I'm looking for some of you guys to talk to me about your D&D systems that have evolved. I'm not talking about, "Oh, I got tired of D&D back in aught-oh-three, and since then, we've been using FUDGE!" Rather, I'm talking about, "Well, we like D&D, but the damnable magic system is whack, so here's what we did..." Talk to me please. :)
Specifically 4e -
We allow a player to choose a power to regenerate (Daily, Utility or Encounter) on a nat 20 during combat
We add 1/2 level to all damage to speed up play
Players never lose a power if they miss with it. Meaning, their Daily isn't spent if they miss (they can try again next round). This GREATLY reduces the At Will nickel and dime 2 hours for 1 encounter scenario presented in 4e.
Healing Surges are NOT based on class. They're 1/2 level + Con bonus, and you don't autoheal on 8 hours of rest. I like the "fragility", and it encourages my players to think very carefully.
A natural roll of 1 means all foes have Combat Advantage against that foe.
The exception always beats the rule. Meaning, if my Fighter can automatically strike and pull someone in if they shift away yet the foe has an ability to counter that, the counter will trump the rule. This encourages players to think very carefully (much akin to chess) before committing to actions.
Jumping, running, swimming, climbing, moving quiety - these are free actions that are wrapped into Movement.
I've found these little houserules to speed up gameplay and make it much more enjoyable for all involved.
I like 4e so far. No house rules yet, but we'll probably end up allowing Quickdraw to manipulate shields.
Feel free to talk to me about 3E and 3.5 as well. :)
I convinced my group to give the Sorcerer (my core favorite class) the spell progression of the wizard! :)
I can't think of anything else at the moment, let me get back to you on this one.
I guess I should re-clarify... House rules are cool and all, but don't redesign the system. I'm thinking more about systems that started as D&D, but have become complete redesigns in such a way that they're (possibly) no longer recognized as D&D or a variant thereof. Sorry I didn't clarify properly originally.
Quote from: Ishmayl"Well, we like D&D, but the damnable magic system is whack, so here's what we did..."
This is pretty much my story. It was to take a page from the JRPG playbook and use MP instead of the crazy "memorization" system that earlier D&D versions suffered through... that's pretty much it. It might not count as enough of a redesign for you. :P
If it was a redesign of the entire magic system, I'd love to hear about it. I mean, there's definitely some work involved in turning the vancian system into a point-based system.
Well, I suppose this fits me to a 'T' so I ought to respond. I'm working on the details on [link url=http:75.70.105.39:8080/gamewiki/MySystem]my wiki[/link]. It is organizationally a mess right now, because I'm using it as a scratch pad to put down concepts and ideas that may not be fully worked out yet. Still, you can find some details if you poke around long enough.
It started as an attempt to redesign the spell system to support the concepts in my setting. But one thing leads to another. With a very different system for spell description and casting, all the classes that use spells need redesign. Then all the classes that have spell like abilities or abilities that might be comparable to spells. That only leaves out fighter, so what the heck ... make a whole new class system that also better fits the setting. And revamp the skill list, and so on.
With this, you have a system that is vaguely similar to D&D in the following ways:
There are classes and levels.
*D20 mechanics fairly similar.
*There are skills and feats.
*It is aimed at heroic fantasy.
Why classes and levels? Classes provide an easy way in to both the system and the setting. They define what roles are common in the setting and the campaign, and provide pointers to what skills and feats are relevant to those roles. In a pure points-based implementation, you have to find a way to cost out your feats and skills so they are comparable; in a class- and level-based system the level progression controls the ratio of skills and feats, making it easier to balance and avoid having broken combinations. (Easier is still not easy.)
D20 mechanics are familiar and capture things at a level of granularity that I find satisfactory.
Skills are abilities that can be ranked on a D20 scale. Feats are abilities that you either have or don't have; or they may be tiered but can't be ranked on a D20 scale. I find this less constrictive in designing skills and abilities. I've done away with "class abilities" and don't find the "powers" approach of 4e particularly inspiring.
Of course, it is different in a lot of ways:
Most classes follow a standard progression of feats and character points. What makes them different is which skills and feats are core to the class and which are cross-class.
*More flexibility to choose skills and feats that aren't in your class.
*A feat each level, alternating class feat, general feat, cross-class feat.
