PDA

View Full Version : Homebrood: a Game Design and Parenting Blog



Fax Celestis
2010-07-12, 03:44 PM
d20r has been a long time in the making, and over the course of its development I've been told many times that people would like to see my reasoning behind some of the design decisions I've made. This blog is going to attempt to describe that and enlighten readers as to the reasoning behind my decisions.

Some of the topics I will bring up you may disagree with. That's fine: I have a very particular design philosophy (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v216/FaxCelestis/DisregardLeadershipAcquireShinie-1.png) that doesn't always line up with other people's ideas. As many of you already know, while I have conviction when I argue, I am convince-able: if you can convince me I am wrong or that my concept is flawed, I will do whatever is within my power to remove that flaw. I take great pride in my work, so I want it to be as functional (and not broken) as possible.

The other topics I'll cover have to do with my as-of-yet unborn daughter, Athena Jade. My wife's about 18 weeks along now, so we're looking at a due date in early December. I'll cover what it's like to be working on game design with a kid on the way (and later, just with a kid).

This is sort of a double-blog, so that I'll be more apt to actually keep up with it.

My first topics, then, are going to be the rogue and ultrasounds.
[hr]
The Rogue
I actually didn't think that the base rogue needed much adjustment. The 3.5 version already has what I like to call "differentiation mechanics" built into the class.

Differentiation mechanics are options built into the class to differentiate two characters of the same class from one another. I felt that the 3.5's differentiation mechanic--special abilities--came too late at 10th level, so I moved them down to 8th level. I also felt there weren't enough options, so I added some of my own.

This, in my estimation, was also not enough. I liked Complete Scoundrel's skill tricks, but I wanted something that was both under the OGL license and more personal for rogues, so I came up with rogue powers: small boosts limited in a per-day capacity that allow a rogue to shine in certain situations. Most of them are designed to allow a rogue to overcome one of its intrinsic shortcomings for a scant few moments: Agility, for instance, gives the rogue a small burst of mobility, which may be just enough to get them into prime flanking position. Similarly, Piercing Strike allows the rogue to overcome the sneak attack resistance that certain types of creatures carry.

While I didn't need to divide rogue powers into three categories (physical, mental, and social), I did so anyway so that at a later time I could possibly include feats, racial abilities, or items that would augment rogue powers of a certain type.

Rogue powers are extremely limited on a per-day basis, and this is because the rest of the rogue's features are always-on abilities, particularly their healthy skill selection, their sneak attack, and the majority of their special abilities. I specifically designed these to work on a similar mechanism to spellcasting--this is what I call an 'augmentable ability'

Augmentable abilities are those that can be easily expanded upon in later supplements. The best example is spellcasting: in nearly every 3.5 supplement, new spells were added. Most other classes did not enjoy such augmentable abilities, which is part of the reason spellcasting was leaps and bounds ahead of other class-types even at low levels. Feats are a good example of augmentable abilities too, but spells are a higher-impact option. By giving the rogue (and other classes) similar augmentable abilities, it allows me to work with a class past the point of its inception without working with alternate class features.

Alternate class features aren't augmentable abilities, they're replacement abilities--and frequently, they're either not worth the trade at all or they're far and away better than the original class. The problem with them is that they are designed as a patch for a class, when they're really not built well into that capacity. Augmentable abilities work better in that regard, since an individual ability can be errata'd, and new abilities can be added in later that synergize with existing features. The largest benefit augmentable abilities have over replacement abilities is that they are easier to implement into an ongoing game: they're a new ability you pick up when you level up, rather than backlogging your character and retconning in an old power.

Reflexive Defense (and the Improved version) is explicitly in place to incentivize single classing. This rogue still lacks a capstone, which I am not certain I like: I may end up moving Improved Reflexive Defense to 20th level. Unlike most other d20r classes, the rogue has no dead (or what I call 'pseudo dead') levels. Most d20r classes include pseudo dead levels explicitly to incentivize single-classing: if you remain in one class, the pseudo dead levels line up with where you'd acquire a feat, so that you would, in short, be gaining a new feature every level. If you multiclass, you lose that ability. It's a very small incentive, but it's there.

Almost all of the rogue's class features and powers are keyed to Dexterity and Intelligence: this is intentional, as classes that rely upon two primary statistics tend to be more balanced than those that rely on one or that rely on three or more. However, while they are generally keyed towards one or the other of these abilities, most of them are also optional, so it is entirely possible to make a rogue with a low Dexterity but a high Intelligence, and vice versa. Certainly, you'll have more options from having both, but this version of the rogue is what I like to call "VAD", or Variable Attribute Dependency. While a rogue can benefit from both a high Dex and high Int, only one is really necessary (dependent upon your build), and the other can be pretty safely forgone.

"But what about skills?!" Well, d20r also uses a compressed skill system: Listen and Spot have been joined; as have Open Lock and Disable Device; Tumble, Balance, and Escape Artist; Jump, Climb, and Swim; and other frequent must-haves for rogues. On top of this, rogues get the ability to choose almost any set of skills they like, rather than having a fixed set of skills. Other classes have at least one skill set that they must take: rogues enjoy the ability to choose all four of their own skill sets.

[hr]
Ultrasounds
Ultrasounds (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v216/FaxCelestis/thumbsup.png) are an interesting thing. Initially, I was of the mind that I wouldn't enjoy them: they seem sort of creepy at first glance, seeing a living being inside of another creature. Seems almost parasitic. But the first ultrasound I was present at was an eye-opening experience: it was when I first realized that my wife was well and truly pregnant and I was going to be a father. It was exciting, far more exciting than I was expecting, and far less creepy than I initially considered it to be.

Sure, there's another creature inside my wife, but that person is by-and-large a product of myself. There's a sense of kinship present, and I have not even met her yet.

We went in for a more-detailed ultrasound yesterday. I linked one of the pictures from that at the start of last paragraph. It was an enlightening experience. We discovered what the gender of the baby was (it's a girl) and also got to see it in far more detail than we have thus far. You can even seen individual fingers on the ultrasound. It was pretty amazing.

Finding out the gender also means we get to cement in a name: Athena Jade is our choice--if it was a boy, we were going to with Garrett Alexander.

