The Campaign Builder's System?

[Ra-Tiel]

Quite true, and on that note i vote for a WP/VP, classless system (something very similar to Ra-Tiel's, that allows you to pick from three columns, except that race determines HD, and one of the columns gives you a bonus to WP/VP) and that will use a combination of bonus feats and talents and virtues (that are based around a specific concept) to emulate what the D&D classes already do and hopefully more with hopefully much more customization.

If we go for VP/WP, I have another suggestion to make. In the VP/WP system, WP represent your ability to take physical punishment, while VP are your ability to "dodge" attacks or turn them into glancing blows, etc. Right? In this case, basing VP on race doesn't really make sense; why should a human be better at dodging hits than an elf?

So, what about this. Instead of basing VP on race, we base WP on race. My suggestion would be giving each character a number of WP equal to his Con score modified by his race and size, and base VP on the option he chose at character creation.
[table=WP based on race]
[tr][th]Race[/th][th]WP modifier[/th][/tr]
[tr][td]Dwarf[/td][td]+2[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Elf[/td][td]-2[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Gnome[/td][td]+0[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Half-elf[/td][td]+0[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Half-orc[/td][td]+4[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Halfling[/td][td]-2[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Human[/td][td]+2[/td][/tr]
[/table]

EDIT: I would also vote for the use of "class templates", eg: Vile, Holy, wild, civilized, skillful, marital, arcane, psionic, that dictate how a character progresses and what talents and feats they can learn, as well as unique abilities that may progress as the character gains levels.

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.

[~Kalin~]

Ok, so this is what i have so far come up with after reading through all four pages of this thread and combining some of the ideas.
Note: the skill ideas are almost direct copy/paste from Ra-tiels campaign setting.

||___CHARACTER PROGRESSION___||
To determine how well your character progresses in certain areas such as their base attack bonus, saves, skills and skill points; choose from the list below two progressions from the Good column, three from the average column and three from the poor column.

[table=Character Progression]
[tr][th]Feature[/th][th]Poor[/th][th]Average[/th][th]Good[/th][/tr]
[tr][td]BAB[/td][td]1/2 HD[/td][td]3/4 HD[/td][td]1/1 HD[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Fort[/td][td]0-6[/td][td]1-9[/td][td]2-12[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Ref[/td][td]0-6[/td][td]1-9[/td][td]2-12[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Will[/td][td]0-6[/td][td]1-9[/td][td]2-12[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Skill Proficiency[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Expert[/td][td]3[/td][td]5[/td][td]10[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Master[/td][td]3[/td][td]5[/td][td]10[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Skill Points/level[/td][td]4[/td][td]6[/td][td]8[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]WP/VP Bonus[/td][td]?[/td][td]?[/td][td]?[/td][/tr]
[/table]

||___SKILLS Proficiencies____
Skill proficiencies determine your character's degree of talent and proficiency with a certain skill. Each skill's ranking sets the upper limit of maximum ranks you may have in that skill, and thus how good your character is at using that skill. A skill can have one of three rankings: Layman, Expert, or Master.

Layman skills
These skills are only trained at a very basic level or not trained at all. This ranking represents a very basic proficiency and ability with the individual skill. This is the typical ranking most average people have in most of their skills.
All skills not ranked Expert or Master are automatically marked Layman.
Maximum ranks: Level * 1/2 + 1.

Expert skills
These skills show an improved degree of training and ability. This ranking represents above average talent and skill. This is the typical ranking experts or specialists have in their chosen skills.
Maximum ranks: Level * 1/2 + 4.

Master skills
These skills are trained to the maximum possible degree and show the most ability. This ranking represents true masters of their art and the best and most advanced training. This is the typical ranking true champions and the elite have in their mastered skills.
Maximum ranks: Level * 1/2 + 7.

[table=Character Progression II]
[tr][th]Level[/th][th]Special[/th][/tr]
[tr][td]1st[/td][td]Concept Ability[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]2nd[/td][td]Bonus Feat[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]3rd[/td][td]Talent[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]4th[/td][td]Bonus Feat[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]5th[/td][td]Concept Ability[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]6th[/td][td]Bonus Feat[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]7th[/td][td]Talent[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]8th[/td][td]Bonus Feat[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]9th[/td][td]Talent[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]10th[/td][td]Concept Ability[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]11th[/td][td]Bonus Feat[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]12th[/td][td]Talent[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]13th[/td][td]Bonus Feat[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]14th[/td][td]Talent[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]15th[/td][td]Concept Ability[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]16th[/td][td]Bonus Feat[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]17th[/td][td]Talent[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]18th[/td][td]Bonus Feat[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]19th[/td][td]Talent[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]20th[/td][td]Concept ability[/td][/tr]
[/table]

||___CONCEPTS____
A concept is chosen at first level and improves on 5th, 10th, 15th and 20th level and dictates what abilities a character has access to; a character may also receive other special abilities based on the concept chosen, such as one or more passive abilities that may or may not progress as the character gains levels. An additional concept may also be chosen after first level any time a character gains access to a concept ability. The concept abilities are Vile, Holy, Civilized, Wild, Martial, Skillful, Arcane, or Mind.

||___TALENTS____
Talents are special abilities gained on 3rd, 7th, 9th, 11th, 13th, 17th and 19th levels that are tied to the specific concept(s) that have been chosen for the character, you still must meet all prerequisites to those talents.

||___BONUS FEATS____
Bonus feats are feats that are gained on 2nd, 4th, 6th, 8th, 12th, 14th, 16th, and 18th levels that can be used to acquire any feat that you meet the prerequisites for.


EDIT: added quick example
I see it working something like this:
Eg: I want to make a fighter that dual wields short swords, so I take good BAB, and a good fort save, then I take average expert and master skills proficiencies and I then take poor ref, will saves. Making me a fighter very similar to the D&D core fighter.
I then take the martial concept ability, giving me a few bonus feats such as armor and shield proficiency as well as simple and martial weapon proficiency. Later I can take feats and talents to increase my ability to dual wield my chosen weapons.

comments? suggestions? holes to point out? things ive missed?

[Ra-Tiel]

[...]comments? suggestions? holes to point out? things ive missed?

Well, yes. ;) The thing with layman/expert/master skills won't work here. In the WCS each character gets fixed 8 + Int mod skill points per level. So each character has (more or less) the exact same amount of skill points available. This was done because casting, saves, and weapon ability are now also based on skills, making it necessary to put all characters on even ground.

Therefore it hardly - at least to me - seems necessary to differ characters on two axes, how much skill points they have and at how many skills they can be really good. Also, for a more "conventional" setting I guess having two degrees (class/crossclass, trained/untrained, known/unknown, whatever) of skill proficiency would suffice.

Also, I'm not sure anylonger if it is necessary to differ between concept abilities and talents. I know, something similar was my very first idea, but now I'd find it much more elegant and easier to play when you make everything into talents. Additionally, 5 levels is a long time to gain another concept ability.

As said, we could basically make every talent tree available to every character, but put into the requirements
* BAB X+
* Base save bonus X+
* Skill ranks X+
* ability the talent tree is related to 10+Y for the Yth talent in the tree

I think this would keep min-maxing in check ("No 14 Int? Sorry, then you can't take <talent tree> IV") while allowing a wide field of possible options for each character. Also, it rewards those who focus on one concept (with abilities, appropriate BAB and saves and skills), as only they would be able to reach the higher level talents, while not completely gimping other, less focused, character concepts.

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).

Therefore, my suggestion would be to also introduce a "BMB" (base magic bonus), similar to BAB. The casterlevel for all sp, su and invocation abilities would then always be equal to a character's BMB. It would also solve the problem of casters getting "something for nothing". Just as a fighter type character would have to take good BAB to be good at fighting, a wizard type character would have to take good BMB to be good at casting. The BMB would follow the same formula as BAB (1/2 HD, 3/4 HD, or 1/1 HD). Characters who would never use magical abilities themselves (like pure fighter/barbarian/knight or scoundrel/rogue/thief types) would be at no disadvantage for having low BMB, similar to how pure caster types are at no - measurable - disadvantage for having low BAB.

[Atlantis]

great idea Ra-Tiel. we could also use the BMB for the requirements for certain trees.

[~Kalin~]

in regards to the Layman, expert and master skill system, i see your point, i didn't notice the 8+int mod before. But if we decreased the max rank numbers to accomidate the lower variable skill points in this system do you think if would work? say something like layman 1/2 level +1, expert 1/2 level +2, master 1/2 level +3.

If not i would have to vote heavily against the use of class/cross class skills, at least the way they work now.

Also, I'm not sure any longer if it is necessary to differ between concept abilities and talents. I know, something similar was my very first idea, but now I'd find it much more elegant and easier to play when you make everything into talents. Additionally, 5 levels is a long time to gain another concept ability.

As said, we could basically make every talent tree available to every character, but put into the requirements
* BAB X+
* Base save bonus X+
* Skill ranks X+
* ability the talent tree is related to 10+Y for the Yth talent in the tree

I think this would keep min-maxing in check ("No 14 Int? Sorry, then you can't take <talent tree> IV") while allowing a wide field of possible options for each character. Also, it rewards those who focus on one concept (with abilities, appropriate BAB and saves and skills), as only they would be able to reach the higher level talents, while not completely gimping other, less focused, character concepts.[/quote]Therefore, my suggestion would be to also introduce a "BMB" (base magic bonus), similar to BAB. The casterlevel for all sp, su and invocation abilities would then always be equal to a character's BMB. It would also solve the problem of casters getting "something for nothing". Just as a fighter type character would have to take good BAB to be good at fighting, a wizard type character would have to take good BMB to be good at casting. The BMB would follow the same formula as BAB (1/2 HD, 3/4 HD, or 1/1 HD). Characters who would never use magical abilities themselves (like pure fighter/barbarian/knight or scoundrel/rogue/thief types) would be at no disadvantage for having low BMB, similar to how pure caster types are at no - measurable - disadvantage for having low BAB. [/quote]

I like this idea a lot, but say if i was a level 6 martial character with a 1/2 BMB and i take a talent tree that allows me to cast magic, i would then be instantly better at magic (+3 BMB) than a level 2 character that has taken the same magic talent tree.

On a side note the BMB reminds me of the Base Defense Bonus (BDB) ive seen around, where it gives you a boost to AC, it might be worth a try to implement.

[Ra-Tiel]

in regards to the Layman, expert and master skill system, i see your point, i didn't notice the 8+int mod before.

No problem.

But if we decreased the max rank numbers to accomidate the lower variable skill points in this system do you think if would work? say something like layman 1/2 level +1, expert 1/2 level +2, master 1/2 level +3.

If we take a look at the spread each category would generate, I'm not sure if it was worth spending one of your two selections from "good" categories on "master" skills known. I'll put up the values from the WCS in parenthesis as a comparison.
* Layman: 1-11 (1-16)
* Expert: 2-12 (4-19)
* Master: 3-13 (7-22)
For only two points more max ranks you're giving up a good save, good BAB, or 8 skill points per level. Doesn't really seem that hot to me. ;)

Also, I don't know if this "1/2 level" thing is a good idea. It basically forces us to rewrite every skill and adjust the DCs. I've basically already done that for the WCS, but I've also reworked some skills and combined others into one, so I'm not sure of how fitting that would be for this system.

But what about this: we don't do "1/2 level  + X", but instead "A * level + Y" where A is either 1/2, 3/4 or 1, and Y is 1, 2, or 3? It would come out with the following progressions (with the correct formulas in parenthesis).
* Layman: 1-11 (1/2 level + 1)
* Expert: 2-17 (3/4 level + 2)
* Master: 4-23 (1/1 level + 3)

This way, taking many "master" skills does indeed allow for a huge difference regarding those skills, much more than only two more points. On the other hand, layman skills have enough max ranks to allow for the average tasks to be easily completed, while expert skills have enough max ranks to try to attempt some of the more daring tasks. Both are very compatible with take 10, making sure a lowly smith's apprentice won't have any problems doing the regular work in the smithy, for example. Master rankings are then only for the truely adapt, and are the only category that allows for the really interesting or dangerous tasks to be attempted in stressful situations.

On a related note, what do you think about using the above values also for BAB (and perhaps BMB)? I know from the d20 EQII rpg that the fighter archetype started with a BAB of 3, to differ him more significantly from the other classes who started with BAB 0. In normal DnD, the only difference between a "holy man" (cleric) and a "trained swordsman" (fighter) is 1 single point BAB. If we used numbers who were a bit more appart, the importance of taking "good" BAB over "average" BAB would be a bit stronger.

