The Campaign Builder's Guild

Quote from: Humabout
A man after my own heart!  That laziness led me to just adopt a different system someone else already slaved over :D  Now I just kill myself tryign to cobble together settings, since no one has made the sort of weird settings I like.

Hehehe, I feel the same way sometimes on my weird settings. And it took me forever to finally commit to making an actual system, and the only reason I'm doing it is because 90% of what I want I can copy/paste legally and freely from the Pathfinder/D20 SRDs :P

I don't see why monster scaling would be an immediate issue just because the level scale is changed from 6 to 12 or 18. You just multiply the CR by 2 or 3 and call it a day. So, it might be off by a point or two, but since the broader range of levels makes for a smoother progression curve I don't think it will be much of a problem.

Also, I'd like to come with a radical statement (which also happens to be a highly personal opinion): RPGs do not have to be mechanically balanced. The important is all the players have something to do and that they are all having fun. Now, D&D is heavily balanced, but that's because it is, at its core, about fighting monsters more than anything else. In a hypothetical alternative RPG a social ability might easily be considered equal to a combat ability. They are both good, but in different situations.

Quote from: Superfluous Crow
In a hypothetical alternative RPG a social ability might easily be considered equal to a combat ability. They are both good, but in different situations.

To some extent, earlier editions of D&D tried to do this. The assumption was, well the fighter can do nothing but fight, so he'll be real good at that. The thief can do lots of stuff, so he won't be as useful in combat.

The problem arose, not just because D&D focuses on combat (it does), but it meant no matter what situation you were in, half your players had little or no opportunity to participate. In earlier editions, a character might not only be unlikely to succeed at something, he might have been completely unable to attempt it.

I think it's better to assume everyone should have roughly balanced abilities in combat and out of combat. By completely separating the two, you leave the choices in the hands of the players. Assuming they have some idea what the campaign focus will be, you give them the chance to play a character that will be the most fun for them at any given point in time.

Quote from: Phoenix

Quote from: Superfluous Crow
In a hypothetical alternative RPG a social ability might easily be considered equal to a combat ability. They are both good, but in different situations.

To some extent, earlier editions of D&D tried to do this. The assumption was, well the fighter can do nothing but fight, so he'll be real good at that. The thief can do lots of stuff, so he won't be as useful in combat.

The problem arose, not just because D&D focuses on combat (it does), but it meant no matter what situation you were in, half your players had little or no opportunity to participate. In earlier editions, a character might not only be unlikely to succeed at something, he might have been completely unable to attempt it.

I think it's better to assume everyone should have roughly balanced abilities in combat and out of combat. By completely separating the two, you leave the choices in the hands of the players. Assuming they have some idea what the campaign focus will be, you give them the chance to play a character that will be the most fun for them at any given point in time.

I am in disagreement, and am in agreement with Crow...as long as the exp rewards match up.  That was a lot of the reasons that in the earlier games, treasure EXP rewards oustripped combat exp rewards.

Balancing roles in combat ability is a mstake unless you want to make the game a combat-centric/encounter-centric one.  That is the fighter's bailwick (please note the name of the class/role), and balancing out the combat removes much of his specialization.

My advice is to look at the kind of game you want this system to play, and make that the fulcrum of the balance.

Quote from: Superfluous CrowRPGs do not have to be mechanically balanced. The important is all the players have something to do and that they are all having fun. Now, D&D is heavily balanced, but that's because it is, at its core, about fighting monsters more than anything else.

Unless you're talking specifically and only about 4th Edition, I think D&D makes better support for your assertion than a counterexample. In 3rd Edition D&D, and Pathfinder to a lesser but still significant extent, spellcasters often have a distinct advantage, some feats are far better than others, and some classes just don't get nearly as nice of things as other classes. However, many players often care more about flavor and fun than purely optimal tactics, and the DM can tailor encounters to turn some of the usual assumptions on their head-- for example, in Xathan's upcoming gladiatorial-arena based game, a character optimized for normal D&D combat would probably suck.

Grognards get angry about balance issues (and I admit I probably rant too much about this too) but in actual play people have fun regardless. :)

@LV,

Actually, I agree about the Fighter in-so-far-as it's a poor name for a class because it does imply all the class does is fight. (And yet spellcasters still make better combatants in D&D.) As opposed to the ranger, who is an excellent combatant and has his own out-of-combat skills--an excellent class. The Fighter is kind of the oddball class with no inherent flavor, something almost every other class in 3e has.

However, I've played in and run many games without XP. XP rewards are not inherently related to what's fun to me or my group. Whether or not a thief could get XP for finding treasure didn't affect the funness of the class. What is inherently un-fun, to us, is to have situations where the fighter can't do anything (maybe for several game sessions in a row) because there's no combat or only brief combats. Then to turn around and have several sessions with heavy combat, where the bard feels like the lame sidekick. (Bard was my favorite 4e class, btw, as they somewhat fixed this issue.)

The fact that it might balance out in the end doesn't matter. I want to have fun every week.

Everyone needs the opportunity to make an equal contribution both in and out of combat. That doesn't mean they need to be doing the same things or in the same ways, but no one should feel like a fifth wheel.

@Phoenix,
I think I know what one of our translation issues is.

