Dragon Warriors

Well, with a new multiple attack rule, you can omit the critical, which should only be used if the warrior is sure of his victory. Against a skilled or heavily armoured opponent he shouldn't be using such attacks. I might recommend that a roll of a 1 gives you a bonus of 1 to armour bypass rather than the existing rules. But that is another, non related revision.

True, a 15th rank knight should be skilled enough to use weapons against their user. Maybe some variation on the disarm technique.

And yes, combat should be quite quick for a very skilled warrior. Some additional modifiers should be implemented. Not relevant to sorcerors who probably won't split their defence. Say a 1st rank sorceror with an ATTACK of 11. Under my rules, he'd have to split 7 (11 - 4), possible if he's desperate, and maybe he's attacking from behind. Up to him if he wants to attack twice instead. However an average 1st rank barbarian might go for it, 14 - 4, 10 ATTACK to split between two attacks, might be worth while.

maybe -1 damage and armour bypass for each additional attack, applied to all attacks. As well as the -4 ATTACK. Ok for a Bloodraging barbarian who has dropped his guard.

_________________
Speech!





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

Hmmm. I understand the desire to expand the options for fighters without radically changing the existing rules, but creating extra modifiers, special exceptions and adjustments are too much for me I'm afraid.

I'm more in favour of a basic underlying mechanic that is flexible and intuitive enough to accommodate different scenarios as they arise.

Cheers,

-Kyle

That was the response I was expecting

My reasoning is that a barbarian isn't a 'thing', it's a label. It's what so-called civilised people call those uncivilised brutes and invaders from other cultures. And they don't think of themselves as barbarians, but as whatever their own kind of warrior is.

I know the barbarian was one of the first professions, and sacrosanct in a lot of people's minds, but for me there is something fundamentally wrong with a 'barbarian' profession. If we're saying barbarians are from Thuland, then we should have a Thule Warrior profession, and so on for the different cultures. The reason I said I would rather replace the Barbarian with the Thane is that it is, at least, a real thing.

_________________
Cobwebbed Dragon (Lee)

https://www.cobwebbedforest.co.uk/
https://www.dragonwarriors.uk/
https://twitter.com/CobwebbedDragon
Now on YouTube!

I can't remember the exact century, but when England had a population of about 3,000,000 people, there were about 1,000 knights, so about 1 in 3,000 people were knights. DW, as a low-fantasy setting, probably has fewer magickers than knights, so it's reasonable to assume that sorcerers and mystics are even more specialised professions than knights. I absolutely agree that the newer professions, with all their unnecessarily complicated skills options, lack the elegance of the original professions, but I still think the Thane is a more appropriate profession than a barbarian. Take away the game mechanics of the thane, and you have something that makes sense - a noble fighter from another culture, no different from the knight, but just with a different cultural background.

Ideally, I would like to see less-specialised professions available so that players can play rank-and-file adventurers from Albion, leave the foreign professions to the various sourcebooks that I'm sure will be coming out in the future

_________________
Cobwebbed Dragon (Lee)

https://www.cobwebbedforest.co.uk/
https://www.dragonwarriors.uk/
https://twitter.com/CobwebbedDragon
Now on YouTube!

What a pity there isn't a real skill system. Would be nice to have some generic skill system, and special abilities for certain high level individuals.

_________________
Speech!





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

Funny you should say that - it's like you and Dave Morris are of one mind. In a blog post some moons back, he expressed a preference for Dragon Warriors II to have a skills system and a concept of Myth levels:

http://fabledlands.blogspot.co.uk/2010/ ... t-one.html

There are also some other interesting ideas in there - such as mechanics for faith, etc. I already have formative rules for taint in my games, and faith would offset taint, but I haven't yet figured out the details...

_________________
Cobwebbed Dragon (Lee)

https://www.cobwebbedforest.co.uk/
https://www.dragonwarriors.uk/
https://twitter.com/CobwebbedDragon
Now on YouTube!

Interesting. I get it from the Palladium system. Though there seems to be a lack of information on how to interpret the skill system based on a percentile. They have a massive fan forum community last time I checked so maybe they address some of the questions there.

More into computer games these days. Wonder if somebody could create some kind of 3D combat zones and animation, purely for us pen paper rpg types. Best I can do is colour in an excel file....

_________________
Speech!





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

Happy to oblige.

Going back to the beginning, Books 1 and 2 were certainly different animals to Book 6, especially. The series clearly underwent a major evolution during the print run. It's natural for that to be apparent.

Personally, I'm not so keen on the logical conclusion to a paradigm that aims for such highly localised professions. Surely that would result in hundreds of professions - many of whom are hardly different from another?

You may think that this means I am opposed to any change. Far from it. Rather, I am merely advocating that change to the existing system should be in a manner that is sympathic to that system as it already stands. I'm hoping that is what the PB will achieve.

Otherwise, if sympathetic change is not enough, then why stop with the Barbarian... why not develop an entirely new system instead and fix all of the issues?

While were talking about professions...Has anybody seen the PB, yet?

Edit: Typo

_________________
Show me the mythic legends, mighty heroes and mysterious faerie creatures!

For me the name of the profession isn't that big a deal, its the concept behind it. Warlock is a terrible name for "fighter-mages" if you think about it, and even the rulebook says that Assassins don't necessarily need to be professional killers (except in as much as any adventurer is!). "Barbarian" is brilliant at evoking a tough, "uncivilised" warrior, regardless of background. Of course if there's a more PC version of the word "Barbarian" that does as good a job at evoking that warrior (hint: it isn't "Thane") we could adopt it.

Cheers,

-Kyle

All I can say is I have gone some way to address the many regional variants of the barbarian profession that should exist..........unfortunately it will have to wait until the bloody PB is out before I can throw what I've done into the bearpit to be savagely ripped apart.

_________________
co-author Fury of the Deep
co-author Friends or Foes
co-author Dragon Warriors Players Guide
co-author Cold Fury
co-author Cadaver Draconis
co-author Ordo Draconis 1 and 2.