Game Designers ASSEMBLE!

[Ziegander]

I have been inspired. By the success of Kickstarter, by the not-so-great stuff I'm seeing for D&D Next, and by all of the design mistakes Pathfinder repeated from D&D 3.5. I'm convinced that I can put together a better game than the ones we've got, and I'm of the notion to sell it.

This is being cross-posted at minmaxboards.com (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=4905.msg69663#msg69663).

Design goals:

1) Reproduce the play-style and feel of D&D 3.5 while fixing the problems and at the same time creating a game that is different enough that I don't need any rights to anything. This means making a d20 game and not a D&D rewrite. And that's okay.

2) Keep the "Core" rules simple and functional. The fluff needs to inform the mechanics and the mechanics need to inform the fluff. If the Fighter is supposed to be an elite vanguard, seasoned bodyguard, grizzled veteran, and cunning sergeant all in one, then the mechanics need to support all of that at once (and probably allow specialization to some extent). Everything must be easy to understand and hard to screw up. Playable out of the box, as much so, if not more so, than Tome of Battle was/is.

3) Maintain a clear vision of what the product aims to be and to do, and include in that vision a picture of the future. While the core product should be simple and functional, plans to offer expansions with more complex, diverse, and interesting sets of mechanics should be accounted for and encouraged.

The Plan:

Here's where you potentially come in. I can't design a whole new game on my own, even if it is a d20 D&D 3.5 heartbreaker. I've tried it before. I don't normally get very far. I want to put together a team of talented designers, writers, and any optimizers who would like to serve as consultants and playtesters to help me build a better game.

I want to write one book that has all of the rules needed to play + a somewhat short section on game mastering which would include encounter guidelines and monster creation guidelines. This one book should be all one absolutely needs to play the game. In this book, I want a few classes that simply do what they say they do, and do it as simply as we can manage.

I want to make sure I have the team together and make sure that there is enough interest in our product, and then, assuming that both remain true, work on expansions to the single, core rulebook. The first of these expansions should likely be a Monster Manual of sorts (though it would be nice to make this book a catch-all encounter guidebook, with social and puzzle encounters drawn up as well, perhaps call it the Grimoire of Challenges). After that we can design sub-systems to our hearts content, creating our own versions of the Complete series, our own Unearthed Arcanas, and our own Tomes of Battle.

2

So, what I want to know is: Your attention, do I have it? Who would join me on this quest? Who would support me, if not in actually writing the game, with monetary donation (in however small amounts)? In spirit? Let me know if you want to help me out in any way.

[NeoSeraphi]

Seems interesting enough, and I certainly have plenty of time on my hands. As long as I just have to work on mechanics and classes, and can leave setting and monster design to someone else, I wouldn't mind assisting you.

That is, of course, assuming that your team members are being compensated as well? (If you're seriously planning to sell it).

[Ziegander]

That is, of course, assuming that your team members are being compensated as well? (If you're seriously planning to sell it).

Well, that's where the gaming community at large comes in. After I (hopefully) draw some interest to the project, I want to set up a Kickstarter campaign to try and get some money rolling in for it. Included in the budget would not only be the money required to publish the materials, but also a reasonable portion set aside to pay the designers and developers (at a rate competitive with freelance writing pay).

So, if things go well, there's money involved! In addition to the satisfaction and fame that will assuredly go with the creation of such a fine product! :smallwink:

[NeoSeraphi]

So, if things go well, there's money involved! In addition to the satisfaction and fame that will assuredly go with the creation of such a fine product! :smallwink:

Then count me in. Evocation, Sundering, Tanking, Archery, there are way too many things in 3.5 and PF that still need some love.

[TravelLog]

I'm certainly interested, though I do want to hear more about how this would be run and organized when we can't really get together to work.

[Empedocles]

Interested :smallbiggrin: and honored that I was invited to join this project.

I have a ton of questions...so I'm not going to ask them to avoid derailing the initial discussion. Also, if we do a good job and can get interest up in general, I think a modest kickstarter could be quite successful.

Let's Do IT :smallcool:

[GreenSerpent]

I might be interested, despite my inexperience I do know a great deal about what needs fixed.

[Snowbluff]

Seems interesting enough, and I certainly have plenty of time on my hands. As long as I just have to work on mechanics and classes, and can leave setting and monster design to someone else, I wouldn't mind assisting you.

That is, of course, assuming that your team members are being compensated as well? (If you're seriously planning to sell it).


I'm certainly interested, though I do want to hear more about how this would be run and organized when we can't really get together to work.

Yeah, info on how we're running this is important, 8ut if Seraphi and Log are on 8oard, I'll certainly try and contri8ute. :smallsmile:

[Ziegander]

I'm certainly interested, though I do want to hear more about how this would be run and organized when we can't really get together to work.

In the past, I've worked with a team of designers and optimizers to attempt a project of this sort. We actually got quite a lot of work done, even without project leads (like Lead Designer or Lead Developer). What we did then was have a section of our forum sequestered for our use only, private (and invisible as far as I know) to the rest of the forum, where we chatted amongst ourselves every day.

What I would like to do for this project is either a version of the same thing, or start a forum of our own (though with the fees that go along with that I may need to start the Kickstarter before that can happen), where we discuss the project.

The thing I want to do differently is to designate teams and leadership. A clear and finite Design Team with a Lead Designer, that works on the creative side of game mechanics. A clear and finite Development Team with a Lead Developer, that works on the functionality and user-friendliness side of game mechanics.

The Lead Designer (ostensibly myself) would be responsible for establishing the design goals and vision, organizing the design process, and, after weighing the opinions of the design team, making the final decisions on what goes over to development for editing/approval.

The Lead Developer (probably not myself unless no one else wants to do it) would be responsible for organizing the editing and rules-approval process, establishing the criteria with which that process operates, and, after receiving documents from the Lead Designer, preparing the game documents for publication.

[Empedocles]

I'd be interested mostly in initial design, particularly of races and possibly classes/tracks/jobs/occupations/whatever you want to call them.

[Snowbluff]

I'd be interested mostly in initial design, particularly of races and possibly classes/tracks/jobs/occupations/whatever you want to call them.

Same here. I'd like to make some balance in the base classes. Casting and features that didn't work in 3.5 can 8e fixed with some consideration and play testing...

[Larpus]

Definitely interested, have some frustration under my belt for never going anywhere with my own d20-based system (though truth be told, as mentioned, too much work for an individual alone).

I'm also interested in seeing the direction the project as a whole goes, regardless of any involvement on my part, as one of my favorite things about Pathfinder (and IMHO the most successful) were the new classes, especially the Alchemist with which I absolutely fell in love with, both thematically and mechanically-wise.

Aaaaanyway, as for if I do get picked, I can volunteer for at least some setting work and possibly illustrations if you can't get anyone better.

I come from an artsy background for actively trying to make comics back in my highschool days, having a major in graphical design and actually pursuing a comicker career for some years before being smacked to the ground due to harsh reality and having to revise my plans (switching to software development of all things, though I've always liked logical problems and the such).

If anyone's interested, message me and I can link my very outdated and abandoned DA gallery or the couple comics I did for amateur comic sites (never got around to do web comics).

[TravelLog]

In the past, I've worked with a team of designers and optimizers to attempt a project of this sort. We actually got quite a lot of work done, even without project leads (like Lead Designer or Lead Developer). What we did then was have a section of our forum sequestered for our use only, private (and invisible as far as I know) to the rest of the forum, where we chatted amongst ourselves every day.

What I would like to do for this project is either a version of the same thing, or start a forum of our own (though with the fees that go along with that I may need to start the Kickstarter before that can happen), where we discuss the project.

The thing I want to do differently is to designate teams and leadership. A clear and finite Design Team with a Lead Designer, that works on the creative side of game mechanics. A clear and finite Development Team with a Lead Developer, that works on the functionality and user-friendliness side of game mechanics.

The Lead Designer (ostensibly myself) would be responsible for establishing the design goals and vision, organizing the design process, and, after weighing the opinions of the design team, making the final decisions on what goes over to development for editing/approval.

The Lead Developer (probably not myself unless no one else wants to do it) would be responsible for organizing the editing and rules-approval process, establishing the criteria with which that process operates, and, after receiving documents from the Lead Designer, preparing the game documents for publication.

Excellent. I'd be more than happy to help then. Perhaps as Class Coordinator? Regardless, I'm here to help.

[Seerow]

Count me as interested in this, pending more details. In particular I tend towards liking to tinker with core systems (stuff like equipment, underlying math, new subsystems, and the like).


One comment based on what you've said so far though: Don't start the kickstarter immediately after starting the project. Wait until you have a solid core of material together, if not the whole first book, so you can have information available to answer questions and raise interest while trying to raise money for a site/first printing/whatever. It sucks to work without compensation for the time until that much work is done, but it will probably result in better turnout, and most of us here are used to working on this sort of thing just for our own amusement anyway.

