damage normally AND to damage as well because each point you beat defense by is an extra point of damage.  If you're using the Dex-based variant, the strength bonus is much less useful.  Meanwhile, the -2 AC, +4 constitution cancel each other out, and is actually a bit of a loss- you get hit 10% more often, and the 2 extra soak is cancelled out by the fact that each attack that hits deals 2 more damage then normal.


----------



## FallenAngel

Malin Genie said:
			
		

> Wouldn't the shield contribute to Defence, not Soak?
> 
> But good to see another actual example of play!  I've been trialling the system with a friend, and we've enjoyed it, although I'm still wrestling with the problem of increased versimilitude but decreased ability to use published sources --> increased work!




You're of course right on the shield quote, that was a mistake on my part(since I didn't write all the exact rolls down during our adventure and tried to reconstruct the whole thing from memory, I mixed up the shield bonus ^_^).

I didn't have all that many problems yet converting my twenty or so DnD books to the GnG system, although I usually deal with stuff on a case by case basis in the order it comes up in play and write down our consensual ruling.


----------



## Etiquette_Gnome

I'd like to bring up one issue I found with Ken Hood's system, which is the matter of falling damage. Currently, being covered in metal armor makes you able to withstand some pretty significant falls, which is a bit confusing to say the least. I'm currently house-ruling this house-rule system , where only equipment based soak (aka Armor) does not help towards falling damage.


----------



## ViciousPenguin

Etiquette_Gnome said:
			
		

> <snip> I'm currently house-ruling this house-rule system , where only equipment based soak (aka Armor) does not help towards falling damage.




Is it your contention that natural armor would 'soak' up falling damage?  I wouldn't imagine that it would really be much help.

Also, it occurs to me that size might work against you when falling.  Instead of helping you 'soak' up more damage, a big creatures mass might actually hurt them more.  (Witness a horse falling 5 feet versus a dog falling 5 feet.  I think the dog would fare better.)


----------



## CapnZapp

Eeh, this thread is kind of long...

Any chance of compiling all the good stuff in a single location, and posting a link there from this thread's very first post? Preferably in a prominent position? (Posting it as a reply to my post will only make it buried at page 14...)

Aplogies if this has already happened, but I did try to read through the entire thread. Might have missed some things among the close to three hundred posts though...

As far as I can see, the deal consists of
* Ken's document (of course) in RTF and PDF (?)
* the final result of the "DEX instead of STR to hit" major variant
* I believe somebody posted character sheets 
* (anything else?)

Thanks,
Zapp


----------



## Fieari

One spell I think may need some reworking is Magic Missile.  Because with Soak, it might become utterly useless.  Ignoring Soak, it becomes massively overpowered.  Overcomming Soak is usually an aspect of the attack roll, but MM doesn't make an attack roll because it "automatically hits".  Does that mean we should assume a NAT20 for its attack roll?  That also makes it massively dangerous.

Perhaps roll d10 + defender's defense?  That could be interesting, but I'm not sure how well it would work.


----------



## harmyn

Love the rules Ken!!!  Going to very likely use them in my next Lankhmar campaign. BUT after spending a couple of hours playing out various combat scenarios with a friend I have a couple of questions I am hoping others who have played it out can help me with.

1st - Negative Constitution Modifiers. Do these subtract from your total soak roll? If so then a very poor constition increases the amount of damage you take with any given hit. Which can seem reasonable I guess. Just looking for confirmation on this.

2nd - How did anyone do the Paladin healing ability?  Just curious about it.

Just as an FYI the only change we made to the rules as written was to remove the extra damage bonus for large size (big guys killed the little guys just fine w/o it). And we used the d4 die cap variant. 

If anyone has any thoughts or suggestions for my questions it would be most helpful.


----------



## Fieari

Thanks for bumping this thread!  I'd actually been looking for it recently, without finding it.  So in thanks, I'll answer... one of your questions.

Yes, negative constitution definitely lowers soak.  My players have their soak and defense written out like AC used to be, with each modifier getting written down so that when one changes, or one becomes irrelevant, it's instantly noticable as to how things change.

My group lacks a paladin, so I don't know how to handle that.  Seems like a bit of a tricky situation.

