Magic Sword: Fourth Edition Reborn

[Gligarman2]

You can roleplay your necromancer as Lawful Evil. Alignment is just no longer an official game mechanic or inherent creature trait.

There are still various levels of morality, they just no longer - by default - all have names.

F-CK YES! WORLD DOMINATION! HEHEHE! I'LL BE THE GREATEST ARCHVILLAIN EVER! MWAHAHAHA!

Thanks! You have let me play my Bond Villain Well-Intentioned Extremist. I'll play nice.

[Dark Elf Bard]

Can you play your necromancer as Good?

[Gligarman2]

Did you just ask me to play a bond villain knight templar necromancer as good? Totally confused.

[Dark Elf Bard]

Yes. Yes, I did.

[Chainsaw Hobbit]

My first thing on the art of Magic Sword ...

Female Characters

The way female characters have been portrayed in D&D has changed drastically over the years. At first, the crew was entirely male, and feminism was only starting to be a widespread thing. I hardly need to describe the results. Later, attempts to give the women portrayed in the art more practical clothing and more dignity were made, but there were still chainmail bikinis here and there; especially in smaller productions such as Dragon magazine.

Now, recently, there have been a lot of female adventurers. This isn't a bad thing, but given the implied setting, I'm not sure including many female adventurers will be appropriate. This is simply because, in the setting, adventurers are much more likely to be male. While the guys are out stabbing things and then robbing them, the women are making money the sensible way: getting grown-up jobs. This isn't to say that there will be NO female heroes, but I intend on making them the minority.

I hope that the female adventures that are present are written as people, not tokens. I dislike the trend where every party has a token female member to keep the game politically correct. This female character also often fills the same role, which I personally disapprove of.

Frank Frezetta, the undisputed emperor of fantasy artists, drew female adventurers CORRECTLY. They didn't look stick-thin and starved, but actually looked like women. An example of my point. I hope the artists of Magic Sword will follow the example.

Finally, about nudity. I think that impractical nudity should not be included in the art. A female warrior should actually be wearing armour that would provide some protection against outside elements. That being said, nudity in some contexts is acceptable. It makes sense for a female druid preforming a fertility ritual to be topless.

Opinions?

UPDATE: I have chosen a better example drawing.

[Ialdabaoth]

IMO, Its TOO flexable and comprehensive. You're trying to cram too many options and too much versatility in to too little a space. I can tell you think like an engineer, which is fine. I do as well. I just think that you might need to cut it down a bit.

Also, the format is a bit cluttered. It kind of made my eyes glaze over. Maybe you should adapt it to a more Essentials-like style? I think it worked out well for me when I was building the Marshall.

The crunch seems rather intact and balanced.

I'm sorry if I sounded harsh. I don't mean to be hard on you.

Not at all; I will prepare Essentials versions of each class this weekend.

[Gligarman2]

My first thing on the art of Magic Sword ...

Female Characters

The way female characters have been portrayed in D&D has changed drastically over the years. At first, the crew was entirely male, and feminism was only starting to be a widespread thing. I hardly need to describe the results. Later, attempts to give the women portrayed in the art more practical clothing and more dignity were made, but there were still chainmail bikinis here and there; especially in smaller productions such as Dragon magazine.

Now, recently, there have been a lot of female adventurers. This isn't a bad thing, but given the implied setting, I'm not sure including many female adventurers will be appropriate. This is simply because, in the setting, adventurers are much more likely to be male. While the guys are out stabbing things and then robbing them, the women are making money the sensible way: getting grown-up jobs. This isn't to say that there will be NO female heroes, but I intend on making them the minority.

I hope that the female adventures that are present are written as people, not tokens. I dislike the trend where every party has a token female member to keep the game politically correct. This female character also often fills the same role, which I personally disapprove of.

Frank Frezetta, the undisputed emperor of fantasy artists, drew female adventurers CORRECTLY. They didn't look stick-thin and starved, but actually looked like women. A non-Frezzeta example of my point. I hope the artists of Magic Sword will follow the example.

Finally, about nudity. I think that impractical nudity should not be included in the art. A female warrior should actually be wearing armour that would provide some protection against outside elements. That being said, nudity in some contexts is acceptable. It makes sense for a female druid preforming a fertility ritual to be topless.

Opinions?

Please keep your art SFW. Also, I personnally highly dislike "Impractical" feminine armor, or similar stick-thin portrayals. However, I think that female adventurers should have some paths, perhaps with backstory easy to make. Maybe there is an insect race that has female workers. They could be a powerful force, a non-evil land from which female adventurers would be all but assumed. Or perhaps job guilds have some problem that they may need to accomplish by sending guild operatives to the task. All sorts of options. Feminism and political correctness do not have to bow to realism. Workarounds should be found that keep the game fun, while sticking to the universe. Grown up jobs may have oppertunities for pillage and murder!

[Chainsaw Hobbit]

I have chosen a better example drawing.

[Gligarman2]

Any other opinions on my block o' text?

[Chainsaw Hobbit]

Any other opinions on my block o' text?

I don't like the idea of adding a new core race at this point in time, but I do agree that there should be options for female characters.

Some stuff I came up with on the spot:

- A wandering gypsy sage who wields both knives and mind-influencing magic. She travels from town to town, telling enthralling stories in pubs for money and solving murders. (Bard)

- An outcast from a barbarian tribe who was unable to fill her assigned gender role. She now fights monsters on the borderlands, hoping to to earn acceptance and glory by one day bringing her tribe the head of an elder dragon. (Fighter)

On a mostly unrelated note, how is your character coming?

[Chainsaw Hobbit]

Feat idea: add half of your intelligence modifier to weapon attack rolls.

This represents using one's wits and observation skills to gain the edge in combat. This is why the smart warrior can defeat the lobotomised ogre. My only concern is that it is overpowered.

[Chainsaw Hobbit]

About monsters ...

The Core Book will have a relatively modest bestiary, but will make up for the lack of selection by including not only monster creation rules, but great advice. Larger collections of monsters - if the game catches on - will be included in later books.

I have made some changes to how monster statistics are generated:

Monsters now have 20 hit points, +5 per level. Brutes have 25, +6 per level. Artilleries get 15, +4 per level. Monsters now also gain +1.5 damage per level, rather than +1. The monster math remains otherwise unchanged.

Now that this is established, we should start building the monster section. I have tentatively complied a list of monsters I think should be included. If you think something should be added or taken away, please say so.

• Carrion Crawler (renamed to somthing, for legal reasons)
• Death Knight (also renamed)
• Demon
• Dragon
• Drake
• Dryad
• Dwarf
• Elemental
• Elf
• Ettin
• Gargoyle
• Gelatinous Cube
• Ghoul
• Giant
• Gibbering Mouther
• Gnoll
• Goblin
• Golem
• Gray Jester (wicked happiness-sucking clown fae)
• Grick
• Hag
• Halfling
• Human
• Kobold
• Lich
• Lizardfolk
• Minotaur (no longer a playable race, but something much scarier)
• Mummy
• Nephillim
• Ogre
• Oni/Ogre Mage
• Orc
• Otyugh
• Owlbear
• Purple Worm
• Ravenfolk
• Redcap
• Scarecrow
• Shrooman
• Skeleton
• Spider
• Stirge
• Toadfolk (the bullywug equivalent)
• Tiefling
• Treant (Including a corrupted evil version)
• Troglodyte
• Troll
• Twig Blight (renamed)
• Wight
• Wraith
• Zombie (with lots of variants)

Another thing I wanted to do was have fewer monsters, but have more variants per monster.

[Ialdabaoth]

IMO, Its TOO flexable and comprehensive. You're trying to cram too many options and too much versatility in to too little a space. I can tell you think like an engineer, which is fine. I do as well. I just think that you might need to cut it down a bit.

Also, the format is a bit cluttered. It kind of made my eyes glaze over. Maybe you should adapt it to a more Essentials-like style? I think it worked out well for me when I was building the Marshall.

The crunch seems rather intact and balanced.

I'm sorry if I sounded harsh. I don't mean to be hard on you.

Upate: This is my equivalent to the Slayer, and This is my equivalent to the Knight/Weapon-master

Is this less cluttered?

