Okay guys, so it's looking like D&D 5E is not going to be for me, at least not without a lot of kit bashing. So much kit bashing. And do you know what? That's fine. I love kit bashing. D&D4 was surprisingly difficult to kit bash, at least the way I wanted to; it's funny how giving each class its own spell list went a long way towards making me feel like I couldn't mod it. Sad really, there were 6 years of minimal crunchy goodness coming out of me.
We've been at this for a long time, no?
Well, I'm here to start up some crunch work again. It's going to start broad and conceptual and then hone in on the mechanics, mostly because I'm not yet sure if I'm going to be using the 5E or the 4E skeleton for Xev20 (the ever mythical Xev20, the once and future system).
So what is it I'm here to do today? Priority number one for my system is for there to be some parity between casters and non-casters, and I don't just mean in combat; but I do also mean in combat too. I don't want to take away from spellcasters; I like D&D-style spellcasters. I want to give to everyone else, though in a more limited fashion since their abilities are close to infinitely usable.
This thread is for shopping basic ideas for a maneuver system and a trick system. Maneuvers are for combat, and tricks will be an extended skill system for use in combat and out. Where spellcasters can charm, fly, light people on fire, and hit multiple opponents at the same time, I want non-casters to be charming, be able to leap tremendous distances, cut so deep the bleeding doesn't stop, and cut a swath through hordes of enemies.
So where to begin? What are some effects a maneuver system should grant? What should a trick system be able to do? I want there to be basic maneuvers, things that everyone can do, and improved versions of them that can only be done with feats. For instance, to use D&D3 terms (since many of us migrated from the WotC boards during 3E's reign), anyone can try to trip someone, but Improved Trip grants you bonuses and lets you follow up with attacks. Basic maneuvers will require the giving up of an attack; Improved Maneuvers usually add a rider. Another addition could be adding maneuvers as riders for giving up bonus critical hit damage; if you score a crit, you can choose to do extra damage, or to add a maneuver (your crit could just wear someone down, or it could wound them, send them flying, knock them down, etc.). Lastly, and I mean lastly, there could be a basic way to add a rider by taking a penalty to hit; I'd rather avoid this being the baseline.
What about a trick system? You wouldn't want tricks to become the norm, so there has to be some risk involved with the action economy. Lets say tricks tend to involve a move action and require a skill check. A failed check would mean a wasted action; this could be a reasonable penalty without adding anything else. Feint and Demoralize are simple combat tricks, but other tricks could involve increasing jump distances, doing parkour tricks along walls, knowing weaknesses of monsters, and sizing up opponents.
What are things spellcasters can do that you think non-casters could perform equivalencies?
Quote from: Xeviat
What are things spellcasters can do that you think non-casters could perform equivalencies?
- Magic users can summon, animate and dominate creatures to do their bidding, in and out of combat. Other characters should attract followers, command subordinates and call upon allies.
- Magic users can bestow curses, polymorph and turn people to stone. Other characters should be able to brew poisons that cause similarly debilitating, permanent-unless-cancelled nonlethal effects.
- Magic users can scry and divine. Other characters should have connections to spy networks, guilds and schools that can provide them with valuable information.
That said, there are some magics that would be very difficult to find mundane alternatives for.
Control Weather, Teleport, Resurrection, Etherealness and
Plane Shift, for example. To say nothing of the things that a smart player might accomplish with a well-worded
Wish.
I am not good with crunch, but thinking about equivalencies two things came to mind. The first was the idea of Chi blocking (http://avatar.wikia.com/wiki/Chi_blocking) as seen in TLA, which is at least a means of equalizing the playing field. The second is the Rurouni Kenshin series, which ostensibly lacks magic yet presents many villains who do silly things, like breathe fire, perform acrobatic absurdities, and so on. This includes the Futae no Kiwami technique, a punch that punches twice, dismantling armor, stone, and flesh and bone with ease. I didn't mean to get martial artsy with it, but it seems like the most relevant thing from my available references to balance with D&D magic.
Quote from: Ghostman
Quote from: Xeviat
What are things spellcasters can do that you think non-casters could perform equivalencies?
- Magic users can summon, animate and dominate creatures to do their bidding, in and out of combat. Other characters should attract followers, command subordinates and call upon allies.
- Magic users can bestow curses, polymorph and turn people to stone. Other characters should be able to brew poisons that cause similarly debilitating, permanent-unless-cancelled nonlethal effects.
- Magic users can scry and divine. Other characters should have connections to spy networks, guilds and schools that can provide them with valuable information.
- Magic users can shapeshift and make alterations to their physical forms and mental properties. Other characters should be able to alter these things over time through training, whether things like physical characteristics through Rocky-esque training montages or leaning new languages etc.
- Magic users can alter and control the shape of the battlefield (Entangle, Spike Growth, Web, Grease, Obscuring Mist, et al). Other characters should be able to use mundane tools or alchemical aids to similarly make changes to their surroundings.
Not to deter you, but given that the 5th DMG is probably going to contain lots of options for customizing your game, might it make sense to wait for that to come out before hacking 5th extensively?
Quote from: HippopotamusDundee and Ghostman
- Magic users can summon, animate and dominate creatures to do their bidding, in and out of combat. Other characters should attract followers, command subordinates and call upon allies.
- Magic users can bestow curses, polymorph and turn people to stone. Other characters should be able to brew poisons that cause similarly debilitating, permanent-unless-cancelled nonlethal effects.
- Magic users can scry and divine. Other characters should have connections to spy networks, guilds and schools that can provide them with valuable information.
- Magic users can shapeshift and make alterations to their physical forms and mental properties. Other characters should be able to alter these things over time through training, whether things like physical characteristics through Rocky-esque training montages or leaning new languages etc.
- Magic users can alter and control the shape of the battlefield (Entangle, Spike Growth, Web, Grease, Obscuring Mist, et al). Other characters should be able to use mundane tools or alchemical aids to similarly make changes to their surroundings.
On Summon; an interesting idea, bringing back leadership to some degree. It would be difficult to manage in a single fight, but having one powerful ally wouldn't be too impossible to balance (at least for a single build).
On Dominate; I could see a dominate-like effect existing for high Persuasion skill.
On Permanent non-lethal effects; chi/ki/qi techniques could easily include something equivalent; alchemy is a no brainer that could be made to be more skill than magic.
On Scry/Divination: I love the idea of information networks; definitely a "streetwise" skill application.
On Shapeshifting: I wouldn't want to see outright shape shifting, but temporary alterations of one's stats (through stances or things like that) to, say, become as durable as stone, are things I could see. Maybe as stuff for endurance skills and the like?
On shaping the battlefield: outside of prepreparation, I could see epic level heroes hitting the ground with a hammer to open up a ravine, or a swordsman swinging their sword and cutting down trees to create difficult terrain. Paul Bunyan diverted a river for crying out loud.
Quote from: SteerpikeNot to deter you, but given that the 5th DMG is probably going to contain lots of options for customizing your game, might it make sense to wait for that to come out before hacking 5th extensively?
There's no use waiting to do some thinking. I'm waiting for the DMG to make my final pronouncement. My expectations are sufficiently low, though.
Combat Maneuvers should include the following possibilities:
- Trade defense for offense (in terms of one of accuracy, movement, or power)
- Trade offense for defense (in terms of number of defenses or effectiveness of defenses)
- Trade time not-attacking for some sort of aiming bonus to your next attack against a specific opponent
- Set up If-Then statements, like "I wait until he tries to attack me to launch my attack against him". This would let you delay your own action in the initiative sequence in exchange for potentially interrupting another person's action with your own.
- Move further than you normally could if you also attacked
- Move far AND attack, but with penalties to accuracy and defenses
- Do Jack Squat.
- Take a round to execute a non-combat action during combat
- For the sake of spellcasting, probably some sort of Concentration thingy instead of an attack, with potential penalties or different handling of defenses (or the effect of distraction, at the least).
I think a trick system should be able to let you take various penalties to skills to perform tricks. Frex, roll Acrobatics-4 to slide down a banister without falling off. Buying up a trick should eliminate the penalty. It is totally okay if it is cheaper to buy up the underlying skill than buy up every trick based on it; people tend to specialize in tricks anyway. It's sort of a signature thing.
Executing tricks should take various numbers of rounds based on the trick. Performing a backflip might be a one-round action, but sliding down a bannister will take various lengths of time depending on how long that bannister is. This will generally use the Non-Combat-Stuff maneuver above.