Quote from: PhoenixActually, I agree about the Fighter in-so-far-as it's a poor name for a class because it does imply all the class does is fight. (And yet spellcasters still make better combatants in D&D.) As opposed to the ranger, who is an excellent combatant and has his own out-of-combat skills--an excellent class. The Fighter is kind of the oddball class with no inherent flavor, something almost every other class in 3e has.

to me, D&D is not 3E.  In my own little world, 3E/3.5E/Path are later derivations of D&D.  "spellcasters make better combatants in D&D" is a statement that totally nunplusses me, since that is a broad statement including some dozen major derivations (OD&D, original supplements, Holmes Basic, AD&D, Moldvay basic, Moldvay split, and then 2E...all before3e.)
In aD&D, the fighter had a number of campaign-level advantages that have to be looked at in terms of a game where the experience was split pretty evenly.  Because that particular game was heavily balanced around the idea of the campaign.  And the RAW included lots of memorzation, spell component, weapon type vs armor type rules that evened the classes out over time.  Don't get me wrong, magic users definitely became mobile artillery...but they needed the fighters and the others more to keep them alive. 

But you are right that the game one wants to play had best match the system used.  I have seen our very own SIG supposed dungeon crawl turn into a social/town heavy game that uses the adventure to subsidize...becasue that is what the rules are built to do.  The game will become the rules.

Quote from: Superfluous Crow
I don't see why monster scaling would be an immediate issue just because the level scale is changed from 6 to 12 or 18. You just multiply the CR by 2 or 3 and call it a day. So, it might be off by a point or two, but since the broader range of levels makes for a smoother progression curve I don't think it will be much of a problem.

You're right, actually - so I'm not going to worry about monster balance in regards to that change.

However...that still leaves the problem of how progression feels. I don't know if players will like how it feels if they gain their HP every 2-3 levels, or if they gain it all up front, and that's going to require playtesting - and running characters from levels 1-6 will just take less time than 12/18, just because of the number of levels involved (Unless I start playing with XP scaling, but at that point, why does it matter?) :P

Also, there's one other thing that I thought of, trying to figure out why I was so attached to the level 1-6 concept. In Pathfinder (and to a lesser extent, 3.5 and it's other derivatives), players were rewarded for picking an class and sticking with it via cool "capstone" abilities. But there are also plenty of cool Prestige classes available, and waiting until post-20 play to start tapping into prestige classes means you'll almost never get them - but sticking with your class just for that one ability you really want can often mean waiting years in RL time to get there.

I've never played or run a DnD game that's gone on long enough for the players to get that cool ability they really wanted, and of my friends I've only heard of one game where they achieved that - and it "only" took them a decade. (The campaign, by the way, still isn't finished)

Again, want to make it very clear I'm not dismissing your idea - but I'm keeping it as plan B right now if plan A, 1-6, doesn't achieve the playstyle I'm looking for.

QuoteAlso, I'd like to come with a radical statement (which also happens to be a highly personal opinion): RPGs do not have to be mechanically balanced. The important is all the players have something to do and that they are all having fun. Now, D&D is heavily balanced, but that's because it is, at its core, about fighting monsters more than anything else. In a hypothetical alternative RPG a social ability might easily be considered equal to a combat ability. They are both good, but in different situations.

I guess I should clarify that by balanced, I mean every class is capable in general (no one should feel useless during parts of the game) and has particular areas in which they shine, but there should still be challenge involved. Yes, the fighter is about, as the name implies, fighting - but one of the playtesters (IIRC, it was Nomadic) - said "I never really felt threatened" or something to that extent, and ElDo agreed - the only one who really felt threatened at any point was Sparkletwist, and that's because all but one attack the monster made were directed against her, and the one that wasn't was an area attack that included her.

She still finished the fight with about half her HP.

This was against a Dragon, one of the creatures in DnD (and fantasy in general, in my opinion) that should pose the most impressive threats, period. This dragon was also CR 9 (at the start of the fight it was CR 6, but I bumped it up an age category in round 1 (and adjusted damage taken/hp accordingly) to prevent it from dying after it's first action, and bumped it up again in round 2 to allow the playtest to go on a bit longer). This fight should have been a nightmare for them by the end, and should have been threatening from the beginning against the initial creature and remained threatening throughout. If I had added a healer to the mix, the fight would have been even more a joke for the players - I would have had to use a dragon that could outright kill them in a single full attack/breath weapon to make it come close to threatening, and even then they probably would have won, or I would have had to have the dragon fly around and pelt them with breath weapons without landing, which just would have been a jerk DM move to a group of pregens to who I gave no ranged combat.

I agree that PnP RPG's don't need to be balanced like a video game. I feel that RPG's need to be balanced so everyone is challenged but still has a situation that isn't narrow where they can really shine.

Oh, and as for social conflicts, I tend to leave that more in the hands of the players and some scattered class abilities when it comes to d20 style games - these games, at their core, are combat oriented, and while social situations are important and can easily become the focus of the game, I prefer to let the player's ability to role play and think quickly and talk dictate that more than statistics, with dice rolls being used only when the NPC is on the fence or the player is trying something outlandish OR the result of a failure would be particularly interesting. Modified Diplomacy, Bluff, Sense Motive, Intimidate, and the other Cha and a few Wisdom skills, and feats that modify them, with a few class abilities for Bards, Rogues, and Clerics (the classes I see, in that order, of being the classes that are best at social: because of practice, deceit, and respect, again in that order) to round things out. That's not to say Fighters and Wizards can't be social, they'll just have to make a few cross class skill decisions and feat decisions (or in the case of wizards, spell choices) to keep up with the other three in a social oriented game - but a good RPer can balance out those classes lack of social focus.
------------

For the rest of the posts, there's a lot here and I'm not going to try to respond to all of it (otherwise I'll be at this all day), but cherry pick the things that I feel need a direct response. If I don't respond to it, assume I read it, nodded to myself, and jotted down a few notes in the notepad document I'm keeping of ideas for pre or post 6 advancement, or I feel my response in terms of balance above answered my thoughts on the idea of balance.

