What it says on the tin. Part of the reason I haven't been tinkering on these boards lately is that what I'm tinkering with is a heavy-ish overhaul. It would make my system feel a little more 4e (mostly by way of powers and a power structure) while keeping some of the 3x flex and characteristic realness/grittiness. The focus, as always, would be on simple procedures for complex results.
What would be added:
Race and Class, but not as a straitjacket. They give you some starting abilities, and after that it's a perk per level. Some perks require a race or class, but there will hopefully be enough skill-based options to allow significantly non-class-specific building.
Skill groups determined by both race and class. Pretty much, the skill system would work similarly to IH combined with Star Wars Saga.
Power Structure. Tentatively calling it SPU (stance, power, utility). You can have two simultaneously active stances or auras at first level, plus one per five levels. Powers you can use at will as a standard or move action (I may limit it to one power per round). Utilities can be used at will, but they take too long to be used in combat or rely on non-combat contexts (item creation, social skills, rituals, that sort of thing).
Teirs every five levels. Vaguely similar to paragon paths, epic destinies, but with "setting flavor" like PrCs were supposed to have had. Pretty much they open up a few options when you take them, and then you can take or leave their power list as you progress.
Rules to randomly or procedurally generate setting content (few concrete details).
A passive defense (pretty much what attack DCs default to should you be unable to defend yourself).
Moar die types.
What Would be Kept:
Quest-based XP.
Reputation as a function of level and completed quests.
Massive damage threshold, armor as DR, wounds.
Reactions system.
Five schools of magic (with classes, I can call them sorcerer, wizard, druid, warlock, and cleric instead of referring to magic by color).
What might be discarded:
The core mechanic, obviously (and with it, the undefined attack roll dice).
Single roll for attack and damage (bad generally, potentially good for mass combat rules).
Spells backfiring (I may keep some fizzling for attacks, and I may even work in backfiring on significant rituals like raise dead, but nothing's set in stone).
Penalties by way of piling d6s.
What would be changed:
Abilities. Swapped for the standard 6 because this is D20. Generated in a combination of GW and roll 3d6 in order (your race and class determine your high stats; the rest are roll 3d6 in order).
Probably other things I'm forgetting now.
...
Thoughts? Questions?
No questions right away, but I like the design goals and intentions here - I'm sure I'll have more questions once things get a bit further codified, but right now can't come up with any.
LEVELS, XP, and the SETTING
Leveling
The game has levels, and PCs that grow in level.
Players earn XP by setting goals and attaining them. These goals are called quests. Each time a player's character completes a quest, they get 1xp. Players level up when they have (level+1) xp. When they level up, their skills (including attacks and saves) all increase by one, and they pick one perk for which they are eligible.
This means that PCs will level up quickly in the beginning, slowing down at a certain sweet spot. It also means that high levels really mean something, and can take years to attain. It also means that in the levels before easier resurrection, players that reroll will catch up with their companions somewhat.
Levels and Demographics
For the most part, the mortal world is populated by people. Plain old zeroth level people. Fewer people are level 1, fewer level 2, and so on. 5th level is pretty high level in this world.
The potential problem here is that the PCs will spend more time at higher levels and less time at lower levels, in a bottom heavy (as opposed to top heavy world).
The first solution is making low level foes still scary to high level players, at least when they show up in numbers. To that end, players can attack, move, and defend once per round each (the trade down rule allows people to defend more, but at the expense of attacks or movement). Further there are AoO rules and zone based movement (if you become outnumbered in melee, it can become difficult to withdraw as many people threaten you). Finally, damage scales little if at all, and massive damage thresholds scale little if at all. So anyone can wound you if they hit, and anyone can hit you if you play badly.
The second solution is building a world with wild places in dungeons, in wilderness, and in the timeline (I'll explain a timeline system to justify increasing action, and I think you'll like it). Threats objectively exist before the PCs can handle them, but there are good reasons why such threats aren't bringing about the end of the world daily (again, the fact that a human army poses a credible threat to a giant is part of this).
The third solution is the simplest: things that aren't challenging any more aren't worth quests any more. So even though more of the world is "easier," the players will hopefully continue to challenge themselves. The parts of the world that no longer threaten the party remain, but become relegated to random encounters and such instead of being the point of the adventure.
Hexes, Traits, and Levels
Hexes should be large enough that they represent a minimum one day of travel. No road, rough terrain, a heavy load, no horses, weather, and other circumstances will increase the days it takes to travel through a hex. Every day spent in a hex leads to a random encounter.
Each hex has 2 to 4 traits each with a level. For example, a hex might be cold1/mountain3/empire4. There would be a list of cold encounters going from -5 to maybe 15, another list for mountain encounters, and a third list for empire encounters. And you'd roll the following.
1d12
1-4:Cold
5-8:Mountain
9-12:Empire
2d6
2: -5
3: -4
4: -3
5: -2
6: -1
7: 0
8: +1
9: +2
10: +3
11: +4
12: +5
So someone who rolled 3 and 11 would end up in an encounter from the cold list at level 5. So areas have rough levels, and you'll encounter things on a bell curve more or less appropriate to the level the area is.
This would go on the points of light model (civilization is points of light in the dark wild world) mixed with points of darkness (there are also concentrations of badness around mirkwoods and mordors and the like). Also, cities might be placed such that difficult or wild terrain lies between them, but there are easier long ways around. This would provide some meaningful options in situations where you have to get somewhere fast. Players may be forced to risk difficult exploration to get from one city to another in time (say, to deliver a message).
Level-Based Timeline
When I build the world, I'm going to build quests into it. Pretty much there will be twice as many quests (maybe more) as are needed to level for any given level. There are a few reasons for this. First, some quests will be for opposed factions (and players may prefer to pick one faction or the other). Second, so the party can actually fail a few quests. Third, so that some (maybe most) quests can escalate. Pretty much if you ignore the guy summoning Cthulhu, he summons Cthulhu. This is one of the ways to justify "scaling" the world a little (the others being points of light, bigger baddies in dungeons/planes, and the simple fact that weak quests won't earn you xp).
Escalating quests will have a point at which they will escalate (that point being determined by average party level). As a rule, they'll escalate when they would have become easy, to a difficulty a few levels too high for the party. The party will improve the world in the quests they win, while it crumbles a little in the ones they fail or ignore. Eventually the world will be a product of the players' run through it.
I'm liking your way of treating XP. It seems like a great way to get players into the game after starting at first level; they aren't stuck there for long. Then things will slow down, hopefully, as they get more and more involved in the story.
I've added info on the idea of a level based timeline in the second post.
I've also been mulling over the class lists.
For base classes I've got:
Wizard (subtle magic)
Sorcerer (terrain, elements, blasting and the like)
Warlock (dark magic)
Cleric (good magic)
Druid (green magic)
Knight
Barbarian
Archer
Rogue
...I'm thinking one more would round out the list, but I'm not sure what.
Quote from: beejazz
LEVELS, XP, and the SETTING
Leveling
The game has levels, and PCs that grow in level.
Players earn XP by setting goals and attaining them. These goals are called quests. Each time a player's character completes a quest, they get 1xp. Players level up when they have (level+1) xp. When they level up, their skills (including attacks and saves) all increase by one, and they pick one perk for which they are eligible.
