http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/D20_twilight
second, I can explain
thirdly, who are you sigma? let me see if the wiki clarifies things....
---edit
Nice to meet ya, I'm Shea. Well done with the wiki (excellent choice) and yes your intentions are as accurate as can be as far as I can see. My credentials in this matter are having registered as a Reverend, gotten half a philosophy degree, and read a book about copyright law while in jail. The last one there is the most pertinent, really.
You need to "identify yourself" in paragraph 15 - see my sig and the first post or two in my "live d&d" thread - you will find a properly formatted OGL license statement. Also, there is a "notification card" that you can fill out - thats always nice. Which reminds me - you link to soveiler sage's srd (great one to choose, but) you should at least/also link to the www.wizards.com/d20 site for the legal and the etc purposes. Politeness pays in court, and thats the only place your worried about going. Further - an injunction or a payout are the conditions of a civil action. "Or" being pertinent there. As a non-profit, and there being no possible civil violation other than misappropriation of records (didn't fill out all requisite forms properly) you would be forced to remove it.... from public view.
More likely you would get a real letter from wotc (or the twilight 2000 people -more likely) saying - "comply by ... {date}" or else. Most likely - you need to fill out paragraph 15 correctly, submit proper notification, and reconsider a "nearly trademarked" concept name.
Now, :angelhide the real fact of the matter is that - your page views per day are what? 30? I wouldn't pay a dollar to advertise on the corner of that wiki for a year - let alone a day. I would not wager a dime that anymore than 400 people.. tops - have ever even seen it. I feel special. I'm gonna go read it here in a minute, but before I do that I am gonna say that - you don't have to worry about it. Not really. Do something with it, try and make money off it - you might.. might get some flack from the minor inconstancies with polite protocol you display on this wiki, but I sincerely doubt it.
On a lighter note : projects of much similarity have arisen right here in river city (I mean wotc) - full conversions, alternate XP systems, whole nine, but that kind of ground level player / gm creation has been on the internet for pretty much the entire lifespan of the internet. I say stick with the wiki, its a good team effort interface. Makes me want to start my own wiki.. The Wonder Wiki.. yeah.. cool.
It's gone now but a simple re-post will suffice :P
Also, I have a Geocities site (yay... free :| ) to upload to, and will also provide the same information HERE when I get the line breaks fixed...
EDIT: and by the way, after the recent deletion I have chosen to remove my full name from the records. May I ask you to do the same from your post? Thanks... I just feel that now is not the time to become "visible' just yet!
This is the third one I got. A day after this shows up, the page vanishes and I repost it, but now I give up:
{{dated prod|concern = {{{concern|Wikipedia is not a publisher of rule books for games. Please see for guidelines on acceptable formats. Possible copyvio, too.}}}|month = September|day = 12|year = 2006|time = 12:11|timestamp = 20060912121127}}
Or rather, as Wiki shows it:
It is proposed that this article be deleted, because of the following concern:
Wikipedia is not a publisher of rule books for games. Please see WP:NOT for guidelines on acceptable formats. Possible copyvio, too.
If you can address this concern by improving, copyediting, sourcing, renaming or merging the page, please edit this page and do so. You may remove this message if you improve the article, or if you otherwise object to deletion of the article for any reason. To avoid confusion, it helps to explain why you object to the deletion, either in the edit summary or on the talk page. If this template is removed, it should not be replaced.
The article may be deleted if this message remains in place for five days (This template was added: 12 September 2006).
If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article so that it is acceptable according to the deletion policy.
The first post of this thread has been edited to contain everything the failed Wiki project had, minus annoying and constant DELETION PROPOSALS :{
Enjoy!
Wikipedia is as evil as 2chan over in Japan, an aggressively edited mass of collective prose.
Ouch - guess you have to set your options right. Like my website (well not mine, but I am an admin) we have our "biz chat" on this wiki - now you have to enter a network password to see the index page that leads to the link to the wiki, but yeah. Its the understructure - the interface - thats cool.
(Not the steadily rising population of elephants. ]: )
No realy though - real people send real letters. With big long signatures on the end to your inbox - they don't use the "report" button.
Trolls click on the report button. (ok -I'll admit- I've done it)
You have a wack idea here, umm, levels and point buy stats? Am I missing something? I mean - do you get levels and sell them? Where's the example. Now here is a pertinant part of the license that alot of people get backwards - that you pulled out correctly -
It incorporates rules, ideas, and methods from games such as Dungeons & Dragons 3.5, Anime d20, Modern d20, GURPS, and similar games.
No D&D needed in there. D&D is somewhat restricted - kinda paladin esqu you cannot use the "compatable" refrence but you can refer to them in the copyright, and refrence them in the foreward, as "inspiration"
quotesigma
Open Game License v 1.0 Copyright 2000, Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
d20 Twilight v. alpha Copyright 2006, Jon M. Waugh
System Reference Document Copyright 2000, Wizard of the Coast, Inc.;
Authors Jonathan Tweet, Monte Cook, Skip Williams, based on original material by E. Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson.
Modern System Reference Document Copyright 2000, Wizards of the Coast, Inc.;
Authors Bill Slavicsek, Jeff Grubb, Rich Redman, Charles Ryan, based on material by Jonathan Tweet, Monte Cook, Skip Williams, Richard Baker, Peter Adkison, Bruce R. Cordell, John Tynes, Andy Collins, and JD Wiker.
Silver Age Sentinels d20 Copyright 2002, Guardians Of Order, Inc.;
Authors Stephen Kenson, Mark C. MacKinnon, Jeff Mackintosh, Jesse Scoble.
BESM d20 Copyright 2003, Guardians Of Order, Inc.;
Author Mark C. MacKinnon.
Open Game License v 1.0 Copyright 2000, Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
d20 Twilight v. alpha Copyright 2006, Jon M. Waugh
System Reference Document Copyright 2000, Wizard of the Coast, Inc.;
Authors Jonathan Tweet, Monte Cook, Skip Williams, based on original material by E. Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson.
Modern System Reference Document Copyright 2000, Wizards of the Coast, Inc.;
Authors Bill Slavicsek, Jeff Grubb, Rich Redman, Charles Ryan, based on material by Jonathan Tweet, Monte Cook, Skip Williams, Richard Baker, Peter Adkison, Bruce R. Cordell, John Tynes, Andy Collins, and JD Wiker.
Silver Age Sentinels d20 Copyright 2002, Guardians Of Order, Inc.;
Authors Stephen Kenson, Mark C. MacKinnon, Jeff Mackintosh, Jesse Scoble.
BESM d20 Copyright 2003, Guardians Of Order, Inc.;
Author Mark C. MacKinnon.
I wouldn't bank on me being correct to any particular letter, but I am right about the emails. Its right in the users license. 30 day compliance notifications are to provided. It's eirily similar to a lease agreement actually.
You have a wack idea here, umm, levels and point buy stats? Am I missing something? I mean - do you get levels and sell them? Where's the example. Now here is a pertinant part of the license that alot of people get backwards - that you pulled out correctly -
That's what I spent months poring over ;}
See, that's a loophole I exploited. I didn't use XP but I did reference to it. There are no plans for XP with the d20 Twilight "campaign" which I plan to seperate at least partially from the basic rules.
Why a campaign?
There is so much stuff I want to tweak that it might overstep boundaries of "What Defines D20". So, I'll put them with a campaign setting, although it's more like a template for your own game.
Instead of XP there is CP, which is more like the reverse of XP.
With D&D leveling, you gain XP and add your levels. With D20T(Twilight) you gain CP and each level is comprised of CP.
Every encounter gives usually 1 or more CP, sometimes less than 1 (like .5) and sometimes 2 for creative responses to encounters or really difficult challenges overcome. Story-enders (affectionately: "boss battles") where at least 2 players have the risk, if not all ready have, of dying during the encounter: 3 CP.
15 CP makes a level. That's 14 for all your class abilities and racial stuff (advanced, that is... you can add pieces of templates a bit at a time!) and an extra 1 CP that can be only used on feats and stat boosts (1 CP for a stat +1)
You don't gain levels like D&D or any other d20 seen, excluding perhaps some unique variant out there. You gain CP point by point which can "fill in" a complete D&D level-equivalent planned out ahead OR buy your abilities on the spot (if GM allows).
To figure out your "character level" take your total CP, subtract 10 (that's your starter-bonus) and divide by 15, round down. That character level is just like a D&D character level.
I have some difficulty working in D&D's ECL calculations though: in D&D ECL is just a modifier for XP gain, no more. No feats, cash, or maximum skill ranks are added.
WIth the d20 Twilight variant, calculations are all maxed out by character level, so if you converted a monster with 1 HD and 2 Level Adjustments the d20T character would be Level 3 in all, providing extra HP, maximum skill ranks, and so on. :{
I'll have to work on that. Otherwise, all monsters imported from d20 sources would get a slight power boost. Succubus, for instance, would be a 12th level character with only 6 HD BUT get the bonus HP from Constitution as if a 12th level character. :O
I'd also like to give an option to "break all limits" like GURPS game. With "no limits" your skill ranks are uncapped (put as many ranks in anything as much as you want, no class skills) which makes creating that 20-rank Craft Weapon NPC blacksmith VERY easy. Your HP gain is uncapped so you can add as much as you want. PrCs are possible at any time if you have the right requirements.
Problem with no-limits is: how does a PC figure out the level multiplier for HP, Skill Points (Int), Base Attack max. and so on? Maybe group class abilities to relevant base Will, Fortitude, and Reflex ranks as some ground to build upon. Increase the 3 ranks to improve your maximum in Magical, Combat, or Skilled abilities respectively.
The
tags show?!? That was to get Wiki to accept the freakin LINE BREAKS! ARRRR that will take some work.. a quick Replace function in MS Word might do it, but some other day....
Unless you are pulling a cut and paste from something in one of those books (which you don't even seem to be doing from the SRD) then all that is unnecessary. Perhaps more of the kind of thing you put in a foreward. If you page refrence a book however.. "Races of Dragon?" check its license. Further.
Woops! I edited that out with the first complaint from some Wiki editor, and somehow they got back in.... *scratch scratch* That was actually part of my private notes when I was creating monster ability conversions. Some feats from splat books duplicate monster qualities and I used them as points-of-reference for balanced Player Character non-feat abilities :D
And best of all, those feats are RAW.
So, when time comes to explain the HOW, I just point my finger and write "Oh yeah? Well what about THAT!"
But yes, that might be a copyright violation, partially. Can't copy from a WOTC source, so needs to be gone ASAP. But my priced variants are original... <_<
I don't plan on printing this on paper. I want it to be a project, sharing creation with friends that are playtesting the glitches out, availible to the public for free. It's a tool to combine most or all d20 games and possibly GURPS too but that is a while from now.
I used your license because, frankly, there's no better source for a proper license. It's a good example and I gave credit where due, but if you want me to word out a new one I'll do that right away!
Magic scifi pirates? It's possible using D20T. Break out your d20 Future and Complete Adventurer books, and check the CP costs in D20T.. then mash it up! :P
EDIT: I also want to mention that in playtesting so far, every D20T custom character concept has been compared to "uber builds" on various forums, and does not even come CLOSE to the power of a PC made with 20+ splatbooks. Picking through books for that one perfect race, feat, and PrC combo doesn't matter as much with this system, which might P.O. some "hardcore gamers".
To some readers this may all look crazy, but keep in mind that the first ideas for games and systems usually are. It just takes enough crazy people to get something going. Look how D&D has grown over the years as testament.
Cmon, Vancian magic?
Who thought that one up!
http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/D20_twilight
Let's see how long it lasts.
Is anyone else reading this? Please let me know what you think!
Having the 2 manuscripts in the same place is sorta confusing... I like the Wiki article though. Hope they let you keep it up.
Ergo, I go to explain this to my players (brother and father). Good luck with it. I'll subscribe here, so if anything comes up, post and I'll hear.
This thread has been mostly ignored, as with the other 2, so I've commited myself to upgrading the quality of presentation on the Wiki site instead before re-presenting it later.
Here's the Wiki for updated info:
http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/D20_twilight
I'm looking for feedback on usability as I go on... any comments are welcome.
So far it's running pretty well. The main things wek tweaked were BaB purchasing (no fractional purchases; you either buy a point or you don't. For those wanting 1 BaB per two levels, buy a point, wait two levels, buy another point), and SLAs. The drawbacks for SLAs were going to allow free SLAs out the wazoo... mage armor as full-round casting, decrease to personal range, once per hour for free.... that sort of thing. So we ended up ruling 1) no free abilities (no pay, no gain) and 2) max of one SLA per character level (even the libertarians agreed to that one). Anyway...
Their D&D chars with this system just went through a portal to the modern world (Urban Arcana style, of course). I'm liking the ability to easily mix D20s. Previously, the D20 modern classes put everybody off, and we ended up using D&D classes instead. But with this... no classes, no problem.
One other tweak we were going to implement before we decided to go nomax: under your rules as written, base will save is restricted to a maximum of 1/2 level +2, right? CL is base will -1. Therefore, max CL is 1/2 level +1. This means casters advance a lot more slowly. I propose the ability to buy an extra CL (to a maximum combined extra CL + base will save of the character's level) for -1 CP. Just my 2 cp on CL.
Thanks for the cool system, though. It seems likely to replace the normal D20 rules in my experienced group (the newbs are confused enough as is, and building a character with this system takes a pre-existing knowledge of the various attributes, feats, abilities, and skills available to characters. I bet they could do it with help (Something like, "What do you want you character to be able to do?", and build around response), but for now I think they're going to stick to the norm).
No limits too, you say! I'm still considering that one. The inspiration was 3-4 years ago when a friend didn't know d20 even HAS limits on skill ranks, and he dumped all his skill points for his Monk 6/Drunken Master 1 into Diplomacy (15) Bluff (5) and smatterings of anything else. I said "Normally the limit for skill ranks is your character level +3.." (cuz we don't use class skills, too restrictive)
He looks up and says "Oh!" and makes to erase but I stopped him; "Don't change it! It's OK!" and we went on with the game.
Nothing went wrong there. It was pure revelation.
This was part of the dawning of my classless-design, too.
Possible drawbacks might be earlier access to certain skill-only-prereq PrCs (or in d20 Twilight, eventually I'll include PrC "feat chains" which give the abilities without the class basics attached)
Love the feedback! Some things need clarifying tho....
Even if you have like 20 points removed from the cost of an SLA it will never drop below 1 CP! NO ABILITY IS FREE OR UNCOUNTED FOR
I designed this system to prevent "it feels right" class design and hold accountable every ability in relation to each other. If a caster can gain SLAs at will, something's off there. I'll skim the section for any typos that might confuse things...
The BAB changes I can understand. As much as I wanted to avoid fractional CP costs (after seeing widespread use in Anime d20/BESM...) I had the option of either increasing CP costs and class-CP-amount, OR to give in to fractions.
The purpose for keeping it as I did is to make acquiring class levels an even process; no stuttering, no skips, no Dead Levels.
Strangely, the Fighter gets on average enough CP to gain 2 feats a level instead of the normal 1 every 2 levels, but compared to casters like Cleric and Druid this ended up being a good thing!!!
And about those base saves.... I'm working on different ways of phrasing how a PC might gain base saves, which determine "caps" for power intensity and balance.
One thing that needs work is the previous dependency on the actual Base Save value rather than the CP or "ranks" the save has.
I wrote that caster level is the base save -1, but what I mean to correct is that for every CP put into a Save Feature (or whatever name it is) the bonus is variable! :S
Example:
Rank 1: 1 CP = +1 save = caster level 0, character level 1
Rank 2: 2 CP = +1 save = CL 1, charlev 1
Rank 3: 3 CP = +1 save = CL2, charlev 2
Rank 4: 4 CP = +1/2 save = CL3, charlev 3
Rank 5: 5 CP = +1/2 save = CL4, charlev 4
and so on, I think you can figure out the pattern from there. It's the same as if a character level = CL, IF you pay for it!
Maximum ranks in any one save is equal to character level +1.
I'll put a chart similar to this in the class design section when I can but I figured you need it now...
It's a little odd but this is to keep in line with d20 games as they are. A level 10 Wizard-type will have (1/2 level +2) Will save and caster level 10 and all's well.
Originally, it was like BAB with a 1/2, a 3/4, and a 1/1 (full) option but this became pricey for nothing as casters would spend 3 CP a level on.... what?
So, I tied it to Will saves (and ranks) to provide a little incentive other than just increasing CL.
And with no-limits, each Save rank could be called something else, even... it becomes almost like a "mini-character" or either the Warrior (F), the Expert(R), or the Mage(W) type! Tie every ability normally dependant on character level to one of the three types of saves and a PC must first increase that type before adding any feat or class ability to the character; an easy way to balance limitless power, if you will.
This is also the premise of my implementation for all PrC abilities. One would reference the base save equivalencies (sp?) of a character with normal class levels + PrC levels and assign certain Base Save Ranks (which are equal to the CP cost, NOT the bonus!) in addition to skills, BAB, and other requirements. Then, PrC abilities will cost normally from 1 CP to 4 but some are more powerful and may cost more.
I try to keep it simple with the lowest CP values I can (rather than 150 CP a level and costs all over the place!) and anything to make this system simpler I will gladly change anything all ready written.
Thanks and good luck with the campaign!
And remember folks, Role follows Abilities with d20 Twilight, not the other way around!
Huh... interesting concept with the progression of CL from save by what you paid, not what your gained.... I think I'll stick with just straight no-max though.
It might be good to increase base save cost if it is the deciding factor of a lot of prerequisites.
Balancing unlimited power... haha.
As many as Rules As Written allows.
Defenders of the Faith armor qualities: Haste. +3 cost for permanent 3.0 haste (+4 AC and an extra partial action every round for the cost of +3 AC). Not that my group has banned that, actually (we like haste the old way; once again, every weapon my players have is another weapon I have).
Off previous topic, but anyhoo: I was considering using this system to implement a Magic: The Gathering type campaign (we switch campaigns a lot; I should just build high-lethality one shots). Group all spells by color, make each color of magic an attribute, then buy levels in it at 2 CP/CL in that particular school. Then use CL+1 instead of base will for mana calculations. Calculate each color of mana separately, a spell requires either one mana or a fraction (not yet determined what fraction) of the mana used to cast it be of the color of the spell... something like that. If I was going to do this, I would probably set limits based on level (Might change the level constant; instead of 15 points to a level, change it to 10. Then, weaker characters at a certain level, but faster leveling and increasing of caps).