Quote from: Phoenix
I think it's better to assume everyone should have roughly balanced abilities in combat and out of combat. By completely separating the two, you leave the choices in the hands of the players. Assuming they have some idea what the campaign focus will be, you give them the chance to play a character that will be the most fun for them at any given point in time.

I think this is a critical thing - communication between DM and players as to type of game. If it's combat oriented, the players will make feat, skill, and class ability selections with that in mind. If social oriented, the same thing. if it's a hybrid, they'll build their characters to function in both situations, and the DM has to take into account that a game focused on both means the players won't be quite as strong in either as a game that's focused on one or the other. For example...

Quote from: sparkletwist
However, many players often care more about flavor and fun than purely optimal tactics, and the DM can tailor encounters to turn some of the usual assumptions on their head-- for example, in Xathan's upcoming gladiatorial-arena based game, a character optimized for normal D&D combat would probably suck.

This was an example of what I'm talking about (not to toot my own horn here - I'm just trying to explain my DMing philosophy and that I'm designing the game with my style in mind). Though I don't think the characters for that game would "suck," they would be no where near as effective as a character optimized for typical DnD combat except in special circumstances. However, I made it clear to the players that social interaction would be minimal and that combat, particularly of the flashy/impressive variety would be the focus of the game.

QuoteGorgnards get angry about balance issues (and I admit I probably rant too much about this too) but in actual play people have fun regardless. :)

Unless I misunderstand Gorgnards (actually, since I've seen you use that term a couple times, what do you mean by it?), I'd like to point out that really anyone who's played with an extreme munchkin in a crunch heavy system can see how much they'd suck the fun out of the game, regardless of focus. (Yes, their is a difference between munchkin and minmaxer, the former trying to break the game and the latter making sure that their character is very good at their chosen role and that the stats best fit the character they're trying to play)

Quote from: LordVreeg
I am in disagreement, and am in agreement with Crow...as long as the exp rewards match up.  That was a lot of the reasons that in the earlier games, treasure EXP rewards oustripped combat exp rewards.

I know nothing of treasure EXP rewards - it's a concept that I've never heard of before. I'd love to hear you elaborate here, and/or direct me to a system that used it.

QuoteBalancing roles in combat ability is a mstake unless you want to make the game a combat-centric/encounter-centric one.  That is the fighter's bailwick (please note the name of the class/role), and balancing out the combat removes much of his specialization.

My advice is to look at the kind of game you want this system to play, and make that the fulcrum of the balance.

I want this game to be used for combat heavy games, social interaction games, and the middle ground - so the fulcrum would be between the two. The big focus of the system is a gritter (in terms of danger) but still familiar to 3.5 players style of play and still giving classes a chance to feel heroic - I want the players to be able to become Aragorn, where orcs were still a threat, and not Anime, where most humanoids or other threats were a joke unless they took templates and classes to make them Anime (or, to poke fun at a different system, Asura) levels themselves - and often surpassing in terms of sillyness both of them. While I don't want to recreate Guildschool, I do want a game where that level of danger is present, but will a more familiar feel to d20 players (again, Asura fits the bill here as well as a model, since the level of lethality in that system is pretty high - other than level for crunch (much higher in GS) and the potential for godlike characters (higher in Asura, or at least easier) I think the two systems have some very similar design philosophies). This applies to social situations as well - in DnD, a level 10-20 character can outsocial pretty much anyone - the term Diplomancer exists for certain DnD classes as well, and situations like this absurd example are actually possible at high levels with the right buffs/items.

Quote from: Phoenix
@LV,

Actually, I agree about the Fighter in-so-far-as it's a poor name for a class because it does imply all the class does is fight. (And yet spellcasters still make better combatants in D&D.) As opposed to the ranger, who is an excellent combatant and has his own out-of-combat skills--an excellent class. The Fighter is kind of the oddball class with no inherent flavor, something almost every other class in 3e has.

I'm trying to fix that with "Styles" - right now the Fighter has the options at first level of "Soldier", a style that excels at teamwork and defending/aiding party members and himself, "Knight," a style that is well trained in fighting but much better than most fighters at navigating social interactions, "Calvary", a style that excels in mounted combat, "Guardsman", a style that is better at social than most fighters (but not as good as a knight) and skilled a nonlethal capture/subdual, "Swashbuckler", a style that is better at speed, agility, improvisation, and than most fighters but doesn't outshine the roguelike classes except in terms of survivability, "Bruiser", a style that allows for a fighter to focus on the beatdown/unarmed combat without the eastern flavor and trappings of the Monk, and finally the "Warrior", who fills the more classic (if somewhat flavorless) DnD fighter role of just being a good overall weapon/armor user. None of these deserve their own class, making them variants would be overly complicated, but give the fighter much more flavor depending on which style they chose (The Oversized Weapon user that Ngali was is not being nixed, just moving to the Barbarian class as a possible capstone, since it feels more barbarian than fighter). I might cut this list down as I design (merge calvary and knight, for example), but right now I'm happy with that list.

