The Campaign Builder's System?

[Stargate525]

Although being cool, I can see now sort of a problem with those class templates. How much does a character get to take? If he only gets to select a single one, it puts the character's development in a nice, unmoving concrete block. For example, a "wild" barbarian will never get to use even the most easy talent from a tree in the "civilized" order, no matter how much time he spent in a city.

On the other hand, if a character can acquire more than one template, what prevents the player from abusing that to possibly gain access to any and all available talent trees from templates? What requirements would be appropriate for gaining a new template? When can that happen? Is it dependent on the character level or some class level, or something completely different?

Imho a better idea would be to give all characters access to some talent trees based on their "background" (the character creation process I used as an example earlier could come in handy here), and give out a levelbased feature called "talent access" every 4 levels that allows a character to "unlock" a new talent tree. This way, the character has talents based on his background and current life situation, but can still dynamically learn new things and adapt to new situation and circumstances.

I disagree. You're attempting to fix a 'problem' that is existent in the original d20 system, and I don't even see it as a problem. Allow them to take whatever template/class combinations they want, and how many they want, but we apply some sort of multiclassing penalty.

One thing, however, is left to consider. Regarding spellcasting etc. My original suggestion (when I still was toying around with the three classes expert, medium, and warrior) was to allow for a "caster" by presenting a mechanic that allows any spell to be selected and made into an invocation, duplicating the spell but at a cost, limiting its usefullness in combat, and preventing spamming out of combat. The question now is, how to deal with casterlevel? In an earlier stage I'd just have suggested making invocation CL equal to medium class level. Now, however, the problem is that we don't have classes any longer (at least not with the current ideas).

That sounds interesting, but there's the problem that if you integrate the magic system too heavily, it'll become near-impossible to remove (one of my pet peeves with D&D magic).

And when did we dump classes? Classes are a GOOD THING. They help the DM guage the power of the group.

[Ra-Tiel]

I disagree. You're attempting to fix a 'problem' that is existent in the original d20 system, and I don't even see it as a problem.

Well, in DnD classes have [almost] no implications as to the character's origin at all. Being a sorcerer makes zero statement about the background of your character, same thing for rogue. Even the ranger can be a very "civilized" bounty hunter type. Of course, exceptions proove the rule and such, there's always the druid. ;)

And I thought this project was an attempt to create a better system, not just to copy over the d20 SRD but make some small adjustments? :P

Allow them to take whatever template/class combinations they want, and how many they want, but we apply some sort of multiclassing penalty.

Imagine the following situation. A player finds out that talent tree A from template X would have a very powerful synergy with talent tree B from template Y. Therefore he takes the first level of class M with template A, and then the second level of class M with template B, gaining access to both talent trees without sacrificing the abilities gained from his class. This way, he could in 6 or 7 levels gain access to any and all talent trees available from templates.

Do we really want that? How could we prevent this problem without using fluff restrictions ("... if it fits your story and the DM allows it ...") for crunch? On the other hand, if we indeed include a mechanical restriction ("... you may not have more than 1 template per 5 character levels ..."), this can very well break valid character concepts (like the level 1 "barbarian" who comes to the city; he'd have to be a barbarian for X more levels before he could finally become a bit more civilized).

And as a side note, the multiclassing penalty was one of the worst things WotC did for DnD. It serves only one purpose, namely to utterly screw over unconventional character concepts and shoehorn players into stereotypes ("no, your elf cannot be a fighter/rogue without being completely assf****d"). I strongly vote against any such thing in the CBS.

That sounds interesting, but there's the problem that if you integrate the magic system too heavily, it'll become near-impossible to remove (one of my pet peeves with D&D magic).

Could you please elaborate this point a bit more? What exactly do you mean with "integrate too heavily"?

Also, this would be one benefit if we went with a class- (and level-) less system, where magical abilities are optional talent trees. The DM and each player could decide for themselves how much magic they want in their games. For example, the DM could restrict access to only the Icon talent tree (talents that allow a character to infuse his body with magical energies and make him better, stronger, faster, etc; similar to Incarnum) and the Clairsentient talent tree (talents that allow a character to gain precognitive abilities; similar to a limited divination specialist) and remove all other trees, while the players would have complete freedom how deeply - if at all - they want to immerse their characters into the magical talent trees.

And when did we dump classes?

We did not dump classes. I did, when I was experimenting with some alternative ideas. ;)

Classes are a GOOD THING.

That always depends on the setting and mechanics used. There is a reason, why the World of Darkness has no classes, or Shadowrun. I shudder at the thought of being a level 4 werewolf or a level 9 street samurai.  x(

Class- and levelless systems always work good for "gritty" settings. They also work exceptionally well for settings that require a huge freedom of development for characters. Classes always nail a character in several aspects into a certain role (tank, healer, blaster, etc) which becomes very evident with DnD classes.

They help the DM guage the power of the group.

True. But you said it: they merely help the DM. They are not integral to his job, and therefore could be removed and replaced with an equally helpful mechanic. The total sum of ImPs the party has could just as well measure up as a tool for the DM to estimate the party's power level.

Also, classes have one drawback: metagaming. Nobody has a class or level written on his forehead in real life, but exactly this happens all to often in DnD (at least imho). Power should - also in DnD - be based on experience, knowledge, and status (I'm referring here to the general terms, not the DnD things). But in DnD it's based on levels, which remotely are connected to experience but have nothing to do with knowledge and status.

Many things in DnD work off the abstract level mechanic, but should not. Take the sleep spell for example. With this simple level 1 spell you can find out if somebody is above or below level 4. Some people are often affected by it (below level 4 and usually failed their saves), some are sometimes affected (below level 4 and rarely failed their saves), and some are never affected (above level 4). Same thing goes for cloudkill, eyebite, circle of death, etc pp.

