I just responded to a thread on the Wiz boards, and it got me thinking: the way D&D, and in fact a lot of the RPGs I've seen, handle magic casters aren't much useful after their spells are gone. While following the suggested "4 encounters per day" is supposed to keep everything in line, but what if that isn't the style the DM wants to go with. And it doesn't take into account a caster not having spells that can be used in an "encounter", which makes them useless even faster. It's not as much of a problem for spontaneous casters, but they can still run out and then go splat. Some newer classes like the Warlock, Incarnum classes, and the Binder don't have this drawback, and seem much more realiable as a result. D&D magic seems to be trying to replicate the "caster running out of power" feel of some literature somewhere (I'm not sure where that is, I don't think I've ever encountered it) without realizing that a game isn't a story.
What do other people think?
I think you're very right. My Spellfont was built around this idea... if he can break his mental barriers preventing him from touching magic, he pretty much gets a constant flow of MP.
I agree. I often dodge the issue of daily limits on casters in games that I run by setting caster limits per encounter or per hour, instead.
The warlock and dragon shaman offer evidence that WotC is looking at the same options. Aside from the casters, HP is what limits most characters (sure, some characters have daily use abilities, but even those are being addressed, seen with the alternate Rage in PHB2).
I will happily embrace a system which removes caster limitations, especially if it reduces the power of casters so that their per-round output is close to that of non-casters.
In my working idea, using my MP system, I think I may reduce MP by 1/2, then institute fatigue and exhaustion rules. Along with that, MP will be restored on a per hour of rest basis, just like VP or nonlethal damage. That way the exhaustion of power effect is still there (which I have seen in literature to an extent), but casters have more functionality in each encounter.
Oh, another idea: The starwars system has casters spend vitality points in order to utilize force powers. Such a system might be possible, though wizard/sorcerer would need a much higher hit die (and it might not make sense). Just a thought of another avenue to explore.
I think that to truly make things work, we might have to reexamine the way magic works. We take for granted that magic provides a lot of "punch" (Swiss-army knife versatility, destructive power, etc.) over a limited number of uses, while non-magic abilities can be used over and over again, as often as necessary. We take for granted that a warrior in full plate can run all over a battlefield for hours, swinging a heavy bar of bladed steel without becoming tired (how is that logical, by the by?), but a magic wielder will eventually lose effectiveness, because there comes a point when his reserves dry up, and he runs out of power for the day.
These assumptions are really ingrained. We take them for granted almost without acknowledging or realizing that we are incorporating an arbitrary standard into our general fantasy worldview and treating it like some kind of inescapable law.
So, why not ditch that assumption of limited daily power? See what happens.
The basic, primal idea of magic involves a sort of limitlessness-- a transcending of the commonly-accepted laws of reality. Naturally, embracing this idea of limitlessness in the context of a game does not help this thread's stated goal of balancing magic against non-magic abilities. So, we need to trim back some of magic's implied limitlessness potential, by imposing some kind of guidelines, to bring it back in line.
By all means, such guidelines should be tailored to fit the style and tone of the campaign setting in question, as they will shape the way magic operates and is perceived.
For example, instead of limiting magic to X uses per day...
Why not change what magic is capable of doing? Maybe magic in World X is ideal for purposes of scrying and prophecy, healing and illusion, but completely useless in terms of destruction and killing? This puts magic users in the role of utility players and moves sword-wavers to the forefront of combat (where they honestly ought to be anyway) by removing the fireball volley and save-or-die effects from the handbook of DnD tactics.
What if, instead, we change the amount of time magic users require to work their effects, or impose the requirement of a rune-inscribed sanctum or other bulky apparatus? If magic can produce powerful effects, but requires an hour or more of runny-candle rituals to accomplish anything, the effects on combat are quite obvious (I can imagine, for example, conventional soldiers defending a besieged area long enough for the mages inside to complete their last-ditch ritual to turn the tides).
