The Campaign Builder's Guild

I recommend the Sufjan Stevens album "Illinois" and The National's "Alligator".

This sounds pretty close to a campaign I tried to run one time.

I'll definitely be checking up and seeing how this turns out.

It really seems to me that adding DR (half base attack bonus) plus DR of the armor (per alternative armor rules) combined with the lack of true multiple attacks/round are much more the cause of the issue than damage.

It's like you've increased DR, decreased attack frequency, and then want to increase damage greatly to compensate.  That seems like monkeying around with the rules far more than reducing HP and/or AC.

DR by default prolongs battles, especially with conventional weapons.  DR also does little against magic, but really hinders the fighter.  So you've introduced two mechanics that add a penalty to fighters and give advantage to wizards....From first glance, there's your problem moreso than any fighter vs. wizard issue.

Ah.  It's hard to really say without going through your conversion as to whether this is balanced or not, but I can surely tell you that it is unbalanced in standard 3.5.

Without looking too deeply, a quick question:  If the problem is the length of combat (either in real time or in rounds) wouldn't the issue be the survivability of characters (NPC and PC alike) and not the weapons vs. spells debate?  Wouldn't it be easier and more effective to lowering HP/AC/DR?

I can look into it more tomorrow.

QuoteThere is one ineffable truth about third edition (and practically every edition before it): A level 12 Wizard is tremendously more defensively durable than a 12th level fighter and has higher potential burst output than a Fighter.

Generally, it is not as perceived as much because classes aren't really balanced against one another, so much as they are balanced against entries the Monster Manual. [/quote]

I think they're balanced, but it really depends on the situation and environment.  Across an open field morning pitched battle?  Sure, the wizard will every time.  A chase through a dark alley at night after a long day in the field?  I'll take the fighter or the rogue.

I disagree.  Looking at it per round basis only makes several false assumptions...it's looking at the numbers in a vacuum.  Of course a spellcaster is better in the first round of combat for the day.  What about the third encounter that he faces?

A spellcaster's power is balanced against the fact that it runs out, among other things.  Using a per round basis ignores that.

And even at that, I think you could argue that properly kitted fighters can put up competitive per round combat numbers well into the levels.

A few things:  one flaw in your "problem" is that it only examines damage per round.  If you compare wizard vs. fighter damage per encounter or especially damage per day, you'll see them even out much more.  Also, note that this is based heavily on how your DM runs the game.  If it's a 3 day dungeon crawl with limited rest, the fighter will easily outdamage/outsurvive the mage in almost every situation.  If you get one or two combat encounters per day in your campaign, mages will have more advantage in the damage/survivability department.

Also, in your calculation of the "flaws" of the fighter in your problem, I see no mention multiple attacks.  Sure, the Level 10 fighter might still deal out 5-15 damage per hit, but he now gets three attacks per round whereas the Level 10 mage still gets 1 spell/round.  (Maybe that's what the itinerative attacks addresses?  I'm not familiar with that term)

Lastly, it's dangerous to only compare damage dealing when trying to balance classes in combat, because survivability is very important as well.  Should the wizard and fighter have the same damage dealing capacity when the fighter is more than twice as survivable?

It seems to me that you are trying to fix something that isn't broken.  If anything, the issue is that spellcasters are pretty disadvantaged at lower levels compared to fighters, and finally can compete on a damage dealing basis at higher levels.

If the hobgoblin army is played smartly (which hobgoblins are typically very strategically sound) the kingdom would not survive, IMO.

Any traps, spies, etc. should have to deal with many scouts that precede the 10,000 strong army.  Roughly a few hundred scouts should be out on patrol to screen the advance at all times.

If the kingdom retreats to the capital, the hobgoblin army should be able to simply starve out the city, since the kingdom has had little time to prepare.  With only one or two weeks to prepare, the food stores will be mediocre at best.  It could also just go around the capital and kill/destroy all that remains outside of the capital.

Thirdly, aside from the obvious problem of having 10,000 hobgoblins attacking, they also have the ogres and two very problematic trolls.  If the PCs somehow can get 1 troll/ogre at a time, they can wittle them down possibly (though without the fire spells of a mage, it'll be tough and they'll have to get creative).  However, if the trolls/ogres attack the kingdom's soldiers, or the PCs en masse, it'll be a rout unless there are serious situational considerations.

There are only a few ways the kingdom can survive in my mind:

First, and the least fun, is a deus ex machina.  Basically this is your dwarves/elves, intervention of the "higher power" providing the magic items, flood, famine, disease, etc.

The second way the kingdom can survive is to retreat cmopletely to the capital and man the walls.  Send refugees elsewhere in the kingdom (east?) and hope the hobgoblin army lays siege and something presses them to force the assault (low food reserves?).  The odds are against them here (especially with no mages), but this is the best chance they have for surviving without DM help.

If I were the DM, I'd give the players an out.  Hmmm, lessee.  If the players can somehow do X, then the hobgoblin army will rout or withdraw at the least.  X could be killing their leader, destroying a sacred shrine that they carry with them, etc.

