ACKS Elves

Of all the "OSR" systems I've seen, I think I like ACKS's take on Elves the best.  I'm curious about how they were developed - what was the starting point, so to speak?  The Elven Spellsword seems very different from what I've seen, say, in the original D&D books.  

Second, for those of you who have played them, how do they work out in practice?  I've never played in a group that has very disparate xp requirements.  I imagine the versatility of the class makes up for the double-xp required to advance, but am I wrong? 

Can’t speak for the design, but my players tend to avoid playing the elf classes because of the XP. Double XP reqs mean you’ll be about one level behind the rest of the party on average. Lately Spellsword has seen some play, because a wizard who is one level behind but wearing plate is better than a wizard who is one level ahead but dead because he wasn’t wearing plate. They’re good second-row characters, with a spear or polearm (which can be held in one hand to cast with the other). From that position they can take full advantage of short-range spells like Web without compromising the structural integrity of the phalanx like a wizard in the second rank would. In our experience Nightblade plays mostly like mage at low levels, but I suspect they transition to playing mostly like thieves at high levels (as their skills improve and their magic falls behind). We haven’t had a Nightblade survive to high levels to test this theory, though.

Thanks for the kind words. The starting point of the ACKS Elf was the B/X Elf. The Elven Spellsword is nearly identical to the B/X Elf. My sense is that many people who played B/X loved that elf; it fulfilled the dream of the spell-slinging swordsman that is a very popular fantasy archetype. Nearly every version of D&D since has tried to re-create the B/X Elf in some manner - AD&D's elven fighter-mages, D&D 3.5's elven duskblades, D&D 4th's swordmage, D&D 5th's eldritch warrior - but to increasingly limited success because they abandoned the disparate XP requirements. If all classes require the same XP to advance, then all classes must be of the same power level, and therefore the B/X Elf is impossible.

With ACKS, I had already decided we would use B/X-style disparate XP per class and that we'd have a B/X Elf-type class. So it was then a matter of reverse-engineering that elf to create other elven classes and a culture for them. In my Auran Empire campaign, the elves were the "ancient precursor" civiliation who had once ruled the region and then lost control. That implied to me that they'd have feuding noble houses, and hence assassins and courtiers; and since they were a race on decline and defense, rangers.

 

I feel like the 4th edition Swordmage did a good job because it attempted to create the feeling of a spellcasting swordsman through flavor moreso than mechanics.
However, the Pathfinder Magus was also a very satisfactory stab at the "balanced" fighter/wizard because they had class mechanics that rewarded mixing swords and spells.  Then again, like most things in Pathfinder it could be heavily mechanically abused, and ironically tended to work best like you would expect the elven nightblade to work. Invisibilty + sneak up on high level enemy + cast a feated up Shocking Graps through your sword with a high chance to crit = 30d6 lightning damage in one attack.

[quote="Jard"]

I feel like the 4th edition Swordmage did a good job because it attempted to create the feeling of a spellcasting swordsman through flavor moreso than mechanics.
However, the Pathfinder Magus was also a very satisfactory stab at the "balanced" fighter/wizard because they had class mechanics that rewarded mixing swords and spells.  Then again, like most things in Pathfinder it could be heavily mechanically abused, and ironically tended to work best like you would expect the elven nightblade to work. Invisibilty + sneak up on high level enemy + cast a feated up Shocking Graps through your sword with a high chance to crit = 30d6 lightning damage in one attack.

[/quote]

Well, I don't really disagree that the 4E swordmage was fun. The 4E swordmage was, along with the 4E warlord, one of the only additions to the game that I liked. But it wasn't much like playing a B/X Elf fighter/mage hybrid.

That said, nothing in 4E was like playing B/X so this is not really a powerful critique. ;)

[quote="Alex"]

In my Auran Empire campaign, the elves were the "ancient precursor" civiliation who had once ruled the region and then lost control. That implied to me that they'd have feuding noble houses, and hence assassins and courtiers; and since they were a race on decline and defense, rangers.

[/quote]

Decadent Melnibonean elves are best elves. :)

I've been thinking of amping up the Demi aspect of Demihumans for my stuff (cliff notes: demihumans are just beastman-like crossbreeds that favor their human side instead of the other). So elves are the engineered offspring of ancient humans and some otherworldly, highly magical race of pointy eared creepy fae types. Haven't decided what dwarves were made from.

Halflings/Hobbits are obviously a humanized goblin subspecies designed to be yappy purse dog people for rich elven assholes.

[quote="ZeroSum"]

 

 

In my Auran Empire campaign, the elves were the "ancient precursor" civiliation who had once ruled the region and then lost control. That implied to me that they'd have feuding noble houses, and hence assassins and courtiers; and since they were a race on decline and defense, rangers.

 


-Alex

 

Decadent Melnibonean elves are best elves. :)

I've been thinking of amping up the Demi aspect of Demihumans for my stuff (cliff notes: demihumans are just beastman-like crossbreeds that favor their human side instead of the other). So elves are the engineered offspring of ancient humans and some otherworldly, highly magical race of pointy eared creepy fae types. Haven't decided what dwarves were made from.

