The Campaign Builder's Guild

Core Concepts (more to be added?):

-Str + Dex bonus to attack/damage

-FATE-like stats (e.g. +2 Str instead of 15 Str; -1 Wis instead of 8 Wis); Vancian casting replaced by mana-based system similar to the one found on the d20 3.5 SRD

-Improved combat functionality and options for all character builds. Things like Power Attack become regular combat options instead of things you have to take a feat for, and you can improve its function by taking Aptitudes (see below) that provide bonuses/improved use of such abilities. Similarly, the feat Leadership instead becomes something one can just do that improves based on ability scores and skill ranks.

-A 10-level system with a common advancement scheme for everyone. A level provides HP, mana (small amounts even if no casting ability), flat attack bonus and damage bonus per level, 2-3 defense bonuses (willpower, endurance, evasion), and skill ranks to spend, in addition to features called Talents at each level that function much like scaling feats and feat/class feature progressions (think things like a combination of paladin's mercies and smite/aura features).

-Level scheme features feat-like abilities called Aptitudes gained at XP "milestones" between levels. Likely to be three milestones at 25%, 50% and 75% XP achievement for next level. Aptitudes will primarily be small, passive effects such a HP, mana, attack and defense bonuses, and possibly things like extra use of existing abilities per day or whatnot

-Classes replaced with "Lineages", similar to minor templates. Lineages such as "warrior" might provide improved attack/defense values plus the ability to choose a fighting style, or rage as a class feature. A "mage" lineage might provide a mana regeneration bonus (recover 50% spent mana after encounter instead of say 40% for normal casters) plus ability to choose a school specialty and additional spells, or maybe get a "kit" that provides some alchemy bonuses and a familiar.

-Spell lists drastically stripped down either by outright removing some spells or by merging others. Metamagic effects should be easier to add and simply cost slightly more mana to use. Spell list should be comparable to a simplified, collective spell list of all core classes from spell levels 0-3, with dashes of higher-level spells as rarer and much more costly abilities. The ability to learn spells by viewing them or by learning their words via a spellbook/scroll should still exist, but I am not sure I will make a distinction between learned and natural casting (or will leave it up to the player who creates the character and feature related options in Lineages).

-Removal of the Cleric as a "core" character concept (but no reason a similar style character could not be built and/or played), to be replaced by colored mages (at least white mages and black mages, possibly more as I am vulernable to MtG influence). Concepts such as the Druid, Wizard, Warlock and Oracle (Pathfinder SRD) seem more appropriate at least for Haveneast .

-Monsters should hopefully function on the exact same level and creation style as characters, with additional templates to apply, including sizes

-Instead of alignment system, there is a Humanity scale; unsure if this will be a scale where humanity is found in the middle or at one end, but considering the latter. Parallels in feats and class features to the 3.5/PF alignment-based effects. Lower humanity means greater vulnerability to "holy" effects (and humanity is lost through use of some spells or committing of various acts to be detailed later)


Haven't got a whole lot done recently on this, but I've at least finalized the lineages that will be in the system: Warrior, Hunter, Adventurer, Druid, Wizard, Warlock. While I don't want this to go the way of 4e combat roles ("leader", "striker", etc.), I did want to emphasize that there are certain themes to these and that each class is "paired" with another in a sense:

Warrior & Warlock
-Aggressive lineages with powers and abilities that allow high damage/effects output, often with the ability to "burn out" to push effects further at the cost of physical health

Adventurer & Wizard
-Capable lineages that feature a more diverse array of abilities or bonuses to things such as casting of "utility" spells (which would include fly, charm person, invisibility, polymorph, scrying, etc.)

Hunter & Druid
-Lineages that provide a mix of aggressive and utility abilities, themed somewhat around nature (Hunter features favored terrain as a unique ability)


---

More to this list (and the features themselves) as I retrieve them from the extensive chat logs. :D

I'm designing this d20 variant mainly to capture the feel of the E6 variant for D&D but with more fixes for fundamental issues featured in the system. Above all I am attempting to make the system more fun to play for any build, even if there are a few balance issues that may arise.

Reserved 0

Reserve 1. Ok to post from here.

Given my previous work with X20 and help with Xev20, I'd be remiss if I didn't offer my assistance on another d20 variant, and looking forward to seeing what more comes. The core concepts you've mentioned so far seem solid and like they would be improvements. Since this is mostly a list of vague ideas it's hard for me to come up with actual feedback yet, but I'm curious by what you mean by STR and DEX applying to attack/damage = how does that differ from core d20? Also, have you looked at the DnD Next playtest rules yet? There's some things in there (the way they handle advantage and disadvantage, for example), that might provide inspirational.

Looking forward to what comes next! Will follow this thread with interest. :)

Quote from: Xathan
Given my previous work with X20 and help with Xev20, I'd be remiss if I didn't offer my assistance on another d20 variant, and looking forward to seeing what more comes. The core concepts you've mentioned so far seem solid and like they would be improvements. Since this is mostly a list of vague ideas it's hard for me to come up with actual feedback yet, but I'm curious by what you mean by STR and DEX applying to attack/damage = how does that differ from core d20? Also, have you looked at the DnD Next playtest rules yet? There's some things in there (the way they handle advantage and disadvantage, for example), that might provide inspirational.

Looking forward to what comes next! Will follow this thread with interest. :)

Thanks for the input :D. What I mean by Str + Dex applying to attack/damage is that they'd both be applied to any weapon you're proficient with (and perhaps you could add only one or the other to a weapon you weren't proficient with, I haven't thought too much about that though), so if you had a +2 Str and +3 Dex you'd get +5 attack and damage. The defenses of characters and creatures will be a bit higher to keep it from getting too out of control, but having to take a feat to use one bonus over the other   (Weapon Finesse) seemed a bit silly for weapons you were already assumed to be proficient with. This is one of the less concrete changes I'd be making out of those currently listed, and it might alternatively end up so that you can choose freely to apply either Str or Dex on top of BAB and BDB (base damage bonus) with a weapon you're proficient with (excepting crossbows, which might have different rules).

I haven't looked at the D&D Next rules yet, but I'll definitely check them out.

OK, I still like a lot of this.  
Somewhat concerned about the stripped spell list.
And fate-like stats because you are going to do point-buy? (only reason to use representative numbers like 3-18 is due to rolling for them or descriptive purpose)

Quote from: Horse
Thanks for the input :D. What I mean by Str + Dex applying to attack/damage is that they'd both be applied to any weapon you're proficient with (and perhaps you could add only one or the other to a weapon you weren't proficient with, I haven't thought too much about that though), so if you had a +2 Str and +3 Dex you'd get +5 attack and damage. The defenses of characters and creatures will be a bit higher to keep it from getting too out of control, but having to take a feat to use one bonus over the other   (Weapon Finesse) seemed a bit silly for weapons you were already assumed to be proficient with.

That's...actually really interesting, something I can't believe I've never thought of, and makes a stupid amount of sense! It's fitting that if you are skilled enough to wield a weapon your might as well as agility would be a factor in how well you'd hit with it, not one with the other not mattering in the slightest. You'll also have to boost HP to make up for the damage increase, and I do see a slight flaw in that pretty much every melee character will be popping strength and dexterity boosting potions/spells like they're MLB players with a bottle of steroids and HGH, but if you build the system with that in mind then it shouldn't be too big a problem.

QuoteThis is one of the less concrete changes I'd be making out of those currently listed, and it might alternatively end up so that you can choose freely to apply either Str or Dex on top of BAB and BDB (base damage bonus) with a weapon you're proficient with (excepting crossbows, which might have different rules).

This option might be better, just because it'll keep damage in more sane ranges, but if you want to build the system to accommodate insane damage, then go for it. It does have the plus of making it so a "Level 1 Wizard" (for lack of better terms given your overall of the class system) can't put enough into str and dex where he can still be a proficient caster while having a BDB higher than the minimum damage of the dagger he wields. :P

Still loving the basic ideas behind this. I'll admit I could be with Vreeg on the "stripped spell list" - how far are you planning on going with that? What are you going to axe?

Quote from: LordVreeg
OK, I still like a lot of this.  
Somewhat concerned about the stripped spell list.
And fate-like stats because you are going to do point-buy? (only reason to use representative numbers like 3-18 is due to rolling for them or descriptive purpose)

:D Thanks. A lot of what I would do in stripping down the list would be simplifying spells that do elemental damage (making it possible to pick Ice Arrow, Lightning Arrow or Acid Arrow instead of Flame Arrow, for example) or simplifying the selection of spells that target alignments (I'm toying with a Humanity scale as replacement for standard D&D alignments) and making spell selections more universal, with learning spells being more about the character concept rather than which lineage you chose.