*Less drastic difference in cost between core skills and non-core.
*No automatic advancement in saves, attack, hit points, mana, or vitality. These are purchased like skills.
My philosophy is to make it easy to create specialized classes for any given campaign or setting, or even for a character if they have a valid and setting-appropriate character concept that doesn't mesh well with the core ones or the ones the GM has defined. Right now the problem is in re-defining and adding enough feats to fill out the feat trees, so I can create core classes. (Well, the real problem is finding the time to do it.)
Give me a year or two and I'll probably have 4E molded my own way.
The biggest thing I did in 3E was with the magic. I loathe Vancian magic. If it was good for some guy's story, fine. LEAVE IT IN THAT STORY. The change I made here probably wasn't very balanced but I don't think 3.X was super balance focused. I made each spell slot worth a number of MP equal to its level. (For example, if a character would normally have 4 level 1 spell slots and 1 level 2 spell slot, they would have 6 MP.) I then had each spell cost a number of MP equal to its level. (For example, a level 1 spell cost 1 MP to use.) I still used the material components and even sometimes required them, or at least the roleplaying of them more often. I also required that since wizards cast from their spellbook, they had to spend one round reading / casting the spell before it actually went off. Later on I think I often balanced that by giving them a wider spell selection or slight MP bonus.
So there you have it, a sloppy version of what I did to magic.
Quote from: IshmaylFeel free to talk to me about 3E and 3.5 as well. :)
I gave 3.5 a pretty heavy facelift (http://www.thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?6536) for Jade Stage purposes, but I was really just making everything more
general (so it should work for anybody's setting.)
Notable features:
- the expert, a class for smart, skilled people who don't want to cast magic (like wizards) or sneak attack people and get badly stereotyped (like rogues)
- the face, a class for gregarious, empathetic people who want to make friends and influence people without being all fancy prancy song-and-dancy (like bards)
- various overhauls to other classes, based around maximizing flexibility (so you can more easily play a nimble, unarmored warrior without being all "Mysteries of the Far Orient!", or play a tracker/investigator without also being friends with all the woodland critters)
- heavy magic system upgrade, including 3 spellcasting PrCs (the Mage ("I can do magic because I study hard!", the Channeler ("I can do miracles because a higher force empowers me to", and the Shaper ("I went to Charles Xavier's special school to learn to control my mysterious and dangerous natural powers!")), new ways to classify spells (removing the arcane/divine distinction, for starters), and many new spells
- various feats
- firearms and other assorted gear
- rules for "exceptional masterwork" items to replace magic weapons and armor in low-magic settings
It really is a shame I don't actually use this anymore. It was a hell of a lot of work, and I'm quite proud of it.
LC, what are you using (or do you plan on using) for Jade Stage?
I don't think I've ever taken a system and changed it so much that it became something else. House rules and tweaks, sure, but not a wholesale change. If I was going to go through that effort, I'd probably just put my energy into finding a system that did what I wanted up front. I'd rather work on a setting than on a set of rules.
Quote from: IshmaylLC, what are you using (or do you plan on using) for Jade Stage?
Undecided. Either Triad System (which I still need to put a few finishing touches on), or FATE (the system used for Spirit of the Century, among other things).
Wow. Great question but how to answer it in a brief forum post.
I gave D&D a huge facelift for my Skybourne campaign, basically creating a customized version of 1st edition / 2nd edition D&D. So custom that it was probably recognizable but obviously very removed from the original game system.
There is no way I could explain it all in a forum posting as I pretty much have my own version of the PHB rewritten for that game..something like 200 pages.
One of these days if we kick around the same convention though I'd be happy to give you a copy or possibly send you the pdf.
What do you need it for out of curiosity?
I'm hoping we can start an extensive discussion that will spark my own creativity, since I'm finding 4E (as well as 3E/3.5E) sorely lacking in the aspects I need. Hoping to be inspired by you guys and your creativity. Or maybe I'll see something worth stealing? :)
Well Ishmayl, maybe you'd like to discuss with me what you're looking for in a modified D&D system, as that is exactly what I'm working on as I type (well not AS I type, as that would require rediculous multitasking).
