Lead Adventure Forum
Miniatures Adventure => Fantasy Adventures => Frostgrave => Topic started by: Coenus Scaldingus on November 25, 2015, 03:29:16 PM
-
While the D20 system helps overcome many of the balance issues that may arise when warbands of different experience levels meet, there is of course only so much of a quality gap it can ignore. During an ongoing Frostgrave campaign, however, there will always be players who don't have the time to play as often as others, join in later on, or fall behind in the race. Which, of course, is why a dozen different mechanisms have been proposed over time.
However, it doesn't quite feel right to reward a player with extra gold and experience just for coming across a stronger opponent, especially not in a game with the level of randomness as Frostgrave. With that in mind, I rather liked the underdog bonus I was recently reminded of that exists in the Battle Companies variant of the Lord of the Rings game: re-rolls.
For Frostgrave, I think it could simply translate as follows: for every point of difference in levels between the two opposing wizards (or your own wizard and the strongest enemy in multiplayer games), the lower player gains a single re-roll. These can be used on any of your die rolls during or after the game. 'Neutral rolls', such as the emergence of random creatures, the board edge they come up on or any rolls related to scenarios cannot be altered by a re-roll (as the stronger warband has no advantage here either, and they are supposed to be random events). As always, a re-roll may not be re-rolled, and the second result always stands.
When facing an opponent just a few levels above yourself, there will only be a few re-rolls, which are unlikely to alter the game considerably - in the same way that the few levels difference are unlikely to have much of an impact. The re-rolls could help a wizard cast a difficult spell which may otherwise have failed (while a more experienced spellcaster will already have reduced the required casting value), or swing a combat between your lowly thug and the opponent's magic-weapon carrying knight in your favour. By allowing the re-rolls to be saved up for the post-game sequence, you may be able to contain the casualties when normally the strong enemy could have crippled your band, or they may simply allow you to gain 16 instead of 2 times 20 gold from the treasure table, enabling a faster catching up with enemy bands or replenishing sustained losses.
Any thoughts on this, potential loopholes? Apologies if others have posted the same idea before; too much stuff to read through!
-
Obviously I haven't play tested your suggestion, but my intuitive first impression is that one re-roll per level difference is a bit steep. A level 20 Wizard will probably have some stat increases (probably Fight), a few extra spells, and several casting values reduced. The level 20 Wizard will also have a lot of better gear and soldiers, but with the wide variance of a D20 roll, and the toned down nature of even the elite soldiers and gear, nothing on the table would be invincible.
I think that it is a good idea, but to have, say, 20 re-rolls against the level 20 wizard is a bit extreme. I would be inclined to reduce it to a re-roll for every 2 levels, or maybe even every 5 levels.
-
we are gonna do +10 exp per level difference so the underdog has a reason to show up.
-
I'd always want to be the underdog. That's way too many re-rolls.
Levels in Frostgrave do not automatically equal being more dangerous. We are coming to find that the amount of games played is a better indicator of overall strength.
Since you can only upgrade a stat once between adventures it matters more than the Wizard level.
Essentially, if you had a couple of good games you could be level 10 in 2 adventures. You would be able to upgrade up to 10 things, but only by a max of 2 points each. While your opponent who took 5 sessions to get to level 10 could have 2 things upgraded by 5 points each.
-
Adapting that system was my gut instinct too. Perhaps because it was such a key feature of one of my favourite games, Legends the Old West, which was spawned from LotR and then used as the basis for the Battle Companies.
I'm pretty sure though that it was 'borrowed' wholesale from Mordheim (as was the entire campaign system).
Perhaps every 10 levels of difference, and the reroll could only be used in a certain context (say only as a casting roll or perhaps never as a casting roll).
Like others have said, bonus experience for the difference between wizards would also be a good motivator.
-
Now a re-roll every 10 levels wouldn't be bad. That's roughly the equivalent of a patron lending them a few Fate Stones for the battle.
Just for reference, a while back I came up with this system for balancing matches between wizards of diferent levels. (http://leadadventureforum.com/index.php?topic=83421.0)
The idea was more along the lines of closing the XP and Gold Gap in a campaign, with the monster to add another body to the underdogs forces.