The experience yesterday, by the way, was pretty nerve-wracking: the appointment was a 7PM, so we were waiting around anxious all day, wondering what the sex of the baby would be. My wife ran her biweekly D&D game that morning, but that still left us about five hours between the end of game and the appointment. So we went out to a late lunch and went to update our baby registry (http://www.toysrus.com/registry/link/index.jsp?overrideStore=TRUS&registryNumber=45272109), though we weren't able to mark down any gender-centric items. To be fair, there really isn't much gender-specific that we're interested in: our little girl has just as much right to be a tomboy as she does to be a ballerina.

So we went to the appointment after spending a really long time at the baby store. My parents met us there, and her parents rode down with us, so we had everyone present. My little sister (she's 15) is excited to be an aunt, but I don't think she really realized how real this was until she saw the ultrasound yesterday. Then again, knowing the gender has made all of this more real in itself. The baby has a name now, and my wife's almost halfway through her pregnancy: that means it's time to start getting the baby's room together (which I'll cover next time).
[hr]
If you'd like me to comment on anything specific, let me know and I'll see about discussing it next time I post.

Fax Celestis
2010-07-13, 03:35 PM
Today's topic is style feats.
[hr]
Style feats are a concept I borrowed from Exalted and from Diablo II that grew out of investing feats. The idea behind investing feats is simple: feats, like skills and spells, should grow with levels. Many of the "best" feats in 3.5 are those that are scalar, the most eponymous of which is Power Attack. Compare also Toughness to Improved Toughness: while the difference at lower levels is minimal, at higher levels it is a significant difference.

Feats have no reason to not be scalar: it is a large contributing issue to the Linear Fighters Quadratic Wizards (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LinearWarriorsQuadraticWizards) problem. You can give a fighter fifty feats, but if they're all non-scalar feats like Toughness and Dodge, they're not going to matter much against scalar spells like poison (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/poison.htm), power word: kill (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/powerWordKill.htm), or even fireball (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/fireball.htm). Investing feats, then, are intended to counteract this somewhat by providing bonuses that scale with how much prowess you have invested.

Style feats are an extension of investing feats, in that they provide increasing benefit based upon amount of prowess invested--the difference is not only that style feats are focused towards a particular style of combat (hence "style" feat), but also that style feats possess an ability tree. You buy abilities on the ability tree with prowess, starting at the top and working your way down. In most cases style feat abilities are usable once per encounter, but there are some exceptions.

General feats usually only have one or two options, and these options don't increase with level. Investing feats generally only have one or two options, but these options scale with prowess investment (and thereby fundamentally by level). Style feats have a multitude of options within them, each individually scaling to your level.

While a style feat is a powerful option, most have feat prerequisites, which mean you're likely going to be going into the path that the style feat fits with anyway. Further, they are a gigantic drain on prowess: most classes (aside from the dreadnaught) cannot afford to purchase the entirety of Berserk Sandworm, as it costs 96 style points. Spellcasting classes get 40 prowess over their entire 20 level career. Supporting classes (like the rogue) get 80. Primarily combative classes like the warlord get 120, and the dreadnaught gets 160.

Using this, I can make style feats an attractive option for the characters they are intended for, but not an attractive option for characters that they're not intended for. In short, they give the goodies to the fighters while giving very little to the casters.

Style feats also give me the opportunity, as a designer, to extrapolate concepts that are not worth a prestige class (i.e.: the Reaping Mauler) or a feat chain (i.e.: two-weapon fighting), and even to condense feat chains into a single feat. In short: I can lower opportunity cost where it matters (number of feats acquired over the course of a 20-level career) by using a secondary buying mechanism (prowess), but still increase the amount of things that martial characters can do.

Morty
2010-07-17, 04:20 PM
Well, that's pretty interesting. A question, though: when inquiring about d20r, can we ask here about things that haven't been touched upon or added to the system but we want to know how they're going to be resolved or feel they ought to be added one way or another?

Fax Celestis
2010-07-17, 04:21 PM
Well, that's pretty interesting. A question, though: when inquiring about d20r, can we ask here about things that haven't been touched upon or added to the system but we want to know how they're going to be resolved or feel they ought to be added one way or another?

Absolutely.

Morty
2010-07-17, 04:37 PM
Alright then: how are you going to solve the issue of great numbers of low-CR opponents being more or less irrelevant to mid-to-high level characters? 10th level characters - and even lower-level ones, depending on the level of optimization - can pretty much wipe out entire armies. It bugs me for several reaons.
First, it makes having large armies kind of pointless. Secondly, more importantly, I just don't feel it's the way it's supposed to be. Slaying whole armies singlehandedly should be reserved to the biggest badasses around and while 10th level characters certainly aren't average Joes Shmoes anymore, they're only halfway to being the most powerful people in the world. So slaying twenty mundane opponents without much difficulty is fine. 200, not so much. And even on 20th level, defeating entire armies shouldn't be trivial, which in 3.5 becomes much sooner than that. Carving through lowly mooks is a heroic fantasy staple of course, but again, I think it ought to be somewhat challenging for the heroes.

Optimystik
2010-07-18, 12:38 PM
I have no questions, I just wanted to say this is a great idea, very insightful (both to game design and parenthood) and offer my support. Please keep up the good work, Fax!

Fax Celestis
2010-07-24, 04:46 PM
My wife and I are very lucky in that we have three friends who have girls that are roughly a year older than Athena. This means we have a large stream of hand-me-downs coming in rather quickly. As of now, we have a crib and two basinets, as well as a variety of clothes and toys.

However, since we bought our house last August, we've not really been able to get all the bedrooms complete. The house has been recarpeted, and the bedrooms repainted, but the painting needs touching up, the molding needs to be redone, and crown molding needs to be installed. Last weekend, we hunkered down and painted the inside of the closet (and we were lucky: we almost ran out of paint) and painted the already-installed floor molding. I also painted the crown molding, but we haven't hung it yet: we're going to borrow my father-in-law's air-compressor and nail gun to hang it, mostly because I don't really feel like hanging crown molding with a hammer and framing nails.

As per the advice of several other recent parents we've spoken to, we're going to skip a changing table: they all recommended to change them on top of a dresser or on the floor or a bed. To me, this makes sense: I don't need a special kind of table when a regular table will do.

Also it saves me money.

Not even born yet, and the kid's already expensive. Between ultrasounds, blood work, specialty medical tests (like the one for gestational diabetes that Kaiser requires for everyone), furniture, clothing... it's a lot.