This means that PCs will level up quickly in the beginning, slowing down at a certain sweet spot. It also means that high levels really mean something, and can take years to attain. It also means that in the levels before easier resurrection, players that reroll will catch up with their companions somewhat.
This is...beautiful. I've never seen a leveling system that is so elegant, simple, and allows for both combat and roleplaying - or really, any other type of quest - to level. I salute you, sir. The only question I have here: how does the DM determine what constitutes a "quest?" Are their guidelines, or is it just DM's discretion? And how much control does the player have over what constitutes a quest for them, since they are goals?
QuoteLevels and Demographics
For the most part, the mortal world is populated by people. Plain old zeroth level people. Fewer people are level 1, fewer level 2, and so on. 5th level is pretty high level in this world.
The potential problem here is that the PCs will spend more time at higher levels and less time at lower levels, in a bottom heavy (as opposed to top heavy world).
The first solution is making low level foes still scary to high level players, at least when they show up in numbers. To that end, players can attack, move, and defend once per round each (the trade down rule allows people to defend more, but at the expense of attacks or movement). Further there are AoO rules and zone based movement (if you become outnumbered in melee, it can become difficult to withdraw as many people threaten you). Finally, damage scales little if at all, and massive damage thresholds scale little if at all. So anyone can wound you if they hit, and anyone can hit you if you play badly.
I'm interesting in seeing this a bit more codified - the idea makes sense and I'm definitely picking up what you're laying down, so to speak, but I'd like to see some more concrete rules as to how this works.
QuoteThe second solution is building a world with wild places in dungeons, in wilderness, and in the timeline (I'll explain a timeline system to justify increasing action, and I think you'll like it). Threats objectively exist before the PCs can handle them, but there are good reasons why such threats aren't bringing about the end of the world daily (again, the fact that a human army poses a credible threat to a giant is part of this).
Again, makes sense, but a bit more detail as to mechanically how this works would be welcome. :)
QuoteThe third solution is the simplest: things that aren't challenging any more aren't worth quests any more. So even though more of the world is "easier," the players will hopefully continue to challenge themselves. The parts of the world that no longer threaten the party remain, but become relegated to random encounters and such instead of being the point of the adventure.
This will probably be the easiest to accomplish, but I'd like to see you work on options 1 or 2 since they have the most potential to make the world feel vibrant and alive and remove the "Level 12=Godmode" symptom you see sometimes.
I snipped the Hex rules. While interesting and seem balanced, any kind of randomness in encounters is not my cup of tea except in very rare circumstances, so they're not the kind of thing I like. However, reading those, they are the best example of that type of system since it takes into account more than mere rolls, so I like the system, just dislike doing things like that in my games.
QuoteThis would go on the points of light model (civilization is points of light in the dark wild world) mixed with points of darkness (there are also concentrations of badness around mirkwoods and mordors and the like). Also, cities might be placed such that difficult or wild terrain lies between them, but there are easier long ways around. This would provide some meaningful options in situations where you have to get somewhere fast. Players may be forced to risk difficult exploration to get from one city to another in time (say, to deliver a message).
And then I see this and consider revising my entire opinion on random rolling. This creates not only a great points of light feel, but ALSO makes the world feel even more alive and vibrant - when I have more time, I'll be giving those rules a second look.
I'll comment on the rest later on - just want to say that you're taking a very unorthodox view on d20, and it's proving to be utterly amazing.
Quote from: Xathan Back Again
This is...beautiful. I've never seen a leveling system that is so elegant, simple, and allows for both combat and roleplaying - or really, any other type of quest - to level. I salute you, sir. The only question I have here: how does the DM determine what constitutes a "quest?" Are their guidelines, or is it just DM's discretion? And how much control does the player have over what constitutes a quest for them, since they are goals?
Thanks. My goal was to get players motivated by a strategic goal instead of a tactical method, but without using the old gold xp.
As for what constitutes a quest, I'll probably have some guidelines that need to get hammered out. I can list what little I have so far.
1) The goal should be concrete and not relative. First session I ran with this system had "get more than my fair share of the gold," which turned out surprisingly problematic. Not just because of the PvP but because it incentivized some weirdness. Long story short, he had more gold than the others but couldn't get out without their help, and waffled on whether to accept that. In-world the character still had a shit load of gold and probably would have wanted to live to spend it.
2) Success should be uncertain. It doesn't necessarily have to be 50/50, but the closer it is the better things might go.
3) It should take at least one or two sessions to do. If one player averages more than one quest per session they're probably too easy.
4) It should be interesting, and make sense.
5) There should be some other in-game benefit to completing the quest.
4 and 5 pretty much just mean no grinding. If you're wondering how to mechanically balance quests, I don't have the system half written, so I don't have the math on me quite yet.
QuoteI'm interesting in seeing this a bit more codified - the idea makes sense and I'm definitely picking up what you're laying down, so to speak, but I'd like to see some more concrete rules as to how this works.
The rules that make many foes scarier than single foes are sort of back end stuff (there's no specific bonuses or penalties, it's just the structure of the rules that makes it so).
The number one thing that makes hordes of mooks scary is that you can't defend yourself from more than three attacks in a round, and at that point you're sacrificing your attack and movement to do it.
Number two is the wounding system, and the fact that low level foes still hit hard enough to wound you. Pretty much when you get wounded you're going to want to retreat, because it will take a ritual to fix it. Problem is wounds hamper you, and you can get ripped apart if you hadn't planned for a retreat.
Last is the melee/ranged defense split. Melee guys can't hit the faraway ranged guys. Ranged guys can't block melee attacks (they have to dodge melee attacks at a penalty). I may have mages cast two-handed (so they'll likewise need to dodge). Then there's AoOs. So even if your mage can handle twelve mooks in two hits each, if he gets surrounded he can't defend himself well, he can't withdraw without getting hit, and he can't blow them all up without hitting himself.
QuoteI snipped the Hex rules. While interesting and seem balanced, any kind of randomness in encounters is not my cup of tea except in very rare circumstances, so they're not the kind of thing I like. However, reading those, they are the best example of that type of system since it takes into account more than mere rolls, so I like the system, just dislike doing things like that in my games.
Mostly they're about getting lots of material into the game fast and easy, and making an interesting game of getting from point A to point B. Including a travel segment in an adventure can present interesting decisions, and drag the players over a bunch of plot hooks for the next game. If they happen to pick up a quest, I'll know what to prep for next week (my favorite part of the quest system).
QuoteAnd then I see this and consider revising my entire opinion on random rolling. This creates not only a great points of light feel, but ALSO makes the world feel even more alive and vibrant - when I have more time, I'll be giving those rules a second look.
Any rule can be a good rule if it has a purpose and gets used well. I read a lot of blogs about old-school D&D, and some of the ideas are pretty cool and easy to steal and modify. Also I always preferred ECL as the middle of the bell-curve of what you face (instead of the strict rule of what level foe you should be facing).
QuoteI'll comment on the rest later on - just want to say that you're taking a very unorthodox view on d20, and it's proving to be utterly amazing.
Glad you like it. More's on the way.
Quote from: beejazzFor base classes I've got:
Wizard (subtle magic)
Sorcerer (terrain, elements, blasting and the like)
Warlock (dark magic)
Cleric (good magic)
Druid (green magic)
Knight
Barbarian
Archer
Rogue
...I'm thinking one more would round out the list, but I'm not sure what.
Monk?
Also, just pointing out I'm still stalking this thread. Like Xathan, I love the leveling system. While I'm also weary of the random adventure system, it does seem like an interesting thing back end for a X-ly game that doesn't require terribly large amounts of prep for the DM. It could also make the campaign feel far more organic, which is something sometimes lacking from games that exists oddly in some MMOs.
I am interested in seeing how the combat system works out.
Quote from: beejazz
I've added info on the idea of a level based timeline in the second post.
I've also been mulling over the class lists.
For base classes I've got:
Wizard (subtle magic)
Sorcerer (terrain, elements, blasting and the like)
Warlock (dark magic)
Cleric (good magic)
Druid (green magic)
Knight
Barbarian
Archer
Rogue
...I'm thinking one more would round out the list, but I'm not sure what.
I'll get back to the line by line later on (as I mentioned before, my brain's all over the place tonight), but wanted to offer some suggestions here.
Monk works, but you might not want the eastern flavor.
Bard is a fantasy staple, and nothing says you have to keep it as a spellcaster.
Depending on your setting, an Alchemist type class could work
And finally, some kind of scout/skirmisher that works in melee unlike the archer - a Ranger/Hunter class.
I'm thinking I may swap out the archer for hunter (what's a hexcrawl without a class specced for wilderness survival?) and include something at least like a monk.
Monk without the eastern flavor would be tough. But then again, no real unarmed martial artist would walk out into a battlefield where people were wearing armor and wielding swords (maybe if they were forced into it, but even the temple monks had weapons). In the west, there were unarmed techniques (wrestling's a big one), and some of those techniques could have made their way into martial traditions (eastern sword techniques utilize things from the unarmed martial arts after all).
Bard, or even "adventurer", is a big one; someone who can do a bit of everything, your classic "hero" character.
I do think a hunter would be better than an archer. Why does the fighter have to be locked into melee? Couldn't the fighter be a longbowman (more combat, less skills)?
Quote from: Xeviat
Monk without the eastern flavor would be tough. But then again, no real unarmed martial artist would walk out into a battlefield where people were wearing armor and wielding swords (maybe if they were forced into it, but even the temple monks had weapons). In the west, there were unarmed techniques (wrestling's a big one), and some of those techniques could have made their way into martial traditions (eastern sword techniques utilize things from the unarmed martial arts after all).
Bard, or even "adventurer", is a big one; someone who can do a bit of everything, your classic "hero" character.
I do think a hunter would be better than an archer. Why does the fighter have to be locked into melee? Couldn't the fighter be a longbowman (more combat, less skills)?
On the archer/hunter, I wanted to not have your main way to build a longbowman also be a heavy armored class. An archer/hunter built as a straight longbowman would pretty much just be a hunter focused on combat over wilderness survival perks-wise.
For the monk, I just wanted at least 5 non-magic (or at least mostly nonmagic) classes, and wanted each to have a unique combat style. Also eastern flavor might not be so bad. Level 5 or 10 fighting classes may get somewhat shonen-ish options (bonded with a magic weapon, shapeshifter that can trade power for control, flashstepping ninja-type stuff, etc.)
Quote from: Xeviat
Monk without the eastern flavor would be tough. But then again, no real unarmed martial artist would walk out into a battlefield where people were wearing armor and wielding swords (maybe if they were forced into it, but even the temple monks had weapons). In the west, there were unarmed techniques (wrestling's a big one), and some of those techniques could have made their way into martial traditions (eastern sword techniques utilize things from the unarmed martial arts after all.)
Also something to keep in mind is how martial arts traditions started (according so some theories) - farmers/peasants/serfs all had a desire to revolt and a lack of true weapons. From those roots, it's pretty easy to develop a western version of the same thing developing. :P
Quote from: Xathan Back Again
Quote from: Xeviat
Monk without the eastern flavor would be tough. But then again, no real unarmed martial artist would walk out into a battlefield where people were wearing armor and wielding swords (maybe if they were forced into it, but even the temple monks had weapons). In the west, there were unarmed techniques (wrestling's a big one), and some of those techniques could have made their way into martial traditions (eastern sword techniques utilize things from the unarmed martial arts after all.)
Also something to keep in mind is how martial arts traditions started (according so some theories) - farmers/peasants/serfs all had a desire to revolt and a lack of true weapons. From those roots, it's pretty easy to develop a western version of the same thing developing. :P
This is about where I'm hoping to go with the class. Also, I've always wanted to have a few eastern weapons with genericized names. A kusari fundo is just a weighted chain, there are rope darts, katanas are just swords and kamas just sickles, etc. Some things may keep their names though, either for lack of equivalents or common knowledge of their names (sai, nunchaku, and the like).
I might mix up the peasant revolt and temple guardian story (as in the fighting styles have sort of a convergent history).
Quote from: beejazz
This is about where I'm hoping to go with the class. Also, I've always wanted to have a few eastern weapons with genericized names. A kusari fundo is just a weighted chain, there are rope darts, katanas are just swords and kamas just sickles, etc. Some things may keep their names though, either for lack of equivalents or common knowledge of their names (sai, nunchaku, and the like).
I might mix up the peasant revolt and temple guardian story (as in the fighting styles have sort of a convergent history).
A sai could be a pitchfork head with slightly narrowed prongs and called a "War Fork" or "War Tines" or something similar, nunchucks are simply two wooden dollies connected by a chain or rope and could easily be called "Chain sticks" ...okay, that's a lame name. But I'm sure something could be come up based on what they are. "Chainstaff", perhaps, though that's still weak.
For making them sound western, I just recommend looking at what the weapon could have been before it was weaponized, and going from there.
Nunchuku are easily "Light flails" as they both stem from the same sort of grain threshing tool. Sai's could be "sword breakers", as you really don't stab with them in most techniques.
I'm curious, and I do it too; what is with our desire to "westernize" things in our western themed fantasy settings? Is the worry that a random asian-language word will stand out as out of place?
Quote from: Xeviat
I'm curious, and I do it too; what is with our desire to "westernize" things in our western themed fantasy settings? Is the worry that a random asian-language word will stand out as out of place?
I'm big on setting coherency - if I was making an Eastern Themed setting but wanted to have uniquely Western things with them, I'd try to find Eastern names to change them to. It just makes the setting feel more realistic to me.
Quote from: Xathan Back Again
Quote from: Xeviat
I'm curious, and I do it too; what is with our desire to "westernize" things in our western themed fantasy settings? Is the worry that a random asian-language word will stand out as out of place?
I'm big on setting coherency - if I was making an Eastern Themed setting but wanted to have uniquely Western things with them, I'd try to find Eastern names to change them to. It just makes the setting feel more realistic to me.
Sounds like my reasoning. Which is good, I was worried I was being weird.
And sorry for temporarily hijacking the thread.
Quote from: Xeviat
Nunchuku are easily "Light flails" as they both stem from the same sort of grain threshing tool. Sai's could be "sword breakers", as you really don't stab with them in most techniques.
I'm curious, and I do it too; what is with our desire to "westernize" things in our western themed fantasy settings? Is the worry that a random asian-language word will stand out as out of place?
Mostly so players know what things are. I'm not terribly worried about a sai or some nunchaku, as enough people watched ninja turtles to know those two.
For something like a kusari-fundo, people will forget what it is and not know what to imagine it looks like. The rope-dart was translated when I found it, so it's how I think about it. And I just don't think a katana deserves its own stat block.
My setting isn't specifically eastern or western, so I'm not worried about that in particular outside of just making sure players know what's going on.
On katana--I think it depends on the game system. In d20, it probably does not need its own, as d20 is a relatively simplistic division of weapons. In a system like TRoS that goes into much more depth about weapon differentiation, it does need it (and does have it).
On classes, I'm tinkering with how they're built and what they do.
Knight would be a tank. It might focus on heavy DR (so the guy can take multiple foes better than other classes), area melee effects (likewise to handle multiple foes), attacks of opportunity, and powers that will stop opponents in their tracks. Pretty much if you stick a knight in a door very little should get through that door. They shouldn't be very strong with movement or range though. Outside of combat, I don't know the knight as well. I may actually give it social options appropriate more to courtly settings and the like, but I would have to differentiate those from rogue social abilities mechanically somehow (and still keep them broadly applicable).
Barbarian would be terrifying. It should probably focus on movement, damage, and a certain kind of defense (barbarian is NOT all about AoOs; in fact, I may give it a stance for armor comparable DR as long as it doesn't use reactions at all... I might also include an "ignore wounds" stance). It may seem a little overpowered, but the melee focus should help keep it not so, and it shouldn't be as hard to escape a barbarian as a knight. Outside of combat, I don't know the barbarian very well either. Except that they should maybe scare the crap out of people.
Hunter would be an archer class in combat. It should focus on range, damage, and movement. Hunters try to take out big targets from hiding, but they can be vulnerable if a rogue or barbarian gets them. Outside combat, the hunter should have plenty of options for wilderness survival, including a faster speed while traveling (or the ability to ignore some terrain-based or weather-based difficulties), increased carrying capacity for certain items, the ability to hunt and track as their name implies, and maybe they need less food.
Rogues would be stealthy assassins focused on very fast very stealthy very climby-jumpy movement and their ability to inflict pretty bad wounds on foes unable to defend themselves. They might also be good at withdrawing from combat should they need to and using cover and concealment very well. Outside combat, rogues are good at both lying and finding the truth, and their stealth and movement can also find use in certain situations.
Monks would work similarly to rogues, but would have stances and powers to allow it to use no weapons or armor. They also have less focus on stealth, more focus on free running, and may be less vulnerable in straight up combat. Outside combat again, I don't know much.
Sorcerers would be warlike mages. Their attacks would hit large areas for heavy damage, while their auras affect the battlefield to slow foes. In close combat they might be weak, though. Like all mages, their concentration can be broken by damage or wounds as well. Outside combat, sorcerers would be pretty uncomfortable. Killing people is what they are best at really.
Wizard would practice subtle magic. Auras would include things like flight, invisibility, enchantments and illusions. Actual instant powers would be few, and I'm not sure what they would do. Flight and invisibility would of course be mitigated by the fact that the wizard won't be raining fire from the sky, and can's use half his offensive power if invisible. Also, again, hitting can break his concentration. And area effects (including mundane melee ones) can hit invisible players. Outside combat, the wizard may also have useful perceptive abilities for finding hidden things and such, and invisibility/illusions can also find their use outside of combat.
Warlocks practice dark magic. Like wizards, they use offensive auras. In this case these consist of powerful curses. Unlike wizards, they may also have attack powers. Maybe melee, single target, status effect stuff to differentiate them from sorcerers. Outside combat, I'm sure speak with dead and similar spells could have some use.
Priests/clerics would practice "light" magic. They could use auras that grant courage to their allies, and have useful support spells and ritual healing. They may also have their fair share of melee smiting, and be built such that they could at least get into melee without dying, even if they're no where near as tough as knights or barbarians. Outside combat, priests' power to heal, repair, and protect could find all kinds of use.
Finally, druids would practice nature magic. Their auras either allow control of a natural environment or allow shifting to the shapes of beasts, plants, and maybe even swarms. Their non-aura spells I don't know as well yet. They may otherwise be built a little like a cleric (able to take a little punishment, able to dish a little extra out against specific foes). And outside combat, their ability to manipulate plants can be pretty useful.
I'm sure I haven't got everything every class does covered yet, and some stuff may be outside of class concepts (two weapon fighter builds might be available to many, likewise with weapon specific builds and skill specific builds and race specific builds and you get the idea) but otherwise what do you think?
I may get to a few sample stances and powers for rogues and barbarians later, as well as mulling over what the past-level-five class options are.
Quote from: Phoenix
On katana--I think it depends on the game system. In d20, it probably does not need its own, as d20 is a relatively simplistic division of weapons. In a system like TRoS that goes into much more depth about weapon differentiation, it does need it (and does have it).
In my case, I don't think there'd be that much of a difference. Weapons mostly just have one/two handed, some damage, maybe some crit info, pbs damage types, and maybe some keywords for things like reach and "soft" weapons (no blocking with a whip).
A little more on that though, I think I'll be using broad weapon groups (missiles, thrown, light melee, heavy melee, and unarmed) maybe have little keywords to group similar weapons (all axes are axes) and have skills go on the basis of the first groups, but some powers keyed to (say) axes. Thoughts?
Knights should definitely have a "diplomacy" focus in social encounters. If you're using the word "knight" like I think you are, then they have a reputation of honor about them, so they should be taken at their word. They could also have a trend towards knowledge of history, which can prove helpful in social situations when dealing with generals and kings and such. Rogues, on the other hand, are a little more subversive in the social sense; charmers, liars, and worse.
Are hunters going to be the only non-magical ranged class? Or are rogues going to have some ability with range?
Quote from: Xeviat
Knights should definitely have a "diplomacy" focus in social encounters. If you're using the word "knight" like I think you are, then they have a reputation of honor about them, so they should be taken at their word. They could also have a trend towards knowledge of history, which can prove helpful in social situations when dealing with generals and kings and such. Rogues, on the other hand, are a little more subversive in the social sense; charmers, liars, and worse.
Are hunters going to be the only non-magical ranged class? Or are rogues going to have some ability with range?
Oh, yeah. Hunters are going to be all about the bows, while rogues will use light weapons that can often be thrown, and crossbows are going to be sort of anybody weapons. Barbarians and monks might occasionally use thrown weapons, but for the most part they'll be throwing tables and people respectively.
Area effect bow attacks are sort of hard to place, as hunters hunt (so their stuff may focus on accuracy, damage, and status effects). I may leave such powers open, but I worry over the heavily armored area-killing knight, whose weak movement is now not a weakness, and whose defense once engaged in melee remains strong.
I definitely wanted to leave at least some classes some social options, so it makes sense to me to make the knight more diplomatic, the rogue a better liar, and the barbarian scary (it also makes sense to leave hunters and monks "quiet"). But then these things are perfect to key to skills so players can just pick any personality they feel is appropriate. So I don't yet know which way I'm going to go with them.
