-
Gaols and Giants - The Playground rewrites third Edition
Welcome to Gaols and Giants. Before we start getting to the actual rules, we have to agree on organisation. For now, I'll take over organizing this first post. However, there are a few points we need to address.
Communication:
An instant messaging medium with an archive would be very helpful. I propose Skype, but others might work too, if someone dislikes Skype for some reason.
Leadership:
Projects die without it. We need an organizer, and sub-organizers for various subjects.
Contributors:
Everyone who wants to be in this should probably drop a line here, and maybe mention some of the homebrew they've worked on, or what their qualifications are.
Hi, I'm Eldan, I've been working on various projects, the largest of which to date is the rewrite of the Arcane Magic system in my signature. My Skype is eldan985.
Other:
To be suggested by members.
-
Re: Gaols and Giants - The Playground rewrites third Edition
Skype: Morpholomewy.
Also am in possession of MSN, but use that more rarely. Don't have other IM programs any longer. Too much clutter.
I suggest things are discussed broadly, but ultimately let people work primarily on a single field (or possibly two, if they can). Working in pairs is a good idea too, because two minds are better than one and can come up with more ideas and better mechanics.
Fields:
- Classes
- Creatures
- Magic system (tied to classes)
- Items
- Skills (minor, unless largely overhauled)
- Feats
First though, adress the large parts. What are the design goals? That's a prime thing that needs discussing.
-
Re: Gaols and Giants - The Playground rewrites third Edition
Communication: I second the use of Skype. As I said on the other thread, we can set up a single skype group for the project for easy communication with the whole group, while also being able to message individuals that we are working directly alongside.
Leadership: I believe that Morph suggested a 2-per system for the major tasks, and I like that, possibly adding more people for larger things (I foresee the magic system being a bit time-consuming). I don't see a need for a single person to act as THE leader, but rather a group of 2 to 4 particularly active individuals to oversee things such that the entire project isn't crippled when one person has real life stuff come up, as it inevitably does.
So I think it'd look something like this:
Small teams 2-3 on each task (Magic, feats, skill rewrite, balancing classes, writing overarching fluff, etc.) and then there's the Overseers that get status reports from the sub-groups. The Overseers are in charge of immediate balance and cohesion, and noticing developing problems, or amazing ideas to be integrated elsewhere. However, these individuals shouldn't have super executive power or something like that. Perhaps they could act as judges, but reasonable and equal discussions ought to be at the heart of this project. If there's questions or ideas, they should be handled in the Skype group or whatever we decide to use, such that everyone can contribute their ideas.
Edit: I seem to have been swordsage'd!
My Skype is, predictably, Welknair. I'm very active on it.
Do we plan to include any other subsystems into G&G? There was a mention of integrating a ToB-style system for martial characters.
As for goals, the first things I think of:
1. Staying true to the feel of 3.5. Heavy emphasis on character building (I approve of using Feats and Skills to a greater degree, since they allow for more diversity between characters) as well as the ability for more content to be easily brewed for it. Add onto this whatever you feel makes 3.5 so enjoyable.
2. Make it reasonably balanced, of course. Perhaps we could agree upon a target tier for characters?
3. I'd like the system to be on the flexible side, to be able to accomodate a greater range of adventures and settings than vanilla 3.5. For example... Technological advancement options. I've learned a lot since the original Magitech. I could come up with some interesting options.
-
Re: Gaols and Giants - The Playground rewrites third Edition
-
Re: Gaols and Giants - The Playground rewrites third Edition
Skype: BattleOfJerico
One thing we'll need to do is match up time availabilities. If two people are assigned the same task and have opposite availabilities, it might not work so well.
As Morph said, I'm great at fluff. I can take facts about something and churn it into a good explanation. Take my Magic Thread. I took a bunch of facts that welk and I came up with, and turned them into an explanation. I'll attempt to refrain from becoming tl;dr. I'm also good at races, I'm an artist by trade, and i've experience with 3.5 above the rest.
for G's - Gazebos and Grumpkins
However, we could make it E & E, since it's right after D & D - Enchanters and Elements (or something)
-
Re: Gaols and Giants - The Playground rewrites third Edition
I can vouch for Wombat's drawing skill. Impressive stuff.
Edit: We're going to need a definitive list of participants sooner or later. My idea for a registration form:
GitP Username:
Skype Username, if applicable:
How much time can I contribute?:
Skills and credentials:
Preferred project:
Do you wish to be one of the organizers?:
GitP Username: Welknair
Skype Username, if applicable: Welknair (Who would have known?
How much time can I contribute?: An hour a day, perhaps?
Skills and credentials: I'm best known for my Magitech and Bloodlines. I excel at seeing how pieces work together and predicting their impacts on both characters and a setting at large (IMO). Making my Bloodlines caused me to read many amazing brews on these boards, and learn them well enough to make derivitive work. I am decently versed in different tabletop games.
Preferred project: I'd be interested in working on certain mechanics important to the way the world works (How does enchanting function? How is XP gained? How does character advancement work?) as well as perhaps rules for technological advancement. I have no clue if either of the positions are really needed, if we intend to stay close to the original 3.5 as opposed to expanding upon it. If nothing else, I can help with the classes.
Do you wish to be one of the organizers?: If there's a slot open, sure. I'm not dead-set on it, though.
-
Re: Gaols and Giants - The Playground rewrites third Edition
Right so. I think we should go about this by SRD chapters.
Before we go into details, the basics.
Do we have to change anything about the basic framework of the d20 system?
This includes for me:
Task resolution mechanic: d20+bonus-penalties vs. target value.
Six ability scores, 10-11 being the basic value, negative and positive modifiers, bell curve distribution between 3 and 18 for humans, etc.
Hit Dice.
Base Attack Bonus.
Saves.
Feats and Skills (not what they do, just how they are gained).
Action types: Free, Immediate, Swift, Move, Standard and Full round.
Anything we need to change about that?
-
Re: Gaols and Giants - The Playground rewrites third Edition
Grod here. I've worked mostly on base classes and system tweaks, with probably more success on the base class side of things.
Communications: My Skype is, confusingly enough, grod_the_giant. Should work fine.
Leadership: Working in groups is good. Probably teams of 2-3 people; anything more will probably descend into an argument.
------
VERY LATE UPDATE: NEW THREAD
-
Re: Gaols and Giants - The Playground rewrites third Edition
Reposting my edit:
We're going to need a proper list of participants sooner or later. Perhaps a signup of some sort?
GitP Username:
Skype Username, if applicable:
How much time can I contribute?:
Skills and credentials:
Preferred project:
Do you wish to be one of the organizers?:
GitP Username: Welknair
Skype Username, if applicable: Welknair (Who would have known?)
How much time can I contribute?: An hour a day, perhaps?
