New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 7 of 11 FirstFirst 1234567891011 LastLast
Results 181 to 210 of 326
  1. - Top - End - #181
    Halfling in the Playground
     
    DrowGuy

    Join Date
    Sep 2016

    Default Re: [D20 Legends Project] Ashiel's Crunchy but Approachable D20

    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?

  2. - Top - End - #182
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Ashiel's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2009

    Default Re: [D20 Legends Project] Ashiel's Crunchy but Approachable D20

    Quote Originally Posted by Kryzbyn View Post
    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.
    You are my God.

  3. - Top - End - #183
    Orc in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2016

    Default Re: [D20 Legends Project] Ashiel's Crunchy but Approachable D20

    Will retraining be a thing in D20L?
    Chief Librarian and Chronicler of Ashiel

  4. - Top - End - #184
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Ashiel's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2009

    Default Re: [D20 Legends Project] Ashiel's Crunchy but Approachable D20

    Quote Originally Posted by Klara Meison View Post
    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.
    You are my God.

  5. - Top - End - #185
    Orc in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2016

    Default Re: [D20 Legends Project] Ashiel's Crunchy but Approachable D20

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashiel View Post
    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.
    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.
    Chief Librarian and Chronicler of Ashiel

  6. - Top - End - #186
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Ashiel's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2009

    Default Re: [D20 Legends Project] Ashiel's Crunchy but Approachable D20

    Quote Originally Posted by Klara Meison View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Ashiel; 2016-12-03 at 12:49 PM.
    You are my God.

  7. - Top - End - #187
    Orc in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2016

    Default Re: [D20 Legends Project] Ashiel's Crunchy but Approachable D20

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashiel View Post
    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.
    Chief Librarian and Chronicler of Ashiel

  8. - Top - End - #188
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Ashiel's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2009

    Default Re: [D20 Legends Project] Ashiel's Crunchy but Approachable D20

    Quote Originally Posted by Klara Meison View Post
    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).
    You are my God.

  9. - Top - End - #189
    Halfling in the Playground
     
    DrowGuy

    Join Date
    Sep 2016

    Default Re: [D20 Legends Project] Ashiel's Crunchy but Approachable D20

    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?

  10. - Top - End - #190
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    LordOfCain's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2015

    Default Re: [D20 Legends Project] Ashiel's Crunchy but Approachable D20

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashiel View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Red Fel View Post
    Imagine how many problems you can solve, how many ways you can help your friends, when not constrained by paltry morality! Imagine how much good you can achieve when you're willing to go to any length to achieve it! Imagine the monsters you can slay when you are the greatest monster of them all!
    Company Website: http://lernaeanstudio.com
    PF 3pp Subreddit I Mod: r/Pathfinder3pp

  11. - Top - End - #191
    Orc in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2016

    Default Re: [D20 Legends Project] Ashiel's Crunchy but Approachable D20

    How do Lines of Sight and Lines of Effect work? Pathfinder rules are delightfully unhelpful on the topic.

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic chapter said
    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:

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic chapter said
    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:

    Quote Originally Posted by Pathfinder glossary said
    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, 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:

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic chapter said
    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. 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.
    Chief Librarian and Chronicler of Ashiel

  12. - Top - End - #192
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Ashiel's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2009

    Default Re: [D20 Legends Project] Ashiel's Crunchy but Approachable D20

    Quote Originally Posted by LordOfCain View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Klara Meison"
    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.

    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.
    You are my God.

  13. - Top - End - #193
    Orc in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2016

    Default Re: [D20 Legends Project] Ashiel's Crunchy but Approachable D20

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashiel View Post
    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.


    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.

    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?
    Chief Librarian and Chronicler of Ashiel

  14. - Top - End - #194
    Halfling in the Playground
     
    DrowGuy

    Join Date
    Sep 2016

    Default Re: [D20 Legends Project] Ashiel's Crunchy but Approachable D20

    It would be neat if spells like searing light can hit through windows since, ya know, it's light :P

  15. - Top - End - #195
    Dwarf in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2016

    Default Re: [D20 Legends Project] Ashiel's Crunchy but Approachable D20

    Quote Originally Posted by Kryzbyn View Post
    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.
    Founding member of the Cult of Ashiel

  16. - Top - End - #196
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Ashiel's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2009

    Default Re: [D20 Legends Project] Ashiel's Crunchy but Approachable D20

    Quote Originally Posted by Klara Meison View Post
    >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.

