Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Xeviat-DM 02-27-06, 02:51 AM	Hello everyone. As many of you, I've been playing D&D since 3rd edition was released (though I was unknowingly introduced to it through a few 2nd edition CRPGs based on the D&D rules set). Recently, I've began to play a 3rd edition L5R game (the setting of Rokugan, which was used in 3rd edition OA), which marks the first non-d20 game system I've played. I don't believe L5R has an OGL, so I'll be brief. My intention is to see if we can design a skill based d20, which I'm calling d20 2.0. The heart of the system is simple; characters earn XP from overcoming challenges, and they are able to spend their XP on increasing their Ability Scores, increasing their Skills, and purchasing feats. Characters will still gain levels when their XP total (including points spent) reach certain levels, granting them HD, base saves, and class abilities. Otherwise everything is controlled by feats, skills, and ability points. I am still working out the exact numbers, but that's where all of you can intervien: I need values. The base value is that purchasing skill points costs a number of points equal to the rank you will be purchasing. So, for example, purchasing 1 rank in a skill costs 1 point, while increasing a skill to 5 ranks costs 5 points. Class skills may or may not be kept in some form; the way L5R does class skills is a character gains 1 rank in all of their class skills, but there are no limitations on max ranks. I'm not sure about ability scores; in L5R, ability scores range from 1 to 10, and increasing ability scores cost 4x the new score; increasing a stat from 2 to 3 costs 12 points. Since D&D stats are higher, but mean less (an increase from 14 to 15 is practically meaningless), their costs should be much lower; and I'm not sure if they should be directly related to the score itself. Since character creation will be point buy, with ability scores starting at 8, a chart can be made: Stat Cost 8 0 9 4 10 4 11 6 12 6 13 8 14 8 15 10 16 10 17 12 18 12 This was based on comparing a D&D 8 to an L5R 1, and a D&D 18 to an L5R 6, but splitting the cost amongst the different ability scores. Racial modifiers and size modifiers should probably be applied last, and perhaps not taken into consideration when characters purchase higher ability scores. In addition to the standard bonus of increasing ranks, each skill would need to have "mastery abilities" at certain ranks. These abilities would replace the need for certain feats; synergy bonuses would be mastery abilities, as would abilities like 5 ranks in balance allowing one to retain their Dex bonus while balancing, or tumble's bonus AC while fighting defensively and using the total defense action. I'm not sure what the value for feats should be, or if costs should scale. Part of me thinks they should be priced evenly, because prerequisite feats are part of the cost of buying higher level feats. Feats like skill focus wouldn't exist. Lastly, BAB is replaced by weapon skills. Weapons will be grouped with similar weapons, and each group would have representative simple, martial, and exotic weapons. If you do not have martial weapon proficiency, you could still use a groups martial weapons, but at a -4 penalty as usual. So I'd like to hear your opinions on this. Can it be done? Oh, and last: something would need to be done about class skill points. Should high skill characters like bards, rogues, and rangers get some sort of bonus, such as a decreased skill point cost, to replicate their normally high number of skills?
Phoenix Knight 02-27-06, 11:04 AM	Wow, lots of ideas...where to begin. You've made me consider trying to find a L5R core book. On feats, I think a fixed cost is probably best. You do pay more for higher tier feats - you had to buy the prereqs. One potential problem, however, will be if the XP you gain goes up with levels. Actually, this can cause several potential issues that may or may not bother you. For example, on skills, this can mean that a high level character can go from no ranks in Profession (sailor) to being a master sailor 5-10 ranks. I ran a similar system, and had to institute a rule that each skill could be raised by only 2 Levels (ranks) each game session. Anyway, on to the cost. This is difficult to balance, but I'd say, a feat should be worth roughly a +3 bonus to an average rated skill. A rank 5 skill raised to 6, then 7, then 8 costs 21 skill points. So what if we say feats costs 20 points. On ability scores, I think, if you don't want to totally kick a normal curve on scores, the costs should be based on the exact new score, just as in the point buy system (DMG). You could try 2 x new rating. I have experimented with this, and it allows people to increase their scores, without getting into continual ability inflation. Other than Str (carrying capacity) and Con (wound points), a single point of a score does not have a mechanical effect, but it does do something, namely, bring you one step closer to a higher mod. For many characters, ability scores are all that really matter. Many heavy fighters would easily neglect all but weapon skills to have a 34 strength, if you let him. But it stretches the versimilitude of the world if a normal human can have such strength without magical aid. Exceeding human limitations is one thing. Being able to 2800 lbs is something else entirely.
