Considering D20fying My Homebrew

beejazz · January 24, 2012, 10:41:21 AM

What it says on the tin. Part of the reason I haven't been tinkering on these boards lately is that what I'm tinkering with is a heavy-ish overhaul. It would make my system feel a little more 4e (mostly by way of powers and a power structure) while keeping some of the 3x flex and characteristic realness/grittiness. The focus, as always, would be on simple procedures for complex results.

What would be added:

Race and Class, but not as a straitjacket. They give you some starting abilities, and after that it's a perk per level. Some perks require a race or class, but there will hopefully be enough skill-based options to allow significantly non-class-specific building.

Skill groups determined by both race and class. Pretty much, the skill system would work similarly to IH combined with Star Wars Saga.

Power Structure. Tentatively calling it SPU (stance, power, utility). You can have two simultaneously active stances or auras at first level, plus one per five levels. Powers you can use at will as a standard or move action (I may limit it to one power per round). Utilities can be used at will, but they take too long to be used in combat or rely on non-combat contexts (item creation, social skills, rituals, that sort of thing).

Teirs every five levels. Vaguely similar to paragon paths, epic destinies, but with "setting flavor" like PrCs were supposed to have had. Pretty much they open up a few options when you take them, and then you can take or leave their power list as you progress.

Rules to randomly or procedurally generate setting content (few concrete details).

A passive defense (pretty much what attack DCs default to should you be unable to defend yourself).

Moar die types.

What Would be Kept:

Quest-based XP.

Reputation as a function of level and completed quests.

Massive damage threshold, armor as DR, wounds.

Reactions system.

Five schools of magic (with classes, I can call them sorcerer, wizard, druid, warlock, and cleric instead of referring to magic by color).

What might be discarded:
The core mechanic, obviously (and with it, the undefined attack roll dice).

Single roll for attack and damage (bad generally, potentially good for mass combat rules).

Spells backfiring (I may keep some fizzling for attacks, and I may even work in backfiring on significant rituals like raise dead, but nothing's set in stone).

Penalties by way of piling d6s.

What would be changed:
Abilities. Swapped for the standard 6 because this is D20. Generated in a combination of GW and roll 3d6 in order (your race and class determine your high stats; the rest are roll 3d6 in order).

Probably other things I'm forgetting now.

...

Thoughts? Questions?

Xathan · January 24, 2012, 02:09:23 PM

No questions right away, but I like the design goals and intentions here - I'm sure I'll have more questions once things get a bit further codified, but right now can't come up with any.

beejazz · January 25, 2012, 12:13:37 PM

LEVELS, XP, and the SETTING

Leveling
The game has levels, and PCs that grow in level.

Players earn XP by setting goals and attaining them. These goals are called quests. Each time a player's character completes a quest, they get 1xp. Players level up when they have (level+1) xp. When they level up, their skills (including attacks and saves) all increase by one, and they pick one perk for which they are eligible.

This means that PCs will level up quickly in the beginning, slowing down at a certain sweet spot. It also means that high levels really mean something, and can take years to attain. It also means that in the levels before easier resurrection, players that reroll will catch up with their companions somewhat.

Levels and Demographics
For the most part, the mortal world is populated by people. Plain old zeroth level people. Fewer people are level 1, fewer level 2, and so on. 5th level is pretty high level in this world.

The potential problem here is that the PCs will spend more time at higher levels and less time at lower levels, in a bottom heavy (as opposed to top heavy world).

The first solution is making low level foes still scary to high level players, at least when they show up in numbers. To that end, players can attack, move, and defend once per round each (the trade down rule allows people to defend more, but at the expense of attacks or movement). Further there are AoO rules and zone based movement (if you become outnumbered in melee, it can become difficult to withdraw as many people threaten you). Finally, damage scales little if at all, and massive damage thresholds scale little if at all. So anyone can wound you if they hit, and anyone can hit you if you play badly.

The second solution is building a world with wild places in dungeons, in wilderness, and in the timeline (I'll explain a timeline system to justify increasing action, and I think you'll like it). Threats objectively exist before the PCs can handle them, but there are good reasons why such threats aren't bringing about the end of the world daily (again, the fact that a human army poses a credible threat to a giant is part of this).