Alternately, consider a system of magic in which no caster, acting independantly, has access to much power, but where a group of casters working in concert have more might. More mages in the casting circle means more power, but more opportunity for dissident opinion and political mess. The implications for such a system, where consensus and cooperation are the paths to power, are fun to imagine: one gets a ready image of a magocracy seething with scheming and politics.
Then again, how about a system where magic can be used at will under the right conditions, but those conditions are finicky. Maybe magic doesn't respond in the presence of iron (possibly explaining the archetypical metal-clad warrior prevailing over the supposedly more sophisticated sorceror.) Perhaps magic requires starlight to function, or refuses to operate in the presence of bloodshed, or is inhibited by the proximity of water, or some other idea. Here, it becomes possible to balance a system on the basis of reliable non-magical power vs. magic that accomplishes a wider range of things, but only under certain circumstances. It also sets the stage for a world creator to introduce thematic dichotomy between magic and ______, illustrating the reasons behind this strange natural law. For example, if magic is inhibited by iron, themes of primal and magical nature vs. the order of civilization and industry (perhaps stifling, perhaps protective!) can logically follow. (Remember, magic does not necessarily have to be beneficial and nice!)
Anyway, those are just a few quick ideas to get you started. Tell me what you think: this promises to be an enlightening discussion.
Maybe as the CBG we could develop our own magic system. Even use it in cebegia.
Magic can be balanced if it's not restricted to anyone. A system where anyone or anything can potentially use any level of magic is a balanced system, but not necessarily in a statistical way. There will still be distinctions between master warriors and unstoppable mages, and of course it will require study and training to master either side, but this way it is a character's fault (and maybe a bad DM's) if they fall behind in this way.
Understandably, a system that does this would be more like the core game, but with spellcasting in classes removed for a ruleset kind of like Incantations in UA. It could probably be built with a single core character class (maybe even a modified Expert), and a character just takes points or "levels" or something in combat techniques, skills, and magic strength, etc. while leaving the actual learning of spells to be "free" except for time required to learn and any backlash effects spells may have. At this point, however, the game is a far, far step from the d20 system and might as well be called something else.
Perhaps as the CBG we could develop our own game system. It would be a huge undertaking, but it would be very cool. We could still be a website for worlds designed for d20, GURPs, WoD, etc. but we could carry our own system for gaming as well.
What does everyone else think?
I personally enjoy developing backlash systems; wild magic effects, insanity etc. Witchhunt, that idea sounds like Morrowind. It would be cool to level up when you get a certain amount of skill points (gained through battle) and to be able to create your own spells (MP, casting time affected by what augmentations you add to it). That's a thought...
Quote from: WitchHuntPerhaps as the CBG we could develop our own game system. It would be a huge undertaking, but it would be very cool. We could still be a website for worlds designed for d20, GURPs, WoD, etc. but we could carry our own system for gaming as well.
What does everyone else think?
Exactly what I thought. I think it should be based on D20 fundamentally (keep the rules for AB, abilities, saves etc) but have whole new methods of character creation, spell creation, everything. :)
Luminous Crayon always seems to hit thinks squarely on the blurred head.
Magic is limited to certain non-combat effects: I did this with my Ah'rem setting. There idea there was to look at magic as a sort of replacement for modern or futuristic technology (even if Ah'rem was a steampunk setting). That's where divinations came in, while evocations and conjurations often went out. Secondly I wanted to try and focus on people having to be tricky, so I took out or increased the level of the spells I thought ruined that. However, if a spell could do something like let you see at a distance, it stayed in because it added to a feel of technological effectiveness while still making players have to be tricky and tactical.
Magic requires a lot of effort to get ready: I was going to do this with my Sasam setting. The Invocation optionals rules form Unearthed Arcana and Urban Arcana use this idea. One reason this works for flavor and balance is that potentially anyone can do it: you could have a party of rogues or fighters who can get together to do a spell. Also is might actually increase the draw toward classes that can get the components necessary: fight or sneak your way into the king's personal library to steal a certain musty tome.
