Dwarves don't wear plate....

[Eclypse]

I really don´t see the merit of the Taunt stunt at all (the one that may force an opponent to attack you). Sure, it may be fun for a player to use on a foe, but I bet any players who have it used upon their character once or twice, forcing them to abort their other extremely important action, will hate it. If a pc is the victim of magic that somehow prevents him, fine, but having a stunt that takes away control of your character´s actions? Not my cup of tea.


(I can see how it works in the CRPG, that doesn´t make it a good idea for pnp.)

Agreed, especially when you're trying to run down the object you're 'supposed' to save, but some cholo taunts you back and your party dies because you failed at the one task given to you.

Threaten (I think that's the stunt) is a mechanic that's fine for computer games, but has no place in pnp games, mainly because it robs free will.

[Banesfinger]

Threaten (I think that's the stunt) is a mechanic that's fine for computer games, but has no place in pnp games, mainly because it robs free will.

The designers of D&D 4e were very aware of the exact points you're bringing up when they added the "mark" ability (similar to taunt/threaten).

Basically, they knew it wasn't fun to 'force' a specific action. Combat should be all about choices. So instead, they applied modifiers that would make it a more tempting option.

For example (in DA terms):
If you win (the opposed test) your target suffers a -2 penalty to attack rolls against anyone but you on his next turn.

[Machpants]

^ good point

[Hellebore]

Marking makes sense if you're in melee with the target, but i don't like the idea of marking something 10 yards away and somehow affecting it.

In melee if you outnumber you gain an advantage. If you are an agressive offensive fighter and put the enemy on their back foot by focusing on them (marking them) then it makes it harder for them to strike anyone else accurately.

Makes sense. But if they leave combat and attack someone else distant from you, this logically should no longer be in effect. You cannot threaten them from that far away. You cannot get up in their face to make it harder for them to hit allies if you cannot physically wave your sword under their nose.

D&D's rules IMO lack any 'soul'. They're just abstract mechanics used to generate pre determined effects, without much in the way of context. It's treated like a big math equation 'we need X to do Y to make it different from Z, but we need Z to do A so it cancels out B' etc. I prefer rules that are designed from the setting, rather than the setting being forced to conform to the rules. Having been playing in a 4th ed campaign for the last year or so, it's certainly not the rules that I play for.

Hellebore

[Loswaith]

I really don´t see the merit of the Taunt stunt at all (the one that may force an opponent to attack you). Sure, it may be fun for a player to use on a foe, but I bet any players who have it used upon their character once or twice, forcing them to abort their other extremely important action, will hate it. If a pc is the victim of magic that somehow prevents him, fine, but having a stunt that takes away control of your character´s actions? Not my cup of tea.


(I can see how it works in the CRPG, that doesn´t make it a good idea for pnp.)

The Threaten stunt is quite useful and not the only stunt that dictstes how a character must behave, both Skirmish and Knock Prone both take "control" of the character with no ability to resist it.

Things you have to keep in mind with the Threaten though is firstly its an opposed check so its not automatically going to be successful (if its a concern invest in willpower). Secondly what type of enemies are likely to actually use it? Thirdly it is only the next action that the Threatened needs to attack the Threatener, and they dont have to do it in melee.

It's a stunt that is far more useful to PCs as they will be in a position to use it most of the time they get a stunt.

As for it working in cRPGs thats generaly because enemies never get to use it againt the player, it's always just a way for the player to effect the enemy AI.

Sure it will be annoying that once or twice that it actually effects the player but no more so than the occasional knock prone, skirmish, or enemy spell that also takes away the players 'control'.

[Machpants]

It is official



But do carry on, my original query/quandary has been decided

[Lyger]

Nice. I'm SO going to steal that.

[Koeran]

Reading through the thread and thinking about it. Why is Dexterity even the Attribute linked to speed in the first place?

Sure, I get that running requires technique. But it also requires, muscles... Sprinters have some pretty impressive leg muscles...

And most people agree that long distance movement should be based on Constitution anyway...

So, why Dexterity for short distance movement?

I realise this could open other balance issues.

Dexterity currently is to hit for light weapons and ranged weapons. Defence and Speed.

Strength is to hit for Heavy Weapons and damage for all except Ranged weapons.

Would using Strength for Speed instead of Dexterity mess up game balance too much?

