runequester
Swordsman
- Joined
- 29 Apr 2018
- Messages
- 474
Greetings.
As an old fan of DoD, I was curious to hear what the perception was in general. I've been fairly pleasantly surprised at the 2016 rules, but there are areas I feel were poor decisions.
Now, to clarify, I was not expecting a straight reprint of the 87 book. I know some people were wanting that, but that doesn't specifically bother me. Instead, let's talk about the actual rules.
Things I think they improved:
*Streamlining spell casting to a single skill and spending magic points to increase the success rate / offset penalties.
*Size for monsters.
* Shields being automatic defense and how two-weapon-fighting is handled. (The former reminds me of WFRP).
* Damage bonus being a fixed number is faster. Healing rates being affected by CON and faster in general is good.
* The skill list in general seems quite good.
* Not fiddling with weapons suffering damage (BV) is probably fine.
* I /think/ I like having to attack OR parry instead of being able to do both with two weapons, but I havent played yet.
* Exploding damage dice I like.
* Spells having more guidelines for how EL's are assigned is cool.
* Perfect roll table for spells is cool.
* The game is ultimately still a nice beginner game and I think it'd hold up well for a longer campaign.
* I also really dig the art style.
Things I think aren't as good:
* Starting skills feel low and the old system (pick 3 expert and 5 normal skills) felt like it gave more control. I guess there's an option for more experienced characters, but I feel like the suggested starter level is too gimp.
* Stat penalties for weapons, encumbrance etc. are fiddly and a -3% chance isn't going to make a difference ever.
* Unconscious at 0 HP and dead at -1? What? No!
* Having only a strict list of player species instead of being able to play any critter in the book is not BRP but I suppose that's a personal taste. I do like the selected species though.
* The "stance" in combat, Im not sure about. I think I like the concept a lot but a + / - 20 to attack or parry is a lot.
* I dont mind that skill advancement is low, but combined with the low start chances, it feels like it'll be a long time before a character is talented outside of fighting.
Thoughts? Especially from people who have played the game and especially-especially from those who played the original.
As always, apologies for typing in English. Feel free to respond in Swedish or English as you find easiest.
As an old fan of DoD, I was curious to hear what the perception was in general. I've been fairly pleasantly surprised at the 2016 rules, but there are areas I feel were poor decisions.
Now, to clarify, I was not expecting a straight reprint of the 87 book. I know some people were wanting that, but that doesn't specifically bother me. Instead, let's talk about the actual rules.
Things I think they improved:
*Streamlining spell casting to a single skill and spending magic points to increase the success rate / offset penalties.
*Size for monsters.
* Shields being automatic defense and how two-weapon-fighting is handled. (The former reminds me of WFRP).
* Damage bonus being a fixed number is faster. Healing rates being affected by CON and faster in general is good.
* The skill list in general seems quite good.
* Not fiddling with weapons suffering damage (BV) is probably fine.
* I /think/ I like having to attack OR parry instead of being able to do both with two weapons, but I havent played yet.
* Exploding damage dice I like.
* Spells having more guidelines for how EL's are assigned is cool.
* Perfect roll table for spells is cool.
* The game is ultimately still a nice beginner game and I think it'd hold up well for a longer campaign.
* I also really dig the art style.
Things I think aren't as good:
* Starting skills feel low and the old system (pick 3 expert and 5 normal skills) felt like it gave more control. I guess there's an option for more experienced characters, but I feel like the suggested starter level is too gimp.
* Stat penalties for weapons, encumbrance etc. are fiddly and a -3% chance isn't going to make a difference ever.
* Unconscious at 0 HP and dead at -1? What? No!
* Having only a strict list of player species instead of being able to play any critter in the book is not BRP but I suppose that's a personal taste. I do like the selected species though.
* The "stance" in combat, Im not sure about. I think I like the concept a lot but a + / - 20 to attack or parry is a lot.
* I dont mind that skill advancement is low, but combined with the low start chances, it feels like it'll be a long time before a character is talented outside of fighting.
Thoughts? Especially from people who have played the game and especially-especially from those who played the original.
As always, apologies for typing in English. Feel free to respond in Swedish or English as you find easiest.