PDA

View Full Version : Dungeons and Dragons: Version Xallace



Xallace
2009-04-21, 09:32 AM
So I've come to the conclusion that it's time to make my own version of the d20/Dungeons and Dragons game. I've played plenty of 3.5, a little of 4th, and frankly, I'm not quite satisfied with either one. I like them both well enough; they have their strong points as well as their weaknesses.

Now, this is really in the working stages, still open to change and balance and ideas from the community. For now, I would like to reveal some of the base parts of this new version, so please enjoy, consider, and give feedback.

Base Changes

We're using Dungeons and Dragons v3.5 as a base. That way I can explain what changes rather than explain things from the ground up. I will explain everything in the full articles, just not in this synopsis.
No Attacks of Opportunity. Frankly, I feel that they slow down the game and sometimes don't even make any sense! So I think the best way to deal with them is to get rid of them entirely.
No Iterative Attacks. These are those extra attacks you get when your Base Attack Bonus reaches a certain number. They're useless. You're not even likely to hit with anything after attack #2, unless you're fighting a lot of little enemies (at which point, Great Cleave, seriously). We'll try to balance the non-magicals and the magicals here, but these multi-attacks are not how it's gonna happen.
Hit Points replaced by the Injury system. After playing Mutants and Masterminds, I became a huge fan of this little mechanic. It's nice, simple, makes sense, and requires half the math.
Defenses rather than Saves. This is one of those "Only if I can work out all the kinks" ideas. You have your Combat Defense (previously known as your AC), Fortitude Defense, Reflex Defense, Will Defense, and Toughness Defense (previously known as your Hit Points). Each class has a certain progression in each Defense (ala the way Base Saving Throw bonuses worked in 3.5, but with more than two progressions). Toughness doesn't progress by class, but there are other ways to improve it.
Less Classes, More Options. This is just a personal preference (as is everything else on this list, I suppose), but I like the idea of only having a few classes, but being able to do tons with those classes. So far I've narrowed it down to Barbarian, Cleric (options for which allow you to create Paladins and Druids as well), Fighter, Rogue (which includes the Bard and the Ranger), the Warlock, and the Wizard.
Simplified Skills, but Greater Selection. This is pretty simple. We merge a bunch of closely related skills together for simplicity's sake. Following that, there are no longer class skill lists. Instead, each class can choose a certain number of class skills upon which to spend skill points.
Weapon Groups instead of Simple/Martial. This comes from Unearthed Arcana. The idea is that upon character creation, you get to choose from closely-related groups of weapons for your character to be proficient with. The number of groups you get depends on what class you start with. Multi-classing later does not gain you more proficiencies, you have to take a feat for that.
Races Feel Different, Act Different. This idea stems from comments that "by mid levels, the difference between a dwarf fighter and an elven fighter are negligible." While I don't plan for any racial progressions (though I like the possibility), I have some ideas to allow for this. Maybe the fact that the races become inconsequential is some kind of message about unity, but when I play an elf or a lizard-folk or whatever else, I don't want anyone to forget it.
No Vancian casting. The more alternate options I'm presented, the more I realize that I dislike Vancian casting. Additionally, I dislike that fact that arcane and divine casting is so homogenized.
Two Ability Bonuses Instead of One. Not too important, I just liked that 4E let us boost two ability scores every four levels.
Prestige Paths. A prestige class represents specific training, specially acquired ability, and a rather narrow focus. Does that sound like the concept behind "feats" to anyone else? This idea is the furthest back in the concept stage. Simply, a "prestige path" is something of a "multi-feat." For giving up certain levels of feat slots, you instead gain a set of special abilities. Presumably, you get more power/skill/whatever in exchange for the lack of versatility.


Updates
4/22/09: Sorcerer removed from class roster. Warlock added to class roster.4/22/09: What is a Class? section added.
4/24/09: Added "Healing, Short Rests, and Extended Rests to the Table of Contents. Added Toughness and Damage section.
4/27/09: Small revision to Elves, Dwarves, Gnomes, and Orcs. Revision to Stunned section of Toughness.
5/03/09: Slight changes to Orcs. Added Attacks, Damage, and Defenses section. Changed Toughness and Damage to Toughness and Wounds. Added Racial Substitution Levels and Alternate Class Features to Table of Contents.

Xallace
2009-04-21, 02:11 PM
Player's Handbook
1. Introduction
2. The Basics

I. Rolling the Dice
II. Ability Scores
III. Level Advancement
IV. Alignment
V. Any-Time Actions
3. Races (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6020488&postcount=3)

I. What Are Character Races?
II. Humans
III. Dwarves
IV. Elves
V. Gnomes
VI. Halflings
VII. Orcs
VIII. Half-Races
IX. Racial Substitution Levels and Alternate Class Features
4. Character Classes

I. What are Character Classes? (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6025764&postcount=10)
II. The Barbarian
III. The Cleric

A. Cleric Domains
IV. The Fighter
V. The Rogue

B. Rogue Exploits
VI. The Warlock
VII. The Wizard
VIII. Multi-Classing
5. Skills

I. What are Skills?
II. Skill Points
III. Skill Basics
IV. The Skills

A. Acrobatic
B. Appraise
C. Arcana
D. Athletics
E. Concentration
F. Craft
G. Decipher Script
H. Diplomacy
I. Disable Device
J. Endurance
K. Handle Animal
L. Heal
M. Insight
N. Intimidate
O. Knowledge
P. Legerdermain
Q. Perception
R. Perform
S. Profession
T. Ride
U. Stealth
V. Survival
W. Use Rope
6. Feats

I. What are Feats?
II. Feat List and Descriptions
7. Equipment

I. Weapons
II. Armor
III. Mundane Equipment
8. Adventuring

I. Size Categories
II. Carrying and Weight
III. Movement and Travel
IV. Services
V. Healing, Short Rests, and Extended Rests
9. Combat

I. The Basics of Combat

A. Initiative
B. Attacks, Damage, and Defense (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6064044&postcount=17)
II. Special Actions
III. Toughness and Wounds (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6033470&postcount=11)
10. Magic

I. Cleric Prayers
II. Warlock Pacts
III. Wizard Spells
IV. Rituals

Xallace
2009-04-21, 04:30 PM
Character Races

OK, so you may be wondering what's up with these races here. Well, this is what was going through my head.
They have to feel different. Each race, like each class, needs its own little niche. Now that niche is not as important as those provided by the class, but the idea is that the race/class combination will make your character stand out more. These traits are only the barest framework, though. Racial feats, substitution levels; stuff like that will cement the niche in more.

