thirtythr33 wrote:more emphasis on money making skills
We had trades before, we still basically have them now. The only new bits in that regard are the inclusion of mercantile and stewardship. Mercantile is definitely an economics skill. Stewardship is household and resource management. I'm actually glad that they were included, as the very first Scoundrel-era playtest, Barbarossa decided he wanted to make a criminal accountant. It worked out perfectly.
Not pictured: Expertise, Lore, Navigation, Perform, Survival, Trade -- any skill that has to be (Specific). That's what all the blanks are for.
thirtythr33 wrote:Emphases cut
Yes and no. There are two parts to this:
1. This is part of a broader restructuring of how we're
presenting the combat system in the game rather than actual rules changes. Before it was assumed that the most complicated iteration of combat was the default, but that it could be scaled back down if you wanted something simpler. We decided that for the sake of new players and teaching new players, that we were doing it backwards. In the book as it's being written now, it assumes that the default combat system is essentially the equivalent of the "basic maneuvers only" option from the previous build. This setup doesn't need emphases or even proficiency-specific maneuver lists, so we can cut all the maneuvers stuff from the proficiencies chapter entirely and park them after the chapter on melee, bringing those two back together for ease of reference.
All of the advanced stuff will get parked immediately afterward and be presented as an optional level of complication for people who are interested in that. From an end-user perspective, if you were using the full rules before, nothing will change for you. You'll still have the same level of detail to play with. This just makes it easier for new players to pick it up and understand it.
2. Emphases are currently under construction.We have some ideas set up and built on, but we're trying to make sure all of the combat stuff (new maneuvers and such, along with the other tweaks) is rock solid before we add another layer of variables with Emphasis.
Later, I want to do an expanded character sheet that will give a lot more room/instructions for things and break things down into more specific bits for people who want to be able to record their character information and abilities in more detail.
thirtythr33 wrote:The dots for tapping and drives look really cool
I did enjoy that the dots became a decorative element on their own. It looks pretty neat when you get it filled in, as well.
thirtythr33 wrote:Having armor for each location listed out makes things a lot easier
Armor is something that I've yet to come up with a good answer for. The problem with a location-based armor system is that you inevitably wind up having to record all those locations. Our previous sheet tried to make this easier by just letting you pencil in the broad strokes so you didn't have to fill in 26 boxes. It turned out to be easier to record that way, but much harder to use. Alas...
thirtythr33 wrote:Nowhere to put CP penalty for Weapons(?) or Armor (unless armor is rolled into ENC under possessions, but then I'm disappointed weapons don't have CP penalty)
Weapons didn't have a CP penalty in the previous write-up. Amusingly, they actually do now in a roundabout way.
Encumbrance in the game is very simple, now. Everything your character is carrying around that isn't basic clothing goes under possessions (on person). Everything is classified as one of three types:
Insignificant: Anything that is part of normal clothing, or an fit easily in a pocket or small purse. A worn doublet or pair shoes, jewelry, a coin purse, a piece of chalk, flint and steel. It counts as 0 bulk.
Significant: Significant. Anything that has nontrivial weight or bulk to it, but can still be comfortably carried or worn. A pistol, a sword, a dagger, a buckler, a belt-pouch full of insignificant items, a small coil of rope, a sheaf of arrows, a coin purse, a wineskin, a powder horn. Each counts as 1 bulk.
Cumbersome. Anything heavy or awkward that can’t easily be ignored, but can still be worn or carried with ease. A backpack or large sack full of insignificant items, a large coil of rope, a crossbow, a cranequin or windlass, a longbow, any other firearm, a shield, any weapon with Extended reach or that must be carried in the hand. Each counts as 2 bulk.
Armor also counts against bulk, with different pieces having their own value. A gambeson is 0, where a maille hauberk is 3 Bulk.
You can also have 3 items readied at any given time (i.e. drawn in combat or otherwise quickly accessed without having to fumble through a pack.) These represent belted weapons and such. You can ready up to 3 additional weapons (total six) for +1 bulk.
Total your bulk. If it's higher than your Brawn, the difference becomes Encumbrance. This is both an increased req on physical tasks and a CP penalty in combat.
thirtythr33 wrote:Back and Hamstring locations should be included in armor locations unless they are cut (which I hope isn't the case).
We've technically never really tracked armor for these locations. It was generally assumed that if you have the front piece, you have the accompanying back-piece. Otherwise, our armor system needs to become even more granular and we have to make purchasing armor that much more complex. I'll have to think on that for a bit.
thirtythr33 wrote:Writing the shield statistics into the Melee weap boxes is still messy. I'm never going to fit "FTN6, Arm+2, Spiked, Emarmed" into the notes box and the 2 DR ratings and reach boxes are irrelevant. Maybe just drop 2 rows off the bottom of Melee and add in 2 lines for Shields with FTN, DR, Favoring and Notes? Who needs 6 non shield melee weapons at once?
While you probably wouldn't need them all
at once I wouldn't much care for erasing and re-writing constantly if I had more than one set of stuff I routinely carried. Dropping two lines off the bottom would leave you with three slots. A 16th century character could max that out easily just by going musketeer - rapier, pistol, main gouche. If he also had a boot knife, he's already out of room, to say nothing of a musket and/or bayonet. I'll look into adjustments we could make, though.
thorgarth wrote:That would only be true If the system was completely static in terms of Target Number, where modifiers only ever are applied to the dice pool totals. The granularity just ain't the same (hence why I prefer %systems).
We work a bit differently than other tros-like games. In practice, the primary role of the TN is tracking wounds/fatigue/etc penalties. The extent to which it is modified outside of that is either an advantage (-1TN) or a disadvantage (+1TN). In either case, less granularity is actually better because it makes that +/-1TN more impactful.
EinBein wrote:Neat and slim layout. It's a promise to all those that hope SaS will become the first TRoS daughter with really free flowing combats. I think we're heading in the right direction!
I've been pretty happy with my playtesting of this setup so far. we're a half-dozen sessions in and it's been very smooth sailing.