Finally, classes have the additional disadvantage that some concepts cannot be portrayed. The classical "from farmboy to warrior" concept, for example. To portray such a thing accurately in DnD, the character'd have to start out as a commoner (or expert at most) and then multiclass into warrior, and then later into fighter. I don't need to tell you that this completely gimps the character speaking from a mechanics point of view.

How often have you seen or read the scene that a farmboy escapes the destruction of his village by pure luck or coincidence, setting out to find his abducted sister and to find out who was behind all this? In my opinion this should be a valid concept for a character, playable right from level 1 when the character comes back from fishing to see the smoke rising over his home village. And not require some highly suboptimal and wonky multiclassing up to level 3. :-/

And a wizard capable of casting meteor swarm can also automatically single handedly beat the crap out of half a dozen townguards and take at least 40 points of damage without breaking a sweat - not using any of his spells (and he still has a crapload of skills!). Which is sort of doubtful for a guy who spent the last ~30 years in a library reading books and practicing speaking funky words. :P

I think that removing classes and levels would actually benefit at least the aspect of roleplaying in a roleplaying game. It would remove the abstract power-measurement and encourage looking at someone's actual abilities, statements, comments, influence, social status, etc instead of "what's his level?".

[Stargate525]

Well, in DnD classes have [almost] no implications as to the character's origin at all. Being a sorcerer makes zero statement about the background of your character, same thing for rogue. Even the ranger can be a very "civilized" bounty hunter type. Of course, exceptions proove the rule and such, there's always the druid. ;)

And I thought this project was an attempt to create a better system, not just to copy over the d20 SRD but make some small adjustments? :P

It is an attempt to create a better system. But I guess what I'm trying to voice here is that most of the people playing this system (assuming we publish it/ advertise/ etc.) will be coming from the d20 market. There's a line between improving and making something utterly alien. I'd love to be able to sit down and explain this to my players using 'it's different from d20 in regards to A, B, and C,' instead of teaching them a whole new system.

Why do we NEED a mechanical basis for the backstory? I see it as merely another thing we have to worry about people attempting to powergame to heck and back (Between the ages of 4 and 18 I lived with gnomes, orcs, hobgoblins, and kobolds, so I should be able to know all these languages.).

And as a side note, the multiclassing penalty was one of the worst things WotC did for DnD. It serves only one purpose, namely to utterly screw over unconventional character concepts and shoehorn players into stereotypes ("no, your elf cannot be a fighter/rogue without being completely assf****d"). I strongly vote against any such thing in the CBS.

And I thought this project was an attempt to create a better system, not just to copy over the d20 SRD but make some small adjustments? :P

There are other ways to restrict a character in regards to level and class.

Could you please elaborate this point a bit more? What exactly do you mean with "integrate too heavily"?

I mean that in the current [D&D] system, you cannot remove magic wholesale without breaking 3/4ths the classes, nearly all items, the treasure tables, CR, ECL, wealth by level and experience tables, not to mention all the additional prestige classes.

I'd really like to see this system be able to run a Campaign based on the Three Musketeers, one based in Middle Earth, and one in a standard D&D setting with equal ability. Paramount to this is the ability to easily swap out unneeded aspects of the system without damaging the whole.

Class- and levelless systems always work good for "gritty" settings. They also work exceptionally well for settings that require a huge freedom of development for characters. Classes always nail a character in several aspects into a certain role (tank, healer, blaster, etc) which becomes very evident with DnD classes.

By my eyes, you're nailing him equally hard, just using smaller nails. ;)

True. But you said it: they merely help the DM. They are not integral to his job, and therefore could be removed and replaced with an equally helpful mechanic. The total sum of ImPs the party has could just as well measure up as a tool for the DM to estimate the party's power level.

Like I said above, I'm adverse to deviating too much from normal d20 concepts. Classes and Levels are mainstays, and if it isn't broken, let's not reinvent it.

I think that removing classes and levels would actually benefit at least the aspect of roleplaying in a roleplaying game. It would remove the abstract power-measurement and encourage looking at someone's actual abilities, statements, comments, influence, social status, etc instead of "what's his level?".

so you want to replace an abstract but [if at times badly] calibrated method of gaging power levels to a subjective system? That seems a bit backwards to me, like sticking your hand into a bucket of water to measure temperature instead of using the thermometer right at hand.

[Ra-Tiel]

It is an attempt to create a better system. But I guess what I'm trying to voice here is that most of the people playing this system (assuming we publish it/ advertise/ etc.) will be coming from the d20 market.

I'm not so sure about that one. The d20 market is currently - at least from my perspective - utterly fed up and overdeveloped. Everyone and their mother has published a book on dungoens, dragons, drow, war magic, demons, magic items, individual classes, more dungeons, nastier dragons, more evil drow, and so on and so forth. Really good d20 products, including those with interesting and/or creative content (mostly crunchy bits like mechanics, feats, classes) are scarce, and most often from WotC (Bo9S, the warlock, ToM).

Also, nobody seems to be willing to experiment much with the d20 system. In my opinion the d20 system can handle much more than "13 classes with 20 levels" and "you gain a feat every 3rd level", but that just nobody is willing or capable to undertake such an endeavor. And this saddens me a little, because possibly we'll therefore never see what d20 is really capable of handling, and that the system could perform even better than it currently does.

There's a line between improving and making something utterly alien. I'd love to be able to sit down and explain this to my players using 'it's different from d20 in regards to A, B, and C,' instead of teaching them a whole new system.

