IFGS Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > General > General Discussion
  New Posts New Posts
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Proposed: holy water optional rule

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
Author
Message
Balance View Drop Down
Society Board Member
Society Board Member
Avatar
John Jones - Society Board President

Joined: 09 January 2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 167
Post Options Post Options   Quote Balance Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Proposed: holy water optional rule
    Posted: 14 October 2013 at 12:20pm
We've got a lot of house rules--coming up with new ones is practically a cottage industry in Dallas.

However, we don't have any that deal with holy water damage. It's up to the game writer to remember to mention it whenever they include creatures that one would reasonably expect to be affected by it. So, I've been pondering various ways to address the question so that writers can just add an entry to their list of optional rules in effect.

Holy water is commonly shown to be effective against creatures that are otherwise resistant to nearly everything, so my first thought was that it would do minor No Defense damage. Moments later came my second thought: every undead mage ever would be in deep kimchi. Also, a team could walk into an undead-heavy game with No Defense damage limited only by the amount of bean bags they were willing to carry (and I've carried 30+ white bean bags into a game myself).

So, how to make holy water effective without making it overpowered? My current idea is scaling damage. Classically, holy water often seems more effective against the most powerful targets, so I suggest tying the holy water damage to the level of the target. To model the "bypass resistance" factor, the one-point rule could be applied.

TL;DR:

Scaling Holy Water Damage Rule:
When any undead, demon, devil, or other target vulnerable by game design is struck with a vial of holy water, the holy water will deal 1 point of damage per level of the target. This damage is subject to reduction by the target's defenses, but follows the 1-point rule.

Example: A 10th level lich has 7 points of armor (2 base and +5 Defense) and Concentration. While he is casting, holy water has no effect on him, because it isn't No Defense. Between casts, however, it deals 3 points of damage per vial (10 damage -7 armor = 3). If the lich also had a +3 ring of protection, the holy water would deal 1 point per vial, because of the 1-point rule.

Any thoughts?
Back to Top
whaddon View Drop Down
Society Fantasy Rules Committee
Society Fantasy Rules Committee
Avatar
William Haddon

Joined: 31 March 2009
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 793
Post Options Post Options   Quote whaddon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 October 2013 at 7:13pm
It doesn't seem nearly powerful enough.  Doing 1 point of damage to a 10th level Lich seems basically negligible.  In addition, I'm not sure it makes sense that Holy Water is stopped by armor at all.
If IFGS could just get rid of the games so it could focus on sustaining its own bureaucracy... we would finally be living the Dream.
Back to Top
Paladin View Drop Down
Society Board Member
Society Board Member
Avatar

Joined: 05 January 2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 185
Post Options Post Options   Quote Paladin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 October 2013 at 7:40pm
First question I have is why does it have to be powerful? second it seems to me that as you get more powerful your less likely to be affected by certain things not more.  also considering that you are unlimited in the amount of HW you can carry this could cause GD's problems if they wish to design undead BBG's. And since GD's can now tailor HW the way they want  why make a codified rule for it? right now GD's can say it does 2 pts, no effect, or makes the Liche lord Break out in giggles, with this kind of flexibility I don't see why you want to take this away from designers. just my thoughts 
Back to Top
whaddon View Drop Down
Society Fantasy Rules Committee
Society Fantasy Rules Committee
Avatar
William Haddon

Joined: 31 March 2009
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 793
Post Options Post Options   Quote whaddon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 October 2013 at 8:03pm
Brad,

I agree.  I think people have lots of different beliefs about how Holy Water should work, so codifying it might be a tough sell.
If IFGS could just get rid of the games so it could focus on sustaining its own bureaucracy... we would finally be living the Dream.
Back to Top
Balance View Drop Down
Society Board Member
Society Board Member
Avatar
John Jones - Society Board President

Joined: 09 January 2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 167
Post Options Post Options   Quote Balance Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 October 2013 at 11:25pm
That's why this would be an optional rule. Its purpose is to have a catch-all that a writer can slap on the flyer/coversheet if they don't have anything specific in mind for holy water. If the writer wants holy water to do No Defense to a particular creature, they can do that instead. For that matter, our hypothetical lich could have been in the Zomboy Scouts once, and prepared with Duckback to protect himself against holy water. As it stands, everyone knows holy water should do something, but unless the writer spells it out in the encounter, no one knows how to play it, and it gets ignored. Having a rule to drop into the game template is a convenience.

As to its power--for the most part, thrown items are useless against opponents with any armor to speak of. I was looking for a way to make holy water at least have some effect. Sure, 1 point isn't much, but it can disrupt a cast if the target isn't in Concentration. On the other hand, making it stronger invites someone to machine-gun our poor lich with a bandolier of holy water. Scaling it with level roughly approximates an equal effect on the target across the levels--as the creature's life (or, I suppose, unlife) points and armor increase, the damage increases. An unarmored level 1 zombie takes the same holy water damage as a level 10 lich with 10 armor.
Back to Top
Spencer View Drop Down
Society Fantasy Rules Committee
Society Fantasy Rules Committee
Avatar
Spencer Corbin Lawson

Joined: 05 January 2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1550
Post Options Post Options   Quote Spencer Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 October 2013 at 8:55am
The one-point rule confuses people as is, since it only works on melee hits. This optional rule confuses it even more by having a thrown attack doing one point no matter what.