The reason I'd explore a "fighter" instead of a "knight" is I think both the longbowman and the knight fit together under the same archetype; a straight-forward warrior with intimate knowledge of combat, tending to have a favored weapon. With the high Dex that comes with being an archer, a longbowman wouldn't utilize heavy armor (and theoretically, heavy armor could be restricted to the melee "builds" if you go with that type of structure).
As for AoE bow powers, I'd keep them in. Legolas shot three arrows with one attack, and we believed that just fine. Or give them fast attack multi-shot stuff, so rather than an area they just target multiples (and you could bring back chances to hit allies if that's a concern).
Quote from: Xeviat
The reason I'd explore a "fighter" instead of a "knight" is I think both the longbowman and the knight fit together under the same archetype; a straight-forward warrior with intimate knowledge of combat, tending to have a favored weapon. With the high Dex that comes with being an archer, a longbowman wouldn't utilize heavy armor (and theoretically, heavy armor could be restricted to the melee "builds" if you go with that type of structure).
As for AoE bow powers, I'd keep them in. Legolas shot three arrows with one attack, and we believed that just fine. Or give them fast attack multi-shot stuff, so rather than an area they just target multiples (and you could bring back chances to hit allies if that's a concern).
Oh, max dex on armor is a good call. Last system I was building didn't use that. Anyway, as long as I can figure out how to make sure a fighter doesn't become a modern tank with armor and range I think it should be good to keep AoE arrow stuff. Worst comes to worst I can just keep arrows low damage and use a hunter stance to build them up, or keep the AoE stuff minor (two or three tops).
Another thing I could do is have arrow AoEs have target:melee (what this would mean is a group of people in melee range of each other, from my zone-based movement rules) or taget:x in melee (and could still write something so hitting the wrong guy by mistake is possible).
Mainly though, I really just don't want a melee/ranged generalist, at least in terms of given builds' greatest strengths. And at least not under level 5. It's fine if they have backup options though. Main thing is, I want the archer to be terrified if someone closes with them, and I want archers to be a problem for melee fighters, and that sort of thing. Again, mainly concerned with levels 5 and below. Over that, cross-classing/prestige classing opens up. So you can be a knight/hunter or hunter/knight.
I mentioned reputation earlier. I'm thinking reputation will just be a list of things you've done (and where you did them) and your level (maybe a flat bonus based on class and cha?).
Anyway, you meet a stranger, you roll to see if they recognize you. Difficulty is based on lowest degree of separation (the distance you currently are from anything on your list, or whether they are involved with a group you affected). Succeed and they've heard about you, otherwise nothing.
Then to determine what they know about you, use level and location. People know about given things on your list (your level) hexes from where they've happened.
So the further you go from where a thing happened, the less people will know about it. And the higher level you get, the more word of your deeds will spread.
Not totally related to the class-based discussion we've been on, just something I thought up lately and thought I would share.
Beejazz, while I like the idea of people knowing about your hero, that seems overly complex. Why does it need to be mechanical at all? Why not simply (as the GM) have people recognize the heroes when appropriate?
In general, I think it best to restrict rolling dice to circumstances where the outcome is meaningfully contested by two sides of the story. If it would make the story better or the game more fun for them to be recognized, then they should be. If not, then not.
If it was to be mechanical, I'm not sure Cha would necessarily contribute to it. I suppose have a strong personality might make you more memorable. But really, people you never spoke to will remember you passed through town if you saved them from the orcs/trolls/dragons/half-celestial beholder vampires.
That said, I like the list of deeds, as a purely non-mechanical conceit. Just a log of heroism for players to look back at, like Achievements on Xbox.
I disagree about charisma not being important. Sure, an uncharasmatic hero may be known, but it is his deeds that are known, not the hero himself. Or the uncharasmatic hero may be unrecognized: "I thought you'd be taller"
Reputation, though, can be mechanically important. There may be times when someone wants to hide, so reputation is a hindrance on disguises. Or sometimes a player wants his reputation to put more weight behind his words, so reputation can be a boon to persuasion. These aren't things you will always want to happen 100% of the time, so roles are appropriate; at least I think so.
Quote from: Phoenix
Beejazz, while I like the idea of people knowing about your hero, that seems overly complex. Why does it need to be mechanical at all? Why not simply (as the GM) have people recognize the heroes when appropriate?
In general, I think it best to restrict rolling dice to circumstances where the outcome is meaningfully contested by two sides of the story. If it would make the story better or the game more fun for them to be recognized, then they should be. If not, then not.
If it was to be mechanical, I'm not sure Cha would necessarily contribute to it. I suppose have a strong personality might make you more memorable. But really, people you never spoke to will remember you passed through town if you saved them from the orcs/trolls/dragons/half-celestial beholder vampires.
That said, I like the list of deeds, as a purely non-mechanical conceit. Just a log of heroism for players to look back at, like Achievements on Xbox.
Mostly, I agree that unnecessary rolls are unnecessary. So if it's a town you've saved people will just know you (it's pretty much zero degrees of separation). Mostly, mechanical representation is there for when there's some stakes to it. Including those times when you want to not be recognized.
Usually, the list of deeds is the main point. In the same way quest lists are supposed to help GM prep by letting the GM know what players will want to do in a week or so, rep is supposed to keep the players up to speed on the story so far, remind the GM who was there for what, etc.
Since it's one of those rules that interacts little with chargen, it's sort of easy to strip out. But having run a long term mystery with a large semi-rotating groups, it's one of those things I wish I had tried sooner.
Using the location/level radius thing could work on its own without rolling though. So maybe that would be the way to go.
My only reluctance on a bonus from cha is that sometimes you want people to forget how you burned down that farm.
I had also mentioned that there are some things like PrCs every five levels. I'm gonna have a different way of handling the prerequisites, at least in terms of the "feat tax." So instead of a specific list of perks, high level classes call for a certain number of perks with a given tag. So it might call for "3 melee perks" or "2 social perks."
Anyway, I've been tinkering with rogue and barbarian features mostly, so here's a little of that.
Rage
Stance.
You get +1d(w) to all attacks.
You can't speak coherently.
If you do not attack or close with an opponent this round, your rage ends.
If your rage ends you are fatigued.
Toughness
Stance.
You get (some number) DR.
You can take no reaction-type actions.
You can only use this stance while raging (not sure if I should keep this).
Charge
Power.
Full action.
Close with target and attack. Target can not make an attack of opportunity.
Haven't got much more for bbn.
___
Scramble
Stance.
As long as you begin and end your movement in flat, stable terrain, you can climb, jump, or balance on pretty much anything to get there with no check.
Greater Stealth
Stance.
As long as you begin and end your movement in concealment, treat all of your movement as if it were through concealment.
Sneak Attack
Power.
Standard Action.
If your target does not defend himself, deal +1dw damage.
Cowardice
Power.
Full action.
Melee attack target and withdraw from melee. Target can not make an attack of opportunity.
I'll probably do 'em up with better target/area/skill/defense format and all that, but for now that's the gist of what I've got.
And now a bit of sorcerer. I'm thinking of basing sorcerer's structure a little bit on the 3.5 Warlock's Eldritch Blast related invocations. In this case, the sorcerer has "missile" "cloak" and "shield" which each have their own effect (missile attacks someone, cloak creates a continuous area of pain, and shield is for self-defense) but there are also energy auras (so you can have a fire missile, fire cloak, fire shield, etc.) and shape auras (for widening the area or increasing the range of a spell). The sorcerer can only use one energy and one shape at a time. So no increasing the area and range both at once.
