Unopposed rolls funtion as a set number of successes to overcome. For example, to push a heavy block, two rolls of >4 would be required. One would roll one's Physical and keep one's Power for this case.

Core races consist of Hylian, Zora, Goron, Gerudo, and Deku Scrub, with more under development. (Well, more development than the current ones.) Races recieve no bonuses to Virtues, save Hylians, who recieve +1 to a virtue of their choice.

Each character has a Mass attribute, determined by race and armor, and influenced by other items. Mass affects movement speed, sinking/swimming, use of hookshot, resistance to knockback, and so on.

>>15029986
Each weapon has a specific increment of damage - i.e a typical sword might deal 1/2 heart per increment, while an Iron Knuckle's axe would deal 2 hearts per increment. When attacking, the number of successes you achieve over your opponent determines how many increments of damage you deal to them. Your ranks in Power also add to the damage dealt by your attacks. Shields add to one's dice while defending, and Armor reduces the base damage increment of an enemy's attack.

A character's heart meter is determined by 1 + Courage + Physical, and one's magic meter is Wisdom + Mental.

>>15030001
Here's what we have for skills so far. As you can see, most are related to item use, in keeping with the theme of the video games. The list is currently open to expansion as needed.

|Blade| - Sword, Knife, Axe, etc.
|Armor| - Magic Armor, Zora Armor, Darknut Armor, etc.
|Rod| - Cane of Somaria, Fire Rod, Cane of Byrna, etc.
|Instrument| - Ocarina, Flute, Pipes, Drums, etc.
|Tool| - Hookshot, Boomerang, Grappeling Hook, etc.
|Bomb| - Waterbomb, Powder Keg, Bombchu, etc.
|Heavy| - Ball and Chain, Greatsword, Hammer, etc.
|Bow| - Fire Arrows, Ice Arrows, Light Arrows, etc.
|Shield| - Mirror Shield, Hylian Shield, Kokiri Shield, etc.
|Magic| - The spells from Ocarina of Time, the medallions from A Link to the Past, etc.
|Stealth| - One of the few skills not specifically related to item use.
|Dodge| - Another non-item skill, can be used in place of shields for defense, for the more nimble, Shiek-like among us. Could possibly be expanded into a more general |Acrobatics| or something of the sort.

Skills for social interaction and most physical feats such as climbing, jumping, riding, and so forth probably will not be necessary, since they can probably be resolved simply through the Attributes and Virtues alone.

>>15030016
While certain Virtue/Attribute combinations go better together than others, there's at least some application for each Virtue in the Physical, Mental, and Spiritual arenas.

>Physical Power
Physical Power governs the use of |heavy| weapons and general feats of strength.
>Mental Power
Mental power governs the use of offensive magic, both of the damaging and debilitating varieties.
>Spiritual Power
A high Spiritual Power means an imposing presence. Spiritual Power governs the more forceful forms of social influence, such as intimidation and browbeating.

>Physical Wisdom
Finesse, stealth, and that sort of tricky stuff. Think Shiek. |Bows| probably go here as well.
>Mental Wisdom
Sounds redundant, I know. This governs knowledge of lore and useful information. It also governs defensive and healing magic.
>Spiritual Wisdom
Spiritual Wisdom indicates understanding of subtle forces, including the ebb and flow of social exchanges. It governs social graces and logical rhetoric; a character with high Spiritual Wisdom is not only capable of making well-reasoned arguments, but also of noticing and working with the subtle cues indicating a person's disposition. |Instruments| would most likely go here as well.

>Physical Courage
Physical Courage governs the use of most |blades|, as well as riding, climbing, swimming, and other feats of adventurous derring-do.
>Mental Courage
Naturally, Mental Courage governs tenacity, resolve, and...well, courage. It also governs the use of magic for travel and utility (think Farore's Wind).
>Spiritual Courage
Spiritual Courage primarily governs your ability to inspire people -- either to perform heroic deeds, or simply to trust and like you. Courage has a big impact on first impressions, and tends to have an attractive influence -- both on people, and on flighty magical beings like fairies.

>This concludes the crash course. Let the shit-getting-done commence.

>>15030016
expanding dodge into a general athletics/acrobatics would be pretty cool

also what about unarmed combat? That have a skill?

Your skill system is an attempt to be faithful to the game, but in practice is going to be awkward as fuck.

Although I think the rest could function, because of this indicator I doubt that it will.

Please post this on 1d4 chan when you are done with this, cuz I really want a LoZ RPG, but I don't wanna have to read through all the threads creating it.

>>15030038
I think Unarmed combat should be skill-less, and just [Virtue]/Physical. With the exception of shit like Gohma, unarmed combatants have never been shown to be as effective as someone with a weapon in the Zelda-verse. Even Gorons were laughably easy to beat with a sword when all they had was fists (I am aware Link's power level does not represent an average PC's, but.. still.)

my text wall from >>15030007 stands, however. what are y'alls thoughts on it?

>>15030074
What values are you anticipating for the skills, attributes and virtues?

>>15030057
yeah you need to cover more

just make a distinction between item skills and non item skills and give the player a set amount of points to start with in each so you don't have to gimp one area at char creation

>>15030071
The plan is to put together a pdf and upload it for general use, but it can definitely go on 1d4chan as well.

>>15030057
What, specifically, about the skill system strikes you as awkward? As noted, it is >open to expansion as needed.
If you can demonstrate a gap that needs filled, we can do our best to fill it.

>>15030074
so what you're saying is that players who want to be bad'ass monk can suck it?

Fuck you then

>>15030088
As the person that made that post...

Sure, but don't call them both skills. In actual fact attributes and virtues look to handle skills pretty fucking well already.

Call skills 'items' or 'abilities' because that's what they are. Make it a scaleable thing in the tech tree like you have planned. Do not make them skill equivalents, like dodge. That's an attribute. So is shield use. Now a special jump, or maneuver, or a particular shield? Those are abilities to unlock on the tech tree.

>>15030129
except that skills can raised higher than attributes or virtures can, a pitiful oversight

>>15030087
Oh yeah, that probably should've gone in the crash-course...

Virtues: All start at 1, 4 points to distribute 1-for-1, maximum of 4 at character creation.

Attributes: All start at 1, 5 points to distribute 1-for-1, maximum of 4 at character creation.

Skills: All start at 0, 6 points to spend (?), cost per point going up by 1 every odd number, as such:
>Skill: Total cost
>0: 0
>1: 1
>2: 2
>3: 4
>4: 6
>5: 9
>6: 12
Skills can't start higher than 3, and have an absolute cap at 6. Virtues and attributes are uncapped after character creation, but as noted will be difficult to improve (particularly for virtues).

>>15030093
Mixing specific item skills with general skills is just a bad, cross-purposes idea. It's okay to have two subsystems for that. I asked what number you plan on Attributes, Skills and Virtues being at too, because this has a huge impact on the viability of your proposed system.

>>15030154
all the more reason to cover more skills instead of locking them into attribute/virture pairs

what makes improving your blade skill easier than improving your ability climb or persuade people?

>>15030102
Not necessarily. If you pumped everything into Physical, you would be completely able to wreck someone's shit even if they had a sword. Someone with 6 Physical and 4 Courage would beat the everloving shit out of a Swordsman with 2 Physical, 2 Blade and 3 Courage. I'm just saying that since Skills largely represent item usage, I can't see fistfighters getting much mileage out of Unarmed Combat becoming a skill. If you think differently, feel free to propose what abilities an unarmed fighter would get at levels 2/4/6 in the Skill, what items would be available for them, how Virtues would factor into it, and so on.

>>15030144
Yeah, I was going to mention in my 'awkward' thing that you're probably going to want to hard cap attributes and skills at the virtue threshold

>>15030191
>WE ARE MAKING NOTHING MORE THAN ZELDA. FUCK YOUR OPENENDED CRAP
FTFY

>>15030191
Not really a comparison, though, is it? Nothing prevents that swordsman from having 6 physical, 4 courage and 4 or 5 sword. Your system does inhabit an unarmed character. That's not a failure, but it becomes a failure if you tell people it doesn't when it does.

>>15030129
In what way aren't they skills? Your ranks in |blade| are a measure of your *skill* with swords. Your ranks in |magic| are a measure of your *skill* with magic. Your ranks in |stealth| are a measure of your *skill* in sneaking around undetected.

>>15030196
>you're probably going to want to hard cap attributes and skills at the virtue threshold

That rather defeats the purpose of the roll/keep system...

>>15030191
Gauntlets.

>>15030238
Not really. The contribution of each element to your 'kept' margin seems massively unequal at the moment, or at least likely to become so.

I think we should make it more open-ended. It should be a game set in the Zelda universe, not LOL ZELDA GAEM OPTIONS ONLY.

Also, the system is going to come down like a ton of bricks on anyone who feels like being a generalist or having a diverse range (like, funnily enough, Link).

>>15030210
>>15030273

If you're that set on making a barefisted combatant or something else not covered under the existing rules, it wouldn't be very difficult to add an appropriate skill and come up with a few abilities for it. Adding one skill -- especially a niche skill like unarmed combat -- wouldn't throw off the balance of the skill points available by any significant amount. And if you do add enough skills to where it becomes a problem, you just give out more points to compensate.

>>15030294
>but we're not going to do this admittedly easy thing, because options start and stop at the game

>>15030268
>The contribution of each element to your 'kept' margin seems massively unequal at the moment, or at least likely to become so.

Could you explain what you mean by this? I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at.

>>15030294
UNARMED COMBAT IS NICHE? WHAT KIND OF STUPID UNIMAGINATIVE FUCK ARE YOU?

WHAT HAPPENS IF A CHARACTER IS DEPRIVED OF THEIR WEAPON? ARE YOU SAYING THAT THEY AUTOMATICALLY HAVE TO FUCKING SUCK BECAUSE OF THAT?

>>15030352
Link was never deprived of his sword so of course they won't have to worry about that.

>>15030331
Skills are easy to boost, attributes are hard to boost, virtues are kept low.

You're adding skill + attribute and keeping virtue. So you're going to have diminishing returns on increasing numbers and you have two unequal contributions to the score. Plus, your system is really going to reward optimisation and overwhelmingly specialisation.

>>15030319
No, we're not doing this admittedly easy thing *at this moment* because it seems foolish to spend time on things that have essentially no precedent in the source material when we haven't even fleshed out the important stuff yet. Maybe once we get the core material worked out we can worry about extra options, but at the moment we're really more concerned with the basics.

>>15030377
Okay, so you are making a Zelda wargame then? Cool.

>>15030374
There was a suggestion in one of the previous threads about perhaps allowing attributes to contribute to the keep pool in a limited manner at the player's discretion.

I believe the suggestion was to allow the option to trade rolled dice contributed by the attribute to dice kept on a 2-for-1 basis. So for instance, if you had Physical 4, you could use those points to add 4 dice to your rolled pool, 1 to your kept and 2 to your rolled, or 2 to your kept.

>>15030319
Why would we want to bother with something that's not in Zelda anyway?

>>15030430
Because you are apparently trying to make an RPG, and it's often seen as a faux pas for them to be incredibly restrictive and rail-driven.

>>15030427
You've still got a huge issue with specialists. People are going to walk over enemies or struggle horribly against them.

GIVE CRITICISM
:advice zelda:
RECEIVE BUTTHURT

>>15030294
Look, it just makes more sense to have extra options from the get-go. Why shoot yourself in the foot by making it baby's first rpg?

>>15030352
>>15030319
>>15030210
My capacity to remain polite is limited when I'm this tired. You think I'm wrong. Ok. You have pointed this out, yes, we get it. I never claimed to be an authority on this.

But if you fuckers thing I'm wrong and something needs changing, SUGGEST HOW TO CHANGE IT. Sweet Christ. If you don't like how it works, suggest an alternative. Don't just bitch and whine about shit without trying to solve it. What are you, 5 years old?

>>15030485
You know you're on /tg/ right? That's pretty much how things go around here.

Too tired/drunk to give this a critical eye, but it looks good so far, OP. I'm a big fan of the Triforce thing.