Oh, yeah, not sure if I mentioned this before, but your system of paying for spells seemed sort of strange; a magic missile at CL 5 costs as much as a fireball at CL 5, when one is clearly more powerful than the other (hence the difference in spell levels; if they were of the same power at the same caster level, they'd be about the same spell level).
Another crazy idea I had (using no max) was a matrix campaign... I used to use Sykus' rules, but this might work better.
Up the cost, tho. I'm even conidering increasing the base price for Arcane spellgroups... seems too easy for an intelligent Fighter to add complete Evocation and learn as many spells as they wish, yet not even be restricted by somatic or verbal spellcasting...
I made spellcaster-creation the way it is to anticipate Warmage and Warlock-like casters so naturally the Wizard will pale in comparison; the option of super-focus beats super-generic in the field of their choice any day.
How will MTG caster types be balanced with Warmage (ignore Wiz/Sorc for now, weak...) yet still allow the versatility MTG offers?
I'm thinking the following options should be included for MTG casters:
mana
very focused spellgroups (the equiv. of about 2-3 arcane schools)
somatic and verbal required
no ASF
As for the problem of unbalanced spells at the same level, this mana system was mostly developed (read: seriously improved) after the Expanded Psionics book came out. Look closely and you might notice it's identical to Power Points in scaling, implementation, everything...
Unfortunately, Arcane/Divine spells have other functions embedded within; antiquated dinosaur features like that little detail in Fireball that caps damage at 10d6, making extended usage of the spell until L20 and beyond quite inadequate.
Compare to psionic powers like "Energy Ball". It has no cap, it scales, it's versatile.
I blame the spells, but since my system was designed (and is still under development) to bridge various systems rather than invent new ones, maybe we need new spells too?
I'm confused as to whether all this will be a "campaign setting" or a whole seperate game, but there's a lot I'd like to change from normal D&D as well as what d20 Twilight is useful for right now.
What do you think?
New spells, somewhere between psionics and the current iconic D&D PHB list?
Or should d20 Twilight be corrected to account for things like damage or effect caps in spells?
We're still running on 3.0 Psi... not that we actually ever use it. Until now.
I agree with your ideas on the MtG caster, but with maybe one modification (would fix the cost of learning spells, too); maybe instead of buying a list you build a list. For example, something like: Learn 10 spells thematically related for 1 CP. Or something along those lines. I was planning on organizing the spells by descriptors (similar to healing, evil, good, chaos, mind-affecting, etc), and each color having a list of descriptors that it uses. Then "thematically related" becomes "with the same descriptor". Might make it a little easier (and harder to get lots and lots of spells).
I think I'm going to go read up on the 3.5 Psi SRD....
Oh, about new spells: Yeah, I was considering designing numerous new spells modelled after spells from Magic (some of the mechanics used in MtG are pretty sweet... storm, replicate, meddle, more counterspells, stifle, mana barbs, takklemaggot... hehe). I wasn't intending to change the basic format/conventions of a typical D&D spell, but I might after reading more of the SRD (it's on my hard drive, I probably should've read it... I might have, for that matter).
New campaign follows new rules set. My theory, anyways.
EDIT:
The variables of a power’s effect often depend on its manifester level, which is equal to your psionic class level. A power that can be augmented for additional effect is also limited by your manifester level (you can’t spend more power points on a power than your manifester level). See Augment under Descriptive Text, below.
You can manifest a power at a lower manifester level than normal, but the manifester level must be high enough for you to manifest the power in question, and all level-dependent features must be based on the same manifester level.
So the manifester level of a power isn't the number of pp you spend on it, it is your manifester level. As opposed to your current system, wherein CL of a spell=amount of mana spent on spell, regardless of the caster's actualy CL (except that it is the limit of mana spent). Anyhoo... just thought that wasn't what it was in the books.
EDIT again:
Just read most the the power list, I like what I see... especially with the way they streamlines the PsiWar natural weapons.... Much better than 3.0. And the healing power (formerly powers).
One thing I need to work out (or at least update) is increased costs that take into account the necessity of applying restrictions just to achieve an approximation of traditional D&D spellcasting classes.
For instance, the Wizard has the following class abilities:
all Arcane schools
automatically learn 2 spells out of all total schools possible at each character level, can learn more (still working on a CP price for this advantage rather than making it intrinsic to casters, quite possibly "learn a new spell of a castable level for each rank in Spellcraft gained" or maybe Knowledge (Arcana) or (Religion))
... and Wiz have the following defects to their abilities (discount the class ability cost at each level it is acquired):
arcane spell failure
somatic
verbal
material dependant: during casting (campaign optional)
material dependant: during learning (spellbook)
This reduces cost from 16 (2 for each school) down to 8 or less, I think. Add in the basic Wizard Hit Die of 1d4 HP (-2 CP for +4 HP) 2 SP (-1 CP) BAB 1/2 (-1 CP) and good Will saves (-1 CP) and the total should always be less than or equal to 14 CP at each level for balance with "normal" Wizards. Oh, and remember that bad saves are free.
I'm considering adding subtypes to class abilities so that certain defects can be applied to class abilities of certain types, such as the "somatic" defect only appliable to Arcane Spellcasting, Divine Spellcasting, and Psionic Spellcasting, rather than just any class ability.
So a Somatic defect would have the subtypes [Arcane, Divine, Psionic].
OR...
As it currently stands, I (believe that I ) wrote spellcasting as one lump ability. All defect-discounts are applied to the spellcasting stuff as one large ability, which prevents things like what your player did without HUGE penalty.
Are you sure they did it right? Check their writing...
Adding so many spelgroups is costly, even with many defects. Memorization takes of a lot, but make sure they didn't apply defects to every individual type of casting by its self.
For instance did they add casting like this?
Wizard schools -8 CP
Cleric (no Domains) -5 CP
Druid -5 CP
Psionics (general, no focused Discipline) -5 CP
subtotal = -23 CP
without defects, this is only possible with 'staggered progressions' like adding 2 types of casting at one level and the other 2 in the next... all with minimal HP, SP, combat ability, etc...
Ha... maybe possible with no base attack or skill points at all, and adding 2 HP a level.... but very 'unhealthy' advancement and more likely to get him killed later. :[
but remember, apply defects like Somatic and Verbal to this -23 CP subtotal NOT to each like Wizard schools -8 CP +1 Somatic
Cleric -5 CP +1 Somatic
Druid -5 CP +1 Somatic
the discounts here "don't stack". I usually thought the term was silly but it seems that must be stated here... they don't apply more than once for ALL CASTING.
If he wants ALL of it, that -23 CP (or whatever total, I didn't check the actual cost) will require Somatic, Verbal, Arcane Spell Failure, Material dependant
I wrote the spellcasting section in the form it is in now just last summer but haven't read it since. From your responses, looks like it's time for a cleanup... must be a mess...
I like that idea of sorting by spell subtype; looks a little like a "domain sorcerer" I saw around these forums a while ago.
There are a ton of cleric domains but they are so skimpy (1 spell for each spell level...) I loathe to apply such a thing to an entire spell list.
We could categorize spells like you mention, but doing so is a LOT of work! I've seen efforts like that before and they don't usually last long, from sheer volume.
A method of categorizing that doesn't involve an ACTIVE change might work, as in... something like how my point system operates; it's more like a reference to other materials more than a complete system unto itself, relieving me from most tasks of developing mechanics, terminology, flavor, setting, etc...
D&D should have spells sorted by function rather than "school" or other abstractions, as most fantasy games all ready do. White Wolf games tend to make sense, the way their spells are clumped together, but by nature their spells are also more versatile and less in number.
Maybe that's the future of D&D spells.... simple domain-like grouping. Instead of picking "cleric" group you would choose "combat buffing", "healing", and "protection", and "summoning".
I'm looking into the Epic Handbook "spell seeds" for ideas. They have generalized names like Fire Seed and Healing Seed and although I don't know what they do exactly, I do know it involves creating epic spells with DCs set for success/failure of creation and casting. Maybe I can lower them in scale to function, say, like...
Fire: deal 1d6 every odd caster level by touch (this is at will, which is normal for all of these types... limitations per-encounter will subtract from cost)
... then combine that with..
Ranged: Long. increase range to 400' +40'/caster level
...plus...
Area: Burst. spell reaches 5' radius per caster level originating from target.
Then spellgroups will be an option; one could have the luxury of choosing near-infinite expanding spell list, as by the Wizard learning method, or choosing this recombinant method that will be as versatile as Warlock casting. The latter is more focused but MUCH more adaptable to improvised situations.
I seriously recommend the 3.5 "expanded psionics" system reference document. If you don't mind a spartan look of plain text, it's availible from the official Wizards site for anyone.
That's what I use although I did use (and own) the 3.0 psi book, which in comparison is sadly a waste of money.
Well... in my opinion... 3.0 psi just plain sucks.
As for PP and manifester levels I'm pretty sure "you get what you pay for".
Expending 1 PP for a manifester level 20 Energy Ray just isn't possible; it will be manifester level 1!
You also can't spend less than the manifester level of the power at which you first learned it. So, if the power is Level 3 you can't spend less than 5 PP to manifest it.
With d20 Twilight ALL casting resembles 3.5 psionics in the way that spell power is directly proportionate to energy spent. Otherwise, repeated, demigodly abuse is possible.I've seen the crap Wizards can dish at high levels, and it ain't pretty. Sure, psionicists can "nova" which means to blare out all the best powers in the first 5 rounds or so of combat, BUT they can't do what a Wizard does, which is to do nearly as much damage over MANY encounters!
How?
A Wizard spell, no matter what level, uses a slot of that spell level or higher. The spell's effect is the Wizard's caster level. Boom. Game set and match; this is also the reason why Arcane and Divine magic has those "level caps" like Fireball's 10d6 maximum.... think about it. Or better yet, try it out, and you'll see why I designed the basics of d20 Twilight the way it is.
Read about 3.5 psi more, then check the "biggest misconceptions about 3.5 psionics" threads here in the Wizards forums. There are quite a few of them, and well-written, you takklemaggot. Good luck, it's all an interesting read.
And no, I don't think he had any feats besides maybe combat casting. As for BaB, skills, and HD... I doubt it.
We were actually pondering a significant regrouping of spells, by 'school' but not by class. So if you buy evocation, you buy all evocation. But then healing came up, and we moved to make healing its own school. And this trend would probably continue, until spells were grouped by function.
Actually, there was a thread a lllooonnnngggg time ago about making a nonepic spell seed system. Never got very far, but I'll see if I can find the link (probably got archived). Buy yeah, seeds would work great... If you're willing to write them. That allows rapid customization of spells (OK, I want a line of fire. I have the fire seed, so I can do it. Sweet). And I've got a bit of free time, so I may take a crack at doing something along those lines (the Epic Level Handbook is within arm's reach of my computer, so it wouldn't take that much effort to go and track it down). A question, though: DO you still make spellcraft rolls to cast a nonepic seed spell?
Another abberant though: Perhaps instead of basing caster level off of will, what if it was based off of spellcraft skill?
I don't know about the warlock being versatile. The warlock is a hedgehog; he has one or two tricks that always work. The wizard is the fox; he has many different tricks, but cannot use them each very often. But I digress (apparently I paid attention in church this week... The sermon was entitled "The Fox, the Hedgehog, and the Unitarian")
I don't know about Psi not being able to do what wizards can. I used to run an erudite (albeit 3.0) who could do chain disintegrate every round (or twice a round, actually; Defenders of the Faith haste armor (in 3.0)) against 20 targets. Hehe. The grand ole days of 20th level.
Perhaps my problem with taking the existing spells and using them like psionics is that a magic missile only ever used up a 1st level slot before to cast 5 missiles; why should it use a 5th level slot now? Perhaps breaking to the seeds system would work better so I do not have the prejudice to old favorite spells (ah, the grand ole days at 13th level (when we took out a CR 15 dragon disciple and all of his henchmen with only 2 characters... hehe)).
Hey! I'm not a takklemaggot. I just liked the implementation. And how they showed up in the Legends Trilogy (first MtG trilogy I read; it's all gone downhill from there (except Torment; I liked Torment)).
I've read over the 3.5 Psi stuff. The one thing though is that your caster level remains the same for purposes of penetrating SR/PR regardless of how many PP you put augment a power with, right?
EDIT: Starting writing nonepic spellseeds. Pain in the butt, and they don't really offer the same options as conventional spells. So I think we're going to either A: Classify existing spells by schools and subtype, or B: Just pick spells individually.
So I went and did that for an hour or two....
Try it now, it's much simpler to understand and very specific, even has templates for normal class comparison!
Start a new campaign, will ya? Wish I could join in but my own 'group' is scattered and we barely have time to even hang out let alone play.
If you find that seed thread or make a system up I'll include what I can in the d20 Twilight and give you credit if it's yours, with your permission. It ain't a solo act! The more the better.
As for the Will bonus/ranks and caster level, the main reason behind that is this:
At first a friend and I put "spellcaster level" just like the BAB progression, but that made spellgroups too easy to collect.
So we upped the spellgroup costs and split Base Caster Level into both spellgroup maximum spell level and Will ranks bonus mana.
And I considered using skill ranks, but while looking at monsters I noticed that very few of the ones with spell-like abilities actually have ranks in Spellcraft.
Besides, gives a little incentive to max ranks in Will rather than 1-3 ranks (just enough to cast anything decent...) in some generic "base caster level" which would provide nothing else other than mana and/or the potential to add spells...
I think it should be an option for enhancing magic rather than a requirement, although a variant Will ranks OR Spellcraft ranks (ranks -3 is the caster level) option can be put in...
Hey maybe Spellcraft could give even MORE mana, adding its ranks to base Will bonus, high caster stat, and any feats before multiplying to determine total mana points. Too much?
A friend insists Sorcerers should always have more mana than Wizards but I insist there is no distinction in a classless system other than "I use INT to cast" and "I use CHA to cast".
Whatever the process, the end result should be that the more character points go into adding spellgroups (Wizard versatility) the less there is to supply mana/power/other class features (Warlock-like).
Foxes.. Hedgehogs... good metaphor. :P Unitarians, or any Christian division, I'll not touch (being a non-Christian myself, although raised Irish Catholic, I refuse to have opinions for or against any of them, although the Baptists around here in east coast US are particularly obnoxious...)
I'll dabble a little with seeds and see what I can come up with, then we can compare notes later. Feat-based acquisition, maybe?
I think it might be more fun than "I CAST MAGIC MISSILE AT THE DARKNESS!", you can say "I'll use the Force Seed and give it Long range Line, then use metamagic Empower and Explosive on it."
Kaaa.... Meeeehhhh... HAAA MEHHH ..... huh?Some critiques:
Flaws and spell list costs aren't listed outside of the templates. They can be derived from the templates, but having a list outside of the templates would be nice (sorta like what happened with special abilities).
How do you buy higher levels within a spellgroup? Your example, for example, buys necromancy and cleric at varying rates. What are the prices for that?
Anyhow, I think I might stick with something a little simpler. I really like the varying options for spell source and power source, and the defects for spellcasting, but they're probably a little complicated for my group of savages (they had a hard enough time wrapping their heads around calculating mana, and those were the ones who chose to play spellcasters).
I think spells will be bought by themes. I've got a list, and it covers about everything (although originally I was going with the MtG style spellcasting with a bunch of summoning, so there's a bit of that on there, too (might keep it and just include stats for the summonable creatures as part of the spell description for new ones)). Here goes (A list of themes; all spells in the theme are acquired upon buying the theme, and caster level is determined in a normal manner for all themes equally):
Air: Granting flight, manipulating air, and summoning air creatures
Animal: Summoning, strengthening, and controlling animals and beasts
Chaos: Causing random action, making other spells more random, prismatic spells
Darkness: Creating magical darkness, causing fear
Death: Death effects, creating undead
Decay: Acid spells, poison, disease, and mindscraping (think steal spell from Complete Adventurer, but as spells)
Deception: Illusion spells, summoning morph creatures and ninjas
Earth: Manipulating stone and soil, summoning earth creatures
Evil: Summoning and controlling demons, causing fear
Fire: Fire damage spells, summoning fire creatures
Force: Force effects.
Frost: Cold damage spells, summoning cold creatures
Healing: Healing injuries, curing poison and disease, countering fear
Good: Summoning celestials, countering fear, turning undead
Light: Creating magical light, countering fear, turning undead
Lightning: Electrical damage spells, summoning lightning creatures
Manipulation: Mind control, counterspelling, meddling, morph
Planar: Teleportation, dimensional anchor, plane shifting, ethereality
Plant: Summoning, strengthening, and controlling plants
Order: Countering fear and mind control, order’s wrath/law effects
War: Buffing, enhancing weapons and armor, legion spells, summoning soldiers
Water: Manipulating water, summoning water creatures
Weather: Fog, control weather, call lightning, meteor storm, hailstorm, etc.
And everybody gets general- spells like wish, permanency, read magic, and detect magic that apply to everybody.
Because the theme lists are shorter than a class list, probably cheaper (then again, some are more useful than others, and therefore should be more expensive). The other thing I was going to do with these was take the energy themes and give them exclusive substitution; that is, if you have an energy theme, you can cast all spells with energy descriptors, but you have to change them to an energy type you know (doing so, however, is free). For example, a character who has the fire theme can cast lightning bolt as fire bolt, dealing fire damage. He cannot cast it as lightning bolt unless he buys the lightning theme. Does that make any sense?
I do like the higher available caster levels... might try out some variant systems for determining caster level, though (skill based or a base caster level like BaB system).
One thing about scaling up low level spells: logically, shouldn't you be able to scale down a high-level spell? Why can't I cast a fireball for 1d6? At 1st level? A magic missile at 5 CL costs 5 mana. A fireball at 5 CL costs 5 mana. Fireball at 5 CL = Magic Missile at 5 CL (transitive property). Divide both sides by 5 and fireball at CL 1 = Magic Missile at CL 1. Not exactly a formal proof, but honestly, how powerful is a CL 1 fireball? OK, its got a pretty big burst, but it deals little damage. Perhaps a 10 foot radius burst takes up at least a certain amount of mana to spread over that area; but even then, 5? No, I'm not arguing for a reduction of all spells to low levels, from which they can be enhanced (though it would be sorta neat... oh wait, that was what the spell seeds were for the most part). Just the ones with level-dependent effects. And not even all of those. Lightning bolt? Yes. Cone of cold? Yes, but probably not down to 1st...
Actually, I think I'm just going to write some low-level spells energy spells of certain area types that get better the more you pay for them, rather than try to reverse engineer preexisting spells. Please excuse my rant. Got a little carried away (long day).
Unitarian doesn't really equal christian... descended from it, though. I doubt there would be much applause in most christian churches when one of the vestry announced that the state of Iowa had allowed a soldier to have a wiccan symbol on his tombstone. Athiest myself, but as a high schooler, my parents are capable of coercing me into going (hence my paying attention is unusual)(there's usually food afterwards, which helps boost morale about going).
But I digress...
An interesting update. As noted, I like the spell-powering and learning options, and might borrow some and convert into feats (the mana systems works quite nicely as is, but a little diversity in powers might help it out a little). Probably not going to switch all the way over to the new system. We like the idea of disbanding class lists; why should class lists exist after the classes themselves are gone? I think we might do away with arcane, divine, and psionic distinctions, too (we have one psiophobe who has disliked them since 2nd edition; he's coming around, though), and have spell-armor interference for everyone (though reduceable with feats, a la warmage).
I know it's not for everyone, or even all caster-players, but if you want to make your own class this is a good system to compare all abilities to each other!
I prefer your element groups over the traditional lists any day, actually. Might use them in a coming campaign....
What would you say the CP cost for each group would be?
Oh, and the example caster... that needs some work. It looks vague but..
The purpose was to show that you don't have to have an even progression; the example is scattered, has maximum spell levels all over the place yet the caster level for all spells is the same (because I want to avoid distinction for "Arcane" and "Divine" etc for the end result, yet knowing better spells is the challenge to overcome)
How do you buy higher levels within a spellgroup? Your example, for example, buys necromancy and cleric at varying rates. What are the prices for that?
I'll put the prices in soon... maybe it was a small detail I forgot, but should be simple enough to reference over in the templates section. I probably typed that in 1 night and forgot about it, so there's reason behind the sloppiness... <_<
The "Spellcasting" class ability is the master name for all spellcasting within a character. It is the sum of all spellgroup additions, and all defects are reduced from this total.
The example character spent some CP in some levels, and none (or at least none in spellcasting) in others. The result is a varied yet functional 'gish', if you will.
I'll give an example of a straight sorcerer-like caster, a warrior-mage, and a warrior with vary few spells all as more examples, and rethink how I'll present all this. Maybe a chart is too complex, but from what you tell me it seems it was just too confusing.
It's hard anticipating an audience's viewpoint!OH and the 'class templates' section is incomplete, that's why some are missing costs in CP to acquire that specific spell group, such as Bard (a tricky one...)
The reason for this was because the cost for any class's spellgroup was whatever was left over from their class features. The more features, such as Fighter or Rogue, the less left for casting. Hence, Cleric is somewhere in the middle, and so Cleric group is inherently "worth less CP" than a Wizard.
This is how D&D was designed, I'm just picking it apart. The full-mage types always have better spellcasting ability, and so they will be more expensive spellgroups.
However, the Sorcerer, as usual, is cheated. They get a little boost (read: near unlimited mana, tons of leftover CP, more spellgroups!) just by the way this system works. For instance, it's easy to make Sorcerer HD d6, 4 skill points, 3/4 BAB, and still have enough to do what a PHB Sorc can do.
Because the theme lists are shorter than a class list, probably cheaper (then again, some are more useful than others, and therefore should be more expensive). The other thing I was going to do with these was take the energy themes and give them exclusive substitution; that is, if you have an energy theme, you can cast all spells with energy descriptors, but you have to change them to an energy type you know (doing so, however, is free). For example, a character who has the fire theme can cast lightning bolt as fire bolt, dealing fire damage. He cannot cast it as lightning bolt unless he buys the lightning theme. Does that make any sense?
Makes sense to me. Then again, we have similar ways of thinking. Can't speak for anyone else, but sure wish some others would jump in this discussion too....
I've seen more popular classless systems... YabaTheWhat's 'feature points' have quite a fandom, yet there are some problems. For one, he told me specifically (to my question) that unlimited heal magic/spell-like abilities are impossible with his FP system due to imbalance or something. That disappointed me.
The purpose of a system like this is to exist merely to exist, as a toolbox, as a background for mighty epics, as the ghost in the machine. It's not a directing force to decide "what you want is too powerful, therefore you can't do it"
From what I've seen playtested so far with d20 Twilight, and I have seen some broken things, nothing got too far out of hand, relatively speaking.
Compared to a 'normal' D&D game, it's not that different!
Sure you can accomplish more with less equipment, and a lot of players love that. However, the assumption with normal D&D character optimisation is that you can get away with certain things, like using a 50-charge wand of Cure Light Wounds, or play a Warlock, and that's OK... yet picking out the abilities you want and crafting your own character is such a freakish chimeric mutant that most don't even bother?
With normal D&D so much powergaming simply 'slips through the cracks', as in it's unaccounted for. A little bonus here, a little premium class/feat/item combo there, the best spells smattered in and VOILA a masterpiece. It's almost like creating a French cuisine, these optimization forums... yet I see nothing wrong with cutting out the 'fat', those useless skill bonuses or little details such as 5 different PrCs required and feats like Run and Toughness... it's all too much for new players and boring for experienced gamers like me who just want to do what they set out to do in the first place.
To me it's almost as if D&D is BEGGING for classless. I see 'class options' and 'racial substitution levels' and whole books devoted to changing classes to player desires (Unearthed Arcana.. the Complete series..) yet it's just so annoying to hold on to so many sacred cows of D&D.
d20 Twilight, and any other classless system, gets to the basics; everything is accounted for, no power just 'slips through', and players get what they want within limits set in relation to every other ability in the game.
My challenge for many doubtful gamers is to try it.
Sure, it's not done yet, but I promise that with help and time, it will grow from many contributions. Credit will be given and ideas shared, and I even hope that this system can provide further insight into the workings of d20 and D&D even if one does not wish to use d20 Twilight.
I can relate to your player's distrust of AD&D Psionics.. it was a mess! Most the guys in my old high school group hated me for begging the DM (and then ****** off at the DM for allowing it) mostly because it was outside of the normal spellcasting system.
At character level 6 I was teleporting, turning ectoplasmic, using telekinesis, mindblasting, force-blasting, and mindraping. And with enough PSPs (oldschool.... Psionic Strength Points!) to do it for hours worth of encounters. A mess.
But as for using new spellgroups, go for it! And let me know what you do with that; I hate the Cleric group most of all by the way, do you have any new ideas?
On CP costs of my themes: probably in the 2 point range. With all the new spells coming out, there are a lot of spells available in each group, so they get more powerful the more sourcebooks you use. However, compared to an entire class list, they are comparatively weak. So probably 2, maybe 3 for some of the big ones and the ones that everybody wants/uses (healing comes to mind).
What is a gish? I have seen the term on the CharOp boards, but not a definition of it.
My element switching made sense to my psiophobe (father). Haven't gotten a chance to explain it to everybody else yet, but to facilitate easier switching of such things, I'm working on a Sculpt Spell variant that allows for serious sculpting (from personal to touch to ray to burst to 10 foot cubes to selective multitarget, and maybe range changing; no wimpy "area effects only" clause with this. And downgrading (say, from range to melee touch) decreases cost and minimum caster level. Disintegration touch, anyone? How about contagion sphere? It's going to be interesting to see what happens when it gets introduced into one of my campaigns (don't know which one yet)). I've worked up some other feats running on mana, and I posted 'em somewhere, but got no replies. I'll put them here if you're interested.
The purpose of a system like this is to exist merely to exist, as a toolbox, as a background for mighty epics, as the ghost in the machine. It's not a directing force to decide "what you want is too powerful, therefore you can't do it"
Well said. Saying that you can't do something because its too powerful doesn't make a whole lot of sense in most case. Ruling that the characters cannot wire together 100 pounds of C4 that they manufactured doesn't make a lot of sense from a realism perspective; having the counterterrorist SWAT team show up does. But the characters can try it, with the full knowledge that consequences will ensue (especially when the bomb blows open the starship's reactor... hehe. Actually only took about 20 pounds for that (and it happened)).
Probably not going to actually get to test much of anything for a while. Not because it's not ready, but because my group is unreliable. Oh well. Just gives me more time to improve it.
That Sculpt Spell variant looks good, can't wait to see it.
But, what do you think of the mana system a friend and I developed? It provides more spells per day at lower levels and a LOT less at higher levels (in addition to increased costs with higher spells as by 3.5 psionics-type casting) as well as recharging your caster level in mana each hour spent not casting any spells?
Naturally, it's more powerful than D&D Wizard, due to the psi-like versatility, but is it too much?
I'm interested in anything you do to improve it, too.
Bombs are my favorite items in any video game but in RPGs I go for spellcaster/bombers... Fireball, Greater Fireburst, Meteor Swarm, all that...
In Timesplitters, it's the remote bombs. Throw, detonate. Or throw on someone and let them run into a crowd. Or throw next to a door and feign retreat.. I'm verrrry sneaky!
Or in Star Wars Battlefront 2, I play the "heavy trooper".... many HP, anti-tank rockets, landmines, grenades, I love it.
But in D&D it's assumed that items are necessary to 'win an encounter'. In fact, even a monk has trouble without stat boosts and other permanent-buff items at higher levels (higher than 5-6?). It's just not right. Explosives and equipment should always be an option, not a necessity to.. say... kill a dragon. It would just make such a thing easier.
Hey, don't have to ask me for more time... I'm scrounging for work this winter, in addition to hanging with one of my favorite fellow gamers before he goes on semester-long exchange student trip to Spain....
Say, ever heard of mIRC? Or any good chat service with dice roller... we can play online but I only have a few times, still new to me.
Actually, I have about 10 feats using the mana system... I posted them on the feats board, but no one bothered to reply (not surprising, considering how they relied on this particular system, which appears to be in the extreme minority). But I'll post them here. Prereqs might be a little low...
Magic Concepts Converted from MtG to D&D
Feats:
Deathknell Spell
Show
You can use the dying energy of your fallen foes to power your spells.
Prerequisites: Spellcraft 5 ranks, any metamagic feat.
Benefit: When you cast a spell, you may use a recently deceased corpse as a component. You subtract from the mana cost of the spell 1 mana point per 2 HD of the creature rounded down, to a maximum of the spell’s cost. For each round the creature has been dead, subtract 1 from its effective HD. You must be touching the corpse at the time of casting to use this ability. The corpse, but not its possessions, is consumed by its use.
You can use the dying energy of your fallen foes to power your spells.
Prerequisites: Spellcraft 5 ranks, any metamagic feat.
Benefit: When you cast a spell, you may use a recently deceased corpse as a component. You subtract from the mana cost of the spell 1 mana point per 2 HD of the creature rounded down, to a maximum of the spell’s cost. For each round the creature has been dead, subtract 1 from its effective HD. You must be touching the corpse at the time of casting to use this ability. The corpse, but not its possessions, is consumed by its use.
From what I skimmed so far, looks good. Some things like Repeat and Replicate seem a little similar to metamagic feats I've seen before but for the rest it's very original.
The "Sculpt Spell" you have might work well in conjunction with existing "Sculpt Spell" if you make it "Improved...". This makes it possible to take out any wording identical to that in the original MM feat and save effort on your part!
I'm currently comparing the Epic magic system to the PHB system, and found some interesting comparisons. In the Epic, a +2 Spellcraft DC is about the same as a MM feat +1 spell level to change features on a spell. They even have identical options to sculpting, and a psionics 'visual/audio display' exchange for 'verbal/somatic' (hint: it's the same :P). More on this later.
Try to find a thread on MTG D&D somewhere in these forums and post your feats there, you might get better 'traffic'.. or at least link to the thread containing your post from the buisy one.
Which original sculpt spell are you referring to? Has there been one since Tome and Blood?
I really didn't compare the epic system to the PHB system as entire systems. I simply took the lowest level baseline spell for a certain seed (for example, lowest level afflict-type spells are Bane and Ray of Enfeeblement), and mod the epic seeds down to those, and add increases in power at costs depending on the level and power of the next most powerful PHB spell of that seed.
Yeah, whoops. Sorry about the no reply. Sorta lost track (I was ambushed by my friends; I swear I got more phone calls in 3 hours than I normally get in 3 weeks....). Ummm.... yeah, explosives are very useful. I've been pondering building a rocketeer/grenadier in Future, but haven't gotten to. Haven't gotten a chance to PC in a year or two, so that doesn't help (darn noobs... have to teach them and run their campaigns... not that they're not entertaining. And I try to spread knowledge among them; my birthday gift to one of them was a box of dice and a CD with the D&D, D20 Modern, D20 Future, and Urban Arcana SRDs on it (plus character sheets and the Twilight rules)). But people with explosives also make good villians (If you don't surrender, I will detonate the massive bomb hidden beneath the city, causing huge loss of life and property and throwing the city back into the stone age... I really must try that). Espcially when the PCs don't check for landmines and laser tripwires.
As for our own concepts with the 'seed' magic, I'd love to compare the differences. With using the Epic HB stuff it's more of just a base to begin from. I always prefer to come up with original ideas no matter how wacky they may seem at first...
Check out the "Black Company" D&D (or d20 variant?) campaign setting based on some guy's novel series. A very interesting setting, but more unusual was the spellcasting; entirely DC based, sort of like Star Wars d20. The spells began very simple to cast, minor effects, most similar to your examples of Bane and RoE.
Training 'noobs' is always a good thing, no matter how obnoxious they may be in the beginning. The payoff is great in months and years to come when they end up teaching YOU things too!
DC-based spellcasting... I've toyed with that idea. Probably closest thing I've seen and played with was the D20 Matrix rules (see sig for link to website with link to rules). Not actually spellcasting, but it could work similarly.
The only thing they changed between T&B and CA was that you can turn it into a line.
DM1: (end of encounter) the experience gained from the 3 ogres you evaded should be enough to level everyone up. anyone else have some material to run?
DM2: yeah i have something that will last an hour or two, give me a few minutes to get ready. does anyone have a single encounter in the meantime?
DM3: i have a monster to kill...
DM1: (acting as coordinator) ok (DM2) we'll set up a plot device to get your character out of the group and mine in....
With a group consisting of a high school friend, my brother, my brother's 2 friends (introduced to D&D through NWN) and me, we tag-teamed for years until college became too much of a strain and we had to part. this year, though, i got in touch with my friend and played with one of his and my girlfriend but it's just not the same as when everyone has about the same level of knowledge about the game; teaching new players is a long process and when they are bored or reluctant (or just get tired halfway through like my girl :S) it's more energy out of someone like me and my friend who actually want an 'active group'. It's nowhere near the number of people i gamed with back in highschool but then again it's also a LOT less bickering, insults, useless bravado, and backstabbing; i traded quantity for quality.
strangely, i'm one of the most "rules-lawyer" in my newer gaming group, a complete shift from the to-the-letter-of-the-books highschool gang (all guys, btw) and that's saying something; you've probably noticed my "style", it's quite relaxed and inclusive, but i try to be as logical and consistant about everything.
a glaring flaw for me might be that i am quick to accept The New but also very indecisive... and don't think twice to go back and change a decision midcampaign. like...
"OK you guys, those diamond falcions you got from the Fire Cult are a bit too much. You're cutting through walls. Do you see the problem? We have 2 options; 1, figure out a way to limit the power of these things, or 2 you'll have to face tougher opponents."
Some complained that it's unfair...
"Fine then, fiendish trolls in adamantine armor it is."
Oddly, they changed their minds.
Yes it happened like that, but then again it was 5+ years ago... I've become a lot more 'slippery' when it comes to making corrections, working them in subtle ways that most don't even know I had planned to 'correct' something.... like, a Yugoloth task force comissioned by an extraplanar organization, patrolling astral paths for contraband magical items, and using very tough canoloths to 'confiscate for further investigation'. If found 'harmless' the item is returned later, sometimes mysteriously.... I don't use that gimmick often, tho... gotta keep it fresh :P
As for and update on the Seed Magic project, I'm still converting the Epic categories into feat-based options. And although I have the flu this week, I'm also considering (finally) assigning d20 Twilight CP costs to various features of the PHB, like that feat list...
One more idea I came up with recently: You mentioned the Base Save values a while back? I recall there were some problems.
Dunno if i mentioned this before but what do you think if I matched each save to another essential class feature, like Will -> Caster Level, then a player acquires ranks as if it were a package-class...
for instance a mini-Wizard without HP, Skill Points, BAB, class features, nothin...
Spellcaster Rank 0 provides basic (Spell Level 0?) casting and Base Will +1 for a certain amount of CP,
Warrior Ranks give BAB and Fortitude
Expert Ranks give Dodge/Defense bonus and Reflex
Right now it seems too restrictive... I'm still stewing on it... have too many doubts, for one that categorizing the 3 rank types does the same as what D&D does to class roles (pidgeonholing players into set roles) from the names alone. I want to keep it 'pure' and simple, but as it is now, "Base Fortitude" is causing some misconceptions. Maybe it's in the wording. arr *head grab*
Wow... if you're the most rules lawyer, that's pretty crazy. Neat, though. We have a bit of bickering and backstabbing here... I recall an experimental duel between the rogue and warlock just to see who would win (the halfling warlock did, but the rogue could have won by grappling; we just forgot about that (it was the rogue's player's first game, didn't want to get too confusing)), and the players in my various future games almost always try to take out the mecha player (until this last point-based game with the uberspellcaster... no strife there, everybody knew that he could annihilate them (although no one considered his defenses (or lack thereof)). And we usually end up spending about a quarter of the time laughing at something out of game. But that's a good part of the fun of it, if you know what I mean. (and on the all-guy thing: we have one girl, but she doesn't come very often).
Fiendish trolls in adamantine armor... very nice. A very simple, very durable war machine. Not as powerful as, say, my tauric (halfling/black bear) weretiger barbarian warshaper hulking hurler, but probably doesn't take as much time to stat.
(and no, I never got to play that character; it was a design experiment)
Nice in-game way to keep balance.
Feat-based seed magic.... hmm...
Yeah, you mentioned the ranks before, and they do pidgeonhole a bit. Sort of a hybrid between classes and point-based. Might work, but I think I'd probably stick to the current rules for BaB and saves. Caster level, though, is always a bit of a sticky point. Going to try out "Spellcraft ranks-3" variant today.
Whilst board-wandering, I found a link to EpicFetus' skill-based psionic rules. They look... interesting. I also found and downloaded a copy of CYD20... very interesting also. So I've picked up some new material to kick around. VP/WP, for example... I guess you buy VP dice, and improve your WP by boosting your Con, right?
Oh, and the game we played ended up with just me DMing, and with my brother coming and going to classes, seminars, etc.... And we got another player! The younger brother of one of our players... currently playing dwarven sword and board fighter using the normal classes, while the other characters are all point-based (one monkesque, one roguesque, and one pyromage-smith ("Would you like your ankheg well-done or burnt?")). Balance seems reasonable; we imposed a limit of "If a character 1.5 times your level can't have it, neither can you." We also based caster level on spellcraft skill-3, and bought spells by themes (3 CP each; worked OK). Had a pretty good time, but they had to leave early... And I'm out of my town for the next week and a bit (with no internet). I'll probably try to run some CYD20 with my brother (maybe capture the flag... that always goes over well).
I'll be back next year.
The fiendish trolls aren't mine, sadly. I saw it on a humorous thread somewhere on Teh Internet, either here or ENWorld. It was a solution for powergaming munchkins....
I'm leaning more towards "grappler zombies", actually. Immune to crits, mind effects, the works. Used that a few times in the past. You know, the mean kind.... boosted with mods from Libris Mortis so the STR is like 20+?... Put a Necromancer or evil Cleric behind them and you have a Total Player Kill, or at least (and usually my intent) a way to knock down overconfident blowhards just a bit.
Thank you so much for the links! I collect stuff like that all the time... gigabytes worth of custom RPG stuff collected for at least 10 years now. I'll share with you when I return, next year as you mention. The CYD20 looks fascinating but I don't know what VP/WP are (yet!)
I had hoped this thread would expand into something grander but sadly it's been fairly limited. I think it's time to give this chain up, too.
It's not that I'm bored with the Twilight d20 project, but that I can't devote the effort into it as I had hoped. I'm scrambling for work and disorganized and bugged by my parents to "stop wasting time and do something productive" so it might be a drought for a while...
But I'll come back eventually, and let you know. I sent you my AIM and email if you want to contact me; I've found it's always good to network with as many like-minded gamers as possible, if at least 'just in case'. Sometimes. that's how whole new RPGs are started!
Right now I'll try to find that thread you made a while ago and post all over it....
PS: Seed magic / Source&Filter magic is half-done. When we share later, I'll mail show you the result, a very sexy thing...
The work is small enough (like the other hundreds of fan productions on the web) that chances are Wizards and Twilight can't be bothered closing you down. I guess Wiki was just trying to be careful.
The M&M system is an amazing point based OGL product. It is a modern superheroes based system thought. I think they ran into problems, like everyone does, with spellcasting. Their True20 system for fantasy OGL doesn't have that neat point system build.
Also if you're serrious about writing d20, hit up the open call boards (http://www.enworld.org/forumdisplay.php?f=68World) or (http://forum.rpg.net/forumdisplay.php?f=12) and start with the freelancing to get your feet wet.
Mark Charke
Interesting info, Charke. Thanks!
And I am quite serious about this project; I believe this kind of adaptation for d20 is the way d20 is heading and am not exactly going to give up any day soon.
I'm also in need of employment that fits my hobbies.. and I'm looking further into that ENWorld link you provided. Very promising..
Parental pressure... bane of free time and enjoyment.
Source and filter? I remember sources from the wiki, but filters are new...
Does M&M have an SRD?
Closest comparison is Warlock Invocations, how there are Invocations/Eldritch Blasts, and then there are Eldritch Blast Shapes that modify the Eldritch Blasts.
With my concept, the Sources are much more varied, like an entire Cleric domain in a feat-like package. Then the Filters are like Metamagic feats or Blast Shapes that can be applied to any Source.
Sources can also be combined to create new effects, within specific guides that is.
I'll post more on that when it's complete.
EDIT: OK, starting my own system. Less complicated than point-based, more customizeable than normal classes. Have not included magic systems yet; the current idea is to go modern/future. Some stuff is stolen from CYD20; gotta hand it to them, they did a pretty good job. OK, here goes:
Similar to the Generics system as presented in UA, but as follows:
Upon character creation, your character gets 4 attribute points. All saves and BaB start at minimum; low saves and 1/2 BaB. Improving each 1 step costs 1 attribute point; however, another level of save bonus is added: medium saves. They progress as follows: they start at +1, then have 3 levels of each even bonus followed by 2 of each odd bonus, until they reach +9 at 20th level. Thus, to raising a base save from low to high costs 2 points. Raising BaB by one progression (from 1/2 to 3/4, or 3/4 to 1) costs 1 point. Thus, at character creation, BaB progression and saves are picked in this manner.
The base saves determine other features. The base fortitude determines Vitality die size; low=>d4, medium=>d6, and high=>d8. Reflex save determines Base Defense Bonus: low=>lowest BdB progression (smart hero), medium=>tough hero or strong hero BdB, high=>fast hero def progression (yes, I know they aren't in CYD20, and they don't go to 20th, but they could be extended). Will save: low=>4 skill points per level, medium=>6 SP per level, high=>8 SP per level (built for modern, characters should have skills regardless of specialty).
Feats and bonus feats: Bonus feats are given at every even level, in addition to the normal feats every 3 levels. All class features are converted to feats; their prerequisites will be based off of the relevant base save at the lowest level when the ability could normally be acquired (plus perhaps ability score prerequisites, skill reqs, etc...).
Think it could work? I am working on this because building a character with your system (while most satisfying and customizeable) takes forever even with veterans, but the modern class system leaves something to be desired.
However, I'll keep posting, not necessarily on this topic (from which I feel d20 Twilight needs more 'introspection', or maybe a complete overhaul, on my part, which needs just more time) but definitely in similar threads, and yours Weretiger. Maybe if i fail in my mission I will have at least succeeded in inspiring you to create the next generation classless system! -_-
I need a break from this a bit, so here's another thread I began over in Magic about a new spellcasting option similar to "reserve feats", the one I told you about.....
I agree that d20 Twilight takes too much time making anything. Maybe templates and guides for fast creation would help, but I'll look into resorting everything I wrote and cutting the fat. My goal is to not only cover everything in the PHB but to provide a method at least as fast as the PHB in character creation. I think it's possible.
As for the name and 'possible copyright infringement', I'm investigating as to whether or not this system is truly "d20". My suspicion is that it won't qualify, and I'll have to take down and repost the entire wiki page for changes.
As for the 'Twilight' name, I like it but since there's a game called 'Twilight 2000'in place before mine then I suppose mine must change.
My plans for this year 2007 are to split this d20 Twilight material into 2 portions:
1 - a complete campaign setting, albeit simple, with all the fluff I'd like to introduce along with new classes made with the original d20 Twilight system for balance, some sample spellcasting systems, minor changes such as "variable armor" and "mana casting" that will fit with the original D&D more than being just standalone
2 - a collection of rules variants similar to Unearthed Arcana ,to be used with or without the campaign setting; this will include the base save changes, classless options, new exotic spellcasting methods, etc
This is a new thread on "Sustain Magic"! -> http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=11152412#post11152412
Could you post where you link from? Or PM me with locations where it's being discussed?
I believe the UA one has about 5-6 people responding (and I practically begged for it) but I believe that, in general, I'm presenting it sloppily. The wiki formating ignored all my tables, caps, italics, indenting, everything... and it's currently the only regularly updated source.
I'm thinking of withdrawing or putting hold on the wiki and doing a pdf or doc release with many versions, although it will be an even more reclusive and introverted project :{
Compared to other projects like YabaTheWhat's feature points and "V20" elsewhere in these forums, mine does appear plain but the information is all there.
Feat pricing is complete btw, I'm posting soon... here...
So, here's an HTML version from my geo... download it and view at your leisure, I'll post the spreadsheet if there's problems. Except for that annoying box outline when viewed with Firefox, it looks the same as the sheet.
d20 twilight feat costs 3_1_07.html
I can also confidantly mention that some playtesting has occured and changes will be made, some down to the core level. My next project is to plot out class templates so that even a beginning player can say "OK I want a Fighter type Hit Dice with Ninja Ki Abilities and a dab of Transmutation spellcasting.." and they can make such a thing in the same amount of time as a normal D&D character.
Also, spellcaster level will be a product of both base Will or Spellcraft ranks; Will increases mana pool, while Spellcraft increases the number of spells known, and whichever is higher for an individual determines caster level.
And I'm debating how spell groups are acquired, seems too much math at each level right now, might become just a one-time addition and all limitations are applied right then and there like adding a feat, but possibilities of something bad like "My mage knows ALL SPELLS" could occur.
OK, now that that's over with...
Good idea with making feats variable cost. Because not all feats are equal; some are more equal than others...
I like the idea of splitting magic between skills and saves. Allows a more "task mage" type magic user, who knows few spells but can use them frequently (although with the passive mana, that is not so much of a problem).
Let's see... I think the way I ended up running spell group acquisition was that you bought each one separately like a feat, but your caster level applied to all spells from all spell groups. The idea of variable caster level between schools (which you implemented) is a good one, but you application of it was indeed somewhat math heavy and mildly confusing... Perhaps one could simply buy caster level like one buys BaB. Maybe make +1 caster level to a single school, descriptor, discipline, etc one point; that way you can invest in a couple schools every level. Make mana based off of Will (you channel the energy with your raw mental power) and spell acquisition based off of spellcraft (you know a lot... you can make the power do what you want it to). That is splitting it up a bit and adding a lot of extra stuff that spellcasters have to invest in to be effective.... I don't know.
But yeah, we definitely want to avoid the ubercaster who knows all spells and psionic powers... that happened to me. It was rather amusing. It was also a good thing that he really didn't know what spells were benchmarks at each level...
I can direct you to the source for that idea of variable costs over to Sean K. Reynolds. He did a similar idea with every feat in the PHB but his is on a scale from 1 to 10, and he has an entire forum to give opinions and feedback. -_-
Still, interesting...
http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/misc/featpointsystem.html
"Splitting magic" is simply a combination of your and my ideas. You'll get credit, and I'll implement changes into the d20 twilight when I can word it properly.
And a name change is pending.. maybe "Worlds of Twilight" campaign setting for all the house rules plus "Worlds of Twilight Classless d20 System" for all the D&D/WoT interchangeable stuff (fewer core changes, just a system for making classes/races)
When the name change happens I'll make a new thread here, and re-do the Wiki (to look nicer, I hope!) and if the Wiki still shreds my HTML I'll find some other way to distribute it.
For spellcasters, the balance must be maintained with Wizards and Clerics as the centerpiece. If either 2 are overpowered, the system is out of whack.
Why?
Because those are the 2 most powerful D&D classes in the entire game. I'd link to an official article in the wizards.com/dnd site but that will take some time to find... All I can quote for now is that polls were taken, and out of everything PHB, the Elfs and Dwarfs are the best races (half-elf and half-orc worst) and Wizards and Clerics the best classes. So, I figured that's a good starting point.
Now then..
Given that a Wizard has a sucky Hit Die (in d20twi, -5 CP for d4 HP, 2 SP, worst BAB) something must be accounted for to fill those remaining 9 character points. The Wizard's main (and for the most part, only) class ability is .... spellcasting.
So, something in every (or 90%) of all Wizard levels is taking up 7-9 CP!!! What is it?
How can we price that out? This is my dilemna, as it has been for years. I've tried many options, playtested a few with friends, and it seems there are many options.... but one is probably better than others.
I tried a "base caster level" for Wizards... It might be found somewhere in the d20twi drafts or in my notes, and it resembled something like the Unearthed Arcana "Magic Rating".
http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/unearthedMagic.html
Some examples would be Wizards and Clerics with the best (+1BCL per level, or 1/1 for -3 CP a level), Bards and Psychic Warriors in the middle (3/4, beginning at BCL 0, for -2 CP), and Spellsword or other "gish" half-casters with the worst (1/2 for -1 CP)
But what would you do about the remaining points in, say, a primary spellcaster like a Wiz or Sorc? Remember that those points can be used to get ANYTHING... more feats, double HP, all good saves, etc... so in trying to duplicate the D&D Wizard, those must be mostly spent on spellcasting or else we'll have Wizards running around with d10 HP, good BAB, and so on *~*
Really, dwarf and elf got voted above human? My group always seems to go human for the feat... though when you pay CP for it, it really doesn't matter either way. No surprise with the half-orcs and -elves, though.
I'm pretty sure I mentioned it previously, but I made magic more expensive by splitting it up... when you have to buy +1 CL in each school, and you have a generalist wizard, it gets expensive. But it also allows specialists to really specialize. Just my thoughts.
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20051007a
I'll repost the basics of their 9/9/06 poll here for brevity:
Most Powerful Class
Cleric 23.0%
Wizard 15.5%
Druid 13.3%
None 12.6%
Monk 11.1%
Fighter 6.6%
Sorcerer 6.2%
Paladin 4.1%
Rogue 2.9%
Barbarian 2.4%
Ranger 1.4%
Bard 1.0%
Least Powerful Race
Half-Elves 33.5%
Half-Orcs 20.1%
Gnomes 16.4%
None 11.0%
Halflings 8.2%
Humans 5.9%
Elves 2.5%
Dwarves 2.5%
Yes, Cleric was voted best, and out of all these combos the elf cleric or dwarf cleric, with human cleric, would be the best (numbers-wise, or just plain survivability) ... but I still prefer my tiefling half-fey sorcerer. -_-
I'm interested in your thoughts, as with anyone else's. What exactly did you do for the spellcasters? Did you price out, say, Evocation ranks for X amount of CP for each CL the character wants to attain?
I admit, this whole project is too complex, and that's probably what turns most gamers away.
So, I'll relegate this classless d20 system as a 'class build' method and leave the rules for 'play as classless' optional.
Oh, and
PS: However, work comes first, you know. -_-;
Let's see... I think the way I ended up running spell group acquisition was that you bought each one separately like a feat, but your caster level applied to all spells from all spell groups. The idea of variable caster level between schools (which you implemented) is a good one, but you application of it was indeed somewhat math heavy and mildly confusing... Perhaps one could simply buy caster level like one buys BaB. Maybe make +1 caster level to a single school, descriptor, discipline, etc one point; that way you can invest in a couple schools every level. Make mana based off of Will (you channel the energy with your raw mental power) and spell acquisition based off of spellcraft (you know a lot... you can make the power do what you want it to). That is splitting it up a bit and adding a lot of extra stuff that spellcasters have to invest in to be effective.... I don't know.
Oh, and this suggestion was crucial to my inspiration for feat-based spellcasters.
That, and the various Fighter fixes around, oddly.
Thanks again Weretiger, hope you read this in a week or 2 when I have something new on the top post or maybe make a new thread, and I'll keep ya posted when I make updates..
Thanks.:D
Fighter fixes? Curiosity piqued....
This one was funny tho, don't take it seriously: http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=12183533
My idea is to give fighters 1 feat every level and improve their selection, not much more than that. We can accomplish a lot with simply improving the Fighter feat choices.
A Fighter's blessing is diversity, and that should be expanded; all the pseudo-magical, demigodly high-level combat tricks can be made as feats, as some have all ready, all we have to do is provide the chassis to work within (more feats!)
This is a nice analysis: http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=781643
Thought for this week:
Pricing and advancing saving throw improvements like permanently cross-class skills.
I saw this connection a month ago, and pondered the implications... shocked I never saw the connection before now, or if I have I probably ignored the significance.
The implication:
Improving saves could completely ignore which classes a character possesses. Removes that whole "I have godly saves due to rampant multiclassing" dilemna.
Also makes basing feat requirements off of the 3 saves easier, as everyone will have an opportunity to advance them and take certain feat-chains, such as the spellcaster one I'm working on (just improve Will saves/ranks, then take the feats)
Editing the Wiki is my later priority. I have a lot of writing on my desktop but sorting it, editing, cutting the 'fat', and touching up for presentation is the main concern.
But don't worry, it'll get done. Eventually. -_-;
I've been looking at some other semi-alternate stuff (notably D20 Warheart), and built a system a couple of weeks ago where everything is a skill; AC, attack, saves, HP (not really happy with how that turned out), normal skill checks, and magic (though I didn't get to the rules for that). At first I figured that I would make the saving throw skills cross-class for everyone, as you suggested. Then it occurred to me that melding Reflex and AC made a bit of sense (with armor as DR), but making that cross-class for everyone would cause problems, so I ended up merging the two, making Fortitude its own skill that allowed long-distance running, swimming, etc and added to HP as a function of number of ranks (I think the HP formula I came up with was Con score+2*total fortitude bonus. Might work better as Con score/2+4*fort bonus, or some other variation of coefficients), and making Will another full skill that also doubled as Concentration and added to Mana. I then concluded that, as Spellcraft increases at the same rate as Saves, save DCs are just spellcraft checks (or set DCs for poison, SU abilities, etc).
I also went the "Saga Route" as it were, and merged a bunch of skills into a relatively short list. Finally, I concluded that certain skills (Such as Ranged Attack (Pistol) and Ranged Attack (Rifle)) were similar enough that one could get a synergy bonus to one for having ranks in the other. I spent several days pondering the calculations for this bonus, and then realized that (Ranks in high skill-Ranks in low skill)/2, rounded down worked great, in that the total bonus to the lower skill would never equal or exceed the total bonus to the higher skill until they had the same number of ranks, but it can really help out an improvising character who just picked up an alien ranged weapon.
Additionally, I changed feat acquisition to 1/level (effectively; there was some funny math involved, but it boiled down to that), and made Skill Focus just add 3 ranks. Max Ranks were/are enforced and rather important, I think, lest someone the system break down under a savant.
Basically, what really put a hole in the system was that I gave out far too many skill points and class skills; everyone could do everything (to the max ranks). Next time, I would cut it down from 10+int SP/lvl to perhaps 6+int SP/lvl. Also, I considered removing the "1st level x4 SP" rule, but am unsure as to the rammifications of such an action. As for class skills... not sure if I should bother, or just say "Max ranks in any one skill is level +3 (or +0, if no x4 SP at first level)."
Any thoughts? And readings?
I feel honored that this is one of the 6 remaining threads after the board shuffle! Amazing.
And actually it may have been your bump, Weretiger, that saved it.
Odd that we've both dipped in to SAGA for ideas. Seems something went right with that game, which might be why 4e is practically cloned from it.
On the x4 skill points issue: lately I've been considering ways to do without skill points at all.
In fact, no character points. Nothing but the universal framework for a character, and myriad options to insert into them.
Skills could be more like single abilities, not ranks, that level up with the character, but could also rely more on environment, time spent performing the task, and equipment rather than the character's level. This change would favor NPC blacksmiths, clerks, merchants, experts, and the like doing better at their job than a L20 Fighter that took Craft (Weaponsmithing) or Profession (swabbing-the-poopdeck) as an afterthought.
Also, I'm located here: http://www.tgdmb.com/
This has nothing to do with d20 modern or the Twilight 2000 game. It's a (unfinished) D&D homebrew.