The third solution is the simplest: things that aren't challenging any more aren't worth quests any more. So even though more of the world is "easier," the players will hopefully continue to challenge themselves. The parts of the world that no longer threaten the party remain, but become relegated to random encounters and such instead of being the point of the adventure.

Hexes, Traits, and Levels
Hexes should be large enough that they represent a minimum one day of travel. No road, rough terrain, a heavy load, no horses, weather, and other circumstances will increase the days it takes to travel through a hex. Every day spent in a hex leads to a random encounter.

Each hex has 2 to 4 traits each with a level. For example, a hex might be cold1/mountain3/empire4. There would be a list of cold encounters going from -5 to maybe 15, another list for mountain encounters, and a third list for empire encounters. And you'd roll the following.

1d12
1-4:Cold
5-8:Mountain
9-12:Empire

2d6
2: -5
3: -4
4: -3
5: -2
6: -1
7: 0
8: +1
9: +2
10: +3
11: +4
12: +5

So someone who rolled 3 and 11 would end up in an encounter from the cold list at level 5. So areas have rough levels, and you'll encounter things on a bell curve more or less appropriate to the level the area is.

This would go on the points of light model (civilization is points of light in the dark wild world) mixed with points of darkness (there are also concentrations of badness around mirkwoods and mordors and the like). Also, cities might be placed such that difficult or wild terrain lies between them, but there are easier long ways around. This would provide some meaningful options in situations where you have to get somewhere fast. Players may be forced to risk difficult exploration to get from one city to another in time (say, to deliver a message).

Level-Based Timeline
When I build the world, I'm going to build quests into it. Pretty much there will be twice as many quests (maybe more) as are needed to level for any given level. There are a few reasons for this. First, some quests will be for opposed factions (and players may prefer to pick one faction or the other). Second, so the party can actually fail a few quests. Third, so that some (maybe most) quests can escalate. Pretty much if you ignore the guy summoning Cthulhu, he summons Cthulhu. This is one of the ways to justify "scaling" the world a little (the others being points of light, bigger baddies in dungeons/planes, and the simple fact that weak quests won't earn you xp).

Escalating quests will have a point at which they will escalate (that point being determined by average party level). As a rule, they'll escalate when they would have become easy, to a difficulty a few levels too high for the party. The party will improve the world in the quests they win, while it crumbles a little in the ones they fail or ignore. Eventually the world will be a product of the players' run through it.

Xeviat · January 25, 2012, 03:56:12 PM

I'm liking your way of treating XP. It seems like a great way to get players into the game after starting at first level; they aren't stuck there for long. Then things will slow down, hopefully, as they get more and more involved in the story.

beejazz · January 26, 2012, 04:38:42 PM

I've added info on the idea of a level based timeline in the second post.

I've also been mulling over the class lists.

For base classes I've got:
Wizard (subtle magic)
Sorcerer (terrain, elements, blasting and the like)
Warlock (dark magic)
Cleric (good magic)
Druid (green magic)

Knight
Barbarian
Archer
Rogue

...I'm thinking one more would round out the list, but I'm not sure what.

Xathan · January 26, 2012, 04:49:04 PM

Quote from: beejazz
LEVELS, XP, and the SETTING

Leveling
The game has levels, and PCs that grow in level.

Players earn XP by setting goals and attaining them. These goals are called quests. Each time a player's character completes a quest, they get 1xp. Players level up when they have (level+1) xp. When they level up, their skills (including attacks and saves) all increase by one, and they pick one perk for which they are eligible.

This means that PCs will level up quickly in the beginning, slowing down at a certain sweet spot. It also means that high levels really mean something, and can take years to attain. It also means that in the levels before easier resurrection, players that reroll will catch up with their companions somewhat.

This is...beautiful. I've never seen a leveling system that is so elegant, simple, and allows for both combat and roleplaying - or really, any other type of quest - to level. I salute you, sir. The only question I have here: how does the DM determine what constitutes a "quest?" Are their guidelines, or is it just DM's discretion? And how much control does the player have over what constitutes a quest for them, since they are goals?

QuoteLevels and Demographics
For the most part, the mortal world is populated by people. Plain old zeroth level people. Fewer people are level 1, fewer level 2, and so on. 5th level is pretty high level in this world.

The potential problem here is that the PCs will spend more time at higher levels and less time at lower levels, in a bottom heavy (as opposed to top heavy world).