>>15030430
Goddammit, don't steal my name and try to make me look bad. I only took it to keep track of my own posts in these threads in the first place...

>>15030485
We're suggesting that if you stick with your system you add an unarmed attribute. It's a suggested skill. Like you asked for. In your post on skills.

Or don't. I don't really care. Just don't say you support equal unarmed combat in that situation.

Lastly, accept you will have to add more than the game. RPGs cover a lot of situations, the game covers a very specific set.

>>15030485
well you could have listend to the that guy 2 threads ago and averted this problem before it started but all the namefags were too busy sperg'ing and getting all butthurt, or you know, bothered to chime in when suggestions were stated

Given what you have at the moment, the fix is merely MORE SKILLS to cover a good bit of what might come up. Put them into two categores so you can more easily constrain options at character creation.

Like item/non-item or combat/utility etc. Make it transparent and easily understood.

Things like lore, speech craft, athletics/acrobatics, crafting, martial arts/graplling, etc aren't in the source material because they serve no purpose in a vidya but to have that same restriction in an RPG it instantly becomes very grating.

>>15030584
This, pretty much. This also helps to cut down on specialisation being overpowered. If everyone gets five points to spend on tiered item combat skills and six points to spend on 'general' skills then you don't have so much specialisation going on into combat monsterhood.

>>15030558
My half conscious rage was directed at the one-line posts of +5 whining. You seem much more level headed, and are therefore not a recipient of rage.

Here's a preliminary for those who want unarmed Combat -

|Unarmed| - uses same fighting style system as |Blade| for Virtues (Once we figure out just what that is) - Physical Attribute - associated item - Gaunlets, claws, razors. 2 ranks = Unarmed Parry (Can add half one's Unarmed Score to defense Dice), 4 ranks = Crushing Blow (Unarmed attacks may do crushing damage, increase damage increment of unarmed attacks by 1/2 heart), 6 ranks = Can't think fo a top-tier ability. any suggestions?

Alright guys, let's all chill out here.

We all realize that the game is going to need more skills, and I'm pretty sure the current list is just the ideas that people threw out in previous threads anyway. We've been trying to figure out how skills actually work before fleshing out every single one that's going to be in the game.

>>15030644
What's are some examples of other top tier abilities, for the purposes of making an equivalent?

My first thought is 'on a hit, may immediately make another attack once' but that be too strong.

>>15030665
The other argument for skills is that otherwise weapon combat rolls an additional set of dice, whereas other situations do not. However, I don't honestly believe a system can really cover every action possible well with a set of skills. That's why I would be in favour of dropping the additive skill dice, using attributes as the dice (they are more general and CAN cover every action) and turning the weapon system into an investing tree of unlockable abilities only.

But that's a big change, and you probably won't go for it.

>>15030483
Personally, I'd say there are plenty of options available, and that we have much bigger things to worry about right now than adding extras on the side, but this is a community project. If you really want to see an unarmed skill, you're more than welcome to design it yourself. Just suggest a some abilities, which virtue(s) it falls under, and perhaps some relevant items, and bam, there's your unarmed combat skill.
Or whatever it is you want. That's the beauty of the project -- this isn't like a professional RPG where you just whine to the creators and maybe you'll see your thing get put in if they like it. This is a community homebrew, where if you want it put in, you can make it yourself and if it doesn't break the game or clash horribly with the spirit of things, it'll most likely make it into the finished product.

>>15030584
>Things like lore, speech craft, athletics/acrobatics, crafting, martial arts/graplling, etc aren't in the source material because they serve no purpose in a vidya but to have that same restriction in an RPG it instantly becomes very grating.

Just because it's not on the skill list doesn't mean it can't be done. I don't see a need for specific skills unless they'd be based on opposed checks against existing skills (like Dodge) or represent specialized training that most people probably wouldn't have (like Stealth). Most athletics stuff can easily be covered with Physical Power or Physical Courage. Likewise for speechcraft and the Spiritual attribute.
Crafting I could see, and martial arts/grappling, but I'm not going to take the time to flesh them out personally at this moment. If you want it, you make it; like I said earlier in the post, it's a community project.

Just keep in mind that the skill list should stay as streamlined as possible. We neither want nor need a skill for every single possible action; if it can be reasonably represented under a straight attribute check, I don't see any need to bother with a skill.

>>15030644
you don't need to worry about making a tree of abilities just yet, that's getting a bit ahead of yourself especially when you could potentially have quite a number of things in there

things like grapping throws and submission holds would be cool to have in there, especially since the gorons do have sumo

>>15030665
the issue is that certain namefags keep bitching whenever someone says add more skills and it quickly turns into a bitchfest

>>15030703
>Just keep in mind that the skill list should stay as streamlined as possible. We neither want nor need a skill for every single possible action; if it can be reasonably represented under a straight attribute check, I don't see any need to bother with a skill.
Right, so dump the combat abilities and opposed, more 'general' skills and use attributes only, with weapon trees giving abilities.

I totally support you on this point, but right now you have a weird mishmash of specific skill system and general skill system and once you start adding in things like stealth it becomes fucked up.

>>15030677
Other abilities are things like
(2 ranks/4/6)
Blade - Spin Attack (Strike every adjacent creature, has a two turn cooldown), Backslash (Move behind a target and strike, ignoring all shield bonuses, and halving armor bonuses), Ending Blow (Instantly kill a prone enemy)

Bombs - Combination (Can use an existing bomb+X to make a Combination Bomb, i.e Bomb arrows, theoretical BombGrappling hook, Explosive Cannonballs), Craft Bomb, Shaped Explosion (Bombs deal no damage to allies)

Tools - Quick Use (Can use a tool as a partial action), Dual Wielding, Improvisation (Can build any level 1 Tool from scraps, with 1 turn prep time)

And so on. I could give other examples for more combat oriented skills like |Heavy| if you like.


>>15030584
I hadnt actually thought of seperate skill pools for combat/non-combat (I suppose just because so many items have both combat and non-combat uses in Zelda) This could work, but I'm not sure.

>>15030703
>
Just because it's not on the skill list doesn't mean it can't be done. I don't see a need for specific skills unless they'd be based on opposed checks against existing skills (like Dodge) or represent specialized training that most people probably wouldn't have (like Stealth). Most athletics stuff can easily be covered with Physical Power or Physical Courage. Likewise for speechcraft and the Spiritual attribute.

DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND YET? WHAT IS BEING SAID IS THAT BY NOT GIVING IT A SKILL YOU ARE SAYING THAT YOU WANT PEOPLE TO ADVANCE MORE SLOWLY IN IT.

>This is a community homebrew, where if you want it put in, you can make it yourself and if it doesn't break the game or clash horribly with the spirit of things, it'll most likely make it into the finished product.

NOW HOW ABOUT STOP GETTING BUTTHURT AND CLAMOURING FOR ANYONE WHO MAKES A SUGGESTION TO SHUT UP AND JUST GO WITH THE FLOW THEN?

>>15030698
>That's why I would be in favour of dropping the additive skill dice, using attributes as the dice (they are more general and CAN cover every action) and turning the weapon system into an investing tree of unlockable abilities only.

>But that's a big change, and you probably won't go for it.

I'm hesitant to accept it, but not just because it's a big change. The issue I have is that it would fail to properly reflect skill with specific weapons, which is both unrealistic and untrue to the video games. Sure, Link may be able to use any item he gets his hands on, but he's pretty clearly a lot more accustomed to the Master Sword than the Megaton Hammer.

Here's an idea for weapon skills: Give weapons a rating/level, the user must have that many skill points in the applicable skill to use it.

For example, a regular boomerang might be lvl 1, while the upgraded boomerang from Link to the Past might be lvl 2, and a magical boomerang like the Gale Boomerang might be lvl 5. Fire arrows might add a |Magic| skill requirement to the bow's |Bow| requirement, and bomb arrows might add a |Bomb| requirement.

It would give a simple benefit to skill ranks besides additional abilities. Thoughts?

Also, perhaps boomerang users get one target per skill rank, like the multiple targeting in recent games.

>>15030769
Is that something you need to reflect? Is a character likely to be so awash with points that they'll rank up abilities in both?

You could incorporate a system whereby points in a weapon tree let you reroll attribute dice, or count one success automatically, or similar. These general abilities could occupy alternate levels to the weapon specific tech trees and be shared by all (or most, if you want to vary) weapons. These would increase your abilities in combat (and keep it solely to combat) without giving you a hugely inflated dice pool or making the gap enormous.

>unrealistic and untrue to the video games
These two things don't fit together. My suggestion is more gamist, but that's what I thought you were going for.

>>15030800
Yeah, we have that. How many ranks in a skill you have affects what items in that skill you can use. That keeps someone with only a 1 in Blade from swinging around the Master Sword.

I like that boomerang Target thing, though.


I, personally, can't help but see the same problem the last thread had when it started. New thread = new people, so things that were put in in the first or second thread start being questioned and debated.

Not that that's a BAD thing, it just makes our progress seem much slower.

>>15030871
Then go to an IRC with an established group and sort it out. That's what most completed /tg/ projects do.

just posting to let you all know, You guys are awesome. I'm really looking forward to what you make!

>>15030871
if you think you're going to get through this fast then you have unrealistic expectations

also about the 'ability' things with the weapons, I think that should be separated from the skill ranks in it. Rather just add a sort of 'technique list' or something to that extent and give it skills prerequisites. This would work better with future expansion into the abilities.

>>15030755
>DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND YET? WHAT IS BEING SAID IS THAT BY NOT GIVING IT A SKILL YOU ARE SAYING THAT YOU WANT PEOPLE TO ADVANCE MORE SLOWLY IN IT.

What I'm getting at is that this sort of rapid advancement isn't necessary in those areas. Why would we want rapid advancement in speechcraft? That just leads to crazy D&D diplomancer shenanigans. Why would we need a special skill for athletics? I can't think of a single instance in the games where *anyone*, not even an NPC, pulls off an insane feat of athletics without being obviously supernatural/superhuman. It's not something attainable by training alone, so giving the opportunity to train it seems fairly pointless.

And so forth. The capabilities of individuals in Zelda games are generally pretty down-to-earth, nothing really spectacular except when magic is explicitly involved. Well, except for teleporting out of bottomless pits with just a few bruises for the fall, but...anyway...

My point is, advancing in skills implies significant improvement in ability. However, outside of high-powered fantasy settings, the difference between, say, a really good jumper and a not-quite-so-good jumper isn't that spectacular. Noticeable, sure, but not spectacular. And certainly not as significant as the difference between a master and a novice in a technique like archery or swordfighting.

Do you see what I'm getting at?

>>15030948
Fair enough. The tiered abilities was an early idea that I got attached to.

And I said that it made progress SEEM slower; I knew the instant I started this project it was going to take a long, LONG time.

>>15030989
...ok then, so you should take magic off the list by that logic. Because the normal folk can't just go train up magic.

Or hey, what about rods? They can't do that either. Those are pretty much rare artifacts.

Or hey, put stealth and dodge back to not having a skill, since its pretty much mundane.

Basicly all you are doing is going "LA LA LA ITS NOT IN THE SOURCE I CANT HEAR YOU LA LA LA"

>>15030989
>implying that players can't be shiek

>>15030989
We see Link jump off of cliffs without hurting himself all the time! And why shouldn't players be able to pull off acrobatic feats? Just because that's not in the games? Should we also not let players climb trees because that's not in the games? Or attack NPCs? Remember, this is a Zelda RPG, not a simulation of a Zelda video game.

>>15031065
AMEN BROTHER

>>15030820
>You could incorporate a system whereby points in a weapon tree let you reroll attribute dice, or count one success automatically, or similar. These general abilities could occupy alternate levels to the weapon specific tech trees and be shared by all (or most, if you want to vary) weapons. These would increase your abilities in combat (and keep it solely to combat) without giving you a hugely inflated dice pool or making the gap enormous.

This actually doesn't sound half bad. Something like every odd-numbered rank in a skill gives you one reroll of a single ability die in a pool for the relevant skill (but you must abide by the reroll, even if it's worse), and every even-numbered rank gives you a special ability related to the use of the skill.

