[Dthclaw]

Okay, well, I've been musing about doing my own gaming system for a while now, so I guess I might as well put my thoughts out for analysis, debate, and polishing.

I'm planning on a system named Multiverse (hence the thread title... crazy, ain't it?). This system will use a heavily, HEAVILY modified form of the d20 system - so heavily modified, in fact, that it will be nearly unrecognizable. It'll use the standard d20 dice and many of basic tenants (high rolls good, target roll results, etc) but beyond that it will be completely different. The name of the system, by the way, stems from my desire for the Teltesh setting and the associated Teltesh Multiverse to be the 'flagship' of it.

Some of the basic concepts I've currently got.

10 ability scores, divided into 5 physical scores and 5 'mirroring' mental scores: Strength, Agility, Constitution, Perception, Beauty, Intelligence, Adaptability, Willpower, Focus, and Personality. This is very much open to change, as I think that 10 ability scores are too much but I don't want them unbalanced between physical/mental (and please don't try to convince me that they shouldn't be even in number... you quite simply cannot achieve that with me).

Dump ability score modifiers. Everything will be based on straight numeric values. Eg, if you have 12 Strength, whenever you do something Strength-related you add 12.

Dump Vancian magic as it currently exists. Probably institute a hybrid MP/Vancian system.

Dump pre-designed spells. Make everything based on a number of different-leveled 'seeds' similar to those of the epic system which can be mixed and matched for a comparable (if not superior) variety of spells.

Institute a medium save progression. Thanks to RedSlayer for the idea!

Make classes more fluid. Basic archetypes with a variety of possible class features, etc. Think similar to UA's generic classes, but more flavorful.

No static calculations and no exceptions. A unified DC system across the entire system. This goes along with eliminating the current modifier system.

Infinite level progression. Eliminate the need to distinguish between epic and pre-epic levels.

Design it from the beginning with modular rules incorporation capability. And SUPPORT these modular incorporations (anyone remember incarnum? anyone ever USE incarnum? when was the last time a good psionics book was released? or ToB... or ToM... the list goes on).

Dunno what else at the moment.

[Raven Bloodmoon]

Dthclaw, on Aug 5 2007, 10:43 PM, said:

10 ability scores, divided into 5 physical scores and 5 'mirroring' mental scores: Strength, Agility, Constitution, Perception, Beauty, Intelligence, Adaptability, Willpower, Focus, and Personality. This is very much open to change, as I think that 10 ability scores are too much but I don't want them unbalanced between physical/mental (and please don't try to convince me that they shouldn't be even in number... you quite simply cannot achieve that with me).

First off, I won't try to change your mind on this one, but I do have a couple of comments. Firstly, call Personality what it is. It is a measure of your Charisma. You won't be plagerizing. The concept behind Charisma will be vastly different from that behind dnd Cha. Secondly, while I don't know what Adaptability will measure in game terms, I do know that Perception should be a more mental thing. Even those with good eyes often miss vital clues that half-blind people pick up on. I don't know what physical ability to jam in the hole, though. Perhaps make Perception mental and drop Adaptability? Then you'd have 4 adn 4.

Dthclaw, on Aug 5 2007, 10:43 PM, said:

Dump ability score modifiers. Everything will be based on straight numeric values. Eg, if you have 12 Strength, whenever you do something Strength-related you add 12.

This is interesting, though I have to ask if 10 is still an average ability score? If it is, why would you give someone a bonus for sucking more than normal people? In that respect, d20 rules actually make sense. Why the modifier, I don't know.

[quote name='Dthclaw' date='Aug 5 2007, 10:43 PM' post='39894']Dump Vancian magic as it currently exists. Probably institute a hybrid MP/Vancian system.]/quote]Ding Dong the witch is dead! Yay! Not sure what you mean by hybrid MP/Vancian system, though.

Dthclaw, on Aug 5 2007, 10:43 PM, said:

Dump pre-designed spells. Make everything based on a number of different-leveled 'seeds' similar to those of the epic system which can be mixed and matched for a comparable (if not superior) variety of spells.