In short, I agree with those having trouble coming to grips with the Guilds exclusive inventions.  This is clearly a case of: "Hey, you know what would be an awesome battle scene?" and then trying to work backwards to make it fit into a setting.   It does sound really cool, but my problem is that from Day 1 as a player character in this world, my main goal is going to be stealing/gaining some of that exclusive technology.

And if, heaven forbid, I succeed, then I'll be flying around in a Mustang and won't care that I'm a level 10 fighter.  Which is all well and good, if that's what you want.

The problem with vastly differing technologies in a game world is that when they clash, and by the sounds of the perpetual war in your world they will, the PC will be on one side of the fence or the other.  Either they'll lack the technology and be slumping it with the other grunts and have swords and spears vs. WWII tech, or they'll have WWII tech and be facing vast hordes of "barbarian" types.

Hopefully I can offer a relatively different perspective, as a new member and more of a "casual" member, and I sincerely hope that what I write does not offend, and is viewed purely as constructive criticism.  Unfortunately I have few answers, but I can post what few things strikes me as "problems" on the site.

What is the most important aspect of this site that keeps you coming back?
Basically the new ideas posted in the design and campaign threads.  I like reading the Guide, as it seems filled with quality articles that interest me.

What is the most unique feature of this site?
The amazing scope of the campaigns detailed here and the sheer number of campaigns and ideas.


What is the most interesting conversation you've ever had on this site?
Honestly, the thread about my "setting"/game was the most interesting to me.  


What has been your favorite contest or event on this site?
My favorite contest was the Rushon monthly contest.  But then again, I've only been around for a few.


How have you benefited the site since you became a member?
I got great feedback on a system/setting that I am looking to refine.


How many times have you participated in a unique CBG feature (Showcase, the Guide, CeBeGia, etc)? How did you contribute?
I've contributed to the upcoming Guide so far.  I hope to continue writing articles for it and also joining in the contests.


Have you ever said you were going to contribute in some way to the Guide, CeBeGia, or Showcase, and then never followed through?
I said I'd compete in the contest, but an article for the Guide took my time.  I'd wager that 90% of the "follow-through" issue is time for most people.  The other 10% would likely be a dislike of Ishmayl.


As a best guess, what percentage of your posts do you believe is asking for help on your personal campaign setting?
Probably around 75%.


As a best guess, what percentage of your posts do you believe is helping other CBGers with their personal campaign setting?
Probably around 20%.

Do you visit the other Alliance sites (PlotStorming.com, CartographersGuild.com)?
Not yet.


Do you use another site for most of your campaign setting needs (WotC, gleemax, rpgspaces, eruvian, etc)?
No.

If you were part of the Opal Council, what ideas would you have for making the site more interesting?
The biggest issue I have is that the site (and by that I mean mostly the content) is daunting and complex.  The site itself is very easy to get acclimated to (the shoutbox, forums, CBGuide tab, etc.) and I've had no problems with navigation or understanding what goes where.  The Homepage is simply laid out and contains the information I need.

The actual content of the site can be quite intimidating and inaccesible.  I've started to try to review a setting and then felt bogged down even trying to find one to start on.  Then, when I do start on one, it takes an hour or reading to even get the basics it seems.  I think some kind of feature that helps people access the settings would be great.  The Showcase is a great idea for identifying worthy settings.  And the directory in the forums is a good start to briefing newcomers and casual members, but I still felt lost.  I have no specific answer to the problem, but that's a large part of the obstacle to my lack of reviews.  I'm overwhelmed.  In order to really give input (and this may be a purely personal answer), I need specific questions or portions of a setting that needs to be refined.  


If you were part of the Opal Council, what site features would you do away with or just put aside as unimportant?
I've not seen any unimportant or unuseful features.  Of course, I'd prally have ignored them already, so it's a tough question.


Have you ever had a contest idea that you wish the CBG would do?

Most of the contests seem fluff-centric and I've yet to see a crunch type contest.


Have you ever had what you thought of as a great conversation starter, and started a new thread only to find no one interested? No.


Have you ever been really mad at the site, the Opal Council, or the other members of the CBG, in such a way that you didn't come back for awhile?  I don't get angry at internet people.


Have you ever gone away from the site for months at a time, then returned to posting normally?  N/A.


Have you ever seen any unfair rulings of any sort on the site (threads being moved or removed, moderators stepping in when they shouldn't, etc)? No.


If you could pick one thing on the site that should be expanded on and made more important, what would it be?
It seems that most of the focus or posts are on settings, and not campaigns.  I don't think it's the Council's fault or anything, but to me Settings/Systems are more personalized and can't widely be used by anyone.  I'd rather content that can be adapted to include in your setting be emphasized a bit more.  The CBGuide does a good job of this, but I just don't see that kind of content often enough in the forums for my taste.

The problem is that most of the people who come to this site are already accomplished DMs and have played the game extensively, and they are more interested in unusual concepts/settings rather than mundane.  They're more interested (absorbed?) in stuff that is uniquely "theirs".  They do a good job on helping you with the stuff that is uniquely "yours", but there's no middle ground.  For example, If I wanted to find an interesting NPC/plotline/organization/anything other than a setting that I could insert into my generic campaign, I'd be hard pressed to find one here.  The contests and the CBGuide are the closest thing to "usable" information that I've found on the site.