I do not see this rule making it easier for anyone. By making a general optional rule that goes against the reason to make it an open rule. This will just make things worse IMO.
Spencer Corbin Lawson - PNW Member"It looks like they used the tried and true combat tactic of hiding behind the MU." Camille Graves
Back to Top
Cedric View Drop Down
Society Sanctioning Committee
Society Sanctioning Committee


Joined: 05 January 2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 316
Post Options Post Options   Quote Cedric Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 October 2013 at 10:01am
So our standard rule is 5 points no defense by default for our games unless specified otherwise.  I sort of like that.  Sure...undead MUs can be screwed, same thing goes if a team brings in a ton of holy water.  But so far I haven't seen that happen and I've played in a lot of games with undead.  

The reason we put in a standard holy water rule for our games is to cover the issues that you bring up of NPCs not knowing what to do.  I like the idea of a catch-all holy water rule.  I just disagree with the scaling holy water damage rule.
Back to Top
Balance View Drop Down
Society Board Member
Society Board Member
Avatar
John Jones - Society Board President

Joined: 09 January 2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 167
Post Options Post Options   Quote Balance Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 October 2013 at 12:07pm
The scaling and 1-point rule aspects do make it more complicated, but I'm still inclined to think just making it No Defense is a bit overpowered. What about making it a flat damage amount, but making it armor independent? That way it would always do N damage to a vulnerable target, unless the target was protected by Concentration or some game design effect at the time.
Back to Top
Cedric View Drop Down
Society Sanctioning Committee
Society Sanctioning Committee


Joined: 05 January 2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 316
Post Options Post Options   Quote Cedric Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 October 2013 at 12:39pm
I have no problem with armor independent damage myself.  That's a good compromise.  My only concern is technically we don't define armor independent damage anywhere do we?  The only places I remember seeing it mentioned was in death feint and concentration).  I think most people in DB know what it is though.

What's the correct amount of flat damage?  Myself I think 5 points...that seems to balance well here in DB.  What is your experience?
Back to Top
Pat McGehearty View Drop Down
Society Fantasy Rules Committee
Society Fantasy Rules Committee
Avatar

Joined: 05 January 2007
Location: Texas
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 521
Post Options Post Options   Quote Pat McGehearty Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 October 2013 at 12:42pm
The failure to specify a "default value for holy water" was an error on the part of the 7.0 rules. I give myself an incomplete as a grade on that point.

If we can form a concensus on a reasonable default, the FRC could issue a Hits and Misses and then any time the writer did not specify Holy Water damage, people would still know how to play it.

I find the initial proposal in this thread interesting, but overly complex.  I also don't like holy water doing "No Defense" damage as it breaks Concentration. But, the damage category "Armor independent" as noted by John, does not break Concentration, is easy on the combat math (no subtracting armor), does not require a 1 point rule for thrown objects, and generally works. Also, higher level creatures will have more hit points and take more holy water to completely defeat.

Further, game designers are still free to have special defenses such as DuckBack or "pass through" for ghosts and such if they want some undead to not be affected by Holy Water.

A key question is "how much damage should Holy Water do?".  A typical zombie might take 12-20 points to put down. If you need to put down several over the course of a game, that could take a lot of holy water, especially if some are good a dodging. I'm thinking something like 4 or 5 would be a good amount of damage.  Much more would be too powerful. Much less would require way to much holy water to be worth the effort. 

There were lots of undead in a Colorado game last year and game lore suggested we might run into undead. I brought all the holy water bean bags I owned (about 20). I was told after the game that holy water did 4 points 'no defense' or 'armor independent' (I forget which). It seemed pretty effective when used tactically but did not provide automatic or easy kills when used against masses of enemies.

Patrick McGehearty -- Sandor Th9; Sir William Kt8; Mathe Mu7; Hawkeye Ftr6; Brandt Cl6; Twilight Mk6; Falcon Ftr5; Otter Dr4;Brown Rgr3
Back to Top
Cedric View Drop Down
Society Sanctioning Committee
Society Sanctioning Committee


Joined: 05 January 2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 316
Post Options Post Options   Quote Cedric Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 October 2013 at 12:58pm
I'm totally fine myself with the FRC taking this and putting out a hits and misses.  Esp. if we are all basically okay with armor independant of some sort.
Back to Top
SidP View Drop Down
Society Fantasy Rules Committee
Society Fantasy Rules Committee
Avatar

Joined: 10 January 2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 418
Post Options Post Options   Quote SidP Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 October 2013 at 2:57pm
I've always thought 'armor independent' was a handy and useful term, it's pretty self explanatory and way easy to figure the damage on.  I would vote for 4 or 5 pts A.I. 
"Poncho-Fighter 10, Kaga-Thief 9, Grak-Druid 7, Angus-Cleric 6, Hired Dunn-Fighter 6, Ulath-Fighter 5, Yamatetsu-Kn 5, McTavish-Mage 3, Grayhawk Druid 2"
Back to Top
Balance View Drop Down
Society Board Member
Society Board Member
Avatar
John Jones - Society Board President

Joined: 09 January 2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 167
Post Options Post Options   Quote Balance Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 October 2013 at 3:29pm
Thanks for the feedback, folks. I think I'll pass it around here in Dallas as an armor-independent 5 points (so the number matches what DB is already using), and we'll see if people take to it. After it gets used a bit, we can decide if we want to pursue it further.
Back to Top
SidP View Drop Down
Society Fantasy Rules Committee
Society Fantasy Rules Committee
Avatar

Joined: 10 January 2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 418
Post Options Post Options   Quote SidP Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 October 2013 at 4:01pm
Just a note, Armor Independent damage was not included in the glossary for the 7.0 edition.  We would need to re-instate it.  I'm not sure why it was left out but I seem to remember a bit of discussion about the item at one point.
"Poncho-Fighter 10, Kaga-Thief 9, Grak-Druid 7, Angus-Cleric 6, Hired Dunn-Fighter 6, Ulath-Fighter 5, Yamatetsu-Kn 5, McTavish-Mage 3, Grayhawk Druid 2"
Back to Top
Balance View Drop Down
Society Board Member
Society Board Member
Avatar
John Jones - Society Board President

Joined: 09 January 2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 167
Post Options Post Options   Quote Balance Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 October 2013 at 4:51pm
I'll include an explanation of it in the wording of the optional rule.
Back to Top
whaddon View Drop Down
Society Fantasy Rules Committee
Society Fantasy Rules Committee
Avatar
William Haddon

Joined: 31 March 2009
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 793
Post Options Post Options   Quote whaddon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 October 2013 at 4:02pm
We use AI damage in almost every game.
If IFGS could just get rid of the games so it could focus on sustaining its own bureaucracy... we would finally be living the Dream.
Back to Top
Paladin View Drop Down
Society Board Member
Society Board Member
Avatar

Joined: 05 January 2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 185
Post Options Post Options   Quote Paladin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 October 2013 at 6:50am
Let me say that back in the day people complained that it was to much to have to remember your different armors. We originally had 3, for melee it was all your protections, missile was magic independent, and magic was armor independent. going to 2 types of armor # may be going back down this path. and I remember a lot of complaint about it.
Back to Top
SidP View Drop Down
Society Fantasy Rules Committee
Society Fantasy Rules Committee
Avatar

Joined: 10 January 2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 418
Post Options Post Options   Quote SidP Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 October 2013 at 11:24am
Well sort of.

Right now we have all damage minus all armor except for No Defense.  Armor independent is just No Defense except that it won't break through Concentration.  I see it as a pretty simple solution, although  upon a bit more thinking as it's full effect 4 to 5 may be too much.  That should be discussed more.  The GD could always just give the BB Litch a few more hit points.  As a BBG, I've played a few of them, I kinda like the straight math of damage vs hit points, I've only done that a few times when I was amorohious and everthing was taken as No Defense but it sure kept the math simple.
"Poncho-Fighter 10, Kaga-Thief 9, Grak-Druid 7, Angus-Cleric 6, Hired Dunn-Fighter 6, Ulath-Fighter 5, Yamatetsu-Kn 5, McTavish-Mage 3, Grayhawk Druid 2"
Back to Top
whaddon View Drop Down
Society Fantasy Rules Committee
Society Fantasy Rules Committee
Avatar
William Haddon

Joined: 31 March 2009
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 793
Post Options Post Options   Quote whaddon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 October 2013 at 6:57pm
Its more than just Concentration.  Armor Independant fire damage wouldn't break through Elemental Protection, either.
If IFGS could just get rid of the games so it could focus on sustaining its own bureaucracy... we would finally be living the Dream.
Back to Top
SidP View Drop Down
Society Fantasy Rules Committee
Society Fantasy Rules Committee
Avatar

Joined: 10 January 2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 418
Post Options Post Options   Quote SidP Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 October 2013 at 3:38pm
Why?   I don't see anything about only no defense fire, penetrating elemental protection.  Armor independent seems to me to be armor independent and as "armor is armor" now, as a GM I would say it goes through.   Besides which the GD would have to invent armor independent fire for this to be an issue anyway.
"Poncho-Fighter 10, Kaga-Thief 9, Grak-Druid 7, Angus-Cleric 6, Hired Dunn-Fighter 6, Ulath-Fighter 5, Yamatetsu-Kn 5, McTavish-Mage 3, Grayhawk Druid 2"
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.64 [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz