PDA

View Full Version : Original System [D20 Legends Project] Ashiel's Crunchy but Approachable D20



Pages : [1] 2

Ashiel
2016-09-17, 06:14 PM
Introduction
Hello everyone. Due to some interest from friends and neighbors, I'm starting this thread to post and discuss the development of an RPG system that was born as an attempt to create the d20 variant that I would use to run my home games henceforth. It has evolved, however, into more of a long term project that I intend to share with the world. This thread is for discussing or talking about D20 Legends and will serve as a sort of think-tank between those interested in its development and eventual release (including Alpha and Beta) versions.

If you want to discuss something not specifically concerning D20 Legends, pop over to my AMA thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?500933-Talk-to-Ashiel-About-Anything-Mark-II) where you can talk with me or ask questions about anything that you want.

Under Construction
It'll take me a bit of time to properly organize and link to all the files and stuff that will go here, but I will edit this post to include links to files and past discussions as I get to them. I'll also (very soon, like after I get some food) post the design goals and conceptual stuff about the system, and explain what I think sets it apart from other d20 variants.

Ashiel
2016-09-17, 06:17 PM
This Post is Reserved for a FAQ
Thank you for your patience.

Eldest
2016-09-17, 06:21 PM
I'll be watching this, but as a heads up, your link to the AMA thing is actually to the first post and not the thread.

Ashiel
2016-09-17, 06:22 PM
I'll be watching this, but as a heads up, your link to the AMA thing is actually to the first post and not the thread.Oops, thanks! I've been juggling a lot of links. :smallredface:

EDIT: Okay, I think I fixed the links. I'll try to clean this up a bit more as soon as I get the food out of the oven (cooking for the family). :smallsmile:

Chambers
2016-09-17, 06:52 PM
So, those who know things about this d20 Legends, tell me about it! :smallsmile: How's it different than 3.5/Pathfinder?

137ben
2016-09-17, 06:57 PM
So, those who know things about this d20 Legends, tell me about it! :smallsmile: How's it different than 3.5/Pathfinder?
It's very heavily reworked, with an altered class system and reworked magic system. The emphasis is on customization during character creation, dynamic combats, and game balance.
I would post a bunch of links to prior posts on another website where the core elements are explained, but I'm on my phone now so I can't easily post links.

Snow-blind
2016-09-17, 07:15 PM
It's very heavily reworked, with an altered class system and reworked magic system. The emphasis is on customization during character creation, dynamic combats, and game balance.
I would post a bunch of links to prior posts on another website where the core elements are explained, but I'm on my phone now so I can't easily post links.
As for some more concrete details, off the top of my head these are the big details that I remember...
there are going to three ability scores (or whatever the terminology will be) - Strength, Dexterity and Mind.
spellcasting types and class chassis are separated and modular so you don't get Bard, Mesmerist, Inquisitor and so on. There is just a spellcaster, martial and hybrid chassis with their own mechanical details, and you add in your choice of spellcasting (no, there is no arcane/divine divide), psionics, chakra or whatever.
the divide between characters and monsters is somewhere between fairly small and zero - there isn't going to be HD vs class levels but just levels. Monsters will be built in a similar way to player characters (if not the same).
Way more things scale with level.
Characters will be able to trade accuracy for more damage. The specific example I remember was a dragon making piles of attacks vs piddly weak NPCs, but only claw/claw/bite against a tough PC.

Ashiel
2016-09-17, 07:20 PM
So, those who know things about this d20 Legends, tell me about it! :smallsmile: How's it different than 3.5/Pathfinder?
I'm going to try to get some content up over the next 24 hours (it's 8:12pm here atm and I have night shift at my dayjob soonish and I've been working on dinner for my family), but the really big differences that really take a step away from traditional d20 are...


There are only three ability scores.
Classes do not determine your stats (such as Hp, BAB, Spellcasting).
There are no Hit Dice (only levels).
Abilities scale with level (not class levels).
Multiclassing is easy and doesn't gimp you.
Martial combat is tons more mobile (there are no full-attacks).
Martials and skills are getting an overhaul that makes them generally more powerful.
Weapons are not divided into simple, martial, or exotic categories. Rather your level of proficiency is more important.
The game is primarily aimed at being easier to learn and use while retaining much of the depth of traditional d20.

Lemmy
2016-09-17, 07:42 PM
How would you make a low level creature with lots of hp/fort/whatever (say, an elephant) or a high level creature with low hp/fort/whatever (say, an old, crippled mage or something) if there are no HD?

Tels
2016-09-17, 07:48 PM
So, those who know things about this d20 Legends, tell me about it! :smallsmile: How's it different than 3.5/Pathfinder?

D20 Legends differs from 3.5/Pathfinder in that classes, in some ways, no longer exist. While they are still called classes at the current time, I like to think of them as chassis.

Currently, when you create a character or level up, you can select from one of three different paths that determine your BAB, Hp, Skills and Magic: Martial, Hybrid, Caster. Martial's have the best BAB, most Hp and Skills, and the least amount of magic (similar to a Ranger or Paladin). Hybrids have the second best BAB, HP, Skills and Magic (similar to a Bard). Caster has the lowest BAB, Hp, Skills and highest Magic (similar to Wizard or Sorcerer). Each time you level up, you can choose which path to take, and that determines what you gain that level as far as access to feats or spells.

Then, you have the class chassis. There are a number of chassis to choose from and they come with a host of abilities that you can select as talents at 1st, 2nd, and every even level after. Anytime you would gain a new talent, you can select a new class to add, gaining the basic talents of that class. Your 1st level talent is usually spent selecting a class.

So what this means, is each chassis can be used to create multiple different types of characters. For example, if you were to select Champion, you would gain access to things like Channel Energy and Smite. If you choose Champion and the Martial path, you will end up playing very much like a 3.5/Pathfinder Paladin. If you choose Champion and Hybrid, you will play very much like a Pathfinder Inquisitor/Cleric. If you choose caster, you will play more like a Divine Wizard.

One of the goals of D20 Legends is to cut out the need for class bloat. Instead of adding in a whole new class to do a new thing, you could simply add in new class talents. Every class added to D20 Legends, in affect, actually adds 3 new classes because of the 3 different Paths.

On a combat level, things are different because feats are getting a major overhaul to remove all of the mindless bonus numbers here and there, and focus more on changing up how you do things. On top of that, weapons are different, because what your weapon is capable of doing is partially based off how proficient you are with your weapon (simple, martial, military) and the technology level of the weapon. The more advanced your technology, the more things your weapon can do (cause a status like bleed, or dazed; trip, disarm, deadlier criticals etc) and your proficiency determines how effective those abilities are.

In addition, combat is no longer static. You can make all of your attacks as a single action, and can even move inbetween attacks. No longer forcing players to jump through major hoops for more mobility, or stand still and slug it out. However, each additional attack you make adds a small penalty. This is so you can unleash a large number of attacks to clear low level enemies, or deal lots of damage to easy to hit enemies, but against tougher enemies, you can limit your number of attacks to ensure you hit and deal damage. My favorite example Ashiel used was that a Dragon might use a claw/claw/bite/wing/wing/stomp/tail/kitchen sink against the King's army, but against the King's champions, the PCs, he uses only claw/claw/bite.

Spellcasting is getting changed too. There won't be a difference between an arcane or divine caster, they both just use magic. Some sacred cows are being removed, such as the removal of evocation magic and the reshuffling of spells into other schools. Some spells might also be associated with multiple schools, like a spell that conjures a shield would be a conjuration and an abjuration spell, and available to both specialists.

Further, saves are being changed into a sort of armor class. Instead of the player rolling saving throws, the caster makes a spell attack against a defense of Fortitude, Reflex, and Will. On top of that, the affect of the spell varies by how much you beat their defense. For example, instead of flesh to stone being a save-or-die spell, it doesn't have full affect just because you succeeded on the attack. If you succeed, the target is staggered, but if you exceed their defense by a certain amount, they may progressively turn to stone over time, or instantly turn to stone. This was done so you couldn't use low-level casters with wands or scrolls to focus-fire a single target with save-or-die/lose spells like flesh to stone or enervation. But it does mean that high level casters can nuke low level enemies pretty spectacularly. For example, fireball deals damage on a succesful attack, but for every 5 by which you beat their defense, the enemy gains a stack of burning, and takes an additional 1d6 points of damage on their turn. So if you beat a low level enemies reflex defense of 15 by rolling an attack of 30, not only do you deal full damage, but you give them a continuous 3d6 points of fire damage each round on their turn, if they even survived.

Ashiel
2016-09-17, 07:55 PM
How would you make, a low level creature with lots of hp/fort/whatever (say, an elephant) or a high level creature with low hp/fort/whatever (say, an old, crippled mage or something) if there are no HD?
Things like elephants would be very large and have lots of Strength as a result (which incidentally translates to lots of Hp and a very high Fortitude defense). Similarly, old decrepit wizards would be less beefy as well. Monsters will also have archetypal progressions like PCs do (so monsters like trolls and ogres would be big and beefy, while a succubus would be primarily magical, and things like Rakshasa would be a mixture of the two) which will contribute to things like that.

There is a sort of natural limit as well. Having creatures of specific levels with varying stats is totally fine. However, there would be a bottom low end for creatures of a particular level (and upper top end). You wouldn't ever see a level 20 creature that only has 20 Hp for example. Such wildly uneven statistics wouldn't make a very well designed creature.

EDIT: Hey thanks Tels! :smallbiggrin:

comrade ostag
2016-09-17, 11:03 PM
How would gish concepts work? Like, in Pathfinder, you can have some really gnarly builds but actually work it fairly decently (according to the Monsters Stats by CR table, I mean). I'm not talking about polymorphs, but the caster with a sword type deal. How is that going to stay relevant?

The same goes for skilly types, or does that designation not matter so much?

Zilrax
2016-09-18, 12:16 AM
How would gish concepts work? Like, in Pathfinder, you can have some really gnarly builds but actually work it fairly decently (according to the Monsters Stats by CR table, I mean). I'm not talking about polymorphs, but the caster with a sword type deal. How is that going to stay relevant?

The same goes for skilly types, or does that designation not matter so much?

Gish concepts, as in chars who use magic and martial are sorta assumed in the system. Until he figures out a method to make pure mundane work, everyone operates either on high magic, half magic or low magic, but everyone get's magic of some sort. So the Warrior would get casting like paladin/ranger in a sense, while the hybrid has bard type and the full casters are, well, full casters. But nothing stops you from being a full caster and taking barbarian moves, it just might not be a good idea compared to being a hybrid.

As for skills, skills will be able to go beyond mortal limits properly. The less spells you get, more skills you get, as skill points will allow martial inclined ones to keep up with casters in problem solving to some degrees.

Ashiel can explain it better though.

Tels
2016-09-18, 12:47 AM
One thing that is an important, but huge, difference between D20 Legends and other d20 systems, is that abilities scale with your level regardless of what that level is. For example, a 20th level Martial/Champion would have access to, I believe, 5th level spells (spell levels in D20 Legends has 1 - 11), and would have a caster level of 20th. But things other than Caster level scale as well, because classes don't exist as normally used in RPGs. As an example, Bardic Music scales in effect off your level, and will continue to scale regardless of how much you focus on bard abilities. You can make it scale higher and faster with further investment, but Bardic Music will always be relevant even if you "multiclass" into other classes and play, like, a Bard/Champion and play some sort of Paladin Bard.

So gish characters aren't going to be difficult, they'll be the norm. Until Ashiel can figure out how he wants to balance Super Muggles.

comrade ostag
2016-09-18, 12:58 AM
It sounds kind of like the Divinity games. You can put ranks in any kind of "ability" regardless of prior choices when you level up. Abilities are the things that let you cast air magic, use "rogue" type skills, etc. The core chassis is just "you," and then, how you level up from there is what defines you. Is that an accurate comparison?

Klara Meison
2016-09-18, 04:05 AM
Goals of the system could be found here (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2rxtz&page=35?-Ask-Ashiel-Anything#1746), neatly explained by Ashiel herself.

Information regarding d20Legends from the ex-previous thread could be found here (https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/0B_fLcwY-g_0PUUE0Q0J3ampGNjA) in a concentrated form.

Ashiel
2016-09-18, 05:51 AM
It sounds kind of like the Divinity games. You can put ranks in any kind of "ability" regardless of prior choices when you level up. Abilities are the things that let you cast air magic, use "rogue" type skills, etc. The core chassis is just "you," and then, how you level up from there is what defines you. Is that an accurate comparison?

That's a pretty accurate description. Also, if you like the Divinity games, you might find it amusing to know that I'm including status conditions such as wet, chilled, frozen, burning, corrosion, and so forth. These conditions interact with other conditions and abilities. For example, if you're soaking wet and are hit with cold elemental effects it can cause you to freeze and be unable to move effectively. Alternatively, being wet can prevent you from being set on fire (or dousing an ongoing fire). Junk like that.


How would gish concepts work? Like, in Pathfinder, you can have some really gnarly builds but actually work it fairly decently (according to the Monsters Stats by CR table, I mean). I'm not talking about polymorphs, but the caster with a sword type deal. How is that going to stay relevant?
Well as noted before, you choose your base statistics separately from your class. Higher BAB values add bonus damage to attacks made by your character (which applies to spells using attack rolls vs AC/Touch-AC). So an example of a weird but remarkably effective gish character would be my friend Arcane Knowledge's "Librarian".

What little is written for the classes themselves right now was done more or less on demand because my brother wanted me to run a sort of tech-demo at our house for him and our friends to see some of the changes being made. I was happy because it turned out that creating their characters (even with the dirty scratch-notes explaining the process) was easy enough that each of them was able to do it themselves. Arcane Knowledge decided he wanted to make a sort of arcane librarian that used some divine abilities and acted as a team cheerleader. What he ended up doing was a mostly martial with a little magic on the side Bard/Champion. Spells he selected for her included things like produce flame, flame blade, and a number of other low-level spells that used attack rolls. So she zipped around carving things up with her flame blade spell and chucking produce flames at people (which received bonus damage from her higher BAB). She was able to use Bardic Performances to buff herself and the party, and actually ended up going toe to toe with a really beefy Ogre by declaring it her smite target, absorbing some damage via temporary HP (an effect of her inspirations), recovering wounds via lay on hands, and chopping it up with her lightsaber flameblade. :smallsmile:


The same goes for skilly types, or does that designation not matter so much?
The less magical you are the more skills you have. So martial characters are skill types pretty much by default. The reason for this is because thieves messed up D&D. A strange claim, I know, but before the Thief class (the quintessential skill guy), all classes could attempt to do skill-y things (it used to just be an ability check). When the thief came along and codified certain skills and then claimed them as his own, he became a must have niche and stole everyone else's cookies. With this in mind "the skill guy" isn't good enough as a role. Everyone will have some skills but magic sorts are expected to have to devote some of their spells to doing skill stuff, and martial characters have more skills to compensate for their lack of magic.

Skill ranks are going to be far more important than before as well. At certain ranks in a skill, a new feature or option for the skill will unlock. You cannot do that thing no matter your modifier unless you've met the rank prerequisite. So hypothetically, having 8 ranks in Acrobatics might let you balance and walk on liquid surfaces with a successful check. A mage casting a spell that gives +10 to acrobatics would be really good at normal acrobatics things but still couldn't walk on water unless they had invested 8 ranks into the skill.

Klara Meison
2016-09-18, 06:07 AM
I have been thinking about spellcasting advancement in d20legends lately. How will it work? I know that fully-Martial person should end up with 5lv spell progression, while a fully Caster one would end up with 10lv(or was it 11lv after you include the cantrips?), but how would progression actually work? Will there be a single big table for spells/day or spells known depending on your MaB(kinda like there is a table relating bonus damage to your BaB now) that everyone would use? If yes, is it already availible somewhere to look at?

EDIT: actually, turns out it is right there in the "Classes-Introduction" file. I really should start checking to see if my question has already been answered before I post...

Relating to magical traditions:could someone select two different traditions? For example, two levels of Mage selecting arcane tradition and two levels of Mage selecting psionics tradition, to make what is analogous to Wizard 2/Psion 2 in Pathfinder. If yes, how would that work? What, if any, are gameplay effects of traditions?

khadgar567
2016-09-18, 06:35 AM
small question of intrigue how you gonna create summoner class on your system

ace rooster
2016-09-18, 07:36 AM
Are you sticking with the concealment mechanic? It always feels bolted on and badly handled. The complete lack of interaction with BAB (which is the only thing available to represent tactical awareness) always irked me. If not, do you have thoughts about stealth in combat?

How are spells targeted? One major difference between 3.x magic and Potterverse magic is the auto hit in 3.x. In contrast, the duels in Harry Potter were all about getting your spells to stick, with it not really mattering what spell you hit with (a stun is as good as a kill).

Are you sticking with the 'better spells are better' ethos? In 3.5, a 5th level spell that does something similar to a 4th level spell is strictly better. It will have a higher save DC, do more damage, and be harder to counter. There is no trade off between using a higher level spell and a lower level spell, other than the spell slot. I like the idea of using higher level slots to fuel more uses of lower level spells, but it suggests that you think playing casters should revolve even more around planned resource management*, rather than less. Am I correct in this?

What is the targeted power curve? Lets use mooks vs level curve for reference, even if nobody would ever actually play a level 10 vs the appropriate number of level 1s due to it taking 4 days to play out.

Is mass combat planned? I find that mass combat tends to work best if you build the system with it in mind from very early on, and that if you don't you either end up with huge discontinuities or a trivial game.

Is christmas tree avoidance a design goal?


* For example, a final boss will almost always call upon a caster's most powerful spells, and the rest of the adventure will be about keeping your most powerful spells for the final boss. The decision will always be about using the least expensive spell for the job, rather than the most appropriate (which would almost always be the most powerful).

Mashallah
2016-09-18, 07:43 AM
small question of intrigue how you gonna create summoner class on your system
I don't think this system even needs anything as narrowly-focused as a summoner class.

Instead of that, I'd imagine one taking the magic path, the mage class, mostly summoning spells and a talent similar in function to eidolon to replicate that.

khadgar567
2016-09-18, 09:05 AM
I don't think this system even needs anything as narrowly-focused as a summoner class.

Instead of that, I'd imagine one taking the magic path, the mage class, mostly summoning spells and a talent similar in function to eidolon to replicate that.
good for me

Bruno Carvalho
2016-09-18, 09:30 AM
This really reminds me of an old thread of this forums. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?297557-A-Whole-New-Era-(PEACH))

Are you someway related or aware of that homebrew? How do you plan to address the discussed problems that arose from the same ideas you have (main problems were feature bloat, excess of options, and noob traps)?

Klara Meison
2016-09-18, 10:41 AM
This really reminds me of an old thread of this forums. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?297557-A-Whole-New-Era-(PEACH))

Are you someway related or aware of that homebrew? How do you plan to address the discussed problems that arose from the same ideas you have (main problems were feature bloat, excess of options, and noob traps)?

None of those seem like pressing issues, honestly. System generally is heavily based around the idea of cutting out feature bloat. Excess of options, while certainly being there(it's an issue with all dnd games I have seen so far), is really more of an issue of system mastery than anything else, and could be managed by some simple suggestions to the players, such as "Don't multiclass/multipath on your first character", which would significantly cut their options, thus making it easier to slowly learn the system. Plus, again, feature bloat is being cut-for example, days of enormous weapon choice tables are in the past.

As for noob traps, it's mostly an issue of balance(which is a concideration already), proper tutorials and manuals. For example, including pre-made builds(a thing which would just tell you what features you gain at what levels, giving you no choice in the matter. Choice is a bad thing when you don't know what to choose) would probably help new players greatly while they are learning the system. Ashiel actually taking notes during one of her campaigns and, perhaps, publishing an introductory adventure would be another superb tutorial.

Lemmy
2016-09-18, 12:04 PM
I have a question about combat rules...

Taking a -2 for every additional attack seems like a good idea, IMHO. However...

How will TWF work? Taking a -6 to all attacks as soon as you get your first iterative seems a bit much.
What about abilities such as Haste and Flurry of Blows, whose whole purpose is getting an extra attack... Will they inflict the -2 penalty as well? Will they work differently? Will they even exist?

Ashiel
2016-09-18, 01:03 PM
Relating to magical traditions:could someone select two different traditions? For example, two levels of Mage selecting arcane tradition and two levels of Mage selecting psionics tradition, to make what is analogous to Wizard 2/Psion 2 in Pathfinder. If yes, how would that work? What, if any, are gameplay effects of traditions?
This is something that I've considered and at the moment my projected solution is to create an option (most likely a feat) that gives you an additional tradition at the cost of stunting your growth in your traditions. Essentially you'd end up looking kind of like a mystic theurge as a result. While theurgic casting was traditionally a generally bad idea in 3.x/PF, it would be naturally more approachable in d20 legends because...

Spell level is not used to determine your chance to hit with spells.
The caster-level type effects of spells is based on your character level.

Which means if I created an option that allowed you to select an additional tradition at the cost of being stunted in both, you'd still be able to respectably land magic attacks on enemies and your magical abilities wouldn't be trivially easy to dispel, etc.

Ashiel
2016-09-18, 01:44 PM
Are you sticking with the concealment mechanic? It always feels bolted on and badly handled. The complete lack of interaction with BAB (which is the only thing available to represent tactical awareness) always irked me.
I've actually always liked d20's concealment because it's pretty easy to resolve, which is important for keeping the game running smoothly at the table. BAB is still a pretty big factor in actually landing hits since it means getting more chances to land a successful attack (as in, while 1/5 would be successful attacks may miss, you're still landing more successful attacks).


If not, do you have thoughts about stealth in combat?
Stealth in combat will definitely be a thing. The main requisite is you have to have cover or concealment vs the creature(s) you're using Stealth against. This is actually part of the rogue metagame since they have abilities that can temporarily dazzle* or blind characters, which allows them to then use Stealth against their opponent to follow up with a major sneak attack.

*: The dazzled condition in d20 legends is basically mini-blinded and causes everything to have concealment against you (20% miss chance).


How are spells targeted? One major difference between 3.x magic and Potterverse magic is the auto hit in 3.x. In contrast, the duels in Harry Potter were all about getting your spells to stick, with it not really mattering what spell you hit with (a stun is as good as a kill).Depends on the spells but they tend to be targeted in much the same way as traditional d20. Some spells have a lesser or greater effect based on how successful your magic attack was against the target(s).


Are you sticking with the 'better spells are better' ethos? In 3.5, a 5th level spell that does something similar to a 4th level spell is strictly better. It will have a higher save DC, do more damage, and be harder to counter. There is no trade off between using a higher level spell and a lower level spell, other than the spell slot. I like the idea of using higher level slots to fuel more uses of lower level spells, but it suggests that you think playing casters should revolve even more around planned resource management*, rather than less. Am I correct in this?
Yes and no. Higher level spells will provide higher level effects (those effects may come in the form of extra damage, more robust AoEs, or just entirely new effects, etc). Unlike traditional D20, the level of the spell does not determine your chances to successfully land a spell on your targets. Spells can be cast with higher level slots and most automatically scale in various ways for doing so (such as gaining increased AoEs, more damage, etc). Casting high level spells is difficult though, primarily because of the new Concentration mechanic while I'll explain a bit of here.

In D20-Legends, every time you cast a spell (or manifest a power, etc), a Concentration check is made. Now you can take-10 on this check if you're not currently being threatened (as in, if no one is threatening you in melee you can take-10). The DCs for casting higher level spells are notably more difficult than casting lower level spells. Likewise, various factors apply penalties to your Concentration checks (for example, most status ailments increase the DC of casting a spell; casting defensively increases the DC; armor check penalties apply to your Concentration checks). Because of this, casters can be pressed into situations where casting lower level spells is their safer options.


What is the targeted power curve? Lets use mooks vs level curve for reference, even if nobody would ever actually play a level 10 vs the appropriate number of level 1s due to it taking 4 days to play out.
At the moment the projected power curve is every two levels you should be worth twice what you are now. So if you're 2nd level now, at 4th level you will be worth two of you. I might end up tweaking it slightly if the need arises but the general gist of the idea is that gaining levels is a very big deal.

As to taking 4 days to play out a "use versus 100 orcs" is probably not going to be a huge issue since the system is being built around the idea of making mook sweeping something that's kind of innate to characters. Many spells are significantly more painful to creatures with low defenses, and martial characters can move and make all of their attacks, get bonus damage from a higher BAB, and so forth. So to give an example from an early tech-demo I ran for my brother and our friends...

Example: My brother was playing a dwarf rogue using the warrior path. He wore heavier armors than your typical rogue and carried a shield and fought with an axe and used a flintlock pistol as his favorite ranged weapon. They were playing at 4th level so he had +1d6 damage to his attacks from BAB and could make +1 attack / round (at a -2 penalty). If he decided to make a dual-wielding attack during his turn he would get an extra +1 attack (at a further -2 penalty, giving him 3 attacks at -4). The party was ambushed by about a dozen mooks.

During his turn, he moved through a crowd and fired his pistol at one mook (he applied Dex to damage, and because he was within 30 ft. of his foe got his rogue's cunning strike damage, and then the +1d6 from his BAB). Since the mook only had around 8 HP, the mook takes a bullet and drops. He continued his movement, dropping his pistol as a free action and drawing his axe as he continued moving. He then ended up in melee with two other mooks and dispatched both of them with an axe and shield slam. The entire process was quick to resolve and he was instantly enamored with how awesome and mobile he felt compared to vanilla-d20.


Is mass combat planned? I find that mass combat tends to work best if you build the system with it in mind from very early on, and that if you don't you either end up with huge discontinuities or a trivial game.We haven't discussed it in much detail beyond "We need to see if we can come up with some mass combat rules that work without bogging the game down too much".


Is christmas tree avoidance a design goal?
Not really. We like phat lewts.



* For example, a final boss will almost always call upon a caster's most powerful spells, and the rest of the adventure will be about keeping your most powerful spells for the final boss. The decision will always be about using the least expensive spell for the job, rather than the most appropriate (which would almost always be the most powerful).
I think this is largely an adventure pacing thing and a matter of threat management skills on the players' side. That said, since casting higher level spells is harder, in particularly difficult battles you may find yourself incentivized towards casting lower level spells due to their better reliability.

Ashiel
2016-09-18, 01:51 PM
I have a question about combat rules...

Taking a -2 for every additional attack seems like a good idea, IMHO. However...

How will TWF work? Taking a -6 to all attacks as soon as you get your first iterative seems a bit much.
What about abilities such as Haste and Flurry of Blows, whose whole purpose is getting an extra attack... Will they inflict the -2 penalty as well? Will they work differently? Will they even exist?
It's a -2 per additional attack, not per attack. So it would be a -4 penalty to make 1 attack + 1 bonus attack + 1 dual-wield attack. That's a pretty sweet deal, especially since your ability scores and stuff probably increased as well on your way to 4th level (since stats scale more smoothly), and isn't accounting for any buffs or gear improvements. :smallsmile:

Haven't decided about haste type effects yet. We might...

Make it a "free" bonus attack.
Make in an extra normal attack.
Make it reduce the penalties for making bonus attacks instead of granting an additional attack (this would incidentally make it more attractive on martial charaters).


At the moment the dual-wield mechanics mention that you can make a flurry of unarmed strikes. Unarmed strikes are the exception to dual-wielding's requirement to use different weapons for your bonus attacks (so you can "dual-wield" unarmed strikes). This also opens up the ability to add new effects (such as feats or class features) that let you flurry with other kinds of weapons (which would allow you to make an extra dual-wielding attack with the same weapon).

Ashiel
2016-09-18, 02:26 PM
This really reminds me of an old thread of this forums. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?297557-A-Whole-New-Era-(PEACH))

Are you someway related or aware of that homebrew?
Nope.


How do you plan to address the discussed problems that arose from the same ideas you have (main problems were feature bloat, excess of options, and noob traps)?
Mostly through a design philosophy if "scrap it, don't trap it". Either a feature is worth taking or it's not worth making.

Options for sake of options is a bad design. I'm designing the system to minimize the amount of extra content that is required to make robust characters. Due to the way the class system is set up, you can approach new classes or new class talents on your own terms. It's easier to parse what they do, and they can just be integrated into the classes and options you were already using without requiring you to learn and evaluate whole new classes in the traditional d20 sense (which also means they can be more condensed and easier to parse).

I wholly believe that "less should do more". That's something I'm striving towards with this.
In comparison to the link you sent me, a lot of that stuff mentioned simply has no need to exist in D20 Legends. For example, d20 legends has no need for Paizo style Archetypes, nor does it have need for Prestige classes in the traditional sense. Archetype-like things would just be a new set of talents. The feel of prestige classes could be gained by making multiclass talents (such as talents that required talents from two different classes and merged some sort of feature of those two classes to work in conjunction with one-another).

Lemmy
2016-09-18, 03:47 PM
What's the plan to deal with "Rocket Tag"?

On one hand, nobody likes spending half a hour to resolve a turn, OTOH, ending boss fights by seeing who gets to land the first full attack is pretty underwhelming and anti-climatic. With the faster power scaling and added mobility, "rocket tag" may be a greater problem than before.

Tels
2016-09-18, 06:31 PM
What's the plan to deal with "Rocket Tag"?

On one hand, nobody likes spending half a hour to resolve a turn, OTOH, ending boss fights by seeing who gets to land the first full attack is pretty underwhelming and anti-climatic. With the faster power scaling and added mobility, "rocket tag" may be a greater problem than before.

My understanding is that rocket tag will be less of an issue because of the changes to melee combat, and spell effects. At least, in theory. See, because you take a cumulative -2 penalty to attack for each additional attack beyond the first, that applies to all of your attacks, rushing up with a massive flurry of greatsword swings won't necessarily be a great option. For example, in Pathfinder, a 16th level, hasted Barbarian might charge and pounce a target, making 5 attacks at a BAB of 16/16/11/6/1 right? Lots of damage to be dealt right there. In D20 Legends, a 16th level Barbarian might charge and make 5 attacks, but due to the penalties, the attack routine is 8/8/8/8/8 instead (4 additional attacks at -2 each means a total of a -8 penalty). Whereas in Pathfinder, your first two or three attacks might hit, and the others are just gravy, by making all of your attacks, you run the real risk of missing on every attack.

Likewise, with spells in D20 Legends, this is much less of a fear of a caster ending a fight on the first round due to a failed save. Even if the party uses multiple casting of the same spell (like flesh to stone) to try and get lucky. Because on a successful magic attack, the spell is only partially effective, unless you utterly crush their save defense. This remains a possibility though, so if the caster were to use a series of spells to massively debuff a save defense, and then use a finisher spell, that would still work, but it would take multiple rounds to pull it off.

Snow-blind
2016-09-18, 07:34 PM
It just occurred to me that an attack routine of -99/-99/-99/-99/-99/-99/-99/-99 is statistically superior to just one attack at +6 vs 20 AC, at least under the Pathfinder system.

On that note, is auto-pass/auto-fail in the system?

Ashiel
2016-09-18, 07:46 PM
My understanding is that rocket tag will be less of an issue because of the changes to melee combat, and spell effects. At least, in theory. See, because you take a cumulative -2 penalty to attack for each additional attack beyond the first, that applies to all of your attacks, rushing up with a massive flurry of greatsword swings won't necessarily be a great option. For example, in Pathfinder, a 16th level, hasted Barbarian might charge and pounce a target, making 5 attacks at a BAB of 16/16/11/6/1 right? Lots of damage to be dealt right there. In D20 Legends, a 16th level Barbarian might charge and make 5 attacks, but due to the penalties, the attack routine is 8/8/8/8/8 instead (4 additional attacks at -2 each means a total of a -8 penalty). Whereas in Pathfinder, your first two or three attacks might hit, and the others are just gravy, by making all of your attacks, you run the real risk of missing on every attack.

Likewise, with spells in D20 Legends, this is much less of a fear of a caster ending a fight on the first round due to a failed save. Even if the party uses multiple casting of the same spell (like flesh to stone) to try and get lucky. Because on a successful magic attack, the spell is only partially effective, unless you utterly crush their save defense. This remains a possibility though, so if the caster were to use a series of spells to massively debuff a save defense, and then use a finisher spell, that would still work, but it would take multiple rounds to pull it off.

Pretty much this.

As an side, I've found that if you don't build for rocket tag you won't have rocket tag. I've personally found rocket tag to be a grand myth in Pathfinder (and largely in vanilla 3.x) if you're not building for it. Layered defenses are important to survival in Pathfinder and costs for defensive abilities are very competitively priced. Far too often I see people pushing the idea of alpha striking and hitting really hard while mostly ignoring defense. The problem I've seen with that is that it leaves everyone as a glass cannon and if your alpha strike fails then you'll probably fold like paper in a few rounds.

Most Pathfinder classes have a solid amount of offense baked into their progression that's largely irreverent to their gear. And having good defenses is really important for surviving high level encounters. I know most of the folks from my old AMA thread have probably seen this excerpt before, but here's an example of a CR 20 encounter for one of my games.

The few individual monsters who can actually take on a party do so because they have the means to prepare, and many of them have powerful summons. For example, solars are excessively powerful and could take on an entire party, but they can also gate more solars, chain-spam summon monster VII to call in celestial Tyrannosaurs to swallow PCs and their minions whole, etc, etc, etc, etc.
High level combat is NOT like low level combat. It is a tactical game of dropping nukes and bio-weapons on your enemies while shielding yourself with your star-wars program and hazmat teams. A high level encounter where enemies are using their full resources is a terrifying ordeal. A 20th level party vs a Solar for example is akin to the freakin' Ragnarok on the scale of extreme terror that it would incite in normal humans, as on this scale you are literally hurling meteors at people, calling upon earth shattering storms, and cracking the land and sundering buildings, while the legions of heaven and hell descend or crawl up from their realms to join the battle.

For example...

CR 20 encounter = 307,200 XP
Succubus x 4 (CR 7) = 12,800 XP
Shadow Demon x 4 (CR 7) = 12,800 XP
Nabasu x 6 (CR 8) = 28,800 XP
Glabrezu x 2 (CR 13) = 51,200 XP
Marilith x 1 (CR 17) = 102,400 XP
Vrock x 15 (CR 9) = 96,000 XP
Dretch x 5 (CR 2) = 3,000 XP

This is a demon horde led by a Marilith, who commands their fiendish legions. The entire horde can greater teleport at will, and works together. Most of them can summon more demons as spell-like abilities. Here is a quick rundown of the types of things these demons might do.

Marilith uses telekinesis at range to hurl objects or even other demons at the party, or uses it to grapple an enemy magician. If she sees an opening, she will get in and attack an opponent with her tail and constrict them. Anyone who is constricted must make a DC 25 fortitude save or fall unconscious for 1d8 rounds. At this point she moves on to the next foe, as one of the succubi coup de grace the unconscious character with a caster level 12 vampiric touch, likely killing the victim and buffing the succubus to hell and back with temporary HP. Blade barrier controls the battlefield and makes moving around a pain for those without teleportation.

The Nebasu wander around spamming enervation at targets, especially those in heavy armor, inflicting 1d4 negative levels with each ray that hits, no save. There are 6 of them, so that's a potential for 6-24 negative levels. Every negative level inflicts a -1 penalty to all saving throws. When they are out of rays, they will spam telekinesis to hurl objects at the party, or force DC 19 will saves or be hurled about like a rag doll.

The shadow demons seep through the floor and attack anyone who is on land using their blind-fight feat to ignore the miss %, and since they have cover you can't make AoOs against them, and retaliating against them is something of a pain, since you can't ready a full-attack against them. Your best bet is to take to the air. Each shadow demon of course attempts to summon another shadow demon with a 50% success rate, so 4 demons becomes 6 more than likely. They too can also stand back and spam telekinesis.

The succubi screech about the battlefield charm-bombing enemies and taking pot-shots at downed foes with vampiric touch when they're down. Of course, they all attempt to summon Babau demons with a 50% chance, so that adds another 2 acid-coated demons into the mix as cannon fodder. They also will not hesitate to dominate animal companions, mounts, and similar creatures. They're not difficult to kill, but they will generally spread out and distract the party, and can turn ethereal at-will, allowing them very good tactics. If desired, they can fly around and drop nets on the party to entangle them, as they can comfortably carry plenty of them and still greater teleport around the field.

The vrocks all begin a dance of ruin, spreading out into groups of 4 vrocks for maximum effectiveness. Every 3rd round, each group unleashes a 20d6 blast of lightning in a 100 ft. radius, which all of the demons are immune to. So if you don't break up or crowd control the vrocks, you will be eating up to 4 instances of 20d6 electricity damage, which is an average of 280 damage anywhere the radius's overlap. Alternatively, they can keep flying around the party screeching hellishly, forcing DC 21 saves vs stun for 1 round. Becoming stunned can easily mean death in this battle, and you can get hit by up to 15 of these at once, making saving a harry business. That's not counting the auto-damaging spores they can shake every 3 rounds.

The Glabrezu play hell with the party's counters. They possess at-will mirror image, making taking them out difficult, and they can function as spotters for the team, utilizing their constant true-seeing ability. Each can cast power word stun to screw over any foe with 150 HP or less. All can cast reverse gravity and dispel magic, and won't hesitate to shut down the magic items of the party, since a CL 16 dispel magic can shut down the vast majority of magic items easily. Finally they can drop unholy blight every round without fail, dealing 8d8 damage to all good creatures in an area and forcing saves vs nausea. If pushed into combat, they have a 15 ft. reach and decent natural attacks.

Dretch simply skulk about the battlefield dropping stinking clouds into the fray. All the demons are immune to the cloud, but it forces a 5% chance per round to become nauseated for 1d4 rounds, potentially causing some PCs to lose several rounds worth of actions. They also use it because the 20% concealment it provides to people inside the cloud completely negates sneak attack, and thus ruins any chance a rogue has to sneak attack their bosses. With five of them, they should also be able to summon an additional dretch, allowing up to 5-6 stinking clouds throughout the battle.

All of the above is assuming, of course, that none of them are using any of their treasures themselves (such as the marilith using any superior weapons, or clad in armor, or any of them wearing rings or cloaks or anything cool like that, which may indeed be part of their treasure and thus added to their statblock by the GM).

A pit fiend is supposed to be similarly challenging to that.

Ashiel
2016-09-18, 07:55 PM
It just occurred to me that an attack routine of -99/-99/-99/-99/-99/-99/-99/-99 is statistically superior to just one attack at +6 vs 20 AC, at least under the Pathfinder system.

On that note, is auto-pass/auto-fail in the system?
Yes. The nat 1 / nat 20 mechanic is what creates the hit/evade caps (which are 95% respectively). The hit/evade caps I think are actually a good thing because it creates a sort of diminishing that encourages people to build more well rounded characters.

Also, using the hit/evade-% caps to your advantage is a legit strategy. My brother built a character like that back in Star Wars d20. Basically dual wielded autofire guns on a full BAB class with full TWF specs. His combat strategy was basically "Roll a fistfull of d20s and count the natural 20s". It was humorously most effective against enemies with really high ACs that most were having troubles hitting or against creatures with really super low ACs.

Tels
2016-09-18, 08:02 PM
Side note: That is one of my all time favorite posts by you showing how just truly evil you are. It was one of the posts that inspired me to make a list on Paizo called Ashiel's Encounters (http://paizo.com/people/Tels/wishlists/v5748l939kv8r) for truly dangerous opponents or encounters.

Back on topic: I recall us talking once about the possibility for large monsters to do things like make AoE attacks instead of their basic attack routine. Link here. (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2rxtz&page=15?-Ask-Ashiel-Anything#733) I know you mentioned discussing some ideas on how you want to handle large creatures. Any update on this?

Ashiel
2016-09-18, 08:25 PM
Side note: That is one of my all time favorite posts by you showing how just truly evil you are. It was one of the posts that inspired me to make a list on Paizo called Ashiel's Encounters (http://paizo.com/people/Tels/wishlists/v5748l939kv8r) for truly dangerous opponents or encounters.
Oh cool, that's pretty flattering. :smallredface:


Back on topic: I recall us talking once about the possibility for large monsters to do things like make AoE attacks instead of their basic attack routine. Link here. (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2rxtz&page=15?-Ask-Ashiel-Anything#733) I know you mentioned discussing some ideas on how you want to handle large creatures. Any update on this?
Well, at the moment I plan to add things like AoE cleaving which would be influenced by your reach, so bigger creatures would naturally be able to cleave bigger AoEs. I'm still deciding what to do about sizes since I feel like we definitely need bigger than colossal to be a thing. One idea that I've been brainstorming would be to make exceptionally large creatures function as multiple creatures chained together, with each section of that creature having stats and offensive routines.

Slaying certain segments of such a large beast would cripple, destroy, or maim the creature, but those sections could be restored through things like regeneration if the creature wasn't slain, while certain areas could serve as a sort of MvP-body part (cut the dragon's head off and it just dies).

It's an idea anyway. :smallsmile:

Mashallah
2016-09-19, 02:58 AM
Will commoners be able to see the Moon or, god forbid, the Sun while taking 10 on perception?

Klara Meison
2016-09-19, 03:42 AM
To do that you would have to implement some sort of contrast perception system taking signal/noise ratio into account and thus more accurately modeling what human eyes do(e.g. you can probably see a campfire at night in an open field from a couple kilometers away simply because it's the only bright thing there, and that's what, -340 modifier per kilometer?), which I think would be a pain in the brain to do, otherwise someone would have already done it.

Mashallah
2016-09-19, 04:02 AM
To do that you would have to implement some sort of contrast perception system taking signal/noise ratio into account and thus more accurately modeling what human eyes do(e.g. you can probably see a campfire at night in an open field from a couple kilometers away simply because it's the only bright thing there, and that's what, -340 modifier per kilometer?), which I think would be a pain in the brain to do, otherwise someone would have already done it.
Wouldn't just unlimited exponential size categories (such as Colossal+372) solve this issue?
It would just have to be adjusted a bit for extreme sizes so that the Moon would be visible despite distance penalties.

Tels
2016-09-19, 05:33 AM
Wouldn't just unlimited exponential size categories (such as Colossal+372) solve this issue?
It would just have to be adjusted a bit for extreme sizes so that the Moon would be visible despite distance penalties.

A group on Paizo actually ran the numbers with the idea of 'size categories larger than collossal' and gave the sun a stealth penalty, but the distance penalty from the planet earth to the sun made the DC to perceive the sun so high, that even with the penalty to stealth, you still can't see the sun. If you want to read more, here's the link. (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2tjj9?Perception-DC-to-See-the-Sun)

Ashiel
2016-09-19, 06:16 AM
Pretty sure you auto-see the sun and moon due to lack of concealment. When concealed you can't see it very well but you can see the light they produce & reflect (sort of how an invisible torch still produces light). :smalltongue:

Klara Meison
2016-09-19, 06:32 AM
Wouldn't just unlimited exponential size categories (such as Colossal+372) solve this issue?
It would just have to be adjusted a bit for extreme sizes so that the Moon would be visible despite distance penalties.

Doesn't solve the issue with noticing campfires/lighthouses/sneaking fire elementals at night, which is honestly much more relevant to the general rpg themes and stories.

Lemmy
2016-09-19, 06:58 AM
Pretty sure you auto-see the sun and moon due to lack of concealment. When concealed you can't see it very well but you can see the light they produce & reflect (sort of how an invisible torch still produces light). :smalltongue:Even without cover/concealment, there's a limit to how far we can see things, even with perfect sight (otherwise we'd be able to see everything in space not obstructed by something else on a clear day, no matter how small in size and how many billions of lightyears away it is). Turns out that in 3.X and Pathfinder, that limit is pretty small.

The "realistic" way would be having the penalty to Perception start really freaking small and increase exponentially with distance... But that would probably be a pain in th ass to design and use.

EDIT: There should probably be a circumstance penalty for stuff that stands out too much from the enviroment (such as a fire elemental at night or a shadow in a well-iluminated empty room with white walls). Many GMs already do that, but it would be nice to have it somewhat encoded in the rules. That could actually solve the "Can characters see the sun?" issue.

khadgar567
2016-09-19, 07:07 AM
Doesn't solve the issue with noticing campfires/lighthouses/sneaking fire elementals at night, which is honestly much more relevant to the general rpg themes and stories.
sneaking fire element this looks intrestie

Lemmy
2016-09-19, 07:24 AM
One idea that I've been brainstorming would be to make exceptionally large creatures function as multiple creatures chained together, with each section of that creature having stats and offensive routines.

Slaying certain segments of such a large beast would cripple, destroy, or maim the creature, but those sections could be restored through things like regeneration if the creature wasn't slain, while certain areas could serve as a sort of MvP-body part (cut the dragon's head off and it just dies).

It's an idea anyway. :smallsmile:You're probably better off making it some sort of Called Shots system... Making it exclusive to certain sizes categories raises the issue of "why can I target the titan's legs but the pixie army can't target mine?"

By the way... What will be the difference between Small and Medium size? I always thought it was odd that every size category is like 8x bigger than the previous one, but the difference between Small and Medium could be as small as 50%. I understand why they made it that way, but still... It adds yet another exception to the rules (and creates the odd case where a 160cm tall Dwarf is able to trip a giant, but the 90cm tall Halfling isn't).

That reminds me... Do you plan to impose Size limitations to combat maneuvers? One of the dumbests things in 3.X and PF is how one can be strong enough to throw a dragon into the Sun while simultaneously being unable to trip that very same dragon. Or even a dragon half as big.

ace rooster
2016-09-19, 08:10 AM
Doesn't solve the issue with noticing campfires/lighthouses/sneaking fire elementals at night, which is honestly much more relevant to the general rpg themes and stories.

Don't have concealment, so no hide check, so no spot check needed. The explicit rule is that you can see something unless the DM calls for a spot check, and then they forgot to give guidelines for when this is... :smallsigh:

The penalty for distance is actually much less unreasonable than many people realise, when you consider how dark or well hidden it has to be for something to get concealment. If they are standing still right in front of you, and you take your time to try to make them out, you will still miss them one time in five. A quarter moon would probably be too bright to qualify.


I'm not sure that an excerpt that includes the words "tactical game of nukes and bioweapons" is a great demonstration of why rocket tag is not a thing. It is certainly a demonstration of how rocket tag can be a fantastic game in it's own right, but doesn't answer the concern about it: It is very unforgiving, both for inexperience DMs and players. While I like this in play, this is also true of builds, and this I am less of a fan of. Is the intention for the game to get less forgiving at high levels? It might be worth making this explicit if so.

Kryzbyn
2016-09-19, 09:36 AM
I would love to see a scene in a TTRPG the equivalent of Sauron's arrival on the battle field in the beginning of the LOTR movies.
One swing of the mace, and like 20-25 people (and some horses) go flying.

Mashallah
2016-09-19, 09:40 AM
Pretty sure you auto-see the sun and moon due to lack of concealment. When concealed you can't see it very well but you can see the light they produce & reflect (sort of how an invisible torch still produces light). :smalltongue:

Would I auto-see exoplanets, then? They also lack concealment. :smalltongue:

I just kinda dislike linear distance penalties instead of, say, logarithmic or at least square.

Lemmy
2016-09-19, 12:42 PM
Another question: If all that critical hits do is maximize the damage, does that mean there are no critical multipliers in any form?

Klara Meison
2016-09-19, 01:44 PM
Another question: If all that critical hits do is maximize the damage, does that mean there are no critical multipliers in any form?

I figure they could maximise, then multiply?

If all saves are getting replaced with save defences, what would happen to the environment chapter, in particular saves against hot and cold? Will "environment" be making an attack roll now?

Eldest
2016-09-19, 02:20 PM
Would I auto-see exoplanets, then? They also lack concealment. :smalltongue:

I just kinda dislike linear distance penalties instead of, say, logarithmic or at least square.

Two things. One, you're assuming our world's physics is true for a place with deities and fireballs. Two, there is such a thing as too much math. I highly suggest it stays at multiplication only. It's a game, I don't think many people want to do logs for their games.

Ashiel
2016-09-19, 02:49 PM
You're probably better off making it some sort of Called Shots system... Making it exclusive to certain sizes categories raises the issue of "why can I target the titan's legs but the pixie army can't target mine?"
I'd rather not venture into the realm of called shots honestly. I've never seen that road end up anywhere good. The idea of having supersized creatures statted out as a sort of multi-creature encounter was a mechanical idea to kind of draw attention to the scale and epicness of such creatures. Though as you point out with things like pixies vs humans, perhaps that wouldn't be the right way to go with it. I will admit that it does draw some inspiration from things like Dungeons & Dragons: The Tower of Doom (https://i.ytimg.com/vi/IKfOMF1nJJc/maxresdefault.jpg), Dungeons & Dragons: Shadows over Mystara (http://img.gamefaqs.net/screens/b/1/9/gfs_45443_2_198.jpg), and Dragon's Crown (https://i.ytimg.com/vi/OEeQgZLmWjU/maxresdefault.jpg). The thought of facing a creature so massive and powerful that each of its limbs was an encounter unto itself seemed pretty appealing.


By the way... What will be the difference between Small and Medium size? I always thought it was odd that every size category is like 8x bigger than the previous one, but the difference between Small and Medium could be as small as 50%. I understand why they made it that way, but still... It adds yet another exception to the rules (and creates the odd case where a 160cm tall Dwarf is able to trip a giant, but the 90cm tall Halfling isn't).

That reminds me... Do you plan to impose Size limitations to combat maneuvers? One of the dumbests things in 3.X and PF is how one can be strong enough to throw a dragon into the Sun while simultaneously being unable to trip that very same dragon. Or even a dragon half as big.There will be no size limitations on combat maneuvers. If you can beat the DC, you can do it. That does mean that with enough progress a kobold could suplex and elephant but IMHO that's a good thing. If your kobold has reached a level of strength and skill that he can suplex an elephant, that only draws more attention to just how awesome that kobold is compared to other kobolds. :smallamused:

Otherwise, small & medium will probably remain much the same. I'm very likely going to need to find a different naming convention for size categories though. I've been thinking of just assigning a number to size categories, which would allow more granularity, especially post-colossal. If we did something like that, it would look something like this.

Fine = Size 1
Diminutive = Size 2
Tiny = Size 3
Small = Size 4
Medium = Size 5
Large = Size 6
Huge = Size 7
Gargantuan = Size 8
Colossal = Size 9
Colossal+ = Size 10+

It doesn't sound quite as awesome as saying "huge" or "gargantuan" but the creatures in D&D often aren't all that big (colossal creatures don't even live up to the name IMHO) and it's a little more clear cut. A possible way of consolidating some of that would be to include things like Tall 3 or Wide 3, to quickly distinguish the creature's size category and whether they're like giants or tigers.

It's still undecided. :smallconfused:

Kryzbyn
2016-09-19, 04:08 PM
What about using those size categories for broader use?

If you assign a STR and CON tier per size category, then things like rage can be "gain bonuses as if your size had shifted upward by 1 (or 2 or 3 by level 20)". :smallcool:

Ashiel
2016-09-19, 04:10 PM
Another question: If all that critical hits do is maximize the damage, does that mean there are no critical multipliers in any form?That's correct. No critical multipliers. :smallsmile:

Ashiel
2016-09-19, 04:15 PM
What about using those size categories for broader use?

If you assign a STR and CON tier per size category, then things like rage can be "gain bonuses as if your size had shifted upward by 1 (or 2 or 3 by level 20)". :smallcool:

That creates some complicated issues since everyone would probably grow into giants as they progress in levels. :smalltongue:

Kryzbyn
2016-09-19, 04:21 PM
That's why I said "as if" :smalleek:

Just thinking instead of a flat bonus, then if say a Titan rages, he gets a bonus appropriate for his size as opposed to a measly +4...

...without actually changing their size, that is.

Ashiel
2016-09-19, 05:01 PM
That's why I said "as if" :smalleek:

Just thinking instead of a flat bonus, then if say a Titan rages, he gets a bonus appropriate for his size as opposed to a measly +4...

...without actually changing their size, that is.

Ohhh, I misunderstood. :smalltongue:
The only concern about that I would see is that it opens the potential for abilities to be wildly different in balance based on the size of the creature. Using rage as an example, we can assure that rage will provide certain benefits. If we make it based on size, balancing the abilities would be very difficult since it would vary in power greatly depending on whether it was a human barbarian or a giant barbarian. :smalleek:

Tels
2016-09-19, 05:25 PM
Something that recently occurred to me, how will small creatures be affected by the condensing of ability scores? Typically, most creatures of smaller sizes are given penalties to their strength score, as they are physically weak creatures and can't lift much, but they don't necessarily have a penalty to constitution. With the condensing of scores, if you mand them physically weak, they become very frail, but if you don't make them very frail, they aren't all that weak.

....

Just had a thought and will continue this post on my computer, instead of my phone, when I can.

Ashiel
2016-09-19, 06:04 PM
Something that recently occurred to me, how will small creatures be affected by the condensing of ability scores? Typically, most creatures of smaller sizes are given penalties to their strength score, as they are physically weak creatures and can't lift much, but they don't necessarily have a penalty to constitution. With the condensing of scores, if you mand them physically weak, they become very frail, but if you don't make them very frail, they aren't all that weak.

....

Just had a thought and will continue this post on my computer, instead of my phone, when I can.
That's actually intentional. Most PC races (like halflings) won't have much of a Strength penalty. Things like housecats on the other hand...

Tels
2016-09-19, 07:05 PM
Something that recently occurred to me, how will small creatures be affected by the condensing of ability scores? Typically, most creatures of smaller sizes are given penalties to their strength score, as they are physically weak creatures and can't lift much, but they don't necessarily have a penalty to constitution. With the condensing of scores, if you mand them physically weak, they become very frail, but if you don't make them very frail, they aren't all that weak.

....

Just had a thought and will continue this post on my computer, instead of my phone, when I can.

So, my understanding of why sizes increase/decrease ability scores is because it's the simplest method of conveying most of the benefits of changing size. But what if you divorced ability scores from size? Instead, just grant the actual bonuses directly, and then alter the encumbrance/carrying capacity rules to reflect the change. 3.5/Pathfinder already assumes carrying capacity changes with with size, but expand on that further, so an 18 strength for a halfling doesn't mean the same as an 18 strength for a giant.

I say this with real life examples in mind, such as badgers or wolverines. Since I'm more familiar with wolverines, I'll speak about those. Wolverines are about the size of small-medium sized dog, ranging between 2 to 4 feet in length and weighing between 20 and 60 pounds. However, wolverines can be utterly vicious animals. These animals are known for sporting up to 5 inch long claws, and, despite it's small size and weight, they've been known to hunt and kill polar bears and grizzly bears. Yeah, 3 foot long, 40 pound wolverine kills a 9 foot tall, 1,000 pound bear.

Anyway, the point being, size is not necessarily a factor of strength, or fortitude. There are many creatures out there that are extremely resilient, yet small and weak in a muscular sense. By condensing ability scores, and having size increases affect ability scores, it makes it extremely difficult to build such creatures, short of some (Ex) ability of "Resilient: this creature is very tough for it's size and gains X bonus hp per level."

It's one way of doing it for sure, but another one would be changing how size increases affect creatures. For example, the Pathfinder version of enlarge person of +4 strength, +4 con, -2 Dex, -1 to hit, -1 to ac; would instead be: +1 to hit, +2 damage (+3 if 1.5x strength), +2 fortitude saves, -1 reflex saves, +1 to CMB, +2 hp per level, -2 ac, +2 on strength based checks, -1 on dex based checks. I dunno if this would work well for D20 Legends, as the goal is to simplify things, but it might be a mechanically better method of doing it, even if it is more complicated.

I think I'm rambling again though. Been up way too late waiting to send off that letter, and I've got a cold.

Lemmy
2016-09-19, 09:21 PM
Not to mention any chimp is much stronger than most humans, but most humans are at least twice as big as your average chimp.

Klara Meison
2016-09-20, 03:43 AM
I'd rather not venture into the realm of called shots honestly. I've never seen that road end up anywhere good. The idea of having supersized creatures statted out as a sort of multi-creature encounter was a mechanical idea to kind of draw attention to the scale and epicness of such creatures. Though as you point out with things like pixies vs humans, perhaps that wouldn't be the right way to go with it. I will admit that it does draw some inspiration from things like Dungeons & Dragons: The Tower of Doom (https://i.ytimg.com/vi/IKfOMF1nJJc/maxresdefault.jpg), Dungeons & Dragons: Shadows over Mystara (http://img.gamefaqs.net/screens/b/1/9/gfs_45443_2_198.jpg), and Dragon's Crown (https://i.ytimg.com/vi/OEeQgZLmWjU/maxresdefault.jpg). The thought of facing a creature so massive and powerful that each of its limbs was an encounter unto itself seemed pretty appealing.

There will be no size limitations on combat maneuvers. If you can beat the DC, you can do it. That does mean that with enough progress a kobold could suplex and elephant but IMHO that's a good thing. If your kobold has reached a level of strength and skill that he can suplex an elephant, that only draws more attention to just how awesome that kobold is compared to other kobolds. :smallamused:

Otherwise, small & medium will probably remain much the same. I'm very likely going to need to find a different naming convention for size categories though. I've been thinking of just assigning a number to size categories, which would allow more granularity, especially post-colossal. If we did something like that, it would look something like this.

Fine = Size 1
Diminutive = Size 2
Tiny = Size 3
Small = Size 4
Medium = Size 5
Large = Size 6
Huge = Size 7
Gargantuan = Size 8
Colossal = Size 9
Colossal+ = Size 10+

It doesn't sound quite as awesome as saying "huge" or "gargantuan" but the creatures in D&D often aren't all that big (colossal creatures don't even live up to the name IMHO) and it's a little more clear cut. A possible way of consolidating some of that would be to include things like Tall 3 or Wide 3, to quickly distinguish the creature's size category and whether they're like giants or tigers.

It's still undecided. :smallconfused:

>Though as you point out with things like pixies vs humans, perhaps that wouldn't be the right way to go with it.

There is a radical difference between pixie vs human and human vs titan though, in the fact that titan is, in fact, really goddamn big. That in turn means that there is a lot of space inside the titan, for things like tertiary and quaternary vascular systems, a couple separate brains, etc, etc. So while a human could bleed out if you cut off their leg(or any other part of the body for that matter), a titan would just say "lol", shift some muscles around and cut off blood circulation to that limb, thus negating any point in attacking it (since at that point it would pretty much stop being a part of their body for all intents and purposes)

>I'd rather not venture into the realm of called shots honestly. I've never seen that road end up anywhere good.

You don't like called shots? Why, if I may ask?

Tels
2016-09-20, 04:20 AM
>I'dd rather not venture into the realm of called shots honestly. I've never seen that road end up anywhere good.

You don't like called shots? Why, if I may ask?
My group always uses the example of 20 goblins declaring called shot: eye. Only one has to roll a 20 to lodge an arrow in your brain.

Klara Meison
2016-09-20, 04:47 AM
My group always uses the example of 20 goblins declaring called shot: eye. Only one has to roll a 20 to lodge an arrow in your brain.

They don't have to have instant death effects. Ones on the SRD give minor penalties and debuffs, which seems like a sensible system to me-strong enough to be attractive, not strong enough to instantly take the target out of action. May even give martials more things to do.

Lemmy
2016-09-20, 07:18 AM
Called shots are a cool idea, but they are difficult to balance, I think. It's awesome being able to stab the Beholder's eyes to stop it from using thr AMF, instead of just hitting it and hoping it dies... But how do we stop PCs and NPCs from doing the same to every opponent?

One idea is adding a penalty to attack rolls and saying you have to deal at least X% damage to the creature to get the effect (after all, a minor cut to the leg shouldn't stop legendary warriors from walking).... But like I said, it's difficult to balance.

Another possible option is using the maneuver system. Instead of a Called Shot to the eye, you use Dirty Trick, and instead of a called shot to the leg/wing you use a trip/disrupt flight maneuver, and so on...

The tricky part is making those maneuvers balanced. In 3.X and PF, for example, you're either horrible at maneuvers or so good you can spam it at will and there's nothing your opponent can do about it.

Klara Meison
2016-09-20, 08:08 AM
Called shots are a cool idea, but they are difficult to balance, I think. It's awesome being able to stab the Beholder's eyes to stop it from using thr AMF, instead of just hitting it and hoping it dies... But how do we stop PCs and NPCs from doing the same to every opponent?

One idea is adding a penalty to attack rolls and saying you have to deal at least X% damage to the creature to get the effect (after all, a minor cut to the leg shouldn't stop legendary warriors from walking).... But like I said, it's difficult to balance.

Another possible option is using the maneuver system. Instead of a Called Shot to the eye, you use Dirty Trick, and instead of a called shot to the leg/wing you use a trip/disrupt flight maneuver, and so on...

The tricky part is making those maneuvers balanced. In 3.X and PF, for example, you're either horrible at maneuvers or so good you can spam it at will and there's nothing your opponent can do about it.

>But how do we stop PCs and NPCs from doing the same to every opponent?

Why would you want to? It's what you would expect in a real fight, opponents going for the weakpoints of the enemy. You could throw in some sort of BaB-dependant system that would insure 400 goblins wouldn't automactically disable a high-level PC(say, maybe you need to be no more than 3 BaB below the target to be able to make called shots), and an attack penalty insuring it's not the best idea 100% of the time, but other than that...why try to stop the fun?

Kryzbyn
2016-09-20, 08:19 AM
I abused hit location in GURPS like crazy. Get a decent weapon skill, then put as many points into hit location as possible. This means you kill most everything you hit in one or two strikes, and doesn't take a lot of effort to get there.
One character was a droid, and had detailed files on the human body. Detailed...files...

Kryzbyn
2016-09-20, 08:23 AM
Ash, hadn't you talked about "tiers" in the past? Where characters in a certain level range would get cool stuff for hitting different tiers of progression? Something mythic-like? Or more like mini-capstones?

Lemmy
2016-09-20, 08:27 AM
>But how do we stop PCs and NPCs from doing the same to every opponent?

Why would you want to? It's what you would expect in a real fight, opponents going for the weakpoints of the enemy. You could throw in some sort of BaB-dependant system that would insure 400 goblins wouldn't automactically disable a high-level PC(say, maybe you need to be no more than 3 BaB below the target to be able to make called shots), and an attack penalty insuring it's not the best idea 100% of the time, but other than that...why try to stop the fun?
Becaus being blinded/crippled/disabled/whatever by a single roll every fight is not fun? And no game should ever favor realism at the expense of fun.

Besides (and this is something that might be an issue with the magic attack vs resistace mechanics as well), AC/CMD/whatever being a passive defense can be rather frustrating when it fails. I've gotten in discussions with GMs in the past because they wanted to roll my saving throws for me. While it makes no mathematical difference who rolls the die, there's a world of difference in how it feels.

Besides, it's difficult to predict accuracy/AC growth, so it's quite possible Called Shots end up too good or nearly useless.

PapaQuackers
2016-09-20, 01:20 PM
That's why I always like to come up with systems for defense that aren't passive. I feel like people want to have a hand in how they defend themselves more than it being boiled down to a number. You get to roll for saves in all the modern dungeons and dragons but you never get to roll to actually defend yourself, which I think makes very little sense considering that in the real world defending yourself is a very active process even while wearing armor. I know realism isn't always to be sought if it siphons away from fun, but I think in this case it's more fun TO roll than not to roll. Just my quick thoughts.

Ashiel
2016-09-20, 02:16 PM
>Though as you point out with things like pixies vs humans, perhaps that wouldn't be the right way to go with it.

There is a radical difference between pixie vs human and human vs titan though, in the fact that titan is, in fact, really goddamn big. That in turn means that there is a lot of space inside the titan, for things like tertiary and quaternary vascular systems, a couple separate brains, etc, etc. So while a human could bleed out if you cut off their leg(or any other part of the body for that matter), a titan would just say "lol", shift some muscles around and cut off blood circulation to that limb, thus negating any point in attacking it (since at that point it would pretty much stop being a part of their body for all intents and purposes)
That's a fair point. I'll keep this in mind when deciding whether or not to scrap the idea of giant multi-sectional monsters. :smallconfused:


>I'd rather not venture into the realm of called shots honestly. I've never seen that road end up anywhere good.

You don't like called shots? Why, if I may ask?
A few reasons. Every called shot mechanic I've ever seen in any game is either so hard as to be a waste of time, or becomes to easy to exploit. When you're dealing with called shots, you have to decide what the benefits of calling those shots are, and generally they either equate to more raw damage or they equate to nasty status affects or even instant death. All of which can be fairly difficult to balance around, and it can very easily skew the mechanics in favor of certain kinds of builds. In the case of called shots for more damage, that's more or less taken care of with Power Attack-style mechanics (which is a thing that exists naturally as a part of the combat system in d20 legends). Status ailments will primarily be the realm of dirty tricks, special abilities, and things of that nature (though I intend to write options for chaining these things to physical attacks so we might end up with a pseudo-called shot system that lets you take a penalty to attempt a Dirty Trick as part of an attack or something, but in that case it's not a called shot in the traditional hit-location format).

Hit location mechanics in general tend to get really strange anyway when you're fighting things that have strange physiology. A remarkable number of creatures in things like D&D have tons of writhing tentacles, somethin' like thirty eyes, multiple brains and throats, lots of arms, etc. It potentially gets even stranger when you get into shapeshifting things (if you turn into a hydra and one of your heads gets blown to bits, what happens when you turn back? :smallamused:).

Additionally, I once realized that the very idea of a called shot is mostly redundant in the abstraction of D&D combat. It's generally assumed that you're trying to go for the more lethal means of disabling somebody when you're making an attack roll, and it's assumed your foe is trying to defend against those attacks the best they can, which is why we have random damage rolls and the like. It's assumed that if you can get away with whacking your enemy in the face, you would totally do that. Things like Dirty Trick represent making a conscious choice to try to disable or compromise an opponent's ability to fight (making whacking them easier). We generally assume our warriors are being competent and trying to aim their blows rather than just flailing about wildly. In this context, the notion of called shots doesn't really fit quite as well since it's assumed your hero made the hit that he could at the time.

Likewise, in most every RPG I can recall playing with called shot mechanics, I tended to break them. Even as a kid. I remember playing L5R and as a young bushi, my buddy and I beat an oni we had no business beating because I kept declaring called shots against the oni's head and would get fairly lucky and keep plowing him for huge amounts of damage. In games like Deadlands (I think it uses a near identical system to Savage Worlds as it's made by the same folks), I used to play gunslingers who would just start calling shots on easy to hit body locations because penalties from the condition track didn't stack (so having 5 light wounds spread over your body wasn't as bad as having a medium wound on one part of your body). The result is I tended to resolve combats by ripping a specific limb apart which stacked penalties so rapidly that it was hard to even retaliate (because when you're sitting at a -4 to all your rolls and you're RNG is trying to score 5s with a d6, you are not having a good day).

Ashiel
2016-09-20, 02:20 PM
That's why I always like to come up with systems for defense that aren't passive. I feel like people want to have a hand in how they defend themselves more than it being boiled down to a number. You get to roll for saves in all the modern dungeons and dragons but you never get to roll to actually defend yourself, which I think makes very little sense considering that in the real world defending yourself is a very active process even while wearing armor. I know realism isn't always to be sought if it siphons away from fun, but I think in this case it's more fun TO roll than not to roll. Just my quick thoughts.
While repeatedly making lots of opposed rolls can get really bogged down (so I wouldn't want to make it the standard for every attack/defense resolution), I'm a fan of things like the parrying maneuvers from ToB/PoW, and D20-L has a parrying system built into the Fighting Defensively option. Essentially when you're fighting defensively you can reserve attacks in an attempt to parry incoming attacks, giving characters with extra attacks more ways to defend themselves. This actually means that high level martial characters can fight defensively to insulate themselves against tons of mooks rolling for 20s, because if your parry attack exceeds their total roll (critical threat or not) the attack is negated.

Tels
2016-09-20, 03:03 PM
That's why I always like to come up with systems for defense that aren't passive. I feel like people want to have a hand in how they defend themselves more than it being boiled down to a number. You get to roll for saves in all the modern dungeons and dragons but you never get to roll to actually defend yourself, which I think makes very little sense considering that in the real world defending yourself is a very active process even while wearing armor. I know realism isn't always to be sought if it siphons away from fun, but I think in this case it's more fun TO roll than not to roll. Just my quick thoughts.

There are only two ways I can think of this working at the moment. There might be a more elegant method out there, but I don't have time, nor the creativity, to think of one.

1) Swap the static and dynamic rolls. Roll for defense vs static attacks. Problem: It does nothing more than swapping the problem. Instead of a static AC of 10 + Bonuses vs an attack of 1d20 + bonuses, you now have a static attack of 10 + bonuses vs a defense of 1d20+bonuses. Sure, it puts defending in the hands of the player, but it also removes the player from attacking. No change is really implemented.

2) Attack and defense become opposed rolls. Benefit: Players feel like they are taking control of their character, even if the odds say they will take more damage doing this, they feel more empowered because a lucky roll could let them dodge an otherwise automatic hit. Problem: It doubles the amount of rolls made in combat. Now instead of rolling 4 attack rolls, there are 4 attack and 4 defense rolls, and you must compare die rolls to see who wins. Also runs a problem of what happens with two natural 20s/natural 1s? What if the Wizard casts flesh to stone and makes a magic attack roll, and the victim makes a magic defense roll? Who wins?

Tangent: This discussion did make me think of a possible alternate version of the dodge feat that can be swapped from a passive, but now scaling, dodge bonus, to an active, variable die roll for a dodge bonus, but only against a single target. Like a +1 dodge, and another +1 dodge at BAB 5, and every 5 BAB increase after, for a 1d4 dodge bonus, that bumps it by one die increase at BAB 6 and every 6 thereafter (d6 at 6, d8 at 12, d10 at 18).

Kryzbyn
2016-09-20, 04:13 PM
RE: Tangent

At that point, the dodge feat should be something that's built into all martial classes or else it becomes a "take this feat or fail" non-option.

As someone who played Palladium as his first RPG, I do enjoy the back and forth of active defenses. It's probably why swashbuckler is one of my favorite martials.

PapaQuackers
2016-09-20, 04:43 PM
I actually really like the idea of including that dodge variant in all martial classes, I think it's elegant, makes fighters think a bit more doing their turns, and allows you to put the action into your own hands if you should choose to.

Well done accidentally creating something awesome.

Ashiel
2016-09-21, 04:42 PM
Tangent: This discussion did make me think of a possible alternate version of the dodge feat that can be swapped from a passive, but now scaling, dodge bonus, to an active, variable die roll for a dodge bonus, but only against a single target. Like a +1 dodge, and another +1 dodge at BAB 5, and every 5 BAB increase after, for a 1d4 dodge bonus, that bumps it by one die increase at BAB 6 and every 6 thereafter (d6 at 6, d8 at 12, d10 at 18).
You very accurately explained the issues with the typical defense roll mechanical paths, so I skipped those (as I don't really have anything to contribute on that :smallsmile:). So onto the focused dodge mechanic.

There's a few reasons why I probably wouldn't implement something quite like this. The first being that it's already possible to keep AC quite relevant as you gain levels, and this would also add additional rolls to combat each round (and you might as well, it's free AC). Now, something that is often overlooked in d20 is that a +1 never stops having the same amount of value. It's always +5% on the RNG. Sure, we have more +1s at high levels than at low levels, but all things being equal, a +1 AC at 1st level means the same as a +1 AC at 20th (an extra +5% evade).

Because of this, I'm quite cautious about adding anything that threatens to throw the RNG into the garbage can, which is the mistake that was made concerning the CMB vs CMD mechanics in Pathfinder. So many things can contribute to CMD that it eventually becomes more or less impossible to succeed at them without using something that smashes the d20 with massive bonuses (such as Smite, Favored Enemy, or Strength Surge). Each round against a specific target your avoidance increases 5-20%, then 5-30%, then 5-40%, then 5-50%, which would means there would need to be some way to catch up in this arms race.

It also favors NPCs more than PCs. In your traditional party (Warrior, Scout, Mage, Support), everything and its neighbor will be using that option against the party's warrior. Likewise, since it applies vs one enemy at a time, it means PCs wouldn't get much mileage out of it (since getting +5-20% evade vs one of twenty kobolds is of questionable value).

It also leads to the situation that a counter-mechanic would need to exist or else two warriors who haven't neglected their AC will just pound on each other all day in a 1v1 scenario, especially at higher levels where the average is +25-30% evade. However, as creatures were forced to spec with the assumption that they would need to be able to fight things using this option, they will utterly crush the RNG vs any creature that hasn't currently selected them as a target.

So while I think it's a novel idea, it adds a lot of rolling to each round of combat and introduces a lot of other stuff that would have to be ironed out and revised just to make the mechanic work nicely with the RNG and the metagame. Because of this, I feel like that time would be better spent fine-tuning some of the existing mechanics (CMB vs CMD and combat maneuvers).

In other news, Combat Maneuvers will be a thing you can just do. They don't provoke attacks.

Klara Meison
2016-09-21, 05:24 PM
You very accurately explained the issues with the typical defense roll mechanical paths, so I skipped those (as I don't really have anything to contribute on that :smallsmile:). So onto the focused dodge mechanic.

There's a few reasons why I probably wouldn't implement something quite like this. The first being that it's already possible to keep AC quite relevant as you gain levels, and this would also add additional rolls to combat each round (and you might as well, it's free AC). Now, something that is often overlooked in d20 is that a +1 never stops having the same amount of value. It's always +5% on the RNG. Sure, we have more +1s at high levels than at low levels, but all things being equal, a +1 AC at 1st level means the same as a +1 AC at 20th (an extra +5% evade).

