Xev20 Redux Redux (now with mechanics!)

[Xeviat]

[Note]Hello all! I'm back from an inadvertent hiatus. I needed to be alone with my thoughts, to force myself to create something more solid before posting more. I'd rather not use everyone as my own personal sounding board before I have more concrete ideas. Now that I have them, I'm ready to post again. On with the crunch![/Note]

Xev20 has been my ongoing project to revise the D&D system to be what I and my core group of players want out of a game. I started playing D&D during 3rd Edition, and I stayed with it through the transition to 3.5 (which I hardly consider a separate edition, unlike some of my circle), and finally to 4E. Through my tenure with 3E, I was a prolific homebrewer of rules content. I had my own races (Ifrit, Triton, Valkyrie), my own classes (Templar, Savant, Priest), to my own house rules (maneuver system, mana system). 3E was my heyday of home brewed crunch.

4th Edition brought changes. Homebrewing became more difficult, partially because my group was split on whether they liked the edition or not, and partially because the system was tighter. The tightness of the system, coupled with a lack of transparency, made it difficult to create big things. Sure, creating races, powers, feats, or items was easy, but creating a whole class became downright impossible; for a barebones class, with no choices, one had to create class abilities and 25 different powers. The game left powers as distinct parts of classes, which, at least for me, lead one to think each class needed their own.

Now, 5th Edition is on the horizon. At first, I was intrigued by some of the concepts coming out in its design. Backgrounds as a vehicle for skills was a good idea, especially because skills were then to be decoupled from class (and even were decoupled from ability score at the onset). We gladly participated in the playtest, but we were immediately unimpressed. Without nitpicking too much, it became apparent that the system was not going to be what we wanted it to be. But after years of playing 4E, it has proven difficult to go back; I have seen the man behind the curtain. Much of my group has retreated back to 3E, in the form of Pathfinder. In order to bring my group back together, I am seeking to marry 3E and 4E and see what comes out.

Goals

The goal of Xev20 is to create a more balanced version of 3E D&D; it is also to create a more traditional version of 4E D&D. I want to bring back much of 3E's simulationism. I want classes to share material between each other. I want non-magical classes to feel less magical, while still being able to contribute meaningfully. I want the simplicity of NPC and Monster design of 4E, along with the tighter balance it brings. I want the combat roles of 4E to be spelled out, yet be more flexible.

I also want to keep the system concise and prevent some of the system bloat that comes with other systems. For instance, the 12 classes I'm going to start with are intended to be the only 12 classes (unless I am convinced to have psionics, then there will be 14 or 16 classes). Each of those classes will be able to cover multiple concepts. For instance, the Warlord, a class I loved in 4E, can just be eaten by the Fighter; the Paladin absorbs the Avenger; the Cleric absorbs the Invoker; the Fighter/Wizard absorbs the Swordmage. Each class not only embodies an archetype in the world, but also a play style at the table.

[Xeviat]

Core Concepts

The core of the system is based upon the Monster/NPC progression. Like 4E, I'm going to be using a table which references the monster's role and level to determine their combat stats. Core combat atributes are going to increase at +1 per level. The system will also be balanced around a 50% hit rate when fighting something of equal level, though "on miss" abilities will be common amongst limited use abilities. With a base HP (for monsters) of 8 per level, a 50% hit rate, and an end goal for combat to cap out in the area of 8 rounds, overall damage then progresses at +2 damage/level. Because starting HP are slightly inflated, this creates a system where combat takes longer as the levels progress, allowing them to feel more challenging (and the greater randomness of higher level combat will add to that too). Combat never reaches 8 rounds per level, though (my tests have it capping out around 7 rounds at level 20).

I currently have the stats for the base monster, as well as damage stats for the Fighter and the Wizard working, and they are within 10% of each other at any time. But class structure will look like something between 3E and 4E. The Wizard and other primary casters will be closer to the 4E model, with At-Will, Encounter, and Daily spells (and a suite of Utility spell slots); the Fighter is the direct opposite, with no random abilities (though they do get an increased crit rate, which adds a sense of randomness).

Spells will be shared across classes, as it was in 3E and earlier editions. Combat maneuvers will be shared across classes as well, existing as an enhanced version of the maneuver system in 3E (disarm, trip, sunder, etc., as well as new additions). Skill tricks are going to be kept from 4E, existing as a way of dolling out utility abilities to non-casters and as a way to enhance the skill system.

Subclasses will be a strong component of Classes. Class determines how the world sees you; reasonably informed people are able to tell the difference between different classes. Mechanically, you class changes how you play the game with the class's unique mechanics; for instance, the Fighter utilizes attack trade-offs, heightened critical hits, and critical hit trade-offs to fight, while the Paladin uses a challenge ability to single a single opponent out at a time, and the Barbarian has to balance the benefits and drawbacks of their Rage. Class and role are not intrinsically tied, though; your combat role is determined largely by your Subclass. Half of the classes can be any of the roles, while the other half have one role that they are not suited to.

Lastly, I will be utilizing the background system from 5E. In addition to your Race and your Class, you choose a Background. Your background helps determine your place in the world outside of your race and class, and it grants you your skills (though skill oriented classes, like the Rogue, will get additional skills). This will allow anyone to be a thief, scholor, or soldier, without needing a specific class. Ideally, I'm seeking a way to partially partition combat abilities from out of combat abilities, which I think will help balance the classes.

Races

Initially, I will be using the core 3E races; I likely will be adding Draconians (Dragonborn, etc.) to balance out the ability scores and have another high strength race in the mix. They will look more like their 4E counterparts, statistically, with some additions to make them broader like 3E races. Races will have a Race and a Culture component, allowing for Races to be raised in other cultures (and allowing for lesser sub-races that aren't physologically different from each other).

Classes

The structure of the classes is where the largest changes will be. I liked how 3E classes were interesting to read. They offered little abilities as they increased in power, especially complex classes like the Paladin and Monk. The primary casters (Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, Wizard) will look more like the 4E classes, with At-Will, Encounter, Daily, and Utility spell slots. The other classes will be more different, with class abilities and other bonuses rather than simply gaining more powers. Not everyone will follow the AEDU model exactly.

Characters will have a combat role as in 4E, which I found helped direct and guide players. Roles will not be hard coded into the classes, though; roles will come from subclasses. Each class can be multiple roles; half of the classes can be any of the 4 roles, depending on how they're built, while the other classes a bit more restricted. The Bard and the Druid are even going to be able to switch between roles, yet never more than one role at a time; the druid achieves this through wildshaping, and the Bard through switching their songs.

The core classes of the system should be the final classes of the system (depending on how I choose to handle psionics). They are largely the 3E classes. I am defining the power sources of classes as well, mostly for categorization, as well as defining classes as warriors (those that primarily use combat maneuvers), experts (those that use skills to fight), and spellcasters (those that primarily use spells). Each class has a mechanic that alters their playstyle from the baseline standard.

Barbarian: Uses rage to gain bonuses in combat. Since rage comes with penalties (though its bonuses outweigh its penalties), their playstyle includes deciding when to, and when not to, employ their rage.

Bard: While they possess spells, their unique mechanic is their song. Bardic music grants bonuses to the entire party, and they can switch their songs to vary their effects.

Cleric: Primarily a spellcaster, a cleric's domain choice allows them additional effects that let them temporarily act more like other classes (a cleric of magic mimics a wizard on a limited scale).

Druid: A druid's wildshape allows them to shift roles, augmenting their spellcasting.

Fighter: Technically the baseline, the fighter's increased critical hit range and base damage allows them to better utilize the combat maneuver system (which requires trading damage or critical hits for effects).

