Considering D20fying My Homebrew

[Xeviat]

Nunchuku are easily "Light flails" as they both stem from the same sort of grain threshing tool. Sai's could be "sword breakers", as you really don't stab with them in most techniques.

I'm curious, and I do it too; what is with our desire to "westernize" things in our western themed fantasy settings? Is the worry that a random asian-language word will stand out as out of place?

[Xathan]

I'm curious, and I do it too; what is with our desire to "westernize" things in our western themed fantasy settings? Is the worry that a random asian-language word will stand out as out of place?

I'm big on setting coherency - if I was making an Eastern Themed setting but wanted to have uniquely Western things with them, I'd try to find Eastern names to change them to. It just makes the setting feel more realistic to me.

[Xeviat]

I'm curious, and I do it too; what is with our desire to "westernize" things in our western themed fantasy settings? Is the worry that a random asian-language word will stand out as out of place?

I'm big on setting coherency - if I was making an Eastern Themed setting but wanted to have uniquely Western things with them, I'd try to find Eastern names to change them to. It just makes the setting feel more realistic to me.

Sounds like my reasoning. Which is good, I was worried I was being weird.

And sorry for temporarily hijacking the thread.

[beejazz]

Nunchuku are easily "Light flails" as they both stem from the same sort of grain threshing tool. Sai's could be "sword breakers", as you really don't stab with them in most techniques.

I'm curious, and I do it too; what is with our desire to "westernize" things in our western themed fantasy settings? Is the worry that a random asian-language word will stand out as out of place?

Mostly so players know what things are. I'm not terribly worried about a sai or some nunchaku, as enough people watched ninja turtles to know those two.

For something like a kusari-fundo, people will forget what it is and not know what to imagine it looks like. The rope-dart was translated when I found it, so it's how I think about it. And I just don't think a katana deserves its own stat block.

My setting isn't specifically eastern or western, so I'm not worried about that in particular outside of just making sure players know what's going on.

[Matt Larkin (author)]

On katana--I think it depends on the game system. In d20, it probably does not need its own, as d20 is a relatively simplistic division of weapons. In a system like TRoS that goes into much more depth about weapon differentiation, it does need it (and does have it).

[beejazz]

On classes, I'm tinkering with how they're built and what they do.

Knight would be a tank. It might focus on heavy DR (so the guy can take multiple foes better than other classes), area melee effects (likewise to handle multiple foes), attacks of opportunity, and powers that will stop opponents in their tracks. Pretty much if you stick a knight in a door very little should get through that door. They shouldn't be very strong with movement or range though. Outside of combat, I don't know the knight as well. I may actually give it social options appropriate more to courtly settings and the like, but I would have to differentiate those from rogue social abilities mechanically somehow (and still keep them broadly applicable).

Barbarian would be terrifying. It should probably focus on movement, damage, and a certain kind of defense (barbarian is NOT all about AoOs; in fact, I may give it a stance for armor comparable DR as long as it doesn't use reactions at all... I might also include an "ignore wounds" stance). It may seem a little overpowered, but the melee focus should help keep it not so, and it shouldn't be as hard to escape a barbarian as a knight. Outside of combat, I don't know the barbarian very well either. Except that they should maybe scare the crap out of people.

Hunter would be an archer class in combat. It should focus on range, damage, and movement. Hunters try to take out big targets from hiding, but they can be vulnerable if a rogue or barbarian gets them. Outside combat, the hunter should have plenty of options for wilderness survival, including a faster speed while traveling (or the ability to ignore some terrain-based or weather-based difficulties), increased carrying capacity for certain items, the ability to hunt and track as their name implies, and maybe they need less food.

Rogues would be stealthy assassins focused on very fast very stealthy very climby-jumpy movement and their ability to inflict pretty bad wounds on foes unable to defend themselves. They might also be good at withdrawing from combat should they need to and using cover and concealment very well. Outside combat, rogues are good at both lying and finding the truth, and their stealth and movement can also find use in certain situations.

Monks would work similarly to rogues, but would have stances and powers to allow it to use no weapons or armor. They also have less focus on stealth, more focus on free running, and may be less vulnerable in straight up combat. Outside combat again, I don't know much.

Sorcerers would be warlike mages. Their attacks would hit large areas for heavy damage, while their auras affect the battlefield to slow foes. In close combat they might be weak, though. Like all mages, their concentration can be broken by damage or wounds as well. Outside combat, sorcerers would be pretty uncomfortable. Killing people is what they are best at really.

Wizard would practice subtle magic. Auras would include things like flight, invisibility, enchantments and illusions. Actual instant powers would be few, and I'm not sure what they would do. Flight and invisibility would of course be mitigated by the fact that the wizard won't be raining fire from the sky, and can's use half his offensive power if invisible. Also, again, hitting can break his concentration. And area effects (including mundane melee ones) can hit invisible players. Outside combat, the wizard may also have useful perceptive abilities for finding hidden things and such, and invisibility/illusions can also find their use outside of combat.

Warlocks practice dark magic. Like wizards, they use offensive auras. In this case these consist of powerful curses. Unlike wizards, they may also have attack powers. Maybe melee, single target, status effect stuff to differentiate them from sorcerers. Outside combat, I'm sure speak with dead and similar spells could have some use.

Priests/clerics would practice "light" magic. They could use auras that grant courage to their allies, and have useful support spells and ritual healing. They may also have their fair share of melee smiting, and be built such that they could at least get into melee without dying, even if they're no where near as tough as knights or barbarians. Outside combat, priests' power to heal, repair, and protect could find all kinds of use.

Finally, druids would practice nature magic. Their auras either allow control of a natural environment or allow shifting to the shapes of beasts, plants, and maybe even swarms. Their non-aura spells I don't know as well yet. They may otherwise be built a little like a cleric (able to take a little punishment, able to dish a little extra out against specific foes). And outside combat, their ability to manipulate plants can be pretty useful.

I'm sure I haven't got everything every class does covered yet, and some stuff may be outside of class concepts (two weapon fighter builds might be available to many, likewise with weapon specific builds and skill specific builds and race specific builds and you get the idea) but otherwise what do you think?

I may get to a few sample stances and powers for rogues and barbarians later, as well as mulling over what the past-level-five class options are.

On katana--I think it depends on the game system. In d20, it probably does not need its own, as d20 is a relatively simplistic division of weapons. In a system like TRoS that goes into much more depth about weapon differentiation, it does need it (and does have it).

In my case, I don't think there'd be that much of a difference. Weapons mostly just have one/two handed, some damage, maybe some crit info, pbs damage types, and maybe some keywords for things like reach and "soft" weapons (no blocking with a whip).

A little more on that though, I think I'll be using broad weapon groups (missiles, thrown, light melee, heavy melee, and unarmed) maybe have little keywords to group similar weapons (all axes are axes) and have skills go on the basis of the first groups, but some powers keyed to (say) axes. Thoughts?

[Xeviat]

Knights should definitely have a "diplomacy" focus in social encounters. If you're using the word "knight" like I think you are, then they have a reputation of honor about them, so they should be taken at their word. They could also have a trend towards knowledge of history, which can prove helpful in social situations when dealing with generals and kings and such. Rogues, on the other hand, are a little more subversive in the social sense; charmers, liars, and worse.

Are hunters going to be the only non-magical ranged class? Or are rogues going to have some ability with range?

[beejazz]

Knights should definitely have a "diplomacy" focus in social encounters. If you're using the word "knight" like I think you are, then they have a reputation of honor about them, so they should be taken at their word. They could also have a trend towards knowledge of history, which can prove helpful in social situations when dealing with generals and kings and such. Rogues, on the other hand, are a little more subversive in the social sense; charmers, liars, and worse.

Are hunters going to be the only non-magical ranged class? Or are rogues going to have some ability with range?