On the other hand, I did give "Energy Substitution: Positive" as a metamagic feat to the party's sorcerer (mostly because we also lack a cleric) so we have had to adjucate random other spells being turned into healing spells.  The way we do THAT is compare the "damage" of the evocation in question to one of the cleric healing spells.  So a positive energy Magic Missile heals 2 points per missile, because each missile can be compared to a Cure Light Wounds.

Now then.

Speaking of Magic Missile... the way I ended up working it is that each magic missile is treated as a 1d4 weapon (of force) that automatically rolls 1 higher than the defense, no matter what the defense is.  (making each missile do... 1d4+1 damage)  The critical range for each weapon would be, in non-GnG, 15-20, meaning that it automatically criticals.  I also have it automatically confirm the critical.  This has presented no problems... it makses the spell useful, but not devestating.  The critical effect chosen is almost ALWAYS bypass XXX armor... blinding or breaking arms or legs or whatever doesn't work, because without bypassing a certain amount of soak, it's rare that any damage is EVER done by the spell when cast at creatures of comparable CR.

I also fixed True Strike likewise.  Instead of giving players +20 to damage, which is insane, I make the spell give you a bonus to your attack roll sufficient to let you win by one, so long as this bonus doesn't exceed 20.  Meaning that it's useful for enemies that have incredibly high defense, but next to no soak (or even negative soak!).  A useful spell still, but not as godly as before.  You may need true strike to kill grigs, for instance, but it won't help much against a dragon unless you're combining it with something else up your sleeve.  It remains as useful as always for touch attack spells.

Here's something I'm thinking of adding to the system though, which I'd like feedback for...

I was considering pitting my guys up against a suit of empty armor this monday (if they get to a certain point).  Now, I could give said suit of armor some nastily high soak, and "painless" traits (meaning no negative penalties for low HP) but in my mind, I'm seeing a battle where the party needs to dismantle the armor bit by bit in order to "kill" it, and that any two peices still in contact with each other with remain animated and be able to continue fighting... a creepy kind of monster fight.  And while I could describe this as happening by every time 5 damage is done, something falls off... there's already a mechanic for dismantling something.

The critical hit rules.

Now what if I created a new trait for some Grim-n-Gritty creatures, that made them invulnerable to anything but critical hits?  You can hack at this thing all you want, but unless you're putting out eyes or removing limbs, you ain't doin' jack to it.  Give it soak 10 or maybe a bit more so that added damage by rolling that crit doesn't hurt it more.  Make it an inherant bonus to saok so that it can't be bypassed by the critical.  The idea here is to keep the physical damage low but possible, so that other critical effects are encouraged, and have them start chopping off limbs...

Now I'm thinking that there are lots of creatures this could apply well too, starting with the undead... but now that I'm thinking of it, why not everything that's normally immune to criticals?  This is an odd reversion of the way things work, but with the new critical rules, I think it may very well apply better...

What do you guys think?  I know I'm giving this to my enchanted suit of armor, but what about to all normally crit immune things?


----------



## harmyn

Fieari said:
			
		

> .....
> 
> Here's something I'm thinking of adding to the system though, which I'd like feedback for...
> 
> I was considering pitting my guys up against a suit of empty armor this monday (if they get to a certain point).  Now, I could give said suit of armor some nastily high soak, and "painless" traits (meaning no negative penalties for low HP) but in my mind, I'm seeing a battle where the party needs to dismantle the armor bit by bit in order to "kill" it, and that any two peices still in contact with each other with remain animated and be able to continue fighting... a creepy kind of monster fight.  And while I could describe this as happening by every time 5 damage is done, something falls off... there's already a mechanic for dismantling something.
> 
> The critical hit rules.
> 
> Now what if I created a new trait for some Grim-n-Gritty creatures, that made them invulnerable to anything but critical hits?  You can hack at this thing all you want, but unless you're putting out eyes or removing limbs, you ain't doin' jack to it.  Give it soak 10 or maybe a bit more so that added damage by rolling that crit doesn't hurt it more.  Make it an inherant bonus to saok so that it can't be bypassed by the critical.  The idea here is to keep the physical damage low but possible, so that other critical effects are encouraged, and have them start chopping off limbs...
> 
> Now I'm thinking that there are lots of creatures this could apply well too, starting with the undead... but now that I'm thinking of it, why not everything that's normally immune to criticals?  This is an odd reversion of the way things work, but with the new critical rules, I think it may very well apply better...
> 
> What do you guys think?  I know I'm giving this to my enchanted suit of armor, but what about to all normally crit immune things?