While I like the idea, bare in mind that it needs to be simple for players to use and quick to use or game sesions will drag as everyone waits for the party mage to calculate the effects of his next spell. One possibility would be that the doesn't create his spells on the fly, but must learn/research them before hand. He just doesn't pull Time Stop out of his [CHAIR] on a whim unless he's already done adequate research on stopping time and peiced the appropriate seeds together, for example. Also, will this be skill-based at all?

Dthclaw, on Aug 5 2007, 10:43 PM, said:

Institute a medium save progression. Thanks to RedSlayer for the idea!

All hail RedSlayer and his Medium save progression that has permeated all of our class design!

Dthclaw, on Aug 5 2007, 10:43 PM, said:

Make classes more fluid. Basic archetypes with a variety of possible class features, etc. Think similar to UA's generic classes, but more flavorful.

May I suggest looking at Arcana Evolved classes for some ideas as to how to do this. The classes in that book are largely modular while still retaining a great degree of flavor.

Dthclaw, on Aug 5 2007, 10:43 PM, said:

No static calculations and no exceptions. A unified DC system across the entire system. This goes along with eliminating the current modifier system.

I'm not entirely certain I understand what you mean here. Shouldn't the difficulty of jumping 10 feet straight forward without a running start be the same for everyone?

Dthclaw, on Aug 5 2007, 10:43 PM, said:

Infinite level progression. Eliminate the need to distinguish between epic and pre-epic levels.

Oh yeah. That's a good one. One way you can do this is by making all of your classes gain all of its abilities at regular intervals. Otherwise, the DM will need to keep making things up for class abilities as players gain levels beyond those you publish.

Dthclaw, on Aug 5 2007, 10:43 PM, said:

Design it from the beginning with modular rules incorporation capability. And SUPPORT these modular incorporations (anyone remember incarnum? anyone ever USE incarnum? when was the last time a good psionics book was released? or ToB... or ToM... the list goes on).

I have incarnum, ToB, and ToM. I use ToB because I love wuxia stuff and am in the process of integrating it into a proper combat system that uses different strikes and moves beyond, "I stab him in the face." As for a good psionics book, they've released one? But I do certainly see your point. Supporting what you write is extremely important, and it si very rarely done by WotC. Go Dthclaw for breakign the suckiness mold!

[Dthclaw]

Quote

First off, I won't try to change your mind on this one, but I do have a couple of comments. Firstly, call Personality what it is. It is a measure of your Charisma. You won't be plagerizing. The concept behind Charisma will be vastly different from that behind dnd Cha. Secondly, while I don't know what Adaptability will measure in game terms, I do know that Perception should be a more mental thing. Even those with good eyes often miss vital clues that half-blind people pick up on. I don't know what physical ability to jam in the hole, though. Perhaps make Perception mental and drop Adaptability? Then you'd have 4 adn 4.

Hmm. Okay, that seems reasonable.

So, break it down to-

Physical:
Strength
Agility
Constitution
Beauty

Mental:
Intelligence
Perception
Willpower
Charisma

Actually, I like this setup a lot better. Thanks, Raven!

Quote

This is interesting, though I have to ask if 10 is still an average ability score? If it is, why would you give someone a bonus for sucking more than normal people? In that respect, d20 rules actually make sense. Why the modifier, I don't know.

Yes, 10 would still be the average score - but the way a 10 score is used when making checks, etc would be different from d20. It wouldn't actually be giving them any appreciable bonus versus normal d20, since everything is calculated differently. Basically, creatures would do more damage, have more hit points, etc because the fact everything is a straight add. So having a low score - say, 5 or 6 - would still hurt you but without having to deal with modifiers.

Quote

Ding Dong the witch is dead! Yay! Not sure what you mean by hybrid MP/Vancian system, though.

Basically, preparation casters would have the ability to select a given number of seeds per day to use as part of their spells (but otherwise cast on the fly). Spontaneous casters get a limited number of seeds but get and can use more mana (and still cast on the fly) and can eventually get spell-like abilities, etc.

Quote

While I like the idea, bare in mind that it needs to be simple for players to use and quick to use or game sesions will drag as everyone waits for the party mage to calculate the effects of his next spell. One possibility would be that the doesn't create his spells on the fly, but must learn/research them before hand. He just doesn't pull Time Stop out of his [CHAIR] on a whim unless he's already done adequate research on stopping time and peiced the appropriate seeds together, for example. Also, will this be skill-based at all?

