Dragon Age RPG feels like a broken mess to me and my players

[Loswaith]

...
Deliberate Stunts
Any player can, before they roll the dice, explicitly say they are attempting to generate the effect of specific named stunt: doing so imposes a penalty on their roll of TWICE the stunt point cost. Basically, you can try (through skill / talent) to force things to go your way, but it's harder than waiting for the opening and seizing the opportunity when it presents. ...

The only issue i can see with this is as it gives rogues the ability to use the pierce armour stunt for only a -2 penalty, making it fairly much a constant thing for them to do (though if that's not an issue for you it could work).

Call me interested, zapp, I'd love to see your ideas as posted at the bottom of your statement.

Backstab: I renamed the game's backstab into "precise strike" (and "shot" since I allow it at range too). The +2 to hit and +1d6 damage, that is. Then I added a proper worthy-of-the-name backstab that doubles damage against an unawares foe. After armor reduction and so on, but still - damn.

Question about this: if you get the "Precise Strike" under the same conditions as the RAW "backstab" when does your other, upgraded version of Backstab apply? I like the idea, but I want to fully understand how it's implemented.

In most cases for a level-less system the class abilities they are made into talents, so it would rank up like any other talent does. In essence working like the Talents a starting character gets and can later develop by RAW.
The specific's of how Zapp uses it however, I'm not familiar with, though discussions for level-less systems had it as 100, 200, 300 for each of the respective ranks (Novice, Journeyman, Master) assuming I recall correctly.

[shonuff]

...
Deliberate Stunts
Any player can, before they roll the dice, explicitly say they are attempting to generate the effect of specific named stunt: doing so imposes a penalty on their roll of TWICE the stunt point cost. Basically, you can try (through skill / talent) to force things to go your way, but it's harder than waiting for the opening and seizing the opportunity when it presents. ...

The only issue i can see with this is as it gives rogues the ability to use the pierce armour stunt for only a -2 penalty, making it fairly much a constant thing for them to do (though if that's not an issue for you it could work).

What I would suggest is limiting which stunts can be chosen beforehand. Stunts that could be construed as normal actions (eg, disarming, tripping, etc) -- not things like mighty blow or pierce armor. But that might just be me.

[NickMiddleton]

...
Deliberate Stunts
Any player can, before they roll the dice, explicitly say they are attempting to generate the effect of specific named stunt: doing so imposes a penalty on their roll of TWICE the stunt point cost. Basically, you can try (through skill / talent) to force things to go your way, but it's harder than waiting for the opening and seizing the opportunity when it presents. ...

The only issue i can see with this is as it gives rogues the ability to use the pierce armour stunt for only a -2 penalty, making it fairly much a constant thing for them to do (though if that's not an issue for you it could work).

What I would suggest is limiting which stunts can be chosen beforehand. Stunts that could be construed as normal actions (eg, disarming, tripping, etc) -- not things like mighty blow or pierce armor. But that might just be me.

Loswaith: Oops! Forgot to spell out that that I meant double the BASIC stunt point cost off the tables, EXCLUDING any Class / Talent derived reductions. So a Rogue who tries to DELIBERATELY "force" a Pierce Armour stunt still has to face a -4 penalty - but if they wait for the opportunity (i.e. wait for a normal stunt success or use the Opportunity Stunt" rule I also suggested) they still get it cheaper.

So Rogues will tend to ALWAYS be looking to use Pierce Armour (which is true anyway!), but if they succeed they'll be able to do something else (as for them is Pierce Armour is a 1 point stunt) - but if they HAVE to make a stunt, they can choose to try and "force" it.

Shonuff: thought about that, but I'd rather have a rule that says we can use the list of stunts in another way, rather than having ANOTHER list to consult... Just seems a little more simple and direct.

So, tweaked to explain better:

Deliberate Stunts
Any player can, before they roll the dice, explicitly say they are attempting to generate the effect of a specific named stunt: doing so imposes a penalty on their roll of TWICE the standard stunt point cost of the named stunt, excluding any reductions for class level abilities, talents or specialisations etc. So planning to make a 1yd skirmish imposes a -2, planning a Lethal Strike imposes a -10 and a Roguue deliberately trying to Pierce Armour would face a -4 penalty like everyone else. Basically, you can try (through skill / talent) to force things to go your way or to achieve a specific outcome, but it's harder than waiting for the opening and seizing the opportunity when it presents. If the roll produces stunt points anyway, the character gets the Deliberate stunt “for free” and can spend the randomly generated stunt points on other stunts at normal cost (for that character).

