Let's Read ACKS Core at RPG.net

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. 

[quote="Aryxymaraki"]

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.
-koewn

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

True, that, and that leads into the other reason I like this rule, which I just realized - it somewhat mirrors the Fighting 2 Damage Bonus, in that someone whose class is "good at something" gets a bit of a bonus that transcends their ability scores - a STR 9 Fighter is still getting a damage bonus from his Fighting 2 (and that damage bonus is technically more effective than STR bonus, at least for ranged weapons), and the CON 9 barbarian is getting a little extra on top of his d8 HD which is better than what he'd get out of plain CON (+5 vs +3).

Unlike Damage Bonus, though, it's a bit situational, so if one would allow it to be traded off, I wouldn't charge extra for it.

Somewhere in this lies the key to ability-score-less ACKS.

 

 

 

it seems the staff at big purple are enjoying the thread, they've marked it a "Staff Pick"

[quote="Jard"]

it seems the staff at big purple are enjoying the thread, they've marked it a "Staff Pick"

[/quote]

 

Alex, I think it would be totally fine for you to post over there.  There's been substantial interest in the system, and it looks like we've attracted some new people interested in trying it out.  Plus, your input into the current line of questioning would be helpful.

I'd also like to post some example art from the book, but I'm not sure how you'd like me to go about doing it.  Is it cool with you if I take some screenshots of the art and post them?

[quote="thirdkingdom"]

Alex, I think it would be totally fine for you to post over there.  There's been substantial interest in the system, and it looks like we've attracted some new people interested in trying it out.  Plus, your input into the current line of questioning would be helpful.

[/quote]

How will Alex maintain his bad-boy image if he descends into the ranks?  Also, it's statistically likely he is already banned from RPG.net, as many famous indie D&D designers are :-P

The current discussion going on there reminds me that I really don’t like the abstract standard of living table being applied as a monthly cost for PCs based purely on their level.

What are these PCs spending so much money on? You can buy multiple townhouses, each month, for the cost of living of mid to high level characters! Further, if all of this money is going to purchase things, why aren’t the PCs getting some kind of benefit for it?

If you’re going to force your players to drop thousands of GP a month on standard of living, they should either be getting mechanical benefits for it (such as allowing them to get free equipment, lodging, mercenaries/guards, and so on), or they should get reserve XP from it. Playing ACKS, with its detailed economic system and ability to know where each GP came from and where it went, and then throwing in this totally abstract tossing of GP into the void makes no sense to me.

(My personal preference is simply to not enforce a standard of living on PCs; if they want to be treated seriously by nobility and the like, they should find some way to spend that amount of GP each month, most of which will probably go to their reserve XP because it is really hard to spend five or six thousand GP a month on socially acceptable [i.e, not adventuring] useful things.)

At my players current level (6-7) they are no longer paying for lodging or food while traveling, mundane equipment, rations, etc. Cost of living is assumed to cover any taxes on their treasure or fees to recruit hirelings. Basically, I don’t want 5th level PCs to have to worry about tracking small expenses like torches and ale. I assume that any domain worth it’s salt is going to tax the treasure the adventurers bring in, whether directly or through transaction fees (moneychangers melting down ancient coins to strike new ones, charging a commision to change bulky coins to gems, etc.). The cost of living increases primarily because they’re (in theory) bringing in more treasure as they gain levels.

So what happens if they take a few months of downtime?

They’re bringing in zero treasure, regardless of their level, why do they pay the same taxes?

I totally understand the value in ‘pay this value every month and you don’t have to worry about consumables like arrows, torches, lodging and food, etc’, but the cost of living table goes so far past any amount you could plausibly spend on that sort of thing. Calling it taxes falls apart for me when you consider downtime still costing the same.

I guess you could rent out the mayor’s own bedchamber for a night as you travel through a city, or something ridiculous in that vein, but I’d consider that kind of profligate spending for something that offers no mechanical difference from a room at the inn to be a textbook example of reserve XP expenditure, not something that you should be assuming and getting nothing out of. (I would also consider the previous sentence a textbook example of a run-on sentence but am too lazy to rewrite it to fix it.)