*nod*

That's part of the intent, making it easy and fast to use. I don't think it would drag out any longer than a typical caster that has to dig out one book or another to look up the spell they're trying to cast while trying to figure out if that's REALLY what they want to do etc. I'll probably institute some method of bundling multiple seed effects to encourage players to WRITE DOWN what their spell seeds do. Or put something on the character sheet with a page number box.

I'm not currently planning on involving skill checks for spell use. Requiring rolls for casting a spell, let alone its effects, would drag things out too much I think - the goal here is to streamline the cumbersome d20 system, after all.

Quote

May I suggest looking at Arcana Evolved classes for some ideas as to how to do this. The classes in that book are largely modular while still retaining a great degree of flavor.

I might take a look at it.

Quote

Oh yeah. That's a good one. One way you can do this is by making all of your classes gain all of its abilities at regular intervals. Otherwise, the DM will need to keep making things up for class abilities as players gain levels beyond those you publish.

That's the basic idea, yeah. The current plan is that every level a character can select a special ability - casting, manifesting, rogue abilities, fighting skills, etc - so long as they fulfill that abilities requirements and stipulations.

I'm not sure yet how to handle PrCs - or even if this system will need PrCs. I suppose ultra-specific requirements for PrC-like abilities would actually completely eliminate the need for them.

Quote

I'm not entirely certain I understand what you mean here. Shouldn't the difficulty of jumping 10 feet straight forward without a running start be the same for everyone?

Yes, it should. What I was referring to specifically was the way DCs are calculated for special abilities and the like. For example, my biggest problem with spellcasting is the fact that it's the ONLY area that uses 10+SL+ability mod. Nothing else in d20 uses it, and it is ultimately inferior to other save DCs. And not all special abilities use (what should be standard) 10+1/2 HD+ability mod - some monsters have a flat and static save DC for some of their abilities.

Also, with regards to skills, anything that involves another character would be non-static as well. So, yes, jumping x feet is the same. Jumping over another character is not. Acrobating (note- not going to call it Tumble) across rough terrain is the same for everyone. Acrobating around another character to avoid their blows is not. Etc etc - a part of an effort to make it necessary to continue putting points into skills beyond achieving effortlessly any flat DC (something some of my regular players have not approved of, but something I consider necessary nonetheless).

Quote

Go Dthclaw for breakign the suckiness mold!

Well, we'll see. A lot of the will depend on how the basic system winds up working.

[Raven Bloodmoon]

Dthclaw, on Aug 6 2007, 11:00 AM, said:

Actually, I like this setup a lot better. Thanks, Raven!

Anytime, Dthclaw. Glad I could help.

Dthclaw, on Aug 6 2007, 11:00 AM, said:

Yes, 10 would still be the average score - but the way a 10 score is used when making checks, etc would be different from d20. It wouldn't actually be giving them any appreciable bonus versus normal d20, since everything is calculated differently. Basically, creatures would do more damage, have more hit points, etc because the fact everything is a straight add. So having a low score - say, 5 or 6 - would still hurt you but without having to deal with modifiers.

I understand that what you are saying is methematically equivalent in function to what I am proposing. I just suppose I like seeing negatives as beign below the mean and possitives as above the mean. That's just me.

Dthclaw, on Aug 6 2007, 11:00 AM, said:

Basically, preparation casters would have the ability to select a given number of seeds per day to use as part of their spells (but otherwise cast on the fly). Spontaneous casters get a limited number of seeds but get and can use more mana (and still cast on the fly) and can eventually get spell-like abilities, etc.

If I may ask a particularly mindblowing question, why does there have to be two divisions of spellcasters? Why can't everyone just cast spells? IF you're doing such a major revamping, including the chucking of existing classes, why not chuck that idea with it? Aren't you sort of retaining leftover oddities of 2e that only complicate things? I'm not trying ot berate you for this; I'm just trying to get at a point. Deflavor the rules a tad more so when you build your classes, the rules aren't imposing someone else's flavor on you.