[DeAnno]

I'm interested. I have experience playing & optimizing in 3.5e and 4e, as well as some experience in board game design (albeit in a much smaller group of 4 designers).

I'm probably stronger on the math/analysis side, but I'd be willing to try to hash out some setting elements too. I think in a project like this we don't want to cut out the intensity of higher end play, but instead balance and channel that intensity. The Tippyverse may be going too far, but there is a lot to be said for the big, sprawling feel of high level optimized play.

EDIT: As for coordination right now, I would suggest an IRC channel or something like it so we can get some quick discussion going. Chat on a forum is all well and good, but real time can help get things solidified a bit easier.

[Lord of Sporks]

I would be interested in doing some writing for your project. I'd like to help with the story and setting if I can, but I'm also just fine writing rules, descriptions, whatever. If you're interested just let me know.

[Snowbluff]

Excellent. I'd be more than happy to help then. Perhaps as Class Coordinator? Regardless, I'm here to help.

Sweet. I'd totally follow you on this.

I haven't designed anything, 8ut I am an optimizer, and I would like to consult/write classes, and playtest as well.




I'm probably stronger on the math/analysis side, but I'd be willing to try to hash out some setting elements too. I think in a project like this we don't want to cut out the intensity of higher end play, but instead of balance and channel that intensity. The Tippyverse may be going too far, but there is a lot to be said for the big, sprawling feel of high level optimized play.


Yeah, the game should 8e 8alanced 8etween the classes as much as we can do, while keeping a lot of options open for optimization.

[Ziegander]

I'm definitely glad to hear that there are writers/illustrators interested in this project. While I consider myself a qualified writer/illustrator myself, (my old deviantart (http://ziegander.deviantart.com/#) gallery has a few fanfics and some artwork, but I use the word "qualified" loosely) I am planning on doing a lot of crunch-heavy design work on this project, and I don't think I have the endurance to pull that + writing drawing.

@Seerow: That's a good point about Kickstarter. I don't know that needing the entire Core Rulebook fully designed before I get to it is necessary, but you're right that I do need something to show for it. I followed the progress of Legend fairly closely, and I think they did a great job in marketing their product. I don't aim to follow the same path (spiritually or game-mechanics-wise), but I do think there are lessons to be learned from some of the things they did.

[TravelLog]

Well along with homebrewing, I'm also a journalism major in an excellent program with (what I personally consider) to be a great deal of writing talent, so I'm willing to definitely help on the writing end as well as on classes/sub-systems.

A couple things to consider:
--Exchanging Skype/chat/email information
--Making a blog/forum for ourselves to compile and analyze materials
--Establishing who will be working on what and our primary focus (first step, etc.)

[Snowbluff]

I'm definitely glad to hear that there are writers/illustrators interested in this project. While I consider myself a qualified writer/illustrator myself, (my old deviantart (http://ziegander.deviantart.com/#) gallery has a few fanfics and some artwork, but I use the word "qualified" loosely) I am planning on doing a lot of crunch-heavy design work on this project, and I don't think I have the endurance to pull that + writing drawing.


I lakc any sort of training, but I am artist as well. I've 8een practicing, but my DA has 8een dead besides a few doodles from a while ago. The doodles I did in the last week will 8e posted soon.


Well along with homebrewing, I'm also a journalism major in an excellent program with (what I personally consider) to be a great deal of writing talent, so I'm willing to definitely help on the writing end as well as on classes/sub-systems.

A couple things to consider:
--Exchanging Skype/chat/email information
--Making a blog/forum for ourselves to compile and analyze materials
--Establishing who will be working on what and our primary focus (first step, etc.)

Lol, supposed Math major here. I don't think an understanding of calculus and physics will 8e very useful. :smalltongue:

I am all for getting the 8all rolling. I need something to occupy myself 8etween classes.

[Darth Stabber]

This is pertinent to my interests. My Souleater d20 game has hit some major snags and I am taking a break from it. You might look at some of the d20r that Fax heads up.

The temptation is to focus on some of the late 3.5 material, but since it isn't SRD content you would have some legal issues with anything too similar, which is really sad because that is some of the better content.

If you would rather travel the path I started on, I finished 2 of the 3 fixed list spont. casters to complete the cycle begun by Warmage, Beguiler, and Dread Necromancer, which I think is an option, though the first three aren't SRD necessitating a fair bit of work to avoid copyright claims. That being said I think that it might be better to replace Vancian casting with something like psionics.

[Snowbluff]

If you would rather travel the path I started on, I finished 2 of the 3 fixed list spont. casters to complete the cycle begun by Warmage, Beguiler, and Dread Necromancer, which I think is an option, though the first three aren't SRD necessitating a fair bit of work to avoid copyright claims. That being said I think that it might be better to replace Vancian casting with something like psionics.

Yeah, I've been thinking a8out some changes to the casting similar to this, 8ut let's save any such discussion for when we start production, okay? :smallsmile:

[Gnorman]

Count me in.

I have experience primarily in class design, though I also have worked on races and setting design (not so much monsters, though I'd be willing to try my hand). I lean more towards theoretical and creative aspects of play (I rarely, if ever, sit down at a physical gaming table). I value balance, modularity, and clarity in terms of design, and am especially interested in ways that class mechanics and fluff can support and reinforce each other. I also vastly prefer low fantasy and realistic settings, but I am willing to work in the higher echelons if necessary.

I am also an experienced freelance writer and editor, should the more nitpicky elements be required.

[Larpus]

Well, I'm by no means a professional illustrator and not the greatest colorist (but I think I can manage myself).

Not sure what I was thinking for not showing in the first place, but here's my DA (baratacom.deviantart.com), my void profile (http://entervoid.com/index.php?action=profile;u=2035) (click on the characters' names/icons to check their pages and get to their comics, for the record, the characters are TAP, Kigan Rider and Dood...oh and don't use that e-mail, I don't check it anymore).

It's not much, but I thought it would be good to share.

[Ziegander]

Well, I'm by no means a professional illustrator and not the greatest colorist (but I think I can manage myself).

Not sure what I was thinking for not showing in the first place, but here's my DA (baratacom.deviantart.com), my void profile (http://entervoid.com/index.php?action=profile;u=2035) (click on the characters' names/icons to check their pages and get to their comics, for the record, the characters are TAP, Kigan Rider and Dood...oh and don't use that e-mail, I don't check it anymore).

It's not much, but I thought it would be good to share.

I'd say you definitely manage. You may not be a Wayne Reynolds (http://paizo.com/image/content/RiseOfTheRunelords/Pathfinder5.jpg) (of Pathfinder artwork fame), but you definitely have the lineart and coloring skill to render dynamic images. Thank you for posting these.

[Kuulvheysoon]

I'll contribute what I can.

I've got some ideas for a default campaign setting, if you're planning on making one, as well as experience in pretty much all the sub-systems of 3.5e.

[Craft (Cheese)]

One question before I decide to dive into this: This project sounds suspiciously like Legend. What are you hoping to accomplish with this that Legend didn't?

[Endarire]

I agree with Craft (Cheese). Legend sought to do the d20 thing while streamlining 3.5.

One likely problem with this project is that D&D 3.5 is so ingrained in so many of us that it is d20 for us. D20 Modern and other d20 games just don't feel like D&D. Also, since this isn't D&D, how do we hope to attract an audience? (Not being fatalistic, just inquisitive.)

[Fable Wright]

I foresee a problem here...

Your objective is to replace the playstyle and feel of 3.5, while also keeping 'core' rules simple and functional. Those two goals are irreconcilable. The main draw to 3.5 is the sheer versatility of classes, and the different things you can have your character be. The feel of the system is inherently tied to the baggage that it comes with, and that can't be easily replicated, requiring much time and far, far too much playtesting. With the additional baggage, you have additional content that needs to be thoroughly playtested, and will probably combo with something else in bizarre ways. An additional problem would be to try to capture this feel of the infinite variety of prestige classes with a finite amount of options, without pursuing the track combination option that Legend did. Then, even if you succeed in making a product, you would have to be marketing it against Legend in the Indie d20 games department, Pathfinder for the 3.5 nostalgia bit, and all of the other games people developed in the meantime. How do you plan on dealing with all of those factors? If you had a good plan, I'd be happy to help, but if it's just a goal of "Let's make this game, but better!" with no ideas beyond that, I can't see it getting off the ground. To start, what, exactly, are you trying to replicate? Early 3.5? The infinite possibilities? What are the features that you want to base this product around? Then, what, exactly, are you trying to get rid of? Just get rid of wizards being better at things than people who specialize in those things? Keep the discrepancy of power, but with characters not getting class features more powerful than entire classes? Take Legend's philosophy of A' = A? What are you shooting for?