To clarify on the cost of living now that I'm off my phone, let's look at it like this: a 6th level character (let's call them a fighter) has a cost of living of 800 gp per month.  They need 33,000 XP to reach 7th level; let's say it takes them the entire month to get that much XP.  Now, a small portion of that XP is going to come from killing monsters; let's say 6000 XP does, leaving 27,000 XP to come from treasure.  Of that 800 gp goes to their cost of living, or almost 3% of the total.  I've got no problem using cost of living to handwave all the niggling little stuff that I don't want to deal with, such as paying for mundane equipment (I figure that as long as the characters are in a market class large enough they can count on resupplying without having to count coin), subtracting a few gold here and there to pay for drinks or room at an inn, or even advertising for hirelings: let's say our 6th level fighter is in a Class I market and looking to hire some mercenaries.  The given cost per week is 16-21 gp.  I'm not going to make my players track that, man! So, it falls under cost of living.  

[quote="Aryxymaraki"]

At my players current level (6-7) they are no longer paying for lodging or food while traveling, mundane equipment, rations, etc. Cost of living is assumed to cover any taxes on their treasure or fees to recruit hirelings. Basically, I don't want 5th level PCs to have to worry about tracking small expenses like torches and ale. I assume that any domain worth it's salt is going to tax the treasure the adventurers bring in, whether directly or through transaction fees (moneychangers melting down ancient coins to strike new ones, charging a commision to change bulky coins to gems, etc.). The cost of living increases primarily because they're (in theory) bringing in more treasure as they gain levels.


-thirdkingdom

So what happens if they take a few months of downtime? They're bringing in zero treasure, regardless of their level, why do they pay the same taxes? I totally understand the value in 'pay this value every month and you don't have to worry about consumables like arrows, torches, lodging and food, etc', but the cost of living table goes so far past any amount you could plausibly spend on that sort of thing. Calling it taxes falls apart for me when you consider downtime still costing the same. I guess you could rent out the mayor's own bedchamber for a night as you travel through a city, or something ridiculous in that vein, but I'd consider that kind of profligate spending for something that offers no mechanical difference from a room at the inn to be a textbook example of reserve XP expenditure, not something that you should be assuming and getting nothing out of. (I would also consider the previous sentence a textbook example of a run-on sentence but am too lazy to rewrite it to fix it.) [/quote]

 

We crossposted.  We're doing just that it about three weeks of game time: taking three months of downtime.  I assume that player characters live it up during downtime; I actively discourage parsiminous characters.  Think Conan, or Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser; when they have coin they spend it on wine and women and extravagences; they don't hoard their coppers.  They're sixth and seventh level, dude!  They've got appearances to uphold.  If we were playing with XP reserve it would go into that, but we're not (if there's a PC death they can either promote an existing henchmen or bring in a new PC at the level (not XP) of the lowest full PC (in this case our Nobirian Wonderworker).

If you aren’t using reserve XP, that explains the difference in opinions. If we agree that that sort of enforced cost of living would go to reserve XP than we basically agree.

(I tend to disagree with your world-building based on appearances being required :stuck_out_tongue: But that’s a minor thing. Most likely based on the fact that I play like 90% wizards and wizard-variants, so the high-level fantasy is ‘reclusive hermit’, not ‘party barbarian’. A high-level wizard spending extravagant amounts of gold on parties and women is a major anomaly, whereas a fighter who isn’t doing that is an anomaly.)

[quote="Aryxymaraki"] The current discussion going on there reminds me that I really don't like the abstract standard of living table being applied as a monthly cost for PCs based purely on their level. [/quote]

I actually read that table as a description of reasonable expectations based on setting assumptions, not as a mandated tax. As in, I believe that table describes how much characters of any given level are likely to spend on stuff, given their expected incomes; not an mandated tax that they have to spend, for some reason. Note how the text describes it: "To put the value of currency in perspective, the Standard of Living table, below, shows how far a gold piece will go towards cost of living at different standards of comfort." Nothing there says that player characters are required to spend that much.

I agree. RAW, there is nothing requiring PCs to spend anything on their standard of living; they can spend as much or as little as they want.