Anyway, what started me was that 4E's power system wasn't really doing what I wanted it to do. Not only did the power system make me realize I was playing a game every time I used it (Fighter can only trip once per encounter, and only if they take Sweeping Blow?), but the power system also makes it difficult to create new classes as you need to come up with at least 24 powers for the class to function without options.
Additionally, I came to realize that the D&D spell-casting classes were not going to work for what my setting needed. Now I am putting together a system which will largely be compatable with 4E (as I'm keeping the player numbers in line with monster numbers). My system is going to be a blend of d20 Modern and SWSaga ideas, using 4E's concept of even defense and attack progressions (ability score and small class bonus differences will ensure that non-warrior characters have a lower attack bonus with weapons). My system is being built to be as simulationist as 3E was, but only where it can be done simply.
Take a look at my thread please.
You know that I've made my own MP system for 3E, but it was really only an expansion on the Psionic Power Point idea.
Why not just consider a different system entirely? GURPS, Burning Wheel, TRoS, WFRP?
Oh, I'm also considering those, Phoenix, I just haven't found one that really speaks to me yet. I've looked at GURPs, FATE, Exalted, Agone, and Deadlands (the original), and out of those, I'm not terribly impressed with any of them.
Xeviat - The two main issues I have are in the class system and in the "magic system." Quite frankly, I hate magic in 4E, and I really want to try to find a way to implement some sort of "on the cuff" spell system, like the Belgariad's "Will and the Word," or even Jordan's "Wheel of Time" system (though without the heavy elemental focus).
What exactly is "off the cuff"? You mean making the spell up on the spot based upon components such as range and duration? Have you looked at the Elements of Magic books from EN Publishing? Those are d20-based "build your own" systems.
Also there's more than one "build your class as you go" system available if you look. (Though I'm assuming you have.)
Quote from: IshmaylThe two main issues I have are in the class system and in the "magic system."
I'm sort of surprised FATE didn't do it for you, then.
I've been looking so hard at Spirit of the Century because it's the first published project using FATE 3rd edition (as opposed to FATE 2nd edition, which is what is currently free to use.) Evil Hat is releasing Dresden Files RPG (also based on FATE 3rd Ed.), and then releasing FATE 3rd Ed. by itself, setting-neutral and flexible. (I'm so optimistic about the prospects that rather than waiting, I'm trying to reverse-engineer FATE 3rd Ed. ahead of time by dissecting SotC.)
But it seems like it'd be what you're looking for. It's certainly classless, and magic (like everything else) is off-the-cuff.
Ish, my system is on path to be class-less and have an off-the-cuff magic system. As a character gains ranks in various magic skills, they'll have more points to spend towards constructing maneuvers. I'm going to be using a modification of the 3E maneuver system made by Mike Mearls for "Book of Iron Might".
I could really use your input Ish, if only input towards what you would enjoy.
ok. I'll need to segment my answers. But Ish was correct in mentioning that preCeltricia, I had been using more and more'housed' versions of D&D. I just got to a point that to create the setting I wanted to, a combat heavy game was not going to work.
Ish, you can do anything in Fantasy Hero. While it has the most work on the front end of any game system I know..if you want to adopt it to a personal campaign and stuff and not run generic fantasy...it is easily the most flexible and creative system I've seen.
If I'm not going to play fantasy with D&D in some form or another I'm using Fantasy Hero.
I'm math/cs freak, and yeah, I balk at the removal of all-things-role-playing from the 4e system, but the crunch is good. We can spin a story without dice, but when its time for combat I like to have a good set of rules to work with, which is why I've stuck with D&D. The magic fluff is terrible; but there's nothing stopping you from (as Moniker suggested) allowing Encounter/Daily power regeneration or crafting your own spells.
I'm probably swimming against the tide, but I've gone from preferring classless to preferring classes. Just not the way D&D does them.
The character class represents a character's primary role within the society of the game world. It should be representative of the game world itself. It should help communicate these roles to the players. It should help make a place in the game world for the characters. It should not be a rigid constraint; it should instead represent both the constraints and the flexibility that an individual character experiences as a member of a culture and society.
To me, this means the class has to have enough constraint to give structure to the character's world; yet allow enough flexibility to allow and enhance individuality. It also means that it should be relatively easy for a GM to customize or completely rebuild character classes that represent the various cultures and the roles they define for people within them. I regard the specific character classes as feature of the game world, not the game system. The game system merely facilitates the creation of classes.