Combat tricks may involve exploiting the geometry of your weapon (using the hook on locherbe axe to snag someone's clothing or using the prongs on a spontoon to bind an opponent's blade). These will likely use some form of an attack maneuver.
I generally support the idea of more parity between casters and noncasters. Not absolute equality, mind you, because that would just make everyone the same, and that's no fun either. At the end of the day, I think magic should always be somewhat more powerful, more diverse, more flexible, and such. Because it's magic! However, I feel like these gains should come at the risk of being slower and more dangerous to use, cost more resources, and in many cases not be the best option when there is a perfectly safe and reasonable mundane solution also available.
One big problem when making a comparison between summoning and recruiting followers through more mundane means is that summoning is, at least in D&D 3e, a lot more powerful. It works in one round, and, conversely, when the creature is no longer useful it goes away. I think one way to bring some equality here is to make summoning more involved, more akin to the process of seeking out hirelings-- it requires rituals that more time and resources, and there may be risk to the caster involved, or things like that, and it's also longer term so you have to plan for the upkeep of your summoned creature as well. In that way, summoning becomes a lot closer to the mundane process of seeking out hirelings, and becomes best used in situations where you need a particular exotic creature that is not readily available for hire.
Anyway, one option is to abstract combat maneuvers somewhat, like Fate does, and base the maneuver's description on effect rather than any sort of action or fluff or whatever. Sort of like a 'build your own power' in a 4e system. This makes the descriptions of maneuvers rather dissociated, and, at its worst extreme, can lead to sameness because every character just does "the thing I do for a +5 bonus," so I don't recommend that everyone handles every ability this way, but if some of the game's core abilities are based on this model it does ensure that both fighting and spellcasting characters have basic tools to work with that help them to succeed.
As for infinitely useful martial powers, one option is to give martials some kind of "stamina bar" or the like. Having a certain fighting technique that is only usable once per day kind of strains credibility and I don't like that, but I don't think it's at all unreasonable to posit that someone would just plain get tired after doing various advanced fighting tricks and have to rest a while before they could do any more.
Quote from: sparkletwist
As for infinitely useful martial powers, one option is to give martials some kind of "stamina bar" or the like. Having a certain fighting technique that is only usable once per day kind of strains credibility and I don't like that, but I don't think it's at all unreasonable to posit that someone would just plain get tired after doing various advanced fighting tricks and have to rest a while before they could do any more.
Exhausted stamina would be better modeled by mounting penalties to checks, reducing the character's effectiveness than a flat out "you can't do this anymore". A similar mechanic could also be used to restrict magic whilst allowing infinite spells -- your limited number of spells/level/day being merely what you can cast without penalty, anything beyond that requiring skill checks with with consequences for failure (spell fizzles, blows in your face, casts successfully but triggers unwanted side effects, etc.)
That's a good way to do it, too. It depends on what the objective is, I think. A flat out "you can't do this anymore" is simpler and if you're trying to have a martial analog to spellcasters with their Vancian casting, it'd be the way to go. On the other hand, some tradeoffs could work well, too.
Depending on how it works, it could eliminate the need for spells per day or whatever completely, actually. That is how Asura works, anyway-- the fluff is that trying to use Prana Powers causes the universe to resist your attempts to meddle with it, so all magic is paid for with either your health or your sanity. Mechanically speaking, each spell has a certain cost called its "Dissonance" and you have to pay that cost with either hit points or mind points.
Penumbra rules also model this, as significant hexes, tricks, and combat maneuvers cost points from a PC's ability pools (with greater abilities being more taxing).
Some interesting ideas all around. I don't want to introduce an energy system, though, as I'd like the system to be easily ported into an edition of D&D without requiring unique subsystems to be added and balanced.
For a 4th Edition styled system, non-spellcasters will have scaling base damage, gaining additional weapon dice as their levels increase (more so than the +1[W] at 21st level). Maneuvers would be priced primarily on trading weapon dice.
In a 5th Edition styled system, non-casters have extra attacks, so maneuvers need only be priced against giving up attacks, as each individual attack is lower in value than in 4th.
In both systems, maneuvers can exist in basic and advanced forms. Both versions have a Push and a Grab basic maneuver. Both systems have feats of varying value, and a feat could be used to purchase an advanced maneuver; 4E has its powers, which I am trying to somewhat forgo in my house hack.
As far as skill tricks are concerned, I think it can be balanced by actions and failure chance alone; attacks already have a failure chance in them. Advanced skill tricks, as in Utility powers, lack said failure chance but have the opportunity cost of taking up a power/feat slot to learn. Though, for both maneuvers and tricks, I have considered allowing them to be learned through time and gold, just like spells, to create more parity.
As for considerations of the martial vs. the magical, playing Mutants and Masterminds for a few years taught me some things. For instance, the Minion and Side Kick feats (they're called "advantages" in the newest edition) are built off the same structure as the Summon power. Summon costs 1 point more per level when you build it the same, since the minions and side kicks have to get around by their own power (and lack the surprise advantage that summoning allies affords). But I'm taking some of the summoning thoughts here to heart; perhaps certain summons are better presented as rituals, leaving one-creature summons to be balanced against some sort of potential Leadership feat or Intimidate/Persuasion skill benefit.
Taking that comparison to its conclusion, maneuvers and tricks can be less useful than spells, since spells have a resource and are not unlimited. But that additional value shouldn't necessarily be more power; in M&M, Summon 10 and Minion 10 are going to be just as powerful as each other, the minion simply cost less points (leaving more points for added versatility elsewhere).
Were there anymore thoughts for maneuver effects beyond simple things like imposing penalties and inflicting statuses?
Quote from: XeviatI don't want to introduce an energy system, though, as I'd like the system to be easily ported into an edition of D&D without requiring unique subsystems to be added and balanced.
Well, that's fair, if it's just plain not what you want to do-- although in defense of this mechanic I'll just point out two things:
- Balancing "limited use abilities" vs. "unlimited use abilities" is another thing you'd have to balance
- D&D does already have some basis for this kind of stuff; the SRD has an optional spell points system right in there, so it's not totally "not D&D"
Quote from: XeviatI think it can be balanced by actions and failure chance alone
I'm not so sure about the idea of balancing with failure chance, at least in systems without any sort of meta points to mitigate it. Giving players some kind of super-awesome ability that only rarely hits seems like it would make balancing encounters much more difficult and could lead to all sorts of player frustration. It also seems like that means that super attacks are also most likely to be used against easy-to-hit mooks... which would look strange when compared to a lot of genre fiction.
Quote from: Xeviatin M&M, Summon 10 and Minion 10 are going to be just as powerful as each other, the minion simply cost less points (leaving more points for added versatility elsewhere).
That's fine for point buy systems, but D&D isn't a point buy system. The "currency" that you're buying abilities with is generally "one feat" or "one class feature" as opposed to a finely tweakable number of character points. So how would that translate?
Quote from: XeviatWere there anymore thoughts for maneuver effects beyond simple things like imposing penalties and inflicting statuses?
Another big one is "make the target do what I want it to do rather than what it wants to do." The most extreme form of this are spells like
dominate person/monster but is could be something simpler like "attack this target instead of that one" or "go this way instead of the other way." One problem with too many of these abilities is that it becomes difficult to figure out what to do when it'd be realistic for an enemy to use them on a player character, because you probably don't want to just make players immune, but, on the other hand, I think too much of this kind of stuff can have a really detrimental effect on player agency and ruin the fun.
The failure chance is for tricks; like, say, flipping through a group of opponents to ignore Opportunity attacks. For maneuvers, the miss chance of regular attacks is why I'm not primarily considering attack penalties as a way of balancing maneuvers. Mooks have low hp, whether they're minions or just low level, so simple damage attacks are how you take them out.
As for translating point costs, it's a matter of costs, like you say. A spell would be bigger for its buck, but they run off a finite resource. They'll have to fall back on their weaker cantrips (in 5E considerations, general cantrip damage is like 4d10 at end game while the fighter is doing 4d10+20 with a higher chance to hit; comparing an archer to a mage). If a caster can drop a high level spell that damages and stuns, a fighter could give up an attack to stun.
For making people do what you want, I'd definitely put that into deception, intimidation, and persuasion, depending on what you're trying to do. Bluff could trick someone into hitting an ally (I could see weapon skill doing this too; a parry designed to redirect their attack into someone else). Persuasion could get people to surrender or change sides. Intimidate could get people to flee. As for using them on the group, no one complains when the fighter is dominated by magic; why not honeyed words?
Quote from: XeviatPersuasion could get people to surrender or change sides. Intimidate could get people to flee. As for using them on the group, no one complains when the fighter is dominated by magic; why not honeyed words?
Because magic is a mysterious force that doesn't exist in real life and so can play by its own rules, which we accept because there's no reality to them by which to hold them to account.
Words, however, are well-understood and used daily in a myriad of situations, and we have a better understanding of how they work or don't work. Unless there's a very good reason words work differently in a fantasy world (they're being spoken in the First Tongue that compels obedience or by a supernatural being or something) then we're going to be inclined to reject uses of words that clearly don't accord with the way we understand them to work in reality.
Intimidate to provoke a surrender attempt, when the enemy is clearly losing? I could see it. Persuasion plus a hefty bribe to get some corrupt mercenaries to turn on their masters? Not impossible. But context is far, far more important here than in the case of magic. Making those social skills more "gamey" and quantified and mechanized is possible, but it ventures into dissociation territory, threatening immersion. They can't be used reliably or predictably in the same way that magic can without sacrificing some verisimilitude.
There are certainly good combat uses for social skills - in d20, using Bluff to feint or Intimidate to demoralize - but these don't seem as dissociated to me.
Steerpike, I mostly agree with your point, so I don't want to pick on you too much, but I do kind of have a problem with the whole logic of "magic is magical but non-magical things have to stay realistic" because it leads directly to fighters sucking. Fighters would be better if they had superhuman (but not overtly magical) abilities that increased their non-combat effectiveness, or for that matter gave them some measure of battlefield control like wizards are able to achieve. So I think, on some level, it's perfectly fine to give even high level 'mundane' characters abilities that no ordinary human would ever have.
Anyway, as to the broader issue, I'm actually one of those people who does complain when characters are dominated by magic, at least in a way that takes away player agency. I much prefer the compel mechanic used in Fate and the like, where you are given a choice and can pay the game's meta-currency to avoid having to give in. I think social combat works this way in Exalted too. But anyway. I prefer that players are always in control of their characters, even when bad things happen.
Quote from: sparkletwistFighters would be better if they had superhuman (but not overtly magical) abilities that increased their non-combat effectiveness, or for that matter gave them some measure of battlefield control like wizards are able to achieve. So I think, on some level, it's perfectly fine to give even high level 'mundane' characters abilities that no ordinary human would ever have.
I see where you're coming from, here. Basically high-level fighters should behave like Beowulf - phenomenally badass semi-superheroes.
I guess the two examples still function differently in my head. I can imagine someone being strong enough or swift enough to perform preternatural athletic feats, like running along walls or fighting dozens of warriors at once. These things are simply "scaled up" versions of mundane abilities. The problem is, I
can't really imagine someone being just so damn smooth that they can preternaturally subvert enemy warriors in the heat of battle,
unless the context is right or some kind of actual magic is involved. I think this is partly to do with the fact that multiple human psychologies are involved, and partly because words just don't really work that way.
Part of what kind of rubs me the wrong way about some of this is the insinuation that everyone needs to be balanced against one another
in combat, whereas in the D&D I want to play certain characters are better in combat than others, and certain characters are much better at certain out-of-combat situations. The silver-tongued speaker's value isn't to make fancy speeches in the midst of combat that quasi-magically convert enemies into allies, it's to lie to the guards to infiltrate a fortress or make speeches to the troops to lend them courage or con a hapless merchant into buying a cursed item. This is just my preference, though; for those that really want the "D&D as tactical skirmish game," in which combat really is the main focus of the game, I understand why combat parity is very important.
Quote from: sparkletwistAnyway, as to the broader issue, I'm actually one of those people who does complain when characters are dominated by magic, at least in a way that takes away player agency. I much prefer the compel mechanic used in Fate and the like, where you are given a choice and can pay the game's meta-currency to avoid having to give in. I think social combat works this way in Exalted too. But anyway. I prefer that players are always in control of their characters, even when bad things happen.
I totally know what you mean, here. Nowadays whenever I use Dominate against players I always tell them, "OK, you're on the enemy side now, but you still control your character. I trust you to roleplay this."
Quote from: SteerpikePart of what kind of rubs me the wrong way about some of this is the insinuation that everyone needs to be balanced against one another in combat, whereas in the D&D I want to play certain characters are better in combat than others, and certain characters are much better at certain out-of-combat situations.
I agree to a point, actually, but I also think that every character should at least be
competent in every major activity that the party is expected to do, so that each player can participate in each scene in a meaningful way. One particular character may shine, but everyone gets to contribute, lest a player become bored and/or frustrated due to being basically useless for that scene; what we don't want is a situation like Shadowrun where anyone who isn't a decker just has to sit around during any sort of "cyberspace" scene.
Quote from: SteerpikeNowadays whenever I use Dominate against players I always tell them, "OK, you're on the enemy side now, but you still control your character. I trust you to roleplay this."
I like this approach, and I've done similarly. I think it works for non-magical social situations too-- like, the enemy succeeded at a social roll so the player roleplays the character as being more convinced, or whatever. At least, I like when it's somewhat automatic like that, because it'd be kind of awkward for me (as GM) to tell the player "you are more convinced of this now."
I'd like everyone to be balanced against each other in all aspects of the game; if we're going to parse things as combat, exploration, and interaction, so be it. In my experience playing and DMing, though, imbalances in combat are more felt and more resented than imbalances out of combat. If the ranger shows everyone up leading them through a forest, so be it, they're a ranger; the fighter is going to show them up commanding an army, the rogue is going to show them up sneaking into a fortress, and the wizard is going to show them up at everything.
But D&D, at least through 3rd Edition, has been sold to the DM as everyone should be reasonably balanced in combat. It never came out and said this (I suppose it did in 4E), but check out the encounter building guidelines; never did they say "If your party is all Fighters, then they're going to be able to handle tougher fights". Every PC class was the same CR at every level (though this was a mistake in their CR calculator). Because a party of 4 Fighters was, on the surface, supposed to be able to handle the same things as the uber party of 4 Clerics, the game should have been balanced around combat.
And, frankly, D&D is a combat game. I'm okay with larger imbalances in games like, say, L5R, where combat is a small part of the game. When well over half the book is dedicated to combat rules ... it's a combat game.
As for social skills acting like enchantment spells, I still think, as you both do I feel, that high level martial characters should be magical in some fashion. A high level fighter can fall an infinite distance and get up; they have to be damned magical at that point. A high level barbarian or fighter could simply be so scary that a flourish of their sword and a glare of their eyes sends weaker opponents running (demoralize, with higher levels of fear for larger save failures?). A charming swashbuckler can simply say "you don't want to fight me, you want to join me" and some simply nod and agree, turning on their masters. Taking what I learned from M&M, I don't think "one shot kills" should be able to happen when they couldn't with an attack, but minions are fair game; so are wounded opponents (See here, Thokk the One-Eyed, would you rather join our cause or join your god?).
I agree with both of you that letting players play out their domination is the best (though I might guide them if they're being dominated by an especially adept tactician).
Quote from: sparkletwistI agree to a point, actually, but I also think that every character should at least be competent in every major activity that the party is expected to do, so that each player can participate in each scene in a meaningful way.
I guess this depends on how broadly one defines "activity," but given a reasonably broad description I'd agree.
Quote from: XeviatBut D&D, at least through 3rd Edition, has been sold to the DM as everyone should be reasonably balanced in combat.
Yeah, but a lot of people
don't like this. Arguably this is part of why the OSR is so popular - the recent editions were perceived as excessively combat-centric, straying away from the dungeoneering/exploration mode of the previous editions. In many of the earlier versions xp was explicitly about getting treasure - fighting was a means to an end, and if you skipped a fight with clever tactics or spells or stealth you still got the reward, you weren't "missing out" on the core of the game.
Like I said, though, I do understand that if you basically want D&D to be a tactical skirmish game - where combat is
the main thing - I can understand why parity is a necessity.
I still feel that preternaturally effective social skills are more immersion-threatening than preternatural athletic ones, but if you are going for the "they really are magical" solution, at a certain point it does make sense. Effectively, then everyone becomes a kind of magic-user after long enough. This tends to leave a bit of a bad taste in my mouth, but I can see why other players would enjoy it.