The Campaign Builder's System?

[Ra-Tiel]

No, no we cant let this die, and i would be making sugestions if i had any.

I see. :)

On another note...
[ic=ALARM]All SG-Teams report for briefing immediately! The original poster has abandoned the thread and is supposed to held captive by Goa'Uld system lords![/ic] ;)

I prefer talents to be gained seperately, where each talent has minimum requirements (skill ranks, previous talents, BAB, BMB etc...)that a character must meet before being able to select the talent, and where talents can only be gained by gaining levels.

I see, and it definitively is a valid option. However, if you have talents that are very similar in their benefits (like eg increasing damage reduction, energy resistance, or damage boosts), it becomes sort of a mess. Think of the two-weapon fighting tree. All the feats are doing is slowly giving you as many offhand attacks as you have with your main hand.

Or we could make talents scale with level/circle/associated ability (BAB, BMB, saves, etc)/skill ranks, and so on. This would remove the need for repetitive write ups, and allow talents to become stronger as the character increases in level, and not be "dead ends" like most feats.

Also it seems that the majority vote is for the classless/talent system, unless anyone changed their minds i think we can start hammering out the details.

Just another idea: why not reduce everything to skills? It seems to work reasonably well with most other systems (WoD and its derivates, Shadowrun, Blue Planet, Fading Suns, etc). Also, it would introduce a tad more "realistic" character development, as characters only improve in that areas they train in (read: spend points on), instead of becoming automatically better across the board.

free form combat arts is good. It would probably be simpler than the DnD combat system.

Well, the idea was meant as an alternative to various "talent trees", and to provide a more flexible and intuitive system for "special moves" for the system. I wonder how it would work out in game, actually...

[Stargate525]

Not captured, just out of ideas.

I'm amazed that you spell Gua'uld correctly.

[Atlantis]

as am i

[Ra-Tiel]

Not captured, just out of ideas.

Ahh, ok. :)

I'm amazed that you spell Gua'uld correctly.

Is there another way to spell it? ;)

as am i

What? Out of ideas or amazed at my knowledge (nerd stuff) skill check result? :P

~~~

Anyways, some more ideas regarding "our" system.

#1: Remove ability scores.
It always bugged me that in DnD, odd ability scores were all but useless. IIRC, True20 and Blue Rose work only with modifiers, and I find that highly elegant, as it removes the situation where a player spends an ability increase on an ability and gains Zero(tm) benefit from it. Only working with the modifier would make each increase a significant gain, which is imho a good thing. Also, removing the score and only working with the modifier would reduce the amount of math (I know, it's only "(X-10)/2", but still) in the game and eliminate a source of possible confusion for newbies.

#2: Make everything a skill.
In normal DnD characters get better at resisting attacks and wielding weapons, even when they are stuck in a purely social campaign and do nothing else than making Spot and Diplomacy checks for decades. Not only is this a little unrealistic, but also removes a custom element from characters, as all fighters advance in combat ability at the same constant rate. Making everything a skill (including combat abilities and spellcasting) allows for a greater variety of builds and removes the need to optimize ("a good gish always has CL17 and BAB16").

#3: Saves as a skill.
Standard d20 assumes that characters have access to magic items and do stockpile those. If you make saves into a skill, the character becomes independent from magic items and has a decent chance of succeeding even against optimized builds. In normal DnD, even without magic items a character's weak saves are mostly useless against optimized save DCs. Also, if saves were skills you would elegantly remove the problem of autofailure against save-or-suffer effects. And learning to become better at resisting certain attacks is no more or less realistic than training one's visual senses to almost superhuman level, but merely an abstraction made by the mechanics.
[spoiler=Details]Even without magic items, an optimized wizard's Intelligence could be the following:
Base: 18
Race: +2
Level increases: +5
Total: 25/+7

Minimum save DC: 17+spell level, or 26 for a level 9 spell.

On the other hand, a weak save is often only marginally better than +6. Without magic items, most characters tend to optimize their strengths instead of minimizing their weaknesses (as DnD rewards strong offense rather than defense). Thus, a character without magic items has often only a 5-15% chance of succeeding on a save targetting its weak saving throw.[/spoiler]

#4: Perception skill instead of Spot/Listen.
As mentioned in another thread, the unique position Spot and Listen have as skills also rubs me the wrong way. A character dedicated to these skills can attain almost rediculous results (like perfectly understanding what people on the other side of a solid stone wall are saying, from 50ft away, while fighting with an assassin... :-/ ). On the other hand, characters not dedicated to these skills are effectively blind and deaf, as they don't have the skill points to spare. Also, the other senses are completely left out, which leads to two possible results. Either you'd have to make seperate skills for "Feel", "Smell", and "Taste", thus aggravating the "not enough skill points" problem even more. Or you'd have to handle those senses with simple Wis checks, which is a logical break in the mechanics, as one and the same thing (sensual input) is handled by two different mechanics.

#5: No hit points.
As already mentioned in this thread, HP are an inherently problematic mechanic. Not only is it absolutely not realistic, it also doesn't make any sense ingame (see the "cleric healing some people" example in the other thread). HP may be an easy and suitable mechanic for a videogame, but imho they do nothing for a roleplaying system. A system where characters suffer wounds of varying intensity which are tracked and healed seperately is in my opinion much better, and easier to understand for newbies (most new players understand "you suffer a lethal wound" much better than "you take 5 points of damage").

[Stargate525]

Is there another way to spell it? ;)

Guauld, Gold, Guuld, Guld...

None of them are correct, but still...

#1: Remove ability scores.
It always bugged me that in DnD, odd ability scores were all but useless. IIRC, True20 and Blue Rose work only with modifiers, and I find that highly elegant, as it removes the situation where a player spends an ability increase on an ability and gains Zero(tm) benefit from it. Only working with the modifier would make each increase a significant gain, which is imho a good thing. Also, removing the score and only working with the modifier would reduce the amount of math (I know, it's only "(X-10)/2", but still) in the game and eliminate a source of possible confusion for newbies.

Or we could go the way of some other person on these boards (whose name escapes me), and make saves, attack, and damage go up on even, and everything else on odd. Also, there are a number of things we could attach to the raw score, should we wish to.

#2: Make everything a skill.
In normal DnD characters get better at resisting attacks and wielding weapons, even when they are stuck in a purely social campaign and do nothing else than making Spot and Diplomacy checks for decades. Not only is this a little unrealistic, but also removes a custom element from characters, as all fighters advance in combat ability at the same constant rate. Making everything a skill (including combat abilities and spellcasting) allows for a greater variety of builds and removes the need to optimize ("a good gish always has CL17 and BAB16").

A good idea, but I'm curious to see how you would balance this.

#3: Saves as a skill.
Standard d20 assumes that characters have access to magic items and do stockpile those. If you make saves into a skill, the character becomes independent from magic items and has a decent chance of succeeding even against optimized builds. In normal DnD, even without magic items a character's weak saves are mostly useless against optimized save DCs. Also, if saves were skills you would elegantly remove the problem of autofailure against save-or-suffer effects. And learning to become better at resisting certain attacks is no more or less realistic than training one's visual senses to almost superhuman level, but merely an abstraction made by the mechanics.

That's a flaw of the saves vs. DC system in D&D, not ours. Making them a skill makes them even easier to increase, as skill bonuses work differently under the current magic ruleset. The autofailure is, again, something we don't have to port over. Again, a good idea in practice, but I'm interested to see the balancing issue.

#4: Perception skill instead of Spot/Listen.
As mentioned in another thread, the unique position Spot and Listen have as skills also rubs me the wrong way. A character dedicated to these skills can attain almost rediculous results (like perfectly understanding what people on the other side of a solid stone wall are saying, from 50ft away, while fighting with an assassin... :-/ ). On the other hand, characters not dedicated to these skills are effectively blind and deaf, as they don't have the skill points to spare. Also, the other senses are completely left out, which leads to two possible results. Either you'd have to make seperate skills for "Feel", "Smell", and "Taste", thus aggravating the "not enough skill points" problem even more. Or you'd have to handle those senses with simple Wis checks, which is a logical break in the mechanics, as one and the same thing (sensual input) is handled by two different mechanics.

Agreed. Wholeheartedly.

#5: No hit points.
