Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Nathreet 05-19-07, 02:48 AM	Okay, so I've been thinking of an rpg system for a while now, but worries about balance and world generation have always been major pitfalls. So I thought of a way to adapt the concepts to DnD, essentially making the game system a major DnD variant. SUMMARY: Casting classes disappear, but any class can craft "expendable magic items" (items fit normal DnD rules). HP and damage progressions get slowed. Added a new "casting" class, that simply gets to pick a different special ability each level (similar to non-casting classes). No multiple attacks. ADVANTAGES: "Spells" (expendable magic items) become party of standard treasure in the form of "recipes" and rare components. That opens up some interesting utilizations of whatever random thing the party gets. Gulf between low and high level characters/monsters narrowed. Spellcaster nova problems and multi-classing problems solved, since: 1. "Caster" class special abilities are equal in power, since they are more like the abilities of non-casting classes. 2. Anyone can cast standard DnD spells, and cost should hopefully be balanced since the system uses standard magic item rules. DISADVANTAGES: Requires serious number crunching to rework CR system. Gulf between low and high level characters/monsters narrowed. Even though "spells" (expendable magic items) use standard pricing guidelines, most standard DnD parties have casters that don't have to buy high level expendables. PCs essentially become like rogues with UMD, so re-pricing spells with this fact in mind might be necessary. Magic The current spellcasting classes disappear entirely. Casting becomes a "profession" instead of a class. Classic DnD spells may still be cast with 1 or more mundane material components, plus one rare component with a gp value of: spell level x caster level x 25. Any class may cast these spells, provided that they have the components on hand and know the proper procedure. Or one may read the procedure from a scroll or spellbook. Classic potions, wands and staffs go away. Many spells cast using this system, however, may take shape in the form of a potion. Wands may replace rare material components. Wands get recharged with a complex magical contraption that consumes crushed gems. The cost of the gems is the same as the rare material components. Using the magical contraption may involve a fee, not to mention the trouble of finding a town that has one. Wands cannot be shared. Knowledge(arcana) and spellcraft become extremely useful for finding components: just because a component is rare doesn't mean that it looks valuable. My favorite is a strand of hair from a pure-hearted princess. Spell component pouches and eschew material components still work for mundane components. The system also has a spontaneous casting class, which gets knowledge(arcana) and spellcraft as class skills. Hence, this class also tends to be good with classic DnD spells. The class gets "powers". Each power is essentially an array of spell-like abilities. Powers don't scale much with level. The class picks 1 power per level. Thus this class is very multi-class friendly and doesn't run into spell-power problems at higher levels, since all powers are roughly equal in power. I'm not going to go too far into this spell system for now, to avoid confusion. Just think of the powers as more like special abilities than spells; like the special abilities of a monk or paladin. Bards, paladins and rangers get a power every other level (paladins and rangers start later, as usual). Each of these classes chooses from a limited list of powers, while the dedicated caster class may choose any power. Roleplaying: Spells may have fancy incantations and amusing material components, or hack-n-slash groups may sweep the casting mechanics into the background. This procedure is done ahead of time (e.g., in the morning). The spells are later triggered when needed by holding out the prepped material components and doing something minor to them. This usually takes a standard action. One player may prepare a spell and then hand it off to another player to trigger. Simplest example: potions. Brew ahead of time, drink on the fly. Other Magic Items: Unchanged. Wealth per level also unchanged. Stats "HP" becomes "Fortitude". Fortitude = Fort Save + 5. Most creatures with high HP have a high fort save, so this should usually work out fine. Obviously the DM will need to change the CR of many monsters. Low level baddies will still be easy for high level characters to kill, but not as easy. The bonus from the great fortitude feat changes to +1. Taking damage weakens your character against certain fort saves. Fortitude heals at the rate of 1 per day (2 with a heal check, etc.). Spells that deal damage dice per caster level instead deal one die of damage plus 1 damage per 2 caster levels. A fireball with a caster level of 10 would deal 1d6+5 damage. Multiple attacks are abolished. TWF merely allows you more choice when attacking. It carries no AB penalty if you have the feat. Shields might carry a max dex bonus to AC, to help balance out TWF. TWF also grants +1 AB if you randomly choose which hand to fight with. "Will Points" = Will Save + 5. The spontaneous caster class uses will when using a power. Most powers cost 1 will point. Burning will points weakens your character against certain will saves. The bonus from the iron will feat changes to +1. Will points heal at the rate of 1 per day. Reflex Saves: Completely unchanged. Multi-classing and save progression: If you get a good save a 2nd time, don't add the +2 at first level (subtract 2 from the save you get from the 2nd class). If you multi-class and get a good save for the first time, you do get the +2. Skills, AC, BAB, AB, carrying equipment, exp, etc.: Unchanged. Comments??
Nathreet 05-19-07, 01:39 PM	I hate to do this but... <bump>. I'd really like to get comments on this system. If this bump doesn't work, I'll just live with it.
Ra-Tiel 05-19-07, 02:34 PM	[...] Any class may cast these spells, provided that they have the components on hand and know the proper procedure. Or one may read the procedure from a scroll or spellbook. Have you already taken a look at Incantations (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/incantations.htm)? Sounds very similar, perhaps you could find some inspiration there. [...] "HP" becomes "Fortitude". Fortitude = Fort Save + 10. Most creatures with high HP have a high fort save, so this should usually work out fine. Obviously the DM will need to change the CR of many monsters. Low level baddies will still be easy for high level characters to kill, but not as easy. The bonus from the great fortitude feat changes to +1. Taking damage weakens your character against certain fort saves. Fortitude heals at the rate of 1 per day (2 with a heal check, etc.). While I generally like "grim and gritty" rules (especially for damage), this seems to be troublesome to me. Although considering the extremes is not always a good idea, let's just look at a level 20 dwarven fighter. Even assuming Con 30 (with racial bonus, level increases, and magical items) and the "Great Fortitude" feat, he'd have no more than 10(base) + 12(fort) + 10(con) + 1(feat) = 33 "hps". Now let's look at a level 20 half-orc barbarian with Str 30, wielding a +5 greataxe. His damage would be 1d12(base) + 5(magic) + 15(str), averaging 26 points of damage with each blow (and not even touching upon "Power Attack" or damage enhancements for the weapon!). So, two strikes from the barbarian will definitively kill the Con-pimped dwarf fighter. Is that really what you wanted? If you decrease the characters' "puffer" that much, you should also somewhat decrease the possible damage output, or your players have to roll up new characters every second session. Spells that deal damage dice per caster level instead deal one die of damage plus 1 damage per 2 caster levels. A fireball with a caster level of 10 would deal 1d6+5 damage. How much damage would in this case a scorching ray or a prismatic wall deal? If these are not adopted because they don't follow the d6/level rule they will become overpowered borderlining on the edge of completely broken. Multiple attacks are abolished. TWF merely allows you more choice when attacking. It carries no AB penalty if you have the feat. Shields might carry a max dex bonus to AC, to help balance out TWF. [...] Ok, how do you balance out the loss of damage output from multiple attacks? There are some other threads in this forum that try to compensate this somehow, perhaps you could take a look into them? I hate to do this but... <bump>. I'd really like to get comments on this system. If this bump doesn't work, I'll just live with it. Patience, my young padawan. :D Always remember this is a message board and no chat, and that it can take a day or two until the first comments start flying. ;) And don't get disappointed that quickly. :)
Nathreet 05-19-07, 02:41 PM	While I generally like "grim and gritty" rules (especially for damage), this seems to be troublesome to me. Although considering the extremes is not always a good idea, let's just look at a level 20 dwarven fighter. Even assuming Con 30 (with racial bonus, level increases, and magical items) and the "Great Fortitude" feat, he'd have no more than 10(base) + 12(fort) + 10(con) + 1(feat) = 33 "hps". Now let's look at a level 20 half-orc barbarian with Str 30, wielding a +5 greataxe. His damage would be 1d12(base) + 5(magic) + 15(str), averaging 26 points of damage with each blow (and not even touching upon "Power Attack" or damage enhancements for the weapon!). So, two strikes from the barbarian will definitively kill the Con-pimped dwarf fighter. Is that really what you wanted? If you decrease the characters' "puffer" that much, you should also somewhat decrease the possible damage output, or your players have to roll up new characters every second session. You only get one attack per round. Against a heavily armored fighter, around 50% (or more) will miss. So they'd duel back and forth for 2-3 rounds, then one would get wounded and probably run off. Kind of like real battles. But you still have a good point: all damage from enchantments must be nerfed just like the rest of magical damage. Enhancement bonus = +1 AB, +0 dmg. Damage enchantments = +1 damage in place of each d6 (type = fire/holy/etc.). Power attack: -4 AB for +1 damage, +2 damage if two handed. Weapon Spec: +1 damage. You are still unconcious until -10 fortitude. That'll help players survive. How much damage would in this case a scorching ray or a prismatic wall deal? If these are not adopted because they don't follow the d6/level rule they will become overpowered borderlining on the edge of completely broken. Case by case, using spells like fireball as the standard. Scorching ray would deal a d6 per ray. That's 3d6 max vs. 1d6+5 max for a fireball. 10.5 vs. 8.5 (23.5% more vs. 20% more by normal rules). That sounds about right. CLW: 1d8. CMW: 1d8 + 1. CSW: 1d8 + 2. CCW: 1d8 + 3. Heal: 10 + caster level / 2 (max 20). Magic Missile: 1d4 + 1 + 1 per 4 caster levels (1 missile only, max 1d4 + 3). Etc. Basically take the progression down a notch. Multiple dice => plusses (1 per 2 levels), plusses => no plus. Or, with special cases like scorching ray, simply match up the power with other spells. Since damage will then advance at the same rate as fortitude, it should work out. Ok, how do you balance out the loss of damage output from multiple attacks? There are some other threads in this forum that try to compensate this somehow, perhaps you could take a look into them? Lower HP. Damage from other sources, like spells, are also lowered across the board. Or, rather, they are about the same as standard DnD at first level and progress much slower. Thanks for the comments. I'll look over the incantation variant. EDIT: I looked over the incantation variant. Unfortunately it doesn't provide pre-made spells to use, or even pre-made spell components. And it's made to work alongside the normal spell system, not in place of it. The general concept is the same, but my own system would be simpler to implement. My system essentially allows players to create expendable magic items at half price (or the same price as what a caster would pay). Like the incantation variant it allows any class but it favors my caster class. Btw, I'm thinking of seriously calling the caster class, "Caster". Individual players can name it whatever they want, either picking a generic name or taking a name based on the powers they choose. NPCs will likewise use different names interchangeably ("mage", "wizard", etc.)
Ra-Tiel 05-19-07, 03:37 PM	You only get one attack per round. Against a heavily armored fighter, around 50% (or more) will miss. So they'd duel back and forth for 2-3 rounds, then one would get wounded and probably run off. Kind of like real battles. But you still have a good point: all damage from enchantments must be nerfed just like the rest of magical damage. Enhancement bonus = +1 AB, +0 dmg. Damage enchantments = +1 damage in place of each d6 (type = fire/holy/etc.). I'm not so sure about that. Let's compare the dwaven fighter and half orc barbarian again. Dwarf (AC): Base: 10 Dex (16): +3 Armor (+5 mithril full plate): +13 Shield (+5 heavy steel shield): +7 Deflection (ring of protection +5): +5 Natural armor (amulet of natural armor +5): +5 Total: 43 Half-Orc (attack bonus): BAB: 20 Strength (in rage, 38): +14 Enhancement: +5 Feat (Weapon focus): +1 Total: +40 The half-orc would hit in 9 out of 10 attacks. Case by case, using spells like fireball as the standard. Scorching ray would deal a d6 per ray. That's 3d6 max vs. 1d6+5 max for a fireball. 10.5 vs. 8.5 (23.5% more vs. 20% more by normal rules). That sounds about right. CLW: flat 1d8. CMW: flat 2d8. Heal: 10 + caster level / 2 (max 20). Etc. Basically take the progression down a notch. Multiple dice => plusses (1 per 2 levels), plusses => no plus. Or, with special cases like scorching ray, simply match up the power with other spells. I see. But are you sure you want to rewrite basically all spells out there? I don't know if you are using these, but what about psionics, or incarnum? Perhaps it would be better to look into alternative HP systems, like Vitality and Wound Points (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/vitalityAndWoundPoints.htm), or Variant Massive Damage (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/massaveDamageThresholdsAndResults.htm)? Both would net the same result (deadlier combat), but without you having to rewrite and rebalance the whole combat/magic system. Lower HP. Damage from other sources, like spells, are also lowered across the board. Or, rather, they are about the same as standard DnD at first level and progress much slower. I see. But I still wonder if you really gain that much from all this work. I'm currently designing my own system based on d20, and to be honest... getting the balance right is a real pain in the ass sometimes. :tantrum: Therefore I'd suggest investigating if using alternative and already tested rules (like some I suggested above) would possibly yield the same results without the whole load of work. Thanks for the comments. I'll look over the incantation variant. EDIT: I looked over the incantation variant. Unfortunately it doesn't provide pre-made spells to use, or even pre-made spell components. And it's made to work alongside the normal spell system, not in place of it. The general concept is the same, but my own system would be simpler to implement. My system essentially allows players to create expendable magic items at half price (or the same price as what a caster would pay). Like the incantation variant it allows any class but it favors my caster class. Btw, I'm thinking of seriously calling the caster class, "Caster". Individual players can name it whatever they want, either picking a generic name or taking a name based on the powers they choose. NPCs will likewise use different names interchangeably ("mage", "wizard", etc.) Oh, ok. Guess it wasn't that suitable then, was it? But it was worth a try. :P
Nathreet 05-19-07, 04:18 PM	The aforementioned half-orc must: Get tomes of strength. These are very expensive, and limit other gear. This is less of a problem at level 20, but it's still a major problem even at very high levels. Be level 20. Otherwise his rage only grants +6 strength. Be raging. This one is not so unreasonable though. Plus, as mentioned, he wouldn't be dealing so much damage. In fact, he might be better off grabbing some damage enchantments and lowering his AB (thus hitting less often, but harder). And really, for such a class to hit 80% of the time, while raging no less, isn't so bad (especially with the nerfs to damage). I mean, AB is his shtick. I'd be a pretty P.O.'ed player if I had a 50:50 chance of hitting every round... and hitting was all I could do. Balance: I do think that certain methods will become more effective, and others will become less effective. But I don't think it will matter. AB and AC will still be balanced, as will damage among warrior classes. This system shouldn't make one warrior class stronger than another (correct me if I'm wrong here, please). Damage of warrior classes versus spells might become unbalanced but: 1. Even if weaker than physical damage, spells will still be useful, at least for utility. And probably for area damage too. 2. It's unlikely (but possible) that spells will be able to deal so much damage that they will make physical damage obsolete (which is almost how current DnD works anyway). If you can break the spell damage somehow, please try to do so and post it. That'll be useful information for changes. 3. Any class can cast spells, so it becomes less of a class balance issue. 4. Players will still want to use higher level spells, even for that +3 damage, because time is such a precious commodity. Between battles CLW will dominate healing even more, but this is standard fare anyway. If worse comes to worst I could abandon the HP and damage rules and keep the spell rules. But I don't think I'd need to. Munchkin strategies would change drastically and CR's would need some serious rebalancing. But fortunately I have a battle simulator on hand and I also know enough about numbers to figure out a warrior's chances against a given warrior monster (or damage dealing caster monster). And I know how to munchkin out a good warrior. Non-damage based challenges remain unchanged, so there shouldn't be too much of an issue there (right?) But yeah, it does involve a lot of number crunching for the DM. A lot of DM's would need published rules including well-balanced CR's and all the numbers for various spells, etc.
Ra-Tiel 05-20-07, 06:26 AM	The aforementioned half-orc must: Get tomes of strength. These are very expensive, and limit other gear. This is less of a problem at level 20, but it's still a major problem even at very high levels. Be level 20. Otherwise his rage only grants +6 strength. Be raging. This one is not so unreasonable though. Plus, as mentioned, he wouldn't be dealing so much damage. In fact, he might be better off grabbing some damage enchantments and lowering his AB (thus hitting less often, but harder). And really, for such a class to hit 80% of the time, while raging no less, isn't so bad (especially with the nerfs to damage). I mean, AB is his shtick. I'd be a pretty P.O.'ed player if I had a 50:50 chance of hitting every round... and hitting was all I could do. Ok, level 10 then. First, the dwarf again. Let's assume he started with Con 14, add his +2 racial bonus, +2 from level increases, and a +4 item and we have a final Con score of 22. Now let's assume he already has "Great Fortitude", and we're looking at a total of 10(base) + 7(fort) + 6(con) + 1(feat) = 24 total. For his armor, let's say he has a +2 fullplate, a +2 heavy steel shield, ring of protection +2, and amulet of natural armor +2. This gives a total AC of 10(base) + 1(dex) + 10(armor) + 4(shield) + 2(deflection) + 2(natural) = 29 total. Now the half-orc. Assuming he started with Str 14, we add his +2 racial bonus, +2 from level gains, and a +4 item, +4 from his rage and have a total Str score of 26. He wields a +1 flaming frost greataxe, and has "Weapon Focus" and "Power Attack". The barbarian's attack would be the following: 10(bab) + 8(str) + 1(magic) + 1(feat) = 20. So, he has a 60% chance to hit the dwarf. His damage would be 1d12 + 12(str) + 1(flaming) + 1(frost) = avg 20. If the half-orc now uses his "Power Attack" feat for - let's say - 2 points, it chances the attack in the following way. His attack becomes +18, resulting in a 50% chance to hit the dwarf. His damage, however, increases to 1d12+18, averaging 24 points of damage. Conclusion: when the half-orc gets the initiative on the dwarf, the dwarf has a 50% chance to be reduced to 0 before he can take any action. [...] But yeah, it does involve a lot of number crunching for the DM. A lot of DM's would need published rules including well-balanced CR's and all the numbers for various spells, etc. Well, I wish you good look with that. :) I can't help you much with that, as I'm busy with my own system, sorry.
Nathreet 05-20-07, 12:50 PM	I did post different rules for power attack. Just like everything else, its damage gets nerfed. The aforementioned barbarian would get -4 AB and +2 damage. Strength damage would likewised need to be nerfed, also like everything else. I'd be tempted to make strength give AB only (just like magic weapons), but that would be highly unfair to THFers. The balanced way seems to be half strength damage to THFers, 1/3 to SHFers and 1/6 to off hand. But that's just messy. Hmm... I dunno. Plus it doesn't fit well with the "same damage at level 1" idea. As for balancing CR's, I figure I'd just do it on the fly.
Ra-Tiel 05-20-07, 01:09 PM	I did post different rules for power attack. Just like everything else, its damage gets nerfed. The aforementioned barbarian would get -4 AB and +2 damage. Strength damage would likewised need to be nerfed, also like everything else. I'd be tempted to make strength give AB only (just like magic weapons), but that would be highly unfair to THFers. Oh, sorry. Missed that. :doh: But don't you think that you're going in a little too deep if you have to change the way Strength adds to melee damage? Doesn't that seem to be a bit unnecessary to you? Just asking... :thinks: The balanced way seems to be half strength damage to THFers, 1/3 to SHFers and 1/6 to off hand. But that's just messy. Hmm... I dunno. Plus it doesn't fit well with the "same damage at level 1" idea. Perhaps you could work with some flat penalties? THF = +/-0. SHF = -1. OH = -2. I know that this will screw with the "same damage" decree, but at least it was easy, not overly complicated, and workable. As for balancing CR's, I figure I'd just do it on the fly. I have found out that the best way to do that is making your own DM-party of four characters, and calculate average damage per round on either side. If your "DM-pseudo-PCs" take no more than 25% of their daily resources (that is, if you're not balancing stuff on a "per encounter" basis like for example ToB did), the monster is an appropriate challenge and its CR equals the average party level. Of course it is messy, of course it takes a horrible amount of time, of course it is a crapload of work, but it also provides the most accurate results under the given circumstances you can get.
Nathreet 05-20-07, 01:25 PM	Power Attack: Well, I wouldn't expect you to notice every single rule I made-up. I'm still kinda stuck on the str-to-damage rule. I'm mainly worried about THF vs. SHF balance. DnD already favors SHF (believe it or not), until you can afford an animated shield. I do really like your idea of adding a flat-number to damage, though. I think it makes more sense than multiplying the damage. It's as-if you're giving the limb(s) a strength bonus/penalty. I think I'll run a few test battles until I get something that slightly favors SHF (like standard DnD), but not too much. Maybe I'll give a small bonus/penalty to AB as well (off-hand penalties become zero w/ TWF feat). In the end, I think it'll take about two hits for the barb to kill the dwarf, w/ a 2/3 chance of hitting. That'd mean 3 round combat. Could be more or less depending on the attacker and defender. Sound like a good balancing goal? Good idea with determing CR's. I already wrote a computer program to handle solo-simulations. I'll just have to make a major upgrade to allow group battles. I never fully understood what "25% of the party resources" meant. Does that mean 1/4 of HP, 1/4 of spell slots, etc.?
Ra-Tiel 05-20-07, 02:13 PM	Power Attack: Well, I wouldn't expect you to notice every single rule I made-up. Ok, no problem. :) [...] Sound like a good balancing goal? Well, depends. A single failed Spot/Listen check on your players' part could very well lead to a surprise round the party won't survive. It really depends on how deadly you want combat to be. Always remember, that the players should still be having fun and not become frustrated when their characters don't survive a single session. ;) Good idea with determing CR's. I already wrote a computer program to handle solo-simulations. I'll just have to make a major upgrade to allow group battles. I never fully understood what "25% of the party resources" meant. Does that mean 1/4 of HP, 1/4 of spell slots, etc.? Well, yes. On average a party should spend 1/4th of their HPs, their depletable items, their spell slots, their limited class abilities, etc. pp. on a monster with a CR equal to the average party level. This stems from the [apparently now outdated, and gladly so] "four encounters per day" dogma DnD always had had. However, I really find the "per encounter" or "unlimited" approach of the more recent material more appealing (warlocks, dragon shamans, dragonfire adapts, soulborn/totemist/incarnate, swordsage/crusader/warblade, ...) than the old thing. It really makes no sense to balance classes on a imaginary number of combats it will have to face per day, which leads to certain "problems" (*cough*nova*cough*). Perhaps, when you're already at retooling the system, you could also tweak it into this direction?
Nathreet 05-20-07, 03:20 PM	Well, depends. A single failed Spot/Listen check on your players' part could very well lead to a surprise round the party won't survive. It really depends on how deadly you want combat to be. Always remember, that the players should still be having fun and not become frustrated when their characters don't survive a single session. Hmm... maybe I should just double the bonus HP to solve the insta-death problem. i.e., (5 + bonuses) x 2, or 10 + bonuses x 2. Bonus spell damage could also double. For example, fireball => 1d6 + 10, not 1d6 + 5. Melee damage could stay the same. That'd be essentially the same as halving melee damage, without forcing the players to do the math. However, I really find the "per encounter" or "unlimited" approach of the more recent material more appealing (warlocks, dragon shamans, dragonfire adapts, soulborn/totemist/incarnate, swordsage/crusader/warblade, ...) than the old thing. It really makes no sense to balance classes on a imaginary number of combats it will have to face per day, which leads to certain "problems" (*cough*nova*cough*). Perhaps, when you're already at retooling the system, you could also tweak it into this direction? Yeah, that issue was really big in my mind when I made this system. Dumping all the current caster classes prevents magical nova. The new caster class has "spells" of equal power, so that prevents casters from focusing on high level spells. And since the caster class gets an array of special abilities instead of straight damage, that doesn't leave much room for nova there either. Maybe utility and battlefield control nova, but oh well. While I'm at it I could perhaps tweak abilities like rage and smite to be unlimited and/or encounter based.