Let's Read ACKS Core at RPG.net

In regards to your concern about Wisdom becoming a dump stat I have found that having Wisdom affect ALL saving throws has minimized that. The bonus to all saving throws has encouraged players to keep any 13+ Wisdom scores they have.

[quote="wmarshal"]

In regards to your concern about Wisdom becoming a dump stat I have found that having Wisdom affect ALL saving throws has minimized that. The bonus to all saving throws has encouraged players to keep any 13+ Wisdom scores they have.

[/quote]

 

I'm not so sure I would give an across the board bonus to Saves based off the Wisdom modifier.  I think if I were to adapt something similar I would allow the player to divide up the Wisdom modifier as desired between the different Saves; so a character with a Wisdom modifier of +2 could gain a +1 bonus to two Saves.  I'd probably also allow clerics to apply the lump sum bonus to a single save, instead of having to spread it out, to represent the favors of the gods (it woud also make sense, frex, for the follower of, say, a god of thieves, or one with a snake theme, to get a significant bonus to saves against poisons).

The issue of insufficient numbers of general proficiencies and/or a method of training is something I may address in an upcoming AXIOMS article. As an extrapolation of the existing rules for gaining proficiencies from aging (5, 15, and 35 years of work), a character might gain proficiencies more rapidly form high-intensity training.

Briefly summarized, here are my current thoughts:

  • All characters have four implicit general proficiency slots which represent their potential for natural accretion of knowledge over time.
  • It takes 80 days of major activity - training that proficiency to gain the first rank of a proficiency. 
  • It takes 320 days of major activity - training that proficiency to gain the second rank or the first rank of a second proficiency.
  • It takes 1,280 days of major activity - training that proficiency to gain the third rank or the first rank of a third proficiency.
  • It takes 5,120 days of major activity - training that proficiency to gain the fourth rank or the first rank ofa fourth proficiency.
  • If characters do not fill up their proficiency slots with training, they can automatically fill them after 5, 15, 35, and 70 years of work. 

 

[quote="Alex"]

The issue of insufficient numbers of general proficiencies and/or a method of training is something I may address in an upcoming AXIOMS article. As an extrapolation of the existing rules for gaining proficiencies from aging (5, 15, and 35 years of work), a character might gain proficiencies more rapidly form high-intensity training.

Briefly summarized, here are my current thoughts:

  • All characters have four implicit general proficiency slots which represent their potential for natural accretion of knowledge over time.
  • It takes 80 days of major activity - training that proficiency to gain the first rank of a proficiency. 
  • It takes 320 days of major activity - training that proficiency to gain the second rank or the first rank of a second proficiency.
  • It takes 1,280 days of major activity - training that proficiency to gain the third rank or the first rank of a third proficiency.
  • It takes 5,120 days of major activity - training that proficiency to gain the fourth rank or the first rank ofa fourth proficiency.
  • If characters do not fill up their proficiency slots with training, they can automatically fill them after 5, 15, 35, and 70 years of work. 

[/quote]

I dig this a lot. it gives players that want those general proficiencies a route to them that doesn't involve leveling.  I might introduce this in my game and see how the players take advantage of it.

Indeed. Question though: would there be any other costs associated with training other than time? Cash, trainer fees, etc?

There's sort of some baked in assumptions already present about training costs and times.

Light/Heavy Infantry take 1 month, and you could infer from their wages that the job of trained soldiering is equivalent to the Labor proficiency. (Under the theory of war being mostly hurry up and wait, it's equipment upkeep, camp upkeep, marching in a straight line, taking orders, etc, and as normal men the fighting bit is almost ancillary, as far as their level of skill goes, it was not necessarily improved). I'm not sure if it's supposed to be inferred that the cavalry units actually gain the Riding proficiency or not.

And there's the Axioms that talks about training elite troops, that's instilling a proficiency in someone; as well as the mention in the gladiator rules (that's replacing a proficiency, so, dunno)

 

 

[quote="koewn"]

There's sort of some baked in assumptions already present about training costs and times.

Light/Heavy Infantry take 1 month, and you could infer from their wages that the job of trained soldiering is equivalent to the Labor proficiency. (Under the theory of war being mostly hurry up and wait, it's equipment upkeep, camp upkeep, marching in a straight line, taking orders, etc, and as normal men the fighting bit is almost ancillary, as far as their level of skill goes, it was not necessarily improved). I'm not sure if it's supposed to be inferred that the cavalry units actually gain the Riding proficiency or not.

And there's the Axioms that talks about training elite troops, that's instilling a proficiency in someone; as well as the mention in the gladiator rules (that's replacing a proficiency, so, dunno) [/quote]

 

I think it is implied, because mounted archers and cataphract troops need to be able to fire while mounted, something that's not possible without Riding.