EDIT: Ninja'd by three people. Wow.

[Snowbluff]

I'd personally want to make something at least marginally compatible with 3.5, just screwing around with things in order to weed out what actually causes imbalance, and fixing it without heavily altering the classes individually, and keeping the inherit diversity.

[Seerow]

I agree that exact goals are needed, even before a design team is picked. For example different people will be interested if the goal is 3.5 streamlined (ie Pathfinder 2), or if it is a new spinoff that is more divergent mechanically while still trying to capture the same feel.

I for one would need to hear answers to DMofDarkness's questions before signing up to work on a 3.5 streamlining. As has been pointed out, this has been done a couple of times. And honestly something more divergent is something I'd be more likely to work on just for the fun of it, so I wouldn't feel like a lot of effort was wasted if it doesn't take off.

[katiesaur]

While this sounds really interesting, I probably wouldn't be much help as I'm not a particularly experienced roleplayer. I'm a Creative Writing major so I could do flavor text, but it sounds like you don't need much of that. If you do find yourself needing extra writers though, I'd be happy to help. Either way, I will definitely keep an eye out for this!

[Kuulvheysoon]

I foresee a problem here...


Your objective is to replace the playstyle and feel of 3.5, while also keeping 'core' rules simple and functional. Those two goals are irreconcilable. The main draw to 3.5 is the sheer versatility of classes, and the different things you can have your character be. The feel of the system is inherently tied to the baggage that it comes with, and that can't be easily replicated, requiring much time and far, far too much playtesting. With the additional baggage, you have additional content that needs to be thoroughly playtested, and will probably combo with something else in bizarre ways. An additional problem would be to try to capture this feel of the infinite variety of prestige classes with a finite amount of options, without pursuing the track combination option that Legend did. Then, even if you succeed in making a product, you would have to be marketing it against Legend in the Indie d20 games department, Pathfinder for the 3.5 nostalgia bit, and all of the other games people developed in the meantime. How do you plan on dealing with all of those factors? If you had a good plan, I'd be happy to help, but if it's just a goal of "Let's make this game, but better!" with no ideas beyond that, I can't see it getting off the ground. To start, what, exactly, are you trying to replicate? Early 3.5? The infinite possibilities? What are the features that you want to base this product around? Then, what, exactly, are you trying to get rid of? Just get rid of wizards being better at things than people who specialize in those things? Keep the discrepancy of power, but with characters not getting class features more powerful than entire classes? Take Legend's philosophy of A' = A? What are you shooting for?

EDIT: Ninja'd by three people. Wow.

I couldn't have put it better myself.

[Ziegander]

One question before I decide to dive into this: This project sounds suspiciously like Legend. What are you hoping to accomplish with this that Legend didn't?

While Legend is technically a d20 game (I think), it might as well be a completely different game from D&D. In fact, I'm hard-pressed to come up with any similarities between what I hope to accomplish and what Legend has accomplished aside from, "guys from a forum got together and designed an RPG."

What I hope to accomplish is actually much more comparable to Pathfinder than it is to Legend. Legend designed a completely different, working game. Pathfinder took the d20 SRD, copy-pasta'd it, houseruled it, and then added lots of content to it that made Fighters even worse and Wizards even better.

I want to take the d20 SRD, use the rules that work as advertised, fix any rules that do not work as advertised so that they do work that way, streamline overly complicated rules, and work to make sure everything is simple and functional enough to facilitate fun gameplay, out of the box, that is hard to screw up.


Legend sought to do the d20 thing while streamlining 3.5.

I disagree with you. Legend designed a completely new game. That's not my objective. I want to make a version of D&D that is simple and functional. Pathfinder changed a bunch of stuff that didn't need changing and added a bunch of pretty ribbons, and bells, and whistles on top of things, but it didn't actually fix anything and it made balance worse.

I'm talking about performing surgery on D&D. Some stuff can probably actually stand to be removed from D&D. Some stuff does need changing and other stuff can be left as it is. Perhaps some things do need to be added to the game, but not "to remove dead levels" or something else silly like that. Adding to the game needs to be done to fill a void in the design that is otherwise unsupported.


One likely problem with this project is that D&D 3.5 is so ingrained in so many of us that it is d20 for us. D20 Modern and other d20 games just don't feel like D&D. Also, since this isn't D&D, how do we hope to attract an audience? (Not being fatalistic, just inquisitive.)

I want this project to be much more D&D than Legend is, I'm just acknowledging the fact that I can't call it D&D. Most people would still consider Pathfinder to be D&D, even though it isn't D&D. I want to aim for that spirit, but with a much more honest and useful execution.



The main draw to 3.5 is the sheer versatility of classes, and the different things you can have your character be.

I believe perhaps you are misreading some of my design goals. It is not my intent to abolish player choice or character customization. Simple and functional =/= boringstraightjacketcookiecutter.


To start, what, exactly, are you trying to replicate? Early 3.5? The infinite possibilities?

To start with, I would like the core product to be a streamlined reflection of the D&D 3.5 Player's Handbook + Dungeon Master's Guide. Remember, simplified =/= gutted. The infinite possibilities can be handled to some degree with better designed classes, clever multiclassing rules, and better feats. It's not the goal to produce a single book that covers the entirety of possibility that 3.5 does. But expansion products are always something that could exist on the horizon.


What are the features that you want to base this product around?

Not entirely sure what you're trying to get at. The product is meant to be based around the d20 SRD and making a more concise, coherent, and functional game out of it.

Or maybe, "rules that do what they say they do." That's the one big guiding principle aside from "simple and functional." But they go hand in hand.


Then, what, exactly, are you trying to get rid of?

The only things I mentioned specifically wanting to be rid of, from the d20 SRD specifically, were rules that do not do what they say they do.


Just get rid of wizards being better at things than people who specialize in those things? Keep the discrepancy of power, but with characters not getting class features more powerful than entire classes? Take Legend's philosophy of A' = A? What are you shooting for?

I'm shooting for a game that borrows as many rules from the d20 SRD as possible, that plays as closely to D&D 3.5 as it can, but that allows one player to play a Human Fighter and another to play a Dragonborn Fire Elf Wizard, both players to choose whatever options sound coolest, and both players not only be equally powerful (or as close as possible), but both players' characters actually do the things that their classes and options say that they can do. A game where simple vs complex does not = impotent vs powerful. A game whose optimization floor doesn't drop out from underneath you, and where the optimization ceiling isn't vanishingly far away.

You say that this is impossible. That my goals are irreconcilable. I say, I find your lack of faith disturbing.

[NeoSeraphi]

What I hope to accomplish is actually much more comparable to Pathfinder than it is to Legend. Legend designed a completely different, working game. Pathfinder took the d20 SRD, copy-pasta'd it, houseruled it, and then added lots of content to it that made Fighters even worse and Wizards even better.

I want to take the d20 SRD, use the rules that work as advertised, fix any rules that do not work as advertised so that they do work that way, streamline overly complicated rules, and work to make sure everything is simple and functional enough to facilitate fun gameplay, out of the box, that is hard to screw up.



I disagree with you. Legend designed a completely new game. That's not my objective. I want to make a version of D&D that is simple and functional.


...In that case, I have to ask, is that entirely legal? :smalleek: I don't really want to participate in anything that's going to get me sued. I mean, I suppose Paizo did this and made money off of it without any copyright infringement, but do you think that we'd get away with that too? After all, designing a game with intent to sell is a lot different than just posting creations on a forum.

[Seerow]

...In that case, I have to ask, is that entirely legal? :smalleek: I don't really want to participate in anything that's going to get me sued. I mean, I suppose Paizo did this and made money off of it without any copyright infringement, but do you think that we'd get away with that too? After all, designing a game with intent to sell is a lot different than just posting creations on a forum.

That's basically what the SRD was created for. Anything located on d20srd.org is considered open source, and thus fair game for anybody to use/modify/publish as they please.


Please note I'm not a lawyer and this is not official legal counsel. If you wish to be 100% certain please contact a real attorney

[NeoSeraphi]

That's basically what the SRD was created for. Anything located on d20srd.org is considered open source, and thus fair game for anybody to use/modify/publish as they please.


Right...yeah, that's right, I forgot about that. Okay, mini-crisis averted, enthusiasm is back!

I don't want any fancy titles or leadership roles, just have one of the guys who is selected to be in charge give me some basic concepts and I'll do what I can with them.

[Ziegander]

Seerow beat me to it, but yes, everything in the d20 SRD is open source under the Open Gaming License. Consulting with an expert on the matter is obviously a priority, but there are many games that have used the d20 SRD material, published themselves, and sold product in order to make money. Paizo didn't "get away" with anything. They created a perfectly legal product using the SRD and following the Open Gaming License.

[Fable Wright]

You say that this is impossible. That my goals are irreconcilable. I say, I find your lack of faith disturbing.

