The Campaign Builder's Guild

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And we DON'T BLOODY NEED ALIGNMENT! :P

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

gnaaa... double post :-/

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

Touche again.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

um.. what is an agreegument?

Quote from: Atlantisum.. what is an agreegument?

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

Very cunfusing, and VERY pointless.

ah, i see.