What do you think of the look of the site?
It works for me but then again, I have bad taste.

LC is probably thinking of a viaduct, which is confusingly similar.  You could even pretend that the picture is a viaduct.

These may be obvious suggestions, but I'm posting them anyways.

First, ask yourself why would the city be warded off into seperate districts?

The first thing that comes to my mind is to seperate the socioeconomic classes:

If I'm a medieval nobleman living in your city, I only want nobleman neighbors.  So first you'll have a "rich" district, which should contain the better eating, drinking, performance arts, brothels, etc.

At the other end of the spectrum, if I'm a street sweeper, I can barely afford rent and struggle to keep food in my stomach.  The high rent of the other wards puts me in the slums with my other fellow poverty stricken people.  Poor people often depend more on natural resources to live, so if your city is near the sea, lake, or mountain, put this district closest to that.

There should also be several other areas for those who do not fit into either of those categories.  Those areas will be your "standard" areas, but could also be differentiated by having certain interesting things in them.  For example, one of the standard areas has a higher number of a certain type of building (restaurants, temples, etc.) and is named for that.  Or a standard area could have the major thoroughfare passing through it, or be built on a major geographical feature (the Aventide Hill area of Rome).

Perhaps you would even divide the city roughly into racial neighborhoods, if multiple races exist.  It's unfortunately a huge factor in real life, and that's based solely on skin color and background.  Imagine racism with 4 foot dwarfs, orcs, etc.

Finally, your huge city will at minimum need one area that includes the governmen., be it a castle, keep, walled in area, courthouses, etc.

But to go back to your initial question, the main reason cities in real life are divided into wards are based on socioeconomic classes...so use that in your huge fantasy city as well.

QuoteThe question as to whether the variant caster is underpowered depends more on how it compares to other classes, rather than how it compares to standard wizard. Is the caster so much weaker that you'd rather play an equivalent level non-caster?

If it replaces the wizard and/or sorcerer, then absolutely.  But if it is another arcance caster option, then it must be compared directly to them.  I'm still unsure what we're using the "variant" for.

I'm failing to see how the magic system differs from standard D&D.  Maybe I need some crunch displayed so that I can see the differences, but it sounds like you are describing the standard magic system with different words and a few variants (like wild magic).  With most spells, the power does increase with caster level, etc.

The character creation concepts are interesting.  I always liked the more extensive character creation systems that involve traits, background, contacts...

QuoteCan this be reconciled with a system based on Class Levels?

I think so.  You can base it on Character level and have various rewards (prestige, fame, traits, followers, etc.) tied to certain character levels.  You can include checks, quests, etc. to determine if the character achieves said reward as you discussed.

I'm interested to hear more, but I need some more detailed information it seems.

QuoteMind [MIND]
The Mind trait represents your character's mental abilities. It encompasses his resolve, his conviction, his reasoning, his awareness, as well as the ability to use these traits effectively.
Intuition [INT]
Intuition represents your character's instinct, subconscious thinking, and gut feeling. A high Intuition allows your character to work with incomplete or inaccurate information more reliably, as well as avoid being easily surprised and fooled.
Perception [PER]
Perception represents your character's awareness and sensual faculties. A high Perception allows your character to notice more and more minor details, as well as react to new situations more quickly.
Willpower [WIL]
Willpower represents your character's reasoning and mental resolve. A high Willpower allows your character to stand up to his conviction more readily, as well as understand and solve logical problems more quickly.

Distribute 9 points among the character's ability categories and modify his subabilities accordingly. No ability category may be initially higher than 6 before racial modifiers.[/quote]Abilities in Tri20 are divided in three categories: Body, Mind, and Soul. Each category contains three subabilities, who can be modified from its basic value on a 1-to-1 basis and deviate from the basic value by at most 3 points.[/quote]The degree of a skill check is measured in the "action value" (AV). For every 5 points the result is above 5, your character has scored an AV of 1.

Opposed checks always compare the scored AV against each other, not the individual skill check result.[/quote]

I'm not sure I like the skill system.  I'm not sure why you're wanting to change the D20 system, but this system seems overly complicated.

You have very interesting ideas but they change the mechanics of the game almost 100%, and it's unclear whether some of the changes are needed or better.  I do really like the idea of the Abilities you have and the status system though.

Just as an aside, keep in mind that one problem with a setting based entirely around war is that it will be, by default, roleplaying light and encourage min-maxing.  Most settings try to be flexible enough to allow both playstyles (or a mixture of both), but a setting like this just seems completely tailored towards hack-n-slash style games.

Also, with a setting like this, you run the risk of the setting and story becoming the star instead of the PCs.  In a war where millions of combatants are on each side, what possible influence could a party of 5 PCs have?  It'd be a very overwhelming setting if you aren't careful as a DM.

I'm not trying to be Negative Nancy, but those are two "obstacles" that immediately jump out at me.  Otherwise, a very interesting and novel concept.