I felt that D&D 3e had all the right pieces in place, but they didn't do what they could have with them. So what I'm doing is pretty much just what the thread title said: Re-imagining D&D as the game it could have been, were it not weighted down with 30 years worth of baggage.
Quote from: snakefingThe character class represents a character's primary role within the society of the game world. It should be representative of the game world itself. It should help communicate these roles to the players. It should help make a place in the game world for the characters. It should not be a rigid constraint; it should instead represent both the constraints and the flexibility that an individual character experiences as a member of a culture and society.
I could not agree more. I am very much in the same boat you are here; I was completely against classes for a long time, but with experience as a DM I've realized their power in helping guide a player into a role in the story or group. I think it takes a very special group for everyone to feel accomplished
without those pre-defined roles, no matter how loose they may be. Certainly, as a player I prefer some definition of my character's role when things get hairy -- whether I'm the talker or the fighter or a bit of both -- and maybe that's because I am a very structured thinker.
I don't agree that 3/3.5 handled classes well at all. They were as limiting as 4e, but without helping to define a player's role in the group or world. Being a Brd 1/Src 1/Wiz 1/Pal 1/Ftr 1 just made you a system failure when standing next to a Wiz 5, not a diversified individual capable of aiding the group in many unique ways. 4e hits the other extreme, where forced adherence to a role makes no one "well rounded" in terms of ability.
I'm sure there's an ideal compromise, but I don't think that D&D will find it with its current focus on emulating MMOs in its attempts to stay afloat.
Personally, I am a fan of classes - I thought (not too long ago) that I would like to move into a classless system, but I do believe there are very good ways of playing in a class-based system without limiting oneself to specific stereotypes. I just don't think 4E succeeded in making that good class system. I think it's a very fun game so far, but it's not the game for me.
Snakefing and Eldris, could you explain more about what you mean with classes representing the primary role of individuals in the game world? It sounded like you were aiming towards something I want to hear more about, but you stopped before you got there! :)
Well, I've worked on a number of systems with friends, though most of them have been to *cough* chickenshit *cough* to actually try running or playing in a game with our homebrew rules. The system I enjoyed the most involved an open distribution of abilities, but with classes existing as a goal -- similar to PrCs from 3/3.5 -- that, once reached, provided extra benefits to the character.
For example, let's say Thief exists as a class that requires X build points in several skills. Once those requirements have been met, a player gains a certain benefit, say the ability to reroll a stealth once per day. Player A allocates X build points towards these skills. Player A now receives the bonuses of the Thief class, but is no longer required allocate skills into that role. He can focus his attention next on the Wizard class, or continue putting points into sneak-related skills to reach another, higher requirement class like Assassin or Master Thief.
I like that, actually.
Quote from: snakefingThe character class represents a character's primary role within the society of the game world.
What happens to the concepts that don't fit a given role? How narrow are you conceiving of these roles? The reason that, even though I don't always hate them, I can't get into class systems is that I prefer to have the option to take care of the rare case that still manages to fall outside.
Quote from: EladrisFor example, let's say Thief exists as a class that requires X build points in several skills. Once those requirements have been met, a player gains a certain benefit, say the ability to reroll a stealth once per day. Player A allocates X build points towards these skills. Player A now receives the bonuses of the Thief class, but is no longer required allocate skills into that role. He can focus his attention next on the Wizard class, or continue putting points into sneak-related skills to reach another, higher requirement class like Assassin or Master Thief.
This sounds like a very interesting idea. One of the big things I hate about class systems is that picking a class tells you what your role is going to be beforehand, rather than building that out of character choices. I like to let my characters develop as I'm playing, rather than get stuck in my original vision.
Ishmayl, in regards to a more free-form magic system, you should at least take a look at Tunnel Quest, which is available as a free PDF at http://web.me.com/hogwrite/Site/Game_Play/Entries/2008/8/23_Tunnel_Quest_1.1.html
One of the things that made me nutso was that we wanted to have real necromancers and real pyromancers and real artificers, not just the same mechanisms with different spell lists.
I'm not just speaking about the fluff.