Dthclaw, on Aug 6 2007, 11:00 AM, said:

That's part of the intent, making it easy and fast to use. I don't think it would drag out any longer than a typical caster that has to dig out one book or another to look up the spell they're trying to cast while trying to figure out if that's REALLY what they want to do etc. I'll probably institute some method of bundling multiple seed effects to encourage players to WRITE DOWN what their spell seeds do. Or put something on the character sheet with a page number box.

In all honesty, I love the idea of seeds but abandoned it because I suspected that players will end up just creating their own "spells" from these seeds that they rely on regularly. Again, not something I mind, as I personally encourage my spellcasters to create their own spells. Not that they ever do. But the point is that this is a brilliant way to create a treasury of new spells and make your players do the dirty work for you. I'd love to use it, but quite frankly, I'm just going to be lazy and let you do the dirty work of putting it together for me.

Dthclaw, on Aug 6 2007, 11:00 AM, said:

I'm not currently planning on involving skill checks for spell use. Requiring rolls for casting a spell, let alone its effects, would drag things out too much I think - the goal here is to streamline the cumbersome d20 system, after all.

Personally, I don't find a single skill check to cast a spell too much of an interruption. But I suppose this boils down largely to flavor, as well. For me, it's just a mechanical way to represent a person's own skill as a caster. I'm good at X but suck at Y. Just personal preference there.

Dthclaw, on Aug 6 2007, 11:00 AM, said:

That's the basic idea, yeah. The current plan is that every level a character can select a special ability - casting, manifesting, rogue abilities, fighting skills, etc - so long as they fulfill that abilities requirements and stipulations.

So basically archtype-specific feats. Just remember relying on feats is one of the things that hindres the fighter greatly.

Dthclaw, on Aug 6 2007, 11:00 AM, said:

I'm not sure yet how to handle PrCs - or even if this system will need PrCs. I suppose ultra-specific requirements for PrC-like abilities would actually completely eliminate the need for them.

Well, that largely depends on how you DM. What I would suggest rather than offering players PrCs is offering DMs templates that ammount ot PrCs. For instance, if I wish to be a Rider of Rohan (Tolkein Foundation, mail your law suit to PO Box...) I will need A, B, and C abilities, X, Y, and Z feats, and R, S, and T skills. As the DM, you merely offer these to players that are training to become Riders of Rohan. As a player, you're Dm should tell you--obetter yet, you should investigate and find out for yourself--what is required to become a Rider of Rohan if your PC wishes to do so. Thus, while the PrC remains in existance, it is no longer a class a player decides he wants to shoot for when he starts the game and becomes a world-specific thing he may grow into if he even finds otu it exists. No more random quests to Thay just to pick up the Red Wizard PrC "cuz its da sUx0rZ and Iz watns to." Sorry, jus tthought I'd express my opinion of this sort of RPing in a more visual form.

Dthclaw, on Aug 6 2007, 11:00 AM, said:

Yes, it should. What I was referring to specifically was the way DCs are calculated for special abilities and the like. For example, my biggest problem with spellcasting is the fact that it's the ONLY area that uses 10+SL+ability mod. Nothing else in d20 uses it, and it is ultimately inferior to other save DCs. And not all special abilities use (what should be standard) 10+1/2 HD+ability mod - some monsters have a flat and static save DC for some of their abilities.

Yeah, I'll agree that needs to be fixed up a bit. I hate that my level 9 spell of dommy dommness can be thwarted by some first-level numbnuts with a +4 Fort save. Are you considering something based on caster level? I think that would make sense. Incidentally, I am not reexamining my spellcasting system to incorporate some aspect of this. Or my personal favorite: the level 47 epic mage that fails to Charm a peasant because the DC is so amazingly low.

More on topic to this point, I would suggest taking into account the spellcaster's personal potency as a spellcaster (however you plan on measuring it. I'm doing it with the Spirit ability score). You might also wish to factor in skill, using caster level. As for the spell's level, I'm not sure that should even make any difference, come to think of it. I mean, I've got to be at least level 18 to cast a 9th level spell anyway. Doesn't that count for having some skill at casting? Actually, applying the standard 10 + 0.5*HD + ability score, spells do work this way in a really weird, messed up way. Half of 6 is 3 for third level spells. This just never scales up beyond that as you increase your caster level. Perhaps you can use that? I think it would work.