But like I said before, thank god for hand-me-downs. Some of the clothing we've been passed has been worn literally once. The problem with infant clothing is that it has a wearable lifespan measured in weeks. This is both a blessing and a curse: on one hand, you have a healthy growing child; on the other, you have to clothe them.

A good friend of mine (my DM, in fact) also passed us a play center, some mountable child safety gates, and a Baby Bjorn (http://www.babybjorn.com/Start). The latter is a godsend: not only are they generally pretty expensive, but they are also very, very handy for keeping your child with you while still getting things done.

Back to the room itself: right now, it's in something of a state of disarray, but that's because we're still painting the floor molding. Once done, we'll be able to arrange the room, set up the crib (!), and generally set up the room for Athena.

My wife hit the halfway mark on her pregnancy today: this is both exciting an terrifying. It means that I've only got about four months to get my act together and get ready, and it means I only have to wait four more months to see my little girl. I know already I'm going to have a hard time keeping myself from spoiling her rotten.
[hr]

Alright then: how are you going to solve the issue of great numbers of low-CR opponents being more or less irrelevant to mid-to-high level characters? 10th level characters - and even lower-level ones, depending on the level of optimization - can pretty much wipe out entire armies.

I'd like to say I have an elegant solution for this, but I don't really. Non-CR appropriate enemies are going to be either not a challenge or too much of one, barring special instances. The best I could say would be to utilize templates I'm creating that are quick-apply broad-effect templates (like Elite creature (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=121286)) to make the creatures themselves a bit more capable.
[hr]
I recently posted the d20r weapons and proficiencies (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=161515). I think with this, I simultaneously solved the Exotic Weapons Are Never Worth It problem (because now there are no exotic weapons) and also the Low Level Characters Have Too Much Prowess problem (because proficiencies are investable feats).

I went with a 'properties' method for weapons since I felt like it would make them more dynamic than just the typical "1d12 or 2d6" choice. Part of this is switching to a more 4e style of criticals: there's no variable multiplier or anything: if you roll a 20 (or a 19 with a weapon with the High Critical property), you maximize you damage (and add a couple of d6s if your weapon has the Heavy Critical property).

Swords, actually, I specifically intended to be a versatile weapon, so rather than giving them a prowess-to-damage or prowess-to-attack rate in the feat (like Axes or Bows), I made their proficiency feat give all swords new properties based upon your investiture. This way, swords would be usable in many many situations (including dealing damage), while axes (for example) are primarily for lots of damage. I'm happier with this version than I was with the previous version: I feel it allows for more augmentation at a later point.

The Pressman
2010-08-01, 01:40 AM
I have to say, things like this make me wish my parents were into D&D.:smallsmile:

Melayl
2010-08-02, 09:46 PM
I also have no questions (at the moment). I just wanted to congratulate you on your impending fatherhood. The three most magical moments in my life were the births of my children. I also wanted to suggest acquiring a bouncy seat. They're wonderful for sleeping in when the little one is congested or urpy.

Keep up with the great homebrews.

Fax Celestis
2010-08-20, 03:39 PM
So I finally finished the d20r druid, which took me a very long time. Unlike the other classes I've done so far, the druid was essentially written from the ground up: the other classes (like the rogue, cleric, or the dreadnaught) at least had a basis in an existing class: the druid's rewrite took the name and a concept and went from there. I am rather happy with how it turned out, though I do need to test it to make sure it isn't a broken mess.

Next on the list is the wizard, after which comes feats, style feats, skills, and finally spells: at that point, I can put out a PHB-esque compilation while I work on monsters. It's an exciting feeling, really, to know that I'm this close to finishing the first stage of this project.
[hr]
The wife and I have been looking into home-birth, and while we like it conceptually it's proving to be inordinately expensive, clocking in at about ten times the base cost of a hospital visit ($400 to $4000). We meet with a doctor on Sept. 1 to discuss things, and we're going to make it rather clear that she'd really rather not have any drugs, nor an epidural.

This is a controversial topic: if you're going to discuss it with me, please contact me on the unofficial IRC (irc://irc.gamesurge.net/giantitp) or via PM.

My wife, in the interim, has made a Facebook for Athena (http://www.facebook.com/#!/profile.php?id=100001456953766) so that we don't clutter up our own (http://www.facebook.com/#!/FaxCelestis) with OMGBAEBEEEE posts, which I think is a good idea: this way, the people who want to stay in-the-know can, while those who don't care aren't spammed.

Raiven
2010-08-20, 03:48 PM
I just want to say, it feels odd being referred to as "the wife." I don't even get capitalization. *pouts*

Fax Celestis
2010-08-20, 03:52 PM
I just want to say, it feels odd being referred to as "the wife." I don't even get capitalization. *pouts*

To be fair, when I started this, you didn't have a forum account. <_<

Raiven
2010-08-20, 03:54 PM
To be fair, when I started this, you didn't have a forum account. <_<

Actually, I had made my account about a week before. We had already started Fro's game. So there. :smalltongue:

Fax Celestis
2010-08-20, 04:01 PM
Actually, I had made my account about a week before. We had already started Fro's game. So there. :smalltongue:

<_< I suppose you had. Well, uh. Everyone, this is my wife.

Keld Denar
2010-08-20, 04:08 PM
Hello Mrs. Celestis, pleasure to meet you! Tell your lame husband that he needs to hang out on AIM more often, I never get to chat with him anymore and we even live in the same freakin time zone...

/scold

Fax Celestis
2010-08-20, 04:12 PM
Hello Mrs. Celestis, pleasure to meet you! Tell your lame husband that he needs to hang out on AIM more often, I never get to chat with him anymore and we even live in the same freakin time zone...

/scold

Mister Denar needs to go on IRC <_<

Eldan
2010-08-20, 04:12 PM
A general thing, which I've touched upon in other threads, I believe:

I love utility classes. Or, perhaps that's the wrong word. I love abilities which have a broad spectrum of possible applications. I'd rather have silent image or prestidigitation than fireball or haste, even at the same level. I love to play illusionists, enchanters, mages with utility spells. I prefer playing beguilers, illusionists, enchanters and other such classes.
Now, while I haven't read all your classes, all those I saw didn't seem to have anything like that. The sorcerer is a pure blaster, the cartomancer is unfinished, but doesn't seem to have anything in that direction. The druid has a little, in his ability to get various spirits.