I found your lack of specifics in the original post to be disturbing. The 'playstyle and feel' of 3.5 means any number of things to any number of different people. I view the playstyle as the ability to support any concept and have a near infinite number of classes, prestige classes, and feats to work with, each with different break points to create dynamic characters that despite differences in power, form a cohesive team (usually). You obviously view it in a different light, and people who play games inseparable from the high levels of optimization view it in another light. I was trying to get you to clarify what, exactly, you were trying to set out to do. Trying to reconcile my views of the infinite combinations as the basis of 3.5 and a simple, steamlined core rulebook with a few classes that provide the same combinations is impossible, hence my initial impression. While I'm not doubting that the system you have in mind gives some flexibility, it doesn't have the sheer flexibility of being able to create almost any concept imaginable with enough system mastery. When I want a game with infinite ways of building characters while still containing a linear advancement system and a d20 number generator, I play 3.5. If I wanted a game that gives me a few possibilities, and gives me a few options to choose between that aren't that bad but shoehorn me into a role, I would play 4e. When I want to play a streamlined game that still satisfies my desire of massive combinations to fill any role I want while not needing supporting roles, I play Legend. When I want to play a system for being awesome and having a lot of flexibility in a nonlinear structure, I play Exalted. I want to know exactly what niche there your game would fill; would it try to be legend? What type of game would I want to play to be interested in playing this system? From what I can tell, you want a linear game that can mesh with 3.5 for the most part and fixes most of the balance issues. There have been numerous attempts, and most do it well. There are 3.5 alternates (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=160424) that still use the same rules, and seem to accomplish what you're trying to do. There are houserules saying 'Everyone is tier 3 or 4!' or the E6 variant for the balance issues. My question is: What is your problem with the system, how do you want to change it, and how will that affect the system? You have started to answer that. A streamlined version of the PHB and the DMG. What does that mean to you? Using just the base rules is a bad idea in general; it discourages multiclassing and prevents people from letting all of their character concepts work. Are you going to return to 2nd edition dual classing for that? Or do you have another idea in mind? You said that you wanted the rules to do what they said they do. For the most part, they do. Barbarians do smash face. Fighters are trained combat professionals. Wizards alter reality to suit them better. Classes work the way they were designed; it was just that some features were accidentally added in. Clerics turned out to be able to buff themselves to be stronger than fighters, Wizards turn out to be a bit too strong with higher level spells, etc. Do you just want something like the Heroic D&D system with casters and a ban list for them? Or something far deeper? Just "SRD rewrite that is more streamlined" is a start, but nowhere near a framework for what you would try to do with the system.

Also, Legend is, as Brian Clevinger put it, 3.5 edition cast through 4th edition philosophies. It started as a goal to streamline 3.5, eliminate balance issues, and still keep the flexibility that was inherent in the 3.5 system. Rather than keep it 'in house' with all 3.5 philosophies, though, they turned to 4th edition for help with making a system that would be balanced against itself (which 4th edition, admittedly, does for the most part). Their guiding philosophy, as I understand it, is A' = A (every character is as powerful as any other character) while still keeping the character creation flexibility of 3.5e. I'm not too familiar with the details, as I was not involved in the process, but you could probably PM Doc Roc to get the full description of exactly what went down with the Legend project.

[Spuddles]

If you want to play test over AIM or something, I'd be down.

[ILM]

Fixing 3.5e is fixing magic, fixing rocket tag, and fixing all the mechanics that scale wrong as the game progresses (e.g. attack bonuses vs. AC, spell DCs vs. saves, etc.). There. The rest, mostly, is houserule territory, just selectively adjusting and banning the broken stuff. I am very skeptical that the above fixes are possible without an extensive rewrite of the most basic mechanics that would either render most of the supplement material obsolete, or at least require some fairly detailed conversion work by players and DMs to field it.

I wish you the best of luck and will be following your project with great curiosity. :smallsmile:

[Chess435]

Ziegander, you have my sword. metaphorically speaking, that is

Before we do anything else, we need a cohesive plan. That means brainstorming time. What are the biggest problems, from a game-balance perspective, with 3.5 and Pathfinder? Examples:

- Linear Warriors, Quadratic Wizards. The scaling of classes over the course of level-ups is all out of whack. Casters learn to rewrite the laws of reality, while non-casters hit things harder.

- Rocket Tag. Far too often, the winner of a fight is decided by the initiative roll, especially at higher levels, where instant-kill effects are tossed around like confetti.

etc., etc.

Once we can quantify exactly what the problems with the system(s) and their root causes are, then we're in a much better position to begin changing things.

[DeAnno]

and fixing all the mechanics that scale wrong as the game progresses (e.g. attack bonuses vs. AC, spell DCs vs. saves, etc.). :

A lot of that at least could actually be fairly elegantly done by tweaking gear prices, some spell effects, and monster AC. The inherent physics of the system isn't really wrong, it's just not implemented very well.

[Suddo]

So sense you have stated almost no design goals let me lay out what I think I would want to do.
My Premises/Goals:
I would personally rather create splatbooks for the d20 system that we found balanced when played seperately. If one of our spells is borked because it combos with one printed in some 3.5 book, okay I don't care if you mix our products with others we cant' garuntee the result will be good only that our main product is good. We should start with a core-esque book, I'd personally like to make a website similar to the srd and just link to the srd to remove almost all "you're claiming this is your stuff" claims, any pdfs we do (that may have art) should be done without base rules. We should be open to the ability to change things about core mechanics but would want to avoid anything drastic or to fall fate to one of PF's flaws of just enough change that you can't remember it.
*To create a balanced content.
*Many if not all the classes should be good out of the box, Warblade is a great example of this.
*People should still feel like they have a customizable class with Prestige *Classes, Alternate Class features and ability to multiclass.
*Give the players positive reasons to do things you want them to not negative reasons to not do things you don't want them to do. A buff not nerf attitude. This is applicable from anything from Multiclassing to other things.
I'm, personally, a big fan of high tier 3 as far as power is concerned. This is a personal goal and I understand if you disagree.

Problems:
*Quadratic Wizard vs Linear Fighter: The classic problem with the D&D. A caster's spells quickly eclipse the fighter's abilities and even with "well the fighter can go all day" the caster either has enough things up his sleeve or simply chooses to stop fighting after a point because he's done for the day.
*Rocket Tag: Who goes first wins is a common idea in D&D it is particularly problematic when the DM tries to play as a death of a PC in many gaming circles, not all, is a bad thing.
*SAD classes: This is a slightly personal one. I think that classes that are too sad are bad. The wizard is a prime example of this, int is a strong stat to have as your main stat. I'd also argue that having an off stat benifit is a good things, from the Swordsage's Wis to AC or the Warblade Int to a couple things to requiring people to have combat stats. This is often a problem with casters too where they only really need to worry about cranking one stat as high as possible, then they usually worry about Con so they don't die but everyone has to worry about that.

Solutions:
*Wizard^2 Fighter*2: Take away 9s, yes its harsh but its a decent nerf and the large majority of ninth level spells are stupid. Limited spellcasting, either in the form of something like Beguiler or Psionic. I'd also prefer if everyone is a magic user but that is personal preference, even if its on the fluff side (like a Warblade using magic to power his Ex abilities) I think it should be kind of understood that everyone uses magic.
*Rocket Tag: I believe in that people should have an amount of failed Save vs Death tokens a day. If you fail a save vs death (or maybe any save) you can throw in the token and act like you saved. One major problem is figuring out what to make this dependant on, it could be Con or BAB or anyone of a dozen things.
*SAD classes: Just give everyone a reason not to crank one stat as high as it goes. You can make saves different than Bonus Spells or give additional bonuses if you have a higher off stat.


Things I want to avoid:
The main thing here is to not go too far from the srd's rules. I could add in a few things but it should be almost completely compatible with previous things, even if the power level is different.

Personal ideas:
I'd like to keep both Psionics and Spell Slot casters (I forget the name) they are both good systems and have their own ups and downs. We need to figure out our own melee is cool system. We can't have everyone be Psychic Warriors and Duskblades we need some of them to stray away from the classical "magic" things like Tome of Battle did, be creative hell Incarnum is one of the coolest books ever and its weird.

Edit: Oh I forgot to mention its 5AM and I haven't been I'm a little sleep deprived. I'll be going to bed right after this. But hopefully something good can come out of this.

[Jimbob]

Im well up for this as I have been trying to get a few of my bits published for years.
Im a creative writer that loves building up worlds, citys, countrys, towns and adventures so if and when the time comes that you have a system in place, I would be more then happy to make up as many adventures as possible to help get this off the ground, as we all love a good pre-made the first few times we play :smallbiggrin:

I would also love to be invloved with the monster side of things as I love coming up with new and creative ways to kill the party.

Oh and my partner has a degree in english and does proff reading on the side so she comes in very handy as my english is not 100%.

[marcielle]

Have 3 months of WAY TOO MUCH time on my hand coming up, near absolute 3.5 rules mastery, pretty good PF rules mastery, imagination on overdrive, half a medical degree, experience with several other RPG systems and a great love of all tabletop gaming.

But the what and how? I know it's been asked before but it really is the most important question. Simplification? Creating balance? What does this actually entail? Is this meant to be a massive houserule or something? Sounds to me sorta like a big splatbook/errata.

Or were you assembling this team with the intent we figure this all out together? I've got some ideas but I'd feel much better with a clearer vision/design goal.

[Darth Stabber]

Spell Slot casters (I forget the name)

Vancian casters, though some will argue that this term only applies to prepped casters.

[Empedocles]

I haven't finished reading all of the posts here, but one thought as to keeping a ton of possibilities open (since there's no way we could replicate the sheer number of options WotC produced for 3.5 in any realistic amount of time) would be to make sure this stays more or less compatible with 3.5.

...not directly compatible I guess, since then we're not doing much new, but at least convertible.

Also, I think that even with Pathfinder and Legend, there's a lot of room for a streamlined 3.5. It would either have to stay closer to the original, or find a place in between PF and Legend IMHO.

[Garwain]

Also, I think that even with Pathfinder and Legend, there's a lot of room for a streamlined 3.5.
I agree. It seems you want to stay true to the original, but scrap some wonky rules, add a few homebrew to balance things out, finish with a new layer of fluff and a streamlined 3.5 is born.

In fact... maybe a good working title: "Streamline 3.5"

[Gnorman]

One major simplification (and a big balance-fixing issue): no more prepared casters.

If there's any one recommendation I'd make, blasphemous as it is to D&D, it's that.

[NeoSeraphi]

I personally think that we should just dump SoDs altogether. I have never read a single book or seen a single movie or have any source of lore where a wizard or a cleric simply used his magic to kill a creature (the exception being video games like Final Fantasy). "Death magic"? What is that? It really doesn't seem to exist anywhere. When you see a wizard kill someone in lore (like, actually kill someone, which is actually quite rare, in my experience), it's generally with lightning or fire, or by causing a boulder or something to fall on them, or summoning a creature to their aid.

The idea that magic exists that simply kills a creature, no questions asked, no real other explanation, they just die, irks me. So I think we should just dump it all and improve evocation magic to compensate. Rework metamagic and metamagic reducers, and scale hit points accordingly, to make sure that no caster can kill an appropriate CR encounter with a single spell. (He can certainly "end" the encounter with a single BC, but that at least allows the rest of the party to mop up afterwards. Actual death magic on the other hand, that's anticlimactic.)

[Empedocles]

I personally think that we should just dump SoDs altogether. I have never read a single book or seen a single movie or have any source of lore where a wizard or a cleric simply used his magic to kill a creature (the exception being video games like Final Fantasy). "Death magic"? What is that? It really doesn't seem to exist anywhere. When you see a wizard kill someone in lore (like, actually kill someone, which is actually quite rare, in my experience), it's generally with lightning or fire, or by causing a boulder or something to fall on them, or summoning a creature to their aid.

The idea that magic exists that simply kills a creature, no questions asked, no real other explanation, they just die, irks me. So I think we should just dump it all and improve evocation magic to compensate. Rework metamagic and metamagic reducers, and scale hit points accordingly, to make sure that no caster can kill an appropriate CR encounter with a single spell. (He can certainly "end" the encounter with a single BC, but that at least allows the rest of the party to mop up afterwards. Actual death magic on the other hand, that's anticlimactic.)

I agree. In fact, I'd go farther. In a lot of literature, magic is mostly much more subtle then it is in D&D, and when it makes a blatant appearance (such as a fireball or a magical shield) it's a very rare, very powerful event. There are exceptions, but they're just that. Exceptions.

A few examples (by no means exhaustive):

Lord of the Rings. The biggest single inspiration to D&D, IMHO.
The Dresden Files
A Game of Thrones (forgive me if this doesn't apply. I've only heard about this series, but have not yet read it. From what I understand though, putting it here is fairly accurate)
Chronicles of Narnia
The Dark Tower (bolded for brilliance)
IIRC the Earthsea books. Been a long time though...
His Dark Materials

The exceptions are often very much inspired by D&D, or even appear in D&D (e.g. Dragonlance and the Forgotten Realms).

Mechanically speaking, I think magic should be in more of a support/buffing/subtle role and not so much epic explosions. Summoning should probably stay though.

[ILM]

Let me be the first one here to point out avada kedavra. There.

But I agree. Personally, I've houseruled that SoDs instead send you straight to -10 hp (note that I have alternate dying rules as well: in practice, it gives the party 1 round to save whoever got dropped by healing him to above -10). I've seen people suggest they deal a fixed amount of damage, which actually works too (like Finger of Death doesn't kill you, it deals like 1d6/CL, max 20 - or whatever amount you think is appropriate).

[Snowbluff]

The exceptions are often very much inspired by D&D, or even appear in D&D (e.g. Dragonlance and the Forgotten Realms).

Mechanically speaking, I think magic should be in more of a support/buffing/subtle role and not so much epic explosions. Summoning should probably stay though.

I don't think so. We should make specialization more important than it is in 3.5, where the biggest problem is the versatility of the strongest classes is overpowering. Limiting the variety of spells available to one character, like with Bequiler or DN, has proven to be an effective way of achieving a sort of balance.

Cutting things like awesome fireballs is not okay, while I agree on the SoDs. Fireball isn't a balance issue, which should be considered before fluff based destruction of the spell lists.

[NeoSeraphi]

Mechanically speaking, I think magic should be in more of a support/buffing/subtle role and not so much epic explosions. Summoning should probably stay though.

The problem here is that, as you've stated, D&D exists and has created a "sub-culture" of magical lore and peoples' expectations for it. Our primary buyer demographic will definitely be current D&D players, and if we don't give them most of the options they expect after playing 3.5, we probably won't sell that well.

The difference between SoDs and blasting is that blasting is actually pretty fun, at least, from what I understand. I've seen a lot of people on this site who will roll blasters, or homebrew improved blasters, heck, even make classes that are all about blasting. Blasting has a very powerful feel, it's because the magic is so flashy, that's what makes it cool.

SoDs, on the other hand, are just "necessary" in 3.5, but they almost always suck the fun out of a game. The DM has to go out of his way to make every major boss immune to death effects so that the encounter doesn't end in one spell, and if he doesn't and doesn't DM fiat it, then the encounter just ends. In one spell.

Meanwhile, a DM can easily just slap a little fire resistance on the BBEG, just enough to reduce your sorcerer's attack damage so that you have to spend more time shooting him with fire, without outright making the BBEG immune to it.

Let me put it to you this way. The current CR system expects that each of 4 players should be able to handle 4 CR-appropriate encounters per day. In that respect, a player who is using all of his or her resources at once should be able to take down a CR-appropriate encounter on his own (note that this is not always the case, it just should be, which is what we should be aiming for). If magic is only support and buffing, then how does the mage deal damage? Summoning is not the answer, summoned creatures generally deal terrible damage unless you spend a bunch of feats to optimize them, and then if you do, it becomes overpowered because you're adding another character to the initiative who is as powerful as the rest of the group, which unbalances the effective CR of the group as a whole.

That's why blasting exists. A mage needs to be able to deal damage (also it's just awesome. I can't explain why, but shooting lightning is awesome and touching someone and having them die is not. Maybe it's just me, I don't know).

[Seerow]

I dunno, I see Save or Dies as kind of like the anti-healing. A 9th level Cleric can bring a dead body back to life, no questions how it's done, a 9th level Wizard can kill a living body, no questions how it's done.

That said, even if you ignore straight save or dies, there's still save or sucks. Because yes, the Wizard turning an enemy into a toad to end the fight is something you totally expect of wizards. The medussa turning someone into stone is something that you can't really leave out. While these don't kill the target, they take them out of the fight completely, and that's enough.

I don't see anyone who decided not to move to 4e saying "You know what, I want blasting to be the main thing every wizard does". The trick isn't to get rid of all the other options, but find a way to balance them.

[NeoSeraphi]

I dunno, I see Save or Dies as kind of like the anti-healing. A 9th level Cleric can bring a dead body back to life, no questions how it's done, a 9th level Wizard can kill a living body, no questions how it's done.

That said, even if you ignore straight save or dies, there's still save or sucks. Because yes, the Wizard turning an enemy into a toad to end the fight is something you totally expect of wizards. The medussa turning someone into stone is something that you can't really leave out. While these don't kill the target, they take them out of the fight completely, and that's enough.

Right. Those are fine, because they make sense in lore, and are reversible.