Phoenix Knight 02-27-06, 11:16 AM	On to BAB and weapon skills. I really like the idea, but, as was the case when previous posters suggested it, I think you may run into problems here. For one thing, it will change the balance of D&D a lot. In D&D you have fighters that are good, mediocre, and poor. How will you balance this? Capping max ranks doesn't quite deal with the issue. You could give weapon skills a lesser or higher cost for certain classes, I guess. Which brings me to another point. Based on the relative value in most D&D games, Weapon Skills should probably cost more than, say, Profession (sailor), or Craft (drawing). I don't know, maybe 1.5 times the new rank (rounded down); though I'm not fond of fractional values for costs. As for class skills and skill points: If you want to keep seperate classes and class skills, you might consider skill groups (Iron Heroes), where you gain a rank in each skill in the group for 1 skill point. The problem you'll run into, is how much it costs, since you base cost on the new rating, and you might have different ratings in the skills unless you had the whole group your entire career (which means no multiclassing). Instead of having high skill point classes, I would rebalance the classes to make them all even in terms of power not including skills points (and maybe not including BAB, but that's another issue). Then, whether someone is high-skilled depends purely on his preference (on how many points he's willing to spend). You can have a high-skilled fighter, though he'll be a little less combat savvy then the average fighter, or you can have a minimal skilled rogue, who focuses on his sneak attack and stealth kills. You also keep high skill classes, by giving them more skill groups, if you use that (or class skills), allowing those characters more skills cheaper (effectively a discount). Your other option, is to offer bonus points to be used for skills at each level in those classes. You might also examine some of the ideas for a class-less system that have occasionally floated about, or perhaps more generic classes. You could easily incorporate certain mechanics as purchasable in your system. Each die of sneak attack cost points equal to the new number of dice x4, or something like that. Wild Empathy could be a feat, and so on. I still want to see your mastery system worked out, because I'm thinking of implimenting it, or something like it, in my current campaign, as soon as it's ready.
Crash01234567890 02-27-06, 12:43 PM	Honestly it's not what you want to hear, but you're better off just picking up a different system that is already skill based. I know Shadowrun, Deadlands, and Serinity are all skill based and take no time converting. The only big deal would be making races, which is already taken care of in Shadowrun. Honestly, I've tried to make an skill based version of D&D with the D20 system, and it's not that it doesn't work, but that no one ever want to play it, because if they have to learn a new system anyway, they'll play a different game.
Phoenix Knight 02-27-06, 01:20 PM	There does come a point when you have to ask, am I better off just scrapping D&D and making my own system, or simply using another system. I think all of working on the houserules board struggle with this question. But we can only decide for ourselves when we have reached that point. I love Shadowrun. I frankly think it is a better system than the d20 system. But it's not D&D. Sometimes, we want the D&D setting, and we assume we'll use something resembling the D&D system with it. Lots of people are familiar with d20 (kind of the point of the OGL), making people more inclined to want to play games using it. Yes, many people don't want to learn a new system. That's always a problem. Only a specific GM can know whether his players want to learn all this. I assume Xeviat already knew the answer to this question, before posting all this. If you want the feel of D&D, with another system, it's going to take a lot of work to convert it, anyway. Maybe less than upgrading d20 to a straight XP-based system, but you will still need work. Want to incoporate classic D&D monsters in SR, big work: you have to re-write every monster. Sure there is a source book for Shadowrun "Critters," but it may not be what you're looking for. And you sure won't find a beholder, mind flayer, or many other classics. Xeviat's proposal doesn't require him to re-write every Monster Manual.
Geoste 02-27-06, 02:38 PM	To goes out to everyone and no one in in particular... Honestly it's not what you want to hear, but you're better off just picking up a different system that is already skill based. Yep. There already is a game system that does all what the OP wanted, along within a fantasy context, which is the current Rolemaster system. Honestly, I've tried to make an skill based version of D&D with the D20 system, and it's not that it doesn't work, but that no one ever want to play it, because if they have to learn a new system anyway, they'll play a different game. Exactly. I do have the RM system, just that none of my players want to try it out. The strange thing is that they are willing to play Star Wars D20, which has a slightly different system - but is still D20. A skill based D20 system is not too hard to imagine nor learn, but I am sure it will scare the willies out of a lot of existing players. That's just my observation, and it is limited to who I know and played with. Perhaps your players are made of sterner and braver stuff (like the gamers I know in the 80's and 90's who were willing to try new things). I've since learned that I am far too detail oriented whereas my players just seem to want the most popular (not necessarily the most easiest) system, and yes, that is D20. Simpler = Warhammer 2nd edition. Detailed = Rolemaster Popular = D20 D&D You can take that to the bank. -
Ranger REG 02-28-06, 04:01 AM	So I'd like to hear your opinions on this. Can it be done? Oh, and last: something would need to be done about class skill points. Should high skill characters like bards, rogues, and rangers get some sort of bonus, such as a decreased skill point cost, to replicate their normally high number of skills? Have you considered using True20 and BESM d20 as part of your game design research?
StormKnight 03-01-06, 03:41 PM	Sorry Xeviat, I'm afraid I have to agree with some of the others - the kind of modification you are talking is probably doable, but by the time you are done, you won't have much that resembles D&D left and you'll have gone through massive efforts. There are tons of great RPGs around...why force fit one into a certain style when you can use an existing system that does it better? What exactly do you want to get out of such a system? If you want to keep everything in D&D, but break it down into skills, you will add a LOT of complexity and looking up on tables (let's see, at what skill level of Survival do I get the tracking bonuses?) This costs you one of the normal advantages of pure skill based systems. If you ditch a lot of material from D&D, you are getting a simpler system, but losing a great deal of flexibility. Defining how to get class abilities will be extremely hard. Few games are truly pure skill based anyway...L5R, for example has numerous features that are not - Shugenja skills, Katas, School techniques. If you want to look at the fantasy game I know that is most heavily skill based and implements them in a very consistent and manageable way, check out the game Ironclaw (or Jadeclaw). But it still has "advantages" (which are very similar to D&D feats mechanically speaking). Exactly. I do have the RM system, just that none of my players want to try it out. And this must be just because they are afraid of trying new things, and can't have anything to do with RM being one of the most insanely over-complicated rule heavy clunk game systems in existence? :) (Sorry...I have played RM, it was kind of amusing, but I'd never try it again if I had the choice).