It sounds like an interesting idea you have. One option you could go for, if it applies to special creatures such as the physical undead (like zombies and mummies) and animated items like the suit of armor is to only apply the critical hit effect and ignore the actual physcial damage. Think of it like the classic horror zombie. They get hit with axes and bats and cars, BUT unless you put a bullet in the brainpan they just keep shambling at you. Basically the only way to hurt them is to get the crit effect in question. Cut off limbs, decapatation, such as that.

To simulate the decapatation idea just make it the disabled head effect as normal but allow damage to apply to the creature in that one instance. In effect if they hit the head and deal enough damage to killl it, its dead. Otherwise the head is still partially attached and it is still coming at'em.  Your idea could make for an interesting effect. Might have to try it out with the coin golem idea from the old Ravenloft rules. Could work nicely there.


----------



## Millennium

I just discovered these rules very recently, and I'm definitely going to have to try them in my next campaign. However, I had a couple of questions. I think I may already know the answers, but I'm just trying to make sure.

Are you allowed to apply your Dex modifier to your base Defense in situations where you wouldn't be allowed to apply it to AC? For example, if you're caught flat-footed, do you still get your Dex bonus to Defense? (My guess: No)
If you use a critical hit to bypass an enemy's armor bonus to Soak, do you also bypass any enhancement bonuses on that armor? (My guess: Yes)
If you use a critical hit to bypass an enemy's armor bonus to Soak, and the armor has an ability which activates when the wearer is struck, does that ability still activate? (My guess: Yes)
You can bypass armor with critical hits, and you can bypass size modifiers, but I noticed that you don't provide a way to bypass damage reduction with a critical hit. Is this deliberate? (My guess: Yes, it's deliberate)
If the target of an attack has an ability which would drop the damage by some proportion, rather than a fixed amount, does this apply before or after subtracting energy resistance and damage reduction? The Boppo example (where the ability is simply "save for half damage") shows that it comes before subtracting Soak, but what about ER and DR? (My guess: it comes before applying DR or energy resistance)


----------



## Sravoff

Cergorach said:
			
		

> Just got around to reading it, SWEET! Reminds me of Shadowrun,



Cool! I love shadowrun, and am always trying to configure d&d to be more like it. I'll definitly have a look.

-Sravoff


----------



## SSquirrel

The newer condensed version of this thread has gone missing, likely in the crash.  If MOrrus is unable to restoore it I'm going to have to redo it.  If anyone happens to have that thread saved offline, please drop an email to me so I can get things back up much easier ;_)

hagen_kirk at yahoo.com


----------



## genshou

*tear*

No, I didn't have it saved.  I guess we'll have to start over...


----------



## DarkKestral

While it doesn't sound like a bad idea, this does seemingly have a weird mix of d20 with the Storyteller system, and the Wound Levels + Damage Soak and the X and / variant to allow non-lethal damage just makes it... more so.

However, Grim n' Gritty appeals to me, so I won't complain!


----------



## SSquirrel

Actually Ken used FUDGE as most of his basis, but I wouldn't be surprised to find out that FUDGE was heavily influenced by the Storyteller system..  Someone had to explain where the Storyteller system was from to Ken tho as he hadn't heard of it before. (I think anyway, been awhile)


----------



## harmyn

I quite like this system and am plannig to use it for my someday Lankhmar campaign. I was curious though if anyone is familiar with any suggested Alternate Critical Hits systems that could be used with the Grim n' Gritty Rules? Any suggestions or thoughts on this would be great, because at the moment his selction of options is my least favorite part of the rules, but as a fan of GURPS it isn't too much difficulty for me to deal with (although if I do use it more or less as written I might convert it to a simple random chart roll and expand it out to 16 or 20 so that I could use d20 for a warped sense of consistency or my d16 because I think it looks kewl).

As an FYI I will probably be using 6 or 7 pips per category instead of 5 (maybe) and will probably also increase the Dying category by a 5 more to give just a bit more survivability (but not too much more).


----------



## SSquirrel

You could always convert over a copy of Arms Law from Rolemaster   Best crit charts in the history of mankind.  Just watch out for those collapsed lungs, they're a doozie.  The magic crit charts were also pretty obscene.  You could end up turning everything within 100 feet of you into glass like an atomic bomb in the desert.  Nasty stuff.


----------



## doghead

I don't mind the selection, but so far it has mostly been Bypass ___. But I find the number of rolls and fiddly mechanics (the formula for calculating the save DC is a classic) a bit much? Has anyone tried simplifying this part?

thotd


----------



## SSquirrel

Yeah it is a bizarre lil formula.  At least you can go ahead and work out the DC ahead o time and list it on your sheet so the DM just has to ask for it and you have it.  Just another number on teh paper at that point.

Still, a lil simpler couldn't hurt


----------



## harmyn

Don't own Arms Law and don't want anything quite that complicated. Also, I am trying to figure out a different method for coming up with the crit system than the current formula. Just glad I'm not the only one who finds it a bit peculiar in implementation.

Anyone have any thoughts on modifying it?


----------



## doghead

My first thought would be to ditch either the confirmation roll, or the save. I'd probably also look at losing the differing critical mods (ie mace 10/+0, rapier 5/+0) The original dnd mods are based just on damage increases. GnG has a variety of effects - bypass armour, stun, blind. A mace is more likely to be effective at stunning than a rapier.

Whether or not it would work is another matter.

BTW, when using effects like stun and blind, do you usually also keep the regular damage, or is it repalced by the crit effect?

thotd


----------



## doghead

I think that I would just going to ditch the whole critical hit stuff. The mechanics already incorporate the idea of landing a good blow through the overkill mechanism.

I did have an idea regarding an alternative approach, but it is dependent on using the 3d6 rules variant (which I do) as well as an alternative approach to BAB.

It probably should be in a new thread, but I'll stick it here for the moment. Its still very much in the conceptual stage. 

* Characters roll 3d6 rather than 1d20.
* BAB represents the number of extra dice the character has at their disposal. So a character with BAB +3 could roll 6d6 (Take.Highest.3). Strength, enchantment and other bonuses are added to the total as usual.

Instead of Criticals, the charaters can sacrifice dice to achieve an Effect. For example:
* sacrifice 1 dice, bypass light Armour; 
* sacrifice 2 dice, bypass medium armour; 
* sacrifice 3 dice, bypass heavy armour; 
* sacrifice 1 dice, successful strike reduces Spd by 10 ft.
* sacrifice 2 dice, successful strike reduces Spd by 20 ft.
* sacrifice 1 dice, daze target (one round, one round per overkill?).

Other Effects could be incorporated. For example, characters could sacrifice dice to change the characteristics of their weapon. For example: 
* sacrifice 1 dice to change a slashing weapon to a bludgeoning weapon.
* sacrifice 1 (2?) dice to effective gain reach (5 ft.)

Humm. There was a thread about a alternative combat system along these lines. I think I'm going to see if I can hunt it down.

thotd


----------



## genshou

That's going to get really horrible when you have a Base Attack of 20 vs. a Base Defense of 20.  23d6 vs. 23d6, both players take the highest 3 dice.  You've just dragged Randomness by a rope through town, dragged it through the mud, shot both its legs off at the kneecaps, stapled each of its fingers to concrete, and fired a railgun vertically through its body.


----------



## doghead

genshou said:
			
		

> That's going to get really horrible when you have a Base Attack of 20 vs. a Base Defense of 20.  23d6 vs. 23d6, both players take the highest 3 dice.  You've just dragged Randomness by a rope through town, dragged it through the mud, shot both its legs off at the kneecaps, stapled each of its fingers to concrete, and fired a railgun vertically through its body.




Yeah! I always wanted to do that.   

BAB is unlikely to get to 20 with the house rules I have although that doesn't change the validity of your point.

