So if you fail a Fear test, how/when do you recover? Are you affected by Fear the whole encounter, or is there a way to bounce back?

Have your cleric cast Remove Fear on your get up close to your paladin.....


oh wait wrong game.

CARRY ON!


(honestly I don't know)

I don't think there are any rules regarding recovering from fear during an encounter. Of course as soon as the cause of the fear is defeated then the penalties would be removed. There aren't many fear causing enemies, so hopefully, not all the Company will fail their Valour tests. I think that during an encounter they are fighting for their lives anyway so they might not be able to try and shake off the fear, only by defeating that foe, or running away, would they be able to calm down enough.

Perhaps you could have them make another Valour test, at one level higher difficulty than the first, to see if they can shake off their fear. Or perhaps have someone who is not afraid, make an Inspire, Song, or maybe even Awe test, to rally those who are. You could have them require to roll one or more 6's, or if they succeed one ally recovers, great success two recover, and extraordinary success three can recover.

Of course having them roleplay out their inspiring speech could grant that player advancement points, or if they have a relevant Trait to invoke.

With a Hound of Sauron the primary antagonist in my campaign, fear influences the mood and setting quite a bit. In the LB 29, the rules state when the player-hero is no longer "subjected to the source of fear" as the point when the penalty associated with a failed Fear Test no longer affect the player-hero.

If an Adverdary is the source, as long as the player-hero is the presence of his or her foe the Fear lasts. If an object, I assign three levels of influence: (i) immediate physical contact; (ii) close proximity within an area dominated by the physical senses, e.g., within sight, hearing or smell of the source; and (iii) a diffuse presence that affects some area determined by the story.

Also, the Strike Fear special ability of the Hound affects, in my campaign, the Woodmen virtue Natural Watchfulness. Mo specifically, when the Woodmen in question makes an Explore roll to sense the surrounding area.

Regards,
E

Good suggestions, all. But that also answers the question: there isn't a specific rule.

Hehehe

Although this is of the domain of house rules, the "rally comrades" action could allow a retest, or an automatic success on a great or extraordinary success.

You recover by running away.

It's listed under Fear tests in the Loremaster's Book, pg 29.

Emphasis mine.

Pretty clear to me.

Yes, we read that, too, thanks!

It's pretty clear...unless, say, there is more than one Fear-causing presence in the encounter. We were facing a group of Fear-causing creatures. Are you taking Fear tests for each? One for the group of creatures as a whole? Are you afraid as long as any are left? What if there is more than one type of Fear-causing creature?

I can come up with house rules for all cases, of course, but in the absence of rules it would be nice to know what the designers intent was to inform how we house rule. We used Rally Comrade, for example, but that may reduce the effectiveness of Fear more than intended.

Yes, that certainly dilutes Fear considerably and also is in danger of becoming a precedent for when Fear is caused by a single creature.

If there are multiple sources of Fear, I would probably go for one roll for the scariest source only (or one for each type if that made sense). I would judge that the fear would remain though until the hero removed themselves from the entire situation or defeated all sources of fear in the situation. Fear is meant to be a significant effect and not selective removed with good tactics.

A lot of the rules are left unaccounted for on purpose; allows for freedom to use common sense or if no obvious answer presents itself, just allows creative ad libbing

It doesn't have to be D&D 3rd edition where there has to be a rule for everything.

So long as your consistent with an adlibbed, or ad hoc ruling - it will work itself out well.


That being said - something I used in D&D for years as a house rule guideline that I always adhered to - when multiple creatures presented itself with the same effect that needed "saving throws" (the equivalence of a "fear check" against fear of course) was to increase the DC (equivalence of TN) by 2 for every doubling of the creature that there are. This eliminates a bunch of dice rolls of characters rolling saves against 10 creatures - say Harpy's song of charming for instance.


So for the Fear in TOR - say you have 8 Hounds of Sauron (shudder to think), that's doubling the number 4 times - so increase the TN four times. 16 would increase it again.



EDIT: I'm sure that the "intent" in many instances of the writers if you cornered them to ask them is "Hey - whatever seems right for your game." it really does allow for a good wide spectrum of styles and flavor.

Please note that although the following quote is from SirKicley my comments are not specifically directed toward him, but to the community at large.

The problem is when you go over someone else's house. That LM may not be adlibbing the same circumstances in the same manner. Thus an confusing array of adlibbed rules will come to light, causing debate among gamers and force the adoption of semi-official (due to popularity) house rules.*

This trend, and potential problem, could be prevented by additional consideration from the start.