>These two things don't fit together.
I'm aware; my point was that, of the two things I (personally) would try to stick to, that proposal fits neither.
Personally, while I do have an appreciation for gamism, I prefer my games to lean more toward simulationist. Granted, in this particular case the "simulation" is less that of the real world and more that of the Zelda game world, but it's still simulation. Basically, when the crunch gets past a certain level of arbitrariness and distance from the fluff, it bugs me.
Which I guess is probably true for everyone, it's just a matter of where that threshold is, but...you get my point.

Anyway, I really should have been in bed an hour ago, so I'll be signing off for now. Here's hoping for more progress!

>>15031018
>>15031065
Strawmen, the both of you. That's all I'll say for the time being, because bedtime. If you read my other posts in the thread I think you'll see what my position is.

>>15031001
well when you are only looking a small pool of things it sort of makes sense, but the moment you stop limiting yourself to only things that appear in the games it starts to seem like something designed to fence you in.

Something that is highly adaptable to future changes that can have new things plugged into it is what I believe you want. Also creating a separate grouping of techniques that you buy with XP will also allow a player to better control their charater. For example, you could have a guy who is good with a variety of weapons but doesn't really know any of the spiffy techniques with them or a guy who is a good with a singular weapon and knows a pile of techniques with them.

Take link for example, he's dumped all his points into learning techniques for swords, so if he were to say pick up an axe, he wouldn't be able to pull off all the fancy stuff he can with a sword even though both are covered under the same skill.

>>15031125
CRY HARDER FAGGOT

>>15030989
If i wanted to play Regular Joe Hylian i'd play WHFB set in Hyrule.

I'm here to be the hero.

Well.

re: Simulation. This is a simulation of the Zelda world, yes, but not the games. A large issue a couple threads ago was that this is an RPG set in the Zelda world, yes, but not a 1-for-1 simulation of how the vidyah works. (The issue in question was the lethality of Lava and pits, considering they drop just one heart and you respawn in the vidyah. They don't do that in this RPG.)

However, athletic feats had generally been covered with Physical + Courage/Power, though I suppose someone with sufficient training would be better at some types of athletic actions than others.

Possibilities I see are some sort of |Athletics| skill, Though I'm not sure how that would advance beyond ranks = you are X better than an untrained person at athletics. It's not keyed to an item, like Tools or Blades, and it doesnt have associated abilities like Stealth, so I just have a hard time seeing it being in the skill pool alongside such things. I suppose we could do something like >>15030703 , with non-combat skills like Crafting, and even move stealth in there. I'm holding out on a decision, however, until I hear other people's thoughts on this, or if you propose a different system to handle it.

On another note, I'm heading to bed in about a half-hour, so.

>>15031220
Well as you train up athleticism you can start doing stuff like parkour except amplifing it a little bit because you are playing a hero (even if you aren't The Hero). Running on walls for short distances, fancy acrobatics in conjunction with the hookshot or something, nimble dodging.

You can stick a lot into athletics, WoD uses it to cover throwing weapons, so you do that too.

The thing is that many of you working on this do not seem to have a wide berth of experience with RPGs so I can understand how some things just don't stand out to you.

>>15031283
>The thing is that many of you working on this do not seem to have a wide berth of experience with RPGs
That's a damn fact. Starting this project 4 threads ago was one of my first posts on /tg/, and prior to that I've only played a bit of D&D and Godlike.

Since most Item Skills have both combat and non-combat applications, How about an |Athletics| Skill, that governs dodging, similarly to how shields work in previously described threads, just less effective (mainly lacking the absolute defense action, and possibly requiring a player to move in order to dodge), and also dictates crazy shit like wall-running, parkour, long-jumping across a chasm and grabbing onto some vines, and such?

>>15031220
also you can add in stuff like reducing falling damage to athletics

like stealth, its sort of a catchall for a pile of things and if you merge it with dodging it works well. All that jumping around and backflips Link does should be more than enough to show a source reason why you should have it.

>>15031325
How about just acrobatics. Athletics make me think of climbing, running, and such shit, which we've established to not be covered by a skill

>>15031325
yeah that's what i've been saying, except now I don't have Library Lass or TKDB making a fuss and pissing me off in the process.

Also shooting a bow from horseback could fall under that.

Also you should probably change |Shield| into |Guard| so you can use it to more generally cover defending yourself, and if you pair it with the suggestion for the technique tree being seperate from the skills, it fits in nicely.

>>15031366
...except that Acrobatics a subset of althletics

simply because it's already been established is not a sufficient reason to shrug that off

>>15031325
Perhaps you should make techniques like charms from exalted? You have have a skill requirement, attibute requisite, and they work from a tech tree. You start off with none, but can spend exp on them. That way you can spend exp on more than skill points.

>>15031220
crafting could have a general use in dungeons for disarming mechanical traps or improvising arrows out materials you can get your hands on

>>15031405
Indeed, that was my idea in >>15031153

>>15031366
Right, ok. Semantics, really, like the Social/Spiritual or Mass/Size naming issues. Acrobatics is a more fitting name, though, so yeah.

I think then that we won't have 2 skill pools, and add |Acrobatics| into the main pool.

As a quick sample character -
Leon, Hylain Swordsman

Mass - 4

Power - 2
Courage - 4
Wisdom - 1

Physical - 4
Mental - 1
Spiritual - 2

9 Hearts

Blade 2, Acrobatics 2, Bow 1, Instrument 1

Look passable? Anything you'd add to a character sheet in this system?

>>15031420
>>15031405
I'm the kind of guy who needs to see an example of something to understand how it works. Think you can oblige me in that?

>>15031422
It occurred to me while typing this that while I remember the point pools/caps/costs for Virtues and Skills, I can't remember what we actually agreed on for Attributes. It feels like since Attributes key to Roll and Virtues to Keep, one should have more points to spend on those.

>>15031422
As mentioned

>>15031405
>>15031153

I'd also jump up number of skill points, and reduce attributes by one or two.

Perhaps people start with like 10 exp, and can spend this to increase starting skill point, hearts, mass, or buy an ability.

Skills would have abilities auto-unlock at getting an even rank, whereas you could buy specific weapon/skill abilities with exp.

>>15031422
i like the idea for techniques rather than set bonuses at X skill or something

also, some questions on where weapons fit into the skills? Where a spear or staff go? What about a club, mace, or a flexible weapon like a nunchaku or 9 section staff?

>>15031468
Mass and Hearts have separate determining factors, separate from XP.

Each Race has an average mass, and at creation you can choose to use that, or increase or decrease it by 1. Done since weight is such a key to so many types of puzzles and items, and Heavy vs Light has pros and cons in varying situations, playing a particularly heavy character or a lighter one could make a difference.

Deku Scrubs - average 2 Mass
Kokiri - 3 Mass
Hylians, Zoras, Gerudo - 4 Mass
Gorons - 6 Mass.

Hearts equal 1 + Courage + Physical. (Setting the minimum at 2)

>>15031469
If it's not a Blade, a Bow, a Heavy weapon or a Rod, then it's a tool. That's basically the "misc." of items.

>>15031451

>Dragoon strike l 1 Rod l 2 Courage
>After making an acrobatics check, you may add 1k0 to your next attack roll with a spear weapon.
>2 Turn Cooldown

This particular one works on the idea that a spear is a rod, but you get the point. To avoid spam, we should either have a cooldown approach like above, or insititue some kind of special ability cost. Perhaps you have X special points, where X is your highest virtue? To keep people from minmaxing, you regain Y special points per turn, where Y is your lowest special

>>15031451
>I'm the kind of guy who needs to see an example of something to understand how it works. Think you can oblige me in that?

Ok to use some existing stuff, like spin attack

"Spin Attack"
Requirements: X Physical, Y Courage, Z Blade
Equipment: Any bladed weapon
Cost: ? XP
Effect: Hit all enemies within melee range with a spinning attack.

now to make one up
"Magic Spin Attack"
Requirements: "Spin Attack", X Magic
Equipment: Any bladed weapon
Cost: ? XP
Effect: Hit all enemies within X range with a wave of magic. Uses Y Magic Bar.

>>15031514
While I understand the mass, we could still give players the chance to increase hearts through exp, if at an exorbent rate. Maybe 10 exp for a half or quater heart? Or maybe just an extra piece toa heart container.

>>15031514
>Setting the minimum at 2
Herp Derp 3.

And now, I gotta go to bed. Thanks for all your input, And I hope y'all continue making progress with this and developing it. Be back tommorow!

Spear, club, and mace would be |Heavy|.

Nunchaku (if it was even in the setting. I don't think it would be.) would be |Tool|.

>>15031531

>>15031516
here, I'm not sure if we should make attributes also a requisite, it seems to much at that point. But that still looks good

>>15031537
Last bit before I scram - Hearts can be bought through just boosting Physical, or g>>15031531
a Heart Container for doing something excessively heroic and amazing.

>>15031531
And these would be trees of abilities, separate from Skills (but maybe using the same point pool on creation? or no?) Also, maybe rename the |Blade| Skill to just |Weapon| or something. anything one-handed and combat-y. big ol' Two-handers like the megaton hammer or an Iron Knuckle's Axe go in |Heavy|.

>>15031584
>Last bit before I scram - Hearts can be bought through just boosting Physical, or g>>15031531
a Heart Container for doing something excessively heroic and amazing.

The fuck? should read
>Last bit before I scram - Hearts can be bought through just boosting Physical, or getting pieces of heart or a Heart Container for doing something excessively heroic and amazing.

>>15031537
Or we could just use Heart Containers and Pieces of Heart like in the games.

They're created by people's happiness, so whenever the party completes a quest or makes someone happy in some way, they get a Piece of heart, and when they get 4, they each get another heart container. (4 additional HP.)

So, for exp, how much should people gain per session, and how much should stuff cost? I think you should gain from 1-3 per session, with bonus for completing dungeons, finishing quests, saving the princess, and other big stuff.

As for buying, I see it like this

Skills: 2 exp for one skill point
Abilties: 1-7 depending on skill
Hearts: 5 per half container

Opinions? More things people can buy with exp?

>>15031600
>>15031599

Hm, good point

>>15031515
i think it'd be better to switch to a more generic form for the weapon skills

Light Weapons - covers all weapons that you can wield just fine a single hand
Heavy Weapons - covers all hefty weapons that you have to have two hands to use properly
Staff Weapons - covers staves (flexible or rigid), rods, spears, and the like
Martial Arts - covers grappling, unarmed combat, claws, gauntlets, punch daggers

>>15031573
not everything would require an attribute, it was just an example

>>15031610
Attributes: 10 exp per attribute point
Virtue: I'm thinking between 20 and 20 exp per point. The idea is it's supposed to be damn hard.

>>15031584
>And these would be trees of abilities, separate from Skills (but maybe using the same point pool on creation? or no?)

yes the techniques would be separate from skills, though if and how you get them at character generation I can't say at the moment. Otherwise during play they are bought with XP.

>>15031630
the reason for separating staff weapons from heavy weapons is that they don't have to be hefty, they can be quite nimble, though things like halbards and such will be heavy weapons.

>>15031630
martial arts would also include the Zora's fin as used in Majora's Mask as well as the Goron bodyslams/sumo

someone, archive this

>>15031783
it already has been

>>15031783
Do it yourself, you lazy, retarded dickwipe. Its not that hard. Its retardedly simple,

Or do you not even know anything about the archive? Is that it? You're so desperate to contribute to this thread, to feel like you've done something worthwhile. But you're too stupid to read the thread, to comprehend the words. But you have to add something.

So you beg for archives. You don't know what the archives are. Where they are. It soars right above your semen-stained skull. But you still have to post. To feel like you helped. And so you shit out your little word vomit of a post.

Great job. Tonight, /tg/ has gotten shit done, thanks to your valiant effort.