QuoteHowever, I've played in and run many games without XP. XP rewards are not inherently related to what's fun to me or my group. Whether or not a thief could get XP for finding treasure didn't affect the funness of the class. What is inherently un-fun, to us, is to have situations where the fighter can't do anything (maybe for several game sessions in a row) because there's no combat or only brief combats. Then to turn around and have several sessions with heavy combat, where the bard feels like the lame sidekick. (Bard was my favorite 4e class, btw, as they somewhat fixed this issue.)

I'm curious as to how these XPless games handled progression and would like to know more - and agree with you on what is inherently un-fun.

Quote from: LordVreeg
to me, D&D is not 3E.  In my own little world, 3E/3.5E/Path are later derivations of D&D.  "spellcasters make better combatants in D&D" is a statement that totally nunplusses me, since that is a broad statement including some dozen major derivations (OD&D, original supplements, Holmes Basic, AD&D, Moldvay basic, Moldvay split, and then 2E...all before3e.)

I'm trying to learn a bit more about these systems to help with X20. While a friend of mine who played AD&D and 2E lended me her players handbook, I'm having as much trouble deciphering them as I did Guildschool (apparently the problem wasn't the system, it's that it takes me awhile to digest/comprehend a new crunch heavy system that is unfamiliar - Guildschool was just my first attempt at doing so.) I don't need a completely rundown of the various iterations of DnD because that's way too much work for you and would take to long to me, but I'd greatly appreciate thoughts on how those systems did things that I can incorporate/be inspired by for X20 now that I've better stated my design goals (I hope, at least)

QuoteIn aD&D, the fighter had a number of campaign-level advantages that have to be looked at in terms of a game where the experience was split pretty evenly.  Because that particular game was heavily balanced around the idea of the campaign.

I'd love to hear more about these "campaign-level advantages", because that's something I'm unfamiliar with. Not just for fighters (though I would like some specific details there, because it is the hardest class to give advantages to outside of rounds) - what construes a campaign level advantage and how does one implement them?

QuoteAnd the RAW included lots of memorzation, spell component, weapon type vs armor type rules that evened the classes out over time.  Don't get me wrong, magic users definitely became mobile artillery...but they needed the fighters and the others more to keep them alive.

That's one thing I am struggling my hardest to avoid - if a fighter wants to play a Soldier or a Warrior or build one of the other styles into a way to be a defender for the casters, that's great, but I don't want later-play Fighters to be forced into the role of "Defend the squishies so they can do the killing"

QuoteBut you are right that the game one wants to play had best match the system used.  I have seen our very own SIG supposed dungeon crawl turn into a social/town heavy game that uses the adventure to subsidize...becasue that is what the rules are built to do.  The game will become the rules.

And that's the last point I want to keep in mind. X20 games will become gritty (in terms of survivability and danger) high fantasy (that can be re-flavored to different cultures) just by the nature of the rules, and that's fine - I don't want to make the WOTC or typical D20 mistake of trying to make the system fit EVERY POSSIBLE game, because the system is not best for that. The system is going to be for magic and magical worlds where the most skilled/powerful people can still be threatened by a band of orcs - in essence, Pathfinder without the God syndrome. I'd greatly appreciate everyone's thoughts on if I'm accomplishing that - but especially the thoughts of people who have worked with system design.

Next Post: Actual outlines for Fighters and Rogues, a discussion on Defense bonuses, and thoughts on Wizards, Clerics, and Bards.

---------------

Also, one last thought on balance I realized I had forgotten - another part of what I mean by balance is making sure I don't have 2 classes that fill the same core role, (Fighter and the PB2 Knight as examples from d20) but one clearly outshines the other in every possible situation.

This post was originally going to cover Fighters, Rogues, and Defense Bonus, but the Fighter got more involved than I thought - I'd love your feedback on this. One thing I do need help with: Please double check my abilities and see if any of them overlap with existing feats, which I tried to avoid. Also, how interesting do they all seem?

Attack bonus will scale as such:
+1, +2, +3/+0, +4/+1, +5/+2, +6/+3/+0. A total of 3 iterative attacks at max level, which seems and feels more balanced than the 4 I had initially planned (especially since I didn't consider cleave, two weapon fighting, and all the things that come with those when I planned that) but still gives those iterative attacks I love so much. These are the same values used in the playtest. Saving throws will progress at the same rate they do for all classes +1, +2, +2, +3, +3, +4 - based off the often unused "medium" progression for saves in d20. Defense will be discussed later.

The class abilities will go as follows:
Skills: The fighter's class skills are Climb (Str), Craft (Int), Handle Animal (Cha), Intimidate (Cha), Knowledge (dungeoneering) (Int), Knowledge (engineering) (Int), Profession (Wis), Ride (Dex), Survival (Wis), and Swim (Str). The Fighter Also Gains 2 bonus skills depending on style as class skills.

Skill Ranks Per Level: 4 + Int modifier.