Ability Score Penalties are silly. Now that is not to say that flaws are silly; they give character! I just don't think you should unfairly penalized because you feel like playing, say, a dwarf sorcerer. Instead, each race will have a number of flaws (currently that number is 1) that try to penalize each race about equally, no matter the class chosen. I tried to make the flaws little things; things that don't cripple, but are just inconvenient.

Half-Races should be more than just elf and orc. Currently working on the mechanics of this one. I figure there should be a way to effectively combine two races rather than just writing up all of the possibilities.


Humans
Humans have the following traits:
Medium Size
Base Land Speed 30 feet (6 squares)
Humans gain a +2 bonus to any one ability score, chosen at 1st level.
Humans gain a +2 racial bonus to any one skill, chosen at 1st level.
Humans gain one bonus feat at first level. You must meet the prerequisites for this feat.
Humans gain one bonus skill known when choosing class skills. This applies to each class in which the character gains levels.
Humans gain 4 bonus skill points at 1st level.
Humans gain 1 bonus skill point per level above 1st.


Dwarves
Dwarves have the following traits:

Medium Size
+2 Constitution, +2 Wisdom
Dwarves gain a +2 racial bonus to Endurance and Insight checks.
Base Land Speed 20 Feet (4 Squares)
Darkvision: Dwarves can see up to 60 feet in conditions of absolute darkness.
Enduring: Any effect that would render a dwarf fatigued has no effect, and any effect that would render a dwarf exhausted instead renders him fatigued. If the dwarf is already fatigued when affected by an effect that would cause exhaustion, the dwarf becomes exhausted as normal.
Unwinded: Dwarves can move at their full speed while wearing medium or heavy armor, or while carrying a medium or heavy load.
Light Sensitivity: Dwarves are naturally subterrainian creatures, and as such have difficulty handling abrupt changes in light. If a dwarf is suddenly exposed to bright light (such as the sun or that produced by the Daylight prayer), the character is dazed for one round, and takes a -2 penalty to Attack Rolls for 1 minute. Slow exposure to bright light does not cause this discomfort.



Elves
Elves have the following traits:

Medium Size
+2 Dexterity, +2 Intelligence
Elves gain a racial +2 bonus to Arcana and Perception checks.
Base Land Speed 35 feet (7 squares)
Trance: Elves do not sleep, but instead enter a trance. Four hours of trancing is equivalent to eight hours of sleep for the purposes of healing and rest. In addition, elves are immune to Sleep effects.
Athletic Finesse: Elves may choose to use their Dexterity modifier in place of their Strength modifier on Athletics checks.
Combat Finesse: Elves may choose to use their Dexterity modifier in place of their Strength modifier on Attack Rolls.
Enhanced Senses: Elves roll twice on Perception checks and take the higher result.
Fragile: Elves are agile creatures, but they have a tough time enduring severe pain. If an elf becomes stunned from an attack, he drops all held items. If the stunning results from damage, the elf takes two wounds instead of one.


Gnomes
Gnomes have the following traits:

Small size (+1 Size bonus to Combat Defense and Attack Rolls, +2 Size bonus to Stealth checks, -4 penalty to Grapple checks, -2 penalty to Athletics checks)
+2 Constitution +2 Intelligence
Gnomes gain a +2 racial bonus to Arcana and Stealth checks.
Base Land Speed 20 feet (4 squares)
Logical Deduction: Gnomes may use their Intelligence modifier to modify Perception and Insight checks, rather than their Wisdom modifier.
Quick Learner: When an Extraordinary or Supernatural attack succeeds against a gnome, she gains a +1 bonus to her Defense against that specific attack for the remainder of the encounter. If the attack succeeds more than once in the same encounter, the bonuses stack.
Master Trickster: Gnomes may use their Intelligence modifier to modify Bluff and Disguise checks, instead of their Charisma modifier. Disguise checks to remain "In Character" (as noted in the Disguise skill description) still use the gnomes' Charisma modifier.
Racial Inattentiveness: Gnome attention spans are short, a side effect of their continual scanning for minute changes in the surroundings. When using the Concentration skill, Gnomes must roll twice and take the worse result. In addition, gnomes may never "Take 20" on a skill or ability check, even if a feat or class feature specifically allows it.


Halflings
Halflings have the following traits:

Small Size (+1 size bonus to Combat Defense and Attack Rolls, +2 Size bonus to Stealth checks, -4 penalty to Grapple checks, -2 penalty to Athletics checks)
+2 Dexterity +2 Charisma
Halflings gain a +2 racial bonus to Acrobatics and Legerdermain checks.
Base Land Speed 25 feet (5 squares)
Courageous: Halflings add their Charisma modifier to Will Defense against Fear effects, in addition to their Wisdom modifier.
Lucky: Halflings may reroll any single die roll, once per encounter.
Personable: Halflings make Diplomacy checks in half the time noted in the description of the Diplomacy skill.
Light Build: Halflings are very light creatures, even for their size. When subjected to an effect that would forcibly move the halfling (such as a bull rush, slam, or severe winds), the character is treated as one size category smaller.


Orcs
Orcs have the following traits:

Medium Size
+2 Strength +2 Wisdom
Orcs gain a +2 racial bonus to Intimidate and Survival checks.
Base Land Speed 30 feet (6 squares)
Powerful Build: Orcs can wield weapons designed for creatures of one size category larger than themselves.
Brute Strength: Orcs can deal lethal damage with their unarmed attacks, rather than only non-lethal. In addition, Orcs gain a +3 racial bonus on Strength checks to break or burst objects.
Brawny: Orcs are considered to have an additional 4 points of Strength for the purpose of carrying capacity. An orc overloaded (lifting double his maximum load off of the ground) may move at fifteen feet per round, rather than 5. Orcs still take all other penalties of being overloaded.
Oversized Vitals: Being the large, athletic creatures that they are, orc organs have developed larger than average. Attacks against orcs add +1 to their critical threat range. This adjustment comes after all other adjustments, such as a Keen weapon or the Improved Critical feat.

erikun
2009-04-21, 09:36 PM
Hm, interesting. What are the reasons for your revision? I don't want to throw a wet blanket over everything, but remember that you're competing with stuff like Pathfinder and d20 Rebirth (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=98722) with this project; you probably won't get the same attention as if you were the only one working on such a project.

Well, with that, let's review the points you've made.




No Attacks of Opportunity. Frankly, I feel that they slow down the game and sometimes don't even make any sense! So I think the best way to deal with them is to get rid of them entirely.

Well, I suppose this could work with a 2e-like system, where a player can just say "I get in his way if he goes after the wizard." However, if you're using a 3e-like grid system, then AoO helps to control your surrounding area. Otherwise, anyone and everyone is free to wander past you and nibble on the squishy archers and spellcasters.



No Iterative Attacks. These are those extra attacks you get when your Base Attack Bonus reaches a certain number. They're useless. You're not even likely to hit with anything after attack #2, unless you're fighting a lot of little enemies (at which point, Great Cleave, seriously). We'll try to balance the non-magicals and the magicals here, but these multi-attacks are not how it's gonna happen.

Makes sense, although like 4e, you need to make the basic attacks more useful to cover the otherwise lack of offense.



Hit Points replaced by the Injury system. After playing Mutants and Masterminds, I became a huge fan of this little mechanic. It's nice, simple, makes sense, and requires half the math.

Any particular reason for this? I'm not familiar with M&M, but most Wounds/Injury systems work around the assumption that combat will be rare... and deadly. Don't expect it to run much like 4e, or even 3.5e, if a single dragon breath can cripple a player.



Defenses rather than Saves. This is one of those "Only if I can work out all the kinks" ideas. You have your Combat Defense (previously known as your AC), Fortitude Defense, Reflex Defense, Will Defense, and Toughness Defense (previously known as your Hit Points). Each class has a certain progression in each Defense (ala the way Base Saving Throw bonuses worked in 3.5, but with more than two progressions). Toughness doesn't progress by class, but there are other ways to improve it.

It works for 4e, but I'm not sure what Toughness Defense is supposed to be/represent. Care to enlighten me?



Less Classes, More Options. This is just a personal preference (as is everything else on this list, I suppose), but I like the idea of only having a few classes, but being able to do tons with those classes. So far I've narrowed it down to Barbarian, Cleric (options for which allow you to create Paladins and Druids as well), Fighter, Rogue (which includes the Bard and the Ranger), the Sorcerer, and the Wizard.

I find this list a bit ironic. Why fold Paladin and Druid into the Cleric, but keep Sorcerer and Wizard seperate? How is the Barbarian that different from the Fighter? What is it about the Rogue that makes the Ranger so roguelike?



Simplified Skills, but Greater Selection. This is pretty simple. We merge a bunch of closely related skills together for simplicity's sake. Following that, there are no longer class skill lists. Instead, each class can choose a certain number of class skills upon which to spend skill points.

So my high-INT wizard can sneak and pick locks as well as the thief?



Weapon Groups instead of Simple/Martial. This comes from Unearthed Arcana. The idea is that upon character creation, you get to choose from closely-related groups of weapons for your character to be proficient with. The number of groups you get depends on what class you start with. Multi-classing later does not gain you more proficiencies, you have to take a feat for that.

Interesting, but how does this handle exotic weapons? Or if not, then what becomes the difference between a longsword and a bastard sword? Do all one-handed swords deal 1d8 damage?



Races Feel Different, Act Different. This idea stems from comments that "by mid levels, the difference between a dwarf fighter and an elven fighter are negligible." While I don't plan for any racial progressions (though I like the possibility), I have some ideas to allow for this. Maybe the fact that the races become inconsequential is some kind of message about unity, but when I play an elf or a lizard-folk or whatever else, I don't want anyone to forget it.

This can be done, I suppose, if the races have interesting abilities that they can expand upon. I don't think +2 to a pair of skills really counts, though. I'm not seeing much difference between the races you listed beyond the Dwarf's Light Blindness or Halfling's Lucky.



Two Ability Bonuses Instead of One. Not too important, I just liked that 4E let us boost two ability scores instead of one.

Not too major, although it does shrink the difference between races, likely creating some overlap. (Just look at the number of Str/Con races, or Dex/Wis, in 4e so far.)



Prestige Paths. A prestige class represents specific training, specially acquired ability, and a rather narrow focus. Does that sound like the concept behind "feats" to anyone else? This idea is the furthest back in the concept stage. Simply, a "prestige path" is something of a "multi-feat." For giving up certain levels of feat slots, you instead gain a set of special abilities. Presumably, you get more power/skill/whatever in exchange for the lack of versatility.

4e Paragon Paths stink. There, I said it. It's like getting a new feat or power at level 11. Yeah, it's something "new" you can do, but it feels more like a 'welcome to level 11' ability than a new direction for the character, or any kind of real achievement. Maybe that's just me, though....

Mando Knight
2009-04-21, 09:53 PM
I'd change Light Blindness to Light Sensitivity. Semantically, it makes more sense: If you're sensitive to bright light, you're adversely affected when you're suddenly exposed to it. If you're blinded by bright light, you're blind. The name of the ability should fit the effect of that ability. Otherwise you end up with weird ability/name inconsistencies that lead to hours of debates in RAI vs RAW, etc.

SurlySeraph
2009-04-21, 11:41 PM
Hm. As said, there are a lot of competing 3.75s out there. With that said, I like some of your ideas, especially for the races. While I like giving races stat penalties, the bonuses you give all make sense, and the racial features even more so. "Enduring" is a hell of a lot dwarfier than "good at dodging attacks from giants," and when I hear "gnome" I think "eccentric genius," not "can magically speak to moles." And I definitely agree that half-races should be handled separately.
The skills revision is good; I think it goes just far enough.
Weapons groups! Thank you! It's the most sensible rule that no one ever implements.
I'm not sure I agree about getting rid of AoOs and iterative attacks. They're kinda crucial to a lot of combat builds, they're useful to almost every build, and I don't think they slow things down too much. In fact, I've considered houseruling that all characters get an extra AoO every time they get an extra iterative attack. However, this is linked into a parrying system that makes combat a lot more dynamic and less about taking turns attacking, and now I'm rambling and distracting readers from the rules we're actually discussing here.
Just call Toughness Toughness. It doesn't need to be called a defense. Personally, I think hit points work better than the injury system for heroic fantasy, but it's your call.
I definitely agree with less classes, more options; I think you should further consider folding the Sorcerer into the Wizard and the Barbarian into the Fighter. I think base classes should be few but highly customizable to get whatever concept the player wants. Seriously, why does something as specific as the Dragon Shaman need its own base class?

Xallace
2009-04-22, 06:05 AM
Hm, interesting. What are the reasons for your revision? I don't want to throw a wet blanket over everything, but remember that you're competing with stuff like Pathfinder and d20 Rebirth (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=98722) with this project; you probably won't get the same attention as if you were the only one working on such a project.

Oh, I know. But I don't think it's really so much about competition as it is about options; I like pathfinder and I think Fax Celestis is doing an awesome job. But both still do things that I don't really agree with, design-philosophy-wise. So, thought I'd have a go.


Well, with that, let's review the points you've made.

Cool.




Well, I suppose this could work with a 2e-like system, where a player can just say "I get in his way if he goes after the wizard." However, if you're using a 3e-like grid system, then AoO helps to control your surrounding area. Otherwise, anyone and everyone is free to wander past you and nibble on the squishy archers and spellcasters.

It's a good point. But that said, I figure the fighter or barbarian will have some special abilities (or, more likely access to feats) that let them step in the way of oncoming attacks and whatnot. Worth taking them back into consideration, though.


Makes sense, although like 4e, you need to make the basic attacks more useful to cover the otherwise lack of offense.

Yes indeedy.


Any particular reason for this? I'm not familiar with M&M, but most Wounds/Injury systems work around the assumption that combat will be rare... and deadly. Don't expect it to run much like 4e, or even 3.5e, if a single dragon breath can cripple a player.


It works for 4e, but I'm not sure what Toughness Defense is supposed to be/represent. Care to enlighten me?

This is, probably more than anything else here, a personal preference rather than a mechanical "fix." Now the idea here, presented in Unearthed Arcana and Mutants and Masterminds, is pretty simple. All Damage has a DC. With your Toughness save, you try to overcome that damage. If you succeed, you shrug off the wound. Fail by 1-9, you take a hit and subsequently a penalty to your Toughness save until you're healed (and hits stack, of course). Fail by 10 or more, you're unconcious or dying.

So what with the defenses, we just reverse that. You try to "hit" the Toughness Defense with your Damage. Succeed, they take damage. Succeed by a lot, it really hurts.

My reason for wanting to use defenses is the same reason 4E did: If you're doing something, you're the one rolling dice. I'm heavily considering also allowing "active defenses," which means that you can make an opposing roll against the attack if you prefer.

This also means that damage values change significantly.

As for the lethality, it'll take some work, but I really believe it can work for an epic fantasy game.


I find this list a bit ironic.
Irony that I'll admit was not lost on me.


Why fold Paladin and Druid into the Cleric, but keep Sorcerer and Wizard seperate? How is the Barbarian that different from the Fighter? What is it about the Rogue that makes the Ranger so roguelike?

Partly because I didn't want to go all the way back to "Fighting-Man / Thief/ Magic User." Sorcerer and Wizard I felt- taken in the right direction- were different enough to warrant being separate classes. I also forgot to mention that I don't intend to use Vancian casting, I should go amend the list.

I really have no reason for Barbarians to be separate.



So my high-INT wizard can sneak and pick locks as well as the thief?

Sorta. The whole idea behind the rogue revamp is to make it not just the skill "monkey," but the skill "master." One current plan- which will probably be met with a fair amount of criticism- is to give rogues a number of class features under the title "exploits." These exploits allow you to do things with skills that no other class can. This includes things like Trap Finding (Perception), Inspire Courage (Perform), possibly even Track (Survival). So while you can have as high a bonus, the rogue still has an advantage in his particular field.


Interesting, but how does this handle exotic weapons? Or if not, then what becomes the difference between a longsword and a bastard sword? Do all one-handed swords deal 1d8 damage?
One of the Weapon Groups is "Exotic Weapons," which lets you wield the exotic weapons in each of the groups you have access to. Now, due to the Toughness system, there will be some unfortunate merging of some weaponry. On the other hand, as damage homogenizes, other weapon properties become a bit more important.



This can be done, I suppose, if the races have interesting abilities that they can expand upon. I don't think +2 to a pair of skills really counts, though. I'm not seeing much difference between the races you listed beyond the Dwarf's Light Blindness or Halfling's Lucky.

Since most of their abilities are "Can use X instead of Y?" Yeah, I realize. Racial abilities may expand or change in the future.



Not too major, although it does shrink the difference between races, likely creating some overlap. (Just look at the number of Str/Con races, or Dex/Wis, in 4e so far.)
Oh, I meant every four levels. Whoops!


4e Paragon Paths stink. There, I said it. It's like getting a new feat or power at level 11. Yeah, it's something "new" you can do, but it feels more like a 'welcome to level 11' ability than a new direction for the character, or any kind of real achievement. Maybe that's just me, though....

Yeah, Paragon paths stink. Maybe I didn't explain with enough clarity? The idea behind this concept- and remember, this idea hasn't gone beyond the idea stage yet- is that you essentially get a small "feat package" instead of getting to choose for a few levels. You get slightly more from this "package" than you would from just taking feats normally, but it's a very narrow focus. So, for instance, the Assassin path would net you Death Attack, Poison Use, a few Arcane Spells, and you give up your 6th, 9th and 12th feat slots (just an example, not the actual plan).


I'd change Light Blindness to Light Sensitivity. Semantically, it makes more sense: If you're sensitive to bright light, you're adversely affected when you're suddenly exposed to it. If you're blinded by bright light, you're blind. The name of the ability should fit the effect of that ability. Otherwise you end up with weird ability/name inconsistencies that lead to hours of debates in RAI vs RAW, etc.

Good call! Changing that right now.


Hm. As said, there are a lot of competing 3.75s out there. With that said, I like some of your ideas, especially for the races.

Thank you kindly.


While I like giving races stat penalties, the bonuses you give all make sense, and the racial features even more so. "Enduring" is a hell of a lot dwarfier than "good at dodging attacks from giants," and when I hear "gnome" I think "eccentric genius," not "can magically speak to moles." And I definitely agree that half-races should be handled separately.

Sweet.


The skills revision is good; I think it goes just far enough.

Glad you like it!


Weapons groups! Thank you! It's the most sensible rule that no one ever implements.

And I never understood why.


I'm not sure I agree about getting rid of AoOs and iterative attacks. They're kinda crucial to a lot of combat builds, they're useful to almost every build, and I don't think they slow things down too much. In fact, I've considered houseruling that all characters get an extra AoO every time they get an extra iterative attack. However, this is linked into a parrying system that makes combat a lot more dynamic and less about taking turns attacking, and now I'm rambling and distracting readers from the rules we're actually discussing here.

Certainly worth thinking about.


Just call Toughness Toughness. It doesn't need to be called a defense. Personally, I think hit points work better than the injury system for heroic fantasy, but it's your call.

I suppose I'll find out in playtesting.


I definitely agree with less classes, more options; I think you should further consider folding the Sorcerer into the Wizard and the Barbarian into the Fighter. I think base classes should be few but highly customizable to get whatever concept the player wants. Seriously, why does something as specific as the Dragon Shaman need its own base class?

As mentioned... yeah. I guess I have no good reason for not folding them together, I just like them being their own classes.

Thank you all for reading!

erikun
2009-04-22, 07:13 PM
Sorry if I came off as a bit rough; reading through it again, I certainly sounded like it. I was mainly trying to hit on the high points, either what I saw might be a problem, or my thoughts on what you were changing.


As for races, I agree with SurlySeraph. You did a very nice job on them, far better than what 3.5e did. It's also a lot more noteworthy than 4e's "I'm a Dwarf because I have DWARF (encounter) POWERS!!!" On the other hand, I'm not sure if you're accomplishing #9 on your list with them. A lv.20 Elf Fighter will play almost identically to a lv.20 Dwarf Fighter as-written, with the possibly exception to movement speeds.

I'm not sure how much you want to overhaul the system, so meaningful changes may need to wait for later to be made. Right off hand, something like "all Elves are considered to have full ranks in Perception" or something similar would certainly make them different from other races, although I'm not sure if you want to (or even need to) make that big of a change.


As for the Toughness/Wounds system, I've played games that possessed similar. The Star Wars RPG 2nd edition was like that, where both the attacker and defender rolled to see how much damage was dealt. The problem was the oddities that kept creeping up. Someone with 10 Toughness (in your system) could run through a field of spears, roll around in broken glass, or ride a giant porcupine into battle with no ill effect. On the other hand, a single 6d6 fireball could kill them outright.

The bigger problem is with the NPCs you're faced against - either the dragon is a challange to swords and dies to the wizard's Fireball, or they're wounded by the Fireball and take nothing from the 1d8+10 sword swings. And heaven forbid that you'd roll low on the damage roll, and not even hurt the dragon. Perhaps its just my limited experience with the system, but what I've seen quickly becomes an arms race for the PCs - the safest way to do battle is to kill it in one hit.


Other than that, the rest does look nice. "Exotic Swords" sounds like a fair way to allow bastard swords or double swords (if that's your thing) without including them in the standard Swords Proficiency category. The rogue's skill mastery sounds like a way to keep them viable, although I really disliked 3.5e's style of "everyone can search but only rogues can find traps". The "Paragon Feat Bundle" is certainly intriguing, although it sounds more like a single feat you'd select when you meet the prerequisites - for example, if you had 10 ranks Craft (poison) + 10 ranks Stealth, you could get the Assassin Feat, which gives you Poison Use (10 ranks both), Stalking (15 ranks both), and Death Attack (20 ranks both). That way, the benefits are staggered out, and you can still continue with the normal class.

Xallace
2009-04-22, 07:37 PM
Sorry if I came off as a bit rough; reading through it again, I certainly sounded like it. I was mainly trying to hit on the high points, either what I saw might be a problem, or my thoughts on what you were changing.

And I'll tell ya', I certainly appreciated the critique.



As for races, I agree with SurlySeraph. You did a very nice job on them, far better than what 3.5e did. It's also a lot more noteworthy than 4e's "I'm a Dwarf because I have DWARF (encounter) POWERS!!!" On the other hand, I'm not sure if you're accomplishing #9 on your list with them. A lv.20 Elf Fighter will play almost identically to a lv.20 Dwarf Fighter as-written, with the possibly exception to movement speeds.

Why thank you! But you do make a good point. The races need to be altered. I would also like to implement racial feats and racial substitution levels (or just racial alternate class features).


I'm not sure how much you want to overhaul the system, so meaningful changes may need to wait for later to be made. Right off hand, something like "all Elves are considered to have full ranks in Perception" or something similar would certainly make them different from other races, although I'm not sure if you want to (or even need to) make that big of a change.

Can't say that's a change I would go for, though I like where you're going. The only nod to elven senses I made was "+2 Perception." They could do for some better hearing, eh?



As for the Toughness/Wounds system, I've played games that possessed similar. The Star Wars RPG 2nd edition was like that, where both the attacker and defender rolled to see how much damage was dealt. The problem was the oddities that kept creeping up. Someone with 10 Toughness (in your system) could run through a field of spears, roll around in broken glass, or ride a giant porcupine into battle with no ill effect. On the other hand, a single 6d6 fireball could kill them outright.

I see what you're saying there, but the way I'm thinking of it works a little differently. Now this way could be better or worse, I couldn't say quite yet. Damage is a d20 roll. Things such as Strength, Weapons, spells, whatever, etc. apply a bonus to that damage roll. Maybe, for example, you're a fighter with strength 16 and a Greataxe (+3 damage). Damage total of +6 versus Toughness. Actually, this way negates the need for anything but the d20...


The bigger problem is with the NPCs you're faced against - either the dragon is a challange to swords and dies to the wizard's Fireball, or they're wounded by the Fireball and take nothing from the 1d8+10 sword swings. And heaven forbid that you'd roll low on the damage roll, and not even hurt the dragon. Perhaps its just my limited experience with the system, but what I've seen quickly becomes an arms race for the PCs - the safest way to do battle is to kill it in one hit.

The only time I've used it is in a couple Mutants and Masterminds campaigns; Although I'll admit characters can go down quicker, I've found combat more exciting and more fluid. Well, I guess we'll have to see how this turns out in playtest, eh?



Other than that, the rest does look nice.
Hope I can keep up that expectation!

"Exotic Swords" sounds like a fair way to allow bastard swords or double swords (if that's your thing) without including them in the standard Swords Proficiency category.
I agree.

The rogue's skill mastery sounds like a way to keep them viable, although I really disliked 3.5e's style of "everyone can search but only rogues can find traps".
Yeah that seemed a little silly. I'm thinking Rogue's new Trapfinding will allow them to find and disable magic traps, or exceptionally hidden (say, invisible) ones.

The "Paragon Feat Bundle" is certainly intriguing, although it sounds more like a single feat you'd select when you meet the prerequisites - for example, if you had 10 ranks Craft (poison) + 10 ranks Stealth, you could get the Assassin Feat, which gives you Poison Use (10 ranks both), Stalking (15 ranks both), and Death Attack (20 ranks both). That way, the benefits are staggered out, and you can still continue with the normal class.

So, feats that improve over time? Now there's an idea I can certainly get behind!

Thanks again for reviewing what's here. I appreciate the input immensely!

Xallace
2009-04-22, 10:24 PM
What Are Character Classes?

Character class is the basis of your character's profession, training, and skills. Your class determines certain basic things about your character: Your aptitude in combat, your training and skills, and the growth of your talents. Character class can also provide an idea of your profession and background.

The Classes in Synopsis:

The Barbarian is a wild, frenetic warrior who uses his uninhibited anger to fuel his combat abilities. Barbarians are the toughest of the tough, and the strongest of the strong. Their rage can manifest in a number of ways, from half-controlled eruptions of emotion and adrenaline, to increasingly impressive feats of strength and will as the situation becomes more dire, to even supernaturally powerful manifestations of angry totems.

The Cleric is a medium between the divine and the mundane, the mortal and the spiritual. They are healers and guides, yet they are also defenders and avengers. Clerics make use of prayers: tangible manifestations of their patrons strengthened by a cleric's faith. Clerics may be called priests, druids, shamans, or paladins, depending on their sphere of power and the object of their reverence.

The Fighter does exactly what her name says: she fights. Fighters are second to none in their mastery of combat maneuvers; anyone can charge a line or trip an opponent, but none do it quite so elegantly or skillfully as she. Even the most brutish styles seem fluid and beautiful when executed by a fighter.

The Rogue is the con-artist, the charming rake, the daring acrobat, the sneaky thief, the deadly assassin. Anything you can do, he can do better. A master of the skill system, he can pick a lock with some objects he found laying around; disable a trap before you even knew it was there; leap a chasm so vast you thought he was flying.

The Warlock derives his power from an entity more powerful than himself. Unlike a cleric, however, he does not gain his talents from faith or admiration; instead, the warlock brokers with mighty beings and makes pacts for power. The warlock might be devoted to a single entity from beginning to end, or he might pick and choose patrons as he needs them. Created by accident or intent, the warlock scours foes with curses and mighty, eldritch power.

The Wizard came into her power through study and training. She is a master of magical might, a student of the most ancient of arts. Wizard spells range from humble illusions to mighty transformations, to powerful conjurations of fire and lightning. The power to do great or terrible things is only a hand gesture away.


...And I am not the greatest composer of descriptive text in the world, but that should give you a general idea of the classes.

Xallace
2009-04-24, 11:01 PM
Toughness and Wounds

Toughness
Your Toughness score represents your ability to endure physical punishment. It works similarly to your Defenses, in that an opponent compares a roll against it in order to affect you in some way. In this case, Damage rolls are compared against your Toughness score to determine if you are wounded by an attack.

Your Toughness score is determined as follows:

Toughness = 10 (Base) + (Constitution Modifier) + (Class Bonus) + (Equipment Bonus) + (Misc Bonus)

So for example, you have a fighter with a Constitution score of 15 and you have chosen to wear banded armor. Your Toughness score is 18 (10 base + 2 from your Constitution + 3 from being a Fighter + 3 for wearing banded armor). Thus, an opponent would have to roll a total of 18 or higher to damage you.

Impervious Toughness
Some Toughness is considered "Impervious." To possess Impervious Toughness means that you are particularly resiliant against weaker attacks. If an attack has a damage bonus lower than your Impervious Toughness, you take no damage from that attack, even on a hit. Your Impervious Toughness can never be higher than your Toughness score.

Some materials or effects can penetrate Impervious Toughness. This means that an attack from a weapon of the proper material or an attack that deals a certain damage type will still deal damage, even if the bonus is lower than the target's Impervious Toughness.

Impervious Toughness is written as (Impervious Toughness Score)/(Material or Effect that can penetrate Impervious Toughness). For example, 4/Cold Iron means that any attack with a damage bonus of less than 4 will not harm the creature, unless the attack is from a cold iron weapon. 6/Supernatural means that Supernatural effects of any type will ignore the Impervious Toughness. If there is a dash after the number (ex. 3/-), there is no means of overcoming the Impervious Toughness, unless an ability specifically ignores all instances of Impervious Toughness (such as the Turn Undead prayer).

Wounds
When you successfully strike a creature, you have a chance to inflict Wounds. As mentioned in the Toughness section, you compare your damage roll to your target's Toughness score to determine if you dealt damage. If you do not exceed your target's Toughness score, the attack is ineffective. If you do succeed, the result can be varied. Refer to the chart below to determine the effects of an attack.

{table=head]Damage Roll Result| Effect|
Damage Roll does not exceed Toughness| No Effect|
Damage Roll exceeds Toughness by 1-5 points| 1 Wound|
Damage Roll exceeds Toughness by 6-9 points| 1 Wound, stunned|
Damage Roll exceeds Toughness by 10 or more points| Unconcious, Dying| [/table]

Wounds
Wounds measure the amount of damage you have suffered. Each wound you take results in a -1 penalty to your Toughness score. Wounds are cumulative.

Stunned
If you succeed on your damage roll by 6 or more, the target becomes stunned. A stunned canít take actions, takes a -2 penalty to AC, and loses his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) for one round.

Dying
A dying character is unconcious and near death. Upon gaining this condition the character must immediately make a Constitution check (DC10). Success means that the character makes this check again every hour thereafter, with a cumulative +1 bonus to the check DC for each hour that the character remains dying. Failure means that the character must make this check again at the beginning of his next turn. Failure of three of these checks means that the character dies.

If the character succeeds by 10 or more, the character instantly stabilizes and becomes unconcious and disabled (and may recover from both conditions normally). Another character can stabilize a dying character with a DC15 Heal check or any (Healing) effect.

Pulling Your Punches
Once you knock a creature unconcious, you may choose to leave it unconcious and disabled rather than unconcious and near death.

KaganMonk
2009-04-25, 03:13 PM
Ah, the days when we can see the best parts of both 3.5 and 4th edition. I'll be looking forward to what you come up with for any future games I run (far future probably). Looking at what you've written vs the intent of certain classes, I do have two suggestions.

Ranger - A ranger always seemed like a more physical power class to me than the skilled rogue type. I'd probably make them more of a specialist fighter, maybe with a low pre-req prestige package?

Sorceror/Wizard - To reflect the "wild" type of spontaneity sorcerors use, you might just want to revise the Wizard fluff text a bit, if nothing else than to put less restrictions on the background of their magic (not necessarily the mechanics).

AgentPaper
2009-04-25, 05:05 PM
Races: First, I like your ideas here. I also happen to like how 4E handled races, but I think what you're doing can work. Flaws other than -2 to a stat are also a good idea, but seem to have fallen flat in practice:

Humans: Only flaw is that they have one less +2 to a stat, but the extra feat definitely makes them worthwhile for any class.

Dwarves: So, dwarves can run forever and ever and ever and never need to sleep? Maybe I'm missing something, but that seems kinda odd. Their flaw is decent, but doesn't seem like it would come up much.

Elves: Also well done, but you may as well just say they're getting Weapon Finesse as a free feat, unless you're not using feats anymore, or at least not that one. Their flaw, on the other hand...is nonexistant. Not only is it extremely minor, but since most DMs don't even use the encumbrance system, it will never come up. Ever.

Gnomes: Erm, huh. Some of this is decent, but why are Gnomes better craftsmen than dwarves? As in, twice as good. Also, inattentiveness is good in a way, because it encourages caster gnomes to be sneaky and stay out of the way even more than normal, but for any other class it's a non-issue. Might have to re-think this one, unless concentration works differently than in normal 3.5. Also, why are they so slow?

Halflings: Decent, but their flaw seems kinda worthless. You're easier to push around, a little, even more than gnomes. This doesn't make much sense, and probably won't come up much, if at all. Having them slower than a medium enforces that they are small and have short legs, but I think one thing you might want to borrow from 4E is to have the "small" races be not quite so small as in 3.5, (where a halfling is literally half the height of a human) as well as allowing them to move just as fast.

Orcs: I see that you're going for the "noble savage" style of orc here, which is probably a good thing if you're having them as a standard PC race. However the also seem to be hands-down the best martial class, with powerful bonuses and no real penalties. (a -1 to AC sometimes, and...harder for them to squeeze? meh)

erikun
2009-04-25, 09:58 PM
Impervious Toughness
I am confused. What do you mean by "damage bonus"? If a troll has Toughness 10 and Imp. Toughness 10/acid or fire, what happens if they take 20 damage from a +1 mace? If they take 5 damage from a flaming torch?

One thing I should mention about 3.5e damage reduction: you didn't always have the right weapon for the job. In fact, you frequently didn't, unless you were rolling in enough money to haul around several dozen magical swords for each person. This made stuff like werewolves or minor DR/magic stuff very unkillable at lower levels, where the party wasn't likely to have any magic weapons or enough damaging spells to bypass it - you needed to do enough damage to overcome DR.

Also, I'm not sure quite how this works. Is something with Imp. Toughness immune to regular attacks?

Stunned
I never cared for 3.5e stunned. Isn't the loss of Dex to AC and loss of an action enough - do you really need to drop your weapon? Isn't that already insult on top of injury?

Dying
Please note that someone with 10 Constitution has only one chance to stabilize - if they make the save but fail to roll a 20, they have no chance to stabilize after that. More ironically enough, failing to make a save gives you a better chance to stabilize, as you don't get a penalty after failure.

Xallace
2009-04-27, 08:59 PM
Alright, sorry for the wait, folks! Busy past few days.


Ah, the days when we can see the best parts of both 3.5 and 4th edition. I'll be looking forward to what you come up with for any future games I run (far future probably). Looking at what you've written vs the intent of certain classes, I do have two suggestions.

Sounds good, I'm glad you like so far. Let's get down to business!


Ranger - A ranger always seemed like a more physical power class to me than the skilled rogue type. I'd probably make them more of a specialist fighter, maybe with a low pre-req prestige package?

Hmm hmhm. I guess I always saw it as more of a skill class, which is why I put it into the rogue. I suppose the best way to reproduce it (sans Animal Companion) would be a fighter/rogue multi-class. But I'll take the Prestige Package idea into definite consideration.


Sorceror/Wizard - To reflect the "wild" type of spontaneity sorcerors use, you might just want to revise the Wizard fluff text a bit, if nothing else than to put less restrictions on the background of their magic (not necessarily the mechanics).

It's a good point. I think, actually, I'd like to make sorcerer a feat. Use Charisma instead of Intelligence for abilities, no need for spellbook, recharge spells during combat; in return, less spells known, no arcane foci, maybe another restriction or so.

I was considering doing something similar with the Psion class.

Thanks for reading!


Races: First, I like your ideas here. I also happen to like how 4E handled races, but I think what you're doing can work. Flaws other than -2 to a stat are also a good idea, but seem to have fallen flat in practice:

Glad you think so! The first part, anyway. So let's take a look! I would also like to note beforehand that I have agreed with some of your assessments and have already made small updates to a couple of the races. Others still in the works.


Humans: Only flaw is that they have one less +2 to a stat, but the extra feat definitely makes them worthwhile for any class.

It's true. I had not thought of any good human flaw.


Dwarves: So, dwarves can run forever and ever and ever and never need to sleep? Maybe I'm missing something, but that seems kinda odd. Their flaw is decent, but doesn't seem like it would come up much.

Amended. Should still be useful, but not too powerful.


Elves: Also well done, but you may as well just say they're getting Weapon Finesse as a free feat, unless you're not using feats anymore, or at least not that one. Their flaw, on the other hand...is nonexistant. Not only is it extremely minor, but since most DMs don't even use the encumbrance system, it will never come up. Ever.

Amended. Took inspiration from the "-2 Con" from 3.X Edition. Will need to see how the new flaw works out. I think elves ought to be hard to hit, but easy to hurt.


Gnomes: Erm, huh. Some of this is decent, but why are Gnomes better craftsmen than dwarves? As in, twice as good. Also, inattentiveness is good in a way, because it encourages caster gnomes to be sneaky and stay out of the way even more than normal, but for any other class it's a non-issue. Might have to re-think this one, unless concentration works differently than in normal 3.5. Also, why are they so slow?

Concentration has absorbed parts of the Autohypnosis skill from Expanded Psionics Handbook, making it more useful to all the classes. Still not too big though, so you may have a point there. Also, I didn't like the craft ability anyway. Replaced it with one I like a lot more.

I never really considered gnomes to be particularly fast, so I put them at the same speed as dwarves. I considered more that halflings are quick for a small race, rather than gnomes are slow for one.


Halflings: Decent, but their flaw seems kinda worthless. You're easier to push around, a little, even more than gnomes. This doesn't make much sense, and probably won't come up much, if at all. Having them slower than a medium enforces that they are small and have short legs, but I think one thing you might want to borrow from 4E is to have the "small" races be not quite so small as in 3.5, (where a halfling is literally half the height of a human) as well as allowing them to move just as fast.

I like the differences in speeds, I'm not likely to be changing that. Personal preference, y'know. If it turns out the difference does something too terrible, I'll certainly alter it, though.

Well, I did not want them to be racially kleptomaniacs, that just seemed silly. I'm looking into an alteration for that flaw.


Orcs: I see that you're going for the "noble savage" style of orc here, which is probably a good thing if you're having them as a standard PC race. However the also seem to be hands-down the best martial class, with powerful bonuses and no real penalties. (a -1 to AC sometimes, and...harder for them to squeeze? meh)

Amended. Hopefully a little more flaw-worthy now. Maybe not by too much, but it'll be applicable to more situations.

Thank you for taking the time to critique this! I really appreciate the input.


Impervious Toughness
I am confused. What do you mean by "damage bonus"? If a troll has Toughness 10 and Imp. Toughness 10/acid or fire, what happens if they take 20 damage from a +1 mace? If they take 5 damage from a flaming torch?

Mm, I was afraid that I hadn't made it particularly clear (and looking back, I don't think I addressed the idea at all). Don't worry, an "official" article on how Damage works will be made shortly. I'll explain as best I can in the interim.

See, the idea is that your Damage roll, like any other roll in the game, is a d2o roll plus modifiers. Instead of doing so many dice worth of damage, weapons, spells, and other offensive effects add a bonus to your damage roll. A melee weapon attack, for example, would work as follows:

1d20 + Attacker's Strength Bonus + Weapon Damage Bonus

...plus Enhancment bonus, precision damage, smite damage bonus, whatever else. You compare that against the target's Toughness score to determine what happens. Does that make sense?

I know, I know. It's rather far away from the way DnD does things ever, so any iffy thoughts on it are completely understandable.


One thing I should mention about 3.5e damage reduction: you didn't always have the right weapon for the job. In fact, you frequently didn't, unless you were rolling in enough money to haul around several dozen magical swords for each person. This made stuff like werewolves or minor DR/magic stuff very unkillable at lower levels, where the party wasn't likely to have any magic weapons or enough damaging spells to bypass it - you needed to do enough damage to overcome DR.

Yep, that's basically the point of Impervious Toughness. You don't have the weapon or effect, it's going to be a hard fight. Especially with what I have in mind for Undead and Constructs (to be posted later).


Also, I'm not sure quite how this works. Is something with Imp. Toughness immune to regular attacks?

If an attack has a damage bonus lower than your Impervious Toughness, you take no damage from that attack, even on a hit.

Does this make sense now that you understand how damage works? If not, I can try to clarify further.


Stunned
I never cared for 3.5e stunned. Isn't the loss of Dex to AC and loss of an action enough - do you really need to drop your weapon? Isn't that already insult on top of injury?

You make a valid point. Removed it, mostly (see Elves).


Dying
Please note that someone with 10 Constitution has only one chance to stabilize - if they make the save but fail to roll a 20, they have no chance to stabilize after that.

I suppose that's true. But mortal wounds are mortal for a reason- you're not supposed to be likely to survive unless you are the toughest of the tough.

I suppose in some ways, it's more lethal than DnD in that you only have three rounds to survive at the least, but at the same time, you're always granted at least three rounds, more if you're lucky.


More ironically enough, failing to make a save gives you a better chance to stabilize, as you don't get a penalty after failure.

True, but it also means that the cleric has less time to get to you!

Thank you again for critique!

And thank you all for reading!

AgentPaper
2009-04-27, 10:29 PM
Hmm, now orcs are in the odd positon of actually being worse tanks than other races in some situations. Which is probably a good thing, I suppose. However, I might try and re-think Brute Strength and Brawny, if I were you. The first is kinda worthless, especially when they have the option to use oversized weapons, and the second makes them more likely to...dump con? That seems counter-productive to making them stronger. They also have nothing that would really help a caster orc, which seems to encourage not using them as such.

One thing I would do, is make a list of each race/class, and then describe how that race should perform in that class. Obviously an elven fighter and an orc fighter should fight differently, but you need to decide exactly how each of them tends to fight before those differences become apparent. For example:

Orc Fighter: Easier to hit, being big and all, but harder to knock down, and uses bigger weapons, and possibly able to use heavier armor.
Orc Wizard: Harder to take down than a normal wizard, allowing him to get in close. Let him add his STR mod to damage with touch attacks, to encourage him to get up close and personal.

Xallace
2009-05-03, 08:27 AM
Attacks, Damage, and Defenses

Like nearly everything else in the system, your effectiveness in combat is determined by die rolls. In this case, you will be making Attack Rolls and Damage Rolls.


Attack Rolls determine whether or not you hit your target with an attack, spell, or other effect. Determining an attack roll is different depending on what method of attack you are using. See the table below. While some of these are printed elsewhere, they are provided here for your convenience.

{table=head]Attack Type | 1d20 plus....| Targets...
Melee Weapon Attack | Base Attack Bonus + Strength Modifier| Combat Defense
Ranged Weapon Attack | Base Attack Bonus + Dexterity Modifier| Combat Defense
Cleric Prayer | Base Attack Bonus + Faith Invested + Wisdom Modifier| Varies
Arcane Spell | Base Attack Bonus + Spell Level + Intelligence Modifier| Varies
Warlock Invocation | Base Attack Bonus + Charisma Modifier| Varies[/table]

If you Attack Roll equals or exceeds your target's Defense (see below), you make a Damage Roll.

Damage Rolls determine your ability to Wound a creature (see the Toughness and Wounds (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6033470&postcount=11) section, above). Similar to an Attack Roll, your Damage Roll is determined by a bonus added to a d20 roll. You compare the result against the target's Toughness to determine the effects.

{table=head]Attack Type | 1d20 plus...
Melee Weapon Attack | Strength Modifier + Weapon Bonus
Ranged Weapon Attack | Weapon Bonus[/table]

Prayers, Spells, and Invocation detail their damage bonus in their individual descriptions.

Defenses

Defenses represent your ability to withstand attacks. All creatures have four different defenses.

In addition to the equations listed below, certain spells, feats, and equipment can provide bonuses to your defenses as well.

Combat Defense (COM) is your ability to defend yourself in a fight. Attacks from weapons and some supernatural effects target Combat Defense. Your Combat Defense score is calculated as


10 + Class Combat Defense Bonus + Your Dexterity Modifier.


Fortitude Defense (FORT) is your ability to withstand attacks against your body's inner workings, such as disease or poison. Your Fortitude Defense score is calculated as


10 + Class Fortitude Defense Bonus + Your Constitution Modifier

Reflex Defense (REF) is your ability to dodge or avoid an incoming effect. This is different from your Combat Defense in that it purely the ability to get out of the way, rather than blocking or parrying. Your Reflex Defense score is calculated as


10 + Class Reflex Defense Bonus + Your Dexterity Modifier

Will Defense (WILL) is your ability to defend against mental attacks or states of mind, such as domination or fear. Your Will Defense score is calculated as


10 + Class Will Defense Bonus + Your Wisdom Modifier

Xallace
2009-05-03, 08:35 AM
Hmm, now orcs are in the odd positon of actually being worse tanks than other races in some situations. Which is probably a good thing, I suppose. However, I might try and re-think Brute Strength and Brawny, if I were you. The first is kinda worthless, especially when they have the option to use oversized weapons, and the second makes them more likely to...dump con? That seems counter-productive to making them stronger. They also have nothing that would really help a caster orc, which seems to encourage not using them as such.

Brawny and Brute Strength have both been altered.


One thing I would do, is make a list of each race/class, and then describe how that race should perform in that class. Obviously an elven fighter and an orc fighter should fight differently, but you need to decide exactly how each of them tends to fight before those differences become apparent. For example:

Orc Fighter: Easier to hit, being big and all, but harder to knock down, and uses bigger weapons, and possibly able to use heavier armor.
Orc Wizard: Harder to take down than a normal wizard, allowing him to get in close. Let him add his STR mod to damage with touch attacks, to encourage him to get up close and personal.

Once all the classes are finished, the Racial Substitution Levels and Alternate Class Features section will detail things such as these.