0-9 levels difference, underdog recieves 10 bonus XP per level diference
10-19 levels difference 1 level 1 wandering monsters controlled by the underdog wizard, 1 extra treasure, underdog recieves 10 bonus XP per level diference
20-29 levels difference 2 level 2 wandering monsters controlled by the underdog wizard, 2 extra treasures, underdog recieves 10 bonus XP per level diference
30-39 levels difference 3 level 3 wandering monsters controlled by the underdog wizard, 3 extra treasures, underdog recieves 10 bonus XP per level diference
Wandering monsters start in the center of a random table edge during the monster phase of turn 1.
(1-5 your side, 6-10 left side, 11-15 right side, 16-20 opponents side)
Extra treasures are placed by underdog, after deployment, but following the standard treasure guidelines for placement.
Underdog must make earnest effort to earn bonus XP. Routing without earning XP will cause underdog to forfeit bonus XP.
-
Honestly i don't think 1 per level is too much. But you can't re-roll a rerolled result.
The simplest of balancing mechanisms for me is just to play with 3 (or more) players. Even a lvl 20 mage will have issue's fighting of 2 warbands joining forces.
-
Having watched, played, and read about a lot of games. I now think that wealth difference is actually a lot more important that level difference.
-
Sounds to me like we need a Warband Rating!
How about Wizard level plus
1 per 100GC in the Treasury
1 per item in the Vault regardless of value
2 per item carried by Warband members
1 per 100gc spent on Soldiers
-
And plus 1 for a base and 1 for each add-on.
-
While I see a lot of threads about concerns over escalation of experience and £$£ of one warband over another, and while I have yet to play a campaign, my understanding was that there are different types of wizards and warbands.
Level and £$£ (magic weapons) difference is important in a straight slug it out to the death situation. However the wizard can change their warband make up and to some extent spells to focus on a more quick in and out under the cover of magic situation.
Quick thieves and treasure hunters with help from fog/wall/invisibility/teleport/ telekinesis (to name but a few useful ones) should recover more treasure that tooled up warriors trying to get into hand to hand.
Is part of the problem possibly with people considering the treasure collection secondary to the unsubtle hitting with hard objects?
-
Having watched, played, and read about a lot of games. I now think that wealth difference is actually a lot more important that level difference.
Yeah, I know I have a thread about an underdog system, but the more I play, the less important the level gap seems.
The amount of games played seems to make more of a difference, than the actual level. Each game played, usually earning 2 levels, allows for lowering spell dificulties and additional treasure rolls.
It's why I still think the underdog system is a good idea, and the additional treasures will help address the GC power gap.
-
Why not use a simple upgrade tax. It could be scaled by level. And explain it as follows.
Minions do not come cheap, and good ones are even harder,to keep. Every wizard has to pay an upkeep few to keep their troops happy.
Level. Percent of Minion Cost
0-5. No cost
6-15. 10% cost
16-25. 20% cost
26-35. 30% cost
36-45. 40% cost
If you can not pay the minion they wander off to find work elsewhere.
This gives advanced Warband a reason to save cash and prevents them spiraling ahead to far. This was initially easy to calculate till the pelts (javalineer) came around with 25 cost.
Edit: You can also restrict.upgrades to 1 per 5 levels for eachieving spell or skill. That should make it more difficult to min/max spells and skills.
Skipper
-
Why not use a simple upgrade tax. It could be scaled by level. And explain it as follows.
Minions do not come cheap, and good ones are even harder,to keep. Every wizard has to pay an upkeep few to keep their troops happy.
Level. Percent of Minion Cost
0-5. No cost
6-15. 10% cost
16-25. 20% cost
26-35. 30% cost
36-45. 40% cost
If you can not pay the minion they wander off to find work elsewhere.
This gives advanced Warband a reason to save cash and prevents them spiraling ahead to far. This was initially easy to calculate till the pelts (javalineer) came around with 25 cost.
Edit: You can also restrict.upgrades to 1 per 5 levels for eachieving spell or skill. That should make it more difficult to min/max spells and skills.
Skipper
Upgrades to spells are already limited to once per scenario played. Limiting it once every 5 levels is draconic. It would also force an incredible amount of book keeping to manage.
The upgrade costs are similarly heavy handed. At higher levels you would essentially be adventuring just to afford keeping your warband around. It's quite easy to field 900GC of soldiers with 360GC of upkeep.
Although I must admit, I am warming to the idea of giving each soldier a share of the treasure. That would involve too much book keeping.