On a second related note, I can imagine using the same numbers also for saving throw progessions. Before you scream "b0rk3n!!", my reasoning is the following. In normal DnD, characters are utterly dependent on magic items when it comes to saves. I can easily build a wizard (base Int 18, grey elf +2, Spellcasting Prodigy) who has save DCs of 18 + spell level at level 20 for his spells without wearing any magic item. This means that his level 9 spells have (at least) a save DC of 27. Even a character with a good save (+12), a 18 in the relevant ability score (+4) and the save boosting feat (+2) would only have a 60% chance of succeeding. A character with a bad save (+6) has (assuming all other conditions are the same) only a 30% to succeed. To reduce the dependency on magic items, we could - more or less drastically - increase the base saving throw bonuses characters receive. To prevent a player from still stockpiling magic bonuses, an easy rule would be that a magic item cannot boost your save above your character level; this would mean that characters could not benefit from these items for their good saves.

Also, I know of at least one precident where a similar thing has been done. In the Iron Heroes setting, all characters have a save bonus to all saves equal to their character level. I think making a similar design decision could add to the MISBNNR (magic items should be nice not required) theorem I hold in high regards.

If not i would have to vote heavily against the use of class/cross class skills, at least the way they work now.

Which would definitively be also an option if we wanted to keep things close to the original d20 system (and which I also had suggested earlier as an alternative).

I agree.

Good. :D

I quite like this idea, would it also be safe to say that in order to get a specific talent higher up the talent tree you would first have to take those talents leading up to the higher one as well as meeting all the prerequisites?

Of course. Each talent but the first one in a certain tree would have the previous talent in the tree as a prerequisite, as well as optionally higher BAB/ranks/save requirements.

I like this idea a lot, but say if i was a level 6 martial character with a 1/2 BMB and i take a talent tree that allows me to cast magic, i would then be instantly better at magic (+3 BMB) than a level 2 character that has taken the same magic talent tree.

Magical talent trees should always require a certain minimum in the Will save, as well as BMB and Spellcraft skill ranks. I think that should avoid most situations where a non-caster "suddenly" takes a magical talent and becomes a better caster than a lower level caster type character.

On a side note the BMB reminds me of the Base Defense Bonus (BDB) ive seen around, where it gives you a boost to AC, it might be worth a try to implement.

For defense, I must say that I sort of like the "Combat Defense" variant from Sword and Sorcery's "Advanced Player's Guide". Although the rest of the book was pretty much crap, this one rules variant was quite cool. Don't worry, it's designated as OGL content, so there's no problem with me posting the details. ;)

Instead of normal AC, each character would have 4 "combat defenses":
* Armor Defense: Is equal to 10 + total armor bonus + total natural armor bonuses; can always be applied against all attacks.
* Block Defense: Is equal to BAB + total shield bonus; gain multiple blocks attempts based on BAB; each block uses one block attempt, opposed roll against attacker.
* Dodge Defense: Is equal to total Ref save bonus; can be applied against all attacks, but each dodge attempt after the first has a cumulative -2 penalty.
* Parry Defense: Is equal to total attack bonus with current weapon; each parry attempt uses one availalbe attack, opposed roll against attacker.
When you are attacked, you can designate one combat defense to be applied to each attack. You may never designate two different defenses against the same attack (eg try to parry a blow after you failed dodging it; but armor defense can always be applied to any attacks as a fallback option). This variant gives a major defensive boost to the classic "sword and board" combatant, as well as giving dual-wielders a defensive edge, as they can use their off-hand attacks for parrying without sacrificing much of their offense.

While this not only resembles reality more accurately (whether the blow glances off of one's armor or is brutally stopped by the shield, or is deftly parried aside, or swiftly avoided by an acrobatic move), it also makes combat more dynamic instead of becoming the repetitive "attack roll - damage roll - attack roll - damage roll - ..." it can quickly boil down to. Also, it places more control in the players' hands - which is imho a good thing - and binds their attention to the table even when it is not their turn.

Omg, so much typing... :-| Need sleep now. :P

[~Kalin~]

But what about this: we don't do "1/2 level  + X", but instead "A * level + Y" where A is either 1/2, 3/4 or 1, and Y is 1, 2, or 3? It would come out with the following progressions (with the correct formulas in parenthesis).
* Layman: 1-11 (1/2 level + 1)
* Expert: 2-17 (3/4 level + 2)
* Master: 4-23 (1/1 level + 3)

This way, taking many "master" skills does indeed allow for a huge difference regarding those skills, much more than only two more points. On the other hand, layman skills have enough max ranks to allow for the average tasks to be easily completed, while expert skills have enough max ranks to try to attempt some of the more daring tasks. Both are very compatible with take 10, making sure a lowly smith's apprentice won't have any problems doing the regular work in the smithy, for example. Master rankings are then only for the truely adapt, and are the only category that allows for the really interesting or dangerous tasks to be attempted in stressful situations.

On a related note, what do you think about using the above values also for BAB (and perhaps BMB)? I know from the d20 EQII rpg that the fighter archetype started with a BAB of 3, to differ him more significantly from the other classes who started with BAB 0. In normal DnD, the only difference between a "holy man" (cleric) and a "trained swordsman" (fighter) is 1 single point BAB. If we used numbers who were a bit more appart, the importance of taking "good" BAB over "average" BAB would be a bit stronger.
[/quote]
On a second related note, I can imagine using the same numbers also for saving throw progessions. Before you scream "b0rk3n!!", my reasoning is the following. In normal DnD, characters are utterly dependent on magic items when it comes to saves. I can easily build a wizard (base Int 18, grey elf +2, Spellcasting Prodigy) who has save DCs of 18 + spell level at level 20 for his spells without wearing any magic item. This means that his level 9 spells have (at least) a save DC of 27. Even a character with a good save (+12), a 18 in the relevant ability score (+4) and the save boosting feat (+2) would only have a 60% chance of succeeding. A character with a bad save (+6) has (assuming all other conditions are the same) only a 30% to succeed. To reduce the dependency on magic items, we could - more or less drastically - increase the base saving throw bonuses characters receive. To prevent a player from still stockpiling magic bonuses, an easy rule would be that a magic item cannot boost your save above your character level; this would mean that characters could not benefit from these items for their good saves.