    How will you handle modification(mod) support?
    I'm not sure I understand the question.
    You are my God.

  17. - Top - End - #197
    Orc in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2016

    Default Re: [D20 Legends Project] Ashiel's Crunchy but Approachable D20

    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.
    Chief Librarian and Chronicler of Ashiel

  18. - Top - End - #198
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Ashiel's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2009

    Default Re: [D20 Legends Project] Ashiel's Crunchy but Approachable D20

    Quote Originally Posted by Klara Meison View Post
    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.
    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.
    You are my God.

  19. - Top - End - #199
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    LordOfCain's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2015

    Default Re: [D20 Legends Project] Ashiel's Crunchy but Approachable D20

    A 'priority list' seems like it would be a welcome addition to any d20 game.
    Quote Originally Posted by Red Fel View Post
    Imagine how many problems you can solve, how many ways you can help your friends, when not constrained by paltry morality! Imagine how much good you can achieve when you're willing to go to any length to achieve it! Imagine the monsters you can slay when you are the greatest monster of them all!
    Company Website: http://lernaeanstudio.com
    PF 3pp Subreddit I Mod: r/Pathfinder3pp

  20. - Top - End - #200
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Ashiel's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2009

    Default Re: [D20 Legends Project] Ashiel's Crunchy but Approachable D20

    Quote Originally Posted by LordOfCain View Post
    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.
    You are my God.

  21. - Top - End - #201
    Orc in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2016

    Default Re: [D20 Legends Project] Ashiel's Crunchy but Approachable D20

    What races are planned to be included in the core?
    Chief Librarian and Chronicler of Ashiel

  22. - Top - End - #202
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Ashiel's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2009

    Default Re: [D20 Legends Project] Ashiel's Crunchy but Approachable D20

    Quote Originally Posted by Klara Meison View Post
    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.
    You are my God.

  23. - Top - End - #203
    Dwarf in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2016

    Default Re: [D20 Legends Project] Ashiel's Crunchy but Approachable D20

    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.
    Founding member of the Cult of Ashiel

  24. - Top - End - #204
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Ashiel's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2009

    Default Re: [D20 Legends Project] Ashiel's Crunchy but Approachable D20

    Quote Originally Posted by Tels View Post
    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...
    1. Spells and SLAs are always the same magic level regardless of the caster.
    2. Spells and SLAs are always cast at your character level (CL boosting effects aside).
    3. Spells and SLAs are harder to resist based on the caster's abilities, rather than magic level.
    4. 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.

    *: 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.
    You are my God.

  25. - Top - End - #205
    Dwarf in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2016

    Default Re: [D20 Legends Project] Ashiel's Crunchy but Approachable D20

    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.
    Founding member of the Cult of Ashiel

  26. - Top - End - #206
    Orc in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2016

    Default Re: [D20 Legends Project] Ashiel's Crunchy but Approachable D20

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashiel View Post
    Though in the odd chance that something explicitly requires spells, a SLA wouldn't cut it. Sorry succubus.
    That's racist and you know it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tels View Post
    So a Gnome, or Succeed bus
    See, that's not racist, that's cool. Succubi do like to succeed a busload.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashiel View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tels View Post
    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)?
    Chief Librarian and Chronicler of Ashiel

  27. - Top - End - #207
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Ashiel's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2009

    Default Re: [D20 Legends Project] Ashiel's Crunchy but Approachable D20

    Quote Originally Posted by Tels View Post
    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.

    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" ).

    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.
    You are my God.

  28. - Top - End - #208
    Orc in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2016

    Default Re: [D20 Legends Project] Ashiel's Crunchy but Approachable D20

    >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.
    Chief Librarian and Chronicler of Ashiel

  29. - Top - End - #209
    Dwarf in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2016

    Default Re: [D20 Legends Project] Ashiel's Crunchy but Approachable D20

    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.
    Founding member of the Cult of Ashiel

  30. - Top - End - #210
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Ashiel's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2009

    Default Re: [D20 Legends Project] Ashiel's Crunchy but Approachable D20

    Quote Originally Posted by Klara Meison View Post
    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.

    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...
    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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...
    Spoiler: Puzzle Spoiler
    Show
    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.
    You are my God.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •