Survery: More Options vs. Bookkeeping

[Person_Man]

I'd like to take a (completely non-representative, non-scientific) survey of the playground:

Lets say you were re-designing D&D from the ground up. (I'm guessing 5E is about 3 years away, so this is not entirely an academic point).

Every class goes up to # levels (presumable 20 or 30).
Each class has a suite of # powers, which encompass the most interesting and fun spells, psionics, maneuvers, and class abilities for that class from every previous edition, plus some new ideas. The powers scale as you gain levels, so you don't need to trade them in for other powers every time you gain a level.
You start off with # number of powers, and you gain an additional power every # levels thereafter (every, even, odd, third, or whatever).
Every class has access to Feats, which are essentially generic Powers which every class can draw upon and racial Powers, and not +1 to Whatever. You start off with # number of Feats, and you gain an additional Feat every # levels thereafter.
After # period of time you can also trade in powers and/or feats, in case you get bored with the ones you have (1 round, a period of meditation, sleep, gaining a level, or whatever).


Your goal is to design a system that is fun and tactically challenging, that is easy enough for a casual gamer to learn in an hour, but complex enough that hard core gamers stick with it. What numbers do you fill in to ensure that there are plenty of different options, but not so many that learning the game and maintaining balance becomes unworkable?

Here is my list:

20 Levels
30 Powers to choose from for each class
5 Powers at 1st level
1 additional Power every even level (total of 15 Powers)
2 Feats at 1st level
1 additional Feat every odd level (total of 10 Feats)
1 minute of meditation to swap out any Power or Feat


What's your sweet spot of Options vs. Bookkeeping, and why?

[drengnikrafe]

First things first. I have very little experience tweaking things for balance. These numbers are more loose guesses then they are "I've played for 10 years, and this is what I've developed" type of thing. Heck, I can't balance something new to save my life. If it wasn't for the piles of resources online, I would have no idea how to do anything but play a blaster wizard and a trapfinder rogue.

With that out of the way...
--10 levels. After that, it becomes epic (which is optional, but sketchy). I have used levels beyond 10 a total of three times in my life. All three turned out very poorly balanced. I can't imagine balancing things at those levels as well.
--25 powers, with the player/DM option to develop more and rules/guidelines for doing so.
--4 powers at first level. That should be enough to get a good feel for how your character lies within your class.
--1 power per level, for a total of 14 powers. After all, why not learn new things all the time? What's the point of leveling up if you don't learn something new about yourself?
--1 feat at first level. Feats are an understanding of what seems to be common knowledge, but people without much experience shouldn't have access to more than the one thing they've focused on outside of their normal studies in their lifetime.
--1 new feat at 2nd, 4th, 5th, 7th, 8th and 10th level(for a total of 7). These numbers.... are pretty much random. They come out to 2/3rds, rounding up. That seemed like a reasonable progression in my mind, though I still have no idea why.
--Switching out abilities must be done in a calm/non-threatening environment, but in such a situation can be done in a minute. You can switch your abilities in a threatening environment as a single action, but doing so gives them some chance of failure. Not everything has to be prepared for, but it's better if you do.

[Satyr]

Question # 1: Why differentiate between feats and powers? I mean what's the point to use two different categories where one is completely sufficient?

Question #2: Who think that switching abilities is a good idea? It doesn't make sense ("Sure, I'm going to forget on which end I hold the sword, but I immediately learn how to cook an awesome coq au vin..."). That's a terrible concept. It's mind-numbingly stupid. And, just to add insult to injury, it also increases the book keeping effort, because you basically have to keep a hold side hand of extra abilities in mind as well. This is an idea for the scrap heap of really stupid ideas, where it firmly belongs.

Okay so...

There are three classes - Warrior, Rogue, Sages. Each of these have a number of variable options from which they can pick a number. In theory, every class can learn any ability, but a different costs. Once chosen, a class cannot be changed afterwards.
Levels go from 1 - 99 (everything beyond is basically supehuman epic), therefore levelling up becomes much more common, but has less significance per level.
At every level, a character gains a number of build points which they can use to gain something nice, whereby the costs in build points depends on the class and chosen ability. Abilities are likewise categorized in the three classes (plus a few neutral ones) with primary classes and secondary ones (so... "Combat Magic" is primary for Sages, secondary for warriors and tertiary for rogues; "Poison Lore" is primary for Rogues, secondary for Sages and Tertiary for Warriors etc,).
Every 10 levels, characters can increase their abilities and a bonus trait based on their race.
Spells and Skills are effectively traits like everything else as well and usually based on a tree model.