Missile I think would start at close range (into the next zone) and melee area (a cluster of people in melee with each other). Cloak would start at melee range and melee area (it hits anyone standing next to the caster while it goes). Shield would normally be a personal spell, but range would allow you to share it with someone in the same zone as you, and area would affect everyone in melee range with you.
Last thing I should mention is that different energies have different effects if they go over a foe's damage threshold. So fire lights foes on fire, ice slows foes down, lightning has a long stun, and so on (not sure if I'll use acid or sonic).
What do you think so far? Is there another "shape" aura I'm missing besides area and range?
Haven't been following this thread too closely, but on the subject of shape there is also the cone and the line (i.e. everyone in front of the sorcerer gets hit) and the missile might also be channeled into a quick powerful instantaneous "cloak" i.e. a burst attacking everyone around the sorcerer (here I am assuming that cloak has a duration while missile is instantaneous). Also, if area at the moment only applies to the cloak, you might want to consider adding an area variable to the missile so the sorcerer can make his energy blasts explode on impact.
For the missiles, you might also want to consider a secondary effect (or force energy) that pushes opponents.
I should probably explain that I'm using zone based movement. I went over it in another thread, but it would be useful to reiterate here.
Quote from: Point and Zone Movement
These rules are based on what 3.x movement quickly turned into whenever I ran games. As a rule, I eyeballed distance and forgot movement rates and ranges. And somehow it still worked, AoOs and all.
There are zones. Zones are defined as areas somehow discrete from everywhere else, of variable size. Zones can be things like "the room" "the hall" "the dais" or "the balcony."
There are points. Points are just landmarks within zones. Points often include doors or stairs, as these are closed points that one has to pass through to reach another zone.
It is a move action to move from one zone to another. It is a move action to move anywhere within a zone. It is a move action (as an example) to engage in melee with a group or individual.
A melee can include any number of individuals. So if a third person or fourth person joins, all are within reach of each other.
AoOs work as normal. You enter melee, and anyone in the melee can take a swing. You leave, and the same is true. You pass through an occupied point (so you run through a door somebody's waiting at) and whoever's there can take a swing.
Zones or points can have mechanical effects. Rough terrain can take a double move. A bar full of tables allows crouching for cover wherever you happen to be. The idol heals those nearby. Anything goes.
Ranges and areas of effect can include:Target (not a range/single target), Melee (anyone in melee with you/anyone in the targeted melee), Zone (anyone in your zone/everyone in the targeted zone), and Sight (anyone you can see/not an area of effect)
Also, no character abilities in this game have a duration. You're just limited to two continuous effects (auras for casters) at any given time.
That said:
Quote from: Superfluous Crow
Haven't been following this thread too closely, but on the subject of shape there is also the cone and the line (i.e. everyone in front of the sorcerer gets hit) and the missile might also be channeled into a quick powerful instantaneous "cloak" i.e. a burst attacking everyone around the sorcerer (here I am assuming that cloak has a duration while missile is instantaneous). Also, if area at the moment only applies to the cloak, you might want to consider adding an area variable to the missile so the sorcerer can make his energy blasts explode on impact.
For the missiles, you might also want to consider a secondary effect (or force energy) that pushes opponents.
Since I'm not using gridded movement, the shape distinction isn't really there beyond widening the area or extending the range (unless there's more I missed, which there might be).
I figure any item's range or area can be dropped free of cost, but I guess I should make that explicit (so the burst around the caster via missile could sort of work if he doesn't want to use an aura and just needs to hit close right now).
Area applies to all three. It will make the missile affect a whole zone (instead of a melee), or apply the shield to everyone nearby.
I'm considering means of pushing/pulling, but I'm not totally sure how I want to handle the broader category of force effects yet.
So I may need to change the starting math just a little. I'm looking for a way to get ability scores into a -3 to +3 range and massive damage threshold into a similarly close range (about 5 points) before armor (which would probably also go up to about 5 points). So I'm thinking maybe of generating ability scores with 4d4 instead of 3d6 and actually providing a formula for MDT (10 + con mod at zeroth level). Also hp will probably be both fixed and class based (constitution only ties in to MDT).
I'm also considering applying a level-based bonus to both damage and damage threshold instead of bumping things up a die every five levels.
I'm considering capping active stances at two and considering auras a stance type (so that races can get a stance and spellcasters can use it, but also so that non-casters can dabble if need be).
I'm thinking I'll get rid of the PrC-like subclasses every five levels, instead opting for my weird feat-chain variant (there are low-level perks that only require x skill mod, and higher level perks that require both a higher skill and about 3 of the same type of perk... say "disease" or "stealth" perks). As a rule, 3 perks of a type will get you the "second tier" stuff, but you'll have to be level 5 to get said "second tier" stuff so it still allows plenty of wiggle room. And of course, there's "vanilla class" stuff and perks available to all classes, just so no one gets trapped by failing to specialize.
"Shape" auras will probably be available to everybody, but won't affect touch or mind-affecting spells (continuing the discussion from sorcerer).
Abilities will diverge somewhat from the D20 norm (here they may be str, con, dex, spd, per, will, cha, int).
Attack skills will be light melee, heavy melee, thrown, missiles, and grapple. *but* weapons will also have tags describing the similar groups to which they belong (swords, axes, hammers, rope and chain, polearms, etc.). Some perks may apply to a given skill, others will rely on given weapon groups (for example a perk to pull a foe towards you using a rope or chain based weapon). No attack skills will belong to a skill group, and fighting classes will tend to include training in at least one of these.
Defense skills will remain dodge, parry, and shield. None will belong to a skill group, and fighting classes will tend to include training in at least one of these.
There will be an ungrouped magic skill that works for casting most spells, but I may include an arcana skill group for the skills analogous to magic and which most mages would be trained in (this will include at least alchemy, and I'm not sure what else). Magic classes would include training in the magic skill.
Saves will advance like skills, and there will be one for most ability scores (not sure what a cha or int save would be used for though). However, they are determined by race/class and can't be invested in like skills.
Skill groups will probably include social, movement, survival, and knowledge. I'm not sure what else to include (if anything).
Back to class stuff (but more along the lines of formatting and organizing classes) later.
I use 6d4 drop the worst. Can't be any worse than that.
6d4 drop wouldn't be good for this. I want modifiers from -3 to +3, the average score around 10 (if I keep the modifier/score split), and maybe a shallower bell curve than 5d4 or up would do.
The options I've got really are 2d4-5 (bell curve might not be quite steep enough), 3 fudge dice, or 4d4 (in which case I'd use 3x's score to modifier formula).
Earlier in the thread I said that key abilities would be automaxed and you'd roll for everything else in order, but I think I may allow you to choose between two abilities for each race and class. That way there's less potential for overlap. I think I may do likewise for saves.
Something I just want to write down is that things are going to scale differently in this game. I'm going to try and have them make sense.
