Argonor's Thoughts on Frostgrave

[Argonor]

Let me start by stating, that I am still to play my first game - what I am writing in this - and subsequent posts - is, for now, a result of reading and re-reading the rules and other peoples thoughts/reactions/etc.

1:
It seems a major concern by some people that a 'snowballing' effect can easily occur when one wizard wins big at some point in a campaign.

I have given this some thoughts, and I think I am going to suggest to the peeps I am going to play a campaign with/against that we introduce some equalizing houserules:

Firstly, I think I would like level progression to run more like in traditional RPGs - one suggestion could be

100 xp Lvl 1
300 xp Lvl 2
600 xp Lvl 3
1000 xp Lvl 4
1500 xp Lvl 5
etc.

Secondly I would like to have an underdog bonus to xp - something like maybe 10 x difference in level (or maybe rather 50 x difference).

Then there is the xp for 'killing' other models, making offensive spells much more effective in terms of advancement. Hm.

Maybe other spells that affect opponents should give an added bonus based on the cost/lvl of the targeted model. Don't know. Will have to play some games.

2:

Yes, a wall counts as a terrain piece. It can be climbed. It can also be crumbled. That said, a fire wall is a pretty cool idea. I'll have to think of a way of working that in!

I think there is a LOT of potential for expanding the schools of magic, for example making Elementalist specialization paths into Earth, Air, Fire, or Water.

[Daeothar]

Between this and Calmdown's thread, I think I have to tentatively agree with your recommendations.

Remembering the Necromunda campaign system, there also was a balancing mechanic in there, to make sure an underdog warband/gang would still have a chance and reap higher rewards as well. This worked both ways; the underdog was rewarded more and the other player less, on a sliding scale.

I've played many an unbalanced game (on paper) of Necromunda, that turned out to be pretty close due to this and I was therefore thinking along similar lines as you are (but with nothing fleshed out at all as of yet).

I'm still to play my first game too, but I do intend to start a campaign in the near future, so making sure everything remains enjoyable for every player is certainly important. So I'm very interested to see how your house rules work out...

[Rob_bresnen]

I had bad Legends of the Wild West Campaign. Due to the random nature of the experience tables one sheriff got a killer combination of skills that made him far more deadly that the other characters- even ones with similar levels of experience. His player could just stand him out in the middle of the table with his Winchester rifle and he could nail anyone who went near him, ignoring their cover and so on, while shrugging off their damage with superhuman ease...it was the death of our campaign as no one else could compete. I will give serous consideration to your suggestions which seem to be sensible and well considered, as I don't want my Frostgrave campaign to go the same way.

I recall Necromunda had a way of balancing the difference between experience levels so that even a beginning gang would benefit from fighting a more experienced gang..even if they lost, which meant they could catch up.

[Argonor]

Thanks for the comments - I have sketched up my first warband, and hope to get a couple of test games running somewhen next week - hopeully they will give me some ideas on how fast progression will be with or without house rules.

I have read some comments on the Frostgrave Facebook Group from ppl having played a series of campaign games, that they think things even out through 'clever' use of the rules (i.e. being 'gamey') - but I don't want to play games that way, preferring to make 'themed' wizards, rather that exploiting the rules to make them as powerful as possible.

[Gibby]

Yeah, the whole "gamey" thing has never appealed to me at all, so in a competitive environment I tend to lose badly in my attempts to salvage some kind of narrative aspect to the game. Luckily my best gaming friends tend to have the same outlook as me so I should hopefully not have to worry about any Frostgrave min-maxing. I like the idea of a themed wizard and will likely not give my Thaumaturge a load of evil-ish spells in some weird gamey combo that makes him more powerful but strips away the essence of what I think he is. If that makes sense.

Interesting thoughts on campaign play. Hoping to get my first game in soon.

[Magos Kasen]

Without having played the game yet, I think your adjusted XP system will really mess with the balance - while there's been discussion about how it might be too easy for some wizards to quickly advance, and whether wizard death is needed for the game, the thing to remember is that the wizard is MEANT to advance levels quickly. By making it so XP expensive to advance, you may actually end up rewarding the wizards who already get more XP from direct damage spells netting them kills, while punishing 'support' wizards who get better once they advance a few levels and make their buff spells more reliable.
Starting wizards are meant to be rather weak and limited in their abilities, and I don't think they should artificially be kept low level for longer than needed.

I would suggest something more like:

lvl1-5 - 100xp
lvl6-10 - 200XP
lvl11-15 - 300xp

etc, if you want to slow down high level progression.

[Argonor]

As I already said, I think something might need to be done about only the damaging spells potentially giving an edge to advancement.

I personally prefer low level play to juggling powerhouses (which is, btw, probably why games like Warhammer never really appealed to me), and as far as I can see, the most effective way to avoid snowballing is to make it progressively more expensive to advance, combined with some sort of underdog equalizer. The actual cost/points can be a matter of taste and/or experimenting.