[jiriku]

15 levels (roleplaying how your in-game avatar reaches level infinity and becomes a god is a silly immature exercise in wish-fulfillment)
48 powers (that's 3 powers per level, with 6 to choose from at 1st level)
3 at 1st level, 1 every additional level
sure 2 feats at 1st, 1 every other level (caveat, feats should not be new powers, they should be tweaks and customizations of existing powers)
1 hour of meditation to swap a feat (if the in-game opportunity cost of time lost is small, players will swap constantly, which will slow down game play into a menu management experience instead of a heroic roleplaying experience)

[Tyndmyr]

This isn't actually hypothetical for me. I'm currently building an online, multiplayer RPG.

I've come to the conclusion that a sharp power curve is only of use for slowly getting players used to their characters. IE, the leveling up process method of slowly giving them new powers, and getting them used to the mechanics. When strung out over ridiculous amounts of levels, especially if grinding gets involved, it's mostly a crutch for poor game design.

My design.

6 classes
6 Levels
Varying amounts of powers by class, and by individual choice(ie, spell learning). Not all players desire the same number of options.
Minimal power at first level. Hitting things, and casting about two spells, tops. They need to explore the system itself, and learn how things like combat work, first.
Every level brings a larger selection of skills than before.
The final level acknowledges that the player understands their class well now, and they can select among a staggering variety of options, similarly to E6s feats. These may consist of skills, spells, etc, so long as they are thematically appropriate for the class.

[W3bDragon]

Hmm... Since this is supposed to be D&D redesigned, and not just designing any RPG, I'd like to keep some familiar elements in, and since you're asking "why", I'll elaborate on each point.

* 30 levels. 5 low, 20 mid levels, 5 high: Number of levels close enough to original to be familiar, but stretches out the mid-level sweet spot.

* 4 Basic Classes. Warrior, Rogue, Arcane caster, Divine caster: The class gives you a basic skeleton of abilities (proficiency with weapons or spell progression for example) after which, you get to customize your class to recreate all your old favorites or make up new ones.

* Your class improves in a set way each level: So an Arcane caster would still get a small bump to his casting, a warrior gets a small bump to his attack, etc.

* Power points gained every level: Those are spent to improve your character in many ways. That's where the customization comes in.

* Abilities can be bought with power points ala 2nd ed Skills & Powers: They would range from things as simple as +1 attack to as elaborate as purchasing class features like wild shape. Each has a varying cost. Power points may be saved from multiple levels to buy a more expensive ability.

* All your purchased abilities improve slightly every level: Meaning the earlier you pick it up, the better it'll be in the long run.

General level up feel: You'll get a basic improvement in your current class without using power points, but you'll have to purchase abilities like (+1 attack) or (+1 caster level) from time to time to keep your character current compared to his level. If you shop around too much and you have to live with "Jack of all Trades" symptoms. Trying to overspecialize can also work, but will be very costly in power points. Meaning you're probably better off picking up different tricks every now and then.

Discarded stuff:

* Most base classes: I mean really, how many fighter-like base classes do we really need? And why can't a druid just be a customized divine caster?

* Prestige classes: With a point-buy system for all abilities, there is no need for more complication or more classes to overshadow the base classes.

* Retraining Rules: I agree with Satyr here. Really, I can't believe this ever made it to print. Makes no sense, and if people want to fix a mistake they made with their character, they just talk to their DM.

* Endless "Types" of modifiers: There shouldn't be literally 7 different kinds of modifiers for AC. All modifiers should be 3 types: Skill-based, equipment/environment based, and magic-based.

I guess I could go on forever, so I'll just stop here. :smallredface:

[nedz]

Actually I suspect that 4.5 is 3 years away, and 5 is about 8 years off; but who knows - its anyones guess. I also suspect that 5 will be closer to whatever the online games industry is favouring at that point, but this is not the point of your thread.

Options are always good, but the book-keeping nightmare always seems to be prepared spellcaster, especially for the DM of course.