[Zepar]

I guess as a GM my response to the player would be ... yes of course... A short stout tank will have less mobility. Something the party should be aware of. You could alter some stat to reflect a greater strength for a dwarf tank. As in my campaigns, I take the game mechanic for dwarves natural resistance to magic of 10% chance to resist any magic spell cast on them... good or bad.

[JRHigley]

Reading through the thread and thinking about it. Why is Dexterity even the Attribute linked to speed in the first place?

Sure, I get that running requires technique. But it also requires, muscles... Sprinters have some pretty impressive leg muscles...

I made a similar suggestion suggestion regarding a Strength offset to the armor penalty along these lines back on page 6:

How about a Str offset to the penalty? "The movement penalty is reduced by a character's Strength score to a maximum of zero."

But to your point:

So, why Dexterity for short distance movement?

Here's a wacky notion. Why not can the idea that Dexterity increases speed altogether? Instead, why not go with (if you still want to keep it tied to dexterity) a focus a la:

Dexterity (Speed) - Your movement speed is increased by 2.

If that's not granular enough for your liking, how about a Talent:

Running
Classes: Mage, Rogue, and Warrior
Requirement: Dexterity 1 (?)

You are light on your feet. Etc. Etc.

Novice: You add 1 (?) to your movement speed.
Journeyman: You add an additional 1 (?) to your movement speed.
Master: You add 2 (?) to your movement speed.


Just for giggles, and in the spirit of the original post, why not an armor focus (since the Armor talent doesn't do jack for the armor penalty to movement):

Strength (Armor) - You reduce the armor penalty to speed by 2 (to zero).

If you are feeling like Dwarves are getting hosed with respect to the movement penalty, go ahead and give it to them for free at first level.

[Torko]

Hi all!

Personally I am considering 3 ways of addressing the "speed difference issue"

a) All races have speed 10. Still get the dex bonus, so this option still gives the speed edge to backgrounds and classes that rely on dex.

b) The very elegant rule proposed by Sharsek on page 8 of this thread

c) Sharsek's rule plus a little modification on base speeds as follows:

Elves 11
Humans 10
Dwarves 9.

This base speed combined with Sharsek's rule results in Elves being faster in Leather armor, All races equally fast in mail armor and dwarves faster in plate armor.

I actually really like the end result and think it is fairer. So, this is my personal favorite but i haven't playtested it yet.

My justification for this is: Elves are in my opinion naturally graceful ,lithe and lean. Kind of like ballet dancers or marathon runners or feather weight boxers. Again in my opinion Dwarves are on the other hand naturally corpulent, powerful and tough more like weight lifters (halterophilia) or gymnasts or wrestlers.

Both races are strong and resistant in their own way. But if you give a weight to a marathon runner and put him to run against a lifter I believe the lifter gets the edge.

Also I would like to leave an open question here:

Considering the rulebook base speed ( 12 for elves, 10 for humans, 8 for dwarves) how would you go about a party of elves tracking a party of dwarves for a very long distance?? say 150-250 miles.

Would you apply the base speed? would you go for CON checks or WIL?

In my opinion a big bonus should be based on the terrain, thus elves may get the advantage on forests or open environments and dwarves in tunnels and maybe rocky mountains.

Any thoughts??

[Sakurafire]

a) All races have speed 10. Still get the dex bonus, so this option still gives the speed edge to backgrounds and classes that rely on dex.

b) The very elegant rule proposed by Sharsek on page 8 of this thread

c) Sharsek's rule plus a little modification on base speeds as follows:

Elves 11
Humans 10
Dwarves 9.

Out of all of them, I think A is the strongest one. There are lighter, quicker Dwarves (rogues) and slower, less agile Elves (mages, warriors). Then again, I could choose C and have a slightly more balanced game. I will have to playtest some of these and see how they work out. =)

[Klaus Æ. Mogensen]

What about keeping racial speeds as they are, but give dwarves a special ability to ignore two points of armor penalty? That would put them on a par with humans.

- Klaus

[Eclypse]

What about keeping racial speeds as they are.

Totally agreed up to here.

[ricardo]

is it not likely that master or grand-master armour talent is going to have something like "ignore movement penalties from plate armour"?

So when you get to level 12 or so with the correct training you can be jogging around in plate armour merrily. Until that point you take a big hit on your speed.

Fair enough we have to wait for ages for me to be proven right/wrong and it doesn't help in the mean time. but....

[baronzaltor]

is it not likely that master or grand-master armour talent is going to have something like "ignore movement penalties from plate armour"?

So when you get to level 12 or so with the correct training you can be jogging around in plate armour merrily. Until that point you take a big hit on your speed.

Fair enough we have to wait for ages for me to be proven right/wrong and it doesn't help in the mean time. but....

the warrior class should just have a reduction in armor movment penalty built in at some point (not full removal, but partial)

that would give dwarves a bit more breathing room, but also keep the racial movments proportinal to each other.

or the master level of the talent tree should have something similar, because as is the master level isnt worth investing a talent in. +1 armor is nice, but theres better investments. (especially when considering that the armor pierce stunt generally ignores it due to rounding down)

[Hellebore]

The dwarf would still be 4 Dex behind the Elf and 2 behind a Human. They'd still suck as a warrior, being unable to move to defend or assault the enemy. Being an elven warrior would be far easier and allow you to concentrate on other stats (considering how many important ones are primaries).

The dwarf would still be wasting primary attribute points to reach a good Speed, whilst the elf and human were spending their's in Con and Str to up their hit and health.

Hellebore

[Loswaith]

I was expecting the Armour talent to actually reduce speed penalities at the higher levels, and was a bit supprised that it gave +1 armour considering the rating of heavy armours as it is is quite good.

An alternative to the +1 armour for mastery is simply to negate (or halve) the penality to speed on armour.

Sure its not going to help dwarves much specifically in the long run, but atleast they will have some ok movement. Which could be achieved by any mitigation on the speed penality.

Whether dwarves should have slower movement in most cases seems fairly logical that they should given their stature (game balance aside).
Should elves get the benefit of better speed though, I can see good arguments for both sides.

@Hellebore
They arent realy 2/4 dex behind since dex is more than movement, but they are 2/4 speed behind humans/elves, which is what I gather you are refering too.

[Klaus Æ. Mogensen]

I was expecting the Armour talent to actually reduce speed penalities at the higher levels, and was a bit supprised that it gave +1 armour considering the rating of heavy armours as it is is quite good.

I suggested in my playtest reply that Master level Armor talent should reduce movement penalty by 2 rather than increase armor value by 1. Let's see what GR does.

- Klaus

[Hellebore]

Whether dwarves should have slower movement in most cases seems fairly logical that they should given their stature (game balance aside).
Should elves get the benefit of better speed though, I can see good arguments for both sides.

As elves are shorter than humans and have shorter legs, there is no reason for them to be faster than humans. If anything the elf should have starting 10 and the human 12.

@Hellebore
They arent realy 2/4 dex behind since dex is more than movement, but they are 2/4 speed behind humans/elves, which is what I gather you are refering too.

No I was referring to Dex as that's the only way the dwarf can, during the game, attempt to rebalance their speed deficit.

Hellebore

[baronzaltor]

I was expecting the Armour talent to actually reduce speed penalities at the higher levels, and was a bit supprised that it gave +1 armour considering the rating of heavy armours as it is is quite good.

I suggested in my playtest reply that Master level Armor talent should reduce movement penalty by 2 rather than increase armor value by 1. Let's see what GR does.

- Klaus

my thoughts on that are that warrior as a class should have a natural reduction to movment penality built into the class,(preferably instead of a worthless -1sp threaten stunt, a very weak mid level class ability)

and the master level armor talent should let warriors keep half of their armor value against penetration attacks, to help offset the increased number of full penetration attacks that were added (duelists, thrown weapon mastery) and to help be a little more defensible against spells. committing armor training to 3 or more talents is a big commitment and really should have some higher end effects. at that point the character have fully sacrificed a weapon style or the ability to use sheilds to an advanced degree just to wear armor so i think the payoff should be worth it.

[ricardo]

Being an elven warrior would be far easier and allow you to concentrate on other stats (considering how many important ones are primaries).

If this were D&D I'd be with you, but it is Dragon Age. I really don't think we need all the numbers to balance.

Being an elf warrior is far worse than a Human or Dwarf one because of the inherent racism of the game. Being the Dwarf warrior you will be accepted in human and elven communities.
Be an elf and you will often be looked at with suspicion at best.

Charge as a dwarf and you know your human allies will charge with you.
Charge as an elf and you can never be sure. They might just let you go off on your own.

It reminds me a lot of WHFRP1. The elf had awsome stats compared with - say - a human. But the elf was looked down on everywhere he went because he was an elf.