>>15031610
skills - 1 x next level
attributes - 2 x next level
virtues - 3 x next level
abilities - you automatically get one when you reach the appropriate skill level, but once you've reached that level you can always buy more abilities from that level for a number of points equal to the required level.
I think you should start with three hearts and not be able to raise them beyond that. I'd rather focus on improving skills and equipment that reduce the amount of damage I take than raising my HP (I hate HP). I think that would force people to be more creative with their builds and combat strategies. Also, the only way Link was able to raise his heart meter was by collecting heart containers and pieces of heart, which would just be a pain in the ass with 3-6 people playing.
I also think all stats should cap at 6, that you should start with 3 points to put into virtues and attributes respectively, you're probably going to need more than 6 points for skills but determining how many more will have to wait until skills are fleshed out more, and then you get some starting points to spend however you want.

>>15031847
Attibutes and virtues are WAY too easy with that. Virtue should be damn near quest reward to raise.

>>15031847
seperating techniques/abilities/what-ever-we-call-them as something bought seperate is so much better than the automatic gain, it allows for better customization and control over your character than simply getting handed it and allows for stuff to be added more easily

>>15031835
This is a totally essential post.

Also, what's the setting for this bitch, just any LoZ setting? Because it seems OoT/MMish, chiefly.

The reason I ask is because not every enemy is in every game, and some enemies are radically different from game to game.

I was thinking races could have tendencies towards different virtue and attributes. Gorons have Power and Physical, Hylians have Courage and Spiritual, etc.

>>15031847
Virture: 7 x New Level

Attribute: 4 x Next Level

Skill: 2 x Next Level

there might be a few techs that only cost 1 XP

>>15031882
well I would prefer it to be set up so you can customize and add new shit easily as you see fit

Here's a thought. What if Backslash was an |Acrobatics| technique instead of a |Blade| one?

>>15031630
This is not a bad idea actually... Though I'd add Tool, Ranged Weapon, and MAYBE bomb.

>>15031882
I think the assumption is by default OOT/MM/TP timeline with intent to eventually expand into more.

>>15031911
oh shit I forgot things like Bomb, Tool, and Ranged weapon

I was only concerned with melee weapons at the time

>>15031898
I think this ratio will work

>>15031630
sounds good, but how about instead of 'martial arts' we just call it Hand to Hand?

>>15031927
>>15031911
bomb could easily merge into a general 'alchemy' skill or something like that since the skill more or less covers making them more so than using them, and expanding it to work in more general use would allow for more applications

>>15031882
Thanks, I try. So many mouthbreathing retards, so little time.

>>15031955
works for me, as long as the name gets across and we can note that you can use weapons with it

>>15031955
Agreed. It has certain Asian-y connotations that doesn't fit the Zelda setting well. Well it doesn't really, but it feels like it has them.

>>15031966
that could be prettty fun, especially when you start mixing magic into the bombs so you get ice bombs and stuff

>>15031987
>you can use weapons with it
WHY

>>15031966
I was going to say "explosives" but alchemy works pretty well...

Plus that gives a way to brew potions yourself, if you have the right ingredients/skill level
>>15032002
That's precisely why it was bugging me.

>>15032021
specifically h2h weapons such as nunchaku, brass knuckles, and such

>>15032027
yeah the alchemy skill would have a lot of associated techiniques with like "Brew Potion", "Make Bomb", "Poison Arrow", etc...

so far, I'm really liking the

Virtue, attribute, item usage(tech-tree), non-combat/utility skills, layout idea. especially since the item usage skills as they are right now already almost fall into the tech tree style.

That said, there should still be "skills" governing combat, with the tech tree separate from, but dependent on, your weapon skills.

how does everyone feel about expanding |Shield| into |Guard| so we can stick the parrying techs there and such?

>>15032169
thats what has been suggested a lot recently

What is with all this nintendo tabletop shit?
First that pokemon crap, now this?

>>15032196
Hey. Why are you hating on /tg/ for making /tg/ homebrew?

Seriously. /tg/ can make some good shit when they work together and not consist of people like you who have nothing to offer but your unconstructive rage.

And for the record, P:TA is fun - and better than anything you'll ever make.

>>15032178
Then how should that be laid out? by the sounds of it we have
combat
Light Weapons Heavy Weapons, Staff Weapons, Ranged Weapons, Unarmed, Guard
non-combat/utility
Alchemy, Explosives, Instrument (Perform?)
Tools, Stealth, Athletics (acrobatics), Interaction(for dealing with people)

Thoughts?

current list'o'skills

|Light Weapon|
|Heavy Weapon|
|Staff Weapon|
|Hand to Hand|
|Ranged Weapon|
|Tool|
|Alchemy|
|Instrument|
|Magic|
|Acrobatics|
|Shield/Guard|
|Armor|
|Stealth|

separate from these are techniques, which used to be the skills given at every even level of a skill, to allow for a larger variety. Techniques are bought and usually have an skill prerequisite, though they can also have other prerequisites like another technique or a certain level of virtue or attribute. Each technique has its own XP cost.

>>15032292
I've always been for adding a skill to cover social situations but everyone early on got all pissy over it

it only needs a single skill to it. It's attribute will vary between spiritual/social but there are cases where you might use physical (e.g. intimidation that uses physical as its attribue and power as it virtue to scare the fuck out of people with a show of force)

>>15032366
i mean spiritual/social and mental

>>15032366
I read the argument's earlier both for and against a social interaction skill.

Personally, I feel that historically there ARE people who wouldn't qualify as having a high spiritual or mental score, but who are great orators/ liars. in that case, having a interaction skill is almost a must.

But the argument against having it, that it can be handled with just the attributes/virtues, is also a good point.

I simply feel that having an interaction skill is a good idea, like having the H2H skill.

The less work you have to do to determine how something works while playing the game, the easier it is to become immersed in the world.

>>15032384
>>15032366
just make spiritual the attribuet and social the skill
problem solved

>>15032444
>The less work you have to do to determine how something works while playing the game, the easier it is to become immersed in the world.
damn right

And if, as players, you feel that there is no need for a skill to govern social interactions (read heavy roleplaying groups), then by all means, ignore the skill.

It is simply easier to have the rule there and not need it, than it is to not have the rule and have to make it yourself.

I think OP vastly underestimated how worked up people get about a favored vidya gaem.

>>15032808
It may be.

Something occurs. What stops a high-Physical Power character from literally steamrolling everything in his path?

>>15033294
well if there aren't character's that rely on mobility and exploiting enemy weaknesses I'll be massively disappointed. also magic.

>>15029986
>Races recieve no bonuses to Virtues, save Hylians, who recieve +1 to a virtue of their choice.
I think this needs to be taken out. No other races get any kind of bonus so there's no need for it. I'm guessing it's just an artifact from older threads that hasn't been removed yet since this is copy/pasted from the last thread.

I think we (well, me and another guy...) concluded last thread that 4 points to distribute on attributes was better than 5.

With 4 points, spreads are
4 2 1
3 3 1
3 2 2

With 5, we get

4 3 1
4 2 2
3 3 2

So with 4 points, you can excel in one area, being decent in one and pretty bad in one. Or you can be good (but not as good) in two and bad in one, or good in one and decent in two.

5 points instead puts your options at awesome-good, bad, awesome-decent-decent, and good-good-decent. It simply allows you to be too good at too much.

The example character a bit earlier is built with 4 points, though, so I figure Scribe just missed changing it when pasting things.

>>15033294
What stops a high mobility character from leaping past everything in his path and a stealthy character from sneaking past it all?

Rather than skill levels you could have skill trees. Like in Dragon Age. So you can be more specialized in one aspect of the skill or be a generalist. Also this would cover feats etc

Im not sure if itss said already but i would want to see some kind of Sumo wrestling things like what was in Twilight princes.

Mass would be the damaging factor.

>>15033833
This is the current plan, techniques and abilities of various kind with skill/attribute/virtue prerequisites.

>>15034000
I was thinking of skill trees instead of skills and feats

>>15034037
That'd be less flexible and doesn't work with skills as the function now, it'd require having an extra subsystem for it.

>>15034151
not really. six tier trees, each tier advancement equals a skill rank. set the ability costs and the number of abilities in a tier required to advance to the next tier to reflect the cost to buy up skill ranks (i think it was 2 x next level). advancing to the 3rd tier on a tree is equivalent to having 3 ranks in the skill at the same point cost. just as flexible as having abilities with skill requirements and you maintain the current functionality of skills.

>>15034248
Let me try rewording/expanding on this.
I'll start with what seems to have been accepted so far:
You have a list of item skills and a list of non-item skills, each of which you spend points to rank up. Then you have abilities with different skill requirements that must each be bought with more points. Basically DnD 3.x skills and feats, but with a point-buy system. Increasing your skills makes more abilities available to you.

What I'm proposing is that learning techniques both increases your skills (it would probably be best to only apply this to item skills) and makes new techniques available to you. The current point cost for raising skills is 2 x new rank, which looks like this:
Rank 1 – 2 points
Rank 2 – 4 points
Rank 3 – 6 points
etc.
etc.

cont.

>>15035076
So let's say you want to buy your first rank in Blades. You would start by buying techniques on the first of 6 tiers on the Blades skill tree. Let's say the first tier of Blades includes 3 techniques; two of which only cost 1 point and one that cost 2 points. Buying either the 2 point technique or both of the 1 point techniques would give you your first rank in the Blades skill since you have spent the 2 points required for that skill rank, as well as make the next tier available to you.
Now let's assume you bought both of the 1 point techniques to get you started and have worked your way up to the third tier. Maybe that 2 point technique in the first tier is looking kinda nice, or there's a technique or two from the second tier that you still wanted to pick up. Once a tier is available to you it remains so and you can buy techniques from a lower tier at any time.
However, if you are at the third tier and you buy a technique from the second tier, the point cost does not count towards your next rank up for that skill. You must buy techniques in your current highest tier for that skill equal to the point cost required to to attain that skill rank in order to make the next tier available.

>>15035110
So if you are Rank 2, but have not yet purchased any techniques from the third tier, 6 more points worth of techniques from tiers one and two will not earn you Rank 3 nor will it make the fourth tier available to you. Only buying 6 points worth of techniques from the tier three would do this.
Of course the point cost of techniques would increase with each tier so you're not racking up more techniques than you know what to do with.

This way you get the same flexibility as with the skills/feats system, but advancement is a little more streamlined and your points aren't spread as thin.

Tl;dr: Learning techniques improves your skills rather than the other way around and you still get a variety of techniques to choose from

>>15035119
also you could have different techniques draw from different virtues and the last tier of each skill could have 3 techniques (one for each virtue) that each cost 12 points (the cost of the final skill rank).

>>15031097
>This actually doesn't sound half bad. Something like every odd-numbered rank in a skill gives you one reroll of a single ability die in a pool for the relevant skill (but you must abide by the reroll, even if it's worse), and every even-numbered rank gives you a special ability related to the use of the skill.
I suggested this an option for replacing skill dice pools, not making them worse. This just enhances all the problems I was pointing out.

>>15033294
>>15031220
I pointed that out fucking ages ago. I really think you had a great generalist system with your stats, but apparently you've decided to go for a convoluted skill system instead, only now for everything, which is just going to worsen any problem I highlighted near the beginning of this thread. So I'm going to opt out. I hope you enjoy your game very much, and I wish you the best of luck fixing it at the point where your realise you've made a mechanical clusterfuck.

>>15035316
well, how would you fix it?

I understand you're upset, I'm just not understanding what you're upset about.

very early morning for me, please excuse the dumbs.

>>15035393
I'm not upset at all. I started off saying things in this thread like specialisation in one area is going to be at an enormous advantage, or that you have a weird delineation of skills (but that I don't really feel you can cover everything with skills) but your general attribute/virtue crossover covers pretty much any action. Some other people have pointed these out, but apparently they have more faith in skill systems and large and unequal combined dice pools than I do, because they've advised that be to the go-to method for *everything*. That's been adopted, and that's fine. It's so totally contrary to any recommendation or point I made that I no longer feel much point in giving advice, which is also fine. I sincerely do wish you the best of luck, and at the same time I believe 100% there is a point where you're going to realise this is utterly fucked from a mechanical perspective.