So we made it so there were different power sources that could could be accessed, and that how good a caster was at each of these sources was a skill that could be gained and improved.
We also made each power source like an ingredient.
Low power spells only take one or two 'ingredients', but even mid level spells have three or four different ingredients. So a flaming sword type of spell might take fire and artificer ability, while creating a deck of cards that may be synched to a user may take order, maentalist, and artifice. PLayers can also create their own spells and post them to the GM. having 11 types of these forces the players to really think of the skills they want to develop.
Recharge was also set up to make the players think. Spell points used return at a rate of 2.5% per hour, unless they learn a spell point reclamation ability. So it generally takes 40 hours to fully recharge after casting. This rate is set up so that PC's can recharge during an adventure, but so that a caster has to think twice before wasting spell points.
Automatic success in spells also stuck in my craw. Spells take concentration in my book, and so we have a spell success % rule, and the harder the spell, the higher the chance of error (unless the caster pours extra points into it).
Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawWhat happens to the concepts that don't fit a given role? How narrow are you conceiving of these roles? The reason that, even though I don't always hate them, I can't get into class systems is that I prefer to have the option to take care of the rare case that still manages to fall outside.
That's a very important question, and I'm not sure I have an altogether satisfactory answer.
To answer the second question first, I hope to make it easy enough to make character classes so the GM can create classes based on as narrow or broad a role as he/she desires. I'll have some core classes that are quite broadly conceived, to serve as templates and examples. But in my own setting, I'd tend toward roles defined as narrowly as, "Priestess of Artemis in her role as the Huntress."
But you have to understand that even though that is a very narrow role, it only defines part of would be available to such a character. Certain skills would be core skills, meaning they can be purchased at reduced cost. Certain abilities would be designated as class abilities, meaning you can choose them or advance them with your class-restricted feat picks. But an individual character would also have the ability to choose at least one additional skill as a core skill, depending on personal preference. And 2/3 of your feat picks are not class-restricted. So being in such a class isn't as restrictive as a D&D class.
When you talk about a character that is outside the given roles, there are several related concepts and I'm not sure exactly what you are getting at. Every character comes from somewhere, and relates in some way to the people around him or her. If the character concept fits in with the setting, there is a role there. I'm trying to make it easy to create or tweak classes, and give flexibility within the classes for individuality. So if your character almost fits one of the GM-defined classes, but not quite, you have several options:
Work with one of the given classes, pick just the class abilities that fit the concept, and use your general abilities and cross-class picks to pick up anything that is missing.
*Work with the GM to tweak the best-fit class to represent your character's unique background and opportunities.
*Multi-class.
*Make a Frankenstein's monster class from bits and pieces of the existing classes.
The main point is that the character class should reasonably well represent the kinds of opportunities and expectations that are laid on the character, by virtue of his or her background and place in society.
If you want a "raised by wolves" type of character, you have a different problem. Lacking any connection to the society around him, this character will have a lack of social structure, and corresponding lack of restraints and opportunities. It might be possible to just create an individualized "class" with a unique set of core skills and class abilities that represent what such a character might need to survive and would have the opportunity to learn. The use the general character class template to guide that character's acquisition of skills and feats.
There's quite a range of possible characters, and any fixed set of classes is not going to handle them all well. The best I've been able to do is to provide a toolkit (hopefully a good one) to handle the exceptions as well as possible, without doing away with some of the advantages of character classes entirely.
Quote from: snakefingWhen you talk about a character that is outside the given roles, there are several related concepts and I'm not sure exactly what you are getting at. Every character comes from somewhere, and relates in some way to the people around him or her. If the character concept fits in with the setting, there is a role there.
I think the issue is getting more confusing: Are you saying that every character can be categorized because fitting into a category is the natural state of being in a world, or are you saying that settings have expected categories that every character should fall into? The former suggests that any character concept can be justified no matter the convoluted logic necessary so long as the concept started within the rules of the setting, while the latter pre-defines boundaries within which both the logic to get their and the end result must fall.
My point in commenting about outside cases is that too often I have been seduced by the idea that a class-based game I was playing could support my character concept only to find out at some later point (often in-game) that I'd been fooled by flavor while the mechanics did not back up the vision I'd been given. Point-based systems don't give me this same problem, I think because in having to build my character myself I am much more likely to notice their mechanical flaws early and revamp my concept before play. I don't feel that class-based systems need to cater to every concept a person can come up with, but I do wish they could somehow be much better at pointing out what flaws they have that are going to render a given concept difficult or impossible.