Magic requires more than one caster: An interesting idea, but not one I think would work if intended for player use. If we're talking a reasonably large amount of casters than it would probably take the entire team just to do it.
Magic is finiky: This one doesn't quite work in every example mentioned. The whole "magic doesn't work in the presence of iron" is really good because suddenly you have a reason for people to run around in heavy armor when they know that a caster could be around the corner. The downside in that instance is that it would need to be designed so that class that don't have spells and don't wear armor were still competitive.
Other examples, such as magic requires starlight or doesn't work in the presence of water would function poorly mechanically because it would simply turn into an exercise of "how does the caster get neutered this time?".
A route that hasn't been preposed is the alternate direction, where everyone in the group gets magical powers. Of course, this can't reasonably be done with D&D. You need something like a superhero RPG to accomplish it, and superpowered individuals aren't what everyone likes.
Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawLuminous Crayon always seems to hit thinks squarely on the blurred head.
He has a +8 inherent attack bonus against mechanical issues of the D20 subtype. :P
Mmmm.
So, who's in favour of creating our own system? Or at least, heavily modifying D20 to suit our own desires.
@Witchhunt and Golem011: Actually, there is more than one system where every aspect of a character is bought point-buy. Just recently I Mutants & Masterminds, and its character creation system is great: everything from skills to feats to equipment is bought using the points, even attack and defense (AC). Super-powers could quite easily handle magical or extraordinary abilities. The point I'm trying to make is that the point-buy system makes the versitility/power trade-off much more applicable.
Quote from: Golem011So, who's in favour of creating our own system? Or at least, heavily modifying D20 to suit our own desires.
Count me in.
Good good. I know Witchhunt is, so that's me, you, him... who else? :)
Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawLuminous Crayon always seems to hit thinks squarely on the blurred head.
There is a large problem with that, mainly the fact that nobody would use it. Even if we successfully fixed every issue and made the perfect system, I wouldn't use it. D&D is something people recognise and are drawn to, anything else is automatically seen as an imitaton, or just another ruleset. It'd be nearly impossible to get players, and so therefore the project would largely be a waste of energy by all involved.
Sorry to be a pessimist, but everyone needs to see the grim reality of this before you all get carried away.
EDIT: Quoted for relevance
I'D use it. And that's good enough for me.
Quote from: Natural 20There is a large problem with that, mainly the fact that nobody would use it. Even if we successfully fixed every issue and made the perfect system, I wouldn't use it. D&D is something people recognise and are drawn to, anything else is automatically seen as an imitaton, or just another ruleset. It'd be nearly impossible to get players, and so therefore the project would largely be a waste of energy by all involved.
Sorry to be a pessimist, but everyone needs to see the grim reality of this before you all get carried away.
I create settings that no one ever uses, not even me. This is a hobby, it doesn't have to have any practical results, it just has to occupy our minds for X amount of time.
Well then, go for it. I was just pointing out the truth ahead of time.
So, can I help?
Sure you can :P
Anyone can help.
Quote from: Golem011Good good. I know Witchhunt is, so that's me, you, him... who else? :)
Actually, I am well into creating a system of using points to buy everything...
You are?
Quote from: Golem011You are?
I is.
Quote from: WitchHuntMagic can be balanced if it's not restricted to anyone. A system where anyone or anything can potentially use any level of magic is a balanced system, but not necessarily in a statistical way. There will still be distinctions between master warriors and unstoppable mages, and of course it will require study and training to master either side, but this way it is a character's fault (and maybe a bad DM's) if they fall behind in this way.
Understandably, a system that does this would be more like the core game, but with spellcasting in classes removed for a ruleset kind of like Incantations in UA. It could probably be built with a single core character class (maybe even a modified Expert), and a character just takes points or "levels" or something in combat techniques, skills, and magic strength, etc. while leaving the actual learning of spells to be "free" except for time required to learn and any backlash effects spells may have. At this point, however, the game is a far, far step from the d20 system and might as well be called something else.