Monk: The monk utilizes stances in combat. Stances come grant special movement abilities as well as special attacks, and each comes with a ki empowered finisher that takes them out of their stance and requires another action to set up.

Paladin: The paladin's divine challenge allows them to single out a specific opponent, granting bonuses against them. The paladin excells at fighting a single opponent at a time.

Ranger: The ranger's animal companion changes how they play. Their choice of companion determines their role.

Rogue: A rogue's backstab defines their playstyle. As backstab takes a round to set up, they play a game of set-ups and retreats before taking advantage of the openings their skills create. Since other people can help set up their backstabs, this can encourage teamwork as well.

Sorcerer: A sorcerer's magic is wild and destructive, meaning the sorcerer has to weigh the options of playing safe or being reckless and hurting themselves.

Warlock: A warlock's curse encourages them to spread out their attacks to maximize their effects.

Wizard: The wizard is the baseline spellcaster, though they possess the ability to learn more spells than the other classes yet can only prepare a limited number. Their playstyle comes from preparing for the challenges ahead of them in advance.

Combat Roles

I will be using the 4E combat roles: Controller, Defender, Leader, and Striker. The core 4 classes (Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Wizard) can be any of the roles, based upon their subclass choices. A Fighter could be a controller (Archer), defender (Guardian), Leader (Warlord), or Striker (Slayer) without needing a separate class for each. The bard and druid are going to be able to switch their roles, and will likely be a little weaker in the roles than a dedicated class to make up for the added flexibility.

Mechanics

3E and 4E are mechanically similar once powers are taken out of the equasion. The combat maneuver system will more closely resemble the 3E mechanic of trading attacks for effects; this system will be broadened. The system will be mostly open, though feats will exist to refine them (look at the difference between an untrained trip in 3E and the improved trip feat for an example).

As starting HP will be more like the 4E starting HPs, combat will be longer than 3E; as damage scaling has been adjusted from 4E, combats won't be as long as 4E. My group enjoys longer, tactical combat, but no one wants a fight to drag on and feel like a forgone conclusion. I will likely be using a Healing Surge/Hit Dice mechanic to track endurance over the day. The system is going to assume full HP each encounter, as it is far easier to balance and encourages players to keep on going rather than resting after each fight.

I have been deeply analyzing the damage dealt by my standard monster and the Fighter and Wizard classes. The Fighter and Wizard are within 10% of each other at all times, with the Fighter having the slight edge overall but the Wizard's access to daily use abilities swing things in their favor when they employ them. Both classes are rather close to the baseline monster stats.

I now need to analyze the different non-damage effects for how they either reduce the enemy's output (like a -2 penalty to attack) or increase the player's output to determine how much (typically in a percentage) of a player's damage they need to subtract. An attack that negates an opponent's action, for instance, is worth all of a player's baseline damage for an attack; trading an action for an action. As baseline damage increases slower than limited damage (at level 20, a baseline Wizard spell is dealing 2d6+21 damage, while a 9th level spell is dealing 10d6+21, so loosing 28 damage to stun something with a 9th level spell is doable).

Spell effects will be more like 3E, though I will be retaining the separation between spells (combat magic) and rituals (out of combat magic), so as not to require a caster to spend all their spells on supporting the party in a non-combat role (as that's the perview of skills and backgrounds).

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

I'm opening the floor for general questions, comments, and suggestions. My current project is determining player HP. I already have the monster HP, but I need to decide if players will use the same HP, or if players will have lower HP and build in an assumption for PC healing in combat (as was the assumption in 4E). Then, I have two things to work on: 1, setting up the basic structure of the other classes; 2, balancing the different effects vs. raw damage.

I know not everyone is a D&D player anymore, but D&D was my first love and I always come back to it. With your help, I know I can make it closer to perfect for me and my group; and if my group likes what I've done, I'm sure others will too.

[Xeviat]

(Placeholder for crunchy analysis of the "Monster", Fighter, and Wizard)