Dthclaw, on Aug 6 2007, 11:00 AM, said:

Also, with regards to skills, anything that involves another character would be non-static as well. So, yes, jumping x feet is the same. Jumping over another character is not. Acrobating (note- not going to call it Tumble) across rough terrain is the same for everyone. Acrobating around another character to avoid their blows is not. Etc etc - a part of an effort to make it necessary to continue putting points into skills beyond achieving effortlessly any flat DC (something some of my regular players have not approved of, but something I consider necessary nonetheless).

Well, duh. Several other variants on d20, including Arcana Evolved, have already moved to this. Tumble checks to avoid AoOs seve as your AC against them, etc. This only makes sense.

[Dthclaw]

Quote

I understand that what you are saying is methematically equivalent in function to what I am proposing. I just suppose I like seeing negatives as beign below the mean and possitives as above the mean. That's just me.

Ah, so you just prefer having an immediately obvious penalty for what you have.

Quote

If I may ask a particularly mindblowing question, why does there have to be two divisions of spellcasters? Why can't everyone just cast spells? IF you're doing such a major revamping, including the chucking of existing classes, why not chuck that idea with it? Aren't you sort of retaining leftover oddities of 2e that only complicate things? I'm not trying ot berate you for this; I'm just trying to get at a point. Deflavor the rules a tad more so when you build your classes, the rules aren't imposing someone else's flavor on you.

Well, part of the beauty of it is going to be that casters are all going to be merged into a single lump of a profession, and the exact choices of level abilities will affect the net result of whether they're a preparation/spontaneous/invoker/hybrid caster.

Eg, every level of Wizardry ability grants X, every level of Sorcery ability grants Y, every level of Invoker ability grants Z.

When I say that there's going to be much more fluid classes, I really mean it. You can play a straight caster that mixes and matches between spontaneous and invoking, or preparation and invoking, or spontaneous and preparation, or or or...

Hell, maybe even calling them classes wouldn't really be appropriate for Multiverse. Profession, role, or even (ripping FF...) job might be more accurate.

Every (profession?) will have the opportunity to gain spells or at least magical abilities as I'm currently imagining it. They just won't be nearly as good at it as someone completely devoted to magic.

Quote

In all honesty, I love the idea of seeds but abandoned it because I suspected that players will end up just creating their own "spells" from these seeds that they rely on regularly. Again, not something I mind, as I personally encourage my spellcasters to create their own spells. Not that they ever do. But the point is that this is a brilliant way to create a treasury of new spells and make your players do the dirty work for you. I'd love to use it, but quite frankly, I'm just going to be lazy and let you do the dirty work of putting it together for me. icon_razz.gif

Thanks... I guess...

I'd prefer doing strictly seeds so that it does force ingenuity on the part of a caster. Even if it's just choking down a single seed over and over again in different power levels.

Quote

Personally, I don't find a single skill check to cast a spell too much of an interruption. But I suppose this boils down largely to flavor, as well. For me, it's just a mechanical way to represent a person's own skill as a caster. I'm good at X but suck at Y. Just personal preference there.

Perhaps, but I'm personally of the opinion that being a caster in and of itself means that someone is of sufficient practice and talent to manage tossing off magic.

Quote

So basically archtype-specific feats. Just remember relying on feats is one of the things that hindres the fighter greatly.

Sort of not really. More like class feature trees.

Quote

Sorry, jus tthought I'd express my opinion of this sort of RPing in a more visual form.

I have... NO... idea... what you were trying to say there.

Quote

More on topic to this point, I would suggest taking into account the spellcaster's personal potency as a spellcaster (however you plan on measuring it. I'm doing it with the Spirit ability score). You might also wish to factor in skill, using caster level. As for the spell's level, I'm not sure that should even make any difference, come to think of it. I mean, I've got to be at least level 18 to cast a 9th level spell anyway. Doesn't that count for having some skill at casting? Actually, applying the standard 10 + 0.5*HD + ability score, spells do work this way in a really weird, messed up way. Half of 6 is 3 for third level spells. This just never scales up beyond that as you increase your caster level. Perhaps you can use that? I think it would work.

