The Campaign Builder's Guild

Quote from: ~Kalin~Well we could always add a "smell" skill.

And Taste and Feel skills also? If so, you'd have to consider that these are 3 more important skills. And the question is always "is it worth the trouble". How often occur situations that make it really necessary to differ between the actual sense that was used to notice something? In my experience it is only important that the characters noticed something, but not how they did it.
[/quote]Well i can see both good and bad in both system and i like the idea of having one formula for everything, and i can see either formula being used for saves in this system.[/quote]
Of course, another idea would have been to use the save progressions for everything else instead of the other way round. Now that would make for some really "average" campaigns. ;)
[/quote]Well we are making a new magic system aren't we? and we have determined that magic items would be Special and rather rare and expensive. Also we could solve the problem by saying that buffs, items etc... do not add to the DC of spells, only the natural base ability modifier can be added, and can only be increased with stat points at every few levels.[/quote]
Not necessarily a complete new magic system. My idea was to use the published spells, but put them in a different mechanical frame. Sort of an "on the fly conversion". But you're right, it could work even with the ability modifier added to the save DC. However, if modify Fox's cunning, Cat's grace and Owl's wisdom to not add their bonus to invocation save DCs, you'd have to look at all other spells and modify them accordingly; also, you'd have to modify any spell that increases a physical ability score so that it doesn't add the bonus to save DCs against stun attacks or something the character would have from feats/talents.
[/quote]Would this be a bad thing? [/quote]
In my opinion yes. A front-liner would again need Str for damage and to hit, Dex for defense, Con for stamina, while a caster would only need Int or Wis or Cha to be really good.
[/quote]
Well, everybody would receive focus points. Spell casting would be based on talents, and using an invocation would require the talent to be "active", thus eating focus points. Noncaster would also use focus to power their own talents. The amount of focus would depend on what system we use; in a class system I'd suggest a "focus die" (d4/d8/d12) maxed at 1st level, in a classless system I'd suggest Cha (or Wis) ability score + a fixed amount (2/4/8).
[/quote]
[/quote]
so this would mean that a matial character has to worry about their Str, Dex, Con, and now Cha or Wis?

Quote from: LordVreega setting is what decides the mechanic.  The right setting demands the right mechanic.  That applies heavily to eveything you replied to.  I've not been any help to this thread in the past, so I understand this comes under the 2 cents heading.  However, I run a mana based, classless, skill based system, so I have some experience on soil you're building the foundations on.
(So I very respectively and with great affection dissagree with the 'classes are a good thing' camp)

Of course, but this is basically a system without an underlying setting, so we'd need to keep some rules quite general and allow for easy additions and modifications.

Quote from: LordVreegBut I need to be more clear, because a lot of what you are saying below (in that great rant-mode) is exactly what I've done.  
So, Ok.

I must appologize if I came across in my last post as a jerk. I really didn't want to. It's just that I see little point in trying to make a "better system", when it's basically the original system with a few mods from Unearthed Arcana applied. :(

Quote from: LordVreegI totally agree with what you are going on about here.  Read this post one of my threads just yesterday.

Very interesting, thanks for sharing. :)

Quote from: LordVreegRa-Tiel, so you can see that I am in total accord with you.  It's just some of what you are calling fluff is not.  You want to make sure the mechanics can cover the fluff.  Okay, say you have one spell casting set of rules.  How would the game set up for character creation?  what allows for a priest of the god of alchemist to use alchemical spells better than a normal priest, and what allows for a priest of the fightergod to have some divine abilities and decent fighting skills?  You need to have crunch that allows for multiple backstories.   I don't care what the exact story is, whether it is some divinity that grants certain characters to learn the skill differently, or different schools,. or guilds, or tribal  knowledge, but the system must be built to support as broad a range of fluff as possible.