Also, I know of at least one precident where a similar thing has been done. In the Iron Heroes setting, all characters have a save bonus to all saves equal to their character level. I think making a similar design decision could add to the MISBNNR (magic items should be nice not required) theorem I hold in high regards.
[/quote]
Magical talent trees should always require a certain minimum in the Will save, as well as BMB and Spellcraft skill ranks. I think that should avoid most situations where a non-caster "suddenly" takes a magical talent and becomes a better caster than a lower level caster type character.
[/quote]
For defense, I must say that I sort of like the "Combat Defense" variant from Sword and Sorcery's "Advanced Player's Guide". Although the rest of the book was pretty much crap, this one rules variant was quite cool. Don't worry, it's designated as OGL content, so there's no problem with me posting the details. ;)

Instead of normal AC, each character would have 4 "combat defenses":
* Armor Defense: Is equal to 10 + total armor bonus + total natural armor bonuses; can always be applied against all attacks.
* Block Defense: Is equal to BAB + total shield bonus; gain multiple blocks attempts based on BAB; each block uses one block attempt, opposed roll against attacker.
* Dodge Defense: Is equal to total Ref save bonus; can be applied against all attacks, but each dodge attempt after the first has a cumulative -2 penalty.
* Parry Defense: Is equal to total attack bonus with current weapon; each parry attempt uses one availalbe attack, opposed roll against attacker.
When you are attacked, you can designate one combat defense to be applied to each attack. You may never designate two different defenses against the same attack (eg try to parry a blow after you failed dodging it; but armor defense can always be applied to any attacks as a fallback option). This variant gives a major defensive boost to the classic "sword and board" combatant, as well as giving dual-wielders a defensive edge, as they can use their off-hand attacks for parrying without sacrificing much of their offense.

While this not only resembles reality more accurately (whether the blow glances off of one's armor or is brutally stopped by the shield, or is deftly parried aside, or swiftly avoided by an acrobatic move), it also makes combat more dynamic instead of becoming the repetitive "attack roll - damage roll - attack roll - damage roll - ..." it can quickly boil down to. Also, it places more control in the players' hands - which is imho a good thing - and binds their attention to the table even when it is not their turn.

Omg, so much typing... :-| Need sleep now. :P
[/quote]
Bah. Sleeps overrated :)
I certainly like it, but i reckon we figure it out after we have character creation finished.

Here is another idea, what if each talent tree gave you access to a number of 'talent tree points' equal to the levels taken on each tree, which could then be spent on activating or just enhancing many of the talents tied to that tree.

rough example:
A character choosing the wild talent tree gains 'wild points' equal to the levels taken in the wild talent tree to spend on activating their 'rage' or may choose to increase his DR for a period of time.

This would allow a character much more flexibility allowing them to use special abilities more often or giving up some uses for that day to be able to use or increase others.

[Ra-Tiel]

so how do we decide how many layman, expert and master skills a character can choose from?

That depends on how many skills we have alltogether. In the WCS I merged many skills together (amongst them the popular fixes of "hide + move silently = sneak" and "spot + listen = percieve"), resulting in only 21 different skills. The D20 SRD lists 36 different skills.

If we use my condensed list, I would suggest the following.
[table=Skill Rankings 1]
[tr][th]Ranking[/th][th]poor[/th][th]average[/th][th]good[/th][/tr]
[tr][td]Expert[/td][td]3[/td][td]5[/td][td]7[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Master[/td][td]1[/td][td]3[/td][td]5[/td][/tr]
[/table]

If we use the normal list, I would suggest the following.
[table=Skill Rankings 2]
[tr][th]Ranking[/th][th]poor[/th][th]average[/th][th]good[/th][/tr]
[tr][td]Expert[/td][td]6[/td][td]10[/td][td]14[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Master[/td][td]4[/td][td]6[/td][td]8[/td][/tr]
[/table]

let me see if i got the this right. So a poor BAB would then equal 1/2 HD +1, average BAB would equal 3/4 HD +2 and good BAB would equal 1/1 HD +3. And the same for BMB.

Exactly. I personally found it very elegant and easy if we could use the same forumlae for all sort of progressions (max ranks, BAB, BMB, saves) instead of having different calculations for each single one. Additionally, it would enforce the differences between the different categories a bit more. Again, in normal DnD (baring magic items, buffs, ability mods), at level 2 the difference between a wizard and a fighter in BAB is one single point. But in my opinion, a fighter should be significantly better at, well, fighting, already at level 1 and not only at level 7 or so.

Im really not sure about this one, it sounds good and i agree with your theorem about magic items not been required, but in my personal experience i have never seen a problem with characters making their saves, to me the DCs have always been to low, but then again ive never played/DMed any higher than 11th level.

My main problem with current DnD is the abundance of "save or suffer" spells. Already at level 1, there are spells like Color Spray and Sleep which can lead an otherwise easy encounter (say, 6 kobold warriors with a level 1 kobold sorcerer as their leader) into a TPK for a level 1 party if they have a series of bad rolls - can you say "coup de grace"?

It becomes even worse when you have a character specialize on these, like a necromancer. There are certain spell combinations (for example metamagic rod of quicken + energy drain + finger of death) that can very easily suck the fun and enjoyment out of the game if used against PCs. And they are not really even cheesy or anything, now imagine using an enemy caster that has one PrC or another on top of simply being a sorcerer, how much that sucks for the players!

Also, we could just make magic items more rarer = expensive. Put a flat x10 multiplier on all prices except scrolls and potions containing spells of level 0, 1 and 2, and suddenly it becomes much more important for characters to get along without magic equipment. And that wouldn't exactly be a bad thing imho. The game should be about the character and his abilities, not what sort of gear he happens to carry around.

Also how would we then introduce a characters ability modifier into the save?

I also messed with saves a little in the WCS. ;) I don't remember where I read it, but IIRC it was a poster on the WotC boards who had the brilliant idea of making saves work with varying ability scores instead of a single fixed one. The key ability for a save would change on what effect the character tried to resist against:
* Str: effects reducing your mobility like paralysis or entanglement
* Dex: area effects like explosions or avalances or melee attacks (as a reference to combat defense)
* Con: poisons, diseases, and similar effects
* Int: illusions and other hallucinatory attacks
* Wis: all mind-affecting effects
* Cha: all effects attacking your soul like negative levels

This idea and Iron Heroes caused me to make all saves based on a single progression. After all, the game is about player heroes (or, well, antiheroes), and not about having a guy that wouldn't mind jumping into a lava pool to take a "refreshing swim" (this side blow on Will saves was presented by suggestion :-/ ). Therefore, I wouldn't mind condensing all saves into a single one, and thus placing a tad more importance on the character's ability scores.

Of course, a character having all saves at low would be at a disadvantage, but he could well use magic items to overcome his weakness. Also, in normal DnD any character with only Ref as a good save is basically in the same position, as he sucks in the most important saves (Fort vs insta-death, and Will vs mindcontrol). Therefore I don't think it would be a "real" weakness. Perhaps we could introduce a special talent tree that augments saves vs a specific kind of attack to compensate a little for it.

Ok.

So I guess my ideas sound reasonable? ;) Also, if we used the more "different" progressions I suggested for BAB also for BMB, a character with good BMB would have to be of significantly lower level to be surpassed by someone with average or even poor BMB.

Bah. Sleeps overrated :)

That's what you say. :P

I certainly like it, but i reckon we figure it out after we have character creation finished.

Ok. I know it adds more rolls to the game, but in this case I think it's ok, as it gives more control (no longer sit there and hope the DM rolls poorly) and options in combat (Save attacks and dodge? Or spend an attack parrying the attack? Or try to soak it up with your armor?) to the players, as well as keeps their attention focused on the game.

I've seen players leave the table and surf the web after their turn was over, because it bored them not to be able to do anything but only watch and that "we would take much too long". Well, these players sucked anyways, but I hope I got my point across. :P

Here is another idea, what if each talent tree gave you access to a number of 'talent tree points' equal to the levels taken on each tree, which could then be spent on activating or just enhancing many of the talents tied to that tree.

I had something similar in mind with the "focus points" thing from one of my earlier posts. Focus would function like "mana", and each talent would provide a passive, always active, bonus, and an active bonus that was much better than the passive one but required actions and/or focus points to be spent. Also, to prevent stockpiling, there'd be a limit based on character level on how much talents can be "active" at the same time.

rough example:
A character choosing the wild talent tree gains 'wild points' equal to the levels taken in the wild talent tree to spend on activating their 'rage' or may choose to increase his DR for a period of time.

This would allow a character much more flexibility allowing them to use special abilities more often or giving up some uses for that day to be able to use or increase others.

Focus points would be very similar to this, but would be general instead of restricted to a single talent tree.

[~Kalin~]

so how do we decide how many layman, expert and master skills a character can choose from?

That depends on how many skills we have alltogether. In the WCS I merged many skills together (amongst them the popular fixes of "hide + move silently = sneak" and "spot + listen = percieve"), resulting in only 21 different skills. The D20 SRD lists 36 different skills.

If we use my condensed list, I would suggest the following.
[table=Skill Rankings 1]
[tr][th]Ranking[/th][th]poor[/th][th]average[/th][th]good[/th][/tr]
[tr][td]Expert[/td][td]3[/td][td]5[/td][td]7[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Master[/td][td]1[/td][td]3[/td][td]5[/td][/tr]
[/table]

If we use the normal list, I would suggest the following.
[table=Skill Rankings 2]
[tr][th]Ranking[/th][th]poor[/th][th]average[/th][th]good[/th][/tr]
[tr][td]Expert[/td][td]6[/td][td]10[/td][td]14[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Master[/td][td]4[/td][td]6[/td][td]8[/td][/tr]
[/table]
[/quote]let me see if i got the this right. So a poor BAB would then equal 1/2 HD +1, average BAB would equal 3/4 HD +2 and good BAB would equal 1/1 HD +3. And the same for BMB.[/quote]
Exactly. I personally found it very elegant and easy if we could use the same forumlae for all sort of progressions (max ranks, BAB, BMB, saves) instead of having different calculations for each single one. Additionally, it would enforce the differences between the different categories a bit more. Again, in normal DnD (baring magic items, buffs, ability mods), at level 2 the difference between a wizard and a fighter in BAB is one single point. But in my opinion, a fighter should be significantly better at, well, fighting, already at level 1 and not only at level 7 or so.
[/quote]Im really not sure about this one, it sounds good and i agree with your theorem about magic items not been required, but in my personal experience i have never seen a problem with characters making their saves, to me the DCs have always been to low, but then again ive never played/DMed any higher than 11th level.[/quote]
My main problem with current DnD is the abundance of "save or suffer" spells. Already at level 1, there are spells like Color Spray and Sleep which can lead an otherwise easy encounter (say, 6 kobold warriors with a level 1 kobold sorcerer as their leader) into a TPK for a level 1 party if they have a series of bad rolls - can you say "coup de grace"?

It becomes even worse when you have a character specialize on these, like a necromancer. There are certain spell combinations (for example metamagic rod of quicken + energy drain + finger of death) that can very easily suck the fun and enjoyment out of the game if used against PCs. And they are not really even cheesy or anything, now imagine using an enemy caster that has one PrC or another on top of simply being a sorcerer, how much that sucks for the players!
[/quote]
I would be all for the removal of almost all magic items (for i to prefer a character to be able to get along without magical equipment), but an almost total removal of magic items is probably not a good thing to do with this system so a 10x price seems a fair comprimise (spelling?).

Also how would we then introduce a characters ability modifier into the save?

I also messed with saves a little in the WCS. ;) I don't remember where I read it, but IIRC it was a poster on the WotC boards who had the brilliant idea of making saves work with varying ability scores instead of a single fixed one. The key ability for a save would change on what effect the character tried to resist against:
* Str: effects reducing your mobility like paralysis or entanglement
* Dex: area effects like explosions or avalances or melee attacks (as a reference to combat defense)
* Con: poisons, diseases, and similar effects
* Int: illusions and other hallucinatory attacks
* Wis: all mind-affecting effects
* Cha: all effects attacking your soul like negative levels

This idea and Iron Heroes caused me to make all saves based on a single progression. After all, the game is about player heroes (or, well, antiheroes), and not about having a guy that wouldn't mind jumping into a lava pool to take a "refreshing swim" (this side blow on Will saves was presented by suggestion :-/ ). Therefore, I wouldn't mind condensing all saves into a single one, and thus placing a tad more importance on the character's ability scores.
[/quote]Ok.[/quote]
So I guess my ideas sound reasonable? ;) Also, if we used the more "different" progressions I suggested for BAB also for BMB, a character with good BMB would have to of significantly lower level to be surpassed by someone with average or even poor BMB.
[/quote]Bah. Sleeps overrated :)[/quote]
That's what you say. :P
[/quote]
And on that note im going to sleep. :)

[Ra-Tiel]

I am against combining skills, so i would sugest using the normal skills list and the appropriate table.