While any Loremaster will try to play TOR with the RAW, the game mechanics will be altered as needed. We all know and accept this fact. So why can't we start by including the additional game mechanics for clarity? It can always be thrown away as necessary by our specific needs as LMs and story-tellers. It cannot be added without additional expense and effort.

*: This gaming community has already created several supplementary articles and PDFs meant to expand on existing content. Consider for a moment the Men of Rohan, various Magic Systems, additional Adversaries, etc that have been released already. The use of which effectively constitutes a house rule.

Two comments

First if you have the actual opportunity to play the same RPG at somebody else's house on a regular basis you are a very fortunate gamer indeed. One off convention games are an entirely different animal to ongoing campaigns with differing house rules. How many on this list actually play TOR with more than one distinct group of people on a regular basis?

Second, the situation you described is exactly where D&D was in the late Seventies. Yes, I was playing back then. Many other Ames have very active fan communities. Dozens of homegrown rulese variants, house rules, optional rules, and fan created materials with out this causing any problem or issue in play.

It's your game. play it the way you like. What does it matter how the guys in some other city, whom you will never meet much less play the game with, play the game?

Quite frankly D&D was a lot more fun when it was three little brown booklets in a little white box. Gygax destroyed that in the first ed AD&D Dungeon Master's Guide when he declared that house rules etc were "not Dungeons and Dragons". It's been overly pedantic rules lawyers and the need for "official" rulings for every thing ever since.

As for recovering from Fear, when you are no longer faced with the fear causing creature(s) you can recover. Having recovered you can go back and try again. Why complicate it beyond this?

That was exactly what I was thinking.

I have no problem at all with one fear-generating creature affecting the party.

I do have a problem with multiple creatures and how fear should be handled in that situation. As well as multiple types of creatures inflicting fear on the party all at the same time. Both of these situations are fairly obvious.

If it is multiples of the same fear causing monster I would just do one test (maybe with a harder TN).

If the heroes are facing multiple types of fear causing monsters at once then they are likely in serious trouble anyway and should be damn scared .

See, I don't see this as a problem.

Of course, as a GM I don't always stay consistent at my own table, so having something different at someone else's isn't much of an issue.

I think one of the gauges of a good GM is the ability to use rulings in addition to rules. The difference being that rules are consistent and unchanging. Rulings are for a specific moment and that moment alone.

One time you fight 3 scary orcs you may roll fear for each one, and the next you may roll once for all three at +2 difficulty. As long as there is a general consistency (you aren't rolling once vs a 12 the first time and then every round vs 18 the next) everything can stay focused on the narrative rather than nitpicking the rules.

The other benefit of rulings is that once players expect one tailored to each situation, they don't head into a situation (either at your table or someone else's) expecting things to be the same.

Maybe that's just an old-school, pre-"a rule for every single action"-d20 mentality, but it's served me well over the years.

LOL indeed.

...

[edit]

Thanks, but all the "well, a good GM..." talk isn't necessary.

Hey Garn – first and foremost, thanks for that caveat – I didn’t take it personally. That being said – I will take the time to address your concerns from my perspective – that and 2 dollars ought to get you a cup of coffee. 

As someone pointed out – USUALLY we (“we” meaning the majority of PRGers) play with the same group of people all the time; with the exception of society/league play that exists in some RPGs. But in that case, the rules ARE clearly defined for all so that this same experience across groups is omnipresent. So within your own groups the rulings should stay pretty consistent and players in that group should eventually become comfortable with each other and how things are ruled on – and so long as that’s consistent in the future – the not so clearly defined rules so that the individual groups can learn to expect and predict a particular LMs approach/outcome and preferences. And in the seldom cases that a new player arrives to the group he merely has the same chance to learn what is done before, and even share some of their own “house rules” or methods (if he came from another group) that the particular table hadn’t thought to try yet. Interestingly enough – I played with many different players and DMs growing up w/ D&D – and while each had their own style and house rules, it was amazing how many completely disassociated people used very similar house rules – maybe not exactly the same – but no doubt similar and covering the same material. Most of the time when something did wind up being different – you merely went with the DMs ruling and moved on.

Garn, you strike me as someone who already knows all this – so I’m not trying to sound like I’m preaching to you or that I know more than you; but perhaps someone out there reading this doesn’t understand how all this works and can benefit from it. Many younger RPGers out there don’t really have much experience in the pre-D20 pre 3rd-edition model of having hard fast rules for everything. I’m been playing RPGs since 1982 and played all editions of D&D (though I only played 4th once – which was more than enough); but for many, when 3rd edition came out in 1999 – that’s the only model they’ve ever known. House rules and Rulings to address obscure situations is a time-tested and proven method that has served many gamers well for a very long time.

The issue you bring up is the way RPGs have been historically being done for a very long time. That was the way D&D worked too, previous to 3rd Ed D20 era. In order to truly account for all possible scenarios and situations you’d have to a book that is twice the size of the Pathfinder Core Rule book – nearly 1000 pages! That would be exhaustingly cumbersome and overwhelming. The rules-light approach leaves many nuances in the hands of LMs and players to use common sense, and when nothing is obvious – to use good judgment and flavor that fits the style of the individual or group playing. I’ve been playing D20 3rd edition and Pathfinder as an extension since it was all released in 1999 and recently realized that I truly miss the more rules-light approach and LMs (or DMs) having the option and faith invested in them to make rulings, and judgments, and good-faith based arbitrary decisions. So long as the players trust the LM to be fair, there really should not be a problem with proceeding that way. In the situations where there is little or no faith in the LM, and the LM is historically unfair, then it’s not a game-system issue; it’s a personal player issue.

So in the end – because it’s nearly impossible and completely improbable to have a comprehensive book to cover every possible scenario – we’re left with a game and system that will have inevitably a number of things that need a spot-ruling – which is one of the primary functions of an LM (DM). And any one person might thing “I get the rules light – but THIS ONE ISSUE should have been better clarified” The problem with that is – what you feel needed more clarification is not the same as what many others feel should have been better clarified. So maybe the designers say okay Garn’s issue needs a rule; but what Garn finds needed a hardfast rule isn’t the same as what Todd or Billy or Doug needed – etc. In the end there’s dozens of players all with different wishes or agendas of what they felt should have been covered. At what point do you draw the line between Rules Light and Rule for Everything. If you address everyone’s wish list – your pendulum swings too far to the “Rules for everything” side. The only other option is to realize and go with the flow that some things are meant to be up to the style of the individual; and your needs are the not same as another who found a different glaring hole that needs a house rule.


Finally – one last point – it’s hard to put a genie back in the bottle once it’s out. The fact that there are not rules for everything allow for individual style, preference, and some customization in a lot of ways – and paves the way for a lot of people finding serenity and happiness with how their game is shaping up. IF on the other hand you make a hard-fast rule in black and white and print it for all, then it’s done, and the LM has so much less wiggle room when someone doesn’t particularly like the way something worked. Now you no longer have an issue with a player and LM coming to an agreement on un clarified ruling, instead you have a player crying foul because he’s set his watch by the fact that Magic Missile automatically hits its target and this DM has simply “broken” the rule because he doesn’t like the way it works. Or the system takes the time to add the ability to play drow and tieflings, and now the player calls foul because a particular DM doesn't want to include them - yet the player feels that "hey they are in the rules." It's easier to disinclude them officially, and if/when a DM wants to allow something, he can, or not include, he can just as easily. Wiggle room to do what feels best.


Something I’ve learned – when it comes to RPGs, Less is More.

Oddly, I don't understand all the confusion.

Personally, the designers intent seems pretty clear. A player-hero that failed a Feat Test is in a state of Fear "for as long as the hero is subjected to the source of fear."

We are talking about individual player-heroes in a Fellowship each with their own experience and resistance to fear. Given the way the rule is written, evey player-herro subjected to the source of fear must make a roll: "If a player successfully ovcomes the test, his character resists and doesn't flinch" (emphasis mine).

For every Adversary that has some fear causing special ability, that Adversary has it as a personal attribute not a pack attribute: "Most creatures display an array of special abilities representing their innate powers, behavioural oddities or unique characteristics" (emphasis mine).

And, reading the two fear striking special abilities they read specific to a creature. Strike Fear requires the expenditure of Hate points. Not only is this creature specific and not pack oriented, bunt every creature with this special ability will not necessarily cause fear. That is, unless the creature spends a Hate point of its own. As for Thing of Terror, only two Adversaries possess that special ability. The Werewolf is a singular creature, and the Mountain Trolls are not necessarily pack creatures.

When it comes to Adversaries as multiple sources of fear, at least with Strike Fear, the Adversary is only a source of fear if they spent the Hate point. If that's the case, then, it makes sense to call for a Fear test for each source. Otherwise, why have more than one Adversary spend the Hate point?