I think the FATE-style stats will be good for it, yeah. Point buy seems like a pretty reasonable stat generation method. It would be cool to simplify even the types of die that get used in the system, and I think it'd help in that regard, too. :)

As I've mentioned before, I'm intrigued. :D

One suggestion with respect to spells that I may have made before is that, generally speaking, you get rid of spell levels. Pumping more mana into spells makes them more powerful. This will allow you to cut down the spell lists considerably just in itself, because you can get rid of a lot of "improved/greater/mass" etc. versions of spells that are just a better version of a lower-mana spell. Stuff like summon monster can work like that, too. I'd also get rid of material components except ones that are of significant cost and actually contribute something to the system. Really, who wants to keep track of whether or not you've got bat guano on hand? (Who actually even does keep track?)

Quote from: HorseI haven't looked at the D&D Next rules yet, but I'll definitely check them out.

The D&D Next rules may serve as a better illustration of what not to do.  :grin:

Quote from: sparkletwistOne suggestion with respect to spells that I may have made before is that, generally speaking, you get rid of spell levels. Pumping more mana into spells makes them more powerful. This will allow you to cut down the spell lists considerably just in itself, because you can get rid of a lot of "improved/greater/mass" etc. versions of spells that are just a better version of a lower-mana spell. Stuff like summon monster can work like that, too. I'd also get rid of material components except ones that are of significant cost and actually contribute something to the system. Really, who wants to keep track of whether or not you've got bat guano on hand? (Who actually even does keep track?)

I've known one DM who made people keep track because it was in the rules, and it was pants on head retarded - it just forced every caster to take Eschew Materials at first level to avoid mindless bookkeeping. And I think getting rid of spell levels is good, or cutting it down significantly - some spells, even in their most basic form, are still too powerful for lower level characters to have access to. (Even if your fireball only does 1d6 damage, at level 1 a 30ft sphere of 1d6 damage can be devastating). However, I fully agree that the improved/greater/lesser/mass/minor/major/adjective-meaning-above-or-below spells can be cut out easily via increasing mana costs - the psionics rules are are good example of a way to make it work.  

Quote from: sparkletwist

Quote from: HorseI haven't looked at the D&D Next rules yet, but I'll definitely check them out.

The D&D Next rules may serve as a better illustration of what not to do.  :grin:

As with any new rules system, your mileage may vary - at the very least, DnD Next seems to be a vast improvement over 4e.

I fixed your broken quote tags. :grin:

Quote from: XathanDnD Next seems to be a vast improvement over 4e.

I am not going to derail Horse's system thread with the rant that this statement will provoke. :P

Sparkle: my thanks, on both counts. :P

Horse: One other thing from looking over this - I'm curious about your leveling system. As I understand it, you'll be getting HP, BAB, skills, ETC at "Milestones" between levels, and then get your "Class features" from minor templates? The idea sort of makes sense to me...but not entirely, so I'm curious if you could elaborate further on that. :)

Quote from: Xathan
Sparkle: my thanks, on both counts. :P

Horse: One other thing from looking over this - I'm curious about your leveling system. As I understand it, you'll be getting HP, BAB, skills, ETC at "Milestones" between levels, and then get your "Class features" from minor templates? The idea sort of makes sense to me...but not entirely, so I'm curious if you could elaborate further on that. :)

There is a 10-level system similar to any given d20 class where at each level you gain a flat HP, BAB, BDB, save bonus, skill ranks and access to a new Talent. In between levels there are "Milestones" where you get an Affinity (like feats). For example, if attaining 2nd level required 1000 XP, there'd be a Milestone (based on my choice to do three milestones between each pair of levels) at 250 XP, 500 XP, and 750 XP each. They'd represent small things you learn while on an adventure, whether it's when you make mistakes or acquire new knowledge. There would be no BAB/BDB, HP, mana, or anything like that at the Milestones.

Hope that clears it up. :D

EDIT: in a way, having these Milestones in between the levels also supports my preference of seeing a level up every 3-4 sessions. Whether or not this is actually feasible with this system we'll have to see.

Haven't got a whole lot done recently on this, but I've at least finalized the lineages that will be in the system: Warrior, Hunter, Adventurer, Druid, Wizard, Warlock. While I don't want this to go the way of 4e combat roles ("leader", "striker", etc.), I did want to emphasize that there are certain themes to these and that each class is "paired" with another in a sense:

Warrior & Warlock
-Aggressive lineages with powers and abilities that allow high damage/effects output, often with the ability to "burn out" to push effects further at the cost of physical health

Adventurer & Wizard
-Capable lineages that feature a more diverse array of abilities or bonuses to things such as casting of "utility" spells (which would include fly, charm person, invisibility, polymorph, scrying, etc.)