May I ask why? I can see that in some occasions it would create some strange situations, but for the most part it should solve more problems than it creates.

Just think of the whole perception issue. Currently, characters can - according to the rules - only hear and see stuff. Feeling an eel under your shirt, smelling that faint hint of blood in an otherwise clean house, or tasting a strange substance in your wine at the baron's banquet are almost impossible to simulate. Yes, you could always use a Wis check, but if you have the relative difficulties in mind that quickly becomes quite pointless.

This issue would be completely solved if you had a single "Perception"/"Perceive"/"Senses"/whatever skill that would govern any and all senses.

Im sold on using this formula for max ranks, BAB and BMB, but im really not sure on using this formula for saves as well, im kinda happy with the way we have saves ATM.
Also if we use this formula for saves it would force us to recalculate how save DC's are done.

I see. However, my suggestion included not using normal spellcasting. I could imagine a dedicated "caster" going up in a special talent tree that grants some spells as invocations, but with an associated focus cost. The save DC could be calculated as BMB + invocation's spell level. This would generate numbers from 2 (worst BMB @ level 1 and a level 1 spell) to 29 (best BMB @ level 20 and a level 6 spell), which seems quite reasonable.

Well we are creating a new system aren't we, so we don't have to have save or die spells if we dont want to, also it should be up to the DM not to "suck the fun and enjoyment out of the game".

Of course you're right here.

I would be all for the removal of almost all magic items (for i to prefer a character to be able to get along without magical equipment), but an almost total removal of magic items is probably not a good thing to do with this system so a 10x price seems a fair comprimise (spelling?).

Making magic items incredible rare and expensive would also serve the purprose of making them special again. When was the last time you were "omgwtfbbqleetkewl!" about a +1 longsword?

So we would effectively be replacing the three D&D saves with our five, one for each ability score, i like this just as long as at character creation a player still has to choose between a poor, average and good save for each one. I would be against combining all saves having the only difference being the ability modifer.

The original poster's idea was to remove the fixed key ability from saves. If you had to make a Fort save against a spell imposing negative levels, you'd use Charisma as the key ability. If you had to make a Fort save against a spell restricting your movement, you'd use Strength as the key ability. And so on and so forth.

It was not meant to make 6 saves out of the 3 we currently have. Also, I can see your stance regarding combining all saves into a single one. With the Iron Heroes setting and system it flies pretty smoothly, but I can see your point that it probably wouldn't mesh too well with "classic" DnD.

And on that note im going to sleep. :)

Dream something nice. ;)

[Ra-Tiel]

Me again. :P

I've put down what we have so far into a table to get an overview about the current status.

[table=Character options]
[tr][th]Feature[/th][th]poor[/th][th]average[/th][th]good[/th][/tr]
[tr][td]Base attack bonus[/td][td]1-11[/td][td]2-17[/td][td]4-23[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Base magic bonus[/td][td]1-11[/td][td]2-17[/td][td]4-23[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Hit die[/td][td]d4[/td][td]d8[/td][td]d12[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Focus die[/td][td]d4[/td][td]d8[/td][td]d12[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Saving throw (Fort)[/td][td]?[/td][td]?[/td][td]?[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Saving throw (Ref)[/td][td]?[/td][td]?[/td][td]?[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Saving throw (Will)[/td][td]?[/td][td]?[/td][td]?[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Skill points per level[/td][td]4[/td][td]6[/td][td]8[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Skills as expert[/td][td]?[/td][td]?[/td][td]?[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Skills as master[/td][td]?[/td][td]?[/td][td]?[/td][/tr]
[/table]

Things left open to discussion are saves and the number of skills you can take as expert or master.

For skills, we'd have to decide if we use the "normal" SRD skill list with its 36 entries, or a more condensed version similar to the one found in Moniker's SW SAGA conversion or my WCS. If we use the normal skill list, I'd suggest numbers along the lines of this:
[table=Skill rankings]
[tr][th]Ranking[/th][th]poor[/th][th]average[/th][th]good[/th][/tr]
[tr][td]Expert[/td][td]4[/td][td]8[/td][td]12[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Master[/td][td]3[/td][td]6[/td][td]9[/td][/tr]
[/table]
However, if we used a condensed list (eg my own has only 21 skills) we could use something like this:
[table=Skill rankings]
[tr][th]Ranking[/th][th]poor[/th][th]average[/th][th]good[/th][/tr]
[tr][td]Expert[/td][td]3[/td][td]5[/td][td]7[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Master[/td][td]1[/td][td]3[/td][td]5[/td][/tr]
[/table]

As for saves, my idea was to make saves follow the same progressions as BAB and BMB (1-11, 2-17, 4-23) instead of the current ones (0-6, 1-9, 2-12) for the reason of making characters more independent from magic equipment. Even characters with good saves and impressive ability scores are often hard pressed to gain a better than 50% chance of succeeding against an optimized DC.

Which leads me to the next point Kalin mentioned: the way save DCs are calculated. I don't know if you remember my idea of not using the normal casting system, but instead create a talent tree that allows a "caster" to select a few spells of certain levels (at most up to level 6) as invocations, basically gaining them as at-will abilities but with an attached focus cost. In standard DnD, there are impressive options to optimize your save DC (for example, using point buy to get a base 18 in the key ability, select a race that adds +2 to your key ability, +5 from level increases, +5 tome, +6 enhancement bonus from item, and greater spellfocus; this gets us a total save DC of 25 + spell level for the selected school) which leaves every character who has not utterly pimped his saves through the roof in the dirt.