But is it really that different? We would still have 6 basic ability scores, the core mechanic (1d20 + mods vs DC), multiple die types, and many different modifier types. We'd just take out the clumsy level system, that leads to situations like an experienced (mid level) ranger fight a guerillia war against an impending goblin and orc invasion for months, and not gain a single level, because those buggers are of too little CR for him to gain even a single XP! :-/

Level based systems make characters always look like Lego buildings. While the whole picture may look reasonably smooth and shiny, if you take a closer look you'll see edges and ugly spots all over the place. Further, character advancement always happens in leaps and steps in level based systems. Sometimes players have to wait for weeks before they gain to increase any of their characters' traits (apart from gear). And solving a longwinded, dangerous, complicated, and just darn difficult adventure after 3 sessions just to find out that you're still 2k XPs from gaining a level sucks, to put it simply.

Why do we NEED a mechanical basis for the backstory?

Because in my opinion, fluff should dictate crunch, not the other way round. If you look at any of your characters, do the skills and feats really represent his background? I'd rather guess no. But if you look at your characters' background stories, do you get an impression what the character should be able to do? I bloody hope so! :P

And now, what's better? To have characters with the same profession but from highly different backgrounds not differ one inch mechanically from each other because the mechancis prevent that, or to have those characters being the same in most regards, but differ in details to pay tribute to their respective origins?

I see it as merely another thing we have to worry about people attempting to powergame to heck and back (Between the ages of 4 and 18 I lived with gnomes, orcs, hobgoblins, and kobolds, so I should be able to know all these languages.).

My point is, we wouldn't need to give out huge benefits. But small parts can make the whole piece look better. As an example, if a character grew up in a city, why shouldn't he have a little Gather Information and Diplomacy? Or some from a small hamlet who was probably a farmer's son or a local trader or something, should have some Profession and Survival. I'm not talking big bonuses, just 1 or 2 ranks that would count against the maximum ranks, or a skill focus feat at most.

And I thought this project was an attempt to create a better system, not just to copy over the d20 SRD but make some small adjustments? :P

Yeah, yeah, ye olde copycat! :P

There are other ways to restrict a character in regards to level and class.

Yes, but if those ways are better? With dread I think back to AD&D... "No, elves cannot be bards. Ever.". x. Simply forbidding some combos may work, but it's rather a workaround, dealing with the symptomes and not with the "disease" itself. ;)

I mean that in the current [D&D] system, you cannot remove magic wholesale without breaking 3/4ths the classes, nearly all items, the treasure tables, CR, ECL, wealth by level and experience tables, not to mention all the additional prestige classes.

This could be easily handled in my suggestion of a level/classless system with individual talent trees. If we could achieve a reasonable balance between the talent trees, there wouldn't be any problems if a DM took out any magical ones. We would just have to provide enough options in other aspects and it should fly pretty well. As an additional advantage, the DM could take out single talent trees, without messing up the whole system. Just try to remove a single school from normal DnD, and your problem becomes even more evident. This wouldn't be a problem in my suggestion.

I'd really like to see this system be able to run a Campaign based on the Three Musketeers, one based in Middle Earth, and one in a standard D&D setting with equal ability. Paramount to this is the ability to easily swap out unneeded aspects of the system without damaging the whole.

Which could be more easily achieved with an open system, than a class/level based one. As an example, we somehow were considering using three classes (warrior, expert, medium) instead of the normal classes. Now, if a DM decides that he wouldn't want much magic in his setting, he'd take out the medium class and thus remove ALL magic from the players' access. With a talent tree based system, the DM could decide to take out all but a few unobtrusive talent trees, like the ones who deal with precognition and minor things like moderately improved senses or something.

By my eyes, you're nailing him equally hard, just using smaller nails. ;)

Well, but humans can deal with more smaller things better than with one huge thing. ;) And if the players have more control over what nails get to hit their characters, it's even better imho.

Perhaps someone wants to play a knightly/courtly style character who's not using magic without being a god's bitch (paladin) or some chivalric bastard (knight) or some class that only has 3 levels (swashbuckler). So, what's left? Either a class that's not focused on combat like rogue, or a fighter. But the latter one suffers from a bad Will save and far too few skills for such a concept, leaving the player with only choices that don't fit his taste.

Now, in my suggestion the player himself can decide how good the character is at fighting, dealing with damage, and how many skills he gets. He can customize his character to the point where he can get much closer to what he wanted to play than ever possible with a class based system.

Like I said above, I'm adverse to deviating too much from normal d20 concepts. Classes and Levels are mainstays, and if it isn't broken, let's not reinvent it.

I see where you're coming from and completely understand your position. But sometimes one should try out something completely new. Perhaps it will just suck, then we can always go back to v3.5 style. Or it really shines, and we have found our own "sacred cow" to milk. ;)

so you want to replace an abstract but [if at times badly] calibrated method of gaging power levels to a subjective system?

Not subjective. Objective. At least more objective than the level method. My numbers in my previous post were of course just wild guesses, completely not balanced, but only there to provide a vague picture of what I'm getting at. However, with some fine tuning they could become more accurate than the level system could ever hope to be. The level system treats all levels equally. To the level system it makes no difference if it's a wizard who just attained 17th level, or if it was a fighter.

That seems a bit backwards to me, like sticking your hand into a bucket of water to measure temperature instead of using the thermometer right at hand.

Why should I need to power up my thermodynamics lab equipment if I just want to know if the water has the right temperature for bathing? :D

[Stargate525]

I'm not so sure about that one. The d20 market is currently - at least from my perspective - utterly fed up and overdeveloped. Everyone and their mother has published a book on dungoens, dragons, drow, war magic, demons, magic items, individual classes, more dungeons, nastier dragons, more evil drow, and so on and so forth. Really good d20 products, including those with interesting and/or creative content (mostly crunchy bits like mechanics, feats, classes) are scarce, and most often from WotC (Bo9S, the warlock, ToM).