I was thinking of dumping iterative attacks, and allowing characters to split dice pool for multiple attacks. So said character with BAB 20 could chose to allocate +4 dice to initial attack (sacrifice 2 dice to get Reach), use 6 dice for their second attack (sacrifice 1 to switch target), keep 7 dice available for AoO.

I have been looking though DanMC and RangerWickets alternative compat systems that allow character to adapt the way they use their weapons to gain qualities like tripping, settable, reach etc. Anyways, this probably should be in a whole new thread.

thotd


----------



## Bayonet_Chris

*Modifications*

I've eliminated the armor bypass and specific critical hits. The excess damage by a high roll effectively "bypasses armor", so anyone with a solid to-hit will do it on their own without the need of another mechanic.

I combined it with a Wound/Vitality variant - normal damage is taken to vitality (not level-dependent, just constitution+wisdom) and critical damage is taken to both wounds and vitality, which is a direct penalty to ability checks, skills, attack, etc. Since size provides a bonus to damage and soak, it is accounted for there. There is no set number of wounds, just a running penalty. When you take would damage, you make a saving throw to basically stay on your feet/stay living due to the shock of it, which is kind of similar to the shock mechanic in A Game of Thrones.

I'm playtesting it in my Monday game, so we'll see how it goes.


----------



## SSquirrel

How did the playtesting for that variant go Bayonet?


----------



## Bayonet_Chris

*Playtesting*

It's been an ongoing process for several weeks, but it has been going fairly well. I've been keeping track of it on my design blog.


----------



## SSquirrel

NECRO THREAD!!! heh  I still love this system tweak


----------



## Bayonet_Chris

*Mods*

I've been busy lately so I haven't had a chance to update.

The current iteration of wounds/vitality is kind of nice. I've been taking a break from the active playtesting to play in another game and give myself the mental rest. Right now the wounds/vitality break out like this:

Wounds = con
Vitality = Constitution + (class bonus + con mod)/lvl

I'm eliminating as much extra rolling as possible. At half vitality, the character is fatigued. At 0 vitality they're exhausted. Any wounds cause fatigue, so wounds + half vitality = exhaustion, wounds + no vitality = unconsciousness.

I don't have all of my notes in front of me, so I can't go into a whole lot more detail. I've tied vitality in with the magic/MP system, so they draw from the same source. Mages will have a separate vitality/mana pool to only be used for magic. It is small, but replenishes quickly. Excess magic is taken from vitality, which is slower to come back. The mana pool will probably be the caster level times wisdom modifier, minimum of zero (some people just aren't cut out for it).

Most of the special effects in combat I've moved post-roll, so a critical can trigger a special effect instead of having to "call your shot" by saying you're going to trip, grapple, etc. You can use your big success to guide the combat to your advantage.

That's all I can remember off the top of my head.


----------



## cablop

I was using the Ken Hood Martial Arts system, and i found it really good... but now, i have a little question

where can i find the epic rules for this system?


----------



## Primitive Screwhead

*cablop*, I am not aware of any Epic extention to Ken Hoods Skills-n-Feats Martial Arts system. I would suggest starting a new thread to discuss it.. and maybe Ken would come out of hiding to reply 

*Bayonet_Chris*... hows the playtest going? I only skimmed your blog {nice Augery feat BTW..}


----------



## Bayonet_Chris

*Playtest*

It went well while I was doing it. I've taken a break from testing that to work on some other things. I'm running a Play-by-email playtest game at the moment.


----------



## cablop

And another questions, cause martial artist rules are good enough? are there something like them on 4e?


----------



## ironvyper

KenHood said:
			
		

> T
> I don't know. Not too many people have responded with roleplaying remarks.




  OKay i just found this thread on a random jaunt through the houserules forum and made it to page 3 before having to jump in. 

   I've been using this system for years and what i found was Damage reduction creatures get a lot more dangerous. In the core system if a monster have 5 pts of damage reduction its of little consequence to fighter types whether they the right weapons and even 10 pts of DR with most   two handed weapons is a problem but the warriors can still wittle them down. 

   However those extra 5 or 10 pts of soak make it virtually indestructible unless they get very lucky attack rolls.  So any sort of beasty with DR is much more powerful.