Opportunity Stunts
If a player states before they roll the stunt they are going to attempt, and their roll results in stunts points such that they can perform that stunt, they get a bonus of one additional stunt point to use immediately OR a bonus of +1 on one subsequent roll. So characters that plan for specific opportunities get a small reward, which would encourage players to describe what their character is doing without expecting to succeed in full every time - "I'll disarm him if I can." So a Rogue can say they will attempt to Pierce Armour and if they do roll a stunt will ALWAYS get to do that plus something else, as for them Pierce Armour is only 1 stunt point.

Cheers,

Nick

[Zapp]

So, I was making an EXTREMELY long post where I was quoting every single reference of Prone in any official GR material as a demonstration that nothing in the rules in any way implies that being prone does anything beyond making you slightly easier to hit and preventing you from running.

Again, "prone" isn't defined.

You are creating a definition out of what little is mentioned about effects of being prone, but you're missing the elephant in the room, namely the basic english language definition.

In a game like D&D I would agree with you - that game has been specifically constructed to allow you to use lawyer's logic to argue about rules effects. But AGE hasn't. Much like what this thread is about, Dragon Age pretty much is "not D&D".

This in conjunction with the fact that "stop being prone" is such an easy step for a DA character (it's not like you need to take a specific "stand up" action) - meaning it's easy to overlook - again have blinded you to the simple fact that unless you need to rise up from being prone before moving on you are being wholly preposterous.

Sorry but that's all I'm being prepared to say on the matter without taking my gloves off.

If you truly believe the game supports the notion of heroes walking the walk and talking the talk while "lying flat or prostrate" then I can't help you. Simply put: it is never "perfectly logical" to allow a prone character a full move action.

Since "crawl" isn't a defined action either, and since it has been demonstrated by other forum members that "crawling fast" nets you about the same speed as "walking normally" (if not better), then not only is it perfectly logical to allow a prone character a full "move" action, but it is also (by way of grease) explicitly stated in the rules.

Will you look silly doing it? Certainly. But can a normal human do it? Yes. And do the rules allow it? Yes.

Now, was that the original intention? Who knows, but it's in the Rules As Written.

Nope. Sorry.

It won't fly, not even for a fully fledged rules lawyer (devoid of common sense).

Why? Because you're taking things that are undefined, adding things from the real world (the "fast crawl" part) and using that as your foundation for an argument about RAW?

Come on... I can be a rules lawyer too if I want, and I'm not even breaking a sweat here.

[Zapp]

Thanks zandwot for your post.

But they don't feel as good as "You attempt to disarm, you succeed". Whenever my players asked me "can I try to push him down the cliff?" or "can I grab and pin him down?", all I could say was "you need to stunt him first". That felt frustrating to the vast majority of players I've played with. It felt like the game was limiting what they could attempt.

Thing is, this can't be solved without discussing perspective.

Coming from the simulationist camp myself, I could not understand why you'd want a ruleset where you need to "wait for the dice" instead of the other way around.

I could understand it from a theoretical game design point of view (making the designer create combat complexity without having to actually back that up with carefully balanced combat modifiers), but not emotionally.

It wasn't until much later when I learnt that there are plenty of other rpg'ers out there for which this notion comes naturally.

My point is: Dragon Age, and the stunt mechanic specifically, is a whole other ball game. The problem is (probably) that Green Ronin didn't sell it as such, drawing plenty of customers with notions of "simple", "newbie-friendly" and the old-schoolish packaging (five levels at a time) that were - like you - completely unprepared for a game with a fundamentally different design philosophy.

Some gamers could adapt to this (especially moldable newcomers), but the way you're presenting yourself, I completely understand if you can only see the flaws and not the virtues, and I am happy games like Pathfinder exist for you and your group.

[Zapp]

Question about this: if you get the "Precise Strike" under the same conditions as the RAW "backstab" when does your other, upgraded version of Backstab apply? I like the idea, but I want to fully understand how it's implemented.

My apologies: because this feels OT for this particular thread, I have been very brief, possibly at the expense of comprehension. Let's see if I can fix that!

IMC, you gain "backstab doubling" only when you take your enemy unawares. Creeping up behind a sentry, shooting from within the shadows, that sort of thing. Essentially, attacks made during the surprise round I am giving those who successfully ambush their foes.

Once combat has started, this opportunity is over. You cannot backstab an active combatant, even if he happens to not see you. (Unless there's a special case where you haven't joined the combat yet; perhaps sits hidden awaiting such time where your friends can draw out the enemy into your sight).

I allow certain talents to skirt this; for instance the master level of throwing weapons, which allows you the Backstabbing bonus if you 1) start combat unarmed and 2) win initiative. This would allow you to insta-draw your throwing knife and gain backstabbing even when you start combat in plain sight of the enemy, by virtue of "getting your weapon out of nowhere".

Again, that's an exception, and regular combatants (without fancy abilities) basically need to set up ambushes or they won't get the doubling.

---

Precise strike (and precise shot) on the other hand (the old Rogue Backstab ability) are intended to provide a bonus damage die pretty much in every fight. So those bonuses have no onerous requirements.

The only connection between "backstab" and "precise" is that any time you're eligible for backstabbing bonuses, you're pretty much guaranteed the precise bonuses too. (Though I'm sure you can come up with a strange corner case where this doesn't hold true).

But in fact, in my rules I've written that you automatically succeed at your "get the precise bonus" Test when you're in a position that gives you backstabbing. A small shortcut, mostly to save time: it doesn't seem fair to force a second Perception roll when the foe has already not seen you (or you wouldn't be ambushing him in the first place)...

[Elfie]

Totally off-topic of the original post, but I didn't think this merited starting a whole new thread. I spoke to Chris Pramas and Will Hindmarch about being Prone. The word from them is that while Prone you can move at 1/2 Speed, as implied by the text of the Move action. If you're terribly curious, here's the conversation. Naturally anyone can house rule anything they like. I plan to treat it exactly as they've laid it out.

[shonuff]

Sounds about right.

The prone discussion, IMO, highlights the faults in a rules light system. We've had 4 movements discussed, and all have seemed to be viable options.

[zanwot]

Sounds about right.
The prone discussion, IMO, highlights the faults in a rules light system.

No, to be more precise the prone discussion highlights the faults in rules-lawyering a rules light system... I have read some serious rules-lawyering in thread, the fault lies just as much if not more on the rules lawyers in my view. Common sense is the greatest asset of any GM, I think even Gygax said something to that effect.

The problem with DA, once again, is that the combat system gives the "illusion" of being detailed and "square", when really it is only a guideline / starting point, and if you take it systematically it necessarily fails.

[shonuff]

Whether it's the rules of the rules light system, or the rule-lawyering of the rules light system, it's all based on it being a rules light system. The problem that I see is that it is a general psychological trait that people want to know a) the effect of their actions and b) that those effects will be applied fairly. Leaving decisions up to GM discretion calls into question b. GM decisions can be forgotten and altered over the course of a campaign, leaving bitter tastes in people's mouths, I've found.

The problem really is that DA doesn't feel like a finished product. Why include a mention of being able to crawl while prone and not elaborate? Sure, the GM can make spot decisions, but if other speeds are going to be detailed, then why not crawling? IMO, it feels more like oversight than anything else.

And that highlights the rest of the faults I have with AGE -- it feels like they designed/published Set 1 without going further, which is why you have so many glaring faults and redundancies (eg, class abilities in the Set 3 playtest negating Talents, the switch from improving abilities to the ability advancement system, etc.).

[zanwot]

Rules light versus rules heavy in RPGs... We'll have to agree we disagree. Thankfully there are both, and interrestingly (because of its ambiguity) DA attracts both groups.

And that highlights the rest of the faults I have with AGE -- it feels like they designed/published Set 1 without going further, which is why you have so many glaring faults and redundancies (eg, class abilities in the Set 3 playtest negating Talents, the switch from improving abilities to the ability advancement system, etc.).

Clearly there are problems in the whole design strategy and implementation, as implied in the "update" thread by many of us. Although I think it is unfair to use the set 3 playtest to illustrate any point, we can agree in general on that.

[Elfie]

I enjoy both rules heavy and rules light. But I don't enjoy "rules clearly missing," which I don't think DA is. Anything that is not clearly specified in DA, I'm happy to make a ruling on with the input of my players (and the community). But if it's ever possible to get clarification directly from the source (as with moving while prone), I'll almost definitely use that "official clarification" rather than a house rule.

I've found more often than not, when my group comes up with something that is "clearly missing" from Dragon Age, and we spend time working out our own house rule to cover it, we end up almost NEVER running into a situation where we actually needed to use that rule. Which I think exemplifies that DA has "just enough" crunch to get the job done and still leave the GM (and players) lots of leeway.

[FSchuttee]

I've been running DA for several months now and haven't had too much difficulty with it. I agree that some of the talents are weak, but I have started tweaking them. For instance, the Weapon and Shield talent, I changed Journeyman to allow the defensive stance as free, non-stunt action and Master allowing double shield bonus to wielder (text did say opponents would have to work hard to hit the wielder). I allowed animal handler focus to add to commands taught per animal trainer. Most others I thought were good as is for now...

I would also say the fighter isn't the overwhelming force in my campaign. My group has reached fifth level and except for the last big battle they had, they all have been taking some savage beatings -- none have hit "0" health yet, but they have come close (and they do have two NPC's helping them). There is one fighter, two rogues (one a backstabbing thief, the other a bow wielding scout), and a mage (the NPC's being a 6th lvl fighter and the other a 3rd lvl rogue/scout). All have had their moments to shine as well. I know most feel the stunt system is limiting, but my players have adapted to use them on a tactical basis -- i.e. archers using knockdown on approaching fighters, then moving away to keep a safe distance. Yes, other games do allow DA's stunts as combat options, but those tend to be all-or-nothing rolls whereas with the stunt system, you still can do something (damage) even if you can't do a knockdown or disarm.

If I find the players are starting to have an easier time of things, I either beef up the foes a bit and/or use wave tactics with hordes of foes (as in darkspawn hordes I keep reading about). Sure my players will take them down, but with enough foes, some are bound to hit and do damage as they can do stunts too. Plus, if some get behind the character with a shield, I wouldn't allow the shield bonus unless it was strapped to his/her back. Looking over the spells, I can see all sorts of creative uses for them. The Move Earth spell could be useful on soft ground to essentially mire a fighter up to his/her knees, immobilizing them for a bit (probably allow a save = Dex(acrobatics) vs spellpower). otherwise fighter would lose dex bonus to defense, lose move actions, and such in my opinion.

Overall, I agree the system has some flaws, but haven't seen anything to break it at this point.

[shonuff]

Clearly there are problems in the whole design strategy and implementation, as implied in the "update" thread by many of us. Although I think it is unfair to use the set 3 playtest to illustrate any point, we can agree in general on that.

IMHO, a game can be released in leveled stages -- in many ways, it makes a lot of sense in order to catch new gamers who might not be willing to invest in the bestiary, GM guide, player's guide, etc., for a game they're not sure about. However (still IMHO), it should be completed before doing so, so I think it's completely fair to look at the Set 3 playtest to say that in DA's development, there has not been a clear goal that they were working towards. The level ability making talents redundant should never have made it to the playtest.

I enjoy both rules heavy and rules light. But I don't enjoy "rules clearly missing," which I don't think DA is.

In general, I agree with you. But I think in this case, DA is "rules clearly missing," but it's cool that they answered your question.

[Zapp]

Sounds about right.
The prone discussion, IMO, highlights the faults in a rules light system.

No, to be more precise the prone discussion highlights the faults in rules-lawyering a rules light system...

Agreed.

[Zapp]

Totally off-topic of the original post, but I didn't think this merited starting a whole new thread. I spoke to Chris Pramas and Will Hindmarch about being Prone. The word from them is that while Prone you can move at 1/2 Speed, as implied by the text of the Move action. If you're terribly curious, here's the conversation. Naturally anyone can house rule anything they like. I plan to treat it exactly as they've laid it out.

I am glad we can agree prone restricts movement even though this isn't spelled out anywhere in the rules. Shame you needed to bother the designers to understand the connection between becoming prone and taking a Move action to stand up though. But never mind. Glad we can leave that spot of bother behind us!

So - Thanks for getting us an official ruling on "crawling"! I especially like how this ruling avoids making crawling the optimal choice when knocked prone in combat: once you decide you need to take the Move action, you're not getting any farther than half Speed, and when you do take the Move action, you're getting to stand up again essentially for free.

