Gaols and Giants - The Playground rewrites third Edition

[Grod_The_Giant]

Originally Posted by Yitzi

Perhaps the best way is to make a lot of the options modular; that way, there's less to keep track of but still a whole lot of options (more options generally makes for a richer game, as long as you don't have some classes with far more options and comparable power to others.)

Mmm, yeah. It'd be pretty easy to make skill tricks modular. Feats... I dunno. It'll probably be OK, for the most part, as long as players aren't idiots about not recording what their abilities do.

Pre-made example characters aren't a bad idea, all told. We might also write up some suggested feat/skill trick/spell tracks, like the PHB2 had in the back. You know, something to help both new players and busy DMs.

[toapat]

Talking to Grod over a rather ignorant Fighter homebrew has reminded me of something highly critical you have to address:

Each class needs to have their own personal dedicated Storytelling Niche/Archtypal Framework. One of the significant problems in 3.5 is the number of classes doing the same thing. ACFs have their place, in order to give options for the execution of a concept or role. having a hundred classes for that is not the way though. PF kinda toyed with this concept, but their archetypes being implemented post-core instead of pre-core resulted in things like paladin being worthless as anything more then a healgod

Quick class ideas:
Barbarian: Noble Berzerker
Ranger: Relyable master at arms/ Aragorn (Mixed in with Fighter)
Paladin: Knight-Errant. Light of the people
Knight: Knight in Shining Armor
Priest: Preacher of the faith, healer (cleric kinda steps (with a Mobile Launch Platform) on paladin's toes)
Mage: Learned Caster, Limited (as in to a theme, or to a school) in spells known
Sorcerer: Wild Caster, could have a Warlock (Trade for spellcasting) ACF
Druid: As usual, but no pet

classes i cant find space for:
rogue: kinda the same space as ranger
fighter: too much mechanical overlap with ranger

[toapat]

Another thing needed: A solid glossary. Having the systems worked out is only half the battle, you have to make sure that you reinforce those systems with RAW in such a way that issues like Battle Blessing affects all spells you cast in 3.5, not just those cast from paladin spell slots or that are on the paladin spell list

[Grod_The_Giant]

Originally Posted by toapat

Talking to Grod over a rather ignorant Fighter homebrew has reminded me of something highly critical you have to address:

Each class needs to have their own personal dedicated Storytelling Niche/Archtypal Framework. One of the significant problems in 3.5 is the number of classes doing the same thing. ACFs have their place, in order to give options for the execution of a concept or role. having a hundred classes for that is not the way though. PF kinda toyed with this concept, but their archetypes being implemented post-core instead of pre-core resulted in things like paladin being worthless as anything more then a healgod

Mmm. Personally, I dislike putting too many roleplay restrictions on classes, be they implicit or explicit. A certain amount of restriction is inevitable-- you can't use the wizard class to be a master swordsman-- but you should be able to play a barbarian as a cursed-but-noble warrior, a savage berserker, a trained warrior who pushes himself into a perfectly-focused fighting state, or what have you.

For me, each base class should have its own distinctive mechanic. Barbarians get rage, and associate rage-based powers and abilities. Paladins get smite and lay on hands, and abilities that build off that. Warblades get maneuvers. Fighters get, I don't know, dice pools. Playing a different base class should be a different experience. It doesn't have to be a complete subsystem, but a distinctive, overarching thematic power or two.

Quick class ideas:
Barbarian: Noble Berzerker
Ranger: Relyable master at arms/ Aragorn (Mixed in with Fighter)
Paladin: Knight-Errant. Light of the people
Knight: Knight in Shining Armor
Priest: Preacher of the faith, healer (cleric kinda steps (with a Mobile Launch Platform) on paladin's toes)
Mage: Learned Caster, Limited (as in to a theme, or to a school) in spells known
Sorcerer: Wild Caster, could have a Warlock (Trade for spellcasting) ACF
Druid: As usual, but no pet

classes i cant find space for:
rogue: kinda the same space as ranger
fighter: too much mechanical overlap with ranger

Why "noble" barbarians? I would reverse your evaluations of fighters and rangers. Otherwise, something like that, yeah.

I've actually been toying with the notion of "savage" classes verses "civilized" classes. It seems to me that there are an awful lot of classes that can be paired up along those lines. Barbarians vs Fighters. Wizards vs Sorcerers. Clerics vs Favored Souls. And so on.

Originally Posted by toapat

Another thing needed: A solid glossary. Having the systems worked out is only half the battle, you have to make sure that you reinforce those systems with RAW in such a way that issues like Battle Blessing affects all spells you cast in 3.5, not just those cast from paladin spell slots or that are on the paladin spell list

I... organization is good, yes. I'm not sure what your complaint here is, though, other than "remember to edit."

[Yitzi]

Originally Posted by Grod_The_Giant

I... organization is good, yes. I'm not sure what your complaint here is, though, other than "remember to edit."

I think he's saying you need to be careful and systematic when writing the rules, so that you don't get loopholes such as one class's abilities boosting another class's spells and granting far more power than you intended.

[toapat]

Originally Posted by Grod_The_Giant

Why "noble" barbarians? I would reverse your evaluations of fighters and rangers. Otherwise, something like that, yeah.

I've actually been toying with the notion of "savage" classes verses "civilized" classes. It seems to me that there are an awful lot of classes that can be paired up along those lines. Barbarians vs Fighters. Wizards vs Sorcerers. Clerics vs Favored Souls. And so on.

The story archetypes were not intended to be Roleplay constraints. they were simply there to explain my concept a bit better (which i realize i worded really badly)

My concept, was to build around the ideas presented in each short fluff a character class. Paladin is for instance looked at as the holy warrior, but then you have cleric, Favored Soul, crusader, Soulborn, and that psionics dude no one talks about. Giving each class their space, then building each class within that space to the achievement of the concept.

I think a duality of all the classes would be a bit limiting, and also not a preferable design decision: Wizards (Hard Work) are opposite Warlocks (buy a thesis), while sorcerers and favored souls are opposite themselves (sorcerers look on their power as a curse, gift, or tool).

Cleric and Wizard were replaced on my concept list not because they are bad in and of themselves, but because one is OP no matter what, and the other uses a mobile mountain to crush paladin's space into non-existance

Originally Posted by Yitzi

I think he's saying you need to be careful and systematic when writing the rules, so that you don't get loopholes such as one class's abilities boosting another class's spells and granting far more power than you intended.

actually, it is a note to remind them to right a high quality glossary, so Non-RAW terms like <Class> Spells become RAW, and slightly less broken. Battle blessing is a good example for a feat that gets more powerful the more you read into it. It applies to all spells you cast as a result of using rules that arent.

[Yitzi]

Originally Posted by toapat

actually, it is a note to remind them to right a high quality glossary, so Non-RAW terms like <Class> Spells become RAW, and slightly less broken. Battle blessing is a good example for a feat that gets more powerful the more you read into it. It applies to all spells you cast as a result of using rules that arent.

The same could be done just by saying "spells gained from the Paladin class" in the ability description. You only need a glossary when you're using a concept so often that it's easier to define it in a glossary and then refer to it than to mention it separately each time.

[toapat]

Originally Posted by Yitzi

The same could be done just by saying "spells gained from the Paladin class" in the ability description. You only need a glossary when you're using a concept so often that it's easier to define it in a glossary and then refer to it than to mention it separately each time.

the example of battle blessing is just simply a feat that RAI is not as powerful as it is RAW, because the terms it is using, dont exist. SotAO has the same problem, but using wizards spells

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Originally Posted by Yitzi

The same could be done just by saying "spells gained from the Paladin class" in the ability description. You only need a glossary when you're using a concept so often that it's easier to define it in a glossary and then refer to it than to mention it separately each time.

In that particular case, "spells gained from the Paladin class" works, but it would be better to have a more comprehensive definition of what "X spells" means. Does "cleric spells" include spells gained through the G&G equivalent of Arcane Disciple or Wyrm Wizard? Is it a "wizard spell" if it's a wand of a spell on the wizard's spell list created by a wizard? Is there a difference between adding something to the paladin list and your paladin list? Much better to have one single definition to cover all cases, because if you have any abilities at all that let you access other classes' spells in any way it will come up then.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Soooo...is this still happening and people just haven't been updating, or has it died like all the other community fixes?

[Lord_Gareth]

Originally Posted by PairO'Dice Lost

Soooo...is this still happening and people just haven't been updating, or has it died like all the other community fixes?

Well, the trouble on doing these sorts of fixes is that most attempts at quality control would require the thread to have an owner. No owner, no control - no control, no consensus, no project. In this case, some of the posters had very poor-quality ideas or strong disagreements with other posters, and since thread ownership isn't a thing here there was no method to remove the dissenters and thus continue the project.

Incidentally, not complaining about the lack of thread ownership - just explaining the consequences thereof. This sort of thing would roll much better on another forum, whereas GitP is great for getting, say, mass peer review.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Yeah... it's... it's dead, Jim. Sorry, all.

In retrospect, I don't think we ever really had enough writers. There were a few people at first, but the number dwindled to just me an Eldan, and somehow I was cranking out almost the entire volume. There was a lot of good feedback, and we had sorted out a lot of the bigger arguments, but... well, I got bogged down with finals, and suffered a laptop fatality while on vacation not long thereafter. By that point, it was pretty dead.

I don't know. I personally think we had a lot of the basics down pretty solidly-- revised combat mechanics, modified basics, good ideas for skill changes, a reasonable amount of agreement on the magic... most of what was left was volume-- spell rewrites, skill tricks, revised races, and revised classes.

If there's still interest, I could try to get back into it. Most of the crucial threads were mine to begin with-- combat and magic, and skills never got to far. And I, at least, was pretty OK with the direction things were going. I dunno; thoughts? Was what we had worth continuing? If I take command, with community interest but "the buck stops here" authority, might this work?

Update: IT LIVES!

[toapat]

Originally Posted by Grod_The_Giant

If there's still interest, I could try to get back into it. Most of the crucial threads were mine to begin with-- combat and magic, and skills never got to far. And I, at least, was pretty OK with the direction things were going. I dunno; thoughts? Was what we had worth continuing? If I take command, with community interest but "the buck stops here" authority, might this work?

Im still interested, but i think that you would have to start first with a solid and more useful Glossary and then build around such.

[Eldan]

I'm still sort of here. Though I must admit that I found out that I was much more interested in discussing the broad strokes instead of getting down and writing up every skill on the list. I guess I could start it up again.