Because of this, I'm quite cautious about adding anything that threatens to throw the RNG into the garbage can, which is the mistake that was made concerning the CMB vs CMD mechanics in Pathfinder. So many things can contribute to CMD that it eventually becomes more or less impossible to succeed at them without using something that smashes the d20 with massive bonuses (such as Smite, Favored Enemy, or Strength Surge). Each round against a specific target your avoidance increases 5-20%, then 5-30%, then 5-40%, then 5-50%, which would means there would need to be some way to catch up in this arms race.

It also favors NPCs more than PCs. In your traditional party (Warrior, Scout, Mage, Support), everything and its neighbor will be using that option against the party's warrior. Likewise, since it applies vs one enemy at a time, it means PCs wouldn't get much mileage out of it (since getting +5-20% evade vs one of twenty kobolds is of questionable value).

It also leads to the situation that a counter-mechanic would need to exist or else two warriors who haven't neglected their AC will just pound on each other all day in a 1v1 scenario, especially at higher levels where the average is +25-30% evade. However, as creatures were forced to spec with the assumption that they would need to be able to fight things using this option, they will utterly crush the RNG vs any creature that hasn't currently selected them as a target.

So while I think it's a novel idea, it adds a lot of rolling to each round of combat and introduces a lot of other stuff that would have to be ironed out and revised just to make the mechanic work nicely with the RNG and the metagame. Because of this, I feel like that time would be better spent fine-tuning some of the existing mechanics (CMB vs CMD and combat maneuvers).

In other news, Combat Maneuvers will be a thing you can just do. They don't provoke attacks.

>In your traditional party (Warrior, Scout, Mage, Support)

That meta is so outdated. Actually, no, it's not outdated, it has never been true in the first place. Embrace the forge of combat (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1i5hWkHXHOetRlpLOmxbpoEWod77psN0JcwFvxClNrGc/edit) age!

Also, I think you missed my question about enviroment-forced saves, like various saves agains heat, cold, and other fun stuff. Who rolls the attack there?

Ashiel
2016-09-21, 05:56 PM
>In your traditional party (Warrior, Scout, Mage, Support)

That meta is so outdated. Actually, no, it's not outdated, it has never been true in the first place. Embrace the forge of combat (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1i5hWkHXHOetRlpLOmxbpoEWod77psN0JcwFvxClNrGc/edit) age!

Also, I think you missed my question about enviroment-forced saves, like various saves agains heat, cold, and other fun stuff. Who rolls the attack there?
I'm assuming you mean things like heat dangers from walking around in volcanos, smoke inhalation, and being out in the tundra and such. All that would simply be rolled by the GM. Of course, tables could have the players affected roll the checks if they wanted, since the % chance doesn't change in any case.

tsj
2016-09-22, 01:47 AM
How well will existing d20 material like monsters etc translate to this system?

I think some of the ideers behind this sounds good.

I am still searching for the d20 equivalent of "the holy grail".
Currently the closest I have come thus far is to gather tier 3 classes and restrict players to those.

I don't know if this system will fit the bill but the concepts behind it intrigues me.

Ashiel
2016-09-22, 02:33 AM
How well will existing d20 material like monsters etc translate to this system?
With 100% honesty, it would probably need some heavy conversion. I've used normal Bestiary / MM monsters during super early drafts on tabletop and while for the most part they are functional, they're clearly not going to be "right" within the system. At the very minimum a lot of feats are going the way of the dodo (things like Power Attack and Deadly Aim aren't feats anymore), and monsters will be built differently.

On the plus side, the framework that I intend to use for monsters would make converting monsters relatively painless.


I think some of the ideers behind this sounds good.
Thanks. It's a work in progress. :smallsmile:


I am still searching for the d20 equivalent of "the holy grail".
That's basically why I started this. I've been playing various forms of d20 for ages but just wanted one system that I would run all my games with in the future. So that's why I started working on this.


Currently the closest I have come thus far is to gather tier 3 classes and restrict players to those.
That'd make me super sad. I love playing full casters. :smalltongue:


I don't know if this system will fit the bill but the concepts behind it intrigues me.
Glad to hear it. Admittedly updates have been slow but I'm going to be moving to a new job sometime in October, which will hopefully come with a more predictable work schedule, and more money for less hours. All things that would help move this along faster. :smallamused:

Klara Meison
2016-09-22, 12:28 PM
I'm assuming you mean things like heat dangers from walking around in volcanos, smoke inhalation, and being out in the tundra and such. All that would simply be rolled by the GM. Of course, tables could have the players affected roll the checks if they wanted, since the % chance doesn't change in any case.

You know, I just had a thought. Since it doesn't matter who rolls the D20, maybe it would make sense to make mechanics different for the GM and players? I.e. players roll attack rolls (when they throw spells around) and saves(when they get hit in the face with a spell), while GM has save DCs (for when his NPCs throw spells at players) and save defences (for when players throw spells at NPCs). This would minimise the number of rolls needed (thus speeding up gameplay), wouldn't complicate the mechanics much, and will let the players have their psychological biases related to "actively" rolling saves and attacks.

If GM needs to adjudicate an NPC vs NPC confrontation, he can decide who rolls the die.

Snow-blind
2016-09-22, 03:32 PM
You know, I just had a thought. Since it doesn't matter who rolls the D20 ...
This isn't true for some kinds of reroll mechanics, among other things.

For example...

Misfortune (Ex): At 1st level, as an immediate action, you can force a creature within 30 feet to reroll any one d20 roll that it has just made before the results of the roll are revealed. The creature must take the result of the reroll, even if it’s worse than the original roll. Once a creature has suffered from your misfortune, it cannot be the target of this revelation again for 1 day.
If you want to take such a blaze approach to who is rolling dice, you have to remove anything that even hints at referring to the roller of a roll, or the game just breaks.

There is also the whole "several pairs of different-but-functionally-identical statistics" rules bloat that you need to have if you don't want to put more mental load on the GM by forcing them to calculate statistics on the fly, as well as the "+5 spell attack roll vs DC17 save = +5 saving throw vs DC15 spell" numerical quirk, and there are probably a couple of other problems too that haven't occurred to me yet.

Klara Meison
2016-09-22, 03:42 PM
This isn't true for some kinds of reroll mechanics, among other things.

For example...

If you want to take such a blaze approach to who is rolling dice, you have to remove anything that even hints at referring to the roller of a roll, or the game just breaks.

There is also the whole "several pairs of different-but-functionally-identical statistics" rules bloat that you need to have if you don't want to put more mental load on the GM by forcing them to calculate statistics on the fly, as well as the "+5 spell attack roll vs DC17 save = +5 saving throw vs DC15 spell" numerical quirk, and there are probably a couple of other problems too that haven't occurred to me yet.

>reroll any one d20 roll that it has just made before the results of the roll are revealed

That's one silly ability. "Let me switch this random number I don't know for another random number I don't know". It doesn't do anything unless the die is somehow switched for a loaded one in between rolls. Should probably be "after the results of the roll are revealed", so you can at least choose to reroll 20-s and not 1-s.

And it would be a minor change at best. D20 roll is an interraction between two or more creatures, ultimately, and exactly who rolls the die doesn't change the outcome(unless your players are REALLY good at rolling desired numbers on their dice). You'll just need to change "die roll a creature made" to "die roll from a check a creature participated in" or some such.

As for this...


There is also the whole "several pairs of different-but-functionally-identical statistics" rules bloat that you need to have if you don't want to put more mental load on the GM by forcing them to calculate statistics on the fly, as well as the "+5 spell attack roll vs DC17 save = +5 saving throw vs DC15 spell" numerical quirk

+5 SA vs defence 17= DC 15 vs +7 save. I believe that adding or substracting 10 doesn't take much of an effort.

Ashiel
2016-09-22, 05:29 PM
You know, I just had a thought. Since it doesn't matter who rolls the D20, maybe it would make sense to make mechanics different for the GM and players? I.e. players roll attack rolls (when they throw spells around) and saves(when they get hit in the face with a spell), while GM has save DCs (for when his NPCs throw spells at players) and save defences (for when players throw spells at NPCs). This would minimise the number of rolls needed (thus speeding up gameplay), wouldn't complicate the mechanics much, and will let the players have their psychological biases related to "actively" rolling saves and attacks.

If GM needs to adjudicate an NPC vs NPC confrontation, he can decide who rolls the die.

It might be a nice optional or house rule but I think it would be overly complicated for many people as a standard. I have heard about some games where GMs have players make all the rolls, which would be pretty similar and achieve much the same effect (albeit the players might be hoping for low rolls when rollin' for NPCs). It would also necessitate adding a big chunk of text to the mechanics explaining when and why you switch the mechanics around, and since it doesn't affect the gameplay overmuch aside from making players roll lots more dice it seems more a novelty.

As noted before, one of the things I'm striving for is to make it a bit easier to pick up the GMing mantle, but changing the mechanics from players to GMs could make becoming a GM a bit more daunting, which is something I'd worry about. :smalleek:

Mashallah
2016-09-23, 06:53 AM
For a "martial magic option", I'd suggest something like skill powers in D&D 4e.
They mechanically function the same way as any kind of utility powers, such as those of magic, but are also functionally extension of skills. For example, an acrobatics skill power could let you leap above and beyond what your acrobatics skill would allow you at your current levels, or some even simply give you thematically related abilities which are otherwise impossible with that skill, such as using insight (basically, 4e sense motive) to find an opening in enemy's defences and strike more precisely.
For example:

http://puu.sh/rl32F/54e71b5440.png

I think that skill-themed superpowers could be a decent (and definitely flavourful) alternative to magic.

Mashallah
2016-09-23, 09:47 AM
You know, I just had a thought. Since it doesn't matter who rolls the D20, maybe it would make sense to make mechanics different for the GM and players? I.e. players roll attack rolls (when they throw spells around) and saves(when they get hit in the face with a spell), while GM has save DCs (for when his NPCs throw spells at players) and save defences (for when players throw spells at NPCs). This would minimise the number of rolls needed (thus speeding up gameplay), wouldn't complicate the mechanics much, and will let the players have their psychological biases related to "actively" rolling saves and attacks.

If GM needs to adjudicate an NPC vs NPC confrontation, he can decide who rolls the die.
I don't really see the point.
It doesn't matter who rolls the d20 and it looks like pointless mechanical clutter to me. It seems far preferable to use uniform mechanics.

Snow-blind
2016-09-23, 09:24 PM
>reroll any one d20 roll that it has just made before the results of the roll are revealed

That's one silly ability. "Let me switch this random number I don't know for another random number I don't know". It doesn't do anything unless the die is somehow switched for a loaded one in between rolls. Should probably be "after the results of the roll are revealed", so you can at least choose to reroll 20-s and not 1-s.

I wouldn't call it silly. Pathfinder is silent on whether or not rolls are public knowledge (note that roll!=check in this case), but abilities like this strongly imply that rolls are public, because that is the only rules consistent handling of rolls that prevents a whole bunch of abilities from being useless. Assuming that rolls are public knowledge, this ability works fine, and simply makes a player guess what the opponent has for a bonus when using the ability.

Oh, and "after the results of the roll are revealed" is when you know whether or not the roll is enough to beat the check, not just when you know what the physical number on the dice is, so if I understand correctly your suggested change is what is already written, and you are unintentionally giving an already powerful ability a huge power up.

For (another) example with similar language to the oracle ability:

Aggression: The preacher may reroll an attack roll that she just made before the results of the roll are revealed. She must take the result of the reroll, even if it’s worse than the original roll.
There are quite a few others that follow the same language. It is basically the standard template for a reroll mechanic.


And it would be a minor change at best. D20 roll is an interraction between two or more creatures, ultimately, and exactly who rolls the die doesn't change the outcome(unless your players are REALLY good at rolling desired numbers on their dice). You'll just need to change "die roll a creature made" to "die roll from a check a creature participated in" or some such.

If you want to be blaze about swapping who rolls the dice on a whim, you need ALL of the mechanics which involve dice (i.e. roughly all of them) to be transparent to who rolls the dice, or to explicitly cover all of the possible die rollers and handle any wonky quirks. The only sane way this can be done is to standardize a small number of rules keywords which explain how to handle dice swapping, but this necessitates that the entire ruleset be warped around this one feature. Is it worth it? I question it strongly.


+5 SA vs defence 17= DC 15 vs +7 save. I believe that adding or substracting 10 doesn't take much of an effort.
No....Bad, Bad Klara! This is exactly the sort of thing where you should be checking your math very closely. You just gave two different mechanical representations with radically different probabilities.

With a Spell attack roll mechanic, the attacker's d20+5 vs the defender's DC17 has a 50% chance of coming out in the attacker's favor. With a saving throw mechanic, the attacker's DC15 vs the defender's d20+7 save has a 35% chance of coming out in the attacker's favor.

In order to convert from "Saving Throw vs DC10+modifiers" to "static saves vs spell attack roll", the static saves need to have a base of DC12+modifiers.

See, this is why I would be very leery about making the GM bounce between two redundant mechanics constantly. Unless they have a very good grip on the numbers, it is going to be very easy for them to screw things up. Especially since this will have to happen in the middle of a gaming session, which isn't an ideal time for maths. A lot less ideal than when you are just writing up a forum post.

Mashallah
2016-09-24, 04:11 AM
Yeah, this is clearly a case of "you know what the dice says, but don't yet know what the DC was and thus don't know whether it was a success."

Lemmy
2016-09-24, 06:17 PM
Yeah, this is clearly a case of "you know what the dice says, but don't yet know what the DC was and thus don't know whether it was a success."Which is only slightly better...

Sure one can safely assume they should reroll that 1 or 3, and keep that 18 or 20... But what if I roll a 8 or an 11? "replace an unknown result with another unknown result" is a really dumb mechanic IMO.

Mashallah
2016-09-25, 09:50 AM
Which is only slightly better...

Sure one can safely assume they should reroll that 1 or 3, and keep that 18 or 20... But what if I roll a 8 or an 11? "replace an unknown result with another unknown result" is a really dumb mechanic IMO.
If you reroll every result of 10 or less, you get an average of 13.
That is the equivalent of having a +2.5 bonus to the modifier.
If you "roll 2, take best", it is instead equivalent to roughly +5.

Useful either way and clearly numerically expressible.

EDIT: It also makes you nearly immune to nat 1 autofails, which is nice.
EDIT 2: Corrected myself on my "this is equivalent to +5" statement.

PapaQuackers
2016-09-26, 04:08 PM
Is there any option for non-casters in this system? What if I'm a manly man who doesn't want to use puny baby magics.

Zilrax
2016-09-28, 12:51 AM
No options thus far for non magicalness entirely, but this is because Ashiel has yet to figure out a good option for them to keep up with everyone with spells with absolutely no magic at all. They're poking about at various possibilities, but nothing solid as of yet.

Ashiel
2016-10-01, 06:54 PM
Hey everyone. I just got back from my trip to Tennessee, but I've got work tonight, so I'll resume my regular posting tomorrow. :smallsmile:

Klara Meison
2016-10-04, 08:03 AM
How(if at all) will D20 legends adress the issue that it becomes prohibitively hard to disable a commoner as a high-level character? E.g. a lv 20 fighter in pathfinder deals 1d8(longsword, average 4.5)+5(weapon enchantment)+4(weapon training)+4(strength)+9(other weapon enchantments, like Impact or Collision)=26.5 damage, and I am being conservative here

Even deliberately dealing nonlethal damage doesn't save your average commoner (9hp), since a hit from your average Sword Of Deadly Destruction, no matter how careful and gentle, will instantly put them down to -9 HP. Even if fighter deals minimal damage(i.e. deliberately not hitting weakpoints) it is still going to put a commoner into the negatives.

And that is with a core fighter. Something like a halfway-optimised lv 20 Harbinger could deal 40-ish damage by throwing a coin, which pretty much instantly kills a mere mortal. This means that, as a high-level character, your only options when agressively dealing with people pretty much consist of "do nothing" and "obliterate them so hard their soul is annihilated in the process".

Any ideas that would allow a lv20 character to punch someone without instantly killing them?

Ashiel
2016-10-04, 09:58 AM
How(if at all) will D20 legends adress the issue that it becomes prohibitively hard to disable a commoner as a high-level character? E.g. a lv 20 fighter in pathfinder deals 1d8(longsword, average 4.5)+5(weapon enchantment)+4(weapon training)+4(strength)+9(other weapon enchantments, like Impact or Collision)=26.5 damage, and I am being conservative here

Even deliberately dealing nonlethal damage doesn't save your average commoner (9hp), since a hit from your average Sword Of Deadly Destruction, no matter how careful and gentle, will instantly put them down to -9 HP. Even if fighter deals minimal damage(i.e. deliberately not hitting weakpoints) it is still going to put a commoner into the negatives.

And that is with a core fighter. Something like a halfway-optimised lv 20 Harbinger could deal 40-ish damage by throwing a coin, which pretty much instantly kills a mere mortal. This means that, as a high-level character, your only options when agressively dealing with people pretty much consist of "do nothing" and "obliterate them so hard their soul is annihilated in the process".

Any ideas that would allow a lv20 character to punch someone without instantly killing them?
Probably the simplest method would be to add a mechanic that allows you to pull your punches. Something as simple as allowing the player to specify any amount of damage that's less than the damage they actually dealt, such as allowing you to choose to deal 10 nonlethal damage even though you rolled 20. This could also help people trying to hide their strengths as well so it'd be a worthwhile addition I think (such as if a moderately leveled PC is pretending to be a nobody for some reason, or when dealing with a spy villain or whatever).

In fact, I think a general rule allowing you to auto-fail or treat your result as being less than it was for most anything is probably a good idea. As the old saying goes, "Blessed are wise men because they can act like fools, but fools cannot act like wise men". :smallsmile:

Klara Meison
2016-10-04, 10:19 AM
Probably the simplest method would be to add a mechanic that allows you to pull your punches. Something as simple as allowing the player to specify any amount of damage that's less than the damage they actually dealt, such as allowing you to choose to deal 10 nonlethal damage even though you rolled 20. This could also help people trying to hide their strengths as well so it'd be a worthwhile addition I think (such as if a moderately leveled PC is pretending to be a nobody for some reason, or when dealing with a spy villain or whatever).

In fact, I think a general rule allowing you to auto-fail or treat your result as being less than it was for most anything is probably a good idea. As the old saying goes, "Blessed are wise men because they can act like fools, but fools cannot act like wise men". :smallsmile:

That was my thought as well, but it's not a rule present in Pathfinder as far as I can tell, so I thought it worth mentioning.

Zilrax
2016-10-04, 01:30 PM
You could also do it the old 4e way. Skip the penalties and just say if you don't try to kill them when dropping them, they're just unconscious. Think that was 4e anyways. Seemed like it saved headaches too.

Mashallah
2016-10-04, 06:18 PM
You could also do it the old 4e way. Skip the penalties and just say if you don't try to kill them when dropping them, they're just unconscious. Think that was 4e anyways. Seemed like it saved headaches too.
Yup, that's 4e.
Straight from my Compendium:


When an adventurer reduces a monster or a DM-controlled character to 0 hit points, he or she can choose to knock the creature unconscious rather than kill it. Until it regains hit points, the creature is unconscious but not dying. Any healing makes the creature conscious.
If the creature doesn't receive any healing, after a short rest it is restored to 1 hit point and becomes conscious.

Ashiel
2016-10-05, 09:19 PM
You could also do it the old 4e way. Skip the penalties and just say if you don't try to kill them when dropping them, they're just unconscious. Think that was 4e anyways. Seemed like it saved headaches too.

Indeed. I think there probably needs to be a general rule that you can always choose to take a lesser result on most anything you do. Choosing to leave enemies are merely unconscious would be an extension of that norm, I imagine. I'm also not 100% sure I'd want to go with the 4E method of being able to make any attack nonlethal without extra effort (dealing nonlethal damage with a sword without improvising doesn't strike me as particularly helpful to verisimilitude, and it would kind of be a buzzkill for people who wanted to specialize in unarmed combat or some other traditionally reliable method of wrecking people with nonlethal damage).

I'll try to give it some thought. :smallconfused:

Mashallah
2016-10-06, 04:36 AM
Indeed. I think there probably needs to be a general rule that you can always choose to take a lesser result on most anything you do. Choosing to leave enemies are merely unconscious would be an extension of that norm, I imagine. I'm also not 100% sure I'd want to go with the 4E method of being able to make any attack nonlethal without extra effort (dealing nonlethal damage with a sword without improvising doesn't strike me as particularly helpful to verisimilitude, and it would kind of be a buzzkill for people who wanted to specialize in unarmed combat or some other traditionally reliable method of wrecking people with nonlethal damage).

I'll try to give it some thought. :smallconfused:
I don't see why should the non-lethality of that be mechanically reinforced when it's a fluff choice first and foremost.
EDIT: Also, think about potentially screwing over those who have to be non-lethal for fluff reasons, but also use traditionally lethal weaponry. As an example the most people present would be familiar with, followers of Sarenrae generally use her favoured weapon, the scimitar, while, at the same time, dervish dancers explicitly make it a point to never be lethal. If dealing non-lethal damage with a scimitar is difficult or somehow penalised, someone wanting to roleplay a dervish dancer would be screwed over.

Lemmy
2016-10-06, 06:25 AM
Personally, I allow all attacks to deal the weapon's minimum damage (usually 1 + enhancement bonus. That 1 being its mininimum base damage die roll). After all, characters should be allowed to NOT use their full strength, but their weapons are still impossibly sharp swords, so there's always a risk that it'll deal too much damage.

One of my GMs ruled that you can reduce your Str, but doing so affects not only your damage, but also your attack roll. Which makes sense, but I don't see the need of being that strict.

When it comes to weapons, I think it's fair that a scimitar has a more difficult time dealing non-lethal damage than, say, a staff. After all, each weapon has its advantages and disadvantages... It they are more or less equally effective, it good to have different weapons be good in different ways.

Klara Meison
2016-10-06, 08:32 AM
So...how do you deal nonlethal damage with a really big knife?

Mashallah
2016-10-06, 08:40 AM
So...how do you deal nonlethal damage with a really big knife?

I'm not an adventurer who slays dragons for fun. Why would I know that?

PapaQuackers
2016-10-06, 08:59 AM
So...how do you deal nonlethal damage with a really big knife?

You smack them with the hilt or the flat of the blade really hard.

Ashiel
2016-10-06, 12:41 PM
You smack them with the hilt or the flat of the blade really hard.
This is why I used the term improvised. The penalty associated with dealing nonlethal damage with a lethal weapon (or lethal with a nonlethal) is the same penalty as using an improvised weapon, and every example I've ever heard for how you can deal nonlethal damage with lethal weapons basically involves using the non-business end of the weapon somehow, or fluffed like a called shot ("sure my unarmed strike is nonlethal but I punched him in the throat").

So I will say that while I think there should be a distinction between weapons that are primarily used for lethal/nonlethal, I do think that it should be easier to bridge the divide. I'm a big fan of the Catch Off Guard feat from Pathfinder since it means being able to improvise your weapons to use them in ways not intended without a penalty (such as striking people with the pole end of your polearm) and I think whatever similar mechanic makes it into D20 Legends should allow you to ignore the penalty for wrong-type damage as well (if it lets you casually murder people with butterknives it seems like it already does to an extent).

Meanwhile, concerning muggles...
My brother and I were talking last night and I explained a theoretical option for super muggles that he really likes. Essentially, for giving up spellcasting you would gain a 2nd progression of feats and talents based on your magic ability bonus (this means the more "caster" you would have been the more bonus feats and talents you would get). This means that giving up a magic tradition means focusing more heavily on things like your class features and allows you to more comfortably pick up things like "Extra feature" feats and such.

The most interesting part of our conversation went something like this.

Brother: "That sounds really good but, why would anyone ever choose the caster route if they lose all their spellcasting? Wouldn't that be really bad for you?"

Me: "I believe it would be best used by players who are experienced with the system (and would make a note of that), but it basically means being able to hyper specialize in your class features or multiclass in elaborate and exotic ways. For example, if I wanted to make some sort of mad scientist plague-doctor thing, I might do something like Alchemist/Champion, spending talents on advancing both of those classes really quickly (allowing me to have top-notch alchemist bombs, bottled monsters, etc), auras that protect my friends from disease and such while stripping enemies of their resistances, lay on hands/mercies, smites, etc. I could dump all the bonus feats I get into things like Extra Discovery/Divine Power, defense boosting feats, skill enhancing feats, etc.

The end result would be having a character who rather than casting spells walks around the battlefield spreading plagues and pestilence ("Open wide!" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-I9E3JakwoU)), using strange mutant lab creations to fight for you, and spreading your auras and smites around like party favors,"

Brother: "Okay, that actually sounds f***in' cool, and I can kind of see how it would work now."

Me: "One thing I kind of like about this idea is that perhaps for the first time in...ever, really, it could be plausible to play a class that's the opposite of a martial (worst HP/BAB/Etc) who has no magic or psionics or anything like that but is actually a viable character concept."

Klara Meison
2016-10-06, 02:11 PM
That sounds like a pretty bad idea to me, honestly. Currently you need to balance BaB with spells, while this way you would need to balance BaB with spells and feats. Balancing two things is hard enough, no need to bring a third thing into the mix.

Not to mention that this promises to accidentally bring back some of the issues Fighter forced upon the old system, mainly unnecessarily large feat trees "suited" for classes with faster feat progression.

In my opinion, martial options should be given by replacing spells with a similar system (daily/encounter limited, number of options scales with level, maximum strength of options scales with level, base usage time is standard action, mixed utility/control/damage/multithreat/buff/debuff, and so on), but perhaps more suited for martial combat. Given that DSP already did the hard inventing work on this front, I think that maneuvers like in Path of War are by far the best choice.

That way you can be certain that a, say, level 10 character has 5 feats, 5 class talents and X power from spells/maneuvers/BaB. You can make reasonable estimates for when a certain powerlevel is reached in all fields (for example, if you have a talent that gives the character who takes it perfect teleportation as a free action, and you gave it, say, 4 other prerequisites, you can be sure it won't be taken before lv 8 (since character would get talents at levels 1,2,4,6 and 8.) But if you introduce a way to get double feat progression, well, now people can pick it at level 4. Now you can't make any talents that are cool and powerful, but not gamebreaking at level 2X but absolutely annihilate everything at level X(and we all know that what is okay at 18 isn't okay at 9). I suppose you can lock them behind level prerequisites, but then you pretty much either force the person to be a gestalt of two gimped classes or a single gimped class with a lot of low-level features.

But perhaps more importantly, how the hell do you balance spells with feats? Feats are generally passive, invisible, constant effects that can't be disabled and that are selected once. Spells are short-term powerboosts heavilly limited in their usage per day(and thus subject to attrition effects) that can be disabled, are visible, can be countered and either can be selected every day, or you get so many of them each selection is a lot less decisive than picking a feat.

I'll go fetch my pitchfork now. I was promised the death of the Fighter in this system, yet here it is, just wearing a mask. WE WON'T GO QUIETLY INTO THE NIGHT! FIGHTER SHALL BURN! BURN I SAY!

PapaQuackers
2016-10-06, 02:12 PM
This is why I used the term improvised. The penalty associated with dealing nonlethal damage with a lethal weapon (or lethal with a nonlethal) is the same penalty as using an improvised weapon, and every example I've ever heard for how you can deal nonlethal damage with lethal weapons basically involves using the non-business end of the weapon somehow, or fluffed like a called shot ("sure my unarmed strike is nonlethal but I punched him in the throat").

So I will say that while I think there should be a distinction between weapons that are primarily used for lethal/nonlethal, I do think that it should be easier to bridge the divide. I'm a big fan of the Catch Off Guard feat from Pathfinder since it means being able to improvise your weapons to use them in ways not intended without a penalty (such as striking people with the pole end of your polearm) and I think whatever similar mechanic makes it into D20 Legends should allow you to ignore the penalty for wrong-type damage as well (if it lets you casually murder people with butterknives it seems like it already does to an extent).

Meanwhile, concerning muggles...
My brother and I were talking last night and I explained a theoretical option for super muggles that he really likes. Essentially, for giving up spellcasting you would gain a 2nd progression of feats and talents based on your magic ability bonus (this means the more "caster" you would have been the more bonus feats and talents you would get). This means that giving up a magic tradition means focusing more heavily on things like your class features and allows you to more comfortably pick up things like "Extra feature" feats and such.

The most interesting part of our conversation went something like this.

Brother: "That sounds really good but, why would anyone ever choose the caster route if they lose all their spellcasting? Wouldn't that be really bad for you?"

Me: "I believe it would be best used by players who are experienced with the system (and would make a note of that), but it basically means being able to hyper specialize in your class features or multiclass in elaborate and exotic ways. For example, if I wanted to make some sort of mad scientist plague-doctor thing, I might do something like Alchemist/Champion, spending talents on advancing both of those classes really quickly (allowing me to have top-notch alchemist bombs, bottled monsters, etc), auras that protect my friends from disease and such while stripping enemies of their resistances, lay on hands/mercies, smites, etc. I could dump all the bonus feats I get into things like Extra Discovery/Divine Power, defense boosting feats, skill enhancing feats, etc.

The end result would be having a character who rather than casting spells walks around the battlefield spreading plagues and pestilence ("Open wide!" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-I9E3JakwoU)), using strange mutant lab creations to fight for you, and spreading your auras and smites around like party favors,"

Brother: "Okay, that actually sounds f***in' cool, and I can kind of see how it would work now."

Me: "One thing I kind of like about this idea is that perhaps for the first time in...ever, really, it could be plausible to play a class that's the opposite of a martial (worst HP/BAB/Etc) who has no magic or psionics or anything like that but is actually a viable character concept."

I like it. It makes me feel special without being a baby-face magic user.

Ashiel
2016-10-06, 03:11 PM
That sounds like a pretty bad idea to me, honestly. Currently you need to balance BaB with spells, while this way you would need to balance BaB with spells and feats. Balancing two things is hard enough, no need to bring a third thing into the mix.

Not to mention that this promises to accidentally bring back some of the issues Fighter forced upon the old system, mainly unnecessarily large feat trees "suited" for classes with faster feat progression.
My personal thoughts on this is the best way to avoid unnecessarily large feat trees would be by not making unnecessarily large feat trees. :smallsmile:


In my opinion, martial options should be given by replacing spells with a similar system (daily/encounter limited, number of options scales with level, maximum strength of options scales with level, base usage time is standard action, mixed utility/control/damage/multithreat/buff/debuff, and so on), but perhaps more suited for martial combat. Given that DSP already did the hard inventing work on this front, I think that maneuvers like in Path of War are by far the best choice.
It's worth noting that I really like ToB/PoW and think it's brilliant. However, it's my experience that a lot of people who dislike dealing with magic also dislike dealing with things like maneuvers for many of the same reasons. Since I myself tend to really like things like magic and psionics, it's totally natural for me to really enjoy things like maneuvers because while the framework is different you have a lot of the same optional appeal.

I feel like there should probably be an option that allows players to forgo having a special subsystem attached to their character.


That way you can be certain that a, say, level 10 character has 5 feats, 5 class talents and X power from spells/maneuvers/BaB. You can make reasonable estimates for when a certain powerlevel is reached in all fields (for example, if you have a talent that gives the character who takes it perfect teleportation as a free action, and you gave it, say, 4 other prerequisites, you can be sure it won't be taken before lv 8 (since character would get talents at levels 1,2,4,6 and 8.) But if you introduce a way to get double feat progression, well, now people can pick it at level 4. Now you can't make any talents that are cool and powerful, but not gamebreaking at level 2X but absolutely annihilate everything at level X(and we all know that what is okay at 18 isn't okay at 9). I suppose you can lock them behind level prerequisites, but then you pretty much either force the person to be a gestalt of two gimped classes or a single gimped class with a lot of low-level features.
Restricting certain talents with a level requirement has essentially been assumed for a long time (though material written hasn't been indicative of it in and of itself). One of the early explanations for tying abilities and requirements to character level rather than class level is that you'll always have access to level-appropriate abilities at the levels they are...well, appropriate. For example, a class feature that grants you a bonus spell or spell-like ability would generally include a requisite level equal to the lowest level you could achieve the same thing otherwise.

I've never been a fan of using feat availability as a sort of gate against gaining higher level abilities earlier. I've never seen it work functionally. I'd generally prefer to see feats be spread out a little more liberally, unless the advanced feat modifies something the original did in a way that's significantly more noteworthy.


But perhaps more importantly, how the hell do you balance spells with feats? Feats are generally passive, invisible, constant effects that can't be disabled and that are selected once. Spells are short-term powerboosts heavilly limited in their usage per day(and thus subject to attrition effects) that can be disabled, are visible, can be countered and either can be selected every day, or you get so many of them each selection is a lot less decisive than picking a feat.
The simplest answer is by keeping the meta of the game in mind when designing them (such as what levels you are expected to routinely encounter certain things, such as dimension door), and the same goes for talents. Bonus feats, while passive, often grant new options or deeper resource pools (such as with feats such as Extra Discovery or Extra Rage), or can be used to pad out your character's stats (making it more practical to take feats such as Toughness, Great Fortitude, or Open Minded).

One of the places that Barbarians, Paladins, and Rangers really edged out fighters in was in feats. Fighters got more of them but the former classes had better things to spend them on. It was often noted that a Barbarian could pick 1-2 feats (such as Power Attack) and spend all the rest of their feats on Extra Rage Power and be all the better for it. Similarly, Paladins could spend feats on things like Fey Foundling, Extra Mercy, Item Creation feats, Ultimate Mercy, etc. Rangers could grab Item Creation feats and use their normal feats for padding their stats (while using their bonus feats which ignored prerequisites for combat feats).

I also noted that you'd get more Talents along with feats. Talents indicate gaining additional classes or major class features. Those types of things would help bridge the gap between having some spellcasting and not. For example, if you decided you wanted to make a super muggle barbarian warlord, you might decide that having the equivalent of 1/2 casting isn't as cool for you as getting 10 levels worth of extra feats and talents, which you could then use to trick yourself out in new ways (such as picking up a strong animal companion and bard abilities), and using the bonus feats to either pad up (grabbing feats like Improved Initiative, Great Fortitude, Open Minded, etc), or expand your options (with things like Extra Rage Power).

Which I do indeed think could be competitive against magic from a metagame perspective, especially since certain shady tricks in 3.x/Pathfinder can be better accounted for (things like simulacrum spring to mind).


I'll go fetch my pitchfork now. I was promised the death of the Fighter in this system, yet here it is, just wearing a mask. WE WON'T GO QUIETLY INTO THE NIGHT! FIGHTER SHALL BURN! BURN I SAY!
I can see I'll have my work cut out for me. :smallamused:

Klara Meison
2016-10-06, 03:35 PM
My personal thoughts on this is the best way to avoid unnecessarily large feat trees would be by not making unnecessarily large feat trees. :smallsmile:

Pretty sure "We know everyone before us made this mistake, but we won't, honest" doesn't really work as a logical argument.


I feel like there should probably be an option that allows players to forgo having a special subsystem attached to their character.

Hmm. Fair point.


Which I do indeed think could be competitive against magic from a metagame perspective, especially since certain shady tricks in 3.x/Pathfinder can be better accounted for (things like simulacrum spring to mind).

I think that it's really, really easy to either fall into "double feats are the best thing ever" or "double feats are completely worthless" trap. Seems like a thing you would need to be exceedingly careful about.


I can see I'll have my work cut out for me. :smallamused:

*Mob is unconvinced, but is willing to wait with the burning and stabbing for now*

Ashiel
2016-10-06, 04:37 PM
Pretty sure "We know everyone before us made this mistake, but we won't, honest" doesn't really work as a logical argument.
It may not but it's the only reasonable argument to be made, I think. "This thing has been shown to consistently lead to bad results, let's not do this thing" seems pretty logical to me though. It seems that if the effect is choking characters out of options and having a tenuous balance that evaporates when bonus feats are involved, and the apparent cause appears to be the design structure of feat trees, eliminating feat trees from the design structure seems like a decent shot at solving the unwanted effect.

As a design rule, I do not like feat trees. Feat progressions maybe, in moderation, and they really need to improve upon or expand the use of the feats before them in some tangible way that's worth a feat. For comparison purposes...

A Probably Okay Feat Path: Feat #1: Allows you to deflect an incoming attack. Feat #2: Allows you to perform a counterattack when you use Feat #1. Reasoning: The first feat gives you a new thing to do. The second feat modifies or builds off the thing the first feat did. The old Crane Style feats spring to mind.

