The CBG System (discussions)

[snakefing]

Way back when, someone (I think WitchHunt) was talking about Epic levels, and that gave me an idea, but Iâ,¬,,¢ve just now got it clarified in my head. Iâ,¬,,¢m throwing this out for consideration, because I havenâ,¬,,¢t worked out all the concepts yet.

The idea is to have gateway feats or abilities that control further access up the tech tree. The original concept was to do this for epic abilities, but thereâ,¬,,¢s no reason you canâ,¬,,¢t use something similar all along the tech tree. To explain, Iâ,¬,,¢ll give an example, then some ideas about how this would work out in play. The example is written in SRD terms â,¬' if our system doesnâ,¬,,¢t exactly have BAB, or has different saving throws, the terms would change but the concept remains similar. The details would have to be worked out, Iâ,¬,,¢m not exactly wedded to them.

Feat â,¬' Advanced Melee Fighting
Cost[:/i] 50 character points
Prerequisites: BAB +5; Fort save +3; proficiency in one martial weapon, or Weapon Focus in any weapon; at least one of Combat Expertise, Power Attack, Dodge, Improved Unarmed Strike
Benefit: Add +1 damage enhancement to your melee attacks. You may improve your BAB above +5 in melee. Serves as a prerequisite for many advanced fighting forms.
Normal: Without this feat, your BAB in melee attacks is limited to +5.

Why have a feat like this? Mostly, it groups a bunch of prerequisites together, so it could simplify the advanced parts of the tech tree â,¬' just specifying Advanced Melee Fighting means as much as a package of more detailed prerequisites. Also, there are flexible ways of meeting the requirements â,¬' more than one way of being an advanced melee fighter.

At the same time, it means that anybody who wants to advance beyond the basics in melee fighting has to put at least a little effort into it. You canâ,¬,,¢t advance indefinitely in any particular facet without broadening out at least a little. No hedgehogs! Also it helps to ensure that characters focused on melee (who have no trouble meeting these prerequisites) will advance in fighting more easily than those for whom it is a side feature.

The +1 damage enhancement is there to provide at least some concrete advantage to the feat. The limit on melee BAB is something a little different â,¬' Iâ,¬,,¢m not sure if it is needed, or if it is a good thing at all, it is mostly there to propose and stimulate ideas. Even if it is a good thing, +5 isnâ,¬,,¢t necessarily the right place to put the limit.

If the idea is sound, you would put in similar gateway feats for different tech trees: melee fighting, ranged attacks, spell casting, enchanting items, lore, stealth, social, bardic abilities are all possibilities. You could also have multiple levels of gateways: Advanced Melee Fighting, Expert Melee Fighting, Heroic Melee Fighting, Epic Melee Fighting.

[snakefing]

As far as recharge goes - I absolutely hate the idea of separate recharge for individual spells, or schools, or whatever. Exactly what, praytell, is recharging? Are there separate, distinct, energy pools for each spell? For each school? It makes no sense to me, and also has no flavor. Ugh!

But, you know, I'm only one guy. And my opinions are idiosyncratic, to say the least.

Another alternative would be to have spells cost VP to represent the physical/mental/spiritual toll of channeling the spell powers. That's a whole different kind of flavor, and would have a big effect on the way spell casters are designed. But it is another option.

And, of course, if the system is well-designed, we can always have alternative approaches, with different tech trees. Choose the one that fits your gaming style best.

[beejazz]

Yes... recharge as spell mechanic.
See the sys I put forth.
Advancing spell levels advances how often you can cast.
Casting higher level spells regresses how often you cast.
Mixing schools or having something to do between spells speeds things up.
Simple.
In any case, a failable skill check every so often that also drains points is just too much restriction!

1d4 per spell level. subtract the highest level you can cast.

if I've learned NECRO IV, and I want to cast a NECRO I spell, that's free.
if I want to cast a NECRO II spell, that's 2d4-4 rounds of wait. Usually nothing. Sometimes something.
if I want to cast a NECRO III spell, that's 3d4-4 rounds. Min0. Max 8. Average four or five.
and so on.
If I then learn NECRO V,
NECRO I: pretty much at will.
NECRO II: 2d4-5 before your next necromancy.
NECRO III: 3d4-5 before your next necromancy.
NECRO IV: 4d4-5 before your next necromancy.
NECRO V: 5d5-5 before your next necromancy.

