System Thread for Axa

[snakefing]

I'm beginning the process of re-inventing my campaign world, and with it a system to match. You can see the earliest efforts in my original posts. And somewhere there is a thread on my magic system, but I couldn't find it right off. I'll probably come back and add that link later, because it is still relevant here.

But this thread is about the system I'm trying to cobble together to support the style of play I envision.

Part of that is a magic system that supports the ideas that world is based on. Changing the magic system intrinsically changes a lot of character archetypes, and the other character types need to be re-examined to ensure compatibility, and while you are doing that, you might as well tweak things to support world-specific concepts, and before you know it, you've started a whole new system. So then I came back to approach the new system from the ground up.

This thread will describe what I've got so far, while looking for some feedback or new ideas to incorporate. The first post will necessarily be a little vague, and I'll add details as I have time.

What did I want from this system?

Reasonably compatible with games people know. For better or worse, this means D20. I started this before D&D 4e but the concepts there moved in the wrong direction for me, so I'll start with 3.5.
*Supports the magic background. Different types of magic are whole distinct professions, but some of the skills and abilities do go across different styles, so you can have more generalist casters or highly focused ones. And physical magic (flying, fireballs, etc.) is different from spirit magic (possession, charms, etc.).
*More focus on cultures and backgrounds, less on races and exotic character types.
*A tactical combat system, but more internally consistent than the D20 standard.
*Flexibility in character creation, but within the confines of what the GM defines as reasonable for the setting and campaign.

So with these as a basis, I made some early decisions. I like a skill-based approach generally, but with some kinds of constraints that will represent the realities of the culture and background in which the characters learn and play. So I decided to keep the idea of classes, while opening up the skill system a bit and doing away with the enforced line of abilities that D20 classes give you. Class abilities will be replaced by a more generous allotment of feat picks, but with some loose constraints on how those picks can be spent.

Keep levels or go with a pure points-based approach? My first instinct was to go with a pure points-based approach, but I ran into a few roadblocks here. First, not very D20-like. Second, not all abilities are easily broken up into small increments of improvement, so you end up having some abilities cost vastly more than others. And then our old friend the mini-maxer finds dozens of ways game the system. So I decided on a level-based system, where each level you get some character points (CHP) that can be used to buy incremental things, and a feat pick that can be used to choose feats and special abilities.

For combat, I want something that is fairly tactical, or at least can be, but not so much the war of HP attrition that characterized D&D combat. I want to still be fairly heroic, although not necessarily cinematic. And I want the damage and healing system to be a little more internally consistent, and not so disassociated from the game world. I've got some ideas here, but more on that when I get to it. (Hopefully soon.)

I'll add some posts below on specific details.

[snakefing]

Traits (Not Characteristics)
In D20, characteristics don't really do anything directly. Sure, you might occasionally make a Strength or Dexterity check, but that is rare - most checks are skill checks, saves, attacks, or the like. For the most part, each characteristic is actually a package group of bonuses and benefits that you get at character generation time, and which can only be improved a little thereafter.

So I figure to get rid of characteristics all together, in favor of something I will call "Traits" for lack of anything better. Like D20 characteristics, a Trait is a combination of mechanical benefits, with a descriptive name, e.g., Athletic [+2]. But they'll be a little finer grained than D20 characteristics, so your Athletic [+2] character may get bonuses on a certain group of skills like Climb and Swim, but that won't necessarily mean extra melee damage they way your Strength bonus works in D20. (That would be a different Trait, maybe Powerful [+1] or something.

You can also have penalty traits, like say Weak-Willed, but I'll have to come up some good way to keep this from becoming mini-max heaven. My current concept is to divide the traits into categories: Physical, Social, Mental, Spiritual. Then assign a score (positive or negative) to each category, adding up to +5. So, Physical +3, Social +2, Mental +1, Spiritual -1. Now in each category you can take traits adding up to that score. But if your category is positive, you can only take one -1 penalty in that category; if negative, only one +1 bonus in that category; if zero, at most one +1 and one -1.

Thus, our hypothetical character with Social +2 could have Silver-Tongued [+3] to give a good bonus things like Bluff, and Outsider [-1] with a modest penalty for things like Gather Information. Once this is done, the category scores can pretty much be discarded - they exist only to ensure that people don't load up on lots of pointless penalties to enhance one or two Traits they find important. But maybe that won't actually be necessary.