A Terrible Feat Path: Feat #1: Improves your AC. Feat #2: Lets you attack an AoE around you. Reasoning: These feats do entirely different things and nothing about the former is involved in the latter (likewise the latter doesn't build off the former at all). The Whirlwind Attack feat springs to mind.

A Probably Terrible Feat Path: It consists of Feat #1, #2, #3, #4, and #5. Reasoning: What the feats do is almost wholly irrelevant. It just takes too damn many feats. It takes half the feats you're going to get in your career and that means whatever it's going to do has got to be wildly amazing in some way that I don't think I've ever seen in practice. It's hard to come up with any sort of abilities that are at all practical enough to be useful for every feat invested while also improving upon them with each new feat. It's pretty hard to even conceive such a thing from a meta perspective. Virtually every time the progression has diminishing returns (such as with the TWF line of feats) or asks too much for too little (the Vital Strike line springs to mind). If you try to press it into the other direction, you have to make the benefits of the end-game of the feat line so amazing that it's worth sticking with, but not so amazing that you need to progress to the end or suck.

My Philosophy: Whenever possible keep a feat succinct and to the point. Only require other feats if the feat directly expands or builds off the former feat(s). Never use acquisition of feats as a gate, if the ability isn't suitable for play before a specific level range, either put a level requirement on it directly or tie it to something pretty hard-coded (such as BAB or Skill Ranks).


Hmm. Fair point.
I'm a big believer that "there's no wrong way to eat a Reese's". I want to ensure that people are pretty comfortable playing the game their way whenever possible. Some people just really don't want to be bothered with lots of subsystems, or may not have found a subsystem that really appeals to them. This is also true for GMs where managing subsystems for various NPCs can end up being a huge pain in the butt (one of the reasons I rarely use PoW material myself is because I'm usually GMing, and unless an NPC is somehow super special enough to warrant building as a traditional PC, I'm more than happy to drop something like the Martial Training feat onto Warriors and stuff and call it a day).




I think that it's really, really easy to either fall into "double feats are the best thing ever" or "double feats are completely worthless" trap. Seems like a thing you would need to be exceedingly careful about.
Indeed.


*Mob is unconvinced, but is willing to wait with the burning and stabbing for now*
Noted. :smallamused:

Lemmy
2016-10-06, 10:08 PM
BTW... Will Critical hits offer any advantage other than maximizing the damage die? That's not very exciting, IMO. And nat 20 should be somewhat exciting IMO, just not as powerful as critical hits are in 3.X/PF, where a single critical hit can turn nearly insta-kill an enemy. :/

Ashiel
2016-10-06, 11:13 PM
BTW... Will Critical hits offer any advantage other than maximizing the damage die? That's not very exciting, IMO. And nat 20 should be somewhat exciting IMO, just not as powerful as critical hits are in 3.X/PF, where a single critical hit can turn nearly insta-kill an enemy. :/
It's currently planned to allow for some kicker effect options. Such as being able to use your confirmation to do...a thing. What thing? Well, that's where it would vary. An early prototype was the early master-tier perks for combat maneuver-enhancing weapons (such as weapons with qualities such as trip, disarm, grapple, etc), where when you threatened a critical you could use the confirmation to attempt to maximize the damage OR chain a free combat maneuver into it.

It's also worth noting that maximizing your damage is a pretty big deal at higher levels when you have a lot of bonus damage dice (since you gain bonus damage dice from high BAB). Also, unlike in regular D20, weapon effects such as flaming are influenced by critical hits as well. So critical hits are still strong as the game progresses, but they don't have the burgermeating effects that they do at really low levels.

EDIT: For example, at BAB +18, you've got +5d6 bonus damage on every attack roll you make. Using a 1-handed archaic melee weapon (such as a sword or battleaxe) your base damage (before any static modifiers) would be 1d8+5d6 or an average of 22. The base damage on a critical hit would be 38. Of course, weapons can also have qualities such as Deadly (which grants +2/+4/+6 depending on rank) to critical damage per die (the Deadly quality replaces the x3/x4 crit weapons in traditional d20 with a new option for explosive criticals that scales pretty smoothly with your level), bringing your base critical damage to 50/62/74 (based on rank).

Klara Meison
2016-10-07, 01:32 AM
BTW... Will Critical hits offer any advantage other than maximizing the damage die? That's not very exciting, IMO. And nat 20 should be somewhat exciting IMO, just not as powerful as critical hits are in 3.X/PF, where a single critical hit can turn nearly insta-kill an enemy. :/

GM can give you a cookie for every nat 20 you roll?

Ashiel
2016-10-07, 01:33 PM
GM can give you a cookie for every nat 20 you roll?
Jesting aside, this reminds me of Deadlands a bit. Being OP in that game meant gaining more fate chips.

For example, getting a greater than normal success when ridiculing someone would earn you a free fate chip. Fate chips could be used to avoid dying and you could trade them for bounty points (experience points, basically) allowing you to make your character even stronger.

Player: "I ridicule him so hard his mama wants to drink bleach,"
GM: "Oh, cool, here's some bonus XP/not-die-chips,"

Klara Meison
2016-10-07, 03:29 PM
Jesting aside, this reminds me of Deadlands a bit. Being OP in that game meant gaining more fate chips.

For example, getting a greater than normal success when ridiculing someone would earn you a free fate chip. Fate chips could be used to avoid dying and you could trade them for bounty points (experience points, basically) allowing you to make your character even stronger.

Player: "I ridicule him so hard his mama wants to drink bleach,"
GM: "Oh, cool, here's some bonus XP/not-die-chips,"

Yeah, I had a similar idea- giving people bonuses for doing things I want them to do (exquisite roleplaying, bringing pizza, bringing up cool overpowered builds to my attention, etc), except I figured that giving them to the whole party would facilitate more teamwork.

Lemmy
2016-10-07, 03:44 PM
It's currently planned to allow for some kicker effect options. Such as being able to use your confirmation to do...a thing. What thing? Well, that's where it would vary. An early prototype was the early master-tier perks for combat maneuver-enhancing weapons (such as weapons with qualities such as trip, disarm, grapple, etc), where when you threatened a critical you could use the confirmation to attempt to maximize the damage OR chain a free combat maneuver into it.

It's also worth noting that maximizing your damage is a pretty big deal at higher levels when you have a lot of bonus damage dice (since you gain bonus damage dice from high BAB). Also, unlike in regular D20, weapon effects such as flaming are influenced by critical hits as well. So critical hits are still strong as the game progresses, but they don't have the burgermeating effects that they do at really low levels.

EDIT: For example, at BAB +18, you've got +5d6 bonus damage on every attack roll you make. Using a 1-handed archaic melee weapon (such as a sword or battleaxe) your base damage (before any static modifiers) would be 1d8+5d6 or an average of 22. The base damage on a critical hit would be 38. Of course, weapons can also have qualities such as Deadly (which grants +2/+4/+6 depending on rank) to critical damage per die (the Deadly quality replaces the x3/x4 crit weapons in traditional d20 with a new option for explosive criticals that scales pretty smoothly with your level), bringing your base critical damage to 50/62/74 (based on rank).

Right... I forgot about the bonus damage dice. Not sure if I'm a fan of that idea... I know we have differing opinions on the matter, but IME, rocket tag is indeed a real thing. And I say that as a player and GM who highly values defenses and teaches his players to do the same.

Eldest
2016-10-07, 04:05 PM
So because I'm silly and haven't found it yet, is there a spot to look at the crunchy bits already written?

Klara Meison
2016-10-08, 07:35 AM
So because I'm silly and haven't found it yet, is there a spot to look at the crunchy bits already written?

And so the LORD hast hath said: so I sayeth to thee, asketh and 't will beest given to thee; searcheth, and thee shall findeth. And so thee hast asked, and thee shalt taketh: h're art the links I hast assembled over the years in mine own capacity as the High Librarian and Chronicler of l'rd Ashiel.

A foldeth'r enwheeling the information ashiel deigned correct and rightful to resease to the public about the system: h're (
https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/0B1xywEW58IoLfnFESTNwcnlpN1JSa1FiNXNqU1Z5eWxKNU0zb GRSNklTcmpkd0FJUzJNdVU)

A foldeth'r enwheeling mine owneth humble researcheth on the topic, enwheeling the relevant posts from ye olde thread: h're (
https://drive.google.com/drive/u/1/folders/0B_fLcwY-g_0PUUE0Q0J3ampGNjA)

A posteth on this forum enwheeling other somewhat crunchy talk by l'rd Ashiel: h're (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21213536&postcount=1)

Mayhaps I spoke falsely, and those PDFs hast long ago been outdated, but I hope that this may ease thine understanding of the system.

Tels
2016-10-09, 05:04 AM
It takes half the feats you're going to get in your career and that means whatever it's going to do has got to be wildly amazing in some way that I don't think I've ever seen in practice...

...If you try to press it into the other direction, you have to make the benefits of the end-game of the feat line so amazing that it's worth sticking with, but not so amazing that you need to progress to the end or suck.
The closest thing I've seen to this happening is the Dimensional Dervish line of feats. Big chain, each builds on each other, you don't need the whole chain, but having the whole chain lets you do some stupidly fun stuff. The issue is, of course, that the first feat is a tax for those who use dimension door based abilities frequently.

Ashiel
2016-10-10, 06:39 PM
Right... I forgot about the bonus damage dice. Not sure if I'm a fan of that idea... I know we have differing opinions on the matter, but IME, rocket tag is indeed a real thing. And I say that as a player and GM who highly values defenses and teaches his players to do the same.

A few things I think are worth pointing out which may alleviate your concerns a bit.

A lot of feats that just exist to push damage harder simply won't exist because there won't be a need for them. Things like Manyshot doubling damage of your first attack with a bow, for example, probably just won't be in the system at all. Manyshot mechanically serves no purpose other than just increasing damage. So it will either get the axe or will be rebuilt to do something else (maybe like splitting your attacks between multiple targets at reduced penalties).

Further, things are less based around lots of multipliers. In 3.x/PF, stacking tons of static modifiers and then critting with a x3 weapon, or using a lance charge with spirited charge, and things of that nature deliver massive payloads of damage which get really silly when you add in things like Smite, Favored Enemy, divine power, etc. While I haven't yet dove into Mounted Combat (that's gonna be a fun mess :smallamused:), I can attest that since critical hits don't multiply the damage but maximize it, damage is generally less explosive.

For example, in Pathfinder, a Paladin wielding a +5 falchion with a 30 Strength, Power Attack and smite active is looking at 2d4+58 (63 avg.), and 126 (avg.) on a critical hit. In D20 Legends, the same Paladin would be looking at 7d6+58 (82.5 avg.) and 100 (avg.) on a critical hit. Bottom end is raised about 20 points.

If the same Paladin was using a greataxe (say a life drinker), their average damage would be about the same but they would inflict massive 193 dmg (avg.) crits in Pathfinder, while in D20 Legends, even with a Deadly III (+6/die) weapon, they'd deal +42 more damage on a critical hit (51 points less damage). So again, burst damage is more manageable.

All of this assuming no other revisions to the class features (and class features haven't really been built yet), but you get the idea. As a general rule, martials will get more damage on their attacks by virtue of being martials than anything else. Being a martial is something that will keep your damage consistently good. There's less of a demand to always pick a few that pushes your damage higher (like how most martials feel obligated to pick up Power Attack at some point), which is intended to A) free up your options a bit to let you play with other stuff, and B) reward your specialization, since matching a high BAB character is legitimately difficult to do without being a high BAB character.

TheShippingMuse
2016-10-10, 08:14 PM
And so the LORD hast hath said: so I sayeth to thee, asketh and 't will beest given to thee; searcheth, and thee shall findeth. And so thee hast asked, and thee shalt taketh: h're art the links I hast assembled over the years in mine own capacity as the High Librarian and Chronicler of l'rd Ashiel.

A foldeth'r enwheeling the information ashiel deigned correct and rightful to resease to the public about the system: h're

A foldeth'r enwheeling mine owneth humble researcheth on the topic, enwheeling the relevant posts from ye olde thread: h're

A posteth on this forum enwheeling other somewhat crunchy talk by l'rd Ashiel: h're

Mayhaps I spoke falsely, and those PDFs hast long ago been outdated, but I hope that this may ease thine understanding of the system.


They seem to be outdated. Any idea where/when up to date information will become available? Thank you!

Ashiel
2016-10-10, 10:23 PM
They seem to be outdated. Any idea where/when up to date information will become available? Thank you!I'll try to get 'em uploaded to my google drive soonish.

Cluedrew
2016-10-11, 07:04 AM
Soonish: When most things in game development happen.

I've been there. By the way nice project. Love conversation around it.

TheShippingMuse
2016-10-11, 03:08 PM
I'll try to get 'em uploaded to my google drive soonish.

Awesome! It seems like most of the paizo forum screenshots found in "the askening" (the first AMA thread you attempted here) thread are still functioning, and some of those were of your posts detailing the system.

Ashiel
2016-10-11, 08:24 PM
Soonish: When most things in game development happen.

I've been there. By the way nice project. Love conversation around it.

Thanks, I appreciate it. I've been working on it in my spare time, but my schedule's been pretty weird lately. Went on a family vacation, bouncing around night shift / day shift, and preparing to transition to a new job. I've still been thinking about stuff a ton though (which is how it goes before I get to transition it to actual text, I acid test stuff over and over in my head) and know where some things need to be edited and improved.

For example, the equipment chapter that's currently on my google drive is super outdated but has been considered low priority to work on by comparison to working on the combat, magic, and spellcasting chapters, so it exists more or less as a proof of concept and not as a final. A lot of stuff needs to be cleaned up with it. It does, of course, give a brief idea as to some of the thought process behind that stuff.

Tels
2016-10-15, 11:25 PM
Will D20 legends change the way size stacking works at all? Like, being able to polymorph into an elemental and then cast enlarge person to become bigger? Or will it stay the same? If it stays the same, what about further expansions to a spell likeenlarge person?

Ashiel
2016-10-16, 07:05 PM
Will D20 legends change the way size stacking works at all? Like, being able to polymorph into an elemental and then cast enlarge person to become bigger? Or will it stay the same? If it stays the same, what about further expansions to a spell likeenlarge person?

Yes actually. One sec...

Copied from the Spellcasting stuff on my google.drive:


Transmutation: Trasmutation spells change the properties of creatures, things, or conditions. They can even transform creatures and objects into something else entirely, or warp physical reality to give them limited control over time and space.

Morph: A morph spell transforms you into another creature. While these spells make you appear to be the creature, granting you a +10 circumstance modifier on Disguise skill checks, they do not grant all of the powers and abilities of the creature unless specified by the spell's description. Each morph spell allows you to assume the form of specific types of creatures, granting you a number of benefits (usually bonuses to ability scores and naturalarmor). In addition, they can grant a number of other benefits, including movement types, resistances, and senses as described by the spell. If the spell grants any special attacks, you use the magic attack modifier of the caster who cast the morph spell for the ability (even if the ability is normally nonmagical).

If the new form causes you to change size, apply size modifiers appropriately (changing armor class, attack bonuses, combat maneuver bonus, and Stealth skill modifiers). Your ability score modifiers aren't modified unless indicated by the spell description.

Unless otherwise noted, morph spells cannot be used to change into specific individuals. Although many of the fine details can be controlled, your appearance is always that of a generic member of that creature's type. Morph spells can even assume the forms of creatures with templates or advanced versions of creatures, but are still limited to the benefits the morph spell allows.

When you transform into a creature that lacks a humanoid shape or otherwise capable of wearing the same equipment as yourself (such as animals, dragons, elementals, magical beasts, plants, vermin, etc), all of your gear melds into your body. If your new form can wear or use any of your equipment, you can decide if that equipment melds or is worn in your new form. If your new form is a different size, your equipment changes size to fit your new form (such as when transforming into a giant). Melded equipment continues to provide any passive benefits (including armor bonuses, bonuses to ability scores, energy resistances, damage reduction, etc), but you cannot use any items that require you to hold or manipulate them to activate (such as weapons, scrolls, potions, etc).

Only one morph effect can affect you at one time. The most recent morph effect takes priority over the rest, suppressing (but not dispelling) them. When the most recent polymoprh effect ends, the next most resent resumes, until no morph effects remain.

While many morph effects can allow a creature to grow or shrink a number of sizes, some morph spells (such as baleful polymorph) can change a creature to a new size regardless of its old size. Such morph spells set the creature's Strength and Dexterity scores to a particular value, irreverent of their former values.

Size: Size spells change the size of a creature directly. While a morph spell can change a creature into a larger or smaller creature (such as a human into a squirrel), a size spell changes a creature's size directly (such as a human into a bigger human).

Only one size spell can affect you at one time. The most recent size effect takes priority over the rest, suppressing (but not dispelling) them. When the most recent size effect ends, the next most resent resumes, until no size effects remain.

Size spells can alter the size of a creature affected by a morph spell or effect (so if a human was transformed into a squirrel, you could use a size effect to turn them into a giant squirrel). If a size spell specifies a minimum or maximum size, you cannot exceed those limits by combining size and morph effects (thus if an effect allows you to increase the size of a creature up to large size, you couldn't increase the size of a creature that is already large or greater. Unless the spell itself limits the maximum size it can make you).

Warp: Warp spells twist time and space to suit the caster. Warp spells can be used to redirect attacks, or to haste or slow creatures or objects by manipulating time. The most powerful warp spells can be used to freeze time or undue terrible misfortunes by rewinding time to attempt to change the future.

Which explains the interaction between effects that change your size because it changes you into a bigger or smaller creature and effects that change you into a larger or smaller version of yourself. So if you turned into a Small-sized goblin and were then hit with enlarge person (or its equivalent) you'd be a medium sized goblin. If you turned back into a human before the enlarge spell wore off, you'd be a large human.

Kryzbyn
2016-10-19, 08:13 AM
I like this alot.

Ashiel
2016-10-24, 09:28 AM
I like this alot.
Nice. I'm currently staying at a friend's house for a while to help 'im out with some stuff. Sorry I hadn't responded sooner. I had to get a wifi adapter to use my PC at his house so I've been stuck offline for a while. That's resolved now, so I'll resume posting.

Gonna try to get some work done on the system while I'm over here as time permits. :smallsmile:

Ashiel
2016-11-02, 06:07 PM
I've been away from home for about two weeks now, and will be returning home soonish. On the plus side I've gotten some more writing done so I figured I'd share some of the stuff I was working on today. That would be skills. I'm not ready to upload them to the google drive yet (I'd like them to be further along for that), but I'd like to discuss how they'll work.

I mentioned before that as you invest ranks into skills you'll unlock specific abilities associated with the skill. Seeing an opportunity for expanding out, rather than specific abilities, I've changed it to include minor and advanced perks which you choose for the corresponding skill when you hit the milestone (currently 4th, 8th, 12th, 16th, and 20th levels). The reason I did this was so that the skills could be expanded or modified easily enough. For example, I intend to use the system to run games of my own from D&D to Star Wars, so not every ability that would be suitable for one would be suitable for another, so being untethered to specific abilities is convenient. It also makes adding new abilities not need some weird archetype-like system.

In any case, the only concern I have right now is flooding players with so many abilities. :smallamused:
At 8 skills / level for the skill heaviest classes, that's 40 small abilities without investing any feats.
Then 11 talent points (some of which can optionally be exchanged for progressions of things like Rogue Tricks and Rage Powers and Alchemist Discoveries).
And 10 feats (which are kind of like a floating resource you can trade for more skill perks, minor class features like rage powers, or used to enhance a stat or increase a resource).
If anyone's a one trick pony, they deserve what they get. :smallamused:

EDIT: Going to post a few of them when I get back. Gotta go do somethin' in the meantime.

EDIT: Okay, back. Here's some prototype abilities written this afternoon.


ACROBATICS
Trained (1 Rank): You no longer become Flat-Footed when balancing on a surface that you have successfully made an Acrobatics check to walk on.

Minor Perk (4 and 8 Ranks): You gain a minor skill perk at this rank.

Impossible Balance: You may now attempt a DC 25 Acrobatics check to move across liquid surfaces (such as water) without sinking or falling as though you were moving across a narrow surface. With 12 ranks in the skill, you may attempt a DC 30 acrobatics check to move across gaseous surfaces without falling (allowing you to walk on air), though you must end your movement on a solid or liquid surface or fall.

Cloak Dance: As a minor action, you can grant yourself Concealment if you succeed on a DC 20 Acrobatics check. This concealment lasts until the end of your next turn. Additionally, you gain a +2 circumstance bonus on Acrobatics checks made to avoid opportunity attacks.

Break Fall: You reduce falling damage you take by 2 points per rank in Acrobatics. This includes falling damage inflicted through abilities such as the telekinesis spell. Additionally, you never fall prone when you fall and can stand up from being tripped as a swift action.

Impossible Leap: You cut the DC for making high jumps in half. Additionally you are always treated as having a running start when jumping.

Advanced Perk (12 and 16 Ranks): You gain an advanced skill perk at this rank.
Cyclone Dance: The swift movements of your form cause a barrier of whipping air to form around you, protecting you from harm. During any round you make an Acrobatics check as part of movement, you automatically evade the first ranged attack made against you, and gain a +2 deflection bonus to your Reflex defense, until the end of your next turn.

Cut on the Run: Successfully moving through an enemy's threatened area with Acrobatics causes the enemy to provoke an attack from you. If you successfully moved through the enemy's space, the enemy is Flat-Footed against you until the end of your next turn.

DECEPTION (REPLACES BLUFF)
Trained (1 Rank): Failing to deceive someone only applies a -5 penalty per further attempt to deceive them, and the penalty to deceive them never gets worse than -10.

Minor Perk (4 and 8 Ranks): You gain a minor skill perk at this rank.

Fork Tongued: You gain a +3 competence bonus on opposed checks made to influenced Charmed or Dominated creatures. Further, when delivering a secret message, you can pass a false message to those who fail their Perception checks.

Dangerous Distraction: When you successfully feint in combat, your foe is Flat-Footed against everyone, not just you.

As Good As True: Magical abilities such as a zone of truth spell cannot discern whether or not you are telling the truth when deceiving others. Even abilities that can read your thoughts, such as a read thoughts spell, are fooled unless they succeed on their Perception check.

Devil's Tongue: Your words have taken on a magical quality that can beguile the minds of others. You gain the devil's tongue magical ability described below. You can use it once every 8 hours. As a language dependent ability, your target must be able to understand you to be affected.

Devil's Tongue [Charm, Magic, Mind-affecting, Language]
Action 1 major; Range close (50 ft.); Target one creature; Defense Will; Magic Resist Yes; Duration long (8 hours)
If you succeed on your special attack roll, the target becomes Charmed (see glossary for detailed information on charms and compulsions). Your target gains a +5 circumstance bonus to their Will defense against this ability if they are threatened in combat. Failure to charm the creature makes them immune to further attempts with this ability for 8 hours.

Advanced Perk (12 and 16 Ranks): You gain an advanced skill perk at this rank.

All Eyes On Me: When you attempt a feint in combat, your feint attempt applies against every enemy within close range (50 ft.) of you (make one Deception check and compare it to the DC for each target). Additionally, creatures you feint treat you as if you have Concealment, or treat everyone other than you as having Concealment (your choice).

Phantom Lies: Your lies are so convincing that they twist the perceptions of reality to those who hear them. You gain the Phantom Lies magical ability described below. Additionally, you reduce penalties for telling unbelievable lies by 5.

Phantom Lies [Magic, Mind-affecting, Phantasm, Language]
Action none (see text); Range close (50 ft.); Target creatures deceived; Defense none; Magic Resist Yes; Duration long (8 hours)
When you successfully lie to someone using the Deception skill, they experience an illusion born of their own imaginations that only they can see and experience, twisting their perception of reality. While this grants you no direct control over them, it can help you trick or deceive them further or misdirect them. The illusion they perceive matches the nature of the lie you have told them as best it can. For example, if you point at a nearby tree and scream “A fifty foot angry dragon!”, that's what they will see. Offering someone a bag of rocks and claiming it's a bag of gemstones will make them perceive them as gems. The illusion persists in the minds of those affected until its duration ends or it is dispelled.

Klara Meison
2016-11-03, 03:24 AM
Some of those abilities seem too good for their rank, e.g. Cloak Dance. It's pretty much constant nonmagical hide in plain sight.

I would also like to point out that most of those abilities are similar to boosts and maneuvers from Path of War, so similar game design solutions should probably be used. Making them only usable once with some sort of recovery action needed(perhaps even a selection of those, like with magical disciplines?) to use them again would make them a whole lot easier to balance.

Tels
2016-11-03, 09:10 AM
Some of those abilities seem too good for their rank, e.g. Cloak Dance. It's pretty much constant nonmagical hide in plain sight.

I would also like to point out that most of those abilities are similar to boosts and maneuvers from Path of War, so similar game design solutions should probably be used. Making them only usable once with some sort of recovery action needed(perhaps even a selection of those, like with magical disciplines?) to use them again would make them a whole lot easier to balance.

I'm not sure they would. See, unlike Path of War, which is an external system, these are being built in natively. What I mean is, Pathfinder is not balanced around the idea of "all day" abilities, such as in Path of War, or even the Kineticist. They throw normal balance a loop and co fuse things.

However, these skills are being included from the ground up. So powerful stealth techniques could be countered by powerful perception techniques.

I cant form any opinions on balance until I've got a clearer picture to see. As it stand now, yes, those abilities are very strong, but we also haven't seen the intended counters to them yet either.

It could be really interesting in character diversity though. Two people with the exact same number of ranks and the same modifier in Perception could be very different. Like, imagine if one is a merchant, so he's got abilities to notice sleight of hand or deception better, while another is a guard, and is trained in watching for hidden enemies and looking for clues.

Both are perceptive, yet, both are also very different in their perception. The merchant might get to roll multiple d20s to spot sleight of hand, or add half his level to deception, because he's good at spotting pick pockets and swindlers. But the guard might be able to track clues from days old, or perfectly envision how crimes occurred, have eyes so sharp he can see even in the absence of light.

It all depends on the talents they take.

Ashiel
2016-11-03, 12:20 PM
Some of those abilities seem too good for their rank, e.g. Cloak Dance. It's pretty much constant nonmagical hide in plain sight.

I would also like to point out that most of those abilities are similar to boosts and maneuvers from Path of War, so similar game design solutions should probably be used. Making them only usable once with some sort of recovery action needed(perhaps even a selection of those, like with magical disciplines?) to use them again would make them a whole lot easier to balance.
Funnily enough, a version of this ability has existed since the 3.5 psionics and continues to exist in Pathfinder today. The Cloak Dance (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/psionics-unleashed/feats/cloak-dance) feat can be taken at 7th level. I've actually had characters, both mine and others, who have used Cloak Dance for pretty much that very thing (stealthing in combat). A friend of mine was trying to build a samurai-themed character loosely based off Rurouni Kenshin who was to move in such a way as to suddenly become hard to follow with your eyes, which was emulated with Cloak Dance.

This version lacks the total concealment option but it's a bit more mobile (mostly to compensate for eating a move-equivalent action, and Stealth making you slower to boot), and it's available earlier (4th level at the earliest possible point), but I feel that makes it more competitive with things like blur or invisibility in terms of defense/stealth potential. I included it as part of Acrobatics rather than Stealth to create a sort of skill synergy (an idea I've been experimenting with in my head and getting a feel for with these prototypes).

As to similarities with Tome of Battle/Path of War, there will probably be a number of things that pop up with similarities with that system, though I can't promise that they'll always pop up in a ToB-style system. Though my friend Artorious/Arcane Knowledge were discussing it and he really doesn't want me to give up on the Fighter class (where I had largely written off the Fighter as a cause not worth pursuing) and having discussed it with him a bit further, I'll probably include a Fighter class that rather than using a resource uses stances, styles, and cooldowns. Which incidentally solves one of the issues I was struggling with concerning how to implement a ToB-style system in relation to the martial-vs-magic paradigm that's been implemented in D20 Legends, since this would tie the mechanics to specific classes (which given the multiclassing mechanics makes it comfortably available as an option for most anyone).


I'm not sure they would. See, unlike Path of War, which is an external system, these are being built in natively. What I mean is, Pathfinder is not balanced around the idea of "all day" abilities, such as in Path of War, or even the Kineticist. They throw normal balance a loop and co fuse things.
I can say that for the most part, attrition isn't something I'm intending to focus on as a balancing point. Resource management will still be a thing so I can't say it'll be entirely gone, but the idea that "this class can go all day with subpar abilities" vs "this class auto-wins a fight each day but only that fight" is completely removed. Every class will have ways of pacing themselves for marathon games or going nova for a big climactic battle.


However, these skills are being included from the ground up. So powerful stealth techniques could be countered by powerful perception techniques.
Speaking of Stealth vs Perception: Something of note is that Aratrok and I have been agonizing over Stealth vs Perception for months. Mostly because it's very easy in Pathfinder to just auto-succeed versus most enemies or force everything to max Perception purely for survival. One idea that has sprang to mind is allowing the DC to scale with the level of the creature you're trying to Stealth upon, similar to how BAB is used to resist Feinting if your Sense Motive isn't very good. Given that you will be rewarded for investing into Perception with special abilities and have a wider access to observational success with actual investment, there would still be a strong motivator to invest into Perception but it wouldn't be something you absolutely must have to not get torn to pieces by Stealth foes.


I cant form any opinions on balance until I've got a clearer picture to see. As it stand now, yes, those abilities are very strong, but we also haven't seen the intended counters to them yet either.
I'm all ears for which abilities seem a bit over the top since as noted, these are prototypes and some might be cut or re-organized (minor to advanced and vice versa). It's worth noting that a lot of the skill unlocks are intended to provide non-magical (or specifically non-spell since some are magical abilities) options that are decent for the level they are gained or allow them to solve some problems without resorting to spells.

For example, a character with Cloak Dance and a good Stealth can compete with someone using Blur or Invisibility. It's not the same as having those spells but it's a decent alternative (it has more action cost but it's also not magical so some counters don't work on it), and the ability becomes available at about the same level you can start seeing things like blur on dedicated casters. It's also not 100% necessary since if you're playing a character with ready access to blur (either self cast or via a party member), you might opt for a different ability entirely.


It could be really interesting in character diversity though. Two people with the exact same number of ranks and the same modifier in Perception could be very different. Like, imagine if one is a merchant, so he's got abilities to notice sleight of hand or deception better, while another is a guard, and is trained in watching for hidden enemies and looking for clues.

Both are perceptive, yet, both are also very different in their perception. The merchant might get to roll multiple d20s to spot sleight of hand, or add half his level to deception, because he's good at spotting pick pockets and swindlers. But the guard might be able to track clues from days old, or perfectly envision how crimes occurred, have eyes so sharp he can see even in the absence of light.

It all depends on the talents they take.

Pretty much. I wanted to include special unlocks at certain ranks and at first they were going to be specific abilities at specific ranks but then I was bugged by the fact that some abilities might not fit certain characters as well, so this was the result of that inkling. For example, if you look at the Deception skill, some of the abilities lend themselves to being a manipulator of others, yet some of them would look really sexy on a duelist or even a tank (All Eyes on Me could be used to allow an ally to slip by unnoticed or protect those around you).

Klara Meison
2016-11-03, 01:08 PM
Funnily enough, a version of this ability has existed since the 3.5 psionics and continues to exist in Pathfinder today. The Cloak Dance (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/psionics-unleashed/feats/cloak-dance) feat can be taken at 7th level. I've actually had characters, both mine and others, who have used Cloak Dance for pretty much that very thing (stealthing in combat). A friend of mine was trying to build a samurai-themed character loosely based off Rurouni Kenshin who was to move in such a way as to suddenly become hard to follow with your eyes, which was emulated with Cloak Dance.

This version lacks the total concealment option but it's a bit more mobile (mostly to compensate for eating a move-equivalent action, and Stealth making you slower to boot), and it's available earlier (4th level at the earliest possible point), but I feel that makes it more competitive with things like blur or invisibility in terms of defense/stealth potential. I included it as part of Acrobatics rather than Stealth to create a sort of skill synergy (an idea I've been experimenting with in my head and getting a feel for with these prototypes).

Wait...minor action is move-equivalent? I thought it was swift-equivalent. My apologies, if it was swift it would have been quite a fair bit better. I'd still would have moved it to 8+levels, since unlike blur it has no daily limit, at least within Pathfinder framework. No idea how it would interract with other parts of your system though.

>Fighter as ToB

I like it.


Speaking of Stealth vs Perception: One idea that has sprang to mind is allowing the DC to scale with the level of the creature you're trying to Stealth upon

How about giving +half level or +level bonus to perception to everyone? You have mentioned that big skill bonuses won't allow you to do crazy stuff, so a flat bonus shouldn't do much, right?


I'm all ears for which abilities seem a bit over the top since as noted, these are prototypes and some might be cut or re-organized (minor to advanced and vice versa).

Tels makes a good point, can't say what is above the power curve without seeing the whole system first.

137ben
2016-11-03, 01:15 PM
Are there going to be magic-users who don't have to track daily pools? I mean, I can already refluff martial initiates as magic-users, but I want something that's not as combat-focused as most ToB/PoW maneuvers are.

Ashiel
2016-11-03, 01:37 PM
Are there going to be magic-users who don't have to track daily pools? I mean, I can already refluff martial initiates as magic-users, but I want something that's not as combat-focused as most ToB/PoW maneuvers are.
Yes, definitely. I've already been brainstorming for some alternate routes into "magical" characters. That includes characters that have lots of magical (but minor) at-will abilities and abilities that are on cooldowns (such as things you can only use once every X rounds).

Ashiel
2016-11-03, 02:36 PM
How about giving +half level or +level bonus to perception to everyone? You have mentioned that big skill bonuses won't allow you to do crazy stuff, so a flat bonus shouldn't do much, right?
This is probably what's going to happen, actually. It'll likely be +level everyone. The trained benefit of Perception will likely be a boost to that amount. Further investment would give Perception related special abilities. I'm going to try to tinker with it.

Lemmy
2016-11-03, 02:47 PM
Have I ever sent you my draft for a at-will caster in Pathfinder rules? Caster have the ability to cast and sustain spells as often as they like, but they have a limited amount of "Focus" to spend, so they can't have infinite spells going on at the same time. The amount of Focus a spell requires is dependent on its level and duration. It's pretty fun.

Of course, even with those limitations... Some spells had to be removed from the list (healing spells and SoDs, mostly). A few others had to be given cooldowns. And some had to be given the condition that if the target successfully saves against it twice in the spam of 1h, it becomes immune to that spell (from that caster) for 24h, to avoid spamming.

Not a perfect system, but I like it. :smallsmile:

EDIT: (It works pretty well for most classes, with the right spell list limitations... Magi kinda break the system, though... :smallsigh:).

Ashiel
2016-11-03, 04:05 PM
Have I ever sent you my draft for a at-will caster in Pathfinder rules? Caster have the ability to cast and sustain spells as often as they like, but they have a limited amount of "Focus" to spend, so they can't have infinite spells going on at the same time. The amount of Focus a spell requires is dependent on its level and duration. It's pretty fun.

Of course, even with those limitations... Some spells had to be removed from the list (healing spells and SoDs, mostly). A few others had to be given cooldowns. And some had to be given the condition that if the target successfully saves against it twice in the spam of 1h, it becomes immune to that spell (from that caster) for 24h, to avoid spamming.

Not a perfect system, but I like it. :smallsmile:

EDIT: (It works pretty well for most classes, with the right spell list limitations... Magi kinda break the system, though... :smallsigh:).
I can't recall that you did, but I'm going to have to come up with some new magic systems anyway since I intend to use the same core to run my d20 games henceforth. That will mean doing things like making Star Wars mods and branches that play differently than normal D&D. I can already turn the talent system into a system for picking up magical abilities that aren't actually spells but can interact with spells relatively normally. I've written the magic chapter to govern all magic, so with few exceptions everything is transparent between magic abilities outside of their specific mechanical differences.

The benefit of that is that I can pretty much gut pretty large portions of the system and replace it with other mechanics instead, as needed. For example, some people would prefer spellcasters that were more focused and less omnipotent, kind of like mages from World of Warcraft who can do things like master powerful elemental magics and teleportation and such, but aren't capable of doing things outside their focus. A lot of people liked the 3.5 classes like Beguiler or Dread Necromancer which were essentially hyper specialized school wizards in a lot of ways, so some people might like all mages to be more like that.

Meanwhile, I intend to run a Star Wars game in the near future so I'm going to end up throwing a Force system together instead of using D&D-style magic.

Zilrax
2016-11-04, 10:53 PM
I did Beguiler once. I ended up fighting every enemy immune to mind affecting and subdual in the game. And was the only one who didn't have a special relic. And Beguilers were all about subdual and mind control soooo, yeah.

