The Campaign Builder's Guild

Taken from an initiative in the 4e release thread to build a better system than wizards. This is the thread that will (hopefully) spawn the best thing in tabletop roleplaying since the d20!

Perhaps I'm aiming a bit too high. The d12 then.

Transcript of the relevant posts from the thread;
[blockquote SG]Well, do we want to work from the ground up or work off a D20 skeleton?[/blockquote]
[blockquote Ra-Tiel]Well, I'm open for anything, but there are some things I must insist on.  

1) No critical hit tables, no critical misses, and no random hit location system.
2) No standard v3.5 magic with an unimaginable abundance of redundant spells.
3) Character concept dictates mechanics, not the other way round.
4) Generally speaking, rules should be easy and intuitive (read: everything specific combat actions like grapple, disarm, etc in v3.5 are not).[/blockquote]

Quote from: AtlantisMaybe we should try using an elder scrolls like system with the leveling up the major skills to get to a higher level, etc. The classes from that type of system would be easily created with simply the major and minor skills. We could add in feats and ability scores ourselves.

Quote from: Sir VorpalHowabouts instead of classes, each level you get points that you spend to get abilities, such as HD, feats, spels, etc.

Now I have by no means been elected the controller of the development of the setting, but I have had some thoughts;

the d20 system does have quite a lot going for it as a base. There's plenty of support for it, most people know the gist of it, and it works well for minor adaptations. The downside is that we may have to do heavy modification, and the system has several good techniques that, unfortunately, cannot be used wholesale due to copyright legality stuff; we're limited to the SRD, and anything else will have to be made up.

The problem I see with designing our own from the ground up is that we will need to do alot more work. This might be the way to go if we decide that we would have to scrap more form d20 than we would keep.

I think that the first order of business should be to list off what we want out of the setting. For instance, I want to be sure that this thing is somewhat modular so that entire sections can be easily swapped out for new mechanics, and that it can support the homebrews on this site (it IS our setting, after all).

Thoughts and comments are welcome; this is a community project after all.

Reserved for to-do list.

Reserved for the System itself.

i think we should have Abilities, Major skills, Minor skills, Feats, and Spells with a classless system.

I don't necessarilly think it should be a classless system, I mean, part of the fun is creating classes!

I agree that a classless system would be unwise. Classes act as a good means of keeping a character reasonably focused. With the classless systems I've seen, characters tend to become extremely hectic in their abilities, which I beleive harms them in the long run.

I agree that specific-focus classes should not be immediate (prestige classes or similar), and that classes need to be general to allow maximum flexibility.

you are right. we should have classes but they should have a wide range but i think they shouldnt start out with being able to have both martial prowess and spellcasting. Hexblade is good example of the mix. Maybe base classes should (if we do go with the major, minor skills system) have multiple choices of combinations for major skills. Also (If we do go as i previously mentioned) we should create the skills you can choose from.

Note: the major and minor skills would be the same(example: a class has Magic as a major skill while another may have it as a minor skill).

Atlantis, what do you want the system to actually DO? Once we figure out what we want out of it, it'll be easier to assign mechanics to it. Judging by your posts, you want it to be skill-based, but why? Is it for better balance? A more balanced power curve?

So, basically you're saying no just magic or melee focused classes? I don't think that's such a good idea, either.

@:SG

1. Skill based is  Different
2. I like it
3. I am not actually sure.

@:Sir Vorpal
Having Blunt weapons as a major skill and Magic as a major skill would be possible or Magic and Psionics as a major skill but those classes would have  different drawbacks(example: Less starting skills, less points to adjust the character at every level, etc.)

Quote from: Sir VorpalSo, basically you're saying no just magic or melee focused classes? I don't think that's such a good idea, either.

I think he's saying the opposite.

By the way, I love your advisory system.

oh.. i misread his post. missed the ....saying NO just...

but there would be plenty of mage-like and fighter-like classes

Has anyone here looked at the Deadlands RPG at all? It's got an interesting system for assigning abilities. There are no classes per say, in fact, there aren't even levels.

Hmm..I am beginning to see your point Atlantis. Howabouts this: The "classes" each have ability progression, like normal classes, you gain bonuses to abilities and such through the major and minor skills. Also, the major skills are used in the level-up process. In order to level up, you must have gained a certain amount of skill levels, which are gained through using them.

exactly, thats what i have been trying to say

From what I can see, you have wanted a class-less system entirely based on the major and minor skills. In that post, I call for a class system, with major and minor skills amplifying the class abilities and leveling the character up.

Also, we need to decide on some sort of Attribute-like thing.

i vote for Intellect, Awareness, Dexterity, Charisma, Strength, and Health

Quote from: Atlantisi vote for Intellect, Awareness, Dexterity, Charisma, Strength, and Health

I'm guessing Intellect = Intelligence, Awareness = Wisdom and the Health = constitution?

health=constitution and hit points
if Health=constitution, i would probably call it toughness

I say we have just Strength, Agility, and Intellect. Strength governs physical strength and health matters, Agility governs reflexes, dodging, etc., and Intellect governs spellcasting, knowledge, etc.

maybe change strength to toughness and have sub-abilities or would that be too confusing for people that play this and us

Quote from: Atlantisi vote for Intellect, Awareness, Dexterity, Charisma, Strength, and Health

Otherwise known as strength, dexterity, constitution, wisdom, intelligence, and charisma with different names and order?


I was initially enamored with a use-based setup too. The problem with that is that it works well in computer games where the tracking goes on behind the scenes, but it breaks down when applied to a tabletop game. It's a lot of extra space and bookkeeping when you've got to mark every time you've used each skill. It sounds like you're pulling this system straight from the Elderscrolls games. I've tried to convert that system to pen and paper, and believe me when I say it's messy as all heck.

I'm curious as to why you want to axe a simple skill points per level system, besides the standard 'I don't want characters skilled in stuff they've never used' knee-jerk response. It might not be the most realistic thing ever, but it's quick and easy and it works.

I do agree, however, that class and cross class skills have to go. I suggest replacing that with a list of 'class focuses.' Each class has a list of 15-20 potential focuses, and the character gets to choose ten when taking the first level of the class. You can add 1/2 your class level to the roll for those skills, or we could go for a straight bonus. These ten also have the normal class skill rank caps, while the others use cross class, but ditching the 1/2 point purchase concept, as that's simply moronic.

By the sound of the discussion (which has essentially been Sir Vorpal and Atlantis bouncing back and forth), it wounds like you want to rebuild d20. If not, we should probably be asking whether we want skills at all. Forget that, we should be figuring out basic dice mechanics.

Well, the word strength involves physical toughness, and I'm not sure how many people can get confused by Strength controlling physical ability and health.

yeah, when i think about it, that elder crolls system would be hard to use. Class focuses you say? i agree. First, we should work on attributes though. then we should think about class focuses, etc.

sO WE'RE KEEPING THE NORMAL D20, ROLL AGAINST A dc IDEA?

wHAT'S WRONG WITH THE SIX ABILITY SCORES AND KEEPING THEM AS IS? tHEY ARE (RELATIVELY) BALANCED, AND THAT WILL REQUIRE MINIMAL TWEAKING.

(Bloody... Ignore the all caps, that's what I get for playing Morrowind... Stupid caps lock as a controlling key...)

nothing is wrong with attributes but with all the discussion we have we dont know if we are keeping the DnD ones or using three or renaming a bunch. lets use a d12 instead of a d20. Lets be different.

Omg, could you please WAIT for me waking up before making so many posts in a thread that highly interests me? :-| :P

Anyways...

1) For a class-less, skill-based, level-controlled variant, check out my Worldgate Campaign Setting. The mechanics are a heavily modified fork of the d20 system, with everything broken down into skills. A character gets to select a few skills he's really good at, several skills he's just good at, the rest is standard (these categories determine max ranks). Each level a character gains a more or less fixed amount of skill points to distribute among his skills.

2) Regarding classes, I must say I am highly intrigued by the system used in the Everquest II d20 game. Even with the policy from SSS sucking donkey balls (dropping the game completely after the player's guide came out, leaving the community hanging in mid-air without a playable system :-/ ), the class system was very good imho.

Basically, you had a "archetype -> class -> advanced class" system. For example, if you wanted to make an unarmed specialist you would go fighter (general warrior class) -> brawler (general unarmed combat class) and then either -> monk (unarmed specialist with self-healing and some battlefield control options like stun etc) or -> bruiser (unarmed specialist for all out damage).

Also, there were no fixed class abilities, but instead each class gained a large number of "talents". Thus (and I've tried it out ;) ) you can at first level make a fighter that is
* a classical sword & board type tank
* an unarmed & unarmored combatant
* an agile swashbuckler type
and perfectly playable with interesting combat options.

3) I've also made a suggestion for a "increase skills by use" based system in another thread (can't remember which one right now :-| ). While it didn't deal with the "learn from errors" thing (imho that one is impossible to implement without leaving some really big loopholes), it worked off the following idea:
* you select skill categories similar to those I mentioned under 1), representing your character's talents and knacks for things (think TES "major skills")
* whenever you succeed on a skill check by 5 or more you check a box next to the skill
* if you have 5/10/20 (major skills, average skills, minor skills) boxes checked, you clear all boxes and make an "advancement roll"
* on the advancement roll, you make a d20 roll and if you get a result higher than your current number of ranks in that skill you gain one rank, otherwise not

My idea behind this was to make advancement slow, but still noticable. The first levels it would be quite easy to advance in your skills, primarily because magic is not yet able to do anything (*cought*[limited] wish*cough*) and most characters have to rely on their mundane skills, and because the advancement roll will succeed on most occasions. However, later on opportunities to use skills become rarer (why climb when you have boots of flying, etc) and the advancement roll will fail more often.

Anyways, there were some problems with it pointed out in the other thread, so this may not be a perfectly valid idea, and definitively needs some more brainstorming about it.

4) As for the die types/ability names/number of skills/etc, well, to me it doesn't matter. We could make a d20 spin off (it is after all a successful and relative solid game engine), or use another system. However, I'm not too keen on renaming everything and its mother just to be different for sake of being different. ;)

Quote from: Ra-TielOmg, could you please WAIT for me waking up before making so many posts in a thread that highly interests me? :-| :P

NEVAH! We shall always post when you are asleep! It is part of our cunning plan!

*looks at what he just typed* Perhaps I need some sleep...

Quote from: Ra-TielAnyways...

1) For a class-less, skill-based, level-controlled variant, check out my Worldgate Campaign Setting. The mechanics are a heavily modified fork of the d20 system, with everything broken down into skills. A character gets to select a few skills he's really good at, several skills he's just good at, the rest is standard (these categories determine max ranks). Each level a character gains a more or less fixed amount of skill points to distribute among his skills.

So we've pretty much cemented that we will be using some sort of skill specialization. This is good.

Quote from: Ra-Tiel2) Regarding classes, I must say I am highly intrigued by the system used in the Everquest II d20 game. Even with the policy from SSS sucking donkey balls (dropping the game completely after the player's guide came out, leaving the community hanging in mid-air without a playable system :-/ ), the class system was very good imho.

Basically, you had a "archetype -> class -> advanced class" system. For example, if you wanted to make an unarmed specialist you would go fighter (general warrior class) -> brawler (general unarmed combat class) and then either -> monk (unarmed specialist with self-healing and some battlefield control options like stun etc) or -> bruiser (unarmed specialist for all out damage).

Also, there were no fixed class abilities, but instead each class gained a large number of "talents". Thus (and I've tried it out ;) ) you can at first level make a fighter that is
* a classical sword & board type tank
* an unarmed & unarmored combatant
* an agile swashbuckler type
and perfectly playable with interesting combat options.

So, you take that as a single package, or wait for each one as you gain in levels? If the former, I like the idea, but I think there has to be an easier way to do it. If the latter, all that does is extend the time it takes for a concept to become 'complete,' which is not a good thing.

Quote from: Ra-Tiel3) I've also made a suggestion for a "increase skills by use" based system in another thread (can't remember which one right now :-| ). While it didn't deal with the "learn from errors" thing (imho that one is impossible to implement without leaving some really big loopholes), it worked off the following idea:
* you select skill categories similar to those I mentioned under 1), representing your character's talents and knacks for things (think TES "major skills")
* whenever you succeed on a skill check by 5 or more you check a box next to the skill
* if you have 5/10/20 (major skills, average skills, minor skills) boxes checked, you clear all boxes and make an "advancement roll"
* on the advancement roll, you make a d20 roll and if you get a result higher than your current number of ranks in that skill you gain one rank, otherwise not

My idea behind this was to make advancement slow, but still noticable. The first levels it would be quite easy to advance in your skills, primarily because magic is not yet able to do anything (*cought*[limited] wish*cough*) and most characters have to rely on their mundane skills, and because the advancement roll will succeed on most occasions.

However, later on opportunities to use skills become rarer (why climb when you have boots of flying, etc) and the advancement roll will fail more often.

The problem I've always seen with systems like this is the sheer amount of extra paperwork it takes, to me, outweighs the benefits it would bring to the table. The only one I would go with is a simple checkbox to record whether or not he used the skill at all during the level, and allow only those to be raised at levelup, and even that seems a bit superfluous.

Quote from: Stargate525NEVAH! We shall always post when you are asleep! It is part of our cunning plan!

*looks at what he just typed* Perhaps I need some sleep...

Definitively! :P

Quote from: Stargate525So we've pretty much cemented that we will be using some sort of skill specialization. This is good.

Well, I'd like to hear what others think about this idea. It just seems reasonable to me to make decisions as to what skills the character is really good at using. It's the same in real life; even given the same manual dexterity or intellectual abilities, some people are just better in certain areas than others - even with the exactly same kind of training and experience. In my eyes it's more reasonable to build a system off of these "knacks", than off some abstract "class skills" or something.

Quote from: Stargate525So, you take that as a single package, or wait for each one as you gain in levels? If the former, I like the idea, but I think there has to be an easier way to do it. If the latter, all that does is extend the time it takes for a concept to become 'complete,' which is not a good thing.

The EQII d20 system is still level-centric, so it's the latter one. However, it's not as bad as it seems, because you can easily work on most concepts with the "weak" basic talents the archetypes and classes offer. Also, I do think in that case it's a good thing, as the talents of the advanced classes are quite strong and would be just inappropriate for lower levels.

Quote from: Stargate525The problem I've always seen with systems like this is the sheer amount of extra paperwork it takes, to me, outweighs the benefits it would bring to the table. The only one I would go with is a simple checkbox to record whether or not he used the skill at all during the level, and allow only those to be raised at levelup, and even that seems a bit superfluous.

It's not much paperwork at all. All it would need was a few boxes next to each skill (or even a seperate "advancement sheet") and that's all. And it wouldn't be more paperwork than distributing skill points at level up, imho.

Another "benefit" would be that one could also tie in ability increases into that system, just like with TES. Perhaps for every 5 times a skill increases, the associated key ability also increases, or something similar. Or one could remove the "advancement roll" from the system, making skill increases exclusively dependent on the number of uses and take out the "luck" factor.

Quote from: Ra-TielWell, I'd like to hear what others think about this idea. It just seems reasonable to me to make decisions as to what skills the character is really good at using. It's the same in real life; even given the same manual dexterity or intellectual abilities, some people are just better in certain areas than others - even with the exactly same kind of training and experience. In my eyes it's more reasonable to build a system off of these "knacks", than off some abstract "class skills" or something.

Also, if we tie magic into the skills system, it makes modularizing the system as simple as swapping out skills like an old PCI graphics card.

Quote from: Ra-TielThe EQII d20 system is still level-centric, so it's the latter one. However, it's not as bad as it seems, because you can easily work on most concepts with the "weak" basic talents the archetypes and classes offer. Also, I do think in that case it's a good thing, as the talents of the advanced classes are quite strong and would be just inappropriate for lower levels.

The problem with that is that if you want to add classes, you've now got three separate types to deal with as opposed to the two (usually only one) that you have to deal with currently.

Quote from: Ra-TielIt's not much paperwork at all. All it would need was a few boxes next to each skill (or even a seperate "advancement sheet") and that's all. And it wouldn't be more paperwork than distributing skill points at level up, imho.

:?:

How in blazes do you come to that conclusion? You're advocating an additional SHEET for crying out loud. And it's not even the extra space I'm talking about, it's the need to remember to check the boxes in the middle of the game. I can't see how you can call that simpler than distributing 2-12 points once every level.

Quote from: Ra-TielAnother "benefit" would be that one could also tie in ability increases into that system, just like with TES. Perhaps for every 5 times a skill increases, the associated key ability also increases, or something similar. Or one could remove the "advancement roll" from the system, making skill increases exclusively dependent on the number of uses and take out the "luck" factor.

The only problem I see with this is that, again, you're adding a level of paperwork to the system. In order to do this, one would also have to balance out the governing attributes amongst the skills so that they are even, otherwise you'll get an unequal attribute growth.

Quote from: Stargate525Also, if we tie magic into the skills system, it makes modularizing the system as simple as swapping out skills like an old PCI graphics card.

Nice analogy. Me likes. ^^

Quote from: Stargate525The problem with that is that if you want to add classes, you've now got three separate types to deal with as opposed to the two (usually only one) that you have to deal with currently.

Not necessarily.

Archetypes include the "basic 4":
* fighter
* scout
* mage
* priest

Classes include rather general concepts leading to more specialized classes:
* Brawler (unarmed & unarmored) -> monks, bruisers
* Predator (tracking & hunting) -> ranger, assassin
* Rogue (swashbuckling, skills) -> brigand, swashbuckler
* Warrior (armed & armored) -> guardian, berserker

I can't tell how it looks like with magic classes, because SSS droped the f*cking system! x.

Anyways, I think it's clear enough to get the idea. If you wanted to introduce a new class, you'd only have to add a new advanced class, perhaps with some new talents (also low level talents that are required to gain access to that advanced class) and you're set.

Quote from: Stargate525:?:

How in blazes do you come to that conclusion? You're advocating an additional SHEET for crying out loud. And it's not even the extra space I'm talking about, it's the need to remember to check the boxes in the middle of the game. I can't see how you can call that simpler than distributing 2-12 points once every level.

Ok, perhaps it was not formulated well enough. What I meant was, that I don't think it's unplayable. Different systems work differently and have a different flow of information. Under this premise, I don't think the "checked boxes" version would be unwieldy or complicated. Not everything that makes things "more complex" than "spending 2-12 points once every level" is a bad thing. ;)

Quote from: Stargate525The only problem I see with this is that, again, you're adding a level of paperwork to the system. In order to do this, one would also have to balance out the governing attributes amongst the skills so that they are even, otherwise you'll get an unequal attribute growth.

Well, as for distribution I think it's ok. The only "critical" ability I can see would be Constitution, but you could compensate for that if you tie in HP (or whatever other damage tracking system we're going to use) with double the normal effect. And again, not everything that makes a system a bit more complex is a bad thing. It would of course feel distinctly different from cookie-cutter d20, but I thought that was -at least partially- wanted?

I just had a thought. What if, instead of having the base archetypes as its own class, then moving onto other things as you progress, you get to choose a class (in the traditional sense), then an archetype, which enhances and stacks with the class? So you could choose 'fighter', then choose from 'brawler,' 'boxer,' whatever. Or, you could have a list of classes and a list of archetypes, and let them choose. I'd like to see some of the combinations; Raging Wizard anyone?

Quote from: Ra-TielOk, perhaps it was not formulated well enough. What I meant was, that I don't think it's unplayable. Different systems work differently and have a different flow of information. Under this premise, I don't think the "checked boxes" version would be unwieldy or complicated. Not everything that makes things "more complex" than "spending 2-12 points once every level" is a bad thing. ;)

Quote from: Ra-TielWell, as for distribution I think it's ok. The only "critical" ability I can see would be Constitution, but you could compensate for that if you tie in HP (or whatever other damage tracking system we're going to use) with double the normal effect. And again, not everything that makes a system a bit more complex is a bad thing. It would of course feel distinctly different from cookie-cutter d20, but I thought that was -at least partially- wanted?

Touché.

It's just that I know from [far, far too much]experience that adding complexity is not always good. The problem with complexity is that it has to be justified. Does the keeping track of each skill use justify the increased organicness of the system?

I like the idea of your skills increasing your abilities though...

I propose a class-less, XP = Character points system in which you use character points to buy your scores, skills, feats, and abilities. I propose that costs increase for higher ranks, thus allowing for generalized characters to exist alongside specialized characters. I propose Defenses, Attack Bonuses, and base Hit points be standardized for all characters, so that your ability scores will determine your character a bit more.

With proper work, feats from outside sources will be usable. PrCs would be unnecessary, because ability trees could be made that simply have difficult prerequisites, thus keeping them out of low level character's hands.

Quote from: Stargate525I just had a thought. What if, instead of having the base archetypes as its own class, then moving onto other things as you progress, you get to choose a class (in the traditional sense), then an archetype, which enhances and stacks with the class? So you could choose 'fighter', then choose from 'brawler,' 'boxer,' whatever. Or, you could have a list of classes and a list of archetypes, and let them choose. I'd like to see some of the combinations; Raging Wizard anyone?

I should have made it more clearl that in the EQII d20 system, talents are the main mechanical character development feature. The various archetypes, classes, and advanced classes "only" govern HD, skill points, saves, and what talents the character can take.

However, your idea with the "templates" is also interesting. But on the other hand, a "normal" class system again leads probably to insane redundancy (fighter, barbarian, swashbuckler, hexblade, etc all doing basically the same thing but with different class abilities).

But another idea: how about making some general classes, and requiring each character to select a "class template" like "wild" or "civilized" or "arcane" or "divine" or "psionic" or "holy" or "vile" that change and/or modify some aspects of the class? So a "holy fighter" would be equal to a paladin, a "wild fighter" would be a barbarian, a "wild rogue" would be a ranger or scout, a "civilized" mage would be a wizard, a "holy/vile priest" would be a favored soul, etc?

Anyways, we could also go and use Crave's "Uber Generics" (http://forums.gleemax.com/wotc_archive/index.php/t-282481), basically allowing each player to make his own - more or less balanced - 20 level base class.

Quote from: Stargate525Touché.  

:P

Quote from: Stargate525It's just that I know from [far, far too much]experience that adding complexity is not always good. The problem with complexity is that it has to be justified. Does the keeping track of each skill use justify the increased organicness of the system?  

I know what you mean. I personally, however, are less concerned with the complexity/simplicity of a system, but rather with its "elegance". I don't mind a system being a tad more complex, as long as its mechanics are coherent, homogene, and elegant, without many exceptions and loopholes. Therefore, I do think that yes, it would be worth to keep track of every skill. Additionally, one could always use a condensed skill list folding some skills together (hide and move silently, spot and listen, make appraise a craft or profession skill application, etc).

Quote from: Stargate525I like the idea of your skills increasing your abilities though...

Thank you. :D

--------- Edit ---------

Quote from: Kap'n XeviatI propose a class-less, XP = Character points system in which you use character points to buy your scores, skills, feats, and abilities. I propose that costs increase for higher ranks, thus allowing for generalized characters to exist alongside specialized characters. I propose Defenses, Attack Bonuses, and base Hit points be standardized for all characters, so that your ability scores will determine your character a bit more. [...]

You mean GURPS? :P :D ;)

Never picked up Gurps. I'd still be using the d20 mechanics, just allowing characters to build more unique creations within it. I believe they made By the Numbers already, though, and True20 is pretty close to this too.

so, have we settled on this EQII-like system. It seems to me from the description ra-tiel gave us that we are just adding in a couple nifty things.

Quote from: Ra-TielHowever, your idea with the "templates" is also interesting. But on the other hand, a "normal" class system again leads probably to insane redundancy (fighter, barbarian, swashbuckler, hexblade, etc all doing basically the same thing but with different class abilities).

But another idea: how about making some general classes, and requiring each character to select a "class template" like "wild" or "civilized" or "arcane" or "divine" or "psionic" or "holy" or "vile" that change and/or modify some aspects of the class? So a "holy fighter" would be equal to a paladin, a "wild fighter" would be a barbarian, a "wild rogue" would be a ranger or scout, a "civilized" mage would be a wizard, a "holy/vile priest" would be a favored soul, etc?

Anyways, we could also go and use Crave's "Uber Generics" (http://forums.gleemax.com/wotc_archive/index.php/t-282481), basically allowing each player to make his own - more or less balanced - 20 level base class.

Your idea is exactly what I had in mind. That way, by adding a single base or template, you've added dozens of extra combinations. The only difficulty with this will be to dissect our favorite classes and figure out just what's template material and what's base material.

'Prestige Classes' could be done in this manner as well by simply having advanced templates that have prerequisites.

As far as the Uber Generics, that seems a bit too, well, generic.

I have always liked the archetype system of classes, in fact one time when my friend and I were designing classes for our Hailstorm game we never started making. It came out to 54 different classes by the final branch. Anywho,
[blockquote Ra-Tiel]But another idea: how about making some general classes, and requiring each character to select a "class template" like "wild" or "civilized" or "arcane" or "divine" or "psionic" or "holy" or "vile" that change and/or modify some aspects of the class? So a "holy fighter" would be equal to a paladin, a "wild fighter" would be a barbarian, a "wild rogue" would be a ranger or scout, a "civilized" mage would be a wizard, a "holy/vile priest" would be a favored soul, etc?
[/blockquote]
I think we should do that. So we have those types, but we have them select either "Warrior", "Mage", "Rogue", and "Priest". And, for multiclassing, you choose either another type of the same class, or another class of the same type. So, someone starts out as a Wild Fighter. Then, they multiclass out to Wild/Wild Fighter/Mage. Then, they multiclass out even further to Civilized/Wild/Wild Fighter/Fighter/Mage.

Quote from: Sir VorpalI think we should do that. So we have those types, but we have them select either "Warrior", "Mage", "Rogue", and "Priest". And, for multiclassing, you choose either another type of the same class, or another class of the same type. So, someone starts out as a Wild Fighter. Then, they multiclass out to Wild/Wild Fighter/Mage. Then, they multiclass out even further to Civilized/Wild/Wild Fighter/Fighter/Mage.

Oh there are more bases we can get than that. Spontaneous and prepatory casters, for one.

and one bonus of using this system, sorcerors won't have to be changed at all!

Goody!

Or, we can add another group of types. For priests and  mages, there would be preparatory and spontaneous, for rogue there would be melee (assassin like) or theivery(brigands and theives), and for warrior there would be specialist(one weapon type and one armor type) and generalist.

Quote from: Sir VorpalOr, we can add another group of types. For priests and  mages, there would be preparatory and spontaneous, for rogue there would be melee (assassin like) or theivery(brigands and theives), and for warrior there would be specialist(one weapon type and one armor type) and generalist.

Or make them all base classes. I don't think that there would be much of a change mechanically except to simplify it.

I think also, that the preparatory casters should have more potent spells than the spontaneous casters, but the spontaneous casters get more spellsperday/mana/whateveritis.

Quote from: Sir VorpalI think also, that the preparatory casters should have more potent spells than the spontaneous casters, but the spontaneous casters get more spellsperday/mana/whateveritis.

That'll be handled once we get to figuring out the magic system.

Alright. So, why don't we start with compiling all the classes and templates we can think of.
 For classes, I think we should have Warrior, Magi, Priest, and Rogue. Cause with those four and the templates Ra-Tiel posted, I think we can get virtually all types.

what is the difference between holy and divine?

also, now that we know what we are doing with classes, we might want to work on magic system. Are we doing skill based? Or will it basically be DnD with a twist on the classes and magic?

I think we should finish the class system before we move on to magic, because once we define what we want our spell-access classes to be able to do, we can work out the magic system better. Also, I think our class templates should differ somewhat from what Ra-Tiel said. IMO there should be:

Civilized, wild, holy, vile, skillful, focused, arcane, divine, psionic.

Quote from: Sir VorpalCivilized, wild, holy, vile, skillful, focused, arcane, divine, psionic.

I vote for the following for templates:
Skilled
Learned
Dedicated
Jack of All Trades (I'm open for a more flowing synonym)
Civilized
Barbaric
Holy
Vile
Warrior
Negotiator

i second that

Yes. Those would work. Now, we need descriptions and the base class names.
For class names, I vote for:
Fighter
Magi
Priest
Rogue

Quote from: Sir VorpalYes. Those would work. Now, we need descriptions and the base class names.
For class names, I vote for:
Fighter
Magi
Priest
Rogue

we can get more than four! That's only forty different options! We could break each of those into a pair of opposing classes, methinks, getting something like the following;

Brawler
Warrior
Sorceror
Wizard
Clergy
Crusader
Diplomat
Thief

Eighty combinations FTW!

So now we have:
1.)Class-Template class system

Some ideas:
1.)Major/Minor skills, increase based on usage, level up from certain amount of increase?
2.)Skill-based casting
3.)Skills governed by a certain attribute start at a minimum equal to a fraction of that ability score

Quote from: Sir Vorpal3.)Skills governed by a certain attribute start at a minimum equal to a fraction of that ability score

Where was this? That feature's already built in; it's called the ability modifier. ;)

Well, we don't have to call it the ability modifier, for one.

atrribute modifier :D

To chime in again, my thoughts on some comments here:

1) We should keep classes to a minimum, preventing a flood of unneccesary classes. Generally speaking, the five classical archetypes cover most of our needs:
* Warrior: can be melee or ranged specialist, unarmed & unarmored combatent, bodyguard, commando, etc.
* Scout: can be a classical thief, a swashbuckler, a diplomat, an assassin, etc.
* Priest: can be a paladin type, a classic theurg, a crusader style warrior, etc.
* Magus: can be a learned wizard, a being with wild magical talent, someone who stole magical abilies or made pacts with demons for it, etc.
* Psion: can be a meditative psion, a mystical jogi, a focused monk, an untamed wilder, etc.

The exact details on how and what a class can do should be left to [template-specific] class abilities and talents and feats. I really can see no reason to have a seperate class for unarmed/unarmored combat, when all you need are some different feats and class abilities.

2) Something similar goes for the class templates. For example, I really cannot see any difference between "learned" and "skillful". Also, the templates should somewhat play towards the background of the character, and to the specific role he plays in the worlds. As we don't have any special classes for the "niche classes" (paladin, barbarian, etc), that should be covered by the templates.

Therefore, my vote goes for the following templates:
* wild: makes the character a member of an "uncivilized" culture; barbarians, shamans, skalds, etc fall under this category; this template also makes the character's ability "wild", eg rage or random caster level, and grants abilities that make survival in the wilderness more easy.
* civilized: makes the character a member of an socially advanced culture; knights, theurgs, wizards, troubadours, etc fall under this category; this template makes getting along in metropolitan areas easier, giving more social abilities like leadership, bonuses to sense motive and bluff, or better connections to organizations.
* divine: makes the character a member of a highly religious society and encompasses both good and evil types; paladins, blackguards, clerics, priestly councelors etc fall under this category; this template grants all characters additional (in power limited) divine abilities, like for example a limited healing ability, or a "warding touch" with the effects of protection from evil or something.
* arcane: makes the character a member of a highly magical society; spellswords, duskblades, generally speaking all gish type characters, as well as arcane thiefs and such fall under this category; this template gives all characters limited magical abilities, like reduced arcane spell failure or something like mage hand or levitate as (sp) ability.
* psionic: makes the character a member of a psionically advanced society; monks, psions, meditants, jogi, and so on fall under this category; this template grants all characters minor psionic abilities, eg know direction and location as (ps) ability.
* skilled: makes the character a member of a society placing great value in personal [mundane] abilities and knowledge; sages, bards, crafting experts, councelors, herolds, all fall under this category; this template gives all characters abilities increasing their mundane and knowledge skills, for example free skill focuses, or some sort of limited "bardic knowledge" ability.

3) Regarding the mechanics, as said, we don't need to use the d20 framework for this project. We could also develope a custom system, tailored and designed just right for our purposes. An idea that's been going on in my mind recently was a system like this: you have attributes and skills (nothing new so far). If you make a check, the attribute determines how many dice you roll, while the skill represents the bonus you get on your roll. You must meet a certain target number to succeed, and one success is enough to make the check.

Regards, Ra-Tiel.

--------- Edit ---------
I really like the idea of being able to multiclass with the same class, but a different template. This would allow for cool character development, showing the path the character came along. Eg if you have a character wild warrior 3/civilized warrior 7, you can tell that he started out as a "barbarian" and then came to the "great city" and learned the customs and behaviours of citydwellers. On the other hand, a civilized wizard 2/wild wizard 10 would show the development of a character that was born and raised in a city, but then somehow got stuck in the wilderness (perhaps abducted - or stranded and liked it, deciding to stay in the "wilderness" with her new friends or something).

--------- Edit2 ---------
The only problem with the idea from above would be how to prevent "double dipping", especially with special abilities and bonus feats. We'd have to make sure that going "template A class X level 1/template B class X level 1" was in no way better than just being "template A class X level 2". Perhaps we could use some "signature abilities" like they did with the SpyCraft classes; that everything stacks, but certain abilities marked with a special keyword can only be acquired once, no matter what.

Another idea I had for the classes would be as to the progression of class abilities. My idea would be to make everything conform with each other, read all classes gaining special abilities at fixed levels across the board. This would also make creating the class templates much more easy, as we wouldn't have to work out an insane amount of "at level X you gain Y" cases.

As an example what I mean, how about the following.
* BAB, saves, and HD follow a fixed, class specific progression
* all classes gain class abilities at level 1, 5, 10, 15, and 20
* all classes gain bonus feats at level 4, 8, 12, 16, and 20
* all classes gain talents at level 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, and 18.

The "loadedness" at level 15+ (2 class abilities, 2 bonus feats, and 2 talents), would also encourage players to stay in one class until level 20 and not dip into various classes to gain some small bonuses (aka the "swashbuckler phenomenon").

[blockquote Ra-Tiel]I really like the idea of being able to multiclass with the same class, but a different template. This would allow for cool character development, showing the path the character came along. Eg if you have a character wild warrior 3/civilized warrior 7, you can tell that he started out as a "barbarian" and then came to the "great city" and learned the customs and behaviours of citydwellers. On the other hand, a civilized wizard 2/wild wizard 10 would show the development of a character that was born and raised in a city, but then somehow got stuck in the wilderness (perhaps abducted - or stranded and liked it, deciding to stay in the "wilderness" with her new friends or something).[/blockquote]

Well, all we have to do is make it so each template grants certain abilities to the class, but when you multi-class out to a different template, you gain the abilities of that template while the class levels stack, so your class progression continues.

[blockquote Ra-Tiel]I really like the idea of being able to multiclass with the same class, but a different template. This would allow for cool character development, showing the path the character came along. Eg if you have a character wild warrior 3/civilized warrior 7, you can tell that he started out as a "barbarian" and then came to the "great city" and learned the customs and behaviours of citydwellers. On the other hand, a civilized wizard 2/wild wizard 10 would show the development of a character that was born and raised in a city, but then somehow got stuck in the wilderness (perhaps abducted - or stranded and liked it, deciding to stay in the "wilderness" with her new friends or something).[/blockquote]

1.) Having 5 levels where you gain abilities seems too limiting, unless the tmeplates add in more abilities?

2.)What about attribute increases?

Now, I think the templates should:

Modify the BAB/HD/saves
Increase the class abilities(A holy warrior has a completely different set than a wild warrior)

See, I think we should have it so that the classes by themselves would be weak, but when the templates are added they become a full class.

Also, I think the alignment should be handled thusly:
A graph that represents each alignment. Positive y-axis would be good, negative y-axis would be evil(hey! I just realized vile is spelled with thesame letters as evil), positive x-axis would be lawful, negative x-axis would be chaotic. When someone does a deed, they gain/lose an alignment point. Each quadrant represents an alignment. Neutral would be on the axis. This alignment is used to track your characters decisions. All would start out at Neutral(0, 0)

Quote from: Sir Vorpal1.) Having 5 levels where you gain abilities seems too limiting, unless the tmeplates add in more abilities?

Why that? Remember, class abilities are not the only thing the class gets, but are just the "extra crunchy with whipped cream and a cherry on top" things. You also get talents and bonus feats. If you follow the d20 Modern convention of alternating talents and bonus feats, with the template-dependent class features thrown in every 5th level, the fighter would look like the following:
[class=Fighter]
[bab=fighter]
[fort=good]
[ref=average]
[special=Special]
[1]Class ability[/1]
[2]Bonus feat[/2]
[3]Talent[/3]
[4]Bonus feat[/4]
[5]Class ability[/5]
[6]Bonus feat[/6]
[7]Talent[/7]
[8]Bonus feat[/8]
[9]Talent[/9]
[10]Class ability[/10]
[11]Talent[/11]
[12]Bonus feat[/12]
[13]Talent[/13]
[14]Bonus feat[/14]
[15]Class ability[/15]
[16]Bonus feat[/16]
[17]Talent[/17]
[18]Bonus feat[/18]
[19]Talent[/19]
[20]Class ability[/20]
[/special]
[/class]
Still "too few" features for you? ;) Bonus feats would be very general, giving access to combat maneuvers or metamagic or skill focuses or whatever, similar to normal DnD. Talents would be more specific, following special trees as they do in d20 Modern, allowing perhaps a fighter to ignore some points of hardness, or a caster to make some special use of his spells, other than merely casting them. And finally, class features would be very narrow in focus, giving access to abilities like rage, or turn undead, or certain spelllists.

Quote from: Sir Vorpal2.)What about attribute increases?

What do you mean? As it stands right now, we'd be using the d20 system, so it would be one increase per 3 or 4 levels, depending on power level of the setting.

Quote from: Sir VorpalNow, I think the templates should:

Modify the BAB/HD/saves

I tried that once (perhaps some remember my thread on the WotC forums, "Manifest Soul"). It didn't work out too well, because in the end I was writing up three completely different classes already.

Quote from: Sir VorpalIncrease the class abilities(A holy warrior has a completely different set than a wild warrior)

That was what my goal was. ;) Each template would give a new set of options for the "class features" gained every 5th level. It would not, however, change the whole writeup of the class.

Quote from: Sir VorpalSee, I think we should have it so that the classes by themselves would be weak, but when the templates are added they become a full class.

Not necessarily. Why should it? My suggestion was merely to use templates to differ classes based on their cultural origin. I don't think it's necessary to build everything on the templates.

Quote from: Sir VorpalAlso, I think the alignment should be handled thusly:
A graph that represents each alignment. Positive y-axis would be good, negative y-axis would be evil(hey! I just realized vile is spelled with thesame letters as evil), positive x-axis would be lawful, negative x-axis would be chaotic. When someone does a deed, they gain/lose an alignment point. Each quadrant represents an alignment. Neutral would be on the axis. This alignment is used to track your characters decisions. All would start out at Neutral(0, 0)

And I am chided for too much bookkeeping! :D :P

now, now, we dont need DnD saves and such. we should use something different. we dont want to be sued do we?

I believe those saves are not unique to D&D. Also, I see your point, Ra-Tiel.
So, the templates will simply give access to different abilities along with adding/removing talent options?

Also, I think that the class abilities shouldn't be fixed, so instead of every holy warrior gaining the same abilities, we have a pool of different ones you can select at each class ability level.

I've got a couple of ideas, I can't even go to sleep and church without this getting flooded!

I like the idea of reducing the base classes and templates (see, I DO make things too complex). I personally think we could get a couple more templates in, as I feel we're missing one that adequately describes druids (they aren't 'wild' as you've got that template pinned), or one that does bards (skilled I could see, I suppose...)

I think that the base class should be an absolute skeleton, and the template is the organs and flesh. The base should hold the feats by level, skills, HD, BAB, saves, etc, and limit which feat tress are available. We could 'fill up' the class chart easily enough by removing feats and attribute increases at bonus levels, instead sticking them into the class.

The template would provide the talents, class abilities, etc. I also think it would be cool if the template opened feat trees and closed others, in addition to the class. So a magus wouldn't normally be able to get the 'light armor' feat tree, but adding the 'warrior' template opens it back up (example, obviously).

And we DON'T BLOODY NEED ALIGNMENT! :P

we could have some pretty odd combonations: divine psion,
psionic priest, arcane priest, etc.  

Quote from: Sir Vorpal[...] So, the templates will simply give access to different abilities along with adding/removing talent options?

That's basically the core of my idea. But I'm of course open to other suggestions. :)

Quote from: Sir VorpalAlso, I think that the class abilities shouldn't be fixed, so instead of every holy warrior gaining the same abilities, we have a pool of different ones you can select at each class ability level.

Obviously, we'd need to have enough talent trees and talents to make a quite large number of different configurations available. For example, for the "divine" template I could see talent trees along the lines of
* Lay on Hands : the character can heal others with a touch, and later talents increase the amount of healing he can provide, allow additional effects to be removed (poison, disease, negative levels, ...), and finally provide options for AoE and ranged healing
* Smite : the character can inflict divine damage on his target, and later talents allow for multiple attacks with a single smite, and grant additional effects to the smite attack like stun or fear effects
* Channel : the character can channel divine energies into his body granting himself combat and attribute bonuses, and later talents improve the numerical bonuses and add additional benefits, like flying, darkvision, and fast healing
* Turning : the character can turn undead or outsiders (similar to the priest ability), and later talents allow him more combat oriented stunts with turning, like inflicting additional damage vs undead or outsider enemies, or creating a protective aura around him

If we have 3 talent trees á 6 talents for every class (15 talent trees total) with 2 talent trees á 6 talents for each template (12 talent trees total), we have a grand total of 27 different talent trees in addition to feats and class abilities. I think that should be enough options for every player.

Quote from: Stargate525I've got a couple of ideas, I can't even go to sleep and church without this getting flooded!

Let it out buddy, let it all out. :P

Quote from: Stargate525I like the idea of reducing the base classes and templates (see, I DO make things too complex). I personally think we could get a couple more templates in, as I feel we're missing one that adequately describes druids (they aren't 'wild' as you've got that template pinned), or one that does bards (skilled I could see, I suppose...)

However, we should reduce things too much. Also, do we really need to make a 1:1 copycat off of DnD? Do we really need those druids, or would wild priest suffice? Do we really need those bards, or would civilized/skilled scouts suffice?

Quote from: Stargate525I think that the base class should be an absolute skeleton, and the template is the organs and flesh. The base should hold the feats by level, skills, HD, BAB, saves, etc, and limit which feat tress are available. We could 'fill up' the class chart easily enough by removing feats and attribute increases at bonus levels, instead sticking them into the class.  

Well, my idea was like this. You take for example the class "priest" and get access to skill list A, and talent trees X, Y, and Z. Now you take template "wild" and add skills I, J, and K to your class skills and get access to talent trees U and V.

Quote from: Stargate525The template would provide the talents, class abilities, etc. I also think it would be cool if the template opened feat trees and closed others, in addition to the class. So a magus wouldn't normally be able to get the 'light armor' feat tree, but adding the 'warrior' template opens it back up (example, obviously).  

I'm not so sure if removing options based on template and modifying feat accessability was a good idea. In my opinion, feats should be available based on talent and skill prerequisites alone. This way you can already prevent characters getting access to certain feats they usually would not be able to acquire, without stuffing things too much with prerequisites and requirements.

Quote from: Stargate525And we DON'T BLOODY NEED ALIGNMENT! :P

Well, I somehow like the idea of astrological alignment I - IIRC - saw somewhere on these boards...

Quote from: Atlantiswe could have some pretty odd combonations: divine psion,
psionic priest, arcane priest, etc.

Yes? Is that really worse than a necropolitan elan psion/wizard/cerebramancer half-dragon? :P

Seriously, that divine psion could stem from a highly religious society, where everybody spends some time of his youth in a cloister or something, learning the basic principles of theurgy, or he could be "blessed" by some god or angel. The psionic priest could stem from a land where strange crystals grow, and while he chose to learn the ways of the gods, the mystical energies from those crystals changed him like everyone else, giving him a minor psionic talent. The arcane priest could stem from a magocracy (similar to the divine psion above), or just stem from a bloodline with strong ancestral ties to dragons or outsiders.

gnaaa... double post :-/

Quote from: Ra-TielHowever, we should reduce things too much. Also, do we really need to make a 1:1 copycat off of DnD? Do we really need those druids, or would wild priest suffice? Do we really need those bards, or would civilized/skilled scouts suffice?

Touche again.

Quote from: Ra-TielWell, my idea was like this. You take for example the class "priest" and get access to skill list A, and talent trees X, Y, and Z. Now you take template "wild" and add skills I, J, and K to your class skills and get access to talent trees U and V.

ok, I can see that. I think that both classes and templates should have at least one unifying thing about them, what makes them THEM, you know?

Quote from: Ra-TielI'm not so sure if removing options based on template and modifying feat accessability was a good idea. In my opinion, feats should be available based on talent and skill prerequisites alone. This way you can already prevent characters getting access to certain feats they usually would not be able to acquire, without stuffing things too much with prerequisites and requirements.

Talents are basically class abilities with choice, right? Then say if class X give talent choices of A,B,C,D,E, and F, then you could have template Y that opens up talent choice G and H, but closes off C.

Quote from: Ra-TielWell, I somehow like the idea of astrological alignment I - IIRC - saw somewhere on these boards...

How about signs like in the Elderscrolls games? Provides certain bonuses and penalties, etc. Course, you can't change them later on, but...

Quote from: Stargate525[...] ok, I can see that. I think that both classes and templates should have at least one unifying thing about them, what makes them THEM, you know?

Sorry, I don't get it what you mean. Could you perhaps give me an example? :?:

Quote from: Stargate525Talents are basically class abilities with choice, right? Then say if class X give talent choices of A,B,C,D,E, and F, then you could have template Y that opens up talent choice G and H, but closes off C.

I thought more that talents were supplementary features, improving class abilities and giving new options, but I guess your approach also works. ;)

But why would you want to remove access to talent trees when you took a certain template? Wouldn't it be better to make those "critical" talent trees exlusiv to those templates that should have them, instead of making them generally available and then remove access for the other templates? Seems a bit "from behind through the back into the eye" to me. ;)

Quote from: Stargate525How about signs like in the Elderscrolls games? Provides certain bonuses and penalties, etc. Course, you can't change them later on, but...

I don't know. This would mean that there would be no dynamic feature to the character. Race? Fixed. Class and template? Fixed unless you multiclass. Starsign? Fixed.

Also - assuming that we want to work off the standard DnD spells to keep most material usable without having to rewrite every single spell in existance - this would mean that all stuff dealing with alignments would be unusable or needed to be modified (including but not limited to several feats, spells, and items).

I say starsign type thing is an option, but it wouldn't replace alignment. We don't need alignment. They're evil if they want to be evil and make evil choices for the sake of being evil. We don't need to have the players choose an alignment to start off with.

Quote from: Ra-TielSorry, I don't get it what you mean. Could you perhaps give me an example? :?:

ok. You've got a wild fighter and a skilled fighter. Now, each one would have different talent trees and such, right now they could theoretically have NOTHING in common except base saves and attack.

I'm suggesting that for each class (and perhaps template) we figure out a generic, yet suitable ability that scales up with level, and is exclusive to that class or template. Like D&D rogues and their sneak attack, or bards and bardic knowledge.

Quote from: Ra-TielBut why would you want to remove access to talent trees when you took a certain template? Wouldn't it be better to make those "critical" talent trees exlusiv to those templates that should have them, instead of making them generally available and then remove access for the other templates? Seems a bit "from behind through the back into the eye" to me. ;)

Well yes, but what I mean is that if the wizard class gives, say, access to a talent tree that gives bonuses for having an impressive collection of books, and he takes the wild template, it doesn't make sense that he should still be able to get those talents...

Quote from: Ra-TielI don't know. This would mean that there would be no dynamic feature to the character. Race? Fixed. Class and template? Fixed unless you multiclass. Starsign? Fixed.

Well just because it's got morality suggestions on there doesn't mean they can't play however they want.

I might have missed it, but can we get a specific definition for our version of talents and feats? I've got a feeling we may be having an agreegument.

Quote from: Stargate525ok. You've got a wild fighter and a skilled fighter. Now, each one would have different talent trees and such, right now they could theoretically have NOTHING in common except base saves and attack.

This is exactly what I meant when I spoke of "reduce too much" earlier. ;) Ok, these are some quick ideas I typed up while idling in a chatroom. :D

Quote from: Stargate525I'm suggesting that for each class (and perhaps template) we figure out a generic, yet suitable ability that scales up with level, and is exclusive to that class or template. Like D&D rogues and their sneak attack, or bards and bardic knowledge.

Such things should imho belong to the talent trees. See my examples above. :)

Quote from: Stargate525Well yes, but what I mean is that if the wizard class gives, say, access to a talent tree that gives bonuses for having an impressive collection of books, and he takes the wild template, it doesn't make sense that he should still be able to get those talents...

And this is what I meant with the right association of talent trees and templates. Obviously, you wouldn't give such a talent tree to the magus class, but instead to the civilized template. ;) Everybody could benefit from a library - the warrior could use it to learn rare or obscure feats (read: splatbook material), the priest could use it to find the cure for a magical disease, the expert could use it to learn skill tricks, and so on.

Quote from: Stargate525Well just because it's got morality suggestions on there doesn't mean they can't play however they want.

And where would that differ from the astrological alignment? IIRC, the astrological alignment did just that: each character was born under a certain sign which in turn was associated with a certain alignment. Although the character himself could act as he wanted, he would be treated as having the alignment of his starsign for magical effects. Or am I mistaken? :?:

Quote from: Stargate525I might have missed it, but can we get a specific definition for our version of talents and feats? I've got a feeling we may be having an agreegument.

My examples above are just a rough draft, but I think it shows quite well how I imagined the system to work. However, it's getting late for me now so I hope you can forgive me not going into the details much more. :)

[blockquote SG]I might have missed it, but can we get a specific definition for our version of talents and feats? I've got a feeling we may be having an agreegument.[/blockquote]

um.. what is an agreegument?

Quote from: Atlantisum.. what is an agreegument?

It's an argument in which both sides agree with each other, yet are confused on some point of semantics which makes it seem like they have differing opinions.

Very cunfusing, and VERY pointless.

ah, i see.

Ok, been thinking about and tinkering with my idea a bit more and came up with the following:

QuoteClasses
Expert
- hit die: d8
- focus die: d8
- skills known: 16
- skill points: 8
- base attack: average
- saves: Fort poor, Ref good, Will average
- weapon and armor: 8 simple weapons, light armor
Medium
- hit die: d4
- focus die: d12
- skills known: 8
- skill points: 4
- base attack: poor
- saves: Fort poor, Ref poor, Will good
- weapon and armor: 4 simple weapons, no armor
Warrior
- hit die: d12
- focus die: d4
- skills known: 4
- skill points: 2
- base attack: good
- saves: Fort good, Ref average, Will poor
- weapon and armor: all simple and martial weapons, all armor

Class talent trees
Expert
- Assassin: gain bonus damage against unaware or distracted opponents
- Diplomat: improve social skills and abilities
- Explorer: improve perception skills and abilities
- Scout: improve stealth and movement abilities
- Troubadour: gain music related invocations
Medium
- Clairsentient: gain precognitive abilities
- Icon: gain auras enhancing allies and hindering enemies
- Incarnate: infuse own body with mystical power
- Summoner: gain mystical companions
- Wizard: gain magical invocations
Warrior
- Commando: sacrifice damage for crippling effects
- Dervish: sacrifice accuracy for increased combat maneuverability
- Destroyer: ignore limited amount of hardness
- Dreadnought: gain bonus damage to all attacks
- Juggernaught: gain unbeatable damage reduction

Templates
Arcane
- bonus skills known: Concentration, Knowledge (arcane)
Civilized
- bonus skills known: Diplomacy, Gather Information
Divine
- bonus skills known: Knowledge (religion), Sense Motive
Martial
- bonus skills known: Concentration, Heal
Psionic
- bonus skills known: Autohypnosis, Knowledge (psionic)
Skilled
- bonus skills known: any 2
Wild
- bonus skills known: Knowledge (nature), Survival

Template talent trees
Arcane
- Enchanted: gain ability to use spell-completion/-trigger magic items
- Familiar: gain small personal magical companion
- Crafter: gain ability to create magic items
Civilized
- Connection: gain better connections to local organizations
- Dealer: gain bonuses when selling or buying equipment
- Negotiator: gain bonuses on all kinds of negotiations
Divine
- Lay on Hands: heal damage and other conditions with a touch
- Smite: gain powerful attack against undead and outsiders
- Turning: turn away undead and outsiders
Martial
- Armor specialist: gain bonuses for one type of armor
- Tactician: gain or grant bonuses by coordinating actions of others
- Weapon specialist: gain bonuses for one type of weapon
Psionic
- Enlightened: gain ability to use power-completion/-trigger psionic items
- Maker: gain ability to create psionic items
- Psicrystal: gain small personal psionic companion
Skilled
- Jack of all Trades: gain additional skills known and skill points
- Natural talent: gain bonuses for one skill
- Skill specialist: gain bonuses for skills relating to one key ability
Wild
- Companion: gain small personal animal companion
- Rage: gain rage ability
- Tracker: improve tracking skills and abilities

With a design like this, each character would have (without multiclassing at least) access to 8 different talent trees, giving him a total of (assuming 6 talents per tree) 48 available talents. If we decide to go with a straight 20 level design, he could select 10 from this list (or 15 when using 30 level classes). If we add a feat called "Extra Talent" to the bonus feat list of every class, a character could have 20 (respectively 30) talents, but at the expense of all his bonus feats.

Another idea (and here comes that "focus" into play) was to make each talent have a "passive" bonus and an "active" bonus. The passive bonus would be a minor, most likely static bonus to something (damage, skill, AC, etc) and cost nothing. The active bonus would provide a much greater bonus (eg 1d6 bonus damage instead of 1 point, etc) but cost "focus points" per use or per round it is active. This focus idea could also be used to give Concentration a new usage, allowing a character to once per encounter recover a number of focus points equal to his Concentration skill check result (up to his normal maximum).

The costs would depend on the talent and its level. For example, if we have a martial warrior with 4 talents in the "dreadnought" tree. The passive bonus would be a straight 4 points bonus to all damage rolls. The active bonus could be anything from 1d6 to 4d6 bonus damage, but each attack would cost a number of focus points equal to the number of bonus dice times 2. Thus if he made 3 attacks and went for a +3d6 bonus, each attack would cost him 3*2 = 6 focus, for a total of 18 focus for his full attack.

Focus would be recovered on a "per hour" base, being imho a good compromise between "per day" and "per encounter", as it also requires some sort of forethough on the players' part (always a good thing... well... depends on the players :P ), and deals with the problem of using "per encounter" abilities out of encounters (like using mobility based Bo9S maneuvers to overcome natural obstacles or something).

As for the classes, my previous idea with "magus, priest, psion" was crap. It was basically three different classes doing exactly the same thing. Of course, with the current suggestion, there are only certain "concepts" available. A cleric would be a "divine medium", while a psion would be a "psionic medium". A barbarian would be a "wild warrior", a paladin would be a "divine warrior", a bard would be a "civilized expert", a ranger would be a "wild expert", and a warmage would be a "martial medium". Somehow reminds me of the naming conventions from the "Titan Quest" crpg, although I didn't have that in mind when I wrote that up.

Just some random thoughts. :D

Sounds good.

So horribly tired... Will investigate in morning...

ive recently been throwing around the idea that a characters "HP" is calculated not just by class but also race, as ive always had a problem with a titan sorcerer having around the same "HP" as a elven sorcerer despite their differences.



Also the talent trees remind me of Szatany's ultimate classes that were originally posted on the WOTC boards.

[blockquote ~Kalin~]ive recently been throwing around the idea that a characters "HP" is calculated not just by class but also race, as ive always had a problem with a titan sorcerer having around the same "HP" as a elven sorcerer despite their differences.[/blockquote]

Well, that should be solved by the Constitution modifiers. Elf gets -2, now do you mean Giant? or Titan? Cause there's a big diference.

Quote from: Sir Vorpal[blockquote ~Kalin~]ive recently been throwing around the idea that a characters "HP" is calculated not just by class but also race, as ive always had a problem with a titan sorcerer having around the same "HP" as a elven sorcerer despite their differences.[/blockquote]

Well, that should be solved by the Constitution modifiers. Elf gets -2, now do you mean Giant? or Titan? Cause there's a big diference.

Although I never played it, the "Farscape d20" system had a very good approach on this one. The hit die was dependent on race, with class merely giving a - more or less - big bonus to hit points. Constitution and feats worked normally.

For the races and classes from the SRD it could look like the following.
[table=Races]
[tr][th]Race[/th][th]HD[/th][/tr]
[tr][td]Dwarf[/td][td]d10[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Elf[/td][td]d6[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Gnome[/td][td]d8[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Half-Elf[/td][td]d8[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Half-Orc[/td][td]d10[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Halfling[/td][td]d6[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Human[/td][td]d8[/td][/tr]
[/table]
[table=Classes]
[tr][th]Class[/th][th]HP bonus[/th][/tr]
[tr][td]Barbarian[/td][td]+6[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Bard[/td][td]+3[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Cleric[/td][td]+4[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Druid[/td][td]+4[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Fighter[/td][td]+5[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Monk[/td][td]+4[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Paladin[/td][td]+5[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Ranger[/td][td]+4[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Rogue[/td][td]+3[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Sorcerer[/td][td]+2[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Wizard[/td][td]+2[/td][/tr]
[/table]
Just a "quick and dirty" conversion that would of course need some finetuning and testing, but it should get the basic idea across. :)

Hmmm... Lacking lots of time for reasons undisclosed, I shall simply stir the pot and be off again.

I'm making a system myself right now, with a semi-unique take on character building that has levels, but no classes.

Having seen both Star Wars Saga (level-based skill progress) and Perfect 20 (a class builder that lets you pick the progress rate of BAB and saves and things) I decided to combine the concepts. Anything and everything that could progress with levels is a skill that will progress faster if you're trained and slower if you're not. All feat or talent trees are available to anybody.

Thanks to limited resources, people still need to pick a role. But getting rid of arbitrary class restrictions (this class gets these skills and these talents only) allows them to pick a rather more flexible role.

Just a thought. I have to confess beyond that my system might be more crunch than you currently seek.

Just some more quick ideas, but this is what the basic warrior talent trees could look like. Focus cost always refers to using the active bonus (the passive bonus is always active at no costs). To balance it out, one idea was to base the maximum number of simultaneously active allowed talents on character level to prevent "piling up" of smaller bonuses.
[table=Maximum number of active talents]
[tr][th]Character level[/th][th]Active talents[/th][/tr]
[tr][td]1-5[/td][td]1[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]6-10[/td][td]2[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]11-15[/td][td]3[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]16-20[/td][td]4[/td][/tr]
[tr][td][/td][td][/td][/tr]
[/table]

Anyways, the talent trees.

QuoteCommando Talent Tree (Warrior)
Commando I
- Prerequisites: -.
- Passive bonus: -2 to damage rolls, damaging attack imposes -1 penalty to target's attack rolls, skill checks and saves for one round.
- Active bonus: -2 to damage rolls, damaging attack can throw target prone (Fort save DC 10 + 1/2 warrior level + Strength modifier negates).
- Focus cost: 1 focus point per attack.
Commando II
- Prerequisites: Commando I.
- Passive bonus: -4 to damage rolls, damaging attack imposes -2 penalty to target's attack rolls, skill checks and saves for one round.
- Active bonus: -4 to damage rolls, damaging attack can sicken target (Fort save DC 10 + 1/2 warrior level + Strength modifier negates) for one round.
- Focus cost: 2 focus points per attack.
Commando III
- Prerequisites: Commando II.
- Passive bonus: -6 to damage rolls, damaging attack imposes -3 penalty to target's attack rolls, skill checks and saves for one round.
- Active bonus: -6 to damage rolls, damaging attack can daze target (Fort save DC 10 + 1/2 warrior level + Strength modifier negates) for one round.
- Focus cost: 3 focus points per attack.
Commando IV
- Prerequisites: Commando III.
- Passive bonus: -8 to damage rolls, damaging attack imposes -4 penalty to target's attack rolls, skill checks and saves for one round.
- Active bonus: -8 to damage rolls, damaging attack can stun target (Fort save DC 10 + 1/2 warrior level + Strength modifier negates) for one round.
- Focus cost: 4 focus points per attack.
Commando V
- Prerequisites: Commando IV.
- Passive bonus: -10 to damage rolls, damaging attack imposes -5 penalty to target's attack rolls, skill checks and saves for one round.
- Active bonus: -10 to damage rolls, damaging attack can make target nauseated (Fort save DC 10 + 1/2 warrior level + Strength modifier negates) for one round.
- Focus cost: 5 focus points per attack.
Commando VI
- Prerequisites: Commando V.
- Passive bonus: -12 to damage rolls, damaging attack imposes -6 penalty to target's attack rolls, skill checks and saves for one round.
- Active bonus: -12 to damage rolls, damaging attack can paralyze target (Fort save DC 10 + 1/2 warrior level + Strength modifier negates) for one round.
- Focus cost: 6 focus points per attack.

Dervish Talent Tree (Warrior)
Dervish I
- Prerequisites: -.
- Passive bonus: -1 to attack rolls, +1 to initiative checks and to AC vs AoO.
- Active bonus: -1 to attack rolls, +3 to AC vs AoO, +5ft speed.
- Focus cost: 1 focus point per round.
Dervish II
- Prerequisites: Dervish I.
- Passive bonus: -2 to attack rolls, +2 to initiative checks and to AC vs AoO.
- Active bonus: -2 to attack rolls, +6 to AC vs AoO, +10ft speed.
- Focus cost: 2 focus points per round.
Dervish III
- Prerequisites: Dervish II.
- Passive bonus: -3 to attack rolls, +3 to initiative checks and to AC vs AoO.
- Active bonus: -3 to attack rolls, +9 to AC vs AoO, +15ft speed.
- Focus cost: 3 focus points per round.
Dervish IV
- Prerequisites: Dervish III.
- Passive bonus: -4 to attack rolls, +4 to initiative checks and to AC vs AoO.
- Active bonus: -4 to attack rolls, +12 to AC vs AoO, +20ft speed.
- Focus cost: 4 focus points per round.
Dervish V
- Prerequisites: Dervish IV.
- Passive bonus: -5 to attack rolls, +5 to initiative checks and to AC vs AoO.
- Active bonus: -5 to attack rolls, +15 to AC vs AoO, +25ft speed.
- Focus cost: 5 focus points per round.
Dervish VI
- Prerequisites: Dervish V.
- Passive bonus: -6 to attack rolls, +6 to initiative checks and to AC vs AoO.
- Active bonus: -6 to attack rolls, +18 to AC vs AoO, +30ft speed.
- Focus cost: 6 focus points per round.

Dreadnought Talent Tree (Warrior)
Dreadnought I
- Prerequisites: -.
- Passive bonus: You deal 1 bonus damage point with all attacks.
- Active bonus: You deal 1d6 bonus damage points with all attacks.
- Focus cost: 1 focus point per attack.
Dreadnought II
- Prerequisites: Dreadnought I.
- Passive bonus: You deal 2 bonus damage points with all attacks.
- Active bonus: You deal 2d6 bonus damage points with all attacks.
- Focus cost: 2 focus points per attack.
Dreadnought III
- Prerequisites: Dreadnought II.
- Passive bonus: You deal 3 bonus damage points with all attacks.
- Active bonus: You deal 3d6 bonus damage points with all attacks.
- Focus cost: 3 focus points per attack.
Dreadnought IV
- Prerequisites: Dreadnought III.
- Passive bonus: You deal 4 bonus damage points with all attacks.
- Active bonus: You deal 4d6 bonus damage points with all attacks.
- Focus cost: 4 focus points per attack.
Dreadnought V
- Prerequisites: Dreadnought IV.
- Passive bonus: You deal 5 bonus damage points with all attacks.
- Active bonus: You deal 5d6 bonus damage points with all attacks.
- Focus cost: 5 focus points per attack.
Dreadnought VI
- Prerequisites: Dreadnought V.
- Passive bonus: You deal 6 bonus damage points with all attacks.
- Active bonus: You deal 6d6 bonus damage points with all attacks.
- Focus cost: 6 focus points per attack.

Destroyer Talent Tree (Warrior)
Destroyer I
- Prerequisites: -.
- Passive bonus: You ignore 1 point of hardness and any DR with all attacks.
- Active bonus: You ignore 3 points of hardness and any DR with all attacks.
- Focus cost: 1 focus point per attack.
Destroyer II
- Prerequisites: Destroyer I.
- Passive bonus: You ignore 2 points of hardness and any DR with all attacks.
- Active bonus: You ignore 6 points of hardness and any DR with all attacks.
- Focus cost: 2 focus points per attack.
Destroyer III
- Prerequisites: Destroyer II.
- Passive bonus: You ignore 3 points of hardness and any DR with all attacks.
- Active bonus: You ignore 9 points of hardness and any DR with all attacks.
- Focus cost: 3 focus points per attack.
Destroyer IV
- Prerequisites: Destroyer III.
- Passive bonus: You ignore 4 points of hardness and any DR with all attacks.
- Active bonus: You ignore 12 points of hardness and any DR with all attacks.
- Focus cost: 4 focus points per attack.
Destroyer V
- Prerequisites: Destroyer IV.
- Passive bonus: You ignore 5 points of hardness and any DR with all attacks.
- Active bonus: You ignore 15 points of hardness and any DR with all attacks.
- Focus cost: 5 focus points per attack.
Destroyer VI
- Prerequisites: Destroyer V.
- Passive bonus: You ignore 6 points of hardness and any DR with all attacks.
- Active bonus: You ignore 18 points of hardness and any DR with all attacks.
- Focus cost: 6 focus points per attack.

Juggernaught Talent Tree (Warrior)
Juggernaught I
- Prerequisites: -.
- Passive bonus: You gain DR 1/-.
- Active bonus: You gain DR 3/-.
- Focus cost: 1 focus point per round.
Juggernaught II
- Prerequisites: Juggernaught I.
- Passive bonus: You gain DR 2/-.
- Active bonus: You gain DR 6/-.
- Focus cost: 2 focus points per round.
Juggernaught III
- Prerequisites: Juggernaught II.
- Passive bonus: You gain DR 3/-.
- Active bonus: You gain DR 9/-.
- Focus cost: 3 focus points per round.
Juggernaught IV
- Prerequisites: Juggernaught III.
- Passive bonus: You gain DR 4/-.
- Active bonus: You gain DR 12/-.
- Focus cost: 4 focus points per round.
Juggernaught V
- Prerequisites: Juggernaught IV.
- Passive bonus: You gain DR 5/-.
- Active bonus: You gain DR 15/-.
- Focus cost: 5 focus points per round.
Juggernaught VI
- Prerequisites: Juggernaught V.
- Passive bonus: You gain DR 6/-.
- Active bonus: You gain DR 18/-.
- Focus cost: 6 focus points per round.

That's really cool. The only thing I see is that nothing on there is really very flavorful. Maybe that'll go away with the templates...

Quote from: Stargate525That's really cool.

Thanks. :D

Quote from: Stargate525The only thing I see is that nothing on there is really very flavorful. Maybe that'll go away with the templates...

What would you mean with "flavorful"? I'm just describing the raw mechanics here. Whether a warrior gains eg the damage bonus from the dreadnought talent tree from the his superior weapon techniques, his passionate dedication to justice, or the prophecies of the Triumvirate Oracle is up to the player and the DM. I'm a strict opponent of mixing fluff and crunch (which is one reason why I find the standard Greyhawk setting in the core books horrible :-/ ), therefore my descriptions won't get any more flavorful than that. ;)

Or do you mean more "creative" abilities? The problem with creative abilities is that they are often very difficult to judge balance-wise. At least for the "easy" classes (warrior and expert), I'm sticking with more or less linearily advancing abilities (read: cost and benefit increase at a linear rate) - for now. ;)

I already have some ideas for the medium class, especially for the wizard talent tree. However, I need to think about it some more. The basic idea is that each time a medium selects a talent from the wizard talent tree, he gets to select 3 spells of a level equal to or less than the current number of talents from the wizard talent tree (eg when you have learned the tree up to "wizard III" you could select 3 spells of level 3 or lower). These spells become invocations usable at will. XP costs still apply, expensive material components are translated into an XP component at a 5:1 ratio, while an expensive focus component becomes an XP component at a 10:1 ratio. The invocation costs a number of focus points equal to the square of the equivalent spell (eg a level 4 spell invocation will cost 16 focus points) and function at the minimum caster level. The medium can increase the effective caster level, but each additional caster level costs 1 extra focus point (up to a maximum equal to the medium's class level).

This would leave a medium (in the role of the primary caster) with 18 invocations and a maximum "spell" level of 6 (just before the imho broken stuff comes in). An invocation of the highest level would have a base cost of 36 focus points, and cast at caster level 20 would require a total focus point expenditure of 36(base) + [ 20(effective caster level) - 11(minimum caster level)] = 45(total). Considering a level 20 medium will have on average 12 + 19*6.5 + 20*Charisma mod focus points (assuming a 26 Charisma makes this 295 focus points), this leaves the character with less than 7 invocations of the highest level at maximum power.

As for the passive bonus, I was thinking of something along these lines. Each time you take a "wizard" talent, you get one "binding slot" into which you can bind one of your invocations. You can no longer use this invocation, but now gain a bonus to certain traits dependent on the school of the invocation. The magnitude of the bonus would be based on the equivalent spell level, ranging from 1 to 6. Possible effects could be:
- Abjuration: +X enhancement bonus to AC
- Conjuration: fast healing X
- Divination: +X enhancement bonus to Spot, Listen, Search, Initiative, Ref saves
- Enchantment: +X enhancement bonus to Diplomacy, Gather information, Sense Motive, Intimidate, Will saves
- Evocation: +X bonus elemental damage to all attacks, as well as resistance 5*X to one element (same as bonus damage), can select element on the fly
- Illusion: +X enhancement bonus to Bluff, Forgery, Hide, Move Silently, miss chance 5*X% when not moving (not even 5ft steps)
- Necromancy: +X enhancement bonus to Fort saves, gain blindsense 5*Xft only working on living creatures (requires concentration)
- Transmutation: +X enhancement bonus to any single ability score, can select ability on the fly, does not modify save DCs only ability checks, skill checks, attack rolls, saving throws
- Universal: +X enhancement bonus to all saves

It seems reasonable. This would allow a player to select his abilities from all splatbooks the DM allows, and saves us the hassle of rewriting some thousand spells. Also, the options are quite limited compared to standard DnD casting, both in quantity and quality. On the other hand, the character is not limited by spells per day, and dependent on the exact focus recovery method - which I still have to think about - could throw his invocations all day long. Also, the passive bonus is a trade-off: loose invocations but gain abilities that replace magical items.

I think my ideas need some serious crunching. :P

While compiling some of my ideas into a (yet unfinished) PDF, I got yet another idea worth considering. Why not drop classes altogether, and instead allow the player to "build" his own base class with a priority system similar to 2ed/3ed Shadowrun? What do you think of the following?

Feature         poor            average         good
-------------------------------------------------------
Base attack     1/2 HD          3/4 HD          1/1 HD
Fort save       0-6             1-9             2-12
Ref save        0-6             1-9             2-12
Will save       0-6             1-9             2-12
Skills known    8               12              16
Skillpoints     4               6               8
Hit die         d4              d8              d12
Focus die       d4              d8              d12

A player gets to select 2 options from "good", and 3 each from "average" and "poor", thus being able to build the basic class to his wishes instead of being forced into stereotypes ("fighters always have poor will saves", "rogues always have good skills", etc). Of course, one could build the "classical" archetypes as well with it.

Comments? Suggestions? Ideas?

Quote from: Ra-TielWhile compiling some of my ideas into a (yet unfinished) PDF, I got yet another idea worth considering. Why not drop classes altogether, and instead allow the player to "build" his own base class with a priority system similar to 2ed/3ed Shadowrun? What do you think of the following?

Code Select Expand

Feature         poor            average         good
-------------------------------------------------------
Base attack     1/2 HD          3/4 HD          1/1 HD
Fort save       0-6             1-9             2-12
Ref save        0-6             1-9             2-12
Will save       0-6             1-9             2-12
Skills known    8               12              16
Skillpoints     4               6               8
Hit die         d4              d8              d12
Focus die       d4              d8              d12

A player gets to select 2 options from "good", and 3 each from "average" and "poor", thus being able to build the basic class to his wishes instead of being forced into stereotypes ("fighters always have poor will saves", "rogues always have good skills", etc). Of course, one could build the "classical" archetypes as well with it.

Comments? Suggestions? Ideas?

How would bonus feats and progession of a character work? would they all have access to a bonus feat at the same level ?

Quote from: ~Kalin~How would bonus feats and progession of a character work? would they all have access to a bonus feat at the same level ?

Basically, yes. Each character would get a talent at all odd levels (1,3,5,...) and a bonus feat at all even levels (2,4,6,...). With a feat available that would allow a character to gain a talent instead.

But that's just an idea. It doesn't have to work that way. ;)

I think that we should expand it to a five-point system; poor, bad, average, good, and excellent. Right now, for instance, you can't choose the d10 or d6 as a hit die.

i agree with stargate.what is focus die?

Quote from: Stargate525I think that we should expand it to a five-point system; poor, bad, average, good, and excellent. Right now, for instance, you can't choose the d10 or d6 as a hit die.

Ok, what 5 categories would you suggest for BAB and saves?

@Atlantis: focus die is similar to hit die, but is used for "focus points", the point cost talents require when active. I just didn't want to call it "mana". :P

Anyways, another idea I was having: in addition to the templates (wild, psionic, skilled, etc) we introduce "virtues".

A virtue is equal to one of the six abilities and determines what basic talent trees the character has access to. Each virtue would have one talent tree for martial, magical, and skillfocused characters. This would be similar to the base classes from d20 Modern.