Skills and credentials: I'm best known for my Magitech and Bloodlines. I excel at seeing how pieces work together and predicting their impacts on both characters and a setting at large (IMO). Making my Bloodlines caused me to read many amazing brews on these boards, and learn them well enough to make derivitive work. I am decently versed in different tabletop games.
Preferred project: I'd be interested in working on certain mechanics important to the way the world works (How does enchanting function? How is XP gained? How does character advancement work?) as well as perhaps rules for technological advancement. I have no clue if either of the positions are really needed, if we intend to stay close to the original 3.5 as opposed to expanding upon it. If nothing else, I can help with the classes.
Do you wish to be one of the organizers?: If there's a slot open, sure. I'm not dead-set on it, though.
I think we should assume standard d20 framework unless we come across something that would necessitate changing it. We should use it as a starting point, but not have adhering to it be a requirement of the project.
-
Re: Gaols and Giants - The Playground rewrites third Edition
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eldan
Task resolution mechanic: d20+bonus-penalties vs. target value.
Nope. Change that, and it ain't D&D.
Quote:
Six ability scores, 10-11 being the basic value, negative and positive modifiers, bell curve distribution between 3 and 18 for humans, etc.
Personally, I'm in favor of dropping the ability score/ability modifier distinction altogether; let's merge them together and just use the "modifier." 2d4-4 gives a nice bell curve centered around 1.
Quote:
Hit Dice.
Base Attack Bonus.
Saves.
Nope.
Quote:
Feats and Skills (not what they do, just how they are gained).
I'd like for both skills and feats to do more, personally. Merge skill tricks and skills; and make feats add options rather than enhance them.
Quote:
Action types: Free, Immediate, Swift, Move, Standard and Full round.
Nope.
GitP Username: Grod_the_giant
Skype Username, if applicable: grod_the_giant
How much time can I contribute?: 1-3 hours a day, depending on course-load. More on breaks.
Skills and credentials: I'm probably best known around here for my base classes. I think I've remixed every SRD base class but the bard and monk at one point or another, not to mention a number of originals-- the Beastman, Savage, and Legend probably got the most attention.
Preferred project: I'd like to work on basic mechanics and base classes.
Do you wish to be one of the organizers?: Sure.
Also, I submit an alternate name, before we get too attached to Gaols: Giants and Graveyards.
-
Re: Gaols and Giants - The Playground rewrites third Edition
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Grod_The_Giant
Nope. Change that, and it ain't D&D.
Personally, I'm in favor of dropping the ability score/ability modifier distinction altogether; let's merge them together and just use the "modifier."
Nope.
I'd like for both skills and feats to do more, personally. Merge skill tricks and skills; and make feats add options rather than enhance them.
Nope.
Right. Personally, I see the 3-18 attributes as a convenient way of attribute bell curve. 3d6->1-18 is just a simple visualization. But I can see just using modifier. (I.e. statblock looks like this: Grog the Mighty: STR +4, Dex +2, Con +3, Int -2, Wis +1, Cha -1).
Skills and feats should certainly do more. Especially feats, I agree that they should add options, not numbers. Skills, I think, are basically fine, what they need is a line along the lines of "skills can do more than this, here's how to adjudicate things like that as a DM"
-
Re: Gaols and Giants - The Playground rewrites third Edition
GitP Username: TheWombatOfDoom
Skype Username, if applicable: BattleOfJerico
How much time can I contribute?: 5 to 10 hours a week, one to two a day.
Skills and credentials: I've been writing fantasy and world building materials for twelve years, I have 16 years of D and D experience, I am a professional artist, I'm quite literate, and I play nice with others. The only things I have to show on the forums are my magic thread and an RP which deals with very immersive game mechanics. I'm good at filling in where needed.
Preferred project: Some of the mechanics are a bit unbalanced, but I'm interested in bringing in a tier 3 with more immersive characteristics. Also - I'd like poisons to actually matter. That's a long way down the line, but they got pooped on, and I think that could be improved.
Do you wish to be one of the organizers?: I think organizers should be in pairs too. I'm willing to follow for now, and perhaps be more involved later.
-
Re: Gaols and Giants - The Playground rewrites third Edition
Okay...
GitP Username: Eldan
Skype Username, if applicable: eldan985
How much time can I contribute?: Quite a lot, actually. At least for the next few weeks.
Skills and credentials: I homebrew a bit. I made a new arcane magic system, a homebrew setting and assorted small bits and pieces.
Preferred project: I like anything supernatural. The more out there the better.
Do you wish to be one of the organizers?: I can. But I'm not the most reliable person.
-
Re: Gaols and Giants - The Playground rewrites third Edition
Design Manifesto, by SRD chapter, as envisioned by Eldan:
The basics: Keep them as close as possible to 3.5. The basics work.
Races: I think races are too similar. They should provide more features, more features that are relevant over a longer timespan, more interesting, and more balanced.
Base Classes: Every class should have: unique features that others can not easily reproduce. Interesting features. A choice between different, but thematically related features. The closest I can think of in core is the Ranger. Out of core, ACFs. These should be incorporated from the start. Classes should be as balanced as possible while maintaining their mechanical diversity. Balance isn't the strength of third edition, and not what I actually want from it. I want diversity and creative unbalance.
Prestige classes: Go back to these being optional, specialized builds. Give base classes enough features to make them attractive on all levels. Make prestige classes give up something for what they gain (i.e. no full casting prestige classes. Look at the DMG: the archmage gives up spells per day.)
Skills: Mostly leave them as they are, but incorporate skill tricks and other new abilities right into them. One big thing that annoys me is knowledge skills, though: they shouldn't depend on monster HD, but every monster should have an "exoticness" value.
Feats: Feats should never just add numbers. They should add abilities. The difference between feats and class abilities is that feats are beneficial to several different builds, while class abilities are specialized.
Magic Items: I'm not sure what to do with these, and I'll leave that to someone else. I would prefer less pure +number items.
Combat: combat maneuvers could probably stand to be a bit simpler, but if we are honest, most are attack roll, then opposed ability check, which is to be expected. Anything else? Mobility should perhaps be easier and more emphasized.
Magic: A few things. First, I dislike outright immunities, especially gained by spells. Second, no spells that are better than entire classes or replicate class features (invisibility, super-buffs, knock, find traps, etc. Especially a problem for skill monkeys). Third, what I did: make all spells that have large effects or permanently change something into rituals which are performed out of combat and take time and resources. 4E was on to something here, even if they did it wrong. Fifth, make spells easier to interrupt and resist at higher levels.
Monsters: Not sure what needs to be done here, not my thing. Not that much, really?
Types and Subtypes: Do any of these have to change? I remember someone showing how (Undead) could be a subtype, with humanoid (undead) vampires and construct (undead) skeletons, though that's going into details. Maybe have some of the types lose the straight immunities as well. Stabbing a construct in the weakpoint is perhaps harder, but not impossible.