As for customizing classes I have to ask: Isn't there a certain point of customization after which you'd be better served by a point-based game? Small changes I think are fine, larger one leave me wondering why anyone bothers.
Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawI think the issue is getting more confusing: Are you saying that every character can be categorized because fitting into a category is the natural state of being in a world, or are you saying that settings have expected categories that every character should fall into?
As for customizing classes I have to ask: Isn't there a certain point of customization after which you'd be better served by a point-based game? Small changes I think are fine, larger one leave me wondering why anyone bothers.
[/quote]
At some point, sure. When do you reach that point? When most of the characters require major class overhauls.
The point of the classes is to communicate between the players how their characters fit into the overall campaign picture. Customizing classes by the GM for the setting fulfills this purpose. Customizing classes for individual players (beyond small tweaks) should only happen in the rare cases. I personally am more interested in supporting a kind of campaign where those really are the rare cases; so I think this sort of approach will be valuable. (It is more hope, really, since the system is still under construction.) In a different type of campaign, a looser point-based approach might work better. Or Vreeg's approach, which is neither point-based nor class-based in the traditional senses.
Quote from: snakefingI think that the natural state of being in any culture is that the society creates categories for understanding itself, and (most) people naturally tend to align themselves up with one or more of the categories. There's a lot of variations, and always some people who don't really fit in to their society's categories very well.
It certainly stresses the categorized nature of the society being portrayed.
Quote from: snakefingThe point of the classes is to communicate between the players how their characters fit into the overall campaign picture.
Yeah, that's how I see class systems. That and saving you the time in making your own character.
I had this weird magic system going for 3.5, its to bad that I lost the file for it, it worked great. It was like a different skill system, where there was a skill for each different thing, like one for necromancy, one for evocation, one for illusion, and so on and so on. But I got tired of homebrewing stuff so I bought complete arcana. Which I must say is the all around best D&D supplement ever.
Alright, everyone is tossing about ideas for different systems, adapting this and that. Has anyone looked into adapting some of the newer Final Fantasy game systems? I'm thinking FFX or FFXII here, the Orb-tree-board thing or the License board.
The License board for those who don't know are 2 board. One with every skill/ability/spell and misc bonuses on it, and one with every piece of armor and weapon. You spend Ability Points (AP) to unlock the ability to wear armor or use a weapon/skill/ability/spell. However you have to unlock new tiles by uncovering them, when you buy a tile, it uncovers (makes them purchasable) all adjacent tiles. While kinda shoe-horning you a bit, it makes sense in my opinion (no just buying ultimate of everything, you have to work your way up to it, like your character growing).
So basically your character can be whatever he wants, buying the ability to wear heavy armor (high def bonus melee dmg), a 2h weapon and buffing skills/spells/abilities. Or basically whatever. Your character is customizable however you want, and you can plug whatever mechanics you want into the board, custom magic systeme, tiered magic system, vancien w/e, and any kind of skill or w/e.
Also these Ability Points are independent of level (in FFXII anyway) so you can use levels for stats or other things.
Personally a system me and my friend kicked around was a grid of interconnected nodes. Each node represented a "class" with unique abilities, you could move from one node to another if you had reached a certain milestone (X str or HP w/e). Each node had its own skills/spells/powers/abilities/bonuses or w/e and you could purchase these things when on a node, or upgrade them to higher tiers of a skill/spell/power/ability/bonus (ex Sneak attack 1 to Sneak attack 2). There would be some overlap of skills/spells/powers/abilities/bonuses between nodes so you don't have to go back to a node just to get a new tier. Changing Nodes would have a cost, maybe only once per level (if you bought things ala AP like in FFXII) or every level you get a move point that lets you change nodes or something.
I could probably come up with another system/change one of these systems if anyone had a suggestion or input.
Also, this is my first post here, so I want to say you guys pwn and the site is amazing :D
Finally sorry if these ideas aren't really table-top based, I've never played a table top game before, so I have real experience to gather from sorry.
No offense to you... but I kinda found final fantasy to be a all around dumb game