For example, the Constitution virtue could contain the talent trees
- Incarnate (magical; infuse body with magical effects)
- Juggernaut (martial; gain DR)
- Scout (skilled; gain bonuses to movement and endurance)
while the Intelligence virtue would contain the trees
- Commando (martial; loose damage but impose negative effects on target)
- Tactician (skilled; increase bonuses from aid another)
- Wizard (magical; gain spells as invocations)

So, instead of saying "my character is a fighter who grew up in a borderland region and focuses on smart tactics" you can say "my character is a martial type with the wild template and the Intelligence virtue".

Or the other way round. Instead of a virtue being related to an ability score, it could revolve around a concept like "martial" or "skilled". Eg, the Martial virtue could contain the talent trees
- Dreadnought (Str; gain bonus damage with all attacks)
- Dervish (Dex; loose attack bonus, gain bonuses to AC and movement)
- Juggernaut (Con; gain DR)
- Commando (Int; loose damage, inflict status conditions on enemies)
- Destroyer (Wis; ignore hardness and DR)
- Officer (Cha; coordinate allies to gain various bonuses)

Alternatively, we could dump restrictions on talent trees completely, and balance them by having special skill/feat/BAB/save prerequisites. There could arise some balancing issues due to the freeform character creation so far, but it was definitively worth considering.

Just some thoughts, thou. ;)

Quote from: Stargate525I think that we should expand it to a five-point system; poor, bad, average, good, and excellent. Right now, for instance, you can't choose the d10 or d6 as a hit die.

I was just thinking the same thing, but how would we split BAB, skills points, and saves into those 5 different catagories?

Also we could introduce 5 different progression rates that develope how fast a character receives feats and talents (we are still going for feats and talents arent we?)

Quote from: ~Kalin~I was just thinking the same thing, but how would we split BAB, skills points, and saves into those 5 different catagories?

That's exactly the reason why I suggested only three categories. Skill points and class skills would be no problem (2, 4, 6, 8, 10 points per level, or 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 skills known). However, BAB and saves are not really divisible into 5 categories - at least not without fundamentally changing the way combat works.

If you look at full BAB and half BAB, you see the difference between those two is at worst (without magic, buffs, and ability modifiers) "only" 10 points (at level 20). So, an enemy the fighter hits with a "2", the wizard can still hit with a "12". If you now introduce BAB categories below half BAB and/or above full BAB, like 1/4 and 5/4 (the latter was done in Iron Heroes), you drastically increase the gap. 1/4 BAB gives you +5 at level 20, while 5/4 gives you +25 at level 20. Therefore, an enemy the fighter hits with a "2", the wizard can only hit with a natural "20", and it becomes only worse when you add in magic items, abilities, buff spells, etc.

The same goes for saving throws. With progressions worse than 0-6 and better than 2-12 you introduce the problem that one person only fails on a natural 1, while the other must roll a natural 20 to succeed at the exactly same save. The same reasoning was mentioned in the Epic Level Handbook, why Epic Saves and Epic BAB work the way they do instead of following the normal progressions.

Quote from: ~Kalin~Also we could introduce 5 different progression rates that develope how fast a character receives feats and talents (we are still going for feats and talents arent we?)

If the feats and talents system is still flying, I must vote against this. For a simple reason: min-maxing. If all characters gain bonus feats and talents at the same rate, they have equal chances to gain power. But if you differ characters in this regard, one character now gains power at a potentionally much higher rate than the other - which is imho a bad thing.

Also, 5 categories are too much. How would you spread out the talent distribution without utterly crippling the characters with a weaker progression? I an see the progressions in that case going from "1 talent every level" over "1 talent every 2nd level", "1 talent every 3rd level", "1 talent every 4th level", to finally "1 talent every 5th level".

And this would utterly destroy any sort of balance between the characters, because the character with the best progression would be indefinitively better than the one with the worst progression. Also, no player in his right mind would select the worst progression, as talents are equal with class abilities and character options.

---

However, I had another idea if we go for a completely open system without classes or templates or virtues or some other wonky try to categorize the characters. If all characters had access to all available talent trees, it could quickly become unbalancing. A character with bonuses to movement and perception, as well as having spells as "at will" invocations and a thick damage reduction to boot. So, what if we put up not only requirements regarding BAB, saves, skill ranks, and prerequisite talents, but also regarding ability scores?

It would work similar to the standard magic system. "To cast a spell of level X, you must have a key ability of at least 10+X" -> "To take a talent from level X, you must have a key ability of at least 10+X". We simply key each talent tree to a specific attribute and make it so that to take the first talent in that tree you must have a key ability of 11, to take the second talent in that tree you must have a 12 in the corresponding attribute, a 13 for the third talent in this tree, and so on and so forth.

This would cut down on optimizing, as abilities are a bit harder to min-max than skill ranks, while still allowing all characters a wide field of options open to them.

No one says that there have to be options for all five categories for every section. BAB and saves are arguably more powerful than skill points and hit die, so it costs more to have them better.

Quote from: Stargate525No one says that there have to be options for all five categories for every section. BAB and saves are arguably more powerful than skill points and hit die, so it costs more to have them better.

Well, but what's the point then in having 5 categories, if not all options use all categories? Also, if you give BAB and saves more weight than HD it creates a dichotomoy in the system. You'd have then to differ between fort and will saves, and ref saves. Fort and will are by margin the most important saves, as they prevent your character from instant-death or mindcontrolling, while ref saves usually only negate additional HP damage.

All in all, in my opinion a system where 2 (BAB and saves) out of 6 options use a different number of categories and cost different leads only to a highly inelegant solution. I always ask myself "is it worth it", and to be honest I seriously cannot see the point why having 5 categories for skills, skillpoints, and HD/FD would justify in destroying the simple homogenity of "all options have 3 categories".

But another idea. How about instead of applying the templates in general to the character, we make the templates part of character creation? What I mean is this: in Blue Planet (yes, I know I am referencing this system quite often :P ) the major part of a character's "skillpoints" are preallocated in so called "packages". Each character gets to select one origin package (where they were born and spend their childhood), two background packages (where they grew up and spend their teenager time), as well as three to five professional packages (dependent on power level; what trade the character learned, where he went to university, etc). After that, the player gets some free points to spend as he wishes.

The advantage of such a system is that the character knows what he is meant to know. No more "fighter from the borderlands" with 0 ranks in survival, or "magician from the metropolis" with 0 ranks in Gather information. Also, the character creation process already describes some of the character's background; you know where he was born and grew up, what he did in his youth, and so on.

So, what do you think about adapting this into our system? Currently, DnD assumes that all characters just walk around the countryside and kill stuff for money. The actual background, growing up, and normal life of characters is, as of now, utterly unimportant and close to nonexistant.

So, just some ideas...

"origin templates" like
- metropolis (big cities, think Sharn or Waterdeep)
- wilderness (as it says, in the middle of nowhere)
- borderlands (far away regions, civilized by still far off from civilization)
- countryside (closer to civilization, small villages and hamlets)
would describe where the character was born and spent his childhood.

"status templates" like
- commoner (everyday farmers and craftsmen)
- free man (freelancer and traders, other people born free)
- nobility (those of noble birth, either acknowledged by their parents or not)
- slave (unfree people, perhaps child to prisoners of war or convicted criminals)
would describe into which social status the character was born.

"youth templates" like
- runaway (grew up on the streets, mostly had to care for himself)
- monastery (grew up in a monestary)
- order (grew up in a knightly order)
- apprenticeship (was apprentice to a mage or cleric)
would describe what the character did in his youth and early adolescence.

"professional templates" like
- craftsman (smith, baker, etc)
- mercenary (sword for hire, used to live and die on the street)
- magician (could be naturally gifted sorcerer, or trained mage)
- artist (sculptors, singers, dancers, etc)
would describe what profession the character adopted in his early life.

The benfits could be something like:
* origin template: gives skill ranks and a bonus feat
* status template: gives skills known
* youth template: gives skills known and skill ranks
* professional template: gives skills known, skill ranks, and a talent

After that, the character could perhaps have skill points equal to 10 plus his Intelligence modifier to distribute among his skills to represent off-topic studies and hobbies.

Quote from: Ra-TielWell, but what's the point then in having 5 categories, if not all options use all categories? Also, if you give BAB and saves more weight than HD it creates a dichotomoy in the system. You'd have then to differ between fort and will saves, and ref saves. Fort and will are by margin the most important saves, as they prevent your character from instant-death or mindcontrolling, while ref saves usually only negate additional HP damage.

All in all, in my opinion a system where 2 (BAB and saves) out of 6 options use a different number of categories and cost different leads only to a highly inelegant solution. I always ask myself "is it worth it", and to be honest I seriously cannot see the point why having 5 categories for skills, skillpoints, and HD/FD would justify in destroying the simple homogenity of "all options have 3 categories".

Yes, it's worth it. Right now, you're cutting off several key features of the d20 system. Right now you've got either a tank that can eat damage for breakfast (d12), or average(d8). There needs to be a middle ground (d10). It's not really even more weight. It's simply that two of the settings don't have (or need) a middle ground. There's not problem with it 'weighting' those skills at all, since you've got a number of pre-selected slots for each category anyway.

Quote from: Ra-TielBut another idea. How about instead of applying the templates in general to the character, we make the templates part of character creation? What I mean is this: in Blue Planet (yes, I know I am referencing this system quite often :P ) the major part of a character's "skillpoints" are preallocated in so called "packages". Each character gets to select one origin package (where they were born and spend their childhood), two background packages (where they grew up and spend their teenager time), as well as three to five professional packages (dependent on power level; what trade the character learned, where he went to university, etc). After that, the player gets some free points to spend as he wishes.

:?: You're stripping away part of the character's ability to be unique why? What's the benefit here, besides the 'characters know what they should'? I don't see how that's a problem we need to fix in the system; if the payer is stupid enough not to take the obvious skills, that's their problem. We shouldn't be restricting the system down to the lowest common denominator.

Quote from: Stargate525Yes, it's worth it. Right now, you're cutting off several key features of the d20 system. Right now you've got either a tank that can eat damage for breakfast (d12), or average(d8). There needs to be a middle ground (d10). It's not really even more weight. It's simply that two of the settings don't have (or need) a middle ground. There's not problem with it 'weighting' those skills at all, since you've got a number of pre-selected slots for each category anyway.

On average, d12 is 1 HP per level above the d10, and d8 is 1 HP per level below the d10. I don't see that much of a problem here. A ranger also "only" has a d8 as hit die, but gets other things (2 good saves, 6+Int skill points, spells, etc) to compensate for that. Consider the relative free and unbound character creation here. If I give up the ability to have eg another good save, or 8 skill points per level, and instead decide I want to play the tank, it'd better be worth it!

Also, why would you need more degrees of diversion regarding hit points? Either you're used to dealing with hits, or you suck at it, or you're average.

Quote from: Stargate525:?: You're stripping away part of the character's ability to be unique why? What's the benefit here, besides the 'characters know what they should'? I don't see how that's a problem we need to fix in the system; if the payer is stupid enough not to take the obvious skills, that's their problem. We shouldn't be restricting the system down to the lowest common denominator.

Even if I am cutting a bit into each character's uniqueness (I don't think I'm stripping too much, as the correct templates would give the "important" skills the player would select anyways) but give him some sense. I've seen sorcerers have the same 4 skills (bluff, concentration, knowledge arcane, and spellcraft) maxed and nothing else, no matter if they came from the wilderness, a small hamlet, a huge city, or another plane. Does that seem resonable to you?

Currently the system just does not encourage putting ranks in your "not-so-important" skills. Because either you'll suck anyways (compare: "fighter spot cross-class vs rogue hide class"), or the DCs are so high you'll have to pump in much more than 1 or 2 ranks (*cough*UMD*cough*). With a "templated" character creation, the character would have some "basics" at ~2-4 ranks that he would have picked up in his past (wilderness -> survival, knowledge nature; city -> diplomacy, gather information; hamlet -> profession, survival; etc) without him needing to sacrifice his precious skill points he gains from levels.

It's in fact quite the contrary than a nerf. Each character would get a boost, because the skills from the templates would not count against his skillpoints he gains at first level. My idea was making it so that in total a character gains 20 skillpoints from templates (which are predistributed) and then gains another 10+Int mod to distribute as the player wishes. In my eyes, this would make characters even more unique, as now the player has the chance to put ranks into "craft basketweaving" he learned as a little child from his mother without gimping himself mechanically.

The only reason to split BAB, skills etc... into five catagories is so that a player can choose from all HD used eg: d4, d6, d8, d10, d12, Correct?

If so we could use what Ra-tiel stated earlier. That HD is dependent on the race you choose a character creation, and you could then pick from the list a +2(poor), +4(averge), +6(good) (with constitution still added normally), allowing us to keep only three catagories. what do you guys think?

Quote from: ~Kalin~The only reason to split BAB, skills etc... into five catagories is so that a player can choose from all HD used eg: d4, d6, d8, d10, d12, Correct?

As far as I can see, yes. But as said, I really cannot see a reason why we would be "forced" to include all 5 types of hit dice. Just take a look at the first edition of the B5 d20 rpg. They did completely away with HD. At first level, each class gains a number of HP equal to 1d6+X, where X ranges from 1 to 6. Yes, that's right: variable HP at first level! :P After that, each level added only a minor amount to HP (eg a soldier got 3 more HP per level). Of course, Con was not added to HP, but increased your chance of stabilizing once in the negatives. ;)

Quote from: ~Kalin~If so we could use what Ra-tiel stated earlier. That HD is dependent on the race you choose a character creation, and you could then pick from the list a +2(poor), +4(averge), +6(good) (with constitution still added normally), allowing us to keep only three catagories. what do you guys think?

A good idea. However, if we used that we'd have to consider that characters are going to have substantionally more HP than in normal DnD. A human fighter would (if using my hip shot numbers from above and your suggestions) have 8 + 19*1d8 + 20*6 + 20*Con mod HP.

I'd help more with this, guys, but I have a bunch of work to finish up before school starts.

Quote from: Ra-TielA good idea. However, if we used that we'd have to consider that characters are going to have substantionally more HP than in normal DnD. A human fighter would (if using my hip shot numbers from above and your suggestions) have 8 + 19*1d8 + 20*6 + 20*Con mod HP.

Well we could decrease the bonuses to a +1(poor), +2(average), +3(good), that would decrease the increase in hp (i hope that last bit mad sense).


Also has anyone done any more work on the talent tree?

Double Post

Quote from: Sir VorpalI'd help more with this, guys, but I have a bunch of work to finish up before school starts.

No problem. Any help and suggestions are appreciated. :)

Quote from: ~Kalin~Well we could decrease the bonuses to a +1(poor), +2(average), +3(good), that would decrease the increase in hp (i hope that last bit mad sense).

Now that would be an idea. If we use the standard HP system, that is. ;)

If we used a VP/WP system, we could give an category-dependent one-time bonus to VP/WP, eg 5/10/15, or even 10/20/30 (although that could be again too much).

Or we could use a system that was a mix of SAGA and d20 Modern. A character would have a "wound threshold" equal to his Con score. Whenever he suffers more damage from a single blow than this number, he'd have to make a Fort save (DC 15, but could be modifier by the attacker's talents) or suffer a certain status condition (sickened, nauseated, stunned, etc). Now we could give a character bonuses to these Fort saves, representing his "sturdiness", eg +2/+4/+6 or something.

Or we could get rid of HP altogether, and implement a system with different wound degrees that impose negative conditions on the character. The bonuses would be similar to my above suggestion, as the characters would gain bonuses on the "resistance" check against a wound.

I'd like to hear some more ideas and comments before we decide for a fixed system. I only mentioned HD because they were the supposed "standard", but that doesn't mean we couldn't butcher this sacred cow. ;)

Quote from: ~Kalin~Also has anyone done any more work on the talent tree?

Well, which one? This is also a point where we should first decide in which way we want to develope our system (classless and/or levelless? using some sort of generic classes? using standard DnD classes?), because each of these decisions has an impact on how we would have to design the talent trees (most importantly regarding the talents' prerequisites).

Quote from: Ra-Tiel

Quote from: ~Kalin~Well we could decrease the bonuses to a +1(poor), +2(average), +3(good), that would decrease the increase in hp (i hope that last bit mad sense).

Now that would be an idea. If we use the standard HP system, that is. ;)

If we used a VP/WP system, we could give an category-dependent one-time bonus to VP/WP, eg 5/10/15, or even 10/20/30 (although that could be again too much).

Or we could use a system that was a mix of SAGA and d20 Modern. A character would have a "wound threshold" equal to his Con score. Whenever he suffers more damage from a single blow than this number, he'd have to make a Fort save (DC 15, but could be modifier by the attacker's talents) or suffer a certain status condition (sickened, nauseated, stunned, etc). Now we could give a character bonuses to these Fort saves, representing his "sturdiness", eg +2/+4/+6 or something.

Or we could get rid of HP altogether, and implement a system with different wound degrees that impose negative conditions on the character. The bonuses would be similar to my above suggestion, as the characters would gain bonuses on the "resistance" check against a wound.

I'd like to hear some more ideas and comments before we decide for a fixed system. I only mentioned HD because they were the supposed "standard", but that doesn't mean we couldn't butcher this sacred cow. ;)

Quote from: ~Kalin~Also has anyone done any more work on the talent tree?

Well, which one? This is also a point where we should first decide in which way we want to develope our system (classless and/or levelless? using some sort of generic classes? using standard DnD classes?), because each of these decisions has an impact on how we would have to design the talent trees (most importantly regarding the talents' prerequisites).

Quite true, and on that note i vote for a WP/VP, classless system (something very similar to Ra-Tiel's, that allows you to pick from three columns, except that race determines HD, and one of the columns gives you a bonus to WP/VP) and that will use a combination of bonus feats and talents and virtues (that are based around a specific concept) to emulate what the D&D classes already do and hopefully more with hopefully much more customization.

EDIT: I would also vote for the use of "class templates", eg: Vile, Holy, wild, civilized, skillful, marital, arcane, psionic, that dictate how a character progresses and what talents and feats they can learn, as well as unique abilities that may progress as the character gains levels.

Quote from: ~Kalin~Quite true, and on that note i vote for a WP/VP, classless system (something very similar to Ra-Tiel's, that allows you to pick from three columns, except that race determines HD, and one of the columns gives you a bonus to WP/VP) and that will use a combination of bonus feats and talents and virtues (that are based around a specific concept) to emulate what the D&D classes already do and hopefully more with hopefully much more customization.

If we go for VP/WP, I have another suggestion to make. In the VP/WP system, WP represent your ability to take physical punishment, while VP are your ability to "dodge" attacks or turn them into glancing blows, etc. Right? In this case, basing VP on race doesn't really make sense; why should a human be better at dodging hits than an elf?

So, what about this. Instead of basing VP on race, we base WP on race. My suggestion would be giving each character a number of WP equal to his Con score modified by his race and size, and base VP on the option he chose at character creation.
[table=WP based on race]
[tr][th]Race[/th][th]WP modifier[/th][/tr]
[tr][td]Dwarf[/td][td]+2[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Elf[/td][td]-2[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Gnome[/td][td]+0[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Half-elf[/td][td]+0[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Half-orc[/td][td]+4[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Halfling[/td][td]-2[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Human[/td][td]+2[/td][/tr]
[/table]

Quote from: ~Kalin~EDIT: I would also vote for the use of "class templates", eg: Vile, Holy, wild, civilized, skillful, marital, arcane, psionic, that dictate how a character progresses and what talents and feats they can learn, as well as unique abilities that may progress as the character gains levels.

Although being cool, I can see now sort of a problem with those class templates. How much does a character get to take? If he only gets to select a single one, it puts the character's development in a nice, unmoving concrete block. For example, a "wild" barbarian will never get to use even the most easy talent from a tree in the "civilized" order, no matter how much time he spent in a city.

On the other hand, if a character can acquire more than one template, what prevents the player from abusing that to possibly gain access to any and all available talent trees from templates? What requirements would be appropriate for gaining a new template? When can that happen? Is it dependent on the character level or some class level, or something completely different?

Imho a better idea would be to give all characters access to some talent trees based on their "background" (the character creation process I used as an example earlier could come in handy here), and give out a levelbased feature called "talent access" every 4 levels that allows a character to "unlock" a new talent tree. This way, the character has talents based on his background and current life situation, but can still dynamically learn new things and adapt to new situation and circumstances.

Ok, so this is what i have so far come up with after reading through all four pages of this thread and combining some of the ideas.
Note: the skill ideas are almost direct copy/paste from Ra-tiels campaign setting.

||___CHARACTER PROGRESSION___||
To determine how well your character progresses in certain areas such as their base attack bonus, saves, skills and skill points; choose from the list below two progressions from the Good column, three from the average column and three from the poor column.

[table=Character Progression]
[tr][th]Feature[/th][th]Poor[/th][th]Average[/th][th]Good[/th][/tr]
[tr][td]BAB[/td][td]1/2 HD[/td][td]3/4 HD[/td][td]1/1 HD[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Fort[/td][td]0-6[/td][td]1-9[/td][td]2-12[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Ref[/td][td]0-6[/td][td]1-9[/td][td]2-12[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Will[/td][td]0-6[/td][td]1-9[/td][td]2-12[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Skill Proficiency[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Expert[/td][td]3[/td][td]5[/td][td]10[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Master[/td][td]3[/td][td]5[/td][td]10[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Skill Points/level[/td][td]4[/td][td]6[/td][td]8[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]WP/VP Bonus[/td][td]?[/td][td]?[/td][td]?[/td][/tr]
[/table]

||___SKILLS Proficiencies____
Skill proficiencies determine your character's degree of talent and proficiency with a certain skill. Each skill's ranking sets the upper limit of maximum ranks you may have in that skill, and thus how good your character is at using that skill. A skill can have one of three rankings: Layman, Expert, or Master.

Layman skills
These skills are only trained at a very basic level or not trained at all. This ranking represents a very basic proficiency and ability with the individual skill. This is the typical ranking most average people have in most of their skills.
All skills not ranked Expert or Master are automatically marked Layman.
Maximum ranks: Level * 1/2 + 1.

Expert skills
These skills show an improved degree of training and ability. This ranking represents above average talent and skill. This is the typical ranking experts or specialists have in their chosen skills.
Maximum ranks: Level * 1/2 + 4.

Master skills
These skills are trained to the maximum possible degree and show the most ability. This ranking represents true masters of their art and the best and most advanced training. This is the typical ranking true champions and the elite have in their mastered skills.
Maximum ranks: Level * 1/2 + 7.

[table=Character Progression II]
[tr][th]Level[/th][th]Special[/th][/tr]
[tr][td]1st[/td][td]Concept Ability[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]2nd[/td][td]Bonus Feat[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]3rd[/td][td]Talent[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]4th[/td][td]Bonus Feat[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]5th[/td][td]Concept Ability[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]6th[/td][td]Bonus Feat[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]7th[/td][td]Talent[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]8th[/td][td]Bonus Feat[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]9th[/td][td]Talent[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]10th[/td][td]Concept Ability[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]11th[/td][td]Bonus Feat[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]12th[/td][td]Talent[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]13th[/td][td]Bonus Feat[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]14th[/td][td]Talent[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]15th[/td][td]Concept Ability[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]16th[/td][td]Bonus Feat[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]17th[/td][td]Talent[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]18th[/td][td]Bonus Feat[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]19th[/td][td]Talent[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]20th[/td][td]Concept ability[/td][/tr]
[/table]

||___CONCEPTS____
A concept is chosen at first level and improves on 5th, 10th, 15th and 20th level and dictates what abilities a character has access to; a character may also receive other special abilities based on the concept chosen, such as one or more passive abilities that may or may not progress as the character gains levels. An additional concept may also be chosen after first level any time a character gains access to a concept ability. The concept abilities are Vile, Holy, Civilized, Wild, Martial, Skillful, Arcane, or Mind.

||___TALENTS____
Talents are special abilities gained on 3rd, 7th, 9th, 11th, 13th, 17th and 19th levels that are tied to the specific concept(s) that have been chosen for the character, you still must meet all prerequisites to those talents.

||___BONUS FEATS____
Bonus feats are feats that are gained on 2nd, 4th, 6th, 8th, 12th, 14th, 16th, and 18th levels that can be used to acquire any feat that you meet the prerequisites for.


EDIT: added quick example
I see it working something like this:
Eg: I want to make a fighter that dual wields short swords, so I take good BAB, and a good fort save, then I take average expert and master skills proficiencies and I then take poor ref, will saves. Making me a fighter very similar to the D&D core fighter.
I then take the martial concept ability, giving me a few bonus feats such as armor and shield proficiency as well as simple and martial weapon proficiency. Later I can take feats and talents to increase my ability to dual wield my chosen weapons.

comments? suggestions? holes to point out? things ive missed?

Quote from: ~Kalin~[...]comments? suggestions? holes to point out? things ive missed?

Well, yes. ;) The thing with layman/expert/master skills won't work here. In the WCS each character gets fixed 8 + Int mod skill points per level. So each character has (more or less) the exact same amount of skill points available. This was done because casting, saves, and weapon ability are now also based on skills, making it necessary to put all characters on even ground.

Therefore it hardly - at least to me - seems necessary to differ characters on two axes, how much skill points they have and at how many skills they can be really good. Also, for a more "conventional" setting I guess having two degrees (class/crossclass, trained/untrained, known/unknown, whatever) of skill proficiency would suffice.

Also, I'm not sure anylonger if it is necessary to differ between concept abilities and talents. I know, something similar was my very first idea, but now I'd find it much more elegant and easier to play when you make everything into talents. Additionally, 5 levels is a long time to gain another concept ability.

As said, we could basically make every talent tree available to every character, but put into the requirements
* BAB X+
* Base save bonus X+
* Skill ranks X+
* ability the talent tree is related to 10+Y for the Yth talent in the tree

I think this would keep min-maxing in check ("No 14 Int? Sorry, then you can't take <talent tree> IV") while allowing a wide field of possible options for each character. Also, it rewards those who focus on one concept (with abilities, appropriate BAB and saves and skills), as only they would be able to reach the higher level talents, while not completely gimping other, less focused, character concepts.

One thing, however, is left to consider. Regarding spellcasting etc. My original suggestion (when I still was toying around with the three classes expert, medium, and warrior) was to allow for a "caster" by presenting a mechanic that allows any spell to be selected and made into an invocation, duplicating the spell but at a cost, limiting its usefullness in combat, and preventing spamming out of combat. The question now is, how to deal with casterlevel? In an earlier stage I'd just have suggested making invocation CL equal to medium class level. Now, however, the problem is that we don't have classes any longer (at least not with the current ideas).

Therefore, my suggestion would be to also introduce a "BMB" (base magic bonus), similar to BAB. The casterlevel for all sp, su and invocation abilities would then always be equal to a character's BMB. It would also solve the problem of casters getting "something for nothing". Just as a fighter type character would have to take good BAB to be good at fighting, a wizard type character would have to take good BMB to be good at casting. The BMB would follow the same formula as BAB (1/2 HD, 3/4 HD, or 1/1 HD). Characters who would never use magical abilities themselves (like pure fighter/barbarian/knight or scoundrel/rogue/thief types) would be at no disadvantage for having low BMB, similar to how pure caster types are at no - measurable - disadvantage for having low BAB.

great idea Ra-Tiel. we could also use the BMB for the requirements for certain trees.

in regards to the Layman, expert and master skill system, i see your point, i didn't notice the 8+int mod before. But if we decreased the max rank numbers to accomidate the lower variable skill points in this system do you think if would work? say something like layman 1/2 level +1, expert 1/2 level +2, master 1/2 level +3.

If not i would have to vote heavily against the use of class/cross class skills, at least the way they work now.

QuoteAlso, I'm not sure any longer if it is necessary to differ between concept abilities and talents. I know, something similar was my very first idea, but now I'd find it much more elegant and easier to play when you make everything into talents. Additionally, 5 levels is a long time to gain another concept ability.

As said, we could basically make every talent tree available to every character, but put into the requirements
* BAB X+
* Base save bonus X+
* Skill ranks X+
* ability the talent tree is related to 10+Y for the Yth talent in the tree

I think this would keep min-maxing in check ("No 14 Int? Sorry, then you can't take <talent tree> IV") while allowing a wide field of possible options for each character. Also, it rewards those who focus on one concept (with abilities, appropriate BAB and saves and skills), as only they would be able to reach the higher level talents, while not completely gimping other, less focused, character concepts.[/quote]Therefore, my suggestion would be to also introduce a "BMB" (base magic bonus), similar to BAB. The casterlevel for all sp, su and invocation abilities would then always be equal to a character's BMB. It would also solve the problem of casters getting "something for nothing". Just as a fighter type character would have to take good BAB to be good at fighting, a wizard type character would have to take good BMB to be good at casting. The BMB would follow the same formula as BAB (1/2 HD, 3/4 HD, or 1/1 HD). Characters who would never use magical abilities themselves (like pure fighter/barbarian/knight or scoundrel/rogue/thief types) would be at no disadvantage for having low BMB, similar to how pure caster types are at no - measurable - disadvantage for having low BAB. [/quote]

I like this idea a lot, but say if i was a level 6 martial character with a 1/2 BMB and i take a talent tree that allows me to cast magic, i would then be instantly better at magic (+3 BMB) than a level 2 character that has taken the same magic talent tree.

On a side note the BMB reminds me of the Base Defense Bonus (BDB) ive seen around, where it gives you a boost to AC, it might be worth a try to implement.

Quote from: ~Kalin~in regards to the Layman, expert and master skill system, i see your point, i didn't notice the 8+int mod before.

No problem.

Quote from: ~Kalin~But if we decreased the max rank numbers to accomidate the lower variable skill points in this system do you think if would work? say something like layman 1/2 level +1, expert 1/2 level +2, master 1/2 level +3.

If we take a look at the spread each category would generate, I'm not sure if it was worth spending one of your two selections from "good" categories on "master" skills known. I'll put up the values from the WCS in parenthesis as a comparison.
* Layman: 1-11 (1-16)
* Expert: 2-12 (4-19)
* Master: 3-13 (7-22)
For only two points more max ranks you're giving up a good save, good BAB, or 8 skill points per level. Doesn't really seem that hot to me. ;)

Also, I don't know if this "1/2 level" thing is a good idea. It basically forces us to rewrite every skill and adjust the DCs. I've basically already done that for the WCS, but I've also reworked some skills and combined others into one, so I'm not sure of how fitting that would be for this system.

But what about this: we don't do "1/2 level  + X", but instead "A * level + Y" where A is either 1/2, 3/4 or 1, and Y is 1, 2, or 3? It would come out with the following progressions (with the correct formulas in parenthesis).
* Layman: 1-11 (1/2 level + 1)
* Expert: 2-17 (3/4 level + 2)
* Master: 4-23 (1/1 level + 3)

This way, taking many "master" skills does indeed allow for a huge difference regarding those skills, much more than only two more points. On the other hand, layman skills have enough max ranks to allow for the average tasks to be easily completed, while expert skills have enough max ranks to try to attempt some of the more daring tasks. Both are very compatible with take 10, making sure a lowly smith's apprentice won't have any problems doing the regular work in the smithy, for example. Master rankings are then only for the truely adapt, and are the only category that allows for the really interesting or dangerous tasks to be attempted in stressful situations.

On a related note, what do you think about using the above values also for BAB (and perhaps BMB)? I know from the d20 EQII rpg that the fighter archetype started with a BAB of 3, to differ him more significantly from the other classes who started with BAB 0. In normal DnD, the only difference between a "holy man" (cleric) and a "trained swordsman" (fighter) is 1 single point BAB. If we used numbers who were a bit more appart, the importance of taking "good" BAB over "average" BAB would be a bit stronger.

On a second related note, I can imagine using the same numbers also for saving throw progessions. Before you scream "b0rk3n!!", my reasoning is the following. In normal DnD, characters are utterly dependent on magic items when it comes to saves. I can easily build a wizard (base Int 18, grey elf +2, Spellcasting Prodigy) who has save DCs of 18 + spell level at level 20 for his spells without wearing any magic item. This means that his level 9 spells have (at least) a save DC of 27. Even a character with a good save (+12), a 18 in the relevant ability score (+4) and the save boosting feat (+2) would only have a 60% chance of succeeding. A character with a bad save (+6) has (assuming all other conditions are the same) only a 30% to succeed. To reduce the dependency on magic items, we could - more or less drastically - increase the base saving throw bonuses characters receive. To prevent a player from still stockpiling magic bonuses, an easy rule would be that a magic item cannot boost your save above your character level; this would mean that characters could not benefit from these items for their good saves.

Also, I know of at least one precident where a similar thing has been done. In the Iron Heroes setting, all characters have a save bonus to all saves equal to their character level. I think making a similar design decision could add to the MISBNNR (magic items should be nice not required) theorem I hold in high regards.

Quote from: ~Kalin~If not i would have to vote heavily against the use of class/cross class skills, at least the way they work now.

Which would definitively be also an option if we wanted to keep things close to the original d20 system (and which I also had suggested earlier as an alternative).

Quote from: ~Kalin~I agree.

Good. :D

Quote from: ~Kalin~I quite like this idea, would it also be safe to say that in order to get a specific talent higher up the talent tree you would first have to take those talents leading up to the higher one as well as meeting all the prerequisites?

Of course. Each talent but the first one in a certain tree would have the previous talent in the tree as a prerequisite, as well as optionally higher BAB/ranks/save requirements.

Quote from: ~Kalin~I like this idea a lot, but say if i was a level 6 martial character with a 1/2 BMB and i take a talent tree that allows me to cast magic, i would then be instantly better at magic (+3 BMB) than a level 2 character that has taken the same magic talent tree.

Magical talent trees should always require a certain minimum in the Will save, as well as BMB and Spellcraft skill ranks. I think that should avoid most situations where a non-caster "suddenly" takes a magical talent and becomes a better caster than a lower level caster type character.

Quote from: ~Kalin~On a side note the BMB reminds me of the Base Defense Bonus (BDB) ive seen around, where it gives you a boost to AC, it might be worth a try to implement.

For defense, I must say that I sort of like the "Combat Defense" variant from Sword and Sorcery's "Advanced Player's Guide". Although the rest of the book was pretty much crap, this one rules variant was quite cool. Don't worry, it's designated as OGL content, so there's no problem with me posting the details. ;)

Instead of normal AC, each character would have 4 "combat defenses":
* Armor Defense: Is equal to 10 + total armor bonus + total natural armor bonuses; can always be applied against all attacks.
* Block Defense: Is equal to BAB + total shield bonus; gain multiple blocks attempts based on BAB; each block uses one block attempt, opposed roll against attacker.
* Dodge Defense: Is equal to total Ref save bonus; can be applied against all attacks, but each dodge attempt after the first has a cumulative -2 penalty.
* Parry Defense: Is equal to total attack bonus with current weapon; each parry attempt uses one availalbe attack, opposed roll against attacker.
When you are attacked, you can designate one combat defense to be applied to each attack. You may never designate two different defenses against the same attack (eg try to parry a blow after you failed dodging it; but armor defense can always be applied to any attacks as a fallback option). This variant gives a major defensive boost to the classic "sword and board" combatant, as well as giving dual-wielders a defensive edge, as they can use their off-hand attacks for parrying without sacrificing much of their offense.

While this not only resembles reality more accurately (whether the blow glances off of one's armor or is brutally stopped by the shield, or is deftly parried aside, or swiftly avoided by an acrobatic move), it also makes combat more dynamic instead of becoming the repetitive "attack roll - damage roll - attack roll - damage roll - ..." it can quickly boil down to. Also, it places more control in the players' hands - which is imho a good thing - and binds their attention to the table even when it is not their turn.

Omg, so much typing... :-| Need sleep now. :P

QuoteBut what about this: we don't do "1/2 level  + X", but instead "A * level + Y" where A is either 1/2, 3/4 or 1, and Y is 1, 2, or 3? It would come out with the following progressions (with the correct formulas in parenthesis).
* Layman: 1-11 (1/2 level + 1)
* Expert: 2-17 (3/4 level + 2)
* Master: 4-23 (1/1 level + 3)

This way, taking many "master" skills does indeed allow for a huge difference regarding those skills, much more than only two more points. On the other hand, layman skills have enough max ranks to allow for the average tasks to be easily completed, while expert skills have enough max ranks to try to attempt some of the more daring tasks. Both are very compatible with take 10, making sure a lowly smith's apprentice won't have any problems doing the regular work in the smithy, for example. Master rankings are then only for the truely adapt, and are the only category that allows for the really interesting or dangerous tasks to be attempted in stressful situations.

On a related note, what do you think about using the above values also for BAB (and perhaps BMB)? I know from the d20 EQII rpg that the fighter archetype started with a BAB of 3, to differ him more significantly from the other classes who started with BAB 0. In normal DnD, the only difference between a "holy man" (cleric) and a "trained swordsman" (fighter) is 1 single point BAB. If we used numbers who were a bit more appart, the importance of taking "good" BAB over "average" BAB would be a bit stronger.
[/quote]
On a second related note, I can imagine using the same numbers also for saving throw progessions. Before you scream "b0rk3n!!", my reasoning is the following. In normal DnD, characters are utterly dependent on magic items when it comes to saves. I can easily build a wizard (base Int 18, grey elf +2, Spellcasting Prodigy) who has save DCs of 18 + spell level at level 20 for his spells without wearing any magic item. This means that his level 9 spells have (at least) a save DC of 27. Even a character with a good save (+12), a 18 in the relevant ability score (+4) and the save boosting feat (+2) would only have a 60% chance of succeeding. A character with a bad save (+6) has (assuming all other conditions are the same) only a 30% to succeed. To reduce the dependency on magic items, we could - more or less drastically - increase the base saving throw bonuses characters receive. To prevent a player from still stockpiling magic bonuses, an easy rule would be that a magic item cannot boost your save above your character level; this would mean that characters could not benefit from these items for their good saves.

Also, I know of at least one precident where a similar thing has been done. In the Iron Heroes setting, all characters have a save bonus to all saves equal to their character level. I think making a similar design decision could add to the MISBNNR (magic items should be nice not required) theorem I hold in high regards.
[/quote]
Magical talent trees should always require a certain minimum in the Will save, as well as BMB and Spellcraft skill ranks. I think that should avoid most situations where a non-caster "suddenly" takes a magical talent and becomes a better caster than a lower level caster type character.
[/quote]
For defense, I must say that I sort of like the "Combat Defense" variant from Sword and Sorcery's "Advanced Player's Guide". Although the rest of the book was pretty much crap, this one rules variant was quite cool. Don't worry, it's designated as OGL content, so there's no problem with me posting the details. ;)

Instead of normal AC, each character would have 4 "combat defenses":
* Armor Defense: Is equal to 10 + total armor bonus + total natural armor bonuses; can always be applied against all attacks.
* Block Defense: Is equal to BAB + total shield bonus; gain multiple blocks attempts based on BAB; each block uses one block attempt, opposed roll against attacker.
* Dodge Defense: Is equal to total Ref save bonus; can be applied against all attacks, but each dodge attempt after the first has a cumulative -2 penalty.
* Parry Defense: Is equal to total attack bonus with current weapon; each parry attempt uses one availalbe attack, opposed roll against attacker.
When you are attacked, you can designate one combat defense to be applied to each attack. You may never designate two different defenses against the same attack (eg try to parry a blow after you failed dodging it; but armor defense can always be applied to any attacks as a fallback option). This variant gives a major defensive boost to the classic "sword and board" combatant, as well as giving dual-wielders a defensive edge, as they can use their off-hand attacks for parrying without sacrificing much of their offense.

While this not only resembles reality more accurately (whether the blow glances off of one's armor or is brutally stopped by the shield, or is deftly parried aside, or swiftly avoided by an acrobatic move), it also makes combat more dynamic instead of becoming the repetitive "attack roll - damage roll - attack roll - damage roll - ..." it can quickly boil down to. Also, it places more control in the players' hands - which is imho a good thing - and binds their attention to the table even when it is not their turn.

Omg, so much typing... :-| Need sleep now. :P
[/quote]
Bah. Sleeps overrated :)
I certainly like it, but i reckon we figure it out after we have character creation finished.

Here is another idea, what if each talent tree gave you access to a number of 'talent tree points' equal to the levels taken on each tree, which could then be spent on activating or just enhancing many of the talents tied to that tree.

rough example:
A character choosing the wild talent tree gains 'wild points' equal to the levels taken in the wild talent tree to spend on activating their 'rage' or may choose to increase his DR for a period of time.

This would allow a character much more flexibility allowing them to use special abilities more often or giving up some uses for that day to be able to use or increase others.

Quote from: ~Kalin~so how do we decide how many layman, expert and master skills a character can choose from?

That depends on how many skills we have alltogether. In the WCS I merged many skills together (amongst them the popular fixes of "hide + move silently = sneak" and "spot + listen = percieve"), resulting in only 21 different skills. The D20 SRD lists 36 different skills.

If we use my condensed list, I would suggest the following.
[table=Skill Rankings 1]
[tr][th]Ranking[/th][th]poor[/th][th]average[/th][th]good[/th][/tr]
[tr][td]Expert[/td][td]3[/td][td]5[/td][td]7[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Master[/td][td]1[/td][td]3[/td][td]5[/td][/tr]
[/table]

If we use the normal list, I would suggest the following.
[table=Skill Rankings 2]
[tr][th]Ranking[/th][th]poor[/th][th]average[/th][th]good[/th][/tr]
[tr][td]Expert[/td][td]6[/td][td]10[/td][td]14[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Master[/td][td]4[/td][td]6[/td][td]8[/td][/tr]
[/table]

Quote from: ~Kalin~let me see if i got the this right. So a poor BAB would then equal 1/2 HD +1, average BAB would equal 3/4 HD +2 and good BAB would equal 1/1 HD +3. And the same for BMB.

Exactly. I personally found it very elegant and easy if we could use the same forumlae for all sort of progressions (max ranks, BAB, BMB, saves) instead of having different calculations for each single one. Additionally, it would enforce the differences between the different categories a bit more. Again, in normal DnD (baring magic items, buffs, ability mods), at level 2 the difference between a wizard and a fighter in BAB is one single point. But in my opinion, a fighter should be significantly better at, well, fighting, already at level 1 and not only at level 7 or so.

Quote from: ~Kalin~Im really not sure about this one, it sounds good and i agree with your theorem about magic items not been required, but in my personal experience i have never seen a problem with characters making their saves, to me the DCs have always been to low, but then again ive never played/DMed any higher than 11th level.

My main problem with current DnD is the abundance of "save or suffer" spells. Already at level 1, there are spells like Color Spray (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/colorSpray.htm) and Sleep (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/sleep.htm) which can lead an otherwise easy encounter (say, 6 kobold warriors with a level 1 kobold sorcerer as their leader) into a TPK for a level 1 party if they have a series of bad rolls - can you say "coup de grace"?

It becomes even worse when you have a character specialize on these, like a necromancer. There are certain spell combinations (for example metamagic rod of quicken + energy drain + finger of death) that can very easily suck the fun and enjoyment out of the game if used against PCs. And they are not really even cheesy or anything, now imagine using an enemy caster that has one PrC or another on top of simply being a sorcerer, how much that sucks for the players!

Also, we could just make magic items more rarer = expensive. Put a flat x10 multiplier on all prices except scrolls and potions containing spells of level 0, 1 and 2, and suddenly it becomes much more important for characters to get along without magic equipment. And that wouldn't exactly be a bad thing imho. The game should be about the character and his abilities, not what sort of gear he happens to carry around.

Quote from: ~Kalin~Also how would we then introduce a characters ability modifier into the save?

I also messed with saves a little in the WCS. ;) I don't remember where I read it, but IIRC it was a poster on the WotC boards who had the brilliant idea of making saves work with varying ability scores instead of a single fixed one. The key ability for a save would change on what effect the character tried to resist against:
* Str: effects reducing your mobility like paralysis or entanglement
* Dex: area effects like explosions or avalances or melee attacks (as a reference to combat defense)
* Con: poisons, diseases, and similar effects
* Int: illusions and other hallucinatory attacks
* Wis: all mind-affecting effects
* Cha: all effects attacking your soul like negative levels

This idea and Iron Heroes caused me to make all saves based on a single progression. After all, the game is about player heroes (or, well, antiheroes), and not about having a guy that wouldn't mind jumping into a lava pool to take a "refreshing swim" (this side blow on Will saves was presented by suggestion :-/ ). Therefore, I wouldn't mind condensing all saves into a single one, and thus placing a tad more importance on the character's ability scores.

Of course, a character having all saves at low would be at a disadvantage, but he could well use magic items to overcome his weakness. Also, in normal DnD any character with only Ref as a good save is basically in the same position, as he sucks in the most important saves (Fort vs insta-death, and Will vs mindcontrol). Therefore I don't think it would be a "real" weakness. Perhaps we could introduce a special talent tree that augments saves vs a specific kind of attack to compensate a little for it.

Quote from: ~Kalin~Ok.

So I guess my ideas sound reasonable? ;) Also, if we used the more "different" progressions I suggested for BAB also for BMB, a character with good BMB would have to be of significantly lower level to be surpassed by someone with average or even poor BMB.

Quote from: ~Kalin~Bah. Sleeps overrated :)

That's what you say. :P

Quote from: ~Kalin~I certainly like it, but i reckon we figure it out after we have character creation finished.

Ok. I know it adds more rolls to the game, but in this case I think it's ok, as it gives more control (no longer sit there and hope the DM rolls poorly) and options in combat (Save attacks and dodge? Or spend an attack parrying the attack? Or try to soak it up with your armor?) to the players, as well as keeps their attention focused on the game.

I've seen players leave the table and surf the web after their turn was over, because it bored them not to be able to do anything but only watch and that "we would take much too long". Well, these players sucked anyways, but I hope I got my point across. :P

Quote from: ~Kalin~Here is another idea, what if each talent tree gave you access to a number of 'talent tree points' equal to the levels taken on each tree, which could then be spent on activating or just enhancing many of the talents tied to that tree.

I had something similar in mind with the "focus points" thing from one of my earlier posts. Focus would function like "mana", and each talent would provide a passive, always active, bonus, and an active bonus that was much better than the passive one but required actions and/or focus points to be spent. Also, to prevent stockpiling, there'd be a limit based on character level on how much talents can be "active" at the same time.

Quote from: ~Kalin~rough example:
A character choosing the wild talent tree gains 'wild points' equal to the levels taken in the wild talent tree to spend on activating their 'rage' or may choose to increase his DR for a period of time.

This would allow a character much more flexibility allowing them to use special abilities more often or giving up some uses for that day to be able to use or increase others.

Focus points would be very similar to this, but would be general instead of restricted to a single talent tree.

Quote from: ~Kalin~so how do we decide how many layman, expert and master skills a character can choose from?

That depends on how many skills we have alltogether. In the WCS I merged many skills together (amongst them the popular fixes of "hide + move silently = sneak" and "spot + listen = percieve"), resulting in only 21 different skills. The D20 SRD lists 36 different skills.

If we use my condensed list, I would suggest the following.
[table=Skill Rankings 1]
[tr][th]Ranking[/th][th]poor[/th][th]average[/th][th]good[/th][/tr]
[tr][td]Expert[/td][td]3[/td][td]5[/td][td]7[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Master[/td][td]1[/td][td]3[/td][td]5[/td][/tr]
[/table]

If we use the normal list, I would suggest the following.
[table=Skill Rankings 2]
[tr][th]Ranking[/th][th]poor[/th][th]average[/th][th]good[/th][/tr]
[tr][td]Expert[/td][td]6[/td][td]10[/td][td]14[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Master[/td][td]4[/td][td]6[/td][td]8[/td][/tr]
[/table]
[/quote]let me see if i got the this right. So a poor BAB would then equal 1/2 HD +1, average BAB would equal 3/4 HD +2 and good BAB would equal 1/1 HD +3. And the same for BMB.[/quote]
Exactly. I personally found it very elegant and easy if we could use the same forumlae for all sort of progressions (max ranks, BAB, BMB, saves) instead of having different calculations for each single one. Additionally, it would enforce the differences between the different categories a bit more. Again, in normal DnD (baring magic items, buffs, ability mods), at level 2 the difference between a wizard and a fighter in BAB is one single point. But in my opinion, a fighter should be significantly better at, well, fighting, already at level 1 and not only at level 7 or so.
[/quote]Im really not sure about this one, it sounds good and i agree with your theorem about magic items not been required, but in my personal experience i have never seen a problem with characters making their saves, to me the DCs have always been to low, but then again ive never played/DMed any higher than 11th level.[/quote]
My main problem with current DnD is the abundance of "save or suffer" spells. Already at level 1, there are spells like Color Spray (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/colorSpray.htm) and Sleep (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/sleep.htm) which can lead an otherwise easy encounter (say, 6 kobold warriors with a level 1 kobold sorcerer as their leader) into a TPK for a level 1 party if they have a series of bad rolls - can you say "coup de grace"?

It becomes even worse when you have a character specialize on these, like a necromancer. There are certain spell combinations (for example metamagic rod of quicken + energy drain + finger of death) that can very easily suck the fun and enjoyment out of the game if used against PCs. And they are not really even cheesy or anything, now imagine using an enemy caster that has one PrC or another on top of simply being a sorcerer, how much that sucks for the players!
[/quote]
I would be all for the removal of almost all magic items (for i to prefer a character to be able to get along without magical equipment), but an almost total removal of magic items is probably not a good thing to do with this system so a 10x price seems a fair comprimise (spelling?).

Quote from: ~Kalin~Also how would we then introduce a characters ability modifier into the save?

I also messed with saves a little in the WCS. ;) I don't remember where I read it, but IIRC it was a poster on the WotC boards who had the brilliant idea of making saves work with varying ability scores instead of a single fixed one. The key ability for a save would change on what effect the character tried to resist against:
* Str: effects reducing your mobility like paralysis or entanglement
* Dex: area effects like explosions or avalances or melee attacks (as a reference to combat defense)
* Con: poisons, diseases, and similar effects
* Int: illusions and other hallucinatory attacks
* Wis: all mind-affecting effects
* Cha: all effects attacking your soul like negative levels

This idea and Iron Heroes caused me to make all saves based on a single progression. After all, the game is about player heroes (or, well, antiheroes), and not about having a guy that wouldn't mind jumping into a lava pool to take a "refreshing swim" (this side blow on Will saves was presented by suggestion :-/ ). Therefore, I wouldn't mind condensing all saves into a single one, and thus placing a tad more importance on the character's ability scores.
[/quote]Ok.[/quote]
So I guess my ideas sound reasonable? ;) Also, if we used the more "different" progressions I suggested for BAB also for BMB, a character with good BMB would have to of significantly lower level to be surpassed by someone with average or even poor BMB.
[/quote]Bah. Sleeps overrated :)[/quote]
That's what you say. :P
[/quote]
And on that note im going to sleep. :)

Quote from: ~Kalin~I am against combining skills, so i would sugest using the normal skills list and the appropriate table.

May I ask why? I can see that in some occasions it would create some strange situations, but for the most part it should solve more problems than it creates.

Just think of the whole perception issue. Currently, characters can - according to the rules - only hear and see stuff. Feeling an eel under your shirt, smelling that faint hint of blood in an otherwise clean house, or tasting a strange substance in your wine at the baron's banquet are almost impossible to simulate. Yes, you could always use a Wis check, but if you have the relative difficulties in mind that quickly becomes quite pointless.

This issue would be completely solved if you had a single "Perception"/"Perceive"/"Senses"/whatever skill that would govern any and all senses.

Quote from: ~Kalin~Im sold on using this formula for max ranks, BAB and BMB, but im really not sure on using this formula for saves as well, im kinda happy with the way we have saves ATM.
Also if we use this formula for saves it would force us to recalculate how save DC's are done.

I see. However, my suggestion included not using normal spellcasting. I could imagine a dedicated "caster" going up in a special talent tree that grants some spells as invocations, but with an associated focus cost. The save DC could be calculated as BMB + invocation's spell level. This would generate numbers from 2 (worst BMB @ level 1 and a level 1 spell) to 29 (best BMB @ level 20 and a level 6 spell), which seems quite reasonable.

Quote from: ~Kalin~Well we are creating a new system aren't we, so we don't have to have save or die spells if we dont want to, also it should be up to the DM not to "suck the fun and enjoyment out of the game".

Of course you're right here.

Quote from: ~Kalin~I would be all for the removal of almost all magic items (for i to prefer a character to be able to get along without magical equipment), but an almost total removal of magic items is probably not a good thing to do with this system so a 10x price seems a fair comprimise (spelling?).

Making magic items incredible rare and expensive would also serve the purprose of making them special again. When was the last time you were "omgwtfbbqleetkewl!" about a +1 longsword?

Quote from: ~Kalin~So we would effectively be replacing the three D&D saves with our five, one for each ability score, i like this just as long as at character creation a player still has to choose between a poor, average and good save for each one. I would be against combining all saves having the only difference being the ability modifer.

The original poster's idea was to remove the fixed key ability from saves. If you had to make a Fort save against a spell imposing negative levels, you'd use Charisma as the key ability. If you had to make a Fort save against a spell restricting your movement, you'd use Strength as the key ability. And so on and so forth.

It was not meant to make 6 saves out of the 3 we currently have. Also, I can see your stance regarding combining all saves into a single one. With the Iron Heroes setting and system it flies pretty smoothly, but I can see your point that it probably wouldn't mesh too well with "classic" DnD.

Quote from: ~Kalin~And on that note im going to sleep. :)

Dream something nice. ;)

Me again. :P

I've put down what we have so far into a table to get an overview about the current status.

[table=Character options]
[tr][th]Feature[/th][th]poor[/th][th]average[/th][th]good[/th][/tr]
[tr][td]Base attack bonus[/td][td]1-11[/td][td]2-17[/td][td]4-23[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Base magic bonus[/td][td]1-11[/td][td]2-17[/td][td]4-23[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Hit die[/td][td]d4[/td][td]d8[/td][td]d12[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Focus die[/td][td]d4[/td][td]d8[/td][td]d12[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Saving throw (Fort)[/td][td]?[/td][td]?[/td][td]?[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Saving throw (Ref)[/td][td]?[/td][td]?[/td][td]?[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Saving throw (Will)[/td][td]?[/td][td]?[/td][td]?[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Skill points per level[/td][td]4[/td][td]6[/td][td]8[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Skills as expert[/td][td]?[/td][td]?[/td][td]?[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Skills as master[/td][td]?[/td][td]?[/td][td]?[/td][/tr]
[/table]

Things left open to discussion are saves and the number of skills you can take as expert or master.

For skills, we'd have to decide if we use the "normal" SRD skill list with its 36 entries, or a more condensed version similar to the one found in Moniker's SW SAGA conversion or my WCS. If we use the normal skill list, I'd suggest numbers along the lines of this:
[table=Skill rankings]
[tr][th]Ranking[/th][th]poor[/th][th]average[/th][th]good[/th][/tr]
[tr][td]Expert[/td][td]4[/td][td]8[/td][td]12[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Master[/td][td]3[/td][td]6[/td][td]9[/td][/tr]
[/table]
However, if we used a condensed list (eg my own has only 21 skills) we could use something like this:
[table=Skill rankings]
[tr][th]Ranking[/th][th]poor[/th][th]average[/th][th]good[/th][/tr]
[tr][td]Expert[/td][td]3[/td][td]5[/td][td]7[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Master[/td][td]1[/td][td]3[/td][td]5[/td][/tr]
[/table]

As for saves, my idea was to make saves follow the same progressions as BAB and BMB (1-11, 2-17, 4-23) instead of the current ones (0-6, 1-9, 2-12) for the reason of making characters more independent from magic equipment. Even characters with good saves and impressive ability scores are often hard pressed to gain a better than 50% chance of succeeding against an optimized DC.

Which leads me to the next point Kalin mentioned: the way save DCs are calculated. I don't know if you remember my idea of not using the normal casting system, but instead create a talent tree that allows a "caster" to select a few spells of certain levels (at most up to level 6) as invocations, basically gaining them as at-will abilities but with an attached focus cost. In standard DnD, there are impressive options to optimize your save DC (for example, using point buy to get a base 18 in the key ability, select a race that adds +2 to your key ability, +5 from level increases, +5 tome, +6 enhancement bonus from item, and greater spellfocus; this gets us a total save DC of 25 + spell level for the selected school) which leaves every character who has not utterly pimped his saves through the roof in the dirt.

So, my suggestion to create some more balanced and fair save DCs would be the following: 5 + invocation's equivalent spell level + BMB (max your character level). This would create save DCs ranging from at least 7 (5+1+1) at level 1 to at most 31 (5+6+20) at level 20. Considering the increased save progressions this could be quite reasonable. Someone with an average save would need to roll "only" a 14 to succeed against the highest possible save DC, and that is before taking into account (minor) magic items, feats, and ability modifiers. And if it was still too harsh, we could create talent trees that give bonuses against certain kinds of saves. For example:
- Indomitable: you gain bonuses to saves against all mindaffecting effects
- Soulward: you gain bonuses to saves against all necromantic effects
- Imperishable: you gain bonuses to saves against all diseases and poisons

So, what do you think?

Well, I'm sorry, but the voices in my head just don't stop telling me things.  :huh:

A completely different idea: scrap the whole level-based advancement and base the system on a simple freeform advancement mechanic. Some things would work just as with the previous ideas. For example, at character creation you'd still select options from among three categories. But actual advancement would not be handled with levels, but with "ImPs" (improvement points).


STEP 1 - CHARACTER CREATION
You select 2 options from the "good" category, 2 options from the "average" category, and 3 options from the "poor" category.
[table=Feature selection]
[tr][th]Feature[/th][th]poor[/th][th]average[/th][th]good[/th][/tr]
[tr][td]Base attack bonus[/td][td]1[/td][td]2[/td][td]4[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Base magic bonus[/td][td]1[/td][td]2[/td][td]4[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Focus points[/td][td]2[/td][td]4[/td][td]8[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Maximum ranks[/td][td]8[/td][td]16[/td][td]32[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Saving throws (all)[/td][td]2[/td][td]4[/td][td]8[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Vitality points[/td][td]8[/td][td]16[/td][td]32[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Wound points[/td][td]2[/td][td]4[/td][td]8[/td][/tr]
[/table]
- Base attack bonus: Your character has a base attack bonus equal to the selected number.

- Base attack bonus: Your character has a base magic bonus equal to the selected number.

- Focus points: Your character has a total number of focus points equal to his Charisma score plus the selected number.

- Maximum ranks: Your character has a total number of maximum ranks for all of his skills equal his Intelligence score plus the selected number. Each skill automatically is treated as having a number of ranks equal to its maximum ranks. You may not have a maximum rank higher than 4 in any skill at character creation.

- Saving throws: Your character has a total bonus in all his saving throws equal to the selected number. You may not have a base bonus higher than 4 in any saving throw at character creation.

- Vitality points: Your character has a total number of vitality points equal to his Dexterity score plus the selected number.

- Wound points: Your character has a total number of wound points equal to his Constitution score plus the selected number.

- Other features: In addition to the benefits gained from the options you selected, each character starts play with one feat and one talent, both for which he must meet the prerequisites.


STEP 2 - GAINING IMPROVEMENT POINTS
You gain improvement points (ImPs) for performing the following deeds:
- Concluding an adventure: Each character who participated in concluding an adventure receives 1 ImP.

- Concluding a campaign: Each character who participated in concluding a campaign receives 2 ImPs.

- Defeating a powerful opponent: Each character involved in defeating an opponent with a challenge rating higher than the party ImP total divided by 10 (rounded up, minimum 1) receives 1 ImP.

- Defeating an overwhelming opponent: Each character involved in defeating an opponent with a challenge rating higher than the party ImP total divided by 3 (rounded up, minimum 1) receives 2 ImPs.

- Learning: Each character who learned something important about himself receives 1 ImP.

- Participating: Each character who participated in the session receives 1 ImP.

- Surviving: Each character who survived the session receives 1 ImP.


STEP 3 - CHARACTER ADVANCEMENT
You can spend ImPs on the following options:
- Ability increase: For 3 ImPs you can increase one ability score by +1. You may improve any single ability score a maximum of 4 times this way. You gain all the appropriate benefits when you increase an ability score (this includes retroactive maximum ranks for increasing Intelligence, or gaining additional vitality/wound/focus points for increasing Dexterity/Constitution/Charisma).

- Base attack bonus: For 1 ImP you can increase your base attack bonus by +1.

- Base magic bonus: For 1 ImP you can increase your base magic bonus by +1.

- Feat: For 1 ImP you can learn a feat for which you meet the preerquisites.

- Focus points: For 1 ImP you can increase your focus points by +4.

- Maximum ranks: For 1 ImP you can increase your maximum ranks by +4, distributed to different skills as you see fit.

- Saving throws: For 1 ImP you can increase one saving throw by +1.

- Talent: For 1 ImP you can learn a talent for which you meet the prerequisites.

- Vitality points: For 1 ImP you can increase your vitality points by +4.

[spoiler=Example starting character - 0 ImPs]
 [note]For simplicity's sake I'm assuming a general abiliy array of 16, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10 which equals a 30 point buy, as well as that we'd use the normal SRD skill list. Also, I included 4 bonus ranks from the human race into the skills section.[/note]

Aladar, human knight apprentice to the Kingdom of Meridar

Options:
- Base attack bonus: good
- Base magic bonus: poor
- Focus points: poor
- Maximum ranks: average
- Saving throws: average
- Vitality points: poor
- Wound points: good

Ability scores:
- Strength: 14/+2
- Dexterity: 11/+0
- Constitution: 12/+1
- Intelligence: 13/+1
- Wisdom: 10/+0
- Charisma: 16/+3

Saving throws:
- Fortitude: 3(total) = 2(base) + 1(ability)
- Reflexes: 1(total) = 1(base) + 0(ability)
- Willpower: 1(total) = 1(base) + 0(ability)

Skills:
- Concentration: 2(total) = 1(ranks) + 1(ability) + 0(misc)
- Diplomacy: 7(total) = 4(ranks) + 3(ability) + 0(misc)
- Gather Information: 7(total) = 4(ranks) + 3(ability) + 0(misc)
- Handle Animal: 7(total) = 4(ranks) + 3(ability) + 0(misc)
- Heal: 4(total) = 4(ranks) + 0(ability) + 0(misc)
- Knowledge (local, Meridar): 5(total) = 4(ranks) + 1(ability) + 0(misc)
- Knowledge (nobility): 5(total) = 4(ranks) + 1(ability) + 0(misc)
- Ride: 4(total) = 4(ranks) + 0(ability) + 0(misc)
- Sense Motive: 4(total) = 4(ranks) + 0(ability) + 0(misc)

Statistics:
- Base attack bonus: +4
- Base magic bonus: +1
- Focus points: 18
- Initiative: 4(total) = 0(ability) + 4(misc)
- Vitality points: 19
- Wound points: 20

Talents:
- Juggernaut I: DR 1/- (passive) or DR 3/- (active, swift action & 1 focus point per round)

Feats:
- Human bonus feat: Improved Initiative
- Starting feat: Mounted Combat
[/spoiler]




So, what do you think about this instead?

Quote from: ~Kalin~I am against combining skills, so i would sugest using the normal skills list and the appropriate table.

May I ask why? I can see that in some occasions it would create some strange situations, but for the most part it should solve more problems than it creates.

Just think of the whole perception issue. Currently, characters can - according to the rules - only hear and see stuff. Feeling an eel under your shirt, smelling that faint hint of blood in an otherwise clean house, or tasting a strange substance in your wine at the baron's banquet are almost impossible to simulate. Yes, you could always use a Wis check, but if you have the relative difficulties in mind that quickly becomes quite pointless.

This issue would be completely solved if you had a single "Perception"/"Perceive"/"Senses"/whatever skill that would govern any and all senses.
[/quote]I would be all for the removal of almost all magic items (for i to prefer a character to be able to get along without magical equipment), but an almost total removal of magic items is probably not a good thing to do with this system so a 10x price seems a fair comprimise (spelling?).[/quote]
Making magic items incredible rare and expensive would also serve the purprose of making them special again. When was the last time you were "omgwtfbbqleetkewl!" about a +1 longsword?
[/quote]So we would effectively be replacing the three D&D saves with our five, one for each ability score, i like this just as long as at character creation a player still has to choose between a poor, average and good save for each one. I would be against combining all saves having the only difference being the ability modifer.[/quote]
The original poster's idea was to remove the fixed key ability from saves. If you had to make a Fort save against a spell imposing negative levels, you'd use Charisma as the key ability. If you had to make a Fort save against a spell restricting your movement, you'd use Strength as the key ability. And so on and so forth.

It was not meant to make 6 saves out of the 3 we currently have. Also, I can see your stance regarding combining all saves into a single one. With the Iron Heroes setting and system it flies pretty smoothly, but I can see your point that it probably wouldn't mesh too well with "classic" DnD.
[/quote]
[tr][th]Feature[/th][th]poor[/th][th]average[/th][th]good[/th][/tr]
[tr][td]Base attack bonus[/td][td]1-11[/td][td]2-17[/td][td]4-23[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Base magic bonus[/td][td]1-11[/td][td]2-17[/td][td]4-23[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Hit die[/td][td]d4[/td][td]d8[/td][td]d12[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Focus die[/td][td]d4[/td][td]d8[/td][td]d12[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Saving throw (Fort)[/td][td]?[/td][td]?[/td][td]?[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Saving throw (Ref)[/td][td]?[/td][td]?[/td][td]?[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Saving throw (Will)[/td][td]?[/td][td]?[/td][td]?[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Skill points per level[/td][td]4[/td][td]6[/td][td]8[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Skills as expert[/td][td]?[/td][td]?[/td][td]?[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Skills as master[/td][td]?[/td][td]?[/td][td]?[/td][/tr]
[/table]
[/quote]
As for saves, my idea was to make saves follow the same progressions as BAB and BMB (1-11, 2-17, 4-23) instead of the current ones (0-6, 1-9, 2-12) for the reason of making characters more independent from magic equipment. Even characters with good saves and impressive ability scores are often hard pressed to gain a better than 50% chance of succeeding against an optimized DC.

So, my suggestion to create some more balanced and fair save DCs would be the following: 5 + invocation's equivalent spell level + BMB (max your character level). This would create save DCs ranging from at least 7 (5+1+1) at level 1 to at most 31 (5+6+20) at level 20. Considering the increased save progressions this could be quite reasonable. Someone with an average save would need to roll "only" a 14 to succeed against the highest possible save DC, and that is before taking into account (minor) magic items, feats, and ability modifiers. And if it was still too harsh, we could create talent trees that give bonuses against certain kinds of saves. For example:
- Indomitable: you gain bonuses to saves against all mindaffecting effects
- Soulward: you gain bonuses to saves against all necromantic effects
- Imperishable: you gain bonuses to saves against all diseases and poisons

So, what do you think?
[/quote]
ok after some thought on the matter i agree with using the same formula for saves as our BAB, BMB and skills. But in regards to the Save DC i think it might be better if it was:
5 + Invocation equivilent level + BMB + Relevant Ability modifer + Misc Modifiers.

On another note ive been toying around with the idea that all spellcasters can only cast invocations, possibly something along the lines of the Warlock, this would decrease the amount of "problem" spells such as save and die.

Quote from: Ra-TielA completely different idea: scrap the whole level-based advancement and base the system on a simple freeform advancement mechanic. Some things would work just as with the previous ideas. For example, at character creation you'd still select options from among three categories. But actual advancement would not be handled with levels, but with "ImPs" (improvement points).

I like the idea, but I don't think we need to go that freeform with this system.

Also what happened to the others that are supposed to be helping out with this system. *pokes Stargate, Sir Vorpal, and Atlantis with a rather large and sharp pointy stick*

Quote from: ~Kalin~The problem i have with combining all the senses into one skill it that all the sense would then be equal, and our sense are far from equal to each other, and just because i can smell someone in the room doesn't mean i can also see them.

I see your point. But very often it is enough to merely notice the presence of something/someone without accurately pinpointing its position. Imagine the PCs hunting down an assassin through the king's palace. The assassin entered the palace through the sewer, and after attempting to murder the prince, he tries to escape. Now the characters have cut off his escape route and he hides in an empty wing of the palace. He is so good at hiding, that none of the PCs has a chance to spot him (maxed Hide ranks, skill focus, magic items, etc). But normally, wouldn't they be able to smell the sewer stench on him?

Also, under the current rules a character with reasonably optimized Listen checks can understand people talking through a massive stone wall from 100ft away while fighting. :-/

Quote from: ~Kalin~agreed.

Glad to see that I'm not the only one who is dismayed about DnD's rather increasing focus on magic items. :)

Quote from: ~Kalin~Ok, so we get rid of the fixed saves ability mods, but keep the three distinctions fort, ref, will. Sounds good.

However, this was also just a mere suggestion on my part. If this would complicate things in game too much, we could keep the current rules (Fort uses always Con, Ref uses always Dex, Will uses always Wis).

Quote from: ~Kalin~So are we dumping the WP/VP system with race deciding WP and character choice deciding VP?

No, I just messed up when I wrote the table. :-|

Quote from: ~Kalin~Also i still vote for the SRD skill list and the approprate expert and master table.

Also, using the current skills list would save a lot of rewriting. :)

However, I'm not too impressed with how the skills are explained in the SRD/PHb anyways. Sometimes they just don't get the point across (Knowledge), use horrible mechanics (Diplomacy), plainly make no sense (Decipher script), provide detailed DCs for some situations without considering general situations (Concentration), or a combination of all these (Spot, Listen, Sense Motive). :-/

Quote from: ~Kalin~ok after some thought on the matter i agree with using the same formula for saves as our BAB, BMB and skills.

It is by no means necessary to do so, it's just my personal preference that I find systems using the same formula/progression for similar things more elegant than those using different calculations for just everything seemingly only for the sake of using another formula. ;)

Quote from: ~Kalin~But in regards to the Save DC i think it might be better if it was:
5 + Invocation equivilent level + BMB + Relevant Ability modifer + Misc Modifiers.

Well, the spellcaster inside me agrees with you. The player inside me, however, strongly disagrees. I decidedly left out the ability modifier from the save DC, because this is one element that can be so horribly optimized in DnD (buff spells, items, etc). If you look at the standard casting DCs (10 + spell level + key ability modifier + misc) you'll see that it's the key ability modifier that makes or breaks it. The other bonuses are at most +19 (10(base) + 9(spell level) + 2(greater spell focus)).

Also, if you include the key ability into the save DCs, you make casters again "SAD" (single ability dependent), as the key ability already plays an important role for focus points.

Quote from: ~Kalin~On another note ive been toying around with the idea that all spellcasters can only cast invocations, possibly something along the lines of the Warlock, this would decrease the amount of "problem" spells such as save and die.

This was also basically my idea. But we would need a mechanic to convert spells into invocations (if just to save us writing up several hunderet invocations all on our own).

I know, invocations are basically at-will spell-like abilities. However, as all active talents cost focus, using an invocation would also cost focus. To prevent abusing and/or spamming, I thought of focus costs per use equal to (invocation spell level)^2 + effective CL (maximal equal to BMB). This would create costs ranging from 2 (spell level 1 squared + caster level 1), to 59 (spell level 6 squared + caster level 23) per use.

Quote from: ~Kalin~Wow, you hear them too, i thought i was the only one :P

Wow, now that's cool.  :cool:

Quote from: ~Kalin~I like the idea, but I don't think we need to go that freeform with this system.

Well, that were just some random thoughts. I thought it would be something different, as 99.99% of all d20 variants and modifications still have classes and levels.

Quote from: ~Kalin~Also what happened to the others that are supposed to be helping out with this system.

I think we lost them on the way.  :huh:

Quote from: ~Kalin~*pokes Stargate, Sir Vorpal, and Atlantis with a rather large and sharp pointy stick*

*helps with the poking*  :poke:  :poke:  :poke:  :-p

Quote from: Ra-TielAlthough being cool, I can see now sort of a problem with those class templates. How much does a character get to take? If he only gets to select a single one, it puts the character's development in a nice, unmoving concrete block. For example, a "wild" barbarian will never get to use even the most easy talent from a tree in the "civilized" order, no matter how much time he spent in a city.

On the other hand, if a character can acquire more than one template, what prevents the player from abusing that to possibly gain access to any and all available talent trees from templates? What requirements would be appropriate for gaining a new template? When can that happen? Is it dependent on the character level or some class level, or something completely different?

Imho a better idea would be to give all characters access to some talent trees based on their "background" (the character creation process I used as an example earlier could come in handy here), and give out a levelbased feature called "talent access" every 4 levels that allows a character to "unlock" a new talent tree. This way, the character has talents based on his background and current life situation, but can still dynamically learn new things and adapt to new situation and circumstances.

I disagree. You're attempting to fix a 'problem' that is existent in the original d20 system, and I don't even see it as a problem. Allow them to take whatever template/class combinations they want, and how many they want, but we apply some sort of multiclassing penalty.

QuoteOne thing, however, is left to consider. Regarding spellcasting etc. My original suggestion (when I still was toying around with the three classes expert, medium, and warrior) was to allow for a "caster" by presenting a mechanic that allows any spell to be selected and made into an invocation, duplicating the spell but at a cost, limiting its usefullness in combat, and preventing spamming out of combat. The question now is, how to deal with casterlevel? In an earlier stage I'd just have suggested making invocation CL equal to medium class level. Now, however, the problem is that we don't have classes any longer (at least not with the current ideas).

That sounds interesting, but there's the problem that if you integrate the magic system too heavily, it'll become near-impossible to remove (one of my pet peeves with D&D magic).

And when did we dump classes? Classes are a GOOD THING. They help the DM guage the power of the group.

Quote from: Stargate525I disagree. You're attempting to fix a 'problem' that is existent in the original d20 system, and I don't even see it as a problem.

Well, in DnD classes have [almost] no implications as to the character's origin at all. Being a sorcerer makes zero statement about the background of your character, same thing for rogue. Even the ranger can be a very "civilized" bounty hunter type. Of course, exceptions proove the rule and such, there's always the druid. ;)

And I thought this project was an attempt to create a better system, not just to copy over the d20 SRD but make some small adjustments? :P

Quote from: Stargate525Allow them to take whatever template/class combinations they want, and how many they want, but we apply some sort of multiclassing penalty.