As already mentioned in this thread, HP are an inherently problematic mechanic. Not only is it absolutely not realistic, it also doesn't make any sense ingame (see the "cleric healing some people" example in the other thread). HP may be an easy and suitable mechanic for a videogame, but imho they do nothing for a roleplaying system. A system where characters suffer wounds of varying intensity which are tracked and healed seperately is in my opinion much better, and easier to understand for newbies (most new players understand "you suffer a lethal wound" much better than "you take 5 points of damage").

I disagree on your example. For me, knowing that I was nearly halfway dead was rather nice, and anyone with simple subtraction skills can use this system without difficulty.

I fail to see how a system where every sword cut, hammer smash, and bruise is to be tracked separately, with its own modifiers to actions, is 'easier for newbies.' Imperics man, imperics!

[Ra-Tiel]

Or we could go the way of some other person on these boards (whose name escapes me), and make saves, attack, and damage go up on even, and everything else on odd. Also, there are a number of things we could attach to the raw score, should we wish to.

I think that was me. :D In an earlier version of the Worldgate Setting I had thought about the idea of introducing a "primary modifier" added to the combat relevant stuff (attack rolls, damage, saves, spells) that is calculated by "(score - 10) / 2, round down" and a "secondary modifier" added to the skills that is calculated by "(score - 10) / 2, round up".

A good idea, but I'm curious to see how you would balance this.

I guess you're referring to combat, right? Well, first off: remove the static AC. If we used a combat defense system where characters can actively decide their terms of defense against an attack (parry, dodge, block, soak up with armor), and base those defenses also on skills, there wouldn't be a problem with the slighly higher attack bonuses.

That's a flaw of the saves vs. DC system in D&D, not ours. Making them a skill makes them even easier to increase, as skill bonuses work differently under the current magic ruleset. The autofailure is, again, something we don't have to port over. Again, a good idea in practice, but I'm interested to see the balancing issue.

Well, but if you don't have any magic items... ;) Also, my ideas work under the assumption that we don't just want to copy/paste the SRD with some minor modifications. Removing that "christmas tree" thing from characters is imho a very good thing, and if that means to drastically increase the base saves, so be it! :P

Agreed. Wholeheartedly.

And one more step towards worlddomination, BWUAHAHAHA... ahem... I mean... :shy:

I disagree on your example. For me, knowing that I was nearly halfway dead was rather nice, and anyone with simple subtraction skills can use this system without difficulty.

Well, but it really kills supposedly dangerous situations. Once a level 7 wizard I played was attacked by an orc with a falcion. Even if the orc had landed a critical hit and rolled maximum damage, he could never have possibly killed me. And the next round, I could have automatically succeeded on casting defensively and automatically killed the orc with a magic missile. My character was never in real danger, and that scene was quite hard for me to roleplay because I exactly knew I couldn't die.

I fail to see how a system where every sword cut, hammer smash, and bruise is to be tracked separately, with its own modifiers to actions, is 'easier for newbies.' Imperics man, imperics!

Well, it is easy. You basically make a list, tracking each wound of a given intensity with a simple mark and adding up the wound penalties. ;)

[Stargate525]

Well, it is easy. You basically make a list, tracking each wound of a given intensity with a simple mark and adding up the wound penalties. ;)

I can see it now...

"Okay, we've been fighting the orcs in the seige for five hours now, I roll for damage..."

"Did you apply your 23 wounds to the attack? How about that paper cut you got three weeks ago that's been festering? Did you roll to see if they've become infected?"

[Ra-Tiel]

I can see it now...

"Okay, we've been fighting the orcs in the seige for five hours now, I roll for damage..."

"Did you apply your 23 wounds to the attack? How about that paper cut you got three weeks ago that's been festering? Did you roll to see if they've become infected?"

:D Lol!

Anyways, even if all 23 wounds were light wounds, they'd (in the system I'm thinking of) impose a cumulative -1 penalty per wound. And with a -23 penalty I think most characters won't do anything anytime soon. And I wouldn't make rolls for wounds to see if they become infested. After all, I'm not trying to copy Rolemaster or Hârnmaster. :P

[~Kalin~]

if we did make everything into a skill such as BAB, saves etc would they still incure the usuall 3+level cap?

[Stargate525]

Hey R.T., I just thought of a way we could mitigate the above type of ridiculousness.

We have a number of different levels of a wound, say five, ranging from minor to serious. Each one has a penalty, as well as a point value.

The point value accumulates against a character's attribute(I'm suggesting something with constitution) that represents his ability to take damage, we'll call it toughness.

Each wound controls the penalties you take, but your points left in toughness represent how close you are to unconsciousness/death.

What's your thoughts?

[Ra-Tiel]

[...] What's your thoughts?

Could you perhaps give an example for your mechanics?

[Stargate525]

Sure.

Lets say that I'm Bob, the 16th level fighter. My toughness is... 7(3), lets say.

Now this is conjecture, as we don't have points down, but still.

I could take 14 minor wounds, each at 1/2 points, before falling unconscious. if I've only got thirteen, I'll have a -13 to my attacks, damage, etc.

I could take 7 minor wounds a 1 point each... etc. That second number is the threshold between unconscious and dead, still in the points.

This only makes sense if the points and the negatives scale differently, as I believe they should.

Did that help, at all?

[Ra-Tiel]

[...] Did that help, at all?

It did, but this system has the same flaw as HP: "oh, no worries, it'll take the orc 5 more hits like that to drop me". Also, it again has the side effect that punching a guy three times in the face brings him equally close to death/unconsciousness as stabbing him in the tummy with a dagger.

[Stargate525]

[...] Did that help, at all?

It did, but this system has the same flaw as HP: "oh, no worries, it'll take the orc 5 more hits like that to drop me". Also, it again has the side effect that punching a guy three times in the face brings him equally close to death/unconsciousness as stabbing him in the tummy with a dagger.

Well, then how does YOUR system control when you get knocked out/dead? Any system that isn't arbitrary will have the first side effect, simply because it uses numbers. The second problem also occurs with a numeric system. However, getting 'stabbed in the tummy with a dagger,' while bringing you the same distance to unconsciousness as three solid punches, will most likely impose a far more significant penalty.

Basically, in this system, you'll want to take several smaller wounds than one large one.

[Ra-Tiel]

Well, then how does YOUR system control when you get knocked out/dead? Any system that isn't arbitrary will have the first side effect, simply because it uses numbers. The second problem also occurs with a numeric system. However, getting 'stabbed in the tummy with a dagger,' while bringing you the same distance to unconsciousness as three solid punches, will most likely impose a far more significant penalty.

Basically, in this system, you'll want to take several smaller wounds than one large one.

I was thinking along the lines of something similar to this from that thread:

I know there are some problems associated with such a system as well, but I think it would work out rather nicely and provide a much more "realistic" and less abstract (because inherently more understandable) system than HP.