[snakefing]

Why do the traits this way? The standard characteristics are okay, I guess, but I always felt that D&D tended to overweight the characteristics, because in many cases they were the only way to get the bonuses. There are a limited number of ways to increase your damage bonuses, bonus spells, etc. I like keeping something that differentiates the inherent aptitude of different characters. But I wanted to bring it down to the level of the specific benefits you get - without making them so all important that it virtually requires mini-maxing to be effective.

Also, it may make for better characterization. There are different ways to be athletically inclined, or dextrous, or agile, or so one, and this allows you to choose a few of them that are relevant to your character without having to rate her in every one of them.

[snakefing]

Magic
I've written elsewhere about this in more detail. Here I'm just going to summarize the game system elements.

The concept is that magic is the exercise of Will over Matter (for physical magic) or another's Will (for spirit magic). The ability to cast spells is controlled by the range of knowledge and techniques a mage has mastered. Spirit and physical knowledge don't overlap much, but different types of physical or spiritual magic can be synergistic to a limited extent. Most casters will have a couple of core areas of expertise with other areas of less extensive ability.

The first question was whether to represent magic as a collection of skills, or as a variety of special abilities (that is, feats). In the end I decided on feat chains. Primarily, I didn't really want to have "roll for success" to be a major part of spell casting, and without that the idea of having skills with ranks seemed superfluous.

Basic feats will allow simple, basic spontaneous magical effects by combination, so for example, Tyro Flame pattern plus Simple Create technique would allow the creation of simple flames, such as lighting a candle or igniting a tinder box.

In addition, a caster can learn specific spells and rituals - these are more complex and detailed applications of the basic knowledge, and have to be learned separately. Learning spells is similar to D&D - you need to find someone who can teach it to you, or research it yourself. Apart from these in-game concerns, there's no mechanical limit on learning spells. (That is, no cost in CHP or otherwise.)

Different cultures would have learned and studied different types of magic, so the types and degree of feats available might be limited by campaign considerations. Indeed, a society might have specific spell-casting character classes, secret organizations, religious orders, or the like that have a monopoly on certain types of magic, so role-playing and other in game considerations apply as well.

Since working magic of any kind is an effort of Will, the strength of a caster is not only measured in skills and knowledge, but also their mental power. This is rated by the character's Mana Level. Casters will need to spend CHP to increase their Mana Level, to enable higher power spells. Mana Level is temporarily depleted when casting spells, so higher Mana Level allows more powerful spells and/or more sustained peak action. Recovery is relatively quick, so it is probably better to think of Mana as a per-encounter limit rather than per-day or anything like that.

Also, since magic requires Will, you can't make a magic item without it. Items that are magically enhanced during manufacture are one thing, but you can't have an object that generates at spell effects without trapping some spirit and bending its Will to your own. So the prevalence and nature of magic items is greatly different than a traditional D&D setting.

[snakefing]

Skills
Skills will mostly be similar in concept to the D&D 3.5 skills, although I'll probably tweak the social skills a bit to clarify them. Still working on that. But the basic idea is still the same:
(d20 + Skill Rank + Trait Modifier + Situational Modifier) vs. Difficulty

One thing that always irritated me about D&D 3.5 was the constraints on buying skills. Out of class skills cost twice as much as regular skills, and some classes had absurdly restricted skill lists and very few skill points. This was part of the design to ensure that each class had a niche, but it cut off lots of interesting character options.

So my goal here is to open up the skill system, while still retaining some impact of the class on skills available. My idea is that classes and/or cultures may grant favoured access to certain skills - which is reflected in a reduced cost (in CHP) for buying those skills. Other skills would be purchased at the non-favoured price, but this penalty would be less than in D20.

Provisionally, I'm thinking that favoured skills will cost 2 CHP per rank and non-favoured ones 3 CHP. Each class will have a list of related skills that are favoured. Some cultures might have certain skills that are automatically favoured. For example, a culture that is heavily oriented around horses might have Riding as a favoured skill - it is so common that everyone, regardless of profession, has a good opportunity to learn it if they choose. Also, each character will get the opportunity to choose one personally favoured skill. Something that they have a particular interest in or access to because of their own particular background.