Having said all that, I wouldn't want to penalise a dwarf wearing heavy armour by levels 7+ as much as the rules already do. Because that fits in with the flavour that I am saying overides the rules.

[Hellebore]

Being an elven warrior would be far easier and allow you to concentrate on other stats (considering how many important ones are primaries).

If this were D&D I'd be with you, but it is Dragon Age. I really don't think we need all the numbers to balance.

Being an elf warrior is far worse than a Human or Dwarf one because of the inherent racism of the game. Being the Dwarf warrior you will be accepted in human and elven communities.
Be an elf and you will often be looked at with suspicion at best.

Charge as a dwarf and you know your human allies will charge with you.
Charge as an elf and you can never be sure. They might just let you go off on your own.

It reminds me a lot of WHFRP1. The elf had awsome stats compared with - say - a human. But the elf was looked down on everywhere he went because he was an elf.

Having said all that, I wouldn't want to penalise a dwarf wearing heavy armour by levels 7+ as much as the rules already do. Because that fits in with the flavour that I am saying overides the rules.

And the elf can wear a hat, hood or keep their hair down and everyone would see them as a human. Because in DragonAge an elf looks like a short human with pointy ears. As I've said previously in this thread. They could also have their ears chopped up so they look human. Everyone in Dragon Age has access to facial tattoos so even the Dalish Blood Writing wouldn't be a dead give away.

Unfortunately, a dwarf doesn't have the ability to wear a hat to hide his slow Speed value.

Hellebore

[baronzaltor]

its worth mentioning now that set 2 has expanded backgrounds that 3 out 4 dwarf background options now have a built in spell negation ability, which is well worth the trade off of 1 square on the battlemap. (id certainly take that trade)

so the odd man out really is the surface dwarf background specifically.


for the other backgrounds it puts the decision at:

1) gain extra magic negation ability that is not available elsewhere- lose 1 square

2) gain nothing particular- no adjustment (human)

3) be a social pariah- gain 1 square (elf)

4) be vunerable to magic- gain 1 square (qunari, presuming they have a 12 base since its unlisted in the materials. if they have 10 base, then they just have a magic resist penalty)

id say that seems pretty fair...just sorta puts a question mark on the surface dwarf, who ends up with the lower dwarf speed, but not the snazzy magic resistance.

however, i can say our suface dwarf warriors have never felt like they "suck" as warriors compared to the others. infact before this thread surfaced it never even occured to any of us that it could be an issue.
at no point did they feel slighted or less effective, and at no point has 1-2 squares of movment come to matter desicivly in any fight or encounter we have had.

in theory someone could kite them around all day. in practice though, thats never come up... in all our adventures "kiting" has always been either impractical, impossible, or prevented. confined spaces, ranged stunts for skirmishing in, disarming and knockdowns and such have always allowed the dwarf characters to stay competitive and get keep pace. not to mention that most of the time the average npc stats with a bow doesnt let them push much damage through plate armor so its always resulted in plinks and minimal damage anyway

in most common cases for the game combat is melee, and often somehow confined, be it indoors, in a small clearing, etc.. places where characters arent really pressed to their full move in the first place. occasionally there will be wide open feilds and long range snipers that will hassle him..and occasionally his magic resistance will save him from being horrified for an entire encounter.

so to me, its never proven to be an issue, which is why i dont really advocate tinkering with it.
that being said... i do think that the dwarven movment reduction/elven movment boost is probably just an arbitrary choice by the writers rather than a real balance factor, so if its really proving problematic for others, then i can see just setting everyone to a flatline 10 movement speed across the board for the sake of equality and parity (no need to go back and reinvent new dwarf specific armor penalty mechanics) or something along those lines.

so i can see why some folks might change it up some, especially for the surface dwarf. i myself, being something of a minamilist on rule alterations have never seen it cause enough harm to need a change. but thats just me

[Hellebore]

Well, that resistance to magic is about a ~9.4% chance of success so it's nothing to write home about (although it does faithfully recreate the computer game as it gave dwarves a 10% chance of ignoring magic).

And obviously movement is less of an issue if you're using squares of 2 yards, you've effectively halved the movement rate of the characters which means there is far less of a distance discrepency. Whenever someone moves it has to be two yards worth of movement.

Try moving around using their actual movement and you'll see a bigger difference.

Hellebore