HD: 5+d5, or 8 (chosen each level) [note]d5= d10/2 rounded down, minimum 1[/note]

Class Abilities:
1: Bonus Feat, Style (rank 1)
2: Bonus Feat
3: Style (rank 2)
4: Bonus Feat
5: Bonus Feat
6: Style Mastery

Styles:
Soldier: a style that excels at teamwork and defending/aiding party members and himself, using shield and weapon in tandem.
Bonus Class Skills: Perception, Craft (Arms and Armor) - A Soldier must be more alert than most warriors, and time in the field has taught them to repair or even make their on equipment in absence of supply trains.
Rank 1: +1 class bonus to self and ally's attack rolls while flanking, +2 class bonus when using the Aid Another action.
Rank 2: Can sacrifice an attack of opportunity to provide ally with his DR, gains bonus DR equal to shield's Defense Bonus
Mastery: Both himself and ally deal additional 1d6 damage while flanking, gains +2 class bonus to Defense when flanking and grants ally same bonus.

Knight: a style that is well trained in fighting but is part of the nobility, skilled at navigating social interactions.
Bonus Skills: Diplomacy, Sense Motive: A Knight is familiar with court intrigue and has a better grasp of social interactions than most warriors.
Rank 1: +2 class bonus to checks when interacting with nobility or wealthy merchants, can treat Social feats as Fighter bonus feats.
Rank 2: Gains a Squire (Warrior(NPC Class) with a level 1/2 the Knight's, Str 12, Dex 10, Con 12, Int 10, Wis 10, Cha 12, Skills and Feats chosen by Knight) that is always "Helpful" to Knight.
Mastery: Class bonus to interacting with nobility or wealthy merchants increases to +4, gains family heirloom magic weapon or armor worth up to 2000gp.

Calvary: a style that excels in mounted combat.
Bonus Class Skills: Perception, Heal: A Calvary fighter must be observant and know how to treat basic injuries, both on his mount and on others.
Rank 1: Gains an Animal Companion as a Druid of his level, but must be a companion he could ride as a mount.
Rank 2: +1 class bonus to attack and defense while mounted - bonus applies to mount as well. No penalty for firing a ranged weapon while mounted.
Mastery: +2 to damage while mounted, +2 class bonus to Ride, +2 class bonus to CMB and CMD while mounted.

Guardsman: a style that is better at social with the "lower classes" than most fighters and especially skilled a nonlethal capture/subdual.
Bonus Class Skills: Knowledge (local) and Sense Motive: A Guardsman is used to being lied to and knows cities well.
Rank 1: No penalty for doing subdual damage with weapon, uncanny dodge as the rogue class ability.
Rank 2: +2 class bonus to CMB to Grapple, Trip, and Disarm, Critical hits automatically confirm when dealing subdual damage.
Mastery: When critically hits while dealing nonlethal damage, target must make a saving throw (DC 10+Guardsman Strength Bonus) or be stunned for a number of rounds equal to the damage dealt.

Swashbuckler: a style that is better at speed, agility, improvisation.
Bonus Skills: Acrobatics and Stealth: A swashbuckler is trained in mobility and sneaking past opponents.
Rank 1: Does not need to travel in a straight line to charge, can sacrifice weapon damage to leave opponent flat footed.
Rank 2: +5ft class bonus to base speed, +10 ft bonus if wearing light or no armor: adds Dex instead of Strength to damage with light weapons or rapier.
Mastery: +2 class to Defense when moved at least 10 ft that round, An opponent struck by a swashbuckler is considered Flanked from the square the swashbuckler struck from even if he has left that spot.

Bruiser: a style that allows for a to focuses on crude and brutal unarmed combat.
Bonus Skills: Heal, Acrobatics: A Bruiser learns to treat their own wounds and is more agile from barroom brawls.
Rank 1: Gains a natural primary slam attack for 1d6 damage (1d4 if Small, 1d8 if Large), takes -3 penalty if using it as off hand attack. A Bruiser is considered proficient with improvised melee and ranged weapons, removing the -4 penalty.
Rank 2: Slam attack damage increases by 1 step, gains +2 class bonus to defense if unarmed. If wearing gauntlets, can do gauntlet damage or slam damage, Bruiser's choice. A Bruiser holding an appropriately sized/shaped object (chair, large lid, etc) gains a +2 shield bonus to AC.
Mastery: Gains a second slam attack as a primary attack at same damage as first, can use enchantment bonus on gauntlets as bonus on attack/damage rolls as well as any special qualities. A Bruiser also increases the damage of improvised melee weapons by one step and their critical damage to x3.

Armsman: A style skilled with a variety of weapons and armors.
Bonus Class Skills: Craft (Arms and Armor), Knowledge (Dungeoneering): A Armsman is well versed in his weapons and armor, and has a good knowledge of the inhabitants of the depths he often faces.
Rank 1: Armor Mastery 1: +1 class bonus to Defense when wearing Armor, -1 to armor check penalty.
Rank 2: Weapon Mastery 1: +1 class bonus to attack rolls with particular category of weapon.
Mastery: True Mastery: Additional +1 class bonus to DR when wearing Armor, +2 class bonus to damage when using weapon from category chosen with Weapon Mastery 1

Magebane: A style trained in combating casters and supernatural creatures.
Bonus Class Skills: Knowledge (Arcane), Use Magic Device - A Magebane is taught to understand magic and use the devices produced by it.
Rank 1: Detect Magic as a Spell Like Ability, usable at will, +2 class bonus to saving throws against all spells and supernatural effects.
Rank 2: Can sacrifice strength bonus to damage to hit target with a targeted dispel magic effect (Caster Level = Strength bonus), Spell Resistance 5+Con Score
Mastery: When making a full attack can sacrifice one attack to have a readied counterspell action (as if using Dispel Magic to counter)  against a spell that targets him or is cast by a caster within melee range (or 20 feet if using ranged weapon) with a caster level equal to the Base Attack Bonus of sacrificed attack.