>>15035076
>>15035110
>>15035119
>>15035173

Interesting thought... i think a little too convoluted for how the system was originally conceived, especially since not all characters are going to want every single technique. (plus lots of techniques).

Instead, could you reverse the order? Players purchase skills, and then they gain access to the techniques they meet the prerequisites for for free? In this case, a technique such as shield bash would require (for example) Shield/Guard 2 and Physical 3 or Mental 4

>>15035457
So the system in the OP. Jesus Christ.

>>15035426
that will probably be realized about 15-20 minutes into playtesting...

>>15035471
and we've come full circle

>>15035457
This seems awful to balance.
I'd go with a hybrid tree/rating system. x points in a skill gives you y points to spend on the tree. Or per x points spend on the tree you gain +1 rank.

>>15035502
To clarify: my suggestion was that the pool be attribute, and the kept be virtue. In this method, 'skills' would be actual abilities gained by increasing point in a separate meter. The point was raised that this does not properly convey weapon mastery. I didn't really agree with this point, but as a I suggestion I proposed that each alternate rank in a 'skill' tree would allow you some indirect method of increasing the power of your dice pool - a reroll of a single dice in the relevant ability, or perhaps an automatic success. The guy I suggested this too then took that idea, said it was good, and applied to to the skill system I'm arguing against. Which is just... ugh. I don't know. I don't know why you need to pioneer this weird skill/attribute division with all the clusterfuck and overpoweringly effective focus characters it implies. But you do, so that's that.

>>15032336
Maybe it's just that now I've had some sleep so I'm more open to working on things, but overall I think I can get behind this list. I'd even be ok with adding a skill for social interaction, provided that it doesn't enable absurd "you're my slave forever" diplomancer bullshit and doesn't lock characters who focus on other areas out of social stuff entirely.

>>15035076
>>15035110
>>15035119
This doesn't sound like a bad way to do it.

>>15035533
I think you misinterpreted my post earlier. I wasn't suggesting that we keep the dice added by skill ranks.

At any rate, I have been thinking about the skill system a bit, and I've come to the conclusion that it definitely does need some work. As it stands now, having skills add dice to your rolled pool will result in a very large pool with very few kept dice, meaning most of your keepers will be 5s or 6s (which I think is what you're getting at).
However, I still think it that success in a skill test should be at least somewhat affected by your ranks in that skill, so a person who with only minimal training in stealth won't be just as good at it as someone with the same amount of raw talent but vastly more experience. Here's one idea I came up with: what if every 2nd rank in a skill added one die to your keep value when using that skill, and every 3rd rank added one to the rolled pool? That way skills still improve your chances of success in the relevant task (which is particularly important for things like Stealth and Defense), but don't make it so you're rolling so many dice that all your keepers are likely to be 5s and 6s. I made up some tables, and it looks like the only time you'd have a rolled pool twice the size of your kept or bigger with this method would be if you were using a skill with a very high attribute keyed to a very low virtue.

Thoughts? It might need some tweaks, but I think it could at least be a step in the right direction.

>>15035533
both your suggestion and the suggestion for a skill system are fair and understandable. I guess it comes down to what you want from your system.

>>15035596
Yeah, that is what I'm getting at. You need a method to curb the enormous contribution skills make, and your suggested one is certainly an option.

>>15035596
no one has said otherwise yet, so I'm running with the assumption that everything caps at six, which with your suggestion would mean that the maximum dice pool would be 8 while the maximum keep pool would be 9. you could make every odd rank increase your keep pool and every even rank increase your dice pool, that way they would both max at 9.
i don't think a dice pool of 9 is too absurd, especially considering how long it would take anyone to get their stats up that high

>>15035596
i don't think that a social skill would, or should allow for something that silly. More likely for subtle things, like persuading someone to help you/reduce the cost slightly on an item. You shouldn't be able to convince someone to do something that they wouldn't do willingly.

>>15035680
Agreed. A max pool of 5 or 6 seems plenty large enough

here's a very rough illustration of the mixed skill tree/rank system I suggested. I only covered two tiers because I'm too damn tired to do a more detailed version. The numbers in the boxes are the point costs and the stuff highlighted in red is what has been purchased/unlocked. adjustments can be made as far as point costs per technique and the number of techniques per tier and what specific effects each skill rank actually produces

>>15036286
I'm still not quite following.

>>15035680
6 sounds like a good cap for everything, especially considering that getting to 6 in a virtue will be incredibly difficult.

I think the alternating add to keep/add to rolled might work better, but I think it'll probably take either some playtesting or the help of someone who's a whiz with dice probability to figure out for sure which one's better. If anyone wants to really dig into the crunch on this, I've made up tables for both the "add to keep on odd ranks/add to rolled on evens" system and an "add to keep on odd ranks/add to rolled every 3rd". I realize that the second one isn't exactly the same as what I originally proposed, but I derped when making the table and I don't feel like changing it now. At any rate, what I proposed here >>15035596 would just be the same as the right side, but with the keep values being one die smaller for odd-numbered skill ranks.

Also, it struck me that, no matter how we end up dealing with the way skills affect the dice, there will be situations where your keep pool is bigger than your rolled pool. How do we want to handle this? Should we move keep dice to rolled until the rolled pool is bigger or equal to the keep value (eg, if you'd be rolling 2 dice for a check but your relevant virtue is 3, you'd roll 3k2 instead of 2k3), or should the extra kept allowance just be ignored (in which case you'd essentially be rolling 2k2)?
Personally, I support the latter case, just as a gut feeling.

>>Should we move keep dice to rolled until the rolled pool is bigger or equal to the keep value (eg, if you'd be rolling 2 dice for a check but your relevant virtue is 3, you'd roll 3k2 instead of 2k3)
I think that was the plan, but it seems like this could cause problems, though I don't know how.

>>15036664
Essentially, the way it works is that you don't buy skill ranks directly, but rather you spend XP on abilities from the various skill trees. Once you've spent an amount of XP on abilities from a single tree equal to twice the next rank in that skill, you gain that rank, which gives you some sort of benefit to checks using that skill and unlocks the next tier of the tree.
So in the example in the image, there are three tier 1 abilities on the skill tree: two costing 1 point each, and one costing 2 points. To gain the first rank in the skill, you need to spend 2 points on abilities from that skill's tech tree (2*1 = 2). In this case, the player bought the 2-point ability, but he could also have advanced by buying the two 1-pointers, or one of the 1-pointers and the 2-pointer (and in this last case, he'd already have 1 point toward the second rank). Now that he has 1 rank in the skill, he can start purchasing tier 2 abilities, and once he's spent 4 more points after the first 2, he'll get his 2nd rank (2*2 = 4). Where he spends those points doesn't matter. For instance, he could simply buy the 4-point ability in the second tier, which would be all that he needs. He could buy the two 1-pointer skills that he didn't get yet from the first tier, and finish out with the 2-pointer from the second tier. Or any number of similar combinations -- as long as he spends a total of 4 more points (for a career total of 6 points invested in the skill), he gets the 2nd rank.

Does that help?

>>15037848
It's not that I dislike this system, but it seems a huge ordeal to build it up, and makes adding (or removing...) stuff a pain. Also makes the game much crunchier. I'm just not sure it's the right thing for this particular game.

>>15036757
>>15036824
Yeah, moving kept to rolled was the idea. It works very well thematically, since even if you are otherwise bad at what you're trying to do, it being in line with your virtues gives you a bit better results than for someone who was less Powerful/Courageous/Wise.

>>15038043
>it seems a huge ordeal to build it up, and makes adding (or removing...) stuff a pain.

It would definitely be more work to make the skill system work this way, but this framework is actually a lot easier to add/remove stuff from than the more rigid "at X rank you get Y ability" idea.

Personally, I like the concept because it makes skills less about how effectively you do something, but more about the different ways you can use it, which feels very Zelda to me.

I think to help simplify the design process, we should make it so (at least for the basic framework) each tier has one major and two minor abilities to choose from. The major ability would cost the entirety of the points you need to get to the next rank from that tier, and the minor abilities would each cost half that. Then we can set up guidelines for how powerful the major and minor abilities at each tier are, making it somewhat easier to fill in the tech tree for each skill.

The bestiary and traps for this homebrew will be so fun.

>>15038227
Skills with inherent abilities aren't that great either, but the easiest way to handle it is having buyable abilities with prerequisites. The earlier suggestions for stopping roll pool bloat seem pretty good, and the combination gives a more plug and play system

>>15038227
>I think to help simplify the design process, we should make it so (at least for the basic framework) each tier has one major and two minor abilities to choose from.
that was something I was considering as well. I actually thought of setting it up that way in the example I drew out earlier

>>15038348
>the easiest way to handle it is having buyable abilities with prerequisites.

That could work too.
Personally, I'd be fine with any of the ideas suggested so far, the one caveat being that if we do go with the "abilities tied to skill ranks", we should make a number of abilities for each level, so players have a little bit of choice.

What if we go tree only and have stuff like '+1 to roll' and '+1 to keep' part of the tree?

>>15037848
that's mostly right except that the way I originally wrote it, only buy abilities on your highest tier counted towards advancing to the next tier/rank. the idea was that like with the skill/feat system there would be times that you had to decide whether you'd rather spend points on just abilities or focus on ranking up your skills
for the people concerned about the crunch involved, I agree that it will take a lot to implement it, but I think once it is implemented it will flow rather well with the rest of the system

Is there a page on 1D4wiki yet?

>>15039429
Don't think so - but the threads are on sup/tg/

>>15039429
Not that I know of.

why are you all adding this extra crap to further complicate things when having skills and ability/techniques as being separate from one another (save for prerequisites) does just about the same thing far more flexibly and elegantly?

Skills add to the rolls, techniques give you spiffy things to do to expand upon your capabilities. None of this shit that needs a fucking chart to slow things down, no need to say that every X rank in a skill you get an ability of Y value for free which would make more work to tie things in. Just plain old spending XP to either get fancy new things you can do or making what you can already do more effective.

Seriously you fuckwits are making this more complicated than it has to be.

oh look the moment TKDB comes back the thread takes a sharp curve back to stupid

>>15039454
Someone needs to make one. supTG may be good for archiving information, but getting the skinny on something...not so much. :P

>>15033598
Each of the races gets something unique to them as a benefit and as a weakness. Whether this is a special attack (electric fields for Zora, spikes when rolling for Gorons, bubble spit and flight for Deku Scrubs) or other ability (Fire immunity for Gorons, damage back on successful Guard for Zora), everyone gets something. Except Hylians, who are pretty generic. Being Chosen of the Goddesses of Hyrule, is their biggest flavor text. So having +1 to a Virtue of their choice is a good way to represent that, perhaps with the added caveat of 'cannot put that Virtue above <starting max value>, to help with point spreading for Hylians who are supposed to be the most well-rounded people.

>>15039563
Nothings wrong with needing pages full of graphs to make a character, and rolling seven dice every time any sort of action is taken. Don't be silly.

I'm really late joining this party, but just to throw a spanner in the works:

Have you guys considered setting up a type triangle with the Virtues? Like

POWER
effective against
WISDOM
effective against
COURAGE
effective against
POWER

It could contribute to the system being more balanced - or at least make it harder to steamroll combat with one minmaxed character. Plus it kind of fits with the fluff: Ganon (power) beat Zelda (wisdom), but was finally defeated by Link (courage)

>>15039989
Oh silly me, i must have forgotten that is what all the cool kids do these days.

>>15040175
They're not supposed to be fighting each other, though. And if it was run as some kind of PvP game, it'd, well, be unbalanced.

>>15040175

FUCK

NO

>>15040175
yeeaaahhhh no

>>15039429

Nah, http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Legend_of_Zelda_RPG is totally not a thing that I put a load of effort in to.

>>15040704
>>15040704
don't fucking leave out half the progress of this thread fuckwit

>>15040735

Fucking D.I.Y., you vile lump of self-entitled manchild cancer.
If you can even stop covering your keyboard with your vomit, shit and piss long enough to think, of course.

I mean, tell me if you can manage to, what half of the minute amount of actual agreed-on progress did I leave out?
The random Wuxia stuff?

>>15039563
Wow, butthurt much?