The first solution is making low level foes still scary to high level players, at least when they show up in numbers. To that end, players can attack, move, and defend once per round each (the trade down rule allows people to defend more, but at the expense of attacks or movement). Further there are AoO rules and zone based movement (if you become outnumbered in melee, it can become difficult to withdraw as many people threaten you). Finally, damage scales little if at all, and massive damage thresholds scale little if at all. So anyone can wound you if they hit, and anyone can hit you if you play badly.

I'm interesting in seeing this a bit more codified - the idea makes sense and I'm definitely picking up what you're laying down, so to speak, but I'd like to see some more concrete rules as to how this works.

QuoteThe second solution is building a world with wild places in dungeons, in wilderness, and in the timeline (I'll explain a timeline system to justify increasing action, and I think you'll like it). Threats objectively exist before the PCs can handle them, but there are good reasons why such threats aren't bringing about the end of the world daily (again, the fact that a human army poses a credible threat to a giant is part of this).

Again, makes sense, but a bit more detail as to mechanically how this works would be welcome. :)

QuoteThe third solution is the simplest: things that aren't challenging any more aren't worth quests any more. So even though more of the world is "easier," the players will hopefully continue to challenge themselves. The parts of the world that no longer threaten the party remain, but become relegated to random encounters and such instead of being the point of the adventure.

This will probably be the easiest to accomplish, but I'd like to see you work on options 1 or 2 since they have the most potential to make the world feel vibrant and alive and remove the "Level 12=Godmode" symptom you see sometimes.

I snipped the Hex rules. While interesting and seem balanced, any kind of randomness in encounters is not my cup of tea except in very rare circumstances, so they're not the kind of thing I like. However, reading those, they are the best example of that type of system since it takes into account more than mere rolls, so I like the system, just dislike doing things like that in my games.

QuoteThis would go on the points of light model (civilization is points of light in the dark wild world) mixed with points of darkness (there are also concentrations of badness around mirkwoods and mordors and the like). Also, cities might be placed such that difficult or wild terrain lies between them, but there are easier long ways around. This would provide some meaningful options in situations where you have to get somewhere fast. Players may be forced to risk difficult exploration to get from one city to another in time (say, to deliver a message).

And then I see this and consider revising my entire opinion on random rolling. This creates not only a great points of light feel, but ALSO makes the world feel even more alive and vibrant - when I have more time, I'll be giving those rules a second look.

I'll comment on the rest later on - just want to say that you're taking a very unorthodox view on d20, and it's proving to be utterly amazing.

beejazz · January 26, 2012, 06:10:15 PM

Quote from: Xathan Back Again
This is...beautiful. I've never seen a leveling system that is so elegant, simple, and allows for both combat and roleplaying - or really, any other type of quest - to level. I salute you, sir. The only question I have here: how does the DM determine what constitutes a "quest?" Are their guidelines, or is it just DM's discretion? And how much control does the player have over what constitutes a quest for them, since they are goals?

Thanks. My goal was to get players motivated by a strategic goal instead of a tactical method, but without using the old gold xp.

As for what constitutes a quest, I'll probably have some guidelines that need to get hammered out. I can list what little I have so far.

1) The goal should be concrete and not relative. First session I ran with this system had "get more than my fair share of the gold," which turned out surprisingly problematic. Not just because of the PvP but because it incentivized some weirdness. Long story short, he had more gold than the others but couldn't get out without their help, and waffled on whether to accept that. In-world the character still had a shit load of gold and probably would have wanted to live to spend it.
2) Success should be uncertain. It doesn't necessarily have to be 50/50, but the closer it is the better things might go.
3) It should take at least one or two sessions to do. If one player averages more than one quest per session they're probably too easy.
4) It should be interesting, and make sense.
5) There should be some other in-game benefit to completing the quest.

4 and 5 pretty much just mean no grinding. If you're wondering how to mechanically balance quests, I don't have the system half written, so I don't have the math on me quite yet.

QuoteI'm interesting in seeing this a bit more codified - the idea makes sense and I'm definitely picking up what you're laying down, so to speak, but I'd like to see some more concrete rules as to how this works.

The rules that make many foes scarier than single foes are sort of back end stuff (there's no specific bonuses or penalties, it's just the structure of the rules that makes it so).

The number one thing that makes hordes of mooks scary is that you can't defend yourself from more than three attacks in a round, and at that point you're sacrificing your attack and movement to do it.

Number two is the wounding system, and the fact that low level foes still hit hard enough to wound you. Pretty much when you get wounded you're going to want to retreat, because it will take a ritual to fix it. Problem is wounds hamper you, and you can get ripped apart if you hadn't planned for a retreat.

Last is the melee/ranged defense split. Melee guys can't hit the faraway ranged guys. Ranged guys can't block melee attacks (they have to dodge melee attacks at a penalty). I may have mages cast two-handed (so they'll likewise need to dodge). Then there's AoOs. So even if your mage can handle twelve mooks in two hits each, if he gets surrounded he can't defend himself well, he can't withdraw without getting hit, and he can't blow them all up without hitting himself.

QuoteI snipped the Hex rules. While interesting and seem balanced, any kind of randomness in encounters is not my cup of tea except in very rare circumstances, so they're not the kind of thing I like. However, reading those, they are the best example of that type of system since it takes into account more than mere rolls, so I like the system, just dislike doing things like that in my games.

Mostly they're about getting lots of material into the game fast and easy, and making an interesting game of getting from point A to point B. Including a travel segment in an adventure can present interesting decisions, and drag the players over a bunch of plot hooks for the next game. If they happen to pick up a quest, I'll know what to prep for next week (my favorite part of the quest system).

QuoteAnd then I see this and consider revising my entire opinion on random rolling. This creates not only a great points of light feel, but ALSO makes the world feel even more alive and vibrant - when I have more time, I'll be giving those rules a second look.

Any rule can be a good rule if it has a purpose and gets used well. I read a lot of blogs about old-school D&D, and some of the ideas are pretty cool and easy to steal and modify. Also I always preferred ECL as the middle of the bell-curve of what you face (instead of the strict rule of what level foe you should be facing).

QuoteI'll comment on the rest later on - just want to say that you're taking a very unorthodox view on d20, and it's proving to be utterly amazing.

Glad you like it. More's on the way.

Xeviat · January 26, 2012, 07:44:59 PM

Quote from: beejazzFor base classes I've got:
Wizard (subtle magic)
Sorcerer (terrain, elements, blasting and the like)
Warlock (dark magic)
Cleric (good magic)
Druid (green magic)

Knight
Barbarian
Archer
Rogue

...I'm thinking one more would round out the list, but I'm not sure what.

Monk?

Also, just pointing out I'm still stalking this thread. Like Xathan, I love the leveling system. While I'm also weary of the random adventure system, it does seem like an interesting thing back end for a X-ly game that doesn't require terribly large amounts of prep for the DM. It could also make the campaign feel far more organic, which is something sometimes lacking from games that exists oddly in some MMOs.

I am interested in seeing how the combat system works out.

Xathan · January 26, 2012, 08:59:01 PM

Quote from: beejazz
I've added info on the idea of a level based timeline in the second post.

I've also been mulling over the class lists.

For base classes I've got:
Wizard (subtle magic)
Sorcerer (terrain, elements, blasting and the like)
Warlock (dark magic)
Cleric (good magic)
Druid (green magic)

Knight
Barbarian
Archer
Rogue

...I'm thinking one more would round out the list, but I'm not sure what.

I'll get back to the line by line later on (as I mentioned before, my brain's all over the place tonight), but wanted to offer some suggestions here.

Monk works, but you might not want the eastern flavor.
Bard is a fantasy staple, and nothing says you have to keep it as a spellcaster.
Depending on your setting, an Alchemist type class could work
And finally, some kind of scout/skirmisher that works in melee unlike the archer - a Ranger/Hunter class.

beejazz · January 26, 2012, 09:41:07 PM

I'm thinking I may swap out the archer for hunter (what's a hexcrawl without a class specced for wilderness survival?) and include something at least like a monk.

Xeviat · January 26, 2012, 11:08:57 PM

Monk without the eastern flavor would be tough. But then again, no real unarmed martial artist would walk out into a battlefield where people were wearing armor and wielding swords (maybe if they were forced into it, but even the temple monks had weapons). In the west, there were unarmed techniques (wrestling's a big one), and some of those techniques could have made their way into martial traditions (eastern sword techniques utilize things from the unarmed martial arts after all).

Bard, or even "adventurer", is a big one; someone who can do a bit of everything, your classic "hero" character.