Alot of this kind of drifts heavily from DnD. I agree incantations-wise, but the separation between classes should remain roughly as it is already. None of this "magic level" or "combat level" or "stealth level".
Rather, we could work it such that your "caster level" works more like a base attack bonus. +1/level for mages. +3/4 levels for dabblers. +1/2 levels for meat-brains.
Likewise, different caster classes would have unique abilities, either combat useful and warlock-esque or to modify incantations (mitigating drawbacks, shortening casting time, leadership status in group rituals, increased parameters, etc.). I think it might be best to use a mix of both.
Well, if we're going to go ahead and build a new system, we should probably start with some rough outlines for everything. "Classes"? Races? Monsters? Combat? Magic use? Equipment? Experience?
I think that the "class" system should be something like what I mentioned above, being something that sort of resembles the D&D Expert NPC class. You know, all-around decent capabilities and no limits on what talents you can learn (unless they're racial, regional, or supernatural limits). All characters could also possibly get so many points to buy abilities with when they start (this could include buying into more powerful races, combat powers, spell packs [probably only 2-4 minor spells per pack?], etc.)
Interested in what people have to say about this and other ideas.
QuoteAlot of this kind of drifts heavily from DnD. I agree incantations-wise, but the separation between classes should remain roughly as it is already. None of this "magic level" or "combat level" or "stealth level".
My intent in my original rambling was to say that we could have a system that basically just removed guaranteed spellcasting from any classes, and make it an optional power that any "normal" class could use. So we'd still have fighters, rogues, barbarians, rangers, paladins, monks, etc. Hell, we could even keep the Cleric and Druid classes and change how they work. But with the proposal of a new system, some of my early suggestions for it are kind of like the whole "magic level, stealth level" deal.
I'd say that maybe Beejazz is right in his thing about classes. Perhaps we could create four generic classes, one with no magery, one with dabbling (equal to poor BAB) one with average (half BAB) and one with full (full BAB.) Races could stay... about the same, although they may need some modification. Perhaps we could fiddle with the abilities (add a 7th, we need to decide what abilities affect casting) and yes, the point-buy stuff is cool. Experience can be used to achieve new levels where you gain new ability bonuses (but races and some other stuff you can't gain except at level 1)
Spells would come maybe in packs, but you could design new ones.
Quote from: WitchHuntWell, if we're going to go ahead and build a new system, we should probably start with some rough outlines for everything. "Classes"? Races? Monsters? Combat? Magic use? Equipment? Experience?
I think that the "class" system should be something like what I mentioned above, being something that sort of resembles the D&D Expert NPC class. You know, all-around decent capabilities and no limits on what talents you can learn (unless they're racial, regional, or supernatural limits). All characters could also possibly get so many points to buy abilities with when they start (this could include buying into more powerful races, combat powers, spell packs [probably only 2-4 minor spells per pack?], etc.)
Interested in what people have to say about this and other ideas.
My idea was classless, in more way than one. :D :D
Your starting package of points can buy abilities, skills, feets, et.
From that point on you spend your XP on raising individual skills/etc.
Quote from: Golem011I'd say that maybe Beejazz is right in his thing about classes. Perhaps we could create four generic classes, one with no magery, one with dabbling (equal to poor BAB) one with average (half BAB) and one with full (full BAB.) Races could stay... about the same, although they may need some modification. Perhaps we could fiddle with the abilities (add a 7th, we need to decide what abilities affect casting) and yes, the point-buy stuff is cool. Experience can be used to achieve new levels where you gain new ability bonuses (but races and some other stuff you can't gain except at level 1)
Spells would come maybe in packs, but you could design new ones.
Well... I would expect more than generic classes for DnD, but for a homebrew I say let's cover all bases. I think maybe that there might be a sort of "tech tree" for spells. You need to know x number of low-level necromancies to get your first mid-level necromancy, and x number of mid-level necromancies to get their first high-level necromancy. We could even use ritual knowledge as a sort of treasure! I don't think spellcasting should rely on some new ability score. Incantaions are pretty straightforward research => execution... so intelligence. The spell-esque class features of druids, clerics, etc. should continue to go on a case-by-case basis.
Yeah, that'd be cool. But should each "section" of the character (hit points and attack skill, talents and powers, statistics, and whatever else we may call the groups) get individual points to spend to start, or should a character just get a pile of points to spend wherever they want? I think there should be minimum amounts spent in each section, but it should be kept pretty lenient.
I like the idea of tech trees. It's starting to make this system sound like it'll be a mixture of d20, WoD, and Diablo II, which is cool to me.
Again, I'm leery of point-buy systems. Incantations can be cast direct from book, or can be kept in memory by those with slots (like spells-known slots) for it.
As someone that has previously created an entire game system, it is a lot of work. And it is true that it is harder to sell (figuratively) homebrew rules to players than packaged stuff they know. That said I did learn a lot from creating the system and running a long game (2 years every week) with it.
I considered trying to submit regular articles on building systems to the guide, but I do not presently have time. Perhaps in the future. I would like to do a revision of my system, using what I have learned. Right now, my current gaming focus is on Kishar, for which I modified D&D mechanics.
On the subject, I'd say the magic system I created for Kishar (see Kishar: Mechanics in my sig) might actually be a way to start down the magic-fix road you describe.
I recommend all of you check out Buy the Numbers as a point-based d20 system that allows some of what you describe. You'd still need to create your own magic system.
I also cannot recommend enough The Riddle of Steel, which is, in my opinion, the finest game system ever created. Again, because it was published by a smaller company, I've had a harder time getting players to try it over D&D. They know D&D, and often players don't want to try something new, even if it may very well be better. But any future work I do on game design, and even houserules, is influenced by my knowledge of TRoS.
I might be willing to lend some help to the project, as I have time, depending on the direction it goes. I kind of lean away from classes, especially the overly specialized classes in D&D which are restrictive.
A class system could look good, if executed properly, but I don't feel that is the case, here.
Well... classes should really reflect the setting. As I see it, you need classes (or class options) for all of the following.
COMBAT(melee)
COMBAT(ranged)
COMBAT(movement)
COMBAT(defense)
EXPERT(skirmish)
EXPERT(social)
EXPERT(stealth)
EXPERT(intel, tech, alchemy)
MAGIC(religious)
MAGIC(primal, natural)
MAGIC(study)
MAGIC(freaking evil)
I dunno... just some *general* guidelines. I would say a minimum of seven classes. I've got my own ideas about magic... like that it is everywhere for anyone who knows where to look. Like in the fairy tales, certain people just plain talk with animals. It isn't that they're druids or anything, it's just that the animal has something to say and the character listens. Y'know?
Are we doing classes or point-buy? My advocacy for point-buy is that you can mix and match any aspect of the character you like without fiddling with things like multiclassing. A single, generic "class" to build on would work because starting with that idea we'd have to design it to hold every concept.
I don't think it's possible to have a divide between different "classes" and stil have the nice complete flexibility of point-buy. I think if we want to have a first step in this process we need to ask how flexible in mechanics we want this to be.
QuoteI recommend all of you check out Buy the Numbers as a point-based d20 system that allows some of what you describe. You'd still need to create your own magic system.
Thus, the beauty of the OGL, it can be so cherrypicked.
Buying spells and spell upgrades with XP is a great start. From that point, damage types can be standardized, and so much can be parsed as extraneous..
Okay... I was all anti-point-buy, but a sacrifice of xp to learn spellcasting would be a cool way of doing things too. The problem, really is saves. Maybe a spellcaster could undergo a "transcendent ecstacy" that boosted saves?
Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawAre we doing classes or point-buy? My advocacy for point-buy is that you can mix and match any aspect of the character you like without fiddling with things like multiclassing. A single, generic "class" to build on would work because starting with that idea we'd have to design it to hold every concept.
I don't think it's possible to have a divide between different "classes" and stil have the nice complete flexibility of point-buy. I think if we want to have a first step in this process we need to ask how flexible in mechanics we want this to be.
I vote also for point buy. Any flavor you like makes it sooo simple.
Flexible in which mechanics.
First idea:
My personal thought is to go to go to FIVE abilities:
STRENGTH
ACCURACY
AGILITY
WILLPOWER
PERCEPTION
Mental stats, as currently exist can go away.
SKILLS:
A few can be folded into others, new ones added to reflect a classless system.
FEATS:
Lots more as class abilities and spell types/classes become built of of them.
I am completely in favor of point buy. I like the five abilities CYMRO has proposed, since they leave room for a character's personality to reflect the player's more instead of having someone try to be someone they're not.
Quote from: WitchHuntI am completely in favor of point buy. I like the five abilities CYMRO has proposed, since they leave room for a character's personality to reflect the player's more instead of having someone try to be someone they're not.
Yay!!
I was also thinking about transmuting alignment into feats that gave auras(and vulnerabilities to certain famous spells). This allows players to not have to be anything, if they do not choose to. But if they do, they stink of it, no matter what the individual actions they commit.
I have Buy the Numbers, and in fact the only thing a really don't like about it is that it's a bit on the number-heavy side. But it does allow one to do D&D in a sort of point-buy way.
Quote from: WitchHuntI am completely in favor of point buy. I like the five abilities CYMRO has proposed, since they leave room for a character's personality to reflect the player's more instead of having someone try to be someone they're not.
Whereas I suggest that being someone you're not is often half the fun. I'm
me every day already.
Is it a matter of personal preference?
Of course.
Quote from: CYMROMy personal thought is to go to go to FIVE abilities:
STRENGTH
ACCURACY
AGILITY
WILLPOWER
PERCEPTION
Mental stats, as currently exist can go away.
SKILLS:
A few can be folded into others, new ones added to reflect a classless system.
First up I'm not sure on your choice of stats. "No mental stats" I really want to go for, since I'm always having a hard time not playing myself. But the physical stats you give are odd:
STRENGTH: Understandable.
ACCURAY: How is this not AGILITY combined with PERCEPTION, which is what accuracy really is.
AGILITY: This name works only if you mean just mean dodging things, otherwise Dexterity still fits the idea of being both agile and having good manipulative abilities with the body.
Why no Constitution or Health score?
WILLPOWER: This could get tricky if you keep the Will saving throw with the same name.
PERCEPTION: Sounds fine.
In some instances it might be better to choose a different name for what you mean. Also, you want to be careful what exactly you need to stat out. One simple system I have does away with the need for coded stats because why do you need to know what they are unless they are actually having an effect, and which point you go and record them how you want them.
Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawQuote from: CYMROMy personal thought is to go to go to FIVE abilities:
STRENGTH
ACCURACY
AGILITY
WILLPOWER
PERCEPTION
Mental stats, as currently exist can go away.
SKILLS:
A few can be folded into others, new ones added to reflect a classless system.
First up I'm not sure on your choice of stats. "No mental stats" I really want to go for, since I'm always having a hard time not playing myself. But the physical stats you give are odd:
STRENGTH: Understandable.
ACCURAY: How is this not AGILITY combined with PERCEPTION, which is what accuracy really is.
AGILITY: This name works only if you mean just mean dodging things, otherwise Dexterity still fits the idea of being both agile and having good manipulative abilities with the body.
Why no Constitution or Health score?
WILLPOWER: This could get tricky if you keep the Will saving throw with the same name.