----------



## SSquirrel

This is a good example of how D&D breaks down as you get past the "sweet spot" which stops around 10-13 depending on who you listen to.  Maybe the easiest fix would be divide DR by 2 (or even 3) to see how much it adds to soak.  Round down so a DR 7 or 8 still just adds +2 Soak if you use the DR/3 method.


----------



## Zmyrgel

Has anyone used these rules with Iron Heroes. 

Iron Heroes is already using armor as DR and defense values so adding grimm and gritty rules to it would fit the game theme nicely. 

Still gotta check the class features on how they would work with GG... also the fact that each classes base save = char level needs a bit of a review.


----------



## ironvyper

Zmyrgel said:
			
		

> Has anyone used these rules with Iron Heroes.
> 
> Iron Heroes is already using armor as DR and defense values so adding grimm and gritty rules to it would fit the game theme nicely.
> 
> Still gotta check the class features on how they would work with GG... also the fact that each classes base save = char level needs a bit of a review.




 Havent played iron heroes with these rules but having played both i think it would be a great fit, u might want to up the HP or pips slightly to compensate for the big action movie feel the skill system has in iron heroes but other then that i think it would work. 

  One note though, i played that system when it first came out and i cant remember the class names perfectly but i think it was a skirmisher... anyway that class was busted with a halfway intelligent player anyway, with this system they would be much more dangerous then just about any other class.


----------



## genshou

SSquirrel said:
			
		

> This is a good example of how D&D breaks down as you get past the "sweet spot" which stops around 10-13 depending on who you listen to.  Maybe the easiest fix would be divide DR by 2 (or even 3) to see how much it adds to soak.  Round down so a DR 7 or 8 still just adds +2 Soak if you use the DR/3 method.



No need to rebalance.  If a 13th-level party wants to take on what in normal D&D is considered a "CR 13" iron golem, they have it coming whether they've got an adamantine weapon or not.  GnG was never made with the intent of being "balanced" in the same manner as core rules; if you don't like that your puny 3-foot sword can't hurt the Colossal beastie, maybe you should think harder about the fact that you're a hardboiled egg holding a steel toothpick.


----------



## Zmyrgel

ironvyper said:
			
		

> Havent played iron heroes with these rules but having played both i think it would be a great fit, u might want to up the HP or pips slightly to compensate for the big action movie feel the skill system has in iron heroes but other then that i think it would work.
> 
> One note though, i played that system when it first came out and i cant remember the class names perfectly but i think it was a skirmisher... anyway that class was busted with a halfway intelligent player anyway, with this system they would be much more dangerous then just about any other class.




Yeah, I made few sample encounters and the PC's didn't have time to accumulate their ability pools as combat lasted 5 rounds... shortest being 1 round combat with instant kill arrow...

I just remembered that I have Midnight campaign setting too which is low-magic world and uses mostly core classes... I think GG is more easily fitted there.


----------



## ironvyper

Midnight definately has the perfect feel for these kinds of combat rules. If i ever convince my group to go back to fantasy from sci-fi that'll be the next setting i run.


----------



## scalylizard

*Grim-n-Gritty Rules and multiple attacks (via rapid shot or two weapon fighting)*

We are currently running Grim-n-Gritty and I need some pointers:
PCs with rapid shot and TWF seem to have an unbalanced advantage over PCs without those feats. Since the possible maximum damage with each roll is significantly higher (assume your opponent rolled 1 and you rolled 20, then , it could be 19+weapon damage).

Given this advantage, my group is leaning toward  multiple attacks etc. I was thinking that, maybe -2 penalty that come with TWF or RS are a little too generous now that the damage mechanics are significantly different? 

Couple of things come to my mind, for example increasing the penalties of rapid shot and TWS to by another -2,(so anyone who has the TWF feat gets -4 penalty instead of -2 with each attack)  or increasing the defense value of all shields in the game by +2 (buckler becomes +3 etc) so that carrying a shield suddenly seems more attractive. 
What do you think?

Edit: Magic is not really a big part, we are also running the E6 variant, so magic weapons and such are not really that common in our games.