Halflings/Hobbits are obviously a humanized goblin subspecies designed to be yappy purse dog people for rich elven assholes.

[/quote]

I like that idea. I might use that, at least for halflings.

I'm actually sitting down and separating races from class a bit, and I'm settling on how to stat up humans for use. Instead of (or perhaps in addition to) doing just one extra proficiency, I actually want to play on human's ability to be super durable and have high endurance. So I think I'll have humans able to heal a little more from rest, and in addition, I'll have humans capable of running/exploring longer than dwarves with their stubby legs and elves with their frail bodies. Or maybe humans get a bonus/advantage/different die rolls for Mortal Wounds table. I haven't decided yet.

[quote="ZeroSum"]

Halflings/Hobbits are obviously a humanized goblin subspecies designed to be yappy purse dog people for rich elven assholes.

[/quote]

I feel deeply touched, as if I've found a soulmate.

It makes me wonder, who was the guy who insisted that halflings appear in these games in the first place?  Even in the very earliest books, it's all "Yeah, yeah, sure, you can play a halfling.  Idiot."  There must have been *someone* who was the target of all that scorn.

Here's a fun take along those lines:

http://goblinpunch.blogspot.com/2015/01/halflings-and-goblins.html

 

[quote="Alex"]

Well, I don't really disagree that the 4E swordmage was fun. The 4E swordmage was, along with the 4E warlord, one of the only additions to the game that I liked. But it wasn't much like playing a B/X Elf fighter/mage hybrid.

That said, nothing in 4E was like playing B/X so this is not really a powerful critique. ;)

[/quote]

 

Man, Warlord is easily what I miss most from 4e.  Granted, I am a weirdo who really liked their take on the role of leaders in general, who get to heal either by kicking ass or at the same time, but the 4e Warlord was easily the best part of that.

I really liked a lot of the ideas 4E had, if not the way they implemented them or the style of game they were trying to create, and warlord was the single best idea of the entire edition.

I have repeatedly tried to come up with a way to make the idea of the enabler like a warlord work in other games, but sadly, making an enabler like that really relies on a well-defined and very thorough action economy, to let you predict the result of your enabling. Even 5E has trouble with making that work out well, and it has (off the top of my head) the best-defined action economy of any game that isn’t a 4E derivative.

[quote="Aryxymaraki"]

I really liked a lot of the ideas 4E had, if not the way they implemented them or the style of game they were trying to create, and warlord was the single best idea of the entire edition. I have repeatedly tried to come up with a way to make the idea of the enabler like a warlord work in other games, but sadly, making an enabler like that really relies on a well-defined and very thorough action economy, to let you predict the result of your enabling. Even 5E has trouble with making that work out well, and it has (off the top of my head) the best-defined action economy of any game that isn't a 4E derivative. [/quote]

at the risk of driving this thread farther off the rails: it might be possible to do something similar to it with ACKs with the magic creation rules, but it would be a stretch.  You would make a new type of magic that was inherited (and therefore driven by charisma) or possibly studious but they're studying tactics, not spells.  They'd be predominantly focused on protection, healing, buffs, etc. with probably no blast or death.  Most of their spells would either require an attack throw or grant some modified version of haste that happened instantly.

 

it would still be a stretch, though, and it might be easier to just try and make a bard variant.

The Transmogrification  spell category includes a 20 point "give the subject a proficiency like ability" - interpreted broadly, this includes anything from a Fighting Style proficiency to Lay On Hands to Ambushing or Naturally Stealthy, etc... a lot of things that might be situationally beneficial in a tactical sense.

ReI'm sure you could write up a decent version of an ACKS weird. Wouldn't be an exact conversion but with proficiencies and spell-like abilities I bet you could get a really interesting enabler.

Hmmm I have to think about it.

 

I’ve tried spellcasting variants, and it never feels like a warlord to me.

A spellcasting buffer/enabler reads ‘cleric’ to me no matter what flavor text I give it.

A bard variant would read warlord better for me, but the issue I have with that in ACKS is that ACKS (and basically any RPG that isn’t outright superheroes) is a much lower power level than 4E (especially at low levels), which makes it difficult to have enabling abilities that feel impactful and unique at low levels. A +1 or +2 to hit is a very significant impact on cleaving through low-level monsters, but “I spent my action to give this guy +1 to hit” doesn’t feel good to play in the same way.

[quote="Alex"]

I feel deeply touched, as if I've found a soulmate.

[/quote]

Aw shucks.

It was that or replace them with rat people. Eventually I went and did that with the kobolds. If the Skaven have taught me anything it's that you can never go wrong with sneaky evil ratmen.

[quote="ZeroSum"]

 

 

I feel deeply touched, as if I've found a soulmate.

 


-Alex

 

Aw shucks.

It was that or replace them with rat people. Eventually I went and did that with the kobolds. If the Skaven have taught me anything it's that you can never go wrong with sneaky evil ratmen.

[/quote] I learned that from Fritz Leiber.

 

[quote="ZeroSum"]

 

Decadent Melnibonean elves are best elves. :)

[/quote]

My thought as well