I do think a hunter would be better than an archer. Why does the fighter have to be locked into melee? Couldn't the fighter be a longbowman (more combat, less skills)?

beejazz · January 27, 2012, 09:26:50 AM

Quote from: Xeviat
Monk without the eastern flavor would be tough. But then again, no real unarmed martial artist would walk out into a battlefield where people were wearing armor and wielding swords (maybe if they were forced into it, but even the temple monks had weapons). In the west, there were unarmed techniques (wrestling's a big one), and some of those techniques could have made their way into martial traditions (eastern sword techniques utilize things from the unarmed martial arts after all).

Bard, or even "adventurer", is a big one; someone who can do a bit of everything, your classic "hero" character.

I do think a hunter would be better than an archer. Why does the fighter have to be locked into melee? Couldn't the fighter be a longbowman (more combat, less skills)?

On the archer/hunter, I wanted to not have your main way to build a longbowman also be a heavy armored class. An archer/hunter built as a straight longbowman would pretty much just be a hunter focused on combat over wilderness survival perks-wise.

For the monk, I just wanted at least 5 non-magic (or at least mostly nonmagic) classes, and wanted each to have a unique combat style. Also eastern flavor might not be so bad. Level 5 or 10 fighting classes may get somewhat shonen-ish options (bonded with a magic weapon, shapeshifter that can trade power for control, flashstepping ninja-type stuff, etc.)

Xathan · January 27, 2012, 02:26:16 PM

Quote from: Xeviat
Monk without the eastern flavor would be tough. But then again, no real unarmed martial artist would walk out into a battlefield where people were wearing armor and wielding swords (maybe if they were forced into it, but even the temple monks had weapons). In the west, there were unarmed techniques (wrestling's a big one), and some of those techniques could have made their way into martial traditions (eastern sword techniques utilize things from the unarmed martial arts after all.)

Also something to keep in mind is how martial arts traditions started (according so some theories) - farmers/peasants/serfs all had a desire to revolt and a lack of true weapons. From those roots, it's pretty easy to develop a western version of the same thing developing. :P

beejazz · January 27, 2012, 05:17:40 PM

Quote from: Xathan Back Again
Quote from: Xeviat
Monk without the eastern flavor would be tough. But then again, no real unarmed martial artist would walk out into a battlefield where people were wearing armor and wielding swords (maybe if they were forced into it, but even the temple monks had weapons). In the west, there were unarmed techniques (wrestling's a big one), and some of those techniques could have made their way into martial traditions (eastern sword techniques utilize things from the unarmed martial arts after all.)

Also something to keep in mind is how martial arts traditions started (according so some theories) - farmers/peasants/serfs all had a desire to revolt and a lack of true weapons. From those roots, it's pretty easy to develop a western version of the same thing developing. :P

This is about where I'm hoping to go with the class. Also, I've always wanted to have a few eastern weapons with genericized names. A kusari fundo is just a weighted chain, there are rope darts, katanas are just swords and kamas just sickles, etc. Some things may keep their names though, either for lack of equivalents or common knowledge of their names (sai, nunchaku, and the like).

I might mix up the peasant revolt and temple guardian story (as in the fighting styles have sort of a convergent history).

Xathan · January 27, 2012, 05:50:13 PM

Quote from: beejazz
This is about where I'm hoping to go with the class. Also, I've always wanted to have a few eastern weapons with genericized names. A kusari fundo is just a weighted chain, there are rope darts, katanas are just swords and kamas just sickles, etc. Some things may keep their names though, either for lack of equivalents or common knowledge of their names (sai, nunchaku, and the like).

I might mix up the peasant revolt and temple guardian story (as in the fighting styles have sort of a convergent history).

A sai could be a pitchfork head with slightly narrowed prongs and called a "War Fork" or "War Tines" or something similar, nunchucks are simply two wooden dollies connected by a chain or rope and could easily be called "Chain sticks" ...okay, that's a lame name. But I'm sure something could be come up based on what they are. "Chainstaff", perhaps, though that's still weak.

For making them sound western, I just recommend looking at what the weapon could have been before it was weaponized, and going from there.

The Campaign Builder's Guild

News:

Considering D20fying My Homebrew

beejazz

Xathan

beejazz

Xeviat

beejazz

Xathan

beejazz

Xeviat

Xathan

beejazz

Xeviat

beejazz

Xathan

beejazz

Xathan