----------



## Greg K

Is the pre-revised and simplified version available? The revival of this thread made me want to compare the two versions. I recall having the original version, but the  computer that it was on blew up (okay, not literally, but it did shoot out a flame and die).


----------



## Ilja

Greg K said:


> Is the pre-revised and simplified version available? The revival of this thread made me want to compare the two versions. I recall having the original version, but the  computer that it was on blew up (okay, not literally, but it did shoot out a flame and die).



Google grim'n'gritty 3.3 and thou shalt find.


----------



## Greg K

Stringburka said:


> Google grim'n'gritty 3.3 and thou shalt find.




Thanks


----------



## Stacie GmrGrl

Bump  

Just wondering...I didn't read this whole thread, so I'm just going to ask...where are the latest versions of these rules?  I know there's 3.3, but that's not the latest version and I'm not going to go through all these posts to find the latest version, unless I really do have to, but that could be oh so time consuming...


----------



## Theo R Cwithin

There's GnG HitPoint and Combat rules, v4.0 at DrivethruRPG.

The "GnG: Revised and Simplified" can be downloaded for free at scribd, among other places.


----------



## cablop

are those the continuation of the martial arts rules? i was looking for the epic martial arts skills and feats... but not willing to buy a different product

i also wonder if those rules are compatible with the pathfinder rules set


----------



## Theo R Cwithin

I've never seen v4.0, so I'm not sure... but the product description only mentions a few martial arts feats, among a lot of other stuff.  It seems to be an updated version of "_Grim-n-Gritty Hit Point and Combat Rules (v3.3)_".

In other words, I don't think it's an extension of his "_d20 Skills-n-Feats Martial Arts System_" rules, if that's what you're referring to.

And it's also distinct from his "_Grim-n-Gritty Combat: Revised and Simplified_", which is a stripped down version of the "HP and Combat" rules document(s).

As for compatibility with PF, you might ask in the Pathfinder forum.


----------



## cablop

so... is there any update of the "_d20 Skills-n-Feats Martial Arts System_"? this is what i'm interested in...


----------



## Theo R Cwithin

Not to my knowledge.  In the preface to "G-n-G Revised and Simplified", Ken Hood says he stopped playing rpgs back in 2002 or 2004 or so.  So I don't think there will be any more updates to his stuff, sadly


----------



## cablop

ok... then any good alternative to those rules for epic characters? my friends started to propose some "epic" rules, but cause Ken rules are almost realistic... i'm realizing those proposed rules are unrealistic, lol... anyway epic characters are unrealistic also


----------



## Theo R Cwithin

I rarely get into epic level or martial arts, so I'm not sure about alternate rules (for me 10th is epic  ).  

However,  if you start a new thread specifically about epic martial arts, someone else might be more likely to see it and have some suggestions for you.


----------



## pskben

*Power attack?*

In your system would you change power attack any? I was just wondering because if one was wielding a two handed weapon and just took a -2 they are adding 4 to damage and in your system that is pretty decent amount. 

You may have already touched on this in previous threads but I really didn’t want to go through 20+ pages.


----------



## SSquirrel

Super necro!!!!



pskben said:


> In your system would you change power attack any? I was just wondering because if one was wielding a two handed weapon and just took a -2 they are adding 4 to damage and in your system that is pretty decent amount.
> 
> You may have already touched on this in previous threads but I really didn’t want to go through 20+ pages.




Post 127: "One observation is that power attack is made obsolete. Reducing chance to hit and thereby increasing average damage comes out worse than keeping the bonus to hit. Not surprisingly really, just hadn't seen it before testing. It will likely also be better to take greater weapon focus than weapon specialist as a to hit bonus is actually both a to hit and a damage bonus and makes criticals more likely to boot.  
All in all fighters should opt to maximise attack bonus over damage in this system. I even think that finesse fighters will be better off than in regular d&d."

Also in another post, Ken seems to feel that PA is just fine as it is.


I used to have a mate to this thread that compiled all the Q&A we developed thru the thread and put it into a more condensed area, but that thread got lost in one of the server crashes several years back.  I may re-do the example combat with Dex as the attack stat just to show the differences in outcome and re-compile Q*A if there is still interest in this system after all this time.  I've moved on to 4E, but I still love this system of changes


----------