Xeviat-DM 03-01-06, 07:20 PM	Darn, I had a nice detailed post, and it didn't go through, so now I'll make a less detailed post because I lack the patience to remember all that I typed. My largest problem with the current d20 system is the lack of ability to boost ability scores. A sidebar on a Wizards' article says that a few R&D people gauged a 2004 olympian weight lifter's strength at 23, which is the peak a human could achieve non-magically at 20th level. If one could use a feat to gain +1 to an ability score, such a character could have a 23 strength by 6th level, a more reasonable level for a person in our world. For example, if I go to the gym and work out daily for a month, I'm gaining XP in d20 rules; lifting weights is a challenge, though the XP should be reduced by half since I'm in no real danger, except from the threat of minor/serious injuries. Imagine how many weights I'd have to lift to boost my strength by a point; in reality, a summer of weight lifting added 80 pounds to my bench press. Perhaps d20 characters are assumed to be at peak condition, as adventurers, and thus it is more difficult to raise scores? Additionally, there are some character types, mostly NPCs and Wizards, who have no business having high BABs. A wizard who utilizes many rays might spend XP buying ranks in a "ranged touch attack" weapon group, and a courtier (an expert) may have a few ranks in a "daggers" weapon group, but you're not going to see this too much. Weapon skills are one of the skill groups that definately begs for the system to still utilize class skills: perhaps cross class skills would cost double the ranks. Lastly, one strength of my proposed system is that it will still be compatable with all d20 products; monsters won't need to be rewritten since the system uses the same rules. The only thing that has changed is the level up system. Of course, CRs would need to be looked at a little, but I don't see too much change being required. Thanks all, I'll check in again soon.
StormKnight 03-02-06, 10:23 AM	My largest problem with the current d20 system is the lack of ability to boost ability scores. A sidebar on a Wizards' article says that a few R&D people gauged a 2004 olympian weight lifter's strength at 23, which is the peak a human could achieve non-magically at 20th level. If one could use a feat to gain +1 to an ability score, such a character could have a 23 strength by 6th level, a more reasonable level for a person in our world. For example, if I go to the gym and work out daily for a month, I'm gaining XP in d20 rules; lifting weights is a challenge, though the XP should be reduced by half since I'm in no real danger, except from the threat of minor/serious injuries. Imagine how many weights I'd have to lift to boost my strength by a point; in reality, a summer of weight lifting added 80 pounds to my bench press. Perhaps d20 characters are assumed to be at peak condition, as adventurers, and thus it is more difficult to raise scores? If an olympic weightlifter should have a strength of 23, its because there is a problem with the weight carried scale, NOT a problem with how strength advances. Which isn't a suprise - lift values start going exponential at some point, which is a sign of a major problem. Most likely, no actual human being has any business having a score over 18 - these are the realms of legendary figures and cinematic style heroes. At its core what you have here is a game mechanic and try to draw real world parralells to it can be tricky. I know what you mean by seeing noticeable improvement by exercise in a fairly short period of time, but if that kind of system exists in general in an RPG, what is there to keep characters from boosting stats very high just by spending lots of practice time? One might assume that by exercising, we are not really increasing our stat, but merely bringing ourselves up to the maximum prowess allowed by our physical body; whereas adventurers are assumed to keep at a very high level of condition naturally. Additionally, there are some character types, mostly NPCs and Wizards, who have no business having high BABs. Why exactly do Wizards have no business having high BABs? If a wizard is expecting to be called upon to serve in battle or dangerous adventures, why shouldn't she spend time learning how to use a weapon effectively? At any rate, from your original post, it sounds like what you are trying to come up with is not so much a pure skill based system as a staggered advancement system, in which characters can buy smaller scale traits at a time. First, I'd look at how the existing system really can be thought of as "buying" levels with XP - it takes 1000 XP to purchase second level, 2000 XP to purchase third, and so on. Mechanically, this is the same as keeping track of a total. It only gets different when level drain effects occur, but those are easily handled as well. So what you want is to break down those blocks into smaller chunks. For example, a fighter currently gets 2 skill points, a feat, a D10 hit die, a +1 BAB, and (er, not remembering...+3 total save bonus?) at level 2. So, you might decide that: 1 skill point costs 50 XP 1 BAB costs 200 XP 1 save bonus costs 100 XP 1 feat costs 200 XP 1 attribute point costs 500 XP A hit die costs 50 per die size (D4 = 50, D6 = 100, D8 = 150, D10 = 200) There you've got your 1000 XP for level 2. But it will go to heck at higher levels, since the XP cost increases by 1000 each time, but the benefits don't scale up proportionally.
Xeviat-DM 03-03-06, 05:11 AM	For example, a fighter currently gets 2 skill points, a feat, a D10 hit die, a +1 BAB, and (er, not remembering...+3 total save bonus?) at level 2. So, you might decide that: 1 skill point costs 50 XP 1 BAB costs 200 XP 1 save bonus costs 100 XP 1 feat costs 200 XP 1 attribute point costs 500 XP A hit die costs 50 per die size (D4 = 50, D6 = 100, D8 = 150, D10 = 200) There you've got your 1000 XP for level 2. But it will go to heck at higher levels, since the XP cost increases by 1000 each time, but the benefits don't scale up proportionally. Not necessarily ... you're actually heading in an interesting direction; each level costs an extra 1000 gp correct, which falls into my notion of scaled costs. For instance, if 1 BAB costs 200 xp, the second point of BAB would cost 400 xp, because 2 BAB is worth more than 1 BAB. But again, I would be scaling down the XP quite a bit; L5R grants 1 to 2 xp per session (a slower progression is something I enjoy; others don't). In fact, it is this scaled cost which will keep a player from increasing one ability rediculously. A wizard won't put all of their XP into their Intelligence for two reasons: very high intelligence increases begin to cost increasingly higher amounts of points, and such a system would require skills such as spellcraft and knowledge to play a greater role in spell casting. Sure, a wizard may learn a little hear and there about how to use a weapon, but if a magic missile wand is so much better than a wizard with half BAB and a crossbow, why would he use anything else? (Note: a magic missile wand costs a whole 15 gp per charge; and technically an unlimited magic missile wand would only cost 1,800 gp) I can see that there are a lot of people who disagree with me; that's great. This is a House Rules thread, and I'd rather have people work with me on creating something that works; once something is actually created will it require people to tear it down and find the holes.
Geoste 03-03-06, 09:49 AM	And this must be just because they are afraid of trying new things, and can't have anything to do with RM being one of the most insanely over-complicated rule heavy clunk game systems in existence? :) (Sorry...I have played RM, it was kind of amusing, but I'd never try it again if I had the choice). I have RM, as in the actual rulebooks, and can say that it is not complicated at all. Really, it has a very simple system. Just as D20 has a DC number to match or roll over, so too does RM. Which RM version did you play? How was it complicated for you? And yes, my players do not want to learn new systems. They told me. It was not an assumption on my part.
StormKnight 03-03-06, 10:39 AM	Xeviat-DM - Ah. I feel a bit stupid for not thinking of just scaling the cost for individual increases in a similar way to how levels scale. Its not like that's not how most point systems do it. :doh: But again, I would be scaling down the XP quite a bit; L5R grants 1 to 2 xp per session (a slower progression is something I enjoy; others don't). But you can't exactly compare L5R XP directly to D&D XP; they work in entirely ways! 1 or 2 XP is probably comparable to a few hundred D&D XP. So do you want to keep the class system at all or do away with it entirely? It sounded like you will still have characters advance in "levels" after accumulating so much experience, just that the benefits of leveling will be reduced, as most of their benefits will be gained in other ways. Will characters still be able to multi-class? My comment on wizards centers on the fact that most game systems besides D&D don't penalize wizards in combat in any way, besides the fact that they won't be as good at direct combat as a dedicated fighter because some of their 'points' will need to go to their spells. In a more skill based system, I find it odd that wizards should suffer a penalty on combat skills. Let's see...stray thoughts...you could assign appropriate costs to learning new spells, and that after learning a certain number of spells of level X, you then gain the ability to learn spells of X+1. Castings are tougher. I'm not sure if you should be able to buy them straight out or not. One thing level based does do is ensure a little bit of balance; if a player wants a pure combat monster wizard, they might take a very few spells and tons of casting. Are you planning on going with a general "combat" skill or different skills for different weapons? One thing I don't like about systems that use different skills for every weapon is that it makes it very easy to make an extremely "power gamed" character who excels at one item, but very hard to make a generally good combat character. In general, a high level of combat prowess should translate across different weapons. Maybe have one overall combat skill, and the possibilty of "weapon focus" type skills being fairly cheap. On thing that the game Ironclaw uses which I have adapted to every other point based game I play is divided rewards. In Ironclaw, you get XP awards in chunks - for example, after one game you might get a 3 pt award, two 2 pt awards, and a 1 pt award. These awards must be assigned immediately and must all be assigned to different things (and potentially only to things that actually saw use or practice during the session). Points are "built up" on a stat/skill/whatever until there are enough points for it to advance. This insures that players can't dump all their points in one place, and also makes advancing something expensive a bit more enjoyable - in many games, when you are saving up for something expensive you don't advance anything else. With this style, you can be putting points into your expensive option while still using other rewards to advance other options. I'm interested to hear what else you are coming up with! I have RM, as in the actual rulebooks, and can say that it is not complicated at all. Really, it has a very simple system. Just as D20 has a DC number to match or roll over, so too does RM. Which RM version did you play? How was it complicated for you? I have no idea which version it was. The really big thing I remember was there was a huge book with a different full page damage table for each and every weapon. Plus more pages of tables for all the different types of critical hit charts. Kind of a cool in a way, but not to my taste anymore. And yes, my players do not want to learn new systems. They told me. It was not an assumption on my part. I'm sorry! That's rather narrow minded. There was a time when I was really into finding a "perfect" system and fitting it to every genre of game. Now, I really like the diversity of different systems and beleive in picking the best system for the game you want to play. Besides, wouldn't always using one set of mechanics get rather boring?
CaoSlayer 03-04-06, 04:28 AM	Check CODA the system that uses the (new) lord of the rings rpg books, it is very alike to d&d but more skill oriented.
Xeviat-DM 03-04-06, 05:59 AM	But you can't exactly compare L5R XP directly to D&D XP; they work in entirely ways! 1 or 2 XP is probably comparable to a few hundred D&D XP. Which is why I'd be reducing the XP granted by a bit. I mean, why have the xp in the thousands, gaining hundreds at a time, when having XP in the tens, and gaining single didgets would amount to the same thing; what with proportions and all. So do you want to keep the class system at all or do away with it entirely? It sounded like you will still have characters advance in "levels" after accumulating so much experience, just that the benefits of leveling will be reduced, as most of their benefits will be gained in other ways. Will characters still be able to multi-class? Yes, I would keep the class system; the only thing I'm intending on taking out of the class system is BAB; more on that later. My comment on wizards centers on the fact that most game systems besides D&D don't penalize wizards in combat in any way, besides the fact that they won't be as good at direct combat as a dedicated fighter because some of their 'points' will need to go to their spells. In a more skill based system, I find it odd that wizards should suffer a penalty on combat skills. And I don't want them to either, unless I have to to retain balance. XP would definately need to be spent to master spells, which is handy so you don't have to carry around such a thick spellbook. Learning spells should require knowledge (arcana) checks, so that would be a necessary skill, and spellcraft is also important. Additionally, dedicated combatants get class abilities that aid them in combat; sure, if a wizard puts as many ranks into a weapon skill as a warrior, their to hit will be decent, but the warrior has more AC, better proficiencies, and more combat oriented class abilities. Castings are tougher. I'm not sure if you should be able to buy them straight out or not. One thing level based does do is ensure a little bit of balance; if a player wants a pure combat monster wizard, they might take a very few spells and tons of casting. Spells per day would definately remain part of levels. A wizard who wants to be a casting monster could focus almost entirely on boosting their intelligence, but this gets expensive. Are you planning on going with a general "combat" skill or different skills for different weapons? One thing I don't like about systems that use different skills for every weapon is that it makes it very easy to make an extremely "power gamed" character who excels at one item, but very hard to make a generally good combat character. In general, a high level of combat prowess should translate across different weapons. Maybe have one overall combat skill, and the possibilty of "weapon focus" type skills being fairly cheap. Weapon groups; my current groups are Blades, Maces, Spears, Bows, and Crossbows. Each group has simple, martial, and exotic weapons, all grouped differently. If you take proficiency in the groups martial weapons, you no longer suffer the -4 non-proficiency penalty. Similar for exotic weapons. I'm interested to hear what else you are coming up with! Thanks! I'm glad someone's giving me a chance to speak my part. I know it's a big undertaking, but I think it has great rewards if it can be done properly.
StormKnight 03-07-06, 12:45 PM	Which is why I'd be reducing the XP granted by a bit. I mean, why have the xp in the thousands, gaining hundreds at a time, when having XP in the tens, and gaining single didgets would amount to the same thing; what with proportions and all. The only thing you'll have to worry about with that is the XP cost for magic items, which you'll also need to change. If you, for example, divided XP values by 100, you'll wind up with a minor scroll costing .25 XP to create - not exactly a convenient amount! So you may need to overhaul that as well. Yes, I would keep the class system; the only thing I'm intending on taking out of the class system is BAB; more on that later. Ok, that answers a few questions. Weapon groups; my current groups are Blades, Maces, Spears, Bows, and Crossbows. Each group has simple, martial, and exotic weapons, all grouped differently. If you take proficiency in the groups martial weapons, you no longer suffer the -4 non-proficiency penalty. Similar for exotic weapons. Which category will axes fall under? I'd consider their use far close to a mace than a sword, but they do have blades :) That seems like a fairly small skillset...seems not too bad. What always seems odd about these things is that say we've got some legendary fighter who has a skill of 20 in blades and spears. This is one heck of a fighter. But, if she grabs a mace, she's suddenly no better than a commoner at hitting things. Now, this is just silly - with that kind of overall skill, she should still be really darn good, even with a weapon she's never touched before - her overall combat sense, reflexes, knowledge of body balance, ability to read her opponent, and all those other important things aren't sudddenly lost because of an unfamiliar weapon. Thanks! I'm glad someone's giving me a chance to speak my part. I know it's a big undertaking, but I think it has great rewards if it can be done properly. Certainly wish you luck with it!
Xeviat-DM 03-08-06, 12:46 AM	The only thing you'll have to worry about with that is the XP cost for magic items, which you'll also need to change. If you, for example, divided XP values by 100, you'll wind up with a minor scroll costing .25 XP to create - not exactly a convenient amount! So you may need to overhaul that as well. I'm not sure if scrolls should cost XP, or potions for that matter. You have to spend a feat to make them, why pay other costs. Now, permanent magic items should have xp costs, but not scrolls, potions, and wands in my opinion. Which category will axes fall under? I'd consider their use far close to a mace than a sword, but they do have blades :) Actually, in my grouping, axes are part of "maces". Watch: -Simple - Martial -Crossbows -Blades - Curved Blades - Heavy Blades -Bows - Longbows -Maces - Hammers and Picks - Axes -Spears - Polearms -Thrown Weapons - Hurled Weapons These are the groupings I use for my current weapon group proficiency system, modified from the UA groups. You have to have proficiency with the simple group to select it with the martial group here. That seems like a fairly small skillset...seems not too bad. What always seems odd about these things is that say we've got some legendary fighter who has a skill of 20 in blades and spears. This is one heck of a fighter. But, if she grabs a mace, she's suddenly no better than a commoner at hitting things. Now, this is just silly - with that kind of overall skill, she should still be really darn good, even with a weapon she's never touched before - her overall combat sense, reflexes, knowledge of body balance, ability to read her opponent, and all those other important things aren't sudddenly lost because of an unfamiliar weapon. And this is probably the main reason this will fall apart; I may need to search for another method of doing this (perhaps BAB would be a skill, but separate for melee and ranged since those two have nothing to do with each other). Such a system works in L5R because the rolling method is different: you roll a number of d10s equal to your ability score plus your skill rank, and you keep a number of d10s equal to your ability score. Thus a high skill rank doesn't increase your maximum roll, but it does greatly affect your average. In D&D, skill points contribute the same amount as ability modifiers do. I'm open to suggestion on how to tackle this. I understand that someone who can swing a sword will probably be able to pick up a mace and swing it around with relative ease; there is a large difference between the weight and balance of the two weapons, but some amount of bleeding over could be possible. Then again, if a fighter has 20 ranks in swords and spears, it's probably safe to say that said fighter has never picked up a mace before in their life (if they did, they would have gained some experience with it, and thus increased their skill points). In a CRPG, it would be possible to have a system where XP gained while doing certain tasks would only grant XP to the skill related to that task, but such a system would be too complex for a PnP RPG.
Eidalac 03-08-06, 10:58 AM	A long time ago, I pondered a way to do Attacks as a kind of skill, and one of the ideas I had was to give each class 'Combat Skill Points' at each level, with melee classes getting the most and casters the least. Such pionts could be spent either on BaB or on specific weapon skill, permiting a character to be either a generalist or specialist. Plus other things like weapon specific feats (Weapon Focus (x)) would require a certain number of ranks with that weapon. I never pursuded the idea beyond a concept, but something of that sort may fix that particular issue for you. The main issue with making it work is setting the skill caps for them so that you can't have someone with a higher attack bonus that a normal character of the equivlent level in standard D&D would have.
Phoenix Knight 03-08-06, 11:44 AM	And this is probably the main reason this will fall apart; I may need to search for another method of doing this (perhaps BAB would be a skill, but separate for melee and ranged since those two have nothing to do with each other). Such a system works in L5R because the rolling method is different: you roll a number of d10s equal to your ability score plus your skill rank, and you keep a number of d10s equal to your ability score. Thus a high skill rank doesn't increase your maximum roll, but it does greatly affect your average. In D&D, skill points contribute the same amount as ability modifiers do. I'm open to suggestion on how to tackle this. I understand that someone who can swing a sword will probably be able to pick up a mace and swing it around with relative ease; there is a large difference between the weight and balance of the two weapons, but some amount of bleeding over could be possible. Then again, if a fighter has 20 ranks in swords and spears, it's probably safe to say that said fighter has never picked up a mace before in their life (if they did, they would have gained some experience with it, and thus increased their skill points). In a CRPG, it would be possible to have a system where XP gained while doing certain tasks would only grant XP to the skill related to that task, but such a system would be too complex for a PnP RPG. I recently purchased The Riddle of Steel, and I absolutely love it. The most realistic combat system ever, and the game has a certain gritty feel, while being driven by a character's goals and personality, not numbers. Anyway, I bring it up, because, in that game, you have weapon proficiencies which represent fighting styles: sword and shield, cut & thrust (which is mostly rapier/maine gauche), polearm, greatsword (2-handed sword fighting), and so on. When you have one skill, you can "default" to similar skills for a penalty (Shadowrun has a similar rule). So, for example, a fighter with a Proficiency of 9 with Greatsword, can take a -2 (number varies from -1 to -4) to use Sword and Shield (at 7). This could solve your problem of master badass not knowing how to use a mace. Of course, this means the handle purchasing ranks in Sword & Shield for that fighter a little differently, since it wouldn't help to purchase 1 rank, since you would have fewer dice than you do when defaulting. But I won't get into the details unless you really care.
hawaiianbrian 03-12-06, 08:39 AM	The following is reproduced from a <a href="http://d20characters.blogspot.com/">web site</a> I put together a while ago. I don't use these rules for the same reason someone else mentioned earlier: nobody has been too keen to try them. They wander pretty far afield from "standard d20." Yet, I should point out, still work as far as I know. **Except the skill-based magic part, which I'm still working on!!* ------------------------------------------------------------- You determine your character's saving throws, skills, feats, and special abilities by distributing a set number of points. I prefer this method because it allows players the most flexibility when it comes to designing their characters and customizing them. The class system is very rigid and counter-intuitive, and it places too much artificial control on the development of characters. A little background: The absolute value of feats, skills, special abilties, attribute points, and so on were determined by totalling up the level awards listed in the Player's Handbookand comparing the results. Classes tend to specialize in different areas: skills for rogues, spells for the spellcasting classes, and feats for fighters. Some classes, and most prestige classes, weigh in with more special abilities and slower spell or saving throw advancement. By measuring these factors in all classes at 20th level, it becomes easier to determine how each trait weighs against the other. For example, compare rogues against sorcerers -- rogues have a preponderance of skill points and special abilities, whereas sorcerers have only one special ability but many spells. The Mutants and Masterminds rulebook, published by Green Ronin, presents a system of character creation that assigns a point value to everything and then has characters "buy" upgrades and advancements every level. I borrowed the raw numbers presented in that book and double-checked them against some of my D&D characters by adding up how many "points" would have been spent on their abilities under the point-buy system. I discovered it is so accurate that most characters came out at or near where they would be... 300 points for a 10th level character, 525 for a 20th. The numbers below should provide you with a character roughly equal in power to one built under a traditional d20 model, only you'll have more control over its concept and development in the process. All characters begin play with 25 points just for being a new character, and 25 more for being 1st level. That means you have 50 points to play with at the start. For every level your character gains, he or she will gain 25 more points. That simple. So, by the end of his career, your character should have 525 points, distributed among skills, feats, special abilities, and others. The basic point value for every purchasable trait are listed below, followed by a more detailed description: • Attributes: 12 points per +1 • Feats: 3 points per feat • Saving Throws: 1 point per +1 • Special Abilities provided by character class: 3 points per ability (prereqs must be met) • Skill points: 1 point per +1 • Hit Points (or Vitality): 1 point per +1 • Defense Bonus: 3 points per +1 • Weapon and Armor Proficiencies: Ignored, now rolling over into Skills Attributes: You may improve your attributes only by spending points on them. It costs 12 points to raise an attribute one point. Feats: Every feat costs 3 points to purchase. You may purchase any feat, but you must meet prerequisites first. For example, in order to purchase Two-Weapon Defense, you must first purchase Two-Weapon Fighting. Saving Throws: These are also purchased, on a one-for-one basis. There is no limit to how many points you may put into saving throws. Special Abilities: This is where it gets a little more complicated. This system does away with classes as they are presented in the d20 rules, but the class abilities themselves are still accessible. You no longer need to devote a whole level to "Rogue" in order to gain access to backstab damage. Special abilities, regardless of class of origin all cost 3 points, the same as feats. They cost as much as feats because they are, essentially, feats that happen to be linked to class progression. Essentially, classes and prestige classes become "special ability trees" that anyone can choose to slowly progress in. A character in this system has access to class abilities from any source, allowing you to create characters that dabble in many different careers, if you want to. However, there are restrictions: you may not take any special ability until 1) you have attained the appropriate level, and 2) purchased all the special abilities listed from earlier levels. That means, for example, before you can buy the monk special ability Purity of Body, you must have purchased Flurry of Blows, Unarmed Strike, Evasion, Still Mind, Ki Strike, and Slow Fall 20 ft., and you must be at least 5th level. Exceptions to this include any entries of "Bonus Feat" and anything that might qualify as a Flaw, such as the Barbarian's Illiteracy. You may choose special abilities from any base classes this way (including those listed in d20 Modern), and you may also buy prestige class abilities in the same manner. However, you **must meet all the prerequisites for the prestige class in question first!** Base Attack requirements can be read now simply as level requirements, since Base Attack will no longer be used. If the prestige class has a weapon proficiency as a requirement, consider the requirement met if you have at least 1 rank in that weapon's skill. So to enter the Lasher prestige class (from Sword and Fist), for example, one must have 2 ranks in Rope Use and Craft (Leatherworking), Weapon Focus in Whip, own a whip or whip dagger, and be at least 5th level. Skills: See below. Hit Points: These, also, are purchased on a one-for-one basis, and there is no upper limit. See the post below for more information. Defense Bonus: This is a way of improving one's Armor Class. It stacks with Dexterity and Armor use. These are purchased at a rate of 3 points per +1 bonus. Skills deserve a longer section because they are now a little more inclusive. Both magic and combat will now be part of skill resolution. Skills are purchased on a one-for-one basis. One character creation point will buy one rank in any skill you choose. Since we don't use classes in the traditional way, you no longer need to worry about being excluded from certain skills based on your class. You do, though, still need to consider whether the skill is untrained or not. Skills that are marked as usable Untrained can be purchased normally, at the rate mentioned above. If it is not usable untrained, that means the skill costs two points to intitially purchase (all subsequent rank increases cost one point, as normal). This takes into account the rarity and special difficulty of certain skills. Don't spend any points just yet, because there are some new additions to the skills list to consider: weapons and magic. One of