[Zelkon]

Feat idea: add half of your intelligence modifier to weapon attack rolls.

This represents using one's wits and observation skills to gain the edge in combat. This is why the smart warrior can defeat the lobotomised ogre. My only concern is that it is overpowered.

Incredibly. Intelligence is now a must have secondary for all strikers and probably everyone else. Plus, it gives a feat tax to anyone who has intelligence as primary. At level 30 it could potentially raise your attack bonus +5, giving you a 25% more chance to hit.

[Gligarman2]

About monsters ...

The Core Book will have a relatively modest bestiary, but will make up for the lack of selection by including not only monster creation rules, but great advice. Larger collections of monsters - if the game catches on - will be included in later books.

I have made some changes to how monster statistics are generated:

Monsters now have 20 hit points, +5 per level. Brutes have 25, +6 per level. Artilleries get 15, +4 per level. Monsters now also gain +1.5 damage per level, rather than +1. The monster math remains otherwise unchanged.

Now that this is established, we should start building the monster section. I have tentatively complied a list of monsters I think should be included. If you think something should be added or taken away, please say so.

• Carrion Crawler (renamed to somthing, for legal reasons)
• Death Knight (also renamed)
• Demon
• Dragon
• Drake
• Dryad
• Dwarf
• Elemental
• Elf
• Ettin
• Gargoyle
• Gelatinous Cube
• Ghoul
• Giant
• Gibbering Mouther
• Gnoll
• Goblin
• Golem
• Gray Jester (wicked happiness-sucking clown fae)
• Grick
• Hag
• Halfling
• Human
• Kobold
• Lich
• Lizardfolk
• Minotaur (no longer a playable race, but something much scarier)
• Mummy
• Nephillim
• Ogre
• Oni/Ogre Mage
• Orc
• Otyugh
• Owlbear
• Purple Worm
• Ravenfolk
• Redcap
• Scarecrow
• Shrooman
• Skeleton
• Spider
• Stirge
• Toadfolk (the bullywug equivalent)
• Tiefling
• Treant (Including a corrupted evil version)
• Troglodyte
• Troll
• Twig Blight (renamed)
• Wight
• Wraith
• Zombie (with lots of variants)

Another thing I wanted to do was have fewer monsters, but have more variants per monster.

More non-evil monsters please. (By which I mean, monsters who would be previously considered good.)

[Gligarman2]

I don't like the idea of adding a new core race at this point in time, but I do agree that there should be options for female characters.

Some stuff I came up with on the spot:

- A wandering gypsy sage who wields both knives and mind-influencing magic. She travels from town to town, telling enthralling stories in pubs for money and solving murders. (Bard)

- An outcast from a barbarian tribe who was unable to fill her assigned gender role. She now fights monsters on the borderlands, hoping to to earn acceptance and glory by one day bringing her tribe the head of an elder dragon. (Fighter)

On a mostly unrelated note, how is your character coming?

So is a bond villain necromancer OK?

[Cabo0se]

Hello! I'm the girl who Gligarman2 requested (I drew the wizard guy...yay!) So if you need any drawings come to me. I hope I'm not too normal for you, and would appreciate comments and other things.

[Surrealistik]

Proposing my Morphling race for inclusion; it's already completely fleshed out:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=210351

[Chainsaw Hobbit]

So is a bond villain necromancer OK?

Yes.

Proposing my Morphling race for inclusion; it's already completely fleshed out:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=210351

Not for Magic Sword core. Its a perfectly fine idea, but I would like to only include a handful of races in the core. If I were to include somthing else, it would probably be the half-orc.

I'm SURE it could be worked into a supplament.

Upate: This is my equivalent to the Slayer, and This is my equivalent to the Knight/Weapon-master

Is this less cluttered?

Why are knight and weaponmaster one build? I believe that there should be four fighter builds: two-handed weapon, one-handed weapon and free hand, two one-handed weapons, and one-handed weapon and shield. The first and the third are strikers. The second is potentially a half-and-half defender/controller.

Also, too many powers.

[Chainsaw Hobbit]

@Surrealistik ...