Hmm.
lot's to answer.  First of all, I need to mention a contradiction.   I talk about balance in terms of game design for a number of reasons.  But I do not think that perfect balance exists or that it needs to go out of control.  But understanding how you want to balance roles is an important polestar to have.

Who used treasure exp?  Early D&D games, up through AD&D at least, gave experience based on events and achievments, not based on how long the GM wanted it to take for the characters to level up.  It was a very important change in game psychology; in that when you talked to other gamers, progress and achievement was a little more standardized (and My SIG players will note this; in that is still how I do things).  Monsters were worth 'x' amount, and the rest came from treasure and Magic items, symbolizing achievment.

Campaign level balance deals with stuff that balances out long term and that deals with the character's place in the world.  in AD&D, fighters could start building a keep and clearing a freehold at level 9 (250000 exp), and for mages, it was level 11 before they could build said stronghold. (375000exp).  The mage has half again as many exp needed for that.  Your ranger has severe limits in terms of hirelings (a very important part of the old game).  The Ranger establishes a freehold at level 10, at 325000 exp, but does not attract men art arms like the fighter did. 
The strongholds were also very different in terms of what could be earned or the spacing.  The Fighter's stronghold options were about the best, and had the earliest. 

Other examples of this would be Paladin's and Rangers tithing and vows of poverty. 

Quote from: Xathan Back AgainUnless I misunderstand Gorgnards (actually, since I've seen you use that term a couple times, what do you mean by it?)

Grognards.

A grognard is an oldschool gamer-- traditionally wargames, but nowadays the term has expanded to RPGs as well-- who likes to complain about just about everything, particularly things that are new and not like they were back in the "good ol' days."

Quote from: Xathan Back AgainI'd like to point out that really anyone who's played with an extreme munchkin in a crunch heavy system can see how much they'd suck the fun out of the game, regardless of focus.

Sure. I should say "people have fun regardless, if the group is cohesive."  To me, there's only so much that the rules can do if you're playing a game with a jerk, and it's not much. The real solution in that case is to not play with that guy.

Quote from: LordVreeg
Hmm.
lot's to answer.  First of all, I need to mention a contradiction.   I talk about balance in terms of game design for a number of reasons.  But I do not think that perfect balance exists or that it needs to go out of control.  But understanding how you want to balance roles is an important polestar to have.

I think we agree here - including the fact that, unless you make it one class with a strict set of abilities and exact same skills and, well, identical in every way, true balance is just going to cause a headache as you reach for an unobtainable goal.

QuoteWho used treasure exp?  Early D&D games, up through AD&D at least, gave experience based on events and achievments, not based on how long the GM wanted it to take for the characters to level up.  It was a very important change in game psychology; in that when you talked to other gamers, progress and achievement was a little more standardized (and My SIG players will note this; in that is still how I do things).  Monsters were worth 'x' amount, and the rest came from treasure and Magic items, symbolizing achievment.

That's...actually awesome, I can't believe they ditched that. I'm going to try and figure out the best way to bring that back - making the biggest XP rewards come from "achievement" as opposed to "slaughter" will make for a much better leveling system.

QuoteCampaign level balance deals with stuff that balances out long term and that deals with the character's place in the world.  in AD&D, fighters could start building a keep and clearing a freehold at level 9 (250000 exp), and for mages, it was level 11 before they could build said stronghold. (375000exp).  The mage has half again as many exp needed for that.  Your ranger has severe limits in terms of hirelings (a very important part of the old game).  The Ranger establishes a freehold at level 10, at 325000 exp, but does not attract men art arms like the fighter did. 
The strongholds were also very different in terms of what could be earned or the spacing.  The Fighter's stronghold options were about the best, and had the earliest.

Strongholds? Freeholds? Fiefdoms? As CLASS REWARDS?! You, sir, have just blown my mind so hard I need to pick it up. (No sarcasm here - I've never heard of anything like that, and holy crap on a stick is that awesome.) I gotta figure out a way to work that into X20 as a high level option, because that is incredible.

Quote

Other examples of this would be Paladin's and Rangers tithing and vows of poverty. 

What benefits did those give? Did the Paladin receive tithes?

Quote from: sparkletwist

Quote from: Xathan Back AgainUnless I misunderstand Gorgnards (actually, since I've seen you use that term a couple times, what do you mean by it?)

Grognards.

A grognard is an oldschool gamer-- traditionally wargames, but nowadays the term has expanded to RPGs as well-- who likes to complain about just about everything, particularly things that are new and not like they were back in the "good ol' days."

So if I design a system using a ton of stuff from older editions, I guess that makes me a grognard - a title I'll wear with pride. :D

Quote

Quote from: Xathan Back AgainI'd like to point out that really anyone who's played with an extreme munchkin in a crunch heavy system can see how much they'd suck the fun out of the game, regardless of focus.

Sure. I should say "people have fun regardless, if the group is cohesive."  To me, there's only so much that the rules can do if you're playing a game with a jerk, and it's not much. The real solution in that case is to not play with that guy.