Enforcing that table (or the henchman cost table) as a monthly standard of living fee is, however, a very common houserule that I’ve seen, and as described above, not one that I am generally a fan of.

I am surprised by this example. In my campaign, characters barely manage to earn their living expenses in a month, and spend many months gaining a level. Is looting 80% of your current xp in gold in a month common?

In my campaign, I currently have standard of living related to level affect xp - if you spend less, you get a percentage reduction, if you spend more, a bonus. I guess this is similar to the prodigality rule from Barbarian conquerors of Kanahu.

But I dislike the abstract nature of how I’m doing it now. That is, when the characters are in town they just pay 400 gp each on living expenses. Nothing about where this coin end up.

I like the part in Heroic fantasy where you can spend living expenses to regain fate points. I think I’m going to use that in one way or another. I’m also thinking I should have players describe how the money is spent.

[quote="Weron"]

... let's say it takes them the entire month to get that much XP.  Now, a small portion of that XP is going to come from killing monsters; let's say 6000 XP does, leaving 27,000 XP to come from treasure. ... 


-thirdkingdom

I am surprised by this example. In my campaign, characters barely manage to earn their living expenses in a month, and spend many months gaining a level. Is looting 80% of your current xp in gold in a month common? In my campaign, I currently have standard of living related to level affect xp - if you spend less, you get a percentage reduction, if you spend more, a bonus. I guess this is similar to the prodigality rule from Barbarian conquerors of Kanahu. But I dislike the abstract nature of how I'm doing it now. That is, when the characters are in town they just pay 400 gp each on living expenses. Nothing about where this coin end up. I like the part in Heroic fantasy where you can spend living expenses to regain fate points. I think I'm going to use that in one way or another. I'm also thinking I should have players describe how the money is spent. [/quote]

No, it's not typical of my current campaign, which has had as many as 6 Primary PCs, 18 henchmen and 6 henchmen of henchmen.  The XP gets sucked up fast that way. In 8+ game months of play the adventurers started out with very little cash and have, at this point, about 200k saved, above and beyond what they've spent to hire and maintain a small army of mercenaries, drop 30k on restoring an old keep, 24k on purchasing and commissioning a small fleet of river boats, etc.

And I don't know what the exact percentage is, but as a general rule treasure is worth far more in XP than killing monsters.  I just picked 80% as a back of the envelope kind of thing.

The point I was *trying* to make is that the given Lifestyle costs are a small percentage of the overall wealth an adventurer should be bringing in.

Acknowledging that taste and preference trump all, I see enforced cost of living expenses as a way to model the very realistic conspicuous consumption associated with the wealth and power assumed by higher levels.

For example, I was browsing through my news feed yesterday and saw something about the Obamas in Italy. Mrs. Obama was wearing an “inexpensive” blouse priced at only $130. I’m middle class, and I still wear $10 t-shirts in public when my wife and work let me; I can only imagine spending such sums on clothing in the context of different norms based on socio-economic classes. In that light, it makes sense (while reinforcing my ambivalence about making more money).

For more context, consumption was even more extravagant in earlier periods. I’m working off my phone right now, but it’s not hard to find evidence describing a pre-modern preference for prioritizing looking good over investment or other rational expenses. This tendency - nay, obligation - explains many of the otherwise inexplicable problems faced by the rulers of Sicily, France, and even some of America’s Founding Fathers (particularly the Southern planters).

Just my two cents. I prefer the abstract cost of living “tax” for simplicity, but an easy way to make it easier to swallow might just be to grant a minor bonus for players who make an effort to explain exactly how they’re blowing money on travel, baths, perfumes, rare delicacies, shoes, and clothing.

And, technically, they were correct, she was probably operating a bit under what I'd expect an ex-First-Lady's "cost of living" to be. You can get $130 shirts at  Macy's, so it's not like that's a boutique price. And the fact that they point that out in the news is part and parcel of how deeply ingrained that sort of crap still is in the underlying culture - she's wearing something you can get at a mall, and because of the history of conspicious consumption, that's something evidently worth mentioning.

It'd be interesting to see a count of how often clothing costs are mentioned based on if they're above, equal to, or below whatever the apparent cost-of-living table is in the real world.