So, are you opposed to such abilities? I'd understand why, they are difficult to balance, and a class with such abilities and one without will be fundamentally different in a lot of ways. Were you thinking of adding such things? Are they there and I missed them?

Oracle_Hunter
2010-08-20, 04:12 PM
You don't happen to have made a manifesto in regards to your personal design philosophy? If so, could you post a link?

At the very least, it could give us folks new to d20r a heads-up as to what kind of design advice to give.

Draz74
2010-08-20, 04:14 PM
Ah, marital banter like this warms my heart ... especially in a venue where I'm not used to it (geeky and online)! Man, I need to find a nice geeky girl to marry ...

Zeta Kai
2010-08-20, 04:15 PM
Actually, I had made my account about a week before. We had already started Fro's game. So there. :smalltongue:

Greetings, Mrs. Raine, & welcome to the forums. I hope that you enjoy your time here. Also, congratulations on your little Athena. As a parent myself, I can appreciate the endeavor/adventure that you are just beginning. Parenthood is the most daunting campaign that I have even played (even more so than the Tomb of Horrors!), so I can certainly sympathize. Good luck, may you never roll a natural 1.

Fax Celestis
2010-08-20, 04:19 PM
So, are you opposed to such abilities? I'd understand why, they are difficult to balance, and a class with such abilities and one without will be fundamentally different in a lot of ways. Were you thinking of adding such things? Are they there and I missed them?I'm not opposed to them, I'm just opposed to people having them who shouldn't have them. The wizard will get these, as will the rogue (when I expand its power list a little), and the cleric has some. I was initially expecting the druid to get some, but the more I worked on it, the more martial it became.


You don't happen to have made a manifesto in regards to your personal design philosophy? If so, could you post a link?

At the very least, it could give us folks new to d20r a heads-up as to what kind of design advice to give.I don't yet, but I will eventually. Did you have any specific questions?


Man, I need to find a nice geeky girl to marry ...

You're in my area, I know a few. :smallbiggrin:

Draz74
2010-08-20, 04:26 PM
You're in my area, I know a few. :smallbiggrin:

Actually, that's out of date ... I'm not in the Bay Area anymore. Hmmm, I should update that ...

Thanks for the offer though.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-08-20, 04:35 PM
I don't yet, but I will eventually. Did you have any specific questions?
Well... I see that you're using 3.5 as a template, but I'm not entirely certain why. You've borrowed a lot of features from 4.0 but clearly reject its base philosophy - in that sense, this looks more like PF. So, to start with, what is it about d20r that distinguishes it from PF?

Put another way: what would make someone want to play d20r instead of PF?

In addition, you've increased the complexity of some features for reasons that aren't clear to me.
For example, the "style feat" system replicates the sort of internal diversity that the 4e powers system does, but in a much more complicated fashion. Plus it grafts a point-based system onto the existing feat mechanic which is already complicated.

So I'm seeing a bunch of complexity being grafted onto an existing system to make it serve a new purpose; yet you could achieve the same goal with much less complexity by implementing an entirely new system for the desired mechanic - and there already exists a streamlined system to do so.

Now, simplicity isn't always called for, but when doing game design you should avoid complexity for complexity's sake.
I hope that explains my position a little :smallsmile:

Raiven
2010-08-20, 04:45 PM
Hello all. Thanks for the warm welcome.


Tell your lame husband that he needs to hang out on AIM more often, I never get to chat with him anymore and we even live in the same freakin time zone...

We've both sort of forsaken AIM and now spend all our time on IRC. You should join us.


Ah, marital banter like this warms my heart ... especially in a venue where I'm not used to it (geeky and online)! Man, I need to find a nice geeky girl to marry ...

The geeky-marital banter translates to real life. It gets kinda scary at times. I know my family has been lost quite a few times trying to decipher what we are saying. I come from a family of jocks, so sometimes I sit back and hear myself and I wonder just what planet I came from. Then I remember, Neptune.

We are far and few between, but I'm sure you can find a geeky girl. I like to think for every geeky guy there is a geeky girl. And Fax and I know geeky girls throughout the country, so update your location.

Stegyre
2010-08-20, 04:54 PM
After four kids (as a father), I feel so much more competent addressing the birth issues than the game design ones, although both topics are interesting (and both share the trait that they typically do not have a single right way to do them -- re-reading that comment, it's a bit ambiguous, but both potential meanings are arguably correct).

If you want a no-drugs, no epidural birth, you can do it, but you will really have to stick to your guns. My wife did all four without an anesthetic of any sort. (:smalleek:) I think we men really cannot appreciate all that means.

You've both probably already heard this, but in the late, late stages (around transition), the wife's brain goes really fuzzy, and Raiven is not going to be too sure what she wants at that point. The doctors (and midwives) know this, and they will offer her something at that point. She will look to her husband to know what to do. Just be ready. At that point, dad really is the strength and protection she is looking to, so be strong and protective. IMX, she will appreciate that.

Home births: Our second was a home birth . . . unplanned! Don't do it that way (unplanned, I mean): it's very messy, and guess who has to clean it up?

It's implied but not express in your post, but IMX, the reason home births are so much more expensive is that the insurance won't cover it. Not much you can do about that (except have that messy "accident": the insurance should cover that like it will any other emergent condition). Sorry. When done with preparation, home births are not messy, and the surroundings are so much more comfortable. (The wife has a brother and sister-in-law who have done pretty much all of their births that way and have been very happy with it.)

After the birth, my wife and I had a rule: as she's handling all the input, output duties were mine. (Think of yourself as the King's Hand, if you're familiar with the SoI&F reference. :smallwink:)

Also, when the baby wakes up in the middle of the night, either she wants to eat or she wants something else. Feeding (well, actually, milk production) is really very, very tiring - I have it on second-hand authority. So if that's not what baby wants, it really needs to be daddy's job to take care of other desires. (With our first, we were temporarily living in my brother's downstairs; they had a treadmill, and walking on it proved to be one of the most relaxing things for our newborn.)

Baby hand-me-downs are great: the baby doesn't care what she wears, and she'll grow out of things so fast, neither should you. Unless you come from a tradition with some important baby ritual (christening, etc.), spend as little money as possible on baby clothes, imho.

Oh, and if you thought your life changed when you got married? That's NOTHING to how it's going to change with children. You're both about to learn what hard work, responsibility, stress, and lack of control really mean!

