| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| TwinBahamut04-22-04, 11:54 AM | This is the place for people who like designing and expanding upon rules variants. Anything from Unearthed Arcana, your favorite house rules, or even random ideas you are not sure would work are all welcome here! If you wish to join, just post here. I would appreciate a description of some of your favorite variants and what you like to develop here. I would aslo appreciate putting a link to here in your signature (though that is definetly not required). I am not giving out membership numbers though (sorry). Current Membership list: TwinBahamut (founder) |
| TwinBahamut04-22-04, 12:00 PM | I love designing rules variants and creating new rule systems. I really like many of the variants from Unearthed Arcana, such as Legendary weapons, Gestalts, Bloodlines, Weapon Groups, etc. My biggest project though, is trying to merge the D20 Modern Occupation/Base Class/Advanced Class system into D&D. Its far from completion, but I really want to give it a shot. If anyone wants to hear about it, I will gladly give a description, but otherwise I will wait until I have it more completed. |
| anglar04-22-04, 05:46 PM | Unearthed Arcana may be the best buy I've made for D&D in quite some time. When we finish our current campaign, we're going to try a number of them, including the defensive bonus. One thing we do in my game now is roll init each combat round. We also only use the "confirm a possible critical" when you need a 20 to even hit the target. |
| Tenzhi04-22-04, 07:05 PM | Unearthed Arcana was pretty awesome. I'm using various rules from it myself in my d20 rewrite (wherein I'm using the SRD to create a custom PHB document for my next campaign). I also have a number of rule-modifications of my own (some of the more controversial include getting rid of AoOs and iterative attacks). |
| TwinBahamut04-22-04, 11:26 PM | Originally posted by Tenzhi Unearthed Arcana was pretty awesome. I'm using various rules from it myself in my d20 rewrite (wherein I'm using the SRD to create a custom PHB document for my next campaign). I also have a number of rule-modifications of my own (some of the more controversial include getting rid of AoOs and iterative attacks). Now that is controversial... So, why are you getting rid of AoOs and iterative attacks? I am really interested to hear your reasoning. Is it to speed up combat? Simplify things? Have you replaced either with something else? Inquiring minds want to know!:) |
| Tenzhi04-23-04, 05:19 AM | Originally posted by TwinBahamut So, why are you getting rid of AoOs and iterative attacks? Well, the main reason I ditch AoOs is to make playing without miniatures go smoother. But I probably would have ditched them anyway because I don't like combat to be overly-tactical. Besides which they don't make sense (and I don't mean I can't figure out when to use them or not, I mean that with proper implentation they are nonsensical) and are mostly only there to balance out magic-users. Getting rid of AoOs means changing or getting rid of a number of feats, along with aspects of the game like reach. It also means finding another way to balance out spellcasters, but that way is obvious if you've played previous editions - spellcasting becomes a full-round action by default, with Quicken Spell making it a standard action (but costing fewer levels to do so). Getting rid of iterative attacks is part of my plan to give fighters a more definitive place. I get rid of them for all classes, but then I introduce two feats - Multi-Attack and Greater Multi-Attack (to be renamed eventually so as not to be confused with the monster feats) - the first of which can be taken by any "fighting" class (a class with a fighter BAB) with the prerequisite BAB, and the second which can only be taken specifically by fighters with the first feat and a prerequisite BAB. The first feat shall allow one to make an extra attack per round with a -2 to all attacks, and the second shall allow a third attack with a -2 to all attacks (for a total of -4). A further part of this plan involves seperating "Combat" feats from the rest of the feats and only allowing fighters to pick from these feats as part of a normal feat selection (a select few of the feats can actually be taken by the rogue as his 'bonus feat as a class ability' selection). |
| RoastSlinky04-23-04, 06:05 AM | A shameless plug, but if you're looking for an occupations system, you could look at the professions system we've developed for our D20 Modern Planescape setting, in my Sig. Just go to the Talents forum-Professions thread. Basically, you get to choose a profession talent every even level. It's not constrained to Planescape, either... you could use the same basic system for almost any d20 game. |
| TwinBahamut04-23-04, 12:10 PM | Tenzhi - Ah, I see. Ditching the grid and making many of the feats more along the lines of Fighter speical abilities. Very interesting magic change. Will the Paladin and Ranger have any boost to make up for not having access to the better Multiattack feat or Combat feats? Will you give reach weapons any special ability to make them distinct from normal melee weapons, or will they simply be considered normal weapons now? And will you have Sorcerer spontaneous casting be kicked up to an even longer casting time, or something else. While this is not the kind of way I would do things, it is very interesting. Good luck with the changes. RoastSlinky- Unfortunatly, it is not quite the system I had in mind (I intend to use the 6 base classes of D20 Modern with some modification, and they have decided to use a different system), but it is a great link. Thanks for pointing it out. So... Is anyone going to join the foundation? |
| Tenzhi04-23-04, 12:56 PM | Originally posted by TwinBahamut Will the Paladin and Ranger have any boost to make up for not having access to the better Multiattack feat or Combat feats? Nope, my opinion is that they have enough going for them with their class abilities (and you left out Barbarian BTW). However, discussion of the idea on the UA forum has me considering allowing all of the fighting classes (those with a full 1-20 BAB) access to combat feats. Will you give reach weapons any special ability to make them distinct from normal melee weapons, or will they simply be considered normal weapons now? Just weapons. Wielded as a stylistic choice more than due to their hinky advantages. And will you have Sorcerer spontaneous casting be kicked up to an even longer casting time, or something else. I assume you're referring to metamagic as a sorceror doesn't otherwise cast slower than a wizard. I'll likely just leave them as is (though I got rid of their familiar and added a few innate metamagic feats to them). So... Is anyone going to join the foundation? I don't join foundations as a rule. I occasionally contribute, and am more than happy to be an enemy of any given foundation, but I never join. |
| Silmarien Aldalome04-25-04, 09:05 PM | Did someone say [i]Rule Variations[/b]......*grins* Now this is something I can get into. Where do I begin: D&D Rule-Bane List 1. Structured Spell Initiatives. 2. Structured Spell-slot Events. 3. Half-Cast races with no variation from "half". 4. Alignment restrictions for some classes, like Paladins. 5. The Sneak Attack rules. Campaign Amendments 1. The inclusion Multiverse Options (see Lord Nat's thread). 2. The inclusion of Meta-Temporal spell casting systems (these allow for movement between universes, for example). A campaign becomes like a "many thread" thing - with several groups of PC's in a larger story (see Babylon 5). 3. More degrees of freedom in models of spell casting and fighting options. regards stav |
| Galeros04-25-04, 09:34 PM | I am also a fan of Varient Rules.:) I do not have Unearthed Arcana, but it sounds like a very cool book.:) I myself am a rules-light person.:) |
| Silmarien Aldalome04-25-04, 09:38 PM | Originally posted by Galeros I am also a fan of Varient Rules.:) I do not have Unearthed Arcana, but it sounds like a very cool book.:) I myself am a rules-light person.:) *grins* - the stuff at the human foundation - breaks all the bounds of convention. Which is why I love it so much. Weaveless casting. Godless Clerics. And our Avatar Dweomer Master (who tilts orbital axes, changes star temperatures, and so on). At the very least - they make good NPC tools - |
| Galeros04-25-04, 09:42 PM | Originally posted by Silmarien Aldalome *grins* - the stuff at the human foundation - breaks all the bounds of convention. Which is why I love it so much. Weaveless casting. Godless Clerics. And our Avatar Dweomer Master (who tilts orbital axes, changes star temperatures, and so on). At the very least - they make good NPC tools - I know what you mean.:) I prefer not to have as many rules. One thing that bugs me about D&D sometimes is you have to roll for EVERYTHING!!! |
| Tenzhi05-10-04, 10:19 AM | More rules! (which I unnecessarily posted in my very own thread, having forgotten about this one ;P ) Deviant Rule #1 The Attack of Opportunity shall be stricken from the rules. Spellcasting will default to a full-round action, with Quicken being reduced to +1 level and lowering casting time to a standard action. All associated feats will be modified or removed as necessary. Deviant Rule The Second Static saving throw DCs shall be implemented. Ability modifiers will no longer be added to saving throws, and save DCs will be relegated to one of three difficulties: Easy (15), Average (20), and Difficult (25). Most spell DCs will be Average. Deviant Rule III The simplification of skills. At character creation a character may choose a number of skills equal to his Intelligence modifier plus his class' number of skill points per level. Class skills chosen have ranks equal to character level; non-class skills chosen and class skills not chosen have ranks equal to 1/2 character level; non-class skills not chosen have zero ranks. 20 is the maximum number of base skill ranks one can achieve. Deviant Rule 4.0 Multi-classing will be replaced by the UA gestalt variant with the following changes: A character may double- or triple-class in any combination of the four primary classes (fighter, cleric, rogue, wizard). If a character’s favored class is one of the secondary classes, he may use that class in any double- or triple-class combination. If a character’s favored class is one of the primary classes, he may use it in conjunction with any other class as part of a double-class combination. A character with favored class: any may choose any combination of classes for double- and triple-classing. Characters who are double-classing require twice the XP to gain a level (as determined according to the Level Independent XP Award variant in UA) and triple-classed characters require thrice as much XP to gain a level. This works out to about LA +2 and LA +3.9 respectively. Deviant Rule This One BAB follows its normal progression past 20th level, but it maxes out at +20 - any bonus it would accumulate over +20 via normal progression instead becomes a damage bonus. Enhancement bonuses on armor and weapons can no longer exceed +5. Natural Armor and Armor bonuses no longer stack with each other. AC maxes out at 40 - any bonus beyond that is ignored or translated to DR at the DM's whims and fancies. Deviant Rule TROGDOR! Scribble out the 3E sizes of dragons in the MM and write in the 2E MM sizes (or something approaching them) - Great wyrms should have majesty. Deviant Rule Fighter There shall no longer be iterative attacks. At 7th level Fighters shall gain the Rapid-strike ability which allows them to gain one extra attack per round with a -2 to all attacks. Paladins and Barbarians shall gain the ability at 10th level. At 15th level Fighters gain the Greater Rapid-strike ability granting them another extra attack per round with a further -2 to all attacks. Deviant Rule Feats The feat list will be divided into 4 categories - General, Combat, Proficiencies, and Magic. Only warrior classes (those with a full BAB) will be able to gain feats from the Combat list (unless the feat is gained as a class ability) and only Spellcasters will be able to gain feats from the Magic list (again, unless it is gained as a class ability). Deviant Rule Again: Jump I didn't like the jump rules, so I made them simpler and even more based off of movement/height. Here's the Long Jump distances & DCs (Additional modifiers for size: Fine +16, Diminutive +8, Tiny +4, Small +2, Large -2, Huge -4, Gargantuan -8, Colossal -16): Long Jump Distance DC < 1/4 base move 5 1/4 base move 10 1/2 base move 15 base move 20 1.5x base move 25 2x base move 30 For those in search of slightly more realistic distances, you might want to add 5 to the DCs. The Vertical Jump is based more off of creature size/vertical reach and uses the same size modifiers as the Long Jump. High Jump Distance* DC + <1/4 base vertical reach 5 + 1/4 base vertical reach 10 + 1/2 base vertical reach 15 + base vertical reach 20 + 1.5x base vertical reach 25 + 2x base vertical reach 30 + 3x base vertical reach 35 + 4x base vertical reach 40 * Distance added to vertical reach to determine total distance jumped. As an example: A medium creature has a vertical reach of 8 feet - to reach something 10 feet above them would be a DC of 10 (1/4 of 8 feet added to their base vertical reach). |
| Silmarien Aldalome05-11-04, 02:22 AM | Nice post Tenzhi - I like the idea of variant rules...... Variant Rule ideas: 1. DITCH the "Spell-Slot" system. I *hate* it. Turn to a "Spell-Point" system. 2. Deepen the ethos of the Fighting classes - so they are more compelling. 3. Make Half-Elves the rulers of the Universe - woops, er, I mean, add some sort of method for getting not just 1/2 casts - but variations with more versus less than "exactly" half. 4. Un-nerf the Buff spells - and make 'em like they were in V3. that'll do for now. regards stav |
| Tenzhi05-11-04, 11:42 PM | Originally posted by Silmarien Aldalome 4. Un-nerf the Buff spells - and make 'em like they were in V3. Many of the rules I've put down here are things that I'm currently working into my SRD rewrite. When I get to the spells section (which comprises almost 1/3 of the total pages :P ) I'll probably be altering the Buff spells to a set duration like "1 hour" or, if level-dependent, a duration of "10 min./level. While the 1 min./level is too little, an hour per level is too much. |
| Silmarien Aldalome05-12-04, 12:05 AM | Originally posted by Tenzhi Many of the rules I've put down here are things that I'm currently working into my SRD rewrite. When I get to the spells section (which comprises almost 1/3 of the total pages :P ) I'll probably be altering the Buff spells to a set duration like "1 hour" or, if level-dependent, a duration of "10 min./level. While the 1 min./level is too little, an hour per level is too much. :cool: I hosted a discussion at D&D boards about the Buff spells. One of many arguments: 8 grand of gp gets you +4 (semi)permanently to an ability score. So what's the problem with an hour per level? *chants with slogans* "1 hour per level is best....1 hour..." 5. Make the Buff spells part of the Permanency options.... sil |
| Tenzhi05-12-04, 12:21 AM | Originally posted by Silmarien Aldalome I hosted a discussion at D&D boards about the Buff spells. One of many arguments: 8 grand of gp gets you +4 (semi)permanently to an ability score. So what's the problem with an hour per level? Add an 8,000 GP casting cost to the hour/level buff spells and you have yourself a deal. ;) Getting virtual permanence for free is out of the question. |
| Silmarien Aldalome05-12-04, 01:15 AM | :rofl: you're a complete brat - *chuckles* speak for yourself - but I like the comment "virtual-permanence" stav |
| anglar05-12-04, 01:26 AM | Originally posted by Silmarien Aldalome :cool: I hosted a discussion at D&D boards about the Buff spells. One of many arguments: 8 grand of gp gets you +4 (semi)permanently to an ability score. So what's the problem with an hour per level? *chants with slogans* "1 hour per level is best....1 hour..." 5. Make the Buff spells part of the Permanency options.... sil Well, my dear, it is the option of the DM to make other spells available to be made permantent. IMC, most spells that have a duration have the option of being made permanent. I can't say which ones off hand, but I have them marked in my PHB. I detest the 1 min/level buffs and still use the 1 hour versions. As they are in 3.$, they're been reduced to "buy the wand" spells. |
| Tenzhi05-15-04, 12:41 AM | Another Elf-Bane Inquisition! Er... I mean Rules Variant Racial HD, Class HD Modifiers... Character class will no longer determine a character's HD. Instead, their HD will be determined by race/type and the Class will just modify the roll. Class' HD / Modifier d4 / x.5 d6 / x.75 d8 / x1 d10 / x1.25 d12 / x1.5 Alternatively... d4 / -2 d6 / -1 d8 / 0 d10 / +1 d12 / +2 |
| TwinBahamut05-19-04, 05:41 PM | Wow, You think a foundation dies an early death, and then turn around to see it has grown rather well. Sure you don't want to join the foundation Tenzhi? ;) Your variants are actually all pretty good ways to simplify the game somewhat. It is more simplification than I care for, but it is still interesting. I like the Jump modification, and the idea of racial hit die with class modification is a good one (I prefer the addition to the multiplication though). On buffs... Personally, I think buff spells should last a very short time and be very powerful. It just seems to be more intersting that way if you ask me. So I am not in favor of making the buffs all an hour long in duration. Virtual-permanence is indeed a very good way to describe it. I would like to see buffs handled more like they are in D20 Modern though, with all the stat buffs unified into a single spell. Otherwise sorcerers really get a bad deal... Besides, it is less bookeeping that way. |
| Tenzhi05-20-04, 12:32 AM | Originally posted by TwinBahamut Sure you don't want to join the foundation Tenzhi? ;) I never join Foundations, I only contribute at my leisure. Your variants are actually all pretty good ways to simplify the game somewhat. It is more simplification than I care for, but it is still interesting. I like the Jump modification, and the idea of racial hit die with class modification is a good one (I prefer the addition to the multiplication though). I'm currently rewriting the SRD in an effort to simplify the rules and give them back the D&D "feel" that I think they lost. Many of these variants are finding their way into the rewrite. (Started out as 320 pages; a quick reformat got it down to 260; I went through each section up to the last (Magic) and got it down to 248 pages - however, each section before Magic only accounts for 88 pages of the entire document :P ) The Jump rules just kind of spontaneously occurred as I was editing the skills section. I found myself reading the rules and hating them again and I decided to do something about it this time. The racial HD thing occurred to me the other day when I was thinking about dragons and classes. And I actually decided the +/- modifier was what I preferred shortly after I posted it here. |
| Silmarien Aldalome05-20-04, 11:40 PM | Twin Bahamut, you will find Tenzhi to be a regular presence - despite never joining a Foundation. The only way we could get him listed at the Half-Elven Foundation was by *chuckle* making him an "enemy" of it. He's been with us since post zero! Originally posted by Tenzhi Another Elf-Bane Inquisition! Er... I mean Rules Variant :rofl: Racial HD, Class HD Modifiers... Character class will no longer determine a character's HD. Instead, their HD will be determined by race/type and the Class will just modify the roll. Class' HD / Modifier d4 / x.5 d6 / x.75 d8 / x1 d10 / x1.25 d12 / x1.5 Alternatively... d4 / -2 d6 / -1 d8 / 0 d10 / +1 d12 / +2 WHAT! *winks* Sacrilege! What's this "alternative" model and where are you going here. You seem to be widening the difference between the d4 and d12 differences - "spreading it all out" - have I got this wrong? cheers stav |
| Tenzhi05-21-04, 01:01 AM | Originally posted by Silmarien Aldalome WHAT! *winks* Sacrilege! What's this "alternative" model and where are you going here. You seem to be widening the difference between the d4 and d12 differences - "spreading it all out" - have I got this wrong? Actually, using the +/- model you're not significantly altering the difference between average HP of the d12 vs the d4 for humanoids. To exemplify what I mean: Instead of using the class HD for any of the races in the PHB, you would use the racial hit die (the racial HD for humanoids is a d8). An elvish wizard would roll 1d8-2 for HP (with a minimum of 1) and a dwarf barbarian would roll 1d8+2. The average for 1d8 is 4.5 - subtract 2 and you get 2.5 (the average for 1d4); add 2 and you get 6.5 (the average for 1d12). The maximums will have changed for the wizard vs. the barbarian - but the former is higher whilst the latter is lower which actually narrows the gap between a d4 class and a d12 class. The upswing of the matter is that it's based off of the racial HD, so you won't have nonsense like pixie barbarians rolling 1d12 for HP or Dragon wizards rolling d4s, but there's still a difference between, say, a Dragon Wizard's HP and a Dragon Fighter's HP. |
| Silmarien Aldalome05-22-04, 01:45 AM | Originally posted by Tenzhi Actually, using the +/- model you're not significantly altering the difference between average HP of the d12 vs the d4 for humanoids. To exemplify what I mean: Instead of using the class HD for any of the races in the PHB, you would use the racial hit die (the racial HD for humanoids is a d8). An elvish wizard would roll 1d8-2 for HP (with a minimum of 1) and a dwarf barbarian would roll 1d8+2. The average for 1d8 is 4.5 - subtract 2 and you get 2.5 (the average for 1d4); add 2 and you get 6.5 (the average for 1d12). The maximums will have changed for the wizard vs. the barbarian - but the former is higher whilst the latter is lower which actually narrows the gap between a d4 class and a d12 class. The upswing of the matter is that it's based off of the racial HD, so you won't have nonsense like pixie barbarians rolling 1d12 for HP or Dragon wizards rolling d4s, but there's still a difference between, say, a Dragon Wizard's HP and a Dragon Fighter's HP. I *like* it Tenzhi. It's a sensible take on the marriage of race and class Hit Dice. Speaking generally, I'd like to see more variations on the organisation of Wizard PC's and spell-casting systems. And - also some variations to the Savings Throw system - with more options built around your PC's trajectory. I.e. sorta like a feat-system - but for Fort/Ref/Will saves. regards stav |
| Tenzhi05-22-04, 02:11 AM | Originally posted by Silmarien Aldalome Speaking generally, I'd like to see more variations on the organisation of Wizard PC's and spell-casting systems. The Unearthed Arcana book has a number of different spellcasting systems in it. My favourite radical variation was the recharge system - essentially, you can cast an unlimited number of spells per day, but it takes a few rounds to recharge between castings. For my part, I'm working on ways to make Sorcerors more unique. Right now I'm bandying about the idea of restricting them to two schools of spell (plus Universal, of course), but from either the wizard or cleric lists; I'm also thinking about upping their HD to a d6 and their skill points to 4 per level; and finally, they no longer have the familiar ability but they start out with eschew materials and at certain levels they gain Silent Spell, Still Spell, and then finally improved versions of each that no longer cost a spell level to use. |
| TwinBahamut05-22-04, 05:18 PM | Ah magic systems... For my own system, I am pretty much splitting magic from the two types (Arcane and Divine) into three: Arcane, Divine, and Elemental. Also, unlike in normal D&D, each type of magic will have only one class associated with it. No Wizards and Sorcerers sharing the same spell list. Arcane magic is pretty much normal Vancian style magic. The difference is that it will not be the ultimate blasting type of magic, and it will be able to have healing magic. It will be focused a lot less on obviously powerful magic, and a lot more on utility magic. Many spells involving skill checks will be included. It keeps spell schools, but they might slightly differ from normal. Elemental Magic is the new type. Almost all of its spells will have an elemental property, and users of this kind of magic specialize in elements like wizards focus in schools. It will be like sorcerers, in that there will be a limited spell selection with a large number of spells per day, but I want to break away from the normal vancian system for this one. I probably will go with spell points. Divine Magic is the one I am not so sure about. I will probably end up using pretty much the normal D&D rules for this one, but I really would like to use something different... I might need to break out the optional rules in Unearthed Arcana... Finally, I intend to make class abilities and feats that resemble magic a lot more common. |
| Tenzhi05-22-04, 07:55 PM | I like the idea of making Elemental magic its own type with unique spellcasting properties. Of course, I'm not a big fan of spell-points. I'm eager to use the spell-recharge system, though, and I think I would like to make an Elementalist use that system for Elemental spell-casting. Elemental spells would also require an elemental focus. I would have to find a way to balance the spell-recharge system with the other spell-casters, though. The limitation to one type of element is a good start. Imposing a limit on spells known would be another option. A drastic option would be to limit the spell level, but I don't think that's necessary with the other two limits in place. |
| Silmarien Aldalome05-22-04, 11:42 PM | Tenzhi - I like the idea from Unearched Arcana - but I'm not happy (personally) about limiting schools of magic to two. But as they say, to each his own. My ideas about sorcery are different. I had a very geeky discussion with a very old friend yesterday. What I really don't warm to in D&D is the spell-slot system. I want to see a spell-point recharge system instead, sort of like the Unearthed Arcana described. Another really interesting point from last night: the Fate Point System we discussed and developed. Briefly - Fate Points (with a Fate-DC check) can be accumulated by "distinct" events. When you have them - you can try to "veto death" by drawing on a surplus of Fate Points. So - you may wish to be like Bilbo Baggins - stealing something from Smaug's horde - who used Fate Points to escape Smaug's breath. They slot in after Savings Throws, and when you can't achieve something without "Divine Fate" assisting you. TwinBahamut Very nice.....I will probably end up using pretty much the normal D&D rules for this one, but I really would like to use something different... Sounds :cool: |
| Tenzhi05-23-04, 12:52 AM | Originally posted by Silmarien Aldalome but I'm not happy (personally) about limiting schools of magic to two. Does it really matter how many schools of magic you have when you'll eventually take a PrC that allows you to warp the galaxy, bend space/time, and shape stars into images of Viggo? ;) So - you may wish to be like Bilbo Baggins - stealing something from Smaug's horde - who used Fate Points to escape Smaug's breath. And here I just assumed he was a rogue with evasion/improved evasion who made his reflex saving throw... ;) Fate/Karma is a fairly common addendum to the D&D rules. I was dallying with a system for it myself back in 2nd Ed... I believe I was inspired by the Ascetic class at the time. |
| Silmarien Aldalome05-23-04, 01:02 AM | Originally posted by Tenzhi Does it really matter how many schools of magic you have when you'll eventually take a PrC that allows you to warp the galaxy, bend space/time, and shape stars into images of Viggo? ;) MEGA :rofl: :rofl: - as in - my neighbours may have heard me laugh this time. *cracks* Sil-Marsha: yeah Jan! How does that help with my date with Viggo! *pouts* *swooshes hair* Jan-Marien1: rrrreeeeaaahhhhhh Jan-Marien2: Jan! He was being funny! *pulls it together* And here I just assumed he was a rogue with evasion/improved evasion who made his reflex saving throw... ;) Yes - there are existing mechanics for this contingency - but Fate Points are (potentially) Flavoursome and fun. Fate/Karma is a fairly common addendum to the D&D rules. I was dallying with a system for it myself back in 2nd Ed... I believe I was inspired by the Ascetic class at the time. Fate, Karma and Destiny are wonderful game-tools methinks. Lord Nat has some great ideas. I'm reading a book at the moment, Northern Lights (alternate realities backbone themes) - which will, no doubt inspire my posting at Multiverse Foundation as well. cheers stav |
| anglar05-26-04, 11:51 PM | I want to rework the multiclass system for my next campaign. While some combos are effective, others are completely horrible. I kind of want to go back to 2E for the new system. This is what I have in mind so far. Each base class uses the Level Progression table as is. If a character is a FTR/ROG, then the character progressess each class independently. IE 1000 XP will get him one level in one class or the other. When the next 1000 XP is earned, it is applied to the other class. Now the big problems are how to balance the BABs, Saves, and Hit Dice. This is what I'm leaning towards. If a character starts with a multiclass, they get whichever is better in every instance and receives all class features. Before this character can advance to 2nd level, the character will have to gain twice the XP required for a single classed character. Hit points would be determined by taking the die rolls for each class and dividing by the number of classes. Afterwards the CON bonus or penalty is applied. A lot of what's going through my mind is like what the gestalt type is, but I want to up the XP requirements. If a class is added later, the player would have the choice of how to divide any XP gained amongst the classes. At this point, I kick in my proviso for when ability points are earned. the bonus attribute points would be earned when the character earned enough XP to qualify for the level as if he were single classed. This is to keep players from dipping into a class for four quick levels just to get an attibute point. I'd love to have some help and ideas with this. |
| Tenzhi05-27-04, 01:20 AM | Originally posted by anglar I want to rework the multiclass system for my next campaign. While some combos are effective, others are completely horrible. I kind of want to go back to 2E for the new system. The "Gestalt" system in UA is almost exactly like the 2E multi-classing... the only thing it's missing is averaging your HP... A lot of what's going through my mind is like what the gestalt type is, but I want to up the XP requirements. ...but I see you know that already. I'm using the Gestalt variant to replace the typical multi-class option, myself. I'm also using the Level-Independent XP Award variant, which allows me in good conscience to charge twice as much XP for a Gestalt to go up in level (or thrice as much for a triple-Gestalt, which is as many classes as I'll allow clumped together). However... If a class is added later, the player would have the choice of how to divide any XP gained amongst the classes. ...I haven't allowed for adding classes at a later point (making it exactly like 2E in that regard). I suppose that I could just track XP singly for each class, in which case classes added on later would only be contributing to class abilities unless it's added on early enough to surpass the other classes in another area. At this point, I kick in my proviso for when ability points are earned. the bonus attribute points would be earned when the character earned enough XP to qualify for the level as if he were single classed. This is to keep players from dipping into a class for four quick levels just to get an attibute point. Or you could just say bonus attribute points come along with every 4 class HD. |
| Silmarien Aldalome05-30-04, 09:29 PM | About "Gestalt". That's funny - cause a Gestalt is a "synergy" not an "additive" framework. My reading of the posts prior, is they are linear rules-devices. Have I got that wrong? I want to see *real* benefits for multiclassing, that compensate for the dreadful nerfing of your freedoms by the multiclassing system. It's not the HP, saves, that are at issue. Neither the Feats and Skills. It's the core abilities of several classes, and the accessibility to the upper-end of the classes that is intruded upon by multiclassing. I'd love to hear more about this "gestalt" system...... Yours Synergically stav |
| TwinBahamut05-31-04, 01:28 PM | You want to hear more about Gestalt huh? Well, the rules of Unearthed Arcana is really interesting. It isn't so much a new way to multiclass, as an anew class system. In that system, every PC and major NPC takes two classes every level, and combines all of their best aspects. For example, a Fighter/Wizard Gestalt character at 20th level woud have a BAB of 20, Fighter HD, a Fighter's number of bonus feats, Good Fort and Will saves, a combined skill list, a wizard's number of skill points, and a full 20 levels of wizard casting power. Overall, significantly stronger than a normal character. If you ask me, it is a great system. It allows for characters with more abilities and flexibility. Hmm... Maybe it would be a good idea to redesign dome of the core rules and classes with Gestalt Multiclassing in mind? That might be interesting. |
| starfire31106-17-04, 05:40 PM | really the only thing that multiclassing hurts is the spellcaster classes... so what i did to help out multiclassed casters was each level taken in a class grants 1/2 of a caster level in another class of their choice... this are full caster levels so they will grant access to more spells per day as well as increaseing caster ability. a bonus to a caster class can not be greater than the levels in that class. So an example would be a 4/4 Fighter/Wizard would cast as a 6th level wizard.... a 4/4 Cleric/Wizard would cast as a 6th level cleric and 6th level Wizard... a 10/2 fighter/wizard would cast as a 4th level wizard... |
| starfire31106-17-04, 05:48 PM | More variant rules... Got rid of HP replaced with Vitality points(VP) and Wound Points(WP) WP = (# of HD) + con score VP = HD rolled + ((# of HD) x Con Mod) When a character has lost one WP the get a -1 to all attacks, saves, skills, and defense. When a character has been reduced to 1/2 WP they get a -2 to all attacks, saves, skills, and defense. another variant Replaced AC with defense/Armor Reduction(AR)/Natural Armor Reduction(AR) Defense = 10 + (base Reflex save)+ (1/2 BAB) + dex mod+ other AR = whatever the AC bonus of the armor would have been NAR = whatever the AC bonus of the natural armor would have been AR and NAR only apply to daamge dealt to WP not to any damage dealt to VP |
| Silmarien Aldalome06-17-04, 08:38 PM | @TwinBahamut Originally posted by TwinBahamut You want to hear more about Gestalt huh? Well, the rules of Unearthed Arcana is really interesting. It isn't so much a new way to multiclass, as an anew class system. In that system, every PC and major NPC takes two classes every level, and combines all of their best aspects. For example, a Fighter/Wizard Gestalt character at 20th level woud have a BAB of 20, Fighter HD, a Fighter's number of bonus feats, Good Fort and Will saves, a combined skill list, a wizard's number of skill points, and a full 20 levels of wizard casting power. Overall, significantly stronger than a normal character. If you ask me, it is a great system. It allows for characters with more abilities and flexibility. I missed this post. I've just had a rush of enthusiasms, because it's a great idea. I think WotC just made another sale. Hmm... Maybe it would be a good idea to redesign dome of the core rules and classes with Gestalt Multiclassing in mind? That might be interesting. I think this is a great idea. If I think of all the heroes in Forgotten Realms - they have these attributes. If I think of a multi-classed Elminster, of say Wiz/Figh: 20/20, the multiclassing runs his wizard stats into *right* into the ground. A 40th level wiz is a class very distinct to a 20th level wizard. @Starfire I returned here because of the Avatar name - and I'm really glad I did. I've been developing a magical lore based on the name of your Avatar for some time. The Avatar name ignited my inspiration. I like the idea behind WP - it's far more realistic, really. In the current system, a fighter with 200 HP doesn't alter in fighting skill at 1 HP! This seems wrong, doesn't it.... Ditto about your defence ideas. It makes sense that a more skilled figher, can more effectively dodge blows. I guess the spirit of the current system does the same. In that a "hit" when at 100 HP is absorbed by skill/fighting grace - and is a glance to the body because of art/knowledge/skill. I'd add that if you go the way you've described, fighters shouldn't get a d10. Because, they'd literally take 24 hours to knock over.... What's your VP thing do? Regards stav |
| Tenzhi06-17-04, 10:00 PM | Originally posted by Silmarien Aldalome Ditto about your defence ideas. It makes sense that a more skilled figher, can more effectively dodge blows. I don't entirely agree with this sentiment. A class which relies on armor for defense will learn to rely on its armor, whereas the class which doesn't wear armour will have to become better at dodging to survive. At the same time, a person who stays out of combat will not become good at dodging. This mind set leads me to believe that a Defense bonus can't be based entirely on BAB as starfire's does, nor can it be based on armour proficiencies like it is in UA. Additionally, as armour sets a maximum Dex bonus to AC I believe that maximum bonus should apply to Dex + Defense. I'd say that Barbarian, Ranger, Bard, and Thief should have the highest Defense bonus. Monk, Druid, Fighter, and Paladin should have the medium Defense bonus. Cleric, Druid, Sorceror, and Wizard should have a poor Defense bonus. But that's just my opinion on the matter. |
| starfire31106-18-04, 09:19 AM | Silmarien VP or Vitality Point represent the near misses that a fighter takes... shaking off only a flesh wound... A charcater takes damage from VP before getting into WP.... a characters VP is the same number as HP would be normally.. and WP = to your number of HD + Con score Example... 5th level fighter Constitution of 14 he would have 19 wound points and on average would have 5D10+10 VP or 42 VP This does make characters slightly harder to drop but rememebr armor doesnt apply until you get to WP. Tenzhi I agree that Defense bonus should not entirly rely on BAB that is why my system is your Base Reflex Save + 1/2 BAB Here is how it works out in my system at 10th level Ranger Def 12 Bard/Rogue Def 10 Barbarian/Fighter/Paladin 8 Cleric/Druid 7 Sorceror/Wizard 5 More variation.. I use your total levels of good saves+ bad saves to calculate you saving throws. [edit] Wrong Numbers for Defense bonus |
| Tenzhi06-19-04, 12:47 AM | Those numbers are just a bit high there, IMO. With a high Dex that Ranger has an AC of 27 (28 if an elf or gnome, 29 if a halfling) before any magic items are taken into account. At 20th level he'll be breaking 40 without any magic items. |
| Silmarien Aldalome06-19-04, 01:36 AM | Interesting all around. I add that there should be a system which recognises that armour decreases your mobility (and thereby increases the rate of loss against your VP only). The rationale: exhaustion from moving the bulk of metal around, etc. I'm also not sure that Fighters would be less adept than say, Rangers at dodging and so on. Also - what's sorely lacking in all our D&D tools are methods of directing magic (sorcerers, wizards etc) into enhancements against WP/VP etc. While they might have the lowest scores on these vital statistics - I am not at all sure that there can't be "classes of mages" who have specialised in the Lore of Vitality and Wounding - and so have invested their magic into fortifications on these fronts. Interesting comments all around stav |
| starfire31106-19-04, 02:01 AM | Tenzhi I really dont think those numbers are high at all as a matter of fact my players feel they are too low... the problem is you are just looking at the ranger... the Class that has the best defense bonus... even at 10th level the range might have a 27 defense and this is only if has a 20 dex... a fighter at the same level will have a +15 to hit with a strength of 20... so a fighter will need a 12 to hit the hardest to hit character... I dont see that as a problem... you are just looking at the extreme where someone tries to get there AC as high as possible... My players all feel that it is too easy to get hit and they have given up a nd trying to raise their defenses and are just trying to get as much armor as possible to try and soak damage once their VP are gone. and at 20th level a Ranger might be able to get a 40 Defense actually I think a Ranger could realistically have a 44 Defense but even the NPC fighter has an attack bonus of +32 so the NPC fighter will need a 12 to hit this maxed out defensive machine... But for every class except ranger as you advaance in levels the defense bonus is equal to or les than that of a fighter... so as you advance the characters generally will be easier to hit. Oh well it seems to be working really well for my game so far... people like the fact that armor prevents damage and being lightly armored makes you harder to be hit... also the combats seem to last a bit longer and you dont have the big suspension of disbelief when it comes top players taking massive amounts of damage... One last thing look at the fighters defense at 10th level with out magic it will be probably be a 22(Defense +8, Dex +1, +1 Heavy Shield +1) so a 10th level fighter will be easy to hit but hard to hurt due to the +2 full plate and Amulte of Natural Armor +2 giving him an AR of 12 BTW I just realized I forgot to mention Shields stilll add their bonus to defense.... also I did considor limiting the bonus from defense based on armor worn but I decided against it at the last minute... That would have hindered obscenley high defenses if they wanted to wear armor.... PS... I am still not worrying about my players abusing it too much most of the just play for the fun of it and really dont min/max to much.... actually I am making it really hard to plan out character progression but that is another thread. PPS wow some of that doesnt make sense to me right now... maybe cause I am too tired.. time to sleep. |
| starfire31106-19-04, 02:03 AM | one last quick post ... before i die... Silmarien posted while I was typing... I really like that idea Silmarien. One other idea Tenzhi what do you suggest using for defense? I would really like to improve what I have, but this is what I went with. |
| Tenzhi06-19-04, 02:28 AM | Originally posted by starfire311 Tenzhi I really dont think those numbers are high at all as a matter of fact my players feel they are too low... the problem is you are just looking at the ranger... the Class that has the best defense bonus... even at 10th level the range might have a 27 defense and this is only if has a 20 dex... a fighter at the same level will have a +15 to hit with a strength of 20... so a fighter will need a 12 to hit the hardest to hit character... I dont see that as a problem... you are just looking at the extreme where someone tries to get there AC as high as possible... That's not even trying - a Ranger is likely to focus on his Dexterity anyway, and the rest of the bonus is automatically granted by the class without even accounting for feats or magic items. Trying would be tacking on a magical shield, a weapon with a Defense bonus, and a few choice feats. But I wasn't taking into account that there was no Armour bonus to AC as it was all turned into DR if I understand you correctly. |
| starfire31106-21-04, 08:35 AM | Tenzhi you are correct If a character were to focus on defense they could be really hard to.... and yes there is no armor or natural armor bonus to defense it is all turned to DR. wow, edit because it looks like I just hit random keys typing this. |
| Silmarien Aldalome06-22-04, 11:33 PM | Hi there lads-n-ladies. a Ranger is likely to focus on his Dexterity anyway Maybe - maybe not. I wouldn't want to put a bet on the odds-ratio of this one. I forget which of the three saves for Ranger is lowest. I would hazard that players would cast two ways (*chuckles* as with all things) on the attributes they choose to strengthen. regards stav |
| Tenzhi06-23-04, 02:48 AM | Originally posted by Silmarien Aldalome Maybe - maybe not. I wouldn't want to put a bet on the odds-ratio of this one. The odds are pretty good considering that the most beneficial path for the ranger is the Archery path. |
| Tenzhi01-27-06, 01:20 AM | Was just recently reminded of this thread, and going over it reminded me of an even more recent post I made in a discussion about the class defense bonus variant in UA. I had remarked that I liked the concept, but basing the progression on armor proficiency was fairly ludicrous. When someone said I was on the right track with that sort of thinking I went on to post: To be fair, I have to say that I can see why they did it that way. They wanted to provide a fast and easy way to apply the defense bonus variant to any given class. Many have suggested a slightly better alternative in basing it on the Relfex saving throw in one way or another. Personally, I think it should be based off of the Reflex saving throw AND the BAB. This would give five progressions: Poor BAB + Poor Reflex = Lowest Defense Progression Average BAB + Poor Reflex = Below Average Defense Progression Good BAB + Poor Reflex OR Poor BAB + Good Reflex = Average Defense Progression Average BAB + Good Reflex = Above Average Defense Progression Good BAB + Good Reflex = Best Defense Progression The best numbers for the progressions are debatable. Keeping in mind that I'd personally also have Armor as DR without an AC bonus and having a Max Defense Bonus associated with the various armors, the highest progression would probably max out at +12 to +15, and the lowest progression likely at +5 or +6. Real quick, here are some hypothetical numbers: Level Poor Below Average Above Good 1 +0 +1 +1 +2 +2 2 +0 +1 +2 +2 +3 3 +1 +1 +2 +3 +3 4 +1 +2 +2 +3 +4 5 +1 +2 +3 +3 +4 6 +2 +2 +3 +4 +5 7 +2 +3 +4 +5 +5 8 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 9 +3 +4 +4 +5 +6 10 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 11 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 12 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 13 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 14 +4 +5 +6 +7 +9 15 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 16 +5 +6 +7 +9 +10 17 +5 +6 +8 +9 +10 18 +6 +7 +8 +9 +11 19 +6 +7 +8 +10 +11 20 +6 +8 +9 +10 +12 |
| jagggar01-27-06, 02:00 AM | "Just Because" I'll hiss at your Above Average progression. *HISS* Other than that: How come I've never seen anyone else propose a BAB+Ref based system? I'm pretty sure I've seen quite a few of the Defense topics on the UA board, and I don't recall seeing it before. It just seems so obvious! |
| Tenzhi01-27-06, 02:14 AM | What am I thinking? Those numbers are too low in the beginning levels - at least for the average and better progressions... |
| Tenzhi01-27-06, 03:13 AM | "Just Because" I'll hiss at your Above Average progression. Heh. Fair enough. It was a quick and dirty rundown and I got the progression by averaging the Average and Good numbers per level. This resulted in a rather sloppy progression, as I'm sure you noticed. :D I'll have to work on better progressions. Other than that: How come I've never seen anyone else propose a BAB+Ref based system? I'm pretty sure I've seen quite a few of the Defense topics on the UA board, and I don't recall seeing it before. It just seems so obvious! Dunno. I had never thought about it previously myself, and I've given the defense bonus issue considerable thought. It just spontaneously occurred to me in that thread and I don't recall ever seeing that method suggested before, either. But after I typed it, it did seem like the obvious way to go about it. |
| jagggar01-27-06, 12:01 PM | Oddly enough, I went from Level A B C D 1 +0 +1 +2 +3 2 +1 +2 +2 +4 3 +1 +2 +3 +4 4 +1 +3 +3 +5 5 +2 +3 +4 +5 6 +2 +3 +4 +6 7 +2 +4 +5 +6 8 +3 +4 +5 +7 9 +3 +5 +6 +7 10 +3 +5 +6 +8 11 +4 +6 +7 +8 12 +4 +6 +7 +9 13 +4 +6 +8 +9 14 +5 +7 +8 +10 15 +5 +7 +9 +10 16 +5 +8 +9 +11 17 +6 +8 +10 +11 18 +6 +9 +10 +12 19 +6 +9 +11 +12 20 +7 +9 +11 +13ToLevel A B C D 1st +0 +1 +1 +1 2nd +1 +1 +2 +2 3rd +1 +2 +2 +2 4th +1 +2 +3 +3 5th +2 +3 +3 +4 6th +2 +3 +4 +4 7th +2 +3 +4 +5 8th +3 +4 +5 +5 9th +3 +4 +5 +6 10th +3 +5 +6 +7 11th +4 +5 +6 +7 12th +4 +6 +7 +8 13th +4 +6 +7 +8 14th +5 +6 +8 +9 15th +5 +7 +8 +10 16th +5 +7 +9 +10 17th +6 +8 +9 +11 18th +6 +8 +10 +11 19th +6 +9 +10 +12 20th +7 +9 +11 +13 Of course, my progression still operates on the flawed armor proficiency basis. But if I didn't drop it down, a Cleric1/Fighter1 would have had a defense bonus of +6 since I wanted to get rid of the fighter level dip. Any thought on what your numbers for DR and max Def will be? What magically enhanced armor will increase? If the DR will be X/- or X/weapon type? I'm not too much of a Armor should be DR person because I don't have spare suits of armor to destory in "Okay, what about verses a longbow at 30 ft?" experiments. If you would have the values be different in the AasAC and the AasDR systems, then it would be best to work out some of the AasDR values before cementing the Defense Bonus values. Also, while I know you're a limits kinda guy, what if an armor's ACP applied to Defense instead of having a hard set limit to defense? A fighter would likely know how to move in fullplate to maximize his defense when the wizard in fullplate (ignoring issues of ASF) would be relying on the armor to protect him more than he would work with the armor to protect himself. (Whoo. Now I have ideas for changing armor proficiency feats.) Give me an idea of what you want the values to be like at high and low levels for each progression and I can help you with the numbers. |
| jagggar01-27-06, 12:15 PM | Maybe you have different values in mind, but I know originally you were saying Max Defense Bonus should be the same as Max Dex Bonus. ARMOR PROFICIENCY (LIGHT) [GENERAL] You are proficicent with light armor. Benefit: When you wear a type of armor with which you are proficient, the armor check penalty for that armor applies only on Balance, Climb, Escape Artist, Hide, Jump, Move Silently, Slight of Hand, and Tumble checks. Double the normal Penalty applies on Swim checks. The armor check penalty for that armor applies to your defense bonus. Normal: A character who is wearing armor with which she is not proficient applies its armor check penalty on attack rolls and on all Strength-based or Dexterity-based ability and skill checks. When wearing an armor she is not proficient with, a character's defense bonus is limited to her armor's maximum Dexterity bonus. Special: All characters except wizards, sorcerers, and monks automatically have Armor Proficiency (light) as a bonus feat. They need not select it. Medium and Heavy are likewise changed. |
| Tenzhi01-28-06, 12:50 AM | Any thought on what your numbers for DR and max Def will be? What magically enhanced armor will increase? If the DR will be X/- or X/weapon type? Many thoughts, though I haven't settled on anything in particular yet. For the sake of simplicity, I've considered statting out armor by category rather than specific type. Light Armor would have a DR of 2/-, Medium would have 4/-, and Heavy would have 6/- (with possibly a Very Heavy category added with 8/-). They would have no inherent AC bonus. Whether a magic bonus would increase the DR or add a deflection bonus to AC I haven't decided. Most likely the latter. Light Armor: DR 2/-, ACP -1, ASF 10%, Max Def +8 Medium Armor: DR 4/-, ACP -4, ASF 25%, Max Def +4 Heavy Armor: DR 6/-, ACP -7, ASF 40%, Max Def +2 Very Heavy Armor: DR 8/-, ACP -10, ASF 55%, Max Def +1 Max Defense is the maximum total of your Defense bonus plus Dexterity plus Dodge bonuses. When running in VH armor you can only move double speed. Shields would still add bonuses to AC. Also, while I know you're a limits kinda guy, what if an armor's ACP applied to Defense instead of having a hard set limit to defense? A fighter would likely know how to move in fullplate to maximize his defense when the wizard in fullplate (ignoring issues of ASF) would be relying on the armor to protect him more than he would work with the armor to protect himself. (Whoo. Now I have ideas for changing armor proficiency feats.) With just a penalty and no cap, the penalty might be overcome with dire results to balance. However, I like the idea of a penalty for the nonproficient along with the total Defense cap. Give me an idea of what you want the values to be like at high and low levels for each progression and I can help you with the numbers. From poor to good: 0 to +4 at min, and probably +5 to +13 at level 20. |
| jagggar01-28-06, 01:26 AM | Level A B C D E 1st +0 +1 +2 +3 +4 2nd +0 +1 +3 +3 +4 3rd +0 +1 +3 +4 +5 4th +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 5th +1 +2 +4 +5 +6 6th +1 +2 +4 +5 +6 7th +1 +3 +4 +6 +7 8th +2 +3 +5 +6 +7 9th +2 +3 +5 +6 +8 10th +2 +4 +5 +7 +8 11th +2 +4 +6 +7 +9 12th +3 +4 +6 +8 +9 13th +3 +5 +6 +8 +10 14th +3 +5 +7 +9 +10 15th +3 +5 +7 +9 +11 16th +4 +6 +7 +9 +11 17th +4 +6 +8 +10 +12 18th +4 +6 +8 +10 +12 19th +4 +7 +8 +11 +13 20th +5 +7 +9 +11 +13 How's that look? Optionally, the poor progression could be moved up one so you get +1 at 3rd level and +5 at 19th. |
| Tenzhi01-28-06, 01:32 AM | Looks pretty good to me. Thanks for sharing your brain. It tastes good with catsup, but awful with ketchup. |
| jagggar01-28-06, 01:50 AM | Catsup? Why use catsuppliment? Can't handle real cat? I think with the MDB limit being so low, you'll only see people wearing the heavier armors at lower levels when the DR is really worth it (as they won't yet have as much defense to lose). At higher levels, not so much. |
| Tenzhi01-28-06, 02:35 AM | Possibly. But the trick is to not make wearing the heavier armors *more* desirable than not wearing them whilst also not making them a horrible choice. With the Max Def where its at, all bonuses considered, a person in Heavy Armor can have an AC of 24 (+7 Shield, +5 Deflection, +2 Defense/Dodge/Dex) and DR 6/-. If we divide Natural Armor by 3 to get DR (a better conversion than in UA simply because we won't be giving creatures an AC bonus from Natural Armor) then we can throw an amulet of Natural Armor into the mix (revised so that it gives 1/-, 2/-, or 3/- DR) and have a total DR of 9/-. The person in no armor with a good defense progression will have an AC at least 11 points higher than that (and at most 16 points higher), but with only a 3/- DR to go along with it. The max Def might be increased by +2 for each category of armor without making it too good. |
| jagggar01-28-06, 11:24 PM | Finding the right amount of everything is a delicate balancing act that I'm just too lazy to try. And like I said, I'm the type of person to say that that arrow should go through that suit of armor at that range. Or at least want to when I can say it. Have you ever thought of damage conversion (lethal damage becomes nonlethal)? |
| Tenzhi01-29-06, 12:16 AM | And like I said, I'm the type of person to say that that arrow should go through that suit of armor at that range. Or at least want to when I can say it. I'm not. But if I were, I'd consider Armor Piercing stats for various weapons. Have you ever thought of damage conversion (lethal damage becomes nonlethal)? No, but only because I despise nonlethal damage in D&D's HP system. |
| jagggar01-29-06, 12:22 AM | Anything in particular about it you despise? Want to variant-ify that next? :D |
| Tenzhi01-29-06, 01:06 AM | Anything in particular about it you despise? Want to variant-ify that next? :D It doesn't fit with the absract HP system, IMO. And it's annoying to keep track of a rising damage total while you're also keeping track of a descending HP total. Offhand I don't have a better method of dealing with subdual, however. Or do I? Lessee. Rather than actually doing damage, a subdual attack forces a Fortitude saving throw with a DC equal to 10+the damage roll. Failing this saving throw worsens one's subdual condition by one category, and all effects of subdual conditions are cumulative. A character that performs no actions in a round and suffers no additional attacks automatically moves up one category (unless unconscious). Any magical healing automatically removes all effects of subdual. Unconscious characters can be revived with magical healing, application of first aid, or will come to on their own after 1d12+12 rounds have passed. Subdual Conditions Shaken Shaken Shaken Shaken Dazed Dazed Dazed Dazed Stunned Stunned Stunned Stunned Unconscious |
| Wyvern7601-31-06, 10:45 PM | Benefit: When you wear a type of armor with which you are proficient, the armor check penalty for that armor applies only on Balance, Climb, Escape Artist, Hide, Jump, Move Silently, Slight of Hand, and Tumble checks. Double the normal Penalty applies on Swim checks. The armor check penalty for that armor applies to your defense bonus. Normal: A character who is wearing armor with which she is not proficient applies its armor check penalty on attack rolls and on all Strength-based or Dexterity-based ability and skill checks. When wearing an armor she is not proficient with, a character's defense bonus is limited to her armor's maximum Dexterity bonus.I'm afraid this is all rather unclear. First you say that the armor check applies only to certain skill checks, and then you say that it applies to the Defense bonus as well. I'm guessing this discrepancy comes as a result of copying the first paragraph directly from the SRD. You might want to edit it to clear that up. Also, you don't say whether non-proficient characters also suffer an armor check penalty to Defense. Wyvern |
| jagggar04-26-06, 12:56 PM | Yeah, it is totally horrible phrasing and it partially came from just tacking it on at the end, and partially from my own lack of ideas on how to phrase it. When non-proficient: Character has a Defense bonus. The ACP applies to Defense bonus. After the penalty, the character's remaining Defense bonus is limited to the same amount as the Max Dex Bonus. Example: A character with a Dex of 15 and a +9 Defense bonus wearing chainmail would have an AC of 19 (10+2+2+5). Base+Dex+Defense+Armor When proficient: Character has a Defense Bonus. The ACP applies to Defense bonus. After the penalty, the character can apply the full remaining Defense bonus. Example: A character with a Dex of 15 and a +9 Defense bonus wearing chainmail would have an AC of 21 (10+2+4+5). Base+Dex+Defense+Armor |
| jagggar04-26-06, 04:13 PM | Tenzhi, you might be interested in this one. So I'm rolling up a party of 4 to experiment with defense and armor interaction (and d20Past's Sorcerer), but I have yet to decide which defense progression I want to use. So I look at my progression, and there's only 4 different progressions and it's still based on the silly concept of basing defense on armor proficiencies. The problem with basing it on the defense bonus chart I typed up for Tenzhi using h is BAB+Ref Save is that I want it to stack naturally just like BAB or saves would and if I were to come across multiple Good BAB + Good Ref Save class, I don't want them dipping to get a +8 defense at 2nd level. So hey, why not actually average BAB and the Save progression? I started rough estamates (at 1st and 20th level) with the PHB and decided it would be most accurate to use UA's Fractional Progressions to do my calculations. Since I don't want to deal with typing up the Avg BAB + Poor Save's fractions (down to 24ths) unless it's requested, here are the rounded progressions. Level Defense Bonus Progression BAB - Poor Avrg Poor Good Avrg Good Ref - Poor Poor Good Poor Good Good 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 2 0 1 2 1 2 2 3 1 1 2 2 2 3 4 1 2 3 2 3 4 5 2 2 3 3 4 4 6 2 3 4 4 4 5 7 2 3 4 4 5 6 8 3 4 5 5 6 7 9 3 4 5 6 6 7 10 4 5 6 6 7 8 11 4 5 6 7 7 9 12 5 6 7 8 8 10 13 5 7 7 8 9 10 14 6 7 8 9 9 11 15 6 8 8 10 10 12 16 6 8 9 10 11 13 17 7 9 9 11 11 13 18 7 9 10 12 12 14 19 7 10 10 12 12 15 20 8 10 11 13 13 16 EDIT: Barbarian - Good Poor Bard - Avrg Good Cleric - Avrg Poor Druid - Avrg Poor Fighter - Good Poor Monk - Avrg Good Paladin - Good Poor Ranger - Good Good Rogue - Avrg Good Sorcerer - Poor Poor Wizard - Poor Poor I think I would also shift the Fighter so it actually used the Average Good progression instead of the Good Poor it actually has. Eliminate the Monk's AC bonus, but not the Wisdom bonus to AC. If you'd rather leave the Monk's AC bonus intact, use the Average Poor Defense progression for the Monk. If you consider the Good Good progression too good, eliminate it and give all classes which would use that progression the Average Good progression instead. |
| jagggar06-07-06, 01:02 PM | So I was doing that very dangerous thing called thinking, and dhere's the thought that came to me. When using a defense bonus... Why not double the cost of armor and allow defense bonus and armor bonus to stack? So, for examplle, full plate would cost 3,000 gp instead of 1,500 gp. MW full plate would cost 3,300 gp. And +1 full plate would cost 5,300 gp. |