Well, I would leave the decision what spells a character learns to the player. With at most - and with a key ability score of at least 20 (which is a heft requirement when you have no +6 bonus items) and 10 invested talents - 20 invocations known and no invocation higher than level 5 or 6 known I think we could allow a player enough freedom to choose from all available lists. Therefore the characters would most likely differ completely in "spells known". A priest from a god of creation would for example know the various creation and repair spells, while a warlike priest could have selected combat related spells like blade barrier and righteous might, while a healer would know the various cure and vigor spells. DnD has enough spells so that it would be quite easy to find two spells at each spell level from 1 to 6 that match the character's concept.

Quote from: ~Kalin~Ive often seen DMs tell the characters that there is a certain kind of smell or taste to what ever they were smelling/tasting at that time, ive never really seen it neccesary to have the ability that does the same thing.

But this is already a break in the flow. Visual and accoustical information has to be "earned" by making the checks, while texture, smell, and taste are freebies? What makes the other senses so much more important to justify this? If it is critical if the players smell something, shouldn't they make a check to see if their character notice it? Alternatively, the DM should scrap Listen and Spot and automatically tell the players what their characters can see and hear - throwing the game back into second edition dark ages. :P

Quote from: ~Kalin~I think that would be quite interesting, but i really don't think we should try it with this system. So are we going to use the same formula for the saves as everything else and introduce a new formula for save DCs, or are we just going to leave the saves the way they are in normal D&D?

If we use a level-based system, my vote is on the "other" progressions (1-11, 2-17, 4-23) for saves.

Quote from: ~Kalin~We could just simply state somewhere (say in the magic system) that spells and items that increase the base natural ability modifier do not add to the DC of spells or special attacks, however i would say that feats/talents would work normally.

I would rule it homogenously across the board: Int mod boosting spells don't add to save DCs, Str mod boosting spells don't add to save DCs - no matter what's the ability requiring the save.

Quote from: ~Kalin~Wouldn't a caster still need a good dex and con score?

But these are suboptimal. A caster has options to compensate for these weaknesses. And seriously, if you go past level 3 it doesn't matter much if your wizard has Con 10 or Con 14.

Quote from: ~Kalin~so this would mean that a matial character has to worry about their Str, Dex, Con, and now Cha or Wis?

No necessarily. My idea was that normal, non-spellcasting talents would only cost their level times 2 in focus per round or attack of use. So, even with a Cha/Wis of only 12, a martial character would still have enough focus to keep his powerful talents going for some rounds before being drained.

ok. before we argue about fluff and crunch and classes and talent trees and magic, we should put down what we have so if anyone wants to join in, their eyes dont get tired of seeing quoteboxes.

[blockquote Atlantis]ok. before we argue about fluff and crunch and classes and talent trees and magic, we should put down what we have so if anyone wants to join in, their eyes dont get tired of seeing quoteboxes.[/blockquote]
We've been doing that already for a page and a half, and its not that hard to get caught up.

Quote from: Ra-TielI would rule it homogenously across the board: Int mod boosting spells don't add to save DCs, Str mod boosting spells don't add to save DCs - no matter what's the ability requiring the save.

Why only Int and Str, why not the rest of the ability scores?

These were just examples. ;) Either all ability score based save DCs should benefit from boosts from spells or magic items, or none should.

To do List:
1. Decide what skill list we are using SRD, Ra-Tiels or some other so we can finalise the master and expert skills.
2. If we are still going on a WP/VP system, were race and size determines WP and HD chosen at character creation determines VP, we need to determine exactly what size and race bonuses/penalties to apply to WP.
3. Start developing some talent trees. (are we still saying that a character recieves a talent every even and a bonus feat every odd?)

Anything ive missed?

In regard to talents, are we also trying to emulate the classes in the PHB, eg: sneak attack, Rage or other such abilities? Also how would we make them scaleable with this system?

Well, depends. What do you think about having talents grant a small passive bonus that's for free, and a better active bonus they have to pay focus points for?

Sneak attack eg would be pretty straightforward. Passive bonus: 1 point of bonus damage against all flatfooted/unaware/helpless/distracted foes; active bonus: 1d6 points of bonus damage against such targets; cost: no action, 2 focus point per talent level used (eg 6 focus point for 3d6 bonus damage).