Ashiel
2016-11-04, 11:06 PM
I did Beguiler once. I ended up fighting every enemy immune to mind affecting and subdual in the game. And was the only one who didn't have a special relic. And Beguilers were all about subdual and mind control soooo, yeah.
That sounds very symptomatic of a bad GM... :smallamused:
(If it was to spite you, which it sounds like.)

Or just really terrible matchups which could happen. Beguilers tend to have a terrible time vs undead and constructs. :smallannoyed:
(The GM could be innocent in this case.)

Lemmy
2016-11-04, 11:45 PM
That sounds very symptomatic of a bad GM... :smallamused:
(If it was to spite you, which it sounds like.)

Or just really terrible matchups which could happen. Beguilers tend to have a terrible time vs undead and constructs. :smallannoyed:
(The GM could be innocent in this case.)I'm guessing it's a bt of column A, a bit of column B...

Ashiel
2016-11-05, 03:01 AM
I'm guessing it's a bt of column A, a bit of column B...
Like, it could just be an unfortunate bit of trouble if the adventure includes an evil lich who has a group of bound fire elementals and golems and all you've got is fireballs and mind-affecting spells. It's another thing entirely if the GM is explicitly picking enemies to counter your character. It's one of the reasons it's a good idea to not make classes one-trick ponies in d20. In 3.5, rogues were more or less useless against a ridiculous number of foes, which could lead to situations where it looked like the GM was picking on him/her, when it was really the GM was just trying to get their money's worth out of the Monster Manual. :smallamused:

Zilrax
2016-11-06, 01:42 PM
We were up against a homebrewed villain race of snakefolk who were basically children of the god of tyranny. They were basically immune to my magic outright for the most part, though those they enslaved weren't. And then we went up against a creature called a Waker of the Beast which I gather was a monk with a prestige class from dragon magazine that makes you more and more like the Tarrasque. It's been many years so I think most of the stuff I did affectively was more me as a player via tactics and riddle solving than anything my class did but I might be forgetting things. I do remember a fight with vampires and undead a fair few times. That's not a problem for me per say though. I understand my limits.

The capstone of the campaign was us spanking the Tarrasque at 12th level. Course this was the mixed bag ending as the tarrasque was made from part of the god of tyrannys magic so when it died, he got it back and then killed the other gods.

LordOfCain
2016-11-15, 07:38 AM
We were up against a homebrewed villain race of snakefolk who were basically children of the god of tyranny. They were basically immune to my magic outright for the most part, though those they enslaved weren't. And then we went up against a creature called a Waker of the Beast which I gather was a monk with a prestige class from dragon magazine that makes you more and more like the Tarrasque. It's been many years so I think most of the stuff I did affectively was more me as a player via tactics and riddle solving than anything my class did but I might be forgetting things. I do remember a fight with vampires and undead a fair few times. That's not a problem for me per say though. I understand my limits.

The capstone of the campaign was us spanking the Tarrasque at 12th level. Course this was the mixed bag ending as the tarrasque was made from part of the god of tyrannys magic so when it died, he got it back and then killed the other gods.

Ouch... that does not sound fun....

Ashiel
2016-11-17, 10:43 PM
Ouch... that does not sound fun....
Yeah Zilrax has a bottomless bag of frightful RPG stories. :smalltongue:

Zilrax
2016-11-18, 03:18 AM
Truthfully I've probably had far less than some do. Mind you, some of them I was the horrible one. Stupid teenager playing a CN rogue, do the math. My rogue died 19 times in that campaign. And that was back when you actually lost exp for dying. However I always managed to die right after I leveled and we did it so you couldn't lose exp past where you last leveled. So I ended up the highest level character in the party at level 17. With an average damage of 17 on a sneak attack too. d6's REALLY hated me.

Examples from that, some are easily predicted. Stole from the party, though I did give it back at least. Hoarded all the loot, til I got killed for that one. At one point there was a poison trap I kept triggering for some reason. There was the point I got bored in an orcish town, rolled a die for random thing to do, put on a mask, started juggling beads from a necklace of fireballs and blew up 1/4 of the town, and escaped on a dog sled as the party fled. Real typical Chaotic Stupid stuff. Not my proudest moment.

Mind you I didn't have the best experiences before then. My first character was a lizardfolk fighter with a towershield. I didn't have any armor sadly cus the dm said natural armor and armor didn't stack. We got in a fight with some hobgoblins, and I was sticking behind the paladin for health as my tower shield had been smashed an encounter earlier by kobolds, cus I was using it for cover, and the destroy cover rules. But the paladin decided to run away and so I got one shot and left to die. Half celestial paladin I add.

After that I had a higher level wizard, but I started with no spellbook, so I could only use a dagger. Later we had a side dream thing where we did a stint in Undermountain cus the dm didn't have time to prep things. Someone came for one game and was playing one of the pcs, and they decided to randomly try to kill me. So I dropped them with my spells. Then the paladin healed them. Same paladin incidentally. So they tried again and I downed them again. Then the rogue attacked me because the guy trying to kill me was playing his brother's character, and then the paladin healed the guy I downed, and thus let me get couped. Being a dream, I revived back at the entrance, but I had lost all my spells per day from dying. That game died not too long after that and got replaced with the one I had the rogue for.

I could keep going but this is real off topic honestly :p

Kryzbyn
2016-11-21, 09:29 AM
I often use Aasatha from swords and sorcery to spice things up in a campaign. When the players don't know, "lizardman" does not even begin to describe the carnage that's about to be wreaked on them ;)

LordOfCain
2016-11-23, 08:32 PM
....Dang.... :smalleek:

Ashiel
2016-11-25, 03:46 AM
Started on the core classes. The only other class document that was currently on my google drive was a temporary placeholder for an exceedingly early playtest my brother convinced me to run. Here's the new core class document that is in progress. Currently the warrior (fighter replacement) is being written. I've been working on it between periods of unconsciousness over the past 24 hours (I'm kind of sick but recovering :smallsmile:).

D20 Legends - Classes - Alpha v2 (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1xywEW58IoLUzc2RnQ1cUNBMVk/view?usp=sharing)

Klara Meison
2016-11-25, 07:25 AM
Started on the core classes. The only other class document that was currently on my google drive was a temporary placeholder for an exceedingly early playtest my brother convinced me to run. Here's the new core class document that is in progress. Currently the warrior (fighter replacement) is being written. I've been working on it between periods of unconsciousness over the past 24 hours (I'm kind of sick but recovering :smallsmile:).

D20 Legends - Classes - Alpha v2 (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1xywEW58IoLUzc2RnQ1cUNBMVk/view?usp=sharing)

I see Blood Tempest already received a much needed nerf.

Do I understand it correctly that all techniques share a single cooldown timer? I.e. if you use Technique 1, you can't use Technique 2 next turn?

Ashiel
2016-11-25, 01:26 PM
I see Blood Tempest already received a much needed nerf.

Do I understand it correctly that all techniques share a single cooldown timer? I.e. if you use Technique 1, you can't use Technique 2 next turn?

That's correct. D20 Legends' core combat system is much more mobile and fluid than regular D20 (mostly because of the removal of the full-attack system), so part of the design goal with the warrior is to not avoid the combat system by activating abilities every round, but to mix using abilities in with your basic combat options.

You'll also have a sort of mini-game that exists where you can perform certain actions, or use certain abilities, and certain stances, to reduce your cooldowns. This will hopefully lead to a minigame where you increase your tempo by fighting a certain way (the exact way may vary depending on your choices).

Here's an Example
Let's say we're building a sword & board wielding tank who's role is going to center around putting pressure on enemies and making a nuisance of himself to your enemies. By 4th level, we might be looking at a build that looks like this:

Talents

Warrior Class (you're now a warrior)
Sword & Board (when you use a heroic strike attack, you get a free shield bash)
Shield Slam (when you shield bash, you reduce your cooldowns by 1)


Techniques, Boosts, and Stances

Stance Guardian's Wrath (school cooldowns reduced by 1, heroic strike reduces cooldowns by 1)
Stance Opportunist Stance (opportunity attack when a combat maneuver succeeds)
Technique Intervene (move to an ally and intercept an attack)
Boost Heroic stand (gain a bunch of temporary HP until end of your turn)


Strategy
The idea is that we'll move around and pound enemies in the face. Whenever we're about to take a big hit, we activate Heroic Stand and absorb damage. When our friends are in danger, we activate Intervene allowing us to defend them (and putting us in melee with our enemy, where we want to be). When we use our abilities, the cooldown is only 4 rounds instead of 5 (because of our stance), and when we use a heroic strike we reduce the cooldown by 1 (and we'll do this a lot).

We're very hard to kill and remarkably mobile (since Intervene allows you to move up to your speed to get back to an ally, you can "bungee" yourself back to any ally that's being attacked). So we charge around the battlefield smacking people with our sword & shield, and every few rounds get to absorb a big damaging attack, or defend our adventure-bros. In some situations we may change to our Opportunistic Stance and focus on beating people up with extra attacks when we're using combat maneuvers with our allies (so if you bull rush someone away from your friends you can attack them for free, and the free attack could be a shield bash which reduces your chooldowns).

Attacking: So the idea here would be to focus on moving around and making heroic strikes (these function similar to vital strikes in Pathfinder). When we make a heroic strike, we also whack a dude with a shield bash. Our damage against our target is generally pretty sexy this way (assuming we're using a d8 main-hander and a shield, we'd deal about 1d8+4+2d6 on the heroic strike, and 1d6+4+1d6 on the shield bash). We also have 3 attacks per round if you count dual-wielding, so our attack routine options would look something like this.
1 Attack Either sword or shield at +8 (mwk or buffs not included)
1 Heroic Strike Either sword or shield at +6 (w/+1d6 damage) and a free shield bash
2 Attacks Any combination of sword or shield at +6/+6 (good for most but you get more out of heroic striking, unless your foe is resistant to shield bashes).
3 Attacks Some combination of sword and shield at +4/+4/+4 (this might be desirable if fighting lots of mooks or foes with bad AC).

Cooldown Reduction Strategy
Because our abilities synergize with our fighting style, using any ability in our Guardian's Wrath stance reduces the cooldown from 5 to 4.
We then make a heroic strike which reduces it by 1 while in this stance (4 to 3). Because of our Sword & Board and Shield Slam talents, we get a free shield bash when we heroic strike and shield bashing reduces our cooldowns by 1 (so now we've gone from 3 to 2 in the same round). If we can keep this up, we can activate an ability every other round (technically since our abilities are immediate actions, we could probably use them every round if we opened our turn by heroic striking and shield bashing people and making the cooldown on our turn).

EDIT #1: Incidentally you can use abilities like Intervene to rush down enemies and tag team with things like rogues in your party. For example if your party's rogue charges into combat at top speed while you're fighting someone else or buffing with potions or something, when the foe retaliates against the rogue you can burst onto the scene (and possibly counter attack). Now you and the rogue are adjacent to each other and flanking is a natural choice from there. If you can keep your cooldowns down, each time your victim tries to attack the rogue you can try to take the hit for him.

Also, if our party is making use of summoned allies or pets, such as animal companions or friendly summoned monsters, they can be spread out onto multiple enemies allowing you to use them for leap-frogging (since you can immediate-action rush to one if they're attacked, then continue moving on your turn while whacking foes in the face).

Klara Meison
2016-11-25, 01:32 PM
Will there be Claims and similar abilities in D20L? I.e. things that heavilly penalise enemies from attacking anyone but the activator of the ability, by either debuffing them to hell and back or by directly harming them if they try to do so(e.g. by making them provoke opportunity attacks).

Ashiel
2016-11-25, 01:56 PM
Will there be Claims and similar abilities in D20L? I.e. things that heavilly penalise enemies from attacking anyone but the activator of the ability, by either debuffing them to hell and back or by directly harming them if they try to do so(e.g. by making them provoke opportunity attacks).

Probably. I assume you mean mechanics like the Harbinger (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/path-of-war/classes/harbinger)'s dark claim? Yeah, I'd bet money on it. I like mechanics like that a lot. :smallsmile:

Zilrax
2016-11-25, 02:59 PM
Harbinger and Zealot are my favorites so yeys!

Ashiel
2016-11-25, 03:53 PM
Harbinger and Zealot are my favorites so yeys!
Fortunately, the way I'm writing the Warrior, it would be fairly trivial to add new combat schools later (or to homebrew your own), so if the cooldown mechanic appeals (I rather like it but the best laid plans and all that) then expanding the warrior for other purposes and themes should be pretty easy in the grand scheme of things. :smallsmile:

For example, it wouldn't be terribly hard to turn the warrior into some sort of death-knight sort of thing by adding some abilities that revolve around doing things like inflicting debuffs and diseases and stuff like that on foes. Or even a support specialization that does things like heal, buff, and cleanse status ailments for your allies. :smallamused:

Zilrax
2016-11-25, 05:06 PM
Well the Harbinger, well base Harbinger cus the archetypes alter their fighting styles, is more of a skirmisher who picks a target and isolates and eliminates. I think they might be better off as something based out of the Rogue since they are all about comboing curses and mobility and such. Things you've put to the rogue.

That said, the Crimson Countess might make a better warrior possibly, as her thing is putting a time limit on combats by being a constant threat. Everyone she marks loses hp over time and she get's stronger from it. So you have to choose between killing possibly more immediately dangerous targets like casters and allowing the Countess to get swole, or focus her down, and you know she's going to be tanking up. A rather effective form of aggro.

The Raven archetype one where the Harbinger splits off his negativity into a murderbird and they tag team is probably a mix of rogue and ranger. Ranger for the pet mechanics, rogue for the if one hits, other applies debuffs in response and so forth.

Omen Rider is harbinger on a horse, probably ranger again.

Zealots a funnier duck. He's probably Champion and... Whatever you eventually stuff stuff like the Vitalist Collective under, as he absorbs damage from allies, is all about aid another and then can grant them his abilities in turn. But mostly I really love the Solipsism Style aka Sleeping Goddess or "I reject your reality and substitute my own, the fighting style." Because I can have a character apply this sort of logic to reality.

http://www.prequeladventure.com/this/AggyExtrapolate.html

I always go back to this when I feel down as well. It helps. Side note, when you succeed changes the text.

Ashiel
2016-11-25, 05:50 PM
Okay, that thing you linked is awesome and now I wanna play Morrowind or Skyrim again. What have you done to me!?
So...many...mods...to...install... :smallsigh:

Zilrax
2016-11-25, 06:31 PM
Fear the powers of Making a Cat Cry!

Also amusing given the concept is a prequel to Oblivion and it made you wanna play the two Not Oblivion games :3

But yeah, that ghost is awesome and I enjoy me some crazy ghost logic.

"It requires cunning and Linear thinking!" "You mean lateral thinking?" "No, Linear thinking! Thinking about an idea in a straight line and letting nothing, not even reason get in your way!"

Or as my Stalker/Zealot decided after taking Unbroken Stride stance: "Well, people float. Ergo I float." *stands on the surface of water* "I float." Later it allows you to walk on walls and ceilings like spiderclimb. "Well, everything get's pulled down. You all decided down was that way, I never agreed to this! Reality is not a democracy! I say down is this way! It's not my fault you guys are so hung up on your interpretation." Later can fly but not hover. "Look, if a dragon can fly, so can I because I am way lighter than a dragon. I can't hover because I don't have wings obviously, but it's not my fault you all decided you had to live on the ground." Later can fly perfectly. "Well, you know how I decided down was that way? Well me and gravity got into an argument and we're not speaking to each other anymore. I hope you're happy, you all caused this! You and your determinations and now gravity won't touch me anymore and I have to swim everywhere. Of course I can swim in it. Air contains water, that's where clouds are from. So if you can swim in water you can swim in the air."

Ashiel
2016-11-25, 06:59 PM
Fear the powers of Making a Cat Cry!

Also amusing given the concept is a prequel to Oblivion and it made you wanna play the two Not Oblivion games :3

But yeah, that ghost is awesome and I enjoy me some crazy ghost logic.

"It requires cunning and Linear thinking!" "You mean lateral thinking?" "No, Linear thinking! Thinking about an idea in a straight line and letting nothing, not even reason get in your way!"

Or as my Stalker/Zealot decided after taking Unbroken Stride stance: "Well, people float. Ergo I float." *stands on the surface of water* "I float." Later it allows you to walk on walls and ceilings like spiderclimb. "Well, everything get's pulled down. You all decided down was that way, I never agreed to this! Reality is not a democracy! I say down is this way! It's not my fault you guys are so hung up on your interpretation." Later can fly but not hover. "Look, if a dragon can fly, so can I because I am way lighter than a dragon. I can't hover because I don't have wings obviously, but it's not my fault you all decided you had to live on the ground." Later can fly perfectly. "Well, you know how I decided down was that way? Well me and gravity got into an argument and we're not speaking to each other anymore. I hope you're happy, you all caused this! You and your determinations and now gravity won't touch me anymore and I have to swim everywhere. Of course I can swim in it. Air contains water, that's where clouds are from. So if you can swim in water you can swim in the air."

I didn't really ever get around to playing Oblivion much. I bought it for the Xbox360 but I was so busy with a new job at the time that I never actually played it for more than maybe a couple hours. I'm a big fan of Skyrim's mechanical changes (makes the game more intuitive), and really love both modded Morrowind and modded Skyrim. I would probably like modded Oblivion too. I just haven't gotten around to bothering with it, even though I did buy it when it was super cheap on Steam. :smallconfused:

EDIT: Also, that sounds both crazy and hilarious.

Klara Meison
2016-11-27, 03:12 PM
1) What do you think is the worst consequence of limiting publicly availible (as in, the kind you can buy with money) spellcasting at level 5?

2) How would you split population by level in Pathfinder and in D20Legends? I.e. what % is lv1, what % is lv2, et cetera.

Ashiel
2016-11-28, 08:40 AM
1) What do you think is the worst consequence of limiting publicly available (as in, the kind you can buy with money) spellcasting at level 5?Well, it means regenerate is beyond the means of the PCs to attain without a dedicated healer in the party and that could selectively suck (though honestly it's not worth being a 7th+ level spell anyway, I have no idea what they were thinking). I personally would miss create undead.

Aside from that, I started to say the lack of stone to flesh, but humorously the break enhancement spell can be used to dispel flesh to stone and it's a lower level spell, albeit it does require a CL check (so you might have to cast it a few extra times). Humorously, it's safer than using stone to flesh since break enchantment doesn't force a DC 15 Fortitude save or die (and that save isn't always super easy since your gear is inert, so you're rolling with only your base save + base Constitution + feats, no magic item support).

In a lot of ways it would probably make the game better overall. With no ready access to things like greater teleport, and regular teleport being imperfect for arriving precisely where you need to, it would make traditional forms of travel a bit more practical even at later levels. It would also reduce the implied number of high level casters significantly (since the mechanics in the core rulebook imply that 15th and under are common enough to be peddling their services in any community of the appropriate size). 5th level spells would imply that common casters are below 11th level (9th for mages, 10th for sorcerers), which is probably a good idea from a world-building perspective for many, many reasons.


2) How would you split population by level in Pathfinder and in D20Legends? I.e. what % is lv1, what % is lv2, et cetera.
I'm not sure off the top of my head, honestly. I'm generally happiest with the vast majority of the world feels somewhat normal, which means I'd definitely set the demographics for higher level individuals progressively smaller and smaller as their levels rose in question. Though in my own games I tend to use CR in place of levels (so a lot of the champion sorts of badasses that are relatively common are usually stacked with NPC levels). If I was just spitballing a number off the top of my head, maybe something like 1/10 people are above 1st level (10%), and 1/10 of those is above 3rd level (1%), and 1/10 of those were above 5th level (0.1%), and 1/10 of those were above 7th level (0.01%), and 1/10 of those were above 9th level (0.001%), and 1/10 of those were above 11th level (0.0001%), and so forth. Which would put 20th level individuals at about 10 in a billion.

This is basically under the assumption that to reach a particularly high level you have to be doing particularly dangerous things, and adventuring tends to be dangerous, and so it's got this really nasty tendency to kill off individuals before they reach higher levels, or encourage them to quit while they're ahead. Lots of would be high level folks might call it quits at some point, many others fall to various bad ends, achieve their goals, or stop being challenged as fiercely (which causes their advancement to slow as a result).

Traditionally speaking, it takes significantly more experience to level with each subsequent level. Incidentally, that means unless you are facing challenges that grant more experience, your XP gain will slow naturally. As you rise on the "food chain" as it were, the number of competitors dwindles (as they are as rare as you are), so it becomes harder to find greater challenges without either explicitly looking for them, or them looking for you, etc. It is because of this that I generally go with the "more is more" approach when designing encounters, especially high level encounters. They're usually saturated with tons of lower-tier enemies and dotted with one or two major contenders (and even those major contenders are going to be lower in level than the PCs).

For d20 Legends specifically, I'm going to need to decide on if and how I would like to promote a "soft cap" on levels. In Pathfinder, the soft cap his at 20th level, where advancing beyond 20th provides little in the way of additional power growth, but the XP budgets on encounters become so high that you'd eventually be facing tons of enemies that are challenging in their own right. For example, a CR 25 encounter is the same XP budget for 21+ planetars (each planetar being capable of casting 8th level spells and such). From 20th to 25th level, you've probably already maxed out your magic items, inherent bonuses, and so forth a long time ago, so aside from a few increased HD, you're not really much stronger than you were at 20th level. Thus it becomes near impossible to keep progressing at any sort of rapid pace without just getting destroyed (because the encounter budgets will eventually drown you).

There are several ways to go about handling it and I haven't decided on what I'd like to set as the "default" experience. I'll very likely include three or four experience charts depending on the sort of game intending to be ran. I personally kind of like the idea of an XP chart that stretches as levels get higher (so you'd level relatively quickly at low levels, then slow down, and then slow to a crawl at higher levels), which would have the side effect of allowing you to get the core of your toys quickly, then draw out the "sweet spot" longer, and make the higher levels feel more worthwhile. Though I think that sort of style is more suited for characters who are going to be played across multiple campaigns, and has probably largely fallen out of fashion in modern gaming. I'd like to include it as an option though. :smallsmile:

Klara Meison
2016-11-28, 10:48 AM
In a lot of ways it would probably make the game better overall. With no ready access to things like greater teleport, and regular teleport being imperfect for arriving precisely where you need to, it would make traditional forms of travel a bit more practical even at later levels. It would also reduce the implied number of high level casters significantly (since the mechanics in the core rulebook imply that 15th and under are common enough to be peddling their services in any community of the appropriate size). 5th level spells would imply that common casters are below 11th level (9th for mages, 10th for sorcerers), which is probably a good idea from a world-building perspective for many, many reasons.


That has been my reasoning when I asked the question. I realised that I'd need some sort of Cheliax demographics for some aspects of Mint Rebels campaign I am working on, so I went searching and found not much. Only demographic rules I have seen so far are in the "Settlements" section under availible spellcasting, which imply how common spellcasters are(e.g. since you can get lv1 spells in a village of 20 people, it probably means there is at least 1 wizard, 1 priest and 1 witch in that village, and casters in general are at least 5% of the population)

But then you get to higher levels of spellcasting, and based on those numbers, there would be 50-100 lv 15+ casters in Cheliax that sell their spellcasting on the market, which means at least 150-300 in total...

That's just too much magic for my tastes, considering that Queen Of Cheliax is a lv 16 sorcerer. How would she even keep her throne with that many casters of equivalent power in the country? Plotting Settlement numbers on this glorious graph (http://puu.sh/sxhT7/2e9514e36e.png) (red-vanilla, blue-my adjusted numbers. Population of Cheliax is assumed to be 4 million, equal to 1500-s England, with major cities like London being 50-100k) you can see that number of high-level casters drops slower than the number of low-level casters in Pathfinder, which would imply that it's easier to gain experience at higher levels than at lower levels, which is just plain weird.

I adjusted the numbers so that the curve would look generally straighter. Now there are just a dozen of high-level casters(High Priests, Queens, and other nationally-important people, along with their secretaries and leutenants). Most people are in the 1-5 level range, with 6-10 levels being where most locally and regionally known people lie. Then there is a drop between 5-th and 6-th level of spellcasting, since most people just can't go over level 10.

EDIT: Red graph is vanilla numbers for spellcasters willing to cast spells for money, whereas blue graph is for spellcasters total. If you adjust vanilla graph for the fact that, obviously, not all spellcasters will sell spells, it's even higher.

Zilrax
2016-11-28, 01:33 PM
Obviously the answer is high level casters can cast planeshift and go punch elementals!

Ashiel
2016-11-28, 01:50 PM
Obviously the answer is high level casters can cast planeshift and go punch elementals!
This is pretty reasonable. There is an argument to be made that at a certain point the material plane holds no more wonders for the restless soul that the ever reaching leveler. Odds are, anyone who has the dedication to climb ever higher probably has no goals that require the material plane. I mean, even conquering the world. Do you really gain anything by going through the effort if you're so powerful that the riches of the material world mean nothing? :smallconfused:

Time to explore the multiverse!
Or take up hobbies.

Tels
2016-11-28, 03:17 PM
Or take up hobbies.

Knitting is fun...

Zilrax
2016-11-28, 06:45 PM
I want to knit golems now.

Ashiel
2016-11-29, 03:45 AM
Knitting is fun...

This is essentially why I often scoff at the idea that immortality will lead to absolute boredom. There is always something new to do, or new to learn, or new to create. Have you truly learned everything there is to learn about, say, biology? Go learn computer programming. Can you code like a god in every programming language to date? Now go become the best player of Age of Empires. You're the best player now? Now go write. Write what? Everything. Hell, your auto-biography would probably look like the Encyclopedia Britannica. Write a story. Take up painting. Push a field of research to new heights. Invent something. Figure out how to make the world more awesome. Become an astralnaut, exploring new planes of existence. Find the edge of the known universe. See what's beyond the known universe. Take up golfing. Invent Pokemon. Then play Pokemon. Invent Roleplaying games. GM the best roleplaying games. Become a marriage guidance counselor. Play The Sims using people, by secretly gaining ownership to all lands, businesses, and government in an area and see if you can make them super successful (if occasionally drenched in their own blue liquids).

Of course, as someone who cannot find enough time to do all of the things I want to do, and having by the large found myself not playing video games because I'm too busy writing, socializing, or working or something, the prospect of being a lich sounds freaking awesome. Or better yet, if I could magically split myself to engage in all of my interests all at once. :smallamused:

Boredom is a False God
Here's a list of things that I would like to be doing at any given time, in no particular order.

Writing RPG Material
Hanging out with friends
Learning to draw and paint better
Messageboards
Modding Final Fantasy Tactics
Making an RPG Maker game
Writing a novel
Writing adventures
Playing video games
Exercising and working out
Playing MMOs
Learning to play the keyboard
Playing Dance Dance Revolution
Singing
Learning C++, Java, and Lua efficiently enough to create games
Building computers
Finding that special someone
Watching youtube videos about economics and politics
Porn

JBPuffin
2016-11-29, 12:29 PM
Fear the powers of Making a Cat Cry!

Also amusing given the concept is a prequel to Oblivion and it made you wanna play the two Not Oblivion games :3

But yeah, that ghost is awesome and I enjoy me some crazy ghost logic.

"It requires cunning and Linear thinking!" "You mean lateral thinking?" "No, Linear thinking! Thinking about an idea in a straight line and letting nothing, not even reason get in your way!"

Or as my Stalker/Zealot decided after taking Unbroken Stride stance: "Well, people float. Ergo I float." *stands on the surface of water* "I float." Later it allows you to walk on walls and ceilings like spiderclimb. "Well, everything get's pulled down. You all decided down was that way, I never agreed to this! Reality is not a democracy! I say down is this way! It's not my fault you guys are so hung up on your interpretation." Later can fly but not hover. "Look, if a dragon can fly, so can I because I am way lighter than a dragon. I can't hover because I don't have wings obviously, but it's not my fault you all decided you had to live on the ground." Later can fly perfectly. "Well, you know how I decided down was that way? Well me and gravity got into an argument and we're not speaking to each other anymore. I hope you're happy, you all caused this! You and your determinations and now gravity won't touch me anymore and I have to swim everywhere. Of course I can swim in it. Air contains water, that's where clouds are from. So if you can swim in water you can swim in the air."

I stopped by to see if Ashiel had some material up...and saw this majestic post. Can I sig this?

Zilrax
2016-11-30, 02:42 AM
Feel free, I certainly do not mind.

Ashiel
2016-11-30, 08:35 PM
Brainstorming Monster Stuff
I've been strongly considering removing the supertypes of creatures since they largely feel redundant since things like BAB/HP/Skills aren't tied to creature type anymore. This would make it so that creatures are more defined by their individual species (such as all devils having devil traits) and relevant subtypes (such as the new mindless subtype) that can belong to different kinds of creatures.

In this case, creatures would be assigned a body type. So you'd have things like humanoid (traditional races, some monstrous creatures like succubi or rakshasas, etc), bestial (dragons, hydras, animals, most monsters), or formless (things like some aberrations, some constructs, oozes, or some elementals). These body types would determine certain basic fundamentals about the creatures in question (such as their ability to use tools, or natural weapons and such).

In doing this, I'd need to change planar binding slightly (mostly set it to tie it to targeting creatures on the outer planes rather than keying it to supertype). I'm actually not really concerned with things like charm person vs charm monster type things since that could just as easily be giving level based limits similar to sleep, or not really modified at all (there's not supposed to be much difference between a CR 11 humanoid vs a CR 11 non-humanoid).

This would make making monsters simpler and significantly less redundant. It should also theoretically make the game easier to learn and GM, since it would be a bit more intuitive as to what is what. Whereas in vanilla-D20/PF, there's a lot of things that look like dragons and aren't, lots of humanoid creatures that aren't humanoids, and strange overlaps with things like aberrations, fey, magical beasts, dragons, etc.

Some Hypothetical Examples
So let's say you want to create some devils, right? So we want to make a Lemure, and Imp, and a Lilin themed devil.
Species: Devil (for everyone), Mindless (for lemure)
Form: We decide lemures are formless (is a formless blob with some natural attacks), imps are bestial (natural attacks), and lilins are humanoid (can wield weapons and stuff).
Path: Lemures are warriors, imps casters, and our lilin will be a hybrid.

Now we've got the basic statistics for three different types of devils. We set their relative strength by setting their level (lemures and imps can be low level, lilins could be a bit more advanced). We can add special racial features or classes to them in much the same way we will for PCs (by expending talents). Easy.

Mega Monsters
Another concept that's being toyed with is a new type of monster that's intended to be an encounter all unto itself. Specifically reserved for creatures that are big and/or have lots of threatening segments of their bodies, such as dragons, hydras, or kraken, these creatures will be designed as an encounter rather than an individual, and will have an HP pool built up of multiple sections of their bodies. To kill the creature, you'd have to wear down it's total HP, but by dealing enough damage to different portions of its body, you could disable those portions and thus deny it advantageous action economy and abilities.

So for example, 6 CR 6 creatures is a CR 11 encounter. We could build a big dragon that consisted of a head (which bites, casts spells, or uses a breath weapon), 2 arms (which attack independently of each other), its wings (which make wing attacks, fly it around, or kick up dust), its body (which can be used for crushing or ground movement), and its tail (which can be used for giant AoE sweep slaps). So each round it would make an attack routine for each claw, cast a spell or breath fire, fly around and crush things or move around and kick up dust, and deal physical AoE damage with its tail.

Just using the PF monster chart as a loose example, it would have 420 HP total, with each section of its body having 70 Hp. Dealing enough damage to a segment of its body would cause that body part to become injured and become unusable (so if you reduced the dragon's wings to 0 HP, it can't fly or kick up dust clouds, reduce its head to 0 HP and it's too injured to bite, breath fire, or cast spells, reduce its body to 0 HP and it can't move effectively or perform crush attacks, etc). Essentially, it's an encounter's worth of enemies built into a single super beast.

Effects like flesh to stone would target individual limbs. So for such massive creatures, you'd need to petrify them multiple times to effectively kill them. Otherwise you'd just disable a limb. AoE damage would target all the segments at the same time (but resistance would apply for each individually). Grappling would grab a single limb, disabling the limb until it could break free.

Something like this: A visual representation (https://youtu.be/W4NNjgmQZZQ?t=318)

Zilrax
2016-12-01, 03:12 AM
You display chimera as example but all I can imagine is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqYruhUlG3A

All the limbs flailing independently of each other in every direction to attack in some horrifying nightmare.

And of course this is how the dragon would fly. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqDaMSk00wA

Tels
2016-12-01, 03:30 AM
One brings up Chimera, another TF2, and here I am, thinking a long the lines of Legend of Dragoon. (https://youtu.be/Uo4MY63zUtU?t=29)

Zilrax
2016-12-01, 05:45 AM
Actually there IS one other thing that it makes me think of. After all if 6 cr 6's makes cr 11, how many cr 1's makes a cr20?

http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/kaijucombat/images/9/90/Platoon_SpN2_.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20140425232454

Ashiel
2016-12-01, 07:49 AM
Actually there IS one other thing that it makes me think of. After all if 6 cr 6's makes cr 11, how many cr 1's makes a cr20?

http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/kaijucombat/images/9/90/Platoon_SpN2_.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20140425232454

Um, 768, actually. :smalleek:
EDIT: Giving such a beast something around 11,520 Hp. But it'd die a horrible death the moment you whacked it with a fireball. :smalltongue:


One brings up Chimera, another TF2, and here I am, thinking a long the lines of Legend of Dragoon (https://youtu.be/Uo4MY63zUtU?t=29).
That's roughly the idea as well. One thing D20 doesn't really excel at is big fights with single really powerful monsters, mostly because of things like action economy. It's also never really done really epic monsters very well (such as shadow of colossus style stuff). For example, without being outright immune to lots of things, and really exploiting the terrain and traps in their lairs, a dragon can be easily dismantled since it can be crowd-controlled like most anything else, and it's outnumbered. 4E tried to simply inflate a boss monster's HP and give them an extra action, but I never felt like it really bridged the gap.

However, thinking about my preferences for encounter design, I realized that perhaps I was approaching such creatures from the wrong angle. The way I traditionally solve the action economy issue is using multiple creatures. It also tends to increase the net HP pools of encounters (which makes characters who deal more damage more impactful) and make them harder to collectively CC. Why not apply the same sort of mechanic to epic monsters? :smallamused:

Ashiel
2016-12-01, 08:28 AM
Actually there IS one other thing that it makes me think of. After all if 6 cr 6's makes cr 11, how many cr 1's makes a cr20?

http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/kaijucombat/images/9/90/Platoon_SpN2_.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20140425232454

I'm clearly not getting my inspiration from the right sources. Team Fortress is clearly filled with more horrors than anything by Lovecraft. :P

More Conceptual Inspirations
Dragon's Crown Legendary Dragon Boss (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baLe48811GE)
Dragon's Crown Kraken Boss Pt 1 (https://youtu.be/jni7ViRCyGQ?t=248) and Pt 2 (https://youtu.be/jni7ViRCyGQ?t=397).
D&D Arcade Game Boss (http://img.gamefaqs.net/screens/b/1/9/gfs_45443_2_198.jpg)

Klara Meison
2016-12-01, 09:23 AM
Brainstorming Monster Stuff
I've been strongly considering removing the supertypes of creatures since they largely feel redundant since things like BAB/HP/Skills aren't tied to creature type anymore. This would make it so that creatures are more defined by their individual species (such as all devils having devil traits) and relevant subtypes (such as the new mindless subtype) that can belong to different kinds of creatures.

In this case, creatures would be assigned a body type. So you'd have things like humanoid (traditional races, some monstrous creatures like succubi or rakshasas, etc), bestial (dragons, hydras, animals, most monsters), or formless (things like some aberrations, some constructs, oozes, or some elementals). These body types would determine certain basic fundamentals about the creatures in question (such as their ability to use tools, or natural weapons and such).

In doing this, I'd need to change planar binding slightly (mostly set it to tie it to targeting creatures on the outer planes rather than keying it to supertype). I'm actually not really concerned with things like charm person vs charm monster type things since that could just as easily be giving level based limits similar to sleep, or not really modified at all (there's not supposed to be much difference between a CR 11 humanoid vs a CR 11 non-humanoid).

This would make making monsters simpler and significantly less redundant. It should also theoretically make the game easier to learn and GM, since it would be a bit more intuitive as to what is what. Whereas in vanilla-D20/PF, there's a lot of things that look like dragons and aren't, lots of humanoid creatures that aren't humanoids, and strange overlaps with things like aberrations, fey, magical beasts, dragons, etc.

Some Hypothetical Examples
So let's say you want to create some devils, right? So we want to make a Lemure, and Imp, and a Lilin themed devil.
Species: Devil (for everyone), Mindless (for lemure)
Form: We decide lemures are formless (is a formless blob with some natural attacks), imps are bestial (natural attacks), and lilins are humanoid (can wield weapons and stuff).
Path: Lemures are warriors, imps casters, and our lilin will be a hybrid.