Oh, yeah. Hunters are going to be all about the bows, while rogues will use light weapons that can often be thrown, and crossbows are going to be sort of anybody weapons. Barbarians and monks might occasionally use thrown weapons, but for the most part they'll be throwing tables and people respectively.

Area effect bow attacks are sort of hard to place, as hunters hunt (so their stuff may focus on accuracy, damage, and status effects). I may leave such powers open, but I worry over the heavily armored area-killing knight, whose weak movement is now not a weakness, and whose defense once engaged in melee remains strong.

I definitely wanted to leave at least some classes some social options, so it makes sense to me to make the knight more diplomatic, the rogue a better liar, and the barbarian scary (it also makes sense to leave hunters and monks "quiet"). But then these things are perfect to key to skills so players can just pick any personality they feel is appropriate. So I don't yet know which way I'm going to go with them.

[Xeviat]

The reason I'd explore a "fighter" instead of a "knight" is I think both the longbowman and the knight fit together under the same archetype; a straight-forward warrior with intimate knowledge of combat, tending to have a favored weapon. With the high Dex that comes with being an archer, a longbowman wouldn't utilize heavy armor (and theoretically, heavy armor could be restricted to the melee "builds" if you go with that type of structure).

As for AoE bow powers, I'd keep them in. Legolas shot three arrows with one attack, and we believed that just fine. Or give them fast attack multi-shot stuff, so rather than an area they just target multiples (and you could bring back chances to hit allies if that's a concern).

[beejazz]

The reason I'd explore a "fighter" instead of a "knight" is I think both the longbowman and the knight fit together under the same archetype; a straight-forward warrior with intimate knowledge of combat, tending to have a favored weapon. With the high Dex that comes with being an archer, a longbowman wouldn't utilize heavy armor (and theoretically, heavy armor could be restricted to the melee "builds" if you go with that type of structure).

As for AoE bow powers, I'd keep them in. Legolas shot three arrows with one attack, and we believed that just fine. Or give them fast attack multi-shot stuff, so rather than an area they just target multiples (and you could bring back chances to hit allies if that's a concern).

Oh, max dex on armor is a good call. Last system I was building didn't use that. Anyway, as long as I can figure out how to make sure a fighter doesn't become a modern tank with armor and range I think it should be good to keep AoE arrow stuff. Worst comes to worst I can just keep arrows low damage and use a hunter stance to build them up, or keep the AoE stuff minor (two or three tops).

Another thing I could do is have arrow AoEs have target:melee (what this would mean is a group of people in melee range of each other, from my zone-based movement rules) or taget:x in melee (and could still write something so hitting the wrong guy by mistake is possible).

Mainly though, I really just don't want a melee/ranged generalist, at least in terms of given builds' greatest strengths. And at least not under level 5. It's fine if they have backup options though. Main thing is, I want the archer to be terrified if someone closes with them, and I want archers to be a problem for melee fighters, and that sort of thing. Again, mainly concerned with levels 5 and below. Over that, cross-classing/prestige classing opens up. So you can be a knight/hunter or hunter/knight.

[beejazz]

I mentioned reputation earlier. I'm thinking reputation will just be a list of things you've done (and where you did them) and your level (maybe a flat bonus based on class and cha?).

Anyway, you meet a stranger, you roll to see if they recognize you. Difficulty is based on lowest degree of separation (the distance you currently are from anything on your list, or whether they are involved with a group you affected). Succeed and they've heard about you, otherwise nothing.

Then to determine what they know about you, use level and location. People know about given things on your list (your level) hexes from where they've happened.

So the further you go from where a thing happened, the less people will know about it. And the higher level you get, the more word of your deeds will spread.

Not totally related to the class-based discussion we've been on, just something I thought up lately and thought I would share.

[Matt Larkin (author)]

Beejazz, while I like the idea of people knowing about your hero, that seems overly complex. Why does it need to be mechanical at all? Why not simply (as the GM) have people recognize the heroes when appropriate?

