Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Senevri 08-14-07, 01:36 PM	Just a crazy idea, really, a sort of a "Grand Unified D20 Theory". Part of the idea is to get a classless system out of DnD rules. Weapon - or Weapon Group skills would be separate skills, as would the various saves, and even hit points would be derivative of a skill score, as would Armor Class - or, the Defense skill, really. Probably I'd use the DR-style armor variant from UA. Hit points should probably work out as rank * CON bonus. This would mean more HP early on, but quite a bit less later on. Now, this would do some terrible things to balancing characters, but I feel that balance is overrated, anyway. It would make combat more deadly, but it would add realism, and allow for wizards who actually aren't better at swordfighting than dedicated warriors. ( few ranks in most combat skills. ) Spellcasting itself is tricky. I'd much like something more along the lines of Bo9S, that is encounter-based... How about this? Spellcasting requires a Spellcraft check ( DC 20+spell level x2 ), but you could pay the difference from... a mana pool of some sort, perhaps? I wonder, if removing scaling from spells would be a good idea, then. The players would have to pick feats to enhance their spells... Skill groups + separate amount of points to spread over them... Something like, "You get skill points 5/4/3/2/1. Spread them over the categories of Combat Skills, Physical Skills, Magical Skills and Knowledge Skills" or something white-wolfy like that. Of course, at this point "Skills" is a bad way to put it... Now, someone could spend most of their points in HP/Saves/Defence/Combat... and end up with just 1-2 points to put in anything else, and we'd get something that would resemble the current Fighter class. Others might have good ranks in few weapons and one or two armor types, and still spread out to magic skills or whatnot... Hmm.
RobbyPants 08-14-07, 02:01 PM	You have to totally change the entire game and it's mechanics to do something like this. I'm not going to say it's impossible, but it's very difficult to do without destroying the balance. The problem with something like this is that each of these different stats progresses differently for a reason. A characers combat ability and even PrC prereqs get entierly thrown out of whack. I can't find the link anywhere, but there was a thread a while back where the OP wanted to turn BAB into a skill. As the posters showed: there are a lot of reasons not to do something like this. Once you throw HP, saves, and casting into the mix, you're going to find a lot of broken loopholes.
Stormonu 08-14-07, 04:26 PM	I might have been the one posting about making BAB, defense and saves a skill. It does require a bit of rethinking and readjusting the number of skill points you get a level, but I think it would unify the skill system better into the game. Right now, skills are still mostly a tack-on compared to the breadth and depth of the combat system. I hadn't considered hit points as a skill - perhaps it would be better as a resistance roll ala mutants and masterminds. Combat might change thusly: Roll your initiative skill to determine order. Make an attack roll using your Attack Skill, trying to beat the defender's Defense Skill. If you hit, you make a Damage Skill roll (modified by the type of weapon your using) versus the defender's Resistance Skill. If you beat the Resistance Skill roll, the defender's status moves down the track (say, from Healthy to Bruised to Injured to Crippled to Disabled to Dying to Dead). Beating the Resistance Skill by, say 5, increases the number of statuses you drop your opponent (For example, if the defender is Healthy, and you beat the roll by 15, you'd drop him to Disabled instead of to merely Bruised). It'd be a major reworking of the D&D system because of how much change to monsters, feats, classes and the like it would end up involving. You'd essentially have a 4th edition on you hands with that sort of revision. Combats, however, *might* go faster since you aren't tracking exact hit points, just one of five statuses. One thing that has always bothered me; with mundane attacks, you always have to make an attack roll to see if you hit. You can fail or even fumble such attacks (the latter, depending on the DM). Spells always automatically go off - there's no chance they fail (other than a victim making a save), blow up in your face or such. And in many ways that makes magic a bit too powerful, and I think part of the reason magic dominates the game so much at higher levels.
Senevri 08-14-07, 05:03 PM	Non-scaling spells and a spellcraft check help there, methinks. Do note I'm essentially suggesting a more-or-less "Classless" system-- actual classes could be greatly condensed, at least. The point is, it sort-of nerfs magic a bit, but not that much, reduces HP significantly, but actually INCREASES starting HP for most characters... although there should be a base level... "you always get your rank in HP 'skill'" type thing. Not sure how to handle the issue of negative HP--- even someone with -5 CON modifier should have 1 HP. Of course, current D&D has the "Minimum HP gain = 1" rule... Biggest issue I see is that it increases to-hit chances early on a bit much... Allowing "Take Ten" on defense checks would balance things out, and keep the game speedy. ...I think I need to playtest some of these ideas before I go much further.
Gideon_Gideonson 08-15-07, 01:03 PM	This is an interesting idea. I may snag this basic concept for something I'm working on...
okaynowa 08-15-07, 03:15 PM	I've thought about BAB/combat/weapon proficiency as skills. There's some advantages, like: It unifies combat/magic/everything else under the same mechanic If I use the SWSE method, the top level bonuses are the same (+10/+15/+20) Classic maneuvers (Power Attack, Combat Expertise) become trained uses of a skill, freeing up feats for fancier things However: Using the SWSE skills method, low-level bonuses will be way higher than before Monsters will have to be totally redesigned to accomodate those higher rolls How should the other skill modifiers (Aid Another, Take 10) affect combat skills? Which ability is each combat skill associated with? Unified mechanics have worked elegantly in other games (TSOY springs to mind), but it implies a lot of revision for D&D.
Stev Beren 08-15-07, 08:33 PM	The other would be to imbed several of these things in feats instead and increase the number of feats people get. Or talent trees. Then you can set prerequisites for certain abilities that would prevent ultra specialists from breaking things while allowing for a great deal of customization.
runestar 08-16-07, 06:27 AM	Armour-as-Dr arguably causes more problems then it solves. I would link you to the article by Sean Reynolds, but his entire site seems to have gone missing.:( Nor am I a big fan of using skill checks to govern magic (we have all seen the problems with true-naming and epic spellcasting, in that a spellcraft system which allows unoptimized PCs a moderate chance of success will be too easy for an optimized PC, and vice versa). Still digesting the rest of the suggestions.:P
Ra-Tiel 08-16-07, 07:24 AM	Armour-as-Dr arguably causes more problems then it solves. I would link you to the article by Sean Reynolds, but his entire site seems to have gone missing. :( [...] I was quite surprised to find out this. But after looking a bit, I think I've found out why: [...] Someone hacked my website and added to the main page and other pages a script that points to a virus download. I won't be able to strip out the offending scripts and upload clean pages until I get home tonight, but I've called my hosting company and they're dissasociating the domain name from the hosted site, so once that propagates you should just get a placeholder site. And I'm changing my password. Sorry for the inconvenience. I'll blog when everything's been fixed. [...] [Source] (http://seankreynolds.livejournal.com/) :(
Senevri 08-16-07, 10:36 AM	"Base attack" as a concept is already silly. Combat skills make much more sense. Under a standard ruling, it will give +3 more for most characters to-hit, however. This isn't actually a bad thing against opponents which _should_ be easy, and you can easily scale the important monsters' AC up. However, since I'd implement this as a per weapon(group) style skill - possibly even with synergy bonuses - +2 to other skills when you have 5 ranks in a skill - this would mean there'd have to be some decision-making going onto which weapons you can use. ---I think that +2 would have to be non-stacking, probably. Hmm. Hit points are a bit odder choice, but I have seem them work in other systems. Let's see... from 1 to 20 they'd go - with the minimum of 1/level rule - 4, 5, ... 23. This is the same that a wizard with 10 CON will get, actually. Let's make the formula: HP = (ranks + ranks * con modifier), and we get, for CON 12: 8, 10, 12, ... , 44, 46 This matches the worst case rule. There is an issue with the fact that you get a lot less HP on higher levels - OTOH, you get more on the lower levels. How it would scale on proper warrior-types? CON 16 is common for a tank - 16, 20, 24, ... , 92. doesn't look too good. Do note that he should have a CON-boosting item at this point, anyway, but never-the-less... I do like the fact that it actually gives a decent HP early on, and I do feel high-level characters can have a ridiculous amount of HP, which could be toned down, but in here we're giving worst-case HP instead of average HP. Saves as skills is an odd choice. They might work, if you'd make it it's own category ( I talk of category-specific point amounts earlier ), and give the players 2 points / level to put in it. I think the topic is actually a bit misleading - what I'm actually suggesting is putting everything under the same developement/comparison mechanic, which I believe would simplify the system and make it more universal at the same time.
arderkrag 08-16-07, 12:33 PM	try out Mutants and masterminds, it uses a system much like this, where you invest points in features. It's raceless/classless, and is actually very balanced. Just convert it to a fantasy seting - it even has prewritten, truncated stats for medieval equipment.
Senevri 08-16-07, 01:55 PM	Hmm. Interesting.
trapspringer 08-16-07, 06:13 PM	http://www2.hawaii.edu/~rdeese/RPG/D02/D02.htm There. Like that. Also, Unknown Armies runs everything as a d% skill and is, in fact, a legitimate RPG of moderate quality.
Senevri 08-16-07, 11:18 PM	Hmm. I've read the M&M book, and while it has it's sides, it basically goes a bit too far and breaks everything to itty bitty pieces - from which, admittedly, you can construct almost anything. But, still... I did like the idea of decoupling stats from attack and defense, seeing as how STR especially is sort of a too good an ability at this time.
Senevri 08-17-07, 01:55 PM	BTW Here's how I'd do wizards: Instead of spells, we have something resembling spell "seeds". Basically, a 1st level wizard could pick a couple from the list of: Acid Fire Cold Electricity Force Charm Missile Ray Cone Duration Distance[short] Burst and the more complex ones, out of Illusion/Enchantment like Stun and whatnot. That would require some actual thought and not just off the top of my head. There would probably need a wonder/imagination seed, for an example combining fire+duration+imagination would give you a evocation of controlled flames, while vision+imagination would give silent image. Then he'd craft spells out of these. Whether he'd get a fire missile or a electricity ray, would be up to the caster. Default range being "touch". So, a starting mage might have a touch range charm and fire damage, or a fire ray, but no touch charm. ...okay, probaly they'd have more than 2 seeds, but you get the idea. There would need to be balances, so that X+Y doesn't always combine, and certain things have different effects ( as force affects everything ) At higher level, they'd get more powerful "seeds", such as the Death seed at level 7 etc. Certain effects would still need DM adjunction (esp. illus/enchantment line), but a lot should be much crunchier and universal. Wizards would craft specific spells, while sorcerers would have a lot less seeds but could combine on-the-fly. There would be many power level restrictions, in practical play, such as first level spell slots cannot hold death seeds and whatnot, or that a spell level could hold 2 seeds, +1 per spell level. The idea is to find varient emergent behavior from a relatively simple base ruleset. There could also be limiters - or downsides to a spell, such as adding SR or save - something like, certain seeds would require a limiter - for an example, a seed which allows a spell to scale in power would require a limiter of adding a saving throw - then you'd see that energy types require a reflex save, while death types require a fort saving throw. On the other hand, adding scaling to the area of effect wouldn't cost anything besides the 1 slot. Every spell would be affected by SR, unless you added a Creation seed, which would automatically make the spell a Conjuration. A flaming sphere spell would be Fire+Duration+Creation+RequiresReflex+Co ncentration+Control spell. 'Concentration' would be a limiter, while 'Control' would be a power. You would later have .. well, I've already come up with quite a few seeds, but you'd probably have stuff that increases the power of spells, which require higher level slots. let's see. Fireball would be a simple Fire+Distance+Burst spell, but depending on the scales, that would be a 1d6 fire at a 5ft burst. So, we'd add Scalable[fire]+ReflexSave... Admittedly, the "Distance" seed would require a better definition than this. So, let's say that Distance seed can be added multiple times, which will jump it up categories, and that Distance as a seed, automatically scales. So, Fire+2xDistance+Burst+Scalable[fire]+Save[reflex] - Does fire type damage - at a medium distance - in a burst area - whoops, need to increase that. Perhaps we get a Ball seed at 5th level, which will give us a 30ft burst, but only fits on a 3rd level slot? Hmm. I like it. Requires quite a bit of work and balancing, but it does a few things: - adds an element of creativity to spellcasting - gives some metrics which can be used to calculate the relatively power - and thus, balance of a spell As downsides: - it does complicate character creation, which is a Bad Thing. - it's sort of hard to see before playtesting, how many seeds are needed, and how they interact. There may be something totally broken I'm not spotting. My current idea of a sorcerer is problematic, as on-the-fly spellcraft is way hard. Ideally, there'd be this sort of a flowchart from seed to seed, where you'd see how they combine, which would also limit your options on what you can cast. sort of, effect:fire+burst, target:mediumdistance, that's fine. effect: scalable+fire+scalable+burst+2xdistance+ reflexsave+.... is less fine. summary: I came to think of this when I read "Rogue/Mage", and thought, "Sneak attack, spellcasting... class features, spellcasting, they should be equal.." this continued to "class features==spellcasting", and then to thinking of the Warlock and blast shape invocations and all that, and it sort of started to make sense. or pictures in my brain, anyway. What if the Wizard would get such class features as the "seeds" I represent here, which would have an equal power level to the class features gained by other classes? especially without imposing too much in the way of limitations on them - for an example, adding a cooldown for seeds, or a tolerance ranking or something - for an example, you could use the same base seed 2-3 times before it would need a full-round cooldown, or something. .... Wow, a silly-long post. Itadaki-Mammoth!
trapspringer 08-17-07, 04:15 PM	I give the concept of spell seeds coupled with skill checks t3h w1n. If you wanna' see what it looks like executed check out d20 Star Wars. I think it'd be neat to have a whole bunch of different possible effects, though. It seems like it'd improve an otherwise fairly flat, boring mechanic considerably. 'Course balance would suddenly have to be reworked from the ground up as far as casters are concerned, huh?