Also, nobody seems to be willing to experiment much with the d20 system. In my opinion the d20 system can handle much more than "13 classes with 20 levels" and "you gain a feat every 3rd level", but that just nobody is willing or capable to undertake such an endeavor. And this saddens me a little, because possibly we'll therefore never see what d20 is really capable of handling, and that the system could perform even better than it currently does.

Just becuase it uses a d20 as its confirming roll doesn't mean it's a d20 system. What you're talking about right now has almost NOTHING in common with vanilla d20.

But is it really that different? We would still have 6 basic ability scores, the core mechanic (1d20 + mods vs DC), multiple die types, and many different modifier types. We'd just take out the clumsy level system, that leads to situations like an experienced (mid level) ranger fight a guerillia war against an impending goblin and orc invasion for months, and not gain a single level, because those buggers are of too little CR for him to gain even a single XP! :-/

Yes, it really is THAT different. I'm curious about the last time you looked at a D&D book Ra-Tiel. Re-read the PHB, then come back to this. You'll be surprised.

Further, character advancement always happens in leaps and steps in level based systems. Sometimes players have to wait for weeks before they gain to increase any of their characters' traits (apart from gear). And solving a longwinded, dangerous, complicated, and just darn difficult adventure after 3 sessions just to find out that you're still 2k XPs from gaining a level sucks, to put it simply.

You're right, I suppose, but what you describe is a symptom of roleplaying games in general, at least ones with levels. I have yet to see a level/classless system that I've liked, so that may be biasing me a bit, but you can solve the symptom without killing the patient.  

Because in my opinion, fluff should dictate crunch, not the other way round. If you look at any of your characters, do the skills and feats really represent his background? I'd rather guess no. But if you look at your characters' background stories, do you get an impression what the character should be able to do? I bloody hope so! :P

You're wrong. Fluff and crunch should be mutually exclusive. Like you said before, the system shouldn't care whether you got Damage reduction X from divine providence, your rock-like skin, or sheer force of will.

And you've still not solved the problem. Instead of making fluff dictate the crunch, you've simply set up a separate set of crunch for the fluff to bow down to. Knowing my players, none of them will take their concept, then choose templates. They'll choose the template that signifies what they want to play, then build the fluff around that.

My point is, we wouldn't need to give out huge benefits. But small parts can make the whole piece look better. As an example, if a character grew up in a city, why shouldn't he have a little Gather Information and Diplomacy? Or some from a small hamlet who was probably a farmer's son or a local trader or something, should have some Profession and Survival. I'm not talking big bonuses, just 1 or 2 ranks that would count against the maximum ranks, or a skill focus feat at most.

So why not just give first level characters X number of skill points to spend on fluff-based skills? Why the need for the complex system?

Yes, but if those ways are better? With dread I think back to AD&D... "No, elves cannot be bards. Ever.". x. Simply forbidding some combos may work, but it's rather a workaround, dealing with the symptomes and not with the "disease" itself. ;)

You're going the wrong direction. I suggest you keep the racial preference as a favored class and template, then add the character's first class/template to the list. That way, you've got two templates and two classes to play around with as far as combination, and an additional class and template before you hit penalties.

This could be easily handled in my suggestion of a level/classless system with individual talent trees. If we could achieve a reasonable balance between the talent trees, there wouldn't be any problems if a DM took out any magical ones. We would just have to provide enough options in other aspects and it should fly pretty well. As an additional advantage, the DM could take out single talent trees, without messing up the whole system. Just try to remove a single school from normal DnD, and your problem becomes even more evident. This wouldn't be a problem in my suggestion.

The way you have it, the DM needs to individually select each tree, then ban it. With a magic-casting class, he can ban the class and THEREFORE ban all magic, which is far easier. If he wants to tweak, let him tweak. That's why the talent trees are there.

Which could be more easily achieved with an open system, than a class/level based one. As an example, we somehow were considering using three classes (warrior, expert, medium) instead of the normal classes. Now, if a DM decides that he wouldn't want much magic in his setting, he'd take out the medium class and thus remove ALL magic from the players' access. With a talent tree based system, the DM could decide to take out all but a few unobtrusive talent trees, like the ones who deal with precognition and minor things like moderately improved senses or something.

Again, what you describe is tweaking, not alteration as I see it. Making magic less obtrusive is a tweak. Replacing the magic system with one that is less obtrusive is an alteration. You see the difference? Like I said, I'd like this system to potentially support any type of sub-system you want, but have each one not affect the others.

Perhaps someone wants to play a knightly/courtly style character who's not using magic without being a god's bitch (paladin) or some chivalric bastard (knight) or some class that only has 3 levels (swashbuckler). So, what's left? Either a class that's not focused on combat like rogue, or a fighter. But the latter one suffers from a bad Will save and far too few skills for such a concept, leaving the player with only choices that don't fit his taste.

I'm not advocating going back to those types of classes. The class/template system seemed perfect.

Why should I need to power up my thermodynamics lab equipment if I just want to know if the water has the right temperature for bathing? :D

okay Ra-Tiel, if it's a analogy war you wanted, it's an analogy war you've gotten!

[Ra-Tiel]

Just becuase it uses a d20 as its confirming roll doesn't mean it's a d20 system. What you're talking about right now has almost NOTHING in common with vanilla d20.

Not according to the formal definitions. :P

Wikipedia says:
[...] To resolve an action in the d20 System, a player rolls a 20-sided die and adds modifiers based on the capabilities of the character, and sometimes the situation. If the result is greater than or equal to a target number (called a Difficulty Class or DC) then the action succeeds. [...]

Nowhere does it mention anything of levels or classes. ;)

Yes, it really is THAT different. I'm curious about the last time you looked at a D&D book Ra-Tiel. Re-read the PHB, then come back to this. You'll be surprised.

Oh, I'm looking quite regularily into DnD books. Currently I'm reading the Bo9S, a very interesting read. However, this does not stop me from thinking about alternative mechanics or different ways to make some mechanics work.

You're right, I suppose, but what you describe is a symptom of roleplaying games in general, at least ones with levels. I have yet to see a level/classless system that I've liked, so that may be biasing me a bit, but you can solve the symptom without killing the patient.

One problem with many skill based systems is that it costs increasingly more XPs to improve your abilities. This is most prominent with the WoD systems. However, this is most often connected to either the low maximum rank attainable (in WoD skills and attributes usually range from 1 to 5), or an exponential power growth (higher level werewolf gifts and mage spheres are incredibly more powerful than the low level ones). This phenomenon also leads to situations where characters wait for weeks to increase a single trait by one point, which I find equally unattractive.

But if you make the available options scale linearily, you can put in a static or at least also linear cost. This would lead to a linear character advancement and provide a constant stream of new options and more power to the characters, without much of the dreaded "down time" or "dead levels".

You're wrong. Fluff and crunch should be mutually exclusive. Like you said before, the system shouldn't care whether you got Damage reduction X from divine providence, your rock-like skin, or sheer force of will.

I meant for character creation. Should have mentioned that, sorry. Generally speaking you're right, on a large scale fluff and crunch should be independent from each other. However, at character creation I think it is a viable option to base certain crunch options on fluff decisions.

And you've still not solved the problem. Instead of making fluff dictate the crunch, you've simply set up a separate set of crunch for the fluff to bow down to.

Not really. The categories would be quite general. There would be no background option "grew up in the outskirts of Khandura, the Great Free City" or "grew up in the Blackcloud Mountains". At most, there would be general backgrounds, like "City outskirts", or "Wilderness, mountains".

Knowing my players, none of them will take their concept, then choose templates. They'll choose the template that signifies what they want to play, then build the fluff around that.

Well, then the problem's with the players. ;) Alternative: ask them what they want to play before allowing them access to any crunchy bits of the system. Give them the background, the descriptions, the timelines, anything you want, but no mechanics. Then, when they decided that they want to play a "wizard from Aqu'laz'ry", or a "Denobhian ranger" show them the possible templates and you're ready to go.

So why not just give first level characters X number of skill points to spend on fluff-based skills? Why the need for the complex system?

And that asks the man so wary of min-maxing! :P You do know what players usually do with "free" skill points that can be distributed without limitations? They use them to get an advantage on PrC/feat prerequisites, or to maximize their character's abilities. The only workable system I've so far seen was in Shadowrun, where player's get to distribute some points (based on the character's Intelligence) on really fluffy skills like "SimSin pr0n stars", or "Urban Brawl leagues". ;)

You're going the wrong direction. I suggest you keep the racial preference as a favored class and template, then add the character's first class/template to the list. That way, you've got two templates and two classes to play around with as far as combination, and an additional class and template before you hit penalties.

Ok, just an example: let's assume a player wants to play an elf that's been abducted in his youth and sold as a slave, but later regained his freedom and became a strong warrior to take revenge on the slavers organization. Let's assume the favored class for elves is medium ("magical talent" and stuff), and the favored template is wild ("tree-huggers" etc). Now, for his first class and template, he selected "expert" and "civilized", due to being unable to "train" anything but his mundane skills as a slave in a large city.

After he's been freed, he travels with his newfound companions and trains in the way of the warrior. He takes his first "martial warrior" level and instantly hits penalties, as this combination is not covered by the mechanics. And this example is quite stereotypical and not really extraordinarily complicated.

The way you have it, the DM needs to individually select each tree, then ban it. With a magic-casting class, he can ban the class and THEREFORE ban all magic, which is far easier. If he wants to tweak, let him tweak. That's why the talent trees are there.

You didn't get me right. Why would a DM want to ban all magic in a fantasy game? This system is primarily still used for the fantasy genre, and so far I have yet to see compelling fantasy that has ZERO magical influence. I would suspect the DM is more about to provide a more "gritty" feeling, where you can't just go to a cleric and *bazip* are instantly cured of any afflictions or the wizard blasts everything that remotely looks hostile into thousand tiny pieces. Also, the DM could quite easily take out ALL magical talent trees. That is no more "tweaking" than taking out your caster class. ;)

Again, what you describe is tweaking, not alteration as I see it. Making magic less obtrusive is a tweak. Replacing the magic system with one that is less obtrusive is an alteration. You see the difference? Like I said, I'd like this system to potentially support any type of sub-system you want, but have each one not affect the others.

Again, you misunderstood me. Taking out the talent trees the DM wouldn't want in his campaign is no more or less tweaking or alteration than taking out the whole class, or replacing it with another. And it wouldn't make magic less obtrusive - the talent trees would already be this way. Instead, he could take precisely those elements out he doesn't want, no matter if that was the whole magic system or merely that flashy "blast'em'all" parts.

I'm not advocating going back to those types of classes. The class/template system seemed perfect.

I see. However, to prevent situations like the one I mentioned, you'd have to let the player choose which saves are good/bad, and which skills are class skills. And from that point, it's just a very little step to let the player choose everything and remove classes completely. After all, classes are basically nothing more than preselected choices regarding some mechanics. ;)

okay Ra-Tiel, if it's a analogy war you wanted, it's an analogy war you've gotten!

Come on boy, gimme your best shot! :P :D :D :D

[Stargate525]

Not according to the formal definitions. :P

Wikipedia says:
[...] To resolve an action in the d20 System, a player rolls a 20-sided die and adds modifiers based on the capabilities of the character, and sometimes the situation. If the result is greater than or equal to a target number (called a Difficulty Class or DC) then the action succeeds. [...]

Nowhere does it mention anything of levels or classes. ;)

FOUL! You can't quote sources in these things, you aren't playing fair!

But if you make the available options scale linearily, you can put in a static or at least also linear cost. This would lead to a linear character advancement and provide a constant stream of new options and more power to the characters, without much of the dreaded "down time" or "dead levels".

SO make the progression linear. No reason this can't be done with levels.

I meant for character creation. Should have mentioned that, sorry. Generally speaking you're right, on a large scale fluff and crunch should be independent from each other. However, at character creation I think it is a viable option to base certain crunch options on fluff decisions.

In an idealized world, yes. But the problem is is that any optimizer won't do this, he'll base his fluff decision off of the crunch option he wants, and to hell with the backstory.

Not really. The categories would be quite general. There would be no background option "grew up in the outskirts of Khandura, the Great Free City" or "grew up in the Blackcloud Mountains". At most, there would be general backgrounds, like "City outskirts", or "Wilderness, mountains".

It doesn't really matter how general they are, because as soon as the player finds the one that supplements his own strengths, that's the one he will go for nearly every time, regardless of the actual fluff behind it.

Well, then the problem's with the players. ;)

I could say the same thing to many of the preventative measures you've proposed as well.

Alternative: ask them what they want to play before allowing them access to any crunchy bits of the system. Give them the background, the descriptions, the timelines, anything you want, but no mechanics. Then, when they decided that they want to play a "wizard from Aqu'laz'ry", or a "Denobhian ranger" show them the possible templates and you're ready to go.

And that works exactly once. What will we do the second time, randomize the bonuses?

And that asks the man so wary of min-maxing! :P You do know what players usually do with "free" skill points that can be distributed without limitations? They use them to get an advantage on PrC/feat prerequisites, or to maximize their character's abilities. The only workable system I've so far seen was in Shadowrun, where player's get to distribute some points (based on the character's Intelligence) on really fluffy skills like "SimSin pr0n stars", or "Urban Brawl leagues". ;)

but we have no PrCs! ;) That, and you've declared your system unworkable. I use a houserule similar to this, but restrict it to craft, knowledge, profession, and one or two others (handle animal, I know, is one).

Ok, just an example: let's assume a player wants to play an elf that's been abducted in his youth and sold as a slave, but later regained his freedom and became a strong warrior to take revenge on the slavers organization. Let's assume the favored class for elves is medium ("magical talent" and stuff), and the favored template is wild ("tree-huggers" etc). Now, for his first class and template, he selected "expert" and "civilized", due to being unable to "train" anything but his mundane skills as a slave in a large city.

After he's been freed, he travels with his newfound companions and trains in the way of the warrior. He takes his first "martial warrior" level and instantly hits penalties, as this combination is not covered by the mechanics. And this example is quite stereotypical and not really extraordinarily complicated.

You misunderstood me. Let's assume he takes 'rugged'* and 'crusader'* as his next template/class combo. Now, he's free to take any combination of wild, medium, civilized, expert, rugged, and crusader with NO penalty. When he adds that NEXT one is when he hits penalties. Think of it like having two classes as favored classes, and the second one is always what you happened to have picked at first level.

*completely made up, not a suggestion, just used for point of reference.

You didn't get me right. Why would a DM want to ban all magic in a fantasy game?

Who said anything about fantasy? RPG, Role Playing Game. No fantasy there. I'd like to see this powering my Lost Horizons Campaign setting, which has no magic.

I see. However, to prevent situations like the one I mentioned, you'd have to let the player choose which saves are good/bad, and which skills are class skills. And from that point, it's just a very little step to let the player choose everything and remove classes completely. After all, classes are basically nothing more than preselected choices regarding some mechanics. ;)

Right. And what's to prevent the player from always taking a good will save, since that one's the most important? The reason those are pre-selected is because they work together to keep the person relatively balanced. Being able to choose your own opens up a whole mess of optimizing potential.

okay Ra-Tiel, if it's a analogy war you wanted, it's an analogy war you've gotten!

Come on boy, gimme your best shot! :P :D :D :D

*shoots Ra-Tiel*

:D

[Atlantis]

[ooc]Okay, I'm getting back into it now.[/ooc]
I agree with SG, this should be a class system.  Classes are like professions. If you are a blacksmith, you don't learn how to dance ballet so you can do your job better, just like you don't opt for good reflex, fort, and bab as a wizard.

[Higgs Boson]

>.< ny bad guys, my brother keeps leaving his accounton the computer and I forget to log him off.

[~Kalin~]

The problem i have with combining all the senses into one skill it that all the sense would then be equal, and our sense are far from equal to each other, and just because i can smell someone in the room doesn't mean i can also see them.

I see your point. But very often it is enough to merely notice the presence of something/someone without accurately pinpointing its position. Imagine the PCs hunting down an assassin through the king's palace. The assassin entered the palace through the sewer, and after attempting to murder the prince, he tries to escape. Now the characters have cut off his escape route and he hides in an empty wing of the palace. He is so good at hiding, that none of the PCs has a chance to spot him (maxed Hide ranks, skill focus, magic items, etc). But normally, wouldn't they be able to smell the sewer stench on him?
[/quote]

Ok, so we get rid of the fixed saves ability mods, but keep the three distinctions fort, ref, will. Sounds good.

However, this was also just a mere suggestion on my part. If this would complicate things in game too much, we could keep the current rules (Fort uses always Con, Ref uses always Dex, Will uses always Wis).
[/quote]Also i still vote for the SRD skill list and the approprate expert and master table.[/quote]
Also, using the current skills list would save a lot of rewriting. :)

However, I'm not too impressed with how the skills are explained in the SRD/PHb anyways. Sometimes they just don't get the point across (Knowledge), use horrible mechanics (Diplomacy), plainly make no sense (Decipher script), provide detailed DCs for some situations without considering general situations (Concentration), or a combination of all these (Spot, Listen, Sense Motive). :-/
[/quote]ok after some thought on the matter i agree with using the same formula for saves as our BAB, BMB and skills.[/quote]
It is by no means necessary to do so, it's just my personal preference that I find systems using the same formula/progression for similar things more elegant than those using different calculations for just everything seemingly only for the sake of using another formula. ;)
[/quote]But in regards to the Save DC i think it might be better if it was:
5 + Invocation equivilent level + BMB + Relevant Ability modifer + Misc Modifiers.[/quote]
Well, the spellcaster inside me agrees with you. The player inside me, however, strongly disagrees. I decidedly left out the ability modifier from the save DC, because this is one element that can be so horribly optimized in DnD (buff spells, items, etc). If you look at the standard casting DCs (10 + spell level + key ability modifier + misc) you'll see that it's the key ability modifier that makes or breaks it. The other bonuses are at most +19 (10(base) + 9(spell level) + 2(greater spell focus)).
[/quote]Special[/i] 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.

On another note ive been toying around with the idea that all spellcasters can only cast invocations, possibly something along the lines of the Warlock, this would decrease the amount of "problem" spells such as save and die.

This was also basically my idea. But we would need a mechanic to convert spells into invocations (if just to save us writing up several hunderet invocations all on our own).

I know, invocations are basically at-will spell-like abilities. However, as all active talents cost focus, using an invocation would also cost focus. To prevent abusing and/or spamming, I thought of focus costs per use equal to (invocation spell level)^2 + effective CL (maximal equal to BMB). This would create costs ranging from 2 (spell level 1 squared + caster level 1), to 59 (spell level 6 squared + caster level 23) per use.

So in other words a spellcaster recieves a "mana" points to spend how they choose between the invocations that they know. Also how many points would spellcasters recieve?

[~Kalin~]

I agree with SG, this should be a class system. Classes are like professions. If you are a blacksmith, you don't learn how to dance ballet so you can do your job better, just like you don't opt for good reflex, fort, and bab as a wizard.

And again i think talents can still cover this, provided we do it right, also who are we to say blacksmiths cannot ballet dance in their free time and actually be good at it? If a blacksmith wants to do his job better he would put ranks in blacksmithing, just like anything else the blacksmith wants to be good at, class really doesn't have much to do with it.

And why can't a wizard have a good BAB or fort/reflex saves? im sure there would be a varient class/abilities or PRC for normal D&D that gives them this. And as it currently stands we dont have a "wizard" as such.

[Ra-Tiel]

FOUL! You can't quote sources in these things, you aren't playing fair!

:D Bow before my inhuman kw0t3z-sk177z! :P

In an idealized world, yes. But the problem is is that any optimizer won't do this, he'll base his fluff decision off of the crunch option he wants, and to hell with the backstory.

Are we assuming mainly average roleplayers or optimizers as our intended main audience? Also, just because DnD has no mechanics in this regard and doesn't encourage making your character's abilities match his background doesn't mean that our system has to be the same.

It doesn't really matter how general they are, because as soon as the player finds the one that supplements his own strengths, that's the one he will go for nearly every time, regardless of the actual fluff behind it.

As said, don't give huge bonuses. Perhaps like 2 ranks in 3 fixed skills, that count against max ranks.

I could say the same thing to many of the preventative measures you've proposed as well.

What preventative measures are you talking about? *is not so quick today :-| *

And that works exactly once. What will we do the second time, randomize the bonuses?

No, but as said above: what's our intended audience, and why do we have to leave that out?

but we have no PrCs! ;)

But we still have feat/talent prerequisites. And if you are so afraid of optimizers abusing the fixed bonus skills, how would they abuse free bonus skills they could distribute as they wished?

That, and you've declared your system unworkable.

Huh? :?:

I use a houserule similar to this, but restrict it to craft, knowledge, profession, and one or two others (handle animal, I know, is one).

Knowledge is a good example of seemingly harmless skill that can be horribly abused. Knowledge has this extremely wonky "DC 10+HD and know stuff about monsters" thing (which even the designers admit was a crap idea :D ). Now, Knowledge (local) says something about humanoids. Your evil baron is a humanoid. I hope you guess what I'm aiming at...

You misunderstood me. Let's assume he takes 'rugged'* and 'crusader'* as his next template/class combo. Now, he's free to take any combination of wild, medium, civilized, expert, rugged, and crusader with NO penalty. When he adds that NEXT one is when he hits penalties. Think of it like having two classes as favored classes, and the second one is always what you happened to have picked at first level.

*completely made up, not a suggestion, just used for point of reference.

Then you mean THREE class/template combinations. :P I see, however you mentioned TWO in your previous post. ;)

Who said anything about fantasy? RPG, Role Playing Game. No fantasy there. I'd like to see this powering my Lost Horizons Campaign setting, which has no magic.

Well, what's preventing you from using Fighter, Barbarian, Swashbuckler, Rogue, and the magicless Paladin/Ranger variants from Complete Warrior for your setting? Or the d20 Modern classes? Or the SW classes (save for the jedi classes)?

Right. And what's to prevent the player from always taking a good will save, since that one's the most important? The reason those are pre-selected is because they work together to keep the person relatively balanced. Being able to choose your own opens up a whole mess of optimizing potential.

Counter: what's wrong with players always having a good will save? First, If you have a party consisting of Knight, Druid, Cleric, Sorcerer you already have only good Will saves. Second, Iron Heroes has only ONE progression for all saves, and the progression is "1/1 HD" (yes I know, IH has extremely few magic items and spellcasting is dangerous in that setting). Third, it's not like having a good save makes you invulnerable in that regard; you still have at least a 5% chance to automatically fail.

*shoots Ra-Tiel*

:D

You're really asking for it, aren't you? :P

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.

Well we will have to try to fix this problem after we iron out character creation.

Agreed. However, the person with that uber-maxed Listen skill would not necessarily be able to spot his buddy in the crowd from 20ft away. To me it just doesn't make sense that one of your perceptive senses borders on the superhuman, while all the others are basically in a child stage.

I dont think it would cause to much trouble, just a little more for the DMto remember. And we will just have to make a definite list of exactly what ability modifier to use for what save, shouldn't be to hard.

Also agreed, a simple table mentioning what effects are saved against with what ability score should do the trick.

well we can just rewrite the skills that really need it, and hopefully come up with some new mechanics to fix up some bad mechanics.

Now, that would be many skills in my opinion. ;) There are many proud nails in the DnD skill system, I'm afraid.

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.

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. ;)

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.

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.

Would this be a bad thing?

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.

So in other words a spellcaster recieves a "mana" points to spend how they choose between the invocations that they know. Also how many points would spellcasters recieve?

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).

[LordVreeg]

[blockquote=Ra-Tiel]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.[/blockquote]
If you're going to create a system, you'll at least have to rewrite the spellbooks, or else you will be using the organizational construct of a system that is built to acomplish something different.  What is going to determine where a spell comes from, in a classless system?  Either the power source it is drawn from, the place a character learns it, or both.

[blockquote=Ra-Tiel]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).
[/blockquote]
I think you're right, especially with the classless part, but maybe the amount would be based on what style of magic they learned, or who they learned it from.

[Ra-Tiel]

If you're going to create a system, you'll at least have to rewrite the spellbooks, or else you will be using the organizational construct of a system that is built to acomplish something different.

Not necessarily. My basic idea was to come up with a mechanic that allows the DM/player to convert spells written for DnD into invocations for our system. Basically, the spell would still have its level, save, duration, etc, but some points would have to be modified. For example, spells with a duration of "permanent" are changed to "1 day/level" etc. Additionally, each invocation would have a focus cost of (spell level)^2 + effective caster level (at least equal to minimum level necessary to cast the spell, at most equal to current BMB). So a caster could decide how much power he wants to put into an invocation.

Access to invocations would be solely based on a talent tree. It could basically look like the following.
[table=Wizard talent tree]
[tr][th]Talent[/th][th]Benefit[/th][/tr]
[tr][td]Wizard I[/td][td]Gain access to invocations, learn 2 invocations of spell level 1[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Wizard II[/td][td]Learn 2 invocations of spell level 1[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Wizard III[/td][td]Learn 2 invocations of spell level 2 or less[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Wizard IV[/td][td]Learn 2 invocations of spell level 2 or less[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Wizard V[/td][td]Learn 2 invocations of spell level 3 or less[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Wizard VI[/td][td]Learn 2 invocations of spell level 3 or less[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Wizard VII[/td][td]Learn 2 invocations of spell level 4 or less[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Wizard VIII[/td][td]Learn 2 invocations of spell level 4 or less[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Wizard IX[/td][td]Learn 2 invocations of spell level 5 or less[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Wizard X[/td][td]Learn 2 invocations of spell level 5 or less[/td][/tr]
[/table]

What is going to determine where a spell comes from, in a classless system? Either the power source it is drawn from, the place a character learns it, or both.

Doesn't that fall into the "fluff" category?

I think you're right, especially with the classless part, but maybe the amount would be based on what style of magic they learned, or who they learned it from.

Why, I ask you? To be honest, I'm completely sick of clerics always having the higher HD, always having the better BAB, always having a better Fort save, always having armor proficiency, always having the exclusive access to heal spells, always ..., always ..., ... ! :-/ In my opinion there should be 1 (ONE!) casting class, and saves, BAB, skills etc should never depend on the power source. If a wizard is weak and frail from standing in old libraries for decades, a cleric should be the same, no matter what.

Therefore, I strongly oppose the idea of making the amount of focus points someone gets dependent on anything else than their Wisdom or Charisma ability (not sure about it yet), and the priority they put into this feature at character creation.

[LordVreeg]

a 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)

But 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.
[blockquote=Ra-Tiel]Why, I ask you? To be honest, I'm completely sick of clerics always having the higher HD, always having the better BAB, always having a better Fort save, always having armor proficiency, always having the exclusive access to heal spells, always ..., always ..., ... !  In my opinion there should be 1 (ONE!) casting class, and saves, BAB, skills etc should never depend on the power source. If a wizard is weak and frail from standing in old libraries for decades, a cleric should be the same, no matter what.

Therefore, I strongly oppose the idea of making the amount of focus points someone gets dependent on anything else than their Wisdom or Charisma ability (not sure about it yet), and the priority they put into this feature at character creation.[/blockquote]

I totally agree with what you are going on about here.  Read this post one of my threads just yesterday.
[blockquote=from Celtrician Thread]One of the underlying dynamics for the whole system was to create a system that allowed for near-freeform character creation and evolution. George is a really good example, as he took a somewhat rare school as a primary (one that has decent martial ability, a little engineering, and a few spell skills), and the cherrypicked a few priest skills from his secondary school, the Church of the Whole. There is nothing like him., he is unique...as are most characters. And the system will allow him to organically evolve uniquely, as the skills he uses, he'll get better in. [/blockquote]

Ra-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.