Now we've got the basic statistics for three different types of devils. We set their relative strength by setting their level (lemures and imps can be low level, lilins could be a bit more advanced). We can add special racial features or classes to them in much the same way we will for PCs (by expending talents). Easy.

Mega Monsters
Another concept that's being toyed with is a new type of monster that's intended to be an encounter all unto itself. Specifically reserved for creatures that are big and/or have lots of threatening segments of their bodies, such as dragons, hydras, or kraken, these creatures will be designed as an encounter rather than an individual, and will have an HP pool built up of multiple sections of their bodies. To kill the creature, you'd have to wear down it's total HP, but by dealing enough damage to different portions of its body, you could disable those portions and thus deny it advantageous action economy and abilities.

So for example, 6 CR 6 creatures is a CR 11 encounter. We could build a big dragon that consisted of a head (which bites, casts spells, or uses a breath weapon), 2 arms (which attack independently of each other), its wings (which make wing attacks, fly it around, or kick up dust), its body (which can be used for crushing or ground movement), and its tail (which can be used for giant AoE sweep slaps). So each round it would make an attack routine for each claw, cast a spell or breath fire, fly around and crush things or move around and kick up dust, and deal physical AoE damage with its tail.

Just using the PF monster chart as a loose example, it would have 420 HP total, with each section of its body having 70 Hp. Dealing enough damage to a segment of its body would cause that body part to become injured and become unusable (so if you reduced the dragon's wings to 0 HP, it can't fly or kick up dust clouds, reduce its head to 0 HP and it's too injured to bite, breath fire, or cast spells, reduce its body to 0 HP and it can't move effectively or perform crush attacks, etc). Essentially, it's an encounter's worth of enemies built into a single super beast.

Effects like flesh to stone would target individual limbs. So for such massive creatures, you'd need to petrify them multiple times to effectively kill them. Otherwise you'd just disable a limb. AoE damage would target all the segments at the same time (but resistance would apply for each individually). Grappling would grab a single limb, disabling the limb until it could break free.

Something like this: A visual representation (https://youtu.be/W4NNjgmQZZQ?t=318)

What? All "Humanoid" creatures would actually be humanoid, and all humanoid creatures would be "Humanoid"? What is this heresy? Next you'll say you are going to let martials move and full attack.

On a more serious and slightly less facetious note, let me explain about massive creatures some more. Suppose you have a dragon whose body has 500 HP, and an arm that has 100 HP (500:100). You attack an arm and get it down to 20 HP. Now dragon is at 500:20. You attack an arm again and get it down to -60. Dragon loses arm's maximum HP from his body HP pool. Now dragon is at 400:-60, so damaging limbs is still worthwhile if you just want to kill the thing. If dragon were to heal his arm back to positive health (say, to 10 HP), he would be at 500:10. Body of such a dragon would usually have better defences, both passive(AC, saves) and active(counters by limbs) than the limbs, so it should be even decently hard to one-shot such a dragon with your average ragelancepounce build.

Splitting health into separate weakly interracting health pools also means that while such creatures may be vulnerable to AoE damage, they are also very much anti-vulnerable to AoE heals, which any self-respecting Evil GM would use in such an encounter.

As for "768 CR 1 critter monster" idea, that's obviously the wrong way to go about it. AoE damage should depend on the direction you are attacking such a creature from, and critters hit first should shield ones in the back from the blast. E.g. suppose you throw a Widened fireball for 50 damage, and each critter has 15 HP. First row takes 50 damage and dies. Second row takes 35 damage and dies. Third row actually saves because of stacking save/defence bonuses, takes half damage(10) and doesn't die. Fourth row is jolly fine and untouched. Fireball radius has been effectively reduced from 40 to 15 feet.

You actually probably won't do it like that, since nobody will want to track 768 pools of health, and would instead use some sort of scaling defence/DR/ER as you go into deeper layers of the critter, with separate health pools for each layer instead of each individual critter. I had some ideas for a critter like this, based on a certain character from Worm webnovel, but you can't really develop two ideas at the same time, so I am only working on a dragon right now.

Then this ball of flesh uses some sort of AoE heal/regeneration and you are back to square one. Enjoy doing this all over again)

Ashiel
2016-12-01, 11:20 AM
The way I'm probably going to handle further damage to extra limbs would be to overflow the damage to the creature in question, so if it's got 420 HP, dealing 420 damage across all the limbs would be enough to kill it, or dealing 420 damage to one limb could kill it, but spreading out your focus would be ideal if possible since it would reduce the creature's action economy. It could also make an optional mechanic where upon taking a certain amount of overkill damage one of the limbs was actually destroyed rather than wounded, in which case the limb would have to be regenerated or else the creature is now permanently maimed (so you might have a three-legged dragon or a dragon whose wings have been tattered to the point it can never fly again).

Kryzbyn
2016-12-02, 11:38 AM
Have you talked about how energy types will work in legends?

Ashiel
2016-12-02, 11:46 AM
Have you talked about how energy types will work in legends?
Elaborate?

Kryzbyn
2016-12-02, 01:19 PM
Just in general...will force, negative and positive be added to the possible enchantable energy types or resistances? overall, is anything changing regarding energy types in legends?

Ashiel
2016-12-02, 07:40 PM
Just in general...will force, negative and positive be added to the possible enchantable energy types or resistances? overall, is anything changing regarding energy types in legends?
Yes. Positive, Negative, and Force damage will all have resistances, albeit significantly rarer than elemental resistances. For example, the shield spell grants a certain amount of Force resistance rather than making you immune to magic missiles. It's force resistance 5, so it effectively makes you immune to magic missiles (since each missile is a separate source of damage), but could protect against other force effects too.

Positive and Negative have been added as subtypes similar to energy subtypes and are hard coded to heal/harm based on living/unliving. These energy types are the dominion of Necromancy, whereas most of the elemental energies are Conjuration (which now contains the blasting spells).

I'm intending to add a few classical elemental options as well, such as Air, Earth, and Water spells. However at the moment, the plan is for air/earth to deal physical damages such as Slashing/Piercing/Bludgeoning. Water isn't usually for dealing damage but is heavily centered around movement (including forced movement), countering fire, and occasionally drowning stuff. If it does deal damage, it'll generally be physical damage types.

There are some new status conditions as well, such as burning, chilled, corrosion, frozen, and soaked. Most do what you might expect them to do. Burning and Corrosion deal elemental damage every round until the condition ends (fire and acid respectively). Chilled means you've been hit with something really cold and it slows you down (kind of like being entangled). Frozen is a more extreme version of chilled and generally anchors you to the ground or causes temporary inability to move. Soaked douses fire, makes you vulnerable to cold and electricity.

These conditions are intended to provide a means of doing things with spells and mundane items, as well as serve for environmental effects. For example, if you are soaking wet when you're hit with a fireball, you're not at risk of catching on fire, but it might dry you out instead. Similarly, dumping a barrel of water on someone before they're hit with a cold spell is setting them up to turn into a popsicle, or make them get the snot shocked out of them by electricity.

Those interested in playing a mini-game with elemental magics can try to prepare spells of different elements and then throw them around in particular patterns. Such as pushing enemies with a wave of water, then following it with ice or electricity spells, or you could play games where you try to stack burning or corrosive on enemies (burning and corrosive can build up), and push ever more terrible ongoing damage onto an enemy so they're put on a timer.

For example, say you cast a scorching rays spell at an ogre. In D20 Legends, scorching rays lobs a few low-damage rays at one or more targets, dealing 1d6 fire damage. However, each ray has a chance to ignite the target. So if you shot two rays at the ogre and ignited on both rays, the ogre would take 2d6 fire damage / round until he could douse it. If you ignited him again on the next round, he'd be taking even more d6s worth of damage each round. And extinguishing becomes harder the more the creature is burning.

Klara Meison
2016-12-03, 02:14 AM
Will retraining be a thing in D20L?

Ashiel
2016-12-03, 09:25 AM
Will retraining be a thing in D20L?
Yeah, if only for people's sanity. Admittedly, retraining is something that will also strain verisimilitude in some fashion (because people don't completely forget stuff and learn new stuff like that IRL), but it's a much better alternative than having to scrap whole characters because somebody zigged when they should have zagged when building their characters. This is as much about ensuring people don't make mistakes from a RP sense as well, since it means that if you later find out there was an option that better fit your theme, or decided the direction you've gone was the wrong one, or decided that your character has had a change of heart (like Cicil from FF4), you have a mechanical way to change.

It's more of a quality of life thing. :smallsmile:

Klara Meison
2016-12-03, 10:02 AM
Yeah, if only for people's sanity. Admittedly, retraining is something that will also strain verisimilitude in some fashion (because people don't completely forget stuff and learn new stuff like that IRL), but it's a much better alternative than having to scrap whole characters because somebody zigged when they should have zagged when building their characters. This is as much about ensuring people don't make mistakes from a RP sense as well, since it means that if you later find out there was an option that better fit your theme, or decided the direction you've gone was the wrong one, or decided that your character has had a change of heart (like Cicil from FF4), you have a mechanical way to change.

It's more of a quality of life thing. :smallsmile:

In that case some of your arguments for a lv1 human bonus feat costing 1 RP don't hold up, since you could later retrain it into something useful.

Ashiel
2016-12-03, 12:24 PM
In that case some of your arguments for a lv1 human bonus feat costing 1 RP don't hold up, since you could later retrain it into something useful.
The bonus feat racial specifies that it has to be one you qualify for at 1st level.

In Pathfinder terms, it means you couldn't retrain it to something like Dazing Assault, or Spell Perfection, because you can't qualify for those at 1st level.

EDIT: More specifically, the retraining rules would need to be written to avoid any sort of obvious exploits, such as trading in all your low level class features for high level class features. Which, incidentally, would ring true for feats as well. For example, if you had to be level 11 to qualify for a couple of things (such as how some PF Barbarian rage powers have level requirements), retraining a feat or class feature to use a low level resource to pick up extra high level resources might be a problem.

EDIT 2: For a further example, the way Pathfinder's retraining rules work, there are some colorful tricks you can do with it, such as ending up as a character than has no base classes and nothing but prestige classes. For example, Arcane Archer grants martial weapon proficiency and you choose what sort of spellcasting you advance as with the class when you take it, you can go into Arcane Archer, then Eldritch Knight, and then retrain out of Wizard and whatever base classes you were while still meeting the requirements for both Arcane Archer and Eldritch Knight, allowing you to go 10/10 AA/EK, which is something that's impossible to do without retraining.

Klara Meison
2016-12-03, 01:37 PM
The bonus feat racial specifies that it has to be one you qualify for at 1st level.

In Pathfinder terms, it means you couldn't retrain it to something like Dazing Assault, or Spell Perfection, because you can't qualify for those at 1st level.

EDIT: More specifically, the retraining rules would need to be written to avoid any sort of obvious exploits, such as trading in all your low level class features for high level class features. Which, incidentally, would ring true for feats as well. For example, if you had to be level 11 to qualify for a couple of things (such as how some PF Barbarian rage powers have level requirements), retraining a feat or class feature to use a low level resource to pick up extra high level resources might be a problem.

EDIT 2: For a further example, the way Pathfinder's retraining rules work, there are some colorful tricks you can do with it, such as ending up as a character than has no base classes and nothing but prestige classes. For example, Arcane Archer grants martial weapon proficiency and you choose what sort of spellcasting you advance as with the class when you take it, you can go into Arcane Archer, then Eldritch Knight, and then retrain out of Wizard and whatever base classes you were while still meeting the requirements for both Arcane Archer and Eldritch Knight, allowing you to go 10/10 AA/EK, which is something that's impossible to do without retraining.

I presume it also means you couldn't retrain your lv 1 non-bonus feat for a high level feature?

Hmm, okay, that maks sense.

Ashiel
2016-12-03, 03:06 PM
I presume it also means you couldn't retrain your lv 1 non-bonus feat for a high level feature?

Hmm, okay, that maks sense.

Yeah, pretty much. The idea would be to make it so there's a way to "respec" in case you change your mind, which is really important for making the game easy for new players (one issue with vanilla Fighters in PF is they require a ton of system mastery to not ruin), but isn't intended to be a route to more power than someone who hasn't used retraining (which would be the case if you could trade out low tier stuf to high tier stuff using retraining).

Kryzbyn
2016-12-07, 03:11 PM
Just realized I've been asking Legends related questions in your AMA thread...so bringing them back here...

Will you be able to declare which physical stat you're using for your primary abilities if you're a martial? Or will certain archetypes favor Dex over Str?

LordOfCain
2016-12-08, 07:26 PM
Yeah, pretty much. The idea would be to make it so there's a way to "respec" in case you change your mind, which is really important for making the game easy for new players (one issue with vanilla Fighters in PF is they require a ton of system mastery to not ruin), but isn't intended to be a route to more power than someone who hasn't used retraining (which would be the case if you could trade out low tier stuf to high tier stuff using retraining).
So completely different than 3.5... got it.

Klara Meison
2016-12-09, 02:58 PM
How do Lines of Sight and Lines of Effect work? Pathfinder rules are delightfully unhelpful on the topic.


A line of effect is a straight, unblocked path that indicates what a spell can affect. A line of effect is canceled by a solid barrier. It's like line of sight for ranged weapons, except that it's not blocked by fog, darkness, and other factors that limit normal sight.

So far so good. LoE is blocked by solid barriers, and has to be straight. Rules then further clarify somewhat what consititutes a "solid barrier" and what doesn't:


An otherwise solid barrier with a hole of at least 1 square foot through it does not block a spell's line of effect. Such an opening means that the 5-foot length of wall containing the hole is no longer considered a barrier for purposes of a spell's line of effect.

Great, very clear, you need at least one 1ft hole per 5ft of the wall to make it transparent as far as LoE. But then you may think "hold on, what if it's a 0.5 ft hole? That's a pretty big hole, it shouldn't block LoS, right?". Well, not quite:


A line of sight is the same as a Line of Effect but with the additional restriction that that it is blocked by fog, darkness, and other factors that limit normal sight (such as Concealment).

So according to that passage you can't see those chairs (http://alurwalls.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/ALUR_MAI_Modular-Architectural-Interiors_Glass-Walls_Modular-Walls_Movable-Walls_New-York_Los-Angeles_Chicago_Dallas_01.jpg), since they are behind solid barriers made of glass that don't contain any 1ft holes. Since those glass walls would obviously provide cover to any creature behind them, someone sitting in one of those chairs could use stealth to hide from you. Even though you can clearly see them. Likewise, you can't teleport into that room using, for example, Dimension Slide since you don't have Line of Effect to it's insides. -_-

Finally, consider this combination of one passage from the rules:


You must have a clear line of effect to any target that you cast a spell on or to any space in which you wish to create an effect. You must have a clear line of effect to the point of origin of any spell you cast.

And this architectural feature (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/bc/d8/c7/bcd8c7d1edd19166dfa8f10cbba636f9.jpg). Does that "window" block LoE or not? Can a dastardly villain cast Dominate Person on that lady while chilling in his armchair, or is she saved by the fact that that wall has no 1ft holes in it? I'd say you could shoot through that window, since holes are quite large enough to let an arrow pass through, so it shouldn't block LoS when it comes to either sight or ranged weapon attacks.

Ashiel
2016-12-12, 04:25 PM
So completely different than 3.5... got it.
Pretty much. I want Retraining to be a thing that can let you fix mistakes or change your playstyle if you decide this one isn't for you. I don't want it to be a thing where you have to go look up a guide of what to retrain and when to be comparable to your peers. :smallsmile:


Line of Effect/Sight Stuff
Interestingly, a pane of glass will indeed stop a spell in D&D (though lots of spells could break one). I suppose the spell needs a sort of unobstructed path to reach its target. Incidentally, the reason the rules for D&D are the way they are is they were written with the assumption that walls were like dungeon or castle or building walls, so the rules assume that stuff that would block line of effect block sight as a result. Sadly, nobody thought too deeply on things like glass walls, other transparent barriers, or that absolutely beautiful work of architecture you linked.

I'll see if I can clean up and revise that stuff when I'm working on cover/concealment in the combat section. :smallsmile:

It's possible that they also figured that unique barriers might call out rules specific to them. For example, if the GM is adding walls that aren't like those found in the Environment chapter of the book, the GM might naturally be adding additional details about those walls. So while in D&D/Pathfinder a "glass wall" isn't something that exists in the core game, a GM who adds it could give it the feature of not blocking line of sight and not allowing characters to use it to make Stealth checks. Such is the beauty of exception-based design, since it's very easy to build upon.

Klara Meison
2016-12-12, 05:19 PM
Pretty much. I want Retraining to be a thing that can let you fix mistakes or change your playstyle if you decide this one isn't for you. I don't want it to be a thing where you have to go look up a guide of what to retrain and when to be comparable to your peers. :smallsmile:


Interestingly, a pane of glass will indeed stop a spell in D&D (though lots of spells could break one). I suppose the spell needs a sort of unobstructed path to reach its target. Incidentally, the reason the rules for D&D are the way they are is they were written with the assumption that walls were like dungeon or castle or building walls, so the rules assume that stuff that would block line of effect block sight as a result. Sadly, nobody thought too deeply on things like glass walls, other transparent barriers, or that absolutely beautiful work of architecture you linked.

I'll see if I can clean up and revise that stuff when I'm working on cover/concealment in the combat section. :smallsmile:

It's possible that they also figured that unique barriers might call out rules specific to them. For example, if the GM is adding walls that aren't like those found in the Environment chapter of the book, the GM might naturally be adding additional details about those walls. So while in D&D/Pathfinder a "glass wall" isn't something that exists in the core game, a GM who adds it could give it the feature of not blocking line of sight and not allowing characters to use it to make Stealth checks. Such is the beauty of exception-based design, since it's very easy to build upon.

>Such is the beauty of exception-based design, since it's very easy to build upon.

*crutch-based. Being able to easilly fix a problem present in the rules doesn't invalidate the fact that problem is, in fact, still there.

How will you handle modification(mod) support?

Kryzbyn
2016-12-13, 12:58 AM
It would be neat if spells like searing light can hit through windows since, ya know, it's light :P

Tels
2016-12-13, 04:51 AM
It would be neat if spells like searing light can hit through windows since, ya know, it's light :P

Depends on how realistic you want to get. Glass isn't 100% transparent, some of the energy from light is absorbed by the glass, hence why glass heats up in the sun. So it would stand to reason, then, that it could block the spell because it absorbs some of the spell, though one could make an argument that it functions like how fireballe/lightning bolt operate when it comes to striking a solid barrier. Also, more funsies, light is bent when passing through glass, so one could make an argument that the glass provides some amount of cover to targets on the other side.

Ashiel
2016-12-13, 05:25 AM
>Such is the beauty of exception-based design, since it's very easy to build upon.

*crutch-based. Being able to easilly fix a problem present in the rules doesn't invalidate the fact that problem is, in fact, still there.
Exception based design is the best form of design I've seen so far as far as games are concerned, simply because rather than having to account for every possible circumstance that could occur, you create the core and add exceptions and additions. The reason this is good is that you don't have to know everything, just the basics and any specifics you're dealing with in the moment.

It's for this reason you could have stopped playing Magic the Gathering ten years ago, and pick up a new deck and start playing today. All you need is the basics, plus knowledge of what your card does, rather than having to read a rulebook that includes every card that ever was printed or ever will be. :smalltongue:


How will you handle modification(mod) support?
I'm not sure I understand the question. :smallconfused:

Klara Meison
2016-12-13, 01:47 PM
Well, suppose you have two people (Jeb and Bob) who want to write some additional stuff as modifications to D20L core. One (Jeb) wants to write a book on dance fighting, and another (Bob) wants to go into Star Wars space fantasy stuff. If you don't think about possible mod support while writing the core rulebook, you may end up in a situation where both of these writers find it very hard to make any changes/additions without seriously breaking things. For example, suppose that Jeb wanted to write a dance-fighting spellcasting class. Jeb wants to give this class a special spell list, tailored towards dancing. So he comes up with some new spells, new mechanics(how to start dance-offs, how they work, how they function with core spells), and gives that class some core spells at weird spell levels, like Freedom of M. at lv 3, balancing other class features/spells around that to insure it's not gamebreaking at those levels. Well, in Pathfinder, this would cause serious problems. For starters, due to ripple effects caused by magic creation rules this change should drop the price of Rings of Freedom of Movement significantly, affecting medium- and high-level combat all over the system. So if you want to allow people to create classes with different spell lists, you may need to think about fixing this issue(among others).

In itself, that's not terribly hard to fix-just insure that your core system doesn't cause these ripple effects anywhere and you'll be fine.

Now suppose Bob releases his modbook(which has lightsabers and Force), and a table somewhere decides to try employing both at once. If that possibility is something you want in your system, then you may want to write some rules on the order in which modifications should apply, such as "First books that modify major mechanics, then books that modify minor mechanics, then books that modify specific classes, then books that modify specific class features", so as to insure that contradictions don't arise. Likewise, if you yourself plan to release supplemental books that modify the core system in some way without being patches, such a "load-order" might be very important. You may be familiar with the concept from Skyrim mods.

My fence of text may seem a bit all over the place, so here is my main point: if you don't design the system to handle user and/or other author modifications from the start, it's going to be a terrible mess when someone does try to modify it.

Ashiel
2016-12-13, 04:23 PM
Well, suppose you have two people (Jeb and Bob) who want to write some additional stuff as modifications to D20L core. One (Jeb) wants to write a book on dance fighting, and another (Bob) wants to go into Star Wars space fantasy stuff. If you don't think about possible mod support while writing the core rulebook, you may end up in a situation where both of these writers find it very hard to make any changes/additions without seriously breaking things. For example, suppose that Jeb wanted to write a dance-fighting spellcasting class. Jeb wants to give this class a special spell list, tailored towards dancing. So he comes up with some new spells, new mechanics(how to start dance-offs, how they work, how they function with core spells), and gives that class some core spells at weird spell levels, like Freedom of M. at lv 3, balancing other class features/spells around that to insure it's not gamebreaking at those levels. Well, in Pathfinder, this would cause serious problems. For starters, due to ripple effects caused by magic creation rules this change should drop the price of Rings of Freedom of Movement significantly, affecting medium- and high-level combat all over the system. So if you want to allow people to create classes with different spell lists, you may need to think about fixing this issue(among others).
Fortunately, this was one of the earliest issues patched in D20 Legends. Spells do not vary in terms of spell level on spell lists. They're always the same level of spell. If a class has access to a spell earlier than usual, it's acquired as a class feature (which you spend talents on), and will detail the special circumstances of how you get to use the spell. The ability might let you cast it using a lower level spell slot than the spell normally requires, or might grant it as a SLA, etc). This way some classes can acquire certain thematic spells earlier but it never affects the prices of magic items. Likewise, since save DCs aren't tied to spell level in D20-L, it simultaneously means having a higher level spell won't be useless or innately overpowered (in traditional D&D, 3/4 and 1/2 casters have terrible save DCs, meanwhile being able to cast an 8th level spell at 9th level as a SLA has a major impact in terms of save DCs, but you'll see stuff like this on monsters in regular D20).


Now suppose Bob releases his modbook(which has lightsabers and Force), and a table somewhere decides to try employing both at once. If that possibility is something you want in your system, then you may want to write some rules on the order in which modifications should apply, such as "First books that modify major mechanics, then books that modify minor mechanics, then books that modify specific classes, then books that modify specific class features", so as to insure that contradictions don't arise. Likewise, if you yourself plan to release supplemental books that modify the core system in some way without being patches, such a "load-order" might be very important. You may be familiar with the concept from Skyrim mods.
One thing I wanted to establish is the concept of Core First, Else Second. For example, if you've got two rules that contradict each other, core takes priority unless a group is explicitly using the other rule. Here's an example: let's say you're trying to decide something concerning Alignment for your character. The Books of Vile Edginess or Exalted Hypocrisy would be optional adjustments, but their publication doesn't change the core functions of Alignment unless your group has explicitly chosen to use those options. Similarly, if you were discussing alignment questions with people online, the aforementioned books wouldn't enter into the equation unless it was a question that concerned them specifically (not that people wouldn't bring them up anyway, but it's a lot easier to dissuade such notions with a clearer book priority).

Now that you mention it, perhaps coming up with a more official priority list might be an option. :smallconfused:
I'll have to give it some thought. Moddability is key for D20 games, which is a big part of why I've been making it so modular from its conception.


My fence of text may seem a bit all over the place, so here is my main point: if you don't design the system to handle user and/or other author modifications from the start, it's going to be a terrible mess when someone does try to modify it.
One thing I intend to do is scatter little text boxes around the book explaining certain things about the game, kind of like little strategy guides, suggestions, and behind the scenes considerations and/or explanations for why certain things are done the way they are. These notes will hopefully help people get accustomed to the nuances of the system faster and make it easier in general to mod things, since players and GMs will have an easier time understanding not only how things work but why.

LordOfCain
2016-12-13, 07:34 PM
A 'priority list' seems like it would be a welcome addition to any d20 game.

Ashiel
2016-12-13, 08:50 PM
A 'priority list' seems like it would be a welcome addition to any d20 game.
IIRC, I think 3.x had some sort of basic priority list (I think it was the most recent publication of a set of rules, if conflicting, took priority, and core took priority in conflicts resulting from splats), but I can't for the life of me recall where that information was (perhaps on the WotC webpage), but I don't think it's in the rules themselves. It probably should be though.

Klara Meison
2016-12-14, 10:23 AM
What races are planned to be included in the core?

Ashiel
2016-12-18, 12:24 AM
What races are planned to be included in the core?
At the moment I intend to include the following.


Humans
Elves
Dwarfs
Gnomes
Halflings
Orcs
(Hob)Goblins


Using some of the creature/racial options I'm working on, I want to include methods of making cross-species and planetouched versions of all of the above. At the moment, the plan is to allow cross-blooded racial talents which allows someone to spend a talent to become a half-thing, so if you wanted to be a tiefling, you'd select a fiend-blooded racial option, while an aasimar might be celestial-blooded. A half-elf might be a human with an elf-racial, or an elf with a human racial. This would kill two ghouls with one turn, since it would make cross-species creation easier. Lots of people have wondered about things like orc/elf or dwarf/human crossbreeds but it just leaves everyone wondering.

This is also where certain lore-based advancements will come in. Stuff like Noble-drow would just be normal drow with a talent invested to get better racial features than normal. The "paragon" concepts introduced in 3.5's Unearthed Arcana would work with this method as well, since a handful of advanced racial features could exist that races could have access to.

Tels
2016-12-18, 01:04 AM
Will spell-like abilities count as Spellcasting for effects? I've always thought this was one of the dumber FAQrrata Paizo released and so abjectly refuse to honor it.

Ashiel
2016-12-18, 02:30 AM
Will spell-like abilities count as Spellcasting for effects? I've always thought this was one of the dumber FAQrrata Paizo released and so abjectly refuse to honor it.
Depends on what you mean by effects. For example, in normal Pathfinder, SLAs provide a caster level but they are explicitly not spells. So hypothetically, a Succubus could take Item creation feats (Caster Level) are use her innate magical power to create magic items, albeit she would always take a penalty for not having the correct spell for the job (even if the spell was vampiric touch or charm monster) because her SLAs are not spells.

Similarly, the same succubus could not become a prestige class such as Mystic Theurge or Eldritch Knight because those prestige classes require spells. Succubi do not have spells. They have abilities that work like spells and rely on her caster level, but they are explicitly not spells (the magic chapter is very clear on this).

Unfortunately, the Paizo FAQ has juggled these issues multiple times, flip-flopping on both whether or not they are spells, and whether or not innate caster levels will allow you to qualify for item creation feats. To the point that the FAQ is a huge mess. Last I checked, you can qualify to go into a prestige class if you have an SLA that mimics a spell of the same level, but couldn't use it to pick up item creation. Essentially the exact opposite of what the real rules say, and incidentally, opens up another can of worms with dealing with spell lists and SLAs and the effective spell level of unusual SLAs (since some SLAs do not actually mirror spells).

All that noted, it likely won't actually come up much if at all in D20 Legends because...

Spells and SLAs are always the same magic level regardless of the caster.
Spells and SLAs are always cast at your character level (CL boosting effects aside).
Spells and SLAs are harder to resist based on the caster's abilities, rather than magic level.
I intend to fold item creation over into the Spellcraft skill, divorcing it from caster level (incidentally this means that mundanes can learn to enchant* magical items with the appropriate materials even if they can't make fire by wiggling their fingers).


As such, in any situation you are comparing spells or spell-like abilities, it's exceedingly unlikely that they'll be able to qualify you for something you couldn't have qualified for otherwise. Though in the odd chance that something explicitly requires spells, a SLA wouldn't cut it. Sorry succubus. :smallamused:

*: I used the term enchant. Traditionally a big no-no in d20 since it confuses things with the Enchantment school. Except in D20 Legends, the Enchantment school has been made "Beguiling", and now the official term for creating magic items is "enchanting" them. It just seems so much more intuitive this way.

Tels
2016-12-18, 03:37 AM
SLA in Pathfinder only meet requirement if the requirement specifically calls out the name of a spell. So if a priest be class requires you to be able to cast charm person, then a creature with charm person as an SLA would qualify, B t they don't have a caster level for item creation or spell casting for prestige classes or feats. So a Gnome, or Succeed bus can't take Arcane Strike, because they don't have a caster level.

So why are SLA not considered spells for requirements in D20 Legends? Any specifics reason? I know some pros claim it's not fair that certain races are better for certain builds, like Tiefling were more optimal to make Eldritch Knights because one of the subraces met the requirements before the SLA nerf, but that seems perfectly okay to me.

I just don't see why a race that is inherently more magical shouldn't have an advantage when it comes to magic. I mean, a gnome is just naturally magical, so of course it has an easier time crafting magical items or using magical feats like Arcane Strike then a human does. Humans have to study or hope their mother slept with the right creature to wield magics but magic flows through the a gnomes very being.

Klara Meison
2016-12-18, 04:22 AM
Though in the odd chance that something explicitly requires spells, a SLA wouldn't cut it. Sorry succubus. :smallamused:

That's racist and you know it.


So a Gnome, or Succeed bus

See, that's not racist, that's cool. Succubi do like to succeed a busload.


Except in D20 Legends, the Enchantment school has been made "Beguiling", and now the official term for creating magic items is "enchanting" them. It just seems so much more intuitive this way.

Finally someone will fix that mess.


So why are SLA not considered spells for requirements in D20 Legends? Any specifics reason?

I thought they were exactly the same for all intents and purposes, but if someone(for whatever reason) explicitly wrote "requirements:being able to cast spells" instead of "requirements:being able to magic away problems", well, SLAs won't work since them's not spells. Incidentally, I thought that D20L will have "magic away problems" as the default requirement for things like CWI (should it be Enchant Nonmagical Item now?), talents or wherever else you may need spellcasting as a requirement.

TL;DR they are effectively one and the same, until someone specifically says they are not. Way I understood it.

What are your thoughts on using puzzles in dnd? Either as whole encounters (your classic "solve this block puzzle to open the door" room), additions to combat encounters (same room, but monsters spawn at set intervals forcing you to solve faster/making bypassing tactics like "break the door down" less viable), ways to accquire more treasure (same room, but it's now a sort of optional side passage with extra treasure at the end if you solve the puzzle, and you can just skip it if you don't feel like solving it) or clues (same thing, except now treasure is clues telling you who really is the BBEG)?

Ashiel
2016-12-18, 04:24 AM
SLA in Pathfinder only meet requirement if the requirement specifically calls out the name of a spell. So if a priest be class requires you to be able to cast charm person, then a creature with charm person as an SLA would qualify, B t they don't have a caster level for item creation or spell casting for prestige classes or feats. So a Gnome, or Succeed bus can't take Arcane Strike, because they don't have a caster level.
The funny thing is, they do have a caster level. They just don't cast arcane spells (which is the prerequisite). As written, a wizard 1 / cleric 19 with a +1 CL ioun stone would arcane strike for +5, because the feat doesn't care where your caster levels come from. :smallamused:


So why are SLA not considered spells for requirements in D20 Legends? Any specifics reason? I know some pros claim it's not fair that certain races are better for certain builds, like Tiefling were more optimal to make Eldritch Knights because one of the subraces met the requirements before the SLA nerf, but that seems perfectly okay to me.

I just don't see why a race that is inherently more magical shouldn't have an advantage when it comes to magic. I mean, a gnome is just naturally magical, so of course it has an easier time crafting magical items or using magical feats like Arcane Strike then a human does. Humans have to study or hope their mother slept with the right creature to wield magics but magic flows through the a gnomes very being.
In Pathfinder: It's more because spell-like abilities aren't spells. In much the same way a vampire's dominate is not a spell. In a similar fashion, a psionic power is similar to a spell, but it's not a spell. What a spell-like ability is, is an ability that works in many ways (but not all ways) like a spell. It's an ability that requires some concentration, provokes attacks, and can be dispelled. However, they have no components (somatic, material, vocal, etc), and cannot be counterspelled. They are simply magical abilities that look a lot like spells in their effects.

In D20 Legends: It will mostly come down to whether or not I wish to keep the distinctions, which is admittedly a bit up in the air. If I change it, I will likely change them from spell-like abilities to "innate spells", in which case they will for all intents and purposes be spells that are not tied to normal spellcasting. This might be a good route to take since it could simplify some things and simplification is great, as long as you don't lose system fidelity in the process (basically the difference between "efficient" and "dumbed down" :smalltongue:).

Concerning Races: Incidentally, the notion of using racial magical abilities to qualify for things has never bothered me, I just dislike the ugliness of the Paizo FAQ's stance on the position. Not only is it directly in opposition to the rules (which grinds my gears, I might be a little OCD), but it creates very weird edge cases or causes bugs in the system (for example, if you have a prestige class that requires you be able to cast 2nd level spells, and then progresses a class' casting, you can end up taking a prestige class with no spellcasting to advance since you're a rogue or something). It also makes it more frustrating than it needs to add new content since you might accidentally qualify something unintentionally.

However, in core Pathfinder (FAQ ignored), there are lots of opportunities for races that are innately magical to have build options that others do not. As noted before, Arcane Strike doesn't care where your CL comes from, you just need arcane spells to qualify for the feat, so a gnome who dips into any arcane casting class can get Arcane Strike +5, even if they're something like wizard/ranger/arcane archer. Similarly, a gnome automatically qualifies for all the item creation feats as they gain levels because a gnome always has a caster level equal to their character level.

It also is nice for GMs too, since it creates an in-universe means for outsiders (who by and large don't cast spells but have lots of SLAs) to have awesome magical doodads. I mean, when you slay the demon lord and loot his shiny +5 mace of whupass, you might wonder where he got that thing when non of his kinfolk can create it. :smallconfused:

Klara Meison
2016-12-18, 04:46 AM
>Not only is it directly in opposition to the rules (which grinds my gears, I might be a little OCD)

Having FAQ in opposition to the rules is a very real issue when one of the players has read the FAQ while GM has only read the rules, since at that point they think the rules function in two cardinally different ways.

>I mean, when you slay the demon lord and loot his shiny +5 mace of whupass, you might wonder where he got that thing when none of his kinfolk can create it.

Outsourcing, duh. Bet you that mace has MADE IN CHINA TIAN XIA inscribed on it in eldritch arcane runes.

Tels
2016-12-18, 06:04 AM
For me, in my games, SLA = spells so I don't have to worry about that nonsense. If you want to craft items as a gnome fighter, sure, be my guest. If you want to play an agathion-blooded aasimar cleric 1/wizard 1/mystic theurge X by using the SLA from your race and SLA from the Trickery domain to qualify, knock yourself out, I don't care. It doesn't hurt the game any, it makes it easier, and it creates more build diversity.

I was just curious how you were going to handle it in D20, though I understand the point is kind of moot. Most of the things that it would matter for are being changed anyway. Like you said, item creation will be skill based, and prestige classes are likely to be just new talents.

Ashiel
2016-12-18, 07:18 AM
That's racist and you know it.
Smite power!


Finally someone will fix that mess.
It's a long time coming, huh?


I thought they were exactly the same for all intents and purposes, but if someone(for whatever reason) explicitly wrote "requirements:being able to cast spells" instead of "requirements:being able to magic away problems", well, SLAs won't work since them's not spells. Incidentally, I thought that D20L will have "magic away problems" as the default requirement for things like CWI (should it be Enchant Nonmagical Item now?), talents or wherever else you may need spellcasting as a requirement.