Don't get me wrong, you make a good point, I just don't see the need to be so vitriolic about it. It's not like anyone was even trying to really push the idea to the exclusion of all else, people are just kicking ideas around.

But yes, it would make things much simpler to separate skills and special abilities. Let's not make things any harder for ourselves than we need to.

>>15040704
Ignore the cockmuncher >>15040735

Good job.

>>15040919
>GRRRRRRRRR GRRRRRRRR GRRRRRR GRRRRRRRRRRRR

>>15040995
>Stop being so VITRIOLIC you BUTTHURT piece of shit! YOU HAVE NO OPINION BECAUSE I SAY SO!

>>15041174
Me again. For Gerudo:

Gerudo are capable of using weapons as a full Shield Defense, rather than the penalty normally applied to using weapons as a Defense action. Gerudo benefit from an additional keep on acrobatic and athletic rolls (a Gerudo with 4k2 would have 4k3 in these instances). Gerudo take an +1 Damage from Heavy-class weapons (such as the Megaton Hammer or Ball and Chain).

Also, I meant ot bring this up before: are we going to have Shiekah as a race or are we going to have that be more specialized? OoT implied them to be a racial deviant/derivative of Hylian.

Guys, can we just relax? Making a wiki page is a good start, it lets us collect what we've got done. And the beauty of a wiki is we can bring it up to date in no time.

>>15041551
I generally think of them as an ethnic group within the Hylian race, so I'd say no.

>>15041555
When you say "we," you really mean "somebody else who isn't me" right? Because you sound like yet another entitled nerd who'll wait for somebody else to do the hard work, then pretend you had a hand in it.

>>15041551
I think Shiekah makes sense as a playable race.

Just had a thought:
- |Heavy| is currently Physical Power-based only.
- The Power combat style trades 1k0 defence for 1k0 attack.

So what if the |Heavy| weapons instead used all three combat styles with an extra 1k0 attack for 1k0 defence on top?
- Power becomes -2k0 defence for +2k0 attack.
- Wisdom becomes no modifiers.
- Courage becomes -1k0 defence for +1k0 attack.
___

I really don't think a Moblin Spear should be in the same skill group as the Cane of Somaria.
You won't be Dragoon Striking with the Cane of Somaria; you won't be reducing the magic cost of a Moblin Spear.
They are fundamentally different.

>>15041595
I was thinking stuff like the Cane of Somaria would be governed by |staves| when you're using it to bash people, and |magic| when you're using it to conjure blocks.

>>15041551

Race and Defence Guy is back making races!
Make as many races as you can, Race and Defence Guy!
Possibly after Hylians get to a state everyone's happy with, but still, do your thing!
___

My thing's currently taking up the bottom 1/3 of the wiki page and mostly complete Item-wise.
Freaking Monsters, though...

Oh, there's also currently no crossover between races and tags. Or damage and tags...
Even though giving Deku Scrubs Burn "(4 x Hearts)" could lead to hilarity.

>>15041576
I've been involved with this since the first thread. Don't start with me.

>>15041755
>>15041576
Alright people, let's try to keep it civil and on-topic here.

>>15041723
LOL. Thanks for the warm welcome. When we decide/finalize all the race stuff, I look forward to fluffing it up so that they read nicely beyond just their mechanics. I'd rather wait to do the Rito and Koroks until the main stuff is done, and then do the 'optional races' aspects of it (with things like Oocca, Rito, Korok, Bokoblin, Moblin, Goriya, Skull Children/Stalfos, Garo, Subrosians...)

Still digging about for Hylians, particularly for a penalty to off-set their +1 Virtue bennie which can be powerful. Perhaps something involving their chosen status, and penalties to Spiritual-based rolls to resist, avoid or otherwise negatively deal with and impact their destinies?

Hylians: +1 to a Virtue of their choice, not to exceed the Starting Virtue Maximum. Hylians

>>15041872
Doh.

Hylians: +1 to a Virtue of their choice, not to exceed the Starting Virtue Maximum. Hylians who are attempting to do something in opposition of their destiny and calling of the Goddesses (at GM discretion) keep one less die, to a minimum of 1, when rolling for actions that are counter to their destiny.

I dunno. :P

Shiekah should NOT be a race. There's barley any of them and those who are left over are all uber-awesome ninja bodyguards for the Royal family.

With the abilities and skill available, anyone can make a Shiekah-build character very easily. They shouldn't be race however.

>>15041937
i always just took them for a different culture of hylian

>>15041755
Ooh, touchy touchy. Sorry I doubted your honor and integrity, ma'am.

>>15041835
Says the one saging.

I'm going to be honest with you guys, when this project started i didn't think it would last more than two threads before everyone lost interest and the whole thing fell apart. And yet, here this thread is, still making good progress. I'm proud of you guys, keep up all the good work.

>>15041919
how often would "acting counter to their destiny" actually come into play? They need a disadvantage that's significantly more mechanical in nature, and has less to do with discretion and story telling.

>>15042270
Yeah. It was the only thing I could immediately come up with. Acting counter to their destiny is very loose without something like, say, SWSE's Destiny attribute or something.

Perhaps, instead, one of their penalties is similar to the others; they take extra damage from Dark/Shadow/Evil-type sources?

>>15042297
yeah, thats a lot better. Or we could have them balance out the +1 to a Virtue with a -1 to an attribute? Just a thought, not sure how much i like it though.

>>15042297
Maybe.
Personally though, I'm happy with the +1 to a virtue, especially if the other races get potent abilities to balance it out.

>>15042343
Yeah. all the other races get two abilities and one penalty, generally a damage increase. So the +1 Virtue and Dark-type damage makes sense and is balanced in regards to the others, who get special attacks and skill bonuses.

>>15042343 here, just read >>15042323 's post.
If there is a penalty, that might be a better choice.

Or maybe switch the +1 Virtue to +1 Attribute. You don't keep as many dice, but you have a slightly better chances for those that you keep.

>>15042343
that's a good point. As potent as +1 to a virtue is, its not as potent as immunity to fire, an ability to roll long distances, colossal strength, or the ability to swim quickly and breathe underwater.

Maybe we need to play test this whole hylian racial thing?

>>15042171
It was meant as a polite sage for not contributing anything to the topic of the thread. No sense in bumping the thread when all it'll show is that the thread has started to slide into petty bickering.

>>15042343
>>15042371
I second these. If the +1 virtue is the only benefit Hylians get, that doesn't seem too overpowered compared to the multiple useful abilities the other races get.
Playtesting may prove otherwise, of course, but for now it looks good to me.

>>15042453
I say we keep the template at a simple +1 to any virtue for now, and if its too overpowered when we play test it we can try out giving them a -1 to any attribute. Sound good to everyone?

>>15042474
Yes, I agree.

>>15042474
I'm good for it.

Right now I'm eager to get the concerns over the basic system out of the way first.

Dice pools scare me, but "roll attribute, keep virtue" seemed to make sense to me. I'm not sure about all the talk about adding and subtracting dice from various pools, but that might just be my lack of experience with this kind of mechanic.

Still, the fewer rules needed the better, in my opinion.

>>15042700
The roll/keep mechanic seems to be lifted from Legend of the Five Rings so should probably borrow from there as to how modifiers work.

In L5R, most bonuses are to the rolled dice; kept dice bonuses are rarer.

>>15042700
dice pool is just a term used when you are using two or more factors that add to determine how many dice you are rolling at once

Hello again everyone. Sorry I havent been able to contribute to this thread, like, at all, but life happens, you know how it goes.

Won't be able to stay long, life is, well, still happening.

Just swinging by to tell everyone what a great job they're doing.

I will throw some stuff out while I'm here, though. Re: Hylians. I agree that +1 Virtue is good, but not as spectacular as Goron's roll or a Deku's plethora of hiding bonuses, so perhaps we add back in that "Can reroll a number of Dice equal to their highest virtue per Session, but must keep the new result"? Highest Virtue MIGHT be too much, for balance we could instead make it Lowest Virtue? (further encouraging Hylians to be Versatile, but not demanding that they be.)

No, I don't think Shiekah should be a "Race".

Another thing of Note: Comicpalooza is this weekend in my home city, and a LGS resident who knew me as Sir Scribe suggested that if we manage to get this thing beta-worthy by Friday, I can debut it there and do some real playtesting amongst dedicated gamers.

and Lastly, skills seem to have become a huge mess, that I don't even begin to be qualified to sort out. I just hope y'all can come up with something that may not please everyone (Different playstyles, after all. Pleasing EVERYONE Is next to impossible), but at least something that everyone agrees works and fits the game.

Thanks guys, I really appreciate all the hard work on this project.

>>15043337
the best way to handle skills is to keep them sweet and simple

skills just combine with an attribute to form the dice pool of a roll. Nothing more, nothing less. You don't anything spiffy at set ranks of skills.

They are bought at something around 4 x New Value XP.


Techniques are 'rankless' things that you buy independantly of skills, though they will often require you to have a certain number of ranks in a given skill and more rarely an attribute or virture. Some might evolve into technique trees or technique chains that require the character to already have another technique in order to be bought.

>>15043404
I agree completely. If we do too much complicated stuff with skill rolls the system will become needlessly complex and completely impossible to make run smoothly in combat.

Anything more than rolling attribute + skill and keeping virtue is just not worthwhile.

>>15043510
yeah, anything particularly fancy we can just stuff into techniques

>>15043404
>>15043510
So, Skills remain just something to increase dice in pools for rolling, while techniques are separate trees, a la Dragon Age or something similar, that have some Skill, maybe Attribute prerequisites to get?

>>15043653
that sounds about right.

>>15043653
yes, something to that extent.

The exact XP price of the skill will depend on how useful it is and so forth. At the bare minimum, 1 XP. Though for something like the "my sword shoots lasers when I have full HP" would cost like 20 XP and have absurd requirements.

>>15043686
Sounds good, and I'm liking the simpler approach to skills.

Giving techniques to songs might allow for more variety too, without having to learn entirely new songs to get a new effect.

So, what I understand so far of combat is:

Heart meter:
1 + Courage + Physical (minimum 3)

Attacking:
[weapon skill] + [attribute] = # of dice rolled, [virtue] = # of dice kept.

Defending:
[Dodging and/or shield skill] + [attribute] = # of dice rolled
[virtue] = # of dice kept

>>15044032
Resolving attacks:
when you attack an enemy, your kept dice from your attack roll are compared against the kept dice from the enemy's defense roll. (specifically, your highest die is compared against your enemy's highest die, your second highest with their second highest, and so on.) A success means that you deal one incement of your weapon's damage to the enemy.

So if you kept a 5 and a 4 for your attack, and your enemy kept a 6 and a 3.

5 < 6 = no success
4 > 3 = success

and you deal one increment of damage.

>>15044088

There are some things I'm not quite sure about. For instance, what happens if you tie your opponent? If both you and your enemy roll a 6, what happens? Is there a tiebreaker? Does the attacker or defender automatically win the tie?

What if you keep more dice than your opponent? If you keep 3 and they keep 2, do you ignore your smallest kept die, or do you simply get an automatic success? That might be one of the dangers of high Virtue characters.

There's also the question of how many times you can attack in a round.
(I remember something about 2 half-actions per round before, but I might be wrong.)

What about movement? Is a combat grid involved, like D&D 4e?
They might make things too complicated, but given the importance of maps, dungeons and environmental features in Zelda, it might be worthwhile to find a rules-light solution.

All in all, it seems like a reasonable combat system, if incomplete. Once the holes are filled, I imagine it would be simple to playtest combat and write up various monsters.

>>15044234
>>15044088

Personally, I kind of feel that you should add up the kept dice and compare the two. Lets say i roll 4k3 and you roll 6k2. I get 11 and you get 10. That means I won, and do my base damage to you. How about by every four you beat the enemy (four being statistically average addition for every die over), you add an increment.

>>15044390

That does seem like a simpler solution than comparing individual dice. It has its own problems too, such as a character with a high enough Virtue becoming incapable of failing an attack.