Getting an official ruling on crawling is still nice for those times it makes sense to describe your character as crawling, of course. But to me the important part is that you can't gain anything from refraining from standing up; that you can't keep to the ground but still move unhindered.

To return to my original point (way back in the thread); I furthermore recommend you all to encourage your players to get into the mindset of standing up before they continue combat (with attacks or spells). As written, there are no penalties to making actions while prone (your enemies get bonuses, but that's not the same thing as you getting penalties). I quite like how my players refrain from this strategy without me having to reinforce that behaviour by modifying the game rules.

The reason is that by not encouraging "prone combat" you close a particular can of worms before Green Ronin even hands it to you. If you read the Mounted Combat Style of the box set 3 open playtest, you'll notice an innocently-looking sentence:

Two-handed weapons and long bows cannot be used on horseback

Problem is, if your players aren't allowed to use certain weapons when seated, it won't take them long to ask which weapons you can't use when lying down.

If y'all do what I did, this never becomes an issue As an added bonus, Knock Prone goes from a fairly weak stunt into something actually useful (since obviously you will want to set a good example: your NPCs won't just keep on fighting from the ground when you've just asked the players to not do that with their characters, right? )

[Disemvowel]

Since "crawl" isn't a defined action either, and since it has been demonstrated by other forum members that "crawling fast" nets you about the same speed as "walking normally" (if not better), then not only is it perfectly logical to allow a prone character a full "move" action, but it is also (by way of grease) explicitly stated in the rules.

Will you look silly doing it? Certainly. But can a normal human do it? Yes. And do the rules allow it? Yes.

Now, was that the original intention? Who knows, but it's in the Rules As Written.

Allow me to run some crossfit bear-crawl exercises on you and others who think like this, and then you can tell me all about how it is no big deal to effectively crawl fast and do whatever actions you want. Watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjZ7qRyZmXQ

And that is on a smooth, swept gym floor; think rocky terrain, sand, you name it.

[Etarnon]

Pardon the mirth. It's just ironic to me.

2e AD&D
"I want to hit that guy. I have a THACO of 20, his ac is 2."
"You need an 18."

3.5 D&D
"I want to hit that guy. His AC is 8."
"You need an 18."

DA
"I want to disarm that guy. But I don't want it to be relying on the dice, cause I can't do what I want, when I want."
"You need decently doubles, and enough stunt points on the dragon die."

Most forms of D&D
"I want a critical hit."
"You need to roll a 20, or for some wepaons, 19 or 20 << If DM allows criticals.

If the DM doesnt allow criticals or the rules don't, no matter how long you wait, you are not getting it.

I have been waiting on dice since 1977. How many groups of players mystify their loved ones who decided to observe, when a player rolls a 20 and everyone screams and cheers, or when a 1, gasps of near agony?

Am I alone here?

Dragon age to me is not set up to be a tactical game like 4th edition D&D. It's a rules light, entry to rpg with more story than average game, without going for something that is all story like Fiasco.

This business of rogues are useless. Name a situation where a bunch of local cutpurses are called out into open battle against armored knights in plate. It's as if there's this idea that all the party has to be able to and should and can and will fight in open fields, dungeons, and the town all together all interlocking meshed adventurers that do equal damage. i.e. 4th edition.

If I am a rogue, and I am told yeah, you go to go there, sneak up and hit this guy in plate... I cry out, Boss, man, you are using me wrong. Let's sneak into camp and kill them while asleep, while not wearing plate. The rogue is a scout, a spoiler, a trapper. Sneak into their camp and poison them or drain their water...not open plate field battle. That's what fighters are for.

When do you ask a guy in plate to sneak into the enemy camp, or pick a lock, or climb a cliff, eh?

I also agree, do not issue plate mail. In games I run, most of the enemy is wearing a lot less. Chain is for lords.

It's like there is this perception that each few adventures means more stuff more treasure, tougher monsters to beat so you need more monsters and treaure to beat the monsters to get more treasure and stuff to beat.. = Monty Haul. Doesn't matter the system. Doesn't make Dragon Age Broken.

Makes it not for people that want detailed 5 foot squares and all the rest that goes with 3.5 and 4th. Doesn't make those bad games, either, But Dragon Age is not them. I like the bell curve. I like the stunts.

I also run 3.5 and Star Wars SAGA edition, and West End games d6. All different, all a flavor.