PERCEPTION: Sounds fine.
some of my ideas:
Accuracy = â,¬Å"to hitâ,¬Â factor
Agility = AC factor, though Dex works just as well
Perception = Spot, cetain save types(illusion comes to mind)
Strength = â,¬Å"damageâ,¬Â factor
Willpower = resistance to compulsions, charms, etc. Maybe even adding this modifier to damage output of certain spells...
Health can be bought as needed/wanted, thus making RPing a weakling possible.
Obviuosly this all needs a bit fine-tuning...
QuoteIn some instances it might be better to choose a different name for what you mean. Also, you want to be careful what exactly you need to stat out. One simple system I have does away with the need for coded stats because why do you need to know what they are unless they are actually having an effect, and which point you go and record them how you want them.
I agree, which is why I think mentals should go. Sorry, LC. I can RP a simpleton, and underdevelop my chracter's knowledge skills and such to reflect he is a moron.
This sounds awesome. Count my vote on removing mental ability scores.
I too tried to design a point-buy based game system. Trust me, you really don't want to know what it looked like.
Quote from: Natural 20This sounds awesome. Count my vote on removing mental ability scores.
I too tried to design a point-buy based game system. Trust me, you really don't want to know what it looked like.
The problem is going it alone. Trust me. I have hit many roadblocks, but I have confidence that our combined brainpower can REALLY screw this up- I mean make this work. :morons: ;)
I'm also a little leery of the proposed abilities. I'm hesitant about "no mental stats"... but willing to try it.
As I see it, dexterity should be split into manual dexterity (lockpicking, crafts, etc.) and gross dexterity (dodging, reflexes, etc.) Strength is good. A constitution-equivalent is necessary. Perception is good... unless you want to add a luck score?
My dexterity split is merely a representation of the fact that an artist is not necessarily an acrobat.
And again, I'm against too heavy of a point-buy. This should be a mixed system at best, with a minmum level for everything to help maintain game balance.
Dexterity works for fine skills.
Agility for the "acrobatics".
Strength.
Perception.
QuoteA constitution-equivalent is necessary.
In a skill based system, where you buy your HP/VP/WP(needs to be worked oot), and Concentration is bought point by point, what does Constitution really mean?
Fort saves?
Should saves be stand alones, or based off another ability?
Mph... I'm curious/agitated as to the extent of this point buy system... still clinging to "levels" as a more easy-to-balance guage of PC power... and easier character creation to boot. Lots of little abilities =/= one big ability. Generic classes with point-buy features and standard-rate skills and feats seems like a better way to go. That or standard character progression and a higher rate of xp exchange... draining your soul and experience to learn a spell or what have you. Constitution seems necessary to me, but if not we should allow for luck. It's useful for gambling and in a pinch can serve as just the "magic-centric" ability we've been looking for.
QuoteGeneric classes with point-buy features and standard-rate skills and feats seems like a better way to go.
Classes as such would not have to exist, but a Guild or Profession from a region (Paladin, hint, hint) might not allow someone to enter their ranks without meeting stringent requirements.
The beauty of a classless system is that someone's ideal build of a favorite is possible, as well as anything else. :)
QuoteConstitution seems necessary to me, but if not we should allow for luck.
Luck is a fine thing for anyone to have.
Two points I'd make:
1) There are many ways to change magic, each of which lends itself to a somewhat different balancing mechanic and even more different flavor in play. It will be hard to create a single system that is all around "better". I'd think you'll be better off choosing a flavor/feel/theme and designing a system that supports it better than the current.
2) I'd be in favor of some kind of class-based mechanic. It could be point-buy or level-based, but the class would particular groups or packages of feats that are available. Personally I'd stick with level-based to be the most accessible to d20/D&D players, but that's just me.
To be clear, I dislike the fairly rigid systems of leveling and class abilities. I'd prefer a more open system where each class provided lists of major and minor abilities that the character can choose wehn they level up or buy with their points.