[snakefing]

Combat
Combat is the toughest part of this, because there are aspects of D20 combat that really grate on me, so as long as I'm reinventing the wheel, I figured I'd take a stab at this too. Not that I expect to succeed, but what the heck...

First, I don't like the D20 hit point system, and VP/WP seems okay but not quite what I'm looking for. I've played games that have very extensive damage charts, and don't like the bookkeeping. But what I did like was that the combatants came out wounded. Not just "down some hit points" but actually wounded in some descriptive way.

So I figure I'll go with a wound system. Wounds come in different levels, from minor up to mortal, with attendant penalties. The more wounds you accumulate, the more penalties, etc. But this runs the risk that one lucky critical could put a player character into a death spiral, which doesn't seem too fun. But still something more interesting than the war of HP attrition that D&D sometimes falls prey to.

Also, I want to aim at a feel for combat that is heroic. Not cinematic in the sense of flamboyant actions and swashbuckling; I want a little more realistic than that. But true to heroic conventions. Mooks can be dispatched quickly, and aren't a real threat. Duels go back and forth, with advantage shifting but only minor damage, until someone gains the upper hand and the loser concedes. I'm also aiming for combat that is potentially lethal, but also accepts that the loser will flee or surrender rather than fighting to the very end. (This goes also for player characters, so I'd like a game convention that player characters will never be killed summarily.)

So I'm looking at a system of wound levels at minor, light, serious, critical, mortal. Weapons are rated by their normal wound level. Armor may have both defensive and wound reduction function. Characters (especially combat-oriented ones) would have some kind of hero points, the primary function of which is to reduce wounds. (The idea being, you spend a hero point to perform a heroic action, deflecting what would have been a mortal wound to a less vital area.) Hero points might also be spent to power other heroic attacks or tactics.

That would mean that combat generally lasts until someone runs out of hero points, then they start the gradual decline as the cumulative effects of multiple wounds kick in. Mooks (without hero points) would be particularly vulnerable, and a character with even a couple of hero points to spare would be able to force a mook or lower level character to capitulate rather easily.

Combat dice would be rather similar to d20 system, but I'm thinking that melee attacks, missile attacks, and magical attacks would have separate combat stats, rather than all lumped together in BAB. And true warriors would have a variety of tactical options that would be aimed at trying to control the battle space, forcing opponents to give way or accept a disadvantage, etc. The idea is to make combat more about forcing your opponent into a disadvantageous situation than just doing more and better damage. But there's a lot of creative thought still ahead of me down that line.

Anyway, I've never played a system that has any kind of wound track system, so any insights or feedback would be greatly appreciated on this.

[snakefing]

Classes
Any class- and level-based system will only be as good as the character class definitions, so this aspect is crucial. This is also the part that brings all the other aspects together. I've got lots of ideas but relatively little detail yet.

My ideas spring from the opinion that, of all the D&D classes, the 3.5 fighter is the best designed. True, it is flawed in many ways, but the freedom to pick fighter feats allows you to create quite a wide variety of fighting characters from just that one class template. Combine that with my ideas for magic, which is also feat heavy, and my desire to eliminate fixed class abilities in favor of feats, and that's what motivates the following class design.

First I'll present the generic class template, then describe the elements. Eventually I'll make some core classes - but the I intend to tweak the core classes for every setting or campaign to match up better for the culture and setting. It should also be comparatively easy to create hybrid classes, or tweak a class to better represent the specific background of a particular character.

All the numbers here are subject to alteration as things progress. This is based on the idea of paying 2 CHP for a skill rank.

Class template
Core Skills: list of skills that the class grants preferred access to
Core Attributes: Attributes (such as attack bonus, saves, Mana, Hero Points, etc.) that this class grants preferred access to
Class Abilities: list of feats and feat chains that are class abilities
Initial CHP: 30 CHP gained when this is your starting class
CHP: 10 defaults to 10, but specific classes might (rarely) alter this
Bonus CHP: 0 defaults to 0, but specific class designs might grant extra CHP per level for restricted purposes
Prerequisites: abilities that a character must have to take a level in the class, mostly applies to multiclassing

A starting character gains one general feat plus her initial CHP based on her starting class. The starting character also chooses her personal preferred skill. In addition, she will take her first level in the starting class (giving them an additional 10 CHP and one more feat).

Each level, a character gains a feat, but the feat choices are somewhat restricted. At first level, you get a class feat. Next level, a general feat; then a cross-class feat. Continue to alternate class feat, general feat, then cross-class feat.

A class feat must be chosen from the class abilities for your class. A general feat can be a class ability, or any feat from the general feat list (that is, any feat that isn't specifically restricted). A cross-class feat can be any feat at all, including feats that would normally be restricted.

So all classes will follow basically the same progression of feats and CHP, but they will have different advantages in spending them. Most characters will probably want to spend most of their points developing the core skills and abilities, but their personal core skill choice and cross-class feat picks allow additional customization.

[beejazz]

I'm intrigued by this. Can't comment extensively, since it's time for bed for me, but I'll come back to this.

Good work over all, though there are a few places where I feel it might be cut back a little.

[snakefing]

Cutting back is good.

Of course, everything I've written so far is pretty broad strokes, so I'll have to go into more details to flush it out, but if there are good ways to simplify the basic framework, I'm all for it.

[beejazz]

First of all, I'm not entirely certain I'm getting the attributes/characteristics thing. It's strange to me that there's a dichotomy there, and that one of the two gets thrown away (that's my understanding anyway). I do think the idea of finer grained ability scores might be nice.

Secondly, I'm a huge fan of customizable classes by way of feats. Personally, I nixed the class system entirely in favor of a feat system. If you do want to keep classes, though, it would be nice if each class had exclusive features. Something like the talent trees from Modern or Star Wars Saga. It wouldn't be such a bad idea leaving crossover between some similar classes, though. Mages, for example, might (almost always) have the "spiritual" and/or "physical" tree, plus a third class-specific tree. So a necromancer might have "spiritual" "physical" and "necromancy" magic... whereas a diviner might have "spiritual" "divination" and "metamagic" (I've got a thing for letting diviners tamper with existing magic... you don't have to go this route). Just a thought.

And I've sort of already gotten into my thoughts on mages here. Some classes could have both the physical and the spiritual, where some would be more exclusive.

Just thoughts. Might come back with more to say later.

EDIT: Ack, forgot about skills. Considered skill lists for cultures etc. as well as classes? Also, I don't much like cross class skills either. Given that I've got no classes, it ain't so much a problem, but I like both Iron Heroes' and Pathfinder's take on class/cross-class skills.

[snakefing]

Yes, that dichotomy has me twisted right now.

The idea is that traits would be fairly specific to what bonuses they give you. Any traits you don't have just mean zeros. So instead of having an Intelligence score that constrains your role-playing, you'd have various mental traits like Fast Learner, Good Memory, etc. The exact traits themselves aren't carved in stone. But you choose the traits you like, and it doesn't constrain your role-playing in other aspects.

The mental / physical / social / spiritual breakdown is just an attempt to impose some sanity and limits on this. Otherwise, you could take an eclectic mix of minor penalties all across the board, in order to give your character major boosts in some very focused areas. That is the classic method of the mini-maxer. It may not be worth the confusion and effort though.

As for feats, I've got the idea that some feats are general feats, and fairly widely available, and other feats are specific to particular classes, and are only available through your class or cross-training. So you'll get lots of feats, but you can't always use them freely:

Level 1,4,7,10,... you get a class feat - it must be a feat from your list of class abilities.

Level 2,5,8,... you get a general feat - it can be a class ability, or a feat from the generally available feats.

Level 3,6,9,... you get a cross-training feat - it can be a class ability, a general feat, or cross-train in some other class ability from the setting.

So if you focus all your feats on class abilities, you'll get very focused in those feat trees. But you've got the ability to cross-train fairly extensively in other classes, if that is the way you want to go, but you'll still get more picks in your own class.

I'm trying not to be too constrictive in the class definitions, while still providing some structure and limitations, so the classes define what roles and professions are present in the setting, and characters are encouraged to fit in to the setting; but still have lots of flexibility to deviate from the norms.

[Loch Belthadd]

I see what your saying with traits... They are kinda like feats that tell you what your "abillity score" is. I don't have the time to look through all of this, so I might have missed something, but there are also negative traits right?

[Xeviat]

Alright Snakefing, it seems you're going to want to take a look at Mutants and Masterminds to help for a lot of this. It is technically a d20 system (it has to reference the OGL on the last page), but it really goes a long way to being something different.

I'm a 4E player, so you're going to hear a couple of 4E references from me. I'll keep them short, though, but I do think some of them could really help your game (and nothing I suggest should really require you to deal with the atrocious 4E game license).

first, I don't like your idea of entirely removing ability scores and replacing them with your traits. Unless the traits are large (+2 to all str based skills), then players are going to have a hard time making the characters they envision. Either way you do it, traits/ability scores only serve to let characters get skills above the level limit.

In the end, though, there are two types of abilities in d20: I'm going to call them "required abilities" and "optional abilities" (Note: this is where my 4E ideas are going to come in). Required abilities are things like BAB, Saves, and some skills (skills that defend against other skills), abilities which must scale with level otherwise a character will have clear weak points. Optional abilities are things like most skills, which are abilities which all characters may want to be high but aren't required (mostly these are skills which a character chooses to use, like climb or diplomacy, as opposed to skills that are called on to be used like spot, listen, and sense motive).

4E gets around this by having all attacks, defenses, and skills scale at a rate of 1/2 per level. But in my opinion, the only thing that needs to be required is that a character's required abilities scale at some rate per level.

For instance, in 3.5, a fighter neither has a reason to have a high wisdom (they have no class abilities tied to it, nor do they have spells tied to it), so fighters are usually stuck with a low Will save and low spot/listen/sense motive. These 4 things are all "required abilities"; with a low Will save, you might as well not role when an equal level spellcaster hits you with a spell requiring a will save (at level 20 you might have +11 at minimum, possibly +14 or 15). Almost as bad, at 20th level you might as well not roll listen/spot checks against equal level hide/move silently (a rogue could have +36 hide and move silently easily at level 20), and you might as not well roll sense motive against someone's bluff (the same rogue could easily have +30 or so to bluff). Sure, at level 20 your skill checks are generally going to be asking for DC 30 or some crazyness, but at least other skills only get used when you want them to get used (if you have to climb a wall, there are usually other ways around it, for instance).

I also think that "spell checks" are something that should be required, at least checks to see if the spell affects someone. This is where another 4E idea comes in: the attacker always rolls. This isn't really a system balance thing, just an internal consistency thing. Rather than having attacks rolled against a set AC, but having a set save DC to be rolled against by the defender, I think it's best to go one way or the other.

Otherwise, I think you can really do away with classes entirely. Contact me via AIM (JAGXeviat) and we can discuss this further if you'd like to avoid the delay of posting.

[snakefing]

There's a lot to respond to here, and it will take me a while to get around to all of it.

Alright Snakefing, it seems you're going to want to take a look at Mutants and Masterminds to help for a lot of this. It is technically a d20 system (it has to reference the OGL on the last page), but it really goes a long way to being something different.

What specifically does it have to add? I'm all ears, and plenty willing to drop some money on it, but I'd kind of like to know how it fits into my own needs and desires first.

In the end, though, there are two types of abilities in d20: I'm going to call them "required abilities" and "optional abilities" (Note: this is where my 4E ideas are going to come in). Required abilities are things like BAB, Saves, and some skills (skills that defend against other skills), abilities which must scale with level otherwise a character will have clear weak points. Optional abilities are things like most skills, which are abilities which all characters may want to be high but aren't required (mostly these are skills which a character chooses to use, like climb or diplomacy, as opposed to skills that are called on to be used like spot, listen, and sense motive).

4E gets around this by having all attacks, defenses, and skills scale at a rate of 1/2 per level. But in my opinion, the only thing that needs to be required is that a character's required abilities scale at some rate per level.

Otherwise, I think you can really do away with classes entirely. Contact me via AIM (JAGXeviat) and we can discuss this further if you'd like to avoid the delay of posting.
[/quote]King's Ranger[/url] would be an actual class that a character might take. That class would provide preferred access to the types of skills and abilities that a ranger would have access to in that particular setting, which might be significantly different from the core class.

So you could do without classes, but that opens up the field to all kinds of combinations that aren't very setting-appropriate. Really, it is just a choice I am making, and one that won't necessarily work out.