>>15044505
True. But that rings up a problem I've been thinking of as well, skill pool bloating. IF you end up with somethign like 6k2, your going to end up with with like eleven and twelve eveytime. But I suppose that would be balanced with the lack of other skills, and max of twelve, compared to someone with 4k3 who can get up to 18.

But these are just the standard problems with minmaxers in every system. So, how do other systems deal with minmaxers?

>>15044234
What if we compared a number of dice equal to the weaker combatant's, and used the leftover to bump up the stronger one's compared dice?

So say we have attacker A and defender B. A is attacking with 3k2, and B is defending with 3k1. A keeps two 4s, and B keeps a 5. We compare one of A's 4s with B's 5, and see that B would win the only success. However, because A has a leftover die, he adds half (as an example) its value to his die, resulting in 6 (and therefore A gets the success).

>>15044234
You get two actions per turn. You can move, attack, or use a tool each action. Thus, you can use any combination of the above, or simply double run/attack/tool use.

Speaking is a free action.

It might also work to just use either the compare-dice system or combine-dice system, but make skills less available. The max rank in a skill might be 3, for instance. Skills you didn't use or care about might stay at 0 for the entire game.

Dunno if we're overthinking this.

>>15044750
Well, lets see what the crrent max is. Virtues and attributes both max at 5, while skills currently max at six. So at max you'd have 11k5, you you min maxed the hell out of something.

>>15044745
I also think defending was an action. What did that do?
I thought it might just mean adding your dodge/shield to your roll pool.

I ask because it might be nerfed by the suggestion I just proposed.

>>15044796
How about you get two actions, and one reaction? That way you can make a shield or dodge attempt once per round, but limits your spam ability. You can also dedicate an action to readying your defense, which can either give you bonus dice to a single attempt, or give you another reaction.

>>15044816
I don't like reactions at all, to me it's like 'oh you used your reaction this round - now you're dead'. 2 actions per round seem ok - you can run (2 move), go full attack (2 attack), etc.

I don't know why we don't cap everything at 5 - 10k5 at max. You start with 2 or 3 in stuff you want to do, 6k3 at max, but you're a one trick pony.

I think we should ditch skills altogether and just have item and non-item abilities. I think the only thing that made leaving certain things up to virtue/attribute rolls a bad idea was that there were skills for other things. I think if you just leave skills out completely this >>15030021 pretty much covers everything you'll ever need to roll for and is also a good basis for setting prerequisites for abilities. Having to buy points in skills and buy abilities separately just makes me feel like I might as well play DnD or SW and give everything Zelda related names. I think character advancement in a Zelda game should be more focused on learning new abilities/cool shit you can do with items than buying up skills. I also would rather dice pools stay within the single digits and think that the max keep value should be equal to the max dice pool.
I know we're four threads into this project and people are ready to move forward and make some progress, but the more the skill system resembles every game I've played for the last decade and a half the less excited I feel about this project.
Everything else looks great so far though. I really like the whole virtues thing and the mass attribute is a nice touch.
This is just for aesthetics, but do you think we could call it "Body, Mind, and Spirit" instead of "Physical, Mental, and Spiritual"? Makes it feel less like categories and more like essential aspects of your character.

>>15043653
>>15043510
>>15043404
If we do make skills solely contribute to the rolled pool, we need to have a way to limit the size of the pools. Otherwise those with high skills will win every time, due to large pools virtually guaranteeing that the rolls will be high.

It might make things a little more complicated, but I like >>15035680, with skill ranks alternating between keep and roll contributions would work. Lowering the caps on everything from 6 to 5 could work as well, but only if we make the costs such that maxing out a skill and attribute will mean a significant hit to versatility, enough to be a serious deterrent.

Also, I say stick with the linear comparison. It's slightly more difficult to understand at first than just adding up the kept dice values, but once you understand the rule it streamlines gameplay a lot. As someone stated in an earlier thread, "Not doing math is always quicker than doing math."

>>15046149
Doing away with skill ranks would have the same problem as the suggestion earlier to have skill ranks not contribute to the rolls -- it would mean that there's no way to represent getting better at something by training and practice. Everything's based on innate talent -- two people with the same ranks in Physical and Wisdom would be equally good at sneaking around regardless of background. It just doesn't make sense.

I won't deny that the skill ranks + purchased abilities paradigm makes it similar to a lot of other games, but I'd say the reason for this is that the system simply works. You need a way to represent (1) how good a character is at something on top of raw talent, and (2) what sorts of cool stuff you can do with it. #1 is covered by skill ranks; #2 is covered by abilities.

I will agree with you on the dice pools, though. It makes sense for them to stay in the single digits, both from a mechanical balance perspective and from the standpoint of not making players need buckets of dice. And it makes sense to me that you should be able to keep all your dice rolled, provided you really focus on building up the relevant values.

>>15044796
I don't think defense was ever fully fleshed out, but the overall consensus I think was that it would involve sacrificing attack if you want to get the full benefit of your shield skill.

Here's my take on it: the standard roll for defense would be Physical/Acrobatics, keep Wisdom.
You can take an action to defend lets you use Shield in place of Acrobatics; taking a full action to defend lets you use both Shield and Acrobatics on the roll, and use whichever keep value is better. And maybe an agile character who doesn't use a Shield could just add Acrobatics multiple times when using actions to defend.

This would give Wisdom characters a defensive edge, which would be counterbalanced by the fact that virtually no melee weapons would use Wisdom as a default -- you'd need to fight defensively (-1k0 on attack, +1k0 on defense) to apply Wisdom on offense, and this wouldn't necessarily apply to all weapons. Thus, Wisdom-based characters would need to rely on magic, ranged attacks, or sneak attacks to deal reliable damage. Courage- or Power-focused characters, on the other hand, would have a reduced chance of defending successfully unless they give up attacks.

>>15029972
Where is all this info being collected at present?

>>15047210
We have a page on 1d4chan now.
See >>15040704

>>15047246
*reads the collected rules so far*
*facepalms*

This is what my internet being out has lead to. It's so... crunchy. But it's headed in the right direction at least.

It looks like a lot of magic abilities unique to ONE and only ONE character from the games are being given standard to the entire race in the rules. Zora doing damage with a block? Launchable fins common to all Zora? All Gerudo having the full block ability? No mention of Gerudo in Iron Knuckle armor?

I feel like I want to start playtesting this on the IRC though.

>>15047391
I haven't been paying too much attention to the race stuff myself since I have yet to play Majora's Mask (a travesty, I know. And to make matters worse, my only controller's broken.), which looks to be where a lot of the details on races come from. But looking at it now, I gotta agree that a lot of the racial traits don't really seem very iconic for the race.

For instance, it would probably make more sense for the roll attack to be the basic benefit for Gorons, and then make the spikes a Goron-only magic effect you can acquire during the course of the game.

>>15047573
The Goron racial makes sense every goron should be able to roll but not every Goron should have magic spikes

also i think Deku Scrubs should be able to shoot everything out of his mouth (if it fits) not just bubbles
(imagine a Deku Scrub specialized in bombs!)

>>15047391
>It's so... crunchy.

Wow, no kidding. Is it really necessary to have all those tags for objects in the environment? Immobile, Burn, Blow, etc? Those are important to have if you're programming a video game, but for a P&P game that sort of thing can easily be left to the GM.

The tags for items (Fire, Ice, Grip, etc) can stay, and of course it'll help to have some shorthand type tags for monsters, but puzzles and environmental features don't need to be so heavily codified.

>>15048503

Screw the GM, we have tags!

...Actually, if I were GMing this, I'd abuse the hell out of tags as shorthand.

I mean, which takes up more room:
"When the four switches are hit in one attack, the bridge rises."
OR
"Switch Bridge -> Rise (AoE > 2)"?
___

Just gonna go add more tags now...

What is up with all this crunch? Keep it simple, yogurts.

>>15048963
Tags I agree are useful, and would help make shorthand for puzzles easier. While I agree it would be mostly common sense, I think the tags could work itself into general usage well for GMs.

>>15048963
>which takes up more room:

On the other hand, which one requires more background reading?

I'll agree that they have legitimate uses, but making environmental tags part of the core ruleset is just going to make the system look much more complicated and esoteric, and generally deter people from wanting to play it.

I wouldn't object to including the environmental tags in an appendix or something as an optional shorthand available as a tool for the GM, but it shouldn't be a prominent part of the main ruleset. Is that a compromise we can agree on?

>>15048406
We only ever see ONE deku scrub use bubbles.

I have an idea for racial abilities.

How about at first, each race only gets one bonus (Goron rolling, Deku shooting).

However, once a character has reached a certain high point or achieved (for example, maxing out a virtue) they unlock a secondary ability, like being able to have spikes while rolling?

>>15049385
>>15049385
I like this idea. Make players work for their awesome instead of just giving them it.

>>15049385
Yeah the whole spikes thing seems more like a hero power than a natural thing. Each race should have a basic racial ability and an upgraded one for those who who have achieved LEGENDARY HERO status

>>15049249

...Fine, most of the tags can go somewhere hidden.
Where they can fester and mutate...

>>15049385

Kinda did this on the 1d4chan page already by splitting some stuff off into a "Blessing".
Not that I came up with any definition of what a Blessing is, where it comes from, or how you get one...
___

Might as well copy over my quick take on the Goron Roll:
Gorons can spend a turn to assume a rolled-up form. In this form, the Goron moves their Mass + 5 (typically 11) in a fairly straight line.

>>15049385
+1 to this idea. Though it might be a little tricky to come up with something for Hylians...

Plus the prerequisite of maxing out a virtue might be a bit steep, given that the starting cap is 4 and the absolute cap is 6. Might need to come up with something slightly more attainable...

>>15049567
>In this form, the Goron moves their Mass + 5 (typically 11) in a fairly straight line.

And, of course, deal damage to things in their path. That part's kind of important...

Okay, back. Not that that could possibly mean anything to anybody who's not tracking IPs or something. Anyway.
Looking at the 1d4chan article... WHAT THE FUCK HAVE YOU DONE TO THE SKILLS

"Acquire Skills: Characters normally start with no skills (or, all skills at rank 0). Players have 6 skill-points to purchase skills; a new skill costs 1 for rank 1, and another 4 points to raise the skill to rank 2. See the chart at right for the cost to advance a skill from the previous rank, and the total cost from rank 0. Skills may not be higher than rank 3 at character creation, and all skills have a maximum rank of 6. "

So either you start with one skill at 2 and one at 1, or you start with six skills at 1? Seriously?
It's also inconsistent with the listed character advancement in the article. Anyway.

The concern from a previous thread with dice pool bloat is legitimate, too, though. I kinda did like the idea of new ranks in skills alternating between increasing your rolled and kept pools... It's a tiny bit more work, which might be insignificant, and it makes virtue slightly less important for things you're skilled at, which may or may not be to your tastes.

Anyway, uh... Kokiri as written suck compared to everything else, though I'm not quite satisfied with the races in general, anyway. It's hard to focus on them already, though, given we haven't finished mechanics for them to interact with.

As for rolling more kept dice than the opposition, I stand by them counting as hits/successes on say, 3+ or 4+. Doesn't make them guaranteed, but still very good. Automatic successes is just too much, I think, and not getting to use them is unfair.

For combat actions, either a simple two actions system, or movement plus an action. The former has the benefit of instantly making things like positioning, knockback, and knockdown useful.
For defending against attacks, you'd either dodge or guard (whatever we call those actions). Guarding, as with shields etc., should not happen with Wisdom. That's definitely the domain of Courage, possibly also Power.
Particulars of attacker/defender rolls, though... I see a few possibilities, which are all very similar fundamentally, but just slightly shift advantages a bit.
Some options:
If ties means nobody wins, and defender hits only serve to stop the particular die they win against, it effectively means tie = win for defender and at equal rolls defender has a slight edge, but some damage comes through.
If attacker wins ties, it's the same situation reversed, a slight advantage for attacking. This would make combats somewhat faster than the previous option, but we haven't figured out actual/desired lethality yet.
If ties negate, and defender hits remove attacker hits, at equal levels there'd rarely be any damage. This strikes me as undesireable.
If attacker wins ties, but defender hits remove attacker hits, I'm not sure what happens.