You could advance pretty much indefinitely.

Yeah... I'm quoting myself.
Point is... the *daily* limit bugs me.
To me, the bought and innate "spells" are bought and innate because they are easier than the hard-won and expensive "rituals".
Instead, you must be focused to cast... and the act of casting expends and disrupts your focus, which you regain after a certain point. It's less "I won't get this back until I sleep" and more "just give me a minute."
The point of sepatating is so people don't have to specialize. Let's say a person gets (SCHOOL) I for four schools, rather than (SCHOOL) IV for one school. Either way, he can cast first level spells every round. The spells are weaker already... to also penalize recharge times, by pulling from one pool would be ridiculous.
Unless you have some other solution (and again... I'm *really* against point magic).

[Numinous]

I like Cym's luck/feat system, perhaps we could just skip luck and go straight to action point feats, like those in the Eberron CS.

Ok Beejazz, that last system for spell casting I can deal with, looks cool.

I'm cool with no ability bonuses on skill checks as well, sounds fine.

Are we gonna redesign the spells and their respective schools?  And what about all spells being allowed points to build in metamagic?

Just my thoughts...  And if anybody actually makes a legitimately awesome claim for a "spirit" stat, then I might be in for that, but it's supporters have been relativiley unconvincing so far.

Oh, and definitely in favor of keeping ability scores, although maybe the bonuses for every two points thing could be dealt with?

[SilvercatMoonpaw]

I think one problem of recharge magic is that you have to keep track of every individual spell you cast.  The mana points that are being tossed around are just a way of keeping the recharge calculation down to one tracking system.  What I think beejaz is now proposing is that rather than recharge by individual spell you recharge by some sort of group, and there are only so many groups that one needs to keep track of.  My question is how many sources do you want to have to keep track of when spells are recharging, beejaz?  Mana points are not a daily limit, they are a single recharge time that can incorporate the recharge times of every spell one has.

Here's how it works:
Cast spell X, which probably costs level # of mana points.  Mana points replenish at a certain fixed rate, even if one is casting spells.  For simplicity let's say it's 1.  If the spell we just cast cost 1, we've lost 1 from the pool.  Let's say the mana replenishes at the beginning of our turn.  So next time our initiative count comes up, mana replenishes by 1 and we can cast a cost 1 spell again.  Or we can wait another round so that our mana is 2 and cast a cost 2 spell.  It is not a dailey limit, it's a slowly recharging battery.

As to needing a feat to apply character points to items, I think that's fine.  I just don't think on spellcasters should be able to do it, as I see the ability to awaken or bestow power upon a treasured items as something any hero could do.

[Numinous]

As to needing a feat to apply character points to items, I think that's fine. I just don't think on spellcasters should be able to do it, as I see the ability to awaken or bestow power upon a treasured items as something any hero could do.

Weapons of Legacy[/i] directly into the basic rules of the game?

If so, I think that sounds awesome.  I definitely think character points would be a better way to invest powers than taking stat penalties and other handicaps to use a progressing weapon...

[SilvercatMoonpaw]

Oh, and definitely in favor of keeping ability scores, although maybe the bonuses for every two points thing could be dealt with?

We could just buy the bonuses.  No more 10 = +0, we just have +0.  The only time when this is annoying is when an ability is drained for an odd amount, say chill touch dealing 1 point of Str damage.  So long as we make everything based on the bonuses, it'll be fine.

I'd say a Spirit stat could be fine for Will saves (unless we divest saves of ability bonuses too), and spellcasting.  Spirit in and of itself doesn't necessarily suggest that it has any influence on personality, it rather suggests some hidden source of power.

[Numinous]

Chill Touch[/i] slightly more powerful so they evenly align with the bonuses.

[Wensleydale]

Yup. It's basically just like making magic items with xp, but you're making them out of character points instead.

