Post by Rabbit in Glasses in Mausritter comments

Viewing post in Mausritter comments

A few things:

First, many of the larger tables are mis-numbered, most commonly the ones labeled as d66, I imagine they were meant to be 6d6. I could go through and redo those tables, but if possible it would be nice to have the original copy's tables corrected.

Second, and this might have an unfortunate side-effect on the layout of these, a belt slot is desperately needed. Specifically a slot that acts otherwise the same as a body slot but is explicitly for extra items such as potions or quivers. Currently stone pouches and quivers are only equippable when wearing light armor. However only slings are usable in light armor. Bows require the wearer be unarmored in the base rules. While I'm sure this is a balance thing, it also instantly breaks everyone's immersion cause it makes little to no realistic sense. In the base rules an archer that wants to be armored would only be able to use heavy armor and fire once every other round. My current fix has been to break up armor into individual pieces and slightly buff them. Basically light armor has become a shield and cuirass which provides 1 protection each. Heavy armor has become a breastplate and helmet. The helmet provides 1 protection and the breastplate provides 2. This has allowed some players to become slightly tankier, but honestly there weren't really many tank options in the base rules.

Lastly, do you mind if people write third party adventures or supplements? I'd love to make a potions, alchemy, and artificing supplement. Plus I finished slapping together a point-crawl adventure that might make for a decent starting adventure.

Dimwittedanimal4 years ago(+2)(-1)

In case you haven't figured this out yet d66 is meant to be 1d6 for the 10s and 1d6 for the 1s... the lowest being 11, highest 66. 6d6 would make the highest 36.

Rabbit in Glasses4 years ago(+2)(-1)

I didn't actually know that. Nowhere does it explicitly state how to read such a table. I've also never encountered such tables before so didn't understand how to read them. Thanks for the clarification though!

Harrigan4 years ago(+2)(-2)

Common OSR thing these days. Also, awesome!

MrAbodi4 years ago(+2)(-3)

Its pretty common nowadays.

Dimwittedanimal4 years ago(+1)(-1)

I didn't get a chance earlier to talk to your other points.

I like the armor changes. I wonder if it would be better to raise the heavy armor to a 2 value, but keep them as a 2 body slot item. The light armor could be separated to a shield w/ armor value 1 and 1 paw and the armor as 1 armor slot and 1 body slot. This would allow a light armored mouse with two light weapons, or a bow and quiver. Or a super tanky mouse, heavy armor and shield, medium or light weapon.

I would like to know about the supplement part as well, I want to add more to the beasts, like beetles, ants, bees, wasps, moles, squirrels, chipmunks, weasels etc.

Rabbit in Glasses4 years ago(+1)(-1)

I mainly separated heavy armor like I did because it created a similar realism issue for my group where they couldn't wear a quiver just because they had a helmet and breastplate on. For a larger audience that doesn't nitpick near as much, the changes you're suggesting would probably be better.

As for the beasts thing, the rules actually lay out how to make beasts and additional races pretty well given the examples. An expanded bestiary would be nice though. Weirdly moles would work well as a ghoul analogue for the system.

Orion02244 years ago (1 edit) (+1)(-1)

I just got done making an alternate weapon and armor sheet that can be printed out in which I did away with the light/heavy distinction entirely. The way I have it there are three "armour" items. I have "helm" which uses the thimble image from the heavy armor and offers 1def and has three usage. I have "armour" which is the light armor image minus the shield (I copied and flipped the exposed part to make a symmetrical armour image that I liked). It also has 3 uses and offers 1 def. Then I have a "shield" which is just the button from the light armor image. It has no usage and gives no def but works differently. Basically, if you have a shield equipped you can declare that you are sacrificing your shield to negate one enemy attack and then it shatters. Each of these items takes up one equipment slot. Occupations that start with light armor get the armor and shield. Occupations that start with heavy armor get all three. I have attached a jpeg of the alternate sheet.

Rabbit in Glasses4 years ago(+1)(-1)

That works I suppose. Why not give the shield three uses though? It's not like it's that fragile.

Orion02244 years ago(+1)(-1)

It's actually not my own rule. In the OSR community it's known as "Shields shall be splintered" and it's a common house rule to make shields a one shot negation of an attack. Then again, the shield also usually offers a passive bonus as well but I didn't want to ramp up the armor too much. I might give it 1 def and 3 uses but with the option to shatter to completely negate an attack.

Orion02244 years ago(+1)(-1)

Orion02244 years ago(-1)

Ok, so I just tested my alternate armor with some practice rolls and I think I get why the armor value of 1 was chosen. Even two points of armor drastically reduces the amount of damage a character takes because of how small all the numbers are. If a mouse can equip three pieces of armor and gain 3 def it makes a huge difference. They start being able to shrug off attack after attack without taking any damage at all. I might play around with it a bit more to see if I can settle on something that allows for shields to be a separate item without breaking the game, but I don't think I'm going to have them grant a point of defense or be able to negate three attacks. But at the same time, I don't want the player to not have something they have to give up when using the shields shall be splintered rule either. It should cost something to sacrifice your shield. So basically I'm not really happy with either solution at this point.

Rabbit in Glasses4 years ago(+1)(-1)

Usually any time my group impliments some kind of numerical damage reduction we also use a minimum damage rule. basically just have the ability to tank up be there, but attacks will always do at least one damage.

Orion02244 years ago (1 edit) (+2)(-1)

So what I've decided is that the shield and Helm roll their usage die immediately and prevent damage and take a usage only on a 4+. So if you are wearing all three and you take 5 points of damage you roll a die for your shield and a die for your helm. Lets say you get a 5 for the shield and a 2 for the helm. Your shield takes one point of usage and you take 3 damaged (5 - 1 armour - 1 shield). The armor only takes usage damage at the end of combat, and as before you can sacrifice your shield at any time after finding out the result of an attack to cancel it entirely.

JackMcNamee2 years ago(+1)(-2)

"Bows require the wearer be unarmored in the base rules."

I think this is a deliberate decision. In normal D&D an archer will be lightly armoured. They aren't rocking up to the battlefield holding a shield (Like the "Light armour") or wearing full plate (Like the "Heavy Armour").

Five Fun Facts About Medieval Archery - Medievalists.net

An Archer in Mausritter would be wearing normal protection like this. It's just that normal armour is taken for granted by the rules. The game assumes that every mouse would be wearing normal armour, so it doesn't give you any special advantage or bonus defense.

So your archer isn't actually "Unarmoured", they're wearing normal light protection that is not modeled by the rules.

Rabbit in Glasses2 years ago(-2)

If the archer is wearing protection, it should be modeled as damage reduction. I.E. armor. "Normal armor" is still armor and it should be statted appropriately if it's being implied.

Even in the image you've provided, the archers are actually wearing a form of light armor accessories, and could possibly be wearing gambesons. Which is light armor... which is an item... that you have to equip... that prevents you from equipping stuff for archery in the base rules.

Sorry to be a bit combative, but I genuinely fail to understand what point you're trying to make outside of being artsy and contrarian for the sake of it.

itch.io

Viewing post in Mausritter comments