Regards,
E

Good points, E. Granted I fully agree with the assessment. However I think Garn's point and concern - and my responses are more universal to just the cause fear element and worth noting and discussing regardless.

I think we may be able to ascertain the designers' intent by looking at an example extracted from Tales from Wilderland™.

WARNING: A very small spoiler coming for the purposes of the question.

In part three of the Those Who Tarry No Longer, a grand battle takes place called The Battle of the Hilltop.

Because there are so many Orcs, the heroes are required to make a Fear test or suffer the penalty of not being able to invoke an Attribute bonus "for the length of the fight." Multiple Orcs are the source of their Fear and since the TN is not specified, we know it will be 14. If a greater source of Fear were also present, the TN would probably be increased.

But then, something else takes place that affects the results of the Fear tests. The elf-woman, lady Irimë, raises her ring and a blaze of light comes forth and dismays the Orcs. This is all narrated and directed by the Loremaster. As a result, any companion that failed his Fear test earlier, can roll again.

We can conclude that the designer's intentions are for the effects of Fear to last as long as the source of the Fear is there (for the length of a fight). We can also say that Loremasters are given narrative freedom to provide scenarios that could possibly change this duration. The mechanics are solid for determining results, but the Loremaster still has storytelling liberty. Notice though, that the authors still required a roll to reverse the effects of the Fear; they didn't automatically reverse it through the plot.

This post has been edited by JamesRBrown on May 11 2012, 04:20 PM

Thanks JRB. I think that's a good summary.

In this scenario you're rolling because of the insurmountable number of orcs (one overall threat) It still doesn't clarify if you need to roll for each threat if multiple creatures cause this - but such creatures are so rare I dont think it needed to be spelled out specifically - i think that each group will approach it differently.

But universally such notions go beyond just "causing fear"; there may be other such issues when multiple targets are trying to cause the heroes some sort of undesired effect: Such as several partaking in a Bluff or Stealth.

Do you roll for all 20? Or just One and increase the TN or what.


I think different people will address this differently. Whatever makes the most sense to them and is easiest to reflect.


All in all - I think your scenario summed fear up pretty well.

Just wanted to note that it is my intention to respond however I have been busy with other projects the last couple of days. I also need to double-check things. Hopefully I can respond Monday.

I can completely see the authors writing in a second Fear test during a battle because another frightening threat arrives.

First, the companions must make a Fear test because they are overwhelmed by an invading army of Orcs that have surrounded their fortress.

After a few rounds, a massive Troll bursts through the front gate wearing a horned helm and wielding a giant spiked club. Heroes that passed their first Fear test must roll again, but this time at TN 16. If they fail, they cannot invoke Attribute bonuses for the remainder of the fight.

If you would prefer to re-word the duration of the Fear effects, then do it. For example, that second test could have said, After a few rounds, a massive Troll bursts through the front gate wearing a horned helm and wielding a giant spiked club. Heroes that passed their first Fear test must roll again, but this time at TN 16. If they fail, they cannot invoke Attribute bonuses until the Troll is eliminated.

Either way would be within the RAW.

First off, a couple of comments:

• I was seriously distracted (court) this last week and the Fear discussion got away from me completely. My apologies.
• I assumed the TOR game mechanic for Fear was similar to the AD&D spell (fleeing) or LotRO (cowering) - effectively overriding the player's control of their character's actions (ie, LM approved actions or complete control; similar to Madness). This was a major error on my part.
• Now, assuming the above (flee/cower response) then multiple creatures & types would result in adversaries surrounding the Party so they can 'shoot fish in a barrel', or otherwise resulting in a cascading / looping fear situation. (Re-enacting the Nazgul's arrival at Weathertop with this erroneous mechanic would prove its deadly effect - which is kind of what I was starting to do as a response. And why I was taking so long.)
• Expanding further, consider how Fear is inflicted. Targeted on a single person? AoE centered on a target (miasma/cloud)? Targeted terrain AoE attack (grenade)? Aura (AoE centered on adversary)? Line of sight required? Could it be enchancted into an object? Depending on how Fear is inflicted, game balance and combat mechanics would be very seriously affected. This problem would be compounded once we get to the War of the Ring and are standing in the Pelennor surrounded by Fear inducing adversaries. (This one is still an issue to some degree as Fear sources are revealed in future products. TfW is an example - see next post.)
• With the above in mind, consider that the Adversaries we have seen so far are not Undead, Nazgul or Fell Beasts (flying mounts) which are the most likely source for this type of attack.
• Consider two adversaries operating together. Say a Werewolf who simply wants a body to eat and a Ghost who wants to drain you of Hope/Body (either might be usable). Acting in concert this would be a deadly combination. A Ghost which can be seen, but is incorporeal as far as the sense of touch (so, cannot be attacked) and it's interaction with matter (it can attack your body directly, ignoring armor) although its general referred to as being slow moving. Which is fine, because the Werewolf can keep you rooted to the spot if debilitating fear was used.

