unbeliever536
2015-05-17, 02:52 AM
I have two questions on game design philosophy for the forum to chew over. They're largely unrelated on a detail level, but they both reach back to the core question of how random the game should be. I'm asking them because I'm picking at a class-based system with a d20 as its primary RNG.
First:
In D&D, especially at high levels, characters tend to "fall off" the RNG in one sense or another - they hit or miss automatically on every roll against most non-epic DCs (including typical AC), and the same is true of the DCs they generate, with a few exceptions. In this case, rolling the d20 becomes a formality where you check for the occasional 1 or 20; with skills you don't even roll. Or they just go around the DC system entirely with no-save-just-suck style spells. I think this is pretty good for certain kinds of checks - skill checks that were hard when you were near level 3 should be trivial at around level 11, and those that are hard then should become trivial by the time you approach level 19. The same is true for certain kinds of attacks and spells - your level 14 fighter should be able to kick the stuffing out of three or four level 1 orc warriors without really trying (or getting hit). But what about the hypothetical wizard vs fighter situation? Disregarding what typically happens in D&D, if the fighter happens to catch the wizard with his pants down, should she be trivially able to punch him into next week? Or the reverse: if the fighter can't render herself impossible to target, should the wizard just be able to say "sorry, you're a bunny now"? If you say no to those last two questions for equal-level characters (and I do, I think), how much of a domain advantage should a character get in their area of expertise? At level 15 (this is the beginning of the highest power level bracket) in my system, as things stand, an expert in a particular domain (a certain kind of spell, or a class of weapons) will have a +15 bonus representing that expertise for offensive purposes. Against an attack from their domain of expertise or a similar one, they would usually have a +12 bonus to their defense, or possibly the same +15. Someone with minimal training at all related to that domain would have a bonus of +6 to attack and defense with that domain, and they would be missing key abilities needed to use it well. This is, of course, before ability scores, which would figure in on both sides one way or another. Is this reasonable? I was planning to resolve this problem with degrees of success (at 5 point increments). How do you feel about that?
Second, and largely unrelated:
What do you think about fixed weapon damage? In D&D, again, weapon-wielding characters usually manage to amass enough damage bonuses that the actual roll for damage doesn't really matter. A typical charge-barian deals something like five times his weapon's maximum base damage before he even rolls. Is that appropriate? How random should weapon damage be? 1d12 is too random for me, but nd6 seems a little boring, if damage is rolled. There's also the fact that rolling for damage adds an extra roll to the game. I was already planning on doing away with hit dice for HP; is it reasonable to do the same for damage?
First:
In D&D, especially at high levels, characters tend to "fall off" the RNG in one sense or another - they hit or miss automatically on every roll against most non-epic DCs (including typical AC), and the same is true of the DCs they generate, with a few exceptions. In this case, rolling the d20 becomes a formality where you check for the occasional 1 or 20; with skills you don't even roll. Or they just go around the DC system entirely with no-save-just-suck style spells. I think this is pretty good for certain kinds of checks - skill checks that were hard when you were near level 3 should be trivial at around level 11, and those that are hard then should become trivial by the time you approach level 19. The same is true for certain kinds of attacks and spells - your level 14 fighter should be able to kick the stuffing out of three or four level 1 orc warriors without really trying (or getting hit). But what about the hypothetical wizard vs fighter situation? Disregarding what typically happens in D&D, if the fighter happens to catch the wizard with his pants down, should she be trivially able to punch him into next week? Or the reverse: if the fighter can't render herself impossible to target, should the wizard just be able to say "sorry, you're a bunny now"? If you say no to those last two questions for equal-level characters (and I do, I think), how much of a domain advantage should a character get in their area of expertise? At level 15 (this is the beginning of the highest power level bracket) in my system, as things stand, an expert in a particular domain (a certain kind of spell, or a class of weapons) will have a +15 bonus representing that expertise for offensive purposes. Against an attack from their domain of expertise or a similar one, they would usually have a +12 bonus to their defense, or possibly the same +15. Someone with minimal training at all related to that domain would have a bonus of +6 to attack and defense with that domain, and they would be missing key abilities needed to use it well. This is, of course, before ability scores, which would figure in on both sides one way or another. Is this reasonable? I was planning to resolve this problem with degrees of success (at 5 point increments). How do you feel about that?
Second, and largely unrelated:
What do you think about fixed weapon damage? In D&D, again, weapon-wielding characters usually manage to amass enough damage bonuses that the actual roll for damage doesn't really matter. A typical charge-barian deals something like five times his weapon's maximum base damage before he even rolls. Is that appropriate? How random should weapon damage be? 1d12 is too random for me, but nd6 seems a little boring, if damage is rolled. There's also the fact that rolling for damage adds an extra roll to the game. I was already planning on doing away with hit dice for HP; is it reasonable to do the same for damage?