In general, I think it best to restrict rolling dice to circumstances where the outcome is meaningfully contested by two sides of the story. If it would make the story better or the game more fun for them to be recognized, then they should be. If not, then not.

If it was to be mechanical, I'm not sure Cha would necessarily contribute to it. I suppose have a strong personality might make you more memorable. But really, people you never spoke to will remember you passed through town if you saved them from the orcs/trolls/dragons/half-celestial beholder vampires.

That said, I like the list of deeds, as a purely non-mechanical conceit. Just a log of heroism for players to look back at, like Achievements on Xbox.

[Xeviat]

I disagree about charisma not being important. Sure, an uncharasmatic hero may be known, but it is his deeds that are known, not the hero himself. Or the uncharasmatic hero may be unrecognized: "I thought you'd be taller"

Reputation, though, can be mechanically important. There may be times when someone wants to hide, so reputation is a hindrance on disguises. Or sometimes a player wants his reputation to put more weight behind his words, so reputation can be a boon to persuasion. These aren't things you will always want to happen 100% of the time, so roles are appropriate; at least I think so.

[beejazz]

Beejazz, while I like the idea of people knowing about your hero, that seems overly complex. Why does it need to be mechanical at all? Why not simply (as the GM) have people recognize the heroes when appropriate?

In general, I think it best to restrict rolling dice to circumstances where the outcome is meaningfully contested by two sides of the story. If it would make the story better or the game more fun for them to be recognized, then they should be. If not, then not.

If it was to be mechanical, I'm not sure Cha would necessarily contribute to it. I suppose have a strong personality might make you more memorable. But really, people you never spoke to will remember you passed through town if you saved them from the orcs/trolls/dragons/half-celestial beholder vampires.

That said, I like the list of deeds, as a purely non-mechanical conceit. Just a log of heroism for players to look back at, like Achievements on Xbox.

Mostly, I agree that unnecessary rolls are unnecessary. So if it's a town you've saved people will just know you (it's pretty much zero degrees of separation). Mostly, mechanical representation is there for when there's some stakes to it. Including those times when you want to not be recognized.

Usually, the list of deeds is the main point. In the same way quest lists are supposed to help GM prep by letting the GM know what players will want to do in a week or so, rep is supposed to keep the players up to speed on the story so far, remind the GM who was there for what, etc.

Since it's one of those rules that interacts little with chargen, it's sort of easy to strip out. But having run a long term mystery with a large semi-rotating groups, it's one of those things I wish I had tried sooner.

Using the location/level radius thing could work on its own without rolling though. So maybe that would be the way to go.

My only reluctance on a bonus from cha is that sometimes you want people to forget how you burned down that farm.

[beejazz]

I had also mentioned that there are some things like PrCs every five levels. I'm gonna have a different way of handling the prerequisites, at least in terms of the "feat tax." So instead of a specific list of perks, high level classes call for a certain number of perks with a given tag. So it might call for "3 melee perks" or "2 social perks."

Anyway, I've been tinkering with rogue and barbarian features mostly, so here's a little of that.

Rage
Stance.
You get +1d(w) to all attacks.
You can't speak coherently.
If you do not attack or close with an opponent this round, your rage ends.
If your rage ends you are fatigued.

Toughness
Stance.
You get (some number) DR.
You can take no reaction-type actions.
You can only use this stance while raging (not sure if I should keep this).

Charge
Power.
Full action.
Close with target and attack. Target can not make an attack of opportunity.

Haven't got much more for bbn.

___

Scramble
Stance.
As long as you begin and end your movement in flat, stable terrain, you can climb, jump, or balance on pretty much anything to get there with no check.

Greater Stealth
Stance.
As long as you begin and end your movement in concealment, treat all of your movement as if it were through concealment.

Sneak Attack
Power.
Standard Action.
If your target does not defend himself, deal +1dw damage.

Cowardice
Power.
Full action.
Melee attack target and withdraw from melee. Target can not make an attack of opportunity.

I'll probably do 'em up with better target/area/skill/defense format and all that, but for now that's the gist of what I've got.