Monsters as races: Ah, the big one. So many people want it. So many people have tried it. I've never seen anything quite satisfying.
Environments, et al: A few small things that are silly oversights like drowning, but overall okay, I think?
-
Re: Gaols and Giants - The Playground rewrites third Edition
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eldan
The basics: Keep them as close as possible to 3.5. The basics work.
Races: I think races are too similar. They should provide more features, more features that are relevant over a longer timespan, more interesting, and more balanced.
Base Classes: Every class should have: unique features that others can not easily reproduce. Interesting features. A choice between different, but thematically related features. The closest I can think of in core is the Ranger. Out of core, ACFs. These should be incorporated from the start. Classes should be as balanced as possible while maintaining their mechanical diversity. Balance isn't the strength of third edition, and not what I actually want from it. I want diversity and creative unbalance.
Prestige classes: Go back to these being optional, specialized builds. Give base classes enough features to make them attractive on all levels. Make prestige classes give up something for what they gain (i.e. no full casting prestige classes. Look at the DMG: the archmage gives up spells per day.)
Skills: Mostly leave them as they are, but incorporate skill tricks and other new abilities right into them. One big thing that annoys me is knowledge skills, though: they shouldn't depend on monster HD, but every monster should have an "exoticness" value.
Feats: Feats should never just add numbers. They should add abilities. The difference between feats and class abilities is that feats are beneficial to several different builds, while class abilities are specialized.
Yup, yup, yup... I would like to combine certain skills, though-- Spot and Listen, Disable Device and Open Lock, Jump...
Quote:
Magic Items: I'm not sure what to do with these, and I'll leave that to someone else. I would prefer less pure +number items.
Cut out every +X magic item, cut expected WBL to a quarter or so what it was, and replace them with more stat boosts gained through level-up?
Quote:
Combat: combat maneuvers could probably stand to be a bit simpler, but if we are honest, most are attack roll, then opposed ability check, which is to be expected. Anything else? Mobility should perhaps be easier and more emphasized.
I was actually just working on this for the 3.5+ I was planning. My method involved stealing the CMB check from Pathfinder, removing all maneuver-provoked AoOs, and then simplifying when I could.
Quote:
Magic: A few things. First, I dislike outright immunities, especially gained by spells. Second, no spells that are better than entire classes or replicate class features (invisibility, super-buffs, knock, find traps, etc. Especially a problem for skill monkeys). Third, what I did: make all spells that have large effects or permanently change something into rituals which are performed out of combat and take time and resources. 4E was on to something here, even if they did it wrong. Fifth, make spells easier to interrupt and resist at higher levels.
My thoughts:
- I'd be down to phase out immunities.
- Spells not replacing entire classes/features is an unqualified yes, although certain spells (such as invisibility) are too iconic-- and to fantasy as a whole, not just D&D-- to scrap entirely.
- I'm not sure how to handle rituals. I like the idea, but I'm not sure how universal it should be. Personally, I like using them to replace prepared casting classes. My wizard fix, for example, gives spontaneous casting from a limited list, and rituals that take something like 10 minutes/spell level from a potentially unlimited list.
I'll add my own questions, too.
- Should we keep prepared casting? My thinking is no-- not only is it difficult to balance, my observation is that players tend not to like it-- but it may be too popular/iconic to eliminate completely.
- Should we keep Vanician casting, or try to replace with, say, a spell point system? My vote goes for keeping it, but opinions may vary.
Quote:
Monsters: Not sure what needs to be done here, not my thing. Not that much, really?
Types and Subtypes: Do any of these have to change? I remember someone showing how (Undead) could be a subtype, with humanoid (undead) vampires and construct (undead) skeletons, though that's going into details. Maybe have some of the types lose the straight immunities as well. Stabbing a construct in the weakpoint is perhaps harder, but not impossible.
Monsters as races: Ah, the big one. So many people want it. So many people have tried it. I've never seen anything quite satisfying.
Environments, et al: A few small things that are silly oversights like drowning, but overall okay, I think?
Yeah, this all seems fine.
-
Re: Gaols and Giants - The Playground rewrites third Edition
Just make them not outright replacements.
I mean, would Invisibility utterly ruined for all time if instead of giving total invisibility, it gave a 10+1/2 caster level (or something) bonus on hide checks?
For me, a giant yes for prepared casting. My favourite archetype by far. I love the mechanic, too. or the idea behind it. The wizard is the scholar of the game. The most intelligent guy around. He studies magic scientifically and prepares what he needs for the situation. I love it. It provides so many fluff opportunities too. Because I mean, really. Have you ever seen another mechanic that emphasises "this guy is smart" that much?
Spellpoint systems make me go uuuurgh. They are so... boring.
Skills: yes on open lock/disable device, but Seeing and Hearing are different things and should be different skills. But I don't think I've ever seen anyone use Appraise. That should just be a knowledge or craft skill or something.
-
Re: Gaols and Giants - The Playground rewrites third Edition
While I don't have the time to contribute to this project, I do like following the progress of 3e revisions and I might comment from time to time. First comment: Finally, a revision that plans things out ahead of time! :smallwink:
Second comment:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eldan
Do we have to change anything about the basic framework of the d20 system?
This includes for me:
Task resolution mechanic: d20+bonus-penalties vs. target value.
I notice you didn't mention bonus types. Bonus/damage types and stacking rules were two great innovations of 3e that made resolving even complex interactions fairly simple; problem is, the proliferation of types both in the SRD and in splatbooks (exalted bonuses and dessication damage, anyone?) made typing less meaningful. On top of that, being able to stack many different types of bonuses contributes to skill and AC breakability in 3e, and the fact that many bonuses are untyped both contributes to that and makes certain options more powerful than they should be due to being untyped.
So I'd suggest laying down a short list of bonus types to stick with and not deviate from them, same with damage types. Off the top of my head, I'd merge sacred and profane (they're thematically the same "from an aligned power" bonus and can cause edge cases for people who can get both), drop alchemical as a type (enhancement should cover alchemical items just fine), and fold dodge bonuses into circumstance bonuses (they're fiddly and stack with themselves, two things that aren't necessarily good design) to start with. I've found that breaking all bonuses into five types (competence from equipment, enhancement from magic, inherent from race, insight from class, and circumstance for other stuff) works pretty well, but cutting things down that far could be too much depending on your other design goals. As for damage types, the five element types plus two energy types plus force work for me, but that's up to you folks.
-
Re: Gaols and Giants - The Playground rewrites third Edition
Bonuses. Okay.
Alchemical: can stay for all I care, but I can see the argument for kicking it.
Armour: in.
Circumstance: this is the generic +2/-2 the DM should hand out. I don't think spells and abilities should give it.
Competence: important.
Deflection: do we need deflection and shield? They are essentially similar.
Dodge: Sure.