The fact that it is a really weird messed up way means that it shouldn't have been an exception in the first place. And yes, that is precisely what spell saves are going to become - the exact same function used for every other save DC calculation, probably whatever comes of the 10+1/2HD+mod setup using the new ability score system.

Quote

Well, duh. Several other variants on d20, including Arcana Evolved, have already moved to this. Tumble checks to avoid AoOs seve as your AC against them, etc. This only makes sense.

One would think, but I have received objections to such things on multiple occasions when working within the d20 system skeleton for D&D.

[Raven Bloodmoon]

1) If the system is about to kick me in the nuts, I prefer it tell me ahead of time. So yes.

2) I suppose that sort of makes sense. It just seems too complicated, still. And what the hell is an invoker?

3) Less talk, more work, minion! I need a system so I can start my spellcrafting sweatshop!

4) I'm of the opinion that anyone can--and most do--suck at their profession.

5) But if you're dealing with a tree that services an infinite level progression, does not the tree need to be of infinite height?

6) Neither do I. I was attempting Newblet Speak.

7) You're going to use 1/2*HD for spells? Not caster level? Personally, I'd think caster level would make more sense, as I could effectively take 19 levels of fighter and one level of wizard adn shoot high-DC charm spells out of my butt. I think caster level is a better measure of skill.

8) Th only peopel that complain about that are the ones that only take 15 ranks in Tumble and assume they're permanently safe from AoOs.

[Dthclaw]

An invoker being something like a Warlock or Dragonfire Adept - someone that gets at-will spell-like abilities. Invocation = invoker

I don't understand what's complicated about it. It's getting a spellcasting class but you choose what form of spellcasting increase whenever you next advance as a caster.

Quote

3) Less talk, more work, minion! I need a system so I can start my spellcrafting sweatshop!

...

Quote

5) But if you're dealing with a tree that services an infinite level progression, does not the tree need to be of infinite height?

Yes, and most - if not all - abilities will go to that height, either as increasing the power of the ability or its uses per day/week. Though a character can choose to advance a single ability indefinitely, though, it would not be in their best interest to do so - a spellcaster can choose awesome power with spells, but have little other ability. Conversely, a warrior can choose to have incredible martial prowess, but have little other ability. Rounded character ability choices serve better than hyper-specializing, though it will still be a viable choice in the system.

Quote

7) You're going to use 1/2*HD for spells? Not caster level? Personally, I'd think caster level would make more sense, as I could effectively take 19 levels of fighter and one level of wizard adn shoot high-DC charm spells out of my butt. I think caster level is a better measure of skill.

No, it's going to be based on CL, not HD - I was using that phrasing as what the baseline for all DC calculations will be, not this one specifically.

Quote

8) Th only peopel that complain about that are the ones that only take 15 ranks in Tumble and assume they're permanently safe from AoOs.

Perhaps, but another part about it is that skills are inadequately described and defined in places (along with abilities) - which leads to the kind of arguments on what Wisdom should encompass, or Charisma, or Tumble, or Bluff/Diplomacy, or...

[Raven Bloodmoon]

1) Ok.

2) It's not that it's complicated. It's that it's unnecessary. Why do you need a difference between preparation and spontaneous casting?

3)

4) That sounds reasonable, although it's still nice to have big-bang type abilities periodically. How would you work those in?

5) Cool. Just wanted to be sure. Also, that counts CL bonuses gained from magic items?

6) Very true. Since it is impossible to list every useage for a skill or ability, I would concentrate on giving a more generalized description taht focuses on teh bounds of the skill rather than listing specific things the skill can do. Including a table fo plausible DCs is a good guideline, but it needs to be just a guideline. If I have 8 ranks in Acrobatics, you aren't going to list every single acrobatic maneuver I can pull off, I would think.

[Dthclaw]

Quote

It's not that it's complicated. It's that it's unnecessary. Why do you need a difference between preparation and spontaneous casting?

Because I enjoy offering choices. And personal preference for the prepared/spontaneous/invocation dichotomy.

Quote

That sounds reasonable, although it's still nice to have big-bang type abilities periodically. How would you work those in?

Big abilities would still be present, but with extensive prerequisites far down a given tree.

Quote

Also, that counts CL bonuses gained from magic items?

I've never heard of CL bonuses from items. Feats, yes, but items already have a CL for their effects, and would use those CLs as normal. However, items wouldn't necessarily use minimum CL like normal d20, so if you want to pay the gold for a powerful magic item it's going to have a powerful effect.

Quote

Very true. Since it is impossible to list every useage for a skill or ability, I would concentrate on giving a more generalized description taht focuses on teh bounds of the skill rather than listing specific things the skill can do. Including a table fo plausible DCs is a good guideline, but it needs to be just a guideline. If I have 8 ranks in Acrobatics, you aren't going to list every single acrobatic maneuver I can pull off, I would think.

I would list some basic uses and DCs for skills.

[Raven Bloodmoon]

Dthclaw, on Aug 7 2007, 01:46 PM, said:

I've never heard of CL bonuses from items. Feats, yes, but items already have a CL for their effects, and would use those CLs as normal. However, items wouldn't necessarily use minimum CL like normal d20, so if you want to pay the gold for a powerful magic item it's going to have a powerful effect.

I'll have to look, but I"m pretty certain there are soem wondrous items that grant a bonus to Caster Level. Might want to make a contingency for that one or just leave it be.

[Dthclaw]

Okay.

I've been thinking more about how to handle different caster types/advancements. More musings on that when I'm reasonably coherent at writing something on the subject.

[Raven Bloodmoon]

Sounds good. I look forward to reading it.

[Rintaran]

I really like where you're going with this. It very much has the feel of, say, Diablo II's skill tree, except with every page available to work from and weavings from every page for cross-requirements. This almost free-form flow of abilities is certainly an excellent idea, though I wonder why, if you're going that route to some degree, you're even bothering to have "jobs" or "classes" at all.

This could be simplified to the extreme by removing those particular boundaries. You could drop all progression charts completely and instead utilize an experience system that allows the player to choose what advances and when. I think this may be pulling a bit more from Shadowrun or Vampire than DND, but by spending the XP (as you would gold), you can save up for abilities (including saves, scores, etc) and purchase them as you please (provided other prerequisites are met). This could actually encourage players to diversify their base abilities, and should encourage both training and research as appropriate ways to gain abilities (which could be granted outside of XP through these methods), ability score points, saves, etc.

Of course, that's probably right off the wall from your intention, but it was something that just came to me while reading over this thread.

On line with the ability scores (of which you have 8), perhaps it may be better to simplify how we come about obtaining them. For example, most DCs are calculated 10+1/2*HD+mod. Under the current system, you're generally looking at a mod up to about 5 prior to master pumpage. But under your system, you're looking at adding up to 18 (before any pumping or racial mods). That's a huge difference, with an 8 HD monster having a DC of 32 for some abilities, but the player still only rolling 1d20 to check for resistance. With the new system you're going for, I have to ask, do you need 3d6 for your stats, or will a 1 or 2d6 be enough to create the advantage or disadvantage necessary? Or, are you going to make things more extreme/simple and just have the player roll 1d20 for the stats?


Just a few thoughts that came to me. Use'm or ignore'm at will.

[Dthclaw]

Rintaran, on Aug 8 2007, 10:47 AM, said:

I really like where you're going with this. It very much has the feel of, say, Diablo II's skill tree, except with every page available to work from and weavings from every page for cross-requirements. This almost free-form flow of abilities is certainly an excellent idea, though I wonder why, if you're going that route to some degree, you're even bothering to have "jobs" or "classes" at all.

This could be simplified to the extreme by removing those particular boundaries. You could drop all progression charts completely and instead utilize an experience system that allows the player to choose what advances and when. I think this may be pulling a bit more from Shadowrun or Vampire than DND, but by spending the XP (as you would gold), you can save up for abilities (including saves, scores, etc) and purchase them as you please (provided other prerequisites are met). This could actually encourage players to diversify their base abilities, and should encourage both training and research as appropriate ways to gain abilities (which could be granted outside of XP through these methods), ability score points, saves, etc.

Of course, that's probably right off the wall from your intention, but it was something that just came to me while reading over this thread.

On line with the ability scores (of which you have 8), perhaps it may be better to simplify how we come about obtaining them. For example, most DCs are calculated 10+1/2*HD+mod. Under the current system, you're generally looking at a mod up to about 5 prior to master pumpage. But under your system, you're looking at adding up to 18 (before any pumping or racial mods). That's a huge difference, with an 8 HD monster having a DC of 32 for some abilities, but the player still only rolling 1d20 to check for resistance. With the new system you're going for, I have to ask, do you need 3d6 for your stats, or will a 1 or 2d6 be enough to create the advantage or disadvantage necessary? Or, are you going to make things more extreme/simple and just have the player roll 1d20 for the stats?
Just a few thoughts that came to me. Use'm or ignore'm at will.

Hmm. Those are some very good points...

I had thought about dumping classes/jobs/whatever altogether, but that seemed (to me, at least) to remove a lot of the skeleton behind the system. Saves, HD, skills, etc seem like they would break down without some sort of measuring stick like levels and classes. Plus, by limiting certain selectable features to certain jobs, you can still have the 'cross-selection' sort of stuff but geared more towards keeping differentiation. Having played enough Morrowind and Oblivion and other class-less systems, I found that some boundaries on the edges of character roles actually helps distinguish them from each other enough to keep them interesting. Though the XP-as-ability-purchase idea is really cool. I might incorporate that in some form or another as a way to expand characters further (with stipulations, of course).

I'm just using the 10+1/2 HD+ability as a placeholder until I come up with a more mathematically balanced calculation. Because you're right, that would get crazy fast

As for ability score generation, I'm probably just going to use a revised version of what's been working really, really well for me in standard D&D. For my D&D group I've been telling them to make their ability scores total up to 76 before level and racial modifiers. That way you've got balance across all the players and NPCs - I really, really dislike the 'NPCs shouldn't be extraordinary' philosophy, especially when it's extended to mean 'the players should be treated as superheroes.'

[Rintaran]

Quote

'm just using the 10+1/2 HD+ability as a placeholder until I come up with a more mathematically balanced calculation.

A simpler possibility for something that requires scaling would be ability+1/2 HD. It's that extra 10 off the top that makes things exceptionally high. The 35 from my previous example drops quickly to a 25, which is a far more reasonable number, even if its still incredibly high (think of damage with strength bonus, ouch!). Additionally, if you think of removing mods and just using abilities, we've got our spell casters rolling 1d4 and adding their Con to their HP. Between 1d4 and 1d6, when you add, say, 14 to either one, it doesn't seem like rolling the dice is doing a whole heck of a lot, especially if you still add that fighter's 18 strength to the damage he deals...

Quote

I had thought about dumping classes/jobs/whatever altogether, but that seemed (to me, at least) to remove a lot of the skeleton behind the system. Saves, HD, skills, etc seem like they would break down without some sort of measuring stick like levels and classes. Plus, by limiting certain selectable features to certain jobs, you can still have the 'cross-selection' sort of stuff but geared more towards keeping differentiation. Having played enough Morrowind and Oblivion and other class-less systems, I found that some boundaries on the edges of character roles actually helps distinguish them from each other enough to keep them interesting. Though the XP-as-ability-purchase idea is really cool. I might incorporate that in some form or another as a way to expand characters further (with stipulations, of course).

Well, it's possible to get around these difficulties with the initial character creation and the XP-buy. By providing a set number of XP at the outset of the game, players spend this initial XP to determine their initial saves, abilities, skills, HD, etc. Now none of these things go up (add a die, whatever) without the player paying more of their XP to increase them. This can cause confusion as there's no requirement for players to remain with, say, a d4 as their XP may allow them to purchase an additional d12 for their next HD. However, off the start, by having a limited amount, it allows for a wide range of customization, allowing players who should have some idea of how they want to RP their character, to craft them in those lines. Additionally, this automatically ensures that starting characters are "balanced" provided that the XP costs of different abilities and saves are balanced to begin with.

Hmm... Maybe I should think about hacking something down along those lines. Could be neat.