To give an example of things not making sense: charm and dominate (or any two vaguely similar spells of differing level). Their DC is set by their spell level. Therefore it is harder to charm a high level foe than it is to dominate them. Indeed, it will be just as hard to charm a lower level foe as it ever was. I want something like the opposite of that (so you can charm the big bad, but you can flat out dominate most of this low-level world). Most of the time, powers are keyed to auto-scaling skills anyway. In the case of charm and dominate the bigger version is just hit with a bigger penalty. This also might help in balancing death effects (which I had initially considered nixing) by making them generally only effective against foes significantly lower level than you (low enough level that they'd drop from one or two sword swings anyway).
To give another example, healing a high level character gets harder. Full healing by potions gets progressively more expensive for some reason. My solution: healing that scales in power with the recipient's level and HD type (I'm probably going to have fixed hp progression, but keep hit dice just for effects like these).
Completely unrelated: Fail a save against poison and it's a randomized (and rolled in secret) countdown to death coupled with a status effect until you're dead or cured. Never have been satisfied with D&D poison that I've seen.
Quote from: beejazz
To give an example of things not making sense: charm and dominate (or any two vaguely similar spells of differing level). Their DC is set by their spell level. Therefore it is harder to charm a high level foe than it is to dominate them. Indeed, it will be just as hard to charm a lower level foe as it ever was. I want something like the opposite of that (so you can charm the big bad, but you can flat out dominate most of this low-level world). Most of the time, powers are keyed to auto-scaling skills anyway. In the case of charm and dominate the bigger version is just hit with a bigger penalty. This also might help in balancing death effects (which I had initially considered nixing) by making them generally only effective against foes significantly lower level than you (low enough level that they'd drop from one or two sword swings anyway).
This problem is more-or-less unique to 3.X. 2nd and 4th Ed determine saves differently. And yes, it was silly.
If death effects are a problem, and only apply to enemies of such low level it's not worth the high level spell slot to cast the spell, you may as well remove the spells. I don't think they add much to the game.
QuoteTo give another example, healing a high level character gets harder. Full healing by potions gets progressively more expensive for some reason. My solution: healing that scales in power with the recipient's level and HD type (I'm probably going to have fixed hp progression, but keep hit dice just for effects like these).
I had a DM that addressed this by having potions heal %. That is, a light healing heals 1 hp / hd, a moderate heals 1d6 / hd or something to that effect.
QuoteCompletely unrelated: Fail a save against poison and it's a randomized (and rolled in secret) countdown to death coupled with a status effect until you're dead or cured. Never have been satisfied with D&D poison that I've seen.
Without the chance your hero fights off the poison through his own natural resilience?
Quote from: Phoenix
Quote from: beejazz
To give an example of things not making sense: charm and dominate (or any two vaguely similar spells of differing level). Their DC is set by their spell level. Therefore it is harder to charm a high level foe than it is to dominate them. Indeed, it will be just as hard to charm a lower level foe as it ever was. I want something like the opposite of that (so you can charm the big bad, but you can flat out dominate most of this low-level world). Most of the time, powers are keyed to auto-scaling skills anyway. In the case of charm and dominate the bigger version is just hit with a bigger penalty. This also might help in balancing death effects (which I had initially considered nixing) by making them generally only effective against foes significantly lower level than you (low enough level that they'd drop from one or two sword swings anyway).
This problem is more-or-less unique to 3.X. 2nd and 4th Ed determine saves differently. And yes, it was silly.
If death effects are a problem, and only apply to enemies of such low level it's not worth the high level spell slot to cast the spell, you may as well remove the spells. I don't think they add much to the game.
There aren't spell slots. Pretty much anything fire and forget in my game is going to be at will. Given that and the fact that most of the world is low level, I'm not really worried about them being underpowered.
QuoteQuoteTo give another example, healing a high level character gets harder. Full healing by potions gets progressively more expensive for some reason. My solution: healing that scales in power with the recipient's level and HD type (I'm probably going to have fixed hp progression, but keep hit dice just for effects like these).
I had a DM that addressed this by having potions heal %. That is, a light healing heals 1 hp / hd, a moderate heals 1d6 / hd or something to that effect.
This is the sort of thing I'm going for yeah.
QuoteQuoteCompletely unrelated: Fail a save against poison and it's a randomized (and rolled in secret) countdown to death coupled with a status effect until you're dead or cured. Never have been satisfied with D&D poison that I've seen.
Without the chance your hero fights off the poison through his own natural resilience?
[/quote]
That's mostly what the save is for, though some classes (barbarians? monks?) might have a little extra they can do in the way of a second chance. The countdown is largely to give spellcaster or apothecary PCs the chance to neutralize poison.
There are definitely aspects of this I'm liking, especially after reading your condensed system thread. Consider me lurking until I get a grasp on the direction you're headed. My own Xev20 project is back on the backburner while I think about things.
I love your stats and saves, as I've been wanting to do something very similar for a long time.
Thanks. I've got a good bit of combat up if you want to take a look.
I'm wondering if I shouldn't trade out monk for something else. Not because of the asian feel (which I don't mind) but because its abilities frequently overlap with what I think should be barbarian or rogue abilities.
What should I include? Bard feels not enough like the vagrant sellsword of low levels, or anything after. I don't know if I'm up enough on my 4e lore to make a Marshall anyone would like (and I'm not sure I want to segregate the military leadership role from the knight's stuff). In any case, I don't feel right with five magic classes and only four non-magic classes.
Hm, I don't know if there'd be too much overlap with the rogue but you could consider a duellist of a sort. Or a mercenary/skirmisher class. I am not sure whether you have explicitly stated you don't want a fighter since it seems to be "missing" from the list of classes?
Quote from: Superfluous Crow
Hm, I don't know if there'd be too much overlap with the rogue but you could consider a duellist of a sort. Or a mercenary/skirmisher class. I am not sure whether you have explicitly stated you don't want a fighter since it seems to be "missing" from the list of classes?
Yeah, fighter's missing. I want specific fighting styles or magic styles to be specific classes. Fighter was fine when the alternatives included a broad magic-user, but when classes get as specific as warlock and hunter, I prefer the knight/barbarian/hunter split.
I might consider a proper fencer. It's also been mentioned that the hunter is the only really ranged character, so maybe if I thought of another of those it would work.
But in your system, if a player wanted to play a soldier and/or veteran what class would he pick?
If he's a footman knight seems unlikely, and barbarian would only make sense if he skipped his discipline training...
If you are looking for another ranged character you might consider a gunslinger if your game allows it (i.e. has guns).
Otherwise there is really only so many ways you can fight with a ranged weapon. Basing a whole class around thrown weapons or sniping seems like overkill.
Taking a hint from an unexpected source of inspiration, you might want to consider a class akin to Diablo's Amazon. Or Iron Heroes' harrier for that matter. Someone swift with a good mix of ranged and melee. But that might be your hunter class?
If you can come up with the class features, a decent aristocrat class might be a nice compromise. A foil to the rogue, and you could fit fencing in as well.
The soldier/vet would probably be the knight (knight being the armored melee guy). That would encompass a lot of appropriate "builds" including a polearm wielding guy who was once a simple conscript, or a guy with the money for armor and a horse. Alternately, a vet that used longbows etc. might be a hunter. There's a bit of wiggle room, since some perks are not class specific too.
I had thought about the gunslinger, but for once I think I'll be going classic fantasy on this one.
I don't know much about the Amazon.
I've got sort of parkour movement options on the rogue, and to a lesser extent the barbarian (part of why I ditched the monk).