Enhancement: yeah.
Insight: Is this different from Competence in fluff?
Luck: yes.
Morale: yes, for bards.
Profane/sacred: call it divine. Roll in anarchic and axiomatic (that was it, yeah?) too.
Resistance: can this just be enhancement? It only goes to saves anyway.
Shield: bit weak and specialized. My suggestion is making shields give a deflection bonus.
Size: certainly.
I'd like to keep a few more than Pair suggested. My list would drop shield, insight and resistance and merge the divines.
-
Re: Gaols and Giants - The Playground rewrites third Edition
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eldan
I'd like to keep a few more than Pair suggested. My list would drop shield, insight and resistance and merge the divines.
Sounds about right. Making shields provide a deflection bonus is a nice little buff to sword-and-board, too, since it lets 'em apply against touch attacks (and rightly so!)
-
Re: Gaols and Giants - The Playground rewrites third Edition
Magic-wise, I have a few ideas. Assuming that we're making substantial changes to that system (As opposed to individual spell fixes, which IMO is not sufficient) to bring it down to closer to 3rd-tier, I'd very much like to be a part of that brainstorming process.
I'm in favor of check-based magic, along the lines found in GURPS. As was brought up in another recent thread, per-day features have some problems, especially when DMs don't make an effort to have 4 appropriately leveled encounters per day. Magic ought to convey the sense of mystery, uncertainty and risk that are trademarks of the genre in fiction. I am also in favor of having many spells have longer casting times and be more interruptable.
-
Re: Gaols and Giants - The Playground rewrites third Edition
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Welknair
Magic-wise, I have a few ideas. Assuming that we're making substantial changes to that system (As opposed to individual spell fixes, which IMO is not sufficient) to bring it down to closer to 3rd-tier, I'd very much like to be a part of that brainstorming process.
I'm in favor of check-based magic, along the lines found in GURPS. As was brought up in another recent thread, per-day features have some problems, especially when DMs don't make an effort to have 4 appropriately leveled encounters per day. Magic ought to convey the sense of mystery, uncertainty and risk that are trademarks of the genre in fiction. I am also in favor of having many spells have longer casting times and be more interruptable.
I'm like the idea of checks, and mystery and such, but... I recently played a sorcerer in Exalted, and it was... suboptimal. Sorceries in that game are have long casting times-- equivalent to two entire turns for lower-level spells, and more for higher levels. And let me tell you, I don't care how much fun I had describing magic, I don't care how powerful the spells are (they weren't), nothing is worth making a character spend an entire turn sitting idly, then get hit by some goblin a tick before the spell goes off and lose the entire thing. Seriously, I cannot describe how much it sucked. For such a system to be workable, magic would have to be three times as powerful as alternatives on an action-per-action basis: once for the normal turn, once for the casting turn, and at least once more to compensate the player for only getting half as many useful actions as his comrades.
-
Re: Gaols and Giants - The Playground rewrites third Edition
Long casting times work for some spells. That's where my rituals come in. Go have a look at them, there are some of them in the Arcane thread in my signature, about four posts down.
They involve checks, and a casting time of 10 minutes per level.
However, this does not work for all spells. We always have to balance playability against fluff. And power balance isn't everything. Wizards need to have something to do every turn of combat, that's important. It can just be analysing monsters and giving helpful tactical tips, of course, but long casting times should stay far, far away from combat spells.
That's where preparation comes in. Preparing, after all, is pre-casting the spells you need to fire off quickly, later.
If we do checks, there should be an option to cast spells safely, though. Perhaps just at much lesser power, or only certain weak spells.
The division in my system is simple, four categories:
Cantrips: your basic nut and bolt spell. You can cast them as long as you have another spell prepared. Standard action to cast. These are the spells that you cast every turn.
Invocations: your stronger, limited combat spell. You prepare them ahead of time and lose them when you cast them. Can be interrupted easily while casting, as they take a full round. These are the spells that turn combat around when cast.
Mantras: your buff spells. You cast them ahead of time, and they stay up until you dismiss them or they get interrupted. A minute to cast.
Rituals: the spells you don't cast in combat. Everything from magical storms to teleports to calling extraplanar creatures to lichdom. These also have skill requirements, skill checks and the potential for (sometimes catastrophic) failure.
I do think it basically works. Though I do not use checks. What I did, instead, was limit the concentration skill to cantrips only. Other spells are interrupted automatically when the wizard takes damage.
-
Re: Gaols and Giants - The Playground rewrites third Edition
while im not particularly good at balance, i will just throw out a Magic Item solution i made, as well as leave this link to my feats thread where i did a small bit of rebalancing to feats and came up with a few others.
anyway, Undead should be a Construct subtype, and Construct (the entire type) should not grant critical immunity against bludgeon weapons unless incorporal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eldan
Bonuses. Okay.
Alchemical: can stay for all I care, but I can see the argument for kicking it.
Armour: in.
Circumstance: this is the generic +2/-2 the DM should hand out. I don't think spells and abilities should give it.
Competence: important.
Deflection: do we need deflection and shield? They are essentially similar.
Dodge: Sure.
Enhancement: yeah.
Insight: Is this different from Competence in fluff?
Luck: yes.
Morale: yes, for bards.
Profane/sacred: call it divine. Roll in anarchic and axiomatic (that was it, yeah?) too.
Resistance: can this just be enhancement? It only goes to saves anyway.
Shield: bit weak and specialized. My suggestion is making shields give a deflection bonus.
Size: certainly.
I'd like to keep a few more than Pair suggested. My list would drop shield, insight and resistance and merge the divines.
Alchemical: We dont have access to Artificer, this shouldnt be kept.
Armor and Shield: Keep, even though you want to kick shield, it is different from deflection. Rebalance armor and shields
Size: Keep it, but axe Size attack bonuses
Competence, Circumstance, and Dodge: Roll together. These are litterally the same thing for AC purposes
Deflection: Eliminate as an Armor bonus, instead make a % chance for blows/projectiles to go wild.
Resistance: Roll into Protection (which incedentally, you missed)
Sacred/Profane: No, keep em separate, and also make it so they cancel eachother out, and also corrispond to alignment specific bonuses or penalties. Figuring out a name for a L/C axis would be nice too
-
Re: Gaols and Giants - The Playground rewrites third Edition
Circumstance boni are the DM's most important tool. "It's raining, +2 circumstance modifier to X" is essential.
And I suggest making shield give a deflection bonus. Simply because, well, shields deflect things. And keep things from touching you. So they should apply to touch attacks.
And why do you need specific profane/holy bonuses? You can only have one of them at a time anyway. You can just word it as "this spell gives a +2 divine bonus to AC to all good creatures" or some such.
-
Re: Gaols and Giants - The Playground rewrites third Edition
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eldan
Circumstance boni are the DM's most important tool. "It's raining, +2 circumstance modifier to X" is essential.
And I suggest making shield give a deflection bonus. Simply because, well, shields deflect things. And keep things from touching you. So they should apply to touch attacks.
And why do you need specific profane/holy bonuses? You can only have one of them at a time anyway. You can just word it as "this spell gives a +2 divine bonus to AC to all good creatures" or some such.
because it gives the DM ways to make the PCs rage, for instance when you get the profane Gauntlets of Ogre Power and they already have a Sacred Belt of Giant's Strength
Just because it is part of the Circumstance bonus doesnt mean you have to completely limit it to Flanking's effects
also, Deflecting things is NOT parrying. Change the name on Shields to blocking AC and use that.
-
Re: Gaols and Giants - The Playground rewrites third Edition
Quote:
Originally Posted by
toapat
because it gives the DM ways to make the PCs rage, for instance when you get the profane Gauntlets of Ogre Power and they already have a Sacred Belt of Giant's Strength
That's the entire point though. They wouldn't stack if they were both Divine. It would be much easier than having a special rule only for Sacred and Profane.
-
Re: Gaols and Giants - The Playground rewrites third Edition
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eldan
That's the entire point though. They wouldn't stack if they were both Divine. It would be much easier than having a special rule only for Sacred and Profane.
AS IMPLEMENTED in 3/3.5: Yes, there is no justification that they exist in PnP.
AS I WOULD LIKE TO SEE: Ok, better example: The Paladin puts on the previously mentioned Profane Gauntlets, and promptly falls on their face because profane causes penalties instead of bonuses to good characters, same with the blackgaurd when they try on the sacred belt.
-
Re: Gaols and Giants - The Playground rewrites third Edition
Well, it's an interesting idea. But I still think that's better handled just writing it down for the specific ability.
-
Re: Gaols and Giants - The Playground rewrites third Edition
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eldan
Well, it's an interesting idea. But I still think that's better handled just writing it down for the specific ability.
well, you could dump the naming and instead just have it as Divine (Alignment). but removing them completely as separate? no.
-
Re: Gaols and Giants - The Playground rewrites third Edition
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eldan
Long casting times work for some spells. That's where my rituals come in. Go have a look at them, there are some of them in the Arcane thread in my signature, about four posts down.
They involve checks, and a casting time of 10 minutes per level.
However, this does not work for all spells. We always have to balance playability against fluff. And power balance isn't everything. Wizards need to have something to do every turn of combat, that's important. It can just be analysing monsters and giving helpful tactical tips, of course, but long casting times should stay far, far away from combat spells.
Actually, long casting times should stay away from just about all spells. This is one of the really bad things in 4E, the rituals. Spellcasters need the ability to do things swiftly to be playable. And not just for combat spells, but for most spells. It just does not work when the player needs to say 'um, guys we need to hang around and do nothing while I cast my spell for 30 minutes.'
Rituals work fine for big divination's, big abjurations and some other spells. But in most cases, there should be a ''quick version''. Casting detect lies should need not take 10 minutes.
-
Re: Gaols and Giants - The Playground rewrites third Edition
It works for quite a few spells, really. Teleportation, Calling, Interplanar Travel, Divination, large-scale destructive magic (all that is beyond the scale of your typical combat).
And that's the good thing about RPGs:
"Okay, we wait for thirty minutes" takes all of five seconds to say, but makes all the difference in the game.
-
Re: Gaols and Giants - The Playground rewrites third Edition
I'm not really in a position to join any projects at the moment, but I would bring up that the saves mechanic never made a lot of sense. With everything else the active agent gets to roll, and the passive has 10+modifiers. So I suggest swapping them; things that target a save roll a d20 and everyone has 10+modifiers for their save. Saves become more like AC, while savable effects become more like attacks.
Put another way, a DC 14 blinding effect would become a 1d20+4 blinding effect.
-
Re: Gaols and Giants - The Playground rewrites third Edition
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tvtyrant
I'm not really in a position to join any projects at the moment, but I would bring up that the saves mechanic never made a lot of sense. With everything else the active agent gets to roll, and the passive has 10+modifiers. So I suggest swapping them; things that target a save roll a d20 and everyone has 10+modifiers for their save. Saves become more like AC, while savable effects become more like attacks.
Put another way, a DC 14 blinding effect would become a 1d20+4 blinding effect.
definitely better, keeps everything on one side, and makes the universe of DnD make more sense.
Also makes SR irrelevant
-
Re: Gaols and Giants - The Playground rewrites third Edition
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tvtyrant
I'm not really in a position to join any projects at the moment, but I would bring up that the saves mechanic never made a lot of sense. With everything else the active agent gets to roll, and the passive has 10+modifiers. So I suggest swapping them; things that target a save roll a d20 and everyone has 10+modifiers for their save. Saves become more like AC, while savable effects become more like attacks.
Put another way, a DC 14 blinding effect would become a 1d20+4 blinding effect.
4e did this. It sometimes made sense, and sometimes didn't. If a wizard throws a fireball at you? I can see making him roll for that. If a pile of rocks fall on your head, who's rolling the attack? Personally, I'd rather stick to saves; if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
toapat, how does replacing saves make SR irrelevant?
-
Re: Gaols and Giants - The Playground rewrites third Edition
When I mentioned longer casting times, I didn't mean for ALL spells. Obviously combat spells still need to be Standard Actions for casters to not be awful in battle. But if casters can bring to bare the majority of their spells in a standard action, we quickly get into the problem of them having more combat-utility than any other class. IMO, casters that are not specifically "Warmages" should not be at home on the battlefield. That isn't to say they should be useless, just not capable of exerting their full might as a standard action.
And if we're going with a check-based system, we can give modifiers based on casting time. So the higher the level you are, the faster you can cast lower level spells. Or something like that.
Man, now I need to read back through Ars Magica and Mage: The Awakening. I remember both of those having neat casting systems. Not to replicate, but for inspiration.
-
Re: Gaols and Giants - The Playground rewrites third Edition
It sounds like you've got some good ideas... want to work on that for a bit?
-
Re: Gaols and Giants - The Playground rewrites third Edition
I would argue for full-round casting times for most battle spells. It makes wizards more static and spells easier to disrupt, both of which are good things.
-
Re: Gaols and Giants - The Playground rewrites third Edition
He'res a document gathering most of the discussion so far: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...t_BCuGjHQ/edit
-
Re: Gaols and Giants - The Playground rewrites third Edition
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Grod_The_Giant
toapat, how does replacing saves make SR irrelevant?
Spell Resistance is the To Hit roll for casting in 3.5
-
Re: Gaols and Giants - The Playground rewrites third Edition
GitP Username: GunbladeKnight
Skype Username, if applicable: GunbladeKnight77
How much time can I contribute?: A few hours per day, more on Sunday
Skills and credentials: Tested my hand here and there, have a good grasp for more technical than fluff.
Preferred project: Advice and brainstorming with anyone.
Do you wish to be one of the organizers?: Not a very good leader myself, though I wouldn't mind helping the overall organizers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eldan
Do we have to change anything about the basic framework of the d20 system?
This includes for me:
Task resolution mechanic: d20+bonus-penalties vs. target value.
That is the system we are working within (though I do like Shadowrun's system).
Quote:
Six ability scores, 10-11 being the basic value, negative and positive modifiers, bell curve distribution between 3 and 18 for humans, etc.
I say keep, though I see merit in using just the modifiers.
I am more in favor of 4E's system here, possibly using current HD as level (and removing the LA system altogether. If you want an iconic race, try to reduce its power to everyone else.
Quote:
Base Attack Bonus.
Saves.
I'm leaning towards Next's Bounded Accuracy here, though that would mean armor and AC rewrites, quite possibly.
Quote:
Feats and Skills (not what they do, just how they are gained).
Feats at odd levels like PF, maybe use PF system for skills (or even with Bounded Accuracy: add +5 to this skill).
Quote:
Action types: Free, Immediate, Swift, Move, Standard and Full round.
Keep and add more swift/immediate for non-casters (possibly through maneuvers). Also, get rid of the confusing 1 swift OR immediate per round, and grant one of each.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eldan
The basics: Keep them as close as possible to 3.5. The basics work.
d20 system, but let's not constrain ourselves fully. PF, 4E, and even Next have some good points, too.
Quote:
Races: I think races are too similar. They should provide more features, more features that are relevant over a longer timespan, more interesting, and more balanced.
Like make them bloodlines? I would prefer PF's races over others, though they need tweaks as well. Alternatively, races only grant specific things (attribute bonuses, resistances, etc.) while backgrounds grant different bonuses (proficiencies, skill bonuses, languages, etc). I would also like to see more subraces. Instead of dwarf, you have Goldhammer, Runecrafter, and Ironwind, each with different cultures/racial traits (mountain dwellers, arcane casters, and gryphon riders, respectively).
Quote:
Base Classes: Every class should have: unique features that others can not easily reproduce. Interesting features. A choice between different, but thematically related features. The closest I can think of in core is the Ranger. Out of core, ACFs. These should be incorporated from the start. Classes should be as balanced as possible while maintaining their mechanical diversity. Balance isn't the strength of third edition, and not what I actually want from it. I want diversity and creative unbalance.
Unique mechanics is fine, though we should also have themes. All skill monkeys (and not just rogues/scouts) have trapfinding, Ranger, Barbarian, Druid, and possibly Shaman have wild empathy, etc. Also: No alignment restrictions on classes. Instead of a Paladin, make it a Champion (or rework the Crusader).
Quote:
Prestige classes: Go back to these being optional, specialized builds. Give base classes enough features to make them attractive on all levels. Make prestige classes give up something for what they gain (i.e. no full casting prestige classes. Look at the DMG: the archmage gives up spells per day.)
Agreed. Also make the Paladin a prestige class.
Quote:
Skills: Mostly leave them as they are, but incorporate skill tricks and other new abilities right into them. One big thing that annoys me is knowledge skills, though: they shouldn't depend on monster HD, but every monster should have an "exoticness" value.
Agreed. Also keep them from becoming obselete due to spells/magic items while granting more of them to most classes. Possibly doing base + int mod so a negative int doesn't hurt as much.
Quote:
Feats: Feats should never just add numbers. They should add abilities. The difference between feats and class abilities is that feats are beneficial to several different builds, while class abilities are specialized.
Agreed. Also, consider feats that scale with level.
Quote:
Magic Items: I'm not sure what to do with these, and I'll leave that to someone else. I would prefer less pure +number items.
Or items in general. Fighters/Paladins are almost too dependent on armor that takes too long to equip for overnight surprises.
Quote:
Combat: combat maneuvers could probably stand to be a bit simpler, but if we are honest, most are attack roll, then opposed ability check, which is to be expected. Anything else? Mobility should perhaps be easier and more emphasized.
Prevent grappling from becoming "I win" buttons for larger monsters.
Quote:
Magic: A few things. First, I dislike outright immunities, especially gained by spells. Second, no spells that are better than entire classes or replicate class features (invisibility, super-buffs, knock, find traps, etc. Especially a problem for skill monkeys). Third, what I did: make all spells that have large effects or permanently change something into rituals which are performed out of combat and take time and resources. 4E was on to something here, even if they did it wrong. Fifth, make spells easier to interrupt and resist at higher levels.
Change spells that grant immunities/replace classes and skills into bonuses to them, either static or scaling. Change many of the major spells (planar binding, teleportation, gate, resurrection, hallow, change weather) into rituals that allow anyone that takes the time to learn them the ability to try them. Though I would keep Revivify as a spell (you cast it before their soul leaves the body) while downgrading delay death. Something like this thread. I'd also like to see less save-or-lose type spells
Quote:
Monsters: Not sure what needs to be done here, not my thing. Not that much, really?
Types and Subtypes: Do any of these have to change? I remember someone showing how (Undead) could be a subtype, with humanoid (undead) vampires and construct (undead) skeletons, though that's going into details. Maybe have some of the types lose the straight immunities as well. Stabbing a construct in the weakpoint is perhaps harder, but not impossible.
Get rid of outright immunities and save-or-die abilities. Be careful about changing a type into a subtype.
Quote:
Monsters as races: Ah, the big one. So many people want it. So many people have tried it. I've never seen anything quite satisfying.
Keep playable races down to humanoids. Aasimar, Tieflings, and Elan become Humanoid(Extraplanar) and suffer some of the effects that target outsiders. Maybe Kobolds and Dragonborn become Humanoid(Dragon) and are treated as dragons for bane weapons and such.
Quote:
Environments, et al: A few small things that are silly oversights like drowning, but overall okay, I think?
Define what conditions are, so we don't get another IHS.
Another idea: Classes grant X amount of simple weapon proficiencies, and you can trade in 2 simple for 1 martial or 3-4 simple for 1 exotic proficiency, while some classes have suggested lists or set lists that allow for the same rules (such as the monk weapons).
-
Re: Gaols and Giants - The Playground rewrites third Edition
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eldan
your idea of what Circumstance is seems to me to just be glorified DM Fiat Flanking. that is not good.
also, should be merged with dodge and Competence, keeping the dodge type's ability to stack.
Resistance/Protection are enhancements that give enhancement bonuses. my suggestion was to simplify them in terms of gear and combine them.
Swift* and Immediate actions should not be included if it can not be decided that they can be justified.
* if it can not be justified as being separate from an immediate action.
-
Re: Gaols and Giants - The Playground rewrites third Edition
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Grod_The_Giant
It sounds like you've got some good ideas... want to work on that for a bit?