the things that doesn't make sense about the d20 system is how they separate weapon use from other skills. If you think about it, combat in D&D is just another type of skill, only they combine all melee weapons together and all ranged weapons together into two broad categories, list them in their own section, and then refuse to permit you the chance to advance or ignore them as you will. A perfect example: if you want to make the consummate archer, one who can knock the dust off a fly's eyelash from a hundred yards, but yet cannot wield a sword to save his life, you can't make that character under the current d20 system. You will always have just as many ranks in your ranged weapons as you have in your melee ones; the only variation will come from your STR or DEX, that's all. By breaking up the Melee and Ranged categories into component parts, then moving them back into the skills category where they belong, you give characters the chance to specialize in weapons the normal way, without having to invent odd feats and "kludge" rules. The list of weapon categories is as follows, along with their key ability. Each category is a skill you may or may not purchase as you see fit. Weapon skills are not usable untrained. • [STR] Unarmed • [DEX] Thrown (includes dart, sling, javelin, spear, bola; used any time you throw anything, including other weapons like daggers) • [STR] Club (includes mace, kama, and any other blunt short instrument) • [STR] Short Sword (includes dagger) • [STR] Sword • [STR] Axe • [STR] Flail (includes morningstar, nunchaku, and any other weapon using free-swinging sections) • [STR] Pole Arm (includes staff, pike, pick, halberd, etc.) • [DEX] Bow (short or long) • [DEX] Crossbow • [STR or DEX, as appropriate] Exotic (net, whip, two-bladed sword, double axe, and any other oddities) • [DEX] Explosives (grenade, molotov cocktail; includes splash weapons) • [DEX] Handguns • [DEX] Longarms (blunderbuss, rifle, shotgun, assault rifle) • [DEX] Heavy Weapons (cannon, rocket launcher, etc.) Not every character can or should have ranks in every type of weapon. This makes sense -- only the most seasoned warriors were trained in how to effectively wield a host of weapon types. However, the categories are broad enough to allow most characters the chance to do well with two or three, while still having points to spend on other important skills. Combat by this method is no different: to attack an ogre, you must roll a d20 adding the result to your ranks in the appropriate weapon and the key attribute, and try to beat the ogre's Armor Class. Just because weapons are in the skills section doesn't change the way combat is resolved. I won't include the skill-based magic section, since it isn't balanced yet, and you didn't ask for it, and it's another thread anyway. But I will end by pointing out that you don't HAVE to use the level system and XPs. You could always just give your players a few points at the end of every gaming session as a reward, which they can spend whenever they feel like it. Between 1 and 3 would be about right, depending on how well they did during that session. Don't reward XP for monster kills, just overall game play. If you want to include Action/Hero Points, you could give a couple more and let players spend them freely as rerolls or something in addition to spending them for advancement. Apologies for the long post. -Bri
Skadrian 03-13-06, 11:42 AM	hawaiianbrian: I think you shouldnt be able to buy AC, you can easily afford about 2 ac per lvl, say fighter 4, 125 points: +7 to attack skill with favorite weapon, about 30 hitpoints (more then average now), 3 feats, 1 ability point, 5 fort save, 1 will and ref save, 3 points in armor prof (for heavy, I think?) 15 AC, and 9 points left for some misc skills, maybe some will save or hp. He will be totally untouchable in combat, and have a better to hit.
Thelon Fairblade 03-14-06, 10:41 AM	I think, in such a system, and keeping a D&D flavor, you might want to provide "package buys". For example "Fighter Package" [20 pts] +1 with 6 weapon skills (6pts) 7 hp (7pts) 2 saves (Fort +1, ref or will +1) (2pts) a feat (3pts) 4 skill points (4pts) partial attribute (6 pts towards a STR, DEX, or CON boost) (4pts) You can buy all these pieces by themselves for 26 pts, or buy the package for 20 -- most characters don't need to increase 6 weapon skills at once, and might be content with just 5 hp, but the fighter package gives a discount for focusing on weapon development.
Skadrian 03-14-06, 11:50 AM	but no fighter would buy anything else for 20 points. if they would buy +1 in just 1 weapon skill it would already be 20 points, so you give 5 for free, and they get more then the fighter gets now. I dont mind if the system is meant te result in stronger pc's, but be aware of it. It also gives more room for min-maxing, a fighter who doesnt care about his ref save (and why would he, he can buy more hp if he needs to) or his skills can just buy more feats, or even AC, and 25 points in this system is just more then what you get now. As I said before, it isnt bad be default, just realise that it makes pc's stronger. I also think that you should split class ability trees. If you want the sneak attack of a rogue and the wild shape of a druid you should be able, and you shouldnt have to buy evasion and an animal companion. I think that that is the big advantage of such a system, more flexibility. This will also result in stronger PC's, but you already have that.
hawaiianbrian 03-16-06, 02:11 AM	hawaiianbrian: I think you shouldnt be able to buy AC, you can easily afford about 2 ac per lvl, say fighter 4, 125 points: +7 to attack skill with favorite weapon, about 30 hitpoints (more then average now), 3 feats, 1 ability point, 5 fort save, 1 will and ref save, 3 points in armor prof (for heavy, I think?) 15 AC, and 9 points left for some misc skills, maybe some will save or hp. He will be totally untouchable in combat, and have a better to hit. I tossed that in there because it was part of the Mutants and Masterminds things... But now that I think about it, it wouldn't be apt for fantasy characters. Or! make it unusable if used in conjunction with any armor, like how the Defense Bonus works in some versions of the d20 game, like modern or Wheel of Time.
Skadrian 03-16-06, 02:35 AM	That makes it quite a bit better, didnt think about that kind of a system.
lordchronos77 03-20-06, 01:00 PM	I've been working on the same thing for the past 12 years (since AD&D2nd.ed.) and I just got my hands on Dream Pod 9's Silhoette Core rules for their Jovian Chronicles, Heavy Gear, Tribes, Geir Kreiger, and other games. They way the game runs is a little different than d20 but it is presented as a dual system game with lot's of mod. rules One of which is how to adopt Silhoette (normally a classless system) into a class based system. Another mod. rule changes the 1-5 point experience reward system to be 1000-5000 experience reward system. I think this game will teh answer to your questions (or maybe just a few).