Good luck. :smallwink:

JessGulbranson
2010-08-20, 04:56 PM
Congrats, you two. I have four kids, so feel you on everything you've said.

Love the idea of a simultaneous game design/parenting blog. I'll definitely have to check out d20r.

Fax Celestis
2010-08-20, 05:06 PM
Well... I see that you're using 3.5 as a template, but I'm not entirely certain why. You've borrowed a lot of features from 4.0 but clearly reject its base philosophy - in that sense, this looks more like PF. So, to start with, what is it about d20r that distinguishes it from PF? 3.5 is much much easier to work with fundamentally than 4e is, for two primary reasons: first, the ridiculous power system in 4e basically makes every class function in exactly the same way, with the only difference being what the powers themselves do. I feel this is lazy design.

Second, and probably more important, 4e's GSL is faaaaar more restrictive (and contains some scary clauses) than 3.5's OGL.

Pathfinder is a perfectly serviceable system, but it doesn't fix (or even touch!) some of the fundamental flaws of 3.5, even though it explicitly set out to do so at the start.

There are a lot of other design decisions within Pathfinder (Vancian psionics, CMB/CMD) and by the designers of Pathfinder (disregarding playerbase beta-testers because they used maaaaaath) that I find completely opposed to everything I believe in. I have tried very hard to listen to people when they have come to me with an issue and have done the best I know how to reconcile any perceived errors in what I felt was balanced but turned out to be otherwise as expediently as possible. Pathfinder has not done this.

EDIT: And on rereading I realize I didn't answer the question. You'll want d20r over Pathfinder specifically because I am setting out to fix the stupid flaws in the system (like the ladder -> 2 poles gp loop, or the commoner railgun, or the drowning rules, or the fact that being dead doesn't actually do anything to you...), and thus far I have (in my estimation) done so. You'll want d20r over Pathfinder because I listen to the playerbase's wants and concerns when they voice them. You'll want d20r over Pathfinder because it was grown here, on GitP, because I wanted to, not because I wanted a market share.


"style feat"The feat mechanic was alright in 3.5, but it had a disparity issue between spells and feats: individual feats had a greater opportunity cost than individual spells (you get less feats and have to meet prerequisites) and generally they were non-scalar. Spells are almost always scalar, have no prerequisites, and you get more of them. So feat-qualifications were more stringent for an inferior product. This is backwards.

One of the reasons for Linear Warriors Quadratic Wizards (LWQW) is directly caused by spells being scalar and feats not being so. Style feats (and more directly, investing feats) were designed to specifically take care of this. This isn't "complexity for complexity's sake", this is "complexity because there's no other way to make feats be more on-par with spells". They're still not, but they're closer.

Prowess (the point mechanic) is actually going to replace skill points. That's not to say that you're going to buy skills with prowess: that's not what I mean to say. What I mean is that prowess will be the point-buy mechanic, and skills will move to a trained/untrained system not unlike the Unearthed Arcana system presented here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/buildingCharacters/alternativeSkillSystems.htm#levelBasedSkills). I'm tinkering with implementing something called a "hero score" (right now, half your level) that you add to your AC and trained skills as a competence bonus, with certain class features and feats having effects based on or augmenting your hero value.

the humanity
2010-08-20, 05:12 PM
you know Celestis, it'd be really cool if you could make a book out of the d20r. I really like the druid, it gets the feel really well.

even with everything online for free, I'd still buy it. just for convincing dinosaurs to play.

also, I am a father myself, and it is a wonderful experience. I will venture forth the following comment- the more diapers you change, the better you will be at ignoring the smell when they get really bad (right around grown up food time)

my best wishes and prayers.:smallsmile:

Fax Celestis
2010-08-20, 05:15 PM
you know Celestis, it'd be really cool if you could make a book out of the d20r. I really like the druid, it gets the feel really well.

That is the plan. Wizard, then feats and skills, then spells, then book 1. I'll probably offer a couple of formats (thanks to the glory of Print On Demand), with PDF being one of them.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-08-20, 05:26 PM
There are a lot of other design decisions within Pathfinder (Vancian psionics, CMB/CMD) and by the designers of Pathfinder (disregarding playerbase beta-testers because they used maaaaaath) that I find completely opposed to everything I believe in.
I don't suppose you could list these particular beliefs? And are they general (e.g. flexible casting mechanics v. rigid casting mechanics) or specific (e.g. vancian psionics is dumb; power-points forever!)? If they are general, they may point to the core features of d20r that distinguish it from PF.


The feat mechanic was alright in 3.5, but it had a disparity issue between spells and feats: individual feats had a greater opportunity cost than individual spells (you get less feats and have to meet prerequisites) and generally they were non-scalar.
Actually, I was more worried about the design issue of needless complexity. Due to the proliferation of feat trees, you needed either a flow chart or an encyclopedic knowledge of the feat system to intelligently build a 3.5 character (that relied on feats). In particular, if you want to use feats to enhance internal diversity, you want to make it easy to track which feats you need to achieve the sort of ends you desire - otherwise people are just going to stick to "the build that works" and ignore all of the fancy peripheral feats that, while nice, take up too much brain-space to consider.

Instead of mixing in fighting-style with the feat system, why not go the classic Skill Tree route?
Any class you want to have access to a Fighting Style can get Tree Progression at certain levels - so moving from Desert Wind I to Desert Wind II. You can even have branches (so after taking Desert Wind I you can choose from Sandblast, Dervish Strike, or Coiled Snake Stance) and perhaps make internal requirements to progress (e.g. must have taken 2 of the 3 before progressing to Desert Wind II).

By keeping this mechanic seperate from the Feats system you can better highlight it as a feature of your system and reduce the "OMG!" reaction people get from looking through 50 pages of feats.

One general comment I have is that d20r requires an awful lot of bookkeeping. Is that a deliberate choice (i.e. bookkeeping is fun) or is it to serve some other purpose?

Fax Celestis
2010-08-20, 05:37 PM
I don't suppose you could list these particular beliefs? And are they general (e.g. flexible casting mechanics v. rigid casting mechanics) or specific (e.g. vancian psionics is dumb; power-points forever!)? If they are general, they may point to the core features of d20r that distinguish it from PF.
I am more willing to step away from "sacred cows" than PF, thus far. The druid looks nothing like the 3.5 version; the cleric doesn't have prepared casting or turn undead (and neither will the wizard, for that matter); the fighter is gone.