I don't see anyone who decided not to move to 4e saying "You know what, I want blasting to be the main thing every wizard does". The trick isn't to get rid of all the other options, but find a way to balance them.

Ah, sorry if you misunderstood. I didn't say blasting should be the only option, just that it shouldn't be removed. Vilpich said "no epic explosions" and I said "no, no, we need the epic explosions!"

I still want all the SoS and SoL and buffing and summoning and etc to stay.

[Larpus]

Maybe we should make absolute show stoppers not really battle options (at least not until you have some layers of debuff on the target), this way, if you want to polymorph someone into a toad, you can, but you have to work for it.

That's also something I usually feel lacking in D&D in general: it's all too binary, things either are or aren't, you either hit or you missed, the spell worked or it didn't; no degree to how much X happened and rather little way to debuff enemies so they're now vulnerable to something they were not a moment ago.

I personally believe this can go a long way to help balance, since now we have nuances and things can go higher or lower depending on what happened and if we spread debuffing options, especially to the melee crowd, that might create some interesting party dynamics and tactics, similar to the combo moves in Valkyrie Profile (anyone remember that game?).

[Seerow]

Maybe we should make absolute show stoppers not really battle options (at least not until you have some layers of debuff on the target), this way, if you want to polymorph someone into a toad, you can, but you have to work for it.

That's also something I usually feel lacking in D&D in general: it's all too binary, things either are or aren't, you either hit or you missed, the spell worked or it didn't; no degree to how much X happened and rather little way to debuff enemies so they're now vulnerable to something they were not a moment ago.

I personally believe this can go a long way to help balance, since now we have nuances and things can go higher or lower depending on what happened and if we spread debuffing options, especially to the melee crowd, that might create some interesting party dynamics and tactics, similar to the combo moves in Valkyrie Profile (anyone remember that game?).

Well this gets back to how much Ziegander wants to change.

One possibility that was discussed in another thread was a subsystem introduced replacing attacks of opportunity. Actions that previously provoked AoOs would raise a character's opportunity score, and various actions could raise or lower the score for yourself or your target. Lower values might be usable for something like "Take an extra attack against this target as a free action", but higher values might be required to use more powerful attacks. So a Save or Die might require the target to have 30 opportunity on him. This means there must be build up and cooperation within the party to get it off against an on-level challenge. But you could also have something like a creature lower level that you always has X opportunity (depending on how big the difference is). So a skilled fighter will find himself cleaving through hordes of low level enemies, and a Wizard could unleash his high requirement finisher against mooks to show off without any sort of setup.

[Snowbluff]

I dunno, I see Save or Dies as kind of like the anti-healing. A 9th level Cleric can bring a dead body back to life, no questions how it's done, a 9th level Wizard can kill a living body, no questions how it's done.

That said, even if you ignore straight save or dies, there's still save or sucks. Because yes, the Wizard turning an enemy into a toad to end the fight is something you totally expect of wizards. The medussa turning someone into stone is something that you can't really leave out. While these don't kill the target, they take them out of the fight completely, and that's enough.

I don't see anyone who decided not to move to 4e saying "You know what, I want blasting to be the main thing every wizard does". The trick isn't to get rid of all the other options, but find a way to balance them.

Yeah, I think dropping a wizard to 2 schools, so that they aren't as powerful, is a better option. Sure, we can leave a sidebar for giving for schools for making stronger wizards. This way, the ridiculous versatility they achieve isn't as present, but would also let a good number of spells be available. Meanwhile, changing the classes at the core to bring the T1s down a little, and bring the T4-5s (More on that later) up a little would be a good way to get everyone in the party contributing.

A cleric version of this would be making their domains their primary spell list, then adding basic cleric stuff, like some buffs or healing, to the mix.

Each school would have to be tweaked though. Every one should have few options for defense, like illusion have Mirror Image, and Conjuration having Mage Armor.

I would also like to add a form of Augmentation, or at least have the CL affect the effects of buffs a little more.

As for half casters that everyone thing suck (Ranger, Paladin), give them a vastly improved casting progression, Keep only 4 levels of spells, but give them more per day, the ability to cast at level 1, and get them a full Caster level. Make Paladin casting Cha based.

Make the Ranger AnC like the Druids. Make the Pally mount more important than that is now (it's officially their for fluff as is, according to the Draconomicon).

On SoDs, Ressurection costs a lot of GP, and has like a 10 minute casting time. SoDs aren't really necessary, but I don't think they're that much of an issue, especially if you let Melee have nice things like massive damage rules or something.

Damaging spells can't leave. At all.

[Empedocles]

Maybe we should make absolute show stoppers not really battle options (at least not until you have some layers of debuff on the target), this way, if you want to polymorph someone into a toad, you can, but you have to work for it.

That's also something I usually feel lacking in D&D in general: it's all too binary, things either are or aren't, you either hit or you missed, the spell worked or it didn't; no degree to how much X happened and rather little way to debuff enemies so they're now vulnerable to something they were not a moment ago.

I personally believe this can go a long way to help balance, since now we have nuances and things can go higher or lower depending on what happened and if we spread debuffing options, especially to the melee crowd, that might create some interesting party dynamics and tactics, similar to the combo moves in Valkyrie Profile (anyone remember that game?).

This is a slippery slope that could easily lead to very, very complicated combat...


The problem here is that, as you've stated, D&D exists and has created a "sub-culture" of magical lore and peoples' expectations for it. Our primary buyer demographic will definitely be current D&D players, and if we don't give them most of the options they expect after playing 3.5, we probably won't sell that well.

The difference between SoDs and blasting is that blasting is actually pretty fun, at least, from what I understand. I've seen a lot of people on this site who will roll blasters, or homebrew improved blasters, heck, even make classes that are all about blasting. Blasting has a very powerful feel, it's because the magic is so flashy, that's what makes it cool.

SoDs, on the other hand, are just "necessary" in 3.5, but they almost always suck the fun out of a game. The DM has to go out of his way to make every major boss immune to death effects so that the encounter doesn't end in one spell, and if he doesn't and doesn't DM fiat it, then the encounter just ends. In one spell.

Meanwhile, a DM can easily just slap a little fire resistance on the BBEG, just enough to reduce your sorcerer's attack damage so that you have to spend more time shooting him with fire, without outright making the BBEG immune to it.

Let me put it to you this way. The current CR system expects that each of 4 players should be able to handle 4 CR-appropriate encounters per day. In that respect, a player who is using all of his or her resources at once should be able to take down a CR-appropriate encounter on his own (note that this is not always the case, it just should be, which is what we should be aiming for). If magic is only support and buffing, then how does the mage deal damage? Summoning is not the answer, summoned creatures generally deal terrible damage unless you spend a bunch of feats to optimize them, and then if you do, it becomes overpowered because you're adding another character to the initiative who is as powerful as the rest of the group, which unbalances the effective CR of the group as a whole.

That's why blasting exists. A mage needs to be able to deal damage (also it's just awesome. I can't explain why, but shooting lightning is awesome and touching someone and having them die is not. Maybe it's just me, I don't know).

You're right...

This doesn't mean I like it, but I suppose a D&D-esque game without fireballs would never be that popular. But what about fantasy mages and blasters being two separate classes...?

[Larpus]

Well this gets back to how much Ziegander wants to change.

One possibility that was discussed in another thread was a subsystem introduced replacing attacks of opportunity. Actions that previously provoked AoOs would raise a character's opportunity score, and various actions could raise or lower the score for yourself or your target. Lower values might be usable for something like "Take an extra attack against this target as a free action", but higher values might be required to use more powerful attacks. So a Save or Die might require the target to have 30 opportunity on him. This means there must be build up and cooperation within the party to get it off against an on-level challenge. But you could also have something like a creature lower level that you always has X opportunity (depending on how big the difference is). So a skilled fighter will find himself cleaving through hordes of low level enemies, and a Wizard could unleash his high requirement finisher against mooks to show off without any sort of setup.
Yeah, that's pretty much what I have in mind and would like to see pursued (or at least discussed until we hit some wall that proves it to be a bad idea).

Having the party interact together to achieve a common goal (other than depleting the enemy's HP, I mean) might go a long ways to not make melees feel useless even in groups where the Wizards love show stoppers, again, something I seriously feel lacking in D&D, there are some ways the party can interact but eh...they're clunky and not very rewarding overall, Pathfinder had a nice idea with the teamwork feats, but dropped the ball by requiring both parts to have said feat and having them not be all that useful to begin with.

If anyone here played Monster Hunter, Demon/Dark Souls and what most probably will be the upcoming Dragon's Dogma, you can easily see how long of a way party coordination can go, which is more or less how I would envision an average RPG battle: vicious battles where tactics play a larger role than simple power and where melees are as much if not more important than casters.

Granted, in the given examples most character classes are melee or melee-focused and magic is much more limited in nature and effect (not to mention that said melees can use it as well).

[Larpus]

This is a slippery slope that could easily lead to very, very complicated combat...
Agreed that it might overcomplicate things. Still, I believe it's worthy at least a discussing and test before dismissal, 'cus if it's made right (if at all possible), it might really change the way games are played and battle tactics are presented.

[Empedocles]

Agreed that it might overcomplicate things. Still, I believe it's worthy at least a discussing and test before dismissal, 'cus if it's made right (if at all possible), it might really change the way games are played and battle tactics are presented.

Agreed :smallsmile:

I apologize for sounding so dismissive. It's an excellent idea, just one that needs to have as small a table associated with it as possible :smallwink:

[Snowbluff]

You're right...

This doesn't mean I like it, but I suppose a D&D-esque game without fireballs would never be that popular. But what about fantasy mages and blasters being two separate classes...?

Yeah, but the thing with that is the heavy specialization focus would cover that. An example would be a Evocation/Illusionist would be a more flashy, a blaster with some dazzling light shows to go with them. A Transmuter/Conjurer on the other hand, will be more focused on subtly (and sometimes overtly) altering reality and granting power to his allies.

The Beguiler and Warmage are a pretty good example for this sort of thing. Beguiler is almost entirely Enchantment/Illusion, while a Warmage is the flashy kind of blaster. I want to bring this sort of thing to the SRD full casters.

[NeoSeraphi]

The Beguiler and Warmage are a pretty good example for this sort of thing. Beguiler is almost entirely Enchantment/Illusion, while a Warmage is the flashy kind of blaster. I want to bring this sort of thing to the SRD full casters.

I think if you attempt to do this you will run into the same problem that WotC ran into when they decided to create specializations for wizards; namely, if you allow someone to not take divination magic, they become a spellcaster who is unable to detect magical auras (which by and large removes a large portion of what the Spellcraft skill was intended to do).

The divination school is incredibly useful, though it is sometimes vague and annoyingly reliant on a DM's ability to improvise or play a part that he would otherwise not be required to play (The disembodied omniscient voice character).

I think if we decide to force specialization, we should, at the very least, change detect magic into a class feature for mages, or perhaps make it a part of the Spellcraft skill itself, allowing even fighters and rogues to sense some kind of magical aura if they've studied it enough.

[Empedocles]

I think if you attempt to do this you will run into the same problem that WotC ran into when they decided to create specializations for wizards; namely, if you allow someone to not take divination magic, they become a spellcaster who is unable to detect magical auras (which by and large removes a large portion of what the Spellcraft skill was intended to do).

The divination school is incredibly useful, though it is sometimes vague and annoyingly reliant on a DM's ability to improvise or play a part that he would otherwise not be required to play (The disembodied omniscient voice character).

I think if we decide to force specialization, we should, at the very least, change detect magic into a class feature for mages, or perhaps make it a part of the Spellcraft skill itself, allowing even fighters and rogues to sense some kind of magical aura if they've studied it enough.

Detect magic should be part of spellcraft. I like that idea a lot.

Also, just throwing this out there, but what about making divination - or at least some divination - universal magic?

[Snowbluff]

I think if you attempt to do this you will run into the same problem that WotC ran into when they decided to create specializations for wizards; namely, if you allow someone to not take divination magic, they become a spellcaster who is unable to detect magical auras (which by and large removes a large portion of what the Spellcraft skill was intended to do).

The divination school is incredibly useful, though it is sometimes vague and annoyingly reliant on a DM's ability to improvise or play a part that he would otherwise not be required to play (The disembodied omniscient voice character).

I think if we decide to force specialization, we should, at the very least, change detect magic into a class feature for mages, or perhaps make it a part of the Spellcraft skill itself, allowing even fighters and rogues to sense some kind of magical aura if they've studied it enough.

Well... that is kind of the idea. Mages are indestructible. Making weaker/less powerful is the goal.

That being said, Divination is generally not strong enough to be it's own school. I think removing some thing from universal (*cough* Wish *cough*) then rolling Divination into. Also, isn't detect magic a cantrip? I would just make all of those available regardless of specialization.

As for making the spellcraft skill useful for non-casters? Blasphemy. Lol, no that's a good idea.

EDIT: wow, Vilpich Illusionmaged me. Lol, good to know we are on the same page.

[NeoSeraphi]

Also, isn't detect magic a cantrip? I would just make all of those available regardless of specialization.


Yes! I am an abjurer and an enchanter, but damnit, a few times per day I can still shoot acid at you!

[marcielle]

What about rolling dispel magic into spellcraft too? That means you won't have to have some manner of arcanist just to overcome a curse, remove a debuff or penetrate an abjuration. Make it a difficult but 'take 20'-able check. Whether it's through cursory magic knowledge(eg rogues, bards), interfering with other types of magic(divines) or sheer willpower/stubborness( fighters and barbs). Maybe something like DC+1/2 CL. Maybe with a limitation of needed ranks = to CL so not everybody can just roll for dispel whenever.

Just tossin the ball around.

While we're at it, maybe let acrobatics give a dodge bonus to AC? Reduce the DC for that 'balance on the air' thing?
Or concentration a boost to crit range( maybe something like 1 every 5 or 10 ranks)

Non-caster and non-Cha skills just fizzle so hard late level

[Empedocles]

So the trend here...

make skills a lot more useful?

[marcielle]

Not really a trend. I'd say a fad at most.

[Snowbluff]

So the trend here...

make skills a lot more useful?

Yeah. That'd be really cool. Especially since Rogues are lousy by RAW at fighting, giving the skill monkeys something more to fight with would be cool.

[Larpus]

I'm not sure...but I do agree that "dispel is a spell itself" sounds and feels weird.

Maybe change it altogether and add a new feature to casters such as rituals.

After all, in literature and fiction in general, whenever there's a curse or something else to dispel, the Wizard guy doesn't just step up and say "I got this" and throw a dispel at it, there's always a quite hard to make ritual and whatnot involved.

EDIT: All above is regarding "roll dispel into Spellcraft as well".

But yeah, make skills more useful and relevant.

[NeoSeraphi]

Especially since Rogues are lousy by RAW at fighting

And grappling. And dodging. And resisting poison. And resisting fear. And resisting domination. And tripping. And bull rushing. And damaging undead. And damaging constructs. And responding to any given situation that cannot be solved with a skill check.

...I'm sorry, what were we talking about? Oh right! Skills, of course. We should make skills more versatile, and much less easily replicated by low-level spells.

Also, you shouldn't be allowed to cast while flying unless you are not threatened or distressed (in other words, not in combat). And let's make overland flight a touch spell, that way the party's melee characters can get all-day flight without having to spend a ridiculous amount of gp on it.

[Empedocles]

And grappling. And dodging. And resisting poison. And resisting fear. And resisting domination. And tripping. And bull rushing. And damaging undead. And damaging constructs. And responding to any given situation that cannot be solved with a skill check.

...I'm sorry, what were we talking about? Oh right! Skills, of course. We should make skills more versatile, and much less easily replicated by low-level spells.

Also, you shouldn't be allowed to cast while flying unless you are not threatened or distressed (in other words, not in combat). And let's make overland flight a touch spell, that way the party's melee characters can get all-day flight without having to spend a ridiculous amount of gp on it.

But then what happens to the wizard that soars above the battlefield reigning down fiery hell?

Also, I think flight should be more widely available and easily accessible to virtually all characters. And we should avoid how Legend did flight (one of the game's biggest, if one of about three, flaws).

[Larpus]

Also, you shouldn't be allowed to cast while flying unless you are not threatened or distressed (in other words, not in combat). And let's make overland flight a touch spell, that way the party's melee characters can get all-day flight without having to spend a ridiculous amount of gp on it.
Interesting you mention this, one thing that I've been thinking about is a way to make use of videogame rules that some spells (mostly buffs and shields), not only waste some MP, but lock that MP until you deactivate the spell.

Taking this to D&D terms, we could consider that casters don't get "more slots" as they grow in level, but rather a greater understanding of the flow of arcane energies, in the way that they are able to salvage part of the arcane energy spent on spells and then redirect that energy into casting more spells.

Fancy, now what all that means is that we could limit how many spells a given caster could have active at any given time. For the sake of simplicity, for now I'll say one per level (though it should be more than that so we don't go the other way and screw casters).

So if a Wizard activates a simple damage spell, the energy automatically comes back and he can cast spells from that level again. But in the case of spells that linger, they'd need to deactivate them before they can use the arcane energy of that level again for something else.

While at it, I believe it would be good to overall decrease casters' power but increase their staying power, which is something that I've always felt weird about in D&D games.

[marcielle]

That still leaves them reliant on arcanists. They ought to be able to deal with fliers(if not explicitly be able to fly) under their own powers.

[Larpus]

True.

Maybe equipment is the route to go (unless we just make everyone magical), such as having more versatility and power there.

For example, if there were rules for attaching a chain or rope to your weapon and throwing it to catch that flying dress wearer and bring him down without spending too much actions on it, I believe meleers would do that the whole time (I know I would).

[Empedocles]

Making them reliant on magic items is IMHO a bad way to go, since then you have the exact same issue as current D&D where a fighter becomes pretty useless (with items) to worse-then-dead-weight (without items).

[marcielle]

Maybe make it harder to both fly and do stuff at the same time. Constant concentration checks to stay afloat while doing something like cast a spell, fail and you falter, destabilise, disturbing you enough to fizzle the spell and dropping you a distance dictated by a reflex check. Make the check take a move action as spliting you attention should cause you to take things slower.

This still doesn't account for things like dragons or harpys with bows though.

For Dragons just bumping their SR might do it. Dragons are mighty and should require both might and magic to bring down.

Perhaps a bit of number jugling might help the flying monster problem. Reduce their normal ACs and give them a huge bonus to touch for simply being in 3 dimensions instead of 2. And make it so things like fireball require touch hits when you cant just aim at the ground beneath them.

This might have the side effect of making flying enemies more dangerous in general but I feel anything with mastery of the skies should be a bigger threat to the landbound. Well, actually I can't really justify it but the reasoning sorta sounds nice:smallredface:

[Empedocles]

Not trying to change the subject here, but I had a random thought...

what if we replace PrCs with ACFs? I find the latter to be much more awesome and useful, as well as less work to make :smallwink: unbalanced.

[Larpus]

Not a bad idea all of itself, as long as the classes are abundant and well covered, since PrCs initially existed to explore concepts that wouldn't be otherwise viable with the base classes.

[Empedocles]

Not a bad idea all of itself, as long as the classes are abundant and well covered, since PrCs initially existed to explore concepts that wouldn't be otherwise viable with the base classes.

Which could then be done with ACFs :smallwink:

Any thoughts on this from Ziegander? He is the designer after all.

[Ziegander]

Getting way ahead of ourselves, guys. Sometime soon I'm going to be coming up with full suite of design objectives, and appointing a design team and a development team (unless someone wants to volunteer to be Lead Developer and then wants to choose their own team). I'll PM the team members the objectives, and work on setting up a forum as quickly afterwards as possible.

Here and at minmaxboards, posters are getting carried away with suggestions that make too many sweeping changes. I think the best idea for this project is to consider it a spiritual revision and errata of the 3.5 Core Rules. With that being said, existing rules shouldn't be completely changed or removed (except in the rarest of exceptions), though they can be simplified, revised, clarified, and added to. Does that still seem like a project that people would want to be a part of?

What I plan on doing is going through every link in the Core Rules section of the d20 SRD and coming up with a list of things that I think should be looked at, revised, etc, and then I'll share those with the Design Team, we'll discuss and refine the list, from there we'll firmly establish Design Goals that are set in stone and get to work.

[Empedocles]

Getting way ahead of ourselves, guys. Sometime soon I'm going to be coming up with full suite of design objectives, and appointing a design team and a development team (unless someone wants to volunteer to be Lead Developer and then wants to choose their own team). I'll PM the team members the objectives, and work on setting up a forum as quickly afterwards as possible.

Here and at minmaxboards, posters are getting carried away with suggestions that make too many sweeping changes. I think the best idea for this project is to consider it a spiritual revision and errata of the 3.5 Core Rules. With that being said, existing rules shouldn't be completely changed or removed (except in the rarest of exceptions), though they can be simplified, revised, clarified, and added to. Does that still seem like a project that people would want to be a part of?

What I plan on doing is going through every link in the Core Rules section of the d20 SRD and coming up with a list of things that I think should be looked at, revised, etc, and then I'll share those with the Design Team, we'll discuss and refine the list, from there we'll firmly establish Design Goals that are set in stone and get to work.

Sounds good :smallbiggrin:

[TravelLog]

Getting way ahead of ourselves, guys.
Very much this. If this project is going to succeed, what we need are, as Ziegander has said, clearly established goals and a thorough, thought-out plan of action, with as much organized as possible beforehand.

[Snowbluff]

Getting way ahead of ourselves, guys. Sometime soon I'm going to be coming up with full suite of design objectives, and appointing a design team and a development team (unless someone wants to volunteer to be Lead Developer and then wants to choose their own team). I'll PM the team members the objectives, and work on setting up a forum as quickly afterwards as possible.

Here and at minmaxboards, posters are getting carried away with suggestions that make too many sweeping changes. I think the best idea for this project is to consider it a spiritual revision and errata of the 3.5 Core Rules. With that being said, existing rules shouldn't be completely changed or removed (except in the rarest of exceptions), though they can be simplified, revised, clarified, and added to. Does that still seem like a project that people would want to be a part of?

What I plan on doing is going through every link in the Core Rules section of the d20 SRD and coming up with a list of things that I think should be looked at, revised, etc, and then I'll share those with the Design Team, we'll discuss and refine the list, from there we'll firmly establish Design Goals that are set in stone and get to work.

Roger. :smallamused:

[Suddo]

I'm going to state something that I think should be a key goal to keep in mind:

DON'T THINK OF CLASSIC D&D CLASSES AND HOW TO BALANCE THEM, THIS BREAKS SEVERAL ORIGINAL DESIGN GOALS

The main design goals that its breaking are:
Playablity with 3.5 as is. If me make our own rogue then the original rogue is no longer playable.
And its changing core ideas / rules.

I heard someone say: Wizards with 2 schools would be fine. NO THIS IS NOT WHAT WE SHOULD BE DOING! If we want to rebalance core then we should try and redo the entire system so we don't have to reference srd half the time and our own rules half the time. This may just be me but I don't think we can publish srd rules in anything we do, I know most d20 game system books I see have a note that you have to have the PHB to play with this because all the rules are there. This means that we either rewrite the rules to fit our standards or keep them almost the same and mainly clarify what certain things do.
This brings me back to one of the points I brought up in my first post:
I WOULD RATHER CREATE SPLAT BOOKS THAT ARE MEANT TO BE PLAYED BY THEMSELVES THAN REWRITE THE RULES.
This is big this mean we would have to reselect spell lists (or write our own whole spell lists) so that way we don't just make Sorc 2.0. If we make this purely mostly online we can easily link to the srd for things like spells but if we release a pdf we will have to say have asterisks denoting what they have to go there for.
Also adding things to different skill checks is a slippery slope. If we make spellcraft good, almost as good as Diplo or UMD, then classes without it on their spell lists (most mundanes) will be that much farther behind. This is a problem and also if we do this we may start saying things like: "Hey lets combine stealth and move silently" and then we've moved a decent degree from original rules and now we can't play with 3.5 characters without decent conversions and some unexpected nerfs.

I also want to point out that another thing in my original post that will help eleviate some balancing issues: THERE SHOULD BE NO "MUNDANES." The fighter always loses to the wizard and will almost always continue to. If we want to make it balanced we are going to have to stop this silly well fighters can't do X because that's magic, this is the same reason PF failed so hard is that they weren't willing to make mundanes strong enough to compete with spells, even compared to a 3.5 wizard who isn't abusing strong spells the PF fighter still loses. I suggest that every class has spellcasting of some sort, this can range from anything from Spells, Powers, Incarnum or Maneuvers. But we should remember we have to design our own system if it isn't Spells or Powers.

I also want to comment on the Save v Death effects. They are okay as written to some extent, getting revived from death is a easily accessed thing in the D&D universe and Save v Death is just as bad as petrification or sleep or paralysis, its just another thing people have to have immunity to at the high levels. If you remove this effect you begin to tread into 4e territory where they made abilities base on Damage is how you end the encounter. So spells like illusions cause a short duration daze like effect and some psychic damage showing the person's psyche causing physical harm. I'm fine with this system but if this is a design goal in mind it should be stated.

So to summarize:
Don't try and rebalance core, this includes the classes, because you'll often either rebalance rules or try and make broken classes, such as the wizard, better which is a losing battle.
We should problably choose to make the world high fanasy or atleast high magic. Otherwise we fall into the trap of: Well of course the wizard can use time stop that's a cools spell; But no you can only hit things with sticks you stupid muggle.
Save v Death is perfectly fine unless we want to remove Save v Lose & rebalance Save v Suck effects. Just because Fantasy lore doesn't show wizards disintegrating each other doesn't mean they can't or shouldn't. If you use the lore to define the game you will end up with a broken system like 3.5 due to Mundanes getting nothing fun while Mages getting cool things.

[Ziegander]

I'm going to request that this thread be locked to prevent any more directionless discussion of what the project should or should not do.

[The Glyphstone]

Great Modthulhu: Locked at request of OP.