Skill-based and point-buy systems can be great for designing characters, but they are tough on gamemasters for creating NPC's and can be hard to master for new players. Also, the number of opportunities for min/maxing expands as the number of options expands.
A game I worked on in a previous life had 12 basic characteristics: Strength, Constitution, Dexterity, Agility, Intelligence, Judgment, Willpower, Talent, Social Standing, Charisma, Appearance, and Zeal. That was overkill.
Yes, but I see people sacrificing two things they could get at "fourth level equivalent" to get something "eighth level equivalent". At the very least, people should be limited to spending x% of their points on any one thing. Also, there should be a level-esque guage of power for caster levels, etc. The normal character's "level" is an extraordinarily useful thing for... alot of things, really. Rather than have "classes" I suppose we could have "class templates". Each has a point value, scales with "level" and can only be bought at first, fifth, tenth, etc. Many class features would have these general archetypes as prerequisites. For balance's sake, a hybrid seems the way to go!
I'd just like to suggest my idea for luck as an ability, perhaps we could tie it in with action points? And I shall try to be here as the voice of reason throughout this project, since I suck at mechanics. You all need somebody to tell you when you're going too far, although whether you listen to me or not is purely up to you.
Yeah... kind of ditto. I can modify better than I can write from scratch.
Quote from: Natural 20I'd just like to suggest my idea for luck as an ability, perhaps we could tie it in with action points? And I shall try to be here as the voice of reason throughout this project, since I suck at mechanics. You all need somebody to tell you when you're going too far, although whether you listen to me or not is purely up to you.
A Critical Voice of Reason it is. :D
It is true that point based characters make CRs difficult,
but if one knows the XP total of a character, no matter how he has spent them, you can create appropriate challenges for him based on that. And Templates/Packages, PC or NPC, make a dandy guide, though not as any strict sort of class. Imagine a Fighter with all of the normal fighter bag of tricks, but he sacrificed some weapon profs and other minor class abilities for a selection of cold based spells.
Quote from: beejazzYes, but I see people sacrificing two things they could get at "fourth level equivalent" to get something "eighth level equivalent".
Balancing a system like that is the hardest thing. You could do it with a fairly stringent set of prerequisites and/or feat trees. (E.g., Improved Evasion requires Evasion and +8 Refl save, to put it in SRD terms.) Or you can try to design your class abilities so you can't get that far ahead of yourself (the ability to learn level 6 spells doesn't buy you much if you don't have the spell points/slots/mana/whatever needed to cast them effectively.
But if you think balancing things like that is hard in a class-like system, try doing it in a classless system, where people can buy whatever they feel like.
Again, as long as this stuff doesn't get out of control or become too complicated for character creation, I'm fine with it.
QuoteBut if you think balancing things like that is hard in a class-like system, try doing it in a classless system, where people can buy whatever they feel like.
It just needs to be kept on a prereq system.
Keep up the skull sweat.
I shall return!
Or, regarding CR in a point buy system, you could go all 2e on everyone and just state how much XP a standard version of a monster gives, and state what rate monster XP goes up or down when you buff or weaken them. I think this might actually encourage finding ways other than combat to defeat an enemy sometimes.
Yup.
I personally say that the 'classless' system we're going for is good, but we should keep levels. Each level, a character gains a fixed (small) amount of points to increase stats, buy new spells etc as we're already discussing. Maybe one stat could increase how many you get per level (willpower, maybe, or perception). You can spend these however you want, but there are prerequisites for feats, abilities, etc. At 1st level there'd be more options (spontaneous/learnable casting etc)... perhaps we should choose classes, thinking about it, although classes as Beejazz told of them... not stereotypical, just 'starting packages', as you will, which begin with spontaneous casting/natural casting/book learning/find traps DC20+/extra weapon proficiencies etc etc.
New thread HERE (http://www.thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?14066.last).