I'll see if I can flesh out the ideas a bit more tomorrow.
-
Re: Gaols and Giants - The Playground rewrites third Edition
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Grod_The_Giant
4e did this. It sometimes made sense, and sometimes didn't. If a wizard throws a fireball at you? I can see making him roll for that. If a pile of rocks fall on your head, who's rolling the attack? Personally, I'd rather stick to saves; if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Just a suggestion for this that I've been fond of for a while: As the core mechanic, whoever's turn it is gets to roll the dice, always. So if the rogue trips a trap and it goes off on him, he gets to make a defense roll. If the Fighter provokes an AoO, he gets to roll his defense. But if it's the other guy's turn and he attacks the PC, he gets to roll it.
I find it keeps things on track better in play, and makes a logical sense, providing a clear distinction for who rolls when.
Anyway, I'm not sure I want to get too involved with this, as I'm personally looking into making something that goes a bit farther away from 3.5 than most of these projects seem to. I'll probably post something about it in the general chat thread tomorrow.
-
Re: Gaols and Giants - The Playground rewrites third Edition
It does, however, need a few additional mechanics, at least one for converting a bonus to a roll into a static defence (not that that is all that hard it's just 10+value).
I think that works, though.
-
Re: Gaols and Giants - The Playground rewrites third Edition
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eldan
It works for quite a few spells, really. Teleportation, Calling, Interplanar Travel, Divination, large-scale destructive magic (all that is beyond the scale of your typical combat).
And that's the good thing about RPGs:
"Okay, we wait for thirty minutes" takes all of five seconds to say, but makes all the difference in the game.
The trick is to not get stuck in the ''fast casting is only for combat spells''. Lots of spells should be able to be cast without taking minutes and hours. Like most divination detection type spells. A spellcaster walks into a room and can detect undead in one round, but it becomes more useless if they must wait 30 minutes. The same way a spellcaster should be able to make an illusion of a door in one round, and not take an hour.
The quicker casting times for high level is a good idea, but don't just make casting times level based. They should be like ''the normal spell takes an hour, but you can cast the fast version with a check'', then higher levels could do it more often/easier...but any spellcaster of any level could at least try.
Circumstance Bonus: I have always liked the idea of randomness. It's something that 3x can really use. How about instead of a static DC, the DM rolls a 1d10 with 1-5 a bonus and 6-10 a penalty.
-
Re: Gaols and Giants - The Playground rewrites third Edition
Oh, absolutely, no discussion on that. In fact, if I go searching around a bit, I once made a list of all the core spells that would work better as rituals, I should be able to find it again.
-
Re: Gaols and Giants - The Playground rewrites third Edition
This is an interesting idea. How much are you planning on modifying the base system, though? Because there are a few parts of the core system that produce all kinds of wonkiness throughout the system.
Ability scores are one. The fact that you can achieve 40 in some stats is what creates wizards with hundreds of HP and meatshieldy monsters that take too long to clear out dealing damage. Capping the bonuses, or at least stopping them from stacking, would prevent the problem... but run into issues with monsters that require those 40-ability scores to function against PCs.
Iterative attacks are another. One real easy fix for iteratives is to make them all at full BAB. This means all would generally hit, and your average fighter would be chopping off 20% of a monsters HP with each full attack, even with a one-handed longsword. The problem, though, is that it has undesired impacts on anything from the to-hit-vs-AC ratio to sneak attacks.
Re: Bonuses, some can likely be eliminated. Circumstance is probably unnecessary, because multiple will end up stacking and they're basically Untyped bonuses under a different name. Dodge bonuses have the similar "stack with one another" clause as Untyped, and so I'm not sure why they're a seperate type.
I would recommend eliminating miss chance and just adding such effects into AC. This simplifies things, and prevents system abuse along the lines of Shock Trooper.
-
Re: Gaols and Giants - The Playground rewrites third Edition
Dodge are separate because you can lose them under certain circumstances, which don't apply to untyped bonuses.
-
Re: Gaols and Giants - The Playground rewrites third Edition
You have approximately a kajillion homebrew classes and races here, and more than enough material to whip up races, classes, whatever.
Pick one topic, fix it, move on. The multifaceted "FIXANG EVERYTHING" is how I fail my classes nowadays and it'll kill this project just as hard.
-
Re: Gaols and Giants - The Playground rewrites third Edition
I don't think I can really contribute much, but I'll offer ideas for discussion.
Is Con bonus granting stupidly large sacks of HP okay with everyone? If it changes, what is an acceptable alternative?
I see everyone is mostly okay with skills as-is. What about the idea of skills trained equal to Class Number + INT?
Merge Ref save and AC, make all saves 10 + number similar to SWSE?
Modify conditions? Going straight from fully capable to Petrified in one shot is pretty awful. Maybe you could use progressive conditions similar to Fear, like Daze -> Paralyze -> Stun -> Petrify, for example.
Merge Craft, Profession, and Appraise into a single Trade skill?
A few more sane skill DCs (especially Open Lock).
More combat maneuvers available to everyone, aside from just Trip, Disarm, etc.
Remove dependency on magic items, but keep them prominent?
How can BAB be made to matter more than to-hit bonuses?
Unrelated to mechanics though, it might be a good idea for people serious about the project to link it in their signatures to gather continued interest
-
Re: Gaols and Giants - The Playground rewrites third Edition
Just as browse: however, fixing piece per piece never gets anywhere. Many of the larger problems are with the basic framework. Plus, one big fix has the advantage that we can balance things against each other.
Dsurion:
HP are okay, I think. I don't think I ever had a problem with it.
AC and reflex are very different, I don't think merging them works.
I am all for making more condition tracks, like fear, fatigue and nausea. I want one for Death, personally, which would solve a lot of problems with Save or Dies.
Anyway.
People, we are getting logged down with details. So far, I think I'm the only one who talked about broad design goals instead of small fixes they'd like to see. And we still don't have a system for actually agreeing on what we put in or not.
Therefore, we need to elect leaders now. People said two, I think that's not the worst ideas.
Three steps:
1. Out of those people who said they would do it (first page) someone is nominated.
2. People vote for or against. I'm thinking 24 or 48 hours should be enough time to vote.
The Volunteers are:
Welknair
Grod the Giant
Eldan
And... those seem to be all. If anyone else wants to volunteer, tell me.
The leaders duties should be:
Nominating project leaders for different parts of the series.
Deciding when new projects should be started.
Updating a Design document, similar to mine, and picking out of the discussion what goes in there, by deciding when a consensus seems to be reached.
The two leaders should likely meet on Skype to discuss these things with each other.
-
Re: Gaols and Giants - The Playground rewrites third Edition
GitP Username: WaylanderX
Skype Username, if applicable: Waylanderm
How much time can I contribute?: An hour per day, maybe 2 if needed.
Skills and credentials: New magic systems are my speciality. Furthermore I can come up with a variaty of other things. I'll improvise ;P.
Preferred project: Magic Systems, Base classes & Races, General Brainstorming.
Do you wish to be one of the organizers?: I don't have that much experience yet with homebrewing, also I'm not quite adept at leading people. If you really need somebody to take charge though, I'm willing to organize in a pinch.
Yoyo peeps,
This seemed like a very fun project to me and I hope you'll let me, somebody who is not as experienced as some of you, join. If so, I'm looking forward working with you all ^^.
Greetz,
Way
-
Re: Gaols and Giants - The Playground rewrites third Edition
M Eve does not seem to be a valid username. Spaces aren't allowed, and M_Eve didn't yield any results.
-
Re: Gaols and Giants - The Playground rewrites third Edition
Changed, should work now.
Waylanderm
-
Re: Gaols and Giants - The Playground rewrites third Edition
Knowing how busy Welk is with other projects as well, I'll vote for the other two, though if Eldan's more unreliable, we might want to see if there's someone else? What do you think Eldan?
-
Re: Gaols and Giants - The Playground rewrites third Edition
Perhaps unreliable is the wrong word? I don't know.
I tend to be impatient. If something loses steam, I know that I become likely to get frustrated and drop projects after shouting at people a few times.
Though so far, I seem to be organizing anyway, so I would continue doing that. But I'd rather like a second co-leader to shout at me when I begin to lose motivation.
-
Re: Gaols and Giants - The Playground rewrites third Edition
Sorry, didn't mean to sound...critical. I was more just repeating what you said in your post: "Do you wish to be one of the organizers?: I can. But I'm not the most reliable person."
That being said, you seem to be handling a lot of it, organizing this, you own the thread, and have a good vision/sense of where we should be going, so I'm more to say that you are naturally one of the leaders. I was just concerned by your words, so as long as whoever you work with works well in partnership with you, I'd say we'd be fine.
-
Re: Gaols and Giants - The Playground rewrites third Edition
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eldan
The Volunteers are:
Welknair
Grod the Giant
Eldan
And... those seem to be all. If anyone else wants to volunteer, tell me.
Sorry, but after thinking it over a bit, I think I'd be best off skipping this project. My ideas for a "fixed D&D 3rd edition" would really be more like a fixed universal D&D, pulling material from several different editions for the best options. And the biggest problem with doing that is that it may make base 3.5e incompatable with the end result - running against one of the design goals.
-
Re: Gaols and Giants - The Playground rewrites third Edition
On the subject of casting times:
I think my wizard fix makes my opinion on the matter fairly clear. I like rituals as a way of expanding spells known lists, but I also like having so many spells available for clever players to use in combat.
On the subject of bonus types:
I support the merging of various divine bonus types, various magic types, and on circumstance modifiers. DM fiat is a vital element to making a system like this work without adding in page after page of rarely-reference circumstantial rules... exactly what we're trying to cut down on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dsurion
Is Con bonus granting stupidly large sacks of HP okay with everyone? If it changes, what is an acceptable alternative?
I'd like to see very low-level play be a bit more survivable, but that's probably just me. Hit points seem fine, though I wouldn't be entirely unopposed to changing from hit die to flat numbers.
Quote:
I see everyone is mostly okay with skills as-is. What about the idea of skills trained equal to Class Number + INT?
I like skill points, honestly. It adds a touch of complexity, and allows for more customized characters.
Quote:
Merge Ref save and AC, make all saves 10 + number similar to SWSE?
Nah.
Quote:
Modify conditions? Going straight from fully capable to Petrified in one shot is pretty awful. Maybe you could use progressive conditions similar to Fear, like Daze -> Paralyze -> Stun -> Petrify, for example.
I kind of like this idea. Mutants and Masterminds, a system which I've been running lately, does a similar thing with the Affliction power-- progressively worse conditions based on how badly you fair your save.
Quote:
More combat maneuvers available to everyone, aside from just Trip, Disarm, etc.
I do support making combat maneuvers better and simpler, but do you have suggestions for new ones?
Quote:
Remove dependency on magic items, but keep them prominent?
Yes.
Quote:
How can BAB be made to matter more than to-hit bonuses?
Hmm...
Quote:
Unrelated to mechanics though, it might be a good idea for people serious about the project to link it in their signatures to gather continued interest
Yes.
-
Re: Gaols and Giants - The Playground rewrites third Edition
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TheWombatOfDoom
That being said, you seem to be handling a lot of it, organizing this, you own the thread, and have a good vision/sense of where we should be going, so I'm more to say that you are naturally one of the leaders. I was just concerned by your words, so as long as whoever you work with works well in partnership with you, I'd say we'd be fine.
Yeah. At the current stage, I just relish having something to do with my free time. So, I can invest a lot into this for the foreseeable future.
LIke your wizard fix, Grod. Some of the same ideas as mine, but overall simpler. I think I like it.
A few other points:
I love third edition D&D. It is my favourite system, and I have tried many (Shadowrun, Vampire, Mutants and Masterminds, FATE, Gamma World, Dark Heresy and perhaps half a dozen less well known ones). I think fundamentally, it works and we honestly don't need that many changes. The framework is sound, there are just some things on top of it that are broken. I say we fix what needs fixing, simplify a thing or two that we don't really need to, but think is helpful and make the one or other improvement. That's all.
Skill points should stay in, as far as I'm concerned. I like having a character with fewer points in more skills, especially at high level. And starting a character with one rank in profession: undertaker, or craft: weaponsmith is a nice way of adding some background.
I honestly don't care much either way on rolled saves and static DCs vs. static defences and rolled attack spells. The result is mostly the same.
Condition tracks are a good thing, and I think they would solve many problems, mostly with save or dies. We have a fear track, an exhaustion track and a nausea track. My suggestion is adding another stun track and make them all have four steps, from "mildly annoying penalty (sickened, fatigued)" to "out of the fight" (paralyzed, panicked). Do we need any more tracks?
Combat maneuvers: Spontaneously, I'm thinking of adding a limited power attack and some kind of standstill maneuver that stops enemies from moving past you.
Magic items: start by dropping the "+4 to [stat]" items. Or at least, reduce them to a handful. Include a few other ways of increasing stats. Which reminds me of another point, see below.
Base attack: iteratives should matter more. Having all attacks at full BAB is perhaps a bit good, but how about changing 15/10/5 into 15/10/10, i.e. having all iteratives at the second best value?
Races: I've been thinking of this. Someone suggested bloodlines. My idea was this: in normal 3.5 you gain a stat point every four levels. How about dropping that and replacing it with a racial bonus, or a selection of several racial boni? Steal from the racial paragons a bit. "At level 4, an elf gains +2 to wisdom or dexterity, their low-light vision doubles in range and their bonus to listen checks increases to +4". Just a bit less boring than that.