Continued in next post...

...continued from previous post.

Having said that I, of course , still have some issues (come on, stop groaning!). Here are some individual responses to comments made.


Poosticks7,

This suggestion makes an individual success roll more difficult while making multiple rolls easier; effectively averaging out the series. In the process it might be skewing the results, although I have no way of knowing. (Math was never my forte, so I will accept the word of anyone capable of generating the numbers.)


doctheweasel,
Just, FYI, I never played d20 in any form, ever. Or any 'recent' version of D&D. I've only recently taken a look at either.


SirKicley,
Some very good points. I disagree with a very few minor points - but I'm going to let them alone.

Except... "less is more." Strangely the rules lawyer in me vaguely agrees. Provided the original content handles vital aspects of game mechanics. Like I thought was not happening with debilitating Fear causing the loss of a player's control of their character. In this case the missing ruling would be something that would have to be filled in by something - official, popular or house rule. That was the main point I started, or at least meant, to argue.

Elaudin,

Regardless whether you call them a pack or a group, multiple creatures inflicting debilitating fear would have the same net affect so this point is moot - under my erroneous assumption. Although, a pack based special ability (must have # of creatures present to use) might have been better by preventing or limiting the barrel / cascade situation.

Exactly. Assume for a moment we've got debilitating Fear as an AoE. One Adversary acts as a Fear battery, expending Hate as needed on a centrally located character. Other adversaries take out debilitated characters first and mop up the remainder. Thus my concern. (But once again, for a non-existant mechanic.)


JamesRBrown,

(Sorry for all the editing, but these were the salient points.)

See what I mean, right here, we've already started altering the game's Fear mechanic. This is equivalent to allowing a player to re-roll. Understand, narratively I applaud the situation. Mechanically it is setting two precedents: Fear as a numerically generated special ability (whether a pack or a new combat modifier); and, allowing players to re-roll failed tests (fudging die rolls).

Although, in the case of the Orcs per RAW, it would mean that the Fear affect (normal TOR game mechanic) remains until all of the orcs are killed, defeated, or withdraw. (There might be additional relevant material in TfW which was not quoted, so I'm kind of guessing here.)

Agreed, as you have written it (either example), that makes perfect sense - as long as we don't have debilitating fear.

I am certain I can assure you that no relevant information was left out. The authors are demonstrating the submissiveness of the rules in relation to the Loremaster's narrative. Fear effects and their duration are subject to the events of the story. The mechanics remain solid (the Fear tests are conducted by the book). The default setting for the duration of a Fear effect is until the source of the Fear is eliminated (which is subject to the interpretation of the Loremaster). If the Loremaster wishes to allow a re-roll because of an event, he can do so. If he wishes to create an event that stops the Fear effect without the need for a re-roll, he can do that too. In this case, his event has eliminated the source of the Fear without the need for rolling.

Aren't we over thinking things a bit here?

The rules are fairly straight forward aren't they?

I'm I missing something here, the Lore master just has to use a bit of common sense on when the effects wear off doesn't he?

As far as I know there is always the rule that the Lore Master should go with what feels right if he isn't sure.

From my perspective: we have a classic Rules vs Story scenario and approach. For the record I'll preface this soapbox by stating that neither case is 'wrong'. There's really no "WRONG" way to enjoy a roleplaying game - provided the players are all "enjoying" the game. RPGs are not like Chess - where there are hard-fast binary parameters set for each piece without the slightest bit of wiggle room. RPGs are much more open-ended and forgiving to rule manipulations.

My perception is that you see the following as a "RULE" concern:
"There's a precedent now set that multiple orcs can cause fear that isn't actually in the rules" and now worrying about "if this concept is used again - does the fear last until all orcs are killed, or half of them or what?"