Heh, agreed...especially since I used to be "that guy". :P

On older editions:
OD&D: Never played, only passingly familiar
2nd Ed: I enjoyed it, in spite of its rules, which were obtuse
3rd Ed: At first I enjoyed because of the freshness of its rules, though I soured on them as time went on. Regardless, I don't think it's really fair to dismiss something as not D&D just because it differs from our earliest experiences. That seems to imply some kind of Platonic ideal of D&D-ness, which I don't think could be accurate. And since 3rd was enormously popular (and is kind of the basis of this topic), we'd be remiss it not considering it the most strongly.
4th Ed: Some things worked well. Some improvements, some things lost along the way.

Campaign-level advantages:
I do not see these as acceptable class features, but rather acceptable story rewards. They offer proper balance (if at all) only when the same group plays the entire campaign from level 1 to 20. My experience is this rarely happens. Especially for me, nowadays, when I might get to play D&D a couple times a year. I think if you want balance, you need balance at any given time, not across a broad range. "It evens out in the end" was the same complaint I had about X character not being fun during levels Y-Z.

Treasure-rewards:
LV already covered this, but I want to add the thief benefited more from this, as I recall. Each class had specific ways they could earn extra XP. None of which did I find a good idea or to work well in game. And having people advance at different rates makes balancing as a DM even trickier.

Quote from: XathanWhat benefits did those give? Did the Paladin receive tithes?

Lol. The paladin was supposed to give up 10% of his treasure. There was no benefit, it was a required roleplaying aspect. LV meant that the disadvantage of a paladin having to tithe helped balance it with the fighter. You could also argue the high Charisma requirement was balance, though I'd disagree on that one.

Quote from: XathanI'm curious as to how these XPless games handled progression and would like to know more - and agree with you on what is inherently un-fun.

In its simplest form, just level people up at appropriate milestones--i.e. completing a major quest. You can hand out XP in nickels and dimes and pretend like you're doing something else, but really it's all just a metagame construct. I've heard DMs say they threw an encounter in just to give us XP so we'd able to handle the next big fight.

What's the point of throwing in a battle you don't want to include just for that? XP is this nebulous mechanic designed to measure advancement...But levels already do that. I think XP is only a good mechanic in a system like LVs (or TRoS) where what you do determines what you learn. Otherwise, it shifts the focus onto this reward-based thinking. I need to kill monsters to gain XP to gain levels to kill more monsters.

In general, I prefer the focus on roleplaying, moving through the story, being heroes, and so forth. I find when you remove this mechanic, the game plays a little different.

@phoenix, you're missing a whole bunch in there between 0D&D and 2E...which is part of my point.  It is not that I was calling later D&D less than the earlier games, it was your use of the term without including earlier games. I never use the term D&D unless I am referring to all the games that bore the name as a whole, since there are such rule variations.  I should have been more clear.
To me, 3E is a later derivation..but still part of the ruleset, as is 4E.

You are right and wrong at the same time about campaign level rewards.  You are right about the personal, anedotal part...which makes my largeer point...the earlier games were written with the fulcrum of balance (and therefor the preferred game type) of the campaign.  I agree, campaign level balancing means that the game is built for that style of game. And understand, part of this is still evening the game at any given time.  the complaint about the earlier games (and some later ones) was that the mage gets too powerful later...and it is the earlier political power/property/men at arms abilities that actually balance this out...at the same time of the game.  Not saying this is perfect, but it is an example of how the class roles were balanced outside of combat.
I don't use them in my game because I don't use class/role balance....but I like versions of them.  I very carefully make sure that social power accompanies wealth and accomplishment.

I don't consider attrib requirements as balance, since they do not affect game play, merely the % of the population who can qualify.  The fact that the paladin could only keep the armor and weapons and had to tithe and had less ability to attract followers and slightly less weapons specializations were all meant to balance. 

I alos love having players advance at differing rates...healthy competition is a wonderful thing.

First of all, I want to say that I'm reading all the comments here, but responding individually line by line is wearing me down a bit. Pheonix, Vreeg, I'm getting some great ideas that are going on the examine later list and really appreciate your feedback, but right now I want to get the rogue class down and a few other things, so won't be doing individual or detailed responses right now.

And, speaking of which, the Rogue:

HD: 4+d4

The rogue's class skills are Acrobatics (Dex), Appraise (Int), Bluff (Cha), Climb (Str), Craft (Int), Diplomacy (Cha), Disable Device (Dex), Disguise (Cha), Escape Artist (Dex), Intimidate (Cha), Knowledge (dungeoneering) (Int), Knowledge (local) (Int), Linguistics (Int), Perception (Wis), Perform (Cha), Profession (Wis), Sense Motive (Wis), Sleight of Hand (Dex), Stealth (Dex), Swim (Str), and Use Magic Device (Cha).

Skill Ranks per Level: 8 + Int modifier.

BAB:
+1
+2
+3
+4/+0
+5/+1
+6/+2

Class Features:
1: Sneak Attack 1d6, Rogue Talent
2: Uncanny Dodge, Rogue Talent
3: Sneak Attack 2d6, Evasion
4: Improved Uncanny Dodge*, Rogue Talent
5: Sneak Attack 3d6, Rogue Talent
6: Perfect Strike, Master Rogue

*Because of the lower levels, Improved Uncanny Dodge can be overcome by someone with effective levels 2 lower as opposed to 4. [note]The Rogue Talents, for now, use the list from the Pathfinder SRD, though I'll be modifying and adding to it after I get the classes hammered out (at the same point I'll be modifying and adding to spells, feats, and other flexible abilities.)[/note]Master Rogue: Much like Fighters, at level 6 a rogue picks from a list of styles that add to their abilities and focus them on a particular type of combat, though it doesn't reduce their effectiveness in other areas - unlike fighters, this is only gained at level 6, not as they level (a rogue with a particular focus in mind should chose talents that complement them.)