So, my suggestion to create some more balanced and fair save DCs would be the following: 5 + invocation's equivalent spell level + BMB (max your character level). This would create save DCs ranging from at least 7 (5+1+1) at level 1 to at most 31 (5+6+20) at level 20. Considering the increased save progressions this could be quite reasonable. Someone with an average save would need to roll "only" a 14 to succeed against the highest possible save DC, and that is before taking into account (minor) magic items, feats, and ability modifiers. And if it was still too harsh, we could create talent trees that give bonuses against certain kinds of saves. For example:
- Indomitable: you gain bonuses to saves against all mindaffecting effects
- Soulward: you gain bonuses to saves against all necromantic effects
- Imperishable: you gain bonuses to saves against all diseases and poisons

So, what do you think?

[Ra-Tiel]

Well, I'm sorry, but the voices in my head just don't stop telling me things.  :huh:

A completely different idea: scrap the whole level-based advancement and base the system on a simple freeform advancement mechanic. Some things would work just as with the previous ideas. For example, at character creation you'd still select options from among three categories. But actual advancement would not be handled with levels, but with "ImPs" (improvement points).


STEP 1 - CHARACTER CREATION
You select 2 options from the "good" category, 2 options from the "average" category, and 3 options from the "poor" category.
[table=Feature selection]
[tr][th]Feature[/th][th]poor[/th][th]average[/th][th]good[/th][/tr]
[tr][td]Base attack bonus[/td][td]1[/td][td]2[/td][td]4[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Base magic bonus[/td][td]1[/td][td]2[/td][td]4[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Focus points[/td][td]2[/td][td]4[/td][td]8[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Maximum ranks[/td][td]8[/td][td]16[/td][td]32[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Saving throws (all)[/td][td]2[/td][td]4[/td][td]8[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Vitality points[/td][td]8[/td][td]16[/td][td]32[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Wound points[/td][td]2[/td][td]4[/td][td]8[/td][/tr]
[/table]
- Base attack bonus: Your character has a base attack bonus equal to the selected number.

- Base attack bonus: Your character has a base magic bonus equal to the selected number.

- Focus points: Your character has a total number of focus points equal to his Charisma score plus the selected number.

- Maximum ranks: Your character has a total number of maximum ranks for all of his skills equal his Intelligence score plus the selected number. Each skill automatically is treated as having a number of ranks equal to its maximum ranks. You may not have a maximum rank higher than 4 in any skill at character creation.

- Saving throws: Your character has a total bonus in all his saving throws equal to the selected number. You may not have a base bonus higher than 4 in any saving throw at character creation.

- Vitality points: Your character has a total number of vitality points equal to his Dexterity score plus the selected number.

- Wound points: Your character has a total number of wound points equal to his Constitution score plus the selected number.

- Other features: In addition to the benefits gained from the options you selected, each character starts play with one feat and one talent, both for which he must meet the prerequisites.


STEP 2 - GAINING IMPROVEMENT POINTS
You gain improvement points (ImPs) for performing the following deeds:
- Concluding an adventure: Each character who participated in concluding an adventure receives 1 ImP.

- Concluding a campaign: Each character who participated in concluding a campaign receives 2 ImPs.

- Defeating a powerful opponent: Each character involved in defeating an opponent with a challenge rating higher than the party ImP total divided by 10 (rounded up, minimum 1) receives 1 ImP.

- Defeating an overwhelming opponent: Each character involved in defeating an opponent with a challenge rating higher than the party ImP total divided by 3 (rounded up, minimum 1) receives 2 ImPs.

- Learning: Each character who learned something important about himself receives 1 ImP.

- Participating: Each character who participated in the session receives 1 ImP.

- Surviving: Each character who survived the session receives 1 ImP.


STEP 3 - CHARACTER ADVANCEMENT
You can spend ImPs on the following options:
- Ability increase: For 3 ImPs you can increase one ability score by +1. You may improve any single ability score a maximum of 4 times this way. You gain all the appropriate benefits when you increase an ability score (this includes retroactive maximum ranks for increasing Intelligence, or gaining additional vitality/wound/focus points for increasing Dexterity/Constitution/Charisma).

- Base attack bonus: For 1 ImP you can increase your base attack bonus by +1.

- Base magic bonus: For 1 ImP you can increase your base magic bonus by +1.

- Feat: For 1 ImP you can learn a feat for which you meet the preerquisites.

- Focus points: For 1 ImP you can increase your focus points by +4.

- Maximum ranks: For 1 ImP you can increase your maximum ranks by +4, distributed to different skills as you see fit.

- Saving throws: For 1 ImP you can increase one saving throw by +1.

- Talent: For 1 ImP you can learn a talent for which you meet the prerequisites.

- Vitality points: For 1 ImP you can increase your vitality points by +4.

[spoiler=Example starting character - 0 ImPs]
 [note]For simplicity's sake I'm assuming a general abiliy array of 16, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10 which equals a 30 point buy, as well as that we'd use the normal SRD skill list. Also, I included 4 bonus ranks from the human race into the skills section.[/note]

Aladar, human knight apprentice to the Kingdom of Meridar

Options:
- Base attack bonus: good
- Base magic bonus: poor
- Focus points: poor
- Maximum ranks: average
- Saving throws: average
- Vitality points: poor
- Wound points: good

Ability scores:
- Strength: 14/+2
- Dexterity: 11/+0
- Constitution: 12/+1
- Intelligence: 13/+1
- Wisdom: 10/+0
- Charisma: 16/+3

Saving throws:
- Fortitude: 3(total) = 2(base) + 1(ability)
- Reflexes: 1(total) = 1(base) + 0(ability)
- Willpower: 1(total) = 1(base) + 0(ability)

Skills:
- Concentration: 2(total) = 1(ranks) + 1(ability) + 0(misc)
- Diplomacy: 7(total) = 4(ranks) + 3(ability) + 0(misc)
- Gather Information: 7(total) = 4(ranks) + 3(ability) + 0(misc)
- Handle Animal: 7(total) = 4(ranks) + 3(ability) + 0(misc)
- Heal: 4(total) = 4(ranks) + 0(ability) + 0(misc)
- Knowledge (local, Meridar): 5(total) = 4(ranks) + 1(ability) + 0(misc)
- Knowledge (nobility): 5(total) = 4(ranks) + 1(ability) + 0(misc)
- Ride: 4(total) = 4(ranks) + 0(ability) + 0(misc)
- Sense Motive: 4(total) = 4(ranks) + 0(ability) + 0(misc)

Statistics:
- Base attack bonus: +4
- Base magic bonus: +1
- Focus points: 18
- Initiative: 4(total) = 0(ability) + 4(misc)
- Vitality points: 19
- Wound points: 20

Talents:
- Juggernaut I: DR 1/- (passive) or DR 3/- (active, swift action & 1 focus point per round)

Feats:
- Human bonus feat: Improved Initiative
- Starting feat: Mounted Combat
[/spoiler]




So, what do you think about this instead?