I like the idea that each talent provides a free passive bonus to something, but im unsure about the need to spend focus points to gain a better active bonus.

And how would we put a cap on how many focus points that can be used for the active talents?

EDIT: I forgot to ask if we were still using the Vile, Holy, Martial, Skilled, Magic, Wild, Civilized and Mind talent trees.

Quote from: ~Kalin~I like the idea that each talent provides a free passive bonus to something, but im unsure about the need to spend focus points to gain a better active bonus.

Then we would have no need for focus points at all. This was one of my main ideas, that a player would have to expend limited (at least temporarily) resources to gain a better benefit. Also, having talents provided static bonuses AGAIN implements the main problem regarding the spellcaster/noncaster dichotomy. A fighter's Weapon Specialization is static, and provides the same bonus at level 4 as it does at level 9, while a wizard's magic missile gets better as he increases in level without costing additional resources.

My idea was to give noncasters (or at least those following the talent trees that do not grant spells/(su) abilities) also scaling bonuses that actually have a greater impact. Yes, getting like 6 points of bonus damage is nice and stuff, but it won't benefit you much if you still need like 12 rounds to wear that golem down instead of putting some serious smackdown on it and wasting it in 2 rounds.

Quote from: ~Kalin~And how would we put a cap on how many focus points that can be used for the active talents?

One of my previous suggestions was to actually put up a limit on how many talents can be "active" simultaneously. Costs would still be only based on the talent rank the player wanted to use (of course he could opt to use a lower level talent, for example only dealing 2d6 sneak attack damage when he could normally inflict 4d6 of it).

Quote from: ~Kalin~EDIT: I forgot to ask if we were still using the Vile, Holy, Martial, Skilled, Magic, Wild, Civilized and Mind talent trees.

If the majority decides to go with levels and classes, I suppose yes.

I see your point with using focus points to stablize the caster/non-caster, but i was thinking something like this.

"Rogue" talent tree
Passive bonus: +1 to sneak attack damage.
active bonus: 1d6/2 levels taken of the "rogue" talent tree.
or
weapon specialization [feat]
Passive bonus:...gain +1 bonus on attack rolls...
Active bonus: +1 bonus on attack rolls/2 levels of martial talent tree.

what do you think?

Quote from: ~Kalin~I see your point with using focus points to stablize the caster/non-caster, but i was thinking something like this.

"Rogue" talent tree
Passive bonus: +1 to sneak attack damage.
active bonus: 1d6/2 levels taken of the "rogue" talent tree.
or
weapon specialization [feat]
Passive bonus:...gain +1 bonus on attack rolls...
Active bonus: +1 bonus on attack rolls/2 levels of martial talent tree.

what do you think?

First, I would rather not touch the feats. We could create everything anew, but why should we? If we can come up with a "better system" and allow DnD material (items, feats, spells, etc) to be compatible, all the better. It provides a huge array of additional options to the players, while saving us the hassle and time to have to rewrite everything.

Second, about your idea for talent trees. It's too weak in my opinion. With your sneak attack tree, you'd have to purchase 10 levels in the tree to gain 5d6 sneak attack. I'd rather not look at what a "caster" can do after spending 10 talents in one of his talent trees. Also, how would you control "active" talents? Without any additional information, it seems as if a character could run around with his talents active all the time. And finally, I assume it was a typo, but your writeup makes the talent tree useless until you have reached level 2: "+1 to sneak attack damage", well, the character has no sneak attack damage until he has 2 talents from that tree (and then only 1d6).

I'm going to post a pdf with some ideas for talent trees later on. ;)

My vote is still for the class/template idea. It seems to be halfway between normal classes and this freeform business some of you are so fond of.

WE make everyone a bit annoyed, then we've done something right.

Ok, compiled a short file with 3x stuff that shows how fully developed talent trees could be designed. Please take the current numbers "as is", with no form of game testing. ;)

File: 1189099332_233_FT36780_cbg_system.pdf