Hunter & Druid
-Lineages that provide a mix of aggressive and utility abilities, themed somewhat around nature (Hunter features favored terrain as a unique ability)

I am not sure if "Adventurer" is really a good name for a lineage. I mean, isn't it kind of what everyone is?
This is just a nitpick, though. I do like the idea of a certain division of roles, with a more "martially inclined" and more "magically inclined" version of each one.

Since I often like playing gish type characters, I would think I could get that by playing a combat-oriented lineage with a caster class, right? Or would that be better served by a magic-oriented linage with a fighting class?
(Actually, what the difference between these two actually is might be something good to hammer out)

If I'm focused as a characcter on non-combat encounters without using magic, which lineage is best for me?

Quote from: sparkletwist
I am not sure if "Adventurer" is really a good name for a lineage. I mean, isn't it kind of what everyone is?
This is just a nitpick, though. I do like the idea of a certain division of roles, with a more "martially inclined" and more "magically inclined" version of each one.

Since I often like playing gish type characters, I would think I could get that by playing a combat-oriented lineage with a caster class, right? Or would that be better served by a magic-oriented linage with a fighting class?
(Actually, what the difference between these two actually is might be something good to hammer out)

At the time I don't have another name for the lineage that I like more unfortunately :D. It should resemble the rogue and 3.5 scout's abilities, but feature good problem solving bonuses. I think bonuses to using improvised tools and weapons would be a good feature for this lineage.

You should be able to choose based on which ability you like better for the character. If Warrior and Warlock go the ways I see them going at the moment, for example, it'd be a choice between whether you wanted Challenge and a fighting style bonus (and one or two minor, unique talents to pick up related to them) based on your current equip (including a spell), or a magic bolt-type ability to turn mana into basic attacks and increased mana regeneration rate. The abilities should in the end both seem worthwhile and just a matter of whether you see the character spending more time swinging the weapon or casting the spell. Alternatively you could say that it treats magic a bit more like equipment that you make for yourself spontaneously. Crazy equipment that does bizarre things.

Quote from: Tangent_JaercIf I'm focused as a characcter on non-combat encounters without using magic, which lineage is best for me?

Ideally whichever one you'd like to be there for when your character is in a "fight or die" situation. Part of the system is about trying to make characters feel more heroic and slightly superhuman, but still mortal (I like to think of the level of Hector and Achilles, Merlin and Arthur and whatnot). Part of what I try to do is give them a few more options skill-wise and increase the number of skills/feats they receive. I think a lot of the abilities of a lot of classes are better suited to something similar to feats, and that there should be scaling feats that improved based on your ranks in a certain skill, so I'm giving those ideas a shot. The only way I think that lineages will be tied to feats is that they'll probably each give a small passive bonus to a skill or two (probably only a +1 to each). :D

Inspiration:  http://thesaurus.com/browse/Adventurer?s=t

I like pioneer myself.  Fits the rogue/scout concept in my headbrain.

This reads interestingly.  I'm not crazy about d20 variants anymore, but this one doesn't sound like it's heading somewhere negative.

Question:  Do all the classes gain their inter-level boon at the same time?  FREX:  Wizard and Warrior at 750XP gain X.

M>

Quote from: Ch30
Inspiration:  http://thesaurus.com/browse/Adventurer?s=t

I like pioneer myself.  Fits the rogue/scout concept in my headbrain.

This reads interestingly.  I'm not crazy about d20 variants anymore, but this one doesn't sound like it's heading somewhere negative.

Question:  Do all the classes gain their inter-level boon at the same time?  FREX:  Wizard and Warrior at 750XP gain X.

M>

I agree that Pioneer is a good name, but I am still on the fence with naming that lineage (not even sure I like Adventurer that much). As with 3.5/PF, all lineages will level at the same rate (there will actually be a base "class" that everyone belongs to that is a general measure of level, reputation and basic combat functionality), so provided there are no XP gaps between individual players (which I hope to eliminate), everyone will get an affinity at 25%/50%/75% of the XP required for next level. :D

One thing I'd suggest would be to forget the sub-advancement because it's kind of confusing, and just make those the level breaks. Everyone's level would go up really fast, but players generally like that anyway.

Quote from: sparkletwist
One thing I'd suggest would be to forget the sub-advancement because it's kind of confusing, and just make those the level breaks. Everyone's level would go up really fast, but players generally like that anyway.

Agreed.  I was actually asking if they were at even breaks for this specific reason.

M.