TL;DR they are effectively one and the same, until someone specifically says they are not. Way I understood it.
They actually work differently than spells in quite a few ways. :smalleek:


What are your thoughts on using puzzles in dnd? Either as whole encounters (your classic "solve this block puzzle to open the door" room), additions to combat encounters (same room, but monsters spawn at set intervals forcing you to solve faster/making bypassing tactics like "break the door down" less viable), ways to accquire more treasure (same room, but it's now a sort of optional side passage with extra treasure at the end if you solve the puzzle, and you can just skip it if you don't feel like solving it) or clues (same thing, except now treasure is clues telling you who really is the BBEG)?
It's a complex issue actually, because there are a lot of hiccups that go with puzzles. I think there's a place for puzzles, but I think that place should generally be sparingly at most. Puzzles by the large are in the hands of the GM to make great, as the system largely cannot do much other than make some suggestions for how rewarding a puzzle maybe should be for a given level range or something. There's effectively no way to write a system for making puzzles since by their nature they tend to involve either audio/visual ques or abstract thinking, which isn't particularly easy to codify into the mechanics.

I tend to shy away from using puzzles often for the following reasons...

Puzzles are hard to estimate. How well your party solves puzzles, or how well you made them, could literally be tied to something as inconsequential as if you had a good night's sleep before playing.
It's often immersion breaking. Most people don't want puzzles that you can solve with checks (they often lament it somehow cheapens the experience), but when you're playing a character that's so intelligent that they could solve a rubic's cube that was 20x20 lines (instead of 3), in their sleep, blindfolded, and starting upside down, it's quite shocking when the character can't do it 'cause their player tried to force the square peg in the round hole as a child.
The reverse is also true. When your dumb as bricks illiterate goblin is the one who keeps solving all the puzzles. Admittedly, the best way I've seen to deal with these issues is to let the group out of game try to solve it and then vote a member of the team to solve it in game, so maybe the goblin's player solved it, but the party rogue is the one who carries it out in game.
It can easily grind the game to a halt, fast. Especially if the party must solve the puzzle to succeed at their task. You can quickly end up in a situation where players become disinterested, or annoyed, rather than captivated, and nothing is a buzzkill as much as having to have the GM explain the answer to the puzzle so the game can continue.


These are the pitfalls of puzzles. Which isn't to say that they shouldn't ever be used, but used carefully. Many things that might seem simple to the creator, or would be simple in person handling objects and/or observing your surroundings, do not translate very well to players. For example, I ran the sample game from the Eberron Campaign setting lots of times for different groups. I liked the adventure a lot. At one point during the adventure...
There's a safe you have to open, and it's got three buttons, a square, a triangle, and a pentacle. You're supposed to press them in order of how many points they have (triangle = 3, square = 4, star = 5), simply counting up 3, 4, 5.
Out of like 10 different sessions I ran that adventure in (I used to do a lot of tabletop games, demos, and parties as a teenager/young adult), ONE group actually figured it out without flubbing it up, because out of all the people who played it, one person noticed that the shapes were a very simple math question. It simply didn't occur to anyone else.

Klara Meison
2016-12-18, 07:48 AM
SLAs actually work differently than spells in quite a few ways. :smalleek:

In D20L or Pathfinder?


Out of like 10 different sessions I ran that adventure in (I used to do a lot of tabletop games, demos, and parties as a teenager/young adult), ONE group actually figured it out without flubbing it up, because out of all the people who played it, one person noticed that the shapes were a very simple math question. It simply didn't occur to anyone else.

Does it have a hint you are supposed to press them in that order? Just because you have buttons 1, 2 and 3 doesn't mean the password is 1 2 3.

Ashiel
2016-12-18, 09:51 AM
In D20L or Pathfinder?
In Pathfinder, actually.

A few key differences between SLAs off the top of my head.

They require no components, including material, focus, somatic, or vocal.
They cannot be counterspelled.
They do not always mimic spells, some are unique powers.
If they are a unique power, they are supposed to be assigned an effective level for purposes such as Concentration checks or to determine if globe of invulnerabilities block them. Writers often forget this (including Paizo).
Effects that modify spells such as Spell Focus or Metamagic feats do not work on them. Instead, you have to take the Ability Focus feat.
Since they aren't spells, they aren't able to be used to create magic items, or take prestige classes requiring you cast spells.
They are neither Arcane nor Divine.
You cannot create a scroll, wand, or staff of a spell-like ability.
You cannot share them with your familiars, animal companions, or psicrystals.
They cannot be delivered by your animal companions or psicrystals.
You cannot identify a spell-like ability as it is being used (as with Spellcraft).
They use a different metamagic mechanic than spells, requiring special feats unique to SLAs, such as "Quicken Spell-Like Ability".

There's probably some other differences, maybe, but I can't think of anymore off the top of my head.


Does it have a hint you are supposed to press them in that order? Just because you have buttons 1, 2 and 3 doesn't mean the password is 1 2 3.
Not that I recall. It's been a while. Of course, that's kind of what I was getting at, albeit indirectly. It seemed the author kind of assumed the puzzle was simple enough people would have an "ah hah!" moment quickly, yet that's not actually how it played out at the table. Realistically, there wasn't much reason for there to even be clues since it was a safe in an abandoned foundry. Most vaults don't leave the combinations or explanations thereof in the local vicinity. That's just asking for someone to try to crack it. :smallamused:

My longwinded point being, be careful with puzzles. Ritual puzzles are probably the easiest puzzles to implement without inviting too much trouble (ritual puzzles being things where you collect things or activate stuff in an effort to do a thing, such as retrieving keys from obstacle rooms, or bringing something to elemental braziers, or choosing some sort of object out of a multiple choice thing based on a riddle or something).

Klara Meison
2016-12-18, 12:06 PM
In Pathfinder, actually.

Yeah, see, I was talking about D20L)


My longwinded point being, be careful with puzzles. Ritual puzzles are probably the easiest puzzles to implement without inviting too much trouble (ritual puzzles being things where you collect things or activate stuff in an effort to do a thing, such as retrieving keys from obstacle rooms, or bringing something to elemental braziers, or choosing some sort of object out of a multiple choice thing based on a riddle or something).

Well, I figure that various environment puzzles coupled with combat should be alright, since you either solve it before the combat ends (thus incentivising suzzle solution) or you kill all your enemies, at which point puzzle can be bypassed (e.g. by destroying the exit door) or solved rather easilly, thus not grinding the game to a halt. Likewise, puzzles where you can easilly walk away and come back later (e.g. a locked box you can pick up and take with you) should be workable into pretty much any narrative, since you can even potentially solve those between sessions.

Ashiel
2016-12-19, 12:04 AM
Yeah, see, I was talking about D20L)
Ah, okay. :smallsmile:
A number of the differences will vanish in D20L. Some of the major differences.

Effects like Spell Focus apply to them as well, but do not stack with Ability Focus.
There's no divide between Arcane and Divine spells so that difference is gone.
Since spell progression isn't tied to classes but your choice of paths, there will be no worries concerning prestige class type stuff.
You still can't make magic items out of SLAs, but you don't need a caster level to create magic items, so that's a moot point.

One cool thing about acquiring an SLA is they're more covert than other sorts of spells by default. Since they have no components, you don't have to speak or move when using them, so a roguish character with SLAs can happily use them while sneaking around without alerting anyone to their presence. Without somatic components, it also means that you can use the when bound up and stuff without trouble. Without material components, you can pretty much use 'em naked.

All of the above are part of the reasons I've been thinking of changing their names to "innate magic" or something like that. Especially since some SLAs are constant effects that you can suppress or resume at will.




Well, I figure that various environment puzzles coupled with combat should be alright, since you either solve it before the combat ends (thus incentivising suzzle solution) or you kill all your enemies, at which point puzzle can be bypassed (e.g. by destroying the exit door) or solved rather easilly, thus not grinding the game to a halt. Likewise, puzzles where you can easilly walk away and come back later (e.g. a locked box you can pick up and take with you) should be workable into pretty much any narrative, since you can even potentially solve those between sessions.
Yeah, those seem pretty safe. Most people, when talking about puzzles, are usually going with the more "speak friend and enter" sort of puzzles, or riddles, or some other thing where the puzzle itself is intended to be the challenge rather than a part of the challenge. In much the same way a lone trap doesn't usually doesn't cut it as a challenge, but can be quite exciting when a bit of thought is applied and the trap becomes a compliment to different things (multiple traps, environment-related traps, or traps in encounters can make them more interesting). So if you use the same sort of care, you'd probably be alright. :smallamused:

Klara Meison
2016-12-19, 05:14 PM
This question has to do with what is the most important thing for various mechanical character archetypes. I am not sure if I managed to translate my idea into words correctly, but eh, what can you do.

If you could choose a single active thing (instantaneous/short-timed(rounds/minutes) effect invocable X times per day), a passive thing (a passive effect, like a feat), and a counter-y thing (instantaneous/short-timed(rounds/minutes) effect invocable X times per day as a result of an enemy doing something) that you would very much enjoy as a character of a %type%, what would it be?

An example of an active thing would be True Seeing activatable as a free action for 1 minute 3 times per day. Very useful on a melee martial character.

An example of a passive thing would be a feat like Spell Focus, an effect that gives you extra spell slots per day, an effect that raises your CL in regards to a single spell or an ability that works all the time(e.g. flight).

An example of a counter-y thing would be something like Cut From The Air, or any counters from Path of War.

Here, %type% stands for a mechanical archetype of a character. Here are some types I came up with, but you are free to make up your own if you see some hole I left:


Blasting mage (i.e. mage who focuses on various fireballs and rays)
Supporting mage (i.e. a caster who focuses on various spells like Bless, Haste, Heroism and other party-supporting spells)
Debuffing mage (i.e. an opposite of a support-someone who throws Slow and such at the enemies)
Illusionist (Self-explanatory)
Mindraping mage (Domination, Charm, all the goodies)
frontline martial-single targets (e.g. wildshaping druid/Harbinger with Elemental Flux-someone who can really effectively wreck the face of a single high-profile target per round)
frontline martial-mook control (i.e. someone who can destroy a whole lot of relatively weak targets per round)
Controlling AoE mage (i.e. soemone who focuses on various Create Pits, Black Tentacles and other AoE control spells)
Conjuring/minion mage (Summoner/undead creator/planar binder)
Ranged martial (Self-explanatory)
Mounted character (i.e. Character with a mount closely intertwined with their story arc)


To answer my own question in regards to frontline martials focused on single targets, I'd say it would be some way to negate enemy evasiveness (like True Seeing) for the active ability, some sort of mobility power like flight for passive, and some way to evade/negate/reflect the nastiest spells an enemy might throw at me (like SoDs, mindrapes or instant kills). Obviously, these are not the same three things a blasting mage would want.

Ashiel
2016-12-19, 05:22 PM
Holiday season has had me spending less time on writing and more on hanging out with the family / finding gifts and such, but I've spent the majority of the day working on the first four classes for public release. Currently I'm working on the Champion, so I thought I'd share a few of the design concepts surrounding them and preview a few abilities.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/53/22/4b/53224b635f5b16f22240e329d881f980.png
Champion
The champion channels divine powers to work miracles or curses, drawing upon this spiritual energy to achieve great or terrible things. Honorable Paladins, wizened priests, or cult leaders, a champion can be the pillar that holds his team together, or the hammer that breaks his enemies.

Recommended Path: Any.

Core Mechanics
Champions have a reserve of energy known as Divine Power and expend this energy to use abilities that allow them to heal themselves and allies, smite enemies, or utter fierce curses that bring ruin to enemies. Some champion options allow them to use their divine power to empower other spells and abilities, or convert other spells and abilities into divine power, allowing them to be extremely versatile and relentless in achieving whatever goals they set for themselves.

Divine Power
Champions use a resource known as Divine Power. Divine power is a standard resource. A champion's divine power reserve is equal to 3 + their Mind modifier (minimum 1). A champion increases this reserve by ˝ their level (so +1 at 2nd, +2 at 4th, etc). Divine power can be spent to activate a champion's special abilities, known as Miracles.

Miracles
Champions have special abilities known as miracles. These are magical abilities that are fueled by the champion's divine power. A champion begins play with the smite, lay on hands, corruption, waves of healing, and winds of corruption miracles. Additional miracles can be gained through the Miraculous talent. If a miracle has a prerequisite, the champion must meet those requirements before they can learn that miracle.
The special attacks for a champion's miracles use the champion's Mind modifier.
Champion miracles are separated by theme for convenience, but you may take any miracle that you qualify for regardless of their organization.

Starting Miracles
The champion begins play with the following miracles.
Smite [Magic, Miracle]
Cost 2 divine power; Action free; Range special (see text); Target special (see text); Duration special (see text)
The champion channels his divine energy and wrath to devastate his foe. The champion can expend 2 divine power to declare a creature their smite target. The champion must be aware of their target, but needs not see or hear them (so a champion could declare an invisible creature their smite target if they become aware of the creature's existence). The champion gains a +2 class bonus to attack and damage rolls against their smite target. The champion treats the target's damage reduction and magic resistance (if any) as being 10 points lower. The champion's smite lasts until the champion recovers the divine power expended to activate the smite.
At 4th, 8th, 12th, 16th, and 20th level, the champion's class bonus from smite increases by +1 (to a maximum of +7 at 20th level). At 8th and 16th level, the champion ignores an additional 10 points of damage reduction and magic resistance (-30 at 16th level).

Lay on Hands [Magic, Positive, Miracle]
Cost 1 divine power; Action 1 standard or swift (see below); Range touch; Target 1 creature; Defense none; Magic Resist no; Duration instantaneous
By expending 1 divine power, the champion channels positive energy through his touch. The champion needs one free hand to deliver the touch. The touch inflicts 4 points of positive energy damage per level of the champion to undead creatures. Positive energy instead heals living creatures for the same amount. If the champion targets himself with the power, activating it becomes a swift action and the champion does not need a free hand. This ability always heals the champion regardless of his creature type.

Corruption [Magic, Negative, Miracle]
Cost 1 divine power; Action 1 standard or swift (see below); Range touch; Target 1 creature; Defense none; Magic Resist no; Duration instantaneous
This miracle works as the lay on hands miracle (see above), except it deals negative energy damage, harming living creatures and healing undead creatures.

Waves of Healing [Magic, Positive, Miracle]
Cost 2 divine power; Action 1 standard; Range personal; Target creatures within a 30 ft. burst centered on you; Defense Will; Magic Resist no; Duration instantaneous
By expending 2 divine power, the champion releases a wave of positive energy that bursts away from the champion. The wave deals 4 points of positive energy damage per level of the champion to undead creatures within the targeted area, or 2 points of positive energy damage on a failed special attack. Positive energy instead heals living creatures for the same amount. The champion can choose to have the ability ignore himself if desired, as well as any number of additional creatures up to the champion's Mind bonus (if any).

Winds of Corruption [Magic, Negative, Miracle]
Cost 2 divine power; Action 1 standard; Range personal; Target creatures within a 30 ft. burst centered on you; Defense Will; Magic Resist no; Duration instantaneous
This miracle works as the waves of healing miracle (see above), except it deals negative energy damage, harming living creatures and healing undead creatures.

Divine Spellcaster Miracles
These miracles allow the champion to merge their divine power with their spellcasting, allowing one to support the other. Ideal for those who want to make spellcasting a primary focus of their characters.

Divine Magic [Magic, Miracle]
Requirement: Spellcasting
The champion can convert stored spell energy into divine power. As a free action, the champion can expend one of their spells per day as if they had spent it to cast a spell, to gain divine power equal to the level of the expended spell. The divine power gained this way is lost when the spell slot expended is recovered.

Divine Metamagic [Magic, Miracle]
Requirement: Spellcasting
The champion can convert divine power into additional spell energy. As a free action, the champion can reduce the spell level adjustment of a metamagic feat when applied to a spell, by expending 1 divine power per level reduced (to a minimum of +0 level adjustment) when the metamagic feat is used.
When the champion gains this miracle, the champion may select a metamagic feat he qualifies for and gain it as a bonus feat for as long as he has this miracle.

Plagues and Pestilence Miracles
These miracles center around inflicting curses, diseases, and plagues upon enemies. Such miracles tear opponents down, make ongoing battles harder for enemies as their strengths are sapped as they rot and wither. Ideal for creating blackguards or evil cultists, or for spreading the wrath of the gods.

Plague-bearer [Magic, Disease, Miracle]
You are immune to the harmful effects of diseases that you have contracted, and can choose to suppress their contagiousness if desired. When you deal damage with miracles, you can attempt to afflict creatures with a disease from the list of diseases below with a successful special attack against the target's Fortitude defense. If your attack is successful, the creature contracts the disease and the onset is immediate. The diseases use your special attack modifier.
Filth Fever: Filth fever inflicts 2 Strength and Dexterity damage at onset. Once per day thereafter, it can inflict an additional 2 Strength an Dexterity damage on a successful special attack. Successfully resisting the disease two consecutive times cures the disease.
Mindfire: Mindfire inflicts 2 Mind damage at onset. Once per day thereafter, it can inflict an additional 2 Mind damage on a successful special attack. Successfully resisting the disease two consecutive times cures the disease.

Withering Plague [Magic, Curse, Disease, Miracle]
Requirements: Plague-bearer miracle
Your diseases are now curses as well, and can affect creatures that are normally immune to disease and ability damage as though they were not immune. Creatures still receive any bonuses to defenses against diseases (if the creature was immune to disease they receive a +4 bonus to their defenses against disease instead).
Additionally, once per round as a major action, you can have your filth fever and mindfire diseases progress as if a day had passed, forcing creatures to attempt to resist the disease damaging them again.

Volatile Outbreak [Magic, Disease, Miracle]
Requirement: Plague-bearer miracle
Action 1 swift; Range medium (200 ft.); Target creatures within a 15 ft. burst centered on diseased creatures; Defense Fortitude; Magic Resist no; Duration instantaneous
Creatures that are afflicted with a disease contracted from you or your miracles spread those diseases to creatures within 15 ft. of them unless the creatures resist your special attack. Filth fever and mindfire have immediate onsets when spread this way. At 4th, 8th, 12th, 16th, and 20th level, the affected areas increase by 5 ft. (to 50 ft. bursts at 20th level).

Festering Wounds [Magic, Disease, Miracle]
Requirement: Plague-bearer miracle
When a creature suffers ability damage from your filth fever or mindfire, they take 1d6 damage along with the usual effects of the disease. This damage increases by 1d6 at 4th, 8th, 12th, 16th, and 20th level.
Special: If you have the Volatile Outbreak miracle, creatures deal an equal amount of damage to other creatures within volatile outbreak's target area if your special attack would succeed in spreading diseases (very likely causing a devastating chain reaction in tightly packed groups of enemies).

Powered by Pestilence [Magic, Disease, Miracle]
Requirements: Plague-bearer miracle
When a creature suffers ability damage from one of your diseases, you gain that damage as a class bonus to the same ability score for 10 rounds. The bonus increases each time you deal more ability damage through diseases, but the bonus to a single ability score cannot exceed +6.

Walking Plague [Magic, Curse, Disease, Miracle]
Requirements: Plague-bearer miracle, 6th level
Cost 4 divine power; Action 1 major; Range medium (200 ft.); Target 1 dead creature; Defense none; Magic Resist no; Duration Instantaneous
If a creature was slain within the past minute (10 rounds) while afflicted by your filth fever or mindfire disease, you can animate them as a plague zombie, similar to an animate dead spell. The plague zombies are only ˝ your level regardless of the creatures original level, and can only control a number of zombies equal to your Mind bonus (minimum 1 zombie). If you create additional zombies beyond your limit, previous zombies crumble and are destroyed, consumed by decay (you choose which zombies are destroyed). Unlike normal plague zombies, these spread filth fever and mindfire, rather than zombie plague. They receive an enhancement bonus to their attack rolls, damage rolls, and special attacks equal to your Mind bonus whenever they are within 200 ft. of you.


Currently projection for champions are class options that make them well suited for...

Alignment stuff
Blessings
Curses
Diseases
Healing
Undead stuff


As always, stuff is subject to revisions.

Klara Meison
2016-12-19, 05:29 PM
Holiday season has had me spending less time on writing and more on hanging out with the family / finding gifts and such, but I've spent the majority of the day working on the first four classes for public release. Currently I'm working on the Champion, so I thought I'd share a few of the design concepts surrounding them and preview a few abilities.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/53/22/4b/53224b635f5b16f22240e329d881f980.png
Champion
The champion channels divine powers to work miracles or curses, drawing upon this spiritual energy to achieve great or terrible things. Honorable Paladins, wizened priests, or cult leaders, a champion can be the pillar that holds his team together, or the hammer that breaks his enemies.

Recommended Path: Any.

Core Mechanics
Champions have a reserve of energy known as Divine Power and expend this energy to use abilities that allow them to heal themselves and allies, smite enemies, or utter fierce curses that bring ruin to enemies. Some champion options allow them to use their divine power to empower other spells and abilities, or convert other spells and abilities into divine power, allowing them to be extremely versatile and relentless in achieving whatever goals they set for themselves.

Divine Power
Champions use a resource known as Divine Power. Divine power is a standard resource. A champion's divine power reserve is equal to 3 + their Mind modifier (minimum 1). A champion increases this reserve by ˝ their level (so +1 at 2nd, +2 at 4th, etc). Divine power can be spent to activate a champion's special abilities, known as Miracles.

Miracles
Champions have special abilities known as miracles. These are magical abilities that are fueled by the champion's divine power. A champion begins play with the smite, lay on hands, corruption, waves of healing, and winds of corruption miracles. Additional miracles can be gained through the Miraculous talent. If a miracle has a prerequisite, the champion must meet those requirements before they can learn that miracle.
The special attacks for a champion's miracles use the champion's Mind modifier.
Champion miracles are separated by theme for convenience, but you may take any miracle that you qualify for regardless of their organization.

Starting Miracles
The champion begins play with the following miracles.
Smite [Magic, Miracle]
Cost 2 divine power; Action free; Range special (see text); Target special (see text); Duration special (see text)
The champion channels his divine energy and wrath to devastate his foe. The champion can expend 2 divine power to declare a creature their smite target. The champion must be aware of their target, but needs not see or hear them (so a champion could declare an invisible creature their smite target if they become aware of the creature's existence). The champion gains a +2 class bonus to attack and damage rolls against their smite target. The champion treats the target's damage reduction and magic resistance (if any) as being 10 points lower. The champion's smite lasts until the champion recovers the divine power expended to activate the smite.
At 4th, 8th, 12th, 16th, and 20th level, the champion's class bonus from smite increases by +1 (to a maximum of +7 at 20th level). At 8th and 16th level, the champion ignores an additional 10 points of damage reduction and magic resistance (-30 at 16th level).

Lay on Hands [Magic, Positive, Miracle]
Cost 1 divine power; Action 1 standard or swift (see below); Range touch; Target 1 creature; Defense none; Magic Resist no; Duration instantaneous
By expending 1 divine power, the champion channels positive energy through his touch. The champion needs one free hand to deliver the touch. The touch inflicts 4 points of positive energy damage per level of the champion to undead creatures. Positive energy instead heals living creatures for the same amount. If the champion targets himself with the power, activating it becomes a swift action and the champion does not need a free hand. This ability always heals the champion regardless of his creature type.

Corruption [Magic, Negative, Miracle]
Cost 1 divine power; Action 1 standard or swift (see below); Range touch; Target 1 creature; Defense none; Magic Resist no; Duration instantaneous
This miracle works as the lay on hands miracle (see above), except it deals negative energy damage, harming living creatures and healing undead creatures.

Waves of Healing [Magic, Positive, Miracle]
Cost 2 divine power; Action 1 standard; Range personal; Target creatures within a 30 ft. burst centered on you; Defense Will; Magic Resist no; Duration instantaneous
By expending 2 divine power, the champion releases a wave of positive energy that bursts away from the champion. The wave deals 4 points of positive energy damage per level of the champion to undead creatures within the targeted area, or 2 points of positive energy damage on a failed special attack. Positive energy instead heals living creatures for the same amount. The champion can choose to have the ability ignore himself if desired, as well as any number of additional creatures up to the champion's Mind bonus (if any).

Winds of Corruption [Magic, Negative, Miracle]
Cost 2 divine power; Action 1 standard; Range personal; Target creatures within a 30 ft. burst centered on you; Defense Will; Magic Resist no; Duration instantaneous
This miracle works as the waves of healing miracle (see above), except it deals negative energy damage, harming living creatures and healing undead creatures.

Divine Spellcaster Miracles
These miracles allow the champion to merge their divine power with their spellcasting, allowing one to support the other. Ideal for those who want to make spellcasting a primary focus of their characters.

Divine Magic [Magic, Miracle]
Requirement: Spellcasting
The champion can convert stored spell energy into divine power. As a free action, the champion can expend one of their spells per day as if they had spent it to cast a spell, to gain divine power equal to the level of the expended spell. The divine power gained this way is lost when the spell slot expended is recovered.

Divine Metamagic [Magic, Miracle]
Requirement: Spellcasting
The champion can convert divine power into additional spell energy. As a free action, the champion can reduce the spell level adjustment of a metamagic feat when applied to a spell, by expending 1 divine power per level reduced (to a minimum of +0 level adjustment) when the metamagic feat is used.
When the champion gains this miracle, the champion may select a metamagic feat he qualifies for and gain it as a bonus feat for as long as he has this miracle.

Plagues and Pestilence Miracles
These miracles center around inflicting curses, diseases, and plagues upon enemies. Such miracles tear opponents down, make ongoing battles harder for enemies as their strengths are sapped as they rot and wither. Ideal for creating blackguards or evil cultists, or for spreading the wrath of the gods.

Plague-bearer [Magic, Disease, Miracle]
You are immune to the harmful effects of diseases that you have contracted, and can choose to suppress their contagiousness if desired. When you deal damage with miracles, you can attempt to afflict creatures with a disease from the list of diseases below with a successful special attack against the target's Fortitude defense. If your attack is successful, the creature contracts the disease and the onset is immediate. The diseases use your special attack modifier.
Filth Fever: Filth fever inflicts 2 Strength and Dexterity damage at onset. Once per day thereafter, it can inflict an additional 2 Strength an Dexterity damage on a successful special attack. Successfully resisting the disease two consecutive times cures the disease.
Mindfire: Mindfire inflicts 2 Mind damage at onset. Once per day thereafter, it can inflict an additional 2 Mind damage on a successful special attack. Successfully resisting the disease two consecutive times cures the disease.

Withering Plague [Magic, Curse, Disease, Miracle]
Requirements: Plague-bearer miracle
Your diseases are now curses as well, and can affect creatures that are normally immune to disease and ability damage as though they were not immune. Creatures still receive any bonuses to defenses against diseases (if the creature was immune to disease they receive a +4 bonus to their defenses against disease instead).
Additionally, once per round as a major action, you can have your filth fever and mindfire diseases progress as if a day had passed, forcing creatures to attempt to resist the disease damaging them again.

Volatile Outbreak [Magic, Disease, Miracle]
Requirement: Plague-bearer miracle
Action 1 swift; Range medium (200 ft.); Target creatures within a 15 ft. burst centered on diseased creatures; Defense Fortitude; Magic Resist no; Duration instantaneous
Creatures that are afflicted with a disease contracted from you or your miracles spread those diseases to creatures within 15 ft. of them unless they resist your special attack. Filth fever and mindfire have immediate onsets when spread this way. At 4th, 8th, 12th, 16th, and 20th level, the affected areas increase by 5 ft. (to 50 ft. bursts at 20th level).

Festering Wounds [Magic, Disease, Miracle]
Requirement: Plague-bearer miracle
When a creature suffers ability damage from your filth fever or mindfire, they take 1d6 damage along with the usual effects of the disease. This damage increases by 1d6 at 4th, 8th, 12th, 16th, and 20th level.

Powered by Pestilence [Magic, Disease, Miracle]
Requirements: Plague-bearer miracle
When a creature suffers ability damage from one of your diseases, you gain that damage as a class bonus to the same ability score for 10 rounds. The bonus increases each time you deal more ability damage through diseases, but the bonus to a single ability score cannot exceed +6.

Walking Plague [Magic, Curse, Disease, Miracle]
Requirements: Plague-bearer miracle, 6th level
Cost 4 divine power; Action 1 major; Range medium (200 ft.); Target 1 dead creature; Defense none; Magic Resist no; Duration Instantaneous
If a creature was slain within the past minute (10 rounds) while afflicted by your filth fever or mindfire disease, you can animate them as a plague zombie, similar to an animate dead spell. The plague zombies are only ˝ your level regardless of the creatures original level, and can only control a number of zombies equal to your Mind bonus (minimum 1 zombie). If you create additional zombies beyond your limit, previous zombies crumble and are destroyed, consumed by decay (you choose which zombies are destroyed). Unlike normal plague zombies, these spread filth fever and mindfire, rather than zombie plague. They receive an enhancement bonus to their attack rolls, damage rolls, and special attacks equal to your Mind bonus whenever they are within 200 ft. of you.


Currently projection for champions are class options that make them well suited for...

Alignment stuff
Blessings
Curses
Diseases
Healing
Undead stuff


As always, stuff is subject to revisions.

>Alignment stuff

I thought it was abandoned?

Ashiel
2016-12-19, 06:00 PM
>Alignment stuff

I thought it was abandoned?
I haven't decided if I want to throw alignment out in its entirety. In my home games, there do exist tangible forces of things like good and evil. Holy and unholy energies being the dominion of certain outer planes and creatures closely connected to them (such as angels and devils). Such powers can be tapped into by mortals.

The result of that being that unless you happen to be a class with the Aura class feature (such as Clerics and Paladins), or posses an alignment subtype, you are effectively Neutral for all mechanical purposes. This means most mortal evils won't show up on things like detect evil. Being a serial killer is pretty horrible but it's not enough to make you radiate raw evil. Only a connection to the primordial forces of evil will make you show up as being Evil with a capital E. :smallamused:

Odds are, D20 Legends will have options for these sorts of things. People like things like holy swords and devils unleashing unholy blight. What most people tend to dislike a lot are arguments over whether or not someguy McBarbarian suddenly cannot progress at being a barbarian because he lives by a code of honor, or if Dudeman SirSmitesalot suddenly loses all his class features because he kicked a priestess of Asmodeus in the cooch and the GM thought that was pretty dishonorable and perhaps not very lawful or...something.

LordOfCain
2016-12-20, 07:11 AM
Odds are, D20 Legends will have options for these sorts of things. People like things like holy swords and devils unleashing unholy blight. What most people tend to dislike a lot are arguments over whether or not someguy McBarbarian suddenly cannot progress at being a barbarian because he lives by a code of honor, or if Dudeman SirSmitesalot suddenly loses all his class features because he kicked a priestess of Asmodeus in the cooch and the GM thought that was pretty dishonorable and perhaps not very lawful or...something.

I totally agree with this. From what I feel and what I've seen, just alignment is not bad, but rather Dudeman SirSmitesalot falling or Someguy McBarbarian not being able to progress or what have you. Also Stupid [Any Alignment] is bad.

Ashiel
2016-12-20, 01:36 PM
I totally agree with this. From what I feel and what I've seen, just alignment is not bad, but rather Dudeman SirSmitesalot falling or Someguy McBarbarian not being able to progress or what have you. Also Stupid [Any Alignment] is bad.
Given the number of arguments I've been in concerning alignment, it often comes off that I dislike alignment in its entirety. In truth, I really didn't run into alignment troubles much if at all in games until I started dealing with them in the online arena, where I was interacting with many more people using alignment in many different ways. In fact, the house rules I use to this day concerning alignment were born on OpenRPG during a time when I was running a persistent world and developed them as a means of resolving problems between other players.

But I would propose that the problem with alignment isn't alignment itself, it's the direction people run off with it. See, in 3.x/PF, Alignment is not hard coded into any sort of list of laws that dictate any given thing being always a particular alignment. Instead, it gives the fundamental - I'd dare say primal - aspects of the various alignments and allows you to weigh them against the circumstances in question.

Some common problems associated with alignment include...

Thinking alignment influences how a character acts (in truth, it is the opposite)
Thinking alignment doesn't allow for gray areas (in fact it is mostly gray)
Thinking people of the same alignment are supposed to act the same or get along (which is far from true)
Thinking that deviating from the norms of your alignment should warrant an alignment change (the alignment rules actually call this out as false)
Thinking that you must codify every sort of action or intent into an alignment (in truth, actions do not have alignment until you give it)


So looking at the alignment system for some answers, the alignment system has the following things to say.

A creature's general moral and personal attitudes are represented by its alignment
Speaking as a generality, alignment is explicitly non-specific and non-definite trends in attitude.


Alignment is a tool for developing your character's identity—it is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent.
This (and the next line) debunks the idea that alignment influences action rather than action influencing alignment. It also notes that characters who act wholly consistent with their alignment are actually the odd ones, rather than the norm.


All creatures have an alignment. Alignment determines the effectiveness of some spells and magic items.
Further noting that alignment doesn't influence the way your character acts, it's mechanical.


Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral. Even deadly vipers and tigers that eat people are neutral because they lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior. Dogs may be obedient and cats free-spirited, but they do not have the moral capacity to be truly lawful or chaotic.
This describes that you have to have the mental faculties to make moral choices to actually have an alignment. Essentially codifying that non-sentient creatures will be Neutral. RAW, even if a creature is aligned upon creation (such as in 3.5 where casting animate dead produces neutral-evil zombies) they will become Neutral (mostly because there is no special ability or exception clause present in things like zombies that prevents the normal alignment rules from governing them, so their alignment will change to Neutral as per the alignment rules).


Alignment is a tool, a convenient shorthand you can use to summarize the general attitude of an NPC, region, religion, organization, monster, or even magic item.
This is where alignment is useful to a player or GM from a roleplaying perspective, since it gives you a general idea as to the behavior that you're trying to convey in a character. If you're a GM and you read that an NPC is Neutral Good, you immediately know that the character is more altruistic, protective, and concerned than the average character, even if you didn't write the NPC yourself. Similarly, you know that if a character routinely hurts, oppresses, and kills things, the character is Evil, and you can measure roughly that he or she is a lot more evil than the other NPC.


Certain character classes in Classes list repercussions for those who don't adhere to a specific alignment, and some spells and magic items have different effects on targets depending on alignment, but beyond that it's generally not necessary to worry too much about whether someone is behaving differently from his stated alignment.
It even goes as far as saying that with the exception of a few edge cases (such as Paladins), alignment it more or less irrelevant aside from the mechanical implications. Incidentally, this is actually where I take the most issue with the alignment system and that's because of things like Paladins. From a narrative perspective, the assured loss of capability due to abandoning the norms of a given alignment more or less eliminates any sort of personal conflict narratives since a character can't really go through a rough patch without automatically knowing that what they are experiencing is right or wrong, which isn't particularly good for character development. Similarly, the idea of a former champion who has gone rogue (such as a Paladin who forsakes his order after some traumatic event) is more or less eliminated by this as well. I personally prefer dealing with a game where a former Paladin could fall off the horse so to speak and end up as an antagonist (who can hopefully be reset on the righteous path).

I'm also a big fan of refluffing stuff if the mechanics fit, and I think alignment restrictions on classes make that overly troublesome. For example, the standard Barbarian class in 3.5/Pathfinder actually makes for a really damn good SAMURAI. They're proficient with all the right weapons, they work best in light and medium armor, they're known for being resilient and tough, and they can go into a sort of combat trance that makes them fight really hard and resist mental attacks, and have more skill points than average and have skills like Ride. However, the alignment restriction makes building a samurai using the Barbarian class feel awkward at best and impossible at worst.

Klara Meison
2016-12-20, 03:33 PM
So I know I still have that question hanging and I don't usually ask a second one simultaneously, but do you know what (if any) numeric formula is behind Pathfinder's WBL and XP by level charts? I tried a polynom and an exponent, neither fits.

I am this close to concluding that Pathfinder has no actual math behind all those fancy tables, because I already exhausted all sensible theories for how it might work.

Ashiel
2016-12-20, 04:25 PM
So I know I still have that question hanging
Eh? *scrolls up* Egad, I missed an entire post. I'll check that out right after this. :smallredface:


and I don't usually ask a second one simultaneously, but do you know what (if any) numeric formula is behind Pathfinder's WBL and XP by level charts? I tried a polynom and an exponent, neither fits.

I am this close to concluding that Pathfinder has no actual math behind all those fancy tables, because I already exhausted all sensible theories for how it might work.
It's been a long time since I tried to figure them out, but the last I recall concluding was that the medium XP progression is built around the idea that 20 equal CR encounters will produce +1 level, and the WBL table is the sum of the average treasure values of said encounters, sans about 15% (presumably assumed expended on consumables or other non-permanent expenditures). As a result, if you're frugal, you'll actually end up being over WBL if you get all your treasure the old fashioned way (so WBL is kind of a safe minimum).

It's been a while though. :smallconfused:

Ashiel
2016-12-20, 04:33 PM
This question has to do with what is the most important thing for various mechanical character archetypes. I am not sure if I managed to translate my idea into words correctly, but eh, what can you do.