[~Kalin~]

I am against combining skills, so i would sugest using the normal skills list and the appropriate table.

May I ask why? I can see that in some occasions it would create some strange situations, but for the most part it should solve more problems than it creates.

Just think of the whole perception issue. Currently, characters can - according to the rules - only hear and see stuff. Feeling an eel under your shirt, smelling that faint hint of blood in an otherwise clean house, or tasting a strange substance in your wine at the baron's banquet are almost impossible to simulate. Yes, you could always use a Wis check, but if you have the relative difficulties in mind that quickly becomes quite pointless.

This issue would be completely solved if you had a single "Perception"/"Perceive"/"Senses"/whatever skill that would govern any and all senses.
[/quote]I would be all for the removal of almost all magic items (for i to prefer a character to be able to get along without magical equipment), but an almost total removal of magic items is probably not a good thing to do with this system so a 10x price seems a fair comprimise (spelling?).[/quote]
Making magic items incredible rare and expensive would also serve the purprose of making them special again. When was the last time you were "omgwtfbbqleetkewl!" about a +1 longsword?
[/quote]So we would effectively be replacing the three D&D saves with our five, one for each ability score, i like this just as long as at character creation a player still has to choose between a poor, average and good save for each one. I would be against combining all saves having the only difference being the ability modifer.[/quote]
The original poster's idea was to remove the fixed key ability from saves. If you had to make a Fort save against a spell imposing negative levels, you'd use Charisma as the key ability. If you had to make a Fort save against a spell restricting your movement, you'd use Strength as the key ability. And so on and so forth.

It was not meant to make 6 saves out of the 3 we currently have. Also, I can see your stance regarding combining all saves into a single one. With the Iron Heroes setting and system it flies pretty smoothly, but I can see your point that it probably wouldn't mesh too well with "classic" DnD.
[/quote]
[tr][th]Feature[/th][th]poor[/th][th]average[/th][th]good[/th][/tr]
[tr][td]Base attack bonus[/td][td]1-11[/td][td]2-17[/td][td]4-23[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Base magic bonus[/td][td]1-11[/td][td]2-17[/td][td]4-23[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Hit die[/td][td]d4[/td][td]d8[/td][td]d12[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Focus die[/td][td]d4[/td][td]d8[/td][td]d12[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Saving throw (Fort)[/td][td]?[/td][td]?[/td][td]?[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Saving throw (Ref)[/td][td]?[/td][td]?[/td][td]?[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Saving throw (Will)[/td][td]?[/td][td]?[/td][td]?[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Skill points per level[/td][td]4[/td][td]6[/td][td]8[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Skills as expert[/td][td]?[/td][td]?[/td][td]?[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Skills as master[/td][td]?[/td][td]?[/td][td]?[/td][/tr]
[/table]
[/quote]
As for saves, my idea was to make saves follow the same progressions as BAB and BMB (1-11, 2-17, 4-23) instead of the current ones (0-6, 1-9, 2-12) for the reason of making characters more independent from magic equipment. Even characters with good saves and impressive ability scores are often hard pressed to gain a better than 50% chance of succeeding against an optimized DC.

So, my suggestion to create some more balanced and fair save DCs would be the following: 5 + invocation's equivalent spell level + BMB (max your character level). This would create save DCs ranging from at least 7 (5+1+1) at level 1 to at most 31 (5+6+20) at level 20. Considering the increased save progressions this could be quite reasonable. Someone with an average save would need to roll "only" a 14 to succeed against the highest possible save DC, and that is before taking into account (minor) magic items, feats, and ability modifiers. And if it was still too harsh, we could create talent trees that give bonuses against certain kinds of saves. For example:
- Indomitable: you gain bonuses to saves against all mindaffecting effects
- Soulward: you gain bonuses to saves against all necromantic effects
- Imperishable: you gain bonuses to saves against all diseases and poisons

So, what do you think?
[/quote]
ok after some thought on the matter i agree with using the same formula for saves as our BAB, BMB and skills. 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.

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.

[~Kalin~]

A completely different idea: scrap the whole level-based advancement and base the system on a simple freeform advancement mechanic. Some things would work just as with the previous ideas. For example, at character creation you'd still select options from among three categories. But actual advancement would not be handled with levels, but with "ImPs" (improvement points).

I like the idea, but I don't think we need to go that freeform with this system.

Also what happened to the others that are supposed to be helping out with this system. *pokes Stargate, Sir Vorpal, and Atlantis with a rather large and sharp pointy stick*

[Ra-Tiel]

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?

Also, under the current rules a character with reasonably optimized Listen checks can understand people talking through a massive stone wall from 100ft away while fighting. :-/

agreed.

Glad to see that I'm not the only one who is dismayed about DnD's rather increasing focus on magic items. :)

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).

So are we dumping the WP/VP system with race deciding WP and character choice deciding VP?

No, I just messed up when I wrote the table. :-|

Also i still vote for the SRD skill list and the approprate expert and master table.

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). :-/

ok after some thought on the matter i agree with using the same formula for saves as our BAB, BMB and skills.

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. ;)

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.

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)).

Also, if you include the key ability into the save DCs, you make casters again "SAD" (single ability dependent), as the key ability already plays an important role for focus points.

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.

Wow, you hear them too, i thought i was the only one :P

Wow, now that's cool.  :cool:

I like the idea, but I don't think we need to go that freeform with this system.

Well, that were just some random thoughts. I thought it would be something different, as 99.99% of all d20 variants and modifications still have classes and levels.

Also what happened to the others that are supposed to be helping out with this system.

I think we lost them on the way.  :huh:

*pokes Stargate, Sir Vorpal, and Atlantis with a rather large and sharp pointy stick*

*helps with the poking*  :poke:  :poke:  :poke:  :-p