[Thinker]

I'd like to take a (completely non-representative, non-scientific) survey of the playground:

Lets say you were re-designing D&D from the ground up. (I'm guessing 5E is about 3 years away, so this is not entirely an academic point).

Every class goes up to # levels (presumable 20 or 30).
Each class has a suite of # powers, which encompass the most interesting and fun spells, psionics, maneuvers, and class abilities for that class from every previous edition, plus some new ideas. The powers scale as you gain levels, so you don't need to trade them in for other powers every time you gain a level.
You start off with # number of powers, and you gain an additional power every # levels thereafter (every, even, odd, third, or whatever).
Every class has access to Feats, which are essentially generic Powers which every class can draw upon and racial Powers, and not +1 to Whatever. You start off with # number of Feats, and you gain an additional Feat every # levels thereafter.
After # period of time you can also trade in powers and/or feats, in case you get bored with the ones you have (1 round, a period of meditation, sleep, gaining a level, or whatever).


Your goal is to design a system that is fun and tactically challenging, that is easy enough for a casual gamer to learn in an hour, but complex enough that hard core gamers stick with it. What numbers do you fill in to ensure that there are plenty of different options, but not so many that learning the game and maintaining balance becomes unworkable?

What's your sweet spot of Options vs. Bookkeeping, and why?

We almost had a classless system under 3.X. I say go one step further and remove the classes altogether. Build archetypes through prerequisites. What we think of as "Class Features" could be those abilities/powers that require prerequisites, while those that are "Feats" become generic abilities that, while they may tie into certain "Class Features", affect a wide range of abilities (for example, metamagic affects all spell trees). As for trading out abilities, I generally disagree with the concept, though a mechanism for merging weaker abilities (that were strong at the beginning) might be interesting as a character gains power.

In the base book, I think that 6 trees with 8 abilities and 6 trees with 4 abilities to represent various archetypes would work. Spellcasting (x2), outdoorsy (x2), and Fighting (x2) should be all that is needed to get the game off of the ground. In supplements you can introduce new trees and abilities that fit in with the current trees.

[valadil]

So I'm deliberately not answering your numerical questions. I have a couple other ideas I'd like to push instead.

I think powers should be divided into subgroups. I like your idea that feats are essentially generic powers. I'd divide things up a little more though.

I suggest that you can get new abilities as class powers or non class feats.

I also suggest that you can gain static bonuses, again as part of your class or as a generic feat. Static bonuses increase the number of options you can have for your build without increasing the complexity to play the character.

Anyway, I think two choices a level is decent. And the types of ability gained should be staggered. So you'd end up gaining something like:

1: Class ability, class feat
2: Class ability, generic feat
3: Generic ability, class feat
4: Any ability/feat, 1 stat point

Repeat that every 4 levels. You'd probably have to give out a bonus at first level. This setup is assuming something like 20 levels.

On an unrelated thought, I'd also consider giving out powers with options. Some characters are just supposed to have more tricks up their sleeve.

These powers would have two effects. You'd choose one at casting time. They'd be a lot like M:tG's split cards (http://www.collectorscache.com/StoreModules/ProductImages/126/assault_battery.jpg). Each individual option is suboptimal, but you're buying a little versatility.

I feel like this makes a lot of sense for Wizards who want utility. It would also be a decent way to get illusions back in the game. In 4e terms, you might have Major Image. It has two abilities. One is fearsome enemy, which is an attack against will to make the enemy flee combat. The other is a distraction, which could also make someone leave or look away or whatever.

[Person_Man]

Lots of interesting ideas.

Some responses:


Question # 1: Why differentiate between feats and powers? I mean what's the point to use two different categories where one is completely sufficient?

Presumably Powers would be exclusive to a particular Class, whereas Feats would be generic and racial abilities. For example, only the Wizard would have Mirror Image, but everyone could access Improved Toughness. I'm also of the opinion that Skills could be replaced by ability checks, with the more useful Skill functions being taken over by feats. For example, if you want to balance on something narrow, you roll d20 + Dex + 1/2 your class level. If you want to tumble in combat, you need to take the Tumble feat.



Question #2: Who think that switching abilities is a good idea? It doesn't make sense ("Sure, I'm going to forget on which end I hold the sword, but I immediately learn how to cook an awesome coq au vin..."). That's a terrible concept.

I completely concede that it doesn't make a lot of fluffy sense.