Imagine the following situation. A player finds out that talent tree A from template X would have a very powerful synergy with talent tree B from template Y. Therefore he takes the first level of class M with template A, and then the second level of class M with template B, gaining access to both talent trees without sacrificing the abilities gained from his class. This way, he could in 6 or 7 levels gain access to any and all talent trees available from templates.

Do we really want that? How could we prevent this problem without using fluff restrictions ("... if it fits your story and the DM allows it ...") for crunch? On the other hand, if we indeed include a mechanical restriction ("... you may not have more than 1 template per 5 character levels ..."), this can very well break valid character concepts (like the level 1 "barbarian" who comes to the city; he'd have to be a barbarian for X more levels before he could finally become a bit more civilized).

And as a side note, the multiclassing penalty was one of the worst things WotC did for DnD. It serves only one purpose, namely to utterly screw over unconventional character concepts and shoehorn players into stereotypes ("no, your elf cannot be a fighter/rogue without being completely assf****d"). I strongly vote against any such thing in the CBS.

Quote from: Stargate525That sounds interesting, but there's the problem that if you integrate the magic system too heavily, it'll become near-impossible to remove (one of my pet peeves with D&D magic).

Could you please elaborate this point a bit more? What exactly do you mean with "integrate too heavily"?

Also, this would be one benefit if we went with a class- (and level-) less system, where magical abilities are optional talent trees. The DM and each player could decide for themselves how much magic they want in their games. For example, the DM could restrict access to only the Icon talent tree (talents that allow a character to infuse his body with magical energies and make him better, stronger, faster, etc; similar to Incarnum) and the Clairsentient talent tree (talents that allow a character to gain precognitive abilities; similar to a limited divination specialist) and remove all other trees, while the players would have complete freedom how deeply - if at all - they want to immerse their characters into the magical talent trees.

Quote from: Stargate525And when did we dump classes?

We did not dump classes. I did, when I was experimenting with some alternative ideas. ;)

Quote from: Stargate525Classes are a GOOD THING.

That always depends on the setting and mechanics used. There is a reason, why the World of Darkness has no classes, or Shadowrun. I shudder at the thought of being a level 4 werewolf or a level 9 street samurai.  x(

Class- and levelless systems always work good for "gritty" settings. They also work exceptionally well for settings that require a huge freedom of development for characters. Classes always nail a character in several aspects into a certain role (tank, healer, blaster, etc) which becomes very evident with DnD classes.

Quote from: Stargate525They help the DM guage the power of the group.

True. But you said it: they merely help the DM. They are not integral to his job, and therefore could be removed and replaced with an equally helpful mechanic. The total sum of ImPs the party has could just as well measure up as a tool for the DM to estimate the party's power level.

Also, classes have one drawback: metagaming. Nobody has a class or level written on his forehead in real life, but exactly this happens all to often in DnD (at least imho). Power should - also in DnD - be based on experience, knowledge, and status (I'm referring here to the general terms, not the DnD things). But in DnD it's based on levels, which remotely are connected to experience but have nothing to do with knowledge and status.

Many things in DnD work off the abstract level mechanic, but should not. Take the sleep spell for example. With this simple level 1 spell you can find out if somebody is above or below level 4. Some people are often affected by it (below level 4 and usually failed their saves), some are sometimes affected (below level 4 and rarely failed their saves), and some are never affected (above level 4). Same thing goes for cloudkill, eyebite, circle of death, etc pp.

Finally, classes have the additional disadvantage that some concepts cannot be portrayed. The classical "from farmboy to warrior" concept, for example. To portray such a thing accurately in DnD, the character'd have to start out as a commoner (or expert at most) and then multiclass into warrior, and then later into fighter. I don't need to tell you that this completely gimps the character speaking from a mechanics point of view.

How often have you seen or read the scene that a farmboy escapes the destruction of his village by pure luck or coincidence, setting out to find his abducted sister and to find out who was behind all this? In my opinion this should be a valid concept for a character, playable right from level 1 when the character comes back from fishing to see the smoke rising over his home village. And not require some highly suboptimal and wonky multiclassing up to level 3. :-/

And a wizard capable of casting meteor swarm can also automatically single handedly beat the crap out of half a dozen townguards and take at least 40 points of damage without breaking a sweat - not using any of his spells (and he still has a crapload of skills!). Which is sort of doubtful for a guy who spent the last ~30 years in a library reading books and practicing speaking funky words. :P

I think that removing classes and levels would actually benefit at least the aspect of roleplaying in a roleplaying game. It would remove the abstract power-measurement and encourage looking at someone's actual abilities, statements, comments, influence, social status, etc instead of "what's his level?".

Quote from: Ra-TielWell, in DnD classes have [almost] no implications as to the character's origin at all. Being a sorcerer makes zero statement about the background of your character, same thing for rogue. Even the ranger can be a very "civilized" bounty hunter type. Of course, exceptions proove the rule and such, there's always the druid. ;)

And I thought this project was an attempt to create a better system, not just to copy over the d20 SRD but make some small adjustments? :P

It is an attempt to create a better system. But I guess what I'm trying to voice here is that most of the people playing this system (assuming we publish it/ advertise/ etc.) will be coming from the d20 market. There's a line between improving and making something utterly alien. I'd love to be able to sit down and explain this to my players using 'it's different from d20 in regards to A, B, and C,' instead of teaching them a whole new system.

Why do we NEED a mechanical basis for the backstory? I see it as merely another thing we have to worry about people attempting to powergame to heck and back (Between the ages of 4 and 18 I lived with gnomes, orcs, hobgoblins, and kobolds, so I should be able to know all these languages.).

Quote from: Ra-TielAnd as a side note, the multiclassing penalty was one of the worst things WotC did for DnD. It serves only one purpose, namely to utterly screw over unconventional character concepts and shoehorn players into stereotypes ("no, your elf cannot be a fighter/rogue without being completely assf****d"). I strongly vote against any such thing in the CBS.

And I thought this project was an attempt to create a better system, not just to copy over the d20 SRD but make some small adjustments? :P

There are other ways to restrict a character in regards to level and class.

Quote from: Ra-TielCould you please elaborate this point a bit more? What exactly do you mean with "integrate too heavily"?

I mean that in the current [D&D] system, you cannot remove magic wholesale without breaking 3/4ths the classes, nearly all items, the treasure tables, CR, ECL, wealth by level and experience tables, not to mention all the additional prestige classes.

I'd really like to see this system be able to run a Campaign based on the Three Musketeers, one based in Middle Earth, and one in a standard D&D setting with equal ability. Paramount to this is the ability to easily swap out unneeded aspects of the system without damaging the whole.

Quote from: Ra-TielClass- and levelless systems always work good for "gritty" settings. They also work exceptionally well for settings that require a huge freedom of development for characters. Classes always nail a character in several aspects into a certain role (tank, healer, blaster, etc) which becomes very evident with DnD classes.

By my eyes, you're nailing him equally hard, just using smaller nails. ;)

Quote from: Ra-TielTrue. But you said it: they merely help the DM. They are not integral to his job, and therefore could be removed and replaced with an equally helpful mechanic. The total sum of ImPs the party has could just as well measure up as a tool for the DM to estimate the party's power level.

Like I said above, I'm adverse to deviating too much from normal d20 concepts. Classes and Levels are mainstays, and if it isn't broken, let's not reinvent it.

Quote from: Ra-TielI think that removing classes and levels would actually benefit at least the aspect of roleplaying in a roleplaying game. It would remove the abstract power-measurement and encourage looking at someone's actual abilities, statements, comments, influence, social status, etc instead of "what's his level?".

so you want to replace an abstract but [if at times badly] calibrated method of gaging power levels to a subjective system? That seems a bit backwards to me, like sticking your hand into a bucket of water to measure temperature instead of using the thermometer right at hand.

Quote from: Stargate525It is an attempt to create a better system. But I guess what I'm trying to voice here is that most of the people playing this system (assuming we publish it/ advertise/ etc.) will be coming from the d20 market.

I'm not so sure about that one. The d20 market is currently - at least from my perspective - utterly fed up and overdeveloped. Everyone and their mother has published a book on dungoens, dragons, drow, war magic, demons, magic items, individual classes, more dungeons, nastier dragons, more evil drow, and so on and so forth. Really good d20 products, including those with interesting and/or creative content (mostly crunchy bits like mechanics, feats, classes) are scarce, and most often from WotC (Bo9S, the warlock, ToM).

Also, nobody seems to be willing to experiment much with the d20 system. In my opinion the d20 system can handle much more than "13 classes with 20 levels" and "you gain a feat every 3rd level", but that just nobody is willing or capable to undertake such an endeavor. And this saddens me a little, because possibly we'll therefore never see what d20 is really capable of handling, and that the system could perform even better than it currently does.

Quote from: Stargate525There's a line between improving and making something utterly alien. I'd love to be able to sit down and explain this to my players using 'it's different from d20 in regards to A, B, and C,' instead of teaching them a whole new system.

But is it really that different? We would still have 6 basic ability scores, the core mechanic (1d20 + mods vs DC), multiple die types, and many different modifier types. We'd just take out the clumsy level system, that leads to situations like an experienced (mid level) ranger fight a guerillia war against an impending goblin and orc invasion for months, and not gain a single level, because those buggers are of too little CR for him to gain even a single XP! :-/

Level based systems make characters always look like Lego (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lego) buildings. While the whole picture may look reasonably smooth and shiny, if you take a closer look you'll see edges and ugly spots all over the place. Further, character advancement always happens in leaps and steps in level based systems. Sometimes players have to wait for weeks before they gain to increase any of their characters' traits (apart from gear). And solving a longwinded, dangerous, complicated, and just darn difficult adventure after 3 sessions just to find out that you're still 2k XPs from gaining a level sucks, to put it simply.

Quote from: Stargate525Why do we NEED a mechanical basis for the backstory?

Because in my opinion, fluff should dictate crunch, not the other way round. If you look at any of your characters, do the skills and feats really represent his background? I'd rather guess no. But if you look at your characters' background stories, do you get an impression what the character should be able to do? I bloody hope so! :P

And now, what's better? To have characters with the same profession but from highly different backgrounds not differ one inch mechanically from each other because the mechancis prevent that, or to have those characters being the same in most regards, but differ in details to pay tribute to their respective origins?

Quote from: Stargate525I see it as merely another thing we have to worry about people attempting to powergame to heck and back (Between the ages of 4 and 18 I lived with gnomes, orcs, hobgoblins, and kobolds, so I should be able to know all these languages.).

My point is, we wouldn't need to give out huge benefits. But small parts can make the whole piece look better. As an example, if a character grew up in a city, why shouldn't he have a little Gather Information and Diplomacy? Or some from a small hamlet who was probably a farmer's son or a local trader or something, should have some Profession and Survival. I'm not talking big bonuses, just 1 or 2 ranks that would count against the maximum ranks, or a skill focus feat at most.

Quote from: Stargate525And I thought this project was an attempt to create a better system, not just to copy over the d20 SRD but make some small adjustments? :P

Yeah, yeah, ye olde copycat! :P

Quote from: Stargate525There are other ways to restrict a character in regards to level and class.

Yes, but if those ways are better? With dread I think back to AD&D... "No, elves cannot be bards. Ever.". x. Simply forbidding some combos may work, but it's rather a workaround, dealing with the symptomes and not with the "disease" itself. ;)

Quote from: Stargate525I mean that in the current [D&D] system, you cannot remove magic wholesale without breaking 3/4ths the classes, nearly all items, the treasure tables, CR, ECL, wealth by level and experience tables, not to mention all the additional prestige classes.

This could be easily handled in my suggestion of a level/classless system with individual talent trees. If we could achieve a reasonable balance between the talent trees, there wouldn't be any problems if a DM took out any magical ones. We would just have to provide enough options in other aspects and it should fly pretty well. As an additional advantage, the DM could take out single talent trees, without messing up the whole system. Just try to remove a single school from normal DnD, and your problem becomes even more evident. This wouldn't be a problem in my suggestion.

Quote from: Stargate525I'd really like to see this system be able to run a Campaign based on the Three Musketeers, one based in Middle Earth, and one in a standard D&D setting with equal ability. Paramount to this is the ability to easily swap out unneeded aspects of the system without damaging the whole.

Which could be more easily achieved with an open system, than a class/level based one. As an example, we somehow were considering using three classes (warrior, expert, medium) instead of the normal classes. Now, if a DM decides that he wouldn't want much magic in his setting, he'd take out the medium class and thus remove ALL magic from the players' access. With a talent tree based system, the DM could decide to take out all but a few unobtrusive talent trees, like the ones who deal with precognition and minor things like moderately improved senses or something.

Quote from: Stargate525By my eyes, you're nailing him equally hard, just using smaller nails. ;)

Well, but humans can deal with more smaller things better than with one huge thing. ;) And if the players have more control over what nails get to hit their characters, it's even better imho.

Perhaps someone wants to play a knightly/courtly style character who's not using magic without being a god's bitch (paladin) or some chivalric bastard (knight) or some class that only has 3 levels (swashbuckler). So, what's left? Either a class that's not focused on combat like rogue, or a fighter. But the latter one suffers from a bad Will save and far too few skills for such a concept, leaving the player with only choices that don't fit his taste.

Now, in my suggestion the player himself can decide how good the character is at fighting, dealing with damage, and how many skills he gets. He can customize his character to the point where he can get much closer to what he wanted to play than ever possible with a class based system.

Quote from: Stargate525Like I said above, I'm adverse to deviating too much from normal d20 concepts. Classes and Levels are mainstays, and if it isn't broken, let's not reinvent it.

I see where you're coming from and completely understand your position. But sometimes one should try out something completely new. Perhaps it will just suck, then we can always go back to v3.5 style. Or it really shines, and we have found our own "sacred cow" to milk. ;)

Quote from: Stargate525so you want to replace an abstract but [if at times badly] calibrated method of gaging power levels to a subjective system?

Not subjective. Objective. At least more objective than the level method. My numbers in my previous post were of course just wild guesses, completely not balanced, but only there to provide a vague picture of what I'm getting at. However, with some fine tuning they could become more accurate than the level system could ever hope to be. The level system treats all levels equally. To the level system it makes no difference if it's a wizard who just attained 17th level, or if it was a fighter.

Quote from: Stargate525That seems a bit backwards to me, like sticking your hand into a bucket of water to measure temperature instead of using the thermometer right at hand.

Why should I need to power up my thermodynamics lab equipment if I just want to know if the water has the right temperature for bathing? :D

Quote from: Ra-TielI'm not so sure about that one. The d20 market is currently - at least from my perspective - utterly fed up and overdeveloped. Everyone and their mother has published a book on dungoens, dragons, drow, war magic, demons, magic items, individual classes, more dungeons, nastier dragons, more evil drow, and so on and so forth. Really good d20 products, including those with interesting and/or creative content (mostly crunchy bits like mechanics, feats, classes) are scarce, and most often from WotC (Bo9S, the warlock, ToM).

Also, nobody seems to be willing to experiment much with the d20 system. In my opinion the d20 system can handle much more than "13 classes with 20 levels" and "you gain a feat every 3rd level", but that just nobody is willing or capable to undertake such an endeavor. And this saddens me a little, because possibly we'll therefore never see what d20 is really capable of handling, and that the system could perform even better than it currently does.

Just becuase it uses a d20 as its confirming roll doesn't mean it's a d20 system. What you're talking about right now has almost NOTHING in common with vanilla d20.

Quote from: Ra-TielBut is it really that different? We would still have 6 basic ability scores, the core mechanic (1d20 + mods vs DC), multiple die types, and many different modifier types. We'd just take out the clumsy level system, that leads to situations like an experienced (mid level) ranger fight a guerillia war against an impending goblin and orc invasion for months, and not gain a single level, because those buggers are of too little CR for him to gain even a single XP! :-/

Yes, it really is THAT different. I'm curious about the last time you looked at a D&D book Ra-Tiel. Re-read the PHB, then come back to this. You'll be surprised.

Quote from: Ra-TielFurther, character advancement always happens in leaps and steps in level based systems. Sometimes players have to wait for weeks before they gain to increase any of their characters' traits (apart from gear). And solving a longwinded, dangerous, complicated, and just darn difficult adventure after 3 sessions just to find out that you're still 2k XPs from gaining a level sucks, to put it simply.

You're right, I suppose, but what you describe is a symptom of roleplaying games in general, at least ones with levels. I have yet to see a level/classless system that I've liked, so that may be biasing me a bit, but you can solve the symptom without killing the patient.  

Quote from: Ra-TielBecause in my opinion, fluff should dictate crunch, not the other way round. If you look at any of your characters, do the skills and feats really represent his background? I'd rather guess no. But if you look at your characters' background stories, do you get an impression what the character should be able to do? I bloody hope so! :P

You're wrong. Fluff and crunch should be mutually exclusive. Like you said before, the system shouldn't care whether you got Damage reduction X from divine providence, your rock-like skin, or sheer force of will.

And you've still not solved the problem. Instead of making fluff dictate the crunch, you've simply set up a separate set of crunch for the fluff to bow down to. Knowing my players, none of them will take their concept, then choose templates. They'll choose the template that signifies what they want to play, then build the fluff around that.

Quote from: Ra-TielMy point is, we wouldn't need to give out huge benefits. But small parts can make the whole piece look better. As an example, if a character grew up in a city, why shouldn't he have a little Gather Information and Diplomacy? Or some from a small hamlet who was probably a farmer's son or a local trader or something, should have some Profession and Survival. I'm not talking big bonuses, just 1 or 2 ranks that would count against the maximum ranks, or a skill focus feat at most.

So why not just give first level characters X number of skill points to spend on fluff-based skills? Why the need for the complex system?

Quote from: Ra-TielYes, but if those ways are better? With dread I think back to AD&D... "No, elves cannot be bards. Ever.". x. Simply forbidding some combos may work, but it's rather a workaround, dealing with the symptomes and not with the "disease" itself. ;)

You're going the wrong direction. I suggest you keep the racial preference as a favored class and template, then add the character's first class/template to the list. That way, you've got two templates and two classes to play around with as far as combination, and an additional class and template before you hit penalties.

Quote from: Ra-TielThis could be easily handled in my suggestion of a level/classless system with individual talent trees. If we could achieve a reasonable balance between the talent trees, there wouldn't be any problems if a DM took out any magical ones. We would just have to provide enough options in other aspects and it should fly pretty well. As an additional advantage, the DM could take out single talent trees, without messing up the whole system. Just try to remove a single school from normal DnD, and your problem becomes even more evident. This wouldn't be a problem in my suggestion.

The way you have it, the DM needs to individually select each tree, then ban it. With a magic-casting class, he can ban the class and THEREFORE ban all magic, which is far easier. If he wants to tweak, let him tweak. That's why the talent trees are there.

Quote from: Ra-TielWhich could be more easily achieved with an open system, than a class/level based one. As an example, we somehow were considering using three classes (warrior, expert, medium) instead of the normal classes. Now, if a DM decides that he wouldn't want much magic in his setting, he'd take out the medium class and thus remove ALL magic from the players' access. With a talent tree based system, the DM could decide to take out all but a few unobtrusive talent trees, like the ones who deal with precognition and minor things like moderately improved senses or something.

Again, what you describe is tweaking, not alteration as I see it. Making magic less obtrusive is a tweak. Replacing the magic system with one that is less obtrusive is an alteration. You see the difference? Like I said, I'd like this system to potentially support any type of sub-system you want, but have each one not affect the others.

Quote from: Ra-TielPerhaps someone wants to play a knightly/courtly style character who's not using magic without being a god's bitch (paladin) or some chivalric bastard (knight) or some class that only has 3 levels (swashbuckler). So, what's left? Either a class that's not focused on combat like rogue, or a fighter. But the latter one suffers from a bad Will save and far too few skills for such a concept, leaving the player with only choices that don't fit his taste.

I'm not advocating going back to those types of classes. The class/template system seemed perfect.

Quote from: Ra-TielWhy should I need to power up my thermodynamics lab equipment if I just want to know if the water has the right temperature for bathing? :D

okay Ra-Tiel, if it's a analogy war you wanted, it's an analogy war you've gotten!

Quote from: Stargate525Just becuase it uses a d20 as its confirming roll doesn't mean it's a d20 system. What you're talking about right now has almost NOTHING in common with vanilla d20.

Not according to the formal definitions. :P

Wikipedia says: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D20_system)
[...] To resolve an action in the d20 System, a player rolls a 20-sided die and adds modifiers based on the capabilities of the character, and sometimes the situation. If the result is greater than or equal to a target number (called a Difficulty Class or DC) then the action succeeds. [...]

Nowhere does it mention anything of levels or classes. ;)

Quote from: Stargate525Yes, it really is THAT different. I'm curious about the last time you looked at a D&D book Ra-Tiel. Re-read the PHB, then come back to this. You'll be surprised.

Oh, I'm looking quite regularily into DnD books. Currently I'm reading the Bo9S, a very interesting read. However, this does not stop me from thinking about alternative mechanics or different ways to make some mechanics work.

Quote from: Stargate525You're right, I suppose, but what you describe is a symptom of roleplaying games in general, at least ones with levels. I have yet to see a level/classless system that I've liked, so that may be biasing me a bit, but you can solve the symptom without killing the patient.

One problem with many skill based systems is that it costs increasingly more XPs to improve your abilities. This is most prominent with the WoD systems. However, this is most often connected to either the low maximum rank attainable (in WoD skills and attributes usually range from 1 to 5), or an exponential power growth (higher level werewolf gifts and mage spheres are incredibly more powerful than the low level ones). This phenomenon also leads to situations where characters wait for weeks to increase a single trait by one point, which I find equally unattractive.

But if you make the available options scale linearily, you can put in a static or at least also linear cost. This would lead to a linear character advancement and provide a constant stream of new options and more power to the characters, without much of the dreaded "down time" or "dead levels".

Quote from: Stargate525You're wrong. Fluff and crunch should be mutually exclusive. Like you said before, the system shouldn't care whether you got Damage reduction X from divine providence, your rock-like skin, or sheer force of will.

I meant for character creation. Should have mentioned that, sorry. Generally speaking you're right, on a large scale fluff and crunch should be independent from each other. However, at character creation I think it is a viable option to base certain crunch options on fluff decisions.

Quote from: Stargate525And you've still not solved the problem. Instead of making fluff dictate the crunch, you've simply set up a separate set of crunch for the fluff to bow down to.

Not really. The categories would be quite general. There would be no background option "grew up in the outskirts of Khandura, the Great Free City" or "grew up in the Blackcloud Mountains". At most, there would be general backgrounds, like "City outskirts", or "Wilderness, mountains".

Quote from: Stargate525Knowing my players, none of them will take their concept, then choose templates. They'll choose the template that signifies what they want to play, then build the fluff around that.

Well, then the problem's with the players. ;) Alternative: ask them what they want to play before allowing them access to any crunchy bits of the system. Give them the background, the descriptions, the timelines, anything you want, but no mechanics. Then, when they decided that they want to play a "wizard from Aqu'laz'ry", or a "Denobhian ranger" show them the possible templates and you're ready to go.

Quote from: Stargate525So why not just give first level characters X number of skill points to spend on fluff-based skills? Why the need for the complex system?

And that asks the man so wary of min-maxing! :P You do know what players usually do with "free" skill points that can be distributed without limitations? They use them to get an advantage on PrC/feat prerequisites, or to maximize their character's abilities. The only workable system I've so far seen was in Shadowrun, where player's get to distribute some points (based on the character's Intelligence) on really fluffy skills like "SimSin pr0n stars", or "Urban Brawl leagues". ;)

Quote from: Stargate525You're going the wrong direction. I suggest you keep the racial preference as a favored class and template, then add the character's first class/template to the list. That way, you've got two templates and two classes to play around with as far as combination, and an additional class and template before you hit penalties.

Ok, just an example: let's assume a player wants to play an elf that's been abducted in his youth and sold as a slave, but later regained his freedom and became a strong warrior to take revenge on the slavers organization. Let's assume the favored class for elves is medium ("magical talent" and stuff), and the favored template is wild ("tree-huggers" etc). Now, for his first class and template, he selected "expert" and "civilized", due to being unable to "train" anything but his mundane skills as a slave in a large city.

After he's been freed, he travels with his newfound companions and trains in the way of the warrior. He takes his first "martial warrior" level and instantly hits penalties, as this combination is not covered by the mechanics. And this example is quite stereotypical and not really extraordinarily complicated.

Quote from: Stargate525The way you have it, the DM needs to individually select each tree, then ban it. With a magic-casting class, he can ban the class and THEREFORE ban all magic, which is far easier. If he wants to tweak, let him tweak. That's why the talent trees are there.

You didn't get me right. Why would a DM want to ban all magic in a fantasy game? This system is primarily still used for the fantasy genre, and so far I have yet to see compelling fantasy that has ZERO magical influence. I would suspect the DM is more about to provide a more "gritty" feeling, where you can't just go to a cleric and *bazip* are instantly cured of any afflictions or the wizard blasts everything that remotely looks hostile into thousand tiny pieces. Also, the DM could quite easily take out ALL magical talent trees. That is no more "tweaking" than taking out your caster class. ;)

Quote from: Stargate525Again, what you describe is tweaking, not alteration as I see it. Making magic less obtrusive is a tweak. Replacing the magic system with one that is less obtrusive is an alteration. You see the difference? Like I said, I'd like this system to potentially support any type of sub-system you want, but have each one not affect the others.

Again, you misunderstood me. Taking out the talent trees the DM wouldn't want in his campaign is no more or less tweaking or alteration than taking out the whole class, or replacing it with another. And it wouldn't make magic less obtrusive - the talent trees would already be this way. Instead, he could take precisely those elements out he doesn't want, no matter if that was the whole magic system or merely that flashy "blast'em'all" parts.

Quote from: Stargate525I'm not advocating going back to those types of classes. The class/template system seemed perfect.

I see. However, to prevent situations like the one I mentioned, you'd have to let the player choose which saves are good/bad, and which skills are class skills. And from that point, it's just a very little step to let the player choose everything and remove classes completely. After all, classes are basically nothing more than preselected choices regarding some mechanics. ;)

Quote from: Stargate525okay Ra-Tiel, if it's a analogy war you wanted, it's an analogy war you've gotten!

Come on boy, gimme your best shot! :P :D :D :D

Quote from: Ra-TielNot according to the formal definitions. :P

Wikipedia says: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D20_system)
[...] To resolve an action in the d20 System, a player rolls a 20-sided die and adds modifiers based on the capabilities of the character, and sometimes the situation. If the result is greater than or equal to a target number (called a Difficulty Class or DC) then the action succeeds. [...]

Nowhere does it mention anything of levels or classes. ;)

FOUL! You can't quote sources in these things, you aren't playing fair!

Quote from: Ra-TielBut if you make the available options scale linearily, you can put in a static or at least also linear cost. This would lead to a linear character advancement and provide a constant stream of new options and more power to the characters, without much of the dreaded "down time" or "dead levels".

SO make the progression linear. No reason this can't be done with levels.

Quote from: Ra-TielI meant for character creation. Should have mentioned that, sorry. Generally speaking you're right, on a large scale fluff and crunch should be independent from each other. However, at character creation I think it is a viable option to base certain crunch options on fluff decisions.

In an idealized world, yes. But the problem is is that any optimizer won't do this, he'll base his fluff decision off of the crunch option he wants, and to hell with the backstory.

Quote from: Ra-TielNot really. The categories would be quite general. There would be no background option "grew up in the outskirts of Khandura, the Great Free City" or "grew up in the Blackcloud Mountains". At most, there would be general backgrounds, like "City outskirts", or "Wilderness, mountains".

It doesn't really matter how general they are, because as soon as the player finds the one that supplements his own strengths, that's the one he will go for nearly every time, regardless of the actual fluff behind it.

Quote from: Ra-TielWell, then the problem's with the players. ;)

I could say the same thing to many of the preventative measures you've proposed as well.

Quote from: Ra-TielAlternative: ask them what they want to play before allowing them access to any crunchy bits of the system. Give them the background, the descriptions, the timelines, anything you want, but no mechanics. Then, when they decided that they want to play a "wizard from Aqu'laz'ry", or a "Denobhian ranger" show them the possible templates and you're ready to go.

And that works exactly once. What will we do the second time, randomize the bonuses?

Quote from: Ra-TielAnd that asks the man so wary of min-maxing! :P You do know what players usually do with "free" skill points that can be distributed without limitations? They use them to get an advantage on PrC/feat prerequisites, or to maximize their character's abilities. The only workable system I've so far seen was in Shadowrun, where player's get to distribute some points (based on the character's Intelligence) on really fluffy skills like "SimSin pr0n stars", or "Urban Brawl leagues". ;)

but we have no PrCs! ;) That, and you've declared your system unworkable. I use a houserule similar to this, but restrict it to craft, knowledge, profession, and one or two others (handle animal, I know, is one).

Quote from: Ra-TielOk, just an example: let's assume a player wants to play an elf that's been abducted in his youth and sold as a slave, but later regained his freedom and became a strong warrior to take revenge on the slavers organization. Let's assume the favored class for elves is medium ("magical talent" and stuff), and the favored template is wild ("tree-huggers" etc). Now, for his first class and template, he selected "expert" and "civilized", due to being unable to "train" anything but his mundane skills as a slave in a large city.

After he's been freed, he travels with his newfound companions and trains in the way of the warrior. He takes his first "martial warrior" level and instantly hits penalties, as this combination is not covered by the mechanics. And this example is quite stereotypical and not really extraordinarily complicated.

You misunderstood me. Let's assume he takes 'rugged'* and 'crusader'* as his next template/class combo. Now, he's free to take any combination of wild, medium, civilized, expert, rugged, and crusader with NO penalty. When he adds that NEXT one is when he hits penalties. Think of it like having two classes as favored classes, and the second one is always what you happened to have picked at first level.

*completely made up, not a suggestion, just used for point of reference.

Quote from: Ra-TielYou didn't get me right. Why would a DM want to ban all magic in a fantasy game?

Who said anything about fantasy? RPG, Role Playing Game. No fantasy there. I'd like to see this powering my Lost Horizons Campaign setting, which has no magic.

Quote from: Ra-TielI see. However, to prevent situations like the one I mentioned, you'd have to let the player choose which saves are good/bad, and which skills are class skills. And from that point, it's just a very little step to let the player choose everything and remove classes completely. After all, classes are basically nothing more than preselected choices regarding some mechanics. ;)

Right. And what's to prevent the player from always taking a good will save, since that one's the most important? The reason those are pre-selected is because they work together to keep the person relatively balanced. Being able to choose your own opens up a whole mess of optimizing potential.

Quote from: Ra-Tiel

Quote from: Stargate525okay Ra-Tiel, if it's a analogy war you wanted, it's an analogy war you've gotten!

Come on boy, gimme your best shot! :P :D :D :D

*shoots Ra-Tiel*

:D

[ooc]Okay, I'm getting back into it now.[/ooc]
I agree with SG, this should be a class system.  Classes are like professions. If you are a blacksmith, you don't learn how to dance ballet so you can do your job better, just like you don't opt for good reflex, fort, and bab as a wizard.

>.< ny bad guys, my brother keeps leaving his accounton the computer and I forget to log him off.

Quote from: ~Kalin~The problem i have with combining all the senses into one skill it that all the sense would then be equal, and our sense are far from equal to each other, and just because i can smell someone in the room doesn't mean i can also see them.

I see your point. But very often it is enough to merely notice the presence of something/someone without accurately pinpointing its position. Imagine the PCs hunting down an assassin through the king's palace. The assassin entered the palace through the sewer, and after attempting to murder the prince, he tries to escape. Now the characters have cut off his escape route and he hides in an empty wing of the palace. He is so good at hiding, that none of the PCs has a chance to spot him (maxed Hide ranks, skill focus, magic items, etc). But normally, wouldn't they be able to smell the sewer stench on him?
[/quote]

Quote from: ~Kalin~Ok, so we get rid of the fixed saves ability mods, but keep the three distinctions fort, ref, will. Sounds good.

However, this was also just a mere suggestion on my part. If this would complicate things in game too much, we could keep the current rules (Fort uses always Con, Ref uses always Dex, Will uses always Wis).
[/quote]Also i still vote for the SRD skill list and the approprate expert and master table.[/quote]
Also, using the current skills list would save a lot of rewriting. :)

However, I'm not too impressed with how the skills are explained in the SRD/PHb anyways. Sometimes they just don't get the point across (Knowledge), use horrible mechanics (Diplomacy), plainly make no sense (Decipher script), provide detailed DCs for some situations without considering general situations (Concentration), or a combination of all these (Spot, Listen, Sense Motive). :-/
[/quote]ok after some thought on the matter i agree with using the same formula for saves as our BAB, BMB and skills.[/quote]
It is by no means necessary to do so, it's just my personal preference that I find systems using the same formula/progression for similar things more elegant than those using different calculations for just everything seemingly only for the sake of using another formula. ;)
[/quote]But in regards to the Save DC i think it might be better if it was:
5 + Invocation equivilent level + BMB + Relevant Ability modifer + Misc Modifiers.[/quote]
Well, the spellcaster inside me agrees with you. The player inside me, however, strongly disagrees. I decidedly left out the ability modifier from the save DC, because this is one element that can be so horribly optimized in DnD (buff spells, items, etc). If you look at the standard casting DCs (10 + spell level + key ability modifier + misc) you'll see that it's the key ability modifier that makes or breaks it. The other bonuses are at most +19 (10(base) + 9(spell level) + 2(greater spell focus)).
[/quote]Special[/i] and rather rare and expensive. Also we could solve the problem by saying that buffs, items etc... do not add to the DC of spells, only the natural base ability modifier can be added, and can only be increased with stat points at every few levels.

Quote from: Ra-Tiel

Quote from: ~Kalin~On another note ive been toying around with the idea that all spellcasters can only cast invocations, possibly something along the lines of the Warlock, this would decrease the amount of "problem" spells such as save and die.

This was also basically my idea. But we would need a mechanic to convert spells into invocations (if just to save us writing up several hunderet invocations all on our own).

I know, invocations are basically at-will spell-like abilities. However, as all active talents cost focus, using an invocation would also cost focus. To prevent abusing and/or spamming, I thought of focus costs per use equal to (invocation spell level)^2 + effective CL (maximal equal to BMB). This would create costs ranging from 2 (spell level 1 squared + caster level 1), to 59 (spell level 6 squared + caster level 23) per use.

So in other words a spellcaster recieves a "mana" points to spend how they choose between the invocations that they know. Also how many points would spellcasters recieve?

Quote from: AtlantisI agree with SG, this should be a class system. Classes are like professions. If you are a blacksmith, you don't learn how to dance ballet so you can do your job better, just like you don't opt for good reflex, fort, and bab as a wizard.

And again i think talents can still cover this, provided we do it right, also who are we to say blacksmiths cannot ballet dance in their free time and actually be good at it? If a blacksmith wants to do his job better he would put ranks in blacksmithing, just like anything else the blacksmith wants to be good at, class really doesn't have much to do with it.

And why can't a wizard have a good BAB or fort/reflex saves? im sure there would be a varient class/abilities or PRC for normal D&D that gives them this. And as it currently stands we dont have a "wizard" as such.

Quote from: Stargate525FOUL! You can't quote sources in these things, you aren't playing fair!

:D Bow before my inhuman kw0t3z-sk177z! :P

Quote from: Stargate525In an idealized world, yes. But the problem is is that any optimizer won't do this, he'll base his fluff decision off of the crunch option he wants, and to hell with the backstory.

Are we assuming mainly average roleplayers or optimizers as our intended main audience? Also, just because DnD has no mechanics in this regard and doesn't encourage making your character's abilities match his background doesn't mean that our system has to be the same.

Quote from: Stargate525It doesn't really matter how general they are, because as soon as the player finds the one that supplements his own strengths, that's the one he will go for nearly every time, regardless of the actual fluff behind it.

As said, don't give huge bonuses. Perhaps like 2 ranks in 3 fixed skills, that count against max ranks.

Quote from: Stargate525I could say the same thing to many of the preventative measures you've proposed as well.

What preventative measures are you talking about? *is not so quick today :-| *

Quote from: Stargate525And that works exactly once. What will we do the second time, randomize the bonuses?

No, but as said above: what's our intended audience, and why do we have to leave that out?

Quote from: Stargate525but we have no PrCs! ;)

But we still have feat/talent prerequisites. And if you are so afraid of optimizers abusing the fixed bonus skills, how would they abuse free bonus skills they could distribute as they wished?

Quote from: Stargate525That, and you've declared your system unworkable.

Huh? :?:

Quote from: Stargate525I use a houserule similar to this, but restrict it to craft, knowledge, profession, and one or two others (handle animal, I know, is one).

Knowledge is a good example of seemingly harmless skill that can be horribly abused. Knowledge has this extremely wonky "DC 10+HD and know stuff about monsters" thing (which even the designers admit was a crap idea :D ). Now, Knowledge (local) says something about humanoids. Your evil baron is a humanoid. I hope you guess what I'm aiming at...

Quote from: Stargate525You misunderstood me. Let's assume he takes 'rugged'* and 'crusader'* as his next template/class combo. Now, he's free to take any combination of wild, medium, civilized, expert, rugged, and crusader with NO penalty. When he adds that NEXT one is when he hits penalties. Think of it like having two classes as favored classes, and the second one is always what you happened to have picked at first level.

*completely made up, not a suggestion, just used for point of reference.

Then you mean THREE class/template combinations. :P I see, however you mentioned TWO in your previous post. ;)

Quote from: Stargate525Who said anything about fantasy? RPG, Role Playing Game. No fantasy there. I'd like to see this powering my Lost Horizons Campaign setting, which has no magic.

Well, what's preventing you from using Fighter, Barbarian, Swashbuckler, Rogue, and the magicless Paladin/Ranger variants from Complete Warrior for your setting? Or the d20 Modern classes? Or the SW classes (save for the jedi classes)?

Quote from: Stargate525Right. And what's to prevent the player from always taking a good will save, since that one's the most important? The reason those are pre-selected is because they work together to keep the person relatively balanced. Being able to choose your own opens up a whole mess of optimizing potential.

Counter: what's wrong with players always having a good will save? First, If you have a party consisting of Knight, Druid, Cleric, Sorcerer you already have only good Will saves. Second, Iron Heroes has only ONE progression for all saves, and the progression is "1/1 HD" (yes I know, IH has extremely few magic items and spellcasting is dangerous in that setting). Third, it's not like having a good save makes you invulnerable in that regard; you still have at least a 5% chance to automatically fail.

Quote from: Stargate525*shoots Ra-Tiel*

:D

You're really asking for it, aren't you? :P

Quote from: ~Kalin~Well we could always add a "smell" skill.

And Taste and Feel skills also? If so, you'd have to consider that these are 3 more important skills. And the question is always "is it worth the trouble". How often occur situations that make it really necessary to differ between the actual sense that was used to notice something? In my experience it is only important that the characters noticed something, but not how they did it.

Quote from: ~Kalin~Well we will have to try to fix this problem after we iron out character creation.

Agreed. However, the person with that uber-maxed Listen skill would not necessarily be able to spot his buddy in the crowd from 20ft away. To me it just doesn't make sense that one of your perceptive senses borders on the superhuman, while all the others are basically in a child stage.

Quote from: ~Kalin~I dont think it would cause to much trouble, just a little more for the DMto remember. And we will just have to make a definite list of exactly what ability modifier to use for what save, shouldn't be to hard.

Also agreed, a simple table mentioning what effects are saved against with what ability score should do the trick.

Quote from: ~Kalin~well we can just rewrite the skills that really need it, and hopefully come up with some new mechanics to fix up some bad mechanics.

Now, that would be many skills in my opinion. ;) There are many proud nails in the DnD skill system, I'm afraid.

Quote from: ~Kalin~Well i can see both good and bad in both system and i like the idea of having one formula for everything, and i can see either formula being used for saves in this system.

Of course, another idea would have been to use the save progressions for everything else instead of the other way round. Now that would make for some really "average" campaigns. ;)

Quote from: ~Kalin~Well we are making a new magic system aren't we? and we have determined that magic items would be Special and rather rare and expensive. Also we could solve the problem by saying that buffs, items etc... do not add to the DC of spells, only the natural base ability modifier can be added, and can only be increased with stat points at every few levels.

Not necessarily a complete new magic system. My idea was to use the published spells, but put them in a different mechanical frame. Sort of an "on the fly conversion". But you're right, it could work even with the ability modifier added to the save DC. However, if modify Fox's cunning, Cat's grace and Owl's wisdom to not add their bonus to invocation save DCs, you'd have to look at all other spells and modify them accordingly; also, you'd have to modify any spell that increases a physical ability score so that it doesn't add the bonus to save DCs against stun attacks or something the character would have from feats/talents.

Quote from: ~Kalin~Would this be a bad thing?

In my opinion yes. A front-liner would again need Str for damage and to hit, Dex for defense, Con for stamina, while a caster would only need Int or Wis or Cha to be really good.

Quote from: ~Kalin~So in other words a spellcaster recieves a "mana" points to spend how they choose between the invocations that they know. Also how many points would spellcasters recieve?

Well, everybody would receive focus points. Spell casting would be based on talents, and using an invocation would require the talent to be "active", thus eating focus points. Noncaster would also use focus to power their own talents. The amount of focus would depend on what system we use; in a class system I'd suggest a "focus die" (d4/d8/d12) maxed at 1st level, in a classless system I'd suggest Cha (or Wis) ability score + a fixed amount (2/4/8).

[blockquote=Ra-Tiel]Not necessarily a complete new magic system. My idea was to use the published spells, but put them in a different mechanical frame. Sort of an "on the fly conversion". But you're right, it could work even with the ability modifier added to the save DC. However, if modify Fox's cunning, Cat's grace and Owl's wisdom to not add their bonus to invocation save DCs, you'd have to look at all other spells and modify them accordingly; also, you'd have to modify any spell that increases a physical ability score so that it doesn't add the bonus to save DCs against stun attacks or something the character would have from feats/talents.[/blockquote]
If you're going to create a system, you'll at least have to rewrite the spellbooks, or else you will be using the organizational construct of a system that is built to acomplish something different.  What is going to determine where a spell comes from, in a classless system?  Either the power source it is drawn from, the place a character learns it, or both.

[blockquote=Ra-Tiel]Well, everybody would receive focus points. Spell casting would be based on talents, and using an invocation would require the talent to be "active", thus eating focus points. Noncaster would also use focus to power their own talents. The amount of focus would depend on what system we use; in a class system I'd suggest a "focus die" (d4/d8/d12) maxed at 1st level, in a classless system I'd suggest Cha (or Wis) ability score + a fixed amount (2/4/8).
[/blockquote]
I think you're right, especially with the classless part, but maybe the amount would be based on what style of magic they learned, or who they learned it from.

Quote from: LordVreegIf you're going to create a system, you'll at least have to rewrite the spellbooks, or else you will be using the organizational construct of a system that is built to acomplish something different.

Not necessarily. My basic idea was to come up with a mechanic that allows the DM/player to convert spells written for DnD into invocations for our system. Basically, the spell would still have its level, save, duration, etc, but some points would have to be modified. For example, spells with a duration of "permanent" are changed to "1 day/level" etc. Additionally, each invocation would have a focus cost of (spell level)^2 + effective caster level (at least equal to minimum level necessary to cast the spell, at most equal to current BMB). So a caster could decide how much power he wants to put into an invocation.

Access to invocations would be solely based on a talent tree. It could basically look like the following.
[table=Wizard talent tree]
[tr][th]Talent[/th][th]Benefit[/th][/tr]
[tr][td]Wizard I[/td][td]Gain access to invocations, learn 2 invocations of spell level 1[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Wizard II[/td][td]Learn 2 invocations of spell level 1[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Wizard III[/td][td]Learn 2 invocations of spell level 2 or less[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Wizard IV[/td][td]Learn 2 invocations of spell level 2 or less[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Wizard V[/td][td]Learn 2 invocations of spell level 3 or less[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Wizard VI[/td][td]Learn 2 invocations of spell level 3 or less[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Wizard VII[/td][td]Learn 2 invocations of spell level 4 or less[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Wizard VIII[/td][td]Learn 2 invocations of spell level 4 or less[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Wizard IX[/td][td]Learn 2 invocations of spell level 5 or less[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Wizard X[/td][td]Learn 2 invocations of spell level 5 or less[/td][/tr]
[/table]

Quote from: LordVreegWhat is going to determine where a spell comes from, in a classless system? Either the power source it is drawn from, the place a character learns it, or both.

Doesn't that fall into the "fluff" category?

Quote from: LordVreegI think you're right, especially with the classless part, but maybe the amount would be based on what style of magic they learned, or who they learned it from.

Why, I ask you? To be honest, I'm completely sick of clerics always having the higher HD, always having the better BAB, always having a better Fort save, always having armor proficiency, always having the exclusive access to heal spells, always ..., always ..., ... ! :-/ In my opinion there should be 1 (ONE!) casting class, and saves, BAB, skills etc should never depend on the power source. If a wizard is weak and frail from standing in old libraries for decades, a cleric should be the same, no matter what.

Therefore, I strongly oppose the idea of making the amount of focus points someone gets dependent on anything else than their Wisdom or Charisma ability (not sure about it yet), and the priority they put into this feature at character creation.

a setting is what decides the mechanic.  The right setting demands the right mechanic.  That applies heavily to eveything you replied to.  I've not been any help to this thread in the past, so I understand this comes under the 2 cents heading.  However, I run a mana based, classless, skill based system, so I have some experience on soil you're building the foundations on.
(So I very respectively and with great affection dissagree with the 'classes are a good thing' camp)

But I need to be more clear, because a lot of what you are saying below (in that great rant-mode) is exactly what I've done.  
So, Ok.
[blockquote=Ra-Tiel]Why, I ask you? To be honest, I'm completely sick of clerics always having the higher HD, always having the better BAB, always having a better Fort save, always having armor proficiency, always having the exclusive access to heal spells, always ..., always ..., ... !  In my opinion there should be 1 (ONE!) casting class, and saves, BAB, skills etc should never depend on the power source. If a wizard is weak and frail from standing in old libraries for decades, a cleric should be the same, no matter what.

Therefore, I strongly oppose the idea of making the amount of focus points someone gets dependent on anything else than their Wisdom or Charisma ability (not sure about it yet), and the priority they put into this feature at character creation.[/blockquote]

I totally agree with what you are going on about here.  Read this post one of my threads just yesterday.
[blockquote=from Celtrician Thread]One of the underlying dynamics for the whole system was to create a system that allowed for near-freeform character creation and evolution. George is a really good example, as he took a somewhat rare school as a primary (one that has decent martial ability, a little engineering, and a few spell skills), and the cherrypicked a few priest skills from his secondary school, the Church of the Whole. There is nothing like him., he is unique...as are most characters. And the system will allow him to organically evolve uniquely, as the skills he uses, he'll get better in. [/blockquote]

Ra-Tiel, so you can see that I am in total accord with you.  It's just some of what you are calling fluff is not.  You want to make sure the mechanics can cover the fluff.  Okay, say you have one spell casting set of rules.  How would the game set up for character creation?  what allows for a priest of the god of alchemist to use alchemical spells better than a normal priest, and what allows for a priest of the fightergod to have some divine abilities and decent fighting skills?  You need to have crunch that allows for multiple backstories.   I don't care what the exact story is, whether it is some divinity that grants certain characters to learn the skill differently, or different schools,. or guilds, or tribal  knowledge, but the system must be built to support as broad a range of fluff as possible.

Quote from: ~Kalin~Well we could always add a "smell" skill.

And Taste and Feel skills also? If so, you'd have to consider that these are 3 more important skills. And the question is always "is it worth the trouble". How often occur situations that make it really necessary to differ between the actual sense that was used to notice something? In my experience it is only important that the characters noticed something, but not how they did it.
[/quote]Well i can see both good and bad in both system and i like the idea of having one formula for everything, and i can see either formula being used for saves in this system.[/quote]
Of course, another idea would have been to use the save progressions for everything else instead of the other way round. Now that would make for some really "average" campaigns. ;)
[/quote]Well we are making a new magic system aren't we? and we have determined that magic items would be Special and rather rare and expensive. Also we could solve the problem by saying that buffs, items etc... do not add to the DC of spells, only the natural base ability modifier can be added, and can only be increased with stat points at every few levels.[/quote]
Not necessarily a complete new magic system. My idea was to use the published spells, but put them in a different mechanical frame. Sort of an "on the fly conversion". But you're right, it could work even with the ability modifier added to the save DC. However, if modify Fox's cunning, Cat's grace and Owl's wisdom to not add their bonus to invocation save DCs, you'd have to look at all other spells and modify them accordingly; also, you'd have to modify any spell that increases a physical ability score so that it doesn't add the bonus to save DCs against stun attacks or something the character would have from feats/talents.
[/quote]Would this be a bad thing? [/quote]
In my opinion yes. A front-liner would again need Str for damage and to hit, Dex for defense, Con for stamina, while a caster would only need Int or Wis or Cha to be really good.
[/quote]
Well, everybody would receive focus points. Spell casting would be based on talents, and using an invocation would require the talent to be "active", thus eating focus points. Noncaster would also use focus to power their own talents. The amount of focus would depend on what system we use; in a class system I'd suggest a "focus die" (d4/d8/d12) maxed at 1st level, in a classless system I'd suggest Cha (or Wis) ability score + a fixed amount (2/4/8).
[/quote]
[/quote]
so this would mean that a matial character has to worry about their Str, Dex, Con, and now Cha or Wis?

Quote from: LordVreega setting is what decides the mechanic.  The right setting demands the right mechanic.  That applies heavily to eveything you replied to.  I've not been any help to this thread in the past, so I understand this comes under the 2 cents heading.  However, I run a mana based, classless, skill based system, so I have some experience on soil you're building the foundations on.
(So I very respectively and with great affection dissagree with the 'classes are a good thing' camp)

Of course, but this is basically a system without an underlying setting, so we'd need to keep some rules quite general and allow for easy additions and modifications.

Quote from: LordVreegBut I need to be more clear, because a lot of what you are saying below (in that great rant-mode) is exactly what I've done.  
So, Ok.

I must appologize if I came across in my last post as a jerk. I really didn't want to. It's just that I see little point in trying to make a "better system", when it's basically the original system with a few mods from Unearthed Arcana applied. :(

Quote from: LordVreegI totally agree with what you are going on about here.  Read this post one of my threads just yesterday.

Very interesting, thanks for sharing. :)

Quote from: LordVreegRa-Tiel, so you can see that I am in total accord with you.  It's just some of what you are calling fluff is not.  You want to make sure the mechanics can cover the fluff.  Okay, say you have one spell casting set of rules.  How would the game set up for character creation?  what allows for a priest of the god of alchemist to use alchemical spells better than a normal priest, and what allows for a priest of the fightergod to have some divine abilities and decent fighting skills?  You need to have crunch that allows for multiple backstories.   I don't care what the exact story is, whether it is some divinity that grants certain characters to learn the skill differently, or different schools,. or guilds, or tribal  knowledge, but the system must be built to support as broad a range of fluff as possible.

Well, I would leave the decision what spells a character learns to the player. With at most - and with a key ability score of at least 20 (which is a heft requirement when you have no +6 bonus items) and 10 invested talents - 20 invocations known and no invocation higher than level 5 or 6 known I think we could allow a player enough freedom to choose from all available lists. Therefore the characters would most likely differ completely in "spells known". A priest from a god of creation would for example know the various creation and repair spells, while a warlike priest could have selected combat related spells like blade barrier and righteous might, while a healer would know the various cure and vigor spells. DnD has enough spells so that it would be quite easy to find two spells at each spell level from 1 to 6 that match the character's concept.

Quote from: ~Kalin~Ive often seen DMs tell the characters that there is a certain kind of smell or taste to what ever they were smelling/tasting at that time, ive never really seen it neccesary to have the ability that does the same thing.

But this is already a break in the flow. Visual and accoustical information has to be "earned" by making the checks, while texture, smell, and taste are freebies? What makes the other senses so much more important to justify this? If it is critical if the players smell something, shouldn't they make a check to see if their character notice it? Alternatively, the DM should scrap Listen and Spot and automatically tell the players what their characters can see and hear - throwing the game back into second edition dark ages. :P

Quote from: ~Kalin~I think that would be quite interesting, but i really don't think we should try it with this system. So are we going to use the same formula for the saves as everything else and introduce a new formula for save DCs, or are we just going to leave the saves the way they are in normal D&D?

If we use a level-based system, my vote is on the "other" progressions (1-11, 2-17, 4-23) for saves.

Quote from: ~Kalin~We could just simply state somewhere (say in the magic system) that spells and items that increase the base natural ability modifier do not add to the DC of spells or special attacks, however i would say that feats/talents would work normally.

I would rule it homogenously across the board: Int mod boosting spells don't add to save DCs, Str mod boosting spells don't add to save DCs - no matter what's the ability requiring the save.

Quote from: ~Kalin~Wouldn't a caster still need a good dex and con score?

But these are suboptimal. A caster has options to compensate for these weaknesses. And seriously, if you go past level 3 it doesn't matter much if your wizard has Con 10 or Con 14.

Quote from: ~Kalin~so this would mean that a matial character has to worry about their Str, Dex, Con, and now Cha or Wis?

No necessarily. My idea was that normal, non-spellcasting talents would only cost their level times 2 in focus per round or attack of use. So, even with a Cha/Wis of only 12, a martial character would still have enough focus to keep his powerful talents going for some rounds before being drained.

ok. before we argue about fluff and crunch and classes and talent trees and magic, we should put down what we have so if anyone wants to join in, their eyes dont get tired of seeing quoteboxes.

[blockquote Atlantis]ok. before we argue about fluff and crunch and classes and talent trees and magic, we should put down what we have so if anyone wants to join in, their eyes dont get tired of seeing quoteboxes.[/blockquote]
We've been doing that already for a page and a half, and its not that hard to get caught up.

Quote from: Ra-TielI would rule it homogenously across the board: Int mod boosting spells don't add to save DCs, Str mod boosting spells don't add to save DCs - no matter what's the ability requiring the save.

Why only Int and Str, why not the rest of the ability scores?

These were just examples. ;) Either all ability score based save DCs should benefit from boosts from spells or magic items, or none should.

To do List:
1. Decide what skill list we are using SRD, Ra-Tiels or some other so we can finalise the master and expert skills.
2. If we are still going on a WP/VP system, were race and size determines WP and HD chosen at character creation determines VP, we need to determine exactly what size and race bonuses/penalties to apply to WP.
3. Start developing some talent trees. (are we still saying that a character recieves a talent every even and a bonus feat every odd?)

Anything ive missed?

In regard to talents, are we also trying to emulate the classes in the PHB, eg: sneak attack, Rage or other such abilities? Also how would we make them scaleable with this system?

Well, depends. What do you think about having talents grant a small passive bonus that's for free, and a better active bonus they have to pay focus points for?

Sneak attack eg would be pretty straightforward. Passive bonus: 1 point of bonus damage against all flatfooted/unaware/helpless/distracted foes; active bonus: 1d6 points of bonus damage against such targets; cost: no action, 2 focus point per talent level used (eg 6 focus point for 3d6 bonus damage).

I like the idea that each talent provides a free passive bonus to something, but im unsure about the need to spend focus points to gain a better active bonus.

And how would we put a cap on how many focus points that can be used for the active talents?

EDIT: I forgot to ask if we were still using the Vile, Holy, Martial, Skilled, Magic, Wild, Civilized and Mind talent trees.

Quote from: ~Kalin~I like the idea that each talent provides a free passive bonus to something, but im unsure about the need to spend focus points to gain a better active bonus.

Then we would have no need for focus points at all. This was one of my main ideas, that a player would have to expend limited (at least temporarily) resources to gain a better benefit. Also, having talents provided static bonuses AGAIN implements the main problem regarding the spellcaster/noncaster dichotomy. A fighter's Weapon Specialization is static, and provides the same bonus at level 4 as it does at level 9, while a wizard's magic missile gets better as he increases in level without costing additional resources.

My idea was to give noncasters (or at least those following the talent trees that do not grant spells/(su) abilities) also scaling bonuses that actually have a greater impact. Yes, getting like 6 points of bonus damage is nice and stuff, but it won't benefit you much if you still need like 12 rounds to wear that golem down instead of putting some serious smackdown on it and wasting it in 2 rounds.

Quote from: ~Kalin~And how would we put a cap on how many focus points that can be used for the active talents?

One of my previous suggestions was to actually put up a limit on how many talents can be "active" simultaneously. Costs would still be only based on the talent rank the player wanted to use (of course he could opt to use a lower level talent, for example only dealing 2d6 sneak attack damage when he could normally inflict 4d6 of it).

Quote from: ~Kalin~EDIT: I forgot to ask if we were still using the Vile, Holy, Martial, Skilled, Magic, Wild, Civilized and Mind talent trees.

If the majority decides to go with levels and classes, I suppose yes.

I see your point with using focus points to stablize the caster/non-caster, but i was thinking something like this.

"Rogue" talent tree
Passive bonus: +1 to sneak attack damage.
active bonus: 1d6/2 levels taken of the "rogue" talent tree.
or
weapon specialization [feat]
Passive bonus:...gain +1 bonus on attack rolls...
Active bonus: +1 bonus on attack rolls/2 levels of martial talent tree.

what do you think?

Quote from: ~Kalin~I see your point with using focus points to stablize the caster/non-caster, but i was thinking something like this.

"Rogue" talent tree
Passive bonus: +1 to sneak attack damage.
active bonus: 1d6/2 levels taken of the "rogue" talent tree.
or
weapon specialization [feat]
Passive bonus:...gain +1 bonus on attack rolls...
Active bonus: +1 bonus on attack rolls/2 levels of martial talent tree.

what do you think?

First, I would rather not touch the feats. We could create everything anew, but why should we? If we can come up with a "better system" and allow DnD material (items, feats, spells, etc) to be compatible, all the better. It provides a huge array of additional options to the players, while saving us the hassle and time to have to rewrite everything.

Second, about your idea for talent trees. It's too weak in my opinion. With your sneak attack tree, you'd have to purchase 10 levels in the tree to gain 5d6 sneak attack. I'd rather not look at what a "caster" can do after spending 10 talents in one of his talent trees. Also, how would you control "active" talents? Without any additional information, it seems as if a character could run around with his talents active all the time. And finally, I assume it was a typo, but your writeup makes the talent tree useless until you have reached level 2: "+1 to sneak attack damage", well, the character has no sneak attack damage until he has 2 talents from that tree (and then only 1d6).

I'm going to post a pdf with some ideas for talent trees later on. ;)

My vote is still for the class/template idea. It seems to be halfway between normal classes and this freeform business some of you are so fond of.

WE make everyone a bit annoyed, then we've done something right.

Ok, compiled a short file with 3x stuff that shows how fully developed talent trees could be designed. Please take the current numbers "as is", with no form of game testing. ;)

File: 1189099332_233_FT36780_cbg_system.pdf (//../../e107_files/public/1189099332_233_FT36780_cbg_system.pdf)

Quote from: Stargate525My vote is still for the class/template idea. It seems to be halfway between normal classes and this freeform business some of you are so fond of.

WE make everyone a bit annoyed, then we've done something right.

Ok then lets put this to a vote and settle this once and for all before we get any further, I suggest that anyone thats keeping an eye on this thread vote aswell, so do we want a classless/Talent system or a class/Template system? Also feel free to put the reasons why you prefer one system over the other.


EDIT: Updated votes.
Votes so far:
Classless/Talent System: 4
Class/Template System: 3

My vote is on "classless/talent based".

<flamingSpeech>
We started discussion about this as an endeavor to come up with a better system than WotC. Therefore, we must let loose our imagination and fantasy, experiment with new rules, try out all the crazy stuff we'd never thought to use in a "normal" game. We could make an "alternative" system by using classes and levels, but would that really be a "better" system? It would still carry all the weaknesses and burdens standard d20 carries. How can we come up with a better system if we don't want to stray from the original too far?

A class/level based system does have its advantages, I'll readily admit that. It's easier for n00bs, makes creating highlevel NPCs easier, and the DM gets a general expression about the minimum abilities the party has (regarding HP, saves, attack bonuses, spell capacities, etc). However, it also has its weaknesses. Characters always look like as if build from LEGO bricks, advancement comes in irregular steps, power curves usually do not scale linearily (especially regarding casters), it shoehorns characters into certain stereotypes (all fighters are brutes, all wizards are smart, all rogues are sneaky, etc).

With the Campaign Builders' System we have now the unique chance to create a new system that is truely better than d20, even if it takes its very distant origin from that one. We can do away once and for all with all the horrible stuff (like the diplomacy rules) and create a homogenous, yet highly modular system that can easily be modified for each campaign without tearing the whole thing apart (unlike DnD).

All we have to do is throw away the restrictions of normal thinking and go crazy with ideas. Give in to your imagination, and let us truely triumph over WotC!
</flamingSpeech>

:D ;)

Rebuttal speech:

And with your proposed system, oh esteemed Ra-Tiel, characters look like a blob of goo, with no real purpose, driving mechanic, or motivation. There is such as thing as too much organicness. Without the class/template system, anyone who isn't an experienced roleplayer will have difficulty optimizing their character to any semblance of usefulness.

Furthermore, I believe the class/template system we have is a good balance between the two extremes. It is by no means a straight class system, and character built with it will look significantly different, but it has the rigidity that a good basis for a system needs.

I call bull on your speech. There's different because it's better, and different because you simply want to be different.

Quote from: Stargate525Rebuttal speech:

And with your proposed system, oh esteemed Ra-Tiel, characters look like a blob of goo, with no real purpose, driving mechanic, or motivation. There is such as thing as too much organicness. Without the class/template system, anyone who isn't an experienced roleplayer will have difficulty optimizing their character to any semblance of usefulness.

So, all people playing Shadowrun, World of Darkness (and all derivates like Scion or Exalted), Blue Planet, or GURPS must always be experienced roleplayers? And in these systems it is impossible or difficult to create a useful character with purpose and motivation? :huh:

Quote from: Stargate525Furthermore, I believe the class/template system we have is a good balance between the two extremes. It is by no means a straight class system, and character built with it will look significantly different, but it has the rigidity that a good basis for a system needs.

My former idea was little more than UA's generic classes mixed with some sort of crunchy background mechanic. Basically not really different from what has been already done by WotC, thus we'd be only reinventing a broken wheel again.

Quote from: Stargate525I call bull on your speech. There's different because it's better, and different because you simply want to be different.

And there's "not being different" for the sake of "not being different". ;)

I've been moe of an amused observer on this thread, but I have to vote with Ra, despite my respect for Stargate525 (the multitalented).  I consider a classless system that focusses on skill/talents a more flexible one and one that allows for more GM creativity.
I consider a skill based system where the list of skills available comes first, and what they do, and how fast they generally develop.
If the templates you speak of were very specific, and gave a list of skills that they teach (and how fast characters from that template gain profiency in that skill) that the character can work from, then that might assuage my feelings.

Quote from: LordVreegI've been moe of an amused observer on this thread, but I have to vote with Ra, despite my respect for Stargate525 (the multitalented).  I consider a classless system that focusses on skill/talents a more flexible one and one that allows for more GM creativity.
I consider a skill based system where the list of skills available comes first, and what they do, and how fast they generally develop.

My main point pro skillbased mechanics is that it creates more homogeneous characters and less characters whose abilities come in LEGO style bricks and boxes. Also, imho it allows for a smoother storytelling on the DMs part, because it takes away some of the more illogical aspects of a levelbased system ("Ok, we've been following that death knight through the wilderness for 2 months now and finally took it down, now I have learned teleport without having seen a library or mage laboratory for almost a whole term.")

On a related note, I'd greatly appreciate getting rid of DnD's terrible skill descriptions and instead put a clean and simple system with general modifiers. Each skill having a table with modifiers for this and that, while completely neglecting other aspects of the skill just irks me in a thousand degrees. x. I'd suggest something similar to the write ups in WoD books, giving a general description of the skill, presenting some special options for using the skill, and giving examples what a certain number of ranks means in terms of proficiency (eg "0 ranks, 5 ranks, 10 ranks, 15 ranks, 20 ranks"). The modifiers (skill user distracted, surface slippery, distance, disadvantageous circumstances, etc) should be put in a single larger table for ease of reference.

Quote from: LordVreegIf the templates you speak of were very specific, and gave a list of skills that they teach (and how fast characters from that template gain profiency in that skill) that the character can work from, then that might assuage my feelings.

Some pages ago I had the idea of using "templates" as a means to differ characters from different backgrounds from each other. Back then, I thought that each class would allow access to 3 to 5 general talent trees, and a template would offer access to 2 to 4 specific and thematically fitting talent trees. Templates could eg be "wild", "civilized", "psionic", "skilled", etc, representing the background and upbringing of a character. However, I rather quickly ran into several problems with this idea and thus - at least for now - dropped it. One point was that if each character only had a single template, he would be basically static. No matter how much time eg a barbarian (or "wild warrior") spent in a great city, he could just never adopt to a more civilized way of life. On the other hand, if you allowed templates to change, you'd have to deal with some sort of restricting mechanic to prevent a player to gain access to any and all talent trees with some clever multiclassing.

you know, maybe we are not thinking outside the box enough. maybe we could use both classes and classless? so for example in a party there could be a rogue and a magic user and a cleric. the magic user is simply a magic user. this way, you can specialize or just generalize so you could sort of have a tree where it goes: thief then bandit and pickpocket,etc. or you could just stay as a thief. but im not exactly sure how that is very different than multiclassing.

[blockquote_Magnificent Ra]Also, imho it allows for a smoother storytelling on the DMs part, because it takes away some of the more illogical aspects of a levelbased system ("Ok, we've been following that death knight through the wilderness for 2 months now and finally took it down, now I have learned teleport without having seen a library or mage laboratory for almost a whole term.")[/blockquote]


OK, Now you are talking my language.  But you meant 'classbased', not 'levelbased', correct?


I say this becasue one of my biggest reasons for going skillbased was exactly this.  Thieves becoming better at pickpocketting my killing people.  This is one of the three 'windmills' that made me crazy enough to change my whole system.
But my skillbased system still has levels.  We keep experience in each skill, and you only get experience in skills that are used.

Quote from: Atlantisyou know, maybe we are not thinking outside the box enough. maybe we could use both classes and classless? so for example in a party there could be a rogue and a magic user and a cleric. the magic user is simply a magic user. this way, you can specialize or just generalize so you could sort of have a tree where it goes: thief then bandit and pickpocket,etc. or you could just stay as a thief. but im not exactly sure how that is very different than multiclassing.

I don't think it is possible to come up with such a system. You would have to create two equivalent, yet highly different advancement mechanics catering both to leveled and levelless characters. I know there is MarauderX's XP point buy system (http://mxpb.wikispaces.com/), but something about the mechanic irks be as highly inelegant. It may be a good system, but it just doesn't cut it for me, there are imho too many issues (like a 3k XP character getting his ass handed to him by a normal level 2 character).

well, i was talking about class and generalized, not leveled and levelless.

Okay, I've read through the thread, and I'm not quite sure what's been decided on. I just ask so that I can build off what you've got, rather than try to redesign wheels you've already built.

Edit: Class/Template is a good compromise, though I don't particularly like the pure Class-based system. But I'm a huge Hero system (similar to GURPs) fan, so that oughta tell you what I really like ;).

My vote is for class/template system.
[blockquote Ra-Tiel]Basically not really different from what has been already done by WotC, thus we'd be only reinventing a broken wheel again.[/blockquote]
But this time, the broken wheel is equipped with oodles of laser auto-turrets.

Quote from: psychoticbarberOkay, I've read through the thread, and I'm not quite sure what's been decided on. I just ask so that I can build off what you've got, rather than try to redesign wheels you've already built.

Edit: Class/Template is a good compromise, though I don't particularly like the pure Class-based system. But I'm a huge Hero system (similar to GURPs) fan, so that oughta tell you what I really like ;).

I pretty sure nothing has been decided on yet, although much has been discussed, the vote (top of page) will decide once and for all which character creation system we will be developing. And was what a vote for the class/Template system?

Also voting will close on Wednesday 19th, longer if it ties.

Quote from: ~Kalin~And was what a vote for the class/Template system?

It was indeed. I have read (almost) all of the thread, it's pretty funky. There are elements I like, though I'm not entirely sure about the proposed execution of them yet...ah well, you won't get rid of me now ;)

Quote from: psychoticbarberIt was indeed. I have read (almost) all of the thread, it's pretty funky. There are elements I like, though I'm not entirely sure about the proposed execution of them yet...ah well, you won't get rid of me now ;)

Well, there are several points unclear, at least from my perspective. ;)

(1) Class/Template vs Classless/Levelless
(2) Standard d20 skills vs condensed skills (similar to SW SAGA)
(3) 0-6/1-9/2-12 saves vs 1-11/2-17/4-23 saves (to reduce magic item dependency)
(4) How many talents should a talent tree encompass?
(5) Exponential power scaling vs linear power scaling?

To name a few.

I will have to vote for.....not classless and levelless or class/template but....classless system (with levels!)

Quote from: AtlantisI will have to vote for.....not classless and levelless or class/template but....classless system (with levels!)

You always expect to get special treatment, don't you? :P

However, how about a different idea. I don't know if any of you are familiar with the Earthdawn system, but perhaps that may be something worth looking into further for our system. Earthdawn basically combines skillbased and levelbased system. It works the following: Earthdawn has 15 "circles" instead of levels. At each level, you gain access to a certain amount of talents (different from d20 talents; think of them as "magical skills") you can choose from, dependent on "discipline" (similar to class) you follow. To reach a new circle, however, you have to attain a certain number of ranks in a certain number of talents. If you have the required ranks, you can perform a special ritual (IIRC, been quite awhile since I last dealt with ED) and actually increase in circle.

To translate into DnD-speek: we could make "classes" that don't actually grant any bonuses (like BAB, or saves) but rather provide a list of talent trees the character gains access to after a certain level. To increase in levels, a character would need to have a certain minimum rank in some of the classes granted talent trees, and then automatically gains access to higher level talent trees. Which class grants access to which talent trees (which imho should still be equal in power and scale linearily if possible) should be decided upon flavor and concept (eg a melee class granting access to DR and damage boosting talents much earlier than a gish class, which in turn would have access earlier than a second rank warrior, etc).

good idea. i vote for that

OK, hammered some quick ideas together.

[spoiler=example talent trees]BATTLE INSTINCT TALENT TREE
Your instincts provide a valuable ally in the thick of battle.
Passive bonus: You reduce miss chances in melee by 1 point per rank.
Active bonus: You reduce miss chances in melee by 2 points per rank.
Cost: 1 focus point per rank per round.

CRIPPLING STRIKE TALENT TREE
Your attacks leave your enemies weakened and broken.
Passive bonus: You impose a -1 morale penalty per rank on all checks made by your opponent for 1 round with a successful attack.
Active bonus: You impose a -2 morale penalty per rank on all checks made by your opponent for 1 round with a successful attack.
Cost: 1 focus point per rank per attack.

DERVISH TALENT TREE
You become blurred flash in battle.
Passive bonus: You gain a +1 haste bonus to armor class per rank.
Active bonus: You gain a +5ft bonus to your base speed per rank.
Cost: 1 focus point per rank per round.

DESTROYER TALENT TREE
You can bring to bear terrible strength with your blows, easily breaking through your target's resistance.
Passive bonus: You ignore 1 point of your target's damage reduction or hardness per rank.
Active bonus: You ignore 2 points of your target's damage reduction or hardness per rank.
Cost: 1 focus point per rank per attack.

DREADNOUGHT TALENT TREE
Your extensive training allows you to deal devestating blows with close combat weapons.
Passive bonus: You deal +1 point bonus damage per rank when using a melee weapon.
Active bonus: You deal +2 points bonus damage per rank when using a melee weapon.
Cost: 1 focus point per rank per attack.

FEARSOME BRUTE TALENT TREE
Your hulking sight alone instills fear in your enemies.
Passive bonus: You gain a +2 bonus to Intimidate per rank.
Active bonus: You gain frightful presence with a range of 5ft per rank. An opponent within this area witnessing you attacking or charging must make a Will save (DC = 10 + 1/2 your BAB + your Charisma modifier) or become shaken.
Cost: 1 focus point per rank per round.

JUGGERNAUT TALENT TREE
You have become so battle-hardened that you can shrug off your opponents' blows.
Passive bonus: You gain damage reduction 1/- per rank.
Active bonus: You gain damage reduction 2/- per rank.
Cost: 1 focus point per rank per round.

KEEN EYED TALENT TREE
You have eyes like an eagle and can discern even the most minor details.
Passive bonus: You reduce miss chances in ranged combat by 1 point per rank.
Active bonus: You reduce miss chances in ranged combat by 2 points per rank.
Cost: 1 focus point per rank per round.

PIERCING SHOT TALENT TREE
Your arrows pierce their first targets, striking others further down their deadly path.
Passive bonus: Your arrows have a 2% chance per rank of piercing their first target. You can make an additional attack roll with the same bonus as the initial attack against a single target behind your first target in a straight line.
Active bonus: Your arrows have a 4% chance per rank of piercing their first target. You can make an additional attack roll with the same bonus as the initial attack against a single target behind your first target in a straight line.
Cost: 1 focus point per rank per attack.

RESISTANCE TALENT TREE
Your focus and determination allows you to ignore debilating effects from fire and cold.
Passive bonus: You gain 1 point resistance to fire and cold per rank.
Active bonus: You gain 2 points resistance to fire and cold per rank.
Cost: 1 focus point per rank per round.

SCOUT TALENT TREE
You have finely tuned senses, attentively surveying your surroundings.
Passive bonus: You gain a +2 bonus to Spot and Listen per rank.
Active bonus: You gain blindsense with a range of 5ft per rank.
Cost: 1 focus point per rank per round.

SHARPSHOOTER TALENT TREE
You have earned a reputation as a fearsome archer, inflicting deep wounds with your arrows.
Passive bonus: You deal +1 point bonus damage per rank when using a ranged weapon.
Active bonus: You deal +2 points bonus damage per rank when using a ranged weapon.
Cost: 1 focus point per rank per attack.

SNEAK TALENT TREE
You have mastered the art of exploiting unaware opponents' weaknesses in combat.
Passive bonus: You deal +1 point bonus damage per rank against flat-footed or unaware opponents.
Active bonus: You deal +2 points bonus damage per rank against flat-footed or unaware opponents.
Cost: 1 focus point per rank per attack.

SNIPER TALENT TREE
Your arrows strike true at ranges farther than anyone thought possible.
Passive bonus: You reduce range penalties by 1 point per rank.
Active bonus: You reduce range penalties by 2 points per rank.
Cost: 1 focus point per rank per attack.

TRAJECTORY TALENT TREE
You know how to fire your weapon at ranges thought impossible.
Passive bonus: You increase your weapon's first range increment by +5ft per rank.
Active bonus: You increase your weapon's first and last range increment each by +5ft per rank.
Cost:[/spoiler]

[spoiler=example classes]WARRIOR

Level 1:
- Destroyer
- Dreadnought
- Juggernaut
- Sharpshooter

Level 2:
- Battle Instinct
- Resistance
- Sniper

Level 3:
- Dervish
- Keen Eyed

Level 4:
- Crippling Strike
- Fearsome Brute

Level 5:
- Scout
- Sneak Attack



ARCHER

Level 1:
- Dervish
- Keen Eyed
- Sharpshooter
- Sniper

Level 2:
- Scout
- Sneak Attack
- Trajectory

Level 3:
- Juggernaut
- Resistance

Level 4:
- Battle Instinct
- Dreadnought

Level 5:
- Crippling Strike
- Piercing Shot[/spoiler]

I must say, I really do like a system where the classes directly give you skills. Also, instead of xp being gained from killing monsters, we could have requirements fufilled before you could gain a level. Like a theif would have succesfully picked so many pockets, opened so many chests, and sneak atk'd so many beings.

Quote from: Sir VorpalI must say, I really do like a system where the classes directly give you skills.

What do you mean? My suggestion borrowed from Earthdawn, or something else? In a way, I was trying something similar with the mechanics for the Worldgate Campaign Setting. Everything was based on skills: saves, fighting, spellcasting.

Quote from: Sir VorpalAlso, instead of xp being gained from killing monsters, we could have requirements fufilled before you could gain a level.

That may work for a computer game, but I don't think it would work in a PnP system. It would either cripple certain PCs, or force the DM to artificially modify his campaign to accomodate for each class's "advancement requirements".

Quote from: Sir VorpalLike a theif would have succesfully picked so many pockets, opened so many chests, and sneak atk'd so many beings.

If you have a campaign where an evil cleric is threatening the kingdom with his army of undead, there won't be much chance for sneak attacking in the major combats, and locks to pick may also be rare. On the other hand, in a game focussing primarily on social interaction, the bard would be WAY ahead of everyone, including levels, because a fighter or barbarian just cannot successfully make those checks often enough.

Given the situation and campaign, it could make advancement nigh impossible for certain classes, depending on how you word the prerequisites. Don't get me wrong, the idea has some appeal, but I think it's better left as an optional variant to qualify for feats and PrCs (see Test-based prerequisites (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/campaigns/testBasedPrerequisites.htm)).

Also, you would have to make advancement more and more difficult, as with each gained level certain tasks come more easy for the PCs (like using certain skills, or making attack rolls). This would lead to a non-linear advancement rate (eg, must do 5 "acts" to gain level 2, must do 7 "acts" to gain level 3, must do 9 "acts" to gain level 4, etc), which is imho one of the problems of DnD. I personally would want to keep everything as linear as possible (advancement, power gain, etc).

Additionally you would have to keep a close eye on possible abuse. Now, a "clever" rogue could possibly earn some levels by playing "tricks" on every commoner in each village the PCs run across. He would rob them blind, then show them "I bet I can take your ring without you even noticing...", thus easily fulfilling the level prerequisites and jumping ahead in the power curve. Similarily, spellcasters would probably advance by "casting spells", which becomes a little rediculous when in down time the wizard prepares prestidigitation 20 times and mage hand 15 times, just for the sake of levelling up.

Addendum: something I forgot in my previous posts is how many talents of a given rank you would need to have to increase a "circle". Assuming each class grants 4 talents at circle 1, 3 talents at circle 2, and 2 more talents at each subsequent circle up to 15 (which is close to how the system worked in Earthdawn), each class would offer a total of 4 + 3 + 13*2 = 33 talents. Therefore, the minimum requirements could look like the following.

[table=Circle advancement]
[tr][th]Circle[/th][th]total # of talents[/th][th]minimum # of talents for advancement[/th][th]minimum # of ranks in each talent for advancement[/th][/tr]
[tr][td]1[/td][td]4[/td][td]2[/td][td]4[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]2[/td][td]7[/td][td]4[/td][td]5[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]3[/td][td]9[/td][td]5[/td][td]6[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]4[/td][td]11[/td][td]6[/td][td]7[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]5[/td][td]13[/td][td]7[/td][td]8[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]6[/td][td]15[/td][td]8[/td][td]9[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]7[/td][td]17[/td][td]9[/td][td]10[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]8[/td][td]19[/td][td]10[/td][td]11[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]9[/td][td]21[/td][td]11[/td][td]12[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]10[/td][td]23[/td][td]12[/td][td]13[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]11[/td][td]25[/td][td]13[/td][td]14[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]12[/td][td]27[/td][td]14[/td][td]15[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]13[/td][td]29[/td][td]15[/td][td]16[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]14[/td][td]31[/td][td]16[/td][td]17[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]15[/td][td]33[/td][td]-[/td][td]-[/td][/tr]
[/table]

For example, if you are circle 1 you would need at least 2 talents with 4 ranks each to advance to circle 2. Or if you are circle 10 you would need at least 12 talents with 13 ranks each to advance to circle 11. Obviously, there are no more requirement after circle 14.

A mechanic like this would also take care of the problem of characters advancing too quickly if all costs scale linearily. If we make each rank cost a constant amount of IPs, eg 10, we could keep the advancement mechanics very simple compared to systems like GURPS or WoD. Assuming a constant gain of 25 IPs per session, it would take a character at least 4 sessions to advance from circle 1 to circle 2 (2 talents with 4 ranks == 80 IPs). However, it would take a character at least 8 sessions to advance from circle 8 to circle 9 (he has: 9 talents with 10 ranks each == 900, he needs: 10 talents with 11 ranks each == 1100, difference: 200). And finally, it would take a character at least 14 sessions to advance from circle 14 to circle 15 (he has: 15 talents with 16 ranks each == 2400, he needs: 16 talents with 17 ranks each == 2720, difference: 320).

Of course these numbers are open to tweaking and not perfectly accurate. But I hope I got the point across. ;)

I know there are possible problems if the maximum ranks wouldn't be capped somehow (like a circle 2 character running around with DR 40/-). The original Earthdawn didn't have a cap based on circle (but rather the maximum ranks for talents and skills was 15), and buying later ranks got increasingly more costly. We could make it so that the maximum rank any talent may have is circle + 3.

me votes for Classless/Talent System

OMG, brainstorm alert! All hands on battlestations! :o

Ok, just another idea we could work off. Instead of giving fixed effects (talent X grants bonus A, talent Y grants bonus B, etc), why not make a flexible system that gives you more options and flexibility in combat? I was thinking of a system that allows characters to build the bonuses they need as time arises, but requires a die roll, similar to a skill check. It would work similar to Ars Magica's spellcasting system.

The following is just a quick hackjob of example I'm wrestling from my brain while I try to prepare a short Shadowrun adventure for a local con in two day's time. :-/

[table=Combat Arts]
[tr][th]Technique[/th][/tr]
[tr][td]Block[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Dodge[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Jump[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Parry[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Run[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Sneak[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Strike[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Tumble[/td][/tr]
[tr][th]Form[/th][/tr]
[tr][td]Aggressive[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Defensive[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Determined[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Planning[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Stealthy[/td][/tr]
[/table]

The system would work like this. You'd have "ranks" in both techniques and forms, and you can combine them on the fly as you need. You would make a roll d20 + ranks in technique + ranks in form, and depending on the result you'd gain a certain benefit. For example, if you'd make an "aggressive sneake", you'd gain a variable amount of sneak attack for one round. A "defensive strike" would give you a fixed amount of AC bonus while substracting from your attack roll (think "Combat Expertise"), while a "determined block" would give you great bonuses to AC but restricted your movement somewhat.

I know that many things don't really make sense (what's a "planning tumble"?) and that others are redundant ("aggressive sneak" vs "stealthy strike"), but I hope I got the point and basic idea across. :)

I like it. We would have to figure out exactly what each one does, but that shouldn't be too hard.

I think the techniques should do something specific (ie, sneak attack, increase AC) and the forms have a benefit and a drawback, say defensive increases AC by X, but reduces your attack and damage by Y.

Quote from: Stargate525I like it. We would have to figure out exactly what each one does, but that shouldn't be too hard.

Thanks. Man, when I try to prepare adventures I get all those freaky ideas... :huh:

Quote from: Stargate525I think the techniques should do something specific (ie, sneak attack, increase AC) and the forms have a benefit and a drawback, say defensive increases AC by X, but reduces your attack and damage by Y.

Another idea. Instead of making "random" things, how about we concentrate on the basics that make up the d20 system?

[table=Combat Arts]
[tr][th]Technique[/th][/tr]
[tr][td]Aggressive[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Dextrous[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Enduring[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Cunning[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Insightful[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Determined[/td][/tr]
[tr][th]Form[/th][/tr]
[tr][td]Defense[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Endurance[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Resistance[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Run[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Skill[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Strike[/td][/tr]
[/table]
The techniques would be associated with the 6 abilities, while the forms would be associated with AC, DR, saves, speed, skill checks, and attack rolls. If you combine technique + form, you get a bonus based on your check result from the technique and an additional "always on" effect from the form for a single round.

For example:

Quote from:  d20 + 11, and - for example - get a total result of 23. Looking in the technique's description, a check result of 23 means I get my strength modifier + 2 as a bonus. Looking up the form's description, I can put the bonus either towards my attack roll or the damage roll.

We could also make feats like
[quoteCOMBAT ART FOCUS (GENERAL)
You are a specialist of employing a certain combat art.
Benefit: Select a single technique or form. You may use that art one more time per encounter.
Special: You can gain this feat multiple times. Its effects stack.

Just some more random thoughts. :P

This is looking good. I'm enjoying watching it unfold, haha.

Now now, we can't let this thing die, can we? :P Also, other people making suggestions and providing ideas would be a nice thing, too. ;)

So, what do you think of my ideas so far? Which do you like most, and why (speaking from a mechanical point of view). Any comments on the
- talent trees where characters must buy each talent seperately?
- talents where characters improve talents by putting ranks in them and only gain access to more talents with higher levels?
- free form Combat Arts system?

Quote from: Ra-TielNow now, we can't let this thing die, can we? :P Also, other people making suggestions and providing ideas would be a nice thing, too. ;)

So, what do you think of my ideas so far? Which do you like most, and why (speaking from a mechanical point of view). Any comments on the
- talent trees where characters must buy each talent seperately?
- talents where characters improve talents by putting ranks in them and only gain access to more talents with higher levels?
- free form Combat Arts system?

No, no we cant let this die, and i would be making sugestions if i had any.

I prefer talents to be gained seperately, where each talent has minimum requirements (skill ranks, previous talents, BAB, BMB etc...)that a character must meet before being able to select the talent, and where talents can only be gained by gaining levels.

Also it seems that the majority vote is for the classless/talent system, unless anyone changed their minds i think we can start hammering out the details.

free form combat arts is good. It would probably be simpler than the DnD combat system.

Quote from: ~Kalin~No, no we cant let this die, and i would be making sugestions if i had any.

I see. :)

On another note...
[ic=ALARM]All SG-Teams report for briefing immediately! The original poster has abandoned the thread and is supposed to held captive by Goa'Uld system lords![/ic] ;)

Quote from: ~Kalin~I prefer talents to be gained seperately, where each talent has minimum requirements (skill ranks, previous talents, BAB, BMB etc...)that a character must meet before being able to select the talent, and where talents can only be gained by gaining levels.

I see, and it definitively is a valid option. However, if you have talents that are very similar in their benefits (like eg increasing damage reduction, energy resistance, or damage boosts), it becomes sort of a mess. Think of the two-weapon fighting tree. All the feats are doing is slowly giving you as many offhand attacks as you have with your main hand.

Or we could make talents scale with level/circle/associated ability (BAB, BMB, saves, etc)/skill ranks, and so on. This would remove the need for repetitive write ups, and allow talents to become stronger as the character increases in level, and not be "dead ends" like most feats.

Quote from: ~Kalin~Also it seems that the majority vote is for the classless/talent system, unless anyone changed their minds i think we can start hammering out the details.

Just another idea: why not reduce everything to skills? It seems to work reasonably well with most other systems (WoD and its derivates, Shadowrun, Blue Planet, Fading Suns, etc). Also, it would introduce a tad more "realistic" character development, as characters only improve in that areas they train in (read: spend points on), instead of becoming automatically better across the board.

Quote from: Atlantisfree form combat arts is good. It would probably be simpler than the DnD combat system.

Well, the idea was meant as an alternative to various "talent trees", and to provide a more flexible and intuitive system for "special moves" for the system. I wonder how it would work out in game, actually...

Not captured, just out of ideas.

I'm amazed that you spell Gua'uld correctly.

as am i

Quote from: Stargate525Not captured, just out of ideas.

Ahh, ok. :)

Quote from: Stargate525I'm amazed that you spell Gua'uld correctly.

Is there another way to spell it? ;)

Quote from: Atlantisas am i

What? Out of ideas or amazed at my knowledge (nerd stuff) skill check result? :P

~~~

Anyways, some more ideas regarding "our" system.

#1: Remove ability scores.
It always bugged me that in DnD, odd ability scores were all but useless. IIRC, True20 and Blue Rose work only with modifiers, and I find that highly elegant, as it removes the situation where a player spends an ability increase on an ability and gains Zero(tm) benefit from it. Only working with the modifier would make each increase a significant gain, which is imho a good thing. Also, removing the score and only working with the modifier would reduce the amount of math (I know, it's only "(X-10)/2", but still) in the game and eliminate a source of possible confusion for newbies.

#2: Make everything a skill.
In normal DnD characters get better at resisting attacks and wielding weapons, even when they are stuck in a purely social campaign and do nothing else than making Spot and Diplomacy checks for decades. Not only is this a little unrealistic, but also removes a custom element from characters, as all fighters advance in combat ability at the same constant rate. Making everything a skill (including combat abilities and spellcasting) allows for a greater variety of builds and removes the need to optimize ("a good gish always has CL17 and BAB16").

#3: Saves as a skill.
Standard d20 assumes that characters have access to magic items and do stockpile those. If you make saves into a skill, the character becomes independent from magic items and has a decent chance of succeeding even against optimized builds. In normal DnD, even without magic items a character's weak saves are mostly useless against optimized save DCs. Also, if saves were skills you would elegantly remove the problem of autofailure against save-or-suffer effects. And learning to become better at resisting certain attacks is no more or less realistic than training one's visual senses to almost superhuman level, but merely an abstraction made by the mechanics.
[spoiler=Details]Even without magic items, an optimized wizard's Intelligence could be the following:
Base: 18
Race: +2
Level increases: +5
Total: 25/+7

Minimum save DC: 17+spell level, or 26 for a level 9 spell.

On the other hand, a weak save is often only marginally better than +6. Without magic items, most characters tend to optimize their strengths instead of minimizing their weaknesses (as DnD rewards strong offense rather than defense). Thus, a character without magic items has often only a 5-15% chance of succeeding on a save targetting its weak saving throw.[/spoiler]

#4: Perception skill instead of Spot/Listen.
As mentioned in another thread, the unique position Spot and Listen have as skills also rubs me the wrong way. A character dedicated to these skills can attain almost rediculous results (like perfectly understanding what people on the other side of a solid stone wall are saying, from 50ft away, while fighting with an assassin... :-/ ). On the other hand, characters not dedicated to these skills are effectively blind and deaf, as they don't have the skill points to spare. Also, the other senses are completely left out, which leads to two possible results. Either you'd have to make seperate skills for "Feel", "Smell", and "Taste", thus aggravating the "not enough skill points" problem even more. Or you'd have to handle those senses with simple Wis checks, which is a logical break in the mechanics, as one and the same thing (sensual input) is handled by two different mechanics.

#5: No hit points.
As already mentioned in this (http://thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?38162) thread, HP are an inherently problematic mechanic. Not only is it absolutely not realistic, it also doesn't make any sense ingame (see the "cleric healing some people" example in the other thread). HP may be an easy and suitable mechanic for a videogame, but imho they do nothing for a roleplaying system. A system where characters suffer wounds of varying intensity which are tracked and healed seperately is in my opinion much better, and easier to understand for newbies (most new players understand "you suffer a lethal wound" much better than "you take 5 points of damage").

Quote from: Ra-TielIs there another way to spell it? ;)

Guauld, Gold, Guuld, Guld...

None of them are correct, but still...

Quote from: Ra-Tiel#1: Remove ability scores.
It always bugged me that in DnD, odd ability scores were all but useless. IIRC, True20 and Blue Rose work only with modifiers, and I find that highly elegant, as it removes the situation where a player spends an ability increase on an ability and gains Zero(tm) benefit from it. Only working with the modifier would make each increase a significant gain, which is imho a good thing. Also, removing the score and only working with the modifier would reduce the amount of math (I know, it's only "(X-10)/2", but still) in the game and eliminate a source of possible confusion for newbies.

Or we could go the way of some other person on these boards (whose name escapes me), and make saves, attack, and damage go up on even, and everything else on odd. Also, there are a number of things we could attach to the raw score, should we wish to.

Quote from: Ra-Tiel#2: Make everything a skill.
In normal DnD characters get better at resisting attacks and wielding weapons, even when they are stuck in a purely social campaign and do nothing else than making Spot and Diplomacy checks for decades. Not only is this a little unrealistic, but also removes a custom element from characters, as all fighters advance in combat ability at the same constant rate. Making everything a skill (including combat abilities and spellcasting) allows for a greater variety of builds and removes the need to optimize ("a good gish always has CL17 and BAB16").

A good idea, but I'm curious to see how you would balance this.

Quote from: Ra-Tiel#3: Saves as a skill.
Standard d20 assumes that characters have access to magic items and do stockpile those. If you make saves into a skill, the character becomes independent from magic items and has a decent chance of succeeding even against optimized builds. In normal DnD, even without magic items a character's weak saves are mostly useless against optimized save DCs. Also, if saves were skills you would elegantly remove the problem of autofailure against save-or-suffer effects. And learning to become better at resisting certain attacks is no more or less realistic than training one's visual senses to almost superhuman level, but merely an abstraction made by the mechanics.

That's a flaw of the saves vs. DC system in D&D, not ours. Making them a skill makes them even easier to increase, as skill bonuses work differently under the current magic ruleset. The autofailure is, again, something we don't have to port over. Again, a good idea in practice, but I'm interested to see the balancing issue.

Quote from: Ra-Tiel#4: Perception skill instead of Spot/Listen.
As mentioned in another thread, the unique position Spot and Listen have as skills also rubs me the wrong way. A character dedicated to these skills can attain almost rediculous results (like perfectly understanding what people on the other side of a solid stone wall are saying, from 50ft away, while fighting with an assassin... :-/ ). On the other hand, characters not dedicated to these skills are effectively blind and deaf, as they don't have the skill points to spare. Also, the other senses are completely left out, which leads to two possible results. Either you'd have to make seperate skills for "Feel", "Smell", and "Taste", thus aggravating the "not enough skill points" problem even more. Or you'd have to handle those senses with simple Wis checks, which is a logical break in the mechanics, as one and the same thing (sensual input) is handled by two different mechanics.

Agreed. Wholeheartedly.

Quote from: Ra-Tiel#5: No hit points.
As already mentioned in this (http://thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?38162) thread, HP are an inherently problematic mechanic. Not only is it absolutely not realistic, it also doesn't make any sense ingame (see the "cleric healing some people" example in the other thread). HP may be an easy and suitable mechanic for a videogame, but imho they do nothing for a roleplaying system. A system where characters suffer wounds of varying intensity which are tracked and healed seperately is in my opinion much better, and easier to understand for newbies (most new players understand "you suffer a lethal wound" much better than "you take 5 points of damage").

I disagree on your example. For me, knowing that I was nearly halfway dead was rather nice, and anyone with simple subtraction skills can use this system without difficulty.

I fail to see how a system where every sword cut, hammer smash, and bruise is to be tracked separately, with its own modifiers to actions, is 'easier for newbies.' Imperics man, imperics!

Quote from: Stargate525Or we could go the way of some other person on these boards (whose name escapes me), and make saves, attack, and damage go up on even, and everything else on odd. Also, there are a number of things we could attach to the raw score, should we wish to.

I think that was me. :D In an earlier version of the Worldgate Setting I had thought about the idea of introducing a "primary modifier" added to the combat relevant stuff (attack rolls, damage, saves, spells) that is calculated by "(score - 10) / 2, round down" and a "secondary modifier" added to the skills that is calculated by "(score - 10) / 2, round up".

Quote from: Stargate525A good idea, but I'm curious to see how you would balance this.

I guess you're referring to combat, right? Well, first off: remove the static AC. If we used a combat defense system where characters can actively decide their terms of defense against an attack (parry, dodge, block, soak up with armor), and base those defenses also on skills, there wouldn't be a problem with the slighly higher attack bonuses.

Quote from: Stargate525That's a flaw of the saves vs. DC system in D&D, not ours. Making them a skill makes them even easier to increase, as skill bonuses work differently under the current magic ruleset. The autofailure is, again, something we don't have to port over. Again, a good idea in practice, but I'm interested to see the balancing issue.

Well, but if you don't have any magic items... ;) Also, my ideas work under the assumption that we don't just want to copy/paste the SRD with some minor modifications. Removing that "christmas tree" thing from characters is imho a very good thing, and if that means to drastically increase the base saves, so be it! :P

Quote from: Stargate525Agreed. Wholeheartedly.

And one more step towards worlddomination, BWUAHAHAHA... ahem... I mean... :shy:

Quote from: Stargate525I disagree on your example. For me, knowing that I was nearly halfway dead was rather nice, and anyone with simple subtraction skills can use this system without difficulty.

Well, but it really kills supposedly dangerous situations. Once a level 7 wizard I played was attacked by an orc with a falcion. Even if the orc had landed a critical hit and rolled maximum damage, he could never have possibly killed me. And the next round, I could have automatically succeeded on casting defensively and automatically killed the orc with a magic missile. My character was never in real danger, and that scene was quite hard for me to roleplay because I exactly knew I couldn't die.

Quote from: Stargate525I fail to see how a system where every sword cut, hammer smash, and bruise is to be tracked separately, with its own modifiers to actions, is 'easier for newbies.' Imperics man, imperics!

Well, it is easy. You basically make a list, tracking each wound of a given intensity with a simple mark and adding up the wound penalties. ;)

Quote from: Ra-TielWell, it is easy. You basically make a list, tracking each wound of a given intensity with a simple mark and adding up the wound penalties. ;)

I can see it now...

"Okay, we've been fighting the orcs in the seige for five hours now, I roll for damage..."

"Did you apply your 23 wounds to the attack? How about that paper cut you got three weeks ago that's been festering? Did you roll to see if they've become infected?"

Quote from: Stargate525I can see it now...

"Okay, we've been fighting the orcs in the seige for five hours now, I roll for damage..."

"Did you apply your 23 wounds to the attack? How about that paper cut you got three weeks ago that's been festering? Did you roll to see if they've become infected?"

:D Lol!

Anyways, even if all 23 wounds were light wounds, they'd (in the system I'm thinking of) impose a cumulative -1 penalty per wound. And with a -23 penalty I think most characters won't do anything anytime soon. And I wouldn't make rolls for wounds to see if they become infested. After all, I'm not trying to copy Rolemaster or Hârnmaster. :P

if we did make everything into a skill such as BAB, saves etc would they still incure the usuall 3+level cap?

Hey R.T., I just thought of a way we could mitigate the above type of ridiculousness.

We have a number of different levels of a wound, say five, ranging from minor to serious. Each one has a penalty, as well as a point value.

The point value accumulates against a character's attribute(I'm suggesting something with constitution) that represents his ability to take damage, we'll call it toughness.

Each wound controls the penalties you take, but your points left in toughness represent how close you are to unconsciousness/death.

What's your thoughts?

Quote from: Stargate525[...] What's your thoughts?

Could you perhaps give an example for your mechanics?

Sure.

Lets say that I'm Bob, the 16th level fighter. My toughness is... 7(3), lets say.

Now this is conjecture, as we don't have points down, but still.

I could take 14 minor wounds, each at 1/2 points, before falling unconscious. if I've only got thirteen, I'll have a -13 to my attacks, damage, etc.

I could take 7 minor wounds a 1 point each... etc. That second number is the threshold between unconscious and dead, still in the points.

This only makes sense if the points and the negatives scale differently, as I believe they should.

Did that help, at all?

Quote from: Stargate525[...] Did that help, at all?

It did, but this system has the same flaw as HP: "oh, no worries, it'll take the orc 5 more hits like that to drop me". Also, it again has the side effect that punching a guy three times in the face brings him equally close to death/unconsciousness as stabbing him in the tummy with a dagger.

Quote from: Ra-Tiel

Quote from: Stargate525[...] Did that help, at all?

It did, but this system has the same flaw as HP: "oh, no worries, it'll take the orc 5 more hits like that to drop me". Also, it again has the side effect that punching a guy three times in the face brings him equally close to death/unconsciousness as stabbing him in the tummy with a dagger.

Well, then how does YOUR system control when you get knocked out/dead? Any system that isn't arbitrary will have the first side effect, simply because it uses numbers. The second problem also occurs with a numeric system. However, getting 'stabbed in the tummy with a dagger,' while bringing you the same distance to unconsciousness as three solid punches, will most likely impose a far more significant penalty.

Basically, in this system, you'll want to take several smaller wounds than one large one.

Quote from: Stargate525Well, then how does YOUR system control when you get knocked out/dead? Any system that isn't arbitrary will have the first side effect, simply because it uses numbers. The second problem also occurs with a numeric system. However, getting 'stabbed in the tummy with a dagger,' while bringing you the same distance to unconsciousness as three solid punches, will most likely impose a far more significant penalty.

Basically, in this system, you'll want to take several smaller wounds than one large one.

I was thinking along the lines of something similar to this from that thread (http://thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?38162):

Quote from:  EDR < 2*DT: target suffers moderate wound
- 2*DT <= EDR < 3*DT: target suffers serious wound
- 3*DT <= EDR: target suffers critical wound
#3: Apply appropriate wound penalties:
- light wound: cumulative -1 penalty per wound to all checks
- moderate wound: cumulative -2 penalty per wound to all checks, Will save against DC = EDR or become sickened for 1 minute
- serious wound: cumulative -4 penalty per wound to all checks, Will save against DC = EDR or become nauseated for 1 minute
- critical wound: cumulative -8 penalty per wound to all checks, Fort save against DC = EDR or become dying, Will save against DC = EDR or fall unconscious for 1 hour[/quoteI know there are some problems associated with such a system as well, but I think it would work out rather nicely and provide a much more "realistic" and less abstract (because inherently more understandable) system than HP.

Quote from: Ra-TielI was thinking along the lines of something similar to this from that thread (http://thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?38162):

Quote from:  EDR < 2*DT: target suffers moderate wound
- 2*DT <= EDR < 3*DT: target suffers serious wound
- 3*DT <= EDR: target suffers critical wound
#3: Apply appropriate wound penalties:
- light wound: cumulative -1 penalty per wound to all checks
- moderate wound: cumulative -2 penalty per wound to all checks, Will save against DC = EDR or become sickened for 1 minute
- serious wound: cumulative -4 penalty per wound to all checks, Will save against DC = EDR or become nauseated for 1 minute
- critical wound: cumulative -8 penalty per wound to all checks, Fort save against DC = EDR or become dying, Will save against DC = EDR or fall unconscious for 1 hour[/quoteThat's insane. You've got the opposite problem that my system supposedly has; No matter how long a pack of thugs wails on you, if you're significantly tougher than they are, you'll NEVER DIE.

Quote from: Stargate525That's insane.

Thank you! I see my wisdom is finally spreading. :D (Take a look at my title I got on the WotC boards. ;) )

Quote from: Stargate525You've got the opposite problem that my system supposedly has; No matter how long a pack of thugs wails on you, if you're significantly tougher than they are, you'll NEVER DIE.

That could be "easily" avoided by applying the wound penalties to the character's DT. However, this would have some other complications in return, and so far I haven't found an optimal solution to this conundrum... :-/

you know, we also need to take into account that if you get a serious enough wound you would get damage over time due to bleeding.

Quote from: Atlantisyou know, we also need to take into account that if you get a serious enough wound you would get damage over time due to bleeding.

That would be taken care of by critical wounds. Notice that you don't automatically fall unconscious from a critical wound, and you neither become automatically dying. So, you could be conscious but bleed to death slowly, or be not at risk to die but fall unconsciouos.

Well, we obviously can't use your system until you figure out a solution to the 'strongman can't die' scenario.

Quote from: Stargate525Well, we obviously can't use your system until you figure out a solution to the 'strongman can't die' scenario.

But that doesn't stop us from continuing making suggestions and collecting ideas for the CBS, does it? ;)

Quote from: Ra-Tiel#2: Make everything a skill.
In normal DnD characters get better at resisting attacks and wielding weapons, even when they are stuck in a purely social campaign and do nothing else than making Spot and Diplomacy checks for decades. Not only is this a little unrealistic, but also removes a custom element from characters, as all fighters advance in combat ability at the same constant rate. Making everything a skill (including combat abilities and spellcasting) allows for a greater variety of builds and removes the need to optimize ("a good gish always has CL17 and BAB16").

#3: Saves as a skill.
Standard d20 assumes that characters have access to magic items and do stockpile those. If you make saves into a skill, the character becomes independent from magic items and has a decent chance of succeeding even against optimized builds. In normal DnD, even without magic items a character's weak saves are mostly useless against optimized save DCs. Also, if saves were skills you would elegantly remove the problem of autofailure against save-or-suffer effects. And learning to become better at resisting certain attacks is no more or less realistic than training one's visual senses to almost superhuman level, but merely an abstraction made by the mechanics.
[spoiler=Details]Even without magic items, an optimized wizard's Intelligence could be the following:
Base: 18
Race: +2
Level increases: +5
Total: 25/+7

Minimum save DC: 17+spell level, or 26 for a level 9 spell.

On the other hand, a weak save is often only marginally better than +6. Without magic items, most characters tend to optimize their strengths instead of minimizing their weaknesses (as DnD rewards strong offense rather than defense). Thus, a character without magic items has often only a 5-15% chance of succeeding on a save targetting its weak saving throw.[/spoiler]

Well we were discussing making max skill ranks, BAB, BMB, and saves all run off the same formula (poor=1-11, average=2=17, good=4-23.) so i dont see any real differnce in turning BAB, BMB and saves into skills themselves if we stick with the layman, expert and master skill profiencies. But having no actual experience in a game where the above was turned into skills i was wondering if there were any adverse effects that could come about?

Quote from: ~Kalin~Well we were discussing making max skill ranks, BAB, BMB, and saves all run off the same formula (poor=1-11, average=2=17, good=4-23.)

Yes, that was the initial idea on my part. However, I've stumbled upon a massive problem. This system may work for levels 1-20, but afterwards it falls apart. It suffers an aggravated form of the same problem which led WotC to make "Epic Attack Bonus" and "Epic Base Save Bonus" instead of simply continuing the normal progression.

The progressions would be like this:
# poor: level*1/2 + 1
# average: level*3/4 + 2
# good: level + 3

Now, imagine a level 40 character. He'd have a max score of 21 in his poor skills and a max score of 43 in his good skills. That means, that a character with a "poor" melee skill can (ignoring ability modifiers and magic bonuses for the moment) never parry a blow of someone with a "good" melee skill. Same thing goes for saves, opposed skill checks, etc. And that's bad. One character will never fail his save against a poison, while the other character will always fail his save against the same poison, no matter what either character rolls on the d20.

Another idea would be to make the progressions use the same factor, but add different bonuses afterwards. Example:
# poor: level*1/2 + 1
# average: level*1/2 + 4
# good: level+1/2 + 7

This would keep the maximum different constant at 6 points, which is 30%. There is no level at which characters would fall that much apart from each other in their maximum bonuses that the d20 becomes irrelevant. Also, this would give a whole new meaning to the Skill Focus feat, which would effectively upgrade one single skill by one category.

Quote from: ~Kalin~so i dont see any real differnce in turning BAB, BMB and saves into skills themselves if we stick with the layman, expert and master skill profiencies.

I don't see any difference either. However, we'd have to consider the number of proficiencies we would give to characters. Also, I'm still favoring one single save skill instead of one. After all, saves other than Reflexes almost always fall into the category of "save or suck", which is not really fun for the players. Nobody enjoys his character getting easily dominated (*cough*fighters, rogues*cough*) or being dropped by ability damage or negative levels like there'S no tomorrow (*cough*rogues, arcane casters*cough*). In the end, we play a rpg to be the heroes, not some schmock betting his ass handed to him. And anyways, in Iron Heroes all characters have their base saves equal to their current level, and it doesn't exactly break the game because the default setting for IH is very low on magic items.

Quote from: ~Kalin~But having no actual experience in a game where the above was turned into skills i was wondering if there were any adverse effects that could come about?

The first levels would probably be the most problematic ones. If we used the alternative progressions from above, a starting character could have an attack bonus of 7(skill)+3(str)+3(skill focus) = +13(total). Same goes for other skills, like Open Lock, Diplomacy, and so on. However, from that point on the advancement would only come in small steps, effectively increasing the total modifier by +1 every second level. To counteract this "problem" in combat, we could make it so that "Close combat" and "Ranged combat" refer to a single weapon group only. So, the example character from above could have "Close combat (swords)" at +13, but his "Ranged combat (bows)" would be effectively his Dex - 4, which would be kinda realistic (having been in the German military I know how to operate pistols, rifles, SMGs, MGs, and rocket launchers, but I absolutely have no idea how to use a AA-gun, or a tank, or an artillery cannon) and make fighters specialize in a few selected weapons.

Quick overview of the system for Damage used by the Hero System:

Two types of "HP": Body and Stun.

Stun values are considerably higher than body, for simplicity I'll say a character has 30 stun and  10 body.

 Stun
Non-lethal attacks deal large amounts of stun and very small (if any) amounts of body.

 For Example: Jimmy punches Bobby in the face, dealing 5 stun and 1 body.

When a character hits 0 stun, the character is unconscious. Both these values are mitigated by armor and the character's toughness.

 For Example: Jimmy punches Bobby, but this time, Bobby is wearing a hockey helmet. Jimmy's punch does no body at all, and only 2 stun.

 Body
Now, more lethal attacks, like sword slashes, do large amounts of body as well as stun.

 For Example: Bobby pulls out a gun and shoots Jimmy in the gut, doing 8 body and 24 stun.

Unlike stun, at 0 body a character is not dead. At 0 body, a character is no longer able to act (though may be conscious, if the stun is still in the positives: Note that this is unlikely). A character does not die until he reaches a negative value of stun equal to the maximum positive value. This sounds complicated, but isn't.

If the character has 10 body, the character dies at -10 body. If the character has 15 body, the character dies at -15 body.

Typically, lethal attacks have a "stun multiplier", allowing the character to just roll body damage, then multiply it to figure stun damage. This can be done on a hit-location table, or just randomly decided (usually 1d4 rolled alongside damage).

Personally, I like this system because it allows characters (especially good ones) to focus on knocking out enemies without being punished for it.

Quote from: psychoticbarberQuick overview of the system for Damage used by the Hero System: [...]

Interesting. But alas, it has the same flaws as HP. Punching someone repeatedly in the face is piling up penalties as if the person was shot right in the chest with a shotgun. There is no difference to the system if someone was shot with a large-caliber rifle, or punched half a dozen times in the face and got stabbed in the leg.

But other than that, it's a nice system. I especially like that each attack does both, body and stun damage. Consider this idea borrowed. :D :P

Quote from: Ra-TielInteresting. But alas, it has the same flaws as HP. Punching someone repeatedly in the face is piling up penalties as if the person was shot right in the chest with a shotgun. There is no difference to the system if someone was shot with a large-caliber rifle, or punched half a dozen times in the face and got stabbed in the leg.

But other than that, it's a nice system. I especially like that each attack does both, body and stun damage. Consider this idea borrowed. :D :P

Your system has the same flaw, and I'm betting that any numeric system will as well.

Quote from: Stargate525Your system has the same flaw, and I'm betting that any numeric system will as well.

Not really. It's true that the wounds' penalties will add up. But think about it, have you ever tried doing something with two deep cuts across your chest, with a broken ankle, and a burnt face? I rather guess not. ;)

The actual lethality, however, does not add up. A character can have an almost infinite number of minor and moderate wounds without his ability to survive a critical wound being impaired. A guy with a broken leg is actually just as likely to survive a gun shot to the chest as a completely healthy and uninjured person.

The system described by psychoticbarber does not seem to implement that. From how I understood it, Body and Stun points worked more or less like normal HP, tracking each hit until either score reached 0 (or its negative maximum).

Quote from: Ra-TielA guy with a broken leg is actually just as likely to survive a gun shot to the chest as a completely healthy and uninjured person.

Except, you know, shock...

Quote from: Stargate525Except, you know, shock...

Which is handled by the mechanics of the wound that caused the shock. If you break your leg, there are several possible outcomes. One would be nothing else really happens, it's just a world of pain every time you move your leg. Another one could be that a small bone fragment rips open your main leg artery and causes you to quickly bleed to death. However, neither outcome influences the chances of you dying when someone puts a 9mm round into your chest. Both wounds are inherently seperate from each other, and while their consequences may stack with each other, none of them has a direct influence on the other's lethality.

That's ridiculous.

That's like saying you died from a shot to the arm, and nevermind the other six shots you've taken.

Quote from: Ra-Tiel

Quote from: psychoticbarberQuick overview of the system for Damage used by the Hero System: [...]

Interesting. But alas, it has the same flaws as HP. Punching someone repeatedly in the face is piling up penalties as if the person was shot right in the chest with a shotgun. There is no difference to the system if someone was shot with a large-caliber rifle, or punched half a dozen times in the face and got stabbed in the leg.

Well, true gritty realism is possible under the system too, but personally I find tracking those kinds of things boring and time-consuming, not to mention my own particular love of heroism over realism ;)

Quote from: Stargate525That's ridiculous.

That's like saying you died from a shot to the arm, and nevermind the other six shots you've taken.

Your point of view is equally ridiculous. You basically say that punching someone 5 times in the face is equally lethal than stabbing him in the guts, or shooting him in the chest. Wow, it's really a wonder that bar brawls don't turn into slaughterfests repeatedly.  :roll:

HEY!!

Neither one of you is ridiculous.  You're both trying to hammer out a better system.
(I hate coming over to this thread.  It's the only thread as confusing as that idiotic Celtricia mish-mash...)

I think the stun and body system is good, except that the affect of shock, concussive repetition, and punch-drunkenness are not taken into account enough.  The issue you both have is you are both taking an extreme position in your 'how does 2 broken legs affect a slug to the chest' example.  
And the reasopn you are both having a problem is you are looking for 'what affect is going to happen' as opposed to 'what affect could happen'.

What I mean by this is that people do die from getting punched in the face too much.  But people do survive being shot in the chest as well.  The comment was made that a guy with a broken leg has the same chance to survive a gunshot to the chest as an uninjured person, and the rejoinder was a question about the affects of shock.  
So your system is fine as long as you set up some kind of a fortitude save and penalty for becoming disconcerted, punch-drunk, or slipping into shock.  This might even allow you to reduce the bonuses to HP (and get a slightly more realistic game) as someone fortitude will affect how they handle a wound as wellas how many wounds they can take.

what if we take the stun and body setup, but put in a save whose Dc increases for each successive wound?

that's on the right path, i think.

i have a question to adress us all with: If someone goes into shock, how will that be dealt with, and how do we determine if someone goes into shock?(i know we already talked a tad about shock, but we didnt go into detail)

The "problem" is, how realistic do we want the system to be? Do we want a system where every attack bears the (although by armor and personal toughness probably highly reduced) risk of being lethal, or do we want a system where a character needs to be shot three times in the torso to finally die?

I know that people can die from seemingly innocent injuries and others survive horrible wounds. But that's just the point: the guy who dies from a punch to the face suffered a critical wound and failed his resistance check, while a guy that survived a gun shot wound in the chest "only" suffered a serious wound (or a cricial wound and made his check). That's the very reason why I absolutely abhor hit-location systems. In 99.999% of those systems, hits to the arms or legs are always more or less harmless, while hits on the head and center torso are usually always lethal. Regarding this assumption, I'll just point to this (http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_1306055.html). It always matters what is damaged, not where the attack lands.

Also, I think we have 2 incompatible stances regarding the actual application of damage. I personally prefer "grim'n'gritty" systems where - very similar to real life - [unarmored and untrained] people die when the lead starts flying, and injuries are to be taken seriously, putting a character out of business for possibly weeks or months. Remember my example with my wizard and the orc some time ago? How in all hells would you roleplay a generally dangerous situation where you exactly know that your character cannot die in one round because he has X amount of HP? Of course HP are a very easy mechanic, but it sacrifices almost anything of realism, elegance, and reliability. I just find it hard to keep suspension of disbelief when that dragon's been chewing on the fighter for 3 rounds, while being able to break a tank in two with just a single bite. Luck and combat experience only goes so far, and HP past level 10 push it too far.

I'm not saying that the Body/Stun system is bad. Actually, I find it much better than standard HP (less points to wade through, each physical attack also deals stun damage, reliable way to deal nonlethal damage). But it still is unrealistic, and has the "no worries, I can take another wound like that and it'll be gone by friday" problem (from what I've read so far).

Also, every HP system I know has the inconsistency regarding damage. How would you describe a level 1 wizard with Con 10 getting hit for 20 damage? How would you describe a level 20 barbarian with Con 28 getting hit for 20 damage? See my point? Blows with exactly the same force/intensity are treated in multiple different ways, which is imho very inelegant and inconsistant.

Anyways, I retain my stance that a non-HP mechanic would be better for the system. It actually encourages more thinking on the players' part as they can't assume that their XYZ HP will get threm through every battle, it will encourage more realistic actions because combat is dangerous even to hardened veterans (come on, a level 20 paladin or barbarian could eliminate whole goblin tribes by himself!), and it will be easier to understand for new players as they know from real life that knifes/guns/grenades are fucking dangerous (and not just "what does '5 damage' mean?").

Okay, this looks less and less like an hp problem than it looks like a DAMAGE problem.

Let's give everyone 100 hitpoints. That's it. Now, if we scale the damage of the different weapons to this system, a 5hp wound is the same across the board. What the difference is is how much damage you do at a particular level, and how that damage is reduced via defense, dodging, and similar.

Quote from: Stargate525Okay, this looks less and less like an hp problem than it looks like a DAMAGE problem.

Let's give everyone 100 hitpoints. That's it. Now, if we scale the damage of the different weapons to this system, a 5hp wound is the same across the board. What the difference is is how much damage you do at a particular level, and how that damage is reduced via defense, dodging, and similar.

Sounds like the 8-stat system I'm working on. All peoples have 20hp, and if you loose it, you are out of the fight. 20 luck damage means you fall into an open sewer, 20 stabbing damage means you got stabbed in the face, and 20 fire damage means you're dinner. A mix of fire, stabbing and luck damage means that you've lost blood enough blood and accumulated enough trauma from burns that a simply tripping on your belt buckle knocks you out of the fight.

Quote from: Stargate525Okay, this looks less and less like an hp problem than it looks like a DAMAGE problem.

Let's give everyone 100 hitpoints. That's it. Now, if we scale the damage of the different weapons to this system, a 5hp wound is the same across the board. What the difference is is how much damage you do at a particular level, and how that damage is reduced via defense, dodging, and similar.

However, this throws the problem that everyone can take exactly the same amount of damage before going down - from the barely visible mosquito to the commoner to the dire hog to the ogre to the great red wyrm. It's basically what Shadowrun did in its early (pre 4e) versions, and that was the source of quite some heated debates. Also, you'd have to make attacks deal an insane amount of base damage (30++). If you didn't you wouldn't actually solve anything but give every character the HP of a level 10 barbarian.

The problem is actually quite easy to identify, and I already gave my analysis about it in the "Hit Points and Verisimilitude: How important?" thread. The problem mainly occurs when characters can take a fixed, static, predefined amount of damage before going down. It makes combat calculatable (is that even a word?). In such systems, damage is not static. A wound of a given intensity (amount of damage) has not the same consequences for different characters ("20 damage vs level 1 wizard, 20 damage vs level 20 barbarian"). This is the central point. If you think about it, the wound form a large caliber handgun is equally dangerous for the trained US marine as it is to the frail dancer.

To make a system remotely realistic, you'd have to change it around: damage is fixed and static, while the amount of injuries a character can take is morphic and variable. A blow dealing 8 points of damage should (ideally) be equally important to a level 1 character as to a level 20 character. That'd be the first big step. The second step would be to avoid "wound stacking". The system would have to track each wound seperately. The argument that it would become too complicated is a non-issue, as a few wounds would be sufficient to put most characters out of comission anyways.

So, what should the ideal system look like? First, damage should be static while a PC's actual damage capacity is unpredictable and variable. A player should never be able to say "oh, that's nothing, I can take three more of those wounds without problems". Second, wounds should not stack. No WoD/Exalted like wound track, where punching a guy 7 times in the face hard is equal to running him through with a sword. No DnD like HP mechanic, where blows are actually utterly irrelevant until you get dropped to below 0. Third, damage should be abstract, therefore no hit location mechanic. As said earlier, it's important what gets damaged, not where the blow lands. A hit location system not only cuts into the DM's freedom of description, but also almost always makes blows to the head instantly lethal.

As a final note, the system suggested by Stargate has the same "ironman" problem he critized with my own previously made suggestion. There will be some kind of combination of armor, feats, ability scores, etc that makes a character basically immune to any attacks with a damage of X points or less. However, I think I have an idea to solve that. If I may forward you to my ideas for the Tri20 system. Skills work quite differently there, and a similar mechanic could be used for damage. Each check results in an "action value" ("check result - 10" for skill checks, "check result" for attribute checks). Now, if damage had also an "action value" and that value determined the wound intensity there possibly could be a way to make it work. *too tired to think right now* Hmmm....

Quote from: Ra-TielHowever, this throws the problem that everyone can take exactly the same amount of damage before going down - from the barely visible mosquito to the commoner to the dire hog to the ogre to the great red wyrm. It's basically what Shadowrun did in its early (pre 4e) versions, and that was the source of quite some heated debates. Also, you'd have to make attacks deal an insane amount of base damage (30++). If you didn't you wouldn't actually solve anything but give every character the HP of a level 10 barbarian.

Er, no. Using your example, let's say Bob the commoner hits each of your critters with a hammer.

The mosquito will take some exorbitant amount of damage (probably in the mid-hundreds) and die, because he's itsy bitsy and has nothing to him.

The Commoner might take 30-50 damage, a serious abrasion, maybe a cracked bone.

The hog would be 20-30, the ogre lower than 20, and the dragon probably nothing (because I'm sorry, a HAMMER won't do squat against him).  

You're too close to D&D. The 'hitpoints of a level 10 barbarian' means nothing here. Everyone has 100 hitpoints. Size becomes a much bigger factor, as does armor. Your level  20 barbarian might be harder to hit, but unless he has magic or similar, he'll still be taken down by a sword thrust to the gut if he has no armor.

As it looks right now, weapons in this system will probably have a multiplier, and the character would use their strength or similar.

The thing you're missing is that these 'hitpoints' are not denoting the same amount of 'life' (for lack of a better word) in every creature. It's simply 1/100th of the punishment you can take before dying.  

Quote from: Ra-TielThe problem mainly occurs when characters can take a fixed, static, predefined amount of damage before going down. It makes combat calculatable (is that even a word?). In such systems, damage is not static.

And again, if you're using numbers in your health system, YOU WILL BE ABLE TO TELL WHEN YOU ARE AT HALF HEALTH.

Quote from: Ra-TielA wound of a given intensity (amount of damage) has not the same consequences for different characters ("20 damage vs level 1 wizard, 20 damage vs level 20 barbarian"). This is the central point. If you think about it, the wound form a large caliber handgun is equally dangerous for the trained US marine as it is to the frail dancer.

Your wrong, the damage is static, the HITPOINTS are not.

The problem is your hitpoints (ability to take damage) scales up. My system doesn't do that.

Quote from: Ra-TielTo make a system remotely realistic, you'd have to change it around: damage is fixed and static, while the amount of injuries a character can take is morphic and variable. A blow dealing 8 points of damage should (ideally) be equally important to a level 1 character as to a level 20 character.

Hey look, when everyone has 100 hitpoints, 8 damage shows the same relative injury ACROSS THE BOARD.

Quote from: Ra-TielThat'd be the first big step. The second step would be to avoid "wound stacking". The system would have to track each wound separately. The argument that it would become too complicated is a non-issue, as a few wounds would be sufficient to put most characters out of comission anyways.

Bull. Your great Wyrm dragon will die from the bloodloss of a hundred rapier stabs (100 injuries dealing 1 damage) as it will from the massive concussion of 2 huge ballista bolts (2 wounds dealing 50 damage). You still have to track each of those separately.

The nice thing about my system is, that if you're still hellbent on tracking each one individually, you can assign specific damage thresholds, both for health remaining and damage taken in a swing, and they'll apply correctly to every creature that uses the system.

Quote from: Ra-TielSo, what should the ideal system look like? First, damage should be static while a PC's actual damage capacity is unpredictable and variable. A player should never be able to say "oh, that's nothing, I can take three more of those wounds without problems".

But don't you do that all the time in real life? Just the other day I got hit by a baseball. I knew I could take three more without problems. Why can't the PCs do the same? And if the character's ability to take damage is variable, you're saying he could be hit with five gunshots and live, while taking one in a few months and dying? How is that static damage? It was the same gunshots!

Quote from: Ra-TielSecond, wounds should not stack. No WoD/Exalted like wound track, where punching a guy 7 times in the face hard is equal to running him through with a sword.

With damage thresholds and damage penaties, as touched upon above, this won't be a problem. You do agree though, that two sword-stabbings of equal damage should stack, correct? Else I wish you best of luck in this.

Quote from: Ra-TielNo DnD like HP mechanic, where blows are actually utterly irrelevant until you get dropped to below 0.

Again, damage thresholds will cover general 'beaten up,' and specific wound penalties will cover the massive lung collapse.

Quote from: Ra-TielThird, damage should be abstract, therefore no hit location mechanic. As said earlier, it's important what gets damaged, not where the blow lands. A hit location system not only cuts into the DM's freedom of description, but also almost always makes blows to the head instantly lethal.

Agreed.

Quote from: Ra-TielAs a final note, the system suggested by Stargate has the same "ironman" problem he critized with my own previously made suggestion. There will be some kind of combination of armor, feats, ability scores, etc that makes a character basically immune to any attacks with a damage of X points or less.

Which is true in any system. I'm sorry, but that's how it is. If I'm a dragon, clad in full plate, with scales of iron underneath that and the magical ability to regenerate small wounds, I should not, will not, or realistically be taking damage measured in 1/100ths of my total from the guy trying to kill me with a hammer.

Quote from: Ra-TielHowever, I think I have an idea to solve that. If I may forward you to my ideas for the Tri20 system. Skills work quite differently there, and a similar mechanic could be used for damage. Each check results in an "action value" ("check result - 10" for skill checks, "check result" for attribute checks). Now, if damage had also an "action value" and that value determined the wound intensity there possibly could be a way to make it work. *too tired to think right now* Hmmm....

Confused. Post with examples, then I'll proceed to tear it apart.

Quote from: Stargate525Er, no. Using your example, let's say Bob the commoner hits each of your critters with a hammer.

The mosquito will take some exorbitant amount of damage (probably in the mid-hundreds) and die, because he's itsy bitsy and has nothing to him.

The Commoner might take 30-50 damage, a serious abrasion, maybe a cracked bone.

The hog would be 20-30, the ogre lower than 20, and the dragon probably nothing (because I'm sorry, a HAMMER won't do squat against him).  

You're too close to D&D. The 'hitpoints of a level 10 barbarian' means nothing here. Everyone has 100 hitpoints. Size becomes a much bigger factor, as does armor. Your level  20 barbarian might be harder to hit, but unless he has magic or similar, he'll still be taken down by a sword thrust to the gut if he has no armor.

As it looks right now, weapons in this system will probably have a multiplier, and the character would use their strength or similar.

The thing you're missing is that these 'hitpoints' are not denoting the same amount of 'life' (for lack of a better word) in every creature. It's simply 1/100th of the punishment you can take before dying.

You didn't mention anything of a multiplier in your last post. You just said that everyone had the same 100HP.

Quote from: Stargate525And again, if you're using numbers in your health system, YOU WILL BE ABLE TO TELL WHEN YOU ARE AT HALF HEALTH.

NO! In my system a character can take an undefined number of wounds. He only dies when he suffers a critical wound and fails his Toughness/Resistance/Health/whateveryouwanttocallit check. Other than that, he can keep on taking wounds until he's put out of the action by an impossibly large wound penalty. In my system numbers would only be used to represent a character's resistance and make it possible to calculate his ability to withstand wounds. Now, last time I checked, one-half of "undefined" was still "undefined". ;)

Quote from: Stargate525Your wrong, the damage is static, the HITPOINTS are not.

The problem is your hitpoints (ability to take damage) scales up. My system doesn't do that.

So, does you rolling 20 points of damage for your attack mean the same thing for every possible target? Or is it possible that the

Quote from: Stargate525Hey look, when everyone has 100 hitpoints, 8 damage shows the same relative injury ACROSS THE BOARD.

Didn't you just speak of a damage multiplier based on size or something above? This makes damage again flexible, as a fly will finally take a different amount of damage as an ogre, which in turn takes us back to the old problem. Running a person through with a sword kills him (eg 100 damage), while running an ogre through with a sword only hurts him (eg 50 damage). You're confusing what I'm talking about. I'm NOT talking about the wound the character takes, but rather about the intensity of the attack, the wound the attack WOULD inflict.

Quote from: Stargate525Bull. Your great Wyrm dragon will die from the bloodloss of a hundred rapier stabs (100 injuries dealing 1 damage) as it will from the massive concussion of 2 huge ballista bolts (2 wounds dealing 50 damage). You still have to track each of those separately.

Huh? First you say a hammer won't do squat against a dragon, now you make him die from some rapier pokes. Now, what is it? Setting the poison aside for a moment, do you die from 100 bee stings? Or from 100 ant bites? Sure, it hurts alot, and you probably would not want to touch the skin there, but it's NOT a lifethreatening injury. Each is a minor inconvenience at most, but the pain and distractions do sum up and make it a bad thing to want to try.

Quote from: Stargate525The nice thing about my system is, that if you're still hellbent on tracking each one individually, you can assign specific damage thresholds, both for health remaining and damage taken in a swing, and they'll apply correctly to every creature that uses the system.

That would mean
# tracking damage in numbers
# calculating damage with arbitrary size multipliers
# constant comparison against wound tresholds
# and finally constant considering of your penalties

Quote from: Stargate525But don't you do that all the time in real life? Just the other day I got hit by a baseball. I knew I could take three more without problems. Why can't the PCs do the same? And if the character's ability to take damage is variable, you're saying he could be hit with five gunshots and live, while taking one in a few months and dying? How is that static damage? It was the same gunshots!

Ok, let's try something. I'll take my pathfinder knife (solid 12cm blade), and stab you in the leg. Now, can you tell me how much more I have to do that until you die? How much more I must run a 6" solid steel blade into your thigh before, perhaps, cutting the main artery and inflict a lethal wound on you? How often would I have to stab you in the guts? In the chest? Can you tell me? If not, your argument is mood. ;)

Quote from: Stargate525With damage thresholds and damage penaties, as touched upon above, this won't be a problem. You do agree though, that two sword-stabbings of equal damage should stack, correct? Else I wish you best of luck in this.

This is another problem. Just because two attacks inflict the same amount of damage does not mean they inflict the same actual wound. Say, if one attack dealing 50 damage means a broken hip bone, do ALL attacks dealing 50 damage mean a broken hip bone? If not, then a character is suddenly dead because he suffered two NON-CONNECTED serious wounds to two different organs or extremities. So, you said earlier that 30-50 damage would mean a broken bone. Now, an adult's body has some 180 bones to break, and only a few broken bones are actually possibly lethal injuries by themselves (hip, upper thigh, spine, skull)...

Quote from: Stargate525Again, damage thresholds will cover general 'beaten up,' and specific wound penalties will cover the massive lung collapse.

But if you track damage with thresholds and wound penalties anyway, why would you need to have HP/body points/etc at all? In the end, it doesn't matter how much damage you've taken, but what injuries you suffered.

Quote from: Stargate525Which is true in any system. I'm sorry, but that's how it is. If I'm a dragon, clad in full plate, with scales of iron underneath that and the magical ability to regenerate small wounds, I should not, will not, or realistically be taking damage measured in 1/100ths of my total from the guy trying to kill me with a hammer.

So, what was the reason again why you complained about my suggestion for a system earlier, as you now admit the problem persists with any system?

Quote from: Stargate525Confused. Post with examples, then I'll proceed to tear it apart.

The basic system can be found in the Tri20 thread in Meta. I'm currently a bit short of time and can't post a detailed example now, sorry. But I'll get to that later.