[quote="thirdkingdom"]

I think it is implied, because mounted archers and cataphract troops need to be able to fire while mounted, something that's not possible without Riding. [/quote]

That'd be my initial assumption as well. I think I may restart this sort of thread over in House Rules with a brief overview of what I can find about training and/or gaining proficiencies in non-leveling-up situations.

Regarding the Assassin: In designing the assassin, my sense is that the class was sub-optimal because its ability to wear heavy armor worked at counter-puproses towards its ability to use thief skills. One could make an even more bad-ass assassin by trading in heavy armor for light armor and using the 2 class powers to add additional abilities.

Regarding the Hit Point issue: I believe the Heroic Fantasy Handbook's scaled healing is a major step towards addressing this perceived imbalance. I wonder if this rule might make sense as well: 

Contemplations on the Tree of Woe Memorial Rule: Characters whose class grants d6 hp/level get a +2 bonus on the Mortal Wounds table. Characters whose class grants d8 hp/level get a +5 bonus on the Mortal Wounds table.

 

[quote="Alex"]

Contemplations on the Tree of Woe Memorial Rule: Characters whose class grants d6 hp/level get a +2 bonus on the Mortal Wounds table. Characters whose class grants d8 hp/level get a +5 bonus on the Mortal Wounds table.

[/quote]

I dig it, it goes a long way towards making that d8 worthwhile.  It's also more likely to be well recieved by my players, who might balk at the idea of major fundamental changes to how much healing you get, even if they're at about the level where it will benefit them more.

 

I do too. It's a nice way to involve the refreshed view of hit points into Mortal Wounds; and it aids characters with middling CON.

From a meta perspective, it's also nice because it makes the front line classes more likely to survive combat; since they're the ones that should be going into combat, it helps players understand a class's role more easily.

Would a class with d10 be +7 or +8 on the MW table?

One estimated progression of +2/+5 would be +9.

(Two more than previous, than three more than previous, and then four more. d12 would be 5 more than that, or +14.)

I like it!

[quote="Aryxymaraki"]

From a meta perspective, it's also nice because it makes the front line classes more likely to survive combat; since they're the ones that should be going into combat, it helps players understand a class's role more easily.

Would a class with d10 be +7 or +8 on the MW table?


-The Dark

One estimated progression of +2/+5 would be +9. (Two more than previous, than three more than previous, and then four more. d12 would be 5 more than that, or +14.) [/quote] *shakes fist* OK, so I forgot one possibility (I was thinking either alternating +2/+3/+2/+3 or that it was 2.5 per die size increase with the "round down even, round up odd" rule applied).

So; a +5 on a d20 is close to the advantage mechanic for the middle rolls (roll 2d20, take highest). That means the d8 HD +5 bonus tracks somewhat with the Savage Resilience proficiency, excepting the cases where you'd take a lower roll with SR to avoid shots to the crotchal area.

So this is probably something like an extra 1/2 proficiency with HD1, and an extra full prof with HD2.

 

 

I find this especially interesting because if it can be expressed in terms of proficiencies, that means that you can make tradeoffs from it.

From the thread: "Okay - ugh. That's one thing I'll HR if I play again. Large weapons applying a negative to init is one of the stupidest things ever. Large weapons actually should apply a /bonus/ if anything. Try to get close to a guy wielding a large weapon with a dagger, I dare ya.  Reach is a thing and large weapons don't weigh nearly as much as some gamers envision."

It's reasonable to dislike the -1 initiative rule because it's *fiddly*, but I think the accusation that it is is "one of the stupidest things ever" is unfair. ACKS has two interlocking mechanics:

1. Against a closing attacker, a long weapon will automatically attack at least simultaneously with the attacker.

2. Initiative in ACKS is re-rolled every turn, and two-handed weapons suffer a -1 penalty.  

The combination of these two rules means that when a fight starts, the long weapon will be assured of attacking before or at least simultaneously with the shorter weapon. Once the engagement has begun, however, the shorter, faster weapon will tend to attack first. This is, I believe, a reasonable emulation of historical combat. History is replete with accounts of initial use of a long weapon in or to receive a charge, followed by its discard in favor of a short, fast weapon when the engagement intensifies.

 

Alex, you are correct, the other person is wrong.

I have fought against polearms and tried to learn to fight with polearms.

Once you step inside the reach of the polearm, the polearm wielder is at a disadvantage. Long weapons are used in formation to limit this vulnerability.

Yeah, I disagree with that sentiment expressed that it's a bad rule. The rules presented do a sufficient job of creating a believable combat.  The main challenge, for me, is synthesizing all the rules found in the equipment and combat chapters into a cohesive understanding to use during a combat.  Now that I have most of the details memorized it's pretty good, although even knowing i need to do certain things can be tough to track, especially since my group tends to favor very large combats.