I have a philosophy about 'mundanes' that Pathfinder doesn't adhere to, in that non-spellcasting classes can still do things outside the purview of physics and reality (cfs: Beserk Sandworm, greater rogue powers, high level dreadnaught features). It's not magical, it's extraordinary.

I have a better concept on balance than Pathfinder does, and I edit my material more thoroughly.


Actually, I was more worried about the design issue of needless complexity. Due to the proliferation of feat treesDid you not notice that the entire two-weapon fighting tree is now one feat? "Feat trees" are gone, condensed into single investing feats with graduating benefits.


One general comment I have is that d20r requires an awful lot of bookkeeping. Is that a deliberate choice (i.e. bookkeeping is fun) or is it to serve some other purpose?All tabletop games require some bookkeeping (unless it's Risus, but that doesn't count). The only question is "how much", and thus far I feel that d20r's bookkeeping is about on par with that of 3.5, which thousands upon thousands of gamers felt was well within their comfort zone. Do you have a specific example of MOAR BOOKKEEPANZ? I may be able to address that point directly. And before you jump to Sorceror, Cartomancer, Luckthief, Bladeweaver, or Enlightened Devotee, let me note that those specific classes have been slated for "later release" because they have some very large fundamental flaws that need addressing before I can release them with confidence. The Paladin is near this list, in that I want to tinker with it somewhat before releasing it (mostly to remove the mechanical alignment aspects and to condense the Mantles into one unified list).

Style feats require no more bookkeeping than a Tome of Battle character does (investing feats even less), and spontaneous 9-level casters (which I have exclusively gone with) require far far less than a prepared 9-level caster does.

You will need to reference the book whenever you level up, or when you cast a spell or use a style feat (if you don't use notecards), but I cannot think of a character I have ever played where I didn't need to do that anyway. D&D is a book-centric game, and d20r as a successor to it is as well. If you're expecting otherwise, then I give high praise for Amber Diceless, Everway, and mortals-only World of Darkness.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-08-20, 06:54 PM
Did you not notice that the entire two-weapon fighting tree is now one feat? "Feat trees" are gone, condensed into single investing feats with graduating benefits.
I did, but then I noticed you retained feat-trees for other areas, like Whirlwind Attack. If you intend to fully eliminate feat-trees, then more power to you; but if not, I thought perhaps I should raise the issue.

Of course, the next section shows I shouldn't have worried:


You will need to reference the book whenever you level up, or when you cast a spell or use a style feat (if you don't use notecards), but I cannot think of a character I have ever played where I didn't need to do that anyway. D&D is a book-centric game, and d20r as a successor to it is as well. If you're expecting otherwise, then I give high praise for Amber Diceless, Everway, and mortals-only World of Darkness.
This is exactly the sort of design philosophy I needed to know. My default counsel is "KISS;" if you want to make a game that embraces complexity as a feature then I'll refrain from offering such advice :smallsmile:

Draz74
2010-08-20, 07:04 PM
skills will move to a trained/untrained system not unlike the Unearthed Arcana system presented here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/buildingCharacters/alternativeSkillSystems.htm#levelBasedSkills).

I think I'm sorry to hear that ... I'll reserve final judgment until I read the finished product, but I like the modularity of skill points and always feel disappointed by systems that take that away.

the_archduke
2010-08-21, 01:15 AM
I am excited to see your revisions on the paladin. I love the mechanics of it and have been impressed with... pretty much all of your reworked classes. Any idea when you will get around to that?

the humanity
2010-08-21, 03:37 AM
as a note, you know what 4.0 did right? putting complicated spells/powers on cards.

also, simplicity is key, especially if you make it by organizing and wording things so they are simple to understand, find, and read. remember, some gamers dont like reading too much. some people walk into a game shop... and are intimidated by the massive pathfinder book, but interested by the smaller traveler book.

just things to think about.

I work at a game store, so I might know a little better than most.

IcarusWings
2010-08-21, 11:08 AM
Whatever happened to giving either the ranger or hunter (can't remember which) traps instead of spells/powers? I thought it was a neat idea and an avenue that DnD never really explored.

And congrats on the baby as well, as someone who can't even get up the courage to ask out the girl I've been in love with for a year, I can tell you you're lucky.

Morty
2010-08-21, 11:36 AM
A question regarding the upcoming Wizard class: am I right in assuming that a wizard will simply be able to use the spells from the 3 chosen schools spontaneously, making them much like Cleric's domains? I'm sad to see the Vancian preparation spellcasting go, but I suppose it can't be helped.
Also, how different will the schools be from the ones in 3.5? I expect some major changes, seeing as it's widely agreed that spells are a bigger problem in 3.5 than the casters themselves. After all, if we were to go with spells and schools as they are in 3.5, a Wizard could select Conjuration, Transmutation and Necromancy or Illusion and still have access to the most powerful and game-breaking spells.

Eldan
2010-08-21, 12:39 PM
IN addition to the above: I love prepared casters, and so does my group. I think they fit the flavour of a wizard better than a spontaneous caster...
Now, I don't know exactly what your wizard will look like, but how difficult would you think it would be to make a wizard prepared again via house rules?

Fax Celestis
2010-08-21, 12:58 PM
A question regarding the upcoming Wizard class: am I right in assuming that a wizard will simply be able to use the spells from the 3 chosen schools spontaneously, making them much like Cleric's domains? I'm sad to see the Vancian preparation spellcasting go, but I suppose it can't be helped.
Also, how different will the schools be from the ones in 3.5? I expect some major changes, seeing as it's widely agreed that spells are a bigger problem in 3.5 than the casters themselves. After all, if we were to go with spells and schools as they are in 3.5, a Wizard could select Conjuration, Transmutation and Necromancy or Illusion and still have access to the most powerful and game-breaking spells.
The schools will be more like ToB disciplines than the 3.5 spell schools. So I guess more like domains for wizards? Except probably broader, more thematic ("Words of Power" rather than "Fire"), and with different sorts of add-on features. Right now, I'm calling them 'conjectures'.


Whatever happened to giving either the ranger or hunter (can't remember which) traps instead of spells/powers? I thought it was a neat idea and an avenue that DnD never really explored.

And congrats on the baby as well, as someone who can't even get up the courage to ask out the girl I've been in love with for a year, I can tell you you're lucky.
That's still planned. And thanks.


I think I'm sorry to hear that ... I'll reserve final judgment until I read the finished product, but I like the modularity of skill points and always feel disappointed by systems that take that away.

Well the problem I run into with skill points is that they're too fiddly for me, and I'd rather have one points-per-level system than two.


IN addition to the above: I love prepared casters, and so does my group. I think they fit the flavour of a wizard better than a spontaneous caster...
Now, I don't know exactly what your wizard will look like, but how difficult would you think it would be to make a wizard prepared again via house rules?

Well, here's the skeleton (http://wiki.faxcelestis.net/index.php?title=D20r:Wizard). Pretty much, you'd just need to add a spells-known mechanic.

Morty
2010-08-21, 01:08 PM
The schools will be more like ToB disciplines than the 3.5 spell schools. So I guess more like domains for wizards? Except probably broader, more thematic ("Words of Power" rather than "Fire"), and with different sorts of add-on features. Right now, I'm calling them 'conjectures'.


Yes, now I remember you saying something along those lines quite long ago. Thanks for the answer.

Raiven
2010-08-21, 01:27 PM
And congrats on the baby as well, as someone who can't even get up the courage to ask out the girl I've been in love with for a year, I can tell you you're lucky.

He only *sort of* asked me out to begin with. He asked me to coffee, which I don't drink coffee, gave me his phone number, which I don't call boys, and our first date consisted of going to his parents house and watching dinner after a family dinner. The next day he declared me as his girlfriend, without speaking to me. He failed in all aspects of dating, but I saw something in him. So I stuck it out. I figured "Hey, if I get bored with him, I'll dump him." And that just never happened. Instead, we got married, bought a house and now we're having little AJ. And I couldn't be happier with how my life turned out with him. Even if it had an awkward start.

I think my point is, just do it. If you don't ask her out, you will never know what the outcome will be. If she can see past the mistakes, the nerves, and the geekiness (if she can revel and join you in the geekiness than all the better) then she's the one you are meant to be with now. If she can't, and she says "no", move on. Like I said earlier, I believe there is a geeky girl for every geeky guy. Yours is out there. But you won't find her until you try.

Eldan
2010-08-21, 01:33 PM
Perhaps as a compromise, the wizard could choose from several conjectures he's preparing for that day...

Fax Celestis
2010-08-21, 01:46 PM
Perhaps as a compromise, the wizard could choose from several conjectures he's preparing for that day...

Well, a wizard will prepare spells into Eternal Magic slots, and may prepare conjectures. I'm not sure on those yet.

Eldan
2010-08-21, 01:47 PM
Oh, good. I just like my wizards to have to prepare ahead. Makes them seem smart when they succeed. Which they should.

IcarusWings
2010-08-21, 01:48 PM
That's still planned. And thanks.


Cool beans, I've been trying to come up with a trap system myself but it's difficult to think of something that stays true to the theme without making the trapsmith lay the battlefield before every encounter.


He only *sort of* asked me out to begin with. He asked me to coffee, which I don't drink coffee, gave me his phone number, which I don't call boys, and our first date consisted of going to his parents house and watching dinner after a family dinner. The next day he declared me as his girlfriend, without speaking to me. He failed in all aspects of dating, but I saw something in him. So I stuck it out. I figured "Hey, if I get bored with him, I'll dump him." And that just never happened. Instead, we got married, bought a house and now we're having little AJ. And I couldn't be happier with how my life turned out with him. Even if it had an awkward start.
I think my point is, just do it. If you don't ask her out, you will never know what the outcome will be. If she can see past the mistakes, the nerves, and the geekiness (if she can revel and join you in the geekiness than all the better) then she's the one you are meant to be with now. If she can't, and she says "no", move on. Like I said earlier, I believe there is a geeky girl for every geeky guy. Yours is out there. But you won't find her until you try.

Thanks, it's reassuring.

Violet Octopus
2010-08-23, 04:41 AM
The wife and I have been looking into home-birth, and while we like it conceptually it's proving to be inordinately expensive, clocking in at about ten times the base cost of a hospital visit ($400 to $4000).
I was born at home, and while I have no memory of that house (which doesn't even exist anymore :-/ ) it still feels like a mildly special part of my history. So this makes me happy for Athena, even though there's obviously no way to know if she'd care about it to the same extent.


I'm not opposed to them, I'm just opposed to people having them who shouldn't have them. The wizard will get these, as will the rogue (when I expand its power list a little), and the cleric has some. I was initially expecting the druid to get some, but the more I worked on it, the more martial it became.
It seems you're suggesting fighter-type characters shouldn't get utility abilities. I get that this relates to character role and not necessarily balance, but it still bothers me. I think it should be possible to play a fighter like Macgyver or Sokka without playing a ranger or multiclassing as rogue. Style feats may be a good way to implement creative non- or quasi-combat uses of equipment. If you have no plans for this non-combat utility, would you mind explaining why?

Another thing about your warrior classes is that there seems to be very limited customisation. Hearkening back to your post about the rogue, there seems to be little way besides feats to individualise a dreadnaught or fencer. Although, warriors get the most prowess, which increases the effect said feats have on build diversity. You mentioned at some point you were going to revisit the dreadnaught - are you planning to add more options to it and the other warriors?


Prowess (the point mechanic) is actually going to replace skill points. That's not to say that you're going to buy skills with prowess: that's not what I mean to say. What I mean is that prowess will be the point-buy mechanic, and skills will move to a trained/untrained system not unlike the Unearthed Arcana system presented here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/buildingCharacters/alternativeSkillSystems.htm#levelBasedSkills). I'm tinkering with implementing something called a "hero score" (right now, half your level) that you add to your AC and trained skills as a competence bonus, with certain class features and feats having effects based on or augmenting your hero value.
I like the change to skills in Star Wars Saga Edition, so this pleases me. I don't know how easy it is to make a trained/untrained system that uses the same DCs as 3.5, but considering this is an issue that seems pretty divisive, I hope you make it so it's easily houseruled back.

Last question: When you get around to monsters, are you planing to simply update their statblocks with the extra feats, prowess and skill changes (and presumably fixing the anomalies that make gate, shapechange etc so powerful)? Or will you try to make them easier to run/more tactically interesting, like MM5?

Daracaex
2010-08-23, 01:32 PM
First of all, congrats on the baby! I'm not old enough for that yet, so all I can really say is "good luck."

Second of all, what you've done with d20r is amazing and I'd love to play a campaign using it.

And now, my question: There sure are a lot of prowess-using feats, and (at least in my mind) that is a little intimidating for me. Will characters have enough prowess for the feats they want? Are playtesters generally coming back with comments that it is enough for each class? And, my main question, are you considering adding a feat that simply gives more prowess to spend? Sure, feat trees mostly no longer exist, but it might be worth it to be able to take a feat to reach the next level of a prowess-using feat you have instead of a different feat. Or might that make things unbalanced because of certain expenditure/style levels being reached too quickly?

Fax Celestis
2010-08-23, 02:21 PM
It seems you're suggesting fighter-type characters shouldn't get utility abilities. I get that this relates to character role and not necessarily balance, but it still bothers me. I think it should be possible to play a fighter like Macgyver or Sokka without playing a ranger or multiclassing as rogue. Style feats may be a good way to implement creative non- or quasi-combat uses of equipment. If you have no plans for this non-combat utility, would you mind explaining why?I do have plans for noncom utility, but I want it to make sense in terms of which class it belongs to.


Another thing about your warrior classes is that there seems to be very limited customisation. Hearkening back to your post about the rogue, there seems to be little way besides feats to individualise a dreadnaught or fencer. Although, warriors get the most prowess, which increases the effect said feats have on build diversity. You mentioned at some point you were going to revisit the dreadnaught - are you planning to add more options to it and the other warriors?I am going to revisit the dreadnaught and the warlord, primarily. The other classes, I feel, have enough room for customization between their class-unique abilities and investing/style feats.


I like the change to skills in Star Wars Saga Edition, so this pleases me. I don't know how easy it is to make a trained/untrained system that uses the same DCs as 3.5, but considering this is an issue that seems pretty divisive, I hope you make it so it's easily houseruled back.I can include a sidebar.


Last question: When you get around to monsters, are you planing to simply update their statblocks with the extra feats, prowess and skill changes (and presumably fixing the anomalies that make gate, shapechange etc so powerful)? Or will you try to make them easier to run/more tactically interesting, like MM5?They're all going to be revamped pretty harshly.


First of all, congrats on the baby! I'm not old enough for that yet, so all I can really say is "good luck."Thanks!


And now, my question: There sure are a lot of prowess-using feats, and (at least in my mind) that is a little intimidating for me. Will characters have enough prowess for the feats they want? Are playtesters generally coming back with comments that it is enough for each class? And, my main question, are you considering adding a feat that simply gives more prowess to spend? Sure, feat trees mostly no longer exist, but it might be worth it to be able to take a feat to reach the next level of a prowess-using feat you have instead of a different feat. Or might that make things unbalanced because of certain expenditure/style levels being reached too quickly?From what I've heard, people are happy with the amount of prowess each class receives (with the possible exception of the Ranger, but that is a specific special instance).

Kiren
2010-08-23, 04:04 PM
Congratulations on the baby!

Also,

Are you going to implement firearms that are different and feel different then crossbows, Wizards really didn't catch on to the fact that not every setting made is medieval.

Fax Celestis
2010-08-23, 04:07 PM
Possibly. Not sure yet.

Eldan
2010-08-23, 04:10 PM
Congratulations on the baby!

Also,

Are you going to implement firearms that are different and feel different then crossbows, Wizards really didn't catch on to the fact that not every setting made is medieval.

They also didn't catch on to firearms existing in the middle ages.

Morty
2010-08-23, 04:16 PM
Balancing firearms with typically medieval weapons is notoriously hard, though. Also, it makes the aesthetics of HP inflation even worse - talking 20 crossbow bolts on the chest without blinking is silly, taking 20 handcannon bullets is even worse.
And I don't get the complaints about "not every setting being medieval", myself. D&D is a dungeon fantasy game, medieval settings are a part of it. Would you complain about the designers of Shadowrun forgetting that not every setting is cyperpunk?

IcarusWings
2010-08-23, 04:19 PM
Fax, are you going to be revising the psionic system? I know the Medium, Hunter and Enlightened Devotee use it, but are there going to be changes or do we just use normal 3.5?

lesser_minion
2010-09-22, 05:40 AM
Fax, are you going to be revising the psionic system? I know the Medium, Hunter and Enlightened Devotee use it, but are there going to be changes or do we just use normal 3.5?

My understanding is that Fax doesn't think it needs much work. Some tinkering would be nice, and there are some problematic powers that could use work, IIRC, but psionics is one of the better aspects of 3rd edition in many respects.

As far as the wizard is concerned, I think the ideal solution would be to re-imagine Vancian magic, rather than dropping it entirely.

People like to blame Vancian magic for everything that's wrong with the wizard, the cleric, and the druid, but that isn't the whole story. The problem was "being able to change your class features on a daily basis", which isn't the sole fault of the designers using a Vancian magic system (it's the fault of the designers deciding that you could have every spell on a large list, either for free or for negligible cost).

A re-imagined Vancian caster could easily be something not unlike an arcane swordsage (except balanced). Maybe:

If a spell can be prepared, it takes three rounds to do so.
You can only have a limited number of spells prepared at any one time (one spell slot of each level, maybe). However, you can prepare spells as often as you wish, and there's no daily limit to how many spells you may cast as long as you have the time.
The magical theories that you have studied determine the list of spells you may prepare.
Spells which wouldn't be possible to cast in combat anyway are 'rituals'. Rituals need not and may not be prepared.
Certain spells 'drain' the caster for some time after casting. A drained caster may not cast or prepare spells.

Morty
2010-09-25, 10:13 AM
The revised monster stat block and the subtypes reminded me of a particular issue: how are you going to deal with NPC classes? Is the Complete Commoner system going to be in use or will the NPC classes be more similar to the ones from DMG? Both articles I mentioned mention the Warrior clas, but I don't know if it's just a placeholder or not.

Fax Celestis
2010-09-25, 10:38 AM
The revised monster stat block and the subtypes reminded me of a particular issue: how are you going to deal with NPC classes? Is the Complete Commoner system going to be in use or will the NPC classes be more similar to the ones from DMG? Both articles I mentioned mention the Warrior clas, but I don't know if it's just a placeholder or not.

It's a placeholder for now. I'm considering the Complete Commoner add-on as a post-release expansion and using the existing NPC classes pretty much as-is.