Its a lot of work making enough monsters to fill the playtest. Could you give me a hand? If you agree, so as not to spoil anything for others, I'll PM you some information.

[Surrealistik]

@Surrealistik ...

Its a lot of work making enough monsters to fill the playtest. Could you give me a hand? If you agree, so as not to spoil anything for others, I'll PM you some information.

Sure; sounds good.

[Chainsaw Hobbit]

Some new monster mechanics I came up with. I plan for all of this to see use in the playtest.

A monster, on top of all of their powers, has three potential powers, displayed under the statblock. The DM rolls a d6 for each monster, even if they are identical. On a 1 or 2, they get the first power. On a 3 or 4, they get the second power. On a 5 or 6, they get the third power. This, of course, does not apply to all monsters, and never applies to minions.

When the elite or solo monster becomes first bloodied, the DM rolls to determine what kind of role it gets a bonus to for the rest of the encounter.

While bloodied, the monster gets two standard actions per round, but takes a -5 penalty to attack rolls.

[Ialdabaoth]

Why are knight and weaponmaster one build? I believe that there should be four fighter builds: two-handed weapon, one-handed weapon and free hand, two one-handed weapons, and one-handed weapon and shield. The first and the third are strikers. The second is potentially a half-and-half defender/controller.

For me, there are four fighter builds: one striker, one defender, one controller, and one leader. (The Warlord is a fighter, you know.)

Also, too many powers.

Too many powers? As in too many options? How is that a bad thing?

[Surrealistik]

To be absolutely honest, I would rather do things on a per monster basis with guidelines rather than codify mechanics as a de facto standard.

One thing I will say though is that there should be strong new recommendations for Solo/Elite design.

Solos should have:

• 5x Standard monster DPR on average, whether through improved action economy or raw damage.
• A method of reliably ignoring or thwarting one or more conditions at some cost to preserve its action economy.
• A 2+ phase combat, delineated by the bloodied status:
  
  • When first bloodied, PCs should gain a 'mini-short rest', allowing them to spend a healing surge, and regain an encounter attack and utility power of the solo's level or lower (or equivalent power points).
  • The solo should have substantially different/novel mechanics when bloodied, including new attacks, changing the remainder of the combat to a skill challenge under duress, lasting impacts on the combat environment, and/or discorporation into sub-monsters. Both these changes keep the fight dynamic and interesting.

Elites should have:

• 2x Standard monster DPR on average, whether through improved action economy or raw damage.
• A method of reliably ignoring or thwarting one or more conditions at some cost to preserve its action economy.

[Chainsaw Hobbit]

Too many powers? As in too many options? How is that a bad thing?

You see, sir, this is why I don't think you should be designing a game on your own. You are very talented, driven, and knowledgeable, but you are an engineer to the core. You improve things by making them more elaborate and adding features.

Every project needs some engineers, but if they compose the entire tea, one ends up with something very detailed, but also convoluted and unintuitive. Every project also needs designers, who improve things by streamlining them and making them more simple.

I don't think that at any time, anyone should have more than, say, six powers to choose from. Six powers (or even as few as three) can still be enough to allow for deep character customization, but not be overwhelming.

I'm not telling you to stop being an engineer. I'm just suggesting that you also look at things from the point of view of a designer.

[Cabo0se]

These are my second and third drawings: the ravenfolk and the gypsy halfling thief. I hope it pleases you!

https://docs.google.com/document/pub...bu5zA_B3vJUAug

https://docs.google.com/document/pub...uRyfTjG-Utfi-8

[Chainsaw Hobbit]

These are my second and third drawings: the ravenfolk and the gypsy halfling thief. I hope it pleases you!

http://https://docs.google.com/docum...bu5zA_B3vJUAug

https://docs.google.com/document/pub...uRyfTjG-Utfi-8

The images are broken.

[Cabo0se]

All fixed ^ ^;

[Chainsaw Hobbit]

All fixed ^ ^;

Thank you! You are awesome. However, the ravenfolk drawing still appears to be broken.

I quite like the halfling, although I would prefer the shoes to be a bit less curly.

[Cabo0se]

Fixed! Again!