~~~

As a side note, I don't know why you're so argumentative and agitated about this matter ("Bull", etc). A friendly discussion trying to solve a problem and finding a good solution does not improve from the participants throwing around hard words...

Quote from: Ra-Tiel

Quote from: Ra TielI'm not saying that the Body/Stun system is bad. Actually, I find it much better than standard HP (less points to wade through, each physical attack also deals stun damage, reliable way to deal nonlethal damage). But it still is unrealistic, and has the "no worries, I can take another wound like that and it'll be gone by friday" problem (from what I've read so far).

I have one main issue with this: As a player, I don't think I'd find much fun in being close to dying but not running away because I didn't know better. I think it's better accept a little bit of that meta-gaming to help the players make better, more interesting, and more fun tactical decisions.

If this system is meant to portray heroism rather than realism, I don't think there is much of a problem with players knowing how close their characters are to death.

First of Ra-Tiel, using 'bull,' for me, is actually only mildly annoyed.

I don't really see what forcing you to track a whole mess of different wounds adds to the gameplay.

You system still has issue with the 'pummel him for five hours and not kill him' syndrome, wheras mine does not.

I am allowed to add on to my system, as are you.

I don't see how your system is inherently better than mine, simply because yours doesn't use a point system. You do realize that you system has a major Achilles' Heel in the fact that if someone can't score a critical wound on another, it's impossible for one to kill the other, even if he were to completely imobilize the person and stab him in the eye.

You're being far too rigid with your descriptions. A successful attack by a sword doens't mean that the person has been 'run through.' It can mean any number of things. Yes, a human will die easier than an ogre, because an Ogre is HARDER TO KILL. That's like asking why shooting someone with a pistol kills them, but only makes the bear angry.

For your bee analogy, replace bee with orc and human with 20th level barbarian. Oh look, we're back at square one, what fun!

the multipliers will not be arbitrary any more than the damage dice currently are arbitrary. I don't see my system being inherently more difficult than yours, with mine your tracking the same thing as yours (minor to severe wound penalties) and only deal with thresholds when you dip below a certain number.

Yes, my argument breaks down because you give a bad example. Lovely. I note you didn't address the bottom part of that little paragraph, so pull it across.

You're contradicting yourself! How do this;

QuoteThis makes damage again flexible, as a fly will finally take a different amount of damage as an ogre, which in turn takes us back to the old problem. Running a person through with a sword kills him (eg 100 damage), while running an ogre through with a sword only hurts him (eg 50 damage).

and this;

QuoteThis is another problem. Just because two attacks inflict the same amount of damage does not mean they inflict the same actual wound. Say, if one attack dealing 50 damage means a broken hip bone, do ALL attacks dealing 50 damage mean a broken hip bone?

work happily together?

I'm not saying we should have a chart that spells out for the DM what every single hitpoint damage means. You seem to imply that hitpoints is just a backdoor hit location table. It's up to the DM to decide what damage 50 hitpoints is. He just needs to keep in mind that that kind of trauma takes someone from perfectly healthy to halfway dead. That fact that you're bringing location of the wounds seems to be that you're advocating a hit location chart. Are you?

INjuries and damage are the same thing. You can't have taken little damage but sustained a huge injury just like you can't go swimming without getting wet.

I agree that every system has the potential for the Ironman problem, but I believe my system makes the possibility of it far less likely to occur in the player's favor, which is as it should be.

As I said above, no hard words have been thrown. If you're objecting to the word 'bull,' you probably shouldn't have entered an argument with a member of a debate team.

Quote from: Stargate525[...] debate team.

Then you have apparently a substantially different understanding of rhetoric than I do. I learned that in debates you try to keep your points as factual as possible, without resorting to swearing or other comments that attack the other participant's point without facts and arguments. Also, I learned to precisely quote and refer the points I'm talking about. Please don't take this as an ad hominem, but I've made similar observations in other forums as well, which sort of frustrates me.

I think that our positions are just too different to come to a general agreement in this regard. Also, I've been noticing that seemingly most of the ideas and suggestions are made by me. I really don't want to hog the spotlight here, and will step back from posting in here to give others the opportunity to present their own ideas. After all, this thread is about the "campaign builder's system" and not "Ra-Tiel's system".

Quote from: Ra-TielThen you have apparently a substantially different understanding of rhetoric than I do. I learned that in debates you try to keep your points as factual as possible, without resorting to swearing or other comments that attack the other participant's point without facts and arguments. Also, I learned to precisely quote and refer the points I'm talking about. Please don't take this as an ad hominem, but I've made similar observations in other forums as well, which sort of frustrates me.

Yeah, you do. Our teams are agressive, and since we run Parlimentary debate, logic and the lack thereof is usually the only gronds for argument. Calling someone's position and train of logic a load of ...., and putting forth your own is a common tactic.

We draw the line at attacking the other person, and not their point. I don't think I've done that, and if I have, I apologize.

Quote from: Ra-TielI think that our positions are just too different to come to a general agreement in this regard. Also, I've been noticing that seemingly most of the ideas and suggestions are made by me. I really don't want to hog the spotlight here, and will step back from posting in here to give others the opportunity to present their own ideas. After all, this thread is about the "campaign builder's system" and not "Ra-Tiel's system".

Thing is, if you step back, then we've got 'Stargate's system,' as the majority of this thread is you and I sparring over facets of this system.

Ra-Tiel, your not hogging the spotlight, you are one of the few that is actually keeping this thread alive by posting idea after idea, to be shot down and usually replaced by something stargate thought up. :)

I have this crazy and simple idea for the CBG system. We don't have a standard. No, seriously. No standard system.
Two reasones:
1)Everybody will have different opinions on how dice mechanics should reflect a magical teapot fight.
2) The difference between an exclusively roleplaying system for ponies prancing in a meadow will be unsuitable to adaptation with a wargaming style of play with ogres and magical ponies beating on each other. It is unsuitable for fighters to have anything nice in 3e.

My suggestion is to not worry about one unifying system because either no-one will agree apon one due to differing attitudes and opinions, as can be explained with the HP/injury mechanics of the most recent argument. But different systems do work differently and represent different things differently.
d20 works OK for D&D, d6 works great for Warhammer, SAME functions very well for Pokemon on paper, and you don't want any rules for Barbie Doll.

This is my new suggestion: Don't make a system. Instead, design the game without any numbers then work from their.
It's not an original idea of mine, but I recognize the intelligence behind the concept. Here's my source model for game design:
http://bb.bbboy.net/thegamingden-viewthread?forum=1&thread=1094

Quote from: Stargate525[...]I don't think I've done that, and if I have, I apologize.

Oh no, you haven't. It was just irritating and confusing me. As said, I'm used to adhere to the "classical" definition of "discussion", presenting and countering arguments with facts, proves, and valid points. But each to his own. ;)

Quote from: Stargate525Thing is, if you step back, then we've got 'Stargate's system,' as the majority of this thread is you and I sparring over facets of this system.

Not necessarily. There are some other members who could join in, like Xeviat, or Epic Meepo, or SH. After all, you would actually need to get some more people involved if you truely want to stick to your thread's title. :P Also, I'm stuck in a softwareproject at university right now and wouldn't have much time actively participating in the thread anyways. However, there is something I already learned. The project is about programming a raytracer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raytracer) in a small team. The organisation and design process was actually taking up the first third of the time we are allowed for the whole thing.

What I'm trying to say is that before you try to implement a community project like this you should probably organize it in a certain way. A roleplaying game system has so many aspects, putting all in a single thread is (as we've seen it happen) most likely to end in discussions and arguments about minor points without making a noticable progress on the whole thing. Therefore, I'd suggest to fragment the system into smaller parts, who in turn could be discussed, organized, designed, and presented by other members, which would allow you to get more of the guild involved.

Some suggestions and starting ideas:
* Attributes (number and name of attributes, attribute range, distribution, creation, interaction with and connection to the rest of the system)
* Skills (skill points or derived from attributes, max ranks, reroll mechanics, etc)
* Character advancement (classes or classless, levels or levelless, design rules, rate of advancement, etc)
* Special abilities (linear or exponential scaling, scope and range of abilities, degree of magic usage, etc)
* Magic/spellcasting (used or necessary at all, power level, levelbased like DnD or more-or-less freeform like WoD Mage or Ars Magica, etc)

Not wanting to read eight pages of stuff, I'm coming in at a disadvantage.

First thing I want to say is that this has happened before. The CBG wanted to design its own system and it got gridlocked over a couple things. Eventually it was abandoned. I'd like it if this didn't happen again.

As for the way a fight progresses, it is important to track penalties, lethality, and unconsciousness and it is damn near impossible to ever be realistic.

I kind of like the SAGA approach where massive damage inflicts a penalty but hit points work the same otherwise. I would suggest that getting five or more steps on the condition track kills you and losing all your hp only knocks you out. A thought.

Ahem!

(http://imageupload.com/out.php/i46193_threadnecro.jpg)

I see the plan of splitting this endeavor into various subgroups and continuing the work there worked exceptionally well. :P

Now, did this just die a quick death after I announced my - temporary - retreat, or did anyone put some more thought into it? ;)

QuoteNow, did this just die a quick death after I announced my - temporary - retreat, or did anyone put some more thought into it?

Its certainly seems that way. And in the spirit of resurrecting this thread, what subgroups were you thinking of splitting this up into?

Quote from: ~Kalin~Its certainly seems that way. And in the spirit of resurrecting this thread, what subgroups were you thinking of splitting this up into?

I'm just going to be a lazy ass and quote my above post, ok? ;) :P

Quote from: Ra-Tiel[...]Some suggestions and starting ideas:
* Attributes (number and name of attributes, attribute range, distribution, creation, interaction with and connection to the rest of the system)
* Skills (skill points or derived from attributes, max ranks, reroll mechanics, etc)
* Character advancement (classes or classless, levels or levelless, design rules, rate of advancement, etc)
* Special abilities (linear or exponential scaling, scope and range of abilities, degree of magic usage, etc)
* Magic/spellcasting (used or necessary at all, power level, levelbased like DnD or more-or-less freeform like WoD Mage or Ars Magica, etc)

Bumping the thread aside I just now had an idea on the latest "hot potatoe" in this thread, regarding possible mechanics for damage/health. When this thread was still [sort of] alive, SG525 and I were having a very "heated" ( ;) ) discussion about the pros and cons of various combat mechanics. He wanted an easy system where characters would not die instantly to make things more managable at the table, while I was proposing a lethal and realistic system to encourage "realistic" roleplaying and make players think about their characters' actions.

Obviously, we did not come to a conclusion.

So, now I was having the idea of sort of combining both systems. My original suggestion included no hit points, no wound tracks, no status bar whatsoever and only count the number and severity of each wound the character suffered. While being utterly realistic (again, can you tell how many knife wounds you can take to the stomache before dying? ;) ) it was sort of abstract (well, if being more abstract than HP was possible :P ) and sort of complicated until you understood how it worked. The alternative, however, was using some "normal" means to track how much punishment a character could take, with the consequence of wounds and injuries being absolutely predictable ("I can take three more of those before I go down", etc).

Ok, without much further comments, my latest idea on the topic:
[spoiler=Table]
[----Minor----]
[ ][ ][ ][ ] -1
[ ][ ][ ][ ]
[ ][ ][ ][ ]
[ ][ ][ ][ ]
[ ][ ][ ][ ]
[----Light----]
[ ][ ][ ][ ] -2
[ ][ ][ ][ ]
[ ][ ][ ][ ]
[ ][ ][ ][ ]
[---Moderate--]
[ ][ ][ ][ ] -3
[ ][ ][ ][ ]
[ ][ ][ ][ ]
[---Serious---]
[ ][ ][ ][ ] -4
[ ][ ][ ][ ]
[---Critical--]
[ ][ ][ ][ ] -5
[/spoiler]
The basic idea is like this. There are 5 degrees of wounds: minor, light, moderate, serious, and critical. Whenever a character suffers a wound of a given degree, one checkbox of the appropriate category is "marked off". For each box that is marked off, the character suffers a cumulative penalty to all checks dependent on the wound severity. So far, it looks like a normal damage track, doesn't it? However, wounds are NOT cumulative. A character being hit with 13 moderate wounds does not suddenly have a serious wound. Only attacks of a given severity are able to inflict wounds of a certain severity. This prevents the sort of silly situation of a character dying from a broken nose, a stab to the leg, and a gun shot to the arm when actually no lethal wound was inflicted at all.

I already hear SG525 complaining that this would make really tough characters invincible to weaker attacks. Not really. Each successful attack that gets through a character's defense and connects (and is not completely absorbed by armor or other mundane or magical protections) inflicts at least a minor wound. This means, that the character may not actually suffer life threatening injuries, but accumulates scratches and minor cuts all over. The wound penalty (-6 at most in case of only minor wounds) is applied to all checks, including those to defend oneself as well as the "damage resistance checks" (however they may look like ;) ). This means, that with every, no matter how minor, injury the chance for a lethal wound increases. And at one point the character starts taking light and moderate wounds, and then the battle's basically already over for him.

Anyways, a character can take basically an unlimited number of wounds of any degree, represented by the huge number of boxes on each wound degree. However, sooner or later the wound penalties will sum up to such a huge number that any attack will result in a critical wound no matter how the die falls. I'm not yet sure how to handle "critical" hits and (if at all possible) "insta-gibs" in this system, so this as well as the answer to the question "when does a character die?" is still a big blank spot.

However, I think that this idea can serve as a good starting point for further discussion and number crunching. :P :D

So, I'm confused on this: If one suffers 8 minor wounds, would they get a -2? And what if they've suffered 4 minor wounds? What constitutes a minor, light, moderate, serious or critical wound?

Quote from: Sir VorpalSo, I'm confused on this: If one suffers 8 minor wounds, would they get a -2? And what if they've suffered 4 minor wounds?

No. The wound penalty listed is per wound, and cumulative. A character suffering from 8 minor wounds has a -8 penalty. A character suffering from 5 minor, 4 light, 3 moderate, 2 serious, and 1 critical wound has a penalty of 5*1 + 4*2 + 3*3 + 2*4 + 1*5 = 5 + 8 + 9 + 8 + 5 = 35. Considering how many actual wounds he has (eg, 5 scratches and shallow cuts, 4 deep cuts, 3 broken bones, a twice punctured rib cage, and 1 severed main artery), I think a penalty in that dimension is sort of appropriate.

Quote from: Sir VorpalWhat constitutes a minor, light, moderate, serious or critical wound?

That's dependent on the system and weapon mechanic used. I kept this thing abstract on intend, as we are currently unable to tell how weapons should work in the CBS. Do they keep their normal "damage die"? Or do they rather have a "damage bonus" like M&M or nWoD? Something completely different?

I could for example imagine that each weapon only doesn't have a numerical expression of damage, but rather only a wound degree...
[spoiler=Table]
[table=Weapon wound degrees]
[tr][th]Weapon[/th][th]Wound degree[/th][/tr]
[tr][td colspan='2']...[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Shortsword[/td][td]light[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Bastard sword[/td][td]serious[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Greataxe[/td][td]critical[/td][/tr]
[tr][td colspan='2']...[/td][/tr]
[/table]
[/spoiler]
...and that a combatant can increase or decrease the wound degree by accepting appropriate penalties (eg, "... for each -5 penalty you take to your attack roll you can increase or decrease a weapon's wound degree by one step ..."), sort of like an inbuilt power attack mechanic. Bonuses to damage, like strength, weapon specialization, or enhancement bonuses would not directly increase the wound degree, but rather act as penalties to your target's "resistance check" (however that may look like).

As said, it's just a very basic idea. :)

Quote from: Ra-Tiel* Character advancement (classes or classless, levels or levelless, design rules, rate of advancement, etc)

Can we take class-specific abilities out of the hands of their respective classes? In other words, just because we'd have a Sneak Attack ability, why does it have to be the Rogue's Sneak Attack ability?

My thought is to treat these abilities as a sort of "major feat", with current feats being "minor feats". We could have the "Warrior" class, with a high BAB progression, weak saves, and a high HD, then allow access to, say, Ki Strikes, Sneak Attack, and maybe some Minor Feats, creating a Ninja character.

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with developing specific roles as you go along. The worst I could see this doing is being on-par with the d20 system, where you get new abilities at various levels. I think if we leave room for players to choose what abilities they get, it at least becomes a bit more flexible.