PDA

View Full Version : Giant in the Playground d20



Book Wyrm
2009-05-02, 02:04 PM
So with all the 3.75 homebrews, Fax's d20 rebirth, and revamp 3.5 threads floating around there seems to be a lot of interest in keeping 3.5 alive, or at least trying to make it a better more balanced system. Has anybody thought of turning all this effort and interest into a forum run project. Kinda like the Tears of Blood campaign setting project. (I'm not sure if that ever got finished, so I don't know if its such a good role model) I'm not suggesting creating a whole new system, just a Playground official version of d20.

Thoughts?

Zeta Kai
2009-05-02, 02:20 PM
It seems that most people who work on 3E fixes would prefer to work on their own. Sure, they accept input from other members, & everything is up for debate & critiques, but it's usually a one-person show. What you seem to be suggesting is more of an open-source, community-driven approach.

While I am not opposed to this method, I think that overall, this approach is unlikely to produce any meaningful results. First it would need to identify & enumerate a list of 3E's current flaws, which is something that engenders little true consensus. Even the so-called tier system is hotly-debated, Your Mileage May Vary. For every player that says "wizards are broken/alignment is borked/vancian casting is lame", you'll find another player who disagrees strongly. I'm not saying that it's a guaranteed flame war, but I wouldn't wish to be the mod who monitors that project.

It's an admirable idea, & the person who can pull it off would be a demigod of game balance. But in this imperfect world, a debatable work of flawed art is probably the best that we're ever gonna get.

Satyr
2009-05-02, 02:54 PM
I really think that the large variability and different approaches are certainly more interesting than an equalizing version with a lot less variability. Variability is a strength and many people have very different design philosophies and ideas what a good revamp of D&D should consist of - and there is no one (including my own one) which is clearly superior.
This multitude of creators and developers and this multitude of projects is one of the great strengths and founts of inspirations in the playground.

lesser_minion
2009-05-03, 06:52 AM
While it isn't inconceivable, pretty much everyone who makes a 3.x revision has their own ideas on what they want to see, and many people want to make quite major changes. At best, you might get some agreement on a 'skeleton' plus about nine different takes on each class.

There is also a difference in outlook between different people's spins - for example, Serpents and Sewers is intended to tailor the gane to a completely different play style, while d20 Rebirth tries to make the existing system work better, generally sticking to existing conventions.

Then you have G6+1, which is mainly an enhanced version of E6 drawing on 4e concepts; Pair O'Dice Lost's plans which are intended to draw on 2e; and Zeta's spins which are mostly about tailoring the system to settings such as Resident Evil and Final Fantasy X.

Vorpal word
2009-05-03, 07:05 AM
I think it's actually a good idea to make a subforum. People making these homebrew systems are already posting on each other's threads continuously, so why not make a subforum for it?

lesser_minion
2009-05-03, 07:45 AM
The other problem is mainly technical - I think the adminisrators here are probably going to be a bit wary about creating another subforum especially when they are currently trying to reduce the number of forums on this site.

It could be done on a wiki or something like that, I guess.

Lappy9000
2009-05-03, 09:37 AM
Personally, I'm with Zeta on this one. From some minor participation (and a whole lotta lurking) with the Tears of Blood project, I believe the biggest problem with a community-based project is that nothing really ever gets done.

There's a ton of projects in the works right now, but the ones that tend to get finished are either designed by a single, extraordinarily determined person, or a small design team. When everyone has a say, at first, ideas will flow in like a flood but then will die off as the project becomes bloated with unfinished material because noone is around to put their foot down and finalize the dang thing. This is the reason I have high hopes for things like Vote Up a Campaign Setting, d20r, and Serpents and Sewers (which I believe is already finished). The folks who work on them know what they're doing, have the determination to finish, and don't need to worry about approving every little decision to a jury of others.

With an entire new system? Even harder. If you could pull it off, you'd become an amazing deity of micromanagement and homebrew; I just don't think it's likely.

Thane of Fife
2009-05-03, 10:34 AM
From some minor participation (and a whole lotta lurking) with the Tears of Blood project, I believe the biggest problem with a community-based project is that nothing really ever gets done.

If only there were some way to have a strong central figure or group of figures, and still get input from the community in a timely fashion....

VUA3.XR (Vote up a 3.x Revision)?

:smallwink:

Djinn_in_Tonic
2009-05-03, 10:44 AM
If only there were some way to have a strong central figure or group of figures, and still get input from the community in a timely fashion....

VUA3.XR (Vote up a 3.x Revision)?

:smallwink:

While VUA3.XR is interesting, it's FAR to complex.

The previous idea, however, has merit. Pick a group to work on the project, asking for community input when needed or when something has been decided. If such a thing began, consider me interested and willing to help.

Also, Thane of Fife, today I have a production of Macbeth. I find your username quite fitting. :smallbiggrin:

Lappy9000
2009-05-03, 10:52 AM
If only there were some way to have a strong central figure or group of figures, and still get input from the community in a timely fashion....

VUA3.XR (Vote up a 3.x Revision)?

:smallwink:Yes, that was the point :smallconfused:

Thane of Fife
2009-05-03, 11:31 AM
Yes, that was the point :smallconfused:

I was trying to suggest an easily recognizable format which fit your criteria. My apologies for the unnecessary sarcasm.



Also, Thane of Fife, today I have a production of Macbeth. I find your username quite fitting.

Good luck with that. Be careful (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scottish_play).


While VUA3.XR is interesting, it's FAR to complex.

Hmmm. You'd probably need to do it VUACS style - get people to vote on specific ideas, and then have the rparties in charge actually make things (How should the base magic system look?
1. Vancian
2. 4e style
3. Skill-based
4. Differently for different casters)

Zeta Kai
2009-05-03, 11:39 AM
From some minor participation (and a whole lotta lurking) with the Tears of Blood project, I believe the biggest problem with a community-based project is that nothing really ever gets done.

There's a ton of projects in the works right now, but the ones that tend to get finished are either designed by a single, extraordinarily determined person, or a small design team. When everyone has a say, at first, ideas will flow in like a flood but then will die off as the project becomes bloated with unfinished material because noone is around to put their foot down and finalize the dang thing.

QFT. And I speak from experience.

Projects like these need a strong central figure, some moderating voice that can set the tone, weigh the merits of the differing opinions, & make decisions. Even on a really small project, like VUACS (where it's just Akroakuma, Shadow_Elf, & myself), it take considerable debate to reach a consensus on many issues. We all have strong opinions about what's balanced, what fits the themes we're aiming for, & how the game should be played. We work well together, & we've gotten a LOT of things done, but it's slow, & adding another person would just slow things down further, as the benefits of a second opinion gets "balanced" by time-consuming discord. ToB is a classic example of All Indians/No Chiefs; lacking a strong authoritative voice has left the entire project stagnating, while for focused projects unfortunately pass it by.


You'd probably need to do it VUACS style - get people to vote on specific ideas, and then have the rparties in charge actually make things

Even VUACS is pushing how far you can go with a vote-based system. As productive as the Build Team is, it's taken us months to get where we are, & we've still got a ways to go before it's everything that we want it to be. Vote Up an Edition Fix could take years, in my estimation (trust me, I was very naive when I though VUACS could be wrapped up in 60 days or less).

Lappy9000
2009-05-03, 11:44 AM
I was trying to suggest an easily recognizable format which fit your criteria. My apologies for the unnecessary sarcasm.Yeah, no prob. My internet sarcasometer is always tuned too low :smallbiggrin:

afroakuma
2009-05-03, 12:23 PM
QFT. And I speak from experience.

Ditto.


Even VUACS is pushing how far you can go with a vote-based system. As productive as the Build Team is, it's taken us months to get where we are, & we've still got a ways to go before it's everything that we want it to be. Vote Up an Edition Fix could take years, in my estimation (trust me, I was very naive when I though VUACS could be wrapped up in 60 days or less).

I thought we'd have it done in a month. I still think we'll have it done in a month. :smalltongue:

Djinn_in_Tonic
2009-05-03, 04:24 PM
Ditto.

Call me crazy, but I still don't see a reason not to try. Get a few key players in place, and see what happens. Worst case scenario? It doesn't work...like the 75,000 other system revisions going on at once. But what the hey...why not try?

A Vote based thing, however, is NOT the way I think it should go.

Book Wyrm
2009-05-03, 05:29 PM
Yeah, I realized when I suggested it that it'd be a huge project with a huge time commitment and could fail very easily.

My plan though was to outline a general design philosophy and systematic approach to dealing with topics, and then ask for volunteers to lead the project. That way you'd have a core group of people (not sure how many would be best) that at least agree on the general direction and are willing to put in the time and effort. Then open the individual topic discussions to ask for ideas.

Book Wyrm
2009-05-03, 05:40 PM
sorry for the double post, but also, I wasn't even thinking about the thread purge and the what the Mods would think. They'd probably have to agree to the project before hand.

Djinn_in_Tonic
2009-05-03, 06:19 PM
Well, if you want a hand, I'm here. I've got some projects of my own to work on, but I enjoy game design/balance greatly, and it's something I love doing, so I'd be willing to dedicate some time to helping this along, even if it goes nowhere. It'll be a fun trip either way. :smallbiggrin:

Lappy9000
2009-05-03, 06:31 PM
If anything does start up, I'll be glad to offer my limited services. I'm better at fluff than mechanics, but I consider my self decent at least where races are concerned.

Zeta Kai
2009-05-03, 06:43 PM
Well, I'm known for being a monster-crafting machine, so if I have any free time (Ha!), I'll be glad to lend a hand here & there.

Djinn_in_Tonic
2009-05-03, 08:07 PM
So Book Wyrm and myself have voiced an interest in attempting such a thing, with Lappy and Zeta possibly offering assistance...

Hmmm...I'd be interested in seeing if we can get one or two more people to help out Book Wyrm and myself at the top of this thing, just for some more input.

afroakuma
2009-05-03, 08:14 PM
If it goes ahead, I'm on board for the silliness. My mad PR skills (and homebrew talents) are available.

sigurd
2009-05-03, 08:36 PM
Editing is simply not a group activity.

Contributions are vital - the life blood of a project.

To publish, organization and unified vision are equally important - they're sort of like the bones that lift a project to completion. Most projects are sort of like amoebas - they never stand tall enough to clear the publishing hurdle.

The other issue is that a PDF or finished work is more serious publishing and an editor needs to share the responsibility for a work with all the authors or everyone does it anonymously. Real names, real addresses etc..... The central editor will end up fielding most everything for a publication good or bad. They have to get honest cooperation.

Lastly you need to embrace a deadline. 6 months and the damn thing is released. It can be revised but something needs to be seen.

Its a lot of work to gather and compile and organize stuff into something unified - and its not about gaming so much as understanding your reader.

Have people considered offering their stuff as a monthly column for a polished D20 friendly ezine, say Phoenix Lore?

Lappy9000
2009-05-03, 08:41 PM
If it goes ahead, I'm on board for the silliness. My mad PR skills (and homebrew POWER) are available.Fixed it for you.


So Book Wyrm and myself have voiced an interest in attempting such a thing, with Lappy and Zeta possibly offering assistance...For the record, I meant "limited" as in the level of talent that I have to dedicate to the project, not how much I'd actually post. You need some feedback and a LA+0 race whose primary skill is to turn things into tacos? Can do. Need 3 Prestige Classes, 29 feats, and 6 new skill applications? Not so much.


Editing is simply not a group activity.

Contributions are vital - the life blood of a project.

To publish, organization and unified vision are equally important - they're sort of like the bones that lift a project to completion. Most projects are sort of like amoebas - they never stand tall enough to clear the publishing hurdle.

The other issue is that a PDF or finished work is more serious publishing and an editor needs to share the responsibility for a work with all the authors or everyone does it anonymously. Real names, real addresses etc..... The central editor will end up fielding most everything for a publication good or bad. They have to get honest cooperation.

Lastly you need to embrace a deadline. 6 months and the damn thing is released. It can be revised but something needs to be seen.

Its a lot of work to gather and compile and organize stuff into something unified - and its not about gaming so much as understanding your reader.Now, editing, compiling, and organizing; there's something I can do. Meeting a final deadline for a project also falls into that category (I'll have proof for you in 2 months :smallamused:)

afroakuma
2009-05-03, 08:48 PM
Fixed it for you.

Indeed. Board meme, that. :smallsmile:


Need 3 Prestige Classes, 29 feats, and 6 new skill applications?

The POWER is here for that sort of silliness.

Book Wyrm
2009-05-03, 08:55 PM
I'm glad this is actually coming along. I was afraid that it wouldn't even get off the ground after the initial response, but it seems this could actually work. To quote Zeta Kai, if all we can produce is "a debatable work of flawed art", than we've already lived up to the expectations of every edition of D&D so far.

We will definitely need some more help. Four or five people working full time couldn't pull it off in any reasonable time frame, so before we start anything official we should wait for more volunteers. I also think we should ask a mod about the project before the boards start overflowing with content or something.

I also put some more thought into a general design philosophy. The biggest issues I've noticed about 3.5 is balance and simplicity. In revamping the d20 system these woes can be solved by following a simple adage: Form Follows Function. In the context of a role playing game, this means functionality and practicality in use and power should be paramount.

Lappy9000
2009-05-03, 08:56 PM
You need...a LA+0 race whose primary skill is to turn things into tacos?I am now officially bound to prove this, by the way.

Zeta Kai
2009-05-03, 09:02 PM
You need some feedback and a LA+0 race whose primary skill is to turn things into tacos? Can do.

Damn, there goes my plan to make a Tacomancer class.

Thane of Fife
2009-05-03, 09:03 PM
The POWER is here for that sort of silliness.

Wait. "3 Prestige Classes, 29 feats, and 6 new skill applications? " is the silliness compared to a race whose primary ability is to turn things into tacos?

Methinks your silliness meter needs a slight readjustment.
And I love how Firefox recognizes methinks as a word.

Book Wyrm
2009-05-03, 09:04 PM
Yo quiero un taco.

I hadn't really thought about publishing it off site, rather just compiling it on the boards, and maybe even with the Giants permission linking it to the gaming section or something.

Deadlines are a valid point though. This should be discussed once (and if) the project really takes off.

afroakuma
2009-05-03, 09:07 PM
Wait. "3 Prestige Classes, 29 feats, and 6 new skill applications? " is the silliness compared to a race whose primary ability is to turn things into tacos?

Silliness in terms of amount of stuff to churn out.

I remind you that I wrote an extensive treatise on the sexual culture of a race of erratic, anarchic polychromatic man-toads.

Djinn_in_Tonic
2009-05-03, 09:23 PM
We will definitely need some more help. Four or five people working full time couldn't pull it off in any reasonable time frame, so before we start anything official we should wait for more volunteers. I also think we should ask a mod about the project before the boards start overflowing with content or something.

I also put some more thought into a general design philosophy. The biggest issues I've noticed about 3.5 is balance and simplicity. In revamping the d20 system these woes can be solved by following a simple adage: Form Follows Function. In the context of a role playing game, this means functionality and practicality in use and power should be paramount.

Four to five people is, however, enough for a core group. More gets bloated. I'd say 3-5 providing the driving force, and allowing other contributors to input advice, opinions, and suggestions. After all, to many chefs spoil the broth, but getting recipes from a ton of people may improve the recipe.

As for general design philosophy, I approve of Form follows Function. I'd also suggest following a basic pattern of class abilities or power, just to make balancing different classes an easier task. But that may just be me. :smallbiggrin:

Book Wyrm
2009-05-03, 10:40 PM
Ok, so me, Djinn_In_Tonic, Afroakuma, and Zeta Kai as the head honchos so to speak and Lappy9000 supplying his "limited services."

Heres a list of important topics based off the d20 SRD. Not a comprehensive list, but itís a start.

I. Basics
A. Modifiers
B. The Abilities
C. Saving Throws and Defenses
II. Races
III. Alignment
IV. Classes
A. Function and Power Source
B. Base Classes
C. Prestige Classes
D. Multiclassing
V. Skills
VI. Feats
A. General
B. Racial
C. Metamagic
D. Item Creation
VII. Equipment
A. Mundane
B. Magical
C. Item Creation
VIII. Combat
A. Actions
B. Special Attacks
C. Conditions, Status Effects
IX. Spells, Maneuvers, Exploits, Skill Tricks, Etc
A. Arcane, Divine, Martial
B. Cast, Initiate, Etc
C. Description
X. Monsters
A. Challenge Rating vs Levels
B. Monstrous Races
XI. Adventuring
A. Movement
B. Exploration
C. Environment
D. Traps
E. Treasure
XII. Cosmology
A. Planes
B. Gods

Djinn_in_Tonic
2009-05-03, 10:48 PM
Alright. But a different order is necessary, in case we alter anything while we're working. We need to establish any changes in the rules system (action types, bonuses, Armor Class/Saves/Defenses, Abilities, Skills, Conditions, and so on) before we progress into the classes, races, and feats that will use these mechanics. In my opinion, at least.

Book Wyrm
2009-05-03, 11:54 PM
Yeah, I didn't post them in the order I expected them to be worked on, just wanted a list of things that need to be worked on. I guess the next course of action is to set a deadline for the finished project and then start breaking up the list of topics into a priority list. We should also decide how we're going to do this. Maybe open a thread to discuss each topic, then have the four of us talk it over and come up with a decision, then post that for discussion and analysis. Once one topic has been discussed, revamped, and analyzed, we move on to the next until we're done. Some topics won't really need that much discussion and can draw on old threads. I'll say right now that I don't want to open an alignment thread. Use the 3.5 version, give it the same amount of text as the other "vital statistics", remove alignment restrictions from classes and spells, change some of the monsters alignments, and be done with it.

Lappy9000
2009-05-04, 01:54 AM
Alright. But a different order is necessary, in case we alter anything while we're working. We need to establish any changes in the rules system (action types, bonuses, Armor Class/Saves/Defenses, Abilities, Skills, Conditions, and so on) before we progress into the classes, races, and feats that will use these mechanics. In my opinion, at least.Quite.

I suppose the first step would be to change whatever regularly shatters game balance into a trillion pieces. Fixing things that aren't broken probably won't do much except add to the list of unbalanced things.

The first order of business, though, should probably be to to figure out how much work everyone is willing to commit. How dedicated will this dedicated team (+ Lappy9000) actually be? I know Afro and Zeta are up to their ears with Vote Up A Campaign Setting, Djinn has d6+1 to worry about, and I've been working overtime to finish Lords of Avramir for weeks now.

More or less, I'm just concerned that this likely won't be anyone's top priority; at least at the moment. Please correct me if I'm mistaken.

Edit: Just to prove a point (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6067325&postcount=4).

lesser_minion
2009-05-04, 06:25 AM
I'm a little bogged down in prelims at the moment, but I could lend a few hours a week if you need them.

I think I'd probably be most interested in working on core mechanics and possibly skills than anything else, but I might be able to lend a hand on classes or character options.

Djinn_in_Tonic
2009-05-04, 11:17 AM
More or less, I'm just concerned that this likely won't be anyone's top priority; at least at the moment. Please correct me if I'm mistaken.

Well, I try to balance what time I have between everything, and, at this point, G7 is something that occupies me when my mind has turned off of other things. It's still got a way to go before I'm completely happy with it, and multi-tasking is something I do even if I'm trying not to. So I'd put a decent amount of time into creating/reviewing/discussing things, especially with college letting out in two weeks. Maybe not my top priority, but in the top two (at least as far as my virtual priorities go).


Edit: Just to prove a point (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6067325&postcount=4).

...
...
...
*applause*

Faulty
2009-05-04, 11:59 AM
I'm sorta interested in this, but I was thinking of doing a "3.75" thing myself. Just thought I'd shoot some stuff your way:


Make all non-casters/psions/incarnates/etc. martial adepts.
Split the Wizard into 6 or so classes for each school (like the Beguiler, Warmage, etc.)
Merge all the core TWF feats except TWDefense into one, scaling feat
Make the current application of Weapon Finesse a default aspect of combat, and change the feat to allow you to add damage rather than strength to melee attacks with finesse weapons
Normalize the special tactical moves (trip, sunder, etc.) into one equation in a vein similar to Pathfinder, and let it use Str or Dex, whichever is higher


I'm already working on a Wizard class (Abjurer/Diviner) temporarily dubbed the Oracle, and have ideas to split the Ranger into the Martial Ranger (martial adept, no casting, no animal companion, improved combat styles), Druidic Ranger (6 level spell casting, animal companion) and Urban Ranger (varient of the Martial Ranger), as well as ideas for a new Rogue class.

lesser_minion
2009-05-04, 12:57 PM
The ToB is not OGL (even though there is some stuff that can be downloaded free), which means that using material from there in this project could be pretty tricky.

I think special attacks are basically guaranteed to see an extensive re-write - there are more problems with them as written than the ones Pathfinder fixed.

I quite like the idea of having wizard broken up into a selection of specialist versions, although that would leave the question of how to handle sorcerers.

Faulty
2009-05-04, 01:23 PM
I know, but giving melee something at least comparable to maneuvers is the only way to bring them up to par with the options of magic users.

Book Wyrm
2009-05-04, 01:43 PM
@Amesoeurs:

1. Personally I Love ToB, but like its already been mentioned, its not OGL, so unfortunately I'd rather not even go there. That said I'm pretty sure anything outside of explicitly using a manuevers progression and the actual names, the ideas it represents are not copyrighted. I've been toying around with turning the Monk into a Setting Sun-esque warrior, with status effect strikes reminiscent of Shadow Hand, and concentration based strikes a'la Diamond mind.

2. Ninja'd Again: What to do with the Sorcerer. I think casters should be about where they get their power and how they cast. Taken from the perspective there are fundamental differences between a Sorcerer and Wizard. Now just to translate that into crunch...

3. Yes, and all the TWD feats into another scaling feat as well
4. Yes
5. YES. Normalize, then make the Fighter into the Ultimate Special Attack BAMF. Add in extra damage and tweek to perfection.

6. The Ranger should definitely be more "primal" to use a 4e term, with an Urban variant. I've always wanted to emphasize the survival skill applications: Let him heal and buff through wild herbs and what not. Full or no animal companion, one or the other; or a good trade off ability.

afroakuma
2009-05-04, 02:32 PM
I strongly urge you to look at what's been fielded in other projects here. The d20r Monk is very similar to what you're looking for, and d20r also has a fundamental crunch separation between wizards and sorcerers. Factor in the prowess feats for scaling...

lesser_minion
2009-05-04, 02:58 PM
I know, but giving melee something at least comparable to maneuvers is the only way to bring them up to par with the options of magic users.

Actually, I'd be tempted to keep the system where the majority of melee and ranged combat options are built into the combat system, and make them more extensive and more effective. That would allow characters to have exclusives that either relate to doing those things a lot better (e.g. making things like improved [special attack] into exclusives) or give characters a few supernatural options (e.g. paladins and smiting). Of course, the exclusives would be selectable and variably ability dependent - the fighter archetype as a whole could potentially find a use for all six ability scores, although not all of those uses relate to beating face.

As for the sorcerer, I think I'd advise going for intuitive magic/spellweaving (at-will seed-based magic with spells made up on the fly by the caster). Basically the same concept Fax Celestis adopted for his take on sorcery.

I posted the start of a homebrew using the same concept a while back, although I didn't do a brilliant job. The concept looks pretty solid though.

I also had the start of a 'mage' character class floating around - this was about halfway between the current wizard and the sorcerer - the character had a limited number of 'arts' containing spells and rituals that the character could duplicate based on his current magical knowledge. The character learned a small number of arts (eventually about half of the ones in existence) and gained the ability to augment spells as well - feats could be used to extend one or the other of these aspects.

Neither of these really got to a draft stage, but I could dig them up and re-work them into something usable. Classes aren't really my strong suit though.

Lappy9000
2009-05-04, 03:15 PM
I strongly urge you to look at what's been fielded in other projects here. The d20r Monk is very similar to what you're looking for, and d20r also has a fundamental crunch separation between wizards and sorcerers. Factor in the prowess feats for scaling...I would second this. Even if you disagree with some of the changes he's made, Fax has done an admirable job of beefing up melee classes (although he's yet to touch Vancian arcane spells).

Saint Nil
2009-05-04, 03:39 PM
Aww, I thought this would be a game designed around the forums.

DM:You see a troll. Save vs. Stupidity

Player:I cast wall of text!!!

Thread Necromancy has a new meaning..

Anyway, orgainzing an entire forum to create a new edition would require massive time and effort, and I just can't see so many people working together on this scale without a flame war breaking out, ruining the whole thing.

afroakuma
2009-05-04, 03:44 PM
I haven't seen anything I'd call a hard disagree on; I'd need something indicated to me.

As far as melee is concerned, I concur that combat should not be based on "powers" or "maneuvers" or otherwise try to compete with spellcasters. Extra melee and ranged options are the domain of feats; the primary combat framework exists to serve combatants, and should be expanded at its heart to make such accommodations.

lesser_minion
2009-05-04, 04:27 PM
On the other hand, I would actually like the spellcasters to have a couple of tricks that they can use in melee - things like imbuing a sword with flames as a swift action, and maybe a few spells based on things like Foresight. They wouldn't be able to outshine the melee characters in melee, but I would prefer teamwork to be enforced through benefits obtained through working together rather than through shoehorning characters into a particular role.

This could include combos which are dependent on particular characters (e.g. a 'Leadership' skill replacing intimidate which allows a character to strengthen, break or possibly even alter positive and negative morale effects and a Command skill which provides similar benefits in relation to divination effects)

Faulty
2009-05-04, 04:31 PM
One thing I was going to incorporate into my Rogue was to give him or her a list of abilities (s)he could choose from at certain levels, which would either grant bonuses (ex: Twisting the Knife: When you score a critical hit on a sneak attack with a slashing or piecing weapon, you deal sneak attack damage a second time) or combat options (ex: Cheap Shot: As a full round action, you can strike your foe unexpectedly, striking at his knee or ramming him in the stomach, to leave him open to a second attack that knocks him off his feat. Make a bluff check as if feinting, if the check succeeds, your opponent is considered flat footed and you may make one attack, followed by a free trip attempt which provokes no attack of opportunity. If you fail to trip, your opponent may not try to trip you back.). What about giving that to physical focused classes?

I'll look into d20 rebirth.

afroakuma
2009-05-04, 04:59 PM
I'll look into d20 rebirth.

Do so; what you describe was done there.

I do hope Fax returns soon; I'd really like to see how else that project will evolve.

Nero24200
2009-05-04, 05:02 PM
I'm sorry but....I'm I the only one who looked at the title and thought "A D20 game where you play as someone trying to post on a forum?".

....

Yes...I was actually silly enough to think thats what this project was for..

It would make for some interesting gaming options though.

"I attempt to counter his argument...er...what does a natural 1 do again?"
"You idiot! You started another flame war!"
"I knew I shouldn't have tried diplomancy there...that -8 penalty for trying to talk about another edition is just too harsh"
"Moderators fall on the topic, everyone dies"

Faulty
2009-05-04, 05:09 PM
Do so; what you describe was done there.

I do hope Fax returns soon; I'd really like to see how else that project will evolve.

Yeah. I wasn't thinking of something that was x/day though.

lesser_minion
2009-05-04, 05:12 PM
A D20 game where you play as someone trying to post on a forum?

You aren't alone - Saint Nil said the same thing.

I am seriously tempted to actually make that game, however.

Saint Nil
2009-05-04, 05:19 PM
I agree, but we probably shouldn't derail this topic. If you two are interested, PM me, and we'll see if we can earn enough support to get this type of game started.

Anyone else is free to join this as well.:smallsmile:

Faulty
2009-05-04, 05:51 PM
I'm not sure I'd like things done exactly as they're done in rebirth. The Rogue one, I like though.

lesser_minion
2009-05-04, 05:53 PM
I'm not sure I'd like things done exactly as they're done in rebirth. The Rogue one, I like though.

Are there any ideas in particular you'd like us to avoid borrowing?

Also, spontaneous pitch regarding Vancian spellcasting:

Preparing a spell involves a complicated magical ritual which allows the caster to evoke the actual effect as many times as required, with the spell being discharged once certain conditions are met. No spell may be prepared more than once per day Dispel magic can be used to suppress prepared spells, preventing them from being invoked for a time. The conditions under which a spell is discharged depend on the spell - some simply last until sundown and are dormant whenever not being concentrated on, while others will be invokable a limited number of times. The number of spells that can be prepared in this way should be much lower, as casters will get more mileage out of each one. A number of items referred to as Arcana exist. These items prepare spells automatically, even if not used by a mage. A select few might work even if the wielder already has the spell prepared, or concentrate on the spell automatically. Metamagic takes the form of "Formulae" which are gained as class features but act like spells. These will include Imbue Charm, which allows the mage to make a few scrolls of utility spells and give them to party members. They represent the mage mastering the fundamental lore underpinning all formulaic magic Most spells can be discharged voluntarily, with Imbue Charm and Contingency being major exceptions.

How does that sound? I know it could end up stealing the spotlight horribly if not done carefully, but would it spice up Vancian casting?


I think there needs to be a mix of Vancian and non-Vancian classes on offer, and I think the Vancian-ish mage/non-Vancian sorcerer could work quite well. It does leave the question of how to handle Clerics, however.

For multiclassing, it might be worth allowing a character to choose which level of a new class to gain (up to her current character level). High level abilities will add flexibility, but will still build on lower-level abilities in order to ensure balance and force at least some investment. Multiclassing between revised classes and legacy classes will be banned, because there is no way that would ever be balanced.

Dipping into mage could be fun - grab a couple of arts from the first level, and gain some really nice buffing abilities. That could be an imbalance, unfortunately.

Faulty
2009-05-04, 06:08 PM
If you're insinuating that I got the aforementioned idea from d20 Rebirth, I came to the concept by myself. I want to apply it to any class that would be involved in physical melee or ranged combat in a similar way across the board. The closest that comes to what I'm interested in with Rebirth is the Rogue.

I'm kind of interested in turning it into a school thing, a la ToB, in a way. Each class would have its own school, and access to maybe a few general ones, and possibly more through feats.

lesser_minion
2009-05-04, 06:16 PM
If you're insinuating that I got the aforementioned idea from d20 Rebirth, I came to the concept by myself. I want to apply it to any class that would be involved in physical melee or ranged combat in a similar way across the board. The closest that comes to what I'm interested in with Rebirth is the Rogue.

I'm kind of interested in turning it into a school thing, a la ToB, in a way. Each class would have its own school, and access to maybe a few general ones, and possibly more through feats.

Sorry, wording error. I meant that to be read as "what would you like to avoid".

Faulty
2009-05-04, 06:20 PM
I dunno. The theory of the idea is really similar. I guess it's not a revolutionary concept and quite easy to come to, but I really hate the idea of impeaching on someone else's hard work. I'm in a foul mood and having trouble articulating myself right now, I'll give it a try a bit later. ~_~

lesser_minion
2009-05-04, 06:23 PM
Well, I've reworded the offending post in any event.

Faulty
2009-05-04, 06:32 PM
It was a misunderstanding, don't worry. :smallsmile:

Book Wyrm
2009-05-04, 10:21 PM
I'm intrigued by the idea of differentiating certain magic users through different mechanical systems, but I worry that it was cause undo complexity and bog everything down. I think I'd want to see a finished mock up of a non-vancian caster first. Quick question, having never read Jack Vance myself, does anyone know what type of caster (warlock, wizard, sorcerer) that his character most resembled?

If you give each melee class one "school" to learn from with a couple of different options at each level, your basically replicating the rogue special abilities (which is not a bad thing), or you have to limit the number of times per encounter you can use them which is drawing kinda close to ToB if you ask me (even with or without a recovery system, since non-adept classes can learn maneuvers through feats but just can't recover them). I'll say it again, I really love ToB, but I think you can re-balance the game without it and I don't want to get sued.

Djinn_in_Tonic
2009-05-04, 10:37 PM
Well, you can't use ToB, but there's nothing stopping you from mirroring spells with a series of Martial Exploits with 9 levels, and various schools (not requiring a set number of previous ones, unlike ToB). Instead of Enchantment, for example, you might have Dual Weapons or Archery, each full of various "maneuvers" or "exploits" or "weapon tricks." These are expended and recovered like spells are, and have similiar power levels...or have tiers like Warlock's Invocations, and allow them to be used at-will.

Pronounceable
2009-05-05, 01:12 AM
If were trying to come up with a way to differentiate divine from arcane, I'd remove cleric spellcasting and beef up domains...

lesser_minion
2009-05-05, 02:38 AM
Vancian spellcasting is basically the concept of a caster 'forgetting' a spell when he casts it - spell preparation mechanics, 'spells per day' and daily limits on abilities are generally considered examples of Vancian spellcasting. A non-Vancian spellcaster simply uses another limiting factor, which could be anything from not being able to maintain two active spell effects at once, to a drawback-based system (e.g. caster loses hp or becomes tired after casting) or a points based system (psionics, for example).

IIRC the closest thing in D&D to Vance's writing is the wizard, who also has a number of spells that were heavily inspired by Vance's work. The sorcerer distorts the idea to allow casters to skip spell preparation, at the expense of having a strictly limited spell list and harsh metamagic penalties.

non-Vancian casters aren't particularly complicated, although I can understand concerns about too many classes using different mechanics. I'm pretty sure those mechanics can be kept simple enough to avoid terrifying everyone though.

I'm still against the idea of selling the project's soul to ToB without at least trying to extend the core combat and skills framework to allow more (and better) options.

I don't have a mock-up of the mage I mentioned above yet, but it has similarities to the 4e system, with the exception that the mage can choose how to distribute his powers - this allows a mage to run around being an all-day beatstick, or to concentrate on one-shot spells as required.

The problem with that is ingraining the same kind of flexibility into every class, although I have some ideas, and characters which are enduring by design will probably be able to match at least a couple of the one-shot spells.

Faulty
2009-05-05, 12:32 PM
Could you point me to that seed based casting you mentioned? I thought that would be a cool idea a while ago, but figured it would be too hard to manage. It was sorta inspired by the Black Company series, where magic doesn't seem as orderly as in D&D.

afroakuma
2009-05-05, 01:04 PM
It's the d20r sorcerer.

Faulty
2009-05-05, 01:54 PM
Why thank you.

Lappy9000
2009-05-05, 01:55 PM
Why thank you.The Bladeweaver uses the spell weaving system as well, although I find them to be somewhat mediocre when compared to the abosolute awesome of the other classes.

Faulty
2009-05-05, 01:56 PM
Holy crap, this system is pretty awesome. I have no clue as to how I could add to this.

afroakuma
2009-05-05, 02:06 PM
I really do think d20r is one of the best 3.X redux attempts I've yet seen. If anyone actually has any notable complaints against it, I'd love to hear them.

I don't see spellweaving as being mediocre; it focuses the sorcerer and gives it more flexibility and more capacity overall. A 20th level sorcerer with maxed Charisma can crack off a heavy axe of force that deals 8d10 damage, 1 Con damage, bullrushes the victim with a +8 Str bonus and nauseates them from the force of the hit. She could also do a straight bolt of acid for 12d4 damage, or turn it into noxious caustic sludge for 11d4 acid damage, plus half again the next round, plus nauseating effects from the caustic vapors, plus 11 acid damage that ignores reduction or immunity.

Lot of flexibility.

Faulty
2009-05-05, 02:13 PM
I can't think of any down right complaints. There are some things I'd like to do myself a bit differently, which I don't know how to articulate. The system though is pretty fantastic from everything I see. I don't see how one could complain about it, just have different tastes. Like liking jazz and not liking classical, but not thinking classical sucks.

Lappy9000
2009-05-05, 02:17 PM
Whoops, edited last post for greater accuracy. Keep in mind that me comparing d20r classes is like trying to compare Ocarina of Time to Twilight Princess, if you'll allow the Zelda metaphor. Regardless, both are awesome.

lesser_minion
2009-05-05, 03:50 PM
Fax handled seed-based casting pretty well - I could make a mock-up of my take on the concept (there were differences, particularly in the effects of combining seeds) if you wanted, but I think it would be cooler to concentrate on the rules for the mage.

Faulty
2009-05-06, 08:15 PM
You mean your mage? Or the new take on the wizard, or what have you?

lesser_minion
2009-05-06, 09:08 PM
I prefer to use the word mage, and that's probably what I'd call the class, but to all intents and purposes, a mage is a wizard rewritten to use the rules for preparing spells that I suggested earlier.

I'd prefer to see if they make a workable concept before moving on to writing a spellweaving class (which Fax tackled really well).

Faulty
2009-05-07, 02:54 PM
What do you think of splitting up the Wizard into specialist Wizards? Beguiler/Dread Necromancer/Warmage-esque stuff.

lesser_minion
2009-05-07, 04:33 PM
I'm kind of torn on that one - I don't really see the need for distinct specialist wizard classes unless there is a serious problem with creating the concept using the tools the game gives you.

Assuming that a 3.75 would be hopefully a bit better balanced, I think a single class with a variety of main builds should be sufficient.

My plan for the mage was to make them effectively sphere based - they can cast any spell within a particular sphere, provided they are skilled and powerful enough.

If you want to play a generalist, you can simply pick a new sphere with each level, whereas if you want to play a specialist caster, you can use some of your sphere choices for things like spell masteries.

Faulty
2009-05-07, 04:41 PM
Nice idea. You could have specialist PrCs.

lesser_minion
2009-05-07, 04:51 PM
Actually, that could be pretty interesting.

I'm also thinking of a couple of changes to multiclassing that will allow things like cleric/wizards to be a little easier to create and play (most class features will use the smaller of 2 x class level or character level, and the character will be able to skip over levels in classes through multiclassing).

Silence
2009-05-07, 05:11 PM
I'm willing to help on one part of this. You see, combat with fighters really get's something like this very quickly:

I attack
He attacks
I attack
He attacks
I attack
I killed him
I attack next guy

If we could find a way to make different types of attacks, like there are in 4e, without completely changing the system, that would be great. 3.x has done this a bit (sunder, trip), but not to a great extent. I think that's one thing that needs to be worked on. If you do want my help, PM, don't quote me. I probably won't be checking this thread again.

Faulty
2009-05-07, 07:56 PM
Actually, that could be pretty interesting.

I'm also thinking of a couple of changes to multiclassing that will allow things like cleric/wizards to be a little easier to create and play (most class features will use the smaller of 2 x class level or character level, and the character will be able to skip over levels in classes through multiclassing).

I'd like to see where you go with that.

I really would like to give each class a number of fixed ability points a level. You can buy abilities from a number of leveled list, on top of default class abilities, which would be more scant. Full casters/manifesters would get the fewest, half-casters the second fewest, and non-casters the most, as new spells are for all intents and purposes new class abilities. Each class would get a class specific list, and then there would be shared lists certain classes would have access to. I also have an idea for a Factotum-esque class with no or very few class abilities, but the most abilities and skill points and access to a wide number of class skills and all non-class specific ability lists.

lesser_minion
2009-05-08, 03:37 AM
A semi-skill-based combat system or casting system would make an interesting spin on the game - each character gains a number of points which can be invested into a specific group of spells, or possibly a particular combat style.

If you don't spend the points on X,Y or Z then you won't have access to associated features and feats and you would be dependent on your level bonus and ability scores for any associated checks you make.

Also, for skills, I'm tempted to create a hybrid of 4e's level bonus system and the skill points system (so you gain a number of points to be split between particular skills, in order to gain an increased level bonus on associated tasks), so they would work on essentially the same lines (just no +30 to [class feature] items. Although I would suggest removing them for skills as well.)

However, apart from the skill changes, this is probably a little more radical than was required.

It could be interesting to make spells and special attacks semi-skills-based, however.

Faulty
2009-05-10, 06:47 AM
No, what I mean is that I would reduce the number of class abilities each class gets, and replace it with a flexible list of class abilities that could be purchased with points. Each class would have 1 or 2 class specific lists, and access to a few general ones. This would keep every class unique and in its role while giving greater flexibility. It wouldn't all have to be maneuver style things; it could be static bonuses, expanded uses for skill, etc, etc.

lesser_minion
2009-05-10, 08:25 AM
That could be quite an interesting system - sorry about the confusing post, it was meant to be a pitch rather than a comment.

Would it work though?

Characters would probably have a level bonus (4e style) to trained and untrained attack rolls and checks based on a particular style, and would be able to invest points in order to increase their level bonus in a particular technique.

Faulty
2009-05-10, 09:49 AM
Would it work though?

Well, I hope it would. :P


Characters would probably have a level bonus (4e style) to trained and untrained attack rolls and checks based on a particular style, and would be able to invest points in order to increase their level bonus in a particular technique.

Could you elaborate? I'm not quite sure what you mean, particularly because I haven't touched a 4E book in a while.

lesser_minion
2009-05-10, 11:19 AM
Well, I was going to use the term 'Level bonus' - in 4e its an "adjusted ability score" - bascially, the rule that adds half your level to all ability checks and pretty much anything based on those bonuses (or, for 90% of purposes, adds your level to all of your ability scores).

Faulty
2009-05-10, 04:14 PM
I didn't really have that in mind. Do you think that could be incorporated in the bounds of the general 3.X rule set comfortably?

lesser_minion
2009-05-10, 04:29 PM
In theory, there is no problem - it fits in nicely with the idea that levelling up your character actually improves them in every single way, and I like the idea that a more powerful hero would seem stronger, faster and smarter than your average peasant.

Unless people really like the idea though, I think I'd probably stick to using that for my personal take on the game instead of using it here.

Faulty
2009-05-10, 10:02 PM
Wasn't that the purpose of skill ranks and increasing ability scores at every 4th level? :smalltongue: I just wonder how much you'd have to adjust DCs for it. Been coming along with that mage?

lesser_minion
2009-05-11, 03:14 AM
That's really just a route to increased specialisation - it allows your character to buff their most important stats even more, and get all of the benefits of that increase (instead of virtually gaining all the benefits of the increase).

The idea is really to buff untrained skill checks so that all skill checks reflect the character's level.

As I said, it might be too big a change for a community project though.

Stuff on the mage (spoilered for length) and general ideas regarding the system:


The mage might be delayed because of prelims, but I'll see how I can do (I won't use the level bonus for this, as it is just an idea).

The biggest issue will be the sheer number of spells that have to be re-written in order to work.

I'm also tempted to bump the mage's stats to d6 hit die, medium BAB and also cut ASF. I want the main motivation for protecting a caster to be "if he has to concentrate on defending himself, he isn't helping you". A wizard will be most useful out of melee, but he can probably survive being in melee as well.

Any suggestions for Mage spells would be appreciated. I'm going to start with a few spell ideas I suggested to Afroakuma in the "What should the evocation school be?" thread, and also grab a few staples (probably colour spray, but it won't reliably rape entire encounters any more).

The general format I'll probably use is as follows:

Name of the Spell
This is flavour text

Difficulty: The minimum level required to cast the spell. If you use saving throws, your save DC increases by +1 for every level you have in excess of the spell difficulty. If you use Spell Checks, the DC of the check to afflict someone with the spell increases by its difficulty.

Discharge: The conditions under which the spell is considered to have been expended. This can be brought about artificially by certain other spells.

Ranges: The ranges for any effect you can invoke using the spell.

<action> Concentration: Effects that occur while the caster uses an action to concentrate on the spell, causing it to become active. This may be an attack or an area invocation, in which case this section will say something like "Any creature which starts its move within range suffers one attack from this spell." followed by lines detailing the attack or invocation.

<action> Invocation: Utility effect that occurs when the caster spends an action to invoke it. Includes any relevant information on targets

Requirements: Any requirements attached to a spell's utility effect. These spells can only affect targets you consider allies and which consider themselves to be your allies, but there may be other things - e.g. Target must not be mindless. Kept separate from Defences, because many defences and immunities are ignored by these spells.

<action> Attack: An aggressive invocation which may be used against an unwilling target. Includes information on area and secondary targets, if necessary.

Defences: Resistance bonuses which apply against attempts to use the spell aggressively. (including Fortitude, Reflex and Will, but also other qualities like Fear Resistance*, Fire Resistance, Mental Resistance** and so on.). Resistances can be used either as saves or as defences depending on DM preference.

Partial: For certain attacks, the effect on a successful save. These will be rare - probably limited to area attacks and maybe a few really powerful spells - and can be negated fully by things such as Evasion or Indomitable trait.

All attacks, invocations and concentration effects note the required action, e.g. Standard Invocation or Swift Attack. Some, but not all spells will have all three kinds of effect.

Special: Other notes on the spell effect.

* These rules will generally assume that 'Fearless' is something like "Fearless: The character has Fear Resistance +10, increasing the DC to afflict him fully with any type of fear-based ability. Additionally, a Fearless creature is not subject to the partial effects of any attack which permits Fear Resistance."

This would be a replacement for any kind of Fear immunity - e.g. Aura of Courage would say something like "The paladin becomes fearless, as an extraordinary ability. Additionally, he gains the supernatural ability to bestow Fear Resistance +2 on all allies within 30ft."

** Mental Resistance comes from effects designed to protect a character from charms, compulsions, possesion and psionics. The corresponding 'immunity' will probably be called 'Indomitable' and will also grant +10 resistance and allow the character to ignore partial effects. Mindless creatures will be absolutely immune, but they might reflect mental attacks on their masters. Vermin do have minds of a sort, but will still be Indomitable.


There are a couple of other pitches there - e.g. the change to immunities to fear or other afflictions (large bonus to saves and recovery rolls, and the ability to negate 'partial effects' - i.e. any effect that would occur on a failed save).

A paladin is still a living, mortal, creature, so allowing it to walk up to the God of Fear and laugh in his face or giving it immunity to the personal weapons of the God of Disease makes no sense (and ruins a few pretty cool character concepts). On the other hand, there are a few creatures that actually do lack the bodily functions of a living creature and shouldn't be affected by the same poisons or diseases at all.

I'm torn between suggesting a vaguely oldschool energy resistance (but in the form of a buff to the save) and the current system, which is basically a self-renewing store of temporary hitpoints which can only take damage from particular attack forms.

A suggestion for trolls (and treants): give them an SQ such as:


Fire and Acid Vulnerability: Fire and Acid damage are considered to be anathema to a troll. Damage from sources which a creature considers anathema cannot be reduced or mitigated by any form of resistance, immunity or damage reduction under any circumstances whatsoever - so, for example, a troll cannot benefit from a ring of Fire Resistance.

Creatures with an exceptional healing factor, such as regeneration, lose these abilities if they suffer more damage from anathema than the sum of their hit dice and constitution score. Track any damage which counts towards this threshold separately to the creature's hitpoints (even though the physical damage can be healed or shrugged off to some extent, the creature has still been burned or its spirit wounded, which is all that really matters for this purpose).

Extreme Regeneration: A troll heals 10 hitpoints at the start of each of its turns, and can regrow lost or detached extremities within d6 minutes, or with a full-round action spent holding the extremity to the stump. A decapitated troll is slain

Additionally, a troll cannot be killed by any amount of damage while this healing factor is active, unless it is decapitated.

This ability can be suppressed by anathema as normal, in which case the troll no longer recovers hitpoints automatically and can be killed normally.

The main idea behind anathema is to close the Ikea Tarrasque loophole. I would suggest making it basically impossible to become immune to anything though - as per the "fewer absolutes" concept. Unless the creature's type makes it absolutely inconceivable that it could be affected (e.g. fire damage vs. a creature composed of living flame).

I wanted to use the term 'aggravated damage', but I think it may violate copyright when used to refer to damage from a source against which a creature is supernaturally intolerant.

It also allows trolls to be killed more easily - deal enough aggravated damage and the creature loses its regeneration.

Would it be reasonable to rule that damage from bane weapons always counted as anathema?

Faulty
2009-05-11, 11:11 AM
Damage from bane weapons always being anathema makes sense and seems like a cool thing to add to the bane. By the way, I was thinking about personal projects, I didn't think the community thing was actually going to happen.

lesser_minion
2009-05-11, 11:18 AM
Did you think the spell format was workable?

And is there a cool word other than 'aggravated' that could be used for attacks to which a creature is supernaturally intolerant?

EDIT:

I have a basic idea of the casters I would like to write for my own take on the game:



The Mage - a formulaic caster who gains power by performing potent arcane rituals. These rituals grant the mage powers such as the ability to hurl bolts of flame at her enemies, turn her allies invisible, and even shroud herself in an aura of undying terror.
The Summoner - using her magical gift to release a shard of her own life essence and infuse it with the power of the world around her, the dead, and extraplanar beings, the summoner can call upon powerful monsters which lay waste to her enemies. Summoners are also adept at empathic magic. With this power comes a great danger, however - for many demons and devils, the life-essence of a summoner is considered the most succulent of all.
The Acolyte - With a magical gift which allows them to channel powerful spiritual energies, the Acolyte can call down the favour of the gods on his friends, or channel their fury to speed his enemies to their destruction.
The Druid - a survivor, at home in the wilderness, and charged with its protection. A druid gains the ability to call upon the powers of nature in times of need, even possessing the bodies of animals and spirits in order to further his cause.


The Mage will be as discussed - a Vancian-esque caster who gains power by preparing several different spells, which can be used as needed (depending on the spells in question).

The Summoner will be a more enduring character, but might suffer from consequence-balanced casting for their most powerful ability. At full power, a summoned monster can seriously ruin an enemy's day, but they aren't invincible.

The Acolyte is basically your Cleric. Heals and buffs allies, Smites and debuffs enemies. He will probably be a points-based caster.

The druid is basically a druid. Small nerf to wild shape (the druid has to possess an existing creature, which gets a Will Save to resist, but can now do so as often as he likes - this gives the DM total control, and reduces the incentive to rest and recover due to limited duration), and spellcasting will also take a hit.

I'm thinking of having druids be similar to summoners, but points-based. Summon Nature's Ally and Animal Companion will probably be rolled together into a single ability which allows the druid to summon animal or nature spirit-creatures similar to the ones a Summoner gets. Wild Shape could be replaced with the option to meld with such a creature for a short time, gaining a few small boosts.

Depending on how Lord Gareth's Paradigm Project goes, I might be tempted to use those classes, but I quite like these ideas. Even the Acolyte will have differences to the clerics of the existing rules (points-based casting).

Stats amount to Intelligence/Wisdom for mages and Charisma/Strength for Acolytes. Summoners are probably going to be Charisma/Wisdom based, and also pretty sociable (maybe not perfect for the evil necromancer archetype they can so easily achieve, admittedly)

I've removed the spontaneous/prepared divide (the only Vancian caster will be the Mage, who has heavily modified Vancian casting), although I'm trying to think of how best to handle the Sorcerer.

Faulty
2009-05-12, 03:43 PM
Let me get back to you on that.

lesser_minion
2009-05-12, 07:17 PM
When and if I find some free time, I'll try and get started on a melee/combat system for the game (as that is the contribution I said I would be willing to make to the project in the first place).

That should make all of the balancing easier.

I'll try and collect up my own stuff and put it somewhere more suitable at some point.

With regard to the three classes I suggested above, I was actually planning on requiring a ritual involving a summoner and a number of other characters who all work together to resurrect a character and all lose levels.

It means you can't just go off and pay the cleric to rez someone, and it also puts the cost high enough that attacks such as assasinations work (even if they aren't gone for good, death weakens enemies for a long time).

I'm also changing the rules for natural aging and dying of old age.