Speaking of which, I was thinking that we no longer gain XP at all, is that right? We just gain character points.

[beejazz]

@Nat: For skills, we could possibly apply simple ability checks for physical endeavors, with trained checks for "intelligent" things. Or we could have people... I don't know... *work* to find things out.
@Cat: Nah... this system doesn't fly with me. With my system, there are only two numbers to keep track of: What's the level of the spell? What's my highest level spell? Simple. None of these points and the erasing and the rewriting and the... POINTS. I'm willing (if reluctant) to go with point-buy character generation, if only because they don't fluctuate as much. I'm more willing for hit points, if only because they are familiar and easy to understand. But spell points? Enough with the points already! ESPECIALLY recharge points, which must be re-recorded (if spellcasting is to work) every ROUND. That's just not right.

[Numinous]

Speaking of which, I was thinking that we no longer gain XP at all, is that right? We just gain character points.

For all purposes intn this discussion, they're essentially the same thign.  except that when you gain them, they don't just go to a "level fund", they're spent on advancing.

EDIT: I actually like the recharge system Silvercat proposed a while ago.  Where we have the mana pool, and each spell would (generally) cost points equal to it's level.  Where we regain a number of points each round, perhaps starting at 1.  We might apply our "spirit" bonus to this recharge, if we use the stat.

[Hibou]

We could just buy the bonuses. No more 10 = +0, we just have +0. The only time when this is annoying is when an ability is drained for an odd amount, say chill touch dealing 1 point of Str damage. So long as we make everything based on the bonuses, it'll be fine.

Very much like WoD, which is a good thing. :)

[beejazz]

Sorry... have yet to be sold on either spirit or mana.

[snakefing]

@Nat: For skills, we could possibly apply simple ability checks for physical endeavors, with trained checks for "intelligent" things. Or we could have people... I don't know... *work* to find things out.
@Cat: Nah... this system doesn't fly with me. With my system, there are only two numbers to keep track of: What's the level of the spell? What's my highest level spell? Simple. None of these points and the erasing and the rewriting and the... POINTS. I'm willing (if reluctant) to go with point-buy character generation, if only because they don't fluctuate as much. I'm more willing for hit points, if only because they are familiar and easy to understand. But spell points? Enough with the points already! ESPECIALLY recharge points, which must be re-recorded (if spellcasting is to work) every ROUND. That's just not right.

Just set out a d20, set to your current mana level, adjust as needed. :P

Whatever the recharge rate, the idea is pretty much that it is fast enough you'd never really need to make a mark on your character sheet, just keep track of it for the duration of a single encounter. Or a series of encounters if they are happening really fast. A lot like VP that way - they come back fast enough it is easier to track them on a sheet of scratch paper (or a d20).

[SilvercatMoonpaw]

@Cat: Nah... this system doesn't fly with me. With my system, there are only two numbers to keep track of: What's the level of the spell? What's my highest level spell? Simple. None of these points and the erasing and the rewriting and the... POINTS. I'm willing (if reluctant) to go with point-buy character generation, if only because they don't fluctuate as much. I'm more willing for hit points, if only because they are familiar and easy to understand. But spell points? Enough with the points already! ESPECIALLY recharge points, which must be re-recorded (if spellcasting is to work) every ROUND. That's just not right.

So how do you determine how long it takes something to recharge?  # of round to recharge = spell level?  You have to keep track of the number of rounds of recharge remaining for every spell you cast.

Here's how I think yours works right alongside mana points:
Cast spell: Yours: 2d4-4 = 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mana: Costs 2, 6 remaining
Next round: 7 rounds left, cast another 2d4-4 = 3. . . . Mana: New cost 2, add 1, 6-2+1 = 5 remaining
Next: 6 rounds left, 2 rounds left, cast 2d4-4 = 5. . . . Mana: New cost 2, add 1, 5-2+1 = 4
Next 5 rounds left, 1 rounds left, 4 left. . . . . . . . . . .Mana: no cast, add 1, 4+1 = 5

As you can see with mana points you only have to keep track of how many you are taking away and adding to a single pool during one round of time.  With yours you have to tick down each number of recharge rounds remaining for each spell.