Under a system where defender hits do NOT remove attacker hits, an extra/total defense action becomes simple. Two possibilities:
Forgo your attacks (ie all your actions (can still move? eh)), your hits when defending remove hits from the attacker.
Forgo an attack (spend an action on defending), you get the same benefit as in the other one, against one attack. Maybe simply the next attack against you, or the next attack from a specific foe, since you could be engaging several at once, and I think it's fair that you're allowed to choose who you're focusing on not getting hurt by. On second though, you could also spend both your actions and defend against two attacks, I guess.

I prefer the latter, since it gives several options in a fight. You could focus on defending, making it hard for your opponent to hurt you, but you wouldn't do anything back. Both could attack and defend with an action each, meaning both are playing it carefully. That would take a longer time to play out, of course. If your opponent attacks once and defends once, you can attack twice, still giving you an offensive advantage (if you are otherwise equal, of course), though forfeiting extra defense against your opponents one attack.

Too crunchy? I think it shouldn't be, as long as we word it clearly and concisely. There's not a lot of counting involved.

>>15049809
I'm not sure I follow entirely, but if you mean what I think you mean I think I like it. Let me see if I have this right:

The normal way things would work is attacker rolls their relevant attack skill, defender rolls either Shield (Physical Courage) or Acrobatics (Physical Wisdom). Attacker deals X damage increments, where X = the number of attacker successes, as determined by the normal linear comparison (for opposed attack dice) and unopposed check (for unopposed attack dice) rules.

If you take an action to defend, you choose an opponent. For attacks from that opponent until the next round, you roll attack and defense as usual, but in this case the attacker deals Y damage, where Y = the number of attacker successes - the number of defender successes.

So for instance, suppose the attacker rolled 5k3, keeping [6,4,3], and the defender rolled 4k3 keeping [5,5,2]. If the defender hadn't taken a defense action against the attacker, the attacker would deal 2 damage increments to the defender (6 > 5, 4 < 5, 3 > 2), but if the defender did take an action to defend then the attacker would only deal 1 damage increment since the defender's one success would negate one of the attacker's successes.

Do I have it right?

>>15050094
When it gets put that way, it sounds like the defender is halving their attacker's damage, since each success the defender scores denies a success to the attacker AND takes away an increment of damage they would deal.

Hey, I haven't been around for this, and don't want to poop on the GETTING SHIT DONE, but I thought y'all might wanna know that some other folks have already made a 350-page 3.5 d20 conversion of this.

>>15050293
>3.5 d20
What a Goddamned waste of time and effort.

>>15050094
Yep, that's it, other than that a defense action should probably only apply to one attack of the opponent's. Otherwise fights would mainly consist of people attack-defending all the time.

I'd also like to get some kind of mechanic for foregoing defending against an attack and striking back instead into place. I dunno if it would be best as a standard option or as an acquirable ability, or how to best implement it. Depends on the details of the rest of combat, of course. I think it might be best as some ability you pick up (might not make simulation sense, but I don't really care here), it clutters the core rules less, and leaves more design space open for it, since we want to keep the core options simple, and that having two defensive standard options (well, three, but two are functionally identical anyway) would require more careful balancing.

>>15050317

I sympathize, but let's:

1. Remember that some people like that sort of thing

2. Not hijack this into yet another fucking edition war thread

>>15049713
>WHAT THE FUCK HAVE YOU DONE TO THE SKILLS
It looks like the skills section has wound up being an awful Frankenstein-monster of two entirely different and non-compatible conceptions of the skill system -- namely, "buy skill ranks; abilities sold separately", and "buy abilities; once you've spent enough, you get a skill rank". The costs are based on the latter, but the text seems to lean more toward the former.
Looking at the beginning of this thread, the original idea for skills was that the costs start at 1 point for the first rank, and increased by 1 at every odd-numbered rank. These numbers may need some tweaking yet, but at any rate if skills and abilities are going to be purchased separately (which seems to be the consensus at this point?), then it makes sense for skill ranks to be a bit cheaper than 2*skill level. I've reverted the chart on the wiki to the costs given here >>15030154 for now.

>>15050235
That's what the defense action would do, yes. Sacrificing your own offense to take less damage yourself. If you're equal to your opponent, you'd average out to nullifying an attack with it. An action for an action, essentially. Against a stronger opponent, you'll live longer, against a weaker, well, they won't be hurting you with that attack.

>>15050293
>>15050338
We are aware of it. It's been posted in at least two of the previous three threads, and I have read it before also. It's got some interesting stuff, but it's not really Zelda, and I wouldn't really call it good, either. Hence this project.

>>15050293
We're aware, it was brought up in the both the first and second threads for this project. For those who like it, good on them, but those of us working on this project are here because we feel the d20 version fails to really capture the spirit of the LoZ games, so we figured we'd try our own take on it.

>>15050335
A counterattack option would be neat, but I agree that it should probably be a purchased ability (albeit a fairly low-cost one). Probably shouldn't be tied to a particular skill, but it seems to me that a Courage requirement would fit well.

>>15050424
I'd say a requirement of Courage or Power. Or maybe needing some measure of both? Well, details to be worked out when we GET to abilities.

>>15050293
Normally, Golden Neckbeard, you are immensely useful. But let's face it d20 is only really good for a certain type of thing and Zelda isn't quite it.

Alright, let's see if this works any better.

Heart meter:
1 + Courage + Physical (minimum 3)

Attacking: Takes one action
[weapon skill] + [attribute] = # dice rolled
[virtue] = # of dice kept

Each Attack Success = 1[W] damage dealt to target

Defending:
Passive Defense: No action, done automatically when attacked
[attribute] = # of dice rolled
[virtue] = # of dice kept
OR
Active Defense: Takes one action, focused on one Attacker for one round.
[Dodging and/or shield skill] + [attribute] = # of dice rolled
[virtue] = # of dice kept

Each Defense Success = no change, unless unopposed. Successful unopposed dice reduce 1[w] of damage from the enemy’s attack.


Highest Dice are compared with the opponent's highest, second highest with second highest, and so on.
Ties count as successes for the Attacker.
Unopposed dice (where one opponent keeps more dice than their opponent) count as successes on a roll of 4 or higher.

>its gimtic

>>15050843
This system still doesn't take into account armor and it's damage reducing properties. To better model that, perhaps the bit about unopposed defense successes should be removed.

If not, perhaps the unopposed defense success should only come into play if a sheild is used.

I'm no game expert, I'm just trying to summarize the ideas suggested and make things clearer to understand.

>>15050843
Hum, I guess that system would work, too. I rather liked the ideas I had, but, well, they're my ideas, so yeah. What do people think?

>>15050996
Hmm. I actually hadn't thought of it as successes; rather, I was thinking 'excess successes mean you succeed' on opposed rolls. For combat, this means that you would hit and do the base damage of the weapon (which, come on, usually has scaled with the areas as you adventure).

Otherwise there's the potential for horrible one-shot kills with things like, say, an Iron Knuckle's greatsword (which does 2 Hearts/8 points of damage in OoT). If each 'success' is unmitigated, then someone with that could immediately murder someone. My total misreading of the original post apparently. :)

>captcha:Susannae Y'Deval

Why, captcha, why are you giving me names for NPCs?

>>15050996
>>15050887
>>15050843
In my own opinion, unopposed dice are auto-successes. An unopposed Attack die is an automatic increment of damage, while an unopposed defense die does, well nothing.

Shields and Acrobatics function similarly in combat, but Acrobatics also dictates stunts and shit, while Shields is nothing but defense. In addition to more defense-based abilities associated with the skill, how about each shield adds a certain number of dice to your "Keep" pool? Like a Kokiri shield adding 1, or a Darknut's shield adding 3. But, these can only be used when taking a full action to defend.

and >>15050887 is right, Armor is the go-to for reducing an enemy's damage increment.

>>15051215
A possibility for avoiding HORRIBLE INSTANT MURDER is that Heavy Weapons, in addition to being Power + Physical only, could take 2 actions to actually attack with. I mean, an Iron Knuckle's axe isnt exactly something that can be swung as rapidly as a mace or a sword.

>>15051289
Hmm. That would work; one action to represent the swing, one for the recovery? That would work (and IIRC from OoT, Link's recovery with the Megaton Hammer was much slower than anything else, even the Biggoron Sword).

I also reread my own post and went 'Uh... so Armor can functionally reduce damage to 0 Hearts?' in my head, related to my own post. So the successes makes sense in my head. In this respect, do we want Armor reducing damage to 0 outside of using Guard to do that, or do we want a minimum damage reduction from armor to 1/4?

>>15050843
My first reaction upon seeing this was a big "no", because it would mean a pretty lethal system where the aggressor will typically get several successes unless the defender is actively defending. But thinking about it a bit more, that's actually pretty fitting for a Zelda system -- you usually will take loads of damage if you just charge in head-on.

I think unopposed defense dice should cancel damage increments on successes though. *Especially* if skill ranks are going to contribute to the kept dice amount. Otherwise it seems like it would be pretty stacked against someone who wants to make a tanky/slippery type.

Speaking of skills contributing to kept dice, we really need to come to a concrete consensus on that subject. Can we all agree to the +keep on even ranks/+rolled on odds suggestion in >>15035680? It sounds pretty good to me.

>>15051289
This sounds very appropriate, and sounds like a pretty decent balancing factor if we're going to have heavy weapons deal damage in large increments.

>>15051338
I had always figured all armor except the absolute best of the best would reduce damage increments to a minimum of 1/4 heart.

Also, I believe it's time for a new thread. 4chan x is telling me we've passed the 300-post mark.

>>15051376
Unless I'm missing something (I can't seem to find the post mentinoing unopposed defense dice). Why not just steal from NWoD and have a static Defense rating, which essentially reduces the roll pool, so that the potential for damage is lower? IE: Static Defense based on say, Wisdom? Subtract static defense after making #k# pool but before rolling, to potentially reduce damage. From that point, Guard adds it's Skill dice for further potential reduction, then Armor applies to lower damage, to a minimum of 1/4 (outside of say, the armor from TP that eats Rupees)?

>>15051385
Yeah, we need a minimum so that knife-users can actually stab things.

>>15051338
ok, one action to swing, one action to recover I really, really like. It balances the Heavy weapon's hideous damage output by limiting them to 1 attack per turn, and it also gives me the mental image of an Iron Knuckle ruining a guy's shit with his axe, then choosing not to recover, leaving the axe embedded in the ground just so he can punch the guy in the face in the same turn.

>>15051395

The new thread should probably mention we know about the d20 Zelda RPG, so that thing doesn't happen again.

>>15051434
Temporary Combat Namefag originally suggested in >>15050843 that unopposed defense dice should negate damage:
>Each Defense Success = no change, unless unopposed. Successful unopposed dice reduce 1[w] of damage from the enemy’s attack.

But he brought up the point in >>15050887 that perhaps this wouldn't be such a good idea with armor reducing damage as well.

Static defense based on Wisdom could work, though it would lead to two important issues:
#1 - Do we want to let the static defense reduce the attackers rolled pool to 0?
#2 - Since (as far as I know) we're moving extra kept points to the roll pool (i.e., if you'd roll 3k4 you roll 4k3 instead, 3k5 becomes 4k4, etc), how do we handle that with the modifications from static defense?

Personally, I think it'd be easier to just roll passive defense as Phys/Wis and add skills when taking a defense action.

Is anyone working on getting the next thread started? If not, I can do it.

so any of u guys gonna put all this together in one beautifull .pdf on mediafire, eh ???

>>15051676
It's likely to be done once, y'know, shit is finalized. Right now we're still hammering out how we want to do things, and then still have to actually playtest the mechanics once we get the drafts done.

I could try to do it; I work a lot with CS4 and such at work. I was, at least, going to try to do a character sheet once we figured out the complete skill list and everything.

Also, yeah, I guess someone should hit a new thread. Go for it, anon!

  ▲
▲ ▲

New thread >>15051875

Sorry that took so long, I figured I'd update some things now that we have the wiki.