But from a crunch perspective, if you have the same suite of Powers and Feats or whatever every combat, then it tends to get boring after a few sessions. And the best campaigns I've played have lasted from 6 months to 3 years. So in my personal opinion, I feel there has to be some mechanism for switching things out, besides just playing a new character.

And I'm sure that some creative person could come up for a rationale that makes some sense. They did a half decent job of it with Tome of Battle, after all.



This isn't actually hypothetical for me. I'm currently building an online, multiplayer RPG.

Sounds interesting. Why no links?




Discarded stuff:

* Most base classes: I mean really, how many fighter-like base classes do we really need? And why can't a druid just be a customized divine caster?

* Prestige classes: With a point-buy system for all abilities, there is no need for more complication or more classes to overshadow the base classes.

* Endless "Types" of modifiers: There shouldn't be literally 7 different kinds of modifiers for AC. All modifiers should be 3 types: Skill-based, equipment/environment based, and magic-based.

I agree that at most, 4-10ish classes are all you need, with no extra layer of PrC. And if I ever homebrew my own system, that's all I'll use. But I've resigned myself to the fact that when 5E comes out, WotC will be committed to publishing 1-3 new game supplements every month. That means they'll need a multiplicity of different classes, even if they're redundantly redundant.

On the modifier front, I'm off the opinion that every non-damage roll in the game should be d20 + Ability Score + 1/2 class level, or some similar formula. The only modifiers should be based on tactics within combat: +2 for Flanking, +2 for Higher Ground, +2 if enemy is Flat Footed, +2 for Aid Another check, -2 if the enemy has already observed you use that specific Power, and so on. I'm sick and tired of the Diablo-like equipment shuffle of +1 weapons and feats, and the ridiculous number of "Types."



We almost had a classless system under 3.X. I say go one step further and remove the classes altogether. Build archetypes through prerequisites.

When I first read your comment, I pretty much dismissed it. Classes have historically been a core part of D&D, and there is no way that they would abandon them. To do so would be to try to re-invent Gurps or some similar generic game.

But now that I've thought about it, I think it's actually a great idea. Organizing powers into archtypes with pre-reqs keeps the basic organization scheme provided by classes, but doesn't delve into the generic miasma of universal powers. It would also remove the funky multi/duel class rules, would add a Jungian spin to things.

Hmmm. Maybe I should set up a wiki.

Thanks Thinker.

[Thinker]

When I first read your comment, I pretty much dismissed it. Classes have historically been a core part of D&D, and there is no way that they would abandon them. To do so would be to try to re-invent Gurps or some similar generic game.

But now that I've thought about it, I think it's actually a great idea. Organizing powers into archtypes with pre-reqs keeps the basic organization scheme provided by classes, but doesn't delve into the generic miasma of universal powers. It would also remove the funky multi/duel class rules, would add a Jungian spin to things.

Hmmm. Maybe I should set up a wiki.

Thanks Thinker.

No problem. If you need help with anything related to this, let me know. I find it interesting.

[Kurald Galain]

Why do you need a distinction between powers and feats? If you want accessibility, having only one category makes it easier; and the distinction has no bearing on the tactics part of the game (which depends on the wording of individual powers and feats).

So as a thought experiment: drop feats, and instead have some "powers" that can be taken by everyone, "generic" or "racial" powers instead of class powers.

[Theodoxus]

I'm going through a thought experiment of not having "levels" but also not starting at "level one" either. Kinda like E6, but starting at 6 and then just progressing through added powers. It's a side trip from my 10 / 8//8 / 6//6//6 idea.

I also helped with the Uber Generics idea - sorry, no link, but it was here at GITP a few years back. Taking the idea of the generic classes from UA and expanding them to include all the newer material. It died a heat loss death, but I think the foundation is sufficient enough to stoke the fires, if that's something you're interested in.

I find 3.x best from 5th to 9th level. So anything that incorporates that feel - even if expanded to 100 levels, would have my support. But anything past 9th starts getting too many hit points / defenses / specialized attacks that make adjudicating a game become a nightmare.

One of the big draws for me to E6 is the limited capacity of the PCs to mitigate their own shortcomings. If I were to sit down and make a skeleton for 5th Ed, I'd take more than a few ideas from the conceptual reasons behind E6 and enhance them. Then I'd look at 4th Ed and learn from what worked and didn't there and combine the two into a new format.