This is a 100% valid concern and observation. It's a rules approach to the scenario. A "rules-lawyer" type player or one who is better suited to having a rule or parameter for most things would definitely see this as - not an abuse - but an otherwise in appropriate use of a mechanic that had not previously been spelled out. Kinda like using Magic Missle to melt some ice that youre feet are stuck in.....


What I see however is a "STORY" concern:
I believe that writers forcing a FEAR check on the heroes is a way of heightening the tension - even in a situation that wouldn't ordinarily be covered by RAW; but it ALSO (and perhaps more importantly) facilitates the presentation a very cool in-story dramatic moment - when the elf-chick show up and inspires courage among the heroes!

In other words it's a cause and effect. I wager the guess that the writers goal was having a cool rallying moment to make a dramatic impact on the story, so they used existing rules (FEAR in this case) to create a scenario in which it can be arbitrarily induced - perhaps when there wasn't already a precedence to do that even though it could be swinging the pendulum of balance away from the heroes; BUT then create a safety net in the way of a rallying NPC to give the heroes a second chance - since the implementation of fear in this case was not 100% RAW.


For me - this does NOT set a precedence that attacks with multiple orcs should force a FEAR check. It instead generates some interesting storyline ideas for implementing similar dramatic moments in the future - using FEAR or even other existing rules. It illustrates (to me) how existing rules can be bent/used/manipulated into being used in more variety of ways - and illustrating that the point of it is that there ought to then be some form of in story benefit to off-set and balance back out the implementation of a mechanic that might otherwise not be RAW appropriate.



As a player and DM/LM who prefers to not let the rules get in the way of a good story (I like the story to drive the rules - not the other way around), nothing irrates me more than when I describe something like the following:

"The demon realizing it underestimated the strength of your group, in its typical cowardice and honorless fashion grabs its now-charmed ally and instantly teleports back to the safety of its keep - Spertent's Rock."

for a player to pipe in with:

"Wait - that's impossible.....what level does it cast Teleport with? That Demon is a "Gorguzlyn" which is only 12 Hit dice and challenge rating is 10 according to the monster manual. It should only be able to cast that spell at 6th level which means he can only teleport up to 300 lbs, and that creature is almost 300 lbs without any gear on!"


In no way am I implying you or anyone here is "that player", but it is a psuedo-hyperbole example of the distinction between letting the rules or allowing the story to drive the plot. And as ridiculous as the cited example sounds or seems, trust me - they happen all the time - particularly when players and DMs/LMs play at diametrically opposed styles "Rules heavy" vs "Story Heavy". And this is in no way trying assign labels that "Rules lawyers dont' roleplay" or any such nonsense. I myeself am pretty 50/50 when it comes to rules vs story, i have a few players are that heavily leaned one way and other players that heavily lean the other. But all of us are good roleplayers. Luckily i play with a very mature group of friends and individuals and so they're wise and savvy enough to realize that 'their way' is not the same way that everyone enjoys it - so they allow for the mixture to exist and I try to keep a good balance of good solid rules structure and adherence, and good solid storyline that may ignore a rule or two when it needs to, without alienating either group.

As I said - there's no WRONG way so long as you're having fun. Both approaches and a dozen more are all just as 'right' as the others when enjoying a RPG.

[/soapbox]

And as folks generate paragraph after paragraph of gaming philosophy manifestos, we see the value of including designer's notes/intent with the rules.

Perhaps merely an anecdote - but a few years ago I wrote a Players Handbook Variant for D&D / Pathfinder version (137 pages long) that revamped a number of rules that I found to be less than fun or to be broken or easily abused (Munchkined). It redesigned a number of facets, and implemented various new mechanics: such as dividing Hit Points into two categories: Vitality and Stamina, a new healing mechanic, Spell Energy (as opposed to Vancian spell slots), Combat allowing full movement and full attacks - but limiting the number of maximum attacks, and doing more damage per attack as levels are progressed (to account for a reduction in number of maximum attacks), including the mechanical based advances of things like Resistance/Deflection/Stat Enhancement bonuses /nautral armor etc into a regulated automatic advancement with levels - as opposed to relying on magical items to provide the key survival statistics, and Saving Throw trees that allowed for continued progression out of negative effects on a tree or scale that progressively got better (to name a few) as well as worked in a bunch of new ideas for the core classes.

On many of the pages as inserts I included DESIGNER NOTES to explain my rationale on how or why something was changed. My players and those I shared them with appreciated it. And for me - I've always more eagerly pursued WHY something works the way it does - not so much HOW it works.