Dragon Warriors

I agree Rumtap. To me that one change would make this good profession into an almost perfect one - perfect in the sense of being a good fit with the classic professions.

I'd be interested in hearing a contradictory viewpoint however, as I assume the scores were not settled on without careful consideration.

Cheers,

-Kyle

A few things to consider on this.

First of all, ATTACK should not be considered in isolation. ATTACK and DEFENCE should be considered together - the Knight and the Barbarian are, roughly speaking, equivalent in combat, because their ATTACK and DEFENCE totals to the same amount at equivalent ranks - the Barbarian has an ATTACK one higher than the Knight, but a DEFENCE one lower. At first rank, this total is 20 for both.

Even though the Hunter has an ATTACK score equivalent to that of a Knight, their DEFENCE score is lower - together ATTACK and DEFENCE total to 19, rather than 20 - at 1st Rank.

The Hunter is meant to be an expert with the bow. Personally I don't think there is a problem with that being reflected in their ATTACK score being equivalent to the Knight. The Knight still has an advantage in being better trained in Melee combat in that they are better able to DEFEND themselves.

If a Hunter puts themselves into a melee combat situation, they are disadvantaged by their lower DEFENCE, and the fact that they are likely to be in less effective armour as well. They really have an advantage if they avoid melee and rely on missile - and I think that is pretty well reflected in the scores as they are.

The second point is that this difference in overall combat effectiveness increases as the characters gain rank. There isn't much of a gap between a Hunter and a Knight or Barbarian at 1st rank - but by 5th rank, the ATTACK and DEFENCE scores of the Knight and Barbarian total 28, while the Hunter's combined scores only total 26, and by 10th rank the comparison is 38 to 33.

The third point is connected to Characteristic scores and the effect they have on the combat factors. How much impact this has in a game really depends on how people create characters - in a lot of games, I know the standard 3d6 in order for characteristics isn't observed, but the rules still assume it and in some ways, that approach mitigates against this, but I still think it's reasonable to say that in most games a Knight or a Barbarian is more likely to have a high Strength than a Hunter, and that conversely a Hunter is more likely to have a high Reflexes. Because you get an ATTACK bonus with a Strength of 13 (doubling at 16) but you only get an ATTACK bonus for a high Reflexes with a Reflexes of 16, in real terms there is likely an overall difference in ATTACK and DEFENCE between the classic Knight/Barbarian and the new Hunter on average mean terms.

_________________
Life and Death Are Only a Dice Roll Away!

Shaun Hately
co-author A Weak Pleasure
co-author Friends or Foes
co-author Dragon Warriors Players Guide

All interesting points but I'd also consider the following.

Knights and barbarians spend a good deal of time in combat training prior to becoming 1st rank to earn that combined attack/defence total of 20. The hunter however will spend less time on combat training than dedicated melee warriors as they spend time learning all those wonderful hunter skills including their favoured (ranged) weapon. So is an attack & defence total of 19 accurate?

I believe a closer comparison can be made with the warlock. They spend a part of their time training in combat and the rest of their time studying magic before starting off at 1st rank. Warlocks start at attack 12 and defence 5, total 17. At 3rd rank the warlock then has an effective -2 to Attack in all weapons other than their favoured weapons (i.e. weapon groups) to reflect that they are not just focused on fighting.

Now the warlock gains defence each rank where the hunter doesn't but I think that again reflects a better level of combat training.

I really think having the Hunters start combat stats at attack 12 defence 6, total of 18, but with a bonus just for their favoured weapon (+2 reflects the training difference established by weapon groups) would just round them out a little better. It's only a small change but it feels in character with their background prior to 1st rank to me.

I'm also not sure you can bring primary stats into it. For example I would always want my reflexes to be my best score no matter what profession I play. But stats are up to the dice gods and they fall where they may.

Thanks Dreadnought. I'll give you an alternative perspective.

As things stand, a tenth rank Hunter is roughly as effective in Melee as a seventh-rank Knight, but less effective at missile combat than a Knight of his own rank. In my humble opinion this summarises at the problem with balance in the profession's scores. Robin hood should not be outshot at the archery contest by the Sheriff of Nottingham, but then be able to fight his way through a host of men-at-arms with his battleaxe to get back to Sherwood Forest.

Starting with rumtap's suggestion on starting scores, I think the Hunter should progress at the same rate as a Mystic with Attack and Defence, but get a +1 to his specialised weapon score every single rank. This means a tenth rank Hunter will have an Attack of 16 and Defence of 10, but a +11 Attack with their favoured weapon, equivalent to an Attack of 27. As with the other professions, in their own narrow niche the Archer (Hunter! I mean Hunter!) will have awe-inspiring, seemingly supernatural abilities. A master Hunter using Stillness and Precise Shot will be able to shoot not just an apple off somebody's head, but a mustard seed.

There's two cents in the jar from me. Thanks very much.

Cheers,

-Kyle

on the solvents so I got a short attention span. I suppose, yeah, a hunter surely should be a better shot than a knight of the same rank at higher levels, though some of those other skills I think should take up their time. But a glaring issue that demands revision.

I don't think they should be such good fighters. Maybe reduce their defence increases. That's just a simple solution. When they become higher leveled I think they should be more focused on their other skills like foraging and whatnot rather than fighting.




Would anyone presume to create a profession for that book 4 tracker? I can't remember his name.

_________________
Speech!





And so the show begins!!!
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/dwp ... ssages/640

I think it is, but I had the chance to raise this during 'development', so that might be obvious.



My view on that is simple enough - while a Warlock certainly does get some combat training, I think more of their time is spent studying magic, than is true of a hunter studying their skills. Remember that a Warlock has a minimum Intelligence score of 11 - higher than that of a Sorcerer. As I assume that Sorcerer magic is more complex than that of Warlocks, I think the higher Intelligence reflects the fact that the Warlock has to try and cram their less complex knowledge in faster (I should mention here that 'in real life' I'm a school teacher who specialises in teaching intellectually gifted children - so I have particular ideas and expertise in how Intelligence interacts with learning that do influence my opinions on this), and that the time spent on combat training is probably as limited as they think they can get away with. Basically I think a Hunter probably does have more time to learn combat skills than a Warlock does.



Actually I assume that reflects the fact that the Warlock spends more time in physical melee combat once his or her adventuring career begins and their defence improves faster because they spend more time using that skill.



I think you have to consider their impact if you start talking about balance - now, as I've said, I'm less concerned about numerical balance than some people, but if you get into the number crunching looking for it, I don't think you can really ignore Characteristics because they do have a significant impact.

This is part of the reason why I set up the poll I did yesterday. Because I think the choices people make on character creation as compared to the default in the books could have a meaningful impact on this as well.

A Knight has no minimum prerequisites, while a Hunter has a minimum of 9. What is the average Strength and Reflexes of a Knight? That's actually a complex question to answer - on one level, you could say it's 9.5 for both, but honestly I doubt that is really true - would somebody with a Strength and Reflexes of less than 6 each be likely to become a Knight? I doubt it. But the point I am making is, it is probably more likely that a Knight has penalties to DEFENCE than a Hunter does - and a Hunter is more likely to have a bonus to DEFENCE than a Knight - because their minimum Reflexes score of 9 precludes that particular DEFENCE penalty - in fact that minimum Reflexes of 9, means the average Hunter has a Reflexes of nearly 12 (11.81 I make it, but this is quick mathematics), and over a third of Hunters would actually have a DEFENCE one point higher than average from their Reflexes score. They'd also have a slightly higher chance of having a DEFENCE bonus from their Intelligence score as well.

_________________
Life and Death Are Only a Dice Roll Away!

Shaun Hately
co-author A Weak Pleasure
co-author Friends or Foes
co-author Dragon Warriors Players Guide

Is he? Both have an ATTACK of 22 (absent modifiers) and that's what counts for missile combat - but there's also special factors that apply in the archery contest.



I'd assume Robin Hood (or any 10th Rank Hunter who relies on their prowess with the bow) would have Precise Shot. So his ATTACK of 22, and his DEFENCE of 10, would give him an ATTACK score of 25 during that Archery contest (dropping DEFENCE by 9, to raise ATTACK by a further 3). The 10th Rank Knight still only has an ATTACK of 22.

Unless I'm missing something you're considering which isn't impossible.

_________________
Life and Death Are Only a Dice Roll Away!

Shaun Hately
co-author A Weak Pleasure
co-author Friends or Foes
co-author Dragon Warriors Players Guide

LOL my playtest feedback was similar to what I'm saying here, so I did raise it in development to some degree.

It's no drama. What we are talking about is only the smallest difference, a single point of attack and a small modification to one ability.

As it stands the hunter starts as the 2nd best ranged combat character in the game until higher rank when those ultra special abilities kick in and they take the crown.
My idea would have had them start as equal best before taking over at higher rank.

The current version isn't broken by any means and overall I think it's very good. I'll give you 9/10 on this one

I guess I need to manage my expectations Dreadnought. I wanted the hunter to be an archer under a different name. In fact the profession is a combat generalist like the Knight or Barbarian, with an emphasis on ranger-style special abilities and some minor advantages in ranged combat. It isn't fair for me to be disappointed that the profession (which on balance I still really like) is not something it was never promised to be.

Cheers,

-Kyle

Maybe we need to work on that archer project. From what I know the Elleslandic people had strict rules, no football or anything, only archery classes. Should be more common that every peasant can shoot irritating players down for minor transgressions.

_________________
Speech!





And so the show begins!!!
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/dwp ... ssages/640