Sounds like a good idea. It will look a bit weird on paper where someone will only gain a "full" level every 3 or 4 times, but the advancement should be fast enough that it will be ok.

I actually like the sub advancement idea.  It is an interesting and different mechanic, and I I believe will spread out the reinforcement of gaining ability.  I have seen how this kind of thing works, and I can say from my own experience lots of litle power breaks keeps stuff more controllable while still keeping the PCs happy.

Back in my golden age of DMing my players, another DM and I discussed the concept at some length.  It was popularly recieved, though it was more ad-hoc.  If I remember, your upcoming level had its features (feats, class abilities, stat improvements, skill points, whatnot) dividing the amoung of XP needed to reach the next level.  This defined the bracket and when you reached the milestone you got to pick (on the fly) which one you got.  Broke down a bit with Casters, who tended to get a tonne of "features" (spells) at certain points - If I remember, we divided the spells into two or three groups and rolled with it that way.  Working example:  If you get 4 skill points, a feat and some class ability (3 features total) at level 2, and level 2 is 1k XP, you get a thing every 1000/3 or 333 skill points.  It worked for us, probably a bad method to try and base the whole game around.

M.

Another thought I just had (so I have no idea how it'd work) would be letting players get certain class features/powers "early" but at a penalty. So, you can try to cast your next level spells, but they're at -4 (or something) because you're still learning how to actually do it. I kind of like this for spontaneous casters, especially, because it'd kind of ease the sting of them being a level behind the prepared casters in spell progression, and it models the power slowly accumulating in them and them gaining mastery of it.

Quote from: LordVreeg
I actually like the sub advancement idea.  It is an interesting and different mechanic, and I I believe will spread out the reinforcement of gaining ability.  I have seen how this kind of thing works, and I can say from my own experience lots of litle power breaks keeps stuff more controllable while still keeping the PCs happy.

Thanks! I am hoping it works that way. I like the idea of characters gaining something small during most or all individual sessions, so this should help a bit.

Quote from: Ch30
Back in my golden age of DMing my players, another DM and I discussed the concept at some length.  It was popularly recieved, though it was more ad-hoc.  If I remember, your upcoming level had its features (feats, class abilities, stat improvements, skill points, whatnot) dividing the amoung of XP needed to reach the next level.  This defined the bracket and when you reached the milestone you got to pick (on the fly) which one you got.  Broke down a bit with Casters, who tended to get a tonne of "features" (spells) at certain points - If I remember, we divided the spells into two or three groups and rolled with it that way.  Working example:  If you get 4 skill points, a feat and some class ability (3 features total) at level 2, and level 2 is 1k XP, you get a thing every 1000/3 or 333 skill points.  It worked for us, probably a bad method to try and base the whole game around.

M.

Worth considering, though. I think my system will end up being a bit different but it is good to look at other examples.

Quote from: sparkletwist
Another thought I just had (so I have no idea how it'd work) would be letting players get certain class features/powers "early" but at a penalty. So, you can try to cast your next level spells, but they're at -4 (or something) because you're still learning how to actually do it. I kind of like this for spontaneous casters, especially, because it'd kind of ease the sting of them being a level behind the prepared casters in spell progression, and it models the power slowly accumulating in them and them gaining mastery of it.

Indeed. The way I'm hoping to get the mana system working for spells should actually function similarly to this, as I want to remove having lesser/normal/greater versions of spells in favor of making metamagic a normal thing. I would prefer to see base spell functions that can be heavily augmented so that a player can try to use a more powerful effect at the cost of wiping out more of their mana or even their HP. Not sure about how I'd do it with non-casters, though.

Quote from: HorseThe way I'm hoping to get the mana system working for spells should actually function similarly to this, as I want to remove having lesser/normal/greater versions of spells in favor of making metamagic a normal thing. I would prefer to see base spell functions that can be heavily augmented so that a player can try to use a more powerful effect at the cost of wiping out more of their mana or even their HP. Not sure about how I'd do it with non-casters, though.

I like this. I've probably mentioned it before, but I'm generally in favor of removing spell levels in general. Some spells are more powerful, but those could simply cost more mana. I also think that there are quite a few spells in D&D that are simply more powerful versions of lesser spells, even when not overtly tagged with something like "Greater." For example, there are all sorts of blasts, with various elemental properties, but they're really just increasing amounts of damage and effect. So, these could probably all be merged into a single continuum of powers.

I like the idea of spending HP to dig deep for a greater reserve of power. Asura does something similar. It seems more in line with a lot of the fiction that inspires these games than "sorry, I used up all my power for the day."