An aristocrat class might be interesting, especially if it includes a bit of fencing. Rogues got the whole fencing thing partly because few other classes would use it. I don't know if I could think of enough material combat wise, but it might be worth it.
The rogue would probably favor stealth-based combat, dirty fighting and trickery while the aristocrat would be a social combatant fighting with words, swords and cunning.
The aristocrat archetype could easily be applied to diverse characters such as the military officer, the swashbuckler, the dandy, the courtier, and so on. You might want to change the name depending on what you are going for, but I think it'd be pretty cool.
I think, ultimately, I'll go with marshall. It gives me an excuse to get another more heavily armored class (compared with rogue, hunter, and barbarian anyway) in, and it may be more distinct from the other classes than another lightly armored melee guy. He'll probably be the non-magic guy with buffer stances (while other non-magic guys get appropriate social utilities).
I'll probably also have the optional rule of custom classes thrown together from tagged perk lists (so a rogue's social utilities and a marshall's stances plus a little reskinning equals a bard, while a kinght's courtly utilities and a rogue's fighting style might make more of an aristocrat, and some wizard or warlock magic on a rogue might make a ninja). Sure some combinations might be very powerful or very weak compared with strict classes, but as long as people know that going in it's fine.
---
I've also been thinking about damage, crit, and wounding rules. I actually kind of like 4e's crit rules (20 is an auto-hit, confirmation if it would have hit anyway, and max damage) and might end up using them. I might also say that a confirmed crit is an auto-wound (so I don't have to fiddle with the damage as much).
As it stands, massive damage threshold can go from 7 to 13 at first level (with armor providing 0 to 4 DR). Weapon damage mods can go from -3 to +3 at first level. So I need dice on attacks to be in an acceptable range. I don't want wounds to be impossible or inevitable ever, and I want them to average around 50% odds for equals. So it may be that I need to have 3 dice on any given attack (3d6, 3d8, 3d10, 3d12).
I also kind of want the distinction of bigger or more frequent crits, as in 3e. Bigger may not work as well with the max damage on a crit. Could crits be max damage plus some variable number for that reason? I'm not sure yet.
And lastly, my old idea for the barbarian rage was a whole extra die of damage. 4d12 damage against a lightly armored slow guy will kill said guy waaaaaaay too often. Maybe a flat damage bonus? In any case, I need wiggle room for that kind of thing too apparently.
So I've been working on class and race powers and stances. I need at least one stance and one power for each race, and two stances and a power for each class. Once I get that, I may be able to playtest the combat rules a bit. Here are my thoughts so far.
Knight
Stance: Focused Defense. (Gives +5 to passive shield and parry)
Stance: Tactical Retreat. (Allows you to disengage on a successful shield or parry)
Power: Cleave. (Area attack in melee)
Attacks of opportunity interrupt actions in this game (stopping movement or spellcasting, for example). A knight's role at level one is pretty much point defense. Focused defense allows you to save your reactions for attacks of opportunity. Tactical retreat lets you stay in the way continuously. Cleave lets you be scary after you've stopped everyone next to you.
Barbarian
Stance: Rage. (Some benefit, maybe damage, as long as you keep killing people. When rage ends you are fatigued)
Stance: Toughness. (DR about on par with armor. DR is higher while you rage)
Power: Charge. (You can engage without provoking an AoO from a target you attack at the end of your move)
Barbarians are good for running around the battlefield beating the crap out of people in the simplest way possible. There's really not much more to it than that.
Rogue
Stance: Enhanced Stealth. (You can make a stealth check to move from one point of cover to the next without being noticed)
Stance: Scramble. (As long as you begin and end your movement on stable ground, you can jump or climb pretty much anything... maybe a max jump of 10 feet here)
Stance: Cowardice. (On a successful attack, you may disengage from your target without provoking an AoO from them)
Power: Sneak Attack. (Bonus damage to a target that doesn't defend, can choose to stagger foe on a wound)
Rogues are supposed to avoid getting too involved with combat, but they can quickly parkour over to someone who needs to be dead right now, backstab, and run away. The trick is to make sure that the foe can't defend themselves.
Sorcerer
Stance: Fire/Ice/Lightning. (modifies any energy related powers you have to be the specified type. you can only use one of these at a time)
Stance: Shield. (small DR. energy gives bonus DR against energy type. range lets you shield someone else. area lets you shield everyone next to you)
Stance: Area/Range (modify the area or range of your spells. you can only use one of these at a time)
Power: Missile (basic attack. can be modified by fire/ice/lightning/area/range)
Sorcerers are blasters, with a bit of an option to defend themselves and others. The DR is typically pretty low, so they're still vulnerable. Also, they have little in the way of movement. Without help from a good fighter (whether that be a knight, barbarian, rogue, or whatever), they can be in big trouble.
So far these are all the classes I've got this much information for. For races, I have much less to work with.
Humans
Stance: One bonus stance of your choice.
Power: One bonus power of your choice.
This of course means I need a bit more for every class, or a handful of the "generic" powers and stances.
Elves
Stance: ???
Power: ???
I've considered either giving them a climbing stance and a bow power, or giving them a magic stance and power (though I'm not sure what).
Dwarves
Stance: Unmovable. (Can't be tripped or pushed or knocked prone in this stance)
Power: ???
I really just have no idea what the power should be.
Trolls
Stance: ???
Power: ???
I've considered regeneration. Either they might have a slow healing stance or they might have a power that lets them heal their own wounds in exchange for hit points (probably not both).
Goblins
Stance: ???
Power: ???
I just have no idea where to start. I would consider something evasive maybe, but I don't know.
Just a small note for you to chew on: it seems like you can't come up with a power for any of your races. Are you sure it makes sense to make races come prepackaged with a "power"?
Static bonuses often make the most sense for races unless your world is very high magic (e.g. the Elder Scrolls powers)
Quote from: Superfluous Crow
Just a small note for you to chew on: it seems like you can't come up with a power for any of your races. Are you sure it makes sense to make races come prepackaged with a "power"?
Static bonuses often make the most sense for races unless your world is very high magic (e.g. the Elder Scrolls powers)
As a rule, yeah getting 3 stances for every starting character is more important than that second power. I'm mostly trying to get race and class on par with each other at level one.
Power is sort of an odd word I may replace at some point, but it's meant to cover any cool trick you can do fast (it's closest to a 4e at will power in terms of effect). I sort of just want people to have a few options at first level.
And static bonuses go without saying. So far, dwarves and trolls have darkvision, goblins and trolls have scent, elves may have some sort of good hearing, trolls are large (which in this case is more like Goliaths than Ogres) and goblins are small, and they all have skill groups, stats, and saves somewhat determined by race.
It just seems a bit forced and/or artificial if all members of a race can do one special thing once a day or so. Makes them sound like chess pieces or action figures. I'm not saying they can't have powers, just that making it a requirement seems like an unfortunate design decision.
Quote from: Superfluous Crow
It just seems a bit forced and/or artificial if all members of a race can do one special thing once a day or so. Makes them sound like chess pieces or action figures. I'm not saying they can't have powers, just that making it a requirement seems like an unfortunate design decision.
Oh, none of this is daily. Nothing is per day, per encounter, or anything like that in this game.