If you could choose a single active thing (instantaneous/short-timed(rounds/minutes) effect invocable X times per day), a passive thing (a passive effect, like a feat), and a counter-y thing (instantaneous/short-timed(rounds/minutes) effect invocable X times per day as a result of an enemy doing something) that you would very much enjoy as a character of a %type%, what would it be?

An example of an active thing would be True Seeing activatable as a free action for 1 minute 3 times per day. Very useful on a melee martial character.

An example of a passive thing would be a feat like Spell Focus, an effect that gives you extra spell slots per day, an effect that raises your CL in regards to a single spell or an ability that works all the time(e.g. flight).

An example of a counter-y thing would be something like Cut From The Air, or any counters from Path of War.

Here, %type% stands for a mechanical archetype of a character. Here are some types I came up with, but you are free to make up your own if you see some hole I left:


Blasting mage (i.e. mage who focuses on various fireballs and rays)
Supporting mage (i.e. a caster who focuses on various spells like Bless, Haste, Heroism and other party-supporting spells)
Debuffing mage (i.e. an opposite of a support-someone who throws Slow and such at the enemies)
Illusionist (Self-explanatory)
Mindraping mage (Domination, Charm, all the goodies)
frontline martial-single targets (e.g. wildshaping druid/Harbinger with Elemental Flux-someone who can really effectively wreck the face of a single high-profile target per round)
frontline martial-mook control (i.e. someone who can destroy a whole lot of relatively weak targets per round)
Controlling AoE mage (i.e. soemone who focuses on various Create Pits, Black Tentacles and other AoE control spells)
Conjuring/minion mage (Summoner/undead creator/planar binder)
Ranged martial (Self-explanatory)
Mounted character (i.e. Character with a mount closely intertwined with their story arc)


To answer my own question in regards to frontline martials focused on single targets, I'd say it would be some way to negate enemy evasiveness (like True Seeing) for the active ability, some sort of mobility power like flight for passive, and some way to evade/negate/reflect the nastiest spells an enemy might throw at me (like SoDs, mindrapes or instant kills). Obviously, these are not the same three things a blasting mage would want.

It'll take me a bit to work through the entire list, but while I'm thinking about it, I'm gonna grab the conjurer and go with that to see if I've understood the question. :smalltongue:

Conjuring/Minion Mage

Active - The ability to summon relevant minions on the spot.
Passive - Summon an additional minion when summoning OR make minions more resistant to CC/sweeping.
Reactive - Immediate action dimension door (to teleport-dodge stuff).

Klara Meison
2016-12-20, 05:11 PM
It'll take me a bit to work through the entire list, but while I'm thinking about it, I'm gonna grab the conjurer and go with that to see if I've understood the question. :smalltongue:

Conjuring/Minion Mage

Active - The ability to summon relevant minions on the spot.
Passive - Summon an additional minion when summoning OR make minions more resistant to CC/sweeping.
Reactive - Immediate action dimension door (to teleport-dodge stuff).


Yep, that's pretty much what I was going for. My own picks for a conjurer(binder) were:

Active(Take): Ability allowing you to take control of opposing summons.

Passive(Bind): Something to make your bindings stronger (e.g. bonuses on opposed binding checks) and/or last longer(e.g. your bindings are permanent instead of days/level)

Reactive(Deny): Ability letting you make various saves in place of your minions/flat out deny attempts to control them when they are targetted by spells.

Ashiel
2016-12-21, 11:34 AM
Blasting mage (i.e. mage who focuses on various fireballs and rays)
Supporting mage (i.e. a caster who focuses on various spells like Bless, Haste, Heroism and other party-supporting spells)
Debuffing mage (i.e. an opposite of a support-someone who throws Slow and such at the enemies)
Illusionist (Self-explanatory)
Mindraping mage (Domination, Charm, all the goodies)
frontline martial-single targets (e.g. wildshaping druid/Harbinger with Elemental Flux-someone who can really effectively wreck the face of a single high-profile target per round)
frontline martial-mook control (i.e. someone who can destroy a whole lot of relatively weak targets per round)
Controlling AoE mage (i.e. soemone who focuses on various Create Pits, Black Tentacles and other AoE control spells)
Conjuring/minion mage (Summoner/undead creator/planar binder)
Ranged martial (Self-explanatory)
Mounted character (i.e. Character with a mount closely intertwined with their story arc)

Some of these might show up in D20 Legends in some form or other... :smalltongue:

Blasting Mage

Active - The ability to perform a spell combo (such as turning burning enemies into bombs or freezing wet foes)
Passive - Applying status ailments as a secondary effect of dealing damage
Reactive - Retaliating with elemental bursts when threatened


Supporting Mage

Active - The ability to spread buffs to multiple targets or condense them on a single target (such as being able to cast bull's strength on lots of people at once, or on a single person for a bigger bonus)
Passive - Buffs are harder to dispel
Reactive - Expend resources to cast a supportive spell (such as death ward) out of turn


Debuffing Mage

Active - The ability to spread a bad status ailment to multiple targets or condense them on a single target (such as being able to hit someone with hideous laughter on one turn, then spread it to nearby foes)
Passive - Debuffs are harder to dispel
Reactive -Expend resources to attempt to re-apply a debuff that's being removed


Illusionist

Active - The ability to make illusions that do things like provide flanking, or perhaps even inflict nonlethal damage
Passive - Illusions are easier for you to detect, harder for others
Reactive - Emergency invisibility or similar effect


Mindrapist

Active - Expend resource to attempt to pierce resistance/immunity
Passive - A bonus on opposed ability checks (such as the opposed Charisma check to control a charmed creature)
Reactive - Reroll a failed ability check


Front-line Martial

Active - Abilities to close on enemies and hamper escape
Passive - Abilities that help bypass things like concealment
Reactive - Resilience against CC abilities (such as temporary freedom of movement)


Front-line Controller

Active - Abilities that CC foes
Passive - Enhanced mobility
Reactive - Reactions that let you intercept attacks


Controller Mage

Active - The ability to ignore a select few targets from your AoEs
Passive - Bigger AoEs
Reactive - Gain cover/concealment while inside your own AoEs


Ranged Martial

Active - Ranged debuffs (such as anchoring a foe with an arrow, clipping a wing, etc)
Passive - Less trouble using a ranged weapon at close range
Reactive - Dodge roll!


Mounted Character

Active - Trample the fools!
Passive - Mount scales with level and benefits from your benefits (mount shares things like rage, stances, spells, etc)
Reactive - Take hits for each other

Zilrax
2016-12-21, 12:17 PM
Long as I get my Virulent Walking Bomb from Dragon Age Origins I'm happy. My favorite spell by a massive landslide. Lock the enemy down, nail them all with it, then quickly cast forcefield on the melee person because friendly fire is a thing. Boom.

137ben
2016-12-21, 12:25 PM
Long as I get my Virulent Walking Bomb from Dragon Age Origins I'm happy. My favorite spell by a massive landslide. Lock the enemy down, nail them all with it, then quickly cast forcefield on the melee person because friendly fire is a thing. Boom.

I will always prefer Earthbound 's PSI [whatever your favorite thing is].

Ashiel
2016-12-21, 01:51 PM
Long as I get my Virulent Walking Bomb from Dragon Age Origins I'm happy. My favorite spell by a massive landslide. Lock the enemy down, nail them all with it, then quickly cast forcefield on the melee person because friendly fire is a thing. Boom.
Noted. >_>

EDIT: Incidentally, while not identical, the champion preview I showed has options for dealing a lot of AoE damage in clusters of enemies. With the right investments, they can spread diseases in AoEs around all their disease targets, then spend a major (standard) action to force a test against the disease, and then everyone that takes damage from the disease goes boom for 1-5d6 damage in the AoE of the disease spread range. If you've got a cluster of foes nearby, the damage can get fierce pretty rapidly (for example, if you're 4th+ level, foes deal 2d6 damage in a 20 ft. radius when they suffer from your disease, so if you have 3 guys packed in a 20 ft. area, they'll make an explosion for 6d6 damage to anyone in the overlapping AoEs).

Mages using fire magic will probably have similar options (turning burning enemies into walking AoEs).

Zilrax
2016-12-21, 02:49 PM
The fun part is when they blow up and turn everyone hit into living bombs, repeat until out of targets. Great for villains, good for less squeemish heroes for clearing rooms. And incredibly intimidating too.

I'm also fond of being able to turn undead into explosives.

Ashiel
2016-12-22, 10:29 AM
Serious question here, which is more about organization than anything.

I've been chewing over the idea of placing class and race specific feats in the descriptions of those classes and races, so you can quickly find feats for the class you are interested in. So hypothetically, feats like "Extra Divine Power", "Extra Mercy", "Extra Cruelty", and so forth would be found within the pages of the Champion class which has the requisite class features to even qualify for those feats (and those feats are by nature designed to allow you further specialize by expending feats too).

I feel like organizing feats into the classes (maybe even alongside the abilities they improve if any) would make it much easier to find feats that are relevant to your interests and would make building characters a lot easier for newbies (it's difficult to get a good mental picture of how to build a character when you're selecting your class and feats separately during your first read through).

Anyone see any obvious problems with this I'm overlooking? :smallconfused:

Klara Meison
2016-12-22, 11:38 AM
Serious question here, which is more about organization than anything.

I've been chewing over the idea of placing class and race specific feats in the descriptions of those classes and races, so you can quickly find feats for the class you are interested in. So hypothetically, feats like "Extra Divine Power", "Extra Mercy", "Extra Cruelty", and so forth would be found within the pages of the Champion class which has the requisite class features to even qualify for those feats (and those feats are by nature designed to allow you further specialize by expending feats too).

I feel like organizing feats into the classes (maybe even alongside the abilities they improve if any) would make it much easier to find feats that are relevant to your interests and would make building characters a lot easier for newbies (it's difficult to get a good mental picture of how to build a character when you're selecting your class and feats separately during your first read through).

Anyone see any obvious problems with this I'm overlooking? :smallconfused:

Make a website (Don't you have that Wyrmspire place?). Then put race-specific feats into separate pages. Then link to those pages from race descriptions. So you'd have, for example, whatever.com/mechanics/feats/racial_feats/brain_slugs where all links to feats relating to brain slugs would be located, and whatever.com/mechanics/races/brain_slugs would have a link to that place, perhaps embedding the feat table from there in a spoiler or something.

Likewise, you'd link /racial_feats/monstrous from all monstrous race pages, /racial_feats/undead from all undead race pages, /combat/stabbing from all classes closelly related to stabbing (who might want to look into those), and so on. You can do that with more than feats too, e.g. /spells might have a big table with all spells (as is the current default), while /spells/explosions might have links to all spells that cause explosions in the same place, /spells/healing might have links to all healing/regeneration/status-cancellation spells, /spells/rays to all rays, /spells/summoning to all summoning spells, and so on and so forth and ad infinitum.

Seriously, it's 21 century. I wouldn't be playing Pathfinder if d20pfsrd didn't exist and I had to look into actual pdfs to find useful stuff.

As for actual problems, where do you put a feat that relates to a class and a race? If you also write the whole feat text in the class/race bloak, you will make class/race description way bigger, which will make it harder to read. Neither of those problems arise in a website-based design, since you can link to the same page from multiple pages, and only have to put the text into a single place.

Ashiel
2016-12-22, 12:27 PM
As for actual problems, where do you put a feat that relates to a class and a race? If you also write the whole feat text in the class/race bloak, you will make class/race description way bigger, which will make it harder to read. Neither of those problems arise in a website-based design, since you can link to the same page from multiple pages, and only have to put the text into a single place.
The way I was thinking about it was if there was a specific feat designed to go alongside a specific ability, then it would be included with that ability. Here's an example.
Cruelty [Magic, Curse, Miracle]
When you hit someone with your corruption miracle, you can make a special attack against their Will defense to afflict them with a negative status condition. You get two cruelties from the list below, and an additional cruelty at 4th, 8th, 12th, 16th, and 20th level. No matter how many cruelties you have, only one can be applied per use of corruption (though multiple cruelties can be applied over multiple corruption attacks). Cruelties marked as 4th, 8th, 16th, or 20th level cruelties can only be taken if you are the required level.
Cruelties: You can take any of the following cruelties immediately.

Burning: The target gains the Burning condition.
Chilled: The target gains the Chilled condition for 10 rounds.
Fatigued: The target gains the Fatigued condition.
Shaken: The target gains the Shaken condition for 10 rounds.
Sickened: The target gains the Sickened condition for 10 rounds.


4th Level Cruelties: These cruelties can only be taken with cruelties gained at 4th level or greater.

Curse: The target as affected as if by a bestow curse spell.
Dazed: The target is dazed for 1 round.
Diseased: The target is affected as if by a contagion spell.
Staggered: The target is staggered for 10 rounds.


8th Level Cruelties: These cruelties can only be taken with cruelties gained at 8th level or greater.

Exhausted: The target is exhausted. You must have the fatigue cruelty to select this cruelty.
Frightened: The target is frightened for 10 rounds. You must have the shaken cruelty to select this cruelty.
Holocaust: The target gains a stack of the burning condition for every d6 worth of damage your corruption miracle deals. You must have the burning cruelty to select this cruelty.
Nauseated: The target gains the nauseated condition for 10 rounds. You must have the sickened cruelty to take this cruelty.
Poisoned: The target is poised as if affected by a poison spell.
Shatter: The target gains the frozen condition for 10 rounds. As long as the condition remains, the target gains vulnerability to Bludgeoning damage (they take 50% more damage from bludgeoning weapons and effects). You must have the Chill cruelty to take this cruelty.


12th Level Cruelties: These cruelties can only be taken with cruelties gained at 12th level or greater.

Blinded: The target is blinded for 10 rounds. If your special attack beats their Will defense by 10 or greater, the blindness is permanent.
Deafened: The target is deafened for 10 rounds. If your special attack beats their Will defense by 10 or greater, the deafness is permanent.
Madness: The target is acts as if affected by an insanity spell. If your special attack beats their Will defense by 10 or greater, the insanity is permanent.
Paralyzed: The target is paralyzed for 10 rounds.


16th Level Cruelties: These cruelties can only be taken with cruelties gained at 16th level or greater.

Enervating: The target gains 4 negative levels for 10 rounds and you recover hit points as if you healed yourself with your corruption miracle. If you beat their Will defense by 10 or greater, they are instantly slain and you are affected as if by a heal spell. This is a negative energy death effect.
Dominating: For 10 rounds, the target must make an opposed Mind check with you to make attacks against you or target you with abilities you deem harmful. This opposed check is attempted each time they wish to attack you. If your check wins, the action they were using is wasted and nothing happens. If your special attack beats their Will defense by 10 or greater, they are affected as if by a domination spell.
Soul Reap: The creature is branded with a dark sign for 10 rounds. During this time, the benefits of your smite miracle are doubled against the target. If your target dies while under the effects of soul reap, you condense their soul into a soul gem, preventing resurrection unless the gem is recovered or destroyed.


Extra Cruelty [Feat]
Prerequisite: Cruelty miracle
You can select an additional cruelty that you qualify for.
Special: This feat can be taken multiple times, allowing you to select an additional cruelty each time.

EDIT:
Seriously, it's 21 century. I wouldn't be playing Pathfinder if d20pfsrd didn't exist and I had to look into actual pdfs to find useful stuff.
Lots of people do enjoy PDFs and also physical books, and still use them. While a wiki-format page will assuredly be a thing, it wouldn't be the only option.

Klara Meison
2016-12-22, 01:33 PM
The way I was thinking about it was if there was a specific feat designed to go alongside a specific ability, then it would be included with that ability. Here's an example.
Cruelty [Magic, Curse, Miracle]
When you hit someone with your corruption miracle, you can make a special attack against their Will defense to afflict them with a negative status condition. You get two cruelties from the list below, and an additional cruelty at 4th, 8th, 12th, 16th, and 20th level. No matter how many cruelties you have, only one can be applied per use of corruption (though multiple cruelties can be applied over multiple corruption attacks). Cruelties marked as 4th, 8th, 16th, or 20th level cruelties can only be taken if you are the required level.
Cruelties: You can take any of the following cruelties immediately.

Burning: The target gains the Burning condition.
Chilled: The target gains the Chilled condition for 10 rounds.
Fatigued: The target gains the Fatigued condition.
Shaken: The target gains the Shaken condition for 10 rounds.
Sickened: The target gains the Sickened condition for 10 rounds.


4th Level Cruelties: These cruelties can only be taken with cruelties gained at 4th level or greater.

Curse: The target as affected as if by a bestow curse spell.
Dazed: The target is dazed for 1 round.
Diseased: The target is affected as if by a contagion spell.
Staggered: The target is staggered for 10 rounds.


8th Level Cruelties: These cruelties can only be taken with cruelties gained at 8th level or greater.

Exhausted: The target is exhausted. You must have the fatigue cruelty to select this cruelty.
Frightened: The target is frightened for 10 rounds. You must have the shaken cruelty to select this cruelty.
Holocaust: The target gains a stack of the burning condition for every d6 worth of damage your corruption miracle deals. You must have the burning cruelty to select this cruelty.
Nauseated: The target gains the nauseated condition for 10 rounds. You must have the sickened cruelty to take this cruelty.
Poisoned: The target is poised as if affected by a poison spell.
Shatter: The target gains the frozen condition for 10 rounds. As long as the condition remains, the target gains vulnerability to Bludgeoning damage (they take 50% more damage from bludgeoning weapons and effects). You must have the Chill cruelty to take this cruelty.


12th Level Cruelties: These cruelties can only be taken with cruelties gained at 12th level or greater.

Blinded: The target is blinded for 10 rounds. If your special attack beats their Will defense by 10 or greater, the blindness is permanent.
Deafened: The target is deafened for 10 rounds. If your special attack beats their Will defense by 10 or greater, the deafness is permanent.
Madness: The target is acts as if affected by an insanity spell. If your special attack beats their Will defense by 10 or greater, the insanity is permanent.
Paralyzed: The target is paralyzed for 10 rounds.


16th Level Cruelties: These cruelties can only be taken with cruelties gained at 16th level or greater.

Enervating: The target gains 4 negative levels for 10 rounds and you recover hit points as if you healed yourself with your corruption miracle. If you beat their Will defense by 10 or greater, they are instantly slain and you are affected as if by a heal spell. This is a negative energy death effect.
Dominating: For 10 rounds, the target must make an opposed Mind check with you to make attacks against you or target you with abilities you deem harmful. This opposed check is attempted each time they wish to attack you. If your check wins, the action they were using is wasted and nothing happens. If your special attack beats their Will defense by 10 or greater, they are affected as if by a domination spell.
Soul Reap: The creature is branded with a dark sign for 10 rounds. During this time, the benefits of your smite miracle are doubled against the target. If your target dies while under the effects of soul reap, you condense their soul into a soul gem, preventing resurrection unless the gem is recovered or destroyed.


Extra Cruelty [Feat]
Prerequisite: Cruelty miracle
You can select an additional cruelty that you qualify for.
Special: This feat can be taken multiple times, allowing you to select an additional cruelty each time.

EDIT: Lots of people do enjoy PDFs and also physical books, and still use them. While a wiki-format page will assuredly be a thing, it wouldn't be the only option.

And what if someone makes this:

Double Super Mega Extra Cruelty [Feat]
Prerequisite: Cruelty miracle, Aasimar race
You can select two additional cruelties that you qualify for. You can't select this feat a second time.

Where do you put something like that?

Klara Meison
2016-12-22, 02:08 PM
Don't know in which thread to post this, but:

You (along with 3 other heretically powergaming munchkins of your choice) are teleported into the world of Pathfinder. You (all 4 of you) begin as lv 1 Human gestalt Fighter/Rogue-s, with everything else about your characters chosen by you. As you advance in levels, you can only take levels in gestalt Fighter/Rogue, so no fighter 1/wizard 19 shenanigans.

You are running an unknown AP (could be by Paizo, could be 3pp, point it anything can happen and you don't know the plot), with all combat encounters rebalanced and rebuilt by malicious evil twins of your party. How do you survive? Assume that if you try to stop following the plot of the AP you first get an extremely nasty encounter thrown your way (to show you the error of your ways), and if you still don't stop, you drop dead instantly.

Bonus round:same thing, but now Path of War is banned.

Zilrax
2016-12-22, 02:18 PM
Well I personally would hope racial feats would be things that specifically only affect their races. And made sense. No, only elves can stab people better with arrows nonsense. Or only elves can be arcane archers because no elf has ever defected with the secrets, been scryed on, mind controlled etc etc etc.

I'm alright with an improved stonecutting or whatever for dwarves, or what not. Though race and class feats together are a bit messy.

Also my guess for the only problem I can think of for feats spread across the class area would be it might get confusing in the everythings spread all over sense. Maybe having a class feat section in the feats book would be a good compromise?

Klara Meison
2016-12-22, 02:32 PM
Well I personally would hope racial feats would be things that specifically only affect their races. And made sense. No, only elves can stab people better with arrows nonsense. Or only elves can be arcane archers because no elf has ever defected with the secrets, been scryed on, mind controlled etc etc etc.

I'm alright with an improved stonecutting or whatever for dwarves, or what not. Though race and class feats together are a bit messy.

Also my guess for the only problem I can think of for feats spread across the class area would be it might get confusing in the everythings spread all over sense. Maybe having a class feat section in the feats book would be a good compromise?

Well I do too, that was mostly a hypothetical.

Ashiel
2016-12-23, 07:58 AM
And what if someone makes this:

Double Super Mega Extra Cruelty [Feat]
Prerequisite: Cruelty miracle, Aasimar race
You can select two additional cruelties that you qualify for. You can't select this feat a second time.

Where do you put something like that?

At the moment, the organization I was contemplating would look something like this.

Race Chapter

Race Header (such as Elf)
Race fluff entry (say elf fluff)
Race statistics (basic elf stats)
Race specific talents (elf paragon stuff)
Race specific feats (elf specific feats)
Repeat for next race


Advanced Races Sub-chapter

Hybrid race stuff (such as aasimar and tieflings)
Racial talents for those things
Racial feats for those things
End sub-chapter



Class Chapter

Class header (such as "Warror")
Class description / fluff (such as "these guys make good knights")
Recommended path (such as "warriors do best as martials")
Core mechanics (a description of how the class plays)
Class Features or Talent (such as "Divine Power" or "Miracles")
Feat that improves that feature or talent (such as "Extra Divine Power" or "Extra Miracle")


Advanced Class Subchapter

Explanation of multiclassing
Talents geared towards multiclassing ("When you enter a rage, you gain 2 temporary divine power" type stuff)
Feats geared towards multiclassing ("With this feat, you gain 4 temporary divine power instead!" type stuff)


Feats Chapter

Explain how feats work
List all feats that aren't directly tied to a race or class (such as Improved Initiative)


If there were race-class hybrid feats, I'd rather keep such stuff out of the core rulebook. I feel that such things should not be inherently part of the game and would serve better as an optional splatbook of its own, which would probably be for the best since that could potentially be a huge amount of content. For example, let's say we have a handful of core races...

Humans
Halflings
Elves
Dwarfs
Gnomes
Orcs
Hobgoblins
Goblins
Aasimar (via hybrid mechanics)
Tieflings (via hybrid mechanics)

That's 10-ish basic races.

Then the possible classes include...

Alchemist (concoctions)
Barbarian (rage cycling)
Bard (performances)
Champion (divine power)
Druid (wild shaping)
Mage (mage schools)
Monk (chakra powers)
Ranger (animal buddy)
Rogue (stabbing)
Sorcerer (bloodlines)
Warrior (not ToB)

That's about 11 classes (assuming nothing such as monk :smallamused: gets cut).

So if you were going to make a book that only had 2 new race specific talents and 2 new race specific feats, for each class, you'd have to write out 440 new (220 new talents, 220 new feats). At the moment the average length of a talent or feat is around 100 words or so, some being far fewer, some being far longer, depending on the complexity of the ability and if it has any targets or sub-options (the shortest miracle written so far is 35 words, while the longest is 685 words). Going with just a simple 100 word average, that would mean you'd be looking at about 44,000+ words in just rule crunch alone, not including any fluff, descriptions, or author commentary.

To put that 44,000+ words number into perspective, the National Novel Writing Month event (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Novel_Writing_Month) uses the 50,000 word mark as a goal for writing a novel during the month. :smallamused:

Klara Meison
2016-12-25, 07:04 AM
Are there any problems that you know of with converting items from 3.x to Pathfinder?

Tels
2016-12-25, 07:12 AM
Are there any problems that you know of with converting items from 3.x to Pathfinder?

Spell levels and material component costs come to mind. Some spells changed levels in the conversion, but some spells were in the wrong level in 3.5, either too high or too low. I would compare any non-Pathfinder spell to a similar spell before converting it over. Some spells had drastic changes in material component costs, so this can affect an item using that spell.

Ashiel
2016-12-25, 03:54 PM
Are there any problems that you know of with converting items from 3.x to Pathfinder? Spell levels and material component costs come to mind. Some spells changed levels in the conversion, but some spells were in the wrong level in 3.5, either too high or too low. I would compare any non-Pathfinder spell to a similar spell before converting it over. Some spells had drastic changes in material component costs, so this can affect an item using that spell.
For most things it shouldn't be too difficult. For weapons and armor, you just choose some statistics based on its size/tech level.

For magic items, the "usual" rules will still apply (stuff like components being factored into items per charge, duration modifiers, etc). However, a lot of items will probably change in price slightly due to variances in spell and caster level. In general, most items will become less costly for the following reasons.


Magic arms & armor have their enhancement bonuses paid for separately (due to them now being mundane modifiers). This means that the cost of a +2 holy longsword would be +16,000 gp (+8,000 for the +2 and +8,000 for the holy), rather than 32,000 gp (for a +4 weapon).
Some restrictions on items are being lifted (your weapon doesn't have to be masterwork or be +1 before you can enchant it with special abilities, so a flaming stick that's essentially just a stick is do-able.
A number of spells become available a bit earlier and durations are standardized, which will affect the prices of a lot of items (since unless the spell gets stronger, there's less reason to craft them at huge caster levels). For example, the haste spell is still going to be 3rd level, but it comes online at 4th character level, and always lasts exactly 10 rounds (so you'd probably craft it at CL 4th). As a result, your typical boots of speed would cost 4,800 gp instead of 12,000 gp.
Some spells won't exist in d20 Legends (things like charm monster don't exist anymore), so the closest equivalent would be used instead.
The rules will be a little tighter concerning how many magic item effects you can use during your turn (so a lot of things that were free actions will become swift actions), and you'll receive only one set of actions for all intelligent items worn, rather than a separate set for each intelligent item (which prevents shenanigans like making all of your items intelligent and giving them the ability to shoot magic missile at will, and then blasting everything to pieces with 10 slots worth of xd4+x force damage during your turn at no action cost).


What this will generally mean for players is you'll be able to get cool toys earlier (bought, crafted, or looted, since lower prices means they'll show up in treasures and on NPCs earlier) and have more coin for adding little effects to items. You'll be able to safely account for things like enhancement bonuses, ability boosts, save boosts, and energy resistances without totally giving up having "interesting" things. For example, let's say we want to get a +1 goblinbane sword, a +1 armor of fire resistance, a +1 shield of cold resistance, and boots of speed, the costs would be...

Pathfinder

Sword = 8,300+ gp
Armor = 19,150+ gp (resist energy was priced as a 2nd level spell, 3rd CL, 10 points, x1.5 for adding to the magic item)
Shield = 19,150+ gp
Boots = 12,000 gp (3rd level spell, CL 10th, 1 charge/day)
Total = 58,600+ gp


D20 Legends

Sword = 4,000+ gp
Armor = 13,000+ gp (1st level, CL 4th, cost multiplier of 2,000x1.5 for duration, continuous = 12,000 gp)
Shield = 13,000+ gp (see above)
Boots = 4,800 gp
Total = 35,600+ gp

Or 23,000 gp less costly. Which leaves more dosh for expanding your golfbag, buying potions/oils, or pimping out your favorite ride ("My war-trained donkey has spinning rims").

Klara Meison
2016-12-25, 04:03 PM
O, that's very interesting.


Some spells won't exist in d20 Legends (things like charm monster don't exist anymore), so the closest equivalent would be used instead.

No Charm Monster? Why?


which prevents shenanigans like making all of your items intelligent and giving them the ability to shoot magic missile at will, and then blasting everything to pieces with 10 slots worth of xd4+x force damage during your turn at no action cost

Heeeeey, that's a great idea. *takes notes*. Totally using this in an encounter at some point.

I was asking about 3.5->Pathfinder conversion though, not Pathfinder->D20L. But still, very interesting) How would 3.5->D20L conversion work?

Ashiel
2016-12-25, 09:03 PM
No Charm Monster? Why?
A few spells are getting merged. For example, there's now simply charm which works on pretty much anything that's not immune to charms/mind-affecting. Since your special attack rolls (think save DCs as a d20 check) scale with your level, a lot of spells that are "this spell but with a higher DC/whatever) are just becoming a single spell. Some spells may have advanced features when cast using higher level spell slots (such as larger AoEs, better durations, more targets, etc).

The charm monster and dominate monster spells are mostly redundant as a result of that, and an effort to make targeting spells and effects less finicky. For example, charm person in 3.x/PF targets a humanoid creature, but in 3.x that didn't include giants (it does in PF because their type changed), except oni (because they're native outsiders), nor monstrous humanoids (different type), or aasimar and tieflings (they're also the wrong type), and so forth. It's very unintuitive and makes learning the game unnecessarily difficult. Now, it pretty much just works on anything with a mind and it's on the creature to possess a special immunity rather than trying to play match-the-creature-type (incidentally, that also created some metagame issues where spells would casually foil disguises since if you cast enlarge person on a succubus in human form it'd do nothing).


Heeeeey, that's a great idea. *takes notes*. Totally using this in an encounter at some point.
It's definitely a bug. lol


I was asking about 3.5->Pathfinder conversion though, not Pathfinder->D20L. But still, very interesting) How would 3.5->D20L conversion work?
More or less identically for he most part. The magic item system from 3.5 to Pathfinder was almost unchanged, barring a few exceptions (mentioned below).

Weapons/armors were given a maximum effective enhancement bonus of +10, including from temporary effects such as greater magic weapon (but noobishly fails to mention what takes priority)
Magic items were made significantly easier to craft (making it a skill check rather than a hard CL requirement, and also making the required spells optional at a penalty)
Options for crafting during an adventure / non-downtime period were added.
XP costs were removed from spells. Magic item prices didn't really change (the standing rule was 1 XP = 5 gp in 3.x).

The last 3 I approve of. :smallamused:

Zilrax
2016-12-26, 05:50 AM
I just watched Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children. I want my minions to be able to be as bad ass as that.

Ashiel
2016-12-27, 12:54 AM
I just watched Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children. I want my minions to be able to be as bad ass as that.I haven't seen that yet. I take that it was good? :smallsmile:

Zilrax
2016-12-27, 09:37 AM
It has my usual problem with book movies in that it always feels too rushed in some ways. They also changed a ton from the three books overall.

Overall it's got pretty good effects, an fairly interesting premise if kinda overly convoluted, and a villain who just does not give a damn. Plus it's Samuel Jackson so he's quite good at not giving a damn.

The climax is definitely the best part overall.

Kryzbyn
2016-12-27, 02:46 PM
Putting feat entries where they are relevant: Hell yes. Please.
Champion Preview: OMG yes. Looks awesome!
Champion/Archetype question:
So looking at this, Champion covers paladins and clerics, or just the "divine" part. So, if I want to make a paladin, I'd mix Champ with a martial, and for a cleric, mix Champ with a caster?
Will Druid work a similar way in respect to rangers or normal druids, or does that archetype just cover shape shifting/nature magic?

Klara Meison
2016-12-28, 11:19 AM
Putting feat entries where they are relevant: Hell yes. Please.
Champion Preview: OMG yes. Looks awesome!
Champion/Archetype question:
So looking at this, Champion covers paladins and clerics, or just the "divine" part. So, if I want to make a paladin, I'd mix Champ with a martial, and for a cleric, mix Champ with a caster?
Will Druid work a similar way in respect to rangers or normal druids, or does that archetype just cover shape shifting/nature magic?

If I remember correctly, Druid will be about wildshape, while Ranger will have animal companions. To make vanilla Pathfinder druid you would multiclass and pick both. As for Champion, to make Paladin you would take levels in Champion class while selecting martial path, and to make Cleric you would take levels in Champion class while selecting caster path.

I've been thinking about health lately. Mainly, why doesn't Pathfinder have some sort of regenerative health? At medium to high levels health is already only an issue of time, not effort, since you just need to use your wand of CLW X times to bring it back to full. Why not officially turn it into some sort of 2-level health system, like videogames often do-with Shields being your regenerative heath bar and Health being your sorta-permanent health bar?

I think it's pretty easy to see the benefits of such a mechanic:


It would simplify high-level resource tracking, since you no longer need to worry about how many charges in your wand of CLW you have left or how many charges you need to get up to full
It would make characters less reliant on classes with CLW on their spell list and/or high UMD bonus
It could pave way for other interesting mechanics-e.g. maybe if you are out of shields you would be more vulnerable to SoD tactics
If you then make it harder to recover non-shield HP, you can still have cool tropes like heroes ending up wounded after a big fight at high levels (because the party isn't willing to expend a whole Heal to recover from more permanent wounds) without actually sacrificing combat efficiency (because your Shield buffer recovers after every fight)
It makes high-level healing more relevant, since it could restore health points you wouldn't be able to recover otherwise.
It won't make a difference in how combat plays out, since you could easilly set some sort of time delay to this-e.g. you need to go for one minute without being hit for regeneration to begin.


So, what do you think?

Kryzbyn
2016-12-28, 02:34 PM
Ahh...I got the class and paths mixed up.

Tels
2016-12-28, 08:00 PM
If I remember correctly, Druid will be about wildshape, while Ranger will have animal companions. To make vanilla Pathfinder druid you would multiclass and pick both. As for Champion, to make Paladin you would take levels in Champion class while selecting martial path, and to make Cleric you would take levels in Champion class while selecting caster path.

I've been thinking about health lately. Mainly, why doesn't Pathfinder have some sort of regenerative health? At medium to high levels health is already only an issue of time, not effort, since you just need to use your wand of CLW X times to bring it back to full. Why not officially turn it into some sort of 2-level health system, like videogames often do-with Shields being your regenerative heath bar and Health being your sorta-permanent health bar?

I think it's pretty easy to see the benefits of such a mechanic:


It would simplify high-level resource tracking, since you no longer need to worry about how many charges in your wand of CLW you have left or how many charges you need to get up to full
It would make characters less reliant on classes with CLW on their spell list and/or high UMD bonus
It could pave way for other interesting mechanics-e.g. maybe if you are out of shields you would be more vulnerable to SoD tactics
If you then make it harder to recover non-shield HP, you can still have cool tropes like heroes ending up wounded after a big fight at high levels (because the party isn't willing to expend a whole Heal to recover from more permanent wounds) without actually sacrificing combat efficiency (because your Shield buffer recovers after every fight)
It makes high-level healing more relevant, since it could restore health points you wouldn't be able to recover otherwise.
It won't make a difference in how combat plays out, since you could easilly set some sort of time delay to this-e.g. you need to go for one minute without being hit for regeneration to begin.


So, what do you think?

Sounds like a modified wounds and vigor (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/other-rules/wounds-and-vigor) system. Wounds and vigor is an interesting system, except that it makes the game far more deadly as it reduces HP overall and makes certain things (like a channel nergative energy cleric) utterly ****ing monstrous. To make it like a video game, creatures would recover 1 Vigor point per hit die after 1 round of not taking damage, while creatures with Fast Healing/Regeneration would apply that ability to their Wound points, but also as a bonus on Vigor points recovered, and they always recover Vigor points, even while taking damage.

Klara Meison
2016-12-29, 06:33 AM
Sounds like a modified wounds and vigor (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/other-rules/wounds-and-vigor) system. Wounds and vigor is an interesting system, except that it makes the game far more deadly as it reduces HP overall and makes certain things (like a channel nergative energy cleric) utterly ****ing monstrous. To make it like a video game, creatures would recover 1 Vigor point per hit die after 1 round of not taking damage, while creatures with Fast Healing/Regeneration would apply that ability to their Wound points, but also as a bonus on Vigor points recovered, and they always recover Vigor points, even while taking damage.

I would rather keep it relatively similar to how HP works now, really. For example:


Until level 8 your HP works exactly as it does now
At level 8 all your HP turns into regenerating HP and you get a pool of non-regenerating HP equal to your HD
It becomes 2*HD at level 10
For HP to regenerate you have to spend 1 minute without attacking, taking damage, etc (same rules as in PoW in regards to recovering maneuvers)
It regenerates at the rate of HD points per round
Non-regenerating HP can be slowly healed by rest and things like Heal skill, as well as high-level magic. Regenerating HP can be healed by low-level magic.