Acrobat: Acrobatic Bluff (Can use Acrobatics in place of Bluff to feint or misdirect in combat), the rogue is always treated as having a running start for jumping, the rogue takes no penalty for using Acrobatics to balance on a narrow surface while moving full speed, and the rogue can, as an immediate action, make a Stealth check when landing from a fall or jump. (Acrobatics must be used as usual to avoid or reduce damage)

Grifter: +2 class bonus to Bluff, Diplomacy, Disguise, and Linguistics. The Rogue can use Detect Thoughts at will as a supernatural ability, but can only read surface thoughts and must make a Sense Motive vs. Bluff check to successfully read thoughts, even if the target fails its will save.

Thug: +6 bonus to hit points, can do nonlethal damage with sneak attack, adds 1d6 to sneak attack when using an improvised weapon or unarmed strike. Unarmed strikes by the rogue deal 1d6 damage (1d4 if small, 1d8 if large) and can be made as off hand attacks if the rogue has two-weapon fighting. This damage increases by one step if the rogue has Improved Unarmed Strike. (The thug must select the appropriate feats to avoid the typical penalties associate with improvised weapons or unarmed strikes.)

Gangster: +2 class bonus to attack and defense while flanking, can sacrifice one sneak attack dice to make an intimidate check as an immediate action after sneak attacking. Gains a +2 class bonus to intimidate.

Scoundrel: Can charge without moving in a straight line, adds Dex modifier instead of Str to light weapons, and when taking the full defense action can make attacks of opportunity against an opponent that misses with a melee attack. The Scoundrel can sacrifice 1d6 sneak attack damage to leave his opponent flat footed after hitting with a sneak attack (but cannot use this ability on the same target on the following round). The ability functions against creatures normally immune to sneak attacks, though they still do not take sneak attack damage.

Master Sniper: Can sneak attack with a ranged weapon at 60 feet or one full range increment, whichever is better. The penalty for range increments is reduced by 1 and the penalty for perception checks does not apply until after 100 feet. The rogue takes no penalty for attack rolls with a ranged weapon while prone.

Assassin: Can make a death attack after observing an opponent for three full rounds - this is a sneak attack (with normal rules for sneak attack) that is automatically a critical hit so long as the attack lands. The Assassin gains poison use if he does not already have it, and adds his int modifier to saving throws against poisons he applied.

Scout: Gains a +10 ft class bonus to land speed, does not take the armor check penalty with light armor (though max dex bonus does still apply), gains Improved Low Light Vision as an extraordinary ability, and gains +2 class bonus to perception checks as well as +2 class bonus to defense when the Scout moved at least 10 feet on his turn.

Infiltrator: The Infiltrator gains Hide in Plain Sight, the ability to use Disguise Self at will as an extraordinary ability (No will save to see through, but casting time is increased to 10 minutes), the ability to 20 on search checks in only one minute, and can treat ceilings as surfaces with a 90 degree angle for the purposes of climb checks so long as it has appropriate handholds or is no more than 5 feet wide (10 feet if large). When making a sneak attack, the Infiltrator can sacrifice one sneak attack dice to silence his target for 1 minute, as it was under the effects of a silence spell.

Master Thief: +2 class bonus to slight of hand and disable device, gains spider climb as a supernatural ability usable at will, and gains Case the Joint, a +4 untyped bonus to all relevant skill checks when attempting to steal from or sneak into/within a location if he spends 3 full hours studying it.

Dungeoneer: Trap Sense +3, gains Darkvision out to 60 feet (or doubles distance of existing Darkvision, including Darkvision gained from a spell, feat, or other source even if not permanent), and can sneak attack (2d6) against creatures normally immune to sneak attacks as a supernatural ability.

[note]The Spell Robber (need a better name that's not spellthief) Master Talent is one that I'm unsure of - it seems like it might be a bit too much, but at the same time is so situational that I feel that balances it. I'd like thoughts on if this should be tweaked or abandoned or moved to another class.[/note]Spell Robber: Can sacrifice sneak attack dice to steal a spell or spell like ability with a level equal to the dice damage sacrificed and use it within 6 rounds of stealing it (the caster either looses the prepared spell if he prepares spells, looses access to a spell slot of the same level if spontaneous caster for 1 minute, or cannot use the spell like ability for 1 minute. Spell like abilities cannot be stolen if all uses are already expended, and spells cannot be stolen if the caster has already used all prepared spells of that level or all spell slots of that level have been expended. This spell or spell like ability can be chosen by the rogue if he succeed on a Spellcraft check with a DC equal to the casters caster level+relevant ability modifier) Gains a +2 class bonus on Use Magic Device and Spellcraft checks. When making a sneak attack, instead of doing any damage or using spell steal, can use a targeted dispel magic on the creature (caster level = rogue level). If successful, the Spell Robber can make a Spellcraft check with a DC equal to the casters caster level+relevant ability modifier to gain the benefit of any beneficial spells dispelled for 2+int rounds. This check is made separately for each spell dispelled. If the rogue makes a full attack action or has multiple attacks, he can only use this ability once per round, but can sacrifice damage from other attacks